Evaluating the Relationship Between Surface, Subsurface, and Stratigraphic Assemblages

IF 2.7 1区 历史学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Stephen A. Collins-Elliott
{"title":"Evaluating the Relationship Between Surface, Subsurface, and Stratigraphic Assemblages","authors":"Stephen A. Collins-Elliott","doi":"10.1007/s10816-026-09815-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ability to compare finds assemblages quantitatively underlies many problems in archaeology, such as whether surface or subsurface assemblages reflect one another in landscape archaeology, or whether two or more sets of contexts saw the same distributional patterns of artifact use and deposition. This paper advances a statistically informed approach that relies on the Cressie-Read power-divergence statistic, which generalizes Pearson’s chi-squared and <italic>G</italic> tests. This approach also advocates for a focus on effect size. By basing the evaluation of what are “homogenous” distributions of artifacts on a partition of pairs of contexts within a project, measures of the similarity of assemblages are attained for both count and presence/absence data, whose robustness can be assessed with a leave-one-out resampling routine. Rather than using arbitrary benchmarks for what constitutes “large” or “small” effect sizes, the magnitude of similarity for related assemblages is expressed directly via comparison with unrelated assemblages.","PeriodicalId":47725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-026-09815-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ability to compare finds assemblages quantitatively underlies many problems in archaeology, such as whether surface or subsurface assemblages reflect one another in landscape archaeology, or whether two or more sets of contexts saw the same distributional patterns of artifact use and deposition. This paper advances a statistically informed approach that relies on the Cressie-Read power-divergence statistic, which generalizes Pearson’s chi-squared and G tests. This approach also advocates for a focus on effect size. By basing the evaluation of what are “homogenous” distributions of artifacts on a partition of pairs of contexts within a project, measures of the similarity of assemblages are attained for both count and presence/absence data, whose robustness can be assessed with a leave-one-out resampling routine. Rather than using arbitrary benchmarks for what constitutes “large” or “small” effect sizes, the magnitude of similarity for related assemblages is expressed directly via comparison with unrelated assemblages.
评价地表、地下和地层组合之间的关系
定量比较发现组合的能力是考古学中许多问题的基础,比如地表或地下组合在景观考古学中是否相互反映,或者两组或更多的环境是否看到了相同的人工制品使用和沉积的分布模式。本文提出了一种基于Cressie-Read功率发散统计的统计方法,该方法推广了Pearson的卡方检验和G检验。这种方法还提倡关注效应大小。通过在项目中对上下文对的分割上对工件的“同质”分布进行评估,可以获得计数和存在/不存在数据的组合相似性度量,其稳健性可以通过留一个重新采样例程来评估。而不是使用任意的基准来构成“大”或“小”的效应大小,相关组合的相似性大小直接通过与不相关组合的比较来表示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, the leading journal in its field,  presents original articles that address method- or theory-focused issues of current archaeological interest and represent significant explorations on the cutting edge of the discipline.   The journal also welcomes topical syntheses that critically assess and integrate research on a specific subject in archaeological method or theory, as well as examinations of the history of archaeology.    Written by experts, the articles benefit an international audience of archaeologists, students of archaeology, and practitioners of closely related disciplines.  Specific topics covered in recent issues include:  the use of nitche construction theory in archaeology,  new developments in the use of soil chemistry in archaeological interpretation, and a model for the prehistoric development of clothing.  The Journal''s distinguished Editorial Board includes archaeologists with worldwide archaeological knowledge (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, and Africa), and expertise in a wide range of methodological and theoretical issues.  Rated ''A'' in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory is rated ''A'' in the ERIH, a new reference index that aims to help evenly access the scientific quality of Humanities research output. For more information visit: http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/activities/research-infrastructures.html Rated ''A'' in the Australian Research Council Humanities and Creative Arts Journal List.  For more information, visit: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list_dev.htm
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书