Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:21:55.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the Magnitude of Private Collection of Points and Its Effects on Professional Survey Results

A Michigan Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

Michael J. Shott
Michael J. Shott*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Classical Studies, University of Akron, Akron, OH, 44325USA ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chipped-stone projectile points are used to mark the passage of time and cultures in the record. Archaeologists often recover points in surface survey, yet we do not know how many were found by private collectors before or after professional work. In a 1975–1977 Michigan probabilistic survey, professional archaeologists documented 30 private collections from 20 sample units. In those units, points found by private collectors outnumber professionally recovered ones by a factor of about 32. The survey region's point population estimated separately from the professional and private-collection samples differs by nearly an order of magnitude in favor of private collections, despite highly conservative assumptions about the latter. The number of points found in professional survey is inversely correlated with the number found in private collections, and the professional sample is more sparsely and randomly distributed. However, proportions of several common types are similar between professional and private collections. To the extent that large, reasonably complete samples of points are important for research and preservation, archaeologists must document private collections compiled in and near their survey areas.

Los cabezales líticos o puntas de proyectil se usan para marcar el paso de tiempo y las culturas en el registro arqueológico. Los arqueólogos suelen recuperar los cabezales durante la prospección de superficie, pero no se sabe cuántos son encontrados por coleccionistas privados antes o después de los reconocimientos. En un estudio probabilístico llevado a cabo en Michigan en los años 1975–1977, arqueólogos profesionales documentaron 30 colecciones privadas de cabezales desde 20 unidades de muestra. Allí, el número de cabezales encontrados por coleccionistas privados sobrepasó el número recuperado por los profesionales por un factor de casi 32. Si se estima el tamaño de la población de cabezales por separado con base en las muestras profesionales y en las colecciones privadas, los resultados difieren por casi un orden de magnitud en favor de las colecciones privadas, a pesar de suposiciones conservativas sobre esta fuente. El número de cabezales en la muestra profesional resulta inversamente proporcional al número de cabezales en colecciones privadas, y la muestra profesional tiene una distribución mas dispersa y más aleatoria. Sin embargo, las proporciones entre tipos comunes de cabezales son parecidas en las dos muestras. En la medida que las muestras grandes y razonablemente completas de cabezales son importantes para la investigación y la preservación de los recursos arqueológicos, los arqueólogos deben documentar las colecciones privadas obtenidas en o alrededor de sus regiones de prospección.

Type
Articles
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 125 - 137
Copyright
Copyright 2017 © Society for American Archaeology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Banning, E. B., Hawkins, Alicia L., Stewart, S. T., Hitchings, P., and Edwards, S. 2016 Quality Assurance in Archaeological Survey. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-016-9274-2.Google Scholar
Baxter, Jane E. 2013 Investigating Absence: Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Casual Collecting at a 19th Century Bahamian Plantation. Journal of Field Archaeology 38:174–184.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L. 1999 What Happened in the Medithermal? In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Archaeology Today, edited by Beck, C., pp. 62–74. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Bland, Roger 2005 A Pragmatic Approach to the Problem of Portable Antiquities: The Experience of England and Wales. Antiquity 79:440–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Richard 1987 A Field Method for Investigating the Spatial Structure of Lithic Scatters. In Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory: Some Problems and Applications, edited by Brown, Andrew and Edmonds, Mark, pp. 39–47. BAR British Series 162. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cain, Daniel 2012 Revisiting Lithic Scatters: A CRM Perspective. Southeastern Archaeologist 31:210–223.Google Scholar
Charles, Tommy 1983 Thoughts and Records from the Survey of Private Collections of Prehistoric Artifacts throughout South Carolina: A Second Report. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Notebook 15:1–37.Google Scholar
Daniel, I. Randolph 2016 Don't Let Ethics Get in the Way of Doing What's Right: Three Decades of Working with Collectors in North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 65:1–27.Google Scholar
Francis, Julie 1978 The Effects of Casual Collection in Chipped Stone Artifacts. In The Little Colorado Planning Unit, edited by Plog, Fred, pp. 115–133. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 13. Tempe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Tom 1996 Hunters and Collectors: The Antiquarian Imagination in Australia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Harvey, David W. 1967 Geographical Processes and the Analysis of Point Patterns: Testing Models of Diffusion by Quadrat Sampling. Transactions and Papers of the Institute of British Geographers 40:81–95.Google Scholar
Hasenstab, Robert J. 2008 The “Lithic Scatter” as an Artifact of Field Testing. In Current Approaches to the Analysis and Interpretation of Small Lithic Sites in the Northeast, edited by Rieth, Christina, pp. 11–36. New York State Museum Bulletin 508, Albany.Google Scholar
Hinsley, Curtis M. 2000 Digging for Identity: Reflections on the Cultural Background of Collecting. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? edited by Mihesuah, D., pp. 37–55. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Judge, W. James 1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
LaBelle, Jason M. 2003 Coffee Cans and Folsom Points: Why We Cannot Continue to Ignore the Artifact Collectors. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Zimmerman, Larry, Vitelli, Karen, and Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie, pp. 115–127. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
LaBelle, Jason M. 2005 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability during the Early Holocene of the Central Plains of North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
McGimsey, Charles R. 1972 Public Archeology. Seminar, New York.Google Scholar
MacLean, J. P. 1885 The Mound Builders. Clarke, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
Macleod, Colin L., Thompson, Christine, Long, Shelbi, Steinwichs, Erin, and Nolan, Kevin C. 2015 An Archaeological Survey of Jasper County: Enhancement of a Data-deficient Region. Ball State University Applied Anthropological Laboratories Report of Investigation 87 (1). Muncie, Indiana.Google Scholar
Means, Bernard K., McCuistion, Ashley, and Bowles, Courtney 2013 Virtual Artifact Curation of the Historical Past and the NextEngine Desktop 3D Scanner. Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology 6:1–12.Google Scholar
Peebles, Christopher S. 1979 River Raisin Archaeological Survey, Season 3, 1977: A Preliminary Report. Submitted to Michigan Bureau of History, Lansing. Copies available from University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Peebles, Christopher S., and Krakker, James J. 1977 River Raisin Archaeological Survey, Season 2, 1976: A Preliminary Report. Submitted to Michigan Bureau of History, Lansing. Copies available from Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Peebles, Christopher S., Sallade, Jane, Arnold, Jeanne, and Braun, David 1976 River Raisin Archaeological Survey Season 1, 1975: Preliminary Report. Submitted to Michigan Bureau of History, Lansing. Copies available from University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Peebles, Christopher S., and Shott, Michael J. 1981 The Distribution and Abundance of Archaeological Sites in the River Raisin Watershed, Michigan. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Perazio, Philip A. 2008 In Small Things Too Frequently Overlooked: Prehistoric Sites in the Pocono Uplands. In Current Approaches to the Analysis and Interpretation of Small Lithic Sites in the Northeast, edited by Rieth, Christina, pp. 89–100. New York State Museum Bulletin 508, Albany.Google Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2014 An Argument for Ethical, Proactive, Archaeologist-Artifact Collector Collaboration. American Antiquity 79:385–400.Google Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L. (compiler) 2016 Final Report of the Professional Archaeologists, Avocational Archaeologists, and Responsible Artifact Collectors Task Force. Submitted September 12, 2016, accepted by the Society for American Archaeology Board of Directors (Motion 138/54.6) October 29, 2016. On file at the Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Porter, Samantha T., Roussel, Morgan, and Soressi, Marie 2016 A Simple Photogrammetry Rig for the Reliable Creation of 3D Artifact Models in the Field: Lithic Examples from the Early Upper Paleolithic Sequence of Les Cottés (France). Advances in Archaeological Practice 4 (1):71–86.Google Scholar
Ritchie, William A. 1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin No. 384, Albany.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andrei, and Gomar, Norbert G. 1969 Statistical Inference in Quadrat Analysis. Geographical Analysis 1:370–384.Google Scholar
Ruig, Jill L. 1995 Collectors as Taphonomic Agents for the Archaeological Record. Unpublished Bachelor's thesis, Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1996 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Scully, Edward G. 1951 Some Central Mississippi Valley Projectile Point Types. Unpublished manuscript on file, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Selden, Robert, and Perttula, Timothy 2014 Advances in Documentation, Digital Curation, Virtual Exhibition, and a Test of 3D Geometric Morphometrics: A Case Study of the Vanderpool Vessels from the Ancestral Caddo Territory. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2 (2):64–79.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1992 Commerce or Service: Models of Practice in Archaeology. In Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology's Future, edited by Wandsnider, LuAnn, pp. 9–24. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2002 Sample Bias in the Distribution and Abundance of Midwestern Fluted Bifaces. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27:89–123.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2008 equal o nll roofht w ded l e vsbr cted: A Proposal for Conservation of Private Collections in American Archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record 8 (2):30–35.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2015 Theory in Archaeology: Morphometric Approaches to the Study of Fluted Points. In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory, edited by Goodale, N. and Andrefsky, W., pp. 48–60. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Pitblado, Bonnie 2015 Introduction to the Theme “Pros and Cons of Consulting Collectors.” SAA Archaeological Record 15 (5):11–13, 39.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., Tiffany, Joseph, Doershuk, John, and Titcomb, Jason 2002 Reliability of Surface Assemblages: Recent Results from the Gillett Grove Site, Clay County, Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 47:165–182.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Trail, Brian 2012 New Developments in Lithic Analysis: Laser Scanning and Digital Modeling. SAA Archaeological Record 12 (3):12–17, 38.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology (SAA) 1996 Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Electronic document, http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/PrinciplesofArchaeologicalEthics/tabid/203/Default.aspx, accessed September 18, 2007.Google Scholar
Spears, Carol S. 1978 The Derossitt Site (3SF49): Applications of Behavioral Archaeology to a Museum Collection. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Thulman, David K. 2006 Reconstruction of Paleoindian Social Organization in North Central Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
Thulman, David K. 2011 Lower End Artifact Collection: Is a Practical Accommodation Possible among Archaeologists, Collectors, and Museums? Paper presented at the Museum and Antiquities Lecture Series, George Washington University. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Wiant, Michael D. 2001 Reconsidering the Mackinaw Cache: Classic Ohio Hopewell or Early Archaic? Illinois Antiquity 36 (3):3–6.Google Scholar
Wilson, Daniel 1876 Prehistoric Man: Researches into the Origin of Civilization in the Old and the New World, 3d ed., 2 vols. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas 2007 [1899] Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times. Report of the United States Museum for 1897, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Skyhorse, New York.Google Scholar