Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative methods in archaeology: A review of recent trends and developments

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Research Aims and scope

Abstract

This paper reviews recent developments in the application of quantitative methods to archaeological research and focuses upon three major themes: the development of so-called designer methods, which are quantitative methods created to solve specific problems; the resurgence of whole-society modeling through a variety of formal and mathematical approaches; and trends in the the teaching of quantitative methods at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Not surprisingly, different subfields have had greater success than others in the development of useful methods, and the causes of this are explored. Finally, suggestions for improving training in the use of these methods are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References Cited

  • Ahler, S. (1989). Mass analysis of flaking debris: Studying the forest rather than the trees. In Henry, D. (ed.),Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 1, pp. 85–118.

  • Aitchison, T., Ottaway, B., and Alruzaiza, A. (1991). Summarizing a group of C-14 dates on the historical time scale with a worked example from the Late Neolithic of Bavaria.Antiquity 65: 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M. (1987a). Assessing the impact of quantitative thinking on archaeological research: Historical and evolutionary insights. In Aldenderfer, M. (ed.),Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M. (1987b). On the structure of archaeological data. In Aldenderfer, M. (ed.),Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 89–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M. (1991). The analytical engine: Computer simulation and archaeological research. In Schiffer, M. (ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 195–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M. (1995). Review ofExploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology, by M. BaxterAmerican Antiquity,60: 585–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M., (1996). Introduction. In Aldenderfer, M., and Maschner, H. (eds.),Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M. (1998).Montane Foragers: Asana and the South-Central Andean Archaic, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldenderfer, M., and Maschner, H. (eds.) (1996).Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information. Systems. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammerman, A. (1992). Taking stock of quantitative archaeology.Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D., Neff, H., and Bishop, R. (1991). Compositional analysis and “sources” of pottery: An ethnoarchaeological approach.American Anthropologist 93: 70–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamforth, D. (1988). Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests: The Institute results in context.Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, M. (1991). An empirical study of principal component and correspondence analysis of glass compositions.Archaeometry,33: 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, M. (1992). Statistical analysis of chemical compositional data and the comparison of analyses.Archaeometry 34: 267–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, M. (1994a).Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, M. (1994b). Stepwise discriminant analysis in archaeometry: A critique.Journal of Archaeological Science,21: 659–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, M., Cool, H., and Heyworth, M. (1990). Principal component and correspondence analysis of compositional data: Some similarities.Journal of Applied Statistics 17: 229–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, M., and Heyworth, M. (1991). Comparing correlation matrices with applications in the study of artifacts and their chemical compositions. In Pernicka, E., and Wagner, G., (eds.),Archaeometry '90, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, pp. 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. (1978).Nunamuit Ethnoarchaeology, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L., and Binford, S. (1968). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies.American Anthropologist 68: 235–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R., and Neff, H. (1989). Compositional data analysis in archaeology. In Allen, R. (ed.),Archaeological Chemistry IV, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 57–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biskowski, M. (1992). Cultural change, the prehistoric mind, and archaeological simulations. In Reilly, P., and Rahtz, S. (eds.),Archaeology and the Information Age, Routledge, London, pp. 212–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankholm, H. (1991).Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Theory and Practice, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, D. (1992). Zooarchaeology: Method, theory, and goals. In Schiffer, M. (ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 4, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 195–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, C., Kenworthy, J., Litton, C., and Smith, A. (1991). Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information—a Bayesian approach to calibration.Antiquity 65: 808–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, C., Litton, C., and Scott, E. (1994). Making the most of radiocarbon dating—some statistical considerations.Antiquity 68: 252–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, C., Litton, C., and Smith, A. (1992). Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events.Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 497–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casteel, R., and D. Grayson (1977). Terminological problems in quantitative faunal analysis.World Archaeology 9: 235–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., and Stafford, C. R. (1982). Quantification in American archaeology: Historical perspectives.World Archaeology 14: 98–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, G. (1986). Archaeological applications of mathematical and formal methods. In Meltzer, D., Fowler, D., and Sabloff, J. (eds.),American Archaeology: Past and Present, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 369–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree, P. (1993). Early animal domestication in the Middle East and Europe In Schiffer, M. (ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 201–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Uribe, K. (1988). The use and meaning of species diversity and richness in archaeological faunas.Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacey, M. (1973). Statistical tests of spatial association in the locations of tool types.American Antiquity 38: 320–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P., and Hersh, R. (1981).The Mathematical Experience, Houghton Mifflin Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehling, H., and Plicht, J. (1993). Statistical problems in calibrating radicarbon dates.Radiocarbon 35: 29–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, J. (1990). Computer based simulation and formal modeling in archaeology: A review. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, J., Palmer, M., Gilbert, N., and Mellars, P. (1994). The EOS Project: Modeling Upper Paleolithic social change. In Gilbert, N., and Doran, J. (eds.),Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena, UCL Press, London, pp. 195–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drennan, R. (1996).Statistics for Archaeologists: A Commonsense Approach, Plenum New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, J. (1992).Distributional Archaeology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, J., Camilli, E., and Berman, M. (1996). GIS in the analysis of distributional archaeological data. In Maschner, H. (ed.),New Methods, Old Probems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper, No. 22, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgington, E. (1995)Randomization Tests, Marcel Dekker, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B., and Diaconis, P. (1983). Computer intensive methods in statistics.Scientific American 116–130.

  • Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. (1993).An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fieller, N., Gilbertson, D., Griffin, C., Briggs, D., and Jenkinson, R. (1992): The statistical modeling of the grain size distributions of cave sediments using log skew Laplace distributions: Creswell Crags, near Sheffield, England.Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, A., and Singer, B. (1982). Reassessing zooarchaeological quantification.World Archaeology,14: 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, P. (1994),Permutation Tests: A Practical Guide to Resampling Methods for Testing Hypotheses, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild, M. (1996). Geographical information systems and spatial analysis in the social sciences. In Aldenderfer, M., and Maschner, H. (eds.),Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, R., Graham, I., and Newcomer, M. (1985). The quantification of microwear polishes.World Archaeology,17: 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, D. (1979). On the quantification of vertebrate archaeofaunas In Schiffer, M. (ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, pp. 199–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, D. (1984).Quantitative Zooarchaeology, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, S., Kintigh, K., and Whallon, R. (1991). Linking ethnoarchaeological interpretation and archaeological data: The sensitivity of spatial analytic methods to post-depositional disturbance. In Kroll, E., and Price, T. (eds.),The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, Plenum, New York, pp. 149–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1965).Logic of Statistical Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbottle, G. (1991). The efficiencies and error rates of Euclidean and Mahalanobis searches in hypergeometries of archaeological ceramic compositions. In Pernicka, E., and Wagner, G. (eds.),Archaeometry, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, pp. 413–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I., and Orton, C. (1976)Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1992).Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. (1978).Quantification in Cultural Anthropology, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, J., and Sebastian, L., (eds.) (1988).Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (1964).The Conduct of Inquiry, Chandler, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintigh, K. (1984). Measuring archaeological diversity by comparison with simulated assemblages.American Antiquity 49: 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintigh, K. (1987). Quantitative methods designed for archaeological problems. In Aldenderfer, M. (ed.),Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 89–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintigh, K. (1990). Intrasite spatial analysis in archaeology. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos-Verlag, Bonn, pp. 165–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintigh, K., and Ammerman, A. (1982). Heuristic approaches to spatial analysis in archaeology.American Antiquity 47: 31–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, T. (1995). Agent-based modeling of Anasazi village formation in the northern American Southwest. http://www.santafe.edu/~carr/model/0toc.html.

  • Kuhn, S. (1990). A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools.Journal of Archaeological Science,17: 583–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvamme, K. (1990a). The fundamental principles and practice of predictive archaeological modeling. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 257–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvamme, K. (1990b). Spatial autocorrelation and the Classic Maya collapse revisited: Refined techniques and new conclusions.Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvamme, K. (1993). Spatial statistics and GIS: An integrated approach. In Andersen, J., Madsen, T., and Scollar, I. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Arhus University Press, Aarhus, pp. 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvamme, K. (1994). GIS vs. spatial statistics: How do they fit together?Archaeological Computing Newsletter 38: 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvamme, K. (1996). Investigating chipping debris scatters: GIS as an analytical engine. In Maschner, H. (ed.),Old Problems, New Methods: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Paper, No. 22, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 38–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, T. (1996). Review ofComputing the Past-CAA92-Computer Applications and Quantitative Method in Archaeology, edited by Andresen, J. Madsen, T., and Scollar, I.American Antiquity 61: 178–179.

  • Limp, F. (1991). Continuous cost movement models. In Behrens C., and Sever, T. (eds.)Applications of Space Age Technology in Anthropology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Science and Technology Laboratory, John C. Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS, pp. 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, R. L. (1984). Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 259–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, R. L. (1992). Anatomical consideration of utility curves in archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, R. L. (1994a). Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology.American Antiquity 59: 36–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, R. L. (1994b).Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marble, D. (1990). The potential methodological impact of GIS on the social sciences. In Allen, K., Green, S., and Zubrow, E. (eds.),Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, Taylor and Francis London, pp. 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marean, C. (1991). Measuring the post-depositional destruction of bone in archaeological assemblages.Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 677–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marean, C., and Spencer L. (1991). Impact of carnivor ravaging on zooarcheological measures of element abundance.American Antiquity 56: 645–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marean, C., Spencer, L., Blumenschine, R., and Capaldo, S. (1992). Captive hyaena bone-choice and destruction, the Schlepp effect, and Olduvai archaeofaunas.Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, F., and Pilgram, A. (1991). Meat versus within-bone nutrients: Another look at the meaning of body-part representation in archaeological sites.Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maschner, H. (ed.) (1996).New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research. Occasional Paper, No. 22, Carbondale, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maschner, H., and Stein, J. (1995). Multivariate approaches to site location on the Northwest Coast.Antiquity 69: 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlade, J. (1995). Archaeology and the ecodynamics of human-modifed landscapes.Antiquity 69: 113–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, D., Leonard, R., and Stratton, S. (1992). The relationship between sample size and diversity in archaeological assemblages.Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, D., and Jones, K. (1988). A reconsideration of animal body-part utility indices.American Antiquity 53: 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nance, J. (1993). Statistical sampling, estimation, and analytic procedures in archaeology.Journal of Quantitative Anthroplogy 4: 221–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, M., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. (1986). Evaluating microwear polishes with blind tests.Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orton, C. (1992). Quantitative methods in the 1990s. In Lock, G., and Moffett, J. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1991-CAA91, BAR International Series S577, Oxford., pp. 137–140.

  • Palmer, M., and Doran, J. (1993). Contrasting models of Upper Paleolithic social dynamics: A distributed artificial intelligence approach. In Andresen, J., Madsen, T., and Scollar, I. (eds.),Computing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Archaeology (CAA92) Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp. 251–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, L. (1990). Characteristics of bifacial reduction flake-size distribution.American Antiquity 55: 550–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perpere, M. (1995). Review ofComputer and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 1987, edited by Ruggles, C., and Rahtz, S.Anthropologie 99: 491–492.

  • Peterson, I. (1991). Pick a sample.Science, News 140: 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie, N., Johnson, I., Cullen, B., and Kvamme, K. (eds.) (1995).GIS in Archaeology: An Annotated Bibliography, Archacological Methods Series, No. 1, Sydney University.

  • Pilgram, T., and Marshall, F. (1995). Bone counts and statisticians: A reply to Ringrose.Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. (1989). Statistical methods and reasoning in archaeological research: A review of praxis and promise.Journal of Quantitative Anthropology 1: 5–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. (1990). The utility of mathematical constructs in building archaeological theory. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 29–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, D., Wilkinson, G., Grace, R., and Orton, C. (1991). An investigation of fractal properties of flint microwear images.Journal of Archacological Science 18: 629–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, P., and Rahtz, S. (1992). Introduction: Archaeology and the information age. In Reilly, P., and Rahtz., S. (eds.),Archaeology, and the Information Age, Routledge, London, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P. (1996).Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 2nd ed., Thames and Hudson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringrose, T. (1992). Bootstrapping and correspondence analysis in archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 615–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringrose, T. (1993). Bone counts and archaeology: A critique.Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 121–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringrose, T. (1995). Response to Pilgram and Marshall, “Bone counts and statisticians: A reply to Ringrose”.Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggles, A., and Church, R. (1996). An analysis of Late Horizon settlement patterns in the Teotihuacan—Temascalapa basins: A location-allocation and GIS based approach. In Aldenderfer, M., and Maschner, H. (eds),Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (1988).Quantifying Archaeology, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. (1994). Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: Review and recent approaches.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 69–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1993).Resampling: The New Statistics, Resampling Stats, Arlingon, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1994). What some puzzling problems teach about the theory of simulation and the use of resampling.The American Statistician 48: 290–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J., and Bruce, P. (1991). Resampling: A tool for everyday statistical work.Chance 4: 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery, of artifact types.American Antiquity 18: 305–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahle, D., and Dunn, J. (1982). An analysis and application of the size distribution of waste flakes from the manufacture of bifacial stone tools.World Archaeology 14: 84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiner, M. (1991). The faunal remains from Grotta Guattari: A taphonomic perspective.Current Anthropology 32: 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. (1993). Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C calibration program.Radiocarbon 35: 215–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., and Rozen, K. (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation.American Antiquity 50: 755–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. (1978). The awful truth about statistics in archaeology.American Antiquity 43: 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. (1986).Refiguring Anthropology, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R. (1988). Statistical evaluation of criteria used in sexing cattle metapodials.ArchaeoZoologia 2: 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. (1977).Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Weseley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorrips, A. (1990). The evolution of a flexible framework for archaeological analysis. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos-Verlag, Bonn, pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whallon, R. (1984). Unconstrained clustering for the analysis of spatial distributions in archaeology. In Hietala, H. (ed.),Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 241–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, D. (1996). The use of GIS to understand regional variation in earlier Neolithic Wessex. In Maschner, H. (ed.),Old Problems, New Methods: Geographic Information Systems and Modern Archaeological Research, Occasional Papers, No. 22, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale pp. 75–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, T. (1953). A method of calculating the dietary percentage of various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples.American Antiquity 19: 396–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynn, T., and Tierson, F. (1990). Regional comparison of the shapes of later Acheulean handaxes.American Anthropologist 92: 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Bibliography of recent literature

  • Breitburg, E. (1991). Verification and reliability of NISP and MNI methods of quantifying taxonomic abundance: A view from historic site archaeology. In Purdue, J., Klippel, W., and Styles, B. (eds.),Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of Paul Parmalee, Illnois State Museum, Springfield, pp. 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, B. (1995). Has archaeology remained aloof from the information age? In Huggett, J., and Ryan, N. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology—CAA94, BAR International Series 600, Oxford, pp. 1–12.

  • Cowgill, G. (1990) Artifact classification and archaeological purpose. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 61–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, G. (1990). Why Pearson's r is not a good similarity coefficient for comparing collections.American Antiquity 55: 512–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D'Altroy, T., and Bishop, R. (1990). The provincial organization of Inka ceramic production.American Antiquity 55: 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djindjian, F. (1990). A select bibliography of French data analysis applications in archaeology.Science and Archaeology 32: 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djindjian, F. (1990). Ordering and structuring in archaeology. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, M., and Lock, G. (1991).Digging Numbers: Elementary Statistics for Archaeologists, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinsman, L., and Hayek, L. (1993). A multivariate analysis of Renaissance portrait medals—An expanded nomenclature for defining alloy composition.Archaeometry 35: 49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggett, J. (1995). Numerical techniques for burial analysis. In Wilcock, J., and Lockyear, K. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology—CAA93, BAR International Series 598, Oxford, pp. 183–189.

  • Ihm, P. (1990) Stochastics models and data analysis in archaeology. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, H. (1989). The trouble with transformations: Effects of sample size and sample composition on meat weight estimates based on skeletal mass allometry.Journal of Archaeological Science 16:601–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. (1991). Numerical analysis in archaeobotany. In van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K., and Behre, K.-E. (eds.),Progress in Old World Paleoethnobotany, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J. (1988). Possible statistical contributions to paleoethnobotany. In Kadane, J. (ed.),Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 206–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koetje, T. (1991). Simulated archaeological levels and the analysis of Le Flagolet II, the Dordogne, France.Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvamme, K. (1990). One-sample tests in regional archaeological analysis: New possibilities through computer technology.American Antiquity 55:367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laxton, R. (1990). Methods of chronological ordering. In Voorrips, A., and Ottaway, B. (eds.),New Tools from Mathematical Archaeology, Information Center of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, pp. 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litton, C., and Zainodin, H. (1991). Statistical models of dendrochronology.Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, G. (1995). Archaeological computing, archaeological theory, and moves toward contextualism. In Huggett, J., and Ryan, N. (eds),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology—CAA94, BAR International Series 600, Oxford, pp. 13–18.

  • Magne, M., and Klassen, M. (1991). A multivariate study of rock art anthropomorphs at Writing-on-Stone, southern Alberta.American Antiquity 56: 389–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nance, J. (1990). Statistical sampling in archaeology. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 135–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, H., Bishop, R., and Arnold, D. (1990). A reexamination of the compositional affiliations of formative whiteware from highland Guatemala.Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orton, C. (1993). How many pots make 5: An historical overview of pottery quantification.Archaeometry 35: 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, C., and Tyers, P. (1990). Statistical analysis of ceramic assemblages.Archeologia e Calcolatori 1: 81–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, C., and Tyers, P. (1991). A technique for reducing the size of sparse contingency tables. In Lockyear, K., and Rahtz, S. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology—CAA90, BAR International Series 565, Oxford, pp. 121–126.

  • Peterson, J. (1992). Fourier analysis of field boundaries. In Lock, G., and Moffett, J. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1991-CAA91, BAR International Series S577, Oxford, pp. 149–156.

  • Philpotts, A., and Wilson, N. (1994). Application of petrofabric and phase equilibria analysis to the study of a potsherd.Journal of Archaeological Sciences 21:607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers-Jones, A., and Padmore, J. (1993). Use of quantitative methods and statistical analyses in the study of opal phytoliths. In Powers-Jones, A., and Padmore, J. (eds.),Current Research in Phytolith Analysis: Applications in Archaeology and Paleoecology, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, No. 10, Philadelphia.

  • Read, D. (1989). Intuitive typology and automatic classification: Divergence or full circle?Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 158–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. (1990). The utility of mathematical constructs in building archaeological theory. In Voorrips, A. (ed.),Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn, pp. 29–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, D., and Russell, G. (1996). A method for taxonomic typology construction and an example: Utilized flakes.American Antiquity 61: 663–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reece, R. (1994). Are Bayesian statistics useful to archaeological reasoning?Antiquity 68: 848–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reedy, T., and Reedy, C. (1994). Statistical analysis in conservation science.Archaeometry 36: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayre, E., Yener, K., Joel, E., and Barnes, I. (1992). Statistical evaluation of the presently accumulated lead isotope data from Anatolia and surrounding regions.Archaeometry 34: 73–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharon, I. (1995). Partial order scalogram analysis of relations—A mathematical approach to the analysis of stratigraphy.Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 751–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, I. (1995). The simulation of artifact diversity at El Amarna, Egypt.Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, L. (1993). A simple mathematical procedure for estimating the adequacy of site survey strategies.Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangri, D., and Wright, R. (1993). Multivariate analysis of compositional data—Applied comparisons favor standard principal components analysis over Aitchison loglinear contrast method.Archaeometry 35: 49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Peer, P. (1991). Interassemblage variability and Levallois style: The case of the North African Middle Paleolithic.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 107–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voorrips, A. (ed.) (1990)Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, Holos, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whallon, R. (1990). Defining structure in clustering dendrograms with multi-level clustering. In Voorrips, A. and Ottoway, B. (eds.),New Tools from Mathematical Archaeology, Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw, pp. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcock, J. (1995). Analysis of multidimensional matrices for archaeological data. In Wilcock, J., and Lockyear, K. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology—CAA93., BAR International Series 598, Oxford, pp. 191–195.

  • Wilcock, J. (1995). The incorporation of cluster analysis into multidimensional matrix analysis. In Huggett, J., and Ryan, N. (eds.),Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology—CAA94, BAR International Series 600, Oxford, pp. 55–62.

  • Wilson, S., and Melnick, D. (1990). Modeling randomness in locational archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 403–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorston, R., Gaffney, V., and Reynolds, P. (1990). Simulation of artefact movement due to cultivation.Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of California, 93106, Santa Barbara, California

    Mark Aldenderfer

Authors
  1. Mark Aldenderfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aldenderfer, M. Quantitative methods in archaeology: A review of recent trends and developments. J Archaeol Res 6, 91–120 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02446161

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02446161

Key Words

Search

Navigation