Search

Excavations at the cave site of Xianrendong (Jiangxi Province, China) recovered the earliest known pottery (20/19,000 cal bp) in the world from a typical South China Upper Paleolithic chopper–chopping tool assemblage together with bone, antler, and shell tools. Here, we present the results of micromorphological and preliminary FTIR analysis of the deposits looking at high-resolution evidence of site formation processes, stratigraphic integrity, and spatial use of the site. The excavations in the cave can be divided into two areas, east and west. We demonstrate that the contexts of the micromorphological samples from both areas show negligible disturbances within the deposits, thus supporting the stratigraphic integrity of the radiocarbon samples used to date the pottery and site sequence. We also find differences in the formation processes between the east and west areas, including evidence of anthropogenic activities such as usage of hearths and dumping areas and differing geogenic inputs during the depositional history of each area. This study, the first of its kind for a Chinese Upper Paleolithic cave site, demonstrates the advantages of the systematic use of geoarchaeological methods (micromorphology and FTIR) for reconstructing human activities and site use and their environmental contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors present an example of close field collaboration among prehistorians and researchers from different disciplines (particularly the geosciences), within the context of a long program of interdisciplinary research at the caves of Kebara and Hayonim (Israel). We outline the benefits brought about by the presence of different specialists being in the field during the excavation over long periods. Specifically, daily collaboration in the field during the excavation brings about: (1) A consensus of choice of strategic areas to excavate, either at the beginning of the project or during successive field campaigns, while taking into account the needs and goals of different specialists and their needs in taking samples; (2) A meeting of different points of view with many discussions of stratigraphy and site formation processes, which in caves are quite complex; (3) A unification of specialized vocabulary and jargon specific to each discipline by constant interaction in the field, which in turn facilitates communication among specialists; (4) A positive didactic element in training doctoral students in the field. This interdisciplinary strategy is more or less widespread now, but it was not the case in the early 1980s, and actual integration of results from the sciences (particularly the geosciences) came about only fairly recently. Without doubt, the awareness of the importance of such interdisciplinary archaeological data for discussing archaeological issues has ultimately paved the way for active interdisciplinary collaboration sprouting from the fieldwork, and has led to the generation of more robust and accurate interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]