Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:21:52.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ceramic practice and semantic space: an ethnoarchaeological inquiry into the logic of Bantu potting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Richard A. Krause
Richard A. Krause*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, 19 ten Hoor Hall, University AL 35486, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What links the action of making a pot, an action in the world as live human beings experience it, to the pot, as the archaeologist observes it in a mass of old, static fragments? And what links the classifications by which the archaeologist arranges those fragments to the pot's ordered place in the world of its maker?

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 245 , December 1990 , pp. 711 - 726
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1990

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

Brew, J.O. 1946. Archaeology of Alkali flidge, Southwestern Utah. Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 21.Google Scholar
Burling, R. 1964. Cognition and componential analysis: god’s truth or hocus-pocus?, American Anthropologist 66: 20–28.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Conklin, H.C. 1962. Lexicographical treatment of folk taxonomies, in Householder, F.W. & Saporta, S. (ed.), Problems in lexicography: 119–41. Supplement to International /ournal OF American Linguistics 28, no. 2.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1954. Spaulding’s review of Ford: II, American Anthropologist 56: 114.Google Scholar
Ford, J.A. 1954a. Spaulding’s review of Ford: I, American Anthropologist 56: 109–12.Google Scholar
Ford, J.A. 1954b. The type concept revisited, American Anthropologist 56: 41–54.Google Scholar
Ford, J.A. 1954c. Comment on A.C. Spaulding’s ‘statistical techniques for the discovery of artefact types’, American Antiquity 19: 390–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frake, CO. 1962. The ethnographic study of cognitive systems, in Gladwin, H. & Sturtevent, W. (ed.), Anthropology and human behavior: 72–93. Washington (DC): Anthropological Society of Washington.Google Scholar
Frake, CO. 1964. Further discussion of Burling, American Anthropologist 66: 119.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W.H. 1956. Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Language 32: 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammel, E.A. 1964. Further comment on componential analysis. American Anthropologist 66: 1167–71.Google Scholar
Hymes, D.H. 1964. Discussion of Burling’s paper, American Anthropologist 66: 116–19.Google Scholar
Judd, N.M. 1940. Progress in the Southwest, essays in historical anthropology. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 100.Google Scholar
Kidder, A.V. 1936. The pottery OF PECOS 2. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. Southwestern Expedition Papers no. 7.Google Scholar
Krause, R.A. 1978. Toward a formal account of Bantu ceramic manufacture, in R.C., Dunnell & Hall, E.S. (ed.), Archaeological essays in honor of Irving B. Rouse: 87–120. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, R.A. 1985. The CLAY sleeps: an ethnoarchaeological study of three African potters. University (AL): University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. 1956. A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage, Language 32: 158–94.Google Scholar
Martin, P.S. & Rinaldo., J. 1941. Review of ‘Winona and Ridge Ruin Part I’, American Anthropologist 63: 654–66.Google Scholar
Phillips, P., Ford, J.A. & Griffin., J.B. 1951. Archaeological survey in the Lower Mississippi alluvial valley, 1940-1947. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 25.Google Scholar
Reiter, P. 1938. Review of Handbook of northern Arizona pottery wares by Colton, H.S. & Hargrave, L.L., American Anthropologist 60: 480–91.Google Scholar
Rouse, I. 1939. Prehistory in Haiti: A study in Method. New Haven (CT): Yale University. Publications in Anthropology no. 21. Google Scholar
Rouse, 1960. The classification of artefacts in archaeology, American Antiquity 25: 313–23.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A.C. 1953a. Statistical techniques for the discovery of artefact types, American Antiquity 18: 305–13.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A.C. 1953b. Review of Measurement of some prehistoric design developments in the Southeastern States by Ford, J.A., American Anthropologist 56: 112–14.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A.C. 1954a. Reply to ‘Spaulding’s review of Ford: I’ by Ford, J.A., American Anthropologist 56: 112–14.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A.C. 1954b. Reply to Ford, American Antiquity 19: 391–3.Google Scholar
Steward, J.H. 1954. Types of types, American Anthropologist 56: 54–7.Google Scholar
Taylor, W.W. 1948. A study of archaeology. Washington (DC): American Anthropological Association. [American Anthropologist 50(2).]Google Scholar
Van der Merwe, N.J. & Skullley., R.T. 1971. The Phalaborwa story: archaeological and ethnographic investigations of a South African Iron Age group, World Archaeology 3: 178–96.Google Scholar
Willey, G.R. & Phillips., P. 1962. Method and theory in American archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar