Shepherds and karst: the use of caves and rock-shelters in the Mediterranean region during the...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Universita' di Trento]On: 23 April 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 778410541]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333

Shepherds and karst: the use of caves and rock-shelters in the Mediterraneanregion during the NeolithicDiego E. Angelucci a; Giovanni Boschian b; Marta Fontanals c; Annaluisa Pedrotti d; Josep Maria Vergès e

a Department of Philosophy, History and Cultural Heritage, University of Trento, b University of Pisa, c

Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona d University of Trento, e Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana iEvolució Social / Universitat Rovira i Virgili,

Online Publication Date: 01 June 2009

To cite this Article Angelucci, Diego E., Boschian, Giovanni, Fontanals, Marta, Pedrotti, Annaluisa and Vergès, JosepMaria(2009)'Shepherds and karst: the use of caves and rock-shelters in the Mediterranean region during the Neolithic',WorldArchaeology,41:2,191 — 214

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00438240902843659

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438240902843659

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438240902843659

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Shepherds and karst: the use of cavesand rock-shelters in the Mediterraneanregion during the Neolithic

Diego E. Angelucci, Giovanni Boschian, Marta Fontanals,Annaluisa Pedrotti and Josep Maria Verges

Abstract

Several Neolithic to Iron Age sites of the Mediterranean region contain archaeological sediments,called fumiers, which are composed mainly of burnt animal dung and vegetal remains, and are

commonly interpreted as the product of pastoral activities. Here we address three main topics aboutthese sediments, which occur almost exclusively in the entrance areas of karstic caves and rock-shelters: their characteristics; methodological aspects of their excavation and study; and their

archaeological interpretation. For such purposes, we briefly review the information available aboutNeolithic fumiers and present the first data from the sites of El Mirador (Burgos, Spain) and RiparoGaban (Trento, Italy).

Keywords

Mediterranean Europe; Neolithic; fumiers; pastoralism; geoarchaeology; soil micromorphology.

Introduction

Karstic cavities are privileged environments where archaeological sediments and features

that are often affected by more or less severe weathering in open-air sites can be preserved.

This is particularly evident for peculiar kinds of deposits that are documented virtually

only in rock-shelters and caves of karstic origin, as in the case of the deposits known as

fumiers. These sediments can be found at sites dating from the Neolithic to the Iron Age,

even if their accumulation in cave and rock-shelters is a process that has continued until

today. Despite the variability of their sedimentary characteristics and the wide geographic

and chronological distribution, fumiers can be considered as a discrete group and the

formation processes that brought them about can be discussed as a whole. They are

World Archaeology Vol. 41(2): 191–214 TheArchaeologyofCaves,Sheltersand theDeepKarst

ª 2009 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online

DOI: 10.1080/00438240902843659

Downloaded By: [Universita' di Trento] At: 09:55 23 April 2009

commonly interpreted as the product of depositional actions and modification processes

that are mainly related to animal husbandry, particularly stabling and stock-keeping;

basically, they are made up of (more or less) burnt herbivore dung.

The archaeological relevance of such deposits is remarkable: considering the complex

ecological and cultural factors that may bias the occurrence and distribution of animal

bones in the sites, it can be observed that ‘dung is sounder evidence of the presence of

flocks than sheep bones are’ (Boschian and Montagnari-Kokelj 2000: 347). Nevertheless,

archaeozoological data – if any – corroborate strongly the results of the geoarchaeological

study of these deposits (Boschian and Miracle 2008), as in the case of shed deciduous teeth

(Helmer 1984) that also point to sheep/goat penning in caves.

The aim of this paper is to provide information on the fumiers found around the

Mediterranean region, mainly in Neolithic sites. We review the distribution of the fumiers

in this region, consider their characteristics and the methodological aspects related to their

excavation and study, and discuss their geoarchaeological interpretation. The discussion

starts from the data collected from the sites of El Mirador (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos,

Spain) and Riparo Gaban (Trento, Italy), whose study is still in progress.

Fumiers in Mediterranean Europe

Main characteristics of fumier deposits

The groupof sedimentswe are referring to is rather broad and difficult to outline; nonetheless

some basic features that distinguish fumiers as a discrete category of archaeological

sediments can be described. The term fumier is commonly used to designate archaeological

sediments that consist mainly of burnt animal dung. The primary meaning of this French

term is amix of animal dung and vegetal remains such as straw, leaves, etc., used formanure;

in archaeological contexts, it usually broadly defines the above-mentioned deposits, and a

full terminological discussion can be found in Brochier (2002: 469–70).

In the field, fumiers usually show these characteristics:

. they form complex and usually long, well-bedded successions of thin to very thin

layers (centimetres to millimetres thick);

. the layering is usually sub-horizontal, or follows the topography of bedrock, and

slightly domed or heap-like features are often observed; abrupt terminations and

lateral facies changes are common (see Plate 1 below);

. they are usually organized in alternations between unburned, partially burnt and

burnt layers, forming facies that are clearly recognizable in the field, with the layers

organized in groups within sequences; these kinds of successions are often

intercalated with more or less homogeneous sediments, often featuring a rich

artefactual record, interpreted as related to domestic occupations (Goldberg and

Macphail 2006);

. the transition among the facies can be abrupt to gradual and the contrast in colour

is often striking, with peculiar chromatic traits, particularly for burnt layers (‘layer

cake’ appearance: Macphail et al. 1997);

. on average, fumiers contain relatively poor artefact assemblages;

192 Diego E. Angelucci et al.


. the organic matter and phosphate content is high and, consequently, they are often

affected by bioturbation, both ab antiquo and in recent times.

Concerning the distribution of the fumier deposits, they occur mainly within the

Mediterranean regions of Europe. A first non-exhaustive list may include the following

areas and sites (Fig. 1):

. the coastal area and the Pyrenean region in north-eastern Iberia: Cova del Parco

and Cova de la Guineu (Bergada 1997; Bergada et al. 2005); Can Sadurnı (Blasco

et al. 1999); Santa Maira, Bolumini and Cova de les Cendres (Badal 1999; Verdasco

2001); Cinto Mariano (Cabanilles et al. 2005); Abric de la Falguera (Garcıa Puchol

and Aura Tortosa 2006; Verdasco 2001); Cova Colomera (Oms et al. 2008); Balma

de la Margineda (Brochier 1995; Brochier and Claustre 1994);

. also in Iberia, the upper Ebro basin and the northern Meseta: Los Husos (Alday

Ruiz et al. 2003; Fernandez 2008; Polo Dıaz and Fernandez Eraso 2007); El

Mirador (Verges et al. 2002, 2008);

. southern France: Fontjuvenal (Brochier 1988); Grotte Antonnaire (Argant et al.

1991); Caune de Belesta (Brochier et al. 1998); Grotte du Gardon (Sordoillet et al.

2008); and others (see Brochier 1983);

. the Liguria region in Italy: Arene Candide (Courty et al. 1989, 1992; Macphail et al.

1997);

Figure 1 Location of the sites mentioned in the text. 1: Cinto Mariano; 2: Abric de la Falguera; 3:Cova del Parco; 4: Cova de la Guineu; 5: Can Sadurnı; 6: Santa Maira; 7: Bolumini; 8: Cova de les

Cendres; 9: Cova Colomera; 10: Balma de la Margineda; 11: Los Husos; 12: El Mirador; 13:Fontjuvenal; 14: Caune de Belesta; 15: Grotte Antonnaire; 16: Grotte du Gardon; 17: La GrandeRivoire; 18: Arene Candide; 19: Trieste Karst; 20: Pupicina pec; 21: Vagana�cka pecina; 22: Konispolcave; 23: Grotta Sant’Angelo; 24: Grotta dei Piccioni; 25: Grotta delle Mura; 26: Egolzwil 3; 27:

Arbon Bleiche 3; 28: Riparo Gaban.

Shepherds and karst 193


. the eastern peri-Adriatic region: several caves in the Trieste Karst (Boschian and

Montagnari-Kokelj 2000); Pupicina pec (Boschian and Miracle 2008), Vagana�cka

pecina (Forenbaher and Vranjican 1985) and others (Miracle and Forenbaher pers.

comm.) in Croatia; Konispol cave in Albania (Schuldenrein 2001);

. the western peri-Adriatic region: Grotta dei Piccioni and Grotta Sant’Angelo, in

Abruzzo (Iaconis and Boschian 2008); Grotta delle Mura, in Apulia (Boschian

unpublished data).

. the Alpine area: Egolzwil 3 (Rasmussen 1989, 1993); Arbon Bleiche 3 (Akeret et al

1999); La Grande Rivoire (Delhon et al. 2008); Riparo Gaban (Bagolini 1980;

Bagolini and Pedrotti 1996).

It is probable that such a distribution is biased by preservation factors – particularly the

distribution of carbonate rocks – and by the development of archaeological research, and

that fumiers occur over a much more extended area.

The chronology of fumier deposits spans the early Neolithic to the Iron Age. In several

sites, fumiers appear at the very onset of the early Neolithic stratification, as at El Mirador

and at Riparo Gaban (see below). In most cases, fumiers are considered to be the result of

non-human biogenic inputs originated by human activities, like the stabling and penning

of animals (mostly flocks of ovicaprines and, to a lesser extent, stocks of cattle) within the

entrance areas of caves and rock-shelters. These animals cause the rapid accretion of the

sedimentary surfaces through the accumulation of their dung, while various types of

vegetal material occurring within the sediments derive from several pastoral practices, like

foddering, litter-bedding, fencing, etc.

Whether the pastoral depositswere (periodically) burnt or not after the deposition strongly

affects their sedimentary characteristics andpreservation.The fumiersmainly derive from the

combustion or the thermal alteration of the organic residues; in this general framework, there

is a significant variety of syn- and post-depositional dynamics responsible for the remarkable

variability of the sedimentary facies of burnt fumiers (see below).

Apparently, there are many fewer facies of unburnt pastoral deposits, both at macro-

and microscopic scale, and their origin is still a matter of debate (Boschian 2006).

Considering that these are often tightly interfingered with the burnt layers, and that it is

not always easy to ascertain their degree of burning (if any), such unburnt deposits may be

accommodated within the fumier category alongside the burnt ones.

Some methodological remarks on the study of fumiers

The high degree of complexity of fumiers has several implications with respect to the

techniques to be employed during their excavation, and to the sampling and analysis of the

sediments.

Fumiers in the field

A first point deals with the excavation and description of fumiers. They display remarkable

facies variability, which is related not only to depositional events, but also to syn- or post-

depositional processes. The complexity observed in fumiers, thus, can have a stratigraphic



meaning in terms of the succession of sedimentary events, but it can also be the result of

alteration processes that acted almost contemporaneously with the deposition –

particularly through burning and thermal alteration – or soon after, through other

diagenetic processes such as dissolution, solute migration and precipitation.

For this reason, the ‘classical’ archaeological stratigraphic technique (e.g. Barker 1977;

Harris 1979 and following editions) can hardly be used in the excavation of fumiers,

especially as concerns the definition of the units. Naming every single level would imply a

‘divisionist’ approach that would have confusing effects when the stratigraphic matrix is

compiled, with thousands of units scattered within a few square metres. Furthermore, due

to the irregular geometry of the stratification, any approach based on topographic or

elevation criteria (for example, through arbitrary levels) would not be feasible at all.

If long-term weathering effects are filtered out, much of the variety of fumiers is related

to the spatial change of combustion processes, and to a lesser extent to the spatial

distribution of human (lato sensu) activities. All this can be interpreted conceptually – with

some flavour of mechanicism – as equivalent to variations of sedimentary facies in a

depositional basin. The concept of sedimentary facies seems therefore the most

appropriate to cope with the complexity of fumiers. In the following paragraphs, the

lithofacies, as defined by Moore (1949), will be used as the conceptual and methodological

basis appropriate to deal with the excavation, description and interpretation of fumiers.

The stratification of El Mirador was excavated and sampled by means of excavation

complexes, the criteria for their formalization being the existence of surfaces recognizable

over the whole excavation area. Each complex was subdivided into lithofacies according to

the sedimentary characteristics recognizable in the field, and all the lithofacies were

excavated individually and three-dimensionally mapped. At Riparo Gaban, the lithofacies

method was employed to describe and sample the stratigraphic remnant (see below).

Fumiers in the laboratory

The understanding of formation processes in an archaeological context needs a careful

interdisciplinary approach based on excellent fieldwork procedures and extensive

laboratory analyses, focused on the questions raised during fieldwork and post-excavation

data elaboration. This is particularly true for fumiers, whose polygenetic composition and

complex formation have challenged archaeologists for a long time, while, still today, many

questions on their origin are under debate.

Fumiers usually contain poor assemblages of cultural remains (lithics and pottery) and

the faunal remains are also scant. Conversely, the by-products of stabling (coprolites and

the associate spherulites) and botanical remains (charred wood and seeds, ash, phytoliths,

etc.) are common or even dominant. Therefore, the thorough sieving and flotation of all

units and facies, as well as their systematic sampling, is particularly important to achieve a

good representation of the eco-factual assemblages preserved.

Among the available geoarchaeological techniques, soil micromorphology is probably the

most useful tool for the explanation of the formation processes of fumiers. The study of

micromorphological thin sections has been critical (see, among others, Brochier 1983;

Courty et al. 1992; Macphail et al. 1997; Boschian and Montagnari-Kokelj 2000) in the

recognition of their nature as deposits originated by the burning of animal dung deposited by



stabled flocks. Soil micromorphology will be employed here as the basic technique in the

study of the fumiers, in addition to other analytical methods. The description of thin sections

presented below is in accordance with Bullock et al. (1985) and Stoops (2003).

Recent work on pastoral cave contexts has highlighted the importance of the integration

of botanical (Cabanes et al. 2007; Delhon et al. 2008) and archaeozoological data

(Boschian and Miracle 2008) in the interpretation of fumiers as indicators of cave and

landscape use by Neolithic shepherds/pastoralists. This aspect cannot be absolutely

discarded, as vegetals and animals are strictly interconnected within the pastoral economy.

The future application of FT-IR and Raman spectroscopy and microscopy will probably

be an asset in understanding the complex mineralogy of these deposits. Archaeomagnetic

studies have also been applied, not only for the reconstruction of secular series, but also to

discriminate primarily and secondarily burnt layers (Carrancho et al. 2006).

El Mirador

Site presentation

El Mirador (42820’58’’ N; 003830’33’’ W; 1033m altitude) is a cave site located in the Sierra

de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain), a low relief rising over the northern Meseta at short

distance from the Bureba corridor, which connects the Atlantic and the Mediterranean

slopes of the Iberian peninsula (Zazo et al. 1983). The Atapuerca sites are well known for

the important Pleistocene archaeological and palaeontological record recovered since the

1970s (e.g. Arsuaga et al. 1997; Bermudez de Castro et al. 1999; Carbonell et al. 2008).

The infilling of El Mirador had never been systematically investigated in the past;

fieldwork started in 1999 with the opening of a trench that brought to light an

unexpectedly well-preserved Holocene succession, whose bottom was reached in 2005. The

excavation is now exploring Pleistocene layers.

The cave is situated along the southern slope of the Sierra de Atapuerca, in Upper

Cretaceous brecciated limestone. The cave entrance measures approximately 23 x 15m and

has a maximum height of some 5m (Fig. 2). The test trench was dug near the entrance and

crossed a more than 5m-thick Holocene succession that includes two main archaeological

sequences: a 3.5m-thick early to late Neolithic stratification and a Bronze Age one. They are

mostly composed of fumier showing little or no post-depositional modifications, with

excellent preservation of features, artefacts and ecofacts (Plate 1; see also Verges et al. 2008).

An archaeologically sterile bed lies between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age layers.

The Holocene sequence of El Mirador was divided into twenty-four stratigraphic

complexes, whose chronology is based on a set of twenty radiocarbon dates so far (Table 1

and Fig. 3; Verges et al. 2002, 2008; Caceres et al. 2007). The Neolithic and Bronze Age

sequences were excavated using sedimentary facies as operative units; a list of the defined

facies is given in Table 2.

Formation processes of the Holocene succession at El Mirador

The sedimentary characteristics observed in the Holocene sequence of El Mirador indicate

that natural inputs were limited to a few limestone fragments fallen from the cave roof and



Plate 1 El Mirador: picture of the upper part of the Holocene succession, east wall of test trench,2001 field campaign (scale: 1m; picture: Equipo de Investigacion de Atapuerca).

Figure 2 El Mirador: schematic plan and profile of the cave entrance. The shaded area correspondsto the area excavated up to 2008.



to the occasional inwash of fine material from the slope; conversely, the bulk of the

sedimentation was anthropogenic, both directly and indirectly.

The deposition rate of the Neolithic sequence was 1mm/year on average, reaching peaks

of some 15mm/year between units MIR16 and MIR11. This accumulation is remarkably

high if compared to unit MIR5, whose deposition rate is about 0.1mm/year (and, in fact,

represents a hiatus in the Holocene human occupation of El Mirador). This rate is higher

still if we take into account that fumier volume reduction during combustion is estimated

at 90 to 97 per cent of the original volume (Brochier 1991; Shahack-Gross et al. 2005).

Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that more parameters should be considered in the

estimation of the deposition rate, like the size of the flocks and the duration and frequency

of their visits to the cave; moreover, periodic cleansing of the central part of the cave,

which has been observed in the Italian Karst (Boschian and Montagnari-Kokelj 2000),

may have been an important factor in the reduction of the rates in some sites, or during

some periods within a sequence. In the field, the alternation of unburned (as facies d, t or

Table 1 El Mirador: synthesis of the succession (1991–2008 field campaigns; dating after Verges et al.

2002, 2008; Caceres et al. 2007)

Unit(s) Main characteristics AttributionDating(14C BP)

MIR1 Surface layerMIR2 Infilling of burrows

penetrating into units

MIR4 and MIR5

Sub-recent

MIR3 Partly disturbedarchaeological sediment

MIR4 In situ archaeologicalstratification (mainly fumiers)

Middle and late 3040+ 40 to3400+ 40

MIR4A Collective burial reworking

early Bronze Age human remains

Bronze Age 3670+ 40 to

3900+ 40MIR5 Weakly organic clayey silt, with

poor granular structure, fewfinds and common microfaunal

remainsMIR6 – MIR23 Densely stratified sequence of fumiers,

mainly formed of clayey silt with few

limestone fragments and abundantproducts of fire activity (ash, charcoal,burnt excrements and fragments

of burnt sediment), organized in thindiscontinuous juxtaposed layers, oftenwith evidence of in situ thermal alteration.

Early to lateNeolithic

4780+ 40 to6320+ 50

MIR24 Slope sediment reworking pre-existing

deposits, lying upon an angularunconformity.

7060+ 40/

6110+ 40

MIR50 – MIR53 Calcareous breccias with two fine

intercalated layers.

Upper

Palaeolithic



v; see Table 2) and burnt facies (facies b, g or c) is clearly visible. The burnt facies are often

arranged in cyclical sequences: ashy layers (facies b, g or m) lie upon accumulations of

charcoal (facies c) that rest on thermally altered sediments (facies -r) or upon organic

layers (facies o). In other areas of the site, clayey facies (facies t or v/vl) alternate with

unburned or incompletely burnt accumulations of excrements (facies d).

Figure 3 El Mirador: cross-section of the Holocene sequence, south wall of test trench. 1: squares; 2:unit names; 3: unit boundaries; 4: facies boundaries; 5: top of Pleistocene succession; 6: charcoalaccumulations; 7: ash accumulations (distinct facies); 8: ash layers; 9: burnt sediment (rubefaction);

10: limestone fragments; 11: potsherds; 12: lithic artefacts; 13: bones; 14: sub-actual burrows; 15:ancient burrows.



On a microscopic scale, facies g and bg appear as mainly formed of coprolites, with a

variable degree of structure preservation. Faecal spherulites are widespread in the

groundmass and phytoliths are common, as confirmed by archaeobotanical analysis

(Cabanes et al. 2007), and occasional detrital grains are present (Plate 2a and 2b). The

porosity is usually high, giving the sediment a fairly open structure, even if clearly

recognizable coprolites are scarce. These facies derive from the burning of animal dung

and are widespread in fumiers (see, e.g., Rasmussen 1993 or Brochier et al. 1992 among

Table 2 El Mirador: list of the lithofacies identified in the Holocene series

Name Short description

a Yellowish brown clayey silt, with few to common unsorted calcareous stones, commonorganic matter, high porosity; it contains common ash and scarce microcharcoal

fragments dispersed in the matrixb Accumulations of ash, almost pure; sometimes contains charcoal fragments or

yellowish small mottles; occasionally shows fine parallel lamination

bg Ash accumulations with intermediate characteristics between facies b and facies gc Accumulations of mm- to cm-sized vegetal charcoal fragmentsd Very dark grey, granular, organic sediment formed of scarcely or moderately

decomposed animal excrements, sometimes welded togetherf Fine layers of white to light gray ash with preserved fibres with horizontal, parallel or

perpendicular, orientation pattern

g Light gray silt, massive, with abundant ash dispersed in the matrixi Greenish silt, with abundant dispersed ashm Light brown, massive (sometimes granular) accumulations of ash, containing mm-sized

fragments of charcoal and reddened sediment

o Accumulation of organic matter, very dark grey to black, with massive structure andabsence of recognizable excrements at the naked eye

p Bioturbated parts

q Clayey silt, reddish brown burnt sediment, with granular structures Strongly deformed or broken ashy sediment, with heterogeneous characteristicst Dark greyish brown clay, with parallel or weakly wavy lamination and pseudomorphs

of vegetal fibres preserved in between the laminaetf Silt with abundant ash and varied colour, sometimes with platy structure and moderate

cementationv/vl 3- to 5-cm-thick layers of clayey loam, massive (facies v) or with parallel lamination, with

intercalations of orange layers with fibrous or granular structure containingrecognizable digested bones and coprolites (facies vl)

-l Suffix used for presence of lamination

-r Suffix used for presence of reddening

Plate 2 El Mirador: microphotos of the Holocene archaeological sequence: (a) facies bg: note thepartly recognizable coprolitic structure, the moderate porosity and the presence of detrital grains

(unit MIR4; PPL – plane polarized light); (b) as (a) but XPL (cross-polarized light): note thespherulites dispersed within the groundmass; (c) facies f, made up of parallel-oriented chains ofphytoliths (unit MIR4, PPL); (d) details of (c); (e) facies a, showing granular aggregation (unit

MIR6, PPL); (f) same as (e) but XPL; (g) facies vl, with clearly recognizable parallel lamination (unitMIR6, PPL); (h) facies c, made up of charcoal fragments in situ (unit MIR4, PPL).

"



others; at Arene Candide they were named as ‘ashed coprolite-rich layer’: Macphail et al.

1997).

Facies b contains more or less the same components as facies bg and g but with a higher

proportion of ash derived from vegetal material. Some of the b facies are made almost

exclusively of wood ash, with variable enrichments of micrite in the fine material; others

display an intimate mixing of ash with coprolites or faecal spherulites, probably caused by

trampling or other syn- or post-depositional modifications. Archaeobotanical data match

the micromorphological information, as they indicate that facies b includes less phytoliths

and spherulites than facies g (Cabanes et al. 2007). These data reinforce the preliminary

field explanation of the origin of this facies, interpreted as the result of the combustion of

mainly vegetal material. This kind of facies is also common in fumier stratification

(compare with the ‘wood ash layer’ described by Macphail et al. 1997).

The ash-rich facies (b, bg and g) are ‘classical’ deposits of burnt fumiers. The case of

facies f is different: in the field, it is formed of thin, 1mm-thick layers of whitish ash with

still recognizable vegetal fibres that display a sub-perpendicular orientation pattern. This

facies was interpreted in the field as being the result of in situ combustion of material like

straw. Under the microscope, it is seen to be formed exclusively of continuous chains of

phytoliths and other vegetal residues (Plate 2c and 2d). Palaeobotanical analyses have

shown that the phytoliths are mainly of husk; they were interpreted as being the result of

crop-processing practices (Cabanes et al. 2007). Nonetheless, facies f may correspond to

stabling (or even foddering) beds made up with straw after the cereal grains had been

extracted, a practice that is still common today among shepherds. At Arene Candide,

similar deposits were interpreted as possible matted surfaces over the ground (Macphail

et al. 1997).

Less clear is the origin of facies a, a more or less homogeneous clayey silt (Table 2). In

thin section, it shows the same components as other facies (spherulites, ash, phytoliths,

charcoal, etc.) even if less common and mixed with fine clay material. The constituents are

randomly dispersed in the groundmass, which displays microgranular aggregation (Plate

2e and 2f). The homogeneous and unlayered deposits, mostly made up of spherulites,

phytoliths and other components, have been interpreted in various ways: they may be the

product of the weathering and trampling of unburnt or partially burnt fumiers (Boschian

2006) or the result of patchy combustion of the droppings (Brochier 2002); whichever their

origin, their components show that they must be ascribed to pastoral activities. It must

also be pointed out that they always occur in association with typical fumier beds,

although some fumier sequences (e.g. the Abruzzo ones, see Iaconis and Boschian 2008) do

not include such homogeneous layers.

Among the unburned fumiers, facies vl represents a case of complex origin. In the field

and under the microscope (Plate 2g), this facies displays fine sub-parallel laminations

composed of biogenic (spherulites and phytoliths dispersed in the groundmass, but no

coprolites) and geogenic material (silt- to sand-sized detrital grains). The fabric is dense,

and the porosity low, the latter made up of fine sub-horizontal vughs; mottling due to the

precipitation of Fe-Mn (hydro)oxides is common. This facies may be interpreted as the

result of short-distance reworking of animal dung over the surface of the site during

stabling; its compaction and the lamination are probably related to trampling, while the

hydromorphic features demonstrate the circulation of water and other liquids through the



sediment, probably during deposition. Facies vl resembles the ‘veritable fumier’ mentioned

by Brochier (2002).

Riparo Gaban

Site presentation

Riparo Gaban (Trento, Italy) is a rock-shelter filled up by a c. 7m-thick prehistoric

succession spanning from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. The site (46805’36’’ N;

011807’21’’ E; 270m altitude) is located near Trento, along the eastern flank of the glacier-

eroded valley of River Adige, which has deeply incised the Trentino’s Pre-Alps. The shelter

opens under a low cliff of well-stratified Jurassic nodular limestone. The cliff is oriented

eastwards and borders a small dry valley possibly related to late glacial fluvial erosion

(Balista 1977) and drained by a sinkhole situated at the foot of the shelter’s wall.

RiparoGabanwas excavated in the 1970s–80sunder thedirectionofB.Bagolini, who left a

c. 2m2-wide remnant for sampling and analyses (Fig. 4 and Plate 3; see Bagolini 1980;

Bagolini and Pedrotti 1996). Its archaeological sequence includes: Mesolithic strata with the

classical southern Alpine chrono-cultural sequence of Sauveterrian and Castelnovian

horizons (Kozlowski and Dalmeri 2002); an early to middle Neolithic succession, with rich

archaeological assemblages upon which the early Neolithic Gaban cultural group was

defined; Copper Age layers, which preserve evidence of metallurgical activities; and one of

themost complete early–middle Bronze Age sequences of theAlpine arc, as far as its chrono-

cultural sequence is concerned (Bagolini and Pedrotti 1996). The units identified during

fieldwork, their chronology and cultural affiliation are reported in Table 3.

The succession preserved in the stratigraphic remnant of Riparo Gaban

The geoarchaeological study of Riparo Gaban started with the description and sampling

of the remnant (Plate 3), whose study gives information on the diachronic aspect of site

formation but no data on the spatial organization of the site, which will be available in the

future, thanks to ongoing fieldwork.

Figure 4 Riparo Gaban: schematic plan of the excavated area, with location of the excavation sectors

and of the stratigraphic remnant (courtesy F. Cavulli).



In the field, the succession preserved in the remnant clearly shows its polygenetic origin.

The Mesolithic part is formed of a relatively homogeneous succession of silty layers often

enriched in ashes, with variable amount of limestone fragments. The Neolithic part

contains sequences of discontinuous ‘layer-cake’ levels, merging laterally into silty, ash-

rich sediment or, in other sectors of the shelter, to occupation layers (Plate 4). Fumier

facies embedded in a more or less homogeneous silty deposit also can be found in the

upper part of the stratification, dating to the Copper and Bronze Ages.

The lithofacies method was used to describe and sample the Neolithic stratification. The

letters used to name the facies (see Table 4) differ from those used at El Mirador. Twenty

thin sections were cured from undisturbed monoliths collected from the Mesolithic and

Plate 3 Riparo Gaban: view of the stratigraphic remnant (left) and geaorchaeological fieldwork

(right).



Neolithic layers, representing almost all the units and facies (more samples, particularly

from the upper part of the stratification, are under study with the collaboration of Daniela

Anesin and Monia Zannini).

Under the microscope, anthropogenic and biogenic components are clearly dominant,

the latter being in fact related to indirect human inputs. The geogenic inputs are variable

but never dominant: among these, limestone or speleothems fragments coming from the

shelter wall are usual occurrences, as also are fragments of igneous or metamorphic rocks

inwashed from the outside, together with occasional fragments of reworked soils

(‘pedorelicts’, Brewer 1976). In all the observed samples, the fine material includes

significant quantities of finely dispersed amorphous organic matter, deriving from the

incorporation in the sediment of by-products of anthropic or biological activities.

The components of the Neolithic sediment derive mostly from the burning of vegetal

matter (charcoal, ash and phytoliths), together with animal dung (coprolites and

spherulites); bone, burnt bone, lithic artefacts, pottery shards and clods of burnt sediment

are also common. Phytoliths were observed inside coprolites, and are systematically

associated with spherulites, indicating that they mostly derive from herbivore dung. No

unburned fumier facies were detected within the Neolithic succession so far. Three main

microfacies were identified under the microscope:

. Coprolite microfacies are formed of well-recognizable burnt and ashed herbivore

excrements. Well-preserved coprolites or fragments of coprolites are present and

contain vegetal remains (often phytoliths forming connected chains), spherulites and

occasional silt-sized mineral grains. The porosity is usually high.

. Ash microfacies are composed of ash accumulations deriving from the burning of

vegetal material at various temperatures, usually high, and in an oxidizing

environment. Depending on the temperature reached during the process, the ash

may be composed of calcite monocrystals pseudomorphic on calcium oxalate or of

micrite aggregates with the same shape.

Table 3 Riparo Gaban: archaeological stratigraphy (data after Bagolini and Pedrotti 1996;

Kozlowski and Dalmeri 2002)

Units Period (cultural attribution) Dating (14C BP)

A1–A5 Middle Bronze Age 3410+ 45 (layer A5)

A6–A10 Late early Bronze Age (cf. Fiave III culture)B1–B6 Early Bronze Age (Polada culture) 3800+ 60 (layer B5a2)C1–C3 Late Copper Age – beginning of Bronze Age

C4–C6 Copper Age 3950+ 50 (layer C5b2)D0 Beginning of middle Neolithic

(Square Mouth Pottery)

D1–D10 Early Neolithic (Gaban group) 6030+ 45 (layer D2)5990+ 45 (layer D8-2)

E1–E6, FA Late Mesolithic (Castelnovian) 7971+ 42 (layer FA) to

6968+ 41 (layer E)FB–FC Early Mesolithic (Sauveterrian) 8847+ 57 (layer F16) to

8193+ 66 (layer FB)



. Granular microfacies consist of material with microgranular aggregation, with a

variable degree of compaction and porosity. The groundmass is usually made up of

coprolite fragments, together with dispersed or chaotically clustered spherulites or

phytoliths, and ash, in various proportions. Finely dispersed amorphous organic

matter is usually common within the fine fraction.

These three microfacies often display more or less intense syn- and post-depositional

modifications, such as: destructuration or homogenization due to natural and anthropic

processes; compaction due to trampling; formation of platy microstructure and the

development of pedofeatures (segregation or silt capping) related to cyclical frost. The post-

depositionalmodifications are evenmore intense in theCopper andBronzeAge layers,where

primary fumier microfacies are almost unrecognizable (D. Anesin pers. comm. 2008).

Plate 4 Riparo Gaban: detail of the Mesolithic (labels ‘1’ and ‘E’) to Neolithic (label ‘5’) transition.

Early Neolithic burnt layers are easily recognizable (picture by D. Anesin, 2008).



The Mesolithic layers include residues originating from the burning of vegetal matter,

and their microfacies are rather different from those of the Neolithic sediments. Ash

accumulations made up of micritic aggregates with regular cube- or lozenge-shaped

crystalline habits were detected. These crystals are interpreted as being the result of the

burning and re-liming of calcium oxalate that occurs as organic waste in wood, leaves,

bark and other vegetal tissues (Courty and Wattez 1987; Schiegl et al. 1996). These ashes

are common all over the sequence and form the bulk of the Mesolithic deposit; they are

mixed with variable amounts of limestone angular fragments deriving from the shattering

of the roof and with minerals and rock fragments coming from the outside.

Discussion

Fumiers are peculiar archaeological sediments that need to be approached with an

interdisciplinary perspective and a specific methodology. Fumier accumulations are typical

polygenetic deposits, as they include a wide range of geogenic, biogenic (both faunal and

floral) and anthropogenic materials. However, the human inputs, both direct and indirect,

are predominant and, among prehistoric archaeological sediments, one could say that

fumiers are among those with a more evident anthropogenic mark.

The preservation of fumiers is guaranteed by a series of factors, such as the high rate of

sedimentation, the thickness of the stratification and the geomorphological location of the

sites. Rather paradoxically, it may be stated that the combustion itself is a preservation

factor, as it hinders the decay of part of the mineral fraction included within the organic

remains. Nonetheless, this is really true only in sheltered or dry sites – mostly caves and

rock-shelters – where the finely grained carbonate ash does not come into contact with

acidic (aggressive) water. At present, and without taking into account lake-shore sites such

as Egolzwil and Arbon Bleiche 3 (Rasmussen 1989, 1993; Akeret et al. 1999), fumier-like

deposits have been observed in only one open-air site – Trasano, in Southern Italy

(G. Radi pers. comm. 2008).

Table 4 Riparo Gaban: list of the identified lithofacies

Name Short description

a White or very light grey thin ash layers, massive or with fine parallel lamination, oftenoverlying reddened (facies –r) horizons

b Silty loam, brown to greyish brown, massive, non-cemented, with abundant dispersed ashg Silty grey to light grey layers with abundant dispersed ash, usually massive and

moderately cemented by carbonates, sometimes containing a little microcharcoal

-k Suffix used for calcium carbonate cementationp Pinkish grey to light brown silty loam layers, massive or with fine poorly developed

blocky subangular aggregation, with abundant dispersed ash

n Thin organic layers, dark grey or dark brown, massive, non-cemented, with frequent ashand microcharcoal, sometimes discontinuously cemented

-l Suffix used for the occurrence of lamination

-r Suffix used for reddening



Despite regional variations, the facies recorded in the fumier sequences of caves and rock-

shelters are almost universal, that is, documented in sites that are hundreds of kilometres

apart andwith sedimentary characteristics and features that are almost identical. The fumiers

of El Mirador and Riparo Gaban are made up of the same facies – in both sites the ashed

coprolite-rich, the wood ash, the phytolith-rich and the granular facies are present. Themost

striking characteristic is that, in the field and under themicroscope, the individual facies from

one or the other site are almost indistinguishable. This is not surprising, considering that the

basic sedimentary process is always the same; nonetheless, on a larger scale, each fumier is

different, i.e. the stratigraphic or spatial relationships among the facies are not as

standardized as when the characteristics of the sequences are examined closely or on a

microscopic scale. It is worth noting the parallelism with natural sediments, where the

lithofacies indicate the dynamics responsible for the accumulation, while their association is

linked to the depositional environment. In our case, the lithofacies that were identified in

fumier deposits relate to single human-driven sedimentary dynamics and can be organized

into categories, while the associations of the facies are rather difficult to appreciate, as they

correspond to complex behavioural patterns and cultural practices.

The main differences between El Mirador and Riparo Gaban are related to the

preservation and continuity of the burnt layers and the extension and distribution of the

homogenized facies: while at El Mirador the layer-cake sequences are fairly continuous, at

Riparo Gaban they are rather restricted and often embedded in homogeneous sediments.

This characteristic was noted also in other Italian sites; the Trieste and Croatian Karst ones

often include homogenized parts, while there is a remarkable continuity at Arene Candide

and in the Abruzzo sites. Another distinction is the presence of the unburned facies; these

seem absent in the Italian sites, e.g. Riparo Gaban, and well-represented in the French and

Iberian sites, e.g. El Mirador. The reason for such a peculiarity is still unclear, as it may

depend on behavioural patterns (differences in the frequency and duration of occupation of

the sites, the need of cleaning by burning) or on differential preservation controlled by

regional patterns. By comparing distinct sites, it is clear that fumier facies group in rather

varied ways. Thus the general appearance of the Grotta Sant’Angelo sequence (Boschian

2000; Iaconis and Boschian 2008) closely resembles the ‘pastoral’ cave deposits described

above, with the typical interfingering of black and white layers and lenses. It is noteworthy

that mostly very thick white strata (up to 30cm) with few very thin black levels occur within

the middle Neolithic to early Copper Age levels. Conversely, the Late Copper and Bronze

Age levels are made up of rhythmically alternating black and white horizons that are

approximately the same thickness, the white layers being slightly thicker than the black

ones. Brown horizons are also frequently interfingered throughout the sequence, often

associated with the bottom of the black ones. The early Neolithic layers, which are ascribed

to the ‘ImpressaWare’ cultural facies, are quite different, as they are not organized in black-

and-white couples, but are mostly made up of homogeneous brownish sediments. These

embed some evidence of pastoral practices like phytoliths and spherulites, and some larger

coprolite fragments, but are mainly made up of a dominant component originating from

domestic activities (large-size charcoal, bone, pottery, lithics, etc.).

This peculiar contrast between the early Neolithic and the later cultural phases is evident

also at Grotta dei Piccioni (Iaconis and Boschian 2008), where the cultural sequence

resembles closely the Grotta Sant’Angelo one; the same situation probably exists at Arene



Candide as well (Courty et al. 1992; Macphail et al. 1997). Conversely, this contrast is not

evident in the Trieste Karst caves (north-east Italy: Boschian 2000; Boschian and

Montagnari-Kokelj 2000), where the sediments including Neolithic cultural remains are

all made up of more or less homogeneously and finely layered layer-cake sequences.

As to the microscopic characteristics of the association between thin black and thick

white layers in the two sites discussed here, it is noteworthy that the white ones are finely

laminated, with rhythmic sequences of ash-, phytolith- and phytolith-and-spherulite-rich

horizons. These may result from the occasional burning of layers of wood, litter or fodder,

and dung, each one corresponding to a single phase of stabling within the cave. If it can be

assumed that the thickness of a fumier is indicative of the size of the flocks that were

stabled inside the cave, then these layers may be interpreted as the result of periodical

(seasonal?) visits of small flocks, whose few droppings needed to be burnt only

occasionally, probably once every several visits.

In most Neolithic cave sites, the typical ‘layer-cake’ sequences, where black and white

horizons are comparably thick, are not laminated at the microscopic scale; such sequences

probably result from the cyclical burning, possibly seasonal, of thicker dung accumula-

tions. In this case, the deposits may be preliminarily interpreted as the result of the stabling

of large flocks with seasonal frequency. Nonetheless, other factors may control the

thickness and characteristics of these facies. The removal of dung and its accumulation

into heaps or piles was observed at El Mirador and in some of the Trieste Karst caves, and

can be detected only through large open-area excavations. The first experimental results

on the burning of manure undertaken by two of us (MF and JMV; see Verges 2008) are

showing that the variety and differentiation of the fumier facies are higher when huge

heaps of manure are burnt, while smaller accumulations originate the classical ‘black-and-

white layer-cake’ sequence. Moreover, the same experiments have also shown, even if

results are still preliminary, that the thickness of the black-and-white couples also depends

on the moisture of the bedrock, on the composition, shape and size of the material used as

fuel, and on the species employed.

Final remarks

In this paper, we have introduced the main characteristics of fumiers. These archaeological

sediments are found all around the Mediterranean region, in sites dating from the early

Neolithic. Given the complexity of fumiers, their study requires an interdisciplinary

approach that involves several archaeological science disciplines. The geoarchaeological

perspective improves the understanding of the composition and of the processes

responsible for the formation of the fumiers, particularly through soil micromorphology.

We have also addressed some methodological aspects related to the field excavation of

fumiers and their description, showing how routine sedimentological methods, such as

facies analysis, may apply to these anthropogenic deposits.

The next step in the understanding of fumier deposits is to find out if any

correspondence between field or microscopic characteristics and human practices can be

found, by contrasting distinct sources of information (micromorphology, archaeobotany,

archaeozoology, experimental archaeology, etc.). Also, the study of cultural remains, in



terms of typology/use, and quantity versus sediment volume and deposition rate is

expected to provide clues concerning site and landscape use. For the time being, this has

been achieved only in part, while the specific origin of some peculiarities is still a matter of

research and debate. It can also be pointed out that local environmental or anthropic

conditions, or even chance (does it really exist?), probably played a role that may be

difficult to elucidate at present.

Another aspect where the evidence remains ambiguous is the date of first appearance of

fumier sediments in the Neolithic. Archaeological contexts need to be dated more

precisely, and correlated with other aspects of the material culture, in the various areas

under study. New hints on the timing of the appearance of the Neolithic package in

Europe can be expected from continued investigation of these deposits.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their careful comments.

The analysis of Riparo Gaban was undertaken in the context of the project APSAT

(‘Environment and landscapes of Trento district’s upland-sites’), funded by the Provincia

Autonoma di Trento (Italy).

Diego E. Angelucci, Department of Philosophy, History and

Cultural Heritage, University of Trento

[email protected]

Giovanni Boschian, University of Pisa

Marta Fontanals, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona

Annaluisa Pedrotti, University of Trento

Josep Maria Verges, Institut Catala de Paleoecologia

Humana i Evolucio Social / Universitat Rovira i Virgili

References

Akeret, O., Haas, J. N., Leuzinger, U. and Jacomet, S. 1999. Plant macrofossils and pollen in goat/sheep faeces from the Neolithic lake-shore settlement Arbon Bleiche 3, Switzerland. The Holocene,9(2): 175–82.

Alday Ruiz, A., Fernandez Eraso, J. and Yusta, I. 2003. Suelos de habitacion: suelos de corrales: loscasos de Atxoste y los Husos. Veleia, 20: 183–225.

Argant, J., Heinz, C. and Brochier, J. L. 1991. Pollens, charbons de bois et sediments: l’actionhumaine et la vegetation, cas de la grotte d’Antonnaire (Montmaur-en-Diois, Drome). Revued’Archeometrie, 15: 29–40.

Arsuaga, J. L., Bermudez de Castro, J. M. and Carbonell, E. (eds) 1997. The Sima de los Huesoshominid site. Journal of Human Evolution, 33: 105–421.

Badal, E. 1999. El potencial pecuario de la vegetacion mediterranea: las cuevas Redil. In Actes del IICongres del Neolıtic a la Penınsula Iberica. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia, pp. 69–76.

Bagolini, B. 1980. Riparo Gaban: Preistoria ed Evoluzione dell’Ambiente. Trento: Museo Tridentinodi Scienze Naturali.



Bagolini, B. and Pedrotti, A. 1996. Il Riparo Gaban (loc. Piazzina di Martignano – Trento). In

Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico dell’Italia nord-orientale (ed. A. Broglio). Guide archeologiche,Preistoria e Protostoria in Italia, vol. 4. Forlı: ABACO, pp. 118–29.

Balista, C. 1977. Studio sedimentologico preliminare della successione stratigrafica del RiparoGaban (Trento). Preistoria Alpina, 13: 31–45.

Barker, P. 1977. Techniques of Archaeological Excavations. London: Batsford.

Bergada, M. M. 1997. Actividad antropica registrada en algunas secuencias arqueologicas en cueva delNeolıtico antiguo catalan a traves del analisis micromorfologico. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 54(2): 151–62.

Bergada, M. M., Cebria, A. and Mestres, J. 2005. Practicas de estabulacion durante elNeolıtico Antiguo en Cataluna a traves de la micromorfologıa: cueva de la Guineu (Font-

Rubı, Alt Penedes, Barcelona). In Actas del III Congreso del Neolıtico de la Penınsula Iberica(eds P. Arias, R. Ontanon and C. Garcıa-Monco). Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 187–96.

Bermudez de Castro, J. M., Carbonell, E. and Arsuaga, J. L. (eds) 1999. The Gran Dolina site: TD6

Aurora Stratum (Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 309–700.

Blasco,A.,Edo,M.,Villalba,M. J. andBuxo,R.1999.Del cardial alpostcardial en la cuevadeCanSadurnı

(Begues, Barcelona): primeros datos sobre su secuencia estratigrafica, paleoeconomica y ambiental. InActas del II Congres del Neolıtic a la Penınsula Iberica. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia, pp. 59–67.

Boschian, G. 2000. New data on the pastoral use of caves in Italy. In Volume in Memoria di A. M.Radmilli (ed. P. Biagi). Trieste: Societa Preistoria Protostoria Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 8, pp. 63–72.

Boschian, G. 2006. Geoarchaeology of Pupicina cave. In Prehistoric Herders in Istria (Croatia): The

Archaeology of Pupicina Cave, Vol. 1 (eds P. T. Miracle and S. Forenbaher). Pula: ArchaeologicalMuseum of Istria.

Boschian, G. and Miracle, P. T. 2008. Shepherds and caves in the Karst of Istria (Croatia). InProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Soils and Archaeology (ed. G. Boschian). AttiSocieta toscana Scienze naturali, Mem., Serie A, 112(2007), pp. 173–80.

Boschian, G. and Montagnari-Kokelj, E. 2000. Prehistoric shepherds and caves in the Trieste Karst(Northeastern Italy). Geoarchaeology, 15(4): 331–71.

Brewer, R. 1976. Fabric and Mineral Analysis of Soils. New York: Robert E. Krieger.

Brochier, J.-E. 1983. Bergeries et feux de bois neolithiques dans le Midi de la France: caracterisation

et incidence sur le raisonnement sedimentologique. Quartar, 33–4: 119–35.

Brochier, J.-E. 1988. Sedimentologie, environnement et activites humaines du Neolithique aux temps

historiques: les sediments anthropiques de l’abri de Fontjuvenal. In Six millenaires d’historie del’environnement: etude interdisciplinaire de l’abri sous roche de Font-Juvenal (Conques sur L’Aude)Toulouse: Centre d’anthropologie des societes rurales, pp. 20–30.

Brochier, J.-E. 1991. Geoarcheologie du monde agropastoral. In Pour une archeologie agraire (ed.J. Guilaine). Paris: A. Colin, pp. 303–22.

Brochier, J.-E. 1995. Estudi geoarqueologic dels diposits holocens de la Balma de la Margineda:capes 1 a 6. In Les excavacions a la Balma de la Margineda (1979–1991) (eds J. Guilaine andM. Martzluf). Andorra: Edicions del Govern d’Andorra, pp. 56–90.

Brochier, J. E. 2002. Les sediments anthropiques: methodes d’etude et perspectives. In Geologie dela Prehistoire: methodes, techniques, applications, 2nd edn (ed. J.-C. Miskovswi). Paris: Geopre,pp. 453–77.

Brochier, J. E. and Claustre, F. 1994. Le parcage des bovins et le probleme des litieres du Neolithiquefinal a l’Age du Bronze dans la Grotte de Belesta. In XXIVe Congres Prehistorique de France:

Habitats, economies et societes du Nord-Ouest mediterranneen (Carcassonne, 26–30 Septembre 1994),pp. 27–36.



Brochier, J.-E., Villa, P. and Giacomarra, M. 1992. Shepherds and sediments: geo-ethnoarchaeology

of pastoral sites. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 11: 47–102.

Brochier, J. E., Claustre, F. and Heinz, C. 1998. Environmental impact of Neolithic and Bronze

Age farming in the eastern Pyrenees forelands, based on multidisciplinary investigations at La Caunede Belesta (Belesta Cave), near Perpignan, France. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 7: 1–9.

Bullock, P. N., Fedoroff, N., Jongerius, G. J., Stoops, G., Tursina, T. and Babel, U. (eds) 1985.

Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research.

Cabanes, D., Burjachs, F., Exposito, I., Rodrıguez, A., Allue, E., Euba, I. and Verges, J. M. 2007.

Formation processes through archaeobotanical remains: the case of the Bronze Age levels in ElMirador cave, Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain. Quaternary International, 193(1–2): 160–73.

Cabanilles, J. J., Martınez Valle, R., Badal Garcıa, E., Orozco Kholer, T. and Verdasco Cebrian, C.2005. Un aprisco bajo abrigo en el yacimiento eneolıtico de ‘El Cinto Mariano’ (Requena, Valencia).In Actas del III Congreso del Neolıtico en la Penınsula Iberica (eds P. Arias, R. Ontanon and C.Garcıa Monco). Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 167–74.

Caceres, I., Lozano,M. and Saladie, P. 2007. Evidence for Bronze Age cannibalism in ElMirador cave(Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 133: 899–917.

Carbonell, E., Bermudez de Castro, J. M., Pares, J. M., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Cuenca-Bescos, G.,Olle, A., Mosquera, M., Huguet, R., van der Made, J., Rosas, A., Sala, R., Vallverdu, J., Garcıa, N.,

Granger, D. E., Martinon-Torres, M., Rodrıguez, X. P., Stock, G. M., Verges, J. M., Allue, E.,Burjachs, F., Caceres, I., Canals, A., Benito, A., Dıez, C., Lozano, M., Mateos, A., Navazo, M.,Rodrıguez, J., Rosell, J. and Arsuaga, J. L. 2008. The first hominin of Europe. Nature, 452: 465–9.

Carrancho, A., Villalaın, J. J., Vallverdu, J., Angelucci, D. E. and Verges, J. M. 2006. Estudio de laspropiedades magneticas de estructuras de combustion arqueologicas: la Cueva del Mirador (Sierrade Atapuerca, Burgos). Actas de la Va Asamblea Hispano-Portuguesa de Geodesia y Geofısica

(Sevilla, Spain). CD-rom edition.

Courty, M.-A. and Wattez, J. 1987. Morphology of ash of some plant materials. In Soil

Micromorphology (eds N. Fedoroff, L. M. Bresson and M. A. Courty). Paris: Association Francaisepour l’Etude du Sol, pp. 677–83.

Courty, M.-A., Goldberg, P. and Macphail, R. I. 1989. Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Courty, M.-A., Macphail, R. andWattez, J. 1992. Soil micromorphological indicators of pastoralism:

with special reference to Arene Candide, Finale Ligure, Italy. In Archeologia della Pastorizianell’EuropaMeridionale (edsR.Maggi, R.Nisbet andG. Barker).Rivista di Studi Liguri, 2(57): 127–50.

Delhon, C., Martin, L., Argant, J. and Thiebault, S. 2008. Shepherds and plants in the Alps: multi-proxy archaeobotanical analysis of neolithic dung from ‘La Grande Rivoire’ (Isere, France). Journalof Archaeological Science, 35: 2937–52.

Fernandez, J. 2008. Establos de cronologıa neolıtica en la Rioja alavesa. In Actas del IV Congreso delNeolıtico Peninsular (eds M. S. Hernandez, J. A. Soler and J.A. Lopez). Alicante: MARQ (MuseoArqueologico de Alicante) and Diputacion de Alicante, pp. 361–7.

Forenbaher, S. and Vranjican Pandzic, P. 1985. Vagana�cka pecina. Opvscvla Archaeologica, Papersof the Department of Archaeology, University of Zagreb, 10(1): 1–21.

Garcıa Puchol, O. and Aura Tortosa, J. E. (eds) 2006. El abric de La Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant): 8000anos de ocupacion humana en la cabecera del rıo de Alcoi. Alicante: Diputacion de Alicante,Ayuntamiento de Alcoy y Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo.

Goldberg, P. and Macphail, R. I. 2006. Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Oxford: BlackwellScience.

Harris, E. C. 1979. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press.



Helmer, D. 1984. Le parcage des moutons et des chevres au Neolithique ancien et moyen dans le

sud de France. In Animals and Archaeology, Vol. 3, Early Herders and their Flocks (eds J.Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 202,pp. 39–45.

Iaconis, M. A. and Boschian, G. 2008. Geoarchaeology of the deposits of Grotta dei Piccioni andGrotta Sant’Angelo (Abruzzo, Central Italy). In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference onSoils and Archaeology (ed. G. Boschian). Atti Societa toscana Scienze naturali, Mem., Serie A,

112(2007): 181–8.

Kozlowski, S. K. and Dalmeri, G. 2002. Riparo Gaban: the Mesolithic layers. Preistoria Alpina, 36:

3–42.

Macphail, R., Courty, M.-A., Hather, J., Wattez, J., Ryder, M., Cameron, N. and Branch, N. P.

1997. The soil micromorphological evidence of domestic occupation and stabling activities. In AreneCandide: A Functional and Environmental Assessment of the Holocene Sequence (ExcavationsBernabo Brea-Cardini 1940–50) (eds R. Maggi, E. Starnini and B. Voytek). Memorie Istituto ItalianoPaleontologia Umana, 5: 53–88.

Moore, R. C. 1949. Meaning of facies. In Sedimentary Facies in Geological History (ed. C. R.Longwell). Geological Society America Memoir, 39: 1–34.

Oms, X., Bargallo, A., Chaler, M., Fontanals, M., Garcıa, M. S., Lopez, J. M., Morales, J. I.,Nievas, T., Rodrıguez, A., Serra, J., Sole, A. and Verges, J. M. 2008. La cova Colomera (Sant Esteve

de la Sarga, Lleida), una cueva-redil en el Prepirineo de Lerida: primeros resultados y perspectivas defuturo. In Actas del IV Congreso del Neolıtico Peninsular (eds M. S. Hernandez, J. A. Soler and J. A.Lopez). Alicante: MARQ (Museo Arqueologico de Alicante) and Diputacion de Alicante, pp. 230–6.

Polo Dıaz, A. and Fernandez Eraso, J. 2007. Aportacion de la micromorfologıa a la determinacionde los rediles prehistoricos en el Alto Valle del Ebro: el caso del Neolıtico de Los Husos II (El Villar,Alava). In Contribuciones al Estudio del Periodo Cuaternario (eds J. Lario and P. G. Silva). Avila:

AEQUA, pp. 119–20.

Rasmussen, P. 1989. Leaf-foddering of livestock in the Neolithic: archaeobotanical evidence from

Weir, Switzerland. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 8: 51–71.

Rasmussen, P. 1993. Analysis of goat/sheep faeces from Egolzwil 3, Switzerland: evidence for branchand twig foddering of livestock in the Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20: 479–502.

Schiegl, S., Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O. and Weiner, S. 1996. Ash deposits in Hayonim and KebaraCaves, Israel: macroscopic, microscopic and mineralogical observations, and their archaeological

implications. Journal of Archaeological Science, 23: 763–81.

Schuldenrein J. 2001. Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and site formation at Konispol Cave, Southwest

Albania. Geoarchaeology, 16(5): 559–602.

Shahack-Gross, R., Albert, R. M., Gilboa, A., Nagar-Hilman, O., Sharon, I. and Weiner, S. 2005.Geoarchaeology in an urban context: the uses of space in a Phoenician monumental building at Tel

Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science, 32: 1417–31.

Sordoillet, D., Chiquet, P., Piguet-Wernli, M., Treffort, J.-M. and Voruz, J.-L. 2008. Anthropic

sediments from Neolithic to Iron Age settlements: interpretation according to micromorphological,archaeozoological and archaeological data. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference onSoils and Archaeology (ed. G. Boschian). Atti Societa toscana Scienze naturali, Mem., Serie A,

112(2007): 165–71.

Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith Thin Sections. Madison,WI: Soil Science Society of America.

Verdasco C. 2001. Depositos naturales de cueva alterados: estudio microsedimentologico deacumulaciones producidas en el neolıtico valenciano por la estabulacion de ovicapridos. Cuaternario

& Geomorfologıa, 15(3–4): 85–94.



Verges, J. M. 2008. La combustion del estiercol: aproximacion experimental a la quema en monton

de los depositos de redil. In II Congreso Internacional de Arqueologıa Experimental: Abstracts (eds A.Morgado, J. Baena and D. Garcıa), 26–8 November, Ronda, pp. 73–5.

Verges, J. M., Allue, E., Angelucci, D. E., Cebria, A., Dıez. C., Fontanals, M., Manyanos, A.,Montero, S., Moral, S., Vaquero, M. and Zaragoza, J. 2002. La Sierra de Atapuerca durante elHoloceno: datos preliminares sobre las ocupaciones de la Edad del Bronce en la Cueva de ElMirador (Ibeas de Juarros, Burgos). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 59(1): 107–26.

Verges, J. M., Allue, E., Angelucci, D. E., Burjachs, F., Carrancho, A., Cebria, A., Exposito, I.,Fontanals, M., Moral, S., Rodrıguez, A. and Vaquero, M. 2008. Los niveles neolıticos de la cueva de

El Mirador (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos): nuevos datos sobre la implantacion y el desarrollo de laeconomıa agropecuaria en la submeseta norte. In Actas del IV Congreso del Neolıtico Peninsular (edsM. S. Hernandez, J. A. Soler and J. A. Lopez). Alicante: MARQ (Museo Arqueologico de Alicante)

and Diputacion de Alicante, pp. 418–27.

Zazo, C., Goy, J. L. and Hoyos, M. 1983. Estudio geomorfologico de los alrededores de la Sierra deAtapuerca. Estudios Geologicos, 39: 179–85.

Diego E. Angelucci, geoarchaeologist, is Associate Professor of Methodology of

Archaeological Research at the University of Trento (Italy). He has mostly developed

his research in Italy, Spain and Portugal, analysing the archaeology, formation processes

and environmental context of prehistoric and historical archaeological sites.

Giovanni Boschian, anthropologist and geoarchaeologist, is a researcher at the Department

of Archaeological Science of the University of Pisa (Italy). His main interests are human

ecology of the Pleistocene hunter-gatherers and of the early Holocene farmers, cave site

sedimentology/micromorphology and formation processes.

Marta Fontanals is developing her work in experimental archaeology at URV (Universitat

Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain). Her research is focused on the Pleistocene–Holocene

transition, and she is currently coordinating fieldwork at several Mesolithic and Neolithic

sites located in the Mediterranean area of the Iberian Peninsula.

Annaluisa Pedrotti is Associate Professor of Prehistory and Protohistory at the University of

Trento (Italy).Hermain activities dealwith theNeolithic andCopperAge in theAlpine region

and Northern Italy, with particular interest in the study of the cultural framework, the

settlement system, the funerarypractices and rawmaterial procurement. She isamemberof the

Commission 14 ‘Civilisations neolithiques de la Mediterranee et de l’Europe’ of UISSP. In

2001 and 2004–7 she was coordinator of the Culture 2000 EU project ‘Alps before frontiers’.

Josep Maria Verges is researcher at IPHES (Institut Catala de Paleoecologia Humana i

Evolucio Social) and associate professor at URV. His research work is mainly centred on the

characterization of the processes involved in the deformation of lithic surfaces. Since 1999 he

has been coordinating the excavation at El Mirador.



Shepherds and karst: the use of caves and rock-shelters in the Mediterranean region during the...

Documents

Transcript of Shepherds and karst: the use of caves and rock-shelters in the Mediterranean region during the...