The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery

Abstract

The method being used to analyze pottery from Uaxactún and Barton Ramie by the application of the type-variety concept is offered as an analytical approach well suited to the classification of Maya ceramics. Types and varieties are seen as the best archaeological approximation of the ceramic abstractions which existed in the prehistoric cultural configuration. The systematic application of the type-variety concept will make it possible to establish analytical ceramic units which will be comparable throughout the Maya territory, to undertake detailed chronological and areal studies, especially in areas away from the ceremonial centers, and to use ceramics as a step toward cultural interpretation. Considerable attention is given to the procedure of analysis and to the problem of naming the resulting analytical ceramic units. The most desirable nomenclature is illustrated by Aguacate Orange [type]: Holha Variety. Place names have been used for the primary type term and for the variety name, but a descriptive term is used for the second part of the type name. The desirability of keeping the variety flexible and free of bias or prejudice stemming from the nomenclature is stressed. The variety is the smallest meaningful unit of classification in the type-variety method. Sorting, naming, and tabulating begin with varieties which, in turn, lead to the recognition, naming and description of types.

Politics Through Pottery: A View of the Preclassic-Classic Transition From Building B, Group Ii, Holmul, Guatemala

“…The sequence is derived from Merwin's original excavations (Merwin and Vaillant 1932:20-41, 50-52), Vaillant's analysis of pottery from Merwin's excavations, as well as his interpretations of Merwin's notes (1927:300-335;Merwin and Vaillant 1932:13-16, 54-84 The current Holmul region ceramic chronology is presented in relation to other Maya area sequences in Figure 4. The current ceramic sequence follows the Type-Variety classification system as it was proposed for the Maya lowlands (Gifford 1960(Gifford , 1976Smith and Gifford1966;Smith et al 1960). I did not retain Vaillant's original complex names (for example, Holmul I-V) as they only began in the Terminal Preclassic period (Holmul I) and ended in the Late Classic period (Holmul V) and, in some instances, did not represent true breaks or changes in complexes.…”

Archaeological Systematics and Cultural Evolution: Retrieving the Honour of Culture History

“…But, as already mentioned, the major shortcomings of culture history, from a Darwinian standpoint, were its typological thinking, i.e., the attempt to subsume, rather than describe, the range of artefact variation -which is the material of evolution -and its normativist neglect of cultural variants. The type-variety system provides a particularly clear example of this flaw (Gifford 1960;Sabloff& Smith 1969;Smith & Gifford 1965;Smith et a!. 1960): rather than being a description of some real cultural phylogeny observed in the archaeological record, its taxonomic hierarchy is made up of preconceived units defined by standardized sets of attributes which are held to be universally of use in identifying social units at different (and likewise preconceived) levels of inclusiveness, and the transmission of cultural information between them.…”

Discriminación visual como determinante de estilo y asignación tipológica de la cerámica códice de Calakmul, Campeche

“…Y aunque ha habido muchas quejas sobre él, pocos ceramistas lo evaden. Complementar el sistema tipo-variedad con aspectos estilísticos de historia del arte y análisis composicional de pasta, como lo han hecho Reents Budet y Bishop, ha demostrado ser útil para acercarnos a la dimensión sociohistórica que Smith y Gifford (Smith et al, 1960;Smith y Gifford, 1966) previeron como objetivo final de este método analítico (Reents Budet y Bishop, 2003: 93).…”