利用最优线性估计确定准确的人工痕迹形态范围:方法验证、案例研究和代码

IF 2.6 1区 地球科学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Journal of Archaeological Science Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jas.2023.105921
Alastair Key , Metin I. Eren , Michelle R. Bebber , Briggs Buchanan , Alfredo Cortell-Nicolau , Carmen Martín-Ramos , Paloma de la Peña , Cameron A. Petrie , Tomos Proffitt , John Robb , Konstantina-Eleni Michelaki , Ivan Jarić
{"title":"利用最优线性估计确定准确的人工痕迹形态范围:方法验证、案例研究和代码","authors":"Alastair Key ,&nbsp;Metin I. Eren ,&nbsp;Michelle R. Bebber ,&nbsp;Briggs Buchanan ,&nbsp;Alfredo Cortell-Nicolau ,&nbsp;Carmen Martín-Ramos ,&nbsp;Paloma de la Peña ,&nbsp;Cameron A. Petrie ,&nbsp;Tomos Proffitt ,&nbsp;John Robb ,&nbsp;Konstantina-Eleni Michelaki ,&nbsp;Ivan Jarić","doi":"10.1016/j.jas.2023.105921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A fundamental goal of archaeologists is to infer the behaviour of past humans from the attributes of the artefacts they left behind. The archaeological record is, however, fragmented and often provides a partial record of the total artefacts produced by a given population. In turn, there is potential for population-level morphometric data, and therefore behavioural inferences, to be biased relative to the trends realised in the past. This includes morphological range data which are important for identifying similarities and differences between artefact groups, and for contextualising artefacts relative to external variables such as human anatomy, ecology, climate and chronology. Here, we investigate whether optimal linear estimation (OLE) modelling can be used to accurately identify the upper and lower limits of artefact morphological ranges (including those represented by sparse datasets). First, we test whether OLE reliably identifies morphological ranges using randomly sampled subsets of ‘known and complete’ replica artefact assemblages. Using morphometric data from lithic, ceramic, and metal archaeological case studies, we then identify how much further the upper and lower form limits of these artefact types would have been in the past, relative to the ranges evidenced by excavated (i.e., known partial) records. Validation tests demonstrate OLE to be capable of providing broadly accurate estimates for the true morphological range of artefact assemblages. Estimate accuracy increases relative to the percentage of the total assemblage used and the method is shown to function well using as few as five records (<em>k</em>) from an assemblage. The case studies reveal how OLE can overhaul or reinforce our understanding of artefact morphological ranges. In some instances, it is clear that the archaeological record provides a highly accurate representation of artefact morphological ranges and the overlap between artefact groups. For others, it is demonstrated that our understanding of the extreme artefact forms produced by past people is likely inaccurate</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440323002017/pdfft?md5=915136d5930250ef9a69e41d213af53b&pid=1-s2.0-S0305440323002017-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying accurate artefact morphological ranges using optimal linear estimation: Method validation, case studies, and code\",\"authors\":\"Alastair Key ,&nbsp;Metin I. Eren ,&nbsp;Michelle R. Bebber ,&nbsp;Briggs Buchanan ,&nbsp;Alfredo Cortell-Nicolau ,&nbsp;Carmen Martín-Ramos ,&nbsp;Paloma de la Peña ,&nbsp;Cameron A. Petrie ,&nbsp;Tomos Proffitt ,&nbsp;John Robb ,&nbsp;Konstantina-Eleni Michelaki ,&nbsp;Ivan Jarić\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jas.2023.105921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A fundamental goal of archaeologists is to infer the behaviour of past humans from the attributes of the artefacts they left behind. The archaeological record is, however, fragmented and often provides a partial record of the total artefacts produced by a given population. In turn, there is potential for population-level morphometric data, and therefore behavioural inferences, to be biased relative to the trends realised in the past. This includes morphological range data which are important for identifying similarities and differences between artefact groups, and for contextualising artefacts relative to external variables such as human anatomy, ecology, climate and chronology. Here, we investigate whether optimal linear estimation (OLE) modelling can be used to accurately identify the upper and lower limits of artefact morphological ranges (including those represented by sparse datasets). First, we test whether OLE reliably identifies morphological ranges using randomly sampled subsets of ‘known and complete’ replica artefact assemblages. Using morphometric data from lithic, ceramic, and metal archaeological case studies, we then identify how much further the upper and lower form limits of these artefact types would have been in the past, relative to the ranges evidenced by excavated (i.e., known partial) records. Validation tests demonstrate OLE to be capable of providing broadly accurate estimates for the true morphological range of artefact assemblages. Estimate accuracy increases relative to the percentage of the total assemblage used and the method is shown to function well using as few as five records (<em>k</em>) from an assemblage. The case studies reveal how OLE can overhaul or reinforce our understanding of artefact morphological ranges. In some instances, it is clear that the archaeological record provides a highly accurate representation of artefact morphological ranges and the overlap between artefact groups. For others, it is demonstrated that our understanding of the extreme artefact forms produced by past people is likely inaccurate</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Archaeological Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440323002017/pdfft?md5=915136d5930250ef9a69e41d213af53b&pid=1-s2.0-S0305440323002017-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Archaeological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440323002017\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Science","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440323002017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

考古学家的一个基本目标是从人类留下的手工艺品的属性推断过去人类的行为。然而,考古记录是支离破碎的,往往只能部分记录特定人群生产的全部手工艺品。反过来,人口层面的形态计量数据以及行为推断也有可能与过去的趋势存在偏差。这包括形态范围数据,这些数据对于识别人工制品群体之间的相似性和差异性,以及将人工制品与人体解剖学、生态学、气候学和年代学等外部变量联系起来非常重要。在此,我们研究是否可以使用最优线性估计(OLE)模型来准确识别人工制品形态范围的上限和下限(包括稀疏数据集所代表的范围)。首先,我们使用随机取样的 "已知和完整 "复制文物集合子集来检验 OLE 是否能可靠地识别形态范围。然后,我们使用来自石器、陶瓷和金属考古案例研究的形态测量数据,确定这些文物类型的形态上限和下限在过去相对于出土记录(即已知部分记录)所证明的范围有多大。验证测试表明,OLE 能够大致准确地估计出文物组合的真实形态范围。估算的准确性随着所使用的记录在整个组合中所占比例的增加而提高,而且该方法在使用一个组合中少至五条记录(k)时也能很好地发挥作用。案例研究揭示了 OLE 如何彻底改变或加强我们对人工制品形态范围的理解。在某些情况下,考古记录显然高度准确地反映了器物形态范围和器物群之间的重叠。而另一些情况则表明,我们对过去人类生产的极端器物形态的理解很可能是不准确的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Identifying accurate artefact morphological ranges using optimal linear estimation: Method validation, case studies, and code

A fundamental goal of archaeologists is to infer the behaviour of past humans from the attributes of the artefacts they left behind. The archaeological record is, however, fragmented and often provides a partial record of the total artefacts produced by a given population. In turn, there is potential for population-level morphometric data, and therefore behavioural inferences, to be biased relative to the trends realised in the past. This includes morphological range data which are important for identifying similarities and differences between artefact groups, and for contextualising artefacts relative to external variables such as human anatomy, ecology, climate and chronology. Here, we investigate whether optimal linear estimation (OLE) modelling can be used to accurately identify the upper and lower limits of artefact morphological ranges (including those represented by sparse datasets). First, we test whether OLE reliably identifies morphological ranges using randomly sampled subsets of ‘known and complete’ replica artefact assemblages. Using morphometric data from lithic, ceramic, and metal archaeological case studies, we then identify how much further the upper and lower form limits of these artefact types would have been in the past, relative to the ranges evidenced by excavated (i.e., known partial) records. Validation tests demonstrate OLE to be capable of providing broadly accurate estimates for the true morphological range of artefact assemblages. Estimate accuracy increases relative to the percentage of the total assemblage used and the method is shown to function well using as few as five records (k) from an assemblage. The case studies reveal how OLE can overhaul or reinforce our understanding of artefact morphological ranges. In some instances, it is clear that the archaeological record provides a highly accurate representation of artefact morphological ranges and the overlap between artefact groups. For others, it is demonstrated that our understanding of the extreme artefact forms produced by past people is likely inaccurate

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Archaeological Science 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Archaeological Science is aimed at archaeologists and scientists with particular interests in advancing the development and application of scientific techniques and methodologies to all areas of archaeology. This established monthly journal publishes focus articles, original research papers and major review articles, of wide archaeological significance. The journal provides an international forum for archaeologists and scientists from widely different scientific backgrounds who share a common interest in developing and applying scientific methods to inform major debates through improving the quality and reliability of scientific information derived from archaeological research.
期刊最新文献
Improving archaeomagnetic interpretations by reusing magnetically oriented samples for micromorphological analysis Editorial Board 'JSDNE': A novel R package for estimating age quantitatively with the auricular surface by Dirichlet normal energy Understanding mammal resource choices and subsistence strategies during the Holocene Climate Optimum: Integration of evidence from palaeodistribution modelling, animal bones and archaeological remains in the farming-pastoral ecotone, northern China New chronology evidence of prehistoric human activities indicated by pottery luminescence dating in the humid subtropical mountains of South China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1