{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021739130434782608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031620553359683794, 'mean_word_length': 5.311720698254364, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pigmentation and Body Composition for Biological Anthropologists

judged and selected. In particular, how could or should considerations of practice-its potentialities and limitations-enter into the framing of objectives? In the spirit of dismantling arbitrary, overgeneralized oppositions (rather than simply inverting them as Adams and Adams tend to in the case of the theory:practice gap), perhaps a second dialectic requires attention: that by which "theory" enters into practice (including the practices of description and systematization) and interacts with practice in the formulation of objectives. In addressing these questions it would seem crucial to do as Adams and Adams recommend and engage in close (empirical) analysis of actual practice. They take an important step in this direction by considering the details of a particular case-that of the Nubian pottery typology and its process of construction-but despite the claim that their account of typological practice is based on "the testimony of classifiers and sorters" (p. I47) no testimony other than that of one of the authors is reported; other "classifiers and sorters" figure in the discussion only insofar as they have contributed to the "theoretical" debates about typology that Adams and Adams find so profoundly misguided. It would be extremely interesting to assess the model of typological practice that Adams and Adams propose in light of a comparative analysis of cases that represent some of the other kinds of typological system they describe in the abstract. It is no longer possible to return to the sort of "innocence" about the presuppositions of practice that David Clarke (I973) declared counterproductive in the early I970S. The uncomplicated consensus, the unity of purpose that Adams and Adams associate with the classification phase is irretrievably lost, if only because, as they themselves argue, archaeologists have exhausted many of the questions with which they began and must now grapple with the increasing diversity of new questions, "purposes," and approaches to the record that have been made possible by their own success in many areas. The most promising way forward would seem to be rigorous and open-ended scrutiny of these alternative paths, and this would seem best accomplished through an expansion of Adams and Adams's dialectic to include not just typological concepts and the "objects" they are to order but also the background and theoretical sources of "foreknowledge" that enter into the framing of these concepts.