Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T05:35:58.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seriation Method and Its Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert C. Dunnell
Robert C. Dunnell*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seriation as a scaling technique produces a formal arrangement of units, the significance of which must be inferred. Arrangement per se is a statistical matter, while the inference of significance is archaeological method. Here seriation as an archaeological method for inferring relative chronology is reviewed in terms of its assumptions and the conditions under which it is applicable. From this examination it is concluded that seriations may be inferred to be chronologies when and only when: (1) the comparisons are conducted using historical classes; (2) the units ordered are of comparable duration; (3) the units ordered are from the same cultural tradition; and (4) when the order is repeated through several independent seriations. The means of assessing whether or not a given seriation meets these conditions is considered in detail. Within specifiable limits seriations can be inferred to be chronologies, but these limits are more restricted than generally appreciated.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 1970 , pp. 305 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1970

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

Brainerd, George W. 1951 The place of chronological ordering in archaeological analysis. American Antiquity 16:301–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. A., and Freeman, L. C. Jr. 1964 A UNIVAC analysis of sherd frequencies from the Carter Ranch Pueblo, Eastern Arizona. American Antiquity 30:162–167 Google Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical archaeology. Metheun and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Conklin, Harold C. 1964 Ethnogenealogical method. In Explorations in cultural anthropology, edited by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 25–55. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1968a Review of Hole and Shaw “Computer analysis of chronological seriation.” American Antiquity 33:517–519 Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1968b Archaeological applications of factor, cluster, and proximity analysis. American Antiquity 33:367–375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craytor, William B., and Johnson, Leroy Jr. 1968 Refinements in computerized item seriation. Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon, Bulletin 10.Google Scholar
Deetz, James, and Dethlefsen, Edwin 1965 The Doppler effect and archaeology: a consideration of the spatial aspects of seriation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21:196–206 Google Scholar
Dempsey, Paul, and Baumhoff, Martin 1963 The statistical use of artifact distributions to establish chronological sequences. American Antiquity 28:496–509 Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1967 The prehistory of Fishtrap, Kentucky: archaeological interpretation in marginal areas. MS, doctoral dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Ford, James A. 1949 Cultural dating of prehistoric sites in Viru Valley, Peru. In Surface survey of the Viru Valley, Peru. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 43:31–78 Google Scholar
Hanson, Lee H., Dunnell, R. C. and Hardesty, D. L. 1964 The Slone Site, Pike County, Kentucky (Contract 14-10-0131-1130). National Park Service, Southeastern Region: Richmond. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Hole, Frank and Shaw, Mary 1967 Computer analysis of chronological seriation. Rice University Studies 53.Google Scholar
Johnson, Leroy Jr. 1968 Item seriation as an aid for elementary scale and cluster analysis. Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon, Bulletin 15.Google Scholar
Kuzara, R. S., Mead, F. R. and Dixon, K. A. 1966 Seriation of anthropological data: a computer program for matrix ordering. American Anthropologist 68:1442–55 Google Scholar
Lipe, William D. 1964 Comments on Dempsey and Baumhoff “The statistical use of artifact distributions to establish chronological sequence.” American Antiquity 30:103–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964 The structural analysis of kinship semantics. In The Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, edited by Horace G. Lunt, pp. 1073–93. Mouton and Co.Google Scholar
Mayer-Oakes, William J. 1955 Prehistory of the upper Ohio Valley. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Anthropological Series, No. 2.Google Scholar
Meighan, Clement W. 1959 A new method for the seriation of archaeological collections. American Antiquity 25:203–211 Google Scholar
Morris, Charles W. 1938 Foundations of the theory of signs. Foundations of the unity of science 1. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Philip, Ford, J. A. and Griffin, J. B. 1951 Archaeological survey in the lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940–47. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 25.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 1951 A method for chronologically ordering archaeological deposits. American Antiquity 16:293–301 Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving B. 1939 Prehistory in Haiti, a study in method. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving B. 1967 Seriation in archaeology. In American historical anthropology, edited by Carroll L. Riley and W. W. Taylor, pp. 153–95. Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Rowe, John H. 1961 Stratigraphy and seriation. American Antiquity 25:324–330 Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1960 The dimensions of archaeology. In Essays in the science of culture in honor of Leslie A. White, edited by Gertrude E. Dole and Robert L. Carneiro, pp. 437–56. Thomas Y. Crowell and Co.Google Scholar