Perrin et al. 2019 : Perrin (T.), Marchand (G.), Valdeyron (N.), Sam (B.) – D’un sens à l’autre et retour… La « flèche de Montclus » : un marqueur des interactions entre mésolithiques et néolithiques ? In : Arbogast (R.-M.), Griselin...
morePerrin et al. 2019 : Perrin (T.), Marchand (G.), Valdeyron (N.), Sam (B.) – D’un sens à l’autre et retour… La « flèche de Montclus » :
un marqueur des interactions entre mésolithiques et néolithiques ? In : Arbogast (R.-M.), Griselin (S.), Jeunesse (C.), Séara (F.) (dir.)
– Le second Mésolithique des Alpes à l’Atlantique (7e - 5e millénaire). Table ronde internationale, Strasbourg, les 3 et 4 novembre 2015,
Strasbourg, 127-151 (Mémoires d’Archéologie du Grand-Est 3).
Summary
In the beginning, the “Montclus arrowhead” (a trapezoidal
arrowhead with thinning retouch) was understood as a manifestation
of the gradual transformation of Mesolithic tool types
into Neolithic ones. Later research, and the identification of
closely related types (e.g. the Jean-Cros arrowhead), gradually
supported the association of this arrowhead type with Neolithic
contexts, to the point that it was subsequently considered as
a fossil director of the southern Early Neolithic, in the Cardial–
Epicardial cycle. However, several recent excavations have
renewed the debate on the origin of this arrowhead, sometimes
found in contexts that are assumed a priori to be fully Mesolithic.
For this reason, the question is again raised with great acuity:
do these arrowheads represent a transfer from Early Neolithic
groups to Mesolithic hunters or, on the contrary, did Neolithic
colonists appropriate them from the last Mesolithic hunters?
In this article, we first present the technical systems present in
Mediterranean France during the 6th millennium BC, Second
Mesolithic, Impressa, Cardial and Epicardial periods. We then
refine the definition of the “Montclus arrowhead” (or the BG32
type of Binder, 1987 and Perrin, 2001) to reach a clear technological
definition. The wide and regular laminar blank selected by
the knapper was first sectioned by flexion. The fracture surfaces
were then regularized by inverse, abrupt or semi-abrupt retouch.
The plane thus created served as the retouching surface in the
second transformation phase, which was aimed at thinning the
piece by the detachment of thin, flat flakes using the pressure
technique. We then address the archaeological contexts of the
discoveries, often too coarse to respond precisely to the question
addressed here. Their distribution shows that this arrowhead
type is present in a relatively uniform manner throughout southern
France during the sixth millennium. Eighty percent of the
110 reliable archaeological contexts recorded are attributed to
the Early Neolithic. In the main expansion zone of the Cardial and
Epicardial, namely Provence, Languedoc and the Rhone Valley,
other weapon armature types are rare. The question is more
complex in southern France due to the rarity, or even absence,
of reliable stratigraphic contexts for the regional Early Neolithic,
apart from Cuzoul de Gramat. The few most reliable indices show
that these arrowheads were usually present in association with
segment-type armatures that were shaped by bifacial retouching
(“Betey segments” or PB32). These latter are clearly linked to the
Doble Bisels armatures in northern Spain.
Among the Second Mesolithic sites, Baume de Montclus in the
south-east and Cuzoul de Gramat in the south-west are still the
most reliable contexts for attributing these armatures to this
period. At the latter site, whose excavation in progress, the stratigraphic
unit US 5110 contained typical Montclus arrowheads,
and a charcoal fragment from this unit yielded a date of 5700 to
5600 BC, thus excluding a Neolithic attribution.
Despite its favorable archaeological context, in the Grande-
Rivoire rock shelter (Sassenage, Isère) the presence of Montclus
arrowheads in the Mesolithic layers cannot be determined with
certainty. At the site of Essart (Poitiers, Vienne), excavated from
2003 to 2005, around twenty “Montclus arrowheads” were mixed
with asymmetric trapezes with low-angle retouch, Sonchamp
points, and other remains characteristic of the regional Second
Mesolithic. The absence of Neolithic pottery at this site further
supports a Mesolithic attribution, in the broad sense, even if
the stratigraphic and chronometric context of this large openair
occupation does not permit definitive assertions. Though
their technical parameters are somewhat different (short bifacial
retouch), Châtelet arrowheads share undeniable morphological
and functional similarities to Montclus arrowheads (central-western
France, but occupy a geographic zone that is distinct, and
are found only in Mesolithic contexts (Retzien).
Three scenarios can be proposed to explain the currently available
data:
1/ Montclus arrowheads were conceived in Neolithic sites
2/ Montclus arrowheads were conceived in Mesolithic sites
3/ The concept of a transverse arrowhead was brought to southern
France by Neolithic colonists and reinterpreted within the
contemporary Mesolithic systems through a feed-back mechanism.
The abundance of these arrowheads in Early Neolithic sites in
the Mediterranean region argues in favor of the first scenario.
The early date obtained at Cuzoul de Gramat and the absence
of these types in the earliest Neolithic (Impressa) tend to favor
the second scenario. More complex, the third scenario involves
numerous technical transfers and therefore requires a greater
number of reliable stratigraphic contexts to enable more robust
testing.
