Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T19:46:26.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palaeolithic weaving — a contribution from Chauvet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Paul G. Bahn
Paul G. Bahn*
Affiliation:
428 Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 6QP, England.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The author draws attention to Gustave Chauvet's belief, 90 years ago, in Magdalenian weaving on the basis of ethnography, interpretation of Palaeolithic tools and motifs in portable art of the period.

Keywords

weavingbasketryMagdalenianportable artethnography

Information

Type
News & Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 75 , Issue 288 , June 2001, pp. 271 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2001

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bahn, P.G. 1985. Utilisation des ressources végétales dans le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique des Pyrénées françaises, in Homenatge al Drjosep Maria Coraminas, Quaderns del Centre d’Estudis Comarcáis de Banyoles 1: 203–12.Google Scholar
Chauvet, G. 1910. Os, Ivoires et Bois de Renne ouvrés de la Charente. Hypothèses Palethnographiques (Collection G. Chauvet). Angoulême: E. Constantin.Google Scholar
Dresch, Dr. 1888. La grotte du Mas d’Azil et l’industrie préhistorique, Bulletin de la Société Ariégeoise Sciences, Lettres et Arts II:, f. 6: 233–52.Google Scholar
Kehoe, A.B. 1990. Points and lines, in Nelson, S.M. & Kehoe, A.B. (ed.), Powers of observation: alternative views in archaeology: 23–37. Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association. Archaeological Paper 2.Google Scholar
Kehoe, A.B. 1991. The weaver’s wraith, in Waldes, D. & Willow, N.D. (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.Google Scholar
Mascaraux, F. 1910. La grotte St-Michel d’Arudy (Basses-Pyrénées). Fouilles dans une station magdalénienne, Bévue de l’Ecole d’Anthropologie 20: 357–78.Google Scholar
Péquart, M. & S-J. 1960–3. Grotte du Mas d’Azil (Ariège). Une nouvelle galerie magdalénienne, Annales de Paléontologie. Collected papers.Google Scholar
Piette, E. 1889. Les subdivisions de l’Epoque Magdalénienne et de l’Epoque Néolithique. Angers: Imprimerie Burdin.Google Scholar
Soffer, O., Adovasio, J.M., & Hyland, D.C.. 2000a. The well-dressed ‘Venus’: women’s wear c. 27,000 BP, Archaeology. Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 1: 37–47.Google Scholar
Soffer, O., Adovasio, J.M., & Hyland, D.C.. 2000b. The ‘Venus’ figurines: textiles, basketry, gender and status in the Upper Paleolithic, Current Anthropology 41: 511–37.Google Scholar
Soffer, O., Adovasio, J.M., Illingworth, J.S., Amirkhanov, H.A., Praslov, N.D. & Street, M.. 2000c. Palaeolithic perishables made permanent, Antiquity 74: 812–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyldesley, J.A. & Bahn, P.G.. 1983. Use of plants in the European Palaeolithic: a review of the evidence, Quaternary Science Reviews 2: 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar