| OCR Text |
Show REPORTS 57 INVESTIGATING THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF LITHIC SCATTER SITES FROM AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: EXAMPLES FROM UTAH AND NEVADA Betsy L. TippS, P-III Associates, Inc. 2759 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 INTRODUCTION Information derived from ethnoarchaeological studies of modern hunter-gatherer site structure can improve interpretations of shallow, open lithic scatters by helping us predict the types and locations of features, facilities, and refuse deposits that might be present on a site, select field methods that will adequately uncover extant site structure patterns, and better understand the function, duration of occupation, and occupational history of some lithic scatters. Data from one site in northern Nevada and one site in eastern Utah are used as examples of how information derived from ethnoarchaeological studies of hunter-gatherer site structure can improve archaeological site interpretations. Shallow lithic scatters are ubiquitous in the Desert West. These sites are often investigated by excavating isolated test units directly into visible surface concentrations and analyzing assemblage composition and diversity to derive site interpretations. However comfortable we may feel with these techniques, they are empirically based and subject to distortions of the sample size effect (Jones et al. 1983). Faced with investigating numerous lithic scatters in the context of cultural resource management work, we wanted to find ways of improving site interpretation. Toward this end, we began to analyze the intrasite spatial patterning of selected sites from an ethnoarchaeological perspective as part of our research strategy. Intrasite spatial patterning, or site structure, is the three-dimensional distribution of artifacts, features, facilities, and other phenomena within a site (Binford 1983:144; O'Connell 1993). Recent ethnoarchaeological research has shown that site structure is affected by such diverse activities and behaviors as duration of occupation, site function, rate of refuse output, the role of food procurement, sharing, and storage, predator avoidance, and anticipated mobility, among others (e.g., Binford 1983, 1987; Gamble and Boismier 1991; Gould and Yellen 1987; Kroll and Price 1991; O'Connell 1987; O'Connell et al. 1991; Whitelaw 1983). Such studies are critical to understanding the meaning of site structure patterns because they link the observed patterns with the behavior that created them (O'Connell 1987:75; O'Connell et al. 1991:75). In principle, such information can be used to help interpret archeological site structure in terms of human behavior (Bartram et al. 1991:77; Simms 1988:198). Based on the studies to date, there is too much variability and too few cross-cultural patterns in modern hunter-gatherer site structure for the process to be as simple as matching every archaeologically observed pattern to an ethnoarchaeological analog. Palimpsest occupations can confound the patterns making site structure more complex and difficult to interpret (O'Connell 1987:90-91). The patterns can be significantly altered by postdepositional disturbances (Binford 1981). In an archaeological context, we lack the methods needed to retrieve data relevant to most of the issues noted above (O'Connell 1987:104-106). In addition, most ethnoarchaeological studies lack a higher order theoretical framework which can be used to firmly interpret variability in spatial patterning in terms of human behavior or postdepositional processes (Hudson 1993:349-351; O'Connell 1993, 1994). In spite of these limitations, ethnoarchaeological research on hunter-gatherer site structure is still useful on a practical and methodological level; it can contribute, if even in a small way, to the interpretation of archaeological sites. This paper discusses two sites to show how we have used such information to help (1) predict the presence of features and refuse deposits, (2) forecast how sites might be structured so we can implement appropriate field strategies to locate the features and other important site elements, and (3) determine site function/duration of occupation on one category of lithic scatters. These two sites lacked significant postdepositional disturbance (Tipps 1988; Tipps in prep.) and were thus judged suitable for site structure analysis. 58 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1993 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS APPLIED TO FIELD STRATEGffiS Successful identification of site structure patterns requires examination of a sufficiently large proportion of a site to adequately reveal the patterns in each type of area (e.g., household, special activity, refuse, etc.) present on a site. Large block excavations are typically called for (O'Connell 1987:104; Simms 1988), but minimum block size is dependent on site function and size. For example, a single residential area on short-term !Kung residential base camp could be exposed in 40 m2, but as much as 300-400 m2 would likely be required to adequately identify patterning on the whole !Kung camp (O'Connell 1987:104; see also Yellen 1977). Kua San and Hadza base camps could require excavation and analysis of 460 and 1250 m2, respectively (Bartram et al. 1991 Table 3; O'Connell et al. 1991 Table 1), but excavation and analysis of more than 1000 m2 might be required to identify the spatial patterning of a single household on a long-term Alyawara residential site (O'Connell 1987:104). Short-term field camps and specialized extractive sites require smaller overall exposures because they tend to be smaller sites. At the Nunamiut Mask site, Binford (1978) identified a short-term field camp in 100 m2. An Ache overnight camp could probably be excavated within 30 m2 (Jones 1983, 1993 Table 6- 1). Kua San transient camps might involve 70 m2 (Bartram et al. 1991 Table 3), whereas Efe camps might require 44-532 m2 (Fisher and Strickland 1991:220). Ethnoarchaeological descriptions of extractive locations (Bartram et al. 1991 Table 3; Binford 1983, 1984; Binford and O'Connell 1984) suggest that individual activity areas could be identified in exposures of 25-100 m2. The size of the areal excavation blocks can be reduced if the field archaeologist can judge where an activity area is located before the excavation is opened. For example, on Alyawara and Nunamiut residential sites, Binford (1987) was able to document in 400 m2 the same kinds of spatial patterning that O'Connell documented in 1000 m2 but Binford knew, a priori, where the individual households were located. Archaeologically, it may be possible to emulate Binford's approach through careful study of local ethnographic literature and ethnoarchaeological information on sites expected to be similar to those being investigated. In sum, it is not just that large-scale excavations are mandated for ethnoarchaeologically informed site structure studies. What is critical is exposing enough of a site that the extant patterns can be reliably identified. ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS FOR DURATION OF OCCUPATION Cross-cultural ethnoarchaeological studies (e.g., Bartram et al. 1991:141; Binford 1978, 1987; Fisher and Strickland 1991:230-231; Hitchcock 1987:416; Jones 1983, 1993:104; O'Connell 1987:100, 1993; Simms 1988:208) have noted a relationship between the length of occupation and refuse disposal practices, specifically, that refuse is deliberately managed on sites occupied for longer periods of time but not on sites occupied for shorter periods of time. The threshold at which refuse control begins is related to the number of site occupants, size and rate of refuse output, mobility, potential for site reuse, and substrate characteristics, etc. (Binford 1983; Fisher and Strickland 1991:231; Simms 1988:208) but, in general, sites occupied for shorter periods of time (perhaps up to 10 days) will be characterized by primary refuse deposited directly within the immediate context of its use. Sites occupied for longer periods of time will have primary refuse plus redeposited (secondary) refuse as a result of waste management. Secondary refuse will generally be distributed in disposal zones away from main activity areas because the latter areas are swept, cleaned, and otherwise maintained (Bartram et al. 1991; Binford 1983, 1987; O'Connell 1987; Yellen 1977). Size plays an important role in whether a piece of refuse will be discarded in a primary or secondary context (Binford 1978, 1983; Hayden and Cannon 1983; Jones 1983, 1993:104; Kent 1984; O'Connell 1987:93-95, 100; Simms 1988:207). Small items (less than 3-5 cm) are more likely to be discarded in place (in a drop zone) as primary refuse because they are less visible and less obtrusive than large items. Once deposited, they are also more likely than large items to retain their general horizontal positioning because they are more easily trampled into the substrate (Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985) and less susceptible to transport by foot traffic (see Stevenson 1991:271-272). On sites occupied for long periods of time, they are also more likely to remain in place after clean up efforts because they are harder to see REPORTS 59 and, thus, more difficult to amass and redeposit. Small items, therefore, will predominate in areas that have been cleaned up on long-term sites. On short-term sites, larger items may be discarded in place or expediently tossed or brushed aside (Binford 1978, 1983; Stevenson 1991:275). On sites occupied for longer periods of time, large items tend to be removed to a secondary refuse dump during more formalized post hoc maintenance efforts (e.g., Clark and Kurashina 1981; Hayden and Cannon 1983; Kent 1984:169; O'Connell 1987:95; Simms 1988:207). As a result, on longer-term sites, large items will be clustered in peripheral areas and secondary refuse zones. Because they provide the needed qualities of warmth, light, energy, and protection, hearths are frequently the center of hunter-gatherer activities (e.g., Binford 1978, 1983, 1987; Gamble 1991:11; Jones 1983, 1993:104; Kroll and Price 1991:197). Hearths should therefore be present on long- and short-term camps alike. The size of the activity area around a hearth varies according to the number of people simultaneously using the hearth and the type of activities conducted, but the usable space around a hearth is limited and ethnoarchaeologists have observed that hearth-focused activity areas frequently extend from 2 to 6 m from the windward side of the hearth (e.g., Binford 1978, 1983:149-159; Hayden 1979:166; Jones 1983, 1993:101-104; Nicholson and Cane 1991:340). On short-term camps, refuse should therefore exhibit a slightly offset, but tight concentration around fires. Size sorting of artifacts should be absent other than that caused by toss and drop zones. On long-term camps, small artifacts should show this same clustered pattern but large artifacts should primarily be found in secondary refuse locations. Finally, ethnoarchaeologists have observed that as hearth-focused activity areas are used for longer periods of time, the need for maintenance ^such as cleaning and repositioning increases and the centroid of hearth features begins to drift (Binford 1978:158). In addition, hearths and other facilities in long-term activity areas tend to be more numerous, more formal, and more elaborately prepared (Binford 1987, 1990; Brooks et al. 1984; Hitchcock 1987). In summary, hearths on short-term camps should be informal, with little or no evidence of repositioning, drift, or maintenance, and will often be the central locus of the site functioning as a source of heat, light, and energy for food preparation. Refuse should exhibit a tight-though perhaps slightly offset-focus around fires, be in primary context, and lack size sorting other than a toss zone. Long-term sites should contain a larger variety of features such as hearths, structures, and storage facilities. Large refuse will concentrate in secondary deposits away from main activity areas. Maintained areas should primarily contain small debris resulting in clearly definable size sorting. Occasionally, some types of debris may be spatially concentrated in special activity areas peripherally distributed around the main activity areas especially if specialized tasks requiring large amounts of space were frequently performed. FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS Application of ethnoarchaeological site structure studies to archaeological sites requires three steps: adequately exposing the site structure, describing and defining extant patterns, and/or interpreting the observed patterns in terms of natural disturbance and human behavior. Like most sites excavated in a cultural resources management environment, excavations of the scope advocated by ethnoarchaeologists to uncover spatial patterning (O'Connell 1987; see above) were not feasible on the two sites described here. However, we were still able to obtain an overview of each site's large-scale spatial patterning through complete controlled surface collection. This technique was appropriate for the two sites reported here because they are exposed on the surfaces of stable deposits and the surface distributions accurately reflect the overall spatial patterning at the sites. Surface artifact distribution in conjunction with site layout expectations derived from local ethnographies, previous work in the area, and ethnoarchaeological studies were used to select excavation areas that had the potential of providing information needed to support or falsify our hypotheses. To the extent possible, surface collection and excavation blocks were larger than the predicted behavioral units to allow complete exposure of the patterns within and between these units. We also tried to investigate more than one similar behavioral unit on each site so that we could be reasonably certain we were looking at repeated patterns (cf. O'Connell 1987:104) and not elements of a larger or 60 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1993 alternate pattern. Excavations were accomplished in contiguous 1- by 1-m units. A variety of approaches have been used to identify spatial patterns on archaeological sites (e.g., Kintigh and Ammerman 1982; Rigaud and Simek 1991; Whallon 1984). Because we wanted to study duration of occupation, ours focused on the presence and spatial distribution of primary and secondary refuse relative to each other and to features. Spatial patterns were identified through examination of the physical distribution of artifacts, features, and other site phenomena without reference to artifact type (e.g., knife, scraper, debitage, etc.) To attempt to distinguish primary from secondary refuse by size, we subdivided the site assemblages into arbitrary size categories to study their physical distribution. Numerous arbitrary size categories were utilized as we experimented with the procedure (e.g., .32 cm [1/8 in], .64 cm [1/4 in], 1.27 cm [1/2 in], 2.54 cm [1 in], 5.08 cm [2 in], 10.16 cm [4 in] etc.) but they were ultimately collapsed during statistical analysis and for graphic presentation. Statistical analyses were used to examine the relationships of the various size categories. We then used isoplefh maps of artifact counts by size to illustrate the distributions identified during the statistical analysis and to examine the positioning of refuse relative to features. The isopleth maps were generated using the Grid and Topo routines of the SURFER program (Keckler 1994). The maps were interpolated using the inverse distance averaging method because it inversely weights the influence of each data point relative to its distance from the grid value being generated. A standard interpolative grid twice the size of the site grid and search radius of three x-units were used on all maps, except when excessive zero values required a less dense grid and larger grid radius to generate complete contours. CARORRA'S CAMP Carorra's Camp was a Late Prehistoric, Eagle Rock Phase (A.D. 1300-1600) site on the stable surface of a gentle ridge in Little Boulder Basin, north-central Nevada. P-III Associates excavated this site in 1987 (Tipps 1988). Surface manifestations consisted of approximately 250 Tosawihi Chert flakes, 6 Desert Series projectile points, and 11 other chipped stone implements. With the exception of a few outlying tools, these artifacts were concentrated in a 5- by 6-m area. At the time, sites like Carorra's Camp were routinely interpreted as chipping stations with no depth or interpretive value. As such, data recovery was rarely recommended (e.g., Jaynes 1981; Matranga 1985; Spencer 1985). However, our reading of local ethnographies (Harris 1940; Steward 1938) suggested that such sites might have more interpretive potential. In particular, ethnographic accounts of White Knife Shoshoni seasonal rounds implied that Little Boulder Basin would contain the remains of short-term, hunter-gatherer, summer base camps and fall field camps. Various ethnoarchaeological studies noted above further suggested that such sites would contain hearths. We surface collected 100 m2, considerably more than the entire surface manifestation of the site, to allow identification of the site's complete spatial patterning. Subsurface investigations had to be terminated after excavation of a 16 m2 block due to inclement winter weather. Despite this limitation, most of the major surface artifact concentration was excavated, as were some peripheral areas. A circular, shallow, unlined heath was found in the area north of the main debris scatter (Figure 1). Sediments at Carorra's Camp were screened through .64 cm mesh. Large (> 1.27 cm) and small (< 1.27 cm) artifacts are significantly correlated within the excavation block (r = .93; p < .05) indicating no size sorting in the artifactual assemblage. Note the similarity between the distribution of large and small artifacts in Figures 2a and 2b, respectively. In addition to the lack of size sorting, artifacts at Carorra's Camp are tightly focused in a 5- to 7-m-diameter area with the hearth slightly offset from the main artifact scatter; there is no evidence of feature maintenance, drift, or repositioning. These characteristics are all consistent with ethnoarchaeological expectations for a short-term, hearth-centered camp. It would have been preferable to excavate more units beyond the major artifact concentration and hearth to verify that the observed spatial patterning is not part of a larger site phenomenon. In this case, this issue can be addressed with the surface assemblage because (1) the distribution of surface and subsurface artifacts in the excavation block is significantly correlated (r = .76; p < .05) and (2) the entire site area plus a buffer was completely REPORTS 61 Excavation Block N - 0 per square meter -1 -9 per square meter -10-18 per square meter -19-27 per square meter - > 28 per square meter 0 o meters Hearth Figure 1. Map of Carorra's Camp showing the boundaries of the surface collection and excavation blocks, the location of the feature, and an isopleth representation of surface artifact distribution by count. 62 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1993 0 E 0) D D" Q. .2 0) E 0 D O" CO o a 0) -*- 0 E D a3 to CL CM i GO 0 E 0 0 =s D" CO 0 a 0 E 0 a 3 CT CO 0 oo o_ co co V O r- C-4 CO A nun V B A U § U •a o •_ <h -J- 0 E 0 u _J u CO k_ 0 LI O 1 V 0) <D E 0) n 3 (T CO l_ CI) O o CN O 0 0 E 0 n 3 rr <7} t- 0) o oo ^ n oo 0 E(|> 0 1- ~ni rr CO Cl> n r-» m ^ T h- 0 0 E 0 3u O CO u 0 a r^. UJ A .3 oo x> oa a Xj "oa OB'S" E 8 REPORTS 63 surface collected. The distribution of surface artifacts relative to the feature for the entire site clearly demonstrates that the observed pattern constitutes the entire site and is not part of some larger phenomenon (see Figure 1). In sum, expectations from local ethnographies and ethnoarchaeological site structure studies led to predictions that the site was a short-term camp which would contain one or more hearths, and that any such hearths would be slightly offset from the main debris concentration. While most archaeologists would be comfortable characterizing the site as short-term based on its small size, discrete nature, and the composition of its artifact assemblage, the site structure approach and study provided an independent line of evidence supporting this interpretation. More importantly, it led to the prediction and identification a hearth which few would have suspected on an open site in the area, particularly a site as small and nondescript as Carorra's Camp. This, in turn, resulted in the recovery of a radiocarbon date (590 ± 50 [Beta-23900; wood charcoal], with a tree-ring corrected age range of A.D. 1300-1430 at two standard deviations [Stuiver and Pearson 1993]). In an area where few absolute dates were available and the cultural chronology was still being developed, the discovery of a dateable hearth was a welcome discovery. Without reference to ethnoarchaeological site structure studies, it is unlikely that data recovery would have been recommended. Even if it had, excavation of isolated 1- by 1-m units in the major surface artifact concentrations may have missed the hearth and the chronological data it contained and resulted in a different functional classification for the site. BARTLETT CAMP Bartlett Camp, excavated by P-III Associates in 1991 (Tipps in prep.), was a Late Prehistoric lithic scatter covering 4400 m2 along the rim of a small box canyon in the northern Canyonlands uplands of eastern Utah. It was situated in the pinyon-juniper woodland at an elevation of 1700 m. On the surface, the site was manifest by multiple clusters of debitage and bone closely associated with hearths and a slab-lined feature amidst a light artifact scatter (Figure 3). Based on the size and composition of the surface artifact assemblage, site layout, and previous excavation results from other Late Prehistoric sites in area (Davis et al. 1989; Osborn 1990), we hypothesized that the site was a short-term camp with multiple contemporaneous activity areas produced by multiple camp groups, or a palimpsest of short-term camps, each typified by one or several horizontally separated activity areas (Zeanah 1991:9-10). However, the presence of a slab-lined feature, possibly a storage cist, led us to consider whether the site could instead represent a longer duration residential base. Local ethnographies indicate that short-term transient forager camps are typical of Southern Paiute and Ute mesa top or pinyon zone settlement patterns but long-term base camps were occasionally positioned in the pinyon zone to take advantage of abundant fuel and stored pinenuts (Callaway et al. 1986; Kelly 1964; Kelly and Fowler 1986). After collecting the entire site surface, we excavated most of the deposits around the hearth and slab-lined feature on the ledge at the south end of the site. The cultural remains in this area are temporally unrelated to those in the central portion of the site, and also too limited and too disturbed for site structure analysis. The remaining effort concentrated around and between the two hearths in the central portion of the site. A total of 69 m2 was excavated in this area. If the site was a long-term occupation, this would maximize the probability of finding a central activity area or structure in the low surface artifact density area separating the two hearths. Simms (1989) has noted that open-air hearths frequently occur within 3 m of structures (see also Simms and Heath 1990), and various ethnoarchaeologists (e.g., Fisher and Strickland 1991; O'Connell 1987; Yellen 1977) have reported the presence of exterior hearths positioned outside of structures or around long-term activity areas on long-term residential bases. Based on these observations, the most likely area for a long-term activity area or structure was the low surface artifact density area between the hearths in the central portion of the site (Figure 4). Sediments were screened using a .32 cm mesh allowing us to sample smaller artifacts than Carorra's Camp. However, like Carorra's Camp, all size grades show significant correlations. Large items (> 1.27 cm) are significantly correlated with medium (.64-1.27 cm; r = .88; p < .05) and small (< .64 cm; r = .65; p < .05) items. Medium and small items are also significantly correlated (r = .81; 64 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1993 Bartlett Camp Slab-lined feature LEGEND I ^J Extent of surface artifacts /yjy High-density debitage concentration Q Moderate-density debitage concentration * Debitage Meters Contour = 1 M Figure 3. Plan map of Bartlett Camp. REPORTS 65 ''77 777 Excavation Blocks J i, t ..: -TTTTTTJ I l l L N - < 2 per square meter - 2-6 per square meter - 7-11 per square meter -12-16 per square meter - > 16 per square meter O 10 15 20 25 meters Hearth \ / - Slab-lined Feature Figure 4. Map of Bartlett Camp showing the boundaries of the surface collection and excavation blocks, the locations of features, and an isopleth representation of surface artifact distribution by count. 66 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1993 p < .05). Figure 5 shows the distribution of large (> 1.27 cm) and medium/small (< 1.27 cm) artifacts in the excavation block. Note the similarity of the patterning to that of Carorra's Camp. Both large and medium/small artifacts cluster within 5 to 7 m of, but peripheral to, the hearths. Bone, primarily burned and unburned artiodactyl and rabbit, exhibits a similar clustered distribution peripheral to the hearths. Like Carorra's Camp, there is no evidence of features drifting, being maintained, or being repositioned. Note that no small-sized debitage or bone was recovered from the area separating the two hearth clusters as would be expected if the clusters were positioned around a central activity area or structure on a longer term site. The spatial patterning of the artifacts and features supports our suspicion that the activity areas are the result of short-term occupations. Other more traditional forms of data support this interpretation because they show that the two clusters represent separate occupations. The southern hearth dates to 620 ± 60 (Beta-49374; wood charcoal) with a tree-ring corrected age range of A.D. 1280-1430 at two standard deviations (Stuiver and Pearson 1993). The northern hearth dates to 940 ± 80 (Beta-49198; wood charcoal) with a tree-ring corrected age range of A.D. 970-1280 at two standard deviations (Stuiver and Pearson 1993). In addition, the lithic material surrounding the two hearths differs significantly. Both artifact clusters contain regionally available Cedar Mesa Chert but the northern cluster is dominated by exotic, nonlocal raw material. The southern cluster has mostly local Bartlett Flat Chert. While we would have learned that the artifact clusters and hearths represent separate occupations without the site structure approach, the radiocarbon dates and toolstone data say nothing about the duration of occupation represented by each cluster. If we had not paid attention to site structure, our assessment of duration of occupation would have been limited to a qualitative assessment of assemblage composition and diversity. This assessment can now be bolstered and supported with the independent evidence from site structure. DISCUSSION These examples of Carorra's Camp and Bartlett Camp illustrate some ways that archaeologists can use ethnoarchaeological spatial patterning information to enhance archaeological research. Information derived from ethnoarchaeological analyses of hunter-gatherer site structure combined with a complete surface collection/block excavation field strategy and site structure analysis provided a line of evidence concerning site function and duration of occupation on short-term camps independent of that provided by assemblage composition and diversity. In addition, this approach has helped us anticipate how sites might be structured so that we could allocate available excavation units in ways that directly test hypotheses, and focus on features, activity areas, and refuse deposits. The latter use resulted in the recovery of previously unexpected chronological information. These results were obtained even though we were unable to excavate the large block exposures frequently called for by ethnoarchaeologists. We emphasize that we are not advocating site structure analyses based on small areal excavations. We are simply saying that attention to site structure in conjunction with traditional techniques was valuable on small- to medium-sized, short-term lithic scatter sites despite limitations due to the size of the excavation blocks. In addition, we have found that patterns can be identified with smaller excavation blocks if we have some idea about what we are looking for, at least on short-term camps. To maximize available field time and manpower, field strategies should be developed on the basis of site layout expectations derived from local ethnographies, previous work in the area, and ethnoarchaeological site structure studies. We also want to emphasize that site structure studies can be successfully accomplished using 1- by 1-m excavation blocks rather than by piece plotting individual artifacts. Based on our work to date, we think that the potential benefits of site structure analysis to Desert West archaeology are promising. In many parts of the western United States, small lithic scatters accompanied by few or no obvious features are ubiquitous. Being able to predict and locate features and to obtain additional lines of evidence concerning the duration of occupation and site function greatly enhances our ability to learn from these sites. However we also offer some notes of caution. In the two cases presented here, the inferences derived from site structure were supported by additional lines of evidence that archaeologists commonly collect. I believe this is a critical aspect of the site structure REPORTS 67 r i i i 1 1 -1 1 M 1 1 i i i J r i i t I i - < 7 per square meter mB - 7-18 per square meter -19-30 per square meter - 31-41 per square meter - > 41 per square meter l i - < 50 per square meter l i - 50-169 per square meter -170-289 per square meter - 290-409 per square meter - > 409 per square meter Figure 5. Isopleth map of artifact distribution by count in the main excavation block at Bartlett Camp: a, large (> 1.27 cm); b, medium/small (< 1.27 cm). 68 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1993 approach and that site structure analyses should only be attempted on sites capable of providing independent evidence. In addition, many types of sites are not appropriate for site structure analyses because they are disturbed, have multiple overlapping occupations that have confounded the patterns, or are too complex for a v a i l a b l e a n a l y t i c a l a p p r o a c h e s. Ethnoarchaeologically focused site structure studies on such sites are likely to provide disappointing results. Given currently available techniques, short-term sites and multiple occupation sites with horizontally separated components may be the best candidates for archaeological site structure studies because they tend to have more intact patterns that can more easily be linked with past behavior. In addition, sites " . . . with a structure that is clear to the naked eye provide the best opportunity for successful site structure studies" (Kroll and Price 1991:5). I also wish to stress that while we have been successful at identifying the pattern expected for Binford's hearth-centered activity model on short-term sites, we have yet to successfully identify patterns indicative of other activities and behaviors, and occupation other than that of short duration. Although preliminary, our work to date suggests that this will be more difficult in the archaeological context. We have encountered several cases where palimpsest occupation had significantly disrupted the patterns and one case where the observed pattern did not fit any known postdepositional or behavioral model; this latter problem may be because the excavation block was too small for us to recognize the extant patterning. More work is clearly needed to determine whether a site structure approach will ultimately be useful to identify the function and duration of sites other than short-term, hearth-focused camps. However, even if site structure proves ineffective for this purpose, it will still be useful on a practical methodological level on many sites if for no other purpose than successfully locating site elements that are critical to site interpretation (e.g., Simms and Heath 1990). Finally, I want to respond to an issue that has been the subject of considerable verbal debate: are the results of using a site structure approach worth the effort? This question is premature. It is unrealistic to expect site structure to provide immediate and spectacular results despite its potential. A fair and adequate test of its potential range of applicability and usefulness will take time, more applications to determine suitable methods and limiting factors, and continued interaction with ethnoarchaeologists. We hope that ethnoarchaeologists will be amenable to such interaction and that agency archaeologists in decision making capacities will be supportive of this effort. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is a revised version of a preliminary report presented by myself and David W. Zeanah in the Site Structure symposium at the 23rd Biennial Meeting of the Great Basin Anthropological Conference in Boise, Idaho. I thank David Zeanah for his contribution to that paper and for his continuing advice and assistance in revising this paper for publication. I also thank Kevin Jones, James O'Connell, Dave Schmitt, Alan Schroedl, and Steve Simms for their comments which greatly improved the paper. REFERENCES CITED Bartram, L. E., E. M. Kroll, and H. T. Bunn 1991 Variability in Camp Structure and Bone Food Refuse Patterning at Kua San Hunter-Gatherer Camps. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 77-148. Plenum Press, New York. Binford, L. R. 1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43(3):330-361. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson, New York. 1984 Butchering, Sharing, and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:235-257. 1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of Reference and Site Structure. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by S. Kent, pp. 449-512. Columbia University Press, New York. 1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative Study. Journal of Anthropological Research 41:119-152. Binford, L. R., and J. F. O'Connell 1984 An Alyawara Day: The Stone Quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research 40:406-432. REPORTS 69 Brooks, A. S., D. E. Gelburd, and J. E. Yellen 1984 Food Production and Culture Change Among the !Kung San: Implications for Prehistoric Research. In From Hunters to Farmers: The Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa, edited by J. Clark and S. Brandt, pp. 293-310. University of California Press, Berkeley. Callaway, D., J. C. Janetski and O. C. Stewart 1986 Ute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Clark, J. D. and H. Kurashina 1981 A Study of the Work of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia and its Relevance for Archaeological Interpretation. In Modern Material Culture: the Archaeology of Us, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 303-321. Academic Press, New York. Davis, W. E., D. A. Westfall, W. K. Howell, and C. M. Coder 1989 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation Along SR 313, Grand County, Utah. Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah. Submitted to Utah Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Utah Division, and Bureau of Land Management. Fisher, J. W., Jr., and H. C. Strickland 1991 Dwellings and Fireplaces: Keys to Efe Pygmy Campsite Structure. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter- Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies, edited by C. S. Gamble and W. A. Boismier, pp. 215-236. Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Gamble, C. S. 1991 An Introduction to the Living Spaces of Mobile Peoples. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies, edited by C. S. Gamble and W. A. Boismier, pp. 1-23. Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Gamble, C. S. and W. A. Boismier (editors) 1991 Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies. Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P., D. B. Damrosch, D. R. Damrosch, J. Pryor, and R. L. Thunen 1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal. American Antiquity 50:803-818. Gould, R. A. and J. Yellen 1987 Man die Hunted: Determinants of Household Spacing in Desert and Tropical Foraging Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:77-103. Harris, J. S. 1940 The White Knife Shoshoni of Nevada. In Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes, edited by R. Linton, pp. 39-118. D. Appleton- Century Company, New York. Hayden, B. 1979 Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavation Among Australian Aborigines. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Hayden, B. and A. Cannon 1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:117-163. Hitchcock, R. K. 1987 Sedentism and Site Structure: Organizational Changes in Kalahari Bosarwa Residential Locations. In Method and Theory in Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by S. Kent, pp. 374-423. Columbia University Press, New York. Hudson, J. (editor) 1993 Concluding Discussion: The Role of Actualistic Studies. In From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, pp. 349-351. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 21. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Jaynes, S. 1981 Carlin Gold Plan of Operations. BLM Report 1-3880?). Bureau of Land Management, Elko District Office, Elko, Nevada. Jones, K. T. 1983 Forager Archaeology: The Ache of Eastern Paraguay. In Carnivores, Human Scavengers, and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology, edited by G. M. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachern, pp. 171-191. Archaeological Association, University of Calgary. 1993 The Archaeological Structure of a Short-term Camp. In From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental 70 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1993 Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, edited by J. Hudson, pp. 101-114. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 21. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Jones, G. T., D. K. Grayson, and C. Beck 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctate: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by R. C. Dunnell and D. K. Grayson, pp. 55-73. Anthropological Papers No. 72. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Keckler, D. 1994 SURFER for Windows User's Guide: Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping. Golden Software, Inc., Golden, Colorado. Kelly, I. T. 1964 Southern Paiute Ethnology. Anthropological Papers No. 69. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Kelly, I. T., and C. S. Fowler 1986 Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 336-367. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kent, S. 1984 Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Kintigh, K. W., and A. Ammerman 1982 Heuristic Approaches to Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 47:31-63. Kroll, E. M., and T. D. Price 1991 Introduction. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 1-9, 197-198. Plenum Press, New York. Matranga, P. 1985 Carlin Gold Road. BLM Report 1-9670?). Bureau of Land Management, Elko District Office, Elko, Nevada. Nicholson, A., and S. Cane 1991 Desert Camps: Analysis of Australian Aboriginal Protohistoric Campsites. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies, edited by C. S. Gamble and W. A. Boismier, pp. 263-354. Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. O'Connell, J. F. 1987 Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52:74-108. 1993 What Can Great Basin Archaeologists Learn from Site Structure? An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Utah Archaeology, in this volume. 1994 Ethnoarchaeology Needs a General Theory of Behavior. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. O'Connell, J. F., K. Hawkes, and N. B. Jones 1991 Distribution of Refuse-producing Activities at Hadza Residential Base Camps: Implications for Analyses of Archaeological Site Structure. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 61-76. Plenum Press, New York. Osborn, A. J. 1990 Aboriginal Adaptations on the Colorado Plateau: A View from the Island-in-the-Sky, Canyonlands, Utah. Draft. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln. Rigaud, J. and J. F. Simek 1991 interpreting Spatial Patterns at the Grotte XV: A Multiple Method Approach. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 199-220. Plenum Press, New York. Simms, S. R. 1988 The Archaeological Structure of a Bedouin Camp. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:197-211. 1989 The Structure of the Bustos Wickiup Site, Eastern Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology ll(l):2-34. Simms, S. R. and K. M. Heath 1990 Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Application of Ethnoarchaeology. American Antiquity 55(4):797-813. Spencer, L. 1985 Cultural Resources Report Format/Field Worksheet. BLM Report 902(P). Bureau of Land Management, Elko District Office, Elko, Nevada. Stevenson, M. G. 1991 Beyond the Formation of Hearth-Associated Artifact Assemblages. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 269-299. Plenum Press, New York. Steward, J. H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Sociopolitical Groups. Bulletin No. 120. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. REPORTS 71 Stuiver, M., and G. W. Pearson 1993 High-Precision Bidecadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, A.D. 1950-500 B.C. and 2500-6000 B.C. Radiocarbon 35:1-23. Tipps, B. L. 1988 Archaic and Numic Encampment in the Little Boulder Basin, Eureka County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Report 424-1-8805. P-III Associates, Inc., Salt Lake City. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Elko District Office, Elko, Nevada, in prep Bartlett Camp: A Multiple Occupation, Late Prehistoric Site in the Canyonlands Uplands, Grand County, Utah. P-1H Associates, Inc., Salt Lake City. Whallon, R. 1984 Unconstrained Clustering for the Analysis of Spatial Distributions in Archaeology. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by H. J. Hietala, pp. 242-277. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Whitelaw, T. M. 1983 People and Space in Hunter-gatherer Camps: A Generalising Approach in Ethnoarchaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 2(2):48-66. Yellen, J. E. 1977 Zeanah, D 1991 Archeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, New York. W. Trekking the Desert: An Archeological Treatment Plan for Site 42GR2369. Cultural Resources Report 473-01-9119. P-III Associates, Inc., Salt Lake City. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Grand Resource Area, Moab, Utah. SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS AT THE FIRE GUARD HEARTH 42WB54 WEBER COUNTY, UTAH Mark E. Stuart, Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter, Utah Statewide Archaeological Society, 2054 East 6550 South, Ogden, Utah 84405 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to document the results of salvage excavations at the Fire Guard Hearth, 42Wb54 Weber County, Utah and report one of the first 14C dates from an upland site east of the Great Salt Lake. Excavation of this feature was undertaken by the Promontory/Tubaduka Chapter of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society as part of their ongoing research into the archaeology of the Great Salt Lake region of Northern Utah. The project was under the direction of Dr. Bill Fawcett of Utah State University with Mark Stuart serving as field supervisor. Chapter members who participated were Gary and Carl DeMastrie, Bill and Sara Yates, Steve Hansen, Ann Cornell, Jason Jones, Lisa Pringle, Richard James, and Sarah Halverson. They donated a total of 45 hours in the completion of this project. Their labor of love is greatly appreciated. SITE SETTING The Fire Guard Hearth is a prehistoric feature within the large archaeological site 42Wb54 locally known as the "The Basin." It is located at the mouth of Weber Canyon less than Vi mile north of the Weber-Davis county border. The site proper lies in the eastern portion of the Town of Uintah, Weber County, Utah (Figure 1). The site is currently owned by the Union Pacific Railroad and several private individuals. Site 42Wb54 lies within a small protected basin on a large sand and gravel alluvial delta created by the Weber River during pleistocene Lake Bonneville times. The site has a commanding view of the surrounding terrain, abundant fauna, flora and water resources and lies close to Weber Canyon which provided access to the Wasatch hinterland. These conditions provided a favorable environment for prehistoric inhabitants. The Fire Guard Hearth overlooks the Weber River which is presently located Vi mile to the south. Old |
