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

1 2 3 There are two fundamental kinds of archaeological data: data derived from inspection of artifacts and data pertaining to the spatial relations among artifacts and between artifacts and features. Paleoindian archaeology relies heavily on the first of these. However, though detailed maps of the distributions of artifacts and features within many Paleoindian sites are common in the literature, systematic considerations of the implications of intrasite arrangements of artifacts and features are not. A substantial body of research, particularly ethnoarchaeological research, though, makes it clear that spatial data offer powerful insights to a wide array of topics, including both site formation processes and interpretations of patterns of human activity at a site. This chapter thus focuses on the horizontal and vertical spatial structure of the Allen site to (1) evaluate the degree of vertical and horizontal integrity of the site and (2) provide technological and other information on human activities there. It particularly emphasizes the vertical and horizontal distribution of hearths, artifacts, and refits between artifacts and the possibility that noncultural postdepositional processes contributed to this distribution. The patterns identified here, then, provide the framework that structures much of the discussion of specific classes of material culture in the chapters that follow. Like all other archaeological analysis, intrasite spatial analysis depends, first, on identifying patterns in archaeological data and, second, on drawing out the human implications of those patterns. Approaches to the first of these vary widely, ranging from simple inspection of maps of artifact distributions to a variety of quantitative modes of analysis (i.e., Binford 1978a; Carr 1984; Enloe et al. 1994; Koetje 1994; Thomas 1983; Vaquero and Pasto 2002; Yellen 1996). However, virtually all recent attempts to make meaning out of the patterns identified by these different kinds of analysis rely on generalizations about the structure of huntergatherer campsites generated by ethnoarchaeological research (particularly Binford 1978a; O’Connell 1987; Yellen 1977). Our discussion of the Allen site’s structure follows this pattern: we first consider the spatial patterning in the site and then turn to the ways in which ethnoarchaeological studies illuminate this patterning. The data section expands on the information presented by Bamforth et al. (2005); the ethnoarchaeological discussion parallels that presentation. In addition to addressing these issues, we also consider briefly some of the technological implications of the patterns identified by refitting. Methodology Our overall analysis is organized by the nine stratigraphic units defined in chapter 8 (see Table 8.1). It is important to note that these units are, in part, arbitrary vertical divisions of the site. However, they are constructed such that they follow the natural slope of the ancient living surfaces and therefore offer a finergrained division of the site than the three units defined by Holder and Wike (1949). It would also have been possible to structure our analyses in terms of individual excavation levels, the minimum vertical units into which the site can be divided. However, given that the site deposits slope naturally to the northeast and that the excavation units were flat, this seemed inappropriate ; the predominantly 4- to 6-in-thick units we rely Chapter 9 SPATIAL STRUCTURE AND REFITTING OF THE ALLEN SITE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE Douglas B. Bamforth and Mark Becker 124 / Chapter 9 on here provide a better match between the quality of the data available to us and the geomorphic structure of the site. We examined vertical and horizontal artifact distributions by (1) systematically refitting as much of the lithic assemblage as possible and (2) plotting artifact densities per stratigraphic unit (to examine vertical distributions) and 5-ft excavation grid units (to examine horizontal distributions). As discussed below, we also consider horizontal plots of artifact size to search for downslope sizesorting . The following sections outline these methods in more detail. Determining the Spatial Distribution of Artifacts Vertical Patterning Our analysis of the vertical distribution of material within the site focused both on hearths and on artifacts . The hearths offer especially important information on the stratigraphic distribution of material in the site, because, unlike artifacts, they can be damaged but not vertically displaced by such forces as rodent burrowing. The slope of the occupation surfaces at the site, and particularly differences in slope between Occupation Level (OL) 1 and OL 2 (see Figure 8.7), slightly complicates comparisons of the depths of artifacts and features in different parts of the site. Reliance on the nine stratigraphic units defined in chapter 8 eliminates some of this difficulty because these units follow the natural slope of the...

Share