Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros34 (1)Articles thématiquesMegalithic biographies. From part...

Articles thématiques

Megalithic biographies. From partial closures to total closures and from single sealing to double sealing

Biographies mégalithiques. De fermetures partielles en fermetures complètes et de condamnations en doubles condamnations
Dominique Jagu et Claude Masset

Résumés

Dans cinq monuments mégalithiques du Bassin Parisien, intervinrent dès le Néolithique des remaniements de grande ampleur, incluant des déplacements et des extractions d’orthostates. L’utilisation sépulcrale y a connu des temps d’arrêt, associés ou non à la mise en place de "sous-couches" généralement minces, mais parfois assez épaisses. Inhumations primaires ou secondaires pouvaient s’y mêler, ou encore s’y succéder en liaison avec les susdites "sous-couches". Il pouvait arriver qu’une couche d’ossements ait été presque entièrement éliminée dès cette époque. Dans deux de ces sites, il a pu être montré que de lourdes "dalles de couverture" n’y furent introduites qu’après la fin des dépôts sépulcraux, dans un geste de fermeture définitive : avant leur mise en place n’avait existé qu’une couverture légère, imperméable à l’eau. Fermés pour toujours, ces mégalithes restèrent longtemps fréquentés, jusqu’à ce qu’intervienne une seconde "condamnation", d’un caractère cette fois franchement destructeur quoique monumental, associée à un abandon définitif.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1La connaissance de l’homme fossile appartient au fouilleur patient
André Leroi-Gourhan, 1950
Les fouilles préhistoriques – technique et méthodes

Introduction

2Standing stones, dolmens and other ancient monuments built of huge stones have long attracted the interest of researchers, but this interest has often been damaging to them. Most excavations of these monuments have been brutal, so that the information they might have contained has largely disappeared forever. The monuments discussed below were partly spared from this lethal curiosity; furthermore, the human remains that had once been placed within them were fairly well preserved. Careful excavations over one or two decades have yielded so far unpublished information, a summary of which is presented here (see also Jagu and Masset, 2016).

Materials and methods

3Five sites were studied (figure 1). At La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme), an uncovered megalithic alignment, erected in the 2nd half of the 4th millennium BC (table 1), was excavated between 1967 and 1975 (Leclerc and Masset, 2006). A covered alignment at Méréaucourt (Somme), contemporary to the first and about 30 km distant from it, was excavated between 1982 and 1992 (Masset et al., 2013; Blin, 2018). Again in the north of France, in the Eure-et-Loir département, a dolmen (known as the Petit dolmen), located under a later tumulus and which had earlier lost its megalithic cover, stood less than 2 m away from another dolmen known as the Berceau, which is well known for its engravings. Both are located in the Changé hamlet belonging to the municipality of Saint-Piat. For ease of reference, we will refer here to the "Changé dolmens" (see www.megalithesdechange.fr). The site was excavated in 1924, and again between 1984 and 2000 (Jagu and Renaud, 1991; Jagu, 1994; Renaud, 1996; Jagu et al., 1998). Also in the Eure-et-Loir, in the municipality of Yermenonville and 3300 m from Changé as the crow flies, a partly destroyed dolmen, known as La Pierre Fritte, was investigated in 1928 and again between 2001 and 2010 (Jagu et al., 2008; Jagu and Fouriaux, 2014). These different monuments were excavated in the same way using the "wide horizontal stripping" method introduced by André Leroi-Gourhan in the 1960s.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Location of the sites discussed in this article |
Localisation des sites évoqués dans l’article

4This method involves, in particular, carefully removing the earth so that the remains gradually become visible and remain in place until they can be recorded. This is done using horizontal (stereoscopic) photographs, as well as oblique photographs and numbered plans. The method is slow and demanding, but allows the archaeological remains to be observed just as they were left on the site. Each relic, having been numbered, identified and classified, is then handed over to the relevant specialists. The sediments were studied by Brigitte Van Vliet-Lanoë (Masset and Van Vliet, 1975; Jagu and Van Vliet-Lanoë, 1991). Radiocarbon dating, mostly on human bones, was carried out at the 14C laboratories in Gif-sur-Yvette (Essonne), Groningen (Netherlands) and Poznan (Poland) (table 1).

Table 1

Table 1

Results of radiocarbon dating at the study sites |
Résultats des datations par le radiocarbone effectuées sur les sites étudiés

Results

5Our results are grouped by excavation team (Claude Masset, then Dominique Jagu).

La Chaussée-Tirancourt and Méréaucourt (Claude Masset excavations)

Origins

6Both at La Chaussée-Tirancourt (figure 2) and Méréaucourt (figure 3), these are "buried" megalithic alignments. They are called "buried" because they stand at the bottom of a pit, which is a little deeper than the height of the orthostats. The pit at Méréaucourt was dug in impermeable flinty clay, so that water collects at the bottom even after the slightest rain. The good condition of the bone material indicates an absence of weathering due to the presence of stagnant water or recurrent contact with it (Masset and Leclerc, 2006), which means that the monument must have originally had a watertight cover. Given the technical possibilities of the time, this could have been a single or double-pitched roof, covered with thatch or perhaps shingles. As we shall see further on, the megalithic slabs covering the monument were placed at a later date and were not present at the time of its use as a tomb. The later alterations, described below, have erased all traces of how the roof was installed. Reasoning by analogy, we are strongly tempted to speculate that similar lightweight roofs existed on the other megalithic monuments we have studied.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Plan of the megalithic alignment at La Chaussée-Tirancourt after excavation (from Leclerc and Masset, 2006). 1: sandstone blocks, including orthostats (named by the location of their highest point), wedging blocks, transverse alignments of small slabs; 2: pit edge; 3: native rock (Cretaceous). From right to left: vestibule, burial chamber, a small man-made cave known as the "muche", located in Z25. Immediately after the entrance, the gaps in the alignments mark the location of previously removed orthostats (in J4 before the placing of layer VI, in H6 before layer IV at the latest) |
Plan de l’allée mégalithique de La Chaussée-Tirancourt après la fouille (d’après Leclerc et Masset, 2006). 1 : éléments en grès, incluant orthostates (nommés par la localisation de leur point le plus haut), blocs de calage, alignements transversaux de dallettes ; 2 : limite de la fosse ; 3 : roche en place (Crétacé). De droite à gauche : vestibule, chambre funéraire, une petite grotte artificielle dite la "muche", située en Z25. Aussitôt après l’entrée, les intervalles dans les alignements marquent l’emplacement d’orthostates anciennement éliminés (en J4 avant l’arrivée de la couche VI, en H6 au plus tard avant celle de la couche IV)

Figure 3

Figure 3

The covered alignment at Méréaucourt on the level of the oldest occupation layer (according to Masset et al., 2013). It should be noted that these excavations did not uncover a "muche", the man-made hollow observed behind the apse at La Chaussée-Tirancourt |
L’allée couverte de Méréaucourt au niveau de la couche d’occupation la plus ancienne (d’après Masset et al., 2013).
À noter que les fouilles n’ont pas mis au jour de "muche", ce creusement observé à l’arrière du chevet à La Chaussée-Tirancourt

7Early speculation by Jean Leclerc in 1982 (Leclerc, 1987) suggests that the function of the majestic slabs covering the so-called “buried” alignments was therefore none other than to seal them off forever.

First use as true burial chambers… with interruptions

8At La Chaussée-Tirancourt, the earliest period of use for laying down the dead seems to have lasted for quite a long time (figure 4a). At one point, after one or more centuries, nearly all of the bones were removed, with only a few small ones left that apparently escaped the attention of the "gravediggers": the tomb was "emptied" and subsequently covered by a thin sterile layer (layer VI). It seems that one of the lateral orthostats, next to the monumental entrance, was removed at this time (figure 4b) in order to open up a side entrance. Thereafter, burials resumed for quite a long time (layer V-3): these were primary burials of individuals in a collective grave. A further interruption ensued, this time without bones being removed, during which some sterile sediment was introduced into only part of the burial layer (sub-layer V-2). This was followed by secondary burials, i.e. introduction of bone remains that had been removed from graves elsewhere (sub-layer V-1: figure 4c).

Figure 4

Figure 4

Evolution of La Chaussée-Tirancourt. The dotted line shows the hollow known as the "muche". a) First occupation layer (VII), almost entirely emptied during the Neolithic; b) After extraction of an orthostat and deposition of a thin sub-sterile layer (VI), the oldest layer of burials remained in place (V-3): the so-called "axial burial strip"; c) On a thin sub-sterile partial sub-layer (V-2), the completely disconnected remains of secondary burials of V-1. d); Further burials (III-5) after extraction of a second orthostat and introduction of a thick sub-sterile filling (layer IV). e) Further burials (III-3) on another partial sub-sterile sub-layer (III-4); appearance of "burial cells". f) On a new partial sub-sterile sub-layer (III-2), the "burial cells" of III-1; g) The whole covered with a thick sterile layer formed mainly of silt (layer II). Like the earlier layers (VI and IV), layer II filled the peripheral space and the "muche". h) Result of destructive activity: the sandstone orthostats were partially shattered by fierce fires, the whole then being buried under thousands of sandstone platelets |
Évolution de La Chaussée-Tirancourt. À noter, en pointillés, l’excavation nommée la "muche". a) Première couche d’occupation (VII), presque entièrement "vidangée" au Néolithique. b) Après extraction d’un orthostate et dépôt d’une couche sub-stérile peu épaisse (VI), la plus ancienne couche d’inhumations restée en place (V-3) : dite "bande sépulcrale axiale". c) Sur une sous-couche partielle sub-stérile mince (V-2), les inhumations secondaires du V-1, en totale déconnexion. d) Après extraction d’un deuxième orthostate et mise en place d’un remplissage sub-stérile épais (couche IV), de nouvelles inhumations (III-5). e) Sur une autre sous-couche partielle sub-stérile (III-4), nouvelles inhumations (III-3) ; apparition des "cases". f) Sur une nouvelle sous-couche partielle sub-stérile (III-2), les "cases" du III-1. g) Épais recouvrement de l’ensemble par une couche stérile formée principalement de limon (couche II). Comme celles de jadis (VI et IV), elle remplit l’espace périphérique et la "muche". h) Résultat d’une intervention destructrice : après destruction partielle des orthostates par de violents incendies, l’ensemble disparaît sous les milliers de plaquettes de grès éclaté issues desdits orthostates

9At Méréaucourt, the oldest burial layer (layer V) occupies less than half of the monument, in the area furthest from the entrance (figure 5a). Small-sized remains in the other half suggest that the bones here were evacuated. If so, the purpose would not have been the same as at La Chaussée-Tirancourt, because the space thus recovered was not used for further burials. At Méréaucourt, no intermediate layer of sediment was added to layer V, and no secondary burials occurred over the bodies that had wasted away on the spot: these two types of body treatment seem to have been used simultaneously (Blin, 2018).

Figure 5

Figure 5

Evolution of Méréaucourt. a) The oldest occupation layer (V). Its virtual absence in the centre of the monument suggests that the contents were evacuated. The entrance area was destroyed by earlier "excavations". b) Addition of a fairly thin sub-sterile filling (IV), associated with the tilting of an orthostat in the apse, which rests on the burial layer V. c) Burial layer III-3 towards the apse, partially covering the tilted orthostat. The area on the opposite side, towards the entrance, did not yield any bones (evacuation?). d) The III-1 graves on a thin sub-sterile partial sub-layer (III-2). e) Layer of pebble-free silt covering the human remains, apparently protecting them (II-3). f) The orthostats closest to the vestibule were moved centripetally: contribution of a thick layer of abutting flint nodules (II-2). g) Placement of the megalithic tables, with an ambiguous structure in the apse area of the monument (numerous chalk pebbles, some quite large); in the vestibule, placement of a small thin slab (II-1). h) Result of destructive activity: fracture of the smallest covering slab, shifting and tilting of the largest, then addition of a layer (I) of silt mixed with flints partially covering the megalithic tables and entirely covering the smaller slab over the vestibule |
Évolution de Méréaucourt. a) Couche d’occupation la plus ancienne (V). Sa quasi-absence au centre du monument fait soupçonner une "vidange". La zone de l’entrée a été détruite par d’anciennes “fouilles”. b) Apport d’un remplissage sub-stérile assez mince (IV), associé au basculement d’un orthostate du chevet ; celui-ci vient reposer sur la couche d’inhumations V. c) Couche d’inhumations III-3 vers le chevet, venant recouvrir partiellement l’orthostate basculé. À l’opposé, vers l’entrée, cette zone n’a pas livré d’ossements (vidange ?). d) Sur une sous-couche partielle sub-stérile mince (III-2), les inhumations du III-1. e) Couche de limon sans cailloux recouvrant les restes humains, paraissant les protéger (II-3). f) Mise en mouvement, en direction centripète, des orthostates les plus voisins du vestibule ; apport d’une couche épaisse de rognons de silex jointifs (II-2). g) Mise en place des tables mégalithiques, ainsi que d’une structure peu claire au chevet du monument (nombreux cailloux de craie, dont certains assez gros) ; dans le vestibule, pose d’une petite dalle mince (II-1). h) Résultat d’une intervention destructrice : fracture de la plus petite dalle de couverture, ripage et basculement de la plus grosse ; puis apport d’une couche (I), constituée d’un mélange de limon et de rognons de silex : recouvrement partiel des tables mégalithiques, total de la mini-dalle du vestibule

Total – but temporary – closure, associated with rearrangement of orthostats

10A layer of sterile sediment was then introduced into each of the two aforementioned monuments, covering all the bone remains (layer IV). This layer covers the whole of the burial chamber, as well as the part that remained empty between the orthostats and the wall of the pit in which they stood. This layer rises to the same level as in the burial chamber itself and extends as far as the excavated hollow observed at La Chaussée-Tirancourt, which we have called the "muche" (figures 4d and 5b) and whose location makes access difficult. It contained no bones or furniture and the hypothesis of a "sacred" space (Leclerc and Masset, 1980) cannot be excluded. Some of our predecessors have believed that this area, between the orthostats and the wall of the pit, had been filled with sediment at the time when the monuments were erected. This is not the case: along the outer side of the orthostats was a kind of passageway or external corridor communicating between the tomb and the "muche". At La Chaussée-Tirancourt, this was when a second lateral orthostat next to the entrance was extracted: the excavation shows that the opening thus created was also used as a side entrance. Layer IV is quite thick (30 to 40 cm). At Méréaucourt, a thinner sub-sterile layer of added sediment (IV) is present, similarly filling the outer corridor and rising, here again, to the same level as inside the tomb. However, at the place where there might have been a "muche", earlier digging disturbance had destroyed any possible remains. At Méréaucourt, too, an orthostat was shifted by brute force, but this only tilted it towards the interior of the burial chamber. In both sites, tilted or fallen orthostats created lateral entrances, either for sediments or for bodies.

Reopening of the tombs and second period of use for burying the dead, again with interruptions

11A new burial layer then appeared (layer III). At La Chaussée-Tirancourt this layer is subdivided, like its deeper sister layer (V), by intermediate and incomplete sub-layers of sterile sediment (III-4 and III-2: figures 4d and 5e-f); these, like their precursor, V-2, were intentionally introduced. Unlike in V-2, however, we have not observed any change in the burial patterns on either side of the sub-layers. At Méréaucourt, burials in layer III (figure 5c) also seem to have been momentarily interrupted, as shown by the presence of a partial sub-layer of sterile sediment (III-2: figure 5d) (Masset, 2013; Blin, 2018).

Complete and final closure, associated with sometimes considerable reworking

12In both monuments, a thick layer of sterile sediment (layer II) was then deposited, similar to layer IV and similarly filling the outer corridor and "muche" (figures 4g and 5e). In both sites, this layer is made up of silt which, in effect, has protected the human remains.

13The process was most complex at Méréaucourt. A thin pebble-free sub-layer (II-3) differs in this respect from the other layers or sub-layers (figure 5e). After removal of the previous lightweight watertight cover, several orthostats were moved concentrically closer to each other, and a second sub-layer (II-2) was deposited, this time made of tightly abutting flints (figure 5f). Finally, two heavy megalithic tables were positioned to partially cover the entire tomb, thus preventing any further burials (figure 5g). Had the standing stones remained in their original position, the thicker of the two cover slabs would have been too short and would have been placed directly on top of the burial layer.

Subsequent uses of the monuments

14At Méréaucourt, at the same time as the megalithic tables were being placed, a small chalk slab was laid in the axis of the vestibule (figure 5g). It remained there for a long time in the open air, as shown by extreme frost-wedging over countless winters, which also damaged the flint nodules surrounding it (they were so brittle that they could be cut with a trowel). Among these flint nodules were some interesting remains, including two flints in particular from Grand-Pressigny, therefore a little more recent than the burial period itself, from which we deduce that the monument was used for a long time after its closure as a tomb. The 14C dates obtained at La Chaussée-Tirancourt for layer I of the vestibule cover a minimum of four or five centuries, which is much too long to correspond to the event mentioned below (fires), however spectacular. We can therefore speculate that the earliest dates for layer I (between 2450 and 1690 cal. BP at 2σ) coincided, as at Méréaucourt, with a period of peaceful use.

Finally, partial destruction associated with final sealing

15After a long time, the monuments were again substantially reworked, this time for a completely different purpose. At La Chaussée-Tirancourt, a brazier was dug around each orthostat. Fierce fires then flaked off thousands of sandstone slivers which were mixed with sediment brought in to form a thick layer (layer I), under which the monument almost disappeared forever (figure 4h). The most recent dates obtained in layer I (1940-1330 cal. BP at 2σ) probably correspond to these fires: we are now in the Bronze Age.

16At Méréaucourt, the huge size of the roof slabs made such a process impossible, but the same destructive intent is also manifest here. The smaller of the two megalithic tables was broken into four pieces. The other table, weighing eight tonnes, was shifted towards the outer side of the monument. This caused it to lose some of its support, so that tilted inwards (figure 5h). A layer of ordinary sediment from the area surrounding the site was then added, partially covering the whole (layer I), concealing the orthostats and the location of the burial chamber, but only partially reaching the cover slabs, which lie above it.

17This final and destructive sealing of the monument thus occurred in a very different spirit to the first, which conveys, on the contrary, a sense of respect for the dead, who were being parted with forever. At Méréaucourt, the final sealing can only be dated by a single piece, a polished flint axe in layer I, but nothing precludes it from being contemporary with the fires at La Chaussée-Tirancourt, which occurred some 20 centuries after the monuments were first erected.

Changé at Saint-Piat (Dominique Jagu excavations)

Build, celebrate, bury for ever

18Discovered in 1924 (Lecœur, 1924; Petit and Lecœur, 1925) and excavated again between 1984 and 2000, the Petit and Berceau dolmens at Changé in the municipality of Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir) are part of a group of four megaliths located in the Eure valley (Jagu and Renaud, 1991). The two dolmens of interest to us here are close to each other (2 m), but very different in their architecture, in their function, and in what became of them (Jagu, 1996a) (figures 6-7).

Figure 6

Figure 6

The master plan for the excavation of the Changé megalithic site at Saint-Piat in 2009 |
Plan directeur des fouilles du site mégalithique de Changé à Saint-Piat en 2009

Figure 7

Figure 7

Biography of the Changé site in Saint-Piat. a) Construction and use of the Petit dolmen (for burial purposes) and the Berceau dolmen (for cult purposes). b) Sealing of the Petit dolmen by dismantling the limestone cairn, removing the cover slab and erecting it as a standing stone, and reducing the orthostats. Finally, a tumulus of sandy gravel closed off the burial chamber, entombing the individuals for good. c) Space used for later burials, ringed by a wide circle of large flints. Clear evidence of flint-knapping activity nearby, to the south. d) Final sealing of the Berceau dolmen by tilting the standing stone, fracturing the covering slab and covering the whole with a vast tumulus, 30 m in diameter. e) Finally, a Merovingian necropolis of about a hundred individuals was found along with flexible envelopes as well as rigid containers made of a perishable material (Pecqueur, 1998) |
Biographie du site de Changé à Saint-Piat. a) Construction et utilisation du dolmen Petit (à vocation sépulcrale) et du dolmen du Berceau (à vocation cultuelle). b) Condamnation du dolmen Petit, par démontage du cairn calcaire, enlèvement et déplacement de la dalle de couverture (érigée en menhir), et réduction des orthostates.
Enfin, mise en place d’un tumulus de ballast qui obture la chambre sépulcrale et qui enterre les individus. c) Espace funéraire post-sépulcral délimité par une large couronne de gros moellons de silex. Forte activité de taille de silex à proximité, au sud. d) Condamnation finale par basculement du menhir, fracture de la dalle de couverture du dolmen du Berceau, et mise en place d’un vaste tumulus de 30 m de diamètre qui recouvre l’ensemble. e) Enfin, à l’époque mérovingienne, création d’une nécropole regroupant une centaine d’individus, avec présence d’enveloppes souples et de contenants rigides en matière périssable (Pecqueur, 1998)

19The Berceau, which was listed as a Historic Monument in 1975, is a vast open-sided sandstone monument, well known for the engravings on the pillars at the back (Allain and Pichard, 1974). The arch with its spire was studied in detail by Serge Cassen, which enabled him to date the monument, by comparison with dolmens in Brittany, to a period between the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th millennium (Cassen et al., 2015). The floor is paved with small limestone slabs. No bone remains have ever been discovered in the chamber.

20The Petit dolmen (named after its discoverer in 1924) is a roughly circular monument with a stone plug. From traces of calcite, a study (Jagu and Van Vliet-Lanoë, 1991) has shown that it was covered around and on top of the slab with large limestone blocks forming a kind of cairn. The thickness of the calcite indicates about 100 to 200 years of use as such (figure 7a). This dolmen, also paved with slabs, yielded the remains of a dozen individuals in the chamber, dated to the second half of the 5th millennium BC (table 1), which makes it almost contemporary with the Berceau. But were these the only occupants, or the last? Outside, in the immediate vicinity and at a distance from the orthostats, evidence later revealed that these are individual graves from the Merovingian period.

21A recent review of Lecœur’s excavation report (1924) and of the published odontological study (Baudouin, 1925) and anthropological study (Baudouin, 1930) raises a number of questions. Given the excavation methods of the time (figures 8-9), how could these archaeologists have distinguished the distribution and position of the bodies? Especially since the description of the bone material in these early publications unambiguously states the almost total absence of whole skulls or long bones. Only bone fragments or small bones (phalanges) were seen and studied at the time. It is reasonable to speculate that these are bone remains left behind when the tomb was emptied.

Figure 8

Figure 8

Plan of the Petit dolmen published in the 1924 excavation report (Lecœur, 1924: 37) |
Plan du dolmen Petit publié dans le rapport de fouille de 1924 (Lecœur, 1924 : 37)

Figure 9

Figure 9

Photograph of the Petit dolmen published in the anthropological study of the site (Baudouin, 1930: 2) |
Photographie du dolmen Petit publiée dans l’étude anthropologique du site (Baudouin, 1930 : 2)

22While the use of the Petit dolmen as a tomb is not in doubt, our excavations have shown that one of the monuments was intended for the dead and one for the living (Jagu, 1994). Their differentiated use becomes apparent from what we have called their double sealing, which ultimately closed them off entirely. They are at once distinct and associated.

Destruction, entombment and commemoration

23The Petit dolmen was initially stripped of its limestone envelope, the cover slab was moved more than 6 m to the southwest and then erected as a standing stone (signpost?) on a filled-in ditch (layer V). The tops of the standing stones were knapped off, thus reducing their height. The chamber opened up in this way was filled with a mound of sandy gravel (the ordinary subsoil in the valley). This material, held back by a low limestone wall built with stones from the cairn, came from the ditch that was dug out 6-7 m away from the walls of the Petit dolmen. The ditch is horseshoe-shaped, 2 m wide, 60 cm deep and, importantly, filled with clay sediment in which traces of charcoal provide evidence of fires on this site (during the 4th millennium, see table 1). This tumulus literally entombed the remains of the 12 individuals "recognised" by Léon Petit (Baudouin, 1930). A virtual corridor, also made of limestone blocks, runs through it, thus linking the world of the dead to that of the living, and vice versa. This was the first sealing.

24At this stage, the Berceau dolmen was still intact. A vast ring of large flints (layer III-2) surrounds the three monuments (the Berceau dolmen, the Petit dolmen – under its mound – and the Petit menhir). This is what we have called the "post-sepulchral" burial space (Jagu, 1996b). Considerable flint knapping activity (nearly 30,000 knapped flakes on the site) is evident to the south of the ring of flints (Jagu and Caron, 1998).

25Finally, after an undated but ancient period, the cover slab of the Berceau dolmen was fractured into two pieces (debitage marks on the underside), touching the paved floor, after two lateral pillars were removed or tilted over. Finally, the Petit menhir (the former covering slab) was tilted over and laid flat (Jagu, 1991).

26Once again, the whole was covered over by a large tumulus of sediment and broken flint nodules, 25 to 30 m in diameter (layer III-1), sealing off the remains beneath. This was the second sealing (Jagu and Mourain, 1995). Léon Petit had already spotted this tumulus during the 1924 excavations (figure 10). During the Merovingian period, much later, this mass of earth was used as a necropolis (Pecqueur, 1998; Billard et al., 1999).

Figure 10

Figure 10

Plan published in the 1924 excavation report (Lecœur, 1924: 37) |
Plan publié dans le rapport de fouille de 1924 (Lecœur, 1924 : 37)

27At Changé, in the Middle Neolithic, we have two dolmens that fulfilled two very distinct purposes. Both were finally sealed off, entombing first the dead, then the monuments themselves (Jagu, 2003).

Yermenonville (Dominique Jagu excavations)

Towards a new type of dolmen: to reduce the bodies of the dead?

28The Pierre Fritte dolmen, in Yermenonville (Eure-et-Loir), was also "explored" by Léon Petit in 1928 (Jagu et al., 2008; Jagu and Fouriaux, 2014; figure 11). Its architecture is simple: four orthostats forming a 2 m2, with no characteristic entryway. The orthostats, or pillars, are simply placed on the ground, in an unstable position, which suggests that access was through a cap of lightweight material. Two thirds of the chamber had been emptied by the time of the 1928 excavation, when one orthostat was found lying down. The bone remains, resting on a small mound of limestone, were entirely disconnected and highly fragmented. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) represented by the bones was 17 (based on the number of talus bones and humerus and skull fragments). The MNI for teeth was 19, with 15 being over 10 years of age (based on the number of lower right permanent canines) and 4 less than 10 years of age (based on the number of lower left deciduous canines). Of note is the presence of a bone cyst found on a distal extremity of a radius (Kacki et al., 2010).

Figure 11

Figure 11

Biography of the Pierre Fritte dolmen in Yermenonville. a) Use of the dolmen as a tomb. Decomposition of the bodies. Given the instability of the standing stones, which were simply placed on the ground, it is unlikely that a megalithic cover slab existed at this early architectural stage. We are therefore considering an easily removable cover for access to the chamber from the top. Here too we have no certainty as to the original position of the bodies. b) First sealing. Southern orthostat tilted over. Larger bones removed. c) Second sealing. Small bones remaining in situ deposited in a small pit. d) Finally, lateral orthostats tilted towards the west and heavy cover slab installed |
Biographie du dolmen de la Pierre Fritte à Yermenonville. a) Utilisation sépulcrale du dolmen. Décomposition des corps. Nous pensons, compte tenu de l’instabilité des orthostates posés simplement sur le sol, qu’il ne pouvait y avoir à ce premier stade architectural une dalle de couverture mégalithique. Nous envisageons donc une couverture facilement démontable pour un accès sommital à la chambre. Là aussi nous n’avons aucune certitude quant à la position originelle des corps. b) Première condamnation. Basculement de l’orthostate sud. Évacuation des ossements les plus volumineux. c) Deuxième condamnation. Récupération des ossements de petite taille restés sur place et déposés dans une petite fosse creusée. d) Enfin, basculement vers l’ouest des orthostates latéraux et mise en place d’une lourde dalle de couverture

29This classic collective grave was then emptied. The large bones were removed from the chamber on the south side of the monument, and one standing stone simply tilted outwards. Small bone remains were left in the chamber after this operation, deliberately or not. These bones, or at least the largest of those that had escaped the transfer, were grouped together in a pit dug as an ossuary on the site of the displaced pillar. Only the smallest bones remained in place in the chamber after two similar operations.

30The side pillars were then laid flat towards the west, and we believe that it was at this point that a heavy cover slab was placed over the whole. The space recovered by emptying the tomb was never used again for any collective burial.

31At La Pierre Fritte in Yermenonville, we observe double sealing (or two phases of the same sealing operation), dating to the Late Neolithic (around 2700 BC, see table 1): evacuation of the bone remains of individuals, then a slab to cover the tomb after the orthostats were tilted over, precluding any further use.

Discussion

32The first point that the five monuments have in common is that they were excavated in the same way and by members of the same team. However, their similarity goes much further. First of all, we should note their long period of use, proven at La Chaussée-Tirancourt and Méréaucourt as well as at Changé, and very probable at Yermenonville. Also notable is that they did not remain unchanged over their long history. After a long time, a layer of human remains was (almost) completely removed from one of the vaults, which we refer to as "emptying". This has been confirmed at La Chaussée-Tirancourt and Yermenonville, is very likely at Méréaucourt, and possible at Saint-Piat. What happened to these humble remains? The Yermenonville excavation suggests that some of them, the "remains of the remains" as it were, could have been placed in a similar structure, in a pit apparently dug for this purpose, although the bulk of them would have been emptied out and placed, in all likelihood, in a true ossuary – which we have not found. This site seems to have been dedicated to preserving the (symbolic?) presence of bone remains, after the originals had been removed.

33Past excavations of the Petit dolmen at Changé had removed much of the information it had contained. But in many other megalithic sites, interruptions in their use have been observed, from the evidence of a thick layer of introduced sediment, after which burials had resumed. La Chaussée-Tirancourt and Méréaucourt have shown that such interruptions were also accompanied by major architectural modifications, especially the creation of side entrances. For the Neolithic occupants, this objective was so important that they did not hesitate to extract orthostats (twice at La Chaussée-Tirancourt), or to tip one of them directly onto an older burial layer (at Méréaucourt). However, such large-scale operations did not mean that sealing was final, because a new layer of burials subsequently appeared.

34Although early excavations elsewhere had found thick layers of sediment separating layers of burials, it had not been realised that there were also thin "sub-layers" of sediment that did not reach the edges and which could possibly separate different patterns of use of the burial site. Such an "underlayer" can be seen at La Chaussée-Tirancourt, for example, resting on primary burials and in turn receiving secondary burials.

35At Méréaucourt, as at Yermenonville, it is certain that at the time of their use as tombs, these monuments only had a lightweight cover, very different to the heavy megalithic tables under which they lie today.

36Then came the final closure, which we refer to as the "first sealing". This was not necessarily a major operation: at La Chaussée-Tirancourt for example, it seems that the Neolithic occupants were content with depositing a fairly thick layer of protective sediment. At Méréaucourt, this closure involved grandiose works, with the removal of several orthostats and the introduction of heavy megalithic tables, which our predecessors would have called "cover slabs", believing that these slabs were part of the original architecture of the monuments. In the case of the Petit dolmen at Changé, deposits of the dead finally ceased, probably after "emptying" of the tomb, with the installation of a thick mound of sediment. The mass of sediment, taken from the horseshoe-shaped ditch, was brought in after the removal and displacement of a cover slab and shortening of the standing stones by knapping off the tops. A pillar to the north-east (located in square P11, figure 6) was torn out and moved (into square N9). Opposite this, a corridor of roughly stacked limestone blocks, probably taken from the cairn, was buried under the tumulus, thus creating a kind of virtual link between the interior and exterior of the monument, between the world of the dead and that of the living. It is not without interest to note that some 200 years after Changé (Middle Neolithic), the same type of final closure occurred at La Chaussée-Tirancourt and Méréaucourt (Final Neolithic).

37The methods of closure are different, but what they have in common is that they required heavy, even very heavy work that made the closures irreversible. This is why we refer to these closures as "final sealing".

38It is remarkable that all five monuments, after a period of calm, experienced further upheavals. At Changé, this period of calm lasted quite a long time, but meanwhile, both the Petit dolmen, beneath its tumulus, standing stone and former covering slab, and the Berceau dolmen, were being substantially reworked with the construction of their flint rings. These rings are made up of two or three circles of very large flints filled in with ordinary flints, although empty spaces can be seen. It should be noted that this added mass covers and conceals the ditch (sediment extraction quarry), which is filled with clay and charcoal. It should also be remembered that over an area of at least 16 m2 to the south, flints were knapped on the spot (we have found flint knaps littering the surface). This means that the initial burials and closure of the tomb were followed by a long period of occupation, when the living returned to the site. Evidence at Méréaucourt specifically concurs with this.

39In all these megalithic monuments, the final ending of their use as tombs thus sets the scene for an arduous and irreversible process of closure. The partial destruction and/or deliberate reworking of the edifices show that there was a strong intention to make the operations irrevocable and to protect the monuments, what they contained and what they represented. In all these cases, the intentions behind the operations demanded concealment of the tombs, even to make them almost totally disappear from the view of their builders’ descendants. But why did these people take on the burden of such elaborate reworking? The spaces dedicated to the living and certain monuments (including the Berceau dolmen) were also closed, covered and sealed off. It would have been simpler and easier to simply abandon the site. It would seem that the desire to preserve the sites was associated with a duty of remembrance intended to protect the past. Ultimately, sealing off these monuments created new ones that immortalised what lay beneath.

40And yet, a time came when destruction was the order of the day. Everywhere, monuments were broken, demolished and burned down. Fierce fires raged at La Chaussée-Tirancourt; at Méréaucourt, the megalithic tables, despite their mass, were tilted over or smashed. At Changé, after the two lateral pillars were tilted over, the covering slab of the Berceau was broken. The Petit menhir was also brought down and, finally, the whole was covered in a vast tumulus of earth and crushed flint, 25 to 30 m in diameter. Here too, transporting and transforming the materials involved a huge amount of work. At Yermenonville, two standing stones were tilted over, but this was probably done even before the covering slab was put in place.

Conclusion

41Can we generalise from these observations? The choice of the monuments studied here was a matter of chance. However, they have many points in common: a long period of use, temporary closure then final closure and, ultimately, intentional destruction. It is safe to assume that more careful excavations at other sites would have revealed comparable cases elsewhere, in large numbers, if not everywhere.

42During the Neolithic, and contrasting with the repeated reworking of the monuments themselves, respect for the dead is everywhere in evidence. At both La Chaussée-Tirancourt and Méréaucourt, a protective layer of sediment was deposited over human remains during each reworking. At Changé, a compact tumulus was built up over the remains of a dozen bodies in the Petit dolmen before the numerous workings around the periphery to create a memorial. At La Pierre Fritte, a few bones were symbolically gathered together into a small pit, forming an ossuary that testifies to the primary function of the monument. However, the evidence of more or less complete "emptying" of the tombs stands in contrast to these marks of respect.

43Still less respectful – if not of the dead, at least of the monuments – was the extensive destruction that took place long after their use as tombs had ended. We also use the term "sealing" to refer to these closures, given their final and irremediable nature. But using the same word, "sealing", should not mask the fundamental difference with the closures that had occurred long before, when the tombs were sealed for ever but with evidence of respect for them.

44Both the first and the second "sealing" may have destroyed all traces of fragile structures that has been present on the site. This would be the case for wooden structures, of which we have no remains. However, we have seen that at Méréaucourt, well before the placing of enormous "covering slabs", which occurred only after the last burial of the dead, there had already been a cover, and that this had been watertight, since the bones of the dead had not deteriorated under water.

45We believe it is possible to generalise from this last point. As Jean Leclerc had already perceived in 1982 – before the excavation of Méréaucourt – in the covered alignments and similar monuments of the Paris Basin, the sole function of the “covering slabs” was entombment (Leclerc, 1987). At the time, we were not convinced. Today, we are.

46It is hard to imagine that throughout the many centuries of their use before being sealed off by the megalithic tables, all these tombs were open to the sky. The Neolithic communities of the Paris Basin, Thuringia and elsewhere would no more have wanted to see their loved ones rotting away at the bottom of stagnant pools than their contemporaries at Méréaucourt. The technique for building watertight roofs was available in this period, and was already present in the Danubian period. It is perhaps indeed this technique that made so-called "buried" tombs so widespread, as these were built at the bottom of pits and could therefore be flooded: the so-called "covered alignments", whether megalithic or made of wood (e.g. Gall et al., 1983; Billand et al., 1995) or dry stones (Peek, 1975: 78 ff.), or the "totenhütten", of similar construction although different in form (Masset, 1995), etc.

47We know that most, if not all, of the megalithic monuments that we or our predecessors found were in poor or even very poor condition. The blame is generally laid on factors such as road paving or anathemas pronounced by the Catholic church. While these were certainly at fault, it is possible that the main culprit has been forgotten, namely the Neolithic people themselves or their immediate successors. Such "dolmen" tombs may have appeared to be so thoroughly destroyed that archaeologists did not bother to explore them. Others, poorly excavated in the past, may still contain information that was previously neglected. In which case, there are ample grounds for hope for future generations of researchers…

Acknowledgements: Our sincere thanks go first of all to the many volunteers who devoted their time and effort to what were sometimes thankless tasks during the excavations: it is their work that made it possible to uncover the information discussed in this paper, which had been hidden for thousands of years. We would also like to thank others who gave us invaluable help, including the Count of Franqueville at La Chaussée-Tirancourt, Messrs Godbille and Blarel at Méréaucourt, Mr and Mrs Ana, Bernard Blum, Richard Longuépée and Jean-Marc Mourain at Changé and Yermenonville, and of course our wives, who devoted their time and knowledge to the success of these operations. We owe the design and finalising of our drawings to Anne Bénichou and Marion Ronnay, and we also thank Jody Mohammadioun and Roland Irribarria.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Allain J, Pichard B (1974) Le dolmen du Berceau. Étude complémentaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 71(3):77-84

Baudouin M (1925) Les affections des dents du dolmen Petit à Changé, en Saint-Piat près Maintenon (Eure-et-Loire). La Semaine Dentaire 1925:114-121

Baudouin M (1930) Les os humains du dolmen Petit à Changé, en Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). La Médecine Internationale Illustrée 4-5(avril-mai 1930):151-195

Billand G, Guillot H, Le Goff I et al (1995) Trois structures funéraires collectives dans la moyenne vallée de l’Oise. Revue Archéologique de Picardie no sp. 9 : 19ème colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, pp 121-129

Billard C, Carré F, Guillon M et al (1996) L’occupation funéraire des monuments mégalithiques pendant le Haut Moyen-Âge. Modalité et essai d’interprétation. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 93(3):279-286

Blin A (2018) Les allées sépulcrales du Bassin parisien à la fin du Néolithique. L’exemple de La Chaussée-Tirancourt. Gallia Préhistoire, XLIIe supplément, CNRS Éditions, Paris, 174 p

Cassen S, Lescop L, Grimaud V et al (2015) Sites de passage. La représentation de l’arc au cours du Vème millénaire d’après les stèles de Bretagne des Îles anglo-normandes et de l’Alentejo. In: Rocha L, Bueno-Ramirez P, Branco G (ed) Death as Archaeology of Transition: Thoughts and Materials? Papers from the II International Conference of Transition Archaeology (Evora, 29th April – 1st May 2013), BAR International Series, Oxford, pp 95-125

Gall W, Bach A, Barthel H-J et al (1983) Neolitische Totenhütte bei Wandersleben. Alt-Thüringen 18:7-31

Jagu D, Renaud J-L (1991) Le site mégalithique de Changé à Saint-Piat. In: 15 années de recherches archéologiques en Eure-et-Loir. Comité Archéologique d’Eure-et-Loir, Maintenon, pp 77-85

Jagu D, Van Vliet-Lanoë B (1991) Intérêts des dépôts calcifiés : l’exemple des dolmens de Changé à Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). Groupement de Recherches 742 du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique : méthodes d’étude des sépultures, Saintes, pp 57-62

Jagu D (1994) Les mégalithes de Changé à Saint-Piat : des dolmens pour les morts, mais aussi pour les vivants. In: Dolmens, sarcophages et pierres tombales. Les pratiques funéraires en Eure-et-Loir de la préhistoire à nos jours. Comité Archéologique d’Eure-et-Loir, Maintenon, pp 25-32

Jagu D, Mourain J-M (1995) Saint-Piat, Changé (Eure-et-Loir). In: Masset C, Soulier P (ed) Allées couvertes et autres monuments funéraires du Néolithique dans la France du Nord-Ouest : allées sans retour. Édition Errance, Paris, pp 210-212

Jagu D (1996a) Construction et destruction d’un dolmen à Changé, Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). Actes du XVIIIe Colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Dijon, 25-27 octobre 1991. 14e supplément à la Revue Archéologique de l’Est Revue Archéologique de l’Est, Société Archéologique de l’Est, Dijon, pp 147-155

Jagu D (1996b) Deux dolmens et un menhir… ou l’espace funéraire post-sépulcral de Changé à Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 93(3):413-417

Jagu D, Blum B, Mourain J-M (1998) Dolmens et menhirs de Changé à Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir), témoins archéologiques des rites et pratiques funéraires des premiers agriculteurs beaucerons. ARCHEA, Chemillé-sur-Dême, 24 p

Jagu D, Caron M (1998) J’irai tailler sur vos tombes… ou les amas de débitage à proximité des dolmens de Changé à Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). Internéo 2:171-179

Jagu D (2003) Une double condamnation à Changé à Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). In: Sens dessus dessous. La recherche du sens en Préhistoire. Recueil d’études offert à Jean Leclerc et Claude Masset. Revue Archéologique de Picardie, no spécial 21, pp 147-155

Jagu D, Civetta A, Fouriaux F (2008) Le dolmen de la Pierre Fritte à Yermenonville : un nouvel exemple de condamnations. Internéo 7:203-217

Jagu D, Fouriaux F (2014) Réflexions sur l’analyse spatiale à l’échelle d’une structure archéologique : l’exemple de la fouille du dolmen de la Pierre Fritte à Yermenonville. In: Comité Archéologique d’Eure-et-Loir. 1989-2014, 25 ans d’activités. Comité Archéologique d’Eure-et-Loir, Maintenon, pp 21-31

Jagu D, Masset C (2016) Biographies Mégalithiques. Fermetures partielles, fermetures completes, condamnations, doubles condamnations. Boletín Del Seminario De Estudios De Arte Y Arqueología LXXXII:9-33

Kacki S, Jagu D, Durand J-P (2010) Probable unicameral bone cyst in a 4700-year-old radius. Journal of Paleopathology 22:5-13

Leclerc J (1987) Procédures de condamnation dans les sépultures collectives Seine-Oise-Marne. In: Duday H, Masset C (ed) Anthropologie physique et archéologie (actes du colloque de Toulouse, 4-6 novembre 1982). CNRS éditions, Paris, pp 73-88

Leclerc J, Masset C (1980) Construction, remaniements et condamnation d’une sépulture collective néolithique : La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 77(2):57-64

Leclerc J, Masset C (2006) L’évolution de la pratique funéraire dans la sépulture collective néolithique de La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 103(1):87-116

Lecœur E (1924) Découverte d¹un nouveau dolmen et d’un nouveau menhir dans la nécropole néolithique de Changé, commune de Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). Manuscrit original déposé à la Mairie de Saint-Piat. 41 p

Masset C, Van Vliet B (1975) Observations sur les sédiments d’une sépulture collective, La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 71(8-9):43-48

Masset C (1995) Cabanes funéraires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 92(1):107-108

Masset C, Blin A, Girard M et al (2013) L’allée couverte du Bois d’Archemont à Méréaucourt (Somme). Gallia Préhistoire 55:73-179

Pecqueur L (1998) La nécropole de Changé (Eure-et-Loir). La réoccupation d’un site funéraire mégalithique. Approche archéologique et anthropologique. Mémoire de Maîtrise, Université Paris 1, 2 vol

Peek J (1975) Inventaire des mégalithes de la France. 4 – Région Parisienne. 1er supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, Éditions du CNRS, 405 p

Petit L, Lecœur E (1925) Découverte d’un nouveau dolmen et d’un nouveau menhir dans la nécropole néolithique de Changé, commune de Saint-Piat (Eure-et-Loir). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 1925:43-44

Renaud J-L (1996) Histoire archéologique du site mégalithique de Changé à Saint-Piat, Maintenon (Eure-et-Loir). Des druides aux néolithiques en passant par le déluge et les étoiles… ou deux siècles de regards et de recherches sur un site vieux de plus de 6000 ans. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 93(3):301-311

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1
Légende Location of the sites discussed in this article |Localisation des sites évoqués dans l’article
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 597k
Titre Table 1
Légende Results of radiocarbon dating at the study sites |Résultats des datations par le radiocarbone effectuées sur les sites étudiés
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 292k
Titre Figure 2
Légende Plan of the megalithic alignment at La Chaussée-Tirancourt after excavation (from Leclerc and Masset, 2006). 1: sandstone blocks, including orthostats (named by the location of their highest point), wedging blocks, transverse alignments of small slabs; 2: pit edge; 3: native rock (Cretaceous). From right to left: vestibule, burial chamber, a small man-made cave known as the "muche", located in Z25. Immediately after the entrance, the gaps in the alignments mark the location of previously removed orthostats (in J4 before the placing of layer VI, in H6 before layer IV at the latest) |Plan de l’allée mégalithique de La Chaussée-Tirancourt après la fouille (d’après Leclerc et Masset, 2006). 1 : éléments en grès, incluant orthostates (nommés par la localisation de leur point le plus haut), blocs de calage, alignements transversaux de dallettes ; 2 : limite de la fosse ; 3 : roche en place (Crétacé). De droite à gauche : vestibule, chambre funéraire, une petite grotte artificielle dite la "muche", située en Z25. Aussitôt après l’entrée, les intervalles dans les alignements marquent l’emplacement d’orthostates anciennement éliminés (en J4 avant l’arrivée de la couche VI, en H6 au plus tard avant celle de la couche IV)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 396k
Titre Figure 3
Légende The covered alignment at Méréaucourt on the level of the oldest occupation layer (according to Masset et al., 2013). It should be noted that these excavations did not uncover a "muche", the man-made hollow observed behind the apse at La Chaussée-Tirancourt |L’allée couverte de Méréaucourt au niveau de la couche d’occupation la plus ancienne (d’après Masset et al., 2013). À noter que les fouilles n’ont pas mis au jour de "muche", ce creusement observé à l’arrière du chevet à La Chaussée-Tirancourt
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 1,4M
Titre Figure 4
Légende Evolution of La Chaussée-Tirancourt. The dotted line shows the hollow known as the "muche". a) First occupation layer (VII), almost entirely emptied during the Neolithic; b) After extraction of an orthostat and deposition of a thin sub-sterile layer (VI), the oldest layer of burials remained in place (V-3): the so-called "axial burial strip"; c) On a thin sub-sterile partial sub-layer (V-2), the completely disconnected remains of secondary burials of V-1. d); Further burials (III-5) after extraction of a second orthostat and introduction of a thick sub-sterile filling (layer IV). e) Further burials (III-3) on another partial sub-sterile sub-layer (III-4); appearance of "burial cells". f) On a new partial sub-sterile sub-layer (III-2), the "burial cells" of III-1; g) The whole covered with a thick sterile layer formed mainly of silt (layer II). Like the earlier layers (VI and IV), layer II filled the peripheral space and the "muche". h) Result of destructive activity: the sandstone orthostats were partially shattered by fierce fires, the whole then being buried under thousands of sandstone platelets |Évolution de La Chaussée-Tirancourt. À noter, en pointillés, l’excavation nommée la "muche". a) Première couche d’occupation (VII), presque entièrement "vidangée" au Néolithique. b) Après extraction d’un orthostate et dépôt d’une couche sub-stérile peu épaisse (VI), la plus ancienne couche d’inhumations restée en place (V-3) : dite "bande sépulcrale axiale". c) Sur une sous-couche partielle sub-stérile mince (V-2), les inhumations secondaires du V-1, en totale déconnexion. d) Après extraction d’un deuxième orthostate et mise en place d’un remplissage sub-stérile épais (couche IV), de nouvelles inhumations (III-5). e) Sur une autre sous-couche partielle sub-stérile (III-4), nouvelles inhumations (III-3) ; apparition des "cases". f) Sur une nouvelle sous-couche partielle sub-stérile (III-2), les "cases" du III-1. g) Épais recouvrement de l’ensemble par une couche stérile formée principalement de limon (couche II). Comme celles de jadis (VI et IV), elle remplit l’espace périphérique et la "muche". h) Résultat d’une intervention destructrice : après destruction partielle des orthostates par de violents incendies, l’ensemble disparaît sous les milliers de plaquettes de grès éclaté issues desdits orthostates
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 920k
Titre Figure 5
Légende Evolution of Méréaucourt. a) The oldest occupation layer (V). Its virtual absence in the centre of the monument suggests that the contents were evacuated. The entrance area was destroyed by earlier "excavations". b) Addition of a fairly thin sub-sterile filling (IV), associated with the tilting of an orthostat in the apse, which rests on the burial layer V. c) Burial layer III-3 towards the apse, partially covering the tilted orthostat. The area on the opposite side, towards the entrance, did not yield any bones (evacuation?). d) The III-1 graves on a thin sub-sterile partial sub-layer (III-2). e) Layer of pebble-free silt covering the human remains, apparently protecting them (II-3). f) The orthostats closest to the vestibule were moved centripetally: contribution of a thick layer of abutting flint nodules (II-2). g) Placement of the megalithic tables, with an ambiguous structure in the apse area of the monument (numerous chalk pebbles, some quite large); in the vestibule, placement of a small thin slab (II-1). h) Result of destructive activity: fracture of the smallest covering slab, shifting and tilting of the largest, then addition of a layer (I) of silt mixed with flints partially covering the megalithic tables and entirely covering the smaller slab over the vestibule |Évolution de Méréaucourt. a) Couche d’occupation la plus ancienne (V). Sa quasi-absence au centre du monument fait soupçonner une "vidange". La zone de l’entrée a été détruite par d’anciennes “fouilles”. b) Apport d’un remplissage sub-stérile assez mince (IV), associé au basculement d’un orthostate du chevet ; celui-ci vient reposer sur la couche d’inhumations V. c) Couche d’inhumations III-3 vers le chevet, venant recouvrir partiellement l’orthostate basculé. À l’opposé, vers l’entrée, cette zone n’a pas livré d’ossements (vidange ?). d) Sur une sous-couche partielle sub-stérile mince (III-2), les inhumations du III-1. e) Couche de limon sans cailloux recouvrant les restes humains, paraissant les protéger (II-3). f) Mise en mouvement, en direction centripète, des orthostates les plus voisins du vestibule ; apport d’une couche épaisse de rognons de silex jointifs (II-2). g) Mise en place des tables mégalithiques, ainsi que d’une structure peu claire au chevet du monument (nombreux cailloux de craie, dont certains assez gros) ; dans le vestibule, pose d’une petite dalle mince (II-1). h) Résultat d’une intervention destructrice : fracture de la plus petite dalle de couverture, ripage et basculement de la plus grosse ; puis apport d’une couche (I), constituée d’un mélange de limon et de rognons de silex : recouvrement partiel des tables mégalithiques, total de la mini-dalle du vestibule
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 825k
Titre Figure 6
Légende The master plan for the excavation of the Changé megalithic site at Saint-Piat in 2009 |Plan directeur des fouilles du site mégalithique de Changé à Saint-Piat en 2009
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 1,8M
Titre Figure 7
Légende Biography of the Changé site in Saint-Piat. a) Construction and use of the Petit dolmen (for burial purposes) and the Berceau dolmen (for cult purposes). b) Sealing of the Petit dolmen by dismantling the limestone cairn, removing the cover slab and erecting it as a standing stone, and reducing the orthostats. Finally, a tumulus of sandy gravel closed off the burial chamber, entombing the individuals for good. c) Space used for later burials, ringed by a wide circle of large flints. Clear evidence of flint-knapping activity nearby, to the south. d) Final sealing of the Berceau dolmen by tilting the standing stone, fracturing the covering slab and covering the whole with a vast tumulus, 30 m in diameter. e) Finally, a Merovingian necropolis of about a hundred individuals was found along with flexible envelopes as well as rigid containers made of a perishable material (Pecqueur, 1998) |Biographie du site de Changé à Saint-Piat. a) Construction et utilisation du dolmen Petit (à vocation sépulcrale) et du dolmen du Berceau (à vocation cultuelle). b) Condamnation du dolmen Petit, par démontage du cairn calcaire, enlèvement et déplacement de la dalle de couverture (érigée en menhir), et réduction des orthostates. Enfin, mise en place d’un tumulus de ballast qui obture la chambre sépulcrale et qui enterre les individus. c) Espace funéraire post-sépulcral délimité par une large couronne de gros moellons de silex. Forte activité de taille de silex à proximité, au sud. d) Condamnation finale par basculement du menhir, fracture de la dalle de couverture du dolmen du Berceau, et mise en place d’un vaste tumulus de 30 m de diamètre qui recouvre l’ensemble. e) Enfin, à l’époque mérovingienne, création d’une nécropole regroupant une centaine d’individus, avec présence d’enveloppes souples et de contenants rigides en matière périssable (Pecqueur, 1998)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 464k
Titre Figure 8
Légende Plan of the Petit dolmen published in the 1924 excavation report (Lecœur, 1924: 37) |Plan du dolmen Petit publié dans le rapport de fouille de 1924 (Lecœur, 1924 : 37)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 708k
Titre Figure 9
Légende Photograph of the Petit dolmen published in the anthropological study of the site (Baudouin, 1930: 2) |Photographie du dolmen Petit publiée dans l’étude anthropologique du site (Baudouin, 1930 : 2)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 507k
Titre Figure 10
Légende Plan published in the 1924 excavation report (Lecœur, 1924: 37) |Plan publié dans le rapport de fouille de 1924 (Lecœur, 1924 : 37)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-11.png
Fichier image/png, 211k
Titre Figure 11
Légende Biography of the Pierre Fritte dolmen in Yermenonville. a) Use of the dolmen as a tomb. Decomposition of the bodies. Given the instability of the standing stones, which were simply placed on the ground, it is unlikely that a megalithic cover slab existed at this early architectural stage. We are therefore considering an easily removable cover for access to the chamber from the top. Here too we have no certainty as to the original position of the bodies. b) First sealing. Southern orthostat tilted over. Larger bones removed. c) Second sealing. Small bones remaining in situ deposited in a small pit. d) Finally, lateral orthostats tilted towards the west and heavy cover slab installed |Biographie du dolmen de la Pierre Fritte à Yermenonville. a) Utilisation sépulcrale du dolmen. Décomposition des corps. Nous pensons, compte tenu de l’instabilité des orthostates posés simplement sur le sol, qu’il ne pouvait y avoir à ce premier stade architectural une dalle de couverture mégalithique. Nous envisageons donc une couverture facilement démontable pour un accès sommital à la chambre. Là aussi nous n’avons aucune certitude quant à la position originelle des corps. b) Première condamnation. Basculement de l’orthostate sud. Évacuation des ossements les plus volumineux. c) Deuxième condamnation. Récupération des ossements de petite taille restés sur place et déposés dans une petite fosse creusée. d) Enfin, basculement vers l’ouest des orthostates latéraux et mise en place d’une lourde dalle de couverture
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/docannexe/image/9743/img-12.png
Fichier image/png, 551k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Dominique Jagu et Claude Masset, « Megalithic biographies. From partial closures to total closures and from single sealing to double sealing »Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris [En ligne], 34 (1) | 2022, mis en ligne le 21 mars 2022, consulté le 23 mai 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/9743 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/bmsap.9743

Haut de page

Auteurs

Dominique Jagu

Comité Archéologique d’Eure-et-Loir, Maintenon, France ; dominique.jagu[at]wanadoo.fr

Claude Masset

UMR 7041 ArScAn – Ethnologie Préhistorique, Université Paris 10, Nanterre, France ; clmasset[at]orange.fr

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Creative Commons License
Les contenus des Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Haut de page
  • Logo Société d'Anthropologie de Paris
  • Logo Fonds National pour la Science Ouverte
  • Revue soutenue par l’Institut des sciences humaines et sociales du CNRS
    CNRS - Institut national des sciences humaines et sociales
  • OpenEdition Journals
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search