Quantitative analysis in lithic study: Comparison of assemblages
LIU Jiying, HUANG Yongliang, CHEN Hong
2017, 36(03):
331-343.
Asbtract
(
321 )
PDF (8987KB)
(
148
)
Related Articles |
Metrics
Comparing assemblages is a key to lithic analysis. From the history perspective, the interpretation of lithic assemblage may be outlined two aspects:1)a lithic assemblage is sets of objects and features generally from a site or a layer, we might get the meaning of technology, culture, or even function from the analysis of presence or absence of its material or composition; 2)lithic assemblage was formed in a complex process, therefore, besides concerning similarity and difference between the assemblages, factors like the boundary of the assemblage and the life cycle of artifacts should also be taken into consideration. Nowadays, under the circumstance of interdiscipline, with the objective advantages in multivariate comparative study, quantitative analysis broadens the horizon of comparing assemblages. The method includes graphical method and statistics. However, such kind of practice is relatively insufficient in China. The advantages of graphical method are those could present complex data multidimensionally and simultaneously and also contribute to increase the readability. It chiefly includes Cumulative Graph/Curves, Clustered Histogram/Accumulative Histogram, Snowflake Diagram and Radar Graph. The characteristic of the latter two is that they could reduce the variates with classification, and obtain more information. Nevertheless, it is better to combine the methods like use-wear analysis and residue analysis in classification to improve the accuracy of the information. In statistics, assemblage diversity has been paid close attention by researchers all the time, including the aspects of richness, evenness and heterogeneity. The available methods could be regression method, simulation method, Shannon-Weaver information statistic H, Pielou statistic J and so on. Considering the sample effect, researchers now prefer nonparametric estimators like Jackknife Technique, Bootstrap, Rarefaction (Interpolation) and Extrapolation. With the correlation and confidential intervals given by these methods, researchers may estimate the “true” size of assemblage when the sample size is limited but the variants are in dependency. The general procedure of quantitative analysis is confirming the research target, and then extracting variate, examining the correlation, after that choosing the method, finally returning to qualitative analysis. Although quantitative analysis provides an opportunity for comparing assemblages, it still lacks unification and standards. Therefore, when these methods are put to use, it should be placed into the archaeology frame with cautious consideration. In a word, in spite of the objectivity of artifacts assemblage comparison that quantitative analysis could add, this method should still be regarded as a supplementary method, to be more precisely, a supplement to qualitative analysis.
