Misunderstanding graphs: The confusion of biological clade diversity diagrams and archaeological frequency seriation diagrams.

Graph perception involves the accurate decipherment of (often quantitative) data displayed in visual form. Because graph style may reflect discipline-specific tradition, similar graph styles in distinct disciplines can be subject to misinterpretation. Both archaeologist James A. Ford and paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould confused spindle diagrams representing archaeological frequency seriation and paleontological clade diversity analysis as displaying the same kinds of data and representing the same processes. Similarities between the two kinds of analysis are, however, limited to the use of the same graph style-spindle diagrams-to illustrate the history of frequencies of things. The kinds of frequencies differ in two ways between the two disciplines; frequencies are of low-level Linnaean taxa within a clade representing a higher taxon in paleobiology, and are frequencies of artifact specimens within each of several types in archaeology. Further, frequencies are absolute in clade diversity and relative in frequency seriation. Clade diversity analysis, as practiced by Gould and colleagues, is a time-series analysis that requires knowing the age of taxa prior to analysis of the shape of the spindle diagram. Frequency seriation in archaeology involves ordering multiple collections of artifacts that share at least some types; ordering is based on similar frequencies and a presumed unimodal frequency distribution, and the order is inferred to be a chronology. Different analytical assumptions and goals result in discipline specific rules of graph decipherment, though each of the two kinds of analyses can be performed in each of the two disciplines.

A warrant for applied palaeozoology.

It has been argued by some neozoologists (those who study living animals) that the palaeozoological record is biased and incomplete (relative to an existing biological community) and therefore should not be consulted for purposes of conservation biology. An article published in a biology journal in 2011 lists numerous reasons why natural history collections (NHCs) of skins and skulls of animals collected over the past century or two are exceptionally valuable to conservation biologists because those collections provide significant time depth to numerous variables that document global biological change. Many of those same variables can be, and have been, identified in the palaeozoological record. Those variables are of major value to conservation biology, whether their values are taken from 100-year-old NHCs or from palaeozoological remains. Empirical examples in which the identified variables are measured in palaeozoological contexts indicate that the palaeozoological record should indeed be consulted by conservation biologists and can no longer be considered unsatisfactory for modern resource management.

Cultural traits as units of analysis.

Cultural traits have long been used in anthropology as units of transmission that ostensibly reflect behavioural characteristics of the individuals or groups exhibiting the traits. After they are transmitted, cultural traits serve as units of replication in that they can be modified as part of an individual's cultural repertoire through processes such as recombination, loss or partial alteration within an individual's mind. Cultural traits are analogous to genes in that organisms replicate them, but they are also replicators in their own right. No one has ever seen a unit of transmission, either behavioural or genetic, although we can observe the effects of transmission. Fortunately, such units are manifest in artefacts, features and other components of the archaeological record, and they serve as proxies for studying the transmission (and modification) of cultural traits, provided there is analytical clarity over how to define and measure the units that underlie this inheritance process.

Graphing evolutionary pattern and process: a history of techniques in archaeology and paleobiology.

Graphs displaying evolutionary patterns are common in paleontology and in United States archaeology. Both disciplines subscribed to a transformational theory of evolution and graphed evolution as a sequence of archetypes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. U.S. archaeologists in the second decade of the twentieth century, and paleontologists shortly thereafter, developed distinct graphic styles that reflected the Darwinian variational model of evolution. Paleobiologists adopted the view of a species as a set of phenotypically variant individuals and graphed those variations either as central tendencies or as histograms of frequencies of variants. Archaeologists presumed their artifact types reflected cultural norms of prehistoric artisans and the frequency of specimens in each type reflected human choice and type popularity. They graphed cultural evolution as shifts in frequencies of specimens representing each of several artifact types. Confusion of pattern and process is exemplified by a paleobiologist misinterpreting the process illustrated by an archaeological graph, and an archaeologist misinterpreting the process illustrated by a paleobiological graph. Each style of graph displays particular evolutionary patterns and implies particular evolutionary processes. Graphs of a multistratum collection of prehistoric mammal remains and a multistratum collection of artifacts demonstrate that many graph styles can be used for both kinds of collections.

Nomothetic science and idiographic history in twentieth-century Americanist anthropology.

For over a century, Americanist anthropologists have argued about whether their discipline is a historical one or a scientific one. Proponents of anthropology as history have claimed that the lineages of human cultures are made up of unique events that cannot be generalized into laws. If no laws can be drawn, then anthropology cannot be a science. Proponents of anthropology as science have claimed that there indeed are laws that govern humans and their behaviors and cultures, and these laws can be discovered. Interestingly, both sides have the same narrow view of what science is. The same sorts of debates over science and history were played out in evolutionary biology over a half-century ago, and what emerged was the view that that discipline and its sister discipline, paleontology, were both history and science--hence the term "historical sciences." Anthropology and its sister discipline, archaeology, have only recently begun to realize that they too are historical sciences.

Aboriginal overkill in the intermountain west of North America : Zooarchaeological tests and implications.

Zooarchaeological evidence has often been called on to help researchers determine prehistoric relative abundances of elk (Cervus elaphus) in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Some interpret that evidence as indicating elk were abundant; others interpret it as indicating elk were rare. Wildlife biologist Charles Kay argues that prehistoric faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites support his contention that aboriginal hunters depleted elk populations throughout the Intermountain West, including the Yellowstone area. To support his contention Kay cites differences between modern and prehistoric relative abundances of artiodactyls, age and sex demographics of ungulates in the prehistoric record indicating selective predation of prime-age females, and a high degree of fragmentation of artiodactyl bones indicating humans were under nutritional stress. Kay's data on taxonomic abundances are time and space averaged and thus mask much variation in elk abundances. When these data are not lumped they suggest that elk were at some times, in some places, as abundant as they are today. Data on the age-sex demography of artiodactyl prey are ambiguous or contradict Kay's predictions. Bone fragmentation data are variously nonexistent or ambiguous. The zooarchaeological implications of Kay's aboriginal overkill hypothesis have not yet undergone rigorous testing.

Two issues in archaeological phylogenetics: taxon construction and outgroup selection.

Cladistics is widely used in biology and paleobiology to construct phylogenetic hypotheses, but rarely has it been applied outside those disciplines. There is, however, no reason to suppose that cladistics is not applicable to anything that evolves by cladogenesis and produces a nested hierarchy of taxa. This includes cultural phenomena such as languages and tools recovered from archaeological contexts. Two methodological issues assume primacy in attempts to extend cladistics to archaeological materials: the construction of analytical taxa and the selection of appropriate outgroups. In biology the species is the primary taxonomic unit used, irrespective of the debates that have arisen in phylogenetic theory over the nature of species. Also in biology the phylogenetic history of a group of taxa usually is well enough known that an appropriate taxon can be selected as an outgroup. No analytical unit parallel to the species exists in archaeology, and thus taxa have to be constructed specifically for phylogenetic analysis. One method of constructing taxa is paradigmatic classification, which defines classes (taxa) on the basis of co-occurring, unweighted character states. Once classes have been created, a form of occurrence seriation-an archaeological method based on the theory of cultural transmission and heritability-offers an objective basis for selecting an outgroup.

The Late Prehistoric-Early Historic Game Sink in the Northwestern United States.

Historical data provide valuable information on ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The number of big game killed by the Corps of Discovery in 1805-1806 and recorded by Lewis and Clark suggests that ungulates were abundant in central and eastern Montana and rare in western Montana, central Idaho, and southeastern Washington during the early nineteenth century. Paleoecologists Paul Martin and Chris Szuter conclude that this difference was a function of human predation. They support their conclusion that ungulates would have been abundant in southeastern Washington had humans not hunted them by arguing that the nineteenth-century livestock industry was successful without supplemental feeding. The livestock industry was, however, not consistently successful until artificial feeding was initiated. Archaeological data from eastern Washington indicate that ungulates have been taken by human hunters more frequently than small-mammal prey throughout the last 10,000 years and that ungulates decreased relative to small mammals coincident with changes in climate. Bison ( Bison bison) and elk (Cervus canadensis) were present in eastern Washington throughout the Holocene, but bison were abundant there only during a cooler and moister period; elk have been abundant only in the twentieth century, subsequent to transplants and the extermination of predators. Geographic variation in the abundance of bison across Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington has been influenced by human predation but has also been influenced by biogeographic history, habitat differences, and climatic change.

RESUMEN: Los datos históricos proveen información valiosa sobre las estructuras de los ecosistemas, sus funciones y procesos. El número de animales de caza grandes que fueron sacrificados por las tropas de descubrimiento en 1805-1806 y registradas por Lewis y Clark sugieren que los ungulados eran abundantes en Montana central y oriental y raros en Montana occidental, Idaho central y el sudeste de Washington durante los inicios del siglo diecinueve. Los paleontólogos Paul Martin y Chris Szuter concluyen que esta diferencia fue causada por la depredación humana. Ellos apoyan su conclusión de que los ungulados podrían haber sido abundantes en el sudeste de Washington si los humanos no los hubieran cazado argumentando que la industria de la ganadería del siglo diecinueve exitosa sin alimento suplementario. Sin embargo, la industria de la ganadería no fue consistentemente exitosa hasta que se inició la alimentación artificial. Los datos arqueológicos de Washington oriental indican que los ungulados fueron eliminados por los cazadores humanos mas frecuentemente que las presas pequeñas de mamíferos a lo largo de los últimos 10,000 años y que la disminución de ungulados, relativa a la de mamíferos pequeños coincidió con cambios en el clima. El bisonte (Bison bison) y el alce (Cervus canadiensis) estuvieron presentes en Washington oriental a lo largo del Holoceno, pero los bisontes fueron abundantes solo durante un periodo mas frío y húmedo; los alces habían sido abundantes solo en el siglo veinte subsecuente a los transplantes y a la exterminación de los depredadores. La variación en la abundancia de alces a lo largo de Montana, Idaho y el oriente de Washington estuvo influenciada por la depredación humana, pero también por la historia biogeográfica, las diferencias en hábitat y el cambio climático.