Alexandre Lefebvre
email: alexandrelefebvre24@gmail.com

Ana Belen Marín-Arroyo

Esteban Álvarez Fernández

Marco De La

Rasilla Vives
email: mrasilla@uniovi.es

Elsa Duarte Matías

Marián Cueto
email: mariancuetor@gmail.com

Jesus Tapia
email: jtapia@aranzadi-zientziak.org

Eduardo Berganza Gochi

Jean-Marc Pétillon

E Álvarez-Fernández

E Berganza
email: eduardoberganza@irakasle.eus

J.-M Pétillon

Interconnected Magdalenian societies as revealed by the circulation of whale bone artefacts in the Pyreneo-Cantabrian region

Keywords: North Atlantic, osseous technology, southwestern Europe, Late Upper Palaeolithic, coastal adaptations, communication networks

niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Hunter-gatherer adaptations to coastal environments remain a key issue in European prehistoric research, especially along the northern Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula. The emergence of these subsistence practices is reflected in the discovery of marine shells from Palaeolithic and Mesolithic assemblages, as well as depictions on rock art, which were recognised relatively early on in the history of the region's archaeological research (e.g., [START_REF] Del Río | Las pinturas y grabados de las cavernas prehistóricas de la Provincia de Santander[END_REF][START_REF] Vega Del | La Cueva del Penicial[END_REF][START_REF] Obermaier | El Hombre Fósil[END_REF][START_REF] Vega Del | [END_REF][START_REF] Obermaier | El Hombre Fósil[END_REF][START_REF] Hernández-Pacheco | La Caverna de la Peña de Candamo[END_REF][START_REF] Hernández-Pacheco | La vida de nuestros antecesores paleolíticos según los resultados de las excavaciones en la caverna de La Paloma (Asturias)[END_REF]Aranzadi y Barandiarán, 1935;[START_REF] Breuil | La Cueva de Altamira en Santillana del Mar. Tipografía de Archivos[END_REF]. Evidence for the exploitation of coastal resources at European Palaeolithic sites has grown progressively, leading to a critical reassessment of their importance for both the subsistence needs and symbolic practices of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer groups (see for example [START_REF] Madariaga | Análisis paleontológico de la fauna terrestre y marina de lacueva de la Chora[END_REF][START_REF] Madariaga | Análisis paleontológico de la fauna terrestre y marina de la Cueva del Otero[END_REF][START_REF] Altuna | Los Mamíferos del yacimiento prehistórico de Tito Bustillo[END_REF][START_REF] Altuna | The mammalian faunas from the prehistoric site of la Riera[END_REF][START_REF] Straus | Ice age subsistence in northern Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Straus | On Maritime Hunter -Gatherers: A View From Cantabrian Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Balbín | Pinturas y grabados de la Cueva de Tito Bustillo (Asturias). Conjuntos I a VII[END_REF][START_REF] Poplin | La dent de Cachalot sculptée du Mas d'Azil, avec remarques sur les autres restes de cétacés de la Préhistoire française[END_REF][START_REF] Sonneville-Bordes | Le phoque à la fin des temps glaciaires[END_REF]Cleyet-Merle, 1990;[START_REF] Cleyet-Merle | Inland Evidence of Human Sea Coast Exploitation in Palaeolithic France[END_REF][START_REF] Bailey | Late Pleistocene and Holocene palaeoeconomies: a reconsideration of the molluscan evidence from Northern Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Morales | Postglacial coast and inland: epipaleolithic-Mesolithic-Neolithic transitions in Vasco-Cantabrian Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Los objetos de adorno-colgantes del Paleolítico superior y del Mesolítico en la Cornisa Cantábrica y en el Valle del Ebro: una visión europea[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Humans and marine resource interaction reappraised: Archaeofauna remains during the late Pleistocene and Holocene in Cantabrian Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Roselló | Las ictiofaunas de Santa Catalina (Lequeitio, Vizcaya): un registro singular para la prehistoria cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Gutiérrez-Zugasti | La explotación de moluscos y otros recursos litorales en la región cantábrica durante el Pleistoceno final y el Holoceno inicial[END_REF]Gutiérrez-Zugasti and Cuenca-Solana, 2015;Gutiérrez-Zugasti et al., 2015). New finds and studies over the past decade have pushed the earliest exploitation of coastal resources into the European Middle Palaeolithic [START_REF] Colonese | Marine mollusc exploitation in Mediterranean prehistory: an overview[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Marine resources exploitation during the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in Europe: Overview of the available evidence[END_REF][START_REF] Zilhão | 1 come from Lefebvre, 2016: 160. Data for Pyrenean foreshafts and massive-based points made in antler from Isturitz (levels F1-Eω/SI) come from personal observations. Width (mean and SD in mm) Thickness (mean and SD in mm) Lenght of complete specimens (mean and SD in mm) Cantabrian fork-based point made in WB 6 (n=1) 13 (n=1) 112 (n=1) Pyrenean fork-based points made in RA from Isturitz I/F1 7,7 ±[END_REF], and led to a reassessment of the role of coastal environments in human evolution and dispersal events [START_REF] Erlandson | The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: paradigms for a new millenium[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Humans and marine resource interaction reappraised: Archaeofauna remains during the late Pleistocene and Holocene in Cantabrian Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Marín-Arroyo | Human response to Holocene warming on the Cantabrian Coast (northern Spain): an unexpected outcome[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Archaeology of maritime hunter-gatherers. From settlement function to the organization of the coastal zone[END_REF][START_REF] Will | Midden or molehill: The role of coastal adaptations in human evolution and dispersal[END_REF][START_REF] Zilhão | 1 come from Lefebvre, 2016: 160. Data for Pyrenean foreshafts and massive-based points made in antler from Isturitz (levels F1-Eω/SI) come from personal observations. Width (mean and SD in mm) Thickness (mean and SD in mm) Lenght of complete specimens (mean and SD in mm) Cantabrian fork-based point made in WB 6 (n=1) 13 (n=1) 112 (n=1) Pyrenean fork-based points made in RA from Isturitz I/F1 7,7 ±[END_REF].

Reconstructing Pleistocene coastal environments is complicated by the highly fragmentary nature of the archaeological record [START_REF] Bailey | Archaeology of the continental shelf: marine resources, submerged landscapes and underwater archaeology[END_REF][START_REF] Bicho | At the land's end: marine resources and the importance of fluctuations in the coastline in the prehistoric hunter-gatherer economy of Portugal[END_REF]. Large portions of previously accessible coastal areas are now submerged depending on both marine transgressions and coastal geography [START_REF] Deschamps | Ice-sheet collapse and sea-level rise at the Bølling warming 14,600 years ago[END_REF][START_REF] Benjamin | Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review[END_REF]. Nevertheless, a handful of wellpreserved Iberian sites, which were close to the paleoshore, provide evidence for the exploitation of these areas from the Middle (Figueira Brava, Arrábida, Portugal; [START_REF] Zilhão | 1 come from Lefebvre, 2016: 160. Data for Pyrenean foreshafts and massive-based points made in antler from Isturitz (levels F1-Eω/SI) come from personal observations. Width (mean and SD in mm) Thickness (mean and SD in mm) Lenght of complete specimens (mean and SD in mm) Cantabrian fork-based point made in WB 6 (n=1) 13 (n=1) 112 (n=1) Pyrenean fork-based points made in RA from Isturitz I/F1 7,7 ±[END_REF] to the Late Upper Palaeolithic (Santa Catalina, Vizcaya, Spain; Berganza and Arribas, 2014a;Nerja, Málaga, Spain;[START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Occurrence of whale barnacles in Nerja Cave (Málaga, Southern Spain): indirect evidence of whale consumption by humans in the Upper Magdalenian[END_REF][START_REF] Morales-Pérez | Mediterranean monk seal hunting in the regional Epipalaeolithic of Southern Iberia. A study of the Nerja Cave site (Málaga, Spain)[END_REF]. Depending on the region, these adaptations potentially included the consumption of marine fish and birds, echinoderms, molluscs, crustaceans, as well as the exploitation of marine mammals (i.e., seals and cetaceans) and tortoises [START_REF] Sonneville-Bordes | Le phoque à la fin des temps glaciaires[END_REF]Cleyet-Merle, 1990;[START_REF] Cleyet-Merle | Inland Evidence of Human Sea Coast Exploitation in Palaeolithic France[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Los objetos de adorno-colgantes del Paleolítico superior y del Mesolítico en la Cornisa Cantábrica y en el Valle del Ebro: una visión europea[END_REF]2011;[START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Occurrence of whale barnacles in Nerja Cave (Málaga, Southern Spain): indirect evidence of whale consumption by humans in the Upper Magdalenian[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Ressources complémentaires et mobilité dans le Magdalénien cantabrique. Nouvelles données sur les mammifères marins, les crustacés, les mollusques et les roches organogènes de la Grotte de Las Caldas (Asturies, Espagne)[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Archaeology of maritime hunter-gatherers. From settlement function to the organization of the coastal zone[END_REF][START_REF] Castaños | Estudio de los macromamíferos del yacimiento de Santa Catalina[END_REF][START_REF] Laroulandie | Traitement et utilisation des ressources aviaires au Tardiglaciaire dans la grotte de Santa Catalina[END_REF][START_REF] Morales-Pérez | Mediterranean monk seal hunting in the regional Epipalaeolithic of Southern Iberia. A study of the Nerja Cave site (Málaga, Spain)[END_REF][START_REF] Zilhão | 1 come from Lefebvre, 2016: 160. Data for Pyrenean foreshafts and massive-based points made in antler from Isturitz (levels F1-Eω/SI) come from personal observations. Width (mean and SD in mm) Thickness (mean and SD in mm) Lenght of complete specimens (mean and SD in mm) Cantabrian fork-based point made in WB 6 (n=1) 13 (n=1) 112 (n=1) Pyrenean fork-based points made in RA from Isturitz I/F1 7,7 ±[END_REF]. Depictions of marine animals in rock and mobiliary art, as well as the use of sea mammal teeth or marine shell for mobiliary art and personal ornaments, comprise a growing body of evidence for the symbolic use of marine resources from the beginning of the European Upper Palaeolithic [START_REF] Poplin | La dent de Cachalot sculptée du Mas d'Azil, avec remarques sur les autres restes de cétacés de la Préhistoire française[END_REF][START_REF] Taborin | La Parure en Coquillage au Paléolithique[END_REF][START_REF] Taborin | Langage sans paroles, la parure aux temps préhistoriques[END_REF][START_REF] Serangeli | La zone côtière et son rôle dans les comportements alimentaires des chasseurs-cueilleurs du Paléolithique supérieur[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Humans and marine resource interaction reappraised: Archaeofauna remains during the late Pleistocene and Holocene in Cantabrian Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Échos de l'océan: Phoques et Baleines en Europe au Paléolithique récent[END_REF].

Evidence for the exploitation of cetaceans by European hunter-gatherers follows a similar trend; being rare in the first part of the Upper Palaeolithic and becoming more numerous in the second half, especially during the middle and upper phases of the Magdalenian (19-13 cal ka BP) [START_REF] Pétillon | Échos de l'océan: Phoques et Baleines en Europe au Paléolithique récent[END_REF]. During this latter period, several unworked (Duruthy, Nerja) and worked (Las Caldas, Mas d'Azil) odontocetes teeth (i.e., Delphinidae, P. macrocephalus, G. melas), whale barnacle plates from Las Caldas and Nerja (suggested to have been imported still adhering to the skin), as well as a cut-out contour (contour découpé) and a pendant, both possibly on large cetacean bones, have been documented from Isturitz and Balmori, respectively [START_REF] Poplin | La dent de Cachalot sculptée du Mas d'Azil, avec remarques sur les autres restes de cétacés de la Préhistoire française[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Ressources complémentaires et mobilité dans le Magdalénien cantabrique. Nouvelles données sur les mammifères marins, les crustacés, les mollusques et les roches organogènes de la Grotte de Las Caldas (Asturies, Espagne)[END_REF][START_REF] Rivero | Vers une caractérisation du gisement magdalénien d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) à travers sa production artistique[END_REF][START_REF] Aura | Palaeolithic -Epipalaeolithic Seapeople of the Southern Iberian coast (Spain): an overview[END_REF][START_REF] Boneta | Sobre de la naturaleza del soporte de la placa ósea colgante de la cueva de Balmori (Asturias)/On the nature of the raw material of the osseous hanging plate from Balmori Cave (Asturias)[END_REF]. Over the last decade, this list has been supplemented by several dolphin remains (mandibles and vertebrae) from Nerja as well as 41 unworked whale rib and vertebra fragments from Santa Catalina [START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Occurrence of whale barnacles in Nerja Cave (Málaga, Southern Spain): indirect evidence of whale consumption by humans in the Upper Magdalenian[END_REF][START_REF] Castaños | Estudio de los macromamíferos del yacimiento de Santa Catalina[END_REF][START_REF] Morales-Pérez | Mediterranean monk seal hunting in the regional Epipalaeolithic of Southern Iberia. A study of the Nerja Cave site (Málaga, Spain)[END_REF].

In addition to evidence for the exploitation of cetaceans by Magdalenian groups to fulfil subsistence and symbolic needs, more than one hundred whale bone tools and weapons have been recovered from sites north of the Pyrenees (Fig. 1), to which can be added a foreshaft from Andernach-Martinsberg (Rhineland, Germany), a grey whale bone projectile point from La Madeleine (Dordogne, France) and two points from Las Caldas (Asturias, Spain) [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Langley | Long Range Inland-Coastal Networks during the Late Magdalenian: Evidence for Individual Acquisition of Marine Resources at Andernach-Martinsberg, German Central Rhineland[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF]. These discoveries shed light on interactions between prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups and coastal areas, including the longdistance transport of whale bone objects for technical needs. Taken together, the Magdalenian appears to witness the emergence of the earliest regular and diversified coastal economies in prehistory [START_REF] Marín-Arroyo | Human response to Holocene warming on the Cantabrian Coast (northern Spain): an unexpected outcome[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Archaeology of maritime hunter-gatherers. From settlement function to the organization of the coastal zone[END_REF].

In this context, the near total absence of whale bone objects during the Magdalenian in the Cantabrian region is particularly surprising as; (1) Magdalenian sites in this area have produced rich osseous industries [START_REF] Utrilla | El Magdaleniense inferior y medio en la costa cantabrica[END_REF][START_REF] Mújica | Industria de hueso en la Prehistoria de Guipúzcoa[END_REF][START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Adán | De la caza al útil, la industria ósea del tardiglaciar en Asturias[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF][START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]; (2) eastern sites in the region are in close geographic continuity with sites north of the Pyrenees that produced the first evidence for whale bone objects; and (3) Cantabrian sites are generally closer to the Atlantic coast than those in the Pyrenees. The morphology of the continental shelf, which is particularly narrow and abrupt in the Cantabrian region, limited the displacement of the paleoshoreline following the last marine transgression. While the Cantabrian coast has been submerged only 10 to 20 km since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), the coastline has retreated 10 km in the French Basque Country and almost 150 km in the Charente-Maritime and Vendée départements (Fig. 12). Consequently, there is a much higher probability of identifying evidence for the exploitation of marine resources in the south of the Bay of Biscay (Cantabrian region), than on the Landes coast. Finally, the region has already produced substantial evidence for the use of marine resources, including the first instance of whale bone objects from a Magdalenian context in Spain [START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF]. Here we explore whether the use of whale bone was a strictly local phenomenon limited to the Pyrenean region or was more widely shared amongst hunter-gatherer groups along the Atlantic coast by documenting whale bone artefacts from sites outside the Pyrenees.

The western Pyrenean and Cantabrian regions: geographical, paleoenvironmental and archaeological contexts

Located along a middle latitude, the Cantabrian region is limited to the north by the Cantabrian Sea, the southernmost portion of the Bay of Biscay, which also forms the western limit of the Pyrenean region (Fig. 12). The high mountains of the Pyrenees currently lie around 80 km from the present-day coast and are constituted in their western limit by the medium-altitude mountains of the Adour Valley. The Pyrenean chain is connected to the Cantabrian coast and Ebro Valley by the Basque-Cantabrian Basin. The Cantabrian Mountains, which are closer and run parallel to Cantabrian coastline, reach lower altitudes. The Cantabrian region comprises a 40 to 70 km littoral band extending east-west over approximately 350 km, from the Bidasoa River in eastern Guipúzcoa to the Nalón River in central Asturias. The hydrological system is predominantly organised north-south, apart from several rare instances of waterways following east-west oriented structural depressions of the Nervión, Saja, Cares, or Nalón Rivers (Fig. 2, [START_REF] Hernández-Pacheco | Síntesis fisiográfica y geológica de España[END_REF][START_REF] Hernández-Pacheco | Guía de la excursión N2. El Cuaternario de la Región Cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Bernaldo De Quirós | Los inicios del Paleolítico superior cantábrico[END_REF][START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Hoyos | Cronoestratigrafía del Tardiglaciar en la Región Cantábrica[END_REF]Jordá et al., 2014;[START_REF] Rasilla | Environment and subsistence strategies at La Viña rock shelter and Llonin Cave (Asturias, Spain) during MIS3[END_REF].

Cantabrian Magdalenian sites are particularly close to the paleoshore and generally occupy altitudes ranging from 20 to 300 m.a.s.l. (cf. Fig. 2) [START_REF] Rasilla | (Coord.), Las sociedades del Paleolítico en la Región Cantábrica. De los orígenes del poblamiento en el Pleistoceno Medio al inicio del Neolítico en el V milenio[END_REF][START_REF] García-Moreno | To see or to be seen is that the question? An evaluation of Palaeolithic sites visual presence and their role in social organization[END_REF]. Most Magdalenian sites are limestone caves and rockshelters, with the relative absence of open-air sites reflecting the history of excavations and field surveys. Notwithstanding potential biases introduced by fieldwork, river valleys and permanent snow cover seem to have impacted the northsouth occupation of the Cantabrian region during most of the Magdalenian. Raw material transfers (Piedramuelle, Piloña and Flysch flints) evince connections with the southern slope of the Cantabrian chain only from the Mesolithic onwards (Herrero- [START_REF] Herrero-Alonso | Management of lithic raw materials in the "Mesolithic with geometrics" (Northern of Iberian Peninsula): chaînes opératoires and territory[END_REF]. To the west, the lack of Magdalenian sites reflects the absence of karstic networks providing natural shelters but also field surveys [START_REF] Duarte | El sílex como recurso mineral en la Prehistoria de Asturias[END_REF]. The currently submerged littoral zone is abrupt and includes a well-developed karstic system [START_REF] Roca | The role of the Bay of Biscay Mesozoic extensional structure in the configuration of the Pyrenean orogen: Constraints from the MARCONI deep seismic reflection survey[END_REF][START_REF] Tugend | Formation and deformation of hyperextended rift systems: Insights from rift domain mapping in the Bay of Biscay-Pyrenees[END_REF][START_REF] Pedreira | Geophysicalpetrological modeling of the lithosphere beneath the Cantabrian Mountains and the North-Iberian margin: geodynamic implications[END_REF][START_REF] Pedrera | Reconstruction of the exhumed mantle across the North Iberian Margin by crustal-scale 3-D gravity inversion and geological cross section[END_REF][START_REF] Cadenas | Constraints imposed by rift inheritance on the compressional reactivation of ahyperextended margin: Mapping rift domains in the North Iberian margin and in the Cantabrian Mountains[END_REF][START_REF] Teixell | Crustal structure and evolution of the Pyrenean-Cantabrian belt: a review and new interpretations from recent concepts and data[END_REF][START_REF] Arias | Spain: Underwater Exploration on a Narrow Continental Shelf[END_REF].

The period following the Last Glacial Maximum witnessed substantial climatic instability. During the Older Dryas (ca. 18.5 to 15 cal ka BP), open grasslands composed essentially of heaths were colonised by multiple pioneer taxa (e.g., Juniperus, Salix, Hippophae rhamnoides), marking a transition from wet to dry conditions [START_REF] Naughton | Present day and past (last 25000 years) marine pollen signal off western Iberia[END_REF][START_REF] Naughton | Wet to dry climatic trend in northwestern Iberia within Heinrich events[END_REF][START_REF] Cuenca-Bescós | The reconstruction of past environments through small mammals: from the Mousterian to the Bronze Age in El Mirón Cave (Cantabria, Spain)[END_REF]Iriarte et al., 2015;[START_REF] Uzquiano | Vegetal landscape and firewood supply strategies in N Spain at the Greenland Stadial 2[END_REF]. In the Bay of Biscay, marine records reflect improved climatic conditions emerging with Heinrich event 1 (HE1) from around 19-14.8 cal ka BP. Ice sheet breakup in the North Atlantic Ocean resulted in cooler surface waters and the deposition of ice-rafted sediments [START_REF] Cacho | Variability of the western Mediterranean Sea surface temperature during the last 25,000 years and its connection with the Northern Hemisphere climatic changes[END_REF][START_REF] Pailler | High Frequency Paleoceanographic changes during the past 140,000 Years Recorded by the Organic Matter in Sediments off the Iberian margin[END_REF]. Benthic foraminifera in sea-floor deposits from the south-east of Bay of Biscay are consistent with extremely cold waters, high trophic levels, and variable oxygenation throughout MIS 2 (ca. 27-14.8 cal ka BP), with particularly unstable environmental conditions prevailing during HE1 [START_REF] Pascual | Palaeoceanographic and palaeoclimatic changes during the last 37,000 years detected in the SE Bay of Biscay based on benthic foraminifera[END_REF]. The incorporation of coastal species in benthic foraminifera records indicates increasing riverine input during the middle of HE1 (ibid.)

With the end of the Older Dryas and the abrupt Bølling-Allerød interstadial warm phase (ca. 15-13 cal ka BP), pine and junipers forests became more widespread in parallel with the expansion of highly diverse deciduous forests, which were previously limited to the south of the Iberian Peninsula [START_REF] Cuenca-Bescós | The reconstruction of past environments through small mammals: from the Mousterian to the Bronze Age in El Mirón Cave (Cantabria, Spain)[END_REF][START_REF] González-Sampériz | Steppes, savannahs, forests and phytodiversity during the Pleistocene in the Iberian Peninsula[END_REF]. Like other peninsulas in southern Europe, the Cantabrian region served as a refuge for animals and humans during cold climatic conditions (i.e., the LGM; [START_REF] Consuegra | [END_REF][START_REF] Meiri | Late-glacial recolonization and phylogeography of European red deer (Cervus elaphus L.)[END_REF][START_REF] Fu | The genetic history of Ice Age Europe[END_REF] and a source area for re-expanding populations coincident with the return of more temperate climates [START_REF] Villalba-Mouco | Survival of Late Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in the Iberian Peninsula[END_REF].

The earliest phase of the Magdalenian, the Initial Magdalenian (IM: ca. 20.5 to 20 cal ka BP), is poorly represented during the LGM [START_REF] Fontes | The Initial Magdalenian mosaic: New evidence from Urtiaga cave, Guipúzcoa, Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Utrilla | Magdalenian chrono-stratigraphic correlations, and cultural connections between cantabrian Spain and southwest France… and beyond[END_REF]. The number of Magdalenian sites then increases rapidly, numbering 40 to 60 for the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian (CLM: ca. 20 to 17.5 cal ka BP) and Middle Magdalenian (MM: ca. 17.5 to 16 cal ka BP) to around 65 to 70 sites during the Upper and Late Magdalenian (ULM: ca. 16 to 13.5 cal ka BP) [START_REF] Straus | Recent developments in the study of the Upper Paleolithic of Vasco-Cantabrian Spain[END_REF]; chronocultural phases based on data from [START_REF] Utrilla | Evolución histórica de las sociedades cantábricas durante el Tardiglacial: El Magdaleniense inicial, inferior y medio[END_REF][START_REF] González Sainz | Problemas actuales en la organización y datación del Magdaleniense de la Región Cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Mis ; Aura | The Solutrean-Magdalenian transition: A view from Iberia[END_REF][START_REF] Fontes | The Initial Magdalenian mosaic: New evidence from Urtiaga cave, Guipúzcoa, Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Langlais | Magdalenian chrono-stratigraphic correlations, and cultural connections between cantabrian Spain and southwest France… and beyond[END_REF]. Cantabrian Magdalenian sites reflect multi-season occupations by nomadic groups, who primarily exploited red deer and ibex depending on the biotope (see for example [START_REF] Altuna | Fauna de mamíferos de los yacimientos prehistóricos de Guipúzcoa[END_REF][START_REF] Costamagno | Milieu animal de part et d'autre de la chaîne pyrénéenne : implications sur les modes de subsistance au Magdalénien[END_REF][START_REF] Marín-Arroyo | Arqueozoología en el Cantábrico oriental durante la transición Pleistoceno/Holoceno[END_REF][START_REF] Portero | The persistence of red deer (Cervus elaphus) in the human diet during the Lower Magdalenian in northern Spain: Insights from El Cierro cave (Asturias, Spain)[END_REF]. While the exact mobility systems of the region's Magdalenian hunter-gatherer groups is still a matter of some debate, rich and regularly available resources favoured stable territories [START_REF] Butzer | Paleolithic adaptations and settlement in Cantabrian Spain[END_REF][START_REF] Straus | Late Würm adaptive systems in Cantabrian Spain: the case of eastern Asturias[END_REF]) integrated within a long-distance settlement network [START_REF] Sieveking | Settlement Patterns of the Later Magdalenian in the Central Pyrenees[END_REF][START_REF] Conkey | The Identification of prehistoric hunter-gatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira[END_REF][START_REF] Bahn | Pyrenean Prehistory[END_REF][START_REF] Utrilla | Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d'identité territoriale: sites d'agrégation et animaux «sacrés[END_REF][START_REF] Rasilla | ¿Casualidad o Estrategia? Las aguas termales y mineromedicinales en la configuración de la geografía rupestre paleolítica de Asturias y su correlato cantábrico[END_REF].

Materials and methods

Osseous industries and study design

We carried out a systematic review of the largest osseous industries from the Cantabrian Magdalenian (Table 1, Fig. 2). Magdalenian levels from 64 sites were selected based on the cultural attributions proposed by the excavators or subsequent revisions (Table 1). In two cases (Bolinkoba and Cueto de la Mina), Solutrean collections were integrated for comparison. Except for teeth, all worked osseous (bone, antler, ivory) artefacts (tools, weapons, mobiliary art and personal ornaments) were examined, including complete objects, waste products and by-products. As some collections derive from early excavations (before the 1960s), available contextual information varies between assemblages and is usually affected by recovery biases due to pre-modern excavation methods as well as the fact that worked osseous artefacts are unlikely to have been systematically recovered. The relative importance of whale bone artefacts in each osseous industry was calculated by dividing the number of whale bone artefacts by the total number of osseous artefacts (cf. Tab. 2). This, however, was only possible when the relevant data was available in the literature or provided by the excavator (e.g. Santa Catalina).

The study area comprises the present autonomous communities of Asturias, Cantabria, the Spanish Basque Country (provinces of Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa), and Navarra. The examined Magdalenian sites are found in four zones (ca. 1,000-8,000 km 2 ) that more or less correspond to modern administrative borders: [A] Central Asturias, [B] Eastern Asturias, [C] Cantabria and [D] the Spanish Basque Country and Navarra (Fig. 2). The number of sites varies between zones: zones D (n=22) and C (n=21) contain the highest number of sites followed by zones B (n=14) and A (n=7). All distances are reported as the crow flies.

In order to generate the most robust relative chronology for the exploitation of whale bones, we assessed available radiocarbon dates for each level and the reliability of associating each date with the identified whale bone artefacts (Text S1). Dates were calibrated using the IntCal20 atmospheric radiocarbon curve [START_REF] Reimer | The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0-55 cal kBP)[END_REF] and the Marine20 curve [START_REF] Heaton | Marine20 -the marine radiocarbon age calibration curve (0-55,000 cal BP)[END_REF] for terrestrial and marine samples, respectively. Then marine reservoir effect was corrected by applying an updated local ΔR value of -426 ± 92 years based on data from the CLM level E of Cualventi (in Monge [START_REF] Soares | Marine radiocarbon reservoir effect in late Pleistocene and early Holocene coastal waters off northern Iberia[END_REF]. This coefficient should be considered with caution, as it does not incorporate variations in marine carbonates linked to whale behaviour. Depending on the species, whales can spend a considerable portion of their lives in deep seas where they accumulate significant reserves of old carbon. Despite these shortcomings, this ΔR value is nevertheless the most precise currently available for the Cantabrian region.

Criteria for identifying whale bone artefacts

Cetacean bone is a biomaterial with singular characteristics. Long bones lack a medullary cavity and the skeleton is generally highly porous, reflecting cetaceans' skeletal adaptions for improved hydrostatic locomotion (buoyancy control) and deepsea diving [START_REF] Gray | Sink or swim? Bone density as a mechanism for buoyancy control in early Cetaceans[END_REF]. In the terms of histology, cetacean bone presents no clear distinction between compact and cancellous tissue, unlike antler and most terrestrial mammal bones. Cetacean compact bone tissue is generally a thin layer at the periphery of the bone, although it can be denser towards the proximal part of ribs (e.g., Bowhead whale; [START_REF] Betts | The Mackenzie Inuit whale bone industry: raw material, tool manufacture, scheduling, and trade[END_REF] and in the mandible of certain odontocetes (O'Connor, 1982;[START_REF] Mulville | The Role of Cetacea in Prehistoric and Historic Atlantic Scotland[END_REF]. Compared to most other osseous materials, such as antler, ivory, or terrestrial mammal bone, cetacean compact bone tissue is porous with an evenly spaced network of alveoli (for more details see [START_REF] Felts | Structural orientation and density in cetacean humeri[END_REF][START_REF] Currey | Mechanical properties of bone tissues with greatly differing functions[END_REF][START_REF] Margaris | Alutiiq engineering: the mechanics and design of skeletal technologies in Alaska's Kodiak archipelago[END_REF]2014;[START_REF] Pétillon | First evidence of a whale-bone industry in the western European Upper Paleolithic: Magdalenian artifacts from Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France)[END_REF][START_REF] Reiche | Synchrotron radiation and laboratory micro X-ray computed tomography-useful tools for the material identification of prehistoric objects made of ivory, bone or antler[END_REF]).

These characteristics make it possible to distinguish cetacean bone from other osseous raw materials, particularly artefacts made on rod blanks (i.e., projectile points). Antler objects present opposing surfaces with clearly different aspects, one compact, the other cancellous, whereas cetacean bone objects display a more homogeneous mass of highly dense porous tissue. Cetacean bone objects are also lighter due to the porosity of the tissue, which also helps distinguish it from ivory as well as from most terrestrial mammal bones. This latter material represents the most probable risk of confusion when determining cetacean bone uniquely from macroscopic features (e.g., [START_REF] Boneta | Sobre de la naturaleza del soporte de la placa ósea colgante de la cueva de Balmori (Asturias)/On the nature of the raw material of the osseous hanging plate from Balmori Cave (Asturias)[END_REF]. The largest terrestrial mammal specimens (Mammuthus primigenius, Coelodonta antiquitatis) are poorly documented in the Iberian Peninsula during MIS 2, and were likely relatively rare after the LGM [START_REF] Álvarez-Lao | The Padul mammoth finds -On the southernmost record of Mammuthus primigenius in Europe and its southern spread during the Late Pleistocene[END_REF]Álvarez-Lao andGarcía, 2010, 2011). Nevertheless, the risk of confusion with large terrestrial species (e.g., Bison priscus, Bos primigenius) cannot be entirely excluded.

The large size of the cetacean bone artefacts identified in the Magdalenian collections is consistent with a determination as whale bone [START_REF] Pétillon | First evidence of a whale-bone industry in the western European Upper Paleolithic: Magdalenian artifacts from Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France)[END_REF]2013;[START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF][START_REF] Langley | Long Range Inland-Coastal Networks during the Late Magdalenian: Evidence for Individual Acquisition of Marine Resources at Andernach-Martinsberg, German Central Rhineland[END_REF] rather than a smaller cetacean (e.g. dolphin or porpoise). An object being made in whale bone was thus considered as "certain" when: (1) the object displayed a very homogeneous osseous tissue without a clear distinction between compact/cancellous tissue and there was no evidence of a medullary cavity, (2) the artefacts were made from an extremely dense porous tissue, and (3) the artefacts were lighter compared to objects of similar size and undoubtedly manufactured from terrestrial mammal bone or antler. Artefacts were classed as 'possible' if any of these three criteria were absent.

Results

The whale bone assemblage

Our examination of Magdalenian worked osseous assemblages from 64 sites in the Cantabrian region produced 54 whale bone objects (Tab. 2), 26 of which were classed as 'certain' given the presence of all three criteria outlined above. The porosity of the material is probably the most distinctive identification criteria. Here, it was confirmed through the distribution of alveoli, which appear evenly distributed in cross-section (Fig. 3: 1a,2c,3e,4g) and on the surface of the artefacts, where they are intersected longitudinally by striations left by scraping (e.g., Fig. 3: 1b,2d,3f,4h).

The variable structure of the remaining 28 artefacts meant they were classified as 'possible'. Four non-exclusive factors condition this variability: (1) inter-site differences in taphonomic alteration affecting the preservation of the osseous tissues, (2) intra-species anatomical variability linked to the age or sex of whales, or the anatomical part concerned (e.g., mandibles, ribs or cranial elements), (3) interspecific anatomical variability (e.g., grey, fin or sperm whale), and (4) an error in determination. Nevertheless, when the 28 'possible' whale bone artefacts are excluded from the analysis, the geographical and the chronological distributions remain the same, demonstrating that, while some identification bias cannot be excluded, its potential effect on the sample is relatively minor.

Although all 54 whale bone objects had been previously studied (see references in Table 1 and2), raw materials were not analysed in detail and, therefore, artefacts were generally identified as antler, bone or indeterminate bone/antler. Of the two objects from Las Caldas previously reported as whale bone (Corchón andOrtega, 2017, 364: 1281;534: 1967), our analysis only confirmed the first one. Owing to lingering doubts about the nature of the raw material [START_REF] Boneta | Sobre de la naturaleza del soporte de la placa ósea colgante de la cueva de Balmori (Asturias)/On the nature of the raw material of the osseous hanging plate from Balmori Cave (Asturias)[END_REF], we also excluded the large pendant from Balmori.

Techno-typological characteristics of the assemblage

The large majority of these artefacts are made on rod blanks (baguette). Projectile points (n=37) are best represented (Tab. 3) and are characterised by the presence of a pointed distal extremity (n=29) and/or proximal hafting modification (n=8). These artefacts can be grouped into three types (in descending order): four double-bevelled points (Fig. 4: 1-2), three massive-based points (Fig. 4: 5-6) and one fork-based point (Fig. 4: 7).

All 37 point fragments are quadrangular, triangular, or circular in cross-section, as are the antler specimens [START_REF] Adán | De la caza al útil, la industria ósea del tardiglaciar en Asturias[END_REF][START_REF] Utrilla | El Magdaleniense inferior y medio en la costa cantabrica[END_REF][START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF][START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]. All of these points find typological equivalents in the much more frequent antler points from Cantabrian assemblages. As is the case with most of the hafted elements (projectile points and foreshafts), the bevelled surfaces bear parallel, transverse striations commonly described as related to better fixing the point on the haft (Allain andRigaud, 1986, 1989;[START_REF] Julien | Une tendance créatrice au Magdalénien : à propos de stries d'adhérence sur quelques harpons[END_REF][START_REF] Weniger | Magdalenian barbed points: harpoons, spears and arrowheads[END_REF]. Four whale bone examples from the MM levels IX and X of Las Caldas all bear several longitudinal grooves on one or both surfaces of the shaft (e.g., Fig. 4: 3-4). These modifications were very likely designed to receive bladelets fixed with an adhesive in order to improve the efficiency of the weapon to shred flesh upon entry (see, for example, [START_REF] Allain | Décor et fonction : quelques exemples tirés du Magdalénien[END_REF][START_REF] Houmard | Données Récentes sur le Magdalénien de 'La Garenne' (Saint-Marcel, Indre) et la Place du Magdalénien 'à Navettes' en Europe, Archéologie du val[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Hard core and cutting edge: experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips[END_REF].

In terms of size, projectile points are relatively large, measuring on average 12 mm in width and 9.3 mm in thickness (cf. Tab. 5). Accurately estimating their initial average length is, however, challenging given use-related (Pétillon et al. 2016a) or postdepositional fractures. The three almost-complete points comprise a 112 mm-long fork-based point from Las Caldas-VI (Fig. 4: 7), a 185 mm-long massive-based point from Urtiaga-E (Fig. 4: 6), and a larger, less regular 200 mm long massive-based point from Ermittia-III (Fig. 4: 5). The only longer piece is a mesio-distal fragment of a massive point from Ermittia-III: 214 mm-long (Fig. 7: 1).

The weaponry assemblage is completed by a much smaller number of possible foreshafts (n=4) (Fig. 5). Although they are difficult to distinguish from projectile points owing to their fragmentary nature, certain morpho-technical aspects set them apart [START_REF] Cattelain | Fiche éléments intermédiaires de hampes de projectiles[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Des Magdaléniens en Armes: Technologie des Armatures de Projectile en Bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques)[END_REF], particularly parallel or divergent edges. Independent of the hafting system, stand-alone points always have convergent edges forming a distal point. The parallel or divergent edges of a specimen from Las Caldas (Fig. 5: 1) and the longest specimen from El Pendo (Fig. 5: 2) both argue in favour of a hafting arrangement involving both ends of the piece. With a quadruplebevelled base forming a pyramid, the hafting arrangement of the Las Caldas piece is relatively rare in Magdalenian bone tool assemblages [START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF]. In certain cases, the hafting arrangement can allow foreshafts to be distinguished from stand-alone points, as is the case with the concave single-bevelled point from El Pendo [START_REF] Pétillon | Des Magdaléniens en Armes: Technologie des Armatures de Projectile en Bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques)[END_REF], or the double-bevel of a specimen from La Viña-IV (Fig. 5: 3). The length of the bevels combined with the lateral shaping of their edges rather than surfaces (see [START_REF] Delporte | Fiche sagaie à biseau double (bifacial)[END_REF] for more details) distinguish this specimen from the stand-alone points from La Viña-IV as well as those from other Cantabrian assemblages (see for example González [START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF][START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]. Finally, a piece from Ermittia-III has a forked base with a central groove on the shaft (Fig. 5: 4), a trait absent on stand-alone fork-based points [START_REF] Pétillon | Des Magdaléniens en Armes: Technologie des Armatures de Projectile en Bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques)[END_REF]. These four pieces therefore appear to have been arranged in an intermediate hafting position between the shaft and point as part of composite weapons (Cattelain, op. cit.; Pétillon, op. cit.). The last two foreshaft types (Fig. 5: 3-4) are generally associated with MM fork-based points, which are numerous at La Viña-IV and rare at Ermittia-III [START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]. The single-bevelled foreshaft from El Pendo could be associated with single-bevelled points, as this combination has already been reported from El Juyo [START_REF] Barandiarán | [END_REF]. As no complete pyramidal-based foreshafts ("quadruple-bevelled base" sensu [START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF] are currently known in the Cantabrian region, it is impossible to determine the type of projectile point associated with this potential hafting arrangement. All these weapon elements bear impact fractures (Fig. 4: 1, 2, 4; Fig. 5: 1-2; Fig. 6: 1-2) and traces of subsequent maintenance and reworking. A point from Ermittia-III was re-sharpened (Fig. 4: 9), while three additional waste products bear traces of sectioning on one extremity that according to Chauvière andRigaud (2005, 2008) reflect manufacturing or maintenance processes. These pieces result from the recentring or shortening of a point during shaping (Fig. 4: 8) or the shortening of a preform (Fig. 6: 4), while the third, a foreshaft from La Viña (Fig. 5: 3), bears traces potentially linked to maintenance or shaping.

We also identified a blunt tool with a smoothed distal extremity (Fig. 6: 5), as well as several indeterminate objects made on rod blanks. These include a noteworthy specimen from Tito Bustillo (Fig. 6: 3), whose short bevel and parallel edges are comparable with the foreshaft from El Pendo, although the flattened cross-section is more compatible with a wedge. This is also the case for a spatula-shaped, distal extremity of an object from La Viña-IV, which could be interpreted as the reworking of the proximal portion of a point due to the presence of at least two bevels, each shaped on an edge (Fig. 6:1). Finally, a potential part of a rod blank from El Juyo (Fig. 6: 6) could be consistent with a projectile point blank in terms of its size and shape. This relatively short fragment (81mm) has a triangular, irregular cross-section and is slightly larger than most whale bone projectile points we identified (16 x 13 mm) (Tab. 5). How this implement was manufactured is not evident and may have incorporated fracturing techniques (see among others [START_REF] Christensen | La industria ósea de los cazadores-recolectores: el caso de los nómades marinos de Patagonia y Tierra de Fuego[END_REF]. Some of the worked whale bone objects bear little decoration or, at most, display several grooves or geometric motifs. However, several rare examples stand out given their more complicated decoration, such as the foreshaft from El Pendo (Fig. 5: 2) that bears opposed curvilinear motifs filled with short longitudinal and transverse lines (Corchón, 1987: 432). One point fragment from Ermittia-III (Fig. 7: 1-1a) has a series of geometric motifs on each edge, seemingly protuberances [START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF] or "barbs" of so-called proto-harpoons [START_REF] Barandiarán | Sobre el magdaleniense de Ermittia (Guipúzcoa)[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | El arte mueble paleolítico cantábrico, Contexto y análisis interno[END_REF][START_REF] Cattelain | Fiche protoharpons[END_REF]. A wide mesial fragment, also from Ermittia-III, has a complex geometric decoration on each surface and edges (Fig. 7: 2-2b; González Sainz, 1989: Fig. 42: 12).

In addition to the large majority objects made on rod blanks, two possible thin whale bone plaquettes were recovered from level D of Urtiaga. One example is entirely shaped and bears a series of aligned, rounded protrusions (Fig. 7: 4; González Sainz, 1989: 51.16). The second shares the same size and morphology as well as histological traits but is unshaped (Fig. 7: 3). The unique characteristics of the blanks (fine bone plaquettes, compact porous tissue; Fig. 7: 3d-4e) could suggest the use of a different anatomical part compared to the other whale bone objects made on rod blanks.

In terms of technology, the heavily finished aspect of almost all the objects makes it extremely difficult to reliably infer associated production methods. The possible blank from El Juyo might involve fracturing techniques (Fig. 6: 6), as suggested by fracture planes on both edges (for more details concerning fracturing methods applied to whale bone see [START_REF] Christensen | La industria ósea de los cazadores-recolectores: el caso de los nómades marinos de Patagonia y Tierra de Fuego[END_REF]. However, it is impossible to rule out the use of other manufacturing techniques (i.e., grooving). Sub-actual hunter-gatherer groups employ multiple blank production techniques, including fracturing and grooving [START_REF] Betts | The Mackenzie Inuit whale bone industry: raw material, tool manufacture, scheduling, and trade[END_REF][START_REF] Wells | Social life and technical practice: an analysis of the osseous tool assemblage at the Dorset Palaeoeskimo site of Phillip's Garden[END_REF][START_REF] Cunliffe | Prehistoric Whale Bone Technology in Southern New Zealand[END_REF]. No debitage waste products were identified in any of the studied assemblages, only those related to manufacturing or maintenance. This does not necessarily reflect the technical choices of Magdalenian groups but is likely tied to the fact that we focused on worked osseous artefacts rather than on an overall revision of entire faunal assemblages. This being the case, the likelihood that waste products are present in faunal collections from early excavations cannot be ruled out, as many have not been or have only been partially revised. However, given the large dimensions of whale bone and despite the high fragmentation rate of the faunal assemblages, it is doubtful that debitage waste products were overlooked during excavations or subsequent analyses. Nevertheless, their absence from inland collections confirms that the first phases of blank reduction and debitage occurred closer to the now-submerged paleoshore of the Atlantic Ocean [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF]. Faced with the small number of blanks, it seems that the shaping of whale bone objects equally took place near the coast. In some instances, however, unworked blanks would have been transported for future shaping, demonstrating both a chronological and geographical segmentation of production activities.

Despite the absence of blocks of raw material, certain morphometric characteristics of the assemblage provide indirect information concerning raw material selection patterns. The straightness and length of specific points (>200 mm), their large calibre, and the fact they comprise essentially compact albeit porous tissue, sheds light on their possible anatomical origin. Like certain Canadian Inuit hunter-gathers [START_REF] Betts | The Mackenzie Inuit whale bone industry: raw material, tool manufacture, scheduling, and trade[END_REF], and perhaps several paleo-Eskimo groups in Newfoundland [START_REF] Wells | Social life and technical practice: an analysis of the osseous tool assemblage at the Dorset Palaeoeskimo site of Phillip's Garden[END_REF], who also manufactured large whale bone objects on rod blanks (i.e., foreshafts, wedges, sled runners), it is highly likely that Magdalenian objects come from the straightest, most dense parts of the skeleton of large cetaceans (i.e., mandibles or ribs).

Chronological distribution

Among these 54 whale bone artefacts, the foreshaft from El Pendo is currently the only directly dated from the Cantabrian region [START_REF] Barandiarán | Datation C 14 de l'art mobilier magdalénien cantabrique[END_REF]Fig. 5: 2). Of the 25 archaeological levels that produced whale bone objects (Tab. 2), six have not been dated: level III of Tito Bustillo (Área de Estancia, García Guinea excavations), level D of Cueto de la Mina, level 2 of El Pendo, level 8 of El Juyo, level IV of Bolinkoba, and level E of Urtiaga. In total, we collated 46 dates from 19 Magdalenian levels. When the context and quality of the excavations precluded a reliable association between the dated samples and the whale bone objects in each archaeological level, the dates were excluded (see S1 for selection criteria). Of the 46 available dates, only 16 were retained (Table 4); five obtained using conventional radiocarbon dating and ten with AMS (the date from Urtiaga-D was published without methodological information, Areso- [START_REF] Areso-Barquín | Revisión estratigráfica del depósito arqueológico de la Cueva de Urtiaga (Deba, Gipuzkoa). Sedimentología del relleno/Revision stratigraphy of archaeological deposit of the Urtiaga cave (Deba, Gipuzkoa). Sedimentary analyses[END_REF].

Once calibrated, the dates range from 19.3 and 13 cal ka BP, with a slight concentration around 17.8 to 15.5 cal ka BP (Fig. 8). This chronology broadly corresponds to the development of the Middle Magdalenian (MM) in the Cantabrian region and overlaps slightly with the emergence of the Upper Magdalenian (UM) [START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Utrilla | Evolución histórica de las sociedades cantábricas durante el Tardiglacial: El Magdaleniense inicial, inferior y medio[END_REF][START_REF] González Sainz | Problemas actuales en la organización y datación del Magdaleniense de la Región Cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | La cueva de las Caldas (Priorio, Oviedo). Ocupaciones magdalenienses en el Valle del Nalón[END_REF][START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]. In fact, around two-thirds of the objects (n=35, see Table 2) come from the MM or MM/UM levels of three sites: Las Caldas [START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF], La Viña (Duarte andRasilla, 2020), andErmittia (González Sainz, 1989;[START_REF] Esparza | Los problemas del Paleolítico superior en el ámbito mediterráneo peninsular. XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología[END_REF].

However, a handful of whale bone artefacts argue in favour of the lower phase of the Magdalenian (Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian, CLM) seeing the emergence of this phenomenon during the Late Glacial. At El Pendo, a potential CLM occupation is essentially suggested by dates too old to be consistent with the Middle Magdalenian (MM) [START_REF] Barandiarán | Datation C 14 de l'art mobilier magdalénien cantabrique[END_REF]. While at Tito Bustillo, the majority of dates from level 1 are compatible with the CLM [START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | New chronostratigraphical and archeozoological data from the living area in Tito Bustillo (Ribadesella, Asturias)[END_REF] and therefore could fill the gap between the date from level 4 of Rascaño and the rest of the sequence (Fig. 8). The diagnostic CLM material from Tito Bustillo is, however, mixed with typical MM and ULM artefacts [START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Shellfish gathering in Cantabrian Spain during the Magdalenian: The cave of ''Tito Bustillo'' (Asturias, Northern Spain)[END_REF]. Finally, levels 4/4b of Rascaño yielded both a date and a lithic assemblage compatible with the CLM (González Echegaray and Barandiarán, 1981). The oldest whale bone objects are based on chrono-cultural attribution of the level from which they were recovered rather than an associated radiocarbon date and come from Bolinkoba, Cueto de la Mina, and El Juyo. At Bolinkoba, level IV was initially attributed to the Middle or Late Solutrean [START_REF] Barandiarán | Bolinkoba y otros yacimientos paleolíticos en la sierra de Amboto (Vizcaya)[END_REF] and subsequently reassigned to the Late or Final Solutrean [START_REF] Barandiarán | El Paleomesolítico del Pirineo occidental[END_REF]. However, potential mixing with the overlying Magdalenian levels cannot be excluded [START_REF] Utrilla | El Magdaleniense inicial en el País Vasco peninsular[END_REF][START_REF] Barandiarán | Bolinkoba y otros yacimientos paleolíticos en la sierra de Amboto (Vizcaya)[END_REF]Iriarte and Arrizabalaga, 2015b). Level D of Cueto de la Mina (Vega del [START_REF] Vega Del | El Paleolítico de Cueto de la Mina[END_REF][START_REF] Utrilla | El Magdaleniense inferior y medio en la costa cantabrica[END_REF] and level 8 of El Juyo [START_REF] González Echegaray | El yacimiento de la cueva de « El Pendo[END_REF]Freeman, 1992-1993) both yielded typical CLM assemblages. In the latter case, dates from overlying level 7 and underlying level 11 (I-10737: 14,440 ± 180 BP uncal. and 15,300 ± 700 BP uncal. respectively) provide an indirect chronology compatible with the CLM. Inter-level admixture is unlikely as no other Magdalenian phases were identified at the site. Consequently, it is highly probable that the exploitation of whale bone first appeared at the end of the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian or around 18-17.5 cal ka BP.

Reliable data documenting the end of this phenomenon is still lacking. The retained date from level II of Santa Catalina (11,155 ± 80 BP uncal.) appears in Figure 8 as an outlier. It comes from the base of the level (close to the whale bone object), almost in direct contact with top of level III, dated to ca. 12 ka BP uncal. (Berganza and Arribas, 2014c). As both levels produced unworked whale bones [START_REF] Castaños | Estudio de los macromamíferos del yacimiento de Santa Catalina[END_REF], it is impossible to rule out possible admixtures at the interface between levels II and III. This potential chronological boundary appears highly uncertain given the nature of the currently available data.

The overall chronological trend is not biased by the nature of the raw materials considered. The removal of the 28 "possible" whale bone artefacts, all from Santa Catalina-II, Ermittia-III, and Urtiaga-D, does not alter the general chronological pattern (Fig. 8). Methodological biases are more likely to affect the chronological distribution. In addition to undated contexts, the fact that the dates come from multiple labs (the Centre for Radiocarbon Dating at Lyon, the Svedberg and Angström labs at the University of Uppsala, Teledyne Isotopes in New Jersey, and the Radiocarbon Lab at British Museum) using different dating techniques (AMS and conventional) with varying levels of accuracy suggest considerable caution when interpreting them.

Although most of the specimens identified come from unreliable contexts (Tab. 2), several chronological patterns are nevertheless evident. The single-bevelled foreshaft from El Pendo, directly dated to around 17.6 cal ka BP (tab. 4), is assigned to the CLM-to-MM transition, where this type of artefact had been previously documented [START_REF] Barandiarán | [END_REF]. Grooved, double and fork-based points, as well as fork and pyramidal-based foreshafts, are associated with the MM (see, e.g., Gonzalez [START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Las industrias líticas y óseas[END_REF][START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]. On the other hand, reliable dates are currently unavailable to precisely position Magdalenian massive-based points.

Geographical distribution and the distance to paleoshore

The 54 whale bone objects come from 12 sites spread across the entire Cantabrian region (Fig. 9, Tab. 2). Most (n=30) of the 54 identified whale bone objects derive from central Asturias [A], with the highest density of objects coming from two sites separated by 10 km: Las Caldas (n=19) and La Viña (n=9). The Spanish Basque Country [D] produced the second highest density of objects (n=14), followed by eastern Asturias [B] (n=6) and Cantabria [C] (n=4). This geographical distribution appears relatively stable between 17.8 and 15.5 cal ka BP in the Cantabrian region. This does not mean that there were no phases of contraction or expansion rather that the current chronological resolution is too imprecise to track such phenomenon.

Once again, this geographical distribution is not biased by raw material determinations. When the 28 'possible' whale bone artefacts are excluded from the analysis, artefacts remain equally distributed. More than half of the objects (n=18) come from central Asturias, a further quarter (n=4) from the Basque Country, with the other two areas producing only two whale bone artefacts. There is also no bias induced by the number of sites examined per zone: while only seven sites were studied from central Asturias, compared to 21 from Cantabria and 22 from the Spanish Basque Country (Tab. 1), central Asturias delivered the majority of whale bone artefacts. On the other hand, given that certain collections, such as Las Caldas, yielded a substantially larger osseous industry assemblage compared to the others, we weighed the number of whale bone artefacts by the total number of worked osseous materials in each assemblage to test whether assemblage size could potentially bias their representation (Tab. 2).

Although the site of Las Caldas produced the most whale bone artefacts, it is one of the least rich assemblages in terms of the proportion of whale bone artefacts in the osseous industry (0.6%). Conversely, Ermitta yielded only nine whale bone objects, however they represent 8.6% of the overall osseous tool assemblage. When all weighed and un-weighed artefacts proportions are considered together, two areas separated by approximately 280 km clearly stand out: central Asturias [A] and the Spanish Basque Country [D]. On the other hand, sites in eastern Asturias [B] and Cantabria [C] only produced small numbers of whale bone artefacts.

Obviously, these proportions should be viewed with considerable caution bearing in mind the small number of whale bone objects in certain studied assemblages. This is notably the case for level E of Urtiaga (14.3%), which was excluded from the analysis due to the small size of the osseous industry (n=7). Other factors can also influence the proportion of bone tools in the assemblages. In the case of Santa Catalina, the only whale bone artefact from the site was recovered from the base of level II, attributed to the ULM (Berganza and Arribas, 2014b). When the large assemblage of unworked whale bones from underlying level III, also attributed to the ULM [START_REF] Castaños | Estudio de los macromamíferos del yacimiento de Santa Catalina[END_REF], are included, the percentage of whale bone objects decreases from 0.7% to 0.1%. At Tito Bustillo, available counts of osseous artefacts only reflect the first three years of Moure Romanillo's excavations [START_REF] González Sainz | El Magdaleniense superior final de la región cantábrica[END_REF]. Several authors of this study are currently revising the osseous assemblage from this site and initial estimations suggest substantially greater numbers of worked osseous objects (approximately 600) than shown in Table 2. Finally, as the revision of the La Viña faunal assemblage is on-going (by L. Torres), the total number of worked osseous artefacts is likely to change. Consequently, the percentage of whale bone artefacts from the latter two sites could eventually prove be lower than calculated here.

The distance of sites from the coast should also be considered. Although whale bone artefacts have been identified beyond the Cantabrian region in the Pyrenees, the Dordogne, and the Rhineland, attesting to their diffusion several hundred kilometres from the coast, the Palaeolithic occupation of the region is limited to a ca. 50 km wide coastal strip, circumscribed to the south by the Cantabrian foothills. Put differently, this coastal territory is not wide enough for objects to be transferred over long distances towards the south. At a smaller scale, questions can be raised as to what extent distance from the coast affected the circulation of whale bone artefacts. A comparison of distance from the paleoshore to sites yielding whale bone artefacts reveals no clear relationship between these two parameters (Fig. 10). The sites that produced the most whale bone objects are neither the closest to the paleoshore (i.e., Las Caldas, La Viña) nor the furthest away (i.e., Ermittia, Tito Bustillo). The concentration of whale bone objects at a limited number of sites would be in line with the existence of receptor sites (sensu [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF] where finished whale bone objects were imported. These sites would have been incorporated within a structured network connecting multiple valleys and extending into the Pyrenean region.

Discussion

Structured communication networks in the Pyreneo-Cantabrian region

The exploitation of whale bone during the Magdalenian was not a local phenomenon limited to the north of Pyrenees, but a more extensive practice shared amongst Magdalenian groups across the greater Pyreneo-Cantabrian region. The Cantabrian assemblages reveal the circulation of these objects as part of structured networks centred around key receptor sites, independent of their distance from the coast. The overall distribution of these receptor sites depicts one or several diffusion systems in the south(-west) of the Bay of Biscay (Fig. 11). The absence of objects from the eastern limits of the Bay of Biscay (i.e., the French Landes coast) can be explained in several ways. Beyond the fact that the submersion of the paleo-coast by the marine transgression removed any evidence of coastal occupations, the "Sable des Landes" region was equally a relatively inhospitable periglacial desert that restricted Magdalenian settlement [START_REF] Bertran | The Landes de Gascogne (southwest France): periglacial desert and cultural frontier during the Palaeolithic[END_REF]. Between 17.5 and 15.5 cal ka BP, this occupational hiatus extends north of the Sable des Landes into the northwest Aquitaine Basin, potentially coincident with climatic conditions of HE1 [START_REF] Naughton | Climate variability across the last deglaciation in NW Iberia and its margin[END_REF]Pétillon et al., 2016b[START_REF] Laroulandie | Le Magdalénien de la façade atlantique face aux changements environnementaux[END_REF].

This network incorporated more than 160 objects from 23 receptor sites spread over ca. 600 km, ranging from Las Caldas, in northwest Spain, to La Vache, in southwest France. The French and Spanish Basque Country play a central role in this network, particularly Isturitz. This site produced the highest concentration of whale bone objects (n=63; [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF], exceeding the total from all Cantabrian sites (n=54) as well as those from the rest of the Pyrenean region (n=46; ibid.). This high concentration of whale bone objects likely reflects the strategic position of the site at the intersection of several zones (the Cantabrian region, the Pyrenees, and the Aquitaine Basin). In addition, other typical Magdalenian objects are equally best represented at this site, leading to it being considered as an aggregation site [START_REF] Sieveking | Settlement Patterns of the Later Magdalenian in the Central Pyrenees[END_REF][START_REF] Bahn | Pyrenean Prehistory[END_REF][START_REF] Conkey | Les sites d'agrégation et la répartition de l'art mobilier, ou : Y a-t-il des sites d'agrégation magdaléniens ?[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Des Magdaléniens en Armes: Technologie des Armatures de Projectile en Bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques)[END_REF][START_REF] Utrilla | Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d'identité territoriale: sites d'agrégation et animaux «sacrés[END_REF][START_REF] Rivero | Vers une caractérisation du gisement magdalénien d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) à travers sa production artistique[END_REF][START_REF] Elorrieta | Aprovisionamiento y disponibilidad de las materias primas silíceas en el Pirineo occidental durante el Paleolítico superior[END_REF]Rasilla and Duarte, 2018 among others). Less expected, Ermittia equally plays a key role in this network, as evident by both the number of whale bone objects (n=9) recovered from the site and their proportion within the osseous industry (8.6%, Table 2). The Basque Country therefore appears to form a sort of "hub" in the Pyreneo-Cantabrian network, as this area is located both at the centre of this communication network and at the interface between the Cantabrian region, the western Pyrenees, the Aquitaine Basin as well as the Ebro Valley and Central Meseta [START_REF] Arrizabalaga | En la ruta occidental del poblamiento de la Península Ibérica[END_REF].

The two others 'poles' of the network lie 380 km west of Isturitz, in central Asturias (Las Caldas, La Viña, and La Paloma), and 240 km to the east, with the Ariege sites (Mas d'Azil, La Vache, and Tuc d'Audoubert). Curiously, these two regions produced comparable numbers of whale bone artefacts (n=30 for central Asturias and n=20 for the Ariege) despite their differing distances from the Atlantic coast. The overall eastwest organisation of the network follows the general distribution of Magdalenian sites in the region and mirrors the distribution of other Magdalenian cultural markers.

Up until now, connections between Pyrenean and Cantabrian groups during the Magdalenian period, broadly speaking, were evinced by the distribution of certain antler weapons (e.g. Lussac-Angles points, fork-based points, type A2 spearthrowers, multibarbed points, half-round rods with specific decoration; [START_REF] Pétillon | Les pointes à base fourchue de la zone pyrénéo-cantabrique : un objet à la charnière entre Magdalénien moyen et Magdalénien supérieur ?[END_REF][START_REF] Lefebvre | Les pointes barbelées magdaléniennes. Étude typologique, géographique et chronologique[END_REF][START_REF] Cattelain | Le « type 2a », plus ancien modèle de propulseur paléolithique : une nouvelle pièce dans le Magdalénien moyen d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France) et ses implications[END_REF][START_REF] Sécher | Traditions techniques et paléogéographie du Magdalénien moyen ancien dans le sud-ouest de la France (19000-17500 cal. BP) : des groupes humains à plusieurs visages ?[END_REF][START_REF] Barandiarán | Las varillas decoradas magdalenienses de Ezkuzta (País Vasco)[END_REF], stone tool types (i.e., scalene triangles ; for a synthesis see [START_REF] Sécher | Traditions techniques et paléogéographie du Magdalénien moyen ancien dans le sud-ouest de la France (19000-17500 cal. BP) : des groupes humains à plusieurs visages ?[END_REF], and also by specific production methods applied on lithic raw material [START_REF] Cazals | Constantes et variations des traits techniques et économiques entre le Magdalénien "inférieur" et "moyen[END_REF][START_REF] Cazals | La place d'Ekain (couche VII) au sein du Magdalénien bascocantabrique : nouvelles contributions sur l'organisation des productions lithiques[END_REF][START_REF] Langlais | Dynamiques culturelles des sociétés magdaléniennes dans leurs cadres environnementaux. Enquête sur 7000 ans d'évolution de leurs industries lithiques entre Rhône et Èbre[END_REF]. The distribution of mobiliary art or personal ornaments (e.g. perforated bone discs and shells, notched and pointed incisors, cut-out contours; [START_REF] Taborin | La Parure en Coquillage au Paléolithique[END_REF][START_REF] Sauvet | Échanges culturels entre groupes humains paléolithiques entre 20.000 et 12.000 BP[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez-Fernández | Los objetos de adorno-colgantes del Paleolítico superior y del Mesolítico en la Cornisa Cantábrica y en el Valle del Ebro: una visión europea[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Contactos extra-cantábricos en el Magdaleniense medio : nuevos datos de la Cueva de Las Caldas[END_REF], as well as shared graphic norms in both mobiliary and rock art (e.g. claviform motifs, depictions of both caprids seen from the front and marine animals; [START_REF] Fritz | Groupes ethniques, territoires, échanges : la "notion de frontière" dans l'art magdalénien[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Contactos extra-cantábricos en el Magdaleniense medio : nuevos datos de la Cueva de Las Caldas[END_REF][START_REF] Sauvet | Fluctuations des échanges symboliques au Paléolithique supérieur en France et dans le Nord de l'Espagne[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | Échos de l'océan: Phoques et Baleines en Europe au Paléolithique récent[END_REF] also evince connections between these two regions [START_REF] Utrilla | Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d'identité territoriale: sites d'agrégation et animaux «sacrés[END_REF][START_REF] Lucas | Les décors géométriques du Magdalénien supérieur de la grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) : une place à part dans l'équipement ?[END_REF][START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]. Similarly, the diffusion of lithic raw materials from the Pyrenees [START_REF] Tarriño | El silex en la Cuenca Vasco Cantabrica y Pirineo navarro : caracterizacion y su aprovechamiento en la prehistoria[END_REF][START_REF] Tarriño | Flint as raw material in prehistoric times: Cantabrian Mountain and Western Pyrenees data[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Mobilité, territoires et relations culturelles au début du Magdalénien moyen cantabrique : nouvelles perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Elorrieta | Aprovisionamiento y disponibilidad de las materias primas silíceas en el Pirineo occidental durante el Paleolítico superior[END_REF] has already provided evidence for the movement of human groups across the western extremity of the Pyrenean mountain range.

Available chronological data demonstrates the exploitation of whale bone to be broadly contemporary in the Pyrenean-Cantabrian region, with the practice reaching its peak between 17.8 and 15 cal ka BP. This chronology would overlap with the MM and beginning of the UM in Cantabria and the Late MM followed by the Early UM to the north of Pyrenees (for more details concerning the different phases of the Magdalenian north of the Pyrenees see, for example, [START_REF] Langlais | The evolution of Magdalenian societies in South-West France between 18000 and 14000 cal BP: changing environments, changing tool kits[END_REF]. It is during this period that the network of receptor sites reached its maximum extension and received the largest number of whale bone objects. It remains possible that some dates are older in the Cantabrian region (probably around 18 cal ka BP), coincident with the end of the CLM. Regrettably, current radiometric data is still too imprecise to identify variations on the order of 500 years. At a larger scale, it is also possible that whale bone was exploited by Palaeolithic foragers before and after the Magdalenian period; however, this possibility has yet to be explored systematically. The apparent general contemporaneity between these two regions equally poses broader socio-economic questions, including the interconnected development of these neighbouring cultural territories (e.g., [START_REF] Fritz | Groupes ethniques, territoires, échanges : la "notion de frontière" dans l'art magdalénien[END_REF][START_REF] Corchón | Contactos extra-cantábricos en el Magdaleniense medio : nuevos datos de la Cueva de Las Caldas[END_REF]Langlais andPétillon, 2019 or Utrilla et al., 2020).

Unity and dynamics of the Pyreneo-cantabrian network(s)

Comparative techno-typological data for assemblages from Cantabrian Spain and the Pyrenees reveals both shared norms and local particularities. Firstly, a majority of what are essentially finished objects were transported over substantial distances from the sea, suggesting that the acquisition and transformation of raw materials occurred in both regions near the Atlantic coast. No data is currently available to shed light on exactly how whale bone was acquired; although the most parsimonious hypothesis remains the scavenging of beached whale carcasses on the Atlantic coast, as initially proposed by [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF]. Weapon elements figure most prominently amongst transported whale bone objects; massive-based points, certain foreshafts, and multiple grooved points circulated in both regions. While the calibre (width and thickness) of Cantabrian projectile points is comparable to what is seen with Pyrenean examples (Tab. 5), comparisons in terms of length are more complicated. At first glance, points from the Cantabrian region appear slightly shorter; although this could be connected to differences in the frequency of breakage in assemblages from the two regions, especially given the comparable calibres of points.

Assemblages from both regions equally portray certain differences, particularly in terms of artefact typology. Wedges (n=9) and half-round rods (n=2) were identified in the Pyrenees but not in the Cantabrian assemblages. On the other hand, certain whale bone weapons were not found across the study area, i.e., the single-bevelled foreshaft from El Pendo, as well as the pyramidal-based foreshaft and the fork-based point from Las Caldas. These typological differences become even more marked further away from the "hub"; the above-mentioned hunting equipment appears uniquely in the western Cantabrian region while massive-based points are found from sites in the Spanish Basque Country (Ermittia and Urtiaga) as well as surrounding parts of the Pyrenees. Overall, despite evidence suggesting the relatively contemporaneous exploitation of whale bone north of the Pyrenees and in the Cantabrian region, this may have involved independent networks of acquisition, production, and circulation on both sides of the Basque Country. In sum, both regions afforded direct access to the Atlantic coast for the acquisition of whale bone but depict typological differences between them, with the circulation of whale bone artefacts dependent on two distinct communication routes.

Coastal (in)visibility in the Cantabrian region

The lack of whale bone objects in some Cantabrian sites close to the paleoshore is striking. Santa Catalina shows that, despite its proximity to the coast (Fig. 10) and the availability of raw material (41 whale remains, Castaños, 2014), the presence of only one potential whale bone artefact effectively excludes the location being a primary receptor site. The scarcity of high-resolution MM sites in the Cantabrian region could partially explain this situation [START_REF] Duarte | The bone industry collections from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian levels in La Viña rock shelter and Llonin cave[END_REF]. In this sense, on-going research at La Garma, where only a few osseous implements have been recovered to date from MM level L3 (La Garma A, [START_REF] Arias | La Estructura Magdaleniense de La Garma A. Aproximación a la Organización Espacial de un Hábitat Paleolítico[END_REF] or from the lower gallery [START_REF] Arias | Magdalenian floors in the Lower Gallery of La Garma. A preliminary report[END_REF], could increase the frequency of whale bone objects in Cantabria [C]. Moreover, intermediate territories with less developed karstic systems near the present-day coastline, where 'secondary camps' and aggregation sites would be expected [START_REF] Álvarez-Alonso | Los "campamentos secundarios" en el Magdaleniense cantábrico: Resultados preliminares de la excavación en la Cueva del Olivo Llanera, Asturias[END_REF][START_REF] Rasilla | ¿Casualidad o Estrategia? Las aguas termales y mineromedicinales en la configuración de la geografía rupestre paleolítica de Asturias y su correlato cantábrico[END_REF], have not been explored to the same extent as other regions (i.e., Villaviciosa in the central area of Asturias)

Why use whale bone?

The exploitation of whale bone by Magdalenian hunter-gatherers is concentrated in a period roughly coeval with HE1 (ca. 19-14.8 cal ka BP), which is characterised in the Bay of Biscay by cooler seawater temperatures and higher trophic levels in benthic foraminifera [START_REF] Pascual | Palaeoceanographic and palaeoclimatic changes during the last 37,000 years detected in the SE Bay of Biscay based on benthic foraminifera[END_REF]. These ecological conditions potentially favoured an increase in the number of whales frequenting the deep coastal waters off the Cantabrian coast after the LGM, thus increasing the availability of this unique raw material on the region's shores. New data on the species of marine mammals exploited and their individual behaviour is, however, necessary to test the potential link between environmental conditions and raw material procurement patterns [START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF]. This phenomenon could also be linked to the large size of this unique raw material. According to Petillon (2013: 541): "when evaluating the suitability of osseous materials for the manufacture of projectile tips, whale bone seems to rank first for size potential but second for fracture resistance". A comparison of metrical data for identical artefact types manufactured in whale bone and antler from the early Upper and Late Magdalenian of Isturitz [START_REF] Pétillon | Des Magdaléniens en Armes: Technologie des Armatures de Projectile en Bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques)[END_REF][START_REF] Lefebvre | Les stratégies d'adaptation des sociétés pyrénéennes entre 19 et 14 ka cal BP : étude biométrique et techno-économique comparée sur l'exploitation du bois de cerf et du bois de renne autour des Pyrénées au Magdalénien moyen et supérieur[END_REF] to measurements for a fork-based point from Las Caldas, double-bevelled points from the Cantabrian region, 26 foreshafts, and 8 massive-based points, primarily found from Pyrenean sites; demonstrates whale bone artefacts to be generally comparable in size to the largest antler examples (Table 6).

Why, then, did Magdalenian groups seek to maximise the size of these objects? In some cases, the production of outsized items may have conferred them a special status; for example, the possible whale bone cut-out contour from Isturitz [START_REF] Rivero | Vers une caractérisation du gisement magdalénien d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) à travers sa production artistique[END_REF] or the engraved object on a massive rod from Ermittia (e.g., Fig. 7: 2). However, as most artefacts are relatively undecorated weapon elements [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF], the use of whale bone could also be linked to techno-economic concerns. In highly mobile nomadic societies (see, for example, [START_REF] Delvigne | Géoressources et expressions technoculturelles dans le sud du Massif central au Paléolithique supérieur : des déterminismes et des choix[END_REF][START_REF] Sécher | Traditions techniques et paléogéographie du Magdalénien moyen ancien dans le sud-ouest de la France (19000-17500 cal. BP) : des groupes humains à plusieurs visages ?[END_REF], the transport of raw materials represents a non-negligible energy expenditure, potentially mitigated by replacing the movement of blocks of raw material by the production of tools with long use-lives. Weapon elements from both the Pyrenees (n=5) and the Cantabrian region (n=3) were consistently managed, as evidenced by traces of recycling and re-sharpening in assemblages from both areas. Maximising blank length increases the number of potential re-sharpening or recycling opportunities and, thus, prolongs the tool's use-life. Put differently, the initial dimensions afforded by whale bones succinctly fulfilled the mobility requirements of these hunter-gatherer groups. This likelihood is consistent with what has been suggested for stone tools from the same period. The production of large, regular blade blanks in south-western France during the Middle Magdalenian already suggests a raw material provisioning strategy geared around the selection of large, high-quality blocks of raw material [START_REF] Angevin | Où sont les lames ? Enquête sur les "caches" et "dépôts" de lames du Magdalénien moyen[END_REF].

Conclusion

As demonstrated by previous studies (Petillon, 2008;2013;[START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF][START_REF] Langley | Long Range Inland-Coastal Networks during the Late Magdalenian: Evidence for Individual Acquisition of Marine Resources at Andernach-Martinsberg, German Central Rhineland[END_REF], the re-examination of collections from old excavations can produce surprising results. The systematic search for whale bone implements in Magdalenian assemblages from the Cantabrian region provides invaluable information about the earliest known exploitation of whales. The discovery of whale bone implements in the Cantabrian region reveals the circulation of this unique raw material in southwest Europe not to be conditioned uniquely by distance from the sea but also by social and/or economic factors. More broadly, the growing body of evidence for the exploitation of marine resources during the Magdalenian further reinforces the Bay of Biscay being the backdrop to the emergence of the first regular, diversified and organized coastal economies during the period between 19 and 14 cal ka BP. [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF]. White circles represent the number of whale bone artefacts per site (the size of the circles is proportional to the numbers of artefacts identified). The marine levels -120 m and -100 m correspond, respectively, to the LGM and Bølling-Allerød interstadial [START_REF] Benjamin | Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review[END_REF]. Relief is derived from altimetric data available in [START_REF] Reuter | An evaluation of void filling interpolation methods for SRTM data[END_REF][START_REF] Jarvis | Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4[END_REF]bathymetric 1 for site names, and Figure 1 for the details of the map data). White circles represent the number of whale bone artefacts per site (the size of the circles is proportional to the numbers of artefacts identified). Black crosses represent sites that did not yield whale bone objects. Receptor sites appear in bold: 1 -La Paloma, 4 -Las Caldas, 6 -La Viña, 13 -Tito Bustillo, 30 -El Pendo, 31 -El Juyo, 33 -El Rascaño, 50 -Bolinkoba, 52 -Santa Catalina, 57 -Ermittia, 58 -Urtiaga.

Figure 10. Relationship between the distance to the Atlantic paleoshore of sites yielding whale bone artefacts and the number of whale bone artefacts (NWBA) per site. The shortest distance to the paleoshore is measured from marine level -100 m, which corresponds to Bølling-Allerød sea levels [START_REF] Benjamin | Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review[END_REF]. Sites: TB: Tito Bustillo, CM: Cueto de la Mina, SC: Santa Catalina, EJ: El Juyo, Ur: Urtiaga, Er: Ermittia, EP: El Pendo, LP: La Paloma, Ra: Rascaño, Bo: Bolinkoba, LC: Las Caldas, LV: La Viña.

Figure 11. General distribution of Magdalenian whale bone artefacts from southwestern Europe (see Figure 1 for the details of the map data). White circles represent the number of whale bone pieces by site (the size of the circle is proportional to the number of artefacts identified). Whale bone data comes from [START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF] this study. This map does not include the pendant from Balmori [START_REF] Boneta | Sobre de la naturaleza del soporte de la placa ósea colgante de la cueva de Balmori (Asturias)/On the nature of the raw material of the osseous hanging plate from Balmori Cave (Asturias)[END_REF] and the cut-out contour from Isturitz [START_REF] Rivero | Vers une caractérisation du gisement magdalénien d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) à travers sa production artistique[END_REF]. Sites: 1: La Paloma, 2: Las Caldas, 3: La Viña, 4: Tito Bustillo, 5: Cueto de la Mina,6: El Pendo,7 : El Juyo,8 : El Rascaño,9 : Bolinkoba,10: Santa Catalina,11: Ermittia,12: Urtiaga,13: Isturitz,14: Duruthy,15: Brassempouy,16: Arudy,17: Espélugues,18: Lortet,19: Gourdan,20: Harpons,21: Tuc d'Audoubert,22: Mas d'Azil,23: La Vache,24: La Madeleine.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Distribution of whale bone objects in the south-west of the current French territory during the Magdalenian (whale data from[START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF]. White circles represent the number of whale bone artefacts per site (the size of the circles is proportional to the numbers of artefacts identified). The marine levels -120 m and -100 m correspond, respectively, to the LGM and Bølling-Allerød interstadial[START_REF] Benjamin | Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review[END_REF]. Relief is derived from altimetric data available in[START_REF] Reuter | An evaluation of void filling interpolation methods for SRTM data[END_REF][START_REF] Jarvis | Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4[END_REF], and bathymetric data are from Natural Earth (www.naturalearthdata.com). The "Sables des Landes" region appears in yellow (data from[START_REF] Sitzia | Chronostratigraphie et distribution spatiale des dépôts éoliens quaternaires du bassin aquitain[END_REF]. 1: Isturitz, 2: Duruthy, 3: Brassempouy, 4: Arudy, 5: Espélugues, 6: Lortet, 7: Gourdan, 8: Harpons, 9: Tuc d'Audoubert, 10: Mas d'Azil, 11: La Vache, 12: La Madeleine.

  Figure 1. Distribution of whale bone objects in the south-west of the current French territory during the Magdalenian (whale data from[START_REF] Pétillon | Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Pétillon | A gray whale in Magdalenian Perigord. Species identification of a bone projectile point from la Madeleine (Dordogne, France) using collagen fingerprinting[END_REF]. White circles represent the number of whale bone artefacts per site (the size of the circles is proportional to the numbers of artefacts identified). The marine levels -120 m and -100 m correspond, respectively, to the LGM and Bølling-Allerød interstadial[START_REF] Benjamin | Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review[END_REF]. Relief is derived from altimetric data available in[START_REF] Reuter | An evaluation of void filling interpolation methods for SRTM data[END_REF][START_REF] Jarvis | Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4[END_REF], and bathymetric data are from Natural Earth (www.naturalearthdata.com). The "Sables des Landes" region appears in yellow (data from[START_REF] Sitzia | Chronostratigraphie et distribution spatiale des dépôts éoliens quaternaires du bassin aquitain[END_REF]. 1: Isturitz, 2: Duruthy, 3: Brassempouy, 4: Arudy, 5: Espélugues, 6: Lortet, 7: Gourdan, 8: Harpons, 9: Tuc d'Audoubert, 10: Mas d'Azil, 11: La Vache, 12: La Madeleine.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Distribution of Cantabrian Magdalenian sites examined in this study. A: central Asturias, B: eastern Asturias, C: Cantabria, D: Spanish Basque Country and Navarra (see Fig. 1 for map data).

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Examples of whale bone artefacts identified in the Cantabrian Magdalenian collections; 1-3: projectile points, 2-4: indeterminate objects made on a rod; 1: Ermittia-III, 2: Las Caldas-level IIb, 3-4: La Viña-IV; a-h: close-up of the material.

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4. Whale bone projectile points; 1-2: double-bevelled points, 3-4 : mesial fragment of point with longitudinal grooves, 5-6: massive-based points, 7: fork-based point, 8-9: distal extremities of points with traces of manufacturing/maintenance ; a: close-up views; 1:Las Caldas-VI, 2: Las Caldas-IIIc-IV, 3: Las Caldas-VIII, 4: Las Caldas-VIb, 5: Ermittia-III, 6: Urtiaga-E, 7: Las Caldas-VI, 8-9: Ermittia-III.

Figure 5 .

 5 Figure 5. Possible whale bone foreshafts; 1: Las Caldas-VI (140 x 13 x 11 mm), 2: El Pendo (184 x 12 x 13 mm), 3: La Viña-IV (68 x 9 x 7 mm), 4: Ermittia-III (49.5 x 10.5 x 9 mm), a-b: close-up.

Figure 6 .

 6 Figure 6. Various whale bone artefacts; 1-4: indeterminate objects on a rod, 1: La Viña-IV, 2: El Rascaño-4b, 3: Tito Bustillo-III, 4: Las Caldas-III, 5: blunt tool (Las Caldas-IV), 6: possible blank (El Juyo-8); a and b: close-up of the material.

Figure 7 .

 7 Figure 7. Various whale bone objects; 1: massive (214 x 17 x 13 mm) decorated point (Ermittia-III); 2: massive (81 x 19 x 16 mm) decorated object on rod (Ermittia-III); 3: possible plaquette blank (Urtiaga-D); 4: indeterminate object on plaquette (Urtiaga-D); a, b, c, d, e: close-up views.

Figure 8 .

 8 Figure 8. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for Magdalenian levels yielding whale bone objects in the Cantabrian region expressed at two sigma. Calibration: OxCal v4.4.2. (Bronk Ramsey, 2017); IntCal20 and Marine20 dataset (Heaton et al., 2020; Reimer et al., 2020) appear, respectively, in grey and green; ΔR local offset updated from Monge Soares et al. (2016) (see detail in the text).

Figure 9 .

 9 Figure9. Distribution of whale bone artefacts from Cantabrian Magdalenian sites (see Table1for site names, and Figure1for the details of the map data). White circles represent the number of whale bone artefacts per site (the size of the circles is proportional to the numbers of artefacts identified). Black crosses represent sites that did not yield whale bone objects. Receptor sites appear in bold: 1 -La Paloma, 4 -Las Caldas, 6 -La Viña, 13 -Tito Bustillo, 30 -El Pendo, 31 -El Juyo, 33 -El Rascaño, 50 -Bolinkoba, 52 -Santa Catalina, 57 -Ermittia, 58 -Urtiaga.

Table 1 .

 1 Magdalenian worked osseous assemblages from the Cantabrian region (from west to east) assessed in this study. Institutions where the collections are housed: MN: Museo de Navarra (Pamplona), Gor: Gordailua (Irun, Guipúzcoa), MAV: Museo Arqueológico de Vizcaya (Bilbao), MUPAC: Museo de Prehistoria y Arqueología de Cantabria (Santander), MNCIA: Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira (Santillana del Mar), MAN: Museo Arqueológico Nacional (Madrid), MNCN: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (Madrid), IIIPC-UC: Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria-Universidad de Cantabria (Santander), MAA: Museo Arqueológico de Asturias (Oviedo), UO: Alcalde del Río et al. /H. Breuil and H . Obermaier/L. G.

	#	Site	Zone	Collection	Archaeological levels	Chrono-cul. attribution	Conservation institutions
	1	La Paloma	A	E. Hernández Pacheco et al.	8, 6, 4, 3*	CLM, MM, ULM	MAA, MAN, MNCN, MNCIA
	2	Sofoxó I	A	Conde de la Vega del Sella and H. Obermaier	Ind.	Mag.	MAA
	3	Oscura de Ania	A	J. M. Gómez Tabanera and M. Pérez Pérez	3, 3a, 3b	MM, ULM	MAA
	4	Las Caldas-Sala II	A	M.S. Corchón Rodríguez	XIII to I, -III -II, -I (Sala II)	CLM, MM, ULM	MAA
	5	Entrefoces	A	M. R. González Morales	A, B, C, D, E	CLM, ULM	MAA, UC
	6	La Viña	A	F. J. Fortea Pérez	I, III, IV	MM, ULM	MAA + FFL
	7	El Olivo	A	D. Álvarez-Alonso	2b	MM	UCM
	8	Los Azules I	B	J. Fernández-Tresguerres Velasco	6	ULM	MAA
	9	Cova Rosa	B	F. Jordá Cerdá et al.	Upper level/B6	CLM	MAA
	10	Collubil	B	Conde de la Vega del Sella and H. Obermaier	Ind.	Mag	MAA
	11	El Cierro	B	F. Jordá Cerdá et al.	2, 3/F, G, G1	CLM	MAA, US
	12	La Lloseta	B	H. Hernández Pacheco and P. Wernert/F. Jordá Cerdá	1, 2	CLM, ULM	MAA, MAN
	13	Tito Bustillo-Área de estancia	B	M. A. García Guinea/J. A. Moure Romanillo/R. de Balbín Behrmann et al.	1,1C1,1C2, 1C3, 1C4 (Área de Estancia) + Área de las Pinturas	Mag.	MAA, MUPAC, US
	14	La Riera	B	Conde de la Vega del Sella/J. M. Gómez Tabanera/L. G. Straus and G. A. Clark	ind/26-19	CLM, ULM	MAA, MNCN
	15	Cueto de la Mina	B	Conde de la Vega del Sella/F. Jordá Cerdá/M. de la Rasilla Vives	B, C, D/II,III,IV	Sol, CLM, MM, ULM	MAA, MNCIA	MAN,	MNCM,
	16	Bricia	B	F. Jordá Cerdá	E, C	CLM, ULM	MAA
	17	Los Canes	B	P. Arias Cabal	2B, 2C	CLM, ULM	MAA
	18	Balmori	B	Conde de la Vega del Sella	"Nivel Magdaleniense" = Magdalenian level	Mag.	MAA, MNCN
	19	Arangas	B	P. Arias Cabal and C. Pérez Suárez/P. Arias Cabal	F	CLM	U S
	20	Coimbre	B	D. Álvarez-Alonso et al.	4, 2, 1 (Zone B)	CLM, MM, ULM	UCM
	21	Llonín	B	F. J. Fortea Pérez et al.	VIII-X (Cono Anterior), II-III (Vestíbulo), I-II (Galería)	MM, ULM	MAA, FFL
	22	Las Aguas	C	J. A. Lasheras Gurruchaga	B, C	CLM/MM?	MNCIA
	23	El Linar	C	J. Sanguino and R. Montes Barquín	"Sondeos A y C" = Test pit A and C	CLM (+MM?)	MUPAC
	24	Cualventi	C	M. A. García Guinea	5/E	CLM/ULM	MUPAC, MNCIA
	25	Altamira	C	H . Freeman and J. González Echegaray	Upper levels	CLM	MIUPAC, MNCIA
	26	Hornos de la Peña	C	H. Alcalde del Río et al.	Ind.	Mag.	MAN
	27	La Pila	C	C. Gutíerrez Saez and F. Bernaldo de Quirós Guidotti	IV.1 -IV.4	ULM/Az.	MUPAC, MNCIA
	28	La Pasiega	C	J. Carballo and García Lorenzo/J. González Echegaray and E. Ripoll Perelló	Ind.	Sol./Mag.	MUPAC
	29	El Castillo	C	H. Obermaier et al. /J. Carballo	6-8	Mag.	MUPAC, MNCIA, MAN
	30	El Pendo	C	J. Carballo et al. /J. Martínez Santaolalla et al. /Edgard Camarós	II(b), IV	Sol./Mag.	MUPAC, MNCIA, MAN, MNCN, UC
	31	El Juyo	C	P. Janssens et al. /L. G. Freeman and J. González Echegaray	III-X/4-11	CLM	MUPAC, MNCIA
	32	Morín	C	Conde de la Vega del Sella/J. Carballo/J. González Echegaray et al.	Mag., 2	ULM	MUPAC, MAN, MNCN
	33	Rascaño	C	J. González Echegaray and I. Barandiarán Maestu	2, 2b, 3, 4(b), 5	IM/Bad., CLM, ULM	MNCIA, MNCN
	34	Pielago II	C	M. A. García Guinea	5, 6	ULM?	MUPAC
	35	Pielago I	C	A. García Guinea/M. A. García Guinea	5	ULM?	MUPAC
	36	El Otero	C	J. González Echegaray et al.	2-3	ULM	MUPAC
	37	La Chora	C	J. González Echegaray and M. A. García Guinea	ind	ULM/Az.	MUPAC
	38	El Horno	C	M. A. Fano Martínez	1-3	ULM	MUPAC, MNCIA
	39	El Mirón	C	M. González Morales and L. G. Straus	12-17 (Cabaña), 108 (Trinchera), 102.1/108/110-119 (Corral)	IM, CLM, ULM	U C
	40	La Peña del Perro	C	M. González Morales and Y. Díaz Casado	2c	ULM	MUPAC
	41	La Fragua	C	M. R. González Morales et al.	4	ULM	MUPAC
	42	El Valle	C	L. Sierra/H. Breuil and H. Obermaier/M. P. García-Gelabert ind	ULM	MUPAC, MAN, MNCN
	43	Polvorín	D (v)	R. Ruiz Idarraga and F. d'Errico	Upper level (Sala interior intermedia)	ULM	MAV
	44	Arenaza I	D (v)	J. M. Apellaniz Castroviejo and J. Altuna Echave/J. A. Fernández Lombera	VI	ULM?	MAV
	45	Balzola	D (v)	J. M. de Barandiarán/L. Zapata Peña	7, 8	ULM	MAV

Acknowledgements

This research was financed by a Fyssen Foundation grant to AL (The CetOs Project based at the UC-IIIPC) and the ANR project PaleoCet (ANR-18-CE27-0018, dir. J.-M. Pétillon). The authors are grateful to all the museum curators and personnel for access to the studied collections: Sofia Díaz Rodríguez and Beatriz García for the Archaeological Museum of Asturias, Adriana Chauvin and colleagues of the Museum of Prehistory and Archaeology of Cantabria, Carmen de las Heras Martín, Lucía María Díaz González and Déborah Ordás Pastrana of the National Museum and Research Center of Altamira, Ruth Maicas Ramos and J. Antonio Martos Romero of the National Museum of Archaeology of Madrid, Susana Fraile Gracia for the National Museum of Natural Sciences of Madrid, Iñaki García Camino and the entire team of the Archaeological Museum of Biscay in Bilbao, and Sonia San Jose Santamarta and her colleagues of the archaeological centre of Gordailua (Irun). We also thank Manuel Ramón González Morales, Edgard Camarós, David Álvarez Alonso, Pablo Arias and Maria Soledad Corchón Rodríguez for granting direct access to material still under study. We would like to warmly thank Diego Garate Maidagan, Borja González Rabanal, Francisco Javier Rodríguez Santos and the entire EvoAdapta Group at the University of Cantabria for their daily help. We would like to thank Anthony Sécher for providing georeferenced site data, Asier Garcia-Escarzaga and Igor Gutiérrez-Zugasti for estimating/calibrating the ΔR with the IntCal20, and all the participants of the ANR project PaleoCet. Finally, we would like to thanks the two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped improved the manuscript.

Atxeta

 D (v)J. M. de