Shell Fragmentation Beyond Screen-Size and the Reconstruction of Intra-Site Settlement Patterns: A Case Study from the West Coast of South Africa

Chapter

Abstract

Zooarchaeologists normally screen shell remains through stacked meshes of different sizes to assess the degree of fragmentation of this material. This kind of quantification serves the purpose of characterizing stratigraphic sequences and reconstructing intra-site settlement patterns and site formation processes. However, screening can be time consuming, add an additional step to the processing of faunal remains, and pose complexities when storing shell samples. Moreover, it is not always clear whether the interpretations of changes in shell fragmentation in terms of behavioral patterns are well justified without contrasting them against independent evidence.

This chapter presents an alternative proxy-measure of shell fragmentation without screening and by relying on the quantification of diagnostic shell parts that are in two different states of preservation. The case study in question is based on the South African black mussel (Choromytilus meridionalis), one of the most common species of molluscs observed in South African West Coast shell middens. The results show that, in the absence of major taphonomic alterations that can substantially modify the chemistry of a shell matrix (e.g., burning and dissolution) and therefore increase their vulnerability to breakage, low levels of shell fragmentation correlate with higher deposition rates resulting from longer visits. This behavioral inference is supported by independent quantitative data on material culture. On the other hand, shell fragmentation does not seem to depend on shell density or the original shell size, at least within the range of shell sizes considered in this case study. Changes in the percentage of black mussels among other taxa may be a minor but contributing factor in black mussel preservation, but this is yet to be determined with further studies. Insights into intra-site settlement patterns and characterization of regional settlement patterns may be gained through the comparison of shell fragmentation data from several sites. This analytical approach can be applied to other mollusc species and in different geographic and cultural contexts within South Africa and elsewhere in the world.

Keywords

Shell taphonomy Shell preservation Choromytilus meridionalis Shell middens Elands Bay 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Excavations at Pancho’s Kitchen Midden and subsequent analyses were co-funded by the SWAN FUND (Oxford University), a Center for Science Development (South Africa) grant to the Spatial Archaeology Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, and a University of Cape Town field work grant to the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cape Town. I am very grateful to Mr. T. Smit for allowing our team to undertake fieldwork in his farm of Verlorenvlei and to R. Yates for his support in the field, interest, and discussion of results over the years. Many thanks to P. Faulkner for sourcing bibliography not available locally and to two anonymous referees for their useful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. Any errors are my own. Francesc Conesa kindly compiled Fig. 8.1 and greatly assisted with Fig. 8.4. I am very grateful to George Branch for generously sharing a photograph of a Choromytilus meridionalis shell. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to P. Bardone, J. Du Toit, N. Erlank, U. Evans, G. Hall, S. Hall, A. Leatt, M. Loopuyt, A. Manhire, L. Manning, B. Mütti, R. Nackerdien, A. Neale, P. Nilssen, J. Plantinga, J. Reynard, K. Sadr and E. Wahl for their help in various excavation seasons.

References

  1. Ash, J., Faulkner, P., Brady, L. M., & Rowe, C. (2013). Morphometric reconstructions and size variability analysis of the surf clam, Atactodea (= Paphies) striata, from Muralag 8, southwestern Torres Strait, northern Australia. Australian Archaeology, 77, 82–93.Google Scholar
  2. Balbo, A. L., Madella, M., Vila, A., & Estévez, J. (2010). Micromorphological perspectives on the stratigraphical excavation of shell middens: A first approximation from the ethnohistorical site Tunel VII, Tierra del Fuego (Argentina). Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 1252–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan, W. (1985). Middens and mussels: An archaeological enquiry. The South African Journal of Science, 81, 15–16.Google Scholar
  4. Cannon, A. (2013). Revealing the hidden dimensions of Pacific Northwest Coast shell middens. In G. Bailey, K. Hardy, & A. Camara (Eds.), Shell energy: Mollusc shells as coastal resources (pp. 21–34). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  5. Chase, B., & Meadows, M. (2007). Late Quaternary dynamics of southern Africa’s winter rainfall zone. Earth-Science Reviews, 84, 103–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claassen, C. (1998). Shells. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Conard, N. J., Walker, S. J., & Kandel, A. W. (2008). How heating and cooling and wetting and drying can destroy dense faunal elements and lead to differential preservation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 266, 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Driscoll, E. G., & Weltin, T. P. (1973). Sedimentary parameters as factors in abrasive shell reduction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 13(4), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faulkner, P. (2010). Morphometric and taphonomic analysis of granular ark (Anadara granosa) dominated shell deposits of Blue Mud Bay, northern Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 1942–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faulkner, P. (2011). Quantifying shell weight loss in archaeological deposits. Archaeology in Oceania, 46, 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ford, P. J. (1989). Molluscan assemblages from archaeological deposits. Geoarchaeology, 4, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ford, P. J. (1992). Interpreting grain size distributions of archaeological shell. In J. Stein (Ed.), Deciphering a shell midden (pp. 283–325). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Giovas, C. M. (2009). The shell game: Analytic problems in archaeological mollusc quantification. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 1557–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gutiérrez-Zugastí, F. I. (2011). Shell fragmentation as a tool for quantification and identification of taphonomic processes in archaeomalacological analysis: The case of the Cantabrian region (Northern Spain). Archaeometry, 53(3), 614–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, M., Weisler, M., & Faulkner, P. (2015). A refined protocol for calculating MNI in archaeological molluscan shell assemblages: A Marshall Islands case study. Journal of Archaeological Science, 57, 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogg, A. G., Hua, Q., Blackwell, P. G., Niu, M., Buck, C. E., Guilderson, T. P., et al. (2013). SHCal13 Southern hemisphere calibration, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 55(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, R. A. (2006). From midden to sieve: The impact of differential recovery and quantification techniques on interpretations of shellfish remains in Australian Coastal Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  18. Jerardino, A. (1995). The problem with density values in archaeological analysis: A case study from Tortoise Cave, Western Cape, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 50(161), 21–27.Google Scholar
  19. Jerardino, A. (1997). Changes in shellfish species composition and mean shell size from a late-Holocene record of the West Coast of southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24, 1031–1044.Google Scholar
  20. Jerardino, A. (1998). Excavations at Pancho’s Kitchen Midden, Western Cape coast, South Africa: Further observations into the megamidden period. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 53, 17–25.Google Scholar
  21. Jerardino, A. (2007). Excavations at a hunter-gatherer site known as ‘Grootrif G’ shell midden, Lamberts Bay, Western Cape Province. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 62(186), 162–170.Google Scholar
  22. Jerardino, A. (2010). Large shell middens in Lamberts Bay, South Africa: A case of hunter-gatherer resource intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 2291–2302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jerardino, A. (2012). Large shell middens and hunter-gatherer resource intensification along the West Coast of South Africa: The Elands Bay case study. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 7, 76–101.Google Scholar
  24. Jerardino, A. (2014). Stranded rocky shore mussels and their possible procurement during prehistory on the West Coast of South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 49, 536–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jerardino, A. (2016). Shell density as proxy for reconstructing prehistoric aquatic resource exploitation and transport, perspectives from southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 6, 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jerardino, A., & Navarro, R. (2008). Shell morphometry of seven limpet species from coastal shell middens in southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 1023–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jerardino, A., & Swanepoel, N. (1999). Painted slabs from Steenbokfontein Cave: The oldest known parietal art in southern Africa. Current Anthropology, 40(4), 542–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jerardino, A., & Yates, R. (1996). Preliminary results from excavations at Steenbokfontein Cave: Implications for past and future research. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 51(163), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jerardino, A., Fort, J., Isern, N., & Rondelli, B. (2014). Cultural diffusion was the main driving mechanism of the Neolithic transition in southern Africa. PLOS ONE, 9(12), e113672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113672.
  30. Lyman, R. L. (2008). Quantitative paleozoology. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maggs, T., & Speed, E. (1967). Bonteberg Shelter. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 22(87), 80–93.Google Scholar
  32. Malan, A., Webley, L., Halkett, D., & Hart, T. (2013). People and places on the West Coast since AD 1600. In A. Jerardino, A. Malan, & D. Braun (Eds.), The Archaeology of the West Coast of South Africa (pp. 124–142). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  33. Marshall, L. (1976). The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mowat, F. M. (1994). Size really does matter: Factors affecting shell fragmentation. In M. Sullivan, S. Brockwell, & A. Webb (Eds.), Archaeology in the North: Proceedings of the 1993 Australian Archaeological Association conference (pp. 201–210). Darwin: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  35. Muckle, R. J. (1985). Archaeological considerations of bivalve shell taphonomy. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.Google Scholar
  36. Muckle, R. J. (1994). Differential recovery of mollusk shell from archaeological sites. Journal of Field Archaeology, 21, 129–131.Google Scholar
  37. Noah, J. (2007). Application of a predictive method for estimating length from shell attributes: A case study from Argenvillei’s limpet(Scutellastra argenvillei). Unpublished B.Sc. Honours thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  38. Peacock, E. (2000). Assessing bias in archaeological shell assemblages. Journal of Field Archaeology, 27(2), 183–196.Google Scholar
  39. Rick, T. (2002). Eolian processes, ground cover, and the archaeology of coastal dunes: A taphonomic case study from San Miguel Island, California, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology, 17(8), 811–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shiner, J. S., Fanning, P. C., Holdaway, S. J., Petchey, F., Beresford, C., Hoffman, E., et al. (2013). Shell mounds as the basis for understanding human-environment interaction in far north Queensland, Australia. Queensland Archaeological Research, 16, 65–91.Google Scholar
  41. Silberbauer, G. (1965). Report to the Government of Bechuanaland on the Bushman survey. Gaberones: Bechuanaland Government.Google Scholar
  42. Stein, J. K. (1992). Deciphering a shell midden. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  43. Stein, J. K., Deo, J. N., & Phillips, L. S. (2003). Big sites-short time: Accumulation rates in archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30(3), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waselkov, G. A. (1987). Shellfish gathering and shell midden archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 10, 93–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wessa, P. (2015). Free statistics software, Office for Research Development and Education, version 1.1.23-r7. Retrieved from http://www.wessa.net/.
  46. Yellen, J. E. (1977). Archaeological approaches to the present. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  47. Zuschin, M., & Stanton, R. J. (2001). Experimental measurement of shell strength and its taphonomic interpretation. PALAIOS, 16, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zuschin, M., Stachowitsch, M., & Stanton, R. J. (2003). Patterns and processes of shell fragmentation in modern and ancient marine environments. Earth-Science Reviews, 63(1–2), 33–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, School of HumanitiesUniversity of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Philosophical and Historical InquiryUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations