10-06-2007, 09:58 PM
This may sound a bit academic, but...
There are several classification approaches. This is a quick generalization.
There is the "Art History" approach which uses a intuitive stylistic model: Corinthian, Insular, Attic, etc. This is useful for a viewing or non-scientific approach, but in general lacks any usefulness for any classification that supports any deductive or analytic analysis. It is easy to do, because it lacks any robust schema for any definitive criterion, and is best suited for the general viewer. There is tendency for Art Historians to be unaware of Archaeological developments, and tend to date and make cultural associations with older, and often obsolescent perspectives. Archaeologists in turn, can refer to Art History for the same purpose, and both disciplines can fall into a circular pattern of quoting each other.
The other type is the more scientific analysis. There are varying degrees of this, but the most applicable method is attribute analysis. This is where various characteristics are defined and an artifact either has fits into the schema by falling into one of several characteristics, or by the presence or absence of of them. For example, a helmet has one of several types of cheek pieces (multiple characteristics), or "made in two halves", a characteristic that is present or absent. Attributes are often presented in a matrix type format, and lends itself to a more quantitative potential. Spatial and temporal trends are more finitely identified and evolution and distribution of a type can be followed. This enables specific questions to be posed and more explicit deduction to be made. For example, attribute X in conjunction with Y is found at (location/time period) A in a high affluence burial, but is seen at Colony B in a lower affluence burial, in a later period with a greater frequency. Conclusion: the type associates A with B and indicates a distribution pattern associated with perhaps a growing affluence economy and social status. A case in point being Sicily, where older helmet types may have been in use longer than the Greek mainland, and are a more common find.
Crest types, and crest fittings may be particularly applicable here.
The more scientific attribute approach is harder to set up, but can include an academic perspective that the Art History approach cannot. The attributes can also include the more general associative classes like Corinthian, Attic, and so forth. In the end, it is a resource that can take additive information as it becomes available from more documented and recent Archaeological finds. Archeology continues to be more factual and information rich as methodology improves, so an expandable schema, like attribute analysis is preferable to more narrow type based classifications. Information or conclusions may be extrapolated, to some degree, to older or poorly documented finds.
Just an observation on formulating the initial approach to this. I have done attribute analysis when I was active in Archeology, and it does require some consensus and delegation of purpose. However, once done, these projects seem to endure, becoming datum points for future reference.
For what it's worth
Ralph Izard
There are several classification approaches. This is a quick generalization.
There is the "Art History" approach which uses a intuitive stylistic model: Corinthian, Insular, Attic, etc. This is useful for a viewing or non-scientific approach, but in general lacks any usefulness for any classification that supports any deductive or analytic analysis. It is easy to do, because it lacks any robust schema for any definitive criterion, and is best suited for the general viewer. There is tendency for Art Historians to be unaware of Archaeological developments, and tend to date and make cultural associations with older, and often obsolescent perspectives. Archaeologists in turn, can refer to Art History for the same purpose, and both disciplines can fall into a circular pattern of quoting each other.
The other type is the more scientific analysis. There are varying degrees of this, but the most applicable method is attribute analysis. This is where various characteristics are defined and an artifact either has fits into the schema by falling into one of several characteristics, or by the presence or absence of of them. For example, a helmet has one of several types of cheek pieces (multiple characteristics), or "made in two halves", a characteristic that is present or absent. Attributes are often presented in a matrix type format, and lends itself to a more quantitative potential. Spatial and temporal trends are more finitely identified and evolution and distribution of a type can be followed. This enables specific questions to be posed and more explicit deduction to be made. For example, attribute X in conjunction with Y is found at (location/time period) A in a high affluence burial, but is seen at Colony B in a lower affluence burial, in a later period with a greater frequency. Conclusion: the type associates A with B and indicates a distribution pattern associated with perhaps a growing affluence economy and social status. A case in point being Sicily, where older helmet types may have been in use longer than the Greek mainland, and are a more common find.
Crest types, and crest fittings may be particularly applicable here.
The more scientific attribute approach is harder to set up, but can include an academic perspective that the Art History approach cannot. The attributes can also include the more general associative classes like Corinthian, Attic, and so forth. In the end, it is a resource that can take additive information as it becomes available from more documented and recent Archaeological finds. Archeology continues to be more factual and information rich as methodology improves, so an expandable schema, like attribute analysis is preferable to more narrow type based classifications. Information or conclusions may be extrapolated, to some degree, to older or poorly documented finds.
Just an observation on formulating the initial approach to this. I have done attribute analysis when I was active in Archeology, and it does require some consensus and delegation of purpose. However, once done, these projects seem to endure, becoming datum points for future reference.
For what it's worth
Ralph Izard
