![]()
PART I
Judith C. Shackleton
![]()
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction The Site and the Methodology
Though bioarchaeological studies are not new (e.g., Clark 1954), their impact, in some areas, has taken a long time to be felt. In Greece, with its long history of exploration of Classical and Bronze Age sites (and reliance on Classical authors), it is perhaps less surprising that only recently have workers begun to incorporate biological studies in the general attempt to interpret excavated sites. In particular, few attempts have been made to utilize marine molluscan remains. The most influential exception has proved to be N. J. Shackletonâs (1968) study of the marine shell found at Saliagos, which has become a primary reference for all subsequent studies of Greek molluscan material. Generally speaking, however, such studies as have hitherto been published have tended to be of the checklist type (e.g., Gejvall 1969; Reese 1978). An approach such as that is less likely to throw light on past human activity than more integrated studies. In part this situation has arisen from archaeologistsâ reluctance or inability to involve their colleagues from other fields in the pursuit of archaeologically interesting problems. As a result, an increasing number of archaeologists themselves are working directly with faunal and botanical remains, and more integrated studies are now appearing. It is the intention of this report to use the marine molluscan remains found at Franchthi Cave as a medium through which to monitor human activity in the prehistoric past.
Marine shell usually preserves well and so has a high archaeological âvisibility.â As studies of marine shell proceeded, it was noted that vast quantities of shellfish were needed to provide the nutritional requirements of even a small group of people (Bailey 1975). Similarly, it was recognized that the presence of a few larger fish vertebrae from species such as tunny, or the odd seal bone, though inconspicuous, if not invisible, amongst heaps of shell, could indeed represent the major dietary contribution at a particular site. Consequently, the presence of a certain quantity of marine shell at a given site should not necessarily be seen as representing a quantitatively significant part of the prehistoric diet, nor does it readily contribute to an understanding of manâs past foraging strategies.
Recent studies have turned away from attempting straightforward estimates of the number of calories contributed by marine molluscs to the total diet. More effort has been devoted to lines of research such as determining the season at which shellfish were collected (N. J. Shackleton 1973; Deith 1983a). It is now recognized that, though shellfish may not play a substantial role in terms of the total diet of a group over a whole year, they may have had considerable importance in a particular season and so may have enabled the group to follow a specific living pattern or at least to do so with much greater security (Rowley-Conwy 1981). There is an increasing interest in understanding the reasons that underlie behavioral patterns, as perceived through the archaeological record. It is in such a framework that this study of the Franchthi marine shell has proceeded.
Since it very rapidly became apparent that none of the marine shell excavated at Franchthi Cave represented deposits which could be termed âmiddensâ and that there was a relatively small quantity of shell (about 64,000 were analyzed for this study), the main emphasis of the study has been to note changes in the molluscan assemblage through the history of the occupation of the cave and adjacent areas and to attempt to account for the patterns observed.
The method adopted here has been to reconstruct the shorelines for different points in time, together with information about coastal environments and molluscan habitats. This provides the baseline for establishing what was environmentally available if one wished to collect shellfish. With this anchor it is possible to compare the sequence of shell species actually found at the site with what might have been readily available from the adjacent coasts, and so monitor the extent to which selective gathering of shellfish can be observed. It then emerges that rarely did the inhabitants of Franchthi simply collect what was there to be picked up and eaten. This approach of shoreline reconstruction and comparison of postulated environmentally available options in relation to shellfish actually selected allows one to monitor selectivity in shellfish gathering and to put forward hypotheses to account for the observed gathering patterns.
One of the exciting dimensions of the excavation of Franchthi Cave has been the number of specialists working on a very wide range of materials, both artifactual and non-artifactual. Publication policy demands that the various studies be presented at this level, as this one is, in isolation from each other and from the interpretation of the site as a whole (cf. Jacobsen and Farrand 1987). That decision has affected the direction and scope of the ensuing report. Since the patterns of shellfish collecting cannot be put into the context of the use of the site as a whole, the material will be presented here as a discrete entity.
THE SITE
Franchthi Cave is located in the southern Argolid, Greece (Figure 1). The cave itself is at the end of a rocky headland (maximum elevation 176 m) at the entrance to Kiladha Bay on the Gulf of Argos, where the sea meets a steep, rocky shore just outside the entrance to the cave. However, for much of the occupation of the cave, the sea was some distance away from the site owing to a major lowering of sea level during the last glaciation. The cave is directly opposite the village of Kiladha and about five kilometers north-northwest of Kranidhi.
The cave itself is in Mesozoic limestone and is oriented northwest-southeast. It is more than 150 m in length and has a width at the mouth of about 30 m. The mouth of the cave is about 12.5 m above present sea level. At the very back of the cave is a small pool of brackish water. There are, and always have been throughout the occupation of the site, fresh water springs in the area, some of them below present sea level. During the history of the cave there have been several rockfalls, some of them severely affecting its configuration. The most impressive of these formed a âwindowâ in the roof of the cave near its center. There was also a series of brow collapses during the prehistoric occupation of the cave, at least one of which seems to have occurred in the Neolithic.
Excavations were carried out at the site between 1967 and 1976 by T. W. Jacobsen of Indiana University (Jacobsen 1969, 1973, 1976, 1979, 1984). As part of the work on these excavations the marine molluscs from the site were studied in six seasons over a period of 13 years, first by Nicholas J. Shackleton with my assistance in 1968, 1969, and 1973, and subsequently in 1979, 1980, and 1981 by me alone. Dr. Shackleton has generously made all his data available to me for the present study, but both the approach adopted and the interpretation put forward here are mine alone and no doubt have taken a turn different from the one he might have followed. In the initial season the molluscs were studied at the dig house in Porto Kheli, and in the following two seasons in Kiladha. Recently (1979-1981) the material was more favorably housed in Kranidhi and studied there. In 1983 the marine molluscan collection was transferred to the Nafplion Museum where it is now securely housed in rather cramped conditions.1
Figure 1. The location of Franchthi Cave in Greece (inset) and in the southern Argolid. Dashed line marks the area shown in Figures 8-13.
A sketch plan of the site (Figure 2) illustrates the position of the main trenches inside the cave and outside on the shore, the âParalia.â [For detailed plans of the site and the excavated areas, see Jacobsen and Farrand 1987. â EDITOR] The trenches selected for study inside the cave were those offering the longest sequences of marine shell, while outside those likely to provide the most informative material were chosen. The selection was also influenced by two other factors: whether at the time of the initial analyses the trench was thought to have a secure, undisturbed stratigraphy; and secondly, whether the material had been water-sieved.
As work progressed the significance of this second factor became increasingly clear. While the general importance of this method of handling excavated material has been discussed elsewhere (Payne 1972; Diamant 1979), Appendix A cites an example to illustrate the particular relevance of this method to the study of marine molluscs. The selected trenches were: H1A, H1B, FAS, and FAN, all inside the cave, and L5, 05, Q5S, Q5N, and QR5 outside the cave. It did not prove practical, for various reasons, to look at every excavated unit from all trenches selected (see Appendix C).
The final point I should like to make here may appear self-evident, but it has crucial importance in limiting the scope of this study. Marine shell contains no direct chronological information. In other words, a limpet is a limpet and, outside its find context, it cannot be dated without recourse to geochemical techniques. In practice, this has meant that it is necessary to work with large suites of excavated units at least approximately in stratigraphic sequence before changes in shellfish patterns could be confidently distinguished from background ânoise.â Since the stratigraphic sequence for the trenches selected inside the cave is approximately the same as the numerical sequence of excavated units, there is no major problem for those trenches. This good sequence has been used to establish the zonation of shell assemblages and their change with time. Unfortunately, the assemblages themselves cannot be used independently to establish stratigraphic sequences....
