Artifacts and Artifact Classification

The notion that artifacts can be classified into types rests on the principles of typological analysis. Typology is the study of artifacts based on observable traits such as form, methods of manufacture, and materials. Classification should not be based on an artifact's function because this often cannot be unambiguously determined. According to this concept, within any given region, artifacts that are similar in form or style were produced at about the same time, and stylistic changes are likely to have been gradual or evolutionary. Typologic categories are, however, only arbitrary constructions used by archeologists to come to terms with the archeological record. There is consequently no single, best way to classify artifacts into types.

A typologist first classifies artifacts in terms of attributes, for example, raw material, color and size. The typologist then classifies artifacts using mutually exclusive characteristics, called attribute states. Thus, ceramic pots could be sorted on the basis of shape, for example, into groups of bowls, jars, and plates.

While the typologist is generally satisfied using attribute types to describe artifacts, the goal of archeological classification is to so completely describe artifacts that they can be easily compared with objects from other sites. Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done. Because typology is largely based on an almost intuitive ability to recognize types, or requires several typological guides or other comparative resources, it has been refuted by practitioners of more rigorous analysis. By employing mathematical and statistical analyses, typologists have tried to demonstrate that attribute types are not arbitrary, and that their use provides significant, reproducible results.

When statistical methods were introduced into this field in the early 1950s, typologists claimed that artifact types in each culture were inherent, and that they could be determined by statistical analysis. Since that time, however, this assumption has been repeatedly questioned by those who doubt that the existence of absolute types can or will ever be verified.

At one time, typological analysis in conjunction with careful excavation provided archeologists with their only basis for reconstructing cultural and historical sequences. But with the advent of absolute dating techniques, archeologists required a less arbitrary basis for classifying artifacts.

While typology is no longer the standard means of dating the components of most artifact assemblages, typological analysis is still one of the most useful means of describing and comparing various artifacts. Absolute dating methods used for prehistoric and old historic sites cannot be applied to more modern sites. In recent decades, archaeological excavation and analysis of more recent historical sites has increased. Urban, or industrial archaeology focuses on artifacts produced during and after the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most especially those sites associated with manufacturing or related urban neighborhoods. Many artifacts recovered from these sites have decorations, maker's marks, or shapes that are easily identifiable because they are documented in the historical record or resemble something still used today. For example, historic archaeologists of the modern period sometimes rely on antique guides, old photographs, or factory archives to identify and date an object. While more definite because of the wealth of collaborative material, this type of analysis is still a form of typology.