7/29/2019 Ford in Favour of Simple Typology

1/3

Society for American Archaeology

In Favor of Simple TypologyAuthor(s): James A. FordSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jul., 1961), pp. 113-114Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/278245

Accessed: 14/11/2009 08:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/278245?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/278245?origin=JSTOR-pdf

7/29/2019 Ford in Favour of Simple Typology

2/3

FACTS AND COMMENTSACTS AND COMMENTS1960: 48). All these complexes are thought to have beenderived from earlier horizons of the Great Plains, perhapsno more than 4000 to 7000 years ago, before the North-west Interior Microblade Tradition entered from Asia.

It is most unusual to find Lerma points in such asetting as Acasta Lake, for, as MacNeish has pointed out,they seem to belong to an intermontane or cordillerantradition. The specimens from Acasta Lake are the onlyones yet reported from the Canadian tundra; the closestcomparable specimens seem to be from Firth River,Kluane Lake, and central British Columbia. Lerma pointsin British Columbia are not necessarily early. They mayhave persisted for a long time, perhaps from 9000 to 2000years ago, according to Borden. This estimate is in accordwith that of Suhm and Krieger (1954: 440), who say thatLerma points possibly "appeared . . . several thousandyears before Christian era; in Texas from well before thetime of Christ to somewhat after."

The Lerma points from Acasta Lake, therefore, maynot be ancient. Yet their context - with a point in theAgate Basin or Yuma tradition, and in a site apparentlylacking the ubiquitous microblades of middle periods ofthe Northwest Interior--suggests that the Acasta Lakefinds are among the earliest so far recognized in the area.MacNeish has written me that the "Acasta Lake findcould be a case in which the southward-spreading Lermatype has lasted up until it met the northward-movingAgate Basin types."

Acknowledgments. I am grateful to T. E. Vaasjo and C. V.Sullivan for their cooperation; and to C. E. Borden and R. S.MacNeish for their comments which, when not documented, wereverbally given.

HARP, E. J.1959 The Moffatt Archaeological Collection from the DubawntCountry, Canada. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 4,pp. 412-22. Salt Lake City.MACNEISH, R. S.1951 An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the NorthwestTerritories. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 123, pp.24-41. Ottawa.

1960 Archaeological Projects in Canada. Archaeology, Vol.13, No. 3, pp. 194-201. New York.SUHM, D. A. ANDA. D. KRIE(ER1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. Bul-letin of the Texas Archeological Society, Vol. 25. Austin.

GLENBOW FOUNDATIONCalgary, AlbertaMarch, 1961

IN FAVOR OF SIMPLETYPOLOGYJAMESA. FORD

ABSTRACTProponents of the "type-variety" method of ceramicanalysis are criticized for mixing analytical units and therank hierarchies appropriate to synthesis, and for seman-tically substituting "type-variety"for "type" without actu-ally changing the method of analysis.

IN RECENT issues of AMERICANNTIQUITY,number ofpages has been devoted to the new "type-variety"concept

1960: 48). All these complexes are thought to have beenderived from earlier horizons of the Great Plains, perhapsno more than 4000 to 7000 years ago, before the North-west Interior Microblade Tradition entered from Asia.It is most unusual to find Lerma points in such a

setting as Acasta Lake, for, as MacNeish has pointed out,they seem to belong to an intermontane or cordillerantradition. The specimens from Acasta Lake are the onlyones yet reported from the Canadian tundra; the closestcomparable specimens seem to be from Firth River,Kluane Lake, and central British Columbia. Lerma pointsin British Columbia are not necessarily early. They mayhave persisted for a long time, perhaps from 9000 to 2000years ago, according to Borden. This estimate is in accordwith that of Suhm and Krieger (1954: 440), who say thatLerma points possibly "appeared . . . several thousandyears before Christian era; in Texas from well before thetime of Christ to somewhat after."

The Lerma points from Acasta Lake, therefore, maynot be ancient. Yet their context - with a point in theAgate Basin or Yuma tradition, and in a site apparentlylacking the ubiquitous microblades of middle periods ofthe Northwest Interior--suggests that the Acasta Lakefinds are among the earliest so far recognized in the area.MacNeish has written me that the "Acasta Lake findcould be a case in which the southward-spreading Lermatype has lasted up until it met the northward-movingAgate Basin types."

Acknowledgments. I am grateful to T. E. Vaasjo and C. V.Sullivan for their cooperation; and to C. E. Borden and R. S.MacNeish for their comments which, when not documented, wereverbally given.

HARP, E. J.1959 The Moffatt Archaeological Collection from the DubawntCountry, Canada. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 4,pp. 412-22. Salt Lake City.MACNEISH, R. S.1951 An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the NorthwestTerritories. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 123, pp.24-41. Ottawa.

1960 Archaeological Projects in Canada. Archaeology, Vol.13, No. 3, pp. 194-201. New York.SUHM, D. A. ANDA. D. KRIE(ER1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. Bul-letin of the Texas Archeological Society, Vol. 25. Austin.

GLENBOW FOUNDATIONCalgary, AlbertaMarch, 1961

IN FAVOR OF SIMPLETYPOLOGYJAMESA. FORD

ABSTRACTProponents of the "type-variety" method of ceramicanalysis are criticized for mixing analytical units and therank hierarchies appropriate to synthesis, and for seman-tically substituting "type-variety"for "type" without actu-ally changing the method of analysis.

IN RECENT issues of AMERICANNTIQUITY,number ofpages has been devoted to the new "type-variety"concept

and some archaeologists are using it in analyzing their ma-terials. Wheat, Gifford, and Wasley (1958) expound themethodology clearly, and illustrate with Southwesternceramics. Phillips (1958) has applied it to Eastern cer-amics, while Smith, Willey, and Gifford (1960) havedone the job for the Maya region. The discussion ends(for the present) with a theoretical exposition of themethod by Gifford (1960).Just to build up my bibliography, I should like toregister a feeble word of protest. What is being done bythese authors is excellent, but what they say about whatthey are doing is a little confusing. Archaeological re-search, like all research, consists of two balanced pro-cesses. Analysis is "separation of anything, whether anobject of the senses or of the intellect, into constituentparts or elements," (Neilson 1961: 94). The archaeologistmust divide or take apart his data into as small units ashe either chooses or as is possible for purposes of exam-ination and comparison. Synthesis, on the other hand,is " ... a putting together ... The combination of sepa-rate elements of thought or sensation into a whole, as ofsimple into complex conceptions, or species into general-the opposite of analysis. Hegel." (Neilson 1961: 2560).Dendritic classifications modelled on the biologicalsystem of Linnaeus have long been used by culture his-torians, and with considerable reason, for cultures do tendto branch off from one another like species. The severalRomance languages certainly came from the same source.Useful as dendritic systems are as framework or outlinefor presenting a history which is already known, they arenot tools for the analytical phases of research.When the Midwestern Taxinomic Method was pro-posed by McKern (1939) 32 years ago, he was careful tostate that the system had no historical implications. How-ever, history was just what was needed. The techniquewas misused by a number of students in an attempt tomake it an analytical tool and so received much unjusti-fied criticism and fell into disuse. Gladwin (1934) andhis co-workers evolved and employed a similar system topresent the outline of Southwestern prehistory. It wasnot used as a tool. Willey and Phillips (1958) have re-cently made proper use of a flexible dendritic framework.

Smith, Willey, and Gifford (1960: 335) clearly state:A sharp distinction is necessary between the basic working unitsof ceramic analysis on one hand and devices of a higher orderof synthesis on the other. Among the latter may be included con-cepts such as "tradition," "ceramic system," [etc.]. ... these units[types and type varieties] must be maintained as free agents ofanalysis.Yet they go ahead and propose to mix analytical unitsand the rank hierarchies appropriate to synthesis. Whatis the type in their system but a higher order than "Type-Variety"?The nature of the proposed procedure is furtherbrought out by these same writers (p. 333): "As a resulttypes are actually best left undefined until the very endof the analysis." In the next paragraph: "In practice aswell as in theory, then, when adhering to the type-varietyconcept as defined, all working ceramic analytical unitsare varieties from start to finish."

So, the "type-variety"replaces the old working unit weused to call "type," and "type" is now elevated to the

and some archaeologists are using it in analyzing their ma-terials. Wheat, Gifford, and Wasley (1958) expound themethodology clearly, and illustrate with Southwesternceramics. Phillips (1958) has applied it to Eastern cer-amics, while Smith, Willey, and Gifford (1960) havedone the job for the Maya region. The discussion ends(for the present) with a theoretical exposition of themethod by Gifford (1960).Just to build up my bibliography, I should like toregister a feeble word of protest. What is being done bythese authors is excellent, but what they say about whatthey are doing is a little confusing. Archaeological re-search, like all research, consists of two balanced pro-cesses. Analysis is "separation of anything, whether anobject of the senses or of the intellect, into constituentparts or elements," (Neilson 1961: 94). The archaeologistmust divide or take apart his data into as small units ashe either chooses or as is possible for purposes of exam-ination and comparison. Synthesis, on the other hand,is " ... a putting together ... The combination of sepa-rate elements of thought or sensation into a whole, as ofsimple into complex conceptions, or species into general-the opposite of analysis. Hegel." (Neilson 1961: 2560).Dendritic classifications modelled on the biologicalsystem of Linnaeus have long been used by culture his-torians, and with considerable reason, for cultures do tendto branch off from one another like species. The severalRomance languages certainly came from the same source.Useful as dendritic systems are as framework or outlinefor presenting a history which is already known, they arenot tools for the analytical phases of research.When the Midwestern Taxinomic Method was pro-posed by McKern (1939) 32 years ago, he was careful tostate that the system had no historical implications. How-ever, history was just what was needed. The techniquewas misused by a number of students in an attempt tomake it an analytical tool and so received much unjusti-fied criticism and fell into disuse. Gladwin (1934) andhis co-workers evolved and employed a similar system topresent the outline of Southwestern prehistory. It wasnot used as a tool. Willey and Phillips (1958) have re-cently made proper use of a flexible dendritic framework.

Smith, Willey, and Gifford (1960: 335) clearly state:A sharp distinction is necessary between the basic working unitsof ceramic analysis on one hand and devices of a higher orderof synthesis on the other. Among the latter may be included con-cepts such as "tradition," "ceramic system," [etc.]. ... these units[types and type varieties] must be maintained as free agents ofanalysis.Yet they go ahead and propose to mix analytical unitsand the rank hierarchies appropriate to synthesis. Whatis the type in their system but a higher order than "Type-Variety"?The nature of the proposed procedure is furtherbrought out by these same writers (p. 333): "As a resulttypes are actually best left undefined until the very endof the analysis." In the next paragraph: "In practice aswell as in theory, then, when adhering to the type-varietyconcept as defined, all working ceramic analytical unitsare varieties from start to finish."

So, the "type-variety"replaces the old working unit weused to call "type," and "type" is now elevated to the

11313

7/29/2019 Ford in Favour of Simple Typology

3/3

AMERICAN ANTIQUITYMERICAN ANTIQUITYnext higher level in the process of synthesis. Relievedfrom common drudgery, it has become an executive. It ishard to see what is new about this except the switch interminology. I suspect that this move has been motivatedby a feeling that there is in culture history a naturallypackaged unit to which the name "type" belongs. Inargument, I can only cite my earlier statements (Ford1954).FORD,J. A.1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist,Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 42-54. Menasha.GIFFORD, . A.1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as anIndicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity,Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341-7. Salt Lake City.GLADWIN,H. S.1934 A Method for the Designation of Cultures and Their Vari-ations. Medallion Papers, No. 15. Gila Pueblo, Globe.MCKERN,W. C.1939 The Midwestern Taxinomic Method as an Aid to Archae-ological Culture Study. American Antiquity, Vol. 4, No.4, pp. 301-13. Menasha.NEILSON,W. A. (EDITOR)1961 Webster's New International Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage. G. and C. Merriam Co., Springfield.PHILLIPS,PHILIP1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley Taxonomy toEastern Ceramics. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 2,pp. 117-25. Salt Lake City.SMITH, R. E., G. R. WILLEY, ANDJ. C. GIFFORD1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysisof Maya Pottery. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.330-40. Salt Lake City.WHEAT, J. B., J. C. GIFFORD,AND W. W. WASLEY1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System inSouthwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol.

24, No. 1, pp. 34-47. Salt Lake City.WILLEY, G. R. AND PHILIP PHILLIPS1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Univer-sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

AMERICAN USEUM FNATURALISTORYNew York, N. Y.March, 1961

RADIOCARBONDATES FROMTHE LODAISKA SITE, COLORADOHENRY J. IRWIN AND CYNTHIA C. IRWIN

ABSTRACTSeven radiocarbon dates place the regional sequencefrom 3000 B.C.to A.D.1000, validate partially the methoddetermining complexes at the site, and date the begin-ning of maize agriculture in the area.

RADIOCARBON age determinations on seven samplesof charcoal from the LoDaisKa site have been obtainedthrough the kindness of H. R. Crane and the Universityof Michigan Memorial-Phoenix Project Laboratory. Thesewere submitted to J. B. Griffin of the University ofMichigan. We are grateful to both Crane and Griffin fortheir help. The samples were collected with the usualprecautions. For some of them it was necessary to make

next higher level in the process of synthesis. Relievedfrom common drudgery, it has become an executive. It ishard to see what is new about this except the switch interminology. I suspect that this move has been motivatedby a feeling that there is in culture history a naturallypackaged unit to which the name "type" belongs. Inargument, I can only cite my earlier statements (Ford1954).FORD,J. A.1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist,Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 42-54. Menasha.GIFFORD, . A.1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as anIndicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity,Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341-7. Salt Lake City.GLADWIN,H. S.1934 A Method for the Designation of Cultures and Their Vari-ations. Medallion Papers, No. 15. Gila Pueblo, Globe.MCKERN,W. C.1939 The Midwestern Taxinomic Method as an Aid to Archae-ological Culture Study. American Antiquity, Vol. 4, No.4, pp. 301-13. Menasha.NEILSON,W. A. (EDITOR)1961 Webster's New International Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage. G. and C. Merriam Co., Springfield.PHILLIPS,PHILIP1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley Taxonomy toEastern Ceramics. American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 2,pp. 117-25. Salt Lake City.SMITH, R. E., G. R. WILLEY, ANDJ. C. GIFFORD1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysisof Maya Pottery. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.330-40. Salt Lake City.WHEAT, J. B., J. C. GIFFORD,AND W. W. WASLEY1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System inSouthwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol.

24, No. 1, pp. 34-47. Salt Lake City.WILLEY, G. R. AND PHILIP PHILLIPS1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Univer-sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

AMERICAN USEUM FNATURALISTORYNew York, N. Y.March, 1961

RADIOCARBONDATES FROMTHE LODAISKA SITE, COLORADOHENRY J. IRWIN AND CYNTHIA C. IRWIN

ABSTRACTSeven radiocarbon dates place the regional sequencefrom 3000 B.C.to A.D.1000, validate partially the methoddetermining complexes at the site, and date the begin-ning of maize agriculture in the area.

RADIOCARBON age determinations on seven samplesof charcoal from the LoDaisKa site have been obtainedthrough the kindness of H. R. Crane and the Universityof Michigan Memorial-Phoenix Project Laboratory. Thesewere submitted to J. B. Griffin of the University ofMichigan. We are grateful to both Crane and Griffin fortheir help. The samples were collected with the usualprecautions. For some of them it was necessary to make

a preliminary concentration of charcoal by flotation usingdistilled water and metal screening. The samples werethen sealed in Mason jars after baking in an oven todestroy bacteria.The samples located stratigraphically in terms ofinches below baseline are as follows: M-1002, A.D. 700(1260+ 150 B.P.,40-50 inches); M-1003, A.D.990 (970+150 B.P., 40-52 inches); M-1004, 1440 B.C. (3400 ? 200B.P., 62-64 inches); M-1005, A.D. 810 (1150+150 B.P.,58-60 inches); M-1006, 1190 B.C. (3150+200 B.P., 68-76inches); M-1008, A.D.810 (1150+ 150 B.P.,70-74 inches);M-1009, 2880 B.C. (4840+ 250 B.P., 90-94 inches).These dates correlate stratigraphically with culturalcomplexes detailed in the site report (Irwin and Irwin1959). These complexes were labeled A through D. Com-plex A was represented by a very few artifacts but in-cluded diagnostic types of pottery, projectile point, andgaming piece suggesting affinitywith what has been calledthe Fremont culture in western Colorado and easternUtah. The date of A.D.990 (M-1003) may pertain to thisoccupation or a late phase of Complex B. Complex Brepresents an occupation of the widespread, and stilllittle known, Plains Woodland culture. Pottery andprojectile points are diagnostic. Certainly the dates A.D.700 (M-1002) and A.D.810 (M-1005) fit this complexboth in terms of stratigraphyand chronology since a dateof A.D. 800 (1150+ 150 years) has been reported byLamont Laboratoryfrom a "Woodland" site in the Den-ver area (Hunt 1954: 114).

Complex C was recognized by the distribution of cer-tain types of artifacts including distinctive projectilepoints, scrapers, and associated tools. Complex C wasthe most difficult to sort out. It clearly belongs to a groupof Great Plains "hunting cultures" found elsewhere atSignal Butte in Nebraska and at the McKean site inWyoming, which has given its name to this manifestation.However, overlap of this group with Complex B above,and Complex D below, made it very difficult to set strati-graphic or cultural limits to the artifacts represented. Westated: "Since the fill is shallow compared to the timerange represented, there was undoubtedly a considerableamount of mixing, plus the ever present chance of re-use" (Irwin and Irwin 1959: 15).The dates 1440 B.C.(M-1004) and 1190 B.C.(M-1006)show good correspondence with a date from Signal Butteof about 2000 B.C. for a slightly earlier but similar com-plex. The date A.D.810 (M-1008) comes from 70 to 74inches below baseline from a hearth that was apparentlydug in from above. The date fits Complex B and wellillustrates the overlap problem. M-1005 (58-60 inchesbelow baseline) comes apparently from the contact zonebetween Complex B and C arbitrarily established as 53inches (Irwin and Irwin 1959: 12), which might be re-vised downward a few inches in view of the date.

Complex D was the only manifestation found in thelowest levels except for a single parallel-flaked point fromgravels underlying the site. This complex was identifiedas some manifestation of the so-called Desert Culturewith roots in the Great Basin. The date 2800 B.C. (M-1009) comes from an early level of this complex.

a preliminary concentration of charcoal by flotation usingdistilled water and metal screening. The samples werethen sealed in Mason jars after baking in an oven todestroy bacteria.The samples located stratigraphically in terms ofinches below baseline are as follows: M-1002, A.D. 700(1260+ 150 B.P.,40-50 inches); M-1003, A.D.990 (970+150 B.P., 40-52 inches); M-1004, 1440 B.C. (3400 ? 200B.P., 62-64 inches); M-1005, A.D. 810 (1150+150 B.P.,58-60 inches); M-1006, 1190 B.C. (3150+200 B.P., 68-76inches); M-1008, A.D.810 (1150+ 150 B.P.,70-74 inches);M-1009, 2880 B.C. (4840+ 250 B.P., 90-94 inches).These dates correlate stratigraphically with culturalcomplexes detailed in the site report (Irwin and Irwin1959). These complexes were labeled A through D. Com-plex A was represented by a very few artifacts but in-cluded diagnostic types of pottery, projectile point, andgaming piece suggesting affinitywith what has been calledthe Fremont culture in western Colorado and easternUtah. The date of A.D.990 (M-1003) may pertain to thisoccupation or a late phase of Complex B. Complex Brepresents an occupation of the widespread, and stilllittle known, Plains Woodland culture. Pottery andprojectile points are diagnostic. Certainly the dates A.D.700 (M-1002) and A.D.810 (M-1005) fit this complexboth in terms of stratigraphyand chronology since a dateof A.D. 800 (1150+ 150 years) has been reported byLamont Laboratoryfrom a "Woodland" site in the Den-ver area (Hunt 1954: 114).

Complex C was recognized by the distribution of cer-tain types of artifacts including distinctive projectilepoints, scrapers, and associated tools. Complex C wasthe most difficult to sort out. It clearly belongs to a groupof Great Plains "hunting cultures" found elsewhere atSignal Butte in Nebraska and at the McKean site inWyoming, which has given its name to this manifestation.However, overlap of this group with Complex B above,and Complex D below, made it very difficult to set strati-graphic or cultural limits to the artifacts represented. Westated: "Since the fill is shallow compared to the timerange represented, there was undoubtedly a considerableamount of mixing, plus the ever present chance of re-use" (Irwin and Irwin 1959: 15).The dates 1440 B.C.(M-1004) and 1190 B.C.(M-1006)show good correspondence with a date from Signal Butteof about 2000 B.C. for a slightly earlier but similar com-plex. The date A.D.810 (M-1008) comes from 70 to 74inches below baseline from a hearth that was apparentlydug in from above. The date fits Complex B and wellillustrates the overlap problem. M-1005 (58-60 inchesbelow baseline) comes apparently from the contact zonebetween Complex B and C arbitrarily established as 53inches (Irwin and Irwin 1959: 12), which might be re-vised downward a few inches in view of the date.

Complex D was the only manifestation found in thelowest levels except for a single parallel-flaked point fromgravels underlying the site. This complex was identifiedas some manifestation of the so-called Desert Culturewith roots in the Great Basin. The date 2800 B.C. (M-1009) comes from an early level of this complex.

11414 [ VOL.27, No. 1, 1961VOL.27, No. 1, 1961