Often, statistical evaluations of metric data are overlooked in ceramic studies. This paper evaluates degrees of precision and repeatability through the application of a coefficient of variation analysis and a repeated measures ANOVA. First, the author assessed the use of calipers for measuring metric data that pertains to decorative elements. Second, the author assessed the degree of statistical difference between measurements taken and measurements that have been rounded, a technique used to account for intra-observer error. The results demonstrate that the precision and repeatability of calipers is suitable for effectively measuring metric data values, and the precision of non-rounded values does not differ greatly from rounded values. The author argues that calipers are an effective metric measuring aid that further contribute to studies of personal actions and thought processes of potters. As a result, archaeological focus can integrate a micro-scale understanding of potting communities to consider finding individual variation and the learning landscapes of inexperienced potters.
AikensCM (1995) First in the world: The Jomon pottery of Early Japan. In: BarnettWKHoopesJJ (eds) The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 11–21.
2.
ArnoldPJIII (1991) Dimensional standardization and production scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity2(4): 363–370.
3.
BanningEB (2000) The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
4.
BohannonRW (1986) Test-retest reliability of hand-held dynamometry during a single session of strength assessment. Physical Therapy66(2): 206–209.
5.
BraunGV (2010) Technological choices: Ceramic manufacture and use at the Antrex site (AjGv-38). Ontario Archaeology89/90: 69–96.
6.
BraunGV (2012) Petrography as a technique for investigating Iroquoian ceramic production and smoking rituals. Journal of Archaeological Science39(1): 1–10.
7.
ChiltonE (1998) The cultural origin of technical choice: Unraveling Algonquian and Iroquoian ceramic traditions in the Northeast. In: StarkM (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 132–160.
8.
ChungJW (1982) South Seacoast Area Chulmun Pottery Research (1), Pusan, South Korea: History Department, Pusan University.
9.
ClarkeDL (1970) Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CostinCL (2000) The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of ceramic production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory7(4): 377–403.
11.
CreeseJL (2012) Social contexts of learning and individual motor performance. In: WendrichW (ed.) Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 43–60.
12.
DibbleHLBernardMC (1980) A comparative study of basic edge angle measurement techniques. American Antiquity45(4): 857–865.
13.
DienJSantuzziAM (2004) Application of repeated measures ANOVA to high-density ERP. In: HandyT (ed.) Event-Related Potentials: A Methods Handbook, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 57–81.
14.
FieldAP (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Advanced Techniques for the Beginner, London: Sage.
15.
FishPR (1978) Consistency in archaeological measurement and classification: A pilot study. American Antiquity43(1): 86–89.
Hart JohnPBrumbachHJ (2009) On pottery change and northern Iroquoian origins: An assessment from the Finger Lakes region of central New York. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology28(4): 367–381.
18.
HillJN (1977) Individual variability in ceramics and the study of prehistoric social organization. In: HillJNGunnJ (eds) The Individual in Prehistory, New York: Academic Press, pp. 55–108.
19.
LongacreWAKennethLKKobayashiM (1988) Southwestern pottery standardization: An Ethnoarchaeological view from the Philippines. The Kiva53(2): 101–112.
20.
LymanRLVanPoolTL (2009) Metric data in archaeology: A study of intra-analyst and inter-analyst variation. American Antiquity74(3): 485–504.
21.
Marcus J (2015) Studying the individual in prehistory: a tale of three women from Cerro Azul, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 35(1): 1–22.
22.
Martelle HA (2002) Huron potters and archaeological constructs: Researching ceramic micro-stylistics. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
23.
MartelleHA (2004) Some thoughts on the impact of epidemic disease and European contact on ceramic production in seventeenth century Huronia. Ontario Archaeology77/78: 22–44.
24.
Marois JM (1984) A Tentative Systematization of Decoration Analysis. Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 127.
25.
MateiciucováI (2004) Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK). In: LukesAZvelebilM (eds) LBK Dialogues. Studies in the Formation of the Linear Pottery Culture, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1304, pp. 91–108.
26.
MichelakiK (2007) More than meets the eye: Reconsidering variability in Iroquoian ceramics. Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d'Archéologie3(2): 143–170.
27.
Pretola JP (2000) Northeastern ceramic diversity: An optical mineralogy approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
28.
SoperR (1971) Early iron age pottery types from East Africa: Comparative analysis. Azania: Journal of the British Institute in Eastern Africa6(1): 39–52.
29.
SimpsonGGRoeALewontinRC (1960) Quantitative Zoology, New York: McGraw-Hill Book.
30.
ThomasJTMcCallGLilliosK (2009) Revisiting the individual in prehistory: Idiosyncratic engraving variation and the Neolithic slate plaques of the Iberian Peninsula. Cambridge Archaeological Journal19(01): 53–72.
31.
Warrick G (1984) Reconstructing Ontario Iroquois Village Organization. Mercury Series Paper No. 124, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
