Presentation
Home Up Type-Variety System Field Methods Laboratory Methods Problems Presentation Sequence Analysis Muyil Sequence Summary Other Artifacts Burials, caches

 

Presentation of ceramic information

            The information about ceramics is presented here in several ways:

            Appendix 2 shows the material recovered from each level of each test excavation. This allows one to view the context from which a given lot came. One can see all of the material from one stratigraphic level and compare it to material from levels immediately above and below it. Test pit profiles are included in this appendix.

            Also, Appendix 2 contains battleship-curve diagrams for stratigraphic excavations using sherd counts. This permits a ready comparison of the relative frequency with which particular ceramics appear, and when they are proportionally numerous or scarce compared to other types throughout a test excavation.

            Appendix 4 provides a description of each ceramic type recovered at Muyil, in chronological order by ceramic complex and in alphabetical order by ceramic group within each complex. Statistical analyses in Appendix 3 and the battleship curves of Appendix 2 were used as described below to establish sequential ceramic complexes (collections of ceramic types appearing together in the excavations.) Appendix 4 is designed to match as closely as possible the descriptive form used by Robles in his thesis (1990) on the ceramics of Coba, since Coba is the nearest major Maya site to Muyil (about 45 km). It is also one of the few nearby sites for which the ceramics have been published, although I was able to obtain and use the work of Canché Manzanero (1992) on Xelha ceramics. Further, since any relationship between Muyil and Coba is of interest, the presentation of this material in a form that facilitates a comparison to that from Coba seems logical and useful. The same presentation format was also used for the Xelha ceramics by Canché M. I have supplied translations of Robles' descriptions of the ceramic types because my own work relied on sherd identification to the type and variety by direct comparison with the Coba collection, described in detail by Robles (1990), and with other collections in the Ceramoteca. His descriptions (and those of others) supplement the modest number of descriptions we recorded and the few vessel forms identified with the small sherds from Muyil.

 

© Copyright 2000-2005 Walter R. T. Witschey   Page last updated Wednesday, April 02, 2008