10-11-2007, 05:41 PM
I am gong to make an assumption that what we want to do here is develop an actual index and system that will be used as a continuous reference and can be referenced and contributed to by ongoing accredited institutions and projects. The project will be intended a forthcoming publication and documented accordingly. The usage will not be restrained to academia only, but will serve as a visual guide and referent summary for the general user. Archeology gets a lot of criticism for being insulated from the general public, and "sanitizing" what does get publicized. In this case we don't have worry about that.
First, we need to recognize that any typology is a modern imposition of order on a group of artifacts that had functions in a society that may not have held anything like the same perspective we have. Typology is a modern convenience. Also, some modern classifications differ from each other because the existence of one classification may not be known to someone attempting to classify the same object, or because of some rivalry. The identification of subsequent unknown, but objectively defined typologies, and what they may mean is the final goal. Ultimately, the the final reward is the identification of attributes in situ, that identify with other aspects of the find site and associations of other artifacts and context. Example: in 2000 a crest of an Insular was found in Eastern Crete. The known documented occurrences, two of three examples, also possibly coincide with the demographics associated with a a pottery type with socio-cultural affinities.
Andreas has a fact file that describes the treatment of helmets in modern discovery. This is an essential element of any objective system. I think I might term it a Directory of finds. As is it stands, it is a usable instrument. I would structure it to add a unique index number; RAT 12345, or something, where this functions as the common field in a relational data structure. I would add a text field for incidental data. Several fields need to exist for multiple classifications of the same item, as in the Hellenistic Attic in one instance vs. the Thracian in another, and who made the classification, Kunze, Phlug, as noted above. Use of "Unknown" is fine also.
Classification systems that rely on type names are usually made when a limited number of examples are known. When this numbers expands, the initial classification system always breaks down. In essence, there is an increasing effect to try and fit square pegs into round holes. This is why an attribute system is preferable in the long run. It does not depend on semantic criteria, but a symbolic one, and can be accessed and expanded by groups that do not speak the same language or have the same theoretical perspective.
Further, we can learn a great deal by the distribution in space, time, and frequency by a single, or several attributes, often more so that an entire artifact. I cannot stress this potential enough, if RAT wants to establish a definitive and exemplary project. Inviting existent projects to use, and add to the database, and have them make use of the resource by different ongoing archaeological projects is the best example this potential. What I am saying is this may be the rare opportunity for an non-professional community to produce a professional and benchmark product.
The initial step is to establish a sample from which a tentative attribute list is fabricated. This list is then tested for robustness and modified as necessary. The fabrication of the list should be done by several people, and tested by others. Duplications in attribute categories and respective components confirm the validity system. A category is an attribute class (ex. skull shape) components are the descriptors, (ex. round, pointed, etc.). Breaking the system by testing will show inherent preconceptions, a prori assumptions, and omissions of data. You can add categories later, but trying to add components at a later date is a disaster requiring a complete re-classification of the category in question.
I am in the process of building a reference library for sampling and attribute classification and related topics. It may take several weeks. Primary sources are Clark, Hodder, Sabloff, Flannery, and a few more folks... Suggestions welcome.,
On the other hand, RAT may not want to do anything like this at all for a variety of reasons.
Ralph Izard
First, we need to recognize that any typology is a modern imposition of order on a group of artifacts that had functions in a society that may not have held anything like the same perspective we have. Typology is a modern convenience. Also, some modern classifications differ from each other because the existence of one classification may not be known to someone attempting to classify the same object, or because of some rivalry. The identification of subsequent unknown, but objectively defined typologies, and what they may mean is the final goal. Ultimately, the the final reward is the identification of attributes in situ, that identify with other aspects of the find site and associations of other artifacts and context. Example: in 2000 a crest of an Insular was found in Eastern Crete. The known documented occurrences, two of three examples, also possibly coincide with the demographics associated with a a pottery type with socio-cultural affinities.
Andreas has a fact file that describes the treatment of helmets in modern discovery. This is an essential element of any objective system. I think I might term it a Directory of finds. As is it stands, it is a usable instrument. I would structure it to add a unique index number; RAT 12345, or something, where this functions as the common field in a relational data structure. I would add a text field for incidental data. Several fields need to exist for multiple classifications of the same item, as in the Hellenistic Attic in one instance vs. the Thracian in another, and who made the classification, Kunze, Phlug, as noted above. Use of "Unknown" is fine also.
Classification systems that rely on type names are usually made when a limited number of examples are known. When this numbers expands, the initial classification system always breaks down. In essence, there is an increasing effect to try and fit square pegs into round holes. This is why an attribute system is preferable in the long run. It does not depend on semantic criteria, but a symbolic one, and can be accessed and expanded by groups that do not speak the same language or have the same theoretical perspective.
Further, we can learn a great deal by the distribution in space, time, and frequency by a single, or several attributes, often more so that an entire artifact. I cannot stress this potential enough, if RAT wants to establish a definitive and exemplary project. Inviting existent projects to use, and add to the database, and have them make use of the resource by different ongoing archaeological projects is the best example this potential. What I am saying is this may be the rare opportunity for an non-professional community to produce a professional and benchmark product.
The initial step is to establish a sample from which a tentative attribute list is fabricated. This list is then tested for robustness and modified as necessary. The fabrication of the list should be done by several people, and tested by others. Duplications in attribute categories and respective components confirm the validity system. A category is an attribute class (ex. skull shape) components are the descriptors, (ex. round, pointed, etc.). Breaking the system by testing will show inherent preconceptions, a prori assumptions, and omissions of data. You can add categories later, but trying to add components at a later date is a disaster requiring a complete re-classification of the category in question.
I am in the process of building a reference library for sampling and attribute classification and related topics. It may take several weeks. Primary sources are Clark, Hodder, Sabloff, Flannery, and a few more folks... Suggestions welcome.,
On the other hand, RAT may not want to do anything like this at all for a variety of reasons.
Ralph Izard
