Traditionally, archaeologists have used excavation data from Pennsylvania rockshelters to establish local and regional chronologies; however, these data sets do not lend themselves to behavioral or formational interpretations due to the scale of recovery resolution used. Behaviorally indicative evidence is apparent in contiguous block excavations using analytic units measuring 50 cm × 50 cm × 5 cm for lot collection. At least three specific behaviors—hunting gear maintenance, bone processing, and activity area maintenance—can be recovered from analytic units that result in structured spatial patterning that goes undetected at 1 m collection resolution. Behaviors universal to hunter-gatherers are indicated by the distributions of small artifacts (< 1 cm) of various classes. A current challenge in the discipline of archaeology is relating behavioral theory to the interpretation of structured remains of prehistoric hunter-gatherer occupations. This research highlights these behaviors and the relevant literature pertaining to their archaeological spatial signatures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartramL. E.KrollE. M., and BunnH. T.1991Variability in Camp Structure and Bone Food Refuse Patterning at Kua San Hunter-Gatherer Camps. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by KrollE. M. and PriceT. D., pp. 77–148. Plenum Press, NewYork.
2.
BinfordL. R.1978aDimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity, 43(3):330–361.
3.
BinfordL. R.1978bNunamuit Ethnoarchaeology.Academic Press, New York.
4.
ClarkJ. E.1991Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal Among the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by StaskiE. and SutroL., pp. 63–78. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 42, Tempe.
5.
DaceyM. F.1973Statistical Tests of Spatial Association in the Locations of Tool Types. American Antiquity, 38(3):320–328.
6.
DibbleH. L.1987Measurement of Artifact Provenience with an Electronic Theodolite. Journal of Field Archaeology, 14:249–254.
7.
EnloeJ. G.DavidF., and HareT. S.1994Patterns of Faunal Processing at Section 27 of Pincevent: The use of Spatial Analysis and Ethnoarchaeological Data in the Interpretation of Archaeological Site Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 13:105–124.
8.
GalanidouN.2000Patterns in Caves: Foragers, Horticulturists, and the Use of Space. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19:243–275.
9.
JonesK. T.1993The Archaeological Structure of a Short-Term Camp. In From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, edited by HudsonJ., pp. 101–114. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Papers No. 21, Southern Illinois University.
10.
KeeleyL. H.1982Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity, 47(4):798–809.
11.
KeeleyL. H.1991Tool Use and Spatial Patterning. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Patterning, edited by KrollE. M. and PriceT. D., pp. 257–268. Plenum Press, New York.
12.
MadrigalT. C., and CapaldoS. D.1999White-Tailed Deer Marrow Yields and Late Archaic Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of Archaeological Science26:241–249.
13.
McPherronS. P. and DibbleH. L.2002Using Computers in Archaeology: A Practical Guide.McGraw-Hill Mayfield, New York.
14.
McKellarJ. A.1983Correlates and the Explanation of Distributions. Atlatl, Occasional Papers 4. Anthropology Club, University of Arizona.
15.
MurrayP.1980Discard Location: The Ethnographic Data. American Antiquity, 45(3):490–502.
16.
MurtyM. L. K.1985Ethnoarchaeology of the Kurnool Caves areas, South India. World Archaeology, 17(2):192–205.
17.
OutramA. K.2001A New Approach to Identifying Bone Marrow and Grease Exploitation: Why the “Indeterminate” Fragments Should not be Ignored. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28:401–410.
18.
RigaudJ. P. and SimekJ. F.1991Interpreting Spatial Patterns at the Grotte XV: A Multiple Method Approach. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by KrollE. and PriceT., pp. 199–220. Plenum Press, New York.
19.
SchifferM. B.1987Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
20.
SimekJ. F. and LarickR. R.1983The Recognition of Multiple Spatial Patterns: A Case Study from the French Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science, 10:165–180.
21.
StevensonM. G.1991Beyond the Identification of Hearth-Associated Artifact Assemblages. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Patterning, edited by KrollE. M. and PriceT. D., pp. 269–299. Plenum Press, New York.
22.
TaniM.1995Beyond the Identification of Formation Processes: Behavioral Inference Based on Traces Left by Cultural Formation Processes. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2(3): 231–252.
23.
ToddL. C. and RapsonD. J.1988Long Bone Fragmentation and Interpretation of Faunal Assemblages: Approaches and Comparative Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 15:307–325.
24.
ToddL. C. and StanfordD. J.1992Application of Conjoined Bone Data to Site Structural Studies. In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by HofmanJ. and EnloeJ., pp. 21–35. Bar International Series 578.
25.
TzuS.1963The Art of War.Oxford University Press, New York.
26.
WandsniderL.1996Describing and Comparing Archaeological Spatial Structures. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 3(4):319–384.
