Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-t9bwh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-11T02:44:17.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

New Approaches to Ceramic Use and Discard: Cooking Pottery from the Peruvian Andes in Ethnoarchaeological Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John A. Hildebrand
Affiliation:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0205
Melissa B. Hagstrum
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Box 353100, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3100

Abstract

Ethnoarchaeological data from contemporary Wanka villages in the Mantaro Valley of the Peruvian Andes provide new perspectives on the use and discard of ceramic cooking vessels. We present a regional survey of ceramic vessel use and discard with household consumption as the focus of study. A mathematical model determines vessel uselife from the age distribution of in-use vessels. We examine the number of vessels per household, their volume, their uselife, and their reported discard. A typical Wanka household cooking vessel assemblage consists of four or five ollas, two large ollas, one chata, and one tostadera. As family members are added to a household, the number of household ollas slightly increases, as does olla volume and the overall rate of olla discard. Large families have fewer chatas, and the rate of chata discard is uncorrelated with household size. Large and small families alike have only one tostadera, but in large families, a shortened tostadera uselife increases their discard rate. Distributing the same population into small or large households will result in significantly different rates of total sherd accumulation. Bulk sherd accumulation is a better indicator of the number of households rather than of the total number of persons. Household size can be estimated from the relative proportions of discarded ollas, chatas, and tostaderas.

Resumen

Resumen

Datos etnoarqueológicos provenientes de los pueblos contemporáneos Wanka del Valle Mantaro de los Andes peruanos proporcionan nuevas perspectivas sobre el uso y desecho de la cerámica doméstica. En este artículo, presentamos un estudio regional de los patrones de uso y descarte de esta cerámica en términos de uso familiar. Un modelo matemático determina el promedio de vida de las vasijas de cocina con base en la distribución de las edades de las vasijas actualmente en uso. Examinamos el número de vasijas de cocina, su volumen, promedio de vida y sus patrones de desecho. La cerámica típica de cocina de una familia Wanka se compone de cuatro o cinco ollas, dos ollas grandes, una chata y una tostadera. Los promedios de vida estimados para estas vasijas son: para las ollas 2.4 años, para las ollas grandes 14 años, para las chatas 2.2 años y para las tostaderas 1.3 años. Cuando se aumenta el tamaño de la familia, la cantidad de vasijas de cocina aumenta ligeramente, aumentando también el volumen promedio de las ollas y la proporción en que éstas se desechan. En términos proporcionales las familias grandes tienen menos chatas que las pequeñas, y la proporción de chatas que se desecha no guarda relación con el tamaño de la familia. Tanto las familias grandes como las pequeñas tienen sólo una tostadera, pero en las familias grandes las tostaderas tienen un promedio de vida más corto, aumentando su tasa de desecho. Si la población se divide en familias pequeñas o grandes, esto afectará de manera significativa la tasa de acumulación de fragmentos de cerámica. Por esta razón, la acumulación total de fragmentos cerámicos es un indicador útil para estimar el número de familias pero no la cantidad de individuos total. Se necesitan datos adicionales para estimar el tamaño de la familia. El tamaño de la familia se puede estimar en términos de la relación entre el desecho de ollas, chatas y tostaderas.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1999

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

Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.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 51:89101.Google Scholar
David, N. 1972 On the Life Span of Pottery. Type Frequencies and Archaeological Inference. American Antiquity 37:141142.Google Scholar
David, N., and Henning, H. 1972 The Ethnography of Pottery: A Fulani Case Seen in Archaeological Perspective. Current Topics in Anthropology: Theory, Methods, and Content. Modular Publications, Module 21. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Deal, M., and Hagstrum, M. B. 1995 Ceramic Reuse Behavior among the Maya and Wanka: Implications for Archaeology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielson, pp. 111125. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
de Barros, P. L. F. 1982 The Effects of Variable Site Occupation Span on the Results of Frequency Seriation. American Antiquity 47:291315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBoer, W. R. 1974 Ceramic Longevity and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 39:335343.Google Scholar
DeBoer, W. R. 1985 Pots and Pans Do Not Speak, Nor Do They Lie: The Case for Occasional Reductionism. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 347357. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
DeBoer, W. R., and Lathrap, D. 1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 102138. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
de la Torre, A., and Mudar, K. 1982 The Becino Site: An Exercise in Ethnoarchaeology. In Houses Built on Scattered Poles: Prehistory and Ecology in Negros Oriental, Philippines, edited by K. Hutterer and W. Macdonald, pp. 117146. San Carlos University, Cebu City, Philippines.Google Scholar
Earle, T. K., D’Aitroy, T. N., Hastorf, C. A., and LeVine, T. Y 1987 Archaeological Field Research in the Upper Mantaro, Peru 1982–1983: Investigations of lnka Expansion and Exchange. Monograph XXVIII. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Foster, G. M. 1960 Life Expectancy of Utilitarian Pottery in Tzintzuntzan, Mexico. American Antiquity 25:606609.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B. 1989 Technological Continuity and Change: Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology in the Peruvian Andes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B., and Hildebrand, J. A. 1990 The Two-Curvature Method for Reconstructing Ceramic Morphology. American Antiquity 55:388103.Google Scholar
Hayden, B., and Nelson, M. C. 1981 The Use of Chipped Stone Material in the Contemporary Maya Highlands. American Antiquity 46:885898.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, J. A. 1978 Pathways Revisited: A Quantitative Model of Discard. American Antiquity 43:274279.Google Scholar
Lavallée, D. 1967 Types céramiques des Andes centrales du Pérou. Journale de la Sociéte des Americanistes 56:411448.Google Scholar
LeCount, L., and Hagstrum, M. B. 1990 Cuisine, Cooking, and Cookware. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1985 Pottery Use-Life among the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, the Philippines. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 334346. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A., and Skibo, J. M. 1994 An Introduction to Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Mills, B. J. 1989 Integrating Functional Analysis of Vessels and Sherds through Models of Ceramic Assemblage Formation. World Archaeology 21:133147.Google Scholar
Nelson, B. A. 1981 Ethnoarchaeology and Paleodemography: A Test of Turner and Lofgren’s Hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:107129.Google Scholar
Nelson, B. A. 1991 Ceramic Frequency and Uselife: A Highland Mayan Case in Cross-Cultural Perspective. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 162181. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Neupert, M. A., and Longacre, W. A. 1994 Informant Accuracy in Pottery Use-Life Studies: A Kalinga Example. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 7182. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1975 Archaeology as Behavioral Science. American Anthropologist 77:836848.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Shott, M. 1996 Mortal Pots: On Use Life and Vessel Size in the Formation of Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 61:463482.Google Scholar
Stanislawski, M. B. 1977 Ethnoarchaeology of Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Pottery Making: Styles of Learning. In Experimental Archaeology, edited by D. Ingersoll, J. E. Yellen, and W. Macdonald, pp. 378408. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Tani, M. 1994 Why Should More Pots Break in Larger Households? Mechanisms Underlying Population Estimates from Ceramics. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 5170. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Turner, C. G. II, and Lofgren, L. 1966 Household Size of Prehistoric Western Pueblo Indians. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22:117132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varien, M. D., and Mills, B. J. 1997 Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects for Estimating Site Occupation Span. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4:141191.Google Scholar
Varien, M. D., and Potter, J. M. 1997 Unpacking the Discard Equation: Simulating the Accumulation of Artifacts in the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 62:194213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar