Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T12:07:45.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Distance among Central Missouri Hopewell Settlements: A First Approximation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Marvin Kay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Discriminant function analysis is used as a systematic measure of interrelatedness among sites within the Lamine River and Big Bend Localities. Chipped stone projectile points from Mellor, Imhoff, Givens and Fischer-Gabbert were chosen for this analysis. Their selection was based on a suggested operational criterion: that social distance between peoples is reflected in the degree of similarity between artifacts commonly found on contemporaneous Hopewell settlements. Two statistically significant roots are defined, rejecting the null hypothesis that no significant variation occurs among these settlements' projectile points. The Euclidean distances of projectile points in discriminant space are remarkably similar to the site's geographic distribution. This analysis suggests social interaction was greatest within localities and minimal between.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 64 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahler, S. A. 1970 Projectile point form and function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series 8.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1963 A proposed attribute list for the description and classification of projectile points. Miscellaneous studies in typology and classification. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers 19.Google Scholar
Calabrese, F. A. 1972 Cross Ranch: a study of variability in a stable cultural tradition. Plains Anthropologist, Memoir 9(pt. 2): 17-58.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. H. 1968 The Havana Tradition and the Hopewell problem in the Lower Missouri River Valley. Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
Cooley, W. W. and Lohnes, P. R. 1971 Multivariate data analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Deetz, J. 1968 The inference of residence and descent rules from archeological data. New perspectives in archeology, edited by Binford, L. R. and Binford, S. R., pp. 41-48. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Heldman, D. P. 1963 A study of the nature and degree of cultural relationships of Missouri to Illinois Valley Hopewell. M.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
Kay, M. 1972 Spatial dimensions of the Imhoff site. M.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
Rummel, R. J. 1970 Applied factor analysis. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
Struever, S. 1964 The Hopewell interaction sphere in riverine-western Great Lakes culture history. Hope-wellian studies. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 12.Google Scholar
Struever, S. 1965 Middle Woodland culture history in the Great Lakes riverine area. American Antiquity 31:211-223.Google Scholar
Veldman, D. J. 1967 Fortran programming for the social sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Ward, J. H. Jr., 1963 Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. American Statistical Association Journal 58:236-244.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N. 1973 Interaction, spacing behavior, and the organization of hunting bands. Journal of Anthropological Research 29(1): 1-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar