{"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.
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