The Human Use of Caves [1997]
- ️https://edinburgh.academia.edu/CliveBonsall
Related papers
Between Worlds: Understanding Ritual Cave Use in Later Prehistory, 2019
Recent research has led to a resurgence of academic interest in caves, in particular the place of these enigmatic sites in the worldviews of later prehistoric communities. Many caves were used not only for daily subsistence practices, but as arenas for ritual, ceremony and performance. The recurrent use of caves as the arenas for such performances tells us much about their role in the cosmology of later prehistoric communities. Caves represent a very particular type of archaeological site and thus require specific approaches to their recording, interpretation and presentation. This is especially true when studying the ritual use of caves, during which the more intangible and experiential aspects of these environments are likely to have been fundamental to the practices taking place within them. Theoretical frameworks must include consideration of the agency of these ‘natural’ places, for example, and the interplay between environment, taphonomy and human activity. Meanwhile, the development and increasing use of innovative technologies, such as 3D laser-scanning and acoustic modelling, is providing new and exciting ways of capturing the experiential qualities of these enigmatic sites and allowing not only for more nuanced understandings of the role of caves in prehistoric ritual, but also for more effective communication of cave archaeology to academic and public audiences alike. This edited volume draws together papers presented at the 20th annual conference of the European Association of Archaeologists, and additional contributions from outside of Europe, showcasing the application of cutting-edge theoretical frameworks, methodologies and audio-visual techniques in a variety of cave environments from around the globe. The title aims to reflect caves as liminal places- places that were literally ‘between worlds’; the world of the living and the dead, of above and below, of dark and light. It also serves to recognise caves as specific kinds of archaeological site which require the combination of a broad range of theoretical and recording methods. The volume is organised into two complementary parts. The first concerns the theoretical considerations that must be borne in mind when working in dynamic subterranean environments; concepts such as agency and liminality, and the particular taphonomic phenomena which play an active role in the human use of these spaces. The second part of the volume showcases new digital methods of recording, interpreting and presenting cave archaeology. Digital capture and presentation technologies are on the rise in all aspects of archaeology, but are particularly effective and have some of the greatest potential in cave archaeology. Though traditionally seen as part of the spectrum of more scientific methods of analysis, the qualitative aspects of digital capture technologies are in fact unlocking the more experiential aspects of cave use, particularly in relation to ritual activity.
1997
In the Weidental Cave, southwest Germany, systematic excavations were undertaken between 1980 and 1989. Finds belanging to different periods were excavated in an area of approximately 70m2. As the individual site plans show, most of the objects occurred in front of the cave, and up to a distance of 15m beyond where a ·small stream flows past the foot of the cavity. All the sherds are extemely fragmentary as a result of the s/ow Sedimentation rate. The spatial distribution of Mesolithic finds shows a compiex camp site covering the whole slope, whereas the Medieval settlement occurred oniy inside the cave. All other occupations can be regarded as 'episodes' which took piace mainly in front of the cave. Fauna/ remains are generai/y scarce and underline the fact that the cave was a place of death for wild and stray domestic animais. Most of the time the cave was unused. Of special interest is the comparison of cave inventories with those from sites in the adjacent area. As has been established for southern Germany, cave inventories should generally reflect the archaeoiogy of the adjacent area. In the case of the Weidental Cave this has not been not confirmed; the Middle!Late Neolithic and Roman periods in particular are only sparseiy represented or not at a/1, while in the surrounding area finds of these periods are very frequent. Excavations in other caves will show whether this disparity is typical or reiates only to this particular cave.
Notes from the Underground: Caves and People in the Mesolithic and Neolithic Karst
Caves are not only unique sedimentary environments with good preservation of archaeological material, but as archaeological record from caves testify – also special places where distinct activities were performed. What makes caves special? What makes them different from open air locales? How do caves act back on humans? How do humans and caves mutually constitute each other and create a sense of self and belonging in the world? This chapter touches these themes using examples from the archaeological record of the Karst in northeast Italy and western Slovenia. By exploring the ‘affordances’ that caves provide we can focus on the social and contextual role they played in the practical tasks of past people. Caves are not passive backdrops for the activities that people perform, they are not natural places, and they do not satisfy the generic needs of people such as ‘shelter’. We can understand caves as material culture where dwelling occurs. And, by focusing on the process of dwelling that they enable through the affordances they provide, they help us to challenge the dichotomies of the natural and built environment, or of the mundane and the sacred.
The Significance of Caves in Post-Flood History of Mankind
2020
Caves have been a shelter and a site for religious sanctuaries for humans living shortly after the Flood. Cave art emerged as a result of human habitation of caves and their interpretation as entrance to the womb of a primordial mother goddess, holding the secret of animal souls. Dating of cave art performed either stylistically or “technically” (radiometric and other lab methods) is far from congruent, resulting in serious disagreements amongst scientists. In the meantime, nobody seems to have addressed the question of why cave artists made no use of speleothems, though they skilfully used wall relief to layout their art. Nevertheless many speleothems located close to cave art have features that shouldn’t have escaped the trained eyes of the ancient cave artists. This strongly suggests that those speleothems were not present when the artists were at work. This at its turn casts a serious doubt on the thousands of radiometric datings of speleothems, which yielded many ages far older...
Investigations of prehistoric cave art have long neglected the surrounding context: space, archaeological objects, and imprints. As a result, an integrative structural approach that analyzes cave art as part of an anthropomorphized landscape has not been available. This article draws on urban planning and the physiology of the human eye to provide an innovative archaeospatial analysis of cave sites. A set of relevant features from the caves of Bédeilhac, Fontanet, and Le Portel was selected and defined (light zone, chamber type, path network, mode of movement, and available space). An analysis of the prehistoric remains in the caves allows the reconstruction of different concentrations of human activities (cave art, archaeological objects, and imprints). The projection of these concentrations onto the structured map of the caves results in four types of locations: drawing location, supply location, drawing location with substantial activities, and drawing location with consumption activities. This approach opens new avenues for the archaeological perception of caves and their inhabitants: Upper Paleolithic humans were very familiar with caves and probably followed a master plan during their stay in the dark.