Search

Graph perception involves the accurate decipherment of (often quantitative) data displayed in visual form. Because graph style may reflect discipline-specific tradition, similar graph styles in distinct disciplines can be subject to misinterpretation. Both archaeologist James A. Ford and paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould confused spindle diagrams representing archaeological frequency seriation and paleontological clade diversity analysis as displaying the same kinds of data and representing the same processes. Similarities between the two kinds of analysis are, however, limited to the use of the same graph style-spindle diagrams-to illustrate the history of frequencies of things. The kinds of frequencies differ in two ways between the two disciplines; frequencies are of low-level Linnaean taxa within a clade representing a higher taxon in paleobiology, and are frequencies of artifact specimens within each of several types in archaeology. Further, frequencies are absolute in clade diversity and relative in frequency seriation. Clade diversity analysis, as practiced by Gould and colleagues, is a time-series analysis that requires knowing the age of taxa prior to analysis of the shape of the spindle diagram. Frequency seriation in archaeology involves ordering multiple collections of artifacts that share at least some types; ordering is based on similar frequencies and a presumed unimodal frequency distribution, and the order is inferred to be a chronology. Different analytical assumptions and goals result in discipline specific rules of graph decipherment, though each of the two kinds of analyses can be performed in each of the two disciplines., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Graphs displaying evolutionary patterns are common in paleontology and in United States archaeology. Both disciplines subscribed to a transformational theory of evolution and graphed evolution as a sequence of archetypes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. U.S. archaeologists in the second decade of the twentieth century, and paleontologists shortly thereafter, developed distinct graphic styles that reflected the Darwinian variational model of evolution. Paleobiologists adopted the view of a species as a set of phenotypically variant individuals and graphed those variations either as central tendencies or as histograms of frequencies of variants. Archaeologists presumed their artifact types reflected cultural norms of prehistoric artisans and the frequency of specimens in each type reflected human choice and type popularity. They graphed cultural evolution as shifts in frequencies of specimens representing each of several artifact types. Confusion of pattern and process is exemplified by a paleobiologist misinterpreting the process illustrated by an archaeological graph, and an archaeologist misinterpreting the process illustrated by a paleobiological graph. Each style of graph displays particular evolutionary patterns and implies particular evolutionary processes. Graphs of a multistratum collection of prehistoric mammal remains and a multistratum collection of artifacts demonstrate that many graph styles can be used for both kinds of collections.

For over a century, Americanist anthropologists have argued about whether their discipline is a historical one or a scientific one. Proponents of anthropology as history have claimed that the lineages of human cultures are made up of unique events that cannot be generalized into laws. If no laws can be drawn, then anthropology cannot be a science. Proponents of anthropology as science have claimed that there indeed are laws that govern humans and their behaviors and cultures, and these laws can be discovered. Interestingly, both sides have the same narrow view of what science is. The same sorts of debates over science and history were played out in evolutionary biology over a half-century ago, and what emerged was the view that that discipline and its sister discipline, paleontology, were both history and science--hence the term "historical sciences." Anthropology and its sister discipline, archaeology, have only recently begun to realize that they too are historical sciences., (Copyright 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Cladistics is widely used in biology and paleobiology to construct phylogenetic hypotheses, but rarely has it been applied outside those disciplines. There is, however, no reason to suppose that cladistics is not applicable to anything that evolves by cladogenesis and produces a nested hierarchy of taxa. This includes cultural phenomena such as languages and tools recovered from archaeological contexts. Two methodological issues assume primacy in attempts to extend cladistics to archaeological materials: the construction of analytical taxa and the selection of appropriate outgroups. In biology the species is the primary taxonomic unit used, irrespective of the debates that have arisen in phylogenetic theory over the nature of species. Also in biology the phylogenetic history of a group of taxa usually is well enough known that an appropriate taxon can be selected as an outgroup. No analytical unit parallel to the species exists in archaeology, and thus taxa have to be constructed specifically for phylogenetic analysis. One method of constructing taxa is paradigmatic classification, which defines classes (taxa) on the basis of co-occurring, unweighted character states. Once classes have been created, a form of occurrence seriation-an archaeological method based on the theory of cultural transmission and heritability-offers an objective basis for selecting an outgroup., (Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Evidence gleaned from 1796 pieces of zooarchaeological literature published between 1900 and 2019, from 22 zooarchaeology textbooks published between 1956 and 2019, and 16 books on taphonomy published between 1969 and 2016 is used to assess the history of graphing in zooarchaeology. Mirroring changes in archaeology in general, the use of graphs (bar graphs, line graphs, scatterplots, etc.) to summarize analytical findings in zooarchaeology began in earnest in the 1960s. The variety of graph types expanded in the 1970s as the diversity of zooarchaeological variables documented increased in an effort to answer new questions regarding human behavioral interactions with prey animals and, in the 1980s, to address taphonomic concerns. Newly available computer technology and increased knowledge of statistics, along with the general belief that numbers are objective measures of magnitude, facilitated this expansion. The mean number of graphs per page in zooarchaeology textbooks has remained static (statistically) over the past five decades. The mean number of graphs per page in taphonomy books is a bit greater than in the zooarchaeology texts but statistically no different. The paucity of detailed discussions of what makes for a good graph in the zooarchaeology literature parallels that in the archaeology literature in general. Each graph has its own more or less unique grammar, so rules of thumb for producing effective (minimum mental gymnastics required) and efficient (minimal ink used) graphs are outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minor's (1995) efforts to invalidate the conclusions he ascribed to me regarding the prelittoral stage are unnecessary and misdirected. In misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting what I have said about that stage, he constructed straw men. In referencing faunal evidence from Tahkenitch Landing in an attempt to refute the existence of the pre-littoral stage, he failed to acknowledge the fact that various resources found in the littoral zone are also found in the open ocean and in the upstream reaches of rivers. In citing the evidence from Indian Sands in an attempt to corroborate his beliefs, he failed to consider relevant data and lost sight of the fact that radiocarbon dating is an indirect dating method that hinges on associations.

Publishing graphs that depict culture change has long been a means to illustrate what is known of the culture history of an area, including the Plateau culture area. Examination of 471 pieces of literature on Plateau archaeology published between 1895 and 2019 reveals aspects of the history of graphing culture change in the area. Different types of graphs, including tables of data, have been used across both North America and the Plateau. Graphs appear later in the twentieth century Plateau literature than for North America in general. Whereas spindle graphs (temporal frequency distributions) were popular elsewhere on the continent, they are rare in the Plateau literature. The richness of graph types used by Plateau archaeologists over time is not correlated with that evident among North American archaeologists. Plateau archaeologists have used line graphs and bar graphs to depict culture change. Excluding tables, the most popular graph type appearing in the Plateau literature consists of spatio-temporal rectangles bounding names of culture units. Graphs of temporally diagnostic projectile point forms plotted against time appear first in the 1960s, likely at the hands of Roald Fryxell. Although this graph type explicitly shows culture change, it is used less frequently by Plateau archaeologists than culture unit names within spatio-temporal rectangles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the interior western United States, archaeologists have sometimes sought to determine whether projectile points were used with atlatl darts or with arrows by analyzing specimens with respect to variation in neck width (Thomas 1978; Corliss 1980). Such an approach represents use of a morphometric variable, often in lieu of impact damage (Bergman and Newcomer 1983; Odell and Cowan 1986) or edge damage (papers in Hayden 1979). Damage is often not present. Considerations of size, shape, bilateral symmetry, basically triangular shape, and ends that may be pointed, notched, or stemmed, as well as ethnographic information alone often lead to the categorizing of a group of artifacts as "projectile points." Resulting classifications are relevant to functional and thus adaptational concerns and also to temporal concerns because of the late Holocene (ca. 2,500 to 1,500 B.P.) shift from the atlatl and dart or spear to the bow and arrow. The dating of this transition is unclear. Hanes (1977) believed it occurred ca. 2,500 B.P. in southeastern Oregon; Pettigrew (1981) placed it ca. 1,700 B.P. in northwestern Oregon.Gould (1966) addressed a similar problem of assigning projectile points to specific functional categories that may ultimately prove temporally sensitive. He was working on the coast of northern California with mostly late prehistoric (post-1,000 B.P.) materials thought to post-date the transition from atlatl and dart to bow and arrow. Because his materials were from a coastal site, the possibility that some stone projectile points were used on arrows while others were used on harpoons bad to be considered. While Gould (1977:161) later reported that his distinction of the two functional categories was made "with size, not shape, as the main criterion," in this paper we follow his original discussion (Gould 1966) as it is more detailed.

Evaluation of zooarchaeology's quantitative units known as NISP (number of identified specimens) and MNI (minimum number of individuals) during the last three decades of the twentieth century suggested neither provided ratio scale measures of taxonomic abundances. Many researchers at that time began to use NISP as often as MNI to measure taxonomic abundances. In part because of a desire to determine the composition of human diet more precisely, and in light of the fact that different taxa have different numbers of identifiable bones, four zooarchaeologists have, since 1990, used assemblages with known ANI (actual number of individuals) to evaluate whether NISP or MNI provides the most accurate measure of ANI. ANI data from ethnoarchaeological and historical contexts suggest taxonomic abundance data quantified as NISP or MNI are ordinal scale at best, something previously shown to be highly probable. Experimental data used to evaluate the accuracy of NISP and MNI as measures of ANI are either inappropriate or not designed to assess which quantitative unit produces the most accurate measure. A new quantitative unit proposed as an alternative to MNE (minimum number of [skeletal] elements)—the NDE (number of distinct elements)—is said to provide proportional abundances of taxa but demonstrably undercounts skeletal parts and fails to provide ratio scale abundance data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The proveniences (locations) of artifacts have long been critically important to archaeological interpretation. Although of major importance to site formation studies, positional attributes of artifacts (e.g., orientation, dip, which side is up) are seldom mentioned. When discovered in 1927, the in situ association of a Folsom projectile point with two ribs of a Pleistocene form of bison was interpreted as indicative of the contemporaneity of the three items, and thus was taken as evidence for the Pleistocene age of humans in North America. The locational and positional attributes of the two ribs and the point relative to one another suggest it is improbable that the point was deposited simultaneously with the two ribs as a result of it being embedded in the animal's flank, which is not to say the three items are not depositionally and temporally associated. Previously unmentioned positional attributes of the items making up the original Folsom association exemplify the importance of such attributes. New understanding of the original association underscores that actualistic research is required to identify the kinds of positional attributes important to questions regarding site formation and site structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Archaeological reconnaissance in the Blue Mountains in 2013 resulted in the discovery of five artificial circular arrangements of local stones. Subsequent examination of satellite photographs of the area revealed two more rings. Ethnographic and archaeological records provide few clues as to the origins and functions of these rings. Local informant testimony suggests at least three of these rings may be helispots (helicopter landing areas); association with Forest Service structures and historical documents both suggest all seven stone rings could be helispots. A local informant suggests one or more of the rings may have originally been associated with American Indians. Future research should be directed toward study of constructional details and chronometric dating of a sample of the rings tofacilitate functional interpretation and to provide a robust test of the helispot hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The appearance of the bow and arrow in North America as a weapon-delivery system is predicted to have prompted an increase in variation among antecedent projectile points that tipped darts propelled by atlatls. Attributes of dart points are expected to display greater variation with the appearance of the bow as prehistoric artisans experimentally sought points that worked effectively as arrow points. Attributes of arrow points are predicted to also initially display much variation. Subsequent to the initial burst of variation, less-effective variants of attributes were winnowed out, causing a reduction in variation of attributes of both dart points and arrow points. Both coefficients of variation for individual attributes and summed coefficients of variation for multiple attributes of three sequences of projectile points from evolutionarily independent areas in North America confirm these predictions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Archaeologists have long been concerned about sample size. To monitor the relationship between sample size and the magnitude of a variable of interest, archaeologists have constructed three distinct kinds of what in ecology are known as species area curves (SACs). Sampling to redundancy SACs involve adding successive samples cumulatively to determine if the information provided by new samples is unique or redundant with information provided by earlier (smaller) samples. Rarefaction SACs involve pooling multiple samples and then rarifying the pooled sample—making it smaller probabilistically—so that the originally large but rarified sample may be compared with originally small samples. Regression SACs determine if there is a significant statistical relationship between samples of different sizes and the magnitude of the variable of interest per sample. Each of the three SACs used by archaeologists has a distinct analytical purpose. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Between 1900 and 1970, American archaeologists perceived themselves as second-class anthropologists because the archaeological record suggested little not already known ethnographically, archaeology served anthropology by testing ethnologically derived models of cultural evolution, the archaeological record was ethnologically incomplete as a result of poor preservation, and archaeologists used but did not write anthropological theory. Ethnologists of the period agreed with these points and regularly reminded archaeologists of their limited role in anthropology. A few archaeologists claimed in the 1950s that archaeology could contribute to anthropological theory but they were ignored. The claim was reiterated by new archaeologists of the 1960s, and by the 1970s worries about the poor preservation of the archaeological record had softened. However, most archaeologists after 1970 (and before 1990) used anthropological theory and did not write new theory on the basis of archaeological data. The root cause of American archaeology’s ninety-year absence from anthropology’s high table of theory seems to be the discipline-wide retention of the ninety-year old belief that archaeology is prehistoric ethnology and the (unnecessary and constraining) corollary that archaeologists must use anthropological theory to explain the archaeological record. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Analyses and interpretations of the human behavioral significance of frequencies of cut-marked mammal bones have been ongoing for at least 50 years. Many of these studies focus on determining the so-called “butchering pattern.” Few analysts comment on the tremendous range of variation in frequencies and anatomical distributions of cut marks across multiple assemblages of remains of a taxon. Such variation is evident even when faunal remains are associated with technologically, temporally, and environmentally similar cultures. This kind of variation is illustrated with frequencies of cut marked bone specimens comprising major limb joints of two artiodactyl genera from two sites in the northwestern United States. Three hypotheses are tested. The first and second hypotheses (one per genus) predict that the frequencies of cut-marked remains of a taxon from one site will match those frequencies evident on the remains of the same taxon at the other site. Both hypotheses are falsified. The third hypothesis is that remains of the larger taxon at each site will display more cut marks than the remains of the smaller taxon at each site. This hypothesis is statistically falsified at one site but not the other. Refutation of the hypotheses suggests that well-founded interpretations of frequencies of cut-marked remains may require unique kinds of contextual data. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Efforts in the 1960s to demonstrate the value of the “new archaeology” involved showing that the competing culture-history paradigm was inferior. One allegedly weak plank in that paradigm had to do with how culture historians viewed culture-as a set of ideas transmitted in the form of ideal norms or mental templates. Lewis Binford referred to this view as “”normative theory.” In archaeology that view was manifest in the equation of artifact types with prehistoric norms-an equation that, according to Binford, the culture historians had made so that they could track the flow of ideas through time and thus write culture history. Culture historians regularly subscribed to cultural transmission as the theoretical backdrop for their artifact-based chronometers such as seriation and the direct historical approach, but with few exceptions they perceived only a weak relationship between norms and artifact types. It was not until 1960, in a paper by James Gifford, that what Binford labeled as normative theory appeared in anything approaching a complete form. Ironically, the first applications of normative theory were products of the new archaeologists, not the culture historians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Archaeological types have been derogatorily characterized as descriptive, but they must be descriptive in terms of pertinent attributes to be analytically useful. Classifying artifacts has long been (and still is) referred to as "pigeon holing" because some formal variation is masked by the categorization process. Recent discussions of the "tyranny of typologies" echo such concerns. Such caricatures may be the result of inadequate discussion of the hows and whys of archaeological systematics first in the classroom, and second in the professional literature. Seventy-four introductory university-level fundamentals of archaeology textbooks published between 1949 and 2017 devote an average of 2.7% of their pages to archaeological systematics; several recent advanced texts on archaeological method and theory include no discussion of archaeological systematics; over the last 100 years 51 programmatic books on zoological systematics have been published in contrast to eight programmatic volumes on archaeological systematics. After continuous growth since 1900 and a peak in the 1970s, the number of journal articles and book chapters on the programmatics of archaeological systematics published per decade has decreased over the past 40 years; the substantive literature seems to display the same trend. These data suggest reduced consideration by the discipline of the whys (ontologies) and hows (epistemologies) of archaeological systematics. Additional study of the substantive research literature—applications of typologies to particular sets of artifacts—may find discussion has shifted to this sort of venue. Hopefully the future will witness more extended discussions of systematics in new introductory textbooks, and discussions of the relevance of particular mechanics and specific theories of systematics with respect to archaeologists' favored explanatory theories. • Critiques of archaeological systematics have been made over the past 60–70 years but seem to be on the increase. • Discussion in 74 introductory archaeology textbooks average 2.7% of their pages to systematics. • Several recent texts on advanced archaeological method and theory include no discussion of systematics. • The volume of professional literature on the hows and whys of archaeological systematics increased from 1900 to the 1970s, and subsequently decreased. • Eight books on archaeological systematics since 1920 contrast with 51 books on zoological systematics. • Lack of understanding of the nuances of archaeological systematics may be the source of recent critiques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many versions of the history of Americanist archaeology suggest there was a “stratigraphic revolution” during the second decade of the twentieth century—the implication being that prior to about 1915 most archaeologists did not excavate stratigraphically. However, articles and reports published during the late nineteenth century and first decade of the twentieth century indicate clearly that many Americanists in fact did excavate stratigraphically. What they did not do was attempt to measure the passage of time and hence culture change. The real revolution in Americanist archaeology comprised an analytical shift from studying synchronic variation to tracking changes in frequencies of artifact types or styles—a shift pioneered by A. V. Kidder, A. L. Kroeber, Nels C. Nelson, and Leslie Spier. The temporal implications of the analytical techniques they developed—frequency seriation and percentage stratigraphy—were initially confirmed by stratigraphic excavation. Within a few decades, however, most archaeologists had begun using stratigraphic excavation as a creational strategy—that is, as a strategy aimed at recovering superposed sets of artifacts that were viewed as representing occupations and distinct cultures. The myth that there was a “stratigraphic revolution” was initiated in the writings of the innovators of frequency seriation and percentage stratigraphy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on a study conducted on the history of Americanist archaeology, while discussing seriation, superposition and interdigitation. What does frequency seriation involves; Indication that interdigitation is an important component of several percentage-stratigraphic studies; Results of the study.

The article discusses about misconceptions of evolutionary archaeology. The study opposes the belief that evolutionary archaeology's central premise is that artifacts are part of the human phenotype and therefore subject to the same evolutionary processes. According to the author, cultural transmission is different from genetic transmission. Cultural evolution can be more rapid than biological evolution, thus greater diversity is predictable. This rapid increase in diversity of artifact lineage is exemplified by computers,