Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T06:05:56.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Irving Rouse
Irving Rouse*
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Analytic classification consists of forming successive series of classes, referring to different features of artifacts. Each class is characterized by one or more attributes which indicate a custom to which the artisan conformed, for example, a technique of manufacture, or a concept which he expressed in the artifacts, such as a design. These customs and concepts constitute modes. They are “procedural modes” when they refer to behavior of artisans and “conceptual modes” when they consist of ideas which artisans have expressed in artifacts.

Taxonomic classification consists of formulating a single set of classes, one for each kind of artifact in the collection. Each class is characterized by two or more modes, selected from among the total number of modes obtainable by means of analytic classification. The modes diagnostic of each class constitute its type. If diagnostic modes are selected for their time-space significance, the resultant types are “historical.” If the diagnostic modes are selected for what they indicate about the intrinsic nature of the artifacts, the types are “descriptive.”

The situations under which it is best to use either procedural or conceptual modes or historical or descriptive types are discussed and it is concluded that all four kinds of units are essential for the complete interpretation of archaeological remains.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , January 1960 , pp. 313 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1960

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

Amsden, C. A. 1936 The Structural Analysis of Pottery Design. In his “An Analysis of Hohokam Pottery Design,” Medallion Papers, No. 23, pp. 1–17. Gila Pueblo, Globe.Google Scholar
Barnett, H. G. 1953 Innovation: the Basis oj Cultural Change. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Black, G. A. and Weer, P. 1936 A Proposed Terminology for Shape Classification of Artifacts. American Antiquity, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 280–94. Menasha.Google Scholar
Brew, J. O. 1946 The Use and Abuse of Taxonomy. In his “Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah,” Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. 21, pp. 44–66. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cole, Fay-Cooper and Deuel, Thorne 1937 Rediscovering Illinois: Archaeological Explorations in and around Fulton County. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S. 1952 Pottery Types of the Arizona Strip and Adjacent Areas in Utah and Nevada. Museum of Northern Arizona, Ceramic Series, No. 1. Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S. 1955 Check List of Southwestern Pottery Types. Museum of Northern Arizona, Ceramic Series, No. 2. Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S. and Hargrave, L. L. 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin, No. 11. Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Cruxent, J. M. and Rouse, Irving 1959 An Archeological Chronology of Venezuela. Pan American Union, Social Science Monographs, No. 6. Washington.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, C. H. 1942 The Taxonomic Position of Stalling's Island, Georgia. American Antiquity, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223–31. Menasha.Google Scholar
Ford, C. S. 1937 A Sample Comparative Analysis of Material Culture. In Studies in the Science of Society, edited by Murdock, G. P.. 225–46. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Ford, J. A. 1952 Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design Developments in the Southeastern United States. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 44, Pt. 3. New York.Google Scholar
Ford, J. A. and Willey, G. R. 1949 Surface Survey of the Virú Valley, Peru. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 43, Pt. 1. New York.Google Scholar
Gifford, J. C. 1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341–7. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Gladwin, H. S. 1957 A History of the Ancient Southwest. Bond, Wheelwright, Portland (Maine).Google Scholar
Gladwin, Winifred and Gladwin, H. S. 1930 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series I. Medallion Papers, No. 8. Gila Pueblo, Globe.Google Scholar
Gladwin, Winifred and Gladwin, H. S. 1931 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series II. Medallion Papers, No. 10. Gila Pueblo, Globe.Google Scholar
Gladwin, Winifred and Gladwin, H. S. 1933 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series III. Medallion Papers, No. 13. Gila Pueblo, Globe.Google Scholar
Haury, E. W. 1936 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series IV. Medallion Papers, No. 19. Gila Pueblo, Globe.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. (editor) 1958 A Guide to Archaeological Field Methods. Third revised edition. National Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Krieger, A. D. 1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 271–88. Menasha.Google Scholar
Linton, Ralph 1936 The Study of Man. Appleton, Century, New York.Google Scholar
Matson, F. R. 1952 The Contribution of Technical Ceramic Studies to American Archaeology. Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States, No. 2, pp. 1–7. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Neilson, W. A., Knott, T. A., and Earhart, P. W. (Editors) 1940 Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language. Second edition. G. and C. Merriam Co., Springfield.Google Scholar
Osgood, Cornelius 1942 The Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redondo, Cuba. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 25. New Haven.Google Scholar
Phillips, Philip 1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley Taxonomy to Eastern Ceramics. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 117–30. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Phillips, Philip, Ford, J. A., and Griffin, J. B. 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. 25. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Propp, V. 1958 Morphology of the Folktale. Publications of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, No. 10. Bloomington.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. A. and Macneish, R. S. 1949 The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State. American Antiquity, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 97–124. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21. New Haven.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1941 Culture of the Ft. Liberté Region, Haiti. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 24. New Haven.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1952 Porto Rican Prehistory. The New York Academy of Sciences, Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Vol. 18, Nos. 3-4, pp. 307–578. New York.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1954 On the Use of the Concept of Area Co-Tradition. American Antiquity, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 221–5. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Sayles, E. B. 1936 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series V. Medallion Papers, No. 21. Gila Pueblo, Globe.Google Scholar
Sears, W. H. 1960 Taxonomic Systems and Eastern Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 324–9. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication, No. 609. Washington.Google Scholar
Smith, R. E., Willey, G. R., and Gifford, J. C. 1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 330-40. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, W. W. 1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, No. 69. Menasha.Google Scholar
Tax, Sol, Eiseley, L. C., Rouse, Irving, and Voegelin, C. F. (Editors) 1953 An Appraisal of Anthropology Today. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. H. 1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 15. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Waring, A. J. Jr. and Holder, Preston 1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. American Anthropologist, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1–34. Menasha.Google Scholar
Wasley, W. W. 1959 Cultural Implications of Style Trends in Southwestern Pottery: Basketmaker III to Pueblo II in West Central New Mexico. MS, doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Webb, W. S. and C. E., Snow 1945 The Adena People. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology, Vol. 6. Lexington.Google Scholar
Wendorf, Fred 1953 Archaeological Studies in the Petrified Forest National Monument. Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin, No. 27. Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Wheat, J. B., Gifford, J. C., and Wasley, W. W. 1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 34–47. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiteford, A. H. 1947 Description for Artifact Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 226–37. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, G. R. 1945 Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peruvian Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 49–56. Menasha.Google Scholar