Ladd] PARITA AND SANTA MARIA ARCHEOLOGY, PANAMA 5 



CERAMIC TYPOLOGY 



The aim of this typological classification is to achieve descriptive 

 ceramic units which will have chronological or areal validity. The 

 type-variety system (Wheat, Gifford, and Wasley, 1958; Smith, Wil- 

 ley, and Gifford, 1960) was used in classifying the polychrome pottery, 

 since this scheme offers considerable flexibility and is coming into 

 increasing use in nearby areas such as Middle America. In its sim- 

 plest form, the system consists of establishing small ceramic units 

 (varieties) on the basis of shared modes or attributes and then pro- 

 gressively linking these into larger and more inclusive units (types) 

 which are bound together by fewer shared attributes. Types, in 

 turn, are combined if necessary into ceramic groups (Gifford, MS.). 

 Again following Gifford, the term "design style" is used herein to 

 express a general similarity of decorative style which may, and usually 

 does, crosscut the typological groupings. 



Essentially, the groupings evolved out of an examination of the 

 sample. The whole vessels decorated in Azuero design style poly- 

 chrome were described vessel by vessel, primarily in an attempt to 

 become familiar with the various elements comprising the designs, 

 but also to bring to the fore whatever other attributes of surface 

 treatment or construction might be significant. Then a card contain- 

 ing the descriptive data was prepared for each vessel. By the time 

 this process was completed, certain groupings had become apparent 

 on the basis of shared design elements, styles of depicting these ele- 

 ments, and/or modes of shape or construction details. These groups 

 were then further refined by study of the sherds and of complete 

 vessels from other collections. Some varieties were given new sub- 

 stance by the discovery of additional vessels which clearly belonged 

 in what had previously been very wealdy represented groups. Addi- 

 tional element combinations found on a characteristic shape enlarged 

 the definition of some varieties as did the admission of previously 

 unrecognized shapes to a characteristic combination of designs and 

 vessel form. No single category of attribute was considered domi- 

 nant or decisive in all cases as a criterion for distinguishing varieties. 

 The main unifying attribute in one variety might be shape ; in another, 

 design. For example, the El Hatillo variety includes a great many 

 shapes, none of which is especially frequent, but all of which are 

 decorated in a distinctive style with characteristic elements present. 

 The Nispero variety, however, is based on one distinctive shape 

 combined with a characteristic decorative arrangement and style 

 which occur regularly enough to be classified as a variety. As a 

 result of this lack of consistency, some varieties stand out as easily 

 recognizable entities, whereas with others the line of demarcation is 

 not as clear. There are a few varieties which have conflicting or 



693-817—64 2 



