Describing and comparing archaeological spatial structures

Abstract

Quantitative archaeological spatial analysis today is radically different from that introduced more than 20 years ago. Today spatial analysis is couched in more general formational terms that include earlier functional pursuits. Today spatial analysts (1) focus on individual formationally sensitive artifact or element attributes, rather than on types; (2) use distributional rather than partitive methods and techniques; (3) consider a suite of such attributes to construct the formational history of archaeological deposits; and, least commonly, (4) undertake comparative spatial analysis. An elaboration of the latter tactic is proposed here, that of characterizing spatial structure in terms of structural elements (or "grid cells") and relationships among those elements. This proposal is illustrated through the analysis of five well-known ethnoarchaeological sites with different formational histories. The illustration focuses on the formational process of site maintenance and relies on the relative frequencies of small and large artifacts to monitor the operation of that process. Structural descriptors describe the configuration of grid cells with different artifact size profiles in formationally meaningful terms. Importantly, these descriptors enable the rigorous comparison of spatial structure among and between ethnoarchaeological and archaeological deposits.

Experimental lithic tool displacement due to long-term animal disturbance

“…The different expectations based on previous experiments, and generated by this experimental investigation, are summarized in Table 4. Results from this study show that trampling on lithic debris may replicate some of the features associated with knapping activity and activity zones described by Binford (1978) and others (e.g., Brooks and Yellen 1987;Wandsnider 1996). Animal trampling disturbs artifacts on a similar scale as toss zone features, less than 3 m, while downslope artifact movement and fluvial processes may be much more disruptive to lithic clasts.…”

“…Therefore, identifying and accounting for the post-depositional component of site formation which may lead to similar patterns are critical (Marean and Bertino 1994). The spatial arrangement of lithic artifacts provides clues to site occupation behavior such as activity zones, dumping, and site maintenance activities (Binford 1978(Binford , 1980Carr 1991;Wandsnider 1996). These have been incorporated into archeological interpretations of past behaviors through lithic refitting and conjoining studies (Sisk and Shea 2008) and analysis of spatial cluster analysis (Koetje 1994), as well as the spatial distribution in artifact sizes (Wandsnider 1996).…”

“…The spatial arrangement of lithic artifacts provides clues to site occupation behavior such as activity zones, dumping, and site maintenance activities (Binford 1978(Binford , 1980Carr 1991;Wandsnider 1996). These have been incorporated into archeological interpretations of past behaviors through lithic refitting and conjoining studies (Sisk and Shea 2008) and analysis of spatial cluster analysis (Koetje 1994), as well as the spatial distribution in artifact sizes (Wandsnider 1996). However, neither behavioral formation processes nor post-depositional processes are uniform across time or space, and expanding the range of experimental studies across these dimensions provides additional insight into the complex formational histories at archeological localities.…”

“…Other ethnoarcheological studies have found that cleaning and site maintenance activities can lead to systematic behavioral patterning at the edge of activity areas (Yellen 1977;Brooks and Yellen 1987;O'Connell 1987;Simms 1988). Wandsnider's (1996) overview of site spatial analysis identifies size sorting of artifacts as a key hallmark of site use and maintenance behaviors. Since the distribution of artifact size production, use, and discard relates to the structured occupational input into a site, identifying artifactual gradients can provide insight into site functional histories (Wandsnider 1996).…”

“…Wandsnider's (1996) overview of site spatial analysis identifies size sorting of artifacts as a key hallmark of site use and maintenance behaviors. Since the distribution of artifact size production, use, and discard relates to the structured occupational input into a site, identifying artifactual gradients can provide insight into site functional histories (Wandsnider 1996). Critical to applying ethnoarcheological models to excavated contexts is incorporating the taphonomic processes that may result in pattern equifinality (Lyman 2004).…”