Certain aspects of what archaeologists have traditionally called stylistic variation can be understood as the result of the introduction of selectively neutral variation into social-learning populations and the sampling error in the cultural transmission of that variation (drift). Simple mathematical models allow the deduction of expectations for the dynamics of these evolutionary mechanisms as monitored in the archaeological record through assemblage diversity and interassemblage distance. The models are applied to make inferences about the causes of change in decorative diversity and interassemblage distance for Woodland ceramics from Illinois.

Spatial patterns in Classic Maya terminal monument dates offer clues about the processes behind theClassic "collapse" and the spatial scale of political competition that preceded it. A Darwinian theory of wasteful advertising delivers a simple model of how the collapse and political competition might map onto terminal monument dates. Modern statistical techniques provide the tools required to decompose spatial variation in terminal dates from a sample of 69 sites into the components required by the model. The large-scale trend in the cessation of dated monument construction, estimated using local robust regression (loess), supports recent evidence that the ultimate cause of the end of dated monument construction was an ecological disaster. The variogram characterizes spatial variation in residuals from this trend. The results suggest that as the collapse proceeded, monument-constructing elites, or individuals competing for that status, abandoned their original sites to enter political competition at sites on average 65 km distant, thus increasing competition, and prolonging monument construction at those recipient sites. This implies spheres of political competition in the Late Classic were small, and supports recent evidence from epigraphic sources they averaged about 50 km in diameter.

In archaeology, we are accustomed to investing great effort into collecting data from fieldwork, museum collections, and other sources, followed by detailed description, rigorous analysis, and in many cases ending with publication of our findings in short, highly concentrated reports or journal articles. Very often, these publications are all that is visible of this lengthy process, and even then, most of our journal articles are only accessible to scholars at institutions paying subscription fees to the journal publishers. While this traditional model of the archaeological research process has long been effective at generating new knowledge about our past, it is increasingly at odds with current norms of practice in other sciences. Often described as ‘open science’, these new norms include data stewardship instead of data ownership, transparency in the analysis process instead of secrecy, and public involvement instead of exclusion. While the concept of open science is not new in archaeology (e.g., see Lake 2012 and other papers in that volume), a less transparent model often prevails, unfortunately. We believe that there is much to be gained, both for individual researchers and for the discipline, from broader application of open science practices. In this article, we very briefly describe these practices and their benefits to researchers. We introduce the Society of American Archaeology’s Open Science Interest Group (OSIG) as a community to help archaeologists engage in and benefit from open science practices, and describe how it will facilitate the adoption of open science in archaeology.

Measurements of skeletal-lead content (by atomic absorption spectroscopy) were made for 16 individuals recovered from a Colonial (1670-1730) plantation cemetery in Virginia. Archaeological and historical evidence allowed the identification of two social groups (plantation proprietors and laborers) within this small population, each with vastly different estimated lifetime lead exposure, reflecting different living conditions. Measured bone-lead levels confirmed these differences. The character of plantation social organization proved a more important determinant of skeletal-lead content in the individuals studied than age, sex or race.

No abstract