*roceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 47, 1981, pp. 1-17 A Model of Regional Archaeological Structure By Rowert Fotey' INTRODUCTION (Phe recognition by archaeologists over the last fifteen years or so that even a discipline as down to arth as prehistory requires a theoretical basis has led to a diversity of research objectiv ‘ssentially this has been a move away from the delineation of chronology and culture narrative owards an understanding of the behaviour of prehistoric man, requiring the development of heories relating to his ecological adaptation, his social organization, and his cognitive behaviour. he reassessment of archaeology has largely been at an explanatory or interpretative level. To some xtent this has of course been paralleled by the increasingly sophisticated scientific and analytical echniques that are now available to aid in the interpretation of archaeological data. However, vhilst archasologists are more rigorous than ever before, and have developed a whole range of concepts for tackling the problems of prehistory, the actual data base employed by archaeologists .as remained remarkably static. Field theory and methodology is essentially that of the earliest rehacologisss. As Clarke (1973, 10) has commented, ‘harnessing powerful new methodological vorses to rickety old conceptual carts has proved to be a powerful but drastic way of improving rchaeological constructs by elimination’. Equally, though, the gleaming, streamlined conceptual hariots of the 1980s will go no further nor faster unless some attempt is made to update the roads vver which they are expected to travel. What is necessary is a reassessment of what archaeological ield data represent, i.e. how is the archaeological record formed? ‘This paper attempts to investigate the regional scale of the archaeological record, in terms of its, ological basis and its potential for providing spatial information. A model will be developed, constructed from the proposition that archaeological data relate primarily to long term gross, havioural characteristics, and that ecological theory may be used to predict their structure. ‘The yodel should provide a means of extracting information from widespread distributions of surface vaterial ‘The paper, therefore, is theoretical, falling within the field of what Clarke referred to as ‘re-Depositional Theory (1973, 16), and what Binford has more recently called Middle Range “heory (1977, 7). ‘The limits that are set on the model are (a) that it applies prim mall-seale, mobile ‘societies, principally huntergatherers and pastoralists; (b) that it is redominantly useful for populations using a lithie technology, and treats lithie artefacts only; and c) that it is most appropriate in stable or degrading, moderately uniform landscapes with good urface archaeological visibility. What follows is a formal presentation of the theoretical basis of off-site archaeology and the nalysis of regional artefact density. The basic model will be described, and then a consequential ield methodology outlined. ‘The implications of this approach for various aspects of prehistory will ve discussed. * Department of Anthropology, University of Durham“TIE PREMISTORIC SOCIETY THE OFF-SITE MODEL ‘The basic hypothesis put forward here is that due to several factors the archaeological record is spatially continuous, and that its structure may be described in terms of variable artefact density across a landscape red to as regional archeological structure within the limitations described above, and an off-site approach is one d to utilize the spatial continuity to maximise archaeological information. Spatial continuity is the result of the operation of processes that may be considered in terms of three components: 1, Behaviour and discard; 2, Accumulation; 3, Post-deposition. ‘The model can be formulated by considering these three components in turn, This is what is ref ve Component 1: Behaviour and Discard ‘The starting point in establishing that the archacological record is spatially continuous is to show that human behaviour occurs continuously aeross the landscape. ‘This can be exemplified by reference to subsistence activity. ‘The energy necessary for survival is distributed widely and continuously across the landscape, and to gather this energy man will use large areas of the landscape, and only s ly transport the resources to focal points, i.e. settlements, processing camps, ete. The archaeological inference to be drawn is that human activities are not centred solely on settlements or home bases, that may ultimately be preserved as archaeological sites, but are distributed fully across the landscape. In this perspective settlements become points on the landscape where a high frequency of activity occurs, and the differences between various parts of the landscape become ones of degree and not kind. It may be established, therefore, that human behaviour is spatially continuous, but what is its structure? In answer to this question reference may be made to ecological theory. Much human behaviour, and indeed much archaeological research, is concerned with subsistence strategies. It may be expected, therefore, that patterns of behavioural and archaeological distribution will conform to the expectations of the ecological theory that describes the relationship between a population and its resources. In terms of spatial patterning the relevant concept is the home range, which is the area over which an animal normally travels in pursuit of its routine activities (Jewell 1966, 103). home range provides us with the spatial unit of analysis for human adaptation (Foley 1977, 1978) and may be refined in terms of core area, seasonal ranges, annual ranges, and lifetime range depending on the particular context. Home range, which refers simply to the area in which resources are exploited, should not be confused with territory and territorality, which involves exclusive use and defence (Wilson 1975, 256). All but the most nomadic of species restriet their movement to a limited area, with which they become thoroughly acquainted, and upon the resources of which they depend. ‘The occurrence of a home range provides an animal with the advantages of familiarity with food sources, knowledge of predatory dangers, and minimizes the ‘energy expended in movement, thus maximising the efficiency with which an animal lives. The size fof home range is highly variable, both inter- and intra-specifically, but work has shown that regularities do occur (MeNab 1963; Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1977; Milton and May 1976), which may be extended to human populations (Birdsell 1953; Foley 1978). ‘The size of a home range is governed by various factors, but primarily individual body size, group size, dietary requirements, and resource productivity. Amongst humans there is some evidence to suggest that hhome ranges increase in size with latitude, whieh in turn may reflect the increased importance of meat (Lee 1968). Birdsell (1953) has shown that rainfall is the controlling factor among Aboriginal Australians. Amongst humans the concept of home range may require further refinement on account of the unprecedented importance of a focal home base, and the occurrence of non-subsistence behaviour. Home range would thus seem to be a useful analytical device for understanding the spatial pattening of human behaviour.1. Robert Foley. a Move OF REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE From this discussion we may conclude that human behaviour is indeed spatially continuous, and hat activities are variable in frequency across a landscape. Furthermore, it may be suggested that he spatial patterning may be described as home range-specific. The implications of this may be xtended by examining discard. Discard is the process by which material items relating to human, chaviour are disposed of subsequent to or during use, stich that they come to rest on or in a ndscape. It is the means by which material is transformed from an active behavioural system to a ystem governed primarily by geophysical principles. ‘The process of discard itsell is highly ariable, but emphasis is placed here on the generalities of the transformation, rather than the ariability of disposal modes such as those discussed by Binford (1978, 344-7) and Schiffer (1976). { activity is spatially continuous and home range-specific then through the process of diseard the raterial manifestations of that activity should also be continuously distributed. Ultimately there hould be a patterned residue of material remains that in some way, although not necessarily irectly, reflects the behaviour of the population. ‘The result is an archaeological pattern of variable rtefact density and distribution that conforms to the subsistence strategy and home range. It hhould perhaps be added asa rider at this point that the assumption being made here is that most rtefact use and discard does in fact relate to subsistence activity. ‘This assumption is likely to be an versimplification. At its simplest, however, the artefact density and distribution should reflect the attern of resource utilization Unfortunately it cannot be assumed that discard equals behaviour, or that material residue epresents fully or directly the behaviour that led to the discard. ‘The ways in which discard chaviour distorts pre-discard activity information may be considered in two categories: variability 1 use-diseard rates and ratios (curation), and spatial diserepancies in discard pattern. Under the irst category would come the variation caused by differences in technological dependence on wood, ‘one, metal or stone for artefacts. Clearly where wood or bone are employed, artefacts may become shausted sooner than would be the case for stone, and therefore discarded more frequently in clation to usage. This of course would be more than balanced in archaeological terms by their poor reservation potential. Of more importance for the archaeologist is the difference between a thic-based technology and one based on metals. On the whole, stone tools require less energy iputs, are more easily replaced, and probably have a shorter use-life than metal ones. ‘onsequently a society with a lithic technology will leave behind it a far more abundant and omplete material record of their activities. In terms of measuring and accounting for artefact ensity and distribution, the stone age is potentially the most susceptible to such an analysis, and should be noted that the development of metal technologies led to major changes in the nature of he archaeological record Apart from what a prehistoric group uses for its technology it is equally important to take into count what the technology is used for. The degree of technological dependence of subsistence trategies varies considerably. Acquisition of resources for survival among human populations is ependent upon a combination of managerial/organizational skills and technological competence, tut the proportional importance of these is not constant. For example, the skill of a sucessful astoralist les in his ability to manipulate the size, steueture, and distribution of his herds in elation to his requirements and the resources available. ‘There is little technology involved. In contrast, the success of a hunter, whether dependent upon trapping or projectiles, will rest largely pon the adequacy of his artefacts. Consequently the seale, abundance, and nature of the rchaeological record left by pastoralists and hunter-gatherers will be divergent, Equally, even sithin the hunter-gatherer mode differences in subsistence strategy will cause anomalies. Hunting s more technologically based than gathering, and hence where plant foods are of greater nportance than animal foods the archaeological record may be relatively poorer in terms of the cegional discard pattern described here. From these observations it may be inferred that variation 3