Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:34:07.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological Applications of Factor, Cluster, and Proximity Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George L. Cowgill
George L. Cowgill*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University, Waltham
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An effort is made to give readers a good idea of what the techniques of factor, cluster, and proximity analyses are; of what are their good features and their limitations; and where one should look for further information. Archaeological uses of these techniques which are discussed include those of Hodson on La Tene brooches and on Mousterian assemblages, L. and S. Binford on Mousterian assemblages, Freeman and Brown on the Carter Ranch Pueblo, and the author on data from Teotihuacan, Mexico. The dangers of using correlations based on inadequate samples are stressed, and one necessary (though not sufficient) condition for sample adequacy is suggested. It is argued that proximity analysis, among other applications, is probably better than the Brainerd-Robinson approach for seriation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , July 1968, pp. 367 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Binford, Lewis R. and Binford, Sally R. 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Fades. In “Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology,” edited by J. D. Clark and F. C. Howell. American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 2, Pt. 2, pp. 238–95. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, K. C. 1967 Rethinking Archaeology. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Couch, Arthur S. and Others 1967 The Data-Text System. A Computer Language for Social Science Research. Department of Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1967 Evaluation preliminar de la aplicación de métodos a máquinas computadoras a los datos del mapa de Teotihuacán. (English with Spanish summary.) Teotihuacán: Onceava Mesa Redonda. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, pp. 95–112. Mexico City.Google Scholar
Doran, J. E. and Hodson, F. R. 1966 A Digital Computer Analysis of Palaeolithic Flint Assemblages. Nature, Vol. 210, pp. 688–9. London.Google Scholar
Fitch, Walter M. and Margoliash, Emanuel 1967 Construction of Phylogenetic Trees. Science, Vol. 155, No. 3760, pp. 279–84. Washington.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, James A. 1962 A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronology. Pan American Union, Washington.Google Scholar
Freeman, Leslie G. Jr., and Brown, James A. 1964 Statistical Analysis of Carter Ranch Pottery. In “Chapters in the Prehistory of Eastern Arizona, No. II,” edited by Paul S. Martin. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 55, pp. 126–54. Chicago.Google Scholar
Fruchter, Benjamin 1954 Introduction of Factor Analysis. Van Nostrand, New York.Google Scholar
Harman, H. H. 1960 Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hill, L. R. (editor) 1963 Taxometrics. A Newsletter Dealing with Mathematical and Statistical Aspects of Classification. National Collection of Type Cultures, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R., Sneath, P. H. A., and Doran, J. E. 1966 Some Experiments in the Numerical Analysis of Archaeological Data. Biometrika, Vol. 53, pp. 311–24. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hole, Frank and Shaw, Mary 1967 Computer Analysis of Chronological Seriation. Rice University Studies, Vol. 53, No. 3. Houston.Google Scholar
Horst, Paul 1965 Factor Analysis of Data Matrices. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. C. 1966 Hierarchical Clustering Schemes. (Duplicated.) Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., Murray Hill, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Kruskal, Joseph B. 1964a Multidimensional Scaling by Optimizing Goodness of Fit to a Nonmetric Hypothesis. Psychometrika, Vol. 29, pp. 1–27. Richmond.Google Scholar
Kruskal, Joseph B. 1964b Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerical Method. Psychometrika, Vol. 29, pp. 115–29. Richmond.Google Scholar
Kuzara, R. S., Mead, G. R., and Dixon, K. A. 1966 Seriation of Anthropological Data: A Computer Program for Matrix-Ordering. American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 6, pp. 1442–55. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherron, Alan 1967 The Juntunen Site and the Late Woodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 30. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, pp. 293–301. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1966 Quantitative Analysis of Upper Palaeolithic Stone Tools. In “Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology,” edited by J. D. Clark and F. C. Howell. American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 2, Pt. 2, pp. 356–94. Menasha.Google Scholar
Shepard, Roger N. 1962 The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance Function. Psychometrika, Vol. 27, pp. 125–40, 219–46. Richmond.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. 1966 A Comparison of Different Clustering Methods as Applied to Randomly-Spaced Points. The Classification Society Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 2–18. MRC Microbial Research Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R. 1966 Numerical Taxonomy. Scientific American, Vol. 215, No. 6, pp. 106–16. New York.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Sneath, P. H. A. 1963 Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco and London.Google Scholar
Tugby, Donald J. 1965 Archaeological Objectives and Statistical Methods: A Frontier in Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 1–16. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar