Microrefuse and Site Structure: The Hearths and Floors of the Heartbreak Hotel

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a research project investigating the types, frequencies, and spatial distribution of small items of refuse on and in floors of a prehistoric structure–the Heartbreak Hotel–excavated in central Utah. Excavation and analytical procedures specifically were designed to recover microrefuse–refuse with a minimum dimension of less than .25 cm. There is strong empirical support for the proposition that microrefuse recovered from such contexts will be found in its area of production, and that patterning in its spatial distribution will, other things being equal, indicate spatial patterning in the performance of the activities that produced the microrefuse. We demonstrate that there is rather dramatic patterning in the types and frequencies of microrefuse between and within rooms of the structure and discuss possible explanations for the character of that patterning. We conclude with a discussion of the present limitations of our understanding of refuse disposal and suggest avenues of ethnoarchaeological inquiry likely to produce better archaeological and behavioral expectations relating to spatial patterning of microrefuse.

Describing and comparing archaeological spatial structures

“…More recently, it has been used as another, perhaps more accessible, means for depicting spatial distribution. Binford's (1987) mapping of factor scores, Enloe and colleagues' (1994) mapping of element densities, and the map ping of artifact size or microrefuse densities (O'Connell, 1987;Simms and Heath, 1990;Metcalfe and Heath, 1990;Tipps, 1993) are all recent examples. It is important to note, however, that while contour mapping is an extremely useful exploratory devise, it does not lend itself to consistent application or interpretation (Spear 1979).…”

“…For each structural element, a size-sorting index (SSI) was calculated to indicate the Metcalfe and Heath, 1990;Simms and Heath, 1990), is its ability to portray assemblages that have developed as a result of both cleaning and dumping behaviors. Another summary measure, mean artifact size (see O'Connell, 1987), would be determined mostly by the characteristically large number of small artifacts; large artifacts, which typically are quite rare, would exert little influence on the summary measure.…”

An ethnoarchaeological study of chemical residues in the floors and soils of Q'eqchi' Maya houses at Las Pozas, Guatemala

“…For the study of past behavior in situations where artifactual data is poor, archaeologists have developed innovative methods. One of them is the analysis of microscopic remains, such as micro debitage of lithics and small botanical samples that are affected by abandonment processes in lesser degrees than ordinary artifacts (Fladmark, 1982;McGovern et al, 1983;Rosen, 1986Rosen, , 1989Manzanilla, 1987;Manzanilla and Barba, 1990;Metcalfe and Heath, 1990;Simms and Heath, 1990;Middleton, 1998). Nevertheless, in the Maya area where many buildings have well swept, smooth stucco floors and the preservation of organic materials is poor, the recovery of microscopic remains may not always be easy.…”

Assessing the Reality of a Palaeolithic “Dwelling Structure” in the Japanese Archipelago: The Structure of the Tana-Mukaihara Site

“…Since the thermally altered obsidian artifacts are distributed in a limited area, i further examined whether the macrodebitage (small chips longer than 1 mm) c ollected by Sachiko okazawa during the second excavation (okazawa 2004) are thermally altered or not. it is legitimate to assume that grain-sized artifacts (i.e., macrodebitage) are less susceptible to displacement than larger artifacts (e.g., Binford 1978;Bowers et al 1983;Metcalfe and Heath 1990;o'Connell 1987). Thus, the formation processes of the pebble structures are reasonably evaluated by the examination of obsidian debitage.…”