564 American Anthropologist [59, 19571

of her earlier researches in order to give play to the “intuitive gifts’’ which she believes
women possess. Whatever the motives or processes, this is her worst book.

ARCHEOLOGY
Piecing Together the Past: The Interpretation of Archaeological Data. V. GORDON
CHILDE.
New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1956. vii, 176 pp., 3 figs., 1 map. $3.95.
Reviewed by ALBERTC. SPAULDING,
University of Michigan
The author explains in his preface that “Since 1946 I have been accustomed every
alternate year to devote a course of lectures to the principles of archaeological classifi-
cation, the current terminology and the implicit interpretative concepts. The present
book is based upon these lectures.” Since current terminology, and perhaps even think-
ing, is muddled, a critical exposition is unavoidable, but Childe refuses to propose an
ideally logical system of classification and terminology because nobody would pay any
attention to it, and because an understanding of what the current terms “really” mean
will allow unambiguous communication. For these reasons, the book is basically a
series of clarifying remarks about the sensible and fruitful use of the concepts and pro-
cedures currently employed in extracting meaning from archeological data. Childe’s
productive career in this field guarantees wise discussion, so rather than trying to point
out the particular merits of the treatment of each topic, I will concentrate on termino-
logical novelties and on matters which seem to require further analysis.
Among the new or relatively unfamiliar terms, chorological classification is the plac-
ing together (on the basis of association) of archeological phenomena which are the
products of a single society over a limited period of time. Material culture consists of
“all reasonably efficient means for the attainment of attainable social ends,” but the
relics and monuments resulting from ritual, sportive, or artistic activities are spiritzla2
cuhre, which removes an Egyptian pyramid from the category of material culture.
This usage seems to violate the meaning of the term “material.” Childe’s purpose is to
divide artifacts into two classes on the basis of whether or not a function may reason-
ably be inferred. However, his terminology is more appropriate to the orientation of
the behavior involved in the production and use of the artifact than to the artifact it-
self. Elornotaxial assemblages occupy the same relative positions in “parallel typological
or stratigraphic sequences,” and phenomena exhibiting the same stage in an evolution-
ary series are systadial. Although Childe expects no change in practice, he would like
to combine the current Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic as the Miolithic, because of es-
sential similarity ol culture type.
There is a strong emphasis on trait presence or absence methods (the “type fossil”
concept) in the discussions of relative chronology and discrimination of cultural enti-
ties. Thus the technique ordinarily called “seriation” in America is described primarily
in terms of tripartition, the ordering of assemblages into an ABCD, CDEF, EFGH
arrangement. Childe does not deny the validity of quantitive seriation, although he does
state flatly that statistical methods are useless for assigning a relative date to an un-
excavated site. If he is correct, a considerable amount of American work will have to be
consigned to the wastebasket. Further, if the archeologist is forced into comparisons of
relative frequencies, it is necessary to have a t least five hundred specimens divided into
ten to forty types for reliable results. These arbitrary requirements and the “graver
theoretical and practical obstacles” described indicate that Childe has a limited under-
standing of the nature of statistics. Indeed, some of the supposed difficulties attributed
to statistical operations (for example, necessity for assemblages of comparable char-
acter and consistency in classification) are equally characteristic of comparative work
 Book Reviews 565
by any method; the basic point is rather that statistical manipulation will not convert
bad information into good, or create certainty in an inherently uncertain situation. A
clear example of Childe’s methodological limitation is his suggestion that it should be
possible to devise some mathematical technique to measure the validity of association
in a small sample. The rapidly growing literature on this subject seems to have escaped
his attention, and I suspect that he has never consulted a statistician about this or any
other statistical problem. The probable explanation is easy to find; Childe, in common
with most other archeologists, has been working on problems which are solvable without
the aid of formal statistical analysis, and in addition he has a laudable distaste for
overly elaborate methods. Statistical operations are not needed to point out significant
differences between a Lower and an Upper Paleolithic assemblage or between a British
and an eastern Mediterranean community of the third millennium B.C., but the differ-
ence between two British communities only slightly separated in time and space is of a
different order. I n the latter case, slight but real quantitative distinctions may be the
only possible method of discrimination, and formal statistical procedures are the appro-
priate tools. Such problems are certain to become more obtrusive as archeology pro-
gresses, and the subject of quantitative research methods deserves a more systematic
and knowledgeable discussion.
In the historical section and in the chapter dealing with the archeological period
concept, Childe describes the confusion wrought particularly by naive assumptions of
simultaneous shifts of culture types over wide areas. As a partial corrective for this
difficulty, it is suggested that the term “Stage” be substituted for “Age” in the case of
the grand divisions of Old World prehistory, thus giving Stone, Bronze (better ‘Taleo-
metallic”), and Iron Stages. Classification of a given assemblage as Bronze Stage would
imply that it exhibits a t least some evidence of copper or bronze working and that it is
intermediate in time between the local Stone and Iron Stages; it would not imply that
it was absolutely earlier than iron working cultures in other regions. Subdivisions of
larger culture periods should not be labeled with names of cultures, because the time
spans of cultures frequently overlap even in fairly restricted regions. His recommended
solution is the use of geographically qualified numbers to designate chronological periods
and their subdivisions. Childe’s suggestions and comments go a long way toward clear-
ing up nomenclatural confusion, but they do not seem to be altogether free from am-
biguity. His discussion does not reveal the dimensions of cultural-chronological classifi-
cation in a systematic fashion, and the result is not as useful as one might legitimately
hope. There is no forthright explanation of the necessity for employing unique archeo-
logical events as boundaries for periods in order to ensure one principle of chronological
division. This might serve to distinguish between the terminological confusion that
arises from the use of multiple criteria as against the healthy uncertainty resulting
from insufficient evidence. This deficiency is the more disappointing because a careful
reading indicates that Childe is not himself confused; the difficulty is entirely on the
level of exposition.

Ceramics for the Archaeologist. ANNA 0. SHEPARD. Washington, D. C. : Carnegie Insti-

tution of Washington (Publication 609), 1956. xii, 414 pp., 59 illustrations, l l
tables, appendices. $6.75 paper bound. $7.75 cloth bound.
w. MEIGfIAN, U&versity of California, Los ABgeles
Reviewed by CLEMENT
Nearly all archeologists must deal with problems of describing and interpreting pot-
tery, but most of us are handicapped by lack of technical training in ceramics and by
various errors and oversimplifications that have appeared in archeological writing.