8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

1/24

CHAPTER 2

PRINCIPLES OF OFF-SITE ARCHAEOLOGY

2. 1 Introduction

An artefact density analysis is based upon the idea that the archaeologicalreco rd is less site-based than is usually supposed and that the continuity ofarchaeological mater ia ls across a landscape can be employed to investigateregional patterns in prehistory. This type of regional approach i s referredto here as off-site archaeology and th is chapter will examine its principles. n artefact density analysis may be considered as one part of a broad spectrum of potential off-site studies. This discussion of the structure of the offsite record while of general relevance, will be specUically oriented towardsthe problems of explaining variability in artefact density.

Taphonomy is of increasing importance in archaeology. This intElrestoriginated palaeontology Behrensmeyer 1975; lIl ll 1975 , but h as b ro ad en edinto the archaeological field through early man studies Brain 1967 a, b, 1969;Isaac 1967; Gifford 1977; Hill and Behrensmeyer 1980 to such an extentthat ethno-taphonomy may now be considered an important branch of the subject Gould 1968; Schiffer 1975; Gifford 1977; Hodder 1977 . This muchmore

sophisticated approach toth e data base is

rapidlyaltering our ideas

about prehistory, and there is now an explicit interest in the way in whichbehaviour is transformed into the archaeological record both by the natureof that behaviour itself, and by post-depositional processes. Virtually all thework in this field, experimental, ethnographic Schiffer 1975; Gifford 1977;Haland 1977; Binford 1978 or archaeological Binford 1977 has focused onunits that correspond to archaeological sites. An off-site model, on the otherhand, attempts to examine the taphonomical basis of the archaeological recordon a regional scale.

Off-site archaeology is defined as the study of the archaeological record

on a regional scale, based on an assumption of underlying spatial continUityof archaeological materials in the context of both behavioural and geomorphological properties. This assumption is made the light of considerationsthat will be examined here. It will be suggested that there are four structuralcomponents to the archaeological record:

1 BehaViour;2 Discard;3 Accumulation;4 Post-deposition.

2.2 Definition of archaeological units

Before constructing a theory of archaeological formation it will b e us ef ulto discuss briefly the nature of the analytical and spatia l uni ts of archaeologyin th e light of an off-site approach.

1

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

2/24

An off-site approach la one that takes into aCCOWlt the fult range ofarchaeological x : n a t E ~ r i a lon or in a landscape. treating the material that isd 1 s t r i b u t t ~ dacross i t as a spatIally contlnuouR variable. In this sense an oHsite appr()ach will subsume within i t the information contained in a site. tis perhaps unfortunate that the terms non-slte and off-site that appear in theliterature (fb:e>mas 1975; Binford 1978i Foley. 1981) should dichotomise th epotential approaches available t.o the archaeologist .s . What is reqUired is acont inuum model with a sound theoretical base. The differences between siteand off-s ite material are the rE 8ult of differences in the frequencies of activUies. rather than qualitative differences. Neither site nor off-site theoriesalone can account for the extent and nature of archaeological variability.

In the c o n t t ~ x tof this worka.nd the development of an artefact densitymethodology. 1t is necessary define the terms site and artefact.

A site is a concentration of humanly modified materials. associatedmaterials and landscap.e features. regardless of th e concentrating agency.However, i t may bfc useful to recognise two general categories of 61te8behavi9.u. and ~ o m ~ l ~ : ? l . o g l(cf. primary and secondary sites (Isaac1972b

Within t h e s ( ~bl tHtd c a t e g o r i E : ~ sthere is considerable variation. Settlementsand/or o m e re clearly mE large component of behavioural sites, butthey are not the only type-transitory camps, lo(}k-out points, butchery sites.prepar.atory sttes. E:ttc., have aU been recognised. The variation in the natureof clustcu'ed arcl:ult ologica.l matE l'ial I01 l \S an important basis for the cUscusaiol1that follows.

At), artefact is gf:merally accepted to be the basic independent unit of archaeology (Clarke 1968, 13 l It is usually defined as any material that has beenme>dUied by human act vity, in terms of aize, shape and location. The artefacthaa seldom been employed as a site-independent un.it of spatial analysis (seeClark 1977. F i g u r t ~~ ~ .

At a r

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

3/24

2 .3 Behavioural basis of th e archaeological record

Th e f i rs t two structural components of the archaeological r ec or d a rebehaviour and discard. They are very closely related and so should betreated together. Discard is itself an aspect of behaviour and prOVides be-havioural information. Discard is also spatially continuous and conforms toa pattern that c an b e p re di ct ed by ecological theory. In constructing an off-si te methodology, or more broadly a methodology, that seeks to examineth e regional patterning in archaeological materials i t is necessary to incor-porate th e full spatial range o behaviour and discard and establish th e prin-ciples on which these are based. Thus subsis tence activit ies and theirspatial distribution are controlled by certain basic ecological regularitiesand variation within these broad regular i ties can be explained in terms ofenvironmental demographic technological , adaptive and cultural parameters .These will be discussed in turn, but firstly what are these ecological regu-larities?

Subsistence activities take place across the landscape as a whole. Thefocal points to which the energy having been harnessed may be t ransported-and which later go to constitute archaeological s i tes a re secondary. Studiesof human subsistence aotivities through those focal points alone is indirect.Such an approach may be justified in terms of archaeological expediency,but not in te rms of ecological theory which would suggest that the appropriateanalytical framework is th e landscape across which the activities of ma n aredifferentially but continuously d is tr ib ut ed . S et tl em en ts represent mere ly onecomponent of that distribution.

Ecological considerations would further sugges t tha t the structure of that

distribution would conform to the ecological uni t of the home range as definedby Wilson 1975, 256):

Home range: the area that n animal learns thoroughly and patrols. In some cases t he home range may be ident ical with th e totalrange; that is th e animal familiarises i tself with one area and neverleaves it. Many times the home range and th e terri tory are identicalmeaning that th e animal excludes other members of the same speciesfrom al l of its home range. In the great majority of species how-ever the home range is larger than th e terri tory and the t ot al r an geis much la rger than both. Ord in ar il y the h ome range is patrolled

for food, but in addit ion t may contain familiar look out positionsscent posts and emergency re t reats . It can also be shared jointlyby the memebers of an integrated social group.

t has been argued elsewhere Foley 1977a, 1978) that human spatialbehaviour displays th e same regularities as other species and that the homerange prOVides th e pertinent unit o analysis for human palaeoecology. Afurther inference that may be drawn from the examination of the bas ic eco lo -gical principles that are relevant to human subsistence activities is that bothth e spatial continUity and t he ho me range structure of human activities isderived from the non uniform distribution of resources. t is the differentialproductivity of the landscape due to factors of climate topography, soil andvegetation in relation to biological and social requirements that determinesth e home range. The part icular configurations of a landsc ape in relation to

12

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

4/24

subsistencEl r t ~ q u i r e m e n t sand s t r a t e g l E ~ Swill control both i ts sIze and structure,Suoh factors as the degree of resource dispersal will thus determine the adaptive strategy t the typ of borne range. and u ltimately the nature of th e archaeologioal. record.

Thus a model fo r the study of regional prehii;ftorie ecology should be basedon the ollowi.ng assertions:

1 The structure af human subsistence behaviour is spatially continuous.

2 The spatial organisat ion af that behaviour is largely home-range-specific.

3 The structure al the bome range will reflect the non-uniformity of resource distribution across the landscape. in relation to the humanad.aptlve strategy.

4 It ma y be expeotedthat the material aspects of the adaptive strategy,and henoe disoard, will renect these ecologically controlled patterns,

5 The regional a.rohaeological structure will thus be spati411y continuous.reflecting the differential dl.stribution of resources and the deploymentof the home rang

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

5/24

3 Technological variation: most important of a ll , p er hap s, from anarchaeological perspective, is variation controlled by differences intechnological level and practice. Archaeologists by necessity mustapproach many problems through the medium of technology. Interpretation will be dependent upon the sensitivity of this variable . Firstly,th e type of technology employed is cruciaL. It could be argued that thedensity of archaeological material is in direct proportion to t he d eg re eof dependence upon wood, bone, stone or metal a rtef ac ts . a societyi s largely dependent upon wood o r bone technology, then the probabilityof archaeological Visibility will be low. Th e difference between thevisiblity of lithic and metal technologies in the archaeological record isperhaps even more cruciaL. Although highly variable, for lithic asopposed to metal technology, raw material constraints are less, energyi np ut s i n preparation are l ower, rep lacement is easier and use life isshorter. The development of metal technologies wil l have caused majorchanges in the nature of the archaeological record as viewed throughartefact abudance and distribution. t could be predicted that a moreoomplete and quantitatively sensitive regional record w o u ~ doccur fo rsocieties largely dependent upon a l ithic technology. Secondly, th e degree of t e h n o l o g i ~ ldependence involved in subsistenceactivities is variable. F or instance, while many hunting strategies aredependent upon technological skill, successful herding is dependent moreupon th e managerial skills of th e pastoralist. t should not be assumed,therefore, that al l sub sistence strategies ar e equally sensitive in th elUaterial remains that they provide.

The transmission of these ecological, environmental, demographic andtechnological factors into archaeologically available information i s only poss ib le through th e process of discard. Discard has been the subject of extensive research and discussion in recent years, for example, Schiffer 1975jHildebrand 1978 . However, most of this work refers to site-specific andsmall-scale discard processes, .rather than th e regional sca le tha t is relevanthere. The fundamental point n relat ion to this scale of analysis is that discard i s not confined to the settlement or home base, nor ent irely to othersecondary focal locations. The ecological principles outlined above postulatethat d isca rd i s home range specific, and the home range should therefore bethe basic unit of d isca rd ana lysi s. Within th e home r11llge four bas ic spa ti alcomponents of discard, general to al l types of adaptation, can be distinguished.Th ese are outl.ined below; a fi fth category i s also included to take into accountth e proportion of discard that may take place outside the limits of the homerange. Figure 2: 1 i l lustrates the behavioural and archaeological patterningof these o m p o n e ~ t son the ground, th e Table 2. 1 places several commonactivities and types .of location into these categories.

Spatial Component A Home base or settlement

A home base of variable per,manency wil l act as the primary focus fo rbehaviour and discard and may be cons idered the spatial unit w he re thedensest n ~mo.st complex set of n p ~ t e r i l sma y be expected to occur.

14

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

6/24

.

.... .. II 11 . . . .

.... ~ : :,; .

: .

..

.

~ . ,

.

.

. .

.. . . . . . a

.. ;. :.:: .': .. : : : : ~

.....=

.. .~ ...

or II' - ..

l ' ~ , , ' ' ' ' ' . . l ' ..

:. .: .' >:( . > ~ ._ > ~ \:. .. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . ...: ..: ? ~ : :

l i t tde

WH If l .... ,

'\ I ) .

' - ' \empoUlfv C.mp \

\\

\\

\eWH i

1J

,-00 ....10 \ . i i

.... 0 0

Setttement

eWH

,R i t u a l ,

Activity.

I

IJ.

II

\\\ ui -. saJ

I g+

/ +A

I +S 8 +s . . / - - . /

\I

.......... _ _ _ . /

'\ I.......

8 b

Figure 2. 1 Home range structure of bunter-gatherer behaviour {al and predicted residual artefact distribution (b).WH :: water hole SA =shade area.

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

7/24

TABLE 2 a

Distribution of basic activities in relation to spatial components

ComponentsActivity A C D E

Sleeping Eating Food acquisition Food preparation Hide preparation Fuel acquisition Raw material acquisition Raw material preparation Tool us e Games Trade Social ceremonies Religious ceremonies Mortuary practices

TABLE 2 b

Distribution of bas ic local it ies in relation to spatial components

ComponentsLocality A C D E

Settlement home baseTransitory camps Hunting blinds

Viewing points Permanent food sources Transitory food sources Water sources Fuel sources Raw material sources Manufacturing localities Butchery localities Burial areas Religious localities L e isur e a re as

16

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

8/24

Spatial ComPQuent B Area. adjao ent to home base

Due simply t o proximi ty th e area in the immedlate vicinity of the homebase may be expected to be the rOQUS for many activities an d hencedisoard

matisl Comeguent CS,eco.ndary llome range fociBeyond thesett lelIlentand i t s immediate n e i g h o ~ r h o o dsecondary fociof activity wHt occur, where actrvities may be repeated consistently overa period tbne. These may often be s p e ~ i l i s e dactivity areas an ddiscard wUl occur at them.

patial Commnent D OocaaionaL home range loci

Other parts of the home ran.ge may be visited occasionally or once.Artefact diaoard trUity peeU1\ attbese loct. Their exact location will bestochastic but, in general. their distrLbution will conform to the st ructureof th e home range.

~ t l lCorn22ee:at :. ~ x t r h o m erange actIvities

Beyond th e dlstr ibutlon ar tbe home range some activities may occur ata low frequency. reLat.ln.g primarily to exchange behaviour in i ta broadestsense. DiscUl-rd ma y thus occur beyond the home range, although i t sf r e i q u t ~ c ywUI be ltlW.

Tbls rcent1u s.1 atassUlea,tten of hum.an home range behaviour an d i ts ar t efaot diacarde lXUI8qu8noes. regardless of adaptive and technological status.

prOVides uswltb i

basl0 mc)del for ana lysing the spatial variation o f artefactdensity * t should be DOted, however, that the proposed relationsb.ip betweenspatial categories or betuu,tJ.our/dlsoa,rd and archaeological distribution i s agross o r frequenoy ..speelflc one. n othel words, the model would predictthat diacard wlU O,Dour throu.gbout th e bome range, it s distribution beingdepende.nt on the dls:tributwn of the spati.al components, and that there will bea re la t ionship between this and artefact density. t will not, however, relateparticular ar tefaot types tocorrect function/location, with any degree ofcertain ty. B in lo rd s 1MB work among th e Nunamuit Eskimoes has high-Ughted thisprobtem. for be has ahown that an artefact may be discarded whena place where it is o,r no value I s r ea ch ed -i n other words there is an in verserelationship between tool functlon and discard location. this particularobservation is wcu tQy of generallsatlonto Qther instances, then clearly th egeneral model desor ibed here cannot be employed on other than a broad scale . t i s in this context, therefore, that i t will initially be developed, although amore detailed underm.andmg of discard processes in relation to activities an dlooations may, in th e future. allow a Wgher degree of resolution. Fur the rmore, i t l s c I e a r that not all activities are equally subject to artefact loss o rdisoard hunt,inl and butchering wlU produce more artefacts than gathering;and nor do aU artefacts have equal curation rates (Binfo rd 1976, 1978). Henceth e relati.onshLp between artefact density and what might be termed behaviouraldensl tyat a 10tlatlo:DWHl notnecessa .ri ly be a simple one.

Havlng o l t l l t u i ~th e basic f ea tu re s o f the home-range model of behavlou. rand tts archaeological consequences, i t is important to examine th e way inwhich ma.teri.a.11s distributed through t he spa ti al components. This ma y be

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

9/24

achieved by a discussion of releyant ethnographic and archaeological data,relating primarily to hunter-gathering and pastoralist societies.

Spatial Component A

Discard at the settlement is arguably the most crucial component of the

archaeological record. Indeed, it i s 9ften a taoit assumption that all discardi s settlement specific. It is essential, therefore, to examine the extent towhich discard occurs on the settlement or home base, and t he nature of thatdiscard. Discussion is necessary at two l v l ~ firstly, to determine whatproportion of material will be discarded on the settlement, and secondly, tose e whether settlement discard has particular characteristics.

Very little evidence exists to dete rmine the proportion of material discarded on as opposed to away from the settlement. Gould (1980) statesthat only 1 of aU lithic material fo r the Aborigines of the Western Desertof Australia is discarded on the settlement. This sugges ts that a considerable

proportion of a material culture is in fact discarded away fro m the settlement n other words, the proposition given above, that discard is home rangespecific, would seem to be ten.able.

Further indirect evidence to support this contention may come from thework of Judge 1973) in the Rio-Grande Valley of New Mexico. Wood (1978),in an analys is of the locational strategies of the prehistorio inhabitants ofthis area, gives a ratio of 1: 4 for base camps (spatial component A) to secondary areas (spatial component C). Examination of the artefact densit iesfor the sites Wood 1978, Figure 1) further indicates tha t these secondarysites contain a higher density of artefaotual material than the base camps.In other words, i there is a reasonable relationship between the archaeologicalrecord and the discard properties of the prehistoric people, then a high proportion of that discard occurred away f rom the primary settlements. t wouldseem that regional archaeological structure is constrained by more than thefrequency of settlements. t remains to be seen whether the behavioural bas i sfor this lies in the actual distr ibution of time spent in secondary areas asopposed to settlements, or whether the re a re a disproportionate number ofdebris-producing activities that are inQ,ependent of the settlement.

Giventhat the framework of this discussion lies n the application of anartefact density analysis, i t is p r t ~ tto look at the number of artefactsthat might be expected to occur on a settlem.ent. Again data on this are sp a r senot so much in terms of the actual number of artefacts per unit area, but interms of the temporal control of that density. For example, Robertshaw(1978, Figure 3) provides a dens itr map of the a r t e f ~ c t son a recently abandonedpastoral settlement in Namaqualand. The artefacts are in this case mos tlymade up of modern materials (tihs, glass, etc. but the mean density ofthe mapped area is 0.163 per m ~ This is a remarkably low density fo r asettlement, and perhaps illustrates the point made earlier about the differencequantitatively between a lithic and a non-lithic archaeological structure.Robertshaw s figures are supported by those of Ammerman et at. (1978) fo rDassenatch set tlements , where some time contro l is possible. For example,at one abandoned settlement Gifford retrieved 151 pieces of non-bone debrisfrom 34 households occupied fox, two mop.ths-that is, 2.22 artefacts perhousehold per month. A f ur th er s et of Elassenatch data confirms this low

18

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

10/24

deusity: a mean d e n ~ l t yof 2 1 per household per month was obtained fo r twobouses occupIed Cor g-12montna (Gifrord. 1980). In a [urtheranalysis of anabandat'H::td M4UUI2U settlement at QlorgesalUe Gifford (ibid.) retrieved onlyo or> artefacts p,er Ioquaremetre. In yet another examination of pastoralartefact, d o o 8 1 U e 8 ~ R o b b i n s(19'13) colleoted information on the number of

matcEu'tal pleces in an ocoupled Turkana settlement (an aWl a sIngle familybomestead) and obtained a deosltyof 0.88 artefacts per metre 2 . (This figureis extremel,Y appro)ltlma.te as exact measurements of the comp,ound are notgiven. )

albeit &'pp'roxlmate. give some idea of settlement artefactd e n ~ l t yI t sboutd.ofcouX ae be stressed that they apply to a post-lithiccontext; a8 was arped I'bove bssl0.aUy lithic technology Is liabLe to IncX 'ea.e btl,ttl tb e {lumber of Itt tefaatsand also their dU.rabHlty. :Furthermore. ll w u a b c r v e p a s t o r a s m is not a teohnology-dependentIlIIf . , st l l l iN. I t may heexp,ootedtbat bunter-gatherer artefact densities wouldbe h i.p er. Prloe(1978. ruble 1) sumnutrises the available data on singleo ooupaUon Europ,ean post-Plelstooene bunter-gatheres. He r E ~ o o g -

a hJerarchy of cam,ps. from sman extraotion oamps to large aggregatloncampa. Tbe uuuw density fo r all these types is 2 0.6 a rte fa ots p er squ aremetr1:11 (8. [). lit N .14 . His clusU ioation of camp types is itseLf baaedon the artefact dimslty m oannot be used in more detail. but this provides anindioat.ion oftb:r type of clfmsl.tytMt may be expected for lithic tecMc,logyh u n t e r - I t l t b e r t ~ rsltUemeats.

Th e 8Uae lUon lswbath.er settlement speoific discard differs in

quaUty' from tbat r tbeother pulal oomponents. Yellen (1977), for example,s u ~ m e s u stbat mc)st debr.is-prod:o:cms: activities other than cooking and foodprepllU IUmt among tbe.'ltu.ng oocur away from the Imediate hearths and houses.He argues that i t is the dlatrJbutlon of shade around the peripheries of theH t U e n u ~ n t(tha.t Is. spat,lal oompon.entB) tbat o()utrols the dlst.ributlon of activ l t l e l l . F ; l a f . ~ w h e l e(yeUe,n 1976,69) heal80 states that activities taking placeaway fromtbe CM1P areent1relylLmtted to hunting and gatherlng trips. Hegoes on t > asaert lh. taU m a i n : ~ e r : u m o eaotivlties are settlernent specific. I twould aeem, ther ero.r,e,as agen.eral guide, that for the t Kung food-preparationoocurs wUhlntht settlement. malntenanoeactivltiea em the p t ~ r i p h e r yand other

acUvitles e l s e w h E ~ r e .As distance from the settlement I n c r e a s ~ s .so too doesthe chance that a ( ~ U v l U e swill be related to t h f ~p r o ~ u r e m e n tof food. \\llethertWa model o(:ndd extrapolated to all hunter- gulherers remains to be seen,but it would S f J ~ ~ man ac,curate desorlpU.o.n of tropical societies.

l' ''urther evidence thatth.e quaUtyof activities IS spatially variable comesfrom (]outd (1968) who baa shown that there l s a significant dUfel'tmCe betweenlUh.le a a s e m . b l a g ( \ ~ 5found among Aborigine camp sUeSRS opposed to those fOWldaway from the camp, whioh are u.sually related to tree M felUng aetlvlUes.'rh1s ma;y be a tentative bUlafo r predicting some q u a n t 1 t a U v E ~and quali tat ivetUffereneea between spaUal component A md the other componen ts . However,fo r reaaons fllvE n In th e oUowln,g a.ectlon.these dUferenees may not b E ~ofvery r n u c h p r a c t i ~ l lIU'chWlllOlol1olluse.

F'lnaU,)' it 1s worth s.tatln,1 a few general points ab()ut the r H l t u N ~(,f 8 e t t l e ~menl s p e ( ~ 1 f l cdiscard. F'lrstly. the differences betwEH:m spatial ( ~ ( m l p C m E : m tA

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

11/24

and the other components in terms of debris is l ikely to increase as the societybecomes more complex. For simple societies there is l ikely to be greatercontinuity between components. Tbis point may be fur ther stressed by th eextensive evidence l ellen 1976; Isaac 1978) to suggest that hunter gathererlocalities n spatial component C or D may become Spatial Component A.Tbis occurs commonly when hunter gatherers move their base camp t o th eplace where an animal has been butchered. A further general point is thatwbile it is possible to predict that settlement artefact densi ty may be higherrelative to o ther spat ial components, as thi s itself will vary with populat iondensity, it may well not be possible to predict densi ties n absolute te rms.

Spatial Component B

By their nature the peripheries of a set tlement are a much less clearlydefined category. t is perhaps most suitable to discuss tbis category nterms of a few examples. One such is the habit of the Badza to select shady

areas away from the set tlement to play their games or just sit and talk Woodburn and Hudson 1966). Similar ly, the Maasai moran ar e forbiddento ea t cattle meat within the settlement, and so wi ll se lect places awayfrom the set tlement, but within easy reach , fo r such purposes. These mayoften be reused Morse, personal communication). Noxious activities suchas preparing a hide or butchering, are also likely to occur away from thesettlement. Children s act ivit ies wil l also be spread around the settlementrather than within it . All of these , and many other types of act iv ity, wil lhave the effect of spread ing the debris that it, the impact of the settlementbeyond the immediate confines of the settlement itself. O Connell 1979)ha s shown this graphically for the Austral ian aborigines with whom he ha sworked.

Estimating quantitatively the actual artefact density of this componentas a whole is problematic , but i t would seem reaso nable tha t would in someway be a function of the density of the settlement as a whole. Th e absolutedensity is likely be lower than t ha t for component A, although overall th eactual number of artefacts may well be higher. Hodder and Orton 1976, 160)show an example of fall-off of artefact density away from the Brit ish Beakersettlement of Belle Tout Bradley 1970). Similar pat te rns were also observedfor the Maasai of Amboseli.

Apart from the effect that peripheral discard and debris formation willhave on the regional structure of the archaeological record t will also haveth e more general property of broadening the spatial distribution of th e materialand to a cer ta in extent blurring the particulate nature of th e settlement as apoint in space.

Spatial Component C

Apart from settlements or home bases o ther debriS forming activityfoci occur. Archaeo logists have recently turned much of their attention tothese secondary areas representing specialised behaviours. Spatial com-ponents C refers to this category of non-horne-base foci , usual ly occurringwithin the home range , For the earl ier periods in prehistory they are ofconsiderable importance, often occurring with high frequency and visibility.Binford and Binford 1966, 268 have categorized two types of hunter gatherer

C

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

12/24

aitea-bome bl.ee sRea and .work sites. Although this haa been criticised byYellen (1976, (S9). on tbe grounds that there is contiJ:lulty between them. itemp.b.as.lses the impo,rtance of off-settlement activities for hunter-gatherers.Witb the ir lu ::udstence strategIes so dep,endent upon .mobility an d fle.xibility.buntEu -gatiuH-ers must be able to perform a Wide range of activities throughouttheir home r e l e

Secondary bomerange focioover a wide range of activities. being commonto vlrtu.aUy aU 8IOc eUes. Probably the most extensively investigated ethnograpMce.xarnp1.e of t bi st yp e Is the Nunamu1t Eskimo Mask site studies byBinford This l s huntln.g Iiftand. a place where Bmen congregate towatoh fo r p m e and topl.an hunting strategies after game is sighted (Binford1918, 8S0). The hwting stand is one type of seoondary focal point for theNmuamwt mother bemg hunting bHnds that are used for th e actualhl..lJ)tklg BitU'ord's material shaws qulteclearly t ha t t he se s it es a re

anImportMt pa.rlof the

subSistencestrategies

oCtheEskimoes,

that they arEtUIl,ed fo ra ~ o n 8 i d e r a b t eperiod of time, and consequently a slgnHicant amountdebr h 1 C M accummulate upon them. Binford s analysIs Is largelyoonoerned

with tbe i l p t ~ c i n crelltioDBh1p betwee:ntypes of behaviour and the structure ofth e a,rcbaoologtcal mtlerUal left behittd. or more lmportance here Is, firstly.thalaucb ()coeur wUhlD th e Eskimo bome range and tbat their

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

13/24

Spatial component D

Apart from the areas away from the home base that may be reused andhence be descr ibed as focal points, other localit ies may s imply be the focusof activity and discard on one occasion. In themselves each one will be anebulous and transitory site but cumulatively and collectively they may represent a significant part of the archaeological record. Discard at thesepoints may even be disproportionate to the time spent there. Included n thistype of site are places where an animal may be killed and part ia l ly butchered for example, Woodburn and Hudson 1966 ; places where firewood may becut and collected, leaving some debris Gould 1968 , or places stopped route fo r some other location for example, Coles et ale 1973 259 . Theseactivities relate primarily to subsistence behaviour and will reflect in theirdistribution the structure of the home range. Furthermore they will havethe effect, by frequency and distr ibution, of emphasising the spatiaUy continuous nature of the regional archaeological record.

Very little information is available on the qUWltitative aspects of thiscategory. Archaeologists have tended to t reat low density scatters of materialand isolated artefacts as of passing interest only, rather than being a specialtype of information. Isaac and Harris 1976 have however drawn attentionto the abundance of this type of material n the Lower Pleistocene and suggestedthat it is of considerable importance in understanding early hominid behaviour.The point to s tr es s i s that continuous discard at occasional loc i over a largepart of the landscape can soon lead to a considerable artefact density.

Spatial component E

Finally, mention should be made of those aspects of discard tha t mJghtoccur beyond the home range. This would be discard within the total range Wilson 1975 of a population. The discard in this case would probably be theresult of exohange activities, or the foraging for seldom used resources o rmaterials. Examples of this type of discard may perhaps be the bronze axehoards known f rom Bri ta in and other parts of the world for example Burgess1974, 209- 210 , bel ieved to be left by i t inerant craftsmen; and the stonequarries used for Neolithio axe production Smith 1974, 105 . This lastexample suggests that the localised density of this material can be very high.

The model of arohaeological formation that h as b ee n developed so far Isbased on the continuity of behaviour and disoard across the home range. nthis sense what has been construoted is a ine of reasoning that attempts toshow that archaeological material i s not settlement-specific. This part ofthe model may perhaps be better descr ibed as off-settlement arohaeologicalformation processes. What will be proposed however, is a second, supplementary se t of processes that will independently enhanoe the structure thatcan be descr ibed on behavioural grounds . Accumulat ive and post-depositionalprocesses will further develop the regional continuity of the archaeologicalrecord. For the purposes of clarification, therefore at this point i t mightbe useful to define and stress that the general model i s re all y the compc undresult of two sub-models:

A behaViourally based home range model of behaviour and d isca rd tha thas been described above.

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

14/24

2 A tapbonomical model based on the processes of accumulation of archaeologlcal material tnrough time and affected by post-depositionalproc e ss s

Thi s second sub-model will be described below,

2 .4 Accumulative prinolRlesThe behavourally-based model of spatial distributions suffers from being

archaeologlcally static. n practice. regional archaeological structure Isthe product of continued occupanoy and discard. Thus to model for the distribution and quantltyofmaterials on a landscape i t is neoessary to incorporatethe effects o f accumulation over long time periods. This aspect of the archaeological record Is seldom stressed. For on-site and settlement archa.eologythe effects accumulation may be reduced through high temporal resolution.This i s not the u for off-sIte arohaeology. Continued exposure of a landscape to dlsoard wHl emphasise and also blur the complex spatial patterningoutlined above.

Tbe b lu rr tn g of the distribution derives from the fac t that most activItiesand settltunents are locatoo ema regional basis. In other words , their looat lonsare determined by thei r renera l area or habitat rather than. as a particularpoint on the grotmd. Within any broad area there are many potential locations r activities. Furtbenuore.the effect of a location or a previous locationmay well inhibit reuse. thus enb.a.noing the blurred pattern of distribution.Yellen (1978) gives 26 reoooupancy rate of old settlements. Many otheroocieties Cor eXl.lnple. Maasat, Turkana) prohibit the reuse o f old settlements

under someo r i n

oiroumstanoes. The archaeoLogical reoord is based onthis prooess ot aocumulaUon-theeffect of minor variations within the broaderdeterminants of loeatlonat pattern.in.g. Thus the simple disoard-behaviourrelatlonships desor.lbed the previous sectlon will become blurred. This isespecially true at a regional level, where uneven sedimentation and disoardrates wUl reduce temporal resolution. Accumulation thus leads to palimpsestformatton-that Is, a Ume averaging of spatial distributions. conditionsremain s tab le , the bebavioural basis of the dIstribution will be reinforced;i not. o r stochastic processes are operating, then the resultlng distributioncould be meaningless.

Recently archaeologists bave turned towards detailed examination of theprocesses of formation using ethnographic observations (Gould 1968; Hodder1977. 1979; .BlnIord 1918;. Gilford. in press . The drawback with thisapproach lies In the f ct that the comparisono often extremely sho rt t ermprocesses with archaeological data does not take lnto account that l ~ c h e o l o -gleal material usually cC)Dsists of activity palimpsests. A more realisticapproach to th e pattemlngof arcbaeological material sbould be based on longterm m.odels . to see the w y in whIch contlnual repetition affects structure.In th e work presented bete it is th e operation of this prtJcess on a regltlalBcale that needs to be described. Some simple IllustraUons c n show this.

Example

For the sake of example. a simple model can be constructed where thepreferred settlement babit st for a group is restricted to a rldge of land abC ut1 kilometre by 5 kHomett es in size. Assuming that t ll is ridge is uniform in

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

15/24

i ts sUitability fo r settlement throughout, and that each settlement or campsiteoccupies and has an impact on an area 100 x 100 metres in size then, allowingfor no overlap, there are 500 potential settlement cells. From this point wecan experiment with the way in which the area can gradually be covered witharchaeological material over time. The simplest of these would be a situation

which involved one settlement pe r year with no relocation possible throughoutthat time. This would obViously result in a totally uniform cover within 500years. We can refine this model, which is obviously over-simplified i nvarious ways-for example, by varying the rate of site formation and abandon-ment, by increasing the number of groups exploiting the area allOWing relocation after a cer ta in period of time, and demanding certain dIstances betweensequential sett lements. These would vary the period before uniform occupancyhad occurred and probably in most practical situations prevent total uniformity.In al l cases however, the result would be that over a number of years occupation of an area following an open settlement system would result in a contin

uous spatial pattern of archaeological material. In attemptIng to reHne thismodel to approximate reality more closely would be necessary to formulateand weight the factors leading to both clusterIng habit, utIlisation of oldsettlement material, Limited suitability, etc. and dispersaL for examplefirewood availab ility, exhaustion of re sources .

Example 2

Clearly, the main problem inherent in Example 1 lies in the improbabilitythat there will be no reoccupation. Even allowing fo r an initial prohibition onthe reoccupation of settlements, over archaeological time peric)ds not onlywilL such prohibitions lapse, but the settlements will decay to the point ofinvisibil ity, and hence they may be treated as new. With relocation possiblethe problem enters the field of probability theory - that Is, i f aU settlementcells stand an equal chance of being used, wIth the exception of. say thoseof the previous ten years within reasonable probability levels in this cBse.how long w it be before uniform cover is achieved?

In an attempt to answer this, Simons personal communication) ha s useda Markhov chain process. Using the one settlement pe r annum rate of theprevious example, after 1000 years apprOXimately 86.5 cover of the areaw have been achieved. In four simuLations carried out, involVing a total

of 100 steps, onLy six fell outside the 95 confidence llmits of the precUctlons.Example 3

A further problem in the above examples is that for most regio.nal analysesthe area will be larger than 5 km2 . Furthermore hunter-gatherers w )uldprobably use more than one settlement per year often involVing sympatry between groups. For example, Yellen 1976) has shown a mean site durationof 3.1 days among the Kung of the Kalahari. Thus, the one settlement peryear increment rate of the previous examples would be replaced by 117 peryear. However, allOWing fo r the 26 reoccupancy rate clted above this would

be reduced to 87.1. Whatever the totaL area covered might bee

group maybe expected to occupy apprOXimately 87 settlements per annum. giVing anaccumulation rate of 87, 100 pe r millennium. Given the average home rangesize often quoted for hunter-gatherers Lee and DeVore 1968; Vita-Finzl andHiggs 1970) of 214.15 km 2 that is a 10 kilometre radiUS), t ~ this wouldproduce an overaLL density of 277.2 settlements per km 2 per miLLennium.

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

16/24

Clearly, these would not be evenly dispersed across the landscape, andn o r would they be equally visible arc haeologically. However, this may provide o ne extre me fo r estimating the actual amount o f d eb ri s that a humangroup is l ikely to produce and leave on the landscape over long periods oft ime.

Example 4

Yellen s figures are among the most ext reme for settlement mobilityand a re l ikely to represent one end of the spectrum for hunter-gatherers.The high mobility found among the Kung reflects the low productivity of thearea , and would be somewhat mitigated by a low density of bands, and by asomeWhat clustered distribution throughout the area as a whole.

Alternative mod els for hunter-gatherer settlement increments can beobtained from Woodburn s (1968) work among the Hadza of Tanzania. Theavailable data are less systematic, bu t Woodburn suggests that the averageduration of a Badza camp would be approximately four weeks. Thus theannual set tl ement increment rate fo r a Hadza group would be 13.0, or 9.6p er an.num w ith th e 26 reoccupancy rate. Thus compared to 86,000 permIllennium fo r the Kung, th e Hadza model would produce 9600 per millennium.Using the sam e home range size this would yIeld a densi ty of 28.7 per m 2p e r millennium. Although considerably smaller a value than that fo r the Kung, this is nonetl1eless a substantial density.

Example 5

Of course, is not simply hunter-gatherers that are susceptible to thistype o f a na ly si s, and it is necessary to take into account the d eg re e of mobilityand differential increment rates fo r other adaptive strategies. Agricultural istsare no t of direct conce rn here, bu t i t may be simply s tated that their substant ially higher rate of sedentism, and hence settlement duration, will reducethe figures quoted above. Pastoralists, on the other hand, may be expectedto fall somewhere between hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists.

Fo r example , Wes te rn (1973), using the Amboseli Maasai, gives durationra tes of 3 .7 and 5 .2 years- that is, a mean duration rate of 4.45 years.T hese are n fact probably somewhat greater lengths of t ime than would beexpected, and may be accounted fo r by the extended period of drought dUringwhich these d at a w ere collected. However, employing these figures we have n est imate of 224.7 per millennium (see also Section 6.4) .

Example 6

Variation also occurs within pastoralism. For example, among theTurkana Gulliver has shown that they move between five nd ten t imes eachyear, an d t ha t t he re Is an average duration of two to three months for eachset t lement. Gulliver (1955, 45 ) reports that the maximum duration of se t t l ement that he observed was eight months, wl ile many lasted only a few weeks.USing the data that he presents n Appendix 1 (Gulliver 1955, 45-48) i t ispossible to calculate a mean duration overall of 2.05 months 0.99. As each homestead consists of two such settlements, one for cattle and one forcameis , then thi s produces a mean set tlement inc rement rate of 11 . 75 perannum, or 11,750 per millennium. As the Turkana range annually over an

25

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

17/24

area of approximately 25 km2 , then the settlement density may be estimatedat 4.50 per km 2 per years. should be stressed in this example thatthis is not the total set tlement density, merely that produced by on e homestead that is one family), and that the absolute density wHl be considerably nigheras in many ins tances several homesteads wili occur sympatricalLy.

A summary of the data presented in these examples is shown in Table2.2. Many other examples could be presented , der ived from the ethnograplUcliterature but the bas ic point would remain the same that within certainlimits defined by the adaptive strategy and populatlOn density the effects ofsettlement accumulation over time are considerable, and it is essential forthe archaeologist to be aware of the scale of sett lement that should theoreticallyexist for the time periods with which he must by necessi ty deal.

This approach, based on the principle of accumulation, would seem tooffer an excellent means or predicting and quantifying the scaLe of archaeolo-gical materials in a region. EcologicaL and behavioural reasoning can producemodels of land-use patterns; the mechanisms of accumulation can show theoperation of these over long t ime periods and the observed density and cHstrlbution of material can then be viewed in this perspective.

This model should be qualified in two ways. Firstly only the first ofthe four spatial components of regional archaeological structure and, by ~plication, the second, have been discussed. A comprehensivE model requIresincorporating the secondary foci and the occasional locl. Th e effect of tblswould be to increase the overall abundance of material and also to prclducea more widespread distribution. In effect the net result would be ne t so much

a pattern of high settlement densities, but a continuous d i stdbu t ionof ar te fac t sin which occasional particulate settlement and/or activity structures c ou ld b erecognised. is this postuLate, especially when post depositional factorsar e taken into account, that forms the theoretical bas is f or an artefact densItyanalysis.

Secondly, the density-generation model has been developed assuming auniform dist ribut ion . The clustering of resources will in fact produce a n o n ~uniform pattern, and this will form the bas is f or variation in artefact density.In other words, although there is an underlying continuity in the distributionthe gradient in artefact density across the landscape may in fact be quite sharp.

depending upon the degree of localisat ion of resources o r settlement localities.At i ts simplest, the structure of ar tefact density variat ion in a home rangewil l follow a pat tern of highest densi ty in the core zone, accounted fo r bysettlements, settlement peripheries. and some, but not all, of the secondaryhome range foci. Within this zone there will also be the highest accumulationof artefacts d1scarded at occasional LocL Moving away from the central highdensity zone, the density will fall off as a generaL scatter but within thislower density area, there wiLL be locali sed nodes of high density that are theresult of the more peripheral secondary focL Areas within the area of th ehome range, but Largely unexpLolted, will have few or no artefacts.

TWs pattern is appropriate fo r a system of home range exclusivity.orten, however, several groups share part or all of the same home rangeespecially where there is a s ingle or few water sources and the resultingoverlapping distr ibutions wUl have the effect of increasing the variaUonin

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

18/24

T A B t ~ 1 ; 2 28wnmJu , or aettlemGnt du.ration and lncrementrates forExamples 3- 6 see tex t for explanation)

Est N km2

N/IOOOyrs. 1000 yrs .I lJflitUem ent

durationodet

_ - - - - - - - - - - A n ~ . : T ~ - u - a l - - - - - - -

inorementrate

374.66(277.2)2

41.38(30.6)2

0.72

117 i 700(87,100)2

13,000(9,600)2

225

n 750

117/1(87.1)2

13.0 DAH2

0.225

n .7 f i 6

Mau a i 4

Turklt :ia 5

1 Yellen (

2 EsUm at e I uiling ; I

3 W O l : ; ~ u m

4

5 GuIll ve r lImn Annual aetUement incremst rates for cattle and browse camps are

fL 33 and 6:.42 reapeJetlve ,.. Totatanntull inc rement rate is the sumor two ligu.rEla.

27

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

19/24

density. Turning to the large.r scale of variation across an area containingseveral home ranges, the artefact density should vary according to th e productive potential.

The method presented above fo r estimatJng the total expected number ofsettlements and other types of discard localities highlights the paucity of theobserved archaeological record in relation to the expected scale. As hasbeen shown elsewhere (Foley, 1981, pp. 161-2), even in areas where archaeological preservation is good, a perception rate of less than 0.01 of theexpected number of localities is probably a realistic e.stimate of the representativeness of a site-based archaeological record.

Finally, with regard to the accumulative nature of the archaeologicalrecord, it should be stressed that the variable primarily controlling theobservable patterning of discard and accumulation wil l be the geomorphology. n particular, observable accumulation will be dependent on the extent towhich the landscape is either stable, aggrading, or eroding. t is necessary,therefore, to examine post-depositional processes.

2.5 Post-depositional processes

Post-depositional processes are those that come into operation subsequentto discard. Extensive work has been carried out recently to examine thenature of these processes on archaeological sites (Brain 1967a, b; Hill 1975.Gifford 1977; Gifford and Behrensmeyer 1977; Morse, in preparation .These analyses, however, have largely been concerned with small soaledepositional processes, operating upon the artefacts within a sIte. For th eregional structure under discussion here this scale of analysis is inappropriate,and instead i t is the large scale regional geomorphological processes that arerelevant (see also MeHars and Reinhardt 1 9 7 8 .

n the light of the above discussion on both the behaVioural componentsof artefact discard and the effects of accumulation, the first point that shouldbe stressed II .that the particulate structure of the archaeological site isillusory. Firstly, i t was shown that the behaviour producing the archaeologicalrecord was spatially continuous; and, secondly. accumulation of disoard willblur n y ~ r t i u l t estructure that does exist. The thi rd p rocess that willfurther destroy the discrete characterist ics of the archaeological record lies the typical sequence of destruction of material. Th e structures associatedwith hunter-gatherers and pastoralisls SWiftly decay (Robbins 1973, 212),leaving just a scatter of artefacts, the organic component of which will alsobe destroyed eventually. In conjunction with the accumulative p roc es s described above, in the typical savanna regions being studied here, the r es ul t i sa continuous distribution of artefactual materiaL

this contention is correct, then clearly the effects of regional postdepositional processes on the distribution and archaeological visibility of theartefac ts are important. The impllcations of the model of archaeologicalformation and structure presented here are that the inherent continuIty. thevas t scale of the regional structure of the archaeological record, and theovera distribution and differential density, of artefacts, contain high information potential. However, the realisa tion of this potential depends on theextent to which post-depositional processes destroy or render r c h e o l o g i c invisible this distribution. ., .

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

20/24

Considered broadly paiR-depositionaL processes operate with the effectorabacuring. trtiUlCorm.1ng or destroying the information content of the archaeo log ical record. Thew.aya l nwblch thi s occurs are hIghly variable, andhave been discussed tuUy els,e,where (P'oley 1981). With regard to the off-site In(}del. post-depositional processes may compound the spatially continuouscharac ter of archaeological field data, as well as resulting in a pattern ofartefact distr ibution that cannot be 1nterpreted sole ly in terms of prehistoricbehaviour.

2.6 Review 2rotr - l i te PPt?ltChes

Ofl-siteapproaohes cover a b road r ange of materials and methods.BasloaUythou,gh. they fall into two categories; firstly those concerned withinterpretatiOin ot the laodsicllpie, and based prImariLy on lInaturaP' environm.ental lnformatlon. fhlscategor:v includes the site catchment analysis of.HiggBaaa Vlta-P'lllli (1970);. the authrs lsooal metbods treated elsewhere(Foley 1971ah and other pala.eo-envirc)l1mental approaohes.

Tbe second Hltegoryof off-site wc rk is thc)se studies employing aotualt u : o h a ; ~ t o l o g i o wfeattu elll M d material outsIde the context of the site to deduceb,ypolhes;EU l.bout p u t beba:vlour t 18 this sec:ond category that Is of interestberet speotticaUy tboBe studies of widely dIspersed low density artefacts.

In America this work is f'reqltentiy referred to as non-site arcbaeology Thoma,s 1915), Indthls work provides a useful starting poiot tor examiningthis appr

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

21/24

need for adopting different sampling strategies fo r qual itat ive as opposed toquantitative data, An important conclusion made by Thomas in his discussionof off-s ite methodology is that the data obtained are not normally distributed,bu t instead show marked posit ive skewing, The densities are inherently low,resulting in a negative binomial distribut ion (Cliff and Ord 1973; Hodder andOrton 1976), causing analytical problems.

In the same vein, Bettinger 1977 has made a study of human ecologyin Owen's Valley (Eastern California). As with Thomas, he used randomsampling of 500 x 500 metre quadrats to obtain material on both the distributionand density of sites and artefacts. Bettinger modelled fo r the distribution ofthe material using ethnographic accounts, and then compared his samples tothe models. Both his models and his methodology were directed towardsfunctional interpretations of the artefacts, followed by specific actiVityinterpretations of the distributions based on those functional interpretations.Furthermore, both Bettinger and Thomas had available to them time sensitive

artefacts such as projectile points, alloWing them to include some temporalvariation in their analysis of surface m ate ri al . B ett ing er s work shows that inOwen's Valley there was a shift about 3450 BP away from exploitation of river1.neresources towards those of the deser t scrub . By 1350 BP there was regularexploitation of the pinon woodlands and by 950 BP there wa s a decline in thefrequency of large game hunting. Bett inger used his density and distributionmaterial to argue for a gradual decline in productivity populatlon level ratios,and consequently a decllne n the actual carry ing capacity through f ~ e d b o kbetween population pressure and resource a v a i l a b i l i t y

The third major off-si te work that has been carried out is that of Isaac

and Harris (1976). This differs markedly from th e other two c as e s tu di es .Firstly 1 is concerned with the behaviour of early man. Isaac and Harrisdeveloped the work to investigate the variations in tool morphology n theKarari industry of the Lower Pleistocene 1 5 - 1 2 m, yr . BP , Secondlytheir sampling was sediment specific and hence time specific, confined tothe artefact bearing sediments of the Upper Koobi Fora Member. And thirdly.they were principally concerned with the observable differences n assemblagestructure between high and low density assemblages. t was from this premisethat their work developed, follOWing observations that the Karari industrywas Widely dispersed beyond the perimeters of the potentially excavatable sites.

Adopting what they refer to as a t1scatter belween-the-patches approach,they sampled intensively along transects se t perpendicuLar to a 14 km longbase Hne. They discovered that Large unit sizes were unwieldy fo r such work,and eventually collected their material in 100 x 20 0 metre squares. Withinthese squares material was recorded in relation to small scale geologicalvariations, stressing again the geological basis of their approach.

This field work programme showed that there was indeed a consiste:ntlow density scatter of material along the Karari Escarpment that could no tmerely be explained n terms of secondary movements away from high densi tysites, The median density of artefacts was 0.4/100 m 2, three-quQ.r ters of

which was comprised of flakes. Fur thermore , the ir sam.pUng revealed asignificant component of bifaces, a tool type that had never been recoveredfrom an excavation.

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

22/24

Tw() other ILtboulb not formally wlth.lnan off-sIte framework,bavs looked at the pn>blem relio'nal artefact densities. Isacc (19'12a) sampledalteraot deD8lty alol11 a or the I lope8of Mount P;burru in the Nakuru8 ,&8in , K ~ y a H j l ireliults abowed COD I ide ra b Ie varIation martefact densitymreta t lon to altitude. JIt rom It mean of 198 per m 2 at 6900 1 altitude, to0 8 'per m 2 on the pillns below. l laac referred tbese results to the produot

mlo l1g OODceatraUon cumerous overlap,plDgoocupatlon scatters (Isacc1911,Flgure 1), the concentration () Q ridges related to tb eool 1l :tbln.ltifJtl of .I n md topographic factors. an d poi.ntEtd out that thea c n e r'eglon is settlement blbitat of modern WafNdorobo hunter-

. i o w ~ n , e r \tbe bu.rru materlal poses severe problems of io ter-pl 8tRtion as th.ill 11 one tbe rew lOurcea ofool;ldlan in the whole region,m d t m IUDl1stencema:y have been involved.

regional distribu Uon of material Cor the( ) 1 ( n ' i ~ ~ i l i U eand Natmn blUlllos of Kenya.

N.Har8 aDd carried ou t an a n a ~ y L sor the regionaLd.hltl1buUon of material lIt 8outhernBrttain. Tbey showed that

deli111lty o t m artelao'll (Into roUtb.s. mace-beada.axeB /adIUHI) varied wU.b formaUoGa, Tbelr resul ts are probably notla terpret lbl . in lemul IDlelute denaRlel, baaed a l they are not on systematicaflm.pUn I. butor1 data foom tbil Uter ltUNl, This very la.rge Bealeappn>lIicb to habitat preferences. r l ther thaa the de ..tailed adaptaUc:uul P ~ i U U c t d a ra.reu. It bl.pUlhts the geological buLs of ana rc haeo top ca l and Lbe problema the extent to wblch ob -

variation i l Ule fi f buman 80010110a1 pattertllDl o r tapbc)nomlcalboUt of m ., be rel.lted to the ooderlylfllle'ol.ogioa.l st.ruoture.

T k a studies (trltty the Importance of developlng specUlametbodologles for artefact dmll;ity analysJ.. seoondly. th e c rUlcal importartoeolr l pf t )u8 aampl,wg and thl.rdly, that a large quantity of al 'Cbae-otogl.cal material. from a broad spectntm of environments , occurs outBide tbeC(1,Wtext ot' what 111 trad.u.loo.aUy referred to I S a s i te ,and that this material basa hi ;h tnfo m Ui:Uc:)lO pot.enUa t.2 . 1 . 9 f : ~ : , U fl 1 H l ~ t ~ . e f l C ld e n , i t ~~ a l ~ l I i 8

T b f ; ~above dllculilion baa I:ttempt.ed t;) show the bilhavloural, arch a.oologlcalm d g e o m u r p b o t o g i ~ a tb ~ u d sr ( ~ rviewing arcbaool.ogl.cal materials as spatiallyoontitmous. Tbe prbmu:y inferences tbat m ~ ybe drawn rrom the above dlsaU.llion are:

1) Tbat slUtS a.re in fa cootlnu,oul l\ dlstrLbuUtlfl of a r t ~ b i l e o l o g i c a . lmaterials,

2) Tbat home r a n . , behaYlour pn:vldes Ute t b ~ ' O r e U c a lunderpinning for(X)nUo.uous relmnal diat r l b u U u u ~

Thm the o ( ~ ( ~ u p a n c y .leading to accumulation ofnUltill ials. lend compounds tbil c()OUnuouadi8trtDuU()11. aa willt li S complexity.

4) T bat the arteract. bllsic uni t an a.rc :ulil()loglcal dIstribution, C M ,and sbciuld, bil used as tbt' unn Nlgtoual analy

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

23/24

The analysi s presented h lre proceeds from these inferences . t ispredicted that a landscape should contain on the surface o r within it s sedimentsa continuously distributed scatter of artefacts eXhibiting properties of i f-ferential spatial densities. llowing fo r both the behavioural and taphonomicalprocesses affecting them these density distr ibutions may be expected to con-

form to the distribution and frequency of prehistoric human activities. Itwould seem appropriate therefore to us e the artefact as the unit of datacollection and analysis and to examine the regional variation i n artefact densityas a means of studying human palaeoecology n artefact density analysisis one potential methodology fo r the off site archaeologist.

8/12/2019 foley 1981 ch 2

24/24

Request Date: 01-MAY-2009Expiration Date: 08-MAY-2009ILL Number: TGQ or OCLC :

ILL Number: 3156593Call Number: DA90.Al B75 supp1. no.97

Format: Part of BookTitle: Off-Site Archaeology and Human

~ Adaptation in Eastern Africa. An Analysisl of Regional Artefact Density in the

Amboseli, Southern Kenia:J Article Author: Foley, R. R

Article Title: chapter 2

Part Pub. Date: 1981Pages: chapter 2

Requester: UCSB Library

Patron Name: MARSH, ERIK JOHNSON (Graduate)Pat ron e-mail: emarsh@umai1.ucsb.eduService Level: Normal- Full Search

Delivery Method: CourierRequest Note: PDF please - I am abroad on research and

cannot pick up a hard copy. thanksNeed by Date:

Verification Source: MELVYL-UCLinks-sfx:citationupplier Reference;

Owned By: UCD Shields Libmry

TGQ or OCLC : 315588010: USBI

ISBN/ISSN:

Publisher: Cambridge Monographs in AfricanArchaeology 3. British ArchaeologicalReports 97, Oxford.

Address: UCSB Interlibrary Loan/DavidsonLibrary/525 UCEN Road/Santa BarbamCA, 93106/U.S.A.lUCSB Ariel lP128.111.96.251; Email ill@library.ucsb.

Service Type: Copy non retumableMax Cost: USD55

Payment Type: IFM

Copyright Compliance: CCLRequester Symbol:

Return To: ILL SHIELDS LIBRARY / UNIVERSr

OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS /100 N.W.QUAD / DAVIS CA 95616-5292/ U.S.,ARIEL: 169.237.75.50/ FAX530-752-7815/shieldsinterloan@ucdavis.edu