The Typological Concept

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to clarify the meaning of the terms “type” and “variation” when applied to archaeological materials. Although they are used constantly in speech and literature in almost every conceivable context, it must be admitted that archaeology has no generally accepted, impersonal methods of establishing the scope and application of these terms. Kluckhohn has recently written:Our techniques of observing and recording are admittedly still susceptible of improvement, but they seem much further advanced than our development of symbols (verbal and otherwise) by which we could communicate to each other (without loss or inflation of content) the signs and symptoms we observe. In archaeology, for example, methods of classifying pottery wares on the basis of highly technical and rather precisely defined operations have been elaborated. But I am aware of but a single paper (by a Russian!) where there has been even a tentative and fumbling consideration of the implications of the typological method. Such archaeologists as Vaillant, Strong, Setzler, Gladwin, and Paul Martin are (but only very recently) evidencing searchings of their theoretical consciences, and this is a happy omen. Meanwhile typologies are proliferated without apparent concern as to what the concepts involved are likely to mean when reduced to concrete human behaviors ….