Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T12:10:35.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Comments on Typologies in Archaeology and an Outline of a Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dwight W. Read
Dwight W. Read*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Classification is discussed as a procedure for maximizing information about a cultural system from archaeological data. This concept is made rigorous by defining typologies in terms of assumptions about patterning among variables that result from different artifacts being manufactured for use in different activities. Interval-scaled and nominal-scaled variables are considered independently, as the problem to be solved is different in the 2 cases. For continuous variables, the question is what divisions can be made, and for nominal variables, it is what divisions should be made. Two definitions for typologies are given, 1 for continuous variables and 1 for nominal variables. Cluster analysis and analysis of interaction and residuals in contingency tables are outlined as procedures for discovering types with continuous and nominal variables, respectively. Examples of each technique using archaeological data are given.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 39 , Issue 2Part1 , April 1974 , pp. 216 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1974

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

Brown, M. 1973 The identification of the sources of significance in two-way contingency tables. Manuscript in possession of author.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. 1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity 31:203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, K. C. 1967 Rethinking archaeology. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Chang, K. C. n.d. Cluster analysis, factor analysis and archaeological classification. Manuscript in possession of author.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. 1968 Analytical archaeology. Methuen and Co., London.Google Scholar
Deetz, J. 1968 The inference of residence and descent rules from archaeological data. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Binford, S. and Binford, L., pp. 41–48. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dixon, W. 1970 Biomedical computer programs. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ericson, J., Read, D., and DeAtley, S. 1972 Research design: the relationship between the primary functions and the physical properties of ceramic vessels and their implication for ceramic distributions on an archaeological site. Anthropology UCLA 3:84–95.Google Scholar
Fienberg, S. 1970 The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables. Ecology 51:419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardin, T. (Editor) 1970 Archéologie et calculateurs. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Gelfand, A. E. 1971 Rapid seriation methods with archaeological applications. In Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences, edited by Hodson, F. R., Kendall, D. G., and Tautu, P.. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R. 1970 Cluster analysis and archaeology: some new developments and applications. World Archaeology 1:229–320.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R., Kendall, D. G., and Tautu, P. (Editors) 1971 Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jardine, N., and Gibson, R. 1971 Mathematical taxonomy. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Krieger, A. 1964 New World lithic typology project: Part II. American Antiquity 29:489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingoes, M. J. C. 1970 A general nonparametic model for representing objects and attributes in a joint metric space. In Archéologie et calculateurs, edited by Gardin, T.. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Mundie, C. 1973 An approach to the functional study of southwestern groundstone. Unpublished MA thesis. Department of Anthropology, UCLA.Google Scholar
Oxnard, C, and Neely, P. 1969 The descriptive use of neighborhood limited classification in functional morphology: an analysis of primate shoulders. Journal of Morphology 129:127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, F., Hill, J., and Read, D. 1974 Chevelon archaeological research project. Archaeological Survey Monograph 2, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Read, C. 1971 Animal bones and human behavior: approaches to faunal analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, UCLA.Google Scholar
Redman, C. 1973 Multistage fieldwork and analytical techniques. American Antiquity 38:61–79.Google Scholar
Sackett, J. 1966 Quantitative analysis of Upper Paleolithic stone tools. American Anthropologist 68:356–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R., and Rohlf, F. 1969 Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Sokal, R., and Sneath, P. 1963 Principles of numerical taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1953 Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 18:305–313.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1972 A new approach to pottery typology. American Antiquity 37:13–33.Google Scholar