Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T10:04:00.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Approach to Pottery Typology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert Whallon Jr.
Robert Whallon Jr.*
Affiliation:
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard typology of Owasco pottery from New York State is examined. This typology is ostensibly based on Krieger's definition of a type as a consistently recurring combination of attributes. The application of statistical techniques suggested by Spaulding, Sackett, and others as appropriate to the discovery of such types revealed that the standard Owasco typology does not exist in Krieger's terms. This typology, however, has been a reliable spatial and temporal indicator for many years. The real, underlying logic and foundations for this typology were therefore sought through a careful inspection of the actual type definitions. This made it clear that the definition and recognition of these pottery types depend on 2 important but unstated principles, the existence of a hierarchy of importance among attributes and the shifting of defining criteria from type to type. Krieger's definition of a type is thus seen to be inappropriate here and a type is recognized to be defined by proceeding through a hierarchical, "tree-type" series of decisions. Statistical procedures appropriate to discovering types according to this definition are developed, and their application to the Owasco material is seen to come close to duplicating the original typology. Such a tree-type structure based on the 2 principles just outlined closely resembles cultural classifications elicited by ethnologists. It is suggested therefore that the attribute association or "Spaulding" approach and the currently popular techniques of numerical taxonomy will not work for establishing space-time reflective types, not because the techniques are not well developed, but because the basic concept or definition of such a type on which they are based is inappropriate.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 13 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis B., and Ronen, Peter H. 1968 Covert categories and folk taxonomies. American Anthropologist 70:290-299.Google Scholar
Binford, Sally R. 1969 The significance of variability: a minority report. Paper presented at the Symposium on Environmental Changes and the Origin of “Homo sapiens,” UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
Brownlee, K. A. 1965 Statistical theory and methodology in science and engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Buhner, Ralph N. H. 1967 Why is the Cassowary not a bird? A problem of zoological taxonomy among the Karam of the New Guinea highlands. Man (n.s.) 2:5-25.Google Scholar
Bulmer, Ralph N. H., and Michael, Tyler 1969 Karam classification of frogs. Journal of the Polynesian Society 77:333-385.Google Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical archaeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Deetz, James 1967 Invitation to archaeology. Natural History Press, Garden City.Google Scholar
Fitting, James E. 1965 Late Woodland cultures of southeastern Michigan. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 24.Google Scholar
Ford, James A., and Griffin, James B. 1937 (A proposal for) A conference on pottery nomenclature for the southeastern United States. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 7(1):5-9.Google Scholar
Ford, James A., and Griffin, James B. 1938 Report of the conference of southeastern pottery typology. In Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 7(1):10-22.Google Scholar
Fowler, Catherine S., and Joy, Leland 1967 Some northern Paiute native categories. Ethnology 6:381-404.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R. 1969 Searching for structure within multivariate archaeological data. World Archaeology 1:90-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, F. R., Sneath, P. H. A., and Doran, J. E. 1966 Some experiments in the numerical analysis of archaeological data. Biometrika 53:311-324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul 1966 Comment; on ethnographic semantics: a preliminary survey, by Colby, B. N.. Current Anthropology 7:20-23.Google Scholar
Krieger, Alex D. 1944 The typological concept. American Antiquity 9:271-288.Google Scholar
Lance, G. N., and Williams, W. T. 1965 Computer programs for monothetic classification (“association analysis”). Computer Journal 8:246-249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Duane, and Gerald, Williams 1966 Some procedures and results in the study of native categories: Tzeltal firewood. American Anthropologist 68:389-407.Google Scholar
Orloci, L. 1969 Information analysis of structure in biological collections. Nature 223:483-484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, William A. 1944 The pre-Iroquoian occupations of New York State. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Rochester.Google Scholar
Ritchie, William A. 1951 Four new Owasco pottery types in New York. In Prehistoric pottery of the eastern U.S., edited by Griffin, James B.. No pagination. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Ritchie, William A. 1969 The archaeology of New York State (Revised Edition). Natural History Press, Garden City.Google Scholar
Ritchie, William A., and MacNeish, Richard S. 1949 The pre-Iroquoian pottery of New York State. American Antiquity 15:97-124.Google Scholar
Ritchie, William A., Donald, Lenig, and Schuyler Miller, P. 1953 An early Owasco sequence in eastern New York. New York State Museum Circular 32.Google Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1966 Quantitative analysis of Upper Paleolithic stone tools. In Recent studies in paleoanthropology, edited by Desmond Clark, J. and Clark Howell, F.. American Anthropologist 68 (2, pt. 2):356-394.Google Scholar
Saxe, Arthur 1970 Social dimensions of mortuary practices. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R., and Peter Sneath, H. A. 1963 Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1953 Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 18:305-313.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1960 Statistical description and comparison of artifact assemblages. In The application of quantitative methods in archaeology, edited by Heizer, R. F. and Cook, S. F., pp. 60-83. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 28.Google Scholar
Whallon, Robert Jr. 1968 Investigations of late prehistoric social organization in New York State. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Binford, Lewis R. and Binford, Sally R., pp. 223-244. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Whallon, Robert Jr. 1969 Reflection of social interaction in Owasco ceramic decoration. Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Bulletin 26 and 27:15.Google Scholar
Whallon, Robert Jr. 1971 Type: a computer program for monothetic subdivisive classification in archaeology. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Technical Reports 1.Google Scholar
Williams, W. T. and Lambert, J. M. 1959 Multivariate methods in plant ecology I: association analysis in plant communities. Journal of Ecology 47:83-107.Google Scholar
Williams, W. T. and Lambert, J. M. 1960 Multivariate methods in plant ecology II: the use of an electronic digital computer for association analysis. Journal of Ecology 48:698-710.Google Scholar
Wishart, David 1969 Clustan I. University of St. Andrews, Computing Laboratory. St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.Google Scholar