Society for American Archaeology

Accurately Estimating Vessel Volume from Profile Illustrations

Author(s): Louise M. Senior and Dunbar P. Birnie, III
Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 319-334
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/282143 .
Accessed: 23/07/2012 10:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
ACCURATELY ESTIMATING VESSEL VOLUME FROM PROFILE
ILLUSTRATIONS
Louise M. Senior and Dunbar P. Birnie III
The highly fragmented nature of most archaeological ceramic assemblages
makes whole or reconstructible vessels
valuable and rare finds. Vessel volume has
rarely been systematically quantified because convenient reconstruction
methods dealing with sherds and partial vessels have been lacking. Now, with the method presented in this
paper,
highly accurate volumetric capacities of fragmented vessels can be calculated from carefully prepared
vessel
profile
illustrations. The profile is digitized using a small number of points per vessel (20
to 30 points are
usually sufficient).
These data are then converted to a volumetric measure using a computerized algorithm based on the
geometry of
stacked bevel-walled cylinders. This method of determining vessel volumes was tested and shown to be
highly repeatable
and accurate.
Quantifiable
sources of error are generally limited to less than one percent per vessel, with the
final
accuracy limited chiefly by the quality of
illustration. With this computerized technique, fragmented vessels no
longer
need to be fully reconstructed in order to obtain volumetric information.
Los hallazgos de
vasijas completas o reconstruibles son muy raros debido a la gran fragmentacion
de la
mayoria de
los conjuntos cerdmicos arqueologicos. El volumen de las vasijas no ha sido cuantificado sistemdticamente debido a
la falta de mdetodos adecuados que utilicen vasijas parciales o fragmentos de estas mismas. Ahora, con el metodo
presentado en este reporte, capacidades volumetricas exactas pueden ser calculadas para vasijas parciales o frag-
mentadas utilizando ilustraciones cuidadosas de los perfiles de las vasijas. El perfil es digitalizado usando pocos
puntos para cada perfil (20 o 30 puntos son usualmente
suficientes).
Los datos son convertidos a un estimado de
capacidad volumetrica usando un
algoritmo computarizado que se basa en la geometria de cilindros con paredes
inclinadas, montados uno encima de otro. Este metodo de determinacion de volumenes de
vasijas
ha sido puesto a
prueba; el metodo es preciso y exacto. Fuentes de error cuantificable son limitadas a menos del uno por ciento por
vasija, con la exactitud final dependiente, en su mayor parte, de la calidad de la ilustracion del perfil de la vasija.
Con esta tecnica computarizada, la
vasijas fragmentadas no necesitan ser completamente reconstruidas con el
proposito de obtener informacion volumetrica.
W hy
should we examine pot volumes?
Prehistoric vessels were made to
put
things in, yet most
archaeological analyses
study only
what is on the vessels. Prehistoric
vessels were manufactured as containers;
whether for
cooking, storage, or
serving,
ves-
sel volume
(capacity)
is an essential attribute
that is tied
directly to use and function of
pottery. Most methods used to determine
vessel
capacity depend on the use of whole,
or
reconstructed, pots. Because of this, most
analyses
of prehistoric pottery, worldwide, are
restricted to surface decoration techniques
("style") rather than
pottery function since
such studies can be made from the large frag-
mented
assemblages generally encountered
archaeologically.1 Techniques of quick, ac-
curate volumetric determination from vessel
profiles now exist; thus, this attribute (ca-
pacity) should no
longer be neglected in ce-
ramic
analyses.
Vessel volume
generally relates to size,
weight, and
transportability of ceramic ves-
sels; thus it is
significant in
exchange and use-
life models based on ceramics (Deal 1983:
155-6; DeBoer 1985; Graves 1985:23; Lon-
gacre 1981:63-64, 1985; Rice
1987:293-306;
inter alia). Design variability can also be re-
lated to
variability in vessel size, as has been
documented in the
Kalinga ethnoarchaeolog-
Louise M. Senior *
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ 85721
Dunbar P. Birnie III *
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University
of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ 85721
American Antiquity, 60(2), 1995, pp. 319-334.
Copyright ? 1995 by the Society
for American
Archaeology
319
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
ical assemblage by Graves (1981, 1985). De-
sign variability within an assemblage may also
be partitioned by
vessel size because of the
varied length of time that vessels were used;
thus small pots may
have more up-to-date
design motifs than large vessels if sampled
synchronically
as was observed by DeBoer
(1984:557) among
the Shipibo-Conibo.
Vessel volume is also an attribute from
which artifact function can be deduced, al-
though multiple lines of inference are needed
to adequately
assess systemic function from
vessel shape (e.g., Hally 1986; Smith 1988).
Vessel capacity measurements have some-
times been interpreted as reflecting
house-
hold size and thus been incorporated into
models of regional settlement, subsistence,
and
paleodemography
(e.g.,
Blinman 1986a:
86ff.; Blinman 1986b:602-607; Nelson 1981;
Smith 1988; Turner and Lofgren 1966).
Systematic
vessel volume studies may
re-
veal emic categorization
of vessels by
size
and/or capacity (e.g., suggestions by Longa-
cre et al. 1988; Miller 1982). Relative stan-
dard units of volume or multiples of such
units
may
be expressed and disclosed through
vessel capacity measurements, and thus a
portion of the metrological
scheme of a past
culture can be deduced (e.g.,
Gelb 1982;
Mainkar 1984;
Nelson 1985; Powell 1989;
Rottliinder 1967; Turner and Lofgren 1966).
In addition,
the standardization hypothesis
(Balfet 1965:163; Costin 1991; Feinman et
al. 1984:299;
Rice 1981:220-221; Rice 1991;
Sinopoli 1988:586) frequently
invoked as a
gauge
of relative craft specialization
in ce-
ramic studies may
be more appropriately ap-
plied to vessel capacities than to other metric
attributes of
pottery.
Most studies of stan-
dardization implicitly
assume that produc-
tion efficiency
is a byproduct
of craft routin-
ization; further examination of
why
stan-
dardization is important
or linked to more
complex
levels of sociopolitical organization
is frequently left unstated.2
The "reason" that vessel sizes are so stan-
dardized in complex societies may
be more
rooted in concern for specific,
market-related
volumetric measures than in motor skill rou-
tinization alone. The interpretation of Uruk
Bevel Rim bowls as ration
vessels, although
controversial, is partly based on their stan-
dardized capacities (Alden 1973; Beale 1978;
Chazan and Lehner 1990; Johnson 1973; Le
Brun 1980; Miller 1981; and Surenhagen
1975).
Ration vessels are noted in Assyriol-
ogical literature (e.g., Gelb 1965; Powell 1989)
and the Akkadian concern for accurate men-
suration undoubtedly
led to standardization
of vessel capacities by potters (Senior and
Weiss 1992).
As suggested by
the brief overview above,
study of ceramic vessel capacity will contrib-
ute very significant
data to our knowledge
of
ancient material culture. Application
of the
technique described in this paper
will
greatly
increase the ability of researchers to obtain
volumetric information from their frag-
mented ceramic assemblages.
In
turn,
this
will begin
to redirect the study of ceramics
from what is "on" pottery
to how specific
pots functioned.
Previous Estimations of Vessel Capacity
Even though
the attribute "vessel capacity"
has been relatively neglected
in
archaeolog-
ical analyses
of ceramics, varied methods that
determine vessel volume exist in the litera-
ture. Most of these techniques rely
on the use
of whole or reconstructed pots;
thus
they
have
been useful only
for those relatively
rare finds.
Other
techniques,
if based on
specific key
measurements of vessels
(e.g., height,
diam-
eter, etc.),
are relevant only
when the assem-
blage analyzed
is
highly
standardized in terms
of vessel form
(e.g.,
Ericson and DeAtley
1976; Fitting 1970:174-175; Fitting
and Hal-
sey 1966; Hagstrum
and Hildebrand 1990;
Michael, Grantz and Maslowski 1974;
Mounier 1987).
The primary techniques
that
have been applied
to archaeological
finds are
discussed below.
Researchers should realize that vessel ca-
pacity
can be defined in at least two
ways.
It
can be measured as "total possible capaci-
ty"-that is, capacity up
to the meniscus of
the vessel rim. Obviously,
this is
probably
not a practical capacity
for the vessel,
but it
320
[Vol. 60,
No.
2, 1995]
REPORTS
is easily replicable between researchers. The
"effective volume" of a vessel is
frequently
cited in
archaeological
literature
(e.g., Hally
1986);
this is a measure of
capacity up to the
point of
greatest constriction, or to some
point
at which the
investigator believes the vessel
was considered full.
Though perhaps more
realistic than the total capacity, estimations
of effective volume are
subject
to observer
error. There is also
danger
inherent in
Hally's
point that vessel orifice is related to vessel
capacity; though somewhat true in a broad
sense, this factor varies
by specific assem-
blages.
Either the total
possible capacity or
the effective volume can be measured with
the methods listed below.
Fluid Volume Method
Measurements of the water contained in a
vessel is one of the most obvious and expe-
dient
ways
to ascertain
comparative volumes
of vessels. It is also
advantageous because it
does not require any special equipment or
programs for calculation. There are four
pri-
mary limitations to the
accuracy
of this meth-
od. First, it is
possible for water to be ab-
sorbed
by
the vessel walls, making a
slight
change
in the apparent volume; this can be
remedied
by lining the vessel with plastic be-
fore water is added, or
by measuring the ca-
pacity
after the vessel walls are
fully saturat-
ed. Second, it is limited
by the true
accuracy
of the
measuring container. For
example,
most common
laboratory glassware is rated
only to within five percent of its nominal
volume. Third, use of water to measure ca-
pacity limits the
analysis exclusively to whole
and reconstructed vessels; fragments are not
useful in
any way. Finally, many museums
and other institutions will not allow use of
water after the
objects are accessioned into
collections for fear of
damage. Water, or oth-
er materials placed inside vessels, may phys-
ically damage and contaminate fragile paint-
ed decorations or residues on pots.
Dry Volume Method
This method can be performed with
any kind
of
free-flowing solid (lentils, rice, bird, or
mustard seeds, etc.), but
many museums al-
low
only
the use of
lightweight polystyrene
packing
material
("styritos") since these are
believed to be stable, inert substances that
will not alter the vessel in
any way.
The meth-
od is
essentially similar in all respects to the
water method detailed
above; vessels are filled
with a solid substance, and then the
quantity
of this substance is
carefully measured.
This method
may not be as precise or re-
peatable
as the water method:
Styritos tend
to
pack with a lot of air space between them.
When
styritos are measured with beakers or
other
measuring devices, only
a
fairly rough
estimate of
quantity is calculated. Also, the
point at which the volume is "leveled
off,"
such as at the rim of the vessel
(or measuring
device), is somewhat
arbitrary and
subject to
the
investigator's eye (whereas water would
run out of the vessel if it exceeded the ca-
pacity, even
slightly). This method also re-
quires complete or reconstructed
vessels;
profiles of vessels cannot be measured. Should
free-flowing solids be used in volumetric
measurements, researchers should
try
to use
materials with
very small radii
(such as mus-
tard seed), since these are not as
subject to
errors of
heaping and
packing. Heaping can
easily be remedied
by leveling the mounded
solid with a
straight
rod drawn across the
mouth of the vessel (see Mainkar
1984:148).
Density Methods
Vessel
capacity can also be estimated by mea-
suring
the mass of material
(of known den-
sity) filling
the vessel. This
may eliminate
additive errors accumulated when
measuring
devices are
repeatedly used
(such as measur-
ing a 30-liter vessel with a one-liter contain-
er). Mainkar
(1984:148) summarizes this
method:
Take well-sifted sand. . . allow the sand to flow under
gravity into the pot and when a heap of sand has been
formed on the mouth of the pot, stop the flow. Level
the heap with a straight rod or plate so that the sand
is filled up to the top of the mouth of the pot. Weigh
the pot and the sand. Remove the sand and weigh the
empty pot. Determine the density of sand in a suitable
manner. The volume of the pot can be calculated from
the
weight of the sand and its density.
321
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Note that vessel capacity may also be mea-
sured this way using water, which has a more
easily standardized density than sand. This
method, though eliminating some error due
to repeated use of laboratory glassware,
is
dependent on both the accuracy of the scale
used and the utilization of complete vessels.
Methods Using the Assessment of
Geometric Solids
Several investigators
have employed for-
mulae derived from geometry to assess the
general shape of pottery studied, and thus
derive their respective
volumes using key
measurements from the pots
in these for-
mulae. Primary examples of these methods
have been discussed by Castillo Tejero, and
Litvak (1968), Ericson and Stickel (1973) and
Johnson (1973). Although
these methods can
generally
render a useful value for vessel ca-
pacity, they
are
usually
not
very
accurate if
the assemblage is varied in form and little
standardized. Care must be taken to com-
pensate
for vessel wall thickness. Because ex-
terior pot
dimensions are most commonly
tabulated, the volume could be overestimat-
ed, even if the
geometry
is well-suited to the
vessel form.
As discussed by
Rice (1987:220-222),
the
Castillo
Tejero-Litvak
method assigns
nu-
merical values to vessel silhouettes and to
reference points on the silhouettes. Vessels
are thus described as sections or combina-
tions of the
geometric
forms described
by
these points (e.g.,
a
rectangular
solid minus
an ovaloid of specific dimensions).
This
method can be used to calculate capacity.
It
also has the benefit of not
disturbing
the in-
terior contents of the vessel
(since
it is based
entirely
on observation of vessel dimen-
sions),
and thus will not disturb prospects
for
residue analyses.
One drawback to this method is that it
yields only
an idealized representation
of the
vessel volume. The accuracy
of the
geometric
representation depends
on how smoothly
the
inside surfaces of the vessel mimic the set of
shapes
used to render the volume estimate.
Thus it may only
be useful for vessels that
have convenient geometric
outlines. A mod-
ification of this method was applied by Senior
(1990).
The method employed by Ericson and
Stickel (1973) incorporates both the geomet-
ric form(s) representative of the vessel and
the appropriate measurements (in
millime-
ters) of the vessel in volumetric formulae.
Advantages
and drawbacks to this method
are essentially the same as those stated above
for the
Castillo-Tejero-Litvak
method.
Johnson (1973:135) used measured attri-
butes of Uruk straight-sided bevel-rim bowls
to ascertain volumes geometrically. These
quickly made vessels were hypothesized
to
be ration bowls; thus their capacity (and its
range
of variation) was deemed interesting.
Because the bowls all have the same general
shape, a
single
formula was used. The ad-
vantages
of this method are that it can be
applied to fragmentary as well as whole ves-
sels; all that is needed is a complete vessel
profile so that all the pertinent attributes could
be measured. Disadvantages
are that the
method is specific only to straight-sided, open
vessel forms.
Calculus Method-Stacked Cylinders
Nelson (1985:312-131)
estimates vessel vol-
ume through
the calculus method of "stacked
cylinders,"
which envisions the vessel as di-
vided horizontally
into a series of slices
(see
Figure 1).
The interior diameter of the vessel
is measured for each slice,
from mouth to
base; such slices represent
the diameters of
very thin cylinders (greatly exaggerated
in
Figure 1).
Stacked one on top
of another, these
cylinders represent
the entire vessel's volume
(Rice 1987:221-222).
Several researchers in
Japan
have used this method for
making
measurements from scale drawings (e.g.,
Fu-
jimura 1981; Kobayashi 1992).
Smith (1983; 1985:262)
also determines
vessel capacity
with calculus. Pot
capacity
is
calculated "by integration
as the volume of
the solid of revolution formed
by revolving
the profile
curve around the x axis"
(Smith
1985:262).
Smith first derives a
polynomial
expression
to fit each vessel
profile,
but this
322
[Vol. 60,
No. 2, 1995]
REPORTS
Figure
1. Schematic representation of the stacked cyl-
inder technique for calculating the volume of a vessel.
is essentially
the stacked cylinder
calculus
method. These polynomial expressions can
easily be used to assess vessel volume from
integration
of its revolution (Smith 1985:291-
293). Smith's polynomials
are derived so that
he can assess other vessel variables besides
capacity
from the expression
with his com-
puter-simulation technique (SHAPE).
Smith's
integration of vessel profile polynomials is
highly accurate if the polynomial truly ren-
ders the pot shape; however, it is still
only
as
good
as the theoretical limit of the calculus
integration, wherein the "true" value of the
vessel volume is calculated from addition of
the areas of an infinite number of "slices" or
stacked cylinders.
Data from a vessel profile,
if
accurately
rendered, can be utilized when
working
with
calculus-based capacity measures; thus, re-
construction or dependence on whole vessels
is not
necessary.
This opens up a much
larger
sample for analysis since the majority of ar-
chaeological
finds are highly fragmented and
even if whole vessels are found, full recon-
struction is very time consuming and thus
costly.
This method can also
yield fairly ac-
curate volumetric data if
enough points are
measured (i.e.,
if
enough "cylinders" are cal-
culated).
The limitation of this method lies in the
rough boundary formed by the cylinders of
different diameters stacked on each other
(Figure 1). Also, accurate measurement of the
various cylinders is somewhat difficult and
time
consuming to procure; this could be fa-
b
R1
H1
R2
H2
R3
/
Figure
2. Schematic representation
of the use of bevel-
walled cylinders for integrating the volume of a vessel.
The illustration uses the same vessel but fills it with edge-
matching beveled cylinders.
The small outlined box (top
right) defines the enlarged area, which shows exactly how
different radii and heights
are defined. R1, R2,
and R3
are radii measured at sequential positions along
the ves-
sel interior.
H,
and H2 are the heights
of successive slices.
cilitated by taking measurements from well-
executed scale
drawings
of the vessel
profiles
(see
new method, below).
Because the cal-
culations required
in Nelson's "stacked cyl-
inder method" are fairly
time
consuming,
this
method would be
greatly expedited through
use of a
computer spread-sheet program, even
though
this is not mentioned in the
published
work (Nelson 1985:312-313). Such a pro-
gram
would
quickly process the computa-
tions and store the estimated capacities so
that
they
could later be
statistically
com-
pared.
323
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
New Method of Vessel Capacity
Estimation
Vessel volumes can now be quickly measured
from scale drawings.3
The cross sections (pro-
files)
are digitized
and fed into a computer
where an integration
is performed
to yield
several characteristic features: volume, max-
imum diameter, rim diameter, and height.
This method, like others using calculus, as-
sumes vessel symmetry
around the axis of
the illustrated profile;
it is thus not suitable
for dramatically asymmetric pottery. In-depth
descriptions
of the algorithm,
its implemen-
tation, and utilization are presented
in fol-
lowing
sections.
Algorithm
The new method uses an improved
stacked-
cylinder
method. The algorithm,
rather than
being
restricted to vertical-walled cylinders,
incorporates
the calculus for cylinders
with
slanted edges.4
The edges
match as they
are
stacked, and thus provide
a smoother, more
continuous, rendition of the vessel profile.
Figure
2a shows the use of slanted cylinders
for modeling
the vessel capacity (compare
with Figure
1 drawn with the same vessel).
When using
the stacked cylinder
method
above, each cylinder
has a radius measured
at half of its height,
so that the overlapping
comers will
yield
some canceling
of errors
and approximate
the true volume. Figure
2a
shows how the same vessel would be modeled
by
slanted cylinders.
This
gives
a shape
that
is much smoother than that given by
the ver-
tical-walled stack represented
in
Figure
1.
The vessel is first represented by
a list of
coordinates that are recorded directly
from
the outline of the vessel (to get
the vessel's
capacity
the outline must be taken on the
interior wall as presented
in the
projection
of
the cross section).
This defines a sequence
of
points
where the radius is known. These
known radius positions
then define the tops
and bottoms of beveled cylinders, which,
when summed, determine the volume of the
vessel.
Each beveled cylinder
has a volume that
is determined by
the height
of the cylinder
and the top
and bottom radii
(defined
as H,
R1, and
R2, respectively).
The individual
beveled cylinder
volume is:
V= (R2+ RR2
+ R2)
3
2 2 (1)
This formula was used by Johnson (1973)
to
estimate volume of straight
sided vessels; for
his application,
R1 is the rim diameter, R2 is
the base diameter, and H is the total height.
In the present algorithm,
the total vessel
volume is simply
the sum of the volumes of
all N
cylinders
that have been defined by
trac-
ing
the outline of the vessel interior:
V= - '(R2 +
RRi+RI
+ R2 1) (2)
i=1
When writing
a computer program
to im-
plement
this summation, care must be taken
to ensure that the outline is defined in a par-
ticular order around the vessel. It is usually
most expedient
to start at one rim and work
directly
around the vessel. Each cylinder
is
defined by
the points
used to define the input
outline. Adjacent
outline points
define suc-
cessive radii (Ri
and
Ri+
) by calculating the
horizontal distance from the center line. And,
the vertical separation
between the two points
defines the height (Hi). Figure
2b illustrates
how the successive radii and heights
are se-
lected. This close-up segment
from Figure
2a
shows two beveled cylinders being
used to
model part of the volume. The upper
beveled
cylinder
has
R,
as the top radius, R2
as the
bottom radius,
and H1 as the height.
After
Equation
1 has been evaluated for this slice,
then the summation moves to the next slice
in sequence.
To force the beveled cylinders
to match smoothly
the bottom radius from
the previous cylinder
is used as the top
for
the next one; thus R2, R3,
and H2
will be used
for the next calculation,
and so on.
Since the
height
calculation is based on a
sequentially
traced contour, any
reversals in
direction will
yield
a
negative height
that will
result in a negative
volume for that slice. This
assures that concave-bottomed vessels are
accurately
rendered using
this method,
be-
cause the dimpled
base region actually
re-
duces the capacity
of the vessel.
324
[Vol. 60,
No.
2, 1995]
REPORTS
Implementation
This technique has been implemented using
an IBM
AT-compatible personal computer
and a Summagraphics
"Summasketch"
dig-
itizing
tablet. A
powerful computer
is not re-
quired to run this program efficiently
and
quickly;
it has also been used with a dual-
floppy portable
PC computer
connected to
the same digitizer.
The
computer
and
digi-
tizer are attached through
the
parallel
com-
munications port (using
RS232
protocol).
The
present program
for communicating
with the
tablet and for later integrating
the volume is
written in PASCAL, although any language
would suffice.
The digitizing
tablet is the key
element be-
cause it enables
very easy
data collection from
scale illustrations. The "mouse"
(or "puck")
has a cross-hair that can accurately point
at
sequential positions along contours,
and their
location is specified simply by pressing
a but-
ton on the mouse. This
arrangement
allows
a
large
number of points
to be
accurately
measured from a scale drawing
of the vessel
profile.
Two versions of the program
have been
implemented. The first works with full-pot
illustrations; the second version uses half-pot
illustrations but requires the specification of
the location of the midline of the
pot (since
there are not two sides to
average).
The half-
pot program
is favored
by
these authors for
three reasons:
(1)
interior vessel profiles are
generally only
illustrated on one side of a
vessel following common illustration con-
ventions; (2) it is faster to digitize only half
of the vessel; and
(3)
there is no noted dif-
ference in
accuracy
between the two methods
so the slightly faster version is preferred.
Procedures
As with all techniques, reasonable care must
be taken when
measuring the volume. The
illustration must be
carefully sized and ori-
ented to
guarantee accurate data collection.
As an example, we describe the measurement
of a
half-pot cross section illustration since
this is
slightly more complex and, as noted
above, it is our preferred method.
The scale drawing is first taped to the dig-
itizing tablet. The entire drawing must be dig-
itized without removing it; thus, the illustra-
tion must be proportioned
to fit within the
active area of the digitizer (usually
about one
foot square).
This
may
sometimes require
photocopy reductions to make the drawing
fit. As
long
as the illustration's scale is re-
duced by
the same ratio, then the
potential
distortion of the photocopying process
will
have little impact on the final measured vol-
ume.5
Care must be taken when
affixing
the draw-
ing
to the tablet; it must be directly vertical
since the X-Y
position of the cross-hairs is
used to define the sequential positions along
the contour. To assure this, the illustration's
centerline should be
aligned
such that it is
perpendicular to the
edge
of the
digitizer's
active area. This can
easily
be done with a
drafting triangle
or
T-square.
After attach-
ment, the illustration scale is digitized by
pointing to each end of the scale marker and
then
entering
the measured
length
value
through
the
computer keyboard. Next, point
after point along
the vessel profile is entered
into the
program. Each point is entered by
carefully moving
the cross-hairs so that it is
directly
on the contour. Once it is in
position,
one of the mouse buttons is
pressed to
register
its location. Then the mouse is moved to the
next position along the contour, thus
tracing
the outline. Measured
points can be taken
with
arbitrary spacing along the contour; the
program does not require that they be evenly
spaced to
produce
a
capacity measurement.
There is no specific guideline on how close-
ly the data points should be spaced along the
contour. It is
usually
better to
gather as many
data
points
as
patience
will
allow, but the
points can
usually
be spaced somewhere be-
tween a millimeter and a centimeter apart
and still
yield excellent volumes, as discussed
below. The
spacing of the data points can also
be
adjusted by
the user when
entering the
data; portions of the cross section that have
sharp curvature, carinations, or other odd
shapes
will
require more
closely spaced input
points. With
practice, most vessel profiles can
325
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
be digitized
in less than two minutes using
this program.
After the half-contour is completely spec-
ified, then the centerline is specified. When
these data have been collected, the program
quickly goes
about integrating
the sequential
volume elements and presenting the final ves-
sel characteristics. These calculations are
completed within only a few seconds.
Discussion
This procedure offers distinct advantages
over
many other methods for determining
volume
because whole vessels are not required.
The
level of accuracy afforded by this technique
is examined in close detail below. Quanti-
tative comparisons
with other techniques are
also made.
Many Computer-Aided Design
(CAD) programs
offer software that can
per-
form similar functions to the procedure
de-
scribed in this article; however, such pro-
grams are usually very expensive and may
not be feasible for all archaeological projects.
The sources of error described below will be
roughly equivalent
whether a CAD program
or the "Senior-Birnie" method is
applied
to
estimate vessel
capacity
from scale drawings.
Over the last 30
years,
efforts to
identify
and reduce various sources of
sampling,
ex-
planation, and measurement errors in ar-
chaeological investigations
have increased.
Assessment of measurement error is especial-
ly important
when developing
new methods
such as that discussed in this article because
error in measurement can be
magnified
when
using highly
sensitive
digitizing equipment
and thus be a
significant
source of variation
in
archaeological
observations. Such contrib-
uted variability
must not, however,
be con-
fused with the variation
present
in the ar-
chaeological
record.6
Before making any in-depth analysis
of the
sources and
magnitudes
of error found for
different techniques,
it is useful to define var-
ious terms that relate to measurement error
in
general.
The most important
distinction
to make is between accuracy
and
precision.
Accuracy
defines how close the measured
volume is to the "true" volume. Accuracy
is
the fundamental evaluation of measurements
that have been made; we desire our mea-
surements to be as accurate as possible. Pre-
cision, on the other hand, is an assessment
of the quantitative quality of the measure-
ment itself and is not a relative comparison
with the "true" value. Two of the
key ele-
ments that play
a part
in precision are (1) the
number of
significant digits that a measure-
ment has, and (2) the repeatability of a
par-
ticular measurement.7 The number of signif-
icant digits is usually the number of decimal
places that can be obtained from a particular
measuring instrument (ruler, tape measure,
beaker, etc.). Note that most
measuring
de-
vices have relatively low instrumental
pre-
cision.8 For instance, most metric rulers have
graduated
scales at increments of 1 mm, forc-
ing measurements to have only about one
significant digit at the centimeter level.
Repeatability is related to the number of
significant digits, but it also incorporates some
level of random error that might cause vari-
ation in
repeated measurements using the
particular instrument. The repeatability can
never be better than the precision of the mea-
surement, but it could be far worse if the
random error contribution is
large. Random
errors are
usually
assumed to be normally
distributed, which is the basis for
using
the
mean and standard deviation as
quantifica-
tion of the variability of measured values.
Even after a set of repeated measurements
has been made (yielding
a mean and standard
deviation), there may
not be certainty that
the resultant values represent
an accurate an-
swer. In
fact, many
measurement techniques
have
systematic
error contributions to each
measurement. An
example
of
systematic
er-
ror would be a ruler that had changed length
through
thermal
expansion
or had its end
abraded through use,
thus
reducing
its
length.
These errors give
an average
bias in one di-
rection or another, causing
the result to be
repeatable, but inaccurate. These errors are
usually
much more difficult to
identify
and
quantify
than random measurement error. In
summary, accuracy
is limited
by
all sources
of error, including
instrumental precision,
random measurement error, and
systematic
error in measurement. Because of these def-
326
[Vol. 60, No. 2, 1995]
REPORTS
initions, accuracy can never be better than
precision, although precision may easily
be
better than
accuracy
for
any given measure-
ment.
The sources of error found in this method
fall into three basic
categories: those inherent
to
creating
a
digitized illustration, those from
the
digitization process, and those that are
part of the mathematical
integration
of vol-
ume elements. These various contributions
will be discussed here; wherever
possible, at-
tempts have been made to
quantify
these
contributions.
Error in Illustration Preparation
The
image digitized
is
usually
a
photocopy
of a
higher quality
illustration. This illustra-
tion (and
its
photocopy)
have built-in error
contributions that come from several factors:
1) Vessel profile reconstruction from the
existing
sherds
may
be
inaccurate;
2) Illustration of the vessel
profile may
be
inaccurate;9
3) Rendering of the scale marker
may
be
inaccurate; and
4) Photocopying may stretch or distort the
illustration.
10
Whenever
fragmented vessels are recon-
structed
(especially for partial reconstruc-
tions), the
possibility exists that the sherds
will not be glued into
exactly their
original
place, shape, or
configuration. If
only vessel
profiles are
being reconstructed, this could
contribute error to the production of the
pro-
file sketch. Great care should be taken in ex-
actly matching
the
existing sherds
during re-
construction; best results will
probably be ob-
tained
by experienced curators. There will be
more error with
large vessels than small ones
simply because more sherds are
being refit,
and
potentially ill-fit, into the vessel profile.
Ironically, it is
generally easier to produce an
accurate interior
profile rendering from a
fragmented pot than an unbroken one, so this
method is
probably best when used with
frag-
mented
remains, despite possible distortions
due to reconstruction.
Because the present method relies
heavily
on the use of an
accurately rendered scale
illustration of the vessel
profile
after recon-
struction, production
of this illustration is
probably
the
greatest potential source of error
in the method. In
many regions
of the
world,
highly
accurate illustrations of all vessel
pro-
files are
routinely prepared by professional
illustrators; because these illustrators
pro-
duce so
many
sherd
drawings,
their work is
assumed to be
very consistent. It is
very dif-
ficult, however, to assess the real
accuracy of
this
step.
Vessel
profile renderings are
rarely esti-
mated from smaller
fragments; when
they are,
illustrators
routinely signify
such
guessti-
mates with dotted lines. For obvious
reasons,
use of such illustrations should be avoided
since
any error in the estimation will be dra-
matically compounded when the metrics are
converted to volumetric units.
When
applying this
(or any) method to a
large comparative sample, it is ideal that all
drawings used be prepared by
the same il-
lustrator.1' This will reduce random varia-
tions between illustrators, and
any systematic
error will not interfere with
comparisons
made between various vessel
assemblages.
Any possible error in
rendering the scale
on a
drawing is
particularly insidious because
it will
magnify or compress the entire illus-
tration
by the amount of error in the scale.
Since we are
calculating volumes
directly
based on this linear scale
marker, such error
will be amplified by the mathematical oper-
ations used. This will
typically triple the ef-
fective error from scale marker to final mea-
sured
capacity because
length is taken to the
third power to find volume.12
Photocopying of published works or illus-
trations
(which might be
necessary to allow
attachment to the surface of the
digitizing
tablet) can also contribute error. To minimize
such error, it is critical that the illustration's
scale be included on the
image copied. In this
way, the scale will be
subjected to the same
possible distortions as the rest of the
image.
It is assumed that
photocopying error is a
relatively uniform
stretching or reduction
specific to each machine used. For most cop-
ying machines this effect is rather minor and
would
only become apparent if
copies were
327
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
made sequentially from earlier copies, am-
plifying the effect.
Mechanical Errors in Digitization
The digitization process itself also has limi-
tations. These limitations have two sources:
mechanical and human. Mechanical limita-
tions can best be overcome if the illustration
digitized
is at least a 1:1 rendering
of the pot;
however, this may
not always
be feasible be-
cause of the expense
of extra-large digitizers
needed for over-sized drawings.
The more an
illustration is reduced, the greater
the amount
of error introduced by slight
differences in
location of digitized points.
It is desirable to
use as much of the active area of the digitizing
tablet as possible.
This increases the resolu-
tion of the measurements being
made.
Even though
there are limits to the preci-
sion of the numbers obtained from the
dig-
itizing tablet, no constraint is
placed
nor-
mally
on the accuracy
based on this effect.
Digitizing
tablets usually
measure X-Y
po-
sitions with an absolute accuracy
of about 1/20
of a millimeter; this
significantly
exceeds the
accuracy
of most illustrations or
photocopies.
Human Error in Digitization
The manual dexterity, "eye,"
and
general pa-
tience of the individual digitizing
an illustra-
tion can also contribute to,
or influence,
the
human error in
implementation
of this meth-
od. The actual choice of
digitized points
is a
crucial factor in this method.
The subjective
choice of
digitized points
impacts
three areas: (1) defining
the outline,
(2) defining
a centerline for a half-vessel il-
lustration, and (3) defining
the
length
of the
illustration scale. These three
categories
are
difficult to
separate
from each other. Instead,
the aggregate
error for these contributions can
be estimated by having
a
single
user measure
the same drawing
several times and calcu-
lating
the coefficient of variation in the re-
sultant volumes.
A measurement of these human error ef-
fects was conducted using
the
geometric
ves-
sel profile
shown in
Figure
3. This illustration
has an idealized shape
that allows the exact
volume to be calculated directly from the
known dimensions used to plot it (again using
Equation 2). Thus, comparison between the
measurement and the true value is allowed.
Figure 3 was measured 10 times; each new
measurement was performed after removing
and reattaching
the illustration to the active
area of the digitizing
tablet. Any human error
involved in accuracy of illustration orienta-
tion, placement, and attachment was there-
fore included in this process.
The vessel volume from these 10 mea-
surements is
24,690
? 105 cc. This compares
very favorably
with the true calculated value
of
24,609
cc. The coefficient of variation in
volume measurements was .004. Since these
measurements included all steps of the pro-
cess, the coefficient of variation directly
quantifies the aggregate
contribution of aim-
ing
error because of variations in manual dex-
terity
when "aiming"
the digitizer puck. This
extremely
small error contribution is be-
lieved to be significantly
smaller than errors
derived from illustration or reconstruction
processes.
Good results also depend to a large extent
on whether the user is familiar with the dig-
itizing equipment, the program,
and the pro-
cess of performing the measurement. The
quality
of the technique, even when applied
by beginners,
is illustrated
by
another com-
parison:
the variation in volumes as mea-
sured by many
different novice users.
In
sampling
24 individuals, many of whom
had never touched any digitizing equipment,
we found a coefficient of variation of .029.13
A real pot illustration, rather than an ideal-
ized one, was used in this study.
This indi-
cates that even novice users can achieve a
precision
of closer than three percent!
We
believe that any
of these users could reach
precision
levels closer to .004 with only
lim-
ited practice.
Error in Mathematical Algorithm
Finally
there may
be some error in the math-
ematical method for estimating
volume. This
is consistently
true for calculus-based tech-
niques.
All of these techniques
become more
328
[Vol. 60,
No.
2, 1995]
REPORTS
I I I I I I
0 10
Figure 3. Cross section of a hypothetical geometrical
object for testing the human error accuracy of the digi-
tizer volume-measurement technique. The true volume
can be found by summing two beveled disk volumes using
Equation 2.
accurate as the size of the increment becomes
smaller. In the limit of
infinitely
small incre-
ments, then the answer reaches the true val-
ue. Such a mathematical limit is never ac-
tually
achieved. The mathematical errors
accumulated when
integrating
the vessel
pro-
file illustrations can be simulated
by digitiz-
ing
a curved shape
as shown in
Figure
4. This
perfect hemisphere
also has a volume that
can be
geometrically
calculated. When it was
measured 10 separate
times (with
careful re-
moval and reattachment to the
digitizing
tab-
let),
the volume was
16,470
+ 86 cc, giving
a coefficient of variation of .005. The true
volume was calculated to be 16,755 cc, based
on the
geometry
of the
drawing.
The
digitized
volume is approximately
1.7 percent smaller
than the true volume, significantly beyond
the random error of the technique.
This is a
result of the concave hemispherical shape:
I I I I I I
0 10
Figure
4. Cross section of a hemisphere for quantifi-
cation of summation errors resulting from the use of bev-
eled disk volume elements in calculating capacity.
each
digitized layer
is approximated as hav-
ing
a straight wall, which erroneously
trun-
cates a tiny
bit of the inside of the volume.
Still, this error contribution is extremely
small.
Comparison with Other Methods
Finally, we have compared all of the above
techniques with our computer-based meth-
od. For this comparison we have chosen two
vessels that were available to us both as whole
vessels and as cross-sectional illustrations.
Figure
5 shows the cross-sectional views of
the two vessels. The left and
right
vessels
were drawn to the same scale and will be
referred to as "A" and "B," respectively. For
both of these pots we measured their volume
using
the liquid capacity (with water) and their
dry capacity (using
rice and "styritos"). Each
of these measures was made three times for
each substance in each vessel; these values
were averaged and are presented in Table 1.
The volume was then calculated using
a
simple ellipsoid
model
using:
DrD2H
6
(3)
where D is the largest
diameter and H is the
height. Next, the volume was calculated by
the method of stacked cylinders, using
incre-
ments of 1 cm and measuring
the radius at
the center of each slab. Finally,
the illustra-
329
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tion was
digitized using the new method. The
resultant volumes (in cc) are
given
in Table
1. The last row of the table
gives our best
estimate of the absolute
accuracy of each
technique.
If
capacity
measured with rice grains or
water is considered the "true"
capacity of
vessels, then the Senior-Birnie method de-
scribed in this paper compares favorably as
shown in Table 1. Rice and water are shown
to
yield approximately
the same
figures for
vessel
capacity. Rice could give slightly larger
values than water because it can be
"heaped,"
whereas water will drain out.'4 These mea-
surements are our most accurate direct mea-
surements of volume.
"Styritos"
are less ac-
curate and are not recommended for further
use in volumetric studies. The
inaccuracy
of
polystyrene packing material is caused
by (1)
the
inability
to pack them
tightly
and
(2) the
inability to "level" off the
measuring device.
They are also difficult to work with since stat-
ic
electricity
makes them
cling
to vessel walls.
The geometric solid method may
be
good
for
these vessels since their form is
nearly ellip-
soidal.
The Senior-Bimie method is
mainly
lim-
ited by the accuracy
of the illustration in this
comparison,
since the method was
proven
to
be
highly repeatable (precise)
in the tests on
Figures 3 and 4. This method has been dem-
onstrated to be
highly
accurate and
fast;
once
the illustration is
created,
this method is the
fastest of all methods tested.
Future Directions
The
technique
described in this
paper
relies
very heavily
on an accurate illustration;
in
fact, it can be said to be
only
as
good
as the
illustrator involved. It
may
thus seem more
fruitful to digitize
vessel
photographs
to elim-
inate the
rendering
error. However,
this will
only partially
alleviate errors in volumetric
estimations for at least four reasons.
First,
great
care must be exercised
during
the
photo
shoot so that the vessel is
photographed
as a
true profile
without
any
included distortion.
Second,
even if the vessel is in the exact
pro-
file position, parallax
distortion around the
edge may hinder exact
rendering of the profile
with the digitizer. Third, care must be taken
to place the scale for the
photograph in ex-
actly the same plane as the pot to avoid ex-
aggeration of errors based on the scale. Fi-
nally, most vessels
photographed this
way
will be whole pots; therefore the capacity es-
timated will be based
only on the exterior
profile of the
vessel,
and will equal the vessel
capacity plus the clay used in vessel produc-
tion. Were these factors
addressed,
then use
of
photographs rather than scale
drawings
could be expeditious.
The digitization of
photographs is an im-
portant future direction for applications of
the Senior-Birnie method since
many ar-
chaeologists routinely use
photographs rather
than illustrator's
renderings. Parallax distor-
tion
may
be an
easily resolvable problem; the
photogrammetry and remote
sensing litera-
tures should be consulted for
algorithms that
compensate for the distortions of different
kinds of lenses. Vessels should be photo-
graphed with the
longest possible lenses and
with the
largest format cameras practicable
so as to minimize distortion. Future research
directions should also include estimates that
compensate for vessel wall thickness when
using photographs
of exterior vessel profiles.
Conclusions
A new
technique for
measuring accurate ves-
sel
capacities from profile illustrations has
been
developed. It is based on the use of a
digitizing tablet to
quantify
the shape of a
vessel cross-sectional illustration and a com-
puter to
integrate the volume
numerically.
Whole or reconstructed vessels are not need-
ed, although
this method will also work on
complete artifacts.
Additionally, capacity of
symmetrical archaeological features can be
calculated
using this method if accurate fea-
ture sections are
digitized.
Future
investigations might
also use pho-
tographs,
rather than vessel
renderings,
for
production of profile information. New il-
lustration techniques developed by Harrison
Eiteljorg
and Nancy Wilkie
may also
greatly
facilitate use of this method of
capacity
es-
330
[Vol. 60, No. 2, 1995]
REPORTS
Figure 5. Ethnographic vessels from
Paradijon, Philippines,
collected
by
M.
Neupert (illustrated by Masashi
Kobayashi). Note that the
ridges shown on the interior of the lower vessel are rills
remaining
from
manufacture;
they are not illustration flaws or
products of
computer-scanning technologies.
timation:
pottery profiles can now be accu-
rately drawn
using
AutoCAD 12 and a
dig-
itizing light pen (Eiteljorg 1994).
Advantages of this
technique are that this
program runs
very quickly on a standard
per-
sonal
computer (PC).
Most vessels can be
accurately measured from scale
drawings in
only
a
couple
of minutes. The brief time re-
quired for this method allows
investigators
to
average several
readings
for the best
pos-
sible assessment of the vessel
capacity. Most
archaeological projects
are now
equipped with
a
computer adequate for this
computation;
additional costs of
obtaining
a
digitizing
tab-
let
currently
run
approximately $250 to $300.
The method described herein
provides a low
budget alternative that
supplies very fast, ac-
curate,
and
repeatable measurement of vessel
or feature
capacities using scale illustrations.
Public Access to Pot-Volume
Program
The authors will
provide the
compiled PAS-
CAL
program
on diskette as "shareware." No
Macintosh version is available. Send
your ad-
dress,
disk
density,
and size
preference plus
U.S. $5.00 (to
cover
postage
and disk
pur-
chase)
to the authors. Please do not
request
this material
through American
Antiquity.
Acknowledgments. The comments on this
manuscript
by
the American
Antiquity editorial staff, the
anonymous
Table 1.
Comparison
of Volumes Measured
Using
Several Different
Techniques.
Geometric Stacked Stacked
Measurement Solid Vertical Bevel-walled
Method Water Rice
Styritos Ellipsoids Cylinders Cylinders
Vessel A 1350 1400 1650 1640 1580 1515
Vessel B 2400 2400 2550 3385 2280 2440
Estimated
Accuracy 5% 5% 5% + ?% .
% . ?% + Ren% 2% + Ren%
Note: The estimated accuracies have been assigned based on
quantifiable sources of error discussed in the text.
All three of our direct volume measurements used
measuring devices with about 5% basic
accuracy. When using
styritos, however, an unknown amount of additional
inaccuracy occurs due to problems with packing and
measuring
the larger pieces. Note that the measurement of Vessel A is about 20% larger than that found using water or rice.
For the geometric shape representation method we have not quantified the error
contribution, but again Vessel A
yields a much larger value, suggesting error in the range of 15 to 20%. Of course, this depends on how well the pot
matches the geometric representation. Finally, both stacked cylinder methods derive their measurements from
illustrations of the vessels rather than
directly from the vessels.
Rendering error from the illustration process has
not been quantified but is included in these two columns as "Ren%." We believe that experienced illustrators will
have accuracies at about the 5% level. (As explained in the text, this level of error would arise from linear
measurement and
rendering error at a level of less than 2%.) For the vertical-walled cylinder method we have not
quantified the error contributions because of the mathematical
summation; however, Vessel A gave a value about
15% larger than the direct measurement. In the case of the bevel-walled cylinder method, the 2% estimated error
contribution is based on the 1.7% difference between calculated and measured values found when
testing Figure 4.
This includes all contributions due to illustration attachment, pointing error, and
repeatability.
331
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
reviewers, and Barbara Mills were greatly appreciated
by the authors, and we thank them for
significantly im-
proving the final product. Terry Majewski and Janet
Walker greatly facilitated submission of this article with
their fine editorial skills: thank you very much! We also
wish to thank the "EGGS" of the University of Arizona
Anthropology Department (particularly Andrea Free-
man, Charles Tompkins, and Helga W6cherl) for initial
inspiration and challenge in
developing this method. Nino
Aimo kindly translated our abstract. Many thanks to
Carol Kramer and William Longacre, as well as to Mark
Neupert, for the use of their ethnographically collected
vessels in testing this method. Kramer graciously al-
lowed use of her excellent illustrations, as well as field
data collected on vessel capacities. Masashi Kobayashi
allowed use of his vessel illustrations produced for his
Ph.D. dissertation on Philippine ceramic ethnoarchaeol-
ogy. Diane Dittemore allowed Senior access to
Kalinga
vessels stored in the Arizona State Museum and
gra-
ciously supplied a
seemingly endless volume of
"styri-
tos" for use in vessel capacity measurements. We
heartily
thank you all for
your help and
support.
A
preliminary
report and test of this method appeared
in Senior and
Gann (1992).
References Cited
Alden, J. R.
1973 The Question of Trade in Proto-Elamite Iran.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of An-
thropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel-
phia.
Arnold, P. J.
1991 Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Or-
ganization: A Mexican Case
Study
in Ethnoar-
chaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Balfet, H.
1965 Ethnographical Observations in North Africa
and Archaeological Interpretation:
The
Pottery
of
the Maghreb.
In Ceramics and Man, edited
by F.
Matson, pp. 161-177. Viking
Fund Publications in
Anthropology No. 41, New York.
Beale, T. W.
1978 Bevel Rim Bowls and Their
Implications
for
Change and Economic
Organization
in the Later
Fourth Millennium B.C. Journal
of
Near Eastern
Studies 37:289-313.
Blinman, E.
1986a Additive Technologies Group Final
Report.
Chapter 2 in Dolores
Archaeological Program:
Final
Synthetic Report, compiled by
David A.
Breternitz,
C. K. Robinson, and G. T. Gross, pp. 633-661. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation,
Engineering and Research Center, Denver.
1986b Technology: Ceramic Containers. In Dolores
Archaeological Program:
Final
Synthetic Report,
compiled by David A.
Breternitz,
C. K.
Robinson,
and G. T. Gross, pp. 595-609. U. S.
Department
of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Engineering
and Research Center, Denver.
Castillo Tejero, N., and J. Litvak
1968 Un Sistema de Estudio Para Formas de Vasi-
jas. Technologia 2. Departamento de
Prehist6oria,
Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mex-
ico
City.
Chazan, M., and M. Lehner
1990 An Ancient
Analogy: Pot Baked Bread in An-
cient
Egypt and Mesopotamia. Paleorient 16:21-35.
Coombes, G. B.
1979 The Archaeology of the Northeast Mojave Des-
ert. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Re-
sources Publications, Archaeology.
Costin, C.
1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Doc-
umenting, and
Explaining the Organization of Pro-
duction. In
Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.
3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1-55.
University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Daniels, F., J. H. Mathews, J. W. Williams, P.
Bender,
and R. A.
Alberty
1956 Experimental Physical Chemistry. McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Deal, M.
1983 Pottery Ethnoarchaeology Among the Tzeltal
Maya. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser
University,
Burnaby, British Columbia.
DeBoer, W. R.
1980 Vessel Shape from Rim Sherds: An Experi-
ment on the Effect of the Individual Illustrator. Jour-
nal
of Field
Archaeology 7:131-135.
1984 The Last Pottery Show: System and Sense in
Ceramic Studies. In The Many Dimensions of Pot-
tery, edited by S. Van der Leeuw and A. C. Prit-
chard, pp. 527-571.
University of Amsterdam, Al-
bert Egges van Giffen Instituut voor Prae-en Pro-
tohistorie, Amsterdam.
1985 Pots and Pans Do Not Speak, Nor Do
They
Lie. In
Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B.
Nelson, 347-357. Southern Illinois
University Press,
Carbondale.
Dibble, H. L., and M. C. Bernard
1980 A Comparative Study of Basic Edge Angle
Measurements. American Antiquity 45:857-865.
Eiteljorg, H. II
1994 AutoCAD for
Pottery Profiles. CSA Newsletter
6(4):5-9. Center for the Study of
Architecture, Bryn
Mawr, Pennsylvania.
Ericson, J. E., and S. P.
DeAtley
1976
Reconstructing Ceramic
Assemblages: An Ex-
periment to Derive the
Morphology and Capacity
of Parent Vessels from Sherds. American
Antiquity
41:484-489.
Ericson, J. E., and E. G. Stickel
1973 A Proposed Classification System for Ceram-
ics. World Archaeology 4:357-367.
Feinman, G., S. Kowalewski, and R. Blanton
1984 Modelling Ceramic Production and Organi-
zational Change in the Pre-Hispanic Valley of Oa-
xaca, Mexico. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery,
edited by S. Van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard,
pp. 297-337. University of Amsterdam, Albert Egges
van Giffen Instituut voor Prae-en Protohistorie,
Amsterdam.
Fish, P. R.
1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement
and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiq-
uity 43:86-89.
332
[Vol. 60, No. 2, 1995]
REPORTS
Fitting, J. E.
1970 The Archaeology of Michigan. Natural History
Press, Garden City, New York.
Fitting, J. E., and J. P. Halsey
1966 Rim Diameter and Vessel Size in Wayne Ware
Vessels. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 47:208-211.
Fujimura, H.
1981 Measuring Vessel Volume. Archaeological Re-
search
(Koukogaku Kenkyu)
28:106-117.
Gelb, I. J.
1982 Measures of Dry and Liquid Capacity. Journal
of the American Oriental Society
103:585-590.
Graves, M. W.
1981 Ethnoarchaeology of Kalinga Ceramic Design.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Arizona, Tucson.
1985 Ceramic Design Variability within a
Kalinga
Village: Temporal and Spatial Processes. In Decod-
ing Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by
B. Nelson, pp.
9-34. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbon-
dale.
Hagstrum, M., and J. Hildebrand
1990 The Two-curvature Method for Reconstruct-
ing
Ceramic Morphology. American Antiquity 55:
388-403.
Hally, D. J.
1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case
Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity
51:267-295.
Johnson, G. A.
1973 Local Exchange and Early State Development
in Southwestern Iran. Anthropology Paper No. 51.
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Kobayashi, M.
1992 Changes in a Formal Assemblage from Jomon
Pottery to Yayoi Pottery. Hokuetsu Archaeology
(Hokuetsu Koukogaku) 5:1-34.
LeBrun, A.
1980 Les Ecuelles Grossieres: Etat de la Question.
In L 'Archeologie de L
'Iraq,
edited by M. T. Barrelet,
pp. 59-70. Centre Nationale Recherche
Scientifique
(CNRS), Paris.
Longacre, W. A.
1981 Kalinga Pottery, and Ethnoarchaeological
Study.
In Pattern of the Past, edited
by
I. Hodder,
G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
1985 Pottery Use-life Among the
Kalinga,
Northern
Luzon, the Philippines. In Decoding Prehistoric Ce-
ramics, edited by B. Nelson, pp. 334-346. Southern
Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Longacre, W. A., K. Kvamme, and M. Kobayashi
1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: An
Ethnoarchaeological
View from the Philippines. The
Kiva 53:101-112.
Mainkar, V. B.
1984 Metrology in the Indus Civilization. In Fron-
tiers of the Indus Civilization, edited by B. B. Lal
and S. P. Gupta, pp. 141-151. Indian Archaeolog-
ical Society, New Delhi.
Michael, R. L., D. Grantz, and R. Maslowski
1974 Vessel Diameters from Sherds: A Mathemat-
ical Approach. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(4):42-
43.
Miller, A.
1981 Straw Tempered Ware. In An Early Town on
the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Faru-
khabad, edited by H. T. Wright.
Memoirs No. 13,
pp. 126-130. Museum of Anthropology, University
of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Miller, D.
1982 Artefacts as Products of Human Categorisation
Processes. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology,
edited by I. Hodder, pp. 17-25. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Mounier, R. A.
1987 Estimation of Capacity
in Aboriginal Conoidal
Vessels. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 3:
95-102.
Nelson, B.
1981 Ethnoarchaeology and Paleodemography:
A
Test of Turner and Lofgren's Hypothesis.
Journal
of Anthropological Research 37:107-129.
1985 Reconstructing Ceramic Vessels and Their
Systemic Contexts. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceram-
ics, edited by B. Nelson, pp. 310-329. Southern Il-
linois University Press, Carbondale.
Plog, S.
1985 Estimating Vessel Orifice Diameters: Mea-
surement Methods and Measurement Error. In De-
coding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. Nelson,
pp. 243-253. Southern Illinois University Press,
Carbondale.
Plog, S., F. Plog, and W. Wait
1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Ad-
vances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.
1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 383-421. Academic
Press, New York.
Powell, M. A.
1989 MaBe und Gewichte. Reallexikon der Assy-
riologie und Vorderasiatischen Archiologie 7:457-
517.
Rice, P.
1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production:
A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22:219-240.
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
1991 Specialization, Standardization and Diversity:
A Retrospective. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna
0. Shepard, edited by R. Bishop and F. Lange, pp.
27-279. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Rottliinder, R. C. A.
1967 Is Provincial Roman Pottery
Standardized?
Archaeometry 9:76-91.
Senior, L. M.
1990 Cracked Pot Ideas in Archaeology:
An Esti-
mation of Prehistoric Value Systems. Paper pre-
sented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society
for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.
Senior, L. M., and D. Gann
1992 Measuring Ceramic Vessel Capacities. Poster
presented at the Third Southwest Symposium, Tuc-
son, Arizona.
Senior, L. M., and H. Weiss
1992 Tell Leilan "Sila Bowls" and the Akkadian Re-
organization of Subarian Agricultural Production.
Orient-Express 2:16-24.
Sinopoli, C.
1988 The Organization of Production at
Vijayana-
333
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
gara, South India. American Anthropologist 90:580-
597.
Smith, M. F., Jr.
1983 The Study of Ceramic Function from Artifact
Size and Shape, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Oregon, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1985 Toward an Economic Interpretation of Ceram-
ics: Relating Vessel Size and Shape to Use. In De-
coding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. Nelson,
pp. 254-309. Southern Illinois University Press,
Carbondale.
1988 Function from Whole Vessel Shape: A Method
and an Application to Anasazi Black Mesa, Arizona.
American Anthropologist 90:912-923.
Surenhagen, D.
1975 Untersuchungen zur Keramikproduktion in-
nerhalb der Spat-Urukzeitlichen Siedlung Habuba
Kabira-Sud in Nordsyrien. Acta Praehistorica et Ar-
chaeologica 5/6:43-164.
Tuggle, H. David
1970 Prehistoric Community Relations in East-Cen-
tral Arizona. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ar-
izona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Turner, C. G. II, and L. Lofgren
1966 Household Size of Prehistoric Western Pueblo
Indians. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
22:
117-132.
Notes
'
We do not imply that style is easier to infer from sherds
than function; rather, style is commonly examined in
order to establish the chronological and ethnic affiliation
of archaeological assemblages. One could argue that style
from fragmented assemblages is just as difficult to de-
termine, if not more so, than function.
2
Exceptions to this are the connections made between
political economy and standardization explicitly dis-
cussed by Feinman et al. 1984 and Costin 1991. Note
also Philip Arnold's recent work wherein a high degree
of standardization is evident in the absence of craft spe-
cialization in Tuxtla, Mexico (Arnold 1991).
3
Use of photographs, rather than scaled drawings, is
discussed at the end of this article.
4
In
geometry this shape is called afrustrum (pl.frustra);
"truncated cone" is also sometimes used.
5
Photocopy distortion is often greatest around the edges
of the image and drawings should therefore be scruti-
nized in these regions for error.
6
Various archaeologists have already discussed this
problem (Coombs 1979:68-70; DeBoer 1980; Dibble and
Bernard 1980; Fish 1978; S. Plog, F. Plog and Wait 1978:
414; S. Plog 1985; Tuggle 1970:86; inter alia).
7
Repeatability is frequently called replicability
in the
archaeological literature.
8
Instrumental precision is also called "sensitivity"
in
archaeological, and other, literatures.
9
Use of appropriate photographs
could render this prob-
lem moot; however, most photographs would not yield
interior capacity measurements since the outside of the
vessel wall would usually be digitized.
Use of photo-
graphs,
and errors inherent to their use, is discussed later
in this article.
10
Many photocopy machines are constructed to delib-
erately slightly
reduce the image copied to approximately
99-98 percent of the original
size.
I
If photographs
are used, it is also best that they
be
prepared by the same photographer,
or at least one using
the same criteria for aligning
the vessel in true profile
position.
12
The effective error is not cubed. During
the mathe-
matical operation of multiplication, the fractional error
contributions from the two factors are added. So,
when
finding the volume, each of the three dimensions adds
to the error (see
Daniels et al. 1956:324ff. for discussion
of experimental
error calculation).
13
These individuals participated
in this project
at the
Third Southwest Symposium, Tucson, Arizona, during
the poster session presentation by
Senior and Gann
(1992).
14
See Mainkar (1984:148)
for method to avoid heaping
of small solids.
Received February 24, 1993; accepted July 20, 1994.
334
[Vol. 60, No.
2, 1995]