Spatial Patterns in Magdalenian Open Air Sites from the Isle Valley, Southwestern France 9780860544456, 9781407346199

Citation preview

Spatial Patterns in Magdalenian Open Air Sites from the Isle Valley, Southwestern France

Todd A. Koetje

BAR International Series 346 1987

B.A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

B.A.R. -S346, 1987: 'Spatial Patterns in Magdalenian Open Air Sites from the Isle Valley, Southwestern France' @ Todd A. Koetje, 1987 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860544456 paperback ISBN 9781407346199 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860544456 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As a lways t here are a l arge number o f people without whom I c ould never have completed t his r esearch. Foremost among them must be Dr. Gaussen, without whose years o f dedicated work I would have had nothing to analyse. must a lso express my gratitude f or the c larity with which he presented t he i nformation on t he s ites. Thanks must a lso go to J an S imek. H is work on the application of k-means c lustering in spatial analysis p rovided me with an excellent example o f how to procede, s tressing t he i mportance o f developing models to i nterpret t he results o f t he analyses. K eith K intigh was o f great help to me, not only with t he detailed i nterpretation o f the o utput f rom his k-means analysis p rogram, b ut a lso w ith t he details of a working measure o f homogeneity. A lthough we only worked together f or a s hort t ime, i t w as at a c ritical point; w ithout h im I could never have f inished so expeditiously. My masters l evel advisors, Meg a nd Vin, deserve credit f or their encouragement, accessibility and a lways helpful a ttitudes. To t hem must go c redit f or b oth t he s cope and t he focus o f the f inal product. T o Meg ( and H elle) I a lso owe t he i ntroduction to F rance a nd t he i nfamous r ed death. James Sackett provided much-needed materials at the l ast momment t hat enabled me to consider another s ite. Jean-Philippe R igaud provided me a chance to excavate i n t he D ordogne r egion, a nd t he f oundation of what I hope i s a solid grasp o f its a rchaeology. Roy L arick r ead a nd digested this whole thing in a matter o f days. H e i s responsible f or h elping to c larify my thoughts during t he f inal phase o f t he writing. H elle J uel-Jensen p icked me up ( by the s cruff o f the neck), dusted me o ff, and kicked me in the ass when I needed it most. Roc a qulsan, ( in my psuedo-Danish) may n ot s ound i nspiring, b ut s ometimes a j ump-start i s what's n eeded. My f riends and " cohort" at school, to most o f whom I owe i nnumerable beers, p ut up with me through the whole damn thing. They kept my feet on the ground. And

f inally,

to D ienje,

f or

everything.

TABLE OF LIST

CONTENTS

i ii

OF TABLES

LIST OF

FIGURES

vi

I

REGIONAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND The Region Systematics The Magdalenian as a Temporal Period Subsistence-settlement Systems Open Air S ites in the Paleolithic

1 2 5 8 1 0 1 4

I I

MODELLING SITE FORMATION PROCESSES Ethnoarchaeological Sources S imek's Models Models for H ighly Constrained Distributions

1 8 1 8 2 0 2 7

I II

SPATIAL ANALYSIS Pattern Recognition K-means C lustering Pattern Association The K and K - Measures of Outline of the Analysis

3 7 3 7 4 0 4 1 4 4 4 7

Homogeneity

IV

ANALYSIS OF THE I SLE VALLEY Guillassou Le Mas, Cabin 1 Le Mas, Cabin 2 Le Cerisier P lateau Parrain Discussion of the Analysis

V

COMPARISON OF THE ISLE VALLEY SITES WITH PINCEVENT, LE FLAGEOLET, AND CORBIAC P incevent Le F lageolet Corbiac

1 52 1 52 1 56 1 59

CONCLUSIONS

1 65

VI

S ITES

4 8 48 6 7 8 3 1 00 1 14 1 50

TRANSLATION NOTES

1 68

REFERENCES

1 69

CITED

i i

LIST OF TABLES

1

2

3

Guillassou: 2 C luster Solution, Relative C luster a nd Type P roportions Guillassou: 2 C luster Ranks by C lass

S olution,

Raw Counts

5 4 and 5 5

Guillassou: 5 C luster S olution, Relative C luster and Type P roportions

5 6

Guillassou: 5 C luster Solution, Raw Counts a nd Ranks by C lass

5 7

Guillassou: 8 C luster S olution, Relative C luster and Type P roportions

5 8

Guillassou: 8 C luster Solution, Raw Counts a nd Ranks by C lass

5 9

7

Guillassou:

6 0

8

Le Mas, cabin 1 : Relative C luster

4

5

6

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

Spearman's

Rho Coefficients

2 C luster S olution, and Type P roportions

7 1

Le Mas, c abin 1 : 2 C luster Solution, Raw Counts and Ranks by C lass

7 2

L e Mas, cabin 1 : Relative C luster

7 3

4 C luster Solution, and Type P roportions

Le Mas, cabin 1 : 4 C luster S olution, Raw Counts a nd Ranks by C lass

7 4

Le Mas, cabin 1 : Relative C luster

7 5

6 C luster S olution, and Type P roportions

Le Mas, cabin 1 : 6 C luster Solution, Raw Counts a nd Ranks by C lass

7 6

1 4

Le Mas,

7 7

1 5

Le Mas, c abin 2 : Relative C luster

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

cabin

1 :

Spearman's

Rho Coefficients

3 C luster S olution, and Type P roportions

8 7

Le Mas, c abin 2 : 3 C luster S olution, Raw Counts and Ranks by C lass

8 8

Le Mas, cabin 2 : 7 C luster S olution, Relative C luster and Type P roportions

8 9

Le Mas, c abin 2 : 7 C luster S olution, Raw Counts and Ranks by C lass

9 0

Le Mas, cabin 2 : Relative C luster

9 1

1 0 C luster Solution, and Type P roportions

i ii

2 0

L e Mas, c abin 2 : 1 0 C luster S olution, R aw Counts a nd R anks by C lass

9 2

2 1

L e mas,

9 3

2 2

Le C erisier: 2 C luster S olution, Relative C luster a nd Type P roportions

1 05

Le C erisier: 2 C luster S olution, Raw Counts and R anks by C lass

1 06

Le C erisier: 7 C luster S olution, Relative C luster a nd Type P roportions

1 07

Le C erisier: 7 C luster S olution, Raw Counts and R anks by C lass

1 08

2 6

L e C erisier:

1 09

2 7

P lateau P arrain: 5 C luster S olution, Relative C luster a nd T ype P roportions

1 22

P lateau P arrain: 5 C luster S olution, R aw C ounts a nd R anks by C lass

1 23

P lateau P arrain: 5 C luster S olution, Spearman's R ho C oefficients

1 24

P lateau P arrain: 8 C luster S olution, Relative C luster a nd T ype P roportions

1 25

P lateau P arrain: 8 C luster S olution, R aw Counts a nd R anks b y C lass

1 26

P lateau P arrain: 8 C luster S olution, Spearman's R ho C oefficients

1 27

P lateau P arrain: 1 0 C luster S olution, R elative C luster a nd Type P roportions

1 28

P lateau P arrain: 1 0 C luster S olution, R aw C ounts a nd R anks by C lass

1 29

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

3 4

3 5 3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

c abin

2 :

S pearman's

R ho C oefficients

S pearman's Rho C oefficients

P lateau P arrain: 1 0 C luster S olution, Spearman's R ho C oefficients P lateau P arrain: 1 3 C luster S olution, Relative C luster a nd Type P roportions

1 30 1 31

P lateau P arrain: 1 3 C luster S olution, R aw Counts a nd R anks by C lass

1 32

P lateau P arrain: 1 3 C luster S olution, Spearman's R ho C oefficients

1 33

P lateau P arrain: 1 6 C luster S olution, Relative C luster a nd Type P roportions

1 34

i v

4 0

4 1

4 2

4 3

4 4

P lateau P arrain: 1 6 C luster S olution, R aw C ounts a nd R anks by C lass

1 35

P lateau P arrain: 1 6 C luster Spearman's R ho C oefficients

1 36

P lateau P arrain: Relative C luster

S olution,

1 8 C luster S olution, a nd T ype P roportions

1 37

P lateau P arrain: 1 8 C luster S olution, R aw C ounts a nd R anks b y C lass

1 38

P lateau P arrain: 1 8 C luster Spearman's R ho C oefficients

1 39

S olution,

4 5

Corbiac:

R elative

Z one a nd Type P roportions

4 6

Corbiac:

R aw C ounts by

4 7

C orbiac:

S pearman's Rho C oefficients

V

Z one

1 62 1 63 1 64

L IST OF F IGURES

1

The Dordogne Region o f F rance

2

S imek's Model

O ne

2 3

3

S imek's Model

Two

2 4

4

S imek's Model

Three

2 5

5

S imek's Model

Four

2 6

6

Model

O ne

3 3

7

Model

Two

3 4

8

Model

Three

3 5

9

Model

F our

3 6

1 0

S tratigraphic

1 1

L og(sse)

1 2

C luster

Locations:

G uillassou

2 C luster Solution

6 1

1 3

C luster Locations:

G uillassou

5 C luster S olution

6 2

1 4

C luster

G uillassou

8 C luster Solution

6 3

1 5

O bserved and Expected K ' V alues:

1 6

L og(sse)

1 7

C luster Locations: L e M as, 2 c luster s olution

c abin 1 ,

C luster Locations: Le M as, 4 C luster S olution

c abin

C luster Locations: L e M as, 6 C luster S olution

c abin

1 8

1 9

2 0

P rofiles:

C urve:

G uillassou

L e M as,

5 0 5 2

G uillassou

Locations:

C urve:

4

c abin

Guillassou

1

6 5 6 8

7 8 1 , 7 9 1 , 8 0

O bserved and Expected K ' V alues: L e Mas, c abin 1

8 2

2 1

L og(sse)

8 4

2 2

C luster L ocations: L e Mas, 3 C luster S olution

c abin

C luster Locations: L e Mas, 7 C luster S olution

c abin

C luster Locations: L e Mas, 1 0 C luster S olution

C abin

2 3

2 4

C urve:

L e Mas,

v i

c abin 2 2 ,

9 4 2 , 9 5 2 , 9 6

2 5 2 6 2 7

O bserved and Expected K ' V alues: L e M as, c abin 2 L og(sse) C urve: L e Cerisier

9 8 1 02

C luster Locations: Le C erisier 2 C luster S olution

1 10

2 8

C luster L ocations: Le C erisier 7 C luster S olution

2 9

Observed a nd Expected K " V alues:

3 0

L og(sse)

3 1

C luster L ocations: P lateau P arrain 5 C luster S olution

1 40

C luster Locations: P lateau P arrain 8 C luster S olution

1 41

C luster Locations: P lateau P arrain 1 0 C luster S olution

1 42

C luster Locations: P lateau P arrain 1 3 C luster S olution

1 43

C luster Locations: P lateau P arrain 1 6 C luster S olution

1 44

C luster L ocations: P lateau P arrain 1 8 C luster S olution

1 45

D istribution o f F lakes, P lateau P arrain

1 47

3 2

3 3

3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7

3 8

C urve:

P lateau

P arrain

B lades,

Observed a nd Expected K " V alues:

v ii

Le Cerisier

and Cores:

P lateau P arrain

1 48

T hey defile t hese dens most f ilthily w ith t heir b eastly f eeding a nd dwell s o l ong i n o ne p lace,as we t hink, u ntil t heir s luttishness l oathing t hem, t hey a re f orced to s eek a s weeter a ir, a nd a n ew s eat, a nd a re, no doubt, a d ispersed a nd w andering n ation. P inkerton ( 1812:522) - An e arly a ttempt at c haracterizing r egional f rom observation a t a s ingle s ite.

v iii

p atterns

C hapter Regional

I

and Archaeological

B ackground

I ntroduction This i s an i nvestigation i nto the spatial patterning o f s tone t ools i n f ive open a ir, Magdalenian p avement s ites l ocated i n the I sle r iver v alley i n Southwestern France. T he i ntent i s t hreefold: ( 1) to define a nd describe these patterns, ( 2) to attempt to connect these patterns with specific depositional a nd p ostdepositional p rocesses, and ( 3) to p lace these observed p atterns i nto a l arger regional c ontext. I nterpretation o f t he p rocesses that may have b een i nvolved i n c reating the observed patterning will be a ccomplished through comparison with a set of modeled r elationships b etween the i nternal content o f tool c lusters i n space, a nd t he l evel o f spatial resolution at which the c lusters a re defined. The implications for regional s tudies o f s ite f unction of the s imilarity or l ack of s imilarity between the spatial patterns that are d iscerned at e ach s ite will be a ddressed. With emphasis on the " archaeology of p lace", examinat ion a nd d ocumentation o f i ntrasite variation is important, i f not critical. This is pointed out nicely in B inford's a ssertion that: Among mobil e peoples the differentiation of a ctivities a mong p laces i n both f orm a nd f requency o f u se c arries d irect i nformation about the organization o f a past s ystem of adaptation, as do patterns of occupational redundancy. The f acts o f interest are the ways in which p laces are differentiated one from a nother, a nd h ow t his d ifferentiation is related to p atterns o f s easonal environmental dynamics as well as to l onger t erm cycles and shifts in environmental conditions. A ll o f these f acts o f i nterest are f acts which [ sic] differentiate one place from another. ( Binford 1 982:28; emphasis i n original) I n t his f ramework, a major aspect o f i nterest i n the s tudy o f open a ir s ites i s t he degree to which they are i nternally d ifferentiated f rom one another. I have chosen to i nvestigate t his, i n a l imited spatial/temporal s etting, using i ntrasite spatial pattern analysis as a primary method. M y goals a re n ot to r ecover a regional s ubsistence p attern t hat might have been operative i n the Magdalenian o f t he P erigord, or even to discover the " function" of open air p avement s ites i n the I sle Valley, but i nstead to i nvestigate a nd d ocument t he n ature o f spatial s tructuring w ithin a nd between a s ample o f these s ites and to relate this v ariation t o that which c an p erhaps be s een i n their s pecific contexts and i n other, s imilar s ites.

1

This first chapter i s concerned w ith e stablishing a b ackground c ontext i n which to consider the s ites. I t covers the specific geographic area i n which t he s ites exist, t he r egional s ystematics i nvolved, a b rief d iscuss ion of the c limatic trends during the W urm I V g lacial s tade in the Perigord, and t he t ypes o f open a ir s ites g enerally found in Western Europe, especially those w ith s tone p avements. I n the second chapter the process of establishing models o f t he expected s patial r esolution v ersus h omogeneity relationships, and their implications for the f ormation p rocesses that may have been i nvolved i n the creation of a s ite, are considered. These models a re b ased o n e thnoarchaeological observations and a s et o f s imilar model r elationships developed s pecifically f or t he i nvestigation o f U pper P aleolithic a rchaeological s ites. I n the t hird chapter, t he methods u sed f or r ecognizing p atterns a nd m easuring c luster h omogeneity are d iscussed a nd j ustified with s pecific reference t o t he s ituation at h and. T he f ourth chapter p resents t he d etailed r esults o f t he a nalysis o f e ach s ite. A fter a b rief i ntroductory s ection t hat d iscusses t he d emands t hat t he n ature o f t he a vailable i nformation m ade on t he methods, e ach s ection b egins w ith the necessary background information relevant to the i nvestigation. T he d iscussion p rogresses t o t he p resentat ion of the l ocational relationships a nd a rtifact c lass d istributions at each c lustering solution l evel, and ends with an assessment of the origins of the s patial s tructure a t t he s ite, a s s uggested b y t he f it b etween t he observed and modeled r elationships. I n t he f ifth c hapter t he p atterns observed for the s ites in the I sle Valley are related to patterns f rom t hree o ther s ites, o ne f rom r oughly t he s ame t ime p eriod ( Pincevent), and two others f rom e arlier periods i n t he Upper P aleolithic ( Le F lageolet I and Corbiac). Le F lageolet I is a rockshelter s ite, while t he o thers are b oth open a ir o ccupations, but without cobble pavement f eatures. T he i ntent h ere i s t o f it t he I sle V alley s ites i nto a w ider r egional c ontext, a nd to d iscover s imilarities in spatial patterning as a s tep towards further r efining t he models e stablished e arlier. Chapter s ix presents t he c onclusions d rawn f rom t he s tudy. I ts f ocus i s o n t he implications t hat t he r esults h ave f or the s tudy o f r egional s ubsistence a nd s ettlement p atterns i n t he l ight o f r ecently p roposed models. T he Region T he I sle R iver drains f rom e ast t o west i n t he north c entral p ortion o f t he P erigord r egion, t oday i ncluded i n the Department o f Dordogne. The f ive study s ites a re 2

generally located between the towns of Neuvic and Mussidan, in a topographic t ransitional z one b etween the coastal p lains around Bordeaux and t he more rugged Massif C entral ( see F ig. 1 ). This i s a r egion to t he north o f t he more well-known Dordogne r iver v alley, a nd one w ithout t he s ame a bundance o f l arge l imestone c aves a nd r ockshelters. Topographically, the area is generally one of l ower, more rolling h ills, r ather than t he exposed c liffs a nd p lateaus found to the e ast and s outh. I n the immediate area there are approximately 2 6 p rehistoric s ites, 1 2 of which are open air s ites ( Gaussen 1 979, 1 980). T here a re s ix major open a ir s ites that h ave Magdalenian l ithic components in association with s tone p avements. Most h ave b een k nown f or s everal decades, and s ome s ince the beginning o f the c entury. But because early r esearch h ad been concentrated on the l arge, well-stratified c ave s ites, l ittle was done in a s ystematic way until the early 1 960s. Dr. Jean Gaussen, whose monograph Le P aleolithic Superior de P lein A ir en Perigord ( 1980) i s u sed a s my p rimary data s ource, excavated most of these s ites between 1 957 and 1 970. Gaussen often worked in concert with the Solvieux project, j ointly administered b y J . S ackett at U .C. L. A. and F . Bordes at the U niversite de Bordeaux. Dr. Gaussen's monograph provides detailed two dimens ional distribution maps that can be broken down by tool type for t hree of these s ites. For the f ourth s ite, l e P lateau P arrain, the only map that provides a tool b reakdown comparable to that available f or the other s ites was p ublished in an e arlier a rticle by F . Bordes and J . Gaussen ( 1970). The most striking e lement o f each o f t hese s ites i s the cobblestone p avement ( pavage), or " fond du cabin." The s ites of Guillassou, Plateau Parrain, and Le C erisier e ach h ave a s ingle exposed pavement, while L e M as de Sourzac has two, s ituated some 1 4 m apart. Associated with each p avement a re sparse l ithic i ndustries, with l ow tool counts. For a ll the I sle Valley open air sites except t he multicomponent s ite o f S olvieux, t he a ssociated lithic industries were classified as Magdalenian. G uillassou was a ssigned to t he M agdalenian 0 , while the others were assigned to the more general M iddle M agdaleni an. This may r eflect both t he v ery s mall s ample s izes i nvolved, and/or some unique aspect(s) o f open a ir s ites. None o f t he c lassic l ithic t ype f ossils were f ound i n any o f these assemblages. B ecause of their small s ize, and c lear association with major architectural features, t hese occupations a re thought t o represent s ingle occupation events, r ather than repetiti ous occupations or palimpsest deposits ( Gaussen 1 980, 1 979; S ackett and Gaussen 1 976). I n none o f the s ites was t here any trace of pre-modern human d isturbance. The extent and nature of disturbance at each site will be 3

HAUTE V IE NNE

NONTROP I

P ER 1GUEUX

4 . , LOT j e t YG ARON NE

B R U IL

A CA ILLADE B R ! J U MEAU AB ILL ÖU

F igure 1 . The Dordogne region of southwestern F rance. B lack squares i ndicate the l ocations of the principal P aleolithic s ites in the area ( reproduced f rom G aussen 1 980: F ig. 1 ).

d iscussed

i n d etail

b elow.

O ne o f t he l arger s ites r eported i n G aussen's monograph i s n ot c onsidered i n detail h ere. T he s ite o f S olvieux i s a n exception t o t he g eneral p attern i n t he a rea. I t i s a l arge multicomponent s ite w ith i ndustries representative o f a lmost t he e ntire P aleolithic, i ncluding a t l east o ne that i s t hought t o be completely u nique ( the B eauronnian, s ee Taranik 1 977). A lthough s cattered, l arge c oncentrat ions o f what a re t hought t o h ave b een p aving s tones o ccur i n the Magdalenian levels; so f ar, no s patial d ata h as b een published t hat i s c ompatible with t hat a vailable f or t he others, s o t he s ite was e xcluded f rom f urther c onsidera tion. S ystematics T he M agdalenian c an b e c onsidered a s b oth a l ithic a nd bone b ased i ndustrial complex, and as a chronological p eriod. A n i ndustrial c omplex i s p robably b est thought o f a s a s et o f o bjects t hat a re a ssumed to b e r elated, e ither technologically, morphologically, or " culturally." T he t erm " bone" i s u sed h ere to mean e ither b one, a ntler or i vory, that was worked or u sed a s a tool o r a rt object. T raditionally i n F rench p rehistory, i ndustrial complexes are o ften associated with ethnic groups ( Binford 1 966, 1 982; B ordes 1 968b, 1 973; d e S onneville-Bordes 1 960, but c f. Bordes' c omments i n S tiles 1 979), s o that d iscussing t he M agdalenian a s t hough t he p eople who produced i t w ere a more-or-less homogeneous s elf-conscious s ocial a ggregate i s n ot u nusual. O ne c an t hen s peak o f ' traditions,' a nd ' development' o f t echnology w ithin a c oherent, i ntuitively appealing, a nd s elf-limiting f ramework. Unfortunately this a lso burdens investigators with the necessity o f d istinguishing connections a nd differences among s uch coherent traditions in these s ame ethnic t erms, t hrough i nvasions o r m igrations, f or example, which c an easily l ead one i nto t he f allacy o f misplaced c oncreteness. T his i s t he problem of considering abstract or arbitrary constructs, t hat were originally convenient modes of t hought o r s tereotypical i n a p articular s ocial m ilieu, a s a ctuality o r T ruth, i .e. to f alsely r eify t hem. Traditionally, t he chronological ordering of an i ndustrial complex i s accomplished e ither by means o f t ype f ossils whose behavior through t ime is thought to be u nderstood, b y g rouping a ssemblages that a re j udged t o be s imilar in c ontent and close in time, or by direct s tratigraphic r elationships. O ften, s pecific combinations o f t ype f ossils and a ssemblage s ets a re g iven s pecial t emporal s ignificance and t aken to be generally i ndicative of a s pecific period in an i ndustrial tradition, or portion thereof. As a methodology, this approach was a dopted f rom 1 8th a nd 1 9th c entury g eology, where i t w as being u sed to establish t he E arth's a ntiquity ( Grayson 1 983).

5

To a l arge extent most E uropean c lassificatory s ystems a re s till b ased on t hese i deas, b ut p robably nowhere i s this more true than the Perigord r egion o f France. I n e ssence, recurring s ets o f morphologically defined types are arranged by their e stablished s tratigraphic r elations hips, with t he u sually implicit goal o f ordering t hem i n a unilinear f ashion t hrough t ime ( see the quotation from Laville et a l. 1 980 below, page 8 ). Any previous knowl edge that might identify those t ypes or sets o f types that may e xhibit t emporal p atterning i s a lso brought i nto p lay. Thus, a s i s e specially t rue o f the Upper P aleolithic typology of de S onneville Bordes ( 1960), b oth t emporal a nd morphological variation can b e c ataloged s imultaneousl y. I n a nalysis a nd comparison o f archaeological a ssemblages the effects of such a scheme are myriad and complex; they often seem to obscure the meaning of observed variation. But systematics o f this type a lso achieve a g reat d eal o f necessary s tandardization, a nd a re extremely useful as b oth a d ata reduction technique and a pattern r ecognition technique. T he danger, of course, i s in failing to understand the parameters that are being measured, a nd t he goals i nherent i n t he typology. The Magdalenian i ndustrial complex was f irst recognized i n t he 1 9th c entury, b ut was f irst defined in something c lose to its modern f orm by B reuil ( 1912). I n B reuil's s cheme t he p eriod w as d ivided i nto s ix phases ( 1-6) b ased a lmost solely on bone tool types, that were thought to exhibit obvious s ystematic change t hrough t ime. T he U pper Magdalenian ( phases 4 -6) was marked by the appearance of " true" bone harpoons, t he e arlier phases h aving c ontained o nly various t ypes o f bone points. T his i nitial configurat ion w as b ased on materials a nd i nformation f rom a poorly excavated s ite i n the Charente region of F rance ( Laville e t a l. 1 980:295). L ater, the work o f Capitan and P eyrony modified, but did not discard Breuil's version o f the temporal p lacement, content, and internal structure of the Magdalenian. More significantly, from work at L augerie-Haute a nd L a M adeleine ( the i nitial t ype s ite f or the Magdalenian), Peyrony was able to work out phase d ivisions in the l ithic components of the Magdalenian l evels. These finally took on most aspects of their modern Perigordian incarnation in the wor k of de S onneville Bordes ( 1960). More recently, based on both Allain and Fritsch's excavations at Abri F ritsch, a nd on F . Bordes' excavations at Laugerie-Haute, the Magdalenian 2 and earlier phases ( including Bordes' Magdalenian 0 ) h ave b een r ecognized as a major subdivision, based on distinctive l ithic content ( Laville et a l. 1 980:296-297; A llain and F ritsch 1 967). A s t his set o f tools does not conform e ither to the t raditiona l U pper/Lower d ivision based on bone tools, or in any si mpl e way to the established phase divisions, they were g rouped together a nd named t he B adegoulian, a fter the site of Badegoule where some of the particular type a ssociations were f irst found as d istinct assemblages. 6

Unfortunately the nomenclature for this subdivision i s v ery i nconsistently u sed. H emingway ( 1980) f or example, refers to the Badegoulian as the I nitial Magdalenian, d istinguishing t his f rom both the Proto-Magdalenian ( an U pper P erigordian i ndustry) and the p rotomagdalenian ( the earliest Magdalenian occurrence in a specific region). White ( 1980, 1 985) separates the Badegoulian f rom the M agdalenian completely, while G aussen c lassifies t he s ite o f Guillassou a s belonging to the M agdalenian 0 , or the B adegoulian. To r emain c onsistent I will f ollow G aussen, although the terms Badegoulian, I nitial Magdalenian, M agdalenian 0 , M agdalenian 1 , 2 , a ll refer to the same group of early Magdalenian phases in the Perigord, as designated by d istinctive l ithic a ssemblages. The rest o f the M agdalenian i s o ften no more internally c onsistent t han t he e arly p hases. I n addition t here i s no s ingle s ite where the relationship between the U pper and L ower M agdalenian s tratigraphic s equences c an be d irectly e stablished, thus the possibility exists that they cannot r eliably be s eparated c hronologically. Bone tool typology, the basis of the chronological s equence f or t he U pper M agdalenian, h as s everal inherent p roblems. F irst, and most s ignificant here, bone i s not a s f requently preserved a s a re s tone t ools so many s ites are d ifficult or impossible to p lace. S econd, the recognition o f s everal s ites with s tratigraphically Upper Magdalenian p osition but without bone tools or particular t ypes o f bone t ools, in conditions where bone is preserved, h as cast doubt on the overall validity o f a chronological s equence b ased on existing bone tools ( Bouvier 1 969; L aville et a l. 1 980). This may a lso be seen as suggestive of the functional variability among the sites ( Rigaud 1 972). C owbined w ith t he questionable n ature o f t he data u sed to formulate the original sequence, these problems s uggest t hat a s ingle u nilinear p rogression o f phases might n ot be e ither possible or reasonable. I n their compilation and i nterpretation of chrono-stratigraphy for the region, L aville et a l. ( 1980: 3 40) bring up exactly this point: At the s ame t ime, r eferring to the s chizophrenia we h ave a lready noted i n i ts i ndustries, Rigaud [ 1977] r aises the question o f whether the Magdalenian repres ents a s ingle u nified i ndustrial t radition. P erhaps i ts industries do not belong to a s ingle continuum o f c hange a nd thus, i n r eality, t here exists no s imple s uccession o f tool f orms over t ime. P erhaps, i n other words, s upposedly d iagnostic forms l ike parrot beak burins and Laugerie-Basse points exhibit as complex b ehaviors a s d o, s ay, Noailles Burins and Font-Robert points. And, as a consequence, we should expect at t he present s tate of o ur knowledge no more obvious temporal patterning among Later Group I II [ Upper M agdalenian] i ndustries t han we h ave f ound to exist i n t he P erigordian V complex.

7

Questionable as the phase divisions of the M agdalenian m ay s eem, they a re t he only extant f ramework f or d iscuss ions of the period, and i n the absence o f stratigraphic r elationships among t he s ites s tudied here, there is no r eal a lternative to c lassification based on the e stablished phases. U nfortunately, t here a re no I sle Valley open a ir s ites where organic materials f rom this t ime have been p reserved, ruling o ut t he u se o f a bone tool c hronology. And on the b asis o f the l ow absolute tool counts a p recise p lacement within t he e stablished s tructure o f the M agdaleni an a s seen i n l ithics i s not o ften possible. T he Magdalenian

a s

a T emporal

P eriod

Chronologically, the Magdalenian is traditionally a ssigned to the Wurm IV g lacial phase in the Perigord ( Butzer 1 971; Laville et a l. 1 980; de S onneville Bordes 1 960, 1 973). Now called the l ater Wurm I II ( Laville 1 987). For the majority of this period, the M agdaleni an ( and its variant, the Badegoulian) is the only industrial tradition recognized i n the r egion. A lthough i t s hares t he very e arly W urm IV with t he S olutrean, an i ndustry with which i t might have strong typological t ies ( Hemingway 1 980, b ut c f. Bordes 1 968b, Rigaud 1 976a:60-61, Lavill e et al. 1980: 291-300). It also shares the P leistocene/Holocene boundary with the Azilian complex t hat i s generally considered a direct outgrowth of the U pper Magdalenian. For about 8 ,000 years the Magdalenian was the sole industrial complex present. Given the difficulties of Magdalenian systematics discussed above, the period seems to be characterized by a great deal o f l ithic homogeneity, especially i n the U pper M agdalenian ( Hemingway 1 980; M ellars 1 973; de S onneville Bordes 1 960, 1 973; White 1 980, 1 983). There are two d istinct s ystems f or l ate g lacial chronol ogy that have been applied to the archaeology of the Perigord. The f irst and earliest of these is based d irectly on t he c hronology o f S candinavian and Southern German g lacial margin positions, their correlates, or more r ecently s ea water t emperature f luctuation ( Butzer 1 971; F lint 1 971, S hackelton 1 975). T he s econd i s that o f H enri L aville ( Laville 1 975; L aville et a l. 1 980), based on the physical and c hemical effects of c li mate on cave s ediments. While the f irst has the advantage of a long a nd well e stablished g eological a cceptance, its applicat ion to cave sediments in southwestern France, except through means of radiocarbon dating, is problematic at best. Laville's chronostratigraphic method, a lthough perhaps l ess well a ccepted g eologically ( Collcut 1 979), has the advantages of: ( 1) development and application d irectly on cave s ediments in the region, ( 2) a l arge number of consistent, intersite, microscale c limatic s equence correlations, a nd ( 3) having t he potential for straightforward c limatic i nterpretation, especially with regard to the variables of relative temperature and humidity. 8

I n the f irst s cheme, t he W urm I V was d ivided i nto a s eries o f r elatively w arm a nd c old o scillations, c orresponding to periods of expansion and contraction o f t he actual g laciers, a nd u sually d ated i n u nglaciated a reas b y t he p ollen, f aunal o r geological r ecords t hat are t hought to be direct correlates of the g lacial movements. O ccasionally, i nformation t hat i s v ery c learly r elated t o t hese g eological e vents c an b e u sed, a s f or example the l oess deposits i n the P aris b asin, b ut generally f luctuat ions i n t he b iological r ecords a re a ssumed to f it i nto this framework. Recently, what had been called the W urm I II/IV i nterstadial has been downgraded to a l ong t emperate p eriod ( Laville 1 987). I n L aville's s ystem, c limatic r egimes c an be i nferred from observations o f their e ffects on the sediments. S equences are s tratigraphically correlated across the a vailable s ediment r ecord, a nd a master s equence a rranged, much a s i t i s i n t ree r ing d ating. T heoretically then, a ny g iven s tratigraphic s equence f rom t he p roper g eologic al c ontext can be p laced in a relative chronological s equence. O f course, neither chronological system i s a ctually a s s imple a s I h ave p ortrayed i t. U nfortunately, the two schemes a re d ifficult t o r elate to one a nother. W here i t i s n ecessary ( and p ossible) f or my analysis to a ddress r elative c hronology I i ntend to f ollow L aville. T he l ater Wurm I II i s r easonably d istinct c limaticall y from those phases that immediately preceded it. G enerally temperatures s eem to have been warmer than during the e arly W urm I II, a nd t he c limatic o scillations s eem to h ave b een b oth l ess e xtreme, a nd s horter, e speciall y towards t he e nd ( Hemingway 1 980; L aville e t a l. 1 980; L aville 1 975; de S onneville Bordes 1 973; White 1 980, 1 985). The beginning of the l ater W urm I II , however, c ontains o ne o f t he c oldest p eriods i n a ll o f the Wurm. E arly p aleoclimatic r econstructions ( see e specially B utzer 1 971:271-294) a ssumed that the environment would be b roadly s imilar to current c ircumpolar tundra environments, at l east d uring g lacial maximums. Lavill e's chronostratigraphic evidence, Movius - pollen and mollusc evidence f rom A bri P ataud, a nd t he c omposition o f r egional faunal assemblages tend to dispute this, suggesting t hat t he e nvironment w as much l ess s evere ( Delpech 1 975, 1 983; Laville 1 975; Laville et al. 1 980; M ellars 1 985; Movius 1 975, 1 977). Many authors have noted the unique f lora and f aunal c ombinations t hat o ccurred i n t he l ater Wurm I II, which d o not have modern analogs i n c ircumpolar regions. W hite ( 1980, 1 985), and Bordes ( 1968b) have suggested the c ritical a spect o f l atitude, and a vailable s olar e nergy a s explaining t he apparently h igher biomass p roductivity rates of periglacial Europe, as compared to modern c ircumpolar r egions. T hus, i t a ppears t hat p eoples i n t he l ater W urm I II h ad a v ery d ifferent environmental r egimen a nd s equence o f c hanges t o d eal w ith t han d id those who 9

i mmediately p receded t hem, S ubsistence

o r t hose who

a re

p resent

t oday.

S ettlement P atterns

U ntil f airly r ecently, a rchaeological r esearch i n t he P erigord region has f ocused p rimarily on the e stablishment of detailed relative chronologies, u sing l arge, well s tratified c ave and r ockshelter s ites. W hile this f ocus on c hronology i s o f c ritical i mportance to u nderstanding o f the r egion ( as was a nd i s t he c ulture h istory phase i n N orth American p rehistory), t here i s a growing t rend to d iversify research. L ittle i s actually k nown o f t he f ull e xtent o f s ubsist ence s ettlement p atterns o f U pper P aleolithic p eoples i n the Perigord ( Bahn 1 976; B inford 1 982; H emingway 1 980; M ellars 1 973, 1 985; W hite 1 980, 1 983). I would l ike to discuss regional patterns o f s ubsistence a nd s ettlement p rimarily i n t erms o f t hree d istinct ( although u ltimately c omplementary) approaches, t hose c oncerned w ith s easonality o f o ccupation e vents, i nterassemblage v ariation, a nd s ite p atterns on t he l andscape. S easonality On of the more obvious f irst steps i n e stablishing s ubsistence s ettlement p atterns would b e t o d etermine t he s eason o f occupation t hat c haracterizes specific t ypes o f s ites o r a ssemblages. O ne o f t he t ypical w orking a ssumpt ions i n the Perigord is that t he l arge c ave a nd r ockshelter s ites represent year-around or semisedentary o ccupations, ( Mellars 1 983, 1 985; W hite 1 980, 1 983, 1 985). This i s u sually based on either the great depth of deposits, or on reconstruction of the s eason(s) of occupation. D eposition c an be s een as t he r esult o f e ither more-or-less p ermanent h abitation, o r a s a complex r elationship b etween l ength a nd r e-occurrence of occupat ion, a nd i ntensity o f u se, o r s ome c ombination o f t he two. E stablishing s easonality i n c ave o ccupations i s u sually b ased o n f aunal materials ( often e xclusively o n r eindeer), a nd s eems v ery p roblematic; a t b est there i s m uch d ebate. Bouchud's original caribou dentition a nd a ntler s tudies t hat s uggested year a round o ccupation ( Bouchud 1 954, 1 966) have been questioned from b oth empirical a nd a nalytical b ases ( Bahn 1 976; S piess 1 979; B inford 1 973). I n a ddition B inford's ( 1981, 1 984) f aunal s tudies h ave q uestioned the a ccuracy o f p revious a ssumptions r egarding t he s ource a nd nature o f c ave and r ockshelter f aunal a ssemblages. Even d isregarding f or t he moment t he question of multiseason occupations, a t t his point i n t ime archaeological l evels c annot b e c learly a ssigned a s eason of occurrence with enough r igor s o that a ny potential d ifferences i n formal v ariation c an be d efinitely c orrelated w ith s easonality, a lthough there are several possible exceptions ( see e specially D elpech 1 975, 1 977, 1 983; Gordon 1 986). I n g eneral, occupations h ave not b een a dequately c haracteriz1 0

ed in the p ast, so there i s no l arge, data w ith which t o p ursue t his i ssue.

r eliable

body

o f

Very recently this problem, and the related one o f p aleoclimatic r econstruction h ave b een a pproached t hrough t he s tudy o f microfaunal a ssemblages, which do not s eem to s uffer f rom t he magnitude of t aphonomic p roblems that p lague the l arger animals, promising more r eliable a nd r efined data ( White 1 980). More detailed denti tion s tudies may a lso hold g reat p romise. Gordon's ( 1986) a s y et u npublished r esearch i s d ifficult to a ssess c ritically a t t his point i n t ime, a lthough i t i s promising. C learly h owever, p roblems o f s pecies i dentification a nd c hronology must be addressed. T hus while t he a ssumption o f p ermanent occupation h as n ever d irectly b een s upported, neither a s i t been r efuted. A ssemblage V ariation A s econd g eneral approach to t he s tudy o f s ubsistence s ettlement patterns in t he region i s that of B inford. Beginning i n the middle 1 960s, he began to s uggest t hat a ssemblage v ariation m ight b e more c losely r elated t o t he f unctions t hat were c arried o ut a t a s ite, t han t o the more t raditionally a ccepted e thnic o r " cultural" a ffiliations ( Binford and B inford 1 966; B inford 1 973, 1 982; Bordes 1 972; B ordes et a l. 1 972). C lear d ifferentiation i n t he a ctivit ies that are c arried out at a number o f s ites could p resumably b e e asily r elated t o t he l arger s cale s ubsist ence and s ettlement p atterns t hat characterize a s patialt emporal p eriod. O riginally c entered around assemblage variation i n Mousterian occupations, the long BordesB inford d ebate e ventually r an t he g amut of the European P aleolithic ( see B inford 1 982). U nfortunately, while t he d ebate f ocused attention on i mportant c onsiderations, a nd c ertainly h as b een r esponsi ble f or g enerating c ritical i nsights, no r eal c losure w as achieved. Neither s ide r eally c hanged f rom i ts i nitial position. B inford's l atest a ttempts t o p rovide models a nd s ets o f expected f actors important i n t he i nterpretation o f i ntersite v ariation a nd s ite p lacement ( Binford 1 980, 1 982) c an b e s een a s a d irect o utgrowth o f h is f ailure to explain t he p atterning t hat h e f ound i n t he P aleolithic in nont raditional ways. W hile p rovocative, i t i s again a s ituat ion o f h aving n o r eliable d ata b ase o n which t o j udge t he application, or explanatory power of these ideas. Eventually, t hey m ay i ndeed p rove q uite f ruitful, but as y et they h ave n ot. For t he purpose of p lacing open air s ites i nto a n e stablished r egional s ubsistence s ettlement pattern, B inford's ( 1980, 1 982) d iscussions s eem e specially r elevant a s model s ystems. B asing h is s cheme on modern E skimo l and u se patterns, B inford provides a s ite t ypology, and an emphasis o n t he a rchaeological implications of specific organizational structures that are used i n s ubsistence 1 1

a ctivities. S ites a re d ivided i nto f ive i deal t ypes, e ach o f which holds a u nique p lace i n t he e conomic exploitation o f an area. T he r elationships b etween t he l ocation o f t he s ite a nd i ts e conomic u se ( or t ype) a s t his v aries with t ime and t he movements o f the g roup, d etermine t he n ature o f t he m aterial t hat a ccumulates, a nd t hus t he a rchaeologic al assemblage t hat will b e recovered. B inford u ses a n i dealized v ersion o f a modern E skimo, s ubsistence s ystem as a model for discussion. H e s uggests that d ifferent a ssemblages may r epresent palimpsests created by the changing p attern o f u se o f a p articular l ocation, r ather t han c hanges i n t he o verall s ubsistence s ystem. P erhaps more important t han a ny p articular p redictions about the b road p atterns o f t hese p alimpsests, i s t he emphasis on movement and the differential use o f t he s ame l ocation over t ime. I n p articular, B inford s tresses t he r ole t hese effects p lay in the creation o f an archaeologically r ecovered a ssemblage, g iven a l arger model to s tructure them. This i s what I wish t o emphasize, a s opposed t o u sing t he model as a d irect ethnographic a nalogy t o i nfer P aleolithic behavior. Even so, under B inford's E skimo model b riefly o ccupied open a ir s ites c ould be accommodated as f ield camps, defined as central o rganizing s ites p laced away f rom r esidential base camps for special purpose exploitation in a restricted t ime and space, by a s mall group or s ubgroup, within a logistically organized s ubsistence system. Note particularly, that this f it with Binford's model depends a priori upon a cceptance o f t he s tandard i nterpretation o f t hese s ites a s small, b riefly occupied h unting c amps. S ite

L ocation

W hite ( 1980, 1 985) p rovides u s w ith a t hird a lternative i n attempting to e stablish a r egional s ubsistence s ettlement pattern. White surveys s ites and attempts to correlate their l ocation with i nferred geological and b iological variables of t he l ate g lacial environment i n order to establish whether or not their locational p atterns a re a p roduct o f human b ehavior. H e f inds that Upper P aleolithic s ite l ocations are patterned with r espect to r iver f ords, d istance t o f resh water, a ltitude, o rientation t o t he s un, a nd s o f orth. W hile t he i dentific ation o f these p atterns a nd t heir b ehavioral implications i s b oth i mportant a nd i nteresting, t hey do n ot i n a nd o f themselves, establish a regional s ubsistence s ettlement p attern, b ut r ather a p redictive m odel f or s ite l ocation, b ased on the known s ample o f mostly c ave and r ockshelter s ites. This i s a d istinction t hat W hite ( 1980:5) h imself makes clear by differentiating between the observed p attern a nd t he " rules" which u nderlie i t. O f the 8 6 Magdalenian sites White uses, only 9 a re n ot c ave o r s helter s ites. F or t he B adegoulian, which w as excluded f rom most analyses b ecause o f i ts l ow s ite s ample s ize, 5 o f t he 1 1 were i n c ave o r s helter s ites.

1 2

S ince White d eals mainly w ith l ocational c orrelations i t i s o ften d ifficult to s eparate b ehavioral f rom g eologic al e ffects. I t b ecomes v ery c lear f rom h is d iscussion t hat h is f ailure to u ntangle t hese i s o nce a gain a p roduct o f the e xtant d ata f or t he r egion. H e i s a ble t o make a nd p reliminarily t est s everal hypotheses ( mostly those i nvolving choice o f s ite l ocation), and suggests some i nteresting b ehavioral i mplications. H ere again, a side f rom locational implications based on c ave and s helter s ite p atterning, t here i s l ittle o r no s pecific i nformat ion to h elp i n p lacing open a ir s ites i n t heir b ehavioral c ontext. I n a more general way, White ( 1980:123-135) s uggests that the s ettlement pattern(s) f rom t he U pper M agdalenian are distinct from those of the earlier M agdalenian. I t i s not c lear, h owever, what t he n ature o f t his s hift i s, a nd what t he i mplications f or open a ir s ites would b e. From a regional perspective open a ir s ites p resent p roblems i f c ave a nd r ockshelters a re a ssumed to b e y earr ound h abitation s ites, e specially i f t hey a re n umerous o r o ccur i n l arge c oncentrations within t he s ame spatial/ t emporal region a s major c ave a nd r ockshelter o ccupations. These p roblems a re only exacerbated by our relative ignorance of the general settlement and s ubsistence p atterns. W hen t hese s ites a re c onsidered i n t hese t erms, they a re g enerally r egarded a s s hort-term hunting o r, i n s ome c ases, f ishing camps. G aussen ( 1979) argues f or t he I sle V alley s ites a s hunting c amps, noting that t he s ites a re a ll i n t opographic positions t hat a llow good v isual c overage o f l arge p ortions o f t he v alley bottom. H e a lso s uggests t hat a m ajor f actor i n t heir l ocation i s p roximit y to a reas i n which t he r iver v alley n arrows appreciably, which i s t hought t o h ave c onstrained t he movement o f l arge m ammals ( usually exemplified b y reindeer) t ravelling a long t he r iver. T he M agdalenian components at Solvieux, an e xception t o this p attern, a re s een a s f ishing c amps. W hite ( 1980, 1 985) argues f or t he s ame f unction o f t he I sle Valley sites, and more generally, t hat most l arge M agdalenian s ites ( especially i n t he Vezere Valley) are s ituated c l ose to river f ords to f acilitate caribou h unting. These i nterpretations are based primarily on ethnographic analogy with modern c ircumpolar caribou h unters, a nd the l ocational patterns o f some o f their h unting/kill s ites. I n p articular, W hite's i nterpretation i s dependent u pon t he i mplications f or h unting o f c ontroversial v iews concerning c aribou b ehavior p atterns. I n t he a bsence o f a more c omplete u nderstanding o f r egional s ystems, these may r epresent t he b est a ssessments t hat c an be a chieved but s hould be considered hypothetical, a s i ndeed Gaussen a nd W hite do. Given the l ack of knowledge o f the range of s ite v ariation, a nd t he g eneral p roblems with establishing a s ubsistence settlement pattern, a s discussed above, i t s eems most reasonabl e to accept t he principles behind 1 3

B inford's general model a s appropriate to u se i n guiding i nquiries i nto t he P aleolithic. I m ust s tress t hat the model i tself h as not b een e stablished a s applicable, a nd t hat g iven i ts b ase i n E skimo b ehavior u sing c ontemporary t echnology, it i s not d irectly applicable. My i nterest h ere i s i n modelling f actors t hat c reate t he a rchaeologic al record, r ather t han i n modelling r egion-wide s ubsist ence s ystems, s o t hat i n t he f urther a nalysis p resented here B inford's model will only be used as a coherent g uiding p rinciple. O pen A ir

S ites

i n t he

E uropean

U pper

P aleolithic

Open a ir s ites i n t he Upper P aleolithic seem to be divisible i nto at l east three distinct types: l ithic s catters, l iving f l oors, and pavement sites, based p rimarily on the nature of their s patial p lans. W hile t his m asks a s ubstantial amount o f v ariation, i t i s u seful a s a v ery g eneral f ramework f or u nderstanding t he p atterni ng t hat c an b e d iscerned. This " typologizing" s hould b y n o means b e t aken a s n ecessarily r eflecting t he e ither t he o riginal v ariation p resent or t he o riginal " functions" o f the s ites. The major f actors s een h ere m ight e asily be t he d egree o f d isturbance and r ecovery b ias. I t s eems r easonable t o presume, however, that t hese t ypes a t l east r eflect t he n ature o f t he v ariation i n t he s ample t hat h as b een r ecovered. L ithic

s catters

L ithic s catters c omprise t he g reatest e vidence f or open a ir s ites, whatever t heir original structure ( mostly unknown, and perhaps unknowable) m ay h ave b een. O ften t hese a re r ecovered f rom p lowzone or other d isturbed c ontexts, a nd a re o nly r arely r eported i n more detail t han c umulative f requency g raphs a nd t entative i ndustrial p hase a ssignments. More r arely t hese a re r ecovered i n s itu, b ut e vidence no a rchitectural or h earth f eatures. T his type s eems t o account f or t he v ast majority o f open a ir s ites, e specially i n t he P erigord, e ven t hough t here a re apparently very few areas where l arge s cale systematic s ite s urveys h ave b een c onducted. L iving F loors The second general type can be divided into two s ubtypes, b ased on t he ( often inferred) presence or absence o f architectural remains. The f irst s ubtype c onsists o f those s ites without structural remains. Examples o f the s econd s ubtype i nclude t he c lassic U pper P aleolithic s ites f rom Eastern Europe, t hose at Dolni V estonice ( Klima 1 962) a nd B arca I a nd I I are p erhaps t he most well known, b ut t here a re n umerous examples f rom Eastern Europe and t he S oviet U nion ( Banesz 1 976, K lein 1 973, S offer 1 985). T hese appear to b e a lmost u niversally the remnants of tent or yurt-like structures. They c onsist o f w ell d efined l iving f loors, s ometimes s emi1 4

subterranean, never paved, but occasionally having s tructural features s uch as hearths and rock walls. I n the Soviet Union especially they are a ssociated with mammoth hunting peoples, and often appear to have had mammoth bones and tusks as architectural e lements. The s tructures a re o ften much l onger than wide ( length: width r atios i n the r ange o f 4 :1 and higher), and o ften h ave a s eries of hearths a ligned l ongitudinally. Occasionally t hese hearths are b roken i nto groups ( usually multiples of t hree) by i nternal f eatures, or c lear c lustering ( Klein 1 973; Wymer 1 982:254-279). S ubtypes may be distinguished on the b asis o f shape. T he b asic d ifferences a re b etween t hose that a re round o r sub-rectangular, and those that are more distinctly l inear. Although these s ites seem to be most often associated with Gravettian industries, their exact r elationshi p to the Magdalenian occupations in the P erigord is difficult to discern, b ecause o f the o ften r elatively u nderdeveloped s tate o f extraregional c hronologi es, and their relationships to the more detailed P erigordi an s equences. Probably they are not from the same general time period ( i. e. the l ate Wurm I II). I n some ways these s ites a re q uite s imilar t o, but usually much more elaborate and extensive than, North American tipi r ings ( Kehoe 1 960; Lowie 1 922). Further subtypes may be distinguished based on the n ature o f t he a rtifact d istributions. H abitation s tructure s have been defined i n two contradictory ways, either by t he absence of a rtifacts f rom a p articular area within a l arger distribution, or by the r estriction o f t he d istribut ion to a r elatively c ompact c luster, o ften b ounded by a f eature or features. Occasionally these d istinctions are s upported by recovery o f more compact s ediment ' floors' o r depressions in the general l evel of the archaeological l evel. S uch inside/outside d istinctions may r elate to the s eason of occupation. French examples of this general type o f s ite o ften appear more i nsubstantial. P incevent ( Leroi-Gourhan and B rezillon 1 972), and Verberie ( Audouze et a l. 1 981), both U pper Magdalenian s ites, a nd C orbiac, an Upper P erigordian s ite ( Bordes 1 968a), are the c lassic examples of this t ype. These s eem to be well d efined l iving f loors and associated areas, containing hearths and l arge f lint a ssemblages, o ften with good o rganic preservation. They generally lack other associated architectural f eatures beyond hearths a nd occasional post holes. There a re no c lear " tent" outlines or collapsed " hut" structures. I n t he P aris b asin, where t here a re s everal examples o f t his t ype of s ite sealed beneath t he g lacial l oess l ayers, bone i s often preserved ( Taborin et a l. 1 979). P incevent in p articular i s of i nterest b ecause i t h as been extensively analyzed in terms of spatial patterning, both by the o riginal excavators ( Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon 1 972), and by S imek and Larick ( 1983), and S imek ( 1984). The 1 5

l atter i nvestigators u sed this s ite a s the original case s tudy o f t he t hen-developing heuristic spatial analysis method, based on work by Kintigh and Ammerman ( 1982). This method h as a lso b een f ollowed h ere. P avement

S ites

The third general t ype o f open a ir s ite consists of t hose h aving, or a ssociated with, s tone p avements. T hese s eem to be exclusively Magdalenian, or at l east f rom the l ate Wurm I II g lacial period. Solvieux and the s ites making up the main portion o f this study are the p rime examples of this t ype. O ther examples i nclude: G onnersdorf, a German Magdalenian pavement site dated to the B olling o scillation i n t he l ate Wurm I II, a nd h aving b one tools s imilar to those from the French Magdalenian 5 ( Bosinski 1 979); Kniegrotte, a p avement s ite i n t he Orla B asin associated with the M agdalenian 3 -4 a nd dated t o the mid-Pleistocene ( Fuestal 1 974); a nd Groitzsch, a Magdaleni an pavement s ite dated to the A llerod oscillation i n the l ate Wurm I II ( Hanitzsch 1 972). I n the Southwest of France, there are several examples of similar stone p avements from rockshelters ( Arambourou 1 978, Rigaud 1 976b, Strauss 1 987), and caves ( J. C lotte, personal communication, 1 985). This type of site has pavements that range from extremely s mall s eemingly ephemeral f eatures, l ess t han 2 m2 at Le Breuil ( Gaussen 1 980:175-191), to very l arge, more robust f eatures with associated hearths and posth oles, more then 4 0 m2 at Gonnersdorf ( Bosinski 1 979:maps 1 -6). I n s hape t hey r ange f rom extremely l arge c ontinuous pavement of undetermined shape ( Solvieux), to s imple r ectangles ( le Breuil), to quite convoluted rectangles w ith distinctive internal s tructuring ( Plateau P arrain). The pavements themselves evidence quite a lot of variation, but they generally fall into two types: t hose that are very small and c ircular to subrectangular in outline, and those that are l arger and rectangular in o utline. The t hree c learest examples of t he l atter t ype ( Guillassou, C erisier, and Gonnersdorf) have a l ength:width r atio within t he r ange 1 .0-2.5:1. T he best examples o f the small type ( le B reuil) are s ubrectangular, l ess than 2 m2 , a nd c ontain f ewer t han 1 0 pieces o f f lint in a ll. Note t he general s imilarity between the s ize and s hape s ubtypes that can be d istinguished f or both pavement and nonp avement open a ir s ites. Again s ubtypes c an b e distinguished on the b asis o f the d istribution patterns, b ut i n no c ase a re there p avements t hat have no artifacts s ituated upon them, the d istinction i s rather between t hose d istributions which extend b eyond the pavement, and those that are restricted to its confines.

1 6

W ithin the I sle V alley a ll o f t he p avements c onsist o f w hole o r b roken q uartz a nd q uartzite river cobbles, and a lthough s ome more a ngular l ocal s chists a re a lso found, t hey a re r are. T he G erman s ites, which a re p erhaps the most d irectly comparable ( being open a ir r ather t han c ave o r rockshelter s ites), h ave p avements c onsisting o f s hale or local schist s labs. O f t he p avements known f rom t he G erman s ites d iscussed, o nly t hose f rom G onnersdorf have evidence of hearths or post holes. This s ite a lso c ontains p reserved b one. None of these cases reported i n G aussen ( 1980) a re i solated. They a re a ll l ocations within l arger, and g enerally u nexcavated s ite c omplexes. T hese p avement s ites h ave b een i nterpreted b y G aussen ( 1980, 1 979), a nd S ackett and Gaussen ( 1976) as " fonds du c abins," that i s cabin f oundations or t ent p latforms. Their s ize i s seen a s r elating d irectly t o t he s ize o f t he " tents" t hat t hey were b uilt t o hold. These authors h ave suggested t hat the c obbles were put in p lace t o p rovide a f irm s urface i n s oggy o r f rozen g round, a nd t hat d ifferences i n t he l imits o f the l ithic distributions are the result of movable f laps o r walls a t t he s ide o f t he t ent s tructures. S ummary T he I sle V alley M agdalenian p avement s ites c an b e s een a s o ccurring i n a n umber o f u nique c ontexts. They e xist i n r estricted g eological, c hronological, c limatological, and i ndustrial c ontexts. A s a c onsequence o f r elatively r ecent emphasis on anthropologically oriented explanation, very l ittle i s k nown a bout t heir p lacement i n r egional s ubsistence or l and use patterns. Attempting to understand t he nature a nd perhaps c ausation o f t he s patial p atterning o f a rtifacts at these s ites r equires t he d evelopment o f a s pecific explanatory f ramework t hat p rovides at l east t he f ramework for l inks w ith t hese l arger i ssues. T he next c hapter i s d irected t owards t his g oal.

1 7

Chapter Modelling

S ite

I I

Formation

P rocesses

I nvestigating t he I sle Valley open a ir s ites presents s everal major problems. F irst, there i s the l ack o f any real subsistence-settlement c ontext i n which to p lace the s ites. S econd, there i s the r elative l ack o f information r egarding the p lacement of open a ir l ithic industries within the traditional regional chronology. These in p articular c an o nly be s olved through more excavation a nd s tudy. A third problem i s the r elative dearth o f i nformat ion recovered from the s ites themselves. No organic materials were preserved at any o f the s ites, and only S olvieux h as more t han a s ingle s tratified c omponent. One i s l eft with only the architectural f eatures, the spatial patterning o f t he associated materials, and the l ithic industry itself. Thus the nature of the data a nd the utility of recent methodological advances in spatial analysis s uggest a comparative s tudy o f these s ites with an emphasis on t heir i nternal s patial p atterns. The f irst step in any consideration of intrasite spatial p atterns i s to g enerate a s et of expectations, o r models, for use in the ultimate interpretation o f any p atterns that are revealed. In a very rigorous sense t hese may be considered a s a s et o f hypothesized r elations hips b etween ' the variables of i nterest, which would be tested in some manner for their fit with the a nalytic results. P ractically, h owever, t his i s a v ery d ifficult process to carry out rigorously, and even should i t be possible, it seems that the state of our knowledge regarding s ite formation processes, both natural and c ultural, would preclude the consideration of any but the most simplistic models. While there exist many " cautionary t ales," o rdering a nd applying their c ontent i s p articularly difficult. A s an a lternative I would l ike to generate a s et o f models that w ill s erve as g eneral g uides to i nterpretation, r ather than a s rigorously testable hypotheses. These models will be b ased on ethnoarchaeological data. There are two primary sources f or this i nformation, Y ellen's ( 1977) s tudies o f K alahari S an encampments, and B inford's ( 1978) Nunamiut Eskimo studies. I n a ddition B inford's ( 1980, 1 982) p apers will be u sed to provide a general theoretical f ramework. I nformation

from Ethnoarchaeoloqical

S ources

One o f t he more s triking f acts about t hese two s ources o f ethnographic s ite patterning i s t he s tructural s imilarity between E skimo a nd ! San c ampsites. Both are o rganized a long essentially s imilar l ines. These peoples organize t heir c amps so that a c entral h earth p rovides a l ocus o f activity for the group, or some d istinct s ubset o f the group. I n this g eneral a rea, " group maintenance" tasks a re carried out. A structure o f s ome type, e ither t ent or b rush windbreak/hut, i s l ocated s lightly b eyond t his a rea, 1 8

while f arther f rom t he h earth, a ctivities t hat a re not a s r epetitive, o r r equire more s pace t han t he " maintenance" a ctivities a re c arried o ut. A s imilar, i f not i dentical, s tructure c an b e s een a lmost a nywhere c ontemporary p eople c amp. H owever, these p atterns s eem to exist i ndependently i n t he ! San a nd E skimo c ases, r ather than having b een i mposed b y t he i nvestigators. I n both these c ase s tudies, o ne c an e xpect a c entral a rea t hat contains t he debris f rom a r elatively l arge n umber o f r ather d iverse, r epetitive activities. B ecause o f t he l imited a rea, a nd i ts e ssentially c ontinuous u se, unique s ets o f materials p roduced b y a ny g iven behaviors would be expected to overlap s trongly. For t he s ame r easons " structured d isposal" o r d umping i s not uncommon, f urther mixing any material remains. Away f rom this central area, material is more sparsely s cattered, a nd would b e expected to r epresent more rarely occurring a ctivities. T his general r elationship i s apparently only s eriously v iolated when l arge s cale d umping o f materials beyond the central area occurs. The implications that t hese g eneral o bservations h ave f or t he s patial s tructuri ng o f more r estricted l ocations a re d iscussed b elow. B inford's ( 1980, 1 982) p apers outline a n " archaeology o f p lace," w hich e mphasizes t he c hanging n ature o f t he u se o f s pecific l ocations i n c ultural s ubsistence s ystems t hat are o rganized a long the l ines of t he collector/forager or l ogistical/nonlogistical continuum, and t he implications that this h as f or t he f ormation of t he archaeological record. O f specific i mportance h ere i s h is emphasis on t he p roblems t hat t his p oses f or i nvestigations of s ite s pecific tools k its a nd t he e xpected n ature o f o verlapping or p alimpsest deposition, rather t han any s ubsistence t ypology. A major difficulty l ies i n t he p roblems i nvolved i n " tapping i nto" t he s ystem i nitially. I n o rder to u se a ny o f the s pecific p redictions t hat B inford makes about the s tate o f s ubsistence s ystems, t he n ature o f t he s ystem a nd a wide v ariety of information about its details on a r egional s cale must b e k nown or a ssumed. As d iscussed above, this i s something l argely unknown f or t he U pper P aleolithic, a nd I will make no a ttempt t o u se B inford's model to reconstruct r egional s ystemics b ecause o f this. N evertheless, t hese t wo p apers p rovide a s olid f ramework f rom which t o c onsider depositional p rocesses ( on both a s ite a nd a r egional s cale), a nd to c onsider t he e ffects t hat d ifferent s ubsistence s trategies may h ave upon these p rocesses. S pecifically, B inford s uggests t hat v ariation in assemblage composition across space, may be more c losely related to the changing economic uses of a specific location, rather than changes in regional s ubsistence s trategies.

1 9

I n this context, spatial a nalysis c an p lay a k ey role. T his t ype of analysis has often b een used to i dentify b ehaviorally relevant p atterning. I t w ill b e u sed h ere to define c lusters o r g roups o f s tone t ools i n s pace. T hese c lusters will then be assessed for their behavioral i mplications by e xamination o f t heir c ontents, p lacement w ith respect to t he s ite f eature(s), a nd g eneral f it with t he d erived models. S imek's Models O n t he b asis o f B inford's a nd Y ellen's e thnoarchaeologi cal d ata, S imek ( 1984) h as d erived a s et o f f our e xpected relationships between v ariables he r efers t o a s s patial r esolution and content v ariation of discrete groups ( cluster z ones) o f artifact c lasses. T hese relationships w ere derived specifically f or u se i n i nterpreting the spatial patterns o f a rtifacts i n U pper P aleolithic s ites a nd r epresent t he r esult o f a " long i nterplay b etween t he d ata and t he a nalysts" ( Simek 1 984:37). F or t his d iscussion, s patial r esolution m ay be t hought of as the number of discrete groups or c lusters of a rtifacts defined in a particular s tage of analysis. H igher l evels o f spatial r esolution h ave a l arger number of defined groups, each of which u sually takes up a s maller a rea o f t he total s ite and c ontains f ewer objects when c ompared t o l ower l evels o f r esolution. I n S imek's analysis of Pincevent ( 1984: 59-132), the high-level s olution contained n ine s uch groups ( which he called z ones), while the l ow-level solution contained three. C ontent v ariation m ay b e expressed a s t he h omogeneity o f t he tool d istribution w ithin a g iven g roup. S ince S imek's models a re t he b asis f or my models o f t he s ame r elations hips, t hey will b e d iscussed i n d etail. The f irst model ( Fig. 2 ) represents the l ong held a rchaeological notion o f a d iscrete " activity a rea": here, at a ll l evels o f s patial r esolution t he o verall h omogenei ty o f e ach s et o f defined c lusters o f a rtifacts i s l ow. E ach c luster a t l ow r esolution l evels i s assumed to be r epresentative o f a u nique activity, o r uniquely o ccurring s et o f a ctivities a nd a s s uch t hey a re expected to c ontain d ifferent s ets o f materials. A t h igher l evels o f r esolut ion, t hese " tool k its" a re s ubdivided. U sing t he axes o f h omogeneity and s patial r efinement, t his c an b e r epresented g raphically b y a more o r l ess s traight l ine. S imek ( 1984: 1 9) s uggests that: I n such a s ituation, a s ingle deposition process i s r esponsible f or a ll material c oncentration in space: t he d isposal o f objects p roduced o r u sed i n a s patially i solated t ask at o r n ear t he l ocus o f g eneration. .. The form of this relationship reflects the g reat v ariation i n c ontent among accumulations over t he s ite s urface r egardless o f s uch f actors a s s ample s ize or t he s ize o f t he s patial u nit defined. 2 0

S imek's second model ( Fig. 3 ) shows a high overall h omogeneity a t l ow r esolution l evels, but a decrease to r elatively l ow h omogeneity at h igher l evels o f r esolution. T hus, when f ew d iscrete artifact c lusters a re defined, they are very s imilar in content; when more discrete c lusters a re d efined, t heir s imilarity i n c ontent d ecrease s. T his model i n p articular p lays a c ritical r ole i n the g eneration o f my own models, so the comments are worth q uoting at l ength. T his model: .. r eflects a s ituation where g roup maintenance i s an i mportant f actor i n s patial p rocess b ut where s peciali zed activity performance i s a lso s ubstantial. H ere, d eposits a re h omogeneous a t a l ow l evel of spatial refinement, reflecting the number of social groups utilizing a s eparate " domestic core a rea". A t h igher l evels o f r efinement, s patial u nits a re more h eterogene ous, reflecting t he v ariation i ntroduced b y activity a reas that were n ot defined a s s eparate s patial units at lower levels.... This form o f model might be especially appropriate for identifying s ites where several similar social units, each occupying a discrete do mestic area, were present during o ccupation. ( Simek 1 984:20; emphasis m ine) S imek's model 3 i s the o pposite o f model 2 ( Fig. 4 ), i n which l ow r esolution y ields l ow r elative h omogeneity, while h igher resolution y ields h igh r elative homogeneity among g roups. S imek ( 1984:20) s uggests t hat: S uch a r elation i s d ifficult t o envision i n b ehavioral t erms a nd w ould r equire: ( 1) t hat l arge a reas o f t he s ite were reserved for specialized activities, ( 2) m aterial c lasses i nvolved in e ach activity were the s ame with continuous variation i n c lass f requencies b etween areas, a nd ( 3) t he refuse generated within a n a ctivity area was d isposed o f i n a c ontrolled f ashion .. t hereby h omogenizing s mall a ccumulations. T his form o f the r elationship was n ot r ecognized i n any o f h is a nalyses, a nd w as p resented a s a c ontrast to model 2 . S imek's model 4 ( Fig. 5 ) r epresents t he s ituation where a rtifact groups a re very homogeneous at a ll l evels o f s patial r esolution. H e s uggests ( 1984:20) t hat: S uch a f orm might result in occupations where systematic dumping is practiced. Refuse f rom a v ariety o f a ctivities, p erhaps [ originally] d iscretely o rganized i n s pace, i s collected a nd deposited i nto a f ew l ocations t hat a re u ndifferentiated a s t o c ontext o f material g eneration. A c ritical e lement o f t hese models, and a ll o thers l ike t hem, i s t he c ontext(s) to w hich t hey a re applied. B oth Y ellen and B inford have emphasized t he apparent s tructuring o f e thnographically observed a rchaeological s ites around h earths. Y ellen i n p articular h as s hown t hat B ushman c amps 2 1

c an b e s een t o b e l aid out i n a c ombination o f core a reas, where d omestic a ctivities a re p erformed, a nd peripheral areas where more specialized tasks are carried out. B inford's N unamiut d ata g enerally s upport t his aspect o f s patial p atterning. S imek's models ( especially t he s econd) d irectly r eflect t his c oncern. S imek's application o f these models to spatial d ata f rom a r elatively c onstrained rockshelter a nd a l arge open air occupation f loor does not present any major d ifficulties, a nd i ndeed i n b oth c ases ( Pincevent, a n o pen a ir s ite and F lageolet I , a r ockshelter s ite), t he s patial p atterning appears t o c onform w ell t o t he e xpectation o f structuring around hearth l ocations. However, their application t o r elatively s mall p avements a nd a ssociated l ithic industries ( i.e. the I sle Valley s ites under consideration h ere), i n a s ituation w ith no c ertain h earth l ocations, r equires t hat s ome modifications b e made. T he b asic p roblem i s o ne o f s cale. I n t he d iscussion t hat follows, an ' activity' will be considered to be any b ehavior o r s et o f b ehaviors t hat g enerates a d iscrete s et o f materials. T he t erm " activity a rea" w ill b e u sed t o mean a ny d iscrete c luster o f m aterials f rom s uch a s et. N ote that these t erms a re u sed i n a n i deal s ense, otherw ise a ny a ssemblage c ould b e t he r esult of an a ctivity, a nd r eside i n a n activity a rea. I t i s expected t hat only r arely c an s uch t hings a ctually be r ecovered, at l east i n s uch a way a s to make t heir i nterpretations c lear.

2 2

HOMOGENEITY

A M»

I

SPATIAL RESOLUTION

F igure 2 . S imek's model one, l ow i nitial h omogeneity no i ncrease a s s patial r esolution i ncreases.

with

HOMOGENEITY

el l»

i SPATIAL RESOLUTION

F igure 3 . S imek's model two, h igh i nitial homogeneity with a s harp d ecrease as s patial r esolution i ncreases..

M .

HOMOGENEITY

• •••

SPATIAL RESOLUTION

F igure 4 . S imek's model three, l ow i nitial h omogeneity with a s harp i ncrease a s s patial r esolution i ncreases ;

2 5

HOMOGENEITY

S PATIAL RESOLUTION

F igure 5 . S imek's model f our, h igh i nitial homogeneity w ith no d ecrease a s s patial r esolution d ecreases.

2 6

M odels

f or

H ighly C onstrained T ool

D istributions

I f, as Gaussen and S ackett have suggested, these p avements represent " tent f oundations," t he f ull r ange o f a ctivities c arried o ut at e thnographically observed s ites w ould not b e r easonably expected. T ent f oundations, would i n f act, b e more c losely a nalogous to houses, P ueblo r ooms, o r perhaps small c aves, than the e thnographically s tudied open a ir h unter-gatherer s ites, at l east i n t erms o f t he physical constraints acting upon their i nternal spatial s tructure. T his a nalogy, however, c an b e q uestioned on a n umber o f points. First, tents are generall y fairly insubstantial s tructures, o ften o ccupied f or s horter t ime p eriods at a g iven l ocation, and perhaps used for more specialized a ctivities, t han more s olid s tructures. I t s eems s afe t o a ssume t hat, i n t he P erigord a t l east, t hese s ites d id n ot r epresent l ong-term w inter c amps, as has been s uggested f or t he G erman p avement s ites mentioned above ( Hahn 1 978, 1 979). This a ssumption i s s upported b y t he l ow general abundance of lithic material from the s ites, their s tratigraphic s implicity, t he l ocal nature of v irtually a ll o f t he r aw material, and most o f a ll t heir generally s mall s ize. A s u sual S olvieux i s t he o ne m ajor exception t o these generalizations. S econd, i n a ll c ases but o ne ( Le C erisier), the l ithic a ssemblage extends beyond t he pavement edges, with no apparent distributional breaks, a s ituation d ifficult to i magine f or a n i ntact room s tructure, or c ave, a nd which, i n the c ase o f G uillassou, s uggested to Gaussen ( 1980:170) t hat: L a reparition de l 'industrie suppose un abri ä parois l aterales escamotables p ermettant aux dechets d 'etre eparpilles ä l 'exterieur d e l 'habitat. I l est b ien e vident q ue l a presence de c es dechets n est pas o bligatoirement s ynonyme de p arois mobiles et l 'on p eut a ussi b ien p enser ä des t ravaux exterieurs ou ä " vidage de poubelles". [ 1] A nd third, the t otal s ize o f the excavated a rea, i ncluding s tructures, i s v ery s mall; i t i s g enerally n ot more t han 5 x 5 m . U nfortunately there do not appear to be any e thnoa rchaeological, or even ethnographic s tudies, t hat are c omparable i n s cope to t hat p rovided b y B inford and Y ellen a nd t hat c an provide s patial s tructure d ata t hat i s u seful f or studies at t his s cale. I t hink, however, i t c an be r easonably a ssumed t hat f or s uch s mall a reas t here will b e f ew i f any d iscrete activity a reas, especially not t hose f ound a way f rom t he c entral h earth. T he a reas i nvolved a re o ften s o small t hat i f any s et o f a ctivities were c arried o ut i n t hem, t here would h ave to b e c onsiderable o verlap i n t he d istribution o f materials. I n t his c ase, the entire 2 7

excavated area may b e equivalent to one p hically documented " activity a reas."

o f

t hese

e thnogra-

While the l ack of hearths may i nvalidate many d irect c omparisons w ith b oth S imek's models a nd t he e thnographic data, i t may be the c ase t hat the p avement acts a s the s tructural e quivalent o f a h earth i n c onstraining t he l ocal u se of space i .e., t he presence o f the p avement c reated a f ocus f or t he o rganization o f t he a rea. T his would i mply t hat most o f the s patial p atterning r ecovered would c orresp ond t o b ehavior i nvolving g roup m aintenance, t he c ommon, day-to-day activities o f a g roup, u sually r epetitious i n n ature. Less f ormally, one would not expect to f ind a llocation o f d iscrete activity a reas i nside a ( presumably e nclosed) 4 x 4 m s tructure, much l ess o ne o f only 1 .5 x 1 .5 m , because o f t he s pace c onstraints. The discretely deposited remains of any activities c arried o ut i n s uch a n a rea c ould b e e xpected to o verlap t o a great extent, e specially g iven a ny l engthy occupation. A lternatively, a s imilar pattern m ight d evelop i f the l ithics were actually unassociated with the domestic o ccupation o f t he p avement, b ut w ere d eposited b y p eople r eturning to a p reviously occupied s ite a nd u tilizing t he p avement as a l ithic r eduction s tation, etc. B inford ( 1980, 1 982) s uggests t hat t his t ype o f r euse s hould be e xpected when d ealing w ith mobile p eoples. I n e ither o f these c ases, i ntended to represent extreme v ariations i n d epositional processes, and perhaps in a ny number of others, actual s ite content might v ary d rastically, but t he o verall p atterns would b e s imilar: l ocal h omogeneity would b e relatively h igh at a ll l evels o f spatial r esolut ion. I n other words, the f requency d istribution of artifacts within any a rbitrarily d efined s ub a rea s hould b e v ery s imilar b oth t o t he o verall d istribution a nd to t hat f rom any o ther s uch area. A s ubstantial decrease i n homogeneity a s a f unction o f spatial resolution would only be expected i f s everal activities l eft traces that were out of spatial, and perhaps temporal, p hase with e ach other. This would s uggest that e ither: ( 1) the superstructure was not i n p lace ( or d id n ot a ct a s a r estraint) at t he t ime o f t he activities or some s ubset of the activities, or ( 2) c ontrolled waste disposal f rom two or more distinct activities ( or the composite of two or more s ets of activities) w as r esponsible f or t he p atterning. W hile t he s econd o f these implications i s f airly c lear, the f irst i s c onsiderably more s ubtle. A s a s tructure, t he p avements are s upposed, by many investigators, t o represent tent f oundations. W hile t hey t hemselves m ay be more or l ess permanent in the s ense of being constructed and then abandoned, their s uperstructure would presumably be p urposely constructed a nd d ismantled.

2 8

What exactly this activity would entail is beyond r econstruction. H owever, t he p rocess i tself m ay b e a major f actor in the f inal spatial patterns t hat we perceive. C learly a ny s peculation i n t his a rea i s dangerous, b ut t he construction-dismantling process s eems l ikely to be an i mportant f actor i n b oth r esidual s patial, a nd homogeneity p atterning, especially i f the t ent s uperstructure i nvolved a ny k ind o f f looring, or o ther ( purposeful or i ncidental) ground cover. A lthough i t s eems most l ikely to be a h omogenizing process with r espect to t he d istribution o f l ithic materials, i f the s ame s ite i s reused l ater, d istinctive s patial p atterns a s s een i n b oth h omogeneity a nd content o f a rtifact c lusters may r esult. S ize s orting i s o ne o f t he more obvious p atterns t hat may r esult f rom t his sort o f process. However implausible s uch a s ituation may s eem, i t i s i mportant to c onsider t he " use l ife" o f t he s ite a nd i ts f eatures, especially i n the c ases examined here. There s eems t o be evidence, f rom G uillassou i n p articular, t hat the pavement stones may have been used for several d ifferent purposes. This w ill b e d iscussed i n more d etail on a site-by-site b asis. H ere i t i s s ufficient to note e vidence f or h eating o f s ome o f t he p avement s tones, a nd c lear f ire damage on a l arge n umber o f t he l ithics, this s uggests t hat whatever i s g oing o n, t he p resent p atterning m ay not b e directly r epresentative o f activity s ets f rom a t ent or s imilar " domestic" o ccupation. As S imek ( 1984) found, increasing homogeneity with i ncreasing spatial resolution is difficult to p lace b ehaviorally. I t would require t hat small d iscrete a reas w ithin t he s ite c orrespond i n c ontent w ith l arger a reas, and as such would not be expected. S imilarly, low h omogeneity o f a rtifact c lusters at a ll l evels o f s patial r esolution would r equire that d istinctive p atterning was i mposed o n t he material. I t s eems v ery u nlikely t hat t his would result f rom e ither natural disturbance or random s cattering. A nd given t he d iscussion a bove, t his w ould b e d irectly contradictory to expected d istributions within an e nclosed s pace. I t may, t herefore, be good e vidence f or the lack of association between the majority o f the l ithics a nd a d omestic o ccupation o f t he p avement. T he A llocative E ffect

i n H omogeneity M easures

A f inal source of variation to be considered in c reation o f the models a re t he e ffects o f s ample s ize and t ype f requency at a p articular s ite. M easuring h omogenei ty, or diversity, i s o ften done by u sing an i ndex b ased o n information t heory ( Pielou 1 977). T he K a nd K ' i ndices t hat I u se below a re b ased i n s tandard p robability t heory, b ut their behavior is very s imilar to the more common measures at this l evel. U sually these i ndices measure b oth the n umber o f t ypes present ( i.e. " richness") a n& t he e venness o f t he d istribution a cross t he t ypes s imultaneousl y. Thus they a re p redisposed to s omething that will be 2 9

c alled

the

a llocative e ffect.

This a llocative effect can be s een when d iversity measures a re a pplied so that objects are progressively d ivided i nto a n i ncreasing n umber o f exhaustively defined g roups. S everal g eneral t rends c an b e s een t hat d irectly a ffect the s hape o f any s patial r esolution v ersus h omogenei ty c urve. F irst, a s t he n umber o f c lusters i ncreases, t he a verage n umber o f a rtifacts i n e ach c luster c an b e expected t o d ecrease, a nd, a s a f unction ' of t his, s o c an t he n umber o f artifact c lasses r epresented. S econd, g iven a r elativel y l ow absolute n umber o f o bjects t o s tart w ith, o ne w ould e xpect this e ffect to b e more p ronounced at a ny g iven l evel o f c lustering. A s t he n umber o f c lusters approaches t he a bsolute n umber o f observations ( artifacts), t he s lope o f t he s patial r esolution v ersus h omogeneity c urve would be expected to decrease ( i.e., have a progressively more n egative s lope), d epending o n h ow t he specific homogene ity measure behaves, a nd o n the n ature o f the o riginal d istribution. I n s hort t hen, s ample s ize c an b e e xpected t o h ave drastic e ffects on d iversity i ndices when applied i n t his t ype o f s ituation. G rayson ( 1978, 1 981) h as f ound s imilar p roblems with measures u sed i n f aunal a nalysis. K intigh ( 1984) h as s uggested a method f or n eutralizing s ample s ize p roblems i n comparing a ssemblages o f d iffering s ize b y g enerating a s et o f expected v alues f or d iversity measures a t any g iven s ample s ize. T his approach h as b een modified to e liminate t he a llocative e ffect, n evertheless i ts impact o n t hese s ites i s e specially p ronounced, a nd s o i t w as explicitly i ncluded i n t he modeling p rocess. T his will be discussed in more detail below, for now, a s ignificant decrease or increase i n homogeneity with i ncreasing spatial r esolution w ill r efer t o one t hat i s g reater t han t hat expected f or a g iven s ample s ize and o verall a ssemblage t ype f requency d istribution. I n s ummary then, I will utilize f our models o f the relationship between spatial resolution and c luster h omogeneity. E ach model, while s uperficially s imilar to S imek's ( 1984) models, is connected with different d epositional p rocesses a nd expectations. T his i s d ue t o a d ifferent c ontext o f u se a nd n ecessities arising f rom t he f ormal p roperties o f t he measurements u sed ( discussed i n t he next s ection). I t s hould b e c lear, however, t hat more t han one l evel of spatial patterning may be expected w ithin a g iven s ite, a nd t hat t he models may b e u nlikely to o ccur i n i solation, i f t hey c an b e d iscerned at a ll. T he models a re i ntended t o s tructure i nterpretation o f t he p atterns t hat are reached through analysis, not as h ypotheses t o b e t ested. I n model O ne ( Fig. 6 ) t he h omogeneity a t a ll s patial r esolution l evels is h igh, a nd does not s ignificantly i ncrease or decrease w ith i ncreasing spatial r esolution. D epositional a nd p ostdepositional p rocesses c onnected w ith t his pattern would i nclude: ( 1) s tructured d isposal i nto a 3 0

number of discrete loci, a ll of which were s imilar i n c ontent; ( 2) s erial occupation events which l eft v ery s imilar material sets, whether deposited i n d iscrete or overlapping l oci; ( 3) c omplete, o r n early c omplete o verlap o f a ll a ctivities i n a s ingle o ccupation t hat m ight p roduce d iscrete s ets o f materials, whether t hese a ctivities are c onnected w ith t he a ctual u se o f t he s ite a s a t ent f oundat ion o r n ot; o r ( 4) t erminal o ccupation a ctivities, s uch a s tent dismantling, which disturb ( or transform, to use S chiffer's 1 976 t erm), a nd t hereby h omogenize previously existing material patterns. C learly a ny c ombination o f t hese c ould a lso r esult i n t his p attern. I n model Two ( Fig. 7 ) the h omogeneity at a ll l evels o f s patial resolution i s l ow, a nd does not increase or d ecrease s ignificantly with i ncreasing s patial r esolution. T his i s, i n e ffect, t he i nverse o f m odel o ne. D epositiona l and postdepositional processes connected with this p attern would i nclude: ( 1) d istinct s eparation o f a ctiviti es that p roduce d iscrete s ets o f objects i n space, s uch a reas w ould i n t urn n eed to b e composed o f more or l ess unique subsets; ( 2) structured disposal of distinct p roducts o f d ifferent a ctivities, or s ets o f a ctivities, i n discrete l ocations, e specially d isposal t hat occurred a s s eparate e vents. I n model Three ( Fig. 8 ) homogeneity is high a t l ow l evels o f s patial r esolution, w ith a s ubsequent s ignificant decrease a s s patial r esolution i ncreases. T his s uggests s everal s imilar a reas t hat a re d ifferentiated a s t hey a re examined in detail. Depositional and postdepositional p rocesses t hat a re c onnected to t his p attern would i nclude: ( 1) activities t hat l eft s imilar " core" material s ets, b ut d istinctive ' "peripheral" m aterial s ets. I n a s ense, t his i s a miniaturized v ersion o f t he l arger c amp s tructures a s s een b y B inford ( 1978) a nd Y ellen ( 1977), b ut w ithout t he implied range of activities, note that the core and p eriphery s ets n eed n ot b elong t o t he s ame occupation; and ( 2) t erminal o ccupation activities that s eparate d ifferent materials i n s pace, f or e xample, a ctions t hat move l arger pieces while not as greatly affecting the position o f s maller p ieces. I n model F our ( Fig. 9 ) an i nitial l ow h omogeneity a t l ow l evels o f s patial r esolution, i s c oupled w ith a s ubsequent s ignificant i ncrease i n homogeneity a s the l evel o f s patial r efinement i ncreases. This model i s presented as a contrast to model Three, and a s S imek ( 1984) f ound, it c annot easily b e c onnected to b ehaviorally g uided d eposition processes, and is not expected analytically. N evertheless, i f f ound it could be c onnected, however tenuously with: ( 1) s tructured d isposal t hat r esulted i n l ocations w ith s imilar c ontent, b ut which when s een at a l arger scale were distributed differentially over the areas t hat had b een occupied by the low resolution c lusters; o r ( 2) s tructured r elationships b etween a n umber o f a ctivities t hat result i n s imilar m aterial p atterns a nd 3 1

two or more material.

distinct

central

activities,

or

sets

of

The l atter i s perhaps best visualized i n terms o f a l arger camp: two or more d istinct sets of materials s urrounded b y ( or p erhaps composed o f) a r elatively l arge n umber o f s maller, a nd v ery s imilar s ets o f materials. T o meet the c onditions required f or t his r elationship to be p erceived, t he s maller s ets would n eed to b e more s imilar to each other than the l arger s ets were t o e ach o ther. N ote p articularly t hat t hese s maller material s ets would have to be similar to each o ther w ithout regard to t he l arger s et t hey w ere c onnected w ith. C learly this i s a v ery specific r elationship. I t c an p erhaps b e s een a s t he r esult of s everal d istinctive s ets of materials being imposed on a pre-existing background o f h ighly s imilar s ets ( or v ice v ersa), a nd a s such may be i ndicative o f p alimpsest d eposition.

3 2

HOMOGENEITY

S PATIAL R ESOLUTION

F igure 6 . Model One, h igh i nitial homogeneity s ignificant i ncrease o r d ecrease w ith i ncreasing r esolution.

3 3

w ith n o s patial

HOMOGENEITY _

SPATIAL RESOLUTION

Figure 7 . Model Two, l ow initial homogeneity with no s ignificant i ncrease or decrease w ith i ncreasing spatial resolution.

3 4

HOMOGENEITY

«I le

SPATIAL R ESOLUTION

Figure 8 . Model Three, high initial homogeneity with s ignificantly d ecreasing h omogeneity as s patial r esolution i ncreases.

3 5

MI»

HOMOGENEITY

S PATIAL RESOLUTION

Figure 9 . Model Four, low initial s ignificantly i ncreasing homogeneity as i ncreases.

3 6

homogeneity with s patial r esolution

C hapter S patial

I II

A nalysis

The variables o f interest in this s tudy are, most b asically, t hose o f the s patial position, a nd a ssociation o f a rtifacts i n a r egional s ample of open a ir pavement s ites. T here a re t wo methodological p rocesses i nvolved i n s tudying t hese v ariables: p attern r ecognition a nd p attern association. Pattern recognition i s the process of i dentifying r elevant p atterns in s patial or otherwise o rganized d ata, while p attern a ssociation i s a p rocess o f r elating t he a nalytically d efined p atterns to e ach other a nd t heir l arger context. I nvestigating s ites i n t erms o f s patial r esolution a nd c luster h omogeneity is a form of pattern associati on; analytically defined artifact c lusters ( patterns) a re p resumed to be c aused b y s pecific forces ( human or otherwise), a nd t hrough s tudy o f their c ontent, position, a nd relationship to each other the underlying causal processes can, at some l evel, be i nferred. I n t his s ection I will d iscuss the specific methodology used, both to recognize patterning in the d ata, a nd t o p lace t hese p atterns i nto a l arger c ontext. P attern Recognition P attern r ecognition i s o ften accomplished through the u se o f s ome s tatistical o r c omputer a ided p rocess, a lthough t here i s a l ong t radition o f s patial a nalysis being done by v isual i nspection of d istribution maps ( see especially L eroi-Gourhan a nd B rezillon 1 972, R igaud 1 976b, 1 980). The p attern r ecognition p hase o f a nalysis o ften t akes t he f orm, a s it does here, o f a search for artifact c lusters on o ccupation s urfaces. As s uch it has several minimal r equirements. I n g eneral, t he method u sed s hould: ( 1) h ave t he potential to b e e xplicitly r eplicable; ( 2) h ave a s ound s tatistical basis for the creation o f c lusters and the a ssignment o f a g iven p oint in space to a c luster; ( 3) b e able to i dentify p atterns i n t he d ata a t s everal l evels or s cales i ndependently; ( 4) b e c onceptually s imple; ( 5) make as few a ssumptions about the n ature o f the d ata a s p ossible; a nd ( 6) a llow c onsideration o f t he c ontext o f the s ite through r etention o f l ocational i nformation about e ach d efined c luster. T hese r equirements r epresent a d istillat ion o f points made i n s everal p apers, most notably t hose b y C lark ( 1977), D oran a nd H odson ( 1975), H odder a nd O rton ( 1976), K intigh and Ammerman ( 1982), S imek ( 1984), and L arick a nd S imek ( 1983). I n this comparative f ramework, the first and third c onditions a re e specially i mportant. A s w as made c lear i n t he development o f the model r elationships, multiple l evels o f p atterning a re to b e expected, a p oint made p reviously b y S imek ( 1984:32). V ery f ew i f a ny o f t hese c riteria c an be m et by v isual i nspection. This i s n ot to s uggest t hat a pproaching spatial a nalysis i n s uch a manner i s worthless, 3 7

it c learly i s not; merely that i t does not n ecessarily r epresent a non-intuitive, replicable methodology, u tilizing more objective c lustering c riteria. K intigh and Ammerman ( 1982) i n p articular h ave t ried to combine the strengths of visual analysis with those provided by a utomated d ata a nalysis. This l ed t hem directly t o the approach t hat i s applied h ere i n modified f orm. T here a re c urrently two d istinct approaches to a nalysis of artifact distributions, those that deal with data c ollected b y g rid s quare, a nd t hose which d eal w ith p oint p rovenience data. G aussen ( 1980) provides p oint provenie nce d ata f or t he p avement s ites that I h ave chosen to s tudy, s o g rid count methods a re u nnecessary. Methods that utilize point p rovenience data c an be d ivided i nto two general approaches. T he f irst i s n earest n eighbor analysis ( Clark a nd E vans 1 954; Hodder a nd O rton 1 976:40). T his measure i s known to s uffer f rom p roblems w ith b oundaries, b oth i n t erms o f t he e ffects o f d elimiting t he a rea that i s b eing s tudied a nd t he " edge e ffects," or d istortion o f p atterning b y p roximity to a n a bsolute l imit o f the distribution ( Hodder and O rton 1 976: 4 2-44; P inder et a l. 1 979). More importantly in this context, the n earest neighbor measures i gnore the l ocational a spects o f t he data. D iscrete c lusters are neither defined nor l ocated i n space. C lusters c an b e delimited and l ocated i n s pace by l inking t hose p oints t hat a re c lose, a lthough t his requires an a rbitrary decision c riteria t o delineate " closeness" ( Whallon 1 974). O verall this measure, and a ssociated methods, are i nadequate t o deal w ith relatively small, b ounded ( by b oth e xcavation a nd p avement l imits), l ow abundance, point d istributions o f the t ype f ound i n t he I sle V alley s ites. A n a lternative to t he u se o f nearest n eighbor a nalysis, i s s ome form of mathematical c lustering, or numerical taxonomy ( Sokal and Sneath 1 973). Before c lustering p rocedures a re d iscussed, h owever, s ome t erms n eed to be defined. A c luster is a set or group o f points i n an analytic space, c lusters a re defined by s ome d istance or s imilarity c riterion, which i s applied to t he v ariables being c lustered. The analytic s pace i s defined b y the n umber of v ariables t hat are being c lustered. I n this a nalysis the a nalytic space i s two d imensional, only the x a nd y ( horizontal a nd v ertical r espectively) map c oordina tes o f each point a re b eing c lustered. A c luster s olution l evel, referred t o by n umber, i s a n a nalytic s tage t hat has defined a specified number o f c lusters, containing a ll p oints i n t he s ite. T hus, c luster s olution l evel 5 has d ivided the s ite i nto 5 s ets o f points ( clusters o ne, two, t hree, four, a nd f ive) using the specified c lustering c riterion. A n optimal c luster s olution l evel i s o ne t hat i s j udged t o be analytically s uperior according to a predefined c riterion, a s i s d iscussed f urther i n t he k -means s ection 3 8

( below, p age 4 u). Optimal, a s u sed h ere does not r efer t o a s olution which h as been proven mathematicall y to be g lobally optimal. A c luster's l ocation i s defined b y t he s patial l ocation, on t he s ite map, o f s ome measure o f centrality for t hat c luster. U sually t his w ill b e t he c luster centroid, d efined a s the a verage o f t he x a nd y v alues o f the m embers o f a c luster. T he r oot mean square ( rms) d istance f or a given c luster is the standard d eviation o f the d istances b etween a c luster c entroid a nd i ts m embers, a nd i s u sed t o d efine t he r adius o f a c ircle d elimiting the s ize o f a s pecified c luster; t his i s a lso d iscussed i n more detail b elow. S um o f the s quared e rror ( sse) i s d efined a s t he s ummation o f t he s quared d istances f rom every point t o i ts c luster c entroid. T his i s u sed a s t he c luster defining c riterion b y t he k -means a lgorithm. P robably t he most widely u sed s et o f c lustering t echniq ues a re t hose t hat produce n on-overlapping, h ierarchically o rganized c lusters t hrough a s equential, agglomerative, p rocess ( S.A.H.N. methods). I n g eneral t hese methods b egin b y c onsidering a ll p oints a s i ndividual c lusters. At a ny g iven c luster s olution l evel ( from N to 1 c lusters) t he p oints o r c lusters f ound to b e c losest, o r most s imilar t o a g iven c luster a re combined with i t i n a p redefined way. N o c luster, once defined, i s ever b roken up; they a re o nly c ombined w ith o thers ( hence, h ierarchical). E ach c luster, at each solution l evel c ontains a u nique s et o f points. No points a re s hared w ith c lusters i n p revious s teps t hat were not combined ( thus non-overlapping). T hese methods c an b e d istinguished mainly by t heir b asis f or " linking" c lusters. Sokal and S neath ( 1973) and D oran a nd H odson ( 1975) s upply v ery complete s ummaries o f t he p roperties o f t he v arious methods a nd c oefficients. C lustering points i n t wo-dimensional s pace represents t he most s imple o f the p otential u ses f or t hese methods, b ecause s imilarity o r d istance c an b e measured d irectly b y t he E uclidian d istance b etween any two points. T he main d isadvantage o f t he S .A.H.N. methods m ay b e t he h ierarchica l nature o f the r esulting c lusters. T his t ends t o mask v ariation i n t he p atterning t hat m ight o ccur a t d ifferent l evels in the analysis, because any c lusters that a re p roduced a t a g iven l evel c an only b e t he r esult o f c ombini ng previously defined c lusters. S uch a method c annqt e xamine c lustering a t o ne l evel independently f rom that which h as been p reviously defined at others. T his c an o nly be c onsidered appropriate in cases where h ierarchical o rganization i s expected. S imek ( 1984:60-63) a lso points o ut p otential p roblems s temming f rom t he a rbitrary l imits t hat are o ften i mposed o n a rchaeological a ssemblages when u sing t hese a gglomerative m ethods. I n t heir d iscussion o f s uch methods D oran a nd H odson ( 1975:180) s uggest t hat: N one o f t hese a gglomerative p rocedures a ppears v ery s atisfactory, a nd i t c ould well be a sking too much to expect a rigid hierarchy to be both useful and mathematically i rreproachable. 3 9

G iven these problems, a S . A. H. N. method c annot c learly f ulfill t he p attern recognition r equirements mentioned a bove. K -means There appears to be only o ne appropriate c lustering method t hat c an f ulfill t he c riteria l isted a bove. T his i s the k-means a lgorithm, proposed f or s patial analysis by K intigh and Ammerman ( 1982). This method i s d ivisive, p roducing c lusters t hat a re n on-hierarchical a nd o verlapp ing in nature. The procedure initially considers t he e ntire d istribution o f points as a single c luster. I t divides this into f rom one to the specified n umber o f c lusters s equentially, b y m inimizing t he s um s quared e rror ( sse) among the points i ncluded i n a cluster and the c luster's c entroid a t e ach c luster s olution l evel. The d ivisive nature o f the p rocess o vercomes e dge a nd b oundary p roblems and t he u se of an s se minimizing c lustering c riterion a llows i ndependent f ormation o f c lusters a t a ll l evels, a s well as e liminating t he " chaining" p roblem ( Kintigh and Ammerman 1 982, S imek 1 984:61). K intigh a nd Ammerman ( 1982), S imek ( 1984), a nd S imek and Larick ( 1983) a ll provide detailed discussions o f the operation o f t he p rogram t hat I u tilized, so t here i s n o n eed f or an extended d iscussion o f i t here. T his p rogram w as d eveloped b y K eith K intigh f rom a n o riginal p rovided b y F . R . Hodson. As with most a lgorithms t hat attempt to m inimize a specific mathematical f unction i teratively, t here i s no a ssurance o f r eaching a g lobal r ather t han a l ocal minimum ( Doran a nd Hodson 1 975:181; K . K intigh, p ersonal communication, 1 985). W hile K intigh's i mplementat ion o f t his p rocedure e ntails s everal f eatures designed to combat t his, any g iven s olution c annot b e definitivel y c haracterized a s a g lobal s olution w ithout t he e xpenditure of massive amounts o f computer t ime. T his h as n ot h owever, y et appeared to be a major problem in the archaeological applications o f the method. I n o rder to s uggest t he n ature o f t he c lustering s olutions obtained i n this analysis, i dentical k -means r uns were c arried out a m inimum o f 5 t imes f or e ach s ite. I n n o c ase were there a ny d ifferences i n t he optimal s olution l evels. U se of the k-means c lustering procedure produces a s eries o f s table c luster s olutions, u sing t he m inimal s se c riteria to define s tability. Thus, when reallocating p oints between c lusters at t he k th s olution l evel does not c ause a d ecrease i n t he t otal s se, a s table s olution h as b een r eached. E xamining a p lot o f the L og o f t he p ercent age of the total sse ( loq(%sse)) versus the n umber o f c lusters in a s olution l evel reveals points that have r elatively l arge decreases i n the s se. T hese p oints a re r eferred t o as " optimal" ( Kintigh a nd Ammerman 1 982; S imek 1 984) or preferred solution levels, and are t aken to d efine appropriate c lustering l evels f or f urther a nalysis. F igure 1 1 shows s uch a c urve w ith t he optimal s olutions 4 0

indicated. Once c luster solutions are reached, the c luster centroid c an be used to l ocate t he c luster i n s pace, and t he c luster rms v alue c an b e u sed to c haracteri ze t he a rea c overed a nd d ensity o f a p articular c luster. I n s ummary t hen, t he k -means p rocedure, a s developed f or a rchaeological u se b y Kintigh a nd Ammerman ( 1982), c an b e s een t o f ulfill t he n ecessary r equirements f or t he p attern recognition phase of this investigation. I t i s an objectively defined, replicable procedure that can i dentify patterns at s everal l evels i ndependently, while making f ew assumptions about the actual underlying d istribution. I t a llows f or l ocation o f defined c lusters i n space, and, when u sed appropriately, i ncorporation o f t he c ontext o f t he s ite f eatures. P attern A ssociation T he p attern a ssociation phase o f t his s tudy c onsists o f t wo d istinct a nalytic p rocesses. T he f irst i s c oncerned with the l ocation and content o f t he p reviously defined c lusters, as t hey relate to e ach o ther a t a g iven c luster s olution l evel. T he s econd i s concerned w ith characteriz ing a g iven c luster s olution l evel as a whole, and comparing each s olution l evel to a ll t he o ther optimal s olutions f or a g iven s ite. S tatistical measures c oncerne d with one a spect o r another o f these phases a re f airly well d eveloped, a nd o ften u sed e xtensively i n a rchaeology. H owever, no one measure was found to be s ufficient f or e ither p hase i n a nd of itself. I have t ried to apply l essons from S imek's ( 1984) analysis where possible, b ecause i t r epresents t he o ne major application o f these techniques to spatial analysis, but often they seemed i nadequate, o r t here were r eservations about particular s teps, or both. These problems were a lways a direct r esult o f e ither t he v ery s mall populations which I h ad t o work with, or the range of population s ize i nvolved i n c omparisons among t hese s ites. P attern A ssociation,

P hase

1

I n the f irst phase of p attern association, s everal c omplementary methods a re n ecessary. Content i s t he f irst a spect o f the c lusters t hat i s o f i nterest. T his c an b e measured directly by examining t he r aw counts of each a rtifact c lass, b ut because t his c an b e misleading due to overpowering by t hose c lusters w ith t he most p oints, raw counts were s tandardized by d ividing the c ounts f or each c luster b y t he m aximum v alue t hat occurs i n a ny c luster f or t hat c lass, resulting i n a r elative c lass o r t ype p roport ion. N ote t hat t hese c lass m aximums a re a lmost a lways unique for each solution l evel, and are therefore not appropriate t o c ompare d irectly across s olution l evels. The relative magnitude or ordinal rank, however, i s c omparable a cross s olution l evels. C learly, though, a p articular score need not retain its relative position a cross s olution l evels, b ecause t he c lass maximum c an be 4 1

expected to c hange. W hen c omparing c lusters a t a g iven s olution l evel t his method s eems s uperior to o rdinal r anking w ithin e ach c lass, b ecause i t retains a c lear r eference to the a ctual number of occurrences in each c luster. Ranks become more difficult to directly relate to the actual number of observations, a s t he n umber o f c lusters a nd t he n umber o f t ie r anks i ncreases. I t s eems much s impler t o e liminate t he n ecessity to c ontinually i nvert h igh r anks, a nd keep in mind the d ifferences i n absolute numbers b etween each s et o f r anks ( which were u nique f or e ach c lass in each solution l evel). The use of ranks a lone f acilitates c omparisons a cross s olution l evels, b ut g enerally t his i s not very difficult to do using the c lass proportions. R anks, b y c lass, a re presented s ince t hey w ere c alculated i n the use of Spearman's Rho ( see b elow). T hese c lass p roportions c an be u sed t o s how t he l ocation a nd m agnitude o f occurrence, by c luster, o f c lass members. T his i s a method which h as n ot been widely u sed in archaeology, B inford ( 1981, 1 984), S imek ( 1984), and W hallon ( 1984) h ave u sed i t f or v arious p urposes. I n a s imilar manner, e ach c luster c an b e c haracterized by t he p roportion, f or e ach c lass, o f t he maximum value which occurs i n that c luster. E ach c lass v alue i s d ivided by t he maximum v alue f or a ny c lass in that c luster, r esulting i n a r elative c luster p roportion. T his f acilit ates c omparison b etween c lusters at a g iven solution l evel, by s tandardizing e ach by i ts maximum v alue. A gain i t i s s uperior t o o rdinal r anking b ecause o f i ts r etention o f d irect i nformation about the a bsolute magnitude o f the r aw c ounts. N o r anks b y c luster were c alculated. P attern A ssociation,

P hase

2

I n t he s econd p hase o f pattern a ssociation, t here are a gain t wo s teps. T he f irst, a nd l east c omplex, i nvolves determining the a ssociation o f a rtifact c lasses f or e ach s olution l evel a s a w hole. This i s a ccomplished u sing t he standard Spearman's Rho rank order correlation c oeffic ient. Spearman ,s Rho was chosen b ecause i nspection o f the initial frequency distributions and c lass-by-class s cattergrams f or the data from each site showed no d istributions which r esembled normal c urves, a nd n o c lear l inear r elationships. Appropriate m easures were c learly t hose which d id not make t hese a ssumptions. V alues within e ach c lass f or e ach c luster, at e ach s olution l evel were r anked, and t he Rho s tatistic c alculated f or e ach s olution l evel as a whole. This a llows the g lobal association b etween a ny p air o f a rtifact c lasses to b e a ssessed. N ote that at the smallest optimum solution l evels, this i nvolved o nly t wo o r t hree c ases ( clusters), and so the measure had t o attain a v alue o f 1 .0 to b e s tatistically s ignificant. P otentially, v ery s mall a ctual differences i n the raw v alues c an l ead to " non-significant" r esults, s o t his s tatistic s hould b e examined w ith t he r aw c ounts 4 2

b y

c lass

a nd

r ' luster

i n mind.

Step two i n t he second phase of pattern a ssociation i nvolves measuring t he h omogeneity o f e ach c luster, at a g iven solution l evel, and averaging these measures to a chieve a h omogeneity i ndex f or t he s olution l evel as a whole. This i s t he measure u sed d irectly i n comparisons w ith t he modeled r elationships b etween s patial r esolution ( cluster solution l evel) and homogeneity, a s d iscussed above, i n C hapter I I. S imek developed and applied a measure o f homogeneity b ased o n t he n umber o f s ignificant, positive r ank order correlations b etween artifact c lasses a t a g iven c luster s olution l evel, i n e ach o f h is d efined " cluster z ones," expressed a s a p roportion o f t he t otal n umber possible at e ach s olution l evel ( Simek 1 984: 4 8-53). Note t hat the statistical s ignificance of this measure i s directly r elated t o t he number o f c ases u sed. I n S imek's a nalysis, c ases were t he analytically defined " cluster z ones," and 3 , 6 , a nd 9 were u sed a s t he l ow, medium, a nd h igh l evels o f s patial r esolution i n the P incevent a nalysis. I i nitially t ried to u se t his measure i n o rder t o m aintain s ome l evel o f comparability between the measures o f homogeneity u sed in t he analyses, b ut I noticed a direct monotonically i ncreasing relationship, f or most o f t he s ites, a nd n early a ll c luster s olution l evels, b etween t he n umber o f cases ( clusters) and the number of significant correlations. This e ffect w as not confined to t he optimal solution l evels. S uspecting that I was asking too much of the data, s ignificance at the . 01, . 05, . 10, a nd . 20 l evels was c alculated, a nd t he r elationship remained u nchanged. T his w as a lso t rue, f or t he s imulated d ata s ets that w ere d one l ater i n the analysis ( see below, page 4 6). T he s ame r elationship was n ot f ound with the measures; H , H /H(max), S i mpson's C , or K'. A ll s uggested exactly opposite relationships. I t seemed c lear that the monotonically i ncreasing r elationship between s patial resolution and homogeneity was a property o f the measure, a t l east i n t his c ontext. T he c alculations f or t he s ite o f L e C erisier a re a good example o f t he p roblems e ncountered w ith S imek's measure. A t t he 2 c luster s olution, t here were no s ignificant R ho v alues, while t he 7 c luster s olution y ielded, d epending o n t he s ignificance l evel, between f our and e ight s ignificant R ho v alues. W hile this would i ndicate i ncreasing homogene ity, a ll t he o ther homogeneity measures i ndicated decreasi ng h omogeneity. I t s hould be n oted t hat t his i ncreasing relationship i s not evident i n any o f S imek's d ata, a nd would b e c onnected w ith a modeled r elationship t hat h e does n ot expect to a ppear. A lthough this p henomenon i s s till u nder i nvestigation, i t c ertainly a ppears to b e a f unction o f the population s ize, n umber o f c lasses, a nd n umber o f c lusters, and perhaps most importantly, the relative 4 3

evenness The

K and

of

the

original

K ' Measures

distribution.

o f

H omogeneity

K intigh a nd I derived a scaled homogeneity i ndex t hat seems to be well behaved when dealing with very small populations. This measure i s b ased on the Kruskal-Goodman p roportional guess estimate, originally s uggested by A . C . S paulding to K intigh as a v aluable measure of d iversity ( Goodman and Kruskal 1 954). For lack of a b etter ( or anyway shorter) name it will be referred to as the K i ndex. C onceptually, it h as t he a dvantage of being quite : s traightforward. G iven a f requency d istribution s uch that N i tems are distributed across T c ategories ( X1 + X 2 + Xt = N ), the expected number of wrong guesses as to whether or n ot a p articular observation belongs in any g iven c ategory, with the constraints that the g uesses h ave t he same c lass frequency distribution as the original s ample and r andom s ampling without replacement, i s given by t he f ormula: X i

( N-Xi) ( 3.1)

i =1 T he expected

proportion

o f

wrong

g uesses

i s:

I - ZP12 where P i = X i/N. objects a re evenly when:

( 3.2)

S ince this distributed

P i t he minimum number o f

( 3.2) i s maximized when the a cross a ll c lasses, that i s

= 1 /T

( 3.3)

wrong guesses

r educes

to:

1 -(1/T) Thus

t he

s caled

( 3.4)

p roportion o f

i ncorrect

g uesses

i s:

X i(N-Xi) i =1 K =

N 2

( 3.5) ( 1-

( l/T))

The K i ndex varies from 0 , representing maximum heterogeneity when all observations are in one category, to 1 .0, r epresenting p erfect homogeneity when t he observations a re spread evenly across a ll c ategories. K i ndex values were calculated for each c luster in a given cluster s olution l evel, using e ach c luster total as n . T o obtain the K index value for the cluster solution l evel a s a whole, the K i ndex for e ach c luster was multiplied by the proportion J I the total N of the site that was present in that c luster ( n/N). These values were then added to4 4

gether, giving a average homogeneity measure for each s olution l evel, w eighted b y t he p roportion of t he total d istribution i n each c luster. T his i s t he K ' i ndex.

K i(ni/N)

( 3.6)

Where; c i s the n umber o f c lusters, n j i s the n umber o f o bjects i n t he i th c luster, K i i s t he K v alue f or t he i th c luster, a nd N i s t he p opulation t otal. T his weighted a verage a llows t he p roportionately l arger c lusters t o c ount more t han s maller o nes. I f t his were n ot done, a c luster containing two observations could count equally with o ne containing s everal hundred. F rom a numerical standpoint t his i s l ike l etting a f lea o n the t ail of a dog wag the dog. From the standpoint of attempting t o i nfer behavior f rom s patial p atterning, i t m ay be e ven w orse. I t a lso contradicts t he more i ntuitive n otions o f what a n average homogeneity i ndex s hould i mply. Recently K intigh has suggested that K is c losely r elated t o S impsons' C i ndex o f c oncentration or d ominance ( Pielou 1 977). K t hen, would b e equivalent t o: 1 -C/C(max) when

s caled

f rom 0 to

( 3.7)

1 .

Examining f ormula 3 .6 s hould make i t c lear t hat t he i ndex c an b e e xpected t o d ecrease a s t he n umber o f c lusters i ncreases. This i s what I e arlier c alled t he a llocative e ffect. T he a verage p roportion o f t he total across a ll c lusters at a given s olution l evel must decrease a s the n umber o f c lusters i n t hat l evel i ncreases; t hus when t he n umber o f c lusters approaches s ome p roportion o f t he total p opulation s ize, t he n umber o f observations i n a ny given c luster will f all, decreasing homogeneity. A t s ome number o f c lusters, t he average c luster n i s l ow enough that v ery small differences c an c ause t he K i ndex to t ake on a v alue o f 0 f or a g iven c luster. T his i n t urn l owers the average homogeneity for t hat s olution l evel, b ecause a n i ncreasing p roportion o f t he t otal N h as b een e liminated f rom t he K ' c alculations. S imilarly, i n a ny d istribution t hat i ncludes a c ategory w ith a t otal smaller than the number of c lusters in a s olution level, increasing the number o f c lusters must i ncrease t he u nevenness o f t he d istribution, a nd t herefore l ower the K " v alue. F rom t his i t f ollows t hat t he s lope o f a c urve made b y p lotting spatial r esolution ( the c luster s olution level) versus homogeneity ( IC v alues f or e ach c luster s olution l evel) w ould b e a f unction o f t he populat ion N , t he n ature o f the o riginal d istribution, a nd t he n umber o f c lusters. T his i s u ndesirable s ituation f rom t he p erspective o f t he models derived above. 4 5

F ortunately t his problem i s f airly s imple to s olve. A s eries of s imulated c lusterings c an b e u sed to p rovide a s et o f expected v alues for the c luster solution l evel h omogeneity. T hese a llocate g iven c lass f requencies to d ifferent c lusters at a given solution l evel randomly b ased o n t he f requency d istribution f or t he p opulation a s a whole. From these, the shape of the curve of the expected r elationship between s patial resol ution and h omogeneity c an b e derived. D eviation f rom these e xpected v alues ( in o ne d irection o r a nother) b y t he o bserved d ata, would represent relative l evels o f homogeneity f or e ach s olution l evel. N ote t hat t he o riginal f requency d istribut ions a re u sed to i nitiate t he p rocess. A s d iscussed b y K intigh ( 1984) t his m ay l ead t o a n e lement o f c ircularity, however i n t his c ase i t i s e ntirely appropriate b ecause i t i s o nly t he s ubsequent a llocation, a nd i ts e ffect u pon t he measures, which i s o f i nterest. N o attempt i s b eing made to s imulate t he c reation o f an a ssemblage as a whole, merely to provide a base from which to j udge r elative h omogeneity a cross c luster s olution l evels. T his was a ccomplished u sing s everal p rograms d eveloped i n Applesoft BASIC. B riefly, t he r andomization p rogram assigns an observation to one o f c c lusters ( using a p seudo-random n umber) x t imes, w here x i s the number o f observations in a given artifact c lass in the total p opulation o f a p articular s ite. T hus x c lass observat ions, i n t c lasses, a re p rogressively d istributed o ver 2 to c c lusters. T o p rovide a b aseline o f e xpected v alues the process of allocating x c lass observations, f or t c lasses, across 2 to c c lusters w as c arried o ut 2 00 t imes s eparately f or e ach observed d istribution. T he K ' r esults f rom t he s imulation r uns were a veraged f or e ach s ite a nd c luster s olution l evel. A n 8 0% confidence band around the mean s imulated K ' v alue f or e ach c luster s olution l evel w as c alculated using Chebyshev's t heorem ( Freund 1 979:47). T his h olds t hat i n a ny d istribut ion, D p ercent o f the data l ies within S standard d eviations f rom the mean s uch t hat: D = 1 -

( l/S)

( 3.8)

T his was u sed because o f t he n ature o f t he d istribution o f t he s imulated K ' v alues; t hey were only v ery r arely c lose to being normally d istributed. I n this c ase 8 0% o f the r andom d ata would l ie w ithin t he r ange p lus o r m inus t he s quare root o f 5 t imes t he s tandard deviation, a round t he mean. The confidence band that i ncludes 8 0% of the s imulated K' data i s s lightly wider u sing t his f ormula than it would be if a normal distribution had been a ssumed. O bserved v alues t hat l ie above or b elow this range were t aken to be significant deviations f rom t he expected values. I t is deviation f rom these expected values that is considered when the observed data i s c ompared t o t he models developed e arlier.

4 6

O utline

o f

the

A nalysis

The sequence o f steps that were c arried o ut i n the a nalysis o f t hese s ites c an b e o utlined a s f ollows: ( 1) u se t he k -means p rocedure t o c luster r elevant a rtifact c lass data f rom each s ite i n two d imensional s pace; ( 2) examine l oq(%sse) g raphs to i dentify " optimal" c luster s olution l evels; ( 3) f or e ach c luster s olution l evel j udged " optimal" c alculate c lass a nd c luster maximum s tandard v alues; ( 4) f or e ach c luster s olution l evel j udged " optimal" c alculate S pearman's R ho a nd t he K i ndex; ( 5) s imulate 2 00 c lusterings u sing each of the five original f requency d istributions, a nd c ompute an 8 0% confidence band a round t he mean o f the s imulated K ' v alues a t e ach c luster s olution l evel and s ite, for c omparison w ith t he o bserved data; ( 6) e xamine t he c alculations with respect to each s ite a lone, and i n c omparison w ith t he others; ( 7) c ompare t he a nalytically d efined p atterning f or each s ite with the models o f depositional processes d eveloped e arlier; ( 8) compare the spatial p atterns f rom I sle V alley s ites w ith p atterns f rom o ther s elected s ites.

4 7

C hapter Analysis o f the

I V

I sle V alley S ites

I ntroduction I n this chapter t he s equence o f analytic s teps that w as o utlined at t he e nd o f t he p revious chapter will be presented for each s ite. Each s ite will be d iscussed i ndividually in terms o f: ( 1) t he relevant b ackground material; ( 2) t he actual a nalysis b y each preferred c luster s olution l evel; a nd ( 3) t he c onclusions to b e d rawn f rom the analysis. The s ites will t hen be compared t o e ach o ther, i n a n a ttempt t o a ssess t heir s imilarity, a nd t he implications that any common p atterns may s uggest. These f ive s ites were a ll excavated u sing t he h orizont al or " decapage" t echnique. I n this method, the goal i s t o expose an e ntire occupation l evel, or l iving f loor, at o ne t ime. A lthough i t l ends i tself to t he recovery of precise three-dimensional p rovenience for t he a rtifacts, t he r ecovery o f v ery s mall a rtifacts i s p roblematic. I n many o f these s ites, however, v ery small burin s palls, a nd b acked b ladelets were recovered in relatively l arge n umbers. This s uggests t hat the b ias t owards t he l arger t ools h as b een s ubstantially r educed a nd p erhaps e liminate d. I h ave retained t he u sual F rench name f or most o f the t ool c lasses. The exceptions were: l amelles ä d os, which a re r eferred t o a s b acked b ladelets; l amelle de coup du b urin, or burin spall; a nd nucleus, or core. I n the analyses presented b elow, the tool c lasses that could be unambiguously i dentified on the p ublished d istribution maps w ere c lustered a s a group, r ather than s eparately by each c lass. H ere l ies the primary methodol ogical d ifference b etween t his a nd e arlier a nalyses ( i.e. S imek 1 984; S imek a nd L arick 1 983). I n most o f the c ases o ne o r more o f t he a rtifact c lasses h ad t oo f ew members for the c lustering p rocedure to work well by c lass. I n t he o ne c ase where s pecific t ypes could b e i dentified ( Le Cerisier) there were f ar too f ew of any one type to c onsider c lustering t hem i ndividually. G uillassou The majority o f this d iscussion i s f rom G aussen ( 1980: 1 27-173), u nless o therwise n oted. B rief E nglish s ummaries may b e f ound i n b oth H emingway ( 1980:271) a nd i n S ackett a nd G aussen ( 1976:63). T he s ite i s on t he l eft b ank o f t he I sle, approximately 1 20 m . above t he r iver b ed, s ome 9 00 m . away, a nd n ear t he t own o f S aint-Leon-sur7 -1 -I sle. I t w as o riginally f ound b ecause o f s ome nearby s urface deposits. S ubsequent excavation by Gaussen revealed one intact p rehistoric occupation l evel. Most o f the western p art o f 4 8

t he s ite has been d isturbed by recent agricultural work. A l arge p ortion o f t he s ite r emains unexcavated. T he main pavement is approximately 7 sq. m . in area, nicely r ectangular, a nd appears f or t he most p art u ndisturbed. A s econd concentration o f s tones, f ound i n a rough c ircle i s s lightly to t he N orth a nd W est o f t he r ectangular f eature. Four main s ediment l ayers were r ecognized. T hey a re f rom t op t o b ottom: ( A) P lowzone, c layish-sand 2 0-30 cm. thick with an i rregular l ower l imit; ( B) Reddish-brown b ed, 7 -8 cm t hick b ut d iscontinuous, a nd c ontaining much more s and t han t he n ext l ower l evel; ( C) Well-structured, deep red s ilty c lay a veraging some 5 0 cm. thick; ( D) " sables du P erigord." The main p avement was f ound a s a s ingle l evel i n the upper portion o f s ediment l ayer C . T he c ircular c oncentration to t he N orth, w as f ound i n t he s ame portion of t his s ediment l ayer, but c an c learly b e s een t o exhibit a g reater v ertical d ispersion ( Fig. 1 0). F lints in this area were recovered i nterstratified with t he c obbles, whereas i n t he a rea o f t he m ain p avement t he f lints a ll occurred on top, or i n between the s tones. There was no trace of major pre-modern disturbance. G aussen s uggests ( 1980:129) t hat t he f ew r estricted areas o f d isturbance a re t he r esult o f t he uprooting o f grape v ines. These areas are i ndicated on the s ite p lans. I ntensive s urface c ollections f rom some portions o f t his s ite were made, b ut their materials were not i ncluded here. From the excavated area, Gaussen recovered 48 cores, 1 240 debitage f lakes, and 1 42 tools. The raw material i s a ll l ocal i n n ature. F ive t ypes a re r ecognized: the locally ubiquitous b lack f lint, brown striped f lint, c halcedony, a l ocal j asper, a nd one of 3 fairly r are f orms o f s ilicified wood. F laking debitage was s een t o b e s hort and thick, with quite pronounced b ulbs of p ercussion, and s uggested u se o f only h ard h ammer techniq ues. T his a spect, i n c ombination w ith t he b reakdown b y tool type, suggested to Gaussen that the industry was r epresentative o f t he M agdalenian 0 , o r B adegoulian. I n h er consideration o f only t his portion o f the Magdalenian, H emingway ( 1980:130) c lassed G uillassou as belonging to t he E arly p art o f the I nitial M agdalenian. S he c onnects t his t ime p eriod w ith t he r elatively w arm L ascaux o scillat ion, which i s t hought t o c orrespond with the Wurm IV.2 p hase a s d efined b y L aville et a l. ( 1980). T o Gaussen, the burins r epresent one o f the more unique a spects o f t he i ndustry. H e c haracterizes t hem a s: . .. tellement g rossiers qu'il e st parfois d ifficile d e f aire l a d ifference entre enlevement de b urin et f racture. E tant p ar a illeurs t ous f aits s ur e clats, l a p lupart s ans p lan de f rappe, l eur o rientation e st impossible. T elle p iece peut etre, s elon, l e cöte d ont on l a r egarde, s oit un burin s ur troncature retouchee oblique, soit un burin sur troncature l aterale. Les distinctions suivantes sont donc 4 9

' .

•

•

ui

.

. _ t.; :r Z e i m ire

•

N I M•

-3 -: 2;d crk ä Ur i a rd i c ir ; .— . . — ..m l ii i

=r

i t C s

c

E -F

C -D

Ca l

A -B

h

J i •e i t ,

•—

•;

4 1 44 *Ab ''

F igure 1 0. S tratigraphic p rofiles f rom t hree c uts t hrough t he p avement a t G uillassou, a fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 5 4.

5 0

a ssez

arbitriares.

( 1980:142)

[ 2]

In contrast, t he g rattoirs are, a lthough l arge, seen as " des outils ayant fait l 'objet d un bon finissage" ( 1980:139) [ 3]. Analysis:

G uillassou

The published maps provided two-dimensional proveni ence d ata, w hich c ould be b roken down b y t ool c lass, f or 1 07 tools: 2 6 burins, 3 0 cores, 1 2 percoirs, and 3 9 grattoirs. I nspecting the l og(%sse) versus number o f c lusters p lot f or the Guillassou data ( Fig. 1 1) shows i nflections o ccurring at t he 2 , 5 , and 8 c luster s olution l evels. At t he two c luster s olution, t he c lusters a re l ocated on t he f eature m ap ( Fig. 1 2), w ith o ne c luster centered approximately o n the southern boundary o f the northeastern c ircular f eature, a nd t he other c luster c entered a pproximately on the middle o f the s outhern end o f the rectangular f eature. T hese t wo c lusters a re s eparated in s pace by three small oval d isturbed a reas. T able 1 presents the r elative c luster and type proportions for this c luster s olution. Grattoirs dominate t he s outhern c luster, while c ores the northern. C learly though, most c lasses are s imilar i n magnitude i n both c lusters. Relative proport ions s uggest t hat t he d istribution o f t ypes i s v ery even indeed; Table 2 , showing class counts and ranks by c luster, s upports t his. The only major differences between the two c lusters are i n the burin and grattoir c lasses. I n concert with this overall s imilarity the K i ndex v alues f or e ach c luster a re relatively high, and v ery s imilar. C luster one h as a K v alue o f . 96, while two h as a v alue o f . 94, i ndicating t wo v ery s imilar c lusters. K ' equals . 95. T here were no s ignificant Spearman's Rho v alues f or t his s olution l evel. I n the 5 c luster s olution l evel, l ocating t he c lusters on t he f eature m ap ( Fig. 1 3) shows 3 southern c lusters ( one, four, and f ive), a nd 2 northern c lusters ( two and t hree). C lusters one and two are r elatively dense in c omparison with t he others. C luster two i n particular i s c entered s lightly s outh of the northeastern circular f eature, while the others do not c enter a s n icely on a p avement f eature. C lusters three, f our, and f ive are p articularly s cattered and sparse. Again the n orthern and s outhern c lusters a re s eparated by the d isturbed areas, which f igure prominently in the portions of the s ite c ontaining c lusters t hree, f our, a nd f ive. The relative c luster and t ype proportions ( Table 3 ) s uggest c lusters d ominated by b urins a nd g rattoirs, while i n terms of the most abundant t ype p roportions, c luster t wo c an be s een to dominate n umerically, w ith a 1 .0 for all types. There are very c lear drops in magnitude b etween t he c ounts o f a ny c lass i n c luster 2 a nd a ll other 5 1

2 .0 «I M A

1 .5

LOG

( %SSE) 1 .0

-

« ON

•• •

«I »

' M P

. 50

• 1 « ,

4 . 1 1. •

0 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

CLUSTER SOLUTION LEVEL

F igure 1 1. L og10(%sse) versus n umber o f c lusters curve f or G uillassou. O ptimal s olution l evels a re i ndicated at 2 , 5 , a nd 8 c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 7 4.

5 2

c lusters. Th raw counts in Table 4 show this trend s trongly. There were l ow to moderate rank correlations between percoirs and cores, and percoirs and grattoirs, while g rattoirs a nd c ores were s trongly correlated at a s ignificance l evel o f . 05 ( Table 7 ). K eep i n mind that t his correlation i s s till only b ased on 5 c ases, a nd that t o b e s ignificant at a . 05 l evel a Rho value would have to exceed . 75. K v alues f or these c lusters f ell between . 90 a nd . 95, as a— consequence K ' was . 93, a d rop o f . 03 f rom t he v alue for the two c luster solution l evel, and i ndicat ive o f a l ess h omogeneous overall s olution. At the 8 c luster solution l evel ( Fig. 1 4), the northern c lusters h ave b een d ivided, so that c luster two i s s till c entered between the northeastern c ircular f eature and the NE. corner o f t he rectangular f eature. T he more p eripheral points have been assigned to three additional c lusters ( three, s ix, a nd e ight). T hese c lusters are relatively s parse and quite dispersed compared to c luster two. I n the s outhern p ortion o f t he s ite, c luster o ne i s s till c entered i n the southeast corner, those points to the north o f this h ave been a ssigned to c luster f ive. C lusters seven and four are s imilar to three and to e ight i n sparsity and d ispersion. At this c luster s olution l evel t he s ymmetry o f the s ite a long a l ine stretching between the northeast, a nd s outhwest corners, i s p articularly s triking. T able 5 presents the relative c luster and type proport ions f or the 8 c luster solution l evel. The relative c luster proportions show some i nteresting s hifts. Aside f rom the general dominance by the two most abundant c lasses, burins and grattoirs, in comparison with the f ormer s olution l evels, c luster o ne h as l ost a ll of its burins, while cluster two has shifted towards numeric dominance by cores. C lusters s even a nd e ight, in an a rea p reviously assigned to c lusters four, and f ive ( at the 5 c luster s olution) both c ontain p redominately b urins. The relative type proportions s how that c lusters one and two c ontain most o f t he l arger proportions from each c lass, with the exception of burins, which are not present i n c luster o ne. This a lso s hows up p articularly well i n the r anks f rom Table 6 . B urins are more heavily represented i n c lusters f ive, a nd especially seven. Grattoirs are a lso heavily represented i n c lusters f ive and s ix. I nterestingly, t he s ame t hree correlations that existed at the 5 cl uster solution l evel, are again the only s ignificant r ank c orrelations ( Table 7 ). At this l evel a ll three are moderate to s trong, s ignificant at the . 05 l evel, a nd a gain the core/grattoir relationship i s the strongest. K values f or these c lusters ranged f rom . 79 ( cluster seven) to . 96 ( clusters two and three), and r esulted i n a K ' value o f . 90, again i ndicating a r elativel y l ower o verall homogeneity.

5 3

T able 1 . G uillassou, a nd t ype p roportions

2 c luster

solution,

r elative

r elative c luster proportions Type C luster

1 2

B urins . 75 . 60

C ores . 94 . 65

P ercoirs n . 37 . 26

Grattoirs 1 .0 1 .0

r elative t ype p roportions

C luster

T ype

B urin , -

Core

P ercoir

Grattoir

1 2

. 85 1 .0

1 .0 1 .0

1 .0 1 .0

. 69 1 .0

5 4

c luster

Table 2 . Guillassou, 2 c luster r anks b y a rtifact c lass

solution,

r aw

counts

r aw counts

C luster

T ype

B urin

C ore

P ercoir —

Grattoir

1 2

1 2 1 4

1 5 1 5

6 6

] _ 2 3

1 .5 1 .5

2 1

r anks C luster

1 2

2 1

1 .5 1 .5

5 5

and

T able 3 . Guillassou, a nd type p ercentage

5 c luster

relative c luster Cores

solution,

r elative

proportions

Type

B urin

Percoirs

1 2 3 4 5

. 22 . 69 1 .0 1 .0 . 57

. 78 . 92 . 25 . 57 . 86

relative

type proportions

Grattoirs 7

C luster

Type: C luster

1 2 3 4 5

B urins . 22 1 .0 . 44 . 78 . 44

. 44 . 31 . 50 . 14 . 14

C ores . 58 1 .0 . 08 . 33 . 50

5 6

P ercoirs

1 .0 1 .0 . 75 1 .0 1 .0

Grattoirs ,

1 .0 1 .0 . 5 . 25 . 25

. 69 1 .0 . 23 . 54 . 54

c luster

Table 4 . Guillassou 5 cluster r anks by a rtifact c lass

solution,

r aw

counts

raw counts Type:

B urins

Cores

P ercoirs

Grattoirs

. e.

C luster

1 2 3 4 5

2 9 4 7 4

7 1 2 1 4 6

4 4 2 1 1

0 _ , 1 3 3 7 7

1 .5 1 .5 3 4 .5 4 .5

2 1 5 3 .5 3 .5

ranks C luster

1 2 3 4 5

5 1 3 .5 2 3 .5

2 1 5 4 3

5 7

and

T able 5 . G uillassou, a nd t ype p ercentage

8 C luster

r elative

C luster

r elative

c luster p roportions

T ype:

B urins

C ores

P ercoirs

G rattoirs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 . 75 1 .0 . 25 . 71 . 33 1 .0 1 .0

. 88 1 .0 . 5 . 75 . 43 . 67 . 33 . 50

. 5 . 38 . 5 . 25 . 14 . 16 0 . 25

1 .0 . 88 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 . 5 . 5

r elative

C luster

s olution,

t ype p roportions

T ype:

B urins

C ores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 1 .0 . 33 . 16 . 83 . 33 1 .0 . 67

. 88 1 .0 . 13 . 38 . 38 . 50 . 25 . 25

5 8

P ercoirs , 1 .0 . 75 . 25 . 25 . 25 . 25 0 . 25

G rattoirs r 1 .0 . 88 . 25 . 50 . 88 . 75 . 38 . 25

c luster

Table 6 . Guillassou 8 cluster r anks by a rtifact c lass

solution,

r aw

counts

raw counts

C luster

T ype:

B urins

Cores

P ercoirs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 6 2 1 5 2 6 4

7 8 1 3 3 4 2 2

4 3

1

1

1 1 o 1

Grattoirs

e 7 2 4 7 6 3 2

r anks C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8 1 .5 5 .5 7 3 5 .5 1 .5 4

2 1 8 4 .5 4 .5 3 6 .5 6 .5

5 9

1

1

2 5 5 5 5 8 5

2 .5 7 .5 5 2 .5 4 6 7

and

T able 7 . G uillassou, Spearman's Rho coefficients s ignific ant at a lpha = . 10 f or 5 , a nd 8 c luster s olutions. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05, Bn.= burins, Cr.= cores, Pr.= p ercoirs, Gr. = g rattoirs 5 c luster

solution

Type:

C r.

P r. G r.

. 65 * .98

8 c luster

P r.

Type: P r. G r.

. 68

6 0

solution

C r. , * .76 * .88

P r.

-

* . 7 4

1 Figure 1 2. C luster l ocations f or Guillassou at the 2 c luster solution l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms radii. Numbers identify individual c lusters. After Gaussen ( 1980) f ig. 7 4.

6 1

Figure 1 3. C luster l ocations for G uillassou at the 5 c luster s olution l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms radii. Numbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. After Gaussen ( 1980) f ig. 7 4.

6 2

I

Figure 1 4. C luster l ocations for Guillassou at the 8 c luster solution l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms radii. Numbers identify i ndividual c lusters. After Gaussen ( 1980) f ig. 7 4.

6 3

D iscussion A s i s c lear f rom t he c luster s olution l evel maps, t his s ite c an b e s een a s s tructured, i n r elation to i ts t ool c lasses, i nto two distinctive areas. O ne i s c entered o n a f airly dense c luster l ocated in t he s pace b etween the c ircular f eature and the northeast corner o f the rectangul ar f eature. T his i s s urrounded by more s cattered and smaller c lusters. I n the extreme s outhern corner i s a s ingle r elatively d ense a rea, which i s a gain s urrounded b y smaller more dispersed clusters, a lthough t his i s l ess c lear t han i t i s to t he n orth. T he f our c entral a reas o f disturbance can be seen to be somewhat r esponsible f or this p attern, at l east i n t erms o f t he s eparation o f t he two main areas. The only major d ifference in c ontent b etween t he t wo g eneral areas, is t he relative l ack o f b urins i n the s outh. F igure 1 5 s hows t he K" versus c luster s olution l evel g raph. O n t he s ame graph i s the 8 0% c onfidence b and a round t he mean s imulated K" values. N ote t hat except f or t he 2 c luster solution l evel, the other points derived from observed data a ll f all within the 8 0% confidence b and a round t he mean s imulated I C v alues. I n e ffect t here i s o nly minimal deviation f rom the expected v alue range. T his r elationship i s v ery c lose t o t hat e xpected under model 1 ( Fig. 6 ); that i s, h igh overall homogeneity at a ll l evels o f s patial r esolution, w ith no s ignificant increases or decreases in homogeneity with i ncreasing spatial r esolut ion. F urther i nterpretation i s complicated b y the p ossibly i ntrusive n ature o f t he c ircular f eature, a nd t he r elative sparsity o f t ools within the rectangular f eature i tself. O f t he t hree d epositional p rocesses t hat a re c onnected w ith model 1 above, this tends to s uggest that abandonment activities a re r esponsible f or t he p atterning s een i n t he tool c lasses. This i s s upported b y Gaussen gs observation o f a l arge n umber o f b urned or h eated f lints at t he s ite. He describes them as having " firespalls" and " crazing" ( 1980:170), b ut i t i s not c lear whether t he f irespalls were in p lace when the materials were recovered. T he northeastern c ircular f eature w as t hought to h ave been a hearth, a nd the s horter s ides o f t he rectangular f eature were thought to represent doorways. If these were doorways, the concentrations o f material j ust o utside, and to t he r ight o f t hem, would s uggest s tructured d isposal. I f this were occurring, h owever, i t i s d ifficult to i magine t he debitage n ot s howing t he s ame p attern. H omogenizing abandonment activities would a lso be expected to operate on t he d ebitage, b ut t his i s n ot t he c ase. The disparity between the amount of debitage within the f eature, and t he n umber of t ools within t he f eature, s uggests d ifferential depositional processes. T ools a s a g roup o ccur i n g reatest concentration j ust outside the feature, while debitage i s much more evenly d istributed. 6 4

1 .0 -

. 90 -

. 80 K-

. 70 -

. 60 -

. 50 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

C LUSTER S OLUTION L EVEL @ I s o bserved

K ' v alues

O a l m ean e xpected K ' v alues A im l imit o f 8 0% c onfidence b and a round m ean e xpected K " v alues

F igure

1 5.

Observed

v ersus

G uillassou.

6 5

expected

I C -v alues

f or

Both

tool

concentrations

have

very

s imilar

contents,

with

t he exception o f burins a nd g rattoirs. This raises the possibility of two distinct occupation ( or at l east deposition) events f or t he t ools. I t s eems c lear that no s ingle depositional process that was connected with model o ne c an account f or a ll o f t he spatial p atterning found here. P atterning among the f ire damaged f lints may help to d ifferentiate t hese p rocesses.

6 6

L e Mas,

cabins

1 and

2

The discussion o f the Le Mas s ite i s mainly b ased on G aussen's comments ( 1980: 1 93-216), a b rief E nglish s ummary may be found in S ackett and Gaussen ( 1976:65). The s ite o f L e M as i s on t he f loodplain o f t he r iver I sle, i n what i s now a major meander. I t i s on the l eft b ank, j ust upstream o f the town o f S ourzac. There a re two, apparently contemp orary pavements, c alled cabin 1 and 2 b y the excavator. C abin 1 i s a r ectangular outline, which i s v ery s imilar i n s ize and shape t o those at G uillassou and Le Cerisier, but i s not continuously paved. T he published maps provided a l ithic component o f some 5 5 tools, comprised of 6 backed b ladelets, 7 cores, 20 burins, 1 7 burin spalls, and 5 g rattoirs. The excavator recognized three stratigraphic zones, t hey a re f rom t op t o bottom: ( 1) t he p lowzone, c ontaining some vegetable material and s ilicious pebbles i n a gray s and/clay matrix, i ncluding s ome l ithic materials f rom the n ext l evel down, t he depth i s variable, averaging between 2 0 and 2 5 cm, b ut occasionally r eaching 3 0 to 3 5 cm; ( 2) brown-red silty sand with some clay, thickness varying between 1 5 and 2 5 cm, this l evel was s ometi mes very d ifficult to d istinguish from l evel 1 ; ( 3) a b rown colored l evel with s lightly more s and and l ess c lay than the preceding levels, the sediment had a well developed a ngular s tructure. The archaeological l ayers were found in the second l evel a lthough there was s ome mixing into t he f irst l evel. T he excavation d id not r each t he l evel o f the river terrace gravels. A lthough c abin 1 i s the more i ntact of t he two features, several broken paving stones show evidence of contact with metal implements. These were i nterpreted as p low marks, and they s uggest s ignificant agricultural disturbance. The area i n which t hese occur i s i ndicated on t he s ite p lans; t hese s tones f orm a north/south oriented band. Le M as:

c abin

1

I nspecting the l oq(%sse) versus c luster s olution l evel graph ( Fig. 1 6) s hows i nflections at t he 2 , 4 a nd 6 c luster solution points. Although the k-means routine actually c lustered t he data out to t he 1 0 c luster s olution l evel, once the 7 c luster l evel had been reached the number of c lusters c ontaining f ewer than t hree p oints became so l arge a s to make interpretation very difficult. A s i s c lear from F ig. 1 6 a fter t he 6 c luster l evel t he c urve i s v ery f lat until the 9 c luster l evel i s reached. B ecause this l evel i ncludes 3 c lusters w ith 3 or f ewer points, t he process was arbitrarily cut off at the next lower optimal solution l evel.

6 7

2 .0 LOG( USE) M lb

4. 1 1• •

1 .5 — 4 1. 1 1 .

«N M

1 .0 — « l e

g M1

. 50 —

0 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

CLUSTER SOLUTION LEVEL

F igure 1 6. L og10(%SSE) v ersus n umber of c lusters Mas, cabin 1 . Optimal solutions a re i ndicated at 4 , a nd 6 c luster s olution l evels.

6 8

f or t he

Le 2 ,

Analysis:

Le Mas,

c abin

1

A t the two c luster l evel s olution, ( Fig. 1 7) c luster o ne i s c entered j ust to t he west o f t he z one c ontaining p low marked pavement s tones, and c luster two centered on t he opposite, e astern s ide. T his s eems to a ccount well f or t he overall two c luster s tructure. Examining t he r elative c luster p roportions i n T able 8 s hows t he n umerical dominat ion by the burin and burin spall c lasses, while the r elative t ype p roportions, a nd r anks ( Table 9 ) s how a c lear division in c luster c ontent. C luster two, to t he e ast, c ontains mostly b urin s palls a nd grattoirs, a lthough a ll t ypes a re present. C luster one, to t he west, i n contrast c ontains p roportionately more b urins, b acked b ladelets, a nd c ores, with no grattoirs. T he d istinctive content o f each c luster s uggests t hat t he p low i nduced d isturbance i s n ot the only factor structuring space at the two c luster l evel. T here were no s ignificant r ank o rder c orrelations a t this solution l evel. C luster one h as a K v alue o f . 82, while c luster two achieved a value of . E T 6, indicating fairly s imilar, moderately homogeneous, content d istribut ions. K " at this s olution l evel was . 83. At the f our c luster s olution, ( Fig. 1 8), c luster one i s i n t he s ame p osition that i t o ccupied e arlier, j ust to t he west o f the p low marked z one. The c enter o f c luster two h as s hifted to t he w est, b ut i t i s s till s eparated f rom c luster one by the p low marked zone. C luster t hree i s c entered f urther t o t he west o f c luster one. T he c enters o f these three c lusters f orm an a lmost perfectly s traight e ast-west l ine. C luster f our i s s lightly offset to the s outh f rom this l ine, and c entered to t he e ast o f c luster two. T his i s p erhaps a p roduct o f t he excavation bound ary, square j -13 was unexcavated. Examining the r elative c luster and type proportions i n T able 1 0, s hows t hat t he t ypes a re s egregate i nto s pecific c lusters, e ach i s n umerically dominated by only o ne type. T his i s a lso apparent i n T able 1 1, t he c lass counts and ranks by c luster. C luster one contains mostly burins, c luster two mostly burin spalls, c luster three mostly b acked b ladelets, and c luster f our mostly grattoirs. The K v alues at this s olution l evel r eflect this, r anging from . 56 f or c luster t hree, to . 86 i n c luster four. K " at this s olution l evel was . 74, a drop o f . 09 f rom t he t wo c luster s olution l evel, i ndicating a moderate overall homogeneity. T able 1 4 s hows only o ne s ignificant correlation at t he . 10 a lpha l evel, between burins and cores, at a v alue o f . 85. A t the 6 c luster solution l evel ( Fig. 1 9) c luster one i s v irtually u nchanged i n position, while t he a rea f ormerly containing c luster two h as been divided b etween c lusters t wo a nd s ix. C luster t wo i s n ow c entered on t he n ortheastern edge of t he excavated area. C lusters three and f our a re u nchanged f rom t heir p revious p ositions. C luster f ive occupies the western edge o f the p low marked z one, while c luster s ix i s i n t he s outhernmost e astern e dge o f 6 9

this zone, having been f ormerly c luster two.

assigned

the

bulk

of

what

was

T ables 1 2 and 1 3 show again the c lear dominance o f each c luster by o ne o f t he t ypes, a nd t he r elatively l arge s ize o f c luster one, still mostly burins, i n comparison to that o f the other c lusters. K v alues r anged f rom . 51 i n c luster s ix, to . 86 in c luster -f our, showing a c onsiderable range in the homogeneity of c lusters. K" was . 69, another s ubstantial drop from the previous sol ution level, a lthough not as s harp as the drop f rom the 2 to 4 s olution l evels. I t f alls in the range of moderate overall homogeneity. The only s ignificant rank order correlation at this l evel was t he s ame as at t he previous l evel, b ut attained . 91, and s ignificance at the . 05 a lpha l evel. B oth cores a nd b urins are represented most strongly in c luster 1 at a ll solution l evels.

7 0

Table 8 . Le Mas cabin 1 , c luster a nd t ype p ercentage. B urin spalls

2 c luster s olution, relative Bb= b acked b ladelets, Bs. =

r elative c luster proportions T ype: , C luster 1 2

B b.

C ores

B urins

T . 30 . 09

. 29 . 19

1 .0 . 36

B s. 1 . l r 1 .0 .. . J J

G rattoirs 0 . 45

r elative type proportions T ype:

B b.

C ores

C luster

1 2

1 .0 . 20

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs «r

«. I,

e l.

1 .0 . 40

1 .0 . 23

7 1

. 55 1 .0

0 1 .0

T able 9 . L e M as cabin 1 , 2 c luster solution, r aw counts a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. Bb.= b acked b ladelets, B s.= b urin spalls r aw counts T ype: C luster

1 2

Bb. c , 1

C ores 5 2

B urins , •

B s.

G rattoirs ,

1 7 4

6 1 1

0 5

1 2

2 1

2 1

r anks C luster

1 2

1 2

1 2

7 2

Table 1 0. L e Mas c abin 1 , c luster a nd t ype p ercentage. B urin spalls

4 c luster solution, r elative B b.= b acked b ladelets, B s.=

r elative c luster proportions

C luster

T ype:

Bb.

C ores

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

1 2 3 4

. 06 . 11 1 .0 0

1 .0 . 22 . 50 . 50

. 33 . 11 0 . 25

. 40 1 .0 0 . 50

0 . 11 0 1 .0

r elative t ype proportions Type:

Bb.

C ores

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

. 25 . 25 1 .0 0

1 .0 . 13 . 13 . 13

1 .0 . 20 0 . 20

. 67 1 .0 0 . 22

0 . 25 0 1 .0

e

C luster

1 2 3 4

7 3

T able 1 1. L e Mas c abin 1 , 4 c luster solution, r aw counts a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. Bb.= b acked b ladelets, B s.= b urin spalls r aw c ounts

C luster

T ype:

Bb.

1 2 3 4

1 1 4 0

.

C ores

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

5 1 0 1

1 5 2 2 2

6 9 0 2

0 1 0 4

1 3 3 3

2 1 4 3

3 .5 2 3 .5 1

r anks C luster

1 2 3 4

2 .5 2 .5 1 4

1 2 .5 4 2 .5

7 4

Table 1 2. Le Mas c abin 1 , c luster a nd t ype percentage. B urin spalls r elative T ype:

6 c luster s olution, relative Bb. = backed b ladelets, B s.=

c luster proportions

Bb.

Cores

B urins

B s.

Grattoirs

. 08 0 1 .0 0 0 . 16

. 25 . 33 0 . 25 . 50 0

1 .0 . 67 . 50 . 50 . 75 1 .0

. 16 1 .0 0 . 50 1 .0 0

0 0 0 1 .0 0 . 16

r

C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6

relative

C luster

t ype p roportions

Type:

Bb.

Cores

B urins

B s.

Grattoirs

1 2 3 4 5 6

. 25 0 1 .0 0 0 . 25

1 .0 . 33 0 . 33 . 66 0

1 .0 . 16 . 16 . 16 . 25 0

. 33 . 50 0 . 33 . 66 1 .0

0 0 0 1 .0 0 . 25

7 5

T able 1 3. L e Mas c abin 1 , 6 c luster solution, r aw c ounts a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. B b.=backed b ladelets, B s. = b urin spalls r aw counts T ype: C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6

B b. -

C ores

1 0 4 0 0 1

3 1 0 1 2 0

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

. .

1 2 2 2 2 3 0

2 3 0 2 4 6

0 0 0 4 0 1

1 4 4 4 2 6

4 .5 3 6 4 .5 2 1

4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 1 4 .5 2

R anks C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6

2 .5 5 1 5 5 2 .5

1 3 .5 5 .5 3 .5 2 5 .5

7 6

Table 1 4. s ignificant s olutions. C r.= cores, b urin spalls 4 c luster

Le Mas C abin 1 , Spearman's Rho coefficients a t a lpha = . 10 f or t he 3 ,5,7, a nd 9 c luster * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05 B n. =burins, G r.= g rattoirs, B b. = b acked b ladelets, B s. =

solution

6 c luster

T ype:

B n.

T ype:

C r.

. 85

C r.

7 7

s olution

B n. * .91

0

1 M ET RE

2

3

F igure 1 7. C luster l ocations f or L e M as c abin 1 , a t t he 2 c luster s olution. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 1 01

7 8

M ET RE

0

2

3

F igure 1 8. C luster l ocations f or L e M as c abin 1 , a t t he 4 c luster s olution. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 1 01

7 9

W M

2

3

F igure 1 9. C luster l ocations f or L e M as c abin 1 , a t t he 6 c luster s olution. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 1 01

8 0

D iscussion This s ite i s c learly s tructured d ifferentially i n two d istinct a reas, f ocused on two central, concentrated c lusters t hat are l ocated on the west and e ast s ides o f a d isturbed b and. E ach o f t hese a reas c an be s een to h ave b oth distinctive i nternal p atterns and content. The west s ide o f t his band i s more concentrated and has only a s ingle peripheral c luster; on the e ast s ide, t he immediate a rea c ontains s everal more d ispersed c oncentrations, and one easternmost peripheral c luster. F ig. 2 0 s hows the relationship between the observed a nd expected I C values a t e ach s olution l evel. T he o bserved v alues f all o utside o f the l ower boundary o f t he 8 0% confidence b and around t he e xpected v alues at every point. This relationship f its with that expected under model 3 ( Fig. 8 ). D epositional p rocesses c onnected w ith t his model i mply s imilar core c lusters s urrounded by d istinctive peripheral c lusters. W hile t his s eems t o b e t he c ase h ere, t he major f actor i n t he c reation o f the two core c lusters may have b een t he p low d isturbance. There i s, however, a major difference in content between the c entral c lusters that c ontain mostly b urins, b urin s palls, a nd cores, and the peripheral c lusters, that contain a lmost exclusively b acked b ladelets a nd grattoirs. I t i s d ifficult to imagine t hat o ne central b and o f d isturbance could b e responsible f or t his p attern. S imilarly i t does n ot s eem r easonable to s uggest that terminal occupation phase abandonment/ d ismantling activities would differentially distribute these artifact c lasses. This l eaves only purposeful d istribution. Cores are suggestive of reduction activities, while b acked b ladelets and grattoirs c an be characterized as e ssentially f inished p roducts. I t s eems possible that the c entral a rea i s o ne o f more c oncentrated i nitial r eduction, while the peripheral areas c onsist o f d isposal concentrat ions o f e ssentially f inished p roducts. B urins do n ot f it well within this s cheme, a lthough s patial s egregation o f b urins a nd g rattoirs i s a c lassic p attern ( Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon 1 972, S imek 1 984). This speculation could p erhaps b e c larified by examining t he t ypes a nd d istribut ion o f the debitage present. T he o ne a rtifact c lass that h as b een i ncluded, a nd that may b e r epresentative o f t his i s t hat o f b urin spalls. Their d istribution i s somewhat d ispersed, b ut t hey a re mostly p resent i n t he c entral a rea, with burins a nd c ores. This s eems to s upport the above i nterpretation. I t i s n ot c lear whether t his r eduction c an b e connected with the domestic occupation o f the p avement.

8 1

1 .0 -

. 90 -

V

0

7

9 . 80 -

. 70 -

. 60 -

. 50 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

C LUSTER S OLUTION L EVEL = o bserved

K " v alues

= m ean e xpected I C v alues V= l imit o f 8 0% c onfidence b and a round mean e xpected K " v alues

F igure 2 0. c abin 1 .

O bserved

v ersus

8 2

expected K '

v alues

f or L e M as

L e M as,

c abin

2

A lthough the two pavements were f ound o nly 1 2 m apart, c abin 2 , i n c ontrast t o c abin 1 , h as no d istinctive s tructure. As F ig. 2 2 s hows, t here i s no r eal outline, only t hree c oncentrations o f c obblestones. Gaussen s uggests t hat this was once a p avement s imilar to t hat at c abin 1 , and to those at Le Cerisier, and Guillassou. This interpretation i s supported by the s imilarity of the c obblestones making up the features, the similarity between the cabin 1 and cabin 2 l ithic i ndustries, and G aussen's observation t hat " ... l e g rand a xe de l a " cabane 2 ' est exactement parallele a celui de l a cabin 1 " ( Gaussen 1 980:203) [ 4]. T he p ublished d istribution maps provided a l ithic i ndustry o f 1 45 t ools, which could be b roken down i nto 1 8 b acked b lades, 2 9 cores, 4 5 b urins, 3 7 burin spalls, and 1 6 grattoirs. Gaussen assigns this i ndustry to t he m iddle M agdalenian, s pecifically s uggesti ng the Magdalenian 3 phase, and notes i ts s imilarity to t he i ndustries f rom S olvieux, P lateau P arrain, and the Magdalenian 3 l evels f rom L augerie-Haute. F ig. 2 1 s hows t he l og(%sse) versus c luster solution l evel graph for L e Mas c abin 2 , optimal s olutions are i ndicated at the 3 , 7 , a nd 1 0 c luster l evels. A nalysis o f

cabin

2 d ata

L ocating t he c lusters f rom the t hree c luster s olution l evel on the f eature map o f c abin 2 ( Fig. 2 2), shows c luster one t o b e c entered r oughly i n the middle o f the e asternmost group of cobblestones. C luster two is c entered to t he west o f the majority o f the c obbles, i n an o therwise c lear a rea. C luster t hree i s a lso c entered i n a n area that i s l argely f ree o f cobbles, directly t o the s outh o f t he b reak b etween t he w estern a nd e astern c obble c oncentrations. T ables 1 5 a nd 1 6, show b urins dominating c lusters one a nd t hree, while b urin s palls d ominate c luster two. C ores and burins are most h eavily r epresented i n c luster one, while b acked b ladelets, b urin s palls a nd g rattoirs a re most heavily r epresented i n c luster two. A ll c lasses, except b urins, a re represented much l ess heavily in c luster three. The K value for c luster one was . 90, that for c luster two . g-7 , and that f or c luster three . 87. K " for this solution l evel was . 92, reflecting the very h igh K v alue f or c luster two. There were three rank order c orrelations o f 1 .0 that were s ignificant a t the . 01 a lpha l evel ( Table 2 1); b acked b ladelets were correlated very s trongly with both b urin spalls a nd grattoirs, which were a lso c orrelated w ith e ach other.

8 3

2 .0

1 .5

LOG

( %SSE)

-

M ID

1 .0

1 . 1• 1

I M O

. 50

. I ••• •

••• •

0 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CLUSTER S OLUTION LEVEL

F igure 2 1. L og10(%sse) v ersus n umber o f c lusters c urve f or L e M as, c abin 2 . O ptimal s olutions a re i ndicated a t 3 , 7 , a nd 1 0 c lusters.

8 4

1 0

At the seven c luster l evel, ( Fig. 2 3) c luster one i s in t he easternmost c entral portion o f the s ite, r oughly on the e astern edge o f the eastern cobble concentration. C luster t wo i s on t he extreme opposite e nd of t he s ite, well west of the western cobble concentration. C luster three is s till c entered t o t he s outh a nd s lightly west o f t he b reak between the cobble groups. C luster f our i s centered to t he n orth a nd w est of t he e astern cobble group. C luster f ive i s a lmost d irectly south o f the e astern cobble group, while c luster s ix i s to t he north and west o f the western c obble concentration. C luster s even i s directly north of t he eastern cobble g roup. Tables 1 7 and 1 8, show that burins dominate c lusters o ne, three, a nd f our, b urin s palls c lusters f ive a nd s ix, backed b ladelets c luster two, and cores c luster s even. C luster t wo h as t he h eaviest r epresentation o f a ll c lasses except b urins, which are more well represented in c luster o ne. T he c lasses a re f airly well spread across t he s ite. C luster f our i s moderately well represented i n burins and c ores, while a ll o ther c lusters contain r elatively f ew o f a ny c lass. B acked b ladelets are especially concentrated in c luster t wo. The K v alues f or these c lusters were spread between . 83 f or c luster three, and . 96 for c luster two, with a ll others f alling between . 85 and . 90. This indicates a fairly narrow range of homogeneity, with two rather extreme o utliers. H owever, even with t he numerical d ominance of c luster two, the K " value at this solution l evel was . 89, indicative of a moderate to high overall homogeneity. B acked b ladelets and burin spalls were correlated at Rho = . 77, at t he . 05 a lpha l evel ( Table 2 1); a s hift f rom the weaker, but more numerous relationships at the previous s olution l evel. At the ten cluster solution l evel, locating the c lusters onto the feature map ( Fig. 24) shows that c lusters three, f ive and seven are relatively unchanged in p osition, while t he other previously d efined c lusters have b een subdivided. C luster one i s centered on the eastern c obble c oncentration. C luster two i s f ocused i n t he s outh c entral portion o f the western area containing no cobbles. C luster s ix i s very small and in the extreme north directly opposite cluster three. Cluster eight is concentrated in the s outheastern corner, while c luster n ine i s a lmost d irectly opposite this, on the western end of t he s ite. B oth of these c lusters a re i n cobble free a reas. C luster t en i s directly north o f c luster two, and i s p erhaps t runcated by t he excavation b oundary. Tables 1 9 and 2 0, show that burin spalls dominate 4 c lusters ( four, five, six and ten) and are equall y r epresented with b acked b ladelets i n c luster eight. These c lusters a ll s hare a boundary, and form a roughly " s" s haped curve across t he center o f the s ite f rom northwest to southeast. Burins predominate in c lusters one and 8 5

t hree, while cores p redominate i n c lusters two and s even. B acked b ladelets are most numerous in c luster nine. Grattoirs account for no more than two thirds of the maximum i n a ny c luster. B urins a re h eavily concentrated i n c luster one, with only h alf t hat number ( 16) i n the n ext h ighest c luster, a nd 2 or f ewer i n f our o ut o f the ten c lusters. I n contrast burin s palls are very evenly d istributed a cross a ll c lusters, v arying only between 2 a nd 5 i n every c luster. B acked b ladelets, t he other c lass o f n early t he s ame s ize a nd s hape as b urin spalls, are concentrated h eavily i n c lusters t wo, e ight and n ine; i n the extreme ends of the excavated area. Grattoirs, f airly r are o verall, are a lso d istributed e venly, w ith t he exception o f t heir a bsence f rom c lusters o ne, t wo, a nd s ix. T he K v alues f or t his s olution l evel a re very widely s pread, f rom . 63 f or c luster one, t o . 92 f or c luster n ine, most f ell b etween . 83 a nd . 90. C luster o ne, r epresenting s ome 1 6% o f t he total n umber o f t ools, and b eing t he l east homogeneous by f ar, could s till o nly b ring the K ' v alue down t o . 83, indicating a moderate to high Overall h omogeneity a t t his s olution l evel. T able 2 1 s hows only o ne s ignificant r ank o rder c orrelation; cores and b urin s palls h ave a Rho v alue o f .45, a t t he . 01 a lpha l evel. T his i s the o nly negative c orrelation f ound s o f ar, a nd i s c ertainly i ndicative o f t he r espective c oncentration and e venness o f the c luster distributions o f these two c lasses.

8 6

Table 1 5. Le M as cabin 2 , 3 c luster solution, relative c luster a nd type p roportions. Bb. = b acked b ladelets, B s. = b urins spalls r elative T ype:

B b.

c luster proportions C ores

B urins

B s.

Grattoirs T -

C luster

1 2 3

. 21 . 74 . 10

r elative

C luster

. 59 . 67 . 20

1 .0 . 40 1 .0

. 48 1 .0 . 80

1 . •

. 17 . 46 . 40

t ype proportions

T ype:

B b.

C ores

B urins

B s.

Grattoirs

1 2 3

. 55 1 .0 . 09

1 .0 . 59 . 12

1 .0 . 21 . 34

. 93 1 .0 . 53

. 71 1 .0 . 57

8 7

T able 1 6. L e Mas c abin 2 , 3 c luster solution, r aw counts a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. Bb.= b acked b ladelets, B s.= b urin spalls r aw counts

C luster

T ype:

B b.

C ores

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

1 2 3

6 1 1 1

1 7 1 0 2

2 9 6 1 0

1 4 1 5 8

5 7 4

1 3 2

2 1 3

1 1 3

r anks C luster

1 2 3

2 1 3

1 2 3

8 8

T able 1 7. L e M as c abin 2 , 7 c luster s olution, r elative c luster a nd t ype p roportions. B b. = b acked b ladelets, B s.= b urin spalls r elative c luster p roportions

C luster

T ype:

B b.

C ores

B urins

B s.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. 50 1 .0 . 13 0 0 . 14 0

. 17 . 80 . 13 . 70 . 40 . 43 1 .0

1 .0 . 30 1 .0 1 .0 . 80 . 57 . 67

. 58 . 80 . 38 . 50 1 .0 1 .0 . 33

r elative B b.

Type: r

C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. 08 . 50 . 38 . 20 . 20 . 29 . 33

t ype proportions C ores

B urins

T

. 25 1 .0 . 13 . 88 . 25 . 38 . 75

1 .0 . 25 . 67 . 83 . 33 . 33 . 33

8 9

G rattoirs

B s. r

. 60 1 .0 . 10 0 0 . 10 0

G rattoirs

. 88 1 .0 . 38 . 63 . 63 . 88 . 25

' ' t

. 20 1 .0 . 60 . 40 . 20 . 40 . 40

T able 1 8. L e M as c abin 2 , 7 c luster s olution, r aw c ounts a nd r anks b y a rtifact c lass. B b.= b acked b ladelets, B s.= b urin spalls. r aw c ounts

C luster

T ype:

B b.

C ores

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

2 8 1 7 2 3 6

1 2 3 8 1 0 4 4 4

7 8 3 5 5 7 2

1 5 3 2 1 2 2

1 7 3 2 5 5 5

2 .5 1 6 4 .5 4 .5 2 .5 7

6 .5 1 2 4 6 .5 4 4

r anks C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 1 3 .5 6 6 3 .5 6

5 .5 1 7 2 5 .5 4 3

9 0

T able 1 9. Le Mas c abin 2 , 1 0 c luster solution, relative c luster a nd t ype p roportions. Bb. = b acked b ladelets, B s.= b urin spalls relative

C luster

c luster

proportions

Type:

Bb.

Cores

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

. 06 . 57 . 13 . 25 0 . 33 0 1 .0 1 .0 0

. 25 1 .0 . 13 . 50 . 20 . 33 1 .0 . 40 . 50 0

1 .0 . 57 1 .0 . 50 . 80 . 67 . 67 . 20 0 . 20

. 19 . 42 . 38 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 . 33 1 .0 . 67 1 .0

0 0 . 38 . 25 . 20 0 . 33 . 20 . 67 . 60

r elative Type:

Bb.

type proportions Cores

B urins «,

C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

. 17 . 67 . 17 0 0 . 17 0 . 83 1 .0 0

. 57 1 .0 . 14 . 57 . 14 . 14 . 85 . 29 . 42 0

,

1 .0 . 25 . 50 . 31 . 25 . 13 . 25 . 06 0 . 06

9 1

. . . . .

B s.

,

G rattoirs 1^

. 60 . 60 . 60 . 80 1 .0 . 60 . 40 1 .0 . 80 1 .0

0 0 . 75 . 50 . 25 0 . 50 . 25 1 .0 . 75

T able 2 0. L e M as c abin 2 , 1 0 a nd r anks b y a rtifact c lass. b urin spalls.

c luster s olution, r aw c ounts B b.= b acked b ladelets, B s.=

r aw c ounts

C luster

T ype:

B b.

C ores

B urins

B s.

G rattoirs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

1 4 1 0 0 1 0 5 6 0

4 7 1 4 1 1 6 2 3 0

1 6 4 8 5 4 2 4 1 0 1

3 3 3 4 5 3 2 5 4 5

0 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 4 3

1 5 2 3 5 7 5 8 .5 1 0 8 .5

7 .5 7 .5 7 .5 4 .5 2 7 .5 1 0 2 4 .5 2

9 9 2 .5 4 .5 6 .5 9 4 .5 6 .5 1 2 .5

r anks C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

5 3 5 8 .5 8 .5 5 8 .5 2 1 8 .5

3 .5 1 8 3 .5 8 8 2 6 5 1 0

9 2

Table 2 1. Le Mas cabin 2 , Spearman's Rho coefficients s ignificant at a lpha = . 10. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05 B n.= b urins, Cr. = c ores, Gr.= grattoirs, Bb. = b acked b ladelets, B s. = b urin spalls

3 c luster

solution

7 c luster

T ype:

Bb.

T ype:

B s. G r.

1 .0 1 .0

B s.

1 0

c luster

Type:

s olution

B s.

/Mr

9 3

solution

Bb. * .77

0

0 0 A . 00 • •. • • 0 0 . . 1 2

a O

1

0

a

•

o

• b

0

e

0 4.

0

w.

1 z 5 9 c b ea ege : w r i t e ) e , e 00 ° •.

1

0

0

o o C Y,

0

0•

r i ce

•

er

-0 -

, 0

et

o

• •

g

2 _

"

I n

•

S

.

e CO 4

•

4 0

F igure 2 2. C luster l ocations f or L e M as, c abin 2 , a t t he 3 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate r ms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 1 01.

9 4

4 C 6, )

2

o

•

. '

d

o o

7

»

0

C)

0

0

0 0

4

1 2

4

5

ö •

0

0 0

0

:

:

:

o

e

0 0

V

e

°Z

0 C I

6

_ G ›

e

no

*a

e

Ce

2

°

0

c 5°

.

0

.

40

•

F igure 2 3. C luster l ocations f or L e M as, c abin 2 , a t the 7 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 1 01.

9 5

8 4 1 3

-

oA

r

o

7

.

d

5

0 ,

09 • 0

0 0

o .

1 2

C e

a

0

0

1

a

•

0 o

o

•

•

.e d d le bt

1 0

e

•

8

o p e tP

a 9 • , : *" • , • c > 0

0P i p

9

A

o # 0

. V

2 a

1 0 I )

e •

• . 6 • 4 6,4 % . 10 1C ) je t : • o 0 .

0

e

0

.

4 .

6

0

o

* 4 9

0

•

0

(

9

F igure 2 4. C luster l ocations f or L e M as, c abin 2 , a t the 1 0 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate r ms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) f ig. 1 01.

9 6

D iscussion o f

te C abin

2 A nalysis

This s ite s eems t o h ave a b asically t ripartite s truct ure. T here a re l arge t ool concentrations a t t he extreme e ast a nd west e nds o f t he excavated a rea, a nd a nother small a rea o f t ool c oncentration i n the s outh c entral a rea. A v ery small n umber o f t ools ( 5 o ut o f 1 45) f orm a s eparate g roup i n the n orth c entral portion o f the s ite, well away f rom o ther p ieces, t his i s most o f c luster s ix i n t he t en c luster s olution l evel. T here i s a v ery e ven b ackground d istribution o f b urin s palls, which i s n ot s imilar t o a ny o ther distribution, e ven t hat o f b acked b ladelets which are s imilar in s ize. The graph o f observed a nd expected K" v alues f or e ach o ptimal s olution l evel ( Fig. 2 5) s hows t hat the observed K " v alues decline with increasing s patial r esolution, and in every case are l ower than the 8 0% c onfidence b and f or t he expected v alues. T his c ase a lso s eems t o f it well w ith model three. T he l ack o f a good r ectangular o utline, t he d ispersed n ature o f t he cobbles that are present, and the extremely even d istribution o f o ne o f t he v ery s mall s ized t ool c lasses, a ll w ould a rgue f or s erious d isturbance a s the overwhelming c reator o f t he p atterns o f t ool d istribution at t his s ite. G aussen makes i t v ery c lear i n h is d iscussion o f the s ites a t L e M as, t hat t he archaeological h orizons were h eavily d isturbed, a nd o ften d ifficult t o d istinguish. H e a lso implies that v ertical d isplacement may have been extensive, but provides no stratigraphic p rofiles f rom w hich t his c an b e a ssessed. T here s eem t o b e three mutually exclusive ways i n which t he r emaining c obble p atterns c an b e i nterpreted. F irst, f ollowing G aussen, i t could b e that the s ite r epresents the r emains o f a s ingle p avement t hat w as o riented n early e ast t o west, parallel t o t he l ong axis o f c abin 1 . S econd, i t c ould b e t hat t he p attern i s more analogous to that at G uillassou. I n this case the easternmost c obble group c ould b e t he r emains o f an external c oncentration, a nd t he m ain p avement would b e a r oughly two meter w ide r ectangle extending f rom s quare f -10 ( Fig. 2 2) t o t he n orthwest. O r third, it could be that the cobble concentrations were n ever a s ingle c oherent p avement, and perhaps represent e ither h earths, o r s imply p iles o f cobbles u sed f or v arious p urposes. Evidence for the f irst interpretation l ies in the p roximity o f t he s ite t o c abin 1 , t he s imilarity of the l ithic i ndustry, the s imilarity o f the n ature a nd o rientat ion o f t he c obbles, a nd t he j udgement o f t he e xcavator. W hile the l ast c annot easily b e discounted, t he f irst two m ay b e expected g iven t he t ime r ange i nvolved, t he a ccessab ility o f the r esource a nd t he p roclivity o f p eople t o u se t he s ame l ocation i n a n umber o f w ays.

9 7

1 .0 -

. 90 -

. 80 K"

. 70 -

. 60 -

. 50 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

C LUSTER S OLUTION L EVEL 1 0 = o bserved

K " v alues

0 = mean e xpected K " v alues V_ A - l imit o f 8 0% c onfidence b and a round mean e xpected l e v alues

F igure 2 5. c abin 2 .

O bserved

a nd

e xpected

9 8

K '

v alues

f or

L e

M as,

E vidence f or _ t he s econd i nterpretation i s b ased o n the g eneral s imilarity of both the relative s cale o f the f eatures, a nd t he d iagonally o riented s patial s tructure o f t ools when s een a gainst t he p avement a t G uillassou a nd t he p roposed o rientation o f t he p artial p avement a nd external f eature at cabin 2 . This assumes that the spatial d istribution of the tools at cabin 2 has not been so d isturbed as to e liminate a ll a spects of the original structure, ( perhaps indicated by the nature o f the i ndividual tool c lass distributions) and that this d iagonal s tructuring i s a r easonable approximation o f the s tructure o f t he d istributions a t b oth s ites. T he l atter i s not p articularly c lear at c abin 2 , which may b e due to t he e xtent o f d isturbance. A rguing f or t he d istinctiven ess o f t hese t wo d istributions i s t he f act t hat t hey each f it w ell w ith a d ifferent model in t he s et proposed to guide interpretation. I t i s true however, that the observed K ' values for cabin 2 are very c lose to the b oundary o f t he expected K ' v alue c onfidence b and a t two o ut o f t he t hree p oints. — Evidence for the l ast interpretation i s even more s ketchy. I t i s n ot r eally s upported b y a nything b ut t he nature of the cobble c oncentrations. I n the absence o f o ther e vidence, t he f irst t wo i nterpretations s eem e qually p lausible. H owever, i t i s v ery d ifficult t o s eparate the e ffects o f d isturbance f rom e ither of t he two f ormation p rocesses that were p roposed a s b eing c onnected with model t hree. T he t ool d istributions a cross t he c lusters do n ot f it with either expectation. I t s eems l ikely t hat the s patial p atterns s een h ere a re t he p roduct o f d isturbance a nd p erhaps destructive r euse o f the c obbles, which might h ave o riginally b een t here a s a p avement.

9 9

L e Cerisier The majority of the i nformation for t his d iscussion i s t aken f rom Gaussen ( 1980: 1 04-126). A brief E nglish s ummary of the s ite may be found i n S ackett and G aussen ( 1976:64). Le Cerisier i s l ocated j ust downstream f rom t he s ite of S olvieux, on the r ight bank o f the I sle, very c lose to t he confluence with i ts s mall t ributary s tream, t he Beauronne. I t i s roughly 2 50 m north o f the s ite of P lateau P arrain. I t i s on t he opposite s ide o f t he I sle as Guillassou and La Mas, and s ituated roughly half way b etween t hese in e levation f rom the current r iver bed. T he s ite consists o f a s ingle n early square pavement. The l ong axis of this f eature i s oriented i n a lmost exactly t he s ame direction a s that o f Le Mas c abin 1 , and perhaps c abin 2 , r oughly 1 0 degrees n orth of west. T he shorter s ides o f the feature have small protruding s ubrectangular " apses," t hought to represent e ntrances. The pavement i s made up mainly o f l ocal quartz cobbles, w ith some s chists a nd o ther l ocal materials. As w as the c ase at Guillassou, there i s good evidence that many o f the cobbles were heated or b urned p rior to t he construction o f t he pavement. The i ndustry associated with the pavement i s r ather u nique. I t i s q uite sparse a nd ( with t he exception of three f lakes) confined to the inside edges of the p avement. T he published maps p rovided l ocational i nformat ion for 4 5 tools: 2 5 burins, 7 notched p ieces, 9 retouched b lades, 2 percoirs, 1 raclette, a nd 1 g ravette. S ixteen cores are reported hut not included on the map. Both G aussen ( 1980:115), a nd S ackett a nd Gaussen ( 1976) a ssert t hat the industry i s Magdalenian i n nature, a lthough " ...no shelter assemblage of this or any other industrial tradition is known which has a similar quantitative make-up." ( Sackett and Gaussen 1 976:64). There are no g rattoirs, b ladelets or other " ... pieces vraiment c aracteri stiques." [ 5] ( Gaussen 1 980: 1 13). O ne hundred retouched t ools i s usually considered the minimal number for which a type f requency analysis i s v alid, making t he n ature of the L e Cerisier assemblage questionable. The excavator recognized four s tratigraphic l evels. F rom the s urface downward these a re: ( 1) p lowzone, s ome 2 5 cm thick, b ut o ccasionally r eaching to b etween 3 0 a nd 3 6 cm, grayish in color, including humus and small quartz gravels; ( 2) a sterile l evel of discontinuous sandy l enses; ( 3) a level of well structured c layey s ediment, averaging 8 0 cm in t hickness; ( 4) a l evel o f gravels i n a s and/clay matrix, probably f rom an o ld r iver terrace. The p avement i s approximately 5 cm b elow t he upper l imit of l evel 3 . There was no trace of geological disturbance found. In contrast to the other pavement s ites, the s urrounding occupation s urface at Le Cerisier i s apparentl y on t he s ame l evel as the top of the paving s tones, S ackett and Gaussen ( 1976) s uggest t hat the pavement might h ave been in p art, a s emi-subterranean s tructure.

1 00

Analysis:

Le

C erisier

Examining the l og(%sse) p lot for L e Cerisier ( Fig. 2 6) s hows only one i nflection: at the 7 c luster solution. The s ituation i s c omplicated, however, by the very obvious spatial patterning, that c an be s een on the distribution map. T he l ithics a re c learly c lustered at the equivalent o f a two c luster l evel solution, when divided a long the l ong axis of the pavement. When this situation was apparent, the f irst e ffort to s olve i t was the u se o f an o ption i n the k -means analysis p rogram that randomizes the d ata s et and produces f ull analytic results f rom these new data sets. The l og(%sse) p lots from the random and observed data c an t hen be c ompared, a nd d eviation by the observed data from the random curves can be examined f urther. This approach w as originally s uggested by Doran and Hodson ( 1975), and appears to b e quite valuable i n ( most) ambiguous s ituations. Unfortunately, the two cl uster solution for the o bserved data showed no deviation from the randomized d ata. There are several possible reasons for the f ailure of the method to pick this solution l evel out as an optimal s olution. I t i s generally t rue i n the u se o f the k -means method that one o f the l argest absolute drops i n sse occurs between the one and two c luster solution l evels. I t s eems most l ikely t hat t he points a re s pread j ust widely enough a long the l ong axis o f the f eature, and t here a re j ust f ew enough points, that t he s se d ifferences b etween the one, two and three c luster s olutions are a ll i nherently very l arge. T he t wo c luster s olution would n ot t hen show up a s a " minimal" point on the l og(%sse) curve. T he r andomizing option i n K intigh's implementation o f the k-means algorithm preserves the overall s tructure o f the points, because i t r andomizes the association between the x , a nd y coordinates o f t he observed data s et. I t does not generate new coordinates. Because of this, the r andomized data s ets s howed t he s ame general problem as t he observed data, and so f ailed to differentiate the two c luster s olution. Perhaps t his s hould s tand as an example o f visually ' obvious' c lustering being b ased on drasticall y d ifferent c riteria t han t hat which is mathematically obvious'. Since the data are so c learly divisible into two g roups, t he 2 c luster solution was i ncluded in f urther a nalyses as i f the k -means c lustering process had s hown i t to be optimal. This is very much in keeping with the spirit o f t he h euristic s patial a nalysis methodology, as developed by K intigh and Ammerman ( 1982). At t he t wo c luster s olution l evel ( Fig. 2 7), c luster two is in the south central portion o f the pavement and extends a long t he s outhern b order; c luster o ne i s c entered i n the north central portion o f the s ite directly opposite o f c luster two, a nd extends a long the northern border. Both c lusters are extremely l ong i n proportion to their 1 01

2 .0

1 .5

LOG

( %SSE)

-

-

1 .0

-

. 50

-

0

I

2

I

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

CLUSTER SOLUTION LEVEL

F igure 2 6. L og10(%sse) C erisier. An optimal c luster l evel.

v ersus n umber o f c lusters f or L e s olution i s i ndicated at t he 7

1 02

w idth, a nd there i s an a lmost 2 meter w ide s ection i n the c enter o f t he s ite, extending f rom o ne end t o the other t hat i s completely c lear o f a ll l ithic material. T ables 2 2 and 2 3, show the t remendous p redominance of c luster o ne i n a ll c ategories. C luster o ne c ontains most o bjects o f every c lass, a lthough f or r etouched b lades and n otches t he s uperiority i s by o nly I o bject. C luster one a lso contains a ll f ive objects i n the most r are c lasses. O f t he t hree c lasses that c luster t wo contains ( burins, n otches, and r etouched b lades), t he relative r anks within t he c luster a re t he s ame a s t hose f ound i n c luster o ne. At t he two c luster s olution l evel, c luster one h as a K v alue o f . 75, while c luster two has a K v alue o f . 72. The l e v alue for this s olution l evel was . 74, reflecting the n umerical predominance o f c luster one, which c ontains two t hirds o f t he total number of objects. There were no s ignificant Rho c orrelations at this s olution l evel. At the seven c luster solution l evel ( Fig. 2 8) the s outhern a rea o f t he s ite h as been d ivided i nto c lusters o ne ( the westernmost) a nd f our. The northern portion o f the site has been divided into the remaining five c lusters. C lusters six, f ive, three, and two are a ll a rranged i n a l ine, p arallel to t he northern edge o f t he p avement. I n c ontrast c luster s even i s to t he immediate s outh of c luster two. C luster s ix includes only two o bjects, both b urins. The r elative c luster proportions ( Table 2 4) s how that b urins p redominate i n e very c luster except c luster one, where notches a re the dominant c lass. The r elative type p roportions s uggest t hat t here s hould be a h igh d egree o f d ispersion across the c lusters, because o f the l arge number o f 1 .0 v alues. T his i s s omewhat m isleading b ecause o f the very l ow v alues f or most o f the c lasses. T able 2 5, the c lass c ounts a nd r anks by c luster, s hows that the three numerous c lasses are evenly distributed across the c lusters. The K v alues f or this solution l evel are very widely d istributed. T his i s because o f three very rare c lasses. A ny c luster t hat i ncludes o ne o f t hese objects i s a lmost certainly going to have a h igher K v alue than one that d oes not. T he K v alues r anged f rom 0 , i n c luster s ix ( two burins), to . 73 i n c luster one. Three c lusters ( two, t hree, a nd f ive) c ontained a lmost 6 6% o f t he t otal n umber o f objects and h ad K v alues between . 69 and . 74. The IC v alue f or this s olution l evel was . 64. O f a ll t he s ites a nalyzed s o f ar, comparison o f observed versus expected K" v alues i s most c ritical i n t his one, b ecause o f t he wide v ariation i n the K v alues. V irtually every c lass, except notches, was f ound to be c orrelated at a moderate to h igh l evel, w ith e very other ( Table 2 6). N otice however, that these r elationships are s trongest among t he t hree most r arely occurring c lasses, 1 03

e specially b etween percoirs and r aclettes, a nd p ercoirs a nd g ravettes. A ll f ive o f t hese objects occur in t he two n eighboring c lusters, t hree and f ive.

1 04

Table 2 2. Le Cerisier, 2 cluster solution, relative c luster a nd type proportions. B n. = b urins, Nt. = n otches, Rb. = retouched b lades, P r.= Percoirs, Ra.= raclettes, Gv. = Gravettes relative c luster proportions Type:

B n.

Nt.

1 2

1 .0 1 .0

. 24 . 38

-

C luster

r elative Type:

B n.

Rb. . 30 . 50

1 2

1 .0 . 48

7 .

. 11 0

Ra.

Gv.

. 06 0

. 06 0

Ra.

Gv.

1 .0 0

1 .0 0

type proportions N t.

Rb. •T

C luster

P r.

.1 ,

1 .0 . 75

1 .0 . 80

1 05

P r. . I . . . . .

,

1 .0 0

T able 2 3. L e C erisier, 2 c luster s olution, r aw counts and r anks by a rtifact c lass. Bn. = b urins, N t. = notches, Rb.= retouched b lades, Pr. = Percoirs, Ra. = r aclettes, G v. = G ravettes raw c ounts T ype:

B n.

N t.

Rb.

P r.

R a.

G v.

4 3

5 4

2 0

1 0

1 0

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 '

C luster

1 2

1 7 8

r anks C luster

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 06

Table 2 4. Le Cerisier, 7 c luster solution, relative c luster a nd t ype proportions. Bn. = b urins, N t. = n otches, R b.= retouched b lades, P r.= P ercoirs, Ra. = raclettes, Gv. = G ravettes. relative c luster proportions R a. Gv. Type: B n. N t. Rb. P r. «,r

C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. 50 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 relative

Type:

B n.

1 .0 . 80 0 0 0 0 . 33

. 50 . 20 . 40 . 50 . 40 0 0

0 0 . 20 0 . 20 0 0

0 0 . 20 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 . 20 0 0

type proportions N t.

Rb.

P r.

R a.

Gv. T

C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. 20 1 .0 1 .0 . 80 1 .0 . 40 . 60

. 50 1 .0 0 0 0 0 . 25

. 50 . 50 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 0 0

1 07

0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 0

o 1 .0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 .0 0 0

T able 2 5. L e Cerisier, 7 c luster s olution, raw c ounts and r anks b y artifact c lass. B n.= burins, N t. = notches, Rb.= retouched b lades, Pr.= Percoirs, Ra. = r aclettes, G v. = G ravettes. r aw c ounts

C luster

T ype: 1 , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

B n.

N t.

R b.

P r.

R a.

G v.

1 5 5 4 5 2 3

2 4 0 0 0 0 1

1 1 2 2 2 0 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0

4 .5 4 .5 2 2 2 6 .5 6 .5

5 5 1 .5 5 1 .5 5 5

4 .5 4 .5 1 4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 4 .5

4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 4 .5 1 4 .5 4 .5

r anks C luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 2 2 4 2 6 5

2 1 5 .5 5 .5 5 .5 5 .5 3

1 08

T able 2 6. L e C erisier, 7 c luster s olution Spearman's Rho c oefficients s ignificant at t he a lpha = . 10 l evel. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05. B n.= b urins, Nt.= notches, R b.= r etouched b lades, P r.= P ercoirs, R a.= r aclettes, Gv. = G ravettes.

T ype:

B n.

N t. ' en

B r a. N t. R b. P r. R a. G v.

Rb. e l k,

P r.

• ••

my.

Ra. w e,

G v. Mr

1 .0 1 .0 . 66 * .72 . 60 . 60

-_-

1 .0 * .74 . 61 . 61

1 .0 * .81 * .81

1 09

1 .0 . 56

1 .0

i k P d oo

e1 8 •

•

0 a

F igure 2 7. C luster l ocations f rom L e C erisier, a t the 2 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) F ig. 4 7.

1 10

F igure 2 8. C luster l ocations f rom L e C erisier, a t t he 7 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate r ms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter G aussen ( 1980) F ig. 4 7.

1 11

D iscussion L e Cerisier i s most c learly d ivisible i nto two s ections by t he c entral l ong axis o f t he pavement, b ut at t he s even c luster l evel this i s partitioned i nto two groups i n the s outh a nd f our or f ive groups i n t he n orth. Perhaps most i ntriguing i s the c lear c entral a rea, parallel to the l ong axis o f t he p avement t hat t erminates at e ach apse. The graph o f expected versus observed K ' v alues f or Le Cerisier ( Fig. 2 9), s hows that the observed K ' values f all within t he 8 0% c onfidence b and around t he mean expected v alues a t both the two and seven c luster solution levels. The observed K " value f or the two c luster solution i s f airly c lose to the upper bound of the confidence l imit, while at the s even c luster s olution t he observed v alue i s w ithin . 01 units of the mean expected v alue. This s uggests a v ery c lose f it w ith model one, no s ignificant i ncrease or decrease i n homogeneity with i ncreasing spatial resolution. Four f ormation processes were connected with this model: structured deposition, complete overlap o f most material s ets whether d eposited contemporaneously or in s erial occupations, and terminal occupation events s uch as d ismantling t he p ostulated s uperstructure u sed in conjunct ion with the p avement. The observed patterning s eems to f it most c losely w ith t he t hird o f t hese t hree p rocesses. Those tools that are not extremely rare are very evenly distributed a cross t he c lusters, at a ll s olution l evels. I f e ither s ide o f the structure contained the remains o f distinctive a ctivities, or s ets o f activities, one would expect s ome concentration of particular artifact c lasses. While t his does o ccur when the r are classes are l umped together, they are concentrated i n an area that contains approximately 6 6% of t he objects at t he s ite. T he c lear nature break in the tool distribution e liminates the s econd p rocess f rom consideration f or t he o verall p attern, a lthough i t may h ave produced the even c lass distribution across t he c lusters. The even distribution of the abundant c lasses at a ll s olutions, t he c lear r emoval of l ithic materials f rom the c entral portion o f the p avement, and t he spatial spread o f t he more r arely r epresented c lasses, a ll s eem to a rgue for some homogenizing process that results i n the observed spatial s egregation of the assemblage. I n t his s ituation it seems impossible to distinguish between one of two s equences: ( 1) u nstructured d isposal, or p iling t hings up a long t he edges o f the pavement in a more or l ess s equent ial manner t hrough t ime, and ( 2) deposition a long the e dges during events associated with the abandonment o f the pavement, dismantling and removal of f l ooring, for i nstance. The major d ifference i n the two i s the t iming o f t he t erminal d eposition event(s), both assume a f airly s hort term domestic occupation o f the p avement i n conjunct ion w ith a t ent-like s uperstructure.

1 12

1 .0 -

. 90 -

. 80 -

. 70 -

. 60 -

. 50 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

CLUSTER S OLUTION L EVEL l e= o bserved

K ' v alues

0= m ean e xpected K " v alues V_ l imit o f 8 0% c onfidence b and a round m ean e xpected K " v alues

F igure 2 9. C erisier.

Observed

v ersus

1 13

Expected

K

v alues

f or

Le

P lateau P arrain The i nformation for t his d iscussion i s t aken f rom t wo main sources, Gaussen ( 1980:217-228), and Bordes and Gaussen ( 1970). The distribution map used to obtain s patial c oordinates f or t he objects i s f rom Bordes and G aussen ( 1970). A b rief English s ummary may b e f ound in S ackett a nd Gaussen ( 1976). The s ite is l ocated on a small p lateau on the r ight b ank o f the I sle, immediately above a nd to t he northwest o f t he c onfluence o f t he I sle and its tributary, the Beauronne. T he s ite at P lateau P arrain w as a pparently t he f irst open a ir M agdalenian s ite ever investigated i n F rance. I n the I sle v alley, i t i s unique among t he p avement s ites f or s everal reasons. F irst, only o ne other s ite h as a l arger number o f t ools ( Solvieux); s econd, it was discovered because of t ools f ound on the s urface; third, i t i s the only c lear example o f a s ite whose p avement i s n ot c ontinuous, a lthough in this respect Le Mas Cabin 1 is somewhat similar; and fourth, it is the only s ite besides Solvieux to h ave more than one component. The s ite was found to h ave a s mall N eolithic c omponent i n t he upper s tratum. The cobble f eature at P lateau P arrain i s roughly s quare i n p lan. A lthough t he o utline i s n early o ne m w ide i n s ome p laces, t he cobbles do not o ften extend i nto t he i nterior o f t he s tructure. I n the east-central s ection o f the i nterior, there i s a s ingle, approximately 1 m2 p aved area ( see F ig. 3 1). O utside the main f eature, on t he west central border of the excavated area, there i s another concentration o f generally smaller, and o ften broken c obbles. This f eature i s somewhat d ispersed, and s eparate d f rom t he main c obble f eature by p erhaps 5 0 cm. The excavators r ecognized f our s tratigraphic l evels at t he s ite. F rom t he g round s urface d own, t hey are: ( 1) the p lowzone, some 2 0 to 2 5 cm thick, and c onsisting mostly o f s and mixed with c lay and silt, some ceramic debris s uggested t he u se o f the s ite by G allo -,Roman peoples; ( 2) a b rown, g ranular l evel, 1 0 to 1 5 cm thick, and easily c onfused with the l ayer above, a d ark acidic s oil developed on t his l evel; ( 3) a brown, 4 0 cm thick l ayer that c ontains more s and t han the p revious l evels, i n the upper portion i s a small, d iscontinuous N eolithic l ayer, while the l ower portion i s delimited by the Magdalenian l evel, which i s on t he s urface of the next l evel down; ( 4) a yellow/brown, granular, sand and s ilt sediment with a " tres marquee" [ very marked] ( Gaussen 1 980:218) h ardening. Excavation d id n ot r each t he b edrock. I n contrast to the other s ites s tudied, this cobble f eature h as b een most o ften i nterpreted a s h aving b een u sed to hold down the edges o f s ome type o f tent-like s upers tructure, rather than being a f loor foundation. The l ithic industry is dominated by burins, and appears s imilar to t hose attributable to t he M agdalenian 3 at b oth Laugerie-Haute and Solvieux. The published distribu1 14

t ion map p rovided l ocations f or 2 72 t ools: 1 19 burins, 7 grattoir-burins, 1 3 becs, 6 2 cores, 1 8 grattoirs, 48 b acked b ladelets, and 5 p ercoirs. B ecause o f t he l arge n umber o f t ools f rom t his s ite, the c lustering procedure was c arried out to 2 0 c lusters i nstead o f t he previous 1 0. A lthough t his makes i nterpretation somewhat more difficult s imply because of the l arger n umber o f c lusters, it was c lear that there was s ignificant c luster-ing at the higher solution l evels. E ven at t he 1 8 c luster s olution, there are no c lusters w ith l ess than f ive members. T he greatly i ncreased number of c lusters a lso puts a g reat deal o f stress on the meaningfulness o f the a verage homogeneity, K " i ndex. I n g eneral though, the K v alues f or each c luster i n a given s olution l evel were quite r estricted i n r ange. Examining the l og(%sse) ( Fig. 3 0) s hows optimal i nflect ions at t he 5 , 8 , 1 0, 1 3, 1 6, a nd 1 8 c luster solutions. R ather t han d iscuss e ach c luster i n each solution l evel separately, t he o utstanding f eatures o f the s ituation a t e ach s olution l evel, a nd t he c hanges b etween e ach, will b e p resented. C omplete information f or e ach c luster s olution l evel i s a vailable i n t he t ables mentioned b elow. The 5 c luster s olution ( Fig. 3 1), s hows the area t o t he i mmediate s outh o f t he main cobble f eature i s d ivided i nto 3 c lusters, one, two, and f our. C lusters f ive and three a re c entered to the west a nd east of the main f eature, respectively. The area containing the small c ircular f eature i s i ncluded i n c lusters f ive, a nd four, while the tools i nside the main f eature a re d istributed a cross c lusters t wo, t hree, a nd f ive, a lthough most a re i n c luster two. A t this l arge s cale o f resolution, there i s no c lear correspondence between the tool distribution patterns and any of the cobble f eatures. The relative c luster p roportions, ( Table 2 7) a nd r aw c ounts ( Table 2 8), s how that the distribution of artifact c lasses across a lmost a ll c lusters correspond with their original f requency distribu-tions. Burins predominate in each c luster, f ollowed by c ores, b acked b ladelets, and gratt oirs. The l ess abundant c lasses do not s ort themselves a s c learly, b ut t he p attern i s s till v ery c lose. The only major exceptions to t his p attern a re c luster t wo, which c ontains more g rattoirs t han b acked b ladelets, and c luster four, which contains more b acked b ladelets t han cores. T his m ay be r elated to t he i nterior/exterior d ifferences b etween the two c lusters. The e ven distribut ion o f t he more a bundant c lasses i s c learly b orne o ut i n t he r elative type p roportions. C luster one i s noteworthy b ecause o f i ts r elatively h igh p roportions of a ll types except becs and percoirs, while c luster f ive contains r elatively more b ecs a nd grattoirs, both l ow abundance c lasses. C luster four contains the g reatest numbers o f t hree c lasses, p ercoirs, b acked b ladelets, and grattoirb urins, and t he s econd h ighest n umber o f burins. T able 2 9, 1 15

o 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

f -- 1 1 5 1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9 2 0

CLUSTER SOLUTION L EVEL

F igure 3 0. L og10(%sse) v ersus n umber o f c lusters c urve f or P lateau P arrain. O ptimal s olutions a re i ndicated a t 5 , 8 , 1 0, 1 3, 1 6, a nd 1 8 c lusters.

1 16

rank order correlations, shows only four s ignificant c orrelations; e xcept f or t hat b etween b urins and cores, t here i s no c orrespondence b etween these c oefficients and t he relative abundances, again i ndicative of t he even c luster d istribution o f t he more abundant c lasses. T he K v alues f or t his s olution l evel a re a ll r elatively h igh, ranging between . 76, f or c luster t hree, a nd . 90, f or c luster f ive. C luster o ne, w ith 3 0% o f t he t otal n umber o f objects i s the l argest, a nd h as a K v alue o f . 78. The r esulting K ' v alue i s . 82, i ndicating a moderate t o h igh o verall homogeneity f or t his s olution l evel. The 8 c luster solution ( Fig. 3 2), shows that the l argest f ormer c luster ( number one) was s ubdivided i nto c lusters one and s even. The second l argest c luster ( number f our) w as r elatively u ntouched. O f t he r emaining, f ormer c lusters t hree and f ive, were a lso d ivided. T his s uggests t hat e ach o f t he c lusters at the f ive c luster l evel were f airly t ight concentrations, without a g reat d eal o f internal structuring v isible at t his solution l evel. Again, as was s een at the previous l evel, the r elative c luster p roportions ( Table 3 0) show t hat the a rtifact c lasses a re d istributed across t he c lusters i n a d irect r elationship w ith t heir r elative abundances. T he major exceptions a re c lusters f ive a nd s ix, b oth i ncluded i n c luster f ive a t t he p revious s olution l evel. C luster s ix, l ocated to t he northwest o f t he main cobble f eature, c ontains 7 c ores a nd 3 o r f ewer o f a ny o ther c lass ( Table 3 1). This i s the only c luster t hat i s not dominated b y b urins. T he relative t ype proportions, s how t hat c luster f our c ontains r elatively l arge n umbers of a ll c lasses except grattoirs. C lusters s even and e ight are noteworthy f or c ontaining r elatively f ew of a ll c lasses except cores. With the exception of backed b ladelets, concentrated heavily i n c lusters four and f ive, and burins, which c oncentrate i n c luster o ne, the most abundant c lasses are e venly spread among t he c lusters. The l ow abundance c lasses a re a lso evenly s pread across the c lusters, even t hough t here a re s lightly more o f e ach c lass in c luster four. The correlation coefficients ( Table 3 2), show r elationships v ery s imilar to those in t he 5 c luster solution, adding only a s ignificant correlation between b acked b ladelets a nd p ercoirs. The K values for this s olution l evel r anged b etween . 73, for c luster one, and . 85, f or c luster f our, which a lso h ad s ome 2 0% o f t he t otal n umber o f objects. The next l argest c luster, n umber one with 1 7% o f the total, h ad t he l owest K v alue. C lusters one, t hree, a nd s even, r epresenting most o f c luster one a t t he p revious solution l evel, a nd f ocused o n t he s outheast corner o f t he excavated area, have the three l owest K values. There is a n arrowing o f t he r ange i n K v alues, a s c ompared to t he 5 c luster solution, but only a v ery small drop i n the K ' 1 17

value, to . 79, homogeneity.

representing

a moderate

to

h igh

overall

The 1 0 c luster solution ( Fig. 3 3), s hows that, except f or d ivision o f what h ad b een c lusters t hree a nd s ix at the p revious solution l evel, a ll c lusters are very s imilar in position a nd c ontent. C luster f ive now contains a s ubstantial portion of what had been the northern members o f c luster 4 . This c lustering stage in the analysis i s somewhat unique, at l east so far. Earlier i t was the l arger c lusters that were divided, at this stage, the smaller, more dispersed c lusters are being divided. I t i s o nly at this point t hat t he a nalysis i dentifies s ome o f the more visually obvious c lusters ( mostly numbers s ix, e ight, a nd t en). T able 3 3 shows burins s till dominating most c lusters, b ut at t his l evel c ores p redominate i n both c lusters s ix, which contains f ive cores and nothing e lse, and three. B acked b ladelets s till concentrate in c lusters f our and f ive, and percoirs abundant i n three and f our. Both ranks a nd r aw c ounts ( Table 3 4) s uggest t hat t he e venness of the more abundant c lasses i s beginning t o break down. For the f irst t ime t here a re more t han a v ery f ew l ow v alues. I n contrast, the l ow abundance c lasses, e specially grattoirb urins, a nd percoirs, a re more c oncentrated than in the previous solution levels. The rank order correlation coefficients ( Table 3 5), show that at t his s olution l evel, every c lass i s correlated with at l east one other and that t he p reviously r ecognized r elationships have a ll become s ignificant at a h igher a lpha l evel. The K values f or this solution l evel range between 0 , f or c luster 6 , and . 89, for c luster 8 , with most f alling b etween . 69, a nd . 81. A lthough a vast increase in the range spanned by the K values, compared to the previous s olution l evel, there i s again only a v ery small decrease i n K", which i s . 77. The 1 3 c luster s olution l evel ( Fig. 3 4), r eveals that c lusters one, t hree, s ix, s even a nd e ight a re r elatively unchanged i n position and content, while a ll o f the other c lusters have b een d ivided, a lthough none i nto more than two parts. I n t his stage o f the analysis, only t he more dispersed portions of the previous c lusters have been reassigned. C lusters two, f our, and f ive have a ll l ost t hose p arts that were t he more p eripheral a nd d ispersed. At this solution level the distinction between the exterior a nd i nterior o f t he main cobble f eature i s v ery marked. C luster two now contains only objects on the i nside o f t he main cobble f eature, t hose i nterior objects not in c luster two are split between c lusters n ine, and three. The relative c luster and type proportions, ( Table 3 6) s how a nother d ecrease i n t he t endency f or t he most abundant c lasses to d istribute across c lusters according to their 1 18

f requency distributions. There are now t hree c lusters dominated b y c ores r ather t han b urins ( numbers t hree, s ix, a nd t en). These a re a ll on the p eriphery o f t he s ite or t he e dge o f the excavated a rea. Continuing the t rend noticed in the l ast solution l evel, the relative type p roportions a nd t he r aw c ounts ( Table 3 7) s uggest t hat t he more abundant c lasses a re more evenly d istributed across c lusters, while t he l ow a bundance c lasses r emain r elatively concentrated in one or two c lusters. C luster f ive, i n p articular, h as r elatively h igh n umbers o f a ll t hree o f the l ow abundance c lasses ( becs, g rattoirs, and p ercoirs), i t a lso contains t he l argest n umber o f b acked b ladelets. I n c ontrast, c lusters o ne a nd n ine c ontain a lmost nothing but b urins. The rank order correlations ( Table 3 8) show some u nusual t rends. I n c ontrast to t he l ast f ew c luster solutions, most of the values at this solution have d eclined, a nd w hile t wo n ew r elationships h ave b een a dded, o ne was d ropped. W ith t he exception o f the correlations b etween percoirs and g rattoir-burins and percoirs and b acked b ladelets, a ll v alues decreased s ubstantially. T he K v alues f or this s olution l evel r ange b etween 0 , f or c luster s ix, and . 89 for both c lusters eight and t hirteen, with most f alling b etween . 78 a nd . 85. The c lusters with the highest K values ( five, e ight, t en, e leven, twelve, a nd t hirteen) a ll f all a long a rough s emicircle a round t he o utside o f the main cobble f eature. C lusters o ne and f ive e ach have some 1 4% of the total n umber o f objects h ave quite d ivergent K v alues. C luster o ne has a K o f . 66, while c luster f ive h as a K o f . 82. K " at t his s olution l evel w as a gain . 77, s howing no d rop f rom t he previous s olution l evel. The 1 6 c luster l evel ( Fig. 3 5) s hows t hat t he t rend t hat b egan at t he 1 3 c luster s olution l evel h as c ontinued. T he only c hanges i n c luster a ssignment a re the r esult o f r eassigning objects that were in t he more peripheral p ortions o f the a lready existing l arger c lusters. C luster f ive, still l ocated j ust north of t he c ircular cobble f eature, i s the o nly r eal exception. A lthough i t s eems to c ontain t wo d istinct a reas, i t h as n ot y et been d ivided a nalytically. T able 3 9 s hows t he r eversal o f s ome trends f rom t he e arlier l evels. T wo r ather t han t hree c lusters are dominated by cores, a lthough s everal have equal n umbers o f c ores a nd b urins. T he t endency of t he more a bundant c lasses t o b ecome more evenly d istributed across t he c lusters s eems t o h ave e nded. S everal c lusters s how concentrations o f d ifferent c lasses; c luster five has r elatively l arge n umber o f b oth b urins a nd b acked b ladel ets. B urins a lso concentrate i n c lusters o ne, and to a l esser e xtent, i n f our. T he r aw counts a nd r anks ( Table 4 0) s uggest that the l ow a bundance c lasses s tay r elatively concentrated in a few of the generally smaller, and more peripheral 1 19

c lusters. The r ank order correlation coefficients ( Table 4 1) a lso e vidence t he r eversal o f s ome p revious t rends. No s ignificant r elationships h ave b een dropped, a nd many have h igher c -Defficient values than in the previous s olution l evels. I n a ddition, s everal new r elationships have been a dded, f illing out most of the table, and s uggesting t hat t he c lasses a re a ll d istributed s imilarly a cross t he c lusters. S ome o f t he s trongest r elationships are among the low abundance c lasses, reflecting the i ncreasingly s imilar n umber o f t ied z ero v alues. The K v alues f or t his s olution l evel, r ange b etween 0 , f or c luster s ix, a nd . 93, f or c luster t hirteen. Most o f t he K v alues f all between . 70 a nd . 90, a lthough s everal a re a round . 56. T he K ' v alue f or t his s olution l evel though was . 76, a drop of only . 01 f rom t he previous s olution l evel. T he a pparent p atterning f rom t he l ast solution l evel has a lso disappeared; homogeneity values do not appear to be patterned at this s olution level. The l argest c luster, n umber one w ith 1 3% o f t he total, h as a f airly l ow value, reflecting i ts relatively u nchanged s tatus f rom t he p revious s olution l evel. T he 1 8 c luster s olution ( Fig. 3 6) s hows t hat t he t rend n oted i n t he p revious s olution l evel h as c ontinued. T he o nly major d ifference b etween t his c luster s olution l evel a nd t he p revious i s t he f urther d ivision o f c lusters f our, f ive, a nd e leven. I n e ach c ase t he more d ispersed e lements o f e ach c luster were r eassigned to another group. The c lear d ivision b etween t he i nside a nd outside o f t he main c obble f eature i s a lso m aintained, a lthough t he i nterior space h as been d ivided b etween c luster two, and portions o f t hree a nd nine. I t i s o nly at t his s olution l evel t hat the structure of the c lusters a round the small c ircular f eature c orresponds to t he more o bvious v isual g roupings. Examining t he r elative c luster a nd t ype proportions ( Table 4 2) s uggests t hat most c lass d istributions across the c lusters are relatively unchanged. There are now s everal c lusters w ith no cores, and two with no b acked b ladelets, but the evenness of the d istribution o f the more abundant c lasses h as i ncreased a gain. O nly t he v ery l east abundant c lasses r emain completely u nchanged. C ores m ay b e s een t o c oncentrate i n c lusters three a nd four, b oth dense, l arge g roups. B urins c oncentrate most h eavily i n c luster one, w ith o ther p eaks i n f our a nd thirteen, t wo c lusters t hat s urround the c ircular c obble f eature. T he r emaining d istributions a re essentially unchanged. The raw counts a nd r anks ( Table 4 3) s upport t he observations made a bove. T able 4 4, containing r ank order correlation coeffici ents, s hows a s imilar t rend to that of the 1 3 c luster s olution l evel. I n general, t here a re n o new r elations hips, and with t he exception o f two ( grattoir-burins v ersus cores, a nd g rattoir-burins v ersus percoirs) a ll t he v alues a re l ower t hen i n t he p revious l evels. A gain t he 1 20

strongest relationships are b etween the l ower abundance c lasses, with the exception of backed b ladelets and burins, probably reflecting the l arge number o f z ero v alues f or t hese c lasses. O verall t he c orrelations s eem t o s upport t he i dea o f a f airly e ven d istribution o f the more a bundant c lasses, s omething that has changed only m inimally s ince t he 5 c luster s olution l evel. T he K v alues a gain span a c onsiderable r ange, f rom 0 f or c luster s ix t o . 92 f or c luster s eventeen. T here are, however, only t wo nonzero K v alues t hat f all b elow . 70. C luster o ne, w hich s till retains some 1 3% of the total n umber o f objects, h as a K v alue o f . 64. T he other l arge c lusters, numbers t hree and f our, with 9 a nd 1 0% o f the total respectively, both have K v alues o f . 80. T he K ' v alue f or t his s olution l evel i s . 75, a nother v ery s mall drop, keeping the average homogeneity well within the moderate to h igh r ange.

1 21

Table 2 7. P lateau Parrain 5 c luster solution relative c luster a nd t ype p roportions. B n.= b urins, Gb. = grattoir b urins, Bc.= b ecs, Cr.= cores, Gr.= grattoirs, Bb.= backed b ladelets, P r. = percoirs relative c luster proportion Type:

B n.

Gb.

B c.

C r.

Gr. -

C luster 1 2 3 4 5

1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

. 05 . 10 0 . 10 0

. 05 . 10 0 . 07 . 41

r elative T ype:

B n.

Gb.

. 53 . 63 . 60 . 39 . 53

1 .0 . 48 . 38 . 70 . 42

. 66 . 66 0 1 .0 0

P r.

. 10 . 21 . 13 . 07 . 35

. 30 . 15 . 33 . 67 . 52

. 02 0 0 . 10 . 05

t ype proportion B c.

Cr.

' 7 "

C luster 1 2 3 4 5

Bb.

r •

Gr.

Bb.

P r.

• m e

. 28 . 28 0 . 28 1 .0

1 .0 . 57 . 42 . 52 . 42

1 22

. 66 . 66 . 33 . 33 1 .0

. 63 . 15 . 26 1 .0 . 47

. 33 0 0 1 .0 . 33

T able 2 8. P lateau P arrain 5 c luster s olution r aw counts a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. B n.= b urins, Gb.= g rattoir b urins, B c.= b ecs, C r.= c ores, G r.= grattoirs, Bb.= backed b ladelets, P r. = p ercoirs raw counts T ype:

B n.

Gb.

B c.

C r.

Gr.

Bb.

P r.

C luster 1 2 3 4 5

4 0 1 9 1 5 2 8 1 7

2 2 0 3 0

2 2 0 2 7

2 1 1 2 9 1 1 9

4 4 2 2 6

1 2 3 5 1 9 9

1 0 0 3 1

r anks Type:

B n.

Gb.

B c.

C r.

Gr.

Bb.

P r.

C luster 1 2 3 4 5

1 3 5 2 4

2 .5 2 .5 4 .5 1 4 .5

3 3 5 3 1

1 2 4 .5 3 4 .5

2 .5 2 .5 4 .5 4 .5 1

2 5 4 1 3

2 .5 4 .5 4 .5 1 2 .5

1 23

T able 2 9. P lateau P arrain 5 c luster s olution, r ank order correlations s ignificant at a lpha = . 10. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05 Type:

B urins

G rattoir-burins

B urin spalls

r Cores

* .87

Grattoirs G rattoir-burins

_ __ . 80

. 67 * .85 ___

1 24

T able 3 0. P lateau Parrain 8 c luster s olution relative c luster a nd t ype proportions. B n.= b urins, G b.= g rattoir b urins, B c.= b ecs, C r.= c ores, G r.= g rattoirs, Bb.= b acked b ladelets, P r.= p ercoirs r elative c luster p roportion T ype:

B n.

G b.

B c.

C r.

G r.

B b.

P r.

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 . 42 1 .0 1 .0

. 03 . 07 . 06 . 13 0 0 . 08 0

. 03 . 15 . 06 . 09 . 22 . 42 0 0

. 29 . 84 . 73 . 40 . 11 1 .0 . 58 . 77

. 14 . 38 . 06 . 09 . 16 . 28 0 . 11

. 18 . 15 . 06 . 27 . 77 0 . 41 . 55

. 03 0 . 06 . 09 . 05 0 0 0

. 8 1 .0 . 20 . 40 . 60 . 40 0 . 20

. 31 . 13 . 06 1 .0 . 87 0 . 32 . 32

. 50 0 . 50 1 .0 . 50 0 0 0

r elative type p roportion C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 .0 . 48 . 55 . 81 . 66 . 11 . 44 . 33

. 33 . 33 . 33 1 .0 0 0 . 33 0

. 25 . 50 . 25 . 50 1 .0 . 75 0 0

. 73 1 .0 1 .0 . 81 . 18 . 63 . 63 . 63

1 25

T able 3 1. P lateau P arrain 8 c luster s olution r aw c ounts a nd r anks b y a rtifact c lass. B n.= b urins, Gb.= g rattoir b urins, B c.= b ecs, C r.= c ores, G r.= g rattoirs, Bb.= b acked b ladelets, P r. = p ercoirs r aw counts T ype:

B n.

G b.

B c.

C r.

G r.

B b.

P r.

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 7 1 3 1 5 2 2 1 8 3 1 2 9

1 1 1 3 0 0 1 0

1 2 1 2 4 3 0 0

8 1 1 1 1 9 2 7 7 7

4 5 1 2 3 2 0 1

5 2 1 1 6 1 4 0 5 5

1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0

4 1 .5 1 .5 3 8 6 6 6

2 1 6 .5 4 .5 3 4 .5 8 6 .5

4 6 7 1 2 8 4 4

3 6 .5 3 1 3 6 .5 6 .5 6 .5

r anks C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 5 4 2 3 8 6 7

3 .5 3 .5 3 .5 1 7 7 3 .5 7

5 .5 3 .5 5 .5 3 .5 1 2 7 .5 7 .5

1 26

T able 3 2. P lateau P arrain 8 c luster s olution r ank o rder c orrelations s ignificant at a lpha = . 10. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05, Gb.= grattoir-burins, Bc. = becs, Bb.= b acked b ladelets T ype: T , B acked b ladelets G rattoir-burins P ercoirs G rattoirs C ores

B urins . 60 . 60 * .86 _ __

Gb.

B c.

Bb. ---

1 .0 . 58 _ __

1 27

_ __ . 62

. 60

Table 3 3. P lateau Parrain 1 0 c luster s olution r elative c luster a nd t ype p roportions. B n.= b urins, G b.= g rattoir b urins, B c.= b ecs, C r.= c ores, G r.= grattoirs, B b.= b acked b ladelets, P r. = p ercoirs r elative c luster proportion T ype:

B n.

G b.

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

1 .0 1 .0 . 83 1 .0 1 .0 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

0 . 07 . 16 . 13 0 0 . 08 0 0 0

-

B c.

C r.

. 04 . 15 . 08 . 09 . 25 0 0 . 60 0 0

. 20 . 84 1 .0 . 40 . 12 1 .0 . 58 . 40 . 50 . 66

,

G r.

B b.

P r.

. 16 . 38 0 . 09 . 18 0 0 . 40 . 20 0

. 20 . 15 . 08 . 72 . 75 0 . 41 . 40 . 10 . 67

0 0 . 16 . 09 . 09 0 0 0 0 0

. 80 1 .0 0 . 40 . 60 0 0 . 40 . 40 0

. 31 . 12 . 06 1 .0 . 75 0 . 31 . 12 . 06 . 25

0 0 1 .0 1 .0 . 50 0 0 0 0 0

-

r elative t ype p roportion C luster 1 1 .0 2 . 52 3 . 40 4 . 88 5 . 64 6 0 7 . 48 8 . 20 9 . 40 1 0 . 24

0 . 33 . 67 1 .0 0 0 . 33 0 0 0

. 25 . 50 . 25 . 50 1 .0 0 0 . 75 0 0

. 41 . 91 1 .0 . 75 . 16 . 41 . 58 . 16 . 41 . 33

1 28

T able 3 4. P lateau P arrain 1 0 a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. b urins, Bc.= becs, C r.= cores, b ladelets, P r. = percoirs

c luster solution raw counts Bn.= b urins, Gb.= grattoir Gr.= grattoirs, Bb.= backed

raw counts Type:

-

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Bn.

Gb.

2 5 1 3 1 0 2 2 1 6 0 1 2 5 1 0 6

0 1 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0

. ,

Bc.

Cr.

G r.

Bb.

1 2 1 2 4 0 0 3 0 0

5 1 1 1 2 9 2 5 7 2 5 4

4 5 0 2 3 0 0 2 2 0

5 2 1 1 6 1 2 0 5 2 1 4

0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

6 2 1 3 9 .5 6 4 9 .5 6 8

2 1 8 .5 5 3 8 .5 8 .5 5 5 8 .5

3 .5 6 .5 8 .5 1 2 1 0 3 .5 6 .5 8 .5 5

7 7 1 .5 1 .5 3 7 7 7 7 7

i -

-

P r. -

ranks C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

1 4 6 .5 2 3 1 0 5 9 6 .5 8

7 .5 3 .5 2 1 7 .5 7 .5 3 .5 7 .5 7 .5 7 .5

5 .5 3 .5 5 .5 3 .5 1 8 .5 8 .5 2 8 .5 8 .5

1 29

T able 3 5. P lateau P arrain 1 0 c luster solution r ank order correlations s ignificant at a lpha = . 10. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05, ** = s ignificant at a lpha = . 01, Bn.= b urins, G b.= g rattoir b urins, Bc. = b ecs, C r. = c ores, G r.= g rattoirs, Bb.= b acked b ladelets, P r.= percoirs

Type: -

B n.

B n. G b. B c. C r. G r. B b. P r.

1 .0

* .66 * .75 . 46

Gb.

B c.

1 .0 _ __ * *.86

1 .0 ___

___ * .71

. 46 * .56

C r.

1 .0 _ __ . 46

1 30

G r.

1 .0 _ _, _ __

Bb. 7 . -

1 .0 . 45

P r. M r"

1 .0

Table 3 6. P lateau Parrain 1 3 c luster s olution relative c luster a nd t ype proportions. B n. = b urins, G b.= g rattoir b urins, B c.= b ecs, C r.= c ores, G r.= g rattoirs, B b.= b acked b ladelets, P r. = p ercoirs r elative Type:

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3

B n.

1 .0 1 .0 . 90 1 .0 1 .0 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 . 75 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

G b.

0 0 . 18 0 0 0 . 10 0 0 0 . 20 0 . 33

c luster p roportion B c. • t

C r.

. 04 . 11 . 09 . 07 . 23 0 0 . 75 0 . 25 . 20 0 . 11

. 20 . 66 1 .0 . 62 . 05 1 .0 . 70 . 50 . 36 1 .0 . 80 . 66 . 33

G r.

B b.

P r.

. 16 . 33 0 0 . 17 0 0 . 50 . 18 0 . 40 . 33 . 11

. 20 . 11 . 09 . 76 . 70 0 . 50 . 25 . 09 1 .0 0 . 66 . 66

0 0 . 18 0 . 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 11

1 .0 . 75 0 0 . 75 0 0 . 50 . 50 0 . 50 . 25 . 25

. 41 . 08 . 08 . 83 1 .0 0 . 41 . 08 . 08 . 33 0 . 16 . 50

0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 50

O

M ,

• M I I I

r elative type proportion C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3

1 .0 . 36 . 40 . 52 . 68 0 . 40 . 16 . 44 . 12 . 20 . 12 . 36

0 0 . 66 0 0 0 . 33 0 0 0 . 33 0 1 .0

. 25 . 25 . 25 . 25 1 .0 0 0 . 75 0 . 25 . 25 0 . 25

. 45 . 54 1 .0 . 72 . 09 . 45 . 63 . 18 . 36 . 36 . 36 . 18 . 27

1 31

T able 3 7. P lateau P arrain 1 3 a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. burins, Bc.= b ecs, Cr.= cores, b ladelets, P r. = p ercoirs

c luster s olution raw counts Bn. = b urins, Gb.= grattoir Gr.= grattoirs, Bb.= backed

r aw counts Type:

Bn.

Gb.

Bc.

Cr.

Gr.

Bb.

P r.

T

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3

2 5 9 1 0 1 3 1 7 0 1 0 4 1 1 3 5 3 9

0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3

1 1 1 1 4 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1

5 6 1 1 8 1 5 7 2 4 4 4 2 3

4 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1

5 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 5 1 1 4 0 2 6

0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5 .5 4 1 2 1 3 5 .5 3 1 1 8 8 8 1 1 1 0

1 2 .5 1 1 1 1 2 .5 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 5 7 .5 7 .5

4 .5 9 .5 9 .5 2 1 1 2 4 .5 9 .5 9 .5 6 1 2 7 3

8 .5 8 .5 1 .5 8 .5 1 .5 8 .5 8 .5 8 .5 8 .5 8 .5 8 .5 8 .5 3

r anks C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3

1 7 .5 5 .5 3 2 1 3 5 .5 1 0 4 1 1 9 1 1 7 .5

9 9 2 9 9 9 3 .5 9 9 9 3 .5 9 1

6 6 6 6 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 6 6 1 0 6

1 32

T able 3 8. P lateau P arrain 1 3 c luster s olution rank order c orrelations s ignificant at a lpha = . 10. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 05, * * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 01 B n.= b urins, G b.= g rattoir b urins, Bc. = b ecs, C r. = c ores, Gr.= g rattoirs, Bb.= b acked b ladelets, P r.= percoirs

T ype:

B n.

E n. G b. B c. C r. G r. B b. P r.

1 .0

G b.

B c.

C r.

G r.

Bb.

P r.

1 .0 * .52

1 .0

7 1 .0

. 44

1 .0 1 .0

. 37 . 42 * .62 * .48

* *.69

* .56 * .48 * *.69

1 33

1 .0 1 •••

---

1 1. 11

MN »

Table 3 9. P lateau P arrain 1 6 c luster s olution r elative c luster a nd t ype p roportions. B n.= b urins, G b.= g rattoir b urins, B c.= b ecs, C r.= cores, G r.= g rattoirs, Bb.= b acked b ladelets, P r. = p ercoirs r elative c luster p roportion T ype: -- 7 C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6

B n.

G b.

B c.

C r.

G r.

B b. ,

P r.

0 0 . 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 33 0 . 37 0 . 20 0

. 04 . 12 . 09 . 08 . 25 0 0 1 .0 0 0 . 33 0 . 12 0 0 0

. 17 . 63 1 .0 . 58 . 06 1 .0 . 37 . 66 . 22 . 80 1 .0 . 66 . 37 . 66 1 .0 . 40

. 17 . 38 0 0 . 12 0 0 . 66 . 11 . 20 . 66 . 33 . 25 0 0 0

. 17 . 13 . 09 . 58 . 68 0 . 63 . 33 . 11 . 40 0 . 66 . 63 . 66 . 20 1 .0

0 0 . 18 0 . 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 .0 . 75 0 0 . 50 0 0 . 50 . 25 . 25 . 50 . 25 . 50 0 0 0

. 36 . 09 . 09 . 63 1 .0 0 . 45 . 09 . 09 . 18 0 . 18 . 45 . 18 . 09 . 45

0 0 1 .0 0 . 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0

1 .0 1 .0 . 73 1 .0 1 .0 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

r elative type p roportion C luster 1 1 .0 2 . 34 3 . 34 4 . 52 5 . 69 6 0 7 . 34 8 . 13 9 . 39 1 0 . 21 1 1 . 13 1 2 . 13 1 3 . 34 1 4 . 13 1 5 . 21 1 6 . 21

0 0 . 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 33 0 1 .0 0 . 33 0

. 25 . 25 . 25 . 25 1 .0 0 0 . 75 0 0 . 25 0 . 25 0 0 0

. 36 . 45 1 .0 . 63 . 09 . 45 . 27 . 18 . 18 . 36 . 27 . 18 . 27 . 18 . 45 . 18

1 34

T able 4 0. P lateau P arrain 1 6 a nd r anks by a rtifact c lass. burins, Bc.= becs, Cr.= cores, b ladelets, P r. = p ercoirs

c luster solution raw counts B n.= b urins, Gb. = g rattoir Gr. = grattoirs, Bb.= backed

raw counts Type:

Bn.

Gb.

Bc.

C r.

Gr.

Bb.

P r. . .

r

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6

2 3 8 8

0 0 2

1 1 1

4 5 1 1

4 3 0

4 1 1

0 0 2

1 2 1 6 0 8 3 9 5 3 3 8 3 5 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0

1 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

7 1 5 3 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 5 2

0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0

7 1 1 0 5 1 1 2 0 2 5 2 1 5

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

6 .5 4 1 2 1 6 4 9 1 1 1 1 6 .5 9 1 1 9 1 1 4 1 1

1 2 1 0 1 0 4 .5 1 0 1 0 4 .5 8 8 4 .5 8 4 .5 1 0 1 0 1 0

6 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 5 4 1 0 1 0 8 1 5 8 4 8 1 0 4

1 0 1 0 1 .5 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 .5 1 0 1 0 1 0

ranks C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6

1 6 .5 6 .5 3 2 1 6 6 .5 1 2 4 1 0 1 2 1 2 6 .5 1 2 1 0 1 0

1 0.5 1 0.5 2 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 3 .5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 3 .5 1 0.5

5 .5 5 .5 5 .5 5 .5 1 1 2.5 1 2.5 2 1 2.5 1 2.5 5 .5 1 2.5 5 .5 1 2.5 1 2.5 1 2.5

1 35

T able 4 1. P lateau P arrain 1 6 c luster solution rank order correlations s ignificant at a lpha = . 10. * = s ignificant at alpha = . 05, * * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 01 B n.= burins, Gb.= g rattoir b urins, Bc. = b ecs, C r. = c ores, Gr.= grattoirs, Bb.= b acked b ladelets, P r.= percoirs Type:

Bn.

Bn. Gb. Bc. C r. Gr. Bb. P r.

1 .0 * .54 -* .56 * *.71 * .56

Gb.

1 .0 * .46 * .53 * .45 * *.72

Bc.

Cr.

Gr.

Bb.

P r.

1 .0 . 39 * .55

1 .0 * .56

1 .0

1 .0 1 .0 * .72 . 36 * .66

. 36

1 36

Table 4 2. P lateau P arrain 1 8 c luster solution, relative c luster a nd t ype proportions. B n. = burins, Gb. = grattoirburins, Bs. = burin spalls, Cr. = cores, Gr.= grattoirs, B b.= b acked b ladelets, P r. = percoirs r elative

C luster

proportions

Type:

B n.

Gb.

B s.

C r.

Gr.

Bb.

P r. ,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8

1 .0 1 .0 . 72 1 .0 1 .0 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

0 0 . 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 33 0 0 0 . 20 0 . 60 0

. 43 . 12 . 09 . 08 . 66 0 0 . 60 0 0 . 33 0 0 0 0 0 . 20 0

. 17 . 75 1 .0 . 66 . 16 1 .0 . 37 . 40 . 22 . 80 . 66 . 66 0 . 66 1 .0 1 .0 . 60 0

. 17 . 37 0 0 . 33 0 0 . 40 . 22 0 . 33 . 33 . 10 0 0 . 50 0 . 25

. 17 . 12 . 09 . 58 . 50 0 . 63 . 20 . 11 . 40 0 . 66 . 90 . 66 . 20 1 .0 . 80 . 75

0 0 . 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 20 0 0 0 . 20 0

1 .0 . 75 0 0 . 50 0 0 . 50 . 50 0 . 25 . 25 . 25 0 0 . 25 0 . 25

. 44 . 11 . 11 . 77 . 33 0 . 55 . 11 . 11 . 22 0 . 22 1 .0 . 22 . 11 . 22 . 44 . 33

0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 . 50 0

relative C luster

c luster

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8

1 .0 . 34 . 34 . 52 . 26 0 . 34 . 21 . 39 . 21 . 13 . 13 . 43 . 13 . 21 . 08 . 21 . 17

t ype

0 0 . 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 33 0 0 0 . 33 0 1 .0 0

proportion

. 25 . 25 . 25 . 25 1 .0 0 0 . 75 0 0 . 25 0 0 0 0 0 . 25 0

1 37

. 36 . 54 1 .0 . 72 . 09 . 45 . 27 . 18 . 18 . 36 . 18 . 18 0 . 18 . 45 . 18 . 27 0

T able 4 3. P lateau P arrain 1 8 c luster solution, raw counts a nd r anks, by c lass. B n.= b urins, Gb. = g rattoir-burins, B s.= burin spalls, Cr.= cores, Gr. = grattoirs, Bb.= backed b ladelets, P r. = percoirs raw counts Type:

B n.

Gb.

B s.

C r.

Gr.

Bb.

Pr.

C luster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8

2 3 8 8 1 2 6 0 8 5 9 5 3 3 1 0 3 5 2 5 4

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0

1 1 1 1 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

4 6 1 1 8 1 5 3 2 2 4 2 2 0 2 5 2 3 0

4 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

4 1 1 7 3 0 5 1 1 2 0 2 9 2 1 2 4 3

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0

6 .5 3 1 2 1 6 4 .5 8 .5 1 0 1 0 6 .5 1 0 1 0 1 7 1 0 4 .5 1 0 8 .5 1 7

1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 8

4 .5 1 2 1 2 2 6 .5 1 7 3 1 2 1 2 9 .5 1 7 9 .5 1 9 .5 1 2 9 .5 4 .5 6 .5

1 1 1 1 1 .5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

ranks C luster 1 1 2 6 3 6 4 2 5 8 6 1 8 7 6 8 1 0.5 9 4 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 3 3 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 0.5 1 6 1 7 1 7 1 0.5 1 8 1 3

1 1.5 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 3 .5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 3 .5 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

5 .5 5 .5 5 .5 5 .5 1 1 3.5 1 3.5 2 1 3.5 1 3.5 5 .5 1 3.5 1 3.5 1 3.5 1 3.5 1 3.5 5 .5 1 3.5

1 38

Table 4 4. P lateau Parrain 1 8 c luster solution, rank correlations s ignificant at a lpha = . 05. * = s ignificant at a lpha = . 01, B n.= b urins, Gb.= g rattoir-burins, B s.= b urin spalls, Cr. = cores, Gr. = grattoirs, Bb. = backed b ladelets, P r.= percoirs

T ype: -

B n.

B n. G b. B s. C r. G r. Bb. P r.

1 .0 -. 42 _ __ . 51 * .63 . 50

Gb. 1 .0 . 50 . 52

* .77

B s.

C r.

G r.

Bb.

1 .0 . 31 . 60 _ __ . 45

1 39

P r. T.

VP

1 .0 _ __ _ __ . 36

1 .0 . 36 . 43

1 .0 . 56

1 .0

0

-

o

0

. 0

, O . '

0

o

mi l , , o ,

e

o 0 o

• z

e

0

z a .

/

04

. 1p

• 1.

. ‚ b .

• D e .'

' 2 0

: • • G2

"

°O

_ .

•_

•

. (1)

4

P Aa 0

.

0 •

a

•

A

-

8.

0

0 Q 0

0

%

—

-

M

M

;: i 0 9c ) t • , A . , da-

4a .

o o )

• .

2.

C

0

•

•

a O

.

c r u r6 4

0

4 3; 0

_. 0 . t r,.

0

4

. t oeuk p

c r _

•

4

I

4 .

.•

0• i m S P° / 4 •

1

A. 0

44 ,0 0 0. 0 • s rä 3

6

ez , )0 9

I r ^-

• . •

. o n

.. ;

2.

a

. 0 4,0

. 0 00

3 ) i ge I C W

°G P • o. 4. % •o

0

Leg o tu c

' 9 ;9 6 3

Q

•

,

o

0 ' ' ?C y. e e.. d oiCON . 4 • 1 . 4 , . , „ ._

0 . ° : 5 .

I ll

o

.

4 .

-

0

°O P 0

• 0

0 4

1

0

0 a

P

0 •

_ 0

M

AI

2

3

F igure 3 1. C luster l ocations f or P lateau P arrain, a t t he 5 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate r ms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter B ordes a nd G aussen ( 1970) F ig. 1 .

1 40

g .

U

I .

o

o

0 0

0 0 _ e Q o 0e 4 ) . . 3 r4 . n a i l o

• 6

A

. . ° : :

0 w • • h .- -(2 ).. • _ . 00 • «0 •• 9 o m ° 1 1 :4 ,

.

e r

0

• e

o

g

g n

o

0

0

0

• •

:I

.

•

6

•

0

•

.

00

. , 0

"

3

0

A

4 1

0

?

O b o

0

0

%

•

0

D

4 0

° A.0 3 0 0 .4 .

a

4 a 0

e

4 6

.0 ,4

0 -

.•: * ' °Zi )s o

_ 9

m e ad,

0 Os

0

'00 a < 3$ 20 O d

1 ,0 . __

. C1D •0

.

4 •• J ,

.

1 2 . ,

. • • 4 , • .J i :••.

0,

0

.

°c A 0 c' I f

0 .9

•

.0 4.

0 ••

4b

0

0

ü

Q

0 .• . -

Z

‘ • • 3 i _ ' '4.9 , .0 0 _ 0 V

• , , . .

I

99 bC '° . 9

3 , ,Z) • .
e azo

0

O b

00

4 9 : we ' s ( ;

•5

•

3

g

o

•

.

0

0

9 2 . • •

0

00 0 o 0 a

0

,

0

7

I

P

).

0 • 0

••••• 1 1

C

3

F igure 3 2. C luster l ocations f or P lateau P arrain, a t the 8 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify individual c lusters. A fter B ordes a nd G aussen ( 1970) F ig. 1 .

1 41

0

o o ,

(

o

0

P

T I

• $ 0" r b z gge t p e 1

•

o

,

• . ., 0

4

.

0 ,. . . .,

/

o .

.

2 o

e

>

b

-

. 9

1

. p

80

0 0

•

4 9 0 0

•

0. •. 0 ,. 1 21

0

41 “

*e

A

•o .

J

4

•0

• I .

s z ,e . 8

CP

o

c s •e l ,

e

4

t

t

.

o 0

o g

e

3° 2 „ „i .8 p •ae ' l p4 0

%

0 0

a a c he #

-

20 ( 1 , -0

0

e

d °

•

0

. ."

A

d

6

°

1 0

0 t ,

0

•

" °0 0

• 0 0 d l

,

0 0

0

o •

0

A ,

0 .

14 *c e :

0 .

. * * . f i ° O

' 3

7

. 1

P ) , M VOS

2

3

F igure 3 3. C luster l ocations f or P lateau P arrain, at t he 1 0 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify individual c lusters. A fter B ordes a nd G aussen ( 1970) F ig. 1 .

1 42

0

•

0 6

0

. 9

I

) o oe no A 12 3 0 ° e `39

0

8

•

• I x ' :, . .r ..1 , - e , .

0

•

.0 . „ •9 1 .?

I h

•

0

0 9 ° '• 3 0c

0 cp 0 g (1 %

•

e

' %

ü

. 0

a , „ • 9

p a

De

0 . :g o g l

I L 0

I t

e

P

• o 0

2

o

e ( 413 4 . :

4

0

••

4

0

C I o

i

0

Oa e b

0

3 3 e a °

0

4 1

Ö

Ga'

.3, 3 ° , f o e4 t 1 'i

e t

a

e . K o.

0

•

• Ie • ail

. 3 0 o o

% O.' %

% °C , Q 2 ' 10o . 42

•

•

‘

„ %

• 0

3 . 1) o

' t4

4.

c b 1 Ai r ° Q 4 ;' : , * ' i r

g o : 0

1 Q

l i

t •

•

•

0 0

° 0 . -" 0 e . ° 5 1 4‘. AK 'LOD%0 ( 1 ),( „ A•4 , • 09-, • % tt ?0 •

*

o

N

* 05

a

I

(

0

0 •

4 ..

.

. C a % . 4 : , . 00 0 • 0

1

. cf

11

0

7

g o • 0

O

MNI

*

1

3

F igure 3 4. C luster l ocations f or P lateau P arrain, at t he 1 3 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify individual c lusters. A fter B ordes a nd G aussen ( 1970) F ig. 1 .

1 43

0

0

6 A °

8. 0

0 4 i

.o

•

•

-

1 3 .

0 o

°

. 10 g0 . 0 0% 4 0 44 . 9 P 8° 0 . 90 3 0 0. . • e. 0 00 L )

3

0

c e p

0

4

.

•

90

O b

0

0 . 0

00

1z . : . , . ei, ' DI

0

I r

• e. . , . , .2 o •.. e t e •

0

/

0

s e . i. c e

i et c b

5

1 4

o

dn . :A VL 0 e e r nG o. .. . . " < . : ) • „ , . 9

0

Oe

a

0

0

1 2

0

a . . •0 -

e 0* 0

0 . , 0 4 %. 3 e. ,. z e 80 c _ D . e0c € 0 )

e

g

c f .

I g

> el

I n •

4

0

C

• •

•

.

0

o 0

D

%

2' 3 e •

ze 0 A 09 1

• a

0

i 0 0 a

11

-

0 a

1

2

0 •

0

9.1 1 1 1 1

2

F igure 3 5. C luster l ocations f or P lateau P arrain, a t t he 1 6 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate r ms r adii. N umbers i dentify i ndividual c lusters. A fter B ordes a nd G aussen ( 1970) F ig. 1 .

1 44

a

0

0 1 4

6

,

0 a 3 ee l!e 0 01 , 1c P Ve l c j 0 % c it l , Gd ,a mp . .9 .4 2 :« 1 de' % C i e

8a . °•

0

.

e °

%

1

i g j e;

b

. 0 .

•

. •a 0•

04

0 ,

•

0

.

o .b

#

öta 0

0 :1 7

• P

. ,

00

a1 4

>

.• . g -, • O c"

10

gb eo

: 3 0. 0 . 00

e

0

•.

°

8

i

)ile 3 5 0o g , 9z 0 • .0 o o c no e Q

05

j% t tI:47

W ä

-

•

d B

9 0

•

•9 0 • •

X

a

0•

9 12 : 2 1 41 / 4 2 P0 % Nc i 8

. 0

0

0

a t

r eac b ee ‘

•

02 4 4

•

d a

0

a l

1

0

2

0. 4. 0

0 •0 0 4

l ac b •

I

1 6 •

9 o

a 9

a

0

3

F igure 3 6. C luster l ocations f or P lateau P arrain, at t he 1 8 c luster l evel. C ircles i ndicate rms r adii. N umbers i dentify individual c lusters. A fter B ordes a nd G aussen ( 1970) F ig. 1 .

1 45

D iscussion T his s ite s eems t o h ave a b asically t ripartite s truct ure. Most obvious i s t he d istinction b etween t he i nterior a nd t he exterior o f the main cobble f eature; o nce o utside o f t his, t he s ite c an b e d ivided i nto t wo m ain a reas a nd o ne more peripheral a rea. T he two major external c oncent rations a re c omposed of one or more relatively l arge, d ense concen-trations, w ith s everal smaller, more d isperse d g roups s urrounding t hem. T he t hird o utside c oncentrat ion i s t o t he north n orthwest o f the m ain cobble f eature. T his a rea c ontains s everal v ery s mall a nd v ery s cattered g roups o f objects, mainly cores. T he p lotted d istribution o f debitage, as r epresented by f lakes, b lades, a nd c ores, c an be s een to correspond t o t his t hree-way d ivision o f t he external s pace ( Fig. 3 7). Each of these three external areas has its own d istinctive i nternal p attern. I n t he f irst a rea, t o t he s outheast of the main cobble f eature, there i s one v ery d ense c luster t hat b ounds on t he edge of t he excavated area, and surrounding it are several more dispersed c lusters. T he s econd e xternal area i s focused on f our relatively dense, compact c lusters that surround the c ircular c obble f eature. Around t hese, b ut g enerally at s ome distance, a re s everal smaller, more d ispersed g roups. T he more c entral c lusters s eem t o c ontain r elatively h igh numbers of burins, and occasionally cores or backed b ladelets, g enerally i n s imilar proportions, while the more peripheral c lusters contain the l ower abundance c lasses. T he majority o f t he o bjects i n t he i nterior o f t he main cobble f eature are b urins a nd cores; v ery f ew o f a ny o ther c lass a re p resent. B ecause o f t his, t he a rea i s strikingly s imilar to the northern external area, in c ontent, i f n ot s patial s tructure. F igure 3 8 s hows t he r elationship b etween t he observed and expected K' v alues at each optimal s olution l evel. They are within t he 8 0% c onfidence b and around t he mean s imulated K' v alues i n every c ase, i ndicating l ittle o r no increase or decrease in homogeneity with increasing s patial r esolution. As would b e e xpected o f t he l argest s ample, the mean s imulated values f all a long a n a lmost h orizontal l ine. T he s tandard d eviations a round t he mean expected values v aried only v ery s lightly f rom . 02. O n t he whole, t his r elation-ship i ndicates a good f it with model number one ( Fig. 6 ). There were four formation p rocesses c onnected w ith t his model: s tructured d isposal, spatial overlap of material sets whether deposited c ontemporaneously o r s erially, a nd d isturbance c onnected w ith the d ismantling o f the f eature's s uperstructure.

1 46

0

1 0

1

1 2

1 3

/

1 4

1 5 ' eV

1 6

1 7

3 0-39

1 1 1

2 2 }

4 0- 4 9

W

>50

> 100

0- 29

F igure 3 7. D istribution o f f lakes, b lades, a nd c ores by m eter s quare f or P lateau P arrain. A fter B ordes a nd G aussen ( 1970) F ig. 4 .

1 47

1 .0

. 90 -

.. 80

-

. 70 -

. 60 -

. 50

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

8

I /

C LUSTER S OLUTION L EVEL 41 . o bserved

K ' v alues

C hB . m ean e xpected K ' v alues

Im limit

o f 8 0% c onfidence b and a round m ean e xpected K ' v alues

F igure 3 8. P arrain.

O bserved

v ersus

1 48

e xpected

l e

v alues

f or P lateau

O f these, s tructured d isposal s eems the most l ikely. T he t ool d istributions a re d ivided i nto at l east t wo major c oncentrations, each with a r oughly s imilar s patial s truct ure a nd c ontent. T he major d ifferences b etween t he tool g roup i n the s outheast and the tool group centered on the c ircular feature, are the relatively l arger number of b acked b ladelets, and s lightly h igher concentration i n the g roup t o t he west. I n t he absence o f a l arger excavated a rea it i s not possible to s uggest a ny connections b etween t he l ocations o f t hese c oncentrations a nd t he u se o f the a rea a s a whole. I t i s i nteresting that b oth concentrat ions a re g enerally o ut o f a d irect l ine t hrough t he open s ide o f the main cobble f eature. I f, a s G aussen ( 1980) h as s uggested, t his i s a doorway, o r entrance, the s patial p atterning i s consistent w ith that f ound a t G uillassou, where b oth major t ool c oncentrations were very similar in content, and located immediately outside and to one s ide of the shorter s ides of the r ectangle, a lso s uggested a s entrances. B oth s ites exhibit s imilarly s ized a reas w ithin t he main c obble f eature t hat are devoid o f t ools, a nd s imilarly s ized c ircular cobble f eatures. A lthough t he actual a ssemblages d iffer g reatly, t he spatial patterning at these two s ites i s very s imilar, s uggesting t hat whatever t he d ifferences b etween the two superstructures may have been, the o rganization o f space a round t hem w as s imilar. The third area at this s ite i s to t he north, and while s imilar to t he o ther t wo i n overall c ontent, i t c ontains relatively more c ores, and b reaks down i nto s everal very s mall t ool g roups, s uggesting t he more p eripheral use of t his space. The t ripartite nature o f the tool distribu t ion i s a lso b asically s imilar to t hat at L e M as c abin 2 , which, although heavily disturbed, was a lso s een to be s imilar in s ome r espects to t he s ite o f G uillassou. T his s uggests that deposition immediately to one s ide or the other o f t he shorter, or open s ides of these pavement f eatures may be a c ommon pattern. An alternative depositional process, which was not considered l ikely i n t he d erivation o f t he models, b ut that might have operated here, i s that o f s imple abandonment o f tools i n t heir primary l ocus of use. The models were derived mainly with smaller, l ess dense s ites i n mind. At P lateau P arrain h owever, t he s ite area is comparatively l arge. I t i s conceivable that at l east s ome o f the spatial s tructure w as p roduced by activity s pecific deposition. I t would r equire, however, t hat the two areas are the result of activities which left almost identical sets of materials. This s eems unlikely g iven the d ifferences i n d ispersion a nd l ocation. A more p arsimonious explanation would involve disposal processes, b ut c learly there may be s ome c ombination o f t he two g oing o n.

1 49

D iscussion:

Results and

I nterpretations

f rom t he S ites

T he a nalysis f ollowed h as a llowed c haracterization o f the structure o f t ool d istributions at these s ites. I n f our o f f ive c ases good f its b etween t he o bserved h omogenei ty a nd t he model explanations were f ound, i ndicating that homogeneity w as b ehaves i n a p redictable manner i n v aried c ontexts. T he one c ase that d id not f it one o f the models v ery c losely, t hat o f Guillassou where the homogeneity decreased substantially and then flattened out and conformed w ith that f rom s imulated d ata, i s o nly marginal1 y d ivergent f rom t he predicted r elationships. I n a ll o f t he c ases, t he a nalysis p rovided i nsight i nto t he p ossible depositional processes through comparisons with these modeled relationships. Le Mas cabin 2 presents an interesting example o f the i nformation this method might b ring to t he i nterpretation o f e ven a heavily d isturbed s ite. An a lternative explanation o f the s ite s tructure w as s upported by s uggesting a r ealignment o f t he p rincipal axis of the reconstructed pavement and the very b road s imilarity of i ts tool d istribution, with that from G uillassou, and p erhaps t hat f rom P lateau P arrain. L e Cerisier presented difficulties of a different s ort. I nitially t he c lustering method s eemed to h ave f ailed, but a c lose examination of the nature of the d istributions, their allocation into c lusters, and c omparison t o the s ame p rocesses i n r andomized d ata s ets, s uggested t he s ource o f t he problem. I f anything, the r esults s erve t o d elineate the n ature o f spatial patterni ng t hat i s b est s uited t o a nalysis u sing this type o f c lustering technique. An auxiliary statistic, the P earson's R s quared c orrelation c oefficient f or t he x a nd y coordinates by c luster, can, in theory, be used to i ndicate t he l inearity of e ach c luster. I n this c ase, h owever, R2 was o f l ittle u se, b ecause t he c lusters t ended to b e l inear i n d irections p arallel t o o ne o r t he o ther o f t he g rid axes. A lthough i t was not t ried, realigning the grid axis might h ave helped to e liminate some o f the p roblems f ound i n t his analysis. The s ites are f airly d ifficult t o c ompare with each o ther i n d etail, m ainly b ecause o f t he d ifferences i n t he t ool t ypes p resent and t heir relative f requencies. O n the c luster l evel t hough, t here i s a g eneral t rend t owards a b asically b ipartite, or t ripartite d ivision. T he d etails i n e ach c ase d iffer, a s does t he p articular t ool c ontent o f e ach s ection, b ut a ll t he s ites except P lateau P arrain h ad an optimal solution l evel at e ither the two or three c luster l evel. L e C erisier might c ount a s an exception, b ut t he d ivision i s s o c lear a s t o b e u ndeniable there, even though the c lustering process d id not p ick i t up. T he s ites d istribute themselves f airly well across the models t hat were p roposed. H owever, even i f they d id not, e ach model i s c onnected with s everal d istinctive d eposit ional processes, each of which has different implicat ions f or t he c reation a nd u se o f t he s ite. 1 50

There are no region wide s imilarities i n tool c lass a ssociations, o n e ither t he c luster or s ite l evels. The only factors that these sites seem to have in c ommon, b eyond their position in the I sle valley, are their p avement f eatures ( which are a ctually quite d iverse) their a ssignment t o t he M agdalenian ( which i s o ften by e liminat ion rather than by the i dentification o f e ither characteri stic t ype f ossils, or t ype f requency d istributions) and t he p redominance o f b urins. T he spatial s tructure o f the t ool d istributions i s n ot s trikingly c onsistent b eyond the g eneralizations made above. I gnoring the t ime spread, for t he m oment, this m ay be i ndicative o f t he e xistence o f a wide v ariety o f s ite " functions." U nder B inford's model ( 1980, 1 982) o ne would expect t hat a ssemblages within a restricted region would show some marked s imilarity i n c ontent, e specially i f the s ites were being used in s imilar ways, but beyond the l arge n umber o f burins, these do n ot conform to t his expectation. O f c ourse, t his i s a v ery small s ample over a v ery wide t ime r ange. S everal authors have suggested that the l ocational s imilarity, t he s urficially s imilar f eatures, a nd t he v ery restricted area i n which the s ites occur, would s eem to s uggest s imilar i f n ot i dentical f unctions, or purposes ( Gaussen 1 979, 1 980; S ackett and Gaussen 1 976). I n g eneral, t hese a nalyses do n ot s upport t his i dea. T here i s s ome i ndication o f a common spatial p atterns i n these s ites, b ut it i s v ery t enuous, b eing s uggested i n o nly two o f the f ive analyses. I n any c ase, the patterns s eem to b e most d irectly c onnected w ith d isposal processes, r ather t han s ite " function." T o continue the process o f discerning the " facts which d ifferentiate o ne p lace f rom another" ( Binford 1 982:28) using this basic approach, requires that more detailed models o f s ite f ormation be p roduced. They must entail more specific p redictions about the p articular processes t hat might p roduce a g iven t ype o f p attern, both i n t erms of content and structure. Ammerman and F eldman ( 1974), a ttempting t o model d ropping r ates, h ave perhaps p rovided a g ood s tarting p lace f rom which to c onsider the deposit ion o f i ndividual artifacts. T he o ther e nd o f t he s cale, the larger patterns within a site, a lso need to be c onsidered. I n an e ffort to g ain s ome u nderstanding of what the l arge s cale p atterns i n Upper P aleolithic s ites m ay b e, t he r esults f rom t hese a nalyses will be c ompared t o t he s ites o f P incevent, which has h ad both v isual and k-means spatial analysis applied to i t, Le F lageolet I , which h as a lso been analyzed using the k-means methodology, a nd Corbiac, which has only been analyzed i n the t raditional v isual manner.

1 51

Chapter V C omparison of

the I sle Valley S ites with P incevent, F lageolet and Corbiac

Two Upper Pal eolithic sites have been analyzed previ ousl y using the k- means based methodology: Pincevent, published in 1972 by Leroi-Gourhan and B rezillon, a nd analyzed q uantitatively by S imek a nd L arick ( 1983) and S imek ( 1984); and Flageolet I , analyzed by S imek ( 1984). Corbiac, p ublished by Bordes ( 1968a), was chosen as a another good s ite for comparative purposes. This s ite was a nalyzed i ntuitively, b y v isual i nspection o f the artifact distribution maps. I n this section, the g eneral s patial p atterns that were found at these s ites w ill be compared with those found in t he I sle V alley s ites. The major goal here i s to provide i nformation t hat may be u seful in f itting t he I sle V alley s ites i nto t he l arger c ontext o f known types o f spatial p atterns f rom the U pper P aleolithic. I deally, t he p atterns observed at t hese o ther s ites will help t o establish the validity o f the p atterns f ound i n t he a nalysis o f t he I sle s ites, a nd t he c ombinat ion will help i n the e stablishment o f a general b aseline f rom which to i nterpret s patial structure i n more detail. There are two main aspects of variation that are of i nterest here, f irst i s t he p attern o f and r elationships between concentrations of tools, and second i s the p atterned d istribution o f p articular t ool c lasses across these concentrations. Each of these, where it i s poss ible, will be a ddressed s eparately. P incevent This s ite i s a series o f Magdalenian open air occupat ions i n t he P aris b asin, which were apparently buried i ntact by f looding o f the S eine. This discussion will be restricted to s ection 3 6, l evel I V. T he excavators s aw the area as consisting of three campsites, each of which contained a s ingle c entral h earth, a nd s everal s econdary a nd tertiary hearths. I n general, artifacts were deposited around these h earths i n a s eries o f r oughly s emi-circular concentric zones. Opposite these, across each c entral h earth, were s mall a reas f ree o f a rtifacts, s uggesting that t hey had been covered by hut or tent-like s tructures. Bone a nd c harcoal were p reserved. R eindeer a ccounted f or the vast majority of the identifiable f aunal remains. The l ithic a ssemblage h ad s ome r ather peculiar f eatures f or a M agdalenian i ndustry, especially a r elatively l ow number o f burins ( quite a c ontrast to t he I sle s ites), a nd r elatively high numbers of backed bladelets and percoirs. While unusual, t hese a re not apparently outside the r ange of v alues known for the M agdalenian. A ll o f t he i nvestigators s uggested that t he p atterns present were the result o f structured disposal. Bone and l ithic material were p resumably b eing p urposely d iscarded 1 52

into more or l ess discrete zones around the hearth f eatures. B urins a nd g rattoirs s eem to be well d istribute d across t he s ite; p ercoirs a nd b acked b ladelets on the o ther h and, were c oncentrated a round h earth l ocations, a s were bone and antler. T he a rtifacts f ocused a round the c entral h earths were f urther d ivided i nto t wo a reas; the f irst dominated b y ochre a nd s tone tools, and t he s econd g enerally o ccurring on t he opposite s ide of t he hearth f rom t he f irst, a nd dominated b y bone and s tone debitage. A ll of t he i nvestigators suggested the short term, p robably hunting-oriented n ature o f t he o ccupations. T his s ite s hows s everal i nteresting parallels with t hose f rom the I sle V alley. T hey a re a ll a ssigned to t he M agdalenian i ndustrial t radition, a ll a re open a ir s ites l ocated in l arge river valleys, and all have somewhat u nique l ithic a ssemblages. P erhaps most important, a ll have been interpreted as essentially small, s hort-term h unting c amps o ccupied i n t he f all or s ummer. However, t here s eem to be very few i f any similarities in the s patial p atterns, a s r epresented by t ool d istributions. S imek ( 1984) f ound t hat t he homogeneity o f a s eries o f h euristically d efined c luster z ones, a s measured by the p roportion o f positive, s ignificant S pearman's Rho v alues o ut o f a ll possible a rtifact c lass c orrelations, was l ow and did not i ncrease o r decrease with i ncreasing spatial r esolution. I n t he s eries o f model r elationships d iscussed e arlier ( see chapter I I), he c onnected this w ith disposal b ehaviors. G iven that t his i ndex o f homogeneity, a nd t he o ne utilized here would b ehave i n s imilar manners i n the s ame s ituation, P incevent f its well with a model o f s patial s tructure that was not f ound i n t he I sle V alley s ites. E arlier i t w as s uggested t hat G uillassou ( and p erhaps P lateau P arrain) might e vidence s ome s tructured d isposal, b ut t his w as i n a s ituation o f v ery h igh h omogeneity, which p rogressively d ecreased until i t f ell within the r ange o f expected v alues. This is very dissimilar from the relationship found for P incevent, a lthough it may be m isleading b ecause o f t he much g reater a rea e xcavated at P incevent. The o ther major f actor s uggesting d isposal at G uillassou w as t he d ichotomous n ature o f t he t ool d istribut ions, concentrated i n t wo a reas immediately o utside, and s lightly t o t he r ight o f t he e nds o f t he p avement s uggeste d a s entrances b y the excavator. This i s not consistent w ith t he models o f d isposal s uggested f or P incevent, e ven i f the external c ircular f eature at G uillassou i s c onsidered t o be a h earth. T he c lusters t hat w ere i dentified a t Guillassou a re b oth much more d ispersed and d ifferent i n c ontent t han t he h earth c oncentrations a t P incevent. P lateau P arrain might r epresent a much c loser f it t o t he s patial p attern i nferred at P incevent, a lthough i t t oo was found to have high and stable homogeneity at a ll l evels of spatial resolution. As was the case at P incevent, t here was a h ighly c oncentrated group o f tools 1 53

around a circular rock feature, which while c learly a hearth at P incevent, c ould not be s o e asily i dentified a t P lateau P arrain. I n most other aspects, however, the tool a nd d ebitage d istributions f rom t hese two s ites are not markedly s imilar. While there are four general areas at P lateau P arrain, matching the number of analytic zones from Pincevent, they are not arranged i n even remotely s imilar p atterns. T hus while both s ites h ave: ( 1) a v ery concentrated, dense group centered on a circular rock f eature; ( 2) an area o f more d ispersed c lusters; ( 3) an area of mostl y open space with several very small, c lusters o f v arious tools, a nd; ( 4) an a rea v ery c lose t o a " hearth" feature that is mostly devoid o f tools, the pattern at P lateau Parrain is not even c l ose to the concentric z ones v isible at P incevent. One of the specific spatial characteristics o f the P incevent s ite was t he e venness o f t he b urin a nd g rattoir d istributions. Comparable s ituations exist at Le Mas cabin 2 , P lateau P arrain, a nd Le C erisier. I n t hese c ases, one tool c lass i s the dominant c lass and i s present a s a very even, a lmost constant b ackground d istribution at a ll l evels o f spatial resolution. At L e Cerisier and P lateau P arrain burins f ulfilled this criterion, while at L e M as c abin 2 , burin spalls did the s ame. A lthough perhaps f ulfilling a s imilar quantitative role i n t he a ssemblage, t he b urins at Pincevent are somewhat distinct on typological grounds. They are a lso present i n l ower than expected f requencies, i n d irect opposition to their position in the assemblages f rom Le C erisier and P lateau Parrain. I f the relative frequencies and spatial distribution of burins were s imilar from these s ites, it might be evidence f or at l east one basically s imilar f unctional process going on at a ll t hree s ites ( assuming that a ll b urins were f unctionally si milar) , but this is not supported by the full evidence. Even in t he c ase o f P lateau P arrain with its much l arger number o f tools, no other c lass contains more than 5 1% of t he number o f b urins a lone. The burins at P lateau P arrain a lso show several c lear areas o f concentrat ion, s omething generally n ot f ound a t P incevent. The case o f Le Mas i s a l ittle more i nteresting. H ere b urin spalls f orm t he b ackground d istribution, and a re v ery differently distributed from the s imilarly-sized backed b ladelets a nd other t ools, which s how very marked concentrations. I n particular, backed bladelets and burins tended to concentrate, the b ladelets at l east acting analogously at both Le Mas and P incevent. The b ladelet concentrations f rom cabin 2 , show no c lear correlation with the patterns observed f rom P incevent. While this may be d ue to t he s tate o f t he c obble f eature at Le M as, i t i s true even if either hypothesized reconstruction o f the pavement i s accepted. T he t endency f or b acked b ladelets to concentrate may be indicative of b lade production activity, as S imek h as s uggested f or P incevent. At Le M as cores and backed bladelets are only poorly associated. H ere i s t he o ne c lear s imilarity i n t he tool a ssociations 1 54

between P incevunt and any o f the I sle Valley s ites - -the t endency f or backed b ladelets to c oncentrate s trongly in a few clusters. At Plateau P arrain, these concentrations a re even a ssociated w ith c ircular rock f eatures s imilar to t hose at P incevent, which i s not the c ase at Le M as. Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon have suggested that the h earths at P incevent s erved as f oci f or r efuse p iles, and t hat area of the hearth concentrations that are predomina tely bone materials a nd stone debitage correspond to domestic refuse o riginating inside the postulated habitat ion s tructures. F rom what c an be reconstructed of the c ontents o f these concentrations, there appear to b e very f ew tools. I n t he absence o f bone f rom t he I sle V alley s ites such concentrations would be manifest as accumulat ions with areas of relatively few tools, and a high concentration of debitage. A lthough stone debitage was n ot s pecifically a ddressed in the analysis of the I sle Valley s ites because this material could not be unambiguously i dentified on the p ublished maps, i nspection of the d istribution maps suggests that there are no s uch accumulat ions. The d ifferences b etween the tool dominated areas f rom P incevent hearth l ocations, and the d istributions at G uillassou have a lready been a ddressed. The only other c lear s imilarity in the u se o f space b etween P incevent a nd a ny o f t he I sle s ites i s that of the purported ' domestic' space itself. At Le Cerisier the entire c entral p ortion o f t he s ite i s c lear o f any a rtifact ual material, and at both Guillassou and P lateau P arrain t he i nterior of the structures are relatively free of tools, although both contain relatively l arge amounts of debitage. P incevent h as t hree " domestic" z ones that are a lso relatively f ree o f artifacts, and that were interpreted a s h aving been t he l ocations o f s uperstructures. T hese z ones are roughly s imilar i n area, a lthough not shape. At Le C erisier, which i s p erhaps s imilar to P incevent i n that i t i s extremely well preserved, this i s most s triking. The c lear spaces at P incevent are roughly 2 m2 , while that at C erisier i s c . 1 .5 x 4 m . T he more t enuous " clear" z ones at Guillassou and P lateau P arrain are a lso approximatel y this s ize. T he c lear z ones a ssociated with p avements would be expected to be constrained differently than those that o ccur i n different c ontexts, b ut the general s imilarity in area, might indicate that a relatively s imilar, small number of p eople u sed t he s ites. C onclusion While there are s everal i ntriguing s imilarities between s ome of t he I sle Valley s ites a nd P incevent, in a broad sense the occupations are quite dissimilar. P incevent appears to conform to the expectations for a briefly o ccupied, multi-group s ite in that structured disposal was a m ajor f actor. T here i s l ess e vidence f or t his activity in the I sle Valley s ites. O f the two s imilarities that c annot be d iscounted -the nature of t he c lear spaces, and 1 55

the concentrations inherent in the distribution o f backed b ladelets --the f irst c an be u sed to s uggest t enuously that the number o f people at a s ingle " domestic" occupation, as represented by t hese s ites, might be s imilar. The s econd may most plausibly be related to the production o f the tools. T he very even tool d istributions f ound at s ome o f the Isle sites can probably best be related to the numerical p redominance o f t he p articular c lass, and the small areas involved. F lageolet The s ite of F lageolet i s a rockshelter i n the eastern portion o f t he Dordogne r iver valley ( Rigaud 1 969, 1 977). The s ite itself i s on the r ight bank, approximately 5 km downstream f rom the town o f Beynac. It c an be d ivided into two parts, F lageolet I containing deposits f rom the mid Wurm I II s tadial, t he p ortion t hat i s examined h ere, and Flageolet I I containing deposits from the l ater Wurm I II. T he i nformation f or this section is taken mainly f rom S imek ( 1984), a lthough s ome s econdary i nformation i s d erived f rom Laville et a l. ( 1980). Two excavated l evels within the site provided Aurignacian assemblages and f eatures, l evels VIII, a nd IX. L ayer VIII was s ubdivided into an Upper and Lower l evel, g iving a total o f three A urignacian occupations that were studied in t erms of spatial patterning. Broadly speaking, the spatial p atterns found s uggested that t he s ite was u sed r edundantly t hroughout t he A urignacian period. In each case, spatial organization was s imilar, a northern h earth z one c ontained materials that were connected with group maintenance activities, while to t he s outh, artifacts were p atterned so a s to s uggest more s pecialized activities. M uch o f the v ery detailed p atterni ng c ould be attributed to constraints imposed by the t opography of the shelter f loor, but the general p atterns, e specially in c luster c ontent were n ot the r esult o f these f actors. This i s an important difference to note between L e F lageolet, a nd t he open a ir s ites that are t he main f ocus of this study. The north/south area dichotomy i n the spatial s tructure o f t he Aurignacian d eposits at F lageolet I was obvious at t he l ow c luster l evels, and continued its h igh visibility t hroughout t he analyses. I n general, at e ach of t he three l evels, there were more artifact c lasses represented i n the northern portion of the s ite, than in the southern. C lusters i n the north tended to be more dense and compact than t hose i n t he s outh. They a lso s howed a great deal o f c lear c lustering around the hearth f eature, while c lusters in the s outh t ended to be c entered i n spaces b etween the l arge rocks that were present. H omogeneity was f ound to decrease drastically w ith t he f irst increase in spatial resolution, and thereafte 'r remain at approximately the s ame, v ery l ow l evel. S imek c onnected this with h is model number two, which s uggested that intensive, group mainten1 56

a nce and more d iscrete a ctivities were b eing c arried o ut i n s eparate portions o f t he s ite. T his i s a model r elations hip that was found a t b oth L e M as c abins 1 a nd 2 , b ut t hese s ituations d id n ot i nclude a ny c lear f ocal hearth s tructures. B ecause o f good p reservation a t t he s ite, t he a nalysis w as a ble t o i nclude f aunal r emains, a nd h earths c ould b e i dentified more-or-less d irectly b y the p resence o f a sh a nd s oil s taining. T he Aurignacian a ssemblages were quite t ypical, being generally low in burins, a nd r elatively h igh i n e ndscrapers. T his i s a lmost exactly t he opposite o f typical M agdalenian a ssemblage f requencies. W ith the e xception o f t he debitage c lass, t he t ool c lasses u sed a ll h ad s imilar magnitudes, r anging b etween 2 0 a nd 5 0. T hese f actors make comparisons between t he spatial patterns s een at F lageolet, and the I sle Valley sites somewhat d ifficult. O nly a t P lateau P arrain i s t here a remotely s imilar c ase. T he s patial p atterning a t F lageolet may b e s ummed up as c onsisting o f a s ingle dense artifact concentration c ontaining most o f t he members o f each c lass, which i s at s ome d istance f rom a n a rea o f s imilar o verall c ontent, b ut which, when examined i n detail i s composed o f generally more heterogeneous groupings. W ith some exceptions, P lateau P arrain c an b e s een to e vidence a s imilar p attern. At P lateau P arrain t here w as a s ingle v ery d ense a ccumulat ion o f a rtifacts c entered on t he c ircular c obble f eature, w hich c ontained t he g reatest n umber o f c lass h igh v alues. I n the southeast corner of the s ite was a much more d ispersed g roup o f artifacts that was very s imilar in c ontent to t he f irst group, b ut which c ould b e broken down i nto s omewhat more h eterogeneous s ubgroups ( mainly b ecause o f the dominance o f cores i n the a rea). T o t he north, and o n t he o ther s ide o f t he m ain c obble f eature, t here w as an a rea o f small, s cattered, h eterogeneous c lusters. C learly t hese p atterns a re only b roadly s imilar i n o utline, r ather t han c ontent, despite the s imilarly even d istributions o f s ome o f t he a rtifact c lasses. W hile e ach area perhaps r eflects specific u ses o f a d iscrete s pace, t he l ocational r elationships b etween t hese a reas a re q uite d ifferent at t he t wo s ites. W hen combined w ith t he d iffering homogenei ty r elationships f ound f rom e ach s ite, t he i dea o f v ery d ifferent u ses o f space i s s upported. A t both Le M as c abins 1 a nd 2 , s imilar r elationships b etween homogeneity a nd s patial r esolution were f ound, b ut i n contrast to the l ocational p attern at F lageolet, the c lusters d id n ot p attern i n s imilar w ays. I n g eneral, a t both of these s ites, increasing heterogeneity was f ound upon t he d ivision o f l arger, d ense c lusters, r ather t han t he more d ispersed, peripheral o nes. T he l ocations o f t he more h eterogeneous c lusters were o ften a rranged s o as to s uggest concentric bands, rather than a fan shaped or l inear s catter. A nd only a t c abin 2 i s t here a p otentiall y f ocal hearth s tructure. 1 57

Neither Guillassou nor Le C erisier evidence s patial p atterns or c ontent t hat i s r emotely s imilar t o t hose s een at F lageolet. While s ome o f this extreme d issimilarity m ay be l aid at t he door o f d iffering " cultures," t here i s s ome evidence t hat s uggests d istinctive s ite f unction, a nd p erhaps d istinct s ubsistence and or l ithic procurement s ystems. Some of the tools at F lageolet a re made f rom f lint t hat c an b e f ound o nly at g reat d istances f rom t he s ite l ocation ( Simek and L eslie 1 983). S imek ( 1984:162) s ays: We found that c ertain t ools, b urins i n p articular, were m ade f rom c herts a vailable o nly to t he d istant West from Le Flageolet. In fact, a ll tools, excepting u tilized p ieces, h ad a g reater p roportion made f rom " exotic" cherts than the debris model p redicted. W hen combined w ith t he f act that no j oins b etween b urins and burin s palls were found f rom these levels, this s uggests a c lassic c ase o f t ool c uration. I n c ontrast, t he s ites i n the I sle V alley c ontained n o " exotic" c herts. I n f act, a ll o f t he s ites i n t he I sle V alley a re l ocated very c lose to f lint sources, some are within 2 00 m o f m ajor o utcroppings o f t he M aestrichtien s ubstratum, w hich i s apparently t he s ource s tratum f or much o f t he l ocally ubiquitous b lack f lint ( Larick 1 983). T hat no exotic f lint i s f ound i n a s ingle a ssemblage o f 4 5 t ools i s n ot exceptional, b ut f or n one to b e f ound i n a s ample o f s ites ranging b roadly i n s ize a nd c ultural p hase s uggests s ome f undamental c hange i n p rocurement b ehavior. I n this regard the nature o f the deposits at S olvieux, b ecause o f t heir magnitude, c ould c onfirm much that has b een s uggested here. P reliminary p ublished s ources d o not mention a ny e xtralocal materials i n t he M agdalenian l evels ( e.g. G aussen 1 980; S ackett a nd G aussen 1 976). C onclusion I n contrast to t he s ituation a t P incevent, F lageolet i s s trikingly dissimilar when c ompared to t he r ange o f s ites f rom the I sle V alley. W hile t here a re s ome b road s imilarit ies i n t he e venness o f t ool d istributions at l ow l evels o f s patial resolution, t here a re no s ignificant s imilarities in t he l oca t iona 1 patterns of analytically defined c lusters, or the d istributions o f s pecific t ool c lasses. T he model of s pace a s s tructured by f ocal h earths does n ot s eem t o h old, even i n t hose c ases t hat might h ave h earth f eatures. W hile much o f t his m ay b e d irectly r elated t o differing constraints on the u se o f space at t he s ites, t here a re c lear d ifferences i n f lint procurement, which s uggests that d istinctly o rganized b ehavioral s ystems are b eing e xamined, o r at l east d istinct p ortions o f s imilar s ystems.

1 58

Comparison with the patterns s een at F lageolet suggests a f urther b roadening o f t he r ange o f s patial p atterns that can be present in situations that are thought to be generally s imilar. In each case so f ar, the standard i nterpretation o f the s ite i s one o f a small, short-term hunting c amp, a nd y et t here a re v ery f ew s imilarities i n the use of space, suggesting very different behavioral repertoires. I n f act, the only striking si milarity d iscovered so f ar, has been the major focus o f at l east a portion o f P incevent and F lageolet on hearth features. While promising, this i s something not f ound unambiguously in t he I sle Valley s ites. Corbiac C orbiac i s a l arge open air s ite i n the v alley o f the C audeau a l 'Ouest, near the town o f B ergerac i n the Department of D ordogne. The site was published by Bordes ( 1968a). I t was excavated prior to 1 968 by F . Bordes and t he property owners. Two U pper P aleolithic a rchaeological l evels were found above a rich Mousterian l evel. The uppermost l evel ( couche I ), contained s ome 8 000 artifacts, but is presented only in the f orm o f a c umulative f requency g raph a nd to t he best o f my k nowledge r emains unpublishe d. The l ower l evel ( couche IA) contains some 4 81 tools a nd the " posthole" ( trou a p iquet) outlines o f two " tents or huts", a long w ith s everal h earths a nd other f eatures. The published material is restricted to the feature o utlines a nd t ool counts p er meter s quare. The stratigraphy was complex, and the two " posthole" features a nd " hearths" a ssociated with t hem were d ifficult to both unambiguously a ssociate with particular l ithic concentrat ions and to distinguish as s tructures, i ndeed, even their existence i s controversial. Bordes s uggests that the two f eatures were not i nhabited s imultaneously, a nd i nterprets t he s ite as a l ithic workshop because o f the l arge number o f t he l ithics. B one a nd c arbon were n ot preserved. The associated l ithic industry i s a highly evolved U pper P erigordian, t hought to f all s omewhere b etween the Perigordian VI and VII levels, as defined at LaugerieH aute. Laville et. al ( 1980:229) assign these to the Perigord VIII climatic phase of the Wurm III stadial, which i s r adiocarbon dated to approximately 2 0,000 years B .C. This makes the s ite one o f the very f ew open air habitations k nown f rom this t ime p eriod. T he r aw material i s apparently of t wo main types, a b lack f lint o f Campaigni an ( or possibly M aestrichtien) o rigin, a nd a distinctive Maestrichtien variety with greenish-yellow and beige colors i n a b anded pattern ( R. L arick, personal communication, 1 985). The nature of the published distribution maps ( tool f requencies by grid s quare) precludes detailed consideration of c luster content, b ut given the difficult ies encountered i n a ddressing t his i ssue in t he p revious comparisons, it s eems probable that l ittle could be done anyway. T he grid c ount n ature of the i nformation a lso creates difficulties in establishing the actual focus of 1 59

tool concentrations. H owever, the d ensities are i ndicative o f t he g eneral area o f concentration.

a t

l east

I t i s immediately obvious that the tool concentrations at Corbiac do not focus on the f eatures that Bordes identified as hearths ( see Bordes 1 968a Figs 3 ,4). A lthough s ome a re c lose, t hey a re a lways s eparated from the hearths by e ither a nearly empty meter square, or a posthole boundary, or b oth. A lthough t here may well be a serious problem with contemporaneity here, it i s c lear that even i f e ach t ype of f eature ( i.e. posthole o utline and pit hearth) is considered separately, the tool concentrations do n ot c luster s trongly with t he hearths. Thus, assuming contemporaneity between any o f the hearths and any of the tool concentrations l eads to the same conclusion, the tools do not concentrate c losely on the hearths. Only a s ingle posthole f eature i s t he f ocus of a tool concentration; the other is devoid of tools altogether. The l argest tool concentrations are not c entered on any f eature at a ll. Bordes does provide typological b reakdowns for e ach of t he three z ones i ndicated on t he map. T hese z ones a re the three areas of greatest tool concentration. When collapsed i nto b roader t ool c lasses, t hey p rovide s ome comparability with an arbitrarily chosen 3 c luster solution ( see Tables 4 5-47), a lthough it s hould b e k ept i n mind that t hese zones are not exhaustive, as are the k -means defined c lusters at a ny s olution l evel. B ecause of t he potential for error here, no K or K" values are c alculated. The z ones are being u sed here to gain some indications o f the assemblage c lustering, n ot to define i t. I t i s c lear f rom these t ables that burins are the dominant c lass present, a nd that z one I I, s ituated f arthest f rom a ny f eatures has the most abundant c lass representation. Zone I I has relative t ype p roportions g reater t han . 60 f or a ll c lasses except gr atto ir-bur i ns . The zones are most c learly d ifferentiated by t heir r elative p roportions of the most abundant c lasses, burins, grattoirs a nd t runcated b lades. The distribution o f artifact c lasses across the defined z ones i s c learly s imilar to d istributions from the I sle V alley s ites. B urins are numerically dominate and c oncent rate heavily i n a s ingle z one. P lateau P arrain a nd t he Le Mas pavements evidence similar distribution patterns, a lthough t he c oncentration o f a s ingle c lass i s n ever so marked. I f the " posthole" outlines are accepted as habitat ion s tructures of s ome k ind, it is j ust as c lear that the broader pattern o f z one l ocations i s not s imilar to c luster p atterning i n t he I sle V alley s ites. At C orbiac, zone I is centered in and just outside of one of the posthole f eatures. I n t he I sle V alley, a s imilar s ituation is found only at Guillassou, and perhaps at Le C erisier ( but no l ithics a re f ound o utside the edges of the pavement there). This zone at Corbiac is a lso s omewhat d ispersed, concentrated s trongly only in square N -16, a lso the area s hown as the " opening" i n the oblong 1 60

posthole feature. The other z ones a re g enerally n ot s o d ispersed, n or a re t hey s urrounded b y a l arge number o f relatively empty s quares. There i s s ome s imilarity here to the smaller a nd more dispersed of the two major accumulations at Guillassou, but the c lasses were much more evenly distributed between the two ends of the pavement at Guillassou, and the tools were generally o utside t he e dges o f t he p avement. I t may be that much of the patterning here i s the r esult o f b eing u nable to d istinguish b etween o ccupations, a nd/or the t wo P erigordian l evels present. Even s o, the s ituation does n ot c learly match a ny o f t he o ther o bserved p atterns, e ither i n the l ocation and r elationships b etween c lusters o f objects, or i n t he d istributional p atterns o f t heir contents. Conclusion Corbiac, i s n ot generally s imilar t o a ny o f the I sle V alley s ites, except p erhaps, f or S olvieux ( which r emains u nanalyzed). I t s eems to e vidence v ery d ifferent spatial p atterns. T he o nly major s imilarity w ith t he I sle V alley s ites i s the predominance o f burins, b ut even i n this c ase, t heir d istribution s eems much more h ighly c oncentrated a t Corbiac. The two very concentrated z ones a t this s ite ( zones I I a nd I II) m ay b e r efuse a reas o r concentrated work areas, but this c annot really be adequately assessed without more information. The more dispersed tool a ccumulations a round t he l arger p osthole f eature may a lso i ndicate d umping, or s imilar s ets of activities that overlapped s trongly i n space, s uch a s i ntense reduction. Again there i s n ot e nough i nformation to be more s pecific. O n t he whole, the s ite o f Corbiac s eems to s uggest a nother a ddition to t he l ist o f p atterns s een i n t he u se o f s pace i n the U pper P aleolithic. I t i s t he o nly s ite considered h ere which is not u sually i nterpreted as a s hort-term h unting camp, and thus may r epresent a c ompletely d istinct ive f unctional " type" o f s ite, f or which one would not expect to f ind s imilar p atterning.

1 61

T able 4 5. Corbiac, 3 , r elative z one and

3 zones keyed on Bordes' t ype p roportions. relative

( 1968a)

z one proportion

Z one:

I

I I

grattoirs grattoir-burins p ercoirs burins b acked b ladelets retouched b lades t runcated b lades

. 27 . 11 . 11 1 .0 . 05 . 22 . 61

. 20 0 . 03 1 .0 . 05 . 15 . 12

I II -

T ype

relative T ype

grattoir grattoir-burin percoir b urin b acked b ladelets retouched b lades t runcated b lades

t ype proportion . 41 1 .0 1 .0 . 30 . 25 . 44 1 .0

1 62

. 05 0 . 05 1 .0 . 12 . 05 . 03

1 .0 0 1 .0 1 .0 . 75 1 .0 . 63

. 16 0 1 .0 . 56 1 .0 . 22 . 09

F ig.

T able

4 6.

C orbiac,

3 z one raw c ounts

Z one:

1 .

by artifact c lass. 2 .

•••

T ype

3 . .9 .

g rattoir grattoir-burin p ercoir b urin b acked b ladelet r etouched b lade t runcated b lade

5 2 2 1 8 1 4 1 1

1 63

1 2 0 2 6 0 3 9 7

2 0 2 3 4 4 2 1

T able 4 7. C orbiac, c ant at a lpha = . 10

t ype: g rattoirs b acked b ladelets g rattoir-burins

3 z one r ank o rder c oefficients

b acked b ladelets , 1 .0 1 .0

s ignifi-

t runcated b lades u or

.99 . 87

1 64

C hapter V I C onclusions

This study was intended to investigate the s patial p atterning i n t he t ool d istributions f rom f ive open a ir pavement l ocations i n the I sle V alley. T he methodology u sed appears t o h ave a chieved t his g oal. A cross a f airly broad range o f s ituations, the method had difficulty i dentifying v isually o bvious p atterning only once, when a pplied t o Le C erisier. S imilarly, t he modeled homogenei ty v ersus s patial r esolution r elationships s eem to have provided good guidelines for the interpretation o f the p atterning found. I n each case the k-means c lustering p rocedure p rovided u seful d ata reduction- , so that l arge s cale p atterns i n both the l ocational r elationships among c lusters a nd t he d istributional p atterns o f t he i ndividual t ool c lasses across the c lusters c ould b e a ssessed. M ost d ifficult i n the a nalyses were c omparisons among d ifferent s ites. C onsidering f irst c omparisons a mong t he I sle Valley s ites, it seems that there are no b roadly c ommon p atterns. T here are s ome h ints at consistency, l ike that s uggested b etween L e M as c abin 1 a nd G uillassou, b ut n one that were c ompelling. I t i s only when c onsideri ng assemblage c omposition that a ny a rea-wide s imilarity a rises. Even then it is really onl y the numerical dominance of burins, a typological characteristic of M agdalenian i ndustries. When t he a ctual type l ists are e xamined there i s l ittle f ine s cale s imilarity between t he a ssemblages. T here a re no f undamental s ets o f p articular types or c lasses that the s ites share at any spatial s cale. N either are there any b asic c luster d istribut ions, beyond the c oncentrated v ersus d ispersed d ichotomy. T he homogeneity v ersus s patial r esolution models show s ome b asic p atterns. Three s ites ( Plateau P arrain, L e C erisier, and Guillassou) were f ound to c onform well t o model o ne, while t he r emaining t wo were thought to c onform more c losely with model three. T he p attern at this l evel i s more apparent than real, however. One of t he four modeled r elationships was not expected t o exist under any b ut t he most r are c ircumstances. E ach o f t he models w as s een a s the r esult o f a v ariety o f processes, which a lone or i n combination could be expected to produce the particular relationship. This approach l ent some necessary f lexibility to the interpretive phase of the analysis, while remaining i n keeping with the s pirit o f t he h euristic method. I t was o bvious t hat no o ne s et o f p rocesses was going to b e able t o account f or t he r ange o f v ariation t hat w as p resent i n t he s ample. Those s ites that fit with model one, present some i nteresting t rends. W ithout exception t he K ' v alues at the l ower l evels o f spatial resolution a re relatively h igh with r espect t o t he mean s imulated K" value, and as s patial 1 65

resolution increases, the observed v alue d ecreases with r espect to t he mean s imulated v alue. I t i s p ossi ble t hat this i s a property o f t he measure; a lthough i t i s b y no means c lear why i t s hould b ehave i n t his manner. K intigh ( personal communication, 1 986) has suggested t hat this t rend c ould be i ndicative o f d eposition a s t he r esult o f h ighly s tructured d isposal. T he u se o f t he s lope o f the e ntire c urve o r p ortions t hereof ( or p erhaps c onsidering a ll rather than only the preferred s olutions) m ight be f ruitful a s an approach t o r efining t he models. T here a re s everal other directions i n which t o p ursue attempts t o i ncrease t he a ccuracy a nd v alidity o f models l ike t hese, perhaps one of the most promising i s i n the realm of a ctualistic s tudies. Co mparisons with other sites proved even more d ifficult. T here d id n ot s eem to b e a ny s imilar s patial patterning, except t hat o f hearth-focused c oncentrations at b oth F lageolet a nd P incevent. E ven i n t hese t wo c ases the details were quite divergent. Corbiac seemed to c onfirm t he notion o f g reat v ariability i n t he s tructuring o f space, a lthough i t s hould b e considered i n a d ifferent f unctional c ontext. I t would be t empting to s uggest a " cultural" explanation f or the differences among t hese three s ites. H owever, t he variation within the I sle Valley Magdalenian seems nearly a s g reat a s t hat among s ites o f d ifferent t raditions, d espite t he c ommon f actors o f microregion, industrial tradition, and t he p avement f eatures. The p atterns t hat h ave b een g enerated b y ethnoarchaeological studies do not seem adequate to i nterpret the a rchaeological r ecord i n a ll o f t hese c ases. W hether t his c an b e w holly a ttributed t o p ostdepositional t ransformat ions or d isturbance i s open to q uestion. I t s eems more l ikely t hat a c ombination of poorly understood deposit ional and postdepositional p rocesses, a nd, perhaps most i mportant, a l imited s ample o f t he a ctual s patial p atterns c reated b y people, i s responsible. O f c ourse, the s ites s tudied h ere a re w ithout b one p reservation, s omething o f c lear importance i n helping to r eveal p atterns. D ebitage p atterns were a lso not i ncluded, mostly because this material could not be unambiguously identified on the p ublished m aps. I f t hese e lements h ad b een present and i ncluded i n the analyses i t i s possible t hat the s patial p atterning a t a g iven s ite would h ave b een more o bvious, conformed better t o t he ethnoarchaeological p atterns, or possibly b een more s imilar to that at other sites. However, I doubt seriously that these f actors could explain d ifferences on the order of those between Le C erisier and P lateau P arrain, f or example. I t w as a lso n ot possible to unambiguously i dentify p otential hearths. I n s everal c ases t here a re e ssentially i dentically-sized " circular c obble f eatures" t hat r esemble traditionally i dentified hearths; i n most o f these c ases t he c obbles in the f eatures show s igns of having b een 1 66

b urned. U nfortunately, s uch i s t he c ase f or many o f the c obbles at t hese s ites. I n t he absence o f o ther e vidence t here i s no c ompelling reason t o a ccept t hem a s h earths. At b oth P lateau P arrain and G uillassou, there a re t ool c oncentrations a ssociated d irectly w ith t hese f eatures, a s one would expect u nder a model o f spatial p atterning derived f rom the a nalyses o f L e F lageolet and P incevent. B ut e ven i n t his c ombination the s ituation is unclear. T he s ite o f Le B reuil c ontains t hree o f these more-or-less c ircular c obble f eatures, a ll o f t he a ppropriate s ize, a ll containing burnt cobbles, and all the focus o f a t ool a nd/or d ebitage c oncentration. Y et t hey a re i nterpreted a s tent p latforms. I t i s very possible that whatever h earths once existed did not s urvive, or were l ocated b eyond t he b oundaries o f the excavated area. I n no c ase h owever, does the extant spatial p atterning o f tools s uggest a r estricted portion o f a l arger p attern a long t he l ines o f B inford's o r Y ellen's c ampsite s tructures. On one h and c learly, r egional s ystems, even with the e xpectation o f s ite r euse, w ould be f airly difficult to i nfer f rom the patterns that have b een s tudied. S till, a wider r ange o f s ites and regions or a more tightly c ontemporaneous s ample, might reveal common patterns t hat a re i mpossible d istinguish here. Y et it s eems obvious that the broad, stereotypic ( almost monolithic) ideas a bout t he n ature a nd s ource o f v ariation i n s ite p atterns, m ight h ave to b e rejected i n f avor o f f ocusing on smaller s cale, more d etailed examinations of the multitude o f p rocesses t hat c reate the s ites we r ecover. T his i s not t o s uggest that r egional l evel p rocesses h ave no e ffect o n s ite structure, but that it may not be possible to u nderstand these effects without f irst understanding o thers that operate at a l ower l evel. W ithout b eing a ble to know or assume very detailed w orkings o f a r egional s ubsistence s ettlement s ystem ( down t o t he l evel o f s pecific a ctivities a nd goals o f v ery s mall groups), there i s s imply no r easonable way to i nfer the c hanging e conomic u se o f t hese p articular l ocations t hrough t ime. A s a consequence, the e ffects t hat s uch things may h ave h ad on t he a ssemblages a nd s patial p atterns which w ere f ound, c annot now b e determined w ithout the imposition o f a n a p riori f ramework. P resently, there a re three major explanatory f rameworks i n w hich to d iscuss c hanges i n e ither a ssemblage v ariation o r s ite s tructure. C hanges c an b e explained i n t erms o f e ither: ( 1) s hifts i n e conomic u se o f a l ocation t hrough t ime; ( 2) s hifts i n the l arger r egional s ubsistence s ettlement s ystems t hrough t ime; o r ( 3) c hanges in " culture." W hile a ll t hree are v aluable, a re a ny r eally a dequate to a ddress d ifferences on the order of those s een here? Though I have no well developed f ramework with which to r eplace t hem, a ll t hree s trike me as f ar too b road to b e o f much u se i n i nterpreting t he I sle V alley M agdalenian s ites. 1 67

TRANSLATION NOTES

1 . T he d istribution o f t he i ndustry suggests a shelter w ith collapsible s idewalls permitting waste to be s cattered outside o f t he s tructure. I t is very evident that the presence of these waste products i s not necessarily s ynonymous with collapsible walls, a nd one c ould as well t hink o f exterior work, or o f an " emptying of garbage."

2 . . ..so crudely made that it is often difficult to d istinguish between a b urin removal and b reakage. F urthermore, a ll were made on f lakes, and most are without a striking p latform, s o their orientation cannot b e determined. S uch a p iece i s p erhaps, according to the s ide t hat one examines, e ither a burin on a r etouched t runcat ion, or a b urin on a l ateral t runcation. The distinct ions are therefore, accordingly arbitrary.

3 .

..

tools

that h ave

4 . The l ong axis c abin 1 .

5 .

. ..

o f

b een n icely

cabin

2 i s

exactly parallel

truly characteristic p ieces.

1 68

f inished.

to that o f

REFERENCES

CITED

Audouze, F ., D . Cahen, L .H. Keeley, and B . S chmider 1 981 Le Site Magdalenien de Buisson Campin Verberie ( Oise). Gallia Prehistiore. 2 4:1 A llain, J ., and R . Fritsch 1 967 Le Badegoule de l 'Abri Fritsch aux Roches Pouligny S aint-Pierre ( Indre). Bulletin de l a Societe Prehistorique F rancaise. 6 4:83

de

Arambourou, R . 1 978 Le Gisement Prehistorique de Duruthy a Sordel 'Abbaye. Memoires de l a Societe Prehistorique F rancaise. T .13 Societe Prehistorique Francaise, P aris. B ahn, P . 1 977 S easonal migration in the Late G lacial Period. Journal of Archaeological

Southwestern Sciences

France

during

4 :245 ,257

B anesz, L . 1 976 Les Structures d'habitat au Paleolithic Superieur en Europe Centrale. Ninth Congress o f the I nternational Union of Pre and Proto H istoric S ciences: Colloque XIII: Les Structures d'habitat au P aleolithic S uperieur C .N. R.S. Paris B inford, L . R . 1 973 Interassemblage variability ,-the Mousterian and the " functional" Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Edited by C . Renfrew. Duckworth Press, L iverpool 1 978

Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology Academic

Press,

New York

1 980 Willow smoke and dog's t ails: hunter-gatherer s ettlement systems and archaeological s ite Formation. American Antiquity 4 5:4-21 1 981 Bones: Ancient Men and Academic Press, New York

Modern Myths.

1 982 The Archaeology of P lace. J ournal of Anthropological Archaeology. 1 984 Faunal Remains From the Academic Press, New York

K laisis

1 :5-40

River

B inford, L . R . and B inford, S . R . 1 966 A Preliminary analysis o f f unctional i n Mousterian Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 6 8:238

1 69

Mouth.

variability

B lalock, H . 1 972 Social

Statistics.

Mcgraw-Hill,

New York

Bordes, F . 1 968a Emplacements des tentes du Perigordian evolue a Corbiac ( pres Bergerac, Dordogne). Q uatar bd. 1 9:251-262 1 968b The

O ld

Stone

age.

Mcgraw-Hill,

Superieur

New York

1 973 On the chronology and contemporaneity of different P aleolithic cultures in France. I n The Explanation o f Culture Change. Edited by C . Renfrew. Duckworth Press, London Bordes, F . and J . Gaussen 1 970 Un fond de tente Magdale'nien pres de Mussidan ( Dordogne). Fundamenta Reiha A , Band 2 . Bordes, F . J .-Ph. Rigaud, and D . de Sonneville-Bordes 1 972 On the Goals, Problems and l imits o f P aleolithic Archaeology. Quaternaria 1 6:15-34. Original in French Bosinski, G . 1 979 Die Ausgrabungen Gonnersdorf Band 3 . Bouchud, J . 1 954 Le Renne et L'Anthropologie

in Gonnersdorf. Steiner, Wiesbaden.

l e probleme 5 8:79-85

des

Migrations.

1 966 Essai sur l a Renne et l a Chronologie du P aleolithic Moyen et Superieur. Magne Press, P erigueux France Bouvier, J-M. 1 969 L'existance de Magdalenien S uperieur sans harpoons: prueves Stratigraphiques. Comptes Rendus de l a VIIe Co r n : Jr-es National de Speleologie: 2 7-31 Brueil, Henri 1 912 Les Subdivisions du Paleolithique Superieur leur Signification. Congres Internationale d 'Anthropologie Prehistorique. 7 :165-238 Butzer, K . 1 971 Environment New York

and

Archaeology.

A ldine

Press,

C lark, P .J., and Evans, F .C. 1 954 Distance to the nearest neighbor as a measure o f spatial relationships in a Population. Ecology 3 5:335

1 70

et

C larke, D . 1 977 Spatial information in Archaeology. I n S patial Archaeology. Edited by D . C larke. Academic Press, New York Collcut, S . N . 1 979 The analysis of quaternary World Archaeology 1 0:290-301 Dacey, M . F . 1 973 S tatistical test of l ocation of tool Types.

cave

S ediments.

spatial associations in the American Antiquity 3 8:320

Delpech, F . 1 975 Les Faunes du Paleolithic S uperieur dans l e S ud-Ouest de l a France. These Doctorat d'etat es S ciences Naturelles. Universite de Bordeaux. 1 977 L es Faunes de l a f in de t emps g laciares dans le s ud-ouest de l a France. I n La Fin de Temps G laciares en Europe. Edited by D . de Sonneville Bordes. C . N. R.S., Paris 1 983 Les Faunes du Paleolithique Superieur S ud-Ouest de l a France. Cahiers du Quaternaire No. 6 . C . N. R.S.; Paris.

dans

l e

Doran, J ., and F . Hodson 1 975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. H arvard Univ. P ress, Cambridge Mass. F eustel, R . 1 974 D ie Kniegrotte: eine Magdalenien station in Thuringen. Veroffentlichungen des Museums Fur -und F ruheqeschichte. Wiemar Press, Thuringens. F lint, 1 971

R .

F .

G lacial

and

Quaternary

Geology.

J .

Wiley,

New York

F reeman, L . 1 978 The analysis of some occupation f loor distributions f rom early and l ate Pleistocene sites i n Spain. I n Views of the P ast. Edited by L . Freeman. Mouton, The H ague F reund, J . E . 1 979 Modern Englewood

E lementary

Statistics.

P rentice7Hall,

G aussen, J . 1 980 Le P aleolithic Superieur de P lein Air en Perigord X IVe S upplement a Gallia Prehistoire. C . N.R.S. Paris

1 71

1979 Le Peuplement Magdalenien dans l a Vallee de l 'Isle: Forme des habitats et choix d es emplacements. I n La Fin de Temps G laciares en Europe Edited by D . de Sonneville Bordes. C .N. R.S. Paris. Goodman, L . A ., and W . H . Kruskal 1 954 Measures of association f or c ross c lassifications Journal of the American Statistical Association 4 9:732 Gordan, B . 1 986 Of Men and Reindeer in the P aleolithic. P aper presented at the 4 th I .C. A.Z. conference, Bordeaux, France. 2 5-30 August 1 986. Grayson, D .K. 1978 Minimum Numbers and sample F aunal Analysis. American Antiquity

size in 4 3:53-65

Vetebrate

1 981 The Effects of Sample S ize on Some D erived Measures in Vetebrate Faunal Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science. 8 :77-88 1 983 The Establishment Press, N ew York H ahn, J . 1 978 The Magdalenian in Anthropology. S ummer

of

Human

central

Antiquity.

Europe.

Academic

Reviews

i n

1 979 E ssai s ur l 'ecologie du Magdalenien dans l e S oube. I n Le Fin des Temps G laciares en Europe. by D . de Sonneville Bordes. C . N. R.S. P aris

Jura edited

H anitzsch, H . 1 972 Groitzsch bei E ilenburg: schlag und s iedsiedlungsplatze der spaten a ltsteinzeit. Veroffentlichungen des Landesmuseums fur Vorgeschichte Dresden. Vol 1 2, Berlin Hemingway, M . F . 1 980 The I nitial

Magdalenian

Hodder, I ., and C . Orton 1 976 Spatial Analysis Press, Cambridge.

i n

France.

in Archaeology.

B . A. R.

Cambridge

London

U niv.

K ehoe, T . F . 1 960 Stone t ipi rings in north-central Montana and the adjacent portion of Alberta, Canada. Paper 6 2, Bureau o f American Ethnology: Bulletin. 1 73:417-473 K intigh, K . 1 984 Measuring archaeological diversity by comparison with s imulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 4 9:44

1 72

K intigh, K ., and A . Ammerman 1 982 H euristic approaches to spatial analysis Archaeology. American Antiquity 4 7:31-63

i n

K lima, G . 1 962 The first ground-pl an of an upper Paleolithic l oess s ettlement i n middle Europe and its Meaning. I n Courses Toward U rban L ife edited by J . R Braidwood, and G . R . Willey. A ldine, Chicago Laville, H . 1 975 C limatologie et Chronologie du Paleolithic en P erigord: Etude S edimentologique de Depots en Grottes et Sous Abris. Aix-en Provence, Universite de Provence Laville, H . 1 987 Acquis Recents s ur l a Chronostratigraphie de l a Periode P aleolithique en Perigord. P aper presented at the Upper P leistocene p rehistory o f West Eurasia conference. Philadelphia, January 1 987 L aville, H ., J-Ph. R igaud, and J . S ackett 1 980 Rockshelters of the Perigord. Academic N ew York

P ress,

Leroi-Gourhan, A . and M . Brezillon 1 972 Fouilles de P incevent: Essai d'Analyse Ethnographique d un H abitat Magdale'nien. VIIe S upplement a Gallia Prehistoire C . N.R.S., P aris Lowie, R . H . 1 922 The material culture of the Crow I ndians. Anthropological P apers, American Museum of Natural H istory. 2 1:201-270 Mellars, D . 1 973 The character of the mid to upper Paleolithic t ransition in southwest France. I n The Explanation of C ulture Change. Edited by C . Renfrew. Duckworth P ress, London 1 985 The ecological basis of social complexity in the Upper Paleolithic o f s outhwestern France. I n H unter-Gatherer Complexity edited by Price and Brown. Academic Press, New York Movius, H . M ., Jr. 1 975 The excavation of the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 3 0 P eabody Museum P ress, Cambridge Mass. 1 977 The excavation o f the Abri Pataud: The stratigraphy L es Eysies ( Dordogne). American School of P rehistoric Research No. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge Mass.

1 73

3 1

P ielou, E . C . 1 977 Mathematical

Ecology.

Wiley,

New York

P inder, D ., I . Shimada, and D . Gregory 1 979 The nearest neighbor statistic: applications a nd n ew Developments. American Antiquity 4 4:430

archaeological

P inkerton, J . H . 1 812 A General Collection o f the B est and Most I nteresting Voyages and Travels i n a ll P arts of the World. Longman, H urst, Rees, Orme, and Brown. London R igaud, J -Ph. 1 969 Note P reliminaire de l a Stratigraphie du Gisement d u " Flageolet I " ( Commune de Bezenac, Dordogne). B ulletin de l a S ociete P rehistorique Francaise.3:73-5 1 976a Les c ivilizations du P aleolithique S uperieur en P erigord. in La P rehistoire Francaise edited by H . De Lumley. C .N. R.S. P aris 1 976b Les structures d 'habitat d un niveau de P erigordien s uperieur du F lageolet I ( Dordogne). N inth Congress o f the I nternational Union o f Pre and P roto H istoric Sciences Colloque XIII: Les Structures d 'habitat au P aleolithique S uperieur C .N.R.S. P aris 1 980 Donnees nouvelles s ur l 'Aurignacien et l e P erigordien en Perigord. I n Colloque I nternational s ur l 'aurignacien et l e Gravettien dans l eur Cadre E cologique. U .S.I.P.P. S ackett, J . and J . Gaussen 1 976 Upper P aleolithic habitation structures in the s ud-ouest o f France. N inth Congress o f the I nternational Union o f P re and P roto H istoric S ciences Colloque XIII: Les S tructures d'habitat au Paleolithic S up4rieur. C . N. R.S. P aris Schiffer, M . 1 976 Behavioral

Archaeology.

Academic Press,

New York

Shackelton, N .J. 1 975 The stratigraphic record of deep sea cores and i ts implications f or t he a ssessment o f g lacials, i nterglacials, stadials, and i nterstadials in the mid-Pleistocene. I n, K . W. Butzer and G .L. I saac eds. After the Australopithicines. Mouton; The Hague. S imek, J . F . 1 984 A k-Means Approach to the Analysis o f S tructure in Upper P aleolithic H abitation B . A . R .; London

1 74

Spatial S ites.

S imek, J . F . and R . L arick 1 983 The recognition o f multiple spatial p atterning: a c ase s tudy f rom t he upper P aleolithic o f F rance. Journal o f Archaeological S cience. 1 0:165 S imek, J . a nd P . L eslie 1 983 Partitioning Chi-Square for t he Analysis o f Frequency T able D ata: An Archaeological Application. Journal o f Archaeological S cience. 1 0:79-85 S neath, 1 976 de

P . a nd R . Numerical

S okal T axonomy.

W .H.

S onneville Bordes, D . 1 960 Le P aleolithic S uperior Bordeaux 1 973 The Romans. London

F reeman,

en

S an F rancisco

P erigord

D elmas

P ress,

Upper P aleolithic. i n France before the edited b y P iggot et a l. Thames and H udson,

S offer, 0 . 1 985 The Upper P aleolithic o f P lain. Academic P ress; N .Y.

the

Spiess, A . E . 1 979 Reindeer a nd C aribou H unters: S tudy. Academic P ress, New York S tiles, M . A . 1 979 P aleolithic c ulture and C urrent Anthropology 2 0(1):

C entral

R ussia

An Archaeological

c ultural 2 0-49

Change.

S traus, L .G. 1 987 Abri D ufaure: S ite Formation P rocesses, Functions, and C ulture Geographic Contexts i n t he Wurm Tardiglacial o f Gascony. P aper presented at the Upper P leistocene P rehistory o f West E urasia c onference. Philadelphia, J anuary 1 987 Taborin, Y ., M . O live, a nd N . P igeot 1 979 Les habitats P aleolithiques des bordes de S eine: Etiolles. I n L a f in de Temps de G laciares En Europe. Edited by D . de S onneville-Bordes. C .N. R.S. P aris T aranik, L . 1 977 The B eauronnian at Solvieux: An Upper P aleolithic I ndustry o f S outhwestern F rance. U npublished Ph.D. D issertation, D epartment o f Anthropology, University o f C alifornia, Los Angelos. Whallon, R . 1 973 The spatial analysis o f occupation f loors I : application o f d imensional a nalysis o f V ariance. American Antiquity 3 8:320

1 75

the

1 974 The spatial analysis of occupation f loors application o f nearest neighbor Statistics. American Antiquity

I I:

the

3 9:16

1 979 Unconstrained clustering in the analysis of spatial distributions on occupation F loors. Paper presented at the S . A. A. meetings, Vancover, April 1 979. 1 984 U nconstrained c luster Analysis. I n, S . H ietala ed. I ntrasite Spatial Analysis i n Archabology. Cambridge U niversity Press; Cambridge. White, R . K . 1 980 The Upper P aleolithic o f the P erigord: A Topological Approach to S ubsistence and S ettlement. U npublished Ph.D. Dissertation, D epartment of Anthropology, U niversity of Toronto. 1 983 Rethinking the Upper/Middle P aleolithic Transition. C urrent Anthropology 2 3(2):169 1 985 Upper Paleolithic Land B . A. R.; London. Yellen, 1 977 f or

U se

i n

the

Perigord.

J . Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models I nterpreting the Past. Academic Press, New York

1 76