A Houseful of Pots: Applying Ethnoarchaeological Data to Estimate Annual Ceramic Vessel Consumption Rates of Classic Maya Households

Abstract

This article reviews data from the modern highland Maya area in order to develop a model of vessel discard frequencies applicable to Classic Maya contexts. Estimating the number of pots consumed by ancient households is crucial to reconstructing the organization of ceramic production and exchange in antiquity. The recent publication of in situ household assemblages from the Classic Maya center of Aguateca facilitates an analysis of household pottery use during the Late Classic period. Vessel class use-lives derived from ethnoarchaeological studies are applied to the Aguateca assemblages to estimate annual consumption rates. The simulated Aguateca discard assemblages are then compared to archaeologically recovered vessel class discard frequencies from the Classic Maya center of Tikal. The article concludes with a discussion of how and why pottery requirements for Classic Maya households differed from those of twentieth century Maya and the implications these distinctions have for interpreting consumption pattern for the Classic Maya.

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

“…Across types and size classes, L or HH never correlated with commonly cited contextual factors such as household and/or vessel-inventory size and composition (Shott 2018:70–110). This empirical result neither invalidates analysis nor renders context unknowable any more than the failure of L to correlate with similar contextual variables invalidated earlier studies (e.g., Arnold 1988:369; Beck 2003:59; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979:124; Straight 2017:112). Similarly, comal L and HH failed to pattern either with contextual factors or by size class.…”

“…They complement informant estimates of average longevity and the age of specific vessels, and they provide relatively precise data on individual vessels’ use lives. Censuses corroborated Purépecha informant accounts (Shott 2018:60–65) and elsewhere corrected informants’ reports of typical use life (e.g., Straight 2017:98). Yet a systematic error—the undetected introduction, use, and failure of some vessels between census intervals—remains uncontrolled even in census data.…”

“…Life and discard assemblages are identical only if all types’ L are identical. Yet “dramatic differences” (Arnold 1988:377) between life and discard assemblages (e.g., Arnold 1988:Table 5; David 1972; DeBoer 1974:Table 1; Straight 2017:110) can intervene between proportions in use and in discarded assemblages, from L differences between types (different “relativities” [Orton 1993:179]). Accordingly, “if we cannot say anything about the relative life-spans, then we cannot say anything about the life assemblage” (Orton 1993:178).…”

“…If studying pottery requires knowing L for assemblages’ constituent vessel types, the challenge of inference naturally arises. Some consider L accessible only by unsystematic empirical means (e.g., Lipo 2001:206; Sullivan 2008) or by thoughtful tacking between archaeological and related ethnoarchaeological data (Frankel and Webb 2001; Pauketat 1989 Straight 2017; Wallace 1995). To them, inferring L is at best atheoretical craft.…”

“…Why, then, bother doing so with ethnoarchaeological data? Weibull parameters of failure distributions reveal factors—chiefly chance or attrition, the latter of varying degree—that govern discard (e.g., Straight 2017:96) and improve modeling of ceramic assemblage formation (Hatch et al 1982). Moreover, α and β correlate in cross-cultural census data (Shott 2018:153–155), and α is related mathematically to L .…”