In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Appendix A Sponemann Site, Sponemann Phase, Sitewide Ubiquity, and Exclusivity Indices The empirical demonstration of the mixing-prohibition hypothesis requires determining the distribution of archaeobotanical remains across the Sponemann site. The question this appendix addresses is how to compute both the ubiquity index (UI) and the exclusivity index (EI) of each of the targeted species of the Sponemann phase of the Sponemann site. (Appendix B repeats this process for Community/Cluster 3 of the same site.) The EI is the proportion of exclusive-to-shared features in which a given species is found. For example, of the 143 features in which maize is found in the Sponemann phase of the Sponemann site, there are 35 in which it is an isolate, that is, in which there were no identifiable representatives of any of the other four targeted species. The exclusivity index (EI) for each of the targeted species is defined here, therefore, as the total number of features in which the particular targeted species is found as an isolate in proportion to the total set of features having identifiable remains of the five species. In this case, the targeted species are maize, chenopodium, maygrass, erect knotweed, and little barley. If there are significant differences in the UIs of these five species, then we may assume that the species with the highest UI will be the most widely dispersed (that is, it will be found in the greatest proportion of the available features). For this reason, it should be found to be an isolate in a fairly large proportion of these features. Since the species with the highest UI will occupy a disproportionately large number of the available features, those species with lower UIs will have a more narrow span of distribution, and there will be disproportionately fewer features in which they could be isolates. Hence, under the null hypothesis we can expect that the EIs of species having lower UIs will be disproportionately lower than the EIs of species having higher UIs. Should a given species have an EI that is greater than would be expected given its UI, this would suggest that it was treated during processing in such a manner as to increase its normal chances of being an isolate. If alternative explanations for this reversal can be analyzed and dismissed, the null hypothesis can be rejected. From this we can infer that care was likely taken in the processing of this species to ensure its separation 530 / Appendi A from the others. If the species that was treated in this manner was maize, this finding would be considered as supporting the mixing-prohibition hypothesis and, by extension, would be support for the Sacred Maize model (chapter 6). Procedure First it was necessary to sort out the total number of features into those containing identifiable residue of one or more of the targeted species from those not having any. The latter features were not included in this analysis. Therefore, all UIs and EIs were based on only the total of the sampled features having identifiable residues of one or more of these five targeted species. These features then were sorted into groupings so as to permit computation of both the UIs and the EIs of each category of species. Table Descriptions TableA.1isatwo-by-twotableusedtofirstseparatethosesampledfeaturescontaining residue of one or more of the five targeted species from those features that have no such residue. It is based on two dimensions: (1) seed crops: present /absent; and (2) maize: present/absent. From this the UI and EI of maize were directly determined since, as shown in Table A.1, panels A and B display the total set of features with maize, subdivided between maize and seeds mixed (panel A) and maize only (panel B). Panel C displays all those features that have seed present but no maize, and it is internally divided into four subpanels according to the presence or absence of chenopodium and maygrass: subpanels C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4. Panel D, of course, displays all those sampled features that had no identifiable residues of any of the five targeted species. Table A.2 subdivides panel A of Table A.1, that is, those features having maize and seeds mixed, and Table A.3 subdivides panel C of Table A.1. Table A.2 is based on two dimensions: (1) maygrass: present/absent; and (2) chenopodium : present/absent. This generated four panels: E, F, G, and H. Panel E displays all those maize features with...

Share