In the past decade Mesoamerican archaeologists have become more concerned
with the excavation of residential units. They have come to realize that a
better understanding is needed of the individual household, as the basic social
and economic unit, before inferences can be made about larger, more abstract
social groups (lineages, clans, etc.), and before a clear understanding of
the economic basis of Maya civilization can be attained. The primary goal
of this thesis is to provide Mesoamerican archaeologists, who are working
at the household level of analysis, with descriptive models based on ethnographic
data as aids for interpreting archaeological pottery assemblages. Specifically,
those models are concerned with the production, use reuse and disposal of
pottery in modern Tzeltal Maya communities. Emphasis is placed on the archaeological
implication of the major factors contributing to the pottery variability (e.g.
vessel frequency and type diversity) and patterning (spatial distribution)
associated with each of these models.
The ethnographic data being used in this study was collected among the Tzeltal
Maya of the villages of Chanal and Aguacatenango, Chiapas, during two field
seasons (summer 1977 and winter 1979) with the Coxoh Ethnoarchaeological Project.
Ethnographic data, collected in 103 Tzeltal households, included interview
information, detailed maps of household compounds, material culture inventories,
and photographs.
Some conclusions of relevance to archaeological interpretation include, (1)
the possibility of recognizing archaeological potting households based on
raw materials storage and the location of features and artifacts used in pottery
production, as well as the distinctiveness of pottery making tools, (2) the
indication that the frequency and diversity of pottery are more closely associated
with household social status and social and ritual roles than with economic
rank, craft specialization or family size, (3) the indication that economic
factors are more likely to play a role when imported industrial vessels are
considered as pottery equivalents, and (4) that the provisional storage of
damaged and fragmentary pottery, which results in single vessels and vessel
clusters being distributed in and around structures, may wrongly be interpreted
as activity areas in archaeological housesites. These, among other considerations,
are of considerable applicability in terms of the formulation of both archaeological
and ethnoarchaeological research designs.