Importance of field data for understanding a potential Mousterian funerary deposit : the case of the Regourdou 1 skeleton (Montignac-sur-Vézère, Dordogne, France)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Via the compilation of available information from a number of unpublished documents (François Bordes’ field notes, drawings made during the salvage operation, photographs taken in 1957, 1961 and 1962, as well as databases from the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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".