Palaeolithikum | Startseite - The Musk ox (Ovibos …palaeolithikum.com/site/assets/files/1098/i_m_braun-2017...in the European Upper Palaeolithic portable art Ingmar M. BRAUN(a) Abstract:

285

(a) Wyhlenweg 4, CH-4126 Bettingen ; www.palaeolithikum.com – [email protected]

285

Introduction

Palaeolithic art is characterized by the very often realisticdepictions of animals. Among the represented animalsespecially the group of herbivores is dominant. There areonly a few representations of the Musk ox in the EuropeanPalaeolithic art though they had a large distribution area inEurope during the last glacial (“Würm”). But their remainsare not as numerous as, for example, those of horse andbison. A lot of the figured Musk oxen were alreadydiscovered at the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the20th century.

Before the single figures will be described the contemporaryMusk oxen and their main characteristics are explained.

Afterwards there will be a short chapter about the fossilMusk oxen. The main part of this paper is dedicated to therepresentations of the Musk ox in the European UpperPalaeolithic art.

1 - The contemporary Musk ox(Ovibos moschatus)

The Musk oxen (Ovibos moschatus) are artiodactyls andthey are belonging to the family of the Bovidae and to thesubfamily of the Caprinae. The very thick coat andespecially the horns are characteristic (fig. 1). They startvery close of the skull downwards and finally forward andare directed upwards at the end (fig. 2). The horns of themales are more massive. They form a massive front plate

The Musk ox (Ovibos moschatus)in the European Upper Palaeolithic

portable art

Ingmar M. BRAUN(a)

Abstract: The Musk oxen (Ovibos moschatus) are artiodactyls and nowadays they live in some regions of the open coldarctic tundra. Therefore their fossil remains are good indicators of the climate. They had a large distribution area duringthe last glacial period. Astonishingly, however, the Musk ox was depicted only rarely in the Ice Age art. In the presentarticle the few figures of Musk ox of the European Upper Palaeolithic portable art are described.

Key-words: Musk ox, Contemporary Musk ox, Fossil Musk ox, Indicator of the climate, Upper Palaeolithic, Portable art.

Résumé : Le Boeuf musqué (Ovibos moschatus) dans l'art mobilier du Paléolithique supérieur européen. Les Bœufs musqués(Ovibos moschatus) sont des artiodactyles et vivent actuellement dans quelques zones de la toundra arctique. Pour cetteraison leurs restes fossiles sont des bons indicateurs du climat. Au cours de la dernière période glaciaire leur aire derépartition s’est étendue jusqu’au nord de l’Espagne. Pourtant, leurs figurations dans l’art paléolithique sontétonnamment rares. Dans l’article présent les rares représentations du Bœuf musqué dans l’art mobilier du Paléolithiquesupérieur européen sont décrites.

Mots-clés : Bœuf musqué, Bœuf musqué actuel, Bœuf musqué fossile, Indicateur du climat, Paléolithique supérieur, artmobilier.

Cleyet-Merle J.-J., Geneste J.-M., Man-Estier E. (dir.)« L'art au quotidien - Objets ornés du Paléolithique supérieur »

Actes du colloque international Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, 16-20 juin 2014

PALEO, numéro spécial, 2016, p. 285 à 299

Partie 3 - Techniques, supports et thèmes

285-299 BRAUN_art00baseclo 27/03/2017 10:00 Page 285

in the forehead (fig. 3). With a shoulder height of 110 cm to150 cm the Musk oxen are relatively small. They have a bighead and pointed ears which are covered partially by thethick coat. The legs are short and chunky. Based on theirthick coat they tolerate dry and cold weather and they aresensitive to too much humidity (Koenigswald 2002 ;Pederson 1958 ; Reichholf 1982).

Their natural contemporary distribution area is the opencold arctic tundra of Northern Canada and EasternGreenland where they live in small herds. In some parts ofNorway and Siberia they were successfully reintroduced(Reichholf 1982) (fig. 4)

2 - Fossil Musk oxen

The exact origin of Musk oxen is still not clear. The oldesthitherto known stratigraphic bone findings of the speciesOvibos in Europe are from the alluvial terraces inSüssenborn (Thuringia, Germany). They are datedprobably into the MIS 16 and therefore they have an agebetween 640’000 and 620’000 BP. During the coldestphases of the last glacial (MIS 5d – MIS 2) the Musk oxenhad their largest geographic distribution (fig. 5). The mostwestern and southern findings are from the IberianPeninsula. Moreover their bone remains are known of therest of Western Europe, Central Europe, SouthernScandinavia, the Russian Plain to the Ural Mountains andfrom there to Northern East Siberia and to NorthernAmerica. Their distribution was limited in the North by theScandinavian ice shield, by the arid zones in centralEurasia and the regions of South Western Europe with highprecipitation. Their remains are often associated with themammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and the woollyrhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) which were – like theMusk ox - important representatives of the cold and opentundra landscape of the last glacial period. For this reasonthe Musk ox belongs to the Mammuthus-CoelodontaFaunal Complex during the last glacial (Kahlke 2014 ;Koenigswald 2002).

3 - The Musk oxin the Upper Palaeolithic portable art

In contrast to their large distribution area the remains ofMusk ox are rather rare in Palaeolithic layers. This couldindicate that they were rarely hunted. But also in the IceAge art – in the cave and portable art – the Musk ox isseldom figured in contrast to the horse, aurochs and ibex.

286

L'art au quotidien - Objets ornés du Paléolithique supérieurPartie 3 : Techniques, supports et thèmes I. M. BRAUN

Figure 1 - Musk ox in Greenland (Photo W. Notter).

Figure 1 - Bœuf musqué au Groenland (Photo W. Notter). Figure 2 - Detail of the head of a Musk ox with the characteristichorn in the zoo Dählhölzli in Bern (Photo I.M. Braun).

Figure 2 - Détail de la tête d’un Bœuf musqué avec la cornecaractéristique dans le parc animalier Dählhölzli à Berne (PhotoI.M. Braun).

Figure 3 - Male Musk ox with the massive front plate of thehorns in the zoo Dählhölzli in Bern (Photo I.M. Braun).

Figure 3 - Bœuf musqué mâle avec la plaque massive frontaledes cornes dans le parc animalier Dählhölzli à Berne (PhotoI.M. Braun).


The Musk ox (Ovibos moschatus) in the European Upper Palaeolithic portable art

287

Figure 4 - Range map of thecontemporary three sub-speciesof the Musk ox (Pedersen 1958).

Figure 4 - Répartitiongéographique des trois sous-espèces actuelles du Bœufmusqué (Pedersen 1958).

Figure 5 - Range map of the maximum distribution of the Musk ox (dark green shaded area) in the last glacial period (MIS 5d – MIS 2)(Kahlke 2014).

Figure 5 - Carte de répartition maximale du Bœuf musqué (zone verte foncée et hachurée) durant la dernière période glaciaire(MIS 5d – MIS 2) (Kahlke 2014).


There are already compilations of the representations of theMusk ox in the older literature (see Barrière 1993 ; Capitanet al. 1910 ; Koby 1969 ; Mayet and Pissot 1915), but therehave also been new findings hitherto. In this contributiononly the figures of Musk ox in the European portable art willbe presented and discussed.

Representations of Musk ox have been discovered inFrance, in Switzerland and in Germany (fig. 6). There aretwo sculptures, three engravings on organic material, twoengravings on stone and one ronde-bosse in stone. Withone exception all hitherto known figures are attributed to theMagdalenian.

3.1 - Kesslerloch (Canton Schaffhausen,Switzerland)

The cave of Kesslerloch was discovered in 1873 by KonradMerk and belongs to the most important sites of the SwissMagdalenian. The findings – stone and bone artefacts – arevery abundant. The objects are attributed to the middle and

late Magdalenian. There are also a lot of important portableart objects among them. Some show good parallels toobjects of South Western France and of the FrenchPyrenees (Bosinski 1982 ; Bandi and Delporte 1984 ; Braun2006, 2009).

The here presented head of a Musk ox (fig. 7a, 7b) is surelythe most well-known representation of this animal inportable art. The object was already discovered during thefirst excavations by Konrad Merk and published by himself(fig. 7a) (Merk 1875). The head was sculptured in reindeerantler in the technique of the contour découpé and its lengthis 6,2 cm. The eyes, ears and especially the characteristichorns are very clearly indicated on both sides of the head.The part behind the horns is decorated with short grooveswhich probably show the coat. Bosinski (1982) regards thisobject perhaps as a part of a sculptured spear thrower.Spear throwers with a sculptured horse head are knownfrom the Kesslerloch (Bandi and Delporte 1984 ; Bosinski1982 ; Braun 2006, 2009 ; Guyan 1944).

288


Figure 6 - Range map of the representations of Musk ox in portable art: 1 Kesslerloch (CH), 2 Courbet (F), 3 Enlène (F),4 Enlène (F), 5 La Colombière (F), 6 Espalungue-Arudy (F), 7 Kniegrotte (D), 8 Laugerie-Haute (F) (Drawing R. Egloff).

Figure 6 - Répartition géographique des représentations du Bœuf musqué dans l’art mobilier : 1 Kesslerloch (CH), 2 Courbet (F),3 Enlène (F), 4 Enlène (F), 5 La Colombière (F), 6 Espalungue-Arudy (F), 7 Kniegrotte (D), 8 Laugerie-Haute (F) (Dessin R. Egloff).



289

Figure 7b - Kesslerloch. Thesculptured Musk ox head(Adam and Kurz 1980).

Figure 7b - Kesslerloch. Latête sculptée d’un Bœufmusqué (Adam et Kurz1980).

Figure 7a - Kesslerloch.Drawing of the sculpturedMusk ox head (Merk 1875).

Figure 7a - Kesslerloch.Dessin de la tête sculptée duBœuf musqué (Merk 1875).


Nowadays the object belongs to the collection of theRosgarten Museum in Constance. Its inventory number isU7.

3.2 - Grotte du Courbet(Tarn, France)

As the Kesslerloch the cave of Courbet was discoverd inthe second half of the 19th century and is known for itsMagdalenian portable art objects. The presented object (fig.8a, b) belongs to the de Lastic collection of the BritishMuseum in London and its inventory number is64.12.26.545.

It is a spear thrower carved in reindeer antler and its lengthis 8,9 cm. The upper part of the hook is broken old. Theupper part of the object shows a groove as it is known fromthe spear thrower with a hook and a groove(“Haken/Muldenspeerschleudern”) (Sieveking 1987 ;Stodiek 1993).

As the precedent object of the Kesslerloch the head of theMusk ox of Courbet cave was sculptured in a light relief onboth sides. The eyes, the characteristic horns and themuzzle are indicated, the ears are missing. In contrast tothe object of the Kesslerloch the eyes, the horns and themuzzle were not figured symmetrically. For this reason itcould be that there were two different heads figured on thesame object.

3.3 - Grotte d’Enlène (Ariège, France)

The Enlène cave belongs together with the caves of LesTrois-Frères and Le Tuc d’Audoubert to the so called“Cavernes du Volp”. Enlène was a cave of habitationwithout Palaeolithic cave art during the Magdalenian. Thefirst excavations started already in the 19th century. Theseresearches were continued between the First and SecondWorld War by L. Bégouën. Further excavations werecarried out between 1976 and 1988 under the direction ofR. Bégouën and J. Clottes. With its settlement structures –f.e. fire places – and numerous portable art objects, amongthem numerous engraved stone plaquettes, Enlène cavebelongs to the important Magdalenian sites in the FrenchPyrenees and dates between 14’000 and 13’500 BP.(Bégouën et al. 1996). A monograph of the Magdalenianfindings and settlement structures is in preparation(personal communication R. Bégouën).

3.3.1 - Head of a Musk ox on a fragmentof calcareous sinter

The present object (fig. 9a, b) is a yellow fragment of an oldcalcareous sinter which was found in the “Salle du Fond” inthe excavations under the direction of R. Bégouën andJ. Clottes. Its inventory number is 290. Only one side isengraved whose surface is concave and plain. (Bégouënand Clottes 2007).

It is a head of a Musk ox which is orientated to the left andthe engraving fits very well in the available space. The eye,

the right horn and the muzzle can clearly be recognized.The eye is represented in a double oval alignment. Thecharacteristic horn shows at its basis six short engravedlines. The nose is indicated with fine lines and the neck witha clear and single line. A row of short lines continuesparallel to the line of the neck. The other lines in the area ofthe head could indicate the thick coat.

According to R. Gessain (in Bégouën and Clottes 2007) thishead could be the profile of a male Musk ox.

3.3.2 - Head of a Musk ox on reindeer antler

This fragment of reindeer antler – probably a fragment of abroken bâton percé – shows an animal head on its bothsides (fig. 10a, b).

The first head was originally interpreted as a head of abison. However, recent studies interpret it as a head of aMusk ox (Bégouën and Clottes 2007). The reason for thisis the horn which starts downwards and is orientatedupwards finally as it is typical of the Musk oxen. Further theeye and the muzzle are indicated.

The other side probably shows a head of a bison with theindication of the eye and the muzzle.

3.4 - Abri de La Colombière (Ain, France)

Situated on the right border of the Ain river and in thesouthern part of the Jura mountains the rock shelter of LaColombière was already discovered in 1867 by A. Arcelin.L. Mayet and J. Pissot excavated there between 1913 and1915, later H. Movius in 1948 and finally R. Desbrossebetween 1975 and 1981.

The findings, especially the rich inventory of stone tools –there are only a few bone tools – were first attributed to theGravettian by H. Movius. Nowadays the findings of LaColombière are attributed to the Magdalenian. (Mayet andPissot 1915 ; Movius and Judson 1956 ; Paillet and Man-Estier 2010)

The site is known of its 15 engraved pebbles which werefound during the excavations by L. Mayet and J. Pissot andthey especially show different kinds of animals (Mayet andPissot 1915 ; Paillet and Man-Estier 2010 ; Sieveking 1986-1987).

The present object (fig. 11a, b) is the pebble number 8 inthe numbering of Mayet and Pissot (1915). It is acalcareous pebble of two fitting pieces – however thepebble is not complete – and its length is 14,4 cm, the width13 cm and the thickness 4,1 cm (Paillet and Man-Estier2010). The animal orientated to the left was interpreted byMayet and Pissot (1915) as a moufflon. However it was H.Breuil who saw in this animal a Musk ox because of theshape of the horn (Mayet and Pissot 1915). On the otherhand A. Leroi-Gourhan (1965) interpreted this animal as abison. Due to the shape of the horn and the rest of the bodywith its thick coat it is rather a Musk ox as it is interpreted inthe recent studies, too (Paillet and Man-Estier 2010). The

290




291

Figure 8a - Courbet. Spearthrower with a sculpturedhead of a Musk ox on bothsides (Stodiek 1993).

Figure 8a - Courbet.Propulseur avec la gravureen léger relief sur les deuxfaces d’une tête de Bœufmusqué (Stodiek 1993).

Figure 8b - Courbet. Drawing of the spear throwerwith a sculptured head of a Musk ox on both sides(Drawing A.-C. Welté).

Figure 8b - Courbet. Dessin du propulseur avec lagravure en léger relief sur les deux faces d’un Bœufmusqué (Dessin A.-C. Welté).


292


Figure 9a - Enlène. Fragment of calcareous sinter with theengraving of a Musk ox head (Photo R. Bégouën).

Figure 9a - Enlène. Fragment de plancher stalagmitique avecla gravure d’une tête de Bœuf musqué (Photo R. Bégouën).

Figure 9b - Enlène. Drawing ofthe calcareous sinter with theengraving of a Musk ox head(Bégouën and Clottes 2007).

Figure 9b - Dessin du fragmentde plancher stalagmitique avecla gravure d’une tête de Bœufmusqué (Bégouën et Clottes2007).



293

Figure 10a - Enlène.Fragment of reindeer antlerwith a head of a Musk ox(Photo R. Bégouën).

Figure 10a - Enlène.Fragment d’un bois de renneavec une tête de Bœufmusqué (Photo R. Bégouën).

Figure 10b - Enlène. Drawingof the fragment of reindeerantler probably showing abison head (above) and aMusk ox head (below)(Bégouën and Clottes 2007).

Figure 10b - Enlène. Dessindu fragment du bois de rennemontrant une probable têtede bison (en haut) et la têted’un Bœuf musqué (en bas)(Bégouën et Clottes 2007).


eye and the ear are also indicated. As the legs are notcovered completely by the thick coat it can be supposed thatthe animal is drawn in summer coat. Finally there are twofinely engraved arrow-like signs on this side of the pebble.

The other side of the pebble shows two engraved woollyrhinoceroses (Paillet and Man-Estier 2010).

3.5 - Grotte Espalungue-Arudy(Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France)

Discovered in the 19th century the cave of Espalungue-Arudy is a reference site for the Magdalenian in the FrenchPyrenees and important portable art objects were foundthere (Schwab 2008). Some portable art objects as the

294


Figure 11a - La Colombière. Calcareous pebble (n° 8)with the engraving of a Musk ox (Photo P. Paillet andE. Man-Estier).

Figure 11a - La Colombière. Galet en calcaire (n° 8)avec la gravure d’un Bœuf musqué (Photo P. Paillet etE. Man-Estier).

Figure 11b - La Colombière.Drawing of the calcareouspebble (n° 8) with theengraving of a Musk ox(Tracing P. Paillet andE. Man-Estier 2010).

Figure 11b - La Colombière.Dessin du galet en calcaire(n°8) avec la gravure d’unBœuf musqué (RelevéP. Paillet et E. Man-Estier2010).


presented object were pictured in the book “L’art pendantl’Age du Renne” by E. Piette (1907) (fig. 12a).

The object is a fragmented bâton percé made in reindeerantler and shows on its both sides an animal head whichwas sculptured in a light relief. Its inventory number is MAN47 011 in the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

It is attributed to the middle Magdalenian and its length is22 cm, the width 4,2 cm and the thickness 2,5 cm. Most ofthe authors see in these two animal heads two ibexes. Inmy opinion the first head is without doubt an ibex with itshorn orientated backwards. The other head, however,which is important for this article, is in my opinion rather ahead of a Musk ox (fig. 12b). The horn starts close to thehead downwards and is finally orientated forward as it istypical for the Musk ox. Furthermore the shape of the headis rather one of a Musk ox than of an ibex (personalcommunication H. Fahrni). The horn, the eye and thetongue are clearly represented. According to Capitan et al.

(1910) the shape of the horn is figured in this way due to thelimited space on the antler. In analogy of the explicit headof Kesslerloch (see 3.1.) E. Cartailhac originally (in Chollot1964) saw in this figure a head of a Musk ox, too. Accordingto Chollot (1964) it is rather a head of an ibex because thehorn shows a channel which corresponds to the folding ofthe ibex’ horn.

3.6 - Kniegrotte (Thuringia, Germany)

The Kniegrotte is one of the most important Magdaleniancave sites in former Eastern Germany. The Kniegrotte wasexcavated completely between 1930 and 1938 by MartinRichter and numerous stone and bone artefacts werefound. The findings were first analyzed by Rudolf Feustel(1974). Christiane Höck studied the material and thesettlement structures again for her PhD thesis andpublished them (Höck 2000). There were also portable artobjects found. Among them some are unique and do notshow parallels to other known portable art objects of theEuropean Magdalenian (Bosinski 1982 ; Braun 2012) asthe presented object (fig. 13a).

The object is a piece of reindeer antler which is perforatedlongitudinally and its length is 23,8 cm, the width is 4,5 cmand the thickness is 2,9 cm. Both ends were rounded. Thesignificance and the intended use of this object areunknown. It is decorated with different engravings (fig. 13b).There are two animals, one of them is an incomplete woollyrhinoceros with its two characteristic horns, and diversegeometric signs. The second animal (fig. 13c) is probably aMusk ox orientated to the right. The thick and shaggy coatwhich shows the outline, the right eye and the right nostrilcan be recognized well. The question is if the engravedappendix above the eye is the ear or a short horn which isstill in growth. The hind legs are schematically depicted.Furthermore there are five grooves and two engraved lineson the body. Such signs are often interpreted in Palaeolithicart as arrows respectively as wounds. Very interesting isthat the posterior of the animal was scraped later. In myopinion this representation of Kniegrotte could be a one


295

Figure 12a - Espalungue-Arudy. Portable art objects on thePlate VIII in the book « L’art pendant l’Age du Renne » ofE. Piette (1907).

Figure 12a - Espalugue-Arudy. Objets d’art mobilier sur laplanche VIII dans le livre « L’art pendant l’Age du Renne »d’E. Piette (1907).

Figure 12b - Espalungue-Arudy. Detail of Fig. 12a with thesculptured Musk ox head in light relief on a fragmented bâtonpercé (Piette 1907).

Figure 12b - Espalungue-Arudy. Détail de la Fig. 12a avec latête de Bœuf musqué gravée en léger relief sur le fragment debâton percé (Piette 1907).


296


Figure 13a - Kniegrotte.Perforated reindeer antler withdifferent engravings(Höck 2000).

Figure 13a - Kniegrotte. Bois derenne perforé avec desdifférentes gravures(Höck 2000).

Figure 13b - Kniegrotte.Unwinded engravings of theperforated reindeer antler(Höck 2000).

Figure 13b - Kniegrotte.Déroulé des gravures relevéessur le bois de renne perforé(Höck 2000).

Figure 13c - Kniegrotte. Detailof the engraving of the Musk ox(Höck 2000).

Figure 13c - Kniegrotte. Détailde la gravure du Bœuf musqué(Höck 2000).


year old Musk ox calf (fig. 14). According to Pedersen(1958) 11 to 12 months old Musk oxen have already hornswith a length of 7 to 8 cm.

3.7 - Abri Laugerie-Haute (Dordogne, France)

Situated on the territory of Les Eyzies-de-Tayac and on the rightborder of the Vézère River, the rock shelter of Laugerie-Hautebelongs to the important Upper Palaeolithic sites in thePérigord. The first investigations were already made byEdouard Lartet and Henry Christy in 1863 which werecontinued by further researchers. Very important is thecomplete sequence of the Solutrean. Till nowadays there is theonly monograph about this important site by Denis and EliePeyrony (1938). But there are recent studies on the chronologyand environment of the Solutrean and Magdalenian occupationof this site (cf. for example Delpech 2012).

The presented object (fig. 15a-c) was found by DenisPeyrony in 1922 in the excavated material left by O. Hauser(Peyrony 1925). D. and E. Peyrony attributed it to the olderMagdalenian (Peyrony 1925 ; Peyrony and Peyrony 1938).Nowadays it is attributed to the Solutrean (Grenon 2005). Inthis case it is until now the only known Solutrean portabledepiction of a Musk ox.

The fully plastic (ronde bosse) of the head of the animalwas sculptured in limestone and its length is 17 cm, its width15 cm and a diameter of 9,5 cm (Grenon 2005). Thecharacteristic horns, especially the left one, the massivefront plate, the eyes and the muzzle can be recognized.According to the shape of the horns and the massive frontplate this head probably represents a male animal. Thequestion is whether it was originally a complete sculpture ofa Musk ox or only the head of the animal.


297

Figure 14 - Eight months old Musk ox calf in the zoo Dählhölzliin Bern (Photo I.M. Braun).

Figure 14 - Veau de Bœuf musqué ayant 8 mois dans le parcanimalier Dählhölzli à Berne (Photo I.M. Braun).

Figure 15a - Laugerie-Haute. Sculptured head of a Musk ox inlimestone. (Photo Musée d’Archéologie Nationale à Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Loïc Hamon).

Figure 15a - Laugerie-Haute. Tête sculptée en calcaire d’unBœuf musqué. (Photo Musée d’Archéologie Nationale à Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Loïc Hamon).

Figure 15b - Laugerie-Haute. Sculptured head ofa Musk ox in limestone.(Graziosi 1956).

Fig 15b - Laugerie-Haute.Tête sculptée d’un Bœufmusqué en calcaire.(Graziosi 1956).

Figure 15c - Laugerie-Haute. Sculptured head ofa Musk ox in limestone.(Müller-Karpe 1966).

Figure 15c - Laugerie-Haute. Tête sculptée d’unBœuf musqué en calcaire.(Müller-Karpe 1966).


Conclusion

Despite their original vast geographical distribution duringthe last glacial in Eurasia the representations of Musk oxenare rare in the Palaeolithic portable art. The same is true forcave art. If the reason for this is that they were rarely huntedis not sure.

Nevertheless their fossil bone remains and the artisticdepictions of Musk oxen can give a good indication of theformer climate. It was a dry and cold climate. According toKoenigswald (2002) most of the dated bone remains ofMusk oxen in Europe are from the time after the LastGlacial Maximum. This is also well documented in the IceAge Art, because with the exception of the sculptured headfrom Laugerie-Haute all representations in the Palaeolithicportable art are dated in the Magdalenian. Two olderdepictions, however in cave art – probably from theAurignacian – are known from Chauvet cave (Dép.Ardèche, France) (Le Guillou 2001) and they belong to theoldest dated representations of Musk oxen in the Ice AgeArt. A sculptured Musk ox is known from the Roc de Serswhich dates in the Solutrean (Martin 1928 ; Tymula 2002)

Acknowledgment

First I want to thank the organizers of this international andvery interesting colloquium. Furthermore I want to thank allthose who gave me illustrations of contemporary Muskoxen and of portable art objects for this contribution. I hadgood discussions about the behaviour and the zoology ofMusk oxen with H. Fahrni of the zoo Dählhölzli in Bern andwith Dr. W. Zessin from the zoo Schwerin. I thank Dr.R. Egloff for making the distribution map of representationsof Musk oxen in the Palaeolithic portable art. I am gratefulto Dr. J. Hansen for the cross-reading of the article. Last butnot to least I want to thank the Palaeolithic artists forcreating these impressive pieces of art which alwaysfascinate me.

Bibliography

ADAM K.D., KURZ R. 1980 – Eiszeitkunst imsüddeutschen Raum. Stuttgart : Theiss, 161 p., ill.

BANDI H.-G., DELPORTE H. 1984 – Propulseurs décorésen France et en Suisse. In : Eléments de Pré- etProtohistoire européenne. Hommage à Jacques-PierreMillotte. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon.Paris, Les Belles-Lettres, p. 203-211.

BARRIÈRE C. 1993 – Les Bovidés. In : Aujoulat, N. et al.,L’art pariétal paléolithique. Techniques et méthodesd’étude. Paris : Editions du Comité des Travaux Historiqueset Scientifiques, p. 109-122.

BÉGOUËN R., CLOTTES J. 1983 – El arte mobilar de lascavernas del Volp (en Montesquieu-Avantès/Ariège).Revista de Arqueologia, Vol. 27, p. 6-17, fig.

BÉGOUËN R. et al. 1996 – Enlène (Montesquieu-Avantès,Ariège). In : Thiault M.-H., Roy J.-B. (Eds.), L’art préhistoriquedes Pyrénées. Musée des Antiquités Nationales, château deSaint-Germain-en-Laye, 2 avril–8 juillet 1996. Paris : Editionsdes Musées Nationaux, p. 182-192.

BÉGOUËN R., CLOTTES J. 2007 – Compléments auxplaquettes gravées d’Enlène. Cuadernos de Arte Rupestre,4, p. 51-80, fig.

BOSINSKI G. 1982 – Die Kunst der Eiszeit in Deutschlandund der Schweiz. Katalog vor- und frühgeschichtlicherAltertümer des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.Band 20. Bonn : Habelt, 92 p., ill.

BRAUN I. M. 2006 – Art mobilier magdalénien en Suisse.Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, LX - 2005, p. 25-44, fig., tabl.

BRAUN I.M. 2009 – L’art mobilier magdalénien en Suisse.In : Djindjian F., Oosterbeek, L. (Eds.), Symbolic Spaces inPrehistoric Art – Territories, travels and site locations. BARInternational Series, Vol. 40, Oxford, p. 75-81, fig.

BRAUN I.M. 2012 – Künstlerische Zeugnisse aus derAltsteinzeit in Mitteldeutschland. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt, 6, p. 263-276, fig.

CAPITAN, L., BREUIL, H., D. PEYRONY 1910 – Lacaverne de Font-de-Gaume aux Eyzies (Dordogne).Monaco : Impr. A. Chêne, 271 p., ill.

CHOLLOT M. 1964 – Musée des Antiquités Nationales –Collection Piette – Art mobilier préhistorique. Paris :Editions des Musées Nationaux, 479 p., ill.

DELPECH F. 2012 – Biostratigraphie des niveauxsolutréens de Laugerie-Haute (Les Eyzies, Dordogne,France). Implications archéologiques. Paleo – n° 23,p. 105-116, fig., tabl.

FEUSTEL R. 1974 – Die Kniegrotte – Eine Magdalénien-Station in Thüringen. Weimar : Hermann BöhlhausNachfolger, 224 p., ill.

GRAZIOSI P. 1956 – Die Kunst der Altsteinzeit. Stuttgart:W. Kohlhammer, 300 p., ill

GRENON T. (Dir.) 2005 – Chefs d’œuvre préhistoriques duPérigord – Vingt cinq millénaires d’art mobilier. Le PetitJournal des grandes expositions, n° 379.

GUYAN W.U. 1944 – Eine Speerschleuder vomKesslerloch. Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie undKunstgeschichte, 6, p. 75-84, ill.

HÖCK C. 2000 – Das Magdalénien der Kniegrotte – EinHöhlenfundplatz bei Döbritz, Saale-Orla-Kreis. WeimarerMonographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Band 35.Stuttgart : Konrad Theiss, 202 p., ill.

KAHLKE R.-D. 2014 – The origin of Eurasian MammothFaunas (Mammuthus-Coelodonta Faunal Complex).Quaternary Science Reviews, 96, p. 32-49, fig.

298



KOBY F.-E. 1969 – Le Bœuf Musqué (ovibos) et sesreprésentations paléolithiques. Actes de la Sociétéjurassienne d’émulation, 72, p. 267-272, fig.

KOENIGSWALD von W. 2002 – Lebendige Eiszeit – Klimaund Tierwelt im Wandel. Stuttgart : Konrad Theiss, 190 p.,ill.

LE GUILLOU Y. 2001 – Les bœufs musqués. In : Clottes J.(Ed.), La grotte Chauvet – L’art des Origines. Paris : Seuil,p. 194.

LEROI-GOURHAN A. 1965 – Préhistoire de l’Artoccidental. Paris : Mazenod, 502 p., ill.

MARTIN H. 1928 – La frise sculptée et l’atelier solutréen duRoc (Charente). Paris : Archives de l’Institut dePaléontologie Humaine, Mém. 5, 87 p., ill.

MAYET L., PISSOT, J. 1915 – Abri-sous rochepréhistorique de La Colombière près Poncin (Ain). Lyon :Annales de l’Université de Lyon, Nouvelle Série I, fasc. 39,193 p., ill.

MERK K. 1875 – Der Höhlenfund im Kesslerloch.Mitteilungen der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft, 19/1, p. 1-42,fig.

MOVIUS H.L., JUDSON S. 1956 – The rock-shelter of LaColombière – Archaeological and geological investigationsof an upper Perigordian site near Poncin (Ain). AmericanSchool of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin n° 19. Cambridge(USA) : Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 176 p., ill.

MÜLLER-KARPE H. 1966 – Handbuch der Vorgeschichte.Band 1 – Altsteinzeit. München: C.H. Beck, 389 p., ill.

PAILLET, P., MAN-ESTIER E. 2010 – Les œuvres d’art del’abri magdalénien de la Colombière (Neuville-sur-Ain, Ain).Nouvelle étude d’une collection majeure de l’art mobilierpaléolithique. Bulletin Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 18/1,p. 35-104, fig., tabl.

PEYRONY D. 1925 – Une tête d’ovibos sculptéedécouverte à Laugerie-Haute (Dordogne). L’Anthropologie,T. XXXV, p. 265-270, fig.

PEYRONY D., PEYRONY E. 1938 – Laugerie-Haute prèsdes Eyzies (Dordogne). Paris : Archives de l’Institut dePaléontologie Humaine, Mém. 19, 84 p., ill.

PIETTE E. 1907 – L’art pendant l’âge du Renne. Paris :Masson et Cie, 112 p., ill.

PEDERSEN A. 1958 – Der Moschusochs. Die NeueBrehm-Bücherei. Wittenberg Lutherstadt : A. Ziemsen,54 p., ill.

REICHHOLF J. 1982 – Säugetiere. Die farbigenNaturführer. München : Mosaik, 287 p., ill.

SCHWAB C. 2008 – La Collection Piette. Paris : Réuniondes musées nationaux, 127 p., ill.

SIEVEKING A. 1986-1987 – La Colombière réeaxaminée –une analyse de style des galets décorés. Antiquitésnationales, p. 101-108.

SIEVEKING A. 1987 – A catalogue of Palaeolithic art in theBritish Museum. Cambridge : University Press, 115 p., ill.

STODIEK U. 1993 – Zur Technologie derjungpaläolithischen Speerschleuder – eine Studie auf derBasis archäologischer, ethnologischer und experimentellerErkenntnisse. Tübingen : Archaeologica Venatoria, 276 p.,ill.

TYMULA S. 2002 – L’art solutréen du Roc de Sers(Charente). Paris : Documents d’Archéologie française 91,285 p., ill.


299

