In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

225 15 Caves and rockshelters represent highly specialized environments within broader cultural systems. Their occupation can be found in Asia during the Middle Pleistocene of China, and throughout Europe and North America. Though such locales can provide protection from the vicissitudes of the environment, many have more enigmatic functions as loci of ritual. It should be noted that dark zones of deep caves both in the Americas and in the Old World were not actually “occupied” in the mundane sense of the word; they are too dark and could only be lit by artificial means. To our knowledge prehistoric humans never used cave dark zones for habitation, though secular activities related to exploration and general curiosity can certainly leave ambiguous materials markers. In these spaces, the human fascination with subterranean environs frequently enters the realms of ritual and religion. By contrast, rockshelters, overhangs, and cave entrances frequently served more mundane purposes of residence and shelter, though they too served as spaces for ritual activities . As far as Upper Paleolithic caves in Europe and prehistoric caves in Mesoamerica are concerned, ceremonial interpretations have been legion. However, globally speaking , there is obviously no interpretive scheme that can be uniformly applied. As such, we will not generalize on cave and shelter utilization but we focus instead upon ceremonial activities traced in the prehistoric records of a specific wellresearched region. From the outset, one thing is clear: while ceremonial activities of various kinds were carried out at many such sites that were occupied, our problem is how to interpret the often tantalizingly fragmentary evidence. For this discussion we must first broadly define the difference between real caves and mere rockshelters or overhangs. Real caves such as Mammoth Cave in Kentucky or Lascaux in France are caverns hidden in extensive limestone massifs and plunged in perpetual darkness; rockshelters , on the other hand, are more or less extensive overhangs with access to light. Cognitive distinctions may not always be clear; some rockshelters are entrances to caves, and some caves have no overhang. The Prehistoric Evidence The present chapter deals with test cases from Ohio, which abounds in rockshelters as well as a few poorly investigated caverns. Our sample consists of more than 500 shelters and two caves that have been investigated in modern times. All of these are known to us; most of them yielded no unambiguous evidence of ceremonial activities of any kind. We have restricted this brief discussion to no more than thirtyeight sites which were extensively excavated by Olaf Prufer and his associates over a period of some 50 years (figure 15.1). In addition, there are many more or less anecdotal and completely outdated nineteenth-century as well as Ceremonial Use of Caves and Rockshelters in Ohio Olaf H. Prufer and Keith M. Prufer Olaf H. Prufer and Keith M. Prufer 226 verified. In the Archaic sample we can distinguish two patterns of disposal of skeletal remains: isolated dismembered bodies, bundles if you will, and mass burials of fragmentary groups of individuals thrown more or less haphazardly into the archaeological deposits. These materials are well dated. The most startling case derives from Hendricks Cave (Pedde and Prufer 2001), a deep cavern, actually a sinkhole in northwestern Ohio (figure 15.2). Here, in a dark chamber characterized by a fireplace, the floor was littered with 137 human skeletal elements representing at least fourteen individuals; some of the bones may have been altered (figlater amateur reports of “cave explorations.” These tend to be garbled, referring to, among other things, human mummies and textile remains associated with burials. Although some of these remains have been preserved, their nature is unclear, although we venture to guess that they represent some form of ceremonial activity. It should be noted that such cases are rare and that this vague “evidence” defies interpretation. With one exception—Hendricks Cave—all localities represent a chronological range of domestic occupations spanning the period from Late Paleoindian to historic times. Winter and summer occupations dominate, and the data for intensive domestic shelter utilization tend to be massive. Artifacts and other debris often count in the tens of thousands. At first glance evidence of ceremonial activities appears to be rare. Mortuary Practices Most of the ceremonialism associated with the disposal of human remains in Ohio caves and shelters seems to date from Late Archaic times (3500 to 1500 BC). Several dubious reports by looters and nonprofessionals allude to late prehistoric mortuary activities, but these cannot be Figure 15.1 Distribution of Ohio caves and...

Share