2006 : The Pierre Fritte dolmen in Yermenonville (Eure-et-Loir) |
|
The
second leg of the 2005-2007 programmed excavation was, quite
logically, an intermediate campaign. Its objectives, as
defined initially, were to finish excavating the ossuary
trench and to continue uncovering the monument’s outlying
sectors and exploring the sizeable pit located less than
3 meters from the Pierre Fritte dolmen.
|
| |
|
| |
|
It is becoming increasingly obvious that this modest megalithic
monument in the Beauce region has an unusual past that distinguishes
it significantly from the Neolithic funerary rites and practices
with which we are familiar. Indeed, there is good reason to
believe that the dolmen (set in an environment dated Middle
Neolithic 2) was not initially destined for burial at all,
but that it did serve in an auxiliary manner as the “container”
for an ossuary-type trench dating to the Late Neolithic. |
| |
|
| |
| With
completion of the excavation of the ossuary trench, it was
confirmed to contain several thousand bone fragments in disconnection
and shattered, with the longest of these never exceeding 20
cm in length. Also present are many small isolated bones and
teeth, which circumstance would tend to indicate that considerable
care was taken in retrieving and transporting this material.
As of this writing, the MNI count has been partially completed
by the anthropologist and the dental surgeon. A population
of 20 individuals has been identified: fifteen of these are
over 10 years in age including eight adults (> 18 yrs);
there are also four juveniles (< 10 yrs), and one un- or
new-born infant. The bones of these individuals occur randomly,
and the many instances where pieces found in quite different
positions have been glued back together prove that this was
a one-time operation with no successive or additional deposits.
Late Neolithic grave goods are compatible with previous finds. |
| |
|
| |
|
The limits
of excavation of the large pit were extended to the east.
Digging halted at a depth of about 1.2 m, where a level of
limestone blocks was encountered. |
| |
|
| |
|
We likewise excavated a one-meter-wide strip of the dolmen’s
peripheral limestone pavement over a length of 4 m. The surface
we had previously uncovered turns out not to reflect the configuration
of the underlying levels. There were in fact structures (notably
wedging of posts) beneath that were not visible on the surface
(altered by ploughing or rearrangements). Furthermore, the
surface of the undisturbed geological layer (Beauce limestone)
displays rather unnatural relief, as though modified by man.
Might these features be evidence of activity related to the
dolmen’s building process? These observations would
indicate that it would be advisable to undertake the excavation
of the full thickness of the entire limestone pavement. |
| Considerable
effort has been made not to fall behind in analysis and
publication tasks: all the excavation data has been recorded
on the computer, all the charts and drawings are up to date,
and all artefacts have been sketched. The gluing of bones
and pottery has progressed well. |
| |
Excavation
layout in 2006
(© Jean-Marc Mourain) |
 |
|
| |
| All
the specialists who took part in the previous year’s
campaign returned in 2006. Supplementary studies are reproduced
in appendixes to the report. These specialists were: |
| Aude
Civetta, for anthropological studies, Dominique Jagu, for
odontology and Jéremie Chombart, for studies on fauna.
Lastly, Marie-Amélie and François Fouriaux,
who installed a GIS in 2005 using commercial, user-friendly
software, devoted their efforts during the 2006 campaign to
creating 3D reconstitutions in support of our working hypotheses. |
| |
| Two bone
samples for dating by Tendetron analysis were submitted to
the Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory in Poland, and two sedimentological
samples (from the ossuary trench and the peripheral pavement)
were sent for palynological analysis to the Recherche Paléoécologique
en Archéologie laboratory in Lyon. As of this writing,
we are awaiting the results of these analyses. Our concern
this year has been to concentrate on the spatial and chronological
analysis of the monument: beginning with the megalith’s
construction on through to its desertion once the ossuary
trench had been created. |
| |
| |
| |
Summary
of the 2006 excavation report |
Text
: Dominique Jagu |
|
|
|
