Unsupervised model-based clustering for typological classification of Middle Bronze Age flanged axes

Wilczek, Josef; Monna, Fabrice; Gabillot, Maréva; Navarro, Nicolas; Rusch, Lucille; Château, Carmela

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.030

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analyses of lithic shape are neither new or novel, and it is not surprising that geometric morphometrics (GM) (sensu Corti (1993)) has captivated analysts of material culture due to the substantive contribution of morphology to lithic typologies (Fox, 2015;Thulman, 2012;Wilczek et al, 2015). The first application of GM to archaeologically-recovered artefacts was an analysis of irregular shapes 55 by elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) (Gero & Mazzullo, 1984), and the adoption of the method by the archaeological community has continued.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EFA has been increasingly employed in lithic analyses, where analysts continue are developing novel approaches that advance archaeological applications (Cardillo, 2010;Fox, 2015;Ioviţă, 2009Ioviţă, , 2010Ioviţă, , 2011Ioviţă & McPherron, 2011;60 Smith et al, 2014;Gingerich et al, 2014;Sholts et al, 2012;Wilczek et al, 2015). Numerous creative research designs have also been presented that address some of the very real challenges associated with the oft-fractured and incomplete specimens abundant in the archaeological record (Byrne et al, 2016;Rezek et al, 2011;Smith, 2010;Smith & DeWitt, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Selden¹,

Dockall²,

Shafer³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This analysis of Gahagan biface morphology enlists the three largest samples of Gahagan bifaces, to include that of the type site (Gahagan Mound) as well as the Mounds Plantation and George C. Davis sites. Results indicate a significant difference in Gahagan biface morphology at the Mounds Plantation site when compared with Gahagan bifaces from the Gahagan Mound and George C. Davis sites. Tests for allometry and asymmetry were not significant. The test of morphological disparity indicates that Gahagan bifaces produced at the Mounds Plantation site occupy a more restricted range of morphospace than those produced at Gahagan Mound, providing indirect evidence for standardisation and diversity in Caddo biface production. While the sample includes a wide range of morphological variability, the test of morphological integration indicates that Gahagan bifaces are significantly integrated, meaning that those traits used to characterise their shape (blade and base) vary in a coordinated manner. These results articulate with a shift in Caddo bottle morphology over the same geography, potentially indicating two previously unrecognised and morphologically-distinct lithic and ceramic production areas.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Selden¹,

Dockall²,

Shafer³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather than attempting to record individual measurements and distances between diagnostic features (which are few in number) using traditional techniques (which are seldom straight-forward and feature a significant number of sources of measurement error), the cross-section was quantified and analysed through two-dimensional GMM. Over the last few years GMM methodologies have become routinely employed for the analysis of artefact morphology, providing a powerful statistical and exploratory framework for understanding artefact shape variance, the robustness of artefact groupings and temporal and spatial change in artefact shape (Birch and Martinón-Torres 2019;Bonhomme et al 2017;Buchanan and Collard 2010;Freidline et al 2012;Gilboa et al 2004;Lycett et al 2010;Wilczek et al 2015). Shape is defined in this framework as the total amount of information which is invariant under Type: Montelius 1885 Table 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While researchers in the Bronze Age are becoming increasingly familiar with GMM approaches (e.g. Forel et al 2009;Monna et al 2013;Wilczek et al 2015), there currently exists no examples of GMM analyses on tutuli, and accordingly a new workflow was necessary for this article. The following procedure was therefore employed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Geometric Morphometric (GMM) Application to the Study of Bronze Age Tutuli

Vestergaard¹,

Hoggard²

2019

DJA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we examine the morphological diversity of the tutuli object group from the earlier Nordic Bronze Age (henceforth NBA) – an often over-looked object group despite their abundance specially, temporally and contextually. Currently, only a few studies of the morphological diversity of tutuli have been published, and these consist primarily of decade-old-typologies. The objective of this of this paper is first and foremost methodological, as we examine two research questions – concerning classification and periodisation – through a novel two-dimensional geometric morphometric (henceforth GMM) framework and subsequent multivariate analysis. Inherently we examine whether specific shapes conform to the classificatory of the Montelius typology, and whether a temporal relationship exists between types and shapes.

show abstract

“…Landmark-based geometric morphometric methods are ideal for research designs captivated analysts of material culture due to the substantive contribution of 290 morphology to both ceramic and lithic typologies (Fox, 2015;Girrulat, 2006;Thulman, 2012Thulman, , 2019Topi et al, 2017;Wilczek et al, 2014Wilczek et al, , 2015, as well as additional categories of material culture (Barceló, 2010;Chitwood, 2014;Lenardi and Merwin, 2010;Ros et al, 2014;Windhager et al, 2012). Applications of geometric morphometrics in archaeology began with an analysis of irregular shapes 295 by elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) (Gero and Mazzullo, 1984), and methodological improvements continue to expand research potential for analyses of shape as it relates to material culture ( Figure 5).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative assessment of intraspecific morphological variation in Gahagan bifaces from the southern Caddo area and central Texas

Selden

Dockall²,

Dubied

2020

Southeastern Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This investigation aggregates intact or reconstructed Gahagan bifaces from the southern Caddo area and central Texas to test the hypothesis that Gahagan biface morphology differs between the regions. The Gahagan bifaces (n = 102) were scanned, then analysed using a novel landmarking protocol and the tools of geometric morphometrics. Results provide a preview of the significant differences in Gahagan biface morphology expressed between the southern Caddo area and central Texas regions. The size discrepancy represents an inversion of current theoretical constructs that posit a decrease in tool size thought to articulate with an increase in distance from the raw material source. It is posited that the contrasting morphologies represent two discrete communities of practise; one (emergent Caddo horticulturalists) where Gahagan bifaces were enlisted primarily for burial and ritualistic activities, and the other (central Texas hunter-gatherers) where Gahagan bifaces were utilised over a longer time span in more practical and utilitarian contexts.

show abstract

Unsupervised model-based clustering for typological classification of Middle Bronze Age flanged axes

Cited by 10 publications

References 43 publications

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Novel Geometric Morphometric (GMM) Application to the Study of Bronze Age Tutuli

A quantitative assessment of intraspecific morphological variation in Gahagan bifaces from the southern Caddo area and central Texas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About