University of Southampton Research Repository Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis and, where applicable, any accompanying data are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non- commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis and the accompanying data cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content of the thesis and accompanying research data (where applicable) must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder/s. When referring to this thesis and any accompanying data, full bibliographic details must be given, e.g. Thesis: Author (Year of Submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University Faculty or School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. Data: Author (Year) Title. URI [dataset] University of Southampton Faculty of Humanities An experimental approach to understanding Aurignacian projectile technology in NW Europe By James Robert Dilley Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2021 1 University of Southampton Abstract Faculty of Humanities Archaeology Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy An experimental approach to understanding Aurignacian projectile technology in NW Europe James Dilley Understanding the challenges and trials faced by early Upper Palaeolithic people in north-west Europe has been an avenue of investigation since the earliest archaeological research of this time period. In the decades since, huge amounts of time and effort have been invested in studying the lithic and osseous tools found in caves, rock shelters and rare open-air sites. However, this time and effort has almost exclusively been focussed on understanding the objects that have stood the test of time, with little consideration of the components that may have once been attached to these surviving objects. The components that no longer survive are at least as important as the surviving parts. They can offer different insights into the challenges faced by the first modern humans in Europe which can give indications of the likely hunting or movement strategies of these early groups. Limited experimental study has shown that the osseous points of the Aurignacian (c. 44-31 ka cal BP) are almost certainly spear points and that they were effective at causing wounds to Pleistocene herbivores. However, like much past literature, the focus has been on the spear tips rather than the whole of the spear. This thesis changes tack from previous research in that it gives the limelight to the other components and materials that would have made an Aurignacian spear. It also investigates the possible reasoning for the manufacture and form of the spear tips, but with a view on the relationship with the other parts. Key questions will look at the role other Aurignacian tools played in the production of spears and if glues or mastics were required. Whether the spear tips were over-engineered or whether they were carefully designed to improve the longevity of more valuable components (such as the spear shaft). If resource management can be identified based on simulated plant biomes of Europe during Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 and organic samples from around Europe, and what it tells us about sources of viable spear shafts. How these spears may have performed is tested using semi-controlled throwing experiments at a sports field, and in a drop tower, with a focus on all the components of the spear. Finally, what the experimental, biome, organic sample and archaeological evidence are used to evaluate the hunting strategies of Aurignacian groups in NW Europe. 2 Contents 3 List of figures 5 List of tables 8 Declaration of authorship 9 Acknowledgements 10 Definitions and abbreviations 11 Chapter 1: Introduction & research strategy 13 Introduction 13 Research aims 19 Research questions 21 Hypotheses for testing 22 Research constraints 23 Thesis Outline 25 Summary 27 Chapter 2: Setting the (hunting) scene 28 Contextualising the Aurignacian in NW Europe 28 Missing the mark in past literature 39 A haft for a spear 52 A view to a kill 54 Summary 73 Chapter 3: The Aurignacian World 75 Primary prey 88 Chapter 4: Making the point 96 Production of replica osseous points 98 3 Glues and bindings 98 Testing the replica Aurignacian spears 99 Production of stone tools 103 Production of antler split base points 104 Chapter 5: Spear testing 118 Spear throwing experiment 118 Discussion 124 Drop tower experiments 126 Discussion 137 Chapter 6: Collection of wood samples 140 Collection of wood samples 140 Discussion 148 Chapter 7: Conclusion 150 Conclusion 150 Chapter 8: Implications for the study of spear technology in prehistory 157 Implications for the study of spear technology in prehistory 157 Appendices 161 References 162 4 List of figures Figure 1: Aurignacian osseous points all from the Dordogne except f (SW Germany) 18 Figure 2: Sites represented are Butesti (Spain) and Budzujeni (Moldovia) (a-c), Promlom II (Crimea) (d-f), Grotte de l’Hermitage (France) (g-i), Grotta del Broion (Italy) (j), Combe Grenal (France) (k), Combe Grenal (France), layer 16, (l)–(n) Camiac (France), (o)–(q) Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany) and Grotte Vaufrey (France), layer VIII (r) 29 Figure 3: Ivory points from Torralba and Ambrona (Spain) showing a consistent style that appears to be created by a cut through most of the ivory before the blank is split off creating a tail. 29 Figure 4: Map of Europe showing some of the main Aurignacian sites that yielded split base points. 31 Figure 5: Location of split based points and tongued pieces in Europe 31 Figure 6: Aurignacian point from Uphill Quarry (1), Probable bevelled tool from Hyaena Den (2) and modified antler from Pin Hole, Creswell Crags (3). 34 Figure 7: British Aurignacian site: 1. Longhole; 2. Kent’s Cavern; 3. Ffynnon Beuno; 4. Hoyle’s Mouth; 5. Uphill Quarry; 6. Hyena Den; 7. Aston Mills; 8. Pin Hole; 9. Paviland Cave 35 Figure 8: A “typical Ahmarian assemblage” alongside a “typical Levantine Aurignacian assemblage” 36 Figure 9 Bone points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon 37 Figure 10: Production of SBPs as theorised by Peyrony (1) and Henri-Martin (2). An example of a tongued piece, or pièces à languette, is shown in the bottom left 41 Figure 11: Hierarchal structure of antler showing collagen fibres or ‘grain’ as discussed by Tejero (2016) in regards to splitting antler for blanks 43 Figure 12: Production method used by Tartar and White (2013) to produce many blanks from one beam (2). However the risk of misshapen blanks due to a failed split is relatively high 44 Figure 13: Tartar and White (2013) used both Henri-Martin’s (1931) method by cleavage (left) and Peyrony’s (1933) method by flexion (right). 45 Figure 14: After successfully creating the initial split by flexion, Tartar and White (2013) demonstrate the use of cleavage to lengthen the split 45 Figure 15: Tejero’s (2016) method demonstrated using examples from El Castillo, Conde Cave and Labeko Koba. Cross-segmentation the red deer antler (1) 46 Figure 16: Reconstructed designs of the Les Prés de Laure composite point 49 Figure 17: Direction of repeated lithic transport between core areas 55 5 Figure 18: Socio-spatial organisation and group mobility during the Aurignacian with population estimates 55 Figure 19: Some of the bone points from Potočka zijalka showing a variety of incisions across the faces and sides 59 Figure 20: Split base points from Abri Castanet (above) and La Ferrassie (below) side-by-side 65 Figure 21: Simple base and split base points from La Ferrassie (two left and two top right), showing a range of sizes 65 Figure 22a: Narrow simple-based points from La Ferrassie 66 Figure 22b: (right) – 3 Simple-based points of different sizes and broken sections (top) are also from La Ferrassie. 66 Figure 23: (left): Damaged SBP from La Ferrassie, (middle): Damaged SBP from Abri Castanet, (right): Damaged SBP from La Ferrassie. 66 Figure 24: Highly polished split base point from Abri Pataud 67 Figure 25: Tongued piece (left), or pièce à languette, and broken split base point (right) from Abri Pataud. 67 Figure 26: Knecht’s (1993) chaîne opératoire of producing shims (dark grey rectangles) and their possible hafting method. 68 Figure 27: Osseous and lithic points that have both pierced cattle thoracic vertebrae. 70 Figure 28: An osseous and a lithic point that have both been damaged in use (Musée National de Préhistoire). 70 Figure 29: Experimental points showing different impact damage. 71 Figure 30: Cellier point A 73 Figure 31: Cellier point B 73 Figure 32: Cellier point C 73 Figure 33: From Huntley et al. (2013) pg. 5: Tree, shrub and herb plant functional type ANPP: Heinrich Event 4 housing experiment compared to 38 ka BP normal experiment. 78 Figure 34: A cross-section of topography through Alaskan landforms 79 Figure 35: Inferred and simulated biomes based on pollen data 80 Figure 36: Charcoal samples of species considered viable options for spear shaft production have been identified via coloured dots (each colour representing a different species). 81 Figure 37: Map generated using following sites (by country) 84 6 Figure 38: (1–2) spear tips from Hohle Fels IV, (3) split-based point from Hohle Fels Vb; Vogelherd V: (11) massived-base point, possibly unfinished; Vogelherd V: (4, 5, 9, 10) split-based points, (6) massive-based point; Vogelherd IV: (7–8) massived-base points. 85 Figure 39: Map generated using following sites: El Castillo, El Cuco, Labeko, Arbreda, Isturitz, Gatzarria, Mauran, Battuts, Brassempouy, Roc-de-Combe, Ferrassie, Castanet, Abri Pataud, Bourgeois Delaunay, La Quina and Fontaury/Hauteroche 92 Figure 40: Throwing of replica Aurignacian spears at a sports field.