Rouse Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology

7/27/2019 Rouse Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology

1/12

Society for American Archaeology

The Classification of Artifacts in ArchaeologyAuthor(s): Irving RouseSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jan., 1960), pp. 313-323Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/277514

Accessed: 14/11/2009 08:24

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 [email protected].

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/277514?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/277514?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/12

AMERICAN ANTIQUITYVOLUME 25 JANUARY 1960 NUMBER 3

THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTS IN ARCHAEOLOGYIRVING OUSE

ABSTRACTAnalytic classification consists of forming successiveseries of classes, referring to different features of artifacts.Each class is characterized by one or more attributeswhich indicate a custom to which the artisan conformed,for example, a technique of manufacture, or a conceptwhich he expressed in the artifacts, such as a design.These customs and concepts constitute modes. They are

"procedural modes" when they refer to behavior of arti-sans and "conceptual modes" when they consist of ideaswhich artisans have expressed in artifacts.Taxonomic classification consists of formulating asingle set of classes, one for each kind of artifact in thecollection. Each class is characterized by two or moremodes, selected from among the total number of modesobtainable by means of analytic classification. The modesdiagnostic of each class constitute its type. If diagnosticmodes are selected for their time-space significance, theresultant types are "historical." If the diagnostic modesare selected for what they indicate about the intrinsicnature of the artifacts, the types are "descriptive."

The situations under which it is best to use either pro-cedural or conceptual modes or historical or descriptivetypes are discussed and it is concluded that all four kindsof units are essential for the complete interpretation ofarchaeological remains.

A NUMBER of recent papers, such as Phillips(1958), Wheat, Gifford, and Wasley(1958), and Sears (1960), have been concernedwith particular methods used by archaeologiststo classify artifacts. The present paper is insteadan attempt to survey the range of currentmeth-ods. It is intended to differentiate the variousmethods, to discuss their theoretical basis, andto assess their relative utility.According to the dictionary (Nielson, Knott,and Earhart 1940: 496), the word classificationrefers to "the act of assigning [artifacts] to aproper class." If the class is a new one, it willhave to be defined by listing the criteriaused toform it and will also have to be given a name ora number. If pertinent classes had previouslybeen established, it will be enough to determinethat the new artifacts have the criteriadiagnos-

tic of one of the classes, and to give them thename of that class.Classification, like statistics, is not an end initself but a technique by means of which to at-tain specifiedobjectives,and so it must be variedwith the objective. The main opportunity forvariation comes in selecting the criteria whichare to be considered diagnostic of one's classes.In my experience, archaeologistsselect these cri-teria to meet one of two alternate objectives:either to form modes or to establish types. Ifmodes are the objective, the classification iscalled "analytic" (Whiteford 1947). If, instead,the purpose is to form types, then the classifica-tion becomes "taxonomic" (Phillips 1958). Ishall discuss these two kinds of classificationinturn.ANALYTIC CLASSIFICATION

By the term "mode" is meant any standard,concept, or custom which governs the behaviorof the artisans of a community, which theyhand down from generation to generation, andwhich may spread from community to commu-nity over considerable distances (Rouse 1939).Such modes will be reflected in the artifacts asattributes which conform to a community'sstandards, which express its concepts, or whichreveal its customaryways of manufacturing andusing artifacts. Analytic classification focuseson these attributes and, through them, attemptsto get at the standards, concepts, and customsthemselves. In effect, it attempts to read suchmodes out of the artifacts.Not all the attributes of the artifacts are in-dicative of modes. Some attributes will insteadexpress personal idiosyncracies of the artisans.A unique design, which occurs only once,may be cited as an example. Other attributesfall within the realm of biology, chemistry,or physics rather than culture. The atomicstructure of artifacts is an obvious example. Thewhite color of shell artifacts is another. Thiswhiteness does not appear until after the arti-facts have been in the ground for some time, it313


3/12

AMERICAN ANTIQUITYMATEIAL]- -

CHOICES OF SHAPE] --

CHOCES OF DEC T/O] - ------ --

R?ESULrA Ar EI/FACS]-

FIG.1. Procedure of making artifacts.

is as prevalent among natural as among workedshells, and hence it must be considered a purelybiological trait which has no part to play in cul-tural studies.Analytic classification, then, must single outmodes, which are cultural, and exclude thosetraits which are purely biological, chemical, orphysical. One way to do this is to examine acollection in terms of the artisan's procedure,starting first with the materials he used, contin-uing with his techniques of manufacture, andthen considering shape, decoration, and uses.At each stage in the procedure one may findthat the artisanhad some choice of standardsorcustoms (Fig. 1). This makes it possible, forexample, to divide a given collection into one ormore series of classes on the basis of the mate-rials used. One can then redistribute the samespecimens into other series of classes on thebasis of techniques, elements of shape and dec-oration, and uses (Fig. 2). Each class will haveone or more diagnostic attributes, and those at-tributes will be indicative of a single mode.For example, an archaeologist may take acollection of potsherds and divide it into twoclasses, one consisting of sherds with inclusions

of grit and the other, of sherds with inclusionsof shell. He thereby determines that the pottershad two alternative customs of tempering theirvessels, one with pieces of stone and the otherwith pieces of shell. Then, he may pick out thesherds which are from rims and regroup theminto a second series of classes, each characterizedby a different set of rim attributes. In this case,he will have established a series of standards towhich the potters conformed in making rims.He may repeat this process of reclassificationwith other aspects of material, shape, decora-tion, and use, ending up, as I have done in thecase of my Antillean collections, with as manyas 80 modes of material, shape, and decoration(Rouse 1939, 1941, 1952).It is not necessary,of course, to be so system-atic and all-inclusive as this in doing analyticclassification. Various authors have concen-trated upon technology (Matson 1942), uponshapes (Black and Weer 1936), upon designs(Amsden 1936), or upon uses (C. S. Ford1937). The important point is that the authorbe interested in establishing independent modesand not in studying the manner in which thosemodes are combined on the artifacts.

314 [ VOL.25, No. 3, 1960


4/12

THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTSPROCED9(PE CA TEGOIES

O--- -- AL COLtLEcrTOA

ACCORDoAVG TO --SHAPE AnIVDECO.ZA T/ON

SUCCESS/VECLASS/.F/C'ATIOS - -

ACCOCWD VG TO USEJ

TEECHVOLOb&Y CLASSES,YIELD/AOG TECr/OLO/6CALI

ODOES

STYLE CLASSES, Y/ELOd/N6STYLISTIC MODS0S

___T FUWCT/OA CLASSES,YIELD/NOG MODS OF USE

FIG.2. Example of the analytic approach to classification.The modes may be of two kinds: (1) conceptsof material, shape, and decoration to which theartisans conformed and (2) customary proce-dures followed in making and using the arti-facts. In the case of conceptual modes, the ar-chaeologist need only designate one or moreattributes of his artifactsto be diagnostic of eachclass, but in the case of procedural modes hemust also infer behavior of the artisansfrom thediagnostic attributes. The process of inferring

procedural modes has been well described andillustrated by other authors (Osgood 1942;Thompson 1958).Once modes have been set up-whetherconceptual or procedural - and their diagnos-tic attributes have been determined, one mayidentify these modes on new artifactssimply bylooking to see whether the proper diagnostic at-tributes are present, without actually groupingand regrouping the artifacts. Many archaeolo-gists (Waring and Holder 1945, Fig. 1) havefound it helpful to make drawings of the morecomplex conceptual modes, such as rim profilesor designs,to assist in identification.

TAXONOMICCLASSIFICATIONWe have seen that analytic classificationcon-centrateson the attributesof the artifacts whichindicate modes. Taxonomic classificationis in-stead concerned with those attributes whichindicate types (Gladwin and Gladwin, 1930,1931, 1933;Haury 1936; Sayles 1936). As in thecase of analytic classification, the attributes in-dicative of types must be chosen for their cul-tural significance (Gifford 1960). Indeed, if thearchaeologist is being completely logical, heshould first do analytic clasification in order toform modes and should then classify taxonom-ically in terms of those modes, instead of goingback again to the original attributes. In such acase, for example, he will use the technique ofincision as a criterion for taxonomic classifica-tion, rather than the attribute of incised lines.In order to simplify the following discussion, Iwill assume that the archaeological taxonomistdoes work in terms of modes rather than raw

attributes, in which case a type may be definedas a complex of modes which is diagnostic of a

RoUSE 315


5/12

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

PROCEDURE CATE6 OR/ES

oDV/S/Oa/ ------

S$UBODVlS/OAJ}- - - - --

---- ---------TOTAL COLLEcr/O/

I CLSCLASSESFk' - ARTIFACTS

K StDSUB-LASSES,~--~U YIELDAIV6 TYPESOF A rTIFACTSFIG.3. Example of the taxonomic approach to classification.

certain class of artifacts and which serves to dif-ferentiate that class from all other classes.There are several different ways of classifyinga collection to form types. The most systematicone is to divide the specimens into two or moreclasses on the basis of one set of modes, for ex-ample, of materials; then to subdivide each classon the basis of another set of modes, such asshapes;and to continue this processuntil all theartifacts of the same kind have been separatedinto a single sub-subclass (Fig. 3). Another wayis to work intuitively by simply sorting and re-sorting the artifacts until they end up in rela-tively homogeneous classes (Krieger 1944, Fig.

25). A third is to work statistically, for example,by noting the taxonomically significantmodes ofeach artifact on a punch card and sorting outthe cards according to the most frequent com-binations of modes (Shepard 1956: 322-32). Inall cases the end result is the same: a singleseries of classes or subclasses rather than thesuccessive serieswhich result from analytic clas-sification (compare Figs. 2, 3).In all cases, the classifier must decide howmany modes he is to consider diagnostic, that is,how many are going to end up in the type. Hemust select more than one, since by definition atype consists of two or more modes. On the

other hand, he cannot expect to use all themodes; to do so would result in too largea num-ber of types, especially if the artisan was per-mitted choices of modes during the courseof themanufacture of the artifacts (Fig. 1). The pro-portion of modes which it is practicable to useas the criteria for taxonomic classificationvarieswith the complexity of the artifacts and withthe number of alternatives open to the artisan.Simple artifactswith few alternatives,for exam-ple, no decoration, can be classified in terms ofalmost all their modes, whereas complex arti-facts with many alternatives,such as elaboratelydecorated pottery, require selection of only afew modes from among many. The type "stoneball" may be cited as an example of the formerextreme; here the three diagnostic modes, use ofstone, grinding, and spherical shape, are practi-cally the only ones which can be analyzed fromthe specimens. Potterytypes illustrate the otherextreme; for example, Ritchie and MacNeish(1949: 99, Fig. 36), in their study of pre-Iroquo-ian pottery, explicitly limited the diagnosticmodes they used to rim profiles, designs, anddecorative techniques, excluding all the othermodes which were analyzable from the sherds.

The personality of the taxonomist may alsohave an effect upon the number of modes which

316 [ VOL. 5,No. 3, 1960


6/12

THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTShe selects to be diagnostic. If he is a "lumper,"he will group the artifacts into large and inclu-sive classes, each of which will contain so muchvariation that relatively few of its modes can beconsidered diagnostic. If, on the other hand, heis a "splitter," he will establish many moreclasses, there will be less variation within eachclass, and as a result the ratio of diagnosticto non-diagnostic modes will be considerablyhigher.The current tendency on the part of somearchaeologists to subdivide pottery types intovarieties (Gifford 1960) seems designed to meetthis problem. It permits one to select a rela-tively small number of diagnostic modes forone's types and thereby to satisfy the lumper,and at the same time to define varieties in termsof largernumbers of diagnostic modes, thus sat-isfying the splitter as well.The distinction between diagnostic modes,which form part of the type or variety, and non-diagnostic modes, which do not, is frequentlyobscured by the practice of "describing types"(Ford and Willey 1949: 71-8). In the termi-nology of the present paper, such descriptionsamount to a presentation of the modes analyz-able from the artifacts of each class. Some ofthese modes will be diagnostic and, as a result,form part of the type; but others - and in manycases the majority- will not. Ritchie and Mac-Neish (1949: 100-16) provide a good example.In the case of each type, these authors specifyonly three "diagnostic features" and then pro-ceed to list a much larger number of othermodes of "paste," "surface finish," "decora-tion," and "forms." The latter modes are notpart of the type, as the word is used in the pres-ent paper.The selection of modes has a qualitative aswell as a quantitative aspect. The taxonomistmust decide not only how many but also whatkinds of modes are to be considered diagnosticof his classes and hence constituents of his types.Our colleagues in biology solve this problem byselecting the diagnostics which best show thecourse of organic evolution. We archaeologistsare not so consistent. In the case of pottery andsometimes also projectile points, we select thosemodes which best indicate differences in timeand space (Ford and Willey 1949: 40). Other-wise, we tend to select modes which best ex-press the intrinsic nature of the artifacts (Rouse1952: 327-9). This difference is reflected in thenames of our types, for example, "Glades Plain"

in the case of pottery and "semilunar knife" inthe case of stonework-or "problematical form"when the nature of the artifact is not known.This difference must be kept in mind if we areto think clearly about classification. It leads meto make a distinction between (1) historicaltypes, whose modes have been selected, con-sciously or unconsciously, for their time-spacesignificance and (2) descriptivetypes, composedof modes referringprimarilyto the nature of theartifacts.Once types have been established- whetherthey are historical or descriptive- they may beused to identify new artifactswithout the neces-sity of actually grouping the artifacts intoclasses. One need only determine that the newartifacts have the modes comprising a certaintype and then apply the name of that type. Thisis easy enough to do if the types are simple. Inthe case of more complex types, containing agreaternumber of diagnostic modes, it has some-times proved helpful to establish a key to assistin comparison. As in biology, such a key con-sists of a list in outline form of the modes com-prisingall of the types. To identify an unknownartifact, one need only trace it down throughthe key by means of its modes (Colton and Har-grave 1937: 36-41; Colton 1952, 1955).Another device to assist in the identificationof new material is the "type artifact(s)." Notto be confused with an artifact type, this con-sistsof the most typical artifact(s) in a class. Toidentify unknown artifacts or to check identifi-cations made by means of a key, one may com-pare the unknown artifacts with the type arti-facts and thereby, in effect, assign them to theclasses typified by those artifacts (Osgood 1942:22-5). MODES s. TYPESWe have now distinguished the two principal

ways in which archaeologists classify artifacts,analytic and taxonomic. Analytic classificationis done by forming successive series of classes,focusing on different features of the artifacts.Each class is characterizedby one or more attri-butes which indicate a procedure to which theartisanconformed, such as a technique of man-ufacture, or a concept which he expressed inthe artifacts, such as an element of shape or dec-oration. Each custom or concept constitutes amode.Taxonomic classification is done by formu-lating a single set of classes, which differentiatethe artifacts in one's collection according to

RousE ] 317


7/12

AMERICAN ANTIQUITYtype. Each taxonomic class is characterizedbytwo or more modes, selected from among thetotal number of modes obtainable by means ofanalytic classification. The modes diagnostic ofeach class constitute its type.Types, then, consist of selected modes. Wehave seen that the nature of the selection willvary from type to type depending upon thecomplexity of the artifacts, the number of alter-natives which the culture offeredto the artisans,the personal inclination of the taxonomist(whether he is a "lumper" or a "splitter"), andthe purposes for which he plans to use the types.To put this in another way, modes are inher-ent in one's collection. If two archaeologistsan-alyze the same collection and do an equallygood job of it, they should produce the samemodes (Taylor 1948: 129-30). Types, on thecontrary, are imposed on the collection. If twotaxonomists classify the same collection and de-cide, for whatever reason, upon different diag-nostic modes, they will produce different types(Brew 1946: 46). The mode, therefore, is anatural unit of cultural study, whereas the typeis an arbitraryone.It does not follow from this that types are anyless demonstrable than modes. An archaeolo-gist can validate types equally well by groupingthem into classes and demonstrating that theartifacts of each class share the same diagnosticmodes. The point is that he can then regroupthe artifacts accordingto another set of diagnos-tic modes and thereby produce other typeswhich will have equal validity.It should not be implied, either, that a typeconsists merely of the sum of its constituentmodes. The fact that all these modes recurfrom artifact to artifact gives them a realityabove and beyond that of the individual modes.We have distinguished two kinds of modes:(1) conceptual modes, consisting of ideas andstandards which the artisans expressed in theartifacts and (2) procedural modes, consistingof customs followed by the artisans in makingand using the artifacts. Conceptual modes aredirectly indicated by the attributes of the arti-facts whereas procedural modes have to be in-ferred from the attributes. Hence, the distinc-tion between the two is primarily a matter ofrelative reliability.Two kinds of types have likewise been distin-guished: (1) historical types, formed in order toestablish differencesof time and space, and (2)descriptive types, formed in order to express

differences in the nature of the artifacts. Theremay be some overlapping between these two,but generally they will be distinct, because themodes comprising each will have been chosenfor different reasons. Here, we have a good ex-ample of the arbitrarynature of types.A comparison with ethnology may perhapshelp to clarify these distinctions. One of thethings an ethnologist does in studying materialculture is to ask or observe how his informantsmake and use their artifacts. Such observationsenable the ethnologist to distinguish varioustechniques of manufacture and uses of the arti-facts. In the terminology of the present paper,the latter are procedural modes.It is likewise possiblefor the ethnologist to askhis informants to identify the various parts oftheir artifacts. If the informants go on to dis-tinguish different kinds of handles, for example,or if the ethnologist himself does so, they will beproducing the units here called conceptualmodes.A third possibilityis for the ethnologist to askhis informants to identify the artifacts as com-plete objects by saying, for example, that theyare "knives"or "scrapers."If either the inform-ant or the ethnologist goes on to define the re-sultant categories by listing the modes diagnosticof each, he will be producing the units whichwe have termed descriptive types.Finally, the informants may refer to certainartifactsas being "old-"or "new-fashioned" andto others as being of a local or foreign style. Ifeither the informant or the ethnologist shoulddefine these categoriesby listing their distinctivemodes, he would be producing what are herecalled historical types.In other words, the ethnologist as well as thearchaeologist may do both analytic and taxo-nomic classification. The ethnologist, however,is able to do so with the assistance of inform-ants, whereas the archaeologistis forced to relyentirely upon his own judgment and experiencein formulating modes and types.

UTILITY OF THE METHODSBrew (1946: 65) has observed that "we needmore rather than fewer classifications,differentclassifications, always new classifications, tomeet new needs." If Brew is correct, we oughtto be able to list the needs for classification inarchaeology and to state the kinds of classifica-tion which best meet each need. The remainderof the paper will be devoted to this task. It will

318 [ VOL.25, No. 3, 1960


8/12

THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTSbe done in terms of the products of our twokinds of classification, conceptual and proce-dural modes and historical and descriptivetypes.

Identification of artifacts. There is probablyno professional archaeologist who has not, atone time or another, had an amateur come upto him, take an artifact out of his pocket, and askfor an identification. When the amateur doesthis, he expects to be answered in terms of de-scriptive types, that is, to be told that the arti-fact is a "knife" or a "scraper,"for example. Ifthe artifact is a potsherd, the professional willprobably answer instead in terms of historicaltypes, calling it "Sebonac Stamped," for exam-ple. In my experience the latter answer is notso satisfyingto the amateur. He does not under-stand it, unless he is unusually sophisticated,and tends to look upon it as an affectation of theprofessional. The amateur is probably right inthis, insofar as he is interested purely in identi-fication and not in the historical significance ofthe potsherd. It would be more appropriate forthe professional to identify the sherd descrip-tively as "a fragment of a cooking pot" insteadof termingit "Sebonac Stamped."Interest in such descriptive identification is,of course, not limited to amateurs. The profes-sional must do it in cataloguing his artifacts andin preparingmuseum exhibits, where specimensare grouped according to types. Descriptiveidentification is also basic to several more aca-demic pursuits of the archaeologist, which arediscussed below. It is fortunate that taxonomyhas not lost prestige among archaeologists as ithas in the other natural sciences, for it is a vitalpart of our research.

Determination of the culture of a component.Following the lead of Taylor (1948: 197), Iwould suggest that, when archaeologists deter-mine the culture of a component, that is, of aculturally homogeneous site unit, they would dowell to conform to ethnographic practice. Asalready indicated, ethnographers handle theircollections in two differentways: (1) they iden-tify the artifacts, usually in terms supplied bytheir informants, and (2) they discuss the man-ufacture and use of the artifacts (Thompson1958: 65-146). From the standpoint of thepresent paper, (1) corresponds to descriptivetypes and (2) to the modes produced by meansof analytic classification. (Ethnographers seemto emphasize procedural modes, but many ofthem also pay some attention to conceptual

modes.) Accordingly, I would suggest that thebest way to determine and present the cultureof a component is in terms of descriptive typesand of procedural and conceptual modes. Idoubt that historical types are necessaryfor thisparticular purpose, so long as the descriptiveapproach is applied to pottery and projectilepoints as well as to other kinds of artifacts,sincethe historical types will overlap the descriptivetypes, and anyway they are designed for a dif-ferent purpose.The descriptive types and modes will, ofcourse, suffice only to present the material cul-ture of the component. They must be combinedwith other traits and complexes inferred fromthe non-artifactual content of the component,for example, the settlement pattern, in order toestablish the total culture of the component.The various types, modes, and other traits maysimply be listed or they may be grouped intoculturally meaningful categories. For example,Fairbanks (1942: 228-9) has organized themabout the activities of the people inhabiting theStallings Island component, in accordance withthe concept of activity proposed by Linton(1936: 397).Classificationof components to form cultures.Many archaeologists find it advisable to group

their components into cultures, known variouslyas foci, phases, complexes, industries, or styles.This requires a form of taxonomic classification.The common practice is to compare the com-ponents in terms of their "traits"and, as in thetaxonomic classification of artifacts, to selectcertain traits to be "determinants" of each cul-ture (Cole and Deuel 1937: 207-23). Whenone examines such determinants from thestandpoint of the present paper, one finds thatthey consist of varying combinations of proce-dural and conceptual modes and of descriptiveand historical types. The four appear to be usedindiscriminately, without thought as to whichunits, if any, would be more suitable. To myknowledge, the only author who has attemptedto discriminate among the various kinds of de-terminants is Phillips (1958: 123-4), who advo-cates the use of types as the primary basis forclassifying components but would supplementthem with modes.Phillips does not distinguish among the vari-ous kinds of types and modes but, if the sug-gestions made above for the presentation of theculture of a component are correct, it would beappropriate to use descriptive types and both

RoUSE 319


9/12

AMERICANANTIQUITYkinds of modes. Personally, I would hesitate tostate categorically, as Phillips does, that typesshould be given priority over modes. I suspectthat this will depend on the nature of the cul-tures being studied. In fact, I can conceive ofcases in which modes might suffice by them-selves. I do not believe that it would do merelyto use single modes, but types are not the onlyavailable kinds of combinations of modes. It hasbeen possible, for example, to establish struc-tural relationships among modes, such as Ams-den's (1936) correlationof "design vocabulary"and elements of shape. Such structural rela-tionships have proved to be effective as deter-minants in other branches of anthropology, forexample, in the classificationof folktales (Propp1958), and I wonder whether they might notwork better in the classificationof some archae-ological components than typological complexesof modes, whether selected for their historicalor their descriptive significance.Alternatively, there may well be cases inwhich neither types nor modes are the best cri-teria to use in classifying components. Non-artifactual traits, such as settlement patternsand means of subsistence,may sometimes proveto be superior.In any case, I am certain that artifact typesalone cannot provide an adequate basis for theclassification of components, if only becausethey do not cover enough of the culture of thecomponents. For example, Brew (in Tax andothers 1953: 245) has argued that there is nosuch thing as a Folsom culture (complex) be-cause practically nothing is known of it but theFolsom type of projectile point. Even assumingthat we have only the one type of point, the sit-uation looks better when viewed in terms ofmodes and non-artifactual traits, for we knowthe kinds of material used; the techniques ofmanufacture; distinctive elements of shape; acharacteristic, if assumed use; and somethingabout the means of subsistence. All these areseparate traits which Brew obscured by limitinghimself to the type concept.

Dating of components and cultures. Histori-cal types are unquestionably the most effectivekind of unit to use in dating components andcultures. The fact that their constituent modeshave been selected for time-space significancemakes them superior to descriptive types; andthe fact that they consist of multiple modesgives them greater reliability than individualmodes. This is true whether the types are used

as "time markers"with which to correlatestrata(components) in the manner of paleontologyor are studied in terms of their relative popular-ity in a more purely archaeological fashion(Heizer 1958: 112-3, 114-5).Definition of cultural periods. By the sametoken, historical types should be most suitablefor defining local cultural periods. J. A. Ford'svarious chronological studies may be cited asexamples; his lettered "time scale" and the cor-related periods are measured against the fre-quency changes of pottery types (Phillips, Ford,and Griffin 1951, Figs. 17-21). If, on the otherhand, one wishes to work with chronology on aregional,multi-arealbasis,modes are likely to bemore practicable, whether used singly or in

combinations, since they tend to have a broaderdistribution than types (Cruxent and Rouse1959).Studies of cultural distribution. Following J.A. Ford'slead (1952: 319), I would suggestthatmodes are the best unit to use in studying cul-tural distributions. One may trace their persis-tence and their relative popularity through time(Rouse 1939, Fig. 6) or their diffusion from areato area (Wendorf 1953: 163-70). By so doing,one will not only be able to reconstructthe his-tories of the individual modes but also one will

find that certain modes tend always to occurtogether and hence to form discrete historicalcomplexes. Some of these complexes will corre-spond to types, that is, they will consist of thesame modes as those comprisingtypes, but othercomplexes will cut across the types. The struc-tural relationships discussed above provide oneexample. The "traditions"and "horizonstyles"of Peruvian archaeology are another (Willey1945).An archaeologist who studies the distribu-tions of individual modes, then, will be in aposition to reconstruct the histories of thosemodes and also the historiesof types and of non-typological complexes of modes. On the otherhand, the archaeologist who studies only thedistributionsof types will be unable to get at thehistoriesof the other kinds of units. Southwest-ern archaeology, where it is customary to con-centrate on the distribution of types (Coltonand Hargrave 1937, Fig. 1), is a case in point.Several authors (Rouse 1954: 223) have com-mented on the lack of horizon styles in theSouthwest. This may well be a peculiarity ofthe culture history of the Southwestern area,but there is also a possibilitythat it reflects fail-

320 [ VOL.25, No. 3, 1960


10/12

THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTSure on the part of Southwestern archaeologists,in their preoccupation with types, to trace thedistribution of enough individual modes.Studies of cultural change. If one is interestedin the problem of how one complex (whethertypological or not) or one culture has changedinto another, modes are again the proper unit touse. As Barnett (1953: 185) has put it,in order to understand the innovative process, we mustbe prepared to analyze ideas in any fashion and withoutlimit . . . so that we may follow the ramifications of re-combination as they actually occur. We cannot deal withthe gross stereotyped wholes [i.e., types] only .... Wemust treat conventional ideas, such as those of tables andmen, merely as more or less stable organizations of ex-perience that can be torn down and reassembled in thewink of an eye.In all the sciences we have come to expect very de-tailed analyses of data for purposes of classification. Thislead, however, has not been followed by students of[culture change] .... In trying to understand invention itis common practice to deal with such gross units as auto-mobiles and buggies or [pottery types] and spinningwheels. The attempt to understand one of these complexwholes in terms of the whole of another will give us noinsight into their true relationships. We must view theinception of each one in terms of an analysis of its com-ponent parts.The linguists long ago recognized this necessity, andstudents of linguistic change do not hesitate to breakdown sentences, words, parts of words, and parts of theseparts.... There can be no question that linguists are farahead of the rest of us in their understanding of themechanics of cultural change.

Barnett might have added that archaeologistsare also accustomed to do analysis and to studyculture change in terms of the resultant modes.Gladwin's (1957: 282-4) final report on South-western archaeology may be cited as an exam-ple. Linguists cannot claim sole credit for thiskind of approach, nor to have produced theonly significant results from it.CONCLUSIONS

In the foregoing section I have attempted toindicate some of the situations in which it isbetter to use modes, resulting from analytic clas-sification, or types, resulting from taxonomicclassification. I do not pretend to have fullycovered the subject; rather I have intended tocall attention to it as a problem which deservesthe consideration of archaeologists. Too manyof us, in my experience, fail to discriminate be-tween modes and types, treating them as equiv-alent units and substituting one for the otherwhenever it is convenient to do so (Webb andSnow 1945: 16-28). We need to think moreabout when the various kinds of modes, types,

or combinations thereof will be the most effec-tive units to use.This paper has likewise been intended to callattention to the way in which analysis and taxo-nomy complement each other as methods ofclassification. I think we should beware the ten-dency of some archaeologiststo become preoc-cupied with one to the neglect of the other.As already indicated, taxonomic classificationhas received particular emphasis in the Ameri-can Southwest. We appear at the moment tobe witnessing the diffusionof certain Southwest-ern taxonomic developments to the Southeast(Phillips 1958) and Mesoamerica (Smith, Wil-ley, and Gifford 1960). I do not criticize thisdiffusion; indeed, I would recommend that it beexpanded to include other Southwestern taxo-nomic devices, such as the key and the type arti-fact.On the other hand, I share with Sears (1960)the belief that the analytic approach likewiseneeds to be strengthened and applied morewidely. We need more studies of individualmodes and of their non-typological combina-tions, such as the recent work of Wasley (1959)in the Southwest.The fact is that both analytic and taxonomicclassificationmust be done in order to make afull study of any collection. Neither, by itself,will supply a complete picture of the culture ofthe collection, nor will either be able to furnishall the data needed to formulate cultures or toreconstruct culture history.Acknowledgements. This paper has been read inearlier drafts by J. A. Bennyhoff, E. M. Bruner, JohnBuettner-Janusch, J. M. Campbell, Patrick Gallagher,J. C. Gifford, D. H. Hymes, F. G. Lounsbury, W. J.Mayer-Oakes, Marshall McKusick, L. J. Pospisil, W. H.Sears, A. C. Spaulding, G. R. Willey, E. R. Wolf, andStephen Williams, to all of whom I am grateful for theircomments and criticisms. I have also incorporated sug-gestions made by J. M. Goggin, W. C. Sturtevant, and

R. H. Thompson. In addition, I am indebted to theauthors of the accompanying papers in this issue (Gif-ford 1960; Smith, Willey and Gifford 1960; and Sears1960) for the opportunity to read these papers in manu-script form and to incorporate ideas expressed therein.

AMSDEN, C. A.1936 The Structural Analysis of Pottery Design. Inhis "An Analysis of Hohokam Pottery Design,"Medallion Papers, No. 23, pp. 1-17. Gila Pueblo,Globe.BARNETT,H. G.

1953 Innovation: the Basis of Cultural Change.McGraw-Hill, New York.

321OUSE


11/12

AMERICAN ANTIQUITYBLACK, . A. ANDP. WEER1936 A Proposed Terminology for Shape Classifi-cation of Artifacts. American Antiquity, Vol. 1,No. 4, pp. 280-94. Menasha.BREW, . O.

1946 The Use and Abuse of Taxonomy. In his "Ar-chaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah,"Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard Uni-versity, Vol. 21, pp. 44-66. Cambridge.COLE,FAY-COOPERNDTHORNE EUEL1937 Rediscovering Illinois: Archaeological Explor-ations in and around Fulton County. Univer-sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.COLTON,. S.1952 Pottery Types of the Arizona Strip and Ad-jacent Areas in Utah and Nevada. Museum ofNorthern Arizona, Ceramic Series, No. 1. Flag-staff.

1955 Check List of Southwestern Pottery Types.Museum of Northern Arizona, Ceramic Series,No. 2. Flagstaff.COLTON,. S. ANDL. L. HARGRAVE1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares.Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin, No. 11.Flagstaff.CRUXENT,. M. AND RVING OUSE1959 An Archeological Chronology of Venezuela.Pan American Union, Social Science Mono-graphs, No. 6. Washington.FAIRBANKS,. H.1942 The Taxonomic Position of Stalling's Island,Georgia. American Antiquity, Vol. 7, No. 3,pp. 223-31. Menasha.FORD,C. S.1937 A Sample Comparative Analysis of MaterialCulture. In Studies in the Science of Society,edited by G. P. Murdock. 225-46. Yale Univer-sity Press, New Haven.FORD,. A.1952 Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design De-velopments in the Southeastern United States.Anthropological Papers of the American Mu-

seum of Natural History, Vol. 44, Pt. 3. NewYork.FORD, . A. ANDG. R. WILLEY1949 Surface Survey of the Virui Valley, Peru. An-thropological Papers of the American Museumof Natural History, Vol. 43, Pt. 1. New York.GIFFORD, . C.1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classifi-cation as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena.American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341-7.Salt Lake City.GLADWIN, . S.

1957 A History of the Ancient Southwest. Bond,Wheelwright, Portland (Maine).

GLADWIN, WINIFRED AND H. S. GLADWIN1930 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series I.Medallion Papers, No. 8. Gila Pueblo, Globe.1931 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series II.Medallion Papers, No. 10. Gila Pueblo, Globe.1933 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series III.Medallion Papers, No. 13. Gila Pueblo, Globe.

HAURY,E. W.1936 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series IV.Medallion Papers, No. 19. Gila Pueblo, Globe.HEIZER, R. F. (EDITOR)1958 A Guide to Archaeological Field Methods.Third revised edition. National Press, Palo Alto.KRIEGER,. D.

1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiq-uity, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 271-88. Menasha.LINTON, RALPH1936 The Study of Man. Appleton, Century, NewYork.MATSON,. R.1952 The Contribution of Technical CeramicStudies to American Archaeology. PrehistoricPottery of the Eastern United States, No. 2, pp.1-7. Ann Arbor.NEILSON,W. A., T. A. KNOTT, NDP. W. EARHART

(EDITORS)1940 Webster's New International Dictionary of theEnglish Language. Second edition. G. and C.Merriam Co., Springfield.OSGOOD,ORNELIUS1942 The Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redondo, Cuba.Yale University Publications in Anthropology,No. 25. New Haven.PHILLIPS,HILIP1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-WasleyTaxonomy to Eastern Ceramics. American An-tiquity, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 117-30. Salt LakeCity.PHILLIPS, PHILIP, J. A. FORD,ANDJ. B. GRIFFIN1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Missis-sippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers of thePeabody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. 25.Cambridge.PROPP, V.1958 Morphology of the Folktale. Publications ofthe Indiana University Research Center in An-thropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, No. 10.Bloomington.RITCHIE,W. A. ANDR. S. MACNEISH1949 The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State.American Antiquity, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 97-124.Menasha.ROUSE,IRVING1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale

University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21.New Haven.

322 [ VOL.25, No. 3, 1960


12/12

THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTS1941 Culture of the Ft. Liberte Region, Haiti. YaleUniversity Publications in Anthropology, No. 24.New Haven.1952 Porto Rican Prehistory. The New York Acad-emy of Sciences, Scientific Survey of Porto Ricoand the Virgin Islands, Vol. 18, Nos. 3-4, pp.307-578. New York.1954 On the Use of the Concept of Area Co-Tradi-tion. American Antiquity, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.221-5. Salt Lake City.

SAYLES, . B.1936 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series V.Medallion Papers, No. 21. Gila Pueblo, Globe.SEARS,W. H.1960 Taxonomic Systems and Eastern Archaeology.American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 324-9.Salt Lake City.SHEPARD, A. O.1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie In-stitution of Washington, Publication, No. 609.Washington.SMITH, R. E., G. R. WILLEY, AND J. C. GIFFORD1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for theAnalysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity,Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 330-40. Salt Lake City.TAYLOR,W. W.1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoirs of the Amer-ican Anthropological Association, No. 69. Me-nasha.TAX, SOL, L. C. EISELEY, RVINGROUSE,ANDC. F. VOEGELIN

(EDITORS)1953 An Appraisal of Anthropology Today. Univer-sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.THOMPSON,. H.1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making.Memoirs of the Society for American Archae-ology, No. 15. Salt Lake City.

WARING,A. J., JR.ANDPRESTONHOLDER1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in theSoutheastern United States. American Anthro-

pologist, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-34. Menasha.WASLEY, W. W.1959 Cultural Implications of Style Trends inSouthwestern Pottery: Basketmaker III to Pu-eblo II in West Central New Mexico. MS, doc-toral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.WEBB,W. S. ANDC. E. SNOW

1945 The Adena People. The University of Ken-tucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology,Vol. 6. Lexington.WENDORF,RED

1953 Archaeological Studies in the Petrified ForestNational Monument. Museum of Northern Ari-zona, Bulletin, No. 27. Flagstaff.WHEAT, J. B., J. C. GIFFORD, AND W. W. WASLEY

1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and CeramicSystem in Southwestern Pottery Analysis.American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 34-47.Salt Lake City.WHITEFORD, A. H.

1947 Description for Artifact Analysis. AmericanAntiquity, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 226-37. Menasha.WILLEY, G. R.

1945 Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peru-vian Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 11,No. 1, pp. 49-56. Menasha.

YALE UNIVERSITYNew Haven, Conn.June, 1959

ROUSE 323

Rouse Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology

Documents

Transcript of Rouse Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology