Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:34:41.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metric Data in Archaeology: A Study of Intra-Analyst and Inter-Analyst Variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. Lee Lyman  and
Todd L. VanPool
R. Lee Lyman
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, 107 Swallow Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-1440 ([email protected])
Todd L. VanPool
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, 107 Swallow Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-1440 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Metric data are regularly presented, analyzed, and compared. Despite acknowledgment that metric data can vary both when collected by one observer and when collected by multiple observers, few studies of these sources of variation in archaeological metric data have been undertaken. Intra-observer and inter-observer measurement errors are examined across four dimensions of 23 modern bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) astragali and five dimensions of 30 specimens of stone projectile point representing 4 culture-historical (temporal) types. Statistical and graphical analyses indicate that measuring dimensions of the same specimens multiple times facilitates determination of dimensions that can be readily and reliably measured and serves to screen data for data recording errors and for dimensions that may be subject to high levels of intra-observer and inter-observer variation.

Résumé

Résumé

Con regularidad se presenta, se analiza y compara los datos métricos. A pesar del reconocimiento que los datos métricos pueden variar cuando un observador los colecta y cuando various observadores los colectan. Han hecho pocos estudios de estos orígenes de variaciones en los datos métricos arqueológicos. Se examinan los errores en medidas de intra-observador e inter-observador a través cuatro dimensiones de astragli moderno de 23 borregos con cuernos largos (Ovis canadensis) y cinco dimensiones de 30 espécimen del punto de proyectil de piedra que representan 4 tipos cultural-históricos (temporal). Análisis estadístico y gráfico indica que al medir las dimensiones de las mismas espécimen varias veces se facilita la determinación de las dimensiones que pueden ser fácilmente y correctamente medidas y sirve para examinar los datos para errores de la grabación de los datos y para las dimensiones que pueden ser sujeto a niveles altos de variación entre intra-observador y inter-observador.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 485 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2009

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

Adams, Bradley J., and Byrd, John E. 2002 Interobserver Variation of Selected Postcranial Skeletal Measurements. Journal of Forensic Science 47:1–10.Google Scholar
Albarella, Umberto 2002 ‘SizeMatters’: How and Why Biometry is Still Important in Zooarchaeology. In Bones and the Man: Studies in Honour of Don Brothwell, edited by Keith Dobney and Terry O’Connor, pp. 51–62. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Altman, D. G., and Bland, J. M. 1983 Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies. The Statistician 32:307–317.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1988 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:11–23.Google Scholar
Beck, Charlotte, and Jones, George T. 1989 Bias and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 54:244–261.Google Scholar
Benfer, Robert A. 1967 A Design for the Study of Archeological Characteristics. American Anthropologist 69:719–730.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L., and Eerkens, Jelmer W. 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231–242.Google Scholar
Bland, J. Martin, and Altman, Douglas G. 1986 Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement Between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. The Lancet 1(8476):307–310.Google Scholar
Boaz, Joel 1984 Towards a Time Sensitive Projectile Point Typology for Southwest Idaho. Idaho Archaeologist 7(1): 15–30.Google Scholar
Boessneck, Joachim, and von den Driesch, Angela 1978 The Significance of Measuring Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. In Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by Richard H. Meadow and Melinda A. Zeder, pp. 25–39. Peabody Museum Bulletin 2, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. Clifford Jr. 1987 Interobserver Error in the Analysis of Nominal Attribute States: A Case Study. Tennessee Anthropologist 12(1):88–95.Google Scholar
Braun, David P. 1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B.C.–A.D. 600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 153–181. Occasional Paper No. 7, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.Google Scholar
Crown, Patricia L. 1995 The Production of the Salado Polychromes in the American Southwest. In Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 142–166. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. G. H. 1972 Research Design Models. In Models in Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 201–229. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Davis, Simon J. M. 1981 The Effects of Temperature Change and Domestication on the Body Size of Late Pleistocene to Holocene Mammals of Israel. Paleobiology 7:101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Bernard, Mary C. 1980 A Comparative Study of Basic Edge Angle Measurement Techniques. American Antiquity 45:857–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drews, Michael P. 1990 Projectile Point Chronology. In The Archaeology of James Creek Shelter, edited by Robert G. Elston and Elizabeth E. Budy, pp. 77–86. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 115. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Driesch, Angela von den 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Havard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Ducos, P., and Kolska Horwitz, L. R. 1997 The Influence of Climate on Artiodactyl Size during the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene of the Southern Levant. Paleorient 23(2):229–247.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Bettinger, Robert L. 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66:493–504.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Lipo, Carl P. 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:316–334.Google Scholar
Emerson, Thomas E. 1978 A New Method for Calculating the Live Weight of the Northern White-tailed Deer from Osteoarchaeological Material. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 3:35–44.Google Scholar
Fish, Paul R. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43:86–89.Google Scholar
Fish, Paul R. 1979 The Interpretive Potential of Mousterian Debitage. Anthropological Research Papers No. 16. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Gavan, James A. 1950 The Consistency of Anthropometric Measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 8:417–426.Google Scholar
Gnaden, Denis, and Holdaway, Simon 2000 Understanding Observer Variation when Recording Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 65:739–747.Google Scholar
Grigson, Caroline 1989 Size and Sex: Evidence for the Domestication of Cattle in the Near East. In The Beginnings of Agriculture, edited by A. Milles, D. Williams, and N. Gardner, pp. 77–109. British Archaeological Reports International Series 496. Oxford.Google Scholar
Heathcote, Gary M. 1981 The Magnitude and Consequences of Measurement Error in Human Carniometry. Canadian Review of Physical Anthropology 3:18–40.Google Scholar
Himes, John H. 1989 Reliability of Anthropometric Methods and Replicate Measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:77–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, C. Marshall 1989 Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology: Assessment with Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by Christopher Carr, pp. 566–612. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.Google Scholar
Hughes, Richard E. 1998 On Reliability, Validity, and Scale in Obsidian Sourcing Research. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material, edited by Ann F. Ramenofsky and Anastasia Steffen, pp. 103–114. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hurcombe, Linda 1988 Some Criticisms and Suggestions in Response to Newcomer et al. (1986). Journal of Archaeological Science 15:1–10.Google Scholar
Jamison, Paul L., and Ward, Richard E. 1993 Brief Communication: Measurement Size, Precision and Reliability in Craniofacial Anthropometry: Bigger is Better. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90:495–500.Google Scholar
Jamison, Paul L., and Zegura, Stephen L. 1974 A Univariate and Multivariate Examination of Measurement Error in Anthropometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 40:197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jennings, Jesse D. 1986 Prehistory: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 113–119. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Kay, Marvin 1975 Social Distance Among Central Missouri Hopewell Settlements: A First Approximation. American Antiquity 40:64–71.Google Scholar
Kelley, Jane H., and Hanen, Marsha P. 1988 Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Klein, Richard G. 1991 Size Variation in the Cape Dune Molerat (Bathyergus suillus) and Late Quaternary Climatic Change in the Southwestern Cape Province, South Africa. Quaternary Research 36:243–256.Google Scholar
Lawler, Mark C. 1992 Morphological Variation and Allometric Trends of Late Pleistocene Bighorn Sheep of Natural Trap Cave, Wyoming. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2006 Identifying Bilateral Pairs of Deer (Odocoileus sp.) Bones: How Symmetrical is Symmetrical Enough? Journal of Archaeological Science 33:1237–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee 2009 The Holocene History of Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) in Eastern Washington State, Northwestern USA. The Holocene 19:143–150.Google Scholar
Meadow, Richard H. 1999 The Use of Size Index Scaling Techniques for Research on Archaeozoological Collections from the Middle East. In Historia Animalium ex Ossibus, edited by Cornelia Becker, Henriette Manhart, Joris Peters, and Jörg Schibler, pp. 285–300. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf.Google Scholar
Mueller, William H., and Martorell, Reynaldo 1988 Reliability and Accuracy of Measurement. In Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual, edited by Timothy G. Lohman, Alex F. Roche, and Reynaldo Martorell, pp. 83–86. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, IL. Google Scholar
Newcomer, M., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. 1986 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:203–217.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M. H., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. 1988 Microwear and Methodology: A Reply to Moss, Hurcombe, and Bamforth. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noodle, Barbara 1973 Determination of Body Weight of Cattle from Bone Measurements. In Domestikations-Forschung un Geschichte der Haustiere, edited by M. Maolcsi, pp. 377–389. Academiai Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
Payne, Sebastian 1969 A Metrical Distinction between Sheep and Goat Metacarpals. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by Peter J. Ucko and George W. Dimbleby, pp. 295–305. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Pederson, David, and Gore, Christopher 1996 Anthropometry Measurement Error. In Anthropometrica, edited by Kevin Norton and Tim Olds, pp. 77–96. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Purdue, James R. 1989 Changes during the Holocene in the Size of White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from Central Illinois. Quaternary Research 32:307–316.Google Scholar
Reitz, Elizabeth, and Ruff, Barbara 1994 Morphometric Data for Cattle from North America and the Carribean Prior to the 1850s. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:699–713.Google Scholar
Rice, Prudence M. 1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style, and Origins. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:133–163.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. Steven 1998 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest: An Archaeological, Petrological, and Geochemical Study. American Antiquity 53:752–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:69–110.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1997 Stones and Shaft Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62:86–102.Google Scholar
Simpson, George Gaylord, Roe, Anna, and Lewontin, Richard C. 1960 Quantitative Zoology, revised edition. Harcourt, Brace, New York.Google Scholar
Sumner, Francis B. 1927 Linear and Colorimetric Measurements of Small Mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 8:177–206.Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461–472.Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7–43.Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst and Bierwirth, Susan L. 1983 Material Culture of Gatecliff Shelter: Projectile Points. In The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 177–211. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 59(1). New York.Google Scholar
Ulijaszek, Stanley J., and Kerr, Deborah A. 1999 Anthropometric Measurement Error and the Assessment of Nutritional Status. British Journal of Nutrition 82:165–177.Google Scholar
Ulijaszek, Stanley J., and Lourie, John A. 1994 Intra- and Inter-Observer Error in Anthropometric Measurement. In Anthropometry: The Individual and the Population, edited by S. J. Ulijaszek and C. G. N. Mascie-Taylor, pp. 30–55. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Utermohle, Charles J., and Zegura, Stephen L. 1982 Intra- and Interobserver Error in Craniometry: A Cautionary Tale. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 57:303–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanPool, Todd L., and Leonard, Robert D. 2009 Quantitative Archaeology. Blackwell, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Ward, R. E., and Jamison, P. L. 1991 Measurement Precision and Reliability in Craniofacial Anthropometry: Implications and Suggestions for Clinical Applications. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology 11:156–164.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Seth M., Scott, Nicole M., Neiswanger, Katherine, and Marazita, Mary L. 2005 Intraobserver Error Associated with Measurement of the Hand. American Journal of Human Biology 17:368–371.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C., Caulkins, Douglas, and Kamp, Kathryn A. 1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:129–164.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, Edwin N., and Roberts, Frank H. H. Jr. 1978 Lindenmeier, 1934–1974: Concluding Report on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 47. Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Zeder, Melinda A., and Hesse, Brian 2000 The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago. Science 287:2254–2257.Google Scholar