Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:20:27.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Size Dependence in Assemblage Measures: Essentialism, Materialism, and “She” Analysis in Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Shott
Michael J. Shott*
Affiliation:
Department of Classical Studies, Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-1910 (shott@uakron.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

"Assemblage" is a fundamental archaeological construct. By their composition, we interpret assemblages as expressions of activity or cultural identity. Yet they are not simple products of these factors alone but also of formation processes. Assemblages accumulated over varying spans, with varying combinations of tool types and discard rates. They are contexts for the playing out of complex relationships, not static types. This is a materialist view, against the essentialist view that assemblages are exemplars of ideal types (e.g., "base camps," "Quina Mousterian"). Materialism implies that their size and composition, fundamental assemblage characteristics, are correlated variables, not fixed properties, and that composition varies as size increases. I document size dependence consistent with materialism in Paleoindian and Paleolithic assemblages. Among ways to analyze size-dependent assemblage data, I apply "SHE analysis"—the joint study of assemblage richness, heterogeneity, and evenness—to gauge data’s fit to theoretical models. Archaeologists acknowledge size dependence, but we misapprehend it as a methodological bias of assemblage measures that must be suppressed when, in materialist perspective, it reveals meaningful relationships that an essentialist view cannot.

Resumen

Resumen

"Conjunto" es un concepto arqueológico fundamental. Debido a su composición, los conjuntos se interpretan como manifestaciónes de actividades o identidad cultural, pero no sean productos exclusivos de estas causas. Por lo contrario, conjuntos son productos complejos de muchas causas, inclusivo procesos de formación. Los conjuntos se acumularon sobre varios plazos, con varias combinaciónes de tipos de útiles y tasas de descarte. Conjuntos no son tipos estáticos, sino contextos en que se juegan enlaces complejos. Esto es una vista materialista, contra la vista esencial en la que los conjuntos sirven como ejemplares de tipos ideales (e.g., "campamento de base," "Mousteriense Quina"). El materialismo implica que su tamaño y composición, características fundamentales de conjuntos, son variables correlacionados, no propiedades fijados. Documento dependencia de tamaño en conjuntos arqueológicos. Entre métodos para tratar datos sujetos a esta dependencia, aplico "análisis de SHE"—análisis en común de riqueza, heterogeneidad, y igualdad/desigualdad de proporciones—para meter los datos en modelos teóricos. Los arqueólogos reconocen la dependencia de tamaño, pero lo malentendemos como un siesgo metodológico que tenemos que suprimir cuando, en perspectiva materialista, deja ver relaciónes significativas que un acercamiento esencial no puede ver.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 886 - 906
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2010

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. 1981 Creating Assemblages by Computer Simulation: The Development and Uses of ABSIM. In Simulations in Archaeology, edited by Jeremy Sabloff, pp. 67–117. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Ammerman, Albert J., and Feldman, Marcus W. 1974 On the “Making” of an Assemblage of Stone Tools. American Antiquity 39:610–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William (editor) 2008 Artifact Life-Cycle and the Organization of Lithic Technologies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bacus, Elisabeth A. 2004 A Consideration of Processes Underlying Philippine Pottery Complexes. In Southeast Asian Archaeology: Wilhelm G. Solheim II Festschrift, edited by V. Paz, pp. 128–157. University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City.Google Scholar
Baxter, Michael J. 2001 Methodological Issues in the Study of Assemblage Diversity. American Antiquity 66:715–725.Google Scholar
Baxter, Michael J. 2003 Statistics in Archaeology. Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217–225.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5–31.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., and Binford, Sally 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68:238–295.Google Scholar
Bisson, Michael S. 2000 Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:1–48.Google Scholar
Bobrowsky, Peter T., and Ball, Bruce F. 1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 4–12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Boone, James L. 1987 Defining and Measuring Midden Catchment. American Antiquity 52:336–345.Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1961 Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Bordes, François, and de Sonneville-Bordes, Denise 1970 The Significance of Variability in Paleolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 2:61–73.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Briggs 2005 Cultural Transmission and Stone Tools: A Study of Early Paleoindian Technology in North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Buzas, Martin A. and Hayek, Lee-Ann C. 1998 SHE Analysis for Biofacies Identification. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 28:233–239.Google Scholar
Buzas, Martin A. and Hayek, Lee-Ann C. 2005 On Richness and Evenness Within and Between Communities. Paleobiology 31:199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, John M. 1968 Territoriality Among Ancient Hunters: Interpretations from Ethnography and Nature. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, edited by Betty Meggers, pp. 1–21. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Carr, Christopher 1985 Alternative Models, Alternative Techniques: Variable Approaches to Intrasite Spatial Analysis. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by C. Carr, pp. 302–473. Westport Publishers, Kansas City, Missouri.Google Scholar
Childe, V. Gordon 1951 Social Evolution. Meridian, Cleveland.Google Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1972 Models and Paradigms in Archaeology. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. Clarke, pp. 1–60. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1978 Analytical Archaeology. 2nd. ed. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1989 The Concept of Diversity in Archaeological Theory. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 131–141. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
DeBoer, Warren R. 1974 Ceramic Longevity and Archaeological Interpretation: An Example from the Upper Ucayali, Peru. American Antiquity 39:335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deetz, James 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–368.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Debénath, André 1991 Paradigmatic Differences in a Collaborative Research Project. In Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research, edited by G. Clark, pp. 217–226. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Lenoir, Michel 1995 The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). University Museum Monograph 91. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Rolland, Nicolas 1992 On Assemblage Variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by Harold L. Dibble and Paul Mellars, pp. 1–28. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1989 Diversity in Archaeology: A Group of Measures in Search of Application? In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by R. Leonard and G. Jones, pp. 142–149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ebert, James I. 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Freeman, Leslie G. 1994 Kaleidoscope or Tarnished Mirror? Thirty Years of Mousterian Investigations in Cantabria. In Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray, edited by José A. Lasheras, pp. 37–54. Museo y Centra de Investigatión de Altamira, Monografías 17. Santillana del Mar, Cantabria.Google Scholar
Gerrard, Richard A. 1993 Beyond Crossmends: Stratigraphic Analysis and the Content of Historical Artefact Assemblages on Urban Sites. In Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy, edited by E. Harris, M. Brown, and G. Brown, pp. 229–249. Academic, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
Grayson, Donald K., and Cole, Stephen C. 1998 Stone Tool Assemblage Richness During the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in France. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:927–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, Donald K., and Delpech, Françoise 2002 Specialized Early Upper Palaeolithic Hunters in Southwestern France? Journal of Archaeological Science 29:1439–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Øyvind, Harper, D. A., and Ryan, P. D. 2008 PAST: PAlaeontological STatistics, ver. 1.81. Electronic document, http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past, accessed June 16, 2008.Google Scholar
Hayek, Lee-Ann C., and Buzas, Martin A. 1997 Surveying Natural Populations. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hill, M. O. 1973 Diversity and Evenness: A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences. Ecology 54:427–432.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter 2001 Sizing Up Prehistory: Sample Size and Composition of Artefact Assemblages. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2001(1):48–62.Google Scholar
Hofman, Jack L. 1982 Exploring Intrasite Patterning and Assemblage Variation on Historic Sheepherder Camps. North American Archaeologist 3:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdaway, Simon, Shiner, Justin, and Fanning, Patricia 2003 Hunter-Gatherers and the Archaeology of Discard Behavior: An Analysis of Surface Stone Artifacts from Sturt National Park, Western New South Wales, Australia. Asian Perspectives 43:34–72.Google Scholar
Holdaway, Simon, and Wandsnider, LuAnn 2008 Time in Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Revisited. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001 The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Irimoto, Takashi 1981 Chipewyan Ecology: Group Structure and Caribou Hunting System. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 8. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.Google Scholar
Jackson Squella, Donald 2007 Estructura, Intensidad y Reiteratión en las Ocupaciones Paleoindias en Cuevas y Aleros de Patagonia Meridional (Chile). Cazadores-Recolectores del Cono Sur de Sudamerica 2:65–85.Google Scholar
Jones, George T., Grayson, Donald K., and Beck, Charlotte 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by R. Dunnell and D. Grayson, pp. 55–73. Anthropological Papers No. 72. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Jones, George T., and Leonard, Robert D. 1989 The Concept of Diversity: An Introduction. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by R. Leonard and G. Jones, pp. 1–3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jost, Lou 2006 Entropy and Diversity. Oikos 113:363–375.Google Scholar
Kempton, R. A. 1979 The Structure of Species Abundance and Measurement of Diversity. Biometrics 35:307–321.Google Scholar
Kolpakov, E. M., and Vishnyatsky, L. B. 1989 The Bordes Method? Norwegian Archaeological Review 22:107–118.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 2004 Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Formation at Riparo Mochi. In Processual Archaeology: Exploring Analytical Strategies, Frames of Reference, and Culture Process, edited by A. Johnson, pp. 31–60. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Lanata, José L. 1996 La Diversidad Instrumental en el Norte de Peninsula Mitre, Tierra del Fuego. Arqueología 6:159–197. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. 1979 The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Leonard, Robert, and Jones, George (editors) 1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lepofsky, Dana, and Lertzman, K. 2005 More on Sampling for Richness and Diversity in Archaeobiological Assemblages. Journal of Ethnobiology 25:175–188.Google Scholar
Leponce, M., Theunis, L., Delabie, J. H., and Roisin, Y. 2004 Scale Dependence of Diversity Measures in a Leaf-Litter Ant Assemblage. Ecography 27:253–267.Google Scholar
Lipo, Carl P. 2001 Science, Style and the Study of Community Structure: An Example from the Central Mississippi River Valley. BAR International Series 918. Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and Ames, Kenneth M. 2007 On the Use of Species-Area Curves to Detect the Effects of Sample Size. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1985–1990.Google Scholar
McAvoy, Joseph M. 1992 Nottaway River Survey Part I: Clovis Settlement Patterns. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 28. Richmond, Virginia.Google Scholar
McCary, Ben C., 1974 The Williamson Paleo-Indian Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The Chesopiean 13:48–131.Google Scholar
Mace, Ruth 2005 A Phylogenetic Approach to the Evolution of Cultural Diversity. In The Evolution of Cultural Diversity, edited by Ruth Mace, Clare Holden, and Stephen Shennan. pp. 1–10. University College London Press, London.Google Scholar
Magurran, Ann E. 2004 Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Magurran, Ann E. 2005 Species Abundance Distributions: Pattern or Process? Functional Ecology 19:177–181.Google Scholar
May, Robert M. 1975 Patterns of Species Abundance and Diversity. In Ecology and Evolution of Communities, edited by Martin Cody and Jared S. Diamond, pp. 81–120. Belknap, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst 1991 One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McAleece, Neil, Lambshead, P. J. D., Paterson, G. L. J., and Gage, J. D. 1997 BioDiversity Pro: Free Statistics Software for Ecology. Scottish Association for Marine Science. Electronic document, http://www.sams.ac.uk/research/software, accessed January 24, 2009.Google Scholar
McCartney, Peter H., and Glass, Margaret F. 1990 Simulation Models and the Interpretation of Archaeological Diversity. American Antiquity 55:521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, Jack 1981 Statistical Fact and Archaeological Faith: Two Models in Small-Site Sampling. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:151–165.Google Scholar
Neiman, Fraser D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:7–36.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., and Lee Lyman, R. 2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, Clive 1993 How Many Pots Make Five? An Historical Review of Pottery Quantification. Archaeometry 35:169–184.Google Scholar
Peet, Robert K. 1974 The Measurement of Species Diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:285–307.Google Scholar
Plog, Stephen, and Hegmon, Michelle 1993 The Sample Size-Richness Relation: The Relevance of Research Questions, Sampling Strategies, and Behavioral Variation. American Antiquity 58:489–496.Google Scholar
Riel-Salvatore, Julien, and Michael Barton, C. 2004 Late Pleistocene Technology, Economic Behavior, and Land-Use Dynamics in Southern Italy. American Antiquity 69:257–274.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1975 The Effects of Occupation Span on Site Content. In The Cache River Archeological Project: An Experiment in Contract Archeology, edited by Michael B. Schiffer and John House, pp. 265–269. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 8. Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
Schlanger, Sarah H. 1990 Artifact Assemblage Composition and Site Occupation Duration. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 103–121. Westview, Boulder.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989a On Tool Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9–30.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989b Diversity, Organization and Behavior in the Material Record: Ethnographic and Archaeological Examples. Current Anthropology 30:283–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996a An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:259–280.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996b Mortal Pots: On Use Life and Vessel Size in the Formation of Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 61:463–482.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1997 Activity and Formation as Sources of Variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22:197–236.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2000 The Quantification Problem in Stone Tool Assemblages. American Antiquity 65:725–738.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2003 Size and Palaeolithic Assemblage Variation in the Old World: A New World Perspective. In Lithic Analysis at the Millennium, edited by Norah Moloney and Michael Shott, pp. 137–150. Institute of Archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2006 Formation Theory's Past and Future: Introduction to the Volume. In Formation Theory in Archaeology: Readings from “American Antiquity” and “Latin American Antiquity,” edited by M. Shott, pp. 1–16. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2008 Lower Paleolithic Industries, Time, and the Meaning of Assemblage Variation. In Time in Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Twenty Years Later, edited by Simon Holdaway and Luann Wandsnider, pp. 46–60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., Hunzicker, David A., and Patten, Bob 2007 Pattern and Allometric Measurement of Reduction in Experimental Folsom Bifaces. Lithic Technology 32:203–217.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Sillitoe, Paul 2001 The Mortality of Things: Correlates of Use Life in Wola Material Culture Using Age-at-Census Data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8:269–302.Google Scholar
Simek, Jan F., and Price, Heather A. 1990 Chronological Change in Périgord Lithic Assemblage Diversity. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, edited by Paul Mellars, pp. 243–261. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Smith, Benjamin, and Bastow Wilson, J. 1996 A Consumer's Guide to Evenness Indices. Oikos 76:70–82.Google Scholar
Stern, Nicola 1993 The Structure of the Lower Pleistocene Archaeological Record: A Case Study from the Koobi Fora Formation in Northwest Kenya. Current Anthropology 34:201–225.Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers, Vol. 59, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Tindale, Norman 1965 Stone Implement Making Among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert. Records of the South Australian Museum 15:131–164.Google Scholar
Toth, Nicholas 1985 The Oldowan Reassessed: A Close Look at Early Stone Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:101–120.Google Scholar
Ugland, Karl I., John Lambshead, P., McGill, Brian, Gray, John S., O’Dea, Niall, Ladle, Richard J., and Whit-taker, Robert J. 2007 Modelling Dimensionality in Species Abundance Distributions: Description and Evaluation of the Gambin Model. Evolutionary Ecology Research 9:313–324.Google Scholar
Vaquero, Manuel 2008 The History of Stone: Behavioural Inferences and Temporal Resolution of an Archaeological Assemblage from the Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:3178–3185.Google Scholar
Wattenmaker, Patricia 1998 Household and State in Upper Mesopotamia: Specialized Economy and the Social Uses of Goods in an Early Complex Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Webb, William S., and Snow, Charles E. 1945 The Adena People. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology, Vol. 6. Lexington.Google Scholar
Weedman, Kathryn J. 2000 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Stone Scrapers Among the Gamo People of Southern Ethiopia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Yellen, John E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic, New York.Google Scholar