Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:53:03.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Closer Look at Clusters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John R. White
John R. White*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology-Anthropology, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rock clusters are among the most ubiquitous features found in prehistoric sites and, at the same time, those receiving the most casual treatment. There are at least twelve attributes that all such clusters share, including depth, dimensions, shape, density, rock size, fill, placement, and association. The differences between one cluster and the next can be explained in terms of different uses or functions, different types of sites, different groups (geographically or temporally), or differential availability of resources and/or preferential collection. Despite the wealth of information potentially attainable from these features, a literature search reveals that very few archaeologists deal with more than just a few of these attributes. The argument is made that such neglect ought to be corrected.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1980 , pp. 66 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1980

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

Henn, Winfield 1975 The Indian Ridge site, Lane County, Oregon. In Archaeological studies in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, edited by Aikens, C. Melvin, pp. 455–469. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 8.Google Scholar
King, Thomas F. 1969 Three little settlements: initial investigation of small Mariposa Complex middens at BuchananReservoir. In the archaeology of the Buchanan Reservoir region. Madera County, California, edited by King, Thomas, pp. 32–81. San Francisco State College Anthropology Museum Occasional Papers No. 5.Google Scholar
Moratto, Michael J. 1969 The archaeology of the Jones site, 4Madl59. In The archaeology of the Buchanan Reservoir regionMadera County, California, edited by King, Thomas F., pp. 82–218. San Francisco State College AnthropologyMuseum Occasional Papers No. 5.Google Scholar
Oman, Mary, and Reagan, Mike 1971 Archaeology of phase II, Little Muddy Creek Oregon. Northwest Archaeological Research Institute, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Osborne, Douglas 1967 Archaeological tests in the Lower Grand Coulee, Washington. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 20.Google Scholar
Rackerby, Frank 1967 The archaeological salvage of two San Francisco Bay shellmounds. In Contributions to the archaeologyof Southern San Francisco Bay, pp. 1–86. San Francisco State College Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 3.Google Scholar
Reinman, Fred M. 1961 Archaeological investigations at Whale Rock Reservoir, Cayucos, California. California Division of Beaches and Parks, Archaeological Report No. 2.Google Scholar
White, John R. 1975 The Hurd site. In Archaeological studies in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, edited by MelvinAikens, C., pp. 141–227. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 8.Google Scholar