Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:58:26.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating the Archaeological Consequences of Short-Duration Occupations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alan P. Sullivan III
Alan P. Sullivan III*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0380
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary research in settlement archaeology often concentrates on inferring how people used landscapes. This research focus has prompted archaeologists to explore the interpretive potential of the full range of archaeological remains, including surface artifact scatters. One difficulty, however, is the identification of distinct occupations, especially those of short duration. Unless archaeologists isolate the remains of individual occupations, inferences about prehistoric land use may be unreliable because they would be based on conflated data. An approach for surmounting this problem is illustrated with the analysis of material recovered from the Voigt Mesa site in east-central Arizona. A key element of the approach consists of procedures for establishing units of spatial analysis (subsite areas) for partitioning surface artifact scatters. Statistical tests performed on several key technological variables common to the debitage assemblages of the subsite areas support the partitioning. Additional discussion explores how models of settlement-system change can be evaluated once artifact scatters have been separated into their constituent occupations.

Resumen

Resumen

La investigación actual en arqueología de patrones de asentamientos se concentra a menudo en inferir cómo diferentes pueblos hicieron uso del paisaje. Este tema de estudio ha conducido a los arqueólogos a explorar el potencial interpretativo del rango total de restos arqueológicos, incluyendo conjuntos de artefactos en superficie. Una dificultad, sin embargo, es la identificación de distintas ocupaciones, especialmente aquellas de corta duración. A menos que los arqueólogos consigan separar los restos de ocupaciones individuales, las inferencias acerca del uso prehistórico del espacio resultan inciertas puesto que están basadas en datos combinados. Mediante el análisis de materiales recuperados en Voigt Mesa, se ilustra un enfoque que permite superar este obstáculo. Un elemento crucial de este enfoque consiste en una serie de procedimientos para establecer unidades de análisis espacial (áreas dentro del sitio) a fin de dividir conjuntos de artefactos en superficie. Pruebas estadísticas efectuadas sobre una serie de variables tecnológicas claves compartidas por los conjuntos de debitage provenientes de diversas áreas del sitio ratifican la validez de la división. Se analiza además cómo modelos de cambio del sistema de asentamiento pueden ser evaluados una vez que los conjuntos de superficie han sido subdivididos en las ocupaciones que los integran.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 99 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ammerman, A. J. 1982 Introduction to the Analysis of Mosaic Patterns in Archaeology. World Archaeology 14 : 120–130.Google Scholar
Baumler, M. F., and Downum, C. E. 1989 Between Micro and Macro : A Study in the Interpretation of Small-Sized Lithic Debitage. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P., pp. 101–116. BAR International Series 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bergman, C. A., and Roberts, M. B. 1988 Flaking Technology at the Acheulean Site of Boxgrove, West Sussex (England). Revue Archeologique dePicardie 1-2 : 1–9.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes : Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35 : 255–273.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails : Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45 : 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 : 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, A. S., and Yellen, J. E. 1987 The Preservation of Activity Areas in the Archaeological Record : Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Work in Northwest Ngamiland, Botswana. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research, edited by Kent, S., pp. 63–106. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. 1982 On the Structure of Artifact Typologies. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A., pp. 176–189. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston.Google Scholar
Butzer, K. W. 1982 Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cahen, D. L., Keeley, L. H., and Noten, F. L. Van 1979 Stone Tools, Tool Kits, and Human Behavior in Prehistory. Current Anthropology 20 : 661–683.Google Scholar
Camilli, E. L. 1988 Interpreting Long-Term Land-Use Patterns from Archaeological Landscapes. American Archaeology 7 : 57–66.Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1984 The Nature of Organization of Intrasite Archaeological Records and Spatial Analytic Approaches to Their Investigation. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 103–222. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, C. 1987 Dissecting Intrasite Artifact Palimpsests Using Fourier Methods. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research, edited by Kent, S., pp. 236–294. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. C. 1977 Analysis of the Lithic Assemblages. In Settlement and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco River, edited by Reher, C. A., pp. 371–452. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Coinman, N. R., Clark, G. A., and Donaldson, M. L. 1989 Aspects of Culture in an Epipaleolithic Occupation Site in West-Central Jordan. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Henry, D. O. and Odell, G. H., pp. 213–235. Archeological Papers No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Doran, J. E., and Hodson, F. R. 1975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C, and Dancey, W. S. 1983 The Siteless Survey : A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 267–287. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ebert, J. I. 1988 Modeling Human Systems and “Predicting” the Archaeological Record : The Unavoidable Relationship of Theory and Method. American Archaeology 7 : 3–8.Google Scholar
Eder, J. F. 1984 The Impact of Subsistence Change on Mobility and Settlement Pattern in a Tropical Forest Foraging Economy : Some Implications for Archaeology. American Anthropologist 86 : 837–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferring, C. R. 1984 Intrasite Spatial Patterning : Its Role in Settlement-Subsistence Systems Analysis. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by Hietala, H., pp. 116–126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fish, S. K., Fish, P. R., and Madsen, J. H. 1990 Analyzing Regional Agriculture : A Hohokam Example. In The Archaeology of Regions : The Case for Full-Coverage Survey, edited by Fish, S. K. and Kowalewski, S. A., pp. 189–218. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. 1984 Identifying Spatial Disorder : A Case Study of a Mongol Fort. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by Hietala, H., pp. 196–223. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1981 Off-site Archaeology : An Alternative Approach for the Short-sited. In Pattern of the Past : Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by Hodder, I., Isaac, G, and Hammond, N., pp. 157–183. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. L. 1988 Excavations at Site 5LP1096, a Late Archaic Basketmaker II and a Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I Multicomponent Site. In Archaeological Investigations in the Bodo Canyon Area, La Plata County, Colorado, edited by Fuller, S. L., pp. 207–225. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.Google Scholar
Geib, P. R. 1990 Technological Inferences Based on Debitage Condition Categories. Ms. in possession of author.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. D. 1976 Nonparametric Methods for Quantitative Analysis. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Irwin-Williams, C. 1973 The Oshara Tradition : Origins ofAnasazi Culture. Contributions in Anthropology No. 5. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.Google Scholar
Irwin-Williams, C, Pierce, C., Durand, S. R., and Hicks, P. 1988 The Density-Dependent Method : Measuring the Archaeological Record in the Northern Southwest. American Archaeology 7 : 38–48.Google Scholar
Isaac, G. 1981 Stone Age Visiting Cards : Approaches to the Study of Early Land-Use Patterns. In Pattern of the Past : Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by Hodder, I., Isaac, G, and Hammond, N., pp. 131–155. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jensen, H. J. 1988 Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Flint Tools by High-Power Microscopy : A Re view of West European Research. Journal of World Prehistory 2 : 53–88.Google Scholar
Jermann, J. V., and Dunnell, R. C. 1979 Some Limitations of Isopleth Mapping in Archaeology. In Computer Graphics in Archaeology : Statistical Cartographic Applications to Spatial Analysis in Archaeological Contexts, edited by Upham, S., pp. 31–60. Anthropological Research Papers No. 15. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A. 1975 Locational Analysis and the Investigation of Uruk Local Exchange Systems. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by J. A. Sabloffand C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 285–339. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. 1984 Cell Frequency Recording and Analysis of Artifact Distributions. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by Hietala, H., pp. 75–96. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Judge, W. J. 1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Judge, W. J. 1974 Projectile Point Form and Function in Late Paleoindian Period Assemblages. In History and Prehistory of the Lubbock Lake Site, edited by Black, C. C., pp. 123–131. Museum Journal XV. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.Google Scholar
Judge, W. J. 1982 The Paleoindian and Basketmaker Periods : An Overview and Some Research Problems. In The San Juan Tomorrow, edited by Plog, F. and Wait, W., pp. 5–57. National Park Service and the School of American Research, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Kelly, R. L. 1988 Hunter-Gatherer Land-Use and Regional Geomorphology : Implications for Archaeological Survey. American Archaeology 7 : 49–57.Google Scholar
King, T. J., Jr., and Bradley, S. R. 1985 Investigations at the Glade Road Site (5DL775), A Possible Late Paleo-Indian/Archaic/Anasazi Base Camp. Southwestern Lore 51 : 1–29.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1987 Quantitative Methods Designed for Archaeological Problems. In Quantitative Research in Archaeology, edited by Aldenderfer, M. S., pp. 126–134. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Kroll, E. M., and Isaac, G. L. 1984 Configurations of Artifacts and Bones at Early Pleistocene Sites in East Africa. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by Hietala, H., pp. 4–31. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Larralde, S. 1988 The Timeless Survey : Problems in Defining Component Assemblages. American Archaeology 7 : 8–12.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A., and Graves, M. W. 1976 Probability Sampling Applied to an Early Multi-component Surface Site in East-Central Arizona. The Kiva 41 : 277–287.Google Scholar
McManamon, F. P. 1984 Discovering Sites Unseen. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 223–292. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Newell, R. R. 1987 Reconstruction of the Partitioning and Utilization of Outside Space in a Late Prehistoric/Early Historic Inupiat Village. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research, edited by Kent, S., pp. 107–175. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Newell, R. R., and Dekin, A. A. 1978 An Integrative Strategy for the Definition of Behaviorally-Meaningful Archaeological Units. Palaeohistoria 20 : 8–23.Google Scholar
Nielsen, A. E. 1991 Trampling the Archaeological Record : An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 56 : 483–503.Google Scholar
O. Connell, J. F. 1987 Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52 : 74–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1980 Toward a More Behavioral Approach to Archaeological Lithic Concentrations. American Antiquity 45 : 404–431.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1985 Small Sites Archaeology and Use-Wear on Surface-Collected Artifacts. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10 : 21–48.Google Scholar
Parry, W. J., and Smiley, F. E. 1990 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Northeastern Arizona and Southeastern Utah. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Minnis, P. E. and Redman, C. L., pp. 47–67. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Parsons, J. R. 1972 Archaeological Settlement Patterns. In Annual Review of Anthropology, edited by Siegel, B. J., Beals, A. R., and Tyler, S. A., pp. 127–150. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Petraglia, M. D., and Nash, D. T. 1987 The Impact of Fluvial Processes on Experimental Sites. In Natural Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record, edited by Nash, D. T. and Petraglia, M. D., pp. 108–130. BAR International Series 352. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rigaud, J., and Simek, J. F. 1991 Interpreting Spatial Patterns at the Grotte XV : A Multiple-Method Approach. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Kroll, E. M. and Price, T. D., pp. 199–220. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rozen, K. C. 1981 Patterned Associations Among Lithic Technology, Site Content, and Time : Results of the TEP St. Johns Project Lithic Analysis. In Prehistory of the St. Johns Area, East-Central Arizona : The TEP St. Johns Project, edited by Westfall, D. A., pp. 157–232. Archaeological Series No. 153. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Schreiber, K. J. 1984 The Investigation of Site AZ Q : 12 : 48. In The Prehistoric Occupation of Voigt Mesa, Arizona : The 1983 TEP Springerville Project, edited by Schreiber, K. J. and P, A.. Sullivan III, pp. 9–21. Archaeological Series No. 166. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Shiner, J. L. 1969 Component Analysis for Archaic Sites. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 40 : 215–229.Google Scholar
Simek, J. F. 1989 Structure and Diversity in Intrasite Spatial Analysis. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G. T., pp. 59–68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Simek, J. F., and Larick, R. R. 1983 The Recognition of Multiple Spatial Patterns : A Case Study from the French Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 10 : 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simms, S. R. 1988 The Archaeological Structure of a Bedouin Camp. Journal of Archaeological Science 15 : 197–211. Stevenson, M. G.Google Scholar
Simms, S. R. 1991 Beyond the Formation of Hearth-Associated Artifact Assemblages. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Kroll, E. M. and Price, T. D., pp. 269–299. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J. 1987 CALIB : Radiocarbon Calibration Program, 1987. Quaternary Isotope Laboratory. University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III 1987a Artifact Scatters, Adaptive Diversity, and Southwestern Abandonment : The Upham Hypothesis Reconsidered. Journal of Anthropological Research 43 : 345–360.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III 1987b Probing the Sources of Lithic Assemblage Variability : A Regional Case Study near the Homolovi Ruins, Arizona. North American Archaeologist 8 : 41–71.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III, and Rozen, K. C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50 : 755–779.Google Scholar
Sumner, W. M. 1990 Full-Coverage Regional Archaeological Survey in the Near East : An Example from Iran. In The Archaeology of Regions : A Case for Full-Coverage Survey, edited by Fish, S. K. and Kowalewski, S. A., pp. 87–115. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Tainter, J. A. 1979 The Mountainair Lithic Scatters : Settlement Patterns and Significance Evaluation of Low Density Surface Sites. Journal of Field Archaeology 6 : 463–469.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 1 : Epistemology. Anthropological Papers Vol. 58, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Tolstoy, P., and Fish, S. K. 1975 Surface and Subsurface Evidence for Community Size at Coapexco, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 2 : 9“/'-104.Google Scholar
Upham, S. 1984 Adaptive Diversity and Southwestern Abandonment. Journal of Anthropological Research 40 : 235–256.Google Scholar
Upham, S. 1988 Archaeological Visibility and the Underclass of Southwestern Prehistory. American Antiquity 53 : 245–261.Google Scholar
Van Noten, F., Cahen, D., and Keeley, L. 1980 A Paleolithic Campsite in Belgium. Scientific American 242 : 48–55.Google Scholar
Wait, W. K. 1983 Alternate Approaches to the Analysis of Low-Density Artifact Scatters. In The Star Lake Archaeological Project, edited by Wait, W. K. and Nelson, B. A., pp. 59–94. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, L. 1987 Natural Formation Process Experimentation and Archaeological Analysis. In Natural Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record, edited by Nash, D. T. and Petraglia, M. D., pp. 150–185. BAR International Series 352. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, L. 1988 Cultural Resources “Catch-22” and Empirical Justification for Discovering and Documenting Low-Density Archaeological Surfaces. In Tools to Manage the Past : Research Priorities for Cultural Resources Management in the Southwest, edited by Tainter, J. A. and Hamre, R. H., pp. 90–97. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-164, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, L., and Ebert, J. I. 1988 Issues in Archaeological Surface Survey : Meshing Method and Theory. American Archaeology 7 : 2.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1984 Unconstrained Clustering for the Analysis of Spatial Distributions in Archaeology. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by Hietala, H., pp. 242–277. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Whittlesey, S. M., and Reid, J. J. 1982 Analysis of Interassemblage Variability and Settlement System Reconstruction. In Cholla Project Archaeology, Volume 2, The Chevelon Region, edited by Reid, J. J., pp. 151–179. Archaeological Series No. 161. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D. R., McGuire, T. R., and Sternberg, C. 1981 Snaketown Revisited. Archaeological Series No. 155. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N. 1974 Lindenmeier : A Pleistocene Hunting Society. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Yellen, J. E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present : Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar