Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T02:49:08.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory, Sampling, and Analytical Techniques in the Archaeological Study of Prehistoric Ceramics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hector Neff
Hector Neff*
Affiliation:
Missouri University Research Reactor, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How archaeologists analyze pottery is determined by archaeological theory, sampling considerations, and available analytical techniques. The most damaging impediment to methodological advance is lack of a theory of how patterns of ceramic variation are generated. It is argued herein that Darwinian evolutionary theory (or selectionism) provides a body of concepts capable of explaining patterned variation and specifies measurements to make in testing specific explanatory statements. Most existing analytical procedures (e.g., the "Type-Variety" system) are regarded as aspects of sampling, the role of which is to help reduce some of the bewildering heterogeneity in ceramic collections before attempting to measure evolutionarily significant variation. Technical analysis, often considered the domain of nonarchaeological specialists, actually produces the measurements needed to test explanatory statements made about pottery observed in the archaeological record.

Resumen

Resumen

Los métodos de análisis de la alfarería arqueológica se determinan por la teoría arqueológica, consideraciones de selección de muestras, y técnicas analíticas disponibles. El obstáculo peor para el mejoramiento de los métodos es la falta de teoría sobre el origen de patrones de variación cerámica. Se sostiene aqui que la teoría de evolución de Darwin provee un cuerpo de conceptos que puede explicar los patrones de variación cerámica y especifica medidas necesarias para probar nuestras afirmaciones explicativas. La mayoría de los procedimientos analíticos ya existentes (por ejemplo, el sistema "Tipo-Variedad") se consideran en este artículo como aspectos del proceso de seleccionar la muestra, lo cual es necesario para reducir la diversidad inmensa de las colecciones cerámicas antes de intentar de medir la variación de importancia evolucionaria. Análisis técnico, que se considera usualmente como el campo de especialistas no arqueológicos, produce las medidas necesarias para probar explicaciones sobre la alfarería observada en el registro arqueológico

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 23 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1993

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

References Cited

Adams, W. Y. 1988 Archaeological Classification : Theory vs. Practice. Antiquity 61 : 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldenderfer, M., and Blashfield, R. K. 1978 Cluster Analysis and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 43 : 502–506.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. E., Neff, H., and Bishop, R. L. 1991 Compositional Analysis and “Sources” of Pottery : An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. American Anthropologist 93 : 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benfer, R. A. 1975 Sampling and Classification. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by Mueller, J. W., pp. 227–247. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. L., and Neff, H. 1989 Multivariate Analysis of Compositional Data in Archaeology. In Archaeological Chemistry, vol. IV, edited by Allen, R. O., pp. 576–586. Advances in Chemistry Series No. 220. American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Bishop, R. L., Olin, J. S., and Blackman, M. J. 1984 SARCAR : A New Archaeometric Resource. ICOM7th Triennial Meeting Preprints, pp. 84. 8. 1-84. 8. 2. Paris.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., and Holley, G. 1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5., edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 275–330. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, R. L., Canouts, V., DeAtley, S. P., Qoyawayma, A., and Aikins, C. W. 1988 The Formation of Ceramic Analytical Groups : Hopi Pottery Production and Exchange, A. C. 1300-1600. Journal of Field Archaeology 15 : 317–337.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by Moore, J. A. and Keene, A. S., pp. 107–134. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B. C. -A. D. 600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Keegan, W. F., pp. 155–184. Occasional Paper No. 7. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1990 Selection and Evolution in Nonhierarchical Organization. In The Evolution of Political Systems : Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by Upham, S., pp. 62–86. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bronitsky, G. 1986 The Use of Materials Science Techniques in the Study of Pottery Construction and Use. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 209–276. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bronitsky, G., and Hamer, R. 1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology : The Effect of Various Tempering Materials on Impact and Thermal-Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 51 : 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. 1965 Variation and Selective Retention in Sociocultural Evolution. In Social Change in Developing Areas, edited by Barringer, H. R., Blankston, G. I., and Mack, R. W., pp. 19—49. Schenkman, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Christensen, A. L., and Read, D. W. 1977 Numerical Taxonomy, R-Mode Factor Analysis, and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 42 : 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colton, H. S. 1953 Potsherds : An Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramics and Their Use in Historical Reconstruction. Bulletin No. 25. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Colton, H. S., and Hargrave, L. L. 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Bulletin No. 11. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Cordell, A. S. 1983 Patterns of Resource Selection in the Manufacture of North Florida Weeden Island Pottery. Southeastern Archaeology 2 : 84–97.Google Scholar
Cordell, L. S. 1991 Anna O. Shepard and Southwestern Archaeology : Ignoring a Cautious Heretic. In Anna O. Shepard : A Ceramic Legacy, edited by Bishop, R. L. and Lange, F. W., pp. 132–153. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. 1964 The Selection of Samples from Large Sherd Collections. American Antiquity 29 : 467–473.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. 1982 Clusters of Objects and Associations Between Variables : Two Approaches to Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A., pp. 30–55. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
DeAtley, S. P., and Bishop, R. L. 1991 Toward an Integrated Interface for Archaeology and Archaeometry. In Anna O. Shepard : A Ceramic Legacy, edited by Bishop, R. L. and Lange, F., pp. 358–382. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Doran, J. E., and Hodson, F. R. 1975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1984 Stylistic and Petrographic Variability in Pueblo II Period Cibola Whiteware from the Upper Little Colorado. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation : Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by Sullivan, A. P. and Hantman, J. L., pp. 4–16. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1970 Seriation Method and Its Evaluation. American Antiquity 35 : 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978a Style and Function : A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43 : 192–202.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978b Archaeological Potential of Anthropological and Scientific Models of Function. In Archaeological Essays in Honor of Irving B. Rouse, edited by Dunnell, R. C. and Hall, E. S., Jr., pp. 41–73. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 35–99. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense : The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38 : 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1986 Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 149–208. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C, and Feathers, J. K. 1991 Late Woodland Manifestations of the Maiden Plain, Southeast Missouri. In Late Woodland Stability, Transformation, and Variation in the Greater Southeastern United States, edited by Nassaney, M. S. and Cobb, C. R., pp. 21–45. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Feathers, J. K. 1989 Effects of Temper on Strength of Ceramics : Response to Bronitsky and Hamer. American Antiquity 54 : 579–588.Google Scholar
Feathers, J. K. 1990 Explaining the Evolution of Prehistoric Ceramics in Southeastern Missouri. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Feinman, G. 1987 Comment on Schiffer and Skibo's “Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. ” Current Anthropology 28 : 609–610.Google Scholar
Feinman, G., Banker, S., Cooper, R. F., Cook, G. B., and Nicholas, L. M. 1989 A Technological Perspective on Changes in the Ancient Oaxacan Grayware Ceramic Tradition : Preliminary Results. Journal of Field Archaeology 16 : 331–344.Google Scholar
Fish, P. R., Fish, S. K., Whittlesey, S., Neff, H., Glascock, M. D., and Elam, J. M. 1992 An Evaluation of the Production and Exchange of Tanque Verde Red-on-brown Ceramics in Southern Arizona. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by Neff, H., pp. 233–254. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 7. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Foust, R. D., Jr., Ambler, J. R., and Turner, L. D. 1989 Trace Element Analysis of Pueblo II Kayenta Anasazi Sherds. In Archaeological Chemistry, vol. IV, edited by Allen, R. O., pp. 125–144. American Ceramic Society, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Gifford, J. C. 1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25 : 341–347.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., Raup, D. M., Sepkoski, J. J., Jr., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1977 The Shape of Evolution : A Comparison of Real and Random Clades. Paleobiology 3 : 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, M. W. 1982 Breaking Down Ceramic Variation : Testing Models of White Mountain Redware Design Style Development. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 : 305–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, M. W. 1984 Temporal Variation Among White Mountain Redware Design Styles. The Kiva 50 : 3–24.Google Scholar
Halley, D. J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function : A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51 : 267–295.Google Scholar
Hantman, J. L., Lightfoot, K. G., Upham, S., Plog, F., Plog, S., and Donaldson, B. 1984 Cibola Whitewares : A Regional Perspective. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation : Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by Sullivan, A. P. and Hantman, J. L., pp. 17–35. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Harbottle, G. 1991 The Efficiencies and Error-Rates of Euclidean and Mahalanobis Searches in Hypergeometries of Archaeological Ceramic Compositions. In Archaeometry 90, edited by Pernicka, E. and Wagner, G. A., pp. 413–424. Birkhauser Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Harn, A. D. 1991 The Eveland Site : Inroad to Spoon River Mississippian Society. In New Perspectives on Cahokia : Views from the Periphery, edited by Stoltman, J. B., pp. 129–153. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. P. 1987 La importancia de la ceramica utilitaria en arqueologia, con observaciones sobre la prehistoria de Guatemala. Anales de la Academia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala 39 : 151–183.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. P. 1989a Observaciones sobre el desarollo cultural prehistorico en la costa sur de Guatemala. In Investigaciones arqueologicas en la costa sur de Guatemala, edited by Whitley, D. S. and Beaudry, M. P., pp. 4–35. Monograph No. 31. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. P. 1989b Comparacion entre el sistema de “ware” y el sistema de tipo-variedad. Paper presented at the III Simposio Sobre la Arqueologia de Guatemala, Guatemala.Google Scholar
Heiman, R. B. 1989 Assessing the Technology of Ancient Pottery : The Use of Ceramic Phase Diagrams. Archaeomaterials 3 : 123–148.Google Scholar
Jernigan, E. W. 1986 The Derivation of Chaco Counterchange Designs : A Structural Approach to Style Change. The Kiva 52 : 23–52.Google Scholar
Kidder, A. V. 1931 The Pottery of Pecos, vol. 1. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition No. 5. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kidder, A. V., and Shepard, A. O. 1936 The Pottery of Pecos, vol. 2. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition No. 7. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kingery, W. D. 1987 A Role for Ceramic Materials Science in Art, History and Archaeology. Journal of Materials Education 9 : 676–718.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D. 1989 Resource Specialization, Population Growth, and Agricultural Production in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 54 : 491–503.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D., and Jones, G. T. 1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6 : 199–219.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, K. G., and Jewett, R. 1984 Late Prehistoric Ceramic Distributions in East-Central Arizona : An Examination of Cibola Whiteware, White Mountain Redware, and Salado Redware. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation : Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by Sullivan, A. P. and Hantman, J. L., pp. 36–73. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Lowe, G. W., Lee, T. A., and Espinosa, E. Martinez 1982 Izapa : An Introduction to the Ruins and Monuments. Papers No. 31. New World Archaeological Foundation, Provo, Utah.Google Scholar
Markman, C. W. 1991 Above the American Bottom : The Late Woodland-Mississippian Transition in North-East Illinois. In New Perspectives on Cahokia : Views from the Periphery, edited by Stoltman, J. B., pp. 177–208. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought : Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1988 Toward a New Philosophy of Biology : Observations of an Evolutionist. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 1984 Developmental History of the Plumbate Pottery Industry in the Eastern Soconusco Region, A. D. 600-A. D. 1250. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 1989a The Effect of Interregional Distribution on Plumbate Pottery Production. In A ncient Trade and Tribute : Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, B., pp. 249–267. University of Utah Press, Provo.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 1989b Origins of Plumbate Pottery Production. In Ancient Trade and Tribute : Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, B., pp. 175–193. University of Utah Press, Provo.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 1990 Culture Contact and Ceramic Evolution : Examples from Mesoamerica. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 4, edited by Kingery, W. D., pp. 159–181. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 1992 Ceramics and Evolution. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 141–193. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Neff, H., and Bishop, R. L. 1988 Plumbate Origins and Development. American Antiquity 53 : 505–522.Google Scholar
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L., and Arnold, D. E. 1988 Reconstructing Ceramic Production from Ceramic Compositional Data : A Guatemalan Example. Journal of Field A rchaeology 15 : 33 9-3 4 8.Google Scholar
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L., and Arnold, D. E. 1990 A Reexamination of the Compositional Affiliations of Formative Period Whiteware from Highland Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 1 : 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L., and Rands, R. L. 1988 Similarity/Distance Measures : Solutions to the Mixed Level Data Problem. Ms. on file, Research Reactor Facility, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L., and Sayre, E. V. 1988 A Simulation Approach to the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 15 : 159–172.Google Scholar
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L., and Sayre, E. V. 1989 More Observations on the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 16 : 57–69.Google Scholar
Neff, H., Glascock, M. D., Stryker, K., and Steponaitis, V. P. 1991 Chemical Characterization of Moundville Pottery. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
Neitzel, J., and Bishop, R. L. 1990 Neutron Activation of Dogoszhi Style Ceramics : Production and Exchange in the Chacoan Regional System. The Kiva 56 : 67–85.Google Scholar
O' Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1990 Variation, Selection, and the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 31–79. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Olin, J. S., and Blackman, M. J. 1989 Compositional Classification of Mexican Majolica Ceramics of the Spanish Colonial Period. In Archaeological Chemistry, vol. IV, edited by Allen, R. O., pp. 87–124. American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
O' Meara, J. T. 1989 Anthropology as Empirical Science. American Anthropologist 91 : 354–369.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 60. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rands, R. L. 1991 The Intellectual Development of Mesoamerican Archaeology and an Assessment of Shepard's Influence. In Anna O. Shepard : A Ceramic Legacy, edited by Bishop, R. L. and Lange, F., pp. 154–173. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Read, D. W. 1974 Some Comments on Typologies in Archaeology and an Outline of a Methodology. American Antiquity 39 : 216–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D. W. 1989 Intuitive Typology and Automatic Classification : Divergence of Full Circle? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8 : 158–188.Google Scholar
Read, D. W., and Christenson, A. L. 1978 Comments on “Cluster and Archaeological Classification. ” American Antiquity 43 : 505–506.Google Scholar
Reid, J. J. 1984 What is Black-on-White and Vague All Over? In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation : Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by Sullivan, A. P. and Hantman, J. L., pp. 135–152. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. 1980 Trace Element Characterization of Weeden Island Pottery : Implications for Specialized Production. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22 : 29–35.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. 1982 Pottery Production, Pottery Classification, and the Role of Physicochemical Analyses. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by Olin, J. S. and Franklin, A. D., pp. 47–56. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1984 The Origins of Agriculture : An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1985 Darwinian Selection, Symbolic Variation, and the Evolution of Culture. Current Anthropology 26 : 65–88.Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1989a Undirected Variation and the Darwinian Explanation of Cultural Change. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–45. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1989b Diversity, Variation, and Selection. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G. T., pp. 13–24. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Romesburg, H. C. 1984 Cluster Analysis for Researchers. Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J. A., and Smith, R. E. 1969a The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic Classifications in the Type-Variety System. American Antiquity 34 : 278–286.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J. A., and Smith, R. E. 1969b 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.Google Scholar
Schif Fer, M. B. 1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53 : 461–485.Google Scholar
Schif Fer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28 : 595–622.Google Scholar
Sharer, R. J. 1978 Pottery and Conclusions. The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, vol. 3, edited by Sharer, R. J.. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1936 The Technology of Pecos Pottery. In The Pottery of Pecos, vol. 2, edited by Kidder, A. V. and Shepard, A. O., pp. 389–587. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition No. 7. Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1948 Plumbate : A Mesoamerican Tradeware. Publication No. 573. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1965 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication No. 609. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Shook, E. M., and Hatch, M. P. 1978 The Ruins of El Balsamo. Journal of New World Archaeology III(l). Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Shook, E. M., and Hatch, M. P. 1979 The Early Preclassic Sequence in the Ocos-Salinas La Blanca Area, South Coast of Guatemala. Contributions to the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 41 : 143–196.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1990 A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism. Science 250 : 1665–1668.Google Scholar
Smith, R. E., Willey, G. R., and Gilford, J. C. 1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity 30 : 330–340.Google Scholar
Smith, W. 1962 Schools, Pots, and Potters. American Anthropologist 64 : 1165–1178.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1980 Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism. Philosophy of Science 47 : 350–383.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1984 The Nature of Selection : Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Sneath, P. H. A. 1973 Numerical Taxonomy : The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Steponaitis, V. P., Blackman, M. J., and Weisman, R. 1988 Chemical and Mineralogical Characterization of Mississippian Pottery. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix.Google Scholar
Stoltman, J. B. 1989 A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections. American Antiquity 54 : 147–160.Google Scholar
Stoltman, J. B. 1991 Ceramic Petrography as a Technique for Documenting Cultural Interaction : An Example from the Upper Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 56 : 103–120.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. 1984 Design Styles and Cibola Whiteware : Examples from the Grasshopper Area, East-Central Arizona. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation : Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by Sullivan, A. P. and Hantman, J. L., pp. 74–93. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Vaillant, G. C. 1927 The Chronological Significance of Maya Ceramics. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vandiver, P. 1988 The Implications of Variation in Ceramic Technology : The Forming of Neolithic Storage Vessels in China and the Near East. Archaeomaterials 2 : 139–174.Google Scholar
Vierra, R. K. 1982 Typology, Classification and Theory Building. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A., pp. 162–175. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston.Google Scholar
Voorrips, A. 1982 Mambrino's Helmet : A Framework for Structuring Archaeological Data. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A., pp. 93–126. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston.Google Scholar
Washburn, D. K. 1984 The Usefulness of Typological Analysis for Understanding Aspects of Southwestern Prehistory : Some Conflicting Returns from Design Analysis. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation : Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by Sullivan, A. P. and L, J. Hantman, pp. 120–134. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Wetherington, R. K. 1978 Descriptive Taxonomy of Kaminaljuyu Ceramics. In The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, edited by Wetherington, R. K., pp. 51–114. Pennsylvania State University Monograph Series on Kaminaljuyu. University Park.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1972 A New Approach to Pottery Typology. American Antiquity 37 : 13–33.Google Scholar
Wheat, J. B., Gifford, J. C., and Wasley, W. W. 1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24 : 34–47.Google Scholar
Willey, G. R. 1961 Volume in Pottery and the Selection of Samples. American Antiquity 27 : 230–231.Google Scholar
Williams, S., and Brain, J. P. 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 74. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Windes, T. C. 1984 A View of the Cibola Whiteware from Chaco Canyon. In Regional Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Variation : Contemporary Studies of the Cibola Whitewares, edited by Sullivan, A. P. and Hantman, J. L., pp. 94–119. Anthropological Research Papers No. 31. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Young, L. C, and Stone, T. 1990 The Thermal Properties of Textured Ceramics : An Experimental Study. Journal of Field Archaeology 17 : 195–203.Google Scholar