Search

Most Upper Palaeolithic sites show a tendency for tools to correspond to a single function. In this case, successive resharpening leads to a reduction in tool size, changes in morphology, and changes to the angle of the active edges. In contrast, tools are sometimes resharpened, reshaped, and/or recycled after use for domestic activities, and are then employed for highly specialized tasks. In this paper, we will show how tool management can be different through examples from the European Magdalenian: Champréveyres and Monruz, two open-air sites with seasonal occupations, and Roc-aux-Sorciers, a rock shelter site with a long occupation and remarkable artistic activities. The status of these sites involves different visions, conceptions, and managements of the tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The hunting technical sphere has a particularly important socioeconomic role among hunter-gatherers as it provides vital nutritive goods and serves numerous technical spheres. Approaching Upper Palaeolithic hunting techniques therefore offers a valuable insight into past cultural dynamics. Microliths are often the only conserved evidence of Magdalenian hunting equipment, occasionally accompanied by osseous projectile points to which they were exceptionally found hafted. Backed bladelets are the most common Magdalenian microliths. In this paper, we investigate their function as projectile insert, and address the question of projectiles designs through the analysis of impact damages. In this perspective, we implemented three experimentations including manufacturing, trampling and use of backed bladelets as projectile inserts. Results show distinctive combinations of damages between each three experimentations, allowing to reinforce the damaging pattern of lateral flint inserts and to discriminate lateral scars specific to the impact. The functional analysis of backed bladelets from two Early Middle Magdalenian sites located in west-central France (La Marche and the Blanchard cave) shows that these tools were specifically used as projectile inserts. The bladelets impact damage patterns are different between the two sites and match differences of morphologies of antler projectile points. The systemic reasoning carried out allows evidencing variations of hunting technical behaviours that were not, until then, perceived through the comparison of production techniques and typology of microlith assemblages of west-central France. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]