Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T19:27:22.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking the Ware Concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Prudence M. Rice
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The type-variety system of ceramic taxonomy is widely accepted, but some difficulties exist in the identification and interpretation of "wares" in the study of Maya pottery. Although the ware concept was formulated to incorporate technological data, such as paste composition, into the classificatory scheme, in practice ware definitions are frequently limited to variables of surface treatment. A redefinition of the ware concept and the creation of a new unit of paste composition analysis which crosscuts types is suggested. This will realign theory closer to what is current practice and will enhance the potential and actual contributions of the type-variety system to the anthropological study of pottery.

Type
Comment
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 538 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, Dean E. 1971 Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan potters: etics and emics. American Antiquity 36:20-40.Google Scholar
Culbert, T. Patrick 1967 Preliminary report of the conference on the prehistoric ceramics of the Maya Lowlands (1965). Estudios de Cultura Maya 6:81-109. Mexico.Google Scholar
Giffoid, James C. 1960 The type-variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator of cultural phenomena. American Antiquity 25:341-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Prudence M. 1976 Ceramic continuity and change in the Valley of Guatemala: a study of whiteware pottery production. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1960 The classification of artifacts in archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1975 Ceramics: Excavations at Seibal. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Memoirs 13.Google Scholar
Sabloff, Jeremy A., and Robert, E. Smith 1969 The importance of both analytical and taxonomic classification in the type-variety system. American Antiquity 34:278-85.Google Scholar
Sabloff, Jeremy A., and Robert, E. Smith 1970 Ceramic wares in the Maya area: a clarification of an aspect of the type-variety system and presentation of a formal model for comparative use. Estudios de Cultura Maya 8:97-115. Mexico.Google Scholar
Smith, Robert E. 1971 The pottery of Mayapan: including studies of ceramic material from Uxmal, Kabah, and Chichen Itza. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Papers 66.Google Scholar
Smith, Robert E., and James, C. Gifford 1965 Pottery of the Maya Lowlands. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 2, edited by Robert, Wauchope and Gordon R. Willey pp. 498-534. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Smith, Robert E., and James, C. Gifford 1966 Maya ceramic varieties, types, and wares at Uaxactun: Supplement to “Ceramic sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala.” Middle American Research Institute Publication 28:125-74.Google Scholar
Stanislawski, Michael B. 1975 What you see is what you get: ethnoarchaeology and scientific model building. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Dallas.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R., Patrick Culbert, T., and Richard E. W., Adams 1967 Maya Lowland ceramics: a report from the 1965 Guatemala City conference. American Antiquity 32:289-315.Google Scholar