*The decapitated woman of Puisserguier (Hérault, France): A Case Study of Contrasting Mortuary Treatment*

Jérôme Rouquet, Jérôme Hernandez, Romain Marsac, Mélanie Pruvost, Muriel Gandelin

**Authors' affiliations**

Jérôme Rouquet: French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research, UMR 5199 PACEA, Bordeaux University, France. Email: jerome.rouquet@inrap.fr

Jérôme Hernandez: French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research, UMR 5140 ASM, Montpellier University, France. Email: jerome.hernandez@inrap.fr

Romain Marsac: French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research, France. Email: romain.marsac@inrap.fr

Mélanie Pruvost: French National Centre for Scientific Research, UMR 5199 PACEA, Bordeaux University, France. Email: melanie.pruvost@u-bordeaux.fr

Muriel Gandelin: French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research, UMR 5608 TRACES, Toulouse University, France. Email: Muriel.gandelin@inrap.fr
*The decapitated woman of Puisserguier (Hérault, France): A Case Study of Contrasting Mortuary Treatment*

**Abstract:** An archaeological discovery at Puisserguier in France revealed an exceptional skeleton dating from the Late Neolithic. The body of a woman was carefully buried, with its head deposited on its torso, supported by the right hand. This unusual staging contrasts with the disposal of the rest of the body, which follows a standard pattern for individual burials of this period. The singular nature of this deposit, situated within the context of the Late Neolithic in southern France, raises questions regarding its true funerary status.

A chance discovery in a Neolithic cellar

An archaeological evaluation, set in 2017 at Puisserguier (Hérault, France), led to the discovery of an exceptional skeleton of the Late Neolithic (3500-2500 BCE). The body was deposited at the bottom of a 2.90m diameter pit, preserved over a depth of 0.30m (Figure 1). This structure has been interpreted as the base of a storage cellar. This set can be related, after examining at the typology of pottery finds (Figure 2), to the latest phase of the *Verazien* culture (Guilaine and Gandelin, 2023). A radiocarbon measurement carried out on the deceased's bones confirms its attribution to the Chalcolithic period (between 2700 and 2600 BCE).

Other vestiges, such as a copper dagger discovered during ploughing 150m to the east, also belongs to the same period (Figure 3). These elements are testimonies of a human occupation in this sector at the end of the Neolithic.

A carefully buried decapitated woman?

This skeleton belongs to a woman aged between 20 and 49 years. The treatment to which she was subjected is remarkable: her head, detached from the spine, rests on her chest, held by her right hand. This arrangement starkly contrasts with the positioning of the rest of the body, rather conventional for Neolithic burial (Gandelin 2021). The skeleton lies supine, slightly inclined to the left. The upper limbs are flexed with the hands brought to the chest. The lower limbs, also flexed, are tilted to the left (Figure 4). The respective positions of the head and the right hand are not compatible with natural taphonomic processes, notably due to the sealing of the decomposition space, at least at this level, highlighted by the preservation of the craniomandibular and the right wrist and hand connections (Figure 5). This preservation raises the question of when the head of this woman was separated from the rest of her body and the modalities of this separation. It seems quite 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 beyond their usual disappearance time. However, this would remain an unlikely phenomenon within the chronological, geographical, and climatic contexts of this site. In these circumstances, the preservation of labile connections more likely indicates the primary nature of this deposit (Duday 2009) 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. It is therefore not possible to prove the decapitation of the subject. However, the specificity of this cervical disconnection associated with the maintenance of the rest of the skeleton makes the hypothesis of a simple natural decomposition, or even a dislocation in a paradoxical order (Maureille & Sellier 1996) difficult to sustain. At this stage, an active and deliberate cutting of the neck to detach the head from the rest of the body appears to be the most likely hypothesis to explain this case.
## A unique case

Practices involving heads are documented at many Neolithic or protohistoric sites but, to date, no comparable burial has been found in the Neolithic of Southern France. In this context, they mainly appear as a removal of the skulls from the burial, often occurring after complete decomposition of the body (Boulestin 2012). Puisserguier differs in that the head was intentionally and closely maintained in contact with the postcranial skeleton. Similarly, while decapitations have been observed in some burials, often accompanied by dismemberment (Lefranc Ph., Réveillas H., Thomas Y. 2015, Lefranc Ph., Denaire A., Jeunesse C., Boulestin B. 2018), 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 (Jeunesse 2010, Schmitt 2023), especially in instances where these deposits exhibit anomalies such as signs of violence or unusual body positions. They can be occasionally interpreted as indicative of an exclusion of the deceased (Boulestin 2023). While this 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 deliberate breach of bodily integrity.

## Conclusions.

The archaeological discovery at Puisserguier unveils a Neolithic burial, which, to our knowledge, finds no equivalent elsewhere in France. It prompts inquiries due 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 treatment, which bears no resemblance to the typical funerary practices observed in the Late Neolithic of Southern France. However, the deceased's placement in a manner commonly observed in individual Neolithic burials speaks, in our estimation, to the significance attributed to maintaining normalcy in death, despite the remarkable treatment and staging applied to the deceased.

## Reference

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: 89-98 (BAR International Series 2415). Oxford.

- . 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*. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd.

DUDAY, H. 2009. *The archaeology of the dead: lectures in archaeothanatology* (Studies in Funerary Archaeology Vol. 3): 25-30. Oxford Oakville, Conn: Oxbow Books.

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: 181-203. Calvi: Jean Sicurani.

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 p.
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 Ile table ronde interdisciplinaire "Morts anormaux et sépultures bizarres: questions d'interprétation en archéologie funéraire"* 29 mars - 1er avril 2006, Sens: 36-56 (Art, Archéologie et Patrimoine). Éditions universitaires de Dijon.

LEFRANC, P., REVEILLAS, H. and THOMAS, Y. 2015. Les pratiques mortuaires du Néolithique récent en Alsace: l'exemple du site de Gougenheim (France, Bas-Rhin). In L. Rocha, P. Bueno-Ramirez and G. Branco (eds.) *Death as Archaeology of Transition: Thoughts and Materials*, 131-44. Oxford, Archaeopress.

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 *In : Bickle P., Sibbesson E. (eds.), Neolithic bodies: 92-112 (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 15)*. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

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, p. 313-327.

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*, Archaeopress Publishing Ltd: 22-33.

## Figure legend

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

Figure 2 : Typical ceramic vases associated with the deceased (Figure by R. Marsac).

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

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

Figure 5 : Detailed view of the head supported by the right hand (Photograph by Marsac).
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

1/40

1 m
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

1
1079-7

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

2
1079-5

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

3
1079-6

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

4
1079-4

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

5
1079-3

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

6
1079-2

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

3 cm
Romain Marsac, Inrap

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

7
1079-9

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

10
1079-8

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

8
1079-10

9
1079-11

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

11
1079-1

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

0

3 cm
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

50 cm
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>