Evaluation of Archaeological Sourcing Techniques: Reconsidering and Re‐Deriving Hughes’ Four‐Fold Assessment Scheme
Evaluation of Archaeological Sourcing Techniques: Reconsidering and Re‐Deriving Hughes’ Four‐Fold Assessment Scheme
复制标题
考古采购技术的评估：重新考虑和重新推导休斯的四重评估方案
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Frahm
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Frahm
随着新的分析技术被引入来源研究，研究人员将数据汇编到多个实验室的数据库中，系统评估是必不可少的。精确度和精确度的重要性是显而易见的，但Shackley(2005)也呼吁“考古精确度”。Hughes(1998)提供了一个框架来考虑精确度和准确度以及信度和效度的概念。这四个概念可以作为评估考古来源数据和程序的基础，但几乎不存在采用休斯框架的情况。不幸的是，休斯关于信度和效度的公式与他们的传统定义有些不同，阻碍了他的框架。此外，精确度的概念在分析界已经过时，考古文献中出现了多余的术语(例如，可复制性)。在这里，我考虑休斯框架的基础，以及当采购社区一致地应用其四个组成部分时，如何最好地应用于评估分析数据和采购技术。
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 Furthermore, the concept of precision has become outdated in analytical circles, and superfluous terms (e.g., replicability) have emerged in the archaeological literature.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.