Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique
The analysis of quantified vertebrate faunal data is important for the interpretation of many sites. This paper describes in some detail the strengths and weaknesses of the various quantification methods in use, focusing in particular on how both of these have often been misunderstood, and reviews c...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of archaeological science 1993-03, Vol.20 (2), p.121-157 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 157 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 121 |
| container_title | Journal of archaeological science |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Ringrose, T.J. |
| description | The analysis of quantified vertebrate faunal data is important for the interpretation of many sites. This paper describes in some detail the strengths and weaknesses of the various quantification methods in use, focusing in particular on how both of these have often been misunderstood, and reviews certain studies using such data. It is shown that many of these lack logical or statistical validity, and that substantial claims have been made with little justification. It is suggested that greater co-operation between archaeologists and statisticians would be an important step towards remedying this situation. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1006/jasc.1993.1010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1297316131</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0305440383710101</els_id><sourcerecordid>1297316131</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a368t-503cfdb1251372e6517b12433eeef41f0a804915c838ec2fa4beda54725b19193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LxDAQxYMouK5ePRcUb11nmqRtvK3FL1jwoJ5DNp1ClrVdk6zgf29KF2-ehjf83jzmMXaJsECA8nZjgl2gUjxJhCM2Q1AyVwWvj9kMOMhcCOCn7CyEDQCilMWM3dwPPWXNsO9jyEzfZm_RRBeis-EuW2aNd9F97emcnXRmG-jiMOfs4_HhvXnOV69PL81ylRte1jGXwG3XrrGQyKuCSolVEoJzIuoEdmBqEAqlrXlNtuiMWFNrpKgKuUaFis_Z1XR354cUG6LeDHvfp0iNhao4lsgxUYuJsn4IwVOnd959Gv-jEfTYhR670GMXeuwiGa4PZ9PebDtveuvCn6tEkKocsXrCKL347cjrYB31llrnyUbdDu6_hF9Yw27z</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1297316131</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Ringrose, T.J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ringrose, T.J.</creatorcontrib><description>The analysis of quantified vertebrate faunal data is important for the interpretation of many sites. This paper describes in some detail the strengths and weaknesses of the various quantification methods in use, focusing in particular on how both of these have often been misunderstood, and reviews certain studies using such data. It is shown that many of these lack logical or statistical validity, and that substantial claims have been made with little justification. It is suggested that greater co-operation between archaeologists and statisticians would be an important step towards remedying this situation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-4403</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9238</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1006/jasc.1993.1010</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JASCDU</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Excavation and methods ; Interpretation, statistical and computer analysis ; Laboratory methods ; Methodology and general studies ; Prehistory and protohistory ; Vertebrate Faunal Data, Taphonomy, Quantification Methods, Statistics</subject><ispartof>Journal of archaeological science, 1993-03, Vol.20 (2), p.121-157</ispartof><rights>1993 Academic Press</rights><rights>1993 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a368t-503cfdb1251372e6517b12433eeef41f0a804915c838ec2fa4beda54725b19193</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1993.1010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27869,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=6105960$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ringrose, T.J.</creatorcontrib><title>Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique</title><title>Journal of archaeological science</title><description>The analysis of quantified vertebrate faunal data is important for the interpretation of many sites. This paper describes in some detail the strengths and weaknesses of the various quantification methods in use, focusing in particular on how both of these have often been misunderstood, and reviews certain studies using such data. It is shown that many of these lack logical or statistical validity, and that substantial claims have been made with little justification. It is suggested that greater co-operation between archaeologists and statisticians would be an important step towards remedying this situation.</description><subject>Excavation and methods</subject><subject>Interpretation, statistical and computer analysis</subject><subject>Laboratory methods</subject><subject>Methodology and general studies</subject><subject>Prehistory and protohistory</subject><subject>Vertebrate Faunal Data, Taphonomy, Quantification Methods, Statistics</subject><issn>0305-4403</issn><issn>1095-9238</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1993</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LxDAQxYMouK5ePRcUb11nmqRtvK3FL1jwoJ5DNp1ClrVdk6zgf29KF2-ehjf83jzmMXaJsECA8nZjgl2gUjxJhCM2Q1AyVwWvj9kMOMhcCOCn7CyEDQCilMWM3dwPPWXNsO9jyEzfZm_RRBeis-EuW2aNd9F97emcnXRmG-jiMOfs4_HhvXnOV69PL81ylRte1jGXwG3XrrGQyKuCSolVEoJzIuoEdmBqEAqlrXlNtuiMWFNrpKgKuUaFis_Z1XR354cUG6LeDHvfp0iNhao4lsgxUYuJsn4IwVOnd959Gv-jEfTYhR670GMXeuwiGa4PZ9PebDtveuvCn6tEkKocsXrCKL347cjrYB31llrnyUbdDu6_hF9Yw27z</recordid><startdate>19930301</startdate><enddate>19930301</enddate><creator>Ringrose, T.J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><general>Academic Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>FUVTR</scope><scope>IZSXY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19930301</creationdate><title>Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique</title><author>Ringrose, T.J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a368t-503cfdb1251372e6517b12433eeef41f0a804915c838ec2fa4beda54725b19193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1993</creationdate><topic>Excavation and methods</topic><topic>Interpretation, statistical and computer analysis</topic><topic>Laboratory methods</topic><topic>Methodology and general studies</topic><topic>Prehistory and protohistory</topic><topic>Vertebrate Faunal Data, Taphonomy, Quantification Methods, Statistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ringrose, T.J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 06</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 30</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Journal of archaeological science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ringrose, T.J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique</atitle><jtitle>Journal of archaeological science</jtitle><date>1993-03-01</date><risdate>1993</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>121</spage><epage>157</epage><pages>121-157</pages><issn>0305-4403</issn><eissn>1095-9238</eissn><coden>JASCDU</coden><abstract>The analysis of quantified vertebrate faunal data is important for the interpretation of many sites. This paper describes in some detail the strengths and weaknesses of the various quantification methods in use, focusing in particular on how both of these have often been misunderstood, and reviews certain studies using such data. It is shown that many of these lack logical or statistical validity, and that substantial claims have been made with little justification. It is suggested that greater co-operation between archaeologists and statisticians would be an important step towards remedying this situation.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1006/jasc.1993.1010</doi><tpages>37</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0305-4403 |
| ispartof | Journal of archaeological science, 1993-03, Vol.20 (2), p.121-157 |
| issn | 0305-4403 1095-9238 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1297316131 |
| source | Periodicals Index Online; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Excavation and methods Interpretation, statistical and computer analysis Laboratory methods Methodology and general studies Prehistory and protohistory Vertebrate Faunal Data, Taphonomy, Quantification Methods, Statistics |
| title | Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T09%3A42%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bone%20Counts%20and%20Statistics:%20A%20Critique&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20archaeological%20science&rft.au=Ringrose,%20T.J.&rft.date=1993-03-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=121&rft.epage=157&rft.pages=121-157&rft.issn=0305-4403&rft.eissn=1095-9238&rft.coden=JASCDU&rft_id=info:doi/10.1006/jasc.1993.1010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1297316131%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1297316131&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0305440383710101&rfr_iscdi=true |