This case study presents pottery inventory and use-life data from 24 households in Michoacán, Mexico. “Use life” in this context refers only to a vessel's initial function (p. 4); it does not incorporate the pottery repurposing or recycling documented in multiple actualistic studies. The data were obtained over a five-year period that included yearly visits to most residences as well as “near-monthly” (pp. 59–60) visits to three households over a two-year span. The resulting data constitute a longitudinal, non-probabilistic sample derived from 95 census visits across six Michoacán communities.

The first four chapters offer context for the study. Chapter 1 outlines the project's agenda, emphasizing the need for a “Theory of Use Life” (pp. 4–8). In Chapter 2, Shott highlights Schiffer's (Behavioral Archaeology, 1976) (trans)formation theory and invokes Schiffer's well-worn discard equation as a point of departure. Chapter 3 presents an abbreviated overview of the Michoacán study region, packing the entire pottery production sequence—along with 80 years of ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological background—into 25 pages. In Chapter 4, Shott discusses data collection and offers something of an apologia for the data quality. He notes the difficulties in not only obtaining consistent information across communities and through time but also confronting “occasional cases of ethnographic fatigue” (p. 53) among prospective participants.

The next two chapters present statistical analyses of the inventory data and comprise the real meat of the study. Chapter 5 establishes vessel groups based on their size/function and explores the impact of “contextual factors” such as household composition, cultural identity, and use frequency on vessel use life. The data suggest weak correlations among most variables, and Shott concludes that “contextual factors explain little variation in Michoacán vessel use life” (p. 110).

Given the limited impact of context, Chapter 6 extends the analysis to in-depth evaluations of use life and vessel size. Vessel size in this case includes weight as well as dimensional properties. Analyses reveal positive correlations between vessel size and use life for both cazuelas (casserole basins) and ollas (jars); the association of use life and vessel size for comales (round, flat griddles) is ambiguous. Comparisons of the annual inventory data with the near-monthly inventories are telling but hardly surprising. Vessels that last less than one year are likely underrepresented when the census interval spans one year or more (p. 139).

Many readers will find that Chapter 7 provides the most useful discussion because it places the Michoacán data in broader, cross-cultural perspective. One interesting outcome is the poor correlation between rim diameter and use life, but the overall finding is that vessel size and use life continue to covary in a strong, positive fashion.

Chapter 8 offers an ill-conceived exercise in which Shott generates a “discard assemblage” from 49 failed vessels collected from the three near-monthly census households. The remains of each vessel were bagged separately, and bagged sherds were then matched to the original inventoried vessel. The results indicate that the assemblage of broken pots was “characterized by high completeness and low brokenness” (p. 169). Given that this “discard assemblage” was intentionally curated after breakage, with no mixing and subject to neither depositional nor postdepositional processes, the correspondence between broken vessels and original whole vessels affords scant insight. The concluding Chapter 9 is a four-page précis in which Shott reiterates the correlation between use life and vessel size and appeals for more attention to formation theory.

I was quite frustrated by this read. On one hand it offers valuable, actualistic data on pottery use lives and ceramic inventories—in other words, it is a solid study of contemporary material culture. On the other hand, this research says little about any archaeological record, either in particular or in only the vaguest of senses. Consequently, although I applaud the “ethno” side of this effort, I find the “archaeo” side to be problematic.

This case study is successful, however, in highlighting the uneasy standing of ethnoarchaeology within the academy as well as its service to archaeology. To his credit, Shott calls out the poorly reasoned, postmodern critiques of ethnoarchaeology that have become fashionable of late (pp. 8–10). But his solution is scarcely better. Ethnoarchaeology makes its strongest contribution when it begins with a question derived from the archaeological record. Unfortunately, conducting a pottery census among modern households and collecting a few dozen broken pots says very little about any actual archaeological record. Just because one can model what might happen does not mean that it has happened or that it will happen. Why conjure fictional archaeological records when there are plenty of actual records that cry out for our attention?

Very few archaeological assemblages mimic ethnographic temporality (i.e., mini Pompeiis). Most represent deposits that span decades, if not centuries. Additional assemblages consist of construction fill that indiscriminately mingles debris from multiple time periods and contexts. Yet, Shott insists that, whenever possible, sherds should serve to establish an ethnographically meaningful “life assemblage” (p. 22). This same reasoning apparently justifies the questionable “discard assemblage” exercise in Chapter 8. But forgive me if I push back and simply ask, Why? Why should we strive to reconstruct the original number of vessels from an assemblage that conflates decades of accumulation? In fact, Shott's own Chapter 5 data demonstrate no significant relationship between characteristics of household composition (family size, age/sex distributions) and characteristics of their pottery inventories (vessel frequency, vessel volume, vessel types). If representative, what do we learn about long-term human behavior by reverse engineering a ceramic assemblage as advocated in this chapter?

In sum, this case study offers well-documented information on modern material culture. In that regard, the data will certainly be mined for years to come. At the same time, its ethnographic lens distorts its archaeological utility. Consequently, in terms of the study's relevance to building archaeological theory, I am afraid that its use life is destined to be considerably shorter.