Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access December 3, 2021

Sign-Objects Among Neolithic Faunal Remains, Visible Symbols

  • Lamys Hachem EMAIL logo
From the journal Open Archaeology

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present an inventory of certain faunal remains from Linearbandkeramic (LBK) settlements in the Paris Basin (Ile-de-France, Hauts-de-France and Champagne) that seem to belong to a particular category, that of “sign-objects,” in other words, tangible evidence intended to be shown and directly interpretable by an observer belonging to the society which produced them. Based on three categories of archaeological contexts, a ceremonial enclosure, settlements and graves, we will attempt to highlight the species that were important to Neolithic society. Two of them, the domestic cattle and the aurochs, are particularly involved in the deposits through the exhibition of their bones or their horn cores. Sheep and roe deer are also involved through, for example, transformed bones such as perforated tibias or sharpened roe deer antlers. The results of the analysis were integrated into an archaeological model previously developed to approach the social structure of the Neolithic society.

1 Introduction

This article aims to examine bone remains that have undergone a limited transformation and were discovered on excavated Early Neolithic sites in the Paris Basin (France). The objects dating to the Linearbandkeramic (LBK) period appear to belong to a category that can be qualified as “sign-objects”: concrete evidence intended to be shown and directly interpretable by an observer belonging to the society which produced them. Based on the examination of faunal remains from an enclosure (Menneville) as well as from a number of burials and 22 contemporary settlements in the Paris Basin, we will try to establish which species are involved in specific consumptions, or particular rituals and which of their anatomical parts are concerned. We will also attempt to integrate these results into an archaeological model previously constructed from data from the Paris Basin to approach the social structure of this Neolithic society.

More than a hundred settlements that have been dated to the LBK (from the earliest LBK through to the Final LBK) in temperate Europe have produced faunal assemblages that have been studied or are undergoing study. Several overviews of the fauna of the Danubian early Neolithic have already been published, referred to as the Middle and Late Neolithic in central European terminology, including works by the following: (Arbogast, 1994; Bedault, 2012; Bogucki, 1988; Bökönyi, 1974; Döhle, 1994; Hachem, 1999, 2011; Marciniak, 2005; Müller, 1964; Tresset, 1996). Two regions of northern France, the Paris Basin and Alsace, have provided important faunal assemblages for this period. In recent decades, excavations have greatly increased our knowledge by revealing significant faunal corpora, particularly in the Paris Basin. This is primarily due to the differential preservation of bone; unlike many of the loess regions in temperate Europe, the Paris Basin has calcareous subsoils which favour the preservation of bone. The combination of well-preserved bone remains, distinct individual building plans, low density of structures and the short duration of occupation in comparison to other European sites limits the risk of chronological mixtures. With very few exceptions, all LBK settlements in the Paris Basin are located to the east of the Seine, with a significant concentration in the Aisne valley (Figure 1). The radiocarbon dates for the Rubané Final du Bassin de la Seine (RFBS) settlements in the Aisne valley fall between 5100 and 4900 BC (Dubouloz, 2003).

Figure 1 
               Distribution of LBK settlements in the Paris Basin with faunal assemblages that have been studied or are undergoing study (map: L. Bedault): (1) Pont-Saint-Maxence “le Jonquoire”; (2) Osly-Courtil “la Terre Saint-Mard”; (3 and 4) Bucy-le-Long “la Fosselle”- Bucy-le-Long “la Héronnière/la Fosse Tounise”; (5) Missy-sur-Aisne “le Culot”; (6) Chassemy “le Grand Horle”; (7) Presles-et-Boves “les Bois Plantés”; (8) Concevreux “les Jombras”; (9) Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes “les Fontinettes”; (10) Pontavert “le Port-aux-Marbres”; (11–13) Berry-au-Bac “le Chemin de la Pêcherie”- Berry-au-Bac “la Croix Maigret”- Berry-au-Bac “le Vieux Tordoir”; (14–16) Menneville (village) “Derrière le Village”- Menneville (enclosure) “Derrière le Village”- Menneville “la Bourguignotte”; (17) Juvigny “les Grands Traquiers”; (18 and 19) Larzicourt “Champ Buchotte”- Larzicourt “Ribeaupré”; (20) Norrois “la Raie des Lignes”; (21) Orconte “les Noues”; (22) Armeau; (23) Balloy “les Reaudins;” (24) Chaumont “les Grahuches”; and (25) Champlay “les Carpes.”
Figure 1

Distribution of LBK settlements in the Paris Basin with faunal assemblages that have been studied or are undergoing study (map: L. Bedault): (1) Pont-Saint-Maxence “le Jonquoire”; (2) Osly-Courtil “la Terre Saint-Mard”; (3 and 4) Bucy-le-Long “la Fosselle”- Bucy-le-Long “la Héronnière/la Fosse Tounise”; (5) Missy-sur-Aisne “le Culot”; (6) Chassemy “le Grand Horle”; (7) Presles-et-Boves “les Bois Plantés”; (8) Concevreux “les Jombras”; (9) Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes “les Fontinettes”; (10) Pontavert “le Port-aux-Marbres”; (11–13) Berry-au-Bac “le Chemin de la Pêcherie”- Berry-au-Bac “la Croix Maigret”- Berry-au-Bac “le Vieux Tordoir”; (14–16) Menneville (village) “Derrière le Village”- Menneville (enclosure) “Derrière le Village”- Menneville “la Bourguignotte”; (17) Juvigny “les Grands Traquiers”; (18 and 19) Larzicourt “Champ Buchotte”- Larzicourt “Ribeaupré”; (20) Norrois “la Raie des Lignes”; (21) Orconte “les Noues”; (22) Armeau; (23) Balloy “les Reaudins;” (24) Chaumont “les Grahuches”; and (25) Champlay “les Carpes.”

Cattle, sheep, goat and pig constitute the majority of the faunal remains, and cattle breeding is geared towards the production of meat. Although domestic animals are abundant, the hunting rate remains relatively high, especially in terms of the weight of meat from red deer and wild boar. Roe deer and aurochs are the two other large games, while wolf, bear and horse are rare. Small game is essentially represented by beaver, but there are many other fur species. Various birds, fish and amphibious species complete the list of animals found in the pits.

Different parameters introduce variations in the pattern of finds in the Paris Basin: chronology, type and function of the households, individual choices, and finally position of the houses in the settlement (Hachem, 2018).

2 Fauna within the Ceremonial Enclosure at Menneville

The site of Menneville “Derrière le Village” includes an enclosure, encompassing an area of 6.5 hectares, as well as a village of seven houses; the chronological relationship between the settlement and the enclosure is still unclear (Farruggia, Guichard, & Hachem, 1996). Approximately one-third of the surface has been excavated (Figure 2), revealing a total of 30 inhumation burials (Thevenet, 2010, 2016, 2017; Thevenet et al., forthcoming).

Figure 2 
               Menneville “Derrière le Village,” Dép. Aisne, France. Plan of the enclosure and settlement (excavations 1976–1978 and 1988–1990), graphics UMR 8215 Trajectoires, after Thevenet, 2016, Figure 2, modified.
Figure 2

Menneville “Derrière le Village,” Dép. Aisne, France. Plan of the enclosure and settlement (excavations 1976–1978 and 1988–1990), graphics UMR 8215 Trajectoires, after Thevenet, 2016, Figure 2, modified.

The analysis of the fauna is still in progress, but we can identify trends from the faunal remains that we have already studied in previous excavation campaigns (Farruggia et al., 1996; Hachem, 2018), a large part of which are listed in the recent excavation reports (Thevenet, 2018, 2020). The fauna recorded from the Menneville enclosure differs from that found in the lateral pits of LBK houses in the Paris Basin (Auxiette & Hachem, 2021; Hachem, 2001, 2018). A number of essential differences can be highlighted. Firstly, the taphonomy is not the same (at Menneville the preservation of remains is much better since they were buried rapidly and deeply) and, secondly, the types of discarded material are dissimilar (scarcity of bones and absence of fragments). Finally, while consumption on the settlement sites is varied and based on three principal domestic species, as well as on a significant number of wild animals (Table 1), on the enclosure site, the remains are almost exclusively composed of domestic animals (Table 2). Cattle and sheep (no adult goats have been identified) predominate and are present in almost all of the ditch segments, while pigs are only found in some. Dogs occur even more rarely. Red deer and aurochs occur in very small proportions while roe deer and horse have only been recorded once.

Table 1

Number of remains of the ten main species by site and by chronological phase in the LBK of the Aisne valley (Hauts-de-France)

Sites Phase Total remains Total houses NISP Domestic Wild Cattle Caprinae Pig Red deer Wild boar Roe deer Aurochs Beaver
BCP Early 5,068 3 1,868 1,802 66 1,176 371 255 30 6 13 11 0
CCF Early 9,774 6 3,154 2,290 748 1,414 471 402 235 245 130 30 78
BVT Early 662 3 324 264 51 169 68 27 18 7 2 22 0
Total Early 15,504 12 5,346 4,356 865 2,759 910 684 283 258 145 63 78
MDV Middle 2,400 3 916 737 164 507 114 109 41 26 31 7 45
BLF Middle 5,029 6 1,712 1,551 149 1,076 310 158 54 34 22 21 0
CCF Middle 17,349 10 5,901 4,757 1,084 3,275 749 726 303 326 123 113 134
Total Middle 24,778 19 8,529 7,045 1,397 4,858 1,173 993 398 386 176 141 179
MAC Final 3,428 6 978 853 116 438 341 74 26 11 7 18 46
BLF Final 4,236 2 1,427 1,363 58 936 300 127 17 6 10 12 3
BVT Final 1,937 2 656 492 160 218 231 42 75 32 38 7 0
MDV Final 5,037 3 949 904 37 608 230 65 16 4 5 0 0
CCF Final 21,597 9 6,512 5,505 939 2,877 1,741 883 198 204 192 78 129
Total Final 28,571 22 10,522 9,117 1,310 5,077 2,843 1191 332 257 252 115 178

BCP: Berry-au-Bac “le Chemin de la Pêcherie,” BVT: Berry-au-Bac “le Vieux Tordoir,” CCF: Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes “les Fontinettes,” BLF: Bucy-le-Long “la Fosselle,” MDV: Menneville “Derrière le Village,” MAC: Missy-sur-Aisne “le Culot.”

Table 2

List of faunal remains discovered in three ditch segments from the LBK enclosure of Menneville “Derrière le Village”: 563, 571, 572 (excavations 2013–2016)

563 571 572
Cattle (Bos taurus) 36 58 65
Caprines (Ovis aries/Capra hircus) 7 188 107
Pig (Sus domesticus) 1 80 113
Red deer (Cervus elaphus) 4
Aurochs (Bos primigenius) 1
Cattle or Aurochs (Bos sp.) 2
Red deer antlers 1 1
Total NISP 49 330 285
Indeterminate 19 10 19
Total 68 340 304

Furthermore, the treatment of the animals at Menneville differs from one species to another. With the exception of a single complete calf (Thevenet et al., forthcoming, Figure 16), cattle are only present in the form of skeletal articulations or large fragments of the diaphysis. These elements (Table 3) were selected according to a clear order of importance: articulated vertebrae, cranial elements (upper jaws, lower jaws, bucrania (Hachem, 2018, Figure 6) and horn cores (Figure 3)), upper limbs (entire scapulae, proximal and distal radius/ulna) (Hachem, 2018, Figure 5), metapodials and, finally, lower limbs (femurs, proximal and distal tibiae, coxal parts, Figure 4).

Table 3

Cattle anatomical parts discovered in three ditch segments from the LBK enclosure of Menneville “Derrière le Village”: 563, 571, 572 (excavations 2013–2016)

Cattle 563 571 572
Bucrania 1
Horn 1 3
Skull fragments 1
Maxilla 2 1
Mandible 3 1 3
Upper teeth 2
Lower teeth 1
Indeterminate teeth 1
Atlas 1 2 2
Axis 2 1
Cervical 1 8 2
Thoracic 8 2
Lumbar 13 7
Caudal 1
Indeterminate vertebra 1 5
Scapula 2 3 2
Humerus 3 4
Radius 4 2 4
Ulna 2 2
Carpal 3
Metacarpus 2 2
Coxal 2 3
Sacrum 1
Femur 1 4
Tibia 3 3 4
Astragalus 2
Calcaneus 1
Metatarsus 2 1 1
Metapodium 3 1
1st Phalanx 1
2nd phalanx 1 1
Rib 5 2 6
Total 36 58 65
Figure 3 
               Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Example of an animal bone deposit: a cattle horn core, a piglet quarter, connected bovine vertebrae, a macrolithic tool, segment 617. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.
Figure 3

Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Example of an animal bone deposit: a cattle horn core, a piglet quarter, connected bovine vertebrae, a macrolithic tool, segment 617. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.

Figure 4 
               Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Isolated cattle bone, distal femur, segment 600. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.
Figure 4

Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Isolated cattle bone, distal femur, segment 600. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.

Table 4

List of perforated caprine and roe deer tibias and radius, roe deer antlers, horn cores and bucrania of cattle and aurochs in the LBK houses of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Aisne)

House Back unit Main faunal refuse Anatomical part Species Roe deer antler Cattle horn core Aurochs
280 2 Herding Tibia Caprine Male Bucrane
245 3 Herding Tibia Caprine Unshed Female
360 2 Herding Tibia Caprine Unshed Unknown
90 1 Herding Tibia Caprine Tine, unknown
440 1 Herding and hunting+ Tibia Caprine Unshed
225 3 Herding Radius Caprine Unshed, worked Unknown Bucrane
420 (pit 421–435) 1 Hunting Tibia Roe deer Unshed Female
640 ? Herding and hunting+ Tibia Roe deer Unshed (2)/shed (1) Unknown
400 1 Herding and hunting+ Tibia Roe deer Unshed
126 1 Hunting Radius Roe deer Unshed
570 1 Herding and hunting+ Tibia Roe deer
380 3 Herding and hunting− Shed (4) Female
112 1? Hunting Shed
635 1 Hunting Unshed
320 1 Herding and hunting+ Unshed, worked
11 3 Herding Unknown
500 3 Herding Unknown
580 1 Herding and hunting+ Male

Back-unit: number of rooms to the rear of the corridor.

?: unknown or not certain.

+: high proportion of hunting.

–: low proportion of hunting.

Wild animal remains went through an even more selectively chosen. In the case of aurochs, we only find bucrania and horn cores; in the case of red deer, there is a preponderance of antlers that occur in the form of tines, cut off at the base of the beam, and which generally accompany inhumation burials (Farruggia et al., 1996, Figures 28 and 37). Two wild species are represented by just a single item, namely a fragment of a horse’s jaw found within a multiple burials (Thevenet, 2016, Figure 11) and a pointed roe deer tine found between the ribs of an adult individual who had clearly been subjected to violent attack (Thevenet et al., forthcoming, Figure 14).

Sheep, however, like pigs, occur in the form of entire carcasses or, more commonly, as articulated limbs: complete front legs (from the scapula to the phalanges, Figure 3) or, more rarely, hind legs (from the coxal to the phalanges). The same applies to dogs which are either found complete (Figure 5) or in the form of front and hind legs, although skulls and jaws of this species have also been recorded. The same type of dog anatomical parts was found in the LBK enclosure of Herxheim in Germany (Arbogast, 2019).

Figure 5 
               Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Dog deposited at the bottom of the ditch, accompanied by sherds and cattle vertebrae, segment 600. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.
Figure 5

Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Dog deposited at the bottom of the ditch, accompanied by sherds and cattle vertebrae, segment 600. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.

The bones bear traces of the various gestures used in the killing of the animals, i.e., cutting of the throat (cattle and pigs) or a violent blow to the forehead (cattle and dogs). Cut marks made by flint implements found on cattle bones (and more rarely on the bones of other species) testify to the disarticulation of the limbs or their de-fleshing for the purposes of consumption. Sometimes we observe traces of slow-burning on the bones which suggest that the pieces of beef were slowly burnt on a hearth, a phenomenon that is echoed by a feature consisting of heated stones that were discovered in a segment of the ditch (Thevenet, 2018).

While the technical investment involved in obtaining the disarticulated cattle remains, as well as the complete or partial parts of other species, can be considered to be relatively low – aside from the butchery skills, the symbolic investment in these bones appears to be considerable.

Firstly, it is reflected in the deposits of cattle, lambs, piglets and dogs, either whole or in quarters, with which the bones of other species are often mixed. Thus, we find a dog deposited with two or three articulated cattle vertebrae (Figure 5), or an aurochs bucranium deposited side by side with the head and jaw of a dog (Figure 6); however, the most commonly encountered situation is the deposition of cattle bones with those of caprines or pigs.

Figure 6 
               Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Female aurochs bucrania and dog skull with its mandibles, accompanied by stoneware and sherds, segment 600. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.
Figure 6

Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Female aurochs bucrania and dog skull with its mandibles, accompanied by stoneware and sherds, segment 600. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.

Secondly, we observe post-mortem manipulation of the remains. There are many instances of deliberate anatomical displacement, examples of which include a sheep, laid out on its side, whose carcass was bent backward so as to reveal the animal’s belly (Hachem, 2018, Figure 7); a lamb whose hindquarters were forcibly stretched; and the remains of a dog which had been subjected to several manipulations including the displacement of the ribs and the severe flexing of a hind paw (Thevenet, 2020) and another whose forepaw was abnormally twisted to face upwards (Thevenet, 2018).

Finally, we sometimes observe the veritable staging of a scene around an entire animal. This deliberate arranging of the remains involves depositing anatomical parts of other species (especially cattle bones) above, below or next to the principal animal. Sometimes, these arrangements have a striking symmetry, such as the positioning of a pig’s leg parallel to a sheep’s spine (Hachem, 2018, Figure 7). The latter example was part of the arrangement of the densest deposit (Thevenet et al., forthcoming, Figure 12) which combined human remains, faunal remains, ceramics and pieces of sandstone (Figure 7). At the base of the ditch, a central arrangement of four lambs and two piglets was surrounded by cattle bones, including two bucrania. The latter were arranged face-to-face but one was inverted: to the north lay a bull bucranium, placed against the wall of the grave, while to the south, lay the demi-bucranium of a female aurochs, placed upside down. On top of the animal remains lay the body of a woman, placed with her head to the west and her lower limbs flexed to the right; her remains bore traces of traumatic lesions. A section of the bovine vertebral column was placed in front of her. Her left-hand rests on a fragment of sandstone while the sherds of a decorated bottle are scattered at her feet.

Figure 7 
               Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Burial of a woman with domestic animals, half an aurochs bucrane, a piece of deer antler, a pottery and a burnt wooden object, segment 571. After Thevenet, 2014, Figure 23, and Thevenet et al., forthcoming, Figure 12. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.
Figure 7

Menneville “Derrière le Village.” Burial of a woman with domestic animals, half an aurochs bucrane, a piece of deer antler, a pottery and a burnt wooden object, segment 571. After Thevenet, 2014, Figure 23, and Thevenet et al., forthcoming, Figure 12. Photo UMR 8215 Trajectoires.

Indeed, it has been observed that pieces of sandstone and limestone were repeatedly deposited, in a codified manner, along with animal remains (Figure 3). One ditch segment thus revealed a strict alternation of macro-tools and cattle bones, spread out over a distance of 4 m (Thevenet et al., forthcoming, Figure 7). The tools in question are never complete; more often than not the fragments of quartzitic sandstone deposited were selected from the waste material resulting from the manufacture of grinding tools. These deposits of block fragments are interpreted as a reference to the field of activities with which they are associated, namely the milling of cereals and the preparation of food. Among the rare artefacts, numerous small blocks of limestone, either in raw form or worked, and tool blanks (rubbing tools) were also deposited alongside the animal remains.

In summary, the faunal remains retrieved from this enclosure, and the various forms that they take allow us to trace several actions: the killing and sacrifice of the animal, the division of the remains, the consumption of the meat, the burning of the flesh, juices and fat on hearths, the deposition of significant bones of animals either in isolation or accompanying inhumed human remains. All of this evidence supports the suggestion that this enclosure had a ceremonial function, within which we perceive a desire to leave material signs, clearly vested in symbolism, but which were only intended to be seen by the authors of these actions or by those who accompanied them, for a short time before being buried. We will return to this point when we come to propose a general interpretative hypothesis for these sign-objects.

3 The Graves

Faunal deposits have also been discovered in a number of burials, but they are very rare (Auxiette & Hachem, 2021; Hachem, 2018). Apart from a few untransformed cattle bones from the site of Bucy-le-Long “la Fosselle” and a bird bone from Cys-la-Commune “les Longues Raies,” bone objects have notably been found in two graves at Berry-au-Bac “le Vieux Tordoir” (Allard, Dubouloz, & Hachem, 1997). These worked objects were made from a caprine phalange and metacarpal, a bovine radius and a roe deer antler tine. The objects bear glued-on elements and deliberate incisions that evoke decorative and/or figurative signs. It is worth noting that the two burials at Berry-au-Bac have been dated to the end of the LBK sequence, precisely the period when caprines and roe deer occur in high proportions on settlement sites.

4 The Villages

The deposits of sign-objects from the enclosure site and its associated burials were necessarily vested with particular importance since they were intended to be seen within sacralised contexts; it is, therefore, interesting to observe that such objects are also found on settlement sites.

For this study, the author has reviewed the faunal materials from 22 LBK sites (i.e., a total of 82 houses) in Ile-de-France, Hauts-de-France and the Champagne-Ardenne region (Auxiette & Hachem, 2021), with a focus on the Aisne valley settlements, the region where Menneville enclosure is located (Table 1).

The context differs completely from the previous two contexts (i.e., the enclosure site and graves); here, the material comes from the lateral pits that flanked houses. These pits received waste material arising from household activities.

Identifying symbolically significant bone material that was intended to be “displayed” is not a straightforward task since such material may be mixed up within ordinary domestic waste: it was, therefore, decided to exclude a search of disarticulated cattle bones, which make up a large part of the waste material in these pits, and of red deer antler, which was frequently used in the industry based on hard animal material. It was necessary to focus the search on more easily identifiable artefacts, for example, aurochs bones, which are rare and appear to have had a special status within village contexts. The same is true of dog, horse, wolf and bear bones; these animals were not consumed and therefore rarely occur among the discarded household waste. Other focuses of our search included articulated pig and caprine limbs and complete cranial elements such as cattle and aurochs horn cores and bucrania. Finally, roe deer antler, which unlike red deer antler was not used in craft activities, also offers an opportunity for investigation.

For our research, a particular type of bone object came to our attention: these are perforated sheep and roe deer tibia, which occur in the LBK and the following period Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. We will only give a brief description of these objects, which will have to be studied by a bone industry specialist in a second step. These tibiae were broken so that only the distal part remains (Figure 8). They bear a bean-shaped perforation on one face of the articulation; on the other face, the perforation tends to be less regular in shape and shows traces of splintering of the bony material. This same type of perforation has also been observed on two proximal radii and a calcaneus. The perforations do not appear to be directly linked to the use of the objects as tools, and for now, their function is still unknown; it is for this reason that we have decided to include them in our study (Table 4).

Figure 8 
               Example of perforated tibias, distal part. Top: anterior, bottom: posterior. Photos L. Hachem.
Figure 8

Example of perforated tibias, distal part. Top: anterior, bottom: posterior. Photos L. Hachem.

Our findings regarding LBK fauna on settlement sites can be summarised as follows:

  1. Caprines and pigs: articulated limbs have not been found in the waste pits.

  2. Cattle: horn cores and complete bucrania are relatively scarce.

  3. Aurochs: all houses have yielded the remains of this species in their lateral pits, but the quantities are very small; in most cases, the remains consist of parts of the lower limbs (phalanges and metapodials), and only in very rare instances do houses produce greater and more varied quantities of remains. Of particular note is the discovery of ochre-covered aurochs bones in the southern lateral pits of two long houses at Pont-sur-Seine “Marnay” (Champagne) and Buchères “les Bordes” (Champagne) (Auxiette & Hachem, 2021).

  4. Horn cores and bucrania are rare.

  5. Dogs: remains of this species are very rare and of those recorded the majority are cranial elements (skulls, teeth, jaws), along with a few scapulae and fibulae.

  6. Wolves, bears and horses: these species are principally represented by cranial elements (teeth and jaws) or the lower parts of limbs, metapodials and phalanges.

  7. Roe deer antler: relatively few examples have been recorded and the majority are from slaughtered animals (i.e., not shed antlers that were collected in the forest).

  8. Perforated sheep and roe deer tibiae: very few houses produced these and those that have always yielded just a single example.

It was deemed important to further our research on the archaeological context of these objects, that is to say, to examine the houses in which they were found, not only in terms of their architecture but also any consumption biases that they might reveal; these two aspects are linked (Hachem, 2011). To do this, we decided to focus on the site of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes “les Fontinettes” (Aisne), which has the advantage of featuring a large number of houses (33) spread out over three broad phases of occupation.

In total, perforated tibia occurred in the lateral fosses of 11 houses (Table 3). It has been revealed on the one hand that the sheep tibia comes from large-sized houses (with two or three rooms to the rear of the corridor) in which domesticated livestock predominate (>90% of the remains). Perforated roe deer tibia, on the other hand, has been found in smaller houses (c. 10 m long and with a single rear room) where the proportion of game animals is high (>23%). This pattern is also evident in the case of perforated radius: the single sheep example recorded comes from a large house while the single roe deer example is from a small house. Another observation has also been made: only 14 houses have yielded roe deer antler and 10 of these also contained perforated tibiae. Three sharpened tines (similar to the example found in the Menneville enclosure) have been recorded in large houses.

Cattle horn cores and bucrania are generally found in large houses with a high proportion of domestic livestock; only two small houses have produced examples (Figure 9). The only aurochs bucranium from the site comes from a very large house. Finally, as regards rare wild animal species (wolf, bear, horse), the remains come from houses in which the proportion of game animals is highest, i.e. small houses.

Figure 9 
               Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. Distribution of cattle horn cores or bucrania per house.
Figure 9

Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. Distribution of cattle horn cores or bucrania per house.

The important points to emerge from this data are, on the one hand, the rarity of these sign-objects in the settlement context and, on the other, their presence as a function of certain characteristics of the houses.

5 An Archaeological Model

These results can be integrated within a model that was initially developed for the site of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Gomart, Hachem, Hamon, Giligny, & Ilett, 2015) and which has, in part, been confirmed on the other LBK settlement sites of the Paris Basin (Hachem & Hamon, 2014). In brief, the model is based on a comparative analysis of three categories of data that are particularly useful for improving our understanding of food-related behaviour and production networks, i.e.: faunal assemblages (Hachem, 2000, 2011), macrolithic tools (Hamon, 2006) and ceramics (Gomart, 2014). The model suggests that houses can be divided into two groups (termed A and B), each with two sub-groups. Group A houses are characterized by their large size, high proportions of domestic animals (cattle and caprines), homogenous pottery, cereal storage and milling techniques while Group B houses are defined by their small size, heterogeneous pottery techniques, a more significant proportion of game animals and macrolithic tools that are linked to craft working (preparation of hides, etc.).The following hypothesis is proposed to explain these facts: the links between these domestic units were founded on the surplus produced by each unit, which was then exchanged. The large houses with a high capacity for production (Group A) would have provided houses in the process of integration with the fruits of their agricultural production and technical activity (pottery). In return, the small houses, in the process of integration (Group B) would have provided the economically mature houses with the primary and secondary products of hunting.

We can now also integrate the presence of faunal sign-objects into this model. In the large houses making up Group A, we observe the presence of cattle horn cores and complete bucrania, and a significant number of perforated sheep tibiae. Of these large houses, some can be qualified as “meeting houses,” and it is here that the aurochs bucranium and sharpened roe deer antlers are found. In the smaller Group B houses, we find cranial elements and leg bones of rare wild animal species as well as perforated roe deer tibiae. However, the situation is not always clear-cut. Thus, dog bones are associated with the large meeting houses and with small houses with an elevated proportion of game animals; similarly, non-transformed roe deer antlers (from slaughtered animals) are found both in the large houses and in the smaller houses with a high instance of hunting. However, sharpened antlers are recorded in the large houses.

6 Why were Certain Bones Invested with Meaning?

In the field of Neolithic archaeology, the term of sign-object is used for example to qualify the large jade axes that were items of exceptional symbolic and prestige value for Neolithic societies in Europe and were the object of exchange (Pétrequin, Gauthier, & Pétrequin, 2017). There are other object-signs, such as personal ornaments (LBK spondylus beads), or items such as pottery whose decoration is significant (Cassen, 2003; Gomart, 2014). These types of objects are relatively easy to spot because of the particular care taken in their manufacture. However, the ethnologist of techniques Lemonnier (2015) believes that it is practically impossible for an archaeologist to detect certain objects, which appear banal, but which were originally invested with an important role. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the bone remains we have listed are likely to be sign objects.

Several elements appear to be essential for an object to become a sign-object. Firstly, the technical gesture used to produce these objects, even though this gesture can be far from elaborate as underlined by Lemmonier (2015) who focuses attention on objects “that do not form part of museum collections, because they are not considered to be of great artistic merit,” but which are considered to be essential by the societies that produce them. In the cases that concern us here, items that were originally the waste products of butchery are transformed, through certain gestures, into artefacts with meaning. This involves dissociating part of an articulated sheep or pig skeleton to create a distinct entity, or deliberately leaving three cow vertebrae as an articulated unit, or removing the jaws and reducing the frontal bone of an aurochs skull to create a bucranium. The bones are no longer simply the remains of a dead animal but are vectors to be used in social relations or for communicating with non-humans (natural forces, ancestors, etc.). These objects become exposable elements that can be interpreted immediately by the members of society who view them. Thus they can be used to intercede with the non-humans through the imaginative power with which they are invested, or they might act as depositories of social order (representation of clan identity, relationships between men and women, etc.).

Secondly, the context is important. The element (anatomical part, complete animal) may be enhanced to be displayed to the community, or perhaps just to initiates, within a dedicated place. As defined by Gardin (1979), the deposit location is, for the objects concerned, an ensemble of intrinsic properties (physical, geometrical, etc.) which render the object susceptible to being deposited and extrinsic properties (places, times, functions) which mean that this is indeed a deposit in a context that is socially, culturally and “ideally” significant. “In this perspective, the archaeological faunal material displays characteristics that are its own, but not necessarily exclusive, and that render it, from certain angles, more easy to approach than other categories: thus we can mention the representativity of the part, in this case anatomical, relative to the initial ‘whole’ that is the living animal” (Auxiette & Ruby, 2009, p. 120).

In the examples that interest us here, the places involved are bearers of meaning: an enclosure through the collective ceremonies that take place there, a burial through the perpetuation of the memory of a lineage or a house through the social identity that it projects. As we have seen in certain ditches at Menneville, deliberate arranging or staging of the deposits can involve combinations of species: cattle/sheep, cattle/dog, cattle/pig, pig/sheep; it can also involve a human being and an animal, e.g. child/lamb; or, as we have observed in the graves, it can involve the positioning of the objects relative to the body of the deceased.

But in other cases, the sign-object can be used in a domestic context, namely the house, as we have seen at the village site of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. The perforated tibiae are an example of this since they can occur in long houses, interpreted as meeting houses, or in small houses where a particular activity, such as hunting, was carried out.

In an attempt to begin to understand the presence of LBK sign-objects, we have decided to turn to anthropology for inspiration. We have concentrated our search for possible answers on two elements: the deposits of selected bones in the enclosure at Menneville and the perforated tibiae found in the village contexts.

In the first case, we can gain inspiration from one particularly telling example that deals with the collective consumption of a species and the treatment of the bones after consumption. In Kyrgyzstan, horses played a central role in the practices associated with the funerary feasts (“ash”) of Kyrgyz warrior society in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Jacquesson, 2007), and we could envisage a similar role for cattle in the Neolithic period. The Kyrgyz sum up the afterlife as follows: “the soul departs, the flesh rots but the bones remain” (Akmataliev, 2003, p. 329, cited by Jacquesson, 2007). The questions of the transfer of power and the future of the lineage were brought into sharp focus on the death of a leader. During the funerary feasts, multiple sacrifices of horses and sheep were carried out in the name of the deceased, and ritual games were played which portrayed the transmission of power and the perpetuation of the lineage. Hearths played a central role not only for cooking the sacrificial meat but also for its consecration by attracting, through the aromas produced, the attention of the benevolent spirits. It was through this process that the meat acquired the status of sacrificial meat and the subsequent distribution of the meat constituted the most solemn moment of the feast. The meat was served in two forms, as meat on the bone and as chopped meat. The bones were hierarchised: “According to the Kyrgyz the reproductive power of people and animals resides in the pelvis; the bones of the pelvis (sacrum and iliac bones) are thus the most valued parts of the animal. Next to be attributed are the marrow bones (tibia and femur) because the marrow symbolises the kinship between people and serves as a metaphor for the line of descent; finally the bones without marrow are served (scapula, radius). Those who partake of the feast are also hierarchized according to two criteria: their age and their genealogical rank. The attribution of the bones takes the form of a renewal of kinship links and solidarity within a festive context (…) Nowadays those invited to an ash bring home the bones that were attributed to them.” (Jacquesson, 2007, p. 397).

In our opinion, this anthropological example is particularly compelling in terms of the Menneville deposits which, as we have seen, provide several indications of animal sacrifice (blows to the head, throat-cutting, killing of very young animals) as well as evidence for the sharing out of pieces of meat (broken bones bearing marks left by flint tools), the in situ cooking of meat (traces of slow-burning on bones, the presence of heated stones from hearths) and ritual actions (deposition of selected anatomical parts, associations, deliberately staging of deposits). In the light of this data, we can propose a hypothesis of sacrifices and shared feasts, supported by the fact that such events are documented in anthropological literature as a means of uniting communities during collective ceremonies. As emphasised by anthropologist Kanafani-Zahar “the symbolisation of fraternity through shared meals is an essential element of death rituals” (Kanafani-Zahar, Mathieu, & Nizard, 2007, p. 9).

As regards the perforated tibiae, the range of possibilities is wide. Their close link to the household appears to be underlined by the fact that they are found as single examples in the pits of LBK houses. Their presence in these waste pits may be the consequence of their deliberate breaking and the abandonment of the distal portion. This may have occurred before the objects had fully reached the end of their use-life since the breaking through of the bone surface directly opposite the initial perforation is not always present. In two examples, a zone of wear is visible on the shaft of the bone, indicating that the objects were manipulated in some way. This strongly suggests that the perforation held something perishable – perhaps a piece of wood – which, through continued manipulation, eventually broke through the other side of the bone. One of the possible hypotheses would be that these objects would have served as household amulets to ensure the protection of livestock or success in the hunt.

7 Social Interpretations

As providers of food and secondary products, domesticated and wild animals may have served as intermediaries – just as we have hypothesised based on evidence from the settlement site – to maintain the active networks established through exchanges between large houses and small houses. The division of labour that they generated, and the resulting ties forged within the population, probably played a central role in society (Gomart et al., 2015). When their teeth and bones were transformed into personal ornaments or worked objects, these same animals took on the role of grave goods. Funerary furniture, like body ornaments, are social indicators that obey the processes of identification, both individual and collective, which can mark the social position and role of the wearer within a group (Hodder, 1979) or report a passage in his/her life (Clifton, 1978). This may inform about the social and symbolic world of the group to which the deceased belonged (Bonnardin, 2009; Rigaud, 2014).

The role of the worked bone as a vector suggests a link between the animal and the bearer’s biological status (maturity or gender) and/or identity (belonging to a certain lineage or clan). Finally, the sacrifice of the animals and the subsequent display of their remains and certain un-transformed bones reveal two fundamental aspects of their function: on the one hand, their role in forging social links which united the members of a community through the ritualised killing and sharing of meat (Armengaud, 1998), and, on the other hand, their role in maintaining a symbolic link with the supernatural through the deliberate abandonment in a dedicated place of concrete signs and the deliberate arrangement of these signs (Auxiette & Ruby, 2009).

Taken together, these findings have previously led us to examine the notion of parallelism between social structure and animal species, in which the latter may be interpreted as markers of identity, gender and age (Hachem, 2018). The identification of the medium used, namely the sign-object, now allows us to propose additional interpretations concerning the expression of social statuses. Thus, bucrania, horn cores, bones selected for deposition and the remains of domesticated animals could serve as markers of a clan identity that might be partially expressed in secular places (e.g. village meeting houses) and more completely expressed in sacred places (e.g. ceremonial enclosure). This identity would primarily have been not only that of cattle rearers but also that of sheep and possibly pig rearers. The relationship between domestic cattle and aurochs might be highlighted through associations of bucrania. As regards aurochs specifically, phalanges and metapodials might have been markers of the sharing of a communal meal in a meeting house (such houses have yielded abnormally large quantities of aurochs remains, Hachem, 2011), after which each household kept a tangible trace in the form of a bone. The perforated tibiae found on settlement sites were not exposed in the enclosure which reinforces our belief that these objects were linked to the domestic space. Could they also have served as markers of identity or gender? Objects of roe deer bone are found in small houses where the proportion of large game animals is relatively high, and according to ethnologists, hunting is typically a male activity.

Sharpened or decorated objects made from roe deer antler are more difficult to interpret because of the paucity of recorded examples. However, we could tentatively suggest that the former objects signified power or had magical (shamanic) connotations. This would explain their presence in a grave at Berry-au-Bac, in a meeting house at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes, and on the body of a slain man at the ceremonial enclosure at Menneville.

Finally, anthropomorphic statuettes made from sheep bone were included among the grave goods in a child’s burial discovered at Berry-au-Bac. Similarly, in the Menneville enclosure, there is a symmetry between the sacrifice of certain children and the sacrifice of lambs (Thevenet, 2017). Perhaps, these bone elements were markers of the juvenile status of the deceased.

Sign objects, which are technically and aesthetically simple, but which are considered “essential” because of their central role in the forging and reproduction of social relationships within the groups concerned, exist in numerous cultures. In reality, these tangible objects exist as a reminder of one’s relationships with identity, social status, the invisible, with a view to sharing a way of living together: i.e. “the representation of the social whole” (Lemonnier, 2012). Unfortunately, there is one thing that archaeologists cannot precisely discern, but that is intrinsic to any sign-object: namely the rites and myths that define it (Lemonnier, 2016). Nevertheless, it seems to us that a hypothesis can be proposed, integrating cattle and aurochs. More than a hundred archaeozoological analyses conducted so far on LBK sites in temperate Europe show a predominance of cattle over other species. In addition, examination of data for the large game (red deer, aurochs, wild boar and roe deer) from 102 published LBK settlements shows that like red deer, aurochs constantly occurs in the faunal records and particularly so in the later phases (Hachem, 2011). However, aurochs differs from red deer in that it is weakly correlated with high rates of hunting: it thus contrasts with other wild animals. If we go down to a smaller scale than the site, that of the level of household, at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes where a detailed analysis of the buildings was carried out, the highest proportions of aurochs are in large houses with three rear units where cattle husbandry is overwhelming. Finally, on the scale of a ceremonial enclosure, we could see that the deposits of bucrania and horn cores of cattle and aurochs were of primary importance.

Since archaeozoological analyses tend to show that cattle and aurochs were central elements at the level of the household, village and ceremonial enclosure as food and as spiritual nourishment, and were in some ways linked to each other, it seems clear to us that these animals must also have been central to the foundation myths of the LBK “people.” This will be the starting point for future investigations in this domain, a domain which has hitherto been little explored but which is fundamental for our understanding of ancient societies.


Special Issue: THE EARLY NEOLITHIC OF EUROPE, edited by F. Borrell, I. Clemente, M. Cubas, J. J. Ibáñez, N. Mazzucco, A. Nieto-Espinet, M. Portillo, S. Valenzuela-Lamas, & X. Terradas


Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Mrs R. Cronin-Allanic for the translation of this article from French to English.

  1. Funding Information: The work was supported by the ANR HOMES “Modeling Households: Economy and Sociology of Europe’s first farmer populations”, ANR-18-CE27-0011, dir. C. Hamon.

  2. Conflict of interest: The author states no conflict of interest.

References

Akmataliev, Ah . (Ed.) (2003), Kaada-Saltar ak batalar. Sham: Bisckek.Search in Google Scholar

Arbogast, R.-M. (1994). Premiers élevages néolithiques du Nord-Est de la France (t. 67). Liège: ERAUL.Search in Google Scholar

Arbogast, R.-M. (2019). Analysis of the faunal assemblages of the LBK site of Herxheim: The larger mammals. In Zeeb-Lanz (Ed.), Ritual destruction in the Early Neolithic – The exceptional site of Herxheim (Forschungen zur Pfälzischen Archäologie, pp. 139–232). Neustadt: Direktion Landesarchäologie, Außenstelle Speyer.Search in Google Scholar

Armengaud, F. (1998). Au titre du sacrifice: L’exploitation économique, symbolique et idéologique des animaux. In B. Cyrulnik (Ed.), Si les lions pouvaient parler. Essais sur la condition animale (pp. 856–887). Gallimard, Paris: Quarto.Search in Google Scholar

Allard, P. , Dubouloz, J. , & Hachem, L. (1997). Premiers éléments sur cinq tombes rubanées à Berry-au-Bac (Aisne-France): Principaux apports à l’étude du rituel funéraire danubien occidental. In C. Jeunesse (Ed.), Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine (Vol. Supplément 3, pp. 31–43). Strasbourg: Cahiers de l’Association Pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace.Search in Google Scholar

Auxiette, G. , & Hachem, L. (2021). Farm, hunt, feast, celebrate. Animals and society in Neolithic, bronze and iron age Northern France. Leiden: Sidestone Press . Search in Google Scholar

Auxiette, G. , & Ruby, P. (2009). La vie sociale de la viande. In S. Bonnardin , C. Hamon , M. Lauwers , & B. Quilliec (Eds.), Du matériel au spirituel. Réalités archéologiques et historiques des « dépôts » de la Préhistoire à nos jours (pp. 257–266). Antibes: APDCA.Search in Google Scholar

Bedault, L. (2012). L’exploitation des ressources animales dans la société du Néolithique ancien du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain en Bassin Parisien: Synthèse des données archéozoologiques. (PhD thesis). Paris 1, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01374007. Search in Google Scholar

Bogucki, P. (1988). Forest farmers and stockherders: Early agriculture and its consequences in north-central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bökönyi, S. (1974). History of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Search in Google Scholar

Bonnardin, S. (2009). La parure funéraire au Néolithique ancien dans les Bassins parisien et rhénan: Rubané, Hinkelstein et Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (Mémoire de la société préhistorique française, Vol. 49). Paris: Société Préhistorique Française.Search in Google Scholar

Cassen, S. (2003). Importer, imiter, inspirer?: Objets-signes centre-européens dans le Néolithique armoricain. L’Anthropologie, 107(2), 255–270.10.1016/S0003-5521(03)00007-4Search in Google Scholar

Clifton, J. A. (1978). Potawatomi. In B. Trigger (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians (pp. 622–635). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Search in Google Scholar

Döhle, H.-J. (1994). Die linienbandkeramischen tierknochen von eilsleben, bördekreis: Ein beitrag zur neolithischen Haustierhaltung und jagd in mitteleuropa. Halle (Saale): Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte.Search in Google Scholar

Dubouloz, J. (2003). Datation absolue du premier Néolithique du Bassin parisien: Complément et relecture des données RRBP et VSG. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 100(4), 671–689.10.3406/bspf.2003.12903Search in Google Scholar

Farruggia, J.-P. , Guichard, Y. , & Hachem, L. (1996). Les ensembles funéraires rubanés de Menneville “Derrière le Village” (Aisne). In P. Duhamel (Ed.), La Bourgogne entre les bassins rhénan, rhodanien et parisien: Carrefour ou frontière? (Vol. 14eme supplément, pp. 119–174). Dijon: Revue Archéologique de l’Est.Search in Google Scholar

Gardin, J.-C. (1979). Une archéologie théorique. Paris: Hachette.Search in Google Scholar

Gomart, L. (2014). Traditions techniques et production céramique au Néolithique ancien: Etude de huit sites rubanés du nord est de la France et de Belgique. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gomart, L. , Hachem, L. , Hamon, C. , Giligny, F. , & Ilett, M. (2015). Household integration in Neolithic villages: A new model for the linear pottery culture in west-central Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 40, 230–249. 10.1016/j.jaa.2015.08.003.Search in Google Scholar

Hachem, L. (1999). Apport de l’archéozoologie à la connaissance de l’organisation villageoise rubanée. In S. Cleuziou , A. Coudart , & F. Braemer (Eds.), Habitat et société (pp. 325–338). Antibes: APDCA.Search in Google Scholar

Hachem, L. (2000). New observations on the Bandkeramik house and social organization. Antiquity, 74, 308–312.10.1017/S0003598X00059342Search in Google Scholar

Hachem, L. (2001). La conception du monde animal sauvage chez les éleveurs du Rubané Récent du Bassin Parisien. In R.-M. Arbogast , C. Jeunesse , & J. Schibler (Eds.), Rôle et statut de la chasse dans le néolithique ancien danubien (5500–4900 av. J.C.) (pp. 91–111). Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf.Search in Google Scholar

Hachem, L. (2011). Le site néolithique de Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes – I: De l’analyse de la faune à la structuration sociale. Rahden: Marie Leidorf GmbH.Search in Google Scholar

Hachem, L. (2018). Animals in LBK society: Identity and gender markers. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 20, 910–921. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.09.020.Search in Google Scholar

Hachem, L. , & Hamon, C. (2014). Linear pottery culture household organisation. An economic model. In A. Whittle & P. Bickel (Eds.), Early farmers, The view from archaeology and science (pp. 159–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.5871/bacad/9780197265758.003.0009Search in Google Scholar

Hamon, C. (2006). Broyage et abrasion au Néolithique ancien. Caractérisation technique et fonctionnelle des outillages en grès du Bassin parisien (British Archaeological Reports, Vol. 1551). Oxford: BAR.10.30861/9781841719801Search in Google Scholar

Hodder, I. (1979). Economic and social stress and material culture patterning. American Antiquity, 44(3), 446–454.10.2307/279544Search in Google Scholar

Jacquesson, S. (2007). Le cheval dans le rituel funéraire Kïrgïz: Variations sur le thème du sacrifice. Journal Asiatique, 295(2), 383–414.10.2143/JA.295.2.2033243Search in Google Scholar

Kanafani-Zahar, A. , Mathieu, S. , & Nizard, S. (2007). A croire et à manger: Penser le lien. In A. Kanafani-Zahar , S. Mathieu , & S. Nizard (Eds.), A croire et à manger. Religions et alimentation (pp. 9–16). Paris: L’Harmattan.Search in Google Scholar

Lemonnier, P. (2012). Des objets pour penser l’indicible. In N. Schlanger & A. C. Taylor (Eds.), La préhistoire des autres. Perspectives archéologiques et anthropologiques (La Découverte, pp. 277–289). Paris: INRAP/Musée du Quai Branly.Search in Google Scholar

Lemonnier, P. (2015, March 20). Anthropologie des objets ordinaires: Faire, faire, faire et faire penser, nouveaux regards sur les techniques . [Conference presentation]. Conférences du Musée du Quai Branly , Paris, France.Search in Google Scholar

Lemonnier, P. (2016). En quoi des objets banals pour nous peuvent avoir une signification toute autre dans d’autres cultures?. Le Huffingtonpost, (Les blogs). Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/pierre-lemonnier/anthropologie-rites_b_6705978.html. Search in Google Scholar

Marciniak, A. (2005). Placing animals in the Neolithic: Social zooarchaeology of Prehistoric farming communities. London: UCL Press.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, H.-H. (1964). Die Haustiere der mitteldeutschen Bandkeramiker (Vol. 17). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Pétrequin, P. , Gauthier, E. , & Pétrequin, A-M. (2017). Jade 2. Objets-signes et interprétations sociales des jades alpins dans l’Europe néolithique. t. 17, Dynamiques territoriales, 9. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain. (Cahiers de la MSHE Ledoux). Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01516594 .Search in Google Scholar

Rigaud, S. (2014). Pratiques ornementales des premières communautés agro-pastorales de Bavière (Allemagne): Integration? Acculturation? Convergence? Nouveaux apports de la nécropole de Essenbach-Ammerbreite. Anthropologie, 52, 207–227.Search in Google Scholar

Thevenet, C. (2010). Des faits aux gestes… Des gestes aux sens?: Pratiques funéraires et société durant le Néolithique ancien en Bassin parisien. (PhD Thesis). Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Thevenet, C. (Ed.). (2014). Menneville “Derriére le Village”. Une enceinte du Néolithique ancien (Aisne, Hauts-de-France) Campagne de fouilles 2013 (Rapport de fouilles programmées) . Picardie: Service Régional de l’Archéologie.Search in Google Scholar

Thevenet, C. (2016). L’enceinte rubanée de Menneville “Derrière le Village” et les structures associées (Aisne, France): De la diversité du traitement des défunts à la cohérence d’un système. Gallia Préhistoire, 56, 29–92.10.4000/galliap.341Search in Google Scholar

Thevenet, C. (2017). The final Linear Pottery Culture Enclosure at Menneville, Dep. Aisne, France: A complex ceremonial site. In Salzmünde. Regel oder Ausnahme? (Vol. 16, pp. 561–574). Halle: Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle.Search in Google Scholar

Thevenet, C. (Ed.). (2018). Menneville « Derrière le Village ». Une enceinte du Néolithique ancien (Aisne, Hauts-de-France). Campagne de fouilles 2017 (Rapport de fouilles programmées, Vols. 1–2). Picardie: Service Régional de l’Archéologie.Search in Google Scholar

Thevenet, C. (Ed.). (2020). Menneville « Derrière le Village ». Une enceinte du Néolithique ancien (Aisne, Hauts-de-France). Campagne de fouilles 2018 (Rapport de fouilles programmées). Picardie: Service Régional de l’Archéologie.Search in Google Scholar

Thevenet, C. , Allard, P. , Baillieu, M. , Hachem, L. , Hamon, C. , & Ilett, M. (forthcoming). Nouvelles explorations, nouvelles observations sur l’enceinte rubanée de Menneville “Derrière le Village” (Aisne). In 33ème Colloque sur le Néolithique, Saint-Dié-des-Vosges, 8–9 novembre 2019 .Search in Google Scholar

Tresset, A. (1996). Le rôle des relations homme/animal dans l’évolution économique et culturelle des sociétés des Ve et VIe millénaires en Bassin Parisien: Approche éthno-zootechnique fondée sur les ossements animaux. Paris: Université de Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-03-05
Revised: 2021-09-14
Accepted: 2021-09-15
Published Online: 2021-12-03

© 2021 Lamys Hachem, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 22.2.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opar-2020-0202/html
Scroll to top button