Advertisement

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 199–207 | Cite as

Investigating the scale of prehistoric social networks using culture, language, and point types in western North America

  • Briggs BuchananEmail author
  • Marcus J. Hamilton
  • James C. Hartley
  • Steven L. Kuhn
Original Paper
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

We examine the spatial scale of prehistoric social networks represented by point types documented in western North America through comparison with ethnohistorically documented Native American interactive networks at different levels of inclusion. The ethnohistorical data come from Joseph Jorgensen’s (1980) Western Indians, which maps tribal boundaries at European contact and the associated language lineage for each tribe. We assume that frequency of interaction follows language relationships. Proximity aside, people will share ideas more often if they possess a language, or part of a language, in common. We use tribal regions and different levels of language affiliation (families, large language groupings, and phyla) that represent increasingly broad spatial scales of social interaction. We compare these measures with the areas calculated for point types in the same general region to determine which level of social interaction recorded ethnohistorically best fits with the point type data. Our analyses show that point type areas most closely resemble the spatial extents of large language groupings and language phyla. The areas of point types are greater than individual tribal regions recorded in western North America at the time of European contact and language families. Based on these results, we suggest that the conflation of point types with prehistoric cultures commonly implied in archeology is not justified. Building on the fundamental ideas of the culture historians, we suggest that point type distributions are a consequence of extensive social interaction networks where combinations of functional and neutral point traits are shared and inherited over a large area.

Keywords

Point types Networks Ethnohistory Languages Western North America 

Supplementary material

12520_2017_537_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)
12520_2017_537_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (12 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 12 kb)

References

  1. Ahler SA (1971) Projectile point form and function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Research series 1. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D (2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat 29:1165–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentley RA, Shennan SJ (2003) Cultural transmission and stochastic network growth. Am Antiq 68:459–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan B, O’Brien MJ, Collard M (2016) Drivers of technological richness in prehistoric Texas: an archaeological test of the risk and population size hypotheses. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 8:625–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell L (1997) American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford studies in anthropological linguistics 4, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Croes DR (1989) Prehistoric ethnicity on the Northwest Coast of North America: an evaluation of style in basketry and lithics. J Anthropol Arch 8:101–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeLancey S, Golla V (1997) The Penutian hypothesis: retrospect and prospect. Int J Am Linguistics 63:171–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donnelly SM, Kramer A (1999) Testing for multiple species in fossil samples: an evaluation and comparison of tests for equal relative variation. Am J Phys Anthropol 108:507–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunnell RC (1986) Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification. Adv Archaeol Method Theory 9:149–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eerkens JW, Lipo CP (2005) Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of variation in material culture and the archaeological record. J Anthropol Archaeol 24:316–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fligner MA, Killeen TJ (1976) Distribution-free two-sample tests for scale. J Am Stat Assoc 71:210–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goddard I (1996) The classification of the native languages of North America. In: Goddard I (ed) Handbook of North American Indians, Languages, vol 17. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp 290–323Google Scholar
  13. Golla V (2000) Language families of North America. In: Renfrew C (ed) America past, America present: genes and languages in the Americas and beyond. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp 59–72Google Scholar
  14. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST—palaeontological statistics, ver. 1.35. Palaeontol Electron 4(9)Google Scholar
  15. Jorgensen J (1980) Western Indians: comparative environments, languages, and cultures of 172 western American Indian tribes. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. Justice ND (1987) Stone Age spear and arrow points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Justice ND (2002a) Stone Age spear and arrow points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Justice ND (2002b) Stone Age spear and arrow points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Justice ND, Kudlaty SK (1999) Field guide to projectile points of the Midwest. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaufman T, Golla V (2000) Language groupings in the New World: their reliability and usability in cross-disciplinary studies. In: Renfrew C (ed) America past, America present: genes and languages in the Americas and beyond. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp 47–55Google Scholar
  21. Langdon M (1979) Some thoughts on Hokan with particular reference to Pomoan and Yuman. In: Campbell L, Mithun M (eds) The languages of Native America: historical and comparative assessment. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 592–649Google Scholar
  22. LeTourneau PD (1998) The “Folsom problem.” In: Ramenofsky AF, Steffen A (eds) Unit issues in archaeology: measuring time, space, and material. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp 52–73Google Scholar
  23. Lycett SJ (2015) Cultural evolutionary approaches to artifact variation over time and space: basis, progress, and prospects. J Archaeol Sci 56:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N (2015) Toward a “quantitative genetic” approach to lithic variation. J Archaeol Method Theory 22:646–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyman RL, O’Brien MJ, Dunnell RC (1997) The rise and fall of culture history. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Narum SR (2006) Beyond Bonferroni: less conservative analyses for conservation genetics. Conserv Gen 7:783–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newell R, Kielman D, Constandse-Westermann T, Van Gijn A, Van Der Sanden WAB (1991) An inquiry into the ethnic resolution of Mesolithic regional groups: the study of their decorative ornaments in time and space. Brill Academic, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Brien MJ (2008) Cultural transmission and archaeology: issues and case studies. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Brien MJ, Lyman RL (2000) Applying evolutionary archaeology: a systematic approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Brien MJ, Lyman RL (2002) The epistemological nature of archaeological units. Anthropol Theory 2:37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Razali NM, Wah YB (2011) Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Komolgorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors, and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Model Analytics 2:21–33Google Scholar
  32. Shennan S (2002) Genes, memes, and human history: Darwinian archaeology and human evolution. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Wotzka HP (1997) Maßstabprobleme bei der ethnischen Deutung neolithischer ‘kulturen’. Das Altertum 43:163–176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Briggs Buchanan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marcus J. Hamilton
    • 2
    • 3
  • James C. Hartley
    • 1
  • Steven L. Kuhn
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of TulsaTulsaUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Santa Fe InstituteSanta FeUSA
  4. 4.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations