Une opération d’archéologie préventive s’est déroulée en 2012 au lieu-dit le Vigneau (commune de Pussigny, Indre-et-Loire), sur le tracé de la ligne à grande vitesse Tours-Bordeaux. Les occupations s’étagent le long d’un versant exposé plein ouest. La partie haute est marquée par des aires funéraires : une première attribuée au Néolithique moyen, une deuxième imbriquée dans la première datée de l’âge du Bronze final, et deux enclos de La Tène ancienne. La partie basse comporte quatre souterrains médiévaux aménagés. Entre les deux, l’occupation antique se développe sur deux secteurs reliés par une voie. En haut de pente se trouve un temple de plan centré cerné par une enceinte avec, côté ouest, un double portique, tandis que la zone en contrebas, 70 m plus à l’ouest, accueille un ensemble dense de bâtiments sur poteaux ou maçonnés qui se sont développés dans les mêmes temps que le temple et avec les mêmes orientations. Il pourrait s’agir d’une forme d’habitat rural groupé partiellement dévolu à la gestion du temple et à l’accueil des fidèles. Le sanctuaire, implanté à l’époque augustéenne à l’extrême limite des nécropoles, témoigne quant à lui des liens de la communauté avec son passé.
A rescue archaeology excavation took place in Le Vigneau (commune of Pussigny, Indre-et-Loire, France), along the intended layout of the high-speed train line running from Tours to Bordeaux. The archaeological site developed in the upper part of the plateau overlooking the Vienne valley, along a west-facing slope.The centre of the excavation area is characterised by an ancient occupation, divided into two sectors. The first, to the north-east, was occupied by a temple with a central plan dating to the Augustan period. The cella is slightly quadrangular in shape, with NNW-SSE oriented walls, measuring 6.60 m in length, and WSW-ENE walls, measuring 6.10 m long. Two square walls, to the north-west and south-west, indicate the presence of a gallery, measuring 2.45 m wide. In its final state (middle of the 2nd century AD), the temple had a perimeter enclosure measuring 42 × 30.5 m, equipped with a double portico on the west side, measuring twice 3.60 m in width.Pits are densely distributed in the north-west and south-west corners of its cult enclosure. A series of narrow, oblong structures are reminiscent of pits related to planting or intended for the installation of vines. Their spacing and distribution, which is dependent on the temple's masonry, indicate a pergola type of landscaping. All of the other pits have, with rare exception, yielded animal bones, consisting primarily of ovicaprid remains, deposited in bulk. These are likely remainders or samples from the sacrifice and/or banquet, whose burial represented an act of devotion.This temple is bordered to the north and south by two roads, indicated by the presence of parallel furrows. The southern portion is oriented towards a group of stone or wooden buildings densely distributed 70 m to the west, and which are organised along a NNW-SSE axis. Their layout plan is typically linear or single-roomed. The largest have a surface area of 103 m2. The ancient site of Le Vigneau, which was first interpreted as a villa, then as a rural sanctuary in the immediate vicinity of an agricultural estate, has revealed itself to be much more complex. The upper portion of the slope is marked by funerary occupations, with a first necropolis dated to the Middle Neolithic. A second, nested within the first, can be dated to the Final Bronze Age, and there are also two enclosures dating to the Iron Age. Due to the low sedimentary cover, these complexes have had a lasting impact on the landscape and, by extension, on the collective memory: megaliths, levees or mounds of earth, enclosures with ditches, are all signs of the presence of these ancestors. There was no continuity of funerary occupation, but rather a persistence, which therefore continued at the beginning of the Roman period with the installation of a sanctuary that anchored the community to its past. In this case, the sanctuary embodies a memorial dimension, all the more so as it was founded in the Augustan period, on what was to be a high-place for the community.The clues concerning the deity to which the sanctuary was dedicated are meagre: no ex voto, no representations, no material culture correlated to the cult... The numerous pits are more or less rich in faunal remains. Among them, one pit (FS1202) presents the remains of a complete young bovine, deposited in a manner often associated with the deities of the world below. In front of the double portico, a pit (FS1252) contained a large slab, likely from a megalithic building and hollowed out of a cupula, which we have interpreted as a possible altar buried on the ground, in the image of certain Chthonian cults.Although the data is incomplete for the eastern portion of the sanctuary, all evidence points to it facing west: interruption in the gallery walls, presence of the double portico, absence of structures in the axis of the cella, and installation of the slab in the FS1252 pit. The location of the sanctuary is dependent on the singular use of the premises, concentrated at the top of the slope. The installation was therefore carried out at the bottom, in the axis of the slope, with a natural orientation towards the valley.In this orientation, the complex known as the “Western buildings” was developed. It reveals a high density of masonry or timber buildings, developed at the same time as the temple and whose general organisation follows the main orientations of the sanctuary walls. Their structure does not follow the usual codes of the villae of Roman Gaul, whether they are centred or U-shaped. The varied items scattered throughout the assorted buildings attest to domestic occupation, but also indicate its limited character, with a fairly large representation of the serving dishes and the presence of property graffiti. The analysis of the internal structures indicates the existence of domestic fireplaces and a craft room in Building D, having perhaps served for cereal smoking activity.The hypothesis of accommodation for the faithful is not admissible as it stands. The hypothesis of annexes to the temple poses concern, which is intrinsic to this issue of the spaces and structures surrounding the sanctuary. The question has arisen with the discovery of sanctuaries like, for example, the Uley shrines in Gloucestershire, which bears many similarities with that of Le Vigneau. It is also a place of remembrance. In Roman times, a whole series of buildings developed here, the “Precinct buildings” which surround the temple, a few or tens of metres away. Most of them began with a rectangular shape, before various spaces were added or partitioned into several rooms. Here, as in Le Vigneau and other rural sanctuaries, it is difficult to distinguish between so-called specialised buildings (guest accommodation, shops, etc.) and those with a domestic vocation, as most of the buildings are reminiscent of the local form of a farmhouse or barn.The sectors of the temple and the western buildings form a whole. Their development is mutual. The function of the latter is undoubtedly linked to the existence of the former. But this function is mixed, and therefore plural. The present state of the data means that it is difficult to see them as simple annexes of the temple. It is a form of grouped housing, combining together several residential and farm buildings, though in this case with a limited agricultural vocation. Finally, it was also undoubtedly a simple place to live for most of the year. This western pole could also be linked to the maintenance, surveillance and management of the temple. During collective ceremonies, it could be used to prepare banquets – possibly providing a portion of the offerings, taken from the livestock and agricultural reserves – and to receive the dedicants. Whatever the case, the ensemble undoubtedly played a lasting role in the restructuring of the religious landscape of this part of the city of the Turoni.
