galanidou 2000 (etnoarq-arqespacial)

7/27/2019 Galanidou 2000 (Etnoarq-ArqEspacial)

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-mail : [email protected]

Received M arch 25, 1997; r evision received June 24, 1999; accepted October 4, 1999

Evidence concerning use of space i n 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 vari ous ways in whi ch p eople from dif ferentcultural backgrounds adapt to naturally confined locations are described. Patterns of refusedisposal, the r ole of hearths, and the p ossibi li ty of identif ying activi ty areas are also explored.

It is suggested that spatial adaptations to these sites are determined not by 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

li kely to be useful i n formul ating a new agenda for spatial analysis of Palaeolith ic and M esolith ic

sites containing palim psests of material. Finally, the necessity of adopting a comparative

approach i n order t o understand the elements of spatial site structure is stressed. 2000 Academic

Press

Key W ords:caves; ethnoarchaeology; spatial archaeology.

INTRODUCTION

Spatial analysis of Palaeoli thic or M eso-li thic sites is intended to shed light on thespatial behavior of prehistoric foragers intheir campsites. Inspired by ethnoar-chaeological observations concerning theuse of space by li ving foragers, it has been

furthered by the introduction and wideadoption of computers and quantitativemethods in archaeology. Al though analyt-ical techni ques for pattern identifi cationhave undergone considerable refinement,however, spatial analysis of caves androckshelters1,* has made only a l imitedcontribution to our understanding of pre-historic spatial behavior. This is to a large

extent because most of the interpretativemodels of spatial organi zation assume acontext created by synchronic depositionof archaeological material. Such contexts

are seldom found. The vast majority ofPalaeolithic or M esolithic sites found inthese natur all y confi ned locations are pal-

impsests of debris from multipl e superim -posed occupations. In recent years prehis-torians have on the whole agreed thatthere is a need for approaches th at are

specifi call y appr opriate to sites containi ng

palimpsests of cultural material (Carr1987; Gamble 1991). If we are to acquirefrom these sites worthwhile information

about space use, we must fir st i denti fy thebehavioral issues that appear most likelyto be clarified by studying spatial varia-tion in palimpsests. The units of observa-

tion and of analysis best suited to thedrawi ng of vali d i nferences about past be-havior in caves must also be found. As afir st step, the ethnoarchaeology of c/r

must be examined more closely.Although c/r are an important 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

Al l rights of reproduction in any form reserved.


2/33

have made present-day use of these sitestheir principal concern. The vast majorityof ethnoarchaeological projects, andtherefore the majority of models of pre-historic forager spatial organization

(along with the units of analysis chosenand the expected scale of spatial resolu-tion), have had to do with the arrange-ment of open-air camps (e.g., Binford1978; Stevenson 1985, 1991). Du ri ng thepast 15 years, however, new ethnoar-chaeological research has concentr atedspecifically upon the sort of use made ofc/ r, and the spatial arr angements made

withi n them, by some of the extant groupsof indigenous people that subsist partly ortotally by means of hunting and gather-ing. The information thus gathered, to-gether with less detailed ethnographicand ethnohistoric accounts of space use incaves and rockshelters, makes up a small,yet highly informative body of evidence. Ihave already presented a comprehensive

account of thi s evidence elsewhere (Ga-lanidou 1997a). In this article I analyze itw it h t hree quest ions in mind: Whatcauses people to make their various spa-tial adaptations to c/r ? H ow visible arethese adaptations in the archaeologicalrecord? and Whi ch, if any, variables orunits of archaeological analysis are sensi-tive enough to detect behaviorally signif-

icant spatial patterns? I refer to the con-cep t of sp ati al si te str uctu re i ndescribing the ways in which people or-ganize space in naturally confined loca-tions to transform them into familiarplaces used as dwell ings or for ceremonialpurposes (Tuan 1977). A sites spatialstructure has a number of elements, suchas its size and the nature and location of

any hearth (s), sleepin g and refuse dis-posal arr angements, divi sions of spaceand activi ty areas. I discuss all of thesecomponents.

Thirty-fi ve sites used by 10 separate cul-tural and l inguist ic groups from thesouthern hemisphere are considered here

(Tables 1 and 2). Some of these sites havebeen used by highly mobile foragers andothers by semi sedentary horti cult ur ists.By choosing not to lim it my sample to sitesused by foragers, I have been able both to

consider a larger number of sites and tocompare how foragers use space in c/ rwith how horticul tur ists do so. As Table 2shows, the sites discussed were occupiedunder vari ous circumstances for vari ouslengths of time and during different sea-sons. In examini ng this sampl e, ratherthan looking for direct analogs for inter-preting sites used by prehistoric foragers,

I i nvestigate how spatial signatur es wi thinc/r are interwoven with cultural, eco-nomic, or social aspects of human behav-ior and what degree of variation is ob-served from one site to another w ith in andacross different cultures. The informationabout each site is presented in t he form ofsimple pictorial and tabular summaries.2

SIZE OF SITES

The sit es exami ned ranged in size3 from12.5 to 260 m 2. The histogram of the sam-ple exami ned is positi vely skewed, sug-gesting that smaller sites are more com-mon (Figs. 1 and 2; Table 2). The caves inour sample were used for habitation irre-spective of their size. Onl y in Australia did

size appear to be a criterion in selecting asacred shelter (Nicholson and Cane 1991),and this is in relative terms, since none ofthe A ustrali an sites exceeded th e mediumsize of our sample (Fig. 2).

HEARTHS

Types of Hearth

H earths are present in all the sites in thesample. This is not surprising, since kin-dling a fire is a social action essential totaming the space of a natural niche.4 Thetypes of hearth in our sample are scattersof ash and charcoal, which I call open

244 NENA GALANIDOU


3/33

TABLE

1

TheGroupsDiscussed:CountriesofOrigin,

Cultural/LinguisticGrou

ps,SubsistenceModes,PhysicalGeography,

TypesofEvidence,

andBibliographicSources

Countryof

origin

Re

gion

Cultural/linguistic

group

Subsistencemode

Physicalgeography

Typeofevidence

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

Highlan

dsofIria

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.

245PATTERN S IN CAVES


4/33

TABLE 2The Caves and Rockshelters Discussed: Sizes and Functions

Site

Size

(m 2) Function Cultural/ linguistic group

N !axuwe 1 36.9 Long-term habitation and temporarycamp during harvesting, hunting,

and honey-collecting expeditions

Sandawe

N !axuwe 2 108 Long-term habitation and temporary

camp during harvesting, hunting,


Sandawe

N!axuwe 3 24 Long-term habitation and temporarycamp during harvesting, hunting,


Sandawe

Cave of Rabbits 71.5 Permanent habitation Sandawe

Big Elephant Cave N W 22.5 BergDama

Bi g El ephant Cave N E Ost ri ch eggshel l bead w or kshop Ber gD am aDe H angen 116 Camp during intrusion by colonizing

populations either of single

families or closely integratedsubsistence uni ts

S. A fri can ind igenous

Diepkloof 260 Camp during intrusion by colonizing

populations either of singlefamilies or closely integrated

subsistence uni ts


A ndriesgrond 58 Camp during i ntrusi on by colonizing

populations either of single

families or closely integratedsubsistence uni ts


Renbaan 29 Camp during intrusion by colonizing

populations either of singlefamilies or closely integrated

subsistence uni ts


Yu ngu bal i ban da 1 24.5 H abi tat ion d ur in g r ai ny season W est er n d eser t abor igi nal s

Yungubal ibanda 2a 13.5 Seasonal habitati on W estern desert abori gi nal sYungubal ibanda 2b 12.5 Seasonal habitati on W estern desert abori gi nal s

Yungubalibanda 3 21 Seasonal habitation Western desert aboriginals

Yungubalibanda 4 16 Seasonal habitation Western desert aboriginals

Yungubalibanda 5 27 Sacred site Western desert aboriginalsYungubalibanda 6 31.5 M ens initiation camp Western desert aboriginals

Yungubalibanda 7 75 Sacred site Western desert aboriginals

Yungubalibanda 8 24 Sacred site Western desert aboriginalsUyu 35 M ythological site Western desert aboriginals

Ngandalarra 19 M ythological site Western desert aboriginals

Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me 200 Camp during a 3-day expedition of

an all-male group to quarry basaltand manufacture axes; mens

initiation camp

Yeleme and Faoui; West

Dani linguistic group

Pukl Kumanga 11.5 Overnight stay M elpa

Tembinde Kumanga 105 Camp during foraging expeditions ortrading trips

Melpa

Nip 111 Camp during foraging expeditions M elpa

Kanamapin 112 Short-term camp Pinai

246 NENA GALANIDOU


5/33

hearths, stone-li ned hearths, log-li nedhearths, and roasting pits or ovens, attimes associated wi th fi restones. W ith theexception of the ovens, w hose speciali zed

function it is to roast game or vegetables,the data to hand suggest that there is nodir ect relationship between hearth formand hearth function. Al l t he other types ofhearth are used for multiple purposes, in-cluding cooking, sleeping by, givingwarmth and light and acting as the pointaround which people relax, chat, interactsocially, or perform ceremonies.

Since only the bare mini mum of energyneed be invested in building an openhearth, while the construction of anyother type of hearth requir es a greaterinvestment of energy, we can test the in-tuitive hypothesis that the amount of en-ergy invested in making hearths (andhence the types of hearth constructed) re-lates to the length of ti me for whi ch 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 thehigh-investment category every othertype. I have also used the d ata fr om Table2 to group sites accordin g 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 hearths (Table 3) suggests

that there is no significant difference inthe distribution of high and low energyinvestments in hearths used during briefand longer term occupations. Therefore,hearths requir ing a high energy invest-ment do not necessarily relate to longerstays.

By the same token I have examinedwhether energy investment in making

hearths relates to the degree of mobili ty ofthe occupying group. Unlike the previoustest, the chi- squared test here suggeststhat in our sample there is a relationshipbetween degree of mobility and amountof energy invested in hearth s (Table 4).The strength of this relationship mea-sured by means of the phi-squared coef-fi cient i s 0.49, suggestin g a positi ve but not

particularly strong association. Indeed, ifwe look at Table 6 we can see that theopen hearth is consistently the only typepresent in the sites used by the SouthAf ri can and N ew Ir eland ind igenous peo-ple, the Australian Western Desert ab-originals, and the Sawos of Papua N ew

TABLE 2Continued

Site

Size

(m 2) Function Cultural/ l inguistic group

Ritamauda 42.5 Camp either during foraging

expeditions or en route to trade

Pinai

Luanana 59 Short-term camp; ossuary Pinai

Ailegun 46 Short-term camp; ossuary PinaiM arindji la Short-term camp during foraging

expeditions

Sawos

Adjiga 89 Evening camp of two families during

sago-starch processing; fire-drivehunts or gathering expedit ions

Sawos

Pakara 214 Short-term camp during foraging

expeditions

Sawos

Balof 1 16 N ew Ireland indigenous

Balof 2 40 N ew Ireland indigenousM atapara N ew Ireland indigenous

Lameus N ew Ireland indigenous



6/33

Guinea (Figs. 36). It is noteworthy thattwo foraging groups (the Australian andSouth African indigenous) of the three inour sample use this type of hearth, al-though open hearths are not the only type

found in forager sites. They are, however,the only type pr esent in the sites used bythe Sawos, who make clay pots to cook i n,and w ho, judging by t heir f urni ture(wooden beds and tables), appear to beone of the most sedentary groups in oursample (Gorecki 1991). In the Big Elephant

Cave, the site used by the third foraginggroup in our sample (the BergDama), onlystone-lined hearths were found (Fig. 7).

To summarize the above, we have noevidence for any relation between length

of occupation and typ e of heart h and thereis a weak relationship between degree ofmobility and type of hearth. Table 5 sug-gests that some relationshi p m ay exist be-tween cultural group and type of hearthused. This pattern is much more robust inthe foraging groups in our sample (theBergDama, South Afr ican ind igenous, andAustralian aboriginals) than among the

horticulturists.

Number of Hearths

The scattergram p lott in g total nu mberof hearths against site area for each site(Fig. 8) clearly suggests th at t he relati on-shi p between th ese tw o vari ables is not a

linear one. A lthough the l argest num-bers of hearth s are found in large sites,n ot al l l ar ge si t es h ave n um er ou shearths.

The number of hearths used duringeach episode of occupation is fi rst andforemost a culturally defined element ofhabitation. It is only secondarily a func-tion of the size or social composit ion of the

occupying group and of the character ofon-site activities (Table 6). The evidenceexamined clearly suggests that the way inwhich the above parameters affect thenumber of hearths used per occupationalepisode differs from one culture to an-other. For instance, N icholson and Canehave observed that in Australia the num-ber of hearths relates to the size of the

occupying group (1991), whil e Gorecki hasreported that in Papua New Guinea thePinai people use only a single hearth peroccupation regardl ess of the number ofoccupants (1991). At Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me (Table 1) the West Dani gatherand 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

hearth s accordin g to w hich of two vil lagesthey come from, but share a third hearth,

in a communal area, for cooking (Pet re-quin and Pet requin 1988) [Figs. 9(2) and9(3)].

The total number of hearths also de-pends upon w het her t he occupyinggroup reuses structures used by previ-ous occupants of the cave. Published in-formation about reutilization of hearthsis sparse, but nonetheless suggests that

this is a cultural ly defined choice. InNew Guinea some cultural groups tendto reuse existing hearths [for example,t he roast ing pi t s at Yeleme-Wang-K ob- M e (ib id)] , whereas others (theMelpa, for instance) prefer to set up new

ones somewhere else (Gorecki 1988). Inanalyzing an archaeological pali mp sest

we may not be able to isolate discreteepisodes of occupation and count thenumber of hearths used during each in-dividual episode, but we can determinediachronically whether hearths were re-used. A rchaeological stu di es have n everpaid much attention to this aspect ofspatial behavior, which is an expressionof cultural identity. There is probably

much more to be learned about spatialadaptation (and ultimately about groupidentity) by recording patterns of hearthreuse systematically and exploring howthey vary between caves and rockshel-ters in the same region, in neighboring

FIG. 2. Hi stogram showing sizes of sites in square meters wi th inf ormation about t he cultural/

linguistic group to which each site belongs superimposed.

TABLE 3

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

Low -ener gy i nvest ment H i gh-ener gy i nvestm en t N um ber of si tes

Longer stay 9 5 14Short stay 9 7 16

18 12 30

a X2calc. 0.20; X2(0.01) 6.63.



8/33

regions and in regions distant from oneanother.

SLEEPING ARRANGEMENTS

Sleeping is one of the most elusive as-pects of human activity in the archaeolog-

ical record. In spatial model building it isoften treated as a variable about whichcross-cultural generalizations may appro-priately be made (see, for example, Bin-

ford 1983:162163). The review of thepresent data has shown that sleeping ar-eas are alw ays adjacent to hearths, butthat not all of a sites hearths are used forsleeping by. There is considerable varia-tion in the location of the sleeping areaand the type of bedding preferred (Tables79). In Melpa, Pinai, and South Africansites the sleeping area i s n ear the back

wall of the cave (Figs. 1011, 3) (Gorecki1988, 1991; Park ington and M il ls 1991).The Australian abori ginals sleep at thecenters of rockshelters, after cleari ngthese areas of objects (Fig. 5) (Nicholsonand Cane 1991). The West Dani atYeleme-Wang-Kob-Me sleep aroundheart hs in depressions that correspond todomestic units [Fig. 9(2)]. These units are

distributed all over the shelter floor. De-pending on their village of origin, andhence on their cultural habit, the sleeperseither use pandanus mats as bedding orsleep on the bare ground (Pet requin andPetr equi n 1988). Th e BergDama w ho usethe Big Elephant Cave also sleep in livingholl ows, in thi s case consistentl y foun d bythe rear wall of the site next to a hearth

(Fig. 7) (Clark and Walton 1962). Thesleeping area in M elpa sites overl aps wi ththe general domestic activity area and hasno fixed position; it can, for example, beby the back wall of the shelter, as at Nip,or in the center of the rockshelter, as atTembinde (Fig. 10). Using plant materials

FIG. 3. Plans of four South A fr ican c/r (after Park-

ington and Mills 1991 with kind permission fromInternational M onographs i n Prehistory).

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

Low-energy investment High-energy investment Number of hearths

M obile people 15 1 16

Sedentary people 4 12 1619 13 32

a X2calc. 15.67; X2(0.01) 6.63.

250 NENA GALANIDOU


9/33

as bedding and sleeping on the bareground are the most usual arrangements,but Sandawe and Sawos sites containwooden beds (Table 9; Fig. 6).

The variation in sleeping arrangements

observed in our sample makes it clear th atthis is another culturally defined variablein spatial adaptation to c/r. Since this isthe case, we could obtain far more infor-mation from archaeological contextsabout how people slept by adopting anind uctive research procedur e consistin g

of a descriptive and a comparative stage.My proposal would be that the researchershould begin by recording the location ofthe heart h in relation to cave featur es suchas walls, drip lines, or talus slopes, then

proceed to consid er the sit es fun ction anddur ation of occupation. By this stage he orshe wi ll probably have some ink ling as towhere (if at all) sleeping may have takenplace. This suspicion may develop into aplausible hypothesis once the location ofthe hearth or hearths has been compared

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



10/33

252 NENA GALANIDOU


11/33

with those of the hearths i n other sitesused for similar purposes, both within thesame region and in other regions. In fact,I would put this point more strongly bysaying that onlyby expanding the compar-

ative part of our research can we hope toreconstru ct to some extent the sleepingareas and habits of pr ehistori c foragers.

PATTERNS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL

The spatial configuration of c/r sites isinfl uenced considerably by the ways i nwhich their occupants maintain their

camp and dispose of their refuse. Theseelements of spatial behavior affect theamount of cult ural debri s left in a site andits arr angement. Patterns of refuse dis-posal exhibit variation according to con-sumption habits, religious beliefs, restric-tions or taboos concerni ng what should bediscarded and where, and perceptions ofwhat is clean and what is not (Bulmer

1976; Petr equi n and Petr equi n 1988). Insome horticulturist sites dogs tend to eatany faunal remains that fall on the floor(Gorecki personal communication, seealso Kent 1981).

Two of the sites used by the Sawos con-tained distinct concentrations of food de-bris, suggesting that this was selectivelydiscarded in particular areas (Gorecki

1991). At Pakara both bones and plant re-mains were found adjacent to the heart hs,whereas at M arindjila only debris fromplant foods was found by the shelter walland at the center of the site (Fig. 7). Theint erestin g point here is that the thi rd Sa-wos site in our sample, Adjiga, containedno similar concentration of material. Ac-cording to Gorecki, this may have had

something to do with the dogs that arealways found in Sawos sites (ibid:249).

The Pinai eat bone marrow and thusproduce large numbers of bone fragmentsthat are discarded at random onto thefloors of their caves. The M elpa throwfood debris away in their activity areas orin the talus. The discard of bones is gov-erned by principles that are specifi c totheir cultur e. Because the M elpa are afraidof the dark and believe that the smokefrom burnin g bones attracts evil spir its,they never thr ow bones int o their hearth sat night. Instead they burn them in themorning or just before they depart fromthe cave. Although the M elpa and thePinai occupy neighboring territories, thedifferences in their consumption and dis-card behavior mean that Melpa rockshel-ters are tid ier than Pinai ones (ibid:246).

Pierr e Petrequi n has reported that theWest Dani dispose selectively of theirrefuse in various areas of Yeleme-Wang-Kob-M e (1988:73). M ost food debris (veg-etable peelings and certain bones) is dis-carded toward the rockshelters talus,whereas bat bones and lizard heads andmandibles are thr own into the hearths(Fig. 9.3). These patterns of refuse di sposalgenerate a robust pattern in the spatialdistri bution of faunal r emains that can bedissected out from the palimpsest createdby mul tip le events of occupation.

The aforementioned examples and theinf ormation in Table 10 show that patternsof refuse disposal are so simi lar withi neach cultural group as to support the hy-pothesis that this is another culturally de-fined variable of site structure. We haveseen th at patterns of hum an adaptation t oc/ r constraints are not universal, sincespatial perceptions and feelings aboutcomfort and impurity are culturally spe-cific. The different consumption and

FIG. 5. Plans of Yungubalibanda 13 (rockshelters used for habitation), Western Desert, Aus-

tralia (after Nicholson and Cane 1991 with kind permission from International Monographs inPrehistory).



12/33

FIG. 6. Plans of Pakara, Adji ga, and M ari ndj il a rockshelt ers, Chuigai h il ls, Sawos peopl e, Papua,

New Guinea (after Gorecki 1991 with kind permission from International Monographs in Prehis-

tory).

254 NENA GALANIDOU


13/33

refuse-disposal habit s of dif ferent cultu ralgroups give rise to sites of variable densityand content. The sampl e of sites exami nedhere has told us nothing about how dis-card behavior may vary according to thelength 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 safelyargue that people discard their refuse inways specifi c to their cultur es, then, we donot as yet know how useful this generalstatement is to the study of archaeologicalcontexts. If, on the one hand, the culturalimpr int is as strong as our data are sug-gesting, archaeological sites u sed by the

same cultural group should exhibit iden-tical traits, generated by discard behaviorthat is specific to that culture. If, on theother hand, the details of an occupation(its length, the natur e of the activi ties per-formed during it, or the social composi-tion of the occupying party, for instance)

infl uence refuse disposal patterns morestrongly than any cultural impri nt, thisshould be detectable by comparing sitesused by the same cultural group but fordif ferent purposes. In either case, the onlyviable way of learni ng more about discardbehavior is to adopt a contextual ap-

proach, considering patterns of refuse dis-posal alongside a sites other traits (itsfunction or any seasonality in its occupa-tion, for instance) and seeking intersiteperspectives upon intrasite spatial varia-tion.

ACTIVITY AREAS

Since the 1970s activit y area researchhas been at the core of most archaeologi-cal studies of Palaeolithic and Mesolithicspatial organization. In all this time, how-ever, crystal-clear patterns of the sort re-vealed by ethnoarchaeological studies ofopen-air camp s (Binford 1978, 1983; Yell en

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

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



14/33

1977) have never been discerned in sitescontaining palimpsests [although activityarea research has pr oved useful to studi esof the use of space by sedentary societies

in prehistoric and historical times (e.g.,Kent 1984; Whitelaw 1983)]. Even in sitesof high spatial integrity, such as Pin-cevent, mul tiple analyses of the spatialdistribution of finds have failed to pro-

duce any plausible reconstruction of spa-tial confi guration in term s of activi ty areas(see Carr 1991 for di scussion). The activityarea has persisted in the l iteratur e of spa-

tial analysis because i t is m ore i nterestingto discuss a site in terms of the activitiesthat were performed there than in termsof the arti fact concentrations recorded.We should, nonetheless, question

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 oevidence Open (a)

Stone-lined (b)

Roastingpit (c) Firestones (d)

Twotypes

Threetypes

Fourtypes Absent

Totalno. ofsites

Sandawe 2 2 4BergDama 1 1 2S. African

indigenous 4 4Australian

aboriginals 11 11West Dani 1 ad 1M elpa 1 1** 2Pinai 1 1 a,c 1 ac 1 ac 4Sawos 3 3New Ireland

indigenous 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 int o activi ties is vali d(Galanidou 1997b:276277). In this sectionI discuss the particular problems associ-ated with attempting to identify and iso-late activity areas in caves.

We do not have information relevant tothis concept about every site in our sam-ple, partly because some were examinedduri ng the absence of their occupants.

The sites about which we do have this sortof information (only 11 of 35) fall intothr ee types of arr angement wi th regard toactivity areas (Table 11). I n the fi rst ar-rangement the general activity area over-laps with the sleeping area. This type isrepresented by two sites used by theMelpa people (Fig. 10) (Gorecki 1991). Inthe second arrangement sleeping is sepa-

rated from other domestic activities. Thistype is represented by the four South Af-rican sites and by Big Elephant Cave NW(Clark and Watson 1962; Parkington andMills 1991). The third type is representedonly by Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me, where,Pet requin inform s us, some activiti es are

rigidly segregated in space while others

overlap (1988) (Table 11). Strict rules thusgovern where certain activities should beperformed. If we were to draw a cross-cultural conclusion from our sample, wewould have to suggest that spatial segre-gation of individual domestic activitieswas the exception rather than the rule.

The question that we m ust answer iswhether in archaeological contexts we can

hope to identify whichactivit ies took placewhere. From habitation sites, among oth-ers, we recover the debris resulting fromwhat are comm only termed domestic ac-tivi ties : stone and bone work; the di stri -bution, p rocessing, and cooking of food;sleepi ng; eating; and interacting socially.5

As we have already seen, cooking andsleeping are associated with hearths and

sleeping is sometimes associated withbedding material. This, however, rarelysurvives in the archaeological record. Ov-ens are perhaps the only type of hearththat we can definitely associate with foodpreparation. It is almost impossible toidentify the areas in which any other do-

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

Cultural group Social unit Reason Source

Western Desert of

Au stralia aboriginals

One (e.g., a man and his

two w ives or two m en)

Different activities taking

place at different timesof day (sleeping,

cookin g, sociali zing, andsitting in the sun)

Nicholson and Cane

1991:318

M elpa One (e.g., a group of

men on a foraging

expedition)

Different activities taking

place at different times

of day

Gorecki 1991:241

Sawos Two nuclear families One hearth associated

with separate domestic

area of each group;

third hearth used for

shared activities

Gorecki 1991:249

West Dani Two groups of men,

from two villages

(Yeleme and Faoui)whose habits dif fer

One hearth associated

with domestic uni t of

each group; thi rd hearthin communal space

used for shared

activities

Petr equin and Petr equin

1988



16/33

258 NENA GALANIDOU


17/33

mestic activit ies were p erf ormed. I n somecases these activit ies may never have beenconfin ed to any parti cular area in the fi rstplace; in others the palimpsest effect mayhave obscured the fact that they wereoriginally segregated in space. In eith ercase the resulting debris will have woundup in a midd en that we can call the area ofgeneral domestic refuse. Once the site has

been abandoned it is impossible to workout whether this area contains material inprimary deposition overlapping with anarea of general activi ty, materi al in sec-ondary deposition, or a combination ofboth. M iddens of this sort w ere present inthe majori ty of the sites discussed in Table11. In Australian habitation sites, artifactsassociated w it h subsistence acti viti es tend

to be found outside the sheltered area (Ni-

cholson and Cane 1991:345). It is, however,impossible to isolate individual activities(to separate the manufacture of stonetools from seed grinding, for example) be-cause it is uncertain whether the artifactsassociated with these activities arrived inthe area by being dropped, tossed, or re-deposited.

We have seen that some cult ural groups

may indeed segregate their domestic ac-tivities in c/r, whereas others do not. Inthe former case, however, the constraintsimposed by limited space and the super-imposition of multiple occupationalevents upon one another obscur e the hor-izontal and vert ical boundari es betweenthe areas in w hich vari ous tasks were per-formed. Even when spatial structure is

mapped shortly after the occupants have

TABLE 7Sleeping Location by Cultural/Linguistic Groupa

No

evidence

Within

domestic

depr essi on By wal l Centr e

Activity

area Front

Total

number of

sites

Sandawe 3 1 4

BergDama 1 1 2S. African

indigenous 4 4

Australian

aboriginals 5 6 11West Dani 1 1

M elpa 2 2

Pinai 1 2 1 4

Sawos 3

N. Irelandindigenous 4 4

Total

numberof sites

15(42.86%)

2(5.71%)

8(22.86%)

6(17.15%)

2(5.71%)

2(5.71%)

35

a The number of sites in which that location is used expressed as a percentage of the total number of sitesconsidered is shown in parentheses.

FIG. 9. Yeleme-Wang-Kob-M e, W est Dani, Indonesia. (1) Section; (2) plan; (3) activi ti es around

the two habitation u nits and around the commu nal hearth; (4) differences between storage patterns

of the Faoui and those of the Yeleme (after Petr equin and Petr equin 1988 wi th ki nd permi ssionfr om Bull eti n du Centr e Genevois dA nthropologie and P. Petr equi n).



18/33

left a site it is impossible to resolve thepalimpsest effect. Likewise, it is impossi-ble to distinguish whether debris associ-ated with an activity is in primary or sec-ondary deposition. Discard behavior

intervenes between domestic activitiesand archaeological recovery of concentra-tions of fi nds in parti cular areas. Beforewe can try to pin down activities to loca-tions, therefore, we must first understandhow the group that performed those ac-tivities discards its refuse. The multipleuncertainties surrounding the identifica-tion of activity areas in sites containi ng

palimpsests (c/r and open-air sites alike)suggest that there is little to be gained bypur suing a r esearch design that focusesexclusively on activity areas.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN c/r ANDOPEN-AIR SITES

The spatial adaptations to caves androckshelters examined h ere have requir edvarious levels of energy 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

wall Center Front

Total number

of sites

Sandawe 1 1

BergDama 1 1

S. Africanindigenous 4 4

Australian

aboriginals 6 6

West Dani 1 1

M elpa 1 1 2Pinai 2 1 3

Sawos 1 1 2

Total numberof sites

10(50%)

8(40%)

2(10%)

20

a The number of sites in w hich that location is usedexpressed as a percentage of the number of sites

whose sleeping locations are known is shown in

parentheses.

TABLE 9

Bedding Type by Cultural/Linguistic Group*

No evidence Wooden bed (a)

On plant

bedding (b)

On bare

ground (c)

M ore than

one type (b,c)

Total number

of sites

Sandawe 3 1 4BergDama 1 1 2

S. African

indigenous 4 4Australian

aboriginals 10 1 11

West Dani 1 1

M elpa 2 2Pinai 3 1 4

Sawos 2 1 3

New

Irelandindigenous 4 4

Total

numberof sites

18(51.43%)

3(8.57%)

10(28.57%)

3(8.57%)

1(2.86%)

35

* The num ber of sites containi ng each bedding type expressed as a percentage of t he total nu mber of sit esconsidered is shown in parentheses.

260 NENA GALANIDOU


19/33

FIG. 10. Plans of Ni p and Tembinde, Jimi valley, M elpa people, Papua, New Guinea (afterGorecki 1991 w ith kind permi ssion from International M onographs i n Prehistory and Paul

Gorecki).



20/33

262 NENA GALANIDOU


21/33

some cases considerable energy is in-vested in dividing space so as to reenactthe forms of structures that the groupwould use in an open-air settlement. Inothers a bare minimum of energy is in-vested in simply kindling a hearth. TheAustralian and South African hunter/gatherers follow the latter course. The ab-

original campsites in the Western Desertare minimally furnished. Open hearths

are their main habitation featur e, with theoccasional addition of artificial mounds toprevent water from flooding the camp(Nicholson and Cane 1991:288) (Fig. 5).Open hearths were also the only evidentfeatures of the South Afr ican sites. Ac-cording to Parkington and M ills, SouthAfr ican hunter/ gatherers adapt c/ r exactly

as they would bush camps, hardl y chang-ing their environment at all (1991:359)

TABLE 10Discard Locations and Types of Refuse

Site Cultural/ l inguistic group Discard location

Big Elephant Cave N W BergDama Inside the hollows, which act as middens

De H angen S. A frican indigenouss Coterminous with activity areaDiepkloof S. African indigenous Coterminous with activity area

A ndriesgrond S. A fri can indigenous Cotermi nous with activity areaRenbaan S. African indigenous Coterminous with activity area

Yungubal iband a 1 W . D eser t abor igi nal s M ai nl y beyond dr ip l in e, som e i n fr ont

and central parts of site

Yungubal ibanda 2a W . Desert aboriginals EverywhereYungubal iband a 2b W . D eser t abor igi nal s M ai nl y beyond dr ip l in e, som e i n fr ont

and central parts

Yungubal iband a 3 W . D eser t abor igi nal s Beyond dr ip l ine and i n r ear par t

Yungubal ibanda 4 W . Desert aboriginals In central part

Yel eme-W ang-Kob-M e W est Dani Food debri s (vegetable peelings andcertain bones): in area (toward talus)

in which firewood and dogs are kept;

bat bones and lizard heads ormandibles: in hearths.

Tembinde Kumanga M elpa In activity area and talus

Nip M elpa In activity area and talusKanamapin Pinai Plant remains and bones thrown

everywhere on the living floor

Ritamauda Pinai Plant remains and bones thrown

everywhere on the living floor

Luanana Pinai Plant remains and bones throwneverywhere on the living floor

Ailegun Pinai Plant remains and bones thrown

everywhere on the living floorM arindjila Sawos Organic remains and food debris in two

middens inside drip line

Pakara Sawos Two distinct piles inside drip line; one of

plant remains and one of faunalremains

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

peopl e, Papua, New Guinea (after Gorecki 1988, 1991 wi th ki nd permi ssion from Paul Gor ecki andInternational M onographs i n Prehistory).



22/33

(Fig. 4). Gould (1971) has observed thesame sort of similarity between the open-air camps of modern aboriginals and the

Puntutjarpa rockshelter in the AustralianWestern Desert.

Division of c/r space into smaller units

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

Site

Cultural/linguistic

gr oup Spat ial segr egat ion of act ivit ies Locat ion of act ivi ty ar ea

Big ElephantCave N W

Ber gD am a Sl eep in g sep ar at ed f romdomestic activities

Inside th e hollows

De H angen South A fri canindigenous

Sleeping separated fromdomestic activities

Under or just in front ofrock overhang

Diepkloof South African

indigenous

Sleeping separated from

domestic activities

Under or just in front of

rock overhang

A nd ri esgr on d Sou th A fr icanindigenous

Sleeping separated fromdomestic activities

Under or just in front ofrock overhang

Renbaan South African

indigenous

Sleeping separated from

domestic activities

Under or just in front of

rock overhang

Yeleme-

Wang-Kob-Me

West Dani H igh Bone and stone

worki ng, consumpt ionof food, sitting and

sleepin g: wit hin

domestic unit aroundhearth. M anufacture

of axes and wooden

harpoons: outsidedepression in

communal activi ty

area. Butchering of

animals and meat

sharing: around ovenin communal activity

area. Storage of

personal belongings:on perimeter of

habitation unit.

Tembinde

Kumanga

M elpa Sl eeping area coterminous with

general activity area (whereeating, and bow-and-arrow

manufacture/maintenance

take place); cooking done just

inside dr ipli ne away fromsleeping area

Inside dr ipli ne,

extending from backwall to talus

Nip M elpa Sleeping area coterminous with

general activity area; cookingdone just inside dri pline or

at center, away from sleeping

area

Inside drip line, near

back wall (delineatedby logs)

Kanamapin Pinai Inside drip lineLuanana Pinai Inside and outside drip

line

Adjiga Sawos Entrance communal area for

smoking, playing, and talking

a Only those sites from whi ch we have obtained data of thi s sort are recorded here.

264 NENA GALANIDOU


23/33

has been recorded at four sites. The firsttwo, used by BergDama hunter/gatherers,were found in the Big Elephant Cave inN ami bia by Clark and Walt on (1962). Twosets of roughl y cir cular depressions, de-

fi ning domestic units, had been du g in thefl oor of the cave, one set in each of the twosites into which the cave is divided. Thedepressions in the northwest site were tothe rear of the cave (Fig. 7). They wereseparated from each other by brushwoodscreens and contained hearths and beds(made of plant materials). The depres-sions in the northeast site were smaller,

revealed no traces of bedding or screens,and appeared to be much older than theones to the northwest. We have no infor-mation about the social composit ion of thegroups that used the depressions.

Pet requin and Pet requin report that atYeleme-W ang-Kob-M e dif ferentiation be-tween the domestic and the communaldomain is achieved by means of two dif-

ferent types of space division, one physi-cal and one symbolic (1988). The physicaldivision involved circular and rectangulardepressions (Fig. 9). Duri ng the episode ofoccupation recorded two depressionswere used, one accommodatin g four menfrom the village of Yeleme and the other asimilar number from the village of Faoui.Each depression delim ited its groups do-

mestic area and had a fireplace at its cen-ter. (Depressions of this sort are some-times used repeatedly during successiveepisodes of occupation.) Outside the de-pressions, in the communal space, activi-ties such as stone or bone working androasting and sharing game took place. Al -though the men from each village hadtheir own w ay of using the pri vate space

of each depression (this could be seen inthe manner in which they stored theirpersonal belongings, for instance [Fig.9(4)], both groups shared a single atti tudeto sitting down in the communal area: itwas strictly forbidden to sit on the barerock or earth. This relates to the symbolic

division of the site into areas of differentdegrees of imp ur ity. Th e Pet requins haveshown that the organization of space thatthey encountered at Yeleme-Wang-Kob-M e transposed the spatial arr ange-

ment of the mens house (buildings ineach village used for social, political, andreligious purposes by men only) into thistemporary rockshelter habitation (ibid:7680).

The M elpa people who stay for shortperiods at Nip also incorporate elementsof their permanent settlement into thistemporary one. The M elpa use logs as pil-

lows in their permanent dwelli ngs. At N ipthey choose logs as their means of divid-ing space tangibly, using them to delin-eate the overlapping sleeping and domes-tic activi ty areas (Fig. 10). The peri meter ofthe hearth immediately beside th is area isalso marked by logs.

The sizes of the sites that are dividedinto smaller units range from small

through medium to large (Table 2). Thisclearly suggests that the size of the areaused during an event of occupation is notdir ectly related to the amount of spaceavailable. It appears more likely that cer-tain groups use the space inside caves soas to reproduce the famil iar spatial ar-rangements that they pr efer in their open-air settlements.

It i s also evident that a groups techni calskills and experience of certain construc-tion materials produce distinctive spatialpatterns inside caves. This can be seen atNip and also at Balof, a site used by theindi genous people of New Ireland, whodivide up its space by means of terracesand stone w all s (Fig. 4). There are sim il arstructures in the stone-walled rid getop

vil lages that are their perm anent settle-ments (Gorecki 1991). When setting upcamps in naturally confined locations,these people make the same technologicalchoices and use the same materials asthey would if they were constructing asettlement or camping in the open air.



24/33

This last observation r aises a num ber ofquestions. Do all cultur al groups repro-duce distinctive forms of spatial organiza-tion when campi ng in caves? H ow do thecharacter of the occupation and the social

composit ion of the occupying group affectthese spatial arrangements?How many ofthese patterns are archaeologicall y visi-ble? The second site used by the Melpapeople, Tembi nde, shows that our samplecan give u s no unequivocal answers tothese questions. There are no l ogs at Tem-binde. We do not know, however, whethersite form ation pr ocesses have destroyed

logs that were once there or whether therenever were any logs (Fig. 10). To answerour questions more satisfactoril y wouldrequire a much larger sample of data.Nonetheless, the data to hand show thatmore often than not the layout of livingsurfaces in c/r incorporates at least someof the arr angements that the occupyinggroup 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, thateach cultural group occupying a c/r usesits own parti cular techni cal skil ls and pr e-ferred materials to create in its temporarydwelli ng the li ving conditions with whichit is familiar. Finally, our sample is suffi -cient to confir m that archaeological visi-

bility should by no means be taken asread. Yeleme-Wang-Kob-M e shows usthat site structure may not merely consistof it s evid ent featur es, but may entail con-ceptual or symbolic organization of space.This sort of structure does not, of course,leave any tangible remains and thus doesnot survive in the archaeological record.

SITE FURNITURE AND GROUPIDENTITY

Site fur nit ure i s any arti fact, featur e, orstructure that has been made or broughtinto a site to facilitate human activity. Theplots showing the presence or absence of

certain site features and i tems of furni turesuggest that there is a certain amount ofconsistency in the selection of arti factsand features found in the majority of thesites u sed by each cultur al or linguistic

group (Figs. 1218). In many cases themost robust pattern is seen in t he absenceof certain categories of artifact or featurefrom the sites used by a single cultur algroup.

As we saw i n th e previous section, dug-out hollows th at defi ned domestic areaswere found in the two sites used by theBergDama and at Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me.

Windscreens were consistently present inall but one of the Sandawe sites (Fig. 13).The South Afr ican sites invariably con-tained sleeping hollows (Fig. 3). Wallsmade of stone were present in thr ee of thefour sites studied in New Ireland and inBig Elephant Cave (Fig. 14). Artifi cial sandrid ges were raised at the edge of the site tostop water from getting in only at Austra-

lian habitation sites (Fig. 15). Grindstoneswere recorded in sites used by theSandawe, the BergDama, and the Austra-lian Western Desert aboriginals (Fig. 16).Only three of the rockshelters examinedin New Guinea had stone-lined hearths;all three were in the Yuat gorge, and allthree w ere used by the Pinai people (Ta-ble 5, Fig. 17) (Gorecki 1988, 1991). Not all

of the Pinai sites contained stone-li nedhearths, however (Fig. 11). Similarly,wooden beds were found only in sites inthe Chuigai hills that were used by theSawos people, but not all of the Sawossites contained wooden beds (Fig. 18)(Gorecki 1991). Sit e f urni tur e appears tobe a strong cultural marker regardless ofwhether a site is as minimally furnished

as the South Afr ican c/ r or whether a lot ofenergy has been invested in creatingbuilt-in beds, storage platforms, or stonewalls.

The site structure of Yeleme-Wang-Kob-M e acts as a marker of a gender-specifi c spatial organization of activit ies.

266 NENA GALANIDOU


25/33

Yeleme-W ang-Kob-M e is used as a tem-porary camp duri ng expedit ions to quarr ybasalt and manufactur e axes, whi ch are

subsequently exchanged for pigs. Womenare stri ctly excluded from these expedi-tions, and it is therefore significant thatthe spatial organization should reproducethe arr angement of the equally gender-

specifi c mens house (Petr equi n and Pe-trequin 1988). The grindstones in some ofthe Australian Western Desert habitation

sites have also been associated with gen-der-specific activities. It has been arguedthat grindstones are gender-specific arti-facts used by married women, who, it isasserted, keep an upper and a lower

FIG. 12. Bar chart showing presence/absence of space division.

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



26/33

grindstone at each of the camps they visitregularly (Peterson 1968; N icholson andCane 1991). If this is true and if it can be

assumed that none have been stolen, thenthe number of grindstones found willshow how many family uni ts regularly u sethe sit e.

Site structure can, like other aspects of

material culture, have a twofold function.During an occupation it expresses the oc-cupying groups ideas about spatial orga-

nization, thus ensuring famili arity andcomfort. Cultural variation in site struc-ture can, however, also be a means of non-verbal communication that transmits amessage about cul tur al identit y and r ight s

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

FIG. 15. Bar chart showing presence/absence of artificial sand ridges.

268 NENA GALANIDOU


27/33

of access to r ockshelt ers, as in Papua NewGuinea. Caves and rockshelters used bygroups that exhibit territoriality are re-

garded as resources wi thin that groupsterritory. During the period that elapsesbetween two occupations of a sit e, i ts sitestructure acts as a marker that lays claimto the site. A review of the literature listed

in Table 2 reveals that the rights of accessto a c/r are always clearly defined. Theybelong either to a cultural group or to

some subdivision of this group such as afamily, a gender group or an individual.They are never shared by two or moredif ferent groups. Gorecki has inf ormed usthat rockshelters near t ri bal boundari es in

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

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



28/33

Papua N ew Gui nea are often i nspected toestablish whether any other tribe hasbeen making use of them, by implication

intruding upon or stealing a r esource(personal communication). In the absenceof the rightful owners of these sites,their site furni ture clearly announces theiridentity and their claim to certain rightsover the surrounding territory.

The particular spatial site structure of acave 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 structureshould have redundant characteristicsthat transcend individual episodes of oc-cupation. This point may prove useful inmaking inferences about archaeologicalsites. We do not know whether any pre-histori c foragers organized themselvesterritorially (see Layton 1986 for a discus-

sion of territorial organization amongmodern foragers) or whether, if so, theyexpressed group identity and negotiatedboundaries using spatial site structure asa means of nonverbal communication(Lightfoot and M artin ez 1995). I t would,however, be extremely interesting to test a

working hypothesis that they did soagainst the archaeological evidence.

DISCUSSION

The sample of sites discussed here, al-beit small, illustrates the diversity of theways in which different groups use c/rspace. We have seen that these naturalniches are resources whose size does notaffect whether they are occupied or forhow long. Although the sort of space they

offer is much the same across the globe,each cultural group adapts to that space ina different way according to how it per-ceives and experiences space. This is bestillustrated by Papua New Guinea, wherec/r space is used in highly variable wayseven though the c/r are used for similarpurposes by groups who share the samehabitat and have identical modes of sub-

sistence.Spatial adaptations to c/r may involvephysicall y alt eri ng their t opography, orga-nizing their space conceptually, or doingboth. Some groups set up camps in c/r inmuch the same ways as they d o in open-air locations, using the techni cal skil ls and

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

270 NENA GALANIDOU


29/33

spatial archetypes embedded in their cul-tur e or social category to pr oduce the sortof spatial configuration to which they areaccustomed.

Overall di fferences were observed be-

tween forager and horticultur ist use ofspace. The sites used by the Au stralianand South Af ri can foragers are m ini mallyfurnished and lack durable structures ofany sort. The West Dani at Yeleme-Wang-Kob-Me dig depressions in the sheltersfloor and organize its space symbolicallyso as to make it a metaphor for their mens house. Other hort iculturist

groups in N ew Gui nea whose backgroundis fairly sedentary choose to invest theirtime and energy in lining hearths withstones, in constructing wooden beds andtables, or in making artificial roofing. Thedata to date thus suggest that more energyis invested in the construction of habita-tion features by horticulturists than byforagers.

Our sample thus contains evidence ofcultural and economic variation in sitestructure. We have also seen that the spa-tial structure of separate sites used by asingle group may be different, as in thecase of cert ain sites used by h orti cul tur istssuch as the Sawos and the M elpa (Figs. 6and 10). Al though the small size of oursample and our lack of detailed site biog-

raphies do not permit elaboration on thisissue, we may suspect that this differenceprobably relates to differences in sitefunction or in the social composition ofthe occupying parties. In other words, itprobably reflects vari abili ty in t he identityof the occupants. For exampl e, dif ferentgender or age groups within the samecommuni ty m ay experience and use space

in different ways. Bob Layton has re-corded gender-specifi c rockshelters atUlur u (Ayers Rock) in central Australia,where Tjukutjapi and Pulari are associ-ated wi th w omens rit uals and W arai Yukiand Kulpi M utitjulu with mens rituals(personal communication).

Our review has shown that hearths do-mesticate a natural cavity by offering focalpoints around which humans can act andinteract. They divide space physically andconceptually into smaller units according

to the needs and beliefs of the occupyingparty. They are thus stru ctur al elements ofspatial organization and media for the re-production of spatial f orms fami li ar to theoccupants of c/ r. We have seen that thereis no evidence that th e presence of hearthswhose construction demands a high en-ergy investment (stone-l ined, 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 more or lessthe same place with regard to the shelterswalls and the talus. The horticulturistgroups were less consistent in their choiceof hearth type and location. The numberof hearths in a site does not appear to be afunction of t he size of t he shelter. Instead,

it is associated with a groups attitude to-ward hearth reuse, with the character ofthe activities carried out there and withthe social compositi on of the occupyingparty. The type of heart h chosen, i ts loca-tion, and whether it is reused are threevariables that are very important to thestudy of site structur e in archaeologicalpalimpsests.

Some of the sites in our sample wereexamined while their occupants werepresent. Their activities were recorded aspreparing and consuming food, manufac-tur ing objects, parti cipating in leisure ac-tivit ies, and sleeping. When sit es were ex-amined in the absence of their occupants,although their fl oors could be divided intozones containi ng different densities of

materi al (see Pakara and M ari ndji la in Fig.6, for example) or concentr ations of a par-ticular type of find, it was impossible torelate these zones w ith any certainty toany specifi c activity. This i s m ainl y be-cause in the absence of the occupantsthere is no evidence to show whether



30/33

finds ended up in their current locationsby being dropped, tossed, lost, or inten-tionally or unintentionally redeposited. Itwas, moreover, impossible to identify thehabitation features that had been used

contemporaneously or to distinguish theboundari es of the most r ecent l iving fl oor.This is because cultural material and fea-tures from previous occupations are in-corporated into every current living sur-face. Amid this palimpsest we can onlyidentify redundant patterns of site struc-ture that may or may not correspond toactivity areas.

A number of lines of evidence suggestthat the c/r used intermittently by certainterritorial groups tend to contain verysimilar site furniture not only because itprovides them with familiar living condi-tions while they are occupying these re-sources, but also because it establishestheir right of access to them even whilethey are somewhere else. In other words,

spatial site structure in c/r serves just thesame pur pose as style does in materi alculture: it conveys information aboutgroup identity to target groups (Conkey1990; Wiessner 1984, 1985). Architecturalform, l ike styli stic form and the iconogra-phy of artifacts, is commonly consideredto be an embl em of group identit y that canpermit such identity to be established in

archaeological contexts (Shennan 1989).Archit ectur e is a set of recur ri ng pr ocessesthat involves imaginin g, planning, con-structing, and maintaining built struc-tures. If we expand this definition to in-clude spatial adaptations to c/r, which ineffect compri se the same seri es of pro-cesses, though carried out inside an exist-ing structure rather than involving the

construction of something new fromscratch, the relevance of c/ r pali mpsests tothe discussion of social identity immedi-ately becomes clear. By opening up ourdiscussion in this way we can extend itmuch further back into a period fromwhich very few architectural remains, in

the traditional definition of that term,have survived. This appr oach seems likelyto be of enormous benefit to Palaeolithicand M esoli thi c r esearch.

A new approach to the sort of spatialvariation exhibited in Palaeolithic or Me-solithic sites would not attempt to recon-stru ct ind ividual moments of space u se,but would instead seek redundant pat-terns (patterns that run through morethan one event of occupation) in spatialstructure. This approach could develop inseveral directions. The version that I favorwould seek to identify (1) the type of anyhabitation structures present and theirdisposit ion in relation t o each other and tocertain uni versal featur es such as backwalls, drip lines, and talus slopes; (2) thedensity and composition of the assem-blages found around hearths or other el-ements of site furniture; (3) the methodsof refuse disposal used; and (4) whetherhearths were reused.

Withi n this approach the appropriateunit of analysis might be the layer (if thatwere suffi ciently extensive), the stratum(comprising more than one layer), or, insome cases, the entire site. Choosing solarge a temporal unit should not be prob-lematic if we seek to i denti fy patterns thatare the result of repetit ive spatial behaviorrather than of individual episodes of dep-osition of cultural debris.6 The method es-sentially involves the same assumptionsas those that a lithic specialist makeswhen he/ she decides to study a sites lithi ctechnology not by means of refitting, butby observing change through time.

Descri bin g a sit es spatial confi gurationshould not be an end i n itself, but a means

of comin g to cert ain conclusions about t hePalaeolithic or M esolithic society thatgave ri se to i t. Once the general traits of asites spatial structure have been identi-fied, an attempt should be made to estab-lish how these patterns are linked to thesit es role w ithin a larger-scale settl ement

272 NENA GALANIDOU


31/33

system and to compare them wi th the spa-tial patterns of other sites. Few compari-sons of this sort have as yet been made(alth ough see Galanidou 1999 and Kind1985), but the und ert aking pr omises to in-crease our understandi ng considerably.For example, it could reveal whether com-mon patterns of spatial organization canbe identifi ed in sites whose functions weresimilar or in sites that are in the sameregion.

Archaeological excavation of a c/r sit ealmost invariably results in the recoveryof a palimpsest resulting from several oc-cupational episodes. I have argued in thisarticle that it is both useful and valid tostudy palim psests in terms of large-scale,repetit ive patterns of spatial vari ation. M ysurvey has shown that the spatial sitestructure of c/r bears a very strong cul-tural impr int. This general statement isnot, of course, the whole story; we havestill to explore the indi vidual traits and theamount of deviation from cultural normsthat variation in site function may gener-ate. We should also begin to treat redun-dant patterns in the use of c/r space as anaspect of material culture that may wellhave much more to tell us about culturaland social identity, never forgetting thatint ersite comparison is vital to our under-standing of intrasite spatial variation.

Perhaps the most signifi cant impl ica-tion of this survey is that only if we areprepared to alter our theoretical expecta-tions and our research strategies will webe able to extract new information fromthe Palaeolithic and M esolithic spatialrecord. We stil l do not know how detail edor how useful to our discussion of past

societies this information will turn out tobe, but we are never going to find outunless we start somewhere. The potentialvalue of the approach that I propose re-mains to be evaluated by means of futuresite-scale and intersite comparative stud -ies of spatial patterns.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Paul Gorecki for answering a long

li st of questions about his ethnoarchaeological re-

search int o contemporary use of rockshelt ers in N ew

Guinea and to Bob Layton for offering some usefulcomments 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 have varying amounts of information

about these sites (Table 1), most of the fi elds in thedatabase used in this analysis are categorical vari-

ables recorded as presence/absence.3 Where the investigators have not specifi ed a

sit es size, it has been calculated appr oximately fr omthe published plans.

4 The M elpa people kind le a fi re as soon as they

arrive at any rockshelter, using firewood that is al-

ready there. Before they go, they stockpile somemore wood for the use of whoever uses the site next

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

tation site is certainly much broader.6 I have shown elsewhere that it is possible to

descri be palim psest 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

Binf ord, L. R.

1978 Di mensional analysis of behavior and site

structure: Learni ng fr om an Eskim o hunt ing

stand. American Antiquity 43:330361.1979 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Academi c Press,

New York.

1983 In pursuit of the past. Thames & Hudson,London.

Bulmer, R.

1976 Selectivi ty i n hun tin g and i n di sposal of an-imal bone by the Kalam of the New Guinea

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

I. H . Longworth, and K. E. W il son, pp. 169186. London, Duckworth.

Carr, C.1987 Di ssecting i ntr asit e art if act palimpsests us-

ing Fourier methods. In M ethod and th eory

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

pp. 236292. Columbia Uni v. Press, NewYork.



32/33

1991 Left in t he Dust: Contextual inf ormation in

model-focused archaeology. In The in terpre-

tation of archaeological spatial patterning, ed-

ited by E. M . Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 221

256. New York/London, Plenum.

Clark, J. D., and J. Walton

1962 A late stone age site i n the Erongo M oun-tains, south west Af ri ca. Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 28:116.

Conkey, M.

1990 Experimenting with style in archaeology:

some hi stori cal and theoretical i ssues. In Th euses of style in archaeology, edit ed 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 spatial organization of Klithi. In Klithi: Ar chaeology of a Late Gl aci al Landscape in Epi-

rus (Northwest Greece), edited by G. N.

Bailey, pp. 275304. McDonald Institute for

Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

1999 Regional settlement and intr a-site spatial pat-terns in Upper Palaeolithic Epirus. In The

Palaeoli thi c Ar chaeology of Greece and adjacentareas, edited by G. Bailey, C. Perl es, E. Adam,

E. Panagopoulou, and K. Zachos, pp 148158.British School at Athens Monograph, Athens.

Gamble, C.1991 An int roduction to the livi ng spaces of mo-

bile peoples. In Ethnoarchaeological ap-proaches to mobile campsites, edited by C. S.

Gamble and W. A. Boismier, pp. 123. Eth-noarchaeological Seri es 1, International

Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Gorecki, P.

1988 H unt ers and sheltersThe need for ethn o-

archaeological data. In Archaeology with eth-

nography: An Australian perspective, edited byB. Meehan and R. Jones, pp. 159170. Aus-

tr alian N ati onal Universit y, Research School

of Pacific Studies, Canberra.1991 H orticultur ali sts as hunter-gatherers: Rock

shelter usage in Papua New Guinea. In Eth-

noarchaeologi cal approaches to mobil e camp-

sites, edited by C. S. Gamble and W. A.Boismier, pp. 237262. Ethnoarchaeological

Seri es 1, I nternational M onographs i n Pre-

history, Ann Arbor.

Gould, R.

1971 The archaeologist as ethnographer: A case

from the Western Desert of Australia. World

Archaeology 3:143177.

Kent, S.

1981 The dog: An archaeologists best fri end orworst enemy: The spatial di stri buti on of fau-

nal remains. Journal of Field Archaeology

8:367372.

1984 Analyzing activity areas: An ethnoarchaeologi-

cal study of the use of space. Univ. of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kind, C.-J.

1985 D ie Verteil ung von Stein artefakten in Grabungs-

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

M ittelstei nzei tl i cher Siedlungsplatze. Archea-

ologica Venatori a 7, Tubi ngen.

Layton, R.1986 Political and territorial structures among

hunter-gatherers. M an 21:1833.

Lightfoot, K., and A. Martinez1995 Front iers and boundari es in archaeological

perspectve. An nual Revue of An thropology 24:

47192.

Lim, I.

1983 Rock-shelter use today: An i ndication of Us-andawe prehistorry. In Recent Adv ances i n

In do-Pacific Prehi story, edited by V. N . M isra

and P. Bellwood, pp. 105110. IBH, Oxford/New Delhi.

Nicholson, A., and S. Cane1991 Desert camps: A nalysis 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. Ethnoarchaeologi cal Series 1,

International M onographs in Prehistory,Ann Arbor.

Parki ngton, J., and G. M il ls

1991 From space to pl ace: The architecture and

social organization of Southern African mo-

bile communities. In Ethnoarchaeological ap-proaches to mobile campsites, edited by C. S.

Gamble and W. A. Boismi er, pp. 355370.

Ethnoarchaeological Seri es 1, InternationalMonographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Peterson, N.

1968 The pestle and mortar: An ethnographic

analogy for archaeology in Ar nhem Land.Mankind 6:567570.

Pet requi n, A.-M ., and P. Pet requi n

1988 Ethnoarcheologie de l habit at en grotte d eNouvelle-Guinee: Une transposition de

l espace social et economi que. Bull etin du

Centre Genevois d An thropologie1:6182.

Pet requi n, P., and A.-M . Pet requi n

1993 E cologie dun Outil: la Hache de Pierre en IrianJaya (Indonesie). Monographie du Centre deRecherches Ar cheol ogiques 12, CNRS, Paris.

274 NENA GALANIDOU


33/33

Shennau, S.

1989 Intr oduction: archaeological appr oaches to

cultural identity. In Archaeological Ap-

proaches to Cultural Identity, edited by S.

Shennau, pp. 132. Routledge, London.

Stevenson, M . G.1985 The formation of arti fact assemblages at

workshop/habitation sites: M odels 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 and T. D . Price, p p. 269299. Ple-

num, N ew York/ London.

Swadli ng, P.1983 H ow long have people been i n th e Ok Tedi

Impact Region? Papua New Guinea National

M useum Record 8:122124.

Tuan, Y.-F.

1977 Space and place: The perspective of experience.

Edward Arnold, London.

Whitelaw, T.1983 The settlement at Fournou Korifi M yrtos

and aspects of Early Minoan organization.

In M inoan society, edited by O. Krzysz-

kowska and L. Nixon, pp. 323345. BristolClassical Press, Bristol.

Wiessner, P.1984 Styl e and social i nfor mation i n Kalahari San

projectil e points. American Antiquity 48:253

276.1985 Reconsid ering the behavioral basis for styl e:

A case study among the Kalahari San. Jour-

nal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190234.

Yellen, J.1977 Ar chaeological approaches to the pr esent: M od-

els for reconstructing th e past. Academi c Press,New York.


galanidou 2000 (etnoarq-arqespacial)

Documents