The article, “The Typological Concept,” recently published by Alex D. Krieger1 is an encouraging sign that interest in methodology, hitherto confined largely to field work, is now turning as well to the study of specimens in the laboratory. Krieger is to be congratulated for outlining clearly his method of forming types and for a penetrating comparison of that method with other archaeological procedures of classification.

It may be questioned, however, whether the article contributes as much to an understanding of the typological concept as it does to the typological method. In emphasizing the formation of types, Krieger fails to explain what he means by the term “type.” As the present writer understands his remarks, the term “type” is used variously to refer to the categories formed by classifying artifacts (pp. 271-272), to the specimens classified within each category (bottom of pp. 277, 281), and to the pattern of characters used to define each category (pp. 278, 280).