Cave and Karst Science Explained

By Charlie Self

Volume 38(3)

This theme issue of Cave and Karst Science marks the creation of a new Cave Archaeology special interest group within BCRA. This new group has evolved from the Uplands Cave Network - a funded initiative to bring together cave researchers, archaeologists, land managers and others with an interest in the topic. Four workshops and two open meetings were held within the short lifespan of the UCN, with a series of papers presented at the final conference in Manchester. This issue includes some of these papers, plus abstracts from the others.

In the previous issue of Cave and Karst Science, volume 38(2), there were three figure caption errors. These have already been corrected within the online version of the journal and are corrected in print here after the editorials.

Cave excavation: some methodological and interpretive considerations

Dominic Stratford

Archaeological excavation is a destructive process and some information loss is inevitable, regardless of the care taken or the research methods employed. Minimizing that loss is the theme of this paper. The deposits themselves include bones, artefacts and the sediments themselves, which may be primary (in situ) or secondary (re-deposited). Cave sediments and their archaeological content are also prone to both physical and chemical modification. For these reasons, an integrated multi-discipline excavation protocol should be adopted before work begins. This allows site-specific changes to be made as excavation progresses, with minimum loss of data.

In practical terms, excavation down to regularly defined horizontal levels (spits) should be avoided in cave sites. The natural bedding planes of the sediment are sloping, so the same spit can yield material belonging to strata of very different ages. If natural boundaries within the sediment are followed, different stratigraphic units are much more easily identified. Cave sediments are prone to disturbance through collapse and erosion: if carefully mapped, this can give useful information on site formation processes, even though the material itself may be a mixture of several strata. In re-deposited sediments, there may also be sorting of archaeological material by size and shape. Meticulous and consistent recording (on site) of all elements of the protocol is essential for the respective specialists (off site) to reach a consensus interpretation of the results.

Though written for the field archaeologist, this paper has useful ideas for the study of cave sediments in general.

Fish remains in cave deposits; how did they get there?

Hanna Russ and Andrew Jones

Fish bones are commonly found in cave deposits. In the past, this has often been interpreted as being the result of human eating habits, but this is unsound. Other fish-eating animals (e.g. birds, bears, otters) use caves, in some cases in rotation with travelling human groups. At some sites, natural processes such as flooding may result in the deposition of fish remains.

It should be possible to distinguish between the different origins of these remains based on fish species, size range, body parts represented, seasonal and depositional patterns. However, this research is still at a very early stage.

The Cupcake: a preliminary report on bones found during the excavation of a shaft on Leck Fell, UK

John Thorp

Bones were noted during the excavation by cavers of a new entrance to the Three Counties cave system in northern England. The bones are all from wild species: auroch (an extinct species of ox), wild boar, wolf, badger and various shrews, voles and mice. There is no evidence of human involvement (such as cut marks on the bones), so it is thought that these animals died accidentally by falling into an open pit. The species present are typical for the early Holocene (which began after the last Ice Age).

Dogs, scouts and cavers: a history of archaeological excavation at Dog Hole Cave, Haverback, Cumbria, UK

David Wilkinson, Hannah O'Regan and John Thorp

This paper makes some interesting observations about what material is archaeology, who can study it effectively and how records are kept.

Dog Hole was originally excavated in 1912 by labourers working under the supervision of Wilfrid Jackson of Manchester Museum. A vertical shaft produced bones of wolf, dog, pig and other domestic animals. The published report on these "preliminary excavations" was unusually detailed by the standards of the time, but Jackson never returned to work on the site. Since then, some of the material has been found in the Natural History Museum (London), but other bones have been lost. Jackson's detailed measurements of all the bones still survive in an archive.

Excavations restarted in 1956 when boy scouts attempted to extend the cave. They broke into a chamber whose floor was littered with bones of wild and domestic animals, plus many antlers. Human bones were also found, which led to the involvement of a local pathologist. Contemporary newspaper accounts name the pathologist and scout master as sources, but not the scouts themselves (who were the ones with first-hand knowledge). Archaeologists were put off by the difficult digging conditions, but not the scouts. They continued their dig, one of them keeping a detailed day to day record of their activities. With the help of local archaeologist Clare Fell, they were able to access professional advice - identifying some artefacts as Roman. Their results were later published in a local archaeological journal by two of their group when undergraduate students.

This current research involves a new analysis of the "boy scout" collection (Roman and early medieval material identified), stabilization of existing sediments in the cave, further excavation, plus a detailed study of documents related to the site. The discovery of drink containers (use-by date 1987) proves that the current lowest part of the cave was opened by cave diggers, not archaeologists. This is a historically important fact, but should this material be considered cavers' rubbish or archaeology?

This paper relies heavily on archive material (letters and diaries) rather than published academic papers. The authors express concern about our modern reliance on electronic media records and whether such material will be kept for study by future scholars. Should key e-mails be printed and archived as paper records?

The Seulo Caves Project, Sardinia: a report on archaeological work undertaken in 2009 and 2010

Robin Skeates

In the territory of Suelo, in the deep interior of this Mediterranean island, at least nine caves appear to have been used for ritual performances during prehistory. The sites range from rock shelters to complex cave systems. The main period of prehistoric occupation of this landscape was the Bronze Age, though some cave deposits are older and belong to the middle and late Neolithic periods.

Four caves were studied during the 2009 and 2010 fieldwork seasons, with one or more small (1m x 1m) test pit excavations in each. The most interesting cave has a group of wall paintings with a human skull nearby, both now coated with flowstone. Additional human bones were found in niches at floor level. Excavation near the paintings revealed a semi-circular structure of truncated small stalagmites capped by large stone blocks. A greenstone axe blade was found nearby. (In Italy, sacrificial deposition of valuable greenstone axes is characteristic of the Neolithic period).

In the second cave, there is a deep burnt layer containing pottery sherds, animal bones and small obsidian artefacts; in another part of this cave, the head of a stone figurine was found. A third cave appears to be a primary human burial site, while the fourth is a secondary burial cave containing selected human bones collected from elsewhere. In all four caves, the deposits seem to be the result of ritual practice rather than domestic use. The project continues.

History of cave archaeology in Slovenia: politics, institutions, individuals, methods and theories

Agni Prijatelj

This is a history of research in the territory that we now know as the country of Slovenia. Unlike Great Britain, where political stability undoubtedly helped the steady progress of scientific research, Slovenia has been subject to changes in national boundaries. This affected personnel, funding and the scientific institutions under which research was carried out.

From the 17th until the mid- 19th century, Slovenia was part of the Hapsburg Monarchy and no systematic cave archaeology was conducted. However, first-hand reports on both the caves and the landscape flourished in this period, pioneered by a local nobleman (Janez Valvasor) who is rightly known as the "father of Slovenian speleology.

During the following Austria-Hungary double kingdom, extensive cave archaeological excavations were conducted by members of learned societies based in Trieste (now Italy) and Vienna (Austria). Few were professional archaeologists and publication standards were generally deficient, most articles being on the level of short preliminary reports. The three leading scholars were not themselves Slovenian and carried out their work through the framework of Austro-Hungarian imperial institutions.

After 1918, the south-western part of Slovenia was annexed to Italy. Funding for archaeology was switched to a study of the Roman period and few caves were excavated. However, the Italians did found a Speleological Institute at Postojna. In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (the rest of the territory, plus lands to the east), a Slovenian schoolteacher (Srecko Brodar) conducted a pivotal series of excavations; within ten years he was able to publish a synthesis of the Yugoslavian Palaeolithic period.

Cave archaeology in Slovenia has always been "a science of two or three people", despite the fact that half of all archaeology is conducted in caves. After 1945 (with Slovenia reunited within the Republic of Yugoslavia), numbers did rise slightly but this led to the creation of two factions: one studying the Palaeolithic period, the other studying later periods. This led to published reports being biased to the period of interest to the authors. This undesirable practice was finally put to an end by the publication of multi-period sites by Ivan Turk. There is only one current cave archaeology excavation in the (former Yugoslavian) country of Slovenia.

Scandinavian cave archaeology

Kristina Jennbert

The title suggests that this is an overview of cave archaeology in Scandinavia, but the introduction contains only brief information. Instead, the author focuses on Lahibia cave in southern Sweden. This is one of many sea caves formed on the Kullaberg peninsular at the end of the last Ice Age, now raised 5-12 m clear of the waves by changing sea levels.

The author did not excavate the site herself, but has studied the notes and some of the material from digs made in the early and mid- 20th century. There is evidence of flint knapping dating from the Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age) period, but the main archaeological material is bone, with 79 species represented. Domestic animals are the most common mammal remains, though wild land and sea animals are also present; fish bones dominate the assemblage and a scattering of charcoal is found throughout the cave. This, and the pattern of seasonal migrations of wildlife, suggests that the cave was used for spring and autumn fishing trips, with meat and fish being cooked and eaten in the cave. Radiocarbon dating gave ages from the 7th and 8th centuries AD and from the Middle Ages.

I would have preferred a more detailed report, either on Lahibia cave or on Scandinavian cave archaeology generally. I feel that this paper, though interesting, is also a missed opportunity.