Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:43:22.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Method for Taxonomic Typology Construction and an Example: Utilized Flakes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dwight W. Read  and
Glenn Russell
Dwight W. Read
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024
Glenn Russell
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers problems inherent in constructing typologies based on subdividing artifacts using clustering algorithms that assume a paradigmatic structure (as do most, if not all, currently used algorithms) and presents an alternative method based on a taxonomic, rather than a paradigmatic, structure for the artifact classes. The method is exemplified by analysis of an assemblage of utilized flakes from a series of late prehistoric habitation sites in the central highlands of Peru. These flakes were previously analyzed using more intuitive, traditional methods but without identifying any satisfactory groupings within the assemblage. Similarly, paradigmatically based clustering algorithms applied to the entire data set and using the several variables measured over these flakes were also unable to extract meaningful groupings. In contrast, the method presented here was able to (1) construct a partition of the flake assemblage into groups that also made intuitive sense to the practitioner, (2) have functional interpretation assignable through a model of transmission of forces from agent to object acted on, and (3) produce units differentially occurring across the several subsites from which the utilized flakes were obtained, i.e., units that add another dimension to the analysis of activities represented by the archaeological assemblage. Although demonstrated with utilized flakes, the method has general application.

Resumen

Resumen

Este artículo considera problemas inherentes a la construcción de tipologías basadas en la subdivisión de artefactos usando algoritmos de racimo que asumen una estructura paradigmatíca (asi como en el caso de la mayoria o quizds de todos los algoritmos actualmente usados). Aquí sepresenta un método alternativo basado en una estructura taxonómica, en vez de una estructura paradigmatíca,, para la clasificación de artefactos. El método se ilustra con el análisis de un conjunto de lascas utilizadas provenientes de sitios habitacionales prehistóricos en la Sierra Central del Perú. Estas lascas fueron analizadas previamente, usándose métodos tradicionales más intuitivos, pero sin lograr identificar agrupaciones significativas dentro del conjunto. Cuando los algoritmos de racimo con base paraáigmatica fueron aplicados a todos los datos obtenidos usando las variables medidas en estas lascas, tampoco se consiguió una agrupación de relieve o importancia. En contraste, el método que presentamos fue capaz de (I) descubrir exitosamente grupos significativos del conjunto de lascas, los que tambien tienen sentido para aquéllos que practican el método intuitivo (2) asignar interpretaciones funcionales a través de un modelo de transmisión defuerza desde el agente hacia el objeto que la recibey (3) producir unidades que ocurren diferencialmente en los subsitios donde se obtuvieron las lascas; v.g., unidades que proveen una dimensión adicional al análisis de actividades representadas en el conjunto arqueológico. Aún cuando aquí el método se ilustra con lascas que han sido utilizadas, éste tiene aplicación general.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 663 - 684
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

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
Ahler, S. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Henry, D. and Odell, G., pp. 85–118. Archaeological Papers No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Aldenderfer, M. 1982 Methods of Cluster Validation for Archaeology. World Archaeology 14: 61–72.Google Scholar
Aldenderfer, M. 1987 Introduction. In Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, edited by Aldenderfer, M., pp. 151–184. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Aldenderfer, M., and Blashfield, R. 1978 Cluster Analysis and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 43: 502–505.Google Scholar
Amick, D., and Mauldin, R. 1990 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's “Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretations” American Antiquity 54: 166–168.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D. 1988 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 11–23.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56: 216–234.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D., Burns, G., and Woodman, C. 1990 Ambiguous Use Traces and Blind Test Results: New Data. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 417–430.Google Scholar
Benfer, R., and Benfer, A. 1981 Automatic Classification of Inspectional Categories: Multivariate Theories of Archaeological Data. American Antiquity 46: 381–396.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1960 Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Imprimeries Delmas, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1975 Lithic Reduction Sequences: A Glossary and Discussion. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Sanson, E., pp. 5–14. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1985 Getting into Data: Philosophy and Tactics for the Analysis of Complex Data Structures. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by Carr, C., pp. 18–44. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
Christenson, A. 1987 The Prehistoric Tool Kit. In Prehistoric Stone Technology on Northern Black Mesa, Arizona, edited by Parry, W. J. and Christenson, A.L. pp. 43–93. Occasional Paper No. 12. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Christenson, A., and Read, D. 1977 Numerical Taxonomy, R-mode Factor Analysis and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 42: 163–179.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Collins, M. B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Swanson, E., pp. 15–34. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Costin, C. L., and Earle, T. 1989 Status Distinction and Legitimation of Power as Reflected in Changing Patterns of Consumption in Late Prehispanic Peru. American Antiquity 54: 691–714.Google Scholar
Costin, C. L., and Earle, T. 1990 Artifact Classification and Archaeological Purposes. In Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, edited by Voorrips, A., pp. 61–78. Studies in Modern Archaeology, Vol. 3. Holos, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
Decker, D. 1976 A Typology for the Chevelon Flaked Lithic Implements. In Chevelon Archaeological Research Project, edited by Plog, F., J. Hill, and D. Read, pp. 92–106. Monograph II. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, Riverside, California.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. 1986 Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. In Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory, vol. 9, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 149–207. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Earle, T., Hastorf, C., Scott, C., Costin, C., Russell, G., Sandefur, E., and Levine, T. 1987 Archaeological Field Research in the Upper Montaro, Peru, 1982-83. Monograph No. 28, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ferguson, W. C. 1980 Edge-angle Classification of the Quininup Brook Implements: Testing the Ethnographic Analogy. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 15: 56–72.Google Scholar
Frison, G. C, and Bradley, B. A. 1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Gould, R. 1977 Ethno-archaeology; or, Where Do Models Come from? A Closer Look at Australian Aboriginal Lithic Technology. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Wright, R. V. S., pp. 162–168. Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Gould, R. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gould, R., Koster, D., and Sontz, A. 1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36: 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, J., and Prewitt, E. 1975 Automatic Classification: Projectile Points from West Texas. Plains Anthropologist 20: 139–149.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1977 Stone Tool Functions in the Western Desert. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Wright, R. V. S., pp. 178–188. Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R. 1982 Some Aspects of Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J., pp. 21–29. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C. M. 1985 Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology: Assessment with Factor Analysis and .Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by Carr, C., pp. 566–612. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C. M. 1966 Comments on Colby's “Ethnographic Semantics: A Preliminary Survey.” Current Anthropology 7: 20–23.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1977 The Function of Paleolithic Flint Tools. Scientific American. November: 108-126.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H., and Newcomer, M. H. 1977 Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test Case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4: 29–62.Google Scholar
Kempton, W. 1981 The Folk Classification of Ceramics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Linford, L. D. 1979 Archaeological Investigations in West-Central Arizona: The Cyprus-Baghdad Project. Archaeological Series No. 136. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Mojena, R. 1977. Hierarchical Grouping Methods and Stopping Rules: An Evaluation. The Computer Journal 20: 359–363.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M. H. 1971 Some Quantitative Experiments in Handaxe Manufacture. World Archaeology 3: 85–93.Google Scholar
O'Connell, J. F. 1977 Aspects of Variation in Central Australian Lithic Assemblages. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Wright, R. V. S., pp. 269–281. Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1975 Microwear in Perspective: A Sympathetic Response to Lawrence H. Keeley. World Archaeology 7: 226–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1980 Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-wear Assessments by “Blind Tests“: The Low Power Approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7: 87–120.Google Scholar
O'Shea, J. M. 1985 Cluster Analysis and Mortuary Patterning: An Experimental Assessment. In To Pattern the Past, edited by Voorrips, A. and Loving, S., pp. 451–59. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. W 1978 On the Shape of Waste Flakes as an Index of Technological Change in Lithic Industries. Journal of Archaeological Science 5: 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D. 1974 Some Comments on Typologies in Archaeology and an Outline of a Methodology. American Antiquity 39: 216–242.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1982 Toward a Theory of Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J., pp. 56–92. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1985 The Substance of Archaeological Analysis and the Mold of Statistical Method: Enlightenment out of Discordance? In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by Carr, C., pp. 45–86. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1987 Archaeological Theory and Statistical Methods: Discordance, Resolution and New Directions. In Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, edited by Aldenderfer, M., pp. 151–184. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1989a Intuitive Typology and Automatic Classification: Divergence or Full Circle? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 1–31.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1989b Statistical Methods and Reasoning in Archaeological Research: Review of Praxis and Promise. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology 1: 5–78.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1992 The Convergence Assumption: A Fatal Flaw in Clustering Algorithms. Statistics Series No. 105. University of California, Los Angeles. Rouse, 1.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Publications in Anthropology No. 21. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Russell, G. 1988 The Impact oflnka Policy on the Domestic Economy of the Wanka, Peru: Stone Tool Production and Use. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS) 1989 SAS/STAT* User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, Volume 1, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Translated by Thompson, M. W.. Cory, Adams and MacKay, London.Google Scholar
Sillitoe, P. 1982 The Lithic Technology of a Papua New Guinea Highland People. The Artefact 7: 19–38.Google Scholar
Singer, C. A., and Ericson, E. 1977 Quarry Analysis at Bodie Hills, Mono County, California: A Case Study. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by Earle, T. K. and Ericson, J.E. pp. 91–108. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sokal, R., and Sneath., P. 1963 Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. 1982 Structure in Archaeological Data: Nominal Variables. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J.A. pp. 1–20. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P., and Rozen, K. C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50: 755–779.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P., and Rozen, K. C. 1989 The Nature of Lithic Reduction and Lithic Analysis: Stage Typologies Revisited. American Antiquity 54: 179–184.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. 1970 Archaeology's Operational Imperative: Great Basin Projectile Points as a Test Case. Archaeology Survey Annual Reports No. 12. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., and WhitMan, A. 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1: 171–196.Google Scholar
Vaughan, P. 1985 Use Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1972. A New Approach to Pottery Typology. American Antiquity 37: 13–33.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1982 Variables and Dimensions: The Critical Stage in Typology. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J., pp. 127–161. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1990 Defining Structure in Clustering Dendrograms with Multilevel Clustering. In New Tools from Mathematical Archaeology, edited by Voorrips, A. and Ottaway, B., pp. 1–14. Polish Academy of Sciences, Commission on Archaeology, Cracow, Poland.Google Scholar
White, J. P., Modjeska, N., and Hipuya, I. 1977 Group Definitions and Mental Templates, an Ethnographic Experiment. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Wright, R. V. S., pp. 380–390. Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Williams, L., Thomas, D., and Bettinger, R. 1985 Notions to Numbers: Great Basis Settlements as Polythetic Sets. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by Carr, C., pp. 274–296. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
Young, D., and Bamforth, D. 1990 On the Macroscopic Identification of Used Flakes. American Antiquity 55: 403–409.Google Scholar