Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-20T17:31:02.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palaeolithic Spear-Throwers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Dorothy A. E. Garrod
Dorothy A. E. Garrod
Affiliation:
Formerly Disney Professor of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In plate B XIX–XX of Reliquiae Aquitanicae (Lartet & Christy, 1875), a sculptured reindeer antler from Laugerie-Basse was figured with the description, ‘a long, slightly curved Harpoon-head’. Many years later Emile Carthailac found among Lartet's papers in the University Library at Toulouse a letter from a correspondent in Ireland suggesting that the object in question might be a hooked spear-thrower of a type well-known in Australia. Unfortunately the sheet with the writer's signature was missing, so the first person to identify the spear-thrower as a Palaeolithic weapon must remain anonymous (Carthailac, 1903). Since then many more have been found; in 1907 Breuil listed 38 throwers or fragments from various Magdalenian sites (Carthailac and Breuil, 1907), and it is possible now to bring the number up to 66. Of these two, possibly three, are complete, and six are complete in so far as the part made of antler is concerned, but were certainly meant to be lengthened by insertion in a handle, probably of wood. The rest are more or less fragmentary, but in 39 the hook is preserved, and the rest can be identified by comparison with more complete specimens.

The subject of these weapons has been treated at various times by Adrien de Mortillet (1891), Carthailac (1903), Breuil (with Carthailac, 1907: with Lantier, 1951), Begouen (1912), Renaud (1925), Montandon (1934). More recently Guyan (1944) has studied the collection from Kesslerloch in relation to the rest. In addition, individual specimens have been described by their discoverers. Nevertheless, there is room for a more detailed general survey of the whole range now available.

Type
Old Stone Age
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 21 , July 1956 , pp. 21 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcalde del Rio, D., Breuil, H. et Sierra, L., 1912. Les Cavernes de la Région Cantabrique. Monaco.Google Scholar
Begouën, H., 1912. ‘Sculpture en bois de renne provenant de la Grotte d'Enlène’, Anthropologie, t. 23.Google Scholar
Begouên, L., 1931, ‘Notre campagne de fouilles dans la caverne des Trois-Frères (1930–31)’, Congrès International d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie Préhistorique. Paris.Google Scholar
Betirac, B., 1952. ‘L'Abri Montastruc à Bruniquel,’ Anthropologie, t. 56.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., 1909. ‘L'évolution de l'art quaternaire et les travaux d'Edouard Piette’, Revue Archéologique, t. 13.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., 1912. ‘Subdivisions du Paléolithique Supérieur, Congrès International d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie Préhistorique. Genève.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., et Begouën, H., 1936. ‘Quelques oiseaux inédits ou méconnus de l'art préhistorique’, Congrès Préhistorique de France.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., et Lantier, R., 1951. Les Hommes de la Pierre Ancienne. Paris.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., et Saint-Périer, R. de, 1927. Les poissons, les batraciens et les reptiles dans l'art quaternaire. Archives de l'I.P.H., no. 2.Google Scholar
Capitan, L., Breuil, H., et Peyrony, D., 1910. La Caverne de Font-de-Gaume. Monaco.Google Scholar
Carthailac, E., 1903. ‘Les Stations de Bruniquel’, Anthropologie, t. 14.Google Scholar
Chauvet, G., 1910. Os, ivoires et bois de renne ouvrés de la Charente. Angoulème.Google Scholar
Guyan, W. U., 1944. ‘Eine Speerschleuder vom Kesslerloch’, Zeitschrift für schweizerische Archaeologie u. Kunstgeschichte, t. 6.Google Scholar
Lartet, E. and Christy, H., 1875. Reliquiae Aquitanicae. London.Google Scholar
Montandon, G., 1934. Traité d'Ethnologie Culturelle. Paris.Google Scholar
Mortillet, A. de, 1891. ‘Les propulseurs à crochet’, Revue de l'École d'Anthropologie, t. 1.Google Scholar
Passemard, E., 1944. ‘La Caverne d'Isturitz,’ Préhistoire, t. 9.Google Scholar
St.-J., M. et St.-J., , 1942. ‘Récente découverte de deux oeuvres d'art au Mas d'Azil’, Revue Scientifique, t. 80.Google Scholar
Piette, E., 1907. L'Art pendant l'âge du renne. Paris.Google Scholar
Renaud, E. B., 1925. ‘Propulseurs et Sagaies préhistoriques des Indiens, “Basket-Makers”,’ Bull. de la Société Préhistorique Française, t. 22.Google Scholar
Robert, R., 1953. ‘Le faon à l'oiseau’, Bull. de la Société Préhistorique de l'Ariège, t. 8.Google Scholar
Saint-Périer, R. de, 1930. La Grotte d'Isturitz. Archives de l'I.P.H., no. 7.Google Scholar
Saint-Périer, R. de, 1936. La Grotte d'Isturitz, II. Archives de l'I.P.H., no. 17.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. R., 1912. Die Diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands. Stuttgart.Google Scholar