University archaeological heritage

At the end of the 19th century, after the creation of the chair of archaeology at the Sorbonne in 1876, the first professors worked to create an archaeological instrumentum (or Lehrapparat according to the German model) consisting of a collection of casts and antiques intended for teaching purposes.

At the end of the 19th century, after the creation of the chair of archaeology at the Sorbonne in 1876, the first professors worked to create an archaeological instrumentum (or Lehrapparat according to the German model) consisting of a collection of casts and antiques intended for teaching purposes.

Fig. 1 – Handled jug with rounded body and high neck [33]. Early Bronze Age (3500-2000)

M. Collignon and G. Fougères quickly built up an appreciable collection of Greek antiques, by encouraging donations from individuals and the Greek state, and obtaining the authorisation to store objects from the Louvre Museum, which enabled the Sorbonne to compete with the great German university collections.

Fig. 2 – Flat figurine [204], Boeotia, second half of the sixth century BC

The cramped conditions at the Sorbonne soon proved to be insufficient and rooms of the new Institut d’art et d’archéologie, built between 1927 and 1931, went on to house the Department of Archaeology and History of Art of the University of Paris. Gradually, other archaeological collections were built up as part of teaching and research activities: Near Eastern pottery sherds, impressions of Near Eastern cylinder seals, a collection of knapped stones, etc.

Fig. 3 – Thessalian geometric canthara [72]

The archaeological heritage inventory, restoration, enhancement and research programme of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne aims to revive this educational and scientific vocation of the archaeological reference collections, and to affirm their heritage character at the same time.

Fig. 4 – Female statuette with raised arms [310]. Southern Italy, third-second centuries BC

More specifically, in the context of the laboratory’s involvement in the European alliance UNA Europa, in which cultural heritage is one of the central themes, we will focus on university archaeological heritage. UMR Trajectoires coordinates the PHOENIX project – Parallel Heritage Of European uNIversities.

Fig. 5 – Neurdein, Archaeology room, before 1909 (Inter-university Library of the Sorbonne)

Programme websites: http://agias.huma-num.fr and http://patrimoine.pantheonsorbonne.fr

See also in «Current projects»

Chalcolithic lithic industries of Sultana My research focuses on the lithic industries of the Chalcolithic sites of Sultana, thanks to new excavations led by C. Lăzăr, and includes training a Romanian student in lithic technology. Autour du grand tell daté du Gumelnița et fouillé en 1924 (Andrieșescu 1924), se trouvent des sites plats et des cimetières couvrant l’ensemble du Chalcolithique : Boian pour l’étape ancienne et Gumelnița pour l’étape récente. Les sites sont installés dans la grande plaine loessique roumaine, sur la rive droite du Moștistea, affluent du Danube, et aujourd’hui au bord du lac artificiel de Moștistea. Contribution to the monograph on the Varna Necropolis Three bilingual (German, English) volumes dedicated to the necropolis of Varna, Das Varna Gräberfeld, will be published by Philipp von Zabern, in the DAI Eurasian Series, edited by V. Slavčev. I am in charge of the lithics, which I comprehensively reviewed after the recent revision of the funerary inventories. The multidisciplinary approach will combine technological and typological data, in connection with raw material supplies and types of production, as well as the functional analysis carried out by M. Gurova. L. Manolakakis in V. Slavčev, Dir. (2020, à paraître) IRP NORth (2020-2023) The Eastern European model of Neolithization contrasts with that of the West, in terms of modes and chronology. In the central Russian plain, the beginning of the Neolithic is dated between the second half of the 7th and 6th millennia BC, depending on the region considered, and is defined by the emergence of sedentarism and the appearance of ceramic technology. Despite occasional contacts with mixed farming groups, local populations maintained a lifestyle based on hunting, fishing and gathering. It was not until several millennia later that a real production economy was adopted and became widespread in the area (3rd and 2nd millennia BC). Based on the duration and the breakdown of events recorded in the Russian plain, we can follow the history of communities in the process of Neolithization in a very original way.