Ceramic Systems and Eastern Archaeology

Abstract

Abstract The system of ceramic taxonomy presented by Phillips for use in the Southeast is considered to be too formal and rigid. While it attempts to serve the same functions as the currently used concepts of type and variety, the proposed new system would be considerably more complex in its application. The ceramic type, as currently defined and used, is well adapted for establishing skeletal chronicle. Any modification would lessen its usefulness. A greater emphasis on including descriptive classes in reports is offered as more valuable than the adoption of a formal taxonomy. The content of the classes cannot be determined prior to description, whereas the formal taxonomy prescribes the content of each taxonomic unit. These classes would increase the utility of sherd collections by making available data which can be applied to problems, such as those of process, for which neither the type nor the proposed new varieties are suitable.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.