READINGS LIST for Part 1: Construction and Meaning of Archaeological Units

CONCEPTS, MEASUREMENT, UNITS

There have been many authorities who have asserted that the basis of science lies in counting or measuring, i.e. in the use of mathematics. Neither counting nor measuring can however be the most fundamental processes in our study of the material universe -- before you can do either to any purpose you must first select what you propose to count or measure, which presupposes a classification.

Crowson (1970:2)

…Units are not the routinized phase of archaeology. Units are the hearts of scientific measurement. Without measurement there is no science, and without units there is no measurement

Ramenofsky and Steffen

Assigned for:

1/23: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Willer, D. and M. Webster

1970 Theoretical Concepts and Observables. American Sociological Review 35:748-757.

Carmines, E. G. and R. A. Zeller

1979 Chapters 1 AND 2: (Introduction and Validity). In Reliability and Validity Assessment, pp. 9-26. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-017. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.

Ramenofsky, A. F. and A. Steffen

1997 Units as Tools of Measurement. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space and Material, edited by A. F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, pp. 3-17. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

see also Ghiselin (1997), Mitchell (1992)

1/30: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK II: UNITS, MATERIALISM AND ESSENTIALISM

Ghiselin, M. T.

1969 The Principles and Concepts of Systematic Biology.In Systematic Biology: Proceedings of an Interational Conference, pp. 45-66. National Academy of Sciences Publication 1692. Washington D. C.

Sober, E.

1980 Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism. Philosophy of Science 47:350-383.

Brew, J. O.

1946 The Use and Abuse of Taxonomy. In Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, edited by J. O. Brew, pp. 44-66. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 21. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Dunnell, R. C.

1971 Chapters Two and Three. In Systematics in Prehistory, pp. 43-86. The Free Press, New York. (Also available on the Web at http://www.anthro.washington.edu/Faculty/FacultyPages/dunnell/BOOK/book.html)

Hughes, R. E.

1997 On Reliability, Validity, and Scale in Obsidian Sourcing. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space and Material, edited by A. F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, pp. 103-114. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

See Also: Adams and Adams (1991), Hull (1970), Nance (1987); Nance and Ball (1986), Vierra (1982)

2/6: HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT FORMATION ( CULTURE HISTORY)

Brown, J. A.

1982 On the Structure of Artifact Typologies. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J. A. Brown, pp. 176-189. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.

Dunnell, R. C.

1986 Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 149-207. Academic Press, New York.

Krieger, A. D.

1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9:271-288.

Ford, J. A.

1962 A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronology. Pan American Union Technical Manual No. 1. Washington, D.C.

Spaulding, A. C.

1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305-313.

Ramenofsky, A. F.

1997 The Illusion of Time. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material, edited by A. F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, pp. 74-84. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Hill, J. N. and R. K. Evans

1972 A Model for Classification and Typology. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 231-273. Methuen, London.

Reed, H. E. and J. R. Stein

1997 Testing the Pecos Classification. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material, edited by A. F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, pp.41-51. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

See Also: Bailey (1994), Cowgill (1982, 1990), Redman (1978), Spaulding (1976, 1982), Steward (1954)

2/13: ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT STRUCTURES CON’T

Wheat, J. B., J. C. Gifford and W. W. Wasley

1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24:34-47.

Phillips, P.

1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley Taxonomy to Eastern Ceramics. American Antiquity 24:117-125.

Gifford, J. C.

1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25:341-347.

Doran, J. E. and F. R. Hodson

1975 Chapters Six and Seven. In Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology, pp. 135-186. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Read, D.

1982 Toward a Theory of archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J. A. Brown. Center for American Archaeology. Evanston.

Spaulding, A. C.

1977 On Growth and Form in Archaeology: Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Research 33:1-15.

Whittaker, J. C., D. Caulkins, and K. A. Kamp

1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 129-164

Overall BIBLIOGRAPHY for Part 1 Reading List

Adams, W. Y.

1988 Archaeological Classification: Theory vs. Practice. Antiquity 61:40-56.

Adams, W. Y. and E. W. Adams

1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bailey, K. D.

1994 Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-102. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.

Cowgill, G. L.

1982 Clusters of Objects and Associations between Variables: Two Approaches to Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J. A. Brown, pp. 30-55. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.

1990 Artifact Classification and Archaeological Purposes. In Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, edited by A. Voorrips, pp. 61-78. Holos, Bonn.

Crowson, R. A.

1970 Classification and Biology. Heinemann, London.

Dunnell, R. C.

1971 Sabloff and Smith's "The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic Classification to the Type-Variety System". American Antiquity 36:115-118.

Ford, J. A.

1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56:42-54.

Ghiselin, M. T.

1969 The Principles and Concepts of Systematic Biology. In Systematic Biology: Proceedings of an Interational Conference, pp. 45-66. National Academy of Sciences Publication 1692. Washington D. C.

1997 Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Hammond, N.

1972 A Minor Criticism of the Type-Variety System of Ceramic Analysis. American Antiquity 37:450-452.

Hodson, F. R.

1982 Some Aspects of Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J. A. Brown, pp. 21-29. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.

Hull, D. L.

1967 The Metaphysics of Evolution. The British Journal for the History of Science 3:309-337.

1970 Contemporary Systematic Philosophies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:19-54.

1988 Interactors Versus Vehicles. In The Role of Behavior in Evolution, edited by H. C. Plotkin, pp. 19-50. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Mitchell, M. L and J. Jolly

1992 Research Design Explained. Harcourt, Brace. Fort Worth.

Nance, J. D.

1987 Reliability, Validity, and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. In Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by M. Aldenderfer,pp. 244-293. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills.

Nance, J. D. and B. F. Ball

1986 No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling. American Antiquity 51: 457-483.

Panchen, A. L.

1992 Classification, Evolution, and the Nature of Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Read, D. W.

1982 Toward a Theory of archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J. A. Brown. Center for American Archaeology. Evanston.

1989 Intuitive Typology and Automatic Classification: Divergence or Full Circle. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 158-188.

Read, D. W. and G. Russell

1996 A method for Taxonomic Typology Construction and an Example: Utilized Flakes. American Antiquity 61:663-684.

Redman, C. L.

1978 Multivariate Artifact Analysis: A Basis for Multidimensional Interpretations. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by C. L. Redman, M. J. Berman, E. V. Curtin, W. T. Langhorne, N. M. Versaggi and J. C. Wanser, pp. 159-192. Academic Press, New York. Rouse, I.

Rouse. I.

1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313-323.

Sabloff, J. A. and R. E. Smith

1969 The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic Classification in the Type-Variety System. American Antiquity 34:278-286.

Sears, W. H.

1960 Ceramic Systems and Eastern Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:324-329.

Smith, M. E.

1979 A Further Criticism of the Type-Variety System: The Data Can't Be Used. American Antiquity 44:822-826.

Smith, R. E., G. R. Willey and J. C. Gifford

1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity 25:330-340.

Spaulding, A. C.

1976 Multifactorial Analysis of Association: An Application to Owasco Ceramics. In Culture Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 59-68. Academic Press, New York.

1982 Structure in Archaeological Data: Nominal Variables. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J. A. Brown, pp. 1-20. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.

Spector, P. E.

1981 Research Designs. Sage University Paper 23. Sage Publications, Beverly Hill.

Steward, J. H.

1954 Types of Types. American Anthropologist 56:54-57.

Vierra, R. K.

1982 Typology, Classification, and Theory Building. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J. A. Brown, pp. 162-175. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.

Whittaker, J. C., D. Caulkins, and K. A. Kamp

1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 129-164.

I do not find classification very interesting as a topic in its own right, but I agree that it is usually misunderstood and often misused, and I most emphatically think that efforts toward our primary goals (e.g., explanations of cultural change and stability, culture-historical reconstructions that go significantly beyond mere time-space frameworks, believable approximations to past cultural worlds, etc.) are irremediably flawed if they rest on inadequate or misconceived typological foundations. Thus, while classification may not excite all of us as an end in itself, we cannot simply neglect it in pursuit of more intriguing or more fashionable goals. I would not go quite so far as those who argue that "classification is the most critical and pressing issue in the field" (Dunnell 1986:150), but I agree that it is one of our most critical and pressing issues. If we cannot get our ideas about classification right, we cannot get anything else right.

George Cowgill (1990:61)