Cluster analysis of mixed-level data: Pottery provenience as an example

Provenience or “sourcing” studies of archaeological objects most commonly employ quantitative measurements of amounts of chemical constituents in the artifacts and source materials. These are then used in statistical grouping procedures known as cluster analyses. Many additional attributes of artifacts and sources, yielding lower-level qualitative data, are also of potential importance in determinations of artifact origins. These attributes are usually neglected because of the longstanding difficulty in treating “mixed-level” data, that is, combining both qualitative observations and quantitative information in a single powerful statistical procedure. A series of cluster analyses were run on two data sets consisting of archaeological pottery, using mixed-level characterization data in the CLUSTAN program with Gower's coefficient of similarity. The clustering solutions are interpretable in terms of provenience and production strategies.     

Northern Ireland Representation at Westminster: Constitutional Conundrums and Political Manœuvres

This article focuses on the issue of Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster. It investigates the political context of the decision to increase Northern Ireland's representation in the house of commons at Westminster from 12 members to 17 in 1978–9. Exploring this episode in more detail, it is argued, provides a more informed overall understanding of the history of devolution in the UK and of the way issues concerning Northern Ireland often overlapped with questions of constitutional change in Scotland and Wales. The article also throws light on the matter of Northern Ireland MPs and their voting rights at Westminster during Northern Ireland's experience of devolution prior to 1972.     

Late Classic Maya Pottery Production: Review and Synthesis

Studies of the organization of Maya pottery production have been pursued via numerous methods but without theoretical models. I review available data on production of Late Classic southern lowland Maya polychrome pottery in light of my calendrically based may model of geopolitical organization. I conclude that: (1) production arrangements vary by “kind” of pottery; (2) “craft specialization” and “workshops” are inappropriate concepts; (3) study of polychrome production necessitates multiple approaches, including analysis of decorative content; (4) better “bridging arguments” and “middle-range theory” are needed; (5) figural polychromes were “inalienable” wealth goods; and (6) they were painted in palaces of primary and secondary centers—may and k'atun seats in the model—in realm-specific signature styles.