Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T12:13:33.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James C. Gifford
James C. Gifford*
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This discussion deals with the theoretical reasoning that underlies the type-variety method of ceramic analysis. Not only do pottery "types" and “varieties” embody sets of recognizably distinct attributes and impart particular cultural, areal, and temporal connotations, but they are also meaningful entities of cultural interpretation.

  1. 1. “Varieties” that have been tested by continued close study and by increases in knowledge concerning their nature and range of variation are close approximations and reliable indicators of original ceramic manifestations due to individual or small social group variation in a society.

  2. 2. Ceramic "types" represent the combining of a number of attributes into abstract conceptions which, when executed in clay by potters, are acceptable to them and a majority of others within their cultural configuration. Types are summations of individual or small social group variation consistent with boundaries imposed by the interaction of individuals on a societal level and determined by the operative value system present in any society. Pottery types are therefore representative of cultural phenomena.

  3. 3. Ceramic types are cultural derivatives and can be related one to another through space and time. Relationships of this kind are recognized as “ceramic systems” and “ceramic sequences.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , January 1960 , pp. 341 - 347
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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, May 1, 1959, Salt Lake City, Utah.

References

Colby, B. N. 1958 Behavioral Redundancy. Behavioral Science, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 317–22. Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluckhohn, Clyde 1958a The Scientific Study of Values and Contemporary Civilization. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 102, No. 5, pp. 469–76. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Kluckhohn, Clyde 1958b The Scientific Study of Values. University of Toronto Installation Lectures, 1958, pp. 25–54, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
In press The Use of Typology in Anthropological Theory. In Selected Papers from the Proceedings of the Vth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, edited by Wallace, Anthony F. C.. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1952 The Nature of Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, Clyde 1952 Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Papers of the Peahody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. 47, No. 1. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Osgood, Cornelius 1951 Culture: Its Empirical and Non-Empirical Character. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 202–14. Albuquerque.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Philip 1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley Taxonomy to Eastern Ceramics. American Amiquity, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 117–25. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Rands, R. L. and Riley, C. L. 1958 Diffusion and Discontinuous Distribution. American Anthropologist, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 274–97. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 313–23. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle 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
Thompson, R. H. (Editor) 1956 An Archaeological Approach to the Study of Cultural Stability. In “Seminars in Archaeology: 1955,” edited by Wauchope, Robert, pp. 31–57. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 11. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Vaillant, G. C. 1930 Excavations at Zacatenco. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 32, Part I. New York.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
White, L. A. 1959 The Concept of Culture. American Anthropologist, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 227–51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, G. R. and Phillips, Philip 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar