Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:51:37.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The social construction of caves and rockshelters: Chauvet Cave (France) and Nawarla Gabarnmang (Australia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Jean-Jacques Delannoy ,
Bruno David ,
Jean-Michel Geneste ,
Margaret Katherine ,
Bryce Barker ,
Ray L. Whear  and
Robert G. Gunn
Jean-Jacques Delannoy
Affiliation:
1Laboratoire EDYTEM, Université de Savoie, F-73376 Le Bourget du Lac cedex, France (Email: jean-jacques.delannoy@univ-savoie.fr)
Bruno David
Affiliation:
2Programme for Australian Indigenous Archaeology, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia (Email: bruno.david@monash.edu)
Jean-Michel Geneste
Affiliation:
3Centre National de Préhistoire, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, UMR PACEA, Université de Bordeaux 1, 24000 Périgueux, France (Email: jean-michel.geneste@culture.gouv.fr)
Margaret Katherine
Affiliation:
4Jawoyn Association Aboriginal Corporation, Pandanus Plaza, First Street, PO Box 371, Katherine, Northern Territory 0851, Australia (Email: ray.whear@jawoyn.org)
Bryce Barker
Affiliation:
5School of Humanities and Communication, Public Memory Centre, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia (Email: bryce.barker@usq.edu.au)
Ray L. Whear
Affiliation:
4Jawoyn Association Aboriginal Corporation, Pandanus Plaza, First Street, PO Box 371, Katherine, Northern Territory 0851, Australia (Email: ray.whear@jawoyn.org)
Robert G. Gunn
Affiliation:
6329 Mt Dryden Road, Lake Lonsdale, Victoria 3381, Australia (Email: gunnb@activ8.net.au)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Caves and rockshelters are a key component of the archaeological record but are often regarded as natural places conveniently exploited by human communities. Archaeomorphological study shows however that they are not inert spaces but have frequently been modified by human action, sometimes in ways that imply a strong symbolic significance. In this paper the concept of ‘aménagement’, the re-shaping of a material space or of elements within it, is applied to Chauvet Cave in France and Nawarla Gabarnmang rockshelter in Australia. Deep within Chauvet Cave, fallen blocks were moved into position to augment the natural structure known as The Cactus, while at Nawarla Gabarnmang, blocks were removed from the ceiling and supporting pillars removed and discarded down the talus slope. These are hence not ‘natural’ places, but modified and socially constructed.

Keywords

Chauvet CaveNawarla Gabarnmangrockshelterarchaeomorphologyaménagementgeomorphological mappingrock art
Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 87 , Issue 335 , March 2013 , pp. 12 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2013

References

Burns, J.A. 2005. What about behavior? Methodological implications for rockshelter excavation and spatial analysis. North American Archaeologist 26: 267–82.Google Scholar
Carson, L.J., Haines, P.W., Brakel, A., Pietsch, B.A. & Ferenczi, P.A.. 1999. Milingimbi SD53-2, 1:250 000 geological map series explanatory notes. Darwin: Northern Territory Geological Survey.Google Scholar
Casey, E. 1993. Getting back into place: toward a renewed understanding of the place-world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. (ed.) 2001. La grotte Chauvet: l'art des origines. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
David, B., Geneste, J.-M., Whear, R.L., Delannoy, J.-J., Katherine, M., Gunn, R.G., Clarkson, C., Plisson, H., Lee, P., Petchey, F., Rowe, C., Barker, B., Lamb, L., Miller, W., Hoerlé, S., James, D., Boche, E., Aplin, K., Mcniven, I.J., Richards, T., Fairbairn, A. & Matthews, J.. 2011. Nawarla Gabarnmang, a 45,180 ± 910 cal BP site in Jawoyn country, south-west Arnhem Land plateau. Australian Archaeology 73: 73–77.Google Scholar
Delannoy, J.-J., Debard, E., Ferrier, C., Kervazo, B. & Perrette, Y.. 2001. Contribution de la cartographie morphologique souterraine dans l'étude spéléogénique de la grotte Chauvet: implications paléogéographiques, préhistoriques et paléontologiques. Quaternaire 12: 235–48.Google Scholar
Delannoy, J.-J., Perrette, Y., Debard, E., Ferrier, C., Kervazo, B., Perroux, A.S., Jaillet, S. & Quinif, Y.. 2004. Intérêt de l'approche morphogénique pour la compréhension globale d'une grotte à haute valeur patrimoniale: la grotte Chauvet (France). Karstologia 44: 25–42.Google Scholar
Delannoy, J.-J., Geneste, J.-M., Jaillet, S., Boche, E. & Sadier, B.. 2012. Les aménagements et structures anthropiques de la grotte Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc (France): apports d'une approche intégrative géomorpho-archéologique. Collection EDYTEM 13: 43–62.Google Scholar
Geneste, J.-M., David, B., Plisson, H., Delannoy, J.-J. & Petchey, F.. 2012. The origins of ground-edge axes: new findings from Nawarla Gabarnmang, Arnhem Land (Australia) and global implications for the evolution of fully modern humans. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22: 1–17.Google Scholar
Genty, D., Ghaleb, B., Plagnes, V., Causse, C., Valladas, H., Blamart, D., Massault, M., Geneste, J.-M. & Clottes, J.. 2004. Datations U/Th (TIMS) et 14C (AMS) des stalagmites de la grotte Chauvet (Ardèche, France): intérêt pour la chronologie des événements naturels et anthropiques de la grotte. Comptes Rendus Palevol 3: 629–42.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heydari, S. 2007. The impact of geology and geomorphology on cave and rockshelter archaeological site formation, preservation and distribution in the Zagros Mountains of Iran. Geoarchaeology 22: 653–69.Google Scholar
Hughes, P.J. 1977. A geomorphological interpretation of selected archaeological sites in southern coastal New South Wales. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25: 152–74.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joly, F. 1977. Point de vue sur la géomorphologie. Annales de Géographie 86: 522–41.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1965. Préhistoire de l'art occidental. Paris: Mazenod.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. 2010. Art pariétal: grottes ornées du Quercy. Rodez: Éditions du Rouergue.Google Scholar
Quinif, Y. 2010. Fantômes de roche et fantômisation. Essai sur un nouveau paradigme de karstogénèse (Karstologia Mémoires 18). Mons: Y. Quinif.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1976. Behavioral archeology. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Theunissen, R., Balme, J. & Beck, W.. 1998. Headroom and human trampling: cave ceiling-height determines the spatial patterning of stone artefacts at Petzkes Cave, northern New South Wales. Antiquity 72: 80–89.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2008. Archaeology, landscape, and dwelling, in David, B. & Thomas, J. (ed.) Handbook of landscape archaeology: 300–306. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Tuan, Y.-F. 1977. Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Valladas, H. & Clottes, J.. 2003. Style, Chauvet and radiocarbon. Antiquity 77: 142–45.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M. 2008. The Chaco experience: landscape and ideology at the center place. Santa Fe (NM): School of Advanced Research Press.Google Scholar