<p>The geometric morphometrics approach is rarely employed in the analysis of archaeological material, despite its numerous remarkable advantages. This method enables the objective identification of variable parameters across a series of objects while being independent of object size. However, this characteristic likely contributes to its limited popularity in archaeology, as object size is a crucial parameter in material culture and its consideration is essential. This may necessitate repeated statistical processing, incorporating the size of objects, which is both laborious and methodologically unobvious. We propose the utilization of a unified system of measurements for the processing of serial finds, which is predicated on the key points (landmarks) necessary for geometric morphometrics. However, it is imperative to employ a real scale for these finds, thereby enabling the acquisition of data for both geometric morphometrics and traditional typological analysis from a single table. Consequently, the detection of objective variable proportional parameters can be effectuated by the method of geometrical morphometrics and, if deemed necessary, these parameters can be correlated with dimensional parameters. This methodology appears to be particularly well-suited for analyzing mass series of poorly differentiated artefacts, a notion that is supported by the presentation of a practical example. The particular outcome of the study is a precise, formal typology of ceramics of the Kokel archaeological culture (3rd–4th c. CE, Tuva Republic), which based on the measurements and analysis of nearly all published vessels. Located in Inner Asia and existing after the Xiongnu expansion and before the establishment of the First Turkic Khaganate, the Kokel culture has rarely been the subject of special interest. The results presented here can be used for more general conclusions on the archaeology of Inner Asia during this time period, as well as for interregional comparisons.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Re-evaluating the pottery typology of the Kokel archaeological culture (3rd–fourth centuries CE, Tuva Republic, Inner Asia) with geometric morphometrics approach

  • Timur Sadykov

摘要

The geometric morphometrics approach is rarely employed in the analysis of archaeological material, despite its numerous remarkable advantages. This method enables the objective identification of variable parameters across a series of objects while being independent of object size. However, this characteristic likely contributes to its limited popularity in archaeology, as object size is a crucial parameter in material culture and its consideration is essential. This may necessitate repeated statistical processing, incorporating the size of objects, which is both laborious and methodologically unobvious. We propose the utilization of a unified system of measurements for the processing of serial finds, which is predicated on the key points (landmarks) necessary for geometric morphometrics. However, it is imperative to employ a real scale for these finds, thereby enabling the acquisition of data for both geometric morphometrics and traditional typological analysis from a single table. Consequently, the detection of objective variable proportional parameters can be effectuated by the method of geometrical morphometrics and, if deemed necessary, these parameters can be correlated with dimensional parameters. This methodology appears to be particularly well-suited for analyzing mass series of poorly differentiated artefacts, a notion that is supported by the presentation of a practical example. The particular outcome of the study is a precise, formal typology of ceramics of the Kokel archaeological culture (3rd–4th c. CE, Tuva Republic), which based on the measurements and analysis of nearly all published vessels. Located in Inner Asia and existing after the Xiongnu expansion and before the establishment of the First Turkic Khaganate, the Kokel culture has rarely been the subject of special interest. The results presented here can be used for more general conclusions on the archaeology of Inner Asia during this time period, as well as for interregional comparisons.