The First and Second Mesolithic of La Grande Rivoire (Vercors range, Isère, France): A Diachronic Perspective on Lithic Technology

(1)

Proceedings Chapter

Reference

The First and Second Mesolithic of La Grande Rivoire (Vercors range, Isère, France): A Diachronic Perspective on Lithic Technology

ANGELIN, Alexandre, PERRIN, Thomas, NICOD, Pierre-Yves

ANGELIN, Alexandre, PERRIN, Thomas, NICOD, Pierre-Yves. The First and Second Mesolithic of La Grande Rivoire (Vercors range, Isère, France): A Diachronic Perspective on Lithic

Technology. In: 9th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe . 2020. p.

426-433

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:138080

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

67. The First and Second Mesolithic of La Grande Rivoire (Vercors range, Isère, France): A diachronic perspective on lithic technology

Alexandre Angelin, Thomas Perrin and Pierre-Yves Nicod

Discovered in 1986, La Grande Rivoire rockshelter is located in the north of the subalpine mountain range of Vercors (northern French Alps) at 580 masl. Five meters of the site’s stratigraphy reveals a continuous chrono- cultural sequence spanning the time from the First Mesolithic to the Gallo-Roman period. This paper presents the results of studies of lithic technology of the First and Second Mesolithic sequences (c. 8450–6050 cal BC) in a diachronic perspective. The data gathered contribute to the understanding of the regional chrono- cultural evolution. A vertical projection analysis performed in a marginal area of the settlement led us to the identification of eight assemblages. Typo-technological analysis performed on some 12,500 lithic artefacts allowed us to identify three distinctive First Mesolithic and two distinctive Second Mesolithic periods, which is supported by new radiocarbon dates. Therefore, these results permit us to identify, within half a century, the disappearance of microliths on narrow bladelets and the emergence of geometric bitruncations on large bladelets and to update the actual chronological evolution of the regional Mesolithic.

Keywords: First and Second Mesolithic, lithic technology, arrowhead, Alps, mountainous environment

Introduction

Since the late 1970s, French subalpine mountain ranges such as Vercors, Chartreuse, Dévoluy, Bauges, and Bornes-Aravis have been the focus of archaeological ex- ploration. Research undertaken in these regions, and es- pecially in the Vercors range, revealed that this area was repeatedly occupied since the end of the Late Glacial (see Angelin et al. 2016 for a list of references; Bintz et al. 2008).

Mesolithic sites were recognized in rockshelters and at open-air locations above 1000 masl, reflecting a dynamic occupation and exploitation of this mountainous environment by Mesolithic people.

Research objectives

To date, the chronological evolution observed for the Me- solithic period (mainly in Vercors and Chartreuse assemblages), remains incomplete (Fig. 67.1) and places the First Mesolithic c. 9200–6700/6500 cal BC and the Second Me- solithic between c. 6700/6500 and 5800 cal BC (Bintz and Pelletier 1999). In order to refine the regional chronological sequence and date high-altitude open-air sites, stratigraph- ic sequences from rockshelter settlements are taken into consideration. For instance, La Grande Rivoire rockshelter displays a well-developed sequence spanning the time

from the First Mesolithic to the Gallo-Roman period and sets itself as a good candidate for our study. Since multidisciplinary and preliminary results have recently been provided for this site (Nicod et al. 2012; Angelin et al. 2016), the aim of this paper is to offer new and complete results on the typo-technological evolution of the lithic industry from the First and Second Mesolithic periods of the site.

La Grande Rivoire rockshelter

The archaeological settlement of La Grande Rivoire is a rockshelter situated in the northern part of the Vercors range, close to the city of Grenoble (Fig. 67.2). The site, located in the Furon Valley, main northern access to the mountain range, faces the south and lies at 580 masl at the foot of a cliff of the Senonian limestone, which contains si- liceous flint. It was discovered by chance in 1986 and a res- cue excavation was carried out by Régis Picavet from 1986 to 1994 (Picavet 1999). Since 2000 the site has been sea- sonally excavated under the direction of Pierre-Yves Nicod.

The area protected by the overhang is c. 80 square me- tres wide (Fig. 67.3) and has been carefully excavated by areas and according to the single context recording method by décapages, with excavation units following sedimentary changes and archaeological deposits (Angelin et al. 2016;

(3)

67. The First and Second Mesolithic of La Grande Rivoire (Vercors range, Isère, France): A diachronic perspective on lithic technology

427

Late Mesolithic

– Débitage of large and regular bladelets – Punch (and/or pressure) technique – Manufacture of bitruncations (trapezes) – Microburin technique

– Castelnovian culture

Middle Mesolithic (late phase) – Débitage of "regular" bladelets

– Direct percussion with a soft/hard-stone percussor – Manufacture of backed points and scalene triangles – Slight increase in arrowheads’ sizes

– Late Sauveterrian culture Middle Mesolithic (early phase)

– Débitage of thin flakes and micro-bladelets – Direct percussion with a soft/hard-stone percussor – Manufacture of crescents and isosceles triangles – Hypermicrolithism and microburin technique – Early Sauveterrian culture

Early Mesolithic

– Very anecdotal presence in Vercors – Epipalaeolithic Azilian/Laborian traditions – Microburin technique

2

ND

M

ESO

. 1

ST

M

ESOLITHIC

c. 5800 cal BC

c. 6700 cal BC

c. 9200 cal BC c. 7500

cal BC

c. 8500 cal BC

After Bintz and Pelletier 1999; Bintz et al. 2008 (modified)

Fig. 67.1. First and Second Mesolithic of the northern French Alps chronology. The different phases follow the lithic techno-typological evolution (modified after Bintz and Pelletier 1999; Bintz et al. 2008).

Assemblage Lab ID Reference Excavation

unit Sample Age BP cal BC (95%

confidence) Reliability ASS 5 Beta-255119 GR08.T17.d30.614.

LSBM SU16-21.d30 metatarsus,

Cervus elaphus 7310±40 6237–6072 Good ASS 4 Beta-282248 GR09.S17.d34.

LGM(C) SU16-21.d34 rib, Cervus

elaphus 7790±40 6688–6506 Good

ASS 3B Lyon-12107

(SacA-41853) GR09.S17.d38.672.

LSBMG SU16-21.d38 metatarsus,

Cervus elaphus 7835±35 6770–6594 Probable ASS 3A Lyon-12106

(SacA-41852) GR10.S19.d40.905.

LSGM SU16-21.d40 rib mammal 8165±35 7304–7064 Probable ASS 2 Lyon-12105

(SacA-41851)

GR11.S16.d44.636.

LBM(F) SU16-21.d44

tibia, Cervus elaphus/Capra

ibex 8705±40 7934–7597 Good

ASS 1B

Lyon-12104

(SacA-41850) GR11.S18.d45.1133.

LSGFB SU16-21.d45 bone diaphysis, mamal 9060±40 8312–8231 Good Lyon-12103

(SacA-41849) GR11.S18.d46.1187.

LSP/CX SU16-21.d46 metatarsus, Capreolus

capreolus) 9095±40 8429–8242 Good

ASS 1A Lyon-12102

(SacA-41848) GR11.T17.d47.1044.

LGM/LGC SU16-21.d47 tibia, Cervus

elaphus 9040±40 8301–8223 Good

Table 67.1. Radiocarbon raw data from Mesolithic levels of La Grande Rivoire (SU16–21) calibrated at 95% confidence against InCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013) using OxCal v4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2013). Reliability is based on radiocarbon dates’ matching with lithic industries.

Nicod et al. 2012; Nicod and Picavet 2003). Mesolithic layers, compacted in over a meter, are characterized by anthropogenic sediments composed essentially of vegetal organic matter, wood ashes, and heated stones. Archaeo- logical finds are also abundant and mainly consist of faunal remains and knapped lithic artefacts (Angelin et al. 2016;

Nicod et al. 2012).

Due to the lack of both features and artefacts in area S19–21 (see Fig. 67.3) as well as some taphonomical processes in area ST21, in this paper, we will only focus our lithic typo-technological analysis of the First and Second Mesolithic layers in area SU16–18 of the site (Fig. 67.3).

Radiocarbon chronology

The Mesolithic chronological sequence of La Grande Rivoire is aided by 14 radiocarbon dates (Picavet 1999; Nicod et al.

2012; Angelin et al. 2016). Six measurements have been obtained from bone samples coming from squares SU16–18 and one from square S19 but are regardless considered in this study (Fig. 67.4, Table 67.1). According to the current chronological sequence (Fig. 67.1), four dates (Lyon-12102 [SacA-41848], Lyon-12103 [SacA-41849], Lyon-12104 [SacA- 41850], Lyon-12105 [SacA-41851]) correspond to an early phase of the First Mesolithic, spanning the period from c.

8430 to 7600 cal BC. Two other measurements (Lyon-12106 [SacA-41852], Lyon-12107 [SacA-41853]) correspond to a late phase of the First Mesolithic, spanning the period from c. 7300 to 6600 cal BC. The last two dates (Beta-282248,

(4)

Beta-255119) are compatible with the Second Mesolithic (6690–6070 cal BC) but need to be refined and con- fronted with the lithic industry for further discussion. Further analysis and sample collection will soon be performed in order to strengthen the present results and refine the chrono-cultural Mesolithic sequence of La Grande Rivoire.

Lithic techno-typology:

A diachronic perspective

Methods

Prior to the technological study, lithic artefact refitting and spatial distribution analysis have been carried out for excavation units d30 to d48 in area SU16–18 (Fig. 67.3). Data such as the density of unearthed sediment as well as three-dimension provenance of in situ uncovered faunal and lithic remains have allowed us to group excavation units and to identify eight archaeological assemblages numbered in a sequence from bottom to top (0, 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, and 5).

Raw materials have been grouped by local or regional provenance. Local raw material was collected near La Grande Rivoire and consists of flint nodules present in the limestone cliff. They are of very poor knapping quality. Region- al raw material was collected over a wider area (from a few hundred meters up to 50 km) but restricted to the mountain range of Vercors and perhaps Chartreuse (Affolter and Grunwald 1999; Bressy 2003).

The latter are of very good knapping quality.

The typological analysis follows the work previous- ly done by Perrin (2001, 2009), allowing us to consider a wide range of criteria, such as blank types and shaping technique.

Lithic dataset overview

The eight identified archaeological assemblages are composed of 12,443 lithic artefacts. In each case splinters and thermally affected debris compose most of the assemblage.

They exhibit very good evidence of in situ knapping activ- ities and enable different steps of the chaine(s) opératoire(s)

to be detailed. However, assemblage 0 (n=26) contains too few lithic artefacts and has not been taken into consideration in this study.

First Mesolithic

Reduction sequences overview

Through the analysis of cores, blanks, and tools we could identify two main chaines opératoires in assemblages 1A to 3B.

• The first one concerns local raw materials and is directed towards the débitage of flakes by direct percussion with a soft/hard hammerstone. The shaping of the nodules is

Isère

Bourne Cholet Lyonne

Isère

Sure Boisse

Vernaison

Drôme Gervanne Drôme

Bez Archiane

Ebr Donnièr on

e Drac

Gresse Fur on

Doulouche

Drac

Isère

Fur e

Isère

Rhône

Guiers

Drac Romanche

Chambéry

Grenoble

Romans-sur- Isère

Crest

Die

Châtillon-en-Diois Gresse-en- Vercors Villard-de- Lans

Grand Veymont 2341 m

Chamechaude 2082 m

Taillefer 2857 m

1

2

3

4 5

8 6 7

9

10 11 12

Alt. (masl)

0 (km) 40

0 (mi) 24

Reminder: 1 mi = 1.609344 km (exactly) Summits

Main cities First Mesolithic Second Mesolithic Occupations:

N 0

200500 10001500

>2000

DÉVOLUY

ÉCRINS TAILLEFER

CHARTREUSE

BELLEDONNE

GRANDES ROUSSES

VERCORS

DIOIS

Fig. 67.2. Main alpine mountain ranges of the northern French Alps with prin- cipal First and Second Mesolithic settlements. QGIS mapping and CAD by A.

Angelin after digital elevation model (DEM) provided and distributed by the NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC). 1. La Fru (Saint-Christophe, Savoie, 570 m); 2. Aulp du Seuil (Saint-Bernard-du-Touvet, Isère, 1710 m); 3. Grande Rivoire (Sassenage, Isère, 580 m); 4. Pas de l’Échelle (Rovon, Isère, 980 m); 5. Coins I and II (Lans-en-Vercors, Isère, 1440 m); 6. Cou- fin I and II (Choranche, Isère, 550 m); 7. Fontaine de Machiret (Villard-de- Lans, Isère, 1265 m); 8. Pas de la Charmate (Châtelus, Isère, 1100 m); 9. Bla- chette-sud (Sinard, Isère, 830 m); 10. Pré Peyret I and II (Gresse-en-Vercors, Isère, 1610 m); 11. Pas de l’Aiguille (Chichilianne, Isère, 1610 m); 12. Col de Jiboui (Treschnu-Creyers, Drôme, 1580 m).

(5)

429

made in situ and the main débitage is rather pragmatic with no real side preference but with a constant search for ideal convexities. Core exploitation is generally not pushed toward exhaustion with multiple and successive striking platforms and maintenance phases are inexis- tent or can only be linked to débitage reorientation. No first-line production of flakes has been identified and the products extracted, disregarding their position within the chaine opératoire, are often used as tools (simple use of the flakes sharp edges) and rarely retouched. This chaine opératoire decreases in importance throughout the sequence in favour of regional raw materials;

• The second reduction sequence concerns regional raw materials and involves the production of irregular short, narrow, and thin bladelets (of about 20 by 7.5 by 1.5 mm) of triangular section by direct percussion with a soft hammerstone. Bladelet butts are mostly punctiform and less frequently plain. The absence of shaping flakes (cor- tical ones) suggests that this step was carried out else- where (probably in a not-yet-excavated area, or directly in the raw material extraction sites). Core management is strictly unipolar, but the opening of a secondary striking platform is often the case, allowing for the correction of longitudinal convexities. When observable, cores are well maintained by removal of ‘tablet’ flakes, plunging flakes, and rare partial crested bladelets for flanks and carène maintenance. The production is often pushed to its maximum or stopped when facing flaking accidents.

First-line products are transformed into microlithic backed points and second-line artefacts (maintenance flakes and bladelets) are often directly used as tools, sometimes retouched. This chaine opératoire and the proportion of regional raw materials increase in importance throughout the sequence.

Assemblages 1A/B

Typology is characterized by domestic tools, rarely retouched (few backed flakes, truncations, and endscrapers), on local raw materials. At the same time, there is a great variability of arrowheads manufactured on bladelets of regional raw materials (Table 67.2). The most represented types are points with an arched back (or crescents, Fig. 67.5:15–16), axial points (unilateral and bilateral, Fig. 67.5:17) and points with a backed edge and oblique

F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

V 24

NR12-15 IM11-17

NR16-21 SU 16-18

12-15SU On-going excavation

Mesolithic levels (in 2016) Dripline

Excavation test pit 1986-1994

x y

N

1 m

SU19-21

Fig. 67.3. Site plan of La Grande Rivoire showing the main areas excavated since 1986. In dark grey are shown the squares where Mesolithic layers have been reached to date (in 2016). Drawing by A. Angelin.

Arrowhead types Codes ASS 1A/B ASS 2 ASS 3A ASS 3B ASS 4 ASS 5

Axial points with one backed edge BA11A 12 (11.8%) 7 (13.5%) – 1 (3.7%) – –

Points with an arched back (crescents) BA11B 25 (24.5%) 2 (3.8%) – – – –

Axial points with two backed edges BA11C 13 (12.7%) 11 (21.2%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (3.7%) – – Points with a backed edge and an

oblique truncation (scalene triangles) BA12B 20 (19.6%) 22 (42.3%) 9 (47.4%) 10 (37.0%) – – Points with two backed edges and an

oblique truncation (Montclus triangles) BA12C 4 (3.9%) – 1 (5.3%) 4 (14.9%) – –

Longitudinal edges BA14 2 (2.0%) 2 (3.8%) - 1 (3.7%) – –

Undetermined fragments BA15 25 (24.5%) 8 (15.4%) 7 (36.8%) 10 (37.0%) 5 (62.5%) –

Axial points obliquely truncated TR24 1 (1.0%) – – – – –

Asymmetric bitruncations BG1 – – – – – 3 (100%)

Symmetric bitruncations BG2 – – – – 3 (37.5%) –

Total 102 (100%) 52 (100%) 19 (100%) 27 (100%) 8 (100%) 3 (100%)

Table 67.2. Distribution of arrowheads types for each assemblage in area SU16–18. Codes are after Perrin (2009).

(6)

truncation (or scalene triangles, Fig. 67.5:18). Few points with two backed edges and oblique truncation (or Montclus triangles), longitudinal edges, and one point obliquely truncated, complete the assemblage. Rare microburins (n=3) found within the assemblage could attest to the sporadic use of this technique.

Other tools are mainly represented by irregular side removals, endscrapers, implemented by endscrapers, all of them obtained from maintenance products.

Assemblage 2

Typology of arrowheads (Ta- ble 67.2) shows that the most rep-

resented types are axial points (bilateral, Fig. 67.5:11–12) and points with a backed edge and oblique truncation (or scalene triangles, Fig. 67.5:13). Few longitudinal edges (Fig. 67.5:14) complete an assemblage where points with an arched back (n=2) have almost disappeared. Other regional raw material tools are represented by plenty of irregular side removals and very few retouched items such as backed bladelets/flakes, truncations, endscrapers, and sidescrapers obtained from second-line products.

Assemblages 3A/B

From a techno-typological point of view these two assemblages can be grouped together as one and see multiple changes. For instance, flakes débitage as well as multipolar exploitation lose much of their importance compared to the previous ones. Axial points (unilateral and bilateral, Fig. 67.5:7) obtained from regional raw materials tend to disappear from the assemblages (Table 67.2) and are progressively replaced by points with one (Fig. 67.5:8) or two backed edges and oblique truncation (Fig. 67.5:9–10). Oth- er tools take a more important part in these assemblages than in the previous ones.

Second Mesolithic Reduction sequences overview

Assemblages 4 and 5 see radical technological and typological rupture with the previous ones. Behavioural changes are reflected in management of raw materials with a clear disinterest for local raw materials, rarely used or retouched.

Thus, the main chaine opératoire concerns regional raw materials geared towards the production of regular and large bladelets of triangular (rhythm 1-2/2-1) and trapezoidal (rhythm 1-2-3/3-2-1 and 2-1-2’) section by indirect percussion. Products issued from the first-line production are transformed by bitruncations for the creation of trapezes.

Other retouched artefacts are mostly obtained from maintenance flakes and bladelets.

Assemblage 4

The lack of cores does not allow us to identify any management strategies for the débitage. The latter is geared towards the production of regular bladelets with the width spanning from 8 to 11 mm and the thickness of c. 2 mm. Butts are generally plain and less frequently faceted. Microliths from the previous assemblages have disappeared and are replaced by symmetric bitruncations (Table 67.2, Fig. 67.5:1–3). Irregu- lar side removals, truncations, endscrapers, and sidescrapers are well represented within the assemblage and are obtained from second-line flakes and bladelets.

Assemblage 5

Few cores have been identified, mainly on local raw materials despite the lack of retouched products on these materials. Regional ones are strictly unipolar and show débitage of bladelets until exhaustion. Statistical analysis shows bimo- dality in bladelets production, a first one with large products with an average width of 12–14 mm and the thickness of 2–4 mm; the second one, much smaller with an average width of 9 mm and the thickness of 2 mm. Most butts are faceted, less plain, and few technological criteria tend to the identification of pressure technique. Bladelets are then retouched by bitruncations, this time mostly asymmetric and larger (Table 67.2, Fig. 67.5:4–6). One microburin found within the assemblage could attest to a partial use of this technique.

Second-line items are directly used or retouched.

Synthesis and discussion

Through the techno-typological and statistical study of the lithic industry, three distinct periods have been differentiated for the First Mesolithic assemblages (1A to 3B):

ASS 5 – Beta-255119 ASS 4 – Beta-282248

ASS 3B – Lyon-12107 (SacA-41853) ASS 3A – Lyon-12106 (SacA-41852) ASS 2 – Lyon-12105 (SacA-41851) ASS 1B – Lyon-12104 (SacA-41850) ASS 1B – Lyon-12103 (SacA-41849) ASS 1A – Lyon-12102 (SacA-41848)

8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000

Calibrated date (cal BC)

OxCal v4.2.4 Bronk Ramsey (2013); r:5 IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013)

2ND M.1ST MESOLITHIC

Fig. 67.4. Radiocarbon plots and calibrated dates from Mesolithic levels of La Grande Rivoire calibrated at 95% confidence against InCal13 (Reimer et al.

2013) using OxCal v4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2013).

(7)

431

GR08.S18a.d30.LBC GR08.T17.d30.606.LSBM GR08.T18d.d30.LSBM

ASS 5

GR09.S17a.d34.LGM(C) GR09.T17c.d33.LSGM GR09.S17a.d33.LSGM

ASS 4

x 2

GR09.S18.d36.LGM

x 2

GR09.S18a.d38.LSBMG

ASS 3B

x 2

GR10.T18c.d41.LSBMG

x 2

GR10.T18d.d41.LSBMG

ASS 3A

x 2

GR10.T18d.d44.LSBM(G)

x 2

GR10.S18a.d42.LBM GR10.S16c.d41.LSBMG^{x 2}

x 2

GR10.S16d.d44.LSBM(G)

ASS 2

x 2

GR11.S17b.d46.LSGFB

x 2

GR11.T17a.d46.LSP/CX ^{x 2} GR11.T18d.d46.LSP/CX x 2

GR11.S16c.d46.LSGFB

ASS 1B

0 1 cm

0 2 cm

1

2 3

4

6

7

5

8

9 10

11

12

13 14

15 16 18

17

Fig. 67.5. Microlithic arrowheads sorted by assemblage. 1–3: symmetric bitruncations; 4–6: asymmetric bitruncations; 7, 11–12, 17: axial points with two backed edges; 8, 13, 18: points with a backed edge and an oblique truncation; 9–10: points with two backed edges and an oblique truncation; 14: longitudinal edge; 15–16: points with an arched back. Drawings by R. Picavet; CAD by A. Angelin.

(8)

• An early phase (assemblage 1A/B), mainly characterized by points with an arched back (BA11B type, Fig. 67.6) among other types. This phase corresponds with the first anthropogenic evidence at La Grande Rivoire and three dates place it in the second half of the ninth millennium cal BC, i.e. c. 8450–8200 cal BC. Despite few similarities with the industry from layer C2 of Pas de la Charmate (Bintz 1995a), this assemblage seems to be more recent;

• A middle phase (assemblage 2), mostly represented by axial points (BA11C type, Fig. 67.6). Only one date places this phase between c. 7950 and 7600 cal BC, after a chronological gap of 250 years with the underlying assemblage. This phase is contemporaneous with layer E4 of Pas de l’Échelle (Bintz 1995b);

• A late phase (assemblages 3A/B), where axial points are progressively replaced by points with one (BA12B type, Fig. 67.6) or two backed edges and an oblique truncation (BA12C type, Fig. 67.6). The diagnosis of the latter ele- ments, already present in the early phase, still needs to be clarified at the site of La Baume de Montclus (Escalon de Fonton 1966). This phase starts after a chronological gap of 300 years with the underlying assemblage. One date acquired for each assemblage respectively suggests that we are facing two distinct occupations sharing (for about 700 years) an identical lithic technology between c.

7300–7050 cal BC (assemblage 3A) and c. 6750–6600 cal BC (assemblage 3B). This phase is contemporaneous with layers E3b and c of Pas de l’Échelle (Bintz 1995b).

For the Second Mesolithic assemblages (4 and 5), two distinct periods have been differentiated:

• An early phase (assemblage 4) with symmetric bitruncations (BG2 type). This phase is dated c. 6700–6500 cal BC and is continuous and somehow contemporaneous with the underlying assemblage 3B; it allows us to identify, within half of a century, the disappearance of narrow bladelets industry and the emergence of geometric bitruncations on large bladelets. This phase matches layers E1 and E2 of Pas de l’Échelle (Bintz 1995b);

• A late phase (assemblage 5) with asymmetric bitruncations (BG1 type) dated c. 6250–6050 cal BC.

Conclusion

The spatial distribution analysis and techno-typological study carried out on Mesolithic excavation units d30 to d48 of area SU16–18 of La Grande Rivoire allowed us to identify eight archaeological assemblages. For the First Mesolithic (1A to 3B), two main chaines opératoires have been distinguished for each assemblage; one on local raw materials for the production of flakes and the other on regional raw materials for the manufacture of microliths. It has also been possible to refine the chronological sequence of the region, displaying three distinct phases. The early one shows an abundance of points with an arched back and is dated to c. 8450–8200 cal BC; the middle one, mostly represented by axial points spans c. 7950 to 7600 cal BC, and the late one, characterized by points with one or two backed edges and oblique truncation is dated between c. 7300 and 6600 cal BC. From a cultural point of view, these periods have southern affinities and can be associated with the Sauveterrian culture.

For the Second Mesolithic (4 and 5) one main chaine opératoire has been identified on regional raw materials for the manufacture of trapezes by bitruncations of large and regular bladelets. Two periods have been differentiated, an early one dated to c. 6700–6500 cal BC with symmetric bitruncations and a late one dated to c. 6250–6050 cal BC with asymmetric bitruncations. This chrono-typological dichotomy has also been identified in other southern settlements attributed to the Castelnovian culture and most recently at the site of La Baume de Montclus (Perrin and De- franould 2016; Defranould et al. this volume).

Thanks to La Grande Rivoire rockshelter, our understanding of the Mesolithic of the northern French Alps has considerably improved. With this updated chronological evolution proposed for the region now we have a clear sequence that will allow high-altitude open-air sites to be compared. The site shares some similarities with other mountainous sites of the area; our future goal is therefore to enable precise comparisons with other settlements. Also, future in- vestigations of the site along with multidisciplinary studies will help us in advancing a functional and palaeo-ethnolog- ical interpretation.

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-1.0-0.50.00.5

Dim 1 (87.57%)

Dim 2 (10.89%)

BA12C BA15 BA14

MB1

ASS 3B ASS 3A

ASS 2

ASS 1B

Main variables Supplementary points Assemblages

BA12B BA11B

TR24 BA11A

BA11C

Fig. 67.6. Correspondence analysis (CA) for the First Mesolithic assemblages (1B to 3B) based on the numbers of arrowheads (Table 67.2) and microburins (MB1 type) per assemblages. Codes are after Perrin (2009, 313–24, fig. 209–23).

(9)

433 Acknowledgments

For the use of their data and software, we gratefully ac- knowledge the NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC, http://lpdaac.usgs.gov) and Quantum GIS (Geographic Information System) Develop- ment Team (YEAR), Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, http://qgis.osgeo.org.

References

Affolter, J. and C. Grunwald (1999) Approvisionnements en mat- ières premières dans les sites mésolithiques du Vercors. In P. Bintz and A. Thévenin (eds.) L’Europe des derniers chas- seurs. Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique (Actes du 5^e Colloque international de l’UISPP, commisson XII, Grenoble, 18–23 septembre 1995), 603–10. Paris, CTHS, Documents préhis- toriques 2.

Angelin, A., A. Bridault, J. L. Brochier, L. Chaix, L. Chesnaux, B. Marquebielle, L. Martin, P.-Y. Nicod, R. Picavet, and D.

Vannieuwenhuyse (2016) The First Mesolithic in the French Alps: New data from La Grande Rivoire rockshelter (Vercors range, Isère, France). Quaternary International 423, 193–212.

Bintz, P. (1995a) Abri mésolithique du Pas de la Charmate, Châtelus (Isère). In P. Bintz and R. Picavet (eds.) Épipaléo- lithique et Mésolithique en Europe, livret-guide de l’excursion Préhistorique et Quaternaire en Vercors (Actes du 5^e Colloque international de l’UISPP, commisson XII, Grenoble, 18–23 septembre 1995), 104–17. Paris, Universités Joseph Fourier et Pierre Mendès France.

Bintz, P. (1995b) Pas de l’Échelle, Rovon (Isère). In P. Bintz and R. Picavet (eds.) Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique en Europe, livret-guide de l’excursion Préhistorique et Quaternaire en Vercors (Actes du 5^e Colloque international de l’UISPP, commisson XII, Grenoble, 18–23 septembre 1995), 80–3. Paris, Universités Joseph Fourier et Pierre Mendès France.

Bintz, P. and D. Pelletier (1999) Le Mésolithique des Alpes françaises: bilan des connaissances. In A. Beeching (ed.) Cir- culations et identités culturelles alpines à la fin de la préhis- toire. Matériaux pour une étude (Programme CIRCALP, agence Rhône-Alpes pour les Sciences humaines), 317–29.

Valence, Centre d’Archéologie préhistorique, Travaux du Centre d’Archéologie de Valence 1.

Bintz, P., A. Morin, R. Picavet, J. Argant, C. Bressy and D. Pelletier (2008) Les fréquentations humaines de la montagne alpine au début de l’Holocène: l’exemple du Vercors et du Dévoluy. In H. Richard and D. Garcia (eds.) Le peuplement de l’arc alpin (Actes du 131^e congrès national des sociétés historiques et sci- entifiques, Grenoble, 2006), 51–76. Paris, CTHS, Documents préhistoriques 2.

Bressy, C. (2003) Caractérisation et gestion du silex des sites méso- lithiques et néolithiques du Nord-Ouest de l’arc alpin: une

approche pétrographique et géochimique. Oxford, British Ar- chaeological Reports Int. Ser. 1114.

Bronk Ramsey, C., E. M. Scott and J. Van Der Plicht (2013) Cali- bration for archaeological and environmental terrestrial samples in the time range 26–50 ka cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4), 2021–7.

Escalon de Fonton, M. (1966) Du Paléolithique supérieur au Mésolithique dans le Midi méditerranéen. Bulletin de la So- ciété préhistorique française 63(1), 66–180.

Nicod, P.-Y. and R. Picavet (2003) La stratigraphie de la Grande Rivoire (Isère, France) et la question de la néolithisation alpine. In M. Besse, L.-I. Gretsch and P. Curdy (eds.) Con- stellaSion. Hommage à Alain Gallay (Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 95), 147–68. Lausanne, Cahiers d’Archéologie Ro- mande.

Nicod, P.-Y., T. Perrin, J. L. Brochier, L. Chaix, B. Marquebielle, R.

Picavet and D. Vannieuwenhuyse (2012) Continuités et rup- tures culturelles entre chasseurs mésolithiques et chasseurs néolithiques en Vercors, analyse préliminaire des niveaux du Mésolithique récent et du Néolithique ancien sans céramique de l’abri-sous-roche de la Grande Rivoire (Sassenage, Isère).

In T. Perrin, I. Sénépart, J. Cauliez, É. Thirault and S. Bon- nardin (eds.) Dynamismes et rythmes évolutifs des sociétés de la Préhistoire récente. Actualité de la recherche (Actes des 9^e rencontres méridionales de Préhistoire récente, Saint-Georg- es-de-Didonne, 8–9 octobre 2010), 13–32. Toulouse, Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

Perrin, T. (2009) Les silex des couches 60 à 53: technologie et ty- pologie. In J.-L. Voruz (ed.) La grotte du Gardon (Ain), vol- ume 1: le site et la séquence néolithique des couches 60 à 47, 267–312. Toulouse, Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

Perrin, T. and E. Defranould (2016) The Montclus rock shelter (Gard) and the continuity hypothesis between 1st and 2nd Mesolithic in southern France. Quaternary International 423, 230–41.

Picavet, R. (1999) Les niveaux du Mésolithique au Néolithique de l’abri de la Grande-Rivoire (Sassenage, Isère, Vercors, France). In P. Bintz and A. Thévenin (eds.) L’Europe des der- niers chasseurs: Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique (Actes du 5^e Colloque international de l’UISPP, commisson XII, Greno- ble, 18–23 septembre 1995), 617–25. Paris, CTHS, Documents préhistoriques 12.

Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C.

Bronk Ramsey, C. E. Buck, H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards, M. Frie- drich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, H. Haflidason, I. Ha- jdas, C. Hatté, T. J. Heaton, D. L. Hoffmann, A. G. Hogg, K.

A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, M. Niu, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, R. A.

Staff, C. S. M. Turney and J. Van Der Plicht (2013) IntCal13 and marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4), 1869–87.