02-07-2009, 12:45 AM
I find this discussion to be very interesting. Most artifact typologies start with region, material, form, and then size. I’m working on a prehistoric bead collection from southern California and this is the way the typology is organized. I use this because it illustrates the thought process and it happens to what I’m doing at the moment.
Region: California
1. Material
A. Stone
Five subcategories
B. Shell
13 subcategories.
C. Bone
D. Other materials
2. Bead Shape
10 subcategories
3. Hole shape
Five subcategories
4. Dimensions
Three subcategories
5. Other modifications of Beads
Using this typology you can date prehistoric beads, in southern California, to within several hundred years down to a dozen years. The occurrence of specific types in sites and strata can then be used to place beads (helmets) in their proper chronological order. As mentioned elsewhere in this forum, typologies are meant to expand and be refined.
One of the members asked how we could get the archaeologists to accept this typology? All you have to do is use your own system. If it makes sense other people will adopt it and test it. You have something most archaeologists don’t have, you have a group with a great deal of passion and interest and even better a geographic spread any university would be proud of. The only thing against you is that helmets are few and far between and many don’t have good contextual associations for dating. I can guarantee one thing, is that if you get a good system of measuring the helmets and a standardized way of describing them, you will have gone a long way to creating a solid beginning.
You have some great line drawings of these helmets. All of you interested, should describe the pieces or shapes, then outline what measurements should be taken and how. Then come up with a standardized language for description and measurement. Create a research proposal and present it to friends/people who would let you have access to their collections. Then describe and measure. That alone would make you valuable to the archaeological community. The more you describe and measure the greater the mandate you have when it comes to access the museums.
Region: California
1. Material
A. Stone
Five subcategories
B. Shell
13 subcategories.
C. Bone
D. Other materials
2. Bead Shape
10 subcategories
3. Hole shape
Five subcategories
4. Dimensions
Three subcategories
5. Other modifications of Beads
Using this typology you can date prehistoric beads, in southern California, to within several hundred years down to a dozen years. The occurrence of specific types in sites and strata can then be used to place beads (helmets) in their proper chronological order. As mentioned elsewhere in this forum, typologies are meant to expand and be refined.
One of the members asked how we could get the archaeologists to accept this typology? All you have to do is use your own system. If it makes sense other people will adopt it and test it. You have something most archaeologists don’t have, you have a group with a great deal of passion and interest and even better a geographic spread any university would be proud of. The only thing against you is that helmets are few and far between and many don’t have good contextual associations for dating. I can guarantee one thing, is that if you get a good system of measuring the helmets and a standardized way of describing them, you will have gone a long way to creating a solid beginning.
You have some great line drawings of these helmets. All of you interested, should describe the pieces or shapes, then outline what measurements should be taken and how. Then come up with a standardized language for description and measurement. Create a research proposal and present it to friends/people who would let you have access to their collections. Then describe and measure. That alone would make you valuable to the archaeological community. The more you describe and measure the greater the mandate you have when it comes to access the museums.
John Foster
