Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-21T21:47:11.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cluster Analysis and Archaeological Classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark S. Aldenderfer  and
Roger K. Blashfield
Mark S. Aldenderfer
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO 63121
Roger K. Blashfield
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines some of the implications of Christenson and Read’s [1977] comments on the use of numerical taxonomic concepts in archaeological classification. While many of their comments are accurate, we feel that they have seriously misrepresented the nature of cluster analysis as a grouping technique by their association of cluster analysis with the theoretical and methodological goals of numerical taxonomy. The implications of their arguments are challenged.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 1978 , pp. 502 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1978

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

References Cited

Anderberg, M. R. 1977 Late Anasazi farming and hunting strategies: One example of a problem in congruence. American Antiquity 42:449–461.Google Scholar
Anderberg, M. R. 1973 Cluster analysis for applications. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. D. 1975 Cluster analysis. Sociological Methodology—1974: 1-54.Google Scholar
Bezdek, J. C. 1975 Cluster validity with fuzzy sets. Journal of Cybernetics 3:58–73.Google Scholar
Christenson, A., and Read, D. W. 1977 Numerical taxonomy, R-mode factor analysis, and archaeological classification. American Antiquity 42:163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, H. T., and Stephenson, W. 1975 An introduction to numerical classification. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cormack, R. N. 1971 A review of classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 134:321–365.Google Scholar
Czekanowski, Jan 1911 Objective Kriterien in der Ethnologie. Korrespondez-Blatt der Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie. Ethnologie. und Urgeschichte 42:1–5 Google Scholar
Driver, H. E. 1965 Survey of numerical classification in anthropology. In The use of computers in anthropology, edited by Hymes, D., pp. 301–344, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Driver, H. E., and Kroeber, A. L. 1932 Quantitative expression of cultural relationships. University of California Publications in AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology 31:211–256.Google Scholar
Everitt, B. S. 1974 Cluster analysis. Halstead Press, London.Google Scholar
Hartigan, J. A. 1975 Clustering algorithms. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Hubert, L. 1972 Some extensions of Johnson's hierarchical clustering algorithms. Psychometrilta 37:261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L. 1974 Approximate evaluation techniques for the single-link and complete-link hierarchical clusteringprocedures. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69:698–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, N. and Sibson, R. 1971 Mathematical taxonomy. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. 1972 Introduction to imaginary models for archaeological scaling and clustering. In Models in archaeology, edited by Clarke, D.L., pp. 301–379. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Oxnard, C, and Neely, P. M. 1969 The descriptive use of neighborhood limited classification in functional morphology: an analysisof the shoulder in primates. Journal of Morphology 129:127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal, R. R. 1973 Numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Sneath, P. H. A. 1963 Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Williams, W. T., Lance, G. N., Dale, M. B., and Clifford, H. T. 1971 Controversy concerning the criteria for taxonometric strategies. Computer Journal 14:162–165.Google Scholar