Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:13:02.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analytic Strategy for Studying Assemblage-Scale Ceramic Variation: A Case Study from Southeast Missouri

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Patrice A. Teltser
Patrice A. Teltser*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Traditional Technology, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For ceramic assemblages composed exclusively of sherds, inferences at the scale of artifact are often problematic. Drawing on information provided by experimental studies, observations can be made such that technology and use are expressed at the scale of assemblage. A simple classification is used to describe variation in paste composition for an assemblage of shell-tempered ceramics from southeast Missouri. Using these classes as a set of analytic units, variables reflecting on technology and use are examined. The analytic results suggest that while some coarse-shell ceramics may have been used preferentially for cooking vessels, the distinction between coarse and fine shell is not as straightforward as cooking vs. noncooking, and that coarse-shell pastes were used to manufacture vessels used in a wider range of contexts than fine-shell pastes. Furthermore, not all variation can be understood in terms of the mechanical or thermal properties usually emphasized in experimental studies.

Resumen

Resumen

Para la reconstrucción de conjuntos cerámicos compuestos exclusivamente de tiestos, las deducciones a escala del artefacto muchas veces presentan problemas. Basándose en informaciones proporcionadas por estudios experimentales, las observaciones pueden ser hechas de tal manera que la tecnología y el uso estén expresados a escala del conjunto. Se puede usar una simple clasificación para describir la variación en la composición de la pasta en un conjunto de cerámica con antiplastico de concha de la región del sureste de Misuri. Usando estas clases como un conjunto de unidades analíticas, se pueden examinar las variantes reflejadas en la tecnología y en el uso. Los resultados analíticos sugieren que mientras algunos ejemplos de cerámica con concha molida gruesa se haya usado de preferencia para vasijas de cocina, la distinción entre la concha fina y gruesa no es tan definida como las vasijas de cocina vs. las de servir, y que las pastas con concha molida gruesa se utilizaron en la fabricación de vasijas con un mayor rango defunciones que aquellas hechas de pasta concha molida fina. Además, no todas las variaciones se pueden entender en términos de las propiedades mecánicas o termales, generalmente ponderadas en estudios experimentales.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 530 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1993

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

Braun, D. P. 1982 Radiographic Analysis of Temper in Ceramic Vessels: Goals and Initial Methods. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 183–192.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by Keene, A. S. and Moore, J. A., pp. 107–134. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bronitsky, G. 1986 The Use of Materials Science Techniques in the Study of Pottery Construction and Use. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 209–276. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bronitsky, G., and Hamer, R. 1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effects of Various Tempering Materials on Impact and Thermal-Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 51: 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1985 The Interpretation of Low Density Archaeological Records from Plowed Surfaces. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C, and Feathers, J. K. 1991 Later Woodland Manifestations of the Maiden Plain, Southeast Missouri. In Late Woodland Stability, Transformation, and Variation in the Greater Southeast, edited by Nassaney, M. and Cobb, C., pp. 21–45. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Everitt, B. S. 1977 The Analysis of Contingency Tables. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Feathers, J. K. 1989 Effects of Temper on Strength of Ceramics: Response to Bronitsky and Hamer. American Antiquity 54: 579–588.Google Scholar
Feathers, J. K. 1990 Evolutionary Interpretation for the Predominance of Shell Tempering in Late Prehistoric Southeastern Missouri Ceramics. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
Fisk, H. N. 1944 Geological Investigations of the Alluvial Valley of the Lower Mississippi River. Publication No. 52. Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg.Google Scholar
Hally, D. J. 1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Vessel Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4: 1–25.Google Scholar
Hally, D. J. 1984 Vessel Assemblages and Food Habits: A Comparison of Two Aboriginal Southeastern Vessel Assemblages. Southeastern Archaeology 3: 46–64.Google Scholar
Hally, D. J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwestern Georgia. American Antiquity 51: 267–295.Google Scholar
Holley, G. R. 1989 The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Ceramics. Illinois Cultural Resources Study No. 11. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. H. 1886 A ncient Pottery of the Mississippi Valley. Annual Report of Bureau of American Ethnology 1882-1883. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
King, J. E., and Allen, W. H. 1977 A Holocene Vegetation Record from the Mississippi River Valley, Southeast Missouri. Quaternary Research 8: 307–323.Google Scholar
Kingery, W. D. (editor) 1985 Ancient Technology to Modern Science. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 1. American Ceramic Society, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Kingery, W. D. (editor) 1986 Technology and Style. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 2. American Ceramic Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Klockars, A. J., and Sax, G. 1986 Multiple Comparisons. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
Lewarch, D. E., and O' Brien, M. J. 1981 The Expanding Role of Surface Assemblages in Archaeological Research. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by Schif Ter, M. B., pp. 297–342. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. B. 1982 Two Mississippian Hamlets: Cairo Lowland, Missouri. Special Publication No. 2. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. B. 1986 Discussion of Excavation Results. In Mississippian Towns of the Western Kentucky Border, edited by Lewis, R. B., pp. 100–105. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.Google Scholar
Lumb, L. C, and McNutt, C. H. 1988 Chucalissa: Excavations in Units 2 and 6, 1959-67. Occasional Papers No. 15. Memphis State University Anthropological Research Center, Memphis.Google Scholar
Matson, F. R. 1989 Shell-Tempered Pottery and the Fort Ancient Potter. In Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches, edited by Bronitsky, G., pp. 15–13. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Million, M. G. 1975 Ceramic Technology of the Nodena Phase Peoples. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 18: 201–208.Google Scholar
Million, M. G. 1980 The Big Lake Pottery Industry. In Zebree Archaeological Project: Excavation, Data, Interpretation, and Report on the Zebree Homestead Site, Mississippi County, Arkansas, edited by Morse, D. F. and Morse, P. A., pp. 1–42. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District.Google Scholar
Morse, D. F., and Morse, P. A. 1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Pauketat, T. R. 1987 A Functional Consideration of a Mississippian Domestic Vessel Assemblage. Southeastern Archaeology 6: 1–15.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. 1970 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography Vol. 60. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Phillips, P., Ford, J. A., and Griffin, J. B. 1951 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography Vol. 25. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. 1964 Thin Section Descriptions of Some Shell Tempered Prehistoric Ceramics from the American Bottom. Museum Lithic Laboratory Research Report No. 7. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Source Book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rye, O. S. 1976 Keeping your Temper Under Control: Materials and the Manufacture of Papuan Pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11: 106–137.Google Scholar
Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Taraxacum, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Saucier, R. T. 1974 Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Research Series No. 6. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Schif Ter, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28: 595–622.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1976 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. 9th printing. Publication No. 609. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Skibo, J. M., Schif Ter, M. B., and Reid, K. C. 1989 Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54: 122–146.Google Scholar
Smith, M. F., Jr. 1988 Function from Whole Vessel Shape: A Method and an Application to Anasazi Black Mesa, Arizona. American Anthropologist 90: 912–922.Google Scholar
Steponaitis, V. A. 1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Steponaitis, V. A. 1984 Technological Studies of Prehistoric Pottery from Alabama: Physical Properties and Vessel Function. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, edited by S. E. van der Leeuw and Pritchard, A. C., pp. 79–122. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stimmell, C, Heinman, R. B., and Hancock, R. G. V. 1982 Indian Pottery from the Mississippi Valley: Coping with Bad Raw Materials. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by Olin, J. S. and Franklin, A. D., pp. 219–228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Teltser, P. A. 1988 The Mississippian Archaeological Record on the Maiden Plain, Southeast Missouri: Local Variability in Evolutionary Perspective. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Teltser, P. A. 1992 Settlement Context and Structure at County Line, Missouri. Southeastern Archaeology 11: 14–30.Google Scholar
Walker, W. M., and Adams, R. M. 1946 Excavations at the Matthews Site, New Madrid County, Missouri. Transactions of the Academy of Science of Saint Louis 31: 73–120.Google Scholar
Wesler, K. W. 1985 Archaeological Excavations at Wickliffe Mounds, 15BA4: Mound A. 1984. Report No. 1. Wicklif Fe Mounds Research Center, Wickliffe.Google Scholar
Williams, S. 1954 An Archaeological Study of the Mississippian Culture in Southeast Missouri. Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar