Chapitre A2 Préhistoire et protohistoire sur le territoire de Tercis les Bains (France)

Abstract

Summary Pottier (1872) emphasised the strong archaeological interest of the area around Tercis les Bains. Most of the archaeological sites are located at the top of the hill along the Adour River (figure 1). They commonly display remains which pertain to different prehistory cultures due to the disturbance of the original deposits (plough land, erosion, quarrying). Several archaeological industries have been tentatively identified: the mid or late Acheulean (scarce), the Mousterian (more common), the Aurignacian (mostly the late portion of it, with numerous tools), the Gravettian, the Solutrean (scarce). Neolithic or Bronze Age remains are also known, including a fortified camp (incorrectly referred to as the “Roman Camp” in the local tradition). One ignores the age of the late protohistorical human presence. At least four varieties of flint have been used for making tools. No precisely similar flint varieties have been collected from the Cretaceous limestone of the quarry and their provenance is problematic. A local provenance is supported by the lack of similar varieties in all archaeological sites known to us from SW France. In this chapter, it is suggested that the prehistoric humans collected their flint in secondary fluvial accumulations found at that time on the northern flank and at the bottom of the hill, where the Adour River had probably concentrated the flint nodules. The contemporaneous use of quartzite boulders of similar origin supports this hypothesis. The palaeolithic industry displayed at Tercis appears to be original compared to the industries known elsewhere in SW France. Tercis is a place where archaeology has a large field of application for future research. Appendix 1 (G. S. Odin) gives a list of the places where archaeological material from Tercis is preserved. Appendix 2 (G. S. Odin & D. Neraudeau) discusses a Palaeolithic nucleus found loose in the geological site at Tercis les Bains which shows a well preserved internal mould of echinoid. The lithological material, a dark flint, is consistent with the one used by Palaeolithic humans locally. The echinoid is morphologically similar or close to the Cyclaster integer species. This form was found in situ in the Campanian and Maastrichtian limestone outcropping there. The provenance of the echinoid is thus most probably local. The use of echinoid fossils by prehistoric humans has already been quoted in several occasions. However, in the present case, it seems possible that the fossil has been positively preserved by the tool maker, which is not the case of former quotations of similar findings, at least for the period (Aurignacian industry) to which the nucleus may be referred.