Magdalenian and Azilian Lithic Productions in the Paris Basin: Disappearance of a Programmed Economy

Abstract

The extent of the mutations that occurred in Western Europe between the Magdalenian and the Azilian first became apparent more than a century ago. Since that time, these mutations succeeding one another between the 14th and 12th millennia BC, particularly during the Lateglacial warming, were often seen as a real revolution, frequently described through the filter of myths of catastrophes which then inspired - and at times still influences - prehistoric research. Not so long ago, indeed, some authors could still treat these changes as a veritable decline, or on the contrary a kind of redemption. These value judgements have at least one point in common, and agree with more moderate opinions: they all interpret these upheavals as the forerunners of the changes that would affect the cultures of the early Holocene 2 000 years later, which are usually called "Mesolithic". Now these various points of view, particularly because they consider the evolution of cultures as a linear phenomenon - and also because they considerably simplify the diversity of the Mesolithic -are hardly compatible with the results attainable by a "paleohistorical" approach (for this notion see Valentin, 2008). This is what we want to show in this essay based on some twenty years of collective research in the Parisian Basin as well as adjacent regions - an appraisal which promotes an explanatory approach putting in perspective varying orders of facts - technical, economic, and even sociological. Of course, "Azilianisation" meant neither decadence nor renaissance, but a progressive cultural adaptation to new environmental circumstances, happening to be different from those characterising the beginning of the Mesolithic. From archaeological data ... For a century and a half some hundred occupations have been found in the Parisian Basin dating from the period between the 14th and 12th millennia. They have become known in various ways: by simple surface collecting, by limited exploratory excavations, or again by several - happily - extensive excavations, especially at the well-known Magdalenian sites of Pincevent, Étiolles and Verberie. Thanks to the multiplication of rescue excavations the last ten years have renewed these archaeological sources very deeply. This recent renewal has given a precise chronology and, above all, an environmental context to the facts we are about to examine. Among these facts let us mention the major discovery straight away: the trace, recorded in some deposits as Le Closeau (Bodu (ed), 1998; Bodu, 2000), of the very first mutations at the end of the 13th millennium marking the start of azilianisation (see also Fagnart, 1993;Valentin, 1995). ... to interpretations The decipherment in progress of these first changes - partly attributed to an early phase of the Azilian - opportunely enriches the explanations we recently advanced by confronting the sharply contrasted choices distinguishing the later phase of the Azilian and the Magdalenian (see especially Julien, 1989; Audouze & Enloe, 1991; Floss, 1992; Fagnart, 1993; Valentin, 1995; Bodu & Valentin, 1997; Street & Baales, 1997). These explanations establish in particular a link between, on the one hand, the transformation of flint tools and knapping methods and, on the other, various evidence suggesting that programming over the long term of hunting activities, and, consequently, the hunters' successive movements diminished a great deal between the Magdalenian and late Azilian (Valentin, 2005a). Thus these hypotheses are inspired by the archaeological applications of the "Optimal Foraging Theory", and particularly by the models on the way hunter-gatherers manage time and risk, adapting their stone tools as a consequence (see in particular Torrence, 1983; Perlès, 1992). As a complement, these reflections are enriched by a model of J. Pelegrin (2000), inspired by the "Design Theory" (see in particular Bleed, 1986), which enables the changes in armament and the way it was made to be interpreted in the light of this progressive disappearance of a programmed economy. Since this model was formulated it is worth noting certain predictions concerning hunting tactics have been validated by the analyses and interpretations of O. Bignon (2003; 2008) which the author is seeking today to develop on a vaster archaeo-zoological corpus. Let us point out in passing that these first validations show that the level at which the facts and explanatory scenarios are elaborated can now be used as much for hypothetico-deductive approaches - like that proposed by J. Pelegrin - as for more inductive constructions such as we ourselves put forward here. Towards other constructions Of course, our construction is a sketch, made to be tested by new discoveries, analyses, and interpretations as they arise. It is in any case probable that it will be completed in the future by taking into account other less concrete dimensions not developed here. A point about the sociological background, for example, comes to mind that must not be overestimated but not overlooked either: during the Magdalenian the skills and knowledge needed for quite difficult knapping operations could only have been acquired at the end of a learning process which, if not long, was surely methodical (see in particular Pigeot, 1987; Ploux, 1989). In contrast, the simplified knapping methods late Azilian communities used allowed them to get away from what, perhaps by then, was felt to be a social constraint. This may well have been another reason for the success of the new way of knapping. It must always be borne in mind that all these explanatory ideas are based essentially on a few co-variables observable between technical and economic - or even social, as we have just mentioned - facts. But obviously all the cultural mechanisms underlying these various changes cannot be grasped, and consequently the risk exists of lapsing into excessively mechanistic ways of explaning. So it is also worth remembering on the topic of this underlying cultural logic - to round off the subject matter of the article - what these technical contrasts really mean: not only a change in ways of doing, but also a transformation in "ways of seeing" - following J. Pelegrin's splendid expression. This transformation can easily be seen in the comparison between what these different cultures considered to be knapping waste. Thus, almost systematically, flakes are thrown away by the Magdalenians, but not anymore by the Azilians of the late phase. Technical and economic mutations, therefore, are accompanied by quite profound changes in ideas. And even if the parallel is daring, it has to be said these changes happened when the art of the Magdalenians disappeared, and consequently, when it is evident an important part of their value system fell apart. Speaking of values, the value of blades in these cultures is obviously one value that needs assessing - its probable symbolic dimension included. As shall be seen this value conferred on blades resisted despite technical changes into the early Azilian. It is known to have been embedded in Magdalenian history for a long time in South-West France (see in particular Langlais, 2007) before the Magdalenian tendency was expressed in the Parisian Basin - doubtless substance for a new construction... On cultural terminology To close this introduction let us now make a few points about the "cultural" terminology. "Magdalenian", "Azilian", it goes without saying these terms do not designate cultures, and still less ethnic groups in the full meaning present-day anthropologists give to these notions, controversial as they are. The fragments of material - and sometimes symbolic - culture that have come down to us are at the most able to identify and define grosso modo what we should willingly call "traditions" - essentially of techniques - often encompassed in vast courants (i.e. movements of ideas) of continental dimensions (on these notions see Valentin, 2008). So to our way of thinking the adjective "Azilian" refers to regional traditions encompassed by a powerful movement in full expansion during the 12th millennium; as for the noun it means the women or men who produced and reproduced the choices and values these traditions were founded on, and is also used - following an old habit in prehistory - to name the period in which these choices were prevalent. A last word finally on the choice of the term "Azilian" for the Paris Basin: we are responsible for it as well as for progressively abandoning the term "Federmesser groups" (Bodu & Valentin, 1997). The latter was used exclusively up till the end of the 1990s when the first discoveries or rediscoveries in the Parisian Basin were confronted with the documentation brought together up to then in northern Europe. Since then broader comparisons from all sides clearly showed that on the scale of our sources - essentially lithic - and of our analyses - resolutely technological - the distinctions between "Azilian", "Tjongerian", "Federmessergruppen", or "Final Creswellian" did not make much sense, at least at this phase of research. The use of a unifying term became evident to take account of the profound and analogous technical, economic, and social upheavals occurring in the 12th millennium in various parts of Western Europe. To designate this process, the term "azilianisation" has become quite consensual. That is essentially why we have retained that of "Azilian" - as have in any case our Swiss colleagues long since - to designate the traditions taking part in this process. This choice can make uneasy those who quite justly note the absence of flat harpoons and painted or engraved pebbles in the Parisian Basin. But why then, not call into question also the use of the term "Magdalenian" in our region? Let us not forget in the Parisian Basin the Magdalenian also had no harpoons - the English "Creswellian" making most use of this invention. As for Magdalenian art in our region,