Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France
The authors organized a projectile experiment including the use of bow and spear-thrower in conditions replicating Palaeolithic hunting. Experimental copies of antler points from the Late Upper Palaeolithic showed proximal fractures characteristic of spear-thrower use. Similar fractures are fou...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2022 |
|---|---|
| Автори: | , |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | English |
| Опубліковано: |
Інститут археології НАН України
2022
|
| Назва видання: | Археологія |
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199490 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Usage in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France / J.-M. Pétillon, P. Cattelain // Археологія. — 2022. — № 2. — С. 5-18. — Бібліогр.: 57 назв. — англ. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-199490 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1994902024-10-09T17:41:52Z Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France Pétillon, J.-M. Cattelain, P. Статтi The authors organized a projectile experiment including the use of bow and spear-thrower in conditions replicating Palaeolithic hunting. Experimental copies of antler points from the Late Upper Palaeolithic showed proximal fractures characteristic of spear-thrower use. Similar fractures are found on archaeological specimens from the Upper Magdalenian occupation of the Isturitz site, thus bringing arguments in favour of the persistence of this weapon at least until ca. 16―14 cal ka BP in Western Europe. Час появи списометалки та лука в палеолітичних мисливців-збирачів уже давно є важливою проблемою доісторичних досліджень. У Західній Європі, виходячи з безпосередньо доведеного використання списометалок із середньомадленського часу, 19―16 тис. кал. р.т., та соснових стріл з Аренсбургу, які мають дату приблизно 12―11,5 тис. кал. р.т., припускається, що луки змінили списометалки або ж значною мірою замінили їх у використанні наприкінці мадленського періоду. Однак перебіг цього процесу та еволюція зброї у вказаний період досі залишаються недослідженими. На відміну від морфометрії вістер, порівняльні дослідження варіантів їхніх зламів відкривають цікаві перспективи для визначення різних способів доставки вістер до цілі. Проте різні варіанти зламів вістер як маркер для ідентифікації різних видів метального озброєння розглядалися рідко, особливо для верхньомадленського часу. Експерименти з використання різних типів метальної зброї, проведені в Центрі археологічних досліджень та документації Музею Малґр-Ту (м. Трень, Бельгія) на початку 2000-х, надали нові дані для цих досліджень. Як списометалка, так і лук застосовувалися в умовах, що мали відтворити умови палеолітичного полювання. Метальне озброєння було оснащене експериментальними копіями рогових вістер із виделкоподібними базальними частинами, які відомі з верхньомадленського часу (16―14 тис. кал. р.т.) стоянки в печері Істюриц. Унаслідок експериментальних випробувань частина вістер, використаних за допомогою списометалки, отримала специфічні злами в проксимальній частині. Імовірно, їх появу можна пояснити тим, що списи зі списометалок мають більший розмір і більшу масу, порівняно зі стрілами, випущеними з лука, а також більш неправильною траєкторією їх польоту. Можливість застосування списометалки у верхньомадленський час додатково підтверджує радіовуглецева дата одного рогового зразка списометалки з Істюрицу. Окрім того, видається цілком імовірним використання списометалок із матеріалів, що швидко псуються, як і не можна виключати одночасне існування лука. 2022 Article Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Usage in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France / J.-M. Pétillon, P. Cattelain // Археологія. — 2022. — № 2. — С. 5-18. — Бібліогр.: 57 назв. — англ. 0235-3490 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2022.02.005 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199490 903.01(44)”432”.001.53 en Археологія Інститут археології НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Статтi Статтi |
| spellingShingle |
Статтi Статтi Pétillon, J.-M. Cattelain, P. Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France Археологія |
| description |
The authors organized a projectile experiment including
the use of bow and spear-thrower in conditions replicating
Palaeolithic hunting. Experimental copies of
antler points from the Late Upper Palaeolithic showed
proximal fractures characteristic of spear-thrower use.
Similar fractures are found on archaeological specimens
from the Upper Magdalenian occupation of the
Isturitz site, thus bringing arguments in favour of the
persistence of this weapon at least until ca. 16―14 cal
ka BP in Western Europe. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Pétillon, J.-M. Cattelain, P. |
| author_facet |
Pétillon, J.-M. Cattelain, P. |
| author_sort |
Pétillon, J.-M. |
| title |
Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France |
| title_short |
Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France |
| title_full |
Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France |
| title_fullStr |
Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France |
| title_sort |
experimental evidence of spear-thrower use in the late upper palaeolithic (upper magdalenian) from the isturitz cave site, pyrénées-atlantiques, france |
| publisher |
Інститут археології НАН України |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| topic_facet |
Статтi |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199490 |
| citation_txt |
Experimental Evidence of Spear-thrower Usage in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Magdalenian) from the Isturitz Cave Site, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France / J.-M. Pétillon, P. Cattelain // Археологія. — 2022. — № 2. — С. 5-18. — Бібліогр.: 57 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Археологія |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT petillonjm experimentalevidenceofspearthroweruseinthelateupperpalaeolithicuppermagdalenianfromtheisturitzcavesitepyreneesatlantiquesfrance AT cattelainp experimentalevidenceofspearthroweruseinthelateupperpalaeolithicuppermagdalenianfromtheisturitzcavesitepyreneesatlantiquesfrance |
| first_indexed |
2024-10-10T04:01:44Z |
| last_indexed |
2024-10-10T04:01:44Z |
| _version_ |
1812498119641792512 |
| fulltext |
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 5
Статтi
УДК 903.01(44)”432”.001.53
https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2022.02.005
© J.-M. PÉTILLON*, P. CATTELAIN** 2022
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
OF SPEAR-THROWER USAGE IN THE LATE
UPPER PALAEOLITHIC (UPPER MAGDALENIAN) FROM THE
ISTURITZ CAVE SITE, PYRÉNÉES-ATLANTIQUES, FRANCE
The authors organized a projectile experiment includ-
ing the use of bow and spear-thrower in conditions rep-
licating Palaeolithic hunting. Experimental copies of
antler points from the Late Upper Palaeolithic showed
proximal fractures characteristic of spear-thrower use.
Similar fractures are found on archaeological speci-
mens from the Upper Magdalenian occupation of the
Isturitz site, thus bringing arguments in favour of the
persistence of this weapon at least until ca. 16―14 cal
ka BP in Western Europe.
Keywords: antler industry, bow, experimental ar-
chaeology, Isturitz, Magdalenian, spear-thrower, Up-
per Palaeolithic.
Dating the appearance of the spear-thrower and
the bow among Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers has
long been an important concern for prehistoric
research, because the introduction of these new
weapon systems is generally considered of funda-
mental importance in the evolution of hunter-gath-
erer hunting techniques and general subsistence
activities (e.g., Nuzhnyi 1990; Нужний 2007;
Sano et al. 2019; Lombard 2019). This question
has been explored for the European Palaeolithic,
the prehistory of North America and, more recent-
ly, in the archaeological record of Southern Afri-
ca and South Asia (Langley et al. 2020). Projec-
tile experiments carried out by the authors in the
Cedarc / Musée du Malgré-Tout (Treignes, Bel-
gium) had brought new data into this debate, con-
cerning the use of the spear-thrower in the Istu-
ritz cave site (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France) in the
Late Upper Palaeolithic, during the Upper Magda-
lenian (ca. 16―14 cal ka BP).
These experiments were carried out in
2003―2004. They were published, in French, as
chapters in a book derived from one of the authors’
PhD (Pétillon 2006). Other articles drawn from
these experiments were mostly focused on the im-
pact fractures analysis on the target animals bones
(Letourneux, Pétillon 2008 and references there-
in). This article is thus the first international publi-
cation of the results regarding the impact fractures
on the projectile points, and their implications for
the reconstruction of Palaeolithic weaponry. Be-
fore presenting these results, it is necessary to re-
place them in the broader context of weapon evo-
lution during the Late Upper Palaeolithic — par-
ticularly since this period yielded the totality of the
direct evidence for the Palaeolithic use of bow and
spear-thrower.
Spear-thrower and bow in the Late Upper
Palaeolithic of Western Europe: the direct
evidence
A spear-thrower is an elongated device at the
distal end of which is a hook or a socket (with or
without a spur) to engage the butt of a projectile.
It acts as a lever to increase the initial velocity of
the projectile and thus, theoretically, to increase
its efficiency (Cattelain 1997; Whittaker 2016). In
Western Europe, the Palaeolithic use of this weap-
on is documented by the discovery of spear-throw-
er distal parts (“hooks”), generally made of rein-
deer antler. About 115 unambiguous specimens are
* PÉTILLON Jean-Marc ― National Centre of Scientific Research,
France, laboratoire TRACES, the University of Toulouse Jean-
Jaurès, ORCID: 0000-0003-4123-2361, petillon@univ-tlse2.fr
** CATTELAIN Pierre ― the Centre of Study and Archaeo-
logical Documentation of the Museum Malgré-Tout, the Cen-
tre of Archaeological Research and Heritage of the University
of Bruxelles, the Prehistoric Service of the University of Liège,
ORCID: 0000-0003-1829-4417, pierre.cattelain@ulb.be
Пам’яті Д. Ю. Нужного
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 26
known from 37 sites, the majority of which are in
south-west France, with others in Germany, Swit-
zerland and Spain. Chronologically, with the ex-
ception of a possibly Solutrean specimen (Catte-
lain 1989), all are from the Middle and Late Mag-
dalenian culture, ca. 19―14 cal ka BP (Cattelain
1988, 2017a; Stodiek 1993).
Bow and arrow remains, on the contrary, are
known only from the Epipalaeolithic onwards: the
oldest finds are the pine arrows from the Ahrensbur-
gian level at Stellmoor (Schleswig-Holstein, Ger-
many; Rust 1943), dated to around 12―11.5 cal ka
BP, significantly later than the end of the Magda-
lenian (Fischer, Tauber 1986). Other Mesolithic
finds of bow and arrows from Germany, Denmark,
Sweden and Russia are all dated to later millen-
nia (for reviews see: Junkmanns 2001; Cattelain
2004). Together, this evidence led to the idea that,
somewhere around the end of the Magdalenian, the
spear-thrower disappeared and was replaced by the
bow among Western European hunter groups. This
theory was consistent with the assumption that the
bow was a more efficient hunting weapon than the
spear-thrower, and/or that the development of the
bow in Europe might have been triggered by en-
vironmental change — i.e., the warm-up and re-
forestation of the GIS-1/Bölling-Allerød (e.g., Nu-
zhnyi 1990; Нужний 2007; Rozoy 1992; Whittak-
er, Cao, Leverich 2018). There are, however, two
objections to this classical hypothesis.
The first objection is that the chronology of
the spear-throwers inside the Magdalenian hasn’t
still been well known (Cattelain 2017a; in the fol-
lowing pages, the term “spear-thrower” refers to
the archaeological remains of this weapon, and is
used for convenience instead of “distal part of ant-
ler spear-thrower”). The earliest spear-thrower type
is a simple hook, undecorated or adorned with en-
graved lines only (fig. 1). It is usually manufactured
from an antler cortex sliver (baguette); when pre-
served, the proximal part, originally hafted to the
weapon’s main shaft, is almost always single-bev-
eled. The specimen usually considered as the old-
est was recovered from the Combe-Saunière I cave
(Dordogne, France), in layer IVb, along with an Up-
per Solutrean assemblage (Cattelain 1989), but with
conflicting radiocarbon dates. The 14 other speci-
mens from this type are either from poorly docu-
mented contexts, or from assemblages attributed to
the Early Middle Magdalenian, dated between ca.
19 and 18 cal ka BP (Cattelain 2017b).
Most of the other spear-throwers, including the
famous decorated specimens (fig. 2), were recov-
ered either from ancient excavations with no reliable
stratigraphy, or from the Late Middle Magdalenian
from the French and Spanish zones. With a few ex-
ceptions, the available AMS 14C dates from the as-
semblages that yielded these objects are distributed
between ca. 18 and 16 cal ka BP (Cattelain 2017a).
For the Upper and Final Magdalenian, the situa-
tion is unclear. It is usually considered that there are
very few, if any, spear-throwers in this period. Still,
according to its excavators (Capitan, Peyrony 1928,
p. 68), one of the spear-throwers from La Madeleine
(Dordogne, France) comes from an Upper Magda-
lenian layer. U. Stodiek (1993, p. 144) also points
out that the spear-thrower from the Teufelsbrücke
(Thüringe, Germany) and the six specimens from
the Kesslerloch (Schaffhausen, Switzerland) could
be dated from the Upper Magdalenian as well.
H. Breuil already reported the recent date of the
Kesslerloch series, quoting a personal communica-
tion from the site’s excavator, Pr. Heierli (Cartail-
hac, Breuil 1907, p. 14, footnote 1; see also Garrod
1955, p. 21). Similarly, radiocarbon dates and an
extensive review of the material led A.-C. Welté to
place almost all the spear-throwers from the Avey-
ron valley sites in the Upper Magdalenian (Welté
2000). In our opinion, this reattribution is quite haz-
ardous for the Lafaye and Montastruc rockshel-
ters (Tarn-et-Garonne, France), but fairly convinc-
ing for the spear-thrower from the Plantade rock-
shelter (Tarn-et-Garonne, France) and maybe the
eight specimens found in the Courbet cave (Tarn,
France). Importantly, with one exception — the un-
certain spear-thrower fragment from Plantade — all
of these possible Upper Magdalenian spear-throw-
ers from France, Switzerland and Germany belong
to the same type, called “type 3” in our typology
(Cattelain 2020): “hooked spear-thrower adorned
with a ruminant head or forequarters, in bas-relief
or ronde-bosse, whose presence does not alter the
general stick-like shape of the object” (fig. 3). Fur-
thermore, the only two existing direct 14C dates on
Magdalenian spear-throwers are contemporary with
the Upper Magdalenian: a date of 13155 ± 75 BP
(ca. 16―15.5 cal ka BP, OxA-X-2523-44) on the
“type 3” specimen from Saint-Michel (Pyrénées-At-
lantiques, France: Pétillon et al. 2015); and a date
of 12245 ± 60 BP (ca. 14.5―14 cal ka BP, OxA-
19837) on an unfinished specimen of unknown type
from Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France: Szmidt
et al. 2009).
The existing evidence therefore suggests that at
least the “type 3” spear-throwers might have per-
sisted later than the Middle Magdalenian, at least
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 7
Fig. 1. Palaeolithic spear-throwers of the type 2. 1 ― Combe-Saunière I (Dordogne, France); 2 ― El Castillo (Santander, Spain);
3―5 ― Le Placard (Charente, France); 6―7 ― Le Roc-de-Marcamps (Gironde, France). Drawings made by C. Bellier and
P. Cattelain.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 28
into the beginning of the Upper phase. However,
this hypothesis remains fragile, mostly because of
the ancient age of many excavations. We can only
conclude that today, the direct evidence does not
provide us with a clear view of weapon evolution
during the Upper Magdalenian — the very peri-
od that may have witnessed the transition from the
spear-thrower to the bow.
Looking for indirect evidence: the projectile
points
The second and more radical objection to the
classical hypothesis of “spear-thrower and bow
succession” is that both weapons can be entirely
manufactured from non-durable materials, such as
wood, not preserved in usual archaeological con-
texts. Mesolithic bow and arrow remains, for in-
stance, were only recovered because of their ex-
ceptional deposit conditions in the water-saturat-
ed sediments of Northern Europe. It is therefore
altogether possible that the spear-thrower did last
longer than the Magdalenian, and/or that the bow
did appear sooner than the Epipalaeolithic, both
leaving no archaeological trace.
Due to this problem, archaeologists turned to
indirect evidence. Since the most commonly pre-
served parts of prehistoric weaponry are the stone
and osseous projectile points, these artefacts have
been the subject of numerous studies attempting
to answer the following question: among archaeo-
logical points assemblages, how is it possible to
tell arrowpoints from tips of spears (or darts) pro-
pelled with a spear-thrower? Several morphomet-
ric criteria have been suggested (based on point
size, weight and etc.). The use of such indices re-
mains, however, controversial, notably due to the
high degree of overlap between these two catego-
ries, with the debate on the subject continuing for
several decades with no real consensus in sight
(for a critical review see: Clarkson 2016).
Confronted with this problem, several research-
ers tried to indirectly identify the weapon used by
Palaeolithic people through the study of the points’
impact fractures. The rationale was based on the
fact that bow and spear-thrower are two very dif-
ferent projectile delivery systems. In gross terms,
the former works like a spring or an elastic, releas-
ing energy that propels light, generally short projec-
tiles at high speed; the latter could be better com-
pared to a lever, amplifying the thrower’s strength
to launch longer and heavier darts, that will have a
lower speed, a more irregular trajectory, but a high-
er kinetic energy due to their much greater mass.
Thus, it could be hypothesized that the mechanical
stress of the impact would be different in each case,
hopefully resulting in different fracture morpholo-
gies and/or frequencies on the projectile tips.
However, although many projectile experiments
with replicas of prehistoric points have been under-
taken for the past forty years, few addressed this
question. Being primarily concerned with deter-
mining any diagnostic pattern of breakage for pro-
jectile points, most authors did not develop a com-
parative study of the two weapons. Among the ex-
ceptions are the experiments by P. Cattelain and
M. Perpère (1993) with replicas of flint points from
the Gravettian culture: they demonstrated that those
launched with a spear-thrower more frequently ex-
hibited fractures than those shot with a bow, but
also that certain fracture morphologies (“tongued”
or “stepped”) were better represented amongst the
spear-thrown examples while the average size of
the fractures was greater on those shot with a bow.
Equally treating Gravettian and micro-Gravettian
points, J. Coppe and V. Rots (2017) suggested that
the location of certain fracture types can be influ-
enced by the propulsion method: on arrow points,
scars initiated from a previous fracture surface most-
ly concerned the distal part, while identical scars are
found primarily on the mesial-proximal portion of
dart points. Experiments carried out by the TFPS
(Technologie Fonctionnelle des Pointes de projec-
tiles Solutréennes) research group using shouldered
points from the Solutrean culture equally demon-
strated that certain well-developed bending breaks
(transverse bending breaks that broke along the
width of the piece) were more frequent on spear
points (Rots, Plisson 2014, fig. 9). Still, these three
experiments concentrated on lithic points from the
Gravettian and the Solutrean.
This is one of the reasons why an experimental
session centered on antler projectile tips, and on
the critical period of the Upper Magdalenian, was
organized.
Archaeological setting
The archaeological sample was the assem-
blage of antler points from the Upper Magda-
lenian layer at the Isturitz cave site. This ma-
jor Palaeolithic site is located at the western end
of the Pyrenees and opens 150 m above current
sea level on the northern and southern sides of
a limestone hill overlooking the Arberoue val-
ley (fig. 4; Normand 2017). The inner surface
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 9
Fig. 2. Palaeolithic spear-throwers of the type 4. 1 ― Le Mas d’Azil (Ariège, France; drawing made by F. Le Brun); 2 ―
Labastide (Ariège, France; drawing made by R. Simonnet); 3 ― Enlène (Ariège, France; drawing made by F. Le Brun); 4 ― Le
Mas d’Azil (Ariège, France; drawing made by D. Buisson).
1
2
3
4
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 210
of the cave, over 2500 m2, is divided into four
main chambers. The Upper Magdalenian layer, I/
F1, was from 5 to 60 cm thick and stretched to
the totality of the Grande Salle (Great Cham-
ber: 800―900 m2). It was completely excavated
in the first third of the 20th century by E. Passe-
mard (1912―1922 excavations: Passemard 1924,
1944) and R. and S. de Saint-Périer (1928―1935
excavations: Saint-Périer 1936). The archaeolo-
gical material is now curated, for the most part, in
the Musée d’Archéologie nationale (Saint-Ger-
main-en-Laye, Yvelines).
The six AMS 14C dates done on material from
layer I/F1 cover most of the chronological range
of the Upper Magdalenian, between ca. 16 and
14 cal ka BP (Szmidt et al. 2009; Barshay-Szmidt
et al. 2016). The very complex stratigraphy, the an-
cient excavation techniques, the partial dispersal of
1
2
3
Fig. 3. Palaeolithic spear-throwers of the type 3. 1 ― Le Mas d’Azil (Ariège, France; drawing made by M. Baumann); 2 ― Isturitz (Pyrénées-
Atlantiques, France; drawing made by C. Bellier and P. Cattelain); 3 ― La Madeleine (Dordogne, France; drawing made by C. Bellier).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 11
the collections before their arrival in the museum
inevitably reduce the quality of the archaeological
information, but not to the extent of forbidding any
analysis with modern methods. The collecting of
the faunal remains was obviously biased towards
easily identifiable pieces such as teeth and epiphy-
sis; still, the zooarchaeological analysis allowed
to characterize in layer I/F1 a diversified hunting
centered on bovids, red deer, horse and reindeer,
the latter being the dominant game. Birds, espe-
cially the alpine chough and several species of
prey birds, were also actively sought (Pétillon, Le-
tourneux, Laroulandie 2017).
Out-of-date excavation techniques also
probably account for the underrepresenta-
tion of lithic hunting weapons in the indus-
tries: backed bladelets — Magdalenian typical
projectile tips — make up less than 5% of the
flint tool kit (Esparza San Juan 1995, p. 204;
Langlais 2010, p. 247).
Reindeer antler projectile tips are, on the con-
trary, the most common artefact type in the osseous
industries. The 705 pieces (fig. 5) include 419 fork-
based points, 122 double-beveled points and five
nearly complete foreshafts. Almost all the foreshafts
present a forked extremity opposed to a double-
beveled extremity; metric analysis, in situ finds of
similar specimens in other sites and ethnographic
correlates all suggest that they were used in combi-
nation with the fork-based points to form long com-
posite tips, the distal fork of the foreshaft being in-
terlocked with the proximal fork of the point. The
rest of the series comprises 38 possible foreshaft
fragments, and 121 mesial and distal fragments that
cannot be attributed to a specific point type.
Both fork-based and double-beveled points have
relatively standardized dimensions (Table 1). While
the double bevel is the most common hafting sys-
tem on Upper Magdalenian antler points, the forked
base is much rarer and limited to the Pyrenean and
Cantabrian area (Pétillon 2006); however since it
was the dominant point type at Isturitz, it was at the
center of our experimental project.
The projectile experiments
The experiments took place at the Cedarc /
Musée du Malgré-Tout (Treignes, Belgium), in
two separate sessions in January 2003 and Feb-
ruary 2004. 42 fork-based points were manufac-
tured and used in 2003, and an additional 36 in
2004. The 2004 session also included the manu-
facture and use of 18 double-beveled points and
four foreshafts (hafted in combination with the
fork-based points as described above). All points
and foreshafts were taken from antler cortex sliv-
ers (the raw material coming from Fennoscan-
dian reindeer herds) and shaped with flint burins
Fig. 4. Location of the Isturitz cave in south-west Europe. Map
showing the maximum sea level regression (–120 m) and the
maximum extension of the continental glaciers. Map by A. Sécher.
Fork-based points Double-beveled points
NMS min max mean CV NMS min max mean CV
Total length 71 46.6 163.5 100.3 28.0 14 64.1 112.3 9.8 15.9
Length of mesio-distal part 115 25.0 126.0 69.2 34.7 23 16.4 84 60.06 28.1
Length of fork or bevel 210 20.4 55.0 33.7 19.1 59 20.0 41.8 29.9 16.7
Maximum width 379 6.1 17.2 9.3 20.1 93 6.0 9.5 7.9 10.3
Maximum thickness 394 4.6 12.0 7.1 15.8 95 5.0 8.4 7.0 9.7
Table 1. Dimensions of the fork-based and double-beveled antler points from the Isturitz Upper Magdalenian, in millimeters.
NMS = number of measureable specimens. CV = coefficient of variation. For the double-beveled points, dimensions are
given for the dominant sub-type only (n = 95 specimens, 82% of the total number of double-beveled points).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 212
Fig. 5. Antler projectile tips from Isturitz, Upper Magdalenian (layer I/F1). 1―2 ― fork-based points; 3―4 ― double-beveled
points; 5: foreshaft with double-beveled and forked ends. 1―4 ― Musée d’archéologie nationale, Passemard excavation; 5 ―
Musée d’archéologie nationale, Saint-Périer excavation. All photographs made by J.-M. Pétillon.
42 fork-based (2003) 36 fork-based (2004) 18 double-beveled (2004)
min max mean CV min max mean CV min max mean CV
Total length 62.7 160.0 108.3 19.2 59.8 154.0 104.5 24.7 66.8 106.7 90.2 14.1
Length of mesio-distal part 36.1 121.7 76.7 23.8 28.8 116.6 70.9 31.9 36.7 79.4 61.1 22.1
Length of fork or bevel 24.0 42.0 31.4 12.9 25.7 42.7 33.6 14.3 21.7 36.8 29.1 14.1
Maximum width 7.0 11.4 9.4 11.6 7.5 12.9 9.2 16.0 7.2 8.7 7.9 5.7
Maximum thickness 4.2 8.1 6.1 13.6 5.7 9.0 7.0 11.5 6.1 7.7 6.9 7.0
Table 2. Dimensions of the experimental fork-based and double-beveled antler points, in millimeters. CV = coefficient of variation.
to reproduce the dimensions of the archaeologi-
cal sample (Table 2).
Half of the points were then hafted to arrow
shafts and the other half to spear shafts. Secure
hafting was achieved with hiden glue, plus lashing
with bison or red deer sinew (fig. 6). All spear and
arrow shafts were made of pine wood and fletched
with three radial feathers. The arrows were 80 cm
long, 0.9 cm in diameter and weighted in average
26 g (without the point). The spears were 240 to
1 2 3 4 5
- - - - -
5 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 13
Fig. 6. Experimental haftings. 1 ― two lateral views of the
hafting shape for the fork-based points, without and with
the point; the distal fork of the shaft is interlocked with the
proximal fork of the point (spear shaft, 2003); 2 ― lateral
view of the hafting shape for the double-beveled points (spear
shaft, 2003); 3 ― upper and lateral view of the sinew lashing
(fork-based point, arrow shaft, 2004).
260 cm long, 1.2 or 1.4 cm in diameter and had a
mean weight of 172 g (without the point). The av-
erage weight of the points was 5,5 g.
All projectiles were then shot with bow or
spear-thrower, by experimented shooters. Since
our goal was to obtain diagnostic use-wear dam-
age, each arrow or spear was shot repeatedly until
the point, shaft or hafting was damaged. A total of
618 shots were performed. The targets were two
calves (in 2003) and two fallow deer (in 2004); the
complete bodies were suspended 10 to 13 meters
away from the shooters (fig. 7). Of course, these
animals are not perfect substitutes for reindeer,
which is the dominant game in the Isturitz Up-
per Magdalenian; however, since reindeer bodies
were not available, we had to use replacements,
and these were among the less unsatisfying solu-
tions. After the shooting sessions, the bodies of the
targets were processed in order to recover all point
fragments and to study the impact traces on the
bones. Further details on the experimental proto-
col are available in J.-M. Pétillon (2006).
Results
The experimental results were published in de-
tail elsewhere (Pétillon 2006). In this article, we
will focus on the interpretation of the three main
characteristics of the impact fractures observed on
the projectile points.
1. After use, 17 experimental points showed dis-
tal beveled breaks (fig. 8). This type of fracture oc-
curred on both fork-based and double-beveled
points, shot either with bow or with spear-thrower;
similar damage had already been noticed by other
researchers during previous projectile experiments
with osseous points (Tyzzer 1936, pl. 19b, no. 1;
Arndt, Newcomer 1986; Bergman 1987, fig. 1, nos. 2
and 5; Stodiek 1993, p. 203-206; Pokines 1998; Nu-
zhnyi 1998; Bradfield, Lombard 2011; Foletti 2012,
p. 138-144; Doyon, Katz Knecht 2014; Wild et al.
2018, fig. 4). Beveled breaks are very common in our
archaeological sample: 155 occurrences (fig. 9). This
similarity confirms that the damage on the Isturitz
points is compatible with their use as projectile tips
(Pétillon, Plisson, Cattelain 2016).
2. The experimental antler points proved to
be very resistant weapon tips. Most damage oc-
curred, because of an impact on the target’s limb
bones, pelvis or shoulder blade, or because of
spear-thrower missed shots hitting solid obstacles
such as the frozen topsoil. Outside of these “shoot-
ing accidents” — for instance, as long as the pro-
jectile hit the rib cage, the zone most likely to be
aimed at by a hunter — the same point could usual-
ly be reused many times without suffering any vis-
ible damage. Similar statements have been made
by almost all researchers who tested experimen-
tal osseous points (Bertrand 1999, p. 110; Knecht
1993, p. 37; Pokines, Krupa 1997, p. 255; Pokines
1998; Nuzhnyi 1998; Ikäheimo, Joona, Hietala
2004; Buc 2011). The distal fractures themselves
were usually close to the tip of the point: points
with beveled breaks lost in average 8.2 mm of
their initial length (see comparable results in Pok-
ines 1998, p. 878, with a mean value of 11.5 mm),
and could have been quickly and easily repaired by
longitudinal scraping with a flint tool such as a bu-
rin. It must be noted, however, that many archaeo-
logical points show impact damage of a greater ex-
tent — especially beveled breaks that apparently
occurred near the middle of the point, breaking off
1
2
3
5 cm
-
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 214
Fig. 7. General view of the experimental setting during the 2004 spear-thrower session. To the right, fallow deer body suspended
to a wooden frame. The shooter’s spot is on the left. Photograph made by D. Henry-Gambier.
Fig. 8. Experimental distal fractures. 1 ― beveled fracture
(spear impact, 2003); 2 ― step-terminating beveled fracture
(spear impact, 2003); 3 ― hinge-terminating beveled fracture
(arrow impact, 2004).
Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental and archaeological
distal fractures. 1 ― experimental beveled hinge-terminating
fracture (spear impact, 2003); 2 ― same fracture on the point
from Isturitz (Musée d’archéologie nationale, Saint-Périer
excavation).a large portion of it. We were not able to repro-
duce these fractures in our shooting sessions. Lat-
er experiments showed that they could be experi-
mentally replicated by impacts against harder nat-
ural obstacles, such as rocks and pebbles (Pétillon,
Plisson, Cattelain 2016).
3. At the end of the experiments, 14 of the
78 fork-based points showed proximal fractures on
one or two of the fork’s tines. Either part of a tine
was broken (fig. 10: 1), or a tine was broken at its
base (fig. 10: 2), or the two tines were broken off si-
multaneously (fig. 10: 3). These fractures were al-
ways the result of a spear-thrower shot, and never
occurred with the bow. This difference is probably
due to the much greater size and mass of the spears
compared to the arrows, as well as their more ir-
regular trajectory: all these parameters obvious-
ly place the point under greater bending forces
upon impact, sometimes resulting in the snapping
of the forked base.
Proximal fractures are very frequent on the
fork-based points from Isturitz: out of 419 speci-
mens, 95 show fracture damage at the fork. The
majority of these fractures (68%) have close
equivalents in the experimental sample (fig. 11).
Here again, however, certain fracture types —
or fracture combinations on the two tines — of
important extent, noticed on the Isturitz points,
were not observed experimentally. Nevertheless,
the similarities between the archaeological and
experimental samples are determining enough
to conclude that the Isturitz fork-based points
10 mm
1 2 3
10 mm
1 2
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 15
Fig. 10. Experimental proximal fractures on fork-based points.
1 ― breakage of the proximal part of a tine; 2 ― breakage of
a tine; 3 ― breakage of the two tines. All specimens are from
the 2004 spear-thrower session.
Fig. 11. Proximal fractures on the Isturitz fork-based points;
comparing with fig. 10. 1 ― breakage of the proximal part
of a tine; 2 ― breakage of a tine; 3 ― breakage of the two
tines. All specimens are from the Musée d’archéologie
nationale, Passemard excavation, except no. 1 (Saint-Périer
excavation).
were probably used to tip spears projected with
a spear-thrower, rather than arrows shot with a
bow. It is, to our knowledge, the only case of a
projectile experiment with antler points yielding
a positive result about a fracture type being spe-
cific of a given weapon.
Experimental results in archaeological
perspective
In the Isturitz Great Chamber, the Upper Mag-
dalenian layer I/F1 that yielded the fork-based
points overlays a Middle Magdalenian layer
named II/E. One of the differences between the
two layers is that the Upper Magdalenian layer I/
F1 yielded no antler spear-throwers, while a se-
ries of such objects (seven certain specimens and
four possible specimens: Cattelain 2017a) was
recovered from the Middle Magdalenian layer
II/E. Considering that our experimental results
nevertheless indicate the use of the spear-throw-
er in the Upper Magdalenian, two non-exclusive
hypotheses can be considered:
1. At Isturitz, after the Middle Magdale-
nian, antler spear-throwers disappear, but this
weapon persists in the Upper Magdalenian,
where it was probably entirely manufactured
from wood (for a comparable reasoning with
different methods in another archaeological con-
text, see: Hutchings 2015).
2. Due to the complexity of the stratigra-
phy and the imprecise excavation techniques
used in the first third of the 20th century, the dis-
tinction between the Middle and Upper Magda-
lenian phases at Isturitz is not always clear-cut,
and some of the antler spear-throwers ascribed
to the layer II/E are actually dated to the Upper
Magdalenian.
The second hypothesis found a first confir-
mation a few years after the experiment, when
a series of radiocarbon dates were done on ma-
terial from the layer II/E (Szmidt et al. 2009;
Henry-Gambier, Normand, Pétillon 2013; Bar-
shay-Szmidt et al. 2016). While five of the nine
dates from this layer are consistent with a Middle
Magdalenian chronology (ca. 18.5―16.5 cal ka
BP), the four others are coeval with the Up-
per Magdalenian (ca. 15.5―14.5 cal ka BP),
indicating stratigraphic mixing. Among these
four Upper Magdalenian dates is an unfin-
ished specimen of antler spear-thrower (dated
12245 ± 60 BP, ca. 14.5―14 cal ka BP, OxA-
19837: see above).
Our experiments thus show that the fork-
based antler points from the Isturitz Upper Mag-
dalenian (ca. 16―14 cal ka BP) were mount-
ed on spear-thrower-launched projectiles rather
than on arrows, and the direct dating of one of the
spear-throwers from the same site confirms this
association. It remains plausible, however, that
the few antler spear-throwers presented in the ar-
chaeological record were complemented by oth-
10 mm
1 2
3 10 mm1 2
3
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 216
er, maybe more numerous, spear-throwers entire-
ly manufactured from perishable materials. In fact,
such is the case for the vast majority of the ethno-
graphic spear-throwers: antler distal parts similar
to the Magdalenian ones are the exception rather
than the rule.
Of course, it must be remembered that the use
of the spear-thrower in the Upper Magdalenian at
Isturitz does not mean that the bow did not already
exist at that time. Both weapons can co-exist in the
same group: such is the case, for example, among the
Aztecs, and the Greenland and Bering Strait Inuit,
Yupik and Aleuts (Nuttall 1891, 1975; Bogoras
1904; Jochelson 1908; Lantis 1984). This question
remains open, since our experiments did not show
any fracture pattern specific for the bow, a pattern
that could have been used to trace the existence of
this weapon in our archaeological context. Never-
theless, our results are one more element to be in-
tegrated in the broader question of the evolution of
weaponry at the end of the Palaeolithic.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the participants in the 2003 and
2004 experiments, especially our spear-thrower
shooters, Pascal Chauvaux, Emmanuel Demoulin
and Florent Rivère. Sincere thanks are extended
to all the staff from the Musée du Malgré-Tout for
their logistical support. The 2003 experiment was
partly funded by the UMR 7041 ArScAn labo-
ratory (Ethnologie préhistorique department) and
the university Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. We are
grateful to the curators from the Musée d’archéol-
ogie nationale who granted us every facility to
study the archaeological material discussed here.
Malvina Baumann, Foni Le Brun-Ricalens and
Claire Bellier provided us with their original
spear-thrower drawings. We would also like to
thank Milena Stancheva and Petar Zidarov for or-
ganizing the 2005 meeting of the Worked Bone
Research Group in Veliko Turnovo, Bulgaria,
where these results were originally presented (the
present version being updated and largely rewrit-
ten). Sincere thanks are extended to the review-
ing board of the journal that helped improving the
quality of the manuscript. Finally, and mostly, we
are honored that the editorial board of Arheologia
accepted to consider the submission of this manu-
script, as a small expression of solidarity and sup-
port for the editorial life of archaeological jour-
nals in Ukraine.
Жан-Марк. Петiльйон 1, П'єр. Каттлен 2
1 Лабораторія TRACES Національного центру наукових досліджень Франції, Університет Тулузи Жан-Жорес, petillon@univ-tlse2.fr
2 Центр археологічних студій і документації Музею Малґре-Ту, Центр археологічних досліджень і спадщини
Університету Брюсселя, Праісторична служба Університету Льєжа, pierre.cattelain@ulb.be
ЕКСПЕРИМЕНТАЛЬНI ДОКАЗИ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ СПИСОМЕТАЛКИ В ПIЗНЬОМУ ВЕРХНЬОМУ ПАЛЕОЛIТI
(ВЕРХНIЙ МАДЛЕН) З ПЕЧЕРИ IСТЮРИЦ, АТЛАНТИЧНI ПIРЕНЕЇ, ФРАНЦIЯ
Час появи списометалки та лука в палеолітичних мисливців-збирачів уже давно є важливою проблемою доісторичних
досліджень. У Західній Європі, виходячи з безпосередньо доведеного використання списометалок із середньомадлен-
ського часу, 19―16 тис. кал. р.т., та соснових стріл з Аренсбургу, які мають дату приблизно 12―11,5 тис. кал. р.т., при-
пускається, що луки змінили списометалки або ж значною мірою замінили їх у використанні наприкінці мадленського
періоду. Однак перебіг цього процесу та еволюція зброї у вказаний період досі залишаються недослідженими. На від-
міну від морфометрії вістер, порівняльні дослідження варіантів їхніх зламів відкривають цікаві перспективи для ви-
значення різних способів доставки вістер до цілі. Проте різні варіанти зламів вістер як маркер для ідентифікації різних
видів метального озброєння розглядалися рідко, особливо для верхньомадленського часу.
Експерименти з використання різних типів метальної зброї, проведені в Центрі археологічних досліджень та документа-
ції Музею Малґр-Ту (м. Трень, Бельгія) на початку 2000-х, надали нові дані для цих досліджень. Як списометалка, так і лук
застосовувалися в умовах, що мали відтворити умови палеолітичного полювання. Метальне озброєння було оснащене експе-
риментальними копіями рогових вістер із виделкоподібними базальними частинами, які відомі з верхньомадленського часу
(16―14 тис. кал. р.т.) стоянки в печері Істюриц. Унаслідок експериментальних випробувань частина вістер, використаних за
допомогою списометалки, отримала специфічні злами в проксимальній частині. Імовірно, їх появу можна пояснити тим, що
списи зі списометалок мають більший розмір і більшу масу, порівняно зі стрілами, випущеними з лука, а також більш непра-
вильною траєкторією їх польоту. Можливість застосування списометалки у верхньомадленський час додатково підтверджує
радіовуглецева дата одного рогового зразка списометалки з Істюрицу. Окрім того, видається цілком імовірним використання
списометалок із матеріалів, що швидко псуються, як і не можна виключати одночасне існування лука.
Ключові слова: рогова індустрія, лук, експериментальна археологія, Істюриц, мадлен, списометалка,
верхній палеоліт.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 17
References
Nuzhnyi, D. Yu. 2007. Rozvytok mikrolitychnoi tekhniky v kamianomu vitsi: udoskonalennia zbroi pervisnykh myslyvtsiv. Kyiv:
KNT.
Arndt, S., Newcomer, M. H. 1986. Breakage Patterns on Prehistoric Bone Points. In: Roe, D. A. (ed.), Studies in the Upper
Palaeolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress, p. 165-173.
Barshay-Szmidt, C., Costamagno, S., Henry-Gambier, D., Laroulandie, V., Pétillon, J.-M., Boudadi-Maligne, M., Kuntz, D.,
Langlais, M., Mallye, J.-B. 2016. New Extensive Focused AMS 14C Dating of the Middle and Upper Magdalenian of the
Western Aquitaine/Pyrenean Region of France (ca. 19―14 Ky cal BP). Proposing a New Model for Its Chronological Phases
and for the Timing of Occupation. Quaternary International, 414, p. 62-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.073
Bergman, C. A. 1987. Hafting and Use of Bone and Antler Points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. In: Stordeur, D. (ed.). La main et
l’outil. Manches et emmanchements préhistoriques, Actes du colloque de Lyon, 1984. Paris: CNRS, p. 117-126.
Bertrand, A. 1999. Les armatures de sagaies magdaléniennes en matière dure animale dans les Pyrénées. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Bradfield, J., Lombard, M. 2011. A Macrofracture Study of Bone Points Used in Experimental Hunting with Reference to the
South African Middle Stone Age. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 66, p. 67-76.
Buc, N. 2011. Experimental Series and Use-wear in Bone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, p. 546-557. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.009
Capitan, L., Peyrony, D. 1928. La Madeleine, son gisement, son industrie, ses œuvres d’art. Paris: Nourry.
Cartailhac, E., Breuil, H. 1907. Œuvres d’art de la collection de Vibraye au Museum National. L’Anthropologie, 18, p. 1-36.
Cattelain, P. 1988. Fiches typologiques de l’Industrie de l’os préhistorique. Cahier II : Propulseurs. Aix-en-Provence: Publica-
tions de l’Université de Provence.
Cattelain, P. 1989. Un crochet de propulseur solutréen de la grotte de Combe-Saunière 1 (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société
préhistorique française, 86(7), p. 213-216.
Cattelain, P. 1997. Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic: Bow, Spearthrower, or Both? In: Knecht, H. (ed.). Projectile Techno-
logy. New York: Plenum press, p. 213-240.
Cattelain, P. 2004. Apparition et évolution de l’arc et des pointes de flèches dans la Préhistoire européenne. Bulletin de la société
royale belge d’études géologiques et archéologiques - les chercheurs de la Wallonie, 43, p. 11-27.
Cattelain, P. 2017a. Les propulseurs d’Isturitz. In: Normand, C., Cattelain, P. (eds.). La grotte d’Isturitz. Fouilles anciennes et
récentes, Treignes, Cedarc, p. 35-56.
Cattelain, P. 2017b. Les propulseurs du Magdalénien moyen ancien et apparentés. In: Bourdier C., Chehmana, L., Malgarini, R.,
Połtowicz-Bobak, M. (eds.). L’essor du Magdalénien. Aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et
à Lussac-Angles. Paris: Société préhistorique française, p. 235-247.
Cattelain, P. 2020. Les propulseurs magdaléniens de type 3: un exemple d’association d’un même type de décor à un même type
de support fonctionnel, du Magdalénien moyen au Magdalénien supérieur. Continuité et variations. In: Paillet, E., Sepul-
veda, M., Robert, É., Paillet, P., Mélard, N. (eds.). Caractérisation, continuités et discontinuités des manifestations gra-
phiques des sociétés préhistoriques. Oxford: Archaeopress, p. 3-30.
Cattelain, P., Perpère, M. 1993. Tir expérimental de sagaies et de flèches emmanchées de pointes de la Gravette. Archéo-Situla,
17-20, p. 5-28.
Cattelain, P., Pétillon, J.-M. 2015. Le « type 2a », plus ancien modèle de propulseur paléolithique : une nouvelle pièce dans le
Magdalénien moyen d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) et ses implications. Paléo, 26, p. 17-32.
Clarkson, C. 2016. Testing Archaeological Approaches to Determining Past Projectile Delivery Systems Using Ethnographic
and Experimental Data. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (eds.). Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry.
Dordrecht: Springer, p. 189-201.
Coppe, J., Rots, V. 2017. Focus on the Target. The Importance of a Transparent Fracture Terminology for Understanding
Projectile Points and Projecting Modes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 12, p. 1-15 (р. 109-123). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.010
Doyon, L., Katz-Knecht, H. 2014. The Effects of Use and Resharpening on Morphometric Variability of Aurignacian Antler
Projectile Points. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte, 23, p. 83-101.
Esparza San Juan, X. 1995. La cueva de Isturitz. Su yacimiento y sus relaciones con la Cornisa cantábrica durante el Paleolítico
superior. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.
Fischer, A., Tauber, H. 1986. New C-14 Datings of Late Palaeolithic Cultures from North-Western Europe. Journal of Danish
Archaeology, 5, p. 7-13.
Foletti, G. 2012. Doubles pointes en matières dures animales et armatures de projectiles à la fin du Néolithique moyen : étude
fonctionnelle et tentative d’interprétation à partir du site de Marin-Les Piécettes (NE, Suisse). MA thesis. Université de
Neuchâtel.
Garrod, D. A. E. 1955. Palaeolithic Spear-throwers. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 31(3), p. 21-35.
Henry-Gambier, D., Normand, C., Pétillon, J.-M. 2013. Datation radiocarbone directe et attribution culturelle des vestiges hu-
mains paléolithiques de la grotte d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Bulletin de la société préhistorique française, 110 (4),
p. 645-656.
Hutchings, W. K. 2015. Finding the Paleoindian Spearthrower: Quantitative Evidence for Mechanically-assisted Propulsion of
Lithic Armatures during the North American Paleoindian Period. Journal of Archaeological Science, 55, p. 34-41. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.12.019
Ikäheimo, J.P., Joona, J.P., Hietala, M. 2004. Wretchedly Poor, but Amazingly Practical: Archaeological and Experimental
Evidence on the Bone Arrowheads of the Fenni. Acta Borealia, vol. 21, p. 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08003830410001840
Junkmanns, J. 2001. Arc et flèche. Fabrication et utilisation au Néolithique. Bienne: Musée Schwab.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 218
Knecht, H. 1993. Early Upper Palaeolithic Approaches to Bone and Antler Projectile Technology. In: Peterkin, G. L.,
Bricker, H. M., Mellars, P. (eds.). Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia.
Washington: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, p. 33-47.
Langlais, M. 2010. Les sociétés magdaléniennes de l’isthme pyrénéen. Paris: CTHS.
Langley, M. C., Amano, N., Wedage, O., Deraniyagala, S., Pathmalal, M. M., Perera, N., Boivin, N., Petraglia, M. D., Roberts, P.
2020. Bows and Arrows and Complex Symbolic Displays 48,000 Years Ago in the South Asian Tropics. Science Advances,
6, eaba3831. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba383
Letourneux, C., Pétillon, J.-M. 2008. Hunting Lesions Caused by Osseous Projectile Points: Experimental Results and
Archaeological Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(10), p. 2849-2862.
Lombard, M. 2019. On the Minds of Bow Hunters. In: Overmann, K. A., Coolidge, F. L. (eds.). Squeezing Minds from Stones:
Cognitive Archaeology and the Evolution of the Human Mind. Oxford: Scholarship Online.
Normand, C. 2017. La grotte d’Isturitz : présentation. In: Normand, C., Cattelain, P. (eds.). La grotte d’Isturitz. Fouilles an-
ciennes et récentes. Treignes: Cedarc, p. 9-22.
Nuzhnyi, D. 1990. Projectile Damage on Upper Paleolithic Microliths and the Use of Bow and Arrow among Pleistocene
Hunters in Ukraine. In: Gräslund, B., Knutsson, H. (eds.). The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies. Uppsala:
Societas archaeologica Upsaliensis, p. 113-124.
Nuzhnyi, D. 1998. The Preliminary Results of Experiments with Aurignacian Split Based Points Production, Hafting and Usage.
Préhistoire européenne, 13, p. 117-132.
Passemard, E. 1924. Les stations paléolithiques du Pays Basque et leurs relations avec les terrasses d’alluvions. Bayonne: Bo-
diou.
Passemard, E. 1944. La caverne d’Isturitz en Pays Basque. Préhistoire, 9, p. 7-95.
Pétillon, J.-M. 2006. Des Magdaléniens en armes. Technologie des armatures de projectile en bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien
supérieur de la grotte d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Treignes: Cedarc.
Pétillon, J.-M., Letourneux, C., Laroulandie, V. 2017. Archéozoologie des collections anciennes : le cas de la faune du Magda-
lénien supérieur d’Isturitz. In: Normand, C., Cattelain, P. (eds.). La grotte d’Isturitz. Fouilles anciennes et récentes. Trei-
gnes: Cedarc, p. 107-116.
Pétillon, J.-M., Plisson, H., Cattelain, P. 2016. Thirty Years of Experimental Research on the Breakage Patterns of Stone
Age Osseous Points. Overview, Methodological Problems and Current Perspectives. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (eds.).
Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry, Dordrecht: Springer, p. 47-63.
Pétillon, J.-M., Langlais, M., Kuntz, D., Normand, C., Barshay-Szmidt, C., Costamagno, S., Delmas, M., Laroulandie, V.,
Marsan, G. 2015. The Human Occupation of the Northwestern Pyrenees in the Late Glacial: New Data from the Arudy
Basin, Lower Ossau Valley. Quaternary International, 364, p. 126-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.09.022
Pokines, J. T. 1998. Experimental Replication and Use of Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian Antler Projectile Points. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 25(9), p. 875-886.
Pokines, J. T., Krupa, M. 1997. Self-barbed Antler Spearpoints and Evidence of Fishing in the Late Upper Paleolithic of
Cantabrian Spain. In: Knecht, H., (ed.). Projectile Technology. New York: Plenum press, p. 241-262.
Rots, V., Plisson, H. 2014. Projectiles and the Abuse of the Use-wear Method in a Search for Impact. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 48, p. 154-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.027
Rozoy, J.-G. 1992. Le propulseur et l’arc chez les chasseurs préhistoriques : techniques et démographie comparées. Paléo, 4,
p. 175-192.
Rust, A. 1943. Die alt- und mittelsteinzeitlichen Funde von Stellmoor. Neumünster: Karl-Wachholtz Verlag.
Saint-Périer, R. de. 1936. La grotte d’Isturitz, II : le Magdalénien de la Grande Salle. Paris: Masson.
Sano, K., Arrighi, S., Stani, C., Aureli, D., Boschin, F., Fiore, I., Spagnolo, V., Ricci, S., Crezzini, J., Boscato, P., Gala, M.,
Tagliacozzo, A., Birarda, G., Vaccari, L., Ronchitelli, A., Moroni, A., Benazzi, S. 2019. The Earliest Evidence for
Mechanically Delivered Projectile Weapons in Europe. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 3(10), p. 1409-1414. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41559-019-0990-3
Stodiek, U. 1993. Zur Technologie der jungpaläolithischen Speerschleuder. Eine Studie auf der Basis archäologischer, ethno-
logischer und experimenteller Erkenntnisse. Tübingen: Archaeologia Venatoria.
Szmidt, C., Pétillon, J.-M., Cattelain, P., Normand, C., Schwab, C. 2009. Premières dates radiocarbone pour le Magdalénien d’Is-
turitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Bulletin de la société préhistorique française, 106 (3), p. 588-592.
Tyzzer, E. E. 1936. The “Simple Bone Point” of the Shell-heaps of the North-Eastern Algonkian Area and Its Probable
Significance. American antiquity 1(4), p. 261-279.
Welté, A.-C. 2000. Le Magdalénien supérieur et les propulseurs dans la vallée de l’Aveyron : révision chronologique. In: Pion,
G. (ed.). Le Paléolithique Supérieur récent : nouvelles données sur le peuplement et l’environnement, Paris: Société pré-
historique française, p. 201-212.
Wild, M., Pfeifer, S., Lund, M., Paulsen, H., Weber, M.-J., Henneken, H., Funke, C., Velispahic, E., Lettenmayer, R. 2018.
Composite Projectiles in the Hamburgian Facies of the Final Magdalenian: Technological, Experimental and Macro-wear
Study of Their Flint, Antler, and Adhesive Components. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 48 (1), p. 7-25.
Whittaker, J. C. 2016. Levers, not Springs: How a Spearthrower Works and Why It Matters. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (eds.).
Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry. Dordrecht: Springer, p. 65-74.
Whittaker, J. C., Cao, Y., Leverich, A. 2018. Atlatls Are not Easier Than Bows: Rebuttal to Grund. Access mode: https://www.
academia.edu/32369956/ATLATLS_ARE_NOT_EASIER_THAN_BOWS_REBUTTAL_TO_GRUND
|