Sort order:  

Status: 1 Treffer   •   Seite 1 von 1   •   10 Artikel pro Seite

2026-08-25 04:58:19   •   ID: 2421

Champ Parel: A Palimpsest site in the Bergeracois

Figure 1
Figure 2
All artifacts of this post come from the important surface scatter Champ Parel in the French Bergeracois. Figures 1 and 2: A classical Font- Robert point from the early Gravettian. Similar items are known from La Ferrassie (Dordogne) and Laussel (Dordogne).

Figures 3-5: Large Strangled Blades from the early Aurignacian. Similar pieces have been reported from Laussel and many sites in the Vézère Valley.

Figures 6 and 7: A rare tanged piece from the Early Gravettian. Similar artefacts are known from Maisières-Canal in Belgium.

Figure 8: A Teyjat Point from the Final Magdalenian.

Figure 9: A large shouldered point most likely from the Gravettian.

Figure 10: A Mousterian Handaxe

Paleolithic artifacts from Bergerac Flint were quite often a topic of the Blog: see here: 1164 ,here: 1393 , here: 1369 ,here: 2420 and here: 2263

The Bergerac area (Department of Dordogne) is particularly rich in Paleolithic surface scatters and open-air sites and this is both exceptional and problematic.

In contrast to the nearby Vézère Valley—renowned for its caves and rock shelters—the Bergeracois lacks extensive karstic formations capable of preserving large sequences of cave deposits.

This makes the Bergeracois an important case study for understanding not only the human occupation of southwestern France, but also the broader methodological problems inherent in the interpretation of Paleolithic open-air assemblages.

The exceptional density of Paleolithic remains in the Bergeracois is closely connected to its geology.

Figure 3
The region contains extensive deposits of Maastrichtian flint, commonly referred to as Bergeracois flint.

This high-quality, fine-grained raw material was an important resource throughout the Paleolithic and attracted repeated human occupation and exploitation. The abundance of flint, however, constitutes both an archaeological advantage and a major interpretative problem.

Figure 4
The same raw material sources could be visited repeatedly over many thousands of years, resulting in accumulations in which lithic material from very different periods became superimposed or mixed. Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Châtelperronian and Upper Paleolithic assemblages may therefore occur within the same surface deposits, while individual artefacts can no longer be securely associated with a particular occupation episode. What appears archaeologically as a single concentration may consequently represent a palimpsest created by numerous occupations separated by centuries or millennia.

Figure 5
This problem is fundamental to the archaeology of open-air sites more generally. Unlike stratified cave or rockshelter sequences, where sediments may preserve successive occupation horizons, surface sites are more exposed to a wide range of natural and anthropogenic processes capable of displacing, destroying or redistributing artefacts.

The resulting assemblages are therefore rarely a simple reflection of the behaviour that originally produced it. Archaeologists must distinguish between the archaeological pattern observed today and the behavioural pattern that existed at the time of occupation. In the Bergeracois, the enormous quantities of lithic material generated by repeated exploitation of flint sources make this distinction particularly difficult.

Figure 6
Figure 7
Hydrological processes represent an important source of disturbance. Many open-air sites are situated on alluvial terraces associated with the Dordogne and its tributaries, including the Caudeau and Marmelet.

Rainfall, surface runoff, flooding and subsequent sediment movement can transport artefacts of different sizes and weights over short or considerable distances.

Particularly small pieces of lithic debitage are susceptible to removal, whereas larger artefacts may remain in place. Investigations at sites such as Bout-des-Vergnes near Bergerac have demonstrated the importance of such processes, including the loss of a significant proportion of very small lithic debris.

The resulting assemblage is therefore potentially biased toward larger and more visible artefacts. This is especially consequential for technological studies because micro-debitage and small flakes can contain essential information about the sequence and organization of stone-tool production.

Such processes are not unique to the Bergeracois. The archaeological record of open-air Paleolithic sites is frequently affected by what may broadly be described as post-depositional disturbance.

These processes include erosion, colluviation, alluviation, bioturbation, frost action, sediment displacement and the redistribution of artefacts by water. Their effects may be subtle and cumulative. An assemblage can retain a deceptively coherent spatial appearance while having undergone sufficient movement to compromise the interpretation of individual activity areas.

Figure 8
Conversely, an apparently diffuse scatter may in some cases represent the surviving remains of an originally structured occupation.

Understanding the formation history of a site is therefore an indispensable prerequisite for interpreting its archaeological contents.

The same problem applies to the distinction between specialized activity areas and residential occupations. The enormous quantities of cores, flakes, rough-outs and other lithic waste found at Bergeracois sites initially encouraged interpretations of these places as primarily extraction or workshop locations.

Such interpretations are understandable in landscapes dominated by abundant flint, but they can also reflect a fundamental bias created by surface collection. Lithic production leaves an exceptionally visible archaeological signature, whereas many other aspects of human activity are less readily preserved or recognizable on the surface.

Consequently, a site may appear to have been primarily a flint-working station simply because knapping debris is the most abundant surviving evidence.

Preventive excavations associated with modern construction and infrastructure development have provided an important corrective to this view.

Where buried archaeological horizons have survived beneath the surface, excavation can reveal spatial relationships and activity patterns that are invisible in surface collections. Combined with technological, spatial and use-wear analyses, such evidence demonstrates that some sites traditionally interpreted as workshops could also have accommodated a broader range of activities, including hide working, butchery and woodworking.

The distinction between “workshop” and “habitat” should therefore not be regarded as self-evident from the quantity of lithic debris alone. Instead, it must be evaluated within a broader framework of site formation, spatial organization and functional analysis.

Modern land use adds another particularly important dimension to the problem in the Bergeracois. The region’s long history of agriculture and, especially, viticulture has subjected many archaeological surfaces to intensive cultivation.

Figure 9
Deep ploughing can vertically displace artefacts, bringing older material toward the modern surface while incorporating more recent material into deeper horizons. Repeated cultivation consequently destroys or homogenizes the original vertical organization of an archaeological deposit.

What archaeologists encounter after centuries of agricultural disturbance may therefore represent a mechanically mixed palimpsest rather than a natural archaeological surface.

At the same time, ploughing can expose previously buried artefacts and thereby create the impression of exceptionally rich surface concentrations.

The Bergeracois thus illustrates a central paradox of Paleolithic open-air archaeology. Surface scatters can be extraordinarily rich in archaeological material, yet the very processes that make the artefacts accessible can simultaneously destroy the contextual information required to interpret them.

Figure 10
The abundance of lithic remains does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the archaeological record.

A concentration containing hundreds or thousands of artefacts may provide less behavioural information than a smaller assemblage preserved within an intact sedimentary horizon. The crucial issue is therefore not simply how many artefacts survive, but how reliably their spatial, chronological and technological relationships have been preserved.

So, what can we make of the beautiful artefacts shared in this blog entry?

Due to various taphonomic factors and a significant selection bias, it is not possible to draw any further conclusions about original settlement patterns at Champ Parel.

Archaeologically they are worthless and add nothing new for the current discussion.

Nevertheless the Collector may infer the chronological context of time-sensitive artefacts from their typology, attempting to place them within a broader regional and supra-regional context.

But above all, these artefacts may simply delight in their beauty and their sophisticated design!

Important primary-context sites:

Lower Paleolithic:

* Barbas I: Acheulean | >300,000 BP | Red clay paleosolson bedrock.

Middle Paleolithic:

* Bout-des-Vergnes: Late Mousterian | ~49k BP | Alluvial sandy-silts.

* Combe Brune 2 & 3: Early-Late Mousterian | MIS 5–3 | Colluvial soils / loess.

* La Conne: Late Mousterian | ~50k BP | Argillaceous-sandy matrix.

* Cantalouette 1: Early Mousterian | MIS 5+ | Clay alteration paleosol.

Upper Paleolithic:

* Cantalouette 2: Aurignacian (~36k BP) & Solutrean (~23k BP) | Lower silts split from upper floors by loess.

* Barbas III: Early Aurignacian | ~35k BP | Eolian silts / fine colluvium.

* Vieux Coutets: Early Aurignacian | ~38k BP | Silty-clay / loess matrix.

References:

Bertran, P., Klaric, L., Lenoble, A., Masson, B., & Vallin, L. (2010). The impact of periglacial processes on Palaeolithic sites: The case of sorted patterned grounds. Quaternary International, 214(1–2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.10.021

Courbin, P., Brenet, M., Michel, A., & Gravina, B. (2020). Spatial analysis of the late Middle Palaeolithic open-air site of Bout-des-Vergnes (Bergerac, Dordogne) based on lithic technology and refitting. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 32, 102373.

Davies, B., Holdaway, S. J., & Fanning, P. C. (2016). Modelling the palimpsest: An exploratory agent-based model of surface archaeological deposit formation in a fluvial arid Australian landscape. The Holocene, 26(3), 450–463.

Douglass, M. J., Wandsnider, L., & Holdaway, S. J. (2023). Surface Artifact Scatters, Data Collection, and Significance: Case Studies from Australia and the United States. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.37

Henry, D. (2012). The palimpsest problem, hearth pattern analysis, and Middle Paleolithic site structure. Quaternary International, 247, 246–266.

Michalec, G., Masojć, M., Moska, P., Kim, J.-Y., Muntowski, P., Shytsik, S., & Paner, H. (2026). Beyond the Nile: Stratified (>59 ka) and surface Middle Stone Age evidence from the Bayuda Desert, Sudan. Quaternary Environments and Humans, 4(3).



Resources and images in full resolution: