Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an Archeological Application

Abstract

signed and made according to a specifiable set of morphological boundary conditions. Ethnographic data are presented, correlating general parameters of ceramicform with general classes of vessel function. We then illustrate how the resulting parameters can be applied to archeological assemblages to produce new insights into settlement systems and economies. Until recently, ethnographers have paid little attention to ceramic formal/functional analysis. A number of ethnographic studies have focused on ceramic technology and methods of manufacture (e.g., Foster 1948; Lothrop 1927; Mackay 1929; Machlachlan 1940; Rendon 1951; Stone 1951; Watson 1955; Raven-Hart 1962; Hankey 1968; Waldeman 1972; Rye 1976, 1981; and many others). These sources lack information relating vessel forms to usage patterns and thus are only indirectly useful in our study. Likewise, several excellent studies are available concerning the esthetic decisions and learning patterns within communities of potters (Bunzel 1929; Stanislawski and Stanislawski 1978; Friedrich 1970). Again, few data are presented correlating ceramic form and usage. Among the few functionally oriented studies, Linton (1944) assembled information on the structural features of cooking pots. Thompson (1958, esp. pp. 59-63) incorporated formal/ functional correlations into his study of modern Yucatecan Maya ceramics. More recently, Solheim (1965) and Matson (1974) provided unillustrated accounts of the functions of South-