Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Phenomena
James C. Gifford
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28196001%2925%3A3%3C341%3ATTMOCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. 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/journals/sam.html.
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.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Sat Sep 22 10:42:52 2007
THE TYPE.VARIETY METHOD O F CERAMIC CLASSIFICATION
larities are discernible that are due to the inter- of analytical deliberation introduced by an ap-
action of individuals and small social groups plication of more than one theoretical concep-
within a society, and these are observed as types. tion upon the ceramic material open up
Types in this sense are material manifestations avenues of greater freedom in our thinking. It
of the regularities of human behavior. Further- may thus be possible to bring under one roof
more, theoretical conceptions such as "horizon viewpoints and opinions previously thought to
style" (Willey 1945), "tradition" (Thompson incline toward opposite poles and be irrecon-
1956; Willey and Phillips 1958: 34-40), "ce- cilable.
ramic system" and "ceramic sequence" (Wheaft, When conducting a ceramic analysis utilizing
Gifford, and Wasley 1958) are based on the the type-variety concept, the ceramic units in-
assumption that on higher levels of societal volved in the interim sortings are designated
inltegration, currents may be discerned which "potential varieties." These potential variety
represent the very generalized responses of hu- units are useful because they are separable on
man groups as determined by recurrent situa- the basis of a~tributeswhich are recognizably
tions and pressures of an even higher order of distinct from one another, but at rhis stage in
regularity in human behavior (Fig. 1). The classification, these units may or may not be
type-variety concept accepts the premise rhat contrivances or artifical constructs of the stu-
<<
cultural phenomena, by definition, have other dent. Nevertheless, as any pottery analysis
than a chance distribution" (Kluckhohn 195Sb: proceeds and as other studies are conducted
40) and that there is discoverable order in the involving like materials, knowledge concerning
data. If the behavioral regularities of societies each variety increases to the extent that those
are documented by means of ceramic and other varieties which are only artificial constructs can
schemes of classification. some of the laws of be discarded on the basis that they have no cul-
human behavior which mav exist will become tural realitv and therefore virtuallv no further
apparent. Classificatory schemes applied to ar- utility. Varieties which survive each addition
chaeological materials are in part useful as a to knowledge concerning them more and more
means toward this end. closely approximate actual material ceramic
These views come to center in warticular manifestations of individual and small social
about the idea that the "type" as an entity is group variation in a society. Consequently one
meaningful from the standpoint of cultural in- may admilt that some preliminary variety units
terpretation. In the most general terms and to indeed prove to be creations of rhe worker, but
varying degrees, this sentiment is adhered to in accord with the underlying premise that
bv manv others who have conducted and writ- classification for classification's sake alone is not
ten about ceramic analyses. Nevertheless, there justifiable, those variety units which expanded
are competent analysts who do not concur with knowledge does reveal as having been without
this view; ,they believe it tends too far in the cultural meaning - are discarded. T h e more we
direction of interpretive inference. Most previ- know of varieties and types, the better we are
ous discussions of ceramic data, however, have able to formulate them into units that approxi-
been severely limited because the type was the ma'te what were meaningful - entities in whatever
only accepted unit of analysis. Limitations have cultural context we are endeavoring to illum-
also come about through - an insufficiently co- inate.
ordinated use of theoretical conceptions having Types generally include several or many vari-
to do with other factors in the cultural context eties. and as a result are summations of indi-
under investigation. vidual and small social group variation. T h e
T h e possession of a more flexible definition basic attributes involved in any. type . - came to-
of the type in conjunction with the variety as -
gether in the combination of a menital image
well as other ideas such as those embodied plus the motor habits of the prehistoric artisans
in the "ceramic svstem" and the "ceramic se- of a culture in such a way that when executed
quence," makes it possible to add new dimen- in clay, they fulfilled the requirements of the
sions to a discussion which ~reviouslvof neces- ceramic and stylistic values of that culture. As
sity had to revolve about notions restricted to noted by Kluckhohn (1958a: 474): "In the
ceramic units of equivalent status. Within the last analysis it is clearly from individual vari-
type-variety concept analysts do not need to ability that new cultural values take their
refer to all entities as types, and the newer levels origin." And so it is that "types," having grown
I
GIFFOKD TYPE-VARIETY METHOD AND CULTURAL PHENOMENA 343
out of a blending of individual variation, both dent by their number and variety. A t the same
reflect cultural values and are determined by time, habit channeling, together with the nature
them. A type is regarded as being the material of the complex nucleus, will tend significantly
outcome d a set of fundamental attributes that to delimilt the forms of embellishment that are
coalesced, consciously or unconsciously, as a likely to take place" (Rands and Riley 1958:
ceramic idea or "esthetic ideal" - the bound- 276). Applying the first of these remarks to
aries of which were imposed through the value prehistoric pottery, the "ceramic variety" rep-
system operative in the society by virtue of in- resents elaboration and embellishment, whereas
dividual interaction on a societal level, These the second statement refers to that which re-
ceramic ideas occurred in the brains of the sults in a combination of abstracted elements
potters who made the ceramic fabric rhat con- that in pottery is represented by the "ceramic
stitultes a type, and they are not by any means tvve."
, a
--
AFFECT AND BUT TYPES THAT ARE ALIGNED I N T O
RAW OBJECTS WHICH ARE T H E O R E T I C A L CONCEPTIONS
(POTTERY MAKING) ARE PRODUCED AT T H E ( U N I T S OF I N T E G R A T I O N )
MATERIALS THAT ACCORD W I T H SAME T I M E REPRESENT RECOGNITION O F
BY INDIVIDUAL PATTERNED D I F F E R E N T ASPECTS
HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND AND OF
S M A L L S O C I A L GROUP CONDITIONED VERY G E N E R A L I Z E D HUMAN GROUP RESPONSES
MOTIVATION BY T H E AS D E T E R M I N E D
(RECOGNIZED VALUE B Y RECURRENT SITUATIONS AND PRESSURES
ANALYTICALLY ORIENTATION OF A N E V E N HIGHER ORDER
AS H E L D TO THAN THOSE W H I C H WERE RESPONSIBLE
BY A M A J O R I T Y FOR T H E T Y P E S THEMSELVES
OF T H E (RECOGNIZED
PARTICIPANTS ANALYTICALLY
THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS WITHIN A AS
CULTURAL a a ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ : .
-
CONFIGURATION "CERAMIC SYSTEMS:'
(RECOGNIZED 'CERAMIC SEQUENCES:
ANALYTICALLY "my
TYPES - -
AS "TYPES" "HORIZON STYLES:
(BASIC WORKING U N I T S THAT INCLUDE "POTTERY TRADITIONS:
OF POTTERY ANALYSIS) O x OR MORE -
AND
"VARIETIES"~ "DESIGN STYLES:')
VARIETIES
w
OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE
OF T H E
T Y P E - V A R I E T Y METHOD
ATTRIBUTES
(DATA)
OF
C E R A M I C CLASSIFICATION THE TYPE-VARIETY CONCEPT
-
<
r
FIG. 1. Chart showing how the analyst can recognize certain cultural phenomena in a collection of pottery by applying the type-variety method of ceramic N
L n
classification. (In terms of absolute theory: within a cultural matrix where the individual motivation of all participant pottery makers coincides completely
with the ceramic and stylistic values of that culture, all types would tend to be exclusively one-variety types with a certain range of variation in each case as
determined by participant diversity in skills and so forth; on the other hand, within a cultural matrix where no value orientation obtains concerning pottery
3
bJ
or where the value orientation has for some reason been totally shattered, the products of every pottery-produ.cing individual would be a distinct variety and w
c
the number of varieties within a type would be limited only by the number of pottery.producing individuals within the cultural configuration.) m
0
GIFFORD
] TYPE-VARIETY METHOD AND CULTURAL PHENOMENA 345
artifacts are the result of acts which cumula- menrary desire for a measure of both stability or
tively, in this sense, are human behavior and continuity (manifested by habits and a clinging
the concern of psychology. "If, however, we to the old) and change (manifested by the
treat them [artifacts] in terms of their rela- desire for something new). The extent to which
tionship to one another, quite apart from their either of these is satisfied or emphasized is con-
relationship to human organisms, i.e., in an extra ditioned by the total value system of the society
somatic, or extraorganismic, context, ?he things in which the individual finds himself. Some
and events become culture - cultural elements societies emphasize fast moving change accel-
or culture traits." T h e difference between the erated to such a point as to be constantly dis-
two "derives from the difference between con- turbing to the individual. Others emphasize
texts in which their common subject matter is stability to such a degree as to be almost dor-
treated" (White 1959: 232-3). mant. O n his own the individual seems to
Tacit recognition is accorded these well-stated incline toward a fine balance of change and
contextual observations in the implications of stability, and his desires would be met under
the type-variety concept. T h e situation, how- ideal conditions by a rhythmic pattern of new
ever, is treated not as a dichotomy but as a types within established traditions. Actual sit-
duality (one flowing from the other) in that uations deviate from the ideal in accord with
the "variety" is a reflection of concrete individ- rhe degree to which stability or change is em-
ual human behavior while a "'type" represents phasized wirhin a cultural matrix. In trying to
an abstracltion from individual or small social describe and observe the tendency in any given
group behavior that is the ceramic unit most configuration toward one or the other extreme
useful in showing relationships of one kind of we approach an understanding of the underly-
pottery (one ceramic cultural element) to an- ing mechanisms of human nature and the
other. Furrhermore when viewed in rhis light societal values rhat produce types as observable
the ltype-variety concept tends to be consonant realities. In describing types and recording the
with the definition of culture by Kroeber and material traditions within a society we are in-
Kluckhohn (1952: 155) who say it "is an ab- dicating the tempo of that society as reflected
straction from concrete human behavior, but in its material culture.
it is not itself behavior." By analyzing pottery Cultural anthropology has consistently drawn
wirhin the framework of the type-variety meth- attention (to tendencies of rhis kind and there
odology we move from a consideration of human has been an effort to delineacte them with regard
acts to the consideration of theoretical abstrac- to value orientations. A recent paper (Colby
tions 'that can be used in various wavs to increase 1958: 317-22) pinpoints the problem in the con-
our understanding of cultural processes (Fig. 1). text of an equilibrium theory of behavioral re-
It is an analytical progression from the specific dundancy. In any cul*turalconfiguration
to the general, from percepts to concepts, and predictability of tomorrow's events and of what people
in this case from appreciable examples of hu- may do or think is of paramount importance. . . . For
man behavior (in pottery making) to concern predictability to be constantly maintained at a high level
with abstract cultural elements. of efficiency, value systems must be changeable, must
always be in process. . . . But there are other trends in
In the light of the foregoing remarks as they the opposite direction which temper the dread of the
pertain to innate human tendencies. 'the archae- unexpected. These are trends toward disorganization,
ologist, in his capacilty as a student o~f malterial toward the unknown, and toward experimental innova-
cullture, seems .to come more directly into con- tions. . . . By maintaining some sort of equilibrium be-
tween order and disorder or rigidity and fluidity [man]
tact wi'th what may be subsumed under two
can stay at peak adjustment. Such is the maturation
particularly fundamenltal tendencies. These process in culture and in personality. . . . One may say
~o tendencies are to be found as cosmponents then that life in general, like language, seeks . . . an equi-
of elemental human nature in .the form of (1) librium between the new (unexpected) and the old
(predictable); between disorganization and organization.
stability, as expressed by type persistence and
continuity through time, a condition essentially In consequence of these underlying tendencies
embodied in the concept of tradition (Thomp- of human behavior as discussed by Colby, there
son 1956; Willey and Phillips 1958: 34-40); and is in any cultural continuum a "process of con-
(2) change, as encompassed by the constant stant reformulation, reassessment, and affirma-
regrouping of artifact attributes into new types. tion of value structure regulated by the move-
In each individual craftsman there is a rudi- ment either toward or away from organization."
346 AMERlCAN ANTlQUlTY [ VOL.
25, No. 3, 1960
m
I t is this in~terestingaspect of human nature that recognized by the analyst through the medium
provides a considerable explanation of the of 'theoretical conceptions such as "ceramic
"why" and the cause of dynamics in cultural systems" and "ceramic sequences" (ceramic
process. The archaeologist sees and documents micrutraditions) .
i't when he describes gradual change within a Ideas, mental images, are the "genes" of cul-
cultural or artifact "tradition." The ceramic ture. These ideas or mental images, and in par-
analyst has observed similar circumstances when ticular ceramic ideas or mental images, while
he elucidates a "ceramic sequence." being in no way biologically related to ather
The faclt canno~tbe overemphasized that it is mental images, can be and often are related
due to t h e resu1,ts of the combined value forces within cultures and cross-culturally within a
of the 'total cultural configuration (indeed the cultural frame of reference (see Osgood 1951:
inherent cultural bias) that particular kinds 202-14). Therefore, anthropological classifica-
(types) of psrtery become widely acceptable and tions having to do with ideas or mental images
are striven for as desired norms in ceramic as recognized in objects of material culture find
manufacture. Awareness must be exercised their basis and justification within rhe processes
that any normal "human act, even in its first of culture itself. Such classifications as these
expression in the person of a single individual, should not in any sense be viewed as biological
is a group product to begin with" (White 1959: classifications. They are cultural classifications.
244). T h e individual craftsman is never really As a result, even though man is a biological
"free" to "crea'te" the entity recognized as a organism, the "type-variety" methodological ap-
variety or type because although he may be free proach is a cultural classification because it is
to produce an enrity of some sort, his produc- concerned with the analysis of man's nonbiolog-
tion may either be accepted or rejected by the ical ct~ltureproducts.
culture in response to its particular bias. And A n interesting point has been raised by Kluck-
since t h e individual did not by himself create hohn to the effect that classifications which are
the bias, vhe cul~turalacceptance of his product to be of use to anthropology should be typo-
is beyond his immediate control. The results logies. He defines a typology as
of his work may, in terms of the culture, merely a classification that has a n intent, that is, has a direction.
go down as experiment, thereby resulting only T h e ways one may classify things are limitless and there.
in one o'r a few expressions of individual varia- fore any number of classifications may be conceived,
but a typology has a n explicit theoretical basis and the
timon, or it may "catch on," 'that is, be compatible
typologist is interested in using a given classification in
with the bias of a major portion of the culture order to shed light upon the reasons beneath the oc-
and thus have an appeal which is pleasing 08r currence of some observable phenomena. . . . A classi-
advantageous in one way or another to a ma- fication is no more than a set (or sets) of empirical
j'ority of the participants in the culture. And groupings established for convenience. A typology, how-
ever, is a theoretically oriented classification that is di-
of course, due to the mechanisms of culture rected toward the solution of some problem or problems
change through time, the cultural bias shifts (Kluckhohn, in press).
with time and what will please a't one time
may not please at another-so it is that a Following this distinction I view the type-variety
type is a true indicator of time and a colmplex of methodological scheme as a typology. In addi-
types (a ceramic complex) is a valid delineation tion, when an analyst subjects a collection to
of the ceramic content of a phase. study by means of the type-variety concept, I
T o repeat the substance of many an earlier believe he accomplishes both what Rouse
discourse, a potsherd is surely not a biological (1960) calls "analytic classification" and "tax-
entity and therefore cannot in a biological sense onomic classification."
be rela~tedt o or evolve into anolther kind of In conclusion, let us review the query, should
potsherd. But let me reiterate my view that an anthropological typology be an end in itself?
pottery types are manifestations of ceramic Absolutely not. Any classification of use to
ideas, ceramic images, held originsally in the anthropology, whatever the medium, must be
minds of human beings. The ideas are human but a means whereby cultural processes are de-
concepts and as such can be and are indeed re- scribed and elucidated. Within such a frame
lalted to o'ne another areally and do indeed, as of reference cultural classifications (anthropo-
ideas or conceptions develop one into another logical typologies) are some of the instruments
through time. Relationships of this order are which anrhropologists must use if they are to
GIFFOIID
] TYPE-VARIETY METHOD AND CULTURAL PHENOMENA 347
KROEBER,A. L.
1952 The Nature of Culture. University of Chicago 1945 Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peru-
Press, Chicago. vian Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 11,
No. 1, pp. 49-56. Menasha.
KROEBER,A. L. A N D CLYDEK L U C K I ~ O I ~ N
1952 Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and
Definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum, 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology.
Harq~artlUniversity, Vol. 47, No. 1. Cambridge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
O s c o o ~ CORNELIUS
,
1951 Culture: Its Empirical and Non-Empirical HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Character. Southwestern Journal of Anthropol- Cambridge, Mass.
ogy, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 202-14. Albuquerque. May, 1959