Navigation – Plan du site

Understanding Mesolithic mobility systems: the Pont-Glas rock shelter at Plounéour-Ménez (Finistère)

Grégor Marchand, Michel Le Goffic, Klet Donnart, Nancy Marcoux et Laurent Quesnel
p. 225-228
Cet article est une traduction de :
Comprendre les systèmes de mobilité au Mésolithique : l’abri-sous-roche de Pont-Glas à Plounéour-Ménez (Finistère) [fr]

Résumés

Dans une économie fondée sur la chasse et la collecte en domaine tempéré, la mobilité collective apparait alors comme un comportement économique essentiel pour les humains de la Préhistoire. Afin de contribuer à la définition de ses formes archéologiques et dans le cadre d’un programme sur le fonctionnement des sociétés mésolithiques en Bretagne, il a semblé nécessaire de documenter une occupation en abri-sous-roche, susceptible d’offrir un autre spectre d’activités que les grands sites désormais mieux connus. L’abri-sous-roche de Pont-Glas (Plounéour-Ménez, Finistère) proposait de bonnes conditions pour aborder cette problématique. Deux blocs de granite appuyés l’un contre l’autre offrent une protection à une surface d’une vingtaine de mètres carrés, ménageant une cavité à deux entrées (est et ouest) d’une surface d’une quinzaine de m². Un bloc de granite débité récemment fermait un peu à l’origine cet abri et devait faciliter l’installation d’une couverture. Cet abri a été découvert et sondé en 1987 par M. Le Goffic, qui y reconnut un niveau remanié contenant des silex du Mésolithique final et de la céramique gauloise, au-dessus d’un empierrement qualifié de « dallage ».

En 2007 et 2008, la totalité de l’abri a été fouillée. Si l’entrée occidentale, très étroite, n’a visiblement jamais été concernée par les occupations humaines ni même les circulations, l’abri lui-même a livré un foyer soigneusement empierré aux bords hélas érodés (structure 1), puis une quinzaine de centimètres plus bas un épandage de charbon correspondant probablement à un foyer à plat (structure 2). Au même endroit, mais dans une US du Mésolithique encore plus basse, une zone de piétinement affectant directement le substrat ; elle témoigne également de l’occupation humaine (structure 3). Cette séquence ne se développe que sur un demi-mètre d’épaisseur et les perturbations sont nombreuses. Au terme de l’analyse spatiale des vestiges, il apparaît cependant évident que la base des US arénacées (US 5.3 inférieure, 5.6, 5.9) correspond à l’occupation mésolithique sans guère de perturbations protohistoriques.

L’analyse spatiale des vestiges révèle quelques lignes de force intéressantes, malgré la très forte perturbation des lieux par les hommes et les animaux fouisseurs. On constate ainsi la concentration des pièces lithiques sous le bloc 2, avec un décalage partiel entre les composantes ancienne et récente du Mésolithique. Cette distinction est également perceptible contre toute attente dans la dimension verticale, avec évidemment un fort brouillage lié aux remaniements. De la même manière, la céramique laténienne se cantonne aux US supérieures, si l’on écarte des intrusions le long des blocs au gré des effets de paroi.

Fort de 998 éléments, le matériel lithique comprend une composante ancienne (VIIIe millénaire), avec des triangles scalènes étroits, des lamelles à dos étroites et des pointes à base retouchée, et une composante récente à trapèzes symétriques. La date de cette dernière dans la seconde moitié du VIe millénaire avant notre ère est confirmée par une datation sur charbon prise dans le dernier niveau. Un petit pic en microquartzite de la Forest-Landerneau évoque immanquablement les groupes mésolithiques de Basse-Normandie et du Bassin parisien du VIIIe millénaire avant notre ère ; c’est le premier outil prismatique découvert en Bretagne. L’analyse des chaînes opératoires montre une grande diversité de roches et la rareté des phases initiales du débitage, tandis que les étapes de réfection d’armature de flèches sont très bien représentées.

L’analyse anthracologique a porté sur quatre unités stratigraphiques : les US 5.6, 5.10/6 et 5.11, attribuées mésolithiques, et l’US 5.3 datant du second âge du Fer pour sa partie supérieure. L’environnement végétal contemporain des occupations de l’abri-sous-roche est une chênaie acidiphile à houx. Les cortèges taxonomiques observés révèlent toutefois des incursions dans des milieux d’autres types. Il semble ainsi vraisemblable que les bois ont été sélectionnés pour des usages spécifiques. Dans les unités stratigraphiques datant du Mésolithique, l’observation de charbons de petit calibre comportant un dernier cerne de croissance composé uniquement de bois initial suggère une occupation de l’abri au printemps.

Si la faible dynamique sédimentaire d’un abri sous bloc de granite ne garantit nullement la préservation intégrale des occupations, les résultats obtenus sont particulièrement importants pour la compréhension des dernières sociétés de chasseurs-cueilleurs. C’est en effet la première fois dans l’Ouest que l’on peut distinguer des chaînes opératoires mésolithiques fractionnées dans l’espace et le temps. Par ailleurs, le nombre d’armatures détruites par l’usage dépasse largement ce que l’on connaît sur les grands habitats mésolithiques régionaux. Ces deux paramètres feraient de Pont-Glas un exemple unique de halte de chasse temporaire, sur laquelle quelques individus viendraient réparer leurs armes, avant de repartir en emportant le plus souvent leurs nucleus et leurs outils de taille.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

Received: 1 September 2013 – Admitted after revisions: 15 March 2015 – Modified: 13 February 2017

Texte intégral

1In an economy established on the hunting and gathering practices in temperate ecosystems, mobility appears as an essential economic behaviour for the human beings of the Prehistory. To contribute to the definition of its archaeological forms and within the framework of a program on the Mesolithic societies in Brittany, it seemed necessary to dig in a very fine way a settlement under a rock-shelter to give another activities spectrum than the better-known large sites in the region (fig. 1). The Pont-Glas rock shelter (Plouneour-Menez) offered good conditions to approach these problems.

Fig. 1. Pont-Glas rock shelter (black star) and the excavated Mesolithic sites in the Armorican Massif (Brittany, Pays-de-de-la-Loire and Lower Normandy), differentiating radiocarbon dated sites from non-radiocarbon dated sites

Fig. 1. Pont-Glas rock shelter (black star) and the excavated Mesolithic sites in the Armorican Massif (Brittany, Pays-de-de-la-Loire and Lower Normandy), differentiating radiocarbon dated sites from non-radiocarbon dated sites

Main stylistic entities from the first Mesolithic (Early Mesolithic in the Loire region, North Cotentin Mesolithic and the Bertheaume group) and the Second Mesolithic (Téviecien and Retzien)
1: Jobourg “Perréval II”; 2: Flamanville (Centrale EDF, Coquet et Déhus); 3: Roc de Gîte (Auderville); 4: GU 582 (Guernesey); 5: Toul-an-Naouc’h (Plougoulm); 6: Kerliézoc (Plouvien); 7: Kerdunvel (Lampaul-Ploudalmézeau); 8: Le Bilou (Le Conquet); 9: Lannuel (Guipronvel); 10: Le Crann (La Forest-Landerneau); 11: Pont-Glas (Plounéour-Ménez); 12: Quillien (Le Cloître Saint Thégonnec); 13: Tonquédec; 14: la Presqu’île (Brennilis); 15: Kerbizien (Huelgoat); 16: Kervouyen (Plovan); 17: Kergalan (Plovan); 18: Ty-Nancien (Plovan); 19: Beg-an-Dorchenn (Plomeur); 20: Pen Hoat Salaün (Pleuven); 21: la Trinité Goarem Lann (Melgven); 22: l’Île aux moutons (Fouesnant); 23: Vieuxville-Beaurade (Rennes); 24: la Villeneuve (Locunolé); 25: Lannec-er-Gadouer (Erdeven); 26: Téviec (Saint-Pierre-Quiberon); 27: la Croix-Audran (Carnac); 28: Er-Grah (Locmariaquer); 29: Kerjouanno (Arzon); 30: Bordelann (Sauzon); 31: Malvant (Houat); 32: Port-Neuf (Hoëdic); 33: Port-Nabé (Piriac-sur-Mer); 34: l’Organais (Sainte-Reine-de-Bretagne); 35: la Fillauderie (Saint-Père-en-Retz); 36: les Vingt-deux-Boisselées (Saint-Père-en-Retz); 37: Saint-Gildas (1a, 1b et 1c); 38: la Gilardière (Pornic); 39: le Porteau (Est-II et Ouest); 40: les Garennes (Geneston); 41: la Soudelache (La Gaubretière); 42: le Bois-des-Jarries (Saint-Mars-la-Réorthe); 43: les Pâtures (Villevêque); 44: Arma-Maquette (Argentan); 45: Saint-Pierre-du-Bû (Calvados); 46: Falaise (Calvados); 47: l’Essart (Poitiers); 48: l’Abri-des-Rocs (Bellefonds); 49: la Grange (Surgères); 50: les Chaloignes (Mozé-sur-Louet); 51: Saint-Senoux; 52: Bourg-des-Comptes; 53: le Vivier (Bieville-Beuville); 54: Roc’h Santec Leton (Santec); 55: Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon)

CAD: G. Marchand

2The zone of low hills in the center of which the rock shelter is located is clearly distinct from the schist and sandstone hills of the Monts d’Arrée immediately to the south, as well as the loess plateaus that extend to the north until the ocean (23 km away; fig. 2). The erosion of the monzonitic porphyraceous granite of Commana-Plouaret gave rise to a very particular landscape composed of countless granite spheres, solitary or in chaotic arrangements.

Fig. 2. Position of the Pont-Glas site to the north of Monts-d’Arrée

Fig. 2. Position of the Pont-Glas site to the north of Monts-d’Arrée

Geographic coordinates WGS84 = Longitude 03° 52’ 13’’ O; Latitude 48° 27’ 09.2’’ N. The vast open-air Mesolithic habitats of Drennec (Commana), la Presqu’île (Brennilis) and Quillien (Le Cloitre Saint-Thégonnec) are indicated

CAD: Y. Bouggio and G. Marchand, after IGN BD Alti

3Two big blocks of granite (blocks 1 and 2), one leaning on the other, protect a surface of 15 m², with two entrances in the cavity (fig. 3-5). One other block of granite (block 3) closed this shelter at the eastern entrance and probably facilitated the installation of a roof. However, modern quarrymen destroyed it recently. This prehistoric site was discovered and tested in 1987 by M. Le Goffic, who recognized a level containing flints of late Mesolithic date mixed with Gallic ceramics, before being fully excavated in 2007 and 2008 on a surface of 40 m². This last excavation examined the entire covered surface as well as a zone extending few meters in front the two entrances. In the context of this excavation, all of the sediments were water sieved with a fine mesh in order to recover all remains. This is one of the greatest interests of this site and the approach presented in this paper.

Fig. 3. The rock shelter in 2011 viewed from the east

Fig. 3. The rock shelter in 2011 viewed from the east

All the granitic blocks structuring the area are visible

Photo: H. Paitier

Fig. 4. The rock shelter viewed from the west during the excavation

Fig. 4. The rock shelter viewed from the west during the excavation

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 5. Plan of the Pont-Glas site and the 1987-2007-2008 excavations, with the main structuring elements

Fig. 5. Plan of the Pont-Glas site and the 1987-2007-2008 excavations, with the main structuring elements

Plan and CA : G. Marchand

4The stratigraphy under the rock shelter is relatively simple. From top to bottom, in a thickness of 50 cm, we found (fig. 6-10):

  • dry litter and a humus level (SU 1);
  • level of silt, with many burned stones outside and in the eastern entrance of the rock shelter (SU 2);
  • group of levels with an arenaceous matrix (US 5 and 6);
  • the more or less dislocated and disintegrated bedrock (US 3, 4 and 5.9).

Fig. 6. East parvis in front of the Pont-Glas rock shelter

Fig. 6. East parvis in front of the Pont-Glas rock shelter

South section of squares O20 and 021, showing the rock at the base (SU 4), natural frost-reworked blocks (SU 3) and burnt gravel containing the archaeological objects (SU 2)

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 7. Detail of the interior section in the entrance zone

Fig. 7. Detail of the interior section in the entrance zone

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 8. Profiles of the cavity

Fig. 8. Profiles of the cavity

CAD: G. Marchand

Fig. 9. Drawing of the main section of the rock shelter, south of the 2007 berm (section 1) and a transverse exterior section (section 2)

Fig. 9. Drawing of the main section of the rock shelter, south of the 2007 berm (section 1) and a transverse exterior section (section 2)

The position of the sections is given on the top left

CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand

Fig. 10. Stratigraphic schema

Fig. 10. Stratigraphic schema

CAD : G. Marchand

5If the very narrow western entrance was never concerned used by humans, the shelter itself delivered a hearth made of stones (structure 1), then about fifteen centimetres lower a layer of charcoal corresponding probably to another hearth (structure 3). In the same place but even lower, an area where the substratum have been crushed (structure 3). Four radiocarbon dating correspond to the main human occupations recognized by the material culture. They show anyway clear sedimentary disturbances (table III; fig. 11).

Table III. List of the radiocarbon dates obtained during the 2007 and 2008 excavations

Date prélèvement US Carré Altitude (en m) Code labo Activité 14C Date BP 13C/12C Calibration (2 sigmas) av. notre ère Matériau
2007 3 P21 199,75 Lyon-5325 (SacA-11462) 70,55 % ± 0,25 2800 ± 30 Non comm. -1012 à -897 Charbon de chêne (brindille)
2007 5.2 N24 Entre 200 et 199,90 Lyon-5324 (SacA-11461) 59,31 % ± 0,26 4195 ± 35 Non comm. -2891 à -2671 Charbon de chêne (brindille)
2008 5.3. (inf. sous foyer) O24 199,77 Beta-253525 2210 ± 40 -27,9 ‰ -390 à -170 Charbon de chêne (petite branche)
2008 5.6 (base) M24 199,75 Beta-253526 6400 ± 50 -25,0 ‰ -5480 à -5300 Charbon de noisetier (petite branche)

Calibrated with the IntCal04 curvev

Fig. 11. Location of the charcoal samples used for dating

Fig. 11. Location of the charcoal samples used for dating

CAD: G. Marchand

6In spite of recent disturbance carried out by humans and animals, it seems that the horizontal distribution of all the lithic pieces corresponds to the spatial organisation of the shelter in prehistoric times (fig. 12-21). The great majority of the finds come from under Block 2. However, the height of this part of the shelter during the Mesolithic must have been between 0 to 70 cm high, allowing a human only to sit down or to lie down. We can therefore suppose that this was a discard zone: the central part of the shelter was used and the activities moved artefacts to the edges of the shelter (fig. 25-29). Two main Mesolithic occupation have been identified (Early Mesolithic and Late Mesolithic). They are slightly disjointed in space, as well as in stratigraphy, as strange as this may seem in this context (fig. 28). The early component has been found almost exclusively in the lower arenaceous level (US 5), while the trapezes of the late component are mainly found in the upper level of silts which is highly disturbed (US 1 and 2). This hint of a stratigraphy must be interpreted with caution as the date obtained at the base of the site definitely corresponds to the Final Mesolithic (6400 ± 50 BP, or 5480 to 5300 BC-Beta-253526). It is probable that during this period, the disturbances had already affected the earlier remains. We propose the hypothesis that in such a limited space, the occupations were forcibly located in the same zones. This “inertia” would thus be represented by the slight dispersion of the lithic artifacts despite the numerous disturbances.

Fig. 12. Pont-Glas. Plan of the plotted stones in all the SU

Fig. 12. Pont-Glas. Plan of the plotted stones in all the SU

CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand

Fig. 13. Pont-Glas. Plan of SU 2 and SU 2/3 (first survey) outside the rock shelter

Fig. 13. Pont-Glas. Plan of SU 2 and SU 2/3 (first survey) outside the rock shelter

CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand

Fig. 14. View of block 3 from the top of the shelter, with the berm (at the top of SU 2)

Fig. 14. View of block 3 from the top of the shelter, with the berm (at the top of SU 2)

Debitage traces are clearly visible on the block

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 15. Berm from 2007, viewed from inside the rock shelter, with the careful paving of structure 1

Fig. 15. Berm from 2007, viewed from inside the rock shelter, with the careful paving of structure 1

In the background, the accumulation of loose blocks is characteristic of SU 2 and extends over the whole front of the shelter

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 16. View of structure 1 (US 5.1.) in square N24 (during the dismantling of the berm)

Fig. 16. View of structure 1 (US 5.1.) in square N24 (during the dismantling of the berm)

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 17. Pont-Glas. Plan of SU 3 outside the rock shelter and SU 5.3 inside

Fig. 17. Pont-Glas. Plan of SU 3 outside the rock shelter and SU 5.3 inside

CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand

Fig. 18. Pont-Glas. Sequences of the hearths (1 and 2) and the trampled zone (structure 3; US 5.9)

Fig. 18. Pont-Glas. Sequences of the hearths (1 and 2) and the trampled zone (structure 3; US 5.9)

CAD: G. Marchand

Fig. 19. Berm from 2007 viewed from the outside of the shelter, with natural blocks embedded in the sediment in the foreground on the right

Fig. 19. Berm from 2007 viewed from the outside of the shelter, with natural blocks embedded in the sediment in the foreground on the right

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 20. Berm from 2007 viewed from the outside of the shelter, with natural blocks embedded in the sediment in the foreground on the right

Fig. 20. Berm from 2007 viewed from the outside of the shelter, with natural blocks embedded in the sediment in the foreground on the right

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 21. Interior of the shelter emptied of sediments, with the zone of natural trampled stones (SU 5.9 / structure 3) at the centre of the photograph

Fig. 21. Interior of the shelter emptied of sediments, with the zone of natural trampled stones (SU 5.9 / structure 3) at the centre of the photograph

Photo: G. Marchand

Fig. 22. Stratigraphic distribution of the lithic objects (N=998)

Fig. 22. Stratigraphic distribution of the lithic objects (N=998)

The arenaceous units comprise 40% of the knapped lithic objects

Fig. 23. Distribution of all the knapped lithic objects, all SU combined

Fig. 23. Distribution of all the knapped lithic objects, all SU combined

CAD: G. Marchand

Fig. 24. Stratigraphic distribution of raw materials, expressed in number of objects

Fig. 24. Stratigraphic distribution of raw materials, expressed in number of objects

The right hand ordinate axis represents the curves (coarse rocks), the left hand ordinate axis represents the bars (fine and semi-fine rocks)

Fig. 25. Distribution of the main knapped raw materials, all SU combined

Fig. 25. Distribution of the main knapped raw materials, all SU combined

CAD: G. Marchand

Fig. 26. Distribution of the coarse raw materials, all SU combined

Fig. 26. Distribution of the coarse raw materials, all SU combined

CAD: G. Marchand

Fig. 27. Connections and refit in the lower (in red) and upper (in green) arenaceous SU by Thomas Horcholle in 2014

Fig. 27. Connections and refit in the lower (in red) and upper (in green) arenaceous SU by Thomas Horcholle in 2014

CAD: G. Marchand

Fig. 28. Distribution of the armatures by components, all SU combined

Fig. 28. Distribution of the armatures by components, all SU combined

CAD: G. Marchand

Fig. 29. Distribution of the tools and armatures, all SU combined

Fig. 29. Distribution of the tools and armatures, all SU combined

CAD: G. Marchand

7The entire lithic industry is composed of 998 objects, or 649 without the chips. Most of the objects made from fine-grained stones are attributable to the Mesolithic, even if there is a slight indication of a Neolithic component (a small flake with a chalky cortex and a fusiform borer). The primary source of raw materials of the Pont-Glas knappers are flint pebbles collected on the beaches 30 km to the north (fig. 30-33; tables IV-IX). Local raw materials (metamorphic or sedimentary rocks) represent half of the lithic material of this collection. The diversity of the facieses of Forest-Landerneau microquartzite or Eocene sandstones represented in this small assemblage indicates that the occupations had been multiple. During every stays, people only left a few elements. While procurement diversity is standard in the Mesolithic of central Brittany, it attains its apogee at Pont-Glas with a procurement zone that extended over a range of more than 50 km. There is an Early Mesolithic component, which is relatively rare in the first Mesolithic of the region (fig. 38-41). It includes the narrow scalene triangle / point with a retouched base / backed bladelet trilogy, to which we are tempted to add a microquartzite pick, which is a totally new tool type in the region (fig. 42-43). In the Paris Basin, this type of assemblage would be dated to the 8th millennium BC, and would thus occur after the development of the Bertheaume group, whose best local reference is Toul an Naouc’h at Plougoulm (Kayser et al., 1990). Nevertheless, the great majority of the lithic pieces are Teviecian (Late Mesolithic), an industry of the 6th millennium cal. BC (table IX). The best comparison for the raw material types, the debitage techniques and the tools types is the site of la Presqu’île (Brennilis), 10 km at south of Pont-Glas. Other sites of comparable nature are known in the north of Finistère: Kerliezoc (Plouvien), Cobalan (Forest-Landerneau) or Kerdunvel (Plourin-Ploudalmézeau). The use of non-flint raw material reached its peak at the end of the Mesolithic and it is the most visible signal for the archaeologist working on the industries.

Fig. 30. Proportions of knapped raw materials (998 objects)

Fig. 30. Proportions of knapped raw materials (998 objects)

Fig. 31. Proportions of the different lithic materials, classified by ascending order of provisioning distances from left to right

Fig. 31. Proportions of the different lithic materials, classified by ascending order of provisioning distances from left to right

Flint is clearly valued and the decreasing rule according to distance is not applicable to this material

Fig. 32. Pont-Glas rock shelter (black star), the main Mesolithic open-air sites and the outcrops of knappable rock in Finistère

Fig. 32. Pont-Glas rock shelter (black star), the main Mesolithic open-air sites and the outcrops of knappable rock in Finistère

Ge: Eocene sandstone; UT: Tremeven ultramylonite; CM: cataclasite from Mikaël; Clos: chalcedony from Clos; FL: microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau).
Site names: 1: Pont-Glas (Plounéour-Ménez); 2: Quillien (Le Cloitre-Saint-Thégonnec); 3: la Presqu’île (Brennilis); 4: Kerbizien (Huelgoat); 5: le Drennec (Commana); 6: le Clos (Plourin-lès-Morlaix); 7: Coabalan (La Forest-Landerneau); 8: le Moulin de Penguilly (Bodilis); 9: l’Ormeau (Plabennec); 10: Kerdunvel (Plourin-Ploudalmézeau); 11: Kerliézoc (Plouvien); 12: Ty-Nancien (Plovan); 13: Beg-an-Dorchenn (Plomeur)

CAD: P. Forré and G. Marchand

Fig. 33. Distribution of the main categories of lithic products in the toolkit and debitage, for the main knapped rocks

Fig. 33. Distribution of the main categories of lithic products in the toolkit and debitage, for the main knapped rocks

CM: cataclasite from Mikaël, GE: Eocene sandstone, FL: microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau, Sx: flint

Table IV. Type of armature by stratigraphic unit

Armature – US 1 2 2.2 3 5.1 5.10 5.2 5.3 5.3 inf 5.4 5.6 6 Divers Sond 87 Total
Armature indéfinie 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 13
Bitroncature (triangulaire ?) 1 1
Lamelle à dos rectiligne 1 1 2 4
Pièce à dos 1 1
Pointe à base brute 1 1
Pointe à base transverse 1 1 1 3
Trap. sym. court (tr conc) 2 2 1 1 1 1 8
Trap. sym. court (tr rect) 1 1 1 3
Triangle scalène 1 1 1 4 7
Triangle scalène à pt conc. 1 1
Total 5 5 2 1 1 2 2 4 7 1 1 2 6 3 42

Table V. Non-retouched debitage products by stratigraphic unit

Table V. Non-retouched debitage products by stratigraphic unit

Table VI. Breakdown of the knapped lithic objects by main raw material types

Roche Support Brut Outil aménagé Outil a posteriori Armature Total
Calcédoine du Clos 6 0 9 0 15
Microquartzite FL 192 1 11 4 208
Grès éocène 84 1 6 9 100
Silex 342 17 53 26 438
Phtanite 4 0 2 0 6
Cataclasite de Mikaël 87 0 4 3 94
Ultramylonite de Tréméven 2 0 0 0 2
Grès armoricain 16 0 1 0 17
Grès-quartzite 52 0 3 0 55
Quartz 55 1 6 0 62
Inconnue 1 0 0 0 1
Total 841 20 95 42 998
Proportions (en %) 84,3 2 9,5 4,2 100

Table VII. Distribution of non-retouched products by raw material

Support Fraction Sx FL GE CM GQu Qu GA Clos Pht UT Div Total
Bloc Fragment 1 1
Bloc brut Fragment 1 1 2
Casson 7 6 2 14 23 9 46
Galet Entier 5 5
Galet fendu (perc/encl.) Entier 1 1
Esquille 166 88 35 47 4 6 2 1 3
Éclat cortical Entier 12 1 5 5 1 11
Proximal 2 1 1 1
Mésial 7 5 1 6
Distal 5 5
Éclat semi-cortical Entier 3 3
Proximal 3 2 1 3
Mésial 4 4
Distal 1 1
Éclat Entier 29 39 22 8 14 7 2 1 2 3
Proximal 14 14 11 3 4 46
Mésial 16 17 2 6 5 1 2 2 1 1
Distal 4 9 4 5 2 1 1 26
Éclat cortical perc./encl. Entier 1 1
Proximal 1 1
Mésial 1 1
Éclat perc./enclume Entier 5 1 1 1 1
Proximal 5 1 1
Mésial 4 4
Distal 2 1 3
Lame corticale Mésial 1 1
Lame semi-corticale Mésial 2 2
Lame Entier 1 1 1 3
Proximal 1 1 1 1 4
Mésial 2 2 1 1 1
Distal 1 1
Lame à néo-crête Distal 1 1
Lamelle semi-corticale Proximal 1 1
Mésial 2 2
Lamelle Entier 3 2 5
Proximal 4 2 2 4 1 1
Mésial 18 3 8 8
Distal 7 1 1 9
Microburin prox 1 1
Lamelle perc./enclume Mésial 1 1
Lamelle à néo-crête Entier 1 1
Éclat à néo-crête Entier 1 1
Distal 1 1
Tablette partielle Entier 1 1 1
Tablette totale Entier 1 1
Nucleus Entier 3 2 2
Total 342 192 84 87 52 55 16 6 4 2 1 841

Table VIII. Tool counts (armature, prepared tools, a posteriori tools, tools on central mass – excluding granite tools)

Silex FL Grès lustré Clos Quartz amorphe CM Grès armoricain inconnue Phtanite Grès-quartzite Total
Armature indéfinie 5 3 4 1 13
Bitroncature (triangulaire ?) 1 1
Lamelle à dos rectiligne 4 4
Pièce à dos 1 1
Pointe à base brute 1 1
Pointe à base transverse 2 1 3
Trapèze symétrique court (tr conc) 7 1 8
Trapèze symétrique court (tr rect) 2 1 3
Triangle scalène 3 1 3 7
Triangle scalène à pt conc. 1 1
Burin/cassure 1 1
Coche 2 2
Denticulé latéral 1 1
Grattoir 1 1
Perçoir 2 1 3
Pic trièdre 1 1
Troncature oblique rectiligne 3 3
Troncature transverse rectiligne 4 4
Retouches d’aménagement diverses 3 3
Éclat/lame à retouches continues 1 1
Éclat/lame à retouches partielles 4 2 6
Pièce esquillée 8 1 1 10
Éclat/lame à coche d’usage 1 1
Éclat/lame à esquilles 2 2
Éclat/lame à fil ébréché continu 25 4 1 6 2 1 39
Éclat/lame à fil ébréché discontinu 14 3 5 2 2 1 27
Percuteur - Boucharde 7 1 2 10
Total 96 16 16 9 7 7 1 0 2 3 157

Table IX. Comparison of the dimensions of the symmetric trapezes (averages and standard deviations)

Site Longueur Largeur Épaisseur
Pont-Glas Moyenne 14,5 12,4 2,6
Écart-type 3,4 3,3 0,7
La Presqu’île Moyenne 15,4 11,5 2,3
Écart-type 3,1 2,8 0,8
Kerliézoc Moyenne 15,5 12,6 2,8
Écart-type 2,8 2,9 0,8
Ty-Nancien Moyenne 13,1 11,1 2,4
Écart-type 2,1 1,6 0,6

Fig. 38. Cores from Pont-Glas

Fig. 38. Cores from Pont-Glas

no 1: core on flake in cataclasite from Mikaël (O24, US 5.2); no 2: core in cataclasite from Mikaël (P23, US 5.3); no 3: burnt flint core (1987 test pit, -5 to -20 cm)

Drawing: G. Marchand

Fig. 39. Armatures from Pont-Glas

Fig. 39. Armatures from Pont-Glas

1 to 3: narrow scalene triangles; 4 to 6, 12: points with retouched bases; 7 to 10: backed bladelet fragments; 11: indeterminate armature; 13 and 14: points with oblique truncation; 15: armature with a pseudo-microburin Krukowski type break; 1, 6 and 17: wide scalene triangles; 18 to 27: asymmetric trapezes; 28: trapezoid bitruncation classified with the trapezes (Flint: 1, 3, 4, 6 to 10, 15 to 17, 20 to 28; GE: 2, 5, 12 to 14; FL: 11; CT: 18 and 19)

Drawing: G. Marchand

Fig. 40. Armatures and common tools form Pont-Glas

Fig. 40. Armatures and common tools form Pont-Glas

1: armature destroyed on impact; 2: symmetric trapeze; 3 and 4: broken armature (no direct connection, but may be the same tool); 5: proximal microburin; 6 to 14: used blades and bladelets; 15, 17: used flakes; 16: fusiform perforator; 18: thin denticulated flake (Flint: 1 to 6, 9, 11 to 16, 18; FL: 7; CM: 10, 17; Phtanite: 8)

Drawing: G. Marchand

Fig. 41. Flakes in ultramylonite from Tréméven

Fig. 41. Flakes in ultramylonite from Tréméven

Drawing: G. Marchand

Fig. 42. Tools

Fig. 42. Tools

no 1-3 : pièces esquillées in flint; no 4 : pick in microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau

Drawing: G. Marchand

Fig. 43. View of the pick in microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau from four different angles

Fig. 43. View of the pick in microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau from four different angles

Photo: G. Marchand

8The main differences between Pont-Glas and the big sites are the proportions of tools and the different “chaîne opératoire” stages. With a rate of 67%, the arrowheads are dominant among the tools. It is interesting to compare this rate to those obtained on other sites of the end of the Mesolithic studied with the same methods: arrowheads account for 29% of tools at the huge site of L’Essart (Poitiers, Vienne), 50% in the shellmiddens of Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon, Morbihan) and 75% on the small coastal station of La Gilardière at Pornic. We interpret these proportions as indicators of the activities carried out in different sites. In the same way, we propose to see in the rate of burned flint a relevant criterion: the more stable the occupation, the more diverse the activities, the greater the probability for a lithic tool to be affected by fire. The rate of burned elements is rather low here (22%) in comparison with Beg-er-Vil (35%) or L’Essart (85%).

9An analysis of the wood charcoal found at Pont-Glas shows that the environment near the site was mainly composed of acidophilus oak groves with holly, which is a typical forest formation of the western Armorican massif during this period (fig. 49-56; tables XIV-XV). An analysis of the wood charcoal found at Pont-Glas shows that the environment near the site was mainly composed of acidophilus oak groves with holly, which is a typical forest formation of the western Armorican massif during this period. The presence of species native to other types of environments nevertheless shows the mosaic nature of this landscape. Wild cherry (Prunus avium L.) and hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) are found in richer zones at the slope bases or valley bottoms. These zones, though they had a permanent water supply, were favored by alder (Alnus sp.), which colonized the banks of watercourses and humid woods. Finally, alder buckthorn (Frangula alnus Mill.) and broom (Fabaceae of the Cytisus scoparius type [L.] Link), which need much light, indicate the presence of open zones. The range of taxa observed in the charcoal therefore reveals the diversity of the wood procurement zones.

Fig. 49. Anthracological diagram from the site of Pont-Glas

Fig. 49. Anthracological diagram from the site of Pont-Glas

Observation frequencies of the different taxa from the four analysed stratigraphic units

Fig. 50. Anthracological diagram of stratigraphic unit 5.6

Fig. 50. Anthracological diagram of stratigraphic unit 5.6

Observation frequencies of the different taxa per analysed square

Fig. 51. Calibre of the oaks from the four stratigraphic units

Fig. 51. Calibre of the oaks from the four stratigraphic units

Fig. 52. Histograms of the oak ring width classes from the four stratigraphic units, average and standard deviation

Fig. 52. Histograms of the oak ring width classes from the four stratigraphic units, average and standard deviation

Fig. 53. Diameter classes of the insect holes observed on the charcoal from the Mesolithic stratigraphic units

Fig. 53. Diameter classes of the insect holes observed on the charcoal from the Mesolithic stratigraphic units

Fig. 54. Aspect of the oak charcoal from the four stratigraphic units

Fig. 54. Aspect of the oak charcoal from the four stratigraphic units

Fig. 55. Anthracological diagram of the Mesolithic sites from the Armorican Massif

Fig. 55. Anthracological diagram of the Mesolithic sites from the Armorican Massif

Fig. 56. Histograms of the oak ring width classes from the Mesolithic sites

Fig. 56. Histograms of the oak ring width classes from the Mesolithic sites

10The diversity of lithic raw materials and their facies, the relative rarity of the first phases of debitage, the exportation of cores, the abundance of weapon elements and the high rate of damage to these pieces are all characteristics that distinguish this assemblage from others in Western France. The relatively low concentration lithic artifacts (33/m2 inside the rock shelter, throughout a thickness of 50 cm) and the small surface area of the space, delimited by the stone walls, clearly suggest short-term occupations. The particular segmentation of the reduction processes and the abundance of weapon elements lead us to conclude that the Pont-Glas rock shelter was repeatedly occupied by small groups of hunters or warriors who moved across the entire western zone of the Armorican peninsula. This type of short-term, specialized occupation implies the existence of a complementary long-term occupation, integrated within a mobility strategy that was more logistic than residential. These statements of the obvious do not get us very far, however, without further research to identify the “base camps” or “main sites”. The open-air site of Presqu’île (Brennilis), located 10 km to the south of Pont-Glas, beyond the hills of the Monts-d’Arrée, could be a good candidate for this role since it yielded a similar range of stone raw materials and weapon element types. Unlike previous archaeological endeavours, the excavations of the Pont-Glas rock shelter have shed new light on human occupation strategies in central Brittany during the Mesolithic period. In these “logistic station”, we found evidence of restricted human groups specialized in the manipulation of weapons and engaged in actions intended to kill. The necessity to camp and to repair their arrows indicates that they circulated well beyond their base camp and usual procurement zone.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. Pont-Glas rock shelter (black star) and the excavated Mesolithic sites in the Armorican Massif (Brittany, Pays-de-de-la-Loire and Lower Normandy), differentiating radiocarbon dated sites from non-radiocarbon dated sites
Légende Main stylistic entities from the first Mesolithic (Early Mesolithic in the Loire region, North Cotentin Mesolithic and the Bertheaume group) and the Second Mesolithic (Téviecien and Retzien) 1: Jobourg “Perréval II”; 2: Flamanville (Centrale EDF, Coquet et Déhus); 3: Roc de Gîte (Auderville); 4: GU 582 (Guernesey); 5: Toul-an-Naouc’h (Plougoulm); 6: Kerliézoc (Plouvien); 7: Kerdunvel (Lampaul-Ploudalmézeau); 8: Le Bilou (Le Conquet); 9: Lannuel (Guipronvel); 10: Le Crann (La Forest-Landerneau); 11: Pont-Glas (Plounéour-Ménez); 12: Quillien (Le Cloître Saint Thégonnec); 13: Tonquédec; 14: la Presqu’île (Brennilis); 15: Kerbizien (Huelgoat); 16: Kervouyen (Plovan); 17: Kergalan (Plovan); 18: Ty-Nancien (Plovan); 19: Beg-an-Dorchenn (Plomeur); 20: Pen Hoat Salaün (Pleuven); 21: la Trinité Goarem Lann (Melgven); 22: l’Île aux moutons (Fouesnant); 23: Vieuxville-Beaurade (Rennes); 24: la Villeneuve (Locunolé); 25: Lannec-er-Gadouer (Erdeven); 26: Téviec (Saint-Pierre-Quiberon); 27: la Croix-Audran (Carnac); 28: Er-Grah (Locmariaquer); 29: Kerjouanno (Arzon); 30: Bordelann (Sauzon); 31: Malvant (Houat); 32: Port-Neuf (Hoëdic); 33: Port-Nabé (Piriac-sur-Mer); 34: l’Organais (Sainte-Reine-de-Bretagne); 35: la Fillauderie (Saint-Père-en-Retz); 36: les Vingt-deux-Boisselées (Saint-Père-en-Retz); 37: Saint-Gildas (1a, 1b et 1c); 38: la Gilardière (Pornic); 39: le Porteau (Est-II et Ouest); 40: les Garennes (Geneston); 41: la Soudelache (La Gaubretière); 42: le Bois-des-Jarries (Saint-Mars-la-Réorthe); 43: les Pâtures (Villevêque); 44: Arma-Maquette (Argentan); 45: Saint-Pierre-du-Bû (Calvados); 46: Falaise (Calvados); 47: l’Essart (Poitiers); 48: l’Abri-des-Rocs (Bellefonds); 49: la Grange (Surgères); 50: les Chaloignes (Mozé-sur-Louet); 51: Saint-Senoux; 52: Bourg-des-Comptes; 53: le Vivier (Bieville-Beuville); 54: Roc’h Santec Leton (Santec); 55: Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon)
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 598k
Titre Fig. 2. Position of the Pont-Glas site to the north of Monts-d’Arrée
Légende Geographic coordinates WGS84 = Longitude 03° 52’ 13’’ O; Latitude 48° 27’ 09.2’’ N. The vast open-air Mesolithic habitats of Drennec (Commana), la Presqu’île (Brennilis) and Quillien (Le Cloitre Saint-Thégonnec) are indicated
Crédits CAD: Y. Bouggio and G. Marchand, after IGN BD Alti
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,3M
Titre Fig. 3. The rock shelter in 2011 viewed from the east
Légende All the granitic blocks structuring the area are visible
Crédits Photo: H. Paitier
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,2M
Titre Fig. 4. The rock shelter viewed from the west during the excavation
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,7M
Titre Fig. 5. Plan of the Pont-Glas site and the 1987-2007-2008 excavations, with the main structuring elements
Crédits Plan and CA : G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,1M
Titre Fig. 6. East parvis in front of the Pont-Glas rock shelter
Légende South section of squares O20 and 021, showing the rock at the base (SU 4), natural frost-reworked blocks (SU 3) and burnt gravel containing the archaeological objects (SU 2)
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,8M
Titre Fig. 7. Detail of the interior section in the entrance zone
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Titre Fig. 8. Profiles of the cavity
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,2M
Titre Fig. 9. Drawing of the main section of the rock shelter, south of the 2007 berm (section 1) and a transverse exterior section (section 2)
Légende The position of the sections is given on the top left
Crédits CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Titre Fig. 10. Stratigraphic schema
Crédits CAD : G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 371k
Titre Fig. 11. Location of the charcoal samples used for dating
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 324k
Titre Fig. 12. Pont-Glas. Plan of the plotted stones in all the SU
Crédits CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,7M
Titre Fig. 13. Pont-Glas. Plan of SU 2 and SU 2/3 (first survey) outside the rock shelter
Crédits CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Fig. 14. View of block 3 from the top of the shelter, with the berm (at the top of SU 2)
Légende Debitage traces are clearly visible on the block
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Titre Fig. 15. Berm from 2007, viewed from inside the rock shelter, with the careful paving of structure 1
Légende In the background, the accumulation of loose blocks is characteristic of SU 2 and extends over the whole front of the shelter
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Titre Fig. 16. View of structure 1 (US 5.1.) in square N24 (during the dismantling of the berm)
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Titre Fig. 17. Pont-Glas. Plan of SU 3 outside the rock shelter and SU 5.3 inside
Crédits CAD: L. Quesnel and G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Titre Fig. 18. Pont-Glas. Sequences of the hearths (1 and 2) and the trampled zone (structure 3; US 5.9)
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,1M
Titre Fig. 19. Berm from 2007 viewed from the outside of the shelter, with natural blocks embedded in the sediment in the foreground on the right
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,5M
Titre Fig. 20. Berm from 2007 viewed from the outside of the shelter, with natural blocks embedded in the sediment in the foreground on the right
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 6,5M
Titre Fig. 21. Interior of the shelter emptied of sediments, with the zone of natural trampled stones (SU 5.9 / structure 3) at the centre of the photograph
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,5M
Titre Fig. 22. Stratigraphic distribution of the lithic objects (N=998)
Légende The arenaceous units comprise 40% of the knapped lithic objects
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 194k
Titre Fig. 23. Distribution of all the knapped lithic objects, all SU combined
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 834k
Titre Fig. 24. Stratigraphic distribution of raw materials, expressed in number of objects
Légende The right hand ordinate axis represents the curves (coarse rocks), the left hand ordinate axis represents the bars (fine and semi-fine rocks)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 325k
Titre Fig. 25. Distribution of the main knapped raw materials, all SU combined
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 828k
Titre Fig. 26. Distribution of the coarse raw materials, all SU combined
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 661k
Titre Fig. 27. Connections and refit in the lower (in red) and upper (in green) arenaceous SU by Thomas Horcholle in 2014
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 860k
Titre Fig. 28. Distribution of the armatures by components, all SU combined
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 821k
Titre Fig. 29. Distribution of the tools and armatures, all SU combined
Crédits CAD: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 806k
Titre Fig. 30. Proportions of knapped raw materials (998 objects)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 278k
Titre Fig. 31. Proportions of the different lithic materials, classified by ascending order of provisioning distances from left to right
Légende Flint is clearly valued and the decreasing rule according to distance is not applicable to this material
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-31.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 291k
Titre Fig. 32. Pont-Glas rock shelter (black star), the main Mesolithic open-air sites and the outcrops of knappable rock in Finistère
Légende Ge: Eocene sandstone; UT: Tremeven ultramylonite; CM: cataclasite from Mikaël; Clos: chalcedony from Clos; FL: microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau). Site names: 1: Pont-Glas (Plounéour-Ménez); 2: Quillien (Le Cloitre-Saint-Thégonnec); 3: la Presqu’île (Brennilis); 4: Kerbizien (Huelgoat); 5: le Drennec (Commana); 6: le Clos (Plourin-lès-Morlaix); 7: Coabalan (La Forest-Landerneau); 8: le Moulin de Penguilly (Bodilis); 9: l’Ormeau (Plabennec); 10: Kerdunvel (Plourin-Ploudalmézeau); 11: Kerliézoc (Plouvien); 12: Ty-Nancien (Plovan); 13: Beg-an-Dorchenn (Plomeur)
Crédits CAD: P. Forré and G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-32.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,1M
Titre Fig. 33. Distribution of the main categories of lithic products in the toolkit and debitage, for the main knapped rocks
Légende CM: cataclasite from Mikaël, GE: Eocene sandstone, FL: microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau, Sx: flint
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-33.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 283k
Titre Table V. Non-retouched debitage products by stratigraphic unit
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-34.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 786k
Titre Fig. 38. Cores from Pont-Glas
Légende no 1: core on flake in cataclasite from Mikaël (O24, US 5.2); no 2: core in cataclasite from Mikaël (P23, US 5.3); no 3: burnt flint core (1987 test pit, -5 to -20 cm)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-35.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 498k
Titre Fig. 39. Armatures from Pont-Glas
Légende 1 to 3: narrow scalene triangles; 4 to 6, 12: points with retouched bases; 7 to 10: backed bladelet fragments; 11: indeterminate armature; 13 and 14: points with oblique truncation; 15: armature with a pseudo-microburin Krukowski type break; 1, 6 and 17: wide scalene triangles; 18 to 27: asymmetric trapezes; 28: trapezoid bitruncation classified with the trapezes (Flint: 1, 3, 4, 6 to 10, 15 to 17, 20 to 28; GE: 2, 5, 12 to 14; FL: 11; CT: 18 and 19)
Crédits Drawing: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-36.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 753k
Titre Fig. 40. Armatures and common tools form Pont-Glas
Légende 1: armature destroyed on impact; 2: symmetric trapeze; 3 and 4: broken armature (no direct connection, but may be the same tool); 5: proximal microburin; 6 to 14: used blades and bladelets; 15, 17: used flakes; 16: fusiform perforator; 18: thin denticulated flake (Flint: 1 to 6, 9, 11 to 16, 18; FL: 7; CM: 10, 17; Phtanite: 8)
Crédits Drawing: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-37.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 822k
Titre Fig. 41. Flakes in ultramylonite from Tréméven
Crédits Drawing: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-38.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 102k
Titre Fig. 42. Tools
Légende no 1-3 : pièces esquillées in flint; no 4 : pick in microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau
Crédits Drawing: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-39.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 502k
Titre Fig. 43. View of the pick in microquartzite from Forest-Landerneau from four different angles
Crédits Photo: G. Marchand
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-40.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 652k
Titre Fig. 49. Anthracological diagram from the site of Pont-Glas
Légende Observation frequencies of the different taxa from the four analysed stratigraphic units
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-41.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 186k
Titre Fig. 50. Anthracological diagram of stratigraphic unit 5.6
Légende Observation frequencies of the different taxa per analysed square
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-42.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 143k
Titre Fig. 51. Calibre of the oaks from the four stratigraphic units
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-43.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 127k
Titre Fig. 52. Histograms of the oak ring width classes from the four stratigraphic units, average and standard deviation
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-44.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 221k
Titre Fig. 53. Diameter classes of the insect holes observed on the charcoal from the Mesolithic stratigraphic units
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-45.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 96k
Titre Fig. 54. Aspect of the oak charcoal from the four stratigraphic units
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-46.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 111k
Titre Fig. 55. Anthracological diagram of the Mesolithic sites from the Armorican Massif
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-47.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 204k
Titre Fig. 56. Histograms of the oak ring width classes from the Mesolithic sites
URL http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/docannexe/image/500/img-48.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 269k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Grégor Marchand, Michel Le Goffic, Klet Donnart, Nancy Marcoux et Laurent Quesnel, « Understanding Mesolithic mobility systems: the Pont-Glas rock shelter at Plounéour-Ménez (Finistère) », Gallia Préhistoire, 57 | 2017, 225-228.

Référence électronique

Grégor Marchand, Michel Le Goffic, Klet Donnart, Nancy Marcoux et Laurent Quesnel, « Understanding Mesolithic mobility systems: the Pont-Glas rock shelter at Plounéour-Ménez (Finistère) », Gallia Préhistoire [En ligne], 57 | 2017, mis en ligne le 15 février 2018, consulté le 23 juin 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/galliap/500 ; DOI : 10.4000/galliap.500

Haut de page

Auteurs

Grégor Marchand

UMR 6566 du CNRS – CREAAH, Laboratoire Archéosciences, Bâtiment 24-25, Université de Rennes 1, CS 74205, 35042 Rennes Cedex – gregor.marchand@univ-rennes1.fr

Michel Le Goffic

20 rue Groas ar Vern, 29450 Commana – michel.le-goffic@orange.fr

Klet Donnart

Éveha Rennes, 23 rue des Maréchales, ZAC des Trois Marches, 35132 Vézin-le-Coquet – klet_donnart@yahoo.fr

Nancy Marcoux

UMR 6566 du CNRS – CREAAH, Laboratoire Archéosciences, Bâtiment 24-25, Université de Rennes 1, CS 74205, 35042 Rennes Cedex – nancy.marcoux@univ-rennes1.fr

Laurent Quesnel

UMR 6566 du CNRS – CREAAH, Laboratoire Archéosciences, Bâtiment 24-25, Université de Rennes 1, CS 74205, 35042 Rennes Cedex – laurent.quesnel@univ-rennes1.fr

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Gallia Préhistoire

Haut de page
  • Logo CNRS Éditions
  • OpenEdition Journals