A New Approach to Pottery Typology

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.

[1]  Albert C. Spaulding,et al.  Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types , 1953, American Antiquity.

[2]  W. T. Williams,et al.  Multivariate methods in plant ecology. 2. The use of an electronic digital computer for association-analysis. , 1960 .

[3]  L. Orlóci,et al.  Information Analysis of Structure in Biological Collections , 1969, Nature.

[4]  W. T. Williams,et al.  Multivariate Methods in Plant Ecology: I. Association-Analysis in Plant Communities , 1959 .

[5]  F. R. Hodson,et al.  Searching for structure within multivariate archaeological data , 1969 .

[6]  Lewis R. Binford,et al.  New perspectives in archeology , 1969 .

[7]  R. Macneish,et al.  The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State , 1949, American Antiquity.

[8]  Duane Metzger,et al.  Some Procedures and Results in the Study of Illative Categories: Tzeltal “Firewood”1 , 1966 .

[9]  W. R. Buckland,et al.  Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering. , 1960 .

[10]  G. N. Lance,et al.  Computer programs for monothetic classification ("Association analysis") , 1965, Comput. J..

[11]  Peter H. Raven,et al.  Covert Categories and Folk Taxonomies , 1968 .

[12]  Arthur A. Saxe,et al.  Social dimensions of mortuary practices , 1970 .

[13]  R. Bulmer,et al.  Why is the Cassowary Not a Bird? A Problem of Zoological Taxonomy Among the Karam of the New Guinea Highlands , 1967 .

[14]  James Edward Fitting.  Late woodland cultures of southeastern Michigan , 1965 .

[15]  P. H. A. Sneath,et al.  Some experiments in the numerical analysis of archaeological data , 1966 .

[16]  C. Fowler,et al.  Some Northern Paiute Native Categories , 1967 .

[17]  Alex D. Krieger,et al.  The Typological Concept , 1944, American Antiquity.

[18]  L. N. Balaam,et al.  Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering , 1966 .

[19]  R. Sokal,et al.  Principles of numerical taxonomy , 1965 .