rouse on the typological method

Upload: luciusquietus

Post on 02-Apr-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/27/2019 Rouse on the Typological Method

    1/4

  • 7/27/2019 Rouse on the Typological Method

    2/4

    FACTS AND COMMENTS

    ON THE TYPOLOGICAL METHOD

    The article, "The Typological Concept," recently published by Alex D. Krieger'

    is an encouraging sign that interest in methodology, hitherto confined largely to fieldwork, is now turning as well to the study of specimens in the laboratory. Krieger is to becongratulated for outlining clearly his method of forming types and for a penetratingcomparison of that method with other archaeological procedures of classification.

    It may be questioned, however, whether the article contributes as much to anunderstanding of the typological concept as it does to the typological method. In em-phasizing the formation of types, Krieger fails to explain what he means by the term"type." As the present writer understands his remarks, the term "type" is used vari-ously to refer to the categories formed by classifying artifacts (pp. 271-272), to the speci-mens classified within each category (bottom of pp. 277, 281), and to the pattern of char-acters used to define each category (pp. 278, 280). Examination of the article reveals that

    type-specimens, single characters of the specimens, and variable patterns of charactersare not types, but negative statements like these are the only apparent contribution toour comprehension of the concept of type as such. It is not even suggested that archaeol-ogists define what they mean by type, although they are advised to explain their mannerof forming ty-pes.

    The value of Krieger's methodological discussion is marred by several other minordefects. Historical study need not be limited, as he implies, to the kind of classificationbased upon patterns of characters of artifacts. It should be possible to study historicallythe units of any classification, even if based upon only a single character of each artifact,providing that it is realized that one is tracing the history, not of the patterns of charactersassociated in Krieger's article with types, but only of the characters which have been used asthe basis for classification. The grouping together, for example, of stone, shell, and metalobjects in the Mississippi valley because they have in common a single kind of designis a prerequisite for studying the history of the design, even though, as Krieger states,it contributes nothing to the history of the type involved. This was the point which ledthe present writer to make the distinction between mode and type to which Krieger refersin another connection. Separation of modes, formed by classifying the artifacts in termsof single characters, from types, based as in Krieger's article on combinations of thecharacters, made it possible to study the history of either single or multiple characters,or of bcth, without confusing the two.2

    Exception might also be taken to Krieger's conclusion that a typologically mindedarchaeologist will name his types (or modes) descriptively, rather than in terms of lettersand numbers. If interpreted literally, both descriptive terms on the one hand and lettersand numbers on the other can lead to bias, the former because they emphasize certaincharacters of the artifacts or certain sites, and the latter because they have an inherentorder. Choice between the two would therefore seem to be a matter of style rather thanof logic. Some writers, for example, may find it more satisfactory to state that the ovoiddesign has diffused from Haiti to Puerto Rico, replacing the vertical-parallel-line designon the latter island, than to draw the same conclusion in terms of designs lal and IIb2,but the choice is likely to be a personal one.

    In outlining the typological method used in classifying Southeastern and South-western pottery, Krieger makes no mention of the practice of setting up a type-specimen

    1AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1944, pp. 271-288;2 Irving Rouse, Prehistory in Haiti, A Study in Method, Yale University Publications in Anthropology,

    No. 21, New Haven, 1939.

    202

  • 7/27/2019 Rouse on the Typological Method

    3/4

    FACTS AND COMMENTS 203

    as the standard for each pattern of characters formed through classification. Yet theSouthwestern conferences of 1929 and 1930 recommended hat "a specimen of the type

    should be deposited in a museum with an appropriate abel to indicate that it is the type-piece on which the description is based."3 Apparently, this proved to be impracticable,for in the reports cited by Krieger each description s actually based upon a number ofspecimens. The present writer is not familiar enough with the work in the area to knowwhether several type-specimens were thereupon set up in place of each single specimenoriginally envisaged, but this would seem to be the logical development.

    In any case, the failure of the plan for setting up single type-specimens n connectionwith Southwestern pottery study need not automatically preclude ts application to non-ceramic specimens. Experience has shown that in dealing with most stone, bone, andshell artifacts one does not encounter the large number of alternatives in shape anddecoration which are met with in pottery analysis.4 As a result, when classifying non-

    ceramic artifacts in terms of patterns of characters, one can usually select a single speci-men to illustrate each pattern, instead of the several specimens needed to exemplifya pattern of pottery characters. This would seem to justify the current practice of estab-lishing a type-specimen, or "perfect example" of each pattern, in connection with theclassification of stonework.5

    As one especially interested in drawing historical conclusions, the present writeris perhaps n a position to criticize objectively the current tendency, particularly amongarchaeologists in the Southeast, to value history as the sine qua non of archaeologicalresearch. He cannot see why, for example, the work of Fewkes in pointing out the varie-ties of cultural objects in existence in the West Indies, their artistic significance, andthe manner n which they have been used in the native cultural activities, should be con-

    sidered less valuable than the historical research of later writers, based as it is on a dif-ferent kind of typology. The two would seem to complement each other and to enrichour knowledge of the archaeology of the West Indies in a way that would not have beenpossible if only the historical work had been done.

    Archaeologists who have this comprehensive point of view may question Krieger'sassumption that the only types of value are the ones formed for purposes of historicalstudy. It is possible, for example, that a person interested in the processes of stoneworking may find as much use for types selected on the basis of individual variationsas for those based upon characters of historical significance. Different approaches otypology may prove to be the best suited to different kinds of study.

    The above remarks are intended to amplify rather than to belittle Krieger's discussion

    of the typological method, with which the writer is in essential agreement. Several addi-tional aspects of the procedure of forming types may also be mentioned. Should thearchaeologist classify potsherds and other fragmentary artifacts in their present condi-tion or as complete artifacts? Should he base the classification only on characters appear-ing on the artifacts, or should he include also inferences as to the manufacture and use ofthe artifacts? Should he use as the basis for classification only characters which arepresent on every specimen in the group, or should he also take into consideration char-acters which some specimens in the group do not have? To what extent should he relyupon his visual impression of each character, and to what extent should he use the vari-ous terminologies developed in recent years to refer to the different kinds of parts of

    3 H. S. and Winifred Gladwin, A Method or the Designation of Southwestern Pottery Types, MedallionPapers, No. 7, Globe, 1930.

    4 Irving Rouse, Culture of the Ft. Libertl Region, Haiti, Yale University Publications in Anthropology,No. 24, New Haven, 1941.

    E.g., Douglas Byers and Frederick Johnson, Two Sites on Martha's Vineyard, Papers of the Robert S.Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Vol. 1, No. 1, Andover, 1940.

  • 7/27/2019 Rouse on the Typological Method

    4/4