CHAPTER 2

PRINCIPLES OF OFF-SITE ARCHAEOLOGY

2. 1 Introduction
An artefact density analysis is based upon the idea that the archaeological
record is less site-based than is usually supposed and that the continuity of
archaeological materials across a landscape can be employed to investigate
regional patterns in prehistory. This type of regional approach is referred
to here as off-site archaeologyI and this chapter will examine its principles.
An artefact density analysis may be considered as one part of a broad spec-
trum of potential off-site studies. This discussion of the structure of the off-
site record, while of general relevance, will be specUically oriented towards
the problems of explaining variability in artefact density.
Taphonomy is of increasing importance in archaeology. This intElrest
originated in palaeontology (Behrensmeyer 1975; lIlll 1975), but has broadened
into the archaeological field through early man studies (Brain 1967 a, b, 1969;
Isaac 1967; Gifford 1977; Hill and Behrensmeyer 1980), to such an extent
that ethno-taphonomy may now be considered an important branch of the sub-
ject (Gould 1968; Schiffer 1975; Gifford 1977; Hodder 1977). This much
more sophisticated approach to the data base is rapidly altering our ideas
about prehistory, and there is now an explicit interest in the way in which
behaviour is transformed into the archaeological record, both by the nature
of that behaviour itself, and by post-depositional processes. Virtually all the
work in this field, experimental, ethnographic (Schiffer 1975; Gifford 1977;
Haland 1977; Binford 1978) or archaeological (Binford 1977) has focused on
units that correspond to archaeological sites. An off-site model, on the other
hand, attempts to examine the taphonomical basis of the archaeological record
on 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 continUity
of archaeological materials, in the context of both behavioural and geomor-
phological properties. This assumption is made in the light of considerations
that will be examined here. It will be suggested that there are four structural
components 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 be useful
to discuss briefly the nature of the analytical and spatial units of archaeology,
in the light of an off-site approach.
10
An off-site approach la one that takes into aCCOWlt the fult range of
archaeological on or in a landscape. treating the material that is
across it as a spatIally contlnuouR variable. In this sense an oH-
site appr()ach will subsume within it the information contained in a site. It
is perhaps unfortunate that the terms non-slte and off-site that appear in the
literature (fb:e>mas 1975; Binford 1978i Foley. 1981) should dichotomise the
potential approaches available t.o the archaeologist.s. What is reqUired is a
continuum model with a sound theoretical base. The differences between site
and off-site material are the rE!8ult of differences in the frequencies of acti-
vUies. rather than qualitative differences. Neither site nor off-site theories
alone can account for the extent and nature of archaeological variability.
In the of this worka.nd the development of an artefact density
methodology. 1t is necessary to define the terms site and artefact.
A site is a concentration of humanly modified materials. associated
materials and landscap.e features. regardless of the concentrating agency.
However, it may bfc! useful to recognise two general categories of 61te8-
behavi9.u.!!!and (cf. primary and secondary sites (Isaac
1972b
Within bl"tHtd there is considerable variation. Settlements
and/or bomeare clearly (mE! large component of behavioural sites, but
they 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 nature
of clustcu'ed arcl:ult!ologica.l matE!l'ial I01'l!\S an important basis for the cUscusaiol1
that follows.
At), artefact is gf:merally accepted to be the basic independent unit of arch-
aeology (Clarke 1968, 13
t
l). It is usually defined as any material that has been
me>dUied by human act! vity, in terms of aize, shape and location. The artefact
haa seldom been employed as a site-independent un.it of spatial analysis (see
Clark 1977.
At a r<'8"iooal scale thrf',!(l basic units for spatial analysis can be recognised.
Chang (1972) has argued that the settlement Is the primary un.it of spatial ana-
lysis, and from th.1s assertion has developed a school of spatial archaE!ology
concerned with what may be described as archaE!ological counterpart of
locational theory in (Haggett 1965; Hodder 1972; Hodder and Orton
1976, Cha:pter 4). Alternatively, SltE1S as a generalised set of archaeological
significant locations may be uscd. This is the basis of the archaeological
distrlbutic::m ma:p(F'()x 1943; .1. D. Clark 1967) and the problems lnvolved in
this prtJcedure haV(l extensively discussed (Hodder and Orton 1976).
The tb.1rd unit f(lr spatial analysis Is the artefact. The mapping of parti-
cular artefact fonns. prImarily to identify c.mltural patterns., is an established
archaEH,loglcal techniqUE! (for example, J, G. D. Cla.rk 1972). What Is sug-
gested heJ:'t:l is that gross frequencies of archaeological material wiLL exhibit
spatial paUemlng that CM be ror archaeological lnvestigaUon. Further-
more. thls method can be .integrated with the ecological concept or the home
range, and thus proVide a sound basis for palaeoecological ('!xplanation.
11
2.3 Behavioural basis of the archaeological record
The first two structural components of the archaeological record are
behaviour and discard. They are very closely related, and so should be
treated together. Discard is itself an aspect of behaviour and prOVides be-
havioural information. Discard is also spatially continuous and conforms to
a pattern that can be predicted by ecological theory. In constructing an off-
site methodology, or, more broadly, a methodology, that seeks to examine
the regional patterning in archaeological materials, it is necessary to incor-
porate the full spatial range of behaviour and discard and establish the prin-
ciples on which these are based. Thus, subsistence activities and their
spatial distribution are controlled by certain basic ecological regularities,
and variation within these broad regularities can be explained in terms of
environmental, demographic, technological, adaptive and cultural parameters.
These will be discussed in turn, but firstly t what are these ecological regu-
larities?
Subsistence activities take place across the landscape as a whole. The
focal points to which the energy having been harnessed may be transported-
and which later go to constitute archaeological sites-are secondary. Studies
of human subsistence aotivities through those focal points alone is indirect.
Such an approach may be justified in terms of archaeological expediency,
but not in terms of ecological theory, which would suggest that the appropriate
analytical framework is the landscape across which the activities of man are
differentially but continuously distributed. Settlements represent merely one
component of that distribution.
Ecological considerations would further suggest that the structure of that
distribution would conform to the ecological unit of the home range, as defined
by Wilson (1975, 256):
Home range: the area that an animal learns thoroughly and patrols
. .. In some cases the home range may be identical with the total
range; that is, the animal familiarises itself with one area and never
leaves it. Many times the home' range and the territory are identical,
meaning that the animal excludes other members of the same species
from all of its home range. In the great majority of species, how-
ever, the home range is larger than the territory, and the total range
is much larger than both. Ordinarily the home range is patrolled
for food, but in addition it may contain familiar look-out positions,
scent posts, and emergency retreats. It can also be shared jointly
by the memebers of an integrated social group.
It has been argued elsewhere (Foley 1977a, 1978) that human spatial
behaviour displays the same regularities as other species, and that the home
range prOVides the pertinent unit of analysis for human palaeoecology. A
further inference that may be drawn from the examination of the basic ecolo-
gical principles that are relevant to human subsistence activities is that both
the spatial continUity and the home range structure of human activities is
derived from the non-uniform distribution of resources. It is the differential
productivity of the landscape, due to factors of climate, topography, soil and
vegetation, in relation to biological and social requirements, that determines
the home range. The particular configurations of a landsc ape in relation to
12
subsistencEl and will control both its sIze and structure,
Suoh factors as the degree of resource dispersal will thus determine the adap-
tive strategyt the type of borne range. and ultimately the nature of the archae-
ologioal. record.
Thus a model for the study of regional prehii;ftorie ecology should be based
on the !ollowi.ng assertions:
1) The structure af human subsistence behaviour is spatially continuous.
2) The spatial organisation af that behaviour is largely home-range-specific.
3) The structure althe bome range will reflect the non-uniformity of re-
source distribution across the landscape. in relation to the human
ad.aptlve strategy.
4) It may 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 deployment
of the home rang<E! as Ii means of utilizing those resources.
These assertions form the general principles for the model. Adaptive stra-
tegy, technology and environmental variation will bUild on these. leading to
observable variations in regi.onal archaeological structure.
1) . the environment will affect the regional arch-
8801.og10al sU'uoture, at both a behavioural and a post-depositional level.
Only tlltl tormer wUI be disoussed here. Firstly; topography influences
land use, and settlement and resettlement patterns will ocour in particular
oonfigurations in response ronatural features. Thus the residue arch-
aeological patterns will vary with reUef, water availability etc. (Foley 1981;
159-160. figure 6.2).
gecondly; as mentioned above. resource dIspersal is important. Resources
here reler both tC) aotual rood resources and such things as suitable settle-
ment locations. An area. with widely dispersed and uniformly distributed
resources will produce a dispersed and uniform distrlbution of archaeolo-
gical materials; in. contrast. where are clustered and noo-
uniformly distributed. then the archaeological pattern will reflect this.
For example. reglons containing rock-shelters or eaves may be expected
to have spatially concentrated archaeological material.
2) Demogr!ehic variation: not only Is the distribution of resources important.
but also the abundan.ce (Birdsell 1953. 1968). The relationship between
resource abundance and popuLa:tl0.n density may be developed a stage
further. to includearohaeological parameters. We may postulate that
areas of high resource produotivity (for eqUivalent adaptive levels) will
support hlgherpopulation densities, and these 1n turn will produoe a
great.e.r a.tnwdance of archaeological material. However. as populaUon
density increases still Curther wIth intensiJlcatlonof subsistence strategies,
the distrl..buUon of populatlon may become tess even. and more compte.x.
and hence archaeological dlstrlbutlon may also become more complex.
3) Technological variation: most important of all, perhaps, from an
archaeological perspective, is variation controlled by differences in
technological level and practice. Archaeologists by necessity must
approach many problems through the medium of technology. Interpre-
tation will be dependent upon the" sensitivity of this variable. Firstly,
the type of technology employed is cruciaL. It could be argued that the
density of archaeological material is in direct proportion to the degree
of dependence upon wood, bone, stone or metal artefacts. If a society
is largely dependent upon wood or bone technology, then the probability
of archaeological Visibility will be low. The difference between the
visiblity of lithic and metal technologies in the archaeological record is
perhaps even'more cruciaL. Although highly variable, for lithic as
opposed to metal technology, raw material constraints are less, energy
inputs in preparation are lower, replacement is easier and use life is
shorter. The development of metal technologies will have caused major
changes' in the nature of the archaeological record as viewed through
artefact abudance and distribution. It could be predicted that a more
oomplete and quantitatively sensitive regional record occur for
societies largely dependent upon a lithic technology.
. '
Secondly, the degree of dependence involved in subsistence
activities is variable. For instance, while many hunting strategies are
dependent upon technological skill, successful herding is dependent more
upon the managerial skills of the pastoralist. It should not be assumed,
therefore, that all sub sistence strategies are equally sensitive in the
lUaterial remains that they provide.
The transmission of these ecological, environmental, demographic and
technological factors into archaeologically available information is only pos-
sible through the process of discard. Discard has been the subject of ex-
tensive research and discussion in recent years, (for example, Schiffer 1975j
Hildebrand 1978). However, most of this work refers to site-specific and
small-scale discard processes, .rather than the regional scale that is relevant
here. The fundamental point in relation to this scale of analysis is that dis-
card is not confined to the settlement or home base, nor entirely to other
secondary focal locations. The ecological principles outlined above postulate
that discard is home range specific, and the home range should therefore be
the basic unit of discard analysis. Within the home r11llge four basic spatial
components of discard, general to all types of adaptation, can be distinguished.
These are outl.ined below; a fifth category is also included to take into account
the proportion of discard that may take place outside the limits of the home
range. Figure 2: 1 illustrates the behavioural and archaeological patterning
of these on the ground, the Table 2. 1 places several common
activities and types .of location into these categories.
Spatial Component A Home base or settlement
A home base of variable per,manency will act as the primary focus for
behaviour and discard and may be considered the spatial unit where the
densest mo.st complex set of may be expected to occur.
14
. "
""
.... *'
'" .. II" 11 ....
.... ..
,," .. *',;.
: .
..
.'
.
II
.
... "-
. .
..
..... " a
..;. :.::".':" .

..... =...
.. .
#" ...
or II'
'!- ..
l!' ,,'''''.. l!!""'" ..
:. '.: .' ->: ( _... '. :
... "'.. ....... ..
. .
.... " <t"" i!
".. 'If ." .. ""',.jlj "" lO ..... '" '"
..'.... >....:.. :
littde
sr
WH I
fl
...... ,
' '\ I .
I ) .
'-' \ TempoUlfv ..
C.mp \
\
\
\
\
\
e
WH
i
1
J
,-00....
1
0
0\
\ . i
,0 (J i
.... 00 I'
......"
Setttement
e
WH
,
Ritual,'
Activity.
I
I
J
.
I
I
\
\
\ ui-
. "'sa
J
I g+
/ +
A
I +S8
" +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.
TABLE 2.1 (a)
Distribution of basic activities in relation to spatial components
Components
Activity
A B C D E
Sleeping
* *
Eating
* * *
Food acquisition
* * *
Food preparation
* * * *
Hide preparation
* *
Fuel acquisition
* * *
Raw material acquisition
* * * *
Raw material preparation
* * * *
Tool use
*
* * * *
Games
* * *
Trade
* * * *
Social ceremonies
* * * *
Religious ceremonies
* * * *
Mortuary practices
* * *
TABLE 2.1 (b)
Distribution of basic localities in relation to spatial components
Components
Locality A B C D E
Settlement (home base)
*
Transitory 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
* *
*
Leisure areas
* *
16
Spatial ComPQuent B Area. adjao"ent to home base
Due simply to proximity the area in the immedlate vicinity of the home
base may be expected to be the rOQUS for many activities and hence
disoard.
!matisl Comeguent CS,eco.ndary llome range foci
Beyond thesettlelIlentand its immediate secondary foci
of activity wHt occur, where actrvities may be repeated consistently over
a period oC tbne. These may often be activity areas and
discard 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 be
stochastic but, in general. their distrLbution will conform to the structure
of the home range.
Corn22ee:at!:. range actIvities
Beyond the dlstr'ibutlon artbe home range some activities may occur at
a low frequency. reLat.ln.g primarily to exchange behaviour in ita broadest
sense. DiscUl-rd ma,y thus occur beyond the home range, although its
wUI be ltlW.
Tbls rcent1u's.1 atassUlea,tten of hum.an home range behaviour and its arte-
faot diacarde
l
XUI8qu8noes. regardless of adaptive and technological status.
prOVides uswltb Ii basl0 mc)del for analysing the spatial variation of artefact
density* It should be DOted, however, that the proposed relationsb.ip between
spatial categories or betuu,tJ.our/dlsoa,rd and archaeological distribution is a
gross or frequenoy .. speelflc one. In othel' words, the model would predict
that diacard wlU O,Dour throu.gbout the bome range, its distribution being
depende.nt on the dls:tributwn of the spati.al components, and that there will be
a relationship between this and artefact density. It will not, however, relate
particular artefaottypestocorrect function/location, with any degree of
certainty. Binlord's (1MB) work among the Nunamuit Eskimoes has high-
Ughted thisprobtem. for be has ahown that an artefact may be discarded when
a place where it is o,r no value Is reached-in other words there is an inverse
relationship between tool functlon and discard location. If this particular
observation is wcu'tQy' of generallsatlonto Qther instances, then clearly the
general model desoribed here cannot be employed on other than a broad scale.
It is in this context, therefore, that it will initially be developed, although a
more detailed underm.andmg of discard processes in relation to activities and
looations may, in the future. allow a Wgher degree of resolution. Further-
more, it lscIear that not all activities are equally subject to artefact loss or
disoard hunt,inl'and butchering wlU produce more artefacts than gathering;
and nor do aU artefacts have equal curation rates (Binfo rd 1976, 1978). Hence
the relati.onshLp between artefact density and what might be termed behavioural
densltyat a 10tlatlo:DWHl notnecessa.rily be a simple one.
Havlng the basic features of the home-range model of behavlou.r
and tts archaeological consequences, it is important to examine the way in
which ma.teri.a.11s distributed through the spatial components. This may be
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 is 9ften a taoit assumption that all discard
is settlement specific. It is essential, therefore, to examine the extent to
which discard occurs on the settlement or home base, and the nature of that
discard. Discussion is necessary at two firstly, to determine what
proportion of material' will be discarded on the settlement, and secondly, to
see whether settlement discard has particular characteristics.
Very little evidence exists to dete'rmine the proportion of material dis-
carded on as opposed to away from the settlement. Gould (1980) states
that only 1% of aU lithic material for the Aborigines of the Western Desert
of Australia is discarded on the settlement. This suggests that a considerable-
proportion of a material culture is in fact discarded away from the settlement
-in other words, the proposition given above, that discard is home range
specific, would seem to be ten.able.
Further indirect evidence to support this contention may come from the
work of Judge (1973) in the Rio-Grande Valley of New Mexico. Wood (1978),
in an analysis of the locational strategies of the prehistorio inhabitants of
this area, gives a ratio of 1: 4 for base camps (spatial component A) to se-
condary areas (spatial component C). Examination of the artefact densities
for the sites (Wood 1978, Figure 1) further indicates that these secondary
sites contain a higher density of artefaotual material than the base camps.
In other words, if there is a reasonable relationship between the archaeological
record and the discard properties of the prehistoric people, then a high pro-
portion of that discard occurred away from the primary settlements. It would
seem that regional archaeological structure is constrained by more than the
frequency of settlements. It remains to be seen'whether the behavioural basis
for this lies in the actual distribution of time spent in secondary areas as
opposed to settlements, or whether there are a disproportionate number of
debris-producing activities that are inQ,ependent of the settlement.
Giventhat the framework of this discussion lies in the application of an
artefact density analysis, it is to look at the number of artefacts
that might be expected to occur on a settlem.ent. Again data on this are sparse
not so much in terms of the actual number of artefacts per unit area, but in
terms of the temporal control of that density. For example, Robertshaw
(1978, Figure 3) provides a densitr map of the on a recently abandoned
pastoral settlement in Namaqualand. The artefacts are in this case mostly
made up of "modern" materials (tihs, glass, etc.) but the mean density of
the mapped area is 0.163 per This is a remarkably low density for a
settlement, and perhaps illustrates the point made earlier about the difference
quantitatively between a lithic and a non-lithic archaeological structure.
Robertshaw's figures are supported by those of Ammerman et at. (1978) for
Dassenatch settlements, where some time control is possible. For example,
at one abandoned settlement Gifford retrieved 151 pieces of non-bone debris
from 34 households occupied fox, two mop.ths-that is, 2.22 artefacts per
household per month. Afurther set of Elassenatch data confirms this low
18
deusity: a mean of 2.. 1 per household per month was obtained for two
bouses occupIed Cor g-12montna (Gifrord. 1980). In a [urtheranalysis of an
abandat'H::td M4UUI2U settlement at QlorgesalUe Gifford (ibid.) retrieved only
o.or>4 artefacts p,er Ioquaremetre. In yet another examination of pastoral
artefact, (19'13) colleoted information on the number of
matcEu'tal pleces in an ocoupled Turkana settlement (an aWl" a sIngle family
bomestead) .. and obtained a deosltyof 0.88 artefacts per metre
2
. (This figure
is extremel,Y appro)ltlma.te as exact measurements of the comp,ound are not
given. )
albeit &'pp'roxlmate. give some idea of settlement artefact
It sboutd.ofcouX"ae" be stressed that they apply to a post-lithic
context; a8 was arped I'bove" & bssl0.aUy lithic technology Is liabLe to In-
cX"'ea.e btl,ttl tbe {lumber of Itt"tefaatsand also their dU.rabHlty. :Furthermore.
a&ll wuabcrve.pastoraUsm is not a teohnology-dependent
IlIIf.,'stllliN. It may heexp,ootedtbat bunter-gatherer artefact densities would
be hi.per. Prloe(1978. "ruble 1) sumnutrises the available data on single
o!ooupaUon Europ,ean post-Plelstooene bunter-gatheres. He
a hJerarchy of cam,ps. from sman extraotion oamps to large aggregatlon
campa. Tbe uuuw density for all these types is 20.6 artefaots per square
metr1:11 (8. [). lit! N .14). His clusU'ioation of camp types is itseLf baaed
on the artefact dimslty. m oannot be used in more detail. but this provides an
indioat.ion oftb:r type of clfmsl.tytMt may be expected for lithic tecMc,logy
sltUemeats.
The 8Uae!lUon lswbath.er settlement speoific discard differs in
quaUty' from tbat ()r tbeother $pulal oomponents. Yellen (1977), for example,
tbat mc)st debr.is-prod:o:cms: activities other than cooking and food-
prepllU"IUmt among tbe.'ltu.ng oocur away from the Imediate hearths and houses.
He argues that it is the dlatrJbutlon of shade around the peripheries of the
(tha.t Is. spat,lal oompon.entB) tbat o()utrols the dlst.ributlon of acti-
(yeUe,n 1976,69) heal80 states that activities taking place
away fromtbe CM1P areent1relylLmtted to hunting and gatherlng trips. He
goes on t(> asaert lh.taU aotivlties are settlernent specific. It
would aeem, ther'ero.r,e,as agen.eral guide, that for the t Kung food-preparation
oocurs wUhlntht' settlement. malntenanoeactivltiea em the and other
acUvitles As distance from the settlement so too does
the chance that will be related to of food. \\llether
tWa model o(:ndd extrapolated to all hunter- gulherers remains to be seen,
but it would an ac,curate desorlpU.o.n of tropical societies.
l'''urther evidence thatth.e quaUtyof activities IS spatially variable comes
from (]outd (1968) who baa shown that there lsa significant dUfel'tmCe between
lUh.le found among Aborigine camp sUeSRS opposed to those fOWld
away from the camp, whioh are u.sually related to tree
M
felUng aetlvlUes.
'rh1s ma;y be a tentative bUlafor predicting some and qualitative
tUffereneea between spaUal component A md the other components. However,
for reaaons fllvE!n In the !oUowln,g a.ectlon.these dUferenees may not of
very IU'chWlllOlol1olluse.
F'lnaU,)' . it 1s worth s.tatln,1 a few general points ab()ut the (,f
menl discard. F'lrstly. the differences betwEH:m spatial A
and the other components in terms of debris is likely to increase as the society
becomes more complex. For simple societies there is likely to be greater
continuity between components. Tbis point may be further stressed by the
extensive evidence ("l ellen 1976; Isaac 1978) to suggest that hunter-gatherer
localities in spatial component C or D may become Spatial Component A.
Tbis occurs commonly when hunter-gatherers move their base camp to the
place where an animal has been butchered. A further general point is that
wbile it is possible to predict that settlement artefact density may be higher
relative to other spatial components, as this itself will vary with population
density, it may well not be possible to predict densities in absolute terms.
Spatial Component B
By their nature the peripheries of a settlement are a much less clearly
defined category. It is perhaps most suitable to discuss tbis category in
terms of a few examples. One such is the habit of the Badza to select shady
areas away from the settlement to play their games or just sit and talk
(Woodburn and Hudson 1966). Similarly, the Maasai moran are forbidden
to eat cattle meat within the settlement, and so will select places away
from the settlement, but within easy reach, for such purposes. These may
often be reused (Morse, personal communication). Noxious activities, such
as preparing a hide or butchering, are also likely to occur away from the
settlement. Children's activities will also be spread around the settlement,
rather than within it. All of these, and many other types of activity, will
have the effect of spreading the debris-that it, the impact of the settlement
beyond the immediate confines of the settlement itself. O'Connell (1979)
has shown this graphically for the Australian aborigines with whom he has
worked.
Estimating quantitatively the actual artefact density of this component
as a whole is problematic, but it would seem reasonable that it would in some
way be a function of the density of the settlement as a whole. The absolute
density is likely to be lower than that for component A, although overall the
actual number of artefacts may well be higher. Hodder and Orton (1976, 160)
show an example of fall-off of artefact density away from the British Beaker
settlement of Belle Tout (Bradley 1970). Similar patterns were also observed
for the Maasai of Amboseli.
Apart from the effect that peripheral discard and debris formation will
have on the regional structure of the archaeological record, it will also have
the more general property of broadening the spatial distribution of the material,
and to a certain extent blurring the particulate nature of the settlement as a
point in space.
Spatial Component C
Apart from settlements or home bases other debriS forming activity
foci occur. Archaeologists have recently turned much of their attention to
these secondary areas, representing specialised behaviours. Spatial com-
ponents C refers to this category of non-horne-base foci, usually occurring
within the home range, For the earlier periods in prehistory they are of
considerable importance, often occurring with high frequency and visibility.
Binford and Binford (1966, 268) have categorized two types of hunter-gatherer
C)()
aitea-bome bl.ee sRea and .work sites. Although this haa been criticised by
Yellen (1976, (S9). on tbe grounds that there is contiJ:lulty between them. it
emp.b.as.lses the impo,rtance of off-settlement activities for hunter-gatherers.
Witb their lu!::udstence strategIes so dep,endent upon .mobility and fle.xibility.
buntEu"-gatiuH-ers must be able to perform a Wide range of activities throughout
their home rele.
Secondary bomerange focioover a wide range of activities. being common
to vlrtu.aUy aU 8IOc!eUes. Probably the most extensively investigated ethno-
grapMce.xarnp1.e of tbistype Is the Nunamu1t Eskimo Mask site studies by
Binford This lsa huntln.g Iiftand. a place where Bmen congregate to
watoh for pme and topl.an hunting strategies after game is sightedII (Binford
1918, 8S0). The hwting stand is one type of seoondary focal point for the
Nmuamwt mother bemg hunting bHnds that are used for the actual
hl..lJ)tklg BitU'ord's material shaws qulteclearly that these sites are
an ImportMt pa.rlof the subSistence strategies oCthe Eskimoes, that they arE!
tUIl,ed fora period of time, and consequently a slgnHicant amount
debr'h!1 CM accummulate upon them. Binford!s analysIs Is largelyoonoerned
with tbe relltioDBh1p betwee:ntypes of behaviour and the structure of
the a,rcbaoologtcal mtlerUal left behittd. or more lmportance here Is, firstly.
thalaucb ()coeur wUhlD the Eskimo bome range and tbat their !<lcation is
determtned.by Ute distribution of resouroes within the home range; secondly,
thl:t a amount of dhiJOa,rd occurs; and" thirdly. that the location is
co,ntmHed by small.cale factors than by the large Beale patternmg of
hablta,t and reuource dlstr!butkul.
&acbarewldely known, although they are functionally variable.
Mora,a (m preplu"atlon) bas examined meat eating sites among the Maasai,
wbleb acre away trom the bome baae and are frequently reused. These 100a-
nayeritual funcUons and Gramly (1975) has shown them to be
arobaeotol1caUy vlaihle.Hole !1!:t. (19'69) has recognised in their work in
the neb Luhraa plams ottbe Middle East the presence of transito.ry locations
used lor prepl"rlo.1artefactaor ai.ghting game. it would seem likely. therefore.
that Hoondar;1 borne range fool 'Of man,Y different types are an important
oomponernof botb pasloraUsts and bunter-gatherers. that they are archaeolo-
ricany vlsible
t
and tbattbelr distribution and frequency within the home range
reflect their role 10 subslstElnoe and other activities.
In more terms, however, Uttle is known about the frequencies
ot' th18type of l()oIUon. Judge haa suggested that preparatory or work loca-
tions {)Ut.J:UJmOEu bome buel in theareh,l1oologioal record (1973). Isaac and
Harris' (l9715) work on the Kar-arl Esca.rpment of East Lake Turkana spec1fi-
oally attempt8 illvesUptetbe ex'tent to which the visible traces of early
man fall Intcthlacategory" but full de.twls of the results are nt)t yet avaHable.
tbe hmk or qu.uUtativ,e lnfarmatlol1 on this subject., however, it can
be alated tbattbe occurrenoe of these locaUonsas a spatial component of dIs-
oard has had tbe eff:eat or spreadLllg archaeological material more Widely and
abttDdantlylbroupthe bomerep struatur's of the regional archaeological
reoord.
Spatial component D
Apart from the areas away from the home base that may be reused and
hence be described as focal points, other localities may simply be the focus
of activity and discard on one occasion. In themselves each one will be a
nebulous and transitory site, but cumulatively and collectively they may rep-
resent a significant part of the archaeological record. Discard at these
points may even be disproportionate to the time spent there. Included in this
type of site are places where an animal may be killed and partially butchered
(for example, Woodburn and Hudson 1966); places where firewood may be
cut and collected, leaving some debris (Gould 1968), or places stopped
route for some other location (for example, Coles et ale 1973, 259). These
activities relate primarily to subsistence behaviour and will reflect in their
distribution the structure of the home range. Furthermore, they will have
the effect, by frequency and distribution, of emphasising the spatiaUy con-
tinuous nature of the regional archaeological record.
Very little information is available on the qUWltitative aspects of this
category. Archaeologists have tended to treat low density scatters of material
and isolated artefacts as of passing interest only, rather than being a special
type of information. Isaac and Harris (1976) have however drawn attention
to the abundance of this type of material in the Lower Pleistocene and suggested
that it is of considerable importance in understanding early hominid behaviour.
The point to stress is that continuous discard at occasional loci over a large
part of the landscape can soon lead to a considerable artefact density.
Spatial component E
Finally, mention should be made of those aspects of discard that mJght
occur 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 the
result of exohange activities, or the foraging for seldom used resources or
materials. Examples of this type of discard may perhaps be the bronze axe
hoards known from Britain and other parts of the world (for example, Burgess
1974, 209- 210), believed to be left by itinerant craftsmen; and the stone
quarries used for Neolithio axe production (Smith 1974, 105). This last
example suggests that the localised density of this material can be very high.
The model of arohaeological formation that has been developed so far Is
based on the continuity of behaviour and disoard across the home range. In
this sense what has been construoted is a Line of reasoning that attempts to
show that archaeological material is not settlement-specific. This part of
the model may perhaps be better described as off-settlement arohaeological
formation processes. What will be proposed however, is a second, supple-
mentary set of processes that will independently enhanoe the structure that
can be described on behavioural grounds. Accumulative and post-depositional
processes will further develop the regional continuity of the archaeological
record. For the purposes of clarification, therefore, at this point it might
be useful to define and stress that the general model is really the compc)und
result of two sub-models:
1) A behaViourally based home range model of behaviour and discard that
has been described above.
22
2) A tapbonomical model based on the processes of accumulation of arch-
aeologlcal material tnrough time and affected by post-depositional
process8s
This second sub-model will be described below,
2.4 Accumulative prinolRles
The behavourally-based model of spatial distributions suffers from being
archaeologlcally static. In practice. regional archaeological structure Is
the product of continued occupanoy and discard. Thus to model for the dis-
tribution and quantltyofmaterials on a landscape it is neoessary to incorporate
the effects of accumulation over long time periods. This aspect of the arch-
aeological record Is seldom stressed. For on-site and settlement archa.eology
the effects 01 accumulation may be reduced through high temporal resolution.
This is not the cue for off-sIte arohaeology. Continued exposure of a land-
scape to dlsoard wHl emphasise and also blur the complex spatial patterning
outlined above.
Tbe blurrtng of the distribution derives from the fact that most activIties
and settltunents are locatoo ema regional basis. In other words, their looa-
tlonsare determined by their reneral area or habitat rather than. as a particular
point on the grotmd. Within any broad area there are many potential locations
lor activities. Furtbenuore.the effect of a location or a previous location
may well inhibit reuse. thus enb.a.noing the blurred pattern of distribution.
Yellen (1978) gives a 26% reoooupancy rate of old settlements. Many other
oocieties (Cor eXl.lnple. Maasat, Turkana) prohibit the reuse of old settlements
under some orin oiroumstanoes. The archaeoLogical reoord is based on
this prooess ot aocumulaUon-theeffect of minor variations within the broader
determinants of loeatlonat pattern.in.g. Thus the simple disoard-behaviour
relatlonships desor.lbed In the previous sectlon will become blurred. This is
especially true at a regional level, where uneven sedimentation and disoard
rates wUl reduce temporal resolution. Accumulation thus leads to palimpsest
formatton-that Is, a Ume averaging of spatial distributions. II conditions
remain stable, the bebavioural basis of the dIstribution will be reinforced;
if not. or If stochastic processes are operating, then the resultlng distribution
could be meaningless.
Recently archaeologists bave turned towards detailed examination of the
processes of formation using ethnographic observations (Gould 1968; Hodder
1977. 1979; .BlnIord 1918;. Gilford. in press). The drawback with this
approach lies In the fact that the comparisono! often extremely short term
processes with archaeological data does not take lnto account that
gleal material usually cC)Dsists of activity palimpsests. A more realistic
approach to the pattemlngof arcbaeological material sbould be based on long
term m.odels. to see the way in whIch contlnual repetition affects structure.
In the work presented bete it is the operation of this prtJcess on a regl<>tlal
Bcale that needs to be described. Some simple IllustraUons can show this.
Example ,1
For the sake of example. a simple model can be constructed where the
preferred settlement babitst for a group is restricted to a rldge of land abC)ut
1 kilometre by 5 kHomett"es in size. Assuming that tllis ridge is uniform in
its sUitability for settlement throughout, and that each settlement or campsite
occupies and has an impact on an area 100 x 100 metres in size, then, allowing
for no overlap, there are 500 potential settlement cells. From this point we
can experiment with the way in which the area can gradually be covered with
archaeological material over time. The simplest of these would be a situation
which involved one settlement per year with no relocation possible throughout
that time. This would obViously result in a totally uniform cover within 500
years. We can refine this model, which is obviously over-simplified, in
various ways-for example, by varying the rate of site formation and abandon-
ment, by increasing the number of groups exploiting the area, allOWing relo-
cation after a certain period of time, and demanding certain dIstances between
sequential settlements. These would vary the period before uniform occupancy
had occurred, and probably in most practical situations prevent total uniformity.
In all cases, however, the result would be that over a number of years occu-
pation of an area following an open settlement system would result in a contin-
uous spatial pattern of archaeological material. In attemptIng to reHne this
model to approximate reality more closely it would be necessary to formulate
and weight the factors leading to both clusterIng (habit, utIlisation of old
settlement material, Limited suitability, etc.) and dispersaL (for example,
firewood availability, exhaustion of re sources).
Example 2
Clearly, the main problem inherent in Example 1 lies in the improbability
that there will be no reoccupation. Even allowing for an initial prohibition on
the reoccupation of settlements, over archaeological time peric)ds not only
wilL such prohibitions lapse, but the settlements will decay to the point of
invisibility, and hence they may be treated as new. With relocation possible,
the problem enters the field of probability theory -that Is, if aU settlement
cells stand an equal chance of being used, wIth the exception of. say, those
of the previous ten years, within reasonable probability levels, in this cBse.
how long wiLL it be before uniform cover is achieved?
In an attempt to answer this, Simons (personal communication) has used
a Markhov chain process. Using the one settlement per annum rate of the
previous example, after 1000 years apprOXimately 86.5% cover of the area
wiLL 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 analyses
the area will be larger than 5 km
2
. Furthermore, hunter-gatherers w()uld
probably use more than one settlement per year, often involVing sympatry be-
tween groups. For example, Yellen (1976) has shown a mean site duration
of 3.1 days among the ~ Kung of the Kalahari. Thus, the one settlement per
year increment rate of the previous examples would be replaced by 117 per
year. However, allOWing for the 26% reoccupancy rate clted above this would
be reduced to 87.1. Whatever the totaL area covered might be, ODe group may
be expected to occupy apprOXimately 87 settlements per annum. giVing an
accumulation rate of 87, 100 per millennium. Given the average home range
size often quoted for hunter-gatherers (Lee and DeVore 1968; Vita-Finzl and
Higgs 1970) of 214.15 km
2
(that is, a 10 kilometre radiUS), t ~ this would
produce an overaLL density of 277.2 settlements per km
2
per miLLennium.
Clearly, these would not be evenly dispersed across the landscape, and
nor would they be equally visible archaeologically. However, this may pro-
vide one extreme for estimating the actual amount of debris that a human
group is likely to produce and leave on the landscape over long periods of
time.
Example 4
Yellen's figures are among the most extreme for settlement mobility
and are likely to represent one end of the spectrum for hunter-gatherers.
The high mobility found among the ! Kung reflects the low productivity of the
area, and would be somewhat mitigated by a low density of bands, and by a
someWhat clustered distribution throughout the area as a whole.
Alternative models for hunter-gatherer settlement increments can be
obtained from Woodburn's (1968) work among the Hadza of Tanzania. The
available data are less systematic, but Woodburn suggests that the average
duration of a Badza camp would be approximately four weeks. Thus the
annual settlement increment rate for a Hadza group would be 13.0, or 9.6
per an.num with the 26% reoccupancy rate. Thus compared to 86,000 per
mIllennium for the ! Kung, the Hadza model would produce 9600 per millennium.
Using the same home range size this would yIeld a density of 28.7 per km
2
per millennium. Although considerably smaller a value than that for the
Kung, this is nonetl1eless a substantial density.
Example 5
Of course, it is not simply hunter-gatherers that are susceptible to this
type of analysis, and it is necessary to take into account the degree of mobility
and differential increment rates for other adaptive strategies. Agriculturalists
are not of direct concern here, but it may be simply stated that their substan-
tially higher rate of sedentism, and hence settlement duration, will reduce
the figures quoted above. Pastoralists, on the other hand, may be expected
to fall somewhere between hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists.
For example, Western (1973), using the Amboseli Maasai, gives duration
rates of 3.7 and 5.2 years-that is, a mean duration rate of 4.45 years.
These are in fact probably somewhat greater lengths of time than would be
expected, and may be accounted for by the extended period of drought dUring
which these data were collected. However, employing these figures we have
an estimate of 224.7 per millennium (see also Section 6.4).
Example 6
Variation also occurs within pastoralism. For example, among the
Turkana Gulliver has shown that they move between five and ten times each
year, and that there Is an average duration of two to three months for each
settlement. Gulliver (1955, 45) reports that the maximum duration of settle-
ment that he observed was eight months, wl1ile many lasted only a few weeks.
USing the data that he presents 1n Appendix 1 (Gulliver 1955, 45-48) it is
possible 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 for
cameis, then this produces a mean settlement increment rate of 11. 75 per
annum, or 11,750 per millennium. As the Turkana range annually over an
25
area of approximately 2500 km
2
, then the settlement density may be estimated
at 4.50 per km2 per 1000 years. It should be stressed in this example that
this is not the total settlement density, merely that produced by one homestead
(that is, one family), and that the absolute density wHl be considerably nigher
as in many instances several homesteads wili occur sympatricalLy.
A summary of the data presented in these examples is shown in Table
2.2. Many other examples could be presented, derived from the ethnograplUc
literature, but the basic point would remain the same-that within certain
limits defined by the adaptive strategy and populatlOn density the effects of
settlement accumulation over time are considerable, and it is essential for
the archaeologist to be aware of the scale of settlement that should theoretically
exist for the time periods with which he must by necessity deal.
This approach, based on the principle of accumulation, would seem to
offer an excellent means or predicting and quantifying the scaLe of archaeolo-
gical materials in a region. EcologicaL and behavioural reasoning can produce
models of land-use patterns; the mechanisms of accumulation can show the
operation of these over long time periods and the observed density and cHstrl-
bution of material can then be viewed in this perspective.
This model should be qualified in two ways. Firstly, only the first of
the four spatial components of regional archaeological structure and, by ~
plication, the second, have been discussed. A comprehensivE! model requIres
incorporating the secondary foci and the occasional locl. The effect of tbls
would be to increase the overall abundance of material, and also to prclduce
a more widespread distribution. In effect the net result would be net so much
a pattern of high settlement densities, but a continuous distdbutionof artefacts
in which occasional particulate settlement and/or activity structures could be
recognised. It is this postuLate, especially when post-depositional factors
are taken into account, that forms the theoretical basis for an artefact densIty
analysis.
Secondly, the density-generation model has been developed assuming a
uniform distribution. The clustering of resources will in fact produce a n o n ~
uniform pattern, and this will form the basis for variation in artefact density.
In other words, although there is an underlying continuity in the distribution,
the gradient in artefact density across the landscape may in fact be quite sharp.
depending upon the degree of localisation of resources or settlement localities.
At its simplest, the structure of artefact density variation in a home range
will follow a pattern of highest density in the core zone, accounted for by
settlements, settlement peripheries. and some, but not all, of the secondary
home range foci. Within this zone there will also be the highest accumulation
of artefacts d1scarded at occasional LocL Moving away from the central high
density zone, the density will fall off as a generaL scatter, but within this
lower density area, there wiLL be localised nodes of high density that are the
result of the more peripheral secondary focL Areas within the area of the
home range, but Largely unexpLolted, will have few or no artefacts.
TWs pattern is appropriate for a system of home range exclusivity.
orten, however, several groups share part or all of the same home range,
especially where there is a single or few water sources, and the resulting
overlapping distributions wUl have the effect of increasing the variaUonin
T 8wnmJu', or aettlemGnt du.ration and lncrementrates for
Examples 3-,6 (see text for explanation)
Est. N/km2 /
N/IOOOyrs. 1000 yrs.
I ,lJflitUem,ent
duration
Modet
-_.
inorement
rate
374.66
(277.2)2
41.38
(30.6)2
0.72
117i 700
(87,100)2
13,000
(9,600)2
225
n,750
117/1
(87.1)2
13.0
(DAH2
0.225
n.7fi
6
Mauai
4
Turklt.:ia
5
1 Yellen (
2 EsUmateI uiling ;I
3
4
5 GuIll ver (lImn
{) Annual aetUement incremst rates for cattle and browse camps are
fL 33 and 6:.42 reapeJetlve!,.. Totatanntull increment rate is the sum
or two ligu.rEla.
27
density. Turning to the large.r scale of variation across an area containing
several home ranges, the artefact density should vary according to the pro-
ductive potential.
The method presented above for estimatJng the total expected number of
settlements and other types of discard localities highlights the paucity of the
observed archaeological record in relation to the expected scale. As has
been shown elsewhere (Foley, 1981, pp. 161-2), even in areas where archae-
ological preservation is good, a perception rate of less than 0.01% of the
expected number of localities is probably a realistic e.stimate of the repre-
sentativeness of a site-based archaeological record.
Finally, with regard to the accumulative nature of the archaeological
record, it should be stressed that the variable primarily controlling the
observable patterning of discard and accumulation will'be the geomorphology.
In particular, observable accumulation will be dependent on the extent to
which the landscape is either stable, aggrading, or eroding. It is necessary,
therefore, to examine post-depositional processes.
2.5 Post-depositional processes
Post-depositional processes are those that come into operation subsequent
to discard. Extensive work has been carried out recently to examine the
nature 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 soale
depositional processes, operating upon the artefacts within a sIte. For the
regional' structure under discussion here this scale of analysis is inappropriate,
and instead it is the large scale regional geomorphological processes that are
relevant (see also MeHars and Reinhardt 1978).'
In the light of the above discussion on both the behaVioural components
of artefact discard and the effects of accumulation, the first point that should
be stressed II;) .that the particulate structure of the archaeological site is
illusory. Firstly, it was shown that the behaviour producing the archaeological
record was spatially continuous; and, secondly. accumulation of disoard will
blur structure that does exist. The third process that will
further destroy the discrete characteristics of the archaeological record lies
in the typical sequence of destruction of material. The structures associated
with hunter-gatherers and pastoralisls SWiftly decay (Robbins 1973, 212),
leaving just a scatter of artefacts, the organic component of which will also
be destroyed eventually. In conjunction with the accumulative process des-
cribed above, in the typical savanna regions being studied here, the result is
a continuous distribution of artefactual materiaL
If this contention is correct, then clearly the effects of regional post-
depositional processes on the distribution and archaeological visibility of the
artefacts are important. The impllcations of the model of archaeological
formation and structure presented here are that the inherent continuIty. the
vast scale of the regional structure of the archaeological record, and the
overaLL distribution and differential density, of artefacts, contain high infor-
mation potential. However, the realisation of this potential depends on the
extent to which post-depositional processes destroy or render
invisible this distribution. .,.
Considered broadly paiR-depositionaL processes operate with the effect
orabacuring. trtiUlCorm.1ng or destroying the information content of the arch-
aeological record. Thew.aya lnwblch this occurs are hIghly variable, and
have been discussed tuUy els,e,where (P'oley 1981). With regard to the off-
site In(}del. post-depositional processes may compound the spatially continuous
character of archaeological field data, as well as resulting in a pattern of
artefact distribution that cannot be 1nterpreted solely in terms of prehistoric
behaviour.
2.6 Review 2rotr-lite !PPt?ltChes
Ofl-siteapproaohes cover a broad range of materials and methods.
BasloaUythou,gh. they fall into two categories; firstly those concerned with
interpretatiOin otthe laodsicllpie, and based prImariLy on lInaturaP' environ-
m.ental lnformatlon. "fhlscategor:v includes the site catchment analysis of
.HiggBaaa Vlta-P'lllli (1970);. the auth<:>rs 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 aotual
feattu"elll MId material outsIde the context of the site to deduce
b,ypolhes;EU!l.bout put beba:vlour" It 18 this sec:ond category that Is of interest
beret 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 examining
this appr<:)ach. He attacks theusu.mptlon tbat "because the site concept is
almost ICcepted as a.rchaeology's minlmaLsgaUal unit. it is
a.lwa;ys tu."cbaeolog;y minimal operation unit'! (Tbomas 1975, 62). He argues
uurtead that ttttlt blaie such unit is tbe cultural item, This is an important
point., altbou.p 1 have argued in this cnapter that it may be taken even further
-that ls. that the site Is not the basic spatial unit of archaeology; rather.
the basic spaUal unit is dependent u..pon the questions being as.ked, and tha.t
for ecological quesUo.ns tbe bome range provides the basic spaUal unit and
tbe artefact the mlnlm'w .analyUcalunlt (cc. Clarke 1968). Thomas rightly
pewte out. quoting Ptol and HUt (1911, 8) the flexible and expedient nature
of site definitions, He goes on toa.rguethat the artefact should provide the
basIc operaUonal unit. However. he sUll views the spatial structure of the
Iu"cbae
i
ologlcal reoord as inherently discrete. employing what he cans the
F:g model" (cf. )"ord 19M). In contra.st, 1 have argued here that
despite tbe discrete nature of indivIdual artefa.cts. and behavioural
reufJoing would SUReatthal their dislributi(m is continuous. There would
seem little pcir.l! in aband(ming one discrete of analysis for anotber,
despite tbe Increased fIexlbtUtyavaUable through using a smaller unit.
Thomas carried out bis work In the Reese River valley of Nevadll, in
the Soutbwestern United States. He used a lOc/i)i rand()m sampUng metbodology
to (>btaln data on the deosity IOd degree ()C dlspers.al of particular artefact
types in relatiDn tot'Wo basic babitat types. He hypothesised exploltatlon
strategIes tor the areal using Stewards' ethnographic and a.rchaeolc)glcal work
among the ()reatBasin Soosbone (Steward 1938)... and tested hIs archaeological
materlalaga.wst tbese mrJdels (Thoma.s 1972). His wo rk was primarily
concerned wUh particular artefact types. than the gross abundance and
distribut.1on ot art.efactual material 11'1 generaL In this llght he strc1sscd the
need for adopting different sampling strategies for qualitative as opposed to
quantitative data, An important conclusion made by Thomas in his discussion
of off-site methodology is that the data obtained are not normally distributed,
but instead show marked positive skewing, The densities are inherently low,
resulting in a negative binomial distribution (Cliff and Ord 1973; Hodder and
Orton 1976), causing analytical problems.
In the same vein, Bettinger (1977) has made a study of human ecology
in Owen's Valley (Eastern California). As with Thomas, he used random
sampling of 500 x 500 metre quadrats to obtain material on both the distribution
and density of sites and artefacts. Bettinger modelled for the distribution of
the material using ethnographic accounts, and then compared his samples to
the models. Both his models and his methodology were directed towards
functional interpretations of the artefacts, followed by specific actiVity
interpretations 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 temporal
variation in their analysis of surface material. Bettinger's work shows that in
Owen's Valley there was a shift about 3450 BP away from exploitation of river1.ne
resources towards those of the desert scrub. By 1350 BP there was regular
exploitation of the pinon woodlands and by 950 BP there was a decline in the
frequency of large game hunting. Bettinger used his density and distribution
material to argue for a gradual decline in productivity!populatlon level ratios,
and consequently a decllne 1.n the actual carrying capacity through
between population pressure and resource availability,.,
The third major off-site work that has been carried out is that of Isaac
and Harris (1976). This differs markedly from the other two case studies.
Firstly1 it is concerned with the behaviour of early man. Isaac and Harris
developed the work to investigate the variations in tool morphology in the
Karari industry of the Lower Pleistocene (1. 5 - 1. 2 m, yr. BP), Secondly
their sampling was sediment specific and hence time specific, confined to
the artefact bearing sediments of the Upper Koobi Fora Member. And thirdly.
they were principally concerned with the observable differences in assemblage
structure between high and low density assemblages. It was from this premise
that their work developed, follOWing observations that the Karari industry
was 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 set perpendicuLar to a 14 km long
base Hne. They discovered that Large unit sizes were unwieldy for such work,
and eventually collected their material in 100 x 200 metre squares. Within
these squares material was recorded in relation to small scale geological
variations, stressing again the geological basis of their approach.
This field work programme showed that there was indeed a consiste:nt
low density scatter of material along the Karari Escarpment that could not
merely be explained in terms of secondary movements away from high density
sites, The median density of artefacts was 0.4/100 m
2
, three-quQ.rters of
which was comprised of flakes. Furthermore, their sam.pUng revealed a
significant component of bifaces, a tool type that had never been recovered
from an excavation.
Tw() other ILtboulb not formally wlth.lnan off-sIte framework,
bavs looked at the pn>blem relio'nal artefact densities. Isacc (19'12a) sampled
alteraot deD8lty alol11 a or the Ilope8of Mount P;burru in the Nakuru
8 ,&8in, reliults abowed CODI iderabIe varIation martefact density
mretatlon to altitude. JIt'rom It mean of 198 per 4m
2
at 6900
1
altitude, to
0.. 8 'per 4m
2
on the pillns below. llaac referred tbese results to the produot
,mlol1g OODceatraUon cumerous overlap,plDgoocupatlon scatters" (Isacc
1911,Flgure 1), the concentration ()Q ridges related to tbe
ool'1l':tbln.ltifJtl of .In md topographic factors. and poi.ntEtd out that the
acne r'eglon is settlement blbitat of modern WafNdorobo hunter-
tbe !bu.rru materlal poses severe problems of ioter-
pl"8tRtion as th.ill 11 one tbe rew lOurcea ofool;ldlan in the whole region,
mdtb.mIUDl1stencema:y have been involved.
regional distribu'Uon of material Cor the
and Natmn blUlllos of Kenya.
N.Har8 aDd carried out an or the regionaL
d.hltl1buUon of material lIt 8outhernBrttain. Tbey showed that
deli111lty botbmdartelao'll (IntoroUtb.s. mace-beada.axeB/
adIUHI) varied wU.b formaUoGa, Tbelr results are probably not
laterpretlbl. in lemul IDlelute denaRlel, baaed althey are not on systematic
aflm.pUn..I. butor1 data foom tbil Uter'ltUNl, This very la.rge Beale
appn>lIicb to habitat preferences. rltherthaa the de..
tailed adaptaUc:uul a.reu. It bl.pUlhts the geological buLs of an
archaeotopcal and Lbe problema! the extent to wblch ob-
variation il Ule fif buman 80010110a1 pattertllDl or tapbc)nomlcal
boUt of m., be rel.lted to the ooderlylfllle'ol.ogioa.l st.ruoture.
'T"k"...a studies (trltty the Importance of developlng specUla
metbodologles for artefact dmll;ity analysJ.. seoondly. the c rUlcal importartoe
olrl!pft)u8 aampl,wg and thl.rdly, that a large quantity of al"'Cbae-
otogl.cal material. from a broad spectntm of environments, occurs outBide tbe
C(1,Wtext ot' what 111 trad.u.loo.aUy referred to IS a site,and that this material bas
a hi&;h tnfom'Ui:Uc:)lO pot.enUa..t.

above dllculilion baa I:ttempt.ed t;) show the bilhavloural, archa.oologlcal
viewing arcbaool.ogl.cal materials as spatially
oontitmous. Tbe prbmu:y inferences tbat be drawn rrom the above dls-
aU.llion are:
1) Tbat slUtS a.re in fa cootlnu,oul!l\ dlstrLbuUtlfl of materials,
2) Tbat home ran., behaYlour pn:vldes Ute underpinning for
(X)nUo.uous relmnal diat
Thm the leading to accumulation of
nUltill"ials. lend compounds tbil c()OUnuoua
di8trtDuU()11. aa willt liS complexity.
4) Tbat the arteract. bllsic unit an a.rc!:ulil()loglcal dIstribution, CM,
and sbciuld, bil used as tbt' unn Nlgtoual analy
The analysis presented hElre proceeds from these inferences. It is
predicted that a landscape should contain on the surface or within its sediments
a continuously distributed scatter of artefacts, eXhibiting properties of dif-
ferential spatial densities. Allowing for both the behavioural and taphonomical
processes affecting them, these density distributions may be expected to con-
form to the distribution and frequency of prehistoric human activities. It
would seem appropriate, therefore, to use the artefact as the unit of data
collection and analysis and to examine the regional variation in artefact density
as a means of studying human palaeoecology. An artefact density analysis
is one potential methodology for the off-site archaeologist.
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Request Date: 01-MAY-2009
Expiration Date: 08-MAY-2009
ILL Number: TGQ or OCLC #:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
ILL Number: 3156593
Call Number: DA90.Al B75 supp1. no.97
Format: Part of Book
Title: Off-Site Archaeology and Human
; : : : ~ Adaptation in Eastern Africa. An Analysis
--.l of Regional Artefact Density in the
Amboseli, Southern Kenia
:::::JArticle Author: Foley, R. R
Article Title: chapter 2
_.~ .. Part Pub. Date: 1981
-J' Pages: chapter 2
-,'.
Requester: UCSB Library
Patron Name: MARSH, ERIK JOHNSON (Graduate)
Patron e-mail: emarsh@umai1.ucsb.edu
Service Level: Normal- Full Search
Delivery Method: Courier
Request Note: PDF please - I am abroad on research and
cannot pick up a hard copy. thanks!
Need by Date:
Verification Source: MELVYL-UCLinks-sfx:citation
Supplier Reference;
Owned By: UCD Shields Libmry
TGQ or OCLC #: 3155880
10: USBI
ISBN/ISSN:
Publisher: Cambridge Monographs in African
Archaeology 3. British Archaeological
Reports 97, Oxford.
Address: UCSB Interlibrary Loan/Davidson
Library/525 UCEN Road/Santa Barbam
CA, 93106/U.S.A.lUCSB AriellP
128.111.96.251; Email ill@library.ucsb.
Service Type: Copy non retumable
Max Cost: USD55
Payment Type: IFM
Copyright Compliance: CCL
Requester 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/ FAX
530-752-7815/
shieldsinterloan@ucdavis.edu