Mobility and nomadic life in the Palaeolithic
Reflections on the relationship between humans during the Middle Magdalenian in the Eastern Vienne (France)
p. 433-457
Résumés
The study of human societies in the Palaeolithic leads us to investigate the relationships that may have existed between different contemporaneous groups. Although the timescale in prehistory, based on a long period —beyond a generation— does not permit a detailed analysis of the social dynamics, it is nevertheless possible, in certain archaeological contexts, to observe the complexity of social relations. Indeed, when several archaeological parameters are combined —such as stratigraphy, the identification of material characteristics like lithic industries or objects made of hard animal materials, repeated figurative and iconographic elements, and radiometric dates providing a chronological framework— it is possible to attempt some palaeo-ethnographic analyses. It is only an archaeology integrated with technical and technological processes, and linked to material and symbolic culture, that can enable one to construct an anthropology of the nomadic populations of the Palaeolithic. As André Leroi- Gourhan put it so rightly, “there can only be teamwork in a domain where omni-competence is a fiction…”. Since he made that observation, progress has been made, but it still remains as relevant as ever.
Among these elements, Palaeolithic graphic art constitutes a favorable field of analysis for studies of relations between human groups, because it can reflect social, perpetually changing dynamics but also ways of perceiving beings and things. It is in this context that we propose to undertake an analysis of the Palaeolithic art of the two Middle Magdalenian (between 18 and 16,000) groups that have been particularly well identified so far through their material culture: the Magdalenian “with Lussac-Angles spearpoints” and the Magdalenian “with shuttles”. Basing ourselves primarily on the depiction of the human body, we propose to investigate whether these images —which are so striking in a prehistoric art that is generally defined by numerous animal figures— can materialize the identity of specific groups. Because whereas the Magdalenian group with Lussac-Angles spearpoints has realistic human depictions in profile, the shuttles group only has human figures seen from the front, with simplified geometric traits. Is this a clear indication of distinct identities?
Mobilité et vie nomade au Paléolithique : réflexions sur le rapport entre humains au cours du Magdalénien moyen de l’Est de la Vienne
L’étude des sociétés humaines du Paléolithique amène à se pencher sur les relations que pouvaient entretenir différents collectifs contemporains entre eux. Bien que l’échelle d’étude en préhistoire, basée sur un temps long — au-delà d’une génération — ne permette pas une analyse fine des dynamiques sociales, il est cependant possible, dans certains contextes archéologiques, d’observer une complexité des rapports sociaux. En effet, c’est lorsque plusieurs paramètres archéologiques sont réunis, comme la stratigraphie, l’identification de caractéristiques matérielles tels que des objets d’industrie lithique ou en matières dures d’origine animale, des éléments figuratifs et iconographiques répétés avec des dates radiométriques offrant un cadre temporel, qu’il est possible alors de tenter des analyses palethnographiques. C’est donc une archéologie intégrée des processus techniques et technologiques, en lien avec la culture matérielle et symbolique qui seule, permet de construire une anthropologie des populations nomades du Paléolithique. Comme le précisait si justement André Leroi-Gourhan : « il n’est de travail que d’équipe dans un domaine où l’omnicompétence est une fiction… ». Depuis cette observation, du chemin a été parcouru mais elle reste toujours autant d’actualité.Comment passer d’une archéologie de terrain pour aller vers une préhistoire des populations ? Vaste question à laquelle l’archéologue s’est attelé depuis la fin du XIXe siècle et de manière plus marquée depuis Marcel Maus et André Leroi-Gourhan. Le concept de chaîne opératoire a permis de rendre compte de la puissance cognitive du geste technique placée dans une dimension sociale. L’archéologie s’intéressant aux fait matériels (puisque seuls les objets non périssables sont conservés) a, contrairement à l’anthropologie sociale, développé une sociologie des techniques paléolithiques. Il s’agit d’aborder le fait social qui permet d’atteindre l’individu « total » cher à Marcel Mauss et sur lequel André Leroi-Gourhan s’est appuyé pour penser l’ethnologie préhistorique. Si l’ethnologie permet à une anthropologie sociale de se construire sur la base des phénomènes symboliques, des structures sociales et de la parenté notamment, il en est de même pour notre champ disciplinaire, l’archéologie. Depuis des décennies, la voie palethnologique dessinée par André Leroi-Gourhan s’est structurée et est devenue une méthode d’étude bien développée en France. Les réflexions menées notamment par Claudine Karlin sur les peuples nomades, s’inscrivent dans cette dynamique et ouvrent des perspectives. Ainsi, nous estimons qu’il est désormais possible de tirer des « fils » de ce qui pourrait être possible pour penser les groupes humains du paléolithique, et tenter des synthèses. L’expression graphique paléolithique en Europe semble émerger avec l’arrivée de Sapiens autour de 40 000 ans bien que des débats actuels posent la question de l’expression artistique des Néandertaliens. Cette paléo-histoire des images n’est pas à étudier de manière disjointe du reste des témoins archéologiques, tout comme elle n’est pas non plus à envisager en opposition à ces derniers. Le dualisme courant en archéologie qui consiste à séparer domaines d’analyse : activités symboliques vs cynégétiques, activités utilitaires vs non utilitaires, est désormais à dépasser si l’on souhaite discuter de la dimension « totale » de l’individu et de la société dans laquelle il s’inscrit.
Que savons-nous sur ces collectifs humains ? Ces derniers ont évolué dans des espaces physiques différents de ceux d’aujourd’hui, en étroite relation avec des environnements mouvants (milieux, climats), et l’ensemble des « existants » (animaux, végétaux, esprits) qui participent de la structuration du milieu (fleuves, reliefs etc.). Il est aussi fort possible que pour les sociétés mobiles du passé, ces espaces aient été aussi habités par des entités non physiques (esprits, ancêtres). Étaient-ils nomades ? semi-nomades ? ou mobiles ? L’archéologie préhistorique parle volontiers de peuples nomades pour le Tardiglaciaire. Il est vrai que la diversité de nature des sites archéologiques nous fait voir une pluralité de types d’occupation des lieux, entre haltes de chasse, campements plus pérennes et installations complexes. La saisonnalité des occupations comme documentées à Étiolles (Essonnes) et Pincevent (Essonnes) montre bien le caractère cyclique et mobiles des installations. Mais d’autres gisements archéologiques, comme les abris sous roche, racontent d’autres « histoires » archéologiques. Ainsi l’étude menée sur le site du Roc-aux-Sorciers (Vienne) montre plutôt des évidences d’une occupation pérenne et à l’année avec des modalités de circulation au sein d’un territoire local inter- sites. Ainsi le nomadisme paléolithique montre des réalités très diverses tant sur le plan chronologique (campements très complexes pour le gravettien russe) que régional (campement démontables selon les latitudes géographiques). Nous pensons alors qu’il n’y a pas un nomadisme, mais des mobilités nomades différentes allant jusqu’à la fixation de groupes au sein d’un territoire. Nous proposons donc d’en aborder une facette avec les sites datés du Magdalénien moyen de l’est de la Vienne. De ce fait, la perception de ces espaces par les humains, les relations qu’ils ont pu entretenir avec les existants ainsi que leurs rapports aux autres groupes contemporains, dépend de ces modalités d’occupation des environnements et des systèmes de déplacements observables à plusieurs échelles. Au sein du paléo-écosystème du Roc-aux-Sorciers (Angles-sur-l’Anglin, Vienne, France), nous avons pu ainsi identifier un territoire de l’intime, au pied des falaises et au contact de l’abri, un territoire domestique du quotidien, attaché au lieu et ses abords et un territoire symbolique mettant en avant des faisceaux de relations étroites et continues avec d’autres sites. Dans cet exemple, cette échelle du territoire est visible au travers des relations entretenues avec les sites du Lussacois (La Marche et les Fadets), distants d’une quarantaine de kilomètres plus au sud-est.
Mais comprendre les rapports que pouvaient entretenir les humains entre eux selon les niveaux de ces échelles de territoire implique aussi une compréhension du système ontologique auquel les collectifs se rattachent.
Nous entendons une ontologie comme les manières qu’ont eues les groupes humains de comprendre le monde et d’expliquer les phénomènes observables et imaginaires. Philippe Descola a proposé une catégorisation en quatre schèmes ontologiques, décrivant pour chacun d’entre eux des façons d’être au monde, générant des mythes et des cosmologies et structurant ainsi les rapports sociaux. Appliqué à l’archéologie préhistorique, ces champs sémantiques et conceptuels nous permettent de questionner les groupes paléolithiques dans leur organisation sociale. Il n’est pas question de discuter si l’une des ontologies proposées par Philippe Descola « colle » plus au moins aux sociétés paléolithiques. Cela serait un non-sens. Il s’agit plutôt d’identifier dans quelle mesure les éléments archéologiques que nous sommes en mesure d’analyser peuvent participer à la discussion des ontologies possibles. La façon de concevoir les éléments matériels (les objets), immatériels (les mythes, les symboles) ainsi que les activités (cynégétiques, domestiques, artistiques) est structurée selon ces systèmes ontologiques. Comment alors est-il possible d’identifier les ontologies établies par les collectifs humains du Paléolithique ? notamment pour les groupes établis à l’Est de la Vienne entre 18.000 – 16500 cal BP ? C’est ce que nous proposons d’analyser ici à propos des collectifs humains de cette région localisée entre les marges sud du bassin parisien et le Seuil du Poitou avec les gisements du Roc-aux-Sorciers, ceux localisées à Lussac-les-Châteaux comme le site de la Marche et des Fadets (Vienne) et celui de la Garenne (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Les recherches menées sur le gisement du Roc-aux-Sorciers, depuis sa découverte en 1933 par Lucien Rousseau, puis sa fouille en 1947 par Suzanne Cassou de Saint Mathurin et Dorothy Garrod ainsi que celles menées depuis les années quatre-vingt-dix par l’une de nous, ont ouvert des perspectives pour tenter aujourd’hui une synthèse palethnologique des groupes humains. Les apports de l’anthropologie sociale sont par ailleurs tout à fait opérants dans cette perspective car les concepts qu’elle propose, tout en évitant le piège du comparatisme ethnographique, permettent d’analyser les phénomènes archéologiques avec d’autres regards et approches. Il s’agit par exemple des rapports entre nature et culture et des modes de représentation du monde et des autres. Ainsi l’archéologie du Roc-aux-Sorciers peut être questionnée à l’aulne de ces concepts. Parmi ces éléments, l’art graphique constitue un domaine d’analyse favorable aux études des relations entre collectifs humains, car il peut être le reflet des dynamiques sociales en perpétuel changement, mais aussi des modes de perception des êtres et des choses.
La mise en relation du Roc-aux-Sorciers au sein d’une dynamique territoriale et en rapport avec d’autres gisements voisins tel que la Marche (Vienne) et la Garenne (Indre), permet d’identifier des convergences ou des différences dans les sphères techniques et artistiques. L’analyse des phénomènes d’emprunts culturels ou d’exclusion / inclusion entre les groupes font émerger des relations complexes entre ces communautés. Ce que nous sommes capables d’identifier comme des éléments stables et suffisamment caractérisés sont alors autant de variables ouvrant sur une analyse sociale des collectifs. La mise en perspective de la pointe de sagaie de Lussac-Angles avec la navette, un autre objet issu de l’industrie osseuse, deux objets qualifiés de « fossiles directeurs », que nous croisons avec d’autres éléments documentés par l’archéologie, nous offre l’opportunité d’ouvrir une discussion sur les rapports sociaux durant le paléolithique récent. Seule une étude intégrée des phénomènes archéologiques observables permet d’aborder une synthèse d’ensemble, touchant entre autres aux relations entre les groupes humains.
C’est dans cette optique que nous proposons de reprendre une analyse de l’art paléolithique des deux collectifs attribués au Magdalénien moyen et qui sont particulièrement bien identifiés à ce jour par leur culture matérielle : le Magdalénien « à sagaies de Lussac-Angles » et celui « à navettes ». En nous basant notamment sur la figuration du corps humain, nous proposons de rechercher si les images, si particulières dans l’art préhistorique qui est en général défini par des figurations animalières nombreuses, peuvent participer à la construction de l’identité de groupes spécifiques. En effet, la figuration de l’image du corps humain dans l’art paléolithique renvoie à des relations dialectiques tout à fait caractéristiques. Ces images permettent de discuter du rapport que pouvaient établir les humains avec leur corps et d’analyser les relations multiples de continuité et discontinuité possibles entre les êtres. La diversité formelle de ces images au cours du paléolithique, met en avant divers processus de singularité des êtres allant de la métamorphose (mélange de corps humains et non-humains) à la revendication de l’individu par des images de type portrait réaliste. C’est justement ce type d’image, relativement original dans le corpus des figures humaines paléolithiques, qui se développe au sein des sites du Roc-aux- Sorciers et de la Marche. En revanche, les images humaines de la Garenne ne correspondent pas du tout à ce schème figuratif. En effet, tandis que le groupe magdalénien à pointes de sagaies de Lussac-Angles livre des représentations humaines détaillées, expressives et réalistes, le groupe à navettes développe les figures humaines uniquement figurées de face, avec des traits géométriques simplifiés. La stabilité/permanence de ces deux types d’image bien ancrée au sein des deux faciès culturels est bien mis en avant par les travaux réalisés ces dernières années. Est-ce la traduction forte d’identités distinctes ?
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : art paléolithique, identité, altérité, Magdalénien, figure humaine, Europe, sagaie de Lussac-Angles, navette, géographie sociale
Keywords : Palaeolithic art, identity, otherness, Magdalenian, human depiction, Europe, Lussac-Angles spearpoints, shuttles, social geography
Texte intégral
Introduction
1The populations of the European Late Ice Age occupied territories using various modalities that prehistoric archaeology has been investigating for almost 40 years (Leroi-Gourhan 1976; Binford 1978). It has been possible to highlight the mobility of the groups, their “nomadism” closely tied to the environment, through numerous pieces of work carried out in ethno-prehistory, notably those by Claudine Karlin (Karlin & Julien 2012; Julien & Karlin 2014). These groups were structured within systems of representing the world and others, and hence it is in the ontological dimension that social relationships, relations between beings (humans, non-humans, such as spirits) can be understood. So one must consider, in the light of current work on the cultural and social dynamics of Upper Palaeolithic populations, that the human groups existed in systems of representation of the world, that is, in ontological schemes in the sense of Philippe Descola (Descola 2005) that make it possible to generate mechanisms of identities and of otherness. The exchange systems between the groups, the systems of exploiting raw materials, those of techniques and codes of representation, which have been well established by research in ethno-prehistory, are the expression of this social dynamism, of this interpenetrable mechanism of identities since each exchange also assumes a transfer of the representation of the self. What we mean by identity is the expression of a conception of the links that bind together the members of a group, at the same time as that of a clear distinction with regard to non-members and to a clearly marked frontier between the exterior and the interior (Brubacker 2001). Hence the identity of an ethnic group is expressed (De Vos 1975: 9):
when it perceives itself as united by a collection of traditions that are not shared by its neighbours, and when its members subjectively use —in a symbolic or emblematic way— aspects of their culture in such a way as to differentiate themselves from other groups.
2This notion of identity, as part of culture, accompanies all our reflections throughout this article.
3Although the archaeological evidence does not systematically make possible a fine reading of cultural problems and social processes (as understood by social anthropology), one can nevertheless tackle certain social aspects such as technical, hunting and iconographic behaviours in the Magdalenian.
4Here we shall take a particular interest in the depiction of the human body and face in a geographical region which has yielded the greatest concentration of human representations in the Middle Magdalenian, that is, the Seuil du Poitou. The region has two modes of depiction; one has a realistic and detailed representation of bodies and faces, and the other has extremely simplified and anonymous depictions, following specific graphic codes. These two modes of expression of the body characterise two groups which also differ in their material culture —the Middle Magdalenian “with Lussac-Angles spearpoints”, and the Middle Magdalenian “with shuttles”.
5Is it possible to tackle the social dimension of Palaeolithic populations through this kind of archaeological evidence —these images? How do the modes of depicting the human body relate to the ways of “perceiving oneself”, or “perceiving the other”? What issues can we discuss in relation to this iconographic dimension provided by these two well-identified human groups of the Middle Magdalenian?
Images at the heart of the social dimension of Palaeolithic populations?
6Images not only play an aesthetic role (in the art-history sense) within groups, but also make it possible to discuss social dynamics. They are a powerful vector for analysing Palaeolithic social relationships (Fuentes & Pinçon 2016), and for tackling the dimension of the individual within the group and exchange relations between groups. This is also the role assigned to them by Philippe Descola in his reflections on ontological schemes (Descola 2009). An image involves an artistic and social expression which brings out identity as a symbolic act, signifying a close link between the person who made it and its recipients. In this sense we are adopting the definition of a symbolic act, as developed by Pierre Bourdieu: “Symbolic acts always assume acts of cognition and recognition, cognitive acts on the part of their recipients” (Bourdieu 1994:187). For this act to gain meaning, the exchange (of which the image is the result) must be shared and comprehensible: “for a symbolic exchange to function, both parties must have identical categories of perception and appreciation” (Bourdieu 1994:187).
7The analysis of graphic forms should make it possible to access the abstract dimension of human thought, and hence ways of perceiving the world. Images, according to Philippe Descola, can be very good indicators that can shed light on the ontological schemes from which they arose, and whose variables they express (Descola 2009). Thus, they can give us clues, especially on the principles of interiority (the components of the mind) and of physicalities (bodily envelope) and their arrangement (continuities and discontinuities of beings).
8So the image (like technology) is at the heart of social relations, since it implies a transmitter, prototypes (what is represented) and a recipient. Hence, as specified by Alfred Gell, the image can be an actor in social relations, that is, of social agency (Gell 1998).
9In the corpus of Palaeolithic images, those which depict the human body fit into this logic perfectly, since they not only involve the way of thinking of the body as identity but also symbolise relationships of otherness, that is, how we think of ourselves in relation to others and what representation we make of others and ourselves. That is the reason why we have taken an interest in this corpus of Magdalenian images.
10Social anthropology and ethnographic studies establish unanimous observations about the relationship of individuals to their bodies, that is, the existence of a plurality of modes of perception of oneself and of others, and the way of representing and defining oneself (Godelier & Panoff 1998; Calame & Kilani 1999).
11Françoise Héritier, for example, in her work on Samo identity1 (Héritier 1977), evokes the vast and plural dimension of the perception of the individual through her study, as applied to the Samo (Héritier 1977: 65):
Each being presents itself as a particular assemblage of very diverse material and intangible elements which bestow an original identity, humans being the product of a combination that is more complex than those of the other beings in the world.
12This leads Françoise Héritier to consider Samo identity as a “foliage” of elementary components. Of course, in our discipline, it is no longer possible to gain access to the complex mechanisms that must have governed Palaeolithic groups. But there is every reason to assume that the nomadic populations of the Late Ice Age developed thoughts about the world, and highly complex systems of depiction, opening them up to vast realms of possibilities for “representing themselves” in the eyes of others, but also in their own eyes.
13Moreover, as Philippe Descola (Descola 2005) reminds us, in most “ontologies” that govern one’s way of explaining the world (systems of representing the world, the other and oneself) and the relationship with things, the individual is not simply its physicality (its material forms, its visible particularities), but rather a plurality of elements, of components that make up its identity. Hence when we look at the composite beings of Magdalenian art (the best known being the one called the “sorcerer” in the cave of Les Trois-Frères in Ariège(Bégoüen 1920 : 20)), we are able to describe a graphic structure, to assess the figure’s physicality, but we can only have a theoretical approach to the interiority that such an image could have conveyed. It is certain that these images (like all the others) materialize latent forms of interiority behind the obvious form that we read. Beyond archetypes, the plurality of forms that we recognise only gives us access to hypothetical interpretations.
14Although our access is limited to many elements of context (languages, sounds, social customs), we do not want to renounce all attempts at social analysis for the Palaeolithic. In this field, and where art is concerned, we only have access to the forms of the images and the technique used to make them, and not to the motivations behind them. In short, we only have access to the physicality of things. But this is not necessarily a restraint on analyses. As Philippe Descola has also specified, physicality is not only material data, it brings together all visible and tangible expressions (Descola 2005: 169). Hence, it seems to us that every human being perceives him or herself as a mixed entity which is necessary to “recognise oneself”, recognise others, recognise one’s own distinctive traits that differ from those of others. Moreover, this mixed entity presents two components of identity: the ability to have a point of view about the world, that is, subjectivity (Viveiros de Castro 2014)2 and the notion of multiple personages in a single bodily envelope which thereby leads one to question situations involving hybrid beings (metamorphoses).
15It is therefore this dimension of the visible that we have undertaken to structure, in order to propose a methodological framework for the study of these images, so as to approach the social relations maintained by two groups identified in the Middle Magdalenian.
16It is true that, in our current state of knowledge, we are constructing —somewhat artificially— “scientific” images of Palaeolithic groups which are doubtless only representative of a given moment, a limited timespan. The problems of taphonomy, of chronological imprecision, the nature of archaeological evidence (a patchwork of different excavations through time, which prevent homogenisation of data) and the anthropocentrist limits of the modes of perception that govern our own work —these are all obstacles to the development of reading-schemes for understanding Palaeolithic populations.
17The identity of the individual and that of the group are closely linked; because the construction of the identity of the individual is inseparable from the culture of the group to which it belongs. This is a fundamentally sociological question to which Pierre Bourdieu devoted a large part of his work through the notion of “habitus” (Bourdieu 1994).
18Cultural traits are a factor in the construction of identity, and constitute mechanisms of otherness. These cultural traits are not “just anything” (Poutignat & Streiff-Fenart 2012: 13):
They were formed in the course of a shared history which the group’s collective memory never ceased transmitting in a selective way, and interpreting by making certain legendary events and personages the significant symbols of ethnic identity through a work of social imagination.
19Images very probably played this role of cultural marker (cultural trait), that is, of diacritical sign to use Benoît de L’Estoile’s term. Certain aspects of the material sphere can be overlaid with an identity which makes it possible to differentiate it from the other (L’Estoile de 2007: 389-390):
Identity markers are the product of othernesses, a process of construction in the course of which a certain number of traits perceived as different —be they physical, linguistic, clothing, alimentary, religious, artistic or economic— are set up as “diacritical” signs.
20Hence the dimension of the individual is closely linked to the cultural and social context in which it evolves, most often incarnated by the social group.
21Where artistic expression is concerned —but this is also the case with technology— individuals with great technical and artistic expertise (like a highly skilled sculptor or sculptress at Le Roc-aux-Sorciers) can break with the norm and create a tipping point that brings about a change which may be radical, and provoke a new social norm which, itself, may be diffused more widely. Is this what is happening with the artistic mastery shown in the monumental sculpted frieze of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers (Fuentes & Pinçon 2018)? Therefore, this double relationship, between the “I” of the individual and the “we” of the cultural group, has to be taken into account throughout our analysis.
22By combining the data available to archaeology and basing ourselves on its methods, we can tackle an analysis of Palaeolithic social dynamics, and especially the role that images can play, as is done, for example, in studies of lithic industries (Pigeot 1987, 1991). Similarly, works on social geography that investigate the cultural and territorial dynamic of Late Ice Age societies (Conkey 1980; Bahn 1982; Bourdier 2010) and the attempts to analyse Palaeolithic ethnic groups (Fritz et al. 2007; Sauvet et al. 2008) are further examples of such approaches.
23We wish to examine whether the study of human bodies in Palaeolithic art enables us to access this double dimension —i.e. the perception of self and the perception of the other.
24To do this, we shall base ourselves on our knowledge of the Magdalenian group of the eastern Vienne (Le Roc-aux-Sorciers and La Marche and the sites of the Lussac region) attributed to the Middle Magdalenian “with Lussac-Angles spearpoints” and that of the group to which the site of La Garenne (Indre) belongs, attributed to the Middle Magdalenian “with shuttles” (figure 22.1).
Figure 22.1

Location of the sites with Lussac-Angles spearpoints (Le Roc-aux-Sorciers and La Marche) and with shuttles (La Garenne) illustrated with their respective human depictions and other objects discussed in this article, CAD O. Fuentes.
The issues concerning human depiction in the iconography of two very distinct human groups of the Middle Magdalenian
25One of us (Fuentes 2013) has proposed a methodological framework that makes intelligible the formal variability of depictions of the human body, and this enables us to discuss ways of presenting the body, and hence ways of envisaging the form of the human body.
26One particular way of representing the human body and head at the sites of the eastern Vienne showcases a realistic prototype which we call “expressive figurative” (Fuentes 2013, 2017). This original perception of the body by a detailed and expressive image of faces is associated with an assemblage of artifacts such as the spearpoint of Lussac-Angles type (Pinçon 1988), the mammoth-ivory beads known as stomach-beads, and the foal teeth with fine engravings on their labial surface (Dujardin & Pinçon 2000). The comparison of these images with those discovered at La Garenne (Indre) where the human figure is made with a schematic geometric prototype, represented only from the front and associated with other specific objects such as the shuttle, and phallic-shaped perforated batons (Allain & Trottignon 1973; Allain et al. 1985; Fuentes 2009; Bourdier et al. 2017a; Chauvière et al. 2017), makes it possible to discuss the images’ social dimensions.
The expressive human figures of the Middle Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints in the eastern Vienne in their archaeological context
27The eastern Vienne (Poitou-Charentes, France) contains numerous examples of Upper Palaeolithic human occupations, including reference sites for the Middle Magdalenian like La Marche (Lussac-les-Châteaux), Les Fadets (Lussac-les-Châteaux) and Le Roc-aux-Sorciers (Angles-sur-l’Anglin).
28The site of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers, a major Palaeolithic art site, presents a monumental sculpted frieze that extends along the right bank of the Anglin for about fifty metres at the foot of a limestone cliff that faces due south (figure 22.2). The site currently comprises an open rock-shelter with a slight overhang (abri Bourdois) and a karst cavity parallel to the wall (Cave Taillebourg). In 1933, Lucien Rousseau published the result of the excavations he had carried out between 1927 and 1933 (Rousseau 1933), at one of the rare Magdalenian sites then known in the Vienne. The work carried out by Suzanne Cassou de Saint-Mathurin and Dorothy Garrod from 1947 to the 1960s (Saint-Mathurin 1948, 1976; Saint-Mathurin & Garrod 1951) revealed the site’s monumental size with the discovery of engraved and painted sculpted blocks which had fallen from the shelter’s ceiling, and then the sculpted frieze that was still in situ. Since the 1990s, Geneviève Pinçon and her team have expanded our knowledge of this site, and have taken a particular interest in the changes observed on the sculpted frieze in the course of the Middle Magdalenian in close relation to the human occupations associated with it (Iakovleva & Pinçon 1997, 1999; Pinçon 2008, 2009, 2010, Pinçon et al. 2013, Pinçon et al. 2016).
Figure 22.2

The sculpted frieze in situ of the rock-shelter of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers (Angles-sur-l’Anglin, Vienne), photo Ph. Plailly, Ministère de la culture-Centre national de Préhistoire.
29In the abri Bourdois (downstream part of the site), two archaeological layers are attributed to the Middle Magdalenian: RSD dated to 13 720+-140 BP3 - 4 (GifA 94192); 14 160 +- 80 BP5 (GrN 1913) and 14510 +- 160 BP6 (GifA 94191) and RSC, 14 770 +- 140 BP7 (GifA 94190) (Saint-Mathurin,1984; Iakovleva &Pinçon 1997; Dujardin & Tymula 2005). Layer RSD which yielded several “big black hearths” constitutes the site’s major occupation (Saint-Mathurin 1984; Pinçon 2009, 2010). The archaeological fill of the Cave Taillebourg (upstream part of the site) is also attributed to this chrono-cultural phase (Saint-Mathurin 1984). These two loci in the great shelter of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers, which have very similar industrial assemblages, show that occupations were synchronous in these two parts of the site (Pinçon 2009).
30About forty kilometres to the south-east of Angles-sur-l’Anglin, in the municipality of Lussac-les-Châteaux, several cavities have been discovered —most notably the sites of La Marche, the Réseau-Guy-Martin and the Grotte des Fadets. The cave of La Marche, discovered by Léon Péricard in 1937 (Péricard & Lwoff 1940), faces south and today has two entrances, separated by a broad pillar. Two occupation layers have been found there, one of them attributed to Breuil’s Magdalénien III8 (Péricard & Lwoff 1940), and dated to 14 282+/- 160 BP9 (Ly 2100) (Pradel 1980; Airvaux 2001).
31The Réseau Guy Martin, located in the upper part of the karst system in which the cave of La Marche is situated, was discovered in 1991 by speleologists of the Spéléo-club poitevin. At its entrance, the single archaeological layer, “compact and homogeneous”, is attributed to the “local” Magdalenian, and was dated to 14 240 BP +/- 85 BP10, which confirmed its attribution to the Middle Magdalenian (Airvaux 1998: 502).
32This small cave (about 25 m long) comprises three successive chambers, separated by narrow passages. The ceiling rises after the second chamber which is decorated.
33Further upstream on the little stream that links these sites, the Grotte des Fadets is a shallow cavity with two openings. Its archaeological context is poorly known thanks to early excavations by Amédé Brouillet in 1826 (Gobillot 1919; Lwoff 1962). The research carried out by Stéphane Lwoff and Léon Péricard brought to light some elements attributable to Magdalenian III (engraved plaquettes, Lussac-Angles spearpoints) and others belonging to the Upper Magdalenian (Lwoff 1962). Its attribution to Magdalenian III has since been confirmed (Airvaux & Chollet 1983; Chollet & Airvaux 1990; Airvaux 2001). For the moment, the context (thickness of the fill, type of activity) is unknown to us. The only date available, earlier than those obtained at the other sites, is 15 300 +/- 150 BP11 (Gif 7553) (Airvaux 2001: 75).
34The Middle Magdalenian of the Lussac-Angles facies is characterised by the Lussac-Angles spearpoint, associated with other chracteristic elements present in each of these sites (Dujardin & Pinçon 2000) (figure 22.3). This artifact can be defined as follows (Pinçon 1988, 1984: 89):
[…] a single-bevelled spearpoint in reindeer antler which stands out… through its dimensions and its morphology: it is normally rather short and broad; its shape is chunky, lanceolate, with its distal part sharp (or blunt); the cross-section of the distal part is biconvex (or oval), with a broad profile (carinated or rounded); the bevel is long and non-striated. It always has a well-demarcated groove on its upper surface, and often another on its lower surface. The groove on the upper surface, characterised by a V-shaped profile, is longer and deeper than the one on the lower surface.
Figure 22.3

Lussac Angles spearpoints. Roc-aux-Sorciers: A, RS D 12; B, RS D13; C, CT C; La Marche: D, D.50.7.10; E, 979.5.1890; F, D.50.7.17. Drawings G. Pinçon.
35The dates obtained place these sites within a certain chronological contemporaneity which makes it possible to put them into perspective, and this has been confirmed by a new study of the lithic material accompanied by a dating program for the Middle Magdalenian (Sécher 2020).
36Similarities have been noted in terms of knapping activities, hunting and the exploitation of prey (Bignon 2009; Chemana & Beyries 2010).
37These different elements make it possible to establish a cluster of technical and social norms for the whole cultural area with Lussac-Angles spearpoints, which gives a more solid archaeological basis to the studies of the graphic expressions of this ensemble. The sites of the Middle Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints in the eastern Vienne have yielded —in our present state of knowledge— 136 human representations, including 60 bodies in silhouette (complete and incomplete) and 76 human heads isolated from the rest of the body on a mineral support: plaquettes, engraved limstone slabs, or on the wall.
38One recurrent mode of representation governs these images. Quite apart from the systematic mineral support, the technique used is engraving for the great majority, although Le Roc-aux-Sorciers shows a greater technical variability since the figures were also sculpted and painted.
39The great quantity of anatomical details used to make the image more complex, with a careful accuracy in the organisation of these criteria, doubled with forms of expression applied to the faces (open mouth, smile, arms raised when the body is represented), give these images an “expressive” nature. The quantity of expressive and detailed faces, all different from each other, pose the question of the appearance of the “portrait” in the Middle Magdalenian (figure 22.4).
Figure 22.4

Gallery of realistic human faces from sites of the Middle Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints in the eastern Vienne: A-J, plaquettes and engraved slabs from La Marche (A-J after L. Pales and M. Tassin de Saint-Péreuse 1976); K-L, Airvaux 2001; M-N, Parietal sculptures and engravings of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers (M, photo Bérizzi, MAN; N, photo O. Fuentes); O, engravings on limestone plaquette from the Grotte des Fadets, tracing O. Fuentes, Fuentes 2010.
40This detailed kind of representation, with care visibly taken in the expression of the individuality of the personage, is also found in the depictions of the body. These may be clothed (belts, hats or headbands), wear necklaces, and are for the most part in movement or action (figure 22.5). These elements of the image constitute the particular traits of the graphic expression of the hunter-gatherers of the Middle Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints in the eastern Vienne.
Figure 22.5

Realistic human silhouettes from the sites of the Middle Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints of the eastern Vienne: A-L, plaquettes and engraved slabs of the cave of La Marche (A and C-L, tracings after L. Pales and M. Tassin de Saint-Péreuse 1976; B, tracing O. Fuentes); M, engraved plaquette from the rock-shelter of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers, tracing O. Fuentes, Fuentes 2010; N-O, engraved plaquettes from the Grotte des Fadets, tracings O. Fuentes.
41Is this a way of depicting oneself or depicting the other? The numerous human depictions of the cave of La Marche and the rock-shelter of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers represent individuals of all ages, both female and male, each with their own facial traits. Is this a social declaration (visible and accessible to the community) of the individual through the depiction of its human body, and hence of a careful representation, quite direct, of its individuality?
The anonymous human figures of the Middle Magdalenian with shuttles on the banks of the Creuse in their archaeological context
42About sixty kilometres east of Angles-sur-l’Anglin is the site of La Garenne (Saint-Marcel), close to the banks of the Creuse. It comprises several karst cavities at the foot of a cliff, facing south/south-west. The Grand Abri and the abri Blanchard form the Magdalenian site of La Garenne which is attributed to the Middle phase known as “with shuttles” 12 (Allain 1961; Allain et al. 1985; Despriée et al. 2009b).
43The “shuttle” is an object of reindeer antler with a double bevel, and a shaft (or body) (figure 22.6), and (Allain et al. 1985: 38):
two distal parts, each of them with two tongues separated by a medial slit; each tongue has an external face that prolongs the shaft, and an internal face that results from the making of the slit.
44Unknown in the Lussac-Angles context, these objects are associated with a schematic art.
Figure 22.6

Shuttles from the Grotte de la Garenne, Allain et al. 1985, fig. 4.
45At La Garenne, several graphic entities, produced on portable supports made of hard animal materials, such as chisels or shuttles, comprise groups of geometric lines, noticeably following the same organisation: a long, vertical medial line marked on the support’s surface. This medial line may be continuous or discontinuous, and sometimes multiplied. At its base, lines in the form of arcs, chevrons or horizontal marks may complete it. Two round or curved cupules are positioned at the upper end on either side of the vertical line. These two cupules may also appear without this line. There are different variations: sometimes the median line is absent, and only the two cupules and the horizontal mark remain; sometimes the vertical groove is interrupted. This collection of motifs creates a particular decor, identified as a stylisation of the human face, seen from the front (Allain & Trotignon 1973; Fuentes 2009) (figure 22.7).
Figure 22.7

Human faces from the Magdalenian site of La Garenne: A, engravings on a perforated baguette, photo A. Rigaud; B, engravings on a double-bevelled point reused as a chisel, Allain & Trotignon 1973, fig. 1; C, Engravings on a decorated chisel, Allain & Trotignon 1973, fig. 1; D, engravings on a shuttle, photo A. Rigaud; E, Engravings on a chisel, Allain et al. 1985, fig. 71.
46These images are classed within the “geometric figurative” prototype, peculiar to schematism. In contrast to simple schematic images, here the purifying of line recurs in the quasi-majority of the images (great figurative stability), echoing a repeated expression of geometric forms (Fuentes 2013).
47This type of motif can be found, for example, at La Peyzie (Dordogne), Roc-de-Marcamps (Gironde), Le Chaffaud (Vienne) and Le Placard (Charente) (figure 22.8), in similar archaeological contexts (Fuentes et al. 2017).
Figure 22.8

Figures of human faces of Geometric Figurative type, typical of the schematism of humans in a Magdalenian-with-shuttles context: A-E, Roc-de-Marcamps, decorated spearpoints and chisels (tracings A, C-D, Allain et al. 1985, fig. 27; B, Allain et al.1985 fig. 64. Photos A, C, M. Lenoir, Société Linnéenne Bordeaux; B, E, V. Mistrot, Musée d’Aquitaine; D, L. Gauthier, Musée d’Aquitaine); F, La Peyzie, spearpoint, Allain et al. 1985, n°64; G, Arlay, reindeer antler, Allain et al.1985, fig. 47; H, Le Chaffaud, shuttle, Allain et al. 1985, fig. 72; I, Le Placard, reindeer antler, Laurent 1963, fig. 1; J, Le Placard; decorated chisel, Breuil 1913, pl. XI.
48The supports used are exclusively in hard animal materials, essentially reindeer antler. Most are decorated chisels, but also spearpoints or shuttles. Nevertheless, it is not always easy to recognise the type of tool, since objects were sometimes modified.
49The lines are primarily drawn with deep engraving, made by repeated passes with a pointed tool; this enables us to group them as a purposely figurative representation. The cupules interpreted as eyes are circular or semi-circular, very readable, with a clear outline.
50The mode of representation for the interpretation of a face can be summed up as the association of cupules and of vertical and horizontal grooves, with variations like the addition of a horizontal line. The depth of most of the incisions, and the lack of overshooting, show a real determination to make the figure readable. Technically, the assemblage of decorated pieces is very homogeneous, whatever the support.
51This way of treating the human face conforms to a graphic and technical rhythm reinforced by the systematic choice of the support which constrains the framed effect of these images as a figurative norm. This stylisation derives from a decomposition of the human face into a sort of conceptual codification of lines. But this codification is not homogeneous (Fuentes 2009). For the moment, this type of anonymous face, in geometric schematism, only appears in an archaeological context attributed to the “Middle Magdalenia with shuttles” (Fuentes et al. 2017).
The realistic figurative and geometric schematism: human depictions for two very distinct cultural groups?
52So two opposing figurative movements are displayed in the treatment of the human body within these two archaeological contexts of the Middle Magdalenian located in two neighbouring but distinct valley systems. The study of the human figures shows a clear differentiation in the figurative modes. Hence the detailed realism of human faces, almost exclusively presented in profile, and with expressions like a smile, evoking “portraits” in the Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints, contrasts with a “vision” of the human face, only seen from the front and in geometric schematism at the Magdalenian site of La Garenne, almost exclusively present in contexts with shuttles (Allain & Trottignon 1973; Fuentes 2009). These differences are also found in the choice of support —exclusively on mineral supports for the facies with Lussac-Angles spearpoints, and only on organic animal supports in the shuttle context. It is noteworthy that the realistic prototype of “expressive figurative” type remained limited to the Magdalenian sites with Lussac-Angles spearpoints in the eastern Vienne, with a very low degree of diffusion. Only a purified variation of realism (“simple figurative”, according to Fuentes 2013) is perceptible in the Dordogne (cave of Les Combarelles) and in the Magdalenian of the Pyrenees (for example in the cave of Marsoulas which also has Lussac-Angles spearpoints). By contrast, the “geometric figurative” prototype (a constituent of schematism, according to Fuentes 2013) peculiar to the frontal faces of La Garenne diffused more widely along with the shuttle, since one finds these images at the site of Roc-de-Marcamps in Gironde for example. For the moment there are no realistic depictions of the human face in the shuttle context, just as there are no geometric-schematic faces seen from the front in the Lussac-Angles spearpoint context.
53The depiction of animals is far less clearly differentiated in these two Magdalenian contexts. The engravings on limestone plaquettes at La Garenne display a figurative tendency for certain subjects, thus taking part in the collective culture of the Middle Magdalenian. However, there is still a notable difference with the particularly detailed naturalistic art found in the context of the Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints (Paillet 2009). This difference in the figurative expression of animals within these two cultural contexts has been confirmed again recently (Bourdier et al. 2017c) (figure 22.9). Other differences are noteworthy, such as the presence of sexual representations of phallic type on the perforated batons of La Garenne (Allain et al. 1985). These are totally absent at the sites of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers or La Marche (Pinçon 2010).
Figure 22.9

Formal comparison of horse depictions between sites with Lussac-Angles spearpoints and with shuttles: La Garenne, engraved plaquettes, after Paillet 2009; Le Roc-aux-Sorciers, parietal art, Tracings after Iakovleva & Pinçon 1997; photos J-G Bérizzi and Ph. Plailly; La Marche, engravings on plaquettes and limestone slabs, tracings after Pales & Tassin de Saint-Péreuse 1981 and Gaussein 2012.
54These perceptible differences occur within the collective culture of the Middle Magdalenian. This applies, for example, to the lithic industry (presence of the characteristic tools of the Middle Magdalenian) or the choice of raw materials —certainly, the groups of the eastern Vienne and those of La Garenne use the same procurement strategy for flint. For La Garenne, the flint is not necessarily local, but 43% of it comes from more than 60 km away in the direction of La Marche (notably the Lower Turonian of Le Grand Pressigny, the Barthonian of La Marche) (Dumas 2009). These are the same procurement sites as those used by the occupants of the site of La Marche (local flint) and Le Roc-aux-Sorciers (Lower and Upper Turonian of Le Grand Pressigny and Barthonian of La Marche especially) (Chehmana & Beyries 2010). The same applies to sources of items of jewellery like the shell-marls of Touraine which are found in the different sites (Taborin & Tymula 2009; Vercoutère 2009). So one sees networks of affinities in the habits of choosing natural resources. It would doubtless be interesting to carry out a detailed comparison of their food resources based on the reindeer and their techniques of exploitation in order to improve our knowledge of their practices. We know how very important the relationship with the reindeer was for Late Glacial societies (Soulier et al. 2014). Moreover, the general way of life of the semi-nomadic Magdalenian groups was shared widely throughout all Magdalenian occupation areas, even if these are not systematically the same environmental contexts.
55The research carried out on the Middle Magdalenian of the eastern Vienne makes it possible to cross-reference the analyses from all domains: technological, artistic and social. The study of the variability of the modes of depicting the body within the culture with Lussac-Angles spearpoints in the eastern Vienne and that expressed at La Garenne, in the shuttles context, shows a clear difference. The radical differentiation between these two groups occurs in this cultural dimension, that is, the depiction of the image of the body. Hence, beyond other cultural elements like certain characteristic objects of the bone industry or jewellery, the depiction of humans stands out as a diacritical sign —in other words, as a distinction, at first sight discreet, in an element of differentiation that becomes central from the cultural point of view.
56Although we are ignorant of the other cultural elements that can traditionally be diacritical signs, such as marriage rites, clothing fashions or other cultural acts, it is possible to see in the way of depicting the human body another important element of group identity and of differentiation between different groups.
57What seems to differentiate these two cultures is the symbolic expression by image associated with the two “type fossils” —the Lussac-Angles spearpoint and the shuttle. Moreover, we do not deny their symbolic value. One wonders if these two type fossils —whose function, or at least specific function, is not really known— had special meaning for these groups beyond their utilitarian role? It is worth recalling that a typical, perforated Lussac-Angles spearpoint was discovered at Laugerie-basse (Dordogne) (Pinçon 1984).
58Examination of the Magdalenian sites of the eastern Vienne and that of La Garenne brings to light the differentiations within shared ways of life. In order to bolster these analyses, it is still necessary to better define the chronological framework. Whereas the facies with shuttles was considered to be later than the Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints (Allain et al. 1985), the renewal of work on certain sites with shuttle contexts has made it possible to produce a more detailed and refined chronology. Henceforth the Magdalenian with shuttles seems to be in place well before 18.000 cal BP, perhaps by 19.000 cal BP. This increase in age enables us to envisage that the two facies were synchronous, at least in the most recent phase of the Magdalenian with shuttles and that with Lussac-Angles spearpoints (Bourdier et al. 2017b).
59These groups of hunter-gatherers could probably speak a common language, or at least understand each other. And if we can envisage phases of contemporaneity at the level of a few generations, what could have been the mechanisms of perception, of exchange and of differentiation between them? Work on modelling the movements of hunter-gatherers has highlighted the need to maintain relations and exchanges well beyond practical necessities. This is what Robert Whallon (Whallon 2006: 260-261) calls a: “safety net”:
In fact, such social ties create a “safety net” of contact and relations […]. The regular maintenance of the social networks that create such “safety nets” is essential and critical to the long-term survival of many hunter-gatherer groups.
60It is a matter of maintaining a mesh of relationships, including symbolic ones, on the basis of an assemblage of objects, practices and ideas that are indispensable for the sustainability of the group (Sauvet 2019).
61So how is one to understand these different forms of cultural expression in apparently shared ways of life and ways of occupying the environmental framework? If these groups exchange between themselves, can they also express the rejection of norms coming from others in order to affirm their identity? In the complexity of the social dynamics, what are the relations between the groups? What about identity and otherness?
Identity and Otherness: ways of “perceiving oneself”, of “perceiving the other”
62In order to answer the questions raised by this work, and analyse the relations that images maintain with the social dynamics of the nomads of the end of the Palaeolithic, we need to define the term identity and therefore that of otherness. Although we cannot present a historiographic synthesis of these terms here (that would require a separate article), it is necessary to define them from the viewpoint of the analysis of the mechanisms of rejection and borrowing that we wish to undertake.
63Claude Levi-Strauss, through his courses at the Collège de France and the debates that followed the presentations of the invited anthropologists, defined identity as a sort of virtual home, to which one has to re-refer to explain certain things, but which has no real existence (see Benoist 1977). This solid concept of identity emphasises similarities through time and between people. Hence the notion of identity encompasses several anthropological dimensions, of awareness of self and of the person, that constitute a collective consciousness as well as an establishment in a territory with frontiers13.
64Identity and otherness cannot be conceived independently, and in these games of perception, the frontiers are the very place where identities are constructed. Manufactured objects, as well as art, play an important role in the materialisation of identities for the cultural domain. This is how we perceive the differences, that is, in the balance of power that is introduced between groups.
65Differences in cultural identity are often identified through exchange, the circulation of objects like jewellery, raw materials, decorated pieces (Fritz et al. 2007; Sauvet et al. 2008). These movements and circulations of objects emphasise the interpenetration of entities, never placed in isolates or autarchies. Out of these contacts may emerge mutations, changes and upheavals that characterise the always changing nature of identities.
66The difficulty of tackling identities in the Palaeolithic is that this notion is closely linked to that of the person. The status of the person, as has been demonstrated by work in social anthropology (Descola 2005; Tola 2009; Amselle 2010; Viveiros de Castro 2014), depends on the way of conceiving the world and others (humans and non-humans), and hence ontologies. Thus the mechanisms of identity and otherness, and hence of the person (individual), will be complex for the Palaeolithic as long as we have not investigated the ontological schemes of the hunter-gatherers of the Late Ice age in Europe.
67Tackling individual and collective identities also makes it possible to question the processes of occupying territory, the links with the environment, and the frontier sometimes approached from the angle of symbolic territories for the Palaeolithic. Numerous researchers in archaeology and anthropology have tackled the conceptual framework of the circulation networks of nomadic groups of hunter-gatherers (Binford 1982; Gamble 1982; Feblot-Augustin 1999, for example).
68Where the notion of frontier is concerned, although we know nothing of its realities in the Magdalenian periods for characterising spaces (from a physical, natural and symbolic point of view), we still feel it is important to discuss the issue of this notion, especially with regard to relations between groups like the Magdalenian groups with Lussac-Angles spearpoints and those with shuttles. In short, limits and frontiers constitute spaces that enable groups to think, influence, and get some distance from each other. The notion of frontier, at the same time as it separates, is central to the constitution of identities.
Is there a rejection or non-diffusion of social norms or cultural practices?
69The groups of the Middle Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints were able to produce technical innovations like the Lussac-Angles point and graphic innovations like the representation of realistic, expressive human heads. These elements were not diffused in their essence to other cultural assemblages, except in a very sporadic and isolated fashion. So these social, technical and symbolic changes that mark a certain break are symptomatic of strong relations, always underlying the constructions of identity (Amselle 2010) that can be established between groups.
70According to Jean-Loup Amselle, a single society can express variations in its modes of thinking and perceiving (ways of being) and in its relationship with its history. It can pass from a period of effervescence and innovation to another moment marked by behaviours of inertia, of rejection of adaptations, and of cultural or technical permeability (Amselle 2010: 67):
Ancient or exotic societies are societies with a “supple” identity (…), because they are governed by the mechanical solidarity of the identical segments and, consequently, their members can easily pass from one to the other, but because the social statuses are extremely plastic […]. To define the mode of identification of these societies, we could characterise them as vague assemblages which, contrary to popular misconception, give great emphasis to novelty and invention.
71Archaeologists should highlight cultural phenomena that are relevant to the behaviours of groups and individuals in these groups, which then lead them to study changes, movements, and to highlight possible cultural interactions based on the available artifacts. It is in this social dimension that lies the issue of Palaeolithic human representations. The mechanisms of perceiving the body, which have different materialities depending on varying formal assemblages, indicate the richness of the modes of perception displayed by the Magdalenian groups, as well as their boldness.
Conclusion
72The study of human figures and their graphic treatment makes it possible to take part in the debate about the social dynamics of the mobile hunter-gatherers during the Magdalenian, their characterisation, and to pose the question of the complexity of human relations during this period. On the one hand, we observe a complex with shuttles and stylised figures of human heads, seen from the front; on the other, sites with Lussac-Angles spearpoints, which have yielded bodies and heads, mostly in profile, produced with detailed traits that make them realistic and expressive. In the course of the Middle Magdalenian it seems that, around the valleys of the Vienne, the Anglin, the Gartempe and the Creuse, different ways of perceiving the human body and depicting it seem to become established. These modes of representation reveal latent social identities, expressed through images whose art becomes the principal vector and is practised in distinct geographical territories.
73Two conclusions can be reached as a result of these observations. On the one hand, the realistic and detailed mode of representation that was developed within the culture with Lussac-Angles spearpoints is totally linked to the social and technical norms that define it. This image was not diffused beyond the cultural sphere of the Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints. In this regard, the decorated cave of Marsoulas in Haute-Garonne leads us to ask questions about the mechanisms of circulation and borrowing of cultural systems. Because in this cave, attributed to the Middle Magdalenian of the Pyrenees, numerous human depictions have been identified and are totally atypical in relation to this region’s common artistic corpus (Fritz & Tosello 2004). They display a simplified or even detailed realism, whereas the Pyrenean artistic scheme is characterised by a bestialised and composite human image (Fuentes 2013). The discovery of the Lussac-Angles spearpoints mentioned at Marsoulas emphasised once again the close links that exist between the technical innovation of this object and the way of depicting the human body.
74On the other hand, the analysis of the human depictions and of the technical objects between the sphere with shuttles and the one defined by the presence of the Lussac-Angles spearpoint indicates that there was a total impermeability between certain social and cultural systems. However, the modes of influence or diffusion of these elements as at Marsoulas remain difficult to perceive nowadays.
75It is interesting to note that, from a topographical point of view, the analysis carried out on the basis of GIS data showed that accessibility to the monumental works of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers was only possible in a single direction, south-west, like their visibility and readability (Bourdier et al. 2017d). Hence, the habitation at the foot of the cliff and the monumental works were perceptible from 3 km away in that direction, that is, “turned” geographically towards the Lussac area and hence the cave of La Marche. The monumental parietal art becomes readable from 1 km distance and close to the banks of the Anglin; on arriving in the domestic sphere of the shelter, i.e. its immediate surroundings close to the Anglin, the understanding of the sculpted, painted and engraved depictions becomes clearer and finer. These data have enabled us to have an anthropological reading of the landscape and its interactions with the groups. With respect to the environment and social ecology, the semi-nomadic groups of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers invested a great deal in this vast rock-shelter. The orientation to the south-west of the monumental cliff thus seems to literally turn its “back”, in the landscape, on the site of La Garenne to the north, and hence on its occupants, thus marking an extra break between the two cultural assemblages (Fuentes & Pinçon 2018) (figure 22.10). The rejection of technical and cultural borrowings, and the non-diffusion of the well-established codes and practices, especially where the Magdalenian group with Lussac-Angles spearpoints is concerned, lead us to pose the question of the relationship between these different groups. Can we see in these social dynamics, within possible territories and frontiers, expressions of clear identities as may be the case for the Magdalenians who frequented Le Roc-aux-Sorciers and La Marche? Do the exceptional quality of the monumental sculpture as well as the profusion of human images of “portrait” type indicate the idea of emphasis on the individual within this group?
Figure 22.10

Visibility of the rock-shelter of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers in the landscape, orientated to the S-W, towards the site of La Marche. The importance of the site of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers is not visible from the East, looking towards La Garenne, document O. Fuentes, source: Géoportail, after Bourdier et al. 2017d.
76The work carried out at the sites of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers and La Marche has made it possible to clarify our knowledge and definition of the cultural group of the Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles spearpoints. The thickness of the archaeological layers demonstrates recurring occupations, while the archaeological material (especially the fauna) reveals long-lasting occupations during the year. These elements pose questions about the semi-nomadic behaviour of these groups and their residential mobility.
77In this clearly demarcated territory it is possible to define a true culture within the Middle Magdalenian, one that was well established in a specific territory. At present, no other Magdalenian group makes possible a reading of its cultural and social components (Pinçon 2009a; Pinçon 2010, Bourdier 2013; Fuentes 2017) in such an explicit way.
78All the archaeological work, carried out with an integrated approach in which a great quantity of data interact, leads one to a detailed reading of the behaviours of Palaeolithic nomadic groups. The study of graphic remains plays an important role in those axes of research that are necessary for the comprehension of these populations and their behaviour. However, the relationship of Palaeolithic groups to the notion of frontier lato sensu (and not only physical frontiers) is unknown to us. And yet, it is in these spaces of contact and exchange, of (re)cognition of the other, that relationships of otherness mostly take place. How were these phenomena of ethnogenesis expressed in these deep valleys in the Middle Magdalenian?
79As Claudine Karlin and Michèle Julien (Karlin & Julien 2012: 198) reminded us: “As archaeologists, we base ourselves on the existing remains to try and reconstruct scraps of life, a puzzle with numerous pieces missing”. Like them, in this article, we have tried to take opposite paths, asking questions not only of the available material vestiges but also of notions proposed by social anthropology. Hence, the mechanisms of metamorphosis of modes of identification —realistic and expressive for some, anonymous and geometric for the others— have been made explicit. But how and why do these mechanisms become established in different kinds of context (archaeological, cultural, geographic)? Is it in the identification of certain cultural traits like the distinctive marks of a group that exists the cultural and territorial sphere on which the social organisation of the groups rests? Is human depiction one of the keys to this? This is what we wanted to investigate in these lines.
Acknowledgments
80Our warmest thanks to Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas and Sophie Méry for inviting us to contribute to this book. Through this article we wanted to pay tribute to Claudine Karlin who has always been extremely kind to us. Her view of prehistoric ethnology restores life and humanity to archaeological remains, and enriches our knowledge of the human societies of yesterday and today.
Notes de bas de page
1 Samo is the name of a people of West Africa (Burkina Faso and Mali).
2 In an animist ontology, for example, certain animals are capable of subjectivity, of having a view of the world and of things, just like humans (Viveiros de Castro 2014).
3 All the dates are calibrated with OxCal 4,1, IntCal 13 curve (Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2009).
4 16. 794-15403 cal. BP.
5 17.571-16923 cal. BP.
6 18. 051-17119 cal BP.
7 18. 515-17609 cal. BP.
8 See Henri Breuil and his publication on the subdivisions of the Upper Palaeolithic and their significance (Breuil 1913).
9 17. 850-16960 cal. BP.
10 17. 663-16 971 cal. BP.
11 18 841-18 436 cal. BP.
12 As specified by Jackie Despriée, Sophie Tymula and Josette Renault-Miskovsky (Despriée et al. 2009b: 54): "First the hunters of the Middle Magdalenian culture ‘with shuttles’ occupied around 15000BP (conventional date) the Grotte Blanchard, then the Grand-Abri above it. The settlements could be long-lasting and repeated in a dry and cold steppic landscape dated to Dryas I through palynology".
13 We refer the reader to the work by Philippe Poutignat and Jocelyne Streiff-Fenart which presents all theoretical anthropological dimensions concerning notions of identity (Poutignat & Streiff-Fenart 2012).
Auteurs
-
Oscar Fuentes
Archaeologist, PhD, Scientific assistant at the CNP Direction générale des patrimoines, sous-direction de l´archéologie Centre national de Préhistoire (CNP), 38, rue du 26e Régiment d'Infanterie, 24000 Périgueux (France) & CREAP Cartailhac (Centre de recherche et d’études pour l’art préhistorique), USR 3414 – Maison des Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société de Toulouse, 5 Allées Antonio Machado, 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9 (France)
-
Geneviève Pinçon
Archaeologist, PhD, Director of the Centre national de Préhistoire (CNP), Direction générale des patrimoines, sous-direction de l´archéologie, Centre national de Préhistoire, 38, rue du 26e Régiment d'Infanterie, 24000 Périgueux (France) & UMR 5608 – TRACES, Maison de la Recherche - Bât 26, 5, allées Antonio MACHADO, 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9 (France)
- Paul G. Bahn (trad.)
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
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
l’appropriation de la nature entre remords et mauvaise foi
Sergio Dalla Bernardina
2020
Living and working with giants
a multispecies ethnography of the Khamtis and elephants in Northeast India
Nicolas Lainé
2020
Nomad lives
From Prehistoric Times to the Present Day
Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas et Sophie Méry (dir.)
2021
L’art des ghostnets
Approche anthropologique et esthétique des filets-fantômes
Géraldine Le Roux
2022
Elusive Partners
Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on Marine Species
Alix Levain, Hélène Artaud, Émilie Mariat-Roy et al.
2023
Des voies de l’ombre
Quand les chauves-souris sèment le trouble
Frédéric Laugrand et Antoine Laugrand
2023
Encager le ciel
Histoire, anthropologie et esthétique des volières
Flamina Bardati, Julien Bondaz, Emmanuel Lurin et al. (dir.)
2024
