Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-zh294 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-10T04:59:48.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automatic Classification of Inspectional Categories: Multivariate Theories of Archaeological Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert A. Benfer  and
Alice N. Benfer
Robert A. Benfer
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211
Alice N. Benfer
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The application of extremely complex multivariate models of classification to subjective inspectional methods of categorization is analyzed in detail, with the widely used Texas system of dart point typology as a case study. The history of the development of the Texas dart point typological system is sketched. An attempt by Gunn and Prewitt (1975) to objectify the classificatory system by multivariate methods is criticized. The techniques applied were too idiosyncratic to the particular data set used to be of predictive value. Discriminant function and multivariate classification analysis are discussed in detail, emphasizing simple geometrical examples by which the major principles may be grasped. Suggestions for improvement are offered for those who wish to follow Gunn and Prewitt in constructing automatic classification schemes.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1981 , pp. 381 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1981

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adovasio, J. M, and Gunn, Joel 1977 Style, basketry, and basketmakers. In The individual in prehistory, edited by Hill, James N. and Gunn, Joel, pp. 137–154. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ahler, S. A. 1971 Projectile point form and function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series, Number 8.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. W. 1951 Classification by multivariate analysis. Psychometrika 16:31–50.Google Scholar
Atchley, William R., Gaskins, Charles T., and Anderson, Dwane 1976 Statistical properties of ratios. I. Empirical results. Systematic Zoology 25:137–148.Google Scholar
Benfer, R. A. 1967 A design for the study of archaeological characteristics. American Anthropologist 69:719–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benfer, R. A. 1970 Review of Towards a statistical overview of the Archaic cultures of central and southwest Texas, by Leroy Johnson, Jr. American Antiquity 35:118–119.Google Scholar
Berger, R., Homey, A. B., and Libby, W. F. 1975a Classification and sampling. In Sampling in archaeology, edited by Mueller, J. W., pp. 227–247. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Berger, R., Homey, A. B., and Libby, W. F. 1975b The human skeletal remains from Tula. In Studies of ancient Tollan, edited by Diehl, R. A., pp. 105–121. University of Missouri Museum of Anthropology Monograph I. Columbia.Google Scholar
Blackith, R. E., and Reyment, R. A. 1971 Multivariate morphometries. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brown, M. B. 1977 BMDP-77. Biomedical computer programs P-series. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. 1965 Factor analysis: an introduction to essentials: I. The purpose and underlying models. Biometrics 21:190–215.Google Scholar
Chandler, Susan M., and Ware, John A. 1976 The identification of technological variables through experimental replication and empirical multivariate analysis. Newsletter of Lithic Technology 5:24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobean, Robert H. 1978 The pre-Aztec ceramics of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Cooley, W. W. and Lohnes, P. R. 1971 Multivariate data analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Corruccini, R. S. 1975 Multivariate analysis in biological anthropology: some considerations. Journal of Human Evolution 4:1–19.Google Scholar
Day, M. H. 1967 Olduvai Hominid 10: a multivariate analysis. Nature 215:323–324.Google Scholar
Demirmen, F. 1969 Multivariate procedures and FORTRAN IV programs for evaluation and improvement of classification. In Computer contribution number 31, edited by Merriam, D. F., pp. 1–51. State Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Diehl, Richard A., and Benfer, Robert A. 1975 Tollan: the Toltec capital. Archaeology 18:112–124.Google Scholar
Dixon, W. J. 1971 BMD biomedical computer program. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Doran, J. E., and Hodson, F. R. 1975 Mathematics and computers in archaeology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1971 Systematics in prehistory. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
DuPraw, E. J. 1964 Non-Linnean taxonomy. Nature 202:849–852.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1936 The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics 7:179–188.Google Scholar
Graham, J. M. 1970 Discrimination of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups using canonical variates. World Archaeology 1:321–337.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E. 1976 Mathematical tools for applied multivariate analysis. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Griffin, D. E. Jr. 1976 Lithic debitage: an analysis of percussion flake morphology. Unpublished M.A. research paper, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
Gunn, J. E., and Prewitt, E. R. 1975 Automatic classification: projectile points from west Texas. Plains Anthropologist 20:139–149.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1977 Individual variability in ceramics and the study of prehistoric social organization. In The individual in prehistory, edited by Hill, James N. and Gunn, Joel, pp. 55–108. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H. O. 1931 The generalization of student's ratio. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 2:360–378.Google Scholar
Howells, W. W. 1973 Cranial variation in man. A study by multivariate analysis of patterns of difference among recent human populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Number 67.Google Scholar
Jantz, R. L. 1973 Microsvolutionary changes in Arikara crania: a multivariate analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 38:15–26.Google Scholar
Leuchterhand, K. 1970 Early Archaic projectile points and hunting patterns in the lower Illinois Valley. Illinois Archaeological Survey Monograph Number 2.Google Scholar
Lingoes, James C. 1977 A general nonparametric model for representing objects and attributes in a joint metric space. In Geometrical representations of relational data, edited by Lingoes, James C., pp. 475–510. Mathesis Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Lingoes, James C. (editor) 1977 Geometrical representations of relational data. Mathesis Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Lukesh, Susan Snow, and Howe, Sally 1978 Protoapennine vs. Subapennine: mathematical distinction between two ceramics phases. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:339–347.Google Scholar
Mahalanobis, P. C. 1925 Analysis of race mixture in Bengal. Presidential Address to the Anthropology Section, Indian Science Congress, Benares, 1925. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 23:301–333.Google Scholar
McKern, Thomas W., and Munro, E. H. 1959 A statistical technique for classifying human skeletal remains. American Antiquity 24:375–382.Google Scholar
Newell, H. P., and Krieger, A. D. 1949 The George C. Davis site, Cherokee County, Texas. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology Number 1.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Hadlai Hull, C., Jenkins, Jean G., Steinbrenner, Karen, and Brent, Dale H. 1975 SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences (second ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Oxnard, C. E. 1973 Form and pattern in human evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Plog, Fred 1977 Archaeology and the individual. In The individual in prehistory, edited by Hill, James N. and Gunn, Joel, pp. 13–21. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Randall, R. 1976 How tall is a taxonomic tree? Evidence for dwarfism. American Ethnologist 3:543–553.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. 1948 The utilization of multiple measurements in problems of biological classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 10:259–293.Google Scholar
Read, D. W. 1974 Some comments on typologies in archaeology and an outline of methodology. American Antiquity 39:216–242.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, and Barbara B., Lloyd 1978 Cognition and categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
Scribner, Sylvia, and Cole, Michael 1973 Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science 183:553–559.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. 1962 The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika 27:125–140.Google Scholar
Sieveking, G. de G., Cradock, P. T., Hughes, M. J., Busch, P., and Ferguson, J. 1972 Prehistoric flint mines and their identification as sources for raw material. Archaeometry 14: 151–176.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1953 Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 14:305–313.Google Scholar
Suhm, D. A., and Jelks, E. B. (editors) 1962 Handbook of Texas archaeology: type descriptions. Texas Memorial Museum Bulletin Number 4, and Texas Archaeological Society Special Publication Number 1. Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
Suhm, D. A., Krieger, A. D., and Jelks, E. B. 1954 An introductory handbook of Texas archaeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society Volume 25.Google Scholar
Tildesley, M. L. 1921 A first study of the Burmese skull. Biometrika 13:247–256.Google Scholar
Van de Geer, John P. 1971 Introduction to multivariate analysis for the social sciences. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Ward, G. K. 1974 A systematic approach to the definition of sources of raw material. Archaeometry 16:41–53.Google Scholar