Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T11:40:45.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accurately Estimating Vessel Volume from Profile Illustrations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Louise M. Senior  and
Dunbar P. Birnie III III
Louise M. Senior
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Dunbar P. Birnie III III
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Resumen

Resumen

Los hallazgos de vasijas completas o reconstruibles son muy raros debido a la gran fragmentación de la mayorίa de los conjuntos cerámicos arqueológicos. El volumen de las vasijas no ha sido cuantificado sistemáticamente debido a la falta de máetodos adecuados que utilicen vasijas parciales o fragmentos de éstas mismas. Ahora, con el método presentado en este reporte, capacidades volumétricas exactas pueden ser calculadas para vasijas parciales o fragmentadas 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 volumétrica usando un algoritmo computarizado que se basa en la geometrίa de cilindros con paredes inclinadas, montados uno encima de otro. Este método de determinación de volúmenes de vasijas ha sido puesto a prueba; el método 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 ilustración del perfil de la vasija. Con esta técnica computarizada, la vasijas fragmentadas no necesitan ser completamente reconstruidas con el propósito de obtener información volumétrica.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 319 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Alden, J. R. 1973 The Question of Trade in Proto-Elamite Iran. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Arnold, P. J. 1991 Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization : A Mexican Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Balfet, H. 1965 Ethnographical Observations in North Africa and Archaeological Interpretation : The Pottery of the Maghreb. In Ceramics and Man, edited by Matson, F., pp. 161–177. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 41, New York.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Blinman, E. 1986a Additive Technologies Group Final Report. Chapter 2 in Dolores Archaeological Program : Final Synthetic Report, compiled by Breternitz, David A., Robinson, C. K., and Gross, G. T., pp. 633–661. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver.Google Scholar
Blinman, E. 1986b Technology : Ceramic Containers. In Dolores Archaeological Program : Final Synthetic Report, compiled by Breternitz, David A., Robinson, C. K., and Gross, G. T., pp. 595–609. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver.Google Scholar
Castillo Tejero, N., and Litvak, J. 1968 Un Sistema de Estudio Para Formas de Vasijas. Technologia 2. Departamento de Prehistoria, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Chazan, M., and Lehner, M. 1990 An Ancient Analogy : Pot Baked Bread in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Paleorient 16 : 21–35.Google Scholar
Coombes, G. B. 1979 The Archaeology of the Northeast Mojave Desert. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology.Google Scholar
Costin, C. 1991 Craft Specialization : Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schif Fer, M. B., pp. 1–55. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Google Scholar
Daniels, F., Mathews, J. H., Williams, J. W., Bender, P., and Alberty, R. A. 1956 Experimental Physical Chemistry. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Deal, M. 1983 Pottery Ethnoarchaeology Among the Tzeltal Maya. Ph. D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.Google Scholar
DeBoer, W. R. 1980 Vessel Shape from Rim Sherds : An Experiment on the Effect of the Individual Illustrator. Journal of Field Archaeology 7 : 131–135.Google Scholar
DeBoer, W. R. 1984 The Last Pottery Show : System and Sense in Ceramic Studies. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery, edited by Van der Leeuw, S. and Pritchard, A. C., pp. 527–571. University of Amsterdam, Albert Egges van Gif Ten Instituut voor Prae-en Protohistorie, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
DeBoer, W. R. 1985 Pots and Pans Do Not Speak, Nor Do They Lie. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B., 347-357. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. L., and Bernard, M. C. 1980 A Comparative Study of Basic Edge Angle Measurements. American Antiquity 45 : 857–865.Google Scholar
Eiteljorg, H. II 1994 AutoCAD for Pottery Profiles. CSA Newsletter 6(4) : 5–9. Center for the Study of Architecture, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ericson, J. E., and DeAtley, S. P. 1976 Reconstructing Ceramic Assemblages : An Experiment to Derive the Morphology and Capacity of Parent Vessels from Sherds. American Antiquity 41 : 484-489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericson, J. E., and Stickel, E. G. 1973 A Proposed Classification System for Ceramics. World Archaeology 4 : 357-367.Google Scholar
Feinman, G., Kowalewski, S., and Blanton, R. 1984 Modelling Ceramic Production and Organizational Change in the Pre-Hispanic Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery, edited by S. Van der Leeuw and Pritchard, A. C., pp. 297–337. University of Amsterdam, Albert Egges van Gif Ten Instituut voor Prae-en Protohistorie, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Fish, P. R. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification : A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43 : 86–89.Google Scholar
Fitting, J. E. 1970 The Archaeology of Michigan. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Fitting, J. E., and Halsey, J. P. 1966 Rim Diameter and Vessel Size in Wayne Ware Vessels. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 47 : 208–211.Google Scholar
Fujimura, H. 1981 Measuring Vessel Volume. Archaeological Research (Koukogaku Kenkyu) 28 : 106–117.Google Scholar
Gelb, I. J. 1982 Measures of Dry and Liquid Capacity. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 : 585–590.Google Scholar
Graves, M. W. 1981 Ethnoarchaeology of Kalinga Ceramic Design. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Graves, M. W. 1985 Ceramic Design Variability within a Kalinga Village : Temporal and Spatial Processes. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B., pp. 9–34. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M., and Hildebrand, J. 1990 The Two-curvature Method for Reconstructing Ceramic Morphology. American Antiquity 55 : 388–03.Google Scholar
Hally, D. J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function : A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51 : 267–295.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, M. 1992 Changes in a Formal Assemblage from Jomon Pottery to Yayoi Pottery. Hokuetsu Archaeology (Hokuetsu Koukogaku) 5 : 1–34.Google Scholar
LeBrun, A. 1980 Les Ecuelles Grossieres : Etat de la Question. In L ‘Archeologie de L ‘Iraq, edited by Barrelet, M. T., pp. 59–70. Centre Nationale Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1981 Kalinga Pottery, and Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Pattern of the Past, edited by Hodder, I., Isaac, G, and Hammond, N., pp. 49–66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1985 Pottery Use-life Among the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, the Philippines. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B., pp. 334–346. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A., Kvamme, K., and Kobayashi, M. 1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization : An Ethnoarchaeological View from the Philippines. The Kiva 53 : 101–112.Google Scholar
Mainkar, V. B. 1984 Metrology in the Indus Civilization. In Frontiers of the Indus Civilization, edited by Lai, B. B. and Gupta, S. P., pp. 141–151. Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Michael, R. L., Grantz, D., and Maslowski, R. 1974 Vessel Diameters from Sherds : A Mathematical Approach. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(4) : 42–43.Google Scholar
Miller, A. 1981 Straw Tempered Ware. In An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain : Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, edited by Wright, H. T.. Memoirs No. 13, pp. 126–130. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1982 Artefacts as Products of Human Categorisation Processes. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Hodder, I., pp. 17–25. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mounier, R. A. 1987 Estimation of Capacity in Aboriginal Conoidal Vessels. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 3 : 95–102.Google Scholar
Nelson, B. 1981 Ethnoarchaeology and Paleodemography : A Test of Turner and Lofgren's Hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Research 37 : 107–129.Google Scholar
Nelson, B. 1985 Reconstructing Ceramic Vessels and Their Systemic Contexts. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B., pp. 310–329. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Plog, S. 1985 Estimating Vessel Orifice Diameters : Measurement Methods and Measurement Error. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B., pp. 243–253. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Plog, S., Plog, F., and Wait, W. 1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 383-421. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Powell, M. A. 1989 Ma Be und Gewichte. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archdologie 7 : 457–517.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production : A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22 : 219–240.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1987 Pottery Analysis : A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1991 Specialization, Standardization and Diversity : A Retrospective. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, edited by Bishop, R. and Lange, F., pp. 27–279. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.Google Scholar
Rottlander, R. C. A. 1967 Is Provincial Roman Pottery Standardized? Archaeometry 9 : 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senior, L. M. 1990 Cracked Pot Ideas in Archaeology : An Estimation of Prehistoric Value Systems. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Senior, L. M., and Gann, D. 1992 Measuring Ceramic Vessel Capacities. Poster presented at the Third Southwest Symposium, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Senior, L. M., and Weiss, H. 1992 Tell Leilan “Sila Bowls” and the Akkadian Reorganization of Subarian Agricultural Production. Orient-Express 2 : 16–24.Google Scholar
Sinopoli, C. 1988 The Organization of Production at Vijayana gara, South India. American Anthropologist 90 : 580–597.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Smith, M. F., Jr. 1985 Toward an Economic Interpretation of Ceramics : Relating Vessel Size and Shape to Use. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B., pp. 254–309. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Smith, M. F., Jr. 1988 Function from Whole Vessel Shape : A Method and an Application to Anasazi Black Mesa, Arizona. American Anthropologist 90 : 912–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surenhagen, D. 1975 Untersuchungen zur Keramikproduktion innerhalb der Spat-Urukzeitlichen Siedlung Habuba Kabira-Sud in Nordsyrien. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 5/6 : 43–164.Google Scholar
Tuggle, H. David 1970 Prehistoric Community Relations in East-Central Arizona. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Turner, C. G. II, and Lofgren, L. 1966 Household Size of Prehistoric Western Pueblo Indians. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22 : 117–132.Google Scholar