Innovative Approaches and Explorations in Ceramic Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Innovative Approaches and Explorations in Ceramic Studies edited by Sandra L. López Varela Archaeopress Archaeology Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978 1 78491 736 4 ISBN 978 1 78491 737 1 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the authors 2017 Cover: Jaina figurines (Photographs courtesy of Centro INAH Campeche, México) All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Contents List of Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1 Innovative Approaches and Explorations in Ceramic Studies .......................................................................................1 Sandra L. López Varela and Philip J. Arnold III Chapter 2 What is a Ceramic Assemblage: Chronology and Belongings of the Late Classic Maya ........................................11 Sherman Horn III and Anabel Ford Chapter 3 Investigating Maya Ceramic Figurines: challenges to the use of non-invasive portable technologies in archived collections ......................................................................................................................................................25 Sandra L. López Varela Chapter 4 Documenting Accommodation and Change in the Tarascan Ceramic Economy.....................................................41 Amy J. Hirshman Chapter 5 Forming Pots and Community: Pottery Production and Potter Interaction in an Ancestral Wendat Village ...........................................................................................................................................53 Sarah Striker, Linda Howie and Ronald Williamson Chapter 6 Clay Choice: the Impacts of Ceramic Formation Methods and Cultural Behavior .................................................71 Mary F. Ownby Chapter 7 Complementary Approaches for Understanding Mazapan Pottery ...........................................................................89 Destiny L. Crider Chapter 8 Sherds of Spartans Past: Ceramics from the Michigan State University Campus Archaeology Program .....107 Lynne Goldstein, Lisa Bright and Jeffrey Painter Chapter 9 The Ethnoarchaeology of an Abandoned Potter’s Workshop in Ticul, Yucatán, México ...................................119 Dean E. Arnold Chapter 10 Making Traditional Pottery Sustainable Today: Three Case Studies in Akita Prefecture, Japan ....................129 Cara L. Reedy and Chandra L. Reedy i ii Chapter 2 What is a Ceramic Assemblage: Chronology and Belongings of the Late Classic Maya Sherman Horn III HD Analytical Solutions, Inc.; [email protected] Anabel Ford University of California Santa Barbara; [email protected] Abstract Ceramics in archaeology have traditionally served as chronological markers, critical as a relative dating technique. This is the case for the Central Lowland Maya area, where the ceramic chronology was established in the 1930s with the Uaxactun project, expanded for the Barton Ramie project, and detailed for Tikal as the type:variety system was refined. As useful as this chronology has been for studies of the ancient Maya, with all our understanding of the chronological distribution, we know precious little of the distribution of vessel form that is a critical component of function. Our chapter examines Late Classic vessel form and shape, in an effort to define the vessel diversity from Maya residential units. By describing the Late Classic Maya assemblage of vessel forms and shapes, we can begin to understand common and variable features of Maya residential unit belongings as they relate to the settlement patterns and the Maya forest landscape. Key words Maya Household Archaeology, Maya Ceramics, Ceramic chronology, Type:Variety System, Ceramic Assemblage Diversity, Vessel Form and Function Introduction Households comprise the basic units of socioeconomic production and reproduction in communities (Netting et al. 1984), and archaeologists have recognized the importance of studying ancient Maya household remains for nearly a century (Wauchope 1938). Household artifact inventories, which reflect an incomplete range of household possessions and activities, provide productive avenues to study daily life in ancient communities. Descriptions and analysis of household possessions are integral to comparative studies of wealth inequality (Smith 1987), and recent studies of lowland Maya household assemblages document variability in access to items that may reflect differences in wealth or status (e.g., Blackmore 2012; Ford 2010; Ford and Olsen 1989; Keller 2012; Robin 2013). Ceramics are largely absent from these discussions of Maya household inventories, despite a long history of ceramic analysis in the area. Traditional Maya ceramic analyses Figure 1. El Pilar and the Maya Lowlands. (Figure by Ford) 11 Innovative Approaches and Explorations in Ceramic Studies focus on constructing architectural and occupation chronologies (e.g., Gifford 1976; Smith 1955), interpreting iconographic and epigraphic elements (e.g., Grube 1992; Reents-Budet and Ball 1994), and identifying imported vessels and trade-wares, but few studies expand beyond this scope to explore how pottery functioned in daily life (but see Howie 2012). Diversity and complexity in domestic pottery assemblages have been hinted at but not fully explored (Ford 1991, 1992), and ceramics remain an underexploited resource for answering essential questions in Maya household archaeology due to the lack of comparative assemblage studies. To address this shortfall, we present an approach that elevates formal, functional, and technological analyses to characterize the ceramic inventories of Late Classic Maya (c. AD 600-900) households. Different vessel forms served different functions and were potentially acquired from different producers, and analysis of assemblage variability can elucidate important differences in household practice. Assemblage description is an essential step in comparing ceramic consumption patterns and investigating how households used pottery to meet daily needs. Our data derive from several households, representing a range of environmental and social contexts in the El Pilar area of the upper Belize River (Figure 1), which provide a broad baseline for comparing the socioeconomic relationships encoded in ancient pottery. Maya Household Archaeology and the Potential of Ceramics Maya household archaeology developed from a long tradition of studies focused on defining settlement patterns and site-rank hierarchies (e.g., Ashmore 1981; Arnold and Ford 1980; Robin 2012; Webster and Gonlin 1988, among others). Surveys reveal numerous small structures surrounding monumental city centers that were interpreted as redundant and comparable residential units. Maya settlements represent composites of domestic spaces, and this context provides opportunities to compare household wealth, access to resources, and relative degrees of social status (see Ford 1990, 1991). Members of households acquired resources for survival, and the acquisition and passing of wealth and resources through inheritance promoted social reproduction at the most basic level in ancient Maya society (Wilk and Rathje 1982). Households also represent the essential contexts of daily life for elite and non-elite members of preindustrial communities. Ancient Maya households were the settings for a variety of domestic activities – the storage, preparation, and serving of food prominent among them – that are reflected in the material record by the equipment used to accomplish specific tasks. Although Maya households certainly possessed a variety of tools, ornaments, and ceremonial accoutrements made from different materials, the remnants of ancient household belongings are dominated by pottery and stone-tool fragments. Investigations of ancient Maya households have tended to focus on relationships between the size of structures and the frequencies of associated specialty items and/or exotic artifacts (see Robin 2012). Data suggest that the size of Late Classic Maya residential units relates to material consumption, as larger residences use more stone and frequently contain more exotic artifacts than smaller ones (Abrams 1994; Ford 1991, 1992; Ford and Fedick 1992; Ford and Olson 1989). Other lines of evidence indicate that domestic artifact inventories were more diverse than previously thought, and that small households could access what archaeologists assumed were sumptuary items (Ford 2010; Ford and Olson 1989; LeCount 1996; Robin 2012, 2013; Wiewall and Howie 2010). Household inventory studies have produced tantalizing hints of material diversity among common Maya farmers. Such studies, typically, focus on household procurement of non-local resources such as obsidian or green stone (e.g., Asaro et al. 1978; Ford et al. 1997; Horn 2015, among others), production of chert tools or marine shell ornaments (e.g., Hohmann 2002; Shafer and Hester 1983), and the distributions of these objects and other rare materials (e.g., granite, slate) across different household contexts (see chapters in Robin 2012). Detailed descriptions of ceramic household inventories are notably absent from these comparisons,