Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T14:37:40.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Use of Cumulative Curves and Numerical Taxonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David H. Thomas
David H. Thomas*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Irwin and Wormington (1970) employ cumulative curves to assess overall similarity between artifact complexes of the Great Plains. Properly applied, ogives are relevant only to R-mode phenomena. Numerical taxonomic aids are advanced as procedures more ef ficacious for such Q-mode analyses. Numerical taxonomy and computer techniques in general are currently within the reach of every archaeologist.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 1971 , pp. 206 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1971

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

Binford, Lewis R., and Binford, Sally R. 1966 A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68:238–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonham-Carter, G. F. 1967 FORTRAN IV program for Q-mode cluster analysis of nonquantitative data using IBM 7090/7094 computers. Computer Contribution No. 17. Kansas State Geological Survey.Google Scholar
Bordes, François H. 1950 Principes d’une méthode d’étude des techniques de débitage et de la typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. L’Anthropologie 54:19–34.Google Scholar
Bordes, François H. 1953 Levalloisien et moustérien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise 50:226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical archaeology. Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R., Sneath, P. H. A., and Doran, J. E. 1966 Some experiments in the numerical analysis of archaeological data. Biometrika 53:311–324.Google Scholar
Irwin, Henry T., and Wormington, H. M. 1970 Paleo-Indian tool types in the Great Plains. American Antiquity 35:24–34.Google Scholar
Johnson, Leroy 1968 Item seriation as an aid for elementary scale and cluster analysis. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Bulletin 15.Google Scholar
Kerrich, J. E., and Clarke, D. L. 1967 Notes on the possible misuse and errors of cumulative percentage frequency graphs for the comparison of prehistoric artefact assemblages. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33:57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumbein, W. C, and Graybill, F. A. 1965 An introduction to statistical models in geology. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R., and Sneath, P. H. A. 1963 Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Stephenson, W. 1953 The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar