Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:24:29.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calculating ceramic vessel volume: an assessment of methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2013

Erin Christine Rodriguez  and
Christine A. Hastorf
Erin Christine Rodriguez
Affiliation:
*Anthropology Department, University of California, Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3710, USA (Email: [email protected]; [email protected])
Christine A. Hastorf
Affiliation:
*Anthropology Department, University of California, Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3710, USA (Email: [email protected]; [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Calculating the volume of ceramic vessels found whole or in fragments on archaeological sites is a key analytical endeavour that can have implications for economic and social activity, including storage and feasting. Established methods for estimating volumes are mostly based on the assumption that vessel shapes approximate to a circular form in plan-view. This new study shows that such an assumption may not be warranted and that methods that assume circularity produce less accurate volumetric estimates than approaches which accept that a less regular elliptical shape may be closer to reality. Statistical analysis allows the accuracy of the different methods to be compared and evaluated.

Keywords

ceramic vesselsvolume estimationgeometric methodstacked cylinder methodcircular vesselsellipsoidal vesselsstatistical analysis
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 87 , Issue 338 , December 2013 , pp. 1182 - 1190
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2013

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

Anders, M., Arce, S., Shimada, I., Chang, V., Tokuda, L. & Quiroz, S.. 1998. Early Middle Horizon pottery production at Maymi, Pisco Valley, Peru, in Shimada, I. (ed.) Andean ceramics: technology, organization, and approaches (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15 [supplement]):233-51. Philadelphia: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. 1993. Ecology and ceramic production in an Andean community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, J.W. 2009. Understanding household population through ceramic assemblage formation: ceramic ethnoarchaeology among the Gamo of southwestern Ethiopia. American Antiquity 74:32–48.Google Scholar
Bray, T. 2003. Inka pottery as culinary equipment: food, feasting and gender in imperial state design. Latin American Antiquity 14:3–28.Google Scholar
Cleland, K.M. & Shimada, I.. 1998. Paleteada potters: technology, production sphere, and sub-culture in ancient Peru, in Shimada, I. (ed.) Andean ceramics: technology, organization, and approaches (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15 [supplement]):111-50. Philadelphia: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.Google Scholar
Costin, C.L. 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1–56.Google Scholar
Costin, C.L. & Hagstrum, M.B.. 1995. Standardization, labor investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic production in late Prehispanic Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619-39.Google Scholar
CRAN The Comprehensive R Archive Network. n.d. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/ (accessed 15 May 2013).Google Scholar
Crown, P.L. 2000. Women's role in changing cuisine, in Crown, P.L. (ed.)Women and men in the Prehispanic Southwest: labor, power, and prestige: 221-66. Santa Fe (NM): School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Ericson, J.E. & De Atley, S.P.. 1976. Reconstructing ceramic assemblages: an experiment to determine the morphology and capacity of parent vessels from sherds. American Antiquity 41:484-89.Google Scholar
Ericson, J.E. & Stickel, G.E.. 1973. A proposed classification system for ceramics. World Archaeology 4:357-67.Google Scholar
Hastorf, C.A. & Weismantel, M.J.. 2007. Food: where opposites meet, in Twiss, K.C. (ed.) The archaeology of food and identity (Occasional Paper 34):308-33. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.Google Scholar
Henrickson, E.F. & Mcdonald, M.M.A.. 1983. Ceramic form and function: an ethnographic search and an archaeological application. American Anthropologist 85:630-43.Google Scholar
Lesure, R.G. 1998. Vessel form and function in an Early Formative ceramic assemblage from coastal Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:19–36.Google Scholar
Longacre, W.A., Kvamme, K.L. & Kobayashi, M.. 1988. Southwestern pottery standardization: an ethnoarchaeological view from the Philippines. Kiva 53:101-12.Google Scholar
Mills, B. 1999. Ceramics and the social context of food consumption in the northern Southwest, in Skibo, J.M. & Feinman, G.M. (ed.) Pottery and people: a dynamic interaction:99–114. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Mohr Ch´avez, K. 1984. Traditional pottery of Raqch'i, Cuzco, Peru: a preliminary study of its production, distribution, and consumption. Ñawpa Pacha 27-28(22-23):161–210.Google Scholar
Mohr Ch´avez, K. 1992. The organization of production and distribution of traditional pottery in south Highland Peru, in Bey, G.J. III & Pool, C.A. (ed.) Ceramic production and distribution: an integrated approach:49–92. Boulder (CO): Westview.Google Scholar
Nelson, B. 1985. Reconstructing ceramic vessels and their systemic contexts, in Nelson, B. (ed.) Decoding prehistoric ceramics:310-29. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Orton, C., Tyers, P. & Vince, A.. 1993. Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pauketat, T.R. 1987. A functional consideration of a Mississippian domestic vessel assemblage. Southeastern Archaeology 6:1–15.Google Scholar
Pozzi-Escot, D., Alarcon, M. & Vivanco, C.. 1998. Wari ceramics and production technology: the view from Ayacucho, in Shimada, I. (ed.) Andean ceramics: technology, organization, and approaches (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15 [supplement]):253-81. Philadelphia: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.Google Scholar
Pozzi-Escot, D. 1999. Etnografia alfarera Wari: los artesanos de Conchopata. Ayacucho: Universidad Nacional de San Cristóbal de Huamanga.Google Scholar
Proulx, D. 1970. Nasca gravelots in the Uhle collection from the Ica Valley, Peru (Research Reports 5). Amherst: Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Proulx, D. 2006. A sourcebook of Nasca ceramic iconography: reading a culture through its art. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1987. Pottery analysis. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Senior, L.M. & Birnie, D.P. III. 1995. Accurately estimating vessel volume from profile illustrations. American Antiquity 60:319-34.Google Scholar
Smith, M.F. JR. 1983. The study of ceramic function from artifact size and shape. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Snow, D.R. 1994. The Iroquois. Malden (MA): Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vroom, J. 2000. Byzantine garlic and Turkish delight. Archaeological Dialogues 7:199–216.Google Scholar