Ceramic Typology

Both, in a sense, but archaeologists today emphasize that types are analytical constructs. The clustering of attributes in a real assemblage is genuine — potters made recurring kinds of vessels — but which clusters become named types depends on the attributes the analyst selects and the research question. Rice frames type definition as a deliberate, explicit choice of diagnostic attributes, not the uncovering of natural kinds. A typology built to track chronology will differ from one built to study function, even on the same sherds. This is why classifications must state their criteria and why two valid typologies of the same material can differ.

Indirectly, through type frequencies. Because pottery types come into and go out of fashion, the proportions of types present in a deposit indicate which chronological phase it most resembles, and types shared with a dated reference sequence allow cross-dating. Renfrew and Bahn describe this typological and cross-dating logic as a cornerstone of relative chronology. It yields relative, not absolute, dates: it tells you the order and rough period, which can then be anchored to calendar time by radiocarbon or other absolute methods applied to associated material.

Typology is the prerequisite for both. Frequency seriation orders assemblages chronologically using the changing relative abundance of types, so it needs a consistent typology first. Compositional and petrographic methods, by contrast, address questions typology cannot — where a pot was actually made and how — and are usually applied to sherds already assigned to wares or types. In practice typology, seriation, and provenance analysis are complementary: typology supplies the framework, seriation refines the sequence, and scientific sourcing tests whether visually defined wares correspond to distinct production origins.