Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:06:48.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Archaeological Visibility of Storage: Delineating Storage from Trash Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Susan Kent
Susan Kent*
Affiliation:
Anthropology Program, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the importance attributed to the study of storage behavior, little research has been conducted to determine whether it is even possible to distinguish storage áreas from refuse áreas. Archaeologists routinely separate storage pits from trash pits, but few have systematically investigated the defining characteristics of each. This study suggests that there is an archaeologically visible signature that can help researchers correctly interpret these loci. Research at occupied and recently abandoned camps among the now sedentary residents of Kutse in the Kalahari Desert of Botswana shows that refuse areas have a more homogeneous artifact inventory, regardless of the number of objects present. In contrast, non-trash activity areas at the same camps have a more heterogeneous, or diverse, inventory. The applicability and utility of this finding to the archaeological record is evaluated through the analysis of a Pueblo II Anasazi archaeological site from the southwestern United States. Patterns first recognized ethnoarchaeologically also appear to be recognizable in the archaeological record using the same methods. The results indicate that the statistical tests described here are applicable to distinguishing trash from other activity areas at archaeological sites.

Résumé

Résumé

A pesar de la imporancia atribuida al estudio del almacenamieno, no se ha conducido suficiente investigación para determinar si es posible distinguir entere áreas de almacenamiento y áreas de desecho. Los arqueólogos rutinariamente separan pozos de almacenamiento de los de desecho, peropocos han estudiado sistematicamente las características que definen cada tipo depozo. Este estudio sugiere que existe una huella visible arqueologicamente, la que puede ayudar a investigadores a interpretar correctamente estos rasgos. Investigaciones conducidas en campamentos ocupados o abandonados recientemente por los residentes sedentarios de Kutse en el Desierto Kalahari en Botswana indican que las áreas de desecho tienen un inventario artefactual más homogéneo, independientemente del número de artifactos presentes. En contraste, las áreas de actividad y almacenamiento tienen un inventario más heterogéneo o diverso. Se investiga la aplicabilidad y utilidad de este hallazgo a través del análisis de un sitio arqueológico. Anasazi del período Pueblo II en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos. Los patrones reconocidos etnoarqueologicamente también se reconocen en el registro arqueológico utilizando los mismos métodos. Los resultados indican que las pruebas estadísticos descritos aquí son aplicables para distinguir descho de otras áreas de actividad en sitios arqueológicos.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 79 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Arnold, P. 1990 The Organization of Refuse Disposal and Ceramic Production within Contemporary Mexican Houselots. American Anthropologist 92: 915–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Blinman, E. 1984 Dolores Archaeological Program Ceramic Dating: Justification and Procedures. Technical Reports No. DAP-144. Dolores Archaeological Program, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver.Google Scholar
Blinman, E., Wilson, D. D., Waterworth, R., Errickson, M., 1984 Additive Technologies Group Laboratory Manual. Technical Reports No. DAP-149. Dolores Archaeological Program, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver.Google Scholar
Cowgili, G. 1989 The Concept of Diversity in Archaeological Theory. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. and Jones, G.T. pp. 131–141. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Deal, M. 1985 Household Pottery Disposal in the Maya Highlands: An Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 243–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, M. 1987 Household Pottery Storage and Site Structure: A View from the Maya Highlands. Paper presented at 52” Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto.Google Scholar
Dohm, K. 1988 The Household in Transition: Spatial Organization of Early Anasazi Residential- Domestic Units, Southeastern Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Euler, R. 1988 Demography and Cultural Dynamics on the Colorado Plateaus. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by Gumerman, G., pp. 192–229. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gilman, P. 1983 Changing Architectural Forms in the Prehistoric Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Gilman, P. 1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52: 538–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, R. 1982 To Have and Have Not: The Ecology of Sharing among Hunter-Gatherers. In Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, edited by Williams, N. and Hunn, E., pp. 69–91. Selected Symposium 67. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Gross, G. T. 1987 Anasazi Storage Facilities in the Dolores Region, Colorado: A.D. 600-920. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Gross, G. T. 1981 Demographic Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hayden, B., and Cannon, A. 1987 The Structure of Material Systems: Ethnoarchaeology in the Maya Highlands. SAA Papers No. 3. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Hunter-Anderson, R. 1986 Prehistoric Adaptation in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 1983 The Significance of Storage in Hunting Societies. Man (NS) 18: 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. 1987 The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Jones, G. T., and Leonard, R. 1989 The Concept of Diversity: An Introduction. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. and Jones, G. T., pp. 1–3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kent, S. 1989 And Justice for All: The Development of Political Centralization among Newly Sedentary Foragers. American Anthropologist 91: 703–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. 1990 A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation, Architecture, and the Use of Space. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space-An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, edited by Kent, S., pp. 127–152. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kent, S. 1991 Excavations at a Small Mesa Verde Pueblo II Anasazi Site in Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 57: 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. 1992 Understanding Variability in the Archaeological Record: Application of an Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57: 635–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. 1993a Models of Abandonment and Material Culture Frequencies. In Abandonment Processes: Seasonal Variation and Regional Mobility, edited by Cameron, C. and Tomka, S.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kent, S. 1993b Variability in Faunal Assemblages: The Influence of Hunting Skill, Sharing, Dogs, and Mode of Cooking on Faunal Remains at a Sedentary Kalahari Community. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12: 323–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. 1993c Sharing in an Egalitarian Kalahari Community. Man (NS) 28: 479–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. 1995a Unstable Households in a Stable Community: The Organization of a Recently Sedentary Settlement. American Anthropologist 97: 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. 1995b Does Sedentarization Promote Gender Inequality? A Case Study from the Kalahari. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1(3): 513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. 1996a Cultural Diversity among African Foragers. In Cultural Diversity among Twentieth Century Foragers: An African Perspective, edited by Kent, S., pp. 125–157. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kent, S. 1996b Hunting Variation in a Recently Sedentary Kalahari Community. In Cultural Diversity among Twentieth Century Foragers: An African Perspective, edited by Kent, S., pp. 1–18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kent, S. 1998 The Organization of Storage Areas: A Cross-Cultural, Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Manuscript on file, Anthropology Program, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.Google Scholar
Kent, S., and Dunn, D. 1993 The Etiology of Hypoferremia in a Recently Sedentary Kalahari Village. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 48(4): 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S., and Dunn, D. 1996 Anemia and the Transition of Nomadic Hunter- Gatherers to a Sedentary Lifestyle: Follow-up Study of a Kalahari Community. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99: 455–472.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kent, S., and Vierich, H. 1989 The Myth of Ecological Determinism—Anticipated Mobility and Site Organization. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by Kent, S., pp. 96–134. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Leonard, R., and Jones, G. T. (editors) 1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McCartney, P., and Glass, M. 1990 Simulation Models and the Interpretation of Archaeological Diversity. American Antiquity 55: 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, P. 1980 Discard Location: The Ethnographic Data. American Antiquity 45: 490–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, S., and Hegmon, M. 1993 The Sample Size-Richness Relation: The Relevance of Research Questions, Sampling Strategies, and Behavioral Variation. American Antiquity 58: 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P., and Zvelebil, M. 1989 Saving it for Later: Storage by Prehistoric Hunter- Gatherers in Europe. In Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, edited by Halstead, P. and O'Shea, J., pp. 40–56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. 1985 The Formation of Artifact Assemblages at Workshop/Habitation Sites: Models from Peace Point in Northern Alberta. American Antiquity 50: 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, M. 1991 Beyond the Formation of Hearth-Associated Artifact Assemblages. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Kroll, E. and Price, T.D. pp. 269- 299. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Teachman, J. 1980 Analysis of Population Diversity: Measures of Qualitative Variation. Sociological Methods and Research 8(3): 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testart, A. 1982 The Significance of Food Storage among Hunter- Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23: 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testart, A. 1988 The Social Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Current Anthropology 29: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar