Society for American Archaeology

The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic Classification in the Type-Variety System
Author(s): Jeremy A. Sabloff and Robert E. Smith
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 278-285
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/278410 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 08:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE IMPORTANCE OF BOTH ANALYTIC AND TAXONOMIC
CLASSIFICATION IN THE TYPE-VARIETY SYSTEM
JEREMYA. SABLOFF AND ROBERTE. SMITH
ABSTRACT
The type-variety system of ceramic analysis, as cur-
rently used at many sites in southern Mesoamerica, differs
in certain respects, especially in emphasis, from the sys-
tem outlined by Smith, Willey, and Gifford in 1960. The
reports on the pottery from the lowland Maya sites of
Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico and Seibal, Peten, Guatemala,
in both their overall formats and the specific formats of
their descriptive sections, have combined certain aspects
of both taxonomic (typological) and analytic (modal)
classification. It is argued that the type-variety system, as
employed at these two sites, overcomes many of the
objections to typological analyses recently raised by J. V.
Wright (1967) and provides an adequate basis for both
tight intersite comparisons in southern Mesoamerica and
reanalyses of the ceramic data by other archaeologists in
future studies.
THE PROBLEM of classifying artifacts, and
specifically pottery, has been of much im-
portance in archaeology, and, through the years,
discussions of various points of view have often
appeared in archaeological journals. In the New
World, discussions of the methodology of ce-
ramic analyses have tended to polarize into two
positions. One position emphasizes modes while
the other emphasizes types. In a recent paper,
J. V. Wright (1967) has offered a perceptive
criticism of the typological position and has
praised the merits of attribute analysis. He advo-
cates the use of the latter method in the Iroquois
area, while eschewing use of the former. It is
our feeling, however, that the type-variety sys-
tem of ceramic analysis (Smith, Willey, and Gif-
ford 1960; Gifford 1960), which essentially offers
a typological approach to the study of pottery,
provides an effective combination of some of the
merits of attribute analysis, which Wright has
delineated, in addition to nullifying some of his
criticisms of typological analysis. We further
feel that it is the most useful means of ceramic
analysis available today in southern Mesoameri-
ca and possibly in other areas as well. Since the
manner in which the type-variety system is used
at the present differs not only among various
students but also differs somewhat from the
strictures described in 1960, and since much of
the detailed data which have resulted from the
use of this kind of typological analysis is unavail-
able in print, we feel that a discussion of the
type-variety system as used at the lowland Maya
278
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sites of Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico and Seibal,
Peten, Guatemala may be of some value.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SYSTEM
The type-variety system, like any other system
of ceramic analysis, is dependent on the recog-
nition and use of all attributes of a ceramic col-
lection. What differentiates various systems is
the manner in which these attributes are
employed.
In the type-variety system, the attributes are
separated into several categories: ware, type,
variety, and group.
Ware. The ware attributes are those asso-
ciated with paste composition and surface finish.
Paste composition may be identified through
paste texture, kind of temper, paste hardness
(rarely used), porosity, and color. Surface finish
is recognized by means of slip or the lack of slip,
by smoothness or roughness, by luster acquired
through burnishing, by gloss or by matte finish,
and by color. A defined ware is a ceramic assem-
blage in which all attributes of paste composi-
tion (with the possible exception of temper)
and of surface finish remain constant. A ware is
not as limited in time as are types and varieties.
Type. The type attributes as used in the Maya
area are basically of two kinds: those dealing
with decorative techniques, and those which are
concerned with vessel form. We define type as
representing an aggregate of visually distinct
ceramic attributes already objectified within one
or (generally) several varieties which, when
taken as a whole, are indicative of a particular
class of pottery produced during a specific time
interval within a specific region.
Variety. Theoretically, the ceramic variety
(Smith, Willey, and Gifford 1960) has been
viewed as the basic unit of analysis which, in due
course, consequent upon an increased depth of
total ceramic knowledge, either becomes the
type (as the established variety) or one of a
number of varieties within the type. Recent
experience, however, has shown that the type
provides a more practical basis for ceramic
analysis. Minor, but significant, variations with-
in the type, either intrasite or intersite, may be
analyzed on a variety level. These variations may
be related to the type-diagnostic attributes of
SABLOFF AND SMITH ] TYPE-VARIETY SYSTEM 279

decorative technique and vessel form, or they History of the Central Highlands of Chiapas,
may be concerned with a change in design style Mexico" uses a combined seriation and strati-
or the use of a different temper. graphic procedure which is very well suited to
Group. This is a collection of closely related the material. His types are established on a paste
types that demonstrate a consistency in range of and temper basis, although many of them bear
variation in form and color. The types of any color or surface treatment designations such as
group are (roughly) contemporaneous (that is, Mercedes Red, Teopica White, Xakiltik Un-
elements of the same ceramic complex or com- slipped, and San Sebastian Fine Red. Further-
plexes) and are also always components of the more, most of these types include various tech-
same ware. Group is a concept which is most niques of decoration which are buried in the
useful for lumping like material belonging to the type descriptions. Thus, the descriptions become
same ware and sometimes not amenable to sepa- so all inclusive that they lose the value of separa-
ration into types (too small or too weathered), tion enjoyed by using ware to incorporate attri-
or for material belonging to a ware (Fine Or- butes of paste composition and surface finish,
ange, Plumbate, Slate, etc.) which is associated type to combine decorative techniques and ves-
with several phases. sel form, variety to differentiate within a type
Through the combined use of the ware, type, because of a new design style or a different
variety, and group categories, the establishment temper or whatever, and group to absorb those
of ceramic complexes and a ceramic sequence is sherds that have a number of common attributes
made possible, and the chronological develop- but cannot certainly be placed in a particular
ment of pottery in time and space is brought to type. Forms are listed under each type and then
light. This is taxonomic classification by means again as a mode at the end of each phase. This
of type-variety analysis. practice is quite commendable since, in most
Another system is that of mode analysis. The Mesoamerican ceramic collections, form modes
mode is considered to be a selected attribute or are of much significance and may help deter-
cluster of attributes which display significance mine to which group or complex a sherd belongs,
in their own right. Modes can help in design- when other modes are lacking. Nevertheless,
style analysis, in establishing a mode tradition, there are many more modes than just those of
which is a cultural trait distribution through form which deserve similar treatment.
time, and in establishing a horizon style or cul- In the Wallrath (1967) study of the Isthmus
tural trait distribution through space. This is of Tehuantepec pottery, an attempt is made to
analytic classification by means of mode analysis follow the type-variety system. However, too
(see also Rouse 1939). often the type is actually the ware (Lieza Self-
Both the type-variety concept and the modal Slipped, Radani Gray, Esquipulas Burnished,
system form part of any ceramic picture. Al- Loteca Thick, Guibixo Thick, Nichi Fine-
though they differ in emphasis, the two kinds of Grained, Huayabal Leathery, Mitiac Domestic,
study need not be kept apart. As Smith, Willey, etc.). Decorative techniques which are found
and Gifford (1960: 331) point out, "the type- abundantly in these so-called types are hidden
variety study should be integrated with the away in the descriptions instead of standing out
mode study and neither should be conducted or in the names of the established types. In other
set forth in a mutually exclusive manner." Yet words, although the descriptions under the type
in almost all the published papers which use the designation are ample and excellent, too much
type-variety system, the study of individual is lodged under "type." Wallrath also has a
modes is either forgotten, limited to form modes, section on significant traits which takes care of
or relegated to a fairly minor role. As Culbert the mode analysis.
(1967: 85) has noted, this neglect can cause a Parsons (1967) was able to use stratigraphy
serious loss of information and can damage the to determine the sequence of ceramic complexes
utility of the type-variety system. at Bilbao, Guatemala. He has also employed the
type-variety system much as it was envisioned
RECENT USE OF THE SYSTEM
by Smith, Willey, and Gifford (1960) with
Three recently published ceramic studies wares, groups, types, and varieties each placed
(Culbert 1965: Wallrath 1967; Parsons 1967) in their proper perspective, with the group as
make use, in varying degrees, of the type-variety the principal unit under which other units, in-
concept. The Culbert report on "The Ceramic cluding form, are listed. Group is prominently

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280 AMERICANANTIQUITY
positioned because of the poor condition (weath-
ered and small in size) of much of the ceramic
material at Bilbao. Some important trade and
special wares are noted, but a modal study as
such is not presented.
THE SYSTEMAS PRACTICED
AT MAYAPAN
AND SEIBAL
In making use of the type-variety system or,
in fact, of any system, more than one manner of
presentation in a final report is possible. Never-
theless, one of the major aims of the method of
presentation should be to provide the readers
with sufficient data, without undue repetition,
for any approaches, be they ones of intersite
comparison or total reanalysis of the ceramic
data, that they may care to take in future studies.
In the Mayapan report (Smith 1968), now
in the process of being edited and to be pub-
lished in 1970, one method of presentation has
been used, and in the Seibal report, now in
preparationby Gordon R. Willey and JeremyA.
Sabloff, another is being used.
In the discussion below, we provide a detailed
description of the general, overall method of
presentation of the Mayapan report and the spe-
cific presentation format for the ceramic descrip-
tions of the Seibal report, in order to show how
versatile, accommodating, and potentially useful
the type-variety system can be. It should be noted
that the two,reports offer somewhat different ap-
proaches to the presentation of type and mode
data. The Mayapan report is actually a com-
bination of the taxonomic and analytical ap-
proaches and offers descriptions and total counts
for all types and modes. The Seibal report, on
the other hand, has added some modal features
to what is essentially a typological approach. It
offers data on modes and their associations, but
it does not give counts for each modal feature.
It is our feeling that, ideally, a ceramic report
which employs the type-variety system of ce-
ramic analysis should combine the overall plan
of the Mayapain report, with its emphasis on
definitions and its extensive typological and
modal analyses (complete with tables of asso-
ciations and counts), and the Seibal report's
emphasis on the identification of types and the
criteria used in establishing them and differen-
tiating them from other types and varieties. This
ideal report would accomplish two important
purposes in addition to those of establishing a
ceramic sequence, investigating the historical
significance of the sequence, and studying the
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[ VOL. 34, No. 3, 1969
functional significance of the ceramic associa-
tions. First of all, it would offer sufficient data
for various possible kinds of reanalysis or reuse
of the ceramic data which future archaeologists
might wish to undertake. Secondly, it would
provide tightly defined and easily recognizable
typological units which workers at other
sites could use to make meaningful intersite
comparisons.
In actual practice, however, the type of exca-
vation undertaken, time available for studying
the pottery, and laboratory circumstances all
have a bearing on the approach used; and all
these factors would obviously affect the nature
of a final report and may work against the
achievement of the ideal. In fact, it is probably
only practical to have one report in an area or
subarea which approaches the ideal just noted
and fully described below since it is becoming
more and more difficult today to do a total
excavation of a large Maya Lowland site. More-
over, it might even be argued that it is only
worthwhile to do a complete dual taxonomic
and analytical ceramic study, as has been done
at Mayapain,if a whole site is excavated and if
there is strong control on the totality of possible
contexts at the site. If the archaeologist has a
large and complete sample of contexts, then it
becomes important and useful to have full
counts of all ceramic modes and their associa-
tions, as well as detailed type descriptions. At a
site which has only been partially tested, total
mode counts may be of little relative value since
there may not be complete control, let alone
complete sampling, of all contexts. That is to
say, when excavations at a site generally consist
of stratigraphic pits and trenches and not of
complete architectural investigations, total con-
textual control will probably be lacking. At
Seibal, for example, most of the excavations in
the ceremonial center proper, with several im-
portant exceptions, were of the pit and trench
kind. On the other hand, in the outlying small
structure ("house mound") investigations, care-
ful attention has been paid to sampling and to
context. In this case, complete analysis and
counts of the ceramic modes might have great
use, especially in relation to a variety of func-
tional questions.
All in all, we would argue that, given the cir-
cumstances of an excavation as a limiting factor,
it is essential that the archaeologist present as
much well-described taxonomic and analytical
data as possible because the two approaches are
SABLOFF AND SMITH ] TYPE-VARIETY SYSTEM
complementary, not contradictory, and they
must be combined in order to bring about useful
ceramic reports. The type-varietysystem, as will
now be shown, is adaptable and compatible with
analytical analysis, and at Mayapan and Seibal
it has been combined with varying degrees of
modal analysis to achieve what we feel are use-
ful ceramic descriptions.
Method of Presentation in the Mayapan Re.
port. In Part One, the matter of procedures is
discussed. These procedures are described under
such headings as ceramic planning and study,
method of classification, and excavation and
stratigraphy.
In Part Two, ceramic descriptions involving
wares, types, varieties, and groups are presented.
Wares are listed and described alphabetically.
These descriptions emphasize the ware attributes
and then mention the ware associations. These
latter include groups, types, varieties, forms,
quantity, provenience, and ceramic complexes.
Following wares, methods of decoration are
examined under two principal headings: proc-
esses involving alteration of the surface and
processes involving additions to the surface.
Within this framework, each technique is dis-
cussed, and the associated types are listed with
their respective ceramic wares and complexes.
The techniques are listed alphabetically, from
carving through texturing under techniques of
penetration and from applique through slipping
under techniques of plasticity and color.
In the next section, kinds of design are con-
sidered and listed alphabetically. Sometimes a
special design serves to designate a variety, but
more often certain designs are used as modes to
delimit an area of occurrence, to mark a specific
period in time, or to emphasize a design style.
Designs are separated into abstract, naturalistic,
conventional, and glyphic, and they are listed
alphabetically under each of these categories.
At this point in the report, modes are studied
and defined. Since a mode is considered to be
an attribute or cluster of attributes which dis-
play significance in their own right, the modal
list in this section of the report is a selective one.
Furthermore, for clearer understanding, the list
is separated into the basic ceramic categories of
paste composition, surface finish, form, decora-
tive techniques, and specific designs. For each
mode there is a description, mention of ceramic
complex and provenience, and a complete
recording of the illustrations plus a few per-
tinent remarks.
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
281
In Part Three, ceramic distribution at Maya-
pan is considered. This section is based largely
on the distributions of the categories of utili-
tarian and ceremonial pottery and bowls and
jars. An analysis of the pottery associated with
the three principal civic divisions (dwelling lots,
ceremonial lots, and cenote lots) is made, as are
studies of the pottery associated with residential,
civic, and religious structures, the pottery linked
with cenotes, middens, and stratigraphic cuts,
and the pottery found in both burials and caches.
These studies are followed by a summary of the
intrasite distributions and associations of the
pottery of Mayapain.
In Part Four, an analysis is made by ceramic
complex, beginning wtih the earliest. A number
of wares are associated with each complex.
These wares are studied, with the aid of vessel
form, which in turn is related to a number of
types and varieties. Each ware analysis and each
complex study is followed by a summary or
review.
Part Five deals with conclusions and reflec-
tions on the ceramics of a declining culture. This
is accomplished by showing the influence of
earlier ceramic complexes on the late complexes
of Mayapafn,by reviewing the intersite distribu-
tions, connections, and interpretations, and by
examining the typological and modal distribu-
tions.
Numerous illustrations are used to clarify
descriptions. To further elucidate what might
otherwise remain complicated, 43 tables and 3
charts are supplied. These latter have to do
with (1) phase correlations of Yucatan and the
central and southern Maya areas; (2) and (3)
ceramic complexes, wares, groups, types, and
varieties at Mayapain. The tables deal with total
sherd counts in all ceramic complexes; a sum-
mary of various pit findings; certain percentage
studies; Mayapfan urban divisions by basic ce-
ramic association; unslipped ware rim count by
basic ceramic function and major lot designa-
tion; structure types and their associated pottery;
ceramic analysis of cenote material; midden
types and their associated pottery; Chichen Un-
slipped ware compared with Mayapan Un-
slipped ware; ware percentages and rim-body
ratios; stratigraphic cuts by lots and phases;
decorative techniques listed and summarized
individually in alphabetical order; and temper
tables involving pottery samples from Uxmal,
Kabah, and Chichen Itza.
282 AMERICANANTIQUITY
The presentation format just described makes
it possible to use the ceramic material from
Mayapafn to develop any sort of investigation
because it employs all attributes and has com-
plete numerical counts and separationsof counts
into numerous fundamental categories. Thus,
additional research is possible in both taxonomic
classification and the analytical (or modal)
classification.
Method of Presentation in the Seibal Report.
The report begins with a discussion of the objec-
tives of the study and the procedures used. Exca-
vations, stratigraphy, and the formation of the
Seibal ceramic sequence, as well as the method
of classification and presentation, are all re-
viewed. The next section offers definitions and
illustrations of forms, decorative techniques, and
wares. This is followed by numerous cross-
referenced indices and tables of types and vari-
eties and of "principal identifying modes" and
their associations (see below).
The main chapter offers detailed type descrip-
tions which are all presented within a standard
format. Other chapters discuss the intrasite and
intersite distributions of ceramic complexes,
types, and modes, and the ceramic contribution
to an understanding of the general site history.
Of principal interest here is the format which
is used to present the type descriptions of the
Seibal pottery. The format owes a great debt to
others which have preceded it, and its possible
utility in tightening intersite comparisons can
best be seen in light of earlier reports. Essen-
tially, the Seibal format is a compromise be-
tween the kind of description a pure typological
analysis would entail and a description which
uses individual ceramic modes as a basis of
analysis and presentation. Speed of analysis and
conciseness of presentation were two of the
major factors of decision in the compromise.
The format consists of 15 parts:
1. Type
2. Variety
3. Established as a Type and/or Variety
4. Ceramic Group
5. Ware
6. Ceramic Complex
7. Ceramic Sphere Affiliation
8-11. Description:
Principal Identifying Modes;
Paste, Temper, Firing, etc.;
Surface Finish and Decoration;
Form.
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[ VOL.34, No. 3, 1969
12. Intrasite Locations and Contexts
13. Intersite Locations and Contexts
14. Cultural Significance
15. Illustrations
Parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 systematically give all
the hierarchial information which is required
within the type-variety system. Part 3 states
where the type or variety was first defined and
is the place for the settling of name discrepancies
(if any). It also notes the size of the sample
upon which a particular type description is
based. The ceramic description, Parts 8-11, is
really the heart of the presentation. In this sec-
tion, the main addition to the traditional type of
ceramic description in the Maya area is the list-
ing of principal identifying modes for the types.
A similar descriptive device has been used for
some time by Phillips and Williams (Phillips
1968) in describing pottery from the Southeast
of the United States.
The listing of principal identifying modes can
have many advantages. Among others, it can
immediately give the reader an idea of the cri-
teria which the archaeologisthas used to identify
a type. It can also form the basis of an attribute
list to be used in a computer analysis of modal
associations or of a punch card listing of modes
from a large area such as the Maya Lowlands
or Southern Mesoamerica. In addition, all the
principal identifying modes are tied into a series
of cross-referencedindices and tables which list
all the modes and types and their associations.
These indices should greatly facilitate the task
of an archaeologist who is analyzing the pottery
of a new site and who wants to make close com-
parisons with the pottery of Seibal. If, for exam-
ple, he has a sherd lot with unsure chronological
position, but with certain outstanding modes,
he can quickly find out which types at Seibal
have this combination of modes and see if the
descriptions fit in with his sherd material. Or,
he may find that there is no type at Seibal with
all the proper modes, but several of them with
two or three of the modes in association. He
can then find the page references for these types
and look at the descriptions to see if his grouping
forms a new variety of a type found at Seibal or
if it is not found at Seibal at all. This example
illustrates just one of several possible uses to
which the principal identifying modes and the
indices can be put.
In the surface finish and decoration and the
form sections (Parts 10 and 11) the discussions
SABLOFF AND SmrrH] TYPE-VARIETY SYSTEM
are as extensive and detailed as possible. In
these two sections, slip, plastic decoration, de-
sign, vessel form, height, diameter, and wall
thickness are among the areas discussed.
Part 13 of the format is the traditional com-
parative section. The main difference between
this section and comparative sections in past
ceramic reports in the Maya area is the insis-
tence on both modal and type comparisons, and
the formal recognition of both kinds of com-
parisons. The comparative sections of ceramic
reports are often vague and may switch back and
forth, inconsistently, between modal and type
comparisons. It may be noted in report X, for
instance, that a pot illustrated in report Y is not
really the same, but the incised design and the
shape are generally reminiscent of the type being
described in report X. It would certainly be
better and more systematic to say that the pot
in report Y shares the principal identifying
modes of fine-line incision and bowl with out-
flared sides with the type in report X, but that it
differs in slip, size, and temper. To conclude, the
formal distinction between modal and type com-
parisons in the format would appear to be an
important step towards more useful intersite
comparisons.
The cultural significance of types (Part 14)
is often discussed in ceramic reports but almost
never extensively and often only in a general
manner in brief summary sections at the end of
the reports. A short discussion of the possible
cultural significance of individual types, espe-
cially the majority ones, would seem to have
much to recommend it. This section includes
statements on function, or on trade, or even on
the importance of certain designs.
Finally, since photographs and, to a greater
extent, drawings have much value in the identi-
fication of types (see Vol. II of R. E. Smith 1955;
the illustrations in Brainerd 1958; or the form
charts in Adams 1963, among others), as many
pictures, drawings, and profiles as possible of
each individual type and variety are included
in the report.
SUPPOSED
WEAKNESSESOF TYPOLOGICAL
ANALYSES
It is our belief that the type-variety system of
ceramic analysis is the best classificatorymethod
available today in southern Mesoamerica and
perhaps in other areas as well. Although any
system which is essentially typological in nature
has certain inherent weaknesses (such as the
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
283
five-fold weaknesses pointed out by Wright
1967), the type-variety system, at least to some
extent, has overcome these deficiencies. Tumrn-
ing specifically to Wright's five points, it should
be noted first of all that the type-variety system
does not tend to "pigeon-hole"those "individual
attributes whose trends extend beyond the type"
(Wright 1967: 99). By combining type and
mode analysis and by placing an emphasis on
the ceramic group, the archaeologist who uses
the type-variety system does not really lose sight
of the continuities of individual attributes. Sec.
ondly, attribute variation is handled by the
variety concept which takes cognizance of differ-
ences in individual attributes that are not large
enough to cause the formation of a new type.
Thirdly, by emphasizingdecorative modes as the
diagnostic criteria in the formation of a new
type, the type-variety system eliminates the pos-
sibility that various workers will give greater
diagnostic weight to different modes. In addi.
tion, the concept of the ceramic group enables
the archaeologist to classify sherds in their
proper group even when they are in fragmentary
or eroded condition and therefore are lacking
in one or two diagnostic modes (as was the case
in Parsons 1967). Moreover, by clearly stating
what his sorting criteria are in each type descrip.
tion, the archaeologist makes it much easier for
others to recognize his types. Fourthly, estab-
lished types are not closed systems since new
varieties can be added to a type or new types to
a group. Fifthly, it remains to be seen whether
or not "attempts to incorporate new data into
the established typology . . . (will disrupt) . . .
communication by creating a host of new types,
revised types, and additions or deletions of cer-
tain attributes under an earlier type name or
new designation" (Wright 1967: 100). Cer-
tainly, the expandability of the system will miti-
gate against possible disruption as will the regu-
lar listing of new types and varieties and their
sources in Estudios de Ceramica Maya, edited
by James C. Gifford. In addition, as noted above,
the tables of modes or the principal identifying
modes in the type-variety descriptions are amen.
able to data processing.
AN IMPORTANTSTRENGTHOF THE SYSTEM:
INTERSITECOMPARISON
Further note should be taken of one of the
type-variety system's main strengths namely, its
utility in the realm of intersite comparison. In
recent years, there has been a growing realization
284 AMERICANANTIQUITY
in American archaeology that the carefully
planned regional study can be of much impor-
tance (see, for example, Binford 1964). Some
of the most successful and sophisticated projects
with regional scope have been accomplished in
Mesoamerica (MacNeish 1958, 1964; Sanders
1965; Willey and others 1965; Flannery and
others 1967; and so on). In the Maya area, one
can point to several projects including those
reported by Ruppert and Dennison (1943),
Smith and Kidder (1943), A. L. Smith (1955),
and Sanders (1960), among others. But it is only
in the past few years that the sophisticated
problem-oriented study (which, of course, has
relied in part on the historically oriented studies
preceding it) has come to the fore. The Belize
Valley project cited above is a good example of
this kind of work as is the greater Palenque proj-
ect of Rands (1967). In these studies, as in other
recent projects of importance such as the Tikal
settlement pattern and sustaining area studies
(Puleston and Callender 1967) or the Cotzal
project (Adams 1967), it is necessary tol make
quick and easy comparisons of pottery from a
number of sites. It is precisely in this area that
the type-variety system has a very useful role
to play.
Since a tight ceramic chronology and knowl-
edge of the degree of ceramic similarity among
sites are simply means of reaching goals of wider
scope, it should not be necessary to spend the
bulk of a project's time and effort on the analy-
sis and description of the pottery from every site.
By drawing on descriptions from previously
studied sites, the archaeologist can easily ascer-
tain whether or not various types are present,
especially if attention has been paid in the pub-
lished reports to the delineation of principal
identifying modes. Thus, through use of the
type-variety system, distinctive ceramic attribute
clusters (types and varieties), which have a
wide areal spread and relatively limited chron-
ological range, can be recognized without undue
trouble and can greatly facilitate, as well as
quicken, the establishment of ceramic sequences
at neighboring sites or in neighboring regions. A
case in point would be the analysis at Seibal,
which was aided by the type-variety descrip-
tions made by R. E. W. Adams (1963) at the
site of Altar de Sacrificios;,approximately 75 mi.
downriver from Seibal.
Finally, with the growing use of the type-
variety system in the Maya Lowlands, it has
been possible to form ceramic spheres (Willey,
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[~VOL.34, No. 3, 1969
Culbert, and Adams 1967; Culbert 1967) which
are based on the spread of established types and
varieties and which can serve a useful purpose
on a regional level of study.
CONCLUSION
We feel that the type-variety system of ce-
ramic analysis as practiced at Mayapan and
Seibal does not fall under the blanket of criti-
cism which Wright (1967) has leveled at typo-
logical analysis. Although the type-variety sys-
tem is basically typological in nature, it has
absorbed some of the merits of modal analysis
and has discarded some of the weaknesses of
typological or taxonomic analysis. Admittedly,
the system is far from perfect, and the real test
of its usefulness for comparative studies has yet
to come. Nevertheless, it is only a means to the
end of understanding culture history and cul-
ture change ("process"), and we feel that it
provides a solid and efficient foundation for the
archaeological roads which lead to this end.
Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Gordon R.
Willey for his helpful comments. In addition, Sabloff
held a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship
at the time that this paper was written.
ADAMS,R. E. W.
1963 The Ceramic Sequence at Altar de Sacrificios,
Guatemala. MS, doctoral dissertation, Harvard
University, Cambridge.
1967 The Cotzal Valley Project; Second Preliminary
Report. Department of Anthropology, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis. (mimeographed)
BINFORD,L. R.
1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research
Design. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
425-41. Salt Lake City.
G. W.
BRAINERD,
1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatan. An-
thropological Records, Vol. 19. Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
CULBERT,T. P.
1965 The Ceramic History of the Central Highlands
of Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World
Archaeological Foundation, Publication 14, No.
19. Provo.
1967 Preliminary Report of the Conference on the
Prehistoric Ceramics of the Maya Lowlands
(1965). Estudios de Cultura Maya, Vol. 6, pp.
81-109. Mexico.
FLANNERY, K. V. AND OTHERS
1967 Farming Systems and Political Growth in An-
cient Oaxaca. Science, Vol. 158, No. 3800, pp.
445-54. Washington.
GIFFORD,J. C.
1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classifi-
cation as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena.
American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341-7
Salt Lake City.
SABLOFFANDSMITH ] TYPE-VARIETY SYSTEM
MACNEISH, R. S.
1958 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations in the
Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 48, Pt.
6. Philadelphia.
1965 Ancient Mesoamerican Civilization. Science.
Vol. 143, No. 3606, pp. 531-7. Washington.
L. A.
PARSONS,
1967 Bilbao, Guatemala; An Archaeological Study of
the Pacific Coast Cotzumalhuapa Region. Mil-
waukee Public Museum, Publications in Anthro-
pology 11, Vol. 1. Milwaukee.
PHILLIPS,P.
1968 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Mississippi
Valley, II. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Vol. 60. Cambridge. (in press)
PULESTON,D. E. AND D. W. CALLENDER,JR.
1967 Defensive Earthworks at Tikal. Expedition, Vol.
9, No. 3, pp. 40-8. Philadelphia.
RANDS,R. L.
1967 Ceramica de la region de Palenque, M6xico
Estudios de Cultura Maya, Vol. 6, pp. 111-48
Mexico.
I.
ROUSE,
1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21.
New Haven.
WILLEY, G. R. AND OTHERS
RUPPERT,K. AND J. H. DENNISON,JR.
1943 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Campeche,
Quintana Roo, and Peten. Carnegie Institution
of Washington, Publication 543. Washington.
WRIGHT,
SANDERS,W. T.
1960 Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns
in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Carnegie Institution
of Washington, Publication 606, Contribution 60,
pp. 155-264. Washington.
1965 The Cultural Ecology of the Teotihuacan Val-
ley: A Preliminary Report of the Results of the
Teotihuacan Valley Project. Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park. (mimeographed)
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:11:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
285
SMITH, A. L.
1955 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Central Gua-
temala. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Publication 608. Washington.
SMITH, A. L. ANDA. V. KIDDER
1943 Explorations in the Motagua Valley, Guatemala.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication
546, Contribution 41, pp. 101-82. Washington.
SMITH, R. E.
1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala.
Middle American Research Institute, Publica-
tion 20, Vol. 2. New Orleans.
1968 The Pottery of Mayapan: Including Studies of
Ceramic Material from Uxmal, Kabah, and
Chich6n Itza. MS, to be published by the Pea-
body Museum, Cambridge.
SMITH, R. E., G. R. WILLEY, AND J. C. GIFFORD
1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the
Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity,
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 330-40. Salt Lake City.
WALLRATH,M.
1967 Excavations in the Tehuantepec Region, Mex-
ico, Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, Vol. 57, Pt. 2. Philadelphia.
WILLEY, G. R., T. P. CULBERT, AND R. E. W. ADAMS
1967 Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the
1965 Guatemala City Conference. American
Antiquity, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 289-315. Salt Lake
City.
1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Val.
ley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,
Vol. 54. Cambridge.
J. V.
1967 Type and Attribute Analysis: Their Application
to Iroquois Culture History. In Iroquois Culture,
History, and Prehistory; Proceedings of the 1965
Conference on Iroquois Research, edited by E.
Tooker, pp. 99-100. New York State Museum
and Science Service, Albany.
PEABODYMUSEUM
Cambridge, Massachusetts
May, 1968