Bocquet-Appel on the NDT

In a Science podcast, Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel discusses the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT). This is in conjunction with his recent Science editorial marking the milestone of 7 billion humans on the planet earth. This is great exposure for a tremendously important idea that I have been studying for the past six years or so, as you can see in my list of publications (particularly this one, and also my recent edited volume with Jake Fox; I need to update that list).

I haven't seen a lot of reaction so far. There is a post on this on Dienekes' Blog, complete with the kind of superficial, ill-thought-out criticism that can only be found in blog comment threads.

Huatacoa is now online

Amanda Cohen's dissertation is finally available on-line as a PDF. This important document describes the excavation of the earliest sunken court structure known from the Lake Titicaca Basin, as well as several subsequent sunken courts constructed in the same location. This is a must-read for any self-respecting Andeanist.

Why Anthropology is Bad for Archaeology

A recent job posting for Colgate University on the SAA website illustrates some ways in which the continuing identification of archaeology with anthropology is a Bad Thing for archaeology and for archaeologists. The post in question reads as follows:

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Colgate University invites applications for a tenure-stream position in Anthropology at the level of Assistant Professor (Ph.D. expected by time of appointment) to commence in the 2011-2012 academic year. The Department invites applications from candidates committed to interdisciplinarity, ethnographic fieldwork, and social theory. [...]. Teaching interests in one or more of the following are desirable: transnationalism or migration; social movements; collaborative or indigenous archaeology; race and postcolonial theory; urban ethnography; medicine and the body. Geographic area of expertise is open, but the department especially encourages applications from candidates who work in Latin America, South or Southeast Asia. Teaching duties will include Introduction to Cultural Anthropology or Research Methods, and a Senior Research Seminar, and will include participation in the University’s Liberal Arts Core Curriculum (teaching an interdisciplinary course in the candidate’s areas of specialization). [...]

Of course, I have no idea what the context of this advertisement might be, but the fact that it was listed on the SAA website suggests that there is some intent to hire an archaeologist. However, a quick read of the text shows that they really want a cultural anthropologist, since their areas of interest and teaching duties have very little to do with anything that archaeology, as a discipline, might find interesting or substantive.

Steadman Upham, currently the president of the University of Tulsa, and an accomplished archaeologist, argues in a 2004 essay in the SAA Archaeological Record, that archaeology is poorly served by its disciplinary association with Anthropoology, which he describes as a "mature field" that has "lost important academic ground in the last decade." Reading the Colgate job posting makes clear one of the reasons why this is the case. From a disciplinary perspective, Anthropology is a lodestone hanging from the neck of Archaeology.

Uphams's solution, in part, is this:

[...] the field of archaeology must secure a separate and distinct institutional identity within the academy. What this means in different institutional contexts will vary, but archaeology requires an identity that segregates it from its most fractious and fragmented social science and humanistic kin on the one hand and places it outside of departments of anthropology on the other.

I agree completely.

Becoming Villagers

The Book, as I like to call it, is out. It was officially published in September. I think it looks great, contains some terrific scholarship, and I can't wait to hear what people think of it. Thanks to Jake Fox, my wonderful co-editor, without whom this thing would never have been completed. You can buy it on Amazon!

Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Societies

Edited by Matthew S. Bandy and Jake R. Fox

The shift from mobile hunting and gathering to more sedentary, usually agricultural, lifeways was one of the most significant milestones in the prehistory of humanity. This transformation was spurred by an alignment of social and ecological forces, pressures, and adaptations, and it took place in broadly comparable ways in many prehistoric settings.

Based on a Society for American Archaeology symposium and subsequent Amerind Advanced Seminar in 2006, Becoming Villagers examines this transformation at various places and times across the globe by focusing not on the origins of agriculture and village life but rather on their consequences. The goal of the volume is to identify regularities in the ways that societies developed in the centuries and millennia following a transition to village life. Using cases that range from China to Bolivia and from the Near East to the American Southwest, leading archaeologists situate their specific areas of specialization in a broad comparative context.

They consider the forces acting to divide and fragment early villages and the social technologies and practices by which those obstacles were, in some cases, overcome. Finally, the volume examines the long-term historical trajectories of these early village societies.

This transformative collection makes a powerful case for a renewed and invigorated archaeological focus on large-scale comparative studies. It will be an essential read for anyone interested not only in early village societies but also in the ways in which archaeology relates to anthropology, other social sciences, and history.

The image at the top is the source for the cover art. Unfortunately, it is yet another engraving from Theodore de Bry depicting a New England village scene. De Bry engravings are a very popular source of imagery for archaeological texts. I had originally proposed an engraving from a 1707 edition of Hans Staden's description of his captivity among the Tupinambá of Brazil. (second image). I thought this was great and different until the editor pointed out that it depicted an execution scene in the plaza of a village, and that the palisade was surmounted by severed heads. We all decided that the de Bry image was probably a better choice after all.

Massacre at Sacred Ridge

There is a really nice write-up by Science News of some excellent work directed by Jim Potter, a colleague of mine at SWCA. The tone is a bit breathless, but the data are fascinating and compelling. His team has documented the remains of a massacre of 35 or more people that took place in the early 800s in southwestern Colorado, in which an entire village (Sacred Ridge) seems to have been wiped out in spectacular fashion.

It's worth noting, also, that just Jim recently finished supervising and editing a 16-volume report on the results the Animas-La Plata project, of which the Sacred Ridge Excavations were a part. It's a monumental effort documenting one of the great archaeological projects of recent decades. The skeletal evidence is reported in Volume XV (not available yet on the U of A press website), and the Sacred Ridge excavations in Volume XII.

Archaeological Patterning across Southern Wyoming: Part 2

In a previous post, I visually examined the distributions of some artifact, feature, and site types across southern Wyoming along and East-West gradient. This inspection produced evidence for a transition between the Plains and Wyoming Basin cultural patterns in the vicinity of Rawlins. In this post, I examine the same data using a range of statistical techniques and come to the same conclusion - but with cooler charts! You will need to read the previous post first in order for this one to make sense.

---

Visual inspection of east/west distribution graphs, discussed above, identified eight variables as potential differentiators between the eastern and western areas of southern Wyoming. These are stone cairns and alignments, ceramics, FCR and thermal features, ground stone, housepits, rock art, stone circles, and steatite artifacts. To assess the statistical significance of these visually-identified differences, a chi-squared analysis was conducted. The visual inspection of the graphs suggested that the boundary between the eastern and western parts of the study area should be placed somewhere between R80W and R100W. For most artifact and feature types, the change was observed between R80W and R90W. For the purposes of the chi-squared analysis, therefore, Ranges were placed into two groups: a western group, located in R85W and further westward, and an eastern group, located east of R85W.

	Stone Circles	Ceramics	Ground Stone	FCR Thermal	Cairns Alignments	Rock Art	Housepits	Steatite	Totals
East	426	59	110	1423	213	5	3	2	2241
West	390	158	636	16614	361	86	60	13	18318
Totals	816	217	746	18037	592	91	63	15	20559

Table 1: Selected feature and artifact type counts organized by east/west. East/West line placed between Ranges 84W and 85W

Table 1 contains the counts of the potentially significant feature and artifact types organized into eastern and western groups. Pearson’s chi-squared test shows the difference between these two groups to be highly significant (χ2=2083.691, df=7, p<2.2x10-16).

Figure 1: Adjusted chi-squared residuals, artifact and feature types by East vs. West. East/West line placed between Ranges 84W and 85W. From left to right: cairns/alignments (C/A), ceramics (Cer), FCR/thermal features (FCR), ground stone (GS), housepits (HP), rock art (RA), stone circles (SC), and steatite (ST).

Further information can be gleaned from an inspection of the adjusted chi-squared residuals (Figure 1). These residuals provide a measure of the importance of specific variables in distinguishing between the two groups. Values above +2 and below -2 indicate significant deviations from expected values in the contingency table, providing a convenient threshold of statistical significance. When plotted, the residuals clearly show that only five of the eight variables meet this threshold of statistical significance. These are cairns and alignments, ceramics, FCR and thermal features, ground stone, and stone circles. Of these, ground stone is the weakest differentiator and stone circles the strongest. In general terms, then, the eastern group has significantly more sites with cairns/alignments, ceramics, and stone circles, and significantly fewer sites with FCR and thermal features than does the western group. This is not to say that there is no difference between the two areas in terms of rock art, housepits, or steatite artifacts, merely that given the current sample these variables do not significantly differ between the two groups. All three of these variables involve very low site counts (Table 1).

MDS and PCA

In order to assess the degree to which the five variables identified as significant in the chi-squared analysis distinguish between the eastern and western portions of the study area, a multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis was conducted. This technique assess the n-dimensional distance between Ranges based on the values of the five variables identified above, and attempts to approximate that relationship in a reduced number of dimensions, such that the data can be visualized on a graph. Only Ranges with more than 50 prehistoric occupations were included in the analysis. The analysis was conducted using the cmdscale function of the R statistical software package.

Figure 2: Multidimensional scaling of site assemblages, grouped by Range.

The results (Figure 2) indicate a clear separation of eastern and western areas in the sample. All of the Ranges west of R89W are located in a tight cluster in the lower right corner of the graph, while all Ranges east of R80W are clearly separated from the western cluster. The tight clustering of the western samples reflects large sample sizes and low variance, while the wider spread of eastern samples is probably produced by lower sample sizes. Interestingly, samples from R80-90W are located between the two other groups in a tight linear cluster, suggesting that this area is a kind of transition zone, consisting of a mix of the attributes that identify the western and eastern archaeological patterns. This could be produced either by a true cultural blend, or, perhaps more likely, by a cyclical shifting of the boundary between these two patterns with changes in paleoenvironmental conditions.

Figure 3: Multidimensional scaling of site assemblages, grouped by Range, labeled E/W. Ranges 80-90W excluded from analysis.

Figure 3 represents the results of a second MDS analysis, this one excluding Ranges in the transition zone (R80-90W). In this figure, Ranges are labeled with a single letter indicating membership in the western or eastern group. The separation of the groups in this graph is complete, with all of the western samples located in a tight cluster in the lower right corner. When the intermediate transition zone is excluded from the analysis, therefore, the groups are completely separated by this technique, with no overlap whatsoever.

Figure 4: Principal Components Analysis biplot of site assemblages, grouped by Range, labeled E/W. Ranges 80-90W excluded from analysis.

Figure 4 displays a biplot of the results of a principal components analysis (PCA) of Ranges using the same five variables that were employed in the MDS analysis. The analysis was conducted using the princomp function of the R statistical software package. The results are the same as the MDS analysis, but the superposition of variables on the biplot provides additional information on what differentiates these clusters. The eastern and western groups are completely separated on Principal Component 1, which is comprised primarily of the cairns/alignments, stone circles, and FCR/thermal variables. Ceramics and ground stone, though statistically significant, are the primary constituents of Principal Component 2, and are only weak differentiators of the two groups.

Summary

The results of this analysis suggest that archaeological patterns in southern Wyoming are strongly separated into distinct eastern and western patterns. The western pattern is characterized by a high frequency of FCR and thermal features, and the eastern pattern by high frequencies of stone circles, cairns, and alignments. The western pattern is predominant from R91W westward, and the eastern pattern from R79W eastward. The area in R80-90W appears to constitute a transitional zone, where elements of both patterns are combined. This could represent a cultural gradient between the two areas, the Plains to the east and the Wyoming Basin to the west. However, it seems more likely that this transition is produced by the east/west movement of the Plains/Wyoming Basin ecotone with changes in critical paleoenvironmental parameters such as temperature and precipitation. However, and adequate evaluation of this hypothesis would require analysis of the east/west pattern distinction through time, which is impossible with the available data.

Another significant factor that should be addressed but is currently intractable is the extent to which these western and eastern patterns reflect surface visibility and therefore differential site discovery and site recording in the southeastern and southwestern portions of the state. It is possible that high surface visibility in the Wyoming Basin leads to a higher discovery rate for ephemeral sites containing FCR and thermal features (and not containing stone features). It is not possible to evaluate this hypothesis at present. However, the fact that there is no significant difference between the two areas in terms of lithic artifact frequencies would suggest that differential site discovery is not the dominant factor structuring archaeological patterning at this large scale. A formal test of the influence of surface visibility is needed, though, before this possibility can be entirely discarded.

Don't get a Ph.D. Seriously.

Thanks to John Hawkes for pointing out this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. It deserves to be widely read. Here is a choice quote:

It's hard to tell young people that universities recognize that their idealism and energy — and lack of information — are an exploitable resource. For universities, the impact of graduate programs on the lives of those students is an acceptable externality, like dumping toxins into a river. If you cannot find a tenure-track position, your university will no longer court you; it will pretend you do not exist and will act as if your unemployability is entirely your fault. It will make you feel ashamed, and you will probably just disappear, convinced it's right rather than that the game was rigged from the beginning.

These are hard truths that are seldom aired publicly. Though the article focuses on the humanities, most of what he says also applies to Anthropology.

In archaeology, things are a bit different. I would counsel anyone wanting to pursue a career in CRM to get an M.A. It is definitely useful. A Ph.D., however, while it may prove useful at times, will never pay for itself. For the past four years ACRA has put out a report on salaries in archaeology. If you look through the results you will find that for a similar position and responsibilities an archaeologist with an M.A. makes about $10k more per year than an archaeologist with a Ph.D. Add to that the years in graduate school in which you will earn no salary and gain no real useful experience in the industry, and a Ph.D. in archaeology looks like a pretty bad investment.

Unless you want to be a tenure-track professor somewhere. Good luck with that. As the author of the Chronicle piece puts is, "the minority of candidates who get tenure-track positions might as well be considered the winners of a lottery."