On the past and future of discussing, teaching, and learning the hows and whys of archaeological systematics

Abstract Archaeological types have been derogatorily characterized as descriptive, but they must be descriptive in terms of pertinent attributes to be analytically useful. Classifying artifacts has long been (and still is) referred to as “pigeon holing” because some formal variation is masked by the categorization process. Recent discussions of the “tyranny of typologies” echo such concerns. Such caricatures may be the result of inadequate discussion of the hows and whys of archaeological systematics first in the classroom, and second in the professional literature. Seventy-four introductory university-level fundamentals of archaeology textbooks published between 1949 and 2017 devote an average of 2.7% of their pages to archaeological systematics; several recent advanced texts on archaeological method and theory include no discussion of archaeological systematics; over the last 100 years 51 programmatic books on zoological systematics have been published in contrast to eight programmatic volumes on archaeological systematics. After continuous growth since 1900 and a peak in the 1970s, the number of journal articles and book chapters on the programmatics of archaeological systematics published per decade has decreased over the past 40 years; the substantive literature seems to display the same trend. These data suggest reduced consideration by the discipline of the whys (ontologies) and hows (epistemologies) of archaeological systematics. Additional study of the substantive research literature—applications of typologies to particular sets of artifacts—may find discussion has shifted to this sort of venue. Hopefully the future will witness more extended discussions of systematics in new introductory textbooks, and discussions of the relevance of particular mechanics and specific theories of systematics with respect to archaeologists’ favored explanatory theories.