The Scientific Method in Palaeoarchaeology

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Ziolkoski, James
dc.date.accessioned 2023-03-19T07:14:22Z
dc.date.available 2023-03-19T07:14:22Z
dc.date.copyright 2023 en_US
dc.date.issued 2023-03-19
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1828/14894
dc.description.abstract Palaeolithic archaeology is an important field for understanding our species’ past, however, its sparse and often incomplete data makes it difficult to actually study many of the questions we want to ask. To assess the impact of this on the field, this study identified the prevalence of explicit hypotheses in palaeoarchaeological journal articles from 2017-2021. 144 articles were found from four journals (Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Nature, Scientific Reports, and Journal of Archaeological Science); to date, 92 have been coded for the presence or absence of a “big” hypothesis, a “major” hypothesis, and a “test” hypothesis. Overall, these preliminary results show a lack of clear, well-defined hypotheses in many articles, with JAMT having the most “big” hypotheses, and Scientific Reports having the most “major” and “test” hypotheses. Currently, there do not appear to be any obvious trends over time for the presence or absence of a hypothesis. These results have implications for future approaches to the study and reporting of palaeolithic archaeology. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Jamie Cassels Undergraduate Research Awards (JCURA) en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.subject palaeoanthropology en_US
dc.subject hypothesis en_US
dc.subject scientific method en_US
dc.subject Palaeolithic archaeology en_US
dc.title The Scientific Method in Palaeoarchaeology en_US
dc.type Poster en_US
dc.description.scholarlevel Undergraduate en_US
dc.description.reviewstatus Reviewed en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search UVicSpace


My Account