RESEARCH REPORTS
Ceramic Form and Function:
An Ethnographic Search and an
Archeological Application
ELIZABETH F. HENRICKSON
Departmento f Anthropology
Universityof Toronto
Toronto, Ontan·o, Canada
MARY M. A. McDONALD
Departmentof Anthropology
Um'versityo f Western Ontario
London, Ontan·o, Canada
This study is based on the assumption that
the function and morphology of ceramic vessels
are related by definite physical properties and
that vessels within a functional class are de-
signed and made according to a specifiable set
of morphological boundary conditions. Ethno-
graphic data are presented, correlating general
parameters of ceramic form with general classes
of vessel function. We then illustrate how the
resulting parameters can be applied to archeo-
logical assemblages to produce new insights into
settlement systems and economies.
Until recently, ethnographers have paid little
attention to ceramic formal/functional analysis.
A number of ethnographic studies have focused
on ceramic technology and methods of manu·
facture (e.g., Foster 1948; Lothrop 1927;
Mackay 1929; Machlachlan 1940; Rendon
1951; Stone 1951; Watson 1955; Raven-Hart
1962; Hankey 1968; Waldeman 1972; Rye
1976, 1981; and many others). These sources
lack information relating vessel forms to usage
patterns and thus are only indirectly useful in
our study. Likewise, several excellent studies are
available concerning the esthetic decisions and
learning patterns within communities of potters
(Bunzel 1929; Stanislawski and Stanislawski
1978; Friedrich 1970). Again, few data are
presented correlating ceramic form and usage.
Among the few functionally oriented studies,
Linton (1944) assembled information on the
structural features of cooking pots. Thompson
630
(1958, esp. pp. 59-63) incorporated formal/
functional correlations into his study of modern
Yucatecan Maya ceramics. More recently,
Solheim (1965) and Matson (1974) provided un-
illustrated accounts of the functions of South·
east Asian and Near East pottery, and David
(1972; David and Hennig 1972) and DeBoer
and Lathrap (1979) have supplemented Foster's
(1960) research into the average lifespans of
various vessel forms known to have specific uses.
One of the few systematic attempts to set forth a
series of hypothetical design parameters cor·
relating vessel-form classes with general usage
categories is that presented by Ericson et al.
( 1972), who state succinctly the rationale and
purpose behind our study:
The potential gain in information from
pottery is much greater than supposed by
some researchers who tend to use pottery
simply for seriation and diffusional references
. . . relationships between primary func-
tion(s) of pottery and their physical properties
can be established. Such information can be
combined with contextual data within an ar-
chaeological site which allow the archaeol-
ogist to use pottery to indicate certain kinds
of past behavior . . . . [p. 84)
Ericson et al. have laid much of the theoretical
groundwork for our study of formal/functional
relationships with their list of general functional
categories and specific "test implications'' im-
posed by function upon form. In the past few
years, growing concern with the relationships of
ceramic vessel form to function in ancient com-
munities has produced several serious examina-
tions of archeological pottery assemblages with
these questions in mind (e.g., Lischka 1972,
1978; Braun 1976, 1980, in press; Smith 1980,
1981, n.d.; Steponaitis 1980). The present in-
vestigation attempts to build on these efforts us-
ing ethnographic data.
Our goal is fourfold: (1) to draw up a hypo-
thetical set of morphological parameters for
each of the major functional categories of vessel
form, using common sense as well as the studies
mentioned above; (2) to assemble considerable
 RESEARCH REPORTS
published ethnographic data correlating
specific vessel forms with primary vessel func-
tions: (3) to revise the hypothetical morpholog-
ical parameters with ethnographic data and
establish formal/functional correlations useful
for functional analysis of prehistoric pottery:
and (4) to utilize these parameters in a brief
comparative analysis of pottery recovered from
two early village sites in the Zagros highlands of
central western Iran: Tepe Sarah and Seh Gabi
Mound C. The prehistoric case is primarily il-
lustrative and not intended to address the varied
methodological problems involved in functional
evaluation of archeological collections, which
often consist largely of sherds,
COLLECTION OF ETHNOGRAPHIC
CERAMIC DATA AND DERIVATION OF
FORMAL/FUNCTIONAL CORRELA TIO NS
We conducted an extensive but not ex-
haustive search through ethnographic sources to
gather specific information concerning the
primary function(s) served by various vessel
forms in modern pottery corpora. This search
included reports on groups with widely diverse
economic and sociopolitical systems, ranging
from isolated hunter/gatherer/horticulturists to
peasant towns. Our working assumption is that
generic morphological parameters will be cross-
cultural.
We have classified each example of modern
pottery according to the primary function(s)
assi g n ed to it by its makers and users, For each
general functional class, presence/absence
tallies have been compiled in order to organize
the modern evidence for each hy p othetical
parameter. Also, whenever possible, basic
dimensions (maximum diameter, height, rim
diameter) have been measured from published
illustrations. Two problems should be men-
tioned. First, there is considerable "missing
data" for all functional categories. Second, the
sample sizes for any one parameter are too small
to allow a detailed statistical analysis, Conse-
quently, the following discussion presents results
for most functional parameters in presence/ab-
sence format only; for the numerical data
categories, the ranges and means are given,
along with the number of measured vessels (n =
x). Presence/absence data appear in paren-
theses after each parameter: the number of
cases with the parameter (e.g., 18y; y stands for
"yes"); the number of cases lacking the para-
meter (e.g., 15n; n stands for "no"): and the
number of cases in which the parameter some-
631
times is present and sometimes is absent (e.g.,
6s; s stands for "sometimes") are given. Follow-
ing the data summary for the presence/absence
and numerical parameters, relevant ethno-
graphic sources are keyed by a list of lower-case
letters: e.g., (a,c,d,g,j,t). These key-letters ap-
pear in italics after each ethnographic source
in the bibliography.
Cooking Vessels
The ethnographic data strongly support the
general picture of the cooking pot outlined by
Linton (1944) and Ericson et al. (1972), The
great majority of groups make cooking pots that
are short and squat (34y, 4s), with a large basal
surface for efficient heat transfer (34y, 3s), but
usually with a somewhat restricted mouth (24y,
3n, I ls) to prevent rapid evaporation from boil-
ing foods. There is no information on the hard-
ness or density of cooking pots; the few data on
wall thickness confirm (l 7y, 3n, 2s) that cooking
vessels have relatively thick walls. As predicted,
the majority are unpainted (3ly, 3n, 3s). Data
on handles and lugs are ambiguous (22y, 10n,
7s). Such aids to tilting, lifting, and carrying ap-
pear to be optional rather than essential. (a,b,
c,d,e, f ,g, h,i,j,k,I, m,n,o, p,r,s, u, v, w ,x, y ,z)
Although the dimensions for these vessels (n
= 139) vary quite widely, the general propor-
tions are reasonably constant. Rim-to-base
height ranges from 6 to 41.5 cm (mean, 17 .8
cm). Maximum diameter runs from 12.7 to 56
cm (mean, 24. l cm). We use the ratio of max-
imum diameter to vessel height to convey varia-
tion in vessel form for this and other functional
types. For cooking pots this ratio varies from 0.8
to 3.4 (mean, 1.4). Thus, the typical cooking
pot is roughly a third again as wide as it is tall,
and almost all are quite short and squat. Unfor-
tunately, the most important measurement for
these pots and for those to follow, vessel volume,
usually cannot be estimated accurately. Only
one report presents data on a "company" or
"banquet" capacity cooking pot. This single ex-
ample is at least five times the volume of the
family-sized pot reported from the same source.
(c,d,f,j,m,n,p,q, v, w,x, y)
Cooking Trays
This specialized type of baking or parching
vessel is essentially a flat tray or griddle, used in
Mexico and Guatemala for cooking tortillas
over an open fire (n = 9 for qualitative
variables; n = 188 for quantitative variables).
632 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
Most of these trays, called comales, are un-
painted (Sy, In), all have a large basal surface,
few have handles or lugs (7n, 2y), and all are
very squat, with maximum diameter much less
than height, and with rim diameter <! max-
imum diamete .
Maximum diameter varies widely from 14 to
55 cm (mean, 33 cm), and vessel height ranges
from 2 to 13 cm (mean, 4 cm). The ratio of
maximum diameter to height is, of course, ve r y
high, ranging from 3 to 18 (mean, 7.5). (d, v, y)
Serving and Eating VesseLs
Few sources contain data on these vessel
types, and the available information is rather
mixed. The open bowl with flat bottom
predominates (17y, On, Os). Such vessels are
quite often decorated (9y, 6n, 2s), due perhaps
to their frequent use and high visibility in the
household. Their short lifespan (Foster 1980),
on the other hand, could discourage decorative
efforts in some cases. (b,g,h,i,j,k,m,n,o,s,t,v)
Serving and eating bowls tend to be made
specifically for either individual or family use (n
= 33). The individual-sized vessels range from 6
to 8 cm in height (mean, 7 cm), and from 10 to
23 cm in maximum diameter (mean, 14 cm),
while the family-capacity bowls range from 4.4
to 23.4 cm in height (mean, 10 cm), and from
8.4 to 95 cm in maximum diameter (mean, 24.6
cm). For the individual-sized bowls the max-
imum diameter/height ratio varies from 1.3 to
3.1 (mean, 2,0), and for the family bowls, this
ratio ranges from 1. 7 to 5.8 (mean, 2.5). Thus,
both sizes of serving/eating bowls tend to have a
maximum diameter anywhere from one to
almost six times the height, but typically two to
three times the height; the maximum diameter
is also typically equivalent to the rim diameter,
resulting in open, "unrestricted" bowls. Overall,
the family-sized bowls are roughly three times
larger in volume than the individual-sized
bowls, although in two specific cases in which
both sizes are reported, family bowls are 2 to 11
times the capacity of individual-sized bowls.
(j,m,n,o,s,t.v,y)
Dry-Storage VesseLs
Both long-term (i.e., weeks or months) and
temporary (i.e., hours or days) dry-storage
vessels tend to be desi g n ed with an opening wide
enough to scoop from (15y, In, 2s), but few lids
are reported for either type (2y, 14n). In the
absence of a fitted lid, a bowl placed over the
[85, 1983]
mouth can protect a vessel's contents. Alter-
nately, almost all the long-term vessels have
rolled-over or everted rims, possibly to facilitate
tying a pliable cover over the opening for pro-
tection against insects and dirt. Fontana et al.
(1962:47) report that the sharply everted rim on
Papago dry seed storage pots is specifically
desi g n ed to allow a cloth or hide covering to be
lashed over the mouth.
Long-term dry-storage vessels are usually tall
and proportionately rather thin (max. diam. <
max. ht. - 3 y , 6n, ls), while temporary storage
vessels are desi g n ed with maximum diameter
larger than the maximum height (7y, 2n). Eric-
son et al. (1972:89) predicted that the general
form for dry storage vessels should be low and
squat, since they do not need to be pourable; a
low center of gravity adds safety when the vessel
is loaded. The ethnographic data bear out this
prediction only for temporary dr y -storage
vessels.
Few appendages are reported on temporary
dry-storage vessels (ly, Sn), indicating these
vessels need not be maneuvered often. For long-
term dry-storage jars, there are more append-
ages reported (5y, 3n). The four long-term dry·
storage vessels made in Djerba (Combes and
Combes 1967) come equipped with handles. In-
terestingly, these vessels are the largest long·
term dry-storage vessels in our ethnographic
sample, and would be too deep to scoop from
when nearly empty, unless a Jong-handled scoop
were available. The handles reported on these
large vessels are almost certainly not strong
enough for lifting them, but are rather for
tilting them and perhaps for tying on lids or
covers. (a,b,f,g,h,j,k,t, v,w)
The reported dimensions of the few measur·
able temporary dry storage vessels (n = 3) are
consistent. Maximum diameters range from 19
to 22 cm (mean, 20 cm), and heights vary from
19 to 25 cm (mean, 22 cm). The maximum
diameter/height ratio ranges from 0.8 to 1.06
(mean, 0.92). The size range for long-term dr y -
storage vessels (n = 13) is wider. Maximum
diameters run from 17.8 to 100 cm (mean, 49.3
cm), and heights vary from 11 to 150 cm (mean,
52 cm). The maximum diameter/height ratio,
however, is less variable and also tends toward
slightly shorter, relatively squat vessels, ranging
from 0.5 to 2.0 (mean, 1.2). (a,f,h,j,t,v,w)
There is scant information on wall thickness,
ware density, or burnishing practices for the
dry-storage vessels. The large Djerba dry-goods
jars appear to have thick walls (Combes et al.
1967:89-92, 98). Burnishing, when done on any
 RESEARCH REPORTS
storage vessel, seems reserved primarily forcer-
tain liquid-storage jars.
Liquid-Storage Vessels
This functional type shows considerable mor-
phological variation. As expected, most vessels
used to keep staple liquids (water, oil, milk and
milk products, beer) for weeks or months (n =
30) are typically so large that they are immobile
when full. Maximum diameters range from 14
to 55 cm (mean, 39.6 cm), and heights run from
IO to 125 cm (mean, 54.9 cm). The maximum
diameter/height ratio varies from 0.5 to 2.0
(mean, 0.82). Thus, the general size and form
ranges for long-term liquid-storage vessels sug-
gest that they are, on average, taller and thin-
ner than either type of dry-storage vessel, but
with overlapping size ranges. These findings
confirm Ericson et al.'s (1972:89-90) predic-
tions that long-term liquid-storage vessels would
be made as large as possible, and would be de-
si g n ed relatively tall and narrow to aid in pour-
ing.
Temporary liquid-storage vessels (n = 68) are
noticeably smaller than either of the long-term
storage types, with maximum diameters ranging
from 8.5 to 75 cm (mean, 28.4 cm), and heights
from 8.6 to 70 cm (mean, 28.1 cm). The ratio of
maximum diameter to height also varies widely,
from 0.47 to 2.1 (mean, 1.06), indicating the
wide range of possible vessel-forms this func-
tional type can display. Dimensions of this type
overlap those of temporary dr y -storage vessels.
(a,c,f,h,j,m,n,o,s, t, v,x, y)
Both types ofliquid-storage vessels tend to be
rather tall and thin in general form (ht .?: max.
diam.-32y, 6n, 6s), usually with rounded or
everted rims (32y, Sn, 4s), presumably to aid in
pouring, and perhaps in stoppering or in fasten-
ing a protective covering over the vessel mouth.
Other predicted desi g n features, such as round-
ed base (16y, 27n, 2s), spouts (3y, 39n, 2s), and
handles or lugs (18y, 24n, ls), appear to be
quite rare options in both types, rather than
typical or essential features. Perhaps the most
surprising finding concerns orifice size. For both
temporary and long-term liquid-storage vessels,
over half the reported occurrences do not have
particularly small openings, contrary to the
predictions of Ericson et al. (1972:89-90) (5y,
7n for long-term vessels; 13y, 17n, ls for tem-
porary vessels). The hypothetical desi g n
predicted for this class must be revised accord-
ingly. Wide mouths are probably preferred in
many cases because they allow easier filling and
633
access to the contents. With large, unwieldy
vessels, dipping would be easier and safer than
pouring. Also, there are other methods to con-
trol evaporation and contamination.
Birmingham (1967) reports that wide-mouth
pots used for storing honey, sweets in syrup, and
cheese and olives in brine are covered either
with a lid or a cloth tied down under the rolled
rim with a string. Fontana et al. (1962:34, 37;
Fig. 23) observe that the Papago made their
drinking-water storage containers with wide
mouths to "facilitate dipping from them," and
that storage jars for saguero syrup and wine had
sharply indented necks to allow a potsherd lid to
be tied down. A rounded-base bowl placed on
the rim of a jar would also serve as an effective
cover.
Information on surface treatment is rare, but
burnishing and glazing are reported more often
for liquid-storage vessels than for all other types.
Birmingham (1975:372-379, 383-384) notes
that the Kathmandu valley potters burnish their
milk pots, pickle pots, and the several types used
for storing rice beer and liquor in order to
reduce evaporation (see also Reina and Hill
1978:199: Birmingham 1967:33, 35). The effect
of burnishing upon porosity is well known to
these potters. These Kathmandu liquid-storage
vessels are "required to have a long life or to
preserve precious contents" and therefore are
"made especially heavy with thick walls . . . for
constant domestic use" (Birmingham 1975:384;
see also Foster 1960:608; David 1972:141). For
similar reasons the Greek potters of Andros ap-
ply glaze to the interior of vessels made for
storage of cheese and olives in brine and to wine
and honey storage jars (Birmingham 1967:33,
35).
None of the ethnographic reports mentions
the burnishing of oil jars, as the contents effec-
tively seal the porous walls. Birmingham
(1975:377) reports that the Kathmandu potters
do not burnish the large, well-made jars used
for making and storing lassi, the local water-
and-milk-curd drink, "on the stated grounds
that the butter fat will produce the same effect
as burnishing, i.e., decreased porosity" (ibid.).
(a, b,c,e,f,g, h,i,j,k,m ,n,o,r ,s,t, v,w,x,y)
Water-Transport Vessels and Canteens
Few ethnographic reports contain informa-
tion concerning morphology in this class.
Roughly globular (with or without necks) or
biglobular shape and small orifice are universal
within the sample, except for a few bird-effi g y
634 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
canteens in Mesoamerica (e.g., Reina and Hill
1978:163-165). Though the presence of handles
and lugs is rather rare on long-distance can-
teens, the larger, shorter-distance water-trans-
port vessels often come equipped with two or
even three handles (22y, 9n). All recorded
vessels are portable by a single person (29y). It
seems logical that water-transport vessels should
have thin walls for lighter weight; few data are
available, but only about half those reported
appear to have especially thin walls (7y, 2n, 5s).
(b,c,d,f,g,k,o,t, u, v, w,y)
Fontana et al. (1962:34, 37) observe that
water canteens are carried long distances in nets
by the Papago, suspended across the saddle on
horseback; such a procedure obviates the need
for handles. Nicklin reports examples from
Nigeria which show that the form of water
transport vessels varies with the local mode of
transport:
Almost universally, pots are used for carry-
ing water from the source of supply to the
place of consumption, but the form of the pot
varies with the mode of carriage. In some
parts of Nigeria, pots have long, narrow necks
and round bottoms, and are carried at an
angle on the head for quite long distances
without support by the hands. The narrow
neck reduces loss of the contents by spillage.
In other parts of the country, water-pots have
slightly tapering sides, and round bottoms,
and quite wide mouths; these pots are sup-
ported with the arms and hands, on the back.
In Sokoto, water-pots are almost spherical
with narrow necks, well-adapted for trans-
port by donkey. [1971:25-26]
Similarly, Reina and Hill (1978:108) explain the
apparently cumbersome pear-shaped, high-
necked form of one Guatemala highland
village's water-carrying tinajas by reference to
the steep terrain which necessitates climbing
"almost doubled over from the water sources in
the valley," and the habit of using a tumpline to
hold the vessel on the carrier's back. These
vessels are traded only in the northwestern high-
lands; they are impractical elsewhere in
Guatemala.
Thus, the size and form of water-transport
vessels greatly depend on several key factors, in-
cluding the topography and distance over which
water must be routinely transported, the means
of transport, and the number of people being
supplied from the vessel (i.e., is it a canteen for
a day's trip by one person, or is it a family's
domestic daily supply?). The ethnographic in-
[85, 1983]
formation does not usually allow further sub-
division within water transport vessels, but it
seems clear that this is a highly variable func-
tional class. The measurable parameters bear
this cut (n = 195). Maximum diameters range
from 10 to 38 cm (mean, 23.5 cm). Likewise,
vessel heights run from 12 to 50.5 cm (mean,
26.2 cm). The ratio of maximum diameter to
height varies from 0.56 to 1.42 (mean, 0.86).
All these vessels are roughly globular, presum-
ably to achieve maximum capacity relative to
surface area. A bimodal size distribution within
this class leads us to speculate that, in general,
smaller vessels (c. 10-20 cm max. diam.; < 20
cm high) represent true canteens, while the
much larger vessels (c. 25-40 cm max. diam.;
20-50 cm high) are shorter-distance, water-
transport jars. (c,d,f,o,t,v,y)
Summary Assessment o f
the Ethnographic Search
Our purpose has been to develop and eval-
uate parameters for looking at pottery assem-
blages from the perspective of functional design
and usage. We have demonstrated that ceramic
vessels within a general functional class are
usually designed within definite, specifiable
morphological limits. Using ethnographic infor-
mation from over two dozen ethnographic
groups, we have confirmed and revised a
number of the correlations suggested by
previous authors between vessel form and
primary function. In the following section, we
illustrate how this approach can contribute to a
functional interpretation of ancient ceramic
assemblages.
A FUNCTIONAL INVESTIGATION OF
EXCAVATED CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES
FROM TWO EARLY IRANIAN
VILLAGE SITES
The ethnographically established morpho-
logical parameters are now applied in a func-
tional analysis of ceramic assemblages from two
early village sites in central western Iran: Tepe
Sarah and Seh Gabi Mound C (McDonald
1979). The most important vessel-form types are
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The two corpora
are compared in relation to the functional com-
position of each assemblage and the implied size
and permanence of each settlement.
Methodology
The pottery typologies are based on two prin-
 RESEARCH REPORTS
Figure 1. Early Tepe Sarah pottery form types:
a, Pl, Bl, Rl, flat-based bowls with vertical
concave sides
(242 vessels; 0.1-3.0 liters; max. diam.
4-24 cm; height 3.5-11 cm.)
b, P2, carinated bowls
(12 vessels; 1.0-2.5 liters; max. diam.
16-20 cm; height 4.5-9.0 cm.)
c, B2, flat-based bowls with S-shaped walls
( 18 vessels)
(B2a, c. 1 liter; max. diam. 10-15 cm;
height 6 cm; B2b, 3.5-5.0 liters; max.
diam. 3.5-4.5 cm; height 18-25 + cm.)
d, B3, tall bowls with straight or rounded
walls
(12 vessels; 1-5 liters; max. diam. 14-31
cm; height 8.5-12 + cm.)
e, B4, low oval bowls with vertical or flaring
walls
(6 vessels; c. 3.5 liters; max. diam. c. 30
cm; height c. 5 cm.)
635
cipal aspects of vessel morphology: shape and
size. Analyses of shape emphasized the overall
structure of a vessel (whether restricted,
straight-sided, or flaring, flat-based or round-
ed, deep or shallow), rather than details of
upper-wall or rim form that may have more to
do with style or accident than function (see
Voigt 1976:307). In analysis of size, the
estimated volume or capacity of a vessel,
calculated using formulas published by Ericson
and Stickel (1973:358ff.; see also McDonald
1979:365, n. 1), is considered as si g n ificant as
the simple dimensions of that vessel (e.g.,
height, diameters). Other vessel attributes con·
sidered are wall thickness, such material proper-
ties as porosity and hardness, and surface treat-
ment such as painting or burnishing. Other
features such as internal and external wear pat-
terns and fire blackening sometimes reinforce
inferences about function based on other para-
meters. Finally, although there is a danger of
circular reasoning, the archeological context of
vessels may in some cases be used to corroborate
inferred vessel function.
The basic unit in these typologies is not the
individual diagnostic sherd, but the original
whole vessel. The handmade pottery from these
early sites is highly variable rather than standard-
ized in its manufacture, and this makes it fairly
easy to reconstruct individual vessels and obtain
a rough minimum vessel count. Vessel types are
defined on the basis of whole vessels, or at least
complete or nearly complete profiles which yield
sufficient information on vessel form and
capacity.
These archeological form-types are matched
to the functional categories of vessel form iden-
tified ethnographically. The following criteria
are used, in rough order of importance: para-
meters of vessel size and shape (ranges and
means of vessel height and diameter; ratios of
maximum diameter to height; open or restrict-
ed nature of vessel mouth: i.e., ratio of max-
imum diameter to orifice diameter), and
parameters concerning vessel fabric and surface
treatment which were also sought from the
ethnographic sample (wall thickness, relative
porosity, hardness, presence of internal or ex-
ternal basal wear, presence of a slip or burnish,
of fire-blackening, or of painted or other
decoration).
Tepe Sarab: Introduction
Tepe Sarah is a low-lying mound located in
the southeast corner of the Mahidasht survey
 .,
636 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [85, 1983]

L
\l 1LJ)J

.C.I J
--(h

Fig u re 2. Seh Gabi Mound C pottery form types:

a, b, Type 1, small bowls
(Type la, 20 vessels; < 0 . 5 liters; max. diam. 7-13 cm; height 3-6 cm; Type lb, 18 vessels;
0.6-1.0 liters; max. diam. 8-27 cm; height 3-10 cm.)
c, Type 2, bowls with flaring walls
(Type 2a, rim inturned; 26 vessels; 1.5-6.5 liters; max. diam. 19-33 cm; height 5-13 cm; Type
2b, rim everted; 46 vessels; 1.5-6.0 liters; max. diam. 20-35 cm; height 6-10 cm.)
d, Type 3, plates or lids
(16 vessels; :S: 4.6 liters; max. diam. 15-50 cm; height 3-6 cm.)
e, Type 4, large bowls with low, thick, vertical walls
(29 vessels; 4.0-13.5 liters; max. diam. 25-44 cm; height 9-12 cm.)
f, Type 5, large bowls with tall, thick, vertical walls
(10 vessels; 16-53 liters; max. diam. 27-63 cm; height 15-20+ cm.)
g, h, Type 6, bowls with thin, vertical walls
(Type 6a [Figure2g], < 2 . 5 liters; max. diam. 17-19cm; height 6-10+ cm; Type 6b, 5 vessels;
5 liters; max. diam. 29-38 cm; height :S 10 cm.) Type 6c (Fi g u re 2h], 8 vessels; ::S5 liters;
max. diam. 24-31 cm; height :S 11 cm.)
i, Type 7, restricted bowls
(13 vessels; 8 liters; max. diam. 17-40+ cm; height 6-14 cm.)
j, Type 9, collared jars
(Type 9a, 27 vessels; < 6 liters; neck diam. :S 13 cm; max. diam. :S: 20 cm; height :S: 28 cm;
Type 9b, (Fi g u re 2j], 10 liters; neck diam. 13 cm; max. diam. :S 30 cm; height 30 cm.)
k, Type 10, large jars
(12 vessels; c. 32 liters; max. diam. c. 35 cm; height c. 37 cm.)
not illustrated, Type 8, large restricted bowls
(2 vessels; 12 liters; max. diam. 35 + cm; height 16 cm.)
 RESEARCH REPORTS
area (Levine 1976) in the central Zagros moun-
tains of western Iran, just outside of Kerman-
shah. Sarah, a sixth-millennium site, was ex-
cavated in 1960 by members of the Iranian Pre-
historic Project to recover evidence of early food
producers (Braidwood 1960). The site was
retested, and prior excavated material, on
deposit at the Royal Ontario Museum, was ex-
amined (McDonald 1979).
Pottery analysis indicated that Sarah was a
two-period site, and the strati g r aphic and ar-
chitectural record suggests that the two com-
ponents represent rather different settlement
types. The earlier deposits appear to have ac-
cumulated during occasional or seasonal occu-
pations by small parties, perhaps single-sex task
g r oups pasturing flocks or knapping the local
chert. Ceramics from this early occupation are
those analyzed here.
Approximately 1000 sherds from the 1960
collection were examined. Sarah Neolithic pot-
tery is a handmade, vegetal-tempered ware with
a limited range of vessel forms and sizes. Little
variation was noted in hardness or porosity. All
Early Sarah sherds fall into one of three
categories of surface treatment: painted ("P"
types in Figure 1), buff-surfaced ("B" types),
and a few red-slipped sherds ("R" types). A flat-
based bowl with slightly concave, vertical walls
appears in all three surface-treatment cate-
gories. Other forms, confined usually to one of
the three categories, include vertical-sided
vessels, bowls with flaring and carinated walls,
and a few restricted vessels (Fig u re 1). Some
types are subdivided, principally on the basis of
dichotomies of vessel diameter or volume,
although subtypes also can differ in construc-
tion details (e.g., shape of rim) or quality of sur-
face finish. (Sample sizes and ranges for volume,
height, and diameter for each form-type from
both sites appear in the captions of Figures 1
and 2; descriptive statistics on attributes of ware
and size distributions of the vessel-form types
are available from the authors on request.) In
addition to vessels of these types, the Early
Sarah collection yielded several cornered sherds,
apparently from rectangular vessels, and frag-
ments from small, rounded-bodied vessels. It
should be noted that this sample may be skewed
in favor of smaller vessels, since large body-
sherds were not saved.
Functional Interpretation of
Early Sarab Pottery
As noted ethnographically, most ceramic
637
vessels are used to store, prepare, or serve food
and liquids. In addition, some of the Sarah
vessels may have been used to store or prepare
nonfood items such as wool, pi g m ents, or
adhesives (both ochre and asphalt were found in
Early Sarah context).
There is little evidence from Early Sarah
deposits for the first-mentioned function,
storage. There are no clear examples of large
columnar vessels used in the ethno g r aphic pres-
ent for liquid storage or long-term dr y storage.
Likewise, the small volume of most round-
bodied vessels argues against their use as water-
transport vessels. It is possible that skins or other
perishable containers were used for water trans-
portation (Matson 1965 :205 ).
The cross-cultural evidence suggests that cook-
ing pots are thick-walled vessels with a large
basal surface relative to height, and often with
somewhat restricted mouths. By these criteria,
perhaps the best candidates for Early Sarah
cooking pots are the buff, flat-based bowls with
S-shaped walls (Type B2, Figure le). In addi-
tion to the characteristics listed above, in-
cluding very thick bases, many of these vessels
bear pronounced blackening on the outside
base and often on the inside surface as well.
Type B2 vessels, moreover, are carefully
covered with a thick slip and then burnished,
suggesting they were used for liquids or semi-
liquids. The interior blackening may have been
produced deliberately in an attempt further to
waterproof these vessels (see Holmes in Binford
1972:53), or accidentally if the vessel was
covered with a lid during cooking. Alternative-
ly, the vessel may have been used for stone boil-
ing. Type B2 has two subtypes on the basis of
size and may have served different cooking
functions depending on food bulk.
Other cooking pots may have been drawn
from Type B3 (Figure Id), tall bowls with
straight or rounded walls. As these are open
vessels, with walls either vertical or flaring out-
ward as much as 110 degrees, they would have
been most useful if rapid evaporation was de-
sired. None of these, however, bears evidence of
fire-blackening.
Carinated painted vessels, Type P2 (Fig. lb),
may have served as specialized cooking vessels
for yog u rt making. Bokonyi states (1977:22 and
personal communication) that demographic
patterns detected in goat bones indicate that
dairying may have been practiced at Sarab.
Type P2 vessels, with their tall, sharply
carinated walls and restricted mouths, are strik-
ingly similar in shape to the modern Iranian
638 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
copper patil, often used for yo g u rt making
(Feilberg 1952:91 and Fig. 76). Few of the Type
P2 bases are present to check for scorching;
among the Papis of Luristan, a burnt crust on
the base of a yogurt patil is considered necessary
for starting a new batch; ibid:91). Walls of most
Type P2 vessels tend to be smudged, but at least
some of this staining appears to be postdeposi-
tional (McDonald 1979:210).
The few cornered sherds are smudged or
scorched on inner and outer basal surfaces. It is
possible that they and other low-walled, round
and oval vessels (i.e., Type B4 [Fi g u re le])
could have been used as cooking trays for parch-
ing grain or bread baking. They could have also
been used for drying nonbulky foodstuffs.
The overall shape, the presence of external
and internal basal abrasion, and the high in-
cidence of decoration, suggest that most Type I
vessels (Fi g u re la) were used for serving food.
Size variations probably had functional
si g n ificance. Vessels with volumes of c. 0.2 to
0.5 liters may have been cups; those c. 0.5 to 1.5
liters, individual serving bowls; and larger ones,
family serving bowls. The very smallest may
have held condiments or small quantities of
other substances such as pigments (indeed,
some display red stains on the inner surfaces).
Vessels in the remaining types are mostly
relatively small, open, thin-walled or thin-
based, untouched by fire, and often painted.
Based on their size and general shape, these
may have been used principally for serving
food, and for the preparation, other than cook-
ing, of food and other substances.
In summary, Early Sarah deposits yielded a
relatively small number of vessel forms, which
appear to be cooking vessels and rather small
serving vessels. This assemblage appears quite
"impoverished" in terms of its variety of func-
tional types.
Seh Gabi Mound C: Introduction
Seh Gabi is located in the Kangavar Valley in
the central Zagros highlands, about 90 km east
of Tepe Sarah. The site, a group of small pre-
historic mounds, was investigated in 1971 and
1973 by the Godin Project of the Royal Ontario
Museum (Young 1969; Young and Levine 1974;
Levine and Hamlin 1974). Mound C, the
smallest of the group, is also the oldest, dated by
radiocarbon to about 4200 B.C. (5568 half-life,
uncalibrated; McDonald 1979). Excavations
revealed mud-walled houses and storage bins,
evidence of cultivation, and the bones of wild
[85, 1983]
and domesticated animals (primarily small
ungulates). Mound C appears to have been a
small hamlet, inhabited by perhaps three or
four families year-round with occasional inter-
ruptions over a period of a few decades at most.
A total of about 6500 sherds was excavated at
Mound C. Like the Sarah collection, it is straw-
tempered, handmade pottery with simple
shapes and a simple decorative repertoire. Most
vessels are buff-colored on both the inner and
outer surfaces, with 10% somewhat redder. Ap-
proximately one-third are burnished, while the
remainder have a matted surface and appear to
have been wet-smoothed. At least one-third are
slipped on one or both surfaces. The only
decoration, on over 20% of all vessels, is a
monochrome pattern in black or red paint, con-
sisting of stacked rows of solid triangles. Vessels
are either restricted, straight-sided, or flaring;
shapes are simple, and pinched rims are the
rule. Ten form-types have been identified, some
divisible into subtypes on the basis of volume or
other measurements, or, in the case of Type 2,
rim form (Figure 2).
Functional Interpretation of
Seh Gabi Mound C Pottery
As with the Early Sarah assemblage, it is as-
sumed that most vessels were used to store,
prepare, or serve foodstuffs or liquids. On the
basis of the ethnographic patterns, Types 4, 5
(Fi g u re 2e, f), and probably 8, seem the likeliest
candidates for cooking pots. Vessels in these
types lack decoration and have thick walls, a
large basal surface relative to height, and, in a
number of cases, worn or fire-blackened bases.
Only the Type 8 vessels have walls that definite•
ly slope inward, but many of the vessels in the
other two types have at least slightly intumed
rims.
Type 4 vessels (Fi g u re 2e), characterized by
broad bases, low walls, and relatively high
porosity, were probably not used for fluids or
substances requiring slow cooking because they
could easily boil over or rapidly boil dr y . Their
size, and the fact that they have worn and
blackened bases which in some cases are oval in
shape, all suggest that these vessels might have
been used in connection with the large, oval,
black plastered hearths found within several
Mound C rooms. It is possible that some of these
vessels were used to bake flat bread (see also
Voigt 1976:429-430).
The higher walls and relatively greater hard-
ness and imperviousness of the Type 5 vessels
 RESEARCH REPORTS
(Fi g u re 2f) suggest that they were used to cook
liquids or semi liquids such as stews or porridge.
Wear patterns on the inner bases of some of
these vessels may have resulted from stirring of
the contents during cooking. Some of them have
three or four holes under the rim, perhaps for
suspension over fire.
Vessels of the remaining form-types are for
the most part lighter, smaller, thinner-walled,
untouched by fire, and often painted. These
were probably used for other functions, such as
serving food, and the storage and preparation,
other than cooking, of food and other
substances.
The tall, narrow vessels of Types 9 and IO
(Fig u re 2j, k) were probably used for certain
kinds of storage. The rather impervious collared
jars of Type 9 were likely used primarily to con-
tain liquids. Type 9b vessels (Fi g u re 2j) seem too
small to have been used for Jong-term storage,
and have the small mouths more typical of tem-
pora r y liquid storage vessels. Small jars (Type
9a) may also have served for storage, but are
equally well-suited for water-transport. Like
many modem canteens, they are globular,
small, and thin-walled enough for easy hand-
ling. Their narrow necks, moreover, would help
prevent spills.
The large jars of Type IO (Fi g u re 2k) were
probably used for long-term storage of dry
goods such as cereals. Like most such vessels in
the ethnographic present, they are tall, heavy,
unusually tip-proof, and have an orifice which,
although restricted, is large enough to scoop
from. The vessel walls are relatively soft and
porous, but thick and often smoothed on the in-
side surface. Most of the Type IO vessels found
in a clear context came from cooking/storage
areas where they were associated with such
features as bins and hearths.
The most likely candidates for temporary dry
storage may be the vessels of Type 7 (Fig u re 2i).
They seem too thin-walled to be cooking pots,
and they lack fire-blackening. While they are
shorter on average than modem examples of
temporary dr y storage vessels, the low, squat
shape is right. Moreover, although they are
restricted, the mouths are certainly large
enough to scoop from.
The types that remain, consisting of fairly im-
pervious, flat-based open bowls, were probably
used mostly for serving or mixing foods or other
substances. The ethnographic evidence suggests
that serving vessels, because of their high
visibility, are often decorated. By this criterion,
Types 1, 2b, and 6, in which 40-60% of vessels
639
are painted, may have been used primarily for
serving and eating food.
It is likely that Type 1 vessels were primarily
individual serving vessels. Most cups (Type la,
Fi g u re 2a) were probably just that, although
some may have been used to hold substances
such as pi g m ents or condiments. Type 1b bowls
(Fi g u re 2b) likely were used for individual help-
ings perhaps of semiliquid food, to judge by wall
shape. Some of the Type 6a bowls (Figure 2g)
might have been for individual servings, but
among the vertical-sided bowls, a break in
volume distribution between 1.0 liter (max-
imum for Type lb) and 1.5 liters (minimum for
Type 6a) may correspond to that between in-
dividual and family serving vessels.
Many of the Type 6c vessels (Fi g u re 2h) could
have been family serving vessels. The 6c bowls,
with their high walls, relative imperviousness,
and frequent decoration, were likely used
primarily for serving semiliquids. Half are worn
on the outside base, and one on the inside. Type
6b vessels and perhaps some of the Type 2b
vessels (Fi g u re 2c), with their lower walls, open
forms, and lack of wear damage, could have
been used more for dry storage or evaporation
than for serving.
Finally, Type 3 vessels (Fig u re 2d) could have
been used for holding or serving dr y goods or
foods. The fact that frequently only the outside
of these vessels is surface-treated arg u es against
this interpretation, however. It may be that a
number of these vessels were lids. This would
help account for the considerable variation in
rim diameter.
Functional Comparison of Ceramic
Assemblages from Tepe Sarab and Mound C
Despite the technological similarities of pot-
tery in the two assemblages, some dramatic dif-
ferences can be detected, which may reflect dif-
ferences in subsistence and settlement patterns
at the two sites.
Some Mound C functional types appear to be
rare or absent at Early Sarah. There is no
evidence for equivalents of Mound C large jars
(Types IO and 9b). With the possible exception
of the cornered sherds, Sarah deposits yielded
no equivalent of the large, low-walled vessels of
Mound C Type 4. If these were used, as sug-
gested, for baking bread, their presence at
Mound C may point to a different method of
preparing and consuming cereals.
Early Sarah deposits yielded a ve r y limited
range of vessel shapes and sizes, most of which
640 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
seem to have been cooking pots or food serving
vessels. These inferred functions are congruent
with other archeological evidence indicating
seasonal use of the site by special-task groups.
The Mound C collection, in contrast, with its
greater variety of shapes, sizes, and apparent
functions, including long-term storage, seems
consistent with independent evidence indicating
that the site was probably a home base, oc-
cupied year-round by a village population.
CONCLUSIONS
In the first part of this study, we demon-
strated that modern ceramic vessels are general-
ly made to serve within a certain general func-
tional class and are desi g n ed within specifiable
morphological limits. Although our ethno-
graphic sample is far too small to permit statis-
tical testing, the validity of our original working
assumption is attested by the high proportion of
suggested desi g n parameters that are supported
cross-culturally. Ceramic vessels are indeed de-
sig n ed within limits of size and form in order to
perform a certain general function, and those
morphological parameters in turn may be deter-
mined by practical considerations of vessel
stability, durability, and functional efficiency
and convenience. Second, it is clear that more
and better ethnographic data concerning the
relationships between form and usage in
modern pottery assemblages are essential in
order to clarify and refine some of the more ten-
tative correlations we have suggested.
The major positive implication arising from
our ethnographic search is that detailed func-
tional analysis of archeological ceramic assem-
blages is a feasible approach toward under-
standing ancient society and economy. While
such an analysis does not establish the precise
uses to which an ancient vessel was put, general
functional classes can be inferred and used as an
independent data set for comparison to other
archeological evidence about ancient behavior.
Our ethnographically supported series of desi g n
parameters relating vessel form to primary func-
tion will, we hope, aid archeologists attempting
analyses of ceramic usage, whether within an
entire settlement (McDonald 1979; Henrickson
1981), or a single structure (Henrickson 1978).
In the second part of this study, we utilized
our ethnographically tested functional para-
meters to characterize ceramic assemblages
from two early village sites in central western
[85, 1983]
Iran. Three important points emerge from that
investigation.
First, although both assemblages are quite
small and neither is ideal for this sort of study,
functional correlations with the ethnographic
categories could be made. This success with
small samples of very simple pottery is heart-
ening and suggests that functional ceramic
analysis will be well worth the effort for most
prehistoric archeological assemblages.
Second, in many cases our inferences about
the functions of the Iranian ceramics were re-
inforced by independent archeological evidence
involving sig n s of use such as localized wear pat-
terns or fire- blackening and contextual infor-
mation on associated architecture or features.
Unfortunately, no chemical analyses of residues
(i.e., Bowyer 1972) have been done on these col-
lections, nor have we attempted any experimen-
tal replication of suggested functions.
Third, we have shown that investigation of
the functions of prehistoric pottery within the
context of ancient communities can increase
our understanding of ancient settlement func-
tion. Information on the possible usages of in-
tact and restored vessels, especially when com-
bined with functional and distributional data
on other classes of artifacts, features, architec-
ture, and floral and fauna! remains, can lead
archeologists to new insights into ancient sub-
sistence systems and intrasettlement activities.
NOTES
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank
the Social Science and Humanities Research
Council of Canada and the Royal Ontario
Museum for supporting the archeological proj-
ects at Seh Gabi (1971-197!1) and Tepe Sarah
(1978), and we would especially like to thank
the directors of those projects, T. Cuyler
Young, Jr. (Godin Project) and Louis D. Levine
(Seh Gabi excavations of the Godin Project, and
director of the Mahidasht Project} for generous-
ly allowing us access to the pottery from Seh
Gabi and Tepe Sarah. We are also grateful for
the comments and advice given to us on various
drafts of this paper by the following people:
Maxine R. Kleindienst, Louis D. Levine, Dena
Dincauze, Barbara Stark, and several anony-
mous reviewers. Robert C. Henrickson prepared
the pottery plates, and W . R . Pratt assisted with
their photography.
We take full responsibility for any errors of
fact or interpretation herein.
 RESEARCH REPORTS
REFERENCES CITED
Alman, John H.
1961 Bajau Pottery. Sarawak Museum
Journal IX:(15-16 n.s.):583-602. (a)
Arnold, Dean E.
1972 Native Pottery Making in Quinua,
Peru. Anthropos 67 :858-872. (b)
1978a Ceramic Variability, Environment,
and Culture History among the Pokom in
the Valley of Guatemala. In The Spatial
Organization of Culture. Ian Hodder, ed.
pp. 39-59. London: Duckworth. (c)
1978b Ethnography of Pottery Making
in the Valley of Guatemala. In The
Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala.
Ronald K. Wetherington, ed. pp. 327-
400. The Pennsylvania State University
Press Monograph Series on Kaminaljuyu.
(d)
Binford, Lewis R.
1972 An Archaeological Perspective. New
York: Seminar.
Birmingham, J.
1967 Pottery Making in Andros. Expedi-
tion X:33-36. (e)
1975 Traditional Potters of the Kathmandu
Valley: An Ethnoarchaeological Study.
Man X(3):370-386. (I)
Bokonyi, S.
1977 Animal Remains from the Kerman -
shah Valley, Iran: Asiab, Sarah, Dehsavar,
and Siahbid. British Archaeological
Reports Supplementary Series 34, Oxford.
Bowen, T., and Edward Moser
1968 Seri Pottery. The Kiva 33:89-132. (g)
Bowyer, D.
1972 Chromatography Analysis for Lipids
in Clay. Appendix X. In Myrtos, an Early
Bronze Age Settlement in Crete. Peter
Warren, ed. pp. 330-331. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Braidwood, R. J.
1960 Seeking the World's First Farmers in
Persian Kurdistan: A Full-Scale Investiga-
tion of Prehistoric Sites near Kermanshah.
Illustrated London News 237(6325):695-
697.
Braun, David P.
1976 Rim Form and Ceramic Vessel Use:
Results of an Experiment with a Central
Arizona Archaeological Collection. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology, St.
Louis.
641
1980 Experimental Interpretation of
Ceramic Vessel Use on the Basis of Rim
and Neck Formal Attributes. Appendix I.
In The Navajo Project, by D. C. Feiro et
al. pp. 171-231. Museum of Northern
Arizona, Research Papers, Vol. 11.
In press Pots as Tools. In The Hammer
Theory of Archaeological Research. A.
Keene and J. Moore, eds. New York:
Academic Press.
Bunzel, Ruth
1929 The Pueblo Potter: A Study of Crea-
tive Imagination in Primitive Art. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Combes, J. L., and A. L. Combes
1967 Les Potiers de Djerba. Centre des
Arts et Traditions Populaires, No. 1.
Tunis: Secretariat d'Etat aux Affaires
Culturelles et au !'Information. (h)
Culwick, H. M.
1935 Pottery among the Wabena of
Ulanga, Tanganyika territory. Man
XXXV:165-169. (1)
David, Nicholas
1972 On the Life Span of Pottery: Type
Frequencies and Archaeological Inference.
American Antiquity 37:141-142. (j)
David, Nicholas, and Hilke Hennig
1972 The Ethnography of Pottery: A Fulani
Case Seen in Archaeological Perspective.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Modular
Publications, no. 21. (J)
DeBoer, W. R., and D. W. Lathrap
1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-
Conibo Ceramics. In Ethnoarchaeology.
Carol Kramer, ed. pp. 102-138. New
York: Columbia University Press. (k)
Dorman, M. H.
1938 Pottery among the Wangoni and
Wandenhule, Southern Tanganyika. Man
XXXVIII:97-102. (I)
Ellen, Roy F., and I. C. Glover
1974 Pottery Manufacture and Trade in
the Central Moluccas, Indonesia: The
Modern Situation and the Historical Im-
plications. Man IX(n.s.):353-379. (m)
Ericson, J. E., D. W. Reed, and C. Burke
1972 Research Design: The Relationships
between the Primary Functions and the
Physical Properties of Ceramic Vessels and
their Implications for Ceramic Distribu-
tions in an Archaeological Site. Anthropol-
ogy UCLA 111(2):84-95.
Ericson, J. E., and E. G. Stickel
1973 A Proposed Classification System
642 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
for Ceramics. World Archaeology IV(3):
357-367.
Feilberg, C . G.
1952 Les Papis, Nationalmuseetsskrifter,
Etnografisk Roekke IV, Copenhagen.
Fitzgerald, R. D. T .
1944 Dakarkari Grave Pottery. Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 74:
43-57. (n)
Fontana, B. L., W. J. Robinson, C. W. Cor-
mack, and E. E. Leavitt
1962 Papago Indian Pottery. Seattle: Uni-
versity of Washington Press. (o)
Foster, George M.
1948 Some Implications of Modern Mexi-
can Moldmade Pottery. SouthwesternJour-
nal of Anthropology 4:356-370.
1960 Life Expectancy of Utilitarian Pottery
in Tzintzuntzan, Mexico. American Anti-
quity 25:606-609.
Friedrich, Margaret Hardin
1970 Desig n Structure and Social Inter-
action: Archaeological Implications of an
Ethnographic Analysis. American Antiqui-
ty 35:332-34!1.
Gayton, A. H.
1929 Yokuts and Western Mono Pottery
Making. University of California Publica-
tions in American Archaeology and Eth-
nology 24(3):239-251. (p)
Groves, M.
1960 Motu Pottery. Journal of the Poly-
nesian Society LXIX:3-22. (g)
Hankey, V.
1968 Pottery Making at Beit Shebab,
Lebanon. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
(1968):27-32.
Harrington, M. R.
1908 Catawba Potters and Their Work.
American Anthropologist X:399-407. (r)
Henrickson, Elizabeth F.
1978 A Functional Analysis of Khafajah's
Walled Q.uarter and its Implications.
Paper delivered at the 188th annual
meeting of the American Oriental Society,
Toronto.
1981 Non-Religious Architecture in the
Late Early Dynastic of the Diyala Region:
Intra-Community Settlement Patterning.
Mesopotamia (Torino) XVI:43-140.
Levine, Louis D.
1976 The Mahidasht Project. Iran XIV:
160-161.
Levine, Louis D., and Carol Hamlin
1974 The Godin Project: Seh Gabi. Iran
XII:211-213.
[85, 1983]
Linton, Ralph
1944 North American Cooking Pots.
American Antiquity 9:369-380.
Lischka, Joseph J.
1972 A Formal-Functional Analysis of
Ceramic Distribution at Kaminaljuyu,
Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of
Arizona.
1978 A Functional Analysis of. Middle
Classic Ceramics at Kaminaljuyu. In The
Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. R.
K. Wetherington, ed., pp. 223-278. Penn-
sylvania State University Press.
Lizot, W. A.
1973 Metidja: Un Village Algerien de
L'Ouarensis. Memoires du Centre de
Recherches Anthropologiques, Prehis-
toriques et Ethnographiques XXIII, Alger.
(s)
Lothrop, S. K.
1927 The Potters of Guatajiagua, Salvador.
Indian Notes, Museum of the American
Indian 4(2):109-118.
Machlachlan, R. R. C .
1940 The Native Pottery of the Fiji Islands.
Journal of the Polynesian Society 49:
243-271.
Mackay, Ernest
1929 Painted Pottery in Modem Sind:
a Survival of an Ancient Industry. Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Society 60:
127-1!16.
Marriott, A.
1948 Maria: The Potter of San Ildefonso.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. (t)
Matson, F. R.
1965 Ceramics and Man. Chicago: Aldine.
1974 The Archaeological Present: Near
Eastern Village Potters at Work. Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology LXXV111(4):
345-347.
McDonald, Mary M. A.
1979 An Examination of Mid-Holocene
Settlement Patterns in the Central Zagros
Region of Western Iran. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Department of Anthropology, Uni-
versity of Toronto.
Nicholson, W. E.
1929 The Potters of Sokoto, Nigeria. Man
XXIX:45-50. (u)
Nicklin, K. W.
1971 Stability and Innovation in Pottery
Manufacture. World Archaeology 3(1):
13-48.
 RESEARCH REPORTS
Raven-Hart, R.
1962 The Beater and Anvil Technique in
Pottery Making. Man LXIII:81-83.
Reina, R. E., and R. M. Hill, II
1978 The Traditional Pottery of Guate·
mala. Austin: University of Texas Press. (v)
Rendon, Sylvaia
1951 Modern Pottery of Rio Tenco San
Lorenzo, Cuauhtitlan. Middle American
Research Records 1:251-268.
Rogers, M. J.
1936 Yuman Pottery Makers. San Diego
Museum Papers 2. (w)
Roth, K.
1935 Pottery Making in Fiji. Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 65:
217-234. (x)
Rye, Owen S.
1976 Keeping Your Temper Under Control:
Materials and the Manufacture of Papuan
Pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthro·
pology of Oceania 11; 106-137.
1981 Pottery Technology. Taraxacum
Manuals in Archaeology, Vol. 4. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Taraxacum.
Smith, Marion F., Jr.
1980 Archaeological Ceramics as Vessels:
Relating Morphology to Utilitarian Func-
tion. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the Society for American Archaeol-
ogy, Philadelphia.
1981 Vessel and Sherd Morphology as Indi-
cators of Cultural Use. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, San Diego.
n.d. Toward an Economic Interpretation of
Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and Shape
to Use. Manuscript submitted for publica-
tion in Measurement and Explanation of
Ceramic Variation: Some Current Ex-
amples. B. A. Nelson, ed. Book in
preparation.
Solheim, W. G.
1965 The Functions of Pottery in Southeast
Asia: From the Present to the Past. In
Ceramics and Man. F. R. Matson, ed. pp.
254-273. Chicago: Aldine.
Stanislawski, M. B., and B. B. Stanislawski
1978 Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Ceramic Tradi-
tion Networks. In The Spatial Organiza•
tion of Culture. Ian Hodder, ed. pp.
61-76. London: Duckworth.
Steponaitis, Vincas
1980 Ceramics, Chronology, and Commu-
nity Patterns at Moundville, A Late Pre-
historic Site in Alabama. Ph.D. disserta-
643
tion, Department of Anthropology, Uni-
versity of Michigan.
Stone, D.
1951 Notes on Present-Day Pottery-Making
and Its Economy in the Ancient Chorote-
gan Area. Middle American Research
Records 1:269-280.
Thompson, R. H.
1958 Modern Yucatecan Pottery Making.
Memoirs of the Society for American Ar·
chaeology 15. (y}
Tufnell, Olga
1961 "These Were the Potters . . . " Note
on the Craft in Southern Arabia. Annual
of the Leeds University Oriental Society II:
26-36. (z}
Voigt, Mary M.
1976 Ha.iii Firuz Tepe: An Economic Re-
construction of a Sixth Millennium Com•
munity of Western Iran. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Department of Anthropology, Uni•
versity of Pennsylvania.
Waldeman, M.
1972 Yoruba Pottery Making Techniques.
Baessler-Archiv.: Beitrage zur Volker-
kunde 20:313-346.
Watson, V.
1955 Pottery in the Eastern Highlands of
New Guinea. Southwestern Journal of An-
thropology 11:121-128.
Young, T. Cuyler, Jr.
1969 Excavations at Godin Tepe: First
Progress Report. Royal Ontario Museum
Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 17.
Toronto.
Young, T. Cuyler, Jr., and Louis D. Levine
1974 Excavations of the Godin Project:
Second Progress Report. Royal Ontario
Museum Art and Archaeology Occasional
Paper 26. Toronto.
Saving in Primitive Economies
CARL E. WALSH
Department of Economics
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to examine some
issues relevant to the study of saving behavior in
primitive economies. A framework of analysis is