Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T07:25:19.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological Objectives and Statistical Methods: A Frontier in Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donald J. Tugby
Donald J. Tugby*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eighteen archaeological objectives are ordered within two general classes: Class A, placement of archaeological units—traits, types, and assemblages — within a space-time framework, and Class B, integration of the units in a cultural context. Four levels of interpretation of data are distinguished: identification, unidimensional distribution, bidimensional distribution, and processual analysis. Statistical methods appropriate to the different levels of interpretation, including cluster analysis, matrix analysis, and factor analysis, are discussed. It is suggested that the matrix method provides a statistical model of findings in archaeological field work. It is concluded that archaeological theory can be advanced by interpretation in terms of series rather than in terms of classes.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , July 1965 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1965

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

Ascher, Robert 1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 317–25. Albuquerque.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, Robert and Ascher, Marcia 1963 Chronological Ordering by Computer. American Anthropologist, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 1045–52. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belous, Russell E. 1953 The Central California Chronological Sequence Re-examined. American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 341–53. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, G. W. 1951a The Use of Mathematical Formulations in Archaeological Analysis. In “Essays on Archaeological Methods,” edited by James B. Griffin, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 8, pp. 118–27. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Brainerd, G. W. 1951b The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, 301–13. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Carneiro, Robert L. 1962 Scale Analysis as an Instrument for the Study of Cultural Evolution. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 149–69. Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. 1952 Factor Analysis. Harper, New York.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. and Adelson, M. 1951 The Dimensions of Social Change in the U.S.A. as Determined by P-technique. Social Forces, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 190–201. Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1962 Matrix Analysis and Archaeology with Particular Reference to British Beaker Pottery. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 28, pp. 371–82. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1963 Matrix Analysis and Archaeology. Nature, Vol. 199, No. 4895, pp. 790–2. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrich, Robert W. 1963 Further Reflections on Archaeological Interpretation. American Anthropologist, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 16–31. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, Richard E. 1960 A Re-examination of Mill Creek Ceramics: The Robinson Technique. Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society, Vol. 10, pp. 1–35. Iowa City.Google Scholar
Ford, J. A. 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 42–54. Menasha.Google Scholar
Heizer, Robert F. and Cook, Sherburne F. 1956 Some Aspects of the Quantitative Approach in Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 229–48. Albuquerque.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1963 The Use of Computers in Anthropology. Current Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 123–9. Utrecht.Google Scholar
Kluckhohn, Clyde 1960 The Use of Typology in Anthropological Theory. In Men and Cultures, edited by A. F. C. Wallace, pp. 134–40. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Krieger, Alex D. 1960 Archaeological Typology in Theory and Practice. In Men and Cultures, edited by A. F. C. Wallace, pp. 141–51. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Lowther, G. R. 1962 Epistemology and Archaeological Theory. Current Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 495–509. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mckern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic System as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 301–13. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, J. 1963 Application of Matrix Analysis to Archaeological Problems. Nature, Vol. 198, No. 4884, pp. 930–4. London.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 293–301. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1953 The Strategy of Culture History. In Anthropology Today, edited by A. L. Kroeber, pp. 57–76. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, Robert R. 1962 Numerical Taxonomy. Nature, Vol. 193, No. 4818, pp. 855–60. London.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R. 1961 Distance as a Measure of Taxonomic Similarity. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 70–9. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 305–31. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1960 Statistical Description and Comparison of Artifact Assemblages. In “The Application of Quantitative Methods in Archaeology,” edited by R. F. Heizer and S. F. Cook, pp. 60–83. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 28. Chicago.Google Scholar
Steward, J. H. 1954 Types of Types. American Anthropologist, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 54–7. Menasha.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. W. 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, No. 69. Menasha.Google Scholar
Thompson, Raymond H. 1956 The Subjective Element in Archaeological Inference. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 327–32. Albuquerque.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tryon, Robert C. 1955 Identification of Social Areas by Cluster Analysis. University of California Publications in Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1–100. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tugby, Donald J. 1958 A Typological Analysis of Axes and Choppers from Southeast Australia. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 24–33. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Vescelius, G. S. 1960 Archaeological Sampling: A Problem of Statistical Inference. In Essays in the Science of Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White, edited by G. E. Dole and R. L. Carneiro, pp. 457–70. Crowell, New York.Google Scholar
Wherry, R. J. 1941 Determination of the Specific Components of Maze Ability for Tryon’s Bright and Dull Rats by Means of Factorial Analysis. Journal of Comparative Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 237–52. Washington.Google Scholar
Willey, G. R. 1953 Archaeological Theories and Interpretation: New World. In Anthropology Today, edited by A. L. Kroeber, pp. 361–85. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Willey, G. R. and Phillips, Philip 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar