Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:39:41.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative Procedures for Assessing Standardization in Ceramic Assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kenneth L. Kvamme ,
Miriam T. Stark  and
William A. Longacre
Kenneth L. Kvamme
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Center for Remote Sensing, Boston University, 675 CommonwealthAvenue, Boston, MA 02215
Miriam T. Stark
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, 2424 Maile Way, Porteus 346, Honolulu, HI 96822
William A. Longacre
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest in the material correlates of economic specialization has led to numerous quantitative studies of standardization (or the lack of it) in craft production, particularly of ceramics. Most of this research has focused on measures of variation and conventional statistical procedures in the treatment of the empirical data, many of which are dependent on unrealistic assumptions (such as normal populations), yielding results that can be questioned. To resolve this crisis more robust statistical methods are investigated including the “jackknife” method (for confidence interval construction) and a multigroup test for homogeneity of variance known as the Brown-Forsythe Test. Computer simulations show that the latter is robust under a variety of distributional forms. These new methods are used to reanalyze ethnoarchaeological ceramic data from the Philippines; it is shown that markedly different conclusions can be reached when compared with the results of more conventional procedures.

Resumen

Resumen

Interés en las correlaciones de especialización economica ha conducido a numerosos estudios cuantitativos de la estandardización (o la falta de) en la producción de aresanía, particularmente de cerámica. La mayor parte de esta investigacion se ha enfocado en las medidas de variación y procedimientos estadisticos convencionales usados en el análisis de datos empíricos, muchos de los cuales dependen de suposiciones irreales (tal como poblaciones normales), produciendo resultados que pueden ser dudosos. Para resolver esta crisis, métodos estadisticos alternativos y más robustos son investigados, incluyendo el “jackknife” (para construcciones de intérvalos de confianza) y una prueba multi-grupo para la homogeneidad de varianza conocida como la prueba Brown-Forsythe. Simulaciones computarizadas demuestran que la segunda prueba es robusta en una variedad deformas distribucionales. Estos nuevos métodos son usados para re-analizar datos etno-arqueológicos de cerámica proveniente de las Filipinos y se demuestra que las conclusiones son marcadamente diferentes en comparación con los resultados obtenidos con procedimientos más convencionales.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 116 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1996

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

Allen, K. M. S. 1992 Iroquois Ceramic Production: A Case Study of Household-Level Organization. In Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, edited by Bey, G. J. III and Pool, C. A., pp. 133–154. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Arnold, D., and Nieves, A. L. 1992 Factors Affecting Ceramic Standardization. In Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, edited by Bey, G. J. III and Pool, C. A., pp. 113–214. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Arnold, P. J., III 1991 Dimensional Standardization and Production Scale in Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2: 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benco, N. 1988 Morphological Standardization: An Approach to the Study of Craft Specialization. In .4 Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited, edited by Kolb, C. and Lackey, L., pp. 157–172. Laboratory of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Benco, N. 1993 The Standardization Hypothesis and Ceramic Mass Production: Technological, Compositional and Metric Indexes of Craft Specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. American Antiquity 58: 60–80.Google Scholar
Brown, M. B., and Forsythe, A. B. 1974 Robust Tests for Equality of Variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69: 364–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfiel, E., and Earle, T. K. 1987 Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies: An Introduction. In Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies, edited by Brumfiel, E. and Earle, T.K. pp. 1–9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J., Johnson, M. E., and Johnson, M. M. 1981 A Comparative Study of Tests for Homogeneity of Variances, with Applications to the Outer Continental Shelf Bidding Data. Technometrics 23: 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Davis, J. L., and Lewis, H. 1985 Mechanization of Pottery Production: A Case Study from the Cycladic Islands. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Knapp, A. B. and Stech, T., pp. 79–92. Monograph XXV Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Feinman, G. M., Upham, S., and Lightfoot, K. G. 1981 The Production Step Measure: An Ordinal Index of Labor Input in Ceramic Manufacture. American Antiquity 46: 871–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrum, M. 1988 Ceramic Production in the Central Andes, Peru: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Comparison. In A Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited, edited by Kolb, C. and Lackey, L., pp. 127–145. Laboratory of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Hays, W. L. 1988 Statistics. 4th ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Kramer, C. 1985 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 14: 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvamme, K. L. 1988 Development and Testing of Quantitative Models. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by Judge, W. J. and Sebastian, L., pp. 325–428. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Kvamme, K. L. 1993 A Simple Pseudo-Random Normal Deviate Generator. Archaeological Computing Newsletter 37: 8–10.Google Scholar
Levene, H. 1960 Robust Tests for Equality of Variances. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics, edited by Olkin, I., pp. 278–292. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
London, G. 1981 Decoding Designs: The Late Third Millennium B.C. Pottery from Jebel QacAqir. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Oriental Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
London, G. 1991 Standardization and Variation in the Work of Craft Specialists. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by Longacre, W. A., pp. 182–204. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1981 Kalinga Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Pattern of the Past: Essays in Honor of David Clarke, edited by Hodder, I., Isaac, G., and Hammond, N., pp. 49–66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: An Ethnoarchaeological View from the Philippines. Kiva 53: 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. G., Jr. 1968 Jackknifing Variances. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 39: 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, E, and Tukey, J. W. 1977 Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
O'Brien, R. 1978 Robust Techniques for Testing Heterogeneity of Variance Effects in Factorial Designs. Psychometrika 43: 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacock, D. S. 1982 Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Pool, C. 1992 Interpreting Ceramic Production and Distribution. In Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, edited by Bey, G. J. III and Pool, C. A., pp. 275–314. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Reina, R. E., and Hill II, R. M. 1978 The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22(3): 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, P. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1991 Specialization, Standardization, and Diversity: A Retrospective. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, edited by Bishop, R. L. and Lange, F.W. pp. 257–279. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S., and Wilk, M. 1965 An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality. Biometrika 52: 591–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinopoli, C. 1988 The Organization of Craft Production at Vijayanagara, South India. American Anthropologist 90: 580–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, B. 1991 Standardization and Specialization in Pottery. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological Association, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Stark, M. T. 1991 Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Study. World Archaeology 23(l): 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, M. T. 1992 From Sibling to Suki: Social Relations and Spatial Proximity in Kalinga Pottery Exchange. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosi, M. 1984 The Notion of Craft Specialization and Its Representation in the Archaeological Record of Early States in the Turanian Basin. In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Spriggs, M., pp. 22–52. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W 1958 Bias and Confidence in Not-Quite Large Samples. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 29: 614.Google Scholar
van der Leeuw, S. 1977 Towards a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making. In Ex Horreo, edited by van Beek, B. L., Brandt, R. W. and W. Groenman-van Waateringe, pp. 68–76. Institute of Pre-and Proto-History, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar