Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros58Fusiform axes and geochemical ana...

Fusiform axes and geochemical analyses: two new avenues of research for the study of Neolithic axes in dolerite

Antoine Chancerel, Jean Le Gall, Nicolas Le Maux, Charles-Tanguy Le Roux et Laure Dédouit
Traduction de Louise Byrne
p. 217-219
Cet article est une traduction de :
Haches fusiformes et analyses géochimiques : deux nouvelles pistes pour l’étude des haches néolithiques en dolérite [fr]

Résumés

Parfois signalées depuis la fin du xixe siècle, les haches polies à section ronde, en forme de fuseau ou de boudin, ont été réexaminées après la découverte de fragments en contexte daté sur des sites du Néolithique moyen II de Basse-Normandie. Elles sont façonnées dans des dolérites, voire dans d’autres roches de massif ancien proches d’aspect. Leur répartition est propre au quart nord-ouest de la France et est paradoxalement concentrée dans les régions sédimentaires péri-armoricaines. Le poids des plaines de Caen et d’Alençon paraît ainsi surreprésenté mais les données y ont été davantage recherchées. Si la plupart des pièces ont servi et ressortissent aux haches de travail, plusieurs convergences avec les pièces en jade permettent d’y voir également des objets-signes. Elles pourraient être une déclinaison tardive des haches de type Bégude, voire dans une moindre mesure des herminettes danubiennes, ou un syncrétisme des deux, ces deux familles d’objets étant aujourd’hui attestées sur le Massif armoricain.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Fusiform axes: a regional facies of long polished stone axes

1The frequency of solid dolerite stone axes with round cross-sections in Lower Normandy, which are often found whole in ploughed fields, and the discovery of typical fragments during excavations, are the reasons behind this research work.

2The first mentions of fusiform axes go back to the end of the 19th century. They were clearly distinctive and stood out among diabase axes, as they were called at the time, which is why they were categorized apart (Coutil 1895, 1896a, 1896b, 1897, 1903 and 1918). Later, A.-L. Harmois, in his inventory of the large axes found in France, mentions spindle or sausage-shaped axes (Harmois 1928), as does C.-T. Le Roux in his file of 7,200 axes examined as part of his work on type A metadolerite (Le Roux 1999).

3The analysis of 230 whole or fragmentary fusiform axes resulted in the description of their main characteristics. The axes illustrated in figures 1 and 2 are emblematic. They are defined by:

  • A round or nearly round cross-section of the blade, except on the cutting edge.
  • A narrower cutting edge or a cutting edge with the same width as the body of the blade.
  • A tapered or pointed butt.
  • A resilient rock, mainly dolerite.

Fig. 1. Axe from Louvigny (Calvados)

Fig. 1. Axe from Louvigny (Calvados)

Drawing A. Bavent

Fig. 2. Axe from Garcelles-Secqueville (Calvados)

Fig. 2. Axe from Garcelles-Secqueville (Calvados)

Drawing SRA Caen

4The round cross-section is defined by a “roundness” index (Ir = th / l) which increases as the cross-section of the artefact is closer to a circle (for which Ir is equal to 1). On the measurable artefacts, a threshold was established at around 0.7.

5Numerous artefacts are simply sausage-shaped or thick, rather than really spindle-shaped with a clear narrowing of the working edge. However, about half the tools are real fusiform axes, with a greater length than thickness.

6The axes consistent with this definition are found in the northwestern quarter of France (fig. 4). They are absent from southern and eastern series.

Fig. 4. Distribution of fusiform axes. The red dotted lines delimit the ancient massifs. The numbers refer to the communes where they were discovered

Fig. 4. Distribution of fusiform axes. The red dotted lines delimit the ancient massifs. The numbers refer to the communes where they were discovered

Illustrated axes: 1. Châteauneuf-du-Faou, 2. Crozon, 3. Edern, 4. Huelgoat, 5. Plobannalec, 6. Plomeur, 7. Plouézoch, 8. Plougasnou, 9. Riec-sur-Belon, 10-11. sans provenance (Finistère), 12. Fréhel, 13. Moncontour-de-Bretagne, 14. Pleslin-Trigavou, 15. Plestan, 16. Plonevez-Moedec, 17. Pluzunet, 18. Quévert, 19. Trégrom, 20. Bécherel, 21. Dourdain, 22. Pipriac, 23. Saint-Malo, 24. Trévéreien, 25. Arradon, 26. Lannouée, 27. Saint-Jean-de-Brévelay, 28. Seglien, 29. Ancenis, 30. Barbechat, 31. Donges, 32. La Plaine-sur-Mer, 33. Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef, 34. Cholet, 35. Montrevault, 36. Jublains, 37. Coulombiers, 38. Les Brouzils, 39. Les Herbiers, 40. Mormaison, 41. Sablonceaux, 42. Ceaux-en-Loudin, 43. Les Ormes, 44. Jersey, 45. Barneville-Carteret, 46. Réville, 47. Saint-Désir, 48. Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay, 49. Saint-Gabriel-de-Brécy, 50. Louvigny, 51. Fleury-sur-Orne, 52. Tourville-sur-Odon, 53. Ernes, 54. Cabourg, 55. Dozulé, 56. Reviers, 57. Amblie, 58. Banville, 59. Colombiers-sur-Seulles, 60. Creully, 61. Tierceville, 62. Garcelles-Secqueville, 63. Grentheville, 64. Gavrus, 65. Cairon, 66. Cambes-en-Plaine, 67. Cagny, 68. Russy, 69. Mathieu, 70. Joué-du-Plain, 71. Montgarroult, 72. Saint-Brice-sous-Rânes, 73. Sentilly, 74. Bailleul, 75. Montabard, 76. Rônai, 77. Argentan, 78. Commeaux, 79. Occagnes, 80. Sévigny, 81. Habloville, 82. La Fresnaye-au-Sauvage, 83. Putanges-Pont-Écrepin, 84. Colombiers, 85. Sémallé, 86. Céaucé, 87. Athis-de-l’Orne, 88. La Courbe, 89. Berjou, 90. Monnai, 91. Sées, 92. La Vacherie, 93. Les Andelys, 94. Ormes, 95. Pont-Audemer, 96. Saint-Pierre-de-Bailleul, 97. Angerville-Bailleul, 98. Harfleur, 99. Le Havre, 100. Saint-Aubin-Routot, 101. Trémeauville, 102. Cherizy, 103-104. Civry, 105. Laons, 106. Orgères-en-Beauce, 107. Andoinville, 108-109. Autruy-sur-Juine, 110. Chateaurenard, 111. Charmont-en-Beauce, 112. La Selle-sur-le-Bied, 113. Saint-Hilaire-les-Andresis, 114. Sandillon, 115. Villeneuve-aux-Bois, 116-117. Assay, 118. Barrou, 119-123. Chinon, 124. Chouzé-sur-Loire, 125. Civray-de-Touraine, 126. La Celle-Guénand, 127. Sainte-Maure-de-Touraine, 128. Saint-Quentin-sur-Indrois, 129. Vallères, 130. Vou, 131-132. Verdes, 133. Boinville-le-Gaillard, 134. Estouches, 135. Nucourt, 136. La Calotterie, 137. Cramoisy, 138. Lacroix-Saint-Ouen, 139. Lavilletertre, 140. Heilles, 141-143. Amigny-Rouy, 181. Dreux, 182. Écots, 183. Moulhard, 184. Outarville, 185. Coëtmieux, 186. Bréhan, 187. La Croix-Hélléan, 188. Rennes, 189. Fougères, 190. Pluherlin, 191. Moustoirac, 192. Locminé, 193. Cléguérec, 194. Quimperlé, 195. Guidel, 196. Ploemeur, 197. Plouhinec, 198. Quiberon, 199. Ploemel, 200. Carnac, 201. Crach, 202. La Trinité-sur-Mer, 203. Baden, 204. Larmor-Baden, 205. Auray, 206. Vannes, 207. Surzur, 208. Paris, 209. Champigny-sur-Marne.
Axes known from the literature
(listed in the annex): 144-145. Annebault, 146. Bretteville-le-Rabet, 147. Épron, 148. Rots, 149. Bazincourt-sur-Epte, 150. Chauvaincourt, 151. Fontaine-sous-Jouy, 152. Pont-Audemer, 153. Saint-Pierre-du-Bailleul, 154. Sainte-Barbe-sur-Gaillon, 155. Serquigny, 156. Suzay, 157. Tilleul-Dame-Agnès, 158. Tosny, 159. La Godefroy, 160. Boissy-Maugis, 161. Boitron, 162. Condé-sur-Sarthe, 163. Joué-du-Plain, 164. Le Mesnil-Guyon, 165. Loucé, 166. Macé, 167. La Chapelle-Forainvillier, 168. Rouvray-Saint-Florentin, 169. Saint-Amand-Longpré, 170. Cravant, 171. Patay, 172. Étampes, 173. Saint-André-des-Eaux, 174. Le May-sur-Èvre, 175. Thouarcé, 176. Vihiers, 177. Saint-Hilaire-du-Maine, 178. Thenac, 179. Saint-Pierre-de-Maillé, 180. Les  Mesneux.

CAD A. Chancerel, MNP

7In Brittany, where there is a high number of axes, the lower frequency of fusiform axes is unexpected and appears to correspond to an archaeological reality. The origin of the raw materials is clearly Armorican but the centre of gravity of fusiform axes is peripheral.

8On a national scale, the distribution of these artefacts also shows a form of expansion, with the widespread use of sandstone-quartzites from the Paris region which can display marked morphological convergences (fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Convergence of forms: examples of axes with a round cross-section in sandstone-quartzite

Fig. 5. Convergence of forms: examples of axes with a round cross-section in sandstone-quartzite

1. Griselle, Les Chesneaux (Loiret). Axe with a round cross-section in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 138; w = 55; t = 41; Ir = 0.75. Conservation site: private (A. Daveau collection). Sources: C.-T. Le Roux file.
2.
Sandillon, Les Grands Marais (Loiret). Fusiform axe in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 175, w = 67, t = 50; Ir = 0.74. Conservation site: private (J. Aller collection). Sources: C.-T. Le Roux file.
3.
Sigloy, Corneboeuf (Loiret). Fusiform axe in white sandstone with a pointed butt and blunt cutting edge, found on the surface of a Neolithic site. Dimensions: L  = 183; w = 60; t = 52; Ir = 0.86. Conservation site: private (J.-P. Chabrier collection). Sources: C.-T. Le Roux file.
4.
Chateaudun (Eure-et-Loir). Fusiform axe in sandstone (see Fontainebleau). Dimensions: L = 178; w = 64; t = 52; Ir = 0.81. Conservation site: private (De Layre collection, no. 342). Sources: C.T. Le Roux; ref. SRA (DRAP) no. 28 500 82.
5.
Dreux, surrounding areas (Eure-et-Loir). Fusiform axe in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 184; w = 69; t = 62; Ir = 0.89. Conservation site: MADVO (no. P.3837; Frusca donation). Sources: ongoing PhD N. Le Maux.
6. 
Mareau-aux-Bois (Loiret). Fusiform axe in sandstone, interpreted as a hoe on account of its shape and use-wear traces. Dimensions: L = 226; w = 65; t = 61,5; Ir = 0,94. Conservation site: unknown. Sources: Richard 1988b, fig. 1.
7. 
Courcy-aux-Loges (Loiret). Fusiform axe in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 197; w = 72; t = 59; Ir = 0.82. Conservation site: unknown. Sources: Richard 1988a, fig. 6.
8. Vigny, Les Terres Noires (Val-d’Oise). Fusiform eponymous axe in sandstone. Dimensions:L = 211,5; w = 62; t = 48; Ir = 0.77. Conservation site: MADVO (no. P.1572). Sources: Le Maux et Jammet-Reynal 2009, p. 31.

CAD A. Chancerel, MNP

9The chronological and cultural attribution of these tools is still only poorly recorded. Most of these axes correspond to incidental discoveries and are out of context. The only dated elements are those found during the excavation of the settlement sites of Barneville-Carteret in the Channel (Billard et al. 2014) and Grentheville (Chancerel et al. 2006), and the megalithic sites of Colombiers-sur-Seulles, Ernes (San Juan and Dron 1997), and Cairon (Ghesquière and Marcigny 2011) in Calvados (fig. 6). They are Middle Neolithic sites, dated between 4300 and 3700 BC, with a preference for the beginning of the Middle Neolithic II around 4250-3950 BC. The very low overall number of these tools suggests a relatively short period of use.

Fig. 6. Dated axes

Fig. 6. Dated axes

1. Cairon, cairn de la Pierre Tourneresse ; 2. Colombiers-sur-Seulles, tumulus de la Commune-Sèche ; 3. Ernes, cairn de Derrière-les-prés ; 4Grentheville, ZI de Mondeville Sud ; 5-7. Barneville-Carteret, camp du Castel

Drawings E Ghesquière, Inrap; G. San Juan, MCC; C. Billard, MCC

10A number of tools were found at extensive surface sites, often as fragments, indicating their use in the domestic sphere. However, several specific cases do not comply with this rule. The whole axe from Cambes-en-Plaine (Calvados; fig. 20, no. 13), discovered during a rescue assessment, was an isolated find on a site of three hectares. The axe from Berjou in the Orne (fig. 22, no. 13) was in a vertical position, with the cutting edge facing upwards (Mortillet 1899). This singular position has also been recorded for jade tools (Pétrequin et al. 2012a, p. 1376). Lastly, the remarkable unpublished assemblage from Amigny-Rouy (Aisne) includes three whole intact axes (fig. 28), corresponding to a dismantled deposit. Up until now, it is the only known deposit and is very remote in relation to the distribution area. This explicitly raises the question of the change in status of objects transported over more than 300 km. These cases illustrate very wide-ranging uses in relation to the initial function of the tool.

11We drew up a first typology based on the more or less fusiform or bulging shape of these axes, along with several secondary characteristics of the cutting edge (fig. 7):

  • The “Heilles” type is characterized by a fusiform silhouette, marked by a significant narrowing of the cutting edge from the maximum width onwards, generally in the third distal quarter of the blade.
  • The “Berjou – Sainte-Honorine” type is characterized by a bulging silhouette where the maximum width is located in the fourth distal quarter of the blade, or even sometimes simply below the cutting edge.

Fig. 7. First typological classification of fusiform axes

Fig. 7. First typological classification of fusiform axes

CAD N. Le Maux

12Each type includes a sub-type:

  • The first, referred to as “Russy”, displays a unilateral or bilateral strangulation under the cutting edge. This sub-type is relatively rare and appears for now to be specific to Lower Normandy.
  • The second, called “Banville”, has a stocky appearance, and is chunky with a slightly ovoid or wide ellipsoid cross-section.

Geochemical determination of dolerite axes

13The discovery of the axe from La Calotterie (Pas-de-Calais) gave rise to this part of the study (fig. 9). This remarkable 32.5 cm tool bears dissymmetrical re-pecked zones on both faces which indicate adze-type hafting near the butt (fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Axe from La Calotterie

Fig. 10. Axe from La Calotterie

Detail of the pecked areas

Photos F. Decaens, inv. gén. SPADEM

14The Armorican dolerites outcrop as vertical veins, concentrated in the northern part of the Massif, spread over four sectors to the north of a major geological limit (the north Armorican shattered zone), extending from Brest to the Laval basin (fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Simplified geological map of the north Armorican domain with the position of dolerite veins and basic lavas from the Devonian-Carboniferous limit

Fig. 11. Simplified geological map of the north Armorican domain with the position of dolerite veins and basic lavas from the Devonian-Carboniferous limit

CAD J. Le Gall

15The veins are characterized by a relatively constant mineralogy. The textures and mineralogy are controlled by the cooling speed and vary depending on the thickness of the vein. Due to this variability, it is difficult to classify dolerites into petrological types. Geochemical data are thus required for further classification (table 1). Rare earths are often used for such classification (Vuaillat et al. 1995), even though their contents and the appearance of their spectra are similar for magmas with similar geochemistry, as is the case here (fig. 12). In these conditions, it is particularly important to detect concentrations of thorium (Th), niobium (Nb) and lanthanum (La), as with these values it is possible to trace the source of these basic magmas.

Table 1. Concentrations of major chemical elements (in %), traces (ppm) and rare earths (ppm) in the dolerite of the studied axe and the dolerites from the Armorican Massif

Hache Mancellia Saint-Malo Cotentin Trégor Plussulien
SiO2 47,49 48,26 48,45 47,55 49,87 47,72
Al2O3 14,27 13 13,64 15,78 15,34 14,1
Fe2O3 12,14 15,25 14,83 12,29 10,41 11,58
MnO 0,15 0,21 0,21 0,2 0,17 0,15
MgO 6,59 4,75 5,83 5,14 7,4 6,37
CaO 10,38 7,88 9,11 6,1 10,26 11,04
Na2O 2,41 3,11 2,79 4,44 2,43 1,97
K2O 0,48 1,03 0,69 0,65 0,79 0,52
TiO2 2,69 3,55 3,37 2,71 1,22 2,34
P2O5 0,4 0,63 0,39 0,61 0,16 0,33
PF 2,74 2,06 0,89 4,27 2,1 3,62
Total 99,74 99,73 100,32 99,7 100,15 99,74
Ba 100 180 126 317 280 119
Co 38,7 65 47 42 36,9
Cr 139 92 109 52 274 268
Cu 73,3 34 68 36 59 108
Nb 19,9 29,6 23 13,4 7 17,19
Ni 74 60,6 56 41,8 81 88,3
Rb 23,71 28,5 24 20,5 33 14,32
Sr 323 306 356 348 288 318
Th 2,1 3,54 1,99 3,13 0,99 1,49
V 289 358 379 260 256 266
Zr 226 373 199 301 99 179
La 19,36 25,13 27,5 24,45 10,4 16,13
Ce 45,1 62,12 48,7 58,43 19,9 39
Nd 26,33 37,27 35,95 21,96
Sm 6,92 9,98 9,42 8,94 4,6 5,72
Eu 2,15 3,42 2,84 1,84
Gd 7,11 9,44 8,7 5,59
Tb 1,02 1,07 0,65 0,89
Dy 6,16 8,36 8,64 5,11
Er 2,85 4,07 4,9 2,44
Yb 2,65 3,62 3,07 4,66 2,6 2,29
Lu 0,38 0,55 0,47 0,71 0,45 0,35
Y 32,1 46,6 40 52,18 29 27,3

The analyses were carried out at the CRPG in Nancy, apart from those relating to dolerites from the sectors of Saint-Malo and Trégor (in Lahaye et al. 1995)

J. Le Gall

Fig. 12. Standardized concentration curves of rare earth in dolerites from the north Armorican Massif and the dolerite used to make the La Calotterie axe (standardization compared to chondrites)

Fig. 12. Standardized concentration curves of rare earth in dolerites from the north Armorican Massif and the dolerite used to make the La Calotterie axe (standardization compared to chondrites)

Apart from the Trégor dolerites, all the curves are strictly parallel to each other

CAD J. Le Gall

16At the scale of the northern Armorican Massif, two main types emerge:

  • The first, derived from the cristallization of a deep mantle magma, is characterized in particular by high concentrations of Nb in relation to Th and La. These are “Mancellia” dolerites from the region of Saint-Malo (Lahaye et al. 1995), but also from the Laval basin;
  • The second, deriving from more superficial basic liquids (sub-continental lithospheric mantle), is marked by a clear depletion in Nb compared to concentrations in Th and La. This characteristic is specific to the dolerites from North-Cotentin and Trégor (ibid).

17The chemical analysis of the axe from La Caloterie reveals characteristics of the first type (fig. 13), indicating an Armorican, and more specifically, a Mancellian origin of the raw material, signifying an exportation over a distance of 300 to 400 km from raw material sources. This analysis also rules out the use of dolerites from the Ardennes, located just 50 km away, which are part of the second type.

Fig. 13. Curves with standardized concentrations of trace elements in dolerites from the northern Armorican Massif of the La Calotterie axe (standardization in relation to the primitive mantle)

Fig. 13. Curves with standardized concentrations of trace elements in dolerites from the northern Armorican Massif of the La Calotterie axe (standardization in relation to the primitive mantle)

A negative anomaly with well-marked Nb and discrete Ti characterizes the dolerites from Tregor and Nord-Cotentin

CAD J. Le Gall

Conclusion

18Over the past few decades, the study of polished axes has received new impetus in France, highlighting the potential of these tools for providing data on Neolithic societies. Most of these artefacts are part of the collective toolkit, but some of them, such as long axes in Alpine jade, were diverted from their original function, or even made for other purposes, such as for displaying status or for the decorum of symbolic practices.

19Fusiform axes have been found in settlements and in megalithic sites, but never in funerary contexts (infillings, floors, scree). Some of these long axes may have been used as social markers, as the fusiform typology is characteristic of regional identity. They could thus have taken over from the prestigious jade axes from the Early Castellic, in an increasingly individually competitive system (Pétrequin et al. 2012b). The peri-Armorican domain thus appears to have been a centre for autochthonous, above all functional long axes with low added value, diffused on an inter-regional scale, and which replaced over-valued artefacts which were not used for work purposes.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. Axe from Louvigny (Calvados)
Crédits Drawing A. Bavent
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 580k
Titre Fig. 2. Axe from Garcelles-Secqueville (Calvados)
Crédits Drawing SRA Caen
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 363k
Titre Fig. 4. Distribution of fusiform axes. The red dotted lines delimit the ancient massifs. The numbers refer to the communes where they were discovered
Légende Illustrated axes: 1. Châteauneuf-du-Faou, 2. Crozon, 3. Edern, 4. Huelgoat, 5. Plobannalec, 6. Plomeur, 7. Plouézoch, 8. Plougasnou, 9. Riec-sur-Belon, 10-11. sans provenance (Finistère), 12. Fréhel, 13. Moncontour-de-Bretagne, 14. Pleslin-Trigavou, 15. Plestan, 16. Plonevez-Moedec, 17. Pluzunet, 18. Quévert, 19. Trégrom, 20. Bécherel, 21. Dourdain, 22. Pipriac, 23. Saint-Malo, 24. Trévéreien, 25. Arradon, 26. Lannouée, 27. Saint-Jean-de-Brévelay, 28. Seglien, 29. Ancenis, 30. Barbechat, 31. Donges, 32. La Plaine-sur-Mer, 33. Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef, 34. Cholet, 35. Montrevault, 36. Jublains, 37. Coulombiers, 38. Les Brouzils, 39. Les Herbiers, 40. Mormaison, 41. Sablonceaux, 42. Ceaux-en-Loudin, 43. Les Ormes, 44. Jersey, 45. Barneville-Carteret, 46. Réville, 47. Saint-Désir, 48. Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay, 49. Saint-Gabriel-de-Brécy, 50. Louvigny, 51. Fleury-sur-Orne, 52. Tourville-sur-Odon, 53. Ernes, 54. Cabourg, 55. Dozulé, 56. Reviers, 57. Amblie, 58. Banville, 59. Colombiers-sur-Seulles, 60. Creully, 61. Tierceville, 62. Garcelles-Secqueville, 63. Grentheville, 64. Gavrus, 65. Cairon, 66. Cambes-en-Plaine, 67. Cagny, 68. Russy, 69. Mathieu, 70. Joué-du-Plain, 71. Montgarroult, 72. Saint-Brice-sous-Rânes, 73. Sentilly, 74. Bailleul, 75. Montabard, 76. Rônai, 77. Argentan, 78. Commeaux, 79. Occagnes, 80. Sévigny, 81. Habloville, 82. La Fresnaye-au-Sauvage, 83. Putanges-Pont-Écrepin, 84. Colombiers, 85. Sémallé, 86. Céaucé, 87. Athis-de-l’Orne, 88. La Courbe, 89. Berjou, 90. Monnai, 91. Sées, 92. La Vacherie, 93. Les Andelys, 94. Ormes, 95. Pont-Audemer, 96. Saint-Pierre-de-Bailleul, 97. Angerville-Bailleul, 98. Harfleur, 99. Le Havre, 100. Saint-Aubin-Routot, 101. Trémeauville, 102. Cherizy, 103-104. Civry, 105. Laons, 106. Orgères-en-Beauce, 107. Andoinville, 108-109. Autruy-sur-Juine, 110. Chateaurenard, 111. Charmont-en-Beauce, 112. La Selle-sur-le-Bied, 113. Saint-Hilaire-les-Andresis, 114. Sandillon, 115. Villeneuve-aux-Bois, 116-117. Assay, 118. Barrou, 119-123. Chinon, 124. Chouzé-sur-Loire, 125. Civray-de-Touraine, 126. La Celle-Guénand, 127. Sainte-Maure-de-Touraine, 128. Saint-Quentin-sur-Indrois, 129. Vallères, 130. Vou, 131-132. Verdes, 133. Boinville-le-Gaillard, 134. Estouches, 135. Nucourt, 136. La Calotterie, 137. Cramoisy, 138. Lacroix-Saint-Ouen, 139. Lavilletertre, 140. Heilles, 141-143. Amigny-Rouy, 181. Dreux, 182. Écots, 183. Moulhard, 184. Outarville, 185. Coëtmieux, 186. Bréhan, 187. La Croix-Hélléan, 188. Rennes, 189. Fougères, 190. Pluherlin, 191. Moustoirac, 192. Locminé, 193. Cléguérec, 194. Quimperlé, 195. Guidel, 196. Ploemeur, 197. Plouhinec, 198. Quiberon, 199. Ploemel, 200. Carnac, 201. Crach, 202. La Trinité-sur-Mer, 203. Baden, 204. Larmor-Baden, 205. Auray, 206. Vannes, 207. Surzur, 208. Paris, 209. Champigny-sur-Marne. Axes known from the literature (listed in the annex): 144-145. Annebault, 146. Bretteville-le-Rabet, 147. Épron, 148. Rots, 149. Bazincourt-sur-Epte, 150. Chauvaincourt, 151. Fontaine-sous-Jouy, 152. Pont-Audemer, 153. Saint-Pierre-du-Bailleul, 154. Sainte-Barbe-sur-Gaillon, 155. Serquigny, 156. Suzay, 157. Tilleul-Dame-Agnès, 158. Tosny, 159. La Godefroy, 160. Boissy-Maugis, 161. Boitron, 162. Condé-sur-Sarthe, 163. Joué-du-Plain, 164. Le Mesnil-Guyon, 165. Loucé, 166. Macé, 167. La Chapelle-Forainvillier, 168. Rouvray-Saint-Florentin, 169. Saint-Amand-Longpré, 170. Cravant, 171. Patay, 172. Étampes, 173. Saint-André-des-Eaux, 174. Le May-sur-Èvre, 175. Thouarcé, 176. Vihiers, 177. Saint-Hilaire-du-Maine, 178. Thenac, 179. Saint-Pierre-de-Maillé, 180. Les  Mesneux.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,1M
Titre Fig. 5. Convergence of forms: examples of axes with a round cross-section in sandstone-quartzite
Légende 1. Griselle, Les Chesneaux (Loiret). Axe with a round cross-section in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 138; w = 55; t = 41; Ir = 0.75. Conservation site: private (A. Daveau collection). Sources: C.-T. Le Roux file. 2. Sandillon, Les Grands Marais (Loiret). Fusiform axe in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 175, w = 67, t = 50; Ir = 0.74. Conservation site: private (J. Aller collection). Sources: C.-T. Le Roux file. 3. Sigloy, Corneboeuf (Loiret). Fusiform axe in white sandstone with a pointed butt and blunt cutting edge, found on the surface of a Neolithic site. Dimensions: L  = 183; w = 60; t = 52; Ir = 0.86. Conservation site: private (J.-P. Chabrier collection). Sources: C.-T. Le Roux file. 4. Chateaudun (Eure-et-Loir). Fusiform axe in sandstone (see Fontainebleau). Dimensions: L = 178; w = 64; t = 52; Ir = 0.81. Conservation site: private (De Layre collection, no. 342). Sources: C.T. Le Roux; ref. SRA (DRAP) no. 28 500 82. 5. Dreux, surrounding areas (Eure-et-Loir). Fusiform axe in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 184; w = 69; t = 62; Ir = 0.89. Conservation site: MADVO (no. P.3837; Frusca donation). Sources: ongoing PhD N. Le Maux. 6. Mareau-aux-Bois (Loiret). Fusiform axe in sandstone, interpreted as a hoe on account of its shape and use-wear traces. Dimensions: L = 226; w = 65; t = 61,5; Ir = 0,94. Conservation site: unknown. Sources: Richard 1988b, fig. 1. 7. Courcy-aux-Loges (Loiret). Fusiform axe in sandstone. Dimensions: L = 197; w = 72; t = 59; Ir = 0.82. Conservation site: unknown. Sources: Richard 1988a, fig. 6. 8. Vigny, Les Terres Noires (Val-d’Oise). Fusiform eponymous axe in sandstone. Dimensions:L = 211,5; w = 62; t = 48; Ir = 0.77. Conservation site: MADVO (no. P.1572). Sources: Le Maux et Jammet-Reynal 2009, p. 31.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 552k
Titre Fig. 6. Dated axes
Légende 1. Cairon, cairn de la Pierre Tourneresse ; 2. Colombiers-sur-Seulles, tumulus de la Commune-Sèche ; 3. Ernes, cairn de Derrière-les-prés ; 4Grentheville, ZI de Mondeville Sud ; 5-7. Barneville-Carteret, camp du Castel
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 455k
Titre Fig. 7. First typological classification of fusiform axes
Crédits CAD N. Le Maux
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 184k
Titre Fig. 10. Axe from La Calotterie
Légende Detail of the pecked areas
Crédits Photos F. Decaens, inv. gén. SPADEM
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 291k
Titre Fig. 11. Simplified geological map of the north Armorican domain with the position of dolerite veins and basic lavas from the Devonian-Carboniferous limit
Crédits CAD J. Le Gall
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 403k
Titre Fig. 12. Standardized concentration curves of rare earth in dolerites from the north Armorican Massif and the dolerite used to make the La Calotterie axe (standardization compared to chondrites)
Légende Apart from the Trégor dolerites, all the curves are strictly parallel to each other
Crédits CAD J. Le Gall
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 165k
Titre Fig. 13. Curves with standardized concentrations of trace elements in dolerites from the northern Armorican Massif of the La Calotterie axe (standardization in relation to the primitive mantle)
Légende A negative anomaly with well-marked Nb and discrete Ti characterizes the dolerites from Tregor and Nord-Cotentin
Crédits CAD J. Le Gall
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/1073/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 147k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Antoine Chancerel, Jean Le Gall, Nicolas Le Maux, Charles-Tanguy Le Roux et Laure Dédouit, « Fusiform axes and geochemical analyses: two new avenues of research for the study of Neolithic axes in dolerite »Gallia Préhistoire, 58 | 2018, 217-219.

Référence électronique

Antoine Chancerel, Jean Le Gall, Nicolas Le Maux, Charles-Tanguy Le Roux et Laure Dédouit, « Fusiform axes and geochemical analyses: two new avenues of research for the study of Neolithic axes in dolerite »Gallia Préhistoire [En ligne], 58 | 2018, mis en ligne le 19 novembre 2018, consulté le 25 novembre 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/1073; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/galliap.1073

Haut de page

Auteurs

Antoine Chancerel

Musée national de Préhistoire, 1 rue du musée, 24620 Les Eyzies-de-Tayac — antoine.chancerel@culure.gouv.fr

Jean Le Gall

6 rue de Rots, 14610 Cairon — jflegall2@wanadoo.fr

Nicolas Le Maux

Doctorant en préhistoire, UMR 8215 MAE René-Ginouvès, 21 allée de l’Université, 92000 Nanterre — nicolasarcheo@gmail.com

Charles-Tanguy Le Roux

27 rue de Porsmoguer, 29600 Morlaix — ct.le-roux@wanadoo.fr

Laure Dédouit

SRA Normandie, 13 rue Saint-Ouen, 14000 Caen — laure.dedouit@culture.gouv.fr

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Gallia Préhistoire

Haut de page
  • Logo Ministère de la Culture
  • Logo Logo CNRS
  • Logo Maison des sciences de l'Homme Mondes
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search