Society for American Archaeology

Intrasite Spatial Analysis, Ethnoarchaeology, and Paleoindian Land-Use on the Great Plains:
The Allen Site
Author(s): Douglas B. Bamforth, Mark Becker and Jean Hudson
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 561-580
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035314 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 19:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRASITE SPATIALANALYSIS, ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY,AND
PALEOINDIAN LAND-USE ON THE GREAT PLAINS: THE ALLEN SITE

Douglas B. Bamforth,MarkBecker, and Jean Hudson

Thispaper examines the way in which patterns of human occupation and geomorphicprocesses interacted to produce a
highly structureddistributionof artifacts and hearths over a period of over 3,000 years at the Allen site (25FT50), a Pale-
oindian campsite in southwesternNebraska.Despite accumulationof roughlya meter of sediment,artifact concentrations
remainedin almost exactly the same horizontal locations throughoutthe period of site occupation. Hearth locations var-
ied considerably,but were virtually always located in areas of low artifact density. Considered in light of ethnoarchaeo-
logical studies of hunter-gatherersite structure,our data indicate that the excavatedportion of the site was at theperiphery
of a domestic area and was usedfor secondary discard and otherpurposes. Trashappears to have been collected and dis-
carded onto previously existing and continuously visible middens throughoutthe occupation, and new hearths appear to
have been located to avoid these middens. Wediscuss the implications of these patternsfor currentmodels of Paleoindian
landuse on the Plains andfor studies of hunter-gatherer site structurein general.

Este articulo examinala maneraen quepatrones de ocupaciony procesos geomorfologicosinteractuaronpara produciruna

distribucionde artefactosy hogares sumamenteestructuradosen una epoca de mas 3000 ahos en el sitio Allen (25FT50), un
campamentopaleoindio en el suroestedel estado de Nebraska.A pesar de la acumulacionde aproximadamenteun metrode
sedimentos,las concentracionesde artefactos se quedaronen casi identicas ubicaciones horizontals por toda la epoca de
ocupaciondel sitio. Las ubicacionesde hogares variabanconsiderablemente,pero estabancasi siempreubicadasen areas de
baja densidadde artefactos.A la luz de estudios etnoarqueologicosde la estructurade sitios de cazadores-recolectores,nue-
stros datos indicanque laporcion excavadadel sitio estaba en laperiferia de una area domestica,y quefue usadapara dese-
chos secundariasy otrospropositos.La basuraaparentementefue colectada y desechada en depositospreexistentesy visibles
por toda la ocupacion,y nuevos hogares aparentementese ubicaronpara evitar esos depositos. Discutimosaqui las implica-
ciones de esos patronesen modelosactuatessobre los usos de tierrapor los paleoindios en las llanurasnorteamericanasy en
estudiosde estructurasde cazadores-recolectoresen general.

paperfocuses on the spatialstructureof theAllen sitehasimportantimplicationsforwidely

an open-airhunter-gatherer site in south- butuncriticallyacceptedviews of Paleoindianuse
westernNebraska,on the NorthAmerican of the Plainslandscape.
GreatPlains.Ourgoal hereis twofold.First,exist- Second, though,we also believe that the spe-
ing approachesto understandinghunter-gatherer cific characterof the Allen site highlightsaspects
site structureilluminatethe patternof occupation of hunter-gatherer site structurethattheexistinglit-
-
at a particulararchaeologicalsite the Allen site erature tends not to emphasize,and that this has
(Bamforth 1991, 2002a, 2005; Bamforth and implications that extend well beyondPaleoindian
Becker2000;HolderandWike1949)- and thereby archaeology. As Carr (1984) noted, modern
illuminatetheoverallperiodof occupation to which approaches to intrasite spatialanalysisdeveloped
this site dates (the Paleoindianperiod,ca. 11,000 out of attemptsto identify"activity"areaswithin
to 7000 cal. B.C.;Holliday2000). Inparticular, the sites. Ethnoarchaeologicalresearch(particularly
patternof occupationandreoccupation evident at see Binford 1978; O'Connell 1987;Yellen 1977;

Douglas B. Bamforth AnthropologyDepartment,233 UCB, Universityof Colorado,Boulder,CO 80309-0233

(douglas.bamforth@colorado.edu)
Mark Becker ASM Affiliates, 543 EncinitasBlvd., Suite 114, Encinitas,CA 92024
Jean Hudson AnthropologyDepartment,Universityof Wisconsin, PO Box 413, Milwaukee,WI , 53201-9735

AmericanAntiquity,70(3), 2005, pp. 561-580

Copyright©2005 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

561

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
562 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]

see alsoimportantcontributions compiledby Gam-

ble andBoismier1991;Hietala1984;andKrolland
Price 1991, as well as a recentthematicreviewby
David and Kramer2001) played a criticalrole in
thisdevelopment,in largepartby challengingnaive
assumptionsaboutthewaysin whichhumanaction
introducesobjectsinto the archaeologicalrecord.
However,archaeologicalsites formas the resultof
an interactionbetweenhumanaction and natural
depositionalprocesses, and these processes have
to be takeninto accountin interpretingany partic-
ularsite. Discussionsof intrasitespatialpatterning
based on ethnoarchaeologicalobservationsrarely
take these naturalprocessesinto account(but see
Fisher1978;Yellen1996).Also frequentlyignored
arethe spatialimpactsof reoccupationof the same
localeby peopleengagedin a nomadiclifestyle(but
see Binford1982).Artifactdistributions attheAllen
site providea clear exampleof one kind of inter-
actionbetweenpatternsof humanartifactdeposi-
tion and natural processes of sediment
accumulation,and these distributionscannot be
understood without taking both of these into
account.
Ourdiscussionhas threesections.We begin by
describingthe verticaland horizontaldistribution
of artifactsand featureswithin the Allen site. We
then considerthis distributionin light of the geo-
morphicforces that formed the site and of eth-
noarchaeologicalinformationon the formationof
the archaeologicaltracesof hunter-gatherer camp-
sites.We close by outliningthe implicationsof the
Allen sitepatternforourunderstanding of thePale-
oindianperiodon the GreatPlainsandfor archae-
ological analysisin general.
The Allen Site
The Allen site was locatedon MedicineCreek,a
tributaryof the RepublicanRiverin southwestern
Nebraska(Figure 1), and was first identifiedin
1947 along with severalothersites of comparable
age (Davis 1954, 1962;HolderandWike 1949). It
was excavated with varying degrees of care
between 1947 and 1949 by field partiesfrom the
NebraskaStateMuseumduringthe earlyyearsof
the River Basin Salvage programon the Great
Plains.Despiteexcavationof a relativelylargepor-
tion of the site and recoveryof a substantialcol-
lection of archaeologicalmaterial,very little was
Figure 1. Location of the Allen Site (Redrawn from Davis
[1962:Figure 2]).
everpublishedon theAllen site, andseriousques-
tions about its radiocarbonchronology (Wedel
1986:66-71) combinedwith this to leave the site
in obscurityfor decades. However,more recent
collectionsresearchcombinedwithfieldstudiesof
localgeomorphologyandpaleoenvironmental con-
ditionshaveresolvedthe chronologicalissues and
generateda substantialbody of informationon the
archaeologicalassemblage(Bamforth2002a).New
radiocarbondates on charcoaland sedimentfrom
theAllen siteandotherlocalitiesatMedicineCreek
clearlydatethe site to thePaleoindianperiod(May
2002, 2005).
Excavationsat the site recoverednearly 300
pieces of workedstone, some 13,000 unmodified
flakes,13hammerstones,12piecesof groundstone,
126bonetools, andthousandsof pieces of unmod-
ified bone, andrecorded20 hearths.The diversity
of artifactsandnumberof hearthsimpliesthatthe
site was a residentialcamp; the assemblagecer-
tainlycontrastssharplywithotherPaleoindiansites
excavatedatMedicineCreek,whichproducedfew
hearths and whose artifactassemblages consist
almostentirelyof earlystagestonetool production
debris.These othersites (theLime CreekandRed
Smoke sites) appearto be workshopsassociated
with raw materialoutcrops,a patternthat under-
scoresthe domesticcharacterof the materialfrom
the Allen site (Bamforth2002a; Hicks 2002).

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORTS
Figure 2. North-South stratigraphic profile of the Allen Site along the east 35 gridline.
Fieldworkat theAllen Site
The greatmajorityof the excavationsat the Allen
site occurredin 1948 and 1949. Duringthis work,
the site was excavatedin five-foot (1.54 m) hori-
zontal grids using .2 foot (6.2 cm) thick vertical
excavationlevels.No sedimentswerescreened,but
all materialvisible duringexcavationwas recov-
ered and bagged by grid squareand excavation
level. In addition, selected artifactswere point-
plottedin threedimensions,as were the numerous
hearthsidentifiedat the site. In all, the Allen site
excavations removed approximately 140 cubic
yards(110 cubicmeters)of sedimentfroma trian-
gularareaof 1,250 squarefeet ( 129 squaremeters).
Unfortunately, the site's excavators preserved
detailed provenience information for the great
majorityof the nonfaunalmaterial,but turnedall
unmodifiedbone over to paleontologistsassoci-
atedwith the project,who cataloguedmost of the
faunalcollectiononlyby generalstratigraphic level.
The exceptionto this is in the case of a minorityof
the materialassociatedwith "features,"which we
discussin moredetailbelow.
Stratigraphy
TheAllen site was formedin an aggradingTermi-
nalPleistocene/Early HoloceneterracealongMed-
icineCreekfollowinganextendedperiodof erosion
(May 2002, 2005). Priorto approximately10,700
cal. B.C., this terraceappearsto have formedby
overbankflooding,with additionalsedimentcon-
tributedby downslopecolluvial processes.How-
ever,theterracesurfacestabilizedonceit roseabove
flood level, probablyfor severalcenturies,and a
soil developed on it. Sometime between 10,700
and roughly 9500 cal. B.C., colluvial sediments
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
563
again began to accumulate.This continueduntil
approximately7600 cal. B.C., whensedimentation
was interrupted by a second,apparentlysomewhat
briefer,periodof surfacestabilityand soil forma-
tion. Sedimentationthen commencedonce more,
with a new cycle of erosionbeginningat approxi-
mately3800 cal. B.C..
The site's excavators(Holderand Wike 1949)
identified three stratigraphicunits within this
sequence:OccupationLevel 1 (OL1),correspond-
ing to the lower of the two buriedsoils; the Inter-
mediate Zone (IZ), including the sediments
between the two soils; and OccupationLevel 2
(OL2), the upperof the two soils. The totalthick-
ness of excavateddepositrangedfromaboutthree
to fourfeet (1.0 to 1.3 meters).Figure2 presentsa
north-southprofilealong the westernedge of the
excavationthatwas drawnin 1948 at the close of
themajorepisodeof workatthe site.Note thatFig-
ure 2 also shows a stainedlevel, possibly a soil,
aboveOL 2 andwell as an indistinctandlocalized
stainedareawithintheIntermediate Zone.Thesoils
designatedOL1andOL 2 representstablesurfaces
and are visible widely throughoutthe Medicine
CreekValley,but these two otherlevels appearto
representlocalizeddevelopments,possiblyresult-
ing fromincreasedmoisturein small-scalemicro-
topographiclows. Although Holder and Wike's
simple tripartiteschemeis useful for manyanaly-
ses (i.e., Bamforth2002a), it thus somewhatover-
simplifiesthe site's stratigraphy.
It is also clearthattherewerebothfeaturesand
artifactsfound more or less continuously from
below the lower soil throughthe sedimentsjust
above the upper soil (see below). Much of our
analysisrelieson a divisionof thesiteintoninefiner
stratigraphic units,with artifactsplacedinto these
564 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Table 1. Criteriafor Defining StratigraphicUnits at the
Allen Site.
Above OL 2: All of the excavation levels with bottom
depths more than 4.0 inches above the surface of OL 2.
OL 2 Upper:All of the excavationlevels with bottom depths
less than4.0 andgreaterthanor equalto 2.0 inches above the
surfaceof OL 2.
OL 2 Surface: All of the excavation levels with bottom
depthswithin 2.0 inches of the OL 2 surface.
OL 2 Lower:All of the excavationlevels with bottomdepths
more than 2.0 but less than or equal to 6.0 inches below the
surfaceof OL 2.
IntermediateZone: All of the excavationlevels with bottom
depths more than 6.0 inches below the surface of OL 2 and
4.0 inches or more above the surfaceof OL 1.
OL 1 Upper:All of the excavationlevels with bottom depths
less than 4.0 but more than 2.0 inches above the surface of
OL1.
OL 1 Surface: All of the excavation levels with bottom
depths within 2.0 inches of the surfaceof OL 1.
OL 1 Lower:All of the excavationlevels with bottomdepths
more than 2.0 but less than or equal to 6.0 inches below the
surfaceof OL 1.
Below OL 1: All of the excavation levels with bottom
depths more than 6.0 inches below the surface of OL 1
units on the basis of the datarecordedin the field
catalog.We began by distinguishingthe surfaces
of the two soils as distinctanalyticunits(OL1and
OL2 "surface"),on the groundsthat artifactsare
likelyto haveaccumulatedon themthroughoutthe
periods of surface stability that these represent.
Detailedfieldrecordsof point-plottedartifactsand
otherdepthmeasurementsmadeduringexcavation
make it possible to reconstructthe configurations
of these surfacesin detail. These reconstructions
then make it possible to determinethe distance
fromthese surfacesto the top andbottomof each
excavationlevel in each gridunit.Using these dis-
tances,we also distinguishedas separatelevels the
sedimentsjust above and below the soil surfaces
(OL 1 andOL 2 "upper"and"lower"),alongwith
the sedimentsabove OL2 upper,in the Intermedi-
ate Zone, and below OL1 lower.Table 1 presents
the precisecriteriaused to definethese levels.
These levels are arbitraryto some degree,but
they providean analyticallyuseful way of parti-
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
tioningthe site and,as we show below,ouranaly-
ses indicatesthattheyparticularly allowus to assess
the overalldegreeof verticalartifactdisplacement
(whichappearsto be remarkablylow). It is impor-
tantto note two points,though.The firstis that,as
the criteriain Table1 show,all of these levels fol-
low the naturalslopeof the soil surfacesin the site,
and thus of the terracesurfaceon which archaeo-
logical materialaccumulated;they arenot simply
arbitraryslices of the site. Second,althoughthese
levels are composedof flat excavationlevels and
thenaturallevelsin thesite slopedownto thenorth-
east,the excavationlevels arethinin relationto the
degreeof slope. This, again,minimizesthe likeli-
hoodthattheysignificantlydistorttheinternalorga-
nizationof the site.
Stratigraphyand ArtifactProvenience
While most of the lithicassemblagecan be placed
into one or anotherof the levels definedin Table1,
in somecasesthesite'sexcavatorscatalogueditems
only as comingfromone or anotherof the original
threelevels identifiedin the field. This has impli-
cationsfor our analysisbecauseourfinersubdivi-
sions of the strata sometimes place artifactsin
differentunitsthandidtheinitialfieldimpressions.
Toassessthesedifferences,we examinedthosecat-
alog entriesthatincludedbothHolderandWike's
stratigraphicdesignationsandprecisedepthmea-
surements.Not surprisingly,in most cases where
both of these kindsof informationwere recorded,
our designationsmatchedthose made in 1948 at
the level of the threebasic stratigraphicunits (89
of 117 provenienceunits;76.1 percent).Of those
thatdid not match,slightly more thanhalf (16 of
28; 57.1 percent)involvedentriesinitiallydesig-
natedin the catalogas partof the OL 1 collection
thatouranalysismovedinto IZ;most of the rest(9
of theremaining12)involvedchangesbetweenOL
2 and IZ. Thatis, our analysisplaced some of the
uppermostartifactsthatthe site's excavatorsdes-
ignatedas coming from OccupationLevel 1, and
some of thelowermostartifactsdesignatedas com-
ing from OccupationLevel 2, into the Intermedi-
ateZone.Thisissue has importantimplicationsfor
analysisof verticalpatternsin refittedartifacts,and
we returnto it below.
As notedabove,while the majorityof the lithic
assemblagecan be placedinto these finerunitsof
analysis,this is not the case for the majorityof the
 REPORTS
faunalassemblage.The exceptionto this is faunal
materialrecordedas comingfromfeaturecontexts.
The Allen site excavatorsidentifiedtwo primary
kindsof features:hearthsand a series of horizon-
tallyandverticallydistinctconcentrationsof mate-
rial,mainlyon the surfaceof the OL 1 soil. There
aretwo kindsof recordsof this material.First,the
site's excavatorsdrew field maps of point-plotted
artifactswithinthefeatures.Whilenoneof theitems
depictedin thesemapscanbe identifiedas specific
itemsin thecollection,it is possibleto derivecounts
of plottedbone pergridsquarefromthe mapsand
to comparethesewithsimilarcountsof flakedstone
artifacts.Second,while thefaunalcatalogdoes not
preservespecific three-dimensionalprovenience
information,it often notes which featurea partic-
ularitem was foundin, makingit possibleto iden-
tify materialfromdifferentareasof the surfaceof
thelowersoil (althoughtheseareasareoftenlarger
thanindividualgrid units).While the majorityof
our discussion relies on informationon flaked
stone, then, it is possible to integrateinformation
on thefaunafor the surfaceof the lowersoil. How-
ever,it is importantto note thatit is not likely that
all faunalmaterialwas includedon the maps and
thatthe densitycounts derivedfrom them proba-
bly underestimatethe actualtotals.
AnalyticMethods
Archaeologistshaveexaminedintra-sitespatialpat-
ternsin artifactdistributionsusinganarrayof tech-
niques.Approachesto the analysisof suchpatterns
have focused on a varietyof materials,including
faunal,ceramic,and lithic assemblages,and have
relied on methodsof analysis that include visual
inspectionsof distributionalmaps,statisticalanaly-
sis of verticalandhorizontalartifactdistributions,
andstudyof horizontalandmicrostratigraphic pat-
terns in refittedpieces (Cahen et al. 1979; Carr
1984;Enloeet al. 1994;Hietala1984;Hodderand
Orton1976;Koetje1994;VaqueroandPasto2001;
Yellen 1996). These studieshave reliedon spatial
datarangingin precisionfromartifactscountsper
grid square to meticulously plotted three-
dimensionalmeasurements.
As is true for all archaeologicalanalyses, an
analyst'schoice of methodsreflectsa rangeof fac-
tors, includingthe specific questionbeing asked,
the kindsof materialbeing analyzed,andthe level
of spatialdetailin the availabledata.Ouranalyses
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
565
are structuredparticularlyby the nature of the
proveniencedata outlinedabove: the bulk of the
assemblagecan be locatedwithinthe site only to
the level of a .2 foot thick level withina five foot
excavationsquare.Enloeet al. ( 1994:108) notethat
arbitrarygridscan hide some formsof spatialpat-
terning,particularlyobscuringsmall artifactcon-
centrationsandotherfine-graineddetail.However,
whiledetailedpoint-provenience is theidealforany
kindof spatialanalysis,we simplycannotworkat
a finerscalethantheonepresentedto usby theexist-
ing proveniencedata.We thus discuss spatialpat-
terningat the site at the scalethatthe availabledata
allow,andreturnto this issue in a latersection.
Two otherfactorsaffectour analyses.The first
is the fact that artifactcounts, particularlycounts
of workedstone,declinesharplyfromthe lowerto
the upperlevels of the site (see Bamforth2002a),
and many of the nine stratigraphicunits defined
abovehavetoo few retouchedpiecesto supportany
meaningfulseparateanalysisof this class of arti-
facts.We thereforefocus on overallartifactdistri-
butions rather than distributions of particular
artifacttypes. Second,the absenceof fine screen-
ing of the site depositspreventsus fromsearching
for the kindsof small artifactsthataremost likely
to help us to identify in situ activityareasconfi-
dently(O'Connell1987; Stevenson1991).
Withthese issues in mind,we considervertical
artifactandhearthdistributionsby considering(1)
the densityof flakedstone artifacts(totalnumber
of artifactsper cubic foot of excavatedsediment)
in each of the nine stratigraphicunitsjust defined
and(2) the verticallocationsof hearthsin relation
to the two buriedsoils. We also examinevertical
patternsof conjoinedartifactsto assess the degree
to which postdepositionalprocesses have moved
objectswithinthe site.Wethenturnto examinethe
horizontaldistributionof artifactswithin each of
each of ournine stratigraphic unitsby plotting(1)
horizontal patterns of artifact counts per grid
square,(2) artifactsizepergridsquare(bothof these
using the SURFERcomputermappingprogram),
and (3) horizontalpatternsof connectionsamong
refittedartifacts.
We supplementthese analysesby considering
thehorizontaldistributionof faunalmaterialon the
surfaceof OL1, derivedfrom field mapsof point-
plottedbones,andwithinformationon differences
in degreesof weatheringof bone in differentareas
566 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Table 2. Numbersof Hearthsand Flaked Stone
Artifacts/ProvenienceUnit by StratigraphicLevel.
Level Hearths Artifacts/ProvenienceUnit
Above OL 2. 0 8.6
OL 2 Upper 0 40.5
OL 2 Surface 5 16.4
OL 2 Lower 4 32.3
IntermediateZone 2 15.2
OL 1 Upper 0 6.7
OL 1 Surface 4 27.5
OL1 Lower 2 11.5
Below OL 1 3 3I5
of thissurface.Toassessweathering,we combined
data on incidences of surface weatheringof the
bone (identifiedfollowingBehrensmeyer[1978]),
carnivoregnaw marks,androdentgnaw marksas
indicatorsof exposure to nonculturalprocesses
afterdiscard.Hudson(2005) discusses the Allen
site bone in general,andthesedatain particular,in
moredetail.
Wegeneratedall distributionmapsin SURFER
usinga commonset of guidelines.First,we entered
datafor all grid units within the excavationarea.
For density maps, these data are artifacttotals
(includingtotalsof zero for emptyunits);for arti-
fact size distributions,these dataare medianarti-
fact width (including widths of zero for empty
units).AlthoughSURFER'scontouringalgorithm
interpolatesintervalsbetweendatapoints,thispro-
cedurelimits suchinterpolationto the dimensions
of a single grid square.Second, we producedall
maps using a common set of conventions.In dis-
tributionalmapsof flakedstone,theminimumcon-
tour is one artifactper grid square and contour
intervalsrise in incrementsof 25 artifactsper grid
square;forthesinglemapof bonedistributions, the
minimumcontouris 1.0 bone per grid squareand
contoursrisein incrementsof 2.0 bonespersquare.
For size distributions,the minimum contour is
1.0 cm andcontourintervalsrise in incrementsof
.5 cm.
VerticalArtifactand FeatureDistributions
Table2 presentsthefrequenciesof hearthsandfre-
quenciesanddensitiesof flakedstone artifactsfor
each of the nine stratigraphic
unitsdefinedabove;
Figure3 graphsthe density of artifactsper cubic
foot for these levels. These data indicate fairly
clearlythatculturalmaterialwas presentthrough-
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
out the excavatedsediments,althoughthe density
of such materialfluctuatessubstantially.Interest-
ingly,the densityof artifactsdoes not simplytrack
therateof sedimentationoutlinedabove.Thehigh-
est densityis on the surfaceof OccupationLevel
1, as might be expected given the length of time
over which that surfacecould have accumulated
artifacts.However,thereis no comparablepeakat
the surfaceof OccupationLevel 2; instead,thereis
a peak in densitybelow this surface.
It is, of course,possible thatthe patternin Fig-
ure 3 representsa smallnumberof levels in which
artifactswereinitiallydeposited,with suchnatural
processesas rodentburrowingdispersingartifacts
awayfromthese levels. However,two lines of evi-
denceindicatethatthe site experiencedlittleor no
such disturbance.The firstof these is the vertical
distributionof hearths(Figure4). Unlike individ-
ual stone artifacts,featureslike hearthscannotbe
moved within a site, and the presenceof hearths
throughoutthe site sedimentsindicatesthatthepat-
ternin Figure3 is unlikelyto be the resultof post-
depositionalprocesses.
Second,dataon theverticaldistributionof refit-
ted artifactspaint a similarpicture.Despite sys-
tematicattemptsover the course of severalyears
to refitas muchof the collectionas possible,only
abouttwo percentof the artifactsfrom the Allen
site can be conjoined,a point we returnto below.
Interpreting thedataon verticalconnectionsamong
artifactsis complicatedby theambiguityin thespe-
cific locations of partof the collection discussed
above: for objects whose provenienceis known
only on the basis of stratigraphicdesignationsin
the field catalog,with no recordof absolutedepth,
we cannotknowfor certainwhetheror notrefitsof
artifactsbetween OL 1 and XLor between OL 2
andIZ actuallyindicatestratigraphic displacement
of artifactswhen those artifacts'provenienceis
ambiguous.
Overall,57 of 64 (89.1 percent)of all refitted
sequencesarewithina singlestratum.Considering
onlyrefittedpieceswithunambiguousstratigraphic
provenience, 97.4 percent (38 of 39) links are
withina single stratum(Table3). Seventy-sixper-
cent (19 of 25) of refitswith one or moreambigu-
ous pieces are similarlywithin a single stratum.
Evenin thislattergroupof artifacts,only two link-
ages (one between the surface of OL2 and the
deposits above OL2 and one between OL2 and
 REPORTS 567

Figure 3. Vertical artifact density (flaked stone artifacts/provenienceunit) by stratigraphic unit.

OL1)definitelytie togetherdistinctlevels;the oth-
ers fall intothe groupwhose stratigraphiclocation
is slightlyuncertain(see above).These data,then,
implystronglythatthe verticalstructureof the site
is largelyintact.
Althoughartifactsand hearthswere presentin
varyingfrequenciesthroughoutthe site sediments,
Table2 also suggests thathearthand artifactfre-
quenciesdo not simplyvarytogether.Instead,they
areverysimilarfromstratumto stratumin theInter-
mediateZone and OccupationLevel 1, but they
fluctuateless consistently in the levels defined
withinOccupationLevel 2. Naturalprocessesthus
do seemto havehelpedto structuretheverticaldis-
tributionof materialwithinthesite:withinthelower
levels of the site, variationin the densityof archae-
ologicalmaterialtracksvariationin therateof accu-
mulationof geologic sediment.However,thisdoes
not appearto be the case in the uppermostlevels
of thesite,whereartifactandfeaturedensitiesseem
to vary independentlyof each other and, as sug-
gested by the low density of artifactson the sur-
face of OL2, of the rateof sedimentation.
HorizontalArtifactand FeatureDistributions
Whilethe precedingdatashow an essentiallycon-
tinuousverticaldistribution
of artifactsandhearths,
the dataon horizontalpatternsshow a highlyclus-
tereddistribution(Figures5 through7 showexam-
ples of these distributions): in all nine levels,

Table3. Refits Among StratigraphicLevels for Artifactswith Specific VerticalProvenience.

Level
Level Above 2 2 Upper 2 Surf. 2 Low IZ TUrj 1 Surf. 1 Low
Above 2 - 1
2 Upper - ..-._--
2 Surface - 4
2 Low - 2
IZ 10
1 Upper - _______
1 Surface - _____ 21 -
1 Low - : : - : : : 1

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
568 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]

Figure 4. Vertical distribution of hearths within the Allen

site sediments. Hearths are plotted on this figure horizon-
tally within grid squares on a north-south line through the
site; vertical locations are represented as a percentage of
depth below the surface of occupation level 2 to correct for
the varying slope of the paleosols.
Figure 5. Horizontal distribution of flaked stone artifacts
on the surface of occupation level 1. Contour interval 25
artifacts/grid square.

artifactsoccurin clearanddiscreteconcentrations thermore,bone countsin these surfaceconcentra-

(although,as might be expected given the great
variationsin overallartifactdensityfrom level to
level, the absolute numbersof artifactsin these
concentrationsvarygreatly).Itis particularlystrik-
ing that these concentrationsoverlapextensively
throughoutthe entire period of site occupation.
Hearthdistributionsare also strikinglypatterned.
As Figures4 through6 also show, virtuallyall of
the hearthsarelocatedin areasof low artifactden-
sity:in thesiteas a whole,onlyone of the20 hearths
was locatedin an areawith morethan25 artifacts
per grid square(or one artifactper squarefoot).
The limitedavailabledataalso indicatethatthe
horizontalconcentrationsof bone identifiedby the
excavatorson the surfaceof OL1(Figure8) arevir-
tuallyidenticalto the distributionsof flakedstone,
suggesting that these concentrationsrepresenta
fairly generalizedrange of domestic debris.Fur-
tions range as high as 89, with a mean of 38. In
contrast,thebonethatappearsin hearth-associated
contextson theOL1surfaceis minimal,withcounts
never exceeding four fragments: hearths were
located at the site in areasthat were as devoid of
bone as they were of flakedstone.
The bone fromdifferentportionsof the surface
of OL 1 (the different"scatterfeatures"initially
definedin the field;Figure5 indicatesthe general
locations of these features)shows essentiallythe
same range of species and body parts (Hudson
2005). However, bone in these various features
differs notably in evidence for surfaceexposure
(measuredas numberof bones showing surface
weatheringoranimalgnawing;Table4). If we take
these differencesas indicatorsof relativediffer-
ences in the length of time over which the differ-
entconcentrationswereexposedpriorto burial,the

Table4. Frequencyof Bone (NISP) and Evidence of Exposurein ScatterFeatureson the Surfaceof Occupationlevel 1.

Feature NISP Exposed % Exposed

7 4 1 25.0
12 67 22 32.8
13 38 12 31.6
16 31 8 25.8
18 60 16 26.7
21 15 2 13.3
28 89 38 42/7

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORTS 569

Figure 6. Horizontal distribution of flaked stone artifacts Figure 7. Horizontal distribution of flaked stone artifacts
in the intermediate zone. Contour interval 25 artifacts/ on the surface of occupation level 2. Contour interval 25
grid square. artifacts/grid square.

data suggest that Feature28 bone was deposited Horizontallinkagesamongrefittedartifactsalso

first,followed by bone in Features12 and 13, and
thenby bone in Features7 and 16, 18, and,finally,
Feature21. Artifact concentrationsin the sedi-
mentsjust below the surfaceof OL 1 areadjacent
to or directlyunderneathFeatures12, 13, and 28,
implyingthatdebrisaccumulatedin the immedi-
ate vicinity of older trashheaps within the exca-
vated area of the site before it accumulated
elsewhere.
show strongand straightforward patterning.With
the exceptionof refitson the surfaceof OL 1, all
suchlinkagesareeitherwithina singlegridsquare
or withina single artifactconcentrationthatspans
morethanone grid square.Even on the surfaceof
OL 1, where the likelihood of horizontaldistur-
banceis highest,mostrefitsarewithineithera sin-
gle grid squareor withinor immediatelyadjacent
to a single concentration(Figure9). Althoughthe

Figure 8. Horizontal distribution of point-plotted bone on

the surface of occupation level 1. Contour interval 2.0 Figure 9. Horizontal refits among flaked stone artifacts on
bones/grid square. the surface of occupation level 1.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
570 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Figure 10. Median flake size (in mm) by grid square on the
surface of occupation level 1. Contour interval .5 cm.
presenceof tools thatwereretouchedthroughpati-
nated surfaces(Bamforth2005) implies that the
site's occupantssometimesscavengeddebrisfrom
previousoccupations,theoverallhorizontalpattern
of refitsimpliesthat,once artifactswere discarded
on thegroundsurface,theyremainedin place.Cer-
tainly,the complexpatternof linkagesamongdif-
ferentareasevidentat sites like Meer(Cahenet al.
1979) is entirelyabsentat the Allen site.
All levels of the site sharethe samegeneralsur-
face topography, sloping slightly downward
towardsthechannelof MedicineCreekfromsouth-
west to northeast,andit is conceivablethatthe sim-
ilar distributionsof artifactsin these levels result
frommovementof artifactsdownthis slope. How-
ever,an artifactdistributionresultingfromdowns-
lope artifact accumulation should show some
evidence of horizontalsize-sorting,with smaller
objectsconcentrateddownslopeand largerpieces
concentrated upslope.Figures10through12exam-
ine this by plotting median artifactsize by grid
squareforthe samethreelevels depictedin Figures
5 through7. The patternon the two soil surfaces
(Figures 10 and 12), and for the otherlevels that
arenot illustratedhere, does not show such a pat-
tern.Instead,medianartifactsizes decreasein all
directionsfrom the centers of the artifactpiles.
Only the IntermediateZone (Figure 11) shows
some degreeof downslopesize-sorting.Redeposi-
tion of artifactsis thusan unlikelyexplanationfor
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
Figure 11. Median flake size (in mm) by grid square within
the intermediate zone. Contour interval .5 cm.
the similarityof theartifactdistributionsfromlevel
to level.
Summary
Artifactsandfeatureswerethusscatteredthrough-
out the Allen site sediments:thereappearto have
been no sterilelevels discerniblein the excavated
partof the site.Furthermore, refittingindicatesthat
therehasbeensurprisinglylittleverticalmovement
of artifactswithin the site. Horizontally,artifacts
occurin discreteconcentrations that,withtheexcep-
tionof thosein theIntermediate Zone,showno evi-
dence of horizontal disturbance; even in the
Intermediate Zone, horizontaldisturbanceappears
limited.Furthermore, in the only case where it is
possible to examine materialotherthanflakedstone,
bone appearsto show the same overallpatternas
the flakedstoneassemblage.Dataon bone distrib-
utionsalso imply thatthese concentrationsdid not
accumulateall at once,but,instead,weredeposited
over extendedperiods of time. These concentra-
tionsappearto havebeenlocatedin muchthe same
locationsthroughoutthe 2,500 or so radiocarbon-
yearlengthof thesite'soccupation,despitetheaccu-
mulationof approximatelya meteror so of natural
sediments,andthereis littleevidenceof movement
of artifactsbetweenconcentrations. Finally,hearths
and artifactconcentrationsshow almostperfectly
mutuallyexclusivedistributions.
 REPORTS 571

hunter-gatherer groups,but the basic elementsof

this patternareessentiallyuniversal.
Hearths are key components of this pattern.
Hearthsare typicallylocated in two areas:inside
or adjacentto the sheltersor domesticliving areas
(wherethey are used for cooking, light, heat, and
otherpurposes),andin theperipheralareas(where
they areused for purposesthataredirectlyrelated
to the activitiescarriedout away fromthe domes-
tic sphere,as well as for incidentalcooking and
heat). There can be archaeologicallyvisible dif-
ferencesamonghearthsusedfordifferentpurposes
(i.e., Hudson 1990), but the specific differences
thathavebeenidentifieddependon thespecificpur-
poses to which the hearthswere put (for example,
hearthsused to smokemeatdo not show the same
characteristicsas hearthsusedto providewarmth).
Figure 12. Median flake size (in mm) by grid square on the Hearthsin both of these contextsprovideanchors
surface of occupation level 2. Contour interval .5 cm.
for activity, and archaeologists often refer to
Hunter-Gatherer Site Structure "hearth-centered" artifactdistributions,in which
small items accumulatein a "dropzone"withina
Ethnoarchaeological studiesof the organizationof meterortwo of a hearthandlargeritemsareplaced
activities and material culture within hunter- or tossed some distance away (i.e., Enloe et al.
gatherercampsitesin many regions of the world 1994; Koetje 1994; Vaqueroand Pasto 2001). In
(Binford 1978, 1983; Fisher 1978; Fisher and camps occupiedfor more thana few days, debris
Strickland1991; Hitchcock 1987; Hudson 1990; associatedwith domestichearthsmay be removed
Kent 1991; O'Connell 1987; Yellen 1977) have and redepositedin peripheralmiddens.Similarly,
identifieda highlypatternedarchaeologicalsigna- "tosszones"thatoverlapthe activeareascentralto
ture.Hunter-gatherer campstend to be character- the campmay be keptclear.We mightthenexpect
izedby centrallylocateddomestic/general-purpose hearth-associateddistributionsof large or abun-
activityareasassociatedwith shelters.These cen- dantdebristo occuronly in associationwith non-
tral areas are used for general household activi- domestichearthsat the peripheryof the campor in
ties- including cooking, socializing, and many veryshort-termcamps(thetypeof settingin which
forms of craftwork- and are often centered on Binford[1978] firstdescribedhearth-centered dis-
hearths.They are typicallykept clean of danger- tributions),where the stay is not long enough for
ous, inconvenient,or messy debris, althoughthe accumulateddebristo be a nuisance.
degree of camp maintenanceseems to be less in While these basic patternsappearto be essen-
more temporaryoccupations(Jones 1993). Trash tially universal,a varietyof factors can produce
cleaned from this area accumulatesin areasout- variationson them.For example,the naturalcon-
side of the centralareaand surroundingshelters. figurationof a site- includingits topographyand
The exceptionsto this are very small items (gen- vegetation- can influencehow it is used, oftenby
erally less than 2.0 cm in maximumdimension), making some parts of the site more suitablefor
whichworktheirway intothegroundandthustend some activities than for others. Human groups
to be missedin cleaning.Theseouterareasarealso occupying a site also vary in their composition,
used for messieror moredangerousactivities,and including their kin relations,and in their recent
debrisandfeatures(includinghearths)associated movementsandplansfor futuremovements,all of
withtheseaccumulatein themas well. Thereis sig- whichcan influencehow theyorganizetheiroccu-
nificantvariationin thespacingof individualhouse- pationareaanddistributeactivitiesacrossit. Shifts
holds and in the permanence and diversity of in the use of differentpartsof a campduringlong
residentialand other structuresbuilt by different occupationsandmultipleuses of a single occupa-

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
572 AMERICANANTIQUITY
tionsurfacecanalsoblurspatialpatterns.Forexam-
ple, the relativelyopen centralactivity area of a
camp can become a discard zone as a result of
short-termshiftsin the specificlocationof the pri-
maryresidentialarea,althoughconstructionof sub-
stantial houses or other facilities and physical
aspects of particularcamp locales can limit such
shiftsandproducemorestableuse of space.Reoc-
cupationof a previouslyinhabitedlocale can also
blur spatialpatterns.Key here is the permanence
or visibility of previousspatialattributes,such as
accumulateddebrisor builtor naturalfeatures.
The degreeto which lateroccupationsalterthe
spatialarrangement of debrisproducedduringear-
lier occupationsdependson at least two factors.
First, as just noted, characteristicsof a campsite
mayproducestablepatternsof use of thatsite,min-
imizing changes in debris distributions.Second,
sedimentaccumulationmay completelyburythe
remainsof previousoccupations,creatinga clean
slate for decisionsaboutthe use of space.
Interpreting The Allen Site
Thesegeneralaspectsof theorganizationof hunter-
gatherercampsiteshelp to make sense out of the
Allen site pattern.However,while ethnoarchaeo-
logicalinformationprovidesimportantinsightsinto
the processes by which archaeologicalsites are
formed,thereareissues thatmustbe consideredin
applyingtheseinsightsin practice.Wediscussthese
issues, andthenturnto addressthe implicationsof
theAllen site datafor inferencesregardingthe fre-
quencywithwhichthesitewasreusedandtheplace
thatthe specific areaexcavatedat the site played
in the largerresidentialareaof which it was part.
Archaeologyand Ethnoarchaeology
Ethnoarchaeological contextsare not the same as
archaeologicalcontexts,andthesedifferencesneed
to be taken into account in making use of the
insightsethnoarchaeologicalresearchprovides.For
example,relianceon flakedstone technologycre-
ates somewhatdifferentconditionsthanthose cre-
ated by the often store-boughtmetal tools often
encounteredin modernsites by ethnoarchaeolo-
gists.Therearefew directanalogsin modernmate-
rialcultureforthevolumeof extremelysharpdebris
producedduringflakedstonetool production,and
stone tool usersmay have had to clean up activity
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
areas more often than modern hunter-gatherers
even duringvery shortencampments,particularly
if very small childrenwere present.It is perhaps
significantthatO'Connell's(1987:92-95) modern
examplein which razorbladeswere left in a cen-
tralactivityzone, probablybecauseof theirsmall
size andthin,flatshape,was froma residentialarea
occupiedexclusivelyby adultmen.
Perhapsmore importantis that patternslike
thosedocumentedin ethnoarchaeological research
arealwaysfilteredthrougha varietyof naturalsite-
formationprocessesas archaeologicalsitesarecre-
ated. At the Allen site, we believe that the most
importantsuch processis the varyingrateof sedi-
ment accumulationover time. Duringperiodsof
soil formation,humansoccupyingthe site at dif-
ferenttimes would have carriedout activitiesand
discardedtrashon the same groundsurface;dur-
ing periods of sediment accumulation,previous
occupationsurfaceswouldhavebeenburied.When
ratesof sedimentaccumulationarefast relativeto
ratesof humanreoccupationof a givensite,theevi-
dence of previousoccupationscan be completely
hidden.
Thisissue highlightsthe differencebetweenthe
temporalscales at which ethnoarcheological stud-
ies observethe ways in which modernsites form
andthe temporalscales with which archaeologists
working on ancient sites often have to work.
Alyawara,Aka, Efe, and Bushmen camps form
throughprocesses that operate over weeks and
months.In contrast,sites like the Allen site form
throughtheinteractionbetweentheseprocessesand
sedimentaryand otherprocessesthatoperateover
years, centuries,and millennia.Ourfocus here is
on such long-terminteractionand the spatialpat-
terns it produces. Human groups undoubtedly
arrivedattheAllensitein differentweather,andafter
travellingfromdifferentareas,andanticipatedleav-
ing fordifferentdestinations.Suchgroupsalso cer-
tainly variedin size and kin group composition.
Observationsof moderngroups make clear that
variationin all of these, andother,factorscan pro-
duce variationin subtledetailsof campsiteorgani-
zation. If variation like this is to be visible in
archaeologicalcontexts,it will requirevery fine-
grainedthree-dimensional provenienceinformation
andprobablyveryunusualkindsof sites (theMeer
site in Belgium[Cahenet al. 1979;CahenandKee-
ley 1980] may be an exampleof such a site).
 REPORTS
However,such detailis not essentialto all tem-
poralscales of analysisandall researchquestions.
We believe thereis a good fit betweenthe moder-
atelyfine-grainedscaleof theAllen site spatialdata
andouremphasison aggregatelong-termpatterns
ratherthan on the detailed structureof the com-
munitypresentduringanysingleoccupationof the
site (althoughidentifyingsuch detailed structure
would illuminatemany other importantissues).
Thatis, ouremphasisis on a contextthatethnoar-
chaeologicalcontextsilluminatebut do not repli-
cate.
Occupationand Reoccupation
The absenceof sterilelevels at theAllen site along
with the evidencefor minimalverticalmovement
of artifactsimplythatPaleoindiangroupsused the
site persistentlyfor roughlythreemillennia.More
specifically,we believethatthattheAllen site data
indicatethatPaleoindiangroupsusedthesiteso fre-
quentlythattheyoftendiscardedtheirtrashon the
still-visible middens of the site's previousoccu-
pants.
This inferencerestson the absenceof evidence
for verticalartifactmovementand on the remark-
able continuityin the horizontallocationsof arti-
fact clusters within the site over time. This
continuitydoes not appearto havebeen createdby
postdepositionalprocesses;instead,it mustreflect
a consistentpatternof humandiscard.Furthermore,
ourrefittingindicatesclearlythatthe artifactpiles
atthe site arenotthe resultof in situ flintknapping.
This point is essentialto ourunderstandingof the
patternswe have documentedhere.Intact,or rea-
sonablyintact,flakingareasshouldproducelong
sequencesof conjoinablepieces, as shoulddebris
cleanedintensivelyfrom such areas,and refitting
efforts comparableto the ones we appliedat the
Allen site regularlyshow this (i.e., Becker 1999;
Spurrell1880). However,despiteintensiveefforts
over a numberof years,we havebeen able to refit
about2.0 percentof thetotalcollection.Indeed,one
concentration from a single grid square that
includedhundredsof flakes ("a nice pile of flint
chippings,"as the excavator'sfield notes put it)
producedno conjoinablepieces at all. Given this,
these piles must representpreviously discarded
debris in nearbyareas that was gatheredup and
moved to the locations from which it was exca-
vated.Althoughwe havenot attemptedto quantify
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
573
thediversityof thestonerepresentedin anyof these
concentrations,virtually all of which is locally
availablejasper,the greatdiversityof rawmaterial
color andconsistencyrepresentedin each of them
is consistentwith this inference.
We have noted that structuralfeaturesof par-
ticularcampsitesare likely to influencethe ways
in which space is used in those sites. Thereis evi-
dencethatthe excavatedareaof theAllen site may
have been at the very upslope edge of the Early
Holocene terracealong MedicineCreek.The site
was found in the T-2 sediments, which were
depositedin thedrainagefollowinga periodof ero-
sion of Pleistocene(T-3) sediments.E.M. Davis's
fieldnotes(16 November1949) indicatethatthesite
geologists assertedthat T-3 sediments appeared
only a few metersbeyondthe limits of the excava-
tion. If this is so, thenthe site areamusthavebeen
at the base of a high cutbank;similarcutbanksin
the drainagetoday areimpassableand sometimes
sloughoff largechunksof sediment.Such a situa-
tion in the past would have createda settingthat
mighthavebeen well-suitedto trashdisposal,with
moregeneralizedoccupationperhapsconcentrated
close by butslightlycloserto MedicineCreekitself.
However,while this may help to accountfor the
constantuse of theexcavatedareafortrashdisposal,
it cannotby itself accountforthepersistentdiscard
of trashon moreor less exactlythe samepointson
the ground.
The only explanationwe can find for a pattern
in which trashwas depositedin this way for some
3,000 yearswhile approximatelya meterof natural
sediments also accumulatedis that Paleoindian
groupsreturnedto the site often enoughthatpast
garbagewas still visible on the ground surface.
These groupseitherswept up trashfromprevious
occupationsor generatedtheirown trashwhile in
residence(ordidboth),andsimplyaddedthismate-
rial to existing garbagepiles. Wilk and Schiffer
( 1979) referto thisas the"ArloGuthrieTrashMag-
net Effect,"referringto a similarpatternof older
trashattractingnewertrashin morerecenttimes.1
The variationin the conditionof bone in different
locationson the surfaceof OL1 providesparticu-
larlyclearevidencefor multipleepisodesof depo-
sition on this surfaceover an extendedperiod of
time.
Althoughit thus seems clearthattheAllen site
was reusedoften, it is difficultto assess just how
574 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
often.We can roughlyestimatean averagelength
of exposurefor a 2.0 inch (5.0 cm) thick pile of
objects by consideringthe thicknessof the Pale-
oindiansedimentsat the site andthe lengthof time
overwhichthosesedimentsaccumulated.Thetotal
depthof depositscontainingarchaeologicalmate-
rialat the site was betweenthreeandfourfeet (1.0
to 1.3 m), and this accumulatedfrom (roughly)
10,800 to 8200 radiocarbonyears ago, a span of
time that corresponds(again, roughly) to some
3,500 calendaryears.However,no sedimentsaccu-
mulatedduringperiodsof soil formation.Although
we do not knowthe exactlengthof time for which
thesurfacesof OL 1 andOL2 werestable,theavail-
ableevidencesuggeststhattheseperiodsof stabil-
ity persisted for at least several centuries (May
2005). For purposes of illustration,we take the
approximatetotallengthof time over which sedi-
mentsactivelyaccumulatedon the site to be 2,800
calendaryearsanduse a maximumsedimentthick-
ness of 4.0 feet, giving an annualrateof accumu-
lationof .0014feet (.017inches,or .04 cm)peryear.
Onaverage,then,the site wouldhaveaccumulated
roughly .5 inches (1.2 cm) of deposits over the
courseof a humangeneration(30 years),implying
thata 2.0 inch(5.0 cm) thickpile of artifactswould
havebeen visible for over a century(this estimate
may underestimatethe durationof artifactexpo-
sureatthesite:May [2005]estimatesa rateof Early
Holocenesedimentaccumulationelsewherein the
MedicineCreekvalley of .14 cm/year).As noted
above, reworkingof patinatedstone tools (Bam-
forth 2002a, 2005) indicatesthat the site's occu-
pantssometimesscavengeddebrisdiscardedduring
previousoccupations.Forsuchdebristo havebeen
visible, it musthavebeen partiallyburiedat most.
The site thus need not have been reoccupied
withinthe lifetime of an individualhumanto pro-
ducethepatternevidentthere.However,two addi-
tional factors suggest that reoccupation likely
occurredsignificantlymoreoftenthanonce a cen-
tury.First,paleoenvironmental indicators(includ-
ing pollen, phytoliths,and analyses of charcoal;
Cummings and Moutoux 2005; Zalucha 2005)
indicatethatthe floodplainon whichtheAllen site
was locatedwas heavilyvegetated:the dataimply
somethingapproximatinga hardwoodgalleryfor-
est with an understoryof brushand mixed to tall
grasses. The accumulationof vegetationover an
extended period of non-occupationwould thus
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
almostcertainlyhaveobscuredsurfaceartifactdis-
tributions.Second,theAllen "site"is, in fact,a tiny
window into a potentiallyinhabitableterracesur-
face that stretchedfor miles up and down Medi-
cine Creek, with the boundariesof this window
defined arbitrarilyby the limits of the excavated
area.Reoccupationof the site locale and reoccu-
pationof the specificexcavatedareaitself arethus
very differentthings, and the Allen site pattern
makesit difficultto avoidtheinferencethatthe site
areawas reoccupiedvery often (as the presenceof
a numberof other Paleoindiansites nearbysug-
gests- Bamforth2002a; Davis 1962).
The likelihoodthattrashpiles were visible on
theAllen site formanyyearsalso helpsto placethe
hearthsidentifiedat the site into a generalbehav-
ioral context.The Allen site hearthsshow no evi-
dence of any kind of preparation:they were not
excavatedinto the groundand do not incorporate
stonesof anykind.Theresultof thisis that,in sharp
contrastto thetrashpiles,theywouldnothavebeen
visibleon thegroundsurfaceforverylong.Indeed,
the richnessof the vegetationin the drainagesug-
gests thattheylikelybecameinvisiblewithina sin-
gle year,andthegreatvariabilityin hearthlocations
fromlevel to level is consistentwith this (see Fig-
ures4 through6). Hearthsin the lowerlevels of the
site tendto be largerandmoreheavilyburnedthan
thosein theupperlevels,buta varietyof otherlines
of evidence suggestthatthis is relatedto changes
in the overall durationof individualsite occupa-
tions ratherthan to changing patternsof hearth
reuse(Bamforth2002a,2005).Giventhelong-term
stabilityof thelocationsof the trashpiles, then,the
mutually exclusive distributionsof hearths and
trashmust reflecta patternin which new hearths
were locatedwith respectto existing trashheaps.
This addsa new model to ourrepertoireof expec-
tationsabouthow hunter-gatherers createanduse
campspace. While activities
associated withtheuse
of hearthsmaygeneratepredictablepatternsof new
debris,the veryplacementof thosehearthsmaybe
conditionedby previoussite activities,such as the
selectionof habitualdiscardareas.
Whatis the "AllenSite"?
The excavatedareaat the Allen site thus appears
to have accumulateddebrisas a resultof a persis-
tentpatternof reoccupationover morethan3,000
years.Thereis no evidencethatthe concentrations
 REPORTS
of flakedstone artifactsfoundat the site represent
intactmanufacturing areas;instead,theyappearto
represent material gathered up from areasnearby
anddiscardedon preexistingtrashheaps.Thismay
also be truefor most of the bone, althoughwe lack
the proveniencedatato documentthis for all the
faunalremains. While the contentsof the assem-
blage monitorthe rangeof activitiescarriedout in
the generalsite area,then, the only activitiesthat
were demonstrablycarriedout within the exca-
vatedareaitself aretrashdisposalandfire-making,
andperhapssome consumptionof food. Theavail-
able data do not allow us to identify the specific
purpose(s)for which the hearthswere burned.
Thisoverallpatternsuggeststhatthe locale that
we referto as the "AllenSite"representsa zone of
trash discardand special activity areas that was
peripheralto a domestic/residential area,with this
latterareaprobablylocatedjust downslope.If this
is correct,the main domesticareaof the site was
destroyedby erosion before archaeologistsdis-
coveredandexcavatedthe site.
Discussion
The patternswe documenthere have important
of
implicationsbothspecificallyforinterpretations
Paleoindianways of life on the Plains and more
widely for archaeologicalapproachesto spatial
campsitesin general.
studiesof hunter-gatherer
PaleoindianLanduseand the Allen Site
Forat leastthe last decade,the Paleoindianperiod
on thePlains(andin NorthAmericain general)has
been viewed an exampleof a hunter-gatherer way
of life thatdifferedprofoundlyfromanyway of life
documentedin more recenttimes (i.e., Goodyear
1989;Hofman1992,2003;Ingbar1992;Kellyand
Todd1988;Toddet al. 1990). High frequenciesof
exoticrawmaterialin a handfulof sites haveoften
been taken as evidence that Paleoindiangroups
occupiedfarlargerrangesthanmorerecentgroups.
Evidencefor extremelylimitedreuseof bison kill
sites,alongwithincompleteprocessingof carcasses
in suchsites andan absenceof evidencefor prepa-
rationof meatforlong-termstorage,havealsobeen
seen as indicatingthatthese groupsmovedunpre-
dictablyandnonrepetitively, searchingmoreorless
constantlyforthenextherdof largegameto attack.
In this view, seasonaldifferentiationof activities
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
575
wouldbe minimal.Thispatternof movementis also
thoughtto have led to frequentrange shifts, with
long-term usage of any particularregion thus
unlikely. In response to this, Paleoindianflaked
stone technologyis arguedto have been designed
to economizerawmaterial,throughdesignof tools
formultipleuses, extensiverecyclingof worntools
fromuse to use, andrelianceon bifacialcoresthat
were ultimatelyintendedto be reducedin knives
and projectilepoints.In this reconstruction,Pale-
oindians are often referredto as "high-techfor-
agers."
This reconstruction was first developed to
describe the responses of the initial pioneering
(Clovis)migrantsintoNorthAmericaandnotlater
groupson the Plains or anywhereelse. However,
it reliedprimarilyon dataderivedfrommuchlater
Paleoindiansites even in its initial presentation,
and, since its publication,it has been uncritically
extendedto essentiallytheentirePaleoindianperiod
on thePlains.Recently,though,it hasbecomeclear
thatmany aspectsof the availabledataare incon-
sistentwith it. On the SouthernPlains, for exam-
ple, there is fairly clear evidence for a seasonal
differentiationof huntingand butcherypractices
duringtheFolsomperiod(Bement1999),andthere
is no evidencefromanypost-Clovissite in anypart
of thePlainsforthekindsof technologicalpatterns
this model reconstructs(Bamforth2002b, 2003;
BamforthandBecker2000).
The datawe considerhere have similarimpli-
cationsforthedominantview of Paleoindianmobil-
ity. Largerangesizes have been inferredfromthe
presenceat a few sites of largequantitiesof stone
from distantsources.However,on the Plains,the
sites where such a patternexists are in areaswith
no availablelocal stone;in suchareas,lithicassem-
blages from sites of all ages are dominatedby
exotics. Overall,Paleoindianrawmaterialuse fol-
lows localpatternsof stoneavailability,withexotics
commonin areaswherelocal stoneis absentor of
poorqualityandrarein areaswherereadilyflake-
ablestoneis abundant(Bamforth2002b).TheAllen
site illustratesthis dramatically:over99 percentof
the lithic assemblageis made from locally avail-
able SmokyHillsjasper,includingcomponentsof
the assemblage(for example,exhaustedcores and
haftedtools) thatwerealmostcertainlytransported
priorto being discardedin the site. Furthermore,
this patternshows no changeoverthe fourmillen-
576 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
nia of the site's occupation,andit is reproducedat
the other Paleoindiansites that have been exca-
vatednearAllen (Lime Creekand Red Smoke-
Davis 1954, 1962;Hicks2002). The evidencethus
implies thatPaleoindiangroupsin this partof the
Plains moved habituallywithin areasas small or
smallerthan those recordedethnographicallyfor
groups on the CentralPlains (see, for example,
Holen 1991), and thatthey did so persistentlyfor
thousandsof years.
The evidencefor reuse of the Allen site allows
us to go furtherandsuggestsnot only thatthe site's
occupantsrarelymovedvery farbutalso thatthey
moved regularlyand repetitively.Simply put, the
excavatedportionof the site,a triangle50 feet ( 15.4
m) on a side,was apparentlyused so frequentlyfor
thousandsof yearsthattrashheapsfrompastoccu-
pationswere alwaysvisible on the groundsurface
when new occupationcommenced.Interestingly,
the faunalassemblageindicatesthatthe diet of the
site's occupantswas dominatedby large game,
exactlythe kind of preythatthe high-techforager
view links to unpredictablemovementsand fre-
quentrangeshifts (althoughit was supplemented
extensivelythroughoutthe site occupationby such
small game as prairiedogs and rabbits- Hudson
2005). Whetheror not the high-techforagerview
fits for the earliestperiodof occupationof North
America,the long-termpersistenceof the pattern
of occupationevidentat the Allen site providesa
very differentview of life for the Post-Clovispor-
tionsof thePaleoindianperiod.Itparticularly raises
doubts about the appropriatenessof using later
Paleoindiandatato inferClovispatternsandabout
the extensionof suchpatterns,whateverthey may
havebeen, to latertimes.
TheAllen sitepatterncontrastsstarklywiththat
seen at most Paleoindiancommunalbison kills,
which offer the clearestsupportfor the argument
thatPaleoindiangroupsmoved unpredictablyand
irregularly:in contrastto many communalkills
datedto the last 2,000 years,Paleoindiankill sites
were rarely used more than once. Interestingly,
though,despitethe attentionthatarchaeologyhas
focusedon largebison kills, thereis evidencethat
patterns like the one at Allen are widespread.
Althoughmaps of point-plottedbone and artifact
distributionsarecommonin reportson PlainsPale-
oindiansites,systematicanalysesof spatialpatterns
like those consideredhere arerareor nonexistent,
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
makingexactcomparisonsbetweenAllenandother
Paleoindiansitesessentiallyimpossible.However,
at a more generallevel, excavationat localitiesin
a numberof areason thePlainshasfoundevidence
of long sequencesof site use despiteexposureof
only tiny percentagesof the total site area.At the
Hell Gap site in easternWyoming,for example,
excavationof far less thanone percentof the total
areathatprobablycontainsarchaeologicaldeposits
has outlinedoccupationsequences that span the
entire Paleoindianperiod (Irwin-Williams et al.
1973).ThenearbyAgateBasinandJimPittslocal-
ities may show a very similarpattern(Frisonand
Stanford 1982; Sellet 2001). On the Southern
Plains,excavationsof similarlytinypercentagesof
sites like Lubbock Lake and BlackwaterDraw
(Hester 1972; Johnson 1987) have revealedper-
sistent use of specific localities for huntingfrom
Clovis throughmuchlatertimes.
Many (althoughnot all) of these localities are
not obviously associated with large-scale bison
hunting.If this distinctionis real, it may imply a
patternof landusein which communalhuntswere
carriedoutatlocalesthatwererarely,if ever,reused,
even thoughthe participantsin these huntsother-
wise used specificpointson the landscapein repet-
itive and predictableways. Such a patternwould
indeed contrast with that on the Northern and
NorthwesternPlains duringthe last 2,000 years,
when kill sites like Head-Smashed-In(Brinkand
Dawe 1989; Reeves 1978), Gull Lake (Kehoe
1973),andVore(ReherandFrison1980)wereused
overandoverfor centuries.Regardlessof whether
this suggestionis corrector not, though,it is clear
that the patternof use of large kill sites must be
integratedwith otherkindsof evidenceif we areto
generalizeadequatelyaboutthe overallpatternof
Paleoindianuse of the Plains.
At least some of the areasthatshow persistent
reuseovermostorall of thePaleoindianperiod(and
sometimesinto laterperiodsas well) were proba-
bly persistentlyattractivebecausetheyconcentrate
diverseresourcesthatmusthave been essentialto
survival.The MedicineCreekdrainagewherethe
Allensiteis located,forexample,was well-watered
and densely wooded throughoutthe Paleoindian
period, and was also a source of abundantflake-
able stone. The rangeof animalsexploitedat the
site highlightshow littlewe knowaboutsites other
thanlargebisonkills:bisonarepresentandarepar-
 REPORTS
ticularlycommonin thelowerlevels of the site,but
small mammals(i.e., rabbitsandprairiedogs) are
common throughout,and deer and antelope are
morecommonthanbisonin theupperlevels (Hud-
son 2005). Permanentwaterat BlackwaterDraw
andLubbockLakewould also haveboth attracted
animals that would be hunted and provided an
essentialresourcefor humanuse. Like Medicine
Creek,Hell Gap is an importantsource of flake-
ablestone(andthisstonedominatesthe site assem-
blage as completely as Smoky Hills jasper
dominatesatMedicineCreek).Evidencefromsites
like these implies that Folsom and laterPaleoin-
dian landusewas indeed relianton fixed, known
placeson thelandscapeandthatPaleoindiangroups
moved frequentlyand perhapsregularlyamong
suchplaces.While theAllen site assemblageindi-
cates a gradualshift towardshorterspans of site
occupationovertime (Bamforth2002a, 2005), the
availablePlains-wideevidence also suggests that
thebasicpatternjustnotedpersistedthroughoutthe
entirecourseof thepost-ClovisPaleoindianPeriod.
How (or whether)Paleoindianmovementsmight
havebeenpatternedfromseasonto seasonremains
an open question,althoughseasonalindicatorsat
Allen concentratein the warmerpartsof the year
(Bamforth2005).
Intra-siteSpatialAnalysis of
Hunter-GathererCampsites
At a more generallevel, the Allen site datahigh-
light severalissues that are importantto most, if
not all, intra-sitespatialanalysis.
The first of these is the centralimportanceof
accounting for both the human and the natural
forces that interactto createarchaeologicalsites,
as Yellen (1996) argues. Long-term stability of
occupationsurfaces, often resulting in develop-
mentof soils, has profoundandpredictableeffects
both on the visibility of tracesof humanoccupa-
tion andon the kindsof horizontalpatternswe are
likely to encounter.At the Allen site, the densest
concentrationof cultural material and features
occurson the surfacethatwas stableforthelongest
periodof time,as mightbe expected.However,the
absenceof a comparabledensity of materialand
the simultaneouspresenceof an unusualnumber
of hearthson the surfaceof the uppersoil is unex-
pected.Thepossibilitythatthissuggestssomekind
of shiftin the way in whichthe site areawas used,
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
577
though, depends on understandingthe sedimen-
tarycontextof the site.
Second,thelikelihoodthattheAllen sitehearths
were locatedwithrespectto trashpiles ratherthan
vice versais essentiallythe oppositeof the pattern
assumedby the focus on hearth-centeredartifact
distributionsthatdominateshunter-gatherer intra-
site analysis (i.e., Binford 1983; Koetje 1994;
VaqueroandPasto2001). Ourpointis not thatthis
emphasisis incorrector thatexisting analysesare
flawed.Rather,it is thathumansproducearchaeo-
logicallyrecognizeablehearthsin a varietyof con-
texts, not all of which are domestic, and that the
locationof newhearthsmaybe influencedby other,
previousdebris-generating activities.Thesameeth-
noarchaeologicalevidencethathelps us to under-
standthe settingof domestichearthstells us that
hearthsoccur in other settings as well, and it is
essential that we take this variety into account.
Archaeologistsexcavatewherewe can see artifact
concentrations, andethnoarchaeology suggeststhat
many, and perhapsmost, such concentrationsin
hunter-gatherer camps are secondarydumpscon-
tainingdebristhathas been removedfrom active
domesticareasof the site. Hearthsencounteredin
contextslike this- the contextswherewe may be
most likely to focus our excavations- may actu-
ally be unlikely to be domestic hearths,making
problematican automaticexpectationthathearth-
centereddistributionswill eitherbe presentor will
be readilyinterpretableas domesticareas.
Finally,though,we thinkthatthe patternsevi-
dentat theAllen site highlightthe importancethat
our existing understandingof the organizationof
hunter-gatherer campsitescan play in archaeolog-
ical analysis.We have the impressionthat analy-
ses of spatialpatternswithin archaeologicalsites
have become less prominent than they were a
decadeago, at least in NorthAmerica.We suspect
that one factor contributingto this is dismay at
O'Connell's(1987) observationsthatthe patterns
he documentedin Alyawaracampsare likely vis-
ible only at spatialscalesthatgo farbeyondthesize
of any feasible archaeologicalexcavationandthat
in situ activity areas are likely identifiableonly
throughtheanalysisof tinydebrisrecoverableonly
in fine mesh screens. Both of these observations
could imply thatwe need budgetsandtime sched-
ules beyond those that we are ever likely to
encounterin the realworldif we areto hope to see
578 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
patterningin hunter-gatherer sites. However,we
believethatourdiscussionshows thatmanyof the
insights obtainedfrom ethnoarchaeologicalstud-
ies like O'Connell'sAlyawaraworkareapplicable
to traditionalscales of archaeologicalexcavation
and to imperfectdatasets.Such studies certainly
provideus with large-scalemodels of site forma-
tion thatmay or may not be directlyapplicableto
the scale at which the logistics of fieldworkin the
realworldforceus to work.However,theyalsopro-
vide us with generalprinciplesthatcan help us to
make sense out of small portionsof sites, as we
hope we have illustratedhere.
Conclusions
Many studies over the past three decades have
shownthatsystematicstudyof intra-sitearrange-
mentsof artifactsandfeaturesoffersa particularly
powerfulmeansof integratinginformationderived
from otherkinds of archaeologicalanalysis.The
datafromtheAllen siteillustratethisclearly.These
datastronglyimplya verydifferentpatternof land-
use on theGreatPlainsduringthepost-ClovisPale-
oindian period than archaeologists often
reconstruct,and it is noteworthythatthese previ-
ous reconstructionshave largely, if not entirely,
neglectedthe kindsof analysespresentedhere.
However,we alsohopethatwe havehighlighted
some of the factorsthatcurrentapproachesto spa-
tial analysis underemphasize.These particularly
includeanexplicitfocuson integratinggeomorphic
and culturalprocesses, following Yellen (1996),
andexpandingourconceptualframeworksbeyond
the assumptionthatthe presenceof a hearthauto-
maticallyindicatesthepresenceof a domesticarea.
Thereis no doubtthathearth-centered artifactdis-
tributionsexist in archaeologicalsites, but, as the
Allen site dataalso illustrate,otherkindsof distri-
butions exist as well, and recognizingthese has
importantimplicationsfor interpretingthe behav-
ioralcontextsthatourexcavationsuncover.
Acknowledgments:Paleoindianresearchat Medicine Creek
was funded by the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
Valerie McBride translated our abstract into Spanish on
extraordinarilyshort notice. Like all of the productsof this
research,this paper is dedicated to the memory of Edward
Mott Davis (1918 to 1998). Knowing Mott was among the
greatest pleasures of working at Medicine Creek, and the
loss of his wisdom and good humor made our discipline a
thinnerand colder one in which to work.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
References Cited
Bamforth,Douglas B.
1991 PopulationDispersionand PaleoindianTechnology
at theAllen Site. In RawMaterialEconomiesamongPre-
historicHunter-Gatherers, editedby AntaMontet-White
and Steven Holen, pp. 357-374. University of Kansas
Press,Lawrence.
2002a The PaleoindianOccupationof the MedicineCreek
Drainage,SouthwesternNebraska.InMedicineCreek:70
Yearsof ArchaeologicalInvestigations,editedby Donna
Roper, pp. 54-83. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
2002b High-TechForagers?FolsomandLaterPaleoindian
Technologyon the GreatPlains.Journalof WorldPrehis-
tory 16:55-98.
2003 Rethinkingthe Role of BifacialTechnologyin Pale-
oindian Adaptations on the Great Plains. In Multiple
Approachesto the Studyof Bifacial Technologies,edited
by MarieSoressi and HaroldDibble, pp. 209-228. Uni-
versityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.
2005 TheAllen Site:A PaleoindianCampin Southwestern
Nebraska.Submittedto Universityof New Mexico Press,
in press.
Bamforth,DouglasB., andMarkBecker
2000 Core/BifaceRatios,Mobility,Refitting,andArtifact
Use-Lives:A PaleoindianExample.PlainsAnthropologist
45:273-290.
Becker,Mark
1999 ReconstructingPrehistoricHunter-Gatherer Mobility
Patternsand the Implicationsfor the Shift to Sedentism:
A Perspective from the Near East. Ph.D. dissertation,
Departmentof Anthropology,University of Colorado,
Boulder.
Behrenshmeyer,AnnaK.
1978 TaphonomicandEcologicalInformationfromBone
Weathering.Paleobiology4:150-162.
Bement,Leland
1999 BisonHuntingat the CooperSite.Universityof Okla-
homaPress,Norman.
Binford,Lewis R.
1978 DimensionalAnalysisof BehaviorandSite Structure:
LearningfromanEskimoHuntingStand.AmericanAntiq-
uity43:330-361.
1982 TheArchaeologyof Place.Journalof Anthropologi-
cal Archaeology1:5-31.
1983 In Pursuitof the Past: Decoding theArchaeological
Record.ThamesandHudson,London.
Brink,Jack,andBob Dawe
1989 Final Reportof the 1985 and 1986 Field Season at
Head-Smashed-In BuffaloJump,Alberta.Archaeological
Surveyof AlbertaManuscriptSeries no. 19.
Cahen,Daniel andLawrenceKeeley
1980 Not Less Than Two, Not More Than Three. World
Archaeology12:166-180.
Cahen,Daniel,LawrenceH. Keeley,andFrancesL. VanNoten
1979 Stone Tools, Toolkits,and HumanBehaviorin Pre-
history.CurrentAnthropology20:661-683.
Carr,Christopher
1984 The Natureof Organizationof IntrasiteArchaeolog-
ical Recordsand SpatialAnalyticalApproachesto Their
Investigation.Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and
Theory7:103-222.
Cummings,Linda,andThomasMoutoux
2005 Paleoenvironmental of thePleistocene
Interpretations
andEarlyHolocenein SouthwesternNebraska:thePollen
 REPORTS
andPhytolithEvidence.In TheAllen Site:A Paleoindian
Campin SouthwesternNebraska,edited by Douglas B.
Bamforth.Submittedto the Universityof New Mexico
Press,in press.
David,Nicholas,andCarolKramer
2001 Ethnoarchaeologyin Action. CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
Davis, E. Mott
1949 Unpublishedfieldnoteson work at MedicineCreek.
Manuscriptin senior author'spossession and on file in
AnthropologyDepartment,NebraskaStateMuseum.
1954 The CultureHistoryof the CentralGreatPlainsPrior
to theIntroductionof Pottery.Ph.D.Thesis,Anthropology
Department,HarvardUniversity.
1962 Archeologyof the Lime Creeksite in Southwestern
Nebraska.Special PublicationNo. 3. The Universityof
NebraskaStateMuseum,Lincoln.
Enloe,James,FrancineDavid,andTimothyHare
1994 Patterns of Faunal Processing at Section 27 of
Pincevent:The Use of SpatialAnalysisandEthnoarchae-
of ArchaeologicalSite
ological Datain the Interpretation
Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
13:105-124.
Fisher,JackW.
1978 Shadowsin theForest:Ethnoarchaeology Amongthe
Efe Pygmies.Ph.D. thesis, Departmentof Anthropology,
Universityof California,Berkeley.
Fisher,JackW., andHelen C. Strickland
199 1 DwellingsandFireplaces:Keysto Efe PygmyCamp-
site Structure.In EthnoarchaeologicalApproaches to
MobileCampsites,editedby CliveS. GambleandWilliam
A. Boismier,pp. 215-236. InternationalMonographsin
Prehistory,AnnArbor.
Frison,George,andDennis Stanford
1982 TheAgate Basin Site.AcademicPress,New York.
Gamble,Clive S., andWilliamA. Boismier
1991 EthnoarchaeologicalApproachesto Mobile Camp-
Monographsin Prehistory,AnnArbor.
sites. International
Goodyear,Albert
1989 A Hypothesisfor the Use of CryptocrystallineRaw
MaterialsamongPaleoindianGroupsof NorthAmerica.
In Eastern PaleoindianLithic Resource Use, edited by
Christopher EllisandJonathanLothrop,pp. 1-9. Westview
Press,Boulder,Colorado.
Hester,James
1972 BlackwaterLocality No.l. Fort Burgwin Research
Center,SouthernMethodistUniversity,Dallas,Texas.
Hicks, Keri
2002 Local Variabilityin PaleoindianLifeways:A Com-
parisonof the Lime CreekandAllen Site WorkedStone
Assemblages, SouthwesternNebraska.Master'sthesis,
AnthropologyDepartment,Universityof Colorado,Boul-
der.
Hietala,Harold
1984 IntrasiteSpatialAnalysisinArchaeology.Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.
Hitchcock,Robert
1987 SedentismandSiteStructure: OrganizationalChanges
in KalahariBasarwaResidentialLocations.InMethodand
Theoryfor ActivityAreaResearch,editedby SusanKent,
pp. 374-423. ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York.
Hodder,Ian,andC. Orton
1976 SpatialAnalysisinArchaeology.CambridgeUniver-
sity Press,Cambridge.
Hofman,Jack
1992 Recognition and Interpretationof Folsom Techno-
logical Variabilityon the SouthernPlains. In Ice Age
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
579
Huntersof theRockies,editedby DennisStanfordandJane
Day, pp. 193-224. UniversityPressof Colorado,Niwot.
2003 Tetheredto StoneorFreedomto Move:FolsomBiface
Technology in Regional Perspective. In Multiple
Approachesto the Studyof Bifacial Technologies,edited
by MarieSoressi and HaroldDibble, pp. 229-250. Uni-
versityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.
Holder,Preston,andJoyceWike
1949 The FrontierCultureComplex,a PreliminaryReport
on a PrehistoricHunter'sCampin SouthwesternNebraska.
AmericanAntiquity24:260-266.
Holen, Steven
1991 Bison Hunting Territoriesand Lithic Acquisition
amongthe Pawnee:An EthnohistoricandArchaeological
Study. In Raw Material EconomiesAmong Prehistoric
Hunter-Gatherers,edited by Anta Montet-White and
StevenHolen, pp. 399-411. Universityof KansasPubli-
cationsin AnthropologyNo. 19. Lawrence.
Holliday,Vance
2000 The Evolution of PaleoindianGeochronologyand
Typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology
15:227-290.
Hudson,Jean
1990 Spatial Analysis of Faunal Remains in Hunter-
GathererCamps. In Etnoarqueologia:Primer Cologio
Bosch-Gimper.Institutode InvestigacionesAntrologicas,
editedbyY. SagiuraandM. Serra,pp. 61-87. Universidad
NacionalAutonomade Mexico.
2005 Faunalevidence for subsistenceand settlementpat-
terns at the Allen site. In TheAllen Site: A Paleoindian
Campin SouthwesternNebraska,edited by Douglas B.
Bamforth.Submittedto Universityof New Mexico Press,
in press.
Ingbar,Eric
1992 The Hanson Site and Folsom on the Northwestern
Plains.In Ice Age Huntersof the Rockies,editedby Den-
nis StanfordandJaneDay,pp. 169-192. UniversityPress
of Colorado,Niwot.
Irwin-Williams,Cynthia,Henry Irwin, GeorgeAgogino, and
C. VanceHaynes
1973 Hell Gap:Paleo-IndianOccupationin theHighPlains.
Plains Anthropologist18:40-53.
Johnson,Eileen
1987 LubbockLake.TexasA&MUniversityPress,College
Station,Texas.
Jones, KevinT.
1993 ArchaeologicalStructureof a Short-TermCamp.In
From Bones to Behavior, edited by Jean Hudson, pp.
210-237. CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,Occa-
sional PaperNo. 21. SouthernIllinois University,Car-
bondale.
Kehoe,Thomas
1973 The Gull Lake Site: A PrehistoricBison Drive in
SouthwesternSaskatchewan.MilwaukeePublicMuseum
Publicationsin Anthropologyand History No. 1. Mil-
waukee.
Kelly,Robert,andLawrenceTodd
1988 ComingIntothe Country:EarlyPaleoindianHunting
andMobility.AmericanAntiquity53:231-244.
Kent,Susan
1991 The RelationshipBetween Mobility Strategiesand
Site Structure.In The Interpretationof Archaeological
SpatialPatterning,editedby Ellen Kroll andT. Douglas
Price,pp, 33-59. PlenumPress,New York.
Koetje,Todd
1994 IntrasiteSpatialStructurein theEuropeanUpperPale-
olithic: Evidence and Patterningfrom the Southwestof
580 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
13:161-169.
Kroll,Ellen M., andT. DouglasPrice
1991 The Interpretationof Archaeological Spatial Pat-
terning.PlenumPress,New York.
May,DavidW.
2002 StratigraphicStudies at Paleoindian sites Around
Medicine Creek Reservoir.In Medicine Creek:Seventy
Yearsof ArchaeologicalInvestigations,editedby Donna
Roper, pp. 37-53. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
2005 Landforms,Alluvial Stratigraphy,and Late Quater-
naryEnvironmentsin the MedicineCreekBasin, South-
westernNebraska.In TheAllenSite:A PaleoindianCamp
inSouthwestern Nebraska,editedby DouglasB. Bamforth.
Submittedto theUniversityof New MexicoPress,in press.
O'Connell,JamesF.
1987 AlyawaraSiteStructureandItsArchaeologicalImpli-
cations.AmericanAntiquity52:74-108.
Reeves, BrianO. K.
1978 Head-Smashed-In:5500 Yearsof Bison Jumpingin
theAlbertaPlains.In Bison Procurementand Utilization:
A Symposium,edited by Leslie Davis and MichaelWil-
son, pp. 151-174. PlainsAnthropologistMemoir14. Lin-
coln, Nebraska.
Reher,Charles,andGeorgeFrison
1980 The VoreSite,48CK302:A StratifiedBuffaloJumpin
the WyomingBlackHills. PlainsAnthropologistMemoir
No. 16. Lincoln,Nebraska.
Sellet, Fredrick
2001 A ChangingPerspectiveon PaleoindianChronology
andTypology:A ViewFromtheNorthwesternPlains.Arc-
tic Anthropology38:48-63.
Spurrell,F. C. J.
1880 On Implementsand Chipsfrom the Floor of a Pale-
olithicWorkshop.ArchaeologicalJournal37:249-299.
Stevenson,MarcG.
1991 Beyondthe Formationof HearthAssociatedArtifact
Assemblages.In TheArchaeologicalInterpretationof Spa-
tial Patterns,editedby Ellen KrollandT. Douglas Price,
pp. 269-300. Plenum,New York.
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
Todd,Lawrence,JackHofman,andC. BertrandSchultz
1990 Seasonally of the Scottsbluffand LipscombBison
Bonebeds:Implicationsfor Modeling PaleoindianSub-
sistence.AmericanAntiquity55:813-827.
Vaquero,Manuel,andIgnasiPasto
2002 The Definitionof SpatialUnits in MiddlePaleolithic
Sites:theHearth-Related Assemblages.JournalofArchae-
ological Science 28:1209-1220.
Wedel,Waldo
1986 CentralPlains Prehistory.Universityof Nebraska
Press,Lincoln.
Wilk,Richard,andMichaelSchiffer
1979 TheArchaeologyof VacantLots in Tucson,Arizona.
AmericanAntiquity44:530-536.
Yellen,John
1977 ArchaeologicalApproachesto thePresent.Academic
Press,New York.
1996 BehavioralandTaphonomicPatterningat Katanda9:
A Middle StoneAge Site, Kivu Province,Zaire.Journal
of ArchaeologicalScience 23:915-932.
Zalucha,J. Anthony
2005 EarlyHoloceneVegetationof theCentralGreatPlains
Basedon Paleobotanical andPaleoethnobotanical
Remains
fromtheMedicineCreekArea,FrontierCounty,Nebraska.
In TheAllen Site: A PaleoindianCampin Southwestern
Nebraska,editedby Douglas B. Bamforth.Submittedto
the Universityof New Mexico Press,in press.
Note
1. The seniorauthoronce had unfortunateexperiencelike
the one thatWilk and Schifferreferto, thus helping to docu-
ment the universality,or at least the widespreadexistence, of
this patternof trash disposal. Even the judge agreed that it
was his roommate'sfault, though.
SubmittedOctober8, 2004; RevisedJanuary27, 2005;
AcceptedJanuary27, 2005.