Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T16:56:22.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

We Need Better Chronologies: Progress in Getting them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George L. Cowgill
George L. Cowgill*
Affiliation:
School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 872402, Tempe,AZ 85287-2402, (cowgill@asu.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Archaeologists have long celebrated their unique ability to deal with the long term. But we are increasingly recognizing that we can and must also understand more rapid events. They are critical for many of the questions we now consider most interesting, such as distinguishing between changes that unfolded gradually and those that happened suddenly. In considering interactions among regions, we need something better than cross-dating on the basis of resemblances in material objects. That is especially so when we would like to know where something first developed and the tempo of its spread to other regions. As one particularly clear example of the beneficial effects of finer chronologies, Robert Santley (in Sanders et al. 1979:65-73) showed how shorter phases can drastically alter our picture of the ebb and flow of settlement history in a region. When Basin of Mexico sites in the Cuauhtitlan region are dated only in broad terms to the Middle and Late Formative periods, a rather placid picture of settlement change emerges.

Information

Type
Special Section: Rethinking Ceramic Chronologies, Part II
Information
Latin American Antiquity , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2015, pp. 26 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2015

References

References Cited

Bayliss, Alex 2009 Rolling Out Revolution: Using Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology. Radiocarbon 51:123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 2007 The Urban Organization of Teotihuacan, Mexico. In Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert Mc-Cormick Adams, edited by Elizabeth Stone, pp. 261–295. Cotsen Institute, UCLA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drennan, Robert D. 2009 Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach. 2nd ed. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, Bradley 2013 Bayes’ Theorem in the 21st Century. Science 340:1177–1178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Gudmund R. 1984 Bayesian Statistical Inference. Sage, Beverley Hills, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, John K. 2011 Doing Bayesian Data Analysis. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
McGrayne, Sharon Bertsch 2011 The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes’ Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Ortman, Scott G., Varien, Mark D., and Lee Gripp, T. 2007 Empirical Survey Methods for Archaeological Data: An Application from the Mesa Verde Region. American Antiquity 72:241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Ian G. 1999 Spatial and Multivariate Analysis, Random Sampling Error, and Analytical Noise: Empirical Bayesian Methods at Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity 64:137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, William T., Parsons, Jeffrey R., and Santley, Robert S. 1979 The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J. 1997 Quantifying Archaeology. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Stable, David W., Villanueva Diaz, José, Burnette, D. J., Cerano Paredes, Julian, Heim, R. R. Jr., Fye, F. K., Acuna, R. Soto, M. D. Therrell, Cleaveland, M. K., and Stahle, D. K. 2011 Major Mesoamerican Droughts of the Past Millennium. Geophysical Research Letters 38.Google Scholar