Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:49:42.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Headroom and human trampling: cave ceiling-height determines the spatial patterning of stone artefacts at Petzkes Cave, northern New South Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Robert Theunissen ,
Jane Balme  and
Wendy Beck
Robert Theunissen
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia. [email protected]@metz.une.edu.au
Jane Balme
Affiliation:
Centre for Archaeology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands WA 6907, Australia. [email protected]
Wendy Beck
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia. [email protected]@metz.une.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Going into a cave or shelter, one walks where one can stand upright or has to crouch less. That affects which zones objects are trampled on, which zones they may be kicked out of, which zones they may be kicked into. And those effects interact with the usual spatial order–with its activity zones and drop zones–that develops through occupation of the enclosed cave or shelter.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 275 , March 1998 , pp. 80 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binford, L.R. 1983. In pursuit of the past: decoding the archaeological record. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Biskowski, M. 1994. GIS & the study of grinding tools in the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico, in Johnson, I. (ed.), Methods in the mountains: proceedings of UISPP Commission IV Meeting Mt Victoria, Australia, August 1993: 115–34. Sydney: Sydney University. Archaeological Methods Series 2.Google Scholar
Blankholm, H.P. 1991. Intra-site spatial analysis in theory and practice. Århus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Cark, C. 1991. Left in the chisl: contextual information in model-focused archaeology, in Kroll & Price (ed.): 221–56.Google Scholar
Frankel, D. 1989. Koongine Cave excavations 1986-7: investigating spatial patterning, Australian Archaeology 28: 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford-Gonzalez, D.P., Damrosch, D.B, Damrosch, D.R., Pryor, J. & Thunin, R.L. 1985. The third dimension in site structure: an experiment in trampling and vertical dispersal, American Antiquity 50(4): 803–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hivernal, F. & Hodder., I. 1984. Analysis of artefact distrihution at Ngena (Kenya) depositional and post-depositional effects, in Hietala, H.J. (ed.), Intra-site spatial analysis in archaeology: 97—115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holdaway, S. & Irwin, C. 1993. Electronic recording systems used daring the excavation of S11/20 Ponuii Island, Ilauraki Gulf, Archaeology In New Zealand 36: 27–37.Google Scholar
Hughes, P.J. & Lampert., R.J. 1977. Occupational disturbance and types of archaeological deposit, Journal Of Archaeological Science 4: 135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintigh, K. 1990. Intrasite spatial analysis: a commentary on major methods, in Voorrips, A. (ed.), Mathematics and information science in archaeology: a flexible framework: 165–200. Bonn: Holos. Studies in Modern Archaeology 3.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. 1993. Tools for quantitative archaeology. Unpublished brochure describing the software package of the same name. Tempo (AZ): Anthropology Department, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Kroll, E.M & Prige, T.D. (ed.) 1991. The Interpretation of archaeological spatial patterning. New York (NY): Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morwood, M.J. 1981. Archaeology in the Central Queensland Highlands: the stone component, Archaeology in Oceania 16(1): 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, D. & Petraclia, M.D. 1987a. Natural formation processes and the archaeological record: present problems and future requisites, in Nash, & Petraglia, (ed.): 186—203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, D. (ed.) 1987b. Natural formation processes and the archaeological record. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielson, A.E. 1991. Trampling the archaeological record: an experimental study, American Antiquity 56(3): 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
J, O’connell 1987. Alyawara site structure and its archaeological implications, American Antiquity 51(1): 74–108.Google Scholar
Rigaud, J. & Simek, J.F. 1991. Interpreting spatial patterns at the Grotte XV: a multiple-method approach, in Kroll & Price (ed.): 199–220.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1983. Toward the identification of formation processes, American Antiquity. 48: 675–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simek, J. 1984. Integrating pattern and context in spatial archaeology, Fournal of Archaeological Science 11: 405–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simek, J. & Larick, R.R. 1983. The recognition of multiple spatial patterns: a case study from the French Upper Palaeolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 165–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, E. 1973. Shaw’s Creek Shelter: human displacement of artefacts and its significance, Mankind 9: 112–17.Google Scholar
Villa, P. & Courtin, J. 1983. The interpretation of stratified sites: a view from underground, Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wandsnider, L. 1987. Natural formation process experimentation and archaeological analvsis, in Nash & Petraglia (ed.): 151–85.Google Scholar