The strength of parthood ties. Modelling spatial units and fragmented objects with the TSAR method — Topological Study of Archaeological Refitting

Plutniak, Sébastien

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2021.105501

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Let us now consider using only matching sets defined by connection relationships (case 4 in Table 1). This approach is also unsatisfactory, raising two issues that have been discussed in a previous study (Plutniak 2021b). First, supposing we have two archaeological situations with identical numbers of refits between objects, and identical proportions of refits within and between spatial units.…”

Section: Limits Of Count-based Approaches To Connection Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Considering a material object fragmented into multiple pieces, at the time of archaeological observation, the fragments are disjointed parts of the original object, but they were connected parts of this object in the past. "Refitting" relationships refer to these past connection relationships (Plutniak 2021b). They are among the most certain elementary pieces of archaeological knowledge that can be determined, because they are either true or false, non-probabilistic, determined by the principles of solid-state physics, and do not rely on external knowledge such as typo-chronologies.…”

Section: Fragmented Objects and Uncertain Archaeological Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Four problems for archaeological refitting studies. Discussion from the Taï Site and its Neolithic pottery material (France)

Plutniak,

Caro,

Manen

2023

Broken Bodies, Places and Objects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 Problem 1: Using similarity relationships between fragments generates bias 2.1 Matching sets count and intuitive interpretation . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Counting and non-supervised ordering of matching relationships 3 Problem 2: Counting connection relationships can be misleading 3.1 Limits of count-based approaches to connection relationships . . 3.2 How "strong" is a connection relationship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Admixture and cohesion of the Early Neolithic layers at the cave Taï 4 Problem 3: Reference data to compare sets of refitting fragments are limited 4.1 The limits of archaeological observation . .

show abstract

Section: Limits Of Count-based Approaches To Connection Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Fragmented Objects and Uncertain Archaeological Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four problems for archaeological refitting studies. Discussion from the Taï Site and its Neolithic pottery material (France)

Plutniak,

Caro,

Manen

2023

Broken Bodies, Places and Objects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The simulation function generates connected fragments scattered within one or two spatial units (see Plutniak (2021b) for details). It can be set with multiple parameters:…”

Section: Simulation Of Fragmentation Graphsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Liang Abu, Indonesia (Plutniak (2021b), Plutniak et al (forthcoming)) • Taï cave, France (Caro et al (2022))…”

Section: Resources and Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it has been demonstrated that considering the number of refits without considering their topology can lead to misleading interpretations. A method, coined TSAR "Topological Study of Archaeological Refitting", was developed to overcome this issue using graph theory to model the topology of the relations between fragments (Plutniak (2021b), Plutniak (2022b)). This renewed approach distinguishes between ambiguous cases (Figure 1), and is much more robust and less sensitive to the lack of information than countbased methods, thus resulting in a more accurate evaluation of the reliability of the boundaries between spatial units.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Archeofrag: an R package for Refitting and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology

Plutniak¹

2022

JOSS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinguishing between spatial entities is fundamental in archaeology since archaeologists deal with spatial phenomena at multiple scales of analysis. During an excavation, objects are discovered within various types of spatial units e.g., stratigraphic layers, pits, hearths and houses. Spatial units are far from being raw data, and the identification and determination of their boundaries is the result of conjoint lines and methods of investigation, to name only a few: field observations, geoarchaeology, sedimentology, and the study of archaeological "refits". Refitting fragments belonged to the same object at some moment in the past. More precisely, archaeologists deduce former connection relationships from the symmetry and the possibility of contact of significantly large surface areas from two fragments, which can be physically adjusted (the fragments "refit"). Here, "connection" is used as a shorthand to refer to the connection relationship that existed in the past between two areas of an object before they were broken into fragments. Archaeological refitting analysis has several aims:

show abstract

Integrated and interactive 4D system for archaeological stratigraphy

Ortega

García-Fernández

Conde-Rodríguez

et al. 2022

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The digitization of some of the processes carried out in an archaeological excavation is changing the way of working at the site. Today, new technologies coexist with traditional methodologies. The study of stratigraphy can combine drawings of profiles and plans, the Harris Matrix diagram, as well as digitized files that perform a complete record of the stratigraphic sequence. However, this information is usually unaggregated from the rest of the information system that makes up the archaeological record. In this paper, we present an integrated software tool and the associated methodology to record, store, visualize and analyze the 3D stratigraphy of a site. The implementation uses spatial databases to store information of a heterogeneous nature and game engines for the visualization and interaction with this information. During the excavation process, the strata are scanned using the Tof technology, which is available in many smartphones. The resulting 3D model of the stratum, once uploaded to the software system, allows us to visualize the sequence of strata incorporating the findings into their original arrangement. Some additional tools, such as the scrollbar, help to perform a temporal analysis of the site. The result is a 4D interactive stratigraphy tool, which together with the Harris Matrix, complements the archaeological record and facilitates the work to archaeologists. This methodology also allows to speed up the on-site work and the subsequent analysis, while improving the user experience with the 3D archaeological site replica.

show abstract

The strength of parthood ties. Modelling spatial units and fragmented objects with the TSAR method — Topological Study of Archaeological Refitting

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

Four problems for archaeological refitting studies. Discussion from the Taï Site and its Neolithic pottery material (France)

Four problems for archaeological refitting studies. Discussion from the Taï Site and its Neolithic pottery material (France)

Archeofrag: an R package for Refitting and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology

Integrated and interactive 4D system for archaeological stratigraphy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About