Sei sulla pagina 1di 33
Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand Author(s): Lewis

Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand Author(s): Lewis R. Binford Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 330-361 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279390 Accessed: 17-08-2017 11:02 UTC

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.

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

Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to American Antiquity

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE:

LEARNING FROM AN ESKIMO HUNTING STAND

Lewis R. Binford

Detailed behavioral observations permitted the dimensional analysis of formation processes operat

the Mask site, a Nunamiut Eskimo hunting stand. Activity structure, technological organization, di

mode, and spatial organization were all seen as behavioral dimensions that could each vary, altering the

terns of assemblage content and spatial disposition at an archaeological site.

These ethnoarchaeological experiences were then contrasted with those recently reported by John Ye

(1977), and a critical evaluation of his "conclusions" was conducted from the perspective of the Eski

perience. It was pointed out that basic differences in philosophy and approach to research largely condi the contrasting character of the conclusions drawn from the different experiences.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER is to describe the relationship between characteristic

behaviors observed on hunting stands and the structured consequences of these behaviors in the archaeological record. This article is within the domain of "ethnoarchaeology" in that it describes observations be- lieved to be of interest to archaeologists but experienced in the context of an ongoing living

system. All of the observations to be reported were made between 1969 and 1973 during

ethnographic work among the Nunamiut Eskimo of north central Alaska. Much of the material

resulting from this work has been previously described (Binford 1976, 1978; Binford and Chasko

1976; Binford and Bertram 1977). This article reprepsents the first of a series that will specifically

treat the formation processes and resulting character of the internal site structure for a number

of different types of Eskimo site.

Hunting stands are a type of site commonly produced by the Nunamiut. They are locations where men congregate to watch for game and to plan hunting strategies after game is sighted.

They are an integral part of an "intercept" hunting strategy as opposed to an "encounter"

strategy (see Binford 1978). In intercept hunting one employs knowledge of the factors that condi-

tion animal behavior to "predict" where animals will be, given the conditions of the moment such as weather, seasons of the year, etc. One positions himself to be able to monitor the surrounding

area where game is anticipated. These "stations" from which an area is monitored are hunting

stands. They are commonly occupied only by male hunters or hunters and young men. They are

rarely occupied overnight, and when they are, there is a continuous monitoring of the area rather than a change of tempo within the site when everyone goes to bed. Sleeping facilities on such loca-

tions are always expedient and individual.

Hunting stands provide an interesting situation relative to the assumptions commonly made by

archaeologists regarding the relationship between attributes of site location and site content and between the internal pattern of artifact disposition and activities. Frequently an archaeologist

may observe that there is some consistent association between features of the physical geography

and the presence of archaeological sites in a given area. Upon recognition of such a pattern it is

not uncommon to study comparatively the artifactual contents of the sites as a clue to their "func-

tion" and hence a basis for understanding their geographical patterning. The assumption is made that what is in a site betrays the activities conducted there, and that anticipation of those ac- tivities was crucial in selecting the location of the site.

In the case of many Eskimo hunting stands, there is no obvious relationship between what is in

the site and the "reasons for its occupancy" and hence the "reasons for its location." The loca-

tion is chosen because it provides maximum visual coverage for a large area considered a likely

place for game to be moving. The location is chosen to maximize the informational input for the oc-

Lewis R. Binford. Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico. Albuquerque. NM 87131.

330

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

Date

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

331

Table 1. Flow of Men.

of

Total Men

observation Total hours No. initially Arrived during Left during using site

(1972) of observation present observation observation (June 6)

June

4

6

3

4

2

7

June

4

3

5

2

4

7

June

5

3

7

2

3

9

June

5

6

9

4

6

13

June

6

4

5

4

7

9

June

6

1

4

1

1

5

Total 23

50/16

Date of Total man hours of Average stay at site Mean no. men per hour

observation (1972) on-site activity per man (hours) present during observation

June 4

29.0

4.14

5.00

June 4

13.0

1.86

4.33

June 5

19.5

2.17

6.50

June 5

52.3

4.02

8.71

June 6

15.5

1.72

3.88

June 6

4.5

0.90

4.50

cupants. This inform

a serie

quently characterized

traps. These location

executed from

presence and

ly

tion, and

ing

of

"blinds" or

path

placed

rarely

are a

sta

directly

from

shots" are more fre

directly

more commonly

from

hunti

loca

The location

of

the

observation

tivities that take pla

levels of

vironment relative t

of

game

the occupan

Table 2. Frequency

Activity

Game Off-site Eating + Target Playing

of

watching hunting talking shooting cards Crafts Sleep

Date of

observation No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

June 4 5.5(19.0) 5.5(19.0) 9.5(33.0) 0.0 - 3.5(12.0) 5.0(17.0) 0.0 -

June 4 3.0(23.0) 0.0 - 4.5(35.0) 3.0(23.0) 1.0(8.0) 1.5(12.0) 0.0 - June 5 3.0(15.0) 0.0 - 9.0(46.0) 3.0(15.0) 2.0(10.0) 1.0(5.0) 1.5(8.0)

June 5 12.0(22.96) 5.0(10.0) 21.75(42.0) 2.0(4.0) 9.0(17.0) 1.0(2.0) 1.5(3.0)

June 6 6.5(42.0) 0.0 - 3.0(19.0) 3.0(19.0) 0.0 - 3.0(19.0) 0.0 - June 6 1.5(33.0) 0.0 - 1.5(33.0) 0.0 - 0.0 - 1.5(33.0) 0.0 -

Total 31.5 10.5 49.25 11.0 15.5 13.0 3.0

Percentage 24.0 8.0 37.0 8.0 12.0 10.0 2.0

Note: No. = number of man hours.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

332

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

N

/0 -

9-

8-

7-

6'

Figure 1. Relationship be- %

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

tween mean group size and time 0 5 -

spent eating, playing cards, and

talking.

;

/ -

0

4

0

-

10 20

30 40

50

60 70 80

% OF TIME SPENT

EATING, PLAYING CARDS a

TALKING

clues to their function from the inventory of remaining contents. The best way to illustra

point is by example.

The Mask site is located near the present village of Anaktuvuk (see Binford 1978). It is co

ly used as a hunting stand after the main caribou migration hunting in spring. It is used to

stragglers and small post migration herds of bull caribou in the area to the south and west contemporary village. The period of use is from around May 28 through June 19. The gener

of this site and its place in the overall spring hunting strategy have been previously desc

(Binford 1978). Our interest is in the facts of its internal organization and how they came i

ing behaviorally. I was present on this site for a total of 34 hours spread over the years 1971 and 1972. In the site was visited several times. Hunting orchestrated from the site was observed, as wa general character of site activities. During a lull in the use of the site by the Nunamiut, t was mapped and inventoried and then cleaned of all portable items not identified by info as items "cached" or destined for future use and/or retrieval by the users of the site. Thi

very near the end of the use period in 1971. The site was cleaned so that all items observed

the following year could be referred to behavior occurring on the site during the spring of In 1972 the site was visited 3 times during its peak use, and the hunting of bull herds fro

site was recorded. Late in the season I was essentially stranded in Anaktuvuk village while

waiting for the arrival of my archaeological crew. I used this "dead time" to conduct a rather in-

tensive set of observations on the Mask site (June 4-7, 1972). Within 1 week I spent 23 hours on the

site. In addition, the site was inventoried, and all items were mapped according to their exact

location. Prior to the start of "systematic" observation I had observed behavior on the site for ap-

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

333

10

9

8

7

&5 6-

I4J

Z5 Figure 2. Relationship be-

Q 5' tween mean group size and time

spent in crafts and target

?^~* ~ shooting.

3

2

0

5

10

15

20

25 30 35

40

% OF TIME SPENT IN CRAFTS a TARGET SHOOTING

proximately 11 hours. I attempted to make "behavioral observations" (see Whiting and W 1970; Weick 1968) during the observation periods June 4-7, 1972, but my observations w ased in that no attempt was made to record all action occurring on the hunting stand. I record the times of arrival and departure of persons; I recorded the times at which vari dividuals initiated activities and when they stopped. For instance, a typical record may n

Johnny Rulland seated himself next to Bob Ahgook around hearth A at 8:50 and began eng

conversation and the eating of bone marrow. The record may then pick up some time lat

noting that Johnny got up from the hearth area and announced that he had "had enough"

returning to the village. The description would then note the items he collected and carrie

with him. Table 1 summarizes the census data on the persons present on the site and the hours of activity that were recorded.

ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED

My major interest was in actions that resulted in the discard or placement of it entered the archaeological domain. I did, however, as noted above, keep an activity 23 hours of observation. Table 2 summarizes these data regarding the numbers of

the occupants of the site were engaged in the several recognized basic activities.

activities into which the overall actions of the man were tabulated. Game-watchin

ly of scanning the area to the south of the site either with the unaided eye or wit

man was engaged in carving a wooden mold for a mask and occasionally looked o

even picked up binoculars and scanned the area, he was still recorded as eng

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

334

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

Table 3. Data From the 23 Hours of Behavioral Observation as Regards the

Items Observed and the "Activity" in Which They Were Used.

A. No. of B. No. of man-

Activity and items used observations episodes of use A/B

Eating and talking (18)

Kaotah 2 4 .50

Meat bones 11 4 2.75

Marrow bones 8 6 1.33

Can of hash 1 1 1.00 Can of sardines 5 5 1.00

Can

of pop

2

2 1.00

Sardine can key 5 5 1.00

Pop can tab 2 2 1.00 "Coffee" cups 6 19 .32 Coffee pot 1 9 .11

Coffee can

2

6 .33

Spoons 2 21 .10

Can

of milk

1

9

.11

Stone anvils 5 11 .45 Bottle of instant coffee 1 7 .14

Bag of coffee 4 11 .36

Bag of sugar 12 27 .44

Watching for game (2)

Binoculars 2 18 .11

Skins 1

18

.06

Playing

cards (5)

Deck of cards 3 22 .14

Can

of pop

5

5 1.00

Pop can

tab

5

5 1.00

Skins 2

22

.09

Coffee cups 4 9 .44

Crafts (11)

Abrader 1 1 1.00

Kitchen knife 1 1 1.00

Metal file 1 4 .25

Hone

1

2

.50

Skinning knife 4 4 1.00

Mask

mold

1

1

1.00

Scraper (skin) 1 1 1.00

Scissors 1

1

1.00

Screwdriver 1 1 1.00

Dressed skin 1 (sq.) 1 1.00

Skin

1

3

Target

.33

shootin

.22 shells (50)' 3 16.67

Pop can (target) 4 13 .31

Milk can (target) 1 6 .17

Skin

1

2

.50

Off-site

huntin

Dog packs 3 3 1.00

Rifle 17

17

1.00

Skinning knife 18 18 1.00

Bullets 25

5

5.00

Short ropes 2 1 2.00

Sleds 5 5 1.00 Snowmobiles 7 7 1.00 Binoculars 2 2 1.00

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

Table 3 (continued).

A. No. of B. No. of man-

335

Activity and items used observations episodes of use A/B

Sleeping (1)

Skins 1

Other

2

or

Funnel Not observed

Pair of gloves Not observed

Soap dish Not observed

Wolf trap Not observed

Sheets of canvas Not observed

Cigarette lighter Not recorded

nonspe

1parentheses indicate an estimate rather than an actual count.

manufacturing tasks; a man was tabulated as engaged in an activity even though interrupted his action for other purposes.

The only category of action that might be misleading in Table 2 is hunting. Hun

actually conducted on the site; during hunting episodes, all the men (including mys

site. This "hunting" category, then, indicates hours during which the site was ab hunting activities were carried out. Two other observations regarding the activity categories might be useful. All t

was done with guns that were especially introduced for this purpose. That is, the

hunting were never used in shooting targets at the Mask site. It was explained th and shells were too expensive to be wasted on targets. A rimfire .22 was almost a target shooting. The craft activities observed on the Mask site were (1) carving o for masks, (2) carving of wooden spreaders for a dog harness, (3) carving of a ho

sold to a collector from Fairbanks, (4) carving of an ivory needle valve for repairin on a snowmobile, (5) sewing a small skin pouch for carrying rifle bullets, and (6) r

skin socks.

The information in Table 2 should demonstrate that only the activity of "watching for game" was directly related to the primary function of the site. This represented 24% of the total man- hours of activity recorded; yet there were no recognizable archaeological consequences of this

behavior. No tools left on the site were used, and there were no immediate material "byproducts"

of the "primary" activity. All of the other activities conducted at the site were essentially

boredom reducers.

Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the percentage of the total time spent in the c

bined activities of eating, playing cards, and talking and the mean group size present on the

during observation. What is clear is that the relative proportions of these activities are a func

of the size of the group present on the site. The larger the social unit present, the greater the

portion of the total man-hours spent in "socializing" activities. Figure 2 illustrates the relati ship between the size of the social unit present and the percentage of the total occupation t

spent in target shooting and craft activities. The relationship is negatively linear; the fewer m

present, the greater the proportion of time spent in target shooting and craft activities. Th

recognition of these relationships is provocative as regards the problem of interassembl

variability. Insofar as there are relationships between activities and material items, we could

pect that hunting stands which tended to vary in the modal group sizes would also vary in ter

the relative frequencies of activity-related archaeological debris.

I have described elsewhere (Binford 1978) a number of different hunting stands, and one of

major differences between them was the modal sizes of the occupying group. Stands used du

peak migration hunting are large, with many men frequenting the stand. After main migration

degree to which individual men continue to hunt is largely a function of the successes durin

migration hunting. Generally, the less skilled hunters are the ones hunting after migra

Animals tend to be dispersed, hence hunting stands tend to be dispersed and are generally o

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

336

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

Table 4. Comparison between Numbers of Items Observed Behaviorally and Archaeologically.

Items with values Items with values

greater than 1 of 1

Item

BO* AO** Item

BO

AO

Marrow bones 8 334

Meat bones 11 51 Hash

can

1

1

Sardine can 5 7

Shells (ammunition) 25 68 Pop can 7 12

Can key 5 6

Can

tab

2

12

Abrader 1 1

Kitchen knife 1 (1)

Skinning knife 18 0

Mask mold 1 0

Skin scraper 1 0

Scissors 1 0

Screw driver 1 0

Dressed skin 1 0

Dog packs 3 0

Rifles 17 0

Skinning knives 18 0

Sled 5 0

Snowmobiles 7 0

Items with values Items with values

.99-.25 less than

Item

BO

AO

Item

.25

BO

AO

Coffee cups 6 (6) Coffee pot 1 (1) Coffee can 2 1 Spoons 2 (2)

Bag of coffee 4 (2) (an

of milk

1

1

Bag of sugar 12 (1) Instant coffee 1 (1)

Pop can target 3 4 Milk can target 1 1

Metal File 1 (1) Binoculars 2 0

Htone 1 (1) Sitting skin 5 (1)

Deck of cards 3 (1)

Stone anvils 5 5

Kaotah

2

2

Note: Values in

parenthes

ping

again

but informants we

and

eventually

retu

*

**

Behaviorally

observed.

obse

Archaeologically

cupied

from

shooting

by

2

men

at m

those of

migrati

is a behavior

task-related difference would correlate with "microseasonal" differences.

Individual hunting stands are occupied more commonly after migration, and they would be geographically distributed in a different manner (see Binford 1978). Hence there would be a cor- relation between some facts of content and season of occupancy, as well as geographical location. Nevertheless, the relevant explanatory variable would be group size. How could one discover that condition by studying the empirical correlations, spatial patterns, or "typological status" of the

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

337

Table 5. Comparative Inventories for Items Observed Ethnographically and Archaeologically-

Behaviorally observed items Disposal Modes

Item

Archae

observations

Inventory of site

1st week

June 7, of June

Observed Number Dropped Tossed Rested Placed Dumped

1971

1972

Bullets (75)a (25)a 0 (50)a 0 0

 

123

61

 

(shells)

Skinning knife

18

0

0

4

1

0

O

0

0

Rifle

17

0

0 31

0

0

0

0

2

Bag of sugar

0

0

9

6

0

3

1

Meat bones

11

(Io

Ribs

10

(35)

9

4

0

(12)b

(l)

150 (49)b

Scapula

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

2

Marrow bones

8

Splinters

(60)a

90%

10%

0

0

0

85

284 28 223

Chips

(120)a

100%

0%

0

0

0

Ends

16

1

15

2

0

0

26

Pop cans

7

0

7

3

4

0

8

12

Snowmobiles

7

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

Cigarette lighters

7

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

Cups

6

0

0

4

9

0

7

6

Sleds

5

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

Skins

5

0

0

0

5

0

0

1

Deck of cards

3

0

0

8

1

0

1

1

Sardine cans

5

0

5

2

0

0

8

7

Dog packs

3

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

Metal files

3

0

0

6

1

0

1

1

Anvils

5

0

0

0

5

0

3

5

Coffee cans

2

0

1

4

1

0

1

1

Binoculars

2

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

Coffee pot

1

0

0

7

1

(2)c

1

1

Mask molds

1

0

0

1

0

0

(2'

0

0

Length of rope

Can of hash

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

Pop can tabs

204

25

30

42

9

12

 

0

1

Funnel

0

1

Pair of gloves

1

1

Hone

1

1

Kitchen knife

1

0

Spoon

2

File

1

Milk can

1

Instant coffee bottle

1

Bag of coffee

Soap dish

Wolf trap

Wool glove

Canvas

3

Rope fragments

2

Note: Numbers in italic indicate items that would have been removed when site was abandoned.

a estimate of number.

b fragments.

c grounds only.

assemblages? I do not think the facts of the archaeological record would speak for themselves in this case. Finally, the typological distinctiveness of assemblages from postmigration hunting

stands would be illusionary since the same variables conditioning large stands would be

operative; the only differences would be the "power" of the different variables as manifest at dif-

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

338

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

Figure 3. Hearths and glacial boulders.

ferent locations. This is what is meant by "functional" variability, but more importantly this is

what is anticipated by arguments for the multivariable basis of many interassemblage dif-

ferences. Our analytical tools must be sufficient for recognizing such conditions when they exist and recognizing the effects of such past dynamics or formation processes if we are to achieve ac-

curacy in giving meaning to the archaeological facts we observe. These points will be demonstrated more clearly with the next body of data.

TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

We have now explored some of the factors that condition the performance of dif

tivities on the Mask site and how these activities relate to the "primary function" of

next concern is the relationship between the structure of the activities and the organi

"technology" or material items manipulated in the various activities. Table 3 su

data from the 23 hours of observation at the Mask site regarding the material items

their relationship to the activities previously described. In addition, the inventory

elaborated to include the number of separate items of each type observed toget

number of man-episodes of use for the items. A "man-episode" is indicated (1) for eac man that used the item, (2) for a reuse by the same man during different observatio

and (3) if another man had used the item between recorded uses by the same man.

This may sound complicated, and I must admit it was. Working out the conventions

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

I

I

I

339

MODEL SEATING PLAN

I

SCALE IN METERS

I

0

i

I

I

4

I

ZONE

Figure 4. Model seating plan.

ing was not easy. For instance, a man carrying a skinning knife is observed on the si

observation period number 1. The same man is observed with the skinning knife on the

observation period number 2. Do we record 2 men and 2 skinning knives? In this case,

observation of "use" was made in either case, and since 1 man and 1 knife had been recorded.

Unless some episode of use was observed, no further tabulation was made.

The information in Table 3 is supplemented by the data on the number of items observed on the

site during the period of behavioral observation and the number of items observed "ar- chaeologically" at the end of the period of behavioral observation. Several characteristics of the

Nunamiut technological system are made explicit in this table. First, all the items with low "use

ratios" were most commonly considered to be "site-specific" artifacts that were generally

available for use by any occupants of the site. They were considered part of the site in much the

same way that facilities such as hearths were considered. These items were generally introduced during the early phases of use, or they were removed from caches at the site, having remained there from a previous period of use. They were thought of as the appropriate "artifact" fur-

nishings of the site, the site-specific "hardware." The best analogy to the way the Eskimo con-

ceived of these items is similar to the way we think of furnishings in a room. They are items that go

with the place, not necessarily the persons occupying the place. Items in this category were coffee

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

340

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

Figure 5. Observed localization of eating and talking activities under variable wind direction.

cups, coffee pot, coffee can, spoons, bottle of instant coffee, bags of coffee and sugar, can of

stone anvils, kaotah, sitting skins, and decks of cards. Most of these items were contribute various occupants for the use by others during the period of occupation. Others were consi to be unowned and simply part of the site, such as the stone anvils and kaotah used in crac marrow bones. These were collected expediently from immediately available raw materials a

are not identified with any contributor as might be the coffee cups or pot.

The other class of items exhibiting low use ratios were items that were identified as the "p perty" of an individual but were widely shared at the site. These items include the metal file,

hone, and the binoculars. The metal file and the hone were observed as items cached on the site

and in this sense were almost considered in the same category as contributed "furnishings." It

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

341

Table 6. Proportion of Man-Hours of Activities Performed by Men Seated in Circular

(Cir.) Fashion Around Hearth.

Game Off site Eating + Target Playing

watching hunting talking shooting cards Crafts Sleep

Date Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth.

June 4 0 100% 0 100% 93% 7%

June 4 0 100% 0 100% 95% 5%

June 5 0 100% 0 100%

June 5 0 100% 0 100% 90% 10% 0 100% 11% 89% 0 100% 0 100%

100% 0 0 100% 0 100% 17% 83% 0 100%

-

-

17%

83% 29% 71% - -

50% 50% - -

0 00%

0 100%

June 6 0 100% 0 100% 95% 5% 0 100% - - 36% 64% - -

June 6 0 100% 0 100% 100% 0 22% 78% - - 25% 75% -

M 0 100% 0 100%95.5% 4.5% 4.4% 95.6% 7% 93% 26.2%73.8% 0 100%

was explained that these were not very valuable it

them if someone was using them when the owner dec

son using an item would cache it on the site if the o finished his task. By way of contrast, the binocular

would not be unreasonable for the owner to collect th

when he decided to leave the site.

Figure 6. Observed localizations of card playing.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

342

_

N118

N 17

N 116

I

_

1

I

'

I CRAFTS AREA I

- / /.' ^

Nt

I

N

/I/

110

?

SIO

.

.,'

EIIO EItl 112 E113

am

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol.43,No.3,1978

I1

r---- -

MASK SITE LEGEND

OBSERVED LOCALIZATION OF

CRAFT ACTIVITIES ',/ |

SIDE ACTIVTY AREA)

V,~ -i CRAFT ACTIVITIES(IN-

SIDE ACTIVITY AREA)

%~~A *~~~ /r \ a ~/ ~/ ~ACTIVITIES (INSIDE

ACTIVITY AREA)

i

i

I

~i:.~)

\, CR TAFTS AREA #2

SCALE IN METERS

0

LI

I

2

r-

ii

E:114 E115 E,? E/7 El8 E

-- o 120

119 E

I

Figure 7. Observed localizations of craft activ

A final class of items exhibiting low use ratios were

they were recycled into this function. That is, they h

poses.

We can see that of all the items exhibiting low use ratios, only expediently used items s

the anvils a and kaotah or recycled items such as the targets went into the archaeological re

a manner directly proportional to the number actually used on the site. All of the items hav

use ratios may be thought of as "group" tools or multiple-use containers. These are the item

are apt to occur sporadically on sites if they are curated (Binford 1976) and moved ar

cached contexts, or very regularly as in the case of the anvils, if not curated. These are the

that are apt to appear most commonly in the archaeological record as "de facto garba

Schiffer's (1976) terms, if curated.

Among the items exhibiting a use ratio of 1 there are clearly 3 subclasses of items: (1) ind

serving containers-hash, sardine, and pop cans-all containers for individual servings

or refreshments, (2) almost all the items used in craft activities, abrader, kitchen knife, et (3) all the items introduced as part of the personal gear of hunters and destined for use at stands, blinds, and butchering locations-dog packs, rifles, skinning knives, etc. Only items first category were systematically represented on the site. These were the immediate bypro of consumption.

What we are seeing are some of the effects of organizational properties on the archaeol record. All items used on the site were not organized within the technology in a similar

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

343

Figure 8. Observed localization of activities, afternoon, June 5.

The particular patterns of technological organization conditioned the degree to which i

did not go into the archaeological record as a direct consequence of their use. It shoul

much imagination to visualize how the archaeological record might vary if the organiza

technology were different with no difference in either the character of the items use

tivity conditions of their use. Suppose for a moment that all the gear listed in Table 4,

and 4, was introduced to the site as part of "personal gear" and each man had his own cup,

spoon, coffee pot, can of milk, coffee can, etc. Clearly the numbers introduced to the site would be

very different, approaching the values for rifles and skinning knives in column 2. Let us further

suppose that these items were "expendable" as opposed to "curated" (see Binford 1976) or main- tained within the technology for considerable periods of time. I think the reader can easily ap- preciate how vastly different the content of the archaeological record would be given such organizational changes, while activities, site functions, identity of occupants, etc., might remain

the same.

We can appreciate how systems might vary in their organizational properties; such differences have been explored previously in terms of some of their implications (see Binford 1976). It should be pointed out that organizational properties may vary within a system situationally and thereby

contribute appreciably to intersite variability within a system. For instance, I have observed

situations in which gear normally curated and carried as part of the personal-gear element of the

technology may be abandoned or scuttled. We may also appreciate that environmental "con- tingencies" may well situationally condition how otherwise identical items are organized. For in-

stance, in 1974 I had the rare opportunity to observe tool-making behavior of Alyawara-speaking

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

344

N 17

N 116

N 115

N 114

I

I

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3, 1978

I

I

I

r

MASK SITE

OBSERVED LOCALIZATION OF ACTIVITIES

JUNE 6

?,,,,. 4 ) 'ACTIVE HEARTH

LEGEND

TARGET SHOOTING

* - ^\ ;:.: ^^'''^^\ EATING/TALKING

""

,I

i

I

N113 CRAFT ACTIVITIES I I < I I i N 112 i I . I~~~~
N113
CRAFT ACTIVITIES
I
I
<
I
I
i
N 112
i
I
. I~~~~
I
SCALE IN METERS
I
I
- I/s -
N 111
l--
V
<)
I
I
!
Ell E112 E113 E114 E
115 E
116 E
117 E
I8
E
119 E 120

Figure 9. Observed localization of activ

Australian aborigines at a stone quarry and th

quantities of material were immediately a

byproducts of flint chipping and discarded ess

the base camp, where stone working was r

transported over a considerable distance, the the various families as potential sources of ra

cessing into tools. In this case we see how the

ly responsive to external conditions resulting

remains at different locations.

DISPOSAL MODES

Thus far I have discussed factors in the ongoing behavioral system that differenti the disposition and use of material items. In this section I am concerned with the im cess of the transformation of material items from their "systemic" context (see Sch

their "archaeological context." I am interested in describing the modes of disp

entering the archaeological record at the Mask site. In turn, I am interested in the re

ture, the character of the internal site structure that results from the productio

chaeological record at this site. Given such interests, one can appreciate that m

observations would be biased. I made no attempt to record all observed behavior occu

hunting stand, only behavior in the context of which material items were manipu

within this domain I did not record all acts, only those which resulted in the depositi

or in the repositioning of an item already placed within the site. The earlier 12 hour

tion were used as the basis for the development of an observational format. I recognized 5

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

345

Figure 10. Observed localization of activities, noon, June 5.

manipulative acts that resulted in items occurring on surfaces within the site: dropping, tossing, resting, positioning, and dumping items.

Dropping

Most of the cases of dropping were cases where elements were detached from an item already

held in the hand. The most frequently observed dropping situation was in the context of cracking

marrow bones. The bone was commonly held in the hand and struck with the back of a hunting knife. The impact resulted in detached chips and splinters of bone that dropped to the ground directly below the point of impact. Another common situation of dropping was observed during

the manufacture of a mold for a mask. The craftsman was carving a piece of wood, and the wood shavings dropped to the ground directly below the action. A rare form of dropping was "fumble" dropping. That is, an item either held in the hand or in some container such as a pocket was drop- ped during the course of the action or during the removal of another item from the container.

Tossing

This action was very common and most often occurred upon the completion of some action. For

instance, containers such as sardine cans or pop cans were commonly tossed after their contents

were consumed. Similarly, articulator ends of bone processed for marrow were tossed away after

the marrow was removed. The act is simple, an item held in the hand is tossed aside, effectively

removing it from the area of its use.

Resting

Items are set down, normally, in the following contexts: "unpacking" upon entry to the camp, temporary abandonment of a task due to interruptions, or arraying tools that might all be used in

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

346

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

Nml7

N//A

M14

I

CRF TS_A *

l

I

I

i

I

I

_

MASK SITE

I

I

L_ L-

I

DEFINTION OF ACTMTY AREAS W,XY,Z

/

_-

 

I

N 13

 

I

N109O

IN109

L

E109 EllO

I

EI El1/

I

I

AA

Z

' -

E/12 E113 El E1S E1B6 E

I

I

.

I

i

L

/

/

_

SCALE IN METERS

17

I El E

i

119 I

I

E/O I E121

I

I

Figure 11. Definition of activity areas W, X, Y, Z.

accomplishing a general task. Typical behaviors might be the hunter w

and leans his rifle against a rock or takes off his pack and sets it do

men may be sitting around a hearth eating marrow bones and drink word" caribou is stage whispered among the men. Almost invariably processed marrow bones, or half-eaten tins of sardines will be set do the man, and he will bolt up searching for his binoculars, rifle, etc.

items.

Positioning Items (Placed)

An item was identified as positioned if there was some attempt to (a) aggregate several, (b)

unobtrusively place them so they would not interfere with ongoing activities at the location, and

(c) insure their easy retrieval at some future date. Formally this is a difficult category because

there is an assumed motive-the temporary placement of an item or items in anticipation of future

use. This is what the archaeologist would call caching, although some of these "caches" may be

very short term.

Dumping

This was an infrequent behavior on hunting stands. It consists of the accumulation of dropped

or resting items, normally in a container. The container is then picked up and removed, commonly

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

347

to the periphery of the site, and dumped. This results in a recognizable high density a

distribution.

The above categories were found to adequately accommodate the observed behaviors in which

items came to rest in a hunting stand. Obviously this is only a partial picture, since items at rest

within a site may be removed and/or reorganized spatially as a result of a variety of actions taking place within the site. The following classification of acts that resulted in the repositioning of items

already at rest within the site was found useful:

1. Brushing aside-This action was observed in only four behavioral contexts: (a) before sitting down, (b) in preparation for drawing a map in the dirt, (c) before butchering an animal, and (d)

prior to dismantling a snowmobile carburetor. In no case was a special tool used, such as a

broom. The hand and arm were used to brush aside litter and to smooth out the surface of the

ground in preparation for the performance of the acts listed above.

2. Searching-This action was observed only twice. One of the men would generally ask the

group if anyone had picked up his item. In one case the item was a butchering knife and in the other it was a fragment of a broken saw blade used in cutting antler. In camps such as the Mask

site, the first assumption normally made when an item is suspected of being missing is that some- one else has picked up the item and is using it or has placed it somewhere unknown to the owner. This means that if an individual misses some item that he had at the site he will always query the other men present, "Did anyone see my ?" If no one acknowledges having seen

the item, it is generally assumed that someone no longer present used the item and has left it

"around the site somewhere." Most of the time, in the absence of information as to where the item

may be found, the men present will get up and begin searching for it. There is a kind of search priority or scale of likelihood about where a lost item may be. First they look on top of prominent rocks and boulders, then around the bases of these rocks and boulders. Next they look under any

temporary "ground covers" such as caribou skins, which might have been dragged around and in- advertently covered up an item, or a stack of recently introduced firewood might be poked

around in. Finally, there is a ground search centered around the hearth areas of the site. If coverage of these areas fails to turn up the item, the men generally abandon the search, assuming

that someone not present has the item and will return it to the owner at a later date. Importantly,

during the search there is a moving around of items already present, and almost always some

items are picked up to be "recycled" for other purposes. Lost items are "rediscovered" at this

time.

Table 5 tabulates the items observed on the site and the frequency with which various items were manipulated so that they remained unattended on the site. This does not mean that these

items necessarily became part of the archaeological record, for many of them may have been

repositioned or removed from the site later. This difference is indicated by the comparison be-

tween the items actually inventoried "archaeologically" on the site and the frequency with which

items were "positioned" within the site.

Several important facts are illustrated in Table 5. There are major differences between the in-

ventories of items dropped, tossed, and dumped. For instance, marrow bone splinters and chips,

shell casing, and rib tablets were the items most commonly dropped, while articulator ends of

marrow bones, pop cans, and sardine cans were the items most commonly tossed. Dumping ex-

clusively consisted of coffee grounds and rib tablets. On the other hand, many items were rested

or placed on the site but never or only rarely did these become part of the archaeological record.

Referring the "disposal modes" recognized here to those recognized by Schiffer (1976:30-33),

both dropping and tossing would result in "primary refuse." Similarly, dumping as it was oWb-

served on the Mask site would also result in primary refuse in spite of the fact that Schiffer

generally equates dumping with the generation of secondary refuse (see Schiffer 1976:30). Dump-

ing, as on the Mask site and in other contexts, consists of the disposal of multiple aggregated

elements during food processing and/or food preparation activities. Dumping may consist of the

disposal of the aggregate immediately adjacent to the locus of use. This is quite different from the

situation where aggregates are accumulated during the course of "cleaning up" and removed

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

348

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3, 1978

from the location of primary deposition to a "special area" or specific dumping area. The latter activity was not observed on the Mask site.

As in the previous sections it is hoped that the reader can appreciate the effect that changes in

the relationships between item classes and modes of disposal may have on the final form of the ar-

chaeological record. For instance, I have described elsewhere (Binford 1978) the general pattern

of disposition of bone elements during the course of a meal within an Eskimo house. Items that are

commonly tossed or dropped on the Mask site, such as articulator ends and bone splinters, are most often "placed" in small piles along the edges of hearth rocks, around the stove, or on the

edge of serving dishes uring r eating and talking episodes within an Eskimo house. This behavior is

in anticipation of the women of the house "cleaning up" after the meal, accumulating articulator

ends in a cache for later processing into bone grease and "dumping" bone splinters in specia

dump areas. In this example we can see that there may well be very different disposal modes

associated with the same item in different site or social contexts.

So far I have discussed 3 basic behavioral categories relative to the "systtemic" context (Sc

fer 1976) of the Mask site. Hopefully, I have demonstrated that a location, the actual spatial lo

of a site, may be selected relative to criteria for optimizing conditions for a single task. In the of the Mask site this task was the e monitoring of a large area for game movements. The activ

conducted within the site were all secondary accommodations to the situational integration

spring straggler hunting at the Mask site into the overall strategy of spring hunting. If migratio hunting has been very successful and herds were more mixed than normal, straggler hunting at the Mask site will be conducted by only the most unsuccessful hunters, group sizes will be small compared to the data reported here and activities conducted there while waiting for game will be conditioned by size and length-of-stay considerations.

Similarly, the organization of the technology is at least partially conditioned by the understood

or anticipated relationship of the location to use intensity and duration, as well as its actual loca-

tion relative to other sites in use at the time. For instance, preparation of meals was never ob- served on the Mask site, because it is located less than a mile from the main village of Anaktuvuk.

The only eating observed could best be described as snacking. Only bone marrow and items specifically introduced to contribute to the "picnic" atmosphere of eating (cans of sardines are a

good example) were consumed. Meat per se was never cooked, and techniques of boiling and roasting meat were never employed on the site during the periods of controlled observation. Similarly, the form and numbers of artifactual items that were considered "furnishings" on the site could be expected to vary with the anticipated modal group sizes and anticipated intensity of use. In the example that I offered regarding remote sites, I suggested that gear present on the

Mask site as furnishings would be part of personal gear at such a remote location.

Finally, I described the disposal modes observed on the Mask site and pointed out that there was a regular set of relationships between the form and size of items and the modes of disposal. It was further argued that in other contexts different disposal modes might well be employed for

identical items.

All of the three behavioral dimensions, activity structure, technological organization, and

disposal modes interact and contribute to the facts of site structure, or the patterning

recognizable in the static disposition of cultural features and items at a location.

ORGANIZATION OF SPACE

Several types of behavioral data were collected during observations on the Mask site.

were made to observe the position of men on the site during the performance of different ac- tivities. In addition, I measured the placement of men relative to one another and to basic

facilities on the site during the performance of different activities.

The core area of the site is between 3 relatively large glacial boulders. Among these boulders

were 5 hearths. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the disposition of hearths and the place-

ment of boulders. I never observed all 5 hearths in use at the same time; in fact, I never saw more

than 2 in simultaneous use, and that was rare. The differential use of the hearths is basically

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

349

related to wind direction. When the prevailing winds are from the north, hearths B a

primarily used; winds blowing from the south prompted the preferential use of hearths sometimes D. Prevailing winds from the north tended to carry scent to animals approac

the south, so large groups of men were never observed at the site when winds were fr

north. South winds carried scent away from approaching animals, and more men tende

the hunting stand under these conditions. For these reasons hearths A and C were the m monly used.

I actually measured the placement of men and found that for a sample of 35 men sea

groups of 3 or 4, the mean distance from the left kneecap to the ember edge of the fire w

cm. The mean distance between left and right knees of men seated next to one another

cm. When men were seated in groups of 4 they tended to move back from the fire a littl

room if an additional member of the group arrived. Under these conditions I measured 4

5 (20 measurements) and found the mean distance from the left knee to the ember edge o

to be 71 ? 8.2 cm and the mean distance between left and right knees of adjacent men to

cm. Figure 4 illustrates the mean sitting pattern for groups of 3 men and of 4 men aroun

the Mask site.

The first thing to be noted is that there is always a vacant side of the hearth, depending upon wind direction. Such a distribution around a hearth, that is, with a side of relatively dense debr and an opposite, low-density side, has frequently been interpreted as deriving from the organiza

tion of space within a house; the low-density side is seen as representing the sleeping area (see

Leroi-Gourham and Brezillon 1972) and the high-density side as the area of domestic ac-

tivity-eating and food preparation. That such a distribution may in fact arise is shown by Yel

(1977). In his case, the low-density side of the hearth relates to the area adjacent to the shelte

sleeping area (Yellen 1977). I have also observed the low/high density pattern of debris around in

ternal hearths, particularly in the case of the Palangana site (see Binford 1978).

Table 7. Man-Hours of Activity Localized in Different Areas.

Game Eating + Target Playing

Areas Hearths watch talking shoot cards Crafts Sleep Total

W none 3.0(12%) 10.5(42%) 4.0(16%) 7.25(30%) 24.75

X B-E 3.75(34%) 2.5(32%) 0.75(7%) 3.0(27%) 10.0

Y C-D 6.25(32%) 0.5(3%) 9.0(47%) 3.5(18%) 19.25

Z A 39.25(96%) 1.5(4%) 40.75

Total 3.0* 49.25 11.0 15.5 13.0 3.0 94.75

*28.5 hours of game watching done from

hearth A.

bo

On the Mask site the "seating plan" conditions the dispersion pattern of items that were drop-

ped versus those that were tossed. I did not measure the position of dropped items relative to

seated persons. However, I noted that dropped items came to rest within 20 cm of the front of a man sitting cross-legged. They dropped between his legs or fell to the side of his legs within about 20 cm. This means that in the seating plan shown in Figure 4 we may add the probable location of

the "drop zone," the area within which men seated around the hearth would drop items. While observing on the Mask site, I measured the distance between the knee of the seated man and the

resting place of tossed items. Such items were invariably tossed "over the shoulder" and the

mean distance from the kneecap of a seated man for tossed articulator ends (N = 7) of bones was 1.14 m with a standard deviation of 24 cm. For sardine and pop cans (N = 6) the mean distance was 2.54 m with a standard deviation of 29 cm. When I asked informants why they tossed cans

more vigorously they simply said they were unsightly and got in the way more than bones! Given

this information we may add to our model seating plan an additional zone of anticipated

debris-tossed items. Figure 4 illustrates the anticipated distributional patterning for items

disposed of by individuals seated around an outside hearth.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

350

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

9 -

8-

7-

Nh 6-

()

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

Figure 12. Relationship be- 3 5- ?

tween mean group size and the 0

percent of total craft time spent (

k

0

within an "eating circle." 2 40

3

2-

o 0o 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 o00

% OF TOTAL CRAFT TIME SPENT

WITHIN "EATING CIRCLE"

The basic organization or seating plan for individuals around a hearth may not change

typical "outside" situation as observed on the Mask site to an "inside" situation where the hearth in the center of a house. We might anticipate that the seating plan relative to the

might be essentially identical, and we may even anticipate a vacant side to the distribution the sleeping area is adjacent to the hearth. A drop zone could be expected where stone work

marrow cracking was going on adjacent to the hearth. However, in the Nunamiut case we never observe a "toss zone" around a seated group inside a house. (See Binford 1978: Chapt

for a description of food consumption within the house.) Items normally tossed outside wo

placed along the hearth stones or along the edges of serving platters so that the woman house could easily clean up the large bone debris from meals consumed inside. Men seated around the hearths of the Mask site in some "size" phase of the pattern illu

in Figure 5 were observed to be engaged in eating and conversation most commonly. Table

marizes the proportion of man-hours of activities, as tabulated in Table 2, which was spa organized as men seated in a circular fashion around the hearth. What is very clear is that the particular pattern of space use characterized as a semicir men seated around a hearth was almost exclusively related to the activity of eating and t All other activities were characteristically conducted in a different place and in a differe

tern of association man-to-man and man-to-facility. In short, there were different areas ass

with the performance of different activities. The single activity exhibiting the most overl eating and talking, in terms of where it was performed, was craft activity. It is shown tha of the time during which individuals were engaged in craft activity was spent within the c

men seated around the fire. The actual location and seating plan of men engaged in activi other than eating and talking is best illustrated graphically. Figure 6 illustrates the locat card-playing activities. The numbering of the areas roughly coincides with the preferent for placement. Area 1 would certainly be preferred for several reasons: (1) Because card p

is an activity of large group sizes, it is almost certain that winds would be blowing from th

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

r

N

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

r

--

-

--

117 MASK SITE

DISTRIBUTION OF BONE

NN

,

'

"

1

"

-:

N/15

F_

T

l

II

I

 

'I~

IC

,~

 

AI, 'v . ' .

 

E

N

E

112 E

113 E114 E

115 E

116 E117 E

118 E

119 E 120

2

NI /

SCALE

IN

METERS

I

clear that5 th ao raidpneto e etdinhat ice saogtelrerc

Figure 13. Distribution of bone.

where ~ ~ \ card plyn ra1i lolctd(rf ra1 nFgr ) nadtoa rfrai

351

'

along~~ ~ ~ ~ th atsd ftesalrglca ole utnrho hat dsgae ra2i

of playing area 3, making it less desirable; (2) Players can s

playing area 1, but this is almost impossible from playing

area 2 because of slope; (3) The players are less likely to b

hearths than would be the case in areas 2 and 3.

Craft activities are occasionally conducted by men seated in an "eating and talking" se cle. Figure 7 illustrates the seated position of all men observed engaged in craft activitie

clear that the major area independent of men seated in hearth circles is along the la

where card playing area 1 is also located (craft area 1 in Figure 7). An additional craft ar along the east side of the smaller glacial boulder just north of hearth C (designated area

Figure 7).

Less commonly performed activities are perhaps best illustrated by internal site arran

observed during different occupational episodes. Figure 8 illustrates the arrangement of

lcla ted. h ao raideedn fmnsaedi erhcrlsisaogtelrerc

the Mask site at the time of my arrival on the site during the afternoon of June 5. Six m

present: 1 sleeping, 1 engaged in carving an antler handle for a "woman's knife" (ulu), 1 w

for game, and 3 engaged in eating and conversation. The wind was from the south, and hearth A was in use. The sleeping man was in an area otherwise used as an eating and tal area when hearth B is in use. The man working on the antler was in craft area 2, and th

watching for game was seated in the same area where card playing or crafts were also c

located.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

352

7

N116

N 115

N 114

N 113

N112

N 111

I NllO

i--

.

I

.30

t

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

I

I

I

I

i

MASK SITE

DISTRAIBTION OF SPENT CARTRIDGES

AND WOOD SHAVINGS

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

I

,257 CAULBER

0

f- ----.222 CALBER

" \

% /

SCALE IN METERS

0

2

ElIl E 112 E113 E114 E?115 ?E116 E117

I

E 118 El119 El120

1

Figure 14. Distribution of spent car

Figure 9 illustrates the disposition of men

6th. Two men are eating and talking aro

sewing up a rip in a pair of caribou skin

was being conducted from

where men sometimes sit to watch for g

the glacial boulder from

the same are

craft area 2.

To further illustrate the point that the

Figure 10 illustrates the location of men

talking around hearth A, 1 man was car

hearth B which was active, and 4 men w

area 1. Two major points are to be empha

activities conducted simultaneously are

Over time, there is a statistical tendency

places, although these loci would not be

In order to illustrate these facts, I have

ways. First, based on the cumulative act

spatial data from

all my episodal maps i

basic use areas on the site (Figure 11).

tend to be localized such that they do n recognized on the Mask site are designat

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

Figure 15. Artifact distribution.

353

tion schedules, I was able to tabulate the man-hours of the various activities which were con-

ducted in each of the 4 recognized "use areas" on the site. Table 7 summarizes these data. Even a casual examination of Table 7 illustrates nicely 2 very basic points. (1) The intensity of

use was not evenly distributed among the recognized use areas. (2). The various activities were not

evenly distributed among the several areas. The man-hours spent in game watching were 100% localized in area W. The hours spent sleeping were 100% localized in area X. Of the total man-

hours spent in eating and talking 80% were localized in area Z. Target shooting man-hours were 95% localized in area W, while 58% of the card playing hours were localized in area Y and 56%

of the hours spent in crafts were localized in area W. Quite clearly there is a basis in "reality" for

seeking patterns in the archaeological remains which derive from spatial segregation of ac-

tivities. This is true in spite of the fact that a casual observer seeing the pattern of site use as il-

lustrated in Figures 8-10 might conclude that there were no special "activity areas" but only a

"generalized use of activity space."' Such an impressionistic conclusion was reached by John

Yellen from his Bushman experience.

I have suggested that it is unfounded to assume that activities are spatially segregated or arranged by type

within a single camp. Most tasks may be carried out in more than one place and in more than one social con-

text; and, conversely, in any single area, one can find the remains of many activities all jumbled together.

Unfortunately, many archaeological analyses are based on just such an erroneous assumption, and their

resulting conclusions must be called into question (1977:134).

In another place Yellen states:

one may evaluate models archaeologists often use to examine activity patterning within an excavated

site. What underlies many of these is the a priori assumption that most activities are performed by special-

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

354

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

purpose, job-specific groups, and that individual tasks are spatially segregated from one a

most misleading aspect of this statement lies not in its overly simplistic nature but its implica primary nature of an activity itself rather than its social context uniquely determines the loca

it will be performed

(1977:97).

These critical, and to my ears pompous, statements are simply wrong and bas

systematic observation that I can detect. I think that most would agree that it is ph possible for 2 independent entities to occupy identical spaces simultaneously. Theref

possible for 2 persons to occupy identical spaces simultaneously. Insofar as 2 per

gaged in different activities simultaneously they must be localized in different plac

clearly illustrated in Figures 8-10 from the Mask site. As it is impossible to imagine di

sons occupying the same space, so it is impossible to imagine activities carried out sim

by different persons occurring in the identical space.

Given these conditions, the degree that activities will be spatially separated at any o

be expected to vary with the number of different activities simultaneously performed

persons.

The interesting question that arises from this has to do with the degree to which simila

tivities will be conducted in the same places at different times. Stated another way, we may ask

what will be the degree of redundancy in the organization of activities in space? I have illustrated

that on the Mask site, Yellen's generalization is correct (see Figures 8-10), namely:

Most tasks may be carried out in more than one place and in more than one social context and conversely in

any single area one can find the remains of many activities all jumbled together (1977:134).

I have also illustrated that the conclusion drawn from this observation is false. Table 7 il-

lustrates that it is not "unfounded to expect activities to be spatially segregated or arranged by

type within a single camp." Table 7 illustrates nicely that there are meaningful structural facts of

spatial association between activities and different places on the Mask site. What conditions

these facts? Yellen suggests at that the primary conditioner is the social context of performance

rather than "the primary nate of than "the primary nature of the activity itself" (1977:97). Such a generalization makes no

sense, and it is contradicted by Yellen himself when discussing head roasting and skin prepara-

tion (see Yellen 1977:92, 145). The point is that some activities interfere with others. Similarly,

some activities require more or less space, more or less time to completion, and more or less par-

ticipants. In addition, activities vary in the amount of debris or pollution (noise or odor) produced

during the course of performance. They further vary in the relative degree to which the debris or

pollution is noxious and thus inhibits or disrupts the performance of other activities. We see very

few dances performed inside of active hearths; rarely does a person assemble a complicated craft item in the midst of a group of playing children. An excellent illustration of this point is provided by the relationship between the modal group

size present on the site and the percentage of total activity time spent in craft activities executed

in the hearth-centered circles of men. Figure 12 illustrates this relationship for the 6 observation

periods documented on the Mask site. It is very clear that as group size increases, the percentage

of the total activity time spent in craft activities localized in the "eating and talking areas"

decreases. This is not to be understood as changes in response to "social context" but simply as a

response to the fact that as more men are present and engaged in talking and eating, there is more

noise, and craftsmen are less able to concentrate. Noise and distractive activity are cited by the Eskimo as the reasons for abandoning craft-related tasks when many men are present. If they

must be performed, a special location away from the talking and eating area is sought by crafts- men. I expect activity differentiation in space to relate to both the anticipated future use of the

location and the character of activity incompatibilities. We can build a theory of space use, and we can understand spatial patterning without recourse to vague notions of "social context."

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALL THIS BEHAVIOR

I have tried to illustrate that there were at least 4 basic dimensions of potentially independent

variability that interact to contribute to the archaeological facts generated at the Mask site.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

355

Figure 13 illustrates the observed distribution of animal bone fragments; Figure 14 illu

distribution of wood shavings and shell casings; and Figure 15 illustrates the distribu

tifacts" as observed on the Mask site. It seems to me that little comment is needed her

most of the facts of the archaeological distribution could be anticipated from th discussion. Given the level at which the technology is "curated" by the Nunamiut

chaeological remains at the Mask site relate primarily to the activities of eating and

consequences of the disposal modes is well represented in the site structure. Bone spl chips cluster in the "drop zone" and articulator ends cluster in the "toss zone" of a se

with men seated in a semicircle around the hearth (see Figure 16). The distribution of s

faithfully betrays the locations of target shooting, while wood shavings similarly su

primary locations of craft activity.

The "artifact" distribution provides us with our only surprise. The items that were disposed of on the site-pop cans, sardine cans, segments of rope, worn gloves, etc.-all

clustered and peripheral distribution to the site as a whole, not just to the areas in whic

were used. In fact there are clusters of such items adjacent to areas that were us

I It I TI T II I, I MASK SITE BONE DISTRIBUTI0N SUPERIMPOSED ON MODEL
I
It
I
TI
T
II
I,
I
MASK SITE
BONE DISTRIBUTI0N SUPERIMPOSED
ON MODEL SEATING PLAN
N/118
_
II
N 117
I
111
-N
N/16
N 114

N 1/1

NI O

\

/

SCALE iN METERS

01

\ \

21

El12

E113

El

1

E

1//5 E 116 E lI El/8 El/9 El2O

E121

I

I

I*

I

I

I

II

Figure 16. Bone distribution superimp

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

356

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

MASK SITE "

ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTION SUPERIMOSED /

VO ACT7VITY AREAS

O

p

/

~~~~~~~~~~~i; X.

0

"'

AREA Z '

-

1\

\

/

'i AREA Y

\ --'4E

\

\

-) 0

(

E 109 EIIOB E It/ E 112 E E 114 E116SCALE N ME TERS

109 E1O1 Etl f

| E

12

1 E13

| E114

| EIfS I?11

E.1

| E

18

EI 9

Et

I E21

Figure 17. Artifact distribution superimposed on act

Figure 17). This pattern implies a biased disposal of items i course, presupposes an overall understanding of the use pat posed to the particular pattern that might be present at th

way, disposal patterns result in a distribution that is essenti

of use intensity.

The consequences of this for different archaeological p

stance, let us imagine the Mask site under changed conditio only dried meat which would contribute no immediate byp short, all the chips and splinters seen in Figure 13 would b the archaeological site would appear quite different; it wou "high-density zone" with a central low-density area lacking

might remain as de facto garbage. Under these conditio

almost exclusively to disposal areas and not activity are

associations between items in disposal areas would be m

would be as likely to reflect relative frequency relations b relationship among items used within given activities. Such artifact association from different areas of a site may well cesses" relative to different areas of a site and not necessar on a site. There are strong implications for the analysis of grid units as the basis for summarizing samples. Perhaps te based on demonstrable structural properties of a scatter pl proaches.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binford]

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

CONCLUSIONS

357

Long ago I questioned (Binford and Binford 1966) the position that variability in the co

internal plan of sites was referable to the single variable "culture." I argued that varia

assemblage composition, site location, and internal site plans could be expected to vary

activities in which men were engaged. I further suggested that activities were likely to

sive to seasonal variations, giving rise to archaeological variability which would s

seasonal monitors. At the same time I suggested that activities could be logically differen

to extractive and maintenance tasks. I also speculated that it was unlikely that tasks di

such a fundamental way would be conducted in identical locations so that some bet

variability may well be referable to differences in site function. Recent investigations relationship between site contents and seasonality have been the most discussed, but th

plicating problem of site function has not been faced squarely (see for instance Jochim 1

has been particularly true in European studies of Paleolithic remains. It appears th

every investigator concludes that his site was a residential location (see Bietti 1977; Del 1969; Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon 1966, 1972; Poplin 1976) and frequently boasts of th presence of a shelter or house, in spite of there being little if any convincing evidence The most detailed ethnoarchaeological study yet to appear has been that of Yellen (19 has strongly criticized these arguments. Yellen suggests that extractive locations, whil among the !Kung, would leave no visible archaeological remains. He further suggests th

are no seasonal correlates to the execution of craft or manufacturing activities. He goes on to

argue that although seasonal variability in subsistence activities is documented, since there is

also a correlation between season and duration of camps, only large camps would remain ar-

chaeologically visible. This situation would render observation of seasonally related variability

unlikely in the !Kung case. The only conclusion which one may draw from Yellen's assertions is there are no recognizable differences among !Kung sites that are not simply accommodated by a graded series of variability largely scaling with size of assemblage or site. As Yellen says:

Any site may be conceived of as a spatial locus containing a sample of the society's total repertoire of ac-

tivities

approach

I suggest a single scale, ranging from simple to complex, may prove more useful than a typological

(1977:135).

The implication is that if one demonstrates clear and distinct assemblage types, argu

functional variation within systems are inappropriate. The Mask site experience point

"reality" of functionally specific sites. It indicates sources of variability that may op

dependently or in various combinations to result in significant between-site patterns o

and structural variability within a single system.

I conclude from the experiences at the Mask site that we may expect systems to ex there are major distinctions between residential and special-purpose sites. I therefore

that we must seek methods to permit us to distinguish these functional differences fro

which refer to independent systems of organization. Some of the interesting aspects purpose" sites are described here. I conclude that we must have means for recognizing and disagree with Yellen's (1977:83) conclusion that a "continuum of variability" is mo among hunter and gatherer sites.

I also conclude from the experiences reported here that we may anticipate meaningfu

differentiations between items used in different activities even in sites where there are

"generalized work areas." In addition, there are likely to be further meaningful differences be- tween disposal modes associated with different items used in similar or different activities, and meaningful associations can be reasonably sought among items by virtue of their spatial posi-

tioning. This conclusion is in direct opposition to the conclusions reached by Yellen from his

Bushman experiences. He concludes that such expectations are unrealistic: "A corollary of this

simple area-activity assumption is that associated remains are functionally related

data makes this a priori model untenable" (1977:134).

!Kung

How can 2 people reach such opposite conclusions? In my opinion the major contributor is not

the very real differences between Eskimos and Bushman but extreme differences between myself and Yellen in what we consider to be appropriate uses of empirical materials and the role of our

thoughts versus our observations. Given such a conflict I caution the reader to read what I have to

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

358

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

say and to seek an appreciation for what is attempted rather than assuming that he knows w

am doing and why.

This study is an exercise in theory building. The work reported is the justification or a wa for thinking about some of the ideas that came to me during the course of the fieldwork an

analysis. The ideas are my inventions; they are not in any way summaries of empiric perience. They are not empirical generalizations. I am not offering inductive argumen

arguments from ethnographic analogy. am not saying that all men will conduct the same a

tivities in hunting camps. I am not saying that all men will play cards in sites with glacial bo

in them. I am not saying that all target shooting was normally conducted away from the

because of the noise of rifle fire! I am saying that my study dy has prompted by imagination.

been able to imagine patterns of interaction among variables which could result in different terning in the archaeological record. In turn, I have been able to imagine different patterns

archaeological record that could be meaningfully interpreted if my imagined understandin

"causal" interaction is correct.

The transition from data to theory requires creative imagination. Scientific hypothesis and theories

derived from observed facts, but are invented in order to account for them (Hempel 1966:15).

Basic differences between Yellen and myself in our use of ethnographic experienc

his dt tat there is a relationship between the number of occupants of a site and the size of

nuclear area of artifactual scatter, and similarly that there is a regular relationship between

length of occupation and the extension of the artifactual scatter-the area of the "absolute limits

of scatter." For instance, Yellen states:

Quantitive analysis indicates that the size of the hut circle, or inner ring, is closely and directly related to

group size, while the outer ring, which encompasses special activity areas, reflects length of occupation. On

this basis I have offered predictive equations for group size and length of occupation and put them in ar-

chaeologically useful form. This constitutes an original piece of research and is perhaps the single most im- portant contribution of this book (1977:134).

Yellen has observed that there is a relationship between metrical attributes of sites and the numbers of occupants and the duration of occupancy. He has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that such a relationship exists within the domain of his ethnographic experience. This is a descrip- tion of the way the world is or appears. It is not an explanation as he suggests (Yellen 1977:101).

Only in seeking an answer to the question, "Why does such a relationship hold in Yellen's

Bushman experience?" does one seek an explanation or understanding of the world. Only with an

answer to the explanatory question could we anticipate when the world will differ from Yellen's experience. Yellen ignores this interesting problem and apparently assumes that the number of

people and the duration of their stay "causes" the patterning in size among his sites. If this were

the case, then the descriptive equations which Yellen presents should allow us to give meaning in

a reliable manner to facts of site size when they are observed archaeologically. Clearly this is what Yellen has in mind: "To establish predictive relationships of this nature can provide a

valuable tool in archaeological interpretation" (1977:100).

When one has demonstrated an empirical condition, the assumption needed in any warranted

projection of the observed condition to situations not previously investigated is simply that there is

a causal identity between the 2 situations-that the same causes are active in both situations and

that the dynamics of causation are the same. Stated another way, the world stays the way it was, and what we have seen is all there is. We don't have to understand what we have seen, we simply

have to believe that what we have seen is "representative of the world in general" and that this

world will remain unchanged.

I suggest that theory building is the progressive delineation of the "other things" that must be

equal for a given relationship to hold true. In Yellen's case we can reasonably ask what some of those "other things" might be. For instance, according to my calculations of the Mask site there

are 73.8 m2 in the "ALS" as defined by Yellen (1977:103), and there are 12.7 m2 within the

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Binfordl

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

359

"LMS" limits of most scatter as defined by Yellen (1977:103). Using the formulas given I would draw the following interpretive conclusions from the archaeological remains o

site: (1) It was occupied for 7.89 days (in fact the archaeological scatter measure

cumulated over a period of 21 days); (2) it was occupied by 2.03 nuclear families

families were ever present on the site); and (3) the number of occupants present was

mean group size present at any one time was observed to be 5.49 men, but the total num

ferent men using the location was 34). The latter figure is equivalent, I think, to the counted occupants. Clearly some "other things" are causing the Nunamiut case to be s

ferent from the Bushman cases. For Yellen, my data from the Mask site serve as an em

to the contrary, an example of the "spoiler" approach. They exemplify Yellen's

(1977:113) that, "balloons may be punctured by a single pin." For Yellen, an indu

perception is consistent with his view of investigations, since he seeks patterned reg empirical generalizations as an end product of his work. For empiricists working ind there are only 2 basic conclusions to be drawn from investigating the world: (1) the

similar in some way, justifying generalizations or the recognition of a "regularity," or

different, justifying the definition of a new category or taxonomic unit for subsuming

case and any other similar ones discovered in the future. For me, however, the

tion-my data versus Yellen's-simply points to an interesting set of differences betwe

and Bushman sites which are in need of explanation. The challenge is to build a sufficie

theory to explaine the differences between the cases. Yellen argues that this may be

pirically:

In an ethnographic situation where the "causes" (answers) are known from the start, one can loo

"effects"-in this case observable remains-and see what techniques offer the best route from the one to

the other

This is most obvious

niques for estimating group size and length of occupation from debris (1977:132).

where a priori knowledge permitted me to devise and evaluate a number of tech-

If Yellen's belief in his ability to see causes directly was justified, I suppose I would have to con-

clude that all ethnographic work must result in causal arguments which are necessarily

accurate, since the causes "spoke for themselves." Ethnography would be a field based on reveal-

ed truths in no need of scientific methods since problems of verification and confirmation would

be irrelevant! In the light of this "faith" on Yellen's part can we not reasonably ask why his

causes did not work in the Eskimo case? The only answer that I can reasonably give is that he

never isolated a cause.

Let us examine the situation. Yellen equates numbers of persons and lengths of stay w

size of the distribution of discarded materials. For such a 1-to-1 relationship to exist between

numbers of man-days of occupation and scales of debris scatter, we must assume that there is a constant relationship between the consumer demands of individuals and the production rate of debris. Is such a "constant" relationship realistic? I must answer, "no." I have experienced situa-

tions where large quantities of foods are procured in a very limited period of time, and then pro- cessed for storage. The debris and the size of the area used in processing would bear some rela-

tionship to the quantity of materials obtained. For instance, the number of caribou killed in a

single day has little if any relationship to the number of men present and the duration of stay. I have also experienced the reverse situation, where consumption of foods was primarily from dry meat stores. Little if any debris results from such a consumption pattern (see Binford 1978:

Chapter 6). What I am suggesting is that the variables which interact to cause variations in densi-

ty and extent of debris are input and entropy variables, not consumer variables directly as

"seen" by Yellen.

Among the Bushman, subsistence is essentially a foraging strategy in which inputs of food are

largely on a daily basis and proportional to the daily consumer demand. Under such conditions, there is a strong and proportional relationship at any given time between consumer demand and

the quantity of input, hence Yellen's results. (This ignores the problem of debris from other maintenance activities such as tool manufacture and repair, since Yellen argues that among the

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

360

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 43, No. 3,1978

Bushman this is simply proportional to the length of stay.) This situation does not occur

Eskimo, where there are seasonal and situational variations in the performance of

tivities. "Gearing up" is the best translation of an Eskimo word referring specifically

tense craft activity that frequently precedes long expedition hunting trips, typically in s

the tundra for calf skins or to the mountains for sheep. The constant rate at which fo

troduced to the Bushman camps (given a daily foraging strategy) and at which craft acti

performed (as argued by Yellen 1977:82) insures a regular relationship between density

of debris scatter and number of man-hours of occupation. This assumes, of course

regular debris-to-activity ratio, that is, different kinds of consumption or craft a

generating essentially similar quantities of debris. This qualification is one that I find ha

cept as realistic, yet it must be met if Yellen's correlations are to stand. I am not atte solve all the problems associated with Yellen's observations versus my own. However, I I have illustrated that Yellen has not "observed" cause, and that he has not been engaged in theory building. More importantly, I have argued that empirical generalizations, no matter how complicated (as, for example, Yellen's observations on site size and group size and occupational duration), are what we seek to understand, and only with understanding can we anticipate how

observations will vary under changed conditions. The latter is, of course, what we mean by predictions. Our ability to anticipate variability in the world is in turn a measure of our

understanding. I have tried to move in this direction with the Mask-site study.

The Mask site represents a site where activities conducted are "embedded" in another more basic schedule. None of the activities can be considered "primary" to the mission of the oc-

cupants. This means that the specifics of the specifics of the activities will be largely conditioned by factors other

than those which prompted the occupation of the site in the first place. I feel that such an "embed-

ded" activity schedule may well be a common phenomenon among hunters and gatherers, who

are logistically organized as opposed to foragers. At this point this is simply a hunch. I have

demonstrated how at least 4 potentially independent dimensions could interact to result in chang-

ed composition and internal spatial organizations. I have further suggested that these condition- ing dimensions are situationally responsive and not simply "normative" or idealized patterns or

designs for living. Finally, I have suggested that there are organizational facts to be discovered in

distributional data regardless of the degree to which men may have conducted their activities in

"generalized work spaces."

I have suggested that the degree to which activities are regularly conducted in different places

is at least partially conditioned by the ways in which their execution interferes with other ac- tivities. I suggested that scheduling concerns and bulk properties of both items processed and

debris produced would condition the degrees of functional specificity among activity areas on a

site. These are hints, ideas to be explored in hopes of recognizing or inventing variables that could

be used to explore causal relationships between activities and their organization in space. Pro-

gress can be made by seeking a processual understanding of the dynamics that produce different

forms of archaeological patterning. It will not be achieved by trying to refine empirical

generalizations, arguing that someone else is wrong because they have had different experiences, and fooling oneself into viewing empirical descriptions, no matter how complicated they may be, as explanations.

Acknowledgments. Financial support for the fieldwork reported here was provided by grants from the Na-

tional Science Foundation. Funds from the Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, aided in

analysis and the preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks are due to Dana Anderson and Tim Seaman,

who prepared the illustrations. Lisa Edelhoff translated the text from my unique writing form to finished

typescript. Johnny Rulland of Anaktuvuk guided me through this work. Jean-Philippe Rigaud, Peggy Schneider,

and Patty Marchiando helped with the original mapping tasks in 1971. Advice on this manuscript was offered

by J. Sabloff and L. Straus, and for this I am most grateful.

Bietti, A.

REFERENCES CITED

1977 Analysis and illustration of the Epigravettian Industry collected during the 1955 excavation at

Palidoro (Rome, Italy). Quoternaria 19:197-387.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

BinfordI

Binford, Lewis R.

ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE

361

1976 Forty-seven trips-A case study in the character of some formation processes of the

Archaeological Record. In Contributions to Anthropology: The Interior Peoples of Northern Alaska,

edited by Edwin S. Hall, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 49, pp. 299-351, National

Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

1978 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Binford, Lewis R. and Jack B. Bertram

1977 Bone frequencies-and attritional processes. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 77-156. Academic Press, New York.

Binford, Lewis R. and Sally R. Binford

1966 A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American

Anthropologist 68:238-295.

Binford, Lewis R. and W. J. Chasko Jr.

1976 Nunamiut demographic history: a provocative case. In Demographic anthropology, edited by

Ezra B.W. Zubrow, pp. 63-143. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

DeLumley, Henry

1969 Une Cabane Acheul6ene Dan La Grotte Du Lazaret. Memoires De La Soci6te Pr6historique

Francaise, Tome 7, C.N.R.S., Paris.

Hempel, C. G.

1966 Philosophy of natural science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Jochim, Michael A.

1976 Hunter-gatherer subsistence and settlement. Academic Press, New York.

Leroi-Gourhan, Andre and Michael Brezillon

1966 L'habitation Magdalenienne N? 1 de Pincevent Pres Montereau. Gallia Pr6histofie, Tome IX,

Fascicule 2, C.N.R.S., Paris.

1972 Fouilles De Pincevent, Essai D'Analyse Ethnographique D'Un Habitat Magdalenien. C.N.R.S., Paris.

Poplin, Francois

1976 Les Grands Vertebres de Gonnersdorf, Fouilles 1968. Franz Steiner, Verlag GMGH, Weisbaden.

Schiffer, Michael B.

1976 Behavioral archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Weick, Karl E.

1968 Systematic observational methods. Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2; Rev. Ed.), pp. 357-451.

Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Whiting, Beatrice and John Whiting

1970 Methods for observing and recording behavior. Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology,

edited by Raoul Marell and Ronald Cohen, pp. 282-315. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.

Yellen, John

1977 Archaeological approaches to the present. Academic Press, New York.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:02:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms