Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros62Occupation and management of Berg...

Occupation and management of Bergerac territory between 250 and 35 Kans: testing a techno-economic overview

Illuminada Ortega , Laurence Bourguignon, Émilie Claud, Emmanuelle Vieillevigne, Joseba Rios-Garaizar, Mickaël Baillet, Michel Brenet, Mila Folgado Lopez, Farid Sellami et Christelle Lahaye
p. 153-214
Cet article est une traduction de :
Occupation et gestion du territoire bergeracois entre 250 et 35 kA : essai de synthèse techno-économique [fr]

Résumés

Résumé. Cette contribution propose un bilan des activités identifiées sur 72 occupations humaines au sein d’un territoire bien délimité, le Bergeracois au cours du Pléistocène entre 250 000 et 35 000 ans. Fruit d’une compilation des données bibliographiques issues des fouilles programmées et de celles issues des travaux d’archéologie préventive sur ce secteur géographique (déviations de Bergerac est et ouest et commune de Creysse), cette synthèse met en particulier l’accent sur les différences comportementales observées vis-à-vis des stratégies d’acquisition des matériaux lithiques, des systèmes techniques mis en œuvre et des modes de fonctionnement des outillages. Il infèrera ensuite sur les stratégies de mobilité des groupes au sein de ce territoire lithologique et sur la place qu’occupe celui-ci à l’échelle régionale. Pour et avant de proposer une synthèse diachronique sur ces différents aspects, nous différencierons et détaillerons quatre ensembles au sein de cette longue période allant de la fin de l’Acheuléen jusqu’au début du Paléolithique supérieur. Cette différenciation sera établie sur la base d’intervalles chronologiques (occupations antérieures à l’Éémien de celles qui sont comprises entre l’Éémien et 40 kA environ) et sur des attributions techno-culturelles (Châtelperronien et Aurignacien ancien).

Haut de page

Texte intégral

The Bergerac territory: lithological entities and human occupations

Physical and lithological settings

1The Bergerac area, located in the south of the Dordogne department, in the region of Nouvelle-Aquitaine (fig. 1) is known for its numerous paleolithic deposits. This abundance can largely be attributed to the presence of outcrops of so-called “Bergeracois” flint from the Late Cretaceous period (Fernandes et al. 2012, 2019). Our study focuses on the northern and southern margins of the town of Bergerac, which is home to more than 70% of the flint outcrops on the Pécharmant Plateau (fig. 1). The diversified structural context impacted by the evolution of the Dordogne terraces over the last 250,000 years (valleys, benches, talwegs) and the mining extraction opportunities existing therein, have significant influence on the preservation and distribution of sites on both sides of the Dordogne, as well as on the relative wealth of the deposits on the Pécharmant plateau.

Fig. 1 – Map of the Bergerac area and distribution of sites within its urban zone, overlain a simplified geological background.

Fig. 1 – Map of the Bergerac area and distribution of sites within its urban zone, overlain a simplified geological background.

L. Bourguignon

Chrono-stratigraphic framework

2Of the 72 Bergerac occupations taken into consideration by this assessment, 24 have been dated and make it possible to establish a precise chrono-stratigraphic framework around a sandy-gravelly facies that serves as a chrono-stratigraphic marker, called the “grain of salt”. This residual pavement represents a sedimentary hiatus or, when associated with an ancient stable soil surface, a paleosol. It may constitute a raw lithic material deposit, in a secondary position, from which human groups extracted resources. Formerly correlated with the Riss, dating of this “grain of salt” at Cantalouette 2 lends it an age of 165 ± 13 ka (table 1). At all sites where it is present, it separates Lower and Middle-Upper Paleolithic industries (Canta1 level V, CB 2 level VIII, X, VIIa, VIIb, VI, and V, CB3 and BB I c'4) from those of more recent age, sometimes presenting an important sedimentary and chronological hiatus (Canta2, BB III).

Table 1 – Dates for the Upper Acheulean and Early Middle Paleolithic level.

Site Archaeological level and/or US Sample Method Age (kA) Isotopic stage
Cantalouette 1 V BDX 8999 TL 223 ± 20 7
Cantalouette 2 Grain de sel BDX 8843 TL 165 ± 13 6
Combe Brune 1 2 BDX 10037 TL 207 ± 24 Late 7
Combe Brune 2 V Bdx 11154 TL 183 ± 20 Early 6
VI Bdx 11153 TL 185 ± 23 Early 6
VIIb Bdx 11164 TL 187 ± 21 Early 6
X Bdx 11156 TL 195 ± 16 Late 7
Unit 7 top level (niv V, VI, VIIb et X) OSL6 (Quartz) OSL 118 ± 13 5e/d
Unit 7 bottom level (niv V, VI, VIIb et X) OSL7 (Quartz) OSL 184 ± 19 Early 6
Combe Brune 3   BDX 9392 TL 156 ± 12 Middle 6
Garris 2 3 BDX 10291 TL 134 ± 13 Late 6 to 5e
Barbas 1 C’3   TL 147 ± 28 Late 6
C’3   TL 146 ± 29 Late 6
C’4   TL 239 ± 44 Early 7

After Boëda et al. 1996a, Valladas et al. 1999, Folgado et al. 2005, Vieillevigne et al. 2008, Brenet et al. 2008a, 2008b, Frouin et al. 2014.

Human occupations

3This review is based on 34 sites excavated in the context of programmed or rescue archaeological endeavors and six survey operations. Most of the sites present at least two levels of occupation, which brings the number of stratigraphically documented occupations to 72. This rich corpus of open-air sites allows for interpretation of the modalities of occupation within this territory, as well as surrounding zones of variable distance, by human groups at different periods during Prehistory.

4In order to propose a diachronic overview of technical, economic and sometimes symbolic behaviors, we differentiate and detail four sets of industries: those existing prior to the Eemian, those present between the Eemian and approximately 40 ka, those belonging to the Châtelperronian and finally those from the Aurignacian period. We will discuss the methods employed for their production, their representativity, as well as their technical and functional purposes. Finally, the techno-economic aspects compile the data obtained into categories based on the intentions of their production and purpose for which they were produced, on the types of activities they were used for, and on the modes of importation and exportation of objects, according to the origin of the material of fabrication.

Ante-Emian sites correlated to isotopic stages 7 to 5e. Upper Acheulean and Early Mousterian

5Twelve stratified sites for 19 occupations on the Pécharmant plateau represent one or more occupations that predate IOS 5d: BBI, Les Pendus, Chantelouette 2, Canta2, Canta1, Canta Guichard, Canta4 level Inf, Les Garris II (level 3), CB2, CB3, Sans Pareil and Le Saraillet. The industries discovered in test pits at Pombonne, Les Rivelles, Toutifaut Creysse I and II and Corbiac Château M2 complete this corpus, which totals 23 occupations, 12 of which are dated (table 1): six from IOS 7 (BB I c'4 sup and base, Canta1. level V, CB2 level X and level VIIb, CB1 n. 2); five from IOS 6 (CB 2 level V and VI, CB3, BBI c'3, and Canta2 grain of salt), and one from IOS 5e or extreme end of 6 at Gar2.

6These industries illustrate a certain variability in the debitage and/or lithic production models (fig. 2). Plano-convex and/or bi-convex productions are present (except at Canta1. level IVa and SP) and demonstrate significant techno-functional diversity.

Fig. 2 – Finished objects.

Fig. 2 – Finished objects.

1-2. Le Saraillet; 3-4, 6-7. Cantalouette I; 5, 8 Barbas I.

7The Levallois debitage, present from 220 ka onward, though never as a majority in assemblages, is oriented towards the production of quadrangular, triangular or elongated flakes: at Canta1 niv V, IVa and IV base, CB2, Chantelouette 2 c.III 2 inf, BBI c’4 inf, Pombonne, Sans Pareil n. 2, Le Saraillet, Les Rivelles or even at les Garris 2 n.3 where the linear method dominates.

8Discoid debitage is less frequent, but has been identified in small proportions within assemblages (CB2, Canta1 niv V, Le Saraillet and Les Rivelles).

9Algorithmic SSDA or C and D type debitage (Boëda 2013) is present at BBI level c’3, CB2, CB3, Canta1 level IVbase and Le Saraillet. The resulting objects are thick and short and regularly asymmetrical when looked at along a section. The type D debitage presents a “typo-Levallois” preferential surface and is also well represented within assemblages (CB 2, Canta1, Le Saraillet, Sans Pareil UA2). Some debitage types are oriented toward the production of elongated or even laminar products: at BBI c’3, CB2 - level X, VIIa, VIIb, Canta 1 level IVa and Le Saraillet. Finally, mixed operational sequences of lithic reduction, object formation and “trifacial” debitage are present at BBI C’4 sup and inf, CB2, CB3 and Les Pendus. At least two of these different production schemes coexist within these object production industries. The branching out of the debitage production sequences (Bourguignon et al. 2004) is attested to in all of the assorted assemblages, depending on differing modalities, proportions and associations between them.

10Reworked tools within these collections are diverse, although not very abundant (<9%), and are typically represented by side-scrapers, notched or denticulated tools and a few thinned objects, retouched blades and scrapers.

11The functional analyses demonstrate that, despite a rather poor conservation, the tendency of use for these objects leans toward the handling of animal carcasses and involves the cutting or scraping of hides and flesh, as well as that of semi-hard to hard materials (wood? bone? and minerals) through launched, percussive movement.

12The techno-economic behaviors are characterized by an exclusively local supply, discovered in primary (alterites) or secondary position (Dordogne alluvium). The absence of materials hailing from neighboring or distant territories must be highlighted here.

13Nevertheless, in this “restricted” territory,” the analyses demonstrate an import/export of matrices at different stages within operational sequences. This ebb and flow is particularly pronounced for bifacial pieces, with Levallois and laminar production reflecting a complementarity of occupation within a strictly local and peri-local territory. Thus, in terms of the status and function of the sites, we may observe occupations where the dominant activity was production (BBI c'4, CB2, Le Saraillet, Garris II level3), while others were more oriented toward mixed activities of production and consumption (Canta 1, CB3, BBI c'3). Nonetheless, we note the absence of sites where consumption represented the dominant activity during a halt focused on specialized production.

“Post-Emian” Mousterian sites (OIS 5a, 4 and 3)

14For the “recent” Mousterian, post-Eemian, this selection regroups 17 sites for 19 separate stratified occupations: Corbiac Château, Le Combal, Toutifaut Maurens, CB1, CB2 (level I), Canta2, Canta1V, Vieux Coutets, Les Rigoux, BBIII n. 3, BB V n. 3, La Graulet 3 n.2, Les Garris I, Les Garris 2 (level 2), La Conne de Bergerac and Canolle Ferme with 2 levels and Bout des Vergnes. Eight are dated (table 1): Les Garris 2 occupies lev.2 the IOS 5a; Canta2 the stage 4; as for CB 1, BBIII, the BdV and CanF, they are positioned during the IOS 3. Two of the sites cover two different isotopic stages: VC (stage 4 and 3) and Canta4 (stage 5b and 4) due to the presence of a probable palimpsest. Finally, the dating of the units framing CB2 level 2 place it between stage 4 and stage 3.

15The technological composition reflects a relative diversity (fig. 3). The presence of lithic reduction is the common element in all of these deposits (except Les Gar2). Contrary to earlier periods, its development is discrete (from 2 to 15 pieces) very often, representing less than 1% and at most 2% of the related assemblages, except for CanF level 55 and Toutifaut Maurens. The dominant plano-convex design illustrates a great diversity in the techno-types present at different stages of lithic reduction, design or recycling. The waste produced by lithic reduction, design and resharpening is rare or even absent, similar to what is known for La Gr3. This lack, associated with the absence of potential reassembly with hand axes, upholds the theory that these objects were not produced on site. Only two sites appear to have been loci of intense activities related to lithic reduction: Toutifaut Maurens and CanF.

Fig. 3 – Levallois debitage.

Fig. 3 – Levallois debitage.

1, 6–8. Le Saraillet; 3, 9, 13. Les Garris; 4. Barbas I; 2, 5, 10–12. Combe Brune 2.

16Differences are established mainly based upon the types of debitage attested to: BBIII illustrates the exclusive use of Discoid debitage, whereas at CB1, VC, Corbiac and Toutifaut Maurens a Levallois debitage (recurrent or preferential) was primarily used. The other assemblages illustrate the coexistence of several different types of debitage:

  • Levallois and Discoid (fig. 11) at La CdeB, La Gr3, and the BdV s. 5inf where Discoid is the dominant debitage system.

Fig. 11 – Preferential Levallois debitage (1, 2, 10–11, 14) recurrent (3–5, 7–13, 15) and laminar (6).

Fig. 11 – Preferential Levallois debitage (1, 2, 10–11, 14) recurrent (3–5, 7–13, 15) and laminar (6).

1. Cantalouette 2; 13-15. Canolle Farm; 4–5. Cantalouette IV; 7-9. Vieux Coutets; 2, 3, 6, 10–12. Combe Brune 1.

  • Linear Levallois and Algorithmic unipolar type D or typo Levallois at Canta2 and CanF.
  • Levallois and laminar debitage at Canta1V, CBI and CanF. This laminar debitage is a volumetric construction of the Upper Paleolithic type with antero-lateral crest elaboration and semi-turned bipolar development (CantaIV) or on flake slices presenting an absence of lithic reduction (CB1). The search for elongated products is reinforced by other types of debitage via convergent unipolar patterns produced with pyramidal lithic cores (at Canta4 and CB1) or others (Canta1, Les Gar2).

17As was the case for previous periods, branching out is represented in proportions ranging from 38.5% to 11% and affects all flake production and debitage systems (Levallois, Discoid, D-type), except for laminar ones. The resulting Kombewa-type products are often exported (Mathias and Bourguignon 2019). So-called mixed matrices (functional and production) may assume particular volumetric configurations, such as those found at CanF or Canta2.

18Reworked tools are quite abundant (up to 12% at CB 1) and they present a broad typological spectrum, assuming a series of standardized shapes. Few tools present a cycle of intensive use and/or repair (Canta2, CB1) though conversely, a few thinned pieces are regularly present.

19From a functional standpoint, the tools appear to be directed toward use in a variety of domestic tasks, involving relatively diversified materials, such as wood, hides (fresh and dry) or meats. Butchery activities were carried out using flaked tools or bifacial objectd (fig. 17), but also those with rough edges, including fragments resulting from lithic reduction. The use of striking is clearly attested to on semi-hard to hard materials (CB2 level I, Gr3 and La CdeB, Canta2) or related to butchering activities (Canta2). Rare hunting weapons are present (CB1, and Canta2), as well as hand axes, which reveal traces of their use as lighters (BdV niv 5inf and CanF). Finally, we also note the presence of handle traces on reworked tools at Canta2 and Corbiac.

Fig. 17 – Traces tool use from the Upper to Middle Paleolithic.

Fig. 17 – Traces tool use from the Upper to Middle Paleolithic.

1. Mousterian level fractured macro-flake from the Cantalouette II sinkhole, which reveals, in addition to post-depositional alterations, three active edges: proximal, proximo-lateral left and distal. The one bearing the clearest traces is the distal edge, upon which we can observe some flaking, as well as on the superior surface. On the ventral aspect (contact), micro-traces related to a transverse shaving action (push plane or half-push plane) on wood (1–4). The other two edges were also used for the same activity but with much less intensity (5; Clemente in Bourguignon et al. forthcoming). 2–3. Scrapers from the Combe Brune 1 Mousterian level illustrating hide (2) and wood (3) scraping. 4. Raw flakes from tool finishing processes from the Canolle Farm Mousterian level (level 55) bearing traces related to the cutting of soft (orange line), soft to semi-hard (dark red line), and soft to semi-hard meat (pink line) material, and associated macro- and microscopic traces of use. a to c: flaking, d: possible micro-polishing related to meat cutting (Claud in Bourguignon et al. 2018). 5–7. Raw flakes and scrapers from the Vieux Coutets Mousterian level, showing traces of dry hide scraping (7), meat cutting (5) and working of a semi-hard material (wood?) along a longitudinal axis (6). 8. Hand axes from the Canolle Farm site (level. 55) bearing traces related to the cutting of soft to semi-hard material, soft to semi-hard meat and associated macro- and microscopic traces of use. A–c. Flaking; d. Micro-polishing produced by meat cutting.

Claud in Bourguignon et al. 2018.

20Raw material supply is almost exclusively local (from 96% to 99%). Flint from neighboring areas is little represented (0.5%) and rarer than materials of distant origin (3.5%), which are diverse. These illustrate the use of a variety of circulation routes: particularly from east to west, from the Périgord Noir, or even the Quercy foothills, located 90 km away, but also from the north, from the southern confines of the Charentes and the Isle valley. However, the southern territories and more broadly, the left bank of the Dordogne River, beyond the foothills of its valley are not represented.

21The techno-economic behavior regarding local materials is expressed in identical fashion (7/12 cases) to those identified for materials of neighboring or distant origin. This illustrates an important fractioning of the significant operational sequences or the addition of isolated elements. This behavior mainly affects the operational sequences related to lithic reduction, Levallois debitage and laminar production.

22Finally, as was the case for the previous period, a complementarity between the sites within the Bergerac area is observable: facies production is predominant at Gar2, mixed production and consumption is present at CanF, VC and BdV, and use is dominant at CB1. Based on evidence of the practice of diversified activities, involving both plant and animal material and which translate to complete operational sequencing present at the Canta2 site, this location is interpreted as having been a base camp. Regardless of the distance covered, all of these ensembles illustrate a strong anticipation of needs in terms of lithological activity.

4. Châtelperronian sites

23Seven sites belong to this so-called transitional period: BBIII, Canaule II, Vieux Coutets, CanF, BdV s.5, inf, Les Rigoux locus 2 and BBV.

24All of these deposits are located in soils with specific pedological signatures (Sellami 1999), marking a thawing, following the Henrich 4 stage. The dates provide a range between 39 and 43 kans (table 1). These dates align with those obtained regionally between 39 and 46 kans (Roc de Combe c. 8 and at La Ferrassie level 6, and Cassenade), as well as with those belonging to the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure and Saint-Césaire. These results, as elsewhere, are not without problems in terms of overlap with other cultural facies, whether that be the recent Middle Paleolithic or early Upper Paleolithic.

25These seven Châtelperronian occupations are concentrated within a radius of about 700 m, on the southern edge of the Pécharmant plateau, with the exception of the BdV on the western edge of the Bergerac urban area.

26The techno-typological composition reflects the use of laminar debitage, produced with flint blocks and/or flakes resulting from a branching out of the operational sequences in use (fig. 4). Although these represent a minority, the production of flakes without any particular organization is also attested to (VC and CanII).

Fig. 4 – Discoid and SSDA type debitage (alternating debitage surface system; type C).

Fig. 4 – Discoid and SSDA type debitage (alternating debitage surface system; type C).

3. Les Rivelles; 1, 2, 6-7. Combe Brune 2; 4. Cantalouette IV niv. 2; 5. Le Saraillet.

27Laminar production, regardless of matrix type (block, plate or flake), is unipolar (about 92%). Bipolar debitage s.s. is in the minority (VC) or is related to lithic core maintenance (VC, Les Rigoux, CanII, CanF), with the exception of the BBIII site where its practice is more frequent.

28In this context, debitage is performed along a large face and along one side of the matrix, following a semi-turned style of production. Flaked lithic cores are produced along sections. Progressively the production moves to one of the faces of the matrix (most often the lower face). This debitage was produced through direct-hard and/or hard-tender striking, and by varying the striking gestures. Thus, they present the technical characteristics highlighted by J. Pelegrin (Pelegrin 1995) and recognized within all Châtelperronian sites (Connet 2002, Bachelerie 2011, Roussel 2016). Regardless of whether the modalities of production differ, the debitage efforts are invested on the narrower face of the lithic core and this functions in a way that offsets the exploitation of the wider face.

29The aim of this type of activity is the production of regular and straight blades that serve in turn for the manufacture of Châtelperronian points (forming 14 to 17.7%) or the reworking, through abrupt, thin or discontinuous retouches of backed or truncated blades. Other tools are mainly produced using flakes and are fewer in number (from 2.7% to 8.66%).

30Functional studies highlight the working of dried hides (CanII and VC scrapers), but also indicate the working of hard and semi-hard organic materials (VC, CanII, Rigoux), of which bone may represent up to 16%. These results support the existence of organic material tools in the Châtelperronian context, which were absent from the Middle Paleolithic.

31The Châtelperronian points only very rarely bear traces indicating their use as hunting weaponry (3), but their use as butcher’s knives is regularly attested to.

32An engraved cortex from the Rigoux site attests to the emergence of “artistic” behavior that developed following the Aurignacian period.

33From a techno-economic point of view, the materials exploited remain mostly of local origin, dominated by flints from the Bergerac territory and produced by alterites (between 60% and 98%) or alluvial deposits that are sometimes dominant (VC, the Rig. locus II, CanF and BdV).

34These local materials were introduced in various technical states: from the tested or shaped block to the finished product (Châtelperronian points). The exploitation of a surrounding territory is represented by chalcedonies, introduced in the form of finished products. A more distant territory is represented by the flints of “Belvès” (VC), of the Fumelois Lower Turonian (VC, CanII and CanF) and of “Gavaudun” (VC). The latter two are separated by a distance of approximately 50 km. These exogenous materials were imported in a diversity of forms: lithic cores, finished products and tools.

35In terms of the function of these sites, an intra-territorial complementarity appears to emerge: from the ephemeral debitage station on the edge of the river (BdV), to the mixed activities of flint knapping and consumption over a fairly short period of time at CanII and VC.

5. Aurignacian sites

36A total of 15 different occupations can be attributed to the Aurignacian period (fig. 1): Corbiac Vignoble, Champ-Parel, Toutifaut Lembras, Les Gar2, Canta2, VC, Les Rigoux locus 1, BBI to III and V, La GrIII, IV and VI and on the western margin of the study area BdV s.5 sup.

37Their distribution is very uneven: almost all the occupations are located along the right bank of the Dordogne, on the Pécharmant plateau. Only 3 occupations (La GrIII, IV and VI) are located on the left bank and only one to the west of the Bergerac urban area (BdeV).

38Techno-typological analyses attribute the industries found there to the Early Aurignacian, only the occupations of Canta2 and BdeV belong to a more recent phase (fig. 5).

Fig. 5 – Levallois style debitage (type D1).

Fig. 5 – Levallois style debitage (type D1).

1-2, 6. Le Saraillet; 3. Cantalouette 1; 4. Combe Brune 2; 5. Sans Pareil UA2.

39Two occupations have been dated: GrVI and BdeV (table 1). For GrVI, the average of the two reliable TL dates provides an age of 37,000 years, placing this occupation among the oldest for this chrono-cultural facies in the region, along with layer 7 at La Ferrassie (37 ± 2 ka).

40The technological composition of these industries reflects a significant diversity in the ways in which laminar provisions were obtained, which also depend on dimensional criteria of the blades sought after and which influences the selection of autonomous or branched out patterns of production (Ortega 2005, Chadelle 2005, Ortega et al. 2006).

41The production model oriented toward the manufacture of very large blades (25 × 6 × 2.2 cm), more or less rectilinear and very robust, is a remarkable feature of the Bergerac area, and in particular at the BBIII site. Other large blades, less robust and slenderer in form (23 × 4 × 1.5 cm), are produced on the sites of Canta 2, ChP and CV. The remarkable sizes of these productions suggest particularly high levels of skill possessed by the craftspeople responsible for their design and manufacture (Ortega 2018 and Ortega 2020), and this is reinforced by their use in striking gestures, to fracture hard animal material (Ortega et al. 2006, Ortega et al. in press). Nevertheless, blades of smaller size, gracile and possessing a more curved profile (from 8 to 16 cm in length) constitute the main production within all the occupations (between 50% and 70%).

42The operational sequences performed in order to obtain these blades are similar: little to no development of the lithic core, very frequently semi-turned, unipolar debitage, as well as “frontal” and on the wider faces of a block; finally, the re-working of the striking planes is very frequent and costly in terms of material.

43Two independent operational sequences aimed at lamellar productions complete this list of manufacturing techniques. Both are realized using by-products resulting from the branching out of primary laminar production sequences. The first is achieved using a flaked lithic core, lithic block fragments, or even from fragments of lithic cores used for blade/straight blade production (12 to 15% depending on the site). The second (15 to 18%, fig. 27) is used in the production of small, curved segments or flakes, obtained from carinated and/or end scraper lithic cores. Finally, the production of so-called "opportunistic" flakes is also represented in all assemblages and in particular at VC.

Fig. 27 – Carinated scraper nucleus presenting twisted lamellae.

Fig. 27 – Carinated scraper nucleus presenting twisted lamellae.

1–6. La Graulet VI; 7-9. Vieux Coutets; 10-11. Garris 2; 12–14. Barbas III.

Drawings by P. Rouzo except 12 and 14 J.G. Marcillaud and 13 L. Bourguignon

44Reworked tools can be quite abundant in the assemblages: up to 15% (Gar2). This category of object presents typical forms: scrapers and reworked blades, including Aurignacian and “strangled” blades (BBIII, CV2, VC). The absence or rarity of reworked small blades or bladelets should be noted.

45Though rare in open air contexts, the presence of some symbolic elements of portable art (fig. 29.1–3) such as engravings on lithic cortex, all produced on flint blocks (at BBIII, Canta 2 and La GrVI; Ortega et al. 2006, 2015), as well as rare remnants of ornamental objects (a bead and the BBIII pendant,) are to be highlighted.

Fig. 29 – Elements of ephemeral portable art on flint block cortex and ornamental objects from the Bergerac Aurignacian and Magdalenian.

Fig. 29 – Elements of ephemeral portable art on flint block cortex and ornamental objects from the Bergerac Aurignacian and Magdalenian.

1, 4–5. Barbas III; 2-3. Cantalouette II; 6. La Gralet VI n.1.

46Local and peri-local materials (from alterites or alluvium) dominate the assemblages. The chalcedonies constitute the only material sourced from a neighboring area. A distant supply territory is attested to in the form of finished products found within habitat sites (VC, La GrVI and BBIII), as well as through the presence of “Belvès” flint, Lower Turonian, Fumelois and “Gavaudun” flint, Lower Campanian of Villefranche de Périgord, and the flints known as “millet grain” from the Charente region (over 100 km to the northwest). Finally, at BBIII, the presence of a soapstone bead testifies to even more distant territories of supply, located beyond 150 km. In addition to the export of massive blades from BBIII (Ortega et al. 2006), we also note the presence of carinated lithic cores at CV2 (Bordes and Tixier 2002), and especially the presence of blade segments.

47From a functional point of view, the frequency of the different types of worked materials demonstrates significant differences between the sites, and illustrates the coexistence of different activities, an important portion of which concerned the manufacture and repair of tools composed of organic materials (wood, bone and animal horn). The GarII presents a predominance of butchery and hide-working activities. At BBIII the most significant activities are hide work and those related to the manufacture and maintenance of tools made of semi-hard and hard organic materials (figs. 30.1, 30.5, 30.7-31.8, 31.4-31-5). Finally, Canta2 is distinguished by a significant proportion of worked materials, of an undetermined type, correlated with low intensity activities, though maintenance of tools composed of organic materials is attested to. Hard and soft mineral stone processing activities are also represented (BBIII, Garis II). The activities carried out during the Late Aurignacian period of the BdV site illustrate a certain diversity of activity, all while retaining a singular economic scope: flint knapping, butchery, hide working, and likely the working of hard animal materials, mainly by direct and indirect striking. The use of large cortical flakes (Garris II, fig. 31.6-31.8, BdV) and large blades (BBIII) in direct cutting and indirect striking (BdV) increase the diversity of activities known to have been carried out. Finally, only rare examples of flakes attest to their use as projectile armatures (BBIII, Gar2 and VC, BdV), which distinguishes these ensembles from what is known for other Aurignacian sites in a karst context, where traces of their use as armatures are more frequent.

Fig. 30 – Treatment of organic and mineral materials from the Aurignacian sites of Barbas III (1, 5, 7–8), Les Garris (3, 4, 6) and Vieux Coutets (9–15).

Fig. 30 – Treatment of organic and mineral materials from the Aurignacian sites of Barbas III (1, 5, 7–8), Les Garris (3, 4, 6) and Vieux Coutets (9–15).

14. Carinated scraper bearing traces of having been used for antler scraping (micro-polish c) and flaking (b) on the edge. The polish (d) is associated with an impact with a hard hammerstone. 15. Carinated scraper with scrape marks testifying to use on wood and impacts with a hard hammerstone (white dots). A. Dry hide scraping with associated ochre; B. Undetermined longitudinal action; C. Bone scraping; D. Bone cutting; E. Bone grooving; F. Cutting of hard material; G-H. Hide scraping; I. Undetermined scraping; J. Scraping-grooving of semi-hard material (antler?); K. Scraping of wood; L. Undetermined use; M. Scraping and cutting with associated ochre.

Fig. 31 – Traces of use present on lamellae, as well as on blade, flake and Aurignacian blade fragments from the Barbas sites (1–2, 4–5, 9) and Garris (3, 6, 7–8).

Fig. 31 – Traces of use present on lamellae, as well as on blade, flake and Aurignacian blade fragments from the Barbas sites (1–2, 4–5, 9) and Garris (3, 6, 7–8).

1–3. Traces due to their use as projectile points; 4. Hide scraping with ochre, bone scraping and bone cutting; 5. Wood scraping; 6–9. Use in thrown striking movements resulting in the cutting of hard and semi-hard materials.

48The differences observed are related to site function, the duration of occupation and territorial status. Thus, habitat sites of whose occupation lasted for varying periods of time (VC, La GrVI and BBIII), are concurrent with halts aimed toward the practice of specialized production (Garris 2), as well as more specialized production sites (Ch P, CV2 and Canta2), without necessarily being established workshops s.s. (Rios and Ortega 2014). The status of and activities carried out at these sites illustrate an economic complementarity between them.

6. Synthesis and discussions

49The Bergerac territory appears to have been almost continuously occupied from isotopic stages 7 to 3 with a scarcity of occupation during substages 5b to 5d. This absence is a regional characteristic, including in the reference archeo-sequences: apart from Garris II in the Bergerac area, only the Pech de l’Azé II site is contemporary with stage 5e in the region. The Bergerac territory is therefore only a reflection of what is happening more generally, with a concentration of occupations from the end of stage 5c to stage 3 (Guibert et al. 2008, Vieillevigne et al. 2008, Hérisson et al. 2016). This reality is the opposite of what is known for northern France, where occupations are concentrated in the early Glacial, particularly during Stage 5a.

50In the Bergerac zone, two chronological moments reflect more intense occupations: Stage 6 and Stage 3. In IOS 6, this is one of the most occupied regional territories: of nine sites reliably dated in the Dordogne, six are located within the Bergerac territory. As for stage 3, more than 11 stratigraphic entities present at least one of the so-called "transitional" techno-complexes. This quantitative aspect allows it to rival the archeo-sequences of reference in caves that include this much debated pivotal period. However, it differs from them in that in all cases, when the Châtelperronian succeeds the Mousterian, the Mousterian is characterized by the presence of a biface (typo MTA), and in all cases it is preceded by an early Aurignacian sequence. No stratigraphy shows that the territory was frequented during the proto-Aurignacian or the archaic Aurignacian. The peculiarities of the early Aurignacian industries of the Bergerac territory can be characterized by the coexistence of straight and curved lamellar productions. This in turn raises the question of the relevance of a rigid separation between the archaic Aurignacian (or Proto-Aurignacian) and the early Aurignacian (Bataille et al. 2017, Tafelmaier, 2017). Though these results have been published, the technological peculiarities of this early Bergerac Aurignacian are only very rarely cited in overviews of the period and in all cases the only dated and published Aurignacian site from this zone, La Graulet VI (Vieillevigne et al. 2008) is never considered (e.g. Talamo et al. 2020).

51Regarding the Mousterian techno-complexes s.l., the earliest stages attest to knowledge and use of all the defined debitage and lithic reduction practices (Levallois, Discoid, SSDA, trifacial, laminar s.l.), except for Quina debitage. It is during the oldest periods that they coexist most frequently, and no linear evolution of production systems can therefore be surmised. Thus, seemingly archaic debitage practices, such as SSDA or trifacial, are not necessarily the oldest. Similarly, laminar debitage s.s. is present at the Canta4 site in stage 5 and in other regional sites (La Mouline, Tamniès, l'Abri du Musée) and therefore does not appear alongside the transitional periods (Blaser et al. 2012, Ortega et al. 2013). Moreover, other debitage systems producing elongated flakes (Levallois or other) are present continuously from stage 7 (Canta1, CB2, Le Saraillet) to stage 3 (CB 1, Canolle Ferme), even if they rarely represent the dominant practice (Les Garris II). Thus, Châtelperronian laminar debitage appears to have functioned along a continuum, rather than presenting interruptions in practice (at least in the Bergerac region). Thus, a connection to the Upper Paleolithic based on this single technical sphere cannot be upheld.

52The use of Levallois debitage, despite never being the dominant practice, does appear quite early in stage 7 (Barbas c’4 sup, Canta 1 n. V, CB 2 n. X and VIb) and then develops in this context, as elsewhere, from stage 6 onward (Hérisson et al. 2016).

53The functional purposes of in situ productions are diversified, and this is attested to from the earliest periods. Manufacturing processes appear to become more and more specialized from the Châtelperronian period onwards, when an operational sequence pertaining to the transformation of bone and animal horn appears. Among the other activities, hide work, attested to as early as IOS 7, developed and perhaps became a specialization present at certain sites as early as the Châtelperronian, but especially during the early Aurignacian. A true complementarity of the function of various occupations (or of zones within an occupation) and their mode of operation subsequently developed. And this was the case, despite the evidence emerging from techno-economic studies, which demonstrates that since the Acheulean period there were systems of import/export present on all sites, which in turn implies the existence of a logistical network, at least on a local scale. Sites with short and long periods of occupation are found side by side across all periods, with, nevertheless, an increasingly clear specialization of activities at certain Aurignacian sites, performed in parallel with more ubiquitous domestic and hunting activities. The true shift appears to have taken place from the Châtelperronian onwards, even if during this period hunting activities provide few clues, similarly to what is known for the Aurignacian period. Organic materials are certainly the key to better understanding hunting activities and should be further investigated. Nevertheless, for this period, the manipulation and transformation of these materials, as identified and detailed by use-wear analysis does not appear to be significant either, suggesting that this type of bone weaponry was only rarely made in the Bergerac territory. The only occupation where the work of hard organic materials is well represented is at the Vieux Coutets site, during the Châtelperronian.

54Regardless of the chronological framework considered, the acquisition of lithic materials is above all local or even ultra-local (in situ deposits), where sources in primary and secondary positions are always represented, all while playing a distinct role in terms of proportion. In all cases, identical techno-economic behaviors illustrate an internal network between territorial occupations and presume a certain complementarity between them, exemplified by an ebb and flow of matrices (functional, productive or mixed). Distant supply territories appear as early as stage 5a, essentially involving Senonian and Bajocian lithological territories and, to a lesser extent, northward to the first Bajocian outcrops of the Charentes. The distances covered in these cases can reach 90 km.

55During the Châtelperronian, a change is observed: the supply territories are more southernly located and involve small lithic repositories, such as the Fumelois and Gavaudun, about 50 km away. If we refer to theoretical models of mobility and the management of subsistence territories, this change in the orientation of the supply routes would appear to be significant. A hypothesis that considers the acquisition of lithic materials as correlated to other movements, such as in the search for food resources (“embedded procurement” Féblot-Augustin 1999a, 1999b), would suggest that the movements of raw materials might thus reflect and provide a scale for population movement. In this model, distances traveled by lithic materials make it possible to identify potential patterns of circulation and to estimate the extent to which a territory would have been exploited and/or traveled by human groups in the context of subsistence. Additionally, and by extension, we can infer the position of the Bergerac area in the subsistence territories of different groups over 215,000 years, covered by isotopic stages 7 to 3:

56In the early Middle Paleolithic, there is no evidence of an introduction of exotic materials into the Bergerac zone.

57In the late Middle Paleolithic, the Bergerac territory appears to have been located at the southwestern margins of an active subsistence territory, with circulation routes functioning primarily along an east-west axis (from Quercy), and more rarely from north to south (from the southern limit of the Charente).

58In the Châtelperronian, the Bergerac area was located at the northern margin of the subsistence territory, with a use of southeast/northwest routes (from the Lot-et-Garonne).

59In the Aurignacian period, the Bergerac territory appears to have occupied a more central place, with circulation routes functioning essentially along a south-east/north-west axis (from the Lot-et-Garonne), and more sporadically along east-west and north-west/south-east trajectories (from the Charente-Maritime). In addition, considering the soapstone bead, there were many more northern or southern routes in use (depending on its origin within the confines of the Massif Central or the Pyrenees).

60The distances covered by each of the subsistence territories, deduced by the identification of imported materials, also illustrate a certain diversity or fluctuation between the four major periods (fig. 6): Prior to stage 5d, the territory is reduced to a peri-local area. Conversely, in the Late Mousterian, it appears wider ranging, occasionally extending up to a hundred kilometers during stage 3. The territorial extension seems to be reduced to about 50 km during the Châtelperronian, only to expand again and cross the 200-kilometer mark during the Aurignacian.

Fig. 6 – Debitage related to laminar object production.

Fig. 6 – Debitage related to laminar object production.

1. Barbas I; 2. Combe Brune 2; 3-5. Le Saraillet; 6-8. Cantalouette I.

61We can deduce a non-linear evolution of the exploited territories: the Châtelperronian constitutes an important break in the decrease in distances covered, which were otherwise increasing since the Middle-Upper Paleolithic. These phenomena of expansion/retraction of subsistence territories must be confirmed in other geographical sectors.

62Finally, if we place the Bergerac territory in its greater regional context, the dynamics of bringing in exogenous materials and exporting endogenous resources to other lithological contexts (attested to as early as the Middle Paleolithic) would illustrate dynamics that diverge from those we have just described. The flows would be both centripetal and centrifugal (the Bergerac area being both a receiver of exogenous materials and a diffuser of its own resources) during the Late Mousterian, Châtelperronian and Aurignacian periods; whereas this dynamic would only be centrifugal for the Acheulean and early Middle Paleolithic.

63Thus, the relationships between the different lithological territories within the larger framework of subsistence territories appear complex. This complexity is reflected in the different means by which materials were transported from and introduced into each lithological territory.

Conclusion

64The rescue archaeology endeavors that have been carried out in recent years in the Bergerac region have significantly contributed to renewing our already extensive knowledge of the Paleolithic populations of this territory, rich in mineral resources. By doubling or even tripling the number of sites from the same chronological period, these excavations have made it possible to identify a total of 72 different occupations spread over nearly 210,000 years, for a surface area of barely 5 km². Thus, we are also able to propose this novel comparative and interpretative assessment of the lifestyles of the different populations that succeeded one another in this territory. Although the sedimentological specificity of this sector does not allow us to resolve questions of chrono-cultural sequencing, as finely as we have been able to for others, the wealth of the occupations and the recurrence of techno-economic behaviors in such a restricted sector, as well as the multiplication of radio-numeric dating, largely compensates for this. True archeo-sequences are also present, like those more widely known in a karstic context of the Périgord noir. These results should therefore be able to be transposed, in whole or in part, onto the regional scale and more widely onto the history of Paleolithic human settlements in Western Europe.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Anderson-Gerfaud P. 1990 – Aspects of behavior in the Middle Paleolithic: functional analysis of stone tools from southwest France, in Mellars P. (éd.), The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, p. 389-418.

Antoine P., Auguste P., Bahain J.-J., Coudret P., Depaepe P., Fagnart J.-P., Falguères C., Fontugne M., Frechen M., Hatte C., Lamotte A., Laurent M., Limondin-Lozouet N., Locht J.-L., Mercier N., Moigne A.-M., Munaut A.-V., Ponel P., Rousseau D.-D. 2003 – Paléoenvironnements pléistocènes et peuplements paléolithiques dans le bassin de la Somme (nord de la France), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 100 (1), p. 5-28.

Bachellerie F. 2006 – Étude taphonomique, technologique et spatiale de quelques remontages lithiques de Canaule II (Creysse, Dordogne), site Châtelperronien de plein air en Bergeracois, Mémoire de Master 2, université Bordeaux I, 87 p.

Bachellerie F. 2011 – Quelle unité pour le Châtelperronien ? Apport de l’analyse taphonomique et techno-économique des industries lithiques de trois gisements aquitains de plein-air : le Basté, Bidart (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) et Canaule II (Dordogne), thèse de doctorat, université Bordeaux I, 442 p.

Bachellerie F., Bordes J-G., Morala A., Pelegrin J. 2007 – Étude typotechnologique et spatiale de remontages lithiques de canaule II, site Châtelperronien de plein-air en Bergeracois (Creysse, dordogne) Paleo, 19, p. 259-280.

Baillet M., Bachellerie F., Bordes J.-G. 2014 – Enquête autour d’un outil : approche techno-économique, fonctionnelle et expérimentale des grattoirs châtelperroniens de Canaule II (Creysse, Dordogne), Paleo, 25, p. 7-36, [en ligne] https://paleo.revues.org/2707

Baillet M. 2017 – Éclairage de la tracéologie lithique sur le système techno-économique nomade châtelperronien, thèse de doctorat, université Bordeaux I, 539 p.

Baillet M. 2021 – Chronique d’une rencontre à couteaux-tirés entre nos ancêtres paléospéléos et des Ursus spelaeus, dans les profondeurs de la grotte de Font-de-Gaume (les Eyzies), il y a environ 40 000 ans, Spéléo Dordogne, 200, p. 1-10.

Banks W.E., d’Errico F., Zilhao J. 2013 – Human-climate interaction during the Early Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian, J. Hum. Evol., 64, p. 39-55.

Bataille G., Bolus M., Conard N.J., Falcucci A., Peresani M., Tafelmaier Y. 2017 – The techno-typological variability of the European Aurignacian from a multi-regional anddiachronic perspective. Proceedings of the 59th meeting of the Hugo Obermaier Society 2017, Aurich, p. 15-16.

Bertran P., Mercier N., Sirieix C., Prodeo F., Naessens F. 2012 – Architecture et évolution des basses terrasses de la Dordogne à Bergerac pendant le dernier cycle climatique, in Quaternaire Continental d’Aquitaine, excursion AFEQ-ASF 2012, livret guide, p 34-44.

Binant P. 1997 – La Préhistoire en Bergeracois : les périodes paléolithiques, Bergerac, Librairie la Brèche, 46 p.

Bidart P., Bourguignon L., Lenoble A., Sellami F., Ortega I. 2004 – Combe Brune 1, Creysse, Dordogne, in Bilan Scientifique 2004, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 34.

Bidart P., Bourguignon L., Ortega I., Sellami F., Lenoble A., Rios J., Vieillevigne E., Guibert P., Turq A. 2011 – Le Moustérien de tradition Acheuléenne de Combe Brune 1, rapport final d’opération, Inrap, 221 p.

Binford L.R. 1980 – Willow smoke and dog’s tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation, American Antiquity, 45, p. 4-20.

Binford L.R. 1982 – The archaeology of place, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, p. 5-31.

Blaser F., Bourguignon L., Sellami F., Rios J., Guibert P. 2006 – Le gisement Moustérien stratifié de Cantalouette IV. Déviation nord de Bergerac, rapport final d’opération, Inrap, 87 p.

Blaser F., Bourguignon L., Sellami F., Rios J., Vieillevigne E., Guibert P. 2012 – Un site à composante laminaire dans le Paléolithique Moyen du sud-ouest de la France : le site de Cantalouette 4 (Creysse, France), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 109 (1), p. 5-33.

Bodu P., Salomon H., Lacarrière J., Baillet M., Ballinger M., Naton H.G., Théry I. 2017 – Un gisement châtelperronien de plein-air dans le Bassin parisien : Les Bossats à Ormesson (Seine-et-Marne), Gallia Préhistoire, 2017, 57, p. 3-64.

Boëda É. 1991a – Approche de la variabilité des systèmes de production lithique des industries du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen : chronique d’une variabilité attendue, Techniques et cultures, 17-18, p. 37-79.

Boëda É. 1991b – La conception trifaciale d’un nouveau mode de taille préhistorique, in Bonifay E., Vandermeersch B., Les premiers européens. Actes du 114e congrès des sociétés savantes, Aubervilliers, Éditions du CTHS, p. 251-263.

Boëda É. 1994 – Creysse, Barbas, in Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1994, Bordeaux, BRAC Aquitaine, p. 25-26.

Boëda É. 1995 – Creysse, Barbas, Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1995, Bordeaux, BRAC Aquitaine, p. 26-27.

Boëda É. 1997a – Creysse, Barbas, Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1997, Bordeaux, BRAC Aquitaine, p. 22.

Boëda É. 1997b – Technogenèse de systèmes de production lithique au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Europe occidentale et au Proche-Orient, habilitation à diriger des recherches, université Paris X-Nanterre, 2 vol., 173 p.

Boëda É. 2001 – Détermination des unités techno-fonctionnelles des pièces bifaciales provenant de la couche acheuléenne C’3 base du site de Barbas I, in Cliquet D. (éd.), Les industries à outils bifaciaux du Paléolithique moyen d’Europe occidentale. Actes de la table ronde de Caen, 14-15 oct. 1999, Liège, ERAUL, 98, p. 51-75.

Boëda E. 2013 – Techno-logique et Technologie. Une Paléo-histoire des Objets lithiques, Mirebeau-sur-Bèze, Archéo-editions.com.

Boëda E., Kervazo B. 1999 – Une vieille industrie du Sud-Ouest de la France : le niveau inférieur de Barbas (Dordogne), in Bonifay E., Vandermeersch B., Les premiers européens. Actes du 114e congrès des sociétés savantes, Aubervilliers, Éditions du CTHS, p. 27-38.

Boëda E., Ortega I. 1993 – L’Aurignacien de Barbas II et Barbas III, in Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1993, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 26.

Boëda E., Ortega I. 1994 – Barbas, rapport de fouille de campagnes 1992, 1993 et 1994, rapport final de synthèse triannuel, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine.

Boëda E., Ortega I. 1995 – Barbas III, in Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1995, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 26.

Boëda É., Bodin E, Brenet M., Soriano S. avec la collab. de Genin J., Morel P. 2003 – Les industries bifaciales pléistocènes de Bergeracois, résumé, in Données récentes sur les modalités de peuplement en Europe au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen, colloque de Rennes, [en ligne] http://colloque-paleo2003.univ-rennes1.fr/programme/pagefrance/BOEDA.pdf

Boëda É., Geneste J.-M., Meignen L.1990 – Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen, Paléo, 2, p. 43-80.

Boëda E., Kervazo B., Mercier N., Valladas H. 1996a – Barbas C’3 (Dordogne). Une industrie bifaciale contemporaine des industries du moustérien ancien : une variabilité attendue, in Bietti A., Grimaldi S., Reduction Processes for the European Mousterian, Proceedings of the international round table, Rome, 1995, Rome, Istituto italiano di paleontologia umana (Quaternaria Nova, VI), p. 465-504.

Boëda É., Fontugne M., Valladas H., Ortega I. 1996b – Barbas III : industrie du Paléolithique moyen récent et du Paléolithique supérieur ancien, in Carbonell E., Vaquero M. (éd.), The last Neandertals, the first anatomically modern humans, Cultural change and human evolution: the crisis at 40 KA B.P., p. 147-156.

Boëda E., Soriano S., Soriano S. 2004 – Fonction et fonctionnement d’un site à la fin du Pléistocène moyen. Le niveau acheuléen C’3 de Barbas I (Creysse, Dordogne), in Approches fonctionnelles en Préhistoire. Actes du XXVe Congrès préhistorique de France, Nanterre, 24-26 novembre 2000, Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 293-306.

Bordes F. 1966 – Aquitaine, Lembras, Corbiac, Gallia Préhistoire, 9 (2), p. 537-541.

Bordes F. 1969 – Livret-guide de l’excursion A4, Landes-Périgord, VIIIe Congrès INQUA, p. 38-42.

Bordes J.-G. 2005 – La séquence aurignacienne du Nord de l’Aquitaine : variabilité des productions lamellaires à Caminade-Est, Roc-de-Combe, le Piage et Corbiac-Vignoble II, in Le Brun-Ricalens F., Bordes J.-G., Bon F. (éd.), Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien : chaînes opératoires et perspectives techno-culturelles. XIVe congrès de l’Union internationale des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Liège (2-8 septembre 2001), Luxembourg, MNHA (ArchéoLogiques 1), p. 123-154.

Bordes J.-G., Tixier J. 2002 – Sur l’unité de l’Aurignacien ancien dans le Sud-Ouest de la France : la production des lames et des lamelles, in Bon F., Maillo Fernandez J.-M., Ortega D., Cobos I. (ed.), Autour des concepts de Protoaurignacien, d’Aurignacien archaïque, initial et ancien. Unité et variabilité des comportements techniques des premiers groupes d’hommes modernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l’Espagne. Table-ronde de Toulouse (27 février-1er mars 2003), Madrid, UNED (Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 1, Prehistoria y Arqueologia 15), p. 175-194.

Bourguignon L., Lhomme V. 2004 – Le temps des chasseurs-cueilleurs : le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique de -500 000 à -6 000 ans, in Demoule J.-P. (éd.), La France archéologique. Vingt ans d’aménagements et de découvertes, Paris, Éditions Hazan/Inrap, p. 36-47.

Bourguignon L. Sellami F., Ortega I. 2003a – Bergerac Section nord. Résultats des diagnostics, Bordeaux, DFS INRAP, DRAC Aquitaine, 144 p.

Bourguignon L. Sellami F., Ortega I. 2003b – R.N.21, Bergerac, section nord, Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 2002, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 53-54.

Bourguignon L., Turq A., Faivre J.-Ph. 2004a – Ramification des chaînes opératoires : spécificité du Moustérien ?, Paléo, 16, p. 37-48.

Bourguignon L, Ortega I., Sellami F., Brenet M., Grigoletto F., Vigier S., Daussy A., Déchamps J.-F., Casagrande F. 2004b – Les occupations paléolithiques découvertes sur la section nord de la déviation de Bergerac : résultats préliminaires obtenus à l’issue des diagnostics. Bulletin de Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 11/2004-2, p. 155-171.

Bourguignon L., Bidart P., Ortega I., Turq A, Detrain L., Morala A. 2006a – Du territoire proche au territoire lointain : différences ou similitudes comportementales à partir des stratégies d’exploitations gîtologiques des matières premières lithiques au Paléolithique moyen (l’exemple de Combe Brune 1 et de l’Abri du musée, Dordogne). Workshop 23 UISPP, 2006, Lisbonne, in Moncel M.-H., Moigne A.-M., Arzarello M., Peretto C. (éd.), Aires d’approvisionnement en matières premières et aires d’approvisionnement en ressources alimentaires approche intégrée des comportements, Oxford, Archeopress.

Bourguignon L., Blaser F., Brenet M., Folgado M., Grigoletto F., Ortega I. 2006b – Le phénomène laminaire au Paléolithique moyen et au Paléolithique supérieur en bergeracois : du débitage Levallois laminaire aux débitages laminaires et lamellaires de l’Aurignacien, réflexions autour de nouvelles données. in Le phénomène laminaire au Paléolithique moyen et supérieur en Eurasie, Table-ronde, 6-7 avril 2006, Maison Lacorre, Université de Bordeaux I, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne.

Bourguignon L. Djema H., Bertran P., Lahaye C., Guibert P. 2008a – Le gisement Saalien de Petit-Bost (Neuvic, Dordogne) à l’origine du Moustérien d’Aquitaine ?, in Les sociétés du Paléolithique dans un grand Sud-ouest : nouveaux gisements, nouveaux résultats, nouvelles méthodes, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire XLVII), p. 41-55.

Bourguignon L., Blaser F., Rios J., Pradet L., Sellami F., Guibert P. 2008b – L’occupation moustérienne de la Doline de Cantalouette II : Spécificités technologiques et économiques premiers résultats d’une analyse intégrée, in Les sociétés du Paléolithique dans un grand Sud-ouest : nouveaux gisements, nouveaux résultats, nouvelles méthodes, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire XLVII), p. 133-150.

Bourguignon L. Boes X., Claud E. 2016 – Le Saraillet (Nouvelle Aquitaine, Dordogne, Creysse), rapport final d’opération, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, 148 p.

Bourguignon L., Ortega I., Sellami F., Clot E., Mangier C., Lahaye C. 2018 – Le site stratifié de Canolle Ferme à Creysse, rapport final d’opération, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, 364 p.

Bourguignon L., Clemente Conte I., Mozota Holguereas M. 2019 – Fonctions constituantes et schèmes d’utilisation de deux outils moustériens de Cantalouette II (France), in David É. (éd.), Anthropologie des techniques. Cahier 1 : de la mémoire aux gestes en Préhistoire, Paris, L’Harmattan, p. 187-202.

Bourguignon L., Bidart P., Clark E.E., Clemente I., Daussy A., Fondeville C., Guibert P., Mozota M., Ortega I., Rios Garaizar J., Sellami F., Lenoble A, Pradet L., Turq A. Vieillevigne E. 2022a – Le gisement de la Doline de Cantalouette 2, rapport final d’opération, Inrap.

Bourguignon L., Clemente Conte I., Mozota Holgueras M., Blaser F. 2022b – De l’utilisation en percussion lancée d’éclats bruts massifs dans les activités bouchères et du travail du bois : le niveau moustérien de la Doline de Cantalouette 2 (Dordogne-France), Comptes Rendus Palévol, 20 (37), p. 779-797, [en ligne] https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/fr/periodiques/comptes-rendus-palevol/20/37.

Bourguignon L., Sellami F., Brenet M., Fourloubey C., Ortega I., Martin H. à paraître – Les gisements Paléolithiques de la section sud de la déviation de Bergerac, rapport final d’opération, Inrap.

Brenet M., Folgado M. 1997 – Le champ des débats (Minzac, Dordogne), DFS de sauvetage urgent, AFAN, SRA Aquitaine.

Brenet M. 2011 – Variabilité et signification des productions lithiques au Paléolithique moyen ancien. L’exemple de trois gisements de plein-air du Bergeracois (Dordogne, France), thèse de doctorat, université Bordeaux I, 480 p.

Brenet M., Bertran P. 2005 – Rapport de diagnostic, février 2005. Les Rigoux, Creysse (Dordogne). Niveaux d’occupation du Paléolithique supérieur, INRAP, SRA Aquitaine, p. 52

Brenet M., Folgado M. 2009 – Relations techno-économiques entre débitage et façonnage sur les gisements du Paléolithique moyen ancien de Cantalouette 1 et Combe Brune 3 (Creysse, Dordogne), Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, 59, p. 49-62.

Brenet M., Folgado M., Guibert P., Lenoble A., Sellami F., Rios Garaizar J., Vieillevigne E. 2006 – Cantalouette 1 (Creysse, Dordogne). Étude inter-disciplinaire de trois niveaux du Paléolithique ancien. Bergerac, R.N. 21 section nord, rapport final d’opération, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, 156 p.

Brenet M., Folgado M., Bertran P., Lenoble A., Guibert P., Vieillevigne E. 2008a – Interprétation de la variabilité technologique de deux industries du Paléolithique moyen ancien du Bergeracois : Cantalouette 1 et Combe Brune 3 (Creysse, Dordogne). Contexte géoarchéologique et chronologique, analyse techno-économique, in Les sociétés paléolithiques d’un grand Sud-Ouest : nouveaux gisements, nouvelles méthodes, nouveaux résultats, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire XLVII), p. 57-81.

Brenet M., Folgado M., Vigier S., Claud E., Bertran P., Lahaye C. 2008b – Étude inter-disciplinaire des niveaux paléolithiques de Combe Brune 2 (Creysse, Dordogne). Bergerac, R.N. 21 section nord, rapport final d’opération, Inrap, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 254.

Brenet M., Bourguignon L., Jarry M. 2014a – Émergence et diversité des techno-complexes au Paléolithique moyen ancien. Relations entre productions de débitage et de façonnage, in Jaubert J., Fourment N., Depaepe P. (éd.), Transition, rupture et continuité en Préhistoire. XXVIIe congrès préhistorique de France-Bordeaux-Les Eyzies, 31 mai-5 juin 2010, Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 141-178.

Brenet M., Bourguignon L., Folgado M., Turq A., Jarry M., Colonge D., Lelouvier L.-A, Mourre V 2014b – Les techno-complexes au début du Paléolithique moyen en Aquitaine septentrionale. Complémentarité et interrelations entre productions de débitage et de façonnage. Session C : Émergence et diversité des techno-complexes au Paléolithique moyen ancien. Relations entre productions de débitage et de façonnage, in Jaubert J., Fourment N., Depaepe P. (éd.), Transition, rupture et continuité en Préhistoire. XXVIIe congrès préhistorique de France-Bordeaux-Les Eyzies, 31 mai-5 juin 2010, Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 81-101.

Brenet M., Chadelle J.P., Claud É., Colonge D., Delagnes A., Deschamps M., Folgado M., Gravina B., Ihuel E. 2017 – The function and role of bifaces in the Late Middle Paleolithic of southwestern France: Examples from the Charente and Dordogne to the Basque Country, Quaternary International, 428, Part A, p. 151-169.

Bundgen B., Fourloubey C., Lenoble A., Rios Garaizar J., Sellami F. 2009 – Un faciès original du début du Paléolithique supérieur : Sans Pareil, Les Coutets secteur 4, rapport final d’opération, Inrap GSO, 104 p.

Cazals N., Bartoli R., Bon F., Bracco J.-P., Clemente I., Fuertes N., Gonzalez J.-E., Ibañez J.-J., Maillo J., Mangado J., Ortega I., Cobos D., Ortega I., Cordellat I., Terradas X. 2005 – Des faciès et des Hommes : réflexions sur les productions d’éclats au Paléolithique supérieur dans les Pyrénées françaises et espagnoles, in Jaubert J., Barbasa M. (éd.), Actes du 126è congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques : terres et hommes du sud, Toulouse, 9-14 avril 2001, Paris, Éditions du CTSHS, p. 161-172.

Chadelle J.-P. 1989 – Les gisements paléolithiques de Champ-Parel à Bergerac, Dordogne, France. Rapport préliminaire des opérations de sauvetage, 1985-1989. Paleo, 1, p. 125-133.

Chadelle J.-P. 1990a – Les sites paléolithiques de Pécharmant à Bergerac (Dordogne), in Lenoir M., Seronie-Vivien M.-R. (éd.), Le silex de sa genèse à l’outil. Actes du 5e Colloque international sur le Silex, Bordeaux, 17 septembre-2 octobre 1987, tome 1, Paris, CNRS Éditions (Cahiers de Quaternaire 17), p. 44-47.

Chadelle J.-P. 1990b – Le site de plein air de Corbiac-Vignoble à Bergerac (Dordogne). Technologie et mode d’occupation, in Lenoir M., Seronie-Vivien M.-R. (éd.), Le silex de sa genèse à l’outil. Actes du 5e Colloque international sur le Silex, Bordeaux, 17 septembre-2 octobre 1987, tome 1, Paris, CNRS Éditions (Cahiers de Quaternaire 17), p. 385-390.

Chadelle J.-P. 2000 – Le gisement de Champ-Parel 3 à Bergerac (Dordogne, France). Observations taphonomiques sur un atelier de taille aurignacien en plein air, Paléo, 12, p. 409-412.

Chadelle J.-P. 2005 – Production laminaire et production lamellaire à Champ-Parel Locus 3 (Bergerac, Dordogne), in Le Brun F., Bordes J.-G., Bon F. (éd.), Productions lamellaire attribuées à l’Aurignacien : Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. Actes du XIVe congrès de l’UISPP, Liège, 2-8 septembre 2001, Luxembourg, Musée national d’histoire et d’art (Archéologiques 1).

Chadelle J.-P., Geneste J.-P., Texier J.-P. 1996 – Les gisements paléolithiques récemment découverts à Pombonne (Lembras, Dordogne), Paléo, 8, p. 279-291.

Chalard P., Faivre J.-Ph., Jarry M., Jaubert J., Mourre V., Turq A. 2007 – Espaces du Paléolithique moyen. Témoins d’utilisation de silex allochtones en Quercy (France), in Evin J. (éd.), Un siècle de discours scientifique en Préhistoire. Actes du XXVIe Congrès Préhistorique de France, Congrès du Centenaire de la Société préhistorique Française, Avignon, 21-25 septembre 2004, vol. III., Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 217-235.

Chevrier B. 2006 – De l’Acheuléen méridional au techno-complexe trifacial : la face cachée des industries du Bergeracois. Apport de l’analyse technologique de l’industrie lithique de Barbas I C’4 sup (Creysse, Dordogne), Gallia Préhistoire, 48, p. 207-252

Claud E. 2008 – Le statut fonctionnel des bifaces au Paléolithique moyen récent dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. Étude tracéologique intégrée des outillages des sites de La Graulet, La Conne de Bergerac, Combe Brune 2, Fonseigner et Chez-Pinaud/Jonzac, thèse de doctorat, université Bordeaux I, 546 p.

Claud E., Brenet M., Maury S., Mourre V. 2009 – Étude expérimentale des macrotraces d’utilisation sur les tranchants des bifaces, caractérisation et potentiel diagnostique, Les Nouvelles de l’Archéologie, 118, p. 55-60.

Connet N. 2002 – Le Châtelperronien. Réflexion sur l’unité et l’identité techno-économique de l’industrie lithique. L’apport de l’analyse diachronique des industries lithiques des couches Châtelperroniennes de la Grotte du Renne à Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne), thèse, université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille I, 2 vol., 445 p.

Courbin P., Brenet M., Michel A., Gravina B. 2020 – Spatial analysis of the late Middle Palaeolithic open-air site of Bout-desVergnes (Bergerac, Dordogne) based on lithic technology and refitting, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 32 (102373).

Depaepe P. 2007 – Le Paléolithique moyen de la vallée de la Vanne (Yonne, France) : matières premières, industries lithiques et occupations humaines, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire 41), 298 p.

Detrain L, Bats J.-Ch., Bertran P., Colonge D., Fourloubey Ch., Grigoletto F., Lenoble A., Lhomme X. 2005 – « La Croix de Canard » A89 Section 2.3 série Evaluation-Neuvic-sur-l’Isle (Dordogne), DFS de fouille, SRA Aquitaine, 123 p.

Delpech F., Geneste J.-M., Rigaud J.-P., Texier J.-P. 1995 – Les industries antérieures à la dernière glaciation en Aquitaine septentrionale : chronologie, paléoenvironnements, technologie, typologie et économie de subsistance, Paléo, supp. 1, p. 133-163.

d’Errico F., Zilhao J., Julien M., Baffier D., Pelegrin J. 1998 – Neanderthal acculturation in western Europe? À critical review of the evidence and its interpretation, Current Anthropology, 39, suppl., p. 1-44.

Discamps E., Bachellerie F., Baillet M., Sitzia L. 2019 – The interest of spatial taphonomy for dissecting Pleistocene palimpsests: an interdisciplinary approach the Châtelperronian and carnivore occupations at Cassenade (Dordogne, France), PaleoAnthropology, p. 362-388.

Faivre J.-Ph., Turq A., Bourguignon L., Bismuth T., Colonge D., Demars P.-Y., Jarry M., Jaubert J., Mourre V., Thiébaut C. 2013 – Le Paléolithique moyen du Quercy : comportements techno-économiques et variabilités des productions lithiques, in Jarry M., Brugal J.-P., Ferrier C. (dir.), Modalités d’occupations et exploitation des milieux au Paléolithique dans le Sud-Ouest de la France : l’exemple du Quercy. Acte du XVe congrès de l’UISPP, session C67, Lisbonne, sept. 2006, in Paléo supplément n°4. pp. 231-270.

Faivre J.-Ph., Gravina B., Bourguignon L., Discamps E., Turq A. 2016 – Late Middle Palaeolithic lithic technocomplexes (MIS 5-3) in the northeastern Aquitaine Basin: Advances and challenges, Quaternary International, 433, part B, p. 116-131, [en ligne] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618216001944

Féblot-Augustins J. 1992 – Mobility strategies in the late middle Palaeolithic of central Europe and western Europe: elements of stability and variability, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 12, p. 211-265.

Féblot-Augustins J. 1997 – La circulation des matières premières au paléolithique, Liège, ERAUL (ERAUL 75), 2 tomes, 275 p.

Féblot-Augustins J. 1999a – La mobilité des groupes paléolithiques, Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 11 (3-4), p. 219-260.

Féblot-Augustins J. 1999b – Raw material transport patterns and settlements systems in the European Lowe rand Middle Palaeolithic: continuity, change and variability, in Roebroeks W., Gamble C. (éd.), The middle Palaeolithic occupation of Europe, Leiden, University of Leiden, p. 193-214.

Fernandes P. 2012 – Itinéraires et transformations du silex : une pétroarchéologie refondée, application au Paléolithique moyen, thèse de doctorat, université Bordeaux I, 623 p.

Fernandes P., Raynal J.-P. 2006 – Pétroarchéologie du silex, un retour aux sources, Compte rendus Palevol, 5 (6), p. 829-837.

Fernandes P., Morala A, Schmidt P., Séronie-Vivien M.-R., Turq A. 2012 – Le silex du Bergeracois : état de la question, in Bertran P., Lenoble A., Quaternaire continental d’Aquitaine : un point sur les travaux récents. Excursion AFEQ-ASF, Bordeaux, université de Bordeaux, p. 22-23.

Fernandes P., Delvigne V., Dubernet S., Le Bourdonnec F.-X., Morala A., Moreau L., Piboule M., Turq A., Raynal J.-P. 2019 – Flint sourcing revisited, the Bergerac (France) and Obourg (Belgium) cases, Anthropologica et Præhistorica, 128/2017, p. 263-269.

Folgado M., Brenet M., Sellami F., Bertran P., Rios Garaizar J., Guibert P., Vieillevigne E. 2005 – Économie de façonnage et de débitage sur le gisement du Paléolithique ancien de Combe Brune 3, rapport final d’opération, INRAP, GSO.

Folgado M., Selami F. 2012 – Les Rivelles, rapport d’opération, diagnostic archéologique, Inrap, Grand Sud-Ouest, 92 p.

Folgado M., Grigoletto F., Claud E., Selami F. à paraître – Les Rivelles, un exemple d’occupation du Gravettien dans le Bergeracois (Creysse, Dordogne), rapport final d’opération, Inrap, NAOM.

Frouin M., Lahaye C., Hernandez M., Mercier N., Guibert P., Brenet M., Folgados-Lopez M., Bertran P. 2014 – Chronology of the Middle Palaeolithic open-air site of Combe Brune 2 (Dordogne, France): a multi luminescence dating approach, Journal of Archaeological Science, 52 (2014), p. 524-534

Garreau S. 2000 – Étude technologique de l’industrie lithique acheuléenne du site des Pendus (Creysse, Dordogne), Ateliers, 20, p. 7-28.

Geneste J.-M. 1985 – Analyse lithique d’industries moustériennes du Périgord : une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paléolithique moyen, thèse de doctorat, université de Bordeaux I, 572 p.

Geneste J.-M.-1988 – Les industries de la grotte Vaufrey : technologie du débitage, économie et circulation de la matière première lithique, Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française, 19, p. 441-517.

Geneste J.-M.-1989 – Économie des ressources lithiques dans le Moustérien du Sud-ouest de la France, in Otte M. (éd.), L’Homme de Néandertal, vol. 6 : La subsistance, Liège, ERAUL (ERAUL 35), p. 75-97.

Grigoletto F., Ortega I., Bourguignon L., Sellami F. 2004 – Les Garris II, in Bilan Scientifique 2004, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 41.

Grigoletto F., Ortega I., Rios J., Bourguignon L. 2008 – Le Châtelperronien des Vieux Coutets. Premiers éléments de réflexion, Mémoire de la Société préhistorique française, 47, p. 245-259.

Grigoletto F., Ortega I., Rios J. Bourguignon L., Sellami F., Rios J., Guibert P. à paraître – Le gisement stratifié des Garris II. Déviation nord de Bergerac, rapport final d’opération, Inrap.

Guerin G., Frouin M., Talamo S., Aldeias V., Bruxelles L., Chiotti L., Turq A. 2015 – À multi-method luminescence dating of the Palaeolithic sequence of La Ferrassie based on new excavations adjacent to the La Ferrassie 1 and 2 skeletons, Journal of Archaeological Science, 58, p. 147-166, [en ligne] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.01.019.

Guibert P., Lahaye C., Duttine M., Bechtel F. 2006 – TL-dating of Mousterian open air sites of the Isle valley: Les Forêts and Petit Bost (Dordogne, France), in Pérez Arantegui J. (éd.), 34th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Zaragoza, Institución Fernando el Católico, p. 67-71.

Guibert P., Bechtel F., Bourguignon L., Brenet M., Couchoud I., Delagnes A., Delpech F., Detrain L., Duttine M., Folgado M., Jaubert J., Lahaye Ch., Lenoir M., Maureille B., Texier J.-P., Turq A., Vieillevigne E., Villeneuve G. 2008 – Une base de données pour la chronologie du Paléolithique moyen dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, Mémoire de la Société préhistorique française, 47, p. 19-40.

Guichard J. 1965 – Un faciès original de l’Acheuléen : Cantalouette, L’Anthropologie, 69 (5-6), p. 413-464.

Guichard J. 1970 – Canaule, Gallia Préhistoire information, 13 (2), p. 503.

Guichard J. 1976a – Barbas, commune de Creysse, in Rigaud J.-P., Vandermeersch B., Livret-guide de l’excursion A4 : Sud-Ouest (Aquitaine et Charente), IXe congrès UISPP, Nice, Université de Nice, p. 39-44.

Guichard G. 1976b – Les civilisations du Paléolithique inférieur en Périgord, in de Lumley H. (éd.), La Préhistoire française : les civilisations paléolithiques et mésolithiques de la France, I (1), Paris, CNRS Éditions, p. 909-928.

Guichard J. 1976c – Les civilisations du Paléolithique moyen en Périgord, in de Lumley H. (éd.), La Préhistoire française : les civilisations paléolithiques et mésolithiques de la France, I (1), Paris, CNRS Éditions, p. 1053-1069.

Guichard G., Guichard J. 1966 – À propos d’un site acheuléen du Bergeracois (Les Pendus, commune de Creysse), bifaces-hachereaux et hachereaux sur éclat, aperçu typologique, Actes de la Société linéenne de Bordeaux, 103 (série B, 5), p. 1-31.

Guichard J., Guichard G. 1985 – Un percuteur gravé du Périgordien final à Rabier (Lanquais, Dordogne), Société d’Études et de Recherches Préhistoriques des Eyzies, 34, p. 33-39.

Guichard J., Guichard G. 1989 – À propos de Canaule et Barbas : une approche des dépôts loessiques du Bergeracois, Documents d’Archéologie Périgourdine, 4, p. 21-28.

Guichard J., Guichard G., Morala A. 1989 – Rémanence de la technique Levallois au Paléolithique supérieur ancien, Documents d’Archéologie Périgourdine, 4, p. 5-20.

González Urquijo J.E, Ibáñez Estévez J.J., Ortega I., Ríos J. 2001 – El aporte del análisis funcional para el conocimiento del yacimiento auriñaciense de Barbas III: primeros resultados, in Clemente I., Risch R., Gibaja J.F. (éd.), Análisis funcional: su aportación al estudio de sociedades prehistóricas, Oxford, Archeopress (BAR International Series 1073), p. 141-150.

Hedges R.E.M., Housley R.A., Law I.A., Bronk C.R. 1990 – Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 10, Archaeometry, 32, p. 101-108.

Hublin J.-J., Talamo S., Julien M., David F., Connet N., Bodu P., Vandermeersch B., Richards M.P., 2012 – Radiocarbon dates from the Grotte du Renne and Saint-Césaire support a Neanderthal origin for the Châtelperronian, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (46), 18743-18748.

Ihuel E. 2013 – Bergerac. Le bout des Vergnes, in Bilan Scientifique 2013, Aquitaine, Dordogne, Bordeaux, DRAC, p. 22-23.

Keekey R.L., 1988 – Hunter-gatherer economic complexity and «population pressure»: a cross-cultural analysis, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 7, p. 373-411

Landesque (abbé) L. 1887 – Station préhistorique de Combe-Capelle, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 3 (15), p. 866-869.

Lenoble A. 2005 – Ruissellement et formation des sites préhistoriques ; Référentiel actualiste et exemples d’application au fossile, Oxford, Archeopress (BAR International Serie 1363), 215 p.

Locht J.-L. 2006 – Le Paléolithique moyen en Picardie : état de la recherche, Revue archéologique de Picardie, 3/4, p. 27-35.

Logerot E. 2018 – L’organisation spatiale du site des Garris II (Creysse, Dordogne) daté de l’Aurignacien ancien du Sud-Ouest de la France, mémoire de Master, Université Paris-Ouest-Nanterre-La Défense, 113 p.

Mathias C., Bourguignon L. 2019 – Une nouvelle utilisation du concept Trifacial durant une phase ancienne du Paléolithique moyen de la vallée de l’Isle : le niveau 2 de Petit-Bost (Neuvic, Dordogne), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 116 (3), p. 423-454.

Mathias C., Bourguignon L. 2020 – Cores-on-flakes and ramification during the middle palaeolithic in Southern France: A gradual process from the early to late middle palaeolithic?, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 31, 102336, [en ligne] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102336.

Mercier N., Valladas H., Joron J.-L., Reyss J.-L., Lévêque F., Vandermeersch B. 1991 – Thermoluminescence dating of the late Neanderthal remains from Saint-Césaire (France), Nature, 351, p. 737-739.

Michel A., Ihuel E., Chadelle J.-P, Claud E., Baillet M. 2019 – Découvertes récentes en Bergeracois : les occupations châtelperronienne et aurignacienne de Bout-des-Vergnes (Bergerac, Dordogne), in XXVIIIe Congrès Préhistorique de France : Préhistoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest : mobilités, climats et entités culturelles. 30 mai-4 juin 2016 Amiens (France), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 23-42.

Morala A., Fernandes P., Turq A., Delvigne V. 2016 – Projet collectif de Recherche, rapport d’activité 2017, Villard-de-Lans et Coutras, Réseaux de lithothèques en Auvergne, 139 p.

Morala A., Fernandes P., Turq A., Delvigne V. 2017 – Projet collectif de Recherche, rapport d’activité 2017, Villard-de-Lans et Coutras, Réseaux de lithothèques en Auvergne, 265 p.

Morala A., Fernandes P., Turq A., Delvigne V., Caux S. 2018 – Projet collectif de Recherche, rapport d’activité 2018, Villard-de-Lans et Coutras, Réseaux de lithothèques en Auvergne, 113 p.

Mujika J.A. 2000 – La industria ósea del Paleolítico Superior Inicial de Labeko Koba (Arrasate, Basque Country), Munibe, 52, p. 355-376.

O’Farrell M. 2005 – Étude préliminaire des éléments d’armature lithique de l’Aurignacien Ancien de Brassempouy, in Le Brun-Ricalens F., Bordes J.-G., Bon F. (éd.), Production lamellaires à l’Aurignacien : chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. XIVe Congrès de l’UISPP, Liège 2-8 septembre 2001, Luxembourg, Musée de Préhistoire de Luxembourg, p. 395-412.

Ortega I. 1996 – Barbas III, in : Bilan scientifique 1996, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 26.

Ortega I. 1998 – Explotación de los recursos líticos en función de una concepción de debitage Auriñaciense: yacimiento arqueológico de Barbas, in Segunda reunión sobre “el aprovisionamiento de recursos líticos a la prehistoria”, Barcelona, Gavá, p. 105-122.

Ortega I. 1999 – Barbas III : le niveau Aurignacie, in Bilan scientifique 1999, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 28.

Ortega I. 2000 – Barbas III : le niveau Aurignacien, in Bilan scientifique 2000, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 28.

Ortega I. 2001 – Explotación de recursos líticos en función de una concepción de debitage laminar auriñaciense : yacimiento arqueologico de Barbas, in 2e réunio de treball sobre aprovisionament de recursos lithics a la prehistoria, Barcelona, Gava, p. 105-113.

Ortega I. 2005 – La production lamellaire du niveau aurignacien de Barbas III (Creysse, Dordogne), in Le Brun-Ricalens F., Bordes J.-G., Bon F. (éd.), Production lamellaires à l’Aurignacien : chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. XIVe Congrès de l’UISPP, Liège 2-8 septembre 2001, Luxembourg, Musée de Préhistoire de Luxembourg, p. 211-224.

Ortega I. 2009 – Diagnostic de « Les Barbas V » (Creysse, Dordogne), rapport de diagnostic, Inrap, 40 p.

Ortega I. 2018 – Exploring the interest of identifying different levels of technical competence for the prehistorian. The example of several Aurignacian, Gravettian, and Solutrean open-air sites in the Bergerac region (Dordogne, France), Dolní Věstonice Studies, 24, p. 171-190.

Ortega I. 2019 – Niveaux de compétence et apprentissage de la taille du silex au Paléolithique supérieur : l’exemple des sites du Bergeracois, in Pion P., Schlanger N. (éd.), Apprendre. Archéologie de la transmission des savoirs, Paris, La Découverte (Recherches), p. 100-112.

Ortega I., Grigoletto F., Bourguignon L., Sellami F. 2004 – Les Vieux Coutets, in Bilan Scientifique 2004, DRAC Aquitaine, p. 24.

Ortega I., Rios J., Ibañez J.-J., Gonzalez J., Boëda É., Sellami F. 2006 – L’occupation de l’Aurignacien ancien de Barbas III (Creysse, Dordogne), pas qu’un simple atelier. Réflexions sur la fonction du site, Paléo, 18, p. 115-142.

Ortega I., Locht J.-L., Soressi M., Rios J. Bourguignon L., Blaser F., Grigoletto F., Sellier N. 2013 – La producción laminar durante el Paleolítico medio en el norte y el sur-oeste de Francia: el aporte de la experimentación, in Palomo A., Piqué R., Terradas X. (éd.), Experimentación en arqueología. Estudio y difusión del pasado, Barcelone, Musée d’Archéologie de Catalogne (Serie Monográfica del MAC-Girona 25, 1), p. 219-228.

Ortega I., Rios J., Garrate D., Arizga J., Bourguignon L. 2015 – À naturalistic bird representation from the Aurignacian layer at the Cantalouette II open-air site in southwestern France and its relevance to the origin of figurative art in Europe, Journal of Archaeological Science, 4, p. 201-209.

Ortega I., Bourguignon L., Grigoletto F., Sellami F., Rios J., Vieillevigne E., Guibert P. 2017 – Le gisement stratifié des Vieux Coutet. Déviation nord de Bergerac, rapport final d’opération, Inrap, 215 p

Ortega I., Rios-Garaizar J., Bourguignon L. 2022 – La percussion lancée dans l’Aurignacien ancien du Bergeracois : quelques exemples issus des sites de Barbas III, Vieux Coutets, Les Garris et Cantalouette II (Dordogne, France), Comptes Rendus Palevol, 21 (18), p. 363-389, https://doi. org/10.5852/cr-palevol2022v21a18

Pelegrin J., Soressi M. 2007 – Le Châtelperronien et ses rapports avec le Moustérien, in Vandermeersch B., Maureille B. (éd.), Les Néandertaliens. Biologie et cultures, Paris, Éditions du CTHS, p. 297-309.

Platel J.P. avec la collaboration de Geneste J.M., Kervazo B. 1984 – Carte géologique de la France (1/50 000), feuille Bergerac (806). Notice explicative, Orléans, BRGM, 41 p.

Plisson H, Schmider B 1990 – Étude préliminaire d’une série de pointes de Châtelperron de la grotte du Renne à Arcy-sur-Cure : approche morphologique, technologique et tracéologique, in Farizy C., Combier J., Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Ruptures et transitions : examen critique des documents archéologiques, Nemours, Musée de Préhistoire d’Île-de-France (Mémoires 3), p. 313-318.

Prodeo F., Sellami F. 2009 – Creysse (24) « Les Rivelles », rapport de diagnostic, Inrap Aquitaine, 48 p.

Roussel M. 2011 – Normes et variations de la production lithique durant le Châtelperronien. La séquence de la Grande-Roche-de-la-Plématrie à Quincay (Vienne), thèse de doctorat, université Paris Ouest Nanterre-La Défense, 554 p.

Roussel M. 2013 – Méthodes et rythmes du débitage laminaire au Châtelperronien : comparaison avec le Protoaurignacien, Comptes Rendus Palevol, 12, p. 233-241.

Roussel M., Soressi M., Hublin J.J. 2016 – The Châtelperronian conundrum: Blade and bladelet lithic technologies from Quinçay, France, Journal of Human Evolution, 95, p. 13-32

Rios-Garaizar J. en préparation – The function of micro blades from Castanet Aurignacian site.

Rios-Garaizar J. 2008 – Nivel IX (Chatelperroniense) de Labeko Koba (Arrasate-Gipuzkoa) : gestión de la industria lítica y función del sitio, Munibe (Antropológica-Arkeologia), 59, p. 25-46.

Rios-Garaizar J. 2012 – Industria Lítica y Sociedad en la Transición del Paleolítico Medio al Superior en Torno al Golfo de Bizkaia, Santander, PUbliCan. Ediciones de la Universidad de Cantabria, 561 p.

Rios-Garaizar J., Ortega I. 2014 – Flint workshop or habitat? Technological and functional approaches towards the interpretation of site function in Bergerac region Ancient Aurignacian, in Marreiros J., Bicho N., Gibaja Bao J. (éd.), International Conference on Use-Wear Analysis. Use-Wear 2012, Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 162-172.

Rios J., Ortega I., Ibañez J.-J., Gonzalez J. 2002 – El aporte del análisis funcional para el conocimiento del yacimiento Auriñaciense de Barbas III : primeros resultados, BAR International Séries, 1073, p. 141-150.

Rios J., Ortega I., Grigoletto F., Bourguignon L., Blaser F. 2006b – Diversité et/ou spécificité des fonctions et fonctionnements des productions laminaires entre le Moustérien, le Châtelperronien et l’Aurignacien ancien du Bergeracois : quelques données sur la continuité et la discontinuité des objectifs, in Le phénomène laminaire au Paléolithique moyen et supérieur en Eurasie. Table-ronde, 6-7 avril 2006, Maison François Bordes, université Bordeaux I, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne.

Rios-Garaizar J., Arrizabalaga J., Villaluenga A. 2012b – Haltes de chasse du Châtelperronien de la Péninsule Ibérique : Labeko Koba et Ekain (Pays Basque Péninsulaire), LAnthropologie, 116, p. 532-549.

Samra-Inrap 2007 – Expression « artistique » et symbolique en Bergeracois », in Au cœur de la Matière. Préhistoire en Bergeracois. Cinq années de sauvetage archéologique. Catalogue de l’exposition du Musée National de Préhistoire des Eyizes-de-Tayac, p. 28-29.

Séronie-Vivien M., Séronie-Vivien M.-R. 1987 – Les silex Mésozoïque nord-aquitain : approche géologique de l’étude des silex pour servir à la recherche préhistorique, Bordeaux, Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux, (Bulletin de la Société linnéenne de Bordeaux, supplément au tome 15), 135 p.

Sellami F. 1999 – Reconstitution de la dynamique des sols des terrasses de la Dordogne à Creysse (Bergeracois). Impact sur la conservation des sites archéologiques de plein air, thèse de doctorat, INA-PG, 255 p.

Sonneville-Bordes D. de 1960 – Le Paléolithique supérieur en Périgord, Bordeaux, Imprimerie Delmas, 2 vol., 558 p.

Sorensen A.C., Claud E., Soressi M. 2018 – Neanderthal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis, Scientific Reports, 8, 1065.

Soriano S. 1999 – Chante Louette 2. Commune de Creysse (24), rapport d’opération, 16 p.

Talamo S., Aldeias V., Goldberg P., Chiotti L., Dibble H, Guérin G., Hublin J.J., Madelaine S., Maria R., Sandgathe D., Steele T.E., Turq A., McPherron S.J.P. 2020 – The new 14C chronology for the Palaeolithic site of La Ferrassie, France: the disappearance of Neanderthals and the arrival of Homo sapiens in France, Journal of Quaternary Science, 35 (7), p. 961-973.

Tixier J. 1991a – Et passez au pays des silex : rapportez-nous des lames, in 25 ans d’études technologiques en Préhistoire, XIe rencontres internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, Juan-les-Pins, Éditions APDCA, p. 235-243.

Tixier J. 1991b – Champ-parel, Corbiac-Vignoble 2 (cv2), Paléolithique supérieur (Aurignacien), Gallia Informations, 1999, Aquitaine, p. 8-9.

Teyssandier N. 2000 – L’industrie lithique aurignacienne du secteur II de Barbas (Creysse, Dordogne). Analyse technique et implications archéologiques, Ateliers, 20, p. 29-59.

Turq A. 2001 – Réflexion sur le biface dans quelques sites du paléolithique ancien-moyen en grotte ou abri du Nord-Est du Bassin Aquitain, Eraul, 98, p. 141-149.

Turq A. 2003 – De la matière première lithique brute à la mise au jour de l’objet archéologique : Propositions pour une meilleure exploitation du potentiel informatif du matériel lithique illustrées par quelques exemples du Paléolithique aquitain, Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, université de Perpignan Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, 265 p.

Turq A., Roebroeks W., Bourguignon L., Faivre J.-Ph. 2013 – The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology, Journal of Human Evolution, 65, p. 641-655.

Turq A., Faivre J.-Ph., Gravina B., Bourguignon L. in press – Management of a Neanderthal territory, the example of north-east Aquitain basin: from the facts to the model, Quaternary International, 433, p. 88-101.

Valladas H., Chadelle J.-P., Geneste J.-M., Joron J.-L., Meignen L., Texier P.J. 1987 – Datations par thermoluminescence de gisements moustériens du Sud de la France, L’Anthropologie, 91 (1), p. 211-226.

Vieillevigne E., Bourguignon L., Ortega I., Guibert P. 2008 – Analyse croisée des données chronologiques et des industries lithiques dans le grand sud-ouest de la France (OIS 10 à 3), Paléo, 20, p. 145-165.

Combaz A. 1966 – Recherches de microfossiles organiques dans les sables et grès du Périgord ; compte rendu d’examen n° 189, bordeaux C.E.P., exploration, laboratoire central.

Des Moulins V. 1864 – Le bassin hydrographique du Couzeau dans ses rapports avec la vallée de la Dordogne, Actes de la Société linnéenne de Bordeaux, 3 (25), p. 5-180.

Dugas P. 2018 – Analyse de l’évolution du silex du bergeracois, in Morala A., Fernandes P., Turq A., Delvigne V., Caux S., Projet collectif de Recherche, rapport d’activité 2018, Villard-de-Lans, Réeaux de lithothèques en Nouvelle-Aquitaine, p. 61-73.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Map of the Bergerac area and distribution of sites within its urban zone, overlain a simplified geological background.
Crédits L. Bourguignon
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 322k
Titre Fig. 2 – Finished objects.
Légende 1-2. Le Saraillet; 3-4, 6-7. Cantalouette I; 5, 8 Barbas I.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 203k
Titre Fig. 3 – Levallois debitage.
Légende 1, 6–8. Le Saraillet; 3, 9, 13. Les Garris; 4. Barbas I; 2, 5, 10–12. Combe Brune 2.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 158k
Titre Fig. 11 – Preferential Levallois debitage (1, 2, 10–11, 14) recurrent (3–5, 7–13, 15) and laminar (6).
Légende 1. Cantalouette 2; 13-15. Canolle Farm; 4–5. Cantalouette IV; 7-9. Vieux Coutets; 2, 3, 6, 10–12. Combe Brune 1.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 182k
Titre Fig. 17 – Traces tool use from the Upper to Middle Paleolithic.
Légende 1. Mousterian level fractured macro-flake from the Cantalouette II sinkhole, which reveals, in addition to post-depositional alterations, three active edges: proximal, proximo-lateral left and distal. The one bearing the clearest traces is the distal edge, upon which we can observe some flaking, as well as on the superior surface. On the ventral aspect (contact), micro-traces related to a transverse shaving action (push plane or half-push plane) on wood (1–4). The other two edges were also used for the same activity but with much less intensity (5; Clemente in Bourguignon et al. forthcoming). 2–3. Scrapers from the Combe Brune 1 Mousterian level illustrating hide (2) and wood (3) scraping. 4. Raw flakes from tool finishing processes from the Canolle Farm Mousterian level (level 55) bearing traces related to the cutting of soft (orange line), soft to semi-hard (dark red line), and soft to semi-hard meat (pink line) material, and associated macro- and microscopic traces of use. a to c: flaking, d: possible micro-polishing related to meat cutting (Claud in Bourguignon et al. 2018). 5–7. Raw flakes and scrapers from the Vieux Coutets Mousterian level, showing traces of dry hide scraping (7), meat cutting (5) and working of a semi-hard material (wood?) along a longitudinal axis (6). 8. Hand axes from the Canolle Farm site (level. 55) bearing traces related to the cutting of soft to semi-hard material, soft to semi-hard meat and associated macro- and microscopic traces of use. A–c. Flaking; d. Micro-polishing produced by meat cutting.
Crédits Claud in Bourguignon et al. 2018.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 278k
Titre Fig. 4 – Discoid and SSDA type debitage (alternating debitage surface system; type C).
Légende 3. Les Rivelles; 1, 2, 6-7. Combe Brune 2; 4. Cantalouette IV niv. 2; 5. Le Saraillet.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 132k
Titre Fig. 5 – Levallois style debitage (type D1).
Légende 1-2, 6. Le Saraillet; 3. Cantalouette 1; 4. Combe Brune 2; 5. Sans Pareil UA2.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 160k
Titre Fig. 27 – Carinated scraper nucleus presenting twisted lamellae.
Légende 1–6. La Graulet VI; 7-9. Vieux Coutets; 10-11. Garris 2; 12–14. Barbas III.
Crédits Drawings by P. Rouzo except 12 and 14 J.G. Marcillaud and 13 L. Bourguignon
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 153k
Titre Fig. 29 – Elements of ephemeral portable art on flint block cortex and ornamental objects from the Bergerac Aurignacian and Magdalenian.
Légende 1, 4–5. Barbas III; 2-3. Cantalouette II; 6. La Gralet VI n.1.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 175k
Titre Fig. 30 – Treatment of organic and mineral materials from the Aurignacian sites of Barbas III (1, 5, 7–8), Les Garris (3, 4, 6) and Vieux Coutets (9–15).
Légende 14. Carinated scraper bearing traces of having been used for antler scraping (micro-polish c) and flaking (b) on the edge. The polish (d) is associated with an impact with a hard hammerstone. 15. Carinated scraper with scrape marks testifying to use on wood and impacts with a hard hammerstone (white dots). A. Dry hide scraping with associated ochre; B. Undetermined longitudinal action; C. Bone scraping; D. Bone cutting; E. Bone grooving; F. Cutting of hard material; G-H. Hide scraping; I. Undetermined scraping; J. Scraping-grooving of semi-hard material (antler?); K. Scraping of wood; L. Undetermined use; M. Scraping and cutting with associated ochre.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 157k
Titre Fig. 31 – Traces of use present on lamellae, as well as on blade, flake and Aurignacian blade fragments from the Barbas sites (1–2, 4–5, 9) and Garris (3, 6, 7–8).
Légende 1–3. Traces due to their use as projectile points; 4. Hide scraping with ochre, bone scraping and bone cutting; 5. Wood scraping; 6–9. Use in thrown striking movements resulting in the cutting of hard and semi-hard materials.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 149k
Titre Fig. 6 – Debitage related to laminar object production.
Légende 1. Barbas I; 2. Combe Brune 2; 3-5. Le Saraillet; 6-8. Cantalouette I.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/3879/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 123k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Illuminada Ortega , Laurence Bourguignon, Émilie Claud, Emmanuelle Vieillevigne, Joseba Rios-Garaizar, Mickaël Baillet, Michel Brenet, Mila Folgado Lopez, Farid Sellami et Christelle Lahaye, « Occupation and management of Bergerac territory between 250 and 35 Kans: testing a techno-economic overview »Gallia Préhistoire, 62 | -1, 153-214.

Référence électronique

Illuminada Ortega , Laurence Bourguignon, Émilie Claud, Emmanuelle Vieillevigne, Joseba Rios-Garaizar, Mickaël Baillet, Michel Brenet, Mila Folgado Lopez, Farid Sellami et Christelle Lahaye, « Occupation and management of Bergerac territory between 250 and 35 Kans: testing a techno-economic overview »Gallia Préhistoire [En ligne], 62 | 2022, mis en ligne le 22 juin 2023, consulté le 29 mai 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/3879 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/galliap.3879

Haut de page

Auteurs

Illuminada Ortega

ArSCAN équipe AnTET/Inrap1

Laurence Bourguignon

ArSCAN équipe AnTET/Inrap1

Émilie Claud

PACEA UMR 5199 Pessac/Inrap1

Articles du même auteur

Emmanuelle Vieillevigne

IRAMAT-CRP2A, UMR 5060 CNRS-Université Bordeaux Montaigne

Joseba Rios-Garaizar

Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana, Archaeology program

Mickaël Baillet

MICROLITHEC

Michel Brenet

Inrap, Pôle mixte de recherche archéologique, PACEA UMR 5199, Université de Bordeaux

Mila Folgado Lopez

Inrap – GSO, PACEA UMR 5199, Université de Bordeaux

Farid Sellami

Inrap, Pôle mixte de recherche archéologique, TRACES UMR 5608, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès

Christelle Lahaye

IRAMAT-CRP2A, UMR5060 CNRS-Université Bordeaux Montaigne

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search