Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:25:12.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods for the Descriptive Analysis of Archaeological Material

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. C. Gardin
J. C. Gardin*
Affiliation:
Centre d'Analyse Documentaire, Pour L'Archeologie (C.N.R.S.), Marseille, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most studies on the use of punched cards and computers in archaeology seem to take for granted that scientific standards exist to express the data upon which algorithms are to be performed, for retrieval or classification purposes. The author's view is different; examples are given of descriptive codes which have been designed under his direction since 1955 for the storage of archaeological data (artifacts, abstract or figured representations, buildings, etc.) on punched cards of various kinds (marginal, peek-a-boo, IBM, etc.). In order to obviate the shortcomings of natural language, three categories of rules are required: orientation, segmentation, differentiation. The concluding remarks concern the relation of the descriptive languages which are thus obtained to scientific language in general; differences are stressed, as well as reasons for postulating a continuum from the former to the latter.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1967 , pp. 13 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1967

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

Allard, M., Elziere, May, Gardin, J. C., and Hours, F. 1963 Analyse conceptuelle du Caran sur cartes perforées (Conceptual Analysis of the Coran on Punched Cards). Mouton & Co., Paris-La Haye.Google Scholar
Chenhall, Robert G. (editor) 1965 Newsletter for Computer Archaeologists, Vol. 1, No. 1. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Christophe, J. and Deshayes, J. 1964 Index de l’Outillage sur cartes perforées: outils de l’âge du Bronze, des Balkans à l’Indus (Tool Index on Punched Cards: Bronze Age Tools from the Balkans to the Indus). Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
De La Vega, W. F., Reqnier, S., and Renaud, Monique 1965 Techniques de la classification automatique, mimeographed report. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (Centre de Calcul) et Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Section d’Automatique Documentaire), Paris.Google Scholar
Elisseeff, V. 1965 Possibilités du scalogramme dans l’étude des bronzes chinois archaïques, Compte-rendus du Séminaire sur les Modèles Mathématiques dans les Sciences Sociales, année 1964–5. Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 6e Section, Paris.Google Scholar
Gardin, J. C. 1956 Le Fichier mécanographique de l’outillage. Institut français d’Archéologie, Beyrouth.Google Scholar
Gardin, J. C. 1958 Four codes for the Description of Artifacts, an Essay in Archaeological Technique and Theory. American Anthropologist, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 335–57. Menasha.Google Scholar
Gardin, J. C. 1963 Problèmes d’analyse descriptive en archéologie. Etudes archéologiques, edited by P. Courbin, pp. 132–50. Service d’Edition et de Vente des Publications de l’Education Nationale, Paris.Google Scholar
Gardin, J. C. 1965 Analyse documentaire et analyse structurale en archeologie. l’Arc, n°26 (on Claude Levi-Strauss), pp. 64–8. Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. 1961 Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Ihm, P. 1961 Classification automatique des objets de l’âge du bronze. Compte-rendus du Séminaire sur les Modelès Mathématiques dans les Sciences Sociales, année 1960–1, pp. 28–33. Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 6e Section, Paris.Google Scholar
Kamenetskij, I. S. 1965 Datation of layers from percentages of pottery types. Archaeology and the Natural Sciences (in Russian), pp. 302–7. Nauka, Moscow.Google Scholar
Kovalevskaja, V. B. 1965 The use of statistical methods for the study of large archaeological collections. Archaeology and the Natural Sciences (in Russian), pp. 286–300. Nauka, Moscow.Google Scholar
Krug, G. K. and Ju, O. 1965 Mathematical methods for the classification of ancient pottery. Archaeology and the Natural Sciences (in Russian), pp. 318–25. Nauka, Moscow.Google Scholar
Marshak, B. I. 1965 On the finding of criteria for establishing analogies and differences in pottery collections. Archaeology and the Natural Sciences (in Russian), pp. 308–17. Nauka, Moscow.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. 1954 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, Pt. 1, Preliminary Edition. Glendale.Google Scholar
Shaumian, C. K. 1960 Linguistic problems of cybernetics and structural linguistics (in Russian), Voprosy Filosofii, 9. Moscow.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.Google Scholar