Archaeological Considerations

A total of 21 archaeological sites and their assemblages were included within the Gravettian archaeological analysis, and 72 within the Aurignacian analysis. Sites span the known geographical and chronological range of each cultural typology, and represent a variety of occupational events including long-term regional occupations, short-term hunting endeavours and in some instances single visit spiritual ceremonies.

Each site was assessed for its stratigraphic integrity to ensure the association of artefacts with the assemblage, focusing on aspects of the excavation such as length7, spit levels, sieve quality and size, artefact types and the post-excavation condition of artefacts and dating methodologies employed to determine site age (Trinkaus et al, 2000; Trinkaus et al, 2010; Wojtal, 2005)(Table 4.2). Such assessments are necessary if one is to understand the frequency/representative sample which form the interpretational basis of the behavioural model were recovered in: excavation length will allow for contrast between older and newer projects which employ widely different excavation techniques that will differ in the reliability and efficiency of artefact collection and recording; spit levels, sieve quality and size will yield some indication as to the quality of artefacts which were recovered during the

excavation as well as provide details on the length of occupation of each site. Interpretation of the length and type of occupation at each archaeological site has been inferred from the amount and type of artefacts found within each level of the site. The presence of artefacts,

7 _{Length is measured in the total number of years/seasons a site was subject to active excavation. Several sites}

included in the sample were excavated over several periods separated by periods of inactivity. Such periods of activity have not been included when compiling the estimated excavation length of an archaeological site.

especially of different morphologies, within different spit levels would support a conclusion of recurrent occupation; especially if occupation levels are interrupted by levels containing no traces of human occupation. Similarly, if multiple levels contain traces of human occupation without gaps in the record this would suggest that either the site was occupied for a long duration or that there was a high frequency of short term occupations. To distinguish between these two types of occupation events, the interpretation of the human and faunal record (if applicable) will be required to infer what types of activity may have occurred rather than simply rely upon the presence of stone tools and their morphology.

By taking note of these, and other, taphonomic variables one can begin to understand the overall context of the artefacts which form the foundation for subsequent behavioural interpretations. Tables 4.3 list the sites and criteria used to determine if they were suitable for all Upper Palaeolithic analyses. Due to the importance of the information contained within these tables which pertain to the reliability of each site for the subsequent analysis a

discussion of the data contained within it is warranted here.

Twelve variables are recorded which collectively can be employed to determine the reliability of the excavation conducted at each site and thus the reliability of the

archaeological assemble on which behavioural inferences are based upon. The final column of each table grades the reliability of each site included within this analysis, with higher graded sites being more reliable as a basis for behavioural inference than those which give a lower grade. „A‟ graded sites are considered reliable for behavioural interpretation based on their archaeological excavation history and methodologies; „B‟ sites, are suitable for

behavioural interpretation but have minor inconsistencies in their excavation history and methods; whilst „C‟ sites are adequate for behavioural interpretation but have several issues in the quality of their assemblages due to excavation methods and history. It has to be noted that this scale, though broadly ordinal in nature, relies upon the interpretations of the author

based upon the taphonomic data of each site and this grading scale is not intended to be a definitive marker of reliability but merely a tool employed to note that some sites employed within this analysis display greater assemblage quality than others.

Taphonomic variables which have been taken into consideration include total excavation period (measured in years), which provides indirect information on the overall quality of the methods employed at the site and where gaps between seasons occur may suggest that the site has been subject to various excavations that could have differed in quality; the number and depth of levels which were actively excavated at each site as well as the total area of excavation that will yield information on spatial controls, with large

excavations areas/level depths/sieves providing less resolution than smaller counterparts (Klima 1955, 1969; 1976a, 1976b; Zotz et al, 1955; Bosinski, 1968; Klein, 1973; Riek, 1973; Kozlowski, 1974, 1986; Muller-Beck, 1974; Albrecht et al, 1976; Hahn, 1977, 1978, 2000; Hahn et al, 1977; Otte, 1981; David, 1985; Soffer et al, 1993; Svoboda, 1993; Aldhouse- Green, 2000; Bosinski, 2000; Bowen et al, 2000; Djindjian, 2000; Lowe, 2000; Oliva, 2000a; Oliva, 2000b; Mussi, 2001; Pettitt, 2011).

Further information can be gained by noting the type of excavation which was undertaken at each site, and what the overall focus of each excavation was. By noting the focus of each excavation one determine further insights into the spatial controls employed at each site and also note which areas were given priority during the excavation process itself. Four categories have been used within this analysis: Grid, whereby the entire excavation area followed the standard grid referencing system with each grid reference being systematically excavated; Structure, where the excavation centred upon hearth and/or stone structures with excavations of surrounding areas employing a limited grid reference system in relation to the primary structure; Burial, like structure though centred upon interred human remains rather than hearths; the final category is Accidental and refers to sites which were discovered by

accident and excavated over a short period of time. Of these four categories, the grid reference system is most likely to provide a higher degree of spatial resolution and higher quality artefacts than accidental sites whose quality of data will limited. Structural and burial sites will fall between these two categories, with those employing a supported grid reference system of higher quality than those sites which do not. Finally, each site has been assessed as to whether it can provide reliable environmental/faunal/archaeological and dating information for its occupational layers on which to base behavioural interpretations upon. The quality of this archaeological information relies directly upon the quality of the excavations conducted at each site, and compiling these taphonomic variables one can determine how suitable sites are with regard to behavioural interpretation analysis.