Premium
Evaluation of Archaeological Sourcing Techniques: Reconsidering and Re‐Deriving Hughes’ Four‐Fold Assessment Scheme
Author(s) -
Frahm Ellery
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
geoarchaeology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.696
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1520-6548
pISSN - 0883-6353
DOI - 10.1002/gea.21399
Subject(s) - computer science , reliability (semiconductor) , archaeology , foundation (evidence) , odds , data science , management science , history , engineering , machine learning , power (physics) , physics , logistic regression , quantum mechanics
As new analytical techniques are brought to sourcing studies and researchers compile data into multi‐laboratory databases, systematic evaluation is essential. The importance of precision and accuracy is clear, but Shackley (2005) also calls for “archaeological accuracy.” Hughes (1998) offered a framework to consider precision and accuracy alongside the concepts of reliability and validity. These four concepts can serve as a foundation to evaluate archaeological sourcing data and procedures, but adoption of Hughes’ framework has been nearly nonexistent. Unfortunately, Hughes’ formulations of reliability and validity are somewhat at odds with their conventional definitions, hindering his framework. Furthermore, the concept of precision has become outdated in analytical circles, and superfluous terms (e.g., replicability) have emerged in the archaeological literature. Here I consider the basis of Hughes’ framework and how its four components, when applied consistently by the sourcing community, are best applied to evaluate analytical data and techniques for sourcing.