The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data

327 Pages·2002·17.64 MB·English

by  E. B. Banning (auth.)

The
Archaeologist’s
Laboratory
The Analysis of
Archaeological
Data
INTERDISCIPLINARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARCHAEOLOGY
Series Editor: Michael A. Jochim, University of California at Santa Barbara
Founding Editor: Roy S. Dickens, Jr., Late of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Current Volumes in This Series:
THE ARCHAEOLOGIST’S LABORATORY
The Analysis of Archaeological Data
E. B. Banning
AURIGNACIAN LITHIC ECONOMY
Ecological Perspectives from Southwestern France
Brooke S. Blades
CASE STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Edited by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Lee A. Newsom, and Sylvia J. Scudder
DARWINIAN ARCHAEOLOGIES
Edited by Herbert Donald Graham Maschner
EARLIEST ITALY
An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic
Margherita Mussi
FAUNAL EXTINCTION IN AN ISLAND SOCIETY
Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus
Alan H. Simmons and Associates
HUMANS AT THE END OF THE ICE AGE
The Archaeology of the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition
Edited by Lawrence Guy Straus, Berit Valentin Eriksen, Jon M. Erlandson,
and David R. Yesner
A HUNTER–GATHERER LANDSCAPE
Southwest Germany in the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic
Michael A. Jochim
HUNTERS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST
The Paleolithic of Moravia
and
MISSISSIPPIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY
Jon Muller
PROJECTILE TECHNOLOGY
Edited by Heidi Knecht
STATISTICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS
A Commonsense Approach
Robert D. Drennan
VILLAGERS OF THE MAROS
A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society
John M. O’Shea
A Chronological Listing of Volumes in this series appears at the back of this volume.
A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new volume
immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further information please contact
the publisher.
The
Archaeologist’s
Laboratory
The Analysis of
Archaeological
Data
E. B. Banning
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW
eBookISBN: 0-306-47654-1
Print ISBN: 0-306-46369-5
©2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers
NewYork, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow
Print ©2000 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
New York
All rights reserved
No part of this eBook maybe reproducedortransmitted inanyform or byanymeans,electronic,
mechanical, recording, or otherwise,withoutwritten consent from the Publisher
Createdin the UnitedStates of America
Visit Kluwer Online at: http://kluweronline.com
and Kluwer's eBookstoreat: http://ebooks.kluweronline.com
For Cindy
Preface
The purpose of this book is to introduce stu- analysis, lithics, archaeozoology, or archaeo-
dents to basic laboratory and analytical tech- logical architecture, I hope that they can find
niques in archaeology. It is not a text on statistics something of value in this book.
or archaeometry, although it does containsome
This book is primarily intended for third- or
statistics and is applicable to archaeometric prob-
fourth-year undergraduates who already have
lems. Although it will familiarize students with
some background in archaeology, such as an
a wide range of analytical techniques, the details
introductory course in world prehistory or a
of most of them are beyond its scope. Only
course in field methods. Students will also find
methods that we could reasonably expect un-
it helpful to have had at least a basic course in
dergraduate students to carry out in class are
statistics, although any statistical concepts used
considered in detail. Some more advanced meth-
here are briefly reviewed. Some good introduc-
ods are only mentioned for the sake of complete-
tions to statistics for archaeologists include
ness or to familiarize students with terms they
Drennan (1996), Fletcher and Lock (1991), Orton
will encounter elsewhere.
(1980), and Shennan (1988), each with its own
I decided to write this book after years of emphases. Sections of this book that are a little
trying to find a reference that students can use to more advanced may be considered optional,
learn how to analyse archaeological data. Some and will be identified as such in the first para-
books cover excavation methods, others statis- graph. It is not a manual to teach how to carry
tics, classification, faunal analysis, out statistical tests, which we would now do
palaeoethnobotany, or archaeometry, while still with computers rather than manually. Where I
others deal with spatial analysis or computer provide a practical example, however, I recom-
applications, but none with the common threads mend that readers try to work their way through
that tie all these things to a core of archaelogical it, simply to have a better understanding of how
practice. In addition, there is often a gulf be- or why something works. Although I have writ-
tween method and theory, when, in fact, no ten the book with undergraduates in mind,
method is useful unless it is informed by theory. graduate students may also find it useful as a
This is not an encyclopedic manual for any of reference, particularly the bibliographies and
these subjects, but an attempt to pull together the introductions to measurement theory, use of
the common threads of archaeological analyti- graphs, database design, and sampling. For most
cal concepts. Rather than provide a statistics text of the remainder, such as lithics analysis and the
with archaeological examples, my purpose is to like, graduate students will find it more useful
emphasize how archaeological data are formed to consult the more specialized literature cited
and recorded, how they are classified or grouped here.
together for analysis, and some relatively sim-
Since I wrote the first draft of this book,
ple but important ways these data can be ma-
Sutton and Arkush (1998) published Archaeo-
nipulated, compared, examined, or presented
logical Laboratory Methods. Their book introduces
to extract information from them and to com-
the analyses of materials such as lithics, pottery,
municate it to an audience. Whether readers
animal bones, and plant remains, generally at a
intend to specialize in stratigraphy, phytolith
less advanced level than here, and includes some
viii The Archaeologist’s Laboratory
topics, such as glass, textiles, and historical arti- are not unique to processual archaeology. I em-
facts, that are not specifically treated here. It phasize the point that we as archaeologists create
may be appropriate for first- or second-year the measures, categories, and concepts that we
archaeological students who are not yet pre- use to observe, organize, and interpret the evi-
pared to tackle some of the readings in this book. dence of the past. That does not mean thatthese
It is also more focussed on American archaeol- creations are not valid or that one set of concepts
ogy and does not cover the more theoretical or is as good as any other. What it does mean is that
quantitative topics. the concepts appropriate for one program of
research may not be as useful for another, and
A few words are in order about my own
that we should think very carefully about the
interests, influences and theoretical perspective,
concepts we use when we are designing our
which, although I do try to present alternative
research, rather than simply copying the catego-
views, clearly guide the direction of this book.
ries and measures of someone else’s research
My early archaeological training shaped me
uncritically. Another point I make throughout is
into some version of a “processual” archaeolo-
that it is very easy to mislead others, and our-
gist, with the view that archaeology could ben-
selves, about the significance of our results if we
efit from the methods of science. My early interest
do not take into account that the observations
in archaeometry also contributed to this view.
we make are prone to various kinds of errors
At the same time, my universitytrainingbridged
and are usually on imperfect samples rather
the Anthropology and Near Eastern Studies
than on the whole in which we are interested.
departments at University of Toronto, and I was
Finally, I stress that the set of concepts we use
also influenced by classicists and historians.
makes an integrated whole, so that it does not
Consequently, I had a greater appreciation than
make sense to segregate archaeological theory
manyprocessual archaeologists at the time for
into zooarchaeological theory, lithics theory, and
the methodology of history, and I knew that
so on. All analysis in archaeology, even though
history was not the unsophisticated chronicling
there are some uniqueproblems, shares a large
of events that some processual archaeologists
number of basic theoretical and methodological
suggested it was. Historians had also long been
concerns.
aware that our interpretation of the past was
colored by our own experiences and culture, as My writing has had other major influences
well as those of texts’ authors, a view that did as well. My way of viewing probability, inferen-
not have wide currency in anthropological ar- tial statistics, and research design has been in-
chaeology until the 1980s. This background made fluenced by Bayesian analysis, and particularly
me receptive to aspects of the “post-processual” the work of Buck, Cavanagh, and Litton (1996).
program. I still felt that plausible archaeological Their work and that of others who have applied
analysis and interpretation should have some Bayesian analysis to archaeological problems
scientific rigor, in the sense that arguments especially influenced chapters 4 and 15. Al-
should be logical and consistent both internally though most of the statistics presented here are
and with our observations, but I found thatpost- not particularly Bayesian, I consider it essential
processual relativism was not diametrically op- that students are at least aware of this important
posed to science (cf. VanPool and VanPool 1999). approach. My views on systematics are most
Indeed, philosophers of science, even a century heavily influenced by the work of Dunnell (1971;
ago, were aware that scientific observations were 1986), as is fairly obvious in chapter 3, but I have
affected by the preconceptions—the theoretical found that I agree with many views of Adams
baggage — of the scientist. Furthermore, even and Adams (1991), even though our use of ter-
the most vocal post-processualists make use of minology differs and I, like Dunnell, make the
measurements and data — see, for example, distinction between classification and group-
Shanks and Tilley’s (1987) analysis of attributes ing. Another major influence on my views on
of beer cans — and are particularly concerned archaeological data and analysis is Clive Orton,
with meaning in data. I agree with Orton (1988) and especially his papers on quantification cited
that measurement and quantitative methods in chapter 5.
Preface ix
Although I have aimed at a reasonable bal- In addition to generaltheoretical and meth-
ance of views in the book, it is clear that these odological issues, the text provides basic intro-
influences have had a strong effect on the out- ductions to some common kinds of
come, and that I feel strongly about some issues, archaeological analyses by focussing on lithics,
such as measurement error and the futility of pottery, animal bones, and plant remains, as
complete “objectivity” in analysis. While I do well as other laboratory skills, such as illustra-
not expect all archaeologists to agree with my tion and conservation. I make no claim to be an
own use of terminology or presentation of con- expert in any of these specializations, although
cepts, I believe it is important for all archaeolo- as an archaeologist who runs a lab in Toronto
gists to be clear what they mean by the terms and and a field project in Jordan I must deal with
concepts they use. While I agree with Adams them at some level on a regular basis. It is
and Adams (1991) that archaeological practice important to remember that these chapters are
often does not consciously adhere to some theo- not exhaustive treatments, but only introduc-
retical program, that there has been a large gap tions to what is, after all, a vast literature on
between practice and theory, and that much these subjects. To keep the volume from getting
everyday work is largely intuitive, I still believe unwieldy, I also had to make the painful deci-
that it is useful to be able to recognize the types sion to omit some topics, such as human re-
of concepts and tools that archaeologists are mains, spatial analysis, and microrefuse.
using, whether intuitively or consciously. Some
In general, the chapters begin with concepts,
parts of this book are an attempt to make stu-
terms, and a selection of basic measurements
dents and others aware of the conceptual struc- commonly found in some kinds of current re-
ture that lies behind everyday archaeological search, followed by brief discussion of several
laboratory practice. kinds of laboratory research involving those
materials,such as stylistic analysis of lithics or
The Organization of the Book
inferringseasonality from faunal remains. These
are not intended to instruct students how to do
The various aspects of archaeological research
stylistic analysis or measure growth increments
are so interrelated that it is difficult to discuss
on shell, for example, but only to familiarize
one without reference to the others. Conse-
them with the range of research in that field and
quently, some topics, such as sampling, are de-
some of the measurement and analytical prob-
layed until after the reader has covered some
lems they entail.
basic concepts in the definition and recording of
data, and some of the more challenging aspects Throughout the book, words shown in bold
of data compilations are left for the end of chap- refer to significant concepts and terms. My own
ter 3. Although the book is designed as a course definitions for these, which may differ from
text, with chapters often building on concepts others’ definitions, appear in the glossary and
presented in previous ones, readers and instruc- usually also when they are first mentioned in
tors may want to reorder the chapters to suit the text.
themselves or use only parts of chapters. For
My web site provides sample laboratory
example, some instructors may want to cover
exercises that include suggestions as to how an
databases (chapter 3) with lithics (chapter 8),
instructor may implement them. They are based
quantification (chapter 5) in the context of oste-
on my own experiences of teaching laboratory
ology (chapter 10), or systematics (chapter 3)
methods to third- and fourth-year undergradu-
along with pottery (chapter 9). I consciously
ates at University of Toronto over a period of
decided not to omit more difficult material,
seven years, and are intended to illustrate spe-
partly to avoid “talking down” to students and
cific concepts in the book, such as the effect of
partly so that it would be available for future
sample size on standard error, as well as to
reference. Instuctors may suggest that students
expose students to different kinds of archaeo-
skip the equations or more difficult passages if
logical materials. I fully expect that instructors
they might prove an impediment.
who choose to use the book as a text would want
x The Archaeologist’s Laboratory
to modify the exercises (and I have sometimes References Cited
suggested directions such modifications might
Adams, W. Y., and E. W. Adams, 1991, Archaeological Typol-
take), to add others and to make omissions and ogy and Practical Reality, A Dialectical Approach to Artifact
substitutions. Some instructors, I know, already Classification and Sorting. Cambridge University Press,
have long-standing courses in laboratory meth- Cambridge.
ods and their own time-tested sets of exercises. Buck, C. E., Cavanagh, W. G., and Litton, C. D., 1996, Bayesian
The manual is a guide that will, I hope, help Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
those instructors who need some ideas about
Drennan, R. D., 1996, Statistics for Archaeologists. A
how to turn some of the book’s concepts into a
Commonsense Approach. Plenum Press, New York.
hands-on experience for students. Its URL is:
Dunnell, R. C., 1971, Systematics in Prehistory. New York: Free
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~banning/
Press.
manual
— 1986, Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classifi-
This book has benefitted from the comments cation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory
of many colleagues and students in its several 9:149-207.
iterations over the last five or six years. Many Fletcher, M., and Lock, G. R., 1991, Digging Numbers: Elemen-
thanks to the anonymous reviewers as well as tary Statistics for Archaeologists. Oxford: Oxford University
Committee for Archaeology.
James Barrett, Roelph Beukens, Mark Blackham,
Orton, C., 1980, Mathematics in Archaeology. Cambridge Uni-
Bill Cavanagh, Michael Chazan, James Conolly,
versity Press, Cambridge.
Max Friesen, Andrew Garrard, Alicia Hawkins,
— 1988, Review of Quantitative Research in Archaeology (ed.
David Lasby, Bob Laxton, Susan Maltby, Louise
M. S. Aldenderfer 1987). Antiquity 62:597-98.
Martin, Steve Monckton, Clive Orton, Larry
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987, Re-Constructing Archaeology:
Pavlish, Rula Shafiq, Cindy Shobbrook, Julian
Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Siggers, Joe Stewart, Karen Wright, and several bridge.
classes of students for corrections and helpful Shennan, S., 1988, Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh Uni-
suggestions on various parts of this book. Barb versity Press, Edinburgh.
Leskovec and Jacqueline Stagen helped with the Sutton, M. Q., and Arkush, B. S., 1998, Archaeological Labora-
index. Of course I take responsibility for the tory Methods: An Introduction. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IO.
remainingerrors. Thanks also to Eliot Werner Thomas, D. H., 1986, Refiguring Anthropology: First Principles
for his interest in the project. of Probability and Statistics. Waveland Press, Prospect
Heights, IL.
E. B. Banning
VanPool, C. S., and VanPool, T. L., 1999, The scientific nature
Toronto, Canada of postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64:33-53.
Credits
Thanks are due to the following for permission to repro- 16.15 (right), 16.16, 16.17, 16.18; Oxford University Press
duce illustrations or quotations. for figure 9.5; F. A. Lone, M. Khan and G. M. Buth,
Srinagar, Kashmir, India, for figure 11.14; Reed-Elsevier
Academic Press, J. Dean, M. A. Hardin, and J. Stein for for figures 9.13 and 9.14; The Royal Ontario Museum for
figures 9.28, 12.5, 15. 2; Antiquity and J. S. Holladay for figures 9.12, 16.15 (left), 16.19; Robert Smith and Col-
figures 16.9, 16.10, 16.11, 16.12; Mark Blackham for fig- lege of Wooster for figure 3.12; The Smithsonian Institu-
ure 14.5; Don R. Brothwell for figure 10.7; Burterworth tion for figure 9.20; Taraxacum and Owen Rye for figures
Heinemann for figures 12.8 and 12.9; Cambridge Univer- 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.21, 9.26;
sity Press for figures 2.15, 9.29, 12.1, 12.12; Carnegie and John Wiley & Sons for figures 13.1, 15.8, and 15.9.
Institution for figure 9.27; Harper-Collins Publishers for Figures 16.4, 16.5, 16.6 are from L. Addington’s Lithic
the quotation from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mainte- Illustration in the Prehistoric Archeology and Ecology
nance by Robert Pirsig, pp. 274-5; IsoTrace Laboratories Series, edited by K. Butzer and L. Freeman, used by
and Roelph Beukens for figure 15.6; David Newlands, permisssion of University of Chicago Press (© 1986 by
Claus Breede and McGraw-Hill for figures 9.1, 16.7, 16.8, The University of Chicago).