Broadly, archaeology scientifically studies prehistoric and historical human activities by recovering and analyzing material culture. As such, archaeologists excavate and describe past human-made objects ranging from simple tools such as stone daggers to complex structures as temples and cathedrals. On the other hand, classical archaeology has traditionally focused its attention on examining the civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome.
These investigations were prompted and inspired in renaissance Europe by the study of ancient Greek and Latin writings. In reviewing the extant texts, art, and other cultural artifacts from that early period, the conviction gradually developed that Greek and Roman culture constituted the entire western civilization’s foundation. This paper seeks to show that the discipline of classical archeology is destined to flourish because it bears the very tenets on which archeology proper is built.
Intentionality is critical in any undertaking, academic or otherwise. Therefore, the academy should play a leading role in the social transformation to better human society at a global level. This paper argues that different disciplines are dealing with similar questions to no small extent, that technological advancement discourages excessive specialization. In line with the process of globalization, alternative interpretations of data need to be considered.
Classical archeology is built on robust archaeological theories which define and act as tenets of the broader discipline of archeology. It utilizes a combination of historic and prehistoric archeological techniques to study such varied evidence as settlement data, craft goods, environmental materials, and architectural remains (Willmes et al., 2020). As such, classical archeology fits within the world of archeology since other archeological and anthropological disciplines apply the same methods of practice. Additionally, the classical study of antiquity draws primarily from insight offered by ancient texts, mostly written in Latin and Greek (Carpino, 2019).
The combination of knowledge derived from the antique writings with ancient Greek and Roman artifacts offers an essential tool for learning other cultures and civilizations (Kajda et al., 2018). Its position within the broader field of archeology is further cemented by its massive contributions to the disciplines of social sciences and humanities.
As with any academic discipline, classical archaeology has its specific needs relating to the Mediterranean, which require specialized knowledge. However, as mentioned above, the various approaches differ according to the intentionality of the researchers. Classical archaeology was revered because it drew upon the concept of Hellenism. This involves the study and imitation of Greek culture meant that Europe obtained values from classical archaeology to pass these to their posterity, not only because they claimed Greek culture as the root of all European civilization, but also because it served European nationalism (Carpino, 2019).
Times have changed, and it is now known that individuals operate in a more pluralistic society. This pluralism is reflected in academies, where all disciplines are now treated equally. This aspect of classical archeology is guided by the Greek philosophy which also intends to be passed in its purest form from one generation to another. It remains valid today because core themes studied under classical archeology are still vital to the study of archeology proper.
Similar to archeology, classical archeology can be developed into an independent discourse. Historically, the former grew from antiquarianism in Europe around the 19th century to become a distinct discipline in its domain (Carpino, 2019). As a subsection of anthropology, the two broad elements are the historical and prehistorical study, each demanding different methodological analysis. Therefore, developing any of the two general groups into independent fields is ideally plausible.
An enormous amount of information is available as bequeathed to classical archeology enthusiasts; thus, the remaining task is an advancement to more extensive research. Its study’s significance is relevant in understanding the present cultures since it concludes by examining recent traditions for comparison. Individuals must know their past norms and modes of reasoning to appreciate their present better.
Historical importance and classical archeology’s role in the civilization of cultures attached to the study equally supports its growth. It covers both the pre and post-literate times of the past to build a general perspective on the chronological transition of traditions. However, it has less linguistic examination, unlike the former, which provides a suitable position for the advancement of other significant areas. Maintaining the datasets is relatively straightforward because of the global quality, comparative potential, and integrative possibilities attached to it. The development can take any form since it has elements from different fields such as science and humanities.
Additionally, the porous boundaries which prompt interaction with other areas of specialties promote its independence capacity. Because of the contributions to the understanding of society, it can be developed through interdisciplinary examination. Therefore, classical archeology can remain as an independent discipline in order to maintain and sharpen its focus on the Mediterranean antiquity. Its combination with mainstream anthropology would obscure the vital relevance it poses in terms of archeological theory. Nevertheless, considering the future of archeology as part of anthropology would improve data collection techniques and analysis since anthropology is better at studying people and communities.
Classical archeology has a future with or without the primary actors because of its broad nature. It covers the concept of area studies focusing on a plethora of topics such as kinship, minorities, language, and religion. Although they can easily cause intellectual blindness, area studies are useful, which restricts anthropological imagination and analysis (MacMullen, 2020). The current main actors limit the rate of the transition process; thus, there is a need for new exuberant members.
For instance, researchers who have gone beyond the boundaries have been censored. Therefore, a change in the influential archeologists can lead to the growth of area scholars who can integrate comparative findings from other fields. In the establishment of colonialism in Africa, ethnographic studies were seen as important aspects of the development of the colonies (Montecchi & Mercuri, 2018). When these states achieved their independence, the roles and approaches changed where each ethnographer focused on their people.
There are remarkable differences in the modes of ethnographic deductions across diverse cultures. The anthropologist thus needs to develop self-awareness because of the rising criticism. Scholars outside the Anglo-American world continually identify the biases of the west in their studies (Arponen, 2019). In contrast, those in India, the Middle East, and Pakistan point out America’s difficulties in appreciating other traditions. Foreign schools play an essential role in comparing data from different areas and periods in time (Kearns, 2017). As such, they provide essential service from the Mediterranean perspective, where every culture is appreciated. They somewhat disregard the colonialist agenda of ethnography while promoting a comparative approach.
Classical archaeology will need to adapt by deepening its cooperation with other disciplines to survive. The study of cultural artifacts has always been a collaborative process. The need for collaboration will only intensify as advancing technology make available a wide variety of new tools and, therefore, new approaches (Carruthers & Van Damme, 2017). This partnership should be welcomed because collaboration with other disciplines will help classical archaeology to overcome its limitations.
Furthermore, it is not a question of giving up its identity but a redefinition and broadening of its scope. It is, therefore, fair and to open it up to other models and points of view. European societies have drawn inspiration and motivation from Greek and Roman antiquity (MacMullen, 2020). They have also used that past to validate their present, and that authentication has had positive and negative aspects. Classical archaeology has no option but to broaden its perspective to accommodate a more pluralistic view and minimize the misuse of the past.
There is always a time lag between changes in societies and the educational system’s alterations in response to those societal transitions. That is why Bertrand Russel wrote that what students are taught in schools is at least half a century outdated (Montecchi & Mercuri, 2018). A paradigm shift is necessary in order to allow for a more collaborative approach in teaching and hiring. This radical change will provide for a broader and more culturally diverse understanding of societal development. It shall also enable a better appreciation of available cultural artifacts. In short, classical archaeology is facing an identity crisis in a fast-changing world.
To conclude, intentionality is critical in any undertaking, academic or otherwise. It is crucial that the academy play a leading role in social transformation for the betterment of human society at a global level. Classical archaeology should, therefore, adapt in order to retain its relevance. It should adopt a more integrative approach as this is a sure way to increase the understanding of ancient Greece and Rome. The new integrative approach will also allow classical archaeology to use its data sets and develop ideas that have application in other disciplines.
Annotated Bibliography
Carpino, A. A. (2019). The diversity of classical archaeology: Edited by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (Studies in Classical Archaeology 1). Etruscan and Italic Studies, 22(1-2), 171-173.
The text was useful in familiarizing with the book’s various concepts. However, I did not obtain all the required information for the assignment from the source single handedly. Moreover, it was aimed to analyze recent research to show the rejuvenated vitality in the field. The book has a brief introduction with five sections. The sections include learning from the past, breaking up disciplines, unlocking time and space, art and material culture in the making, and perceptions. The writing is insightful in examining the viability of archeology to stand on its own as an independent discipline.
Montecchi, M. C., & Mercuri, A. M. (2018). When palynology meets classical archaeology: The Roman and medieval landscapes at the Villa del Casale di Piazza Armerina, UNESCO site in Sicily. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 10(4), 743-757.
The research is relevant to this paper because of the new way of understanding the present landscape through the past broadening classical archeology. The text involves an analysis of cooperative objects with national and local institutions in central Sicily. Moreover, the discovery of vitis pollen grains within the Roman site provided more in-depth insight into the landscape during the then periods. It is plausible to conclude that the area was open, treeless with hilly vegetation.
Willmes, C., Niedziółka, K., Serbe, B., Grimm, S. B., Groß, D., Miebach, A. & Mateos, A. (2020). State of the art in paleoenvironment mapping for modeling applications in archeology—Summary, conclusions, and future directions from the PaleoMaps Workshop. Quaternary 2020, 3(2), 13. Web.
The text presents contributions, discussions, and outcomes derived from the Paleomaps Workshop 2019. The workshop’s primary aim included providing an overview of theories and methodologies used to integrate paleoenvironmental information into human-environment interaction. As such, it builds from the current modeling applications to design better ways. The report describes an analysis of the presented papers and the protocols following thereafter. It provides fundamental literature that future research will build on. It is relevant to this paper because of the background information it provides that supports the legitimacy of developing classical Archeology into a discipline.
Kajda, K., Marx, A., Wright, H., Richards, J., Marciniak, A., Rossenbach, K. S., Michal P., Monique H., Krijn B., Maria P. G., Felipe C., David B., Anita S., Kostantinos K., Kostantinos K., Eleftheria T., Friedrich L., Mayssoun I. & Criado-Boado, F. (2018). Archaeology, heritage, and social value: Public perspectives on European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 21(1), 96-117.
The article helped me understand the general perception of archeology and how the public view is influenced across Europe. The discussions were focused on the significance of the contemporary archeological study. The first area is archeology’s image and how the general populace defines it. In the second phase, it considers the values that archeology offers and social expectations. The text supports my ideology that there is remarkable European thought that it should work alongside other disciplines. Cultural heritage management engagement requires interaction with other discourses, which is more readily achieved by advancing classical archeology.
Kearns, C. (2017). Mediterranean archeology and environmental histories in the spotlight of the Anthropocene. History Compass, 15(10), e12371.
The text recognizes the rapid technological growth, which continually advances scientific and humanistic research, especially on anthropogenic effects on earth systems. The systems include features such as climate, which mainly result in a controversial proposal that we live in an Anthropocene epoch. It provides a broader view of how humans have been the forces of global change. Besides, it analyzes the archeologists and historians’ conception of social and environmental change in Mediterranean antiquity. The revolution experienced in the scientific world is useful in advancing historical archeology.
MacMullen, R. (2020). Top Scholars in Classical and Late Antiquity. History of Classical Scholarship, 2, 105-114.
The article offers a recent move towards analysis and bibliographic evidence to examine ancient history. The article was useful for this research because of the background information it provided. The collection of past works offers substantial proof that the existing literature is comprehensive enough to support historical archeology as an autonomous discipline. However, the text overly focuses on criticism of Walter Scheidel and Nathan Pilkitong, who researched the impact of previous iconic scholars.
Carruthers, W., & Van Damme, S. (2017). Disassembling archeology, reassembling the modern world. History of Science, 55(3), 255-272.
The text provides significant findings on the discussion of the applicability of archeology’s history to science. Besides, it outlines the papers contained within its unique issue as evidence of the relevance of the two discourses. The historical, thematic assessments of archeology overlaps with those of science and its regimes in antiquarianism. It also discusses the issues relating to the professionalization of the archeological public, colonialism, empire, and circulation of knowledge. Other inclusive data is the enriching enlightenment on scientific ethics, museums, material cultures. The information from this article was essential in explaining the validity of retaining classical archeology as a disciple due to its privileged position.
Arponen, V. P. J., Grimm, S., Käppel, L., Ott, K., Thalheim, B., Kropp, Y.,… & Ribeiro, A. (2019). Between natural and human sciences: On the role and character of theory in socio-environmental archeology. The Holocene, 29(10), 1671-1676.
It reflects on the skepticism of most scholars on theory in archeology because of the new technological inventions. The article further analyzes the interrelationship between scientific advancements and theoretical stands within socio-environmental archeology. As such, there is a critical need to integrate the two to have versions of each other in a unified whole. The conceptual discussions of archeology such as evolutionism would serve more than a dismissal of one of the essential elements. The text is thus essential in proving the autonomy of classical archeology. The new methodologies and techniques to be applied are likely to further broaden the field with new members and existing ones.
References
Arponen, V. P. J., Grimm, S., Käppel, L., Ott, K., Thalheim, B., Kropp, Y., Konrad Ott, k., Thalheim, B., Kropp, Y., Kittig, K., , Brinkmann, J., & Ribeiro, A. (2019). Between natural and human sciences: On the role and character of theory in socio-environmental archeology. The Holocene, 29(10), 1671−1676.
Carpino, A. A. (2019). The diversity of classical archaeology. Etruscan and Italic Studies, 22(1-2), 171−173. Web.
Carruthers, W., & Van Damme, S. (2017). Disassembling archeology, reassembling the modern world. History of Science, 55(3), 255−272.
Kajda, K., Marx, A., Wright, H., Richards, J., Marciniak, A., Rossenbach, K. S., Marciniak, a., Rossenbach, K.S., Pawleta, M., Van den Dries, H, M., Boom, K., Guermandi, M, P., Criado-Boado, F., Barreiro, D., Synnestvedt, A., Kotsakis, K., Kasvikis, K., Theodoroudi, E., Luth, F., Issa, M.,& Frase, I. (2018). Archaeology, heritage, and social value: Public perspectives on European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 21(1), 96−117.
Kearns, C. (2017). Mediterranean archeology and environmental histories in the spotlight of the Anthropocene. History Compass, 15(10), 5, (98-101).
MacMullen, R. (2020). Top scholars in classical and late antiquity. History of Classical scholarship, 2, 105−114.
Montecchi, M. C., & Mercuri, A. M. (2018). When palynology meets classical archaeology: The Roman and medieval landscapes at the Villa del Casale di Piazza Armerina, UNESCO site in Sicily. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 10(4), 743-757.
Willmes, C., Niedziółka, K., Serbe, B., Grimm, S. B., Groß, D., Miebach, A., Miebach, A., Henselowsky, F., Gamisch, A., Rostami, M., Mateos, A., Rodríguez, J., Limberg, H., Schmidt, I., Muller, M., Hölzchen, E., Holthausen, M., Klein, K., Wegener, C & Mateos, A. (2020). State of the art in paleoenvironment mapping for modeling applications in archeology—Summary, conclusions, and future directions from the PaleoMaps Workshop. Quaternary 2020, 3(2), 13. Web.
War And Security In Terms Of Political Theories
The Significance of Theory
For some, international conflict is inevitable due to its innate human nature. Realists believe war is a part of a never-ending cycle of violent confrontations between the states. Liberal thinkers tend to assume that the causes of war are connected to the institutions. They argue continued economic benefits that come with peace are one of the reasons why most countries today choose not to engage in military conflict. As for constructivists, they predict the likelihood of a certain state being involved in a war by examining its identity in a global arena. It is evident that theoretical frameworks help to gain an in-depth understanding of the motivations and main objectives of aggressors in international conflicts. As a result, members of government and other prominent globalized organizations have an opportunity to generate effective strategies to prevent the tragic outcomes of both military and cyber-attacks. Despite the obvious flaws of the aforementioned theoretical approaches, each of them has the potential to facilitate the necessary discussions in order to create more efficient ways of managing international conflict in the future by looking back at the incidents in the past.
Theory matters in terms of understanding what war is and how national security works. The Treaties of Westphalia established the most crucial concept of international relations, which is sovereignty. However, power struggles did not seize to exist after 1648. Wars continue to haunt modern society, which is why it is important to define what constitutes war. Mingst et al. (2018) refer to war as an “organized and deliberate political act by an established political authority that causes 1,000 or more deaths in a 12-month period and involves at least two actors capable of harming each other” (p. 191). Although knowing the globally accepted definition of war makes no difference on a battlefield, terms such as this one are essential in navigating the international arena. For example, the 1994 Rwandan violence was characterized as a civil war instead of a genocide, which led to a global lack of effort to stop the murders of 750,000 men, women, and children (Mingst et al., 2018). Therefore, it is apparent that the work of international relations theorists is not simply academic, but practical since it can affect people all around the world and have real-life consequences on their faiths.
Theoretical frameworks also help to define the causes of war in order to develop effective strategies to prevent unnecessary violence. Some of the most common theories include realism, liberalism, and constructivism. By identifying the possible causes of conflict, these approaches suggest new solutions to manage national security. Thus, the primary task of each theory is to ensure the physical security of every individual is protected since it is an essential human right (Mingst et al., 2018). It is important to recognize that these theories have their flaws and are not necessarily a reflection of reality because of all the assumptions that they include. However, theoretical frameworks remain crucial in understanding the system of international relations. While it is important to look at each individual case and discuss the motivations of all the parties involved in a particular incident, theory structures all the conflicts as a way to see patterns in war. In turn, these patterns serve as an aid for people’s perception of military conflict as well as their understanding of the effective strategies to prevent it. Realists, for example, argue that power transitions increase the likelihood of war (Mingst et al., 2018). Governments and international organizations can use this knowledge to make predictions and develop strategic plans to ensure the balance, however, relative it may be.
Comparing the Theories
To decide whether one theory is better at explaining the causes of war and helping to manage state security, it is important to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. Realists believe that the key to understanding war lies in identifying the sources of power. They support a “power transition theory,” which argues that power transition is the most common reason for military interventions (Mingst et al., 2018). Some states want to solidify their position in a global arena by demonstrating their military strength on the battlefield. Countries that already possess authority and influence might consider war as a way to prevent future conflict and keep the rising challenge down. Realism is based on the assumption that war is a constant feature of interstate politics because the international system is anarchic. According to realists, it is impossible to navigate conflicting territorial claims and competing self-determination claims, when there is no global authority to decide who is right or wrong. This approach to theory proposes two ways of maintain a high level of state security, which include deterrence and power balancing.
The problem with realism is that it is too direct and straightforward in its security management strategies. Power balance approach is effective since it allows states to maintain relative ‘equality’ in terms of their influence and power, which ultimately decreases the likelihood of a stronger state attacking a weaker one. However, despite the advantages of alliances, it is important to acknowledge countries often act irrationally. If one state has been ‘friends’ with the other for decades, it is unlikely it is going to deem their cooperation expendable once the alliance with their ‘friend’ is not beneficial anymore. As for deterrence, this strategy also depends on the assumption that decision makers are always rational and think long-term. Using threats and abusing human fear may backfire when dealing with states that are insecure or desperate.
Liberalism supports nonviolent measures in conflict resolution and argues that the causes of war are connected to the characteristics of states and their institutions. Democracies are less likely to participate in military interventions because they are interdependent. In addition, states with a democratic regime build trust more easily since other governments are aware of the influence citizens have in the process. According to liberal theorists, international institutions play the role of arbiters in influencing conflict. Liberalism suggests two main strategies of preventing military conflict, which include arms control and collective security (Mingst et al., 2018). Disarmament might be considered irrational since it puts ‘law-abiding’ states in a highly insecure position, while rewarding cheaters. Collective security has its limitations due to the fact that it is not always easy to identify the aggressor because of conflicting claims that span centuries. In addition, it is wrong to assume that “the collective benefit of peace outweighs the individual benefits of war, even a successful war” (Mingst et al., 2018, p. 219). Despite their flaws, both of these approaches remain somewhat effective in managing state security.
Constructivism supports identity theory, which estimates the likelihood of states being involved in military conflict based on these countries’ identities and backgrounds. If a state is considered militaristic and ambitious, other governments are prone to believe it is a threat to global security. The main limitation to this theory is that identities are subjective, which is why they are highly unreliable in predicting the actions of a certain state. Constructivists suggest different strategies to prevent international conflict, including the spread of norms delegitimizing war, socialization to cooperative norms, and changing identities (Mingst et al., 2018). These solutions might be considered the most applicable. Even though the incorporation of new norms is a difficult process, it is highly effective based on the examples of landmines banning (1997) and Nuclear Proliferation Act of 1968 (Mingst et al., 2018). Changing identities is intricate as well, but it can have lasting positive effects on the country’s image on a global arena such as the case with Switzerland.
Laws of War
“Laws of War” provide the international community with numerous possibilities of managing each state’s national security and avoiding the unnecessary human suffering. Jus ad bellum establishes the conditions, which make it legal to go to war (Mingst et al., 2018). Jus in bello addresses the legality of acts during the war (Mingst et al., 2018). Therefore, “laws of war” protect states and individuals from being treated unjustly under the international law. Despite the fact that such regulations protect civilians and prohibit the use of certain weapons, they have various limitations. For example, “laws of war” could only be effective for a seventeenth century pattern, where war was isolated from civilian targets. Modern war cannot abide by these laws since it is impossible for an occupying power to engage in a military conflict without facing resistance and threats from noncombatants. In addition, these regulations often benefit cheaters, whose morality is rather questionable.
Moreover, “laws of war” require constant review and changes due to the rapid development of technology and the rise of cyber warfare. Modern systems (and with them civilians) are growing more and more vulnerable due to their reliance on computers. This allows attackers to deprive noncombatants of essentials, including drinking water, electricity, or pharmaceuticals. The scope of application of just war laws is limited in cyber warfare, which is why it is important to suggest a universal interpretation of the “laws” in relation to modern technology.
Reference
Mingst, A. K., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguin-Toft, I.M. (2018). Essentials of international relations (8th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.
Statistical Analysis Of The Nike Company
Summary
Nike is one of the best fashion firms in the world. It is an American corporation that has been performing well in the market for the past two decades. The company has invested in better strategic management and innovation, which has ensured its success in the market. As such, this analysis has included the statistical analysis that was done via the excel analysis tool pack. Data analysis is a crucial concept in research as it gives the business an assessment of performance for the past and prediction for the future (Fiori, 2019). The data was further presented through tables and graphs to make it more appealing to the audience.
Analysis 1
| 1st Quartile |
| -0.8 |
| 3rd Quartile |
| 0.580002 |
| Minimum |
| -3.81 |
| Mean |
| -0.22667 |
| Median |
| -0.11 |
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics of Nike were done through an excel analysis tool pack. The daily change data was executed in the software, and measures of central tendency were computed. Descriptive statistics help the researcher analyze the data and develop predictive analysis in the future for the business (Cichoń, 2020). Therefore, based on the descriptive analysis, Nike performs well despite the challenges in the global market economy.
| Column1 | |
| Mean | -0.226668303 |
| Standard Error | 0.230931073 |
| Median | -0.11 |
| Mode | -0.800003 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.326598016 |
| Sample Variance | 1.759862297 |
| Kurtosis | 0.5247532 |
| Skewness | -0.533238077 |
| Range | 5.770003 |
| Minimum | -3.809997 |
| Maximum | 1.960006 |
| Sum | -7.480054 |
| Count | 33 |
| Largest (1) | 1.960006 |
| Smallest (1) | -3.809997 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 0.470391203 |
Skewness
The data skewed to the right because the mean is less than the median. (-0.22667<-011).
Correlation and Regression Analysis
| SUMMARY OUTPUT | |||||||||
| Regression Statistics | |||||||||
| Multiple R | 0.958998 | ||||||||
| R Square | 0.919676 | ||||||||
| Adjusted R Square | 0.917085 | ||||||||
| Standard Error | 1.343235 | ||||||||
| Observations | 33 | ||||||||
| ANOVA | |||||||||
| df | SS | MS | F | Significance F | |||||
| Regression | 1 | 640.4083 | 640.4083 | 354.9383 | 1.57E-18 | ||||
| Residual | 31 | 55.9327 | 1.804281 | ||||||
| Total | 32 | 696.341 | |||||||
| Coefficients | Standard Error | t Stat | P-value | Lower 95% | Upper 95% | Lower 95.0% | Upper 95.0% | ||
| Intercept | 3.469349 | 7.042994 | 0.492596 | 0.625769 | -10.8949 | 17.83363 | -10.8949 | 17.83363 | |
| X Variable 1 | 0.976132 | 0.051812 | 18.83981 | 1.57E-18 | 0.87046 | 1.081804 | 0.87046 | 1.081804 | |
Based on the regression done, Nike has a strong regression coefficient of 0.917, which translates to 91.7%. Thus, Nike has been performing well because of the right marketing strategies and innovation skills.
Probability Plots
Distribution
The data is not normally distributed because the mean is not equal to the median.
There is a higher likelihood of variation because of the large ranges between the daily changes. The probability also has supported the existence of an alteration in the values. For instance, when the probability of the change is higher, then the values are likely to be more altered. Alternatively, the standard error is small thus, will support the positive impacts on the firm. Therefore, Nike will change to the positive side because of the better strategies implemented.
References
Cichoń, M. (2020). Reporting statistical methods and outcomes of statistical analyses in research articles. Pharmacological Reports, 72(3), 481-485.
Fiori, A. (2019). On firm size distribution: statistical models, mechanisms, and empirical evidence. Statistical Methods & Applications, 29(3), 447-482.
Appendix A
| Date | Open | High | Low | Close | Adj Close | Volume | Daily change |
| 11/10/20 | 130.050003 | 130.119995 | 126.25 | 127.709999 | 127.453568 | 8014700 | -2.340004 |
| 11/11/20 | 128.690002 | 129.800003 | 127.18 | 127.660004 | 127.403671 | 6058700 | -1.029998 |
| 11/12/20 | 126.620003 | 127.839996 | 125.629997 | 126.639999 | 126.385719 | 4780400 | 0.019996 |
| 11/13/20 | 127.910004 | 128.600006 | 126.830002 | 128.279999 | 128.02243 | 3986100 | 0.369995 |
| 11/16/20 | 129.460007 | 130.320007 | 127.370003 | 130.110001 | 129.848755 | 6116200 | 0.649994 |
| 11/17/20 | 130.479996 | 132.600006 | 129.110001 | 132.210007 | 131.94455 | 7002900 | 1.730011 |
| 11/18/20 | 133.070007 | 133.979996 | 131.529999 | 131.630005 | 131.365707 | 5572800 | -1.440002 |
| 11/19/20 | 131.919998 | 132.110001 | 129.929993 | 131.910004 | 131.645142 | 4642800 | -0.009994 |
| 11/20/20 | 133.300003 | 133.529999 | 131.910004 | 132.979996 | 132.712982 | 4318100 | -0.320007 |
| 11/23/20 | 134.380005 | 134.889999 | 133.089996 | 134.130005 | 133.860687 | 6118400 | -0.25 |
| 11/24/20 | 135 | 135.990005 | 134.210007 | 134.699997 | 134.429535 | 7204700 | -0.300003 |
| 11/25/20 | 134.25 | 135.800003 | 133.619995 | 135.539993 | 135.267838 | 4484500 | 1.289993 |
| 11/27/20 | 136 | 136.130005 | 133.339996 | 134.25 | 133.980438 | 3506800 | -1.75 |
| 11/30/20 | 133.910004 | 135.289993 | 132.690002 | 134.699997 | 134.429535 | 9652500 | 0.789993 |
| 12/1/20 | 136.440002 | 136.5 | 134.75 | 135.440002 | 135.168045 | 3834500 | -1 |
| 12/2/20 | 135.160004 | 136.320007 | 134.669998 | 135.580002 | 135.30777 | 4132700 | 0.419998 |
| 12/3/20 | 135.100006 | 137.949997 | 135 | 136.960007 | 136.684998 | 4930900 | 1.860001 |
| 12/4/20 | 137.080002 | 137.399994 | 135.639999 | 137.190002 | 137.190002 | 4344000 | 0.11 |
| 12/7/20 | 137 | 138.860001 | 136.800003 | 138.75 | 138.75 | 4590800 | 1.75 |
| 12/8/20 | 138.240005 | 140.440002 | 137.649994 | 139.119995 | 139.119995 | 6953600 | 0.87999 |
| 12/9/20 | 140.570007 | 140.570007 | 138.270004 | 138.789993 | 138.789993 | 4341300 | -1.780014 |
| 12/10/20 | 138.279999 | 139.139999 | 137.240005 | 137.580002 | 137.580002 | 4511000 | -0.699997 |
| 12/11/20 | 137.389999 | 138.139999 | 136.229996 | 137.410004 | 137.410004 | 4172400 | 0.020005 |
| 12/14/20 | 138.919998 | 139 | 136.199997 | 136.279999 | 136.279999 | 7599000 | -2.639999 |
| 12/15/20 | 137.429993 | 139.440002 | 137.25 | 139.389999 | 139.389999 | 7642600 | 1.960006 |
| 12/16/20 | 139.070007 | 140.490005 | 137.460007 | 138.339996 | 138.339996 | 6573400 | -0.730011 |
| 12/17/20 | 139.919998 | 140.740005 | 138.75 | 140.5 | 140.5 | 8727000 | 0.580002 |
| 12/18/20 | 141.089996 | 141.139999 | 137.169998 | 137.279999 | 137.279999 | 17970800 | -3.809997 |
| 12/21/20 | 144.820007 | 147.949997 | 142.509995 | 144.020004 | 144.020004 | 16111300 | -0.800003 |
| 12/22/20 | 143.050003 | 143.470001 | 141.089996 | 142.449997 | 142.449997 | 6339400 | -0.600006 |
| 12/23/20 | 142.559998 | 143.600006 | 141.699997 | 141.759995 | 141.759995 | 3388300 | -0.800003 |
| 12/24/20 | 141.100006 | 142.190002 | 141.100006 | 141.600006 | 141.600006 | 1821900 | 0.5 |
| 12/28/20 | 142.539993 | 142.919998 | 141.039993 | 142.429993 | 142.429993 | 4080100 | -0.11 |
Appendix B
| RESIDUAL OUTPUT | PROBABILITY OUTPUT | ||||
| Observation | Predicted Y | Residuals | Percentile | Y | |
| 1 | 128.1311 | 1.918854 | 1.515152 | 126.62 | |
| 2 | 128.0823 | 0.607655 | 4.545455 | 127.91 | |
| 3 | 127.0867 | -0.46669 | 7.575758 | 128.69 | |
| 4 | 128.6875 | -0.77754 | 10.60606 | 129.46 | |
| 5 | 130.4739 | -1.01386 | 13.63636 | 130.05 | |
| 6 | 132.5238 | -2.04375 | 16.66667 | 130.48 | |
| 7 | 131.9576 | 1.112415 | 19.69697 | 131.92 | |
| 8 | 132.2309 | -0.31091 | 22.72727 | 133.07 | |
| 9 | 133.2754 | 0.024642 | 25.75758 | 133.3 | |
| 10 | 134.3979 | -0.01792 | 28.78788 | 133.91 | |
| 11 | 134.9543 | 0.045691 | 31.81818 | 134.25 | |
| 12 | 135.7743 | -1.52426 | 34.84848 | 134.38 | |
| 13 | 134.5151 | 1.484947 | 37.87879 | 135 | |
| 14 | 134.9543 | -1.04431 | 40.90909 | 135.1 | |
| 15 | 135.6767 | 0.763351 | 43.93939 | 135.16 | |
| 16 | 135.8133 | -0.65331 | 46.9697 | 136 | |
| 17 | 137.1604 | -2.06037 | 50 | 136.44 | |
| 18 | 137.3849 | -0.30488 | 53.0303 | 137 | |
| 19 | 138.9076 | -1.90765 | 56.06061 | 137.08 | |
| 20 | 139.2688 | -1.0288 | 59.09091 | 137.39 | |
| 21 | 138.9467 | 1.623323 | 62.12121 | 137.43 | |
| 22 | 137.7656 | 0.514425 | 65.15152 | 138.24 | |
| 23 | 137.5996 | -0.20963 | 68.18182 | 138.28 | |
| 24 | 136.4966 | 2.423399 | 71.21212 | 138.92 | |
| 25 | 139.5324 | -2.10238 | 74.24242 | 139.07 | |
| 26 | 138.5074 | 0.562579 | 77.27273 | 139.92 | |
| 27 | 140.6159 | -0.69588 | 80.30303 | 140.57 | |
| 28 | 137.4727 | 3.617265 | 83.33333 | 141.09 | |
| 29 | 144.0519 | 0.768142 | 86.36364 | 141.1 | |
| 30 | 142.5193 | 0.530672 | 89.39394 | 142.54 | |
| 31 | 141.8458 | 0.7142 | 92.42424 | 142.56 | |
| 32 | 141.6896 | -0.58962 | 95.45455 | 143.05 | |
| 33 | 142.4998 | 0.040189 | 98.48485 | 144.82 | |