Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T05:02:35.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sample Size-Richness Relation: A Comment on Plog and Hegmon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert D. Leonard
Robert D. Leonard*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Plog and Hegmon (1993) focus on my research (Leonard 1989) on Black Mesa, Arizona, faunal assemblages as part of a broader critique of the work of a number of researchers who consider the effects of sample size on assemblage richness values. I suggest that their critique is problematic for a number of reasons, primarily statistical, but also because they do not provide an alternative hypothesis for the observed pattern.

Plog y Hegmon (1993) enfocan mis investigaciones (1989) sobre los conjuntos faunísticos de Black Mesa, Arizona, dentro de una critica más amplia del trabajo de varios investigadores quienes consideran los efectos del tamaño de la muestra en valores de riqueza de conjuntos artefactuales. Yo siugero que su crítica es problemdtica por muchas razones, principalmente estadísticas, pero también porque ellos no proveen una hipótesis alterna para explicar el patrón observado.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 1997 , pp. 713 - 716
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1997

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

Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1991 Alpine Faunas from the White Mountains, California: Adaptive Change in the Late Prehistoric Great Basin? Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. T., Grayson, D. K., and Beck, C. 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by Dunnell, R. C. and Grayson, D.K. pp. 55–73. Anthropological Papers No. 72. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Jones, G. T., and Leonard, R. D. 1989 The Concept of Diversity, an Introduction. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 1–3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49: 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, R. D. 1989 Anasazi Faunal Exploitation: Prehistoric Subsistence on Northern Black Mesa, Arizona. Occasional Paper No. 13. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D., Smiley, K., and Cameron, C. 1989 Changing Strategies of Anasazi Lithic Procurement on Black Mesa, Arizona. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 100–108. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Meltzer, D. J., Leonard, R. D., and Stratton, S. K. 1992 The Relationship between Sample Size and Diversity in Archaeological Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neil, D. H. 1993 Excavation Sample Size: A Cautionary Tale. American Antiquity 58: 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, S., and Hegmon, M. 1993 The Sample Size-Richness Relation: The Relevance of Research Questions, Sampling Strategies, and Behavioral Variation. American Antiquity 58: 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, S., and Hegmon, M. 1974 Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar