Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:21:07.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reliability of Using Surface Data for Seriation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2017

Jordan T. Downey
Jordan T. Downey*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario (alumni), 748 Platt's Lane, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 5E5 (jtdowney@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Archaeological sites are often dated through seriation analysis of artifacts found on the site's surface. This relative dating method remains common despite the widespread availability of absolute dating methods because it is fast and cost-effective compared to scientific dating methods such as radiocarbon dating. Surface seriation is especially important for regional survey studies that involve a large number of sites and little to no excavation. In this context it is important to ask: are surface assemblages as reliable an indicator of the age of a site as determined through excavation? This unique study addresses this question using data from seven sites in the Virú Valley on the north coast of Peru. Surface assemblages are compared with excavated ones using the G-test statistic. It is found that surface assemblages do not closely resemble excavated ones in a statistically significant sense. Nevertheless, the relative date of surface assemblages typically resembles the relative date of excavated assemblages. Caution is urged when dating surface assemblages purely through seriation because the surface may not actually be representative of excavated assemblages.

Los sitios arqueológicos son a menudo fechados a través del análisis por seriación de los artefactos encontrados en superficie. Este método de datación relativa sigue siendo común a pesar de la amplia disponibilidad de métodos de datación absoluta, ya que es rápido y económico en comparación con los métodos de datación científica tales como la datación por radiocarbono. La seriación de superficie es especialmente importante para los estudios de reconocimiento regional que incluyen un gran número de sitios con poca o ninguna excavación. En este contexto, es importante preguntarse: ¿Es el análisis de las recolecciones de superficie un indicador tan confiable de la edad de un sitio como lo es la excavación? Este es un estudio único que analiza la pregunta utilizando datos de siete sitios en el valle de Virú, en la costa norte de Perú. Se comparan los conjuntos de superficie y los conjuntos excavados utilizando el metodo estadístico de la prueba G. Encontramos que, estadísticamente, los conjuntos de superficie no se parecen mucho a los excavados. Sin embargo, el fechamiento relativo de los conjuntos de superficie normalmente es parecido al fechamiento relativo de los conjuntos excavados. Se recomienda precaución al asignar una fecha a los conjuntos de superficie solamente por medio de seriación ya que es posible que estos no representen los conjuntos excavados.

Type
Articles
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 26 - 43
Copyright
Copyright 2017 © Society for American Archaeology 

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

Barrientos, Gustavo, Catella, Luciana, and Oliva, Fernando 2015 The Spatial Structure of Lithic Landscapes: The Late Holocene Record of East-Central Argentina as a Case Study. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22:1151–1192.Google Scholar
Barton, C. Michael, Bernabeu, Joan, Emili Aura, J., Garcia, Oreto, Schmich, Steven, and Molina, Lluis 2004 Long-Term Socioecology and Contingent Landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11 (3):253–295.Google Scholar
Bennett, Wendell C. 1939 Archaeology of the North Coast of Peru: An Account of Exploration and Excavation in Virú and Lambayeque Valleys. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 37, No. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Bennett, Wendell C. 1950 The Gallinazo Group, Virú Valley, Peru. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bennyhoff, James A. 1952 The Virú Valley Sequence: A Critical Review. American Antiquity 17:231–249.Google Scholar
Bevan, Andrew, and Conolly, James 2009 Modelling Spatial Heterogeneity and Nonstationarity in Artifact-Rich Landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:956–964.Google Scholar
Billman, Brian R. 1996 The Evolution of Prehistoric Political Organizations in the Moche Valley, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Bintliff, John 2005 Human Impact, Land-Use History, and the Surface Archaeological Record: A Case Study from Greece. Geoarchaeology 20 (2):135–147.Google Scholar
Christenson, Andrew L. 1994 A Test of Mean Ceramic Dating Using Well-Dated Kayenta Anasazi Sites. Kiva 59 (3):297–317.Google Scholar
Collier, Donald A. 1955 Cultural Chronology and Change as Reflected in the Ceramics of the Virú Valley, Peru. Fieldiana: Anthropology Vol. 43. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Contreras, Daniel A. 2010 Huaqueros and Remote Sensing Imagery: Assessing Looting Damage in the Virú Valley, Peru. Antiquity 84:554–555.Google Scholar
Davies, Benjamin, Holdaway, Simon J., and Fanning, Patricia C. 2015 Modelling the Palimpsest: An Exploratory Agent-Based Model of Surface Archaeological Deposit Formation in a Fluvial Arid Australian Landscape. Holocene 26 (3):450–463.Google Scholar
Donnan, Christopher B. 2009 The Gallinazo Illusion. In Gallinazo: An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Millaire, Jean-Françcois and Morlion, Magali, pp. 17–32. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Downey, Jordan T. 2014 Statecraft in the Virú Valley, Peru, in the First Millennium A.D. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.Google Scholar
Downey, Jordan T., and Millaire, Jean-François 2015 Anchoring the Absolute to the Relative: Recent Chronological Research in the Virú Valley, Peru. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C., and Dancey, William S. 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:267–287.Google Scholar
Fanning, Patricia, and Holdaway, Simon 2001 Stone Artifact Scatters in Western NSW, Australia: Geomorphic Controls on Artifact Size and Distribution. Geoarchaeology 16 (6):667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-López de Pablo, Javier, and , C. Michael Barton 2016 Bayesian Estimation Dating of Lithic Surface Collections. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22:559–583.Google Scholar
Fogel, Heidy 1993 Settlements in Time: A Study of Social and Political Development during the Gallinazo Occupation of the North Coast of Perú. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Ford, James A. 1949 Cultural Dating of Prehistoric Sites in Virú Valley, Peru. In Surface Survey of the Virú Valley, Peru, edited by Ford, James A. and Willey, Gordon R., pp. 29–89. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 43, No. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Ford, James A. 1952 Reply to “The Virú Valley Sequence: A Critical Review.” American Antiquity 17:250.Google Scholar
Ford, James A., and Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Virú Valley: Background and Problems. In Surface Survey of the Virú Valley, Peru, edited by Ford, James A. and Willey, Gordon R., pp. 11–28. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 43, No. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Holdaway, Simon, Shiner, Justin, and Fanning, Patricia 2004 Hunter-Gatherers and the Archaeology of Discard Behavior: An Analysis of Surface Stone Artifacts from Sturt National Part, Western New South Wales, Australia. Asian Perspectives 43 (1):34–72.Google Scholar
Koons, Michele, and Alex, Bridget 2014 Revised Moche Chronology Based on Bayesian Models of Reliable Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 56 (3):1039–1055.Google Scholar
Larco Hoyle, Rafael 1945 La cultura Virú. Museo Rafael Larco Herrera, Chiclín, Peru.Google Scholar
Lewarch, Dennis E., and O'Brien, Michael J. 1981 The Expanding Role of Surface Assemblages in Archaeological Research. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4:297–342.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and O'Brien, Michael J. 2006 Measuring Time with Artifacts: A History of Methods in American Archaeology. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
McDonald, John H. 2014a Handbook of Biological Statistics. 3rd ed. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore.Google Scholar
McDonald, John H. 2014b G-test of Independence. Electronic document, http://www.biostathandbook.com/gtestind.html, accessed May 1, 2016.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François 2004 Gallinazo - Moche Interactions at Huaca Santa Clara, Virú Valley (North Coast of Peru). Paper presented to the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François 2009a Gallinazo and the Tradición Norcosteña . In Gallinazo: An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Millaire, Jean-Françcois and Morlion, Magali, pp. 1–16. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François 2009b Woven Identities in the Virú Valley. In Gallinazo: An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Millaire, Jean-François and Morlion, Magali, pp. 149–165. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François 2010 Moche Political Expansionism as Viewed from Virú: Recent Archaeological Work in the Close Periphery of a Hegemonic City-State System. In New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization, edited by Quilter, Jeffrey and Castillo, Luis Jaime, pp. 223–251. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François, and Eastaugh, Edward 2011 Ancient Urban Morphology in the Virú Valley, Peru: Remote Sensing Work at the Gallinazo Group (100 B.C.–A.D. 700). Journal of Field Archaeology 36 (4):289–297.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François, and Eastaugh, Edward 2014 Geophysical Survey on the Coast of Peru: The Early Prehispanic City of Gallinazo Group in the Virú Valley. Latin American Antiquity 25:239–255.Google Scholar
Mills, Barbara J, Clark, Jeffery J., Peeples, Matthew A., Haas, W. Randall Jr., Roberts, John M. Jr., Hill, J. Brett, Huntley, Deborah L., Borck, Lewis, Breiger, Ronald L., Clauset, Aaron, and Shackley, M. Steven 2013 Transformation of Social Networks in the Late Pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (15):5785–5790.Google Scholar
Moseley, Michael E. 2001 The Incas and Their Ancestors: The Archaeology of Peru. 2nd ed. Thames and Hudson, New York.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Michael J., and Lyman, R. Lee 1999 Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dating. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Ortman, Scott G. 2016 Uniform Probability Density Analysis and Population History in the Northern Rio Grande. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23:95–126.Google Scholar
Ortman, Scott G., Varien, Mark D., and Gripp, T. Lee 2007 Empirical Bayesian Methods for Archaeological Survey Data: An Application from the Mesa Verde Region. American Antiquity 72:241–272.Google Scholar
Quilter, Jeffrey 2014 The Ancient Central Andes. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Roberts, John. M., Jr., Mills, Barbara J., Clark, Jeffery J., Haas, W. Randall Jr., Huntley, Deborah L., and Trowbridge, Meaghan 2012 A Method for Chronological Apportioning of Ceramic Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:1513–1520.Google Scholar
Sherman, R. Jason, Balkansky, Andrew K., Spencer, Charles S., and Nicholls, Brian D. 2010 Expansionary Dynamics of the Nascent Monte Albán State. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:278–301.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R., and Rohlf, F. James 1981 Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 2nd ed. Freeman, W.H., New York.Google Scholar
South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Steponaitis, Vincas P., and Kintigh, Keith W. 1993 Estimating Site Occupation Spans from Dated Artifact Types: Some New Approaches. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by Williams, Stephen and Stoltman, James B., pp. 349–361. Archaeological Report 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.Google Scholar
Strong, William D., and Evans, Clifford Jr. 1952 Cultural Stratigraphy in the Virú Valley Northern Peru: The Formative and Florescent Epochs. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Strong, William D, Evans, Clifford Jr., and Lilien, Rose 1952 Appendix I: Description of Pottery Types. In Cultural Stratigraphy in the Virú Valley Northern Peru: The Formative and Florescent Epochs, by Strong, William D. and Evans, Clifford Jr., pp. 253–351. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, LuAnn 1992 Archaeological Landscape Studies. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by Rossignol, Jacqueline and Wandsnider, LuAnn, pp. 285–292. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, LuAnn 2004 Solving the Puzzle of the Archaeological Labyrinth: Time Perspectivism in Mediterranean Surface Archaeology. In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, edited by Alcock, Susan and Cherry, John F., pp. 49–62. Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar
Whalen, Michael E., and Minnis, Paul E. 2012 Ceramics and Polity in the Casas Grandes Area, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 77:403–423.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Tony J. 1989 Extensive Sherd Scatters and Land-Use Intensity: Some Recent Results. Journal of Field Archaeology 16 (1):31–46.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Perú. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin Vol. 155. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Wilson, David J. 1988 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Lower Santa Valley Peru: A Regional Perspective on the Origins and Development of Complex North Coast Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Winter-Livneh, Rona, Svoray, Tal, and Gilead, Isaac 2010 Settlement Patterns, Social Complexity and Agricultural Strategies during the Chalcolithic Period in the Northern Negev, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:285–294.Google Scholar
Zoubek, Thomas Andrew 1997 The Initial Period Occupation of Huaca El Gallo/Huaca La Gallina, Virú Valley, Peru and Its Implications for Guañape Phase Social Complexity. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Zvelebil, Marek, Green, Stanton W., and Macklin, Mark G. 1992 Archaeological Landscapes, Lithic Scatters, and Human Behavior. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by Rossignol, Jacqueline and Wandsnider, LuAnn, pp. 193–226. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Downey supplementary material

Downey supplementary material 1

Download Downey supplementary material(File)
File 50 KB