Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:02:41.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Issues in the Study of Assemblage Diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

M. J. Baxter
M. J. Baxter*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Operational Research, The Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Campus, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three approaches that have been used to investigate assemblage diversity in the archaeological literature-two established and one new-are studied, with a particular emphasis on assemblage richness. It is argued that the established regression and simulation approaches, as often used, are only strictly valid if they assume what they are supposed to test-namely that assemblages are sampled from populations with the same richness or structure. Rarefaction methodology provides an alternative to the simulation approach and suggests that even if the latter is used, sampling without rather than with replacement is preferable. Some potential limitations of a recently proposed approach using jackknife methods are noted, and it is suggested that bootstrapping may be a more natural resampling method to use.

Résumé

Résumé

El objetivo de este artículo es el estudio de tres métodos que han sido utilizados en la literatura arqueológica para investigar la diversidad del conjunto con especial atención a su riqueza. Se discute que los métodos de regresión y simulatión, ya bien establecidos, son sólo estrictamente válidos si asumen que el muestreo se realiza sobre poblaciones con la misma riqueza o estructura. El método de rarefaction, más novedoso que los anteriores, proporciona una alternativa al de simulación y sugiere que, incluso si este último es utilizado, un muestreo sin substitutión es preferible a un muestreo con substitutión. Algunas de las limitaciones del método de jackknife, propuesto recientemente, son puestas de manifiesto, y se sugiere que el bootstrapping puede ser un mejor metodo.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 715 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © 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. 1998 Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: A Review of Recent Trends and Developments. Journal of Archaeological Research 6: 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M. J. 2000 Non-linear Models of Assemblage Richness: A Technical Note. Research Report 28/00, Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Operational Research, Nottingham Trent University, U.K. Google Scholar
Birks, H. J. B., and Line, J. M. 1992 The Use of Rarefaction Analysis for Estimating Palynological Richness from Quaternary Pollen-Analytical Data. Holocene 2: 1–10.Google Scholar
Bobrowsky, P. T., and Ball, B. F. 1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 4–12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. E. 1997 The Analysis of Diversity in Archaeological Faunal Assemblages: Complexity and Subsistence Strategies in the Southeast During the Middle Woodland Period. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 49–72.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. W. 1980 The Identification of Prehistoric Aggregation Sites: The Case for Altamira. Current Anthropology 21: 609–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. 1989 The Concept of Diversity in Archaeological Theory. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 131–141. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Davison, A. C, and Hinkley, D. V. 1997 Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1989 Diversity in Archaeology: A Group of Measures in Search of Application? In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 142–149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dye, T. S., and Tuggle, H. D. 2001 Land Snail Extinctions at Kalaeloa, O’ahu. Internet Archaeology 10. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issuelO/dye_toc.html. Date accessed.Google Scholar
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. 1993 An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K., and Cole, S. C. 1998 Stone Tool Assemblage Richness During the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in France. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 927–938.Google Scholar
Jones, G. T, Grayson, D. K., and Beck, C. 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctuated: Essays in Honour of George Irving Quimby, edited by Dunnell, R. C. and Grayson, D.K. pp. 55–73. Anthropological Papers 72, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. 1998 Measuring Archaeological Diversity: An Application of the Jackknife Technique. American Antiquity 63: 73–85.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49: 44–54.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1989 Sample Size, Significance and Measures of Diversity. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 25–36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D. 1997 The Sample Size-Richness Relation: A Comment. American Antiquity 62: 713–716.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D., and Jones, G. T. (editors) 1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McCartney, P. H., and Glass, M. G. 1990 Simulation Models and the Interpretation of Archaeological Diversity. American Antiquity 55: 521–536.Google Scholar
Neiman, F. 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
Orton, C. 2000 Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.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.Google Scholar
Potter, J. M. 1997 Communal Ritual and Faunal Remains: An Example from the Dolores Anasazi. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 353–364.Google Scholar
Rhode, D. 1988 Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and the Sample- Size Effect. American Antiquity 53: 708–716.Google Scholar
Ringrose, T. J. 1993 Diversity Indices and Archaeology. In Computing the Past: CAA92, edited by Andresen, J., Madsen, T., and Scollar, I., pp. 279–385. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1997 Activity and Formation as Sources of Variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22: 197–236.Google Scholar
Smith, W., and Grassle, J. F. 1977 Sampling Properties of a Family of Diversity Measures. Biometrics 33: 288–292.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1989 Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Cultural Geography. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 85–91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N., and Ripley, B. D. 1999 Modern Applied Statistics with S-PLUS: Third edition. New York: Springer.Google Scholar