Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T07:54:13.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Analysis of Shells from a Site in Goleta, California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roberta S. Greenwood
Roberta S. Greenwood*
Affiliation:
725 Jacon Way, Pacific Palisades, Calif.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This shell study was designed to test and perfect methods of quantitative analysis in addition to providing the usual identification of species. Experiments were performed to determine the optimum size of sample, dimension of screen, number of samples, and the practicability of rapid analysis in the field to guide the progress of excavation. Analysis of variance was used to measure up to five variables at once; differences were shown graphically with direction of change indicated by a least-squares regression line. The analysis of 69 excavation units revealed an overwhelming preference for mud-dwelling species which showed no change in horizontal distribu-give guidance to the excavation team. Used with dry-weight analysis, field sorting would also indicate areas of richer occupation debris in time for this information to be useful. The use of applied mathematics in midden analysis adds a precise tool to the archaeological inventory. The data compiled on screen size, sample size, horizontal and vertical distributions, and such, were subjected to the analysis of variance, and where significant difference was indicated, the statistics were fitted to a regression line by the least-squares method. By using standardized systems and quantitative analysis, the archaeologist may obtain convincing evidence to support his conclusions. These procedures would be equally applicable to the study of skeletal, artifactual, or other ecological remains, and would add authority to the theories derived from such analysis.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 26 , Issue 3Part1 , January 1961 , pp. 416 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1961

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

Ascher, Robert 1959. A Prehistoric Population Estimate Using Midden Analysis and Two Population Models. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 168–78. Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Cook, S. F. and Heizer, R. F. 1951. The Physical Analysis of Nine Indian Mounds of the Lower Sacramento Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 40, pp. 281–312. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1916. Composition of California Shellmounds. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1–29. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Greengo, R. E. 1951. Molluscan Species in California Shell Middens. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey, No. 13. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W., and others 1958. Ecological Interpretations in Archaeology: Part I. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1–23. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
McKusick, M. B., and others 1959. Introduction to Anacapa Island Archaeology. Archaeological Survey, Annual Report, 1958–59, pp. 71–104. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
McKusick, M. B., Warren, C. N., and others 1959. Introduction to San Clemente Island Archaeology. Archaeological Survey, Annual Report, 1958–59, pp. 105–183. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Treganza, A. E. and Cook, S. F. 1948. The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Complete Excavation with Physical and Archaeological Analysis of a Single Mound. American Antiquity, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 287–97. Menasha.Google Scholar
Warren, C. N. and Thompson, H. P. 1959. Test Excavations at the Del Mar Site (Sdi-191). Archaeological Survey, Annual Report, 1958–59, pp. 217–31. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar