See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264736128

Archaeology: Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Ian Hodder and

Clive Orton

Article  in  American Anthropologist · December 1977

DOI: 10.1525/aa.1977.79.4.02a00790

CITATIONS READS

0 211

1 author:

Dwight W Read
University of California, Los Angeles
183 PUBLICATIONS   1,642 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Kinship Algebra Theory and Practice View project

Structure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dwight W Read on 08 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARCHAEOLOGY
tainly fewer than were evident. The most serious
of these is the failure to outline evolutionary
mechanics and history. No systematic discussion
of either sexual selection or group selection is
offered, despite the long list of anatomies and
functions which imply their operation. Neither i s
the issue of instinct uersus learned social re-
sponses handled outright, nor any time frame
given to help us criticize these evolutions. The
general implication is that most of our “social
organs” evolved a t the prehominid or early
hominid levels and continue to function still.
There is also an assumption that a sizeable por-
tion of our daily behavior was and is controlled by
these unconscious responses. If anything, most
people, even in urban settings, live their lives in
small, intimate social group in which first impres-
sions have long since been supplanted by more
empirical knowledge of individual behavior.
What is undeniably true on the subway is cer-
tainly of less significance at the ofiice or in the
Archaeology
Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Ian Hodder
and Clive Orton. New Studies in Archaeology, 1.
New York & London: Cambridge University
Press, 1976. ix + 270 pp. $19.50 (cloth).
Dwight W. Read
University of California
The book under review was written by an ar-
chaeologist (Hodder) and a statistician (Orton). It
is the first inaseriesoftitlesthatwastobeputout
by the Cambridge University Press on archaeol-
ogy under the general editorship ofthe late David
Clarke. This volume on spatial analysis of ar-
chaeological data consists largely of discussion
and example. It is not a text of techniques (though
occasionally it gives technical information) and
does not so much present the how of spatial
analysis as the why and what can be done with it.
It is thus, in large part, an apologia for spatial
analysis as a methodological procedure for
analyzing archaeological data. In effect, argue the
authors, the methods and techniques are there
but what is lacking are good, carefully obtained
archaeological data suitable for exploiting the po-
tential of these procedures for archaeological
data. The complaint is not that ofthose who have a
procedure and are looking for data, but of those
who have a procedure useful for examining the
kinds of questions archaeologists want answered.
At the very least, arguments about exchange,
trade, population movement, and so on, require
spatial analysis of data.
What do the authors claim that spatial analysis
can achieve? First, by being explicitly quantita-
957
Kalahari desert. Finally there are some an-
thropological errors (both biological and ethno-
graphic) that most of us will catch, and in many
sections, the comparative ethology (Guthrie’s
forte) is pretty shallow. Homo sapiens’ behavior
tends to be from the perspective of light-skinned
males in western cultures.
Organization and format are a mixed bag. The
242-item bibliography is excellent and broad
ranging, but the text itself is devoid of formal
citation; those who actually use this volume will
have to work a t it. An index helps offset a certain
amount of jumping back and forth of ideas, but
many chapters are no more than padded, one-idea
paragraphs.
This is a n idea book and its value to anthropol-
ogy, which is no less parochial than most fields,
derives from its outsideis viewpoints. It is up to us
to test them, and I feel that it would be worth our
time to do so.
tive, conclusions drawn are more objective and
can discover patterns otherwise not revealed (p.
241). Second, it gives the archaeologist something
to explain (p. 242). Third, it aids in the testing of
hypotheses (p. 243). And fourth, large amounts of
data can be handled (p. 244). These final conclu-
sions of the utility of spatial analysis are surpris-
ingly limited, given the introductory section
which quotes several archaeologists about the
importance of studying spatial distributions. It
would seem that the shifl from impressionistic,
programmatic assertions about what it should be
possible to do with archaeological data to observa-
tion ofwhat is objectively demonstrable has had a
sobering effect. And for good reason. In example
aRer example the authors are forced to conclude
that it cannot be determined whether one model
or another better fits the observed distribution, or
that the spatial distribution is no different from
that expected if the patterning were random, or
that coqjectured associations are not substan-
tiated by statistical tests. The plea for objectivity
becomes not a royal road to explanation, but a
sobering stocktaking of the difficulty in carrying
out the programmatic assertions of what one
would like to do with archaeological data. “It is
oRen the case that archaeological evidence is not
detailed enough to allow successful testing be-
tween alternative hypotheses” (p. 84).
The problem is twofold. First is the lack ofdetail
in the archaeological data, and second the fact
that different processes can lead to virtually iden-
tical distributions.
The latter was determined by simulation of ar-
tifact dispersal assuming various models for the
 958 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
underlying processes. Simulation of archaeologi-
cal data, as the authors demonstrate, can aid both
in determining the factors that have a mqjor effect
on the form of spatial distributions, and in show-
ing the difficulty in inferring process from form.
Quite different processes can lead to virtually
identical spatial distributions.
The former difficulty, distinguishing among al-
ternative models, is a problem both in the quan-
tity of data needed to increase the power of a
statistical test, and in the fineness with which
archaeological data can be analyzed. Spatial dis-
tribution of artifactual material and sites is, by
the nature of the data, a summation of a series of
processes operating through time. Models of such
processes typically refer to relationships among
units considered at the same point in time. The
basic presumption of diachronic studies is the
changing character of those relationships (and
even units) through time. Consequently the spa-
tial distribution of the totality of such units sum-
med over long time periods is not particularly
interesting, except for giving crude indications of
factors sufficiently important to be roughly con-
stant throughout the time period in question. In-
stead, it is necessary to sort sites and artifacts
accurately with respect to time to guarantee con-
temporaneity, as the authors note.
Further, the difficulty in inferring process from
the form of spatial distributions indicates that a
more comprehensive approach is needed for fit-
ting models to data. Arternative processes need to
be considered thoroughly before a model is ac-
cepted and multiple data sets will be needed to
provide confirmation of a particular model.
That careful, objective analysis of spatial data
does not lead to easy conclusions is not an indict-
ment of the approach, but rather a realistic as-
sessment of the fact that regional development is
a complex process. ARer being unable to distin-
guish between alternative hypotheses for the de-
velopment of British-Romano walled towns, even
after using powerful techniques such as likelihood
ratios, the authors conclude:
In the present case we have tried to differen-
tiate between different hypotheses . , . . The
actual situation is likely to have been more
complex. . . . Because of the great complexity
of interlocking factors determining site loca-
tion and because the alternative hypotheses
considered do not have markedly distinct spa-
tial expressions, distributional studies do not
lead to a detailed understanding of the process
of town development [pp. 84-85].
The utility of spatial analysis stems, then, not
80 much from the procedures per se, but the in-
genuity of the archaeologist in using the objective
description of spatial patterning to build an ar-
gument about a set of data. What this book pro-
vides is a reasonably complete survey of proce-
View publication stats
[79,19771
dures for examining the properties of spatial dis-
tributions.
The survey covers point pattern analysis, mod-
els for settlement patterns (competition, gravity,
and various hierarchical models), distribution of
artifact types (regression analysis, simulation,
trend surface analysis, and spatial autmorrela-
tion), association between distributions and the
relationship between sites and environmental
features. Examples are drawn primarily from
British and European historical archaeology. The
discursive form of the presentation (type of proce-
dure, examples of its use,possible interpretations
and difficulties) makes it easier for the reader
with minimal statistical background to become
aware of the potentials and limitations of spatial
analysis. For details the reader must turn to other
references.
Despite this general format, the authors occa-
sionally interject highly technical discussions of
particular procedures. The brevity of the techni-
cal discussions may preclude understanding by
the statistically naive reader and references to
unavailable literature do not aid the reader
stimulated to do background reading (a primary
reference for one ofthe statistical applications is a
privately circulated manuscript !).
There are some curious omissions in their re-
view. Discriminant analysis, whichcan be usedto
determine if the center point of two or more dis-
tributions is the same, is not mentioned, although
testing distances between distributions using
Mahalanobis’ D2is more powerful than the runs
test that they suggest. Cluster analysis is only
cursorily mentioned, despite its utility for deter-
mining spatial clusters. Space does not permit
examining in detail a problem presented by Equa-
tion 5.3,given as apossible distancsdecay model,
but which for technical reasons-flaws in their
statistical procedure--cannot provide the results
they seek (p. 110).
In spite of such minor problems, the book should
prove to be a useful introduction to the spatial
analysis of archaeological data.
Archaeological Atlas of t h e World. David
Whitehouse andRuth Whitehouse. Mapsdrawn by
John Woodcock and Shalom Schotten. San k a n -
cisco: Freeman, 1975.272pp. $17.00(cloth), $8.96
(paper).
Janet Levy
Washington University
This book’s goal is to provide maps which accu-
rately locate approximately 5,000 pre- and pro-
tohistoric sites. The maps are divided into seven
sections. The first covers Palaeolithic sites in the
Old World and the other six cover the geographic
areas of Africa, Western Asia, the Mediterranean
Basin, Europe and Russia, south and east Asia