Towards complexity in osseous raw material exploitation by the ﬁrst anatomically modern humans in Europe: Aurignacian antler working

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36 (2014) 72–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jaa

Towards complexity in osseous raw material exploitation by the firstanatomically modern humans in Europe: Aurignacian antler working

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.08.0040278-4165/� 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

⇑ Address: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique de France (CNRS), UMR7041, ArScAn équipe Ethnologie préhistorique, 21 Allée de l’Université, 92023Nanterre, France.

E-mail address: [email protected]

José-Miguel Tejero ⇑Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), UMR 7041, ArScAn équipe Ethnologie préhistorique, 21 Allée de l’Université, 92023 Nanterre, FranceSERP (Seminari d’Estudis i Recerques Prehistòriques), Universitat de Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 9 February 2014Revision received 26 June 2014

Keywords:Upper PalaeolithicAurignacianWestern EuropeTechnologyDeer antler exploitation

This paper asses changes in the exploitation of osseous raw material (namely deer antler) during the earlyUpper Palaeolithic in Europe. Through examining four variables; raw material procurement, blank pro-duction, object manufacture and equipment maintenance, the author establishes that the complex andinnovative working of osseous materials is restricted to antler working at around 40 Ka cal BP and arethus chronologically coincident with the emergence of the Early Aurignacian. Conversely, bone exploita-tion (known from the Lower Palaeolithic), shows a continuity through the Mousterian, the Proto-Aurigna-cian and the Early Aurignacian, invalidating the argument that osseous material exploitation represents aradical difference between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. By considering the technologicaland functional aspects of the Early Aurignacian antler equipment, including their chronological and pal-aeoclimatic (Heinrich event 4/Campanian Ignimbrite eruption) context, a hypothesis that may explainthe incentives behind the emergence of complex osseous raw material exploitation in Europe duringthe late Pleistocene is proposed.

� 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Around 40 Ka cal BP, a number of major cultural and biologicalchanges occurred in Europe. The Neanderthals’ typo-technologicaltraditions, firmly rooted for several thousand years, had begun tochange and were gradually replaced by a series of technical andsymbolic innovations. Those which led to ‘‘modern’’ culturalbehaviours, seem to have been authored by Neanderthals inEurope. In Africa, they appeared independently in anatomicallymodern human populations (hereinafter, AMH) (McBrearty andBrooks, 2000). This is the case, for instance, for the use of pigmentsand seashells as elements of symbolism in the form of ornamentmanufacture. They are also documented from EuropeanMousterian chrono-cultural contexts that pre-date by some mil-lennia the so-called ‘‘transitional’’ techno-complexes (e.g., Pechde l’Aze in France; Soressi and d’Errico, 2007 or Cueva de losAviones in Spain; Zilhão et al., 2010). This kind of behaviour is alsowell represented in the first Upper Palaeolithic (‘‘transitional’’)techno-complexes (e.g., Châtelperronian Grotte du Renne, France;d’Errico et al., 2003; Caron et al., 2011); this relationship, however,

is questioned by some authors (e.g., White, 2001; Higham et al.,2010), as both of these typo-technological traditions are associatedwith the Neanderthals. Moreover, the African Middle Stone Age(MSA), made by the AMH, shows, at roughly 109 Ka BP, the useof bone and eggshells as ornamental objects (Diepkloof RockShelter, South Africa; Texier et al., 2013) or, somewhat later,around 75 Ka. BP, at the site of Blombos Cave (d’Errico andHenshilwood, 2007).

The anthropological implication underlying this phenomenonaffects the dynamics of settlement all across Europe through mod-ern human populations carrying a new typo-technological tradi-tion called the Aurignacian (sensu lato) that seems to have beenassociated (at least the Early Aurignacian) with AMH (Hublin,2010; Verna et al., 2012). Meanwhile, the developer of the sup-posed first phase of this techno-complex, the Proto-Aurignacian,is still unknown as no clear paleoanthropological evidence hasyet been found associated with Proto-Aurignacian levels (Zilhãoet al., 2007; Trinkaus and Zilhão, 2013).

One of the lesser-known aspects of ‘‘the Middle to UpperPalaeolithic Transition’’ is the exploitation of osseous materials.Despite this lack of detailed knowledge, however, significant differ-ences in the exploitation of osseous raw material (along with oth-ers such as the appearance of cave art and mobile art, and thepopulation replacement) are commonly cited by proponents of aradical break between these two periods (e.g., Mellars, 1989;

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jaa.2014.08.004&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.08.004

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.08.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

J.-M. Tejero / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36 (2014) 72–92 73

Mellars and Stringer, 1989; White, 1992; Klein, 1995). It has thusbeen strongly established in the scientific literature that ‘‘boneindustry’’ or ‘‘bone tool manufacturing’’ are among the major fea-tures which reflect the shift to Upper Palaeolithic cultural tradi-tions. However, this is a conceptual mistake as the correct termto use here is osseous industry, which comprises bone workingbut also the working of antler, ivory and any other raw materialof organic animal origin (e.g. Christensen and Tejero, in press).Therefore, this affirmation needs to be nuanced as it has beenshown in recent works (Tejero, 2010, 2013; Tartar, 2012; Soressiet al., 2013), that only antler working appears to show a disconti-nuity between traditions. By contrast, it seems that there are fewdifferences in bone working between the Mousterian, the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian.

Liolios (1999, 2006) defined Proto-Aurignacian osseous toolproduction as poorer and less diverse than that of the Early Auri-gnacian. The question, however, is what accounts for this differ-ence between the two osseous Aurignacian entities. The aim ofthis paper is to assess the different features of antler exploitationduring the Aurignacian techno-complex and to compare it withbone working. Through analysis of Iberian Peninsula assemblagesas well as some of the major sites in Aquitaine (i.e. Isturitz) andCentral France (i.e. La Quina) the author attempts to define the nat-ure of the change that took place in organic animal raw material(antler) exploitation at this time, as well as the technical, econom-ical and social implications associated. More specifically, the objec-tives of this paper are: (1) To characterise antler exploitationpatterns during the Early Aurignacian in Western Europe throughthe analysis of four variables: raw material procurement; blankproduction (débitage); the manufacture of objects and equipmentmaintenance; (2) to discuss on the economical and technologicalimplications of antler exploitation and their differences with boneexploitation; (3) to propose a theoretical explanation of the incen-tives that could have played a role in the appearance of complexityin osseous (antler) raw material exploitation in Europe.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Technological analysis

Although the technological approaches for lithic industry havebeen well established in Palaeolithic research for many years, thetechnological analysis of osseous industry has not seen a greatdegree of discussion thus far. Nevertheless, just as lithic studiesfocus on the Aurignacian (sensu lato) has permitted better under-standing of some of the important aspects of this techno-complex(i.e. its appearance and evolution in Europe) (e.g., Bon, 2002, 2005,2006; Normand and Turq, 2005; Bordes, 2006; Teyssandier, 2007,2008) and in other regions such as the Levant (eg. Belfer-Cohenand Goring-Morris, 2007; Shea, 2007; Shea and Matthew, 2010;Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010), recent works from a technolog-ical point of view have delineated the methodology and terminol-ogy adapted to osseous raw materials (Averbouh, 2000, 2001;Averbouh and Provenzano, 1998–1999). These works have alsoshown the potential for applying these methods to Palaeolithicosseous industry (e.g., Christensen, 1999; Goutas, 2004; White,2007; Pétillon et al., 2011; Pétillon and Ducasse, 2012).

Here a technological approach to the studied Early Aurignacianmaterial is carried out. Rather than focusing exclusively on theobjects, the analysis also incorporates the ‘‘technical pieces’’ (rawmaterial blocks; blanks, preforms, waste, etc.) which will permitus to reconstitute the operational sequence (‘‘chaine operatoire’’),that major tool of palaeoethnographic reconstruction (Pelegrinet al., 1988). The technological approach aims to understand thefactors involved in the fabrication of an object: how it was madeand how this fabrication was organised in a succession of gestures,

along with the final goal of these gestures (Averbouh, 2001: 112).By using a macroscopic and microscopic (stereo-microscope upto 70� for this study) analysis of fabrication and use stigmata,we can reconstruct the entire chain of exploitation for a particularraw material. We take into consideration at the beginning of thesequence, the selection, eventual preparation and conservation ofthe raw material, and, at the other end, the use, re-working, re-use and ultimate discard of the object (Averbouh, 2001).

Our technological study is focused on the analysis of the EarlyAurignacian antler material from the below described collections.To compare antler working with bone working during the Proto-and the Early Aurignacian, we use three types of data: technologi-cal analysis of bone and antler remains from Proto- and Early Span-ish and French sites (Fig. 1) (Tejero, 2010, 2013), experimental datarelating to antler debitage during the Early Aurignacian (Tejeroet al., 2012), and published technological data on Aurignacian boneand antler working (s.l.) (e.g. Knecht, 1991; Liolios, 1999; Schwab,2002; Tartar, 2009, etc.).

To evaluate the origin of the antler exploitation by Aurignaciancraftsmen in Southwest Europe (as represented by the studiedsites), we focus on three aspects: the presence of shed antler bases;the module (or thickness) of the exploited antlers’ cortical tissue;and—when zooarchaeological analysis is available—data aboutthe hunted deer.

Cortical thickness values constitute an indicator for assessingthe possible origins of exploited antler. Not all antlers have therequired properties to be exploited technically. Because antler isan osseous tissue with an annual growth cycle (Goss, 1983;Crigel et al., 2001), its mineralisation is not completed until theend (or at minimum two months before) of the cycle (Averbouh,2000). To get sufficiently thick cortical antler parts—composed ofinterior trabecular tissue and exterior cortical tissue—is mandatoryfor effective antler débitage by longitudinal splitting (Tejero et al.,2012). But it is also necessary to ensure that projectile points(almost exclusively antler based during the Early Aurignacian)(Knecht, 1991, 1997; Liolios, 1999; Tejero, 2010, 2013) would besufficiently solid for the manufacture of the split-based point(hereafter SBP) (Fig. 2: 1–2). In this study, following research bya number of scholars (Averbouh, 2000; Goutas, 2004), we haveadopted the convention of categorising antler cortical thicknessesas small (between 1 and 3 mm), medium (between 4 and 5 mm)or large (6 mm or more). Averbouh (2000) established this catego-ries by studying a reference collection of both wild and domesticSiberian reindeers (Rangifer tarandus). There is not a comparativecorpus between the archaeological antler cortical thickness and‘‘natural’’ (modern deer population) data.

2.2. Selected study sample

More than 450 antler objects compose the selected sample forthis study. Split-based points are the morphotype best represented(NR: 353). We also documented 44 indeterminated points, 36intermediate pieces and 22 others objects, including awls, retouch-ers, polishers and perforated batons (see Table 5). Before our study,the estimated corpus of European SBPs was composed of about fivehundred pieces (Knecht, 1991; Liolios, 1999). The reassessment ofsome collections from old excavations as well the revision of faunalremains (El Castillo, Cierro, Conde, Isturitz, La Quina) has allowedus to increase the SBP number to more than two hundred examples(Tejero, 2013, in press). For instance, the assemblages of SBPs fromIsturitz and La Quina currently compose 159 and 155 piecesrespectively, while Knecht (1991) has studied a total of 75/22and Liolios (1999) a total of 44/31 from these sites. Thus, we con-sider that the analyse of more than 350 examples from a corpus ofaround 700 pieces is representative of this population of objectsand supports our conclusions.

74 J.-M. Tejero / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36 (2014) 72–92

Our results do not integrate antler object data (3 split-basedpoints) from the Spanish site of l’Arbreda (level H) (Tejero, 2013).L’Arbreda level H is attributed to the Proto-Aurignacian with SBPsdated to around 38,300 ± 500 uncal. BP, significantly earlier thanmost Aurignacian contexts in Western Europe (Bischoff et al.,1989; Maroto et al., 1996). Some authors have argued against anEarly Aurignacian chronology (d’Errico et al., 1998; Zilhão, 2006).In their opinion, final Mousterian and Aurignacian levels may bemixed as both are found within a single sedimentary unit along withevidence for bioturbation caused by cave bears. Although SolerSubils et al. (2008) have attempted to address this problem by pre-senting piece-plotted artefact data, recent radiocarbon ultrafiltrat-ed dating demonstrated that is not possible to reproduce theanomalously early chronology for the Aurignacian using dates takenon anthropogenically modified bones (Wood et al., 2014: 97).

The materials of El Castillo which were analysed for this studycome exclusively from level Delta of Obermaier’s excavations(Tables 1 and 2).

We have not taken into account in our conclusion the SBPsattributed to the Proto-Aurignacian in some sites (e.g. Trou de laMere Clochette, Fumane). Even if this attribution were confirmed,their calibrated data are always more recent than 40,000 BP(Szmidt et al., 2010; Higham et al., 2009). Moreover, the poornumber of antler points recovered (<10) is not statisticallyrepresentative. Thus, it cannot be used to argue the systematic

Table 1Collections of Aurignacian osseous industry analysed.

Site name Zone/Region/Country Level(s) Co

Abri Poisson Dordogne (France) Aurignacian layer GiEl Castillo Cantabrian (Spain) Deltaa ObCierro Cantabrian (Spain) 6, 7, 8 F.Conde Cantabrian (Spain) A, B VeCovalejos Cantabrian (Spain) B(2) MIsturitz Oriental Pyrenees (France) A, Ax Pa

SIII, Ist V R.C4b1, C4b2b No

Labeko Cantabrian (Spain) IV, V, VI ArMorin Cantabrian (Spain) 7, 6 VeLa Quina-Aval Charente (France) Early Aurignacian layer L.Reclau Viver Catalonia (Spain) B Co

CIMA (Centro de Investigación Museo de Altamira. Cantabria); DCGV (Departamento de CGirona); MAE (Maison Archéologie et Ethnologie René Ginouvés. Nanterre); MAN (Musée d’Madrid); MAO (Museo Arqueológico de Oviedo. Asturias); MUPAC (Museo de Prehistori

a The materials from El Castillo analysed in this work comes from Obermaier’s excaQuiros’s excavations in selected sample section).

b The materials from Normand’s excavations of Isturitz Cave (levels C4b1, C4b2) were

Table 2Available radiocarbon dates for the studied levels calibrated and modelled (Fig. 11).

Site name Layer(s) Chr. Atrib. Lab. code Date BP

El Castillo Delta Early Aur OxA-21713a 35,000Covalejos B(2) Early Aur. GrA-22443a 30,380Isturitzb C4b Early Aur. No data ’32/32,400c

Labeko Koba V Early Aur OxA-21779 34,650Labeko Koba V Early Aur OxA-21767 34,750Labeko Koba VI Early Aur OxA-21794 32,200Labeko Koba VI Early Aur. OxA-21778 35,100Morin 7 + 6 Early Aur. SI-3325 30,465La Quina-Aval Early Aur. OxA-6147 (Lyon-256) 32,650Reclau Viver B Early Aur. OxA-3726 30,190

a Sample taken directly on antler baguette (split-based point blank) from El Castillo ab No C14 data are available for levels A, V and SIII.c These data comes from Szmidt (2005) (unpublished excavation rapport) cited in Soul

this publication. The data are cited as follow: ‘‘Deux (C4b1 et C 4b2) se rapportent à un Auplusieurs dates AMS aux alentours de 32000/32400 BP (Szmidt, 2005)’’.

emergence of antler exploitation during the Proto-Aurignacian(see Section 4).

The archaeological corpus for this study comprises seven Span-ish Aurignacian sites with evidence of osseous raw material exploi-tation during the Proto- and Early Aurignacian. All sites are locatedin northern Iberia in the Cantabrian region (Conde, Cierro, El Cas-tillo, Covalejos, Morín and Labeko Koba) as well as in Catalonia(Reclau Viver). The French sites chosen for this study are Isturitzin the Atlantic Pyrenees, Abri Poisson in Dordogne and La Quinain Charente (Fig. 1). Most of these sites are well-known from earlyprehistoric research and have been extensively published. There-fore, we present them briefly here and refer readers to the cited lit-erature for those who would like more detailed data about eachdeposit (Table 1 and 2).

The Conde and Cierro caves were excavated at the beginningand during the middle of the last century by Conde de la Vegadel Sella and F. Jordá, respectively. Both dated a number of levelsto the Early Aurignacian (A, B at the Conde; 6, 7, 8 at the Cierro)(Bernaldo de Quirós, 1982).

H. Obermaier excavated El Castillo at the beginning of the XXthcentury with the help of H. Breuil and other important scholars ofthe time. Obermaier established an archaeological sequence withtwo Aurignacian levels (Delta and Gamma) (Cabrera, 1984). Since1980, a team led by V. Cabrera and F. Bernaldo de Quirós hascontinued research at the site. The new work has allowed for the

ll./Excav. Conserv.

rod 1892 MANermaier 1910–1914 MANM, MUPAC, CIMAJordà 1958–59 MAOga del Sella 1915 MAOontes & Sanguino 1997–99, 2002 MUPACssemard 1913–1922 MAN& S. de Saint Périer 1928–1959 MANrmand 2000–2010 MAErizabalaga 1987–88 DCGVga del Sella 1920–21, Gonzalez Echegaray 1966–69 MUPACHenri-Martin 1905–30, G. Henri-Martin 1953–71 MANrominas 1944–48 MACB

ultura Gobierno Vasco. Vitoria); MACB (Museu Arqueológic Comarcal de Banyoles.Archeologie National. Saint Germain-en-Laye); MANM (Museo Arqueológico Nacional.a y Arqueología de Cantabria. Cantabria).vations (see comments about the osseous industry from Cabrera and Bernaldo de

studied by N. Goutas and revised together for N. Goutas and the author.

Error Modelled BP (95.4%) Reference

From To

600 40,567 38,365 Wood et al. (submitted for publication)250 34,841 33,975 Rasines (2005)

– – Soulier et al. (in press)600 40,392 37,855 Wood et al. (2014)600 40,464 38,042 Wood et al. (2014)450 37,517 35,100 Wood et al. (2014)620 40,640 38,399 Wood et al. (2014)901 36,785 33,368 Stuckenrath (1978)850 38,892 34,998 Dujardin and Tymula (2005)500 35,273 33,625 Maroto et al. (1996)

nd antler split-based point from Covalejos.

ier et al. (in press). page 3. No laboratory code neither type of sample are provided inrignacien ancien quelque peu différent de l’Aurignacien « typique » aquitain et ont livré

Fig. 1. Aurignacian sites with osseous evidences presented in this study. France and north of Spain topographic and hydrographic map by Eric Gaba (Wikimedia commonsuser: Sting). Topography: NASA SRTMBO. Bathymetry: NGDC ETOPO1. Additional data: NGDC World Data Bank II. Europe map by mapsof.net.


refining of Obermaier’s sequence. The Aurignacian levels have beenrenamed as 18 (sub-divided into 18b and 18c) and 16. Level 18b isattributed to the ‘‘transitional Aurignacian’’, which mixed, aftertheir excavators, technological elements from both the Middleand Upper Palaeolithic (Cabrera et al., 2002). Many authors criti-cised the existence of this ‘‘transitional Aurignacian’’ disagreeingwith technological and typological ascription of tools in unit 18to the Aurignacian, instead arguing for taphonomic problems withthis unit (e.g. Zilhão and d’Errico, 1999; Zilhão, 2006). Recent newradiocarbon dates on collagen extracted using an ultrafiltrationmethod shows that the age of level Delta from Obermaier’s excava-tions, as well as its lithic and osseous assemblage, are consistentwith the Early Aurignacian in the framework of Southwest Europe(Wood et al., submitted for publication). Thus, only material fromunit 18 of the recent excavations led by Cabrera and Bernaldo deQuirós can be consider concerning the discussion of ‘‘transitionalAurignacian’’. For this study, we have included only the antlerpieces coming from Obermaier’s the Aurignacian Delta level. Actu-ally, all the split-based points of El Castillo, as well as some inter-mediate pieces on antler and several waste pieces associated withtheir fabrication were found during Obermaier’s work (Cabrera,1984; Tejero, 2013).

The site of Covalejos has been known in the Palaeolithic litera-ture since the XIXth century. Nevertheless, the first excavation at

the site did not provide any osseous remains. Recent excavationsby R. Montes and J. Sanguino in 1999–2002, allowed for the discov-ery of an important osseous series and established an archaeolog-ical sequence with two Aurignacian levels: Proto- (Level C) andEarly Aurignacian (Level B) (Sanguino and Montes, 2005).

The Labeko Koba site was a small cave inhabited during theProto-Aurignacian (l. VII) and the Early Aurignacian (l. VI, V, IV).A. Arrizabalaga excavated the site from 1987 to 1988 before itwas destroyed by the construction of a highway (Arrizabalaga,2000; Arrizabalaga and Altuna, 2000).

The archaeological works at the Reclau-Viver cave were exca-vated by J.-M. Corominas in the middle of the XXth century.Because Corominas did not specify the archaeological sequence,N. Soler revised the stratigraphy of the site. His study identifiedtwo Aurignacian levels: Proto- (A) and Early Aurignacian (B)(Soler, 1981).

Isturitz cave (Saint Martin d’Arberoue. Atlantic Pyrenees) is oneof the cavities of the karstic network of Gaztelu Hill. The site com-prises two major zones (galleries): Saint-Martin’s Hall, or GalerieSud, and Isturitz’s Hall, also called the Grande Salle or Galerie Nord.The cave was discovered early in prehistoric research, and a num-ber of studies have been conducted on the site since the beginningof the XXth century. Isturitz was initially excavated by E. Passem-ard between 1913 and 1922 and from 1928 to 1959, R. and S. de

Fig. 2. Evidences of deer antler procurement. 1: Section of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) beam antler showing the trabecular osseous tissue (TT) and the cortical osseous tissue(CT). 2: Conde level A/B, antler blank type ‘‘baguette’’ with indication of trabecular osseous tissue (TT) and cortical osseous tissue (CT) ratio. 3: Isturitz SIII level, shed antlerbase of megaceros (Megaloceros sp.) with cutter percussion stigmata (detail magnification 10�). 4: Isturitz Ax level, ‘‘tongued piece’’ on shed antler base of reindeer. 5:Isturitz SIII level, fragment of reindeer shed antler with ‘‘decoration’’ marks.


Saint-Périer excavated the two halls of Isturitz. The works ofPassemard and de Saint-Périer highlight a long and extremely richsequence that comprises levels from the Mousterian to the BronzeAge, including Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian levels (A,Ist V, SIII, and SIII base). The ‘‘modern’’ phase of research at Isturitzwas begun by a French-Spanish team led by A. Turq and was con-tinued by I. Barandiaran, before being continued by C. Normandfrom the year 2000. These multidisciplinary works allowed therefinement of the stratigraphic sequence proposed by Passemardand de Saint-Périer, especially for the Aurignacian levels (nowidentified as C4b Early Aurignacian, C4c and C4d Proto-Aurigna-cian) (Turq et al., 1998; Normand, 2002), including several radio-carbon dates (Szmidt et al., 2010) (Table 2).

The La Quina-Aval site is a rock shelter located in Gardes-le-Pontaroux (Charente. France), near the Middle Palaeolithic LaQuina-Amont site. The site, discovered in 1881, was excavated inseveral phases by L. Henri-Martin between 1905 and 1930(Martin, 1925, 1931). Subsequently, G. Henri-Martin continuedthe work at the site between 1953 and 1971 (Henri-Martin,1958, 1965). V. Dujardin led the last phase of research during1994, 1995 and 1998 (Dujardin, 2001). The stratigraphic sequence

comprises only layers from the Mousterian and Early Upper Palae-olithic (Châtelperronian, separated from the Early Aurignacian by alarge eboulis (rockfall), and Evolved Aurignacian).

Abri Poisson (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac. France) is a rock shelter sitelocated close to Abri Lartet in the la Vezere Valley. The site wasfound and excavated for the first time by P. Girod in 1892, withother scholars working at the site later: M. Galou in 1892; in1912, J. Marsan; who discovered the engraved salmon that gavethe site its name; and, finally, D. Peyrony in 1917. Peyrony’s workhighlighted two levels, the deeper one, yielding split-based pointsattributed to the Aurignacian I (Early Aurignacian) (Peyrony, 1932).

3. Results

3.1. Raw material procurement

Although, unlike bone, antler has no nutritional value, its supplycould be integrated into the group’s food system by exploiting theantlers of animals that were hunted for food. However, an integra-tion of food and technological resource management need beemployed in order to supply both meat and antler, because antler


is an osseous formation with an annual growth cycle (Goss, 1983;Crigel et al., 2001). On the other hand, the collection of shed antleris an exclusively technical behaviour. Moreover, the properties ofdifferent osseous raw materials (bone and antler), as shown byrecent studies (e.g., Krauss et al., 2009), are sufficiently differentfrom each other that the exploitation of one or the other has differ-ent technical and economic implications.

The three major deposits of the analysed series—El Castillo (levelDelta), Isturitz (levels SIII, Ist V and A) and La Quina-Aval (Early Auri-gnacian layer), as well as some other sites such as Labeko Koba (lev-els VI, V, IV)—have yielded shed antler bases from red deer (Cervuselaphus) and reindeer (R. tarandus), along with Megaceros deer(Megaloceros sp.). The presence of shed antler alone does not meanthat these were necessarily exploited or were the products ofanthropic activities. It is well-known, for instance, that some carni-vores, such as hyenas, are potential accumulators of antler (fromboth hunting and shedding), which were carried to the sites for con-sumption. This is the case with the Guattari site in the Circeo Mount(Italy), where hyenas introduced 56 shed antlers (Piperno andGiacobini, 1990–91; Stiner, 1990–91). Additionally, the Châtelper-ronian level (IX) of Labeko Koba, characterised by a weak humanpresence and with hyena remains, has yielded five Megaceros antlerbases without any anthropic stigmata but with carnivore toothmarks that, consequently, were indicate the antlers presence islikely the result of hyena activity (Tejero, 2010, 2013).

The antler bases recovered from El Castillo, Isturitz, La Quina-Aval and Labeko Koba, 16 examples overall, constitute either déb-itage, or, in some cases, were worked to make various objects suchas perforated batons (baton percé); decorated items, or smoothers(lissoirs or brunissoirs), attesting to their anthropic collection ori-gins (Fig. 2: 3–5).

Again taking into account the three major sites, approximately70% of the exploited antler has a large cortical module (El Castillo72%; Isturitz 68%; La Quina 74%), even when taking into account thatthe cortical thicknesses of the objects were reduced during manu-facture (Table 3). These data strongly indicate that the worked ant-lers were of optimal cortical tissue thickness. Thus, they appear atthe sites as a result of collection, a hypothesis supported by the pres-ence of shed antler bases, or from selectively hunting adult individ-uals with almost completely calcified antlers. Unfortunately, thereare only seasonality studies available for El Castillo cave. At this site,red deer were hunted in the late winter and spring, when this spe-cies does not have antlers (Pike-tay et al., 1999; Liouville, 2007). Theantlers found were from red deer and reindeer adult males thatwere shot in roughly December to January, in April for the youngreindeer males, and during the summer for female reindeer (Goss,1983). Other available faunal data, such as those from Labeko Koba,indicates that red deer are very scarce among the hunted taxa doc-umented (Altuna and Mariezkurrena, 2000), and that shed antlerand the exploited antler cortical modules are large in size, reinforc-ing the hypothesis of the priority use of shed antlers.

If we jointly consider these data (the presence of non-negligiblenumbers of shed antler; the majority exploitation of large corticalantler tissue modules; faunal information (for some sites), we can

Table 3Antler cortical tissue modules size.

Site name Small module P3 mm % Antler pieces Medium mod

Abri Poisson – – 2El Castillo – – 3Isturitz 5 2.9 50La Quina-Aval 12 5.3 46Spanish E. Aur.a – – 6

Overall 17 3.8 107

a Spanish Early Aurignacian sites others than El Castillo (Cierro, Conde, Covalejos, Lab

assume that one important aspect of antler procurement duringthe Early Aurignacian in Western Europe was their collection.

Although the two types of antler procurement (hunting and col-lecting) are not incompatible (it would have been possible to col-lect shed antlers and simultaneously exploit the antler of hunteddeer if they had the adequate technical properties), these strategiesare notably different from a conceptual point of view. Antleracquired after hunting (independently combining strategies forobtaining meat resources and the antlers at the same time), arealways directly linked to a group’s alimentary strategies. By con-trast, collected shed antler implies planning that is completelyunlinked to other food procurement activities and that involvesdeep knowledge of deer ethology, the environment and also theraw material properties because the antler would not have keptfor too many days outdoors before they became damaged. Thistype of behaviour is more similar to abiotic raw material procure-ment (lithic) than to the sphere of animal material exploitation(Goutas, 2004).

3.2. Antler transformation. Blank production

Although some authors (Knecht, 1991, 1997; Liolios, 1999) haveadvocated longitudinal splitting as the primary blank removalmethod for the Aurignacian s.l., this procedure has not yet beenwell characterised for this period. This situation is in contrast toother documented procedures, such as double longitudinal groov-ing, which has been well characterised, though only documentedfor the Gravettian (Goutas, 2004; Pétillon and Ducasse, 2012).

This situation is likely attributable in part to the difficulty inidentifying blanks that were obtained by splitting, the lack of obvi-ous technical marks on these pieces being enough to dismiss themas products of human intervention. Blanks produced by splitting donot show a high degree of standardisation, but it is possible never-theless to note a certain homogeneity among these elements:‘‘baguettes’’, mostly with rectangular morphology and with astraight or oblique lateral fracture planes (Tejero, 2010, 2013;Tejero et al., 2012) (Fig. 3).

Recently, this author (in collaboration with colleagues) has beenable to determine the procedure for obtaining antler blanks tomanufacture projectile points during the Aurignacian. This infor-mation was obtained through comparisons between experimentaldata and the technical analysis of Spanish assemblages (Tejeroet al., 2012). We adhered to the following procedure to experimen-tally work antler: 1 – prepare the antler by eliminating the tinesand points that might prevent segmentation of the beams; 2 –manufacture blocks by segmentation using direct percussion gash-ing to obtain cylindrical blocks that will later be split; and 3 – pro-duce blanks for splitting by débitage using indirect percussion ofthe blocks obtained.

We obtained a total of thirteen blanks from seven antler seg-ments. The morphology of the obtained blanks and their cross-sec-tions (mostly plano-convex) agree well with the archaeologicalmaterial analysed, particularly with the four richest collections ofblanks (La Quina, Isturitz, El Castillo and Covalejos). The fracture

ule 4/5 mm % Antler pieces Big module 66 mm % Antler pieces

25 6 7527.8 13 72.228.7 119 68.420.6 166 74.119.3 21 67.7

23.8 325 72.4

eko Koba, Morin and Reclau Viver).

Fig. 3. 1: Fracture planes characteristic of blank production (debitage) with a fracturation technique: breakage by indirect percussion. 2: Covalejos level B(2), blanks on reddeer (Cervus elaphus) antler. All blanks are unworked (modified from Tejero et al., 2012).


plane (right and left combined) in most cases formed a straight andoblique plane that is observed on both the experimental andarchaeological blanks. The rectilinear plane forms the main frac-ture line (the first fissure). The rods varied in size, ranging in lengthfrom 86 to 212 mm, in width from 17 to 46 mm, and in thicknessfrom 2 mm to 27 mm (Table 4). We were able to produce largeblanks following this procedure. Moreover, their sizes (both lengthand width) could be controlled relatively easily. The length of ablank obviously depends on the antler segment used, while itswidth depends on the insertion points of the intermediate pieces.The successful split fracture involves various factors (startingstraight, position with regard to the work plane, position of theintermediate piece on the blow, etc.) that, provided there is someanticipation of the artisan, allows the removal of long and rela-tively narrow blanks. Long blanks are indirectly evidenced in theSpanish Early Aurignacian by the existence of spear points over210 mm (El Castillo, Delta). But they are documented directly incertain French sites (Isturitz and La Quina-Aval) where somebaguettes exceed 250 mm in length with a width ranging between20 and 30 mm (Fig. 4).

It is obvious that the above described procedure shows a greatdegree of complexity as it implies the use of a combination ofmany different techniques (direct-cut percussion, diffuse percus-sion, flexion, indirect percussion, etc.), particularly in comparisonwith the Aurignacian bone débitage (see below), which in mostcases was made by simple diffuse percussion.

It is also interesting to note that the antler débitage produced bylongitudinal splitting holds an analogy with lithic laminar débitage,which is listed as one of the features of the early Upper Palaeolithic(for the Aurignacian as well as for the so-called transitional com-plexes such as the Châtelperronian and Uluzzian). In both cases,

the intention is to obtain blanks by exploiting the major axis ofthe raw material blocks (the core for lithic materials, the secondaryblock on the beam for antler), achieving at the same time a prede-termined blank while reducing loss of raw material.

3.3. Object manufacture

Hunting weapons (spear points) constituted the large majorityof Early Aurignacian objects made from antler (Table 5). By per-centages, only a small number of other objects were made fromantler in comparison (Fig. 5). Furthermore, in many cases, theseothers objects were in fact manufactured from the waste productsof the antlers that were processed to fabricate spear points (forinstance, the intermediate pieces from segmented tines), fromblanks with unsuitable morphometry for making points, or fromspear points that were broken in use and then recycled mainly aswedges (Fig. 6). The exploitation of antler, thus, is clearly directedtowards producing projectiles, given that this material appears tohave been favoured for their fabrication and there are only a fewexamples of points made from bone or ivory throughout theAurignacian (Otte, 1995; Knecht, 1997; Liolios, 1999, 2006;Tejero, 2013, in press).

It is well-known that amongst the different osseous tissueswhich are composed of both organic and inorganic parts (e.g.,Currey, 1999, 2002), antler has the best ratio for the solidity andflexibility needed for a projectile weapon (Albrecht, 1977;Macgregor, 1985). Thus, the dichotomy in raw material choicesmade by Aurignacian craftsmen, that is (in general terms), usingbone for ‘‘domestic’’ equipment and antler for hunting weapons,is not surprising (as will be discussed below). This behaviour dem-onstrates a great degree of empiric knowledge about the properties

Table 4Morphometry of experimental and archaeological blanks.

Origin/Site Size (L/w/t) (mm) Cross-section Long. fracture planes (Right/Left)

Experimental 212 � 32 � 27 Plano-convex Oblique/straight168 � 43 � 2 Plano-convex Straight/oblique161 � 46 � 2 Bi-convex/plano-convex Straight/oblique152 � 38 � 21 Plano-convex Straight/oblique143 � 36 � 18 Plano-convex Straight/oblique131 � 26 � 12 Plano-convex Straight/oblique120 � 34 � 14 Plano-convex Straight/oblique120 � 23 � 18 Convex Straight/oblique118 � 28 � 13 Plano-convex Oblique/oblique113 � 17 � 16 Sub-triangular Straight/oblique112 � 28 � 8 Plano-convex Straight/straight112 � 21 � 14 Sub-triangular/plano-convex Straight/oblique86 � 27 � 12 Bi-convex/plano-convex Oblique/oblique

El Castillo 156 � 25 � 9 Plano-convex Straight/ straight116 � 24 � 9 Sub-triangular Straight/ straight105 � 24 � 9 Plano-convex Oblique/oblique98 � 23 � 10 Sub-triangular Straight/oblique92 � 22 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/oblique90 � 22 � 8 Plano-convex Straight/straight88 � 19 � 8 Plano-convex Straight/oblique85 � 22 � 8 Plano-convex Straight/oblique

Covalejos 85 � 15 � 11 Sub-triangular Oblique/oblique81 � 15 � 9 Sub-triangular Sub-triangular72 � 16 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/straight70 � 21 � 9 Plano-convex Straight/oblique70 � 16 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/oblique

Isturitz 151 � 25 � 16 Plano-convex Straight/oblique138 � 19 � 10 Bi-convex/plano-convex Straight/straight136 � 21 � 10 Plano-convex Straight/oblique129 � 29 � 13 Sub-triangular Straight/straight118 � 30 � 10 Convex Straight/oblique112 � 30 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/straight109 � 18 � 6 Plano-convex Straight/straight50 � 19 � 9 Sub-triangular Straight/oblique

La Quina-Aval 252 � 36 � 12 Plano-convex Straight/oblique198 � 27 � 12 Plano-convex Straight/oblique166 � 36 � 11 Bi-convex/plano-convex Straight/oblique165 � 28 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/straight152 � 33 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/oblique136 � 29 � 13 Plano-convex Straight/oblique129 � 23 � 12 Convex Oblique/oblique127 � 36 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/straight125 � 24 � 10 Plano-convex Straight/straight124 � 23 � 12 Sub-triangular Oblique/straight123 � 33 � 9 Plano-convex Straight/oblique111 � 27 � 9 Sub-triangular Straight/oblique106 � 25 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/oblique89 � 22 � 9 Bi-convex/plano-convex Straight/oblique89 � 23 � 8 Sub-triangular Oblique/straight77 � 23 � 11 Plano-convex Straight/oblique77 � 20 � 6 Plano-convex Oblique/oblique73 � 22 � 10 Plano-convex Straight/oblique67 � 26 � 9 Plano-convex Oblique/straight66 � 21 � 10 Bi-convex/plano-convex Straight/oblique64 � 28 � 9 Plano-convex Straight/oblique61 � 28 � 8 Bi-convex/plano-convex Straight/straight60 � 26 � 10 Plano-convex Straight/oblique


of different osseous raw materials from at least the Early Aurigna-cian onwards.

Complexity in antler working is also seen in the manufacture ofprojectile points, particularly in split-based points during the EarlyAurignacian and massive or simple-based points in the EvolvedAurignacian (Tejero, 2013, in press). The blanks, obtained by longi-tudinal splitting, were completely processed during the manufac-turing phase. This phase set the overall volume and thesymmetry of the object that was necessary for a projectile weapon.The technique used was almost always scraping, combined withabrasion in a few cases (e.g., Isturitz). The blanks were worked

from the edges, most likely to preserve their thickness, thus, mak-ing the future spear point more solid. The edges were regularised,eliminating the fracture planes which resulted from the blankremoval process (through a fracture remains visible on many spearpoints). The original cross section of the blanks (mostly plano-con-vex; See Table 6) becomes elliptical in the finished points. Whenthese points are re-pointed as part of maintenance activities, theelliptical cross section then becomes, in many cases, bi-convex(Table 6).

On the subject of split-based points, one of the most critical(and complex) phases of their manufacture is the hafting system.

Table 5Typological distribution of antler objects from the studied sites.

Site name SBPb (number) Indet. Point (n) %Objectsc Interm. Pieces (n.) Other antler obj.a

Abri Poisson 8 100El Castillo 11 61.11 5 2Cierro – 1 1Conde 2 33.3 1 3Covalejos 4 100Isturitz 159 91.37 7 8Labeko 4 100Morin 7 100La Quina-Aval 155 44 88.84 21 4Reclau Viver 3 100 5

Overall 353 44 87.25 36 22

a The category others antler objects include awls, retouchers, polishers, perforated batons and indeterminate objects.b SBP (split-based point).c % of the cinegetic equipment among the overall of antler objects.


This is also one of most controversial issues regarding this categoryof Aurignacian antler weapons. Since the early twentieth century,two theories have remained as the most accepted among research-ers. L. Henri-Martin proposed that the cleft of the base was formedby simple indirect percussion (Henri-Martin, 1930), while Peyrony(1935), meanwhile, advocated that a portion of the base materialwas removed which in turn generated a piece called a ‘‘tonguedpiece’’. Recent work has proposed a procedure that combines these

Fig. 4. 1: Experimental antler blank baguette type (Tejero et al., 2012). 2: Archaeologicatype, Isturitz cave. On bottom: morphometrical comparison (length/width ratio) betwlongitudinal splitting. Is interesting to note the relative standardization of the blanks as

two hypotheses (Nuzhnyi, 1998; Tartar and White, 2013), andinvolves removing a small portion of material to initiate the frac-ture which is then continued by indirect percussion. Whethereither hypothesis, or both, is correct, what interests us here is illus-trating that the various forms of spear base clefts found at the stud-ied sites, firstly, implies that a complex operation was undertaken,and, secondly, that this yet another feature which demonstratesthe non-homogenous character of the Aurignacian.

l antler blank baguette type, La Quina-Aval. 3: Archaeological antler blank baguetteeen antler blanks of Isturitz, La Quina-Aval and experimental blanks obtained bysemblages.

Fig. 5. Objects made on antler: typological distribution in the overall of the studiedAurignacian Spanish sites (top), Isturitz cave (bottom left) and La Quina-Aval(bottom-right).


Both described procedures have been documented at the ana-lysed sites and show different variations in the cleave of the pointbase made by combining different techniques and, in some assem-blages, also by their preparation.

The Isturitz cave has yielded several tongued pieces (n = 12).Technological analysis shows that they were incised using unifacialsawing after first narrowing the blank by scraping ‘‘in diabolo’’ (insome cases). The scraping ‘‘in diabolo’’ technique was first men-tioned by Rigaud (1972), and was later refined by other scholars(Le Dosseur, 2003; Chauvière and Rigaud, 2005). This techniqueconsists of sectioning a blank or object by progressive thinningthe shaft, through peripheral or unidirectional scraping (LeDosseur, 2003). Next, the Isturitz Aurignacian inhabitants removeda small piece of the base through flexion, which we can observe inthe bases’ stigmata as well as in the appearance of tongued piecesin a site (Fig. 7). Also, inside the lips of split-based points, there isvisible material loss in the first few millimetres. All of these indica-tions correspond to Peyrony’s hypothesis and, more precisely, to avariation originally proposed by Nuzhnyi, 1998 and recently devel-oped by Tartar and White (2013).

However, at other sites, there are no tongued pieces or marksthat match Peyrony’s theory. On the contrary, they appear to havebeen made through the cleft by cleavage method, as demonstratedby several pieces found discarded in progress and, for La Quina, bythe intermediate pieces made from recycled ‘‘sagaies’’, along withdistal (functional) widths that coincide with the split widths ofthe finished points. The split widths of La Quina points rangebetween 15 mm and 23 mm. This size is fully compatible withthe widths of the distal part of wedges ranging between 18 mm

and 25 mm (Fig. 6). Moreover, at some Spanish sites, such as ElCastillo and Covalejos, as well as at La Quina, spear points arefound to have a flat edge on the base. This plane corresponds tothe length of the slits (Fig. 8). As advocated by Knecht (1991), thispreparation was possibly used in order to slow down the propaga-tion of the fracture being made by indirect percussion. Therefore,in these cases, the Henri-Martin hypothesis seems the most likely.

3.4. Object maintenance

The last feature of Early Aurignacian antler equipment thatreflects its complexity and its differentiation from bone working isthe systematic repair of the spear points which were broken in use.

The involvement of antler projectile weaponry in hunting activ-ities—subsistence activities—by Aurignacian groups, the relativelyreduced availability of the raw material used in their manufacturecompared with others (such as bone or lithic raw material), and thesignificant and complex technical investment required to makeSBPs could be, among others, some of the reasons that the Aurigna-cians systematically repaired their broken points. This behaviour isnot exclusive to the Early Aurignacian. It has also been docu-mented within the Magdalenian (e.g., Pétillon, 2006; Langley,2013, 2014), and it is foreseeable that new technical studies willidentify evidence of this behaviour in all techno-complexes ofthe Upper Palaeolithic.

In Western Europe, SBPs at most of the analysed sites, such asthose from El Castillo, Labeko, Abri Poisson, La Quina-Aval, andIsturitz, show evidence of the recurrent recovery of broken projec-tile points. Liolios (1999) proposed a theoretical scheme for re-sharpening and reshaping objects grounded in the study of variousFrench sites and of Geissenklösterle (Germany). In broad terms,this scheme corresponds to that observed for the series presentedin this work when considering the most complete assemblages (ElCastillo, Isturitz, La Quina-Aval) (Fig. 9). Following this theoreticalscheme, medial and distal fractures of the long ‘‘original’’ spearpoints were repaired to re-point the tip. This would have resultedin increasingly short spear points until their small size made themno longer functional. If we look at examples from El Castillo or Istu-ritz, the exhausted points are roughly 50 mm in length. Accordingto experimental analyses, proximal fractures would in most caseshave resulted in the abandoning of the point, which could nolonger be repaired (Pétillon, 2006).

This process explains the existence of an apparent diversity inthe morphometric dimensions of the points. The lengths of theSBPs is the most fluctuating value, and is probably related withthe successively resharpening and reshaping of broken points. Incontrast, the widths and thicknesses of the points remain quiteconstant throughout the corpus (including for whole and frag-mented points) (Fig. 10). For example, the width of the entireSBP assemblage of Isturitz falls between 7–15 mm including forboth long (the largest have a length of 130 mm) as well as smallerpoints (around 40 mm in length). Thickness is a parameter thatalso remains quiet constant if we look a large dataset. For example,La Quina-Aval shows that between long points (almost 140 mm inlength) and small ones (around 30 mm in length) there is only amaximum difference of 6 mm. Most of SBPs of La Quina-Aval havea thickness between 6 and 8 mm (Fig. 10). The width of the spearbase is theoretically determined by the need to attach the point tothe shaft (presumably of wood that did not survive) and hence canbe considered the variable that limits the dimensions of the prox-imal extremity. Therefore, the low dispersion of width and thick-ness of the spear points is explained by the need to maintain athickness that would not compromise the strength of the object.Hence, broken points would have been repaired by scraping onlyto delineate a new distal tip without affecting the body’s thickness(Tejero, in press).

Fig. 6. Entire and broken split-based points and intermediate piece from La Quina-Aval (top-left). The intermediate pieces were likely used to made the split on the spearpoints (top-right). Correlation between the width of split-based points proximal parts and intermediate pieces (NR: 19) distal parts shows the metrical compatibility of thetwo objects (Bottom). The SBPs measures were taken only on the well-preserved pieces (NR: 29 represented in the graphic).

Table 6Antler split-based points morphometry.a

Site name 0–50 mm length(NR)

51–80 mm length(NR)

81–110 mm length (NR) >110 mm length (NR) Elliptical cross sectionb Bi-convex cross section

Abri Poisson – – 3 5 7 1El Castillo 3 4 1 2 7 3Covalejos 3 2 – – 4 1Isturitz 7 36 23 7 62 11Labeko 1 2 – – 1 2Morin 1 – – – – 1La Quina-Aval 11 18 12 7 39 6Reclau Viver 2 – – – 2 –

Overall 28 62 39 21 122 25

a Only the entire or sub-entire (this is, with only few mm of their apex lost) antler SBPs have been included in this table.b The very few cross sections other than elliptical or biconvex (sub-rectangular, sub-triangular) are not computed.


If we analyse the morphometry of entire or near-entire SBPs(Table 6) it is not surprising that most of the points (101 out of150) range between 51 mm and 110 mm. This assemblage is com-posed of functional SBPs. By contrast, only 21 points have morethan 110 mm. These long points could be the ‘‘original’’ spearpoints. Thus, only a small part remains at their original sizebecause the systematic resharpening and reshaping of the pointsreduces their proportions. On the other hand, only 28 SBPs haveless than 50 mm which indicates that (apparently) the minimalsize to maintain the effectiveness of the projectile spear points.

4. Discussion

4.1. The false homogeneity of the Aurignacian founded on SBPsuniformity

The traditional view of the Aurignacian as the first ‘‘culture’’ ofthe Upper Palaeolithic associated with the Homo sapiens expansionacross Europe and archaeologically defined by the association of acertain assembly of stone tools (end scrapers, Aurignacian blades,etc.) and, in particular, antler tools (namely split-based points)

Fig. 7. 1: Isturitz level Ax, fragmented split-based point sowing stigmata of sawing (indicated by the arrows) and ‘‘tongued piece’’. This evidence constitute a waste afterremove of a small fraction of material to initiate the fracture and then the continuation of this by indirect percussion (the double arrow indicates the kinetic of the sawingmovement). 2: ‘‘tongued piece’’ with detail of the distal part where is possible to observe the stigmata of sawing (the double arrow indicates the kinetic of the sawingmovement) and the removed fraction of material.

Fig. 8. 1: Abri Poisson Aurignacian level, split-based point. Detail of the base cleft by indirect percussion. We can observe (B, C) a first failed attempt to cleave the base. 2:Covalejos level B(2), split-based point cleft by indirect percussion. The detail pictures (D, E. magnification 15�) show the flat edge probably to slow down the propagation ofthe fracture.


has led to the formulation of models that advocate the homogene-ity of this techno-complex (e.g., Mellars, 1989, 2004). Recent stud-ies of lithic technology from early Upper Palaeolithic sites indifferent geographical areas have improved our knowledge andchanged our perceptions of the Aurignacian however (e.g., Bon,2002, 2006; Bon et al., 2002; Teyssandier, 2007, 2008;Teyssandier et al., 2010). Additionally, the study of bone and antlerindustry has nuanced the perspective of the Early Aurignacian as ahomogeneous entity. Liolios (1999) has demonstrated the

existence, in the apparently monotonous corpus of SBPs from someFrench and Central European sites, of what she calls different con-ceptions (morphometric designs). Other technical aspects of thesepoints, reflected in this paper, also show heterogeneity if we lookin detail at the European archaeological record from a technicaland functional perspective. We have seen, for instance, alternativetheories proposed for the method of manufacturing spear pointbases. Perhaps, the mistake of all of these proposals resides in con-sidering, implicitly, that all European Aurignacians always used the

Fig. 9. 1: El Castillo (Level Delta of Obermaier excavations), sequence of reduction of split-based points. The medial and distal fragments (centre) of the ‘‘original’’ spear point(left) broken were reshaped by a second cleft of the base to make a second point (right). 2: Abri Poisson level Aurignacian, ‘‘original’’ split-based point (left) and reshapedsplit-based point (right) both with the same module of the base. 3: La Quina-Aval, Aurignacian level, ‘‘original’’ split-based point (left) and reshaped split-based point (right)both with the same module of the base.


Fig. 10. Isturitz Cave levels SIII and Ax, entire and sub-entire split-based points, ratio length/width. Most of spear points of the set maintains the width and thickness of theproximal part. The three split-points of the top show the sequence of reduction that affects mainly of the length. La Quina-Aval Aurignacian level, entire and sub-entire split-based points, ratio length/thickness.


same method to prepare their spear point bases. According to theseries studied for this work, base cleavage took place, dependingon the site, by direct percussion with prior lateral flattening, bycleft with no preparation, or by extracting a portion of material(generating a ‘‘tongue piece’’), and posterior split, although themethod was somewhat different from that advocated by Nuzhny,Tartar and White; meanwhile, in Isturitz for instance, not bifacialbut unifacial sawing followed by a bending is documented.

Moreover, in addition to the morphological and technicalaspects of the diversity within the Aurignacian entity, differencesbetween their internal phases (notably between the Proto-Auri-gnacian and the Early Aurignacian) also show variety concerningtheir osseous (bone and antler) raw material exploitation. TheProto-Aurignacian has been characterised by several technologicalstudies that show a rupture in the lithic laminar débitage concept(see, for instance, Bon et al., 2002).

The discussion of osseous raw material exploitation remainsmore complex because we can observe both continuity (in boneworking) and discontinuity (in antler working) (Table 7).

From the lower Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic, boneworking doesn’t show significant differences. Techniquesemployed are the same as for lithic raw materials. Blanks arealways bone fragments broken in order to access the bone marrowcavity (see below). There exists several examples of this behaviourfrom the Middle Palaeolithic, as well as a few older evidences likethe Achelian bifaces of Fontana Ranuccio and Castel di Guido (Italy)made on elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus) bone (Segre andAscenzi, 1984; Saccà, 2012).

Whereas Aurignacian bone typology reproduces, throughout alltechno-complexes, a recurrent variety of tools which were knownfrom the Mousterian and ‘‘transitional’’ techno-complexes(Vincent, 1993; Armand and Delagnes, 1998; d’Errico et al., 2003;Jéquier et al., 2012; Soressi et al., 2013) and include retouchers(retouchoirs), smoothers (lissoirs), and awls. The systematic

implementation of equipment made with antler is therefore abehaviour documented from the Early Aurignacian (Knecht, 1991,1997; Liolios, 1999; Tejero, 2010, 2013).

4.2. Bone working vs. antler working

There is a clear difference between bone and antler exploitationregarding the four parameters employed in this study to assess thecomplexity of antler exploitation (Table 7).

Although an important part of the exploited antlers during theAurignacian seems to have an origin in collection, worked boneswere recovered from culinary waste activities. The analysed sitesshow a correspondence between the hunted and consumed taxa,principally medium-sized and large mammals (horse, bos/bison,red deer, reindeer): the breakage patterns for accessing the bonemarrow; the types of bone (mostly long bones such as metapodiaand femur); and the technically exploited bones (Altuna andMariezkurrena, 2000; Dari, 2003; Tartar, 2009; Tejero, 2010,2013; Soulier, 2013). As is evident, this kind of behaviour is notled by a technical purpose even though it is important to note thatrecovering the bones implies selecting those that were betteradapted to the technical requirements of each different type oftool. This is, for instance, the case of retouchoirs from Labeko Kobawith blanks that were selected among bones of large and medium-sized mammals with a size and thickness that ensured the func-tionality and solidity of the tools (Tejero et al., in preparation).

Thus, in the fracture of bones, the only technique documented isdirect percussion, with or without minimal control of the impactzone, the purpose of which is to access the bone marrow. On thecontrary, in the exploitation of deer antler, the raw material blockis fully transformed, first by sectioning the tines and points, thensectioning the beams, and then cleaving longitudinally to obtainthe blanks (Tejero et al., 2012).

Table 7Summary of the bone and antler work during the Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) and the Early Upper Palaeolithic (Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian).

Techno-complex Bone work Antler work References

Early Aurignacian Rawmaterial

Raw material procurement is linked tofood activities

Most of worked antler seems to proceedfrom collect

Tartar (2009, 2012), Tejero(2010, 2013) and Soulier(2013)

Débitage Technical débitage is not documented.Bones were broken to access to bonemarrow. Blanks were selected among thefragment of long bones

Débitage procedures are very complexcombining many techniques. The rawmaterial bloc is completely transformed

Liolios (1999), Tartar (2009)and Tejero et al. (2012, inpreparation)

Equipment Bones are intended to ‘‘domestic’’activities. Awls, polishers and retouchersare the manufactured morphotypes.Manufacture is restricted to functionalparts of the objects

Antler is intended to hunting activities.Projectile points are made on this rawmaterial. Very few other objects are madeon antler (intermediate pieces. . .) and arelinked with the manufacture of spearpoints

Knecht (1991), Liolios(1999), Tartar (2009), Tejero(2010, 2013, in press) andTejero et al. (2012)

Objectsmaintenance

Broken bone objects are rejected.Maintenance is not documented

Antler points broken during use aresystematically repaired

Knecht (1991), Liolios(1999), Tartar (2009), Tejero(2010, 2013, in press) andTejero et al. (2012)

Proto-Aurignacian Rawmaterial


Antler exploitation is not systematic. Onlya few objects made on antler were found inProtoaurignacian levels (>than 10 SBP)

Soler Subils et al. (2008),Szmidt et al. (2010), Highamet al. (2009) and Tejero et al.(in preparation)

Débitage Technical débitage is not documented.Bones were broken to access to bonemarrow. Blanks were selected among thefragment of long bones

Tartar (2009) and Tejero(2010, 2013)

Equipment Bones are intended to ‘‘domestic’’activities. Awls, polishers and retouchersare the manufactured morphotypes.Manufacture is restricted to functionalparts of the objects


Objectsmaintenance

Broken bone objects are rejected.Maintenance is not documented


Mousterian Rawmaterial


Antler exploitation is not documented Vincent (1993) and Armandand Delagnes (1998)

Débitage Technical débitage is not documented (onlyevoked for retouchers production of Axlorsite). Bones were broken to access to bonemarrow

Vincent (1993), Armand andDelagnes (1998), Mozota(2009) and Mallye et al.(2012)

Equipment Bones are intended to ‘‘domestic’’activities. Retouchers are the principalmorphotype. Awls and some polishers arealso documented. Manufacture isrestricted to functional parts of the objects

Vincent (1993), Armand andDelagnes (1998), Jéquieret al. (2012), Mallye et al.(2012) and Soressi et al.(2013)

Objectsmaintenance

Maintenance is not documented Vincent (1993), Armand andDelagnes (1998) and Mallyeet al. (2012)


The bone fragments selected as blanks were transformed sum-marily (in smoothers and awls) or were used directly (as retouch-ers (retouchoirs) and wedges). Only the active part of the tool wasmodified by scraping with the aim of implementing a pointedextremity or regularising the functional part of the object (e.g.,Schwab, 2002; Tartar, 2009; Tejero, 2010, 2013). The antler blankswere completely transformed by combining several techniques, toboth give shape to the object (scraping and, in a small number ofcases, abrasion) and condition the bases of the weapons (sawing,bending, indirect percussion).

It is likely that because the raw material (bone) was more acces-sible than antler, the technical investment in an objects manufac-ture was less, as was the activities intended for these bone tools tobe less critical to group survival (than antler hunting weaponry).Likewise, no maintenance traces are documented on these bonetools. In contrast, we have seen that the hunting (antler) equip-ment was systematically repaired throughout the EarlyAurignacian.

Finally there is a strict correlation between the activities wherebone objects and antler objects were used, which were very differ-ent in either case. The first (bone) was intended for domestic or

daily activities, while antler objects were part of the huntingequipment of the Aurignacian groups.

Besides the demonstrated dichotomy between the work of boneand antler, some other technical features of antler transformationseem to differentiate this raw material from other organic materi-als. For instance, the longitudinal exploitation of the antler takesadvantage of their natural osseous fibres which were more similarto vegetable fibres than bone ones. Thus, it is tempting to claim, asdo some scholars (Liolios, 1999), an adaptation or transfer fromone raw material to the other (vegetable working to antler work-ing). Nevertheless, this suggestive hypothesis is yet to be demon-strated, although there exist a number of methods (residueanalysis, for instance) which indirectly take into account of theperishable nature of wood.

4.3. The chronological and palaeoecological context at the beginning ofantler exploitation in Europe

Prior to the advent of the Early Aurignacian, the raw materialsused to manufacture weapons were stone and/or wood; the latterincluding the famous spears found at Schöningen (Germany)


(Thieme, 1997) and at Clacton-on-Sea (Great Britain) (Oakley et al.,1977). On the African continent, the evidence for the use of osseousraw materials to make projectile points is, however, older. We findmany examples from Middle Stone Age (MSA) contexts, such as thebarbed points of Katanda (Congo) (Yellen, 1998)—although thesewere given an overestimated age according to some scholars(Klein, 2009: 527–529)—and Broken Hill (Zambia) (McBreartyand Brooks, 2000), to cite only some of the most importantfindings.

Regarding projectile production before the Early Aurignacian, itis interesting to note that one of the characteristic features of theProto-Aurignacian is blade production in the lithic industry. Bladeswere used to make bladelets and retouched points. These objectsare known in the southwest of France and in the European Medi-terranean with abundant bladelets called Dufour (e.g., Bon, 2002),and in central Europe, where they featured Krems points(Teyssandier, 2007). Traceological analysis shows that, at least,some of these different types of bladelets were used as lithic-com-posite projectile elements (e.g., Pelegrin and O’farell, 2005) andwere likely mounted onto wooden tips. The passage from theProto-Aurignacian to the Early Aurignacian—coinciding with theHS4 after some authors (Banks et al., 2013)—seems to involvereplacing lithic points with antler points.

The SBPs, being present in Early Aurignacian levels at numeroussites, was the first morphotype recognised among the huntingweapons of the European Aurignacian. Although there is currentlya broad consensus about the correlation of the SBPs and the EarlyAurignacian, some scholars recently advocated the presence of thisobject in several Proto-Aurignacian levels. For instance, L’Arbreda(H), Trou de la Mere Clochette and Fumane (units A1, D3) haveyielded a few number of SBPs found into levels attributed to theProto-Aurignacian (Maroto et al., 1996; Soler Subils et al., 2008;Higham et al., 2009; Szmidt et al., 2010). We have explained thecriticism preventing these examples to advocate for systematicantler exploitation before the Early Aurignacian.

Nevertheless, whether the SBPs are found exclusively of theEarly Aurignacian or also of the Proto-Aurignacian, the emergenceof what are recognised as Upper Palaeolithic technologies andbehaviour can only be understood with reference to the underlyingchronological framework (Jöris and Street, 2008). Thus, it is essen-tial to try to highlight the chronological and palaeoecological con-text of the emergence of the first spear points made from organicanimal raw material in Europe.

Improvements in radiocarbon-dating methods (Higham, 2011;Banks et al., 2013) and calibration curves make it possible to exam-ine the cultural variability within a more precise temporal frame-work. Recent studies that took into account these methodologicalimprovements showed that the Early Aurignacian appeared in Eur-ope roughly 40,000 years ago, coincident with the CampanianIgnimbrite eruption (CI) at the onset of the Heinrich Stadial 4(HS4) cold climatic event (Banks et al., 2013; Fedele et al., 2008;Jöris and Street, 2008). The CI eruption is dated by 40ar/39armethod to between 40,01 and 39,39 ka (Fedele et al., 2008) whilethe HS4 occurs between 40,200 and 38,300 years ago for someauthors (Sánchez Goñi and Harrison, 2010). Therefore, the questionremains: is the appearance of the SBPs coincident with theseimportant ecological changes which may have been major enginesdriving this innovative behaviour? To assess this subject we haveconsidered the radiocarbon dates of: (1) The levels studied in thiswork; (2) other recent dates of several European Aurignacian levelscontaining SBPs; and (3) radiocarbon dates directly made on SBPs.Dates have been calibrated in OxCal v.4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009)against IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013). Age models have been con-structed in OxCal v.4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). The results arelinked with the (NGRIP) d18O climate record (Fig. 11). Althoughwe are aware that the raised question needs more dates directly

made on SBPs and/or blanks or wastes associated with their pro-duction (this is an on going project) to be clarified, the resultsare significant and reinforce the hypothesis that antler spear pointsappear somewhat later than the CI and the HS4 climatic events.

If we assume that the SBPs are principally associated with theEarly Aurignacian (Knecht, 1991; Liolios, 1999; Tejero, 2013), theradiocarbon dates indicate that hunting weapon production fromantler first appears in Europe approximately 40,000 years ago(Table 8. Fig. 11). Looking the dates on SBPs or associated elements(blanks, wastes), we find that currently the oldest evidence associ-ated with SBP production is an antler baguette recovered from ElCastillo Delta which has been recently dated to 35,000 ± 600(40,567/38,365 modelled ages at 95.4%. Table 2) (Wood et al.,submitted for publication). If we focus on the SBPs directly datedfrom 5 European sites (La Mère Clochette, Covalejos, Spy, Bril-lenhöhle and Tischoferhöhle), the ages fall between 38,900 and35,700 in modelled dates at 95.4% (Tables 2 and 8).

The dates for some alleged Proto-Aurignacian levels with SBPs(La Mère Clochette, Arbreda H, Fumane A1, D3) do not change thisassertion because the range falls between 38,900/36,000 cal. BP inmodelled ages at 95.4% probability (Table 8. Fig. 11). Thus, theclaimed presence of SBPs in Proto-Aurignacian levels could beexplained by several different hypotheses: (1) the chronoculturalattribution of these levels is not correct; (2) the dates are notdirectly linked with SBPs (apparently this is not the case for laMerè Clochette because the ages are obtained on SBPs); (3) thereexists some stratigraphic and/or taphonomic problems (allegedfor l’Arbreda H by some scholars); (4) the levels are well attributedto the Proto-Aurignacian, and therefore there was limited produc-tion (less than 10 examples from over more than 700 SBPs in Eur-ope) of SBPs made during this techno-complex. Even if the formeris correct, the proposed hypothesis in this work which links up theemergence and spread of antler projectile technology with majorclimatic events from around 40,000 cal. BP is reinforced.

This idea is also reinforced by the presence of some allegedEarly Aurignacian levels older than 40,000 cal. BP in the Germansite of Geissenklösterle but without SBPs. The AHIII horizon of thissite was recently dated by the ultrafiltration method to between45,000 and 40,000 cal. BP (Higham et al., 2012). Nevertheless, theSBPs are present only in layer AHII (Teyssandier and Liolios,2003; Conard and Bolus, 2006) which is dated to around 38,500/36,000 cal. BP in modelled dates at 95.4% probability. Thus, afterthe HS4 and the CI events (Higham, op. cit.) (Table 8).

The referred climatic events would have had a major impact onEuropean ecosystems. The HS4 was characterised by extremelycold and dry conditions and semi-desert vegetation in south-wes-tern Europe as well as by cold but slightly less arid conditions athigher latitudes, for which we see an expansion of open grasslandenvironments (Sánchez Goñi et al., 2008). Recent work proposesthat, in the rigorous climatic conditions and open-environmentvegetation regimens of the HS4, the human ecological niche inEurope was expanded (Banks et al., 2013). These authors suggestthat technological changes among the Early Aurignacian had, inpart, an ecological basis and served to facilitate ecological nicheexpansion (Ibidem). Other scholars have recently begun to raisethe importance of biotopes and the search for more effective hunt-ing weapons to succeed in the adaptive systems that we call theEuropean Upper Palaeolithic (e.g., Bon, 2005; Shea, 2006;Teyssandier, 2008).

In this context, the antler spears points could have played amajor role in adaptation because at this time, they were themajor—and perhaps exclusive—artefact used in subsistence activi-ties, that is, activities linked with a group’s survival. In reality, tech-nological studies of a number of assemblages from France, CentralEurope and Spain (Knecht, 1991; Liolios, 1999, 2006; Tejero, 2010,2013) show that split-based points are a category of artefact to


which Palaeolithic craftsmen awarded significant technical invest-ment. This is undoubtedly because of the tools’ status as huntingweapons, which required careful preparation for their effectivenessand therefore gives rise to these weapons’ differential statusamong the equipment of these human groups. It is therefore nec-essary to learn the more subtle differences between the subsis-tence behaviours that demonstrate AMH’s possible adaptiveadvantages. These differences can be traced through the study ofantler weaponry, used by Modern Humans but, in our present stateof knowledge, not by Neanderthals. Available data for the MiddlePalaeolithic suggest that the use of hunting weapons involvedattacking prey from a short distance (Shea, 2006; Meignen,2007). Although it has been proposed by some scholars that somelevallois points were used as projectile points, they recognise thanwe cannot dismiss other possible functions for these objects(Boëda and Geneste, 1999). In contrast, Modern Humans typicallyused projectile points as hunting weapons. The choice of oneweapon type—and therefore a type of hunting—that seems to dif-ferentiate Neanderthals from Modern Humans could merely reflectdivergent cultural traditions or be motivated by environmental cir-cumstances. The analysis of osseous projectiles in relation to theirfunctional efficiency in different biotopes is important for sheddinglight on this debate.

ig. 11. Calibrated and modelled dates of studied levels and other Europeanurignacian levels containing SBPs. Dates have been calibrated in OxCal v.4.2ronk Ramsey, 2009) against IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013). Age models have beennstructed in OxCal v.4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). The results are linked with theGRIP) d18O climate record. This is a not exhaustive list of all the European

urignacian levels containing SBPs but it comprises the most recent radiocarbonates obtained by AMS (sample pre-treatment) methods (Higham, 2011). Datesbtained directly on split-based points are in blue. The limits of Campaniannimbrite eruption (CI) and Heinrich Stadial 4 (HS4) climatic events (indicated in

rey) are derived from Fedele et al. (2008) and Sánchez Goñi and Harrison (2010)spectively. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, theader is referred to the web version of this article.)

5. Conclusion

Complexity in the exploitation of antler coincides with the EarlyAurignacian, that is, sometime after 40 Ka cal. BP. During severalmillennia, from the Mousterian through the Proto-Aurignacian tothe Early Aurignacian, no major differences are observed concern-ing bone working. The exploitation of this organic raw materialseems to always have been linked to the alimentary sphere of latePleistocene hunter-gatherer groups. Antler, on the contrary, is thefirst organic animal raw material exploited with an exclusivelytechnical purpose in mind. The referred dichotomy between boneworking vs. antler working clearly disjoins the two productiontypes for which the technical investments, in both the débitageand the manufacture phases, were quite different. Faced with anexpedient process in manufacturing the bone equipment, the ant-ler hunting weapons required the most technical effort as only acomplete modification of the original blank could have provideda functional projectile point.

The data presented in this paper changes, or at least nuances,the traditional claim that ‘‘bone industry’’ is one of the major inno-vative features of the early Upper Palaeolithic. Independently, if weconsider that the ‘‘transitional’’ entities such as the Châtelperro-nian or the Uluzzian are part of the Upper Palaeolithic, we canobserve a continuity between the late Middle Palaeolithic andthe early Upper Palaeolithic where bone working is concerned.Moreover, the ‘‘break’’ or change in organic animal exploitation(from a technical point of view) took place not at the beginningof the Upper Palaeolithic (whether the transitional techno-com-plexes or the Proto-Aurignacian) but from the Early Aurignacian.In addition to these important considerations, it is vital to be awarethat in contrast with studies that focused on lithic, faunal, chrono-logical and other aspects of Palaeolithic assemblages, techno-func-tional analysis of worked antler examples could serve as a valuablecomplementary interpretation tool.

The coincidence in the appearance of complex animal rawmaterial exploitation technology with certain important climaticevents, such as the HSE4 and the IG Campanian, as well as activi-ties that are exclusively linked with hunting strategies and forwhich antler equipment was intended, suggest that among others,one of the major drivers of this innovative behaviour may be

FA(Bco(NAdoIggrere

Table 8Radiocarbon dates and modelled dates associated with Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian levels containing split-based points in Europe.

Site name Layer(s) Atrib. Chr. Lab. code Date BP Error Modelled BP (95.4%) Reference

From To

La Mère Clochettea – ProtoAur. OxA-19621 33,750 350 38,938 36,988 Szmidt et al. (2010)Fumane D3 ProtoAur. OxA-17981 33,890 220 38,894 37,728 Higham (2011)Tuto de Camalhot 70–80 Early Aur. GifA-99093 34,750 570 39,745 38,051 Zilhão et al. (2007)Velika Pecina I Early Aur GrN-4979 33,850 520 39,290 36,783 Karavanic (1995)Les Cottés US4 sup. Early Aur S-EVA-9706avg 34,260 180 39,148 38,379 Talamo et al. (2012)Les Cottés US4 sup. Early Aur S-EVA-9711avg 33,180 160 38,117 36,702 Talamo et al. (2012)Les Cottés US4 sup. Early Aur. S-EVA-9709avg 34,610 140 39,431 38,675 Talamo et al. (2012)Les Cottés US4 sup. Early Aur. S-EVA-9720avg 33,860 160 38,752 37,886 Talamo et al. (2012)Brassempouy 2DE Early Aur. GifA SM-11034 33,600 240 38,616 37,100 Zilhão et al. (2007)Abri Pataud 11 Early Aur. OxA-21602 33,500 500 38,901 36,461 Higham et al. (2011)Abri Pataud 11 Early Aur. OxA-21580 33,550 550 39,036 36,440 Higham et al. (2011)Abri Pataud 11 Early Aur. OxA-21581 33,550 550 39,034 36,438 Higham et al. (2011)Abri Pataud 11 Early Aur. OxA-21601 34,150 550 39,512 37,092 Higham et al. (2011)La Ferrassie K6 Early Aur. GrN-5751 33,220 570 38,776 36,156 Rigaud (2000)Geissenklösterle IIa Early Aur. OxA-5707 33,200 800 39,088 35,902 Conard and Bolus (2003)Geissenklösterle IIa Early Aur. OxA-21656 33,000 500 38,490 36,081 Higham (2011)Vogelherd V Early Aur. KIA-8970 33,080 320 38,274 36,384 Conard and Bolus (2003)Istallósko 7/9 Early Aur. ISGS-A-0184 33,101 512 38,577 36,146 Adams and Ringer (2004)Castanet 131 Early Aur. GifA-99166 34,320 520 39,611 37,484 White et al. (2012)Castanet 114 Early Aur. OxA-21559 33,250 500 38,665 36,273 White et al. (2012)Castanet 122 Early Aur. GifA-99180 32,950 520 38,484 36,005 White et al. (2012)Castanet 110 Early Aur. OxA-21564 32,950 500 38,461 36,040 White et al. (2012)Castanet 114 Early Aur. OxA-21560 32,800 450 38,285 35,965 White et al. (2012)Castanet 131 Early Aur. GifA-97313 32,750 460 38,251 35,891 White et al. (2012)Castanet 110 Early Aur. OxA-21563 32,600 450 38,084 35,748 White et al. (2012)Castanet 110 Early Aur. OxA-21566 32,550 600 38,316 35,665 White et al. (2012)Castanet 110 Early Aur. OxA-21562 32,550 450 38,032 35,711 White et al. (2012)Castanet Purple Early Aur. OxA-21642 32,500 450 37,967 35,662 White et al. (2012)Castanet 131 Early Aur. GifA-97312 32,460 420 37,970 35,670 White et al. (2012)Castanet 114 Early Aur. OxA-21558 32,350 450 37,778 35,570 White et al. (2012)Castanet Purple Early Aur. OxA-21664 32,350 450 37,778 35,573 White et al. (2012)Castanet 122 Early Aur. GifA-99179 32,310 520 37,949 35,540 White et al. (2012)Castanet Purple Early Aur. OxA-21643 32,200 450 37,572 35,500 White et al. (2012)Castanet 110 Early Aur. OxA-21561 32,050 450 37,355 35,426 White et al. (2012)Castanet Purple Early Aur. OxA-21645 32,000 450 37,281 35,404 White et al. (2012)Castanet Purple Early Aur. OxA-21641 31,950 450 37,200 35,378 White et al. (2012)Spya – Early Aur. GrA-32619 32,830 200 37,636 36,266 Flas (2008)Brillenhöhlea XIV Early Aur. KIA-19551 32,470 270 37,272 35,776 Bolus and Conard (2006)Tischoferhöhlea T143 Early Aur. KIA-19544 31,530 210 36,174 35,776 Bolus and Conard (2006)

a Split-based point directly dated.


related to the environmental consequences of these climaticevents. These newly exposed questions are the focus of an ongoingresearch project led by the author which aims to evaluate the pos-sible role played by organic projectile hunting points in the adap-tation of the AHM’s to the Levantine and to different Europeanecosystems.

Acknowledgments

This paper is part of the HAR2011-26193 research projects ofthe MICINN and the Quality Research Group of the Generalitat deCatalunya SGR2014-108. The author research has been supportedby a postdoctoral abroad mobility grant of Spanish Education Min-ister (conv. Orden EDU/3495/2010, de 16 de diciembre). I wouldlike to thank João Zilhão, Marianne Christensen, Christine Verna,Nejma Goutas, Jean-Marc Pétillon and Álvaro Arrizabalaga, forour very enriching discussions about this topic. I’m also gratefulto Rachel Wood for discussion about El Castillo. I would also thankto Catherine Schwab and Marie-Sylvie Largeze from the Muséed’Archéologie National de France for facilitate the access to collec-tions of Isturitz, la Quina and Abri Poisson, and also to ChristianNormand and Nejma Goutas for permit me share the study of Istu-ritz cave Normand’s excavations osseous material, as well as theanonymous referees and the Editor for their valuable comments.Thank you to Busrha Taha and Michelle Langley for the Englishrevision of the manuscript.

References

Adams, B., Ringer, Á., 2004. New C14 dates for the Hungarian early UpperPalaeolithic. Curr. Anthropol. 45, 541–551.

Albrecht, G., 1977. Testing of materials as used for bone points of the UpperPalaeolithic. In: Camps Fabrer, H. (Ed.), Méthodologie appliquée a l’industrie del’os préhistorique. Deuxième colloque intenational sur l’industrie de l’os dans laPréhistoire. Abbaye de Sénanque (Vaucluse), 9–12 juin 1976. Éditions du CNRS,Paris, pp. 119–124.

Altuna, J., Mariezkurrena, K., 2000. Macromamíferos del yacimiento de Labeko Koba(Arrasate, País Vasco). In: Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), Labeko Koba (PaísVasco). Hienas y humanos en los albores del Paleolítico Superior. Munibe N 52.Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, San Sebastián, pp. 107–181.

Armand, D., Delagnes, A., 1998. Les retouchoirs en os d’Artenac (couche 6c):perspectives archéozoologiques, taphonomiques et expérimentales. In: Brugal,J.-P. et al. (Eds.), Économie préhistorique: les comportements de subsitance auPaléolithique. XVIIIè Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoired’Antibes, 23–25 octobre 1997. APDCA, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 205–214.

Arrizabalaga, Á., 2000. El yacimiento arqueológico de Labeko Koba (Arrasate, PaísVasco). Entorno. Crónica de las investigaciones. Estratigrafía y estructuras.Cronología absoluta. In: Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), Labeko Koba (PaísVasco). Hienas y humanos en los albores del Paleolítico Superior. Munibe 52.Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, San Sebastián, pp. 15–72.

Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), 2000. Labeko Koba (País Vasco). Hienas y humanosen los albores del Paleolítico Superior. Munibe N 52. Sociedad de CienciasAranzadi, San Sebastián.

Averbouh, A., 2000. Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implicationspalethnologiques. L’exemple des chaines d’explotation du bois de cérvide chezles Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Averbouh, A., 2001. Methodological specifics of the techno-economic analysis ofworked bone and antler: mental refitting and methods of application. In:Choyke, A., Bartosiewicz, L. (Eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4165(14)00059-2/h0005



Time and Space – Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked BoneResearch Group Budapest, 31 August–5 September 1999, British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 937, Oxford, pp. 111–121.

Averbouh, A., Provenzano, N., 1998–99. Propositions pour une terminologie dutravail préhistorique des matières osseuses: I Les techniques. Préhist.Anthropol. Méditerranéennes 7, 1–28.

Banks, W.E., D’errico, F., Zilhão, J., 2013. Human–climate interaction during theEarly Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between theProto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 39–55.

Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2010. The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic andEpipalaeolithic. In: Garcea, E.A.-A. (Ed.), South-Eastern Mediterranean PeoplesBetween 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 144–167.

Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, N., 2007. From the beginning: Levantine UpperPalaeolithic cultural changes and continuity. In: Mellars, P. et al. (Eds.),Rethinking the Human Evolution. McDonald Institute, Oxford, pp. 199–205.

Bernaldo De Quirós, F., 1982. Los inicios del Paleolítico superior cantábrico.Ministerio de Cultura. Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos, Madrid.

Bischoff, J.-L., Soler, N., Maroto, J., Julià, R., 1989. Abrupt Mousterian/AurignacianBoundary at c. 40 ka bp: accelerator 14C dates from l’Arbreda Cave (Catalunya,Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 563–576.

Boëda, E., Geneste, J.M., 1999. A Levallois point embedded in the vertebra of a wildass (Equus africanus): hafting, projectiles. Antiquity 73 (280), 394.

Bolus, M., Conard, N.J., 2006. Zur zeitstellung von geschosspitzen aus organischenmaterialien im späten Mittelpaläolithikum und Aurignacien. Archäol.Korrespondenzblatt 36, 1–15.

Bon, F., 2002. Les termes de l’Aurignacien. In: Bon, F. et al. (Eds.), Actas de la Mesaredonda celebrada en Toulouse entre los días 27 de febrero y 1 de marzo de 2003:Autour des concepts de protoaurignacien, d’Aurignacien archaïque, initial etancien. Unité et variabilité des comportements techniques des premiers groupesd’hommes modernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l’Espagne. Espacio,Tiempo y Forma, Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología (15). UNED, Madrid, pp. 39–65.

Bon, F., 2005. Little big tool. Enquête autour du succès de la lamelle. In: Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Eds.), Productions lamellaires attribuées àl’Aurignacien: chaînes opératoires et perspectives techno-culturelles. Actes dela table ronde organisée dans le cadre du XVe Congrès de l’UISPP, Liège, 2001.Archéologiques, 1, Luxembourg, pp. 479–484.

Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of theindustries of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef,O., Zilhao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian: Proceedings of theSymposium Held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002 Trabalhos dearqueologia 45, pp. 133–144.

Bon, F., Maíllo, J.M., Ortega, D. (Eds.), 2002. Actas de la Mesa redonda celebrada enToulouse entre los días 27 de febrero y 1 de marzo de 2003: Autour desconcepts de protoaurignacien, d’Aurignacien archaïque, initial et ancien. Unitéet variabilité des comportements techniques des premiers groupes d’hommesmodernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l’Espagne. Espacio, Tiempo yForma, Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología (15). UNED, Madrid, pp. 39–65.

Bordes, J.-G., 2006. News from the west: a reevaluation of the classical Aurignaciansequence of the Perigord. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definitionof the Aurignacian. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 147–171.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51,337e360.

Cabrera, V., 1984. El yacimiento de La Cueva de ‘‘El Castillo’’: Puente Viesgo,Santander. Instituto Español de Prehistoria, Consejo Superior de InvestigacionesCientíficas, Madrid.

Cabrera, V., Bernaldo De Quirós, F., Maíllo, J.M., Valladas, H., Lloret, M., 2002. ElAuriñaciense arcaico de El Castillo (Cantabria): descripción tecnológica yobjetivos de la producción. In: Bon, F., Maíllo, J.M., Ortega, D. (Eds.), Espacio,Tiempo y Forma, Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología (15). Actas de la Mesaredonda celebrada en Toulouse entre los días 27 de febrero y 1 de marzo de2003: Autour des concepts de protoaurignacien, d’Aurignacien archaïque, initialet ancien. Unité et variabilité des comportements techniques des premiersgroupes d’hommes modernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l’Espagne.UNED, Madrid, pp. 67–86.

Caron, F., D’errico, F., Del Moral, P., Santos, F., Zilhão, J., 2011. The reality ofneandertal symbolic behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France.PLoS One 6, e21545.

Chauvière, F.X., Rigaud, A., 2005. Les ‘‘sagaies’’ à ‘‘base raccourcie’’ ou les avatars dela typologie: du technique au ‘‘non-fonctionnel’’ dans le Magdaléniene ànavettes de la Garenne (Saint-Marcel, Indre). In: Dujardin, V. (Ed.): Industrieosseuse et parures du Solutréen au Magdalénien en Europe, table ronde sur lePaléolithique supérieur récent, Angoulême (Charente, 28–30 mars 2003).Mémoire XXXIX de la Societé Préhistorique Française. Societé PréhistoriqueFrançaise, Paris, pp. 233–242.

Christensen, M., 1999. Technologie de l’ivoire au Paléolithique supérieur:caractérisation physico-chimique du matériau et analyse foctionnelle desoutils de transformation. BAR International Series 751. Hadrian Books, Oxford.

Christensen, M., Tejero, J.-M., in press. La fabrication d’objets en matières duresanimales. In: Balasse, M., Reiche, I., Dauphin, Y., Oberlin, C., Geigl, E.M., Brugal,J.-P. (Eds.), Messages d’os. Archéométrie du Squelette animal et humain.Editions des Archives Contemporaines, Paris.

Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humansand timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. J.Hum. Evol. 44, 331–371.

Conard, N., Bolus, M., 2006. The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in EuropeanPrehistory. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the

Aurignacian: Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002 Trabalhos de arqueologia 45, pp. 211–240.

Crigel, M.-H., Balligand, M., Heinen, E., 2001. Les bois de Cerf: revue de littératurescientifique. Ann. Méd. Vét. 145, 25–38.

Currey, J.-D., 1999. The design of mineralised hard tissues for their mechanicalfunctions. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 3285–3294.

Currey, J.-D., 2002. Bones: Structure and Mechanics. Princeton University Press,New Jersey.

Dari, A., 2003. Comportements de subsistance pendant la transition Paléolithiquemoyen-Paléolithique supérieur en Cantabrie à partir de l’étudearchéozoologique des restes osseux des grands mammifères de la Grotte d’ElCastillo (Puente Viesgo, Espagne). Ph.D. Dissertation, Muséum Nationald’Histoire Naturelle de Paris.

d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C.S., 2007. Additional evidence for bone technology in thesouthern African Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 142–163.

d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., Julien, M., Baffler, D., Pelegrin, J., 1998. Neanderthalacculturation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and itsinterpretation. Curr. Anthropol. 39, S1eS44.

d’Errico, F., Julien, M., Liolios, D., Vanhaeren, M., Baffier, D., 2003. Many awls in ourargument. Bone tool manufacture and use in the Châtelperronian andAurignacian levels of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. In: Zilhao, J.,d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the TransitionalTechnocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications: Proceeding ofSymposium 6. I of the XIV Congress of the UISPP (University of Liège, Belgium,September 2–6, 2001. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, pp. 247–270.

Dujardin, V., 2001. Sondages à La Quina aval (Gardes-le-Pontaroux, Charente,France). Antiq. Nat. 33, 21–26.

Dujardin, V., Tymula, S., 2005. Relecture chronologique de sites paléolithiques etépipaléolithiques anciennement fouillés en Poitou-Charente. Bull. Soc. Préhist.Française 102, 771–778.

Fedele, F.G., Giaccio, B., Hajdas, I., 2008. Timescales and cultural process at 40,000BP in the light of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, Western Eurasia. J. Hum.Evol. 55, 834–857.

Flas, D., 2008. La transition du Paléolithique moyen au supérieur dans la plaineseptentrionale de l’Europe. Anthropol. Praehist., 119.

Goss, R.J., 1983. Deer Antlers: Regeneration, Function, and Evolution. AcademicPress, New York.

Goutas, N., 2004. Caractérisation et évolution du Gravettien en France parl’approche techno-économique des industries en matières dures animales(étude de six gisements du Sud-ouest). Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne University.

Henri-Martin, L., 1930. La station aurignacienne de La Quina. Bull. Mémoires Soc.Archéol. Historique Charente 50, 5–84.

Henri-Martin, G., 1958. Les gisements de La Quina, Le Roc de Sers, Fontéchevade(Charente). Congrès Préhist. France 15, 135–144.

Henri-Martin, G., 1965. La Quina. Bull. l’Assoc. Française d’Études Quat. 3–4, 98–204.

Higham, T., 2011. European Middle and Upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates areoften older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies.Antiquity 85, 235–249.

Higham, T., Brock, F., Peresani, M., Broglio, A., Wood, R., Douka, K., 2009. Problemswith radiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy.Quatern. Sci. Rev. 28 (13–14), 1257–1267.

Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Julien, M., David, F., Basell, L., Wood, R., Davies, W., Ramsey,C.B., 2010. Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for thecontext of ornaments and human remains within the Châtelperronian. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 20234–20239.

Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Basell, L., Bronk Ramsey, C., Chiotti, L., Nespoulet, R., 2011.Precision dating of the Palaeolithic: a new radiocarbon chronology for the AbriPataud (France), a key Aurignacian sequence. J. Hum. Evol. 61, 549e563.

Higham, T., Basell, L., Jacobi, R., Wood, R., Bronk Ramsey, C., Conard, N.J., 2012.Testing models for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent offigurative art and music: the radiocarbon chronology of Geißenklösterle. J.Hum. Evol. 62, 664–676.

Hublin, J.-J., 2010. Les restes humaines. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Les Aurignaciens. EditionsErrance, Paris.

Jéquier, C.A., Romandini, M., Peresani, M., 2012. Les retouchoirs en matières duresanimales: une comparaison entre Moustérien final et Uluzzien. C.R. Palevol 11,283–292.

Jöris, O., Street, M., 2008. At the end of the 14C time scale – the Middle to UpperPalaeolithic record of western Eurasia. J. Hum. Evol., 782–802.

Karavanic, I., 1995. Upper Paleolithic occupation levels and late-occurringNeandertal at Vindija Cave (Croatia) in the context of Central Europe and theBalkans. J. Anthropol. Res. 51, 9–35.

Klein, R., 1995. Anatomy, behavior and Modern Human origins. J. World Prehistory9, 167–198.

Klein, R.-G., 2009. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins.University Press, Chicago. 1024 p.

Knecht, H., 1991. Technological Innovation and Design during the Early UpperPaleolithic: A Study of Organic Projectile. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University.

Knecht, H., 1997. Projectile points of bone, antler, and stone. Experimentalexplorations of manufacture and use. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), ProjectileTechnology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 191–212.

Krauss, S., Fratzl, P., Seto, J., Currey, J.D., Estevez, J.A., Funari, S.S., Gupta, H.S., 2009.Inhomogeneous fibril stretching in antler starts after macroscopic yielding:indication for a nanoscale toughening mechanism. Bone 44, 1105–1110.































































































Langley, M.C., 2013. Investigating Maintenance and Discard Patterns for Middle toLate Magdalenian Antler Projectile Points: Inter-Site and Inter-RegionalComparisons. Unpublished PhD. (D.Phil.) Thesis, Institute of Archaeology,University of Oxford, Oxford.

Langley, M.C., 2014. Magdalenian antler projectile point design: determiningoriginal form for uni- and bilaterally barbed points. J. Archaeol. Sci. 44, 104–116.

Le Dosseur, G., 2003. Sens et contre sens. Réflexions concernant l’orientation d’ungeste technique observé sur des objets en matières osseuses du Levant. Préhist.Anthropol. Méditerranéennes 12, 115–127.

Liolios, D., 1999. Variabilité et caracteristiques du travail des matières osseuses audebut de l’Aurignacien: Approche technologique et economique. Ph.D.Dissertation. Paris X University.

Liolios, D., 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the EarlyAurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of theAurignacian: Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002. Trabalhos de arqueologia 45, pp. 37–52.

Liouville, M., 2007. Variabilité du cerf Elaphe (Cervus elaphus Linné 1758) au coursdu Pléistocène moyen et supérieur en Europe occidentale : approchesmorphométrique, paléoécologique et cynégétique. Ph.D. Dissertation. MuséumNational d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris.

Macgregor, A., 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn. The Technology of SkeletalMaterials since the Roman Period. Croom Helm, London.

Maroto, J., Soler, I., Masferrer, N., Fullola, J.-M., 1996. Cultural change betweenmiddle and Upper Palaeolithic in Catalonia. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.),The Last Neandertals, The First Anatomically Modern Humans: A Tale about theHuman Diversity: Cultural Change and Human Evolution: The Crisis at 40 Ka BP.Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, pp. 219–250.

Martin, H., 1925. La station aurignacienne de La Quina, Charente. Bull. MémoiresSoc. Anthropol. Paris 6, 10–17.

Martin, H., 1931. La station aurignacienne de La Quina. Bull. Mémoires Soc. Archéol.Historique Charente 20, Angouleme.

Mallye, J.-B., Thiébaut, C., Mourre, V., Costamagno, S., Claud, É., Weisbecker, P., 2012.The Mousterian bone retouchers of Noisetier Cave: experimentation andidentification of marks. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39 (4), 1131–1142.

Mcbrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation ofthe origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453–563.

Meignen, L., 2007. Néandertaliens et Hommes Modernes au Proche-Orient:Connaissances techniques, stratégies de subsitence et mobilité. In:Vandermeersch, B., Maureille, B. (Eds.), Les Néandertaliens Biologie etCultures. Éditions du CTHS, Paris, pp. 231–261.

Mellars, P., 1989. Major issues in the emergence of modern humans. Curr.Anthropol. 30 (3), 349–385.

Mellars, P., 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe.Nature 432, 461–465.

Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), 1989. The Human Revolution: Behavioural andBiological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh UniversityPress, Edinburgh.

Mozota, 2009. El utillaje óseo musteriense del nivel ‘‘D’’ de Axlor (Dima, Vizcaya):análisis de la cadena operativa. Trabajos de Prehistoria 66 (1), 27–46.

Normand, C., 2002. Nouvelles données sur l’Aurignacien de la grotte d’Isturitz(communes d’Isturitz et de Saint-Martin-d’Arberoue; Pyrénées-Atlantiques):l’industrie lithique de la Salle de Saint-Martin (recherches 2000–2002), In: Bon, F.,Maíllo, J.M., Ortega, D. (Eds.), Autour des concepts de Protoaurignacien,d’Aurignacien initial et ancien. Unité et variabilité des comportementstechniques des premiers groupes d’Hommes modernes dans le Sud de la Franceet le Nord de l’Espagne, Actes de la table-ronde de Toulouse, 2003, Madrid, UNED,Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Prehistoria y Arqueología 2002, I, 15, pp. 145–174.

Normand, C., Turq, A., 2005. L’Aurignacien de la grotte d’Isturitz (France): laproduction lamellaire dans la séquence de la salle Saint-Martin. In: Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien: chaînesopératoires et perspectives techno-culturelles. Luxembourg, Archéologiques 1.Actes du symposium C6.7, XIVe Congrès de l’UISPP, Université de Liège, 2–8septembre 2001, pp. 375–394.

Nuzhnyi, D., 1998. The preliminary results of experiments with Aurignacian splitbased points production, hafting and usage. Préhist. Eur. 13, 117–132.

Oakley, K.P., Andrews, P., Keeley, L.H., Clark, J.-D., 1977. A reappraisal of the Clactonspear point. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 43, 13–30.

Otte, M., 1995. L’ivoire paléolithique au Nord-Ouest européen. In: Hahn, J., Menu,M., Taborin, Y., Walter, P., Widemann, F. (Eds.), Actes de la Table ronde: Letravail et l’usage de l’ivoire au Paleolithique superieur. Ravello 29–31 mai 1992.Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Estato, Rome, pp. 103–113.

Pelegrin, J., O’farell, M., 2005. Les lamelles retouchées ou outilisées de Castanet. In:Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien:Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles XIVe congrès de l‘UISPP,Liège 2–8 Septembre 2001. ArcheoLogiques 1, Luxemburg, pp. 103–121.

Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C., Bodu, P., 1988. ‘‘Chaines opératoires’’: un outil pour lepréhistorien. In: Tixier, J. (Ed.), Journée d’études technologiques en Préhistoire.Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 55–62.

Pétillon, J.-M., 2006. Des magdaleniens en armes. Technologie des armatures deprojectile en bois de cervide du Magdalenien supérieur de la Grotte d’Isturitz(Pyrénnées-Atlantiques). Artefacts 10. CEDARC, Treignes.

Pétillon, J.-M., Ducasse, S., 2012. From flakes to grooves: a technical shift inantlerworking during the Last Glacial Maximum in southwest France. J. Hum.Evol. 62, 435–465.

Pétillon, J.-M., Bignon, O., Bodu, P., Cattelain, P., Debout, G., Langlais, M., Laroulandie,V., Plisson, H., Valentin, B., 2011. Hard core and cutting edge: experimentalmanufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips. J. Archaeol. Sci.38, 1266–1283.

Peyrony, D., 1932. Les abris Lartet et du Poisson à Gorge-d’Enfer (Dordogne).L’Anthropologie 42, 241–268.

Peyrony, D., 1935. Le gisement Castanet, Vallon de Castelmerle, Commune deSergeac (Dordogne). Aurignacien I et II. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 42, 418–443.

Pike-Tay, A., Cabrera, V., Bernaldo De Quirós, F., 1999. Seasonal variations of theMiddle–Upper Paleolithic transition at El Castillo, Cueva Morín and El Pendo(Cantabria, Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 36, 283–317.

Piperno M., Giacobini G., 1990–1991. A taphonomic study of the paleosurface ofGuattari Cave. Quaternaria Nova I, 143–161.

Rasines, P., 2005. El final de la Transición. Dataciones de las primeras ocupacionesdel Paleolítico Superior en el centro de la Región Cantábrica. In: Montes, R.,Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), Actas de la reunión científica: neandertales cantábricos,estado de la cuestión. Ministerio de Cultura, Subdirección General dePublicaciones, Madrid, pp. 577–587.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C.,Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., HattZ, C., Heaton, T.J.,Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W.,Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney,C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon agecalibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4).

Rigaud, A., 1972. La technologie du burin appliquée au matériel osseux de laGarenne (Indre). Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 69, 104–108.

Rigaud, J.-P., 2000. Human adaptation to the climatic deterioration of the lastPleniglacial in southwestern France (30,000–20,000 BP). In: Roebroeks, W.,Mussi, M., Svoboda, J., Fennema, K. (Eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age: The MidUpper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 BP. University of Leiden, Leiden,pp. 325–336.

Saccà, D., 2012. Taphonomy of Palaeloxodon antiquus at Castel di Guido (Rome,Italy): proboscidean carcass exploitation in the Lower Palaeolithic. Quatern. Int.276–277, 27–41.

Sánchez Goñi, M.F., Harrison, S.P., 2010. Millennial-scale climatic variability andvegetation changes during the Last Glacial: concepts and terminology. Quatern.Sci. Rev. 29, 2823e2827.

Sánchez Goñi, M.-F., Landais, A., Fletcher, W.J., Naughton, F., Desprat, S., Duprat, J.,2008. Contrasting impacts of Dansgaarde–Oeschger events over a westernEuropean latitudinal transect modulated by orbital parameters. Quatern. Sci.27, 1136–1151.

Sanguino, J., Montes, R., 2005. Nuevos datos para el conocimiento del PaleolíticoMedio en el centro de la región Cantábrica: La cueva de Covalejos. In: Montes,R., Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), Actas de la Reunión Científica: Neandertales Cantábricos,Estado de la Cuestión: Celebrada en el Museo de Altamira los días 20–22 deOctubre de 2004. Ministerio de Cultura, Santander, pp. 489–504.

Schwab, C., 2002. Fiche éclats daphysaires du Paléolithique Moyen et Supérieur: Lagrotte d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). In: Patou-Mathis, M. (Ed.), Retouchoirs,Compresseurs, Percuteurs: os à Impressions et éraillures, Industrie de l’osPréhistorique, Cahier X. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp. 59–73.

Segre, A., Ascenzi, A., 1984. Fontana Ranuccio: Italy’s Earliest Middle PleistoceneHominid site. Curr. Anthropol. 25, 230–233.

Shea, J.J., 2006. The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence fromAfrica, the Levant, and Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 823–846.

Shea, J.J., 2007. The boulevard of broken dreams: evolutionary discontinuity in thelate Pleistocene Levant. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.),Rethinking the Human Evolution. McDonald Institute, Oxford, pp. 219–232.

Shea, J.J., Matthew, L.S., 2010. Complex projectile technology and Homo sapiensdispersal into Western Eurasia. PaleoAnthropology, 100–122.

Soler, N., 1981. Les primeres indústries del Paleolític Superior al nord de Catalunya:L’Aurinyacià del Reclau-Viver. Estudi General: Rev. Facul. Lletres Univ. Girona 1,13–30.

Soler Subils, J., Soler Masferrer, N., Maroto, J., 2008. L’Arbreda’s archaic Aurignaciandates clarified. Eur. Prehist. 5, 45–55.

Soressi, M., D’errico, F., 2007. Pigments, gravures, parures: les comportementssymboliques controversés des Néandertaliens. In: Vandermeersch, B., Maureille,B. (Eds.), Les Néandertaliens Biologie et Cultures. Editions du CTHS, Paris, pp.297–309.

Soressi, M., Mcpherron, S.P., Lenoir, M., Dogandzic, T., Goldberg, P., Jacobs, Z.,Maigrot, Y., Martisius, N.L., Miller, C.E., Rendu, W., Richards, M., Skinner, M.M.,Steele, T.E., Talamo, S., Texier, J.-P., 2013. Neandertals made the first specializedbone tools in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302730110.

Soulier, M.-C., 2013. Entre alimentaire et technique: l’exploitation animale auxdébuts du Paléolithique supérieur. Stratégies de subsistance et chaînesopératoires de traitement du gibier à Isturitz, La Quina aval, Roc-de-Combe etLes Abeilles. Ph.D. Dissertaion. Université Toulouse-le-Mirail.

Soulier, M.-C., Goutas, N., Normand, C., Legrand, A., White, R., in press. Regardscroisés de l’archéozoologue et du technologue sur l’exploitation des ressourcesanimales à l’Aurignacien archaïque: l’exemple d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques,France). In: Thiébault, C., Costamagno, S., Claud, E. (dir.), Exploitation desressources organiques à la fin du Paléolithique moyen et au début duPaléolithique supérieur: interactions entre environnement et comportementstechniques, XXVIIe Congrès Préhistorique de France. Mémoires de la SociétéPréhistorique Française.






































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302730110

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302730110


Stiner M., 1990–1991. The Guattari faunas then and now. Quaternaria Nova I, 163–192.

Stuckenrath, R., 1978. Dataciones de Carbono 14. In: González Echegaray, J.,Freeman, J.G. (Eds.), Vida y muerte en Cueva Morín. Institución cultural deCantabria, Santander, pp. 215.

Szmidt, C.-C., 2005. Nouvelles datations radiocarbone par spectrométrie de massepar accélérateur (SMA) au site d’Isturitz. In: Normand, C. et al. (Eds.), Isturitz(Salle de Saint-Martin). Rapport de fouilles programmées 2005, Service Régionald’Archéologie d’Aquitaine.

Szmidt, C.-C., Normand, C., Burr, G., Hodgins, G., LaMotta, S., 2010. AMS 14C datingthe Protoaurignacian/Early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France. Implications forNeanderthal-modern human interaction and the timing of technical andcultural innovations in Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 758–768.

Talamo, S., Soressi, M., Roussel, M., Richards, M., Hublin, J.-J., 2012. A radiocarbonchronology for the complete Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transitional sequenceof Les Cottés (France). J. Archaeol. Sci. 39 (1), 175–183.

Tartar, E., 2009. De l’os à l’outil – caractérisation technique, économique et socialede l’utilisation de l’os à l’aurignacien ancien. Étude de trois sites: l’Abri Castanet(secteurs nord et sud), Brassempouy (Grotte des Hyènes et Abri Dubalen) etGatzarria. Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne University.

Tartar, E., 2012. The recognition of a new type of bone tools in Early Aurignacianassemblages: implications for understanding the appearance of osseoustechnology in Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 2348–2360.

Tartar, E., White, R., 2013. The manufacture of Aurignacian split-based points: anexperimental challenge. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 2723–2745.

Tejero, J.-M., 2010. La explotación de las materias duras animales en el Paleolíticosuperior inicial. Una aproximación tecno-económica a las producciones óseasauriñacienses en la Península Ibérica. Ph.D. Dissertation. UNED University,Madrid.

Tejero, J.-M., 2013. La explotación de las materias óseas en el Auriñaciense.Caracterización tecnoeconómica de las producciones del Paleolítico superiorinicial en la Península Ibérica. British Archaeological Reports. InternationalSeries 2469. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Tejero, J.-M., in press. Spanish Aurignacian projectile points. An example of the firstEuropean Palaeolithic hunting weapons in osseous material. In: Langley, M.(Ed.), Osseous Projectile Weaponry: Towards an Understanding of PleistoceneCultural Variability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tejero, J.-M., Christensen, M., Bodu, P., 2012. Red deer antler technology and earlymodern humans in Southeast Europe: an experimental study. J. Archaeol. Sci.39, 332–346.

Tejero, J.-M., Arrizabalaga, A., Villaluenga, A., submitted for publication. The Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian retouchers of Labeko Koba (Basque Country.Spain). A Techno-Economic and Chrono-Cultural Interpretation Using Lithic andFaunal Data. J. Archaeol. Sci.

Texier, P.-J., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.-P., Poggenpoel, C., Tribolo, C., 2013.The context, form and significance of the MSA engraved ostrich eggshellcollection from Diepkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa. J. Archaeol.Sci. 40 (9), 3412–3431.

Teyssandier, N., 2007. En route vers l’ouest. Les débuts de l’aurignacien en Europe.British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1638. Hadrian Books,Oxford.

Teyssandier, N., 2008. Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the UpperPaleolithic in Europe. World Archaeol. 40, 493–519.

Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the SwabianAlp: the relevance of the technological study of the Geissenklösterle (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) lithic and organic productions. In: Zilhao, J., D’errico, F.(Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the TransitionalTechnocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications: Proceeding of

Symposium 6. I of the XIV Congress of the UISPP (University of Liège, Belgium,September 2–6, 2001. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Lisbon, pp. 179–196.

Teyssandier, N., Bon, F., Bordes, J.-G., 2010. Within projectile range: some thoughtson the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe. J. Anthropol. Res. 66, 209–229.

Thieme, H., 1997. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385,807–810.

Trinkaus, E., Zilhão, J., 2013. Paleoanthropological implications of the Pestera cuOase and its contents. In: Trinkaus, E., Constantin, S., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), Life andDeath at the Pestera cu Oase. A Setting for Modern Human Emergence inEurope. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 389–400.

Turq, A., Normand, C., Texier, J.-P., 1998. Complexe archéologique de la colline deGaztelu (Isturitz – Oxocelhaya – Erberua). Rapport de fouille programmée 1998,Service régional de l’Archéologie d’Aquitaine.

Verna, C., Dujardin, V., Trinkaus, E., 2012. The Early Aurignacian human remainsfrom La Quina-Aval (France). J. Hum. Evol. 62, 605–617.

Vincent, A., 1993. L’outillage osseux au Paléolithique moyen: une nouvelleapproche. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université Paris X Nanterre.

White, R., 1992. Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition. Curr.Anthropol. 33, 85–108.

White, R., 2001. Personal Ornaments from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure.Athena 2, 41–46.

White, R., 2007. Systems of personal ornamentation in the early Upper Palaeolithic:methodological challenges and new observations. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: NewBehavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal ofModern Humans. McDonald Insitute for Archaeological Research, Cambrigde,pp. 287–302.

White, R., Mensan, R., Bourrillon, R., Cretin, C., Higham, T., Clark, A., Sisk, M., Tartar,E., Gardère, P., Goldberg, P., Pelegrin, J., Valladas, H., Tisnerat-Laborde, N., deSanoit, J., Chambellan, D., Chiotti, L., 2012. Context and dating of Aurignacianvulvar representations from Abri Castanet, France. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109,8450–8455.

Wood, R.E., Arrizabalaga, A., Camps, M., Fallon, S., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.J., Jones, R.,Maroto, J., De La Rasilla, M., Santamaría, D., Soler, J., Soler, N., Villaluenga, A.,Higham, T.F.G., 2014. The chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic innorthern Iberia: new insights from L’Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La Viña. J. Hum.Evol. 69, 91–109.

Wood, R., Bernaldo de Quirós, F., Maíllo, F., Tejero, J.-M., Neira, A., Higham, T.F.G.,submitted for publication. El Castillo, Northem Spain, and the TransitionalAurignacian using radicocarbon dating to assess site taphonomy. J. Human Evol.

Yellen, J.-E., 1998. Barbed bone points: tradition and continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa. African Archaeol. 15, 173–198.

Zilhão, J., 2006. Chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition inthe Iberian Peninsula. Pyrenae 37 (1), 7–84.

Zilhão, J., D’errico, F., 1999. The chronology and taphonomy of the earliestAurignacian and its implications for the understanding of neandertalextinction. J. World Prehistory 13 (1), 1–68.

Zilhão, J., Trinkaus, E., Constantin, S., Milota, S�., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Danciu, A.,Rougier, H., Quilès, J., Rodrigo, R., 2007. The Pes�tera cu Oase people, Europe’searliest modern human. In: Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C., Mellars, P. (Eds.),Rethinking the Human Revolution. Cambridge. McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 249–262.

Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D.E., Badal-García, E., D’errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., Douka, K.,Higham, T.F.G., Martínez-Sánchez, M.J., Montes-Bernárdez, R., Murcia-Mascarós,S., Pérez-Sirvent, C., Roldán-García, C., Vanhaeren, M., Villaverde, V., Wood, R.,Zapata, J., 2010. Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by IberianNeandertals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 1023–1028.








































































Documents

Towards complexity in osseous raw material exploitation by the ﬁrst anatomically modern humans in Europe: Aurignacian antler working