Abstract
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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
