Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status: An ethnoarchaeological Study of the...

P1: GDW

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory [jamt] pp698-jarm-456567 November 19, 2002 15:50 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2002 (C© 2002)

Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicatorof Socioeconomic Status: An EthnoarchaeologicalStudy of the Gamo of Ethiopia

John W. Arthur 1

The use of a pottery vessel leaves markers on the ceramic wall that can inform ar-chaeologists how the vessel functioned in the past. At present, archaeologists havelittle information for understanding how use-alteration reflects the complex natureof ceramic function and socioeconomic status. I conducted a 2-year ethnoarchae-ological research project among the Gamo people of southwestern Ethiopia, whocontinue to produce and use pottery on a daily basis. This research indicates thatinterior surface attrition occurs primarily on pottery vessels used in wealthy house-holds because of fermentation processes from high-status foods. Thus, the Gamoexample suggests that there is a relationship between ceramic use-alteration andhousehold socioeconomic status.

KEY WORDS: pottery; use-alteration; wealth; Ethiopia.

INTRODUCTION

Archaeologists use a number of methods to measure social and economicstatus among agrarian societies. The three most common methods depend onvariation in residential architecture (McGuire, 1983; Wilk, 1983), burials (Bartel,1983; Chapmanet al., 1981; Gambleet al., 2001), and household artifacts (Jones,1980; Smith, 1987). Pottery, one of the most ubiquitous of household artifacts,provides another means of establishing status. Previous research has linked socialstatus to ceramic vessel size (Blitz, 1993), style/decoration (Pauketat and Emerson,1991), volume (Nelson, 1981; Potter, 2000; Trostel, 1994), and quantity of vesseltypes and forms (Cowgillet al., 1984, p. 166; Deal, 1998, pp. 101–107; Lewis,1951, p. 183). However, most important, ceramic vessels are tools (see Braun,

1Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, 1112 Turlington Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611;e-mail: [email protected].

331

1072-5369/02/1200-0331/0C© 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GDW


332 Arthur

1983) that are used to process foods that vary in cost and availability, and there aremany studies that demonstrate the cross-cultural use of food, especially luxury orhigh-cost foods, as a social status marker (Blitz, 1993; Carlson, 1990, pp. 303–304;Damerow, 1996; de Garine, 1996, p. 210; Dietler, 1996; Hayden, 1996; Netting,1964, pp. 376–377; Potter, 2000).

One of the most promising methods of relating food processing to house-hold status and ceramics are use-alteration studies. A primary function of ceramicvessels is to change the structure of edible foods by boiling or roasting, and forstoring and serving particular types of food. People cook, store, serve, and trans-port their foods in low-fired earthenware pottery vessels. Experimental, ethnoar-chaeological, and archaeological studies reveal that these activities leave specificuse-alteration attributes, such as scratches and carbon deposits on the ceramicwall (Arthur, 2000, 2001; Beck, 2001; Bray, 1982; Crown, 1994, pp. 99–113;Hally, 1983; Henrickson, 1990, 1992; Jones, 1989; Kobayashi, 1994; O’Brien,1990; Reid and Young, 2000; Sassaman, 1993; Schiffer and Skibo, 1989; Skibo,1992; Skiboet al., 1997; Skibo and Blinman, 1999; Skibo and Schiffer, 1987).Although a relationship between ceramic use-alteration signatures and house-hold wealth and status has been postulated (Griffiths, 1978, p. 77; Smith, 1987,p. 314), at present archaeologists have little information for understanding how use-alteration attributes reflect differences in household socioeconomic status. Thereshould be a direct link between pottery use-alteration and the status of the house-hold, because pottery directly reflects the daily food preparations of households,which vary in their socioeconomic status and their ability to obtain different foodtypes.

The results of this paper are based on my 2-year ethnoarchaeological studyof ceramics among the Gamo people of southwestern Ethiopia. The goal is toprovide archaeologists with a means to understand diet and socioeconomic com-plexity through deciphering one form of use-alteration, surface attrition. Surfaceattrition is defined as the removal or deformation (erosion, pitting, and scratches)of ceramic surfaces during use that can occur as the result of the chemical reac-tion of foods (e.g., nonabrasive attrition) or the mechanical contact (e.g., abrasiveattrition) between the ceramic material and an abrader (Schiffer and Skibo, 1989,pp. 101–102; Skibo, 1992, p. 106). This paper will demonstrate the associationbetween nonabrasive surface attrition on household ceramics and the processingand storage of high status foods, such as grains, dairy, and beer, which are morecommonly found in wealthy households.

THE GAMO

The Gamo people of southern Ethiopia, some 600,000 people strong, inhabitthe mountains west of the Rift Valley lakes of Abaya and Chamo (Fig. 1; Arthur,2000; Hasen, 1996). The Gamo have a social organization that includes a rigid

P1: GDW


Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status 333

Fig. 1. Map of the Gamo region within Ethiopia and Africa.

caste system of elected and hereditary leaders, farmers, and a submerged artisangroup (i.e., potters, hideworkers, smiths, and groundstone producers).

I studied three Gamo villages, focusing on the life cycle of pottery to explorehow pots move through different social and economic contexts from the time theyare produced to their eventual discard (Arthur, 2000). Gamo potters are predomi-nately women, who are full-time specialists. Depending on the household, men dohelp with some production tasks such as digging and cleaning the clay, collectingthe wood, firing the pots, and carrying the vessels to the market. The potter’splacement in Gamo social hierarchy is ascribed and determined by birth, and no

P1: GDW


334 Arthur

action may change the hierarchical positioning of individual potters or other craftspecialists.

Each village and/or potter family has their own set of clay sources, rangingfrom one to five clays depending on the potter’s access to land with suitable material(Arthur, 1997, 2000). Some potters add naturally mined aplastics and/or grog tothe clays, while other clays already have enough naturally occurring temper. Oncethe vessels have been formed, decorated, and dried, they are prefired and fired inan open fire for approximately 2 h. Immediately after removal from the fire, thepotters apply a coating ofetema(i.e., liquid from the enset plant) to the exteriorand/or interior of all vessel types except for the beer jars. Although the Gamopotters use different clays, tempers, surface treatments, fuelwoods, and postfiringtreatments, vessels throughout the Gamo region have evidence of interior surfaceattrition.

GAMO POTTERY AND FOOD PRODUCTION

There is a strong association between the use of pottery and food in Gamosociety. Different pottery forms are used to process a variety of Gamo foods foreveryday consumption. The Gamo produce 14 different vessel forms, with 10 ofthese forms exhibiting surface attrition (Table I and Figs. 2 and 3). The Gamo usetheir vessels for multiple functions, but it is the shape and size of the vessel (i.e., jar,bowl, or plate) that determines if vessels are used for cooking, storing, serving, ortransporting foods. The Gamo have seven different types of jars and for this reasonjars have the widest variety of functions including cooking, serving, transporting,and storing. Only the narrow-mouth small jar (tsua) has a single function as adrinking cup. The Gamo people use bowls for serving and storing food, whileplates function for baking breads and roasting different types of crops (Table I).

Table I. Gamo Vessel Forms Exhibiting Surface Attrition

Emic name Etic name Typical uses

Kolay Single-handle jar Multifunctional jar used for cookingand serving

Tayche Wide-mouth small jar Multifunctional jar used for cookingand serving

Tsua Narrow-mouth small jar DrinkingDiste Wide-mouth medium jar Cooking and storageTsaro Narrow-mouth medium jar Multifunctional jar used for cooking,

storing, and transportingOtto Large jar Multifunctional jar used for cooking,

storing, and transportingBatsa Beer jar Fermenting beerShele Bowl Communal eating and storing foodPeele Dish Communal eatingBache Baking plate Roasting foods and baking breads

P1: GDW



Fig. 2. Profile drawings of (A) wide-mouth small jar, (B) single-handle jar, (C) narrow-mouth small jar, (D) wide-mouth medium jar, (E) narrow-mouth medium jar, (F) largejar, and (G) beer jar.

Subsistence agriculture is the primary occupation for the majority of Gamopeople. The Gamo region is extremely mountainous (1160–3540 m) and the pro-duction of agricultural crops corresponds to distinct ecological zones governedlargely by altitude. In the lower altitudes ranging from 1160 to 2300 m, peopleproduce and consume maize, cabbage, coffee, and enset (Ensete ventricosum).Enset is an indigenous Ethiopian crop that is a large fibrous-leaf plant with the ed-ible portions consisting of the roots, pseudo-stems, and leaf-stems (Shack, 1966;Westphal, 1975, p. 123). Farmers plant enset throughout southern Ethiopia andare able to grow it in every ecological zone from 1600 to 3100 m (Huffnagel,1961; Westphal, 1975). In the higher altitude (2300–3000 m), the Gamo alsorely primarily on enset, and in addition grow barley, wheat, and potatoes. TheGamo diet consists of a range of foods, but depends, in part, on the seasonal

P1: GDW


336 Arthur

Fig. 3. Profile drawings of (A) dish, (B) baking plate, and (C, D) bowl.

availability of specific crops. Meat is eaten only during religious holidays. If peo-ple have the economic means, they can purchase foods that are not grown neartheir village from one of the many weekly markets dispersed throughout the Gamohinterlands.

Food represents socioeconomic status in Gamo society. Foods, such as cab-bage, potatoes, and enset, represent lower-income foods. One of the most commonfoods grown and eaten is the corm of a young enset plant. The Gamo prepare theenset corm by cutting it into a number of pieces and boiling it (chaday) usu-ally with either cabbage or potatoes; also garlic and/or onions may be mixedinto the narrow-mouth medium jar (tsaro) or large jar (otto). Another commontype of meal is prepared by fermenting enset by burying it or placing it in largestorage bowls (shele) for 7 days, trampling it with their feet, and finally stor-ing it again for another 7 days. After 2 weeks, the enset has fermented and ismade into bread (ooetsa) that is cooked on a baking plate (bache) or mixed andcooked with a combination of grains (e.g., barley, wheat, maize, or sorghum) inthe narrow-mouth medium jar (tsaro) or large jar (otto). Other types of foods in-clude boiled enset and potatoes cooked within either the narrow-mouth mediumjar (tsaro), large jar (otto), or the wide-mouth medium jar (diste). Breads madefrom grains and enset or a combination of both are cooked on the baking plate(bache).

The production and consumption of butter and beer are associated withwealthy, high-status households. Butter in Gamo society represents a direct mea-sure of status and wealth and is tied to Gamo symbolic life. Cattle are expensive,

P1: GDW



the average cost of a cow is 600 Ethiopian birr (U.S. $85.70), and the income forthe lowest status households is approximately 1050 Ethiopian birr (U.S. $150.00).Hence, households that own cows are wealthy and the main producers of butterin Gamo villages. Milk is transformed into butter by using a large pottery jar(otto). The milk is separated after 1 week, with the thick curd placed in the jarand then the jar orifice is securely covered with enset leaves. Butter in Gamo so-ciety is used during both life and death ceremonies (Freeman, 1997; Olmstead,1997, pp. 41, 49, 144–145; Sperber, 1974, pp. 60–61). Butter is placed on thehead of the wealthy ritual-sacrificers during marriage and initiation ceremonies.Ritual-sacrificers are responsible for performing animal sacrifices to ensure healthof people, crops, and livestock in their community. When ritual-sacrificers haveauthority over their region, they wear butter on their heads. In addition, when theritual-sacrificer died in the past, butter was placed on his head and people from hisregion brought milk and butter to the ritual-sacrificer’s relatives (Olmstead, 1997,p. 41).

Beer is produced using a number of different grains such as barley, wheat,or maize. Low-status households do not have the land to produce the quantity ofgrain required to make beer. Beer also is directly associated with status because ofits use in ceremonies conducted by Gamo ritual-sacrificers. The grain is groundon grinding stones, with the flour placed in a large serving bowl (shele). There aretwo ways to produce beer. One is that water is boiled in a large cooking jar (otto)and the boiled water is poured over the flour and stirred in a large serving bowl(shele) and left to cool. Then it is poured into a beer jar (batsa) to ferment for5 days. The second way to produce beer is to boil the water and the flour togetherand then store it in either large jars or beer jars for fermentation.

The Gamo provide a rare opportunity to examine vessel function and the so-cioeconomic variation within a society. An important element is that the Gamo stillproduce and use pottery on a daily basis among all of its members, which allowsfor documenting the relationship between food, wealth, and pottery. Furthermore,the Gamo do not usually wash their vessels after they are used for cooking, serv-ing, transporting, or storing. Therefore foods and beer are allowed to sit in vesselsfor a long time and those that ferment, such as grains, enset, and diary products,may begin to ferment within the vessel. This causes nonabrasive surface attritionon the exterior ceramic wall, by exfoliating in spalls or completely eroding theinterior wall.

METHODS

Ceramic vessels are an excellent material for identifying household wealth,because household ceramics directly reflect a society’s economic structure in termsof frequency, cost, and use-alteration attributes (McBride and McBride, 1987;Miller and Stone, 1970, p. 98; Otto, 1977, 1980; Smith, 1987). To determine the

P1: GDW


338 Arthur

relationship between use-alteration attributes and socioeconomic status, I collectedinformation on 1058 vessels from 60 households and conducted a complete house-hold census in three Gamo villages: Zuza (2100 m), Guyla (2700 m), and Etello(2600 m).

One of the most important and more difficult analyses in household archae-ology involves interpreting the socioeconomic position of each household. Theanalysis of socioeconomic levels among households is promising because manyof the production and consumption activities take place within the household areaand households differ on the basis of the specific cultural circumstances (caste,class, or occupation, to name only a few). In addition to indicating the specific so-cioeconomic position, the analysis at the household level allows for a larger viewof the social, political, and economic conditions and changes that occur withinagrarian societies (Smith, 1987, p. 298).

My determination of Gamo household wealth is based on a household censusand the Gamo emic criteria for establishing wealth. The Gamo people assess thewealth of a household in terms of (1) the number and quality of house construc-tion, (2) the amount of land farmed, (3) the type and number of livestock owned,(4) the number of wives that a man has, and (5) the type and number of householdoccupations. These emic factors are the basic tenets of whether a household iswealthy or not. Among the Gamo, the wealthiest households generally belong tothe political elite such as the ritual-sacrificer.

To measure the emic perception of Gamo economic wealth, I developed apoint system for the frequency of houses, farmland, livestock, wives, and occu-pations. These characteristics were noted for each household during a householdcensus survey of the three villages. On the basis of the ranges and the mean rankscore from the three villages, I determined the presence of three economic ranks.The poorest rank ranges from 1 to 3 points, the second rank ranges from 4 to 6points, and the wealthiest rank ranges from 7 to 10 points. Except for Guyla, whichdoes not have households included in the poorest rank, all three villages includehouseholds of each economic rank.

For each ceramic vessel in all the households studied, I recorded distinctuse-alteration traces, including surface attrition (i.e., pitting and erosion) on eachvessel. The surface attrition attributes were described for the interior and exteriorbase, lower body, maximum diameter, upper body, neck, and rim. An ordinal scalewas used to rank the degree of interior surface attrition, similar to the type ofordinal scale used by Hardin and Mills (2000) and Bray (1982). Interior wearwas recorded as “absent” if the interior wall remained intact without any signs oferosion. A “slight” use-alteration was recorded if only small patches of erosionwere seen on the vessel interior. A “moderate” category was recorded if the vesselwas beginning to show signs of erosion. A “heavy” use-alteration was recordedwhen the interior wall was near or completely eroded.

The ceramic use-alteration patterns found on Gamo vessels were cross-referenced with observations of use and with informant’s knowledge of cooking,

P1: GDW



storage, and other activities. Informants provided information on the types of foodsthat were processed in each vessel, how they were processed, and how vessel usechanged through time (i.e., primary use to discard). Hence, I was able to link spe-cific surface attrition traces, such as pitting and erosion, to particular activities likefood and beer fermentation.

ANALYSIS OF GAMO POTTERY SURFACE ATTRITION

While conducting household studies of ceramic attrition among the Gamo,it was discovered that the interior surface of vessels exhibited distinct pitting andcomplete erosion. This became apparent in all of the vessels used for processinggrains, enset, potatoes, dairy products, and beer. One of the primary conditionsof all of these food types is that they have the ability to ferment. Dairy, grains,and enset ferment by producing lactic acid-forming bacteria, which causes thepH value to lower in the foods causing a high acidic material (Ouraet al., 1982,p. 113). Therefore, in the production and storage of foods such as porridges, breads,and beer, there is a higher rate of acidity, which causes erosion of the interior ofvessels. Utensils did not cause the surface attrition because the Gamo rarely stirtheir food while cooking, rather they allow the food to boil or simmer, and theyuse their hands while eating from communal serving bowls.

Vessels used only for processing food and exhibited surface attrition wereanalyzed separately from vessels that were used only for processing beer. I con-ducted this test to determine if the Gamo use different vessel types to process foodsand beer and if they would exhibit different attrition patterns.

Food Fermentation

Grains, enset, potatoes, and dairy products prepared and consumed by theGamo cause surface attrition. Of the 1058 vessels that I recorded, 276 food-processing vessels (26.1%) exhibited some type of interior surface attrition (Figs. 4and 5). A majority of the vessels (79.7%) that have surface attrition were used forprocessing a combination of foods. Although enset and potatoes are nonluxuryfoods, only 5.8% of the vessels with surface attrition were used only for process-ing these two types of foods. Luxury foods of grains and diary are associated withthe majority of vessels (94.2%) that have interior surface attrition. The locationof the surface attrition associated with food processing vessels is random becauseit depends on a combination of factors, such as how diligent the user is in termsof cleaning the vessel and where the food adheres to the vessel. The placement ofattrition on the vessel interior occurs from the base to the maximum diameter orupper body of the container.

The vessel types demonstrate that different forms of food processing canaffect the interior wall of ceramic vessels. The majority of vessels (65.2%) that

P1: GDW


340 Arthur

Fig. 4. Serving and storage vessel showing severe erosion.

show surface attrition were used for both cooking and serving (Table II). Vesselsused for storage (25%) are less likely to have surface attrition, because most of thefoods are stored dry. Households with farmland need to store their excess grainsto sell at the market or to consume during the rest of the year. Most transportvessels (11.2%) are used also for cooking a variety of foods, which are consis-tent with causing attrition on the interior wall. Table II lists the volume and rimdiameter in association with the different functions for vessel forms that haveevidence of surface attrition to provide more contextual information concerninghow vessel morphology is associated with actual use. As expected, the storage

P1: GDW



Fig. 5. Bowl with severe erosion caused by fermented foods.

and transport vessels have larger volumes than the cooking and serving vessels,but unfortunately for archaeologists, the rim diameter data are similar through-out the different functional classes. This suggests that in addition to the pres-ence of surface attrition, that overall vessel morphology (i.e., jars, bowls, plates,etc.) and contextual information regarding the spatial use of vessels within house-holds may provide the best indicators for understanding function regarding foodprocessing.

The majority of the Gamo food-processing vessels with attrition exhibited a“heavy” amount of erosion on the interior wall (41%). Those vessels with a

P1: GDW


342 Arthur

Tabl

eII.

Fun

ctio

nsan

dD

imen

sion

sof

Foo

d-P

roce

ssin

gVe

ssel

sT

hatH

ave

Evi

denc

eof

Sur

face

Attr

ition

Volu

me

(L)

Rim

Dia

met

er(e

xter

ior)

(cm

)

Fun

ctio

nan

dve

ssel

form

Mea

nM

edia

nR

ange

SD

Mea

nM

edia

nR

ange

SD

Coo

king

(n=

74)

8.2

6.4

0.3–

65.4

8.5

22.3

15.8

5.9–

67.0

15.6

Larg

eja

r(n=

27)

10.3

10.3

4.2–

20.6

4.2

15.6

15.6

11.5

–20.

01.

5B

akin

gpl

ate

(n=

14)

4.8

4.6

3.1–

7.9

1.4

52.3

54.8

36.4

–67.

09.

8W

ide-

mou

thm

ediu

mja

r(n=

13)

13.4

6.8

0.9–

65.4

17.3

18.0

18.2

7.5–

27.3

5.5

Nar

row

-mou

thm

ediu

mja

r(n=

11)

4.8

4.2

0.3–

9.2

2.7

11.9

12.5

5.9–

15.5

2.8

Nar

row

-mou

thsm

allj

ar(n=

4)0.

90.

90.

5–1.

30.

38.

68.

67.

8–9.

60.

9B

owl(

n=

2)8.

98.

91.

4–16

.410

.521

.221

.213

.0–2

9.4

11.6

Dis

h(n=

2)4.

44.

44.

1–4.

70.

440

.140

.139

.0–4

1.2

1.5

Wid

e-m

outh

smal

ljar

(n=

1)0.

90.

9—

—10

.510

.5—

—S

ervi

ng(n=

98)

7.1

5.1

0.2–

24.9

6.0

22.7

22.6

5.1–

46.0

9.7

Bow

l(n=

70)

8.7

7.6

0.7–

24.9

6.1

23.1

22.8

7.9–

39.4

6.3

Dis

h(n=

15)

5.0

4.5

2.4–

11.8

2.4

35.4

37.6

22.5

–46.

06.

8N

arro

w-m

outh

smal

ljar

(n=

12)

0.8

0.7

0.2–

1.8

0.5

7.3

7.5

5.1–

9.4

1.5

Sin

gle-

hand

leja

r(n=

1)0.

40.

4—

—7.

17.

1—

—S

tora

ge(n=

20)

15.1

12.4

0.7–

65.4

14.4

20.6

16.5

8.5–

35.3

8.6

Bow

l(n=

8)15

.113

.50.

7–31

.59.

328

.130

.912

.7–3

5.3

7.5

Larg

eja

r(n=

6)15

.615

.36.

4–26

.56.

716

.415

.714

.4–1

9.7

1.9

Nar

row

-mou

thm

ediu

mja

r(n=

4)5.

45.

04.

2–7.

21.

412

.612

.512

.3–1

3.1

0.4

Bee

rja

r(n=

1)65

.465

.4—

—29

.229

.2—

—S

ingl

e-ha

ndle

jar

(n=

1)0.

70.

7—

—8.

58.

5—

—T

rans

port

(n=

2)20

.020

.015

.6–2

4.4

6.2

17.6

17.6

—La

rge

jar

(n=

2)C

ooki

ngan

dse

rvin

g(n=

8)11

.610

.45.

0-26

.56.

922

.721

.913

.3–3

5.0

7.1

Bow

l(n=

6)10

.68.

95.

0–26

.56.

926

.227

.120

.2–3

5.0

4.8

Larg

eja

r(n=

2)13

.413

.412

.8–1

4.1

1.0

14.1

14.1

13.3

–14.

91.

1C

ooki

ngan

dst

orag

e(

n=

22)

13.1

12.8

1.3–

28.7

7.5

16.7

15.5

9–30

.54.

4La

rge

jar

(n=

15)

14.0

14.1

6.4–

28.7

6.5

16.3

15.5

14.4

–19.

51.

6N

arro

w-m

outh

med

ium

jar

(n=

3)4.

65.

23.

0–5.

61.

413

.013

.312

.0–1

3.7

Bee

rja

r(n=

1)22

.422

.4—

—19

.119

.1—

0.9

Wid

e-m

outh

med

ium

jar

(n=

1)24

.424

.4—

—25

.425

.4—

—

P1: GDW


Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status 343N

arro

w-m

outh

smal

ljar

(n=

1)1.

31.

3—

—9.

09.

0—

—B

owl(

n=

1)17

.117

.1—

—30

.530

.5—

—C

ooki

ngan

dtr

ansp

ort(n=

25)

6.5

4.2

0.9–

19.7

5.3

12.7

12.4

8.6–

17.2

2.3

Nar

row

-mou

thm

ediu

mja

r(n=

15)

4.5

4.2

2.6–

8.2

1.7

12.5

12.3

10.5

–14.

51.

1La

rge

jar

(n=

7)13

.914

.18.

2–19

.74.

215

.514

.914

.3–1

7.2

1.1

Nar

row

-mou

thsm

allj

ar(n=

3)1.

31.

40.

9–1.

60.

48.

88.

78.

6–9.

10.

3C

ooki

ng,s

ervi

ng,a

ndst

orag

e(

n=

3)6.

49.

20.

7–9.

24.

921

.127

.87.

1–28

.312

.1B

owl(

n=

2)9.

29.

2—

—28

.028

.00.

327

.8–2

8.3

Nar

row

-mou

thsm

allj

ar(n=

1)0.

70.

7—

—7.

17.

1—

—C

ooki

ng,s

tora

ge,a

ndtr

ansp

ort(n=

3)7.

08.

23.

6–9.

23.

014

.114

.013

.5–1

4.8

0.6

Larg

eja

r(n=

2)8.

78.

78.

2–9.

20.

714

.414

.414

.0–1

4.8

0.6

Nar

row

-mou

thm

ediu

mja

r(n=

1)3.

63.

6—

—13

.513

.5—

—S

ervi

ngan

dst

orag

e(

n=

20)

11.4

6.7

0.9–

33.5

11.1

25.2

24.2

12.2

–41.

18.

6B

owl(

n=

20)

Sto

rage

and

tran

spor

t(n=

1)12

.812

.8—

—17

.317

.3—

—La

rge

jar

(n=

1)

P1: GDW


344 Arthur

“slight” (29.3%) or “medium” (29.7%) amount of interior erosion had an almostequal distribution. Pitting and erosion mostly are present on the interior of jars(49.3%) and bowls (45.6%). Experimental research has demonstrated that smudg-ing (i.e., a postfiring treatment in which the vessels are blackened by placing thehot vessels in an organic substance causing an oxygen-free atmosphere), strength-ens the ceramic wall and reduces surface attrition (Rice, 1987, p. 158; Skiboet al.,1997). Thus, it was surprising to find that Gamo serving bowls, which are smudgedroutinely after being fired, have a high incidence of surface attrition. Baking plates(5.1%) rarely have any indication of interior surface attrition.

The correlation between the degree of surface attrition of food-processingvessels with age exhibits a very weak positive or negative correlation. The amountof attrition seems to be a reflection of how much the vessel is used and if theperson cleans the pot between functions. The average use-life of the 86 food-processing vessels that have broken is 1.3 years (SD= 1.4; minimum= 0.01;maximum= 7.0) (Table III). The extreme heat from the hearth and moving thepots from location to location was the cause for the majority of breaks amongthe 79 broken pots. Only 79 of the 86 broken vessels could be recorded as tohow they broke, because the person that used the vessel at the time it broke hasdied and the daughters-in-laws were not living at the house. A majority (76%)of the vessels broke from cooking or were dropped (Table III). Therefore surfaceattrition is not causing pots to break, but rather they are breaking from food pro-cessing related to cooking activities and people moving the vessels around thehousehold.

Socioeconomic Status and Food

The distinct economic differences between Gamo households and their solereliance on pottery for processing household foods provide an excellent means todemonstrate how surface attrition is caused by different foods and indicative ofhousehold wealth. A chi-square test indicates a significant difference is presentat the 0.05 confidence level (χ2 = 8.79; df= 2; p < 0.05) between the socioeco-nomic status of Gamo households and the percentage of interior surface attritionfrom foods (Fig. 6). Poorer Gamo households have only 10% fewer vessels inwhich they processed grains than do wealthier households (Table IV). However,the quantity of grains and dairy products poorer households processed must havebeen much less because there is less surface attrition on their vessels. Both grainsand dairy are expensive foods to purchase and poorer households do not have theland to grow wheat, barley, or maize and do not own livestock.

The wealthier Gamo frequently have feasts that mark religious holidays andthe induction of ritual-sacrificers (Halaka). Gamo ritual-sacrificers are men, whoare appointed by district assemblies and must be circumcised, married, wealthy,and morally respected (Sperber, 1975, p. 215). Ritual-sacrificers usually do not

P1: GDW



Table III. Use Life and Types of Breakage on Food-Processing Vessels

Types of breakageUse life (years)

Reasons forFunction Mean Median Range SD breaking n (%)

All vessels (n = 86) 1.3 1.0 0.01–7.0 1.4 Cooking 43 (54.4)Dropped 16 (21.5)Use for a long 5 (6.3)Hitting a stone 3 (3.8)Doesn’t know 3 (3.8)Falling from

storage area2 (2.5)

Picked up withone hand

2 (2.5)

Dog steppedon pot

1 (1.3)

Hit with a stick 1 (1.3)Hit on another

pot1 (1.3)

Making butter 1 (1.3)Cooking (n = 31) 1.1 1.0 0.01–6.0 1.5 Cooking 25 (89.3)

Dropped 2 (7.1)Falling from

storage area1 (3.6)

Serving (n = 15) 1.3 1.0 0.01–4.0 1.4 Dropped 7 (46.1)Hitting a stone 2 (15.4)Doesn’t know 2 (15.4)Falling from

storage area1 (7.7)


1 (7.7)

Storage (n = 6) 1.4 1.0 0.6–3.0 0.9 Dropped 2 (28.6)Use for a long

time2 (28.6)

Doesn’t know 1 (14.3)Dog stepped

on pot1 (14.3)

Making butter 1 (14.3)Transport (n = 2) 0.8 0.8 — — Hit with stick 1 (50.0)

Hitting a stone 1 (50.0)Cooking and storage (n = 14) 1.6 1.5 0.1–4.0 1.4 Cooking 12 (92.3)

Dropped 1 (7.7)Serving and storage (n = 8) 2.0 1.0 0.8–7.0 2.1 Use for a long

time3 (42.8)

Dropped 2 (28.6)Hit on another

pot1 (14.3)


1 (14.3)

Cooking and Transport (n = 6) 1.3 0.2 0.07–4.0 1.7 Cooking 4 (66.7)Dropped 2 (33.3)

Cooking, storage, and 0.6 0.6 0.6–0.7 0.07 Cooking 1 (100.0)transport (n = 2)

Cooking and serving (n = 1) 0.01 0.01 — — Cooking 1 (100.0)Storage and transport (n = 1) 1.0 1.0 — — Dropped 1 (100.0)

P1: GDW


346 Arthur

Fig. 6. Histogram showing wealthier households have significantly more vesselswith surface attrition caused by processing food compared to poorer households.χ2 = 8.79; df= 2; p < 0.05.

volunteer for the position, because it requires redistributing a substantial amountof their resources through feasting, however it is taboo to refuse. The feasts en-compass 4 days of providing beer and Gamo foods. The regional ritual-sacrificerproduces two feasts, one at his household and the other in a special meeting placefor the region. He must provide food and beer for his entire region, and this entailshaving enough ceramic containers to cook, serve, store, and transport beer andfood. Frequently grains, milk, and butter, which cause interior surface attrition,are prepared for feasts. For example, a common type of food prepared and eatenduring feasts isgordo. Gordocauses severe surface attrition and is made by mixingground barley and milk and then boiling them in either a narrow-mouth mediumjar (tsaro) (n = 1, 16.7% used forgordo) or a large jar (otto) (n = 5, 83.3% usedfor gordo). Gordo is served in a communal bowl (shele) (n = 42, 100% used forgordo) with melted butter. The wealthiest (19.3%) and the average (19.8%) ranked

Table IV. Percentage and Frequency of Vessels Used in Different Wealth Households in AssociationWith Specific Foods

Wealthy Average Poor All householdsFood types percentage (n) percentage (n) percentage (n) combined percentage (n)

Grains 87.5 (77) 85.6. (134) 75.0 (24) 85.1 (235)Dairy 62.5 (55) 71.8 (112) 28.1 (9) 63.8 (176)Enset 37.5 (33) 37.2 (58) 59.4 (19) 39.8 (110)Potatoes 19.3 (17) 26.9 (42) 21.9 (7) 23.9 (66)

P1: GDW



households had a similar percentage of vessels with surface attrition that wereused for processinggordo. However, only 3.1% of the vessels with surface attri-tion were used for processinggordoamong the poorest households. Clearly, thisdemonstrates that certain foods are associated with a household’s socioeconomicstatus.

Beer Fermentation

This section pertaining to beer expands on an another paper (Arthur, in press),in which I discuss the social and economic context of beer production and con-sumption in Africa and among the Gamo in particular. Arthur (in press) focuses onthe differences of beer production between Gamo ritual-sacrificers and nonritualsacrificers (ritual–political status), while this paper addresses how Gamo economicranks differ in their beer production and consumption. Beer in Gamo society istied directly to the wealth and status of Gamo households, as only the wealthy canafford the grains or have the land to grow these crops. The processing of beer in-cludes cooking, drinking, storing, or transporting. The majority of beer-processingvessels (88.9%) are used for a specific function (Table V). Table V indicates thatvessels associated with beer processing are larger in volume than vessels used forfood processing (see Table II). The two serving vessels are the only exception.Storing beer to ferment is the most common type of function (52.4%) among the63 vessels. Ceramic drinking vessels are rare (3.2%), corresponding to the Gamocustom of using gourds for drinking beer, rather than using the narrow-mouth smalljar type (tsua). Jars (92.1%) are most commonly associated with the production,distribution, and consumption of beer. The majority of the jars (84.1%) used forprocessing beer are large jars (otto) and beer jars (batsa) (Table VI). The beerjar is the largest of the Gamo jar types and is used primarily for storing beer inthe fermentation process and to store crops. The large jar is the second largest jartype, which is used for multiple household functions including cooking, storing,or transporting beer. Bowls (n = 5) were used only for storing beer and represent7.9% of the assemblage used for Gamo beer processing.

All of the 63 vessels associated with beer processing have pitting and erosion(Fig. 7). In addition to the 63 vessels, there were more vessels (n = 53) that wereused only for beer processing, but because they were full of beer, no analysiscould be conducted. The possible cause of surface attrition from beer processingis due to the yeast activity within the beer that eventually erodes the interior vesselwall. The fermentation of the yeast affects all different types of clays, as attritionwas present throughout the Gamo region on vessels that were manufactured fromdifferent clay sources.

Pots that function to cook, store, cool, or transport beer all had erosion onthe interior part of the vessel wall. The majority (76.2%) of the beer-processingvessels had a “heavy” amount of erosion on the interior wall and only 12.7% and

P1: GDW


348 Arthur

Table V. Functions and Dimensions of Beer-Processing Vessels That Have Evidence ofSurface Attrition

Volume (L) Rim diameter (exterior) (cm)

Function and vessel form Mean Median Range SD Mean Median Range SD

Cooking (n = 12) 37.2 22.4 7.2–124.7 34.1 20.8 19.5 14.0–26.8 5.2Large jar (n = 7) 17.0 16.4 7.2–24.4 6.0 16.7 16.6 14.0–19.5 2.5Beer jar (n = 5) 65.4 65.4 20.6–124.7 25.8 25.8 26.0 23.8–26.8 1.2

Serving (n = 2) 1.6 1.6 0.9–2.4 1.0 8.6 8.6 8.0–9.2 0.8Narrow-mouth small

jar (n = 2)Storage (n = 33) 35.0 26.5 8.2–102.1 22.1 22.6 22.0 14.7–38.3 5.0

Beer jar (n = 19) 47.1 47.7 23.4–102.1 21.8 23.4 23.5 18.1–31.1 3.7Large jar (n = 8) 20.4 22.4 14.1–26.5 4.7 17.8 17.8 14.7–20.1 1.8Bowl (n = 5) 16.9 18.8 8.2–24.4 6.9 27.3 28.4 17.8–38.3 7.8Wide-mouth medium 10.3 10.3 — — 21.3 21.3 — —

jar (n = 1)Transport (n = 9) 10.0 7.2 3.0–24.4 6.9 14.4 13.7 11.3–18.4 2.5

Large jar (n = 7) 12.0 10.3 6.4–24.4 6.6 15.0 15.0 11.5–18.4 2.6Narrow-mouth 3.6 3.6 — — 13.7 13.7 — —

medium jar (n = 1)Narrow-mouth 3.0 3.0 — — 11.3 11.3 — —

small jar (n = 1)Cooking and storage (n = 7) 25.6 22.4 12.8–50.9 13.1 19.2 19.1 15.9–22.5 2.1

Large jar (n = 5) 21.2 18.8 12.8–33.5 8.3 18.9 19.0 15.9–22.5 2.4Beer jar (n = 2) 36.7 36.7 22.4–50.9 20.1 20.0 20.0 19.1–21.0 1.3

11.1% were recorded as “medium” and “slight” erosion, respectively. Pitting anderosion occur from the interior base to the upper body and in some cases up to therim, so that there is erosion of the entire interior part of the vessel.

If people consistently use one particular vessel for beer production, it wouldbe expected that there would be a correlation between the degree of surface attri-tion with the age of the vessel. However, beer-processing vessels did not covarysignificantly concerning the relationship between the age of the vessels and theamount of vessel attrition. I expect that this is a reflection of the household’s vari-ation of use, where some households vary in the amount of beer they produce.The beer vessels that have a heavy attrition range from 1 month to 125 years old,demonstrating that constant use can quickly erode the interior of the vessel. The

Table VI. Otto and Batsa Vessel Dimensions

Volume (L) Rim diameter (Exterior) (cm)

Type Mean Median Range SD Mean Median Range SD

Large jar (n = 27) 17.5 16.3 6.3–33.5 6.97 16.9 17.7 11.5–22.5 2.5Beer jar (n = 26) 49.8 50.9 20.5–124.7 25.6 23.6 23.7 18.1–31.1 3.4Combined large jar 33.3 24.4 6.3–124.7 24.6 20.3 19.3 11.5–31.1 4.51

and beer jar

P1: GDW



Fig. 7. Bowl with beginning stages of surface attrition caused by beerfermentation.

average use-life of the 23 beer processing vessels that broke is 2.3 years (SD= 2.4;minimum= 0.3; maximum= 11.0) (Table VII), a year more than food-processingvessels. The storage vessels have almost twice as long a use-life compared to thevessels used for cooking and storage. Erosion was a major cause of large beer jars(batsas) breaking. Just over half (52.29%) of the vessels broke directly from theresult of the surface erosion associated with beer processing. Specifically vesselsbreak from the continual wear on the vessel, as well as other types of reasons(Table VII). The vessel wall of the beer jars becomes thin from previous yeast ac-tivity causing large pits, and in some cases complete erosion of the wall. When the

P1: GDW


350 Arthur

Table VII. Use Life and Types of Breakage on Beer Processing Vessels

Use life (years) Types of breakage

Function Mean Median Range SD Reasons for breakingn (%)

All vessels (n = 23) 2.3 1.0 0.3–11 2.4 Cooking 5 (21.7)Use for a long time 5 (21.7)Pouring hot beer 3 (13.1)

in potHitting a stone 3 (13.1)Yeast wore the 2 (8.7)

pot’s bodyDoesn’t know 2 (8.7)Storing beer 2 (8.7)Dropping 1 (4.3)

Storage (n = 18) 2.7 2.0 0.3–11 2.7 Use for a long time 5 (27.8)Pouring hot beer 3 (16.7)

in potHitting a stone 3 (16.7)Storing beer 2 (11.1)Yeast wore the 2 (11.1)

pot’s bodyDoesn’t know 2 (11.1)Dropping 1 (5.5)

Cooking (n = 3) 1.3 1.0 1.0–2.0 0.6 Cooking 3 (100)Cooking and 1.5 1.5 1.0–2.0 0.7 Cooking 2 (100)

storage (n = 2)

hot beer is poured into the vessel, the thermal stress is so great as to cause the vesselto crack at the base. In addition, since the majority of the broken vessels were usedfor storage, they remained in relatively stationary positions and were not exposedto other types of breakage conditions such as cooking or dropping (Mills, 1989).

Socioeconomic Status and Beer Production

The Gamo do not distinguish between ceremonial and utilitarian servingvessels. The pitting associated with beer fermentation in Gamo society is a directindicator of social status and economic wealth. Since poor households in Gamodo not ferment beer, the lack of pitting in the ceramic assemblage is an indicatorof a household’s socioeconomic level.

Wealthier households grow more grains to make beer and can afford thelarge beer jars that help ferment and store their beer, therefore I expected that thewealthier households would have more beer-processing vessels than would poorerhouseholds. A chi-square test indicates a significant difference (χ2 = 6.81; df=2; p < 0.05) between the number of beer-processing vessels with surface attri-tion in wealthier households compared to poorer households (Fig. 8). In addition,41 of the 48 farmer households studied (85.4%) are in the top two wealthiest eco-nomic ranks. Only 5 of the 12 artisan (i.e., potters and hideworkers) households

P1: GDW



Fig. 8. Histogram showing wealthy and average households have significantly morevessels with surface attrition caused by processing beer compared to poor households.χ2 = 6.81; df= 2; p < 0.05.

(42%) are in the two wealthiest economic ranks. This indicates that farmers havemore farmland and are able to grow more grains, and therefore produce more beerthan poorer households.

Across the different economic ranks, jars predominate as the most commonvessel form that exhibits interior surface attrition in association with householdbeer processing. The number of vessels exhibiting interior surface attrition frombeer processing is 1.2 vessels among the wealthy and average households comparedto only 0.2 vessels among the poorest households. For archaeologists, the Gamomodel suggests that if a large number of households are excavated, then the amountof large jars with surface attrition may be a signature of beer processing and moreimportantly household wealth.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Pottery used within households supplies an exceptional medium for explain-ing wealth differences, especially within a complex agrarian society, where allhouseholds rely on low-fired earthenware pottery to process their daily food. TheGamo have a strict socioeconomic organization in which households with morefarmland and household wealth eat foods that require a higher amount of eco-nomic wealth than the poorer households can afford to purchase or process. Thehousehold pottery assemblages and their associated surface attrition characterizethe Gamo wealth variation.

P1: GDW


352 Arthur

Gamo household wealth can be interpreted through household differentialprocessing of luxury foods and beer. There are extreme amounts of attrition onceramics used for beer and luxury grains and dairy foods, which was not found onvessels used for processing other food types. Most beer vessels, especially jars,were used for storage, while most grain and dairy processing pots, especially jarsand bowls, were used for cooking and serving. Jars are the most common vesselclass used for beer processing and had extreme amounts of erosion extendingfrom the base up to the upper body and rim. The jars and bowls used in grainand dairy processing had evidence of interior surface attrition from the base tothe upper body, which was caused by the fermenting of food. The use-life ofbeer vessels was almost twice as long as food vessels. Most breakage associatedwith beer vessels was the result of surface attrition. However, food vessels brokemore often because people used them repeatedly over hearths and moved themaround the household increasing their chance of being dropped or hitting anotherobject.

This surface attrition analysis demonstrates that pottery can contribute to abetter understanding of interhousehold wealth differences. Wealthier Gamo house-holds own more farmland and cattle, supplying them with more grains and dairyproducts than poorer households. Harvesting surplus grains provides these house-holds with the ability to process more beer and to be able to purchase the expensivelarge jars and beer jars from potters. Furthermore, these wealthier households areable to cook foods containing grains and cattle by-products, such as milk andbutter. These products tend to ferment and the cultural practice of not washing thevessels after food preparation causes a higher incidence of interior vessel erosionin the ceramics of wealthier households. The relationship between household pot-tery, foods, and wealth provides a signifier for archaeologists delineating wealthierhouseholds from poorer households.

The Gamo example offers archaeologists with a clear association betweenthe processing of certain foods and beer, severe surface attrition, and householdwealth. However, if cultures have a custom of cleaning their vessels after they areused, then other types of surface attrition may become apparent (Skibo, 1992).Ethnoarchaeology provides an important tool in the documentation of how peopleuse their material culture in context with their socioeconomic status, furnishingarchaeologists with a clearer interpretation of past cultures.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Ken Sassaman, Marijke van der Veen, Kathryn Weedman,James Skibo, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructivecomments on the paper. I thank the Ethiopian Ministry of Culture and Information’sAuthority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage for their support andfor facilitating my fieldwork. I also thank the Gamo people and Berhanu Wolde and

P1: GDW



Gezahegn Alemayehu for their hard work during 2 years of fieldwork. My gratitudegoes out to Melanie Brandt, who drew the beautiful vessel profiles. This researchwas supported by a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant# SBR 97-05781.

REFERENCES CITED

Arthur, J. W. (1997). Producers and consumers: The ethno-archaeology of Gamo pottery production anduse. In Fukui, K., Kurimoto, E., and Shigeta, M. (eds.),Ethiopia in Broader Perspective: Papers ofthe XIIIth International Conference of Ethiopia Studies, Vol. I–III, Shokado Book Sellers, Kyoto,Japan, pp. 284–298.

Arthur, J. W. (2000).Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology Among the Gamo of Southwestern Ethiopia, DoctoralDissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Arthur, J. W. (2001). A functional analysis of Early Pithouse Period ceramics. In Diehl, M. W., andLeBlanc, S. A. (eds.),Early Pithouse Villages of the Mimbres Valley and Beyond: The McAnallyand Thompson Sites in Their Cultural and Ecological Contexts, Vol. 83, Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, pp. 69–76.

Arthur, J. W. (in press). Brewing beer: Status, wealth, and ceramic use-alteration among the Gamo ofsouthwestern Ethiopia.World Archaeology34: 516–528.

Bartel, B. (1983). A historical review of ethnographic and archaeological analyses of mortuary practice.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology1: 32–58.

Beck, M. (2001). Archaeological signatures of corn preparation in the U.S. Southwest.Kiva 67: 187–218.

Blitz, J. (1993). Big pots for big shots: Feasting and storage in the Mississippian community.AmericanAntiquity58: 80–96.

Braun, D. (1983). Pots as tools. In Moore, J., and Keene, A. (eds.),Archaeological Hammers andTheories, Academic Press, New York, pp. 107–134.

Bray, A. (1982). Mimbres black-on-white, melanin or wedgewood? A ceramic use-wear analysis.Kiva47: 133–151.

Carlson, R. G. (1990). Banana beer, reciprocity, and ancestor propitiation among the Haya of Bukova,Tanzania.Ethnology29: 297–311.

Chapman, R. I., Kinnes, I., and Randsborg, K. (1981).The Archaeology of Death, Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Cowgill, G. L., Altschul, J. H., and Sload, R. S. (1984). Spatial analysis of Teotihuacan, a Mesoamericanmetropolis. In Hietala, H. J. (ed.),Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, pp. 154–195.

Crown, P. L. (1994).Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery, University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.

Damerow, P. (1996). Food production and social status as documented in proto cuneiform texts. InWiessner, P., and Schiefenhövel, W. (eds.), Foodand the Status Quest: An InterdisciplinaryPerspective, Berghahn Books, Providence, RI, pp. 149–170.

Deal, M. (1998).Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands, The University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

de Garine, I. (1996). Food and the status quest in five African cultures. In Wiessner, P., andSchiefenhövel, W. (eds.),Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, BerghahnBooks, Providence, RI, pp. 193–217.

Dietler, M. (1996). Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy: Food, power, and status inprehistoric Europe. In Wiessner, P., and Schiefenhövel, W. (eds.),Food and the Status Quest: AnInterdisciplinary Perspective, Berhahn Books, Providence, RI, pp. 149–170.

Freeman, D. (1997). Images of fertility: The indigenous concept of power in Doko Masho, SouthwestEthiopia. In Fukui, K., Kurimoto, E., and Shigeta, M. (eds.),Ethiopia in Broader Perspective:Papers of the XIIIth International Conference of Ethiopia Studies, Vol. I–III, Shokado Book Sellers,Kyoto, Japan, pp. 342–357.

P1: GDW


354 Arthur

Gamble, L. H., Walker, P. L., and Russell, G. S. (2001). An integrative approach to mortuary analysis:Social and symbolic dimensions of Chumash burial practices.American Antiquity66: 185–212.

Griffiths, D. M. (1978). Use-marks on historic ceramics: A preliminary study.Historical Archaeology12: 68–81.

Hally, D. J. (1983). The interpretive potential of pottery from domestic contexts.Midcontinental Journalof Archaeology8: 163–196.

Hardin, M. A., and Mills, B. J. (2000). The social and historical context of short-term stylistic replace-ment: A Zuni case study.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory7: 139–163.

Hasen, A. (1996).The 1994 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia Results for Southern NationsNationalities and Peoples’ Region, Office of Population and Housing Census Commission CentralStatistical Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Hayden, B. (1996). Feasting in prehistoric and traditional societies. In Wiessner, P., and Schiefenh¨ovel,W. (eds.),Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Bergahn Books, Provi-dence, RI, pp. 127–147.

Henrickson, E. F. (1990). Investigating ancient ceramic form and use: Progress report and case study.In Kingery, W. D. (ed.),The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P. to the Present,The American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, pp. 83–118.

Henrickson, R. C. (1992). Analysis of use wear on ceramic potter’s tools. In Vandiver, P. B., Druzik,J. R., Wheeler, G. S., and Freestone, I. C. (eds.),Material Issues in Art and Archaeology III,Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA,pp. 475–493.

Huffnagel, H. P. (1961).Agriculture in Ethiopia, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Jones, A. H. (1980).Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American Colonies on the Eve of the Revolution,

Columbia University Press, New York.Jones, B. A. (1989). Use-wear analysis of white mountain redwares at grasshopper pueblo.The Kiva

54: 353–360.Kobayashi, I. M. (1994). Use-alteration analysis of Kalinga pottery: Interior carbon deposits of cooking

pots. In Longacre, W. A., and Skibo, J. M. (eds.),Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archae-ological Method and Theory, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 127–168.

Lewis, O. (1951).Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.McBride, W. S., and McBride, K. A. (1987). Socioeconomic variation in a late antebellum south-

ern town: The view from archaeological and documentary sources. In Spencer-Wood, S. (ed.),Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 143–161.

McGuire, R. H. (1983). Breaking down cultural complexity: Inequality and heterogeneity.Advancesin Archaeological Method and Theory6: 91–142.

Miller, J. J., II, and Stone, L. M. (1970). Eighteenth-century ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac: Astudy in historical archaeology. In Miller II, J. J., and Stone, L. M. (eds.),Smithsonian Studies inHistory and Technology 4, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Mills, B. J. (1989). Integrating functional analyses of vessels and sherds through models of ceramicassemblage formation.World Archaeology21: 133–147.

Nelson, B. A. (1981). Ethnoarchaeology and paleodemography: A test of Turner and Lofgren’s hy-pothesis.Journal of Anthropological Research37: 107–129.

Netting, R. (1964). Beer as a locus of value among the West African Kofyar.American Anthropologist66: 375–384.

O’Brien, P. (1990). An experimental study of the effects of salt erosion on pottery.Journal of Archae-ological Science17: 393–401.

Olmstead, J. (1997).Woman Between Two Worlds: Portrait of an Ethiopian Rural Leader, The Uni-versity of Illinois Press, Chicago.

Otto, J. S. (1977). Artifacts and status differences: A comparison of ceramics from planter, overseerand slave sites on an antebellum plantation. In South, S. (ed.),Research Strategies in HistoricalArchaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 91–118.

Otto, J. S. (1980). Race and class on antebellum plantations. In Schuyler, R. L. (ed.),Archaeologi-cal Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History,Baywood Press, New York, pp. 3–13.

Oura, E., Suomalainen, H., and Viskari, R. (1982). Breadmaking. In Rose, A. H. (ed.),FermentedFoods, Vol. 7: Economic Microbiology, Academic Press, London, pp. 88–147.

P1: GDW



Pauketat, T. R., and Emerson, T. E. (1991). The ideology of authority and the power of the pot.AmericanAnthropologist93: 919–941.

Potter, J. M. (2000). Pots, parties, and politics: Communal feasting in the American Southwest.Amer-ican Antiquity65: 471–492.

Reid, A., and Young, R. (2000). Pottery abrasion and the preparation of African grains.Antiquity74:101–111.

Rice, P. M. (1987).Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Sassaman, K. E. (1993).Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technol-

ogy, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. (1989). A provisional theory of ceramic abrasion.American Anthro-

pologist91: 102–116.Shack, W. A. (1966).The Gurage: A People of the Enset Culture, Oxford University Press, London.Skibo, J. M. (1992).Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective, Plenum Press, New York.Skibo, J. M., and Blinman, E. (1999). Exploring the origins of pottery on the Colorado Plateau. In

Skibo, J. M., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.),Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 171–183.

Skibo, J. M., Butts, T. C., and Schiffer, M. B. (1997). Ceramic surface treatment and abrasion resistance:An experimental study.Journal of Archaeological Science24: 311–317.

Skibo, J. M., and Schiffer, M. B. (1987). The effects of water on processes of ceramic abrasion.Journalof Archaeological Science14: 83–96.

Smith, M. E. (1987). Household possessions and wealth in agrarian states: Implications for archaeology.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 6: 297–335.

Sperber, D. (1974).Rethinking Symbolism. Morton, A. L. (trans.), Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Sperber, D. (1975). Paradoxes of seniority among the Dorze. In Marcus, H. G. (ed.),Proceedings ofthe First U.S. Conference on Ethiopian Studies, 1973, Michigan State University, East Lansing,pp. 209–222.

Trostel, B. (1994). Household pots and possessions: An ethnoarchaeological study of material goodsand wealth. In Longacre, W. A., and Skibo, J. M. (eds.),Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: ExpandingArchaeological Method and Theory, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 209–224.

Westphal, E. (1975).Agricultural Systems in Ethiopia, Center for Agricultural Publishing and Docu-mentation, Wageningen.

Wilk, R. R. (1983). Little house in the jungle: The causes of variation in house size among modernKekchi Maya.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology2: 99–116.

Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status: An ethnoarchaeological Study of the...

Documents

Transcript of Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status: An ethnoarchaeological Study of the...