Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:25:43.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mesolithic in the South of France: a critical analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

M. A. Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the time when the type-sites of the Dordogne were being explored French archaeologists were equally active further south in their country. From caves and surface sites in the Mediterranean provinces local landowners, doctors and clergy were collecting material which not only matched most of the palaeolithic tool forms being distinguished in the south-west of France, but was later to provide Déchelette with many of his illustrations for the neolithic and metal ages. It was not uncommon for flints, pottery and metal all to come from the same cave.

These old collections, or such of them as can be traced, are the basis of what is known about the prehistory of the south of France. Unfortunately, much of the material has come down to us with very little information, apart from provenance, and although some details of excavation were carefully recorded it seems generally to have been considered that plans of caves were more informative than sections through them.

Topographically the south of France consists largely of a narrow alluvial plain, stretching right round the Gulf of Lions between the Italian and Spanish frontiers and broadening out in the delta of the Rhône. Today the region is distinguished from the rest of France by its Mediterranean climate. East of the Rhône, in Provence, this coastal climate is soon modified to the north by the high mountains, but in the old province of Languedoc between the Rhône and the Pyrenees the typical Mediterranean vegetation is carried up onto the rocky limestone plateau, or Garrigue, until it reaches the barren Causses of the Massif Central. In France, the western limit of this climatic zone falls between Carcassonne and Toulouse, but eastward and to the south the Mediterranean conditions continue, so that the south French plain forms a climatic unit with the coastlands of Italy and Spain.

This plain, shut in to the north by high land, is most easily accessible from the sea or coastwise from adjacent Mediterranean countries. Easy communication with the rest of France is confined to the great river valleys of the Rhône and Aude which cut through the mountains to the north and west.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , May 1953 , pp. 103 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1953

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

page 104 note 1 de Fondouce, Cazalis, Géographie du Dépt. de l'Héault, vol. IIIGoogle Scholar, Soc. Languedocienne de Géographie, 1905; Louis, M., Préhistoire du Languedoc Méditerranéen et du Roussillon Nîmes, 1948Google Scholar; Sauter, M., Préhistoire de la Méditerranée. Payot, Paris, 1948Google Scholar.

page 106 note 1 B. and Bottet, B., ‘La Baume Bonne,’ Bull. Soc. Préh. Franç., 1947, 5–6Google Scholar; H. Stecchi and B. Bottet, ‘La Baume Perigaud,’ ibid., 1950, 1–2.

page 106 note 2 See Brea, L. Bernabo, ‘Preistoria,’ Encycl. Ital. Suppl., 1949Google Scholar.

page 106 note 3 Lacorre, F. and Barral, L., ‘Aperçus nouveaux sur les industries et les âges des squelettes de la Grotte des Enfants à Grimaldi,’ Revue d'Etudes Ligures, XIV, 1–3, 1948Google Scholar.

page 107 note 1 See Zeuner, F., Dating the Past, Ch. VII, London, 1950Google ScholarPubMed.

page 107 note 2 Lacorre and Barral, op. cit.

page 108 note 1 Denizot, G., ‘Les relations fluvio-glaciaires en bordure des Pyrénées centrales,’ Soc. Geol. de France, Congrès 7–21 juin, 1948Google Scholar; G. Denizot, ‘Sur les relations fluvio-glaciaires dans la vallées du Rhône,’ ibid.

page 108 note 2 Marcelin, P., Observations sur des terres et des sols en région Méditerranéenne; I–Terres et sols en Costière. Nîmes, 1947Google Scholar.

page 110 note 1 Vaufrey, R., L'Anthropologie, 1935, p. 138–40Google Scholar.

page 110 note 2 For example: Gimpera, P. Bosch, Etnologia de la Peninsula Ibérica. Barcelona. 1932Google Scholar. In ‘Études sur le néolithique et énéolithique de France,’ (Rev. Anthrop., 1923, 7–9)Google Scholar Bosch Gimpera actually calls the upper part of the Azilian layer at La Crouzade, which contains more microliths, ‘Tardenoisian.’ In fact there are only two examples of triangles with two worked edges; the majority of the microliths are backed points or crescents.

page 110 note 3 M. et Péquart, St. J., ‘Nouvelles fouilles à Mas d'Azil,’ Préhistoire, VIII, 1941Google Scholar.

page 110 note 4 Pericot, L., La cueva del Parpalló. Madrid, 1942Google Scholar.

page 111 note 1 Vilaseca, S., ‘L'estacio taller de silex de Sant Gregori,’ Memorias y notas de la Academia de Ciencias de Barcelona, vol. XXIII, num. 21. Barcelona, 1934Google Scholar.

paeg 111 note 2 J. Corominas, La Coleccion Corominas de la ‘Bora Gran.’ Monografia del Institute de Estudios Pirenaicos, no. 15. Zaragoza, 1949.

page 112 note 1 Octobon, E., ‘Réflections sur l'hiatus,’ Festschrift für Otto Tschumi. Frauenfeld, 1948Google Scholar; also unpublished material in the collections of Dr R. Beaucaire at Istres.

page 113 note 1 Peyrony, D., Eléments de préhistoire. Paris, 1948Google Scholar.

page 113 note 2 Peyrony, D., ‘Gisement préhistorique de Crabillat,’ Bull. Soc. Préh. Franç. 1941, 11–12Google Scholar.

page 113 note 3 E. Octobon, op. cit.

page 113 note 4 The bottom layer at Cuzoul, with only one reindeer tooth remaining of Pleistocene fauna, looks already post-glacial and consequently does not provide the necessary link with a palaeolithic industry.

page 113 note 5 D. et E. Peyrony, Laugerie Haute, Arch, de l'Inst. de Paléontologie Humaine, no. 19. Paris, 1939.

page 113 note 6 Peyrony, D., Bull. Soc. Préh. Franç., 1941, 11–12Google Scholar; for the Mediterranean provinces of France, the collections of the Musée d'Histoire naturelle de Nîmes.

page 116 note 1 e.g. Octobon, E., Bull. Soc. Préh. Franç., 1924, 7–9Google Scholar.

page 116 note 2 de Fonton, M. Escalon, ‘Les grottes de Riaux.’ Bull. du Mus. d'Hist. Nat. de Marseille, Tome IX, no. 1. Pl. III and IVGoogle Scholar.

page 116 note 3 de Fonton, M. Escalon, ‘Découverte d'un Paléolithique supérieur dans la region Marseillaise,’ Mém. de l'Inst. Hist. de Provence, T. XXII, 1947Google Scholar.

page 116 note 4 Heaps of snail shells are also found in the upper layers at Mas d'Azil and Valle, with the Sauveterrian at the name-site, at Grimaldian coastal sites in Sicily and in the Capsian ‘escargotières’ of N. Africa.

page 117 note 1 Cardini, L., ‘Gli strati mesolitici et paleolitici delle Arene Candide,’ Rivista di Studi Liguri, XII, num. 1–3, Dec. 1946Google Scholar.

page 117 note 2 Octobon, E., ‘Reflections sur l'hiatus,’ Festschrifts für Otto Tschumi. Frauenfeld, 1948Google Scholar.

page 117 note 3 Daniel, R., ‘Nouvelles études sur le Tardenoisien français,’ Bull. Soc. Préh. Franç., 1933, no. 3Google Scholar.

page 118 note 1 M. et St. J. Péquart, Téviec, station-nécropole méolithique du Morbihan. Arch, de l'Instit. de Paléontolog Humaine, no. 18, 1937.

page 118 note 2 de Fonton, M. Escalon, ‘Découverte du Tardenoisian à Châteauneuf-les-Martigues,’ Soc. d'Etudes paléontologiques et paléthnographiques de Provence; C.R. 1950, T. IIIGoogle Scholar.

page 118 note 3 Pericot, L., ‘La cueva de la Cocina,’ Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina, II, 1945Google Scholar.