Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Approaches to Ceramic Design Analysis: A Response to Jernigan

Abstract

In his recent article, Jernigan (1986) presents what he feels is a superior alternative to the traditional hierarchical approach to design analysis on ceramics. We disagree that the hierarchical system is flawed seriously. Both Jernigan's nonhierarchical approach and the hierarchical approaches are models of design that should be applied selectively according to specific problem orientations. Our discussion focuses on: (1) the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches regarding different aspects of design analysis, and (2) a critique of Jernigan's schema concept with respect to its supposed emic content, operationalization, and internal consistency. Specifically, we believe that Jernigan's characterization of schemata as emic units of design is inappropriate. An understanding of design units such as schemata can be achieved best by placing design in a cultural context. Jernigan's schemata also suffer from both ambiguity and internal inconsistency that compromise their usefulness. However, despite our reservations concerning the nonhierarchical approach, Jernigan's article rekindles important issues concerning the design analysis of prehistoric artifacts.

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 — 11 citations exist upstream.

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