Projectile point data are used in testing and evaluating various numerical shape classification procedures. Inspectional point types play the role of a control population while clustering algorithms, attribute section, and standardization techniques are tested. The most effective numerical procedure identified for the classification of projectile point form is a combination of k-means analysis, ratio scale measurements between attributes, and standardization of interval measures to a mean of zero and standard deviation of one.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlerS. A.1971Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter Missouri, College of Arts and Science, University of Missouri-Columbia and the Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.
2.
AndrefskyW.Jr.1983aExperimental Archaeology and Lithic Assemblage Analysis, Proceedings of the 1983 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, EvansJ. (ed.), Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, pp. 44–56.
3.
AndrefskyW.Jr.1983bLate Archaic Prehistory in the Upper Delaware Valley: A Study of Classification, Chronology, and Interaction, Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY Binghamton, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
4.
BaconW. S.1977Projectile Point Typology: The Basic Base, Archaeology of Eastern North America, 5, pp. 107–121.
5.
BenferR. A.1967A Design for the Study of Archaeological Characteristics, American Antiquity, 69, pp. 719–730.
6.
BenferR. A. and BenferA. N.1981Automatic Classification of Inspectional Categories: Multivariate Theories of Archaeological Data, American Antiquity, 46, pp. 381–396.
7.
BienenfeldP. and AndrefskyW.Jr.1984Projectile Point Life Cycles and Use-Resharpening Analysis, paper presented at the 49th annual meeting of the society for American Archaeology, Portland, Oregon.
8.
BinfordL. R.1963, A Proposed Attribute List for the Description and Classification of Projectile Points, in Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification, WhiteA. M. (eds.), Anthropological Papers No. 19, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 193–221.
9.
BrownJ. A.1982, On the Structure of Artifact Typologies, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, WhallonR. and BrownJ. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 176–189.
10.
BroylesB. J.1971Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Report of Archaeological Investigations, No. 3.
11.
ChristensonA. L. and ReadD. W.1977Numerical Taxonomy, R-Mode Factor Analysis and Archaeological Classification, American Antiquity, 42, pp. 163–179.
12.
CoeJ.1964“Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont,”Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 54(5): 1–130.
13.
CorlissD. W.1972Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Cultural Change and Continuity, Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No. 29, Pocatello, Idaho.
14.
CowgillG. L.1982, Clusters of Objects and Associations between Variables: Two Approaches to Archaeological Classification, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, WhallonR. and BrownJ. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 30–55.
15.
DoranJ. E. and HodsonF. R.1975Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
16.
DunnellR. C.1971Systematics in Prehistory, Free Press, New York.
17.
FlennikenJ. J. and RaymondA.1984Morphological Projectile Point Typology of the Great Basin: Replication, Experimentation, and Technological Analysis, paper presented at the 49th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, Oregon.
18.
GoodyearA. C.1974The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeastern Arkansas, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Publications in Archaeology, Research Series, No. 7.
19.
GunnJ.1981Response to Benfer and Benfer, American Antiquity, 46, p. 397.
20.
GunnJ. and PrewittE. R.1975Automatic Classification: Projectile Points from West Texas, Plains Anthropologist, 20, pp. 139–149.
21.
HealanO. M.1984Errors in Vierra and Carlson's Presentation of Bartlett's Test of Significance, American Antiquity, 49, pp. 626–627.
22.
HillJ. and EvansR.1972, A Model for Classification and Typology, in Models in Archaeology, ClarkeD. L. (ed.)., Methuen, London, pp. 231–273.
23.
KinseyW. F.1972Archaeology of the Upper Delaware Valley, Anthropological Series of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, No. 2, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
24.
KinseyW. F.1975The Faucett and Byram Sites: Chronology and Settlement in the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 45, pp. 1–103.
25.
KintighK. W. and AmmermanA. J.1982Heuristic Approaches to Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, American Antiquity, 47, pp. 31–67.
26.
KraftH. C.1970The Miller Field Site, Warren County, New Jersey: A Study in Prehistoric Archaeology, Part One, The Archaic and Transitional Stages, Seton Hall University Press, South Orange, New Jersey.
27.
KraftH. C.1975The Archaeology of the Tocks Island Area, Archaeological Research Center, Seton Hall University Press, South Orange, New Jersey.
28.
ReadD. W.1974aSome Comments on the Use of Mathematical Models in Archaeology, American Antiquity, 39, pp. 3–15.
29.
ReadD. W.1974bSome Comments on Typologies in Archaeology and an Outline of a Methodology, American Antiquity, 37, pp. 216–242.
30.
RitchieW. A.1971A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points, New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin No. 384. Albany, New York.
31.
SneathP. H. A. and SokolR.1973Numerical Taxonomy, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco and London. SpauldingA. C.1953Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types, American Antiquity, 18, pp. 305–314.
32.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM INSTITUTE1982SAS User's Guide: Statistics, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
33.
ThomasD. H.1972The Use and Abuse of Numerical Taxonomy in Archaeology, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, 7, pp. 31–49.
34.
ThomasD. H.1978The Awful Truth About Statistics in Archaeology, American Antiquity, 43, pp. 231–244.
35.
ThomasD. H.1981How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada, Journal of California Great Basin Anthropology, 3, pp. 7–43.
36.
VierraR. K.1982, Typology, Classification, and Theory Building, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, WhallonR. and BrownJ. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 162–175.
37.
VierraR. K. and CarlsonD. L.1984Factor Analysis, Random Data, and Patterned Results, American Antiquity, 46, pp. 272–283.
38.
VoorripsA.1982, Mambrino's Helmet: A Framework for Structuring Archaeological Data, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, WhallonR. and BrownJ. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 93–126.
39.
WhallonR.1972A New Approach to Pottery Typology, American Antiquity, 37, pp. 13–33.
40.
WhallonR.1982, Variables and Dimensions: The Critical Step in Quantitative Typology, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, WhallonR. and BrownJ. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 127–161.
41.
WhallonR. and BrownJ. A.1982Essays on Archaeological Typology, Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.
42.
WhallonR.PeeblesC. R., and KusS. M.1975Experimenting with the Numerical Analysis of Shape in Pottery Vessels, paper on file at the University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.
