Magdalenian and Inuit harpoons

This post has been largely inspired by A. Steenhuyse, of Anthrosite blog. Some days ago, I posted on his most intriguing mention that some Magdalenian artifacts of Isturitze cave (Low Navarre, Basque Country) were made of whale bones and that these bones were best quality to create tools that would bear impacts.

Then I wondered wether this could mean active whaling, like Inuits used to do with nothing but stone age tools. And this issue got me intrigued enough as to ask Alexandre about its likehood. And while he doesn't have a defined opinion, he has given me a most valuable piece of info that I would have probably never realized on my own: certain inuit harpoons are VERY similar to the magdalenians ones (the composite ones with detachable parts).

Bingo! Sure that there is not yet enough evidence in form of seal or whale remains but if the Isturitze ones have been in a museum for so long without anybody noticing that they were whale bones, it's possible that many others have equally remained unnoticed elsewhere. Also most coastal sites are now underwater anyhow. But the big question is, what could be those Magdalenian harpoons used for if not for seal (and inccidentally whale) hunting? They don't seem ideal for land hunting, for what spears or arrows (and traps) would be more effective, they wouldn't be of much use for fishing, as they knew of fishing hooks since the Solutrean period. What else could be the overabundant Magdalenian detachable harpoons be for?

Certainly the Bay of Biscay could well be full of seals in Ice Age, when it was the northernmost portion of European waters without permanent ice. And whales have been aboundant until historical times.

Magdalenian harpoons.

Early Inuit harpoon

More modern Inuit harpoons, showing the lines.

Something to think about, really.

-------------------

Update: Magdalenians did eat sea mammals apparently.

European Paleolithic geography

So where is Isturitz, what is Magdalenian, what the heck are you talking about?

Ok, let's recapitulate:

1. A week ago, I commented on Aurignacian origins. Aurignacian culture is believed to be the first manifestation of Homo sapiens (we and our ancestors) and it's known to have penetrated pretty fast in most of Europe, displacing the former inhabitants, the Neanderthals. I also posted a map by A. Mellars:



Aurignacians began experimenting with rudimentary art and eventually also colonized, even if sparsely, the Mediterranean shores of the Iberian peninsula.

2. Haven't yet posted on it, I think, but the next thing to happen, many thousand years later was the developement or arrival of Gravettian culture. Gravettian technology shows some correlation with Neanderthal-made Chatelperronian but it's also true that similar technologies were in use among West Asians and possibly other peoples. Earlier, when Paleolithic research was concentrated in France, it was thought that Chatelperronian and Gravettian were two phases of the same cuture (Perigordian) but this is not sustained anymore and now it's believed that Gravettian culture evolved in Central-Eastern Europe or even arrived from outside the continent (though there's lack of evidence for this yet). It is likely that the Crô-Magnon type, strictu sensu, is associated with this culture.

Gravettian is also a pan-European culture and replaced Aurignacian everywhere, even if in many places it looks intrusive (older techniques remain). In fact it reached further than Aurignacian, incorportaing Eastern Europe and even penetrating into the Caucasus and Zagros areas (West Asia) and with connections as far east as the Altai. With Gravettian art became something much more common. Some of the most fascinating examples are the venus figurines, like the one of Lespuges:

3. In Western Europe, Gravettian didn't last long alone. A new techno-culture appeared locally, the Solutrean and replaced Gravettian rather fast, specially in the Franco-Cantabrian region. Instead, in Mediterranean Iberia, Gravettian showed to be strong enough and survived in a hybrid form with Solutrean (Iberian Gravetto-Solutrean), that is probably at the origin of North-African Ibero-Maurusian culture later on.

Solutrean was therefore primarily a culture of the Franco-Cantabrian region:

The Franco-Cantabrian region
(red dots are main sites of Paleolithic art, light green are areas that were over sea level in the past, white shows glacial areas).

Gravettian also survived in Italy and Eastern Europe. Central Europe is believed by many to have been too cold to be inhabited, at least densely, in this time, as the Solutrean phase is coincident with the Last Glacial Maximum, some 20,000 years ago. Another area that was affected by this episode was the Zagros region of West Asia, where human inhabitation probably became impossible or very hazardous then.

Solutrean peoples were very advanced for their time, knowing the needle, the fishing hook and maybe even the bow and arrow. They also advanced quite a bit in art expression.

4. After some milennia, Solutrean evolved into Magdalenian locally in the Franco-Cantabrian region. While many sites with transitional industries are known, there are some questions still to answer because the Magdalenian is surprisingly similar to old Aurignacian, even if much more refined. Since c. 13,000 BP, as the greatest cold went away, Magdalenian expanded into Central Europe. It also shows signs of late expansion into Mediterranean Iberia but with a very marked Gravetization anyhow (Parpalloan) and lacking the characteristic bone tools of this industry elsewhere.

Magdalenian is, of course, best known for its magnificient mural art, though these peoples also made potable art, like their predecessors.

Horse from Lascaux cave (Franco-Cantabrian region)

And here is where the Isturitz findings fit in: Magdalenian, Franco-Cantabrian, bone tools... whale bone tools! Makes sense, right?

Where is Isturitz? Quick graphic answer:

Is that better? Hope so.

Another interesting map is this one of European Paleolithic art:

Red: mural art. Green: portable art.
Cyan thick lines: glacial maximum: areas under ice. Blue lines: ancient coastline.

It helps getting an idea of where did humans dwelt in the Upper Paleolithic. Yet the Mediterranean, even if not so dedicated to art as other areas, also had some population density probably.

Basque whaling... much older than thought.

A. Steenhuyse mentions at Anthrosite that it's been discovered that among the many Magdalenian materials of Isturitz cave (Lower Navarre) there's a bunch of whale-bone tools. It is no new finding as such but just a correct identification among old ones.

Apparently whale bones are of better quality for tools subject to impact. It is probable that they don't represent active whaling but rather were collected from beached animals but it still means that the people of Isturitz, some 50-60 km inland, were in contact with the people of the coast. and/or travelled that far to forage themselves. This is pretty obvious, specially for hunter-gatherer peoples, but still...

It's not totally impossible though that there could be active whaling anyhow. If stone-age Inuits did it, why not Basques?

Anyhow, it reminds me of the people that object to the indirect evidence of Basque whaling in the 7th century. They say that a huge shipping of whale oil to a monastery near Paris is not evidence enough of active whaling, while the ones in favor (most historians) say that the monks would not have made such a huge order from such a distant place, would not they know that the providers were reliable.

A curious historical fact is that, seemingly, medieval Basques did not like whale meat and they sold it to the French and Castilians instead. They whaled apparently only because of the blubber - and the money, of course.