Arnold P 2000 Working Without A Net - Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology

Working Without a Net: Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology Author(s): Philip J.
Arnold III Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 2000), pp. 105-133 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053125 . Accessed: 22/01/2013 11:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:40:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal Archaeological Vol. Research, 8, No. 2, 2000 of
a Without Net: RecentTrends Working in CeramicEthnoarchaeology

PhilipJ.ArnoldIII1
research conducted ceramic Thispaper reviews subsequent ethnoarchaeological current trends a continued are to Kramer's seminal (1985) Among stock-taking. and the in between ceramics economic interest therelationship specialization, deconstitutes a technological and link manufacture "style," the between greetowhich as in and sizes,use-lives, repotsandformation processes representedassemblage issuescontinue be sidestepped to Atthesametime, some theoretical cycling. pesky inthecurrent literature. as the Despiteitsreputation a pleasantbreak from "real business" archaeology, paper arguesthatceramic this can of ethnoarchaeology and should substantial inarchaeological role playa more investigations.
KEY WORDS: ceramics; ethnoarchaeology; technology; analogy. Theethnoarchaeologist, anymonstruous like walks fineline.Toonesideare mute a hybrid, and non-reactive On side is a vocaland decidedly reactive audienceof artifacts. theother it which is easy tofall. Thebestbalancing finelineis also a tight from people. This rope deviceis theknowledge there no savingnetbelow.Thisdelicatebalancing is that is act madeonly more materialists mentalist and s whowatch below precarious assorted by from " and shout"jump!
562) DeBoer(1984,p.
INTRODUCTION Warren DeBoer was right; ceramic has of ethnoarchaeology all thetrappings a carnival sideshow. Some colleaguesgawkat the"monstruous from a hybrid" safedistance, of Others are intrigued theexistence this by intradisciplinary oddity. of to and past, cerskeptical theethnoarchaeological attempt jugglethe present the tainthat both to Andsnaking eventually willcomecrashing theground. through thecrowdare theusual hucksters barkers, and some extolling postmodern the
of and 60626. department Sociology Anthropology, LoyolaUniversity Chicago, Chicago,Illinois 105
2000 Plenum 1059-0161/00/0600-0105$18.00/0 Publishing Corporation
106
Arnold
with materialist the whileothers of relativism theHouse of Mirrors pragtempt matics theCotton of CandyArcade. for an The abovecaricature backdrop thisessay'sorganiprovides amusing is ceramic I zation;nonetheless,hopeto showthat ethnoarchaeologymorethan of And from eve a late-summer's distraction therealbusiness archaeology. while as belowmaybe equallysatisfying, a whole trends discussed notall oftherecent of toward better a do moveceramic understandingthereethnoarchaeology they as and people.Despiteitsperception "a breakfrom between pottery lationships can ceramicethnoarchaeology and shouldplay a moresubstantial excavating," of rolein ourunderstandingarchaeological phenomena. STEP RIGHT UP: THE DISCLAIMER focusthe to are boundaries fundamental summary exercises; they Arbitrary database. the and discussion countermand centrifugal of an ever-expanding spin here.'Time" is perhaps boundaries "Time" and "topic"are themostrelevant that is to the discussion restricted studies to theeasierdivision establish; present ethnoarof after Carol Kramer's (1985) impressive summary ceramic appeared in or chaeology werenotincluded herreferences. Kramer's is on hand, more (1985) Following problematic. "Topic," theother containthat to of this lead,I confine discussion "ceramics" pottery, is, ceramic items.But whatabout"ethnoarchaeology"? ers as opposedto other fired-clay ethnoarchaeas ceramic Evencard-carrying disagree towhat ethnoarchaeologists and means(e.g.,David, 1992,p. 351; Longacre Skibo,1994a,p. 6; ologyactually itis 1991,pp. 232-234). Thesedifferences notwithstanding, clearthat Thompson, to as has ceramic ethnoarchaeology alwaysbeenpromoted a means aid in archaediscussion 1985,pp.77-78). Thusthis (Kramer, privileges ologicalunderstanding of the moreovertly archaeological that address studies application ethnographic "foodfor that Research maysimply information. archaeological thought" provide also emphasizes This literature. survey of in is included thebibliography recent and of accounts ceramic experiproduction use. Finally, Anglophone published, ethnoarto contributionceramic their are mental studies notconsidered, although elsewhere and is 1999a; (e.g.,P. Arnold, chaeology important hasbeenrecognized 1992; Skibo,1992a,b). Longacre, IN THE CENTER RING: MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION ethnoarceramic to its Given mission facilitate understanding, archaeological manufacture of studies pottery toward been has frequently directed chaeology most manmade the Here andproduction. I follow distinction byRice(1996,p. 173)that of to refers theactualfabrication thevessel,whileproduction ufacture implicates
RecentTrendsin CeramicEthnoarchaeology
107
thesocial,political, ideological and context pottery of Whether dealing making. with manufacture production, or the is however, relevant archaeological question the in thematerial to record essentially same: "How do we movefrom patterns statements aboutpastbehavior?" meaningful Manufacture has manufacture received systematic less attention ceramic than Pottery proin duction theethnoarchaeological literature 1985,p. 79; Rice, 1987, (Kramer, is it with to pp. 124-144).Whenmanufacturediscussed, is often respect itspotentialvalueas an archaeological ofproduction scale and/or proxy producer specialization of fabrication document substan1991).Descriptions pottery (e.g.,Costin, tialvariety forming finishing, in and handmodeling, including paddle-and-anvil moldconstruction, "slowwheel"manufacture, wheelthrowing, comor shaping, binations thereof and 1986;D. Arnold, 1993,1999;P. Arnold, (e.g.,Annis Jacobs, 1991a;Bankes,1985;Deal, 1998;Hagstrum, 1989;Kramer, 1997;London,1991; Nicholson Patterson, and an 1992;SinopoliandBurton, 1986).From archaeological perspective, theseaccounts belie anysimplerelationship between manufacand characteristics. turing techniques production The scheduling manufacturing of activities a potentially is useful avenueof As usedherescheduling meansmore than simplistic a distinction beexploration. tween or "seasonal"/"year-round" rather, "part-time"/"full-time" potting; activity shouldspeakto theway in whichmanufacturing activities emare scheduling beddedand orchestrated within givenproduction a context. Such scheduling is for in and particularly important pottery making residential settings has implications theinitial for of containers different of theworld in adoption ceramic parts 1989;Rice, 1999,pp. 28-29). (e.g.,Brown, Giventhispotential, data on theamount timerequired manufacture of to a vesselare surprisingly Some studies rare. information provide impressionistic or single-case but treatments less common. are examples, systematic Hagstrum of (1989,pp. 229-248) detailstheamount timeneededto manufacture cooking Wanka in Peru.Despitedifferences in potsandwater among jars potters highland total time a of in she production (mostly function differences decoration), finds that proportion time the of devoted vesselforming essentially sameinboth to is the cases (48 vs 49%, respectively). Thesefindings, turn, usedto demonstrate in are theviability a "production index"that be applied thearchaeological of task can to record 1989,pp. 248-258). (Hagstrum, Other discussions the wisdomconcerning timeinchallenge conventional vestment vesselmanufacture. example, is reasonable suspect and For it to that moldsto fabricate the neededfor vesselmanufacusing pottery reduce time may ture. D. of Nonetheless, Arnold's indicates that (1999) analysis Yucatecan potters moldmaking additional time" always not reflected the in maygenerate "handling
108
Arnold
timerequired each fabfor he that drying the data.For example, found forming rication increases length themanufacturing the of 1999, episode(D. Arnold, step 67-68). pp. often distinct schedDifferent manufacturing techniques implicate forming ules (e.g.,D. Arnold, 1985,p. 202; Rice, 1987,p. 129). Undersomefabrication in whilein other circumstances the (inregimes potsare completed one sitting, theconstruction of thecombination forming techniques) phasemayexcluding tendoverone or moredays (e.g., P. Arnold, 1991a,p. 51; Kramer, 1997,p. 63; in theselatter instances and Patterson, Nicholson (and when 1985). Especially in areoften ceramics produced a domestic are context), "multiple-authored" pots in of is, 1997, 50-5 1); that a variety individuals be involved man(Kramer, may pp. from rawmaterials, repositioning to with ufacture, aiding everything processing of pottery with and to vessels, assisting theforming decoration the (Chavez, drying and 1985,p. 227). Forcraft Kramer, 1985,p. 79; Nicholson Patterson, 1992,p. 73; in and variation surface in finishing decoraPhilippines, specialists Paradijon, to schedules is tioncan occurwhenthehelpof nonpotters enlisted meetmarket in undermine asSuch "groupeffort," turn, (London,1991,pp. 200-201). may standardization measures based on various context of sessments production (see below). in For noted vesselmanufacture. examdifferences beenwidely have Gender than ceramics females toproduce wheel-thrown malesaremore (Kramer, likely ple, 1985,pp.220-221). Kramer 1985,p. 79; also D. Arnold, (1985,p. 79) maybe corthere for a rect gender that nonetheless, provides poorexplanation suchdifferences; vesseltypes of in the areinstances which manufacture certain culturally parallels is differences. by forming undertaken Although paddle-and-anvil gender perceived vesselsaremanof sexesinthecoastalPeruvian both larger community Morrope, the ufactured menwhilewomen pots(Bankes,1985,p. 270). produce smaller by Perucontexts in sex The potter's and vessel size also correlate some highland or Of course,preferences prohibitions gender regarding (Chavez, 1992,p. 65). will as in factors, contribute manufacture,wellas economic participation ceramic differences Duncan,1998;Kramer, tocross-cultural 1985,pp. 79-80; Mout (e.g., SkiboandSchiffer, andArnold, 1988,p. 253; 1995). of and involves selection mixture clays,nonplastics, the manufacture Pottery of use and archaeometricians a battery chemicaland and water. Archaeologists the isolate locusofmanufacthese to activities, techniques identify mineralogical networks and (Rice, 1996). Few ethnoarchaeoture, evaluate exchange potential from archaeometric derived the evaluated inferences havedirectly logicalstudies that theposition different these rarestudies usingthe potters support techniques; elemental withsimilar ceramics will produce sources same clay and nonplastic et (e.g.,D. Arnold ai, 1991,1999). compositions issue. is "source" nota straightforward however, Archaeologically speaking, as sourcecan be construed an individual et As D. Arnold al. (1991, p. 85) note, or mine,a production region(also D. Arnold,1992, community, a geographic
109
if it can assumethat pottery p. 166). Moreover, is unclear archaeologists safely utilitarian wouldhavebeenmanufactured found a site, on ceramics, particularly within geodesic pheric a or "threshold" distance D. Arnold, from obtained (cf. clay that studies demonstrate cooking, 1985,pp. 38-51). Severalethnoarchaeological the vesselscan anddo circulate and gift widely. Among Kalinga, storage, serving mechanisms vesselmovement of are and 1991; (Graves, giving barter theprimary in one-third thepotsbartered Dulapa in 1988 of M. Stark, 1991,1994).Morethan the wereexchanged 1994,p. 187). Norare beyond Pasil RiverValley(M. Stark, a household a thesenumbers minimal; during 4-yearperiod, singleDangtalan the 133 1991,p. 130). (Graves, exchanged vesselsoutside region on and/or water Moreestablished market and systems a reliance animal-aided its alsocanmove distances from locusofmanufacture pottery appreciable transport vessels constitute a considerable utilitarian (e.g.,Rice,1987, 193-197).Again, pp. and of of (e.g.,Annis portion distributed Day trips up to 20 kmarecommon pots. Geertman, 1997,pp. 114-115; Vossen, 1984,p. 376), whileweek1987;Kramer, hundreds kilometers occur(Annis of trips may longorevenmonth-long covering and Geertman, 1987; D. Arnold,1985,p. Ill; Vossen,1984,p. 344). Greater urbanization moresophisticated and networks extend the transportation merely the a Kramer, 1997,pp. 135ff.). Thus,despite factthat redundancy pattern (e.g., intheclayandtemper source generate consistent can a elemental archaeoprofile, metric should alwaysbegin not with assumption sherds the that found on sourcing eventhemost common site, ones,wereoflocal origin. Production Thepotential between material the record theorganizaand correspondence tionofproduction a perennial is concern ceramic for Barbara ethnoarchaeology. Stark what still most is the robust discussion issuesinvolving of the (1985)provides identification ofceramic locations. Central these archaeological production among issuesis thepresence production of whichconstitutesmajorsource a facilities, of information archaeologists attempt identify interpret for who to and ceramic Feinman, 1999;Sullivan, 1988). specialization (e.g., A facility's relative of can as degree permanence be as important itspresence or absence.Degree of permanence used heremeansthe ability relocate as to or reposition facility attendant the and Of archaeological interest the is activity. factthat, else beingequal, morepermanent all facilities wouldbe morelikely and in context. relevant thefact Also is that preserved recovered an archaeological more facilities serveto "anchor" which activities, permanent specific production inturn affects spacewithin production how the context managed maintained is and have Arnold, 1991a,pp. 05-107). Thusceramic (P. ethnoarchaeologists notonly documented facilities associatewith the that but intensification, also production haveconsidered spatial the of technological decisions consequences (e.g.,Annis,
110
Arnold
and 1988;D. Arnold, 1999;Gosselain Smitvl995;Kramer, 1997;vanderLeeuw tal., 1992;Williams, 1995). there a tendency associateproduction is to facilities withlargeAlthough scale manufacture, issueoffacility the neednotbe restricted such to permanence contexts. example, For Deal (1988, 1998,pp. 74-75) notes that "workshop" potslabsthannonpotting tinghouseholds amongTzeltalMaya havemoregrinding households. the their and Moreover, size of theseslabsrestricts portability thus to a areaofthecompound encourages temper processing takeplace within given is of (Deal, 1988,p. 121). The material consequence a build-up calcitein these a that P. locations, pattern could be recovered (1991a, archaeologically. Arnold Mexico,is pp. 109-113, 1999a) showsthatkilnuse in theTuxtlaMountains, conditioned theavailability residential of than strongly by space,rather theoverall intensity pottery of The manufacture. presence these of in kilns, turn, impacts other residential activities creates and artifact distributions the specific throughout houselot Arnold, 1990,1991a,pp. 120ff.). (P. Some facilities, suchas wheels,are sufficiently diverse exhibit to different of for are Kickto wheels, example, more degrees permanence. likely be permanent andtheir restricteda particular use to location and 1992, (e.g.,Nicholson Patterson, are with the p. 30). In contrast, wheelsusedbysomeIndian potters turned theaid of a stick;theserotary to of devicescan be relocated takeadvantage changing and conditions 1997,p. 62). (Kramer, sunlight weather the of Other also organization pottery forming technologies mayaffect spatial D. Arnold the of (1999,pp. 70-71) explores impact mold-made pottery making. in Potters Ticul, onthe"spatial of contexts. Mexico, footprint"production produce more vesselsperunit clayarecreated of and smaller vessels with as molds; a result, D. Arnold that thus more for (1999,p. 70) found theamount space drying. require factor thatdetermined number the of interior was thecritical space fordrying that are reaffirm spatialconcerns particularly of vesselsproduced. Such studies withother nonin since thatspace mustcompete settings important domestic activities. pottery-making includes formal the scale Another traditional ofproduction andintensity index Increased dimensional characteristics. their of thepottery, properties especially in thesize and routinization production of consistency greater mayencourage 1995,p. 622; Longacreet al., 1988). shape of vessels (Costinand Hagstrum, discussions thisissue of several data Ceramic ethnoarchaeological haveinformed and Nieves,1992; P. Arnold, D. Arnold 1991b;Benco, 1988; Rice, 1991; (e.g., 1995;M. Stark, 1995). Sinopoli,1988;B. Stark, on is of An important emphasis teroutgrowth thesestudies an increased and Nieves,1992,p. 94) reminds Rice (1991, p. 268; also D. Arnold minology. moreor less is is us thatstandardization a relative measure-, something either as else. standardized something Thustospeakofa specific than assemblage "stanToward end,Rice (1996,p. 179)recommends this couldbe a misnomer. dardized" in or for be that"standardization" reserved usage thatis processual diachronic
111
serve a at scope,while"uniformity" to characterize particular assemblage a particular time. Barbara Stark that vesseluniformity is related a wide to (1995) notes of Sinceboth and a array factors. specialists nonspecialists produce uniform may she that issue is as muchthedegreeof assemblage, suggests thearchaeological standardizationitspresence absence(B. Stark, as or 1995,p. 233; also Rice, 1991, p. 268). Whileterminological clarification alwaysuseful, ethnoarchaeological is the issue of therelationship between activities formal and production consistency remains. doesmore intensive ceramic morestanSimply put, production generate dardized whencompared withless intensive manufacture? to pose the Or, pots in usefulway,"Can I assumethata uniform question a morearchaeologically a particular context?" Based on a number of assemblage represents production we with emphatic confident, an and studies, can nowanswer ethnoarchaeological of." "Well,sort Since 1985few haveworried particular more, with this bone or more systematicinformation, William than andhisassociates. several In Longacre publications haveusedtheir data with morthey Philippine tolinkproduction intensity pottery (Kvammeet al, 1996; Longacre,1999; Longacreet al, 1988). Much phology oftheir research involves the of that comparing ceramic output communities fall a continuum "household" from to"full-time" along production specialization (e.g., Kvamme datainclude metric in variation vesselaperture, eitf/., 1996, 118). Their p. and circumference, height. even sensitive the statistics, Kalingaresults Unfortunately, with increasingly are essentially wash(e.g., Kvammeet al, 1996). Of ninecomparisons a (three communities three almosthalf(four)of their statistical testsare variables), by notsignificant the0.05 probability (Kvamme al, 1996,Table5). This at level et overall concords with from around globe(e.g.,D. Arnold the ambiguity findings andNieves,1992;P. Arnold, undermine 1991b;Sinopoli,1988)that assumptions about necessary a between and relationship production intensity vesseluniformity. A similar conclusion beendrawn B. Stark(1995, p. 257). Her survey has of by datasuggests in certain that cases nonspecialists produce more ethnographic may uniform vesselsthan instances 1995,p. 241), whilein other (B. specialists Stark, vesseltypes manufactured thesame production in contexts exhibit considmay erablevariation Stark, an 1995,pp. 253-256). At leastfrom archaeological (B. in alonecontinues be a poordiacritic to standpoint, uniformityvesseldimensions ofceramic production intensity. Ifnotproduction then skill factor intensity, perhaps producer is an important in creating uniform a ceramic Few might all else being assemblage. arguethat, will vesselsthan unskilled equal,skilled potters makemore homogeneous potters. thequestion thiswaymaynotbe beneficial archaeologists. in to However, posing The archaeological mustbe framed other the to question way around: namely, whatdegree does a homogeneous reflect skill? assemblage necessarily producer divided whileLongacre(1999,p. 53) andDeal (1998, Again,the juryremains
112
Arnold
D. p. 166) argue that skill is related to assemblage uniformity, Arnold (1999, in and Rice (1991, p. 263) warn thatskill may not be so easily identified p. 76) B. thematerialrecordof ceramic production. Stark(1995, pp. 233-234) suggests level, the ratio of producersto consumersmay affectthe that,at the community archaeologist'sperceptionof assemblage uniformity. issue of whatconstitutes These studiesalso raise theimportant specialization. of For Rice (1991, p. 270) specialization,by definition, implicatesa small number a largernumberof consumers(cf. B. Stark,1995, p. 233). producersprovisioning The converseof this "output"emphasis would be an "input" focus, namely,that the specializationrepresents amountof time,labor, and otherresourcesinvested of and in themanufacture distribution theproduct(e.g., Pool, 1992, pp. 278-279). An additionalwrinkleinvolvesthescale at which specializationis assessed. Thus Rice (1989, p. 110, 1991, pp. 262-263) distinguishesbetween specialization by an individualand specialization at the community level, as well as specialization ware or vessel form. in a particular these distinctions. Other studies have stretched Among some ceramic ethas determined much forexample, specialization is apparently noarchaeologists, whatothersdo notdo as whattheproducerdoes. M. Stark(1991) characterizes by is the within village of Dulapa as specialized, since thatcommunity the production withinher studyarea. However,thisspeciallocus of ceramicproduction primary izationis notthesame as thecommunity villages specializationin whichdifferent combinations(e.g., D. Arnold, 1993, theiroutputto certain form/ware restrict p. 182; Chavez, 1992, p. 79; Hagstrum,1989, p. 280; Kramer,1997, pp. 77-79). are is Thus, although village production "specialized," theDulapa ceramicists partwho operateat thelevel ofa householdindustry Stark,1991, p. 67). timepotters (M. A parallel example forindividualspecialization is seen among the Luo potters of Kenya (Dietler and Herbich, 1989; Herbich, 1987). Ceramic production is consideredspecialized since "less than 1% of the population"makes ceramics producerswhose (Herbich, 1987, p. 195). Nonetheless,the pottersare part-time household economy. In the words of one Luo producer, efforts supplementthe "Pottingis our second garden" (Herbich and Dietler, 1991, p. 107). In both of the above examples referenceis made to specialized production, the formerat the communitylevel and the latterat the level of the individual. actuallyfalls tohowever,is the factthatin both cases manufacture Noteworthy, halfof theintensification wardthebottom (e.g., Costin, 1991; Costin and spectrum and Luo, specializationis apparfor Hagstrum,1995). Furthermore, the Kalinga of thana function of moreas a function thebehaviorof nonpotters entlyconstrued either in thiscase, would represent activities.Intensity, of theintensity production theamountof resources(time,labor,etc.) investedper unitproduced,or thenumThus while theabove berof unitsproducedat a givenlevel of resourceinvestment. the specialization concept themselvesmay not be problematic, characterizations when used in so manydifferent cannothelp but suffer ways. Minimally,it is imand community to specialization, clearly between producer portant differentiate
113
and as wellas distinguish between basedon resource specialization input specialization basedon unit Costin,1991;Pool, 1992). output (e.g., THE TATTOOED LADY: TECHNOLOGY, STYLE, AND IDENTITY manuA more to with recent employs attempt linkmanufacture production of that Do seemingly as a reflection a "technological is, style"; techniques facturing on information producer attributes a production of nondecorative recipeprovide of has from advancesin theanthropology This discussion benefitted identity? Dobresand Hoffman, Lemonnier, 1992; Pfaffenberger, 1994; technology (e.g., within broader, and a 1992) thatseek to place things, techniques, technology In ethnoarcontext. ceramic andmore informed, production/consumption socially via theconcept of has found strongest its this application chaeology, perspective andHerbich, chane 1992,1998; 1989,1994,1998;Gosselain, (Dietler opratoire durthe M. Stark,1998). These studies emphasize choicesavailableto potters as a process vesselmanufacture, opposedto viewing as ing pottery production to that and/or 1998, (Gosselain, directly functional responds simply requirements vanderLeeuw,1993). 1999; pp. 79-82; Mahias,1993;Stark, For archaeological such a view impliesthatthesequenceof application, and realized)can, in fact, reconstructed. a be To manufacture (bothpotentially certain this was anticipated Krause's(1984, 1985,1990)study degree question by of the"grammar" Bantumanufacturing of episodes,in whichhe demonstrated that manufacturing the leaves a retraceable trail. Thisperspective also sequence assumesthat are able to recognize thoseproduction that archaeologists options werenotexercised werenonetheless but availableto theancient potter (e.g.,van derLeeuw,1991). Animportant outcome current of is the that investigations realization different of themanufacturing be subject different of change. to rates stages processmay To date, motor habits the successful for a provide most springboard reconstructing socialidentity D. Arnold, Vesselshaping provide 1985,p. 147). potter's (e.g., may a "reliable index cultural of be (Gosselain,1992,p. 582) andmight that diversity" of pottery manufacture resistant changesinceit is "associated most to with part oneofthemost andleastsymbolically invested ofthechane personal operations (Gosselain,1998,p. 102). This characterization opratoire" appearsto be similarto theconcept "mechanical of attributes" introduced CostinandHagstrum by (1995,p. 622). Therelationship vesselshape, modesofcarrying, ethnic and affiliation among has been discussed a variety contexts. in of Sterner citesvessel (1989, p. 454) and as morphology theway in whichpots are carried usefulethnic signifiers. D. Arnold notesthat vesselsfor water designed are (1985,pp. 147-149) carrying than basedon whether areto be carried thehip,the on differently other pots, they or aretransported a tumpline. with Formal differences include number the head,
114
Arnold
and location handles, length theneck,and theshapeof thevesselbase of of the 1993,pp. 121-124). (also D. Arnold, to Of course, considerable attention continues be paid topottery decoration, bothas a relatively icon of groupaffiliation as a meansto actively and passive and/or the Several discuss negotiate identity empower producer/consumer. studies thelearning whichfabrication frameworks is passed from through knowledge to teacher pupil(e.g., D. Arnold,1989; Deal, 1998,pp. 26-37; Hardin, 1991, work takes tothe as information" Kramer, 1997, 16-31).Other pp. exception "style school and continues chip away at thetenets "ceramicsociology"(e.g., to of David etai, 1988;DeBoer,1990;Dietler Herbich, and 1994;Graves, 1985,1991; Skiboetal, 1989). Herbich, 1987; Sterner the wisdom vesselelabora(1989) challenges conventional regarding tionanduse context. notesthat theSirakBulahay northern She for of Cameroon, theleastsocially visible ceramics are (usedinprivate rituals) themost elaborately decorated. variation correlates with AmongtheKalinga,stylistic political orgain decoration thesecontexts interaction rather than nization; potential represents of identity boundaries overt and/or 1991,p. 143, (Graves, regional expressions Potters whoarebrought a newsocialcontext into (especially original emphasis). conform thestylistic to cannons their of new abduction marriage) or often through havelittle socialpower Thispattern occurbecauseabducted may potters settings. learn manufacture to vessels (e.g.,DeBoer,1986,pp. 242-243) orbecausepotters andHerbich, from in-laws after havemarried 1994;Herbich, (Dietler 1987). they is between The ultimate tothestatus incongruity slap quo,ofcourse, thepotential causes Hegmon(1998,p. 278) to Thispossibility theextant archaeological. and or if and suchas boundaries ethnicity wonder concepts "really represent things in that entities we can discover thepast"(also MacEachern, 1998). JUGGLING BALLS AND SPINNING PLATES: HOUSEHOLD CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES to a continue receive within household of Thefrequency use-life ceramics and A has beento attention. common considerable justification ethnoarchaeological information a wayto access prehistoric as use household population assemblage seriation and for chronologies (e.g.,Rice, 1987, figures correct frequency-based are 1996,p. 464). Usefulsummaries givenbyRice (1987), pp. 293-305; Shott, information ceramic census Other Nelson(1991), andShott Mills (1989), (1996). Deal (1998), Hagstrum is provided P. Arnold (1989),Longacre (1988, 1991a), by (1994). (1985), Tani(1994),andTrostel in of a these Notunexpectedly, datadisplay widevariation thenumber pots common-sense households. within expectaDespitetheseemingly ethnographic the thannonpotters, household wouldhavelarger tionthat assemblages potters more is that datademonstrate therelationship considerably ethnoarchaeological
115
in households twoof thethree complicated. AmongtheKalinga,forexample, or households communities as many more averaged potsthan non-pottery-making in thetwopottery-making and Stark,1992,p. 128). At the villages(Longacre of households within pottery-producing the same time, community nonpotting than assemblages potters' the of residences havefewer ceramics (Tani, Dangtalan of vesseltypes that 1994, 56). Deal (1998,p. 148) suggests thenumber different p. contribution diversity to within assemblage an [the"richness" (e.g.,Rice, 1989, 112)] mayoffer alternative analysis an to of basedsolelyon thenumber vessels. p. his the of is indicate that number types notsufficient Nonetheless, ownfindings for the of within household a (Deal, 1998,p. 158). inferring presence potters correlation involve housethe Onepossible reason this for lackofdirect may inis hold's access to pottery. access (real or perceived) restricted, As greater that do in vestment ceramic takeplace. Thus amonghouseholds backupsmay the notmanufacture ownceramics, their vesselscan mitigate impact stockpiling or of celebrations of unexpected breakage can occurin anticipation upcoming 1985,p. 334; Nelson,1991,p. 171). 1988;Longacre, (P. Arnold, diverse habits foodpreparation and strategies Stockpiling, alongwith eating (Nelson,1991,p. 168;Rice, 1987,p. 294; Tani,1994,pp. 54-56) also wouldconbetween household and spire any population household against direct relationship ceramic theseveral discussed Nelson assemblage. Among ethnographic groups by with cenis (1991,pp. 169-170),household population notcorrelated theceramic sus. Longacre and Tani (1994, p. 57) derive sameconclusion the (1991,p. 109) for Kalingadata. the somerelationships stillobtainbetween household demoNonetheless, may andthecontainer toearlier studies graphics assemblage. Contrary (e.g.,Longacre, correlation between volthe 1991,p. 109),Tani(1994,p. 52) notesa significant umeofcooking vessels household and theKalinga. Thevolume population among of cooking vessels(ceramic and metal)amongtheKalingaalso correlates with thewealth a given of household nottoosurprisingly, the (Trostel, 1994).Perhaps identified is between household wealthand metalpots,or strongest relationship those containers arethemostexpensive acquire(Trostel, that to 1994,p. 222). A similar association identified Wanka was for households 1989,p. 286). (Hagstrum, In highland status thehousehold also positively of is Chiapasthesocioeconomic withthenumber ceramicand nonceramic correlated of container types(Deal, 1998,p. 160). Use-livesare one of themostcommon docucharacteristics performance mented ceramic 1985,pp. 89-90; Rice, 1987, (Kramer, by ethnoarchaeologists 1988; Longacre, 1985;Mills,1989; (P. pp. 296-299). As has beennoted Arnold, not cultural but Nelson,1991),vesseluse-lives onlyreflect behavior, also have direct forseriation othersite formation and issues archaeological implications thevarious studies reveal basicrelationships two (see below).Generally speaking, usedincooking haveshorter livesthan use those that (ceteris (a) paribus): ceramics arenotsubject heating, (b) larger to and vesselslastlonger than smaller vessels.
116
Arnold
one discussions the of Shott (1996; also 1989)presents ofthemore thorough His documents vesselheight that and vesseluse-lives. analysis forces that affect followed vesselweight diameter and of volume thebestpredictors use-life, are by the data attributes 1996,p. 478; cf.DeBoer,1985).Unfortunately,latter are (Shott, from sherds. than more Nonetheless, easilyextrapolated theformer archaeological are basedonpieces and metric attributes possible of estimates vesselvolume other et and ofpottery 1990; Orton ai, 1993). (e.g.,Hagstrum Hildebrand, literature involves previous the estimates A recent correction theuse-life to of Kalingapottery estimates, (Taniand Longacre,1999). The original longevity short-lived Revessels. basedonceramic inventories, apparently underrepresented inlinewith other ceramic use-life (Tani data calculations theKalinga place pottery a of also and Longacre, 1999).Thesenewfigures warrant reassessment previous estimates ceramic of use-lives. Giventhe informant-based comments concerning and researchers 1985,p. 340; Neupert calculations, (Longacre, inventory-based informants poorestimators were that to 1994,p. 74) wereforced argue Longacre, the ownpottery, of of thelongevity their particularly cookingvessels.The new within informantthe of databring use-lives cooking the potscomfortably Kalinga informant estimates 2-3 years[Longacre, at basedestimates 1985, (e.g.,Kalinga at recalculated use-life 2.2 years[TaniandLongacre, 1999,p. 307]). Thus p. 339], can consumers be accurate indicates ceramic that thenewest preKalingaanalysis is tobegin lifespan.The next of dictors their examining why logicalstep pottery's for for cases butmissthemark others. are consumer predictions accurate certain STRIKING THE BIG TOP: SITE FORMATION PROCESSES and relate ceramic that Recentstudies production use to thearspecifically The majority invesof in are record conspicuous their infrequency. chaeological "behavioral a that thisbillreflect strong fit archaeology" (e.g.,Schiffer, tigations site and on ceramicrecycling resolving 1987) emphasis, focusing particularly in of interests theeffects earlier treatments issues.Other abandonment expand assemof on and consumption theformation archaeological ceramic production 1985,pp. 89-92). A fewbravesouls have even wrestled blages (e.g., Kramer, ceramic the between datathat with potential the ethnoarchaeologists incongruity record from archaeological the obtained collectand thosedatamostcommonly (e.g.,Mills,1989;Skibo,1992a). discussomeofthemostspecific MichaelDeal (1985, 1988,1998)provides ceramic to with reference ethnoarchaeological record sionsof thearchaeological a of is useful hisconsideration "provisional data.Particularly discard," process by of reusewithin for are worn ceramics stored potential which portions the specific to houselot amongdisposal (Deal, 1985, 1998,p. 118). The ability differentiate and between in to useful attempts distinguish can be extremely primary strategies Skiboetal, 1989). record in contexts thearchaeological (e.g., secondary
117
assessment ceramic of Deal and Hagstrum a (1995) provide comparative a Tzeltaland Wankahouseholds. reusewithin Theydocument rangeof reuse Of foodpreparation, and activities including gardening, construction. particular we that"As a ruleof thumb, should relevance their is position archaeological house at if vesselsrecovered an archaeological assumethat most, notall,ceramic of sitewerelastin a state reuseordiscard" 1995,p. 124). (Deal andHagstrum, of P. Arnold (1990, 1991a) also discussesthearchaeological implications on distribution with ceramic deposits, anemphasis thespatial ethnoarchaeological in Mountains characterized are and Houselots theTuxtla ofactivities artifacts. by in of variation theamount activity making space availableforpottery significant in and tasks.These differences reflected thefrequency are and other domestic the of distributed 1990, (P. compound Arnold, throughout residential weight refuse will whether activities The 1991a,pp. 120ff.). availableworkarea also dictates or restrictive format to flexible a spatially be conducted according a spatially the 1991a, 100-101).Theseconditions (P.Arnold, directly impact organization pp. ofceramic manufacture theresulting and record. archaeological of Severalscholars consider combined the effects household assemblages Mills (1989) and vesseluse-lives thecreation thearchaeological on of record. one that of treatments, noting thelength site provides of themoresophisticated as of in occupation be as important sitefunction theformation theparticular may A in ceramic issueraised Mills' (1989) discussion the is potenassemblage. second tialincongruity between and data ethnoarchaeological archaeological (also Skibo, distinction madein suchdiscussions between is the 1992a). The mostfrequent in wholevesselsobserved theethnographic or setting reconstructed archaeologithat a of Mills callyandthesherds comprise majority archaeological assemblages. that are used to (1989,p. 133)notes wholevessels commonly byarchaeologists address subsistence whilesherds inform majority settlement the of questions, pattern studies. morecarefully formation thearchaeological the of Onlybyconsidering will record thetwoapproaches becomecomplementary, than rather dichotomous when (Mills,1989,pp. 144-145).Skiboetal (1989,p. 403) makea similar point the to simulate sherd basedon an they encourage ethnoarchaeologist assemblages of understandingformation processes. Other do however, notseemto sharethissenseof synthesis. presentations, thatarchaeologists in shouldthink Longacreand Skibo(1994b,p. xiv) suggest terms wholepotsrather of thansherds, thusaligning archaeological of the unit to of Deal analysis that theceramic ethnoarchaeologist. (1998,pp. 141-142)notes that wouldbe more it reasonable archaeologists translate for to their into sherds wholevessels, "rather for ethnoarchaeologist than the todestroy pottery his the of informants thepurpose making for of sherd counts." unsuspecting Whiletheimageofceramic their informants' ethnoarchaeologists smashing raisea chuckle, issueis serious goes to thevery the and heart assemblages might of whatceramic is designed accomplish. ceramicstudto If ethnoarchaeology ies undertaken thepresent genuinely in are at targeted improving archaeological
118
Arnold
to that conthen seemdisingenuous demand archaeologists understanding, itwould comfortable. vert dataintounits maketheethnoarchaeologist that their Although in human behavare mostcontemporary archaeologists interested understanding in do ethnography thepast" (Hegmon,1998, cannot ior,"archaeologists simply not the record, theethnographic record, words, archaeological p. 272). In other If research. ceramic the of constitutes domain archaeological ethnoarchaeologists of their areunableto translate dataintosomereasonable approximation archaeoas to their efforts conforming it then becomesdifficult construe logicalpatterns, of held to thecommonly precepts ethnoarchaeology. THE FORTUNE TELLER: FUTURE ISSUES for ethnoarchaeolTwoareaswouldseemtobe particulary important ceramic in decrease thenumber involves overall the immediate The inthefuture. more ogy in Framed a less reactionary theworld. ofceramic-using tone, throughout groups A of containers. of the thisissue considers replacement ceramics other types by in moretheoretical scope; itis thepotential concern somewhat is related second, and for lackofethnographic pottery production consumption examples prehistoric activities. Alternative Containers and are societies rapidly Itis clearthat disappearing, fieldwork pottery-using ethnoarchaeceramic Atthesametime, information. is neededtocollectrelevant be it technological, thefactthat of social, change, ologistsshouldnotlose sight how the characterized pastas wellas the and/or Understanding present. ideological, Thusthe to is appearance archaeology. change operates fundamentalcontemporary to an container of newor alternative opportunity provides excellent technologies Several andtransformation. that monitor factors condition the change assemblage to relative this information studies (e.g.,Hagstrum, phenomenon specific provide and 1994). 1986; Skibo,1994;Trostel, 1991; Sargent Friedel, 1989;Hodder, of that observation thepresence Deal (1998, p. 168) makestheimportant is containers notalwaysa case of simpleassemblage nonceramic replacement. are containers morelikely of Within potting the community Chanal,nonceramic of whilein thepotting the to augment household community Aguaassemblage, vesselforms. containers nonceramic particular appearto be replacing catenango, and ceramic metal Peruuse both in households highland cooking pots;it Fanning of 1989,p. 287). is notan instance metal (Hagstrum, pottery alwaysdisplacing than rather notreplacedoes notappearto be related to The decision replace wealth households. of tothepresence/absencepottery-making Rather, apparently role 1994, 222). p. (e.g.,Deal, 1998,p. 160;Trostel, playsa major insuchdecisions
119
metalcooking Forexample, evengiventheir more superior performance, costly if to falloutoffavor theeconomic oftheKalingacontinue opportunities potsmay decline(Skibo,1994,p. 123). In ceramicreplacement notan all-or-nothing is Finally, proposition. fact, severalstudiesindicate thatnonceramic often a particular replacements target vessel typeor activity. AmongtheKalinga,metalvessels have replacedricediffers from other (Skibo,1994).Thissituation cooking potsin somehouseholds to in vesselsareoften lasttobe converted nonceramic the contexts, which cooking have 1985,pp. 142-143). In highland Peru,tea kettles options (e.g.,D. Arnold, a in "taste notan issue" is ceramic for water, situation which pots boiling replaced 1989,p. 286). (Hagstrum, or also Vesselsused in ritual activities formedicinal preparation are less tobe given overtononceramic alternatives 1998,pp. 90-91; Sargent (Deal, likely andFriedel, twist Vitelli, see 1986,p. 192; foran archaeological 1999,pp. 191Nonceramic containers often are used forfoodpresentation opposedto as 192). This toDeal (1998,p. 168) that somenonceramic foodpreparation. fact suggests in in containers thepresent maybe operating a manner analogousto prestige in ceramics thepast. Of course, issueof supplanting the versus an implies ability supplementing to identify control vesselfunction. and for in Some ofthemostpromising trends this comefrom studies ceramic alterations of use Ethnoar(Skibo,1992b). regard studies that as fabric attrition the and chaeological suggest suchpatterns interior characteristics carbon of reliable of pottery function deposits provide signatures 1994;Skibo,1992b). (Kobayashi, Revisited Ethnographic Tyranny The increased of nonceramic use containers fosters related a issue: namely, How might researchers to in conditions thepastthat havefeworno begin address Giventhat ceramic has contemporary analogues? ethnoarchaeology emphasized dataacquisition overdataapplication below),perhaps answer to leave the is (see theproblem thearchaeologists to the (e.g., David, 1992,p. 338). Nonetheless, of was to original purpose ceramic ethnoarchaeology ostensibly aid archaeology an of record through improved (Kramer, 1985). understandingthematerial The issuewouldseemoverly were recent discussions hypothetical, itnotfor ofancient ceramic and activities arenotwellreprethat production consumption in sented theethnohistoricethnographic or literature. example, For archaeological research Oaxaca, Mexico,has encounteredproduction in a that configuration apderived modes(Feinman, pearstodefy ethnographically 1999).In the production Oaxaca case,residentially focused is and includes production intensive apparently a widearray crafts, of ceramic and including pottery, figurines, shellornaments. This kindof intensive, household 1999,p. 94) is not (Feinman, "multicrafting"
120
Arnold
in of nor in ethnohistoric record, is itapparent studies contemporary representedthe groups. in instance which the another of the Issuessurrounding origins pottery provide that contemporary few aid. record beenoflittle Despitethefact has ethnographic the record shows hunting-gathering makeanduse pottery, archaeological groups andBarnett, the wereoften focusofceramic that mobilesettings origins (Hoopes ceramics (i.e.,Whyis it 1995;Rice, 1999).Thusan important involving question data.Can ceramic accessible notbe readily ethnographic through may adopted?) to still questions? ethnoarchaeology contribute suchresearch the cut mayfail analogies wholeclothfrom present Although ethnographic stillbe waysto linkconthere in theseand other contexts, may archaeological wouldbreakdownethnographic with past.One solution the behavior temporary thosepartsto create"culconstituent and reassemble parts analogiesintotheir in P. Arnold, turalcomposites" 1999a,pp. 116-117). The emphasis such (e.g., to that the is an approach to understand causal relationships linkbehavior masituation an ethnographic thansimply rather terial atopan overlying patterning, into can one. These relationships thenbe rearranged composites archaeological in novelmodelsof behavior, muchthesame way that that potentially represent its to uses causalrelationships extend findings beyond archaeology experimental P. Arnold, of theconfines anyparticular 1998,pp.28-29; Skibo, (e.g., experiment 1992b). CIRCUS MAXIMUS: GENERAL ISSUES differ that the be It should clearfrom abovediscussion researchers markedly it is ceramic think to with ethnoarchaeologyandwhat seeksto respect whatthey follows that to It achieve. maybe unreasonable insist all ceramic ethnoarchaeology a lack the set a particular ofstandards; nonetheless, current ofconsensus highlights 's "coming of As crisis. part ceramic serious ethnoarchaeology identity potentially of age" (e.g., Longacreand Skibo,1994b,p. xiii; Stahl,1995),it is timeto call and purposesubsumed of to attention theuncomfortable hodgepodge protocol arenaofceramic within increasingly the ethnoarchaeology. ambiguous becomethedomainof a particular shouldceramic First, ethnoarchaeology ethnoarthat have Someresearchers argued ceramic background? anthropological have since to be should restricted archaeologists archaeologists training chaeology studies in material culture 1991,pp. 1-2; Longacreand Skibo, (e.g., Longacre, than missesthemark rather this well 1994a,p. 6). Although intended, position on attention thereoff we theinvestigator's pedigree, arebetter focusing privilege this of sults herorhisinvestigation. clearly: (1991,p. 234) makes point Thompson has is "In fact, there no reasonwhyethnoarchaeology to be doneby archaeoloit for but that It gists. is notwhodoesthework counts, thepurpose which is done." of to in application ethnographic Purpose, thiscase, refers the archaeological
121
information:
without archaeological an some who to Unfortunately, archaeologists begin do ethnography to and, as some of the postcompletely purposefindit difficult abandonarchaeology cultures fictional accounts ancient of start have processualists ablydemonstrated, writing than tales.(Thompson, are more that little 1991,p. 234) archaeological fairy
It would seem thatarchaeologistsof a more processual persuasion also could be includedin the above characterization. Of course, some mightargue thatfairytales are no worse than cautionary of tales. Several researchershave commentedon the growthindustry cautionary is tales and wonderedif ceramic ethnoarchaeology condemned to providinglittle more than spoiler arguments.P. Arnold (1991a, pp. 2-3) notes that cautionary tales simply combine an awareness of behavioral variation with an ignorance of behavioral causality. D. Arnold (1991) suggests that cautionarytales occur because theethnographic recordcan be somewhatoverwhelming, especially ifone In is accustomed to etic categories and is looking forcross-cultural regularities. contrast themorearchaeocentric to position,D. Arnold(1991, p. 328) emphasizes theimportance ethnographic of training:
is think they study that can Ceramic and ethnoarchaeologyethnography, ifarchaeologists method theory, and material culture without benefit ethnographic of theyare naiveand is for archaeology thepoorer it.
To remedythissituation, Arnold (1991) calls forthedevelopmentof improved D. thelines ofceramicecology (e.g., D. Arnold,1985, 1993; theory, particularly along P. Arnold,1991a, pp. 4-5; Kolb, 1989; Rice, 1987, pp. 314-317). have been particularly critNonetheless,some ceramic ethnoarchaeologists ical of ceramic ecology. Gosselain (1998, p. 80), for example, stronglychides ceramic ecology for "endlessly hark[ing]back to the same basic assumptions." Foremostamong these assumptionsis a view of the environment constraining as and a belief thatpottersmustmanufacture vessels according to funcproduction tionalparameters (Gosselain, 1998, p. 80). Othershave disparaged such assumptionsas "extreme"(Neff,1993, p. 32) and of "limitedtheoretical power" (M. Stark, shows thatdiscussions 1993,p. 188). Nonetheless,a closer readingoftheliterature of ceramic ecology and pottery technologynever intendedto promote environmentaldeterminism functional or reductionism (e.g., D. Arnold, 1985; P. Arnold, and Skibo, 1987, 1997). His own polemic notwith1999a; Kolb, 1989; Schiffer Gosselain (1998) is forcedto remainskepticalregarding viabilityof the standing, thechane opratoireagenda, ultimately thathis "somewhat mitigated admitting conclusion will probablyappear as a failed attempt" (Gosselain, 1998, p. 104). This admission raises anotherinteresting question, namely,How does one evaluatethesuccess or failureof ceramicethnoarchaeologicalstudies?Withinthe current literature ceramicethnoarchaeology appears to pass as just about anything thatlinks contemporary Given such topical latitude,assesspeople withpottery. mentsof quality and utility can be particularly difficult Arnold, 1998; Sillar, (P.
122
Arnold
for the that 1993; Stahl,1995). In fact, one criterion ceramic ethnoarchaeology matters." most researchers that is with seemstoresound "length stems from studies somemisplaced Thisemphasis longitudinal on apparently studies necessary, are so ideas regarding butwell-meaning Long-term sampling. that relationcan goes thelogic,becauseonlythen we be satisfied theobserved are But and culture representative. whatdoes it behavior material shipsbetween inethnographic (e.g.,David,1992,p. 334)? cases meantobe representative really of studies meetthesampling that Ceramic requirement uniethnoarchaeological more common loci form access toall production areextremely considerably rare; households other or conin entree potting to areinvestigations which production or texts restricted uneven is 1993;P. Arnold, 1991a;Deal, 1998; (e.g.,D. Arnold, if of 1989; Kramer, 1997). It is doubtful themajority ceramicethHagstrum, of studieswill everbe able to meetthebasic requirements a noarchaeological sample." "representative couldbe a morerobust a A secondreasonforseeking representative sample inferences. as mentioned toolfor But, above,howmany archaeological generating followed and have ceramic self-described through ethnoarchaeologists actually in fashion? record more than cursory a tothearchaeological their findings applied based on causal a have a choice theycan support hypothesis Archaeologists from single a record(even if derived and thematerial behavior linksbetween enumeration. The a can or they support hypothesis argument through by potter) more thelatter toward former movesarchaeology nothing requires explanation, than description. simple in conwhat thoseinstances which of as noted, potential Finally, previously ceramic or are activities few nonexistent? for Requiring analogs potting temporary use a to sample"forarchaeological ethnoarchaeology generate "representative we the more about archaeological As would ludicrous. welearn be record, arelikely than exception the the more often rule tofind condition this 1999b; (e.g.,P.Arnold, that it Rice,1999;SkiboandBlinman, 1999).In sum, is unlikely thearchaeological that data of by ethnoarchaeological willbe fortified insisting those utility ceramic normative behavior. ofsomepresumed databe "statistically representative" BRING IN THE CLOWNS: CONCLUSION ceramic Kramer's Some 15 yearsafter (1985) summary, ethnoarchaeology and interests agendas.New datahave of research to a continues reflect diversity manufacture of the beencollected appearance ceramic regarding archaeological andissuesinvolving ofhousehold the andproduction, composition assemblages, further vesseluse, reuse,and disposal.Some findings patterns, developexisting and behavior the human between assumed call others intoquestion relationships ceramics se havebegunto movebeyond And some studies material record. per inventories. in role the andarenowconsidering general ofcontainers household
123
One ofthemoreimloom difficulties on thehorizon. Nonetheless, potential to ceramic issuesis the but ethnoarchaeology degree which portant, leastdiscussed, to record. to relevant thearchaeological should directly be Despitelip service the made are showsthatsuchapplications rarely the affirmative, evidenceactually of ethnoaroutside ceramic are and,eventhen, undertaken by mostly researchers satisfied that are In someceramic ethnoarchaeologists apparently chaeology. fact, and to of is becoming restricted topics specific immediate less "ethnoarchaeology it suchpositions, is certainly concern" (David,1992,p. 351). Given archaeological in time someserious for ethnoarchaeology. stocktaking ceramic of of be One of theoutcomes suchreflection might thedevelopment protodata. some ceramic cols for and ethnoarchaeological Although obtaining applying of as the viewsuchparameters overly restrictive, provide benefit a comthey might and ceramic monpoint reference conducting evaluating of for ethnoarchaeology. that modern Whenceramic becomesalmost ethnoarchaeology anything includes it as tool andpottery,risks losingcredibility a legitimate in archaeological people inquiry. Ceramic is ethnoarchaeologyno easy task.It is notwhatone does on their on As so other nor conducted a whim. with many things, "dayoff" is iteffectively those researchers makeitlookeasysucceedbecauseof their who hardworkand in investmenttheprocess. ifyoueverlongtorunawayfrom archaeSo long-term thecircus, livethelifeof a ceramic and ethnoarchaeologist, one ology, join keep in evenRingling Brothers makes their attend clownschool. thing mind: performers ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wouldliketo thank and GaryM. Feinman T. Douglas Pricefortheinvitation discussrecent to in I wouldalso liketo trends ceramic ethnoarchaeology. to who have sentreprints copies of their and express thanks thoseauthors my workto me overtheyears(yes,I promise reciprocate!). to for Support myown ceramic has ethnoarchaeology beenprovided theNationalScience Foundaby and of tion, Foundation, theUniversity New Mexico. The SigmaXi, theTinker final benefited from close readings Dean Arnold, manuscript by GaryFeinman, Shannon ChrisPool,Jim reviewer. Theirtimeand Fie, Skibo,andan anonymous assistance gratefully are acknowledged. REFERENCES CITED
M. and in A Annis, B. (1988). Modes ofproduction theuse ofspace in potters' workshops Sardinia: Newsletter theDepartment Pottery 6: of picture. changing of of Technology 47-78 (University The Netherlands). Leiden,Leiden, M. H. and of Annis, B., and Geertman, (1987). Production distribution cookingwaresin Sardinia. Newsletter theDepartment Pottery 5: of of of Technology 154-196 (University Leiden,Leiden, The Netherlands).
124
Arnold
M. L. research Pottery in Annis, B., and Jacobs, (1986). Ethnoarchaeological production Oristano Relations between materials, raw and Newsletter (Sardinia): techniques, artifacts. of manufacturing of the 4: TheNetherlands). Department Pottery of Technology 56-85 (University Leiden, Leiden, D. and Arnold, . (1985). CeramicTheory Cultural Process, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. in D. of and residence, descent Arnold, E. (1989). Patterns learning, amongpotters Ticul,Yucatn, to Mexico.In Sherman, J.(ed.), Archaeological S. identity, Approaches Cultural GeorgeAllen and Unwin,London, 174-184. pp. of D. and and Can Arnold, E. (1991). Ethnoarchaeology investigationsceramic production exchange: tales?In Bishop, L., andLange,F. W. (eds.), TheCeramic R. we go beyond of Legacy cautionary PressofColorado, AnnaO. Shepard, Niwot, CO, pp. 321-345. University H. D. on Arnold, E. (1992). Comments SectionII. In, Neff, (ed.), ChemicalCharacterization of in No. CeramicPastes in Archaeology, Press, Monographs WorldArchaeology 7, Prehistory Madison, WI, pp. 159-170. Production an Andean in UniverD. Arnold, E. (1993). Ecologyand Ceramic Community, Cambridge Press, sity Cambridge. of D. and Arnold, E. (1999). Advantages disadvantages vertical-half Implications molding technology: In G. and forproduction organization. Skibo,J.M., and Feinman, M. (eds.), Pottery People:A SaltLake City, 59-80. of Interaction, pp. Dynamic University UtahPress, standardization.Bey,G., andPool, In ceramic D. Arnold, E., andNieves,A. (1992). Factors affecting and An Production Distribution: Integrated C. (eds.),Ceramic Westview, Boulder, CO, Approach, pp. 93-113. and R. of D. H. Arnold, E., Neff, A., andBishop, L. (1991). Compositional analysis "sources" pottery: 93: American An ethnoarchaeological approach. Anthropologist 71-90. M. D. H. Arnold, E., Neff, A., Bishop,R. L, and Glascock, D. (1999). Testing interpetative assumpin 1964-1994.In Chilton, activation tionsof nuetron pottery Yucatn, analysis: Contemporary to E. S. (ed.), MaterialMeanings:Critical of Approaches theInterpretationMaterialCulture, of pp. University UtahPress,SaltLake City, 61-84. in de attributestheSierra losTxtlas, ceramic P. ID Veracruz, Arnold, J., (1988). Household assemblage Research 357-383. 44: Mexico.Journal Anthropological of within contemof P. Arnold, J.,Ill (1990). The organization refuse production disposalandceramic 92: American Mexicanhouselots. Anthropologist 915-932. porary A Production SpatialOrganization: MexicanCase and P. Arnold, J.,Ill (1991a). DomesticCeramic in Press, Cambridge. Study Ethnoarchaeology, Cambridge University scale ceramics. and standardization production inMesoamerican P. lu Arnold, J., (1991b).Dimensional 2: LatinAmerican Antiquity 363-370. of between P. Arnold, J.,Ill (1998). Ceramic "coming age" and "showing ethnoarchaeology: Caught 27: in itsage." Reviews Anthropology 17-32. inceramic studies. and P. Ill selection, ethnoarchaeology Arnold, J., (1999a). On typologies, production to In Chilton, S. (ed.). MaterialMeaning:Critical E. of Approaches theInterpretationMaterial SaltLake City, 103-117. of Culture, pp. University UtahPress, in and residential P. Arnold, J.,Ill (1999b). Tecomates, occupation coastal mobility, EarlyFormative and G. In J. lowland Mesoamerica. Skibo, M.,andFeinman, M. (eds.),Pottery People:A Dynamic SaltLake City, 157-170. of Interaction, University UtahPress, pp. Coastof on of and G. Bankes, (1985). The manufacture circulation paddleandanvilpottery theNorth 17: Peru.World Archaeology 269-277. in oi to An standardization: approach thestudy cranspecialization, Benco,N. (1988). Morphological L. Revisited, Kolb,C. C, andLackey, M. (eds.),A Pot all Reasons:Ceramic Ecology Temple for pp. Philadelphia, 57-72. University, and in as or J. Brown, A. (1989). The beginnings pottery an economic process, vanderLeeuw,a. fc,., UnwinHyman, R. Torrence, (eds.), What'sNew?A CloserLook at theProcessofInnovation, London, 203-224. pp. in of and of Chavez,K. L. M. (1992). The organization production distribution traditional pottery An and Production Distribution: Peru.In Bey,G., and Pool, C. (eds.), Ceramic south highland CO, Westview, Boulder, pp.49-92. Integrated Approach, the and Issuesin defining, C. Costin, L. (1991). Craft documenting, explaining organispecialization: and Theory, Method in M. In zationof production. Schiffer, B. (ed.),Advances Archaeological of Vol.3, University Arizona Tucson, 1-56. Press, pp.
125
C. M. labor Costin, L., andHagstrum, B. ( 1995). Standardization, investment, andtheorganization skill, ofceramic in Peru. American 60: production lateprehistoric Highland Antiquity 619-639. A realist Journal AnthropologDavid,N. (1992). Integrating perspective. of ethnoarchaeology:subtle ical Archaeology 330-359. 11: Current 29: David,N.,Stern, andGavua,K. (1988). Why J., potsaredecorated. Anthropology 365-389. in An Deal, M. (1985). Household pottery disposal theMayaHighlands: ethnoarchaeological interpretation. Journal Anthropological 4: of Archaeology 243-291. to of Deal, M. (1988). Anethnoarchaeological approach theidentificationMayadomestic propottery In duction. Kolb,C. (ed.),Ceramic 1987: TheTechnology, Socioeconomics and Revisited, Ecology BAR International Series436 (i), Oxford, 111-142. ofPottery, pp. in of Deal, M. (1998). Pottery EthnoarchaeologytheCentral MayaHighlands, University UtahPress, SaltLake City. M. reusebehavior Deal, M., and Hagstrum, B. (1995). Ceramic amongtheMaya and Wanka:ImpliIn cationsforarchaeology. Skibo,J.M., Walker, H., and Nielsen,A. E. (eds.), Expanding W. of SaltLake City, 111-125. Archaeology, University UtahPress, pp. show:System senseinceramic In and studies. vanderLeeuw, DeBoer,W. R. (1984). The lastpottery A. Ceramics Archaeology in and S., and Pritchard, C. (eds.), TheManyDimensions Pottery: of Albert voor Instituut Prae-en Protohistorie, Anthropology, EggesVanGiffen CingvlaVII, Univan versiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 527-568. pp. nor lie: occasional reductionDeBoer,W. R. (1985). Potsandpansdo notspeak, do they The case for ism.In Nelson,B. A. (ed.), DecodingPrehistoric Southern IllinoisUniversity Ceramics, Press, Carbondale, 347-357. pp. W. in A the DeBoer, R. ( 1986). Pillageandproduction theAmazon: viewthrough ConibooftheUcayali Peru.World 18: Basin,eastern Archaeology 231-246. and in as The Ucayali DeBoer,W. R. (1990). Interaction, imitation, communication expressed style: In M. C. experience. Conkey, W., and Hastorf, A. (eds.), The Uses of Stylein Archaeology, Press, Cambridge University pp. Cambridge, 82-104. I. of and Dietler, and Herbich, (1989). TichMatek:The technology Luo pottery M., production the definition ceramic of World 21: style. Archaeology 148-164. I. and observations on Dietler, andHerbich, (1994). Ceramics ethnic M., identity: Ethnoarchaeological thedistributionpottery of and between socialcontext production the of and styles therelationship In Cuiteet Socit:La Cramique, Document Culconsumption. Terre Technique, Economique, XrVeRencontres Internationales et d' Editions turel, APDCA, d'Archologie d'Histoire Amibes, Juan-les-Pins, France, 459-472. pp. I. An to Dietler, and.Herbich, (1998). Habitus, M., techniques, style: integrated approach thesocial of culture boundaries. Stark, T. (ed.), TheArchaeology Social and In M. understandingmaterial of Smithsonian Institution Boundaries, Press, DC, Washington, pp. 232-263. C. and of Dobres, M.-A.,andHoffman, R. (1994). Social agency thedynamics prehistoric technology. Journal Archaeological Method and Theory 211-249. 1: of and Duncan,R. J.(1998). The Ceramics Work, EconomicChange, ofRquira,Columbia:Gender, of Gainesville. University RoridaPress, G. our Economic at Feinman, M. (1999). Rethinking assumptions: scale specialization thehousehold inancient J. G. and Oaxaca,Mexico.In Skibo, M.,andFeinman, M. (eds.),Pottery People: Ejutla, A Dynamic of dd. SaltLake City, 81-98. Interaction, University UtahPress, O. and Potters pottery and BafiaofCameroon. Gosselain, P. (1992). Technology style: Man 27: among 559-586. O. in ball. In Stark, T. (ed.), Gosselain, P. (1998). Social and technical M. identity a clay crystal TheArchaeology Social Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution Press, of DC, Washington, pp. 78106. O. A. and SocietyProject: ethnographic An Gosselain, P., and Smith, L. (1995). The Ceramics and to choices.InLindhal, andStilborg, (eds.),TheAim O. A., experimental approach technological of in KVHAA Konferenser Stockholm, 147Laboratory 34, Analyses Ceramics Archaeology, of pp. 160. M. within Kalingavillage:Temporal spatialproa Graves, W. (1985). Ceramic and designvariation cess. In Nelson, A. (ed.),DecodingPrehistoric B. Southern IllinoisUniversity Ceramics, Press, Carbondale, pp. 9-34. IL, M. and the A Graves, W.( 199 1). Pottery of and production distribution among Kalinga: study household
126
Arnold
In Longacre, A. (ed.), CeramicEthnoarchaeology, W. and organization differentiation. regional of Tucson, 112-143. University ArizonaPress, pp. and in M. Continuity Change:CeramicEthnoarchaeology the Hagstrum, B. (1989). Technological Ph.D. dissertation, of Peruvian of Andes,Unpublished Department Anthropology, University Los California, Angeles. J. method reconstructing for M. ceramic Hagstrum, B., and Hildebrand, A. (1990). A two-curvature 55: American Antiquity 388-403. morphology. W. Hardin, A. (1991). Sourcesofceramic M. at variability ZuniPueblo.InLongacre, A. (ed.),Ceramic of Ethnoarchaeology, University Arizona Press, Tucson, 40-70. pp. In M. M. and approaches. Stark, style, social practice: Archaeological Hegmon, (1998). Technology, Institution Smithsonian Press,Washington, DC, (ed.), TheArchaeology Social Boundaries, of pp. 264-279. and I. interaction, ceramic Herbich, (1987). Learning patterns, potter style amongtheLuo of Kenya. Review 193-204. 5: Archaeological African of M. of H., Herbich, andDietler, (1991). Aspects theceramic I., system theLuo ofKenya.In Ludtke, Band andVossen, (eds.), Topferei-und R., Keramikforschune, 2, Habelt, Bonn,pp. 105-135. An and In of I. Hodder, (1991). The decoration containers: ethnographic historical study. Longacre, of W. A. (ed.), Ceramic Press, Tucson, 71-94. Ethnoarchaeology, pp. University Arizona and W. Hoopes,J.W.,andBarnett, K. (eds.) (1995). TheEmergence Pottery: of Technology Innovation DC. Smithsonian Institution inAncient Press, Societies, Washington, of Interior carbon of M. deposits cooking analysis Kalingapottery: Kobayashi, (1994). Use-alteration ArchaeW. Expanding pots.In Longacre, A., andSkibo,J.M. (eds.),KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Institution Smithsonian and Theory, DC, Press, Washington, pp. 127-168. ologicalMethod A reviewof methodology results. and Kolb, C. C. (1989). Ceramicecologyin retrospect: critical BAR Researchon CeramicMaterials, In Kolb, C. C. (ed.), CeramicEcology,1988: Current International Series513, Oxford, 261-375. pp. 14: Annual Review Anthropology 77-102. in C. Kramer, (1985). Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. InstiSmithsonian in In C. Kramer, (1997). Pottery Rajasthan:Ethnoarchaeology TwoIndianCities, DC. tution Press, Washington, In An the of R. Leeuw, Krause, A. ( 1984). Modeling making pots: ethnoarchaeological approach. vander Ceramicsin Archaeology A. S. E., and Pritchard, C. (eds.), TheManyDimensions Pottery: of Instituut Prae-en Protohistorie, voor Albert and Anthropology, CingvlaVII, Egges Van Giffen van Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 615-698. pp. UniR. Potters, Krause, A. (1985). TheClay Sleeps:AnEthnoarchaeological of African Study Three Tuscaloosa. of versity AlabamaPress, into and R. Krause, A. (1990). Ceramicpractice semantic inquiry the space: An ethnoarchaeological 64: Antiquity 711-726. logicofBantupotting. for K. M. Kvamme, L., Stark, T., and Longacre,W. A. (1996). Alternative procedures assessing 61: American in standardizationceramic Antiquity 116-126. assemblages. No. P. Lemonnier, (1992). Elements an AnthropologyTechnology, Papers, 8, of Anthropological for AnnArbor. of Museum Anthropology, of University Michigan, In in and London,G. A. (1991). Standardization variation theworkof craft specialists. Longacre, of W. A. (ed.), Ceramic Press, Tucson, 182-204. pp. Ethnoarchaeology, University Arizona In use-life W. Luzon, the Philippines. amongthe Kalinga,northern Longacre, A. (1985). Pottery CarbonIllinois Southern B. Press, Ceramics, Nelson, A. (ed.), DecodingPrehistoric University dale,pp. 334-346. W. InLongacre, A. (ed.),Ceramic An W. ethnoarchaeology: introduction. Longacre, A. ( 199 1). Ceramic of Tucson, 1-10. Press, Ethnoarchaeology, University Arizona pp. and The W. joiningofethnoarchaeology expermarriage: essential Longacre, A. (1992). The perfect In limites, imental justification, problmes, archaeology. Audouze,F. (ed.), Ethnoarchologie: Editions et Internationales APDCA, JuanXlle Rencontres d'Antibes, d'Archologie d'Histoire les-Pins, France, 15-24. pp. What'sthelink?In Skibo,J. M., and and W Longacre, A. (1999). Standardization specialization: of and G. Interaction, Feinman, M., (eds.), Pottery People:A Dynamic University UtahPress, SaltLake City, 44-58. pp. In to W. ethnoarchaeology.Longacre, Longacre, A., andSkibo,J.M. (1994a). AnintroductionKalinga
127
Method W. A., and Skibo,J.M. (eds.), KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Archaeological Expanding Smithsonian Institution and Theory. Press.Washington. dd. 1-11. DC, In W. J. W. J. Longacre, A.,andSkibo, M. ( 1994b).Preface. Longacre, A.,andSkibo, M. (eds.),Kalinga Method Theory, and Smithsonian Institution Press, Archaeological Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Washington, pp. xiii-xvi. DC, W. M. and Journal kinship space:A Kalingaexample. Longacre, A., and Stark, T. (1992). Ceramics, 11: ofAnthropological Archaeology 125-136. W. K. M. standardization: pottery Longacre, A., Kvamme, L., and Kobayashi, (1988). Southwestern Anethnoarchaeological from Philippines. 53: 101-112. view Kiva the S. in and variation: traditions thenorthern MacEachern, (1998). Scale, style, cultural Technological Mandara Mountains. Stark, T. (ed.), TheArchaeology Social Boundaries, In M. Smithsonian of Institution Press, DC, Washington, pp. 107-131. in P. Choices: Manias,M.-C. (1993). Pottery techniques India. In Lemonnier, (ed.), Technological Transformations inMaterialCultures SincetheNeolithic. Routledee. London, 157-180. dd. of functional modelsof ceramic Mills,B. J.(1989). Integrating analyses vesseland sherds through formation. World 21: assemblage Archaeology 133-147. in D. Honduras. Mouat, andArnold, (1988). Ceramic L., production El Porvenir, ecologyandpottery In Kolb,C. C, and Lackey, M. (eds.), A Potfor all Reasons: CeramicEcologyRevisited, L. of Laboratory Anthropology, TempleUniversity, Philadelphia, 239-261. pp. H. in and of Neff, (1993). Theory, sampling, analytical techniques thearchaeological study prehistoric ceramics. American 58: Antiquity 23-44. B. and A Nelson, A. ( 1991 Ceramic ). frequency use-life: highland Mayacase incross-cultural perspective.In Longacre, A. (ed.), Ceramic W. of Press, Tucson, Ethnoarchaeology, University Arizona pp. 162-181. M. W. in use-life studies. Longacre, In Neupert, A.,andLongacre, A. ( 1994). Informant accuracy pottery W. A., and Skibo,J.M. (eds.), KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Method Archaeological Expanding and Theory, Smithsonian Institution Press, DC, Washington, pp.71-82. P. H. in An Nicholson, T, andPatterson, L. (1985). Pottery making Upper Egypt: ethnoarchaeological World 17: approach. Archaeology 222-239. P. H. in Nicholson, T, and Patterson, L. (1992). The Bailas pottery project: EthnoarchaeologyUpper and An Egypt.In Bey,G., and Pool, C. (eds.), CeramicProduction Distribution: Integrated Westview, Boulder, CO, pp. 25-47. Approach, in Orton, Tyers, and Vince,A. (1993). Pottery Archaeology, C, P., Press, Cambridge University Cambridge. B. (1992). Social anthropology technology. of Annual Review Anthropology 49121: Pfaffenberger, of 516. ceramic In and Pool,C. A. (1992). Integrating production distribution.Bey,G. J,IE, and Pool,C. A. Production Distribution: Integrated and An Westview (eds.),Ceramic Press, Boulder, Approach, CO, pp. 275-313. A of Rice,P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis: Sourcebook, University ChicagoPress, Chicago. and R. G. Rice,P. M. (1989). Ceramic production, use.In Leonard, D., andJones, T. (eds.), diversity, in Press, Quantifying Diversity Archaeology, Cambridge University pp. Cambridge, 109-117. and A In Rice,P. M. (1991). Specialization, standardization, diversity: retrospective. Bishop,R. L., andLange,F. W. (eds.), TheCeramic PressofColorado, LegacyofAnnaO. Shepard, University Niwot, CO, pp. 257-279. ceramic 2. and Rice,P. M. (1996). Recent Journal Aranalysis: Composition, production, theory. of Research 165-202. 4: chaeological of Journal Archaeological Method Theory 1-54. and Rice,P. M. (1999). On theorigins pottery. 6: of C. D. Sargent, F., and Friedel, A. (1986). Fromclay to metal:Culture changeand container usage the Review 177-195. 4: Benin,WestAfrica. among Baribaofnorthern African Archaeological M. Processes the Schiffer, B. (1987). Formation of Record, of Archaeological University NewMexico Press, Albuquerque. M. and in of Schiffer, B., andSkibo,J.M. (1987). Theory experiment thestudy technological change. Current 28: Anthropology 595-622. M. of Schiffer, B., and Skibo,J.M. (1997). The explanation artifact American variability. Antiquity 62: 27-50.
128
Arnold
M. use of American Shott, J.(1989). On tool-class livesandtheformation archaeological assemblages. 54: Antiquity 9-30. M. of Shott, J.(19%). Mortal pots:On use lifeand vesselsize intheformation ceramic assemblages. 61: American Antiquity 463-482. Production SpatialOrganization and B. Domestic Ceramic and Sillar, (1993). Reviewof P. Arnold's 67: W. Loneacre's(ed.), Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Antiquity 681-682. South of at India. American C. production Vijayanagara, Sinopoli, M. ( 1988). Theorganization ceramic 90: Anthropologist 580-587. in In T. Karnataka. Chandra, C. production rural Sinopoli, M, andBurton, R. (1986). Modern pottery J. Art:PupulJayakar L., andJain, (eds.),Dimensions Indian of Seventry, AgamKala Prakashan, Delhi,pp.439-456. and in Skibo,J.M. (1992a). Ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, inference building ceramic Polona30: 27-38. research. Archaeologia A Plenum New York. Function: Use Alteration , Press, Skibo,J.M. (1992b).Pottery Perspective and of Skibo,J. M. (1994). The Ralingacookingpot: An ethnoarchaeological experimental study W. change.In Longacre, A., and Skibo,J.M. (eds.),KalingaEthnoarchaeology: technological Institution Method and Theory, Smithsonian Press, DC, Archaeological Washington, Expanding pp. 113-126. of on the E. Skibo,J.M., and Blinman, (1999). Exploring origins pottery theColoradoPlateau.In and G. Interaction, Skibo,J.M., andFeinman, M. (eds.),Pottery People:A Dynamic University ofUtahPress, SaltLake City, 171-183. pp. of M. J. Skibo, M.,andSchiffer, B. (1995). Theclaycooking Anexploration women's pot: technology. of W. A. In Skibo,J.M., Walker, H., andNielsen, E. (eds.),Expanding Archaeology, University SaltLake City, 80-91. UtahPress, pp. and N. M. Skibo,J.M., Schiffer, B., and Kowalski, (1989). Ceramicstyle analysisin archaeology 8: the of Archaeology 388Bridging analytical Journal Anthropological gap. ethnoarchaeology: 409. 69: come A. Stahl, (1995). Has ethnoarchaeology ofage? Antiquity 404-407. locations: of B. identificationpottery-production Stark, L. (1985). Archaeological Ethnoarchaeological In B. data andarchaeological in Mesoamerica. Nelson, A. (ed.),DecodingPrehistoric Ceramics, Southern Dlinois Press, Carbondale, 158-194. pp. University In in in and of B. Stark, L. (1995). Problems analysis standardization specialization pottery. Mills,B. J., of in P. andCrown, L. (eds.), CeramicProduction theAmerican Southwest, University Arizonza Press.Tucson, 231-267. dd. A and M. Stark, T. ( 1991 Ceramic ). ethnoarchaeological specialization: Kalinga production community 23: World Archaeology 64-78. study. An and M. Stark, T. (1993). Reviewof CeramicProduction Distribution: Integrated Approach, Bey, 67: and G. J., Pool,C. A. (eds.),Antiquity 184-188. In W. A and M. Stark, T. (1994). Pottery system: Dulapacase study. Longacre, exchange theregional and Method A., and Skibo,J.M. (eds.), KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Archaeological Expanding Instiution Smithsonian DC, Press, Washington, pp. 169-197. Theory, A in and M. Stark, T. (1995). Economicintensification ceramic specialization thePhilippines: view 16: in from Research Economic Anthropology 179-226. Kalinga. An culture in choicesand social boundaries material M. Stark, T. (1998). Technical patterning: inInstitution Smithsonian In M. troduction. Stark, T. (ed.), TheArchaeology Social Boundaries, of DC, Press, Washington, pp. 1-11. In traditions. Chilton, choicein Kalingaceramic of M. Stark, T. (1999). Social dimensions technical to E. S. (ed.), MaterialMeanings:Critical of Approaches theInterpretationMaterialCulture, SaltLake City, 24-43. of pp. University UtahPress, and whom? Ceramicstyle, J. Sterner, A. (1989). Who is signalling amongthe ethnicity, taphonomy 63: SirakBulahay. Antiquity 451-459. of The manufacture: limitations thecurrent ceramic southestern A. Sullivan, P.,IQ (1988). Prehistoric 53: American evidence. Antiquity 23-35. Mechanisms in households? break larger should more M. population Tani, ( 1994). Why underlying pots J. In W. from ceramics. Longacre, A., andSkibo, M. (eds.),KalingaEthnoarchaeology: estimates Institution Smithsonian Method and Theory, DC, Press, Washington, Archaeological Expanding pp. 51-70.
129
uselife: revision the A of ceramic W. of Tani,M, and Longacre, A. (1999). On methods measuring American 64: of uselife estimates cookingvessels amongthe Ralinga,Philippines. Antiquity 299-308. In W. of R. purpose ethnoarchaeology.Longacre, A. (ed.), Thompson, H. (1991). The archaeological of Ceramic Press, Tucson, 231-245. pp. Ethnoarchaeology, University Arizona An B. Trostel, (1994). Household study goods potsandpossessions: ethnoarchaeological ofmaterial In W. andwealth. Longacre, A., and Skibo,J.M. (eds.),KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Expanding Smithsonian Institution Method Theory, and DC, Press, Archaeological Washington, pp.209-224. in studies. Longacre, In W. and vanderLeeuw,S. E. (1991). Variation, variability, explanation pottery of A. (ed.), Ceramic Tucson, 11-39. Press, Ethnoarchaeology, pp. University Arizona a van derLeeuw,S. E. (1993). Givingthepotter choice: Conceptual aspectsof pottery techniques. in Since the In Lemonnier, (ed.), Technological P. Choices: TransformationMaterialCultures Neolithic, London, 238-288. pp. Routledge, traditions unquesand R. vanderLeeuw,S. E., Papousek, A., andCoudait,A. (1992). Technological in et 16-17: 145-173. The tioned Techniques Culture assumptions: case ofpottery Michoacan. in G. K. Vitelli, D. (1999). "Lookingup" at earlyceramics Greece.In Skibo,J.M., and Feinman, and of M. (eds.),Pottery People:A Dynamic Interaction, University UtahPress,SaltLake City, pp. 184-198. from R. modelsoftraditional inceramics: trade Case studies Vossen, (1984). Towards Spain building A. and Morocco.In van derLeeuw, S. E., and Pritchard, C. (eds.), The ManyDimensions of Instituut voor Ceramics Archaeology Anthropology, in and Albert Pottery: Egges Van Giffen van Prae-en Protohistorie, Amsterdam, 339-397. pp. CingvlaVII, Universiteit Amsterdam, in E. of Mexico. Williams, (1995). The spatial Michoacan, organisation pottery production Huncito, the 6: from institute Archaeology 47-56. of Papers
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE

research Watervesselsin Sardinia. Newsletter the Annis,M. B. (1985). Ethnoarchaeological of Deoartment Pottery of Technology 43-93 (Universitv Leiden.Leiden.The Netherlands). 3: of M. and in 17: manufactureSardinia. World Annis, B. (1985). Resistance change:Pottery Archaeology 240-255. M. L. Pabillonis Annis, B., andJacobs, (1989-1990). Cookingwaresfrom (Sardinia):Relationships between materials, raw of and techniques thefunction vessels.Newsletter the of manufacturing 7/8: of The Netherlands). Leiden, of Department Pottery Technology 75-132 (University Leiden, D. after years:Archaeological 20 In Arnold, E. (1987). Maya pottery implications. Rice, P. M., and R. BAR Sharer, J.(eds.), Maya Ceramics:Papersfromthe1985 Maya CeramicsConference, International Series345,Oxford, 545-561. pp. D. A and of Arnold, E. ( 1989).Technological diversity evolutionary viability: comparison contemporary in Peru,and Mexico. In Kolb, C. C. (ed.), Ceramic pottery-making technologies Guatemala, 1988: Current Research Ceramic on BAR International Series513, Oxford, Materials, Ecology, pp. 29-53. D. ceramic An MASCAReArnold, E. (1998). Andean technology: ethnoarchaeological perspective. search to PapersinScienceand Archaeology, Supplement Vol. 15,Philadelphia, 353-367. pp. P. and in Arnold, J.,Ill (1988). TheProduction Consumption Ceramics theSierrade los Tuxtlas, of of Veracruz, Mexico,Research Institute, PaperSeries,No. 21, LatinAmerican University New Mexico,Albuquerque. M. P. An innovation: ethnoarchaeological Aronson, A.,andFournier, (1993). Modelsfor technological in Mexico.In Kingery, D. (ed.), TheSocial and Cultural W. Contexts New project PinoSurez, of Ceramic American CeramicSociety, Westerville, pp. 33-74. OH, Technologies, M. J. M. An Aronson, A., Skibo, M.,andStark, T. ( 1991 Use technologies: ethnoarchaeological ). study of Kalingapottery. Vandiver, B., Druzik, and Wheeler, S. (eds.),MaterialsIssues in In P. G. J., Art Archaeology Materials and Research Vol. II, Society Symposium Proceedings, 185,Materials Research Society, pp. Pittsburgh, 415^28. M. M. in and Aronson, A., Skibo,J.M., and Stark, T. (1994). Production use technologies Kalinga In W. pottery. Longacre, A., and Skibo,J. M. (1994), KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Expanding
130
Arnold
Methodand Theory, Smithsonian Instiution Press,Washington, pp. 83DC, Archaeological 111. of and In H. S. Balfet, (1984). Methods formation theshapeofpottery. vanderLeeuw, E., andPritchard, A. C. (eds.),TheMany Dimensions Pottery: Ceramics Archaeology Anthropology, in and Albert of Instituut Prae- Protohistorie, voor en van Vu, Universiteit Amsterdam, Cingvla EggesVanGiffen Amsterdam, 171-197. pp. N. Pots:Works Clay Smithsonian Institution Press, of from Africa, Barley, (1994). Smashing WashingDC. ton, in In D. N. rural I., potting WestAfrica. Freestone, and Gainster, (eds.), Barley, (1997). Traditional Institution in Smithsonian Press,Washington, DC, Pottery theMaking:CeramicTraditions, pp. 140-145. or or Newsletter Bedaux,R. M. A., andvanderWaals,J.D. (1987). Aspects lire-span Dogonpottery. 5: of The NetherLeiden, oftheDepartment Pottery of Technology 137-153(University Leiden, lands). and An Bey,G. J.,HI, and Pool, C. A. (eds.) (1992). CeramicProduction Distribution: Integrated CO. Westview Press, Boulder, Approach, ceramic to assemC. approach understanding archaeological Bourges, T. (1993). Ethnoarchaeological 41: Cameroon. Akuma 8-11. Grea,northern blagesfrom Nyame M. and manufacture. Cermica D. Mayapottery Bryant, D., andBrody, J.(1986). Modern prehistoric de Cultura Maya 14: 73-86. of of Chvez,K. L. M. (1987). Traditional pottery Raqch'i, Cuzco, Peru:A preliminary study its and production, distribution, consumption. NawpaPacha 22-23: 161-210. Video(50 min), Potsand PeopleinNorth Cameroon, David,N. (1990). Vessels theSpirits: of Departof of ment Communications Media,University Calgary, Calgary. in culture A. J. and David, N., Gavua,K., MacEachern, S., and Sterner, (1991). Ethnicity material 15: North Cameroon. CanadianJournal Archaeology 171-177. of and David, N. (1998). Keyword of Bibliography Ethnoarchaeology RelatedTopics,Version3.1, http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/faculties/SS/ARKY/ethnarky.htrnl. A from Cycladic the of Davis,J.L., andLewis,H. ( 1985). Mechanization pottery production: case study and The T. Production Exchange: Aegean In A. Islands. Knapp, B., andStech, (eds.),Prehistoric of of and Eastern Institute Archaeology XXV,University California, Mediterranean, Monograph Los Angeles, 79-92. pp. Video(30 min),Cyprus Potters Cyprus, N., Deal, M., Serwint, and SohnC. (1993). Traditional of Nicosia. Research American Institute, Archaeological In W. and burden: DeBoer,W. R. (1991). The decorative Design,medium change. Longacre, A. (ed.), of Ceramic Press, Tucson, 144-161. pp. Ethnoarchaeology, University Arizona An in of N. and Efstratiou, (1992). Production distributiona ceramic Rhodope: ethnoartype highland Antiche 311-328. 16: E Delle Civilt Preistoria Protostoria chaeological study. Origini: in Smithsonian Art and B. Frank, E. (1998).MandePotters Leather-Workers: andHeritage West Africa, DC. Institution Press, Washington, What for? in of O. Gosselain, P. (1992). Bonfire theenquiries. temperaturesarchaeology: Pottery firing Science19: 243-259. Journal Archaeological of in with O. Gosselain, P. (1993). From Nyame clayto pottery, style:1990-1992fieldwork Cameroon. Akuma 2-7. 39: O. Gosselain, P. (1994). Skimming study potters' agendas:An ethnoarchaeological of clay through in and in In S. selection Culture, Technology Africa, strategies Cameroon. Childs, T. (ed.),Society, 1 to in MASCA Research Supplement Volume 1,Philadelphia, Papers Scienceand Archaeology, pp. 99-107. In A boundaries: case ofspatial culture M. Graves, W.( 1994). Kalingasocialandmaterial convergence. W. Archaeological Expanding Longacre, A., andSkibo,J.M. (eds.),KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Smithsonian Institution and Method Theory, DC, Press, Washington, pp. 13-49. the of of M. production Wankaand Inkawaresfrom Hagstrum, B. (1986). The technology ceramic Peru.In Rice,P. M. (ed.),OccasionalPublications theCeramic Uanamarca Technology of Valley, StateMuseum, Vol. Gainesville, 1-29. pp. Laboratory, 3, Florida and Peru:Anarchaeological ethnoin M. Andes, production thecentral Hagstrum, B. (1988). Ceramic L. In comparison. Kolb,C. C, and Lackey, M. (eds.), A Potforall Reasons:Ceramic graphic
131
of EcologyRevisited, Laboratory Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia, 127pp. 145. M. In A. Hardin, A. (1984). Models of decoration. van der Leeuw,S. E., and Pritchard, C. (eds.), TheMany Dimensions Pottery: Ceramics Archaeology Anthropology, EggesVan in and Albert of Giffen Instituut Prae- Protohistorie, voor en van VII, Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Cingvla pp.573^607. M. lake Nilotic:Luo. In Barbour, and Wandibba, (eds.), J., Herbich, and Dietler, (1989). River I., S., Potsand Potters, Oxford Press, Nairobi, 27-40. Kenya pp. University in D. Hudson,J. (1997). Urbanpottery I., workshops NorthAfrica.In Freestone, and Gainster, in Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, (eds.), Pottery theMaking:CeramicTraditions, DC, pp. 134-139. for S. and of terracotta the planters Tulasi, goddess Huyler, P. (1994). Tulasi:A survey case study ritual as in B. incarnate a basilbush, coastalOrissa.In Allchin, (ed.), Living Traditions: Studies the in and New Asia,Oxford IBH Publishing, Delhi,pp. 323-349. of EthnoarchaeologySouth Kaplan. S. (1985). Measuring, F. mapping, meaning Dots. and of American Anthroooloeist 357-364. 87: for in of Kaplan,F. S. (1990). Pottery thedead: Role and function blackware Puebla,Mexico. In W. Roles ofCeramics Society: in 26,000B.P to thePresent, Kingergy, D. (ed.), TheChanging American Ceramic OH, Westerville, pp. 211-229. Society, 1987: The Technology Socioeconomics and Kolb,C. C. (ed.) (1988). Ceramic EcologyRevisited, of Series436, Oxford. (2 Pottery vols.),BAR International status ceramic of studies. Kolb,C. C. (ed.), Ceramic In 1988: Kolb,C. C. (1989). Thecurrent Ecology, Current Research Ceramic on BAR International Series513,Oxford, 377-421. Materials, pp. Researchon CeramicMaterials, BAR Kolb,C. C. (ed.) (1989). CeramicEcology,1988: Current International Series513,Oxford. L. Kolb,C. C, andLackey, M. (eds.) ( 1988). A Pot all Reasons:Ceramic Revisited, for Ecology Temple of University, Laboratory Anthropology, Philadelphia. C. in cities. Longacre, A. (ed.),Ceramic In W. Kramer, (1991). Ceramics twoIndian Ethnoarchaeology, of Press, Tucson, 205-230. University Arizona pp. in C. In Distributional scalar and variation. Audouze, (ed.),EthF. Kramer, (1992).Ceramics Rajashtan: Xlle Rencontres Internationales limites, noarchologie: justification, problmes, d'Archologie et d'Histoire Editions d'Antibes, APDCA, Juan-les-Pins, France, 127-134. pp. C. in In B. Kramer, (1994). A taleoftwocities:Ceramic ethnoarchaeologyRajasthan. Allchin, (ed.), Traditions: Studies theEthnoarchaeology South in and Asia,Oxford IBH, New Delhi, Living of pp. 307-322. in Indian. Kramer, andDouglas,J.E. (1992). Ceramics, C, caste,andkin:Spatialrelations Rajasthan, Journal Anthropological 11: of Archaeology 187-201. of in Lacovara,P. (1985). The ethnoarchaeology pottery production an UpperEgyptian Village. In Kingery, D. (ed.), Ancient W. to CeramicSociety, Technology ModernScience,American OH, Columbus, pp. 51-60. E. and and An Lindahl, andMatenga, ( 1995). Present Past: Ceramics Homesteads. EthnoarchaeoA., in Buhera in Studies African 1 District, Zimbabwe, logicalProject the Archaeology1, Department ofArchaeology, UppsalaUniversity. G. in ceramics. Newsletter theDepartment London, A. (1987). Regionalism traditional Cypriote of of 5: of Technology 125-136(University Leiden,Leiden,The Netherlands). G. and locations Cyprus. in London, A. (1989). On figleaves,itinerant potters, pottery production In McGovern, E. (ed.), Cross-craft Cross-cultural P. and Interactions Ceramics, in American Ceramic Westerville, pp. 65-80. OH, Society, G. The of BiblicalArchaeologist 2 19-229. 52: London, A. ( 1989). Pastpresent: village potters Cyprus. G. V. in London, A., Egoumenidou, and Karageorghis, (1990). Traditional F., (trans., Pottery Cyprus von Mainz. Krull, Philipp Zabern, K.), W. of Tucson. Press, Longacre, A. (ed.) (1991). Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, University Arizona W. J. Longacre, A.,andSkibo, M. (eds.) (1994b).KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Method Theory, and Smithsonian Institution DC. Press, Washington, W. M. at Longacre, A., Skibo,J.M., and Stark, T. (1991). Ethnoarchaeology thetop of theworld. 33(1): 4-15. Expedition S. and variation around Cameroon. In MacEachern, (1992). Ethnicity ceramic Mayo Plata,northern
132
Arnold
Commitment: Stemer, and David, N. (eds.), An African J., Papers in Honourof PeterLewis of Press, Shinnie, pp. University Calgary Calgary, 211-230. A as in D. India,Cambridge Miller, (1985).Artifacts Categories: Study Ceramic of Variability Central Press, University Cambridge. M. tradition themodern and B. kitchen. Mossman, M, andSelsor, (1988). A utilitarian Spanish pottery In Kolb,C. C, and Lackey,L. M. (eds.), A Potfor All Reasons: CeramicEcologyRevisited, of pp. TempleUniversity, Philadelphia, 213-237. Laboratory Anthropology, contexts. Nelson, A. (ed.), In B. B. ceramic vesselsintheir Nelson, A. (1985). Reconstructing systemic IllinoisUniversity Southern Carbondale, 310-329. Ceramics, Press, pp. DecodingPrehistoric IllinoisUniversity Ceramics,Southern Press, Nelson,B. A. (ed.) (1985). Decoding Prehistoric Carbondale. in H. The Bailas Pottery P. Nicholson, T., andPatterson, L. (1985). EthnoarchaeologyEgypt: Project. 38(3): 52-59. Archaeology in A H. of P. Nicholson, T.,andPatterson, L. (1989). Ceramic technology Upper Egypt: study pottery 21: World Archaeology 71-86. firing. in eastern Nigeria:An ethnoarchaeological study. Okpoko,A. I. (1987). Pottery-makingIgboland, 53: Proceedings thePrehistoric of Society 445-455. of D. organization Papousek, A. (1984). Potsand peoplein Los Pueblos:The social and economic A. In of pottery. van derLeeuw,S. E., and Pritchard, C. (eds.), TheManyDimensions Pottery: Albert Instituut Prae-en voor in and Ceramics Archaeology Anthropology, Egges Van Griffen van Amsterdam, 475-520. Protohistorie, pp. CingvlaVu, Universiteit Amsterdam, in Sudan.Origini: Preistoria manufacture thesouthern D. pottery Phillipson, W. (1990). Traditional Antiche 425-450. 13: E Protostoria Delle Civilt and The D. D. status, kinship, innovation: adoption Ralph, M, andArnold, E. (1988). Socioeconomic 1987: The in of thetrnete Ticul,Yucatn.In Kolb, C. C. (ed.), CeramicEcologyRevisited, BAR International Series436 (i), Oxford, 145s and pp. Technology SocioeconomicofPottery, 164. 1 and Journal Archaeological ceramic Rice,P. M. (1996). Recent of style, origins. analysis: . Function, 4: Research 133-163. Oxford and and Technical Wheel:Craft Roux,V. (1989). The Potter's Competence, Specialization IBH, NewDelhi. Institution Washington, Smithsonian R. Press, Potter, R., Onggi Sayers, andRinzler, (1987). TheKorean DC. in fuelconsumption Tlajinga ratio: J. Modeling ecologyandtheclay/fuel Sheehy, J.(1988). Ceramic 1987: TheTechnology Mexico.In Kolb,C. C. (ed.), Ceramic Revisited, 33,Teotihuacan, Ecology Series436(i), Oxford, 199-226. BAR International and Socioeconomics Pottery, pp. of Mexico:A Case Study Tlajinga Production Ancient in J. Teotihuacan, of Sheehy, J.(1992). Ceramic State of Ph.D. dissertation, 33, Unpublished Pennsylvania University, Department Anthropology, Park. University in for B. Sillar, (1996). Thedeadandthedrying: peopleandthings theAndes. Techniques transforming 1: Journal MaterialCulture 259-290. of New York. to C. Ceramics, Plenum, Sinopoli, M. (1991). Approaches Archaeological in research Recent the the C. ethnoarchaeological Sinopoli, M. (1991). Seeking pastthrough present: 30: Asia.AsianPerspectives 177-192. South and Technical on decoration African R. considerations, dating, distripottery: Soper, (1985). Roulette 3: Review 29-51. butions. Archaeological African Asian A M. Stark, T. (1991). Ceramic perspective: Kalingacase study. changein ethnoarchaeological 30: Perspectives 193-216. on An immosso: ethnoarchaeological the M. Stark, T. ( 199 1). Transforming Kalinga perspective causes ceramic behind Dyn10: 80-91. change. in and to M. Stark, T. (1992). Fromsibling suki:Social relations spatialproximity Kalingapottery 11: Journal Anthropological Archaeology 137-151. of exchange. in and broken the M. Stark, T. (1993). Re-fitting "cracked faade":The case forempiricism postWho A. In N., Theory: ethnoarchaeology.Yoffee, and Sherratt, (eds.),Archaeological processual Setsthe Press, pp. Agenda?Cambridge University Cambridge, 93-104. Institution Smithsonian M. Press, Stark, T. (ed.) (1998). The Archaeology Social Boundaries, of DC. Washington,
133
Social andcultural W. and M. Stark, T.,andLongacre, A. (1993). Kalingaceramics newtechnologies: Contexts New W. contexts ceramic of of change.In Kingery, D. (ed.), The Social and Cultural Ceramic American Ceramic Westerville, pp. 1-32. OH, Technologies, Society, of in reserviors theMandaraHighlands northern J. Sterner, A. (1992). Sacredpotsand 'symbolic Commitment: In J. Cameroon. Sterner, A., andDavid,N. (eds.),AnAfrican of PapersinHonour of Peter LewisShinnie, Press, pp. Calgary, 171-180. University Calgary the for L. vandenBel, M, Hamburg, andJacobs, (1995). The use ofkwepas temper clayamong G., of 13: in Newsletter theDepartment Technology 42-52 (University Palikur French of of Guyana. The Netherlands). Leiden, Leiden, view van der Leeuw,S. E. (1984). Dust to dust:A transformational of theceramiccycle.In van Ceramicsin A. derLeeuw,S. E., and Pritchard, C. (eds.), The ManyDimensions Pottery: of Instituut Prae-en Protohistorie, voor Albert and Archaeology Anthropology, Egges Van Giffen van Amsterdam, 707-773. Vu, Universiteit Amsterdam, pp. Cingvla In R. vanderLeeuw,S. E. (1989). Risk,innovation, perception. vanderLeeuw,S. E., andTorrence, New?A NewLookat theProcessofInnovation, Methuen, London, 300-329. (eds.), What's pp. In F. R. and vanderLeeuw,S. E., andPapousek, A. (1992). Tradition innovation. Audouze, (ed.),EthInternationales Xlle Rencontres limites, noarchologie: justification, d'Archologie problmes, et d'Histoire Amibes, d' Editions APDCA, Juan-les-Pins, France, 135-158. pp. Yunnan. of Kaogu 12: 1133Yang,Y. (1986). The ceramic technology HonggaoVillage,Yuanmou, 1138.

Arnold P 2000 Working Without A Net - Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnold P 2000 Working Without A Net - Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Working Without a Net: Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology Author(s): Philip J.

Journal Archaeological Vol. Research, 8, No. 2, 2000 of

a Without Net: RecentTrends Working in CeramicEthnoarchaeology

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE

You might also like