|
Giorgio Buccellati, Critique of Archaeological Reason
Excerpts and Synopses
Read, Dwight W.
Excerpts from 1989 "Intuitive Typology and Automatic Classification:
Divergence or Full Circle?
"
Isomorphism |
p.160 |
The methods of grouping objects, as an implicit if not explicit, basis for defining classes presume an isomorphism between the similitude implied by common class membership and the similarity measured at the morphological level used for making the groupings.
|
Conceptual distinctions |
p.161 |
To be sure, conceptual distinctions generally entail distinctions at more concrete level as well; objects that are conceptually distinguished may show morphological distinctiveness. But the expression of these conceptual distinctions and their measurement and formulation through analytical manipulations have been inadequately considered.
|
Emic vs. Etic |
p.162 |
The distinction I am making is not simply that of the analyst notion of style ("culture") versus function ("objective meaning"), for that dichotomy presumes two aspects that may or may not be part of naïve conceptualization. Instead, I am referring to a concern expressed by Schneider (1984) in a different context, namely that of the analyst's versus the native's concepts, Schneider was referring to the study of the so-called kinship systems, but the argument is applicable here as well. Schneider was concerned with the analytical distortion caused by using theoretical constructs such as residence type, descent system, and so on (and even kinship taken as genealogical connection) when these are not native conceptualizations. He has argued for the primacy of native concepts in analytical arguments and that the distinctions of concern are to be those of the native, not the analyst: "……of what block is this particular culture built? How do these people conceptualize their world (197)? To put it in another way, there are inevitably two interpretative frameworks: the one of the native emic and the one of analyst (etic). In so far as the actions taken and decisions made by the native are through one culture and the meaning it provides for external entities and actions, our interpretative framework must eventually come to grips with methods for at least partially incorporating such a framework as part of our understanding of the material objects we call.
(p. 163) Classification and methods of classification aim to provide information on cultural systems must be justified ultimately in terms of their consonance with native meanings. At the level of methods it follows that analytical distinction that are made must have interpretation at the level of native meanings and not just at the level of meanings imposed by the analyst.
|
Intuitive classes vs. replicable procedures |
p.164-165 |
Intuitive classes - (1) they are likely to be more sensitive to subtle patterning, particularly for identifying and distinguishing patterns that cannot be easily expressed in an algorithmic fashion. As is well known, the human visual system and brain are extremely effective for identifying and distinguishing patterns, though not without their own biases; (2) Intuitive groups can take into account varying relationships between local and global properties in a manner that is not yet duplicable by analytical techniques; (3) both quantitative and qualitative aspects can be considered simultaneously by the visual system and differential weights can be made; (4) Tentative relationships and weightings can be modified as one continues to examine the objects.
Replicable procedures - are virtually the opposite. They are sensitive primarily to differences expressed over most of artifacts being analyzed. They can take into consideration the relationship between local and global properties only with difficulty, particularly when these relationships are not constant across the data set. Weighting of measures is notoriously difficult to achieve without introducing precisely the arbitrariness that the replicable procedures are supposed to circumvent.
|
Local and Global Problems with Numerical Identification of Groupings |
p.169-170 |
Local problems - regard to the lack of concordance between models used for analysis and data measurement within the space defined by the variables being used for the analyses.
Global problem - are the problems associated with the defining the space within which analysis should take place. In effect, the former addresses the question of what technique should be used and the latter matter of how variables are to be selected and the analytical space defined.
|
The two basic structures for classification |
p.171-172 |
Paradigmatic - the minimal classes are the intersection of the distinctions made along each dimension. For example, if one qualitative variable is Shape with two values (a) triangular shape and (b) leaf shape, and two quantitative dimensions are Length and Width, with Length dichotomized into (a) short and (b) long, and Width dichotomized into (a) narrow and (b) wide, then a paradigmatic classification would have a combination of eight classes.
Problems - a paradigmatic analysis is not well suited to data having a taxonomic structure in which variables are included and groups are subdivided according to grouping made at prior step.
Taxonomic - in contrast a taxonomic structure has an ordering of the defining variables and the distinctions made for a variable do depend on the values of another variable.
Problems - Since one doesn't know in advance which variables are sensitive to the as yet uncovered groupings, divergence from underlying groups in the data, rather than the convergence assumed in the philosophy of numerical taxonomy, is likely to occur as more, equally weighted variables are added.
|
How to define a class? |
p.178 |
To define a class, for instance a projectile point several things are necessary. The first is to determine the task at hand. The second is to define the relationships and properties that will be invoked in the performance of the task. The third is to construct a model at the conceptual level which shows how these relationships and properties can be incorporated or realized through the material object. Fourth, it is necessary to show how this model of these relationships can be translated into a concrete object in which these relationships and properties are realized. Finally while this is still an etic definition of a class I have attempted to identify those properties and conceptual relationships that form the minimal external constrains that operate when the task in question is to be performed effectively.
|
Conclusion |
p.185 |
The collection of material should be sorted initially by qualitative criteria, including shape differences that are clearly distinct with respect to a quantitative dimension, e.g. jars with small openings versus large openings, if there is no gradation in orifice size. While these are etically state criteria, the assumption is that both qualitative differences and breaks in what would otherwise be a continuum of values reflect underlying emically salient distinctions. In both cases the differences imply that only some choices amongst possible alternatives were actually made by the artisans and users, hence the discontinuities observed by the analyst have emic salience. | |