Documents found
-
461.More information
In Great Britain and in Ireland, two conflicting models of neolithisation have been proposed. One, that is based on the assumption that indigenous late Mesolithic groups were in contact with Continental farmers (as in the case of the Ertebølle culture in Denmark), proposes a slow acculturation process ; but there is no archaeological proof that this had been the case. The other envisages several successive episodes of colonization of these islands by small communities coming from the Continent (and allows for the subsequent – and apparently rapid – acculturation of indigenous communities as a result of contacts with these newcomers). It is this last model which we defend and which is described here, using the most up to date archaeological data. We hope to provide a balanced assessment of the evidence for colonization against a background of Late Mesolithic technology, material culture and subsistence strategies, and to highlight the fundamental differences which exist between these last groups of huntergatherer-fishers and the first agro-pastoral communities in terms of economy, technology and ideology. In order to locate the likely origins of our hypothetical colonists, we examine the evidence on both sides of the sea for each strand of neolithisation.
-
462.More information
Until fairly recently, study of the Neolithic in Brittany was principally dedicated to the megalithic monuments due to the numerous sites there. Gradually, research was oriented towards settlement remains, notably through the development of rescue archaeology in the 1980s. This is particularly the case for the Early Neolithic and, for the first time in 1996, an important excavation was carried out on a house dated to the beginning of the fifth millennium in Le Haut-Mée, near Fougères (north-eastern Brittany). A few years later, in 2004, a second site was excavated at Betton, near Rennes, and recently, in 2014, a third one in Lannion not far from the north-western coast. These main settlements are complemented by numerous deposits of archaeological artefacts located by field surveys. However, for the whole region, less than ten sites dating from the beginning of the Neolithic have been discovered and the remains of Quimper Kervouyec, despite their partial preservation, demonstrate that neolithisation had reached the most western point of the Breton peninsula by the early fifth millennium. Prior to work on a road to bypass the town of Quimper (south-western Brittany), a small group of archaeological remains comprising two pits and a few postholes was discovered and excavated in 2005. A few hundred metres further east, a third pit was discovered in 2010 before the development of an urban area. These remains were located on a hillside, facing south-west, overlooking the Steïr river. In this hilly landscape, some natural flat platforms were chosen by the first farmers. The soil is composed of fine clay useful for different functions (covering wooden walls, making pottery). The geological substratum is very complex here and associates various granites and metamorphic rocks used by the Neolithic people. Due to their morphology (shallow depth, irregular contours, silty texture of the substratum) and their contents, the three pits discovered can be interpreted as having been dug for clay extraction and then progressively filled up with domestic waste material. Their contours are irregular and the asymmetrical section shows the direction of the extraction of the clay ; their depth is shallow and extraction stopped when the granite bedrock was reached. These excavations are similar to the lateral pits of houses in Early Neolithic hamlets. The preservation of a few postholes nearby and the type of waste found confirm the domestic nature of these structures. The archaeological material, quite abundant despite the small volume of remains preserved, is characteristic of the Early Neolithic and the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain culture. Four radiocarbon analyses, two of which were made on calcinated ceramic material, confirm the dating of the site to the first quarter of the fifth millennium. Pottery represents the principal component with around thirty pots identified from over five hundred potsherds. Petrographic analysis of the components reveals a local manufacture for most of the pottery. However, some rare pieces imported from beyond the Armorican massif are distinguished by the use of exogenous clay and the introduction of the ‘ chamotte’ technique. The morphological and decorative characteristics indicate a middle phase or the beginning of a recent phase of the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain culture. Spherical shapes and impressed decors are predominant, the applied cord typical of the recent phase almost absent. The lithic industry is mostly manufactured on flint of various origins with however a small preference for local and coastal resources. Long-distance importations came from central and western France. In spite of the small number of pieces, the lithic series indicates the maintaining of blade production on imported flint by means of a complex technical system. The presence and the nature of broken schist bracelets, typical artefacts of this culture, and the macro-tools mostly made on granite, reveal the Neolithic population’s good knowledge of their environment. The functional diversity of the macro-tools found on the site reveals that both domestic and craft activities were carried out, a characteristic of Neolithic settlements. The anthracological study of the charcoal highlights a progressive exploitation of the local forest, on the hill slopes and the bottom of surrounding valleys. Wood selection with oak dominant is typical of Early Neolithic sites. These settlement remains represent at present the most western traces of neolithisation in the Armorican Peninsula at the beginning of the fifth millennium, in addition to the few regional excavated sites. Detailed analysis of the archaeological artefacts – ceramics, lithics, stone bracelets, macro-tools, anthracology, petrography – reveals both local supply and long-distance relationships, in particular with the Loire valley and Touraine.
Keywords: West Brittany, radiocarbon dates, petrography, anthracology, macro-tools, stone bracelets, lithic, ceramics, dwelling, VSG Culture, Early Neolithic, parure, Bretagne ouest, Néolithique ancien, Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, habitat, céramique, lithique, macro-outillage, anthracologie, pétrographie, datations 14C
-
463.More information
Ground stone tools are rarely described for the mesolithic lithic industries of the French territory, despite their omnipresence in the dwellings. Yet elsewhere in Atlantic Europe, pebble tools sometimes play a major role in defining cultural entities, in Scotland with the Obanian, in northern Spain with the Asturian and in Portugal with the Mirian. This obvious lack of interest in mesolithic macro-tools deprives us of crucial information on technical phylums that are evolving at a different rate from other techniques. What are the standards and practices of use of these tools compared to other material culture ranges ? How have they been disseminated in the landscapes through individual or collective mobility practices ? What "stylistic territories" do they help us to draw ? How can we think of their very slow morphological evolution over time in relation to other tools ? Macro-tools thus hold a particular potential for action on matter, different from other tools ; discussing their uses or, unlike their non-use, thinking about human engagement with the physical world and seeking a key to understanding their being in the world. The coastal habitat of Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon, Morbihan) excavated between 2012 and 2018 is a particularly coherent reference from a chronological and stratigraphic point of view for the seventh millennium BC. It allows a re-reading of other lithic assemblages of the Atlantic Mesolithic, but also comparisons with the Neolithic ground stone tools recently studied in the region. This coastal position has at least four implications for the availability and use of these tools : 1/ abundance of raw materials on the foreshores, 2/ exploitation of two very different ecosystems (maritime and continental), 3/ very diversified domestic activities on the habitat, 4/ need for tools to dig pits. The distribution of tools on site and the study of structures do not make it possible to highlight specific areas of activity within the habitat. For a total of 947 massive objects inventoried, a series of 130 tools emerged, whose traces visible to the naked eye are beyond doubt and 23 hypothetical tools requiring further analysis to determine whether they have use-wear or not. There are also 470 fragments of pebbles used. The classification of the ground stone tools was based on specific criteria, the first being the type of traces visible on the surfaces, voluntary or involuntary removal, and finally the fragmentation processes in use. Nine types of tools were identified, excluding fragments, all divided into one or more subtypes. The hammers obviously dominate (64%). The intermediate elements are 8% of the entire tools, to which 54 fragments must be added and probably many longitudinally fragment. In all these cases, it should be noted that the stigma of use is relatively undeveloped when compared with equivalent Neolithic tools. There are only four tools more involved than the others : a circular hammer (type A5), two chopping-tools (D2) and a peak (D3). Concerning the types of rocks used, two of them differ considerably from the corpus, quartz for mainly active tools, as well as granite for the largest objects, whether passive or not. This article raises questions about the paucity of ground stone tools in the Mesolithic period in western France, while suitable mineral resources are particularly abundant on foreshores. The lithic assemblages of the Early Mesolithic show a slightly broader register than those of the Late Mesolithic, all things considered. Finally, a broad comparison is made with other areas of Atlantic Europe (France, Spain, Portugal, Scotland), which are obviously better equipped. The paucity of mesolithic macro-tools in Atlantic France reflects a general organization of technical systems that do not use massive tools to interact with the rest of the physical world. It is no longer possible to take refuge behind possible functional shifts to other materials, since animal materials, antlers, bones or shells, do not take over, except to provide deer antler picks (in Téviec and Hoedic). This first classification approach was intended to put a spotlight on a part of the mesolithic technical system that is usually left in the shadows. Our approach was intended to be functional, lato sensu, i. e. the representation of this range of tools can only be judged by integrating all the activities and functions that can be detected in the habitat, by examining combustion structures, cut tools, or organic remains. It is obvious that experimentation is now essential to determine the functions of these tools on central mass, which are not very well transformed. Examining the technical transfers from generation to generation is difficult for the period preceding the Mesolithic. Indeed, there is still very little to say about the Upper and Late Paleolithic of Western France, especially since its maritime declination is currently inaccessible. With regard to the transformations during the Holocene, we thought we saw a possible regression of typological diversity during the Mesolithic period in Atlantic France, but we must remain very cautious due to the lack of sufficient lithic assemblages. It will be much less so if we talk about the real break with the Neolithic from the beginning, whether in the West or more generally in the North of France. New functions and much less collective mobility explain this major contrast in the use of macro-tools, but this break must also be placed in an ontological register. The paucity of mesolithic macro-tools in Atlantic France reflects a general organization of technical systems that do not use massive tools to interact with the rest of the physical world. This absence is a cultural choice ; it also reflects a discreet, obviously resilient human imprint, a way of being in the world that shapes subsequent practices.
Keywords: Late Mesolithic, Mesolithic, ground stone tools, Brittany., Second Mésolithique., Mésolithique, macro-outils, Bretagne
-
464.More information
A Guaita is an open-air settlement located on a hill in low relief coastal at the north-west end of the Cap Corse. The archaeological operations conducted between 2004 and 2013 have brought to light two Neolithic occupancy’s successive levels : the first one, dated at the end of the Early Neolithic (end of the sixth or the first half of the fifth millennium BC, not calibrated), the second at the Middle Neolithic with radiocarbon dates from 4400-4000 BC calibrated. We have before presented in Congresses or publications several studies of ceramic or lithic elements brought to light in this site, and we want just present with this paper the principal results of each occupations level, which give to A Guaita a sure originality. But, in fact, the matter of this article are many artifacts in polished and not polished stones or pebbles (macro-tools), which are rarely published and studied in Corsica, because probably not found during the excavations. Indeed, querns and grinders, pebbles utilized as polishers, or hammer-stones and axes, are the most described and studied in publications. But sharpeners, wedges, or tools with many uses (poly-functional), intermediate objects and anvils with particularly form are rarely studied and published. At A Guaita, our attention was minded by all these numerous tools, very diversified, which were fund in both occupancy levels and on other terraces of the A Guaita hill. The original composition and abundance of this artifacts were incentives for the thorough study in this paper. We hope thus to lay the basis of a first useful reference for the study of this material in Corsica. On other continental settlements, for some years, systematical studies of this pieces were published. We are referred to these studies for suggest in our publication a corpus of more than 64 pieces found in the excavations, but also some pieces from not excavated terraces as additional information. Despite bioturbation’s problems during the excavations (presence of many roots), characteristic lithic tools and ceramic artifacts of Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic were brought to light. Ceramic with cardium-decoration is present, but also, for the prime time at Corsica, pieces with incised decoration derived from productions of ceramic a linee incise (italic trend) were found. The lithic artifacts show links with Sardinia (obsidian from Monte Arci and flint stone from Bassin of Perfugas), but also possible origin of flint stone from Italy. In the Early Neolithic phase were found typical trapezoidal transverse arrows in obsidian, rhyolite and flint stone. To the Middle Neolithic phase, are most artifacts (arrows in different forms and blades) in flint stone, rhyolite and obsidian present. In both archaeologic levels the quartz has been extensively carved cut particular using anvils. The ceramic pieces of the Middle Neolithic phase are very small and have often polished superficies with carenate forms, but they are generally most broken. The greatest interest comes from a wide variety of macro-tools found in both levels : the assemblage consists in grinding stones, millstones, hammer-stones, polishers, anvils, polished blades, axes, roughs and chisels. Detailed analysis of raw lithic material reveals the preference for local area resources : gabbro, gneiss, mica-schist, amphibolite, and quartz or quartzite mainly. The most pieces as blades of axes and adzes or hammer-stones, etc, were analyzed by petrographic determinations, adzes and chisel by non-destructive analyses : weighty hammer-stones are in eclogite, blades and chisel in jadeitite. This pieces in eclogite, especially dense, have a particular form (good ergonomy) and they were careful selected and manufactured (micro-regional supply) ; they reveal a good knowledge from prehistoric groups of lithic sources in their environment. The major part of anvils came from pebbles in ovoid or rectangular form. The most pieces, nearly on pebbles, are polishers and hammer-stones, but several poly-functional pieces with two or three functions were recognized. Grinders, anvils, hammer-stones are most poly-functional tools : this is visible through the traces of use that reveal their faces or edges. Four intermediate elements were also found : they are small and long pebbles, but their utilization was occasional. Our study is based on classifications of A. Leroi-Gourhan concerning the different forms of percussions : the launched percussion is used on anvils, the posed percussion is used by polishers, etc. Smoothing tools are utilized specially for ceramic working whereas hammer-stones are used for the “ chaîne opératoire” by production of many lithic artifacts ; they are strictly linked with anvils that were found in stratigraphy in each occupation level, Early as Middle Neolithic. This functional diversity reveals that Neolithic people of A Guaita have had domestic activities (production of lithic industry and ceramic vessel), perhaps too craft activities. They are in relationships or occasional contacts with local or micro-regional communities from Corsica, but also from Tuscany or Sardinia, for raw material supply, as reveal the presence of industry and nuclei in obsidian and flint stone varieties mainly -that results through actually research. They have too occasional or regular ( ?) contacts with Central Italy, at the Early Neolithic, ceramic vessel through influences of communities with a line incise facies, attested by determination of clays composition.
Keywords: Early and Middle Neolithic, studies of polished and/ or macro-tools, petrographic analysis, Tyrrhenian area., étude et analyse pétrographique, Néolithique ancien, échanges en contexte tyrrhénien., Néolithique moyen, outillage en pierre polie, macro-outillage
-
465.More information
Even though stone slab burials are well known in archaeological literature since the beginning of the 20th century (mostly thanks to J. Vilaró, then M. Cura, J. Castany and Ll. Guerrero), they have been largely overlooked during this last decade. Even so, numerous graves have been discovered with parallels with other contemporary -or sub-contemporary-Neolithic burials in southern France, northern Italy or Switzerland. The scarce or null visibility of the burials, their deficient state of conservation, the lack of surveying projects and the alterations caused by soil movements in agro-pastoral areas can be the reason for the few discoveries of this kind of burial during the last few years. Neolithic communities selected specific spaces and territories to bury their dead and in particular at locations between 589 m and 747 m above sea level. They used stone slabs to build two types of tombs : (1) cistas, which are cist tombs, buried and sealed tightly by the four slabs that make up the sides and the top. They can be accessed by moving the upper slab (vertical access) ; (2) megalithic chambers whose fundamental difference is that they are accessed from the side (horizontal access). There is an additional 20% of graves in a poor state of preservation that could not be classified. There is little osteological information as many of the graves were excavated several decades ago. Frequently a substantial part of the skeleton was not collected or the appropriate techniques were not used for optimal data recording. Most graves contain only one individual, occasionally two, and rarely three or more. The majority are adult males, but due to the poor excavation procedures described above and the loss of certain remains over time, because of the changes and transfers of the archaeological material between museums, this information is unreliable. The aim of this paper is to present the latest work carried out on the burials by a large team of scholars. We will describe the characteristics that define these burials (from the typology of the structures and buried individuals to the type of grave goods) and our analysis of these characteristics. This includes the study of the dental morphology that has allowed us to determine that the Neolithic communities of the interior of Catalonia had a greater affinity with those of southern France and perhaps even a common origin. In addition, the recent advances in biomolecular techniques (δ13C and δ15N isotope analysis) have given access to information on diet, which mainly consisted of vegetables (cereals) and, in some cases, animal proteins. This contradicts the initial idea that the economy of these groups in the interior of Catalonia relied on animal husbandry. We have made important advances in the study of the grave goods with research into the geographic origin of the raw materials used to make the bone, malacological and lithic tools and ornaments, the technical systems implemented during their preparation and the tools’ use-wear before being deposited in the burial. The lithic raw materials are comprised of flint from south-eastern France and the Ebro Basin, variscite from the Gavà Mines and ornaments made with various marine species originating in the Mediterranean coast. This demonstrates the wide and complex network of inter-group contacts that existed at this time. As for the function of lithic and bone tools (knapped and polished), they show us that Neolithic societies had a double attitude when selecting grave goods : while some tools are unused and appear to have been prepared to be deposited ex profeso together, others were chosen among previously used tools. These objects show traces of use but were maintained in a perfect state of use. The tools include flint blades for harvesting (cutting) cereals or scraping hide, geometric unused microlithic projectiles, polished axes for wood and hide work, and bone awls for the transformation of soft materials. We still have to determine the function of the schist awls, which may have come from workshops located in the Pyrenees. From an experimental perspective, the current hypothesis is that they were probably used as projectile points. Finally, we will present the available radiocarbon dates as well as the statistical analysis regarding their chronological distribution and duration. Before our dating program, the chronology of stone slabs burials was based on a small number of dates, some of which were obtained from " long life" samples. Today we know that this type of burial was in use for between 510 and 865 years, during the period 4230-4000 cal. BC and 3490-3180 cal. BC. This indicates that these funerary practices were largely contemporary with others in Catalonia (located in the territories near the Mediterranean coast), as well as in France, Italy and Switzerland. Within the framework of this ongoing project, we aim to work on the more recently excavated burials (it is the case of Camp de la Bruna), as well as undertaking new analysis aimed at discovering the origin of certain tools and ornaments. Our priority will be to initiate a series of Zooms analyses to determine the species of bone used to make the numerous tools found in these graves.
Keywords: statistical analysis., Neolithic, Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula, stone slabs burials, Solsonià, radiocarbon dates, Néolithique, nord-est de la péninsule Ibérique, tombes à dalles, Solsonià, radiocarbone, analyses statistiques.
-
-
467.
-
468.
-
469.
-
470.More information
Abstract. In this synthesis, we propose alternative conclusions relative to the chronology and architectural forms discovered on the site of the north beltway boulevard périphérique nord of Lyon. Four archaeological surfaces, from the Middle and Final Neolithic, and the Early and Final 1 Bronze Age, were revealed. The architecture comprises a model, probably associated with a restricted family unit, which included a principal habitation building and a secondary storage building. The Néolithique moyen bourguignon has yielded only one of these ensembles. Only the Bell-Beaker occupation, with a single edifice, departs from this scheme. In the Early Bronze Age, underground storage seems to be partly at the origin of the constitution of a group of buildings on a pre-established plan and according to a symbolic framework whose meaning is unknown. This situation recalls similar observations realized in the middle Rhône Valley. We again remark the importance of the agricultural economy for the populations of the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Rhodanian axis, in a sort of “Neolithic optimum”. The architectural forms differ from the farm-cattlesheds that constitute a common model north of the Alps. In the Final Bronze Age, as in the preceding period, three architectural ensembles were identified, but seem to benefit from a larger spatial autonomy according to the distribution and nature of the enclosures. The function of this group of buildings no longer seems to be principally oriented toward a concentration of agricultural products. Translation: Magen O’Farrell