Are Emic Types Relevant To Archaeology PDF

Are Emic Types Relevant to Archaeology?
Author(s): Brian Hayden

Source: Ethnohistory, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 79-92
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/482057
Accessed: 09-08-2017 19:19 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Ethnohistory
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 09 Aug 2017 19:19:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ETHNOHISTORY 31(2):79-92 (1984) HAYDEN
ARE EMIC TYPES RELEVANT TO ARCHAEOLOGY?
Brian Hayden Simon Fraser University
Abstract
One class of cautionary tales which have been generated by ethno-archaeological

studies deals with the lack of correspondence between emic and etic artifact types
and concludes that archaeological types are not meaningful. This paper examines
the purpose of classifications versus typology, expanding on Krieger's distinctions.
From this perspective, it must be concluded that both native groups and
archaeologists have specific and often varied reasons for grouping objects. The
reasons archaeologists are interested in grouping objects may correspond in whole
or in part to native reasons or they may not correspond at all. Where native and
archaeological interests overlap, archaeologists stand to increase their understanding
by studying native typologies. Where there is little or no overlap, archaeologists
stand to gain little.
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to examine the way in which indigenous

taxonomies relate to archaeological typologies. While most of the examples
used to illustrate the major arguments concern lithic tools, the points made
will also apply to ceramics and tools constructed from other materials.
Unfortunately, taxonomy usually lacks the direct relevance and the intellec-
tual excitement often engendered by higher levels of theory work, such as
evolutionary theory. In fact, most archaeologists probably consider taxonomy
as one of the most pedestrian realms that they can deal with, being far
removed from the questions that they would really like to answer. Neverthe-
less, taxonomy is the foundation upon which all other archaeological
interpretations and theory work must eventually come to rest. Without
taxonomy, no analysis is possible. It therefore occupies a very important and
central place in all archaeological work.
Before discussing the relationship of indigenous to archaeological taxono-
mies, several terms need to be defined. A brief review of the history of
typology in archaeology will also provide important background for arguments
which will subsequently be made concerning indigenous and archaeological
typologies.
Definitions
Classification: While there is no clear distinction in many articles between

classification and typology, a useful starting point is Krieger's (1944) lead in
this matter. Krieger essentially argued that most of the classification systems
for dealing with artifacts in the 1940s were systems of convenience:
The ultimate purpose of such systems is either stated or presumed to be one or
more of the following:
80 BRIAN HAYDEN
(1) to standardize comparison of specimens over wide areas,

(2) to save time in sorting, tabulating, and describing masses of material,
(3) to provide convenient reference forms and terms to expedite field reco
surveys, and cataloging. (1944: 275)
Thus, classification refers to virtually any system used for grouping

together. Such systems do not pretend to relate artifact categories to
of their makers, users, or any other problem of evolutionary or anth
cal importance (although they may). Good examples of classification are
provided by museum collections of the 18th and early 19th centuries, which
were organized according to such varied criteria as size of artifacts, aesthetic
compatibility of artifacts, country or regional location of donors, and the
social status of donors, among others.
Typology and taxonomy: In contrast to classification, which according to
Krieger (1944: 277) was not necessarily relevant to the discovery of meaning in
the works of man, typology was specifically oriented to discovering "the true
historical meaning of the myriad works of man." Because of the then-current
emphasis on placing cultures in historical and spatially grouped contexts,
Krieger viewed the goal of typology as pertaining especially to categorizing
artifacts so that they had culture-historical relevance. In more contemporary
terms, it is possible to view "the true historical meaning" of the works of man
in a much broader fashion so as to encompass aspects of culture reconstruc-
tion and culture process. Thus, typology should properly refer to systems of
categorization which purport to, or at least aim to, reveal something about the
nature of human behavior in relation to artifacts, whether this information is
by nature evolutionary, functional, technological, temporal, social, or other. In
short, typologies aim to classify objects in order to solve anthropological
problems. Taylor (1948: 127) with Hill and Evans (1972) and others have
argued this point even more forcefully. Krieger (1944: 278) emphasized that
the typological method "respresents an attitude toward the archaeological
analysis which is almost diametrically opposed to that of the classification
method."
Because taxonomy has been used in biology and zoology almost exlusively
to refer to typologies oriented to elucidated historical relationships between
units of study, the term "taxonomy" might best be reserved for typologies with
similar goals in archaeology.
Emic: refers to the way indigenous groups classify objects or behavior which
they use. It is basically what might be termed an "ethnographic" classification
(Harris 1968 571).
Etic: refers to the way "scientists" (in this case, archaeologists) classify
objects or behavior to resolve specific problems, or find out specific types of
information (ibid).
A Short History of Typology in Archaeology
Prior to 1836, most archaeological objects were sorted according to various

museum schemes using criteria such as size, and origin of donors. There was
no real typology in use. In 1836, however, an extremely important change
Emic Types to Archaeology 81
occurred: Christian Thomsen reordered the artifact collections of the National

Museum in Copenhagen according to material types: stone, bronze, and iron.
In doing so, he realized that such a classification could be used to date
relatively the artifacts, the deposits in which they occurred, and the cultures
that produced them. In the overall development of archaeology, this was the
first typology. With the recognition that artifacts and deposits could be dated
came the realization that with careful work it was potentially possible to
establish a cultural-historical framework for all of man's history throughout
the entire world. This was archaeology's first task. It was not only fundamen-
tal, for without it no inferences about cultural evolution could be made, but it
was also enormous (Willey and Sabloff 1974: 42, 88). The task was of such
magnitude that it quite literally consumed all of the energy, resources, and
efforts of archaeologists throughout the world for the next 100 years. Reliably
establishing contemporaneity between various types of cultures separated
initially by considerable distances proved to be especially problematical. Thus
all typologies during this period were oriented towards the problem of defining
the temporal and cultural affinities of objects and deposits.
Unfortunately, at some point in the elaboration of the world cultural-
historical framework, it seems that archaeologists largely forgot why typologies
were created. Instead of typologies being taught as tools for solving specific
problems, they often became deified classifications. That is, they took on an
existence of their own and were passed on from one generation of archaeolo-
gists to another in an unquestioning format or often reformulated for
pedestrian purposes as was typical of Krieger's generation. Certainly, up until
the 1950s and even into the 1960s, archaeologists were being taught how to
identify "types" without ever being told why those types were created, or what
was supposed to be done with those types aside from reporting them in
reports. There were undoubtedly some exceptions to this situation, but this
attitude tended to characterize the discipline of archaeology for at least the
first half of this century. An excellent anecdote of this medieval, monastic,
scholastic type of training is provided by Binford (1972: 3-5), and it certainly
characterized my own early training in archaeology. Typologies had no rhyme
or reason; they just existed and had to be learned.
Typical of the medieval, scholastic arguments that went on at the end of this
period were the arguments between Spaulding and Ford. Spaulding (1953,
1954) argued that types represented ideas in the heads of the people who made
them, while Ford (1954a, 1954b) argued that types were completely arbitrary
constructs of the archaeologist useful for situating sites in time. No one was
willing even to talk about how many ideas might dance simultaneously in the
head of a man, which it turns out, would have been a far more meaningful
argument. Ford and Spaulding's arguments were really not very useful since
both men had forgotten that typologies were created for solving specific
problems. In effect, Spaulding and Ford were each talking about different
problems, both of which were useful.
This situation and these arguments might have gone on indefinitely but for
two important developments. The first development was the advent in the
early 1950s of radiocarbon dating. This new technique revolutionized archaeol-
ogy. It made the task of determining the relative age of deposits infinitely
82 BRIAN HAYDEN
easier than had previously been the case, and in effect it liberated an
part of archaeologists' time, resources, and efforts. For the first time
archaeologists found themselves in a position to ask systematically more
substantial questions of their data than the chronological queries prevalent
until then. They began to address questions concerning the reasons for cultural
evolution, the functions of artifacts, and the precise nature of social and
political systems of past cultures.
The second development was that by around 1950, prehistorians in some
parts of the world had carried out enough research that their knowledge of
specific local sequences was relatively complete. The Pecos conferences helped
establish such culture-histories for the southwestern United States. In these
areas, it was also possible to go on to ask other questions of the archaeologi-
cal record-an approach advocated by Taylor (1948) and Kluckhohn (1940)
just prior to the advent of radiocarbon dating. As a result of both of these
developments, archaeologists began to rediscover the fact that types were
created for specific purposes (e.g. Hill and Evans 1972). Clearly, to deal with
the new areas of inquiry to which archaeologists now began to turn their
attention (artifact use, trade, socio-political organizations, evolution, and
others), typologies formulated to deal with culture-historical problems were
not necessarily going to be very useful. Because most people had forgotten,
however, that existing archaeological types were formulated specifically for
answering culture-historical problems, this fact was not at first generally
recognized.
The major point of this short history is that there is no universal typology.
Typologies are devised to deal with specific problems (see Hill and Evans
1972). Typologies can be devised to resolve problems of temporal relation-
ships, cultural affiliation, and tool use; to identify individual manufacturing
styles (Hill and Gunn 1977); to identify community styles, trade, and
technological processes; to estimate interaction between communities or
community groups; to monitor recyclying and status differences; to help
interpret religious structures and beliefs; to distinguish between egalitarian
(symmetrical) versus hierarchical (asymmetrical) social organizations; or to
deal with any other specific interpretational problems of interest to archaeolo-
gists.
If types can be related to so many different areas of inquiry, it may be asked
how typologies can be evaluated. First, typology is a level of theory work,
albeit a low level, and like any theory can be evaluated using a range of
parameters (Meehan 1968: 97-121). These include: i) testability, ii) parsimony,
iii) number of observations that fit or do not fit derivative hypotheses, iv)
number of different types of data accounted for or conflicting with derivative
hypotheses, v) compatibility with generally accepted theories, vi) internal
consistency, vii) power, and viii) scope. Justeson (1973) has also argued that
typologies should exhibit certain statistical characteristics which can be used to
evaluate their usefulness. But most importantly, typologies can be compared
and evaluated in terms of how well they work, that is, how well they answer
the specific questions for which they were designed. For instance, Ritchie and
MacNeish's (1949) Iroquoian typology, like Ford's typologies, was designed to
place assemblages in a relative chronogical sequence. Whallon (1972) has
recently shown that MacNeish's typology was remarkably successful as

demonstrated by recent radiocarbon dates. In setting up typologies, cross-
checks such as this should be used whenever possible, and variables used in
formulating types should be as directly relevant to the original problem as
possible. In short, typologies should tell you what you want to know. It
should be emphasized that one typology cannot be said to be better than
another simply because it has more types-a claim that has been made to me
on at least one occasion by an archaeologist.
Ethnographic Classification
Before discussing the relationship of emic to etic types, there are a number
of important aspects of emic taxonomy which need to be made clear.
1. Anthropologists do not know under what specific conditions elaboration
of categories takes place in languages; nor have they ever begun to address this
question.' Nevertheless it seems probable that the more frequently used or the
more important a material, artifact, or behavior is to an individual's livelihood
the more specialized the terms will be which refer to that aspect, and the more
specialized the tools will be as well. An example of this is the detailed
elaboration of terms for minerals used in ceramic production by fulltime
indigenous potters in the Yucatan (Arnold 1971).
The development of more complex categories as a function of frequency of
material use can probably be derived from general concepts of efficiency such
as employed by Zipf (1949), where it is easier and more efficient to have a
separate name for frequently referred to tools or characteristics rather than
having to describe them in detail each time when communicating with others.
Thus, the Eskimo have nearly 60 terms for different types of snow and ice,
while urban Canadians have only two or three; and full-time Tzeltal potters in
Amatenango have many more pottery terms and many more pottery making
tools than their part-time pottery making cousins of Chanal and Aguacate-
nango (Deal, n.d.); and cattle ranchers on the Great Plains have even more
terms for grass and grass characteristics than the number of terms the Eskimo
have for snow (Frison 1978:8).
Whatever the precise conditions of category elaboration eventually turn out
to be, it is difficult to quantify many of the independent variables (e.g.,
"importance" of materials and behavior) which one might expect to lead to
specialized terminologies. One would expect there to- be a relatively loose
correspondence between variables representing such conditions and the
number of terms relating to specific types of artifacts or behavior. For
instance, why are there not separate terms for the small ceramic collanders
used for making ritual atole versus the large collanders used for washing
tortilla maize (see Table I)? These types of questions are difficult to answer.
2. Related to the first point is the fact that when elaboration of emic artifact
categories occurs, the principles which determine those specific aspects of the
artifacts to be singled out for special emic terminology are not known. Again
it can be suggested that the aspects of the artifacts which will receive special
names should be related to the function of the artifact. This proves, however,
Table 1.
Comparison of Emic Pottery Terms from Chanal with Uses and
Chanal Emic classification with

Spanish terms () Use Archaeological functio
kib (cantaro) water carrying
tenosha (tenaja) water or dry storage jars
oxom (olla) cooking vessel for boiling plant food

i
chikbin (jarro) vessel for boiling liquids (e.g., tea, coffee)
s
chixnajab'il (pichacha) strainer for maize paste (in making atole) s
chixnajab'il (pichacha) washing strainer for whole treated maize kel
borcelana (cajete) serving bowls of high quality used for specg
apaxtle (apastli) bowls for holding water for washing or eatm
s
setz (cazuela) coarse ware bowl for domestic meals and dr s
poket (apastli) large brewing and mixing bowl, or medium u
w
chalten (sarten) frying bowl
chik'pom (incensario) incense burner

samet (comal) tortilla griddle
to be a rather nebulous concept when attempts are made to use it. For
instance, the function of some artifacts is to obtain food or make other tools,
while the function of other artifacts is to regulate social interactions, and the
function of still others is to represent ideological or belief systems (the
technomic, socio-technic, and ideo-technic artifact types of Binford 1962).
Unfortunately, such functions are not always separate and sometimes individ-
ual artifacts operate in two or more of these realms at the same time. Artifacts
are multidimensional in terms of meaning (Binford 1972: 199-200; Linton
1936: 402). Our research concerning artifacts in contemporary Maya house-
holds demonstrates this point in detail. Trying to test the proposition that the
aspects of artifacts for which individuals choose to develop specialized terms
are related to the principal function of the artifacts is also fraught with
problems of quantification and measurement, especially concerning the identifi-
cation of function, or functions of artifacts. Again, this question as it concerns
tools has never been addressed, much less solved by anthropologists.
3. Another important aspect of emic categories is that they may vary within
communities according to specific roles of individuals. For instance, full-time
manufacturers may have elaborate categories for their products and their
parts. On the other hand, traders and merchants may have very different
concerns and may emphasize very different attributes in their terminology,
such as size, weight, decoration, and aspects related to selling and transport.
Generalized users of these same objects may be only interested in their overall
functional classification, while specialized users may have elaborate distinc-
tions for the same objects. Finally, persons interested in recycling the objects
may have an entirely different typological system for dealing with the same
objects. For example, contemporary recycling plants sort all glass bottles by
color. Thus it seems that as in archaeology, there are many emic classifications
of the same objects, which vary according to the purpose for which specific
individuals are interested in artifact classes. Unfortunately, as argued in the
preceding paragraph, only a very vague notion as to the concerns that lead
individuals to elaborate specialized names for specific artifacts or parts thereof
is known.
4. People are often, if not generally, unconscious of the rules they use in
their behavior, and furthermore they are generally unable to describe their
behavior in terms of rules or to give reasons for their behavior. This does not
necessarily refer to obvious behavioral aspects such as eating, building houses,
or sleeping; but rather it refers to the subtle details of behavior, tool
manufacturing, and tool use. While this statement may seem unusual to some,
it is really no different from the often-heard assertion of linguists that most
individuals who have not had formal schooling (and even many who have!)
are incapable of articulating the rules of grammar which they use in speaking
every day. In English, there are very few people who are even aware that there
is a fricative and non-fricative form of "th," or that there is an aspirated and
un-aspirated form of "p." Thus, it should come as no surprise that most
individuals in traditional communities have difficulty in dealing with ethno-
graphers' questions as to why they use intermediate punches in flaking stone,
or why some pottery forms are better than others, or similar questions.
86 BRIAN HAYDEN
5. A final important aspect of emic categories to this discussion

learning in traditional, pre-industrial societies is acquired by imita
skills are acquired via a non-verbal transfer of rules and pro
result, not many specialized terms refer to tools or tool use exc
special circumstances, such as high degrees of community specia
craft manufacturing.
The main point of all the above is that archaeologists have specif
(or ranges of problems) that they want to answer, and that eth
groups have specific concerns which lead to the elaboration o
terms for artifacts or parts of artifacts. Anthropologists d
understand why emic terms are elaborated, nor how they va
communities, although they possess reasonable (but vague) id
subject. Most importantly, emic concerns may be very differen
problems that archaeologists want to answer. In fact, archaeologis
interested in problems which ethnic groups find minimally intere
which one should not expect to find any special terms. For instan
emic point of view, it could be said that archaeologists have bee
obsessed with small stylistic changes over time and from region
Most traditional people do not view such changes as important to
if indeed they are aware of them at all.
Thus, emic categories may provide no useful contribution to arc
typologies, a point which Binford (1967) also argued. On the
where there is some overlap in concern between the archaeo
traditional communities, emic categories may provide limited in
attributes of importance for answering archaeological questions
possible that emic categories have evolved due to factors of conce
similar to those that an archaeologist is interested in dealing wi
those related to function. In this case, archaeologists may derive
benefit from studying emic classifications, providing they are
elaborated. At this point, however, there is no a priori way to de
closely the emic and the etic will correspond either in their overal
in their level of elaboration. Some guesses can be made based
propositions enumerated at the beginning of this section (e.g. sp
have more elaborate artifact categories which should relate t
function of their products), but these remain to be confirmed by
studies.
Examples of Using Emic Types for Etic Purposes
Archaeologists have sometimes been unaware of the fact that emic catego-
ries do not necessarily bear any relation to archaeological types. In this
section, one example of such a misapplication will be presented, as well as
examples of situations in which emic categories do not entirely coincide with
archaeological concerns but may aid in resolving problems, and a case where
emic categories correspond fairly closely to types in which archaeologists were
interested.
1. Major disconformity between emic and archaeological types.

In a widely read "cautionary tale," Heider (1967) admonishes archaeologists
for creating meaningless types. In order to demonstrate his point, he confronts
archaeologists with a number of facts from the New Guinea Highlands. First,
he notes that the Dani do not recognize ground stone celts as coming from
different villages, even though these are made of different materials and
sometimes have different cross-sections and shapes. Thus, he argues that
archaeological types based on overall shape and celt cross-sections are
meaningless. Whether the Dani, even when questioned closely, can or cannot
recognize these stylistic celt variants is really irrelevant to the archaeological
question. The only question worth asking is whether celt form and cross-
section can help archaeologists in the problems that they are addressing. If the
problem concerns identifying the village or region of celt manufacture, and if
the overall form and cross-section of celts can accurately indicate this
information (as Heider admits it can), then the etic types are perfectly sound.
In this case, Heider makes the unjustified normative assumption that archaeo-
logical types somehow should reflect conscious ideals of traditional popula-
tions-an assumption also shared by Chang (1967).
In his second argument, he shows that celts which would be classified as
axes and adzes by archaeologists are in reality used interchangeably in adze
and axe haftings by the Dani. Heider therefore concludes that the archaeologi-
cal types of "axe" and "adze" are meaningless. Again, he is apparently
unaware that "axe" and "adze," like "scraper," "burin," and many other stone
tool terms are primarily morphological types, even though they have names
which imply specific uses-a situation bemoaned by many archaeologists, but
one that nevertheless exists (e.g., Hayden 1977; Kamminga 1978:9). Since
"morphological" typologies are intended to be used in solving culture-historical
problems (Bordes 1969), these shape distinctions (adze versus axe) may be very
appropriate types for delineating cultural and/or trading spheres. Heider has
certainly not demonstrated that they are not useful in this respect. If
determining function had been the purpose for creating the archaeological
types referred to as "axe" and "adze" most archaeologists would have included
other important attributes such as use-wear and edge forms. Moreover, Heider
has not even demonstrated that axes were used in adze hafts (and vice versa)
for any significant part of their use-lives. If the basis of his "cautionary tale"
was an occasional hafting of an axe blade in an adze haft due to temporary
lack of the appropriate blade, his cautionary tale can be ignored entirely. Thus
in respect to the questions archaeologists usually ask concerning axes and
adzes, Dani emic categories are of little if any use.
2. Limited correspondence between emic categories and archaeological types.
There are two useful examples where emic categories provide limited
information for archaeologists working on specific problems, and where the
emic concerns partially overlap with archaeological concerns.
The first example comes from the Guatemalan Highlands where chipped
stone tools are still used to manufacture metates and manos by full-time
specialists (Hayden and Nelson 1981). In this situation, there are three distinct
phases in the manufacturing process: 1) estillar (roughing out), 2) delgacer
88 BRIAN HAYDEN
(thinning), and 3) affinar (smoothing or finishing). While each

processes is referred to by a separate term and while there are
differences in the weight and form of the chipped stone tools used
these phases, there is no distinctive name for the various tool types.
one wishes to refer to a tool used in a specific process, one must des
use context of the tool (e.g. piedra para estillar, piedra para delgacer
in some cases the weight and size differences that exist between them
to refer to categories of tools (piedra de dos kilos, piedra de dos man
Clearly, while the emic terms are related to the archaeological goal of
identifying function, there is no special functional term for the various stone
tools used. One can, however, derive useful information from the associated
emic terms for manufacturing stages and from various descriptive terms.
The second example comes from the Australian Western Desert, where
Aborigines have only two basic terms for tools: tjimari, tools for cutting meat
and skin, and purpunpa, tools for shaving and working wood (see Gould,
Koster, and Sontz 1971; Hayden 1976, 1977, 1979). This simplified functional
typology encompasses many types which are widely used in the archaeological
literature. Tjimari can take the form of unmodified flakes, utilized flakes, or
scrapers, and on rare occasions denticulates; purpunpa can take the same
forms as well as the adze slugs with a distinctive morphology, notches, and
denticulates. As Binford (1979: 268-72), has pointed out, the precise use-
contexts of many of these variants (and therefore the precise use) is probably
very distinctive. If individuals are near quarries they may use predominantly
unretouched flakes, rather than adzes for scraping wood; notches may be used
particularly for tasks such as sharpening spear tips or smoothing spear shafts;
adzes may be used predominantly for heavy woodworking when no large
chopping materials are available (see Hayden 1979). Thus, while the aboriginal
categories of tjimari and purpunpa help archaeologists interested in dealing
with the problem of the relation of gross morphology to the function of stone
tools (at least concerning objects used on wood versus objects on meat and
skin), the level of specialization in terminology is very different. Aborigines
only minimally express why some morphological categories are used in some
instances and other categories are used in other instances. In addition some of
these categories seem to be purely stylistic variants (e.g. notches, denticulates,
and burins), varying only according to tradition and the specific characteristics
of the flake at hand. The very simplified stone tool typology of the Western
Desert Aborigines may well be due to the fact that use of stone tools is
generally intermittent. Aborigines are not fulltime specialists constantly manu-
facturing stone tools, nor is it likely that any prehistoric hunter/gatherers
were. Clearly, the contribution of emic categories to formulating useful
archaeological functional types is limited, but nevertheless of some value in
this case.
3. Close correspondence between emic and archaeological concerns.

A relatively good example of close correspondence between emic categories
and archaeological goals can be observed in the case of names for ceramic
vessels in the Tzeltal Maya community of Chanal. Here, vessels are used
numerous times daily and each household has a relatively wide variety of
vessel types used for different purposes (Table 1). From the definitions of these
types by the inhabitants of Chanal, it is evident that the primary reason for
having specialized names for ceramic vessels is to identify vessels used for
different functions or in different social contexts. These have important shape,
size, and paste characteristics which reflect their function. Decorated or
painted vessels are not generally distinguished from plainware vessels in emic
terms although such distinctions are made in the specialized pottery-making
center of Amatenango. Emic functional categories such as those of Chanal can
help archaeologists enormously when archaeologists are interested in dealing
with functional problems in their assemblages. This approach is especially
useful in cases where it is appropriate to use the direct historical approach
(Baerreis 1961; Steward 1942). On the other hand, if an archaeologist's
primary concern is to establish cultural-historical groupings, such emic
categories would be of limited, or perhaps no, use. One other example of a
situation in which emic taxons coincide with categories of archaeological
interest is the identification of different minerals used by full-time Maya
potters (Arnold 1971).
Conclusions
In formulating all typologies, it is essential for individuals first to ask what

the problem is with which they intend to deal. Once this has been ascertaine
and keeping it firmly and fixedly in mind, the next step is to seek artifac
characteristics which are best suited to solving that particular problem. For
instance, if the goal is to identify how stone tools were used, the following
attributes will be among those of most use: edge angle, weight, size, edge wear
context. In contrast, if one's main problem is cultural-historical, the followin
characteristics may be among those of most use: overall shape, platform type
type of edge retouch, reduction technology, and possibly flaking patterns.
If archaeologists have reason to believe that some emic categories may be
relevant to dealing with specific problems then archaeologists can consult th
literature or traditional individuals in order to see if useful insights will
emerge. It should never be assumed in advance, however, that such consulta-
tion will fully provide the answers being sought. At best, they constitute on
source of ideas, albeit a good one. Moreover it should never be assumed that
particular individuals are capable of describing their own behavior in terms o
rules or "reasons for" specific behavior. Archaeologists will be lucky if the
can encounter individuals fully cognizant of such rules.
Up to this point, the discussion has centered almost exclusively on the
relevance of formal emic categories to archaeological typologies. It should be
emphasized that in many cases, no formal categories exist, but that sometime
individuals can nevertheless provide a surprising amount of detail in simple
descriptive terms if questions are posed in an appropriate fashion. For
instance, one of the more recent archaeological concerns has been to identify
products of individual craftsmen. In ethno-archaeological work, individual
potters can be questioned directly as to how they can recognize pots made by
other individuals. They have used a large range of indicators which most
archaeologists generally would not think of, including: overall shape, wall
90 BRIAN HAYDEN
thickness, fineness or ground temper, finesse in modelling shap

section shape, length of necks, ratio of mouth diameter to maxim
degree of burnishing, size of punched holes, base formation, rim
other rim characteristics, and decoration in the form of adorno
incising on the rim. It should also be mentioned, however, that s
stated they could not tell who had made specific pots on the basi
any other characteristics. This was particularly true of potters w
specialists, but made pots only for their own use, as in Chanal.
In attempting to formulate typologies to deal with specific prob
identifying those attributes of artifacts which are most importan
with specific problems, emic categories and descriptions or other
provided by ethno-archaeological research can be of tremendous utility.
However, such an approach must be used with care. Moreover, ideally, ethno-
archaeological information should be supplemented and balanced by experi-
mental and replicative insights and information, as well as by approaches used
previously by archaeologists to solve specific problems and which have
demonstrated their usefulness. But above all, it is essential to use common
sense in dealing with problems and formulating types to help answer
questions. It is essential to avoid blindly and mechanically following proce-
dures and techniques used by others, for this leads only to sterile scholasti-
cism.
Acknowledgments
The Coxoh Ethno-Archaeological Project upon which much of this article is based
was carried out with the financial support of the Canadian Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council, the Canada Council, and the Brigham Young University
New World Archaeological Foundation. I would like to express special gratitude to all
the cooperating officials of Mexico and Guatemala, including Martha Turok (Anthropol-
ogist, INI), Felix Baez-Jorge (Jefe, INI), Jaime Litvak-King and Carlos Navarette
(UNAM), Luis Lujan Munos (Director, IAH), Jose Castaneda M. (Director, INI), and
the Gobernador of Huehuetenango.
The very generous financial support and organizational talents of Dr. Jaime Litvak-
King (Director, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, UNAM), Dolores Soto de
Arechavaleta (Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, UNAM), Rafael Abascal
(Director, Centro Regional de Hidalgo, INAH), Margarita Gaxiola (Centro Regional de
Hidalgo, INAH), and John Clark (New World Archaeological Foundation) were all
essential. I very much appreciated all their efforts.
I owe my very deepest gratitude to those individuals who aided in interpreting during
the Coxoh project, in Chanal: Gilberto Gomez Hernandez (Chavin), Juan Gomez Lopez
(Chavin); in Aguacatenango: Jose Perez Hernandez (First Regidor), Augustin Hernan-
dez Espinosa (Comiseriado Ejidal), Carmen Hernandez Jiron (Policia), Juan Aguilar
Hernandez, Aucensio Juroz Aguilar (Second Juez), Francisco Vasquez Hernandez
(Agente Municipal), Feliz Juarez Perez (Suplente), Hernandez Vasquez (First Juez); in
Cancuc: Antonio Perez Santis (Mekat), Esteban Santex Cruz (Pin), Lorenzo the Agente;
in Bajucu: Antonio Mendez Santez (ex-presidente municipal); in Napite: Hermalindo
Jimenez; in San Mateo: Xun Xantex.
I would especially like to thank all those individuals who received us in their homes
and extended to us their hospitality and cooperation. Project members included: Mike
Blake, Susan Blake, Mike Deal, Jane Deal, Ben and Peggy Nelson, Gayel Horsfall, Geof
and Joanna Spurling, Cathy Starr, Olivier De Montmollin, Brian and Huguette Hayden,
Russell Brulotte, Paula Luciw, Roxane Shaughnessey, and Margot Chapman.
Thomas Lee Jr., and Gareth Lowe and John Clark of the New World Archaeological
Foundation were especially encouraging in the formulation of the project.
Notes
1. It is true that Berlin and Kay (1969) have dealt with the evolution of color
classifications. However, this is the only example of such theoretical work with
which I am familiar with and it clearly is not directly applicable to the
classification of material items.
References
Arnold, Dean
1971 "Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan Potters: Etics and Emics." American
Antiquity 36: 20-40.
Baerreis, David A.
1961 "The Enthnohistoric Approach and Archaeology." Ethnohistory 8: 49-77.
Berlin, Brent and P. Kay
1969 Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. University of California
Press: Berkeley.
Binford, Lewis
1962 "Archaeology as Anthropology." American Antiquity 28: 217-225.
1967 Review of K. C. Chang's, Rethinking Archaeology. Ethnohistory 15: 422-426.
1972 An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press: New York.
1979 "Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies."
Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 255-273.
Bordes, F.
1969 "Reflections on Typology and Technology in the Paleolithic." Arctic Anthropol
ogy 6: 1-29.
Clarke, David (ed).
1972 Models in Archaeology. Methuen: London.
Chang, Kwang-chih
1967 "Major Aspects of the Interrelationship of Archaeology and Ethnology."
Current Anthropology 8: 227-243.
Deal, Michael
n.d. Ceramic Systems of the Contemporary Tzeltal Maya: An Ethno-Archaeological
Study. Ph.D. dissertation in preparation: Archaeology Dept., Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, B.C.
Ford, James.
1954a "Spaulding's Review of Ford." American Anthropologist 56: 109-114.
1954b "On the Concept of Types: the Type Concept Revisited." American Anthropol-
ogist 56: 42-57.
Frison, George
1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press: New York.
Gould, Richard A., D.A. Koster, and A. H. L. Sontz
1971 "The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia."
American Antiquity 36: 149-169.
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Crowell: New York.
Hay, C. L. et al.
1940 The Maya and Their Neighbors. University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City.
Hayden, Brian
1976 Australian Western Desert Lithic Technology: An Ethno-Archaeological Study
of Variability in Material Culture. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Toronto:
Toronto.
92 BRIAN HAYDEN
1977 "Stone Tool Functions in the Western Desert." In: R.V.S. Wrigh
tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity. A
Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra. Pp. 177-188.
1979 Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavations
among Australian Aborigines. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies:
Canberra.
Hayden, Brian and Margaret Nelson
1981 "The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contemporary Maya Highlands."
American Antiquity 46: 885-898.
Heider, Karl
1967 "Archaeological Assumptions and Ethnographical Facts." Southwestern Jour
nal of Anthropology 23: 52-64.
Hill, J., and R. Evans
1972 "A Model for Classification and Typology." In: David Clarke (ed). Models in
Archaeology. Methuen: London. Pp. 231-273.
Hill, James and Joel Gunn
1977 The Individual in Prehistory. Academic Press: New York.
Justeson, John
1973 "Limitations of Archaeological Inference: An Information-theoretic Approach
with Applications in Methodology." American Antiquity 38: 131-149.
Kamminga, Johan
1978 Journey into the Microcosms: A Functional Analysis of Certain Classes of
Prehistoric Australian Stone Tools. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Sydney:
Australia.
Kluckhohn, Clyde
1940 "The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies." In: C L. Hay et al.
The Maya and their Neighbors. University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City. Pp.
41-51.
Krieger, Alex
1944 "The Typological Concept." American Antiquity 9: 271-288.
Linton, Ralph
1936 The Study of Man: An Introduction. Appleton-Century-Crofts: USA.
Meehan, Eugene
1968 Explanation in Social Science. Dorsey Press: Homewood, III.
Ritchie, William and Richard MacNeish
1949 "The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State." American Antiquity 15: 97-
124.
Spaulding, Albert
1953 "Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types." American Antiq-
uity. 18: 305-313.
1954 "Reply to Ford." American Antiquity 19: 391-3.
Steward, Julian
1942 "The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology." American Antiquity 7: 337-
343.
Taylor, Walter
1948 (1964 reprint) A study of Archaeology. Southern Illinois University Press:
Carbondale. Pp. 95-110.
Whallon, Robert
1972 "A New Approach to Pottery Typology." American Antiquity 37: 13-33.
Willey, Gordon and Jeremy Sabloff
1974 A History of American Archaeology. W. H. Freeman & Co.: San Francisco.
Zipf, G. K.
1949 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Addison-Welsey: Reading,
Mass.

Are Emic Types Relevant To Archaeology PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Are Emic Types Relevant To Archaeology PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Are Emic Types Relevant to Archaeology?

Author(s): Brian Hayden

ARE EMIC TYPES RELEVANT TO ARCHAEOLOGY?

Brian Hayden Simon Fraser University

One class of cautionary tales which have been generated by ethno-archaeological

The purpose of this article is to examine the way in which indigenous

Classification: While there is no clear distinction in many articles between

(1) to standardize comparison of specimens over wide areas,

Thus, classification refers to virtually any system used for grouping

A Short History of Typology in Archaeology

Prior to 1836, most archaeological objects were sorted according to various

occurred: Christian Thomsen reordered the artifact collections of the National

recently shown that MacNeish's typology was remarkably successful as

Chanal Emic classification with

tenosha (tenaja) water or dry storage jars

oxom (olla) cooking vessel for boiling plant food

chik'pom (incensario) incense burner

5. A final important aspect of emic categories to this discussion

Examples of Using Emic Types for Etic Purposes

1. Major disconformity between emic and archaeological types.

(thinning), and 3) affinar (smoothing or finishing). While each

3. Close correspondence between emic and archaeological concerns.

In formulating all typologies, it is essential for individuals first to ask what

thickness, fineness or ground temper, finesse in modelling shap

También podría gustarte