Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:13:29.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Anthropological Perspective on the Sample Size-Richness Relation: A Response to Leonard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen Plog
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Michelle Hegmon
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402

Abstract

We are in full agreement with Leonard, and many others, that the sample size-richness relation is an important concern for archaeologists, and we appreciate his evenhanded discussion of our paper. However, we disagree with Leonard regarding the point in the research process when variable prehistoric behavior can be used to explain differences in richness. Leonard and others argue that we must always begin studies of richness by controlling any observed relation to sample size; we can only consider prehistoric behavior as an explanation of richness after we account for sample size effects. In contrast, we suggest that following his recommendations will obscure aspects of behavioral variation that are important to understanding prehistoric societies. Considerations of prehistoric behavior must therefore be central in studies of richness.

Estamos de acuerdo con Leonard y muchos otros, en que la relación entre el tamaño de la muestra y la riqueza es importante para los arqueólogos y apreciamos su justa discusión de nuestro artícule. Sin embargo, no concordames con el argumenta de Leonard sobre el momento en el proceso de investigación cuando variaciones en la conducta prehistórica pueden usarse para explicar diferencias en riqueza. Leonard y otros arguyen que los estudios de riqueza siempre deben empezar con el control de la relación con el tamaño de la muestra; uno puede apelar a la conducta humana para explicar riqueza sólo después de haber explicado el efecto del tamaño de la muestra. En contraste, sugerimos que el seguir sus recomendaciones obscurecerá aspectos de variación conductual que son importantes para comprender sociedades prehistóricas. Las consideraciones de conducta prehistórica deben por lo tanto ser centrales en estudios de riqueza.

Type
Comments
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

Eckles, D. 1984 Intersite Variation in Faunal Remains on Black Mesa. In Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, II, edited by Plog, S. and Powell, S., pp. 158172. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google 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