HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
William Adams <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 11 Feb 1995 18:03:48 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
Tom Wheaton's latest post is espousing George Miller's ideas regarding the use
 of an EMIC typology, whereas others are arguing for an ETIC typology. I have
 found that functional typologies (at least attempting to be EMIC ones) are best
 for answering the humanistic questions, whereas the descriptive typologies
 (etic) are best for scientific questions. It just depends on what we are asking
 of our data. Neither approach is better or worse, as such. I am interested in
 how people set their tables and what vessels were used for what purposes. But,
 I am also interested in the nuances of dating a site and identifying where the
 ceramics were made. To do this requires using both kinds of typologies and
 doing two sets of analyses.
 
 
*********************************************
*      William H. Adams, Ph.D.              *
*      P.O. Box 1177                        *
*      Philomath, OR 97370-1177   U.S.A.    *
*      (503) 929-3102  fax -3264            *
*            [log in to unmask]            *
*********************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2