Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:15:40.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lost and found: the remarkable curatorial history of one of the earliest discoveries of Palaeolithic portable art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

S.M. Bello ,
G. Delbarre ,
S.A. Parfitt ,
A.P. Currant ,
R. Kruszynski  and
C.B. Stringer
S.M. Bello*
Affiliation:
1Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
G. Delbarre
Affiliation:
1Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
S.A. Parfitt
Affiliation:
2Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK 1Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
A.P. Currant
Affiliation:
1Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
R. Kruszynski
Affiliation:
1Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
C.B. Stringer
Affiliation:
1Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Reassessment of archives, early publications and the auditing of museum collections have often led to the discovery or rediscovery of long-forgotten specimens (e.g. Hollmann et at. 1986: 330; Fainer & Man-Estier 2011: 506, 520). The combination of initial poor recognition, insufcient scientic analysis and inadequate storage conditions, can cause the loss to science of important archaeological specimens. New analytical techniques may allow reconsideration of previous interpretations (e.g. P illon 2008: 720, 723-24; Hello et aZ. 2011; Higham et aZ. 2011: 522, 524) but in some cases it is the scientific value of a specimen that is not recognised at the moment of its discovery (e.g. Rosendahl et aZ. 2003: 277; Kaagan et aZ. 2011). Particularly revealing examples are those where the specimen found is the first of its kind. This was the case with the first handaxe recognised as manufactured by humans (Gamble & Kruszynski 2009: 468-70) or the rst two sets of Neanderthal fossil remains found respectively at Engis in 1829-30 and Gibraltar in 1848, which were not recognised as an early human species until after the 1856 discovery of _Neanderthal 1 at the Kleine Feldhofer Grotte in the Neander Valley near DUsseldorf, Germany (Stringer & Gamble 1993: 13). Similarly, lack of recognition caused the near loss of an engraved antler from the Magdalenian site of Neschers (France), possibly one of the first examples of Palaeolithic portable art.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 87 , Issue 335 , March 2013 , pp. 237 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bahn, P. & Vertut, J.. 1997. Journey through the Ice Age. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Bello, S. M., Parfitt, S. A. & Stringer, C. B.. 2011. Earliest directly-dated human skull-cups. PLoS ONE 6(2): e17026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017026.Google Scholar
Berghaus, G. 2004. The discovery and study of prehistoric art, in Berghaus, G. (ed.) New perspectives on prehistoric art: 1–10. Westport (CT): Praeger.Google Scholar
Cheynier, A. 1936. Jouannet, grand-père de la préhistoire. Brive: Société Historique et Archéologique du Périgord.Google Scholar
Cleyet-Merle, J-J. 1995. La province préhistorique des Eyzies, 400 000 ans d'occupation humaine. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Cleyet-Merle, J-J. & Marino-Thiault, M-H. 1990. Les premières fouilles de Lartet et Christy et la reconnaissance de l'homme antédiluvien en Périgord. Paléo 1: 19–24.Google Scholar
Croizet, J-B. 1853. Observations générales sur la géologie et la paléontologie. Clermont-Ferrand: Hubler, Bayle & Dubos.Google Scholar
Croizet, J-B. 1855. Compte rendu des découvertes de Neschers. Paper presented at the Congrès Scientifique de France, 22ème Session. Le Puy (France), September 1855.Google Scholar
Croizet, J-B. & Jobert, A.C.G.. 1828. Recherches sur les ossements fossiles du département du Puy-de-Dôme. Paris: Chez les Principaux Libraires.Google Scholar
Cuvier, G. 1830. Discours sur les révolutions de la surface du globe. Paris: Chez E. d'Ocagne.Google Scholar
Daugas, J.-P. 1979. Les gisements préhistoriques de la grotte du Cheix Saint-Diéry et de Neschers (Puy-de-Dôme), in Sonneville-Bordes, D. de (ed.) La Fin des temps glaciaires en Europe: chronostratigraphie et écologie des cultures du Paléolithique final 2: 537–43. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
De Saint-Mathurin, S. 1971. Les biches du Chaffaud (Vienne). Vicissitudes d'une découverte. Antiquités Nationales 3: 21–28.Google Scholar
Delporte, H. 1990. L'image des animaux dans l'art préhistorique. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. & Kruszynski, R.. 2009. John Evans, Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the time barrier. Antiquity 83: 461–75.Google Scholar
Golfier, M. 1998. Jean-Baptiste Croize: curé de Neschers et paléontologue, 1787-1859. Neschers: Published by the author.Google Scholar
Goulven, L. 1989. Idées sur l'origine de l'homme en France de 1800 à 1871 entre Lamark et Darwin. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris 1(3/4): 105–29.Google Scholar
Grellet, F. 1863. L'Éloge biographique de l'Abbé Croizet. Paper presented at the Meeting of l'Académie des Sciences, Belles-Lettres et Arts de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand (France), 4 June 1863. Available at: http://www.annales.org/archives/cofrhigeo/croizet.html (accessed 21 June 2012).Google Scholar
Higham, T., Compton, T., Stringer, C., Jacobi, R., Shapiro, B., Trinkaus, E., Chandler, B., Gröning, F., Collins, C., Hillson, S., O'Higgins, P., Fitzgerald, C. & Fagan, M.. 2011. The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in northwestern Europe. Nature 479: 521–24.Google Scholar
Hollman, D., Spennemann, D. & Wolf, G.. 1986. A rediscovered Javanese ceremonial axe housed in the Museum of Natural History at Mayence, FRG. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 142(2/3): 330–37.Google Scholar
Kaagan, L. M., Bahn, P. G. & Lister, A. M.. 2011. Discovery of a horse engraving from Bruniquel, France. Antiquity 85. Available at: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/kaagan330/ (accessed 10 December 2011).Google Scholar
Mérimée, P. 1853. Mémoire de l'Institut impérial de France. Rapport sur les découvertes de Joly-Leterme. Procès-verbaux de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 20(1): 252–53.Google Scholar
Miallier, D., Daugas, J-P., Surmely, F., Fain, J., Montret, M., Polleyre, P. T., Sanzelle, S., De Goër de Hervé, A. & Liabeuf, R.. 1994. Le gisement magdalénien de Neschers et sa situation par rapport à la coulée basaltique du Tartaret (Puy-de-Dôme): état de la question. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise 91(2): 119–22.Google Scholar
Paillet, P. & Man-Estier, E.. 2011. Oeuvres d'art méconnues de Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne). Collection Capitaine Maurice Bourlon – Institut de paléontologie humaine, Paris. L'Anthropologie 115: 505–21.Google Scholar
Pétillon, J-M. 2008. First evidence of a whale-bone industry in the western European Upper Paleolithic: Magdalenian artefacts from Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France). Journal of Human Evolution 54(5): 720–26.Google Scholar
Rosendahl, W., Maureille, B. & Trinkaus, E.. 2003. Rediscovery of the Badegoule 5 skeletal remains (Badegoule, Le Lardin-Saint-Lazare, Dordogne, France). Paléo 15: 273–78.Google Scholar
Stringer, C. & Gamble, C.. 1993. In search of the Neanderthals: solving the puzzle of human origins. New York: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Woodward, H. 1882. Guide to the exhibition galleries of geology and palaeontology. London: British Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar