Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T20:06:00.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on the Possible Misuse and Errors of Cumulative Percentage Frequency Graphs for the Comparison of Prehistoric Artefact Assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

J. E. Kerrich  and
D. L. Clarke
J. E. Kerrich
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Witwatersrand
D. L. Clarke
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For many years archaeologists interested in the study of the Palaeolithic in North Africa and Eurasia have been using cumulative percentage frequency graphs for the comparison of prehistoric artefact assemblages. For examples we refer to the references at the foot of this text. However, it is perhaps time to carefully review this technique and its future utility.

Statistical techniques and mathematical models are slowly infiltrating and reshaping the discipline of archaeology—increasing the power and depth of both analysis and synthesis. It is perhaps already possible to distinguish the cumulative advance of these techniques in archaeology from the initial role of demonstrative aids and methods of data display towards an increasingly powerful analytical role with a capacity for predictive inference. In the ranks of the first generation we have the early use of graphs, frequency polygons and histograms for mapping severely limited numbers of percentages or attribute ratios. In the second generation of statistical techniques the impact of the computer is felt for the first time and archaeology is developing an array of exploratory attempts to integrate the probing capacity of such methods as factor analysis, matrix analysis and principal component analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 33 , February 1968 , pp. 57 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1968

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

page 57 note 1 Bordes, F., ‘Les limons quaternaires du Bassin de la Seine’, Arch. Inst. Pal. Hum., vol. 26, 1954Google Scholar.

page 57 note 2 Sonneville-Bordes, D., Le Paléolithique supérieur en Périgord I & II, Bordeaux (1960)Google Scholar.

page 57 note 3 Tixier, J., ‘Typologie de l'Épipaléolithique du Maghreb’, Mem. C.R.A.P.E., Alger, 1963Google Scholar.

page 57 note 4 Binford, L. and Binford, S. R., ‘A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies’, American Anthropologist, vol. 68, no. 2, part 2, 1966, 238–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 57 note 5 Doran, J. E. and Hodson, F. R., ‘A digital computer analysis of Palaeolithic flint assemblages’, Nature, vol. 210, no. 5037, May 14th, 1966, 688–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 58 note 1 Kerrich, J. E., Statistical Note. South African Archaeological Bulletin, no. 48, vol. XII, 1957, 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 58 note 2 Mason, R. J., ‘The Transvaal Middle Stone Age and Statistical Analysis’, South African Archaeological Bulletin, no. 48, vol. XII, 1957, 119–43Google Scholar.

page 58 note 3 Mason, R. J., Prehistory of the Transvaal, 1962, p. 224Google Scholar.

page 58 note * The section on Ordering Errors was written by J. E. Kerrich; the remainder of the article is almost entirely the work of D. L. Clarke.

page 58 note 4 Movius, H. L., ‘The … Aurignacian horizons at the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies’, American Anthropologist, vol. 68, no. 2, part 2, 1966, 216–325Google Scholar.

page 60 note 1 Sokal, R. R. and Sneath, P. H. A., Principles of numerical taxonomy. 1963Google Scholar.

page 60 note 2 de Fonton, M. Escalon and Lumley, H. De, ‘Quelques civilisations de la Mediterranée septentrionale et leurs intercurrences’, Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française, vol. 52, 1955, 379–90, TableCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 63 note 1 Bordes, F., ‘Les limons quaternaires du Bassin de la Seine’, Arch. Inst. Pal. Hum., vol. 26, 1954Google Scholar.

page 63 note 2 Sonneville-Bordes, D., Le Paléolithique supérieur en Périgord I & II, Bordeaux, 1960Google Scholar.

page 63 note 3 Tixier, J., Typologie de l'Épipaléolithique du Maghreb', Mem. C.R.A.P.E., Alger, 1963Google Scholar.

page 67 note 1 Binford, L. and Binford, S. R., ‘A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies,’ American Anthropologist, vol. 68, no. 2, part 2, 1966, 238–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 67 note 2 Doran, J. E. and Hodson, F. R., ‘A digital computer analysis of Palaeolithic flint assemblages’, Nature, vol. 210, no. 5037, May 14th, 1966, 688–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 67 note 3 Sackett, J. R., Quantitative analysis of Upper Palaeolithic stone tools, American Anthropologist, vol. 68, no. 2, part 2, 1966, 356–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 68 note 1 P. Mellars, Unpublished Thesis material, PhD (Cantab.).

page 68 note 2 A. Anastasi, Differential psychology; individual and group differences in behaviour, 1965. reference to p. 354 of 3rd Edition.