Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T02:51:06.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Selection of Samples from Large Sherd Collections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George L. Cowgill
George L. Cowgill*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When sherd collections are enormous, it is extremely desirable to have procedures for discarding portions of the material which minimize risks of losing useful information and are easy to apply. It is suggested that sherd lots be made the sampling units. Lots from each provenience category relevant for a given problem can be listed, and then a random sample of lots from each category included in the sample. Since the value of a sample depends more on its absolute size than on the proportion of the population it represents, it is suggested that ceramic categories be roughly ranked according to their scarcity. A relatively small number of lots from each provenience category will provide an adequate sample of common ceramic categories, while a larger number of lots are needed for rare categories. This procedure insures that certain lots will be preserved in their entirety, while common sherd categories may be discarded from other lots if they do not add much to any sample of interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , April 1964 , pp. 467 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1964

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. 1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 425–41. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, William G. 1953 Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York; Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
Ford, James A. 1962 A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronology. Pan American Union, Washington.Google Scholar
Vescelius, Gary S. 1960 Archaeological Sampling: A Problem of Statistical Inference. In “Essays in the Science of Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White,” edited by Dole, Gertrude E. and Carneiro, Robert L., pp. 457–70. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R. 1961 Volume in Pottery and the Selection of Samples. American Antiquity, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 230–1. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar