Tchérémissinoff, Yaramila, Pellé, Richard, Remicourt, Maxime, Aurore, Schmitt, Sendra, Benoît, Errera, Michel G.L., Institut national de recherches archéologiques préventives (Inrap), Laboratoire méditerranéen de préhistoire Europe-Afrique (LAMPEA), Aix Marseille Université (AMU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Ministère de la Culture (MC), Travaux et recherches archéologiques sur les cultures, les espaces et les sociétés (TRACES), École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS)-Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J)-Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (MCC)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Aix-Marseille Université - Faculté de médecine (AMU MED), Aix Marseille Université (AMU), Musée royal de l'Afrique centrale, Maxence Bailly, École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS)-Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (MCC)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), and Tcheremissinoff, Yaramila
The very small underground gallery grave of Cabrials is a very atypical monument, whose execution is the “fulfilment” of a form of minimalism, but which scrupulously follows common funerary practices in the broad megalithic sphere of Western France.This monument, although of very small size, possesses a true elongate chamber with a width-to-length ratio of 1/3, as if it represented a downscaled version of the large gallery graves typical of the northern or even southern regions in France. Moreover, the plan appears to be independent of any technical design concerns.The chamber is entirely below ground, forming a configuration that is very rarely observed throughout the southern regions in France. In the case of Cabrials, the execution of the work is possibly related to constraints imposed by the shape of the slabs, since their median enlargement makes it very complicated to carry out jointing and stabilization.As has been shown, these slabs mostly result from re-use, while outcrops of suitable limestones are located not very far away. In three verifiable cases, the stelae are sublozenge- shaped or trapezoidal, being slightly asymmetrical, while three other slabsexhibit apical rostrums picked out by rough-hewn shoulders. All these types or characteristics are known locally at the beginning of the Final Neolithic.Although these re-uses could be considered initially as a non-functional option related to a choice of strong symbolic value, this hypothesis is not supported by the divergent orientations of the rostrums in the chamber.Around the area of the door, re-used elements also seem to dominate, even if the origin of the pillars remains problematic. On the other hand, the two indented slabs have clearly been re-used and, moreover, were taken from two different dolmens, since the indentations are very asymmetric. Their position in the monument does not comply with their usual localization, while their repositioning, both in terms of symmetry as well as emplacement, is evocative of their usual assigned place.This search for symmetry is moreover expressed in the whole set of orthostats, showing morphologies that “interact” between the two longitudinal walls. Consequently, and despite the almost systematic recourse to re-used elements, the concern to build a wellorganized structure can be seen everywhere in the arrangement of the slabs and, even if the symbolic aspect is not determinant, it could to some extent restrict their emplacement.Re-use was also preferred for the grave goods. All the objects deposited in this tomb are derived from the domestic sphere. The goods offered were all of little value and show signs of wear, and their small number would not have represented a severe drain on usual domestic resources. Nevertheless, all the common types of items of contemporary collective burial goods are found here in varied proportions, but only one example of each item is represented. Thus, we might go so far as to consider that, after all, the set of artefacts corresponds to a single standardized offering. It is as if parsimony had firmly taken precedence, but in strict respect of the symbolic practices.The concern to respect funerary practices covering a very large area of understanding is expressed in the whole layout of the burial space.Thus, the elongated plan of the tomb is designed to separate, within a very small chamber, two main technical spaces which support the practice of double burial by using a differentiated subdivision of the corpses and bones. In the large monuments of the southern French domain, the area around the door is dedicated to a collective deposit (in this case, the large vase) and an axe-shaped stela is incorporated into the chevetjambstone, reflecting the deposits of axes found elsewhere in the southern regions or the engravings in north-western France. In this way, the male/female dualism of the collective and founder deposits of the Atlantic domain is finally expressed. From the dual perspective of the treatment of Death and the concern for perpetuation of the social fabric, the respect of funerary practices is normal for the period considered. The individual choices remain anecdotal or marginal (materials, symbolic substitutes, particular objects within fixed categories, etc.).At Cabrials, the constantly expressed underlying economy of means evokes rather more the burying community. The small size of the chamber corresponds to the small number of dead and a relatively restricted use over time (undoubtedly also shortened by the general destabilization of the structure). These elements reflect a community of small size or a sub-group of a wider community. The selection of the individuals to be buried clearly depends more on real rather than alleged kinship. The rather modest character of the burial and layout also argues in favour of a very open recruitment within a very small community or, in other words, a non-elitist horizontal recruitment. The strong representation of young children, which is very unusual in this proportion for collective burials, strengthens the hypothesis of a family recruitment.The economy of means employed for the burial also reflects the economic fragility of this human group, representing a parsimony which ultimately affects only the material aspects and does not deplete the semantic content of the tomb.Whether on a regional scale or on the much broader scale of the North-western domain, it is clear that concrete elements of symbolic practices are included, incorporated and reinterpreted within this very small gallery grave at Cabrials, being applied at all levels, not just architectural but material and organizational as well.Traduction M.S.N. Carpenter - mcarpenter@infonie.fr, La structure fouillée en novembre 2007 au lieu-dit « Cabrials » est un petit monument de la fin du Néolithique. Il a été installé dans une excavation oblongue d’environ 3 m par 1,50 m et se compose de 9 orthostates, tous retouchés, soigneusement ajustés et bloqués par de plus petites pierres. Tous les orthostates des parois sont des stèles frustes ou des éléments d’architecture remployés. Les dalles de couvertures ont été arrachées par les labours. Une seule a été retrouvée à proximité. Elle présente la même taille et forme que les autres. Par contre, il ne subsiste aucun indice relatif à une plausible signalisation.La chambre présente un plan rectangulaire de 1,50 m par 0,70 m et une hauteur d’environ 0,90 m. Son grand axe est orienté nord-ouest/sud-est. On entrait dans la chambre par le biais d’une fosse accolée à son petit côté nord-ouest, qui correspond à un couloir embryonnaire court ou, encore, au débouché d’un couloir en partie aérien. Cet accès et la chambre est séparés par une dalle amovible, appuyée sur deux piliers. Cette configuration, chambre longue unique, enterrée, à laquelle on accède par un couloir frontal également excavé, se rapproche typologiquement d’une allée sépulcrale enterrée. Il s’agit en l’occurrence d’un très petit monument, mais son caractère mégalithique est incontestable, de même que son fonctionnement collectif. Cette tombe concerne, en effet, 19 individus au minimum, dont les inhumations ont été échelonnées dans le temps. Les dépôts ont été remaniés de manière importante en au moins deux phases principales. La condamnation de la sépulture pose problème, car il s’agit d’une procédure réalisée longtemps après le dernier dépôt. Les jeunes immatures sont sur-représentés, ce qui est surprenant pour ce type de sépulture. Par ailleurs, la durée d’utilisation semble courte, ce que suggère aussi la forte cohérence typologique du mobilier, dont toutes les composantes se rapportent au Néolithique final 1. Les datations 14C évoquent de manière concordante une fréquentation située autour de – 3300 BC. Le mobilier se compose d’un grand vase de stockage issu de la sphère domestique, de quelques outils lithiques et de différents éléments dont la distribution est relativement conforme à celle observée pour de plus grandes sépultures collectives, notamment dans le nord de la France.Enfin, la chronologie de ce monument un peu antérieure au plein développement des sépultures collectives mégalithiques en Languedoc, sa taille modeste et son fonctionnement particulier évoquent des traits intermédiaires entre des petits coffres lithiques du Néolithique moyen et de plus grandes sépultures, plus longuement utilisées, du Néolithique final.