Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:25:41.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Method for the Seriation of Archaeological Collections*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clement W. Meighan
Clement W. Meighan*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, Calif.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This graphical technique utilizes only three types of artifacts from the collection to the seriated. The relationship between the three selected types is plotted on three-pole graph paper. The points on the graph are clustered along a line representing change through time; hence the archaeological materials are arranged in their correct temporal sequence. Data from Paragonah, Utah, and Pindi, New Mexico, two Southwestern sites for which the time sequence is known, are used for empirical tests of the seriational technique. In both cases there is close agreement between the results of the seriation and the time sequence revealed by field evidence.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 1959 , pp. 203 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1959

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.)

Footnotes

*

Presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November 23, 1958, Washington, D.C.

References

Belous, R. E. 1953 The Central California Chronological Sequence Re-examined. American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 341–53. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennyhoff, J. A. 1951 The Viru Valley Sequence: A Critical Review. American Antiquity, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 231–49. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, G. W. 1951 The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 301–13. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Donald 1955 Cultural Chronology and Change as Reflected in the Ceramics of the Viru Valley, Peru. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 43. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dixon, K. A. 1956 Archaeological Objectives and Artifact Sorting Techniques: A Re-examination of the Snaketown Sequence. Western Anthropology, No. 3. Berkeley (?).Google Scholar
Ford, J. A., and Willey, G. R. 1949 Surface Survey of the Virú Valley, Peru. Anthropological Papers of The American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 43, Pt. 1. New York.Google Scholar
Judd, N. M. 1916 Archeological Reconnaissance in Western Utah. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 66, No. 17. Washington.Google Scholar
Judd, N. M. 1919 Archeological Investigations at Paragonah, Utah. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 70, No. 3. Washington.Google Scholar
Lehmer, D. J. 1951. Robinson's Coefficient of Agreement — A Critique. American Antiquity, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 151. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meighan, C. W. and others 1956 Archeological Investigations in Iron County, Utah. University of Utah, Anthropological Papers, No. 25. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Petrie, W. M. F. 1904 Methods and Aims in Archaeology. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 293–301. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, S. A., and Stallings, W. S. Jr. 1953 The Excavation of Pindi Pueblo, New Mexico. Monographs of the School of American Research and the Laboratory of Anthropology, No. 18. Santa Fe.Google Scholar