Ceramics and Lithics Count Analysis

Analysis

In terms of overall ceramics and lithics, Block 2 has a greater overall presence of both of these types of artifacts. Both blocks clearly have fewer lithics compared to ceramics, which may speak to the abundance of certain materials in the excavation sites. This also gives insight into the point that Block 1 was a part of a burial site while Block 2 was an agricultural terrace, showing how the terrain and location of the blocks impacted the presence of ceramics and lithics (Filioglou et al, 2014). The major outcome of this analysis is the point that while ceramics and lithics are both common in the regions, there are clearly geographical barriers that impact the presence and capability to find such artifacts.

Artifact Count vs. Weight

Analysis

The lithics graph has a positive correlation. As the number of lithics count increases, the total weight increases as well. Lithics are important sources of evidence in evaluating past human activity. There is a cloud of points at the bottom left, where the counts and weights are both low. These units with smaller counts and smaller weights might indicate an abundance of minor chip-off pieces, small shards, and minimal discard. There were a few high outliers which could indicate large stone tools such as blades or handaxes. According to the scatterplot, there is a lot of clutter around units with lower counts and lower weights. This could indicate less intensive periods of activity. The ceramics scatter plot also indicates a positive correlation. As the ceramics count increases, the total weight increases. Ceramics differ in sizes and weight due to the clay type and thickness. Similar to the lithics graph, there is a lot of clutter around units with lower count and lower weight. This could indicate broken pottery pieces, which tend to be commonly found in excavation sites. The few high outliers with higher count and weight could indicate pieces of larger, disregarded items such as pots and vases. The data points are more sparsely distributed in the ground stone scatterplot. The data point with low count and high weight could indicate a large tool like a metate, that might have been recovered. The lower count and lower weight data points might indicate smaller broken pieces or tools that were left behind or disregarded. The metal scatter plot indicates that metal was absent across most units. There was one singular high outlier, implying a rare and high-value metal.

Linear Regression Models: Weight Prediction Based on Artifact Count

Analysis

This first graph depicts ten of the different material categories of materials found at the archeological site, excluding ceramics. In the graph, the data points compare the count vs the weight from each category. Generally, both graphs show a positive correlation between the count and weight of the artifacts, which unsurprisingly shows that as the count increases, so does the overall weight. Certain categories, such as Daub and Ground Stone, show slightly steep slopes, which shows they are likely larger or made more densely compared to other materials. Alternatively, categories such as Lithics and Other 1 have a more gradual line, which could mean that items made from these materials are likely less heavy as compared to others. In the Ceramics regression graph, a very clear positive relation between the two variables which shows that weight increases proportionally with the count. The main reason why the ceramics data was not included in the first graph is due to the high volume of datapoints in the category, which shows how clay pottery was very commonly used historically in the region, as compared to other materials with fewer counts, such as metal which was used less due to it’s difficulty to use and rarity.

Artifact Counts vs. Weights By Excavation Unit

Analysis

This data analysis presents a comparative scatter plot that examines artifact counts versus weights across different excavation units. Some units have a higher artifact count with varying weights, while others show a more consistent or lower range. This suggests that certain excavation units may have a higher concentration of ceramics, but the weight distribution varies, likely due to differences in the size and type of ceramics found. From the scatter plot, ceramic artifacts dominate in most excavation units, with counts ranging from just a few pieces to over 2000 in some cases. Ceramic weights also vary significantly, from light to heavy, depending on the size and type of ceramic pieces uncovered. Metal artifacts are largely absent in most units, supporting the idea that they are rare. When present, metal artifact counts are low, with weights ranging from nearly nothing to quite high in a few instances. Ground stone artifacts are also infrequent, with many excavation units reporting zero counts. However, when found, they tend to be significantly heavier, with a few units showing especially heavy items. Lithics show more variation than the other artifacts, with some excavation units containing over 1000 artifacts, while others report only a few. The weight of lithics generally follows a similar trend, with higher counts corresponding to heavier weights in most excavation units. Overall, the scatter plot reveals patterns in artifact weight and count distribution across different excavation units, providing insight into the preservation conditions at each site.