Spatial point pattern identification of an apparent Ice-Age house structure

Folsom Stone Tool Distribution at the Mountaineer Block C Dwelling: Indoor and Outdoor Spaces as Activity Areas

“…Ripley's edge-corrected K-function also showed greater clustering of ≥ 40 cm rocks in Block C than expected under complete spatial randomness (Jayalath et al 2015). A "best fit" circle was calculated based on least squares regression of the location of ≥ 40 cm rocks, resulting in a structure radius of 4.21 m (Jayalath et al 2015).…”

“…A chi-square test for homogeneous Poisson process indicated the largest of these rocks (≥ 40 cm) are not randomly distributed within Block C (X 2 = 50.02, P < 0.001), but are randomly distributed in Blocks X and Y (Jayalath et al 2015). Ripley's edge-corrected K-function also showed greater clustering of ≥ 40 cm rocks in Block C than expected under complete spatial randomness (Jayalath et al 2015).…”

“…As a result of spatial statistic testing (Jayalath et al 2015), the Block C structure boundaries are known within 1 m, and though these do not coincide with the grid system put in place for excavation, each 1 m × 1 m unit can generally be assigned either an "indoor" or "outdoor" category based on where the majority of the unit falls relative to the structure boundary. The dwelling entryway is included in "outdoor" space, since it does not represent part of the structure living floor but rather an intermediate space between inside and outside.…”

“…Such sparse evidence often precludes investigating the layout and functions of architecture and how hunter-gatherers organized their lifespace. The Mountaineer site provides some of the most compelling evidence for Folsom dwelling construction (Jayalath et al 2015;Stiger 2006), and offers a unique opportunity to examine how Folsom people conceptualized space in reference to a dwelling.…”

Detecting human activity areas in Middle Palaeolithic open-air sites in Northern France from the distribution of faunal remains

“…The detection of Palaeolithic human activity areas involves a two-part study: one part based on geomatics, solely linked to the spatial data of the remains, and another part based on the interpretative context, linked to their archaeological characteristics. Today, it has been well established that Palaeolithic human activity areas correspond mostly to spatial concentrations of remains resulting from one or several activities (Gabucio et al, 2018;Jayalath et al, 2015;Schiffer, 1972;Simeck and Larick, 1983;Whallon, 1973). If we wish to accurately define these zones of concentration -their number, localisation, and density -we must study the distribution of these remains.…”