Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
VOLUME 25 JANUARY 1960 NUMBER 3
MATEIAL]- -
CHOICES OF SHAPE] --
R?ESULrA Ar EI/FACS]-
is as prevalent among natural as among worked of grit and the other, of sherds with inclusions
shells, and hence it must be considered a purely of shell. He thereby determines that the potters
biological trait which has no part to play in cul- had two alternative customs of tempering their
tural studies. vessels, one with pieces of stone and the other
Analytic classification, then, must single out with pieces of shell. Then, he may pick out the
modes, which are cultural, and exclude those sherds which are from rims and regroup them
traits which are purely biological, chemical, or into a second series of classes, each characterized
physical. One way to do this is to examine a by a different set of rim attributes. In this case,
collection in terms of the artisan's procedure, he will have established a series of standards to
starting first with the materials he used, contin- which the potters conformed in making rims.
uing with his techniques of manufacture, and He may repeat this process of reclassification
then considering shape, decoration, and uses. with other aspects of material, shape, decora-
At each stage in the procedure one may find tion, and use, ending up, as I have done in the
that the artisan had some choice of standards or case of my Antillean collections, with as many
customs (Fig. 1). This makes it possible, for as 80 modes of material, shape, and decoration
example, to divide a given collection into one or (Rouse 1939, 1941, 1952).
more series of classes on the basis of the mate- It is not necessary, of course, to be so system-
rials used. One can then redistribute the same atic and all-inclusive as this in doing analytic
specimens into other series of classes on the classification. Various authors have concen-
basis of techniques, elements of shape and dec- trated upon technology (Matson 1942), upon
oration, and uses (Fig. 2). Each class will have shapes (Black and Weer 1936), upon designs
one or more diagnostic attributes, and those at- (Amsden 1936), or upon uses (C. S. Ford
tributes will be indicative of a single mode. 1937). The important point is that the author
For example, an archaeologist may take a be interested in establishing independent modes
collection of potsherds and divide it into two and not in studying the manner in which those
classes, one consisting of sherds with inclusions modes are combined on the artifacts.
RoUSE] THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTS 315
PROCED9(PE CA TEGOIES
O--- -- AL COLtLEcrTOA
TEECHVOLOb&Y CLASSES,
YIELD/AOG TECr/OLO/6CALI
ODOES
SUCCESS/VE
CLASS/.F/C'ATIOS - - ___T FUWCT/OA CLASSES,
ACCOCWD VG TO USEJ YIEL
LD/NOG MODS OF USE
I CLSCLASSES
OF
oDV/S/Oa/ ------
k' - ARTIFACTS
K J
CLASSES,
StDSUB-
- - - -- ~
S$UBODVlS/OAJ}- --~U YIELDAIV6 TYPES
OF A rTIFACTS
FIG.3. Example of the taxonomic approach to classification.
certain class of artifacts and which serves to dif- other hand, he cannot expect to use all the
ferentiate that class from all other classes. modes; to do so would result in too large a num-
There are several different ways of classifying ber of types, especially if the artisan was per-
a collection to form types. The most systematic mitted choices of modes during the course of the
one is to divide the specimens into two or more manufacture of the artifacts (Fig. 1). The pro-
classes on the basis of one set of modes, for ex- portion of modes which it is practicable to use
ample, of materials; then to subdivide each class as the criteria for taxonomic classification varies
on the basis of another set of modes, such as with the complexity of the artifacts and with
shapes; and to continue this process until all the the number of alternatives open to the artisan.
artifacts of the same kind have been separated Simple artifacts with few alternatives, for exam-
into a single sub-subclass (Fig. 3). Another way ple, no decoration, can be classified in terms of
is to work intuitively by simply sorting and re- almost all their modes, whereas complex arti-
sorting the artifacts until they end up in rela- facts with many alternatives, such as elaborately
tively homogeneous classes (Krieger 1944, Fig. decorated pottery, require selection of only a
25). A third is to work statistically, for example, few modes from among many. The type "stone
by noting the taxonomically significant modes of ball" may be cited as an example of the former
each artifact on a punch card and sorting out extreme; here the three diagnostic modes, use of
the cards according to the most frequent com- stone, grinding, and spherical shape, are practi-
binations of modes (Shepard 1956: 322-32). In cally the only ones which can be analyzed from
all cases the end result is the same: a single the specimens. Pottery types illustrate the other
series of classes or subclasses rather than the extreme; for example, Ritchie and MacNeish
successive series which result from analytic clas- (1949: 99, Fig. 36), in their study of pre-Iroquo-
sification (compare Figs. 2, 3). ian pottery, explicitly limited the diagnostic
In all cases, the classifier must decide how modes they used to rim profiles, designs, and
many modes he is to consider diagnostic, that is, decorative techniques, excluding all the other
how many are going to end up in the type. He modes which were analyzable from the sherds.
must select more than one, since by definition a The personality of the taxonomist may also
type consists of two or more modes. On the have an effect upon the number of modes which
RousE ] THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTS 317
type. Each taxonomic class is characterized by differences in the nature of the artifacts. There
two or more modes, selected from among the may be some overlapping between these two,
total number of modes obtainable by means of but generally they will be distinct, because the
analytic classification. The modes diagnostic of modes comprising each will have been chosen
each class constitute its type. for different reasons. Here, we have a good ex-
Types, then, consist of selected modes. We ample of the arbitrarynature of types.
have seen that the nature of the selection will A comparison with ethnology may perhaps
vary from type to type depending upon the help to clarify these distinctions. One of the
complexity of the artifacts, the number of alter- things an ethnologist does in studying material
natives which the culture offered to the artisans, culture is to ask or observe how his informants
the personal inclination of the taxonomist make and use their artifacts. Such observations
(whether he is a "lumper" or a "splitter"), and enable the ethnologist to distinguish various
the purposes for which he plans to use the types. techniques of manufacture and uses of the arti-
To put this in another way, modes are inher- facts. In the terminology of the present paper,
ent in one's collection. If two archaeologists an- the latter are procedural modes.
alyze the same collection and do an equally It is likewise possible for the ethnologist to ask
good job of it, they should produce the same his informants to identify the various parts of
modes (Taylor 1948: 129-30). Types, on the their artifacts. If the informants go on to dis-
contrary, are imposed on the collection. If two tinguish different kinds of handles, for example,
taxonomists classify the same collection and de- or if the ethnologist himself does so, they will be
cide, for whatever reason, upon different diag- producing the units here called conceptual
nostic modes, they will produce different types modes.
(Brew 1946: 46). The mode, therefore, is a A third possibility is for the ethnologist to ask
natural unit of cultural study, whereas the type his informants to identify the artifacts as com-
is an arbitraryone. plete objects by saying, for example, that they
It does not follow from this that types are any are "knives" or "scrapers." If either the inform-
less demonstrable than modes. An archaeolo- ant or the ethnologist goes on to define the re-
gist can validate types equally well by grouping sultant categoriesby listing the modes diagnostic
them into classes and demonstrating that the of each, he will be producing the units which
artifacts of each class share the same diagnostic we have termed descriptive types.
modes. The point is that he can then regroup Finally, the informants may refer to certain
the artifacts according to another set of diagnos- artifacts as being "old-" or "new-fashioned" and
tic modes and thereby produce other types to others as being of a local or foreign style. If
which will have equal validity. either the informant or the ethnologist should
It should not be implied, either, that a type define these categories by listing their distinctive
consists merely of the sum of its constituent modes, he would be producing what are here
modes. The fact that all these modes recur called historical types.
from artifact to artifact gives them a reality In other words, the ethnologist as well as the
above and beyond that of the individual modes. archaeologist may do both analytic and taxo-
We have distinguished two kinds of modes: nomic classification. The ethnologist, however,
(1) conceptual modes, consisting of ideas and is able to do so with the assistance of inform-
standards which the artisans expressed in the ants, whereas the archaeologist is forced to rely
artifacts and (2) procedural modes, consisting entirely upon his own judgment and experience
of customs followed by the artisans in making in formulating modes and types.
and using the artifacts. Conceptual modes are
UTILITY OF THE METHODS
directly indicated by the attributes of the arti-
facts whereas procedural modes have to be in- Brew (1946: 65) has observed that "we need
ferred from the attributes. Hence, the distinc- more rather than fewer classifications, different
tion between the two is primarily a matter of classifications, always new classifications, to
relative reliability. meet new needs." If Brew is correct, we ought
Two kinds of types have likewise been distin- to be able to list the needs for classification in
guished: (1) historical types, formed in order to archaeology and to state the kinds of classifica-
establish differences of time and space, and (2) tion which best meet each need. The remainder
descriptive types, formed in order to express of the paper will be devoted to this task. It will
RoUSE] THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTS 319
be done in terms of the products of our two modes.) Accordingly, I would suggest that the
kinds of classification, conceptual and proce- best way to determine and present the culture
dural modes and historical and descriptive of a component is in terms of descriptive types
types. and of procedural and conceptual modes. I
Identification of artifacts. There is probably doubt that historical types are necessary for this
no professional archaeologist who has not, at particular purpose, so long as the descriptive
one time or another, had an amateur come up approach is applied to pottery and projectile
to him, take an artifact out of his pocket, and ask points as well as to other kinds of artifacts, since
for an identification. When the amateur does the historical types will overlap the descriptive
this, he expects to be answered in terms of de- types, and anyway they are designed for a dif-
scriptive types, that is, to be told that the arti- ferent purpose.
fact is a "knife" or a "scraper,"for example. If The descriptive types and modes will, of
the artifact is a potsherd, the professional will course, suffice only to present the material cul-
probably answer instead in terms of historical ture of the component. They must be combined
types, calling it "Sebonac Stamped," for exam- with other traits and complexes inferred from
ple. In my experience the latter answer is not the non-artifactual content of the component,
so satisfying to the amateur. He does not under- for example, the settlement pattern, in order to
stand it, unless he is unusually sophisticated, establish the total culture of the component.
and tends to look upon it as an affectation of the The various types, modes, and other traits may
professional. The amateur is probably right in simply be listed or they may be grouped into
this, insofar as he is interested purely in identi- culturally meaningful categories. For example,
fication and not in the historical significance of Fairbanks (1942: 228-9) has organized them
the potsherd. It would be more appropriate for about the activities of the people inhabiting the
the professional to identify the sherd descrip- Stallings Island component, in accordance with
tively as "a fragment of a cooking pot" instead the concept of activity proposed by Linton
of terming it "Sebonac Stamped." (1936: 397).
Interest in such descriptive identification is, Classification of components to form cultures.
of course, not limited to amateurs. The profes- Many archaeologists find it advisable to group
sional must do it in cataloguing his artifacts and their components into cultures, known variously
in preparing museum exhibits, where specimens as foci, phases, complexes, industries, or styles.
are grouped according to types. Descriptive This requires a form of taxonomic classification.
identification is also basic to several more aca- The common practice is to compare the com-
demic pursuits of the archaeologist, which are ponents in terms of their "traits" and, as in the
discussed below. It is fortunate that taxonomy taxonomic classification of artifacts, to select
has not lost prestige among archaeologists as it certain traits to be "determinants" of each cul-
has in the other natural sciences, for it is a vital ture (Cole and Deuel 1937: 207-23). When
part of our research. one examines such determinants from the
Determination of the culture of a component. standpoint of the present paper, one finds that
Following the lead of Taylor (1948: 197), I they consist of varying combinations of proce-
would suggest that, when archaeologists deter- dural and conceptual modes and of descriptive
mine the culture of a component, that is, of a and historical types. The four appear to be used
culturally homogeneous site unit, they would do indiscriminately, without thought as to which
well to conform to ethnographic practice. As units, if any, would be more suitable. To my
already indicated, ethnographers handle their knowledge, the only author who has attempted
collections in two different ways: (1) they iden- to discriminate among the various kinds of de-
tify the artifacts, usually in terms supplied by terminants is Phillips (1958: 123-4), who advo-
their informants, and (2) they discuss the man- cates the use of types as the primary basis for
ufacture and use of the artifacts (Thompson classifying components but would supplement
1958: 65-146). From the standpoint of the them with modes.
present paper, (1) corresponds to descriptive Phillips does not distinguish among the vari-
types and (2) to the modes produced by means ous kinds of types and modes but, if the sug-
of analytic classification. (Ethnographers seem gestions made above for the presentation of the
to emphasize procedural modes, but many of culture of a component are correct, it would be
them also pay some attention to conceptual appropriate to use descriptive types and both
320 AMERICANANTIQUITY [ VOL.25, No. 3, 1960
kinds of modes. Personally, I would hesitate to as "time markers"with which to correlate strata
state categorically, as Phillips does, that types (components) in the manner of paleontology
should be given priority over modes. I suspect or are studied in terms of their relative popular-
that this will depend on the nature of the cul- ity in a more purely archaeological fashion
tures being studied. In fact, I can conceive of (Heizer 1958: 112-3, 114-5).
cases in which modes might suffice by them- Definition of cultural periods. By the same
selves. I do not believe that it would do merely
token, historical types should be most suitable
to use single modes, but types are not the only for defining local cultural periods. J. A. Ford's
available kinds of combinations of modes. It has various chronological studies may be cited as
been possible, for example, to establish struc- examples; his lettered "time scale" and the cor-
tural relationships among modes, such as Ams- related periods are measured against the fre-
den's (1936) correlation of "design vocabulary"
quency changes of pottery types (Phillips, Ford,
and elements of shape. Such structural rela- and Griffin 1951, Figs. 17-21). If, on the other
tionships have proved to be effective as deter- hand, one wishes to work with chronology on a
minants in other branches of anthropology, for regional, multi-areal basis, modes are likely to be
example, in the classification of folktales (Propp more practicable, whether used singly or in
1958), and I wonder whether they might not combinations, since they tend to have a broader
work better in the classification of some archae- distribution than types (Cruxent and Rouse
ological components than typological complexes 1959).
of modes, whether selected for their historical
or their descriptive significance. Studies of cultural distribution. Following J.
A. Ford's lead (1952: 319), I would suggest that
Alternatively, there may well be cases in
which neither types nor modes are the best cri- modes are the best unit to use in studying cul-
teria to use in classifying components. Non- tural distributions. One may trace their persis-
artifactual traits, such as settlement patterns tence and their relative popularity through time
and means of subsistence, may sometimes prove (Rouse 1939, Fig. 6) or their diffusion from area
to be superior. to area (Wendorf 1953: 163-70). By so doing,
In any case, I am certain that artifact types one will not only be able to reconstruct the his-
alone cannot provide an adequate basis for the tories of the individual modes but also one will
classification of components, if only because find that certain modes tend always to occur
they do not cover enough of the culture of the together and hence to form discrete historical
components. For example, Brew (in Tax and complexes. Some of these complexes will corre-
others 1953: 245) has argued that there is no spond to types, that is, they will consist of the
such thing as a Folsom culture (complex) be- same modes as those comprising types, but other
cause practically nothing is known of it but the complexes will cut across the types. The struc-
Folsom type of projectile point. Even assuming tural relationships discussed above provide one
that we have only the one type of point, the sit- example. The "traditions" and "horizon styles"
uation looks better when viewed in terms of of Peruvian archaeology are another (Willey
modes and non-artifactual traits, for we know 1945).
An archaeologist who studies the distribu-
the kinds of material used; the techniques of
tions of individual modes, then, will be in a
manufacture; distinctive elements of shape; a
characteristic, if assumed use; and something position to reconstruct the histories of those
about the means of subsistence. All these are modes and also the histories of types and of non-
typological complexes of modes. On the other
separate traits which Brew obscured by limiting
himself to the type concept. hand, the archaeologist who studies only the
distributions of types will be unable to get at the
Dating of components and cultures. Histori- histories of the other kinds of units. Southwest-
cal types are unquestionably the most effective ern archaeology, where it is customary to con-
kind of unit to use in dating components and centrate on the distribution of types (Colton
cultures. The fact that their constituent modes and Hargrave 1937, Fig. 1), is a case in point.
have been selected for time-space significance Several authors (Rouse 1954: 223) have com-
makes them superior to descriptive types; and mented on the lack of horizon styles in the
the fact that they consist of multiple modes Southwest. This may well be a peculiarity of
gives them greater reliability than individual the culture history of the Southwestern area,
modes. This is true whether the types are used but there is also a possibility that it reflects fail-
ROUSE
] THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTS 321
ure on the part of Southwestern archaeologists, or combinations thereof will be the most effec-
in their preoccupation with types, to trace the tive units to use.
distribution of enough individual modes. This paper has likewise been intended to call
Studies of cultural change. If one is interested attention to the way in which analysis and taxo-
in the problem of how one complex (whether nomy complement each other as methods of
typological or not) or one culture has changed classification. I think we should beware the ten-
into another, modes are again the proper unit to dency of some archaeologists to become preoc-
use. As Barnett (1953: 185) has put it, cupied with one to the neglect of the other.
in order to understand the innovative process, we must As already indicated, taxonomic classification
be prepared to analyze ideas in any fashion and without has received particular emphasis in the Ameri-
limit . . . so that we may follow the ramifications of re- can Southwest. We appear at the moment to
combination as they actually occur. We cannot deal with be witnessing the diffusion of certain Southwest-
the gross stereotyped wholes [i.e., types] only .... We
must treat conventional ideas, such as those of tables and ern taxonomic developments to the Southeast
men, merely as more or less stable organizations of ex- (Phillips 1958) and Mesoamerica (Smith, Wil-
perience that can be torn down and reassembled in the ley, and Gifford 1960). I do not criticize this
wink of an eye. diffusion; indeed, I would recommend that it be
In all the sciences we have come to expect very de-
tailed analyses of data for purposes of classification. This expanded to include other Southwestern taxo-
lead, however, has not been followed by students of nomic devices, such as the key and the type arti-
[culture change] .... In trying to understand invention it fact.
is common practice to deal with such gross units as auto- On the other hand, I share with Sears (1960)
mobiles and buggies or [pottery types] and spinning the belief that the analytic approach likewise
wheels. The attempt to understand one of these complex
wholes in terms of the whole of another will give us no needs to be strengthened and applied more
insight into their true relationships. We must view the widely. We need more studies of individual
inception of each one in terms of an analysis of its com- modes and of their non-typological combina-
ponent parts.
The linguists long ago recognized this necessity, and
tions, such as the recent work of Wasley (1959)
students of linguistic change do not hesitate to break
in the Southwest.
down sentences, words, parts of words, and parts of these The fact is that both analytic and taxonomic
parts.... There can be no question that linguists are far classification must be done in order to make a
ahead of the rest of us in their understanding of the full study of any collection. Neither, by itself,
mechanics of cultural change. will supply a complete picture of the culture of
Barnett might have added that archaeologists the collection, nor will either be able to furnish
are also accustomed to do analysis and to study all the data needed to formulate cultures or to
culture change in terms of the resultant modes. reconstruct culture history.
Gladwin's (1957: 282-4) final report on South- Acknowledgements. This paper has been read in
western archaeology may be cited as an exam- earlier drafts by J. A. Bennyhoff, E. M. Bruner, John
ple. Linguists cannot claim sole credit for this Buettner-Janusch, J. M. Campbell, Patrick Gallagher,
J. C. Gifford, D. H. Hymes, F. G. Lounsbury, W. J.
kind of approach, nor to have produced the
Mayer-Oakes, Marshall McKusick, L. J. Pospisil, W. H.
only significant results from it. Sears, A. C. Spaulding, G. R. Willey, E. R. Wolf, and
Stephen Williams, to all of whom I am grateful for their
CONCLUSIONS comments and criticisms. I have also incorporated sug-
gestions made by J. M. Goggin, W. C. Sturtevant, and
In the foregoing section I have attempted to R. H. Thompson. In addition, I am indebted to the
indicate some of the situations in which it is authors of the accompanying papers in this issue (Gif-
better to use modes, resulting from analytic clas- ford 1960; Smith, Willey and Gifford 1960; and Sears
1960) for the opportunity to read these papers in manu-
sification, or types, resulting from taxonomic script form and to incorporate ideas expressed therein.
classification. I do not pretend to have fully
covered the subject; rather I have intended to
call attention to it as a problem which deserves AMSDEN, C. A.
the consideration of archaeologists. Too many 1936 The Structural Analysis of Pottery Design. In
of us, in my experience, fail to discriminate be- his "An Analysis of Hohokam Pottery Design,"
tween modes and types, treating them as equiv- Medallion Papers, No. 23, pp. 1-17. Gila Pueblo,
alent units and substituting one for the other Globe.
whenever it is convenient to do so (Webb and BARNETT,H. G.
Snow 1945: 16-28). We need to think more 1953 Innovation: the Basis of Cultural Change.
about when the various kinds of modes, types, McGraw-Hill, New York.
322 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL.25, No. 3, 1960
1941 Culture of the Ft. Liberte Region, Haiti. Yale WARING,A. J., JR. AND PRESTONHOLDER
University Publications in Anthropology, No. 24. 1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the
New Haven.
Southeastern United States. American Anthro-
1952 Porto Rican Prehistory. The New York Acad-
pologist, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-34. Menasha.
emy of Sciences, Scientific Survey of Porto Rico
and the Virgin Islands, Vol. 18, Nos. 3-4, pp. WASLEY, W. W.
307-578. New York.
1959 Cultural Implications of Style Trends in
1954 On the Use of the Concept of Area Co-Tradi- Southwestern Pottery: Basketmaker III to Pu-
tion. American Antiquity, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.
221-5. Salt Lake City. eblo II in West Central New Mexico. MS, doc-
toral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
E. B.
SAYLES,
1936 Some Southwestern Pottery Types, Series V. WEBB,W. S. AND C. E. SNOW
Medallion Papers, No. 21. Gila Pueblo, Globe. 1945 The Adena People. The University of Ken-
tucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology,
SEARS,W. H.
Vol. 6. Lexington.
1960 Taxonomic Systems and Eastern Archaeology.
American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 324-9. WENDORF, FRED
Salt Lake City.
1953 Archaeological Studies in the Petrified Forest
SHEPARD, A. O. National Monument. Museum of Northern Ari-
1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie In- zona, Bulletin, No. 27. Flagstaff.
stitution of Washington, Publication, No. 609.
Washington. WHEAT, J. B., J. C. GIFFORD, AND W. W. WASLEY
1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic
SMITH, R. E., G. R. WILLEY, AND J. C. GIFFORD
System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis.
1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the
American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 34-47.
Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity, Salt Lake City.
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 330-40. Salt Lake City.
TAYLOR,W. W. WHITEFORD, A. H.
1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoirs of the Amer- 1947 Description for Artifact Analysis. American
ican Anthropological Association, No. 69. Me- Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 226-37. Menasha.
nasha.
WILLEY, G. R.
TAX, SOL, L. C. EISELEY,IRVINGROUSE,AND C. F. VOEGELIN
1945 Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peru-
(EDITORS)
vian Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 11,
1953 An Appraisal of Anthropology Today. Univer-
No. 1, pp. 49-56. Menasha.
sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
THOMPSON, R. H.
1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. YALE UNIVERSITY
Memoirs of the Society for American Archae- New Haven, Conn.
ology, No. 15. Salt Lake City. June, 1959