Upper Paleolithic Land Use in the Périgord: A Topographic Approach to Subsistence and Settlement 9780860543244, 9781407341293

Citation preview

Upper Paleolithic Land Use in the Perigord A Topographic Approach to Subsistence and Settlement

Randall White

BAR International Series 253

1985

B.A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R Walker, M.A.

�-S253, 1985: 'Upper Paleolithic Land Use in the P�rigord' © Randa 11 White , 1985.

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860543244 paperback ISBN 9781407341293 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860543244 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

TO CHRIS,

AND

ERIN

. .. This

is

for

you

TO JEAN-PHILLIPPE . ..Je

te

dois

beaucoup

Table

of

Contents

Acknowledgements

i x

List

of

Tables

xi

List

of

F igures

Chapter

1 :

x iii

I ntroductory Overview The

Problem

1

The

Time

1

The

Region

Period

2

The Approach Chapter

2 :

A Brief

4

History

of

Research

in

the

Perigord

I ntroduction

7

P ioneering

7

Research

The Recognition Tools

as

Sources

of

Variablity

Chronological of

I ndicators

Destruction

9 9 1 0

Breuil and Peyrony: the Index Fossil Approach

1 1

Quantification

1 3

and

Sampling

Standardization

Problems

Interpretive The Sample S ites Recent

of

Known

1 4

Problems Upper

1 5

Paleolithic 1 6

Developments Theoretical Artifact Site

1 7 Goals

1 8

Analysis

1 9

Excavation

Paleoenvironmental Regional

2 0 Studies

S tudies

Assessing the Data Settlement Studies

iv

Available

2 0 2 0

for 2 1

Chapter

3 :

The Present and the Perigord

P ast

Environment

o f

Generalities

2 5

An Overview of

t he

Present

B iotic

Complex

Geology

2 5

Soils

3 2

Climate and Microclimate

3 3

Vegetation

3 3

Fauna

3 8

S ummary

3 8

I nferences and Hypotheses Concerning Late G lacial B iotic Complex

C hapter

4 :

2 5

the 3 8

Geology

3 9

Soils

4 0

Climate and Microclimate

4 1

Vegetation

4 3

Fauna

4 4

S ummary

5 0

A General Overview of the Upper Paleolithic in t he P erigord I ntroduction

5 2

The M iddle/Upper

P aleolithic

Transition

Backgrond Material

5 2 Technology

5 3

Subsistence Activities Demography Personal

and

Social

5 4 Organization

Ornaments

Seasonality Long

D istance

I ssues i n Early Systematics

5 2

Upper

5 6 5 7 5 8

Contacts

5 8

P aleolithic 5 9

The Magdalenian

6 1

Sytematics

6 1

Subsistence

and

Settlement

Scheduling

7 2

Demography and Summary and Chapter

5 :

Social

Organization

Conclusions

The Approach: Goals, and L imitations

7 3 Advantages, 7 5

7 5

Research

8 0

Design

of Relevant

Data

8 2

Collection Procedures

8 2

Analytical

8 3

Explicit and D ata

Procedures

L imitations

o f

Procedures 8 4

S ample Limitations

8 4

Areal

8 4

Estimates

Topography as

a Constant

8 5

Solar Orientation

8 5

S ite

8 6

Definition

Chronology

and Contemporaneity

Geographic Restrictions Levels, Temporal S ites

Occurrences,

a nd

S ites

Periodization

Excluded

Observed

8 6 8 7

f rom Study

Conclusions 6 :

7 3

Some Thoughts on Settlement Pattern Analysis and i ts Application to t he Perigord

Choice

Chapter

7 0

8 7 8 7 8 8 8 8

P atterns

and

t heir

I nterpretation

I ntroduction

9 0

Locational

9 0

Results

v i

River Valley Occupation

9 0

Locational Associations Between Upper Paleolithic Archeological Cultures

9 3

Frequency of Time Period

9 5

Occurrences

Tributary Versus Occupation

by

Major Valley 9 6

D istance Relationships Between Occurrences and Rivers Altitude Above River

1 03

Proximity

1 08

Dry

to Water

Valley

Occupation

1 09

Solar Orientation

1 10

River

1 18

Fords

Meanders

1 32

Other Potential S ite Location

Influences

on 1 32

Summary, Observations, and Hypotheses Concerning Location S ite Area Area

1 33 1 35

Distributions

Areal Estimates a Maj or River Area and Fords

1 35

and

Distance

D istance

to 1 40

tö

Documented 1 40

Summary, Observations, and Hypotheses Concerning Area Some

9 7

Preliminary Tests

1 48 1 49

I ntroduction

1 49

Hypotheses, Test Implications, and Relevant Data

1 49

v ii

Chapter

7 :

Summary Remarks Research

and

Suggestions

Contributions

the

Present

Suggestions

of

for

I Topographic

Appendix

I I

Data

at

and

Level

Future

1 67 1 68 1 69

1 75 for the

Upper P erigord

Appendix

I II

Appendix

IV Maps of Known Occurrences Upper Paleolithic Cultural i n the P erigord

References

S ize

the Local

Form

Lambert Coordinates Paleolithic Sites in Raw

Study

Future Research

Research

Appendix

for

Locational

Cited

D ata

1 77 1 84

for Each Period 2 04 2 26

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Any r esearch project r equires t he co-operation and a ssistance o f a great many people. This i s especially t rue of r esearch on f oreign s oil. I have benefitted f rom t he help o f numerous people, both w ithin and outside of t he French s cholarly community. I t would be inexcusable t o neglect acknowledging the contribution of each of them. Foremost among those who have helped are Jean-Philippe a nd Thorgit Rigaud, who took a f amily of anglophones under t heir w ing and helped t hem t hrough many day to day problems. Jean-Philippe t aught me to excavate; he t aught me about t he P erigord; he put h is r esources at my d isposal. Having i nvested h is confidence i n me, he asked only f or r igorous research i n return. I hope t hat t his work will be p artial compensation f or his e fforts on my b ehalf. I n the e arly s tages of research, Professor Frangois Bordes a llowed me t he use of t he l ibrary of h is i nstitute. Madame Denise de Sonneville-Bordes provided f rank c riticism o f my p lanned project, which became more r igorous a s a result. Their contribution i s willingly and g ratefully acknowledged. Spending t ime i n Frangois Bordes's l aboratory was a heady experience for a young graduate s tudent. Comments, critism, and help were willingly volunteered by some o f t he foremost archeological s pecialists i n France, in an a tmosphere of f riendship and co-operation. For s uch f riendship and c o-operation, I e specially thank Frangoise Delpech, Henri L aville, Jean-Pierre Texier, Christine and Bertrand K ervazo, Marie-Frangoise D iot, and M ichel Lenoir. I t i s s afe to s ay that this project could not have been c arried out without t he expertise and knowledge o f Christian Archambeau. Appendixes I I, I II, and IV bear the s trong i mprint o f Christian's knowledge o f t he l ocation o f P aleolithic s ites in the Perigord. For a llowing me to borrow t his knowledge, I offer h im my appreciation. Dr. Jean Gaussen and Madame Gaussen opened their home to a s tranger. Dr. Gaussen patiently and generously s howed me the f ruits of h is r esearch i n the I sle Valley. For this...my thanks. Guy Celerier acted as guide V alley and gave me my f irst t aste o f

to s ites i n P echarmant.

the

Dronne

I a lso wish to thank Jan S imek, Roy Larick, John P feiffer, Helle Juel-Jensen and Sharlyn White f or i mportant companionship and moral s upport. The d irection s ubjected to t he

and form o f this positive i nfluence o f

i x

work have a number of

been North

American s cholars. They are Dr. M ichael Asch, D r. Bryan Gordon, Dr. Clifford H ickey, D r. Maxine K leindiest, Dr. Richard Lee, Dr. Albert Mohr, D r. Loretta Reinhardt, Dr. Bruce Schroeder, and Dr. Rosamund Vanderburgh. A s pecial p lace i s r eserved f or t wo people: Dr. D avid Lubell, who s tarted me on my way, and Dr. M argaret Conkey, who has been a s ource of s upport and encouragement s ince our f irst meeting. T he r esearch described here was made f inancially possible by generous grants f rom t he Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of C anada, i n t he f orm of an M .A. Scholarship and t hree s uccessive Doctoral Fellowships. I n addition, the National Museum o f Canada provided c ontract money which f acilitated t he l atter s tages of data collection. A publication s ubsidy was generously provided by t he Mellon Foundation. S ince coming to my present position at New York University, I have benefitted f rom a c lose a ssociation with my colleagues, e specially P rofessors Bert S alwen, Howard W inters, Fred Myers and Jean De Rousseau. I have also been a ided beyond measure by the encouragement o f Professor Annette Weiner. Several s tudents at NYU have provided s timulating comments and discussion, most notably Anne T ay, Gene Reyes, H ildi Hendrickson, Patience Freeman, and Robin Frost. Annie K ing s truggled bravely t hrough t he battle with word processing and French orthography. With G lenn and

and

profound f eeling, I sabelle White, for

I wish to t hank my p arents, their constant s upport.

Finally, I wish to thank Joan S chneider energy t hat s he g ives me.

f or

t he

l ove

LIST OF TABLES Table

T able

T able

Table

Table

T able

T able

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

T able

Table

3 .1

4 .1

4 .2

4 .3

4 .4

4 .5

6 .1

6 .2

6 .3

6 .4

6 .5

6 .6

6 .7

6 .8

Archeological f aunal t o Upper P aleolithic P erigord

s pecies according t ime periods i n the 4 6

The number of M iddle and Upper P aleolithic s ites s howing dominance o f e ach major herbivore s pecies

5 5

Average adult l ive weight e stimates for a number of Upper Paleolithic herbivore s pecies

5 6

M inimum number of i ndividuals weight e stimates f or l evel 1 4 Abri Pataud

5 6

Bone p ercentages by s pecies 8 -10 at Combe Grenal Burin/scraper f requencies Magdalenian assemblages

and l ive at t he

f or

l evels 5 7

o f

Associations, w ithin t he s ame s ite, o ccurrences of different periods

6 6 o f 9 4

Breakdown of Upper P aleolithic periods by t ype and number o f occurrences

9 5

The f requency of major and t ributary valley occurrences f or each Upper Paleolithic t ime period

9 7

D istance relationships ( in meters) between occurrences and r ivers f or each Upper Paleolithic t ime period

9 7

The r atio of occurrences over and under 1 000 meters f rom the nearest r iver f or each Upper Paleolithic t ime period

1 02

Mean a ltitude above t he nearest r iver f or each Upper Paleolithic period ( in meters)

1 04

The r atio of occurrences over and under 2 0 meters above t he n earest r iver f or e ach Upper Paleolithic t ime period...

1 04

D istribution of Upper P aleolithic occurrences according to the s ide o f t he major r iver drainage i n which they occur

1 11

x i

Table

T able

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

T able

T able

6 .9

6 .10

6 .11

6 .12

6 .13

6 .14

6 .15

6 .16

6 .17

Ratio of occurrences over and under 1 000 meters f rom t he nearest known ford f or e ach Upper P aleolithic period

1 23

Mean distance to t he nearest f ord by t ime period

1 23

Small/large occurrence c ultural period

r atios

known

f or e ach 1 36

Mean distances to nearest known f ord f or l arge and small occurrences o f each t ime period

1 47

Percentage of i dentifiable herbivore e lements f or Aurignacian and Upper P grigordian l evels at La Ferrassie and Abri P ataud

1 50

Percentage of reindeer bones f or Magdalenian l evels at La Madeleine

1 53

MNI and l ive weight e stimates for two Magdalenian f aunal a ssemblages f rom Gare de Couze

1 54

Relationship between s ite s ize and t he presence or absence of bone needles for P grigord Magdalenian s ites

1 64

Scraper/burin f requencies, by s ize c ategory, f or Magdalenian occurrences....

1 65

x ii

LIST OF FIGURES F igure

1 .1

The

F igure

3 .1

The Aquitaine Basin and physiographic f eatures

F iggre

3 .2

P erigord

3 adjacent 2 6

An e ast-west topographic profile t he P erigord, s howing c hanges i n bedrock and relief

3 .3

The major

F igure

3 .4

S chematic representation o f rock s helter f ormation s howing t he deterioration o f water-charged, s oluble l imestone t hrough f rost action

3 0

Monthly differences i n s olar energy receipt betweem d ifferentially oriented s lopes

3 4

The l ate P leistocene c limatic c urve s howing a ssociated archeological c ultures and g lacial events

4 2

Radiocarbon dates for a number of Magdalenian l evels i n France s howing chronological overlap between a ssemblages typologically attributed to different phases

6 5

The variability of Magdalenian assemblages based on burin/scraper r atios

6 9

The distribution o f Lower Perigordian occurrences with respect to distance f rom nearest r iver

9 1

The distribution o f Aurignacian occurences with respect to distance f rom nearest r iver

9 1

The distribution of Upper Perigordian occurrences with respect to distance f rom nearest r iver

9 1

The distribution of S olutrean occurrences with respect to distance f rom nearest r iver

9 2

The distribution o f Magdalenian occurrences with respect to distance f rom nearest r iver

9 2

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

3 .5

3 .6

4 .1

4 .2

6 .1

6 .2

6 .3

6 .4

6 .5

i n

t he

P erigord

2 7

F igure

F igure

anticlines

through t he

2 9

F igure

F igure

Figure

F igure

F igure

F igure

Figure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

6 .6

6 .7

68

6 .9

6 .10

6 .11

6 .12

6 .13

6 .14

6 .15

6 .16

6 .17

6 .18

6 .19

6 .20

The distribution of p ioneering Magdalenian occurrences with respect to d istance f rom nearest r iver

9 2

The distribution of Lower Perigordian occurrences with respect t o d istance from major r iver

9 8

The distribution o f Aurignacian occurrences with respect to distance f rom major r iver

9 8

The distribution of Upper Perigordian occurrences with respect to distance f rom major r iver

9 9

The distribution of Solutrean occurrences with respect t o distance from major r iver

9 9

The distribution of Magdalenian occurrences with respect to d istance f rom major r iver

1 00

The distribution o f p ioneering Magdalenian occurrences with respect to distance f rom major r iver

1 00

The distribution of Magdalenian V I occurrences w ith respect to distance f rom major r iver

1 01

The distribution o f Lower P erigordian occurrences with r espect to a ltitude above nearest r iver

1 05

The distribution of Aurignacian occurrences with respect to a ltitude above the nearest r iver

1 05

The d istribution of Upper P erigordian occurrences with respect to a ltitude above nearest r iver

1 06

The distribution of Solutrean occurrences w ith respect t o a ltitude above nearest r iver

1 06

The distribution of Magdalenian occurrences with respect to a ltitiude above nearest r iver

1 07

The distribution o f pioneering Magdalenian occurrences with respect to a ltitude above nearest r iver

1 07

The orientation d istribution o f Perigordian occurrences

1 12

x iv

Lower

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

6 .21

6 .22

6 .23

6 .24

6 .25

6 .26

6 .27

6 .28

6 .29

6 .30

6 .31

6 .32

6 .33

6 .34

6 .35

The orientation distribution o f Periordian occurrences

Upper 1 12

The orientation d istribution o f Aurignacian occurrences

1 13

The orientation distribution o f Solutrean occurrences

1 13

The orientation distribution o f Magdalenian occurrences

1 14

The orientation distribution o f P erigord Upper Paleolithic s ites r egardless o f occurrences present

1 15

Known Upper Paleolithic s ites i n Couze Valley s howing t he c lear preferences for s outh-facing occupation

the

1 16

The distribution o f Lower P erigordian occurrences with respect t o d istance f rom nearest known ford

1 20

The distribution o f Aurignacian occurrences with respect to distance f rom nearest known ford

1 20

The d istribution o f Upper P erigordian occurrences w ith respect to distance f rom nearest known ford

1 21

The d istribution f o Solutrean occurrences with r espect to d istance f rom nearest known f ord

1 21

The distribution o f Magdalenian occurrences with respect t o d istance f rom nearest known f ord

1 22

The d istribution o f p ioneering Magdalenian occurrences with r espect to d istance f rom nearest known f ord

1 22

The l ocation o f fords and t heir r elationship to l arge Magdalenian occurrences i n t he Vezere Valley

1 25

An example of t he phenomenon o f i nverted relief i n the Perigord r evealing t hat t he Vezere R iver f ollows t he axis o f an anticline

1 26

The r elationship between Magdalenian occurrences and f ords i n t he I sle Valley

1 27

XV

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

F igure

6 .36

6 .37

6 .38

6 .39

6 .40

6 .41

6 .42

6 .43

6 .44

6 .45

6 .46

6 .47

6 .48

6 .49

The location o f the Magdalenian o ccurrence o f Rochereil i n a ssociation w ith a f ord i n t he Dronne R iver

1 28

The distribution of areal estimates f or Lower P erigordian occurrences

1 38

The distribution of areal e stimates f or Aurignacian occurrences

1 38

The d istribution of areal e stimates f or Upper P erigordian occurrences

1 38

The distribution of areal f or Solutrean occurrences

1 39

e stimates

The distribution of areal estimates f or Magdalenian occurrences

1 39

The d istribution of areal e stimates f or p ioneering Magdalenian occurrences..

1 39

The r elationship between e stimated area of occupation and d istance t o major r iver f or Lower Perigordian occurrences

1 41

The relationship between e stimated area of occupation and d istance t o major r iver f or Aurignacian occurrences

•

•

1 41

The r elationship between e stimated area of occupation and distance to major r iver f or Upper P erigordian occurrences

1 42

The r elationship between e stimated area o f occupation and distance t o major r iver f or Solutrean occurrences.

1 42

The r elationship between e stimated area of occupation and d istance t o n earest r iver f or Magdalenian occurrences

1 43

The relationship between areal e stimates and d istance to nearest known f ord f or Lower Pgrigordian occurrences

1 44

The r elationship between areal e stimates and distance to nearest known f ord f or Aurignacian occurrences

1 44

xvi

F igure

F igure

F igure

6 .50

6 .51

6 .52

The r elationship between areal estimates and distance to nearest known f ord f or Upper P erigordian occurrences

1 45

The r elationship between areal estimates and distance t o nearest known f ord f or Solutrean occurrences

1 45

The relationship between areal e stimates and d istance to nearest known f ord f or Magdalenian occurrences...

1 46

xvii

CHAPTER

1

I NTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW THE

PROBLEM

The problem to which this research i s addressed can be s imply s tated: i n s pite of well over a century of s erious prehistoric research i n t he c lassic Perigord region of Southwestern France, we s till have l ittle understanding o f t he s ettlement/subsistence s trategies of l ate Paleolithic human groups i n this area. The traditional emphasis on typology and cultural s tratigraphy, while i ndispensible, l ed to t he neglect o f an i mportant s ource of data, t he l ocational characteristics o f t he s ites themselves. I t was hoped t hat i f s uch a body of s ettlement data could be c ollected some o f the observed assemblage variation would pattern accordingly. I n the following chapters i t will become obvious that a body of a ssemblage i nformation collected and analyzed to answer chronostratigraphic questions i s l ess than adequate i n dealing with questions r elated to s ettlement and s ubsistence behavior. This problem i s magnified in the P erigord, which has been exploited archeologically s ince t he beginnings o f t he s tudy o f prehistory i n the mid-nineteenth century. The questions asked by workers s uch a s Lartet and Christy could be, and were, answered by much l ess precise and s ystematic r ecovery techniques t han are required today. As a result, much of the archeol ogical i nformation potentially available to us has been forever destroyed by the i nevitable t rial-and-error of s uch p ioneers. Hence, f rom t he beginning i t was a ssumed t hat t his s tudy would produce only probabilistic s tatements and t estable hypotheses capable o f guiding f urther r esearch. THE TIME

PERIOD

The obvious necessity o f a s ufficiently l arge s ample o f s ites pertaining to as s hort a t ime period as possible f urther complicates a regional approach i n Southwestern France. Moreover, t he problem of post-occupational a lteration of the l andscape h as to be confronted and/or controlled to allow for more-or-less uniformitarian 1

assumptions regarding t he n ature of the l ocal topography and t he nature of t he s ample of s ites at our disposal. I n order to maximize t he possibility of a v alid and useful s tudy, I chose t o f ocus on the Magdalenian, defined here as phases I I to VI i n Breuil's ( 1 913) s cheme which, according to Bordes ( 1 958:1968) and de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1 960, 1 966, 1 967, 1 973) i s c haracterized by a s triking homogeneity through t ime i n i ts l ithic c omponent. I n addition, t he Magdalenian i s t he most f requently represented o f French Upper Paleolithic cultural p eriods, being present i n more t han 8 5 s ites within t he P erigord. Hence the problem o f s ample s ize i s reduced. Furthermore, s ince t he end of Magdalenian t imes topographic a lteration has been minimal ( F. Bordes and J .P. Texier, personal communication). This a llows one to make t he very i mportant a ssumption t hat the topographic r egime i n p lace today a lso c haracterized the l ate P leistocene. Unfortunately, the t ime p eriod represented by t he Magdalenian s ample i s approximately 6 000 years ( 1 7,000 to 1 1,000 BP) but t his t ime span could only have been r educed at the expense of s ample s ize. As of 1 977 I had collected detailed l ocational data on nearly a ll of t he Magdalenian s ites i n t he P erigord and some very promising p atterns began to emerge when l ocational and s ite attributes were compared to a ssemblage attributes. I t hen expanded t he s ample t o i nclude the entire Upper Paleolithic i n t he r egion, i n order t o monitor change through t ime i f any e xisted. After returning to the f ield i n 1 979, I now have v isited and collected l ocational data on approximately 1 80 Upper Paleolithic s ites i n t he P erigord. The Magdalenian, because o f t he advantages outlined above, f orms the baseline for t his s tudy. The r est of t he Upper Paleolithic i s u sed a s a source of comparison and i s g iven l ess detailed attention ( especially a s r egards archeological assemblages). THE REGION The geographic f ocus of this s tudy i s both c alculated and arbitrary. I h ave c hcsen to l imit my r esearch t o t he Perigord region p roper ( Figure 1 .1) which c onforms c losely to t he modern boundaries o f t he Department o f Dordogne. These boundaries are undoubtedly arbitrary with regard to Paleolithic behavior. Nevertheless, w ithin t hese boundaries i s f ound " what i s at present the , world's r ichest concentration of Upper P aleolithic s ites" ( Sackett 1 968:63). Moreover, t he adequate e xcavation and c uration o f collections by Denis Peyrony and t he monumental typological s ynthesis by Denise de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1 960) l end a completeness to t he archeological r ecord f or the P erigord which i s normally not f ound beyond i ts borders. For i nstance, attempts to extend t his s tudy i nto t he adjoining Department of G ironde were f rustrating. Adequate non-existent,

a ssemblage except f or

i nformation was the most recent 2

practically excavations.

F igure

1 .1:

T he P grigord

( after L av ille

3 .

1 973:

P late

1 2)

Therefore, THE

t he P erigord b ias

i s a p ractical n ecessity.

APPROACH

I consider t he r esearch described h ere t o b e a f orm o f s ettlement p attern analysis, b ut t his t erm h as b een s o w idely applied a nd d ifferentially defined ( cf. P arsons 1 972) t hat i t i s n ecessary t o e laborate. My definition i s t hat o f W illey ( 1953:1) T he t erm •s ettlement p atterns' i s defined h ere a s t he w ay i n w hich man d isposed h imself over t he l andscape on which h e l ived. I t r efers t o dwellings, t o t heir a rrangement, and t o t he n ature and d isposition o f o ther b uildings p ertaining t o c ommunity l ife. T hese s ettlements r eflect t he n atural e nvironment, t he l evel o f t echnology o n which t he b uilders operated, a nd v arious i nstitutions o f s ocial i nteraction a nd c ontrol which t he c ulture maintained. A lthough t his definition i s g eared t o c omplex s ocieties, I f ind i t p referable t o more r ecent u sages b ecause i t does not a ssume t hat s ettlement p atterns a re p rimarily a r eflection o f r esource e xtraction s trategies. W illey's definition does not deny t he p ossibility o f s ocial a nd i deological motivations i n s ettlement s trategies. I f eel t hat t hese motivations h ave been u nderstressed i n much o f t he r ecent, e cologically-oriented l iterature, a s h as t he s ocial e nvironment a s a d imension o f s ettlement. At t his point I w ish t o express my s trong d isagreement w ith Chang's ( 1962, 1 968) d ichotomy b etween s ettlement a nd c ommunity p attern. Chang ( 1962:) a rgues t hat: . ..the t erm " settlement p atterns" b e r etained a nd r eserved f or t hose p hysical a spects o f t he s ettlement t hat a re d irectly r elated t o e cology and s ubsistence o f t he i nhabitants, a nd t hat t hose a spects t hat c an b est b e i nterpreted i n t erms o f s ocial o rganization a nd s ocial p sychology t he t erm " community p attern" b e c oined. For m e, t his b reakdown denies t he i nter-relatedness o f t he s ocial a nd i deological a spects o f c ulture w ith t he " core f eatures" ( cf. S teward 1 955). A s ynthesis o f t he concepts o f c ommunity a nd s ettlement i s n ecessary i f we a re t o t urn a s tatic a rcheological r ecord i nto a dynamic a nd holistic c onstruction o f p rehistoric c ulture. H elm ( 1968:118) s ees no d ifficulty i n t reatment o f s ettlement a nd c ommunity which under t he r ubric o f s ocio-territoriality. 4

a s ynthetic s he combines

B y s ocioterritorial, I s pecify t hose k inds o f groups which c onjoin s ettlement p attern w ith c ommunity p attern ( Helm 1 969). That i s, I am c oncerned both w ith " any f orm o f l ocale" or r ange ( Chang 1 962), a nd w ith t he n ature o f t he s ocial g roup c onstituted b y t he o ccupants o f t he l ocale o r r ange. I t i s t his point o f v iew t o which I a dhere i n t his s tudy a nd which a llows s ettlement v ariability t o be v iewed i n a b road r ange o f b ehavioral t erms. P arsons ( 1972) a stutely notes t he p resence o f both a B ritish and an American t radition i n s ettlement s tudies. To t his point I h ave e xcluded t he British t radition f rom d iscussion. T he British approach t o s ettlement, which i s g rounded i n h istorical g eography r ather t han a nthropology h as t aken on r eal i mportance i n t he p ast decade ( cf. C larke 1 977, and Hodder a nd Orten 1 976, a s well a s H iggs a nd V ita-Finzi 1 972; V ita-Finzi 1 978; Roper 1 979). N evertheless, t heoretical a nd p ractical c onsiderations m ake much o f t he British approach ( or r ather approaches) u nsuitable f or t he p resent s tudy ( see Chapter 4 ) I n b rief, my r esearch s trategy was t o c haracterize Upper P aleolithic s ites i n t he P erigord i n t erms o f l ocational and a ssemblage a ttributes, t hen t o examine t he r elationships b etween t he t wo. T he c ategories o f data w hich I c ollected i nclude a rtifact f requencies, f aunal c ounts, s ite a reas, and l ocational c haracteristics s uch a s s ite orientation and d istance t o water. I do not presume t o h ave exhausted t he d ata b ase a vailable f or s ettlement s tudies. I t i s entirely possible t hat f orms o f data t hat I d id n ot t hink to c ollect or c onsidered i rrelevant w ill p rove i mportant t o s ome f uture r esearcher. I t i s a lso p robable, a s I w ill a ttempt t o s how f urther o n, t hat t raditional r esearch s trategies have not r ecovered c ertain c lasses o f archeological s ites. T herefore, t he f ull r ange o f s ettlement v ariability may not b e r epresented i n t his s tudy. The approach t aken h ere i s i nitially i nductive. C ertain p atterns are i nduced f rom a p reviously c ollected b ut p oorly documented a nd p oorly u nderstood s ample o f s ites a nd a ssemblages i n o rder t o f ormulate hypotheses a nd t est i mplications f or f uture r esearch, which w ill m ake u se o f i mproved a nalytical and r ecovery t echniques. This a pproach r esults f rom a f irm b elief t hat, i n order f or meaningful p roblem-oriented r esearch t o t ake p lace, o ne o r more g eneral b ehavioral models must b e f ormulated and t heir t est i mplications c onsidered. I t i s hoped t hat t he t entative construction o f l ate P aleolithic s ubsistence/ settlement s trategies w ith which t his work c oncludes w ill p romote r igorous f ield r esearch a imed a t t esting t he h ypotheses p resented.

5

I t i s helpful to outline the organization o f t he work which follows. Chapter 2 provides a h istorical b ackdrop a imed at accounting f or t he traditional l ack o f concern with behavior and for the inability o f the present data base to respond to behavioral questions. I t c oncludes with a f rank assessment of the data b ase available f or s tudies of s ubsistence and s ettlement. Chapter 3 explores t he nature of the p ast and present n atural environment o f t he Perigord. Where possible, present environmental characteristics are extrapolated to t he l ate P aleolithic. Despite s ignificant g aps in our knowledge, a general p icture o f the l ate P aleolithic environment i s drawn and i mplications f or h uman groups are discussed. Chapter 4 attempts to document the present s tate o f knowledge of t he Upper Paleolithic i n t he P erigord. Typology, chronology, and behavioral correlates of the archeological r ecord are considered. Chapter 5 details the theoretical and methodological bases of t he present s tudy. Precise t echniques of data collection and analysis are delineated. Research l imitations are explicitly s tated. Chapter 6 presents research r esults. P atterning i s quantitatively documented. Non-behavioral i nput i nto patterning i s d iscussed at l ength. Hypotheses are formulated to account for observed p atterns and, i n a l imited number of cases, preliminary testing i s attempted. The goal of Chapter 7 i s to s ummarize t he contr ibutions of the present work and to i ndicate n ecessary avenues of f uture research. An attempt i s made t hroughout to draw general t est implications for appropriate working hypotheses. However, t he discussion i s k ept at a general l evel because of the groundwork which must be l aid before many of t he s pecific i ssues and problems c an be a dequately approached. For s ome, that which f ollows may appear t o be too conservative. Others may s ee i t a s t oo r adical and speculative. I have attempted to combine the s trengths o f t he c ontinental two different archeological traditions, European g eological approach and t he North American anthropological approach. A s ynthesis of t hese two approaches i s e ssential to meaningful Paleolithic r esearch and to archeological c o-operation and d ialogue across i nternational boundaries. The degree to which t his thesis i s f ound useful by proponents of both o f t hese two approaches will be a gauge of my s uccess i n achieving s uch a s ynthesis.

6

CHAPTER

2

A BRIEF H ISTORY OF RESEARCH

I N THE

PERIGORD

I NTRODUCTION This chapter attempts t o explore, i n s ummary f ashion, t he h istorical s equence o f developments which have r esulted i n t he present r esearch f ramework i n the Prigord. Rather than being an academic e xercise, this e xploration i s a imed at revealing s ome o f the reasons f or t he dearth of f irm s tatements c oncerning Upper Paleolithic human behavior and, r elated to this, why the present data b ase i s i nadequate for t he f ormulation of s uch s tatements. T he chapter concludes with a f rank assessment o f recent r esearch and, perhaps more i mportantly, a consideration o f the data base available f or a s ettlement p attern s tudy. P IONEERING RESEARCH Prehistoric r esearch i n t he Prigord began a stonishingly e arly. I n about 1 910, Frangois Vatard de Jouannet began collecting worked f lint on the P lateau d 'Ecorneboeu, s outh o f Perigenex ( Balout 1 965:7; Roussot 1 975). I n 1 815-16 he discovered the c aves of Combe-Grenan ( now Combe-Grenal) and Pey-de-l' Aze ( now Pech-de-l' Aze). Sometime before 1 834 Jouannet explored the s ite of Badegol ( now Badegoule), f or i n t hat year he compared t he material f rom Badegoule w ith t hat f rom Pech-de-l' Azg and CombeGrenal ( Jouannet 1 834). I t i s worthwhile to outline the s cenario within which Jouannet's work occurred. I n 1 810 Napoleon was Emperor o f France. Charles D arwin was one year o ld, and i t would be 4 9 years until t he publication o f The Origin o f Species. Lewis H enry Morgan was as yet unborn, and would not write Ancient Society until some 6 7 years l ater. I t was to be 2 7 years before Jacques Boucher de Perthes would begin c ollecting f lints f rom t he Somme Gravels. I t i s t herefore s tartling to s ee the i ssues with which Jouannet was concerned i n h is t reatise of 1 834. He dealt with s ources o f r aw m aterial and even t he nature of t he social group which h ad occupied t he s ite of Badegoule. Even more i ntriguing i s that Jouannet ( 1 834:237) s eems to have preceded modern archeologists by s ome 1 25 years i n l amenting the l ack o f concern by e arly " ethnographers" 7

with t he material use of s tone:

products

o f

s ocieties making extensive

La c uriosite de nos voyageurs, prompte s e p assioner pour l es t ravaux i ndustriels de c es insulaires, n 'est pas encore a llee j usqua ig s 'informer de l eurs p rocedes de f abrication, et nous en s ommes toujours a s avoir c omment, s ans connäitre aucun de nos moyens, i ls peuvent cependant t ailler et polir l es p ierres l es p lus dures. Encore quelques annees d 'indifference et c ette p artie de l eur h istoire s era pour nous ce qu' est, depuis des s iecles, l 'histoire de l 'art chez l es Gaulois, un probleme s ans donnees s uffisantes ) According t o Balout ( 1 965), Jouannet was an untiring explorer who continually implored f armers and l aborers t o collect a ll of t he worked f lint t hat t hey encountered. Balout f urther argues t hat, without Jouannet's t eaching, the archeological importance o f the P erigord may never have been communicated to Edouard Lartet and Henry Christy by Abel Laganne, a r esident o f Les Eyzies. I n 1 862, Laganne i ndicated t he presence of bones and s tone t ools i n the Grotte R ichard ( Grotte des Eyzies) to J . Charvet, a Parisian antiquarian, who i n turn s howed t hem t o paleontologist Edouard Lartet. W ith the work of Lartet and C hristy, h is co-worker a nd f inancial backer, Paleolithic r esearch i n t he P erigord blossomed. After s eeing t he material from the Grotte Richard, Lartet decided on a s hort s top-over i n Les Eyzies while on a p lanned trip e lsewhere i n August o f 1 863. According t o Balout ( 1 965:7): Le detour en Dordogne s e t ransforma en une c ampagne de f ouilles de c inq mo is.2

The c uriosity of our explorers, which s timulates a n i nterest i n t he i ndustries o f t hese i solated peoples, h as yet to i nform us of t heir f abrication processes. We s till do not know how, without knowing any of our methods, they could nevertheless chip and polish even t he hardest o f s tones. Another f ew years of i ndifference and t his part o f their h istory will be l ike t hat of t he h istory o f t he a rt of the Gauls, a problem without s ufficient data. 2

The

excavation

detour

t hrough

t he

c ampaign. 8

Dordogne

b ecame

a f ive

month

D uring t his 5 month period, Lartet and Christy e xcavated at the Grotte-des-Eyzies, Gorge-d'Enfer, Laugerie-Haute, L augerie-Basse, L a Madeleine, and Le Moustier. Despite Jouannet's p ioneering work, t his r esearch represents t he s cientific point of departure f or t he s tudy of t he greater antiquity of humanity i n the P erigord. I t was not until 1 868, however, that t he attention o f t he s cientific ( and r eligious) world was really f ocused on t he P erigord. I n March o f t hat year workmen on t he Les Eyzies t o Perigueux r ailroad happened upon the deposits of t he Abri de Cro-Magnon. Subsequent excavations by Lartet's s on Louis documented f ive perfectly modern i ndividuals ( including a f etus) i n a ssociation w ith s tone t ools and the bones of r eindeer. No l onger could the r emains being t urned up be attributed to some non-human b rute. Humanity was directly confronted w ith i ts own d istant p ast. THE RECOGNITION OF VARIABILITY From t he beginning, i t was evident to Lartet and Christy t hat t here was material variability within and They b etween the s ites which they were excavating. p referred to c haracterize t his variability i n f aunal t erms. Hence their f amous 1 875 periodization ( after D aniel 1 975:100) ( 4) ( 3) ( 2) ( 1)

t he t he t he t he

Aurochs or Bison period Reindeer period Wooly Mammoth and Rhinoceros Cave Bear period

period

T his was i ndeed a paleontological approach to the problem as Smith ( 1966:8) has pointed out, Lartet and Christy b ut, w ere w illing to r ecognize different t ypes of s ites ( assemblages) w ithin these periods. For example, during t heir Reindeer period ( l' Age du Renne), t hey recognized t hree t ypes of s ites ( Smith 1 966:8): . ..le t ype d ' Aurignac et Gorge-d' Enfer ( now t he Aurignacian and P erigordian), l e t ype de Laugerie-Haute ( now t he Solutrean), et l e t ype de La Madeleine ( now t he Magdalenian). ( parentheses added) s eem to have been v iewed T hese a ssemblage t ypes writing o f Lartet t ypological f ad es, but i n t he ambiguity a s to Christy there i s apparently Smith 1 966:9). s ignificance o f t his variablility ( TOOLS

AS

CHRONOLOGICAL

Gabriel

3

.

Original

de

I NDICATORS

Mortillet

s ources

as and t he

expressed

unavailable. 9

l ittle

of

Lartet

and

Christy's ambiguity. He s aw artifact a ssemblage d ifferences as chronological indicators and not i ndustrial complexes. Moreover, i n following s tandard g eological practice, he s ystematically e stablished p rehistoric periods on t he b asis o f t ype s ites. I n 1 868, while obviously s till s triving f or a n acceptable s equence, he outlined t he following periodization ( after Smith 1 966:9): 1 re epoque des cavernes ou epoque du Moustier 2 e epoque ou epoque de S olutre 3 e epoque ou epoque d ' Aurignac 4 e epoque ou epoque de La Madeleine This approach had two long-lasting effects on P aleolithic archeology i n t he P erigord. F irst, i t s et t he s tage f or t he geo-chronological, type fossil approach which i s s till with us today, a lbeit on a much f iner s cale. S econd, de Marti net's s cheme s eemed to i ndicate t hat the s tudy of archeological f auna was of l ittle i mport i n chronological r efinement. This point o f v iew s eems t o h ave b een maintained until nearly t he m iddle of t he 2 0th c enury, when s tatements r egarding f aunal assemblages b ecame more t han s ubjective i mpressions. Faunal work after de Mortillet i s i n direct contrast, f or example, to the e arly work of Lartet, Christy, and t heir associates who went s o f ar as to discuss the d ifferential r epresentation o f anatomical parts of f ish i n Paleolithic deposits ( Sauvage c ited i n Rau 1 884, Milne-Edwards 1 875, Lartet 1 875). The s ubsequent l ack of concern with f auna i s a constant s ource of frustration i n dealing with t he older assemblages and publications. The debate over gross c hronology a s r eflected i n artifacts r aged until Breuil ls ( 1 913) c lassic chronological s ynthesis l aid t o r est many o f the l arger debates ( at l east t emporarily). Of i mmediate i nterest, however, i s the f act t hat the f irst 5 0 years of s cientific excavation were s pent determining t he nature o f t he s uperimposition o f t he various a ssemblage t ypes. This l imited goal was directly r eflected i n excavation t echniques. To determine, f or example, whether t he Solutrean underlies or over l ies t he Aurignacian r equires l ittle more t han p ick-and-shovel excavation t echniques a imed at recovering only t he most diagnostic of artifacts. Therefore, other i mportant s ources of information were n eglected. SOURCES

OF DESTRUCTION

The l oss of data resulting f rom " the s tate o f t he art" i s an acceptable evil. Other f orms o f destruction are much l ess tolerable. The Perigord h as s een a t errible waste of i ts archeological r esources because of t he e sthetic and monetary value p laced upon them by modern s ociety. That which has been preserveü f or t ens o f t housands of years can and has b een destroyed i n a matter of minutes or hours by those whom Bordes ( 1 972:28) c hose to call " two l egged badgers". L es belles pieces and money 1 0

h ave been

their prime motives.

I n many ways t he very existence of Upper P aleolithic art has been a destructive f orce. Art mobilier was generally accepted as authentic by t he end of the 1 860's. There was l ittle question as to i ts authenticity, s ince i t was found i n d irect s tratigraphic a ssociation with s tone t ools and the bones of the animals r epresented. I ts r ecovery r apidly became a goal of excavation. The neart otal destruction of t he huge, deeply s tratified s ite of L augerie-Basse c an be attributed mainly to i ts r ichness ( 560 documented p ieces o f art a cording to S aint-Perier 1 965) i n art mobilier. This i s an ongoing process with t he s ite o f Le Morin ( Deffarges, Laurent and de Sonneville-Bordes 1 975), i n t he Department of Gironde, presently s uffering the s ame f ate. The ultimate acceptance of parietal art was equally destructive. I ts authenticity was established around the t urn o f t he c entury ( cf. Cartailhac 1 902). Attempts t o authenticate i t and l ater to discover more paintings and engravings l ed to t he unscientific r emoval of i mportant deposits. This i s well-illustrated at the Grotte de l a Mouthe where Emile Riviere ( 1 895, 1 897) presented hard evidence i n s upport of the authenticity of parietal art. I n s o doing, i n order to gain better access and to r eveal buried paintings, he emptied t he c ave of i ts remaining deposits without any form of s tratigraphic control. This i s by no means an i solated instance. I n s um, a number of archeological deposits have been r avaged f or t he s ake o f art. These s ites, which under modern conditions would have r equired years to excavate, were emptied of t heir contents i n a matter of weeks or, in some c ases, days. Among workers whose goals were monetary, t here i s one who, because o f t he enormity of his destruction, merits f urther attention here. Otto Hauser, a Swiss antiquities dealer and s elf-proclaimed archeologist, m ined t he P erigord between 1 898 and 1 914 solely f or monetary gain. Under Hauser's direction numerous s ites were p lundered and t he f ruits of " excavation" s old a ll over Europe. He c an be credited with the complete or partial destruction of at l east twenty Paleolithic s ites i n t he P erigord a lone. This folly ended i n 1 914 when he attempted to remove the engraved s almon f rom t he ceiling of t he Abri du Poisson for s ale t o a Berlin museum. At t his point h is collections and l and holdings were s eized ( Peyrony and Peyrony 1 938) t hus preventing f uture destruction ( cf. de Sonneville-Bordes 1 960:2) BREUIL AND PEYRONY:

THE

I NDEX FOSSIL APPROACH

I referred previously to Breuil's ( 1 913) chronological s ynthesis. I t i s with t his work t hat t he i ndex f ossil o r fossile directeur approach t o archeological assemblages, which had c ertainly been present i n t he s chemes o f earlier workers l ike de Mortillet, became dominant. I t was used to both Mortillet's epoques.

differentiate

1 1

and

to

s ubdivide

de

While recognizing l arger tool c lasses ( for example, burins and s crapers), Breuil emphasized s pecific t ypes w ithin t hese c lasses. These t ypes, which i ncluded bone and antler tools as well, were viewed as chronological markers i dentical to t he paleontologist's i ndex f ossils. The i mpact of Breuil's s ynthesis c an be s een i n a ll s ubsequent work i n t he P erigord, much o f which g ives t he i mpression of being devoted t o f itting assemblages t o Breuil's s cheme. Between the t urn o f the century and t he S econd World War, the most i mportant f igure i n P erigord prehistory was Denis Peyrony. Peyrony's greatest contribution w as t he excavation and publication o f a n umber o f deeply s tratified s ites resulting i n both the t esting and t he refinement of Breuil's s ynthesis. Particularly s ignificant were h is excavations at La Ferrassie ( 1 934), Laugerie-Haute ( Peyrony and Peyrony 1 938), and Le Moustier ( D. Peyrony 1 930). Like Breuil, Denis P eyrony r elied heavily on i ndex fossils both to c haracterize a ssemblages and to p lace them i n a relative chronological s equence. Perhaps t he best i llustraton of t his i s h is s ectioning o f t he Perigordian V at La Ferrassie i nto Perigordian Va ( Font-Robert points), P erigordian Vb ( truncated e lements), and Perigordian Vc ( Noailles b urins). I n addition t o using i ndex f ossils i n chronology b uilding, Denis P eyrony ( 1 933) used t hem as a basis for i dentifying different b ut contemporary traditions, t he P erigordian ( corresponding t o Breuil's Lower and Upper Aurignacian) and t he Aurignacian ( corresponding to Breuil's M iddle Aurignacian). This represents a s ignificant break f rom Breuil's unilineal approach. Finally, Peyrony, f ollowing t he extreme r acial determinism of P aul Broca ( Stocking 1 982) s aw r ace r ather than culture as t he generator of material d ifferences. As S ackett ( 1 968:67) has noted, this l ed t o s uch an organic evolutionary s cheme t hat one was l eft to s uspect s exual relations between s tone tools. Sackett ( 1 968:67) h as underlined t he workers l ike Peyrony w ith geologically culturally meaningful units of analysis:

concern o f r ather t han

The minimum excavation u nit recognized by the best r esearchers was no l ess t han an entire archeological couche, an artifact-bearing z one o f d istinct s edimentary composition t hat very o ften i ncorporates a n umber o f d iscrete occupational s ubdivisions. At t he s ame t ime, s ampling t echniques concentrated only upon t he data t hat were r equired t o obtain a s equential ordering o f couches pecific archeological horizons: artifact a ssemblages were collected w ith no r egard to vertical and horizontal t ool d istributions w ithin s trata, and l ittle p aleoenvironmental data were s ystematically 1 2

r ecovered other than t he macrofaunal r emains t hat were considered to be primary chronological i ndicators. Moreover, there was a s trong t endencey to overlook the more banal areas of t ypology i n f avor of t he e stablished f ossiles that were believed c apable o f providing at once an adequate definition of both t he formal contents and genetic affiliations of assemblages a procedure t hat o f course only i ntensified t he analytic c ircularism i nherent i n traditional s ystematics. Thus t he application o f s ampling t echniques designed t o meet only t he l imited requirements of fossile c lassification prevented accumulation o f t he organized body of inform-ation that we previously noted must underlie c ulturally meaningful analysis i n archeology. F or h is t ime and considering h is goals, Peyrony's excavation and curation were adequate. However, l ater i n t his chapter, I will attempt to i llustrate the problems f acing modern researchers in using data collected to s erve t he theoretical and analytical f ramework which we have d iscussed here. QUANTIFICATION AND

STANDARDIZATION

Until the 1 950's there was no s tandard typological f ramework for t he c lassification of a ll varieties of l ithic tools ( defined as r etouched p ieces) r ecovered i n e xcavation. Hence, apart from the traditional fossiles d irecteurs, t here was no way of meaningfully comparing a ssemblages. I n 1 950, Frangois Bordes e stablished his Lower and M iddle Paleolithic t ypology ( Bordes 1 950). By 1 953, de Sonneville-Bordes and P errot ( 1 953) were developing a s imilar s cheme for the French Upper P aleol ithic. This appeared i n s erial f orm ( de SonnevilleBordes and Perrot 1 954, 1 955, 1 956) in t he years f ollowing and remains a basic tool of most French Upper Paleolithic a rcheologists. Of i mportance here i s de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1960) application o f t his t ypology to the archeological r ecord of t he Perigord. The de c omponents: 1 )

2 )

Sonneville

Bordes/Perrot

The c lassification according to a l ist types.

o f of

9 2

method

h as

two

l ithic artifacts established tool

The r epresentation of the proportion of e ach type by means o f a cumulative percentage f requency graph and the c alculation of percentages ( indices) for d ifferent major tool

c lasses. 1 3

This method a llows t he comparison o f a n umber o f assemblages presented on the s ame graph and thus a visual assessment of s imilarities and d ifferences ( for a critical discussion o f assemblage comparison using cumulative f requency graphs s ee Kerrich and C larke 1 967). I t has become f ashionable f or many North American s tudents of prehistory to s peak disparagingly o f the t ypologies of Bordes, and de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot. However, f irst hand experience w ith Upper Paleolithic assemblages and a minimum amount of reflection will i ndicate t he monumental nature of the contributions o f these authors. Those who s o r eadily deny the value o f t his contribution betray a l ack o f h istorical perspective. This i s not to disallow i nformed criticism of, or i mprovements to, t his t ypological method. Nor i s i t to s tifle new k inds of artifact analysis generated by new theoretical goals ( cf. Keeley 1 980, Moss 1 983). I wish merely to emphasize my position t hat t he Bordes/de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot t ypologies represent one of t he most s ignificant and positive developments i n the h istory o f P aleolithic archeology in that t hey created order out of c haos and f acilitated

inter-assemblage

comparison.

Certain problems w ith l a methode s tatistique that h ave repercussions f or my own research w ill now be discussed. I w ill deal only with t he Upper P aleolithic typology s ince i t i s of direct r elevance here. P roblems i nherent i n the typology ( such a s type definition) will be l eft aside, not because they do not exist but because t hey are l argely t angential to t he present research. I concentrate instead on problems i n t he application o f the typology t hat have repercussions f or a ssemblage p atterns presented l ater. These problems c an be c ategorized as problems of s ampling and problems o f i nterpretation. SAMPLING

PROBLEMS

The application of a comprehensive t ypology to assemblages recovered over t he p ast 1 00 or s o years, and the s ubsequent s tatistical c omparison o f these assemblages, i s a h ighly optimistic endeavor. M any, i f not most, past excavations did not exhibit t he c are and c aution of more recent work. Having v isited nearly every known Upper Paleolithic s ite i n the P erigord , I can attest to the r ichness of many of t he dumps which c learly i llustrate the marked s election o f materials r etained by most early excavators. The best e xample o f s uch s election, even by a h ighly acclaimed excavator, i s to be f ound at La Ferrassie, excavated by Denis Peyrony ( 1 934) between 1 902 and 1 922. Peyrony's dumps, l ocated i n f ront of this huge s ite, have l ong been m ined b y l ocal collectors ( C. Archambeau, personal communication). The extent of Peyrony's s election of archeological m aterials i s well documented i n the c atalogues o f t he Canadian preh istorian Henri Ami who, i n addition t o excavating at Combe-Capelle ( Ami 1 928a, 1 928b, 1 930; Seeley 1 931), 1 4

excavated Peyrony's backdirt at La Ferrassie ( catalogue o f t he Ami Collection, National Museum o f Canada). Ami's c atalogue l ists approximately 4 300 l ithic artifacts f rom La Ferrassie. Personal observation of a s izable part of t he collection i ndicates that most of these are retouched tools. This makes a great deal of care e ssential in any quantitative s tudy of the materials actually kept by Peyrony, s uch as t hat by de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1960). I n addition to the k ind of s election outlined above, excavation t echniques per s e r eflect upon the s ample available to us. For example, Bordes and Fitte ( 1 964), and Fitte and de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1 962) have s hown i mmense d ifferences i n microlith recovery according to excavation t echniques ( ie. no s ieving ( 2.22%), dry s ieving ( 27-55%), wet s ieving ( 65-79%)). Hence, with regard to smaller tools at l east, comparing well- and poorlyexcavated a ssemblages may only r eveal d ifferences due to excavation bias. Unfortunately, one c annot be s ure that t his i s the c ase because, even f or periods where microliths are common, s ome excellent excavations have s hown t hem to be absent, or nearly s o, f rom certain s ites. S ackett's ( 1 968) recognition that discrete o ccupational units were often m ixed by excavations a imed at entire couches has i mplications for the quantitative c omparison of derived assemblages. The material results o f d ifferent human groups, performing different activities s eparated by decades or even centuries, could very easily be confused. In f act, i t i s not unusual i n t he older l iterature to s ee that excavators recognized d iscrete occupational l evels b ut l umped t hem together for analytical purposes because they occurred within t he s ame g eological s tratum ( cf. Delage 1 935). Surprisingly, l ittle attention has been p aid to the potential b iases resulting f rom t he excavation o f only a f raction o f an archeological l evel. Excavations by Peyrony and Peyrony ( 1 938, i n de Sonneville-Bordes 1 954), Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon ( 1 966, 1 972), and Rigaud ( 1976) have a ll demonstrated t he s patial c lustering of s pecific tool t ypes. The c hances of obtaining a non-representative s ample by e xcavating a s mall s urface area s eem great. Many of the a ssemblages s tudied by de Sonneville-Bordes were t he r esult o f the " telephone booth" approach to excavation ( Flannery 1 976), and as a r esult t heir quantitative characterization must be handled with c are. I t s hould be noted however that E lie P eyrony and de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1 959) have s hown that i n the Magdalenian at Roc-Saint-Cirq, the quantitative i ndices f rom a s ingle day's excavation d iffered l ittle f rom those for t he entire s ite. I NTERPRETIVE

PROBLEMS

Assemblage differences, documented by whatever means, demand an explanation. Throughout t he h istory o f French 1 5

Paleolithic archeology assemblage d ifferences h ave been ascribed to e ither different tool making t raditions or t o d ifferent points on t he c hronological continuum. I n t his s ense the de Sonneville-Bordes/Perrot approach i s no exception. D ifferences in tool proportions are s een a s chronological i ndicators ( in much t he s ame way a s de Mortillet, Breuil, and Peyrony used i ndex f ossils or a s r epresenting d ifferent t raditions. But even de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1 960) relies heavily on i ndividual fossiles when relative proportions o f tools f ail to prove s ufficiently diagnostic. The above approach t o t he archeological r ecord conforms c losely to what Binford ( 1 972) h as described a s the traditionalist paradigm. This p aradigm i s well i llustrated by Denis Peyrony's ( 1 933) Aurignacian and Perigordian tribes and Bordes's different Mousterian cultures ( Bordes 1 972; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1 970). The a cceptability of a ccounting for a ssemblage d ifferences i n t his way has r esulted i n t he n eglect and loss of c ertain c lasses of data. According to t he traditionalists one needs but 1 00 tools to c haracterize an assemblage a s to i ts chronological and t raditional affinities ( F. Bordes: personal communication). Satisfaction with t his k ind o f data prevents u s f rom using the archeological record to answer a w ide r ange o f behavioral questions. Only exceptionally h ave data pertaining to h abitation s tructures, a ctivity areas, butchering patterns, and s ite f unction been c ollected. Except i n r are i nstances, f aunal and f loral data have been used to buttress archeological and c limatic chronologies and h ave t herefore not been approached f rom a behavioral perspective. THE

SAMPLE OF

KNOWN UPPER

PALEOLITHIC

S ITES

To t his point I have concentrated on t he ways i n which t he archeological h istory of t he P erigord i s reflected i n t he quality of a ssemblages available f or s tudy. I wish now to t urn to an a ssessment o f traditional s ite discovery t echniques and t he q uality o f the resulting s ample of s ites. Southwestern France, and e specially t he P erigord, i s l argely r esponsible f or the " caveman" s tereotype t hat i s f inally being c ast a side. I n r etrospect, however, P erigord prehistorians are not a s guilty of s peleological b ias ( Wobst 1 974:149) as i t might appear a t f irst glance. Admittedly, c liff f aces have drawn a great deal of attention i n the quest f or P aleolithic s ites. Nevertheless, f rom a very early t ime, open a ir l ocalities were being recognized and excavated. Jouannet ( 1834) recognized t heir existence. Gabastou ( Paniagua 1 911), Belcayre-Haut ( Lassere 4nd Champagne 1 897 c ited i n de Sonneville-Bordes 1 960), and Champ-Pages ( D. Peyrony 1 930) are a ll open-air s ites excavated e arly i n t his c entury. Moreover, Reverdit ( 1 878) had c atalogued numerous open-air l ocalities. S ince 1 950, approximately 1 6

t wenty-five indisputable Upper Paleolithic open-air s ites have been discovered and/or excavated i n t he P erigord ( cf Gaussen 1 980; Roussot 1 962, 1 964; Bordes 1 968b; Rigaud 1 969a; Fitte and de Sonneville-Bordes 1 962). Therefore, o f the 1 85 or s o s ites s tudied here, approximately 2 0% are c learly open-air s ites. Furthermore, as I will argue l ater ( Chapter 6 ), many s o-called c ave and s helter s ites s hould be considered, in part at l east, open-air s ites. A major problem with open-air deposits i n the P erigord i s the l ack of f aunal preservation. This i s normally a result of s oil acidity which i ncreases with distance f rom t he c alcareous c liff f aces. Therefore, while open-air s ites make up an important part of the s ite s ample, t he information available f rom them i s o ften r estricted to t hat concerning s tone tools and their d istribution. Exceptions do exist however, s uch as at Gare de Couze ( Fitte and de Sonneville-Bordes 1 962) and L imeuil ( Capitan and Bouyssonie 1 924). I n addition, s ometimes the absence of f auna i s i n part compensated for by different but equally important data concerning artificial habitation s tructures ( cf. Sackett and Gaussen 1 976). The s ample o f s ites i s f urther complicated by the r ecent history o f the r egion, which i s no doubt responsible for the destruction o f Paleolithic s ites. The P erigord i s f amous f or i ts Medieval architecture, much of which c lings precariously to c liff f aces or uses natural c avities a s a f ourth wall and p artial ceiling. I n many c ases t hese s tructures overlie i n s itu Paleol ithic deposits. In other cases t heir construction has destroyed s uch deposits. This makes a ssessment of the degree of destruction difficult. Furthermore, i t i s s afe to s uppose t hat natural f orces, s uch a s erosion, cryot urbation, and s olifluxion have been active i n s ite destruction, redeposition, and burial. I n the absence of a concerted effort to ascertain t he extent o f s uch damage to the archeological record, no a ssessment of t he validity of t he s ample of known s ites i s possible. RECENT

DEVELOPMENTS

The goals o f this s tudy, as expressed i n Chapter 1 , would be f utile i f there were not i ndications of new t rends i n Upper Paleolithic archeology i n the Perigord and i n France as a whole. S ince t he mid 1 960's t here has been a perceptible change o f goals i n artifact analysis, excavation, and, to some extent, in t he methods o f s earching for s ites. I t i s e specially promising that, in many respects, t here i s now agreement between many French and Englishs peaking s cholars a s t o r esearch goals, priorities, and methods. This i s i ndicative of a s ynthesis of different archeological t raditions evident i n the following s tatement by Henri Laville and Jean-Philippe Rigaud

( 1 977:17):

1 7

P lus que l a s eule description du milieu natural de l 'Homme, i i s 'agit, ä notre s ens, de r echercher p ar une etroit collaboration des differents disciplines, l es r elations entre l ' Homme et l es differents e lements de s on environnement: m ilieu physique, milieu vegetal, milieu animal e t, plus d ifficile ä aborder, milieu socia1.4

This does not mean t hat P erigord archeologists have become, or s hould become, t otally " anthropologized". Because of their geological f ocus and training, French archeologists and a ssociated s cientists h ave b ecome masters o f s tratigraphic and horizontal e xcavation. Anyone who has spent much t ime on a deeply-stratified P aleolithic s ite w ill realize that s uch s kills a re i mperative. Furthermore, French Paleolithic archeology has been i nterdisciplinary archeology s ince t he l ate 1 950's. I n s um, North American a nthropologists and French prehistorians have a considerable amount to t each e ach other. Co-operation between t hose w ith expertise i n geology and t hose with expertise i n human behavior i s t herefore t he hope of t he f uture. will now briefly s ummarize s ome of t he most i mportant r ecent developments i n French and P erigord prehistory. These c an be presented under the headings o f t heoretical goals, artifact analysis, s ite e xcavation, paleoenvironmental s tudies, and r egional s tudies. THEORETICAL GOALS As Laville and R igaud's s tatement s hows, certain a spects of behavior have become t heoretical concerns, a t l east i n certain quarters. This s eems to have been an i n s itu development resulting f rom t he demonstration by s ome workers i n the past three decades ( Leroi-Gourhan a nd Brezillon 1 966; Bordes 1 968; Lumley 1 966) that meticulous excavation could y ield more t han j ust t ypological s tatements. The t heoretical f oundations o f French P aleol ithic archeology are t herefore i n a s tate of f lux. The new concern w ith behavior h as h ad an important i nfluence on methodology.

4I n addition to t he mere description of man's natural environment, i t i s necessary i n our opinion t o r esearch,

by a c lose collaboration of d ifferent disciplines, t he relations between man and t he d ifferent e lements of h is environment: t he physical context, t he vegetal context, the f aunal context, and, more d ifficult to approach, t he s ocial

context. 1 8

ARTIFACT ANALYSIS Traditional t ypology was s ufficient as l ong as only t ypological and n ineteenth c entury evolutionary q uestions were being asked. Behavioral questions r equire t hat t ypology be more r igorous and t hat t he t ypes be more objectively defined. This has resulted i n t he duplication o f t he Ford/Spaulding debate i n France. S ackett ( 1966), Movius e t al. ( 1968), Rigaud ( 1 970), and Movius and Brooks ( 1971) argue s trongly f or the construction of types by means o f attribute c lusters. Rigaud ( personal communic ation) i s i n t he process of applying an attribute t ypology to t he s tudy of t he s patial organization of Upper P erigordian occupation l evels at t he s ite of Flageolet I . P ioneering s tudies have been made i n non-typological a spects o f a rtifact analysis. The reproduction of P aleolithic tools has been a r eal s trength i n French P aleolithic s tudies, particularly i n the past 2 5 years. Artisans s uch a s Bordes and T ixier have s hed considerable l ight on the mechanics o f f lint working. Partially as a r esult of s uch knowledge, t he analytical process of r econstituting cores and spall tools with waste f lakes, s palls, and b lades r emoved i n f abrication, has a llowed i mportant s tatements about t he discreteness of both a rcheological l evels and habitation s tructures f ound w ithin s uch l evels ( cf. Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon 1 966, 1 972; Lumley 1 969; Villa 1 983). Finally, after years of neglect, bone and antler tools a re r eceiving considerable analytical attention. A r egular i nternational colloquium has been e stablished to deal with the analysis o f prehistoric bone and antler working ( CNRS 1 975). At l ast, bone and antler debitage i s r eceiving attention ( Delpech and de Sonneville-Bordes 1 976). An entire volume has been devoted to bone needles, and to t he f abrication t echniques and wear patterns t hat c an be g leaned from them ( Stordeur-Yedid 1 979); and s till a nother volume to harpoons ( Julien 1 982). Moreover, t he t raditional t ypological s chemes u sed to categorize bone and antler i mplements are being r evised and, i n s ome c ases, totally questioned. For example, S imek ( 1 978) has c onvincingly c hallenged Magdalenian harpoon t ypology, s uggesting that barb unilaterality and b ilaterality are c ross-cut by more s ignificant sources of variability. Despite a t ypological nomenclature consisting o f f unctional terms ( eg. burin, grattoir, pergoir), French P aleolithic archeologists h ave t aken a conservative position regarding attempts to i nfer tool f unction f rom m icroscopic wear p atterns. S emenov ( 1 964) c ame under heavy criticism, much o f i t c learly j ustified, f rom Frangois Bordes ( 1 967). Nevertheless, the i dentification o f organic r esidues on t he edges of Paleolithic s tone t ools was s uccessfully accomplished under Bordes's auspices ( Bordes 1 979; Anderson 1 980, Anderson-Gerfaud 1 981). This t echnique, which u ses s canning e lectron m icroscopy, may eventually a llow more r eliable f unctional 1 9

i nferences than any which may h ave been possible so f ar. Also notable here, i s the ground-breaking work of Moss ( 1 983) on Upper Paleolithic s tone tools f rom P incevent and Pont d ' Ambon. S ITE

EXCAVATION

This i s perhaps the most i mpressive of a ll areas o f modern French Paleolithic r esearch. M icrostratigraphy and r igorous geological control on one h and and meticulous d igging and r ecording on t he other, are gradually r esulting i n a body o f contextual data unsurpassed anywhere i n t he world. The e xposure o f l arge areas of l iving f loors, combined w ith t he t hree d imensional recording and mapping of a ll c ultural material, reveals habitation s tructures and distribution patterns previously undocumented ( Simek 1 984). The excavation o f even t he s mallest occupation may t ake a decade or more, but i t i s evident that the r esults warrant t his expenditure o f t ime. Recent excavations i n t he Perigord, many o f which have only been published i n a preliminary f ashion ( Bordes 1 968; Smith 1 966; Rigaud 1 970, 1 971, 1 976; T ixier 1 974, 1 976; Roussot 1 962, 1 964, 1 976a; Movius 1 975; C elerier 1 976), promise a robust data base c apable of answering behavioral questions. PALEOENVIRONMENTAL

STUDIES

I n the t raditional l iterature, i t o ften s eems t hat Paleolithic culture evolved i n a vacuum, because l ittle emphasis i s p laced on the changing natural environment. Following t he work o f Francois Bordes, considerable energy i s now expended on t he s tudy of pollen, s ediment, and f auna i n an attempt to make s tatements about P leistocene c limate. The works of Laville ( 1 973), Delpech ( 1 975, 1 983), and P aquereau ( 1 976) are benchmarks i n t his r espect. Despite t he insight t hat t hey provide, these works are not ecological s tudies, i f ecology c an be defined as " the totality or pattern of r elations between organisms and t heir environment" ( Odum 1 971:3). Environment and c ulture i n French archeology have most often been s tudied and presented a s s eparate entities with l ittle concern f or t he relationship between the two. REGIONAL

STUDIES

Perigord p rehistory has a lways been c haracterized by a concern with i ndividual archeological s ites r ather t han with r egions or relationships ( other t han genetic ones) between s ites. Up to t he present moment, t he d iscovery o f most s ites has been fortuitous, resulting more f rom the work of i nterested amateurs t han of professional archeologists. Except for i solated i nstances, r egional s ampling a imed at obtaining a r epresentative cross-section of s ite types and l ocations has not occurred ( cf. White 1 983). Nor h as the t otality of s ites a lready documented been s tudied f rom a regional or s ettlement perspective. Two recent exceptions offer s ome promise. S ince t he 2 0

1 950's Jean Gaussen ( 1 980) has been s uccessfully l ocating Upper P aleolithic encampments i n the I sle Valley by means of s ub-surface probing. More r ecently, s urvey work i n t he Dordogne Valley by Rigaud et al., i n which I participated, was h ighly s uccessful i n documenting l arge n umbers of P aleolithic artifactbearing l ocalities, e specially i n upland or p lateau areas. Hence, while t he amount of s uch r esearch i s not great, s urvey projects do exist. I am optimistic, however, that i n the f uture, s urvey will be a viable means o f t esting some of t he hypotheses generated here. A recent and very productive emphasis i n Perigord research has been upon l ithic procurement patterns. The basic groundwork i n t his area has been l aid by Demars ( 1 974, 1 980) and Morala ( 1 980). Recently, Larick ( 1 983) has t reated Solutrean l ithic procurement within t he f ramework of r egional s ettlement patterns. S uch research promises to p rovide i nvaluable i nsights i nto human/ l andscape r elations and i nto changing patterns of human i nteraction. ASSESSING THE DATA AVAILABLE

FOR

SETTLEMENT

STUDIES

The foregoing historical s ummary was an attempt to s how just how l ong our s cientific predecessors have been at work i n t he Perigord and to what extent the data available to modern workers are a ffected by t he questions posed by these i nvestigators. The questions in French prehistory have primarily r eferred to t ypological evolution. Recent t ypological constructs a re no exception. The de Sonneville-Bordes/Perrot typology s imply expanded t he r ange o f t ypes i ncluded i n the The behavioral correlates of t he evolutionary s cheme. have s eldom been a goal of archeological r ecord excavation. Unfortunately, now t hat understanding behavior i s a t l east one of the goals of modern research, we s till must deal with a data base which i s i n most ways i rrelevant to this goal. Fortunately, while archeological deposits and context c an be destroyed by excavation, t he l ocations of t he s ites t hemselves, and their relationship to durable topographic f eatures, c annot. Therefore, f or each of t he 1 85 or s o Upper P aleolithic s ites considered here, l ocational data c an be r ecovered. I have s hown that t here may be a b ias i n f avor o f s helter and c ave s ites here but have a lso s uggested t hat t his has been overemphasized. Whether t he f ull range of s ettlement variablity i s r epresented i n this s ample i s unclear s ince, to t his point, no r igorous s ite typology of any k ind has been e stablished for the French Paleolithic ( for an attempt at s uch a t ypology s ee David 1 973). I t may be s ignificant i n this regard that no k ill s ites have been i dentified as s uch i n t he P erigord. I t i s not c ertain, however, that they would have been recognized had t hey been f ound.

2 1

Non-locational characteristics of s ites are more problematic. The recognition of habitation s tructures and i nsights i nto l ocal s patial organization are r are i n t he t raditional l iterature. Within c ertain l imitations, however, e stimates of s ite area c an be made. Often, t he area covered by archaeological deposits i n a s ite i s g iven i n the o lder l iterature. More o ften, i t must be e stimated after-the-fact. I n t he case of most c aves and rock s helters t his appears to be a r easonably s ound approach, possibly y ielding i nferences concerning group s ize. The l imitations of s uch estimation w ill be considered i n Chapter 6 . As one proceeds f rom the s ites to t he l ithic a ssemblages which they contained, t he quality o f t he available data deteriorates. D iscrete assemblages were o ften mixed s uch a s at La Madeleine ( Capitan and D . P eyrony 1 928) where t he three l evels originally defined by P eyrony have now been subdivided i nto 1 4 d iscrete occupational l evels ( Bouvier 1 973). All artifacts were not recovered, notably t he microlithic component. Large s urfaces were not s ampled. Perhaps most important i s t he f act t hat research was often not published and collections were e ither dispersed or remained i n private hands. These a ssemblages have t herefore not been quantitatively s tudied. As a result, quantitative l ithic assemblage data, as approximate as t hey are, are available f or l ess than half the s ites to be s tudied here. However, t he s tudy of l ithic artifacts does reveal s ome i nteresting p atterns i f c ertain, i nconsistently collected artifact c lasses are excluded. W ithin l imits t hese l ithic assemblages s how p atterns f rom which hypotheses can be generated, as I will attempt to i llustrate i n Chapter 6 . Binford ( 1 978) has s tressed t he importance of f aunal remains i n t he r econstruction o f hunter-gatherer s ubsistence and s ettlement patterns. Unfortunately, because of former priorities, t he f aunal record for t he Upper Paleolithic i n the Perigord i s very uneven. When published r eports concern themselves with f auna, i t i s by means of a qualitative assessment more o ften than a quantitative one. Often the mere presence or absence of s pecies i s acknowledged. Furthermore, t raditional e xcavation techniques may well h ave passed over much o f t he l ess conspicuous f aunal material ( fis i l and b ird bones, f or example). H appily, t here are exceptions s uch a s Cheynier's ( 1 949) r eport on Badegoule and Capitan and Bouyssonie's ( 1 924) r eport on L imeuil. Both of t hese s tudies provide i nformation, albeit s omewhat anecdotal, which c an l ead to hypotheses regarding r esource s cheduling and processing. The

occasional

adequate

f aunal

s tudy

i n

t he

traditional l iterature has been greatly s upplemented i n recent years by t he work of Francois Prat ( 1 962) and Frangoise Delpech ( 1975). Their work, p articularly that o f Delpech on t he Upper Paleolithic, i s f undamental to the hypotheses to be e stablished here and w ill i ndeed be 2 2

f undamental

to

t he

t esting of

t hese

hypotheses.

Climatic s equences based on s ediment s tudies are of only peripheral concern to t his s tudy. The approach of s uch s tudies ( cf. Laville 1 972; Texier 1 979) i s almost exclusively diachronic. They make general, qualitative s tatements about l ong r ange c limatic change but are unable t o amplify our understanding of non-climatic a spects o f environment. Moreover, s uch s tudies are available for a very small number of Upper P aleolithic s ites i n t he Perigord. Paleobotanical data are problematic. Pollen s amples have been derived almost entirely f rom archeological deposits, which are obviously s ubject to s ignificant a lteration by h uman beings and which probably do not g ive a representative p icture of contemporary f lora. The work o f paleobotanists i n t he P erigord has not been a imed at behavior a s much a s at chronostratigraphy. For example, f lotation i s not common practice ( although apparently c alcareous s ediments present s erious problems here). As I w ill show l ater i n r elation to s ite orientation, some phytogeographic i nferences are possible. I n general, however, f ew s ites have been s tudied p aleobotanically and t he s tudies that have been done are not r eadily applicable t o the problem of Upper P aleolithic s ubsistence and s ettlement. Before the r esearch presented h ere was undertaken, data pertaining to s ite s ize and l ocation were practically non-existent. As a lways t here are exceptions. De Sonneville-Bordes ( 1 960, 1 967) s uggests, w ith l ittle s upporting data, t hat Upper Magdalenian s ites i n the P erigord are l arger and c loser to t he r iver t han i n e arlier t ime periods, and t hat t hey f requently occupy previously unoccupied l ocalities. Bouvier ( 1966, 1 977), i n a more quantitative s tudy, s howed a s outh-facing t endency f or a s ample o f s ites i n t he Vezere Valley and r elated this to t emperature differences between north- and s outh-facing c aves and r ock s helters. He a lso s uggested a t endency f or s ites i n s heltered, narrow valleys to deviate f rom this t endency. Mellars ( 1 973) presented data to s how areal d ifferences between M iddle andf Upper P aleolithic s ites i n t he P erigord. David ( 1973) attempted to use qualitative comparisons of P erigordian Vc s ite s izes to f it s ites to Campbell's ( 1 968) t ypology f or t he Tuluaqmiut E skimo. F inally, and p erhaps most i mportantly, G aussen ( 1 979) argues t hat open-air s ites i n t he I sle Valley were l ocated at n atural t raps created by t he meandering of the I sle R iver. All o f t he above, while not s atisfactory, represents a body o f i deas t o which t his s tudy c an and will respond. Finally, by way o f s ummation, i t c an be c oncluded t hat 1 50 years of r esearch i n t he P erigord h ave y ielded l ittle more t han an adequate g eneral c hronostratigraphic p icture. I w ill s how i n Chapter 3 however, t hat t here i s s till considerable debate over chronology. S erious 2 3

attempts are only now being m ade t o s tudy Upper P aleol ithic behavior patterns. Unfortunately, the i nformation collected to date will only s upport hypotheses a nd probabilistic s tatements. We are s tarting over! And s tarting over i nvolves a sking new questions a nd f inding new sources of answers. The P erigord i s more than c apable of providing new answers to new questions. Only t he t ip of t he i ceberg has been destroyed i n this r emarkable region. P ersonal experience i ndicates that hundreds o f i ntact Upper Paleolithic s ites r emain which w ill a dd s ignificantly to our understanding of l ate P leistocene human groups and their natural and s ocial environment i f only we begin asking t hese new questions.

2 4

CHAPTER

3

THE PRESENT AND PAST ENVIRONMENT OF THE

PtRIGORD

GENERALITIES The P erigord, covering an area of some 7 -8,000 km.2, l ies i n the northern and s hallower half of t he Aquitaine s edimentary basin. This basin, of variable s edimentary composition, i s bounded to t he s outh by t he Pyrenees, to the northeast by the Massif C entral, to the northwest by t he Armorican Mountains, and to t he west by t he Atlantic Ocean ( Fig. 3 .1). Four major r ivers, the Dronne, t he I sle, the Vezere, and the Dordogne, f low through t he P erigord on route f rom t he Massif Central to the Atlantic. The valleys of these r ivers have been l oci o f human occupation s ince at l east t he Middle Pleistocene. I n 5 6 B .C. t he i nvading Romans encountered f our tribes o f Gauls ( Scargill 1 974), t he P etro-Corii, corresponding t o the f our r iver drainages and united i n s ome f orm of c onfederation. S ince t hat t ime, t he P erigord has remained a discrete administrative unit. Whether or not this enduring i ntegrity was a lso c haracteristic o f earlier occupations of t he region i s a s yet unclear. On the s urface at l east, this i ntegrity i s s urprising g iven the great d iversity to be documented i n the regional overview which f ollows. This overview i s organized around the e lements of t he " biotic complex", as i llustrated by Eyre ( 1968:4), which i nclude geology/topography, vegetation, f auna, c limate, and soils. AN OVERVIEW OF THE

PRESENT B IOTIC COMPLEX

GEOLOGY An e ast-west profile reveals the Perigord t o be an area o f geological t ransition ( Fig. 3 .2). I n the northeast, the Departmental boundaries i nclude part o f t he ancient crystalline formations o f t he Massif Central ( of H ercynian age). Moving southwest, t hese f ormations are f ollowed by a c hain of basins i ncised i nto exposed L iassic c lays and Permian s andstones. These are f ollowed to the s outhwest by a narrow homogeneous belt of durable Jurassic 2 5

F igure 3 .1:

T he A quitaine B asin a nd a djacent p hysiographic f eatures ( after B ordes 1 972:4, F ig. 1 )

26

C

27

C

l imestones. Next, and perhaps most i mportantly, a w ide belt o f various Upper Cretaceous deposits d ip below terrestrial Tertiary deposits c omposed primarily of s ands and gravels. I t s hould be noted that, i n much of the Perigord, upland areas are covered by a mantle of Eocene ( Ludian) s iderolites ( autochthonous decomposed deposits characterized by the precipitation of i ron i nto p isoliths) as well a s the above- mentioned Tertiary deposits which were carried i nto the region during t he Eocene ( Alpine) and P lio-Pleistocene orogenic events ( cf Anderson 1 978:Chapters 5 and 8 ; Rutten 1 969: Chapter 8 ). Moreover, recent work by Texier ( 1 979) s uggests that many of these loosely-consolidated s ediments, previously thought to b e of Tertiary age, are i n f act l ate P liocene/early P leistocene a lluvia. Orogenic events have p layed a major role i n moulding P erigord topography. The Hercynian Orogeny ( Devonian/Carboniferous) resulted i n a pronounced NE-SW dipping of once horizontal s trata. According to t o Rutten ( 1 969: Chapter 8 ) the P lio-Pleistocene uplift of t he Massif Central l ent a s ubsequent SE-NW d ip to t he northern half of t he Aquitaine basin. Even before the P liocene, Eocene t ectonic activity resulted i n considerable p lastic deformation of Cretaceous and Jurassic deposits i n t he basin, a s well as s ome f aulting of t hese s ame deposits ( Vignaud 1 975). Hence, t he g eneral dipping of t he l imestone s trata i s i nterrupted by a lternating anticlines and areas o f s ubsidence which h ave NE-SW and SE-NW s trike orientations, and which t herefore crisscross t he region ( Fig. 3 .3). Tectonic activity i s l argely responsible for t he drainage p attern of t he modern P erigord. The major r ivers i n t he area r un parallel t o each o ther i n a NE-SW direction. The Dordogne s eems an exception, but major portions of i t a lso f ollow t his predominant orientation ( Fenelon 1 951:435). Tributaries f requently r un perpendicular ( SE-NW) to these major axes. This conforms to a trellis drainage pattern as outlined by Miller ( 1 961:96) and Twidale ( 1 971). According to both authors, s uch a pattern i s characteristic o f jointed/folded/faulted regions. I n t his r egard, Fenelon ( 1 951:436) h as convincingly accounted for t his p attern in t he P erigord. He has s hown t hat most of the watercourses follow inclines and s tructural weaknesses r esulting from t ectonic deformation. I n many cases valleys have been c ut i nto t he axes or f lanks o f ancient anticlines where s oft, underlying rocks ( marls for example) have been exposed t o running water. Often the result i s i nverted r elief, w ith former antic lines being cut down to, or below the l evel of s ynclines ( Fig. 6 .34). I n s um t hen, t here i s a c lear correspondence 1 )

between:

t he orientation of r iver s ystems s trike l ines of folds and f aults Cretaceous bedrock. 2 8

and t he i n t he

F igure 3 .3:

T he m ajor a nticlines i n t he P erigord F enelon 1 951:113, M ap V II)

29

( after

I MPER MEABLE L I MESTONE

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

•LUBLE L I MESTONE

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

F ROST SHATTER

••

F igure

3 .4:

S chematic r epresentation o f r ock s helter f ormation s howing t he d eterioration o f w aterc harged, s oluble l imestone t hrough f rost a ction

3 0

and 2 )

the direction o f r iver f low and of d ip of the Cretaceous beds.

the d irection

Breaching the above folds and f aults has a ltered the c ourses and channels o f P erigord r ivers. Sudden changes i n course can be attributed to r iverine downcutting of l imestone deposits which d iffer horizontally i n resistance t o erosion. I n t he Perigord, the s tructure of Upper Cretaceous l imestones i s h ighly variable according to t emporal f acies, a lternating f rom dolomitic to marlacious ( Laville 1 973). According to Fenelon ( 1951:436), valley w idth i s a lso t ightly controlled by t he s tructure of the rock being eroded by t he watercourse. I n c rossing anticlines or s ynclines, where more durable rocks have b een brought to r iver l evel, Perigord r ivers t end to change direction and cut deep, narrow valleys. Marls and s ofter l imestones may also y ield directional s hifts but n early a lways result i n w ide, s loping valleys. Apart f rom t ectonics, the other major form of a lteration in t he P erigord has been karstic d issolution. This has resulted i n a number of topographic f eatures c haracteristic of the Perigord l andscape. Of concern here are dry valleys, c aves and rock shelters, and solution hollows. Dry valleys, l ocally known as combes or vallons, are t he result of s ubterranean or previously above ground drainage s ystems i n association with differences i n rock s tructure ( Fenelon 1 951:409-413). Normally, t hese dry valleys are characterized by durable l imestone overlying marlacious l imestone. These are d ifferentially eroded by s urface or s ub-surface springs to f orm valleys with a g entle profile i n their l ower r eaches and a s teep back wall f ormed by the durable c ap deposits. Often t hese back walls are broken down by s olution hollows ( basin-shaped depressions resulting f rom the dissolution o f l imestone) which are f ound t hroughout the uplands and which work to p roduce a rolling, more gentle t ransition from valley bottom to i nterfluve. F inally, t he dissolution of t hese v alleys r esults i n the precipitation of c lays and s ands in t he l ower reaches and a concentration o f angular f ragments o f l imestone i n the upper r eaches. H ence, t he potential f or greatly different s oil conditions i s created. Caves are the d issolution f eatures for which t he P erigord i s most f amous. Most c aves are r emnants o f underground drainage s ystems and are directly r elated t o k arstic dissolution. Most rock s helters on t he other hand are only i ndirectly r elated to dissolution. Laville ( 1973) has demonstrated t hat most rock s helters i n t he P erigord are t he r esult o f t he freeze/thaw cycle which t akes particular advantage o f permeable, water-charged horizons. Freezing o f these permeated horizons results i n t he differential breakdown o f t he rock s urface, thus

3 1

creating 3 .4).

a

concavity with a l ess

permeable overhang

( Fig.

I n sum, topography and geology are c losely r elated, and equally variable. Unconsolidated Tertiary deposits i n the west and northwest, a s well as i n upland o r p lateau areas, g ive r ise to a subdued, rolling l andscape. Upper Cretaceous l andscapes exhibit more dissection and relief i s s ustained. The Jurassic to t he north and e ast, while deeply i ncised i n p laces, i s much f latter and h as been l ess s uperficially a ltered, g iving t he appearance o f a t rue p lateau. L iassic and P ermian outcrops at t he edge of t he Massif Central have been eroded to form a s eries o f s heltered basins. The f lanks of the Massif C entral s how pronounced r elief, s ometimes 2 00 m between i nterfluve and valley bottom. Finally, i t i s i mportant to emphasize t hat areas directly underpinned by l imestone have h ad t heir topography s moothed by Karstic dissolution to the point where i nterfluvial p lateaux are non-existent; t he transition f rom the l owest to h ighest point o f l and i n a g iven area being gradual and s ubtle except where i nterrupted by durable l imestone outcrops which f orm s teep c liffs. •

SOILS The variability i n geological deposits has contributed to equivalent variability i n s oil types. Brown forest s oils with a tendency towards podsolization c an be considered the zonal s oil ( cf Butzer 1 971: Chapter 6 ; Odum 1 971:132) and are w idespread i n the major valley bottoms and on f latter areas of t he i nterfluves. However, t here are very important and widespread i nfrazonal or s ub-climax soils which are s trongly r elated to l ocal c onditions, e specially outcrops of bedrock. I n areas of l imestone exposure, or i n areas with only a t hin mantle o f s ediment overlying bedrock, s hallow brown calcitic soils develop, e specially on s teep i nclines ( Comps n .d.). A variety o f rendzina soils i s a ssociated with c alcareous colluvium, t alus, and s cree near l imestone outcrop ( Texier 1 979), and i n the upper reaches of dry valleys. For archeological purposes, i t i s i mportant t o make a d istinction between t he acidic brown f orest s oils and podsols on one hand and c alcareous ( rendzina) or basic soils on the other. As a rule of thumb, i n the P erigord acidic soils occur i n valley bottoms and i nterfluvial areas, while basic s oils occur i n calcareous t ransition zones between t he two above areas. These transition zones obviously i nclude exposed c liff f aces,which border many r iver valleys, and dry valleys which are cut i nto t hese c liff f aces. P articularly relevant here i s t hat c alcareous soils a llow excellent preservation o f organic archeological materials. I n c ontrast, acidic s oils, primarily because of l eeching, s eldom preserve organic materials.

3 2

CLIMATE AND MICROCLIMATE Transition and variability i n geology and soils i s accompanied by a P erigord c limatic r egime which i s also t ransitional and l ocally v ariable. Generally, t he P erigord r eceives a maximum o f precipitation, i n t he form o f r ain, i n t he spring and f all. Midsummer c an be dry. W inter i s dry and cool with extremely hot and o ccasional f rost and, only exceptionally, s now. The coldest w inter i n recent memory was t hat of 1 956 when t emperatures r eached 28 ° C ( de Sonneville-Bordes 1 960:9). Understandably, this winter has become l egend. Under normal winter conditions, however, temperatures s eldom f all below 15 ° C and are u sually much h igher. This m ildness i s s eemingly a r esult o f proximity to the Atlantic ( less than 1 50 km. distant) which warms t he prevailing Westerly winds. Nevertheless, i t i s important t o s tress t he t ransitional nature of P erigord c limate. I t i s cooler and drier t han t he l ow-lying coastal p lain, but warmer, and w ith l ess s now and warmer s ummers than t he f lanks o f the Massif Central. Therefore, 2 5 kilometers beyond t he boundaries of t he P erigord, i n e ither an east or west direction, p laces one under r ather different c limatic conditions due to both altitudinal differences and differences i n distance f rom the Atlantic. Because o f t he complicated r elief of t he P erigord, m icroclimatic d ifferences are marked. This i s primarily a r esult o f d ifferences i n solar exposure. According to Odum ( 1 971:138) and Swift and van Bavel ( 1 961), North C arolina experiments s howed s outh-facing watershed s lopes to receive considerably more s olar r adiation ( 2 1 /2 t imes more i n winter; s ee F ig. 3 .5) than north-facing s lopes. Cantlon ( 1 953) f ound the mean monthly temperatures of s outh-facing s lopes i n New Jersey to exceed those of north-facing s lopes by 4 .5 ° F at 4 cm. below ground s urface, 6 0 F at 5 cm. above ground s urface, and 3 .5 ° F at 2 0 cm. above ground s urface. S ankey ( 1 966) r ecords s imilar r esults for t he English chalk country. Bouvier's ( 1 977) s tudy o f orientation d ifferences i n the Vezere Valley a lludes to s uch t emperature differences but p rovides no f igures. Solar exposure will be considered again i n t he f ollowing s ection on vegetation. Also s ignificant t o a discussion of f l icroclimates are t he narrow, s heltered valleys which are f requent i n t he P erigord. Most o f t hese a re the dry valleys mentioned earlier. While t emperature f igures are not available, p ersonal experience has s hown many of these valleys to be more hospitable i n w inter t han more exposed areas. However, this may a lso depend, to some extent on orientation

and

solar

exposure.

VEGETATION

i s

The modern c limatic c limax vegetation i n the P erigord a s ummer deciduous f orest. However, numerous l ocal and

3 3

—

—

0

—

— 1

c o

0

V a l ] ' A l

N OL LV IO n 1 V I8IS3 1 : 11 131V81X3

34


100

A LT ITUDE A BOVE N EAREST R IVER I N METERS F igure 6 .19:

1U

T he d istr ibut ion o f p ioneer ing M agdalenian o ccurrences w ith r espect t o a ltitude a bove n earest r iver

The d ifference between t he Solutrean and Magdalenian i s probably not a r esult o f geological processes. I t could be argued f or example, t hat P erigord r ivers c ut t heir channels t o a l ower l evel between Solutrean and Magdalenian t imes. However, t his s eems not to be t he c ase, a s s everal Magdalenian o ccurrences c lose to r iver l evel are underlain by Solutrean occurrences ( Lestruque, Laugerie-Haute, Chez-Galou, Mazerat...). However, i t i s possible to s uggest that c limate p lays a role i n d ifferences with respect to r iver l evel. D uring humid phases of the Wurm I II and e specially during the humid W urm I II/IV i nterstadial, wet v alley bottom occupation m ay have been avoided. This consideration would have been l ess important during t he cold and very d ry Wurm I V, during which the Magdalenian o ccupation of t he Perigord took p lace. Admittedly, this i s h ighly s peculative. PROXIMITY TO WATER Because f resh water i s a f undamental need of human organisms, and b ecause i t i s d ifficult to transport, i t s eemed l ogical to a ssess t o what d egree s ettlement l ocation was r elated to presently observable s ources of f resh water. Natural water sources in t he Perigord are o f two types: r ivers and s treams, and s prings. A 1 969/70 i nventory of P erigord s prings ( Marchand 1 971) documented 8 00 s uch water s ources. I f s mall springs are considered, the actual n umber i s much g reater. I n any c ase, Magdalenian and a ll other Upper Paleolithic o ccurrences are c losely related to these features. Of 8 8 s ites y ielding Magdalenian o ccurrences, 5 3 are l ocated s o t hat a natural s pring i s the nearest known s ource of water. Of t he r emaining 3 5, only 2 a re l ocated more than 3 00 meters f rom a r iver o r s tream. I n s um, water s eems to have been a p rimary consideration i n Magdalenian s ite l ocation. The s ituation i s s imilar for o ther t ime periods. Only 1 2 o f t he r emaining 9 1 Upper P aleolithic s ites f or which data were collected are s ituated more t han 3 00 meters f rom a presently i dentifiable water s ource. This y ields a total o f only 1 4 of 1 79 s ites s ituated more than 3 00 meters f rom water. While s uch results are e xpectable, they do emphasize t he potential i mportance of water a s a l ocation conditioning s ubsistence r esource. I n Chapter 3 , the f ormation processes o f c aves and s helters were s ummarized. I t was s tated t hat, i n most c ases, water-charged l imestone w as a prerequisite. S ince t he majority o f t he s ite s ample i s composed o f c aves and s helters, i t i s possible that t he presence of s prings i n proximity to s ites i s a g eological r ather t han a behavioral contingency. This by no means s uggests t hat springs were not used by human groups, but r ather t hat they do not r epresent a totally i ndependent variable. However, i t i s i nteresting t o note t hat open-air s ites

1 08

s uch as Limeuil, Fourneau-du-Diable, Le Cerisier, La Cote, Font-St.-Pey, P lateau Parrain, Bois de l ' Ange, Le Dau, and G are de Couze are a ll l ocated l ess than 6 00 meters f rom n atural and often prolific springs. The t ime depth of availability of t hese springs c ould s eemingly be challenged. However, t heir antiquity i s s upported by two f acts. First, many o f them r emain i n a ssociation with caves and shelters which they helped to f orm. S econd, l arge numbers of them are a ssociated w ith dry valleys which t hey also helped to form ( see following s ection). Obviously, the formation of c aves, s helters, and dry valleys predates t heir Paleolithic occupation. Therefore, on geological grounds, i t i s difficult to d ispute the antiquity of associated springs. There are at l east three possible explanations for t he l ocation of Upper Paleolithic occupations near springs and/or s treams. F irst, and most obvious, i s the use o f water f or consumption, cooking, and hygiene. Second i s t he possibility t hat s prings and s treams r epresented watering p laces f or game and were t herefore s tategic hunting spots. However, t he f act t hat many s ites a re l ocated within 1 00 meters o f these springs tends to argue against t he universality of this explanation, s ince t he human presence would have dissuaded approaching animals ( reindeer are a probable exception as will be s uggested below). F inally, the possibility that springs s erved as watering p laces for controlled herds c annot be r ejected out o f hand, but I have c ast doubt on t his notion e lsewhere ( White 1 985). DRY VALLEY OCCUPATION I t became apparent, a fter l ess than two weeks of observation i n the f ield, t hat t here was a c lose correlation between the dry valleys discussed i n Chapter 3 and Upper Paleolithic occypations. I n f act, 7 3 of 1 78 s ites, f or which dry valley data were collected, are l ocated i n dry valleys. For the Magdalenian, 3 6 of 8 8 occurrences are l ocated i n dry valleys and only 1 2 occurrences are l ocated more than 2 50 meters f rom one o f t hese valleys. For the Upper Paleolithic as a whole, 1 16 of 2 70 occurrences are s ituated i n dry valleys. Only 3 2 of these 2 70 occurrences are located more than 2 50 meters f rom a dry valley. Chapter 3 r evealed t hat dry valleys are a common karstic f eature of the P erigord l andscape. The f act t hat t hey are s olution f eatures raises the question of whether t he observed pattern results f rom a greater proportion o f available c aves and rock s helters being present i n dry valleys t han i n major or tributary valleys. This s eems unlikely, however, g iven that exposed c liff f aces i n major and t ributary valleys are a lso s ubject to i ntense solution activity. There are dozens of caves and shelters i n the Vezere Valley i tself ( between Les Eyzies and Le Moustier, f or example). 1 09

There are examples of open-air s ites, i n, or d irectly adjacent to, dry valleys, i ncluding Corbiac, Poulverouse, P lateau P arrain, Badegoule, L imeuil, and Belcayre-Haut. I t i s t herefore h ighly probable t hat t he dry valley emphasis in occupation i s l argely a matter o f human choice, r ather than being merely t he r eflection of t he n atural d istribution of c aves and s helters. There are s everal potential explanations f or dry valley occupation by Upper P aleolithic groups. One o f t hese i s proximity to water, s ince dry valleys u sually contain springs. However, there are others which I f ind more compelling. First, i n areas o f abrupt l imestone c liffs bordering major waterways, dry valleys o ften a llow e asy movement from r iver bottoms to upland or i nterfluvial areas. Dry valley occupation would have made a ll environmental z ones e asily accessible. Second, dry valleys, s loping f rom r iver bottom t o i nterfluve, are, and undoubtedly were, z ones of p edologic and vegetal t ransition ( ecotones), easily exploitable by human groups. I n c ontrast, s teep c liffs are a form o f ecotone which provides l ittle horizontal s pace f or human exploitation o f f aunal and f loral resources. Moreover, the s heltered, well watered nature of most dry valleys may have provided a l ush and more t hermophilous vegetation t han l ess well endowed areas ( see Chapter 3 ). I f this i s s o, i t c an be imagined t hat h umans would h ave been attracted by resources s uch a s f irewood, nuts, and berries, i n addition to associated f aunal r esources. Many dry valleys, being n arrow and bordered by s teep i nclines, s eem well s uited to t he driving or beating o f game. G iven t he advantage of this natural enclosure, a m inimal number of hunters would be r equired to f acilitate entrapment. I n this r espect, dry valleys may r epresent a hunting s trategy s imilar to that documented by Frison and Z eimens ( 1 980:231) f or the Agate Basin Complex of t he Great P lains o f t he United S tates. An additional possibility f or the Perigord i s t he use o f a net hunting t echnique, g iven that cordage was being manufactured, a t l east during t he Magdalenian ( Delluc and D elluc 1 979). Finally, t he possibility of dry valleys being used a s natural corrals for purposes o f herd control, as s uggested by Bordes ( n.d.:66) and S turdy ( 1 975), must at l east be entertained. SOLAR ORIENTATION I t h as l ong b een i ntuitively r ecognized t hat a r elationship exists between s olar orientation a nd Upper Paleolithic s ite location. As early as 1 884 ( Doigneau quoted i n Schmider 1 971:15), i t h ad been noted t hat Upper Paleolithic s ites i n t he I sle de France t ended to occur on south-facing s lopes a nd cliff faces. However, apart f rom Bouvier's ( 1 966, 1 977) geographically r estricted s tudy, 1 10

t he f ollowing i s the f irst t endency w ith data from a l arge

attempt number o f

to measure s ites.

this

F igure 6 .24 portrays t he distribution of Magdalenian occurrences according to t he 1 6 defined compass d ivisions. Not i ncluded are 7 open-air occurrences which were c haracterized a s " flat". The intuitive expectation o f a s outh-facing t endency i s confirmed: 5 4 of 7 9 M agdalenian occurrences are at l east partially s outh-facing. Of these, 2 6 f ace directly s outh. However, t his pattern i s not r estricted to t he Magdalenian. F igures 6 .20 to 6 .25 c learly r eveal that s imilar p atterning characterizes a ll Upper Paleolithic t ime periods i n the Perigord. As a lways, t he question arises as to whether this p attern i s a f unction of h uman choice or of topographic and geological f actors. G iven t hat the major r ivers i n t he P erigord run roughly east to west, i t i s possible t hat i nhabitable c aves and s helters are more available on t he north ( right) s ide of t hese axes, a s a result o f, for example, greater f reeze/thaw activity. S ide-of-river data for each occurrence are presented i n Table 6 .8. Obviously, there i s no propensity to choose either r ight or l eft s ite o f major r ivers. In f act, the s ymmetry i s r emarkable, g iven the presumed quality of t he s ample.

T able

6 .8

D istribution of Upper P aleolithic occurrences according to the s ide o f the major r iver drainage i n which they occur

T ime Lower

Period Perigordian

R ight S ide of Major R iver

Left S ide o f Major River

1 4

1 0

Aurignacian

3 3

3 3

Upper

2 0

2 3

Perigordian

P rotomagdalenian Solutrean

1 1 9

B adegoulian Magdalenian

More i ntriguing i s r unning valleys, s uch anomalous s outh-facing

6 4 4

1 2 3 5 4 3

t he f act t hat, even i n north-south a s the Couze Valley ( Fig. 6 .26), s lopes were chosen f or occupation, 1 11

30-

2 5-

2 0 —

N=23

1 5

N U M B E R O F O C U R E N C E S

1 0_

5-

0 E NE

N E

N NE

N

N NW

NW WNW

W

WSW

SW

S SW

S

S SE

S E

E SE

E

O R F igure 6 .20:

T he o r ientat ion d istr ibution o f L ower P gr igordian o ccurrences

30-

25-

2 04 f e l=42 1 5_

N U M B E R O F O C U R E N C E S

1 0-

57

0

—i —

E NE

N E

N NE

N

1 N NV V NW WNW

W

1 WSW

1

1

SW

S SW

1 S

r S SE

i

l

S E

E SE

l E

O R IENTAT ION F igure 6 .21:

T he o r ientation d istribution o f U pper P gr igordian o ccurrences

1 12

3 0-

25-

2 0— N=62

N U M B E R O F O C U R E N C E S

1 5_

1 0-

5 _

0— E NE

N E

N NE

P d

N NW

NW WNW

W

WSW

SW

S SW

S

S SE

S E

E SE

E

O R IENTAT ION F igure 6 .22:

T he o r ientation d istr ibution o f A urignac ian o ccurrences

30-

2 5_

20 —

N =41

1 5-

N U M B E R O F O C U R E N C E S

1 0-

5 -

0

I E NE

I N E

N NE

I

I

N

N I V A I

I NW

T WNW

1 W

i WSW

S W

S SW

I

I

S

S SE

1 S E

i

i

E SE

E

O R IENTAT ION F igure 6 .23:

T he o r ientation d istr ibution o f S o lutrean o ccurrences

1 13

30 . -

2 5,

2 0 . . N 79 1 5-

N U M B E R O F O C U R E N C E S

1 0 .-

5-

0

r E NE

N E

N NE

N

N NW

N W

WNW

I N

W SW

SW

S SW

S

S SE

S E

E SE

E

O R IENTAT ION

F igure 6 .24:

T he o r ientation d istr ibut ion o f M agdalenian o ccurrences

1 14

N U M B E R O F U P E R P A L E O L I T H I C S I T E S

E NE

N E

N NE

N

N NW

N W I N N IN

W

I N S IN

S W

S SW

S

S SE

S E

E SE

E

O R IENTAT ION F igure 6 .25:

T he o r ientation d istr ibution o f P gr igord U pper P aleo lithic s ites r egardless o f o ccurrences p resent

1 15

1 16

despite t he c liff f aces.

predominance of

roughly

e ast-

and west-facing

Few data are available concerning unoccupied c aves and s helters. Nevertheless, there are known examples o f north-facing caves and rock shelters that s eemingly went unoccupied, f urther s uggesting t hat s ite orientation was l argely a matter o f human choice. I n t he vicinity of t he s ite of Tourtoirac, in t he valley of t he Auvezere, t here are a number of north-facing caves and s helters containing only s terile deposits ( C. Archambeau: personal communication). I n the Dronne drainage, d irectly opposite t he SSW-facing s ite of Brouillaud, t here i s a l arge, north-facing rock s helter s howing no s ign o f P aleolithic occupation ( C. Kervazo: personal communication). At Les Eyzies, t he massive north-facing Guilhem c liffs, dotted with c aves and s helters, have y ielded but one s parce t race o f Upper Paleolithic occupation ( Daniel 1 962b). The s ituation i s perhaps most s triking i n t he Vallon de Rebieres, a narrow dry valley opening off t he Dronne Valley a t Brantöme. The s outh-facing s ide of t his e ast-west r unning valley y ielded n ine s eparate Paleolithic s ites ( Pittard 1 912; S auter 1 946). The north-facing s ide was apparently never occupied, despite t he presence of a t l east one i ntact s helter. Bouvier ( 1 966) has c laimed variation i n Upper P aleolithic s ite orientation depending upon t he w idth of t he valley i n which a s ite i s l ocated. He s uggests t hat s ites i n wide valleys are generally s outh-oriented while i n narrow, s heltered valleys orientation i s r andom. However, t he present data f irmly contradict Bouvier's assertion. Of 1 18 s ites t hat f ace p artially s outh, 4 1 ( 35%) are l ocated at points where valley width i s 2 00 meters or l ess. Of the 3 9 s ites oriented i n o ther d irections, 9 ( 23%) are l ocated at points where valley w idth i s 2 00 meters or l ess. I n t he c ase of f our s ites, e stimates o f valley w idth were not made. I n f act, t hen, t here appears to be no t rend toward r andom orientation i n s heltered valleys. C learly, shelter f rom the e lements i s only one o f many f actors t hat condition s ite orientation. The evidence s trongly s uggests that human choice i s t he best explanation for t he occupation o f s outh-facing l ocalities throughout t he entire Upper D aleolithic. The possible advantages gained t hrough s outh-facing occupation are many, and Upper P aleolithic s ite choice was probably b ased on a combination of t hese. F irst, we are undoubtedly dealing w ith a f orm of P aleolithic solar heating. For s everal Upper P aleolithic s ites i n Northwestern Greece, Legge ( 1 972) has s hown t hat s outh-facing s helters s tore up s olar heat during t he day, and s lowly r elease i t at n ight. This has the effect o f r educing d iurnal/nocturnal f luctuations i n t emperature, t hus providing a more s table t emperature regime f or human i nhabitants. Moreover, a s was demonstrated i n Chapter 3 , daily t emperatures are s ubstantially h igher on s outh1 17

f acing s lopes t han e lsewhere. South-facing occupation t herefore s eems a s imple and e fficient s trategy to t ake advantage of heat retention. S uch a s trategy no doubt s ubstantially r educed f uel r equirements. The s econd advantage of s outh-facing occupation i s t hat i t provides a dry environment f or h abitation because of a r elatively h igh evapotranspiration r ate. Moreover, s pring s now melt occurs s ooner and more r apidly on s outhf acing s lopes. Spring comes earlier to s uch l ocales. A third advantage i n the P erigord i s t hat s outh- and east-facing l ocalities p rovide considerably more protection f rom t he e lements t han do northand west-facing ones. This i s because the prevailing winds, and hence precipitation, are f rom t he west and northwest. I t i s i nteresting that, where i ntact habitation s tructures have been recovered i n open-air contexts, t heir presumed entrances f ace s outh. This i s t rue at both P lateau Parrain ( Bordes and Gaussen 1 970) and Corbiac ( Bordes 1 968). Moreover, at P lateau P arrain, Bordes and Gaussen documented a t rench a long t he western wall o f t he t ent s tructure, which they i nterpreted as a means o f draining rain water. This s upports t he i dea t hat s ite construction and orientation responded, i n part, to a need f or protection f rom t he e lements. Another point has to do with vegetation. I n Chapter 3 , i t was s hown t hat, even t oday, s outh-facing s lopes i n t he Perigord s upport a thermophilous f lora, u sually characteristic o f regions much f urther s outh. D uring t he l ate P leistocene, t he warmth and good drainage o f s outhf acing s lopes may well have t ranslated i nto abundant t ree and s hrub growth, as i s evidenced in t he pollen s pectra f rom Abri Pataud and Abri F lageolet ( see Chapter 3 ). This i s perhaps an i ndication t hat Upper Paleolithic vegetal exploitation was more i mportant than h as been r ecognized heretofore. South-facing occupation a lso offers advantages w ith r egard t o i llumination. The n umber of daylight hours would be maximized by a s outh-facing s trategy, undoubtedly a llowing more t ime f or precision activities. This would hold special i mportance during the s horter days o f winter. Finally, t he efficiency o f food drying and h ide preparation would have been enhanced by s outh-facing occupation, t hrough a combination o f drier ground and greater receipt o f solar energy. RIVER FORDS At t he s uggestion of de Sonneville-Bordes ( personal communication) and R igaud ( personal communication), I began collecting data on potential r iver c rossings on major waterways. De Sonneville-Bordes s uggested t hat fords might be a s ignificant determinant o f s ite location

1 18

a nd that, i n many c ases, t hese f eatures were o f considerable antiquity s ince dredging of t hese s hallows h ad produced Bronze Age artifacts. Moreover, s he i nformed me t hat f ords were o ften e asy to document b ecause h istoric p eoples had chosen t hem f or t he construction o f m ills, b ridges, l ocks, and dams. I n additon, Scargill ( 1974:187-188,204) s tates that major towns s uch as Bergerac and R iberac were e stablished at f ords during t he f irst millenium A .D. He f urther notes t hat a t t he P as de M iroir, an area o f s hallows i n the Vezere i n f ront of Roque-Saint Christophe and Le Moustier, the Vikings were f orced t o build a c anal during t heir s acking o f Southwestern France during the n inth c entury A .D. This f urther s uggests t hat t hese f eatures h ave r emained s table over t ime. Fords at which no h istoric construction was present were documented with t he a ssistance of l ocal f armers, who h ad a r emarkable knowledge of r iver morphology. For e xample, with r egard to t he ford adjacent t o t he l arge Magdalenian s ite o f Bout-du-Monde, I was i nformed by an aged r esident that a f ence had l ong s ince been constructed to prevent cattle f rom walking across the Vezere. I t quickly b ecame apparent t hat f ords and s ites on major r ivers were c losely a ssociated. F igures 6 .27 t o 6 .32 i ndicate t hat t his t endency i s more p ronounced for t he Solutrean and Magdalenian than for other c ultural periods. Table 6 .9 i s a calculation of the ratio o f occurrences more t han and l ess than 1 000 meters f rom a known f ord f or each period. I t confirms t hat p roportionally more Magdalenian and ( especially) Solutrean occurrences are l ocated w ithin 1 000 meters o f a f ord on a major r iver t han i n preceding t ime periods. As u sual, however, the Lower P erigordian i s anomalous, perhaps due t o s ample s ize. Calculations of mean d istance f rom a f ord f or each period ( Table 6 .10) s eem to r eflect the above t rends i n spite o f l arge s tandard deviations. I t i s concluded that a ll Upper Paleolithic t ime periods, e xcept t he Lower Perigordian, e xhibit a s patial a ffinity for r iver fords. I t i s f urther s uggested t hat t his a ffinity i s most pronounced for known Solutrean and Magdalenian o ccurrences. However, i t i s uncertain to what extent t his l atter d ifference i s due to d ifferential s ite p reservation. The i mplications o f t his pattern are i mportant, a s I w ill emphasize r epeatedly i n t he p ages which f ollow. I t i s therefore crucial to a ttempt to verify t hat f ords were, i n f act, present a t t heir modern l ocations during Upper P aleolithic t imes. Despite the geological complexity o f t he s ituation, t his proves s urprisingly easy, s ince most, i f not a ll, documented f ords r esult from t he s ame combination of g eological f actors, t ectonics and rock s tructure.

1 19

30 _

. 25 _

. 20

N -22

15

. 10

P R O P O R T I O N O F O C U R E N C E S

22

05

-

i

_ 00 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

12

13

1 4

5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

D ISTANCE F ROM N EAREST K NOWN F ORD I N M ETERS ( X 1000 )

F igure 6 .27:

T he d istr ibution o f L ower P erigordian o ccurrences w ith r espect t o d istance f rom n earest k nown f ord

. 30

. 25

20

5

P R O P R T I O N O F O C U R E N C E S

10

. 05

00 0

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

D ISTANCE F ROM N EAREST K NOWN F ORD I N M ETERS ( X 1000 )

F igure 6 .28 :

T he d istr ibution o f A urignac ian o ccurrences w ith r espect t o d istance f rom n earest k nown f ord

1 20

. 30 -

. 25

. 20

N .42

. 15

P R O P O R T I O N O F O C U R E N C E S

_ 10

• 05

1f l t j i i n{ d i 2 .

,

1

. 00 0

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

M

1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

D ISTANCE F ROM N EAREST K NOWN F ORD I N METERS ( X 1000 )

F igure 6 .29:

T he d istr ibution o f U pper P gr igordian o ccurrences w ith r espect t o d istance f rom n earest k nown f ord

_ 30 -

. 25 _

-2 0 _

N •41

. 15 _

_

P R O P R T I O N O F O C U R E N C E S

1 8

. 05

1 1 1

0 0 0

1

I

I

n

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

17

18

1 9

2 0

D ISTANCE F ROM N EAREST K NOWN F ORD I N METERS ( X 1000 )

7 igure 6 .30:

T he d istribution o f S o lutrean o ccurrences w ith r espect t o d istance f rom n earest k nown f ord

1 21

P R O P O R T I O N O F O C U R E N C E S

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

W

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

D ISTANCE F ROM N EAREST K NOWN F ORD I N M ETERS ( X 1000 )

F igure 6 .31:

T he d istr ibution o f M agdalenian o ccurrences w ith r espect t o d istance f rom n earest k nown f ord

" . 30

a . 05

. 00 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

D ISTANCE F ROM N EAREST K NOWN F ORD I N M ETERS ( X 1000 )

F igure 6 .32:

T he d istr ibution o f p ioneer ing M agdalenian o ccurrences w ith r espect t o d istance f rom n earest k nown f ord

1 22

T able

6 .9

Ratio o f occurrences over and under t he nearest known f ord f or e ach Upper

T ime Period *

# of occurrences < 1000 m f rom nearest ford

LP

1 000 meters P aleolithic

# o f occurrences > 1000 m f rom nearest f ord

7

f rom p eriod

Ratio

1 5

1 :2.14

A

3 3

2 9

1 .13:1

UP

2 3

1 9

1 .22:1

S

2 7

1 4

1 .93:1

M

5 0

3 5

1 .43:1

*P rotomagdalenian and Badegoulian s ize.

T able Mean

d istance by t ime

excluded

due

to

s ample

6 .10

to the period

nearest known ( in meters)

ford

LP N =22

A N =62

UP N =42

N =41

N =85

Mean D istance t o Known Ford

3 398

2 477

2 713

1 782

2 044

Standard Deviation

4 642

3 605

3 577

2 906

3 470

*P rotomagdalenian and s ize.

Badegoulian

excluaed

due

to

s ample

I n Chapter 3 i t was s hown t hat most r iver valleys and dry valleys i n t he Perigord have been cut i nto t he axes or f lanks o f ancient anticlines, resulting i n i nverted r elief. I t was a lso s hown that major r ivers not only f ollow NE-SW s triking anticlines b ut t hat t hey are a lso c rossed by SE-NW s triking anticlines. Thus, by bringing to t he s ame l evel Cretaceous s trata o f much d ifferent t exture and s tructure, these aniclines r esult i n r iver meandering and d ifferences i n r iver depth. The Vezere Valley provides a c lear i llustration of this process. 1 23

The majority o f fords i n the Vezere c an be c onnected by a s traight l ine r unning more or l ess NE-SW ( Figure 6 .33). Marchand's ( 1 971:Chapter 2 ) geological s ection across the Vezere, which i s reproduced here ( Figure 6 .34), i ndicates an explanation f or t his l inearity: B etween Le Bugue and St. Leon-sur Vezere, t he Vezere R iver, c utting t hrough Coniacian l imestone, meanders back a nd f orth across the anticline which i t follows and which i s c learly documented i n F igure 6 .33 and 6 .34. Each t ime t he Vezere moves l aterally across this anticline, s hallows, i slands, or r apids are evident. Recalling f rom Chapter 3 t hat Coniacian l imestone a lternates vertically f rom dolomitic to marlacious, i t i s a lmost c ertain t hat t hese s hallow areas result f rom the breaching of a durable and f olded Coniacian s tratum, the s trike l ine o f which c onforms t o the s traight l ine of f ords and i slands a long the Vezere. After M iller ( 1 961:98) t his l inear arrangement o f s hallows, due to the outcrop of a r esistant bed, i s one o f the " more f requently f ound types o f s tream anomalies". I n t his s ame s tretch of the Vezere, which contains at l east 4 0 known Upper P aleolithic s ites, t here i s a s mall number of fords which do not adhere t o this s traight l ine. W ithout exception, t hese occur i n conjunction w ith f ormer anticlines, now hosting tributary or dry valleys, which t ransect t he Vezere. This f act i s not only evident f rom topographic maps, but has a lso been documented i n t he f ield with t he k ind a ssistance of Bertrand K ervazo, a geologist with the Centre National de Prehistoire i n P erigueux. This t ransection by anticlines i s r esponsible for the f ords below t he s ite o f Chäteau des Eyzies, i n front of Laugerie-Haute/Laugerie-Basse, adjacent t o La Madeleine, and i n f ront o f Le Moustier ( Fig. 6 .33). The p attern a lso occurs i n the o ther major r iver valleys of the P erigord. At Couze, on t he Dordogne, t he anticline which the Couze Valley now f ollows brought durable Maestrichtian l imestone to t he s urface, r esulting i n the most spectacular f ord i n the Perigord, t he Sautes de l a Gratusse. This presented s uch a b arrier to r iver n avigation i n the l ast c entury that i t necessitated t he construction of a c anal to c ircumvent t he r apids. I t i s here t hat the Magdalenian s ites o f Gare de Couze, Soucy, Roche de Lalinde, and Trou de Peyrol are s ituated. The correspondence i s no l ess Valley. I n i ts m iddle r eaches, t he f orth across the anticline which

impressive i n the I sle I sle meanders back and i t follows ( see F ig.

3 .3), r esulting i n a s eries of f ords between Mussidan a nd S t. Astier. This i s precisely the area i n which a ll of Gaussen's ( 1 980) open-air Upper Paleolithic s ites a re l ocated ( Fig. 6 .35).

s ame more t he

Perhaps even more convincing are i nstances where t he NE-SW t ending anticline i s responsible f or f ords on than one major r iver i n t he Perigord. For example, Tour-Blanche/Saint Cyprien a nticline ( Vignaud 1 975:30)

1 24

I Ch . d es 2L ang .- B een e 3L aud .- Haute 4B ou t-du- Monde 5l e Made le ine 6R e ign.

kw .

0

F ORD

•

L ARGE MAG S ITE

1 11 T O WN

F igure 6 .33:

T he l ocation o f f ords a nd t heir r elationship t o l arge M agdalenian o ccurrences i n t he V g Are V alley

1 25

0-%

C

-o

C ( 0

0 >

U 1 M -0 Z 1 O 1c r ) t .

0

0 C

4 ) C

4 a C

4 ( 1 ) — O

C ( 0

-C

4 O

4 3 4 ) >

i n . X

. 0 4 - 4 1 0

c O c • E

3 0 — 0

J . (

« )

O 14 C • 1 . L • >

4 - e0 • N % a ) • > C . 0 E X

4 I C O C . 0
450 4 95 > 1000 > 1000 1 500 2 000 2 000 > 3000 4 500 5 400 6 000

1 64

( M

2)

Bone Needles

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Table

6 .17

S craper/burin f requencies by s ize category f or Magdalenian occurrences

Occurrence

N

S crapers

Small Crabillat Jolivet M ege L a Forge P lateau Parrain La Gaubert La Caillade M as de Sourzac J ardel I I

2 61 1 40 1 38 9 48 1 35 8 0 1 74 7 1 4 53

Burins

Occurrences < 120m 2 3 1 3 7 1 8 2 42 2 0 1 6 3 7 1 7 5 0

1 1.9 2 6.4 1 3.0 2 5.5 1 4.8 2 0.0 2 1.3 2 3.9 1 1.0

2 30 1 03 1 20 7 06 1 15 6 4 1 37 5 4 4 03

X=18.6 S = 6 .1

Larger Occurrences Chateau des Eyzies Middle Mag. 7 8 Mag. V /VI 1 34 Longueroche Mag. I V 1 17 Mag. V 2 43 L imeuil 2 985 Soucy 1 628 L a Main e Mag. V 1 02 Mag. VI 2 20 C ap-Blanc 2 37 Reverdit 1 064 Solvieux 6 11 Recourbie I /II 7 41 C hez-Galou 2 00 L augerie-Haute 9 75 La Madeleine Mag. IV 2 900 Mag. V 2 445 Mag. VI V illepin Mag. VI

8 8.1 7 3.6 8 7.0 7 4.5 8 5.2 8 0.0 7 8.7 7 6.1 8 9.0

X =81.4 S = 6 .1

> 120m 2

2 1 4 2

2 6.9 3 1.3

5 7 9 2

7 3.1 6 8.7

4 4 6 8 3 78 3 19

3 7.6 2 8.0 1 2.6 1 9.6

7 3 1 75 2 607 1 309

6 2.4 7 2.0 8 7.3 8 0.4

2 0 3 7 5 3 3 96 8 3 1 98 3 7 4 01

1 9.6 1 6.8 2 2.4 3 7.2 1 3.6 2 6.7 1 8.5 4 1.1

8 2 1 83 1 84 6 68 5 28 5 43 1 63 5 74

8 0.4 8 3.2 7 7.6 6 2.8 8 6.4 7 3.3 8 1.5 5 8.9

1 029 6 13

3 5.5 2 5.1

1 871 1 832

6 4.5 7 4.9

3 756

1 493

3 9.7

2 263

6 0.3

1 26

5 0

3 9.7

7 6

6 0.3

1 65

Table

Occurrence

Roc-St.-Cirq r ed l ayer brown l ayer Lestuque Roc d ' Abeilles Grands Rochers Rochereil l evel I Ia l evel I Ib F lageolet I I Gare de Couze 1 0-20 cm. 2 0-30 cm. 4 5-55 cm.

6 .17

N

( continued)

Scrapers

B urins

1 98 7 55 2 22 5 39 1 45

5 0 2 95 5 0 1 09 2 5

2 5.3 3 9.1 2 2.5 2 0.2 1 7.2

1 48 4 61 1 72 4 30 1 20

7 4.7 6 0.9 7 7.5 7 9.8 8 2.8

1 514 7 2 1 73

2 67 2 1 5 3

1 7.6 2 9.1 3 0.6

1 247 5 1 1 20

8 2.4 7 0.9 6 9.4

9 9 9 9 7 9

2 2 2 9 3 0

2 2.2 2 9.2 3 8.0

7 7 7 0 4 9

7 7.8 7 0.8 6 2.0

7=26.9 S = 8 .6 Note:

X =73.1 S = 8 .6

N= burins ( types 2 7-44) + s crapers ( types 1 -15). Only a ssemblages where N =70 or more a re considered here. D ata for the s mall occurrences o f Font-Brune and Fourneau-du-Diable h ave been excluded. According to de SonnevilleBordes ( 1 960:446), Font-Brunel i s transitional to the Azillan, a s ituation which a lways y ields h igh s craper percentages. The Magdalenian a t Fourneau-du-Diable was contaminated by the underlying Solutrean ( de SonnevilleBordes 1 960:457). D ata f or t he l arge occurrences of Liveyre and t he upper l evel at V illepin were e xcluded f or precisely t he s ame r easons. A ll f our a ssemblages s howed extremely h igh s craper values, i ncoherent w ith t he Magdalenian r ange of variablility. Sources

o f

data

1 66

are

c ited

i n T able

4 .5.

CHAPTER SUMMARY REMARKS C ONTRIBUTIONS

7

AND SUGGESTIONS

OF THE

PRESENT

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

STUDY

From the beginning, t he goal o f this work was not to draw f irm conclusions r egarding Upper P aleolithic s ubsistence and s ettlement, but t o establish a base l ine f rom which f uture research c an proceed. I nsofar as t his goal has been realized, primary contributions are the f ollowing: 1 .

The marked P erigord potentially prehistoric

environmental d iversity o f the has been recognized a s a c rucial f actor f or t he r egion's i nhabitants.

2 .

The i mplications of the Upper data base, w ith respect to the of human behavior, have been s tated.

3 .

Potential patterning detail.

4 .

The a ll have

5 .

Certain previously i mpressions have a ssessed.

6 .

The t raditional conception o f r eindeer s pecialization has been disputed, and exception h as been t aken w ith t he s uggestion t hat t he M iddle/Upper Paleolithic t ransition witnesses a t rend to s uch specialization.

7 .

A r iver valley f ocus i n Upper P aleolithic s ettlement h as been noted, and i ssue h as been t aken with t he i dea t hat t he Magdalenian s ees a s hift t o a more r iverine emphasis i n s ubsistence and s ettlement.

geological h ave been

Paleolithic e lucidation explicitly

contributions considered i n

t o s ome

precise c artographic l ocations o f nearly Upper P aleolithic s ites i n t he P erigord been c atalogued.

1 67

published qualitative been quantitatively

8 .

Solar orientation data and t heir behavioral implications discussed.

have been presented, and archeological

9 .

A c lose r elationship has been f ound between Upper P aleolithic s ites on one hand, and s prings, dry valleys, fords, and meanders on the other. The geological basis of these topographic f eatures has been explored and their antiquity assessed. Potential s ubsistence i mplications have been discussed.

1 0.

For t he f irst t ime, approximate areal e stimates have been made available f or t he majority o f Upper P aleolithic s ites i n the P erigord.

1 1.

Locational evidence has been presented to s uggest a c lose correlation between l arge Magdalenian s ites and potential r eindeer water crossings. The s ubsistence, social, and demographic i mplications h ave b een discussed.

1 2.

The l arge s ite distri bution of pre-Magdalenian periods has been s hown to differ f rom the Magdalenian pattern.

1 3.

The introduction of the s ite area variable has l ed to t he observation o f s ome patterning in assemblage variability.

1 4.

The possibility o f a Magdalenian population explosion has been s eriously questioned.

The f inal contribution, which f ollows, i s a s uggested guide for f uture research which will t ake advantage of both the patterns and l imitations observed i n t he course of the research outlined here. SUGGESTIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research designs c an be s uggested, which are c apable of overcoming t he l imitations of t he present data base, and o f assessing and t esting t he hypotheses presented in t he preceding c hapter. These s uggestions are phrased i n t erms o f two complementary c ategories; research at the l ocal l evel; and research at t he regional l evel. This discussion must be prefaced with t he willing admission t hat many of t he s uggestions made below do not result s olely f rom original t hinking on my p art, but r ather from f ruitful discussions, s ince 1 974, w ith many French and North American s cholars. I n this s ense, i t i s i mpossible to disentangle my own t hinking f rom t heirs.

1 68

R ESEARCH AT THE L OCAL LEVEL Any f uture r egional s ynthesis must b e b ased upon a w ell-collected b ody o f d ata, a t t he l evel o f t he i ndividual s ite o r l ocality. I n m any w ays, t his d ata c ollection i s a lready u nderway. There a re n evertheless a v ariety o f s erious p roblems, m any o f which a re n ot p eculiar t o t he P erigord. P erhaps t he t horniest p roblem i n modern P aleolithic r esearch l ies i n t he i dentification o f d iscrete o ccupational u nits. This p roblem h as both vertical a nd h orizontal c omponents. I t i s v ertical i n t he s ense t hat, e ven where no b reaks i n s edimentation o r a rtifact density a re observable f rom t op t o bottom i n a g iven c ouche, a s ingle, c ontinuous o ccupation c annot b e a ssumed, g iven t he p ossibility o f f requent r eoccupation. The p roblem i s h orizontal i n t he s ense t hat i dentified a rtifacts and h abitation s tructures, i n even t he t hinnest o f c ouches, m ay n ot b e p recisely c ontemporary b ut m ay r esult f rom r eoccupation. T his problem i s n ot e ntirely s oluble g iven p resent c hronological c apabilities. H ence, e ven under o ptimum e xcavation c onditions, t he s uggestion t hat a rcheological c ouches c overing a g reat s urface a rea r epresent l arger h uman groups t han t hose c overing a s mall s urface a rea r emains b ut a working h ypothesis. A p artial s olution t o t he d ilemma i s t he r econstitution o f l ithic s hatter a nd b one d ebris f rom d ifferent d epths and d ifferent s patial z ones o f t he s ame a rcheological c ouche ( cf. C ahen e t a l. 1 979; Leroi-Gourhan a nd Brezillon 1 972). I f l arge n umbers o f p ieces f rom d ifferent depths c an b e r econstituted, a s ingle o ccupation i s probable. S imilarly, i f f ragments f rom o ver t he e ntire s urface a rea o f a c ouche c an b e p ieced t ogether, c ontemporaneity o f d ifferent s patial a reas c an b e a rgued. S uch l aborious a nd t ime-consuming r econstitution must b e c arried o ut a s a matter o f c ourse i n a ll f uture e xcavation, i f w e a re ever t o h ave a ccurate documentation o f Upper P aleolithic l iving s pace. A s a pproximate a s r adiometric d ating i s, i t must b e e mployed i n a t horough m anner i f t he many m icroc hronological d ebates a re t o b e r esolved. Frequently, o nly a s mall n umber o f dating s amples ( often only 1 or 2 ) a re s ubmitted f or e ach couche. M any more a re r equired and t hese must derive f rom a s many d ifferent c ontexts w ithin a c ouche a s p ossible ( ie. top, b ottom, and d ifferent s patial a reas). Only t hen c an a l arge n umber o f c ouches b e r easonably f itted i nto a general c hronological f ramework. Traditional s ampling p rocedures a t t he l ocal l evel m ust be r evolutionized. Emphasis must b e s hifted, s o t hat c ompetent s tratigraphic analysis i s b alanced b y a c oncern w ith t he s patial correlates o f h uman b ehavior. I t c an no l onger b e a cceptable t o merely s ound a P aleolithic s ite. W henever possible, c ouches m ust b e e xcavated i n t heir e ntirety a nd t heir s patial l imits r igorously defined. 1 69

Only i n t his way w ill t he f ull r ange o f a ctivities o n a l iving f loor b e s ubject t o detailed a nalysis. T here i s n o greater d estruction t han t hat c reated b y g enerations o f archeologists, who h ave l eft g aping t renches i n t he m iddle o f P erigord Upper P aleolithic s ites. F rom t he p erspective o f t he s patial o rganization o f h uman b ehavior, t he deposits w hich presently r emain i n s uch s ites a re probably o f l ittle o r no u se. Fortunately, s ome o f t he h ypotheses p resented i n Chapter 6 r equire t esting o utside o f t he a reas o f t raditional e xcavation. I f k ill s ites a re t o b e f ound, t he e nvirons o f h eretofore i dentified o ccupations must b e s earched. As a b eginning, v alley b ottoms a djacent t o f ords, t he b ottoms o f d ry v alleys, a nd t he a reas a round s prings must b e t ested. I t i s a s ign o f t he h ealthy s tate o f F rench P aleol ithic methodology t hat t he a rea o f most p otential concern, e xcavation, i s under c ontrol. T he c ultural l evel i s now t he f ocus o f excavation, which a ttempts t o e xpose l arge s urface a reas i n order t o g ive a v isual i mpression o f s patial p atterning. Three d imentional measurement, t he mapping o f e ven t he t iniest f ragments, a nd p recise g eological c ontrol e nsure t he r ecovery o f a ll a rtifacts i n t heir e xact s patial and s tratigraphic c ontext. This i s a s low, p ainstaking p rocess which must c ontinue f or d ecades b efore appreciable s ynthetic r esults w ill b e a vailable. On t he b asis o f t hese p recise d ata, i ntra-site s ettlement p atterns w ill b e approachable. There a re n otable weaknesses i n t he present mode o f f aunal a nalysis w hich must b e r emedied i f s ignificant b ehavioral s tatements are t o b e made. I n s ome q uarters ( cf. D elpech 1 970; Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon 1 972), p ositive c hanges a re o ccurring. H owever, i t i s no l onger o f s ufficient v alue t o p resent o nly h erbivore b one p ercentages. An e lement b y e lement, s pecies b y s pecies l ist must b e p art o f a ll p ublished a nalyses. Combined w ith m inimum n umber o f i ndividuals c alculation, analyses o f b utchering p atterns a nd s tudies o f t he s patial d istribution o f f aunal e lements a nd f ragments, t hese k ind o f data c an l ead t o i nter-site c omparisons o f p rocessing a ctivities. T hey c an a lso a llow t he t esting o f hypothetical s ite t ypologies, s uch a s t hat p roposed i n Chapter 6 . Analysis b iased i n f avor o f l arge h erbivores c an n o l onger b e maintained. S mall s pecies s uch a s r abbits, h ares, f ish, and b irds must b e i ncluded i n a ny e stimation o f d ietary i nput. T here a re t wo areas o f c oncern i n t he s tudy o f Upper P aleolithic f lora. F irst, p ollen a nalysis h as b een a lmost e ntirely r estricted t o p ollen derived f rom a rcheological s ediments. S ampling o f t his k ind i s s ubject t o h uman i nduced b iases, s uch a s t he d ifferential i mportation o f pollen a nd t he destruction o f p ollen b y h uman a ctivities. I f m icroenvironmental • d ifferences a re t o b e b etter

1 70

understood, attempts must g eographic and depositional

be made to s ample a variety of environments.

Secondly, attempts to r ecover macrofloral r emains f rom Upper Paleolithic deposits have been minimal, partially due to t he preconceived notion of Upper Paleolithic b ig g ame hunters. The f act that wood charcoal i s o ften p reserved, s uggests that c arbonized s eeds and nuts s hould a lso be recoverable i f appropriate means of f lotation are developed and u sed. This i s the only way to a ssess whether s outh-facing and dry valley occupation r eflect s trategies for e xploitation of t he f loral environment. I t i s also the only way to gain a more complete p icture of t he subsistence b ase. RESEARCH AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL As at the l ocal l evel, chronology i s a major concern when attempting any k ind of regional s ynthesis for t he P erigord. A more refined chronology i s required to make t he assumption o f a s ingle s ettlement s ystem more viable and to monitor s hifts i n s ettlement through t ime. For e xample, i t would be of great interest to know whether t he o ccupation of the four major r iver valleys of the Perigord was contemporaneous, or whether d ifferent valleys were o ccupied at different t imes i n response to f actors such a s hifts i n reindeer migration routes. The geological contemporaneity of s upposedly different c ultural periods discussed i n Chapter 4 makes i t apparent that the use o f " fossiles directeurs" i s no l onger a r easonable and accurate form o f chronology building, except at t he most general l evel. Radiometric t echniques, despite t heir weaknesses, must be employed i n a r igorous and s ystematic f ashion. I t i s obvious that the data presented i n Chapter 6 c ould be used to predict t he l ocations of additional Upper P aleolithic s ites. I n the s hort t erm, this would be a s erious m istake s ince i t would reinforce whatever b iases a lready exist i n the s ample o f s ites at hand. Systematic s urvey i s crucial in t esting t he hypotheses presented i n Chapter 6 , and i n assessing the representativeness of the s ite s ample upon which these hypotheses were b ased. I n h eavily exploited areas, such as the Vez re Valley around Les Eyzies, i nverse s tratification, focusing on i nterf luvial areas and non-south-facing, non-dry valley l ocalities, must be employed to balance t he s ite s ample. Despite t he t ime and cost i nvolved, means of s ub-surface s ampling s uch a s those employed by Gaussen, must be applied. I n l ess well known areas, s uch a s t he Dronne drainage, workable s urvey s trategies are possible which i nitially g ive equal weight to a variety o f l ocal s ituations, thus avoiding s ample b ias. One o f the s trategy i n the geomorphological

most i mportant aspects of any s urvey P erigord, must be competent geological and control. As h as been emphasized 1 71

t hroughout this s tudy, the p atterned distribution o f archeological manifestations over the l andscape c annot be assumed a priori to reflect human behavior patterns. Nor c an an absence o f archeological materials i n a g iven area be assumed to r epresent a dearth of occupation. When dealing with the P leistocene, complex geological processes s uch as cryoturbation, s olifluxion, and mass wasting must be considered. I n e ffect, i n addition to documenting c ultural patterning i n s ite l ocation, we must document geological patterns of s ite preservation and destruction. I t i s no l onger s atisfactory to c haracterize the P leistocene environment of the Perigord i n general t erms s uch as cold/dry or s teppe/forest. G iven l ocal variability, more r igorous attempts must be made to i nfer t he geographic distribution of t he various permutations o f the b iotic complex i f s ignificant l inkages between culture and environment are to be s ought. While s uch an attempt has been made here, I am not a pedologist, paleobotanist, b iologist, or geologist. Formal co-operation between s uch s cholars i s essential t o the goals of p aleoanthropology. Only when the environmental d iversity, which I h ave i mplied here, has been characterized, and, to t he extent to which i t i s possible, mapped, will archeologists be able to make t ruly valuable s tatements concerning t he relationship between s ite l ocation and t he l ocal environment. The s uggestions r egarding f aunal analysis, made in the previous s ection on research a t the l ocal l evel, c an result i n some i mportant s ynthetic s tatements at t he regional l evel. When s easonal data become available for a s ufficient number of occupational l evels, over a wide area, reindeer m igration routes, c alving areas, and w intering grounds s hould come more c learly i nto f ocus. I n f act, this k ind of research, b ased on f aunal material of variable quality, i s presently being conducted by Bryan Gordon of t he National Museum of Canada. Research i nto s easonality o f occupation w ill s hed t he hypothesis, r ecently p ut f orth considerable l ight on by Bahn ( 1 977), t hat Upper Paleolithic groups i n Southf ollowing reindeer herds over western France were Doubt will be c ast on t his s ubstantial d istances. hypothesis i f t he Perigord p roves t o have hosted a ll phases of the s easonal round. This i s i n f act possible, g iven the s easonal data ( albeit f ragmentary) presented i n Chapter 6 , and t he r ichness and diversity c haracteristic of t he l ate P leistocene P erigord environment. Binford ( 1 978) has r ecently i llustrated how differences i n t he r epresentation of a natomical e lements are i ndicative of processing activities, s easonal decision making, and dietary s tress. Obviously, when e lement data become available f or t he Upper P aleolithic i n t he P erigord, t hey will add a whole new dimension to our understanding of s ubsistence and s ettlement. S uch data c an be employed, f or example, to test t he hypothesis o f 1 72

s pecial

purpose

c amps

presented

i n Chapter

6 .

Present modes of artifact analysis create some obstacles to r egional s ynthesis and s ite t ypology. With r egard to l ithics, there are two f undamental needs. F irst, a more objectively defined t ypology, which does not g ive undue emphasis to t raditional i ndex f ossils, i s n ecessary. S econdly, more emphasis must be p laced on i ndications of a rtifact use such as edge wear and spatial c ontext w ithin an occupational l evel. Such data, for a number o f s ites ( see Moss 1 983 for a beginning s tep), would f acilitate s tatements concerning i nter-site d ifferences i n g roup organization and a ctivities, s uch as t hose made by Judge ( 1 973) concerning t he Paleoindian o ccupation of t he Central Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. The greatest deficiencies i n artifact analysis l ie w ith bone and antler i mplements and projectiles. There i s no comprehensive and widely used t ypology which has been applied t o these, and t hey have never been used i n quantitative a ssemblage comparisons. I n effect, they maintain their t raditional s tatus as i ndex fossils. S imek ( 1 978) has made i t c lear t hat a great deal of variability e xists, within i ndividual c lasses of bone projectiles, which has been i gnored by the traditional uniserial/ b iserial dichotomy. Before any attempt can be made to r elate d ifferences in bone and antler artifacts to d ifferences i n l ocation and s ite s ize, f or example, their analysis must be objectively s ystematized. There i s g reat untapped potential for t he study of r egional and i nter-regional i nteraction. The mapping of s ources o f exotic r aw materials, and the documentation of s uch materials i n archeological contexts, i s a prerequisite to understanding exchange n etworks and/or the e xtent of group mobility. I t c an be hypothesized for example, that, i f l arge Upper Paleolithic s ites were l oci o f aggregation, they m ight s how d isproportionate quantities of exotic materials. W ithin l imits, a knowledge of t he primary s ources of t hese materials may i ndicate f rom how l arge an area l ocal groups were coming t ogether. Larick ( 1 983), Morala ( 1 980) and Demars ( 1 980) have broken important ground i n this regard. There i s a real need for attempts to i dentify s tyle z ones which, t o s ome extent, c an b e i nterpreted to r epresent ethnic and regional s ub-divisions. Seemingly t he most e fficacious medium for s uch a s tudy i s the l arge quantity o f Magdalenian mobilary and parietal art and engraved bone i mplements r ecovered over the past 1 50 years. However, any s uch s tudy must overcome problems of c hronological u ncertainty, t erritorial c hanges through t ime, and d ifficulties i n defining and quantifying artifact s tyle. I mportant research in t his area has been b egun by Vialou ( 1985), among others. There i s obviously l aid. I t i s my hope

a great deal o f t hat, t hrough 1 73

groundwork to be a combination of

l ocational d ata, h ypotheses, t est i mplications, a nd s uggestions f or f uture r esearch, I have b een able t o l end s ome d irection t o t his c ontinuing r esearch.

1 74

Appendix Topographic

1 75

I

Data

Form

S ite

Altitude

Height

above

above

D istance

I f

Topo.

f rom r iver:

c ave,

s ite

in main

D istance

i ts

orientation?

i s

located:

to nearest

D istance

to vallon:

potential

tributary?

confluence:

and distance

Additional

s ite

r iver valley or valley of

D istance

of

i s

point where

to nearest

Nature of

Area

what

r iver:

W idth of valley at

I s

l evel:

r iver:

shelter or

S ide of

s ea

ref:

to nearest

ford:

occupation:

comments:

1 76

s ource of water:

Appendix Lambert

Coordinates S ites

in

for t he

177

I I Upper

Paleolithic

P erigord

a ) . 1 ) 4 . ) a l >

L n i n i n N r I

c o

ocz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mu l oc o 0 , c1 42 C / 41 C / 1 41 c / 1 4. / 1 1 C 4 4 ON C / 1 O C O e V c : r N ri

r I

i f ) VI ON C O

1 1

0 ) 4 1 4 4 0 4 4 4 1 W

2

4

0

0

0

c e l 0

• r ' s 1

c e )

CO C O c r % 0 c e ) c 1-

r e )

C I

C f

L c ) N .

c • f i

40 / 1

. CO I A

s z )

i n 0

e i

i n i n i n c l

i n c o o

L n 0 0 r . . . r e ) el V D /0 1 4 1 /0 1 4 40 / . . I0

C D 0 0 O N c o c e ) r " ) c n r e ) r e l r e ) r C C

c nCf l c n C c n

2( . ? c u 0o , i i c u c u 4 ) 0 , n • r 4 o c n 4 1 o a 4 ) o r 4

r e ) C f l

o o o o o L r l U l N . C O i n cl c 44 / 1 i n i n c1/ 4i c 4i / 1 C D Lf4 C O 1- C D 4 4 c , ^ ) c r % 4 1 . . . . . . . . . . r • • • ‘ . 0 r e ) r . ON C O /0 1 4 1 40 1 / 40 1 / 40 1 / 40 1 / 40 U/ 1V ) 1 40 1 / 40 /

› , 4 -, r I 4 1 4 1 . 1 0 0 0 4 1

a c u r a t e w i t h i n 5 m e t r s a n d

0

o o 4 - r • • o c > r 4 s . 0 c o o o • • • • • • • • • • • . • •

c u u $ 4 o

. a ) 4 1 4 1 • r i 0 > 0 U

H k • I H

0 • 0 H c . ) H -0 H C I ) 4 1 . 0

E t 0 4 -,

o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d .

W Z ' V 1 . 1 4 4 c l ., . 0

A O . r 4 4 0 4 -, 4 4 a ) 0 0 0 4

4 , 4 -, 0 r I c a • r 1 f : 4 4 I 0

U )

e

c a 0

G o u t d e l ' A r c h e

C h a n c e l a d e

T r o u d e l a C h e v r e

a )

R e c o u r b i e

F o u r n e a u d u D i a b l e

D u r a n d R u e l

S o u s l e s R o c h e s

B r o u i l a u d

W . 4

r I c . )

C U r i W C ) ( i )

4 -, 0 0

a ) 4 -, a )

1

a ) a ) H

C I )

a l 1 3 1

c f )

0 ) a l • r 1 0 0 u )

• r i 0 H . - 1 — i • r i

c d Z . 1 1 4

a l C 1 . 1 3

0 4 4

› . . . 4 4

4 . ) 0 0

O D -4 1 U ) L 4 4 P

s ,

' 0 ) Q )

0 . 0 0 0 4 ) . 0 4 . 4 U ) a ) 0 U ) e 0 0 3 4

o n a l e v e l

0

U-1

. 1 . 1

a 0 0 o m s c n o a o

( 1 4 +

• H

• . ' a ) 4 ) . . 1 1 ) ( t 1 " I 4 $ 1 W 0 c d c l ) 0 . C D N a l 0 0 r e C . ) • c l ) Z I i n 4 4 a ) c \ I 4 1 ^. 0

H , 0 W C O • r 1 > W W O ) . 4 . ) " I 0 ) 4 1 , 0 -0 • r I 4 I 9 : 1 4 1 4 4 4 -, 4 1 0 0 c o

— c o c n 5 u — 1 o o O,0 o

C OO

, 1 0 )

P g r i g u e x O u e s t 7 8

P g r i g u e x O u e s t 3 4

T h i v i e r s

N o n t r o n 7 8

4 1

178

.

P o s 1 I0 w 0. c

0 0 . 0 i a )

• C V

c d a )

c i a l

U

c l ) 0 4 - 1 0 4 1 4 1 a l 4 . 4 C ' ) 3 C )" 0 0 0 0 U ) 4 1 a ) 0 N 0 4 r i 4 r I • r 1

0 4 0

a ) c o c u 4

1 I I a )

4 -1

•

L e l

C, c s i C D H r H

C D 0 C D C D C D , f o o 0 1 mD Ch • H

C D C D C D u l C D C D C O u l V D L O 0 3 r g H H H

C D u n C D C D u l u l u l uI C D Ch mD mD o 0 u l u n mD mD

C D u l

0

u l u l C D 0 C D u l ( NI 0,1 v l C D C D 0 r, m o , . 1 cD r - • i • • • • • C q . 0 0 1 . 1 . 0 4 e l H H H H H H 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 c n e n e l 0 1 e l

uI C D u n C D u n u l C D C D C D c m C D c m C D r, c m C D u l u n , -IC D 0 1 mD c m . 1- 7 r l 0 1 • . • • • • • . • C A H r, C O 1 40 mD 0 / 0 C O C O C D H C D C D C D C D 0 C D 0 0 1 0 ) 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 , e l o n 0 1 e n 0 1

C D u n C D c,) 1- C O

cD u l L i n cD r , N C O 0 0 . I

r ., C D C D C D 0 1 e l 0-) e l

u n 0 1 o 0 H H H 0 1 C e l 0 1

C D L c 1 C D C D C D C D r - u l C D C D C D • C O r , r , , t • • • • • • C D c m c m 0 1 u l u l u n u n u l u n u n s t s t s t

u l u l C D C D C D C D C D C D r - u l r, u l C D u l C D C D u l O D 0 4 V D 0 1 C A Cr % r - u l 0 1 • • • • • • • • • SO H m D u n u l u n c 0 u l V D

I n 0 N . 0

0 I A L C 1 0 N I % . 0 " . H c V

0

0 u l

a )

V 1

C I

i n

C ) c m cM 0 1 0 1 0 1 o n 0 1 0 1

4 . 3

C D C D C D C) C D 4 4 C D 0 C D u n u l c D C A , t 0 - H W

•

•

•

, . o

r . . V D C D r g 4 1 r q 0 1 e V 0 1 r g e l 0 1 e l e l o n

,

•

•

•

•

•

L a m b e r t C o r d i n a t e s

>4

u n u n u n c g 0,1 r - u n , . 1 • • •

4

0 0 0 0 L r l 0 1 / 1 0 0 0 C N C N ( 0 ) 0 • • • • • I n 0 • • 4 ON i n C O 0 ON C YN r -

L t )

• • A - C A C A c m

C D 0 0 . V D C D L ñL t j Lt

a )

l a C a i l a d e l e C e r i s e r G a b i l o u

T o u r t o i r a c T r e l i s a c

l e s J a m b e s

•1

• r t 0 D o c a a ) ( 1 3 C ) U ) C I C 1 P D f a . 4

C D C D C D

1 79

T e r a s o n 1 2

T h e n o 7 8

M u s i d a n 5 6

M u s i d a n 1 2

P e r i g u e u x E s t

P e r i g u e u x O u e s t 7 8 c o n t ' d

T o p o g r a p h i c M a p

C D u n

0 L c ) t r ) L n 0 0 0 u-l in 0 0 0 0 N . oN 0 0 0 c 0 r - c o N . 0 r I rir I

L r )

0 0 Ln t r ) L I N . s I N N • • • e H H H cn e l e l

O LnLnin < f ) N . C V C V 1 1 C O • • • • ' . O N O N

0 L t L t

0 0

L t 0 0 L n L n L c ) L t 0 0 L o 0 L n N . V C N . N . N . r . 0Ln cv 0 L f l N O D t . 0 r 1 N . N . c e ) t . 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • C O C V C V r n 0 0 C V < ) C n C V c s . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & f L n Lt i f ) u « ) L f Lñ I J t f i i f) L r ) L r ) i n

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 Ln o L c ) u l t r 0 0 U-1 0 N . L c " ) C V C V C O C O o ) L c ) o Z ) r I r I ¼ 0 Q •

•

O

C

0

0

•

•

C' .0

•

0

0

0

0

•

N

0

•

N

0

0

•

•

C

i n

0

c

1 1 C D L c )

C C C O O L c ) C D 0 N . 0 0 0 V D 0 r I r I r I r I

0 L n 0 1

t r ) 0 0 c s i e t r ) t r ) N I 1

0 0 L r l 0 L c ) L c ) N . 0 O N .

N .

L I I Cf l N

c r )

N.

0 i n f l •

C

•

0 Cr )

ON CN 1

CO CV

0 L r

0 U l s . 0 • L t e l C n

C e i r t r )

CO CV

•

CO CV

•

CO CV

•

•

•

• .7 % .0 ON ON CV CV

•

ON

ON

N

N

0 L A 0 0 N . t r ) 1I0N . •

•

c o

UN ON ON CN N

•

c n 01

N

L a m b e r t C o r d i n a t e s

e l e l e l e l e l e l r n C n C r t C n c f.)

•

H

1 1

0 0 0 Ln ( 2 )

ON

• • • C O N . N . < 1 l I L t L (

V)

• i n

% . 0 I f

C D L A C D C e s 1 C L c ) t . 0 • • • ON 0 C L f l N . N .

, 1 a ) 0 N N 1 O › ) O a ) 0 i 3 . 1

4 i

› , . 0 H c i U

, I

W

i I 4 ) W . 1 . t

i li1 0 a ) H ,1 C I c o tt

H

0 • r I 4 -1 W W W W c n o n )

c o

0 a )

G a b a s t o u

• , 1 A )

H

W C 0 : 1 0

W 0 1 4 0 C d > 4 0 E L

, . . $ 4

a )

0 H C l ) C . ) c d N . 0 . t e

1 80

L e B u g e 3 4

B e r g e r a c 7 8

T e r a s o n 7 8

T e r a s o n 5 6

T e r a s o n 3 4

T o p g r a p h i c M a p

l a G r a n d e 7 8

J . L W N 0 o PI

J

G r a n d s R o c h e r s

0 W . 0 c . ) cu 4

i 1 0 H H

W w . r i

l a R o c h e t e l a S o u a u e t e

4 i W > , 1 i i o i n

W i I = I e a i p

0 C D C D L t C i n L n L rI 0 0 C s ! t r ) 0 0 N N s . 0 L c ) • • • • • • • N . s . 0 N . v ; : ) Lf l 01 01 C: I N C l C IN ON O N . 7 e CN

a ) O D r I . 1 1 I o r ) ^ 0 i i , I . 2

G . t

-0

0

o

Z C O I H 0 0 0 l H 4 ) 0 0 0 0

0 c O w c d

C D C D C D C D C D C D C D u l u l C D C D u l u l C D C D C D u l C D C D C D C D u l u l C D C D C D u l C D u l C D C D u l C \ C D C D r, C D u l C D C o C o r, C D • 0 C h C D C D C s 1 1 1 C D e n c m r , m p 0 0 r, c h 0 0 u l C D C D V D 1 1

C D C D u l u l C D u l C D u l C D C D u l C D u l u l C D C D C D C D u l u l u l C D C D u l C D C D C D C D C D C D u l r, C D r, r, u l c q u l c q u l C D c q C D r , u l u l C D C D e q r , u l u l c q u l u l u l u l c p e q C N C o V D , t , t , t C o 0 0 1 1 C V 1 1 C D U 1 W I u l O D C D u p e l u l N r - 1 4 ,7 • 0 • 0 e q •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

C h 0 1 ,t C h , t , t , t , t u l C O C N C h u l u l 0 1 e s , e l . e u l u l u l r - 0 1 C D C ) e q 1- c r y u l C h C h C h C h C h C h C h C h C h C h C h C N C h C h c h c h c h C N C N C h C N C N C N C h C h C D C D C N C h C N C h C V C V 0 . 4 C V C V C V 0,1 C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V 0 1 0 1 c y N c q e q

L a m b e r t C o r d i n a t e s

>1

u l 0 . 1 C V • , t C h c q

C D C D C D u l C D u l u l u l C D C D u 1 C D u l C D u 1 C D C D C D u l C D u l C D u l C D C D u l C D C D C D u l u l u l C D u 1 C D r • u l r - c s i C V i n C D C V U l C N I U l C V C D C D C D C V C D u l 0 4 C D u l r - C D C D C D r , r , r, , t O D u l 0 1 a J r, u l 0 1 C D o p r - c o C D V J V D r - C D V D C V , t V D C h o p -e e l e l • 0 • 0 •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

C h O D u l r - u l C D 0 0 r, u l o 0 C D r . 1 C h C N V D / 4. 1 1 D U l , t ,t V D U l C h V D 4 i- o p u l C h C N C h C h C h C N C D C h C h C h C h C h C h C N O D O D C h C N C h C h C N C h C h C h C h C h C N C N C h C N C h

" 0

L e B u g e 3 4

T o p g r a p h i c M a p

0 C )

1 81

P . 0 1 1 • — •

C L ) 0

( 1 )

M a l b a r a t l e M o u s t i e r

l a G a u b e r t

l a F e r a s i e

C o m b e d e B a n e C r a b i l a t

l a F e r a s i e

a l U ) G I

• 1

C D a l u n C D C D u n C D C D u1 C D C D C D u n C D C D C D r, C h C D C h r, C D C D C D C h r - r, c D N . m 1 r 1 r 1

C D C D C D u n u n C D C D C D C D C V H V D U l r - C D u n s . 0 C D r 1 r 1

C D u n C D C D s o . o n C h 0 1 r 1

u n u n C D C h C h U 1

u n u n C D u n u n C D u n o q r - U r, c q C D c v V D C h C D r, V D U 1 u l • • • • • • • 4- C r ) C r ) C r ) 4 C o 4 c h C h C h C h C h Ch C h C V N C V C V C V C V C V

C D C D C D C D C D C D U l u n C D C D C D U l C D C V C D U l 4 7 C D C r ) u l • • • • • • • C O C h U l C o C O C O C r ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D C V C V C V C V C V C V C V

C D C D U l C D c y C D • • C r ) o q 0 0 O D C A C V

U l C V u n • t i n 0 0 C V

C D U 1 u l 1 . 1 1 C V r, r, • • • r, C D ‘ . 0 0 0 C h 0 0 C V C V C V

C D u n u n u n r, s J / 4 1 0 V D V D • • • C D C D c q C C Oh C I 0 1 C A

C D 1 1 C D C D C D C D C D U l r - C D C D C D C D U 1 C r ) H un V J C D U l • • • • • • • u n o p u n c h c h " . . I C O r - C o C O r, r, r . 4- . 4 - . 4 ,t . 4 . 4

u n C D r , u l C r ) C V • • C V r q r, C o ,t

C D u 1 U l • c h C h

C D u n C D r, 01 C O • • o 0 c q 0 O

C D u n u n u l o q r . U l V D , t • • • c q r q : t C D C D C D u l U 1 U 1

L a m b e r t C o r d i n a t e s

u n L i n C D L i n u n u n C D C D r, r q u n r y r, r y u n C D r, r , V D . 7 C V C V • • • • • • • • C r ) C D C V C r ) Ch C D C D C h C D C h C h C h C D C D C h C V C r ) 0 . 1 C V N C r ) C I C V

C D C D C D U l C D U l C D C D U l U l C D U l C q u n r, u n C D C V 01 C r ) c h CO C D 1 C ) r - V D • • • • • • • • • U 1 . 4 0 0 r, s o 0 0 on u n C h C h c h c h c h C O O O C h ,7 . 4 3 * s z t . 7 . 4 . 4

. . . . N W ( f ) C U " 0

. 1 . ) ( 1 . 1 1 2 O 0

W P1. 4

C D C D U 1 U 1 H r • • C D 1 / 4 4 0 C D 0 1 u 1 . 4

C D u n • c h C h

W 4 0 9 1 4 . ) o l ( I ) PI . H

0 R I a ) c r c d 4 •J D i 1 H C D U W C D 9 4 0 . . . , R I u a ) •1 :4 I a . ) P P 1 2 4 . 1 1 . 1 1 U 1 2 . C / 3 W H ” 1 0 C ' C S 1 4 0 . 1 1 $ . 4 H . r. 1 t i ) c d 10 c f ) W W I w W O D J 2 1 . 0 W E 1 H H 0 W W • iA 0 0 0 0 0 W • , 4 g 1. 1 p 4 p 4 r 4 P 4 P 4 1 2 4 U l H >

1 J W

c a a ) H 4 . I H ( cd w . 0 ` 1 2 ( . ) 0 ` -' U 4 2 )

W Z

o $ • 4 c i c u o 4 3( 1 . 1 . 0 . W , — i

u ) E H W

. 1 1

. 1 I

C . ) 0

W > 4 J a ) • r 1 4 1 4 . 4

a ) N . 4 H i Q J C f l H

> , ß 1 0 E 4

0 C C r2 "-I H

0

c r.

a ) 4 . ) ‘ ) a ) U l C h

c u W 0 0 Cd > 4 P i a W

H l i > 4

c d 4 o } t u $ 4

o > c u

L ) r 4

C C P -

Z

0 0 O L i P 4

S a r l a t 1 2

L e B u g e 7 8

L e B u g u e 5 6

T o p g r a p h i c M a p

1 82

W

c u t

H C U U H C c ) e l P q C . )

3 4 c o n t ' d .

c o r t l P 4 ( 2 4

W c j H H • m i

C D U 1 H • C D C D u l

F o n t B r u n e l

U 1 U l C D C q C V U l C r ) u l • • • . 4 U 1 C I c h c r %

C D u 1 C D C D u l u l U 1 C h C D C D C D c p c h O N

C D C D C D C D C D C D u l u l C D C D C 7 1 C h I l l 0 1 01 C O u l , t 0 1 1 1 r q C ' J rI H H H H H

U l C D C ) i l l C D C D 0 4 O D c h H

c o

C h

0 0

C D r I Lf l Lr C D C D C D O u l r - C D C D C D • O D ,f ,A D C T O D V D

C D C D C D C D C D u l C D u l C D u l C D u l u l u l u l o q u l u l % . 0 O D C D c v r q r, C V C 4 O D 1 1

u l C D u l C D C D r g C D r q u l C D V D O D H

u l 0,1 C D

u l U l 0 4 c s i e l o l •

•

C h C s ] C ' )

0 o p C A 0 1

OD r C V 0 1

C D U l r I

a i l C D r - C D U l

•

)

• ,

t

• ,

•

t

C D C D C D u l C D I f u l u l r , C D O D OD V D • • • • • ( NI r q 0,4 C D C D C D C D C D C D

c n

, ) a ) ( 1 ) C l ) O M C . ) 4 0 4 -1 I c o c o o r - ) O -0 P O M I I

S a r l a t 1 2 c o n t ' d .

T o p g r a p h i c M a p

M C . )

M C )

0 4 4

C D u l u l e s i c h r 1 • • r I C D C D u l U )

•

•

D u l V D ,t ,t , I C D , t C G 0 0 0 0 O D OD O D O D O D C h C O O D o g c v C 4 C G C g C N C N C G

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

40 / 1

C D u l C D C D C D C D C D u l u l c ) c D u l 1-1 c D u l r - c q r, C ) C h C h VD C A ‘ . 0 0 1 • • • • • • • • • u l , 7 U l 0 C N O D . 4 1C D H C D C D C D , I C D C D H L l L U )L t u l L L f l L f L l

u l u l ul u l C D r - C V C q C G U l u l r, C D r l • • • • • C N u l ch 0 0

M

u l u l • C G C D L t

C D u l C h • C ) L

•

•

•

•

,f , t O D 0 1 a D oD o D O D o D C G C G C G C G C q

I f

I n u l Lf l L

• o

W ( 1 ) > 4 N ri U O , — Ig o 0 1 • r I C O U ) M 0 0 C D M 0 C O 0 M c d « 3 G 4 H . 4 > 1

4 ) . 9 4 " 0 ) I W > ( 1 . 1 P 4

a ) C l ) 0 < 4 . ri

H

H H

. 1 . / 4 i W C U c U C I ) " 0 H H " 0 C I 3 0 0 0 0 R I W C U M 4 1 L M 0 0 N D

. , 1 e 0 P O

0

c t ,r z i

C U r i H

c o w G ) L D W

-0

W 0 M ' V 0

U H P 4 P 4 Z

V D N

W M W 0 ) ) 4 r I

. J4 c e W r I N S 1 %w 4 I 0 ) > U ) " 0 W IC U I J U ) C . ) 0 c t $ 0 0

0 4 1 P c 1 W . 0 a ) z O ' 0 . ' 0 0 C . ) C . ) W 0

P 4 P

J

1 83

. -1 a ) ( 1 ) ' 0 C I A C l i 0

O O

C . ) W

P 4 P 4

•

C D I n

•

•

r - 00 H r I u l

-. C l ) G ) " 0 . } 4 0 . . . . , C O • I 0 0

1 " . 1

C U C U

P e c h i a l e t

• C

G o u r d o n 3 4

t

G o u r d o n 1 2

• ,

S a r l a t 7 8

• 0

S a r l a t 5 6

•

C N C D C h C D CA O N c h C ) r 4 o n c s i o l c q e g 0 1

0 r 1

Appendix Raw

S ize

and

I II

Locational

184

Data

-

Part

I

Vezere Valley

185

S ites

I-' 00

ABRl

250

ABRI

ABRI

CAILLOUX

CAP-BLANC CASSEROLE

COHBARELLES

CHEZ-GALOU

CHATEAU DES EYZIES

CELLIER

ROCHER DE CAZELLE

GlSEMENT DE CAZELLE

CASTANET

CACARO

750

250

CAVF.

ABRI

2000

1800

3

210

3

NO EST.

250

NO EST.

450

NO EST.

550

1500

ABRI

ABRI

ABRI

ABRI

ABRI

CAVE

ABRI

BOUT-DU-HONDE

NO EST.

ABRI

NO EST.

150

ABRI

NO EST.

ABRI.

1500

50

400

60

NO EST.

OPEN

ABRI

BOULOU

3

680

ABRI

OPEN

BLANCHARD II

BLANCHARD I

BIL-BAS

BELCAYRE-HAUT

BALUTIE

BADEGOULE

AUDI (LOWER)

ABRI

ARRI

ACIER

ANGLE

CAVE

j':;

..... "'

N

p..

..,

0

ABZAC

V)

"' !-


"' "'"

o< ..., z

50

550

500

750

200

200

100

250 SOO

150

400

500

1000

100

125

1250

250

750

300

100

350

125

:,: !-< ,::, ..... :,,

..

0

"'.., :;;!> "' "' ,::,

0

20

0

.... 0

i:!1:i

tl :;;!> :'i! !-< >< "'"'

3 50

0

0

0

25

0

50

RIVER 50

0

0 SPRING 25

H

T

25

0

0

0

75

750

50

750

SPRING 100 700

SPRING 100

RIVER 50

RIVER 50

SPRING 100

SPRING 20

RIVER 150

RIVER 125

RIVER 150

SPRING 25 125

RIVER 75

SPRING 25

SPRING 0

RIVER

RIVER 200

SPRING 100

SPRING 100 100

RIVER 125

SPRING 50

SPRING 40

zo

��

"'


0

SPRING 100

RIVER 125

RIVER 100

200

100

75

15

0

3 50

6250

>7500

10

600

7500

7850

1500

4000 >500

7000

7000

3 75

250

300

3 50

2500

0

0

0 RIVER 10

175 3500

2200

�� tn 0 ��

4000

SPRING 10

SPRING 50

f-, :;i u ...

0

WO

25

0

100

0

50

50

0

400

75

0 0

00

tn

.... >-"'

0

35

0

WH U:,!

f-, >-

SPRING SO

SPRING

SPRING 100

SPRING 25

RIVER 25

RIVER 50

RIVER 50

RIVER 150

SPRING 60

RIVER 175

SPRING 10

SPRING 25

SPRING 50

SPRING SO

jz l5

w

t; �

f-,

5,ow"'

"'u "'

T T

M

M

H

M

T

T

T

M

;'!�

., H >

0"'

"'::,...,
::,: "' w >�< f-,...,

"'f-,

o�

I-' 00 00

...

ABRI

ABRI

LAB/\TTUT

LARTET

ABRl

LAUSSEL

CAVI':

ABRI

HALBARRAT

HASSONlE

LE MOUSTIER (UPPER)

LA HETAIRIE

HERVEILLES

ABRI

ABRI

ABRI

ABRI

ABRI

LA MADELE lNE

HASNAIGRE

ABRl

LONGUEROCHE

CAVE

ABRI

LAUGERIE-HAUTE

LJVEYRE

ABRI

CAVE

LAUGERI E-8/\SSE

.-LASCAUX

ABRl

ABRI-

JOLIVET

LACIIAUD

ABRI

ABRI

"' >,-.

0

JARDEL I I

JARDEL I

1/l

H

"'H

H V)

2000

80

HS

so

25

300

,3000

200

400

3000 5

5400

6000

300

375

380

45

60

NO EST.

1/l

H

� "' N

"' "

Q

D. PEYRONY (1930)

DELAGE (1949)

DELAGE (1936)

BOURI..ON ( 1913)

CAPITAN & PEYRONY (1928)

D.PEYRONY (1934)

BORDES (1958)

CflEYNl ER (1965)

JARDEL AND ROUSSOT (1967) BOUYSSON IE & DELSOL (1930)

t.i H "'V)"' WWN H "'z V) "'H

tl ;'! ZH

,-.

V)z ::, H

WNW

w

0

H

"'

z w

0 H ,-. < H

z

LP,A

A,H(Ill)

UP

M(l ll)

A,UP

A

S,H(U) H(IV,V, VI) M(IV,V, VI}

s

SE

N

ESE

s

30

s

30

30

s

45

s

s WSW

2

10

20

s

15

llS

30

75

35

45

JS

35

5� < z

i::�

SSW

NW

LP,A,UP,S S

III)

SW

NE

SW M(lll) M(IV,V, ESE VI) A,UP,PM, SSE S,B,M(ll,

LP,A

UP,S

S,B,M(ll) SE

M (I Il, VI) NNW

H(Vl)

A

0

"' "' ::, w u"' u 0..

"'

u z ,-. "'z "'"'

V)

"' g g;

H

so

r

V) H 0

"'.... "' u � H

:.:

0

R

R

L

R

I..

I..

R

R

L

L

R

R

L

R

L

L

L

L

L

"' "'"'

0 WW o> HH

�� .... 0

"' "' " o


"' ...,

>-

H

H

M

H

H T

H

T

T M

M

M

M

H

H

H

H

H

M

H:

0"' < -, H>

"'::,...,

5�1:; H ...l

� >-

"',-. o�

RIVER 200

RIVER 100

RIVER 100

RIVER 200

SPRING 20

SPRING 100

RIVER 0

SPRING 10

SPRING SO

SPRING 25

SPRING 0

SPRING 0

?

SPRING 20

SPRING 150

SPRING 100

SPRING 20

RIVER 150

RIVER 150

�h z

"'::,:

HH V)
H c,< 00

��

"'..., u...,

0 ,-. >-

40('

625

ISO 300

250

125

600D

100

USO

7500

100

250

1500

15(.)

SOO

SOO

1500

1500

V) 0

�� :::; �

U«>

,-."'0 �

0

. 1 , 0 4

0 0 0 4

0 V , .

0 0 0 C O

0 VI .

0 0 C V

0 0 a ,

0 0 C O ,

0 I , V D

0 . / 1 . 1

0 t o 1 C V .

C 0 6

,. ,

0 t r i .

0 0.1 6

0 0 v 1 N

0 0 1 V D

0

0

0

0 I A

0 a t 1

0 ‘ 1 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 I A

0 a n

0

0

0

I A n i

0

S P R I N G 1 0

S P R I N G 2 0

E

E

P .

S P R I N G 5 0

S P R I N G 1 0

a

R I V E R 3 7 5

S P R I N G 5 0

M

S P R I N G 1 0

0 R I V E R 1 5 0

S P R I N G 1 0

P . W

0 C C O

0

M

S P R I N G 2 0

E RIVM J O a unce I S3 1 1Y2N

0 0 . .

S P R I N G 5 0

1 311VA / NG 0 1 2 DNVISIG

. 1 , N

R I V E R 2 0

Q 1 10 4 1 N MONN 0 1 3 0NVISIC

7 . 311VA

x u una mi l o ( w ) u orvw

( I )

0

1 311VA J O 1 101M

o

0

Z

Z

I -,

M

X

0 0

0 i n

0 0

0 i n .

0 i n

0 0 I A

0 0 C

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

I n c v

0 . 1 . 1

0 0 0 e n

0 0 6

0 I A C V

i n N

0 0

0 0

0 1 ,

0

0 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 V P

0 I A . 1

0 o r t N

0 0

I A P.

. 1 P.

0 0

0 0

0 e n

0 e n

9 ,

8

9,

8

3 0VNIV I I0 M AIN U OFVN 3 0 w is

U )

i n

i n

N

C C

N

0 1

0 a n

0 0

0 0 • . 0

0 0 C O

U ) ,

0 0

0 I n

0 Al

0 e n

0 1 I n

I I )

1 4

C O

C T 5

1 3AI1 I S3UV3N W OUd 3 DNVIS10

0

I S3NVIN

. 1

. 1 0,

0 6

i n I n

a n

WI

0

N 0IIVIN3IM0

U )

C O

1 . 2 W

M

Z

L . 1 0

g a l 0

. A

. 1 1 0 1

i n

0 i n

0 C V

0 1 P .

3 W

W

0

A . 0

. . . O

, -, 0 • . X

x




Z •

v u

u

>

;

3 ZIS 9 NIIVNIIS3 N I

D P E Y R O N Y ( 1 9 3 6 )

G 3SO 3 3N31 13A31 1

(zu ) g z is

3I1S A O ' MAI

0 I n

0 0

• a

v u ▪ v u m a


r e L e >

r e

X 3T IVA ( I ) A 3VIO RI31 3 0 ( W ) ' WINN 1 . 311VA dO MG M

3 DVNIV W M A U U OrVW 3 0 3 0IS

1 3A I3 I S3 1 1V 3N W OUA 3 3NVISIG

> 1 3 AI 3 I S31 1V3N 3 A0 9V 3 0 11 1111V

N OIIVIN 3I 1 10

e n

I i i t e ,

I H AS3I ld S 3DN3 > 12 1ODDO

i n

g a l

U I

3 ZIS

0

c i 0

S O U S L E S R O C H E S

(z m )

R O C H E R E I L

3 ZIS O N IIVW IIS3 N I c usa 3 DN3 1 13333

3 1IS A O 3 dl1

Z ITS

1 97

P art

4

I sle Valley

1 98

S ites

Ä RT IVA ( I ) Ä NVI MIXI X 0 ( 1 . 1 ) 1 0tVW A glIVA A O H IGIM

3 0VNIV IM M A D ] X Ord l i 3 0 M IS

X 3AIX I S3XV3N

n .

0 0 j r

0 j r A l

0 0 A /

4 0

0 a n

0 0 0,

0 4 / 1 4 0

0 0 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 4 0

0 a n 4 ,4

0 0

0 a n

0 0

0

0 n

a n r . -

0 0 A l

0 0 I A

a n N

0 a n C M

0 0 0

0 v. , A l

0 0 0 9

a n N A l

0 O 0 0

0 j r . 1

0 j r A 4

j r A l . 1

0 j r .

0 4 0 1 4 44

0

0

0

0

0 4 1

0 4 0 1 .

0 j r A l

0 0 I N

W I s 1 > . C C

W 4 . 3 > . 1 : G

X 4 1 > ‘ r : 2

p U .

G . , Z .

0 Z a .

M 4

0 .

M 4

P . • c r )

U . j r

C L 4 1 > . c 4

X 4 . 1 > . a r e

z

z

z

z

s

z I.

F .

z

z

s

z : 2 . -

z

z

z

z

z

z

0 j r C O

0 4 / 1 A l A l

0 0 0 0 1

0 0 . 4 . I

0 0 4 0 4 A l

0 j r . ( 41

0 0 0 . 1

0 0 0 C A

0 0 a n A t

0 0 0 .

0 a n A l .

0 a n A ! 0 1

X

4 1 I 4 U . c 0 < < 0 C . ) a n I . I . 4 044 0 4 . 2 C A Z PA

0 a n A l A l

0 0 0 I A

0 0 I A .

0 a n A C .

0 a n .

W

. . I

4

e C

4

c L

C Z

4

4

4

0 .

0 .

4

C L

4

4

0 .

0 .

0

0

0 0

0 0 a n

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 a n

0 4 0 4 r 4

0 0 r s i

0 0 a n

0 0 0

0 0 a n

0 0 e n

0 0 0

o 0 s i z e

. r • 0 4 1

0 0

0 0 m

w N

0 M

a n

0

0

a r •

0

0

C )

a n

0