| Popis: |
En 1934, Maurice Vidal met au jour un squelette mésolithique dans le gisement du Roc du Barbeau (Tursac, Dordogne). Importante sur le plan anthropologique, cette découverte présente un autre intérêt majeur. Il est en effet possible de suivre, de son invention à son entrée au Musée de Préhistoire des Eyzies, le devenir de ce squelette, à l’origine d’un imbroglio qui occupe le propriétaire du terrain, l’inventeur du squelette, nombre de savants – dont l’Inspecteur des Monuments préhistoriques Denis Peyrony – et l’Administration des Beaux-Arts entre 1934 et 1949. Grâce à une riche documentation primaire pour l’essentiel inédite, cet essai de microhistoire se propose d’étudier sur une période de quinze ans les pratiques préhistoriennes dans le domaine des fouilles proprement dites puis dans celui de la conservation et de la patrimonialisation des vestiges qui en sont issus. Le choix délibérement fait de nous placer aux côtés des protagonistes de l'affaire et de les suivre pas à pas autorise l’appréhension d’éléments qui restent généralement inaccessibles à d’autres échelles, permettant ainsi de mesurer de manière assez précise le rôle de chacun d’eux dans son déroulement. Placé au centre de l’étude, l’individu redevient ce qu’il a réellement toujours été au cours de sa vie : un acteur de son histoire et de l’Histoire. In 1934, Maurice Vidal excavated the first Mesolithic skeleton found in the Dordogne at the site of Le Roc du Barbeau (Tursac). This important discovery of human remains is equally interesting from a historical perspective. Here, we present a concise history addressing fieldwork practices and the subsequent conservation and recording of the remains collected over a 15-year period based on a sizeable body of largely unpublished documents. This approach makes it possible to trace the history of this skeleton over a fifteen-year period between 1934 and 1949, from its discovery to its arrival at the Musée de Préhistoire des Eyzies, as well as the imbroglio that surrounded it, which involved the landowner, the discoverer of the fossil, a large number of scholars and the Administration des Beaux-Arts.A deliberate decision was made to examine the different protagonists of the affair in detail and follow their actions step-by-step in order to better understand certain aspects that would otherwise have been difficult to take into account. This also renders it possible to generate an accurate and fair evaluation of the role of each person in this process. The thoughts and actions of the individuals in the field, often ignored, relegated to anecdotes and thus considered irrelevant, invariably play an important role in the construction of any historical event. The actors in this story take on the role they played during their lifetime: protagonists in their own story and in History.This is clearly the case for the affair discussed here. Given the absence of binding legislation, the discoverer, Maurice Vidal, remained completely free to choose the destination of the material discovered during his excavations, including selling them abroad. This possibility forced advocates of a national archaeological heritage programme, here in the form of Denis Peyrony, to undertake what sometimes turned out to be long and complex negotiations.In his capacities as inspector of Prehistoric Monuments for the Dordogne and conservator of the Musée de Préhistoire des Eyzies he had founded, Denis Peyrony played a central role throughout affair. Once the discovery had been made public, Peyrony provided technical support for the excavations and exhumation of the skeleton. However, in addition to the ongoing work, Peyrony immediately anticipated the future of this discovery in three ways. Scientifically, he ensured the excavations were carried out using what at the time was called the “stratigraphic method” and that the material uncovered from the site were collected correctly. In terms of heritage concerns, it seemed obvious to him that the excavated remains should be acquired by the Administration des Beaux-Arts in order to be immediately transferred to theMusée des Eyzies for exhibition. Lastly, he did not overlook the economic aspect of the discovery, in that he planned to incorporate it into development of tourism in the Vézère Valley: the site, protected after the excavations, should be open to the public with a stratigraphic profile visible, accompanied by a replica of the skeleton.Peyrony’s ambitious project very rapidly encountered opposition from Maurice Vidal. The discoverer of the skeleton was a complex character; seeking late scientific and social recognition, he fancied himself a heritage advocate while simultaneously trying to gain financially from his discovery through the sale of the skeleton. His equivocations and then his clear refusal to sell the skeleton at a fair price to the Administration des Beaux-Arts, combined with his increasingly marked enmity towards the Peyronys, father and son, probably envious of their social status, progressively led him into an impasse from which he failed to escape over the years.However, at the initiative of Denis Peyrony, the state continued its efforts to acquire the remains from Le Roc du Barbeau. The various unsuccessful attempts between 1930 and 1940 brought into play some of the most famous specialists in French prehistory — Marcellin Boule, Henri-Victor Vallois and Henri Breuil — as well as the upper echelon of the Administration des Beaux-Arts, including Georges Huisman, René Perchet and Paul Verdier.These fifteen years of discussions ended thanks to the involvement of a philanthropist and ardent supporter of French heritage, Louis Vésignié. At the request of prehistorian Paul Fitte, a friend of Vidal, he acquired the remains from Le Roc du Barbeau in 1949 for 20,000 francs and immediately donated them to the Musée des Eyzies.The long period between the discovery of the skeleton and its integration into the collections of this institution had an impact on the fossil, which was damaged following being stored in a damp garage and poorly protection for 15 years. No longer a new discovery, no scientific analyses were carried nor were the remains inventoried, instead they were directly integrated in the museum’s stores. In 1964, after being reconditioned by Claude Barrière, it was incorporated into the museum’s permanent exhibition. In addition, the skeleton was missing certain essential elements, such as the skull and mandible, which had been lost and substituted by casts. In 1991, the skeleton from Le Roc de Marsal was exhibited alongside the other burials and then returned to the stores, where it has remained to this day. The site itself was gradually forgotten and has not been reinvestigated since Maurice Vidal’s excavation 90 years ago.Indicative of the excavation practices of the time as well as the difficulties the Administration des Beaux-Arts had to overcome to protect national heritage, this affair may have played a role in the adoption of articles 5 and 6 of the law of 27 September 1941. These articles grant the French state the right to irrevocably claim any archaeological object discovered either by chance or recovered during excavations. From this date onwards, property owners or discoverers can no longer indefinitely withhold archaeological material from public authorities, meaning that the Le Roc du Barbeau affair will never be repeated. |
