Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:26:20.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Site Sample Size on the Reconstruction of Culture Histories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charles Perreault
Charles Perreault*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California at Los Angeles, 341 Haines Hall, California, 90095 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I examine how our capacity to produce accurate culture-historical reconstructions changes as more archaeological sites are discovered, dated, and added to a data set. More precisely, I describe, using simulated data sets, how increases in the number of known sites impact the accuracy and precision of our estimations of (1) the earliest and (2) latest date of a cultural tradition, (3) the date and (4) magnitude of its peak popularity, as well as (5) its rate of spread and (6) disappearance in a population. I show that the accuracy and precision of inferences about these six historical processes are not affected in the same fashion by changes in the number of known sites. I also consider the impact of two simple taphonomic site destruction scenarios on the results. Overall, the results presented in this paper indicate that unless we are in possession of near-total samples of sites, and can be certain that there are no taphonomic biases in the universe of sites to be sampled, we will make inferences of varying precision and accuracy depending on the aspect of a cultural trait’s history in question.

Resumen

Resumen

Examino como nuestra capacidad de producir reconstrucciones culturo-históricas exactas aumenta cuando descubrimos, fechamos, y agregamos a nuestros bancos de data, más sítios arqueológicos. Más precisamente, describo, utilizando datos simulados, como aumentando el número de sítios conocidos impacta la exactitud y precision de nuestras estimaciones de (1) la primera y (2) ultima fecha de una tradición cultural, (3) la fecha y (4) magnitud de su popularidad en su apogeo, y también su tasa de (5) difusión y (6) desaparición en la población. Notablemente, muestro que la exactitud y precision de las inferências sobre estos seis procesos históricos no están afectado por el cambio en el numero de sítios conocidos de Ia misma manera. Finalmente, considero el impacto de dos tipos de procesos de tafonomía simples sobre estos resultados. Resumiendo, los resultados de este articulo indican que a menos que tengamos muestras que sean casi completas de los sítios, y esternos seguros de que no haya influencias tafonómicas en el universo de sitios en la muestra, haremos inferências que varian en exactitud y precision según el aspecto de la historia del rasgo cultural siendo investigado.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 547 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2011

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

Aldenderfer, Mark S., and Carolyn, A. Hale-Pierce, A. 1984 To Be or Not To Be: The Small-Scale Archaeological Survey and Archaeological Research. American Archaeology 4(1):49–53.Google Scholar
Ammerman, Albert J. 1981 Surveys and Archaeological Research. Annual Review of Anthropology 10:63–88.Google Scholar
Banning, E. B. 2002 Archaeological Survey. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L. 1977 An Exploratory Sampling Design For Cultural Resources in New York State. New York Archeological Council, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L. and Eerkens, Jelmer W. 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread Of Bow-And-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231–242.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29:425–441.Google Scholar
Bird, M., I., Tumey, C. S. M., Fifield, L. K., Jones, R., Ayliffe, L. K., Palmer, A., Cresswell, R. and Robertson, S. 2002 Radiocarbon Analysis of the Early Archaeological Site of Nauwalabila I, Arnhem Land, Australia: Implications for Sample Suitability and tratigraphic Integrity. Quaternary Science Reviews 21(8–9):1061–1075.Google Scholar
Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. 1979 Social Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book, New York.Google Scholar
Brantingham, , Jeffrey, P., Surovell, Todd A., and Waguespack, Nicole M. 2007 Modeling Post-Depositional Mixing of Archaeological Deposits. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:517–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The Oxcal Program. Radiocarbon 37(2)425–430.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2001 Development of the Radiocarbon Calibration Program Oxcal. Radiocarbon 43(2A):355–363.Google Scholar
Buck, Caitlin, E., Cavanagh, William G., and Litton, Clifford D. 1996 Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Wiley, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
Buck, Caitlin, E., Christen, J. A. and Gary, N. J. 1999 BCal: An On-Line Bayesian Radiocarbon Calibration Tool Internet Archaeology http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/is-sue7/buck_index.html(7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, Caitlin, E., Christen, J. A., Kenworthy, J. B., and Litton, Clifford D. 1994 Estimating the Duration of Archaeological Activity Using 14C Determinations. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13(2):229–240.Google Scholar
Buck, Caitiln, E., Kenworthy, J. B., Litton, Clifford D., and Smith, A.,  , F. M. 1991 Combining Archaeological and Radiocarbon Information: A Bayesian Approach To Calibration. Antiquity 65(249):808–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C., E., Litton, Clifford D. and Smith, A. F. M.,  , F. M. 1992 Calibration of Radiocarbon Results Pertaining to Related Archaeological Events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5):491–512.Google Scholar
Christen, J. A. 1994 Summarizing a Set of Radiocarbon Determinations: A Robust Approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 43(3):489–503.Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1970 Some Sampling and Reliability Problems in Archaeology. In Archéologie et calculateurs, edited by F. C. Gardin, pp. 161–175. Colloques internationaux du CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1975 A Selection of Samplers: Comments on Archaeo-Statistics. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by J. Mueller, W, pp. 258–274. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Lipo, Carl 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24(4):316–334.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Lipo, Carl 2007 Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture. Journal of Archaeological Research 15(3):239–274.Google Scholar
Friesen, T. Max 2004 Contemporaneity of Dorset and Thule Cultures in the North American Arctic: New Radiocarbon Dates from Victoria Island, Nunavut. Current Anthropology 45(5):685–691.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph 2001 Cultural Transmission and the Diffusion of Innovations: Adoption Dynamics Indicate that Biased Cultural Transmission is the Predominate Force in Behavioral Change. American Anthropologist 103(4):992–1013.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph 2004 Why Adaptive Cultural Processes Produced Maladaptive Losses in Tasmania. American Antiquity 69:197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, Vance T. 1997 Paleoindian: Geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Hurt, Teresa D., and Ratika, Gordon (editors) 2001 Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology. Bergin & Garvey, Wesport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Jordan, Peter, and Shennan, Stephen 2003 Cultural Transmission, Language, and Basketry Traditions amongst the California Indians. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(1):42–74.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., VanBuskirk, Stephanie, and Rus-cavage-Barz, Samantha 2004 Vessels and Villages: Evidence for Conformist Transmission in Early Village Aggregations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(1):100–118.Google Scholar
Lipo, Carl P., Madsen, Mark E., Dunnell, Robert C., and Hunt, Tim 1997 Population Structure, Cultural Transmission, and Frequency Seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16(4):301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J., and von Cramon-Taubadel, Noreen 2007 Acheulean Variability and Hominin Dispersals: A Model-Bound Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(3):553–562.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2003 The Influence of Time Averaging and Space Averaging on the Application Of Foraging Theory in zooarchae-ology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(5):595–610.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2000 Measuring and Explaining Change in Artifact Variation with Clade-Diversity Diagrams. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19(1):39–74.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. M. 1980 Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 21:516–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, David J. 2004 Peopling of North America. In The Quaternary Period in the United States, edited by A. R. Gillespie, S. C. Porter and B. F. Atwater, pp. 539–563. Elsevier, Boston.Google Scholar
Moseley, Michael Edward 1992 The Incas and their Ancestors. Thames and Hudson, New York.Google Scholar
Mueller, James W. (editor) 1975 Sampling in Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Nance, Jack D. 1979 Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 289–356. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Neiman, Fraser D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Inter-Assemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:7–36.Google Scholar
Orton, Clive 2000 Sampling in Archaeology. University College London, London.Google Scholar
Parson, Jeffrey R. 1990 Critical Reflections on a Decade of Full-Coverage Regional Survey in the Valley of Mexico. In The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey, edited by Susan K. Fish and Stephen A. Kowalewski. pp. 7–31. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Plog, Steve 1976 Relative Efficiencies of Sampling Techniques for Archaeological Surveys. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Kent Flannery, pp. 136–158. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, Steve 1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 383–421. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Dwight 1986 Sampling Procedures for Regional Surveys: A Problem of Representativeness And Effectiveness. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:103–122.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight 2006 Tasmanian Knowledge and Skill: Maladaptive Imitation Or Adequate Technology? American Antiquity 71:164–184.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight 2007 Artifact Classification: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Redman, Charles L. 1973 Multistage Fieldwork and Analytical Techniques. American Antiquity 38:61–79.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675–706.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B., Sullivan, Alan P., and Klinger, Timothy C. 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10:1–28.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen 2000 Population, Culture History, and the Dynamics of Culture Change. Current Anthropology 41(5):811–835.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen 2002 Genes, Memes and Human History. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen, and Wilkinson, J. R. 2001 Ceramic Style Change and Neutral Evolution: A Case Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66(4):577–593.Google Scholar
Surovell, Todd A., and Jeffrey Brantingham, P. 2007 A Note on the Use of Temporal Frequency Distributions in Studies of Prehistoric Demography. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1868–1977.Google Scholar
Surovell, Todd, A., Finley, Judson Byrd, Smith, G. M., Jeffrey Brantingham, P., and Kelly, Robert 2009 Correcting temporal frequency distributions for taphonomic Bias. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(8):1715–1724.Google Scholar
Waters, Michael R., and Stafford, Thomas W. Jr. 2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science 315(5815):1122–1126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wobst, H. Martin 1983 We Can’t See the Forest for the Trees: Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological Distributions. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J. Moore, A. and A. Keen, S., pp. 37–85. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Zeidler, James A., Buck, Caitlin E., and Litton, Clifford D. 1998 Integration of Archaeological Phase Information and Radiocarbon Results from the Jama River Valley, Ecuador: A Bayesian approach. Latin American Antiquity 9:160–179.Google Scholar