Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:59:46.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Curation, Statistics, and Settlement Studies: A Reply to Munday and Lincoln

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert L. Bettinger
Robert L. Bettinger*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, NY 10003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Munday and Lincoln have questioned my interpretations of prehistoric human ecology in Owens Valley, California, on the grounds that they may be an artifact of curation and prehistoric disturbance and on the grounds that statistical tests suggest that my interpretation of settlement data is incorrect. Careful consideration of their arguments shows that curation would not produce the effects they suggest and that they misuse statistical inference and settlement data. Review of the evidence supports my original views.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1979 , pp. 352 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1979

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

Ammerman, Albert J., and Feldman, Marcus W. 1974 On the “making” of an assemblage of stone tools. American Antiquity 39:610–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L. 1975 The surface archaeology of Owens Vailey, eastern California: prehistoric man-iand relationships inthe Great Basin. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L. 1976 The development of pinyon exploitation in central eastern California. Journal of California Anthropology 3(1):81–95.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L. 1977 Aboriginal human ecology in Owens Valley: prehistoric change in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 42:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1972 Model building—paradigms and the current state of Paleolithic research. In Models in archaeology, edited by Clarke, David L., pp. 109–166. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage variability—the Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In The explanation ofculture change: models in prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–254. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1977 The trouble with significance tests and what we can do about it. American Antiquity 42:350–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, Jesse D. 1957 Danger Cave. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 14.Google Scholar
Lanning, Edward P. 1963 Archaeology of the Rose Spring site, Iny-372. University of California Publications in American Archaeologyand Ethnology 49:237–336.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological context, and systemic context. American Antiquity 37:156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, Julian H. 1933 Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. University of California Publications in American Archaeologyand Ethnology 33:233–350.Google Scholar
Steward, Julian H. 1938 Basin-Plateau aboriginal socio-political groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120.Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 1971 Prehistoric subsistence-settlement patterns of the Reese fliver Valley, central Nevada. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 1973 An empirical test for Steward's model of Great Basin settlement patterns. American Antiquity 38:155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 1976 Figuring anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar