Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:32:00.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Site Relationships at Quebrada Tarapaca, Chile: A Comparison of Clustering and Scaling Techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. G. Matson
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Sociology,University of British Columbia
D. L. True
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology,University of California, Davis

Abstract

This study is a comparison of the results of a variety of clustering methods and 2 multidimensional scaling techniques on data from sites in northern Chile. While differences do occur, the similarities among the results are strong in spite of differing inputs. In general, results of relative frequency analysis appear to be superior to those of presence/absence, and the techniques used seem to be viable additions to existing archaeological tools.

Type
Articles
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

Beckner, M. 1959 The biological way of thought. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bonham-Carter, G. F., 1967 Fortran IV program for Q-mode cluster analysis of nonquantitative data using IBM 7090/7094 computers. University of Kansas State Geological Survey, Computer Contribution 17.Google Scholar
CowgUl, G. L. 1968 Archaeological applications of factor, cluster and proximity analyses. American Antiquity 33:367375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, P., and Baumhoff, M. 1963 The statistical use of artifact distributions to establish chronological sequence. American Antiquity 28:496509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, J. E., and Hodson, F. R. 1966 A digital computer analysis of Paleolithic flint assemblages. Nature 210:688689.Google Scholar
Green, P. E., Maheshwari, A., and Rao, U. R. 1969 Dimensional interpretation and configuration invariance in multidimensional scaling: an empirical study. Multivariate Behavioral Research 4:159180.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. 1968 A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika 33:469506.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R. 1970 Cluster analysis and archaeology: some new developments and applications. World Archaeology 1:299320.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. 1968 Item seriation as an aid for elementary scale and cluster analysis. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Bulletin 15.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. C. 1967 Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika 32:241254.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Charles 1964a Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29:127.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Charles 1964b Nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika 29:115129.Google Scholar
Lance, G. N., and William, W. T. 1967 A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies I. Hierarchical systems. Computer Journal 9:373380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipe, W. D. 1964 Comment on Dempsey and Baumhoff's “The statistical use of artifact distributions to establish chronological sequence.” American Antiquity 30:103104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Sneath, P. H. A. 1963 Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. 1952 Multidimensional scaling: I, theory and method. Psychometrika 17:401414.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. 1958 Theory and methods of scaling. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
True, D. L., and Matson, R. G. 1970 Cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling of archeological sites in northern Chile. Science 169:12011203.Google Scholar
True, D. L., Nuñez A., L. and Nuñez H., P. 1970 Archaeological investigations in northern Chile: project Tarapaca-preceramic resources. American Antiquity 35:170184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, J. H. 1963 Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. American Statistical Association, Journal 58:236244.Google Scholar