Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssues32Cro-Magnon personal ornaments rev...

Cro-Magnon personal ornaments revisited

Les ornements personnels de Cro-Magnon revus
Jack Baker, Solange Rigaud, Marian Vanhaeren and Francesco d’Errico
p. 40-72

Abstracts

The Cro-Magnon rock-shelter hosted the first discovered and certainly one of the most important Gravettian burial sites in Europe. However, the copious ornament collection found among the human skeletons was not analysed with modern techniques. After proposing a synthesis of the complex curatorial history of the Cro-Magnon material, we submitted a large proportion of the personal ornaments found at the site, hosted in five conservation institutions, to a taxonomic study as well as to taphonomic, morphometric and microscopic analyses. The studied assemblage encompasses shell beads belonging to six species (L. littoreaN. lapillusTurritella sp., L. obtusata, L. luridaC. jeffreysianus), two perforated teeth - a Red Deer canine and a bovid incisor - and three shaped pendants, two made of ivory and one displaying no diagnostic features allowing a clear identification of the raw material. Shell ornaments were compared to modern reference collections to identify selection criteria. The Cro-Magnon people used marine shells coming from both the Atlantic and possibly the Mediterranean coasts as ornaments. The distance to these coasts indicates that shells may have been acquired via exchange or during seasonal migration. Very few may have originated from closer fossil outcrops. Conversely, ivory and teeth were available locally. No size preference is observed in the L. littorea, the most represented shell species used as beads. The vast majority of shell beads were perforated by puncturing them through the aperture. All ornaments bear diagnostic traces indicating that they were worn during the individuals’ lives, and suggesting they belong to beadwork buried with the deceased. The three shaped pendants feature differences in technology, shape, size and decoration suggesting different agency for each. Re-examination of the single radiocarbon age obtained from one of the Llittorea leads us to propose, in the light of more up-to-date calibration curves and the nature of the sample, that additional radiocarbon dating should be performed in order to refine the chronological attribution of the Cro-Magnon burials.

Top of page

Full text

We would like to thank Catherine Cretin, Estelle Bougard, Jill Cook, Vincent Mistrot and Mathieu Landreau for providing information on the location of Cro-Magnon collections, Dominique Armand for helping with taxonomic identifications. We are also grateful to the Musée de l’Homme, Musée d’Archéologie Nationale, Musée d’Aquitaine, Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord and Musée National de Préhistoire for granting access to their collections. We thank the two anonymous reviewers and Laurent Klaric for their constructive comments on the first draft of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Programme Talents (Grant No. 191022-001), the ERC Synergy QUANTA (Grant No. 951388), the Emergence Project, IDEX Bordeaux (Project No. ANR-10-IDEX-03-02), the Momentum CNRS project, the « Grand Programme de Recherche ‘Human Past’, Département des Sciences Archéologiques, University of Bordeaux’s Initiative d’Excellence, the Research Council of Norway through its Centre’s of Excellence funding scheme, Senter for fremragende forskning (SFF) Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour, SapienCE (Project No. 262618).

1Human mortuary practices have varied dramatically throughout prehistory (e.g., Boyd et al. 2016; d’Errico and Stringer 2011; Dillehay 2012; Harrold 1980; Pettitt 2013; Riel-Salvatore et al. 2001), but it is not until the Upper Palaeolithic Gravettian technocomplex (circa 34 – 24 ka cal. BP (Kozłowski 2015; Wilczyński et al. 2020)) that buried individuals associated with elaborate and archaeologically visible ornaments, and grave goods, begin to represent a widespread cultural phenomenon (e.g., Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012; Kacki et al. 2020; Mussi et al. 2000). When compared to preceding Eurasian and African cultural adaptations, the Gravettian testifies to a veritable revolution in not only the number of primary burials (e.g., d’Errico and Vanhaeren 2015; Henry-Gambier 2008; Nowell 2020), but also the diversity of personal ornaments accompanying the deceased (e.g., Giacobini 2007; Pettitt 2013; Taborin 1993). Considering the recurrent use of personal ornaments in the burials of modern traditional societies (e.g., Petru 2018; Rossano 2010), the presence of varied ornamental grave goods within Upper Palaeolithic burials adds a degree of complexity to burial practices and makes them somehow closer to known historical instances (Baray et al. 2007; Henry-Gambier 2008).

2Among Gravettian burial sites, the Cro-Magnon rock-shelter stands out clearly for its impact on the then burgeoning disciplines of palaeoanthropology and prehistory (Bougard 2014; Lartet 1868; Puech and Puech 2012). Being one of the first archaeological sites to yield human remains alongside extinct animals, it was instrumental in unequivocally demonstrating the antiquity of humans, suggesting they were burying their dead (Bougard 2014; Henry-Gambier 2002; Hurel 2018), and thus kindled both public and academic interest in these issues (Hurel 2018; Lartet 1868). Because of the pioneering stage of the discipline and the importance of the Cro-Magnon discovery, in the haste to share the findings, the spatial arrangement of the archaeological material was poorly documented (Bougard 2014; Bougard and Delluc 2014; Henry-Gambier et al. 2013). Since their unearthing, increasingly exhaustive and informative analyses have been performed on the human remains, which has provided novel anthropological data on the deceased’s biology (Broca 1869; Henry-Gambier 1986; Partiot et al. 2020; Thibeault and Villotte 2018; Vallois and Billy 1965), health status and behaviour (Charlier et al. 2018; Trinkaus et al. 2021). However, the numerous personal ornaments found in association with the human remains have not been submitted to in-depth analyses (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013).

3In this study, we located the numerous conservation institutions in which personal ornaments reported to have been found close to the buried Cro-Magnon individuals are housed and examined almost half of the hundreds of personal ornaments kept in these institutions. By applying an integrated approach that combines available historical information, taphonomic, technological, and functional analyses of the ornaments, the study of reference collections, and comparison with ornaments found at other Gravettian sites, we provide a reassessment of the Cro-Magnon bead collection within the context of the South Western France Gravettian.

1 | History of research

4The Cro-Magnon rock-shelter (Bougard and Delluc 2014; Bourlon 1907; Breuil 1907; Delluc and Delluc 2013; Giraux 1907; Henry-Gambier 2002; Henry-Gambier et al. 2013; Hurel 2018; Lartet 1868; Lartet et al. 1875; Massénat 1869, 1877; Peyrony 1907; Rivière 1894, 1897) is located on the left bank of the Vézère River, close to the village of Les Eyzies (Dordogne, France) (fig. 1a). The site consists of a roughly 10 m deep shelter, which opens to the south within the Upper Cretaceous limestone cliffs of the Vézère valley.

Figure 1. a) Map showing the location of Cro-Magnon rockshelter. Created on QGIS using ETOPO1 Global Relief Model data with a modern and Gravettian coastline at -100 m (Lambeck and Chappell 2001). b) Stratigraphy of Cro-Magnon rock-shelter as established by Lartet in 1868. A)- Limestone Debris. B) Ash deposit. C) Limestone debris. D) Second Ash deposit. E) Limestone debris coloured red by fire. F) Third Ash deposit. G) Red earth with bones. H) Thick layer of Ash with bones (main hearth). I) Yellow earth with bones. J) Thin bed of washed Gravel. K) Limestone Scree. L) Removed Talus. N) Crack in ceiling of Rock-shelter. P) Cretaceous Limestone. a) Elephant Tusk. b) ‘Le Vieillard’ Skeleton. c) Gneiss block. d) Human remains. e) Collapsed Limestone blocks. c) plan of Cro-Magnon. P) Limestone. ) central portion of layer H. Y) base of pillar built to support roof. a) tusk of elephant. b) skull of ‘Le Vieillard’. d) human remains. e) Slabs fallen from roof. m) woman remains. n)– Human remains (Images from Lartet 1868). d) Skull of ‘Le Vieillard’ (image adapted from Henry-Gambier et al. 2013). e) Skull of Cro-Magnon 2 (image adapted from Wolpoff et al. 2006). f) Personal ornaments found in association with the human remains (image from Lartet et al. 1875).
a) Localisation de l’abri-sous-roche de Cro-Magnon. Carte créée avec QGIS en utilisant les données du modèle de relief global ETOPO1 avec une ligne de côte moderne et une ligne de côte correspondant au niveau marin durant le Gravettien 100 m plus bas que l’actuel (Lambeck et Chappell 2001) b) Stratigraphie de l’abri-sous-roche de Cro-Magnon telle qu’établie par Lartet en 1868. A) Débris calcaires. B) Dépôt de cendres. C) Débris calcaires. D) Deuxième dépôt de cendres. E) Débris calcaires rubéfiés. F) Troisième dépôt de cendres. G) Sédiment rouge avec ossements. H) Épaisse couche de cendres avec ossements (foyer principal). I) Sédiment jaune avec ossements. J) Mince couche de gravier. K) Éboulis calcaires. L) Talus. N) Fissure dans le plafond de l’abri sous roche. P) Calcaire du Crétacé. a) Défense d’éléphant. b) Squelette du Vieillard. c) Bloc de gneiss. d) Restes humains. e) Blocs de calcaire effondrés. c) Plan de l’abri Cro-Magnon. P) Calcaire. X) Partie centrale de la couche H. Y) Base d’un pilier construit pour soutenir le plafond. a) défense d’éléphant. b crâne du Vieillard. d) restes humains. e) dalles tombées du plafond. m) restes d’un individu de sexe féminin. n) restes humains (images de Lartet 1868). d) Crâne du Vieillard (image adaptée de Henry-Gambier et al 2013). e) Crâne de Cro-Magnon 2 (image adaptée de Wolpoff et al. 2006). f) Objets de parure trouvés en association avec les restes humains (image de Lartet et al. 1875).

Figure 1. a) Map showing the location of Cro-Magnon rockshelter. Created on QGIS using ETOPO1 Global Relief Model data with a modern and Gravettian coastline at -100 m (Lambeck and Chappell 2001). b) Stratigraphy of Cro-Magnon rock-shelter as established by Lartet in 1868. A)- Limestone Debris. B) Ash deposit. C) Limestone debris. D) Second Ash deposit. E) Limestone debris coloured red by fire. F) Third Ash deposit. G) Red earth with bones. H) Thick layer of Ash with bones (main hearth). I) Yellow earth with bones. J) Thin bed of washed Gravel. K) Limestone Scree. L) Removed Talus. N) Crack in ceiling of Rock-shelter. P) Cretaceous Limestone. a) Elephant Tusk. b) ‘Le Vieillard’ Skeleton. c) Gneiss block. d) Human remains. e) Collapsed Limestone blocks. c) plan of Cro-Magnon. P) Limestone. ) central portion of layer H. Y) base of pillar built to support roof. a) tusk of elephant. b) skull of ‘Le Vieillard’. d) human remains. e) Slabs fallen from roof. m) woman remains. n)– Human remains (Images from Lartet 1868). d) Skull of ‘Le Vieillard’ (image adapted from Henry-Gambier et al. 2013). e) Skull of Cro-Magnon 2 (image adapted from Wolpoff et al. 2006). f) Personal ornaments found in association with the human remains (image from Lartet et al. 1875). a) Localisation de l’abri-sous-roche de Cro-Magnon. Carte créée avec QGIS en utilisant les données du modèle de relief global ETOPO1 avec une ligne de côte moderne et une ligne de côte correspondant au niveau marin durant le Gravettien 100 m plus bas que l’actuel (Lambeck et Chappell 2001) b) Stratigraphie de l’abri-sous-roche de Cro-Magnon telle qu’établie par Lartet en 1868. A) Débris calcaires. B) Dépôt de cendres. C) Débris calcaires. D) Deuxième dépôt de cendres. E) Débris calcaires rubéfiés. F) Troisième dépôt de cendres. G) Sédiment rouge avec ossements. H) Épaisse couche de cendres avec ossements (foyer principal). I) Sédiment jaune avec ossements. J) Mince couche de gravier. K) Éboulis calcaires. L) Talus. N) Fissure dans le plafond de l’abri sous roche. P) Calcaire du Crétacé. a) Défense d’éléphant. b) Squelette du Vieillard. c) Bloc de gneiss. d) Restes humains. e) Blocs de calcaire effondrés. c) Plan de l’abri Cro-Magnon. P) Calcaire. X) Partie centrale de la couche H. Y) Base d’un pilier construit pour soutenir le plafond. a) défense d’éléphant. b crâne du Vieillard. d) restes humains. e) dalles tombées du plafond. m) restes d’un individu de sexe féminin. n) restes humains (images de Lartet 1868). d) Crâne du Vieillard (image adaptée de Henry-Gambier et al 2013). e) Crâne de Cro-Magnon 2 (image adaptée de Wolpoff et al. 2006). f) Objets de parure trouvés en association avec les restes humains (image de Lartet et al. 1875).

5The rock-shelter was discovered in the March of 1868 and was first described by Louis Lartet in the same year (Lartet 1868). Though generally believed to have been unearthed during the construction of a railway, it was in fact found during the creation of the road running adjacent to it (Bougard, Delluc 2014). In his first excavation, Lartet (1868) described eleven archaeological layers (fig. 1b, c). He grouped, from the bottom to the top, the first eight of these layers (A-H) into a lower unit and the latter three into an upper unit (I-K). Within the lower unit, layers A, C and E were archaeologically sterile whereas layers B, D, F, G and H yielded archaeological material. Within the upper unit, layers J and K were almost sterile, whilst the area just above layer I yielded the remains of several human skeletons (fig. 1d, e) and several hundred personal ornaments.

6Lartet interpreted the lower layers as reflecting a short-term occupation hunting site, the middle layers as witnessing a habitation, and layer I as containing a cemetery (Hurel 2018; Lartet 1868).

7During the following half century, a total of nine archaeologists excavated the site and the cultural attribution of the human remains changed alongside the refinement of our knowledge of European Upper Palaeolithic chronology and cultural succession (tabl. 1). Lartet (1868) refers to the rock-shelter as a cemetery of ‘Périgordian’ troglodytes. Élie Massénat completed two excavations of the site in 1869 and 1873 (Massénat 1869, 1877) and concluded that there was no ‘Périgordian’, just a ‘Solutrean’ level below a level with Aurignac points, a diagnostic artefact of the Ancient Aurignacian (Kitagawa and Conard 2020; Liolios 2006). Subsequently, Émile Rivière undertook two excavations (Rivière 1894, 1897), the first of which was conducted where the skeletons had been discovered by Lartet. The lithic material found led him to think that there was a ‘Magdalenian’ layer below the skeletons and, as a consequence, that the human remains post-dated that culture. Henri Breuil, who later conducted two excavations in 1897-1898 and 1905-1906 (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013), disagreed with the previous attributions to the ‘Magdalenian’ and the ‘Solutrean’. In 1905 he proposed the term ‘Aurignacian’ (Breuil 1907) for an industry stratigraphically positioned between the ‘Mousterian’ and the ‘Solutrean’, and suggested that this was the culture to which the Cro-Magnon human remains and associated archaeological material, including the ornaments, should be attributed.

Table 1. Summary of the excavations conducted at the Cro-Magnon rock-shelter and the proposed cultural attributions of the human remains and associated archaeological material.
Liste des fouilles menées à l’abri sous roche de Cro-Magnon et attributions culturelles proposées pour les restes humains et le matériel archéologique associé.

Table 1. Summary of the excavations conducted at the Cro-Magnon rock-shelter and the proposed cultural attributions of the human remains and associated archaeological material. Liste des fouilles menées à l’abri sous roche de Cro-Magnon et attributions culturelles proposées pour les restes humains et le matériel archéologique associé.

8Following excavations were undertaken by Denis Peyrony in 1905 (Peyrony 1908), Pestourie and Berthoumeyrou in 1906 (Peyrony 1908), Paul Girod in 1906 (Delluc and Delluc 2013), by L. Giraux in 1907 (Giraux 1907) and by the proprietor of the site, M. Pagès, probably before 1907 (Bourlon 1907). With the exception of the site owner, all of these excavators concluded that the remains were ‘Aurignacian‘. He instead proposed a ‘Pre-Solutrean’ attribution for the human remains.

9The discovery in 1960 of an engraved bone featuring a bison in the Cro-Magnon material kept at the Musée du Laténium, Neuchâtel, Switzerland, (Bougard 2014; Pittard 1962) led some researchers to question the ‘Aurignacian‘ attribution of the human remains and rather proposed a Gravettian affiliation (Bouchud 1966; Vallois 1968). This cultural reattribution was based on stylistic similarities to engravings found in Level 3 of Trilobite cave (Breuil 1907; Henry-Gambier et al. 2013) which itself yielded Gravette points. Another similarly styled engraved bone, featuring an anthropomorph, housed with the Cro-Magnon material in the Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord (MAAP) (Rivière 1894), lent further support to a Gravettian attribution (cf. Movius 1969).

10However, the persistent consensus until the 1970s, was that the human remains were Aurignacian (Sonneville-Bordes 1960; Movius 1969). Further evidence for an Early Gravettian attribution came from the identification of a Bayac flechette, a diagnostic lithic tool of the Early Gravettian (Douka et al. 2020; Pesesse 2008a, 2008b), within the Cro-Magnon material kept at the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Toulouse (Bougard, Delluc 2014; Pesesse 2008a).

11A major contribution to the debate on the age and cultural attribution of the human remains and associated archaeological material was provided by the 14C AMS dating of a perforated L. littorea, identified by Lartet as a personal ornament found close to the human remains (Henry-Gambier 2002). The shell yielded an age of 27,680 ± 270 (Beta-157439), i.e., a calibrated age of 31,324 – 32,666 cal. BP (Reimer et al. 2009) bringing the burial event within the bounds of the Early Gravettian. Henry-Gambier et al. (2013) also noted the stark similarities in style between the Cro-Magnon ivory pendants and those from Abri Pataud Level 5. This level has yielded five radiocarbon ages between 26,780 – 28,250 (30,895 – 33,264 cal. BP) (Douka et al. 2020; Higham et al. 2011; Reimer et al. 2009), similar to that of the L. littorea from Cro-Magnon. It is now widely agreed that the human remains and the personal ornaments belong to the Early Gravettian technocomplex (Chiotti et al. 2015; Vercoutère and Wolf 2018; Villotte et al. 2019).

2 | History of the collection

12Since their discovery, the Cro-Magnon human remains were transferred and curated at the Musée de l’Homme (MdH), which belongs to the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (Henry-Gambier 2002). A detailed account of the associated artefacts spatial provenance is unfortunately lacking. Concerning the personal ornaments, we do not know to which individual they were associated with, although in the original report Lartet explicitly states that they were found amongst and near the human remains (Lartet 1868 p. 346-347). This association is vouched for by the presence of ochre on both the ornaments and the human bones (Henry-Gambier 2002). Following a practice common at the time, and under the instruction of the then French Minister of Education Victor Duruy, the archaeological material from Cro-Magnon was quickly disseminated to various museums and private collections in France, Europe and the United States (pers. com. V. Mistrot 2021; Sarradet 1975 p. 24). Only sparse documentation providing an account of these events exists and available information can in some cases be misleading.

13The information present in the literature on the personal ornaments number and types (tabl. 2) are contradictory (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013; Lartet 1868; Lartet et al. 1875; Movius 1969; Taborin 1993). This unreliability likely stemmed from different standards of reporting and identification since their discovery (tabl. 2).

Table 2. Ornament types found at Cro-Magnon mentioned in the literature (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013 ; Lartet 1868 ; Lartet et al. 1875 ; Movius 1969 ; Taborin 1993). * Refers to other teeth, * referred to as Fusus Islandicus.
Types d’ornements trouvés dans l’abri Cro-Magnon mentionnés dans la littérature (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013 ; Lartet 1868 ; Lartet et al. 1875 ; Movius 1969 ; Taborin 1993). * Se réfère aux autres dents, désignées sous le nom de Fusus Islandicus.

Table 2. Ornament types found at Cro-Magnon mentioned in the literature (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013 ; Lartet 1868 ; Lartet et al. 1875 ; Movius 1969 ; Taborin 1993). * Refers to other teeth, * referred to as Fusus Islandicus. Types d’ornements trouvés dans l’abri Cro-Magnon mentionnés dans la littérature (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013 ; Lartet 1868 ; Lartet et al. 1875 ; Movius 1969 ; Taborin 1993). * Se réfère aux autres dents, * désignées sous le nom de Fusus Islandicus.

3 | Human remains

14Due to methodological improvements since their early analysis, the conjectured number of individuals found in the rock-shelter and their sex and age attribution has fluctuated substantially.

15According to Lartet, when he first arrived at the site, the workers declared that they had found as many as fifteen skeletons (Vallois, Billy 1965). However, the three publications analysing the skeletal material in the year following the discovery significantly reduced this estimation (Broca 1868; Lartet 1868; Pruner-Bey 1868).

16While Lartet identified four adult skeletons, one of which he attributed to a female, and one to an infant, Broca proposed that there were three and potentially four or five adults. In regards to the infant (CM5), Broca mentioned only the presence of infant skull fragments but makes no reference to post-cranial material. It was Broca who coined in his 1868 publication the term ‘Le Vieillard’ for the elderly male skeleton, and introduced the practice of referring to the remains of the other individuals as CM1 – CM5. The pioneer phase in the description of the remains ended with Pruner-Bey’s study, who identified three male and one female adult skeletons. Unlike Lartet and Broca, Pruner-Bey attributed the non-adult bones to a foetus – and identified foetal long bones.

17The minimum number of individuals (MNI) and recruitment changed little over the intervening century. In 1965, Vallois and Billy agreed with the previous estimation in their comprehensive osteological analysis. They concluded that the remains comprised three males (of which one was elderly), one female adult and a perinatal infant. The adult sex estimation relied heavily on the cranial remains but the assignment of the female (CM2) and one of the males (CM3) was not corroborated in a recent anthropological study (Guyomarc’h et al. 2017).

18It was not until Henry-Gambier (1986) conducted an osteometric analysis of the infant remains that the long established MNI was contested. Her study revealed the presence of likely three and possibly four non-adults of which two (or three) were neonatal and one was approximately one year of age (tabl. 3). Although this study dramatically changed both the MNI and the recruitment, its conclusions were not mentioned in her more recent work in which she refers to the infant remains as a single individual (e.g., Henry-Gambier et al. 2006, 2013).

Table 3. Summary of data on sex and age attribution of the Cro-Magnon human remains. M) Male, F) Female (data from Charlier et al. 2018 ; Henry-Gambier et al. 2006 ; Partiot et al. 2020 ; Ruggieri et al. 2018 ; Trinkaus et al. 2021 ; Villotte et al. 2011).
Résumé des données sur l’attribution du sexe et de l’âge des restes humains de Cro-Magnon. M) Homme, F) Femme (données de Charlier et al. 2018 ; Henry-Gambier et al. 2006 ; Partiot et al. 2020 ; Ruggieri et al. 2018 ; Trinkaus et al. 2021 ; Villotte et al. 2011).

Table 3. Summary of data on sex and age attribution of the Cro-Magnon human remains. M) Male, F) Female (data from Charlier et al. 2018 ; Henry-Gambier et al. 2006 ; Partiot et al. 2020 ; Ruggieri et al. 2018 ; Trinkaus et al. 2021 ; Villotte et al. 2011). Résumé des données sur l’attribution du sexe et de l’âge des restes humains de Cro-Magnon. M) Homme, F) Femme (données de Charlier et al. 2018 ; Henry-Gambier et al. 2006 ; Partiot et al. 2020 ; Ruggieri et al. 2018 ; Trinkaus et al. 2021 ; Villotte et al. 2011).

19In 2006, Henry-Gambier et al. reassessed the age and sex of the Cro-Magnon adult remains by applying a novel methodology (Bruzek 2002; Bruzek et al. 1999; Schmitt 2001, 2002). According to this study, two of the pelves are attributed to males, one to a female. The fourth individual remained unsexed. The three sexed individuals were assigned an age in excess of 50 years, with the female being at least over fifty and possibly sixty years of age.

20More recent studies (Thibeault and Villotte 2018; Trinkaus et al. 2021; Villotte et al. 2020) used a combination of classical and modern morphometric methods on the adult human remains. The first of these (Thibeault and Villotte 2018), focusing on the lower limbs and the pelvic girdle, identified only three adults of which two would be male and one would be female. They concluded that the likelihood that a fourth adult is present is rather low. The second study (Villotte et al. 2020) focusing on the upper limbs and the pectoral girdle remains, identified four adults, of which one is likely a female due to its gracility. The other three individuals were not attributed a sex or an age. Trinkaus et al. (2021) identified, based on dental data, four adults. One of these was likely a young adult whereas the others were more elderly (tabl. 3).

21A more recent morphometric assessment of the non-adult remains (Partiot et al. 2020) corroborated the first of Henry-Gambier’s (1986) findings, i.e., a plurality of infants and their respective ages, and identified a minimum of four infants (CM5-1 to CM5-4, tabl. 3). In summary, the current MNI for the Cro-Magnon rock-shelter stands at eight individuals, almost double the original published estimates.

4 | Materials

22We studied one hundred forty-two ornaments from Cro-Magnon (tabl. 4). The largest collection is kept at the MdH and includes twenty-seven Littorina littorea (Linnaeus 1758), four Turritella sp., two Nucella lapillus, one Littorina obtusata, one Colus jeffreysianus and two drop-shaped ivory pendants (fig. 2, fig. 3a, b). Three drop-shaped ivory pendants are illustrated in original publications (fig. 1f) but one has since been lost (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013). Eighteen L. littorea (fig. 4), an elongated shaped pendant (fig. 3c), a bovid incisor (fig. 3d) and a Red Deer canine (fig. 3e) were studied at the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale (MAN). Twenty-one L. littorea and a N. lapillus from the Musée d’Aquitaine (MAQ) (fig. 5), thirty L. littorea from the MAAP (fig. 6) and twenty-eight L. littorea (twenty-seven of which are perforated), three N. lapillus (two of which are perforated) and an unperforated Luria lurida from the Musée National de Préhistoire (MNP) (fig. 7) were also analysed. A single lion canine from the British Museum (pers. com. J. Cook) was also analysed (fig. 8a, b).

Table 4. Ornaments from Cro-Magnon included in this study.
Objets de parure provenant de l’abri Cro-Magnon inclus dans cette étude.

Table 4. Ornaments from Cro-Magnon included in this study. Objets de parure provenant de l’abri Cro-Magnon inclus dans cette étude.

Figure 2. Cro-Magnon shell ornaments curated at the Musée de l’Homme. 1-27 Littorina littorea, 28 Littorina obtusata, 29 Colus jeffreysianus, 30-33 Turritella sp., 34-35 Nucella lapillus. (Scale bar = 10 mm).
Parures en coquillages de Cro-Magnon conservées au Musée de l’Homme. 1-27 Littorina littorea, 28 Littorina obtusata, 29 Colus jeffreysianus, 30-33 Turritella sp., 34-35 Nucella lapillus (échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 2. Cro-Magnon shell ornaments curated at the Musée de l’Homme. 1-27 Littorina littorea, 28 Littorina obtusata, 29 Colus jeffreysianus, 30-33 Turritella sp., 34-35 Nucella lapillus. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Parures en coquillages de Cro-Magnon conservées au Musée de l’Homme. 1-27 Littorina littorea, 28 Littorina obtusata, 29 Colus jeffreysianus, 30-33 Turritella sp., 34-35 Nucella lapillus (échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 3. Osseous ornaments from Cro-Magnon: a) bi-perforated ivory pendant, b) mono-perforated ivory pendant, c) elongated shaped pendant, d) perforated Bovid incisor, e) perforated Red deer canine. (Scale bar = 10 mm).
Objets de parure en os de l’abri Cro-Magnon : a) pendentif en ivoire bi-perforé, b) pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé, c) pendentif de forme allongée, d) incisive de bovidé perforée, e) canine de cerf perforée. (Échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 3. Osseous ornaments from Cro-Magnon: a) bi-perforated ivory pendant, b) mono-perforated ivory pendant, c) elongated shaped pendant, d) perforated Bovid incisor, e) perforated Red deer canine. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Objets de parure en os de l’abri Cro-Magnon : a) pendentif en ivoire bi-perforé, b) pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé, c) pendentif de forme allongée, d) incisive de bovidé perforée, e) canine de cerf perforée. (Échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 4. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale. (Scale bar = 10 mm).
Objets de parure réalisés sur des L. littorea provenant de Cro-Magnon et conservés au Musée d’Archéologie Nationale. (Échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 4. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Objets de parure réalisés sur des L. littorea provenant de Cro-Magnon et conservés au Musée d’Archéologie Nationale. (Échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 5. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Aquitaine, erroneously labelled as from Laugerie-Basse (pers. com. V. Mistrot 2021) (Scale bar= 10 mm).
Parures de Cro-Magnon L. littorea conservées au Musée d’Aquitaine. Erreur d’étiquetage attribuant faussement les objets à Laugerie-Basse (com. pers. V. Mistrot 2021) (échelle= 10 mm).

Figure 5. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Aquitaine, erroneously labelled as from Laugerie-Basse (pers. com. V. Mistrot 2021) (Scale bar= 10 mm). Parures de Cro-Magnon L. littorea conservées au Musée d’Aquitaine. Erreur d’étiquetage attribuant faussement les objets à Laugerie-Basse (com. pers. V. Mistrot 2021) (échelle= 10 mm).

Figure 6. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord : a) dorsal aspect, b) ventral aspect. (Scale bar = 10 mm).
Ornements de Cro-Magnon L. littorea conservés au Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord : a) face dorsale, b) face ventrale. (Échelle= 10 mm).

Figure 6. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord : a) dorsal aspect, b) ventral aspect. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Ornements de Cro-Magnon L. littorea conservés au Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord : a) face dorsale, b) face ventrale. (Échelle= 10 mm).

Figure 7. Cro-Magnon perforated shells curated at the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, housed at the Musée National de Préhistoire. 1-28 Littorina littorea, 29-31 Nucella lapillus (two of which are perforated) and 32 Luria lurida (unperforated) (Scale bar= 10 mm).
Parures en coquillages de Cro-Magnon conservées au Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, hébergées par le Musée National de Préhistoire. 1-28 Littorina littorea, 29-31 Nucella lapillus (deux sont perforées) et 32 Luria lurida (non perforées) (échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 7. Cro-Magnon perforated shells curated at the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, housed at the Musée National de Préhistoire. 1-28 Littorina littorea, 29-31 Nucella lapillus (two of which are perforated) and 32 Luria lurida (unperforated) (Scale bar= 10 mm). Parures en coquillages de Cro-Magnon conservées au Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, hébergées par le Musée National de Préhistoire. 1-28 Littorina littorea, 29-31 Nucella lapillus (deux sont perforées) et 32 Luria lurida (non perforées) (échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 8. Cro-Magnon lion canine curated at the British museum: a) buccal aspect, b) lingual aspect (Scale bar= 10 mm).
Canine de lion de Cro-Magnon conservée au British Museum : a) vue labiale, b) vue linguale (échelle = 10 mm).

Figure 8. Cro-Magnon lion canine curated at the British museum: a) buccal aspect, b) lingual aspect (Scale bar= 10 mm). Canine de lion de Cro-Magnon conservée au British Museum : a) vue labiale, b) vue linguale (échelle = 10 mm).

5 | Methods

23All of the personal ornaments, except those from the MAAP, were observed and photographed with a Wild M3C microscope equipped with a Nikon Coolpix 995. Those from the MAAP were observed and photographed with a Motic SMZ-168 microscope equipped with a digital camera Cannon 700 D. Scans of the ornaments were created with an Epson Perfection v600 photo scanner at 600 dpi resolution. Measurements were taken with a digital calliper (Mitutoyo 500-463).

5.1 | Marine shells

5.1.1 | Taxonomic identification

24Taxonomic identification of the shells involved two steps: the characterization of general shape for class determination (e.g., Scaphopoda, Gasteropoda, Bivalvia), followed by examination of the shape and ornamentation of scaphopods and bivalves (Poppe and Goto 1991), along with examination of the number of whorls, the form of the aperture, lip, ventral and dorsal sides, and ornamentation of gastropods to determine genus or species (Harasewych and Moretzsohn 2014; Poppe, Goto 1991). The nomenclature was taken from the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) (https://www.marinespecies.org, search performed on 12/06/2021).

5.1.2 | Morphometric analysis

25Differences in size between natural populations and archaeological assemblages can identify which shell sizes were preferred by prehistoric people. Morphometric variables (shell length and width, width of the spire and aperture) were recorded on well preserved archaeological specimens and reference collections. Two modern reference samples of L. littorea were hand-collected on the 7th of May 2021 at Moëze (n=40) and Fouras (n=248), Charente Maritime, France by one of us (SR). All shells visible to the naked eye (n=288) were collected and measured with a digital calliper.

5.1.3 | Microscopic analysis

26Shell surfaces show microscopic modifications testifying to events occurring either during the life of the mollusc or after death. In the case of shells collected and modified by prehistoric groups, microscopic analyses provide information concerning subsequent anthropogenic and taphonomic modifications (d’Errico et al. 2005; Kelley 2008; Manca 2018; Taborin 1993; Vanhaeren et al. 2013; Zuschin and Stanton Jr 2001). Anthropogenic modifications such as perforations, ochre staining and use-wear were systematically recorded as well as the minimum and maximum perforation diameter and the bridge width (i.e., the distance between the labre and perforation). The production method of the perforations was assessed following criteria established in the literature (Avezuela et al. 2011; d’Errico et al. 2005; Peschaux et al. 2022). The presence of use-wear at specific locations (i.e., perforation, apex, aperture) was recorded as is common in shell bead studies (e.g., Manca 2016; Rigaud et al. 2022).

5.1.4 | Statistical analysis

27The statistical analyses of the shell features were performed in R v4.2.0 (R Core Team 2019).

5.2 | Osseous ornaments

5.2.1 | Taxonomic Identification

28The osseous personal ornaments were visually inspected, compared to paleontological reference collections (collection PACEA) and subsequently assigned to a species and an anatomical element when possible.

5.2.2 | Red Deer canine

29The sex identification of the Red Deer canine was performed using the method proposed by d’Errico and Vanhaeren (2002). The determination of the Red Deer age was based on the collection of four qualitative morphological variables (d’Errico, Vanhaeren 2002): stage of root development (3 stages), stage of occlusal wear (5 stages), degree of pulp cavity fermature and the removal by wear of the disto-lingual-cervical-lobe (DLCL), a prominence found on the posterior edge of the lingual aspect of the crown (Greer, Yeager 1967).

5.2.3 | Shaped pendants

30The shaped pendants were analysed with an optical microscope. Anthropogenic and taphonomic modifications were recorded and photographed. High resolution digital photographs of the two ivory pendants were imported into Adobe Illustrator to produce a detailed tracing of these objects.

5.3 | Geographic diversity

31In order to compare the personal ornaments found at Cro-Magnon with those discovered at other Gravettian sites, we have considered for the shells the synthesis published by Taborin (1993) in addition to other available sources (tabl. 5). The maps were created on QGIS using ETOPO1 Global Relief Model data with a modern and Gravettian coastline at -100 m (Lambeck, Chappell 2001). One needs to be aware, however, that the accuracy of the attribution to the Gravettian or to a specific phase of this technocomplex is variable and dependent on the accuracy with which sites were excavated and ornaments recovered.

Table 5. Sites yielding similar ornaments to Cro-Magnon (Lalanne and Bouyssonie 1946; San Juan-Foucher and Foucher 2008; Taborin 1993); Vercoutère 2004).
Sites présentant un ou plusieurs types d’objets de parure similaires à ceux de Cro-Magnon (Lalanne and Bouyssonie 1946 ; San Juan-Foucher and Foucher 2008 ; Taborin 1993) ; Vercoutère 2004).

Table 5. Sites yielding similar ornaments to Cro-Magnon (Lalanne and Bouyssonie 1946; San Juan-Foucher and Foucher 2008; Taborin 1993); Vercoutère 2004). Sites présentant un ou plusieurs types d’objets de parure similaires à ceux de Cro-Magnon (Lalanne and Bouyssonie 1946 ; San Juan-Foucher and Foucher 2008 ; Taborin 1993) ; Vercoutère 2004).

6 | Results

6.1 | Conservation institutions housing Cro-Magnon ornaments

32Literature mining and the consultation of historical documents provided a potential list of museums, conservation institutions and private collections which could have potentially housed Cro-Magnon ornaments. Concerning the osseous ornaments, we located a total of five: two ivory pendants in the MdH, a bovid incisor, a Red Deer canine and an elongated shaped pendant at the MAN. The twelfth plate in Lartet et al. (1875) (fig. 9a and 9b) shows a close up of the elongated shaped pendant.

Figure 9. a) Osseous artefacts and perforated shaped point (illustrated by Lartet et al. 1875), b) close up of the elongated shaped pendant.
a) Objets en os et pointe perforée (illustrée par Lartet et al. 1875), b) gros plan du pendentif de forme allongée.

Figure 9. a) Osseous artefacts and perforated shaped point (illustrated by Lartet et al. 1875), b) close up of the elongated shaped pendant. a) Objets en os et pointe perforée (illustrée par Lartet et al. 1875), b) gros plan du pendentif de forme allongée.

33Of the circa three hundred shell ornaments mentioned in Lartet (1868), we were able to localise two hundred one (one hundred eighty-six L. littorea, one L. obtusata, four Turritella sp., seven Nucella lapillus, one Luria lurida, one nacre fragment and one Colus jeffreysianus) (tabl. 6).

Table 6. Modern locations of Cro-Magnon personal ornaments (* on loan from Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Toulouse, ** erroneously labelled as coming from Laugerie-Basse, *** the lion canine shows cut marks, Æ added to modern literature).
Lieux de conservation des objets de parure de l’abri Cro-Magnon (* en prêt du Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Toulouse, ** étiqueté par erreur comme provenant de Laugerie-Basse, *** le canine de lion montrant marques de coupe, Æ ajouté à la littérature moderne).

Table 6. Modern locations of Cro-Magnon personal ornaments (* on loan from Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Toulouse, ** erroneously labelled as coming from Laugerie-Basse, *** the lion canine shows cut marks, Æ added to modern literature). Lieux de conservation des objets de parure de l’abri Cro-Magnon (* en prêt du Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Toulouse, ** étiqueté par erreur comme provenant de Laugerie-Basse, *** le canine de lion montrant marques de coupe, Æ ajouté à la littérature moderne).

34We analysed one hundred twenty-five L. littorea housed in different institutions (tabl. 6). Ten additional L. littorea, on display at the MAN, could not be analysed. This was also the case for the L. littorea from the MAN used by Henry-Gambier (2002) for a radiocarbon date which was destroyed (tabl. 6).

35The L. littorea from the MAQ are labelled (fig. 5) as originating from Laugerie-Basse but are currently displayed at the museum as coming from Cro-Magnon. It is likely that this labelling is erroneous, and this is for four reasons. Firstly, the original museum ledger at the time of donation reads, « 23 littorines percées pour collier » (23 Littorines perforated for a necklace) from Les Eyzies. In this catalogue Laugerie-Basse is listed under a separate subsection and the listed items do not include Littorines. Secondly, the Paul de Vibraye collection housed at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), which comprises material from Laugerie-Basse does not contain Littorines either, only CardiumDentalium and Glycymeris species (pers. com. P. Paillet 2021). Thirdly, all of the L. littorea clearly coming from Cro-Magnon present the peculiarity of being extremely well preserved and keep the natural shell colour in contrast to those found at other Upper Palaeolithic sites which are all whitish pale in colour. This is a peculiarity shared by the L littorea kept at the MAQ and wrongly labelled as coming from Laugerie-Basse. Fourthly, the labelling itself, likely dating from the 1960s or 1970s, was done during a time when collections within the MAQ were moved around multiple times and the museum did not have a curator (pers. com. V. Mistrot 2021), which may have contributed to an erroneous labelling. Considering the above reasons, we have included these shells in our analysis.

36Taborin (1993) mentions the presence of a Hinia reticulata (now called Treticulata) amongst the Cro-Magnon ornaments but we were unable to locate this specimen.

37The labelling of a L. lurida shell kept at the MNP (fig. 7) as coming from Cro-Magnon is surprising since this specimen is not mentioned in the original literature. This could result from a mislabelling of a shell possibly coming from Laugerie Basse, a site that yielded several L. lurida specimens (Massénat et al. 1872; Rivière 1904; Taborin 1993). We have included this specimen in the analysis and will discuss later on the uncertainty linked to its association with the Cro-Magnon material.

6.2 | Marine shells

6.2.1 | Taxonomic identification

38In this study, one hundred thirty-eight shells interpreted as personal ornaments were identified. These belong to six species: one hundred twenty-five L. littorea, six N. lapillus, four Turritella sp., one L. obtusata, one C. jeffreysianus and one L. lurida.

6.2.2 | Preservation and taphonomy

39The shell ornaments show different degrees of surface preservation. Most of them are well preserved, few have partially lost their original colour (n=12), and some display a flaking off of the surface (n=18) (fig. 2, fig. 4, fig. 5, fig. 6, fig. 7). Differences in colour may reflect the origin of the shell, the whiter probably being those coming from fossil outcrops (fig. 5).

40There are multiple indications that many shells were collected after the mollusc’s death. As many as twenty-seven L. littorea and the Colus jeffreysianus shell (fig. 10a, b, c, d) show signs that they were attacked by bioeroders (Stefaniak et al. 2005; Walker 1998), nine L. littorea feature diagnostic holes caused by a predatory mollusc’s radula (Dietl, Kelley 2006; Gorzelak et al. 2013; Rojas et al. 2015) (fig. 10e, f), one L. littorea displays an aborted predation attempt (fig. 6). Finally, five L. littorea show a characteristic lunar-shaped hole on their apex caused by mechanical abrasion caused by wave action (fig. 10g, h).

Figure 10. Taphonomic modification of the shell ornaments: a & b) L. littorea showing characteristic bioerosion by endobiotic sponges (Scale bar a= 10 mm, b= 5 mm), c & d) Colus jeffreysianus showing characteristic bioerosion by endobiotic sponges (Scale bar c= 10 mm, d= 1 mm), e & f) L. littorea with a hole caused by the radula of a predatory gastropod (Scale bar e= 5 mm, f= 0.5 mm), g & h) L. littorea showing mechanical abrasion caused by wave action (Scale bar g= 1 mm, h= 0.1 mm).
Modifications d’origine naturelle documentées sur les objets de parure en coquillages : a & b - L. littorea montrant une bioérosion caractéristique de l’action d’un spongiaire (échelle a = 10 mm, b = 5 mm), c & d - Colus jeffreysianus montrant une bioérosion caractéristique de l’action d’un spongiaire (échelle c = 10 mm, d = 1 mm), e & f - L. littorea avec une perforation causée par la radula d’un gastéropode prédateur (échelle e = 5 mm, f - 0.5 mm), g & h - L. littorea montrant une abrasion mécanique résultant de l’action des vagues sur le sable (‘échelle g = 1 mm, h - 0.1 mm)

Figure 10. Taphonomic modification of the shell ornaments: a & b) L. littorea showing characteristic bioerosion by endobiotic sponges (Scale bar a= 10 mm, b= 5 mm), c & d) Colus jeffreysianus showing characteristic bioerosion by endobiotic sponges (Scale bar c= 10 mm, d= 1 mm), e & f) L. littorea with a hole caused by the radula of a predatory gastropod (Scale bar e= 5 mm, f= 0.5 mm), g & h) L. littorea showing mechanical abrasion caused by wave action (Scale bar g= 1 mm, h= 0.1 mm). Modifications d’origine naturelle documentées sur les objets de parure en coquillages : a & b - L. littorea montrant une bioérosion caractéristique de l’action d’un spongiaire (échelle a = 10 mm, b = 5 mm), c & d - Colus jeffreysianus montrant une bioérosion caractéristique de l’action d’un spongiaire (échelle c = 10 mm, d = 1 mm), e & f - L. littorea avec une perforation causée par la radula d’un gastéropode prédateur (échelle e = 5 mm, f - 0.5 mm), g & h - L. littorea montrant une abrasion mécanique résultant de l’action des vagues sur le sable (‘échelle g = 1 mm, h - 0.1 mm)

6.2.3 | Technological analysis

41At least three distinct techniques were used to perforate the L. littorea. The most common perforation technique (88.68%) consisted in exerting a pressure through the aperture with a pointed tool. This produced microflake scars on the outer surface of the perforation (fig. 11f, g). Five shells feature evidence of sawing (fig. 11a, b), or scraping (fig. 11c, d, e), the outer surface of the body of the last spire whorl followed by puncturing to enlarge the hole (4.71%) (Peschaux 2013; Rigaud et al. 2022). Three shells were perforated by exerting a pressure on the outer surface of the body of the last spire whorl, which produced microflake scars on the internal surface of the shell around the perforation (fig. 11h, i). The perforations created with this technique are unusually large compared to those made using the other two techniques (fig. 12a). Three L. littorea are too fragmentary and another too heavily covered with glue to identify the perforation technique applied.

Figure 11. Perforation methods of shell ornaments: a, b) L. littorea with perforation created by sawing and puncturing (Scale bar a= 5 mm, b= 1 mm) c, d & e) L. littorea with perforation created by scraping and puncturing (Scale bar a= 5 mm, d & e= 1 mm) f & g) L. littorea with a perforation created by pressure through the aperture (Scale bar f= 5mm, g= 1mm) h & i) L. littorea with perforation probably created by external pressure and rotation (Scale bar h= 5 mm, i= 1 mm).
Méthodes de perforation des ornements de coquillages : a, b) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par sciage et pression (échelle a = 5 mm, b = 1 mm) c, d & e) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par raclage (échelle a = 5 mm, d & e = 1 mm) f & g) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par pression à travers l’ouverture (échelle f = 5 mm, g = 1 mm) h & i) L. littorea avec une perforation probablement créée par pression externe et rotation (échelle h = 5 mm, i = 1 mm).

Figure 11. Perforation methods of shell ornaments: a, b) L. littorea with perforation created by sawing and puncturing (Scale bar a= 5 mm, b= 1 mm) c, d & e) L. littorea with perforation created by scraping and puncturing (Scale bar a= 5 mm, d & e= 1 mm) f & g) L. littorea with a perforation created by pressure through the aperture (Scale bar f= 5mm, g= 1mm) h & i) L. littorea with perforation probably created by external pressure and rotation (Scale bar h= 5 mm, i= 1 mm). Méthodes de perforation des ornements de coquillages : a, b) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par sciage et pression (échelle a = 5 mm, b = 1 mm) c, d & e) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par raclage (échelle a = 5 mm, d & e = 1 mm) f & g) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par pression à travers l’ouverture (échelle f = 5 mm, g = 1 mm) h & i) L. littorea avec une perforation probablement créée par pression externe et rotation (échelle h = 5 mm, i = 1 mm).

42The perforations of the L. littorea are highly varied in their dimensions, their distance from the labre (bridge width) and the production technique used. The maximum perforation diameter ranges from 8.05mm to 1.89mm. There appears to be no correlation between the shell length and the maximum perforation diameter (fig. 12a) but a negative correlation between shell length and minimum perforation diameter (fig. 12b). A clear positive correlation is observed between the maximum and minimum diameters of the perforations (fig. 12c). There is no correlation between the size of the shell and the bridge width (i.e., the distance between the labre and perforation) (fig. 12d).

Figure 12. Morphometric analysis of archaeological shells: a) biplot of shell length and perforation maximum diameter, b) biplot of shell length and perforation minimum diameter, c) biplot of minimum and maximum perforation diameters, d) biplot of the distance between the perforation and aperture edges (bridge) compared to the lengths of the shells. (Black= L. littorea, Red= Nucella lapillus, Green= Turritella, Blue= Colus jeffreysianus).
Analyse morphométrique des coquilles archéologiques : a) biplot de la longueur de la coquille et du diamètre maximal de la perforation, b) biplot de la longueur de la coquille et du diamètre minimal de la perforation, c) biplot des diamètres minimal et maximal de la perforation, d) biplot de la distance entre les bords de la perforation et de l’aperture (pont) par rapport aux longueurs des coquilles. (Noir = L. littorea, Rouge = Nucella lapillus, Vert = Turritella, Bleu =Colus jeffreysianus).

Figure 12. Morphometric analysis of archaeological shells: a) biplot of shell length and perforation maximum diameter, b) biplot of shell length and perforation minimum diameter, c) biplot of minimum and maximum perforation diameters, d) biplot of the distance between the perforation and aperture edges (bridge) compared to the lengths of the shells. (Black= L. littorea, Red= Nucella lapillus, Green= Turritella, Blue= Colus jeffreysianus). Analyse morphométrique des coquilles archéologiques : a) biplot de la longueur de la coquille et du diamètre maximal de la perforation, b) biplot de la longueur de la coquille et du diamètre minimal de la perforation, c) biplot des diamètres minimal et maximal de la perforation, d) biplot de la distance entre les bords de la perforation et de l’aperture (pont) par rapport aux longueurs des coquilles. (Noir = L. littorea, Rouge = Nucella lapillus, Vert = Turritella, Bleu =Colus jeffreysianus).

43The Nlapillus feature perforations created by exerting either a pressure on the internal or the external shell surface, as evidenced by the presence of microflaking around the perforation, on its external and internal surface, respectively (fig. 13a, b). The Turritella sp. shells were perforated by first sawing and scraping the outer surface of the shell and then enlarging the hole by rotation with a lithic point (fig. 13c). The C. jeffreysianus (fig. 13d) was probably perforated by internal pressure although this is difficult to state with certainty due to surface alterations.

Figure 13. Perforation methods of shell ornaments: a) N. lapillus with perforation created by pressure through the aperture, b) N. lapillus with perforation created by external pressure, c) Turritella sp. shell with perforation created by sawing, scraping and rotation, d) C. jeffreysianus with perforation created by internal pressure (Scale bar= 1 mm).
Méthodes de perforation des ornements de coquilles : a) N. lapillus avec perforation créée par pression à travers l’aperture, b) N. lapillus avec perforation créée par pression externe, c) Coquille Turritella sp. Avec perforation créée par sciage, raclage et rotation, d) C. jeffreysianus avec perforation créée par pression interne (Échelle = 1 mm).

Figure 13. Perforation methods of shell ornaments: a) N. lapillus with perforation created by pressure through the aperture, b) N. lapillus with perforation created by external pressure, c) Turritella sp. shell with perforation created by sawing, scraping and rotation, d) C. jeffreysianus with perforation created by internal pressure (Scale bar= 1 mm). Méthodes de perforation des ornements de coquilles : a) N. lapillus avec perforation créée par pression à travers l’aperture, b) N. lapillus avec perforation créée par pression externe, c) Coquille Turritella sp. Avec perforation créée par sciage, raclage et rotation, d) C. jeffreysianus avec perforation créée par pression interne (Échelle = 1 mm).

6.2.4 | Use-wear

44A bright sheen around the perforation or aperture lip, interpreted as resulting from use-wear, was recorded on all of the shells (fig. 14a et b). Two thirds of the shells (64.8%) only display a low degree of development of the sheen (fig. 15a), less than one third an intermediate degree (25.9%) (fig. 15b) and a small proportion (9.3%) a high degree.

Figure 14. Example of use-wear on a L. littorea ornament from Cro-Magnon: a) wide view of shell (Scale bar= 10 mm), b) close up of the use-wear (Scale bar= 1 mm).
Exemple d’usure sur un ornement de L. littorea de Cro-Magnon : a) macrophoto de la coquille (échelle = 10 mm), b) traces d’usure (échelle = 1 mm).

Figure 14. Example of use-wear on a L. littorea ornament from Cro-Magnon: a) wide view of shell (Scale bar= 10 mm), b) close up of the use-wear (Scale bar= 1 mm). Exemple d’usure sur un ornement de L. littorea de Cro-Magnon : a) macrophoto de la coquille (échelle = 10 mm), b) traces d’usure (échelle = 1 mm).

Figure 15. Slight and intermediate use-wear on L. littorea from Cro-Magnon: a) slight, b) intermediate. (Scale bar = 5 mm).
Usure légère et intermédiaire sur les L. littorea de Cro-Magnon : a) légère, b) intermédiaire. (Échelle= 5 mm).

Figure 15. Slight and intermediate use-wear on L. littorea from Cro-Magnon: a) slight, b) intermediate. (Scale bar = 5 mm). Usure légère et intermédiaire sur les L. littorea de Cro-Magnon : a) légère, b) intermédiaire. (Échelle= 5 mm).

6.2.5 | Ochre

45Ochre residue is observed on thirteen L. littorea (10.48%). A bright 1 mm wide red patch, clearly different in consistency and colour from the ochre residue, was observed on one L. littorea (fig. 16a, b).

Figure 16. Bright red residue found on one L. littorea (a & b) (Scale bar: a= 5 mm, b= 1 mm).
Résidu rouge vif trouvé sur un L. littorea (a & b) (échelle : a = 5 mm, b = 1 mm).

Figure 16. Bright red residue found on one L. littorea (a & b) (Scale bar: a= 5 mm, b= 1 mm). Résidu rouge vif trouvé sur un L. littorea (a & b) (échelle : a = 5 mm, b = 1 mm).

6.2.6 | Morphometric analysis

46The L. littorea from Cro-Magnon are significantly larger than those from both the Moëze and Fouras modern reference samples (Kruskal-Wallis U-test: P < 0.05, fig. 17atabl. 7, tabl. 8). The Moëze and Fouras collections also exhibit significantly different lengths from one another. L. littorea lengths of Cro-Magnon and Moëze are normally distributed (fig. 17b, d), but those from Fouras are leptokurtic (fig. 17c).

Figure 17. Archaeological and modern reference samples shell lengths: a) shell lengths box plots with Kruskal-Wallis values, b) shell length distribution of Cro-Magnon L. littorea with Shapiro-Wilk normality value, c) distribution of L. littorea length from Fouras with Shapiro-Wilk normality value, d) distribution of L. littorea length from Moëze with Shapiro-Wilk normality value.
Longueurs des coquilles des échantillons de référence archéologiques et modernes : a) box plots des longueurs des coquilles et résultat du test de Kruskal-Wallis, b) distribution des longueurs des coquilles de L. littorea de Cro-Magnon avec le résultat du test de normalité de Shapiro-Wilk, c) distribution des longueurs de L. littorea de Fouras avec le résultat du test de normalité de Shapiro-Wilk, d) Distribution des longueurs de L. littorea de Moëze avec le résultat du test de Shapiro-Wilk.

Figure 17. Archaeological and modern reference samples shell lengths: a) shell lengths box plots with Kruskal-Wallis values, b) shell length distribution of Cro-Magnon L. littorea with Shapiro-Wilk normality value, c) distribution of L. littorea length from Fouras with Shapiro-Wilk normality value, d) distribution of L. littorea length from Moëze with Shapiro-Wilk normality value. Longueurs des coquilles des échantillons de référence archéologiques et modernes : a) box plots des longueurs des coquilles et résultat du test de Kruskal-Wallis, b) distribution des longueurs des coquilles de L. littorea de Cro-Magnon avec le résultat du test de normalité de Shapiro-Wilk, c) distribution des longueurs de L. littorea de Fouras avec le résultat du test de normalité de Shapiro-Wilk, d) Distribution des longueurs de L. littorea de Moëze avec le résultat du test de Shapiro-Wilk.

Table 7. Kruskal-Wallis test results established between the L. littorea modern reference and archaeological samples.
Résultats du test de Kruskal-Wallis calculé entre les collections de référence modernes et les spécimens archéologiques de L. littorea.

Table 7. Kruskal-Wallis test results established between the L. littorea modern reference and archaeological samples. Résultats du test de Kruskal-Wallis calculé entre les collections de référence modernes et les spécimens archéologiques de L. littorea.

Table 8. Mean, minimum and maximum length of L. littorea from modern reference collections of L. littorea and archaeological specimens.
Longueur moyenne, minimale et maximale des L. littorea des collections de référence modernes et des spécimens archéologiques.

Table 8. Mean, minimum and maximum length of L. littorea from modern reference collections of L. littorea and archaeological specimens. Longueur moyenne, minimale et maximale des L. littorea des collections de référence modernes et des spécimens archéologiques.

6.2.7 | Shell origin

47The L. littorea and N. lapillus from Cro-Magnon were collected on the Atlantic coast (Burman and Påsse 2008; Leifsdóttir, Símonarson 2001; Palacios, Vega 1997). The L. lurida was collected on the Mediterranean coast (Ávila et al. 2007; Rivière 1904). The four Turritella sp. specimens (fig. 2), are discoloured and present a much worse state of preservation than the other shells. This suggests that they were collected at Miocene fossil outcrops, the closest of which are located around one hundred km from the site (Cossmann, Peyrot 1915). According to Taborin (1993 p. 404) the Ostrea sp. fragment also belongs to a fossil specimen (tabl. 6) available at Miocene outcrops.

6.3 | Red Deer canine

48The original surface of the Red Deer canine is damaged at places by surface exfoliation. The tooth was identified as a left canine of a Red Deer stag (fig. 18a, b). Based on the level of root development, occlusal wear, the degree of pulp cavity calcification and the removal of the DLCL, the animal was an old adult (nine to eleven years of age) (fig. 18a, b). The single perforation is located in the centre of the root, it is circular and bi-conical indicating the root was perforated by rotation on both sides with a stone tool. There were likely three distinct steps involved in the production of the perforation. Firstly, a facet was created on the surface of the buccal and lingual aspects of the crown with the spool of a burin, creating a concave area (fig. 18a, b). Secondly, the canine was scraped to further thin the crown (fig. 18c). The longitudinal striations created from this also then acted to stabilise the tool for the next step. The perforation was then created by manually rotating a pointed stone tool (Vercoutère et al. 2007) (fig. 18c, d). The perforation displays clear use-wear on its apical edge where the striations produced by rotation are smoother than those present on the opposite side (fig. 18c, d). The canine is covered with red-orange ochre which is particularly abundant inside the perforation (fig. 18c, d).

Figure 18. Red Deer canine pendant: a) lingual aspect (scale= 1 cm), b) buccal aspect (scale= 1 cm), c) close-up view of the perforation on the lingual aspect (scale= 1 mm), d) close-up view of the perforation on the buccal aspect (scale= 1 mm).
Canine de cerf perforée : a) vue linguale (échelle = 1 cm), b) vue labiale (échelle = 1 cm), c) photo de la perforation sur la face linguale (échelle = 1 mm), d) photo de la perforation sur la face labiale (échelle = 1 mm).

Figure 18. Red Deer canine pendant: a) lingual aspect (scale= 1 cm), b) buccal aspect (scale= 1 cm), c) close-up view of the perforation on the lingual aspect (scale= 1 mm), d) close-up view of the perforation on the buccal aspect (scale= 1 mm). Canine de cerf perforée : a) vue linguale (échelle = 1 cm), b) vue labiale (échelle = 1 cm), c) photo de la perforation sur la face linguale (échelle = 1 mm), d) photo de la perforation sur la face labiale (échelle = 1 mm).

6.4 | Bovid incisor

49The incisor is well preserved but there is exfoliation over 40% of the surface (fig. 3d). The incisor very likely originates from a Bovidae. However, the species and anatomical provenance are difficult to establish (pers. com. D. Armand 2022). The crown morphology suggests it comes from an adult animal. Two steps were involved in the production of the perforation. Firstly, longitudinal scraping using a robust lithic point was applied to thin the root and create two longitudinal elongated concavities on both the mesial and distal sides of the tooth. This was then followed by more focused scraping. The root apex is very polished by use-wear. A wide indentation on the lingual aspect, also due to use-wear, suggests a string was in contact with the tooth at this location.

6.5 | Lion Canine

50The apex of the lion canine bears two parallel cut marks on the buccal aspect (fig. 8a) but it is too broken to reliably identify it as a pendant.

6.6 | Shaped pendants

51The bi-perforated ivory pendant has an asymmetrical elliptical shape and has a spindle section (fig. 19a, b, fig. 20a, b). The dimensions of the pendant are 31.5 mm in length, 23 mm in width and 5 mm in thickness. Four post-depositional types of damage are recorded: ancient breakage removing the top edge, recent flake removal close to the bottom edge, fragments of the object glued close to the perforation and the bottom edge, root etching (fig. 19a, b, f). The pendant is covered with varnish which is particularly abundant on the aspect where the labelling of the pendant is written with ink. At the centre of this aspect the varnish was removed which gives access to the original surface of the object (fig. 19b).

Figure 19. Bi-perforated ivory pendant (a & b), c) right perforation, d) left perforation, e) parallel striations resulting from scraping, f) root etching damage. (Scale bar a & b = 10 mm, c - f = 1 mm).
Pendentif en ivoire biperforé (a & b), c) perforation droite, d) perforation gauche, e) stries parallèles résultant du raclage, f - altérations résultant d’une dissolution par impact racinaire. (Échelle a & b= 1 mm, c - f= 1 mm).

Figure 19. Bi-perforated ivory pendant (a & b), c) right perforation, d) left perforation, e) parallel striations resulting from scraping, f) root etching damage. (Scale bar a & b = 10 mm, c - f = 1 mm). Pendentif en ivoire biperforé (a & b), c) perforation droite, d) perforation gauche, e) stries parallèles résultant du raclage, f - altérations résultant d’une dissolution par impact racinaire. (Échelle a & b= 1 mm, c - f= 1 mm).

Figure 20. Tracing of the bi-perforated ivory pendant showing surface features marks (a & b).
Dessin du pendentif en ivoire bi-perforé montrant les marques des caractéristiques de surface (a & b).

Figure 20. Tracing of the bi-perforated ivory pendant showing surface features marks (a & b). Dessin du pendentif en ivoire bi-perfor&#xE9; montrant les marques des caract&#xE9;ristiques de surface (a & b).

52Several areas feature concentrations of dark ochre. The two perforations are similar in shape and have the same diameter (3 mm). Technological analysis shows that the perforations were produced by rotation (fig. 19c, d). Slight use-wear is observed on the edges of the perforations. Extensive striations run down the length of the pendant. Based on their morphology, the striations were produced by scraping with a retouched tool (fig. 19a, b, e). The striations fade towards the centre of the surface due to use-wear. The perforations cross-cut the striations indicating that they were produced after the object was carved (fig. 20).

53The mono-perforated ivory pendant is drop-shaped and has one curved and one flat side (fig. 21, fig. 22). The perforation is freshly broken (fig. 21c, d). The present dimensions are 16 mm in length, 13.2 mm in width and 4.5 mm in thickness. The flat aspect of the object is well preserved (fig. 21b). The curved one bears exfoliation removing approximately 10% of the original surface (fig. 21a). Two triangular incisions (fig. 21d) in contact with the perforation edge on one side and a single similar incision (fig. 21c) on the other side likely correspond to grooves made on the object’s surface to stabilise the tip of the tool used to perforate it. The few residual striations on the perforation’s surface demonstrate that it was then produced by rotation (fig. 21c, d).

Figure 21. Mono-perforated ivory pendant with punctures (a & b) a) curved aspect of the pendant, b) flat aspect of the pendant, c) perforation on the curved aspect. d) perforation on the flat aspect. e & f) puncture marks recorded on the curved surface filled in some cases with ochre. (Scale bar a & b = 10 mm, c - f = 1 mm).
Pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé avec des perforations (a & b) a) face courbe du pendentif, b face plane du pendentif, c) perforation Observée sur la face courbe, d) perforation observée sur la face plane, e & f) marques poinçon enregistrées sur la surface courbe remplies dans certains cas d’ocre. (Échelle a & b= 10 mm, c - f= 1 mm).

Figure 21. Mono-perforated ivory pendant with punctures (a & b) a) curved aspect of the pendant, b) flat aspect of the pendant, c) perforation on the curved aspect. d) perforation on the flat aspect. e & f) puncture marks recorded on the curved surface filled in some cases with ochre. (Scale bar a & b = 10 mm, c - f = 1 mm). Pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé avec des perforations (a & b) a) face courbe du pendentif, b face plane du pendentif, c) perforation Observée sur la face courbe, d) perforation observée sur la face plane, e & f) marques poinçon enregistrées sur la surface courbe remplies dans certains cas d’ocre. (Échelle a & b= 10 mm, c - f= 1 mm).

Figure 22. Tracing of the mono-perforated ivory pendant indicating the location of the punctures (a & b).
Dessin du pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé indiquant l’emplacement des traces de poinçon (a & b).

Figure 22. Tracing of the mono-perforated ivory pendant indicating the location of the punctures (a & b). Dessin du pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé indiquant l’emplacement des traces de poinçon (a & b).

54In well-preserved areas, the surface appears highly polished. Several elongated parallel grooves close to the edge opposite to the perforation, produced by a stone tool are heavily smoothed. This could be due to a deliberate polishing to homogenise the surface or to use-wear.

55Forty-eight puncture marks are present on the curved side (fig. 22a) and two on the flat side of the pendant (fig. 22b). Their morphology indicates, by comparison with experimentally produced marks, that they were either produced by pressure or more probably indirect percussion with a pointed tool (d’Errico 1995; Doyon et al. in press). Experimental reproduction of this technique has shown that one can identify the use of the same tool by examining the shape and internal morphology of the punctures. The punctures show two distinct morphologies, present on both sides of this pendant, one ‘star’ (fig. 21e) and the other ’spindle’ shaped (fig. 21f), indicating they were produced by two distinct points. Ochre residue, abundant inside the punctures (fig. 21f), certainly played a role in increasing their visibility. Ochre is also present all over the surface. Although now lost, the other ivory pendant featured by Lartet et al. (1875) also displayed a single perforation and had dimensions similar to the mono-perforated specimen (fig. 1f).

56The third shaped pendant has a conical and slightly curved shape (fig. 23a, b). No diagnostic features appear on its surface demonstrating that it is made of ivory. It has dimensions of 33 mm in length, a maximum width of 11.8 mm and minimum width of 4.2 mm. The perforation is situated at the wider end and has a diameter of 2.7 mm. Damage at the tip, and inside and around the perforation shows that the object is made of a bright white, homogenous material. Additional analyses are necessary to clarify whether this is the original pendant described by Lartet or a cast of it. No traces of rotation are visible on the perforation.

Figure 23. Elongated shaped pendant (a & b). (Scale bar = 10 mm).
Pendentif de forme allongée (a & b). (échelle= 10 mm).

Figure 23. Elongated shaped pendant (a & b). (Scale bar = 10 mm). Pendentif de forme allongée (a & b). (échelle= 10 mm).

7 | Discussion

57In spite of their complex curatorial history, our reappraisal of the Cro-Magnon ornaments was able to extract novel information on their provenance, production and use. The excavation of Cro-Magnon did not follow the standards of today, such as implementing wet sieving. Recent work has shown that approximately only 10% and 40% of personal ornaments are found at older and modern excavations without wet sieving, respectively (Granger, Airvaux 2010; Peschaux et al. 2022), and thus perhaps a large proportion of the ornaments from Cro-Magnon were not recovered. However, at the site of Rochereil (Rigaudet al. 2022) excavated from 1937-1947, recent wet sieving of the backdirt has allowed the recovery of many mammal bone remains and stone tools but no personal ornaments nor any examples of mobiliary art were found despite their high frequency in the old collection, showing that excavators paid attention to specific categories of remains during fieldwork (pers. com. P. Paillet). Additionally, the smallest ornaments recovered at Cro-Magnon were around 10 mm in length, which is the same length of the smallest ornaments recovered in the excavation of the nearby and penecontemporaneous site of Abri Pataud, which was excavated with wet sieving (Bricker 1995). Although the percentage of personal ornaments directly found from wet sieving is not known for Abri Pataud, the similar minimum lengths of the recovered personal ornaments from both sites suggests that smaller ornaments were not lost during the excavation of Cro-Magnon. Thus, whilst we do not know what the proportion of personal ornaments recovered from Cro-Magnon is compared to their original number, there are reasons for thinking that the recovered collection is representative of the bead types present in the original assemblage.

58Of the approximately three hundred personal ornaments mentioned in the original publications (Lartet 1868; Lartet et al. 1875), a total of one hundred forty-two (circa 47%) were analysed in our study (tabl. 4). This collection includes all of the different ornament categories found at the moment of the discovery of the human remains.

59The association of the ornaments with the Cro-Magnon individuals is supported by the original publication, which explicitly mentions their association (Lartet 1868 p. 346), and the presence of ochre on both the ornaments and the human remains (Henry-Gambier 2002; Henry-Gambier et al. 2013). Our results are consistent with this view since they highlight the homogeneous state of preservation of the most represented bead category, i.e., perforated L. littorea. The exceptional preservation of these beads suggests a similar taphonomic history indicating their burying in a similar depositional environment, which is consistent with the first excavation report mentioning their clear association with the human remains. Although all available evidence points towards a direct association of the L. littorea with the Cro-Magnon human remains, it is difficult to ascertain that this was the case for the other types of ornaments.

60For example, in the original report, the discovery of the bi-perforated pendant is described as follows; ‘Not far from the skeletons, I found a pendant or amulet of ivory, oval, flat, and pierced with two holes.’ (Lartet 1868 p. 346-347). Since we do not know what Lartet means precisely by ‘not far’ we cannot be sure if this ivory pendant was directly associated with the burials. This may also be the case with the perforated teeth: ‘There were also found near the skeletons several perforated teeth’ (Lartet 1868 p. 347). Nevertheless, it is clear from his report that both the ivory pendant and teeth came from the same layer as the human remains.

7.1 | Shell ornaments

61The site of Cro-Magnon was approximately three hundred and three hundred fifty km from the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts during the Gravettian occupation of the site, respectively (fig. 1a) (Lambeck, Chappell 2001; Lambeck et al. 2002). Two of the seven shell species reported at the site, L. littorea and N. lapillus, cannot be found at fossil outcrops and, considering their known palaeobiogeography and state of preservation (Burman and Påsse 2008; Leifsdóttir and Símonarson 2001; Palacios, Vega 1997), must have been collected from the Atlantic coast during the Gravettian. The potential presence of a single L. lurida, however, demonstrates that some shells found at Cro-Magnon may have come from the Mediterranean coast. The home range of historically known hunter-gatherers was approximately one hundred seventy-five km2 (Marlowe 2005) whilst their daily range is estimated to have been around ten km (O’Keefe et al. 2011; Pontzer et al. 2012). Both of these values are much lower than the distance from the site to both coasts, which would suggest that some or all of the shells found at Cro-Magnon may have been indirectly acquired through circulation networks. Networks of this size, implying the circulation of lithic and shell material, are attested at other Gravettian sites, such as Gargas (Aventignan, France), Isturitz (Isturitz, France) and La Gravette (Bayac, France) (Couche Noire) (Arrizabalaga et al. 2014; San Juan-Foucher, Foucher 2008; Taborin 1993). These three sites likewise contained L. littorea and Nlapillus specimens, which were introduced to the sites from the Atlantic coast. However, recent work (Delvigne 2016; Delvigne et al. 2020; Foucher et al. 2016) has suggested that long-distance movement of people, probably during seasonal migration, was a regular occurrence during the Gravettian. This implies that marine shells may have been collected by the Cro-Magnon group when visiting coastal areas.

62Collection of fossil shells, namely Turritella sp., is attested at Cro-Magnon. The collection of shells at Miocene outcrops during the Gravettian in the Aquitaine region is also attested at Laussel (Marquay, France), which has a fossil Nerita sp. specimen (Lalanne, Bouyssonie 1946; Roussot 2000; Taborin 1993), Gargas, which has a single specimen of Neritina picta and Granulolabium plicatum (San Juan-Foucher, Foucher 2008) and Abri Pataud which has four specimens of Granulolabium plicatum (Taborin 1993). Although the Gravettian facies to which the shells could be attributed at Laussel is unknown, these three sites confirm that during the Gravettian, fossil outcrops were exploited and collected shells could travel over long distances to other locations within and outside of the Dordogne region (San Juan-Foucher, Foucher 2008; Taborin 1993).

63Modern-day biocenoses in which the species used as beads at Cro-Magnon are found also include numerous other shell species, some of which could be used as ornaments (Monteiro et al. 2013) and were used for this function in other periods of the Upper Palaeolithic (Taborin 1993; Vanhaeren, d’Errico 2006). The overrepresentation of one of these species, L. littorea, is therefore the result of a deliberate cultural choice. The use of this species was widespread across Western Europe throughout the Gravettian (fig. 24). Similarities in the choice of other shell species, e.g.N. lapillus, are recorded at six Gravettian sites [El Cuco (Castro-Urdiales, Cantabria), Gargas, Garma (Omoño, Cantabria), Isturitz, La Gravette and Le Flageolet (Bézenac, Dordogne) (Arrizabalaga et al. 2014; San Juan-Foucher, Foucher 2008; Taborin 1993)] which also have L. littorea. This is probably indicative of similarities in Gravettian garments and their attached symbolic meaning.

Figure 24. Occurrences of L. littorea ornaments at Gravettian sites from western Europe. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites.
Occurrences de parures de L. littorea sur des sites gravettiens d’Europe occidentale. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation

Figure 24. Occurrences of L. littorea ornaments at Gravettian sites from western Europe. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. Occurrences de parures de L. littorea sur des sites gravettiens d’Europe occidentale. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation

64Microscopic analysis identified traces left by predators and sponges indicating that the shells were collected after their death, apparently with the sole purpose of being transformed into ornaments, and not for consumption (Dupont 2019). Comparison with modern assemblages initially suggests that L. littorea size was a factor at the moment of collection. However, because sea surface temperature and marine shell size are inversely correlated (Bailey and Craighead 2003; Gutierrez-Zugasti 2011), the larger size of the Cro-Magnon shells is therefore likely the product of the lower sea surface temperatures during the Upper Palaeolithic rather than a cultural choice.

65One specimen of L. littorea, one N. lapillus and the sole L. lurida are not perforated and do not bear any other trace of anthropogenic modification. They may still have been used for this purpose by using another attachment, possibly involving the use of an adhesive (Dayet et al. 2017; Rigaud et al. 2014). Alternatively, they could represent manuports kept by the Cro-Magnon people for exchange (Mansur et al. 2020). This would suggest that either they were not associated with the burial or were grave goods deposited close to the human remains.

66A variety of production methods were employed to perforate the shells, with exerting a pressure through the aperture being the most favoured technique. The propensity to use this method may be linked to the morphology of the L. littorea shell. Puncturing the shell through the aperture is probably the easiest method and the one which minimises the chances of breaking the shell.

67Morphometric analysis of the perforations and their location on the shells highlight interesting trends. The minimum/maximum diameter ratio of the perforations indicates that the will of the crafter was to produce subcircular holes (fig. 12c), the best strategy to thread the shell with a thin string. Some of the largest perforations probably correspond to the more heavily worn shells. The minimum diameter of the perforations demonstrates that the thread was probably smaller than 2 mm in diameter and must have been in some cases narrower than 1.2 mm, the minimum diameter of the smallest perforation. The fact that the maximum diameter of the perforations is not correlated with the shell size (fig. 12a) may be explained by differential use-wear or the application of similar threading methods not requiring specific hole size for larger shells. Smaller shells tend to have a larger minimum perforation diameter (fig. 12b). This is the probable result of the thinner shell wall of smaller shells being more heavily impacted by the puncture during perforation, which produced larger minimum perforation diameters. The bridge width, (i.e., the distance between the labre and perforation), is independent of shell length (fig. 12d). This could either indicate that the tool tip morphology was the same for each shell or could be the result of use-wear altering the width of the bridge.

68The presence of different degrees of use-wear on the L. littorea could result from the fact that the shell bead collection includes shells that were originally integrated into different beadworks, used for different time spans, that these beadworks were rejuvenated or reassembled with new shell beads, or that the intensity of use-wear depends on the type of ornament the shell beads were integrated in with necklaces, for instance, producing a higher degree of movement than bracelets or shells sewed onto clothing. We do not have enough contextual information to favour one of these hypotheses in particular.

69Many of the shell surfaces present ochre, indicating that they were at some point in contact with it. The number of L. littorea shells with ochre (n=13) is very unequal depending on the museum that houses it. Nine of the twenty-nine L. littorea shells at the MNP (31.03%) present ochre, whereas only one of the twenty-seven L. littorea shells (3.7%) at the MdH is ochred. This suggests that the shell beads were more ochred at the moment of discovery and that curatorial processes removed the residue on many of them.

70The ochre may have come from contact with ochred surfaces (e.g., skin, clothing or thread), or may have been deliberately applied to the shells to change their colour (Bouzouggar et al. 2007; d’Errico et al. 2009). The presence of ochre both inside and outside of the shells is consistent with its presence on both the thread and the material to which the shells were in contact (clothing, human skin). The presence of ochre on both the shells and the human remains indicate that either ochre was present on the ornaments and Cro-Magnon people during life , or was present on a cloth which protected the bodies or was poured on them whilst putting them in the grave, none of these hypotheses being mutually exclusive or easy to test at this site (Belcastro et al. 2010; Garilli et al. 2020; Mussi 2006; Reynolds et al. 2017; Villotte et al. 2019). Whatever the case, it is noteworthy that the occurrence of ochre is a common feature of Gravettian burials across Europe (d’Errico, Vanhaeren 2015; French, Nowell 2022).

71The bright red patch observed on one of the L. littorea could either be a residue of wax lacquer remaining from curatorial processes or is a residue of a special type of ochre. Further spectroscopic investigation should be carried out to ascertain the exact composition of this residue.

7.2 | Shaped pendants

72Mammoth bone fragments were found at Cro-Magnon (Lartet 1868; Movius 1969), indicating that ivory was available locally and that the pendants could have been produced by the Cro-Magnon people rather than obtained through exchange. This is confirmed by the presence of similar, unfinished ivory pendants in Early Gravettian levels at Abri Pataud (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013) (fig. 25).

Figure 25. Mono-perforated ivory ornaments from Level 5 of Abri Pataud. (Scale bar= 10 mm), adapted from Henry-Gambier et al. (2013).
Ornements en ivoire mono-perforés provenant du niveau 5 de l’Abri Pataud. (Échelle = 10 mm), adapté de Henry-Gambier et al. (2013).

Figure 25. Mono-perforated ivory ornaments from Level 5 of Abri Pataud. (Scale bar= 10 mm), adapted from Henry-Gambier et al. (2013). Ornements en ivoire mono-perforés provenant du niveau 5 de l’Abri Pataud. (Échelle = 10 mm), adapté de Henry-Gambier et al. (2013).

73Microscopic analysis of the pendant identified how the perforation was made and the technique used in their last stage in their manufacture. CT scans of the pendant may allow in the future to identify the precise provenance of the ivory fragments on the tusk.

74The four shaped pendants found at Cro-Magnon are substantially different in technology, size, shape and decoration. The elongated specimen is rare at Gravettian sites; the closest example being known at Grub-Kranawetberg (Antl-Weiser 2008). Of the three flat specimens, one is symmetrical in section, flat, elliptical and bi-perforated, the other two are drop-shaped and differ from one another, due to the presence of numerous punctures on both sides. Differences are also observed in the studied specimens in the way the perforations were made and the objects finished.

75Experimental reproduction by indirect percussion of punctures of sizes similar to those observed on the ivory pendant shows that substantial force needs to be exerted to produce visible punctures (d’Errico 1993, 1995; Doyon et al. in press). This could easily lead to the fracture of a thin object, such as the Cro-Magnon pendant. This implies that the Gravettian crafter must have mastered the puncturing technique, and the number of punctures suggests that their production was deliberate. This contrasts with their apparent random distribution on the surface and the presence of two of them on the flat surface of the object which is likely the one which was worn against the body. The use of two distinct points for their production may indicate that the markings occurred at different times suggesting they correspond to a form of symbolic notation.

76Interestingly, although drop-shaped ivory pendants are common throughout the Gravettian across Europe (fig. 26), none feature the puncture marks present on the mono-perforated pendant from Cro-Magnon (Antl, Bosch 2015; Antl-Weiser 2008; Broglio et al. 2004; Cârciumaru et al. 2019; Conard, Moreau 2004; Lázničková-Galetová 2015, 2019, 2021; Vercoutère, Wolf 2018).

Figure 26. Occurrences of Gravettian drop-shaped mono-perforated and elongated shaped pendants. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. A – Brillenhöhle, B – Geißenklösterle, C - Hohle Fels.
Occurrences des pendentifs en ivoire mono-perforés en forme de goutte et des pendentifs de forme allongée attribués au Gravettien. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation. A - Brillenhöhle, B - Geißenklösterle, C - Hohle Fels.

Figure 26. Occurrences of Gravettian drop-shaped mono-perforated and elongated shaped pendants. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. A – Brillenhöhle, B – Geißenklösterle, C - Hohle Fels. Occurrences des pendentifs en ivoire mono-perforés en forme de goutte et des pendentifs de forme allongée attribués au Gravettien. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation. A - Brillenhöhle, B - Geißenklösterle, C - Hohle Fels.

77Likewise, no bi-perforated ivory pendants similar to that from Cro-Magnon are found at Gravettian sites. Therefore, although the use of ivory for personal ornaments was widespread throughout the Gravettian, the bi-perforated, and to a lesser extent, the mono-perforated pendant are peculiar in regards to their shape, presence of punctures and double perforation. An explanation for these idiosyncrasies may be that the Cro-Magnon burial recruited individuals who had exceptional social status associated with exceptional ivory pendant types. This difference is also observed in the proportion these pendants occur at Cro-Magnon compared to the neighbouring site of Abri Pataud. Cro-Magnon features an abundance of L. littorea (circa three hundred) and a relative paucity of ivory pendants (n=3), whereas the contemporaneous Level 5 of Abri Pataud displays the reverse (two L. littorea and 12 ivory pendants) (Bricker 1995; Henry-Gambier et al. 2013). This difference may be due to the sites’ functions, i.e., habitation vs burial. An alternative hypothesis is that in spite of their proximity and penecontemporaneity, Cro-Magnon and Abri Pataud were frequented by different Gravettian groups wearing the same ornaments but in different proportions. Lartet (1868 - p. 346 – 347) mentions that the bi-perforated ivory pendant was found slightly away from the human remains. It is possible that the ivory pendants were not worn on the people’s body but rather used to decorate items such as bags, blankets and wooden objects, which would have resulted in their under-representation in burial contexts. This hypothesis is however partially contradicted by the discovery of similar ivory pendants in primary Gravettian burials from Eastern Europe (Pettitt 2013; Teschler-Nicola et al. 2020).

7.3 | Tooth ornaments

78The remains of many different faunal species (cave lion, bear, squirrel, wolf, ibex, fox, hare, wild boar, horse, reindeer and an unknown bird species (Movius 1969 p. 331)) which could have been used to make personal ornaments were found at Cro-Magnon. However, only three taxa (mammoth, Red Deer, and a Bovidae species) were used for this purpose, suggesting a cultural choice.

79Two production methods were used to perforate the animal teeth, longitudinal scraping and scraping followed by rotation. The low sample size makes it difficult to understand the reason for such a technological variability. The use of Red Deer canines as personal ornaments is well documented throughout all phases of the Gravettian across Europe (fig. 27). It is, however, noteworthy that the perforation method seen at Cro-Magnon is the one used at other Gravettian sites in the region, such as the specimen from Le Sire (d’Errico, Rigaud 2011), but different from specimens found in neighbouring regions, such as those from Arbreda Cave and Duruitoarea Veche Cave (Cârciumaru et al. 2019; Rufí et al. 2021). Future research focusing on the variability of perforation methods may identify geographic consistencies suggesting technology was culturally determined rather than depending on individual variation.

Figure 27. Occurrences of perforated Red deer canines at Gravettian sites. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites.
Occurrences de canines de cerf perforées sur des sites attribués au Gravettien. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation.

Figure 27. Occurrences of perforated Red deer canines at Gravettian sites. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. Occurrences de canines de cerf perforées sur des sites attribués au Gravettien. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation.

7.4 | Chronological attribution

80The overlapping radiocarbon ages, geographical proximity and the typological similarities between the personal ornaments of Level 5 of Abri Pataud and Cro-Magnon has led numerous authors to suggest that they were contemporaneous and dated to the Early Gravettian (Bougard 2014; Henry-Gambier et al. 2013; Movius 1969; Villotte, Balzeau 2018).

81The radiocarbon age obtained from the L. littorea shell was 27,680 ± 270 BP, calibrated with the calibration curve available at the time to an age of 31,324 – 32,666 cal. BP (Henry-Gambier 2002 ; Henry-Gambier et al. 2013 ; Reimer et al. 2009). When recalibrating this date using the currently accepted calibration curve (Intcal20), we obtained a more recent age of 31,126 – 32,752 cal. BP (Reimer et al. 2020), which is largely in agreement with the original calibration.

82However, because the radiocarbon date came from a marine shell, one must take the marine reservoir effect, i.e., the general overestimation of the radiocarbon age obtained from marine organisms (Ascoughet al. 2005; Mangerud 1972; Pettitt et al. 2003; Soares et al. 2016), into consideration when discussing the age obtained. When one applies the Marine20 calibration curve (Heaton et al. 2020), which attempts to take this marine reservoir effect into account, the calibrated age obtained is 30,396 – 31,509 cal. BP (although a specific correction based on geographic location must still be applied (Heaton et al. 2020; Heaton et al. 2022)). This is approximately one thousand years younger than the original calibrated age obtained by Henry-Gambier et al. (2013). Although this does not change the attribution to the Early Gravettian, it highlights the need for additional radiocarbon dating to more precisely assess the chronology of this key site. This endeavour is now facilitated by the recently improved chronological timeframe of the Western Upper Palaeolithic (Banks et al. 2019). Because the skeletons themselves do not contain collagen (Henry-Gambier 2002), it is clear that new 14C dating should be performed on the shells or other organic artefacts.

Conclusion

83Our reassessment of the available historical information on the circumstances leading to the discovery of the Cro-Magnon human remains and personal ornaments indicates that most of the ornaments, particularly the marine shells, were associated with the human remains. This is consistent with the presence of ochre residue on both the human remains and ornaments. The dispersal of the Cro-Magnon ornaments to numerous conservation institutions has prevented their comprehensive study. By combining modern taphonomic, morphometric and microscopic analyses and through comparison with more recently discovered sites and reference collections, this study has attempted to improve our understanding of Gravettian ornamental practices. The Cro-Magnon people profited from extensive exchange networks or long-distance movements as well as collection at fossil outcrops, hunting and possibly scavenging, to obtain the raw material to be used for personal ornamentation. Microscopic analysis has allowed us to identify the techniques used to perforate or to carve the ornaments as well as to evaluate the degree of use-wear. Despite sharing similarities with those from other groups, the ornaments from Cro-Magnon display a degree of distinctiveness emphasising the people’s desire to demonstrate their ownness within a wider symbolic framework. Recalibration of the only available radiocarbon age suggests that a dating campaign is necessary to more precisely attribute this iconic site.

Top of page

Bibliography

ALDHOUSE-GREEN S., PETTITT P. 1998 - Paviland cave: contextualizing the ‘Red Lady’. Antiquity, 72(278), p. 756-772. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00087354

ANTL W., BOSCH M. 2015 - The use of ivory at the Gravettian site Grub/Kranawetberg, Lower Austria. Anthropologie, 53, 1, p. 233-244.

ANTL-WEISER W. 2008 - Grub/Kranawetberg and Ollersdorf/Heidenberg (Lower Austria)-two Gravettian camp Sites in Eastern Austria. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus dem Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseum, 19, p. 59-78.

ARRIZABALAGA A., CALVO A., ELORRIETA I., TAPIA J., TARRIÑO A. 2014 - Where to and what for? Mobility patterns and the management of lithic resources by Gravettian hunter-gatherers in the Western Pyrenees. Journal of Anthropological Research, 70, p. 233-261.

ASCOUGH P., COOK G., DUGMORE A. 2005 - Methodological approaches to determining the marine radiocarbon reservoir effect. Progress in Physical Geography, 29, 4, p. 532-547. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133305pp461ra

AVEZUELA ARISTU B., MARTÍN LERMA I., MARÍN DE ESPINOSA SÁNCHEZ J. A., MUÑOZ IBÁÑEZ F.J. 2011 - Los adornos-colgantes en el Paleolítico superior: experimentación sobre las perforaciones en Littorina obstusata. In : A. Morgado Rodríguez, J. Baena Preysler, D. García Gonzalez (dirs.), La investigación experimental aplicada en la Arqueología, Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, Bloque II, XXXI, p. 263-269.

ÁVILA S.P., MADEIRA P., GARCÍA-TALAVERA F., DA SILVA C.M., CACHÃO M., MARTINS A.M. 2007 - Luria lurida (Gastropoda), a new record for the Pleistocene of Santa Maria, Azores. p. 53-56.

BAILEY G.N., CRAIGHEAD A.S 2003 - Late Pleistocene and Holocene coastal palaeoeconomies: a reconsideration of the molluscan evidence from northern Spain. Geoarchaeology. An International Journal, 18, 2, p. 175-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.10057

BANKS W.E., BERTRAN P., DUCASSE S., KLARIC L., LANOS P., RENARD C., MESA M. 2019 - An application of hierarchical Bayesian modeling to better constrain the chronologies of Upper Palaeolithic archaeological cultures in France between ca. 32,000-21,000 calibrated years before present. Quaternary Science Reviews, 220, p. 188-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.07.025

BARAY L., BRUN P., TESTART A. 2007 - Pratiques funéraires et sociétés. Nouvelles approches en archéologie et en anthropologie sociale. Dijon  : Éd. universitaires de Dijon, Université de Dijon, 419 p.

BELCASTRO M.G., CONDEMI S., MARIOTTI V. 2010 - Funerary practices of the Iberomaurusian population of Taforalt (Tafoughalt, Morocco, 11–12,000 BP): the case of Grave XII. Journal of Human Evolution, 58, p. 522-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.03.011

BOUCHUD J. 1966 - Remarques sur les fouilles de L. Lartet à l’abri Cro-Magnon (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société d’Études et de Recherches Préhistoriques et Institut Pratique de Préhistoire et d’Art préhistorique 24, p. 28-36.

BOUGARD E. 2014 - Le site de Cro-Magnon aux Eyzies : passé, présent et avenir. Bulletin Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 22, p. 27-39.

BOUGARD E., DELLUC G. 2014 - Dans notre iconothèque. Images et anecdotes. Bulletin de la Société historique et archéologique du Périgord, 141, p. 267-286.

BOURLON L. 1907 - Un os utilisé présolutréen. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 4, p. 262-263.

BOUZOUGGAR A., BARTON N., VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F., COLLCUTT S., HIGHAM T., HODGE E., PARFITT S., RHODES E., SCHWENNINGER J.L., STRINGER C., TURNER E., WARD S., MOUTMIR A., STAMBOULI A. 2007 - 82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, p. 9964-9969. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703877104

BOYD M.J., MORLEY I., RENFREW C. 2016 - Death Rituals, Social Order, and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World: Death Shall Have No Dominion. Cambridge University Press. 468 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014509

BREUIL H. 1907 - La question aurignacienne. Revue préhistorique, 2, p. 6-7.

BRICKER H.M. 1995 - Le Paléolithique supérieur de l’abri Pataud (Dordogne) : les fouilles de H. L. Movius Jr. : suivi d’un inventaire analytique des sites aurignaciens et périgordiens de Dordogne. Paris: MSH. 328 p. ill.

BROCA P. 1869 - On the crania and bones of Les Eyzies (Dordogne). Congrès international d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie préhistorique 1, Norwich London (1868), p. 168-175.

BROGLIO A., CILLI C., GIACOBINI G., GUERRESCHI A., MALERBA G., VILLA G. 2004 - Typological and technological study of prehistoric implements in animal hard tissues. Collegium antropologicum, 28, p. 55-61.

BRUZEK J. 2002 - A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 117, p. 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10012

BRUZEK J., MURAIL P., HOUËT F. 1999 - Diagnose sexuelle probabiliste (DSP) à partir de données métriques de l’os coxal. Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthropol. Paris, 11, 3-4, p. 484.

BURMAN J., PÅSSE T. 2008 - Oceanography in northwestern Europe during the last interglacial from intrashell δ18O ranges in Littorina littorea gastropods. Quaternary Research, 70, p. 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2008.03.007

CÂRCIUMARU M., NIȚU E.C., OBADĂ T., CÎRSTINA O., COVALENCO S., LUPU F.I., LEU M., NICOLAE A. 2019 - Personal ornaments in the Mid Upper Palaeolithic east of the Carpathians. Paleo, 30, 1, p. 80-97. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.4446

CHARLIER P., BENMOUSSA N., FROESCH P., HUYNH-CHARLIER I., BALZEAU A. 2018 - Did Cro-Magnon 1 have neurofibromatosis type 1? The Lancet, 391, p. 1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30495-1

CHIOTTI L., NESPOULET R., HENRY-GAMBIER D. 2015 - Occupations and status of the Abri Pataud (Dordogne, France) during the final gravettian. Quaternary International, 359, p. 406-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.060

CONARD N.J., MOREAU L. 2004 - Current research on the Gravettian of the Swabian Jura. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft fur Urgeschichte, 13, p. 29-57.

COPPOLA D., VACCA E. 1995 - Les sépultures paléolithiques de la grotte de Sainte Marie d’Agnano à Ostuni (Italie). In : Nature et Culture, décembre 1993. Liège : ERAUL 68, p. 795-808.

COSSMANN M., PEYROT A. 1915 - Conchologie néogénique de l’Aquitaine. Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux, 69, p. 157-305.

DAYET L., ERASMUS R., VAL A., FEYFANT L., PORRAZ G. 2017 - Beads, pigments and early Holocene ornamental traditions at Bushman rock shelter, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 13, p. 635-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.015

D’ERRICO F. 1993 - La vie sociale de l’art mobilier Paléolithique. Manipulation, transport, suspension des objets on os, bois de cervidés, ivoire. Oxford journal of Archaeology, 12, 2, p. 145-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1993.tb00289.x

D’ERRICO F. 1995 - A new model and its implications for the origin of writing: the La Marche antler revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 5, p. 163-206. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095977430001502X

D’ERRICO F., HENSHILWOOD C., VANHAEREN M., VAN NIEKERK K. 2005 - Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution, 48, p. 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.002

D’ERRICO F., RIGAUD S. 2011 - Crache perforée dans le Gravettien du site (Mirefleurs, Puy-de-Dôme). Étude archéozoologique, technologique et fonctionnelle. Paleo, 22, p. 301-3101. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.2172

D’ERRICO F., STRINGER C.B. 2011 - Evolution, revolution or saltation scenario for the emergence of modern cultures?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, p. 1060-1069. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0340

D’ERRICO F., VANHAEREN M. 2002 - Criteria for identifying red deer (Cervus elaphus) age and sex from their canines. Application to the study of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, p. 211-232. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0687

D’ERRICO F., VANHAEREN M. 2015 - Upper Palaeolithic mortuary practices: Reflection of ethnic affiliation, social complexity, and cultural turnove. In: C. Renfrew, M.J. Boyd, I. Morley (Éds.), Death rituals, social order and the archaeology of immortality in the ancient world: Death shall have no dominion, p. 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014509.005

D’ERRICO F., VANHAEREN M., BARTON N., BOUZOUGGAR A., MIENIS H., RICHTER D., HUBLIN J.-J., MCPHERRON S. P., LOZOUET P. 2009 - Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, p. 16051-16056. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903532106

DE SONNEVILLE-BORDES. D. 1960 - Le Paléolithique Supérieur en Périgord. Bordeaux : Delmas. 558 p. ill.

DELLUC B., DELLUC G. 2013 - Les squelettes de l’abri de Cro-Magnon. Datation et pathologie. Évolution des idées. Bulletin de la Société historique et archéologique du Périgord, 140, p. 243-274.

DELVIGNE V. 2016 - Géoressources et expressions techno-culturelles dans le sud du Massif central au Paléolithique supérieur : des déterminismes et des choix. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Bordeaux, 1297 p.

DELVIGNE V., FERNANDES P., TUFFERY C., RAYNAL J.P., KLARIC L. 2020 - Taphonomic method and database to establish the origin of silicites from the Middle Gravettian of La Picardie open-air site (Indre-et-Loire, France). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 32, p. 102369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102369

DIETL G.P., KELLEY P.H. 2006 - Can naticid gastropod predators be identified by the holes they drill? Ichnos, 13, p. 103-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940600848889

DILLEHAY T.D. 2012 - Selective complexity and adaptive mortuary behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, p. 14722-14723. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212756109

DOBROVOLSKAYA M., RICHARDS M.P., TRINKAUS E. 2012 - Direct radiocarbon dates for the Mid Upper Paleolithic (eastern Gravettian) burials from Sunghir, Russia. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 24, p. 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13219-011-0044-4

DOUKA K., CHIOTTI L., NESPOULET R., HIGHAM T. 2020 - A refined chronology for the Gravettian sequence of Abri Pataud. Journal of human evolution, 141, p. 102730.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102730

DOYON L., FAURE T., SANZ M., DAURA J., CASSARD L., D’ERRICO F. (in press) - A 39,600-year-old leather punch board from Canyars, Gavà, Spain. Science Advances.

DUPONT C. 2019 - Archaeological evidence for collecting empty shells along the French Atlantic coast: an important activity for coastal populations. Journal of Ethnobiology, 39, 2, p. 223-239. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.2.223

FABBRI P.F., GIACOBINI G. 2021 - Les sépultures italiennes du Paléolithique supérieur. Inventaire et observations anthropologiques. L’Anthropologie, 125, 2, p. 102863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2021.102863

FERNÁNDEZ E.Á. 2003 - Ejemplares perforados del gasterópodo Homalopoma sanguineum durante el Paleolítico superior en Europa occidental. Cypsela : revista de prehistòria i protohistòria, p. 43-54.

FERNÁNDEZ E.Á. 2007 - La explotación de los moluscos marinos en la Cornisa Cantábrica durante el Gravetiense : primeros datos de los niveles E y F de La Garma A (Omoño, Cantabria). Zephyrvs, 60, p. 43-58.

FOUCHER P., SAN JUAN-FOUCHER C., VERCOUTERE C., FERRIER C., SERONI-VIVIEN M.R. DE LA PENA P., FERNANDES P., SERVELLE C., COLONGE D. 2016 - Raw material procurement and use at Gargas Cave (Hautes-Pyrénées, France) : a Pyrenean-foothill economy during the Gravettian period. Munibe, 67, p. 253-268. https://doi.org/10.21630/maa.2016.67.mis10

FRENCH J.C., NOWELL A. 2022 - Growing up Gravettian: Bioarchaeological perspectives on adolescence in the European Mid-Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 67, p. 101430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101430

GARILLI V., VITA G., LA PAROLA V., VRACA M.P., BONFIGLIO L., SINEO L. 2020 - First evidence of Pleistocene ochre production from bacteriogenic iron oxides. A case study of the Upper Palaeolithic site at the San Teodoro Cave (Sicily, Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science, 123, p. 105221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105221

GIACOBINI G. 2006 - Les sépultures du Paléolithique supérieur : la documentation italienne. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 5, 1-2, p. 169-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2005.09.018 

GIACOBINI G. 2007 - Richness and diversity of burial rituals in the Upper Paleolithic. Diogenes, 54, 2, p. 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192107077649

GIRAUX L. 1907 - Ossements utilisés de Cro-Magnon. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France, 4, 5, p. 264-268. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1907.11558

GORZELAK P., SALAMON M.A., TRZESIOK D., NIEDZWIEDZKI R. 2013 - Drill holes and predation traces versus abrasion-induced artifacts revealed by tumbling experiments. PLoS One, 8, e58528. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058528

GRANGER J.M., AIRVAUX J. 2010 - Nouveaux éléments sur la parure du Magdalénien moyen de la Grotte de La Marche (Lussac-les-Châteaux, Vienne) : les coquillages. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 18, p. 123-139.

GREER K.R., YEAGER H.W. 1967 - Sex and age indications from upper canine teeth of elk (wapiti). The Journal of Wildlife Management, p. 408-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3798116

GUTIÉRREZ-ZUGASTI I. 2011 - Coastal resource intensification across the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in Northern Spain: Evidence from shell size and age distributions of marine gastropods. Quaternary International, 244, 1, p. 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2011.04.040

GUTIÉRREZ-ZUGASTI I., CUENCA-SOLANA D., DEL RÍO P.R., MUÑOZ E., SANTAMARÍA S., MORLOTE J.M. 2013 - The role of shellfish in hunter–gatherer societies during the Early Upper Palaeolithic: A view from El Cuco rockshelter, northern Spain. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32, 2, p. 242-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.03.001

GUYOMARC’H P., SAMSEL M., COURTAUD P., MORA P., DUTAILLY B., VILLOTTE S. 2017 - New data on the paleobiology of the Gravettian individual L2A from Cussac cave (Dordogne, France) through a virtual approach. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 14, p. 365-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.005

HARASEWYCH M.G., MORETZSOHN F. 2014 - The book of shells: a life-size guide to identifying and classifying six hundred seashells. University of Chicago Press, 655 p.

HARROLD F.B. 1980 - A comparative analysis of Eurasian Palaeolithic burials. World Archaeology, 12, p. 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979792

HAWS J., BENEDETTI M., CARVALHO M., ELLIS G., PEREIRA T., CASCALHEIRA J., BICHO N., FRIEDL L. 2021 - Human adaptive responses to climate and environmental change during the Gravettian of Lapa do Picareiro (Portugal). Quaternary International, 587, p. 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.08.009

HEATON T. J., BARD E., BRONK RAMSEY C., BUTZIN M., HATTE C., HUGHEN K. A., KÖHLER P., REIMER P.J. 2022 - A Response to Community Questions on the Marine20 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve: Marine Reservoir Ages and the Calibration of 14C Samples from the Oceans. Radiocarbon p. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/rdc.2022.66

HEATON T. J., KÖHLER P., BUTZIN M., BARD E., REIMER R. W., AUSTIN W. E. N., BRONK RAMSEY C., GROOTES P. M., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., REIMER P. J., ADKINS J., BURKE A., COOK M. S., OLSEN J., SKINNER L. C. 2020 - Marine20 - The Marine Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55,000 cal BP). Radiocarbon 62, p. 779-820. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.68

HENRY-GAMBIER D. 1986 - Étude des os d’enfants du gisement aurignacien de Cro-Magnon, Les Eyzies (Dordogne). Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 3, p. 13-25.

HENRY-GAMBIER D. 2002 - Les fossiles de Cro-Magnon (Les Eyzies, Dordogne). Nouvelles données sur leur position chronologique et leur attribution culturelle. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 14, 1-2, p. 89-112. https://doi.org/10.4000/bmsap.459 

HENRY-GAMBIER D. 2008 - Comportement des populations d’Europe au Gravettien : pratiques funéraires et interprétations. Paleo, Revue d’archéologie préhistorique, 20, p. 399-438. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.1632

HENRY-GAMBIER D., BRUZEK J., SCHMITT A., HOUËT F., MURAIL P. 2006 - Révision du sexe et de l’âge au décès des fossiles de Cro-Magnon (Dordogne, France) à partir de l’os coxal. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 5, p. 735-741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2005.12.011

HENRY-GAMBIER D., NESPOULET R., CHIOTTI, L., 2013 - Attribution culturelle au Gravettien ancien des fossiles humains de l’abri Cro-Magnon (Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France). Paleo, Revue d’archéologie préhistorique, 24, p. 121-138. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.2563

HIGHAM T., JACOBI R., BASELL L., RAMSEY C.B., CHIOTTI L., NESPOULET R. 2011 - Precision dating of the Palaeolithic: A new radiocarbon chronology for the Abri Pataud (France), a key Aurignacian sequence. Journal of human evolution, 61, p. 549-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.06.005

HUREL A. 2018 - 1868 : Le moment Cro-Magnon. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 30, p. 111-120. https://doi.org/10.3166/BMSAP-2018-0031

KACKI S., TRINKAUS E., SCHOTSMANS E.M., COURTAUD P., DORI I., DUTAILLY B. GUYOMARC’H P., MORA P., SPARACELLO V.S., VILLOTTE S. 2020 - Complex mortuary dynamics in the Upper Paleolithic of the decorated Grotte de Cussac, France. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, p. 14851-14856. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005242117

KELLEY P.H. 2008 - Role of bioerosion in taphonomy: effect of predatory drillholes on preservation of mollusc shells. In: M. Wisshak, L. Tapanila (Eds.), Current Developments in Bioerosion, Erlangen Earth Conference Series. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, p. 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77598-0_23

KITAGAWA K., CONARD N.J. 2020 - Split-based points from the Swabian Jura highlight Aurignacian regional signatures. PloS one, 15, p.e0239865.

KLÍMA B. 1968 - Das Pavlovien in den Weinberghöhlen von Mauern. Quartär–Internationales Jahrbuch zur Erforschung des Eiszeitalters und der Steinzeit, 19, p. 263-273.

KOZŁOWSKI J. 2015 - The origin of the Gravettian. Quaternary International, 359, p. 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239865

LALANNE J. G., BOUYSSONIE J. 1946 - Le gisement paléolithique de Laussel : fouilles du Dr. Lalanne. L’Anthropologie, 50, 1-6, p. 1-163.

LAMBECK K., CHAPPELL J. 2001 - Sea level change through the last glacial cycle. Science, 292, p. 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059549

LAMBECK K., ESAT T.M., POTTER E.K. 2002 - Links between climate and sea levels for the past three million years. Nature, 419, p. 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01089

LARTET É., CHRISTY H., JANES T.R. 1875 - Reliquiae Aquitanicae; Being Contributions to the Archaeology and Palaeontology of Périgord and the Adjoining Provinces of Southern France. London : Williams & Norgate, 205 p. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.25391

LARTET L. 1868 - Une sépulture des troglodytes du Périgord (crânes des Eyzies). Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 3, p. 335-349. https://doi.org/10.3166/bmsap-2018-0029

LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ M. 2015 - The phenomenon of Gravettian necklaces–Mammoth ivory necklaces from Dolní Věstonice I (Moravia, Czech Republic). Quaternary International, 359, p. 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.040

LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ M. 2019 - The symbolism of breast-shaped beads from Dolní Věstonice I (Moravia, Czech Republic). Quaternary international, 503, p. 221-232.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.035

LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ M. 2021 - Gravettian ivory ornaments in Central Europe, Moravia (Czech Republic). L’Anthropologie, p. 102870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2021.102870

LEIFSDÓTTIR Ó., SÍMONARSON L. 2001 - The mesogastropod Littorina littorea (Linné, 1758) in Iceland: palaeobiogeography and migration. Cainozoic research, 1, p. 3-12.

LINNAEUS C. 1758 - Systema naturae. Volume 1, Holmiae (Laurentii Salvii): Stockholm, 532 p. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.542

LIOLIOS D. 2006 - Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early Aurignacian. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, 45, p. 37-51.

MANCA L. 2016 - The shell industry in Final Neolithic societies in Sardinia: characterizing the production and utilization of Glycymeris da Costa, 1778 valves. Anthropozoologica, 51, p. 149-171. https://doi.org/10.5252/az2016n2a6

MANCA L. 2018 - L’emploi de la percussion directe diffuse et de la méthode de débitage par fracturation dans l’exploitation des coquilles. Exemples du Néolithique final et du Chalcolithique ancien de Sardaigne (Italie). In : M. Christensen, N. Goutas (dirs.), » À coup d’éclats ! » La fracturation des matières osseuses en Préhistoire : discussion autour d’une modalité d’exploitation en apparence simple et pourtant mal connue. Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Paris (25 avril 2017). Paris : Société préhistorique française (Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 13, p. 261-288.

MANGERUD J. 1972 - Radiocarbon dating of marine shells, including a discussion of apparent age of Recent shells from Norway. Boreas 1, p. 143-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1972.tb00147.x

MANSUR M.E., DE ANGELIS H.H., PARMIGIANI V.E., SONCINI M.C.A., BACH A.F. 2020 - Sociocultural Interaction and Symbolism in Prehistoric South America: Quartz Crystal Manuports from Tierra del Fuego. In: Pleistocene Archaeology-Migration, Technology, and Adaptation. IntechOpen. p. 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90851

MARLOWE F.W. 2005 - Hunter-gatherers and human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 14, p. 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20046

MASSÉNAT É. 1869 - Pointe de lance à Cro-Magnon. Matériaux pour l’Histoire primitive de l’Homme, 2, p. 367.

MASSÉNAT É. 1877 - Les fouilles des stations des bords de la Vézère et les øeuvres d’art de Laugerie-Basse. Matériaux pour l’Histoire primitive et naturelle de l’homme, 8, p. 1-3.

MASSÉNAT É., LALANDE P., CARTAILHAC É. 1872 - Découverte d’un squelette humain de l’âge du Renne à Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne). Comptes rendus hebdomadaires de l’Academie des Sciences, 74, p. 1060-1063.

MONCEL M.H., PUAUD S., DAUJEARD C., LARTIGOT-CAMPIN A.S., MILLET J.J., THEODOROPOULOU A., CRÉGUT-BONNOURE E., GÉLY B., VERCOUTÈRE C., DESCLAUX E., ROGER T. 2012 - La Grotte du Figuier (Saint-Martin-d’Ardèche) : bilan des travaux récents sur un site du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur de la moyenne vallée du Rhône (Sud-Est de la France). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, p. 35-67. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2012.14142

MONTEIRO P., BENTES L., OLIVEIRA F., AFONSO C., RANGEL M., ALONSO C., MENTXAKA I., GERMÁN RODRÍGUEZ J., GALPARSORO I., Borja A., CHACÓN D., SANZ ALONSO J.L., GUERRA M.T., GAUDÊNCIO M.J., MENDES B., HENRIQUES V., BAJJOUK T., BERNARD M., HILY C., VASQUEZ M., POPULUS J., GONÇALVES J.M.S. 2013 - Atlantic Area Eunis Habitats. Adding new habitat types from European Atlantic coast to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Technical Report No.3/2013 - MeshAtlantic, CCMAR-Universidade do Algarve, Faro, 72 p.

MOVIUS H.L. 1969 - The abrí Cro-Magnon, les Eyzies (Dordogne), and the probable Age of the contained burials on the basis of the evidence of the nearby Abrí Pataud. Anuario de estudios atlanticos, 1, p. 323-344.

MUSSI M. 2006 - Earliest Italy: an overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 402 p.

MUSSI M., ROEBROEKS W., SVOBODA J. 2000 - Hunters of the Golden Age: An Introduction. In: W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda, K. Fennema (Eds.) Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia (30.000-20.000 bp). Leiden: Leiden University Press, p. 2-11.

NOWELL A. 2020 - Reconsidering the Personhood of Gravettian Infants. Journal of Anthropological Research, 76, p. 232-250. https://doi.org/10.1086/708395

O’KEEFE J.H., VOGEL R., LAVIE C.J., CORDAIN L. 2011 - Exercise like a hunter-gatherer: a prescription for organic physical fitness. Progress in cardiovascular diseases, 53, p. 471-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2011.03.009

PALACIOS N., VEGA J.J. 1997 - Guía de conchas de las playas y rías de Cantabria. Santander : Consejería de Medio Ambiente de la Diputación Regional de Cantabria, 240 p.

PARTIOT C., TRINKAUS E., KNÜSEL C.J., VILLOTTE S. 2020 - The Cro-Magnon babies: Morphology and mortuary implications of the Cro-Magnon immature remains. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 30, p. 102257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102257

PESCHAUX C. 2013 - Los adornos solutrenses : identificación de un nuevo procedimiento de perforación de las conchas en Lachaud (Terrasson, Dordoña, Francia). Espacio Tiempo y Forma. Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueología, 1, p. 333-349. https://doi.org/10.5944/etfi.5.2012.5369

PESCHAUX C., BODU P., LOZOUET P., VANHAEREN M. 2022 - Le mont Saint-Aubin à Oisy (Nièvre, France) : un lieu de production d’objets de parure sur coquilles du Badegoulien, Gallia-Préhistoire, 62, p. 123-150.

PESESSE D. 2008a - Place du Bayacien dans la structuration du Gravettien. Gallia préhistoire, 50, p. 23-44. https://doi.org/10.3406/galip.2008.2457

PESESSE D. 2008b - Le statut de la fléchette au sein des premières industries gravettiennes. Paleo, 20, p. 277-290. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.1572

PETRU S. 2018 - Identity and fear–burials in the Upper Palaeolithic. Documenta Praehistorica, 45, p. 6-13. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.45–1

PETTITT P.B. 2013 - The Palaeolithic origins of human burial. London: Routledge, 320p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813300

PETTITT P.B., DAVIES W., GAMBLE C.S., RICHARDS M.B. 2003 - Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archaeological science, 30, p. 1685-1693. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-4403(03)00070-0

PEYRONY D. 1908 - Nouvelles recherches à Cro-Magnon. Congrès Préhistorique de France, 3e session - Autun 1907, 1, p. 182-185.

PITTARD E. 1962 - Une gravure de Cro-Magnon (Dordogne) exilée à Neuchâtel (Suisse). Bulletin de la Société d’Etudes et de Recherches préhistoriques et Institut Pratique de Préhistoire et d’Art préhistorique, 24, Les Eyzies, 12, p. 36-39.

PONTZER H., RAICHLEN D.A., WOOD B.M., MABULLA A.Z., RACETTE S.B., MARLOWE F.W. 2012 - Hunter-gatherer energetics and human obesity. PloS one, 7, p.e40503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503

POPPE G.T., GOTO Y. 1991 - European seashells, Volume I. Hachenheim: Conch Books., Hemmen, Wiesbaden, Allemagne: Verlag Christa Hemmens, 352 p.

PRAT S., PÉAN S.C., CRÉPIN L., DRUCKER D.G., PUAUD S.J., VALLADAS H., LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ M., VAN DER PLICHT J., YANEVICH A. 2011 - The oldest anatomically modern humans from far southeast Europe: direct dating, culture and behavior. PloS one, 6(6), p.e20834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020834

PRUNER-BEY F. 1868 - Description sommaire des restes humains découverts dans les Grottes de Cro-Magnon, prés de la station des Eyzies, arrondissement de Sarlay (Dordogne), en Avril 1868. Annales de Sciences Naturelles. Zoologie et Paléontologie, 10, p. 145-55.

PUECH P.F., PUECH B. 2012 - Can we still hear the Cro-magnon man ? AMHA-Acta medico-historica Adriatica, 10, p. 331-338.

R CORE TEAM 2019 - R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org

REIMER P.J., AUSTIN W.E., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BLACKWELL P.G., RAMSEY C.B., BUTZIN M., CHENG H., EDWARDS R.L., FRIEDRICH M. 2020 - The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon, 62, p. 725-757.

REIMER P.J., BAILLIE M.G. L., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BECK J.W., BLACKWELL P.G., BRONK RAMSEY C., BUCK C.E., BURR G.S., EDWARDS R.L., FRIEDRICH M., GROOTES P.M., GUILDERSON T.P., HAJDAS I., HEATON T.J., HOGG A.G., HUGHEN K.A., KAISER K.F., KROMER B., MCCORMAC F.G., MANNING S.W., REIMER R.W., RICHARDS D.A., SOUTHON J.R., TALAMO S., TURNEY C.S.M., VAN DER PLICHT J., WEYHENMEYER C. E. 2009 - IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 51, 4, p. 1111-1150.

REYNOLDS N., DINNIS R., BESSUDNOV A.A., DEVIÈSE T., HIGHAM T. 2017 - The Kostënki 18 child burial and the cultural and funerary landscape of Mid Upper Palaeolithic European Russia. Antiquity, 91, p. 1435-1450.

RIEL-SALVATORE J., CLARK G., DAVIDSON I., NOBLE W., D’ERRICO F., VANHAEREN M., GARGETT R.H., HOVERS E., BELFER-COHEN A., KRANTZ G.S., LARSSON L. 2001 - Grave markers: Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic burials and the use of chronotypology in contemporary Paleolithic research. Current Anthropology, 42, p. 449-479.

RIGAUD S., O’HARA J., CHARLES L., MAN-ESTIER E., PAILLET P. 2022 - The management of symbolic raw materials in the Late Upper Paleolithic of South-Western France: a shell ornaments perspective. SocArXiv, z7pqg, ver. 4 peer reviewed and recommended by Peer community in Archaeology, p. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/z7pqg

RIGAUD S., VANHAEREN M., QUEFFELEC A., LE BOURDON G., D’ERRICO F. 2014 - The way we wear makes the difference: residue analysis applied to Mesolithic personal ornaments from Hohlenstein-Stadel (Germany). Archaeological and Anthropological sciences, 6, 2, p. 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-013-0169-9

RIVIÈRE É. 1895 - Nouvelles recherches anthropologiques et paléontologiques dans la Dordogne. Association française pour l’avancement des sciences, 23e session, Caen, 1894. Notes et mémoires, p. 709-722.

RIVIÈRE É. 1897 - Nouvelles recherches à Cro-Magnon. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 8, p. 503-508.

RIVIÈRE É. 1904 - Bracelets, parures, monnaies d’échanges, fétiches. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France, 1, 3, p. 83-89.

ROJAS A., HENDY A., DIETL G.P. 2015 - Edge-drilling behavior in the predatory gastropod Notocochlis unifasciata (Lamarck, 1822) (Caenogastropoda, Naticidae) from the Pacific coast of Panama: taxonomic and biogeographical implications. Vita Malacologica, 13, p. 63-72.

ROSSANO M.J. 2010 - Making friends, making tools, and making symbols. Current Anthropology, 51, p. 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1086/650481

ROUSSOT A. 2000 - La Vénus à la corne et Laussel. Luçons : Éditions Sud Ouest, 32 p.

RUFÍ I., LLOVERAS L., SOLER J., SOLER N. 2021 - Subsistence practices in western Mediterranean Europe during the Final Gravettian. Zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis of faunal remains from level D of Arbreda Cave (Serinyà, NE Iberian Peninsula). Journal of Quaternary Science, 36, p. 467-487. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3294

RUGGIERI M., PRATICÒ A.D., CATANZARO S., PALMUCCI S., POLIZZI A. 2018 - Did Cro-Magnon 1 have neurofibromatosis type 2? The Lancet, 392(10148), p. 632-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31544-7

SAN JUAN-FOUCHER C., FOUCHER P. 2008 - Marine shell beads from the Gravettian at Gargas cave (Hautes-Pyrénées, France), cultural and territorial markers. In Marine shell beads from the Gravettian at Gargas cave (Hautes-Pyrénées, France): cultural and territorial markers, 31, Aranzadi, p. 28-35.

SAN JUAN-FOUCHER C., FOUCHER P., CAP H., VERCOUTÈRE C. 2012 - Découverte d’une dent perforée de Lynx boréal dans les niveaux gravettiens de la grotte de Gargas (Hautes-Pyrénées, France). Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Toulouse, 148, p. 83-92. 

SARRADET M. 1975 - L’art préhistorique du Périgord : répertoire des grottes et abris du Périgord présentant des décors pariétaux ou ayant fourni des oeuvres d’art préhistoriques. Capo di Ponte : Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, 80 p.

SCHMITT A. 2001 - Variabilité de la sénescence du squelette humain. Réflexions sur les indicateurs de l’âge au décès : à la recherche d’un outil performant. Thèse de doctorat, Université Sciences et Technologies-Bordeaux I. 347 p.

SCHMITT A. 2002 - Estimation de l’âge au décès des sujets adultes à partir du squelette : des raisons d’espérer. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 14, p. 51-73. https://doi.org/10.4000/bmsap.256

SINITSYN A.A. 2010 - Figurative and decorative art of Kostenki: chronological and cultural differentiation. L’art pléistocène dans le monde. Actes du Congrès IFRAO. Tarascon-sur-Ariège. p. 269-271.

SOARES A.M.M. GUTIERREZ-ZUGASTI I., GONZALEZ-MORALES M., MARTINS J.M.M., CUENCA-SOLANA D., BAILEY G.N. 2016 - Marine radiocarbon reservoir effect in late Pleistocene and early Holocene coastal waters off northern Iberia. Radiocarbon, 58, p. 869-883. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.71

SOLER J., SOLER N., AGUSTÍ B., BOLUS M. 2013 - The Gravettian calvaria from Mollet III cave (Serinyà, Northeastern Iberian Peninsula). Journal of human evolution, 65, 32, p. 2e329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.03.005 

STEFANIAK L.M., MCATEE J., SHULMAN M.J. 2005 - The costs of being bored: effects of a clionid sponge on the gastropod Littorina littorea (L). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 327, p. 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2005.06.007

STINER M.C. 1999 - Palaeolithic mollusc exploitation at Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi, Italy): food and ornaments from the Aurignacian through Epigravettian. Antiquity, 73, 282, p. 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00065492

TABORIN Y. 1993 - La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique. 29e supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. Éditions du CNRS, Paris. 538 p.

TESCHLER-NICOLA M., FERNANDES D., HÄNDEL M., EINWÖGERER T., SIMON U., NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH C., TANGL S., HEIMEL P., DOBSAK T., RETZMANN A., PROHASKA T. 2020 - Ancient DNA reveals monozygotic newborn twins from the Upper Palaeolithic. Communications biology, 3, 1, p. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01372-8 

THIBEAULT A., VILLOTTE S. 2018 - Disentangling Cro-Magnon: a multiproxy approach to reassociate lower limb skeletal remains and to determine the biological profiles of the adult individuals. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 21, p. 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.06.038

TRINKAUS E., LACY S.A., THIBEAULT A., VILLOTTE S. 2021 - Disentangling Cro-Magnon: The dental and alveolar remains. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 37, p. 102911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102911

VALLOIS H.V. 1968 - La découverte des hommes de Cro-Magnon, son importance anthropologique. L’Homme de Cro-Magnon. Anthropologie et archeologie. Paris : Arts et metiers graphiques, p. 11-22.

VALLOIS H.V., BILLY G. 1965 - Nouvelles recherches sur les hommes fossiles de l’abri Cro-Magnon. L’Anthropologie (Paris) 69, 1-2, p. 47-74.

VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F. 2006 - Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of archaeological science, 33, 8, p. 1105-1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.11.017

VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F. 2011 - L’émergence du corps paré. Objets corporels paléolithiques. Civilisations. Revue internationale d’anthropologie et de sciences humaines, 59, 2, p. 59-86. https://doi.org/10.4000/civilisations.2589

VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F., VAN NIEKERK K.L., HENSHILWOOD C.S., ERASMUS R.M. 2013 - Thinking strings: additional evidence for personal ornament use in the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Journal of human evolution, 64, 6, p. 500-517.

VERCOUTÈRE C. 2004 - Utilisation de l’animal comme ressource de matières premières non-alimentaires : industrie osseuse et parure, exemple de l’abri Pataud (Dordogne, France). Thèse de doctorat, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, 265 p.

VERCOUTÈRE C., PATOU-MATHIS M., GIACOBINI G. 2007 - The importance of the paleontological and taphonomical analyses for the study of bone industries. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, BAR S, 1622, p. 23-34.

VERCOUTÈRE C., WOLF S. 2018 - Gravettian tear-drop-shaped beads. L’Anthropologie, 122, p. 385-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2017.10.002

VILLAVERDE V., REAL C., ROMAN D., ALBERT R.M., BADAL E., BEL M.Á., BERGADÀ M.M., DE OLIVEIRA P., EIXEA A., ESTEBAN I., MARTÍNEZ-ALFARO, Á. 2019 - The early Upper Palaeolithic of Cova de les Cendres (Alicante, Spain). Quaternary International, 515, p. 92-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.11.051 

VILLAVERDE V., ROMAN, D. 2004 - Avance al estudio de los niveles gravetienses de la Cova de les Cendres. Resultados de la excavación del sondeo (cuadros A/B/C-17) y su valoración en el contexto del Gravetiense mediterráneo ibérico. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina, 25, p. 19-59.

VILLOTTE S., BALZEAU A. 2018 - Que reste-t-il des Hommes de Cro-Magnon 150 ans après leur découverte ? Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 30, p. 146-152. https://doi.org/10.3166/bmsap-2018-0026

VILLOTTE S., BRUZEK J., HENRY-GAMBIER D. 2011 - Caractéristiques biologiques des sujets adultes gravettiens : révision de l’âge au décès et du sexe. In : Goutas N., Klaric L., Pesesse, D., Guillermin P. (Éds.),À la recherche des identités gravettiennes : actualités, questionnements et perspectives. Actes de la table ronde sur le Gravettien en France et dans les pays limitrophes, Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française, 52, p. 209-216.

VILLOTTE S., CREPIN L., RUE M., BOCAEGE E., LE LUYER M., MADELAINE S., CAVERNE J.B., MORALA A. 2019 - Evidence for previously unknown mortuary practices in the southwest of France (Fournol, Lot) during the Gravettian. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 27, p. 101959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101959

VILLOTTE S., THIBEAULT A., SPARACELLO V., TRINKAUS E. 2020 - Disentangling Cro-Magnon: The adult upper limb skeleton. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 33, p. 102475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102475

WALKER S.E. 1998 - Endobionts on modern and fossil Turritella from the northern Gulf of California region. Ichnos: An International Journal of Plant & Animal, 6, p. 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10420949809386441

WILCZYŃSKI J., GOSLAR T., WOJTAL P., OLIVA M., GÖHLICH U.B., ANTL-WEISER W., ŠÍDA P., VERPOORTE A., LENGYEL G. 2020 - New Radiocarbon Dates for the Late Gravettian in Eastern Central Europe. Radiocarbon, 62, p. 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2019.111

WILCZYNSKI J., ŠIDA, P., KUFEL-DIAKOWSKA B., MROCZEK P., PRYOR A., OBERC T., SOBIERAJ D., LENGYEL G. 2021 - Population mobility and lithic tool diversity in the Late Gravettian -The case study of Lubná VI (Bohemian Massif). Quaternary International, 587, p. 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.08.046

WOLPOFF M.H., FRAYER D.W., JELÍNEK J. 2006 - Aurignacian female crania and teeth from the Mladeč Caves, Moravia, Czech Republic, In: M. Teschler-Nicola (Éds.), Early Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate. Springer Science & Media p. 273-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-49294-9_10

WYGAL B.T., KRASINSKI K.E., HOLMES C.E., CRASS B.A., SMITH K.M. 2022 - Mammoth Ivory Rods in Eastern Beringia: Earliest in North America. American Antiquity, 87, 1, p. 59-79. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.63

ZILHÃO J., TRINKAUS E. 2002 - Portrait of the Artist as a Child. The Gravettian human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its archaeological context. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 22, 609 p.

ZUSCHIN M., STANTON JR R.J. 2001 - Experimental measurement of shell strength and its taphonomic interpretation. Palaios, 16, 2, p. 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1669/0883-1351(2001)016<0161:EMOSSA>2.0.CO;2 

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Figure 1. a) Map showing the location of Cro-Magnon rockshelter. Created on QGIS using ETOPO1 Global Relief Model data with a modern and Gravettian coastline at -100 m (Lambeck and Chappell 2001). b) Stratigraphy of Cro-Magnon rock-shelter as established by Lartet in 1868. A)- Limestone Debris. B) Ash deposit. C) Limestone debris. D) Second Ash deposit. E) Limestone debris coloured red by fire. F) Third Ash deposit. G) Red earth with bones. H) Thick layer of Ash with bones (main hearth). I) Yellow earth with bones. J) Thin bed of washed Gravel. K) Limestone Scree. L) Removed Talus. N) Crack in ceiling of Rock-shelter. P) Cretaceous Limestone. a) Elephant Tusk. b) ‘Le Vieillard’ Skeleton. c) Gneiss block. d) Human remains. e) Collapsed Limestone blocks. c) plan of Cro-Magnon. P) Limestone. ) central portion of layer H. Y) base of pillar built to support roof. a) tusk of elephant. b) skull of ‘Le Vieillard’. d) human remains. e) Slabs fallen from roof. m) woman remains. n)– Human remains (Images from Lartet 1868). d) Skull of ‘Le Vieillard’ (image adapted from Henry-Gambier et al. 2013). e) Skull of Cro-Magnon 2 (image adapted from Wolpoff et al. 2006). f) Personal ornaments found in association with the human remains (image from Lartet et al. 1875). a) Localisation de l’abri-sous-roche de Cro-Magnon. Carte créée avec QGIS en utilisant les données du modèle de relief global ETOPO1 avec une ligne de côte moderne et une ligne de côte correspondant au niveau marin durant le Gravettien 100 m plus bas que l’actuel (Lambeck et Chappell 2001) b) Stratigraphie de l’abri-sous-roche de Cro-Magnon telle qu’établie par Lartet en 1868. A) Débris calcaires. B) Dépôt de cendres. C) Débris calcaires. D) Deuxième dépôt de cendres. E) Débris calcaires rubéfiés. F) Troisième dépôt de cendres. G) Sédiment rouge avec ossements. H) Épaisse couche de cendres avec ossements (foyer principal). I) Sédiment jaune avec ossements. J) Mince couche de gravier. K) Éboulis calcaires. L) Talus. N) Fissure dans le plafond de l’abri sous roche. P) Calcaire du Crétacé. a) Défense d’éléphant. b) Squelette du Vieillard. c) Bloc de gneiss. d) Restes humains. e) Blocs de calcaire effondrés. c) Plan de l’abri Cro-Magnon. P) Calcaire. X) Partie centrale de la couche H. Y) Base d’un pilier construit pour soutenir le plafond. a) défense d’éléphant. b crâne du Vieillard. d) restes humains. e) dalles tombées du plafond. m) restes d’un individu de sexe féminin. n) restes humains (images de Lartet 1868). d) Crâne du Vieillard (image adaptée de Henry-Gambier et al 2013). e) Crâne de Cro-Magnon 2 (image adaptée de Wolpoff et al. 2006). f) Objets de parure trouvés en association avec les restes humains (image de Lartet et al. 1875).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 668k
Title Table 1. Summary of the excavations conducted at the Cro-Magnon rock-shelter and the proposed cultural attributions of the human remains and associated archaeological material. Liste des fouilles menées à l’abri sous roche de Cro-Magnon et attributions culturelles proposées pour les restes humains et le matériel archéologique associé.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-2.jpg
File image/jpeg, 128k
Title Table 2. Ornament types found at Cro-Magnon mentioned in the literature (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013 ; Lartet 1868 ; Lartet et al. 1875 ; Movius 1969 ; Taborin 1993). * Refers to other teeth, * referred to as Fusus Islandicus. Types d’ornements trouvés dans l’abri Cro-Magnon mentionnés dans la littérature (Henry-Gambier et al. 2013 ; Lartet 1868 ; Lartet et al. 1875 ; Movius 1969 ; Taborin 1993). * Se réfère aux autres dents, désignées sous le nom de Fusus Islandicus.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-3.jpg
File image/jpeg, 148k
Title Table 3. Summary of data on sex and age attribution of the Cro-Magnon human remains. M) Male, F) Female (data from Charlier et al. 2018 ; Henry-Gambier et al. 2006 ; Partiot et al. 2020 ; Ruggieri et al. 2018 ; Trinkaus et al. 2021 ; Villotte et al. 2011). Résumé des données sur l’attribution du sexe et de l’âge des restes humains de Cro-Magnon. M) Homme, F) Femme (données de Charlier et al. 2018 ; Henry-Gambier et al. 2006 ; Partiot et al. 2020 ; Ruggieri et al. 2018 ; Trinkaus et al. 2021 ; Villotte et al. 2011).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-4.jpg
File image/jpeg, 72k
Title Table 4. Ornaments from Cro-Magnon included in this study. Objets de parure provenant de l’abri Cro-Magnon inclus dans cette étude.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-5.jpg
File image/jpeg, 140k
Title Figure 2. Cro-Magnon shell ornaments curated at the Musée de l’Homme. 1-27 Littorina littorea, 28 Littorina obtusata, 29 Colus jeffreysianus, 30-33 Turritella sp., 34-35 Nucella lapillus. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Parures en coquillages de Cro-Magnon conservées au Musée de l’Homme. 1-27 Littorina littorea, 28 Littorina obtusata, 29 Colus jeffreysianus, 30-33 Turritella sp., 34-35 Nucella lapillus (échelle = 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-6.jpg
File image/jpeg, 852k
Title Figure 3. Osseous ornaments from Cro-Magnon: a) bi-perforated ivory pendant, b) mono-perforated ivory pendant, c) elongated shaped pendant, d) perforated Bovid incisor, e) perforated Red deer canine. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Objets de parure en os de l’abri Cro-Magnon : a) pendentif en ivoire bi-perforé, b) pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé, c) pendentif de forme allongée, d) incisive de bovidé perforée, e) canine de cerf perforée. (Échelle = 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-7.jpg
File image/jpeg, 160k
Title Figure 4. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Objets de parure réalisés sur des L. littorea provenant de Cro-Magnon et conservés au Musée d’Archéologie Nationale. (Échelle = 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-8.jpg
File image/jpeg, 532k
Title Figure 5. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Aquitaine, erroneously labelled as from Laugerie-Basse (pers. com. V. Mistrot 2021) (Scale bar= 10 mm). Parures de Cro-Magnon L. littorea conservées au Musée d’Aquitaine. Erreur d’étiquetage attribuant faussement les objets à Laugerie-Basse (com. pers. V. Mistrot 2021) (échelle= 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-9.jpg
File image/jpeg, 432k
Title Figure 6. Cro-Magnon perforated L. littorea curated at the Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord : a) dorsal aspect, b) ventral aspect. (Scale bar = 10 mm). Ornements de Cro-Magnon L. littorea conservés au Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord : a) face dorsale, b) face ventrale. (Échelle= 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-10.jpg
File image/jpeg, 276k
Title Figure 7. Cro-Magnon perforated shells curated at the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, housed at the Musée National de Préhistoire. 1-28 Littorina littorea, 29-31 Nucella lapillus (two of which are perforated) and 32 Luria lurida (unperforated) (Scale bar= 10 mm). Parures en coquillages de Cro-Magnon conservées au Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, hébergées par le Musée National de Préhistoire. 1-28 Littorina littorea, 29-31 Nucella lapillus (deux sont perforées) et 32 Luria lurida (non perforées) (échelle = 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-11.jpg
File image/jpeg, 652k
Title Figure 8. Cro-Magnon lion canine curated at the British museum: a) buccal aspect, b) lingual aspect (Scale bar= 10 mm). Canine de lion de Cro-Magnon conservée au British Museum : a) vue labiale, b) vue linguale (échelle = 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-12.jpg
File image/jpeg, 284k
Title Table 5. Sites yielding similar ornaments to Cro-Magnon (Lalanne and Bouyssonie 1946; San Juan-Foucher and Foucher 2008; Taborin 1993); Vercoutère 2004). Sites présentant un ou plusieurs types d’objets de parure similaires à ceux de Cro-Magnon (Lalanne and Bouyssonie 1946 ; San Juan-Foucher and Foucher 2008 ; Taborin 1993) ; Vercoutère 2004).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-13.jpg
File image/jpeg, 328k
Title Figure 9. a) Osseous artefacts and perforated shaped point (illustrated by Lartet et al. 1875), b) close up of the elongated shaped pendant. a) Objets en os et pointe perforée (illustrée par Lartet et al. 1875), b) gros plan du pendentif de forme allongée.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-14.jpg
File image/jpeg, 436k
Title Table 6. Modern locations of Cro-Magnon personal ornaments (* on loan from Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Toulouse, ** erroneously labelled as coming from Laugerie-Basse, *** the lion canine shows cut marks, Æ added to modern literature). Lieux de conservation des objets de parure de l’abri Cro-Magnon (* en prêt du Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Toulouse, ** étiqueté par erreur comme provenant de Laugerie-Basse, *** le canine de lion montrant marques de coupe, Æ ajouté à la littérature moderne).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-15.jpg
File image/jpeg, 176k
Title Figure 10. Taphonomic modification of the shell ornaments: a & b) L. littorea showing characteristic bioerosion by endobiotic sponges (Scale bar a= 10 mm, b= 5 mm), c & d) Colus jeffreysianus showing characteristic bioerosion by endobiotic sponges (Scale bar c= 10 mm, d= 1 mm), e & f) L. littorea with a hole caused by the radula of a predatory gastropod (Scale bar e= 5 mm, f= 0.5 mm), g & h) L. littorea showing mechanical abrasion caused by wave action (Scale bar g= 1 mm, h= 0.1 mm). Modifications d’origine naturelle documentées sur les objets de parure en coquillages : a & b - L. littorea montrant une bioérosion caractéristique de l’action d’un spongiaire (échelle a = 10 mm, b = 5 mm), c & d - Colus jeffreysianus montrant une bioérosion caractéristique de l’action d’un spongiaire (échelle c = 10 mm, d = 1 mm), e & f - L. littorea avec une perforation causée par la radula d’un gastéropode prédateur (échelle e = 5 mm, f - 0.5 mm), g & h - L. littorea montrant une abrasion mécanique résultant de l’action des vagues sur le sable (‘échelle g = 1 mm, h - 0.1 mm)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-16.jpg
File image/jpeg, 192k
Title Figure 11. Perforation methods of shell ornaments: a, b) L. littorea with perforation created by sawing and puncturing (Scale bar a= 5 mm, b= 1 mm) c, d & e) L. littorea with perforation created by scraping and puncturing (Scale bar a= 5 mm, d & e= 1 mm) f & g) L. littorea with a perforation created by pressure through the aperture (Scale bar f= 5mm, g= 1mm) h & i) L. littorea with perforation probably created by external pressure and rotation (Scale bar h= 5 mm, i= 1 mm). Méthodes de perforation des ornements de coquillages : a, b) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par sciage et pression (échelle a = 5 mm, b = 1 mm) c, d & e) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par raclage (échelle a = 5 mm, d & e = 1 mm) f & g) L. littorea avec une perforation créée par pression à travers l’ouverture (échelle f = 5 mm, g = 1 mm) h & i) L. littorea avec une perforation probablement créée par pression externe et rotation (échelle h = 5 mm, i = 1 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-17.jpg
File image/jpeg, 340k
Title Figure 12. Morphometric analysis of archaeological shells: a) biplot of shell length and perforation maximum diameter, b) biplot of shell length and perforation minimum diameter, c) biplot of minimum and maximum perforation diameters, d) biplot of the distance between the perforation and aperture edges (bridge) compared to the lengths of the shells. (Black= L. littorea, Red= Nucella lapillus, Green= Turritella, Blue= Colus jeffreysianus). Analyse morphométrique des coquilles archéologiques : a) biplot de la longueur de la coquille et du diamètre maximal de la perforation, b) biplot de la longueur de la coquille et du diamètre minimal de la perforation, c) biplot des diamètres minimal et maximal de la perforation, d) biplot de la distance entre les bords de la perforation et de l’aperture (pont) par rapport aux longueurs des coquilles. (Noir = L. littorea, Rouge = Nucella lapillus, Vert = Turritella, Bleu =Colus jeffreysianus).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-18.jpg
File image/jpeg, 212k
Title Figure 13. Perforation methods of shell ornaments: a) N. lapillus with perforation created by pressure through the aperture, b) N. lapillus with perforation created by external pressure, c) Turritella sp. shell with perforation created by sawing, scraping and rotation, d) C. jeffreysianus with perforation created by internal pressure (Scale bar= 1 mm). Méthodes de perforation des ornements de coquilles : a) N. lapillus avec perforation créée par pression à travers l’aperture, b) N. lapillus avec perforation créée par pression externe, c) Coquille Turritella sp. Avec perforation créée par sciage, raclage et rotation, d) C. jeffreysianus avec perforation créée par pression interne (Échelle = 1 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-19.jpg
File image/jpeg, 212k
Title Figure 14. Example of use-wear on a L. littorea ornament from Cro-Magnon: a) wide view of shell (Scale bar= 10 mm), b) close up of the use-wear (Scale bar= 1 mm). Exemple d’usure sur un ornement de L. littorea de Cro-Magnon : a) macrophoto de la coquille (échelle = 10 mm), b) traces d’usure (échelle = 1 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-20.jpg
File image/jpeg, 208k
Title Figure 15. Slight and intermediate use-wear on L. littorea from Cro-Magnon: a) slight, b) intermediate. (Scale bar = 5 mm). Usure légère et intermédiaire sur les L. littorea de Cro-Magnon : a) légère, b) intermédiaire. (Échelle= 5 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-21.jpg
File image/jpeg, 352k
Title Figure 16. Bright red residue found on one L. littorea (a & b) (Scale bar: a= 5 mm, b= 1 mm). Résidu rouge vif trouvé sur un L. littorea (a & b) (échelle : a = 5 mm, b = 1 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-22.jpg
File image/jpeg, 120k
Title Figure 17. Archaeological and modern reference samples shell lengths: a) shell lengths box plots with Kruskal-Wallis values, b) shell length distribution of Cro-Magnon L. littorea with Shapiro-Wilk normality value, c) distribution of L. littorea length from Fouras with Shapiro-Wilk normality value, d) distribution of L. littorea length from Moëze with Shapiro-Wilk normality value. Longueurs des coquilles des échantillons de référence archéologiques et modernes : a) box plots des longueurs des coquilles et résultat du test de Kruskal-Wallis, b) distribution des longueurs des coquilles de L. littorea de Cro-Magnon avec le résultat du test de normalité de Shapiro-Wilk, c) distribution des longueurs de L. littorea de Fouras avec le résultat du test de normalité de Shapiro-Wilk, d) Distribution des longueurs de L. littorea de Moëze avec le résultat du test de Shapiro-Wilk.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-23.jpg
File image/jpeg, 172k
Title Table 7. Kruskal-Wallis test results established between the L. littorea modern reference and archaeological samples. Résultats du test de Kruskal-Wallis calculé entre les collections de référence modernes et les spécimens archéologiques de L. littorea.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-24.jpg
File image/jpeg, 60k
Title Table 8. Mean, minimum and maximum length of L. littorea from modern reference collections of L. littorea and archaeological specimens. Longueur moyenne, minimale et maximale des L. littorea des collections de référence modernes et des spécimens archéologiques.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-25.jpg
File image/jpeg, 56k
Title Figure 18. Red Deer canine pendant: a) lingual aspect (scale= 1 cm), b) buccal aspect (scale= 1 cm), c) close-up view of the perforation on the lingual aspect (scale= 1 mm), d) close-up view of the perforation on the buccal aspect (scale= 1 mm). Canine de cerf perforée : a) vue linguale (échelle = 1 cm), b) vue labiale (échelle = 1 cm), c) photo de la perforation sur la face linguale (échelle = 1 mm), d) photo de la perforation sur la face labiale (échelle = 1 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-26.jpg
File image/jpeg, 256k
Title Figure 19. Bi-perforated ivory pendant (a & b), c) right perforation, d) left perforation, e) parallel striations resulting from scraping, f) root etching damage. (Scale bar a & b = 10 mm, c - f = 1 mm). Pendentif en ivoire biperforé (a & b), c) perforation droite, d) perforation gauche, e) stries parallèles résultant du raclage, f - altérations résultant d’une dissolution par impact racinaire. (Échelle a & b= 1 mm, c - f= 1 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-27.jpg
File image/jpeg, 248k
Title Figure 20. Tracing of the bi-perforated ivory pendant showing surface features marks (a & b). Dessin du pendentif en ivoire bi-perforé montrant les marques des caractéristiques de surface (a & b).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-28.jpg
File image/jpeg, 244k
Title Figure 21. Mono-perforated ivory pendant with punctures (a & b) a) curved aspect of the pendant, b) flat aspect of the pendant, c) perforation on the curved aspect. d) perforation on the flat aspect. e & f) puncture marks recorded on the curved surface filled in some cases with ochre. (Scale bar a & b = 10 mm, c - f = 1 mm). Pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé avec des perforations (a & b) a) face courbe du pendentif, b face plane du pendentif, c) perforation Observée sur la face courbe, d) perforation observée sur la face plane, e & f) marques poinçon enregistrées sur la surface courbe remplies dans certains cas d’ocre. (Échelle a & b= 10 mm, c - f= 1 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-29.jpg
File image/jpeg, 372k
Title Figure 22. Tracing of the mono-perforated ivory pendant indicating the location of the punctures (a & b). Dessin du pendentif en ivoire mono-perforé indiquant l’emplacement des traces de poinçon (a & b).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-30.jpg
File image/jpeg, 160k
Title Figure 23. Elongated shaped pendant (a & b). (Scale bar = 10 mm). Pendentif de forme allongée (a & b). (échelle= 10 mm).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-31.jpg
File image/jpeg, 216k
Title Figure 24. Occurrences of L. littorea ornaments at Gravettian sites from western Europe. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. Occurrences de parures de L. littorea sur des sites gravettiens d’Europe occidentale. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-32.jpg
File image/jpeg, 180k
Title Figure 25. Mono-perforated ivory ornaments from Level 5 of Abri Pataud. (Scale bar= 10 mm), adapted from Henry-Gambier et al. (2013). Ornements en ivoire mono-perforés provenant du niveau 5 de l’Abri Pataud. (Échelle = 10 mm), adapté de Henry-Gambier et al. (2013).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-33.jpg
File image/jpeg, 296k
Title Figure 26. Occurrences of Gravettian drop-shaped mono-perforated and elongated shaped pendants. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. A – Brillenhöhle, B – Geißenklösterle, C - Hohle Fels. Occurrences des pendentifs en ivoire mono-perforés en forme de goutte et des pendentifs de forme allongée attribués au Gravettien. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation. A - Brillenhöhle, B - Geißenklösterle, C - Hohle Fels.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-34.jpg
File image/jpeg, 360k
Title Figure 27. Occurrences of perforated Red deer canines at Gravettian sites. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. Red - burial sites, white - habitation sites. Occurrences de canines de cerf perforées sur des sites attribués au Gravettien. Rouge - sites funéraires, blanc - sites d’habitation.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/docannexe/image/7180/img-35.jpg
File image/jpeg, 232k
Top of page

References

Bibliographical reference

Jack Baker, Solange Rigaud, Marian Vanhaeren and Francesco d’Errico, Cro-Magnon personal ornaments revisitedPALEO, 32 | 2022, 40-72.

Electronic reference

Jack Baker, Solange Rigaud, Marian Vanhaeren and Francesco d’Errico, Cro-Magnon personal ornaments revisitedPALEO [Online], 32 | 2022, Online since 27 June 2023, connection on 07 December 2023. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/7180; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.7180

Top of page

About the authors

Jack Baker

CNRS UMR 5199 De la Préhistoire à l’Actuel : Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie (PACEA), Université Bordeaux, Talence, France

Solange Rigaud

CNRS UMR 5199 De la Préhistoire à l’Actuel : Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie (PACEA), Université Bordeaux, Talence, France

By this author

Marian Vanhaeren

CNRS UMR 5199 De la Préhistoire à l’Actuel : Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie (PACEA), Université Bordeaux, Talence, France

By this author

Francesco d’Errico

CNRS UMR 5199 De la Préhistoire à l’Actuel : Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie (PACEA), Université Bordeaux, Talence, France
SFF Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapienCE), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

By this author

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search