Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:08:25.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shoe-Pots, Patajos, and the Principle of Whimsy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Keith A. Dixon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional broad category of shoe-shaped pots (or bird-forms or patojos) is invalid for analytic purposes. It is a catch-all category for vessels which may have had different histories, uses, and meanings. One kind, the culinary shoe-pot, does form a distinctive class with a special use in cooking and was widely distributed in space and time. Previous researchers, including Varner, Beals, and Sisson most recently, have generated spurious problems and have been led to erroneous conclusions. The following recommendations are explained: (1) culinary shoe-pots should not be classified with bird or foot effigies, although they sometimes become effigies as visual puns; (2) they should not be grouped with other asymmetrical pots on the single criterion of horizontal body elongation without considering the other vessel attributes; (3) further ethnographic and linguistic field investigation should be done where culinary shoe-pots are still used; (4) primary and secondary uses of culinary shoe-pots should not be confused.

Type
Comment
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 1976 , pp. 386 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1976

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

Beals, Ralph L. 1945 Ethnology of the Western Mixe. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 42(1).Google Scholar
Beals, Ralph L. 1976 Comment on “Two ethnographic functions of bird-form pottery in Oaxaca.” American Antiquity (this issue).Google Scholar
Caso, A., Bernal, I., and Acosta, J. R. 1967 La cerámica de Monte Albán. Instituto Nacional de Antropologi'a e Historia, Memorias 13. México.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R. 1971 Archaeological synthesis of Michoacan and adjacent regions. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by Wauchope, R., 11(29):657–93. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R. 1974 The archaeology of a New World “merchant” culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Dixon, Keith A. 1963 The interamerican diffusion of a cooking technique: the culinary shoe-pot. American Anthropologist 65:593–619.Google Scholar
Dixon, Keith A. 1964 Culinary shoe-pots: the interamerican diffusion of a cooking technique. Adas y Memorias 1:579–86. 35th Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, México, 1962.Google Scholar
MacNeish, R. S., Peterson, F. A., and Flannery, K. V. 1970 The prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 3: ceramics. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Sisson, E. B. 1975 Of shoe-form vessels and ethnographic analogy. American Antiquity 40:475–76.Google Scholar
Varner, D. M. 1974 Two ethnographic functions of bird-form pottery from Oaxaca, Mexico. American Antiquity 39:616–17.Google Scholar
Varner, D. M. 1976 Reply to Beals. American Antiquity (this issue).Google Scholar