Archaeological typologies

Define typology and types and explain why archaeologists use typologies.

Ruiha Webster, 15 November 2004

Introduction

Typology is literally ’the study of types’; a classification system used by archaeologists to arrange their data allowing artifacts to be grouped together according to their observable attributes and characteristics. These characteristics are chosen to relate to specific research questions posed by an archaeologist.

The relationship between typology and classification

Kreiger (1944) listed four principle forms of typology:

• A full description with the artefacts individually described;
• Visually determined typologies grouped to reduce repetitive description;
• Classification systems aimed to standardise description and comparison over wide areas;
• The true typological method where types are taken to be specific groupings of structural features having proved historical significance.

In case of new material the first approach may be the best to take, but where quantity of material allows the organisation of artefacts into defined groups, it is suggested that another method be used. Kreiger observed that classification was the most popular. He described the purpose of classification as:

• Standardising comparison of specimens over wide areas;
• Saving time in sorting, tabulating & describing masses of material;
• Providing convenient reference from which to expedite field recordings, surveys & cataloguing.

He also criticised it on a number of points, some of which are listed below:

• In arranging the divisions it is necessary to give some criteria preference over others;
• Artefacts which form a closely related group of variations may be forced, by classification arrangement, into a place far removed from one another in the tables. The reverse is true where specimens in the same class may actually belong to more distinct cultural types;
• It is impossible to express variation in a classification system except to increase or decrease criteria/subheadings.

Kreiger said of classification systems:

"Considering the vast amount of time and thought put into them, is there any reason to believe that their groupings will help to discover the true historical meaning of the myriad works of man?"

According to Rouse (1960) classification is the ’act of assigning to a proper class’. Classes are then defined by listing criteria used to create them, and in order to attain a specific objective, classification must select the criteria which are to be considered ’diagnostic of one’s class’. Rouse stated that archaeologists select these criteria to meet one of two objectives: to form either ’modes’ (analytic classification) or ’types’ (taxonomic classification).

Analytic classification forms a series of classes focusing on different features of the artefact. Each class is characterised by one or more attributes and indicates a procedure or concept to which the artisan conformed (such as manufacturing technique or shape of the vessel). Each of these concepts constitutes a mode. Taxonomic classification forms a single set of classes creating differences in the collection according to type. Here a class contains two or more modes which are selected from the results of analytical classification.

While modes are inherent in the collection, types are ’imposed’. Types are based on perceived similarities. The similarities reflect an interest in a particular research topic and it is the archaeologist who determines which of the groupings best fits their research enquiry. A single typology can only address a limited set of questions. For example, a typology based on differences in pottery form can address questions about function but may prove ineffective if site formation is the topic of focus (Lewis, 2000).

Rouse felt that many archaeologists failed to distinguish between modes and types and substituted one for the other whenever convenient. He concluded that both analytical and taxonomic classification were needed to "formulate cultures or to reconstruct cultural history".

Kluckhohn (Gifford, 1960) elaborated on the difference between typologies and classification:

"A classification is no more than a set... of empirical groupings established for convenience. A typology, however, is a theoretically oriented classification that is directed toward the solution of some problem."

Types and typology

Typology plays an important role in archaeology. The type provides an organisational tool to enable the archaeologist to group artefacts into bodies which have "demonstrable historical meaning in terms of behaviour patterns" (Kreiger, 1944). Each class is defined by a specific combination of features such as of paste, temper, texture, shape, technique, arrangement of decoration etc and includes what is believed to be individual variation within the technical pattern. A type is understood to occupy a definite historical position.

The purpose of typology is the accurate determination of each type in space and time so that archaeologists can examine the "history of the material and social culture of all extinct generations of humanity and of the industrial era of its development" (Gorodzov, 1933).

Material from a particular period and place has a recognisable style. They are in some way characteristic of the society that produced them. Archaeologists often recognise and then classify artefacts by their style and so assign them to a place in a typological sequence. This supports the idea that "like goes with like" (Renfrew & Bahn, 2000). Artefacts produced around the same time are often alike while those made centuries earlier or later will be different.

Typology also has a function as a tool for the organisation of material by relative dating. Typology differs from classification in that artefacts are arranged into sequences according to developments that may allow them to be placed into a chronological order (Greene, 2004). The best way to assign a relative date to an artefact is to match it to an artefact already recognised with an established typology.

The concept of types developed further to encompass associations of a find and not just individual items. This is called ’seriation’ and allows for assemblages of artefacts to be arranged in a serial order which is taken to indicate their ordering in time (Renfrew & Bahn, 2000). There is both contextual and frequency seriation. In contextual seriation the duration of different artefact styles dictates the serial order. Frequency seriation measures the change in proportional frequency, for example, of ceramic style. The assumptions here are that a pottery style would gradually become more popular, reach a height and then fade away and also that at a given period in time a pot style that is popular at one site will be similarly popular at another. Yet seriation does not in itself state which end of a sequence is first or last and in both forms material is recovered without stratigraphic context. A true chronology has therefore to be supported by other means of dating, such as a stratigraphic sequence.

Typology in practice

Gorodzov (1933) described typology as the subdivision of material into category, groups, genera and finally types. The type is defined simply as a "collection of objects similar in function, material and form". He used the example of arrowheads to explain the divisions:

• First grouped as a ’category’ because of their purpose;
• Then divided into ’groups’ based on their material eg: stone, bone, copper etc;
• Then divided into ’genera’ based on the form of the lower end eg: socketed, tanged etc;
• Then divided into ’types’ based on the form of upper striking ends eg: flat, square etc;
• If types are connected to a locality then this locale is used in the naming of the type eg: "the type of Moscow six chained temple pendulum".

After this classification is made a detailed description, including distribution and known time periods is required.

"This description should be short, expressive but exhaustive. It should include all that is necessary and nothing else."

It should be accompanied by maps of the schematic distribution of the type and interrelation of the areas of different types.

Prior to the nineteenth century the prevailing idea was that the natural world was ’fixed’ at the time of the Creation, as in accordance with the Christian bible. There was no need to look for developments or therefore to attempt chronologies. With the advent of evolutionary ideas within geology and biology, typological studies gained momentum as they looked for evolutionary shifts rather than stability (Greene, 2004). Oscar Montelius, in the nineteenth century, was one of the earliest to establish a typology when he formulated relative chronologies for regions of Bronze Age Europe, by drawing on bronze tools and weapon remains. Flinders Petrie, in the same century, developed typologies when he studied the pottery remains in pre-dynastic graves of Upper Egypt. In the twentieth century James B Griffin helped formed the basis of a chronological system examining ceramic remains of the Pueblo Native Americans.

Conclusion

Archaeologists will continue to use typologies to organise archaeological data and artefact assemblages. Typologies are subjective and only reflect the priorities of those who created them so new ones should be constructed to address new research topics. In this way typologies will continue to provide a method of systematically identifying and describing artefacts, enabling the archaeologist to reconstruct cultural history through an examination and interpretation of the material record.

References

GIFFORD, J.C. (1960) The type-variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator of cultural phenomena. American Antiquity, Vol.25, No.3, pp.341-347.

GREENE, K. (2004) Archaeology: an introduction. London: Routledge.

GORODZOV, V.A. (1933) The typological method in archaeology. American Anthropologist, Vol.35, No.1, pp.95-102.

KREIGER, A.D. (1944) The typological concept. American Antiquity, Vol.9, No. 3, pp. 271-288.

LEWIS, C. (2000) Typology and Ceramic Analysis [Online] Available: [25 http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~kah2/students/typology1.htm [25 October 2004]

ORSER, C.E. Jnr (2002) Encyclopedia of historical archaeology. London: Routledge.

RENFREW, C. & BAHN, P. (2000) Archaeology: theories methods & practice. London: Thames & Hudson.

ROUSE, I. (1960) The classification of artefacts in archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No.3, pp.313-323.