Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:20:32.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Source and Artifact Characterization Data Using a Generalized Distance Measure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Graeme K. Ward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A major difficulty arises in sourcing studies when more than two or three elements are used in the comparison of artifacts with a number of potential sources. Multivariate statistical analysis can be used to define source groups and to allocate artifacts to their most likely sources. In this study of North Island, New Zealand, obsidian sources used in prehistory, the generalized distance measure of Mahalanobis and Rao is applied in three phases: first, to define source groups in terms of their inter- and intrasource variation using characterization data from X-ray fluorescence spectrography of five trace element constituents; second, the five-dimensional array was reduced to a three-dimensional figure for visual presentation; and finally, the highest probability of the association of an artifact data-set with that of a source group is used to allocate archaeologically derived material to its most likely source of raw material.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , July 1974 , pp. 473 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1974

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

Ambrose, W. R., and Green, R. C. 1972 First millennium BC transport of obsidian from New Britain to the Solomon Islands. Nature 237:31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. W. 1958 An introduction to multivariate analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Google Scholar
Cann, J. R., Dixon, J. E., and Renfrew, C. 1969 Obsidian analysis and the obsidian trade. In Science in archaeology, edited by Brofhwell, D. and Higgs, E. S., pp. 578–591. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Graham, J. M. 1970 Discrimination of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic hand axe groups using canonical variates. World Archaeology 1:321–337.Google Scholar
Leach, B. F. 1969 The concept of similarity in prehistoric studies: a test case using New Zealand stone flake assemblages. Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology 1. Department of Anthropology, University of Otago.Google Scholar
Mahalanobis, P. 1930 On tests and measures of group divergence. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 26:541–588.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. 1948 Tests of significance in multivariate analysis. Biometriha 35:58–79.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. 1952 Advanced statistical methods in biometric research. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. 1965 Linear statistical inference and its applications. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1969 Trade and culture process in European prehistory. Current Anthropology 10:151–169.Google Scholar
Rightmire, G. P. 1969 On the computation of Mahalanobis’ generalized distance (D2). Journal of American Physical Anthropology 30:157–160.Google Scholar
Stevenson, D. P., Stross, F. H., and Heizer, R. F. 1969 An evaluation of X-ray fluorescence analysis as a method for correlating obsidian artifacts with source location. Archaeometry 13:17–25.Google Scholar
Ward, G. K. 1973 Obsidian source localities in the North Island of New Zealand. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 16:85–103.Google Scholar
Ward, G. K. n.d.a. A paradigm for sourcing New Zealand archaeological obsidians. In Royal Society of New Zealand, Journal. (In press, ms. 1973.)Google Scholar
Ward, G. K. n.d.b. A systematic approach to the definition sources of raw material. Archaeometry. (In press, ms. 1973.) Google Scholar
Wright, G. A. 1969 Obsidian analysis and prehistoric Near Eastern trade: 7500 to 3500 B.C. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of University of Michigan 37.Google Scholar