Importance of field data for understanding a potential Mousterian funerary deposit : the case of the Regourdou 1 skeleton (Montignac-sur-Vézère, Dordogne, France)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aside from the work of Bonifay (see Bonifay et al. 2007 for one of the more recent papers) and various articles following these earlier works (e.g., Binant 1991, Defleur 1993, Maureille et Vandermeersch 2007, Pettitt 2011, see also May 1986 for a more critical analysis), the in situ position of the remains of Regourdou 1 from layer 4 has never actually been discussed on the basis of available data from the salvage operation carried out in October 1957 by E. Bonifay and G. Laplace-Jauretche, under the administrative authority of François Bordes, or from the subsequent, more systematic, excavations directed by E. Bonifay between 1961 and 1964. Via the compilation of available information from a number of unpublished documents (François Bordes’ field notes, drawings made during the salvage operation, photographs taken in 1957, 1961 and 1962, as well as databases from the 1961 to 1964 excavations), and also a new inventory of human remains (both previously known and recently discovered), it is now possible to more accurately reconstruct the position of the human remains in a Cartesian system. In this, we assume that the concentration of remains uncovered during the salvage operation was in square G2, according to the preliminary systematic excavations carried out in 1961. They also bring to light that while practically no anatomical connections can be demonstrated with any certainty – and despite significant disruptions (all of the hominin remains are spread over 9 squares : G1 to G3, F1 to F3, E1 and E2, D2) – they are mainly positioned in squares G2 and G3 to some degree with respect to the anatomical logic of the human body. We therefore assume that Regourdou 1 was lying flat, with its head to the west – perhaps upon its trunk – close to the wall of the cavity. This result is different from the fetal position hypothesis proposed in Bonifay et al. (2007). Moreover many post-depositional (albeit Pleistocene) disturbances are also evident. We believe that they were likely the result of the utilization and modification of the cavity by brown bears and lagomorphs.Only new excavations at the site, and a better taphonomic understanding of Bonifay’s (1964) layer 4 (in which Regourdou 1 was found), and the exact role of humans in its formation, i.e., their anthropic impact on the layer, will allow us to discuss in more detail the nature of the deposition of the body, and, hopefully, the absence of the skull.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle