Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating consistency in typology and classification

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Typological systems are essential for communication between anthropologists as well as for interpretive purposes. For both communication and interpretation, it is important to know that different individuals using the same typology classify artifacts in similar ways, but the consistency with which typologies are used is rarely evaluated or explicitly tested. There are theoretical, practical, and cultural reasons for this failure. Disagreements among archaeologists using the same typology may originate in the typology itself (i.e., imprecise type definitions, confusing structure) or in the classification process, because of observer errors, differences in perception and interpretation, and biases. We review previous attempts to evaluate consistency in typology and classification, and use consensus analysis to examine one well-established typology. Both consensus and disparity are apparent among the typologists in our case study, and this allows us to explore the kinds of forces that shape agreement and diversity in the use of all typological systems. We argue that issues of typological consistency are theoretically and methodologically important. Typological consistency can be explicitly tested, and must be if we hope to use typologies confidently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W. Y. (1988) Archaeological classification: Theory versus practice.Antiquity 61: 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, W. Y., and Adams, E. W. (1991).Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, C., and Jones, G. T. (1989). Bias and archaeological classification.American Antiquity 54(2): 244–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. (1990).ANTHROPAC 3.2 Computer Program, Analytic Technologies, Columbia, SC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boster, J. (1986). Exchange of varieties and information between Aguaruna manioc cultivators.American Anthropologist 88(2): 429–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boster, J., and Johnson, J. C. (1989). Form or function: A comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish.American Anthropologist 91(4): 866–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, C. C. (1987). Interobserver error in the analysis of nominal attribute states: A case study.Tennessee Anthropologist 12(1): 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breternitz, D. A. (1966) An appraisal of tree-ring dated pottery in the Southwest.Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 10, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brew, J. O. (1946). The use and abuse of taxonomy. InThe Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 21, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 44–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burling, R. (1964). Cognition and componential analysis: God's truth or hocus-pocus?American Anthropologist 66: 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulkins, D. (1991). Measuring diversity in organizational culture.Dyn: Journal of the Anthropological Society of Durham University 10: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulkins, D., and Trosset, C. (1996) The ethnography of contemporary Welsh and Welsh-America identity and values. In Thompson, M. (ed.),Proceedings of the First Conference of the North American Association for the Study of Welsh Culture and History, NAASWCH, Rio Grande, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. L. (1968).Analytical Archaeology, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. L., (ed.) (1972).Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colton, H. S. (1932) A survey of prehistoric sites in the region of Flagstaff Arizona.Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 104, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colton, H. S. (1941) Winona and Ridge Ruin Part II: Notes on the technology and taxonomy of the pottery,Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 19 Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colton, H. S. (1955) Pottery types of the Southwest.Museum of Northem Arizona Ceramic series No. 2, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colton, H. S. (1958). Pottery types of the Southwest: Revised description of Alameda Brown, Prescott Grey, San Francisco Mountain Gray Wares 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 3, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colton, H. S., and Hargrave, L. L. (1937). Handbook of northern Arizona pottery wares.Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 11, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1972)Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S. G. H. (1972). Research design models. In Clarke, D. (ed.),Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 201–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, J. D. (1967).Invitation to Archaeology, Natural History Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Bernard, M. (1980). A comparative study of basic edge angle measurement techniques.American Antiquity 45(4): 857–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downum, C. E. (1988).“One Grand History”: A Critical Review of Flagstaff Archaeology, 1851–1988, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, W., Santos, J. E., and Blierio, M. C. (1996). Studying diversity and sharing in culture: An example of lifestyle in Brazil.Journal of Anthropological Research 52: 331–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumond, D. (1974). Some uses of r-mode analyses in archaeology.American Antiquity 39(2): 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1986). Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.)Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 9, Academic Press, New York, pp. 149–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C., and Grayson, D. K. (eds.) (1983). Lulu Linear punctated: Essays in honor of George Irving Quimby.University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers 72, Ann Arbor, MI.

  • Fish, P. R. (1976). Replication studies in ceramic classification.Pottery Southwest 3(4): 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, P. R. (1978). Consistency in archaeological measurement and classification: A pilot study.American Antiquity 43(1): 86–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. A. (1954a). Comment on A. C. Spaulding, “Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types.”American Antiquity 19: 390–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. A. (1954b). The type concept revisited.Armerican Anthropologist 56(1): 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, J. C. (1960). The type-variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator of cultural phenomena.American Antiquity 25: 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunn, J. E., and Prewitt E. R. (1975). Automatic classification: Projectile points from west Texas.Plains Anthropologist,20: 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, L. L. (1932). Guide to forty pottery types from the Hopi Country and the San Francisco Mountains, Arizona.Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 1, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. N., and Evans, R. K. (1972). A model for classification and typology. In Clarke, D. L. (ed.),Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 231–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J., and Gunn, J. (eds.) (1977)The Individual in Prehistory, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, F. R., Sneath, P. H. A., and Doran, J. E. (1966). Some experiments in the numerical analysis of archaeological data.Biometrika 53: 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt, S. B., and Caulkins, D. (1992). Putting bread on the table: The women's work of community activism.Unit on Work and Gender, Occasional Paper No. 6, University of Bradford, Department of Social and Economic Studies, Bradford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, K. A., and Whittaker, J. C. (1990). Lizard Man Village: A small site perspective on Sinagua social organization.Kiva 55: 99–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, K. A., and Whittaker, J. C. (1998).Surviving Adversity: The Sinagua of Lizard Man Village, No. 121, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, K. A., Wallace, R., and Saylor, G. (1991). A functional interpretation of two Sinagua brownwares.Pottery Southwest 14(4): 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. (1980).Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L., and Newcomer, M. (1977). Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: A test case.Journal of Archaeological Science 4: 29–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton, W. (1981).The Folk Classification of Ceramics: A Study of Cognitive Prototypes, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, R. H., Whittaker, J. C., McCarthy, M., and McSwain, R. (1982). A consideration of observational error in lithic use wear analysis.Lithic Technology 11(3): 59–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, M., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. (1986). Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests.Journal of Archaeological Sciences 13: 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H., and Odell-Vereecken, F. (1980). Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear assessments by “blind tests”: The low power approach.Journal of Field Archaeology 7(1): 87–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. (1974). Some comments on typologies in archaeology and an outline of a methodology.American Antiquity 39(2): 216–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D., and Christenson, A. (1977). Numerical taxonomy, r-mode factor analysis, and archaeological classification.American Antiquity 42(2): 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. J. (1984): What is black, white, and vague all over? In Sullivan, A. P., and Hantman, J. L. (eds.),Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation: Contemporary Studies of Cibola Whitewares, Anthropological Research Papers 31, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommey, A. K., Weller, S. C., and Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture and consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy.American Anthropologist 88(2): 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romney, A. K., Batchelder, W. H., and Weller, S. C. (1987). Recent applications of cultural consensus theory.American Behavioral Scientist 31(2): 163–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, I. (1960). The classification of artifacts in archaeology.American Antiquity 25: 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (1976).Behavioral Archeology, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J. J. (1992). Lithic microwear analysis in archeology.Evolutionary Anthropology 1(4): 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. C. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types.American Antiquity 18: 305–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. C. (1954). Reply to Ford.American Antiquity 19: 391–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swarthout, J., and Dulaney, A. (1982). A description of ceramic collections from the railroad and trasmission line corridors.Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 26.

  • Swartz, B. K. (1967). A logical sequence of archaeological objectives.American Antiquity 32: 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. H. (1981). How to classify the projectile points from Monitor Valley, Nevada.Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1): 7–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trosset, C., and Caulkins, D. (1993). Is ethnicity the locus of culture? The image and reality of ethnic subcultures in Wales. Paper presented at American Anthropological Association Meetings, Washington, DC, Nov. 19.

  • Tuggle, H. D. (1970).Prehistoric Community Relationships in East-Central Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, University of Arizona, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, P. C. (1985).Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C. (1984). Consistency and consensus among informants: Disease concepts in a rural Mexican village.American Anthropologist 86: 966–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C., and Romney, A. K. (1988).Systematic Data Collection, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C., Romney, A. K., and Orr, D. (1986). The myth of a sub-culture of corporal punishment.Human Organization 46: 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whallon, R. (1972). A new approach to pottery typology.American Antiquity 37(1): 13–33.

    Article  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 24(1): 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, J. C. (1984).Arrowheads and artisans: Stone tool manufacture and individual variation at Grasshopper Pueblo, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. S. (1987).Checklist of Pottery Types for the Tonto National Forest.The Arizona Archaeologist No. 21, Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D., and Bamforth, D. R. (1990). On the macroscopic identification of used flakes.American Antiquity 55(2): 403–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, Grinnell College, 50112, Grinnell, Iowa

    John C. Whittaker, Douglas Caulkins & Kathryn A. Kamp

Authors
  1. John C. Whittaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Caulkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn A. Kamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John C. Whittaker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whittaker, J.C., Caulkins, D. & Kamp, K.A. Evaluating consistency in typology and classification. J Archaeol Method Theory 5, 129–164 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02427967

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02427967

Key Words

Search

Navigation