• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16051 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16051 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Publications scientifiques du Muséum
  • ›
  • Natures en sociétés
  • ›
  • Nomad lives
  • ›
  • Part 2. Practical life in the camp: mate...
  • ›
  • At the same time or one after the other?
  • Publications scientifiques du Muséum
  • Publications scientifiques du Muséum
    Publications scientifiques du Muséum
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral Introduction: Magdalenian nomadism in the Paris Basin The problem The upper level camp (II1) Level II1 and its material remains Chronology and micro-stratigraphy Relation between the two units Differences between the two domestic units Newcomers? Spatial Propinquity and kinship relations among Hunters-gatherers Acknowledgements Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Nomad lives

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    At the same time or one after the other?

    The two domestic units of the upper level at the Magdalenian open-air site of Verberie - Le Buisson Campin (Oise, France)

    Françoise Audouze

    p. 201-217

    Résumés

    In the upper level of the Magdalenian settlement of Verberie, two occupation units face each other. This spatial organization goes against the usual pattern of camps of past and present reindeer herders and hunters, tents of which are all opening in the same direction. We discuss two hypotheses: contemporaneous occupations or succession in a short time. The former is then compared with other examples of Magdalenian camps and is discussed at the light of different types of mobility.

    En même temps ou l’un après l’autre ? Les deux unités domestiques du niveau supérieur du site de plein air magdalénien de Verberie – Le Buisson Campin (Oise, France)
    On a autrefois comparé le nomadisme des Magdaléniens à celui des chasseurs- cueilleurs et chasseurs-éleveurs de renne et leurs longues migrations à la suite des troupeaux de renne. Les archéozoologues, en montrant la permanence du renne dans certaines régions et les distances plus réduites parcourues dans d’autres régions comme le Bassin Parisien, ont modifié cette image. Verberie, comme le niveau de Pincevent IV20 est un site d’interception des rennes lors de la migration d’automne.

    La question
    Les relations de parenté contribuent fortement à organiser l’espace et l’espacement des habitations dans les campements des chasseurs-cueilleurs nomades. S’y ajoute un alignement de leurs ouvertures (sauf lorsqu’elles sont disposées en cercle) ; on cherche à préserver la vie privée, à leur donner l’orientation la plus favorable.
    L’organisation du niveau supérieur (II1) du site magdalénien du Buisson Campin à Verberie contrevient à cette organisation avec deux unités domestiques en miroir, organisées chacune autour d’un foyer. En se fondant sur les analyses effectuées sur le lithique, les restes fauniques, les remontages et la répartition spatiale des différentes catégories de vestiges ainsi que les plans de densité issu d’un SIG, on cherche à reconnaître les relations entre ces deux unités et leur implication quant à la composition des occupants de chacune.

    Le Buisson Campin et le niveau II1
    Le Buisson Campin est un site de plein air stratifié du Magdalénien supérieur que quinze datations 14 C placent à la fin du Dryas I ou au tout début du Bölling. Enfouis dans des silts (limons) de débordement, les huit niveaux se succèdent sur une faible épaisseur et sont certainement plus rapprochés dans le temps que ne peuvent l’indiquer les dates 14  C. La similarité des implantations successives implique l’occupation par un même groupe et ses descendants.
    Le niveau supérieur II1 est organisé autour de deux foyers D1 et M20 entourés chacun d’une aire d’activité périphérique, de dépotoirs et d’ateliers de taille qui encadrent à l’arrière des foyers un espace vide de forme circulaire ou hémicirculaire. Un vaste dépotoir HI18/19 les sépare. Un peu plus à l’écart, des restes osseux en couronne dessinent une aire de découpe des carcasses.
    L’espace à l’arrière du foyer D1 a pu être l’emplacement d’une tente d’environ 3,5 à 4 m de diamètre dont le contour avant est dessiné par les concentrations BC2/3 d’un côté, le dépotoir C17/18 de l’autre et le poste de travail ouest de D1. L’autre espace est beaucoup plus petit, 2,5 m tout au plus, et a pu être recouvert d’un abri ou rester à l’air libre. Les restes de rongeurs et de coquilles — seuls témoins de l’environnement en l’absence de pollens — indiquent une steppe froide. Il a donc fallu apporter d’ailleurs des perches s’il ne s’agissait pas d’abris fait de branchages d’arbustes.
    Le renne domine dans les restes osseux. Quarante individus au moins ont été tués durant la migration d’automne. Quelques os attestent de la présence du cheval, d’oiseaux et de rongeurs de climat froid. Le débitage du silex témoigne d’activités de taille dues à des mains de compétences différentes, dont deux tailleurs particulièrement expérimentés, des tailleurs compétents et des apprentis et débutants de différents niveaux.
    L’outillage est caractéristique du Magdalénien supérieur du Bassin Parisien. Il comprend des lamelles à dos (30 % de l’assemblage lithique) qui ont uniquement servi d’armatures de projectile et 338 outils composés de burins (35 %), becs (22 %), grattoirs (13,5 %, perçoirs (7 %) couteaux (5,4 %) et lames retouchés 4,9 %), d’outils composites de lames et pièces tronquées (0,5 % chaque). Les burins ont rainuré des matières dures animales et plus rarement percé. Les grattoirs ont surtout raclé de la peau. Les becs ont alésé et les perçoirs ont percé des matières dures d’origine animale. L’industrie en os se résume à une aiguille à chas et une sagaie à double biseau. Pour une description plus complète du niveau II1 voir les différents chapitres de Zubrow et al.

    Chronologie et micro-stratigraphie
    Plusieurs éléments permettent de repérer une succession d’événements et l’antériorité de l’unité D1 par rapport à l’unité M20. Les vestiges sont moins nombreux dans l’unité M20 et impliquent une occupation plus courte. Le petit espace vide arrière plaide en faveur d’un groupe moins nombreux. Des éclats du seul nucleus allochtone, débité dans l’unité M20, ont été retrouvés au sommet du dépotoir HI18//19. Ce débitage dû à un bon tailleur et effectué en J1 empiète sur l’aire de découpe des carcasses de rennes et est donc postérieur aux opérations de découpe. Ses produits ont été distribués dans toute l’unité M20. Les pierres chauffées évacuées dans le dépotoir OP17/18 ou dispersées dans l’unité M20 sont beaucoup moins nombreuses que dans l’autre unité domestique. Le foyer D1 paraît plus récent que le foyer M20, mais il est en réalité plus ancien car il a fait l’objet de plusieurs réfections comme en témoignent des remontages et une aire de vidange.

    Relation entre les deux unités domestiques
    Les remontages indiquent très peu d’échanges de produits lithiques (un nucleus de P1 avec trois lames et deux éclats de la périphérie du foyer D1, un burin de l’amas EF1/20 en périphérie de D1 et sa chute en K17). Il n’y a pas non plus d’emprunts de pierres de foyer. Cette absence d’emprunt de pierres de foyer trouve un parallèle à Étiolles (Essonne) entre les unités domestiques U5 et P15 et contraste avec les emprunts qu’on observe dans les autres sites de plein air du Bassin Parisien, de la région rhénane et de Suisse.
    En revanche, les remontages de restes osseux de renne établissent de nombreuses relations entre les deux unités mais sans partage organisé. Selon J. G. Enloe, il s’agit de co-consommation.

    Différences entre les deux unités
    Les deux unités présentent la même configuration spatiale et le même assemblage lithique. C’est au niveau quantitatif que les différences apparaissent : l’unité D1 possède presque deux fois plus d’artefacts que l’unité M20 et deux fois plus d’outils, indice supplémentaire d’une durée plus courte pour l’unité M20. Elles existent aussi au niveau qualitatif puisque les becs sont plus nombreux dans cette dernière et que les becs cassés dominent largement, faisant penser à une moindre habileté de leurs utilisateurs. Les grattoirs sont plus nombreux qu’attendus, tandis que les burins et les lamelles à dos sont en revanche moins nombreux comme en témoigne un test de Khi2 hautement significatif.
    La distribution spatiale synthétisée dans un SIG met en évidence l’association privilégiée des lamelles à dos, des burins et des chutes de burin autour du foyer D1. Elle correspond à la fabrication et à la réparation d’armes de jet dans deux postes de travail D1 et E1/E2 — bien délimités par deux arcs de cercle au sud-ouest et à l’ouest du foyer — ainsi que dans la concentration F19. Les becs, les perçoirs, les grattoirs et les lames qui ont travaillé la peau sont surtout présentes dans un vaste arc de cercle périphérique. Dans l’unité M20 en revanche, on observe seulement une bipartition de l’aire d’activité du foyer qui oppose une zone nord où sont dispersées des lamelles à dos et des burins et une zone sud où les becs et les perçoirs, majoritairement cassés, dominent.
    La taille du silex s’est déroulée dans les postes de travail autour des foyers et dans les ateliers de taille J1, OP2/3, et dans la concentration E1/20. Différents niveaux de compétence ont pu être identifiés. Côté unité D1, deux excellents tailleurs ont pu être identifiés associés aux postes de travail D1 et E1/2. Des débitages élaborés ou simplifiés et des débitages improductifs témoignent de différentes classes d’âge (et genre ?). Côté unité M20, un tailleur compétent est l’auteur du débitage allochtone dont l’origine est probablement du côté de la Marne, à 70 km au sud (remontage P. Bodu)..

    Des nouveaux-venus ?
    Étant donné les nombreuses différences entre les deux unités, on peut poser l’hypothèse d’une unité M20 occupée par d’autres occupants que les occupants de l’unité D1, et arrivés plus tard. Les données suggèrent un petit groupe incluant un petit nombre d’adultes qui ont travaillé autour du foyer M20 et dans l’espace arrière, et d’un ou plusieurs jeunes d’âges différents qui ont utilisé les becs et se sont exercés à la taille sans grand succès. J. Enloe déduit des remontages et appariements d’os de renne qu’ils témoigneraient d’un partage au niveau de la consommation et non de celui de la distribution.
    Les différences entre les deux unités ne se marquent pas tant par des tâches différentes que par l’importance relative de ces tâches. Dans l’unité M20, la fabrication et la réparation des armes de chasse prennent moins d’importance que le travail des matières dures animales et de la peau. Les grattoirs ont tous travaillé la peau sèche alors que dans l’unité D1, plusieurs ont travaillé la peau fraiche. L’absence de peau fraiche dans l’unité M20 est un autre élément qui fait penser à un décalage temporel. Le travail de la peau est majoritairement un travail féminin dans les régions arctique et subarctique, ce qui incite à supposer la présence de femmes dans les deux unités. Le décalage dans l’installation et l’empiètement de l’atelier de taille J1 sur l’aire de découpe des rennes laissent supposer que l’abattage des rennes et la découpe des carcasses ont eu lieu avant l’arrivée du second groupe. Il n’était plus aussi nécessaire de réparer les armes, mais il restait en revanche de nombreuses tâches liées à l’exploitation du gibier.

    Proximité spatiale et liens de parenté chez les chasseurs-cueilleurs
    Les récits ethnographiques, les recherches ethnologiques, et les recherches généalogiques sur les chasseurs-cueilleurs mettent l’accent sur l’importance des liens familiaux dans la composition des campements des régions arctique et subarctique, notamment durant la phase de dispersion. Le choix de partenaires de chasse ou d’expédition compétents joue aussi. Les photographies anciennes et quelques plans de campement montrent que dans la plupart des cas les tentes sont toutes orientées dans le même sens. Il existe toutefois des exceptions comme le camp d’Indiens Chipewa relevé par Irimoto en 1981 où deux tentes très proches se font face dans deux des groupes de tentes.
    Les habitations d’un certain nombre de sites de plein air magdaléniens sont interprétées comme conformes à la norme avec une même orientation au sein de leur campement : Marsangy (Yonne), Pincevent IV20 (Seine et Marne) pour une partie des unités, Monruz (Neuchâtel). Toutefois les deux principales unités domestiques du niveau IV20 de Pincevent qui sont très proches ne permettent pas de placer deux tentes orientées dans le même sens. Cl. Karlin et M. Julien voient dans cette proximité et l’intensité des échanges la preuve de liens familiaux rapprochés et de coopération. À Verberie la grande proximité des unités domestiques fait aussi penser à des relations de parenté plutôt étroites étant donné l’absence d’intimité (“privacy”) qu’elle implique. Cette configuration trouve un parallèle à Étiolles avec les unités domestique U5 et P5 dont les échanges témoignent aussi de liens de parenté ainsi que d’une différence générationnelle. La situation est inverse de celle de Verberie puisque les jeunes partent avant les occupants d’U5.
    Ces allées et venues témoignent de la fluidité existant dans la constitution des campements qui peuvent se former et se recomposer durant une occupation saisonnière. On a longtemps analysé la mobilité au niveau global du campement. Lorsque les données le permettent, on devrait l’analyser au niveau des unités qui composent le campement. C’est ce qui a déjà été fait à Etiolles et Pincevent, mais aussi à Gönnersdorf, Oelknitz ou Monruz. Les alternances de regroupement et de dispersion ne sont pas seulement une question de saison mais aussi d’opportunité. Pour une même saison, l’automne, et une même fonction : l’interception du troupeau de rennes à la migration, les Magdaléniens se sont regroupés à Pincevent tandis qu’à Verberie c’est une cellule familiale qui est venue et qui s’est ultérieurement étendue. Cette variabilité correspond à une adaptation permanente à la situation du moment. Les occupants de l’unité M20, sont peut-être venus aider des parents à traiter la grande quantité de rennes abattus, à moins qu’ils ne soient venus profiter d’une nourriture abondante après une chasse particulièrement fructueuse.

    Entrées d’index

    Mots-clés : Magdalénien récent, unités d’occupation domestiques, foyers, tentes, liens de parenté

    Keywords : upper Magdalenian, domestic occupation units, hearths, tents, kinship relations

    Texte intégral Introduction: Magdalenian nomadism in the Paris Basin The problem The upper level camp (II1) The Buisson Campin site and its upper level Empty spaces at the rear of hearths D1 and M20 Level II1 and its material remains Faunal remains Lithic and osseous materials The II1 level assemblage Chronology and micro-stratigraphy Relation between the two units Flint refits Hearths Bone refits Differences between the two domestic units The units Knapping Newcomers? Spatial Propinquity and kinship relations among Hunters-gatherers Acknowledgements Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    Introduction: Magdalenian nomadism in the Paris Basin

    1Nomadism among Magdalenian populations was first considered as granted by comparison with the long distance nomadism practiced by pre-current and current reindeer hunters and herders. Zooarchaeologists changed this in proving that reindeer could be present all year round in Southwestern France, and have concluded to a reduced mobility (Fontana & Chauvières 2018). In the center of the Paris Basin, Olivier Bignon-Lau (2007) proved that horse hunting was practiced all year round, and was dominant during winter and spring. The Magdalenian economy was based in the Paris Basin upon a mix of reindeer and horse. This led to infer a geographically reduced mobility at the regional, or micro-regional scale with expeditions to get “exotic goods” such as exogenous flint or shells. Further north, the Verberie open-air site (Oise), as Pincevent level IV20 (Seine-et-Marne), is an interception camp dedicated to reindeer hunting during the autumn migration. It was reoccupied 8 times, during a few weeks every time. The mobility cycle of its occupants and their territory are unknown. We only have indications of exogenous raw materials originating not very far away: less than 30 km away to the west and less than 100 km away to the south (Mauger 1994: 87-88). The following pages deal with the upper level II1.

    2This paper starts where Domesticity and Spatial Organization at Verberie (Audouze 2010: 145-175) ended, demonstrating that the Buisson Campin upper level II1 was a single occupation. It left open the question about the existence of either one domestic unit or two, contemporary or consecutive. Concurring evidences based on the microstratigraphy analysis, on differences in the toolkits and their use, on comparisons with hunters-gatherers camps from the arctic and subarctic regions, as well as with other Magdalenian open-air settlements help now to solve the problem or at least help to strongly support one of the two hypotheses.

    The problem

    3From comparative ethnoarchaeological research performed by archaeologists such as John Yellen (1977), Susan Kent (1990) or Timothy M. Whitelaw (1989, 1991), we learn that kinship relations in hunters-gatherers camps substantially organize space. In arctic and subarctic regions, two norms were and still are influencing the tents or dwellings lay out: propinquity according to kinship, and a similar orientation of the openings when they are aligned or scattered in order to preserve the families privacy; but also in order to face the light of the rising sun, to be protected from prevailing winds or to have a direct access to a shore.

    4The spatial organization of the upper level at Verberie does not abide the second norm because there are two domestic hearths with their surroundings mirroring one another. Are they two independent units following one another during the time of the occupation? If not, what is the relation between the two units and who are the inhabitants? Are they the same people moving from one hearth to the other? That’s what this paper tries to solve, using results from zooarchaeological, techno-typological and functional research, flint, bone and stone refits, their distribution in the camp space, and their projection on GIS density maps.

    The upper level camp (II1)

    The Buisson Campin site and its upper level

    5Verberie - Le Buisson Campin is a late Magdalenian stratified open-air site located along the Oise River 60 km north of Paris. Its eight well-preserved levels are embedded in silts brought by the Oise River’s recurrent floods; most of them are organized around hearths and associated activity areas and dumps. Nine 14 C dates place the site between 12950 and12235 years BP (Cal BP 15000-13100 years - Calib 5)1. They are in the 14C plateau of the13th millennium and place Verberie during the Bölling. New dates and a Bayesian analysis calculated on dates made on bones with more than 2% collagene place Verberie at the end of the Oldest Dryas and the very beginning of Bölling (Wild 2019: 61-81 / 2020). The proximity and similarity of the eight levels advocate for a short span of time within this period, and its use by the same group and its progeny (Audouze et al. 2010).

    6The upper level is organized around two hearths set eight meters apart, D1 and M20 (named from the square meter in which they are located). They give their name to the two corresponding occupation units (figure 10.1). A large dump HI18/19 separates the two units and includes flint, stone and bone refuse from both hearths, but mainly from unit D1. The areas surrounding the hearths are mirroring one another: each hearth has a central activity area where most tools are found. Dump OP17/18 east of hearth M20 corresponds to dump BC17/18 south of hearth D1, a flint workshop in OP2/3 north of hearth M20 corresponds to an activity area with refuse in BC2/3 west of hearth D1. These various areas surround an empty space at the rear of each hearth. The zooarchaeological analysis indicates that the nearly empty spaces, located in H-J-K-L2/4 and J-K18/19, are butchering activity areas (Enloe 2010, Audouze 1988, Enloe & Audouze 1997). Two flint workshops are the only features not mirrored in the other unit, one along hearth D1 in EF1/20, the other one on the edge of the butchering activity area in J1. The hearths peripheries are different: three workstations are clearly delineated by small debris and tools in the western part of the hearth D1 periphery. In Unit M20, the periphery is occupied by a concentration of debris and tools without any visible workstation.

    Figure 10.1

    Image

    Map of level II1 with the two domestic units D1 and M20 (from Audouze & Beyries 2007, CAD M. Hardy).

    7Other Magdalenian camps may have existed in the vicinity, given the surface finds in the South western part of the Buisson Campin field, but a quarry destroyed this part of the site and the increased thickness of silts from north to south prevents any correlation between the excavated levels and the finds from the test pit dug by B. Lambot in 1975 (Lambot 1975).

    Empty spaces at the rear of hearths D1 and M20

    8The empty space west of hearth D1 is edged by the hearth periphery, activity area BC2/3 and dump BC17/18 (figure 10.1). It has no aft limit. However, according to Binford’s model, a few criteria make us think it was a covered space: a nearly empty space where flint tools are proportionally more numerous than expected, with a “door dump” on the side (Binford 1983: 172-186). The 3.5 to 4 m diameter inferred from the front semicircle belongs to the diameter range of summer tents in the subarctic regions. Whatever the type of structure —a conical tent, a yaranga, i. e. a tent with a rounded ridge, or a semi-circular shelter covered with reindeer skins—, a fairly large number of poles was necessary (figure 10.2). Could it be found locally? According to rodents and to the malacological analysis (Rodriguez 1994: 48-49), the local environment: a cold steppe landscape, was deprived of trees. Poles had to be transported from places where pine grew. Residue from pine charcoals found in three Pincevent hearths (Seine-et-Marne) proves that it was possible to obtain this raw material in the Paris Basin (Wattez 1994: 122, Debout et al. 2014: 52-54). A low shelter might also be built with entangled branches of willow and birch (cf. Leesch & Bullinger 2019: 93).

    Figure 10.2

    Image

    A Sami semi-circular summer tent, drawing by Michèle Ballinger from a photo of R. Tcharpanov.

    9The empty space located in the rear of hearth M20 is smaller. It is enclosed by dump 017/18 on one side, by a flint workshop OP2/3 on the other, and by two small flint concentrations in the rear. Its 2 to 2,5 m diameter is smaller than a regular tent floor. If it was covered, given its small surface, it could only be a windbreak, or a light shelter supported by few poles. It could also be an open space.

    Level II1 and its material remains

    Faunal remains

    10They are well preserved. Reindeer, killed during the fall migration, is dominant with a minimum of 40 individuals (to be compared to the MNI 71 of Pincevent level IV20, found on a level 10 times as large as the excavated part of level II1). Ground squirrel is present with 6 individuals. A few bones attest to the presence of horse (hunted elsewhere), of a few birds, rodents, characteristic of cold climate, and frogs (Enloe 2010: 23-30). “Reindeer high value femora are underrepresented… and indicate transport of high utility elements away” (Enloe 2010: 35). A bone point with a double bevel and a groove with an elapsed apex, and a needle are the only manufactured artifacts from this level (Averbouh 2010:77-79).

    Lithic and osseous materials

    11129 cores and flint refuse represent the knapping activity of two highly skilled individuals, of several skilled knappers and of unskilled adolescents and children including unproductive beginners knapping small flint blocks or training on already knapped cores (Janny 2010: 52-63, Langlais 20092). Charcoal is not preserved because of soil leaching (Wattez 1994:125-126). Ochre has only been preserved when it was fixed on carbonates underneath flints and stones. It punctuated distribution delineates an area beyond the hearth D1 periphery in F19/2. A more precise description of this upper level can be found in Audouze et al. 1981, Enloe & Audouze 2010, and in several chapters of Zubrow et al. 2010.

    The II1 level assemblage

    12338 tools and 217 backed bladelets have been uncovered in the level II1 and their function analyzed. Backed bladelets were only used as barbs inserted on bone points. They are the most numerous retouched artifacts (30% of the total flint equipment, Debout 2003). Tools are made on blade, micro-blade or laminar flakes. They include burins (35% of domestic tools), becs (22%), scrapers (13,5%), piercers (7,3%), knives, (5,4%) and retouched blades (4,9%)3. Composite tools, truncated blades and pieces only account for 0,5% each (Janny 2010; Langlais 20094; Audouze 2010: 153-154, tab. 1 and fig. 4b). Microwear analysis has been performed on around 1200 pieces, sometimes on the same pieces by several microwear analysts5. The lack of patina and the good condition of edges have preserved micro‑polishes and striations of use. Tools generally exhibit stable functions per types: burins mainly grooved bone or antler, less often pierced or scraped with one of the bevel facet (Audouze & Beyries 2007; Keeley 1981: 137-141; Symens 1982, 1986); scrapers mostly scraped hide (Beugnier 1999; Rots 2002; 2005). Becs and piercers worked on bone or antler, the first ones boring, the others piercing (Beyries et al. 2005). Raw or retouched blades were used to cut meat, skin and less often plants, bone or antler, and wood (Keeley 1981, 1987). A few of them were later retouched as burins or becs. Backed bladelets which are barbs retrieved from bone points, or newly made to being inserted and glued in the bone points grooves, exhibit typical impact breaks or traces of meat, or skin and meat (table 10.1). A large part of burins and scrapers are hafted while becs and piercers are not (Keeley 1987, Rots 2002, 2005). There are no manufactured bones apart an eye needle, and a double beveled bone point, apex of which is damaged (Averbouh 2010: 77-81, cf. fig. 1a and Fig.  3).

    Table 10.1

    tool types (* = fonction antérieure ou seconde) (tools +tool tips + double tools + composites)actions% of action per type (including action on indeterminated mattermeatbonehidewoodplantvariadefinite hafting tracesprobable hafting traceshandheld or probably handheld
    burins + burins tipscutting021
    analyzed: 84 + 22grooving (V shaped groove)24%29311
    with usewear: 81 + 18scraping with the bevel (U shap25%2549
    grooving & scraping (V & U bevel or bevel edge scraping)38,16%30+1 shell78
    scraping by the edge3,00%2111
    perforating8,97%71?
    92%15%34%
    becscutting11,26%7*
    analyzed: 26+42+31grooving & scraping1
    with usewear: 19+24+2scraping2,00%11
    1 including composite toolsboring83,33%30 116
    2 including undeterminated actionsindeterminated action11114 24 2
    3 including meat+bone21,82% 389,09%12,73%2
    perçoirscutting1
    analyzed: 15 + 41 + 6grooving, grooving & scraping1 + 1 1
    with usewear: 10+40+4perforating90%532 21 + 2 11
    1 including composite tool 2 including undeterminated actionsperforating and scraping 11
    96,08%3,92%
    microperçoirsperforating872111
    analyzed: 9 +1 +1perforating indeterminated mat3
    with usewear: 111172111
    scrapersscraping96,42%231*2+1 ochre7+122+1 1
    analyzed: 30 + 3 + 4 1scraping & cutting1
    with usewear: 22+3+4scraping + (boring)1 1
    1 compositesscraping + (scraping&grooving (U+V))2 1
    2 + scraper without usewear82,75%
    truncationscutting by the edge1* + 2 1
    analyzed: 12 + 1 + 4scraping62+1 121 112
    with usewear:11+ 0+2(grooving (V shaped gr.))(1 1)
    perforating62 +11+ (11)1
    1 compositesshaving/whittling1
    2 pieces with indeterminated action or matter8
    unretouched bladescutting73,17%5919036 ind.11
    analyzed: 97scraping14,63%380
    with usewear &/or hafting traces: 92graving /graving & other31
    perforating1
    shaving/whittling6,10%311ind
    62,34%6,74%21,35%4,49%
    retouched bladescutting79,41%171911
    analyzed: 50perforating21
    with usewear or hafting traces: 34scraping14,71%04
    indeterminated action12
    45,85%10,81%40,54%2,70%

    Tools function per actions on matters.

    Chronology and micro-stratigraphy

    13Three observations lead us to identify a succession of events during the level II1 occupation. Its thickness varies from 5 to 10 cm, and is greater in biconvex dumps and flint workshops. Flakes coming from the only exogenous core have been found at the top of HI18/19 dump and are a clear evidence of the late date of this knapping operation within the level II1 occupation. Its flakes and blades are scattered all over unit M20. This core has been knapped in J1, on the margin of the activity area where reindeer carcasses have been quartered (figure 10.1). This is another indication that unit M20 is posterior to the butchering activity. With its edge of large blocks and slabs, hearth D1 seems more recent than hearth M20. The latter is lined with a few small cracked stones; its edge is discontinuous and made of cracked slabs of small size. Actually, hearth D1 underwent one rejuvenation at least, and probably several, given the large quantity of stone fragments discarded in GHI/18. Two small fragments found on the edge of Hearth D1 are part of a large block, numerous fragments of which are scattered over G18 and H18 (Dumarçay & Caron 2010: 98-100). Stones dumped from hearth M20 in dump 0P17/18 or scattered west of hearth M20 are much less numerous, indicating a shorter period of use. Last, the lower density of tools suggests a shorter occupation. All these indicators tend toward a shorter occupation delayed in time for the M20 unit.

    Relation between the two units

    Flint refits

    14Flint refits provide very few evidence of exchanges or transfers from one unit to the next: three blades and two flakes coming from the working station D20 south of hearth D1 refit with a core found in P1, north of hearth M20. Two core fragments come, one from dump BC17/18, the other from the empty space at the rear of M20 in O1. A burin spall found in K17 refits with a burin dumped in the flint dump EF1/20, on the northern side of hearth D1. Apart for these few evidences, Dump HI18/19 clearly sets up a limit and was used by both units. Unfortunately, less refitting was performed in unit M20, excavated at a later date than in unit D1, and most refits are made of cortical pieces from the preparation stage or tablets from the maintenance operations6. We may miss a few more links connecting the two units.

    Hearths

    15Stone blocks and slabs used for the hearths edges are mostly limestone for hearth M20 and half sandstone, half limestone for hearth D1 (Dumarçay & Caron 2010: 95). The local silt is deprived of stones and they had to be brought from the valley slope, 1 km to 1.5 km away. Once heated, they fragmented into multiple elements of various sizes. Around forty refits link both hearths to the H18 part of the central dump, to dump BC17/18 (hearth D1), and to former butchering activity areas in JKL/1 and KL/17 (hearth M20)7. Only one refit from hearth D1 is found beyond HI/18-19 dump but just beyond it in J18, and it does not represent any borrowing from unit M20. This lack of links finds a parallel at Étiolles (Essonne) between U5 and P15 units (Olive et al. 2019: 55) while borrowing stones is usual at Gönnersdorf (Rhineland) (Terberger 1997: 116-119), Pincevent (Orliac et al. 2002; Karlin 2014: 63-69). Champréveyres or Monruz, (Neuchâtel) (Leesch 1997, Plumettaz 2007).

    Bone refits

    16On the contrary, bone refits create numerous relations between the two units as well as with the outer space. But they do not indicate any pattern of organized sharing (Enloe 2010: 43-44, and figs 11-12). They connect the various dumps and the areas rich in bone remains (figure 10.3). They are made of fragments, among which forelimb parts are common, of joints elements, and of rare pairs of bones. Their presence proves that the two units belong to the same occupation in a same level. The hypothesis of two successive occupations is thus rejected.

    Figure 10.3

    Image

    Bone refits on bone density: the GIS bone density map makes visible the main butchering activity area. In red: elements from the most complete carcasses; in blue other long distance refits (from Enloe 2010: 43, fig. 12 and Keeler 2010:140, fig. 10; kernel density bandwith: 0,5m, graphism M. Hardy from D. Keeler 2010.

    Differences between the two domestic units

    The units

    17The two units exhibit a similar spatial configuration and the same toolkit. But as soon as one analyses in detail the tools ratio and the spatial organization, the differences are immediately apparent: first in quantitative terms because unit D1 exhibits nearly twice as many artifacts as unit M20, and twice as many tools, another indication of a likely shorter duration of unit M20; secondly in qualitative terms. In contrast with unit D1, in M20 unit becs and piercers are more numerous than burins and broken becs are much more numerous than complete ones, suggesting a lesser skill of their user or users (figure 10.4). Scrapers are more numerous than expected. Conversely, backed bladelets and burins are less numerous than expected as indicated by a Khi2 test performed on tools per units (table 10.2).

    Figure 10.4

    Image

    Histogram of becs, piercers and micropiercers and tips. The proportion of broken becs and piercers is much higher in unit M20 than in unit D1 in spite of the much larger amount of tools and artefacts in unit D1.

    18The tools spatial distribution summarized in the GIS (Keeler 2010a & 2010b: 133-140) highlights the strong association of backed bladelets, burins and burin spalls around hearth D1 (figure 10.5). This association illustrates the importance of “retooling” and throwing weapons manufacturing in unit D1. This activity takes mainly place in the two workstations D1 and E1/2 clearly delineated by arch-shaped drop zones of flint debris around hearth D1, as well as in the F19 concentration. Becs, piercers, scrapers and blades used on hide are present in hearth D1 activity area, but they are more numerous beyond, and scattered in a curved area from F19 to G2 to BC/3.

    Table 2

    TOOLSUnit D1expectedUnit M20expectedOuter SpaceexpectedTOTAUX
    burins7771,623037,2974,66114
    becs33494525,5203,1978
    piercers and micro-piercers1531,413316,3522,0450
    scrapers and scraper fronts3223,962312,4821,6357
    knives1511,9436,2110,7819
    retouched blades1312,5736,5440,8220
    blacked bladelets164136,334570,9888,87217
    34918224555

    Tools proportions in units D1 and M20. The Khi2 result is highly significant at 0,001%.]

    19In Unit M20, we only observe a bipartition of hearth M20 activity area, opposing an area with bladelets and burins (MN/1), and on the other side of the hearth, an area (LMN/20) rich in becs and piercers, mostly discarded broken tips (Beyries et al. 2005: fig. 2).

    Figure 10.5

    Image

    Density maps of burins (A), backed bladelets (B), becs and piercers (C) (from D. Keeler et al. 2007: fig. 9; graphism M. Hardy).

    Knapping

    20Knapping was taking place in workstations around the hearths, in flint workshops J1 and OP2/3 and in the E1/20 concentration east of hearth D1. The refuse was discarded in the dumps HI18/19, BC17/18, and OP18/19. Different levels of skills, from highly skilled knappers to unproductive beginners, are present in the flint knapping refitted sequences and cores. Two highly skilled knappers have been identified in unit D1. They were seated around hearth D1 in the downwind clearly delineated workstations D1 and E1/20. Simplified skilled productions and unproductive productions attest the presence of other persons, men, women and youths of different know-how. In unit M20, there was at least one experienced knapper who knapped the only exogenous core (unpublished Pelegrin table; Janny 2010; Langlais 20098, 2018). This core possibly originated from Bartonian levels present around the left bank of the Marne River, 50 to 70 km to the southeast (refitting by P. Bodu). The knapping sequence took place in workshop J1 and its tools and blades were used all over unit M20. The remaining core was probably taken away since it could not be found in the excavated area. Is this knapper the person who worked in the area MN/1, north of hearth M20, where most backed bladelets and burins come from?

    21Cores knapped by skilled individuals and later knapped by unskilled hands are more numerous in unit D1 than in unit M20 (17 versus 7). This is consistent with the higher density of artifacts in D1 unit. However unproductive cores done by beginners are as numerous in unit M20 (10 versus 10), indicating the presence of juneviles in this unit, who might have got less chance to get their hands on well-knapped cores than in unit D1.

    22Unit M20 yielded less cores knapped by skilled individuals and, cores later taken over by unskilled hands than in unit D1 (7 versus 17). This is consistent with a higher density of knapping activity in unit D1. However, unproductive cores that had been started and rendered useless by beginners are as numerous in both units (10 to 10): this confirms the presence of juveniles and children in both units. But in M20, young people had less chance, may be, to get their hands on well-knapped cores than those in unit D1.

    Newcomers?

    23If we add all the differences that distinguish the two units from each other, we can support the hypothesis of Unit M20 being occupied by people different from those in Unit D1, and arrived later. The evidences collected here suggest a small group including a few adults who worked around Hearth M20 and in the rear space (OPQ20/1)9 and one or more youths working with becs and piercers and practicing knapping on new flint blocks or on already knapped cores with little or no blank production10. J. Enloe (2010: 44) infers from the bone conjoins that they bear witness of a communal life (figure 10.3):

    The most securely refitted [reindeer] carcasses are principally clustered in a single large midden located between the two major hearths. This common dump may suggest meals taken communally, that sharing was taking place at the level of consumption rather than at the level of distribution...The hearths may be related to different functions.

    24Actually, the difference between the two units is not based on different tasks but on the relative importance of tasks performed in the two parts of the camp. Manufacturing and retooling hunting weapons attested by the association of backed bladelets and burins is less important in unit M20 while the numerous becs and piercers reflects the importance of working on hard organic material. Burins in unit D1 mostly wear grooving traces on the point while they tend to exhibit grooving wear on one of the bevel facets in unit M20. Scrapers dedicated to hide working are more numerous than expected. Though they are not numerous enough to make the difference significant, we observe that they all worked on dry hide in unit M20, while a few scrapers among those scattered in unit D1 worked on fresh hide (Beyries 2007: 262-266)11.

    25The necessary time lag between the setting-up of a flint workshop on the butchering area and the carcasses butchering activity lets us think that the killing and the main butchering was over when the second group arrived. The limited amount of bladelets, the relative importance of scrapers, the large number of becs and piercers may indicate that, once hunting was over, there was no need to invest much time in manufacturing new backed bladelets for the points, but there was still a lot to do: filleting and drying meat cut in thongs, preparing the skins, manufacturing handles for tools and all the tasks that did not let enough material traces for the archaeologist to be able to decipher them.

    Spatial Propinquity and kinship relations among Hunters-gatherers

    26Ethnographic accounts and studies on hunters-gatherers highlight the importance of the kinship relations in the spatial organization of their camps. T. Whitelaw, whose comparative research synthesized most early and ethnographic sources available on this topic (Whitelaw 1989, 1991), demonstrates in his dissertation that kinship relations are the main factor in organizing the grouping of dwellings in camps, particularly in camps with few people during the dispersion periods. It explains 50% of the variation in his statistical analysis of 130 populations. The functional dimension comes next: labor organization and mobility (Whitelaw 1991: 191-192). A hunter values hunting skill when selecting participants for a hunting expedition. The symbolic dimension is much more difficult to apprehend, except inside dwellings, about which many studies exist.

    27In the arctic and subarctic regions, ethnographic fieldwork such as J. Helm among the North Dogrib in Canada (Helm 1972), the stories told by Montagnais hunters (Bouchard 2004, Grégoire & Dominique 1989), the genealogical studies such as J. Mailhot’s on the Montagnais-Naskapi of Labrador (Mailhot 1985) demonstrate that kinship relations were of prime importance before the forced consolidation of Indians and Eskimos communities at the beginning of the 20th century. But a differentiated use of the kinship ties led to some fluidity in these groupings since people could choose between bilateral kinship relations at different degrees (Helm 1972: 74). However the memory of kinship ties does not extend beyond two or three generations in communities in which lifespan is short. Thus camps during the dispersion season most likely included a nuclear family plus one or two adult sons or daughters, their partner and their children.

    28Among the arctic and subarctic populations camps are organized in clusters of two to three dwellings of close relatives according to kinship ties and task cooperation (Whitelaw 1989: 75-77). Unfortunately, few precise maps of autumn camps exist. Pictures that let see the tents orientation in a camp are more numerous (Helm 1981, Damas 1984). Most of the time, one can makes out a parallel orientation, but without precision. On the few maps that exist, a similar orientation of the opening prevails (Binford 1991: fig. 30), but other configurations exist: in camps composed of several spaced clusters, the tent orientation may vary within a cluster, pairs of tents facing each other even exist. In 1981, Irimoto mapped a camp of a Chipewyan community, belonging to the Lake Wollaston Group and composed of several clusters of extended families during a summer fishing expedition (Whitelaw 1989: fig. 6.87). Two of these clusters include two tents close to one another and facing each other, though the other tents abide to the common orientation (figure 10.6). Some variability exists with regard to the dominant use.

    Figure 10.6

    Image

    Map of a Chipewayan summer camp organized in five clusters of two to four tents inhabited by extended families. In two of them, 2 tents are facing one another. In only one of them all tents are oriented the same way, from Imamoto in Whitelaw 1989: fig. 6.87.

    29A few examples of Magdalenian camps exist with dwelling structures conforming this norm and having openings in the same direction. At Marsangy (Yonne) the two habitations with central hearth, D14 and H17, have a parallel opening clearly limited on each side by what Binford (1983: 165) called “door dumps” (Schmider 1992: 69-76, fig. 25-26). D. Leesch et al. (2019: 92) set the tent spaces at Monruz (Neuchâtel, Suisse) facing the lake of Neuchâtel at the rear of 6 hearths. They assume that they were light sheds made of branches from dwarf willow and birch since there was no other tree from which to make poles in the surrounding landscape.

    30At Pincevent, the distribution of remains led C. Karlin & M. Julien to interpret the 18-E74, 27-M89 and 36-V105 units as domestic units with light tents or sheds open to the east at the rear of the hearth. They see them as having a shorter surface than winter tents and made of some of the poles and half of the skins covering a winter tent, as is usual in Siberian and North American summer tents (Julien & Karlin 2014: 352-356; Karlin & Julien 2019: 4459-4460, fig. 30). However, the artefacts concentrations located between V105 and T112 hearths do not let them to place a shelter with the same orientation in T112 and they propose to locate it at the rear of a satellite hearth Q111. They interpret the short distance between the two units as expressing the close kinship and cooperation ties of the occupants, also supported by their co-consumption of meat (Enloe & David 2014: 556; Julien & Karlin 2014: 357-361, 2015: 7, fig. 3).

    31At Verberie, the very short distance between the two hearths and the mirroring position of the two units that prevents privacy also argue in favour of close kinship ties. This configuration finds a parallel in the Magdalenian Paris Basin: at Étiolles (Essonne), less than 8 m separates the two dwelling units P15 and U5. Their openings are facing each other, to the north for P15, to the south and later to the west for U5, once the P15 inhabitants have left. Exchanges between the two units express a kinship relation and a generational difference. This might as well have been the case at Verberie. But the time delay is reverse at Étiolles as the occupants of the P15 unit leave before the occupants of unit U5 (Olive et al. 2019: 102, 105, fig. 61 and 63).

    32These comings and goings bear witness to the fluid way Magdalenian camps can form and recompose during a seasonal occupation. We used to consider mobility globally at the level of the camps - whether residential or hunting camps. When data allows it, we should now analyze it at a finer level: the level of the different cells that compose a camp. That what has been already achieved at Étiolles and Pincevent but also at Gönnerssdorf (Jöris et al. 2011), Oelknitz (Gaudzinski-Windheuser 2015) or Monruz (Leesch et al. 2019). If alternations of dispersion and gathering exist, it is not only a question of season but also of opportunity. For a same season, Autumn, we observe a gathering of several families with game sharing at Pincevent IV20, and only one family group at Verberie. Its members may have cooperated with other hunters if other contemporary units existed in the vicinity, but their game processing does not disclose any sharing evidence. Magdalenians attest to a double mobility in space and at the level of family cells comparable to the fluidity of the groups’ formation among the pre‑current hunters‑gatherers of the Arctic and Subarctic regions. It corresponds to a constant adaptation to the situation of the moment. The occupants of the domestic unit M20, once informed, may have come to benefit from the abundance of food or may have come to help their relatives because of the large amount of labour after a particularly successful hunt.

    Acknowledgements

    33I am deeply grateful to all the colleagues and students whose participation to the analysis of the Verberie site provided me with the arguments upon which this paper is based. I am particularly grateful to Claudine Karlin who introduced me to Daniel Cahen and Larry Keeley, and later to Jim Enloe. In doing this, she launched an exciting and productive collaboration. Analyses on lithic have been performed by D. Cahen, F. Janny, M. Langlais, and G. Debout for the backed bladelets. Faunal remains have been analysed by F. David and J.G. Enloe, by C. Tolmie for spermophilus, M. Mignard for birds, P. Rodriguez for shells. Microwear analyses and functional analyses were done by L.H. Keeley, N. Symens, S. Beyries, V. Beugnier et V. Rots; objects in hard organic matter were analyzed by A. Averbouh, hearths by M. Caron and G. Dumarçay. The Verberie GIS was D. Keeler’s work andt the geomorphological analysis is A. Roblin-Jouve and J.-F. Pastre’s work; D. Drücker did the analysis of isotopes on reindeer and horse bones, and Florent Rivals studied the reindeer teeth microwear. To all of them and other ones not mentioned here, my warmest thanks. I also extend my gratitude to the reviewers for their sensible remarks and to Annie Caubet for improving my rough English.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 Datations Gif A95453, A95454, A99106, A99421; Lyon 13798, 13799, 13800, 13801; OXA 12018 and KIA-52427 to KIA-52431.

    2 See footnote 1.

    3 Tools counts are based on M. Langlais statistics (2009), and on G. Debout’s work (2003) for backed bladelets. They slightly differ from the counts given by F. Janny who does not include pieces found in the plough zone (2010: 64). Their works rely in part on the analysis of skill levels done by J. Pelegrin, on the refits they performed, and on the refitting of the exogenous flint block by P. Bodu whom I warmly thank.

    4 See footnote 1.

    5 L.H. Keeley (1981, 1991 & digital database), N. Symens (1982, 1986) have conducted extensive analyses of large series, V. Beugnier and S. Beyries (1999; Beyries et. al. 2005, Beyries & Rots 2010; Beyries et al. 2007) have performed more detailed microwear and functional analyses focusing on particular types of tools (becs, burins, scrapers). V. Rots (2002, 2005) focused on hafting.

    6 Refits performed by D. Cahen for unit D1 and F. Janny for unit M20, have been analyzed and digitalized in a database by M. Langlais.

    7 Stone refits have been performed by M. Caron, and digitalized by G. Dumarçais.

    8 See footnote 1.

    9 Comparative research on gender division of labor shows that in arctic and subarctic regions, hide working is mostly a female task when it is a domestic task (see Waguespack 2005 and Keeley 2010: 232). Scrapers tend to be away from hearth M20 activity area (11 versus 4).

    10 The presence of a child or of children, attested by several cores knapped by unskilled knappers without any know-how nor knowledge, plus the amount of hide working are also a clear indication of the presence of a woman or of women.

    11 One of the scraper working on dry hide in unit M20 presents humidification wear typical of dry hide watered in order to get it back its flexibility (Beyries 2007: 266). The dominance of dry hide points towards a time lag between the setting-up of the two units.

    Auteur

    • Françoise Audouze

      Archaeologist, Director of Research (DR1) emeritus at the CNRS. - UMR 7041 – ArScAn (team Ethnologie Préhistorique), MSH Mondes, 21 allée de l'Université, 92023 Nanterre cedex (France)

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Not Just a Corridor

    Not Just a Corridor

    Human occupation of the Nile Valley and neighbouring regions between 75,000 and 15,000 years ago

    Alice Leplongeon, Mae Goder-Goldberger et David Pleurdeau (dir.)

    2020

    La langue des bois

    La langue des bois

    l’appropriation de la nature entre remords et mauvaise foi

    Sergio Dalla Bernardina

    2020

    Living and working with giants

    Living and working with giants

    a multispecies ethnography of the Khamtis and elephants in Northeast India

    Nicolas Lainé

    2020

    Nomad lives

    Nomad lives

    From Prehistoric Times to the Present Day

    Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas et Sophie Méry (dir.)

    2021

    Les palmes du savoir-faire

    Les palmes du savoir-faire

    La vannerie dans les oasis du Sahara

    Tatiana Benfoughal

    2022

    L’art des ghostnets

    L’art des ghostnets

    Approche anthropologique et esthétique des filets-fantômes

    Géraldine Le Roux

    2022

    Elusive Partners

    Elusive Partners

    Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on Marine Species

    Alix Levain, Hélène Artaud, Émilie Mariat-Roy et al.

    2023

    Des voies de l’ombre

    Des voies de l’ombre

    Quand les chauves-souris sèment le trouble

    Frédéric Laugrand et Antoine Laugrand

    2023

    Encager le ciel

    Encager le ciel

    Histoire, anthropologie et esthétique des volières

    Flamina Bardati, Julien Bondaz, Emmanuel Lurin et al. (dir.)

    2024

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 9
    Not Just a Corridor

    Not Just a Corridor

    Human occupation of the Nile Valley and neighbouring regions between 75,000 and 15,000 years ago

    Alice Leplongeon, Mae Goder-Goldberger et David Pleurdeau (dir.)

    2020

    La langue des bois

    La langue des bois

    l’appropriation de la nature entre remords et mauvaise foi

    Sergio Dalla Bernardina

    2020

    Living and working with giants

    Living and working with giants

    a multispecies ethnography of the Khamtis and elephants in Northeast India

    Nicolas Lainé

    2020

    Nomad lives

    Nomad lives

    From Prehistoric Times to the Present Day

    Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas et Sophie Méry (dir.)

    2021

    Les palmes du savoir-faire

    Les palmes du savoir-faire

    La vannerie dans les oasis du Sahara

    Tatiana Benfoughal

    2022

    L’art des ghostnets

    L’art des ghostnets

    Approche anthropologique et esthétique des filets-fantômes

    Géraldine Le Roux

    2022

    Elusive Partners

    Elusive Partners

    Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on Marine Species

    Alix Levain, Hélène Artaud, Émilie Mariat-Roy et al.

    2023

    Des voies de l’ombre

    Des voies de l’ombre

    Quand les chauves-souris sèment le trouble

    Frédéric Laugrand et Antoine Laugrand

    2023

    Encager le ciel

    Encager le ciel

    Histoire, anthropologie et esthétique des volières

    Flamina Bardati, Julien Bondaz, Emmanuel Lurin et al. (dir.)

    2024

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Publications scientifiques du Muséum
    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 Datations Gif A95453, A95454, A99106, A99421; Lyon 13798, 13799, 13800, 13801; OXA 12018 and KIA-52427 to KIA-52431.

    2 See footnote 1.

    3 Tools counts are based on M. Langlais statistics (2009), and on G. Debout’s work (2003) for backed bladelets. They slightly differ from the counts given by F. Janny who does not include pieces found in the plough zone (2010: 64). Their works rely in part on the analysis of skill levels done by J. Pelegrin, on the refits they performed, and on the refitting of the exogenous flint block by P. Bodu whom I warmly thank.

    4 See footnote 1.

    5 L.H. Keeley (1981, 1991 & digital database), N. Symens (1982, 1986) have conducted extensive analyses of large series, V. Beugnier and S. Beyries (1999; Beyries et. al. 2005, Beyries & Rots 2010; Beyries et al. 2007) have performed more detailed microwear and functional analyses focusing on particular types of tools (becs, burins, scrapers). V. Rots (2002, 2005) focused on hafting.

    6 Refits performed by D. Cahen for unit D1 and F. Janny for unit M20, have been analyzed and digitalized in a database by M. Langlais.

    7 Stone refits have been performed by M. Caron, and digitalized by G. Dumarçais.

    8 See footnote 1.

    9 Comparative research on gender division of labor shows that in arctic and subarctic regions, hide working is mostly a female task when it is a domestic task (see Waguespack 2005 and Keeley 2010: 232). Scrapers tend to be away from hearth M20 activity area (11 versus 4).

    10 The presence of a child or of children, attested by several cores knapped by unskilled knappers without any know-how nor knowledge, plus the amount of hide working are also a clear indication of the presence of a woman or of women.

    11 One of the scraper working on dry hide in unit M20 presents humidification wear typical of dry hide watered in order to get it back its flexibility (Beyries 2007: 266). The dominance of dry hide points towards a time lag between the setting-up of the two units.

    Nomad lives

    X Facebook Email

    Nomad lives

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Nomad lives

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Audouze, F. (2021). At the same time or one after the other?. In A. Averbouh, N. Goutas, & S. Méry (éds.), Nomad lives. Paris: Publications scientifiques du Muséum. Consulté à l’adresse https://books.openedition.org/mnhn/10775
    Audouze, Françoise. « At the Same Time or One After the Other? ». In Nomad Lives, édité par Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas, et Sophie Méry. Paris: Publications scientifiques du Muséum, 2021. https://books.openedition.org/mnhn/10775.
    Audouze, Françoise. « At the Same Time or One After the Other? ». Nomad Lives, édité par Aline Averbouh et al., Publications scientifiques du Muséum, 2021, https://books.openedition.org/mnhn/10775.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Averbouh, A., Goutas, N., & Méry, S. (éds.). (2021). Nomad lives. Paris: Publications scientifiques du Muséum. Consulté à l’adresse https://books.openedition.org/mnhn/10035
    Averbouh, Aline, Nejma Goutas, et Sophie Méry, éd. Nomad Lives. Paris: Publications scientifiques du Muséum, 2021. https://books.openedition.org/mnhn/10035.
    Averbouh, Aline, et al., éditeurs. Nomad Lives. Publications scientifiques du Muséum, 2021, https://books.openedition.org/mnhn/10035.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Publications scientifiques du Muséum

    Publications scientifiques du Muséum

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/fr

    Email : diff.pub@mnhn.fr

    Adresse :

    Muséum national d’histoire naturelle

    Service des Publications scientifiques - CP 41

    57, rue Cuvier

    75231

    Paris

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement