Archaeological studies are based, at a large extent, on the study of the materials that form
the different unearthed assemblages. Thus, ceramic assemblages are defined by their compositions, i.e. how many pots of different types do we have. Those assemblages, are supposed to
shed light on chronological issues, as well as on social issues related to the social context
after which they were formed. Therefore, one of the key problems in Archaeology is the
formation of the archaeological record, since any study based on the unearthed evidence will
be thus necessarily conditioned.
Pottery, as many other types of artefacts, rarely appears as complete vases. The activity in
the systemic context (in the living societies of the past), and the activity in the archaeological
one usually leads to incomplete vessels, represented by an unknown number of isolated
shards. Several strategies have been proposed to overcome these problems, and they are collectively known as quantification studies (Orton, 1993). In such studies, reassembly of shards
is conducted up to different extents. Besides, different principles are assumed in different
quantification methods. Even so, especially in studies not devoted to pottery, some criticism
have been made on the concept of taxonomical abundance, which guides quantification studies, highlighting the underpinning role of taphonomical issues (Lyman, 2004). Moreover, individuals and assemblages are in the basis of any archaeometric study, and sampling is the
most crucial derived issue (Orton, 2000)
