As some authors have maintained (Pfaffenberger 1992): interpreting the features of all artefacts in functional terms is an inadequate strategy. To engage in such a strategy often implies holding an ethnocentric and practical vision of the object that one expects should be optimised in the production stage in order to cover specific biological necessities. Although this point of view does not necessarily lead to fruitless inquiries, it is more useful to consider other parameters when we study the significance of a material culture in ancient or current societies.
There are many archaeological (Gasull and Lull 1984; Heidke and Miksa 2000; Spataro 2002; Ortega et al., 2005; Spataro 2006; Clop 2007; Kretier et al., 2007; Gliozzo et al., 2008; Odriozola et al., 2009a and b; Jorge et al., 2009; Gherdán and Horváth 2009) and ethnographic records (Druc 1996; Livingstone-Smith 2000; Pool 2000) that resemble that potters used pastes and fabrics very closely linked in mineralogical, chemical and even textural terms to cast various types of pottery.
The references cited also confirm the opposite phenomena, where pots very similar in typological terms have a paste composition that differs greatly from other vessels of the same type. Once again, there is little correlation in these cases among typology, paste and functional adaptation.