Santacreu 2018 - Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in The Study of Ancient Pottery

Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in the Study of Ancient Pot
tery
Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in the

Study of Ancient Pottery
Daniel Albero Santacreu, Manuel Calvo Trias, and Jaume García Rosselló
The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis
Edited by Alice Hunt
Print Publication Date: Dec 2016

Subject: Archaeology, Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Online Publication Date: Jan 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199681532.013.12
Abstract and Keywords
The morphological and typological study of pottery has traditionally been crucial for orga
nizing excavation records. Hence, a substantial methodological development has encour
aged more standardized descriptive and grouping protocols based on mathematical and
statistical parameters. However, when compared with the significant growth of related
methodology in the last decades, theoretical reflection on the role played by formal de
scription of pottery and the drawing of typological classifications to study ancient soci
eties has been pushed into the background. This chapter enlarges on some of the main
approaches for the study of pottery form and, particularly, its typological classification. It
also considers their innovative interpretative possibilities when integrated into the An
thropology of Techniques, as a fundamental part of the pottery châine opératoire and the
technological traditions regarding potters.
Keywords: morphological study of pottery, typological classification, châine opératoire, ancient societies, Anthro
pology of Techniques
Introduction
CLAY is a highly malleable material which has been used for millennia to create vessels
as well as an endless repertoire of artifacts. Form and decoration make up two of the
most visible and accessible attributes of pottery, a fact which has probably precluded
their thorough analysis and set the basis for the typological classification of archaeologi
cal pottery as early as the mid-nineteenth century.1
Broadly speaking, the study of pottery form and its classification can be considered on
four analytical levels, which provide the tools needed to characterize vessels and incorpo
rate them into multiple interpretative discourses (Figure 12.1). These levels cover from
the most peculiar aspects to general ones, from the most analytical stages of research to
the most interpretative arguments, as each of them aims at solving specific problems in
Page 1 of 22
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

tery
the study of pottery form using, in turn, particular concepts and methodologies. Summing
up, the many analytical levels may be organized as:
(1) Description of pottery form.

(2) Classification and elaboration of typological proposals.
(3) Typological–interpretative tools.
(4) Interpretative perspectives of typologies.
Until the 1960s, these analytical levels were in step with the development of a theoretical
basis regarding vessel description and typologies. However, since the 1970s, efforts have
been mainly concentrated on promoting the methodological development of a kind of
(p. 182) (p. 183) grouping (Whittaker et al., 1998; Read, 2007), frequently considering the
application of such methodology as the aim of the study (Dunnell, 1986; Read, 1989). This
was the case for more systematized form analyses (e.g. form-based analysis) and their
combination with mathematical and statistical protocols (e.g. discriminant analysis, prin
cipal component analysis, cluster analysis, curve analysis; Sheppard, 1971; Whallon and
Brown, 1982; Read, 1989, 2007; Hendrix et al., 1996; Gilboa et al., 2004), which gave rise
to the so-called electronic paradigm (Adams and Adams, 1991).
Figure 12.1 Summary of the different levels to ap

proach pottery form and typological analyses dis
cussed in the text. It includes the main concepts and
tools in each level.
Nevertheless, there has always been a minor interest in moving from the application of
the different methods used to describe and classify pottery to the interpretative meaning
of the typologies proposed (Sheppard, 1971; Read, 1989). Due to their growing marginal
ization, pottery typological and form studies are currently suffering in favor of archaeo
metric analyses, a revision and revalorization of the role played by the former is needed
in order to restore them as potentially relevant tools to approach both technology and
people in past societies. Furthermore, morphological analysis is considered to facilitate
the generation of multidimensional and holistic interpretations of materiality. Conse
quently, it is assumed that vessel form is related to certain phenomena which are not evi
dent in the technological studies that focus on vessel fabrics and forming.
This chapter introduces a summarized revision of some of the theoretical–methodological

aspects key to typology so as to comprehensively understand the main interpretative pro
posals which use this research tool, evaluating their particular aims, proceedings, and
concepts. Finally, a revision of the use of pottery form analysis is proposed, as well as its
Page 2 of 22

tery
incorporation into the theoretical and interpretative framework that is provided by the so
cial theory of technology to elaborate explanations for the active role of vessel form and
to develop typologies which include a new explanatory dimension.
Form Description and Classification Strategies

Most of the classification efforts in the last decades have been devoted to the definition of
strategies aimed at delving into the problems postulated by the first two analytical levels.
A comprehensive revision of such research is far from the possibilities and aims of this
chapter; instead, a short and general outline of the most important trends currently in
use is provided.
The first strategies for the study and description of pottery form and decoration were
characterized by their limited, systematized, highly intuitive, eclectic, and subjective na
ture, supported by aesthetic assessments coming from the personal experience or per
spective of the analysts. As a result, imprecise terminology usually based on morphofunc
tional criteria was used (Hendrix et al., 1996). Since the 1950s, however, these guidelines
have been complemented by other methodological strategies—such as the form-based
analysis (e.g. Sheppard, 1971; Ericson and Stickel, 1973; Hendrix et al., 1996), which was
aimed at bringing greater objectivity to the description of pottery following a strict and
systematized analysis of the form on the basis of geometrical models. Since then, morpho
metric quantitative analyses have been incorporated into morphological studies, signifi
cantly increasing the number of (p. 184) attributes recorded in a pottery piece, as well as
defining its form through the use of ratios, indexes, and mathematical models.
Regarding the second level, the focus has been centered on defining typological classifi
cations for pottery. Classifications in archaeology usually tend to organize the record into
categories which share some internal coherence, depending on the similarities and differ
ences present in the artifacts’ attributes. On the one hand, it implies the definition of cat
egories and, on the other, the assignation of the individual pieces to such categories
(Sheppard, 1971; Rice, 1987; Read, 1989). In pragmatic terms, both descriptions and
classifications of pottery have to be systematic and coherent in order to promote the use
of a standardized terminology and a typology devoid of subjective interpretations, so as to
favor understanding amongst researchers (Whittaker et al., 1998).
At this second level, typological classifications have originated either from proposals
based on the intuitive researchers’ perceptions of the differences and similarities existing
between ceramics (e.g. Krieger, 1944; Gifford, 1960; Rouse, 1960), or alternatively, on al
legedly more objective methodologies which used mathematical and statistical tools for
grouping. They are intended to inductively create replicated descriptions and classifica
tions of the vessels which can simultaneously compare a broader number of attributes
with better definition of both the data and the variables being analyzed. This kind of tool
creates groups with a strong internal coherence and provides a less arbitrary boundary
between categories (Whallon and Brown, 1982; Read, 2007). However, these grouping
strategies are not devoid of problems, since the analysis frequently incorporates variables
Page 3 of 22

tery
or attributes of the vessels which are not relevant for archaeological questions. Neverthe
less, some authors such as Read (1989, 2007) considered that intuitive classifications
could be even more informative and useful than some of the more objective ones.
Typological groupings may also vary depending on the way the attributes are considered:
they can either be paradigmatic (Whallon, 1972) or taxonomic (Read, 1989, 2007). In the
former, the most frequent in multivariant statistical analyses, no hierarchy is postulated
for the variables used in the classification, so all the attributes recorded for a vessel can
be treated both simultaneously and independently. In the latter, the several attributes of a
vessel are considered to have a different validity for determining pottery types; thus they
have to be used in a sequential and hierarchical order according to many different crite
ria.
Furthermore, pottery classifications might also depend on different ontologies. In this

sense, a heated debate has been generated about the emic or etic nature of the typolo
gies archaeologists create. Hence, it is possible to discriminate between theoretical (e.g.
Krieger, 1944; Spaulding, 1953; Gifford, 1960; Rouse, 1960) and practical typologies (e.g.
Hill and Evans, 1972; Adams, 1988; Adams and Adams, 1991; Kampel and Sablatnig,
2007). The former can be encompassed as emic classifications, closely related to so-called
folk classifications or ethnotaxonomies (Kempton, 1981; Rice, 1987; Fowler, 2006), where
both potters and other members of their community (i.e. consumers and non-consumers)
are assumed to base their classifications on tangible aspects related to certain physical
parameters of the materials (e.g. appearance, form, and size) as well as on intangible or
cultural phenomena. In this context, many scholars understand the pottery classification
process as proceeding from an inductive or theoretical nature which allows the discovery
and/or replication of the natural types present in the artisan’s mind; a classification which
underlies the data recorded. In this sense, the ceramic types defined are considered to
carry an important cultural and historical meaning, and, consequently, to mirror the ideas
and values of the people who made and used the artifacts.
As a counterpart to emic typologies, the classifications drawn by analysts from et

(p. 185)
ic perspectives, also referred to as devised classifications, have dominated research since

the 1960s, coinciding with the boom of processualist and positivist views in the typologi
cal study of archaeological pottery. Although these perspectives consider that the pottery
found in archaeological sites was originally related to the rationality scheme of the pot
ters and their communities, as well as to the functional, socioeconomic, and symbolic–ide
ological contexts which characterized the life-cycle of the vessels, it must be accepted
that archaeological typologies designed in the present have little to do with folk classifica
tions. The many complex terminological and classificatory shades used by the members of
a certain culture to arrange a pottery assemblage in their minds may be impossible to
perceive or replicate by foreigners. In this sense, a number of papers have proved
(Weigand, 1969; Birmingham, 1975) that many of the classificatory elements frequently
used by archaeologists (e.g. base, rim, lip form) have a weak connection with those used
by ancient societies. Moreover, it should be considered that several of the elements peo
Page 4 of 22

tery
ple use to classify their surrounding material culture are difficult to see in the archaeo
logical record.
Practical perspectives argue that typologies imply an interpretative process, an analytical

and creative operation, that originated in the ideational and conceptual realm. Similarly
to the other attributes of pottery (e.g. fabric), they suppose an action which goes beyond
the empirical world and is deeply influenced by the theoretical approach of the re
searcher. However, it triggers a certain degree of artificiality and arbitrariness in the
classificatory process as, for instance, the researcher has to decide which attributes, of
the seemingly endless possibilities, should be measured and selected for formal compari
son. In short, morphometric and typological analyses of pottery are considered to be born
from the rational schemes of the scholars and to be aimed at structuring a specific ceram
ic universe.
This idea invited some authors (Hayden, 1984; Rice, 1987; Whittaker et al., 1998) to make
a conceptual distinction between classification and typology. The former is considered as
an empirical grouping of objects based on their differences and similarities. Typology, on
the other hand, implies a classification with a clear theoretical background as well as ex
plicit and well-agreed norms or proceedings to solve specific problems.
According to Rice (1987), although devised classifications and folk classifications

originate from different and often opposed concepts and objectives, both can provide
feedback and interesting incentives for pottery classification. Currently, the general op
tion is an intermediate position, where typologies are accepted to be subjective but are
also potentially suitable for going beyond the mere description or organization of the
record and being used in an interpretative discourse. That is, the differences perceived at
the etic level can be reflected at the emic level (Read, 2007).
In any case, each and every different typological proposal defines its own concepts to or
ganize the factual universe depending on its interpretative and instrumental objectives
and the kind of record it works with. This is the case particularly for concepts such as
mode (Rouse, 1960), type-variety (Gifford, 1960), and type (Dunnell, 1986), among many
others. This diversity is a consequence of each typological classification strategy (i.e. the
attributes selected and the grouping strategies used) being drawn, either consciously or
unconsciously, for specific research objectives which vary depending on their intention of
creating descriptive, comparative, or analytical typologies or, rather, dealing with chrono
logical, cultural, functional or technological aspects by using such typology (Adams and
Adams, 1991). Furthermore, as already noted by these authors, the aim of typology deter
mines the kind of record to be selected (for instance, if it considers only complete pieces
or also includes sherds).
Page 5 of 22

tery
(p. 186) Typological-Interpretative Tools

The third analytical level comprises a series of interpretative tools which transcend the
typological classifications and morphological analyses described above. These tools,
which are understood and used differently by each perspective, allow the researcher to
go beyond the data and build coherent discourses about past societies. A large number of
interpretative tools can be included at this level, some of which are the following:
(a) Morphotypological variability. The morphological variability of the record can be

accessed by organizing the pottery assemblage into different categories and observ
ing the pieces’ differences and similarities in different chronological and spatial seg
ments. This variability is informative of the routines and the repetition of actions fol
lowed in the production process. Thus, some of its aims are facilitating a formal com
parison of pottery and identifying the existence of either variations or continuities in
the record (Adams and Adams, 1991). As will be explained in the section “Pottery Ty
pologies and Main Interpretative Proposals,” the variability present in any record has
been interpreted in a myriad ways which are also related to different analytical
scales (Ericson and Stickel, 1973; Dobres, 1999) and objectives. In most interpreta
tions, such as culture historical and processualist typologies, macroscalar analyses
are dominant as they consider extensive regional spaces and temporal segments (e.g.
Hendrix et al., 1996), although microscalar analyses of variability can be also applied
(Dobres, 1999).
(b) Symmetry, size, and form as evidence of the potter’s expertise. The analysis of
symmetry, form, and size of the individual pieces is fundamental for pottery studies.
As well as descriptors of the vessels, the symmetry, the kind of forms modeled, or the
size of the objects have been proposed as an indication, together with a number of
attributes such as the fabric, surface treatment, or wall thickness, or the potters’ lev
el of technical skill (Sheppard, 1971; Budden and Sofaer, 2009; Vidal, 2011).
(c) Translation of the form (isomorphism and skeuomorphism). The concept of iso
morphism implies the repetition of a given form in several objects, thus providing
them with the same meaning. In these cases, any potential variation does not trigger
changes in the behavior or relationship between the elements constituting the ob
ject; thus its structural relation remains constant (Samaniego, 2013). Isomorphism
cases in pottery may be numerous and varied. The most common is the preservation
of the form and the metrical proportions of the vessels when their size is modified.
Another example may be the repetition of decorative patterns on different media
(Figure 12.2). Skeuomorphism, a variant of isomorphism which has been also reinter
preted by the different schools of thought (see Frieman, 2010), refers to the transla
tion of the form and other perceptive aspects of the ceramic universe to other tech
nologies and vice versa. Well-known examples of skeuomorphism in pottery are the
reproduction of forms and decorative patterns copying basketry, carpentry, or
leather-work (Manby, 1995; Hurcombe, 2008), as well as the imitation of some types
of metallic containers such as occurs in Etruscan bucchero pottery. The analysis of
both isomorphism and skeuomorphism has a large interpretative potential when its
Page 6 of 22

tery
identification is followed by an evaluation of the influence of these phenomena over
society. Hence, it is (p. 187) important to record whether the translation of the form is
restricted to certain types or affects a wide variety of forms, which is the direction of
the translation, whether the loan is limited to two technologies or affects more
spheres, whether the replicated form shares the same contextual relationship in the
many materials or is significantly different, and so on.
Figure 12.2 Isomorphic relation between the decora

tive motifs recorded on Late Iron Age pottery and
bronze discs in Mallorca (Spain).
Pottery Typologies and Main Interpretative

Proposals
Both pottery typologies and interpretative tools are drawn, conceived, and used in a cer
tain way depending on their ultimate aims. Interpretative strategies in archaeology have
played a key role in the classificatory systems which structured and organized the real
world. After briefly describing the use of form analysis and typologies by the different in
terpretative position, a projection of the future of morphotypological analyses and their
inclusion in more technological–social interpretations will be discussed.
Typologies and Chronological Frameworks
Typological seriation strategies can be considered, together with stratigraphic principles,

the first methodological tools promoting modern archaeology, because one of the first ob
jectives of typological seriation was to organize and chronologically place the myriad of
archaeological objects already recovered, which in the early nineteenth century were
considered exclusively from a collector’s and antiquarian’s point of view (Trigger, 1989;
Orton et al., 1993). The first modern typological proposals are therefore found at the very
beginnings (p. 188) of the discipline, in the development of seriation strategies according
to raw material and stylistic criteria. Archaeological objects were not only classified and
organized into types, but were also relocated in concrete chronological and stratigraphic
sequences: this was the birth of relative chronology, the essential and only dating method
available before the discovery of absolute dating. Thus, the late nineteenth century pro
duced paradigmatic examples of pottery seriation (see Chapter 37, this volume) such as
Page 7 of 22

tery
Smith’s study of terra sigillata (1854), Pottier’s Normand pottery (1867), or Plique’s re
search (1887), as well as Petrie’s work in Lachish, Palestine (1891), and Egypt (1890),
where the ceramic types were identified in the stratigraphic sequence (Sinopoli, 1991;
Orton et al., 1993; Hendrix et al., 1996).
Originally, the association between typology, seriation, and stratigraphy rested on consid
ering the ceramic type as the chronological reference for a culture, based on the princi
ples which allowed the paleontological identification of fossils with geological strata
(Adams and Adams, 1991; Orton et al., 1993). The definition of ceramic types from differ
ent sites provided cross-datings which were grouped into regional chronological se
quences, the similarities between types representing temporal proximity (Trigger, 1989).
This twofold nature of pottery typology (i.e. as stylistic-formal organization and chrono
logical reference) was present as one of the main analytical strategies in most archaeo
logical discourses until well into the twentieth century, and is still in use despite the con
ceptual redefinition of typology. Currently, multiple archaeological discourses still find
this relationship, based on the concept of relative chronology and cross-dating, essential
in many typological classifications. This association is clear, for instance, in the analysis
of wheel-made seriated pottery, such as amphorae, thin-walled Roman ceramics, and Ter
ra Sigillata.
Typologies and Cultural Frameworks
Far from denying the chronological use of typology, culture history provided it with a new
meaning. A century ago, the evident relationship between certain findings and concrete
geographical areas was proposed, and the definition of cultural areas as being home to
different human groups followed (Trigger, 1989). This threefold association among recur
ring objects, geographical areas, and cultural groups signaled an important qualitative
and conceptual leap. Since then, types have not only provided a concrete chronology but
also a regional and cultural perspective, and even an ethnic affiliation by studying the ob
jects recovered (Childe, 1929).
Culture history defined a new concept of culture, which was eventually integrated into ar
chaeology as the archaeological culture and fossil directeur, which implied the relation
ship among the archaeological materials found in a particular place, their chronology, and
a specific ethnic group or people (Childe, 1925, 1929; Kossina, 1926).
This new perspective promoted typology to another dimension, as it fulfilled one of the
objectives of the culture historical paradigm: the interpretation of the archaeological
record as a mirror of nameless prehistoric peoples identified by the characterization of
their archaeological cultures rather than as developmental evidence of their culture. Fur
thermore, diffusionism as an interpretative tool was used to explain cultural change, us
ing materiality to define the origin, movement, and interaction of those peoples.
In these interpretations, pottery gained protagonism owing to its identification with cul
tures and ethnic groups. Many typological strategies used for pottery analysis had an im
pact (p. 189) on its cultural dimension (e.g. Krieger, 1944; Gifford, 1960; Rouse, 1960). Un
Page 8 of 22

tery
til the 1950s pottery typologies and the concept of fossil directeur were prevalent for the
archaeological identification of ethnocultural groups. Such was the case of the debate on
the integration of the Prague ceramic type into Slavic ethnicity, the association of Linear
bandkeramik with the first Neolithic communities in Central Europe (Childe, 1929;
Klopfleisch, in Hibben, 1958), and the first research on the ethnic group responsible for
the Bell Beaker pottery (Castillo, 1928; Bosch Gimpera, 1940).
Aiming at defining chronocultural typological entities, their analysis of pottery variability

was focused on macroscales covering regional territories and large time periods. Further
more, in order to determine the scope and distribution of cultural entities, diffusionism
understood isomorphic phenomena as the imitation and subsequent copy of forms or oth
er specific elements owing to the dominance or influence of one culture over another by
means of trading (e.g. colonial), political, military, or other relations.
Typology and Functionality
The New Archaeology, closely related to a functionalist view of society, considered pottery
a product (Sackett, 1977; Binford, 1989) or tool (Braun, 1983) whose manufacture re
sponded to known and preconceived needs. Thus, one aspect which characterized pottery
life for them was its function regarding one or more ends (Rice, 1990); hence, pottery was
designed following functional criteria (Sheppard, 1971; Smith, 1985; Rice, 1987; Orton et
al., 1993). Its function determined or restricted pottery forms, so innovative forms may
have responded to new needs, making them representative of human behavior.
The definition of morphofunctional relationships demanded more systematic and (pre

sumed) objective criteria, such as ethnographic analogy, to address vessel functionality:
differentiating between the description of the form and the analysis of functionality
(Birmingham, 1975; Henrickson and McDonald, 1985; Rice, 1987). This close relationship
between form and function, supplemented by absolute dating which overcame the defini
tion of chronocultural entities as the main interest of typologies, favored the development
of new classificatory and interpretative strategies. This was the theoretical context at the
peak of functional classifications characterized by organizing materiality from the pre
sumed function of the artifacts, usually considering the morphological attributes inherent
to the objects (Adams and Adams, 1991). Here, pottery classifications depended primarily
on vessel form to establish functional categories. In such classifications, numerous para
meters of the form (e.g. mouth width) were considered broad indications of its function,
the kind of contents (i.e. liquid vs. solid), and their manipulation inside the container
(Sheppard, 1971; Henrickson and McDonald, 1985; Rice, 1987; Sinopoli, 1991). Similarly,
varieties of the form were also related to the use of certain culinary techniques (Rice,
1987).
The link between the function and effectiveness of a form and the physical properties of
the vessels was also addressed. In this sense, some morphological elements, such as the
curved profile in a pot, were proved to maximize thermal shock resistance in cooking pot
Page 9 of 22

tery
tery (Woods, 1986) as well as impact resistance (Schiffer and Skibo, 1987), caloric effi
ciency, or thermal conductivity (Hally, 1986; Schiffer and Skibo, 1987).
In short, this functionalist interest pretended to understand the socioeconomic

(p. 190)
view of a society. For processualism, isomorphism did not necessarily imply the direct de
rivation or influence of one style on another; it may have responded to an autochthonous
adaptation to a specific environment and economy (e.g. agriculture) together with the use
of peculiar culinary practices (Sheppard, 1971), with the subsequent functional special
ization of the whole materiality.
Similarly, processualist typologies considered a limited variability in any specific form as

the evidence for both specialization and a reduced number of potters. Actually, this school
has always been interested in defining the degree of specialization and its links with more
evolved behaviors, where potters produced better quality and technically more efficient
products. This question was addressed using form and surface analyses, considering
asymmetrical profiles the production of scarcely specialized potters regarding their mas
tering of technical gestures. Vessel size was also considered indicative of experience
(Longacre, 1999; Brodà et al., 2009).
Typology, Textual Metaphor, and Identity
The first post-processual paradigms stressed the active role of pottery forms and decora
tions as the material medium of a communicative event which was expressed with the
symbols inherent to the objects. In this context, Hodder’s seminal work (1982) shook up
archaeology in general and pottery studies in particular by highlighting the symbolic and
ideological aspects of material culture. According to his views, material culture and, con
sequently, pottery features were significantly constructed and should be considered an
active element in the definition of societies. He also reinforced the idea that material cul
ture was neither innate nor did it passively mirror society; on the contrary, it was created
by people’s actions (Hodder, 1998).
These ideas originated the textual metaphors held by interpretative archaeology (Hodder,
1991; Tilley, 1999). Under the influence of semiotics and hermeneutics, it understood the
analysis of material culture and its interpretation as a communicational event full of signi
fier and signified elements. People acted in accordance with the social symbolic system
and each individual in turn played an active role in his/her society. Thus, pottery forms
and attributes were not just a neutral product but the embodiment of the symbolic conno
tations of a community in a certain place and time. Pottery, as a social product, repro
duced the symbolic system of the society it was inserted in, and the similarities and dif
ferences embodied in the stylistic tendencies of formal analysis expressed a common ra
tionality and emphasized the identity of a particular style against the rest (Prieto, 1999).
This new association with symbolic and identitarian constituents explains the new uses of
typology. In this view, the study of pottery style made visible identities related to status,
cast, ethnicity, and genre, among others. Mahias (1993), for instance, documented the
link between technological and stylistic variations and the caste-based social structure in
Page 10 of 22

tery
India. Regarding ethnic identity, a number of papers integrated typological and techno
logical analyses of pottery (Dietler and Herbich, 1989; Gallay and Huysecom, 1991;
Hardin and Mills, 2000). The work of Gosselain (2000) exemplified the distribution and
expansion of styles regarding local languages. Alternatively, Bowser (2000) observed that
Achuar and Quechua women in Ecuador use pottery as a descriptor of political identity.
Typology and Technology: New Perspectives and Interpretative

(p. 191)
Possibilities of Social Dynamics
In the last few decades, there has been a rise in the incipient application of typological
strategies to technological analyses born from a clear integration with the social dynam
ics of the groups studied. This social perspective of technology has mainly been devel
oped from anthropological views and focused its interest in the study of the materials and
techniques associated with pottery-making. However, in addition to these issues, typologi
cal analyses are also a useful strategy for a social approach to technology.
This analytical strategy has gained popularity since the 1980s, with the active participa
tion of two schools from different academic backgrounds: the anthropology of techniques
(e.g. Lemonnier, 1986) and the analysis of technology of the social agency theory (e.g. Do
bres, 2000).
The inclusion of this proposal in archaeological questions implies that the study of the ob
jects—that is, elements made, used, exchanged, maintained, and abandoned in a social
space, usually during daily activities—can lead to the complex social practice of the tech
nological process and its connection with rationality schemes, social praxis, power rela
tions, economic bases, material reality, and so on; all of them interpreted as parts of a
whole and unable to be understood separately because they are mutually constructed.
The technological process, similarly to other social activities, would originate in the daily
and contingent praxis through habitus dynamics (Bourdieu, 1977) and agency (Barrett,
1994), in a web of relations between objects and people (Latour, 2008). It implies the in
corporation of patterns culturally chosen through constant practice. These attitudes, elec
tions, and perceptions of technical alternatives, embedded in social relations and config
ured by the habitus, may be perceived as natural and absolutely logical, besides any con
sideration of the efficiency of techniques and materials. Even if technological practice
and tradition can be seen as predetermined and static, they imply relational and dynamic
phenomena. They are an historical product which is active in the present, for technologi
cal practice is materialized in a series of learnt and interiorized dispositions which allow
the reproduction of social structures and, at the same time, explain their changes through
agency. Hence, technology becomes a complex cultural phenomenon, incorporated in his
torically contingent worldviews, interiorized social actions, and agency. Consequently, the
study of technological processes has to transcend the analysis of the simple physical
medium as it is intimately connected with social phenomena.
Page 11 of 22

tery
Typological strategies and their interpretative contributions can be incorporated into this
discourse as the analysis of pottery form, as far as it implies a collective technological
choice in a specific social context, makes possible the identification of the conscious and
unconscious schemes, and praxis of the technological process. Hence, typological strate
gies are understood as a valuable tool for the interpretation of technological–social dy
namics. This implies considering pottery form and the typologies developed from it as an
active element relevant for interpretation and thus different from passive views and typo
logical mechanicist interpretations.
In this interpretative context, vessels’ morphometry and typology, accepting pottery as a

social rather than individual formalization, could be considered a priori as indirect evi
dence of certain technological praxis embodied with sociocultural connotations. However,
such (p. 192) evidence does not need to be defined by the structure of the classifications
devised; that is, by the types, categories, or groups created, nor by the grouping strate
gies used (e.g. paradigmatic/taxonomic, intuitive/objective). So, from this perspective, ty
pological analyses are mainly focused in taking advantage of the interpretative potential
of third-level tools. Some examples may clarify their current use.
(a) Analysis of Microscale Knowledge Transfer and Agency

This perspective considers the analysis of morphotypological variability at a microscale so
as to deepen the dynamics behind two specific questions: knowledge transfer and agency.
In clear opposition to processualist typologies, social technology considers that the vari
ability present in the pottery forms produced by a community depends upon people’s in
teraction (either conscious or unconscious) with multiple and varied elements and values
typical of their society. The presence of variability is frequently considered as evidence of
a break with traditional learning patterns and the disintegration of the potters’ technolog
ical–formal schemes (García Rosselló, 2010).
A second interpretative position in the analysis of variability is focused on the role played
by individuals and their agency capacity. The idea of the individual has traditionally been
uncomfortable for the main interpretative paradigms; clearly seen in the many typologi
cal grouping strategies which tended to establish highly standardized typologies insisting
on the importance of making them consistent and homogeneous (Whittaker et al., 1998).
In the search for consistent standardizations, “anomalous” cases were considered outliers
—that is, unconnected with the norm determining the perceptive difference noted by the
researchers—thus they were difficult to classify, understand, and explain.
Since the active role of the individuals and their agency capacity has been made clear, the
analysis of marginal forms or types validated in typological classifications has offered
more interpretative flexibility to address different kinds of phenomena while explaining
the complexity observed in material culture with more coherent discourses (Dobres,
1999).
Regarding agency, it should be remembered that vessel form, as well as other highly visu
al attributes such as decorative motifs, is frequently a collectively perceived aspect.
Page 12 of 22

tery
These more visible dimensions of pottery are precisely those favored by individuals to
communicate messages to the rest of the community and define their social space (Her
bich, 1987; Gosselain, 2008). It explains the higher degree of innovation in vessel form
and decoration than in any other dimension of pottery, such as paste preparation or mod
eling techniques, as the latter are less visible to the rest of the community.
A useful strategy to study the concept of variability and its interpretative potential in
knowledge transfer dynamics, agency, and technological tradition could be their articula
tion in the type-variety system (Gifford, 1960). Although this system was developed as a
mere taxonomic tool, some scholars (Rice, 1987; Sinopoli, 1991; Read, 2007) suggest its
use to interpret cultural aspects and observe record variability. This typological system
presents the advantage of simultaneously recording the cultural patterns shared and ac
cepted by the whole society which originated the traditions materialized in the recurring
material attributes (types), while also reflecting the variations in the artifacts as a conse
quence of an individual’s or small social groups’ actions (varieties). In short, this kind of
conceptual tool becomes useful when materiality gains an active role in the configuration
of society.
(p. 193) (b) Potter’s Expertise and Social Context of Production

A second variable used by this school is the analysis of formal and perceptive aspects of
pottery such as symmetry, size, or form complexity as representative of the potter’s pro
file. Far from considering the potter in evolutionary terms such as specialization and tech
nical complexity, morphology is used to identify apprentices and consider questions such
as learning, knowledge transfer, and the social interaction of pottery production. The
identification of the potter’s expertise using these variables demonstrates the existence of
processes made of repeated actions which produce certain standardization and techno
logical knowledge transfer (Budden and Sofaer, 2009). Because pottery features, which
result from the specific way-of-doing of each person, respond to social determinants and
evidence the strategies of the technological habitus used by a potter to manufacture a
product in a concrete social situation, their analysis would evidence the potter’s profile.
His/her technical skill and its embodiment in certain morphological attributes of the pot
tery should be considered contingent. Thus, they can be evaluated only in the concrete
contexts for pottery making. In this view, technical skill is not studied as the mere evi
dence of the potter’s technical knowledge per se or the existence or a specialized produc
tion, but rather as the response to a specific social context; and, consequently, it consti
tutes a key element to enlarge on the dynamics of a society.
(c) Isomorphism and Hybridization

Social technology understands that the ultimate interpretation of isomorphism and skeuo
morphism is determined, not by simple imitation, but by the integration of praxis into a
contextual and social framework as well as into the technological and symbolic relation
ship between the different kinds of materials and objects participating in any society.
Thus, their interpretation should consider that the loan of a form does not necessarily im
ply a functional or symbolic translation: it cannot be automatically inferred by the sole
Page 13 of 22

tery
formal similarity of two objects, as only contextual analyses can determine the coinci
dence between function and meaning.
Postcolonial perspectives, used in the analysis of material culture (Gosden, 2004; Van
Dommelen, 2006), understand the translation of the form derived from the contact be
tween different cultures as hybridization. This idea is based on the premise that intercul
tural contacts are never neutral and that the parts involved cannot be considered passive
entities, but rather active agents. The complex phenomena of hybridization occurs where
the material outcome of cultural contact is noticeably different from the original material
culture of each culture because both groups have actively modified, reinterpreted, and
hybridized practices, objects, and dynamics, giving rise to new contexts and meanings.
In the case of the typological analysis of pottery, the translation of the form, even if it re
tains some reminiscence of the original, goes hand in hand with variations and reinterpre
tations which constitute a rupture in the structural relationship between the parts which
have originally made the object. Hybridizations in pottery form are quite common in the
Western Mediterranean during the Iron Age, particularly along the French coast (Dietler,
1997) and the Balearic Islands (Albero, 2011), resulting from the intensification of con
tact between indigenous and Greek or Punic communities. Although formal references
can still be identified, these new hybrid types present their own peculiarities and charac
teristics which affect many aspects related to pottery, from the manufacture system
(hand-made (p. 194) pottery continues) to structural or metric elements. The result is a hy
bridized and reinterpreted form, typologically different from the original schemes of both
indigenous and foreign communities (Figure 12.3).
Figure 12.3 Format translation related to hybridiza

tion phenomena between Punic wheel-thrown vessels
and hand-made indigenous pottery in the Late Iron
Age in Mallorca (Spain).
(d) Homology and Fractality

Conceiving ideas and matter as a group of connected webs and nodes rather than sepa
rate elements (Latour, 2008) leads to Lemonnier’s concept of representation (1993).
Hence, any technological action is related to a series of mental operations which are of
ten unconsciously internalized by a habitus which has to be interpreted in the global tech
nological scheme of the group and facilitates technological transfers and loans among
Page 14 of 22

tery
crafts sharing the same scheme. Furthermore, the concept of representation, the mental
models of the sequence and order of the action, is not exclusively related to a concrete
technological action, but incorporates content and information of an ideological, social,
and/or symbolic kind which function in a network of supra-technological meaning affect
ing the totality of the signification and semiotic schemes and models of the community.
The idea of the transversal direction of the signification schemes and technological
processes in a community suggested by Lemonnier (1993) leads to a fractal and homologi
cal approach to society. This approach is related to the formal view of the object analyzed
from typological strategies. In this sense, the ultimate analysis of third-level tools is un
derstood to be inserted in an holistic interpretative framework. Thus, the study of typo
logical identities and correspondences which have been analyzed from third-level vari
ables has to follow four analytical levels: (a) an intrinsic level, restricted to pottery form;
(b) a second intrinsic level from a multidimensional view of pottery technology; (c) an ex
trinsic analysis covering the diverse technological fields; and (d) a further extrinsic analy
sis between technology and the remaining social spheres considering different scales, as
they represent the many manifestations of the same phenomena.
(p. 195) This integral analysis is possible thanks to two strategies: the study of homology
relations among different fields and the analysis of the presence of fractal patterns.
The concept of homology, taken from Bourdieu’s perspective (1977), reveals structural
similarities between different fields beyond their own peculiarities and dynamics. Applied
to the social interpretation of technology and, specifically, to typological strategies, this
concept of homology would refer to the similarities in the praxis and dynamics of the di
verse technological fields of the society. As an interpretative strategy, homology aims at
analyzing whether the behavior of each of the third-level tools used is restricted to the ty
pological dimension of pottery or whether structural homologies are observed in other di
mensions of the ceramic universe regarding the rest of the steps in the châine opératoire,
such as raw material management, paste preparation, or forming activities. This analysis
provides a multidimensional picture of pottery and identifies whether the same phenome
na are materialized throughout the pottery-making process. Later on, based on the logics
of the homology of fields, it is possible to evaluate if the dynamics identified in the pot
tery are present in other technologies (e.g. metallurgy, building, glass-making, basketry).
The documentation of the same dynamics in other stages of pottery technology, as well as
their identification in the rest of the technological manifestations, furthers the analysis of
the typological differentiation, transcending the mere formal identification level to be in
serted in the dynamics of the global technological scheme of the community. This holistic
view would provide information regarding knowledge transfer dynamics, the social struc
tures related to the learning process, technical skill, the social value of objects, and so on.
The second tool which the comparison and signification aspects of third-level variables al
low is the application of fractal strategies which try to record the existence of recurrent
patterns or structures at several scales. Fractal patterns facilitate comparison between
microscalar and macroscalar processes, for they are understood as manifestations of the
Page 15 of 22

tery
same dynamics (Brown et al., 2005). A fractal interpretative framework constitutes an ef
fective tool to integrate the typological data into another manifestation of scalar models
which are expressed in the same way at upper levels, such as the technology or the social
and ideological relations of the group analyzed. This strategy aims at confirming whether
the typological patterns of pottery variability, appearance, and perception, as well as iso
morphism and hybridization, now integrated into the technological praxis of the group
and thus with ideological, social, or symbolic contents and information, are also present
in other dimensions of the society. Documenting the patterns detected at these different
scales helps us evaluate the significance level of the typological proposal and articulate
more complex and coherent interpretative discourses beyond the classification strategy.
It thus demands integrating the typological strategy first into technological questions and
then expanding it to upper-level social and ideological discourses.
Conclusions
This chapter has examined the wide variety of systems used by archaeology to analyze
pottery form and decoration depending on the different philosophy, methodology, and in
terpretative option favored, originating quite diverse typologies which respond to similar
ly differing objectives. Nevertheless, the several interpretative proposals should not be
considered exclusive but rather complementary: each proposal is important in the
(p. 196)
study of the form. For instance, without the chronological determination it would have
been hard to deal with other aspects related to the use of ancient vessels. Nevertheless,
once these temporal and cultural parameters have been established, it should be consid
ered whether it is worth devoting so much effort to the description of pottery form and ty
pological study.
Taking this view, some scholars have stated that form analysis and typology development
has turned into a “rite of passage” archaeologists have to go through. However, the de
scription of vessel form and the typological classification of pottery should not nowadays
be an end in itself in archaeological research. A thorough critical reflection is needed to
evaluate the potential role and use of these kind of analyses in the study of pottery, both
in historical and anthropological terms. This question is particularly critical in the case of
prehistoric pottery, where a lack of systematization and large formal variability within a
single assemblage could impair the development and application of reliable typologies
able to achieve accurate seriations and chronological determinations.
References
Adams, W. Y. (1988). “Archaeological Classification: Theory Versus Practice.” American
Antiquity 62: 40–56.
Adams W. Y. and Adams, E. W. (1991). Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Page 16 of 22

tery
Albero, D. (2011). Caracterización tecnológica, social y adaptación funcional de cerámi
cas prehistóricas en el Oeste y Sureste de Mallorca (1700–50 BC): aproximación sincróni
ca y diacrónica a partir del estudio arqueométrico de pastas (Granada: Universidad de
Granada).
Barrett, J. C. (1994). Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain,

2900–1200 BC (Oxford: Blackwell).
Binford, L. R. (1989). “Styles of Style.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 51–67.
Birmingham, J. (1975). “Traditional Potters of the Kathmandu Valley: An Ethnoarchaeo

logical Study.” Man 10(3): 370–386.
Bosch-Gimpera, P. (1940). “The Types and Chronology of Western European Beakers.”

Man 40: 6–10.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (New York: Cambridge University

Press).
Bowser, B. (2000). “From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political

Factionalism, Ethnicity and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon.” Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3): 219–248.
Braun, D. (1983). “Pots as Tools.” In: Moore, J. and Keene, A. (ed), Archaeological Ham
mers and Theories (New York: Academic Press), 107–134.
Brodà, Y., Cannavo, V., Govi, E., Levi, S., Marchetti, S., and Pellacani, G. (2009). “Bronze
Age Terramare Pottery from Northern Italy: Exercises in Experimental Reproduction.” In:
Biró, K., (p. 197) Szilágyi, V., and Kreiter, A. (eds), Vessels: Inside and Outside (Hungary:
Hungarian National Museum), 103–109.
Brown, C., Witschey, W., and Liebovitch, L. (2005). “The Broken Past: Fractals in Archae
ology.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(1): 37–78.
Budden, S. and Sofaer, J. (2009). “Non-Discursive Knowledge and the Construction of

Identity Potters, Potting and Performance at the Bronze Age Tell of Százhalombatta, Hun
gary.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(2): 203–220.
Castillo, A. (1928). La cultura del vaso campaniforme. Su origen y extensión en Europa

(Barcelona: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras).
Childe, G. (1925). The Dawn of European Civilization (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul).
Childe, G. (1929). The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Dietler, M. (1997). “The Iron Age in Mediterranean France: Colonial Encounters, Entan
glements, and Transformation.” Journal of World Prehistory 11(3): 269–358.
Page 17 of 22

tery
Dietler, M. and Herbich, I. (1989). “Tich Matek: The Technology of Luo Pottery Produc
tion and Definition of Ceramic Style.” World Archaeology 21(1): 148–183.
Dobres, M. A. (1999). “Of Paradigms and Ways of Seeing: Artifact Variability as if People
Mattered.” In: Chilton, S. (ed), Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpreta
tion of Material Culture (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press), 7–22.
Dobres, M. (2000). Technology and Social Agency (Oxford: Blackwell).
Dunnell, R. C. (1986). “Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification.” In:

Schiffer, M. (ed), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (New York: Academic
Press), 35–99.
Ericson, J. E. and Stickel, G. (1973). “A Proposed Classification System for Ceramics.”

World Archaeology 4(3): 357–367.
Fowler, K. D. (2006). “Classification and Collapse: The Ethnohistory of Zulu Ceramic

Use.” Southern African Humanities 18(2): 93–117.
Frieman, C. (2010). “Imitation, Identity and Communication: The Presence and Problems
of Skeuomorphs in the Metal Ages.” In: Eriksen, B. V. (ed), Lithic Technology in Metal Us
ing Societies, vol. 67 (Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society Publications), 33–44.
Gallay, A., Huseycom, E., and Mayor, A. (1994). Peuples et céramiques du delta interieur
du Niger (Genève: Departement d’Anthropologie et d’Ecologie de l’Université de Genève).
García Rosselló, J. (2010). “Análisis traceológico de la cerámica. Modelado y espacio so

cial durante el Postalayótico (s. V-I AC) en la península de Santa Ponça (Calvià, Mallor
ca).” Unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Mallorca.
Gifford, J. C. (1960). “The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator

of Cultural Phenomena.” American Antiquity 25(3): 341–347.
Gilboa, A., Karasik, A., Sharon, I., and Smilansky, U. (2004). “Towards Computerized Ty
pology and Classification of Ceramics.” Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 681–694.
Gosden, C. (2004). Archaeology and Colonialism. Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to

Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gosselain, O. (2000). “Materializing Identities: An African Perspective.” Journal of Archae

ological Method and Theory 7(3): 187–217.
Gosselain, O. (2008). “Thoughts and Adjustments in the Potters Backyard.” In: Berg, I.
(ed), Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery. BAR International Series
1861 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 67–79.
Hally, D. J. (1986). “The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest
Georgia.” American Antiquity 51(2): 267–295.
Page 18 of 22

tery
Hardin, M. A. and Mills, B. A. (2000). “The Social and Historical Context of Short-Term
Stylistic Replacement: A Zuni Case Study.” Journal of Anthropological Method and Theory
7(3): 139–163.
Hayden, B. (1984). “Are Emic Types Relevant to Archaeology?” Ethnohistory

(p. 198)
31(2): 79–92.
Hendrix, R. E., Drey, P. R., and Bjornar Storfjell, J. (1996). Ancient Pottery of Transjordan.
An Introduction Utilizing Published Whole Forms: Late Neolithic Through Late Islamic
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press).
Henrickson, E. F. and McDonald, M. (1983). “Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethno

graphic Search and an Archaeological Application.” American Anthropologist 85: 630–
643.
Herbich, I. (1987). “Learning Patterns, Potter Interaction and Ceramic Style among the
Luo of Kenya.” African Archaeological Review 5: 109–136.
Hibben, F. C. (1958). Prehistoric Man in Europe (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).
Hill, J. N. and Evans, R. K. (1972). “A Model for Classification and Typology.” In: Clarke, D.
(ed), Models in Archaeology (London: Methuen), 231–274.
Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Hodder, I. (1991). Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Hurcombe, L. (2008). “Organics from Inorganics: Using Experimental Archaeology as a

Research Tool for Studying Perishable Material Culture.” World Archaeology 40, 83–115.
Kampel, M. and Sablatnig, R. (2007). “Rule Based System for Archaeological Pottery Clas
sification.” Source Pattern Recognition Letters 28(6): 740–747.
Kempton, W. (1981). The Folk Classification of Ceramics: A Study of Cognitive Prototypes

(New York: Academic Press).
Kossina, G. (1926). Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germanen in vor- und

rühgeschichtlicher Zeit (Berlín-Lichterfelde: Irminsul/Schriften und Blätter für deutsche
Art und Kunst).
Krieger, A. D. (1944). “The Typological Concept.” American Antiquity 9(3): 271–288.
Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social: Una introducción a la Teoría del Actor-red

(Buenos Aires: Manantial).
Lemonnier, P. (1986). “The Study of Material Culture Today: Towards an Anthropology of

Technical Systems.” Journal of Anthropological Research 5: 147–186.
Page 19 of 22

tery
Lemonnier, P. (ed) (1993). Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures
since the Neolithic (London: Routledge).
Longacre, W. (1999). “Standardization and Specialization: What’s the Link?” In: Skibo, J.
and Feinman, G. (eds), Pottery and People (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press), 44–
58.
Mahias, M. C. (1993). “Pottery Techniques in India; Technical Variants and Social

Choice.” In: Lemonnier, P. (ed), Technological Choices: Transformations in Material Cul
tures since the Neolithic (London: Routledge), 157–180.
Manby, T. G. (1995). “Skeuomorphism: Some Reflections of Leather, Wood and Basketry in

Early Bronze Age Pottery.” In: Kinnes, I. and Varndell, G. (eds), Unbaked Urns of Rudely
Shape (Oxford: Oxbow), 81–88.
Orton, C., Tyers, P., and Vince, A. (1993). Pottery in Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Prieto, M. P. (1999). “Caracterización del estilo cerámico de la Edad del Bronce en Gali
cia: Cerámica campaniforme y cerámica no decorada.” Complutum 10: 71–90.
Read, D. W. (1989). “Intuitive Typology and Automatic Classification: Divergence or Full

Circle?” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 158–188.
Read, D. W. (2007). Artifact Classification: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach

(Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press).
Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press).
Rice, P. M. (1990). “Functions and Uses of Archaeological Ceramics.” In: Kingery,

(p. 199)
W. D. (ed), The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society (Westerville, OH: American Ceram
ic Society), 1–10.
Rouse, I. (1960). “The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology.” American Antiquity

25(3): 313–323.
Sackett, J. R. (1977). “The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model.” American

Antiquity 42: 369–380.
Samaniego Bordiu, B. (2013). “El esquematismo en el arte prehistórico de la Península

Ibérica.” Electronic PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.
Schiffer, M. B. and Skibo, J. M. (1987). “Theory and Experiment in the Study of Techno
logical Change.” Current Anthropology 28: 595–622.
Sheppard, A. (1971). Ceramics for the Archaeologist (Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institu
tion of Washington).
Page 20 of 22

tery
Sinopoli, C. (1991). Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics (New York: Plenum Press).
Smith, M. F. (1985). “Towards an Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel

Size and Shape to Use.” In: Nelson, B. A. (ed), Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics
(Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press), 254–309.
Spaulding, A. C. (1953). “Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types.”

American Antiquity 18(4): 305–313.
Tilley, C. (1999). Metaphor and Material Culture (Oxford: Blackwell).
Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi

ty Press).
Van Dommelen, P. (2006). “Colonial Matters: Material Culture and Postcolonial Theory in
Colonial Situations.” In: Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler, S., Rowlands, M., and Spyer, P.
(eds), Handbook of Material Culture (London: Sage), 104–124.
Vidal, A. (2011). “Para aprender no hay edad: irregularidades frecuentes en la cerámica

realizada por aprendices adultos.” In: Morgado, A., Baena, J., and García, D. (eds), La in
vestigación experimental aplicada a la Arqueología (Ronda: Universidad de Granada, Uni
versidad Complutense de Madrid, Asociación Experimenta, Ronda), 393–399.
Weigand, P. C. (1969). Modern Huichol Ceramics, Mesoamerican Studies (Carbondale, IL:

University Museum, Southern Illinois University).
Whallon, R. (1972). “A New Approach to Pottery Typology.” American Antiquity 37(1): 13–
33.
Whallon, R. and Brown, J. (eds) (1982). Essays on Archaeological Typology (Kampsville,

IL: Center for American Archaeology Press).
Whittaker, J. C., Caulkins, D., and Kamp, K. A. (1998). “Evaluating Consistency in Typolo
gy and Classification.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(2): 129–164.
Woods, A. J. (1986). “Form and Function: Some Observations of the Cooking Pot in Antiq
uity.” In: Kingery, W. D. (ed), Ceramics and Civilization (Westerville, OH: American Ceram
ic Society), 157–172.
Notes:
(1.) Although typological classifications of pottery may include technical aspects (e.g. fab
ric or forming technique), this chapter deals with the classical concept of typology; that
is, the analysis and classifications focused on vessel form, size, and decoration.
Daniel Albero Santacreu
Universitat de les Illes Balears
Page 21 of 22

tery
Manuel Calvo Trias
Jaume García Rosselló
Page 22 of 22

Santacreu 2018 - Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in The Study of Ancient Pottery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santacreu 2018 - Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in The Study of Ancient Pottery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in the Study of Ancient Pot­

Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in the

Print Publication Date: Dec 2016

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

(1) Description of pottery form.

Figure 12.1 Summary of the different levels to ap­

This chapter introduces a summarized revision of some of the theoretical–methodological

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Form Description and Classification Strategies

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Furthermore, pottery classifications might also depend on different ontologies. In this

As a counterpart to emic typologies, the classifications drawn by analysts from et­

ic perspectives, also referred to as devised classifications, have dominated research since

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Practical perspectives argue that typologies imply an interpretative process, an analytical

According to Rice (1987), although devised classifications and folk classifications

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

(p. 186) Typological-Interpretative Tools

(a) Morphotypological variability. The morphological variability of the record can be

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Figure 12.2 Isomorphic relation between the decora­

Pottery Typologies and Main Interpretative

Typologies and Chronological Frameworks

Typological seriation strategies can be considered, together with stratigraphic principles,

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Typologies and Cultural Frameworks

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Aiming at defining chronocultural typological entities, their analysis of pottery variability

Typology and Functionality

The definition of morphofunctional relationships demanded more systematic and (pre­

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

In short, this functionalist interest pretended to understand the socioeconomic

Similarly, processualist typologies considered a limited variability in any specific form as

Typology, Textual Metaphor, and Identity

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Typology and Technology: New Perspectives and Interpretative

Possibilities of Social Dynamics

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

In this interpretative context, vessels’ morphometry and typology, accepting pottery as a

(a) Analysis of Microscale Knowledge Transfer and Agency

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

(p. 193) (b) Potter’s Expertise and Social Context of Production

(c) Isomorphism and Hybridization

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Figure 12.3 Format translation related to hybridiza­

(d) Homology and Fractality

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Adams W. Y. and Adams, E. W. (1991). Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Barrett, J. C. (1994). Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain,

Binford, L. R. (1989). “Styles of Style.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 51–67.

Birmingham, J. (1975). “Traditional Potters of the Kathmandu Valley: An Ethnoarchaeo­

Bosch-Gimpera, P. (1940). “The Types and Chronology of Western European Beakers.”

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (New York: Cambridge University

Bowser, B. (2000). “From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political

Budden, S. and Sofaer, J. (2009). “Non-Discursive Knowledge and the Construction of

Castillo, A. (1928). La cultura del vaso campaniforme. Su origen y extensión en Europa

Childe, G. (1929). The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Subscriber: UC - San Diego; date: 08 October 2020

Dobres, M. (2000). Technology and Social Agency (Oxford: Blackwell).

Dunnell, R. C. (1986). “Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification.” In:

Formal Analysis and Typological Classification in the Study of Ancient Pot

Figure 12.1 Summary of the different levels to ap

As a counterpart to emic typologies, the classifications drawn by analysts from et

Figure 12.2 Isomorphic relation between the decora

The definition of morphofunctional relationships demanded more systematic and (pre

Figure 12.3 Format translation related to hybridiza

Birmingham, J. (1975). “Traditional Potters of the Kathmandu Valley: An Ethnoarchaeo

García Rosselló, J. (2010). “Análisis traceológico de la cerámica. Modelado y espacio so

Gosselain, O. (2000). “Materializing Identities: An African Perspective.” Journal of Archae

Henrickson, E. F. and McDonald, M. (1983). “Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethno

Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi