Across Atlantic Ice

by Dennis J. Stanford

  During this period the main flaked stone technology was blades produced from prepared cores, but there was also a significant component of tools made on flakes. Blade core preparation was primarily full bifacial edge trimming to form a guiding ridge, which was often retained on the back of the core throughout the flaking process. The dominant tool forms were blades with one sharp cutting edge and the other edge dulled or backed. Edge retouch tended to be abrupt. Blades were modified to produce scrapers (figure 5.1a–b) and projectile points (figure 5.1c). Backed bladelets were also present (figure 5.1d). Some of these tools have been given specific names, such as Châtelperron points and Dufour bladelets. Other distinctive tools are blades with notches (figure 5.1i), burins (figure 5.1j–m), end scrapers on flakes (figure 5.1n), and thick narrow scrapers (figure 5.1o). Many analysts now think that the last may have been bladelet cores rather than scrapers.3 Along with stone tools, Aurignacian assemblages included distinctive split-base bone points (figure 5.1e–f), bone awls (figure 5.1g), single-bevel sagaie points (pointed on one end, beveled on the other; see figure 5.1h), and bone or antler batons.

  Animal and abstract representations began some 34,000 to 30,000 years ago. These artistic expressions took the form of engravings and paintings on cave walls and small portable items. The general style remained fairly constant during the Aurignacian, but specific aspects of the representations changed with time and location.4

  GRAVETTIAN (CIRCA 27,000–20,000 YEARS BP)

  The Gravettian, named after La Gravette, France, seems to be a continuation of the Aurignacian with slight changes in the forms and proportions of the tools. Blade core preparation remained basically the same, with evidence of a distinct preference for bidirectional opposed platform cores, and blades became even more dominant as the primary blanks for tools. Burins continued to be a large proportion of the tools, with some forms distinct enough to be given names, such as Noailles, Bassaler, and Raysse (figure 5.1p–r). Backing was still abrupt (figure 5.1p and u), but the forms of so-called Gravette points were straight and narrow (figure 5.1v). Small backed blades became more common, and a distinctive tanged point, called Font Robert, was introduced (figure 5.1t). Truncated blades (with an end removed by abrupt retouch) were also common. Split-base bone points were no longer present, but sagaie forms were retained.

  FIGURE 5.1.

  Aurignacian (a–o) and Gravettian (p–v) artifacts: (a) end scraper made on blade; (b) end/concave scraper made on blade; (c) projectile point; (d) backed bladelet; (e–f) split-based bone points; (g) bone awl; (h) sagaie; (i) notched blade; (j–m) burins, with arrows indicating the direction of burin spall removal; (n) end scraper on flake; (o) thick narrow scraper; (p–r) burins; (s) retouched flake; (t) Font Robert point; (u) retouched blade; (v) Gravette point.

  Art in the form of cave paintings and portable items exhibited stylistic changes but little other alteration.5 However, Gravettian artisans occasionally produced human figurines, including the Venus figurines.

  SOLUTREAN (CIRCA 25,000–16,500 YEARS BP)

  Chronologically, where present, the Solutrean follows the Gravettian, but since we expand the Solutrean discussion significantly, we defer it to later in this chapter.

  MAGDALENIAN (CIRCA 16,500–13,000 YEARS BP)

  The Magdalenian, named for La Madeleine, France, comprises a series of phases defined by the presence and absence of specific tool types or the introduction of new tool forms, especially bone artifacts. Although there is marked regional variability, the basic assemblages are all characterized by blade and bladelet technologies, with many of the tools undergoing a size reduction in relation to the preceding archaeological cultures. Tool assemblages varied considerably between sites, evidently mostly due to differing site functions. Some tool types continued from earlier times, including borers (figure 5.2a), burins (figure 5.2h–j), and backed blades (figure 5.2k–l). New tool forms were introduced, including blade insets (figure 5.2b), microliths (figure 5.2c–d), and simple shouldered points (figure 5.2n). True barbed bone harpoons (figure 5.2e and g) and inset bladelet antler and bone points (figure 5.2f) became common during this period. Bone and antler carving was elaborated in highly decorated spear throwers and other implements.

  One of the basic traits of the Magdalenian people was their ability to adjust to the changing environments at the end of the ice age, and many regional and local adaptations can be recognized in the archaeological record. These are most evident along the margins of the seas, where people continued to improve their ability to exploit marine resources.

  FIGURE 5.2.

  Magdalenian artifacts: (a) borer; (b–d) microliths; (e and g) barbed bone points; (f) bone point with microblade insets; (h–j) burins); (k–l) retouched blades; (m) truncated blade; (n) shouldered point.

  Although the genesis of the Magdalenian may be questioned in any given region, the lack of bifacial technology and the presence of a blade/bladelet technology, as well as the general tool assemblage, indicate that it was a continuation of the Aurignacian and Gravettian complexes. Only a few elements might have had Solutrean antecedents. One of these is rock art. The Magdalenian is best known for the florescence of art in the form of cave paintings and engravings, including at the amazing sites of Lascaux in southwestern France and Altamira in northern Spain—although direct accelerator mass spectrometer dating of the pigments has moved some of these back to Solutrean times. Ornaments and decorative art on many portable objects, such as bone tools, became more common.

  THE TYPE MINDSET

  In the summer of 1999 I was privileged to work with a Spanish colleague, Carmen Cacho Quesada, at Tossal de la Roca in eastern Spain. She had been investigating the rock shelter there for years, and the radiocarbon dates and stone tool typology and technology had convinced her that it was a Magdalenian occupation. This interpretation was criticized by colleagues because Carmen had not found barbed harpoons, which some consider necessary to call an assemblage Magdalenian.

  Carmen saw the site as an upland, probably seasonal dwelling for exploiting terrestrial resources, primarily rabbit and goat, and questioned why anyone would expect to find marine exploitation tools at an inland site. Certainly the people who lived there would have been smart enough to use the appropriate tools, at least as defined by their tradition, to catch their food. This argument, however, had fallen on deaf ears. Without barbed harpoons it could not be Magdalenian, according to some archaeologists.

  On the very last day of our work at Tossal we uncovered several stone artifacts and some animal bones in one of the units. We left these for mapping, but it turned out that one of the partly exposed bones was a barbed harpoon point! With the find of this single artifact, Carmen’s interpretation that she was working in a Magdalenian site was vindicated in the minds of some of her critics. It amazes me how a single artifact can be seen to change the entire cultural interpretation of a site, and even an entire ecological zone. Bruce

  THE SOLUTREAN

  The Solutrean is similar in many ways to the southwestern European industries discussed above. Where the Aurignacian, Gravettian, and Magdalenian, including regional variants, were widespread throughout glacier-free western Europe, the Solutrean was more limited in geographical distribution (figure 5.3). Although some flaked stone traditions in Portugal and Mediterranean Spain have been identified as Solutrean, we focus our attention on southwestern France and northern Spain, where we see the highest degree of technological similarities with pre-Clovis and Clovis.6

  The Solutrean was first identified during early twentieth century archaeological work in cave deposits that yielded some of the most beautiful stone tools from the entire Paleolithic era. Many were exquisitely formed, and the flaking is quite elegant. They also tend to be made from unusual and colorful stones. It is unfortunate that Solutrean artifacts were so attractive to collectors, because many of the deeply stratified cave sites that contained them were dug out with little care before World War I.

  FIGURE 5.3.

  Solutre
an site distribution, glaciation, and landforms of northwestern Europe at the Last Glacial Maximum.

  The name Solutrean derives from Solutré, near Dijon in east-central France, where the distinctive artifacts were first systematically described. Although considered the type site, Solutré has turned out to be peripheral to the main area of Solutrean occupations, and the site had limited activities. This mirrors many North American Paleo-Indian finds, particularly Clovis.

  Solutrean deposits generally correspond to the last major glacial period, between 25,000 and 16,500 years ago. Many sites were excavated, under less than controlled conditions, before radiocarbon dating was developed, and the validity of their dates has been seriously challenged.7 Nevertheless, detailed stratigraphic and depositional analyses, combined with typological investigations, have produced a reasonably reliable chronology.

  Philip Smith published a comprehensive summary of the Solutrean in 1966, and his book remains the most thorough discussion of the topic.8 Little research was published on the Solutrean between then and the autumn of 2007, when a Solutrean conference was held in France to update the subject. Since the appearance of Smith’s book, a few modern excavations of Solutrean sites have been conducted in France and northern Spain, and new methods have resulted in new insights9 In particular, Lawrence Straus of the University of New Mexico, Les Freeman of the University of Chicago, and their Spanish colleagues, including Jesús Altuna and María Dolores Garralda, have conducted excellent work in northern Spain and published detailed site reports, overviews, and interpretations.10 Much of what follows is based on Smith’s and their work, in addition to our own research and examinations of museum collections.

  ENVIRONMENT

  The Solutrean people lived during the last ice age, when the climate was much colder than it is now. The phrase ice age conjures up primal thoughts and anxieties in many minds. Alley Oop and other cartoon characterizations of ice age peoples have established stereotypes of fur-clad people, mammoths, and perpetual snow. Like all stereotypes, these portrayals are not exactly, or even close to, reality. Our own contemporary experience tells us that there is a great deal of fluctuation in climate, both short and long term. We need only recall the American dust bowl of the 1930s or the occasional unusually severe or mild winters to realize how quickly weather patterns and climates can shift. During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), weather conditions were on average colder than at present, but there were major episodes alternating from warm and moist to cold and dry.

  Paleoclimatologists have reconstructed the shifts in the climatic trends of southwestern Europe during the several thousand years of Solutrean culture. In the earliest period the weather regime was relatively wet and temperate. By middle Solutrean times the climate had shifted to a cold, drier phase, and it returned to warmer and wetter conditions at the end of the Solutrean. These climatic changes generally do not appear to correlate with the major phases of Solutrean culture; they were ongoing processes rather than sudden events and were not necessarily simultaneous in different regions. When France became colder and drier, Spain was still relatively mild and damp. The impact of these changes also varied with latitude and elevation, with micro-environmental contrasts existing on a local scale. For instance, sheltered or south-facing areas were likely to have more moderate weather conditions than open plains or higher plateaus. We also see changes in the distributions of plants, animals, and the people who depended on them corresponding to climatic changes during this period.

  During the LGM a great deal of Europe was covered with ice and snow, including the Pyrenees Mountains, which separate France and Spain, and the Picos de Europa and some of the smaller mountain ranges in Spain. The Fennoscandian ice mass blanketed most of Europe, effectively reducing the amount of land available for habitation and probably pushing people south and west out of the northern European plain. However, as glaciers lowered the sea level by capturing much of the earth’s water, the North Sea drained, connecting the British Isles to the European mainland. While some habitable areas were shrinking, this climatic process opened up vast new territories for people to live in and exploit, most of which are now submerged.

  Having been stationary for much longer than our present shoreline, the late glacial shore is likely to have been a well-developed depositional coast in many places, and rich in resources. This was mainly because of the large amount of seawater that was used to form the ice caps and glaciers. We have seen a major rise in the mean sea level over the past 8,000 years, which has meant relatively fast changes in coastlines. By contrast, cold, dry winds blew off the glaciers and swept across the plains of Spain, pulling the moisture from the grasslands and rendering them unattractive to man and beast. It is generally thought that during these cold periods, humans in this area followed animals to more suitable environments, along the shores of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The Gulf Stream shifted southward from the north Atlantic during the LGM, warming the southern coast of Portugal and tempering the Arctic waters that carried icebergs into the Bay of Biscay.11 The ocean waters along the coastlines of southwest France and northern Spain teemed with life. Periwinkles and arctic cod thrived in the cold waters of the bay, and walrus, seals, and numerous types of fowl plied the ice leads in search of sustenance.

  SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

  When the Solutrean becomes identifiable as a distinct culture and where it was distributed through a 3,000-to-4,000-year period are subject to considerable debate. Theories about its origins range from in situ local development resulting from adaptation to the changing glacial environment, through migration into the area by new people, to diffusion and adoption of new technologies by existing cultures.12 This is not our concern here, but if it were shown that the Solutrean immigrated into the area, one could reasonably suggest that mobility was one of their cultural traits, which might explain later movements into other new areas.

  A real problem in interpreting Solutrean culture is that virtually all known sites are either in shelters at the base of cliffs or in caves. This sample bias deprives us of knowledge about a major portion of their settlement pattern and the activities that took place in open areas. At least some of this selectivity can be attributed to archaeologists who considered only cave sites to be of interest, a notion prevalent in southwestern Europe, especially during the past two centuries. The Paleolithic archaeologist James Sackett has dubbed this the cave mentality.13 Cavemen live in caves, right?

  Certainly this cave-oriented site pattern cannot represent the total settlement or use of the landscape. Even if the Solutrean people were highly selective in the location of their habitation sites, they must have had hunting, foraging, and procurement camps away from cliffs and caves. The natural distribution of the animals hunted by the Solutrean people suggests that more open-air sites would have been occupied. There are a few reasonably well-documented open sites: Solutré, a horse and reindeer kill and butchering site on the eastern margin of the Solutrean culture area, and Saussaye-Tercis, on the south-central margin.14 Les Maitreaux, a small open-air flint procurement and manufacturing site near Bossay-sur-Claise in southern Touraine, France, is being investigated as well.15

  Surprisingly, no open-air Solutrean sites are known in northern Spain. One could argue that these types of sites are small and difficult to identify in a landscape where agriculture has been practiced for thousands of years, but open-air sites are common from the earlier and later Upper Paleolithic, especially Magdalenian times, and even from the Middle Paleolithic (for instance Corbiac, near Bergerac). Where are the equivalent Solutrean sites? The archaeologist Philip Smith, who wrote the seminal work on Solutrean, documented isolated surface finds of Solutrean laurel leafs that could have come from more extensive open sites, but none has been described.16 We suspect that there may be a geological explanation for the lack of open-air Solutrean sites, such as an extensive erosional cycle between the end of the Solutrean and the beginning of the Magdalenian, around 16,000 years ago.

  The rugged, steep foot
hills of Spain’s Vasco-Cantabrian region would have been less conducive to open-air campsites than areas on the continental shelf exposed by a sea level that was as much as 130 meters lower than it is today. At its maximum extent this was more than 20,000 square kilometers of limestone landscape, now covered by the Bay of Biscay. The archaeologists Jean-Philippe Rigaud and Jan Simek have cautioned us to remember that between one- and two-thirds of the land surface available in Late Pleistocene Aquitaine now lies beneath either the sea on the continental shelf or the vast sand mantle of the Landes of southwestern France.17

  The one thing that almost everyone agrees on is that the Solutrean distribution was much more restricted than those of the preceding Gravettian or the subsequent Magdalenian. The boundaries of Solutrean settlement are unclear, but at no time were these people completely cut off from adjacent areas with other Paleolithic populations. It is also apparent that there were minor territorial expansions and adjustments through time, and the inhabitants of some cultural boundary areas seem to have maintained their technology and lifestyle while those in the center continued to change. For example, indented base projectile points are restricted to northern Spain and the western Pyrenees. This is an extremely important observation to keep in mind, as our hypothesis does not envision a North American–founding Solutrean population to have necessarily possessed all of the Solutrean technology or tool kit.

  Few Solutrean settlements are far from a major river or one of its larger tributaries. Lawrence Straus of the University of New Mexico sees the river valleys of northern Spain that drain the Picos de Europa as the primary territories of Solutrean bands, with little cross-valley interaction. The river valleys were important for shelter, he suggests, and also provided food resources.18