Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:15:28.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and the Sample-Size Effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Rhode
David Rhode*
Affiliation:
Zuni Archaeology Program, P.O. Box 339, Zuni, NM 87327
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assemblage diversity is an important part of the structure of the archaeological record, but measuring this parameter often is difficult if samples of assemblages differ in size. Two methods, here called the sampling approach and regression approach, currently are used to assess the sample-size effect. The approaches differ in method and in results. The sampling approach is better suited to analysis of assemblage diversity among samples when the underlying population structure is well known, while the regression approach is more useful for examination of the sample-size effect when the underlying population structure is known poorly.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 708 - 716
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1988

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

Conkey, M. W. 1980 The Identification of Prehistoric Aggregation Sites : The Case for Altamira. Current Anthropology 21 : 609–630.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1981 The Effect of Sample Size on Some Derived Measures in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 8 : 77–88.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology : Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jones, G. T., Grayson, D. K., and Beck, C. 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctated : Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by Dunnell, R. C. and Grayson, D. K., pp. 55-73. Anthropological Papers 72. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. 1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49 : 44–54.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D., and Jones, G. T. 1984 The Concept and Measure of Archaeological Diversity. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production : A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22 : 219–227.Google Scholar
Simpson, E. H. 1949 Measurement of Diversity. Nature 163 : 688.Google Scholar
Smith, W., and Grassle, J. F. 1977 Sampling Properties of a Family of Diversity Measures. Biometrics 33 : 283–292.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1983 Mid-range Theory : Sample Size Effect. In The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2 : Gatecliff Shelter, by Thomas, D. H., pp. 425-433, Anthropological Papers 59. The American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1984 Diversity in Hunter-gatherer Cultural Geography. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Wood, J. J. 1978 Optimal Locations in Settlement Space : A Model for Describing Location Strategies. A merican Antiquity 43 : 258-270.Google Scholar