PREFACE

preparation of mescal or sotol, while mortarhole sites were suspected to be related to the exploitation ofsome riverine resources, possibly walnuts (Gallaher and Bearden 1980:37–39).Analysis of the Brantley Reservoir sites was directed in part to testing the functional hypotheses. Basedon those analyses, the interpretation of the burned rock structures was supported. The interpretation oflarge artifact and burned rock scatters as base camps was not supported, however. Those sites werereinterpreted as centers for collecting and processing wild plant foods, the same function attributed to thesmall artifact and burned rock scatters. It therefore appeared that the large and small artifact and burnedrock scatters were not separate types but part of a size continuum for a single site type (Gallagher andBearden 1980:273). The postulated function of small artifact scatters was also changed from plantprocurement loci to quarry/workshops. The large artifact scatters and mortarhole sites could not beevaluated because the site sample included too few sites of those types.In reporting their work at Brantley Reservoir, Katz and Katz (1985:115) pointedly reject the typologydeveloped by Gallagher and Bearden. They argue first that there was no evidence for functionalvariability among small and large sites, and second that a typology based on the presence or absence ofburned rock obscured considerable functional and perhaps temporal variability. In formulating a newtypology, Katz and Katz (1985:39–55) first devised a classification of feature types. Three feature classeswere defined, each of which was subdivided into three feature types. Burned rock accumulations, theirfirst class, was divided into burned rock rings, burned rock concentrations, and burned rock scatters.Burned rock rings are interpreted as specialized facilities for processing succulents, while burned rockconcentrations are generally interpreted as hearths. The Katzs’ assert that burned rock scatters are aunique feature type and not simply the eroded remnants of hearths or burned rock rings (1985:48), butthey offer no positive evidence to support this contention. The second feature class, stone circles, consistsof tipi rings, stone enclosures, and cairns. Tipi rings are assumed to be stones used to weigh down theedges of skin tents or tipis; stone enclosures are suspected to be the foundations of domestic structures, atleast at SM 108 (LA38326); and cairns are suspected to be some kind of markers, although it is unclearwhether they are prehistoric or historical. The third feature class, miscellaneous features, comprisesisolated charcoal stains, chipping stations (i.e., concentrations of flaked lithic detritus), and mortar holes.The site classification used by Katz and Katz makes an initial distinction between sites lacking featuresand those where features are present. Classification of the latter sites then consists of listing the kinds offeatures that are present. In interpreting the sites described in the report, however, the Katzs’ also employa variety of functional terms that correspond in part to their morphological categories. Sites with burnedrock rings are consistently interpreted as succulent processing areas and, if burned rock hearths are alsopresent, then hunting is presumed to have been a secondary activity. Sites with burned rock hearths ortipi rings are interpreted as either temporary camps or limited activity sites depending on the size andcomposition of their artifact assemblages. Sites with chipping stations or lacking features are most ofteninterpreted as limited activity sites or as having some more specific function such as lithic procurement ortool manufacture.The site typology developed for the Melrose Air Force Range (Fallis 2002; Moffitt 2005; Shelley 1995;Shelley et al. 1998) emphasized variation in lithic assemblages. In contrast to previous studies,frequencies of eleven categories of flaked stone debitage, tool, and core types were used as primary datain defining the site types (Shelley and Durand 1995; Shelley et al. 1998:20-31). Frequencies of groundstone and presence/absence of ceramics and fire-cracked rock were also taken into consideration inpositing base camp, quarry, tool production and maintenance, and plant processing site types. Initialclassification was explicitly inspectional and judgmental (Shelley et al. 1998:20), but quantitativeanalyses of sample diversity and richness were applied to evaluate expectations that assemblagesclassified as base camps should reflect high diversity and richness among the artifact types, and that plantprocessing assemblages should be characterized by low diversity and low richness among the types.3-3