Analyzing and Improving Archaeological Data Visualization

Critique the Charts KC Robertson Critique the Charts The first chart was found in the Near Eastern Archaeology journal. The article is Colossal Cave Archaeology-Epigraphy, FORTRAN Code-Artifacts, and the Ur-Game. This chart is a spiderweb one, it’s very confusing on the first look at it but it gets easier to understand if you read the subtext. The colors of the chart stand for the family while representing that they share the same story in the data. I cannot see very much of a pattern except that the purple section is very prominent and seems that the family may hold significance. I think this could’ve been done better since these types of charts are a little confusing to understand. They leave out the amounts, such as how much they appear or have. I think it would be easier to understand if they had a table and then a chart such as the one, they used. The second chart is Near Eastern Archaeology journal. The article is Reading Moabite Pigments with Laser Ablation ICP-MS: A New Archaeometric Technique for Near Eastern Archaeology. This chart represents is a scatter plot chart that gives you a comparison of iron and magnesium oxide levels. This chart is pretty easy to understand because it organizes it into multiple groups and gave us numbers of the magnesium and iron oxide levels. This was the most easily understandable and perfectly shows the data. The pattern is also easily seeable as group 3 is the one with the most inside of it, so the average amount. I don’t think this chart needs more added on to it as it is pretty easily understood. The third chart and the fourth chart come from the same article under the Near Eastern Archaeology journal. The article is New Evidence of Two Transitions in the Neolithic Sequence of Northeastern Iran. These charts both show profiles of a trench dug with the artifacts marked in

Critique the Charts KC Robertson color. The third chart is greatly useful and has a great depiction of how far down the artifact was and how big it was. The colors show the stratigraphy as well so I think that was a very important feature on both the third and fourth charts. I did enjoy the third one and thought it portrayed the data given in the best way. Chart four, however, is bigger but doesn’t seem any more helpful than chart three so it seems unimportant. I think that’s the only problem in that chart is that it seems unimportant since chart three gives us all the data already compactly and efficiently, chart four seems very extra compared to chart three.

Critique the Charts KC Robertson References Porter, Benjamin W., and Robert J. Speakman. “Reading Moabite Pigments with Laser Ablation ICP-MS: A New Archaeometric Technique for Near Eastern Archaeology.” Near Eastern Archaeology, vol. 71, no. 4, American Schools of Oriental Research, 2008, pp. 238–42, https://doi.org/10.1086/NEA20697195 . Roustaei, Kourosh, and Hasan Rezvani. “New Evidence of Two Transitions in the Neolithic Sequence of Northeastern Iran.” Near Eastern Archaeology, vol. 84, no. 4, The University of Chicago Press, 2021, pp. 252–61, https://doi.org/10.1086/716827 . Reinhard, Andrew. “Colossal Cave Archaeology.” Near Eastern Archaeology, vol. 84, no. 1, The University of Chicago Press, 2021, pp. 86–92, https://doi.org/10.1086/713375 .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Critique the Charts KC Robertson Chart 1 Chart 2

Critique the Charts KC Robertson Chart 3 and 4

Critique the Charts

Related Documents