Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:16:17.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Amy A. Douglass  and
Owen Lindauer
Amy A. Douglass
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287
Owen Lindauer
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Comment
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 620 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Amsden, C. A. 1936 An Analysis of Hohokam Pottery Design. Medallion Papers No. 23. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Bunzel, R. 1929 The Pueblo Potter : A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Chapman, K. M. 1936 The Pottery of Santo Domingo. Memoirs Vol. 1. Laboratory of Anthropology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S. 1955 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Ceramic Series 3a. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S., and Hargrave, L. L. 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Bulletin 11. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Hantman, J. L. 1983 Social Networks and Stylistic Distributions in the Prehistoric Plateau Southwest. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Hantman, J. L., and Plog, S. 1982 The Relationship of Stylistic Similarity to Patterns of Material Exchange. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Ericson, J. E. and Earle, T. K., pp. 237–263. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, M. A. 1977 Individual Style in San Jose Pottery Painting : The Role of Deliberate Choice. In The Individual in Prehistory : Studies of Variability in Prehistoric Technologies, edited by Hill, J. N., pp. 109–136. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.Google Scholar
Jernigan, E. W. 1982 The White Mountain-Kiatuthlanna-Red Mesa Stylistic Tradition. In Ceramic Studies, edited by Reid, J. J., pp. 39–427. Cholla Project Archaeology, vol. 5. Archaeological Series 161. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Jernigan, E. W. 1986 A Nonhierarchical Approach to Ceramic Decoration Analysis : A Southwestern Example. American Antiquity 51 : 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martineau, L. 1973 The Rocks Begin to Speak. KC Publications, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
Plog, S. 1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, S., and Hantman, J. L. 1983 Multiple Regression Analysis as a Dating Method in the American Southwest. In Spatial Organization and Exchange on Black Mesa, edited by Plog, S., pp. 87–113. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Zaslow, B., and Lindauer, O. 1985 Anasazi Influence on Post-Sacaton Hohokam Decorations. Paper presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Society for American Archeology, Denver.Google Scholar