Dating Methods

N. Frerebeau

2021-05-04

## Load packages
library(tabula)
library(folio) # Datasets
library(magrittr)

1 Not All Dates Are Created Equal

This vignette presents different methods for dating archaeological assemblages using artifact count data. Here, dating refers to “the placement in time of events relative to one another or to any established scale of temporal measurement” (Dean 1978). This involves distinguishing between relative (that provide only a chronological sequence of events) and absolute dating methods (that yield a calendric indication and may provide the duration of an event) (O’Brien and Lyman 2002). Strictly speaking, there is no absolute dating given how dates are produced and given that any date refers to a scale. The distinction between absolute and relative time can be rephrased more clearly as quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable (O’Brien and Lyman 2002): absolute dates “are expressed as points on standard scales of time measurement” (Dean 1978).

We will keep here the distinction between a date an age as formulated by Colman, Pierce, and Birkeland (1987): “a date is a specific point in time, whereas an age is an interval of time measured back from the present.” Dealing with dates in archaeology can be tricky if one does not take into account the sources of the chronological information. In most cases, a date represents a terminus for a given archaeological assemblage. That is, a date before (terminus ante-quem) or after (terminus post-quem) which the formation process of the assemblage took place. This in mind, one obvious question that should underlie any investigation is what does the date represent?

First, let’s be more formal:

This implies that:

For a set of \(m\) assemblages in which \(p\) different types of artifact were recorded, let \(X = \left[ x_{ij} \right] ~\forall i \in \left[ 1,m \right], j \in \left[ 1,p \right]\) be the \(m \times p\) count matrix with row and column sums:

\[ \begin{align} x_{i \cdot} = \sum_{j = 1}^{p} x_{ij} && x_{\cdot j} = \sum_{i = 1}^{m} x_{ij} && x_{\cdot \cdot} = \sum_{i = 1}^{m} x_{i \cdot} = \sum_{j = 1}^{p} x_{\cdot j} && \forall x_{ij} \in \mathbb{N} \end{align} \]

Note that all \(x_{ij}\) are assumed to be error-free.

2 Mean Ceramic Date

2.1 Definition

The Mean Ceramic Date (MCD) is a point estimate of the occupation of an archaeological site (South 1977). The MCD is estimated as the weighted mean of the date midpoints of the ceramic types \(t_j\) (based on absolute dates or the known production interval) found in a given assemblage. The weights are the conditional frequencies of the respective types in the assemblage.

The MCD is defined as: \[ t^{MCD}_i = \sum_{j = 1}^{p} t_j \times \frac{x_{ij}}{x_{i \cdot}} \]

The MCD error is defined as: \[ \delta t^{MCD}_i = \sqrt{ \sum_{j = 1}^{p} \left( \delta t_j \times \frac{x_{ij}}{x_{i \cdot}} \right)^2 } \]

2.2 Limitation

The MCD is a point estimate: knowing the mid-date of an assemblage and not knowing the time span of accumulation might be short sighted. MCD offers a rough indication of the chronological position of an assemblage, but does not tell if an assemblage represents ten or 100 years.

2.3 Usage

## Coerce the zuni dataset to an abundance (count) matrix
zuni_counts <- as_count(zuni)

## Set the start and end dates for each ceramic type
zuni_dates <- list(
  LINO = c(600, 875), KIAT = c(850, 950), RED = c(900, 1050), 
  GALL = c(1025, 1125), ESC = c(1050, 1150), PUBW = c(1050, 1150),
  RES = c(1000, 1200), TULA = c(1175, 1300), PINE = c(1275, 1350),
  PUBR = c(1000, 1200), WING = c(1100, 1200), WIPO = c(1125, 1225),
  SJ = c(1200, 1300), LSJ = c(1250, 1300), SPR = c(1250, 1300),
  PINER = c(1275, 1325), HESH = c(1275, 1450), KWAK = c(1275, 1450)
)

## Calculate date midpoint
zuni_mid <- vapply(X = zuni_dates, FUN = mean, FUN.VALUE = numeric(1))

## Calculate MCD
zuni_mcd <- date_mcd(zuni_counts, dates = zuni_mid)

zuni_mcd %>% 
  as.data.frame() %>% 
  head()
#>             date error
#> LZ1105 1162.5000     0
#> LZ1103 1137.8378     0
#> LZ1100 1154.4643     0
#> LZ1099 1090.6250     0
#> LZ1097 1092.1875     0
#> LZ1096  841.0714     0

3 Event & Accumulation Date

3.1 Definition

Event and accumulation dates are density estimates of the occupation and duration of an archaeological site (L. Bellanger, Husi, and Tomassone 2006; L. Bellanger, Tomassone, and Husi 2008; Lise Bellanger and Husi 2012).

The event date is an estimation of the terminus post-quem of an archaeological assemblage. The accumulation date represents the “chronological profile” of the assemblage. According to Lise Bellanger and Husi (2012), accumulation date can be interpreted “at best […] as a formation process reflecting the duration or succession of events on the scale of archaeological time, and at worst, as imprecise dating due to contamination of the context by residual or intrusive material.” In other words, accumulation dates estimate occurrence of archaeological events and rhythms of the long term.

3.1.1 Event Date

Event dates are estimated by fitting a Gaussian multiple linear regression model on the factors resulting from a correspondence analysis - somewhat similar to the idea introduced by Poblome and Groenen (2003). This model results from the known dates of a selection of reliable contexts and allows to predict the event dates of the remaining assemblages.

First, a correspondence analysis (CA) is carried out to summarize the information in the count matrix \(X\). The correspondence analysis of \(X\) provides the coordinates of the \(m\) rows along the \(q\) factorial components, denoted \(f_{ik} ~\forall i \in \left[ 1,m \right], k \in \left[ 1,q \right]\).

Then, assuming that \(n\) assemblages are reliably dated by another source, a Gaussian multiple linear regression model is fitted on the factorial components for the \(n\) dated assemblages:

\[ t^E_i = \beta_{0} + \sum_{k = 1}^{q} \beta_{k} f_{ik} + \epsilon_i ~\forall i \in [1,n] \] where \(t^E_i\) is the known date point estimate of the \(i\)th assemblage, \(\beta_k\) are the regression coefficients and \(\epsilon_i\) are normally, identically and independently distributed random variables, \(\epsilon_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)\).

These \(n\) equations are stacked together and written in matrix notation as

\[ t^E = F \beta + \epsilon \]

where \(\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}_{n}(0,\sigma^2 I_{n})\), \(\beta = \left[ \beta_0 \cdots \beta_q \right]' \in \mathbb{R}^{q+1}\) and

\[ F = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & f_{11} & \cdots & f_{1q} \\ 1 & f_{21} & \cdots & f_{2q} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 1 & f_{n1} & \cdots & f_{nq} \end{bmatrix} \]

Assuming that \(F'F\) is nonsingular, the ordinary least squares estimator of the unknown parameter vector \(\beta\) is:

\[ \widehat{\beta} = \left( F'F \right)^{-1} F' t^E \]

Finally, for a given vector of CA coordinates \(f_i\), the predicted event date of an assemblage \(t^E_i\) is:

\[ \widehat{t^E_i} = f_i \hat{\beta} \]

The endpoints of the \(100(1 − \alpha)\)% associated prediction confidence interval are given as:

\[ \widehat{t^E_i} \pm t_{\alpha/2,n-q-1} \sqrt{\widehat{V}} \]

where \(\widehat{V_i}\) is an estimator of the variance of the prediction error: \[ \widehat{V_i} = \widehat{\sigma}^2 \left( f_i^T \left( F'F \right)^{-1} f_i + 1 \right) \]

were \(\widehat{\sigma} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( t_i - \widehat{t^E_i} \right)^2}{n - q - 1}\).

The probability density of an event date \(t^E_i\) can be described as a normal distribution:

\[ t^E_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\widehat{t^E_i},\widehat{V_i}) \]

3.1.2 Accumulation Date

As row (assemblages) and columns (types) CA coordinates are linked together through the so-called transition formulae, event dates for each type \(t^E_j\) can be predicted following the same procedure as above.

Then, the accumulation date \(t^A_i\) is defined as the weighted mean of the event date of the ceramic types found in a given assemblage. The weights are the conditional frequencies of the respective types in the assemblage (akin to the MCD).

The accumulation date is estimated as: \[ \widehat{t^A_i} = \sum_{j = 1}^{p} \widehat{t^E_j} \times \frac{x_{ij}}{x_{i \cdot}} \]

The probability density of an accumulation date \(t^A_i\) can be described as a Gaussian mixture:

\[ t^A_i \sim \frac{x_{ij}}{x_{i \cdot}} \mathcal{N}(\widehat{t^E_j},\widehat{V_j}^2) \]

Interestingly, the integral of the accumulation date offers an estimates of the cumulative occurrence of archaeological events, which is close enough to the definition of the tempo plot introduced by Dye (2016).

3.2 Limitation

Event and accumulation dates estimation relies on the same conditions and assumptions as the matrix seriation problem. Dunnell (1970) summarizes these conditions and assumptions as follows.

The homogeneity conditions state that all the groups included in a seriation must:

The mathematical assumptions state that the distribution of any historical or temporal class:

Theses assumptions create a distributional model and ordering is accomplished by arranging the matrix so that the class distributions approximate the required pattern. The resulting order is inferred to be chronological.

Predicted dates have to be interpreted with care: these dates are highly dependent on the range of the known dates and the fit of the regression.

3.3 Usage

## Bellanger et al. did not publish the data supporting their demonstration: 
## no replication of their results is possible. 
## Here is a pseudo-replication using the zuni dataset

## Assume that some assemblages are reliably dated (this is NOT a real example)
## The names of the vector entries must match the names of the assemblages
zuni_dates <- c(
  LZ0569 = 1097, LZ0279 = 1119, CS16 = 1328, LZ0066 = 1111,
  LZ0852 = 1216, LZ1209 = 1251, CS144 = 1262, LZ0563 = 1206,
  LZ0329 = 1076, LZ0005Q = 859, LZ0322 = 1109, LZ0067 = 863,
  LZ0578 = 1180, LZ0227 = 1104, LZ0610 = 1074
)

## Model the event and accumulation date for each assemblage
model <- date_event(zuni_counts, dates = zuni_dates, cutoff = 90)
summary(model[["model"]])
#> 
#> Call:
#> stats::lm(formula = date ~ ., data = contexts, na.action = stats::na.omit)
#> 
#> Residuals:
#>         1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8 
#>  0.517235 -4.017534 -0.279200  0.662137 -1.246499  0.576044  2.634482 -4.383683 
#>         9        10        11        12        13        14        15 
#> -1.093837 -0.005002  2.543773 -0.032706  3.480918 -0.759429  1.403301 
#> 
#> Coefficients:
#>             Estimate Std. Error  t value Pr(>|t|)    
#> (Intercept) 1164.350      1.892  615.459 2.15e-13 ***
#> F1          -158.314      1.472 -107.582 1.32e-09 ***
#> F2           -25.629      1.444  -17.753 1.04e-05 ***
#> F3            -5.546      1.905   -2.912   0.0333 *  
#> F4           -11.416      3.407   -3.351   0.0203 *  
#> F5            -2.713      2.448   -1.108   0.3183    
#> F6            -2.697      1.181   -2.285   0.0711 .  
#> F7            -3.966      3.001   -1.322   0.2435    
#> F8           -11.132      2.941   -3.785   0.0128 *  
#> F9             4.886      2.020    2.418   0.0602 .  
#> ---
#> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> 
#> Residual standard error: 3.669 on 5 degrees of freedom
#>   (405 observations deleted due to missingness)
#> Multiple R-squared:  0.9997, Adjusted R-squared:  0.9992 
#> F-statistic:  1979 on 9 and 5 DF,  p-value: 2.456e-08

## Estimate event dates
event <- predict_event(model, margin = 1, level = 0.95)
head(event)
#>             date     lower     upper    error
#> LZ1105 1167.9681 1158.2354 1177.7008 3.786202
#> LZ1103 1142.8337 1139.1334 1146.5340 1.439488
#> LZ1100 1155.6732 1147.6296 1163.7169 3.129114
#> LZ1099 1099.2725 1092.1529 1106.3921 2.769655
#> LZ1097 1088.3559 1079.8561 1096.8557 3.306570
#> LZ1096  839.3155  829.2385  849.3925 3.920110

## Estimate accumulation dates
acc <- predict_accumulation(model, level = 0.95)
head(acc)
#>             date error
#> LZ1105 1170.0050     0
#> LZ1103 1139.6745     0
#> LZ1100 1157.5166     0
#> LZ1099 1086.8919     0
#> LZ1097 1092.1504     0
#> LZ1096  874.8204     0
## Activity plot
plot_date(model, type = "activity", event = TRUE, select = "LZ1105") +
  ggplot2::theme_bw()

## Tempo plot
plot_date(model, type = "tempo", select = "LZ1105") +
  ggplot2::theme_bw()

Resampling methods can be used to check the stability of the resulting model. If jackknife_event() is used, one type/fabric is removed at a time and all statistics are recalculated. In this way, one can assess whether certain type/fabric has a substantial influence on the date estimate. If bootstrap_event() is used, a large number of new bootstrap assemblages is created, with the same sample size, by resampling the original assemblage with replacement. Then, examination of the bootstrap statistics makes it possible to pinpoint assemblages that require further investigation.

## Check model variability
## Warning: this may take a few seconds
## Jackknife fabrics
jack <- jackknife_event(model)
head(jack)
#>             date     lower     upper    error       bias
#> LZ1105 1078.2044 1068.4716 1087.9371 3.786202 -1525.9834
#> LZ1103  929.4291  925.7288  933.1294 1.439488 -3627.8785
#> LZ1100  931.8044  923.7607  939.8480 3.129114 -3805.7705
#> LZ1099 1088.8060 1081.6863 1095.9256 2.769655  -177.9309
#> LZ1097  807.1626  798.6628  815.6624 3.306570 -4780.2864
#> LZ1096  929.9436  919.8666  940.0206 3.920110  1540.6777

## Bootstrap of assemblages
boot <- bootstrap_event(model, n = 30)
head(boot)
#>              min      mean       max        Q5       Q95
#> LZ1105 1131.0439 1167.3267 1204.1566 1138.3640 1189.0788
#> LZ1103 1086.5188 1145.1409 1206.6009 1104.2443 1189.3615
#> LZ1100 1102.3974 1156.2802 1213.8899 1110.5341 1205.8960
#> LZ1099 1091.8614 1099.5279 1108.7292 1092.7644 1106.4601
#> LZ1097 1014.2267 1093.8465 1200.8304 1025.9725 1187.1501
#> LZ1096  725.8462  829.2876  990.6079  725.8462  990.6079

References

Bellanger, L., Ph. Husi, and R. Tomassone. 2006. “Statistical Aspects of Pottery Quantification for the Dating of Some Archaeological Contexts.” Archaeometry 48 (1): 169–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2006.00249.x.
Bellanger, L., R. Tomassone, and P. Husi. 2008. “A Statistical Approach for Dating Archaeological Contexts.” Journal of Data Science 6: 135–54.
Bellanger, Lise, and Philippe Husi. 2012. “Statistical Tool for Dating and Interpreting Archaeological Contexts Using Pottery.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (4): 777–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.031.
Colman, Steven M., Kenneth L. Pierce, and Peter W. Birkeland. 1987. “Suggested Terminology for Quaternary Dating Methods.” Quaternary Research 28 (2): 314–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(87)90070-6.
Dean, Jeffrey S. 1978. “Independent Dating in Archaeological Analysis.” In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 223–55. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-003101-6.50013-5.
Dunnell, Robert C. 1970. “Seriation Method and Its Evaluation.” American Antiquity 35 (3): 305–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/278341.
Dye, Thomas S. 2016. “Long-Term Rhythms in the Development of Hawaiian Social Stratification.” Journal of Archaeological Science 71 (July): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.05.006.
O’Brien, Michael J, and R. Lee Lyman. 2002. Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dating. Dordrecht: Springer.
Poblome, J., and P. J. F. Groenen. 2003. “Constrained Correspondence Analysis for Seriation of Sagalassos Tablewares.” In The Digital Heritage of Archaeology, edited by M. Doerr and A. Sarris. Hellenic Ministry of Culture.
South, S. A. 1977. Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Studies in Archeology. New York: Academic Press.