4.5 Article

Reconstruction of spatial organization in abandoned Maasai settlements: implications for site structure in the Pastoral Neolithic of East Africa

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 31, Issue 10, Pages 1395-1411

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2004.03.003

Keywords

Maasai pastoralists; ethnoarchaeology; mineralogy; micromorphology; phytoliths; geoarchaeology; site structure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The analysis of spatial organization in archaeological sites is important for the interpretation of economic and social issues. In East Africa, the appearance of mobile herders, adoption of pastoralism by some hunter-gatherers, and spread of competing pastoral groups, create a complex archaeological record and interpretive problems associated with the beginnings of food production. Spatial analyses could contribute to their resolution, but are difficult because most sites lack macroscopic features. We present a geoethnoarchaeological study of abandoned pastoral Maasai settlements that allows us to evaluate the archaeological visibility of ephemeral features such as hearths, trash pits, gates, houses and fences. Micromorphology, mineralogy and phytolith analyses show that features containing ash have the highest visibility. Livestock enclosures, a feature studied by us previously, can also be identified based on this suite of techniques. Large livestock gates have poor visibility but may be recognized. Small gates, fences and house floors could not be detected using the methods applied here. Identifying livestock enclosures, trash pits and cooking hearths based on this approach, and houses based on post-hole positions, will contribute to a better understanding of the spread of food production in Africa. Our findings will also contribute to studies of pastoralists in other regions of the world. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available