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

6 Intrasite Spatial Analysis The analysis of the spatial distributions of artifacts has led to important insights concerning the spatial structure of several early prehistoric hunter-gatherer sites in North America. In particular, the analyses of the spatial distributions of stone artifacts on northeastern Paleo-Indian sites have been successful in identifying discrete clusters of artifacts. Moreover, these artifact clusters have been interpreted to represent the remains of short-term habitation episodes by small social groups (e.g., Gramly 1982; Grimes et al. 1984; Lothrop 1988; MacDonald 1968). In fact, the evidence of re¤tted broken artifacts among these clusters supports the possibility that different areas on the same site were contemporaneously occupied. It has been more dif¤cult to identify and interpret spatial patterning on early sites in the Southeast, however. This dif¤culty may be related, in part, to longer-term habitation or greater site reoccupation in the Southeast . In any event, spatial analyses have been conducted on only two Paleo-Indian sites in the Southeast: Thunderbird (Gardner 1974) and Harney Flats (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). Several Dalton and Early Archaic sites, however, have received attention, including Brand (Goodyear 1974), Haw River (Claggett and Cable 1982), Rucker’s Bottom (Anderson and Schuldenrein 1985), George S. Lewis (Anderson and Hanson 1988), and Rose Island (Kimball 1993). Attempts at spatial analysis on these sites have involved both visual inspection of artifact distributions as well as more formal, quantitative techniques. In this chapter I examine the spatial distributions of stone artifacts at Hardaway. ANALYTICAL APPROACHES The spatial analysis in this chapter has two parts. First, I compare simple density distributions of various artifact groups across the site. These artifact distributions include various tool groups (i.e., “functional classes”) as well as debitage and raw material classes. The primary purpose of the analysis is to represent the patterning of artifacts visually across the excavated block and to afford some basis for the identi¤cation of potential activity areas. Second, I analyze spatial distributions of the same functional classes using Whallon’s (1984) “unconstrained clustering” technique. This technique detects signi¤cant spatial variation and patterning in assemblage composition among grid squares across the site and avoids many of the questionable assumptions for which other techniques have been criticized (see Whallon 1984). To facilitate the analysis I have lumped all the artifact types described in Chapter 4 into eight “functional” categories. It is important to note, however, that while tool types with similar presumed functions have been combined into single categories, the term “functional” is not de¤ned solely by speci¤c tool uses. Rather, the term is employed in a broad fashion to include other factors (such as curation rates) that affect conditions under which a tool was made, used, and discarded. In this regard, the organizational categories outlined in Chapter 5 have been used to create the functional groupings. The resulting classes are described below. All point types and unidenti¤able point fragments have been combined under “projectile points.” (Since temporal distinctions can be made within this group, maps have also been generated on the basis of individual point types to examine variation in site use through time.) Biface manufacture was clearly an important activity at Hardaway, and all biface and preform types were lumped into a single “bifaces” category. All hafted end scrapers (Types Ia, Ib, IIb, and III) and side scrapers (Types I and IV) were combined into a category called “hafted scrapers.” The two adzes were also included in this group, because they too were once hafted. These curated tools were combined here, since they were probably discarded at the site where they were replaced rather than where they were used (see Keeley 1982). In contrast, expedient tools probably accumulated at or closer to the place of their last use (Binford 1979), and several expedient tools in the assemblage were combined to re®ect this discard pattern. Given their presumed functional differences, several expedient end and side scraper types were combined into two general classes: “expedient end scrapers” (Types IIa, IV, V) and “expedient side scrapers” (Type IIa, IIb, and III). This latter category also included all indeterminate scraper fragments. “Miscellaneous ®aked tools” is a residual category that comprises the remaining minority of chipped-stone tools, representing a variety of functions. This group includes gravers, drills, core scrapers, hafted spokeshaves , pointed scrapers, oval scrapers, other scrapers, denticulates, and Waller knives; most of these classes represent expedient tools. The category “site furniture” includes artifacts identi¤ed as such in table...

Share