Classification

Major Categories of Labyrinths

In general, the existing major categories remain a practical way to understand labyrinths, especially in terms of their basic structural differences and historical development (see Jeff Saward's labyrinth typology document):

Classical Labyrinths
Roman Labyrinths
Medieval Labyrinths
Contemporary Labyrinths

However, there are now enough other or miscellaneous types, new variations related to historical labyrinths, and new innovations—as well as inconsistencies among existing classification systems—to warrant the development of a more comprehensive structural classification.

General timeline showing the ebb and flow of labyrinth history through historical periods

Structural Classification

To accommodate known historical labyrinths, contemporary designs, and future innovations, I am developing the Pattern Analysis, Typology, and Holarchy (PATH) framework for the structural classification and analysis of non-maze labyrinths.

Rather than relying primarily on historical categories or visual similarities, PATH distinguishes labyrinths according to characteristics of their path structure. The classification proceeds from broad structural distinctions to increasingly specific characteristics, ultimately identifying individual topological types.

See Classification Tree page for the current classification hierarchy and criteria.

Type and Style

A topological type is the invariant path topology of a viable labyrinth, independent of variable form and realization. The same type can therefore appear in many different shapes, sizes, orientations, styles, materials, and designs.

Style is one aspect of labyrinth expression: the variable form or realization through which a topological type is represented. A recognizable style may be used to express multiple topological types, while a single topological type may be expressed in multiple styles.

3-circuit Serpentine type and 3-circuit Meander type in a selection of general styles:

A design is a more specific development of a labyrinth expression, incorporating particular choices of form, proportion, orientation, materials, path and boundary treatment, and other variable features.

Symbolism, intended purpose, and use may be associated with a particular design or labyrinth instance, but they do not determine its topological type.

See Andreas Frei's Type or Style series for examples and discussion of the distinction between type and style.

See Conceptual Model page for more information about my theoretical framework for understanding labyrinth types.

Groups, Series, and Sets

Labyrinth types may also be related through groups, series, and sets.

A group consists of topological types related through defined transformations. Symmetry groups are used to organize types connected through base, dual, transpose, and complement relationships where applicable.
A series consists of topological types related through a shared component composition pattern and recurring subpatterns. Recursive algorithms provide steps for constructing members of a series.
A set consists of topological types related through the use of the same components in different compositional orders.

See Groups, Series, Sets page for more information.

First published: November 2020
Last revised: September 2026

Google Sites

Report abuse