Despite the detailed studies of ceramic design variation that have been made by archaeologists, there has been little discussion of the methods that should be used in these analyses. In particular, insufficient attention has been given the question of how designs should be classified [the studies of Carlson (1970), Friedrich (1970), Redman (1977, 1978), and Washburn (1977, 1978) are important exceptions as will be noted later]. Analyses have focused on many different types of designs (or classificatory units) such as design elements or design motifs that have not been defined explicitly. The result has been an enormous amount of subjectivity in delimiting these units and, thus, a large amount of variation in what different individuals considered to be “design elements.” Even terminology in describing a particular design varies tremendously. In summary, few people have critically evaluated our classifications to ask if they are reasonable ones. This is important, for as Hill (1970:17), among others, has argued, there is no reason to analyze intrasite or intersite variation in the distribution of items unless the items have been classified using sound methods.

Because there has been so little discussion of design classifications, it is difficult to describe how designs have been classified in most analyses. Many studies simply present a table showing drawings of different designs and their frequencies.