Inferring Use-Life Mean and Distribution: A Pottery Ethnoarchaeological Case Study from Michoacán

Abstract

Archaeologists see the value, if not the allure, of formation theory. Before inferring what happened in the past and why, we must know how the material record formed. Pottery is abundant and informative, therefore a common analytical subject. Understanding size and composition of ceramics assemblages requires formation theory, including knowledge of vessel use life. This fundamental quantity has two salient properties. The first—central tendency measured by mean or median—is widely acknowledged. Use life's second, equally important, property is the distribution of failure-age by specimen across assemblages. This article considers how and why both use-life properties affect size and composition of pottery assemblages. From a longitudinal ethnoarchaeology of household pottery in Michoacán, Mexico, it identifies vessel-size measures that correlate with use-life mean, and it demonstrates archaeologically innovative ways to characterize distributions that improve both analysis of assemblages and comparison between them.

Units in Ceramic Analysis and the Problem of Vessel Use Life

“…In a recent article in American Antiquity , Shott (2022) argues that making inferences from ceramic data requires first inferring use lives of vessels, including both their means and distributions. Inferring use life is currently difficult to do, but Shott, much to his credit, takes some initial steps in framing the kind of argument that would need to be made.…”

“…Inferring use life is currently difficult to do, but Shott, much to his credit, takes some initial steps in framing the kind of argument that would need to be made. In the conclusions, he maintains that vessels are the “integral units of ceramic analysis” and the “fundamental units of observation and study” (Shott 2022:811). He makes this argument in opposition to the idea that sherds should be the fundamental unit of analysis.…”