Palaeolithic weaving -- a contribution from Chauvet.

BAHN, PAUL G.

The new emphasis in recent years on some hitherto neglected aspects of Ice Age technology (Kehoe 1990; 1991; Soffer et al. 2000a; 2000b) is extremely welcome, and helps to flesh out a picture which has traditionally concentrated far too heavily on stone tool typologies. As Softer et al. have pointed out (2000c: 815), I have elsewhere highlighted a few examples of French Pyrenean scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who were far-sighted enough to suspect the existence of textiles in the Upper Palaeolithic (Bahn 1985: 204; see also Tyldesley & Bahn 1983). For instance, Mascaraux (1910: 367) interpreted an object of reindeer antler found in the Magdalenian cave of St Michel d'Arudy (Pyrenees Atlantiques) as a hook for making nets, and hence suggested the existence of textile plants in the `Reindeer Age'. Similarly, in the Magdalenian of the Pyrenean `supersite' of Le Mas d'Azil (Ariege),the great Edouard Piette found so many `navettes' (shutties) that he believed in the existence of weaving (Piette 1889: 18), and even in the possibility of a cultivation of textile plants (Dresch 1888). Some decades later, M. & S-J. Pequart's excavations in this same cave (1960-3: 176-7) led to their discovering a `fuseau' (spindle) and a `fusaiole' (spindle weight) which likewise led them to accept the existence of Magdalenian weaving.

The purpose of this short note is to present an even more noteworthy contribution to this debate by another great figure in French prehistory, Gustave Chauvet (1840-1933). Chauvet, a lawyer, was one of the many `amateur' prehistorians who did such pioneering and fundamental work in western Europe, but he has remained little known or read outside those specializing in the prehistory of Charente, the region where he lived and worked. However, his major work on Palaeolithic culture contains no less than six pages devoted to `Vannerie et Tissage?' (Basketry and weaving?, 1910: 155-60). Earlier in the book, he had cast doubt on the `navette' hypothesis (1910: 84-6) as being somewhat vague and undefined, but then states wisely that `in the interpretation of the remains left by the Magdalenians, we are too preoccupied by the idea that these people were hunters and fishers, and we see harpoons, spears and weapons everywhere ... But they also had tools ... and it would be a good idea to check whether [some of them] were used for industrial work -- basketry, crude weaving, etc.' (1910: 89). He also suggests that the multiple zigzag decoration on a point of reindeer antler from the cave of Le Placard (FIGURE 1) might depict basketry (1910: 132).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In the special section of the book devoted to the possibility of basketry and weaving, Chauvet begins by acknowledging that, in the view of most prehistorians, there was no Magdalenian weaving, and there is no question of basketry before the Neolithic. But he feels, along with Aime-Louis Rutot (1847-1933, an eminent Belgian prehistorian), that this view should be abandoned. The study of `present-day savages' shows that basketry is a very rudimentary industry which is known among peoples who have not yet developed pottery. One cannot, of course, find remains of objects made of plant fibres in Magdalenian layers, but he believes that some drawings on bone can indicate their existence. Here he illustrates another engraved bone from the Magdalenian of Le Placard (FIGURE 2) which he considers to be an important depiction of a crude piece of weaving or of fine basketry, comparing it to similar motifs in incised Chaldean pottery. In short, `this drawing probably reproduces an object woven out of plant fibres' (1910: 157). Referring back to the earlier drawing (FIGURE 1), he believes that it represents, line for line, what oriental baskets look like.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

He goes on to claim that basketry and crude weaving were probably known to the Magdalenians, and, just as birds plait nests and beavers dams, so Palaeolithic people were able to live far from natural shelters by creating artificial dwellings with wickerwork and rudimentary basketry. In support of these ideas he cites a number of relevant ethnographic references (1910: 157-60) on topics such as use of birch-bark, and the uses of basketry.

Finally, Chauvet mentions the abbe Labrie who, at the famous congress of the French Association for the Advancement of the Sciences at Montauban (1902), where the authenticity of cave art was finally accepted, displayed a curious bone object from the Magdalenian site of Fontarnaud (Gironde) which was almost identical to the `fendoir' (splitter), a tool used in wine-growing areas for dividing osiers (used for joining barrel circles) into three strands. And among the numerous bevelled rods found in some caves, several could have been used for splitting flexible branches. According to Leopold Delisle, the bark of the lime tree was still being used in medieval times for making cords.

So much for Chauvet's special section. One can see that it is basically a speculation based on a mixture of ethnography, interpretation of Palaeolithic tools, and a couple of motifs in Palaeolithic portable art. But in its open-mindedness and its awareness of the importance of this kind of technology to mobile peoples, it was years ahead of its time and, together with the other sporadic claims mentioned above, shows that the 20th-century image of Upper Palaeolithic life could have been somewhat different had the world of scholarship been ready to pay heed. It is a long overdue development that, 90 years after Chauvet's publication, prehistory seems ready at last to accept the probably huge importance of basketry and simple weaving in the Upper Palaeolithic.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the late Suzanne de Saint Mathurin who repeatedly urged me, when I was a young graduate, to read Chauvet's book. It was extremely hard to find outside France -- in the end I had to read the British Library's copy -- but I found that Suzanne's extremely high regard for this work was amply justified. The recent rediscovery of the notes I took from the book, plus the chance to purchase a copy of this rarity for myself and thus re-read it, have prompted this brief note.

References

BAHN, P.G. 1985. Utilisation des ressources vegetales dans le Paleolithique et le Mesolithique des Pyrenees francaises, in Homenatge al Dr Josep Maria Corominas, Quaderns del Centre d'Estudis Comarcals de Banyoles 1: 203-12.

CHAUVET, G. 1910. Os, Ivoires et Bols de Renne ouvres de la Charente. Hypotheses Palethnographiques (Collection G. Chauvet). Angouleme: E. Constantin.

DRESCH, DR. 1888. La grotte du Mas d'Azil et l'industrie prehistorique, Bulletin de la Societe Ariegeoise Sciences, Lettres et Arts II:, f. 6: 233-52.

KEHOE, A.B. 1990. Points and lines, in S.M. Nelson & A.B. Kehoe (ed.), Powers of observation: alternative views in archaeology: 23-37. Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association. Archaeological Paper 2.

1991. The weaver's wraith, in D. Waldes & N.D. Willow (ed.), The archaeology of gender. Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. 430-35. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association.

MASCARAUX, F. 1910. La grotte St-Michel d'Arudy (Basses-Pyrenees). Fouilles dans une station magdalenienne, Revue de l'Ecole d'Anthropologie 20: 357-78.

PEQUART, M. & S-J. 1960-3. Grotte du Mas d'Azil (Ariege). Une nouvelle galerie magdalenienne, Annales de Paleontologie. Collected papers.

PIETTE, E. 1889. Les subdivisions de l'Epoque Magdalenienne et de l'Epoque Neolithique. Angers: Imprimerie Burdin.

SOFFER, O., J.M. ADOVASIO, & D.C. HYLAND. 2000a. The well-dressed `Venus': women's wear c. 27,000 BP, Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 1: 37-47. 2000b. The `Venus' figurines: textiles, basketry, gender and status in the Upper Paleolithic, Current Anthropology 41: 511-37.

SOFFER, O., J.M. ADOVASIO, J.S. ILLINGWORTH, H.A. AMIRKHANOV, N.D. PRASLOV & M. STREET. 2000C. Palaeolithic perishables made permanent, Antiquity 74: 812-21.

TYLDESLEY, J.A. & P.G. BAHN. 1983. Use of plants in the European Palaeolithic: a review of the evidence, Quaternary Science Reviews 2: 53-81.

Received 18 March 2001, accepted 18 March 2001.

PAUL G. BAHN, 428 Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 6QP, England. pgbahn@anlabyrd.karoo.co.uk