El guión museográfico

Both techniques were repeated varying the resolution focus parameter and the results compared. As described in Chapters 2 and 3 above, Kernel Density simply calculates the density of events within a specified radius of each point on a map. This function is simply and most easily calculated using the Kernel Density function found in ArcGIS’s Spatial Analyst Tools, which employs a weighted density calculation. In executing this function the resolution focus is selected with the search radius parameter. In order to evaluate the resolution focus, several runs of the function were executed varying the radius over 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 50 m and the results compared.

Pure Locational Clustering is a function available in the KMEANS program of TFQA. Since this program is not available as a function within ArcGIS, a file was created with the (X,Y) locations of all the coarse flakes and this file was input into the program. With this program, the resolution focus is selected with a parameter specifying the number of clusters the user wishes to create in the run. The program then divides the set of events into the specified number of clusters. For this analysis the choices evaluated were 7, 9, 10, 15 and 20 clusters. While the program can print a map of the resulting cluster assignment, it is a rather unappealing map as would have been generated 30 years ago with the then current computer technology, so this was bypassed. Instead, in a printed output, the program lists the centre of each cluster and the RMS value. The centres can be

easily imported into ArcGIS with the AddXY function. The RMS values were drawn as a radius around the appropriate cluster centre.

In comparing these two techniques, it was immediately obvious that the larger scales of analysis, such as were discussed and illustrated in Chapter 2, provided no useful

information other than the approximate boundaries of the site as a whole. Also, it was noted that, when properly matched, variations in the resolution focus with the two techniques tended to give comparable results. Medium-grained scales compared well, as did the finer-grained scales. In considering which of these scales to accept it was evident that it was not necessary to choose between a medium-grained scale and a fine-grained scale. In fact, both of these results were valid and showed different aspects of the site structure.

Figure 4-18 shows both Kernel Density at 12 m and Pure Locational Clustering with 9 clusters. Densities in the .054 to .081 range are coloured yellow to better outline the clusters. The centres of the clusters derived from Pure Locational Clustering are shown as large red dots with the RMS values shown as a radius around seven of them. Two of the clusters do not have the RMS radius drawn around them as both of these are small outlier clusters. Also evident is their concordance with the Kernel Density areas of concentration.

What these two analyses show is a series of equally sized equally spaced clusters of coarse flakes paralleling the river bank. There are five definite clusters adjacent to the river. These clusters are all approximately 35 m across and equidistant from each other at approximately 50 m (centre to centre). The clusters do not all have the same density. The two southern clusters have less material than the three to the north along the river. There is also another cluster at the northeast corner, which is also less dense than the three northern riverside clusters. A seventh potential cluster occurs to the southeast when looking at the four northern clusters. This cluster was visually more apparent in an earlier analysis (Keron 2012) but in this analysis with additional data, it is relatively weak. With the data now available, I do not believe that this identified cluster is

comparable to the others and it likely represents a different kind of activity. Regardless, this analysis confirms the field observations suggesting several clusters are present. The resolution focus selected for the analysis requires some explanation. Foremost is that it shows a site structure where the clusters are spaced with regularity along the river. As noted, the four southern clusters are almost exactly 50 m apart and are all of

approximately the same size. This spacing and similar size suggest a clearly planned human occupation. It suggests the site is not simply a palimpsest of varying occupations over the years where a group came back to the same general site location on a seasonal basis. That kind of organization would result in a much more random pattern. Second, it cleanly divides the site into a series of clusters which are of an appropriate size if each cluster represents a small group campsite. A circular site with a 35 m diameter provides a reasonable amount of space for a small socially distinct group of people.

Figure 4-19 shows a fine resolution focus of the site with the Kernel Density radius set to 6 m and Pure Locational Clustering set to 20 clusters. This resolution focus divides the site into more and smaller clusters, although it is concordant with the same general pattern as seen in Figure 4-18. Again, one of the Kernel Density contour bands had been coloured yellow to better define the clusters. For the run of Pure Locational Clustering only the centres of the clusters are shown. RMS values are not shown. On initial examination it looked like a different clustering pattern but, upon reflection, this resolution focus shows repeating structure within each of the major clusters from the medium resolution focus. Each of the earlier clusters breaks down into two sub-clusters with a thicker cluster to the north and a less dense cluster to the south or southeast. All six of the definite clusters from the medium resolution focus show this pattern. Notably, the extension or less dense cluster is not in the direction of ploughing of these areas (some were ploughed north to south, others east to west, etc.) nor is it in two directions from the cluster, both of which we would expect if ploughing was involved in influencing these distributions. The only cluster not showing this pattern is the problematic seventh one (southeast cluster of the northern four). This fine-grained analysis identifies a further level of site organization which was not evident looking at the pattern of subgreywacke flakes on the site. Each cluster identified with the medium resolution focus has a

consistent structure within it which, along with the similar size and equal spacing, suggests each had a similar function or saw very similar activities.