Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:13:32.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The decapitated woman of Puisserguier (Hérault, France): a case study of mortuary treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2024

Jérôme Rouquet*
Affiliation:
Inrap, Université de Bordeaux, Pessac, France
Jérôme Hernandez
Affiliation:
Inrap, Université de Montpellier, France
Romain Marsac
Affiliation:
Inrap, Nîmes, France
Mélanie Pruvost
Affiliation:
Université Bordeaux, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Ministère de la Culture, Pessac, France
Muriel Gandelin
Affiliation:
Inrap, Université de Toulouse, France
*
*Author for correspondence ✉ jerome.rouquet@inrap.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An exceptional Late Neolithic burial discovered at Puisserguier, southern France, contains a skeleton buried with its head deposited on its torso; the disposal of the rest of the body follows a standard pattern for individual burials of this period. The authors discuss the nature of this deposit in terms of its funerary status.

Type
Project Gallery
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd

Background

In 2017, an archaeological evaluation at Puisserguier (Hérault, France) led to the discovery of an exceptional skeleton of the Late Neolithic (3500–2500 BC). The body was deposited at the bottom of a 2.9m-diameter pit, preserved to a depth of 0.3m (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location, plan and general view of pit 1079 (figure by R. Marsac, O. Ginouvez & J. Rouquet).

This structure (pit 1079) has been interpreted as the base of a storage cellar. Examination of the typology of pottery finds from this context (Figure 2) dated it to the latest phase of the Verazien culture—a material culture specific to Catalonia and the Languedoc-Roussillon region set between 3500 and 2000 BC (Guilaine & Gandelin Reference Guilaine and Gandelin2023). A radiocarbon measurement carried out on the skeleton confirms its attribution to the Chalcolithic period (between 2700 and 2600 BC). Other finds—such as a copper dagger discovered during ploughing 150m to the east (Figure 3)—belong to the same period.

Figure 2. Typical ceramic vases associated with the skeleton (figure by R. Marsac).

Figure 3. Chalcolithic dagger discovered 150m east of pit 1079 (figure by O. Ginouvez).

A carefully buried decapitated woman?

The skeleton in pit 1079 is of a female, a determination based on the shape of the pelvic bone and later confirmed by a palaeogenetic analysis, aged between 20 and 49 years. The treatment to which they were subjected is remarkable: the head is detached from the spine and placed on the chest, supported by the right hand. This arrangement contrasts starkly with the positioning of the rest of the body, which is conventional for a Neolithic burial (Gandelin Reference Gandelin2021). The skeleton lies supine, with limbs flexed and slightly inclined to the left, and the hands brought to the chest (Figure 4). The respective positions of the head and the right hand are not compatible with natural taphonomic processes; the preservation of the cranio-mandibular connections, as well as those of the wrist and right hand, shows that they were surrounded by soil before decomposition occurred, preventing any involuntary displacement of these bones. (Figure 5).

Figure 4. General view of the burial (photograph R. Marsac).

Figure 5. Detailed view (rotated by 180°) of the head supported by the right hand (photograph by R. Marsac).

This positioning raises questions about when the head was separated from the rest of the body and the modalities of this separation. It seems plausible that the detachment of the head occurred while the flesh maintained the rest of the skeleton in connection. One cannot entirely rule out a desiccation process, resembling mummification, which would have led to the preservation of labile anatomical connections for longer than usual. However, this is unlikely within the chronological, geographical and climatic contexts of this site. In these circumstances, the preservation of labile connections is more likely to indicate the primary nature of this deposit, meaning that it is both the initial and final placement of the deceased (Duday Reference Duday2009), and it must therefore be assumed that the head was severed from the body at the time of death or shortly thereafter.

The condition of the bones, notably the very poor preservation of the cervical spine, did not allow for the observation of any possible marks at this level nor on the mandible, as might be left by cutting off a head from a fresh body. The specificity of this cervical disconnection and the fact that the rest of the skeleton is complete makes the hypothesis of a simple natural decomposition, or even a dislocation in a paradoxical order (Maureille & Sellier Reference Maureille and Sellier1996), difficult to sustain. The most likely explanation is that an active and deliberate cutting of the neck detached the head from the rest of the body.

An unusual case for the period

Burial practices involving the removal of heads are documented at many Neolithic or protohistoric sites but, to date, no comparable example has been found in the Neolithic of southern France. In this context, they mainly appear as a removal of the skull from the burial at a later date, often occurring after complete decomposition of the body (Boulestin Reference Boulestin2012). The Puisserguier burial differs in that the head was intentionally placed in contact with the postcranial skeleton. Similarly, while decapitations have been observed in some burials, often accompanied by dismemberment (Lefranc et al. Reference Lefranc, Reveillas, Thomas, Rocha, Bueno-Ramirez and Branco2015, Reference Lefranc, Denaire, Jeunesse, Boulestin, Bickle and Sibbesson2018), such cases deviate from the typical body positioning observed at Puisserguier.

Despite this unusual treatment, the conventional body position leads us to question the status of this woman and the nature of this deposit. The true sepulchral nature of interments found within reused pits is widely debated (e.g. Jeunesse Reference Jeunesse2010; Schmitt Reference Schmitt2023), especially in instances where these deposits exhibit anomalies such as signs of violence or unusual body positions. They can occasionally be interpreted as indicative of an exclusion of the deceased (Boulestin Reference Boulestin2023). While the burial at Puisserguier may align more with those particular deposits, the meticulous care in its arrangement, conforming to the most common burial posture of the period, suggests efforts to maintain a semblance of normality in death, despite the breach of bodily integrity.

Conclusions

The Puisserguier burial has, to our knowledge, no equivalent elsewhere in France. It is unusual owing to the stark contrast between the apparent intentional disruption of anatomical continuity at the neck and the meticulous post-mortem care afforded to the body. The attention given to the positioning of the head and the right hand likely signifies a deliberate funerary practice. Furthermore, the body's placement in a manner commonly observed in individual Neolithic burials indicates, we believe, the significance attributed to maintaining normalcy in death, despite the remarkable treatment and staging applied to the deceased.

References

Boulestin, B. 2012. Aperçu des pratiques autour de la tête du Néolithique au premier âge du Fer, in Crânes trophées, crânes d'ancêtres et autres pratiques autour de la tête: problèmes d'interprétation en archéologie. Actes de la table ronde pluridisciplinaire, musée national de la Préhistoire, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne, France), 14–16 octobre 2010: 8998 (BAR International Series 2415). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310138Google Scholar
Boulestin, B. 2023. Des morts privés de funérailles: cadre général de réflexion, in Sans sépulture Modalités et enjeux de la privation de funérailles de la Préhistoire à nos jours: 1–21. Oxford: Archaeopress. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.15135987.4Google Scholar
Duday, H. 2009. The archaeology of the dead: lectures in archaeothanatology (Studies in Funerary Archaeology Volume 3): 2530. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1cd0pkvCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandelin, M. 2021. Tombes et inhumations en structures domestiques réemployées du Néolithique moyen méridional: une différence de registre?, in Sépultures et rites funéraires/Sepulture è riti funerari. Actes du colloque organisé par l'Association de Recherches Préhistoriques Corses (ARPPC) Calvi – 2019: 181203. Calvi: Jean Sicurani.Google Scholar
Guilaine, J. & Gandelin, M.. 2023. Véraza et le Vérazien, Les fouilles aux Grottes de La Valette (1963–1964) et le Vérazien aujourd'hui, sous la direction de Jean Guilaine et Muriel Gandelin, Archives d’Écologie Préhistoriques, 623.Google Scholar
Jeunesse, C. 2010. Les sépultures en fosses circulaires de l'horizon 4500–3500: contribution à l’étude comparée des systèmes funéraires du Néolithique européen, in Morts anormaux et sépultures bizarres. Les dépôts humains en fosses circulaires ou en silos du Néolithique à l’âge du Fer. Actes de la IIe table ronde interdisciplinaire “Morts anormaux et sépultures bizarres: questions d'interprétation en archéologie funéraire” 29 mars - 1er avril 2006, Sens: 3656 (Art, Archéologie et Patrimoine). Éditions universitaires de Dijon.Google Scholar
Lefranc, P., Reveillas, H. & Thomas, Y.. 2015. Les pratiques mortuaires du Néolithique récent en Alsace: l'exemple du site de Gougenheim (France, Bas-Rhin), in Rocha, L., Bueno-Ramirez, P. and Branco, G. (ed.) Death as archaeology of transition: thoughts and materials: 131–44. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Lefranc, Ph., Denaire, A., Jeunesse, C. & Boulestin, B.. 2018. Dismembering bodies and atypical human deposits of the 4th millennium cal BC in the Upper-Rhine valley: part of sacrificial practices?, in Bickle, P. & Sibbesson, E. (ed.) Neolithic bodies: 92112 (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 15). Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maureille, B. & Sellier, P.. 1996. Dislocation en ordre paradoxal, momification et décomposition: observations et hypothèses. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris 8(3–4): 313–27. https://doi.org/10.3406/bmsap.1996.2451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, A. 2023. Identifier des morts sans funérailles en contexte archéologique: des cas datés du Néolithique, in Sans sépulture: Modalités et enjeux de la privation de funérailles de la Préhistoire à nos jours: 2233. Oxford: Archaeopress. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.15135987.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Location, plan and general view of pit 1079 (figure by R. Marsac, O. Ginouvez & J. Rouquet).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Typical ceramic vases associated with the skeleton (figure by R. Marsac).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Chalcolithic dagger discovered 150m east of pit 1079 (figure by O. Ginouvez).

Figure 3

Figure 4. General view of the burial (photograph R. Marsac).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Detailed view (rotated by 180°) of the head supported by the right hand (photograph by R. Marsac).