Shipibo archaeo‐ethnography

Site formation processes and archaeological interpretation

Peter Siegel, Peter G. Roe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The structures of two Shipibo house compounds are considered. One described by DeBoer and Lathrap (1979) represents the on‐going ethnographic context. The other was recently abandoned and therefore represents the archaeological record. A k‐means cluster analysis program is used to investigate the spatial structures of both the ethnographic and archaeological contexts. In doing so, the systemic context becomes a model against which the archaeological setting may be compared. We find that there is a variety of spatial relationships between use and discard locations manifested by a single cultural group, the precise nature of which is constrained by the range of activities conducted by the occupants of the group. Based upon this analysis we suggest that the correspondence between use and discard areas should not only be examined in terms of occupational intensity or enclosed vs. open‐air activities, but should also include a consideration of the variability in the settlement activity organization. Theoretical expectations and sampling considerations are proposed for excavating prehistoric settlements in the South American lowlands.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)96-115
Number of pages20
JournalWorld Archaeology
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 1986

Fingerprint

cluster analysis
interpretation
sampling
Group
organization
analysis
analysis programme
Archaeology
Site Formation Processes
Ethnographic
Archaeological Record
Archaeological Context
American South
Spatial Relationships
Cultural Groups
Sampling
Cluster Analysis

Cite this

@article{2ee1c838e99146f7b4eef392906977d2,
title = "Shipibo archaeo‐ethnography: Site formation processes and archaeological interpretation",
abstract = "The structures of two Shipibo house compounds are considered. One described by DeBoer and Lathrap (1979) represents the on‐going ethnographic context. The other was recently abandoned and therefore represents the archaeological record. A k‐means cluster analysis program is used to investigate the spatial structures of both the ethnographic and archaeological contexts. In doing so, the systemic context becomes a model against which the archaeological setting may be compared. We find that there is a variety of spatial relationships between use and discard locations manifested by a single cultural group, the precise nature of which is constrained by the range of activities conducted by the occupants of the group. Based upon this analysis we suggest that the correspondence between use and discard areas should not only be examined in terms of occupational intensity or enclosed vs. open‐air activities, but should also include a consideration of the variability in the settlement activity organization. Theoretical expectations and sampling considerations are proposed for excavating prehistoric settlements in the South American lowlands.",
author = "Peter Siegel and Roe, {Peter G.}",
year = "1986",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/00438243.1986.9979991",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "96--115",
journal = "World Archaeology",
issn = "0043-8243",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

Shipibo archaeo‐ethnography : Site formation processes and archaeological interpretation. / Siegel, Peter; Roe, Peter G.

In: World Archaeology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 01.01.1986, p. 96-115.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shipibo archaeo‐ethnography

T2 - Site formation processes and archaeological interpretation

AU - Siegel, Peter

AU - Roe, Peter G.

PY - 1986/1/1

Y1 - 1986/1/1

N2 - The structures of two Shipibo house compounds are considered. One described by DeBoer and Lathrap (1979) represents the on‐going ethnographic context. The other was recently abandoned and therefore represents the archaeological record. A k‐means cluster analysis program is used to investigate the spatial structures of both the ethnographic and archaeological contexts. In doing so, the systemic context becomes a model against which the archaeological setting may be compared. We find that there is a variety of spatial relationships between use and discard locations manifested by a single cultural group, the precise nature of which is constrained by the range of activities conducted by the occupants of the group. Based upon this analysis we suggest that the correspondence between use and discard areas should not only be examined in terms of occupational intensity or enclosed vs. open‐air activities, but should also include a consideration of the variability in the settlement activity organization. Theoretical expectations and sampling considerations are proposed for excavating prehistoric settlements in the South American lowlands.

AB - The structures of two Shipibo house compounds are considered. One described by DeBoer and Lathrap (1979) represents the on‐going ethnographic context. The other was recently abandoned and therefore represents the archaeological record. A k‐means cluster analysis program is used to investigate the spatial structures of both the ethnographic and archaeological contexts. In doing so, the systemic context becomes a model against which the archaeological setting may be compared. We find that there is a variety of spatial relationships between use and discard locations manifested by a single cultural group, the precise nature of which is constrained by the range of activities conducted by the occupants of the group. Based upon this analysis we suggest that the correspondence between use and discard areas should not only be examined in terms of occupational intensity or enclosed vs. open‐air activities, but should also include a consideration of the variability in the settlement activity organization. Theoretical expectations and sampling considerations are proposed for excavating prehistoric settlements in the South American lowlands.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022893903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00438243.1986.9979991

DO - 10.1080/00438243.1986.9979991

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 96

EP - 115

JO - World Archaeology

JF - World Archaeology

SN - 0043-8243

IS - 1

ER -