DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE: LEARNING FROM AN ESKIMO HUNTING STAND Lewis R. Biaford Dotatled behavioral abservatians permitted the dimensional onolysis of formetion processes operative on the Mosh site, o Nuramiut Eskimo hurting stand. Activity structure, techaolapical argunizotion, disposal made, and spatial crganization ware ail saan as hehoutaral dimansioas that could each vary. altering the pat terns of assemblage context and spatial disposition at an archaealogical site ‘These ethnoarchasological experiences were then contrasted with those recentiy reported by Joka Yelten (1922) and a critical evaluation of his “conclusions” was conducted jeom the perspective of the Eskitno ex patience. { wos pointed aut thot baste differences in philosaphy and approach to research largely conditioned the contrasting character of the conciusians drawn from the different expartonces. THE PURPOSE OP THIS PAPER is to describe the relationship between characteristic behaviors observed an hunting stands and the structured consequences af these behaviors in the archaealogical record. ‘Thie article is within the domsia of “ethnoarcheeaiogy" in thal it dascribes observations he- lieved to he of interast to archaeologists but experienced in the context of an ongoing living system. All of the observations ta be reported were made between 1969 and 1973 during ethnographic work among the Nunamiut Eskima of north central, Alaska. Much af the material rasulting from this wark kas bean previausly described (Binford 1976, 1978: Binford and Chasko 1976; Binford and Bertram 1977). Tais article represents the first of 2 series that will specificaily ‘treat the farmation processes and resulting character of the internal site structure for a number of different types of Eskimo site. Hunting stands are a type of site commonly produced by the Nunamiut. They ate locations where men congregate ta watch for game anc to plan hunting strategies after game is sighted, They are an integral part of an “‘intercept' hunting stretegy as opposed to an “encounter" stralogy (see Binford 1978). In intercept hunting one emplays knowledge of the factors that condi- tion animel behavior ta ‘'predict” where animals will be, given the canditions of the moment such as weather, seasons of the year, etc. One positions himself to be able to monitor the surrounding ree where game is anticipatad, These “stations” from which an area is monitored are bunting stends. They are commoniy occupied only by male hunters or hunters and yaung men, They are rarely occupied overnight, and when they are, there is a continuous monitoring of the area rather than 2 change of temps within the sita when everyane gaes to bed. Sleeping facilities on such loca- tions ase always expedient and individual. Hunting stands provide an interesting situation relative to the assumptions commonly made by archacologists rogarding the relationship between attributes of site lacation and site content and, between the internal patiern of artifact disposition and activities, Frequently an archaealagist may observe that there is some consistent assaciation between features af the physical geagraphy and the presence 9f archaealagicai sites in a given area. Upon recognition of such a pattern itis not uncommon to study comparatively the artifactual contents of the sitas as a clue to their “func- tian” and hence a basis for understanding their geographical patterning. The assumption ia made that what is ima site betrays the activities conducted there, and that anticipation of thase ac- tivities was crucial in selecting the lacation of tha site. Tn the case of many Eskimo hunting stands, there is no obvious rels tionship between what is in the site and the “reagons for its occupancy” and hance the “reasons for its location." The Joca- tion is chosen because it provides maximum visual coverage for a iarge area considered a likely place for game ta be moving. The location is chasen ta maximize the informational input for the oc- Lewis & Binford. Department of Anthropology. University af New Mextco. Albuquerque, NM A731 20Bintord) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE ant Tabla 1. Flow of Men, Date of Toial Men observation Totel hours No, initially Arrived during Left during wsing site (19724 af observation present observation observation (ne 6 June 4 6 a 4 2 7 Jane 4 3 5 2 4 ? lane 5 a 7 2 3 8 June 5 6 8 4 ‘ 13 June 6 4 5 4 7 9 fare 6 1 4 t 1 5 Total aa S0n6 Date of Total man hours of Average stayatsile _Mean no. men per hour observation (1972) anesite activity per men (hours) present during observation fume 4 28.0 ata 5.00 fune 4 130 186) 433 June 5 195, 27 650 fune 5 52.3 402 an June 6 15.5 172 388 une 6 45 90 450 cupants, This information is then used to decide upon a hunting strategy. Tho strategy is normally executed irom a series of nearby hunting “blinds” or "ambush" locetions. The latter sites are fre- quently characterized by the presence of facilities such as “fox holes,” wind breaks, blinds, and traps. These locations are normally taken up after the hunters hove astablished tho game's presence and path of movement, Around a typical hunting stand there may be several glternative- ly placed “blinds” or “ambushes.” A hunting stand is primarily an information-gathering loca- thon, and rarely are animals directly killed from such a site, although it sometimes happens, Hunt- ing diractly fram stands is mare comman today, given the use of high-powered rifles where “long shots" are more feequent. In the past when the bow and arrow was the only weapon, killing directly from hunting stands was much iess feasible, and multiple blinds and ambushes wore more commonly laceted near bunting stands. ‘The location of the hunting stend. then, is chosen in order to facilitate hunting through the observation of game and the planning that such observational information makes possible. The ac- tivities that take place within such stands are, however, largely related to reducing the boredom levels of the occupants during their watch for game. Because the sites are nat placed in the en- vironment relative to the major activities conducted within them, wa may expact only indirect Table 2. Frequency of Activities Conducted on the Mask Site During Contrailed Poriods of Observation, Activity Game Offsite Eating + Target Playing watching hunting talking shooting cards’ Crafts Sleep Data of ‘chservation No % No % No % No % Ne % No. % No. % June 4 5519.0) 5.5/1.0) 9.5320) 0.0 — asizaj s.0f170) 00 — Ture 4 3.0730) 0.0 — $505.0} 3.0(23.0) 1.08.0) 1.8{12.0) 0.0 — one 5 3.0150) 0.0— 9.0(46.0; 3015.0} 2010.01 1015.0) 1.9/8.0) June 5 12.0(22.96) $.010.0) 21.75/42.) 2.04.0) 9.07.0] 10Z.0) —L.SI3.0) June 6 61420) a0 ~ 3009.0) 3.0190} 0.0— 3.0180) aa Ture 6 1533.0) oo — 1388.0) 10 D0 19830] 0.0 — Tote a8 105 49.25, 11.0 198 130 aa Percentage 24.0 60 37.0 8.0 12.0 100 290 Note: Neo = number of man hours.sa AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (WoL 43, No. 8, 1878 2 Figure 1, Relation (ween mean graup size and time spent eating, playing cards, and talking. MEAN GROUP SIZE a & 0 0 2 3% 40 50 6 70 a ‘% OF TIME SPENT EATING, PLAYING CARDS & TALKING clues to their function from the inventory of remaining contents. The best way to illustrate this point is by example. Tha Mask site is located near the prasent village of Anaktuvuk (see Binfard 1978], [tis common. ly used as a hunting stand ofter the main ceribou migration hunting in spring. [tis used to monitor stragglers and small post migration herds of bull. caribou in the area to the sauth and west of the contemporary village. The period of use is from around May 28 thraugh June 19. The general role of this site and its place in the overall spring hunting strategy have been previously described (Binford 1976). Oue interest is in the facts of its internal organization and how they came into be- ing hehaviorally. Twas present on this site for a total of 34 hours spread aver the years 1971 and 1972. In 1971 the site was visited several times. Hunting orchestrated fram the site was observed, a3 was the general character of site activities. During a lull in the use of the site by the Nunamiut, the site was mapped and inventoried and then. cleaned of all portable itams nat iGentified by informants as items “cached” or destined for future use and/or retrieval by the users of the site. This was very near the end of the use period in 1971. The site was cleaned so that all items observed there the folowing year could be referred to behavior occurring on the site during the spring of 1972. In 1972 the site was visited 3 times during its peak use, and the hunting of bull herds fram tha site was recorded. Lata in the season I was essentially stranded in Anaktuvuk village whila waiting for the arrival of my archaeological crew. [used this “dead time” fa conduct a rather in- tensive set of abservations an the Mask site (June 4-7, 1972). Within 1 week I spent 23 haurs an the site, In addition, the site was inventoried, and all items were mapped according to their exact location. Pricr to the start of “‘systematic’’ observation [had observed behavior on the site for ap-Bintord) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE ann a Figure 2. Relationship _he- tween mean graup size and time spent in crafts and target shaating. * MEAN GROUP SIZE o o 5 © 6 0 2 0 8 40 ‘% OF TIME SPENT IN CRAFTS & TARGET SHOOTING proximetely 11 hours. | attempted to make “bohavioral observations” (s¢e Whiting and Whiting 1970; Weick 1968) during the chservation periods june 4-7, 1972, but my abservatians were bi- ased in that no attempt was made to record all action accurring on the hunting stand. I tried to record the times of arrival and departure of persons; 1 recorded the times at which various in- dividuals initiated activities and when they stopped. For instance, a typical record may note that Johnny Rulland seated himself next to Bob Ahgaok around hearth A 2t 6:50 and began engaging in conversation and the eating of hone marrow. The record may than pick up some tima later by noting thet Johnay got up from the hesrth area and announced that he had “hed enough" and was returning to the village. The description would then note the items he callected and carried away with him, Table 1 summarizes the census data on the persons prasent on the site and the man- haurs of activity that were recorded. ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED My major interest was in actions that resulted in the discatd or placement of items as they then, entered the archaeological damain. I did, however, as noted above, keep an activity record for the 23 hours of observation. Table 2 summarizes these data regarding the numbers of haurs in which the occupants of the site were engaged in the several recognizad asic activities. There are 7 such activities into which the overall actions af the man were tabulated. Game-watching consisted sole- ly of scanning the area ta the south of the aite either with. the unsided eye or with binoculars. I 4 man was engaged in carving a wooden mold for a mask and occasionally looked over the area or even picked up binoculars and scanned the area, he was still recorded as engaged in craft ora8 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY |Vol. 43, No. 3, 1978 Table 4. Bala From the 23 Hours of Behavioral Observation as Ragards the lems Observed and the “Activity” in Which They Were Used ANa. of observations Activily and items used Bating and talking (18) Kaatah Meal bores Mareow bones Cen of hash Car of sardines Can of pop Sardine can key Poo can tab Coffee” cups Coffee pot Coffee can Spoons Can of enilk Stone anvils Hotile of instant caffee Bog of colfae Bag af sugar Watching for gane (2) Binocaulaes Skins Playing cards (5b Dock af cards Can of pop Pop can tab Skins Coffee cups Crafts (4) Abrader Kitchen baie Metal file Hone Skinning kaite Mask male! Scraper (sbir] Scissors Screwdriver Dressed skin, Skin Target shooting (4) 22 shells Eop can (taruet| Mile can (tacgail okie: Oftsite hunting (8) Dog packs Ritle Skinning kaite Eukeis Short ropes Sleds Snowmobiles Binoculars, episodes of use AB 14 38 aa 44 8 on 23 50 Loa 100 too La Loa too 16.67 7 50 1.49 109 100 5.00 200 149 1.09 Ne of manBintord ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 335 Table 3. (continued A Na of B. No.of man: Activity and items used observations enisacias af use AB Sleeping (1) ‘Skins 1 2 thar ar nonspecitic {6} Funnal Nat observed = Pair of gloves Nat abserved = Saap dish, Not observed = Wolf trap Not obgerved = Sheets af canvas Nat abserved = Cigaratie lighter Not recorded - parentheses indicate an estimate rather than an actual count manufacturing tasks; a man was tabulated as engaged in an activity evan thauigh he occasionally interrupted his action for ather purposes. The only category of action that might be misleading in Table 2 is bunting, Hunting was never actually conducted on the site: during hunting episodes, all tne men {including myself were off the site. This “hunting” category, then, indicates hours during which the site was abandoned while bunting activities were carried out. ‘Two other observations regarding the activity categories might be useful. All target shooting was done with guns that were especially introduced for this purpose. That is, the weapans used in hunting were never used in shoating targets at the Mask site. It was explained that the nowder and shells were toa axpensiva ta be wastad on targets. A rimfire .22 was almast elwavs used in target shooting. The crait activities observed an the Mask site were (1) carving of wooden molds for masks. (2} carving of wooden spreaders for a dog harness, (3) carving of a horn spaan to be sold to a collector from Fairbanks, (4) carving of an ivory needle valva for repairing a carburetor on a snowmobile, (5] sewing a small skin pouci for carrying rifle bullets, and (6) repast of caribou skin sacks. The information in Table 2 shonld demonsteete thet anly the activity of “watching for game" was directly related to the primary funetion af the site. This represented 24% of the tatal man- hours of activity recorded; yet there were ne recognizable archaealogical consequences of this behavior. No taals laft on the site were used, and there were no immediate material “byproducts” of the “primary” activity. All of the other activities conducted at the site were essentially boredom reducers, Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the percentage of the total time spent in the com- bined activities of eating, playing cards, and talking and the mean group size present on the site Guring observation. What is clear is that the relative proportions of these activities are a function af the size af the group present on the site. The larger the social unit present, the greater the pro- portion of the total man-hours spent in “socializing” activities. Figure 2 illustrates the relation= ship between the size of the social unit present and the percentage af the total accunation time spent in target shooting and craft activities. The relationship is negatively linear; the fewer men present, the greater the propartion af time spent in target shooting and craft activities. The recognition of these relationships is provocative es regards the problem of interassemblage variability. Insofar as there are relationships between activities and material items. we could ex: pect that hunting stands which tended to vary in the modal group sizes would also vary in terms of the relative frequencies of activity-related archaealagical debris. Ihave described elsewhere (Binford 1978) a number af different hunting stands, and one of the major differences between them was the modal sizes of the occupying group. Stands used during peak migration hunting are large, with many men frequenting the stand. After main migration, the degree to which individual men continue to hunt is largely a function of the successes during migration hunting, Generally, the lass skilled hunters are the ones hunting aftar migration. Animals tend to be dispersed. hence hunting stands tend to be dispersed end are generally oc-306 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (Wo. 43, No.9, 1978 ‘Tabla 4. Comparison ketwean Numbers of {tems Observed Behavierally and Archaeologically. Tems with values lems wilh values greater than 1 “ott em BO" AG Hem Marrow bones a 334 Meat bones u at Hash can 1 Sardine can 5 Shells (ammunition) 25 68 Pup enn 7 2 5 2 San key Can tab Abrader 1 Kitchan knife 1 Skinaing knife 18 Mask malt t 1 1 1 t Skin acraper Scissors Screw driver Dressed shir Dap packs 3 Rifles v Skinning knives 18 Slat a Snawmedilos ? Heras with values lesa than 25 fem Golfee cups € Cafes pol Coffee can 2 Spann Bag af cnflue 4 (2) Can of mile Bay of sugar 2 ins} Instant cafes Pop can taraat a 4 Milk can targat 1 U Metal File t in Bincoulars 2 o Hone 1 a Suiting skin 5 rn Deck uf cares a uy Stone anvils 3 5 Kaniah 2 2 Note: Values in parenthesis indicate that the aumber of Hanis listed wore on the sie ef the fime of map- pping but informants ware emphatia that these items wore only lamporacily abandoned and wauld be used again and eventually returned to the village or moved to anather lacation * Behaviorally observed. ** Archaedlagically observed. cupied by 2 men at most. We would, therefore, expect the content af such siles to be different from those of migration hunting stands, with a bias in favor af industrial debris, since target shooting is a behavior not generally engaged in when dispersed animals ara being hunted, This task-related difference would correlate with “microseasoual” differences. Individual hunting stands are occupied more commonly after migration, and they would be geographically distrinuted in a different mannar (see Binfard 1976). Hence there would be a car- relation between same facts of content end season of occupancy, as well as geographical location. Nevertheless, the relevant explanatory variable would be group size. How could ane discaver that condition by studying the empirical correlations, spatial patterns, or “typological status” of theBinlora ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 337 Table 5. Comparative Inventories for [lems Observed Ethnographically and Archagologically—Mask Sito. ‘Archaeological observations Behaviorally abserved items Disposal Modes Tnventory of site ee Tet week Item une 7, of june Observed Number Dropped Tossed Rested Placed Dumped 19711072 Butlois wy (ar CCou 0 0 48 1 {shells} a Skinning kaite 18 o Rule ” a Bog of sugar 2 a Meat bones 1 Ris 10 (35) 9 Seapula 1 o 1 Marcow bones 8 Splinters (60 90% 108% Chips (120 100% 08% 45 7 4 ay 9 a a 4 1 (ze 180 (aay? 0 2 2 86 “3 6 az ana Enda 16 Fop cans ? Snowmobiles 7 Cigarette lighters 7 Cups. 5 Sleds 5 Skins 5 Deck of cards 3 Sardine cans, 5 Dog packs 3 Metel files a Anvile 5 Coffee cans 2 Binoculars 2 Gotiee pot 1 Mask molds 1 Length of rape 1 Pop can tabs 204 Can of hash Funeiel Pair af glaves Hone Kitchen knife Spoon File Milk can Instant coffer battle Bag of coffee i Soap dish Walf trap Weal glove Canvas, Rope fragments Soc0og+ceauccoose Note: Numbers ia italic indicate tems that would have been removed when site was abandoned, * estimate of number. > fragments. © grounds only. assemblages? I do not think the facts of tha archaaolagicel recard would speak for themselves in this case. Finally, the typological distinctiveness of assemblages irom pastmigration hunting stands would be illusionary since the same variables conditioning large stands would be operative; the only differences would be the “power” of the different variables as manifest al dif-338 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (Wot. 43, No.2, 1978 | J MASK SITE EARTHS AND GLACIAL, BOULDERS Figure 3. Hearths and glacial boulders. ferent locations, This is what is meant by “functional” variability, but more impartantly this ‘© what is anticipated by arguments for the multivariable besis of many interassemblage dif ferences. Our analytical tools must he sufficient for recognizing such conditions when. they exist and recognizing the effects of such past dynamics or formation processes if we are to achieve ac- curacy in giving meaning to the archaeological facts wa observa. These points will he demonstrated more clearly with the next body of data. TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION We hava now explored some of the factors that condition the performance of different ace livities on the Mask site and haw these activities relate to the “primary function” of the site. Our next concern is the relationship hetween the structure of tbe activities and the organization of the “technology” or material items manipulated in the various activities. Table 3 summarizes the data from the 23 hours of observation at the Mask site regarding the material items observed and their relationship to the activities previousty described. In addition, the inventory of items is elaborated to include the number af separate items of each type abserved together with the number of man-episodes of use for the items. A “mar-episade” is indicated (1) for each differant man that used the item, (2] for a reuse by the same man during different observational sessions, and (3) if anather man had used the iter between recorded uses by the same man. This may sound complicated, and I must admit it was. Working out the canventions far recozd-Binfora ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE ae Pot | MODEL SEATING PLAN Acme HEAR Figure 4. Madel seating plan. ing wes not easy, For instance, a man. carrying @ skinning knife is observed on the site curing observation period number 1. The same man is observed with the skinning knife on the site during observation period number 2, Do we record 2 men and 2 skinning knives? In this casa, no, since no observation of “use"” was made in either case, and since } man.and 1 knife had been recorded. Unless some episode of use was observed, no further tabulation was made ‘The information in Table 3 ts supplemented by the data on the number of items observed on the site during the period of behavioral observation and the number of items observed “ar. chaeologically” at the end af the period of hehsvioral.abservation. Several characteristics of the Nunamiut technological system are made explicit in this table. First, all the itemas with low “use ratios” were mast commonly considered ta he “site-specific” artifacts that were generally available for use by aay aécupents of the site, They were considered part af the site in much the same way that facilities such as hearths were considered. These items were generally intraduced ducing the early phases of use, ar they were removed from caches at the site, having remained. there from a previous period of use. They were thought of as the appropriate “artifact” fur- nishings of the site, the site-specific “hardware.” The beat analagy to the way the Eskimo con- ceived of these items is similar to the way we think of furnishings in a room. They are items that go with the place, not necessarily the persons occupying the place. Items in this category were cafiee340 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Vol. 48, No. 8, 1978 | lyase sre! | MASK SITE ‘OBSERVED LOCALIZATION OF EATING A TALKING ACTIVITIES UNDER UAFRARL E WIND ORECTION Figure 5. Observed localization of eating and talking activities under variable wind direction. cups, coffee pol, caffee can, spoons, battle of instant coffee, bags of coffee and sugar, can of milk, stone anvils, kaotah, sitting skins, and decks of cards. Most of these items were contributed by various occupants far the use by others during the pariod of occupation. Others were considered to be unowned and simply part of the site, such as the stone anvils and kaotah used ia cracking marrow bones. These were collected expediently from immediately available raw materials and are not identified with any contributor as might be tha caffee cups or pot, The other class of items exhibiting law use ratios were items that were identified as the “pro- perty” of an individual but were widely shared at the sile. These items include the metal file, the hone, and the binoculars. The metal file and the hone were observed 9s items cached on the site and in this sense were almost considered ia the same category as contributed “furnishings.” ItBintora) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE at Table 4. Proportion of Man-Hours of Activities Perfarmed by Men Seated in. Clecular (Gir Fashion Arourd Hearth. Game Offsite Eating > ‘Target _—‘Plaving watching hunting talking shoot cards Crafts Sleep Date Cir Oth Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth. Cir. Oth. Cin. Oth. Cin. Oth, Cir. Oth june 4 0 100% 9 100% 99% 7% — — 17% age 20% 71% — — june 4 O 160% 9 10% ga% 5% 9 0% 9 100% 50% 30% — — June 5 0 160% G05 100% "O 9 100% 9 100% 17% Bde 0 00% June § 0 100% 0 160% 90% 10% 9 100% 11% 89% G 100% 4 100% une 6 9 100% 9 100% 95% §% 9 lon% — — 36% Ba% — — june 6 © 100% 100% 100% 0 22% 78% — — 28% 75% — — M 9 100% 9 100% 95.5% 4.8% 44% 95.6% 754 93% 26.2%6738% G 100% was explained that these were not very valuable items, and it would be ‘impolite’ lo recover ther if someone was using them when the owner decided to leave the site. By convention the per- son using an jtem would cache it on the site if the awner was not present when the borrower finished his task. By way of contrast, the binoculars were considered valuable, and therefore it would not be unreasonable for the awner to collect them fram persons who might be using (era when he decided ta leave the site. MASK SITE GASERVED LOcAITZANONS OF CARE PLAYING Figure 6. Observed localizations of card playing,4a AMERICAN ANTIOUITY {Mol 43, No.3, 978 MASK SITE OBSERVED LOCHaIBATICN oF Bart acranres Figure 7. Observed localizations of crait activities. A fing] class of items exhibiting low use ratios were cans used as shooting targets. In this case they were recycled into this function. That is, they had baer introduced to the site for other pur- poses. We can see that of all the items exhibiting low use ratios, only expediently used items such as the anvils and kaatah or recycled items such as the targats went into the archaealogical recard in a manner diractly proportional ta the number actually used aa the site. All af the items having low use ratios may be thought of as “group” tools or multiple-use containers. These are the items that are apt ta accur sporadically on sites if they are curated (Binford 1976) and moved around in cached contexts, af vary regularly as in tha case of the anvils, if not curated. These are the items that are apt to appear mast commarly in the archaeological record as “de facto garbage," in Schiffer's (1976] terms, if curated. ‘Among the items exhibiting a use ratio of 1 there are clearly 3 subclasses of items: (1) individual serving caatainers—hosh, sardine, and pop cans—all cantainers for individual servings of food or refreshments, (2) almost all the items used in craft activities, abrader, kitchen knife, etc., and {3} all the items introduced as part af the persanal gear of hunters and destined for use at hunting stands, blinds, and butchering locations—dog packs, rifles, skinning knives, etc. Oniy items ia the first category were systematically represented on the site, These wore tho immediate bypraducts of consumption. What we are soaing are some of tha offects of organizational properties on the archaeological record. All iteaw used on the site were not organized within the technology in 9 similar manner.Bintord ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 343 I 1 | MASK SITE | OBSERVED LOCALIZATION OF ACTIVITIES "AFTERNOON UNE 5 Figure 6. Observed localization af activities, afternoon, june 5. ‘The particular patterns of tachnological organization conditioned the degree to which items did or did nat go into the archaeological record as ¢ direct consequence of their use. It should not take much imagination to visualize how the archaeological record might vary if the organization of the technology were different with no difference in either the character af the stems used ot the ac- tivity conditions of their use. Suppose for a mament that all the gear listed in Table 4, columns 3 and 4, was introduced ta the site as part of “personal gear” and each man had his awn cup, spoon, coffee pot, can af milk, coffee can, etc. Clearly tha numbers introduced to the site would be very different, spproaching the values far rifles and skinning knives in column 2. Let us further suppose that these items were “expendable” as oppased ta “curated” (see Binfard 1976) ar main- tained within the technolagy for considerable periads of time. I think the reader can easily ap- preciate how vastly different the content of the archaeological record would be given such organizational changes. while activities, site functions, identity of occupants, etc., migitt remain tha same, We can appreciate how systems might vary in their organizational properties; such differences have been explored proviously in terms of some af their implications (see Binford 1976), ft should be pointed out thet arganizatianal praperties may vary within a system situationally and thereby contribute appreciably to intersite variability within a system. For instance, I have abserved situations in which gear normally curated and carried as part of the personal-gear element of the technology may be abandoned or scuttled, We may also appreciate that environmental “con lingencies" may well situationally conditian how otherwise identical items are organized. Far in- stance, in 1974 Lhad the rare apportunity to observe taol- making behavior af Alyowara-speakingone AMERICAN ANTIQUITY IWol.43, No.3, 1978 Poy] I MASK SITE Loe wr | assemeo oea aren or acrunes I I “aE . we | — ree Figure 4. Observed localization of activities, June 6, Australian aborigines at a stone quarry and then later in.a bese camp. At the quarry, where large quantities of material were immediately available, large takes were treated as expendable byproducts of flint chipping and discarded essentially where they dropped. On. the other hand, in the base camp, where stane working was restricted to the reduction of cores that hed been, transported over a considerable distance, the large flakes were picked up and circulated among the various families as potential sources of raw material, “blanks'* for cores or for further pro- cessing into tools. In this case we see how tha “organization” of the technology may be situational- ly responsive ta external conditions resulting in within-system differences in the archaeological remains at different locations. DISPOSAL MODES. Thus far [have discussed factors in the ongoing behavioral system that differentially condition the disposition and use af material items, In this section I ars concerned with the important pra- cose of the transformation of material items from their "systemic" context (see Schitfer 1976] to theic “‘acchaedlogical context."” | am Interested in describing the modes of disposal for items entering the archaeological record at the Mask sito. In turn, Tam intorestad in the resulting strc ture, the character of the internal site structure that results fom the production of an ar- cheealogicel record at this site. Given such interests, ane can appreciate that my behavioral observations would be biased. 1 made no attempt to recard all abserved behavior occurring on the hunting stand, only behavior in the context of which material items were manipulated, Even within this domain I did not record all acts, only those which rasuited in the deposition of an item or in the repositioning of an item alrescy placad within the site, The earlier 12 haurs of abserve- tion were used as the basis for the development of an observational format. | recognized 5Bintora] ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 35 MASK SITE -4 GOSERVED LOCALIZATION OF ACTIVITIES ‘NOON JUNE 'S Figure 10. Observed localization of activities, noon, June 3. manipulative acts that resulted in items occurring on surfaces within the site: draping, tossing, testing, positioning, and dumping iter. Dropping Most of the cases of dropping were cases where elements were detached from an item already held in the hand. The most frequently observed dropping situation was in the context of cracking marrow bones. The hone was commonly held in the hand and struck with the back of ¢ hunting knife. The impact resulted in detached chips and splinters of bone that deapped to the ground directly below the point of impact. Anather comman situation of cropping was observed during the manufacture of a mald for a mask. The craftsman was carving a piece of wood, and the wood shavings drappad to the ground directly below the action. A rare form of dropping was "fumble" dropping. That is, an item either held in the hand ar in some container such as a pocket was drop- ped during the course of the action or during the removal of another item fram the cantainer. ‘Tossing This actian was very common and most often occurred upan the completion of some action. For instance, containers such as sardine cans oF pop cans were commonly tossed after their contents were consumed. Similarly, articulator ends of bone processed for marrow were tassed away after the marrow was removed. The act is simple, an item held in the hand is tossed. asido, effectively removing it from the area af its use. Resting Items are set down, normally, in the following contexts: “unpacking” upon entry ta the camp, temporary abandonment of @ task due to interruptions, ar arraying tools (at might all he used in348 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (Wol. 42, No.2, 1978 accomplishing a general task. Typical behaviors might be the hunter who enters the hunting stand and leans his rifle against a rock or takes off his pack and sets it down beside the rifle, Several men may be sitting around a hearth eating marrow bones and drinking coffee when the “magic ward” caribou is stage whispered among the men. Almost invariably the coffee cups, partially processed marrow bones, or half-eaten tins of sardines will be set down. immediately in front of the man, and he will bolt up searching for his binoculars, rifle, ete. Such acts result in resting items. Positioning Items (Placed) ‘An item was identified as positioned if there was some attempt to (a) aggregate several, [b] unobtrusively place them sa they wauld not interfare with ongoing activities at the location, and (c) inure their easy retrieval at some future date, Formally this is a difficult category because there is an assumed motive—the temporary placement of an item or items in anticipation of future use. This is what the archaeologist would call caching, although same af thase “caches” may be very short term. Dumping ‘This was an infrequent behavior on huating stands. It consists of the accumulation of dropped, or resting items, normally in a container. The container is then pickad up and removed, commonlyBinfora) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE ar to the periphery of the site, and dumped. This results in a recognizable high density aggregate Gisteioution. The ahave categories wara found to adequately accammadate the observed behaviors in which items came to rest in. a bunting stand. Obviously this is anly a pactial picture, since items at rest within a site may be removed andior reorganized spatially as a result of a variety of actions taking place within the site, The following classification of acts that resulted in the repositioning of items already at rest within tha site was found useful: 1. Brushing aside—This action was observed in only four behavioral contexts: (a before sitting down, [b) in preparation far drawing a map in the dirt, (c] before butchering an animal, and (d] prior ta dismantling a snowmobile carburetor. In na case was a special ‘cal usad, such as a broom. The hand and arm were used to brush aside litter and to smooth out the aurface of the ground in preparation for the perfarmance af the acts listed above. 2. Searching—This action was observed anly twice. One af the men wauld genorally ask the ‘geaup if anyone had picked up his item. in one case the item was 2 butchering knife and in the ather it was a fragment of a broken saw blade used in cutting antler. In camps such as the Mask siic, the fizst assumption normally made when an item is suspected of being missing is that some- ane else has picked up the item and is using it or has placed it somewhere unknown to the owner. This means that if an individual misses some item that he had at the site he will always query the other men present, “Did anyone soe my?" Tf no one acknowledges having seen the item, it is generally assumed that someone no longer present used the item and has left it “around the slte somewhere.” Most af the time. in the absence of information as to where the itera may be found, the men present will get up and begin searching for it. Thare is a kind of search priority or scale of likelihood about where a last item may be. First they Jook on top af prominent rocks and boulders, then around the bases of these rocks and boulders. Next they look under any temporary “ground cavers" such as caribou skins, which might have been dragged around and in- advertently covered up an item, or @ stack of recently intraduced firewood might be poked around in, Finally, there is 9 ground search centered around the hearth areas af the alte. If coverage of these areas fails to turn up the item, the men generally abandon the search, assuming that someone not present has the item and will return if to the owner at a later date. Importantly, during the search there is a moving around of items already present, and almost always some items are picked up to be “recycled” for other purposes. Lost items are “rediscovered at this time. ‘Table 6 tabulates the items observed on the site and the frequanoy with which various items were manipulated so that they remained unattended on the site. This does not mean that these items nacessarily became part af the archaeological record, for many of them may have keen ronositioned ar removed fram the site later. This difference is indicated by the comparison be- tween the items actually inventoried “archaeologically” on the site and the frequency with which items were “positioned” within the site, Soveral important facts are illustrated in Table 8. There are major differences between the ine ventories of llems dropped, tossed, and dumped. For instance, marrow bone splinters and chips, shell casing, and rib tablets were the items most commonly dropped, while articulator onds of marrow bones, pop cans, and sardina cans were tha items mast commonly tossed. Dumping ex- clusively consisted of coffee grounds and rib tablets. Ou the other hand, many items were rested or placed on the site but never or only rarely did these become part of the archaeological record. Referring the “disposal modes" recognined ara to those racagnized by Sohiffer (1976:40-33), both dropping and tossing would result in “primary refuse.” Similarly, dumping és it was ob- served on the Mask site would also result in primery refuse in spite of the fact that Schiffer generally equates dumping with the generatian of secondary refuse (see Schiffer 1976:30). Dump- ing. as on the Mask site and in other contexts, consists af the disposal of multiple aggregated elemenis during food processing andior faod preparation activities. Dumping may consist of the disposal of the sggregate immediately adjacent to the lacus of use. This is quite different from the situation where aggregates ere accumulated during the course of “cleaning up" and removed348 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY IWol. 43, No.9, 1978, from the location of primary depositian to a “special area" or specific dumping area. The latter activity was not abservad on the Mask eite. ‘As in the previous sections it is hoped that the reader can appreciate the effect that changes in the relationships between item classes and modes of disposal may haven the final form of the ar- chaeolagical record. For instance, I have described elsewhere (Binford 1978} the generel pattern of disposition of bone elements during the course of mea] within an Eskimo house, Items that are commonly tossed or dropped an the Mask site, suck as articulator ends and bane splinters, are mast often “placed” in small piles along the edges of hearth racks, around the stove, o7 on the edge of serving dishes during eating and talking episodes within an Eskimo house. This behavior is in anticipation af the women of the house “‘cleaning un" after the meal, accumulating articulator ends in a cache for later pracessing inta bone grease and “duping” hone splintera in special dump areas, In this example we can. see that there may well be very different disposal mades asscciated with the same item in different site or social contexts So far | have discussed 4 basic behavioral categories relative ta the “systemic” context (Schif- fer 1976] of the Mask site, Hopefully, [have demonstrated that a location. the actual spatial locus of a site, may be selected relative to criteria for optimizing conditions for a single task. In the case of the Mask site this task was the monitoring of a large area far game movements. The activities conducted within the site were all secondary accommodations to the situational integration of spring straggler hunting at the Mask site into the averall strategy of spring hunting. If migration hunting has been very successful and herds were more mixed than normal, straggler hunting at the Mask site will be conducted by only the most unsuccessful hunters, group sizes will be small. compared to the data reportad here and activities conducted there while waiting for game will be conditioned by size and length-of stay considerations. Similarly, the organization of the technology is at least partially conditioned by the understood, cr anticipated relationship of the location ta use intensity and duration, as well as its actual loca- tian relative to ather sitas in use at the time. For instance, preparation of meals was never ob- served on the Mask site, because it is located less than a mile frora the main village of Anaktuvuk. The only eating observed could best be described as snacking. Only hone marrow and items specifically introduced to contribute to tha “picnic"’ atmosphera of eating (cans of sardines are a goad example] were consumed. Meat per se was never cooked, and techniques of boiling and Toasting meat were never employed on the site during the perlads af controlled observation. Similarly, the form and numbers of artifactual itoms that were cansidered “furnishings” on tha site could he expected to vary with the anticipated model group sizes and anticipated intensity af use, In the example that | offered regarding remote sites, I suggested that gear present on the Mask site a¢ furnishings would he part of personal gear at such a remote location, Finally, [ described the disposal modes observed on the Mask site and pointed out that there was a regular set of relationships between the form and size of items and tha mades of disposal. It was further argued that ir ather contexts different disposal mades might well be employed for identical items Ali of the three behavioral dimensions, ectivity structure. technological organization, and disposal modes interact and contribute to the facts of site structure, or the patterning recognizable in the static disposition of cultural features and items at a location. ORGANIZATION OF SPACE Several types of behavioral data were collected during observations on the Mesk site. Attempts were made to observe the position of men on the site during the performance of different ac- tivities. In addition, { measured the placement of men relativa ta ane another and to basic facilities on tha site during the performance of differant activities The core area af the site is between 3 relatively large glacial haulers. Among these boulders were 6 hearths, Figure 3 shows the relationship between the disposition of hearths and the place- ment of boulders, f never observed all 5 hearths in use at the same time; in fact, never saw more than 2 in simultaneous use, and that was tate, The differential use of the haarths is basicallyBintora) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE ue related to wind dicection. When the prevailing winds are from the north, hearths B and E were primarily used: winds blowing from the south prompted the preferential use of hearths A, C, and sometimes D. Pravailing winds fram the north tendad ta carry scent to animals approaching fram the south, eo large groups of men were never observed at the site when winds were from the north. South winds carried scent away from approacking animals, and mare men tended to be in the hunting stand under these conditions. For these reasons hearths A and C were the mast com- monly used. T actually measured the placement of men and found that for a sample of $5 men seated in groups of 3 or 4, the mean distance from the left kneecap ta the embar edge af the fire was 6246.8 cm. The mean distance between lett and right knees of men seated next to one another was 33+ 4 ‘om, When men were seated in graups of they tended to move back from the fire a little to make room if an additional member of the graup arrived. Under these canditions J measured 4 groups af 5 (20 measurements] and found the mean distance from tie left knee to the ember edge of the fire tobe 71 8.2.cm and the mean distance between left and right knees af adjacent men to be 24 3 om. Figure 4 illustrates the moan sitting pattern for graups of 3 men and of 4 men around a fira.on the Mask site. ‘The first thing to be noted is that there is always a vacant side of the heath, depending upon, wind direction. Such a distribution azound a heacth, that is, witha side af relatively dense debris, end an opposite, low-density side, hes frequently been interpreted as deriving from the organiza- tion of space within a house; the low-density side is seen as representing the sleeping area (see Loroi-Gourham and Breaillan 1972] and the high-dansity side as the area of domestic ac- tivity—eating and food preparation. That such « distribution may in fact arise is shown by Yellen (1977). In his case, the low-density side of the hearth relates to the area adjacent ta the sheltered sleeping area (Yollen 1977]. f have alsa observed the lawhigh density pattern of debris arcund in- ternal hoarths, particularly in the case of the Palangana site (see Binford 1978), Table 7. Man-Houts of Activity Localized in Different Areas, Game Eeting + ‘Target. Playing ‘Avess Hesrtha watch talking shoot_—cards —Crafls__—Sloap_—_—Totel Wo none 3.0(12%4) 10.5(42%| 4.016%) __7.25(a0%0) 24.75 xX BB 2.75(34%%) 2.5(32%| 0.75299) 4.0427) 100 Y oco 8.25(22%) —O.5(98)— G.047%5 35/182) 19.25 zoa 30.25(06%) 1s{4%) 40.78 Total aot 4928 0 155 130 ao 94.95 *28.5 hours of game watching done (ram baulder area just south of this area, approximately 17 m south of hearth A. On the Mask site the “seating plan” conditions the dispersion pattern of items that were drop- ped versus those that were tossed. I did not measure the positian of dropped items relative ta seated persons, However. [ noted that dropped items came to rest within 20 cm of the front of a man sitting crose-legged. They dropped between his legs ar fell ta the side af his legs within about 20 em. This means that in the aeating plan shown in Figure 4 we may add the probable location of the “drop zane,” the area within which men seated around the hearth would drop items. While ‘observing on the Mask site, I measured the distance between tha knoo of the seated man and the resting place af tossed items, Such items were invariably tossed “‘over the shoulder” and the mean distance from the kneecap of a seated man for tossed articulator ends (N= 7] of bones was 3.14 mi with a standatd deviation of 24 cm. For sardine and pan cans (N = 6) the mean distance was 2.54 1m with a standard deviation af 29 cm. Whea I asked informants why they tossed can more vigorously they simply said they were unsightly and got in the way more than bones! Given this information wa may add to our model seating plan an additional zone of anticipated dobris—tossed items. Figure 4 illustrates the anticipated distributional patterning for items disposed of by individuals seated around aa outside hearth,350 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (Vol. 49, Na, 3, 1978 Figure 12. Relationship he- tween mean group size and the percent of total craft time spent withia an * ciecte.” MEAN GROUP SIZE The basic organization or seating plan for individuals around a hearth may nat change from a typical “outside” situation as observed on the Mask site to an “inside” situation where there is a haarth in the contar af a house. We might anticipate that the seating plan relative to the hearth, might be eseentially identical, and we may aven anticipate a vacant sida fo the distritution where the sleeping area is adjacent to the hearth. A drop zone could be expected where stone working or marrow cracking was going on adjacent to the hearth. However, in the Nunamiut case we would never ahsat va a “toss zone" around a seated group inside a house. (Sea Binford 1978: Chapter 4, for 2 description of food consuraption within the bouse.} Items normally tossed outside would be placed along the hearth stones ar along the edges of serving platters so that the woman of the housa could easily clean up the large bone debris from meals consumed inside. ‘Men seated around the hearths of the Mask site in soma “size” phase of the pattern illustrated in Figure § were observed to he engaged. in eating and conversatian mast commonly, Table 6 sum- marizes the proportion of man-hours of activities, as tabulated in Table 2, which was spatially organized as men seated ina circular fashion around the hearth. ‘What is very clear is that the particular patlern of space use characterized as a semicircle of men seated around a hearth was almost exclusively related to the activity of eating and talking. All other activities were characteristically conducted in a differant place and in a different pat- torn of association man-to-man and man-to-facility. It short, there ware different areas assaciated with the performance of different octivities. The single activity exhibiting the mast overlap with eating and talking, in terms of where it was performed, was craft activity. It is shown that 26.2% of the time during which individuals were engaged in craft activity was spent within the circle of men seated around the fire. The actual lacation and seating plan of men engaged in activities other than eating and talking ia best illustrated graphically. Figure 6 illustrates the location of card-playing activities. The numbering of the areas roughly coincides with the preferential bias for placement. Area 1 would certainly be preferred for several reasons: (1) Recause card playing is an activity of large araup sizes, it fe almost certain that winds would be blowing from the southBintoed) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 54 Figure 13. Distribution of bone. and therefore smoke from hearth A (the most likely to be in use) would be drifting in the direction, of playing ares 3, making it less desirable; (2] Players can see the area ta the south of the site from playing area 1, but this is almoat impossible from playing area 4 and more difficult from playing area 2 because of slope: (2) The players are less likely to be interrupted by men seeking access to hearths than. would be the case in areas 2 and 3. Craft activities are accasionelly conducted by men seated in en “eating and talking” samicir- ole. Figure 7 illustrates the seated position of all men abserved engaged in craft activities. It is clear that the major area independent of men seated in hearth circles is along the large rock where card playing area 1 is alsa located (craft area 1 in Figure 7), An additionsl craft area is along the east side of the smaller glacial boulder just nocth of hearth C (designated area 2 in Figure 7}. Less commonly performed activities are parhags best illustrated by internal site ertangements observed during different occupational episodes, Figure 4 illustrates the arrangement af men an the Mask site at the time of my arrival on the site during the eiternoon of June 5. Six men were present: 1 sleeping, 1 engaged in carving an antler handle for a “woman's knife" (ulul, 1 watching for game, and 3 engaged in eating and conversation. The wind was from the south, and only hearth A was in use. The sleeping man was in an area otherwise used as an eating and talking ares when hearth B is jn use. The man working on the antler was in craft area 2, and the man ‘watching for game was seated in the same rea where card playing or crafts were alsa commonly located.352 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (Wal. 43, No, 8, 1978 igure 14. Distribution of spent cartridges and wood shavings. Figure 9 illustrates the dispasttion of men on the Mask site at 4 paint in the early evening of fune 6th, Twa men are eating and talking around heacth B (the wind was from the nacth}, 1 man wes sewing up a rip in a pair of caribou skin sacks, and 2 men were target shooting. Target shooting was being conducted from the same area used as a card playing area, a craft area, and an area where men sometimes sit to watch for game. The “craftsman” was sitting an the apposite side of the glacial boulder from eraft araa 2. To furtner illustrate the point that the internal organization of the site is situationally shifting. Figure 10 illustrates the iccation of men abserved at noon on. June 5. Three men were eating and talking around hearth A, 1 man was carving the handle af « walking stick while seated next to hearth B which was active, and 4 men were playing cards around a caribou skin in card playing area 1. Two majar points are to be emphasized here. (1) At any ane time on the site the different activities conducted simultaneously are independently organized in space (see Figures 8-10), (2) Over time, there is a statistical tendency for given activities ta ha repoatedly iocalized in the same places, although these loci would not be reserved axclusivaly for a single activity In order te illustrate these facts, Lhave organized the observational data from the Mask site in 2 ways. First, based on the cumulative activity maps such as Figures 6 and 7, [ have combined the spatial data from all my episodal maps into a composite aan which permits the recognition of 4 basic use areas on the site (Figure 1%). In this sense a “use area” is a location where activities tend ta be locatized such that they do not overlap spatially with adjacent geeas. The 4 such areas recagnized on the Mask site are designated W, X, Y, and Z in Figure 11. Returning to my tabuls-Bintord] ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 388 ae je jew few few few fer fore Jerr few [ew Le Figure 15. Artifact disteibution. tion schedules, | was able ta tabulate the man-hours of the vacious activities which were con- ducted in each of the 4 recognized “use areas" on the site, Table 7 summarizes theso data. Even a casual examination of Table 7 illustrates nicely 2 very basic points. (1} The intensity of use was not evenly distributed among the recognized use areas. (2). The various activities were not evenly distributed cmong the several areas. The man-hours spent ia game watching ware t00% localized in arae W. The hours spent sleeping were 100% localized in area X. Of tha total man- hours spent in eating and talking 80% were localized in area Z. Target shooting man-hours were 95% localized in area W, while 98% of the cerd playing hours were localized in rea ¥ and 56% of tha hours spent in crafts were localized in area W. Quite clearly there is a basis in “reality” for seeking patterns in the archaeological remains which derive fram spatial segregation of ac- tivities, This is true in spite of the fact that a casual observer seeing the pattern of site use as ile lustrated in Figures 8-10 might conclude that there were no special ‘activity areas” but only a “generalized use of activity space.” Such an impressionistic conclusion was reached by John, Yellen from his Bushman experience. Thave suggested that it is unfounded ta assume thai activities are spatially segragatod or arranged by {ype ‘within a single camp. Most tasks may be carried out in more taan ona place and in mare than one social con- text; and, conversely, im any single area, one can find the remains af many activities all jumbled together. Unfortunately, many archaealogicel analyses are based on just such an ecroneous assumption, and thair resulting conclusions must be called foto question {2977:134) In another place Yellen states: - one may evaluate models archaeclagiats often uae to examine activity patterning within an exceveted site, What underlies many af these is the ¢ priori assumption that most activities are performed by spectal-384 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (Mot. #9, No. 2,197 purpose, jab-specific graups. and thal individual tasks ace spatially sagregated [com one another... the most mislead:ng aspect of this stalement lies nol in fis overly simplistic nature but its implteation that the primary nature of an activity itself rather than its social eontaxt uniquely determines the lacation at which it will be parformad. ..(1977:97). These critical, and to my ears pompous, statements are simply wrong and heged on no systematic observation that I can detect. | think that most would agree that it is physically im- possible far 2 independent entities ta occupy identical spaces simultaneously. Therefore it is it~ possible for 2 persons to accupy identical spaces simultaneously. Insofar as 2 persons are en- gaged in different activities simulteneously they must be localized in different places. This is clearly illustrated in Figures 8-10 from the Mask site. As it is impossible ta imagine different per- sons occupying the same space, s0 it is impossible ta imagine activities carried out simultaneously by different persons occurring in the identical space. Given these conditions, the degree that activities will be spatially separated at any one time can be expected to vary with the number of different activities simultoneausly performed by different persons. Tha interesting question that arises from this has ta do with the degree to which similar ac- tivities will be conducted in the same places at different times. Stated another way, we may ask what will be the degree of redundancy in the organization of activities in space? | have illustrated that on the Mask site, Yellen’s generalization is correct (see Figures 8-10), namely: ‘Most tacks may be cartied out in mare then ane place end in more than ane cociel cantext and conversely in ony single srea one can find the remains of many activities all jumbled together (1977:134)- T have also illustrated that the conclusion drawn from this observation is false. Table 7 il- lustrates that it is not “unfounded to expect activities to be spatially segregated or arranged by type within a single camp.” Table 7 illustrates nicely that there ere meaningful structural facts of spatial association between activities and different places on the Mask site. What conditions these facts? Yellen suggests that the primary conditioner is the sacial context of performance rather than “the primary nature of the activity itself" (1977:97), Such a generalization makes no sense, and it is contradicted by Yellen himself when discussing head roasting aod skin prepara- tion (see Yellen 197.92, 145}. The point is that some activities interfere with others. Similarly, some activities require moce ar less space, mare ar less tiaie ta completian, and more or less per- ticipants. In addition, activities vary in the smaunt of debris or pollution (naise or dor) produced during the couree of performance, They further vary in the relative degree to which the debris or pollution is noxious and thus inhibits or disrupts the performance of ather activities. We see very few dances performed inside of active hearths; rarely does a person assemble a camplicated craft item in the midst of a group of playing childre An excellent illustration of this point is provided by the relationship between the modal group size present on. the site and the percentage of total activity time spent in crait activities executed in the hearth-centered circles of men. Figure 12 illustrates this relationship for the 6 abservation neriods documented on the Mask site. 1lis very clear that as group size incteases, the percentage of the total activity time spent in craft activities localized in the “eating and talking areas” decreases. This is not {o be understood as changes in response to “social context” but simply as a response to the fact that 48 more men are present and engaged in talking and eating, there is more noise, and craftsmen are less able {a concentrate. Noise and distractive activity are cited by the Eskimo as the reasons for abandoning craft-related tasks when many mon are firesent, If they must be performed, a special location away from the talking and eating area is sought by crafts. men. I expect activity differentiation in space to relate to both the anticipated future use of the location and tha character of activity incompatibilities. We can build a theory of space use, and we can understand spatial patterning without recourse to vague notions of “social context.” THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALL THIS BEHAVIOR Thave tried to illustrate that there were st loast 4 basic dimensions of potentially independent variebility (hat interact to contribute to the archaeolagical facts generated at the Mask site,Bintord) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 385 Figure 13 illustrates the observed distribution of animal bone fragments; Figure 14 illustrates the distribution of wood shavings and shell casings: and Figure 15 illustrates the distribution of “ar tifacts"' as observed on the Mask sil, It seems to me that little comment is needed here, since most of the facts of the archaeological distribution could be anticipated from the behavioral discussion. Given the level at which the technology is “curated by the Nunamiut the ar- chaealogical remains at tha Mask site relata primarily to the activities of eating and talking, The consequences of the disposal modes is well represented in the site structure. Bone splinters and. chips cluster in the “drop zone" and articulator ends cluster in the “toss zone" of a seating plan with mon seated in a semicircle around the hearth (sea Figura 16). The distribution of shell casing faithfully betrays the locations of target shooting, while wood shavings similarly sugaest the primary locations of craft activity. The “artifact” distribution provides us with our only surprise. The itome that ware actually disposed of on the site—pop cans, sardine cans, segments of ope, worn gloves, ete. —all exhibit a clustered and peripheral dis‘ribution to the site as a whole, not just to the areas in which the items were used, In fact thare ara clustars af such items adjacent to areas that ware used least (see Figure 16, Bone distribution superimposed on model seating plan.256 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (Mol. 43, No.3, 1978 Petr TT To Pr TT lee | Le _| or lee fon Jeg le fon fom__fee lew om Jen Joe _Jer__foe_ Figure 17. Artifact distribution superimposed on activily areas. Figure 17), This pattern implies a biased disposal of itams into low use-intensity areas which, of course, presuppases an overall understanding of the use patterns of the sile as a whole as ap- posed to the particular pattern that might be present at the time of disposal acts. Stated another way, disposal patterns result in a distribution that is assantially inversely related ta the patterns of use intensity. ‘The consequences of this for different archaeological patterns is most provocative. For in- stance, lot us imagine the Mask site under changed conditions; no marrow bones are being eaten, only dried meat which would contribute no immediate byproduct to the archaeological record. In short, ail the chips and splinters seen in Figure 13 would be absent. Now the averall structure af the archaeological sito would appaar quite differant; it would consist of an essentially circular “high-density zone” with a central low-density area lacking in any major items except those that might remain as de facto garbage. Under these conditions “high-density zones” would refer almost exclusively to disposal areas and not activity areas. in this case, then, demonstrable associations batwaon items in disposal areas would ba more likely to reflect size sarting and wauld be as likely to reflect relative frequency relations betwaen activities as to demonstrate a relationship among items usad within given activities. Such a situation suggests that patlerns of artifact association from different areas af a site may well reier to different “formation pro- cossas"” ralative to different areas of a site and not necessarily to different areas of primary use on.a site. There are strang implications for the analysis of spatial distributions using arbitrary grid units as the basis for summarizing samples. Perhaps techniques of internal stratification %used on demonstrable structural properties of a scatter plot are more realistic analytical ap proaches.Bintord) ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 387 CONCLUSIONS Lang ago I questioned (Binford and Binfard 1966) the position that variability in the content and internal plan of sites was referable to the single variable “culture.” | argued that variability in assemblage composition, site location, and interna] site planes could be expected to vary with the activities in which men were engaged. | further suggested that activities were likely to be respan- sive {0 seasonal variations, giving rise ta archaeological variability which would scale with seasonal monitors, At the same time [ suggested that activities could be logically differentiated in- to extractive and maintenance tasks. [also speculated that it was unlikely that tasks differing in such a fundamental way would he conducted in identical locations sa that some hatweer-site variability may woll be referable ta differences in site function. Recent investigations into the relationship between site contents and seasonality have been the most discussed, but the com- plicating problem of site function has not been faced squarely (see for instance Jochim 1976). This has been particularly true in European: studies of Paleolithic remains. It appears that almast every investigator concludes: that his sita was a residential location (soa Biotti 1977; Delumloy 1969; Lerol-Gaurban and Brezillan 1966, 1972; Poplin 1976) and frequently boasts of the former presence of a shelter ar house, in spite of there being little if any convincing evidence present. ‘The mast detailed ethnoarchaeological study yet to appear has been that af Yellen (1977), who has stcangly criticized these argumants. Yellen suggests that extractive locations, while present among the !Kung, would leave no visible archaeological remains. He further suggests that there are no seasonal correlates ta the execution of crait or manufacturing activities. He goes an to argue that although seasonal variability in subsistence activities is documented, since there is also a correlation between season and duration of camps. oly large camps would remain ar- chacologically visible. This situation would render observation of seasonally related variability unlikely in the !Kung case. The orly conclusion which one may draw fram Yellen’s assertions is there are na recognizable differences araang !Kung sites that sve not simply aceammadiated by graded series of variability largely scaling with size of assemblage or aite. As Yellon says: Any sile may be conceived of as a spatial locus containing 2 saruple of the society's tatal repertoire of 20. tivities... 1 suggest a single scale, ranging (rom simple to complex. may prove mote useful then a typological approach... (1977-338) ‘The implication is that if one demonstrates clear and distinct assemblage types, arguments for functional variation within systems are imappropriate. The Mask site experience points to the “reality” of functionally specific sites. It indicates sources of variability that may aperate in- dependently or in various combinations ta result in. significant between-site patterns af formal and structural variability within a single system. Teonclude fram the experiences at the Mask site that we may expect systams to axist where there are majar distinctions hetween residential and special-purpose sites. I therefore suggest that we must seek methods to permit us to distinguish these functional differences from those which refer to indapondent systems of organization. Some af the interesting aspects of “special- purpose” sites are described here. I conclude that we must have raeans for recognizing suck sites and. disagree with Yellen’s (1977-83) conclusion that a “continuum of variability” is most likely among hunter and gatherer sites. Talso conclude from the experiences reported here that we may anticipate meaningful internal differentiations between items used in different activities even in sites where thece are “generalized work areas.” In addition, there are likely to he furthar meaningful differences be- tween disposal modes assaclated with different items used in similar or diffaront getivitias, and meaningful asscciations can ba reasanably saught among items by virtue of their spatial posi- tioning. This conclusfan is in direct apposition to the conclusions reached by Yellen from his Bushman experiences, He concludes thet such expectations are unrealistic: ““A corallacy of this simple area-activity assumption Is that associated remains are functionally related . ... !Kung data makes this a priori model untenable” (1977:134}. How can 2 paople reach such opposite conclusions? in my opinion the malar contributor is not the very real differences between Eskimos and Bushman but extreme differences between myself and Yellen in what we consider to he appropriate uses of empirical materials and the rate of our thoughts versus our observations. Given such a canflict I caution the reader to read what I have tose AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (ol, 43, Mo. 9, 1978 say and ta seek an appreciation for what is attempted rather than assuming that he knows what I am doing and why. This study is an exercise in theary building, The work reported is the justification or a warrant for thirking about some of the ideas that came to me during the course af the fieldwork and the analysis, The ideas are my inventions; they ere not in any way summaries of empirical ex- perience. Thay are not empirical generalizations, | om not offering inductive arguments or arguments fram ethnographic cnalogy. I am nat saying that all men wil] canduct the same ac: tivities in hunting camps. [am not saying that all men will play cards in sites with glacial boulders in them, [ am not saying that all target shooting was normally conducted away from the group ‘ecause of the noise of rifle firet 1 am saying that my study has prompted by imagination. [ have been able to imagine patterns of interaction among variables which could result in different pat- terning in the archaealogical record, In turn, { have been able to imagine different patterns in the archaeological record thet could ba meaningfully interprated if my imagined understanding of “causal” interaction is correct. ‘The transition rom data to theory requires croative imagination. Scientific hypothesis and theories are not derived from ciiserved fac's, but are invented in order to account for them {Hempol 1968.15). Basic differences between Yellen and myself in our use of ethnographic experiences are perhaps bast illustrated through a criticism of John Yellen’s recent work, He hes generalized from his data that there is relationship between the number of occupants of a site and the size of the nuclear area of artifactual scatter, and similarly that there is a regular relationship between the Jength af occupation and the extension of the artifactual scatter—the area of the “absolute limits of scatter.” For instance, Yellen states: ‘Quantitive analysis indicates that the size of the hut circle, or inner ring, is closely and directly related to group size, while the outer ring, which encompasses special activity areas, raftects length of occupation. On. this basis I have offered predictive equations for group size and length of accugation ard gut theo in at caaeclogicaily useful farm, This constitutes an original piece of research and is perhaps the single most im portant contritution of thia book (1977:1344 Yellen. has observed that there is a relationship between metrical attributes of sites and the nurakers of occupants and the duration af occupancy. He has gone to great lengths to demonstrate thal such a relationship exists within the domain of his ethnographic experience. This is a descrip- tion of the way the world is or appears. It is not an explanation as he suggests (Yellen 1977:101). Only in seeking an answer to the question, “Why does such a relationship hold in Yellen's Bushman experience?” does one seek an explanation or understanding of the world, Only with an answer to the explanatory question could we anticipate when the warld will differ fram Yellen's experience. Yollon ignores this interesting problem and apparently assumes that the number of people and the duration of their stay “causes” the patterning in size among his sites, If this were the case, then the descriptive equations which Yellen presents should ellaw us to give meaning in a roliable manner to facts of site size when they are cbserved archaeologically. Clearly this is what Yellen has in mind: “To establish predictive relationships of this nature can provide a valuable tool in axchaoclogical interpretation” (1977:100} ‘When one has demonstrated an empirical condition, the asaumpiian needed in any warranted projection of the observed condition to situations not previously investigated is simply that there is a causal identity between the 2 situations—that the same causes are active in both situations and that the dynamics of causation are the same, Slated another way, the world stays the way {t was, and what we have seen is all there is. We don’t have to understand what we have seen, we simply have to believe that what we have seen is “representative of the world in general” and that this world will remain unchanged. | suggest that theory building is the progressive delineation of the “other things” that must be equal for a given relationship to bold true. In Yellen’s case we can reasonably ask what some of those “other things” might be. For instance, according to my calculations of ihe Mask site there are 73.8 m? in the “ALS" as defined by Yellen (1977:103), and there are 12.7 m? within theBintora ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STAUCTURE 359 "LMS" limits of most scatter as defined by Yellen (1977:103], Using the formulas given by Yellen, Twould draw the following interpretive conclusions from the archaeological remains on the Mask site: (1] I was accupied for 7.89 days {in fact the archaeological scatter measured was ac- cumulated over a period of 21 days); (2) it was occupied by 2.03 nuclear families (no nuclear familles were ever present on the site); and (3) the number of occupants present was 9.67 (the mean group size present at any ane time was observed to be 6.49 men, but the tatal number of dif- ferent men using the location was 34), The latter figure is equivaient, I think, to the way Yellen counted occupants. Clearly some “ather things” are causing the Nunamiut case ta be s0 very dif ferent from the Bushman cases. For Yellen, my data feom the Mask site serve as an empirical cose to the contrary, an example of the “spoiler” approach. They exemplify Yellen’s suggestion (1977:113) that, “balloons may be punctured by a single pin.” For Yellen, an induc this, perception is consistent with his view of investigations, since he secks patterned regularities or empirical generalizations as an end product of his work. For empiricists working inductively there are only 2 basic conclusions to be drawn from investigating the world: (1 the cases are similar in soma way, justifying generalizations or the recognition of a “regularity,” or (2] they are different, justifying the definitian of a new category or taxonomic unit for subsuming the observed cese and any other similar ones discovered in the fututa. For me, howaver, the same situa- tion—my data versus Yellen’s—simply points to an interesting set af differences between Eskimo and Bushman sites which are in need of explanation. The challenge is to build a sufficient body of theory to explain the differences between the cases. Yellen argues that this may he done em- pirically: In an ethnographic situation where the “causes” (answers) ara known from the stert, ong can lock at the “affacts"—in this case observable remains—-and see what techniques offer the best raute from the ane to the other... This is most obvious. .. where a priori knowladige permitted ma ta davise and evaluste a number of tech- niques for estimating group siza and langth af accupation fran debs (1977:192), If Yellen's belief in his ability ta see causes directly was justified, I suppose | would have to con clude that ali ethnographic work must result in causal arguments which are necesserily accurate, since the causes “spoko for themselves." Fihnography would hea field based on reveal- ed truths in no nood af scientific mathnds since problems of verification and confirmation would be irrelevant! In the light of this “faith” on Yellen's part can we not reasonably ask why his causes did not work in the Eskima case? The onty answer that i can reasonably give is that he never isolated a cause. Lot us examine the situation. Yellen equates numbers of persons and lengths of stay with the size of the distribution of discarded materials, Far such a 1-to-1 relationship to exist between numbers of man-days of occupation and scales of debris scatter. we must assume that there is a constant relationship between the consumer demands of individuals and the production rate af debris. Is such a “constant” relationship realistic? I must answar, “no.” I have experienced situa- tions where large quantities af foods are procured in a very limalted period of time, and then pro- cossed for storage. The debris and the size of the area used in processing would bear sama rela- tionship fo the quantity of materials obtained. For instance, the number of caribou killed in a single day has little if any relationship to the number of men present and the duration of stay. 1 have also experienced the reverse situation, where consumption of foods was primarily from dey moat stores. Little if any debris results from such a consumption pattern (see Binfard 1978: Chapter 6), What [ am suggesting is that the variables which interact to cause variations in densi- ty and extent of debris are inpul and entropy variables, nol consumer variables directly as “seen” hy Yellen. Among the Bushmen, subsistence is essentially a foraging strategy in which inputs of food are largely an a daily basis and proportional to the daily consumer demand. Under such conditions, there is a steong and proportional relationship at any given time between consumer demand and the quantity of input, hence Yellan's results. (This ignares the problem af debris from other maintenance activities such as tool manufacture and repair, since Yellen argues thet among the360 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (ol. 48, No.3, 1978 Bushman this is simply prapartional to the longth of stay.) This sitnation does nat accur among the Eskimo, where there are seasonal and situatianal variations jn the performance of ceaft eo- tivities. “Gearing up is the best transiation of an Eskimo word referring specifically to the in- tense craft activity that frequently precedes long expedition hunting trips, typically in summor to the tundra for calf skins or to the mountains for shoep. The constant rate at which food is in- traduced to the Bushman camps (given a daily foraging strategy) and at which craft activities are performed (as argued hy Yellen 1977:82) insures a regular rolationship batween density and selo of debris scatter and number af man-hours of accupation, This assumes, of caurse, a fairly regular debris-to-activity ratio, that is, different kinds of consumption or craft activities gonorating eseontially similar quantities of dabris. This qualification is one that I find hard to ac- cept as realistic, yet it must be met if Yellen's correlatians are to stand. I om nol attempting to solve all the problems associated with Yellen's observations versus my own, However. [hope that Thave illustrated that Yellen has not “observed” ceuse, and that he has not been engaged in theory building. More importantly, I have argued that empirical generalizations, no matter haw complicated (as, for example, Yellen’s abservations on site size and group size and occupational duration), are what we seek to understand, and only with understanding can we anticipate how observations will vary under changed conditions. The latter is, of course, what we mean by predictions. Our ability to anticipate variability in the world is in turn a measure of our understanding, i have tried to move in this direction with the Mask-site study. ‘The Mask site represents a site where activities conducted are “embedded in another more asic schedule. None of the activities can be considered “primary” to the mission of the oc- cupants. This means that the specifics of the activities will ba largely conditioned hy factors ather than those which prompted the occupation af the site in the first plave. I feel that such an “ambod- dad” activity schedule may well be a common phenomenon among hunters and gatherers, who are logistically organizad as oppased ta foragers. At this point this is simply a hunch. I have demonstrated how at least 4 patentially independent dimensions could interact to result in chavg- od composition and Internal spatial organizations. I have further suggested thal these condition- ing dimensions are situstionally responsive and not simply “normative” or idealized patteras or designs for living. Finally, [ have suggested that thera ace organizational facts to be discovered in distributional data regardless of the degree to which men may have conducted their activities in “goneralized work spaces." Thave suggested that the degree to which activities are regularly conducted in diffarant places is at least partially conditioned by the ways in which their executian interferes with other ac- livities. I suggested that scheduling concerns and hulk properties of both items processed and debris produced would condition the degrees of functional specificity among activity areas an a site. These are bints, ideas to be expiored in hopes of recognizing or inventing variables that could he used to explore causal calationships hetween activities and their organization. in space. Pro- gress can be made by secking a processual understanding af the dynamics that produce different forms af archasclogical patterning. It will not be achieved by trying to refine empirical generalizations, arguing that someone ele is wrang because they have had different experiences, and fooling oneself inta viewing empirical descriptions, no matter how complicated they may be, as explanations. Acknowledgments, Bisanciel support for the fioldwork reported hera was provided by grants (rams the Na tionai Science Pocndation. Funda tram the Department of Anthsapology. University of New Mexico, aided in analysis and the preparation af the manuscriol. Special thanks ara dus to Dane Anderson and Tim Seartan, ‘who prepared the illustrations. Lisa Edelhatf translated tha text from my unique writitg form to finished. iypesctipt. chnny Rulland of Anatawuk gcided me threuga this work, Jean-Philippe Rigaud, Pogsy Schinoider amd Patly Marchiando helped with the original mapping tasks in 1971. Advice an this manuscript was offered by |. Sabloff and L, Straus, and for this Tam most grateful REFERENCES CITED Biett., A. 1977 Analysis end illustration of the Epigravettian Industry collected. ducing the 1985 excavation at Palidoro (Rome, Italy). Quatersaria. 19:197-387Bintord} ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR AND SITE STRUCTURE 361 Binford, Lewis R. 1976 Fortyseven tops—A case study in the character of some formation processes of the Atchaealagical Recard, In Contributions to. Anthropology. The interior Peaples af Northern Alaska. adited ay Edwin $. Hall, Archacologicel Surcey of Canada Paper No, 48, pp. 299-361, National Museum of Canada, Ottews 1978 Nunamiut ethnaarchaeology. Academic Press, New York Binford, Lewis R. atd Jack B. Bertram 19727" Bone fraquoacies—and attritional processes. In Far Theary Building ia Arckeoiogy. odie by L. R. Binford, pp. 77-158. Acedomic Prass, New ark Binford, Lewis Rand Sally 8. Biatord 1968" A preliminary analysis of Fanctional variability ia the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American ‘Anthropologist 68:236-295. Binford, Lewis R. and W. J. Chaske Jr. 1970" Nunamiut demographic history: a provocative case, In Demographic. antizopology, edited by Enra BW. Zubrow, pp. 63-143. University af New Mexica Press, Albuquerque. Metumbey, Heny 1€9 Une Cabane Acheuléene Dan La Grotte Du Lazaret. Memaires De Lo Société Préhistorique Feangaise, Tome 7. CNRS. Petis Hempel. CG. 1965" Philosophy of natsal science, Preatica Hall, Englewood Glifs. Jochim, Michael A 1975 Hunter gatherer subsistence and settlement. Academic Press, New Yark, LecalCouthan, Andre and Michael Brezillon 1968 Lihabitation Magdelenionne N* 1 de Pincevant Pras Monteraau, Gallia Préhistoite. Tome IX. Fascicule 2, CNRS. Paris. 1972, Fouillos Do Pincevent. soi D’Analyse Ethnographique D'Un Habitat Magdalenten. C.N.R.S., Paris, Poplio, Francais 1978 Les Grands Vertebtes de Goanersdorf, Fouiles 1950, Franz Steiner, Verlag GMGH, Weishaden. Schiffer, Michae! B. 1976 Behavioral archasotogy. Academic Press, New York woick, Kael Be 1968 Systematic chservetlonal methods Handbook af social psychology (Val. 2; Rev. Ed., pp. 487-451 ‘Addison Wesley, Reading, Masa Whiling, Bestrice and Jahn Whiting 1970 ' Methods for observing and recarding behavior. Handbook of methads in cultural onthropatogy, edited by Raoul Marell anc Roneld Cohen, pp, 262-315, Natural History Press, Gardan City, New York, Yellen, Jahn 1977 Archaealogical approaches ta the present. Academic Press, New ¥ark