The relationship between sample size and diversity in archaeological assemblages

Abstract Richness and diversity measures are commonly used in archaeology, as they provide valuable insight into the distribution and abundance of classes in stone, ceramic or faunal assemblages. However, richness and diversity measures can be (but are not always) prone to effects of sample size that potentially cloud their meaning. Various analytical techniques can be used to detect whether, in a particular sample, a relationship exists between richness and/or diversity values and sample size. But recently, based on an analysis of diversity in faunal assemblages, Cruz-Uribe (1988, Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 179–196) offered a general prescription: sample size effects on diversity are insignificant in samples larger than MNI of 25. If that conclusion is correct, it would profoundly simplify the use and interpretation of diversity indices. Unfortunately, after reviewing Cruz-Uribe's data and analysis, we conclude that the generalization that sample size effects disappear with samples of MNI over 25 is not demonstrably true of the original data set, nor exportable to others.

[1]  E. Odum.  Fundamentals of ecology , 1972 .

[2]  P. McCartney,et al.  Simulation Models and the Interpretation of Archaeological Diversity , 1990, American Antiquity.

[3]  D. Avery.  Micromammals as palaeoenvironmental indicators and an interpretation of the Late Quaternary in the southern Cape Province, South Africa , 1981 .

[4]  Marvin Kay,et al.  The analysis of animal bones from archeological sites , 1984 .

[5]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[6]  Keith W. Kintigh,et al.  Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages , 1984, American Antiquity.

[7]  E. H. Simpson.  Measurement of Diversity , 1949, Nature.

[8]  A. Magurran.  Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[9]  K. Cruz-Uribe.  The use and meaning of species diversity and richness in archaeological faunas , 1988 .

[10]  D. Grayson,et al.  Quantitative zooarchaeology: topics in the analysis of archaeological faunas , 1987 .

[11]  David Rhode,et al.  Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and the Sample-Size Effect , 1988, American Antiquity.

[12]  Michael J. Shott,et al.  Diversity, Organization, and Behavior in the Material Record: Ethnographic and Archaeological Examples [and Comments and Replies] , 1989, Current Anthropology.

[13]  Keith W. Kintigh,et al.  Sample size, significance, and measures of diversity , 1989 .

[14]  R. May.  Patterns of species abundance and diversity , 1975 .

[15]  O. Arrhenius.  Statistical Investigations in the Constitution of Plant Associations , 1923 .

[16]  Donald K. Grayson,et al.  On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis , 1973, American Antiquity.

[17]  D. J. Meltzer,et al.  Late pleistocene human adaptations in eastern North America , 1988 .