The Analysis of Sea-Bed Distributions

Discontinuous Sites
  • Keith Muckelroy
Part of the The Springer Series in Underwater Archaeology book series (SSUA)


In the course of the last section [of Maritime Archaeology], the sophistication of the methods of analysis rose as the degree of reordering of the material on the seabed increased, and as the significance of the observed distributions became intuitively less apparent. In the present section, this process moves on a stage further, because with discontinuous sites there has been not only a considerable degree of reordering, but also the loss of any defining structure within which to consider the remains. The distributions on sites such as those at Yassi Ada could be directly related to the framework of the structural remains within which they were formerly contained, and even with the more obscure type of situation such as that represented by the Trinidad Valencera, the assumption could still be made that the scatter was related to a single nucleus representing the remains of the vessel. This is no longer true in a situation where the ship has broken up over a considerable distance, or where the seabed has presented greatly varying conditions for the preservation of remains within the area of the wreck site. In this total absence of any defining framework, a discontinuous wreck site is fundamentally different from nearly all other archaeological situations; perhaps the nearest analogy on land is a midden site.


Euclidean Distance Measure Euclidean Distance Matrix Lead Shot Maritime Archaeology Clay Pipe 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Doran, J.E., and Hodson, F.R., 1975, Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Greig-Smith, P., 1964, Quantitative Plant Ecology. Methuen: London.Google Scholar
  3. Hodder, I., and Orton, C., 1976, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: London.Google Scholar
  4. Lance, G.N., and Williams, W.T., 1967, A General Theory of Classificatory Sorting Strategies; 1. Hierarchical Systems. Computer Journal 9:373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Muckelroy, K.W., 1975, A Systematic Approach to the Investigation of Scattered Wreck Sites. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 4:173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Price, R., and Muckelroy, K.W., 1974, The Second Season of Work on the Kennemerland Site, 1973: An Interim Report. Internationaljournal of Nautical Archaeology 3:257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Robinson, W.S., and Brainerd, G.W., 1951, A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits, and the Place of Chronologically Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity 16:293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R., 1973, Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classifications. Freeman: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  9. Ward, J.H., 1963, Hierarchical Grouping to Optimise an Objective Function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58:236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wishart, D., 1969, An Algorithm for Hierarchical Classifications. Biometrics 25:165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Muckelroy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations