Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:47:25.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jelmer W. Eerkens  and
Robert L. Bettinger
Jelmer W. Eerkens
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Robert L. Bettinger
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study of artifact standardization is an important line of archaeological inquiry that continues to be plagued by the lack of an independent scale that would indicate what a highly variable or highly standardized assemblage should look like. Related to this problem is the absence of a robust statistical technique for comparing variation between different kinds of assemblages. This paper addresses these issues. The Weber fraction for line-length estimation describes the minimum difference that humans can perceive through unaided visual inspection. This value is used to derive a constant for the coefficient of variation (CV = 1.7 percent) that represents the highest degree of standardization attainable through manual human production of artifacts. Random data are used to define a second constant for the coefficient of variation that represents variation expected when production is random (CV = 57.7 percent). These two constants can be used to assess the degree of standardization in artifact assemblages regardless of kind. Our analysis further demonstrates that CV is an excellent measure of standardization and provides a robust statistical technique for comparing standardization in samples of artifacts.

Résumé

Résumé

El estudio de estandarización y variación ha sido una importante y valiosa linea de interés en los análisis arqueológicos. Sin embargo, aún persisten dos problemas que son el enfoque de este estudio. En primer lugar, faltan medidas independientes para evaluar problemas de estandarización y variación. En otros términes, no hay nada que indica cómo se debe hacer una muestra arqueológica bien estandardizada о bien variable. En segundo lugar, no existe una técnica estadistica segura para hacer comparaciones cuantitativas. El 'Weberfraction,' utilizado para la estimación de una línea amplia describe la diferencia mínima que seres humanos pueden percibir con solo una inspección ocular. Este valor es utilizado para derivar una constante (CV = 1.7percent) que représenta la variación minima obtenida a través de la producción manual de artefactos por seres humanos. Datas aleatorios son utilizados para determinar una segunda constante que représenta la variación esperada bajo condiciones aleato-rias (CV = 57.7 percent). De este modo, estas dos constantes pueden estar utilizadas para determinar el grado de estandarización en las colecciones de artefactos. También, este estudio proporciona una técnica estadistica segura para compararla estandarización en muestras de artefactos.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , July 2001 , pp. 493 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2001

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, M. A. 1990 Defining Lithics-Using Craft Specialists in Lowland Maya Society through Microwear Analysis : Conceptual Problems and Issues. In The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies, edited by Graslund, B. et al., pp. 53–70. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Algom, D. 1992 Memory Psychophysics : An Examination of Its Perceptual and Cognitive Prospects. In Psychophysical Approaches to Cognition, edited by Algom, D., pp. 441–512. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. E., and Nieves, A. L. 1992 Factors Affecting Ceramic Standardization. In Ceramic Production and Distribution, edited by G. J. Bey III and C. A. Pool, pp. 93–113. Westview, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Arnold, P. J. 1991 Dimensional Standardization and Production Scale in Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2 : 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benco, N. 1988 Morphological Standardization : An Approach to the Study of Craft Specialization. In A Pot for All Reasons : Ceramic Ecology Revisited, edited by Kolb, C. and Lackey, L., pp. 57–72. Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Bennett, B. M. 1976 On an Approximate Test for Homogeneity of Coefficients of Variation. Contributions to Applied Statistics, edited by Ziegler, W. J., pp. 169–171. Birhauser Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R. L., and Eerkens, J. W. 1997 Evolutionary Implications of Metrical Variation in Great Basin Projectile Points. In Rediscovering Darwin : Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by C. M Barton and G. A. Clark, pp. 177–191. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R. L., and Eerkens, J. W. 1999 Point Typologies, Social Transmission and the Introduction of Bow and Arrow Technology in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 64 : 231–242.Google Scholar
Blackman, J. M., Vandiver, P. B., and Stein, G. J. 1993 Standardization Hypothesis and Ceramic Mass Production : Technological, Compositional, and Metric Indexes of Craft Specialization atTellLeilan, Syria. American Antiquity 58 : 60–80.Google Scholar
Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons : Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51 : 737–847.Google Scholar
Bleed, P. 1997 Content as Variability, Result as Selection : Toward a Behavioral Definition of Technology. In Rediscovering Darwin : Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by Barton, C. M. and Clark, G.A. pp. 95–103. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Brown, M. B. and Forsythe, A. B. 1974 Robust Tests for the Equality of Variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69 : 364–367.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. M. 1997 An Analysis of Manos from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, Volume III, edited by Mathien, J., pp. 997–1012. National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico Chase, P. G. 1991 Symbols and Paleolithic Artifacts : Style, Standardization, and the Imposition of Arbitrary Form. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10 : 193–214.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J., Johnson, M. E., and Johnson, M. M. 1981 A Comparative Study of Tests for Homogeneity of Variances, with Applications to the Outer Continental Shelf Bidding Data. Technometrics : 23, No. 4, 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coren, S., Ward, L. M., and Enns, J. T. 1994 Sensation and Perception. 4fh ed. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, Texas.Google Scholar
Costin, C. L., and Hagstrum, M. B. 1995 Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60 : 619–639.Google Scholar
Crown, P. L. 1999 Socialization in American Southwest Pottery Decoration. In Pottery and People, edited by Skibo, J. M. and Feinman, G.M. pp. 25^13. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Dobres, M. 1995 Gender and Prehistoric Technology : On the Social Agency of Technical Strategies. World Archaeology 27 : 25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doornbos, R., and Dijkstra, J. B. 1983 A Multi Sample Test for the Equality of Coefficients of Variation in Normal Populations. Communications in Statistics : Simulation and Computation 12 : 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, J. E., and Hodson, F. R. 1975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Eerkens, J.W. 1997 Variability in Later Mesolithic Microliths of Northern England. Lithics 17/18 : 51–65.Google Scholar
Eerkens, J.W. 1998 Reliable and Maintainable Technologies : Artifact Standardization and the Early to Later Mesolithic Transition in Northern England. Lithic Technology 23 : 42–53.Google Scholar
Eerkens, J.W. 2000 Practice Makes Within 5% of Perfect : The Role of Visual Perception, Motor Skills, and Human Memory in Artifact Variation and Standardization. Current Anthropology 41 : 663–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feltz, C. J., and Miller, G. E. 1996 An Asymptotic Test for the Equality of Coefficients of Variation from K Populations. Statistics in Medicine 15 : 647–658.Google Scholar
Gescheider, G. A. 1997 Psychophysics : The Fundamentals. L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Gupta, R. C, and Ma, S. 1996 Testing the Equality of Coefficients of Variation in K Normal Populations. Communications in Statistics : Theory and Method 25 : 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B., and Gargett, R. 1988 Specialization in the Paleolithic. Lithic Technology 17 : 12–18.Google Scholar
Hotopf, W. H. N., Hibberd, M. C., and Brown, S. A. 1983 Position in the Visual Field and Spatial Expansion. Perception 12 : 469–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, I. P., and Rogers, B. J. 1995 Binocular Vision and Stereopsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jones, L. A. 1986 Perception of Force and Weight : Theory and Research. Psychological Bulletin 100 : 29–42 Google Scholar
Kantner, J. 1999 The Influence of Self-interested Behavior on Sociopolitical Change : The Evolution of the Chaco Anasazi in the Prehistoric American Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
Kerst, S. M., and Howard, J. H., Jr. 1978 Memory Psychophysics for Visual Area and Length. Memory & Cognition 6 : 327–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerst, S. M., and Howard, J. H., Jr. 1981 Memory and Perception of Cartographic Information for Familiar and Unfamiliar Environments. Human Factors 23 : 495–503.Google Scholar
Kerst, S. M., and Howard, J. H., Jr. 1984 Magnitude Estimates of Perceived and Remembered Length and Area. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 22 : 517–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvamme, K. L., Stark, M. T., and Longacre, W. A. 1996 Alternative Procedures for Assessing Standardization in Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 61 : 116–126.Google Scholar
Laming, D. R. J. 1997 The Measurement of Sensation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1999 Standardization and Specialization : What's the Link? In Pottery and People, edited by Skibo, J. M. and Feinman, G.M. pp. 44–58. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Longacre, W A., Kvamme, K. L., and Kobayashi, M. 1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization : An Ethnoarchaeological View from the Philippines. Kiva 53 : 101–112.Google Scholar
Mather, G. 1997 The Use of Image Blur as a Depth Cue. Perception 26 : 1147–1158.Google Scholar
Miller, G. 1996 The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two : Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review 63 : 81–97.Google Scholar
Moyer, R. S., Bradley, D. R., Sorenson, M. H., Whiting, J. C., and Mansfield, D. P. 1978 Psychophysical Functions for Perceived and Remembered Size. Science 200 : 330–332.Google Scholar
Norwich, K. H. 1983 On the Theory of Weber Fractions. Perception and Psychophysics 42 : 286–298.Google Scholar
Ogle, K. N. 1950 Researches in Binocular Vision. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Pagano, C. C, and Donahue, K. G. 1999 Perceiving the Lengths of Rods Wielded in Different Media. Perception and Psychophysics 61 : 1336–1344.Google Scholar
Poulton, E. C. 1989 Bias in Quantifying Judgments. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hove, England.Google Scholar
Reh, W., and Scheffler, B. 1996 Significance Tests and Confidence Intervals for Coefficients of Variation. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis ll-AA'i^XSl. Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. 1991 Specialization, Standardization, and Diversity : A Retrospective. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, edited by Bishop, R. L. and Lange, F. W., pp. 257–279. University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Ross, H. E. 1981 How Important Are Changes in Body Weight for Mass Perception? Acta Astronautica 8 : 1051–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, H. E. 1995 Weber on Temperature and Weight Perception. InFechner Day 95, edited by Possama'i, C. A., pp. 29–34. International Society for Psychophysics, Cassis, France.Google Scholar
Ross, H. E. 1997 On the Possible Relations between Discriminability and Apparent Magnitude. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 50 : 187–203.Google Scholar
Ross, H. E., and Gregory, R. L. 1964 Is the Weber Fraction a Function of Physical or Perceived Input? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 16 : 116–122.Google Scholar
Ross, H. E., and Gregory, R. L. R. C. A., Rottlander 1966 Is Provincial-Roman Pottery Standardized? Archaeometry 9 : 16–91.Google Scholar
Rowe, J. H. 1978 Standardization in Inca Tapestry Tunics. In Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference, edited by Rowe, A. P., E. P. Benson, and A. Schaffer, pp. 239–264. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Runyon, R. P., and Haber, A. 1988 Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics, 6th ed. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. 1999 Visual Perception. 2nd ed. Appleton and Lange, Stamford, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. 1997 Explanation of Artifact Variability. American Antiquity 62 : 27–50.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1997 Transmission Theory in the Study of Stone Tools : A Midwestern North American Example. In Rediscovering Darwin : Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by Barton, C. M. and Clark, G. A., pp. 193–204. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. C. 1947 Note on the Measurement of Variability and on Relative Variability of Teeth of Fossil Mammals. American Journal of Science 245 : 522–525.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. C, Roe, A., and Lewontin, R. C. 1960 Quantitative Zoology. Harcourt, Brace, New York.Google Scholar
Smallman, H. S., MacLeod, D. I. A., He, S., and Kentridge, R. W 1996 Fine Grain of the Neural Representation of Human Vision. Journal of Neuroscience 16 : 1852–1859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J. C. 1979 Thermal Intensification of Touch Sensation : Further Extensions of the Weber Phenomenon. Sensory Processes 3 : 240–248.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. 1975 Psychophysics : Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Teghtsoonian, R. 1971 On the Exponents in Stevens’ Law and the Constant in Ekman's law. Psychological Review 78 : 71–80.Google Scholar
Torrence, R. 1986 Production and Exchange of Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vangel, M. G. 1996 Confidence Intervals for a Normal Coefficient of Variation. American Statistician 15 : 21–26.Google Scholar
Verrillo, R. T. 1981 Absolute Estimation of Line Length in Three Age Groups. Journal of Gerontology 36 : 625–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verrillo, R. T. 1982 Absolute Estimation of Line Length as a Function of Sex. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 19 : 334–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrillo, R. T. 1983 Stability of Line-Length Estimates Using the Method of Absolute Magnitude Estimation. Perception & Psychophysics 33 : 261–265.Google Scholar
Weber, E. H. 1834 De Pulen, Resorptione, Auditu et Tactu : Annotationes Anatomicae et Physiologicae. Kohler, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
White, J. P., and Thomas, D. H. 1972 What Mean These Stones? Ethno-Taxonomic Models and Archaeological Interpretations in the New Guinea highlands. In Models in Archaeology, edited by Clarke, D. L., pp. 275–308. Methuen, London.Google Scholar