patterns in caves

8/11/2019 Patterns in Caves

1/33

Patterns in Caves: Foragers, Horticulturists, and the Use of Space

Nena Galanidou

Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, United Kingdom

E-m ail: p g111@cus .cam.ac.uk

Received March 25, 1997; revision received June 24, 1999; accepted October 4, 1999

Evidence concerning use of space in caves and rockshelters by present-day foragers and

horticulturists in tropical and arid regions is reviewed. The implications of this evidence for

cave/rockshelter archaeology are investigated. The various ways in which p eople from d ifferentcultural backgrounds adapt to naturally confined locations are described. Patterns of refuse

disposal, the role of hearths, and the possibility of identifying activity areas are also explored.

It is suggested that spatial adap tations to th ese sites are d etermined not b y the constraints that

these present to their occupants but by the ways in which the occupants perceive and experi-

ence space. An account is given of those dimensions of variability in site structure that appear

likely to be u seful in form ulating a n ew agen da for spatial analysis of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

sites containing palimp sests of material. Finally, the necessity of adopting a comparative

approach in order to understand the elements of spatial site structure is stressed. 2000 Acade m ic

Press

Key W ords:caves; ethnoar chaeology; spatial archaeology.

INTRODUCTION

Spatial analysis of Palaeolithic or Meso-

lithic sites is intended to shed light on the

spatial behavior of prehistoric foragers in

t h eir ca mp s it es . In s p ire d b y e th n o ar-

chaeological observations concerning the

use of space by living foragers, it has b een

furthered by the introduction and wideadoption of compu ters an d quan titative

m ethod s in ar chaeology. Althou gh an alyt-

ical techn iqu es for pattern iden tification

have un dergone considerable refinem ent,

however, spatial analysis of caves and

rockshelters 1,* h a s m a d e on ly a lim it ed

contribution to our understanding of pre-

historic spatial beha vior. This is to a large

extent because most of the interpretativemodels of spatial organization assume a

context created by synchronic deposition

of archaeological material. Such contexts

are seldom found. The vast majority of

Palaeolithic or Mesolithic sites found in

these naturally confined locations are pal-

im psests of debris from m ultiple sup erim-

posed occupations. In recent years prehis-

t oria n s h a ve o n t h e w h ole a gre ed t h at

t h e re i s a n e e d fo r a p p ro a c h e s t h a t a re

specifically app rop riate to sites containing

p a limp s e st s o f cu lt u ra l ma t eria l (C a rr

1987; Gamble 1991). If we are to acquire

from these sites worthwh ile information

about sp ace use, we mu st first identify the

behavioral issues that appear most likely

to be clarified by studying spatial varia-

tion in palim psests. The un its of observa-

t io n a n d o f a n a lys is b e st s u it ed t o t h e

drawing of valid inferences about past be-

havior in caves mu st also b e found. As a

first s te p , t h e e th n o arch a e olo gy o f c/ r

must be examined more closely.

Although c/r are an importan t source of

information about how prehistoric forag-

ers lived, few ethnoarchaeological studies*See Notes section at end of article for all foot-

notes.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 243275 (2000)doi:10.1006/jaar.1999.0362, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

2430278-4165/00 $35.00Copyright 2000 by Academic Press

All rights of reprod uction in any form reserved.


2/33


3/33

TABLE

1

TheGroupsDiscussed:CountriesofOrigin,

Cultural/LinguisticGrou

ps,SubsistenceModes,PhysicalGeography,

TypesofEvidence,

andBibliographicSources

Countryof

origin

Re

gion

Cultural/linguistic

group

Subsistencemode

Physicalgeography

Typeo

fevidence

Source

Tanzania

Usandawe

Sandawe

Untilrecentlyhunting/

gathering;Today

horticulture/pastoralism,

withastrongtradition

ofhuntingand

gathering

Tr

opicalwoodland

andsavannah

Ethnohistoric,si

temapping,surface

findcollection

Lim

1983

Namibiaa

ErongoMountains

BergDama

Hunting/gathering

Opengrasssteppe

Sitemapping,su

rfacefindcollection

ClarkandWalton1962

SouthAfrica

Western

Cape

Survivingbandsof

indigenouspeople

afterappearanceof

pastoralism

Hunting/gathering

Ethnohistoric,si

temapping

ParkingtonandMill1991

Australia

Stansmo

rerange

Westerndesert

aborigines

Hunting/gathering

Ea

sternmarginof

GreatSand

Desert

Sitemapping,ethnohistoric

informationfr

oaboriginals

Nicholsonan

dCane1991

Indonesia

HighlandsofIria

Jaya

YelemeandFaoui;

WestDanilinguistic

group

Horticulture;manufacture

andtradeofhandaxes

Tr

opicalrainforest

Ethnoarchaeolog

ical

PetrequinandPetrequin1988,

1993

Papua,New

Guinea

OkTedi

Various

Horticulture

Ethnohistoric,in

formationgathered

from

localinformants,

archaeological

Swadling198

3

Papua,New

Guinea

Jimivalley

Melpalinguisticgroup

Horticulture,withsome

huntingandgathering

Tr

opicalrainforest

Ethnoarchaeolog

ical,sitemapping,

archaeological

Gorecki1988,1991

Papua,New

Guinea

Yuatgorge

Pinailinguisticgroup

Horticulturewithsmall

gardensanddaily

foragingmanufacture

andtradingofbows

andarrows

Tr

opicalrainforest

Etnhoarchaeolog

ical,sitemapping,

archaeological

Gorecki1988,1991

Papua,New

Guinea

Chuinga

iHills

Sawoslinguisticgroup

Horticultureandfishing;

manufactureand

tradingopottery

Ethnoarchaeolog

ical,sitemapping

Gorecki1991

Papua,New

Guinea

Hinterla

ndofNew

Ireland

Indigenouspeople

Horticulturewithcomplex

gardensystems

Tr

opicalrainforest

Sitemapping

Gorecki1991

a

Theinformation

abouttheBigElephantCave

waspublishedin1962andth

ereforereferstowhatisnow

NamibiaasSouthWestAfrica.

245PATTERNS IN CAVES


4/33


5/33

hearths, stone-lined hearths, log-lined

h e a rt h s, a n d roa st in g p it s o r o ve n s, a t

tim es associated with firestones. With the

exception of the ovens, whose specialized

fun ction it is to roast gam e or vegetables,the data to h and suggest that there is no

direct relationship between hearth form

and hearth fun ction. All the othe r types of

hearth are u sed for m ultiple pu rposes, in-

clu d in g co ok in g , s le e p in g b y, g ivin g

warmth and light and acting as the point

around which people relax, chat, interact

socially, or perform ceremonies.

Since only the b are m inimu m of energyn e ed b e in ve ste d in b u ild in g a n op e n

h e a rt h , w h ile t h e co n st ru ct io n o f a n y

o th e r t yp e o f h e a rth re q u ire s a g re at er

investmen t of energy, we can test the in-

tuitive hypothesis that the amoun t of en-

e rgy in ve st ed in ma k in g h e a rt h s (a n d

hen ce the types of hearth constructed) re-

lates to the length of time for which a site

is occupied. I have divided the possibletypes of hearth into two energy invest-

ment categories: the low-investment cate-

gory contains the open hearths and the

h ig h -in ve st me n t ca te go ry e ve ry o th e r

type. I have also used the data from Table

2 to group sites according to whether they

are used for brief stays or for longer ones.

The chi-squared test of independence be-

tween length of stay and amount of en-

ergy invested in h earth s (Table 3) suggests

that there is no significant difference inthe distribution of high and low energy

investments in hearths used during brief

and longer term occup ations. Therefore,

hearths requiring a high energy invest-

ment do not necessarily relate to longer

stays.

By th e s am e t oke n I h a ve e xa m in e d

w h et h er e n e rg y in ve st me n t in ma k in g

he arth s relates to the de gree of mobility ofthe occupying group. Un like the previous

test, the chi-squared test here suggests

that in our sample there is a relationship

between degree of mobili ty and amount

of energy invested in hearths (Table 4).

Th e s tre n gt h o f t h is re la tio n sh ip me a -

sured by means of the phi-squared coef-

ficient is 0.49, sugge sting a p ositive b ut n ot

particularly strong association. Indeed , ifw e l o o k a t Ta b l e 6 w e c a n s e e t h a t t h e

open hearth is consistently the only type

p re se n t in t h e s it es u s ed b y t h e So u th

African an d N ew Ireland ind igenous p eo-

ple, the Australian Western Desert ab-

originals, and the Sawos of Papua New

TABLE 2Continued

Site

Size

(m 2) Fu n ction Cu ltu ral/ lin gu istic grou p

Ritam au d a 42.5 Cam p eith er d u rin g foragin g

expeditions or en route to trade

Pinai

Lu an an a 59 Sh ort-term cam p ; ossu ary Pin ai

Ailegu n 46 Sh ort-term cam p ; ossu ary Pin ai

M arin d jila Sh ort-term cam p d u rin g foragin g

expeditions

Sawos

Ad jiga 89 Even in g cam p of two fam ilies d u rin g

sago-starch processing; fire-drive

hunts or gathering expeditions

Sawos

Pakara 214 Sh ort-term cam p d u rin g foragin g

expeditions

Sawos

Balof 1 16 N ew Irelan d in d igen ou s

Balof 2 40 N ew Irelan d in d igen ou s

M atap ara N ew Irelan d in d igen ou s

Lam eu s N ew Irelan d in d igen ou s



6/33

Gu inea (Figs. 36). It is notewor thy that

two foraging groups (the Australian and

South African ind igenous) of the three in

o u r s a mp l e u s e t h i s t y p e o f h e a rt h , a l -

though op en h earths are n ot the only type

found in forager sites. They are, however,the only type present in the sites used by

the Sawos, who make clay pots to cook in,

a nd w ho, ju d gin g b y th eir fu r nitu re

(wooden beds and tables), appear to be

one of the most sedentary groups in our

sample (Gorecki 1991). In the Big Elephant

Cave, the site used by the third foraging

group in our sample (the BergDama), only

stone-lined hearths were found (Fig. 7).

To summarize the above, we have no

evidence for any relation between length

of occupa tion an d type of he arth an d the reis a weak relationship between degree of

mobility and type of hearth. Table 5 sug-

gests that some relationship may exist be-

tween cultural group and type of hearth

used . This pattern is mu ch more r obust in

the foraging groups in our sample (the

BergDam a, South African indigenou s, an d

Australian aboriginals) than among the

horticulturists.

Number of Hearths

The scattergram plotting total num ber

of hearths against si te area for each site

(Fig. 8) clearly su ggests th at th e r elation-

ship be tween th ese two variables is not a

lin e a r o n e . A lt h ou g h t h e la r ge s t n u m -b e rs o f h e a rt h s a re fo u n d in la rg e s it e s ,

n ot all lar ge sites h ave n u m er ou s

h e a rt h s .

Th e n u m b er of h ea rth s u se d d u rin g

each episode of occupation is first and

foremost a culturally defined element of

habitation. It is only secondarily a func-

tion of the size or social comp osition of the

occupying group and of the character ofon-site activities (Table 6). The evidence

exam ined clearly suggests th at the way in

w h ich t h e a b ove p a rame t ers a ffe ct t h e

num ber of hearths used per occup ational

episode differs from one culture to an-

other. For instance, Nicholson and Cane

have observed that in Australia the num-

ber of hearths relates to the size of the

occupying group (1991), while Gorecki hasreported that in Papua New Guinea the

Pinai people u se only a single hearth per

occupation regardless of the num ber of

occupants (1991). At Yeleme-Wang-

Kob-Me (Table 1) the West Dani gather

and sleep around two separate domestic

FIG. 1. Stem-and-leaf diagram showing the sizes

in square meters of the sites discussed.

248 NENA GALANIDOU


7/33

he arth s accord ing to wh ich of two villages

they come from, but share a third h earth,

in a comm un al area, for cooking (Petre-q uin an d Petre q u in 1988) [Figs. 9(2) an d

9(3)].

Th e t ot a l n u m b e r o f h e a r th s a ls o d e -

p en d s u p on w he th er th e occu p yin g

g r ou p r e u s es s tr u ct u r e s u s e d b y p r e vi-

ous occup ants of the cave. Published in-

forma tion about reutilization of hearth s

is s p a rs e , b u t n o n e t h e l es s s u g g e s ts t h a t

t h is is a cu lt u r a lly d e fi n e d ch o ice . InN e w G u i n e a s o me c u l t u ra l g ro u p s t e n d

t o re u s e e x i s t i n g h e a rt h s [fo r e x a mp l e ,

th e r oa stin g p its a t Ye le m e-W an g-

Kob -M e (ib id)], w h er ea s oth e rs (t heMelpa , for instance) prefer to set up n ew

ones somewhere else (Gorecki 1988). In

analyzing an archaeological palimpsest

w e m a y n o t b e a b l e t o i s o l a t e d i s c r e t ee p is od e s o f o ccu p a t io n a n d co u n t t h e

n u m b e r o f h e a rt h s u s e d d u ri n g e a ch i n -

d i vid u a l e p i so d e , b u t w e ca n d e t e rmi n e

diachron ically whether hear ths were re-

used. Archaeological studies have never

p a id m u c h a tt en t io n t o t h is a sp e ct o f

spatial behavior, which is an expression

o f c u lt u ra l id e n t i ty . Th e re is p ro b a b ly

m u c h m o r e t o b e l e a r n e d a b o u t s p a t i a ladaptation (and ult imately about group

iden tity) by recording p atterns of hearth

reuse systematically an d exploring how

t h e y v a ry b e t w e e n c a v e s a n d ro c k s h e l -

t e rs i n t h e s a me re g i o n , i n n e i g h b o ri n g

FIG. 2. Histogram showing sizes of sites in sq uare meters with information abou t the cultural/

linguistic group to which each site belongs sup erimposed.

TABLE 3

Duration of Site Use against Amount of Energy Invested in Making Hearths a

Low-en ergy in vestm en t H igh -en ergy in vestm en t N um ber of sites

Lon ger stay 9 5 14

Sh ort stay 9 7 16

18 12 30

a X2calc. 0.20; X2(0.01) 6.63.



8/33

regions and in regions distant from one

a n o t h e r.

SLEEPING ARRANGEMENTS

Sleeping is one of the most elusive as-

pe cts of hum an activity in th e archa eolog-

ical record. In spatial mod el bu ilding it is

often treated as a variable about which

cross-cultural gen eralizations m ay app ro-

priately be made (see, for example, Bin-

ford 1983:162163). The review of th epresent data has shown that sleeping ar-

eas are always adjacent to hearths, but

that n ot all of a sites h earths are used for

sleeping by. There is considerable varia-

tion in the location of the sleeping area

and the type of bedding p referred (Tables

79). In Me lpa, Pinai, an d South African

sites the sleeping area is near the back

wa ll of th e cave (Figs. 1011, 3) (Gor ecki1988, 1991; Par king ton an d Mills 1991).

The Australian aboriginals sleep at the

centers of rockshelters, after clearing

these areas of objects (Fig. 5) (Nicholson

an d Can e 1991). Th e W est Dan i at

Ye le m e -W an g- Ko b-M e s le ep a rou n d

hearths in depressions that correspond to

dom estic un its [Fig. 9(2)]. These un its ar e

distributed all over the shelter floor. De-pending on their village of origin, and

hen ce on their cultural h abit, the sleepers

either use pandanus mats as bedding or

sleep on the bare ground (Petrequ in and

Petre q u in 1988). The BergD am a wh o us e

the Big Elephant Cave also sleep in living

hollows, in this case consistently foun d by

the rear wall of the site next to a hearth

(Fig. 7) (Clark and Walton 1962). Thesleeping area in Melpa sites overlaps with

the gen eral dom estic activity area an d has

no fixed position; it can, for example, be

by the back wall of the shelter, as at Nip,

or in the center of the rockshelter, as at

Temb inde (Fig. 10). Using plan t m aterials

FIG. 3. Plans of four South African c/r (after Park-

ington and Mills 1991 with kind perm ission from

International M onographs in Prehistory).

TABLE 4Degree of Mobility of Occupying Group against Amount of Energy Invested in Making Hearthsa

Low -e ner gy in vestm en t H igh -e ne rgy in vestm en t N u m be r of h ea rth s

M ob ile p eop le 15 1 16

Sed en tary p eop le 4 12 1619 13 32

a X2calc. 15.67; X2(0.01) 6.63.

250 NENA GALANIDOU


9/33

a s b ed d in g a nd sle ep in g on th e b ar e

ground are the most usual arrangements,

b u t Sa n d a we a n d Sa wo s s it es co n ta in

wooden beds (Table 9; Fig. 6).

The variation in sleeping arrangements

observed in our sample makes it clear thatthis is another culturally de fined variable

in spatial adaptation to c/r. Since this is

the case, we could obtain far more infor-

ma t io n from a rch a e olo gica l co n te xt s

about how people slept by adopting an

ind uctive research procedure consisting

of a descriptive and a comparative stage.

My proposal would be th at the researcher

should begin by recording the location of

the h earth in relation to cave features su ch

as walls, drip lines, or talus slopes, then

pr oceed to consider th e sites fun ction an ddu ration of occupa tion. By this stage h e or

she will probab ly have some inkling as to

where (if at all) sleeping may have taken

place. This suspicion may develop into a

plausible hypothesis once the location of

the hearth or hearths has been compared

FIG. 4. Plan of Balof rockshelter, New Ireland (after Gorecki 1991 with kind permission fromInternational M onographs in Prehistory).



10/33

252 NENA GALANIDOU


11/33


12/33

FIG. 6. Plans of Pakara, Adjiga, and Marind jila rockshelters, Chu igai hills, Sawos p eople, Papu a,New Guinea (after G orecki 1991 with kind perm ission from International Mon ographs in Preh is-

tory).

254 NENA GALANIDOU


13/33

refuse-d isposal habits of differen t cultur al

group s give r ise to sites of variable d en sity

an d conten t. The sam ple of sites examined

here has told us nothing about how dis-

card behavior may vary according to the

length of time for which the site is occu-

pied, the nature of the activities carried

out in it, or the social composition of theoccupying group. Although we can safely

argue that people discard their refuse in

ways specific to their cultures, then , we d o

not as yet know how useful this general

statement is to the study of archaeological

contexts. If, on th e one han d, the cultural

imprint is as strong as our data are sug-

gesting, archaeological sites used by the

same cultural group should exhibit iden-tical traits, generated by discard behavior

that is specific to that culture. If, on the

other hand, the details of an occupation

(its len gth, the na tur e of the activities per -

formed during it, or the social composi-

tion of the occupying party, for instance)

influence refuse disposal patterns more

strongly than any cultural imp rint, this

should be detectable by comparing sites

used by the same cultural group but for

differen t pu rp oses. In either case, the on ly

viable way of learning more about discard

b eh a vio r is to a d op t a con te xtu a l a p -

pr oach, conside ring pa ttern s of refuse d is-posal alongside a sites other traits (its

fun ction or any seasonality in its occupa-

tion, for instance) and seeking intersite

perspectives upon intrasite spatial varia-

tion.

ACTIVITY AREAS

Since the 1970s activity area researchhas been at the core of most archaeologi-

cal studies of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

spatial organ ization. In all this tim e, how-

ever, crystal-clear patterns of the sort re-

vealed by ethnoarchaeological studies of

op en -a ir cam p s (Bin ford 1978, 1983; Yellen

FIG. 7. Plan and section of Big Elephant Cave, BergDama people, Namibia (after Clark and

Walton 1962 with kind permission from the Proceedings of Prehistoric Society).



14/33

1977) have never been discerned in sites

containing palimpsests [although activity

area research h as proved u seful to stud ies

of the use of space by sedentary societies

in prehistoric and historical times (e.g.,Kent 1984; Whitelaw 1983)]. Even in sites

o f h ig h s p at ia l in t eg rit y, s u ch a s P in -

cevent, mu ltiple analyses of the spatial

distribution of find s have failed to pro-

du ce any plausible reconstruction of spa-

tial confi gura tion in term s of activity areas

(see Carr 1991 for discussion). The activity

area h as persisted in the literature of spa-

tial analysis because it is more interestingto discuss a site in terms of the activities

that were performed there than in terms

of the artifact concentrations recorded.

We sh ou ld , n on eth eless, q uestion

FIG. 8. Scattergram plotting total number of hearths against site area for each site.

TABLE 5Types of Hearth in Site by Cultural/Linguistic Group*

N oe vid e n ce O p e n (a )

Stone-lined (b)

Roastingp it (c) Fir es to n es (d )

Tw otypes

Threetypes

Fourtyp es Ab se nt

Totalno. ofsites

San d awe 2 2 4BergDam a 1 1 2S. African

in d igen ou s 4 4Australian

ab origin als 11 11West Dan i 1 ad 1Melp a 1 1** 2Pin ai 1 1 a,c 1 ac 1 ac 4Sawos 3 3New Ireland

in d igen ou s 2 1 1 43

(8.57%)

19

(54.3%)

2

(5.71%)

1

(2.86%)

2

(5.71%)

3

(8.57%)

2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%)

1

(2.86%)

35

(100%)

*Percentage of sites containing that type are shown in parentheses.

** Log-lined hearths, roasting pits, and firestones.

256 NENA GALANIDOU


15/33

whether this translation of artifact or eco-

fact concentrations into activities is valid(Ga lan id ou 1997b:276277). In th is s ection

I discuss the particular problems associ-

ated with attemp ting to identify an d iso-

late activity areas in caves.

We d o not h ave information relevant to

this concept about every site in our sam-

ple, partly because some were examined

d u rin g t h e a b se n ce o f t h eir o ccu p a n ts .

The sites abou t which we do h ave this sortof information (only 11 of 35) fall into

three types of arrangem ent with regard to

activity areas (Table 11). In the first ar-

rangement the general activity area over-

laps with the sleeping area. This type is

r ep r ese nte d b y two site s u se d b y th e

Melpa people (Fig. 10) (Gorecki 1991). In

the second arrangement sleeping is sepa-

rated from other domestic activities. Thistype is represented by the four South Af-

rican sites an d by Big Eleph ant Cave NW

(Clark and Watson 1962; Parkington and

Mills 1991). The third type is re pr esen ted

only by Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me, where,

Petreq uin inform s us, som e activities ar e

rigidly segregated in space while others

overlap (1988) (Table 11). Strict rules thusgovern where certain activities should be

performed. If we were to draw a cross-

cultural conclusion from our sample, we

would have to suggest that spatial segre-

gation of individu al domestic activities

was the exception rather than the rule.

Th e q u e s t i o n t h a t w e mu s t a n s w e r i s

whe the r in a rchaeological contexts we can

hope to identifywhi chactivities took p lacewhere. From habitation sites, among oth-ers, we recover the debris resulting from

what are comm only term ed dom estic ac-

tivities: stone and bone work; the distri-

bution, processing, and cooking of food;

sleeping; eating; an d interacting socially.5

As w e h a ve a lre ad y s ee n , co ok in g a n d

sleeping are associated with hearths and

sleeping is sometimes associated withbedding m aterial. This, however, rarely

survives in the archaeological record. Ov-

e n s a re p e rh ap s t h e o n ly t yp e o f h e a rt h

that we can definitely associate with food

preparation. It is almost imp ossible to

identify the areas in which any other do-

TABLE 6Circumstances in Which Two or More Hearths Are Used during an Episode of Occupation

Cu ltu ral grou p Social u n it Reason Sou rce

Western Desert of

Australia aboriginals

One (e.g., a man and his

two wives or two men)

Different activities taking

place at different timesof day (sleeping,

cooking, socializing, and

sitting in the sun)

Nicholson and Cane

1991:318

M elp a O n e (e.g., a grou p of

men on a foraging

expedition)

Different activities taking

place at different times

of day

Gorecki 1991:241

Sawos Two n u clear fam ilies O n e h earth associated

with separate domestic

area of each group;

third hearth used for

shar ed activities

Gorecki 1991:249

West Dan i Two grou p s of m en ,

from two villages

(Yeleme and Faoui)

whose habits d iffer

One hearth associated

with dom estic un it of

each group; third hearth

in communal space

used for shared

activities

Petr eq u in an d Pe tr eq u in

1988



16/33

258 NENA GALANIDOU


17/33

mestic activities were performed. In somecases these activities may ne ver have b een

confined to any particular area in the first

place; in others th e palim psest effect may

h a ve o bs cu re d t h e fa ct t h at t h ey w ere

originally segregated in space. In either

case the resulting deb ris will have woun d

up in a m idden that we can call the area of

general d omestic refuse .Once the site has

been abandoned it is impossible to workout wh ether this area contains m aterial in

primary deposition overlapping with an

area of general activity, material in sec-

ondary deposition, or a combination of

both. Midd ens of this sort were presen t in

the m ajority of the sites discussed in Table

11. In Australian habitation sites, artifacts

associated with su bsistence activities ten d

to be found outside the sheltered area (Ni-

cholson and Cane 1991:345). It is, however,impossible to isolate individual activities

(t o s ep a rat e t h e ma n u fa ct u re o f s to n e

tools from see d grind ing, for examp le) be-

cause it is u ncertain wheth er the artifacts

associated with these activities arrived in

the area by being dropped, tossed, or re-

deposited.

We ha ve seen th at some cultural group s

may indeed segregate their domestic ac-tivities in c/r, whereas others do not. In

the former case, however, the constraints

imposed by limited space and the super-

im p o sition of m u ltip le o ccu p a tion a l

events up on one an other obscure the hor-

izontal and vertical bound aries between

the areas in wh ich various tasks were per-

formed. Even when spatial structure is

mapped shortly after the occupants have

TABLE 7Sleeping Location by Cultural/Linguistic Groupa

N o

evidence

Within

domestic

d ep ression By wall Cen tre

Activity

area Fron t

Total

n u m b e r o f

sites

San d awe 3 1 4

BergDam a 1 1 2

S. African

in d igen ou s 4 4

Australian

ab origin als 5 6 11

West Dan i 1 1

M elp a 2 2

Pin ai 1 2 1 4

Sawos 3

N. Ireland

in d igen ou s 4 4

Total

n u m b e r

of sites

15

(42.86%)

2

(5.71%)

8

(22.86%)

6

(17.15%)

2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%)

35

a The n um ber of sites in wh ich that location is u sed expressed as a p ercentage of the total nu mb er of sites

considered is shown in parentheses.

FIG. 9. Yeleme-W ang-Kob-Me, West Dan i, Indon esia. (1) Section; (2) p lan; (3) activities arou ndthe two hab itation u nits and arou nd the commu nal hearth; (4) differences between storage patterns

of the Faoui and those of the Yeleme (after Petreq uin and Petreq uin 1988 with kind per m ission

from Bulletin d u Cen tre G enevois dAnthrop ologie an d P. Petreq uin).



18/33

left a site it is impossible to resolve the

palimpsest effect. Likewise, it is impossi-

ble to distinguish whether debris associ-

ated with an activity is in primar y or sec-

on d a ry d e p ositio n. D is ca rd b eh a vio r

intervenes between domestic activitiesan d archae ological recovery of concentr a-

tions of finds in particular areas. Before

we can try to pin down activities to loca-

tions, therefore, we must first understand

how the group that performed those ac-

tivities discards its refuse. The m ultiple

uncertainties surrounding the identifica-

tion of activity a reas in sites containing

palimpsests (c/r and open-air sites alike)suggest that th ere is little to b e gained by

pursuing a research design that focuses

exclusively on activity areas.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN c/r ANDOPEN-AIR SITES

The spatial adaptations to caves androckshelters exam ined here have req uired

various levels of en ergy investment. In

TABLE 8Sleeping Location by Cultural/Linguistic Group

Using a Division That Can Be Applied Universally

to Caves and Rockshelters and without Taking into

Account any Other Purpose for Which the SleepingArea Is Used (Domestic Activity, etc.)a

By

w all C en t er Fr on t

Total number

of sites

San d awe 1 1

BergDam a 1 1

S. African

in d igen ou s 4 4

Australian

ab origin als 6 6

West Dan i 1 1

M elp a 1 1 2

Pin ai 2 1 3

Sawos 1 1 2

Total num ber

of sites

10

(50%)

8

(40%)

2

(10%)

20

a The nu mb er of sites in which that location is used

e x p re s s e d a s a p e rc e n t a g e o f t h e n u m b e r o f s i t e s

wh o se s le e p in g lo ca tio n s a re k n o wn is s h o wn in

parentheses.

TABLE 9

Bedding Type by Cultural/Linguistic Group*

No e vid e n ce W o od e n b e d (a )

On p la n t

bedding (b)

On b a re

ground (c)

More than

one type (b,c)

Total num ber

of sites

San d awe 3 1 4BergDam a 1 1 2

S. African

in d igen ou s 4 4

Australian

ab origin als 10 1 11

West Dan i 1 1

M elp a 2 2

Pin ai 3 1 4

Sawos 2 1 3

N ew

Irelandin d igen ou s 4 4

Total

n u m b e r

of sites

18

(51.43%)

3

(8.57%)

10

(28.57%)

3

(8.57%)

1

(2.86%)

35

* The nu mb er of sites containing each b edd ing type expressed as a p ercentage of the total num ber of sites

considered is shown in parentheses.

260 NENA GALANIDOU


19/33

FIG. 10. Plans of Nip and Tembinde, Jimi valley, Melpa people, Papua, N ew Guinea (after

Gorecki 1991 with kind permission from International Monographs in Prehistory and Paul

Gorecki).



20/33

262 NENA GALANIDOU


21/33

s ome ca se s co n sid e rab le e n e rg y is in -

vested in dividing space so as to reenact

t h e fo rms o f s tru ct u re s t h at t h e g ro u p

would use in an open-air sett lement. In

others a bare minimum of energy is in-

vested in simply kindling a hearth. The

Au s tra lia n a n d So u th Africa n h u n t e r/

gatherers follow the latter course. The ab-

original campsites in the Western Desertare minimally furnished. Open hearths

are their main habitation feature, with the

occasional ad dition of artificial m oun ds to

p re ve n t w at er from fl oo d in g t h e ca mp

(Nich olson an d Can e 1991:288) (Fig. 5).

Open hearths were also the only evident

features of the South African sites. Ac-

cording to Parkington and Mills, South

African hunter/gatherers adapt c/r exactly

as they would bush camp s, hardly chang-ing their environm ent at all (1991:359)

TABLE 10Discard Locations and Types of Refuse

Site Cu ltu ral/ lin gu istic grou p Discard location

Big Elep h an t Cave N W BergDam a In sid e th e h ollows, wh ich act as m id d en s

De H an gen S. African in d igen ou ss Coterm in ou s with activity areaDiep kloof S. African in d igen ou s Coterm in ou s with activity area

An d riesgron d S. African in d igen ou s Coterm in ou s with activity area

Ren b aan S. African in d igen ou s Coterm in ou s with activity area

Yu ngu balib an da 1 W. Desert aborigin als Main ly b eyon d d rip lin e, som e in fron t

and central parts of site

Yu n gu b alib an d a 2a W. Desert aborigin als Everywh ere

Yu ngu balib an d a 2b W . Desert ab or igin als M ain ly b eyon d d rip lin e, som e in fron t

and central parts

Yu ngu balib an da 3 W. Desert aborigin als Beyon d d rip lin e an d in rear p art

Yu n gu b alib an d a 4 W. Desert aborigin als In cen tral p art

Yelem e-Wan g-Kob -M e West Dan i Food d eb ris (vegetab le p eelin gs an d

certain bones): in area (toward talus)

in which firewood and dogs are kept;

bat bones and lizard heads or

mandibles: in hearths.

Tem b in d e Ku m an ga Melp a In activity area an d talu s

N ip Melp a In activity area an d talu s

Kan am ap in Pin ai Plan t rem ain s an d bon es th rown

everywhere on the living floor

Ritam au d a Pin ai Plan t rem ain s an d bon es th rown


Lu an an a Pin ai Plan t rem ain s an d bon es th rown


Ailegu n Pin ai Plan t rem ain s an d bon es th rown


M arin d jila Sawos O rgan ic rem ain s an d food d eb ris in two

middens inside drip line

Pakara Sawos Two d istin ct p iles in sid e d rip lin e; on e of

plant remains and one of faunal

remains

FIG. 11. Plans of Ritamauda, Luana, Ailegun, and Kanamapin rockshelters, Yuat gorge, Pinai

peop le, Papu a, New Gu inea (after Gore cki 1988, 1991 with kind per m ission from Pau l Gorecki and

International M onographs in Prehistory).



22/33

(Fig. 4). Gould (1971) has observed the

same sort of sim ilarity between th e op en-

air camps of modern aboriginals and the

Puntutjarpa rockshelter in the Australian

Western Desert.

Division of c/r space into smaller units

TABLE 11Segregation of Activities and Location of Activity Areas by Sitea

Site

Cultural/linguistic

gr ou p Sp atia l segr ega tion of a ctivitie s Location of activity a re a

Big ElephantCave NW

BergDam a Sleep in g sep arated fromdomestic activities

Inside the hollows

De H an gen Sou th African

indigenous

Sleeping separated from

domestic activities

Under or just in front of

rock overhan g

Diep kloof Sou th African

indigenous


domestic activities


rock overhan g

An d rie sgr on d Sou th Afr ican

indigenous


domestic activities


rock overhan g

Ren b aan Sou th African

indigenous


domestic activities


rock overhan g

Yeleme-

Wang-

Kob-Me

West Dan i H igh Bon e an d ston e

working, consum ption

of food, sitting and

sleeping: within

domestic unit around

hearth. Manufacture

of axes and wooden

harp oons: outside

dep ression in

communal activity

area. Butchering of

animals and meat

sharing: around oven

in communal activity

area. Storage of

personal belongings:

on p erimeter of

habitation un it.

Tembinde

Kumanga

Melp a Sleep in g area coterm in ou s with

general activity area (where

eating, and bow-and-arrow

manufacture/maintenance

take place); cooking done just

inside dripline away from

sleeping area

Inside dripline,

extending from back

wall to talus

N ip Melp a Sleep in g area coterm in ou s with

gener al activity a rea; cooking

done just inside dripline or

at center, away from sleeping

area

Inside drip line, near

back wall (delineated

by logs)

Kan am ap in Pin ai In sid e d rip lin e

Lu an an a Pin ai In sid e an d ou tsid e d rip

line

Ad jiga Sawos En tran ce com m u n al area for

smoking, playing, and talking

a Only those sites from which we have obtained data of this sort are recorded here.

264 NENA GALANIDOU


23/33

has been recorded at four sites. The first

two, used b y BergDam a hu nter/ gatherers,

were found in the Big Elephant Cave in

Na m ibia by Clark an d Wa lton (1962). Two

sets of roughly circular depressions, de-

fining dom estic un its, had been d ug in thefloor of the cave, one set in each of the two

sites into which the cave is divided. The

depressions in the northwest site were to

the rear of the cave (Fig. 7). They were

separated from each other by bru shwood

screens and contained hearths and beds

(made of p lant materials). The depres-

sions in the northeast site were smaller,

revealed no traces of bedding or screens,and appeared to be much older than the

ones to the northwest. We h ave no infor-

m ation abou t the social com position of the

groups that used the depressions.

Petreq uin an d Petreq uin rep ort tha t at

Yelem e-Wan g-Kob-Me differen tiation be-

t we e n t h e d o me st ic a n d t h e co mmu n a l

domain is achieved by m eans of two d if-

ferent types of space division, one physi-cal and one symbolic (1988). The physical

division involved circular and rectangular

de pr essions (Fig. 9). During the ep isode of

o ccu p a tio n re co rd e d t wo d e p res sio n s

were u sed, one accomm odating four men

from the village of Yeleme an d th e othe r a

sim ilar nu m ber from the village of Faoui.

Each depression delimited its groups do-

mestic area and had a fireplace at its cen-ter. (Depressions of this sort are some-

times used repeatedly during successive

episodes of occup ation.) O utside the de-

pressions, in the com m un al space, activi-

t ies such as stone or bone working and

roasting and sharing gam e took p lace. Al-

t h ou g h t h e me n from e a ch villa ge h a d

their own way of using th e private space

of each depression (this could be seen int h e ma n n e r in w h ich t h ey s to re d t h eir

personal belongings, for instance [Fig.

9(4)], both group s sh ared a single attitud e

to sitting down in the communal area: it

was strictly forbidden to sit on the bare

rock or earth. This relates to the symbolic

division of the site into areas of different

de grees of im pu rity. The Petreq uins ha ve

shown that the organization of space that

th ey e ncou n te re d a t Ye le m e-W an g-

Kob-Me transposed the spatial arrange-

ment of the mens house (buildings ineach village use d for social, p olitical, and

religious purposes by men only) into this

temp orary rockshelter hab itation (ibid:7680).

The Melpa people who stay for short

periods at Nip also incorporate elemen ts

of their permanent sett lement into this

temp orary one. The Melpa u se logs as p il-

lows in their permanent dwellings. At Nipthey choose logs as their means of divid-

ing space tangibly, using them to delin-

eate the overlapp ing sleeping an d d omes-

tic activity areas (Fig. 10). The perimeter of

the h earth imm ediately beside th is area is

also marked by logs.

The sizes of the sites that are divided

in to sm a lle r u n its r an ge fr om sm a ll

through medium to large (Table 2). Thisclearly suggests that the size of the area

used during an event of occupation is not

directly related to the amount of space

available. It app ears m ore likely th at cer-

tain groups use the space inside caves so

as to reproduce the familiar spatial ar-

rangem ents that they prefer in their open-

air settlem ents.

It is also evide nt th at a grou ps techn icalskills an d experience of certain construc-

tion materials produce distinctive spatial

patterns inside caves. This can be seen at

Nip and also at Balof, a site used by the

indigenous people of New Ireland, who

divide up its space by means of terraces

and stone walls (Fig. 4). There are similar

structures in the stone-walled ridgetop

villages that are their permanent settle-m ents (Gorecki 1991). Whe n setting up

camps in naturally confined locations,

these p eople make th e sam e technological

ch o ice s a n d u s e t h e s ame ma t eria ls a s

they would if they were constructing a

settlemen t or camping in the open air.



24/33

This last observation raises a number of

questions. Do all cultural groups repro-

du ce distinctive form s of spatial organ iza-

tion when camping in caves? How do the

chara cter of the occupation and the social

comp osition of the occup ying group affectthese spatial arran gemen ts? How m any of

these pattern s are archaeologically visi-

ble? The second site used by the Melpa

peop le, Tem binde, shows that our sam ple

can give us no unequivocal answers to

these q uestions. There are n o logs at Tem-

binde. We d o not know, however, whethe r

site formation processes have destroyed

logs that were once there or wheth er therenever were any logs (Fig. 10). To answer

our qu estions more satisfactorily would

r eq u ir e a m u ch la rge r s am p le of d a ta .

Nonetheless, the data to hand show that

more often than not the layout of living

surfaces in c/r incorporates at least some

of the arrangements that the occupying

group would make in an open site. Our

data also suggest that the constraints im-posed by a cave do not prompt cross-cul-

turally uniform spatial adaptations, that

each cultural group occupying a c/r uses

its own p articular techn ical skills an d pr e-

ferred m aterials to create in its tem porary

dwelling the living conditions with which

it is familiar. Finally, our sample is suffi-

cient to confirm that archaeological visi-

b ilit y s h ou ld b y n o me a n s b e t ak en a sread. Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me shows us

that site structure may not merely consist

of its evide nt featur es, but m ay entail con-

ceptua l or symb olic organization of space.

This sort of structure does not, of course,

leave an y tangible rem ains and thus does

not survive in the archaeological record.

SITE FURNITURE AND GROUPIDENTITY

Site furniture is any artifact, feature, or

structure that has been made or brought

into a site to facilitate human activity. The

plots showing the presence or absence of

certain site features and items of furniture

suggest that there is a certain amount of

consistency in the selection of artifacts

and features found in the m ajority of the

sites used by each cultural or linguistic

group (Figs. 1218). In m any cases them ost robust pa ttern is seen in the absen ce

of certain categories of artifact or feature

from the sites used by a single cultural

group.

As we saw in the p revious section, dug-

out hollows that defined domestic areas

were found in the two sites used by the

BergDam a and at Yeleme-Wan g-Kob-Me.

Windscreens wer e consistently present inall but one of the Sandawe sites (Fig. 13).

The South African sites invariably con-

tained sleeping hollows (Fig. 3). Walls

m ade of stone were p resent in three of the

four sites studied in New Ireland and in

Big Elephant Cave (Fig. 14). Artificial sand

ridges were r aised at the ed ge of the site to

stop water from getting in only at Austra-

lian habitation sites (Fig. 15). Grindstoneswere record ed in sites u sed b y th e

Sandawe, the BergDama, and the Austra-

lian Western Desert aboriginals (Fig. 16).

Only three of the rockshelters examined

in New Guinea had stone-lined hearths;

all three were in the Yuat gorge, and all

three were used by the Pinai people (Ta-

ble 5, Fig. 17) (Gorecki 1988, 1991). Not all

of the Pinai sites contained stone-linedhearths, however (Fig. 11). Similarly,

wooden beds were found only in sites in

the Chuigai hil ls that were used by the

Sawos people, but not all of the Sawos

sites contained wooden beds (Fig. 18)

(Gorecki 1991). Site furniture appears to

be a strong cultural m arker regardless of

whether a site is as minimally furnished

as the South African c/r or w he ther a lot ofe n er gy h a s b ee n in ve ste d in cr ea tin g

built-in beds, storage platforms, or stone

walls.

The site structure of Yeleme-Wang-

K o b - M e a c t s a s a m a r k e r o f a g e n d e r -

specific sp atial organ ization of activities.

266 NENA GALANIDOU


25/33

Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me is used as a tem-

porary cam p d uring exped itions to quarr y

basalt and manufacture axes, which are

subseq uen tly exchan ged for p igs. Wom enare strictly excluded from these expedi-

tions, and it is therefore significant that

the spatial organization should reprod uce

the arrangement of the equally gender-

sp ecific m en s h ou se (Petr eq u in a n d Pe-

treq uin 1988). The gr indston es in som e of

the Australian Western Desert habitation

sites have also been associated with gen-der-specific activities. It has been argued

that grindstones are gender-specific arti-

facts used by married women, who, it is

a sse rte d, ke ep a n u p p er a nd a low er

FIG. 12. Bar chart sh owing presence/absence of space division.

FIG. 13. Bar chart showing presence/absence of windscreens.



26/33

grind stone at each of the camps they visit

regu larly (Peterson 1968; N icholson an d

Cane 1991). If this is true and if it can be

assum ed that n one have been stolen, thenth e n u m b e r of gr in d ston e s fou n d w ill

show h ow ma ny fam ily units regularly use

the site.

Site structure can, like other aspects of

m aterial culture, have a twofold fun ction.

During an occupation it expresses the oc-

cup ying groups ideas about spatial orga-

nization, thus ensuring familiarity andcomfort. Cultural variation in site struc-

ture can , howe ver, also be a m ean s of non -

verbal commu nication that transmits a

m essage about cultural iden tity and rights

FIG. 14. Bar chart showing presence/absence of stone walls.

FIG. 15. Bar chart sh owing p resence/absence of artificial sand ridges.

268 NENA GALANIDOU


27/33

of access to rockshelters, as in Pap ua Ne w

Guinea. Caves and rockshelters used by

groups that exhibit territoriality are re-

garded as resources within that groupsterritory. During the period that elapses

between two occupations of a site, its site

structure acts as a marker that lays claim

to the site. A review of the literatu re listed

in Table 2 reveals th at th e r ights of access

to a c/r are always clearly defined. They

b e lo n g e it h er t o a cu lt u ra l g ro u p o r t o

som e subdivision of this group such as afamily, a gender group or an individual.

Th e y a re n e v e r s h a re d b y t w o o r mo re

different groups. Gorecki has informed us

that rockshelters n ear tribal boun daries in

FIG. 16. Bar chart showing presence/absence of grindstones.

FIG. 17. Bar chart showing presence/absence of stone-lined hearths.



28/33

Papua New Guinea are often inspected to

e sta blis h w h eth e r a n y oth e r t rib e h a s

been making use of them, by implication

intruding up on or stealing a resource(persona l com m un ication). In the absence

of the rightful owners of these sites,

their site fur nitur e clearly ann oun ces their

identity and their claim to certain rights

over the surrounding territory.

The particular spatial site structure of a

cave or rockshelter is the result of a cer-

tain groups way of adapting to specific

constraints, and as such it signals groupidentity. It follows that site structure

s h ou ld h a ve re d u n d a n t ch a ract eris tics

that transcend individual episodes of oc-

cupation. This point may prove useful in

making inferences about archaeological

sites. We do not know whether any pre-

historic foragers organized themselves

territorially (see Layton 1986 for a discus-

sion of territorial organization amongmodern foragers) or whether, if so, they

expressed group identity and negotiated

boundaries using spatial site structure as

a me a n s o f n o n ve rba l co mmu n ica tio n

(Lightfoot an d Mar tine z 1995). It would,

howe ver, be extrem ely interesting to test a

wor kin g h yp oth esis th at th ey d id so

against the archaeological evidence.

DISCUSSION

The sample of sites discussed here, al-

beit small, illustrates the diversity of the

ways in which different groups use c/r

s p a c e . W e h a v e s e e n t h a t t h e s e n a t u ra l

niches are resources whose size d oes not

affect whether they are occupied or for

how long. Although the sort of space th ey

offer is much the same across the globe,each cultural group adapts to that space in

a different way according to how it per-

ceives and experiences space. This is best

illustrated by Papua New Guinea, where

c/r space is used in highly variable ways

even though the c/r are used for similar

purposes by groups who share the same

habitat an d have identical modes of sub-

sistence.Spatial adaptations to c/r may involve

ph ysically altering their top ograp hy, orga-

nizing their space conceptually, or doing

both. Some groups set up camp s in c/r in

mu ch the same ways as they do in open-

air locations, using the technical skills and

FIG. 18. Bar chart showing presence/absence of wooden beds.

270 NENA GALANIDOU


29/33

spatial archetypes embedded in their cul-

ture or social category to prod uce th e sort

of spatial configu ration to wh ich th ey are

accustomed.

Overall differences were observed be-

tween forager and horticulturist use of space. The sites used by the Australian

and South African foragers are minimally

furnished and lack durable structures of

an y sort. The We st Dani at Yelem e-Wan g-

Kob-Me dig depressions in the shelters

floor and organize its space symbolically

so a s to m a ke it a m e ta ph or for th eir

m e n s h ou se . O th e r h or ticu ltu r ist

groups in New Guinea wh ose backgroundis fairly sedentary choose to invest their

t ime and energy in lining hearths with

stones, in constructing wooden beds and

tables, or in making artificial roofing. The

data to date thus suggest that m ore energy

is invested in the construction of habita-

tion features by horticulturists than by

foragers.

Our sample thus contains evidence ofcultural and economic variation in site

structure. We h ave also seen that th e spa-

tial structure of separate sites used by a

single group may be different, as in the

case of certain sites used by h orticultur ists

such as the Sawos and the Melpa (Figs. 6

and 10). Although the small size of our

samp le an d our lack of detailed site biog-

raphies do not p ermit elaboration on thisissue, we m ay susp ect th at th is differen ce

probably relates to differences in site

function or in the social composition of

the occupying parties. In other words, it

pr obab ly refle cts variability in the iden tity

of the occupants. For example, different

ge n d er or a ge gr ou p s w ith in th e s am e

comm un ity may experience and use spa ce

in d iffe ren t w ays . Bo b La yt on h a s re -corded gender-specific rockshelters at

Uluru (Ayers Rock) in central Australia,

where Tjukutjapi and Pulari are associ-

ated with wom en s rituals and W arai Yuki

and Kulpi Mutit julu with mens rituals

(persona l com m un ication).

Ou r review has shown that hearths do-

mesticate a natural cavity by offering focal

points around which humans can act and

interact. The y d ivide sp ace p hysically an d

conceptually into smaller un its according

to the needs and beliefs of the occupyingparty. They are thu s structural elem ents of

spatial organization a nd m edia for th e re-

pr odu ction of spa tial form s familiar to th e

occupants of c/r. We have seen that there

is no evidence that the p resen ce of he arth s

whose construction demands a high en-

ergy investment (stone-lined, log-lined,

ovens) is related to longer term occupa-

tion. The forager groups in our sampleconsistently used a single type of hearth,

either open or stone-lined , in m ore or less

the same place with regard to the shelters

walls and the talus. The horticulturist

group s were less consistent in th eir choice

of hearth type and location. The number

of hearth s in a site does not app ear to be a

fun ction of the size of the sh elter. Instea d,

it is associated with a groups attitude to-ward hearth reuse, with the character of

the activities carried out there and with

the social composition of the occupying

party. The type of hearth chosen, its loca-

tion, and whether i t is reused are three

variables that are very important to the

stud y of site structure in archaeological

palimpsests.

Some of the si tes in our sample weree xa min e d w h ile t h eir o ccu p a n t s w ere

presen t. Their activities were recorded as

preparing and consuming food, manufac-

turing objects, participating in leisure ac-

tivities, and sleeping. Whe n sites wer e ex-

amined in the absence of their occupants,

although their floors could be divided into

zones containing different densities of

m aterial (see Pakara an d M arind jila in Fig.6, for e xam ple) or concentra tions of a p ar-

ticular type of find, it was impossible to

relate these zones with any certainty to

any specific activity. This is mainly be-

ca u se in t h e a b se n ce o f t h e o ccu p a n t s

th e re is n o e vid e n ce to s h ow w h et he r



30/33

finds ended up in their current locations

by being dropped, tossed, lost, or inten-

tionally or un inten tionally redep osited. It

was, m oreover, imp ossible to iden tify th e

h a b it at io n fe at u re s t h at h a d b e en u s ed

contemporaneously or to distinguish theboun daries of the m ost recent living fl oor.

This is because cultural m aterial and fea-

tures from previous occup ations are in-

corporated into every current living sur-

face. Amid this palimpsest we can only

identify redun dant patterns of site struc-

t u re t h at ma y o r ma y n o t co rre sp o n d t o

activity areas.

A n um ber of lines of evidence suggestthat the c/r used intermittently by certain

territorial groups tend to contain very

similar site furniture not only because it

provides them with familiar living condi-

tions while they are occupying these re-

sources, bu t also because it establishes

their right of access to them even while

they are somewh ere else. In other words,

spatial site stru cture in c/r serves just th es ame p u rp o se a s s tyle d o es in ma t eria l

cu lt u re : it co n ve ys in fo rma t io n a b ou t

group identity to target groups (Conkey

1990; W iess n er 1984, 1985). Ar ch itectu ra l

form, like stylistic form and the iconogra-

phy of artifacts, is commonly considered

to be an em blem of group iden tity that can

permit such identity to be established in

archae ological contexts (Shen na n 1989).Architecture is a set of recurr ing pr ocesses

that involves imagining, planning, con-

structing, and maintaining built struc-

tures. If we expand this definition to in-

clude spatial adaptations to c/r, which in

effect comprise the same series of pro-

cesses, though carried out inside an exist-

ing structure rather than involving the

co ns tr u ction of som e th in g n e w fr omscratch, the relevance of c/r pa lim pse sts to

the discussion of social identity immedi-

ately becomes clear. By opening up our

discussion in this way we can extend it

mu c h fu rth e r b a ck in t o a p e rio d from

which very few architectural remains, in

t h e t ra d it io n al d e fin it io n o f t h at t erm,

ha ve survived . This app roach seem s likely

to be of enormous benefit to Palaeolithic

and Mesolithic research.

A new approach to the sort of spatial

variation exhibited in Palaeolithic or Me-

solithic sites would not attempt to recon-

struct individual moments of space use,

b u t w ou ld in s te a d s ee k re d u n d a n t p a t-

te rn s (p a tt er n s t ha t r u n th r ou gh m o re

than one event of occupation) in spatial

structure. This approach could develop in

several d irections. The version th at I favor

would seek to iden tify (1) the type of an y

habitation structures present and their

disposition in relation to each other a nd to

certain universal features such as back

walls, d rip lines, and talus slopes; (2) th e

density and composition of the assem-

blages found around hearths or other el-

emen ts of site furniture; (3) the m ethods

of refuse disposal used; and (4) whether

hearths were reused.

Within this approach the appropriate

un it of an alysis m ight be the layer (if that

were sufficiently e xtensive), th e stratum

(comprising more than one layer), or, in

some cases, the entire site. Choosing so

large a tem poral unit should not be prob-

lematic if we seek to identify patterns that

are th e resu lt of repetitive spatial beh avior

rather than of ind ividu al episodes of dep -

osition of cultura l deb ris.6 The method es-

sentially involves the same assumptions

a s t h os e t h at a lit h ic s p ecia lis t ma k es

whe n h e/ she d ecide s to stud y a sites lithic

technology not by mean s of refitting, but

by observing change through time.

Describing a sites sp atial configu ration

should n ot be an en d in itself, but a m eans

of coming to certain conclusions ab out th ePalaeolithic or Mesolithic society that

gave rise to it. Once the general traits of a

sites spatial structure have been identi-

fied, an attemp t should be m ade to estab-

lish how these patterns are linked to the

sites role within a larger-scale settlement

272 NENA GALANIDOU


31/33

system an d to comp are them with the spa-

tial patterns of other sites. Few compari-

sons of this sort have as yet been made

(althou gh see Galanidou 1999 and Kind

1985), bu t th e u nd ertaking pr om ises to in-

crease our understanding considerably.

For examp le, it could r eveal wheth er com -

mon patterns of spatial organization can

be iden tified in sites whose functions were

s imi la r o r in s it es t h at a re in t h e s ame

region.

Archa eological e xcavation of a c/r site

almost invariably results in the recovery

of a p alim psest resulting from several oc-

cup ational episodes. I have argu ed in this

article that it is both useful and valid to

study palim psests in term s of large-scale,

rep etitive pa ttern s of spatial variation. My

s u rve y h a s s h ow n t h at t h e s p at ia l s it e

structure of c/r bears a very strong cul-

tural imprint. This general statement is

not, of course, the whole story; we have

still to explore th e ind ividua l traits an d the

amoun t of deviation from cultural n orms

that variation in site function may gener-

ate. We should also begin to treat redun -

dant patterns in the u se of c/r space as an

aspect of material culture that may well

have much more to tell us about cultural

and social identity, never forgetting that

intersite comp arison is vital to our un der-

standing of intrasite spatial variation.

Perhaps the most significant imp lica-

tion of this survey is that only if we are

prepared to alter our theoretical expecta-

tions and our research strategies will we

be able to extract new information from

the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic spatial

record. We still do not know how detailed

or how useful to our discussion of past

societies this information will tur n out tob e , b u t w e a r e n e v e r g o i n g t o fi n d o u t

unless we start somewhere. The potential

value of the approach that I propose re-

mains to be evaluated by m eans of future

site-scale and intersite comparative stud-

ies of spatial p atterns.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Paul Gorecki for answering a long

list of questions about his ethnoarchaeological re-

search into contemporary use of rockshelters in New

Guinea and to Bob Layton for offering some usefulcomm ents on an earlier draft of this article.

NOTES

1 From now on caves and rockshelters will be re-

ferred to in the text as c/r.2 As we h a ve v aryin g a m o u n t s o f i n fo rm a tio n

about these sites (Table 1), most of the fields in the

database used in this analysis are categorical vari-

ables recorded as presence/absence.3 W h e re t h e in v es tig a to rs h a ve n o t s p e cifi e d a

sites size, it h as b een calculated app roxima tely from

the p ublished plans.4 The Melpa people kindle a fire as soon as they

arrive at any rockshelter, using firewood that is al-

ready there. Before they go, they stockpile some

more wood for the u se of whoever uses the site next

(Gorecki 1991).5 The spectrum of activities performed in a habi-

tation site is certainly m uch broader.6 I h a ve s h own e ls ewh e re t h a t i t is p o s sib le t o

describe palimp sest sites in terms of their spatial

properties, albeit not at the sort of degree of resolu-

tion that is necessary if specific moments in the past

are to be reconstructed (Galanidou 1997a).

REFERENCES CITED

Binford , L. R.

1978 Dimensional analysis of behavior and site

structure: Learning from an Eskimo hu nting

stand.American Antiquity43:330 361.1979 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press,

New York.

1983 In pursuit of the past. T h a m e s & H u d s o n ,

London.

Bulm er, R.

1976 Selectivity in hu nting an d in disposal of an-

imal bone by the Kalam of the N ew Gu inea

Highlands. In Problems in economic and socialarchaeology, edited by G. de G. Sieveking,

I. H. Longworth , and K. E. Wilson, p p. 169186. Lond on, Du ckworth.

Carr, C.

1987 Dissecting intrasite artifact palim psests u s-

ing Fourier methods. In M ethod and th eory

for acti vi ty area r esearch, edited by S. Kent,

pp . 236292. Colum bia Un iv. Press, New

York.



32/33

1991 Left in the Dust: Contextual information in

model-focused archaeology. In The i nterpre-

tation of archaeological spatial patterning, ed -

ited by E. M. Kroll an d T. D. Price, p p. 221

256. New York/London, Plenum.

Clark, J. D., and J. Walton

1962 A late stone age site in the Erongo Moun -

tains, south west Africa. Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 28:116.

Conkey, M.

1990 Experimen ting with style in archaeology:

some historical and theore tical issues. InTh euses of style in archaeology, edited by M. Con-

key and C. Harstof pp. 517. Cambridge

Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Galanidou, N.

1997a H ome is w here the hearth is: Th e spatial orga-ni zati on of the U pper Palaeoli thi c Rockshelter

Occupations at Kli thi and Kastri tsa in N orthwest

Greece. BAR, Oxford .1997b The sp atial or gan ization of Klith i. In Klithi:

Ar chaeology of a Late Gl aci al Landscape in Epi-

rus (No rth we st Gre ece ), e d it ed b y G. N.

Bailey, p p . 275304. M cDon ald Ins titu te for

Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

1999 Regional settlemen t an d intra-site spatial pat-

terns in Upper Palaeolithic Epirus. In The

Palaeoli thi c Ar chaeology of Greece and adjacentareas, ed ited by G. Bailey, C. Perles, E. Ad am ,

E. Pana gop ou lou, a nd K. Zach os, p p 148158.

British School at Athens Monograph, Athens.

Gamble, C.

1991 An introdu ction to the living spaces of mo-

b ile p e op le s. In Ethnoarchaeological ap-proaches to mobile campsites, edited by C. S.

Ga m ble an d W. A. Boismier , pp . 123. Eth-

noarchaeological Series 1, International

Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Gorecki, P.

1988 Hu nter s and sheltersThe n eed for ethno-

archaeological d ata. In Archaeology with eth-

nography: An Australian perspective, edited b y

B. M eeh an an d R. Jone s, p p. 159170. Au s-

tralian N ational University, Research School

of Pacific Studies, Canberra.

1991 Horticulturalists as hu nter-gatherers: Rock

shelter usage in Pap ua N ew Gu inea. In Eth-

noarchaeologi cal approaches to mobil e camp-

sites, e d it ed b y C . S . G a m b le a n d W . A .Boism ier, p p . 237262. Eth n oar cha eolog ical

Series 1, International Monographs in Pre-

history, Ann Arbor.

Gould, R.

1971 The archaeologist as ethnograph er: A case

from the Western Desert of Australia.W orld

Archaeology3:143177.

Kent, S.

1981 The d og: An archaeologists best friend or

worst enem y: The spatial distribution of fau-

n a l re m a in s . Journal of Field Archaeology

8:367372.

1984 An alyzi ng activ ity areas: An ethnoarchaeologi -

cal study of the use of space. Univ. of NewMexico Press, Albuq uerq ue.

Kind , C .-J.

1985 D ie Verteil ung von Stein artefakten in G rabungs-

flachen: ein M odel l zur Or gani sation Al t- und

M ittelstei nzei tl i cher Siedlungsplatze. Archea-

ologica Venato ria 7, Tub ingen .

Layton, R.

1986 Political and territorial structures among

hunter-gatherers. M an21:18 33.

Lightfoot, K., an d A. Martinez1995 Frontiers and boun daries in archaeological

perspectve.An nual Revue of An thropology24:47192.

Lim, I.

1983 Rock-shelter u se today: An ind ication of Us-

andawe prehistorry. In Recent Adv ances i n

In do-Pacific Prehi story, edited b y V. N. Misra

an d P. Bellwood , p p . 105110. IBH, O xford /

New Delhi.

Nicholson, A., and S. Cane1991 Desert camps: Analysis of Australian ab-

original proto-historic campsites. In Ethno-

archaeological approaches to mobil e campsi tes,

edited by C. S. Gamble and W. A. Boismier,

pp . 263354. Ethn oarch aeological Series 1,

In t e rn a t io n a l M o n og rap h s in P reh i st ory,

Ann Arbor.

Parkington, J., an d G. M ills

1991 From space to p lace: The architecture and

social organization of Southern African mo-

bile communities. In Ethnoarchaeological ap-proaches to mobile campsites, edited by C. S.Gam ble and W. A. Boismier, pp . 355370.

Ethnoarchaeological Series 1, International

Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Peterson, N .

1968 Th e p e s tle a n d m o rta r: An e th n o g ra p h ic

analogy for archaeology in Arnhem Land.

Mankind6:567570.

Petr eq u in, A.-M ., and P. Petr eq u in

1988 Ethnoar cheologie d e lhab itat en grotte d eNouvelle-Guine e: Une transposition de

lespace social et econom ique. Bulletin du

Centre Genevois d An thropologie1:6182.

Petr eq u in, P., an d A.-M. Petr eq u in

1993 E cologie dun Outil: la Hache de Pierre en IrianJaya (Indonesie). Monographie du Centre de

Recher ches Arch eologiq u es 12, CNRS, Paris.

274 NENA GALANIDOU


33/33

Shennau, S.

1989 Introduction: archaeological app roaches to

cu l tu ra l id e n t it y. In Archaeological Ap-

proaches to Cultural Identity, e d it ed b y S.

Shen nau , p p. 132. Routledge, London .

Stevenson, M. G.1985 The formation of artifact assemblages at

workshop/h abitation sites: Models from

Peace Point in Northern Alberta. American

Antiquity 50:6381.

1991 Beyond the formation of hearth-associated

artifact assemblages. In The interpretation of

archaeological spatial patterning, edited by E.

M Kroll an d T. D. Price, p p. 269299. Ple-

num , New York/London.

Swadling, P.1983 How long have people been in the Ok Tedi

Impact Region? Papua New Guinea National

M useum Record8:122124.

Tuan, Y.-F.

1977 Space and pl ace: The perspecti ve of experi ence.

Edward Arnold, London.

Wh itelaw, T.

1983 The settlement at Fournou Korifi Myrtos

and aspects of Early Minoan organization.

In M inoan society, e d it ed b y O. Krzy sz -

kowska an d L. N ixon , pp . 323345. Bristol

Classical Press, Bristol.

Wiessner, P.

1984 Style and social inform ation in Kalahar i San

projectile points. American Antiquity 48:253

276.

1985 Reconsider ing the beh avioral basis for style:

A case study among the Kalahari San. Jour-

nal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190 234.

Yellen , J.1977 Ar chaeological appr oaches to the present: M od-

els for reconstructing th e past.Acade mic Press,

New York.


patterns in caves

Documents