Introduction

Traditionally, the archaeological study of pottery was the study of pottery forms and typology, and in some parts of the world it still is. The analysis of pottery forms and decoration has a long history and has been in the vanguard of the development of the discipline. There are, however, many difficulties encountered in studying forms, especially if you are trying to extract information from small sherds or trying to make a quantitative study.

There are many different ways of classifying forms. The choice depends partly on the existing conventions within your area of study and partly on the aims of your study. It also depends on the use to which others may wish to put your data and on the character of the collection under study.

USES OF FORM DATA

Certain aspects of a vessel’s form are determined by its intended function. Thus, if you were making a storage jar you would have to think about the capacity, the stability of the vessel, its strength when full, means of sealing the contents and perhaps means of moving the full vessel. You would arrive at a completely different set of criteria if you were making a drinking vessel or one for use in cooking. It is therefore reasonable to divide an assemblage into basic functional classes, which might then lead to knowledge of the activities carried out on the site. Of course, not every vessel was used entirely for its originally-intended purpose, and there were and are many types of vessel which were reused having fulfilled their original purpose. Amphorae and oil jars are good examples. Roman amphorae were used as ovens, as containers for all sorts of goods and even for burials. Italian oil jars of eighteenth and nineteenth-century date were widely used in Jamaica as water containers. Thus, there are dangers in assuming that the presence of vessels of a particular functional class on a site implies that a certain activity took place there.