Rigaud suggests that the Chatelperronian developed among Neanderthals
prior to the influence of Homo sapiens sapiens with Aurignacian industries
and therefore was a local indigenous development. Also possible continuation
into early Aurignacian as there are no early Aurignacian hominid remains.
Possible link from Quina to Aurignacian :
1) Quina/Aurignacian retouch
2) Quina mousterian has carinated
end scrapers and typical Aurignacian has limaces.
27,000 BP is a proposed date for the end of early Aurignacian and rapid
development of Gravettian, coming from out side.
Not from Iberia or Northern Europe as there is no Gravettian in these areas
at this time
Central European sites have backed pieces from 30,000 BP so possible origin
of Gravettian.
Distribution of early Gravettian
sites
The contemporary levels (according to Laville) at La
Ferrasie and Flageolet 1 (MAP)once
thought to be early Gravettian are in fact Aurignacian, so there is the
possibility that Aurignacian and Gravettian are contemporary for a while
Rigaud suggested functional differences for Perigordian 5 a, b, and c
in Flageolet 1 bed 7 where they are associated with activity areas; domestic
area , fire area, dump, exterior, and with different tool collections at
Flageolet1.
It is suggested that the Gravettian does not represent a movement of
people but of ideas and technology particularly the use of backed blades
for projectile points.
This technological innovation is quickly transferred through different populations.
As in the case of Chatelperronian and Aurignacian, the change in industries
is not synchronous with a people [i.e. change from cultural influence, or
not if Neanderthal developed Chatelperronian prior to Aurignacian intrusion
with Homo sapiens]
Blade technology with end scrapers being very common, burins rare and
many piercers. Few bone tools, mainly eyed needles towards end of Solutrean,
distinguished by leaf shaped points.
Sequence at Laugerie-Haute west
(MAP)
Proto solutrean [overlying Aurignacian 5] having unifacial points with other
tools of Mousterian aspect.
Lower Solutrean sees the introduction of pressure retouch Developing willow
leaf points in early Solutrean
laurel leaf points in the Middle
Solutrean
Shouldered points in the final
Solutrean
6 stages 1-3 = Lower Magdalenian 4-6 = Upper Magdalenian. The main distinguishing
feature being bone artifacts, particularly the development of harpoons in
Upper Magdalenian
This sequence was devised by Abbe Breuil in 1912 and these typological developments
have been used to construct the chronological sequence on the basis of style
not stratigraphy e.g.. no site has the upper Magdalenian sitting upon the
lower Magdalenian.
Also a number of "Magdalenian" assemblages do not have developed
bone artifacts and therefore cannot be satisfactorily classified according
to this scheme.
However putting the Magdalenian sequences from Laugerie-Haute and La Madeleine
(MAP) together a sequence can be
constructed, the lower at Laugerie-Haute
east and the upper at La Madeleine based on the bone tool scheme
But the lithic assemblages do not show a development sequence there appears
to be 2 main Magdalenian lithic assemblages not synonymous with the upper
and lower of the above scheme
One type is referred to as the Badegoulian having many raclettes,
smallish flakes shaped by abrupt retouch into various 'geometric' shapes
also tools with scalar retouch and numbers of carinated scrapers both being
traits of the Aurignacian they are found with the earlier Magdalenian assemblages.
Magdalenian 2 onwards assemblages are rich in burins and backed bladelets
and blades similar to Gravettian points but often with geometric
microliths mainly of triangles, rectangles and semi-lunates.
Also distinctive tools like parrot beak burins and Teyjat points which are
similar to Font Robert points appear
later .
