Importance of field data for understanding a potential Mousterian funerary deposit : the case of the Regourdou 1 skeleton (Montignac-sur-Vézère, Dordogne, France)

Aside from the work of Bonifay (see Bonifay et al. 2007 for one of the more recent papers) and various articles following these earlier works (e.g., Binant 1991, Defleur 1993, Maureille et Vandermeersch 2007, Pettitt 2011, see also May 1986 for a more critical analysis), the in situ position of the remains of Regourdou 1 from layer 4 has never actually been discussed on the basis of available data from the salvage operation carried out in October 1957 by E. Bonifay and G. Laplace-Jauretche, under the administrative authority of François Bordes, or from the subsequent, more systematic, excavations directed by E. Bonifay between 1961 and 1964. Via the compilation of available information from a number of unpublished documents (François Bordes’ field notes, drawings made during the salvage operation, photographs taken in 1957, 1961 and 1962, as well as databases from the 1961 to 1964 excavations), and also a new inventory of human remains (both previously known and recently discovered), it is now possible to more accurately reconstruct the position of the human remains in a Cartesian system. In this, we assume that the concentration of remains uncovered during the salvage operation was in square G2, according to the preliminary systematic excavations carried out in 1961. They also bring to light that while practically no anatomical connections can be demonstrated with any certainty – and despite significant disruptions (all of the hominin remains are spread over 9 squares : G1 to G3, F1 to F3, E1 and E2, D2) – they are mainly positioned in squares G2 and G3 to some degree with respect to the anatomical logic of the human body. We therefore assume that Regourdou 1 was lying flat, with its head to the west – perhaps upon its trunk – close to the wall of the cavity. This result is different from the fetal position hypothesis proposed in Bonifay et al. (2007). Moreover many post-depositional (albeit Pleistocene) disturbances are also evident. We believe that they were likely the result of the utilization and modification of the cavity by brown bears and lagomorphs.Only new excavations at the site, and a better taphonomic understanding of Bonifay’s (1964) layer 4 (in which Regourdou 1 was found), and the exact role of humans in its formation, i.e., their anthropic impact on the layer, will allow us to discuss in more detail the nature of the deposition of the body, and, hopefully, the absence of the skull

Photographier Pincevent

The Magdalenian camp site of Pincevent was discovered in 1964, near Montereau-Fault-Yonne (Seine-et-Marne). Assuring the preservation and transmission of this exceptional archaeological heritage has become one of the main goals of scientific research since the beginning of archaeological excavations. Accordingly, the excavation field crew was particularly interested in developing innovative methods for the recording of the features of habitation surfaces. Photography played a major role in this process. This article describes how the evolution of these methods was directed towards the identification of occupation floors and the demonstration of the coherence of their structure. This approach was constructed in connection with the adoption of new research tools (photogrammetry and spatial analysis). The article thus addresses the role played by written and oral archives in this process, both through the processing and analysis of two series of photographs taken on the site and the production of semi-directive interviews with the actors who worked on the development of these methods

Photographier Pincevent. La production et la transmission de nouvelles représentations au fil du temps comme mode de connaissance

International audienc

Regourdou (Montignac-sur-Vézère).

2 pagesNational audienc

Regourdou 1 (Dordogne, France) : one of the oldest nearly complete Neandertal skeleton ?

International audienc

New data on the possible Neandertal burial at Regourdou (Montignac-sur-Vézère, Dordogne, France).

17 pagesInternational audienc

Importance des données de terrain pour la compréhension d’un potentiel dépôt funéraire moustérien : le cas du squelette de Regourdou 1 (Montignac-sur-Vézère, Dordogne, France)

21 pagesAside from the work of Bonifay (see Bonifay et al. 2007 for one of the more recentpapers) and various articles following these earlier works (e.g., Binant 1991, Defleur 1993, Maureille et Vandermeersch2007, Pettitt 2011, see also May 1986 for a more critical analysis), the in situ position of the remains of Regourdou 1 fromlayer 4 has never actually been discussed on the basis of available data from the salvage operation carried out in October1957 by E. Bonifay and G. Laplace-Jauretche, under the administrative authority of François Bordes, or from thesubsequent, more systematic, excavations directed by E. Bonifay between 1961 and 1964.Via the compilation of available information from a number of unpublished documents (François Bordes’ field notes,drawings made during the salvage operation, photographs taken in 1957, 1961 and 1962, as well as databases from the1961 to 1964 excavations), and also a new inventory of human remains (both previously known and recently discovered),it is now possible to more accurately reconstruct the position of the human remains in a Cartesian system. In this, weassume that the concentration of remains uncovered during the salvage operation was in square G2, according to thepreliminary systematic excavations carried out in 1961. They also bring to light that while practically no anatomicalconnections can be demonstrated with any certainty – and despite significant disruptions (all of the hominin remains arespread over 9 squares : G1 to G3, F1 to F3, E1 and E2, D2) – are mainly positioned in squares G2 and G3 to somedegree with respect to the anatomical logic of the human body. We therefore assume that Regourdou 1 was lying flat,with its head to the west – perhaps upon its trunk – close to the wall of the cavity. This result is different from the fetalposition hypothesis proposed in Bonifay et al. (2007). Moreover many post-depositional (albeit Pleistocene) disturbancesare also evident. We believe that they were likely the result of the utilization and modification of the cavity by brown bearsand lagomorphs.Only new excavations at the site, and a better taphonomic understanding of Bonifay’s (1964) layer 4 (in whichRegourdou 1 was found), and the exact role of humans in its formation, i.e., their anthropic impact on the layer, will allowus to discuss in more detail the nature of the deposition of the body, and, hopefully, the absence of the skull.Excepté dans les travaux de E. Bonifay (pour l’un des plus récents, voir Bonifay et al. 2007) et dans différentescontributions qui ont repris ces derniers (p. ex. Binant 1991 ; Defleur 1993 ; Maureille et Vandermeersch 2007 ; Pettitt2011 voir aussi l’analyse plus critique de May 1986), la position in situ des restes humains de Regourdou 1, provenantde la couche 4 du site n’a jamais été discutée ni sur la base de l’opération de sauvetage réalisée en octobre 1957(opération dirigée par E. Bonifay et G. Laplace-Jauretche, sous l’autorité administrative de F. Bordes), ni suite aux fouillesprogrammées dirigées par E. Bonifay entre 1961 et 1964.Après une synthèse des informations disponibles contenues dans de nombreux documents inédits (minutes de terrainde François Bordes, dessins réalisés lors de l’opération de sauvetage, photographies réalisées en 1957 puis en 1961 et1962, base de données des fouilles 1961-1964) et d’un nouvel inventaire des restes humains (connus et nouvellementdécouverts), les ossements de Regourdou 1 ont pu être en majorité repositionnés au sein d’un système orthonormé. Cesnouveaux documents permettent de supposer que la concentration de vestiges mis au jour lors de l’opération desauvetage se situait dans le carré G2 du carroyage des fouilles débutées en 1961.Ils mettent également en évidence que, même si pratiquement aucune connexion anatomique n’est décelée aveccertitude et malgré des perturbations très importantes (la totalité des ossements se répartit in fine sur près de neufcarrés : G1 à G3, F1 à F3, E1, E2 et D2), ces restes se distribuent surtout en G2 et en G3 en respectant la logiqueanatomique du corps humain. Ces observations permettent de suggérer que Regourdou 1 était plutôt en positionallongée, la tête à l’ouest - peut-être ramenée sur le tronc - à proximité de la paroi de la cavité. Ce résultat est doncdifférent de l’hypothèse de la position foetale proposée dans Bonifay et al. (2007). De plus, de nombreuses perturbationspost-dépositionnelles du dépôt initial humain durant le Pléistocène se sont produites probablement en liaison avec lafréquentation de la cavité par l’Ours brun et les lagomorphes.Nous espérons que de nouvelles fouilles du site, et particulièrement l’étude du rôle de l’Homme dans l’accumulation desvestiges de la couche 4 (selon la stratigraphie de Bonifay 1964), nous permettront de discuter des causes de la présencede ce néandertalien et, peut-être, de l’absence de sa boîte crânienne