Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:48:18.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Units in Ceramic Analysis and the Problem of Vessel Use Life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2023

James K. Feathers Open the ORCID record for James K. Feathers [Opens in a new window]
James K. Feathers*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Email: jimf@u.washington.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shott (2022, American Antiquity 87:794–815) argues that making inferences from ceramic data requires first inferring use lives of vessels—something that is difficult to do. This comment argues that the problem of differential use life becomes more tractable if the assemblage, rather than the vessel, is the unit of analysis. Aside from empirical reasons, theoretical considerations also favor the assemblage as the appropriate unit.

Resumen

Resumen

Shott (2022, American Antiquity 87:794–815) argumenta que para hacer inferencias a partir de datos cerámicos primero es necesario inferir la vida útil de las vasijas algo que es muy difícil conseguir. En esta reseña, propongo que el problema para diferenciar vida útil puede ser mejor tratado si utilizamos la colección cerámica (o conjunto cerámico) en vez de la vasija individual como unidad de análisis. Al margen de razones empíricas, existen consideraciones teóricas que favorecen la colección o el conjunto cerámico como la unidad apropiada.

Keywords

ceramic analysisunitsuse lifeanálisis cerámicounidadesla vida útil
Type
Comment
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , October 2023 , pp. 579 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Dunnell, Robert C. 1970. Seriation Method and Its Evaluation. American Antiquity 35:305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1995. What Is It That Actually Evolves? In Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues, edited by Teltser, Patrice, pp. 33–50. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Eslami, Dariush, di Angelo, Luca, di Stefano, Paolo, and Pane, Caterina. 2020. Review of Computer-Based Methods for Archaeological Ceramic Sherds Reconstruction. Virtual Archaeological Review 11:34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feathers, James K. 2006. Explaining Shell-Tempered Pottery in Prehistoric Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13:89–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David L. 1980. The Units of Evolution. In Studies in the Philosophy of Evolution, edited by Jensen, Uffe J. and Harre, Rom, pp. 23–44. Harvester Press, London.Google Scholar
Lipo, Carl P., Feathers, James K., and Dunnell, Robert C.. 2005. Temporal Dating Requirements, Luminescence Dates, and the Resolution of Chronological Structure of Late Prehistoric Deposits in the Central Mississippi River Valley. American Antiquity 70:527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipo, Carl P., Madsen, Mark E., Dunnell, Robert C., and Hunt, Tim D.. 1997. Population Structure, Cultural Transmission, and Frequency Seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, Clive. 1993. How Many Pots Make Five? An Historical Review of Pottery Quantification. Archaeometry 35:169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2022. Inferring Use-Life Mean and Distribution: A Pottery Ethnoarchaeological Case Study from Michoacán. American Antiquity 87:794–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar