Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T20:16:52.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Observer Variation When Recording Stone Artifacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Denis Gnaden  and
Simon Holdaway
Denis Gnaden
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia
Simon Holdaway
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92109, Auckland 1, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Variation in artifact recording introduced through the use of multiple observers is common in many archaeological projects. We report a study designed to assess random and systematic errors in nominal and ratio data recorded by observers on stone artifacts as part of a distributional study. A random sample of artifacts was selected and double analyzed, once by the regular observers and once by the project director. Random and systematic differences between the two sets of observations are assessed statistically. Analysis of these errors either permits corrections to be applied or indicates where care must be taken in analyzing artifact variation as a reflection of past human behavior.

Resumen

Resumen

En muchos proyectos arqueólogicos es común detectar variación en la anotación de artefactos a causa de la participación de múltiples observadores. Presentamos un estudio diseñado para evaluar errores aleatorios y sistemáticos en datos nominales y de proporción causados por la anotación de artefactos por varios observadores. Una muestra aleatoria de artefactos de piedra son selecionados y doblemente analizados. Una vez por observadores regulares y otra por el director del proyecto. Diferencias de carácter aleatorio y sistemáticos entre las dos muestras de observaciones son estadisticamente evaluadas. El análisis de estos errores permite la aplicación de correcciones á indica cuando se debe tener cuidado durante el análisis de artefactos que reflejan el comportamiento humano del pasado.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , October 2000 , pp. 739 - 747
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2000

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, W., and Adams, E. 1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Beck, C, and Jones, G. T. 1989 Bias and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 54: 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, C, and Jones, G. T. 1994 On-Site Artifact Analysis as an Alternative to Collection. American Antiquity 59: 304–315.Google Scholar
Beers, Y. 1957 Introduction to the Theory of Error. Addison-Wesley, Reading, England.Google Scholar
Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienburg, S. E., and Holland, P. W. 1975 Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bland, J. M., and Altaian, D. 1986 Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. The Lancet 1(8476): 307–310.Google Scholar
Brennan, P., and Silman, A. 1992 Statistical Methods for Assessing Observer Variability in Clinical Measures. British Medical Journal 304: 1491–1494.Google Scholar
Carlin, J. 1993 Repeatability and Method Comparison: Introduction to Reliability and Agreement. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Royal Children's Hospital Research Foundation and the Melbourne University Department of Paediatrics, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1960 A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 1968 Weighted Kappa: Nominal Scale Agreement with Provision for Scaled Disagreement or Partial Credit. Psychological Bulletin 70: 213–220.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. G. H. 1972 Research design models. In Models in Archaeology, edited by Clark, D. L., pp. 201–229. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. 1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background. Clarification, and Review of Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299–368.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., and Holdaway, S. 1990 Le Paleolithique Moyen de L'Abri Sous Roche de Warwasi et ses Relations avec le Mousterien du Zagros ei du Levant. L Anthropologic 94: 619–624.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., and Holdaway, S. 1993 The Middle Paleolithic of Warwasi Rockshelter. In Prehistory of the Zagros, edited by Dibble, H. and Olszewski, D., pp. 75–99. The University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., and Pelcin, A. 1995 The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 429–139.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., and Whittaker, J. 1981 New Experimental Evidence on the Relation between Flaking and Hake Variation. Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 283–296.Google Scholar
Drennan, R. D. 1996 Statistics for the Archaeologist: A Commonsense Approach. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ebert, J. 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Fish, P. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43: 86–89.Google Scholar
Fish, P. 1979 The Interpretive Potential of Mousterian Debitage. Anthropological Research papers No. 16, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Fletcher, M., and Lock, G. R. 1994 Digging Numbers: Elementary Statistics for Archaeologists. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 33, Oxford.Google Scholar
Haas, M. 1991 Statistical Methodology for Reliability Studies. Journal of Manipulative Therapeutics 14: 119–132.Google Scholar
Holdaway, S., Witter, D., and Fanning, P. C. 1997 Analysis of Artefact Distributions on an Eroding Landscape: The Western New South Wales Archaeological Project. In Archaeological Applications ofGIS: Proceeding of Colloquium II, UlSPPXIIth Congress, Forli, Italy, edited by Johnson, I. and North, M.. Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series No. 5 (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
Holdaway, S., Witter, D., Fanning, T. et al. 1998 New Approaches to Open Site Spatial Archaeology in Sturt National Park, New South Wales, Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 33: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherron, S., and Holdaway, S. 1996 Entrer Trois. In A Multimedia Companion to the Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), edited by Dibble, H. and McPherron, S., The University Museum, Philadelphia (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
Nelson, M. 1991 A Study of Technological Organization. Method and Theory in Archaeology 3: 57–100.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
Odell, G. H. 1989 Experiments in Lithic Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R.P. pp. 163–197. BAR International Series 528.Google Scholar
Prentiss, W. C. 1998 The Reliability and Validity of a Lithic Debitage Typology: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 63: 635–650.Google Scholar
Shott, M. 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
Thomas, D. H. 1976 Figuring Anthropology: First Principles of Probability and Statistics. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Torrence, R. 1989 Tools as Optimal Solutions. In Time, Energy and Stone Tools, edited by Torrence, R., pp. 1–6. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. C, Cauklins, D., and Kamp, K. A. 1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 129–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N., and Roberts, F. H. H. 1978 Lindenmeier, 1934 - 1974: Concluding Report on Investigation. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 24, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.Google Scholar