Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery 9781407303444, 9781407333670

Citation preview

BAR S1861 2008 BERG (Ed) BREAKING THE MOULD: CHALLENGING THE PAST THROUGH POTTERY

B A R Berg 1861 cover.indd 1

Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Paper 6

Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery Edited by

Ina Berg

BAR International Series 1861 2008

16/10/2008 13:31:08

Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Paper 6

Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery Edited by

Ina Berg

BAR International Series 1861 2008

ISBN 9781407303444 paperback ISBN 9781407333670 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303444 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

CONTENTS List of Contributors ................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... v ADVANCES IN METHODOLOGY 1.

Skill amongst the sherds: understanding the role of skill in the early to late Middle Bronze Age in Hungary Sandy Budden ............................................................................................................................................ 1

2.

Thinking outside of the pot: what other containers can tell us about the inception of ceramics in the Neolithic Near East Rachel Conroy ......................................................................................................................................... 19

3.

The trajectory of the wheel-coiling technique in the southern Levant: historical scenarios and explanatory mechanisms Valentine Roux ........................................................................................................................................ 31

POTTERY AND IDENTITY 4.

Undecorated Calatagan pots as active symbols of cultural affiliation Grace Barretto-Tesoro ............................................................................................................................ 35

5.

Pottery and feasting in central Sweden Thomas Eriksson ..................................................................................................................................... 47

6.

A re-evaluation of the pottery assemblages from Ville-es-Nouaux, Les Platons and La Hougue Mauger, Jersey, Channel Islands Paul-David Francis Driscoll ................................................................................................................... 57

7.

Thoughts and adjustments in the potter’s backyard Olivier Gosselain ..................................................................................................................................... 67

8.

The hand that makes the pot…: craft traditions in South Sweden in the third millennium BC Åsa M. Larsson ........................................................................................................................................ 81

9.

The vessel as a human body: Neolithic anthropomorphic vessels and their reflection in later periods Goce Naumov .......................................................................................................................................... 93

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SCIENCES 10.

Influence from the ‘Group Rhin-Suisse-France Orientale’ on the pottery from the Late Bronze Age urnfields in western Belgium. A confrontation between pottery forming technology, 14Cdates and typo-chronology Guy de Mulder, Walter Leclercq and Mark Strydonck.......................................................................... 105

11.

Dating a pot beaker and the surrounding landscape using OSL dating Simone B.C. Bloo, Frieda S. Zuidhoff, Jakob Wallinga and Candice A. Johns..................................... 117

i

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Thomas ERIKSSON Department of Archaeology and Ancient History Uppsala University Box 626 751 26 Uppsala Sweden [email protected]

Grace BARRETTO-TESORO Archaeological Studies Program Palma Hall University of the Philippines Diliman Quezon City 1101 Philippines [email protected]

Olivier P. GOSSELAIN Centre d’Anthropologie Culturelle CP 124 Université Libre de Bruxelles 44 av. Jeanne 1050 Brussels Belgium [email protected]

Ina BERG Archaeology University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK [email protected] Simone B.C. BLOO ArcheoSpecialisten Nijverheidsweg-noord 114 3812 PN Amersfoort The Netherlands [email protected]

Candice A. JOHNS Netherlands Centre for Luminescence Dating Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences Mekelweg 15 2629 JB Delft The Netherlands [email protected]

Sandy BUDDEN University of Southampton (Humanities) Highfield Southampton SO17 IBF UK [email protected]

Åsa M. LARSSON Department of Archaeology and Ancient History Uppsala University Postbox 626 751 26 Uppsala Sweden [email protected]

Rachel CONROY Assistant Curator of Applied Art National Museum Wales [email protected]

Walter LECLERCQ Université Libre de Bruxelles Campus du Solbosch Avenue F. D. Roosevelt 50 1050 Brussels Belgium [email protected].

Guy DE MULDER Ghent University Department of Archaeology Research Unit Prehistory and Protohistory Blandijnberg 2 9000 Gent Belgium [email protected].

Goce NAUMOV Institute for History of Art and Archaeology University of Skopje Kiro Krstevski Platnik 11 – 2/7 1000 Skopje Republic of Macedonia [email protected]

Paul-David Francis DRISCOLL Department of Archaeology and Anthropology University of Bristol 43 Woodland Road Bristol BS8 1UU UK [email protected]

Valentine ROUX CNRS, Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie UMR 7055, Préhistoire et Technologie 21 Allée de l’Université, 92023 Nanterre cedex France Email: [email protected]

ii

Mark VAN STRYDONCK Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage Jubelpark 1 1000 Brussels Belgium [email protected] Jakob WALLINGA Netherlands Centre for Luminescence Dating Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences Mekelweg 15 2629 JB Delft The Netherlands [email protected] Frieda S. ZUIDHOFF ArcheoSpecialisten Nijverheidsweg-noord 114 3812 PN Amersfoort The Netherlands [email protected]

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 2006 Manchester ‘Breaking the Mould’ Conference was supported and made possible thanks to generous financial assistance from the British Academy and the University of Manchester. In addition, the University of Manchester agreed to free use of their facilities and provided general administrative conference support. A great thanks is extended to students from the Department of Archaeology who helped with the organisation of the conference. Finally, I would like to thank all referees for their constructive and helpful comments on the various contributions.

iv

BREAKING THE MOULD – AN INTRODUCTION Ina BERG In October 2006, the 3rd International Conference on Prehistoric Ceramics, entitled ‘Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery’, was hosted by the Department of Archaeology on behalf of the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group and The Prehistoric Society at the University of Manchester. Over 50 delegates from Britain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy and the Republic of Macedonia presented papers on interdisciplinary ceramics research across the globe. The conference began with an excursion to the Gladstone Pottery Factory in Stoke-on-Trent to explore the social history of one of the last bottle-oven factories in the country. On Saturday and Sunday, the programme kicked off with guest lectures by Valentine Roux and Olivier Gosselain respectively. Subsequent papers explored a wide range of issues, including technology, chronology, methodology and identity. Many of the papers from the conference are presented here in this volume and very much reflect the stimulating atmosphere of the meeting. The contributions have been summarised under the following headings: 1) advances in methodology, 2) issues of identity and 3) the contribution of the sciences. True to the theme of the conference, all the papers demonstrated how careful analysis of the social, technological, economic and political context allows us to extract much information about how ceramics fit into the social matrix of a society and push our interpretations that extra bit further. Advances in methodology Advances in the sophistication of data collection, analysis as well as new scientific techniques have long helped propelled pottery studies forward. However, advancements in methodological approaches are equally powerful as demonstrated by the paper presented by Budden, Conroy and Roux. Skill has long been talked about as a variable but frequently neglected by pottery specialists, presumably out of recognition that this topic requires a different kind of specialist to stand on firm methodological grounds: a practicing potter. Budden fulfils this criterion and presents here the methodology she developed and the insights into learning strategies and production organisation that can be achieved through the study of skill. By comparing a Hungarian cemetery and settlement assemblage, she demonstrates that the level of skill investment in a vessel is linked to the role the vessel played in the social and ideological contexts of the living and the dead. At the same time, potters are shown to be strategic about the future of their craft and the learning strategies employed to allow inexperienced potters to gain greater expertise. By investigating ceramic pots as one of the many available container options, Conroy is able to throw much greater light on the vexing question of the origin of fired ceramics in the Near East. She is able to demonstrate that the adoption of ceramic vessels is only part of a broader ‘container revolution’ which sees the proliferation of container types of a wide range of materials at the time when greater food choices have become available as a result of the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ and consumption activities were becoming increasingly complex at this time. While ceramics were not able to fulfil any particular function more effectively than any other type of container, the fact that they could be produced quickly all year round might have been perceived as advantageous by consumers. Understanding the social parameters that lead to the appearance and disappearance of wheel-coiling in the Levant is at the heart of Roux’s contribution. Based on the learning networks in place, she proposes that the survival of a technology is dependent on how fragile or stable a given system is and in how far it is able to exchange knowledge and information with other social groups. The demise of the wheel-coiling technique is here attributed to the small circle of practitioners and their unwillingness to engage in information exchange with other potters. Pottery and identity Unlike many scholars who utilise burial goods merely to establish the status of the deceased, Barretto-Tesoro investigates the potential of pots as identity markers. Not surprisingly, the consistency with which the vessels’ location, type and orientation are repeated in different burials indicates their importance within the context of funerary rites – be it as offerings to the spirits or as rations for the afterlife. As such, her analysis of Phillippine burials demonstrates

v

vividly how, despite changes in pottery types and an influx of new, foreign wares, a community’s identity remained intact as witnessed through its funerary record. The topic of identity is also touched upon is Eriksson’s contribution. Here, the dramatic societal change from a Swedish Bronze Age to Iron Age society is made visible in the pottery repertoire and the activities vessels signify: being used in feasting and drinking contexts, Bronze Age vessels represent the society’s desire to create, maintain and negotiate social contacts with other groups and hints at a certain level of status competition in action at the time. Contrasting with this pattern is pre-Roman Iron Age pottery which is characterised by the disappearance of decoration, handles, fine wares and small open serving vessels. The author explains this development with a newfound greater self-reliance and selfconfidence of the Lake Mälaren Basin in its own cultural identity. The topic of islands and island identity is currently at the forefront of scholarly debate and pottery studies can contribute to a more sophisticated understanding of the local processes. This is demonstrated by Driscoll’s contribution who uses pottery assemblages to trace Jersey’s ever-changing responses to the outside world. More inward-looking in one period, Jersey was firmly oriented towards the outside in other periods. While pottery was not always the medium of choice to signal the islanders’ affiliation, cultural openness or isolation was undoubtedly of the islanders’ choosing. That the meaning embedded in technologies and practices is situational and requires localised contextual analysis lies at the heart of Gosselain’s contribution. Results from his ethnographic fieldwork in Niger show that clay selection, clay processing and shaping can become associated with potters’ identities in a variety of ways. For example, forming techniques are strongly associated with an individual’s or community’s identity – be it an affirmation of the original identity or a new and more desirable identity which is being brought about by way of changes in shaping techniques. What stands out most is the wide-ranging knowledge potters have of various techniques and their willingness to change practices in order to achieve specific social goals. A further study into social identities is provided by Larsson. In her analysis of the Middle Neolithic in South Sweden she argues that the differences between the contemporary Battle Axe and Pitted Ware cultures are reflection of different cultural identities. On one hand, Battle Axe pottery combines new practices and techniques into a fixed canon spread across the wider region. On the other hand, Pitted-ware pottery is a melting pot of different, but established, local traditions which share a common outlook on how things are ‘done’. The author interprets the standardised chaîne opératoire of Battle Axe pottery as an indicator of a strong super-regional identity amongst this specific group of potters with a clear awareness of their place in society. This contrasts with the more traditional localised identities and learning networks visible in the Pitted-ware pottery. Connections between vessels and female identity are explored by Naumov with regard to the Balkan Neolithic. Drawing on ethnographic parallels, the author argues that the observed patterns in shape, decoration, find location and use of anthropomorphic vessels and figurine-house models can provide us with insights into prehistoric constructions of female identity The contribution of the sciences In almost every subfield of archaeology we are witnessing competition between typologically or stylistically derived dating and science-based techniques. Frequently, results are reassuringly close, but in some instances they require us to take a new look at an established field. Pottery studies are a prime example of this re-appraisal where scientific dating techniques have resulted not only in a revision of our chronological sequences, but also in re-interpretations of the socio-cultural contexts in which pottery is produced, consumed and discarded. A good example of this ‘confrontation’ is Late Bronze Age pottery from Belgian urnfields. As De Mulder and colleagues are able to demonstrate, a good correlation exists between established typo-chronologies and C14 dating for urns made in the tradition of the ‘Group Rhin-Suisse-France Orientale’ style. However, C14 results have reversed the chronological development of regional variants. If subsequent scientific data confirm this pattern, a revision of established typo-chronologies is required. Substantial and consistent differences in fabric composition between the two groups hint at socio-cultural factors at play here. In addition to alerting us to problems with our chronologies, scientific work has opened up avenues for increasing the accuracy of our dating without having to rely on decorated pot, organic residues or lipids. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating is one such technique which does not only date the pots but can also be used to date the find context and thus allows a much greater insight into the chronological sequence of sediments and depositional events as demonstrated by Bloo and colleagues.

vi

ADVANCES IN METHODOLOGY

SKILL AMONGST THE SHERDS: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF SKILL IN THE EARLY TO LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IN HUNGARY Sandy BUDDEN Abstract: Skill is central to the production of all material culture categories. Material culture categories are, meanwhile, argued to be central to the mediation of social practices. Therefore, the maintenance of skill is to be regarded as a key factor in the maintenance of social discourse. The essential maintenance of skill is only possible by the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next through the enactment of very particular learning processes. These processes are bound to culturally and socially specific learning strategies. The social nature of learning strategies means that the way in which skill is acquired and then deployed may be argued to reflect broader social mechanisms. Ethnographic studies have shown that how people learn to produce and reproduce technologies directly links to processes of continuity and change. The very specific and social nature of learning a skill, combined with a profound understanding of the principles of pottery manufacturing, the physical properties of clay, and the end process of firing pottery, allows the adoption of a new methodology that facilitates an exploration of the role of skill in a prehistoric context. Given that material objects are understood to play a central role in the constant negotiation of cultural and social dynamics, understanding the nature of skill acquisition and skill deployment may be considered to be an important enterprise.

(2006) draws attention to psychological studies that underpin the notion of ‘daily and deliberate practice’ as central to the long-term acquisition of skilled performance or procedural knowledge.

THE STUDY MATERIAL In order to explore skill in the Early to Late Middle Bronze Age in central Hungary a newly developed methodology was applied to three large ceramic assemblages. These were drawn from the Bronze Age tell sites of Százhalombatta (Poroszlai 1996), DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás (Mozsolics 1957) and the contemporary cemetery site of Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö (Vicze 2001). All three sites are situated on the right bank of the central Danube region of Hungary. Together these sites represent two complex communities of the same cultural milieu spanning an uninterrupted period starting at the Early Bronze Age (Nagyrév), continuing through to the Middle Bronze Age (Vatya I-111), and culminating at the closing phase of the Late Middle Bronze Age (Vatya-Koszider). This covers a time frame from approximately 2500 BC to 1450 BC and represents a continuous period of social activity over a period of c. 1050 years.

A key factor of procedural knowledge is that the more frequently it is repeated the less need there is to refer back to factual knowledge. Eventually the original transfer of factual knowledge is almost, or even entirely, forgotten. The nature of procedural knowledge is such that it is more than superficial habit; once fully acquired it is literally physically embodied within the performer of a given task through changes to their neurology, musculature or skeleton (Anderson 1982, 1983, 1987; Arnold 1988; Gardner 1993; Goffman 1959; Hacking 2004; Ingold 1993; Mauss 1935). Thus, the physically embedded nature of procedural knowledge results in culturally and socially specific, repeated sequences of action — described previously by Arnold (1988) as ‘motor-habit patterns’. These specific and repetitive physical actions have been acknowledged by a number of authors as innate and almost impossible to alter (Arnold 1988; Hacking 2004; Mauss 1935). In other words it is not possible to ‘unlearn’ skill (Crown 1999; 2001). Rather, under usual circumstances procedural knowledge cannot be unlearnt but rather becomes cumulatively and more competently incorporated into practices of skill through time (Mauss 1935). This is an important element of procedural knowledge that impacts on interpretation of the data results presented later in this paper.

THE NATURE OF LEARNING PROCESSES AND THE EMERGENCE OF SKILL AS SOCIAL ACTION Skill is acquired through very specific learning mechanisms that involve two distinct but nevertheless connected processes. These processes are the enactment of discursive and non-discursive knowledge. Discursive knowledge, or factual knowledge, is the necessary verbal, or declarative, information passed to a recipient in order that they may establish, at a cognitive level, the principle of what needs to be done. Non-discursive knowledge, or procedural knowledge, is the transference of that information into the practical action how things should be done (Anderson 1982, 1983, 1987). It is only through the transformation of factual knowledge into procedural knowledge that practical skill can be realised as socially embedded action. The enactment of procedural knowledge is recognised within psychological and educational fields of research as kinaesthetic or bodily intelligence and is seen as distinct from, if linked to, cognitive intelligence (Gardner 1993, 1999); and Berg

Procedural knowledge is argued to emerge within culturally and socially specific frameworks of learning strategies. The conditions that this places on pottery production further reinforces the way in which skill is exercised as quite specific repeated patterns of action (Arnold 1988; Maynard, Greenfield & Childs 1999; Mauss 1935; Pétrequin 1993; Schlanger 1990; Seitz 2007; Wallaert Pêtre 1999). Ethnographic studies (cf. Aronson 1989; De Boer 1990; Gosselain 1992, 1998; Greenfield 2000; Greenfield & Lave 1982; Greenfield, Maynard & Childs 2000; Minar 2001; Wallaert Pêtre 1999, 2001) have shown that the kind of learning

1

made to complete all the processes required to produce an entire vessel will result in a range of technological signatures that are unique to the production of that vessel type.

strategies adopted within a particular cultural or social framework reflect broader social mechanisms and link to processes of continuity and change. Highly prescribed learning strategies that allow little innovation tend to protect and reinforce cultural and social continuity. Meanwhile, flexible learning strategies that encourage diversity and innovation are more likely to be linked to social dynamics where change is, or has become, an accepted course of action.

This is not a new discovery. For many years archaeologists have been aware that manufacturing actions become permanently embedded within the structure of a pot at the time it is fired (Gibson & Woods 1997; Rye 1981). For example, the joins made by constructing a pot with either coils of clay or slabs of clay are distinctively different. However, it is argued here that not only can the variability between different technical choices and technical action be observed but so too can the degree of skill exercised in their execution (see Gibson 2003: viii). The permanent and visible traces of technological signatures and the various degrees of skill employed can be understood through reference to a profound understanding of potting processes. It is just such an understanding that sits at the heart of the methodology adopted for this research.

Additionally, procedural knowledge is argued to be executed in variously situated public domains. Being seen to enact procedural knowledge thus places the ‘performer’, in this case the potter, within a complex web of social relationships. It is doing the task of potting that makes the potter a potter, and gives him or her status of potter (Budden & Sofaer forthcoming). Goffman (1959: 81) argues that “[a] status, a position, a social place is not a material thing, to be possessed and then displayed; it is a pattern of appropriate conduct, coherent, embellished and well articulated”. Dobres (1999) and Ingold (1993b) have both drawn attention to the way in which the performance and display of practical knowledge may be used as a powerful mechanism for negotiating status and identity.

SKILL VARIABILITY Varying degrees of skill are related to both potters and pots. The constant re-enactment of procedural knowledge results in the incremental acquisition of skill which means, unless breakdown in learning occurs, varying degrees of skill are present within a community at any one time as potters incrementally increase their range of procedural knowledge (Arnold 1988; Crown 2001; Kramer 1985; Peterson 1974; Rice 1987; Rye 1981; Sinopoli 1999; Stark & Longacre 1993; Wallaert-Pêtre 1998, 2001). Eventually a potter will be able to competently produce all articles within a given repertoire without varying from the projected outcome (Caiger Smith 1995; Rice 1987; Rye 1981).

TECHNOLOGICAL SIGNATURES OF PRODUCTION It is the processes described above that give rise to distinct material culture repertoires, or material categories. Amongst these pottery offers a particularly insightful opportunity to observe skill. It is the very particular physical characteristics of the materials used to produce pottery that make pots a valuable analytical tool. Clay is a plastic, additive medium. Because of this every technological action taken in the forming of a pot, it becomes permanently embedded during the end process of firing as technological signatures of action.

Different vessel types within a potting repertoire require different degrees of skill to produce. Large, complex vessels may be prone to greater skill variability as potters, working to acquire procedural knowledge, strive to extend their skill. Large pots, such as urns and pots with exaggerated morphologies, such as the complex tripartite vessels of the Late Middle Bronze Age Koszider wares at Százhalombatta, Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás and Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö in Hungary, require an extra investment of skill that may not always be possible for an apprentice potter to attain. Caiger-Smith (1995: 109–110) argues “…that considerable skill is required to control the clay as a form widens as even small irregularities will become exaggerated as the pot grows in size and cause failure”. Large pots are prone to slump, warp, or crack at various stages of manufacture unless considerable skill is invested in their production (Rice 1987: 227). Moreover, in their experimental and ethnographic work Roux and Corbetta (1989) have shown a strong link between vessel size and skill attainment. This suggests that complex and large forms that conform to a successful outcome are more likely to represent the work of skilled potters with high degrees of procedural knowledge who are capable of

The production of pottery entails a multitude of possible technical options in terms of which materials to use and the choices of manufacturing technique (cf. Braun 1983; Gosselain 1998, 1999, 2000; Gosselain & Livingstone Smith 2005; Miller 1985; Rice 1987; Rye 1981; Sillar 1997, 2000; Sillar & Tite 2000; van der Leeuw & Papousek 1992). The choices made, or not made, are as much the outcome of socially understood ways of proceeding and selected institutionalised practices as environmental constraints (cf. Barley 1994; Barrett 1989; Chapman 2000; Dobres 1994; Gosselain 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001; Ingold 1981, 1993a, 1993b, 1999; Kreiter 2006; Mauss 1935, 1947; Maynard, Greenfield & Childs 1999; Miller 1985; Rogoff 1990; Roux 1990; Sillar 1996; Sillar & Tite 2000; Sofaer 2006; van der Leeuw 1993, 1999). It is the specific choices made as to how to proceed that, once established and embedded within the cultural and social repertoire, determine the range of technological signatures ultimately present within any given vessel type. Every choice made leaves a particular technological signature. The necessary range of choices 2

meeting the challenge of producing technically complex forms to a competent standard. Meanwhile, smaller pots with simple unexaggerated forms, smaller rim circumference, lower walls and little embellishment are easier to construct and should be less prone to error at an earlier stage in the potter’s training. Therefore, easier forms may be considered as a good starting point for ‘apprentice’ potters who will have more chance to succeed at the intended task. This idea seems to hold true for Wallaert Pêtre’s (2001) case study of apprenticeship strategies among Faro potters in Cameroon and Crown’s (2001) study of the Hohokam in the Prehispanic American Southwest.

signatures must be selected for analysis. It is important to note that this methodology rests on the principle of working within any single potting repertoire and comparing like with like. Within the assemblages used for the original research cups, domestic vessels, urns and fine-ware (Table 1) were seen to provide the best opportunity to observe any difference in skill investment between pot groups. Vessel Type Cups

With variability of vessel complexity linked to skill attainment, it is possible to track the investment and deployment of skill across and between culturally contemporary ceramic assemblages. Longacre and colleagues (2000), amongst others, have argued that it is in the best interest of potters to meet a successful outcome. However, the varying presence of skill within any community of potters at any one time may work to compromise the proposed outcome. Moreover, the differing degrees of technological complexity inherent in different vessel types may also compromise a successful outcome.

Domestic vessels

Urns

Fine-ware

The varying ability of potters to invest skill into a range of vessel types within specific and culturally determined potting repertoires, combined with an understanding of technological signatures of production, makes it possible to see which vessels may have been made by predominately skilled — or less skilled — potters. For example, if all vessel groups within a specific potting repertoire are made only by skilled potters, smaller simpler pots will be far more likely to successfully meet the projected outcome than complex ones. This should create a quite specific pattern in the archaeological record with a greater frequency of skill variability being consistently present in more complex vessels and less skill variability being present in simple vessels. If, however, pots are produced in an ad-hoc way with everyone ‘having a go’ a far more random pattern should appear. Moreover, if an apprenticeship strategy is in place where potters learn on simple vessels and progress to more complex vessels as their skill develops, there should be a greater frequency of variability within small vessels, for example simple cups. A concurrently lower degree of variability for large or complex forms should also be present as these are in the domain of experienced potters.

Characteristics Small, ubiquitous vessels the majority of which have simple morphologies Generally of moderate size with comparatively neutral shapes Often very large with complex morphologies, additions and embellishments Complex tripartite forms with highly exaggerated morphology, complex handles and embellishments, and very fine wall thickness

Degree of technical complexity Easiest

Intermediate

Very technically demanding

Very technically demanding

Table 1: Degrees of technical complexity for selected vessel groups.

As well as the concern with skill variability a significant number of vessels available from each selected vessel group must be available for study. The figures for the original research are given in Table 2. Additionally, within this research, it was seen as important to compare and contrast the settlement assemblages with the contemporary cemetery assemblage of DunaújvárosDuna-dülö in order to observe if skill is represented differently in these two contrasting social settings through time. It is argued that by close observation of the degree of skill investment across a range of technological signatures it is possible to track the patterning of skill investment in different vessel groups within any single potting repertoire. This is achieved by selecting a range of technological variables for examination that, in combination, are representative of a particular vessel type. Through observation of the degree of skill invested in the execution of each technological signature an overall picture of skill deployment for each vessel group becomes possible. It also becomes possible to observe how some technological signatures receive differing degrees of skill investment. Each selected signature is scored as ‘good’, ‘moderate’ or ‘poor’ depending on the investment of skill observed in its execution. Here it is important to note the necessity to establish a benchmarking system for any potting repertoire and each

IMPLEMENTING THE METHODOLOGY Vessel groups selected for study It follows from the above discussion that, in order to observe the patterning of skill variability within any potting repertoire, both a range of vessel types representative of differing degrees of technical complexity and a suitable range of technological

3

Site name Százhalombatta Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás

Site type Settlement Cemetery (belonging to DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás) Settlement

Cups 140 48

Domestic 55 42

Fine-ware 97 54

Urns 63 56

Total 355 200

52

42

38

30

162

Table 2: Total number of vessels examined. Technological signatures Clay preparation Manufacturing

Wall thickness Additions

Interior surface treatment Exterior surface treatment Decoration Rim deviation on the horizontal plane Rim symmetry Handle symmetry Profile symmetry Firing

Précis of some possibilities for observations determining skill variability Possible variability may include: no error, air pockets are present in the clay matrix, surface voids or inclusions (detritus) are unintentionally breaking the finished surface of the pot, deliberate inclusions have been poorly sorted through the clay matrix. The degree to which the selected manufacturing method (e.g. pinching, coiling, slab building) has been successfully executed. Possible variability may include: splitting at the rim; uneven finger indentations; poor coil/slab joins; coil/slab join fractures; clay patches as additions to improve wall thickness, rim evenness, or support handles and lugs; fracturing of the clay surface; inappropriate weight for vessel form. Possible variability may occur in inappropriate wall thickness for the vessel form, e.g. too thin or too thick. Or erratic wall thickness may occur where the potter has been unable to control manufacturing processes. This is the degree to which handles, foot-rings or lugs have been applied in a manner that meets the proposed outcome. Possible variability may occur through incorrect vertical or horizontal alignment. Additions such as handles that are either poorly formed or inappropriately attached may be strengthened by an additional patch of clay used to prevent slumping of the handle form or breakage once in use. Possible variability is reflected in the degree to which wiping, smoothing, rustication or burnishing has been executed to meet the proposed outcome. An example of skill variability would be where burnishing failed to cover the pot to the intended degree for a specific vessel form. As above Possible skill variability may be the observation of incised lines being ‘rubbed out’ and then repeated. The decoration over-shooting the design area. Applied decoration being inadequately bonded to the pot surface. Possible variability is recorded as the degree to which the vessel rim circumference is even on the horizontal plane. Potters with low degrees of procedural knowledge may, in particular, struggle with this task. Larger forms may be especially prone to skill variability with the rim having a ‘wavy’ or sagging profile when viewed on the horizontal plane. This is as above but is a measurement of the rim circumference seen from a plan view. Smaller to moderate sized pots can be assessed against a rim circumference chart. It is, however, important to stress that not all pots are intended to be round. Handles may be expected to be aligned vertically and horizontally, possibly in partnership with handle pairs, in very specific ways to meet an intended outcome. Possible variability can be recorded as the extent to which this has been achieved. Possible variability may be recorded as slumping of the form caused by the potter losing control of the form during manufacturing processes or the addition of too much wet clay in one go so that the wet strength of the clay is exceeded. Potential variation may occur through over-firing so that clay becomes brittle and starts to melt or under-firing so that clay is prone to start slaking and degrading. Under-fired pots will have a shortened lifespan and be prone to mechanical failure.

Table 3: Possibilities for examination of skill variability within twelve key technological variables.

vessel type within it. For example, if a particular vessel type is repeatedly produced to have thick and very even walls this is the expected (correct) technological signature and a vessel conforming to this characteristic would score ‘good’. If, however, wall thickness were very thin or erratic it would score as ‘poor’. Within this research the benchmarking system consisted of a photographic library accompanied by verbal diagnostic descriptions of what constitutes ‘good’, ‘moderate’ or ‘poor’ for every technological variable analysed. This ensures that designations of ‘good’, ‘moderate’ or ‘poor’ relate to how closely each technological

signature has come to meeting the proposed outcome. It is important to stress that this is not a measurement of aesthetics but of the degree of technical skill exercised for any particular technological signature in relation to a specific vessel group. It may be, for example, that a specific vessel type is intended as disposable, for example the socalled conical cups in prehistoric Greece which were intended for single use at social occasions and which were all low-fired. In this instance this cannot be seen as unacceptable skill variability. The technological signatures used for the examination of skill variability are outlined in Table 3.

4

PUTTING THE METHODOLOGY PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY

INTO

The chosen case study explores the results of three vessel groups - cups, fine-ware (meaning a particular repertoire of finely made bowls and jugs implicated in consumption activity) and urns - from two of the three study sites: the tell settlement site of DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás and its contemporary cemetery, Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö. Twelve technological variables are presented for each vessel group. The results of chi-squared tests are used to explore and substantiate significant differences between the two assemblages and between vessel groups within each of the assemblages. These results are accompanied by the percentage frequencies for both sites. The data presented is intended to illustrate the usefulness of the methodology in exposing patterns of skill variability and of exploring the possible social dynamics involved in pottery production in Hungary from the Early to Late Middle Bronze Age. Inter-site differences The results show three significant differences for cups, nine for fine-ware and two for urns (Table 4a). Cups and urns receive a similar investment of skill in both assemblages. It is, however, critical to stress that these results, taken in conjunction with percentage frequencies for cups (Figures 1a, 1b and 1g) and urns (Figures 1d, 1f and 1g), actually reveal that cups share a low investment of skill in both assemblages while urns share a higher investment of skill in both assemblages. The nine significant differences between the two assemblages for fine-ware, when taken in conjunction with the percentage frequencies (Figures 1c, 1d and 1g), are an indication of a high investment of skill for fine-ware within the DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás (settlement) assemblage and a very low investment of skill for fine-ware within the Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö (cemetery) assemblage. Intra-site differences Within the Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (settlement) assemblage there are nine significant differences between cups and fine-ware, eight significant differences between cups and urns, and no differences between fine-ware and urns (Table 4b). These results, taken in combination with the percentage frequency results (Figures 1a, 1c, 1e, and 1g), reflect a low investment of skill for cups and a far higher investment of skill for both fine-ware and urns. Within the Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö (cemetery) assemblage a different and more complex picture

emerges. There are three significant differences between cups and fine-ware, five between cups and urns, and seve between fine-ware and urns (Table 4b). These results, taken in combination with the percentage frequency results (Figures 1b, 1d, 1f and 1h), indicate that while cups and fine-ware receive a similarly low investment of skill within the cemetery assemblage it is fine-ware that receives the least investment of skill. The five significant differences between cups and urns and the seven significant differences between fine-ware and urns show that urns receive the highest investment of skill within the cemetery assemblage. Thus, within the cemetery assemblage fine-ware receives the least investment of skill, cups receive a slightly higher investment of skill and the greatest investment of skill is in urns. Summary of the data The results show that there are very distinct differences in the deployment of skill both between the different vessel groups within each assemblage and between the two sites. Cups receive a low investment of skill in both assemblages. However, within the cemetery assemblage fine-wares receive an even lower investment of skill than cups. This is in stark contrast to the settlement assemblage where fineware receives a very high investment of skill. Meanwhile, urns receive a high investment of skill in both assemblages, although the two significant differences that are observed (Table 4a) combined with percentage frequencies (Figures 1e and 1f) indicate a marginally lower investment of skill for urns at Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö (cemetery) compared to Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (settlemet). A summary of the results indicating the distribution of skill investment is offered in Table 5. SKILL AMONGST THE SHERDS IN THE EARLY TO LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN Introduction The results show a distinct pattern revealing a highly structured investment of skill. Skill has been deployed differently between certain vessel groups and between the settlement and the cemetery; the different social contexts of the living and the dead. It is interesting that the least technologically complex vessel form, cups, receive a low investment of skill in both assemblages. Equally interesting is the strong contrast between the very high investment of skill in fine-ware within the settlement assemblage and the very low investment of skill in fine-ware within the cemetery assemblage. Finally, it is of note that, in contrast to fine-ware, urns receive a high investment of skill within both assemblages.

5

Technological Variable/ Vessel group Cups Clay Preparation Manufacturing Wall Thickness Additions Interior Surface Treatment Exterior Surface Treatment Decoration Rim Deviation on H. Plane Rim Symmetry Handle Symmetry Profile Symmetry Firing

x2=

2.634 3.674 2.574 0.369 1.217 3.370 2.181 20.668 4.204 1.567 7.858 34.625

df

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

p≤

Technological Variable/

0.05

Vessel group

.268 .159 .462* .832 .544 .185* .336* .000 .122 .457* .020 .000*

Fine-ware Clay Preparation Manufacturing Wall Thickness Additions Interior Surface Treatment Exterior Surface Treatment Decoration Rim Deviation on H. Plane Rim Symmetry Handle Symmetry Profile Symmetry Firing

x2=

df

30.928 29.049 30.108 14.882 8.455 17.421 4.184 32.817 4.948 1.362 11.203 33.497

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

p≤

Technological Variable/

0.05

Vessel group

.000 .000 .000 .001* .015 .000* .123* .000 .102 .506* .004* .000*

Urns Clay Preparation Manufacturing Wall Thickness Additions Interior Surface Treatment Exterior Surface Treatment Decoration Rim Deviation on H. Plane Rim Symmetry Handle Symmetry Profile Symmetry Firing

x2=

df

5.909 4.373 3.838 2.256 3.037 1.384 3.303 6.702 1.849 4.494 4.936 8.680

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

p≤ 0.05 .052 .112* .147 .324* .219* .500* .192* .035* .397* .106* .085* .002*

Table 4a: Pearson Chi-Square tests showing significant differences between Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás and Dunaújváros-Dunadülö for cups, fine-ware and urns.

Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (settlement) Technological variables/ vessel x2 = group Cups/Fineware Clay Preparation 11.425 Manufacturing 39.297 Wall Thickness 26.264 Additions 14.097 Interior Surface Treatment 17.329 Exterior Surface Treatment 9.766 Decoration 2.95 Rim Deviation on H. Plane 26.402 Rim Symmetry 10.06 Handle Symmetry 3.304 Profile Symmetry 14.704 Firing 0.051 Cups/Urns Clay Preparation 0.784 Manufacturing 32.996 Wall Thickness 14.180 Additions 10.823 Interior Surface Treatment 8.297 Exterior Surface Treatment 2.346 Decoration 3.770 Rim Deviation on H. Plane 23.198 Rim Symmetry 9.190 Handle Symmetry 6.059 Profile Symmetry 10.952 Firing 0.565 Fineware/Urns Clay Preparation 5.201 Manufacturing 3.287 Wall Thickness 1.599 Additions 0.090 Interior Surface Treatment 1.009 Exterior Surface Treatment 5.339 Decoration 0.170 Rim Deviation on H. Plane 4.388 Rim Symmetry 1.979 Handle Symmetry 1.005 Profile Symmetry 2.088 Firing 0.775

df

p ≤ 0.05

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

.003 .000 .000 .001* .000 .008* .229* .000 .009* .192* .001* .822*

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

.676 .000 .001 .004* .016 .309* .152* .000 .010* .148* .004* .452*

2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1

.074* .193* .449* .764* .604* .069 .919* .111* .372* .316* .352* .379*

Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö (cemetery) Technological variables/ x2 = vessel group Cups/Fineware Clay Preparation 0.742 Manufacturing 2.025 Wall Thickness 7.042 Additions 0.036 Interior Surface Treatment 2.004 Exterior Surface Treatment 3.507 Decoration 6.839 Rim Deviation on H. Plane 9.441 Rim Symmetry 0.616 Handle Symmetry 5.617 Profile Symmetry 2.381 Firing 0.561 Cups/Urns Clay Preparation 0.134 Manufacturing 6.204 Wall Thickness 2.856 Additions 8.509 Interior Surface Treatment 10.033 Exterior Surface Treatment 5.338 Decoration 7.727 Rim Deviation on H. Plane 1.151 Rim Symmetry 2.135 Handle Symmetry 4.148 Profile Symmetry 3.366 Firing 7.019 Fineware/Urns Clay Preparation 0.314 Manufacturing 12.912 Wall Thickness 6.574 Additions 8.019 Interior Surface Treatment 13.647 Exterior Surface Treatment 8.589 Decoration 0.295 Rim Deviation on H. Plane 4.062 Rim Symmetry 4.981 Handle Symmetry 0.403 Profile Symmetry 8.701 Firing 12.184

df

p ≤ 0.05

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

.690 .363 .030 .982 .367 .173 .033* .009 .753 .060* .304 .454

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

.935 .045 .241 .014 .007* .069* .021* .562* .344 .126* .186* .008

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

.855 .002 .037 .018 .001 .014* .863 .131 .083 .817* .013 .000

Table 4b: Pearson Chi-Square tests showing significant differences within the Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás assemblage and within the Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö assemblage for cups compared with fineware, cups compared with urns and fineware compared with urns.

6

good

33%

31%

moderate

poor

25%

31%

44%

27% 46%

25% 33%

50% 59%

38% 43% 37%

36% 30%

54%

46%

54%

20% 50%

19% 13%

30%

39% 30% 35%

26% 23% 21%

11%

4%

wall int. surface clay manufacture additions preparation thickness treatment

37%

rim deviation on rim handle ext. surface decoration the horizontal symmetry symmetry treatment plane

profile symmetry

good

23

7

16

8

13

29

5

7

7

16

15

moderate

19

28

22

12

28

21

2

10

10

8

14

poor

10

17

13

6

11

2

3

9

11

3

17

N=

52

52

51

26

52

52

10

26

28

27

46

rim handle symmetry symmetry

profile symmetry

Figure 1a: Percentage and numeric frequencies for the investment of skill in cups at Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás.

good

29%

27%

32% 41.5%

50%

33%

moderate

poor

30%

38%

43%

46%

44%

33%

41%

36%

39%

52%

52%

41.5%

62% 56%

51%

57%

21%

21%

29% 17%

21%

15%

8%

6%

wall int. surface clay manufacture additions preparation thickness treatment

15%

13%

rim. deviation on ext. surface decoration the horizontal treatment plane

good

14

13

20

12

16

18

3

12

20

17

17

moderate

24

25

20

15

25

27

4

25

14

16

24

poor

10

10

8

11

7

3

0

3

9

6

6

N=

48

48

48

38

48

48

7

40

43

39

47

Figure 1b: Percentage and numeric frequencies for the investment of skill in cups at Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö.

7

good

79%

76%

moderate

63%

68% 84%

75%

84%

85%

19%

8%

5%

11%

15%

5%

17%

22%

8%

4%

11% 8%

74% 88%

92%

12%

8%

29%

24% 13%

poor

5%

8%

rim deviation int. ext. on the rim handle profile clay wall manufacture additions surface surface decoration horizontal symmetry symmetry symmetry preparation thickness treatment treatment plane good 30 29 32 17 26 32 18 20 15 15 11 moderate 5 7 4 3 9 4 4 6 7 2 0 poor 3 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 0 1 Figure 1c: Percentage and numeric frequencies for the investment of skill in fineware at Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás. good

moderate

poor

10% 20%

22%

29%

31% 39%

38%

40%

41% 49%

72% 45%

62%

31%

58%

38% 39%

33%

38%

42% 35%

33% 22%

40% 31% 22%

28% 17%

21% 27%

24%

16% 7%

rim deviation int. ext. clay wall on the rim handle profile manufacture additions surface surface decoration preparation thickness horizontal symmetry symmetry symmetry treatment treatment plane good 11 12 15 9 21 22 18 5 19 21 18 moderate 31 24 16 11 21 23 13 29 16 6 18 poor 12 18 21 9 12 9 6 13 13 2 11 54 54 52 29 54 54 37 47 48 29 47 N= Figure 1d: Percentage and numeric frequencies for the investment of skill in fine-ware at Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö.

8

good

53.3%

moderate

poor

50%

57% 67%

73.3%

56%

70% 79%

81%

94%

33.3%

33% 33%

13.3%

50%

13.3% 30% 13.3%

89%

44%

16%

19% 10%

6%

5%

11%

rim deviation int. ext. clay wall on the rim handle profile manufacture additions surface surface decoration preparation thickness horizontal symmetry symmetry symmetry treatment treatment plane good 16 20 22 13 17 21 15 10 9 15 8 moderate 10 10 4 3 10 9 3 10 7 1 1 poor 4 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 16 30 30 19 20 16 16 9 N= Figure 1e: Percentage and numeric frequencies for the investment of skill in urns at Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás. good

moderate

poor

20%

26% 50%

52% 64%

59%

55%

59%

49%

56% 67%

54%

69% 26% 39%

31% 27%

39%

39%

2%

2%

22%

22%

20% 11%

9%

47%

34%

14%

11%

10%

11%

4%

rim deviation int. ext. on the rim handle profile clay wall manufacture additions surface surface decoration horizontal symmetry symmetry symmetry preparation thickness treatment treatment plane good 15 28 28 21 33 33 23 7 23 24 25 moderate 30 22 14 9 22 22 13 24 14 8 24 poor 11 6 12 3 1 1 6 4 4 4 2 56 56 54 33 56 56 42 35 41 36 51 N= Figure 1f: Percentage and numeric frequencies for the investment of skill in urns at Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö.

9

soft 1.5%

98%

0.5%

0%

98%

2%

normal

soft

high

normal

high

2.3%

95.3%

100%

100%

47.5%

50%

52.5%

50%

25%

37%

56%

75%

63%

44%

2.3%

all vesselscupsdomesticfinewareurns soft 95 24 26 31 14 normal 105 24 16 23 42 high 0 0 0 0 0 200 48 42 54 56 N=

kp firingall vessels cupsdomesticfinewareurns soft 3 0 1 0 0 normal 158 51 40 38 30 high 1 1 1 0 0 162 52 42 38 30 N=

Figure 1h: Percentage frequencies for the investment of skill in firing for all vessel groups at Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö.

Figure 1g: Percentage and numeric frequencies for the investment of skill in firing for all vessel groups at Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás.

The sites Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö

Vessel groups cups cups fineware fineware urns urns

Good

Moderate

Poor √ √

√ √ √ √

√

Table 5: Summary of skill investment for Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás and Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö.

disposal an acquired range of skilled procedural actions that remain in place even if haste is required. In fact, increased speed of production is a tell-tale sign of a high degree of procedural knowledge. Therefore, it may be argued that is makes little sense to select poorly skilled potters to make a large item in haste as the likelihood of failure is bound to increase.

Traditional interpretations Traditional explanations of these results would tend to centre around three main arguments. That pots related to cemetery use are made poorly because they are made in a hurry to aid expedient burial of the dead. That cemetery fine-ware is related to symbolic tokenism so that pots look the way they should but are in fact not technologically sound. Finally, that the high investment of skill in settlement fine-ware is related to the specialist production of elite items.

The same problem arises with cemetery fine-ware in relation to the notion of symbolic tokenism. Pots that are made in a hurry by a skilled artisan may show traces of having been made in haste but as skill is cumulatively incorporated into the performance of potting these pots will be intrinsically technologically sound. This will be visible in the technological signatures of production. These explanations also fail to address the stark difference between the deployment of skill between the equally complex cemetery and settlement fine-ware. Such explanations also fail to account for the difference in firing circumstances between vessels related to the settlement context and those related to the cemetery context (Figures 5g & 5h). Nevertheless, it may indeed be that a number of vessels relate to symbolic tokenism, perhaps acting as facsimiles for the ‘real’ thing at the point of burial; however, the value of such a strategy is not addressed.

These explanations are not without problems. The different deployment of skill for cemetery and settlement fine-ware may appear superficially to support the notion of pots being made in a hurry for funerary purposes. This explanation fails to account for cups, the least technologically complex vessel group and thus the easiest to produce, receiving a low investment of skill in both the settlement and cemetery assemblages. It also fails to explain the opposite situation for urns which receive a high investment of skill in both assemblages. Moreover, given that skill has been previously argued as innate and impossible to ‘unlearn’ even were pots made in a hurry they would still show evidence of skilled manufacture concomitant with the degree to which procedural knowledge had been gained. Signs of haste are not the same as lack of skill. A skilled potter has at his or her

Finally, the high investment of skill in settlement fine10

Marshall & Mass 1997) than as a vessel to quench thirst. It may also be that cups are produced for ‘one-off’ social occasions as noted by Berg (2004) and Hamilakis (1999) and that pragmatic longevity is therefore a low priority. This suggests that on two counts there may be numbers of cups that are not required to encompass a degree of technical skill that would produce a hardy ‘workaday’ vessel. Taken in combination with the generally simple form of cups this means failure by the potter to meet the projected outcome has a lower impact in terms of wasted investment of clay, tempering agents and fuel. This is an issue that should not be dismissed. It has been shown, for example, that the consistent availability of resources (such as appropriate fuel for firing pots) is a key factor in determining continuity of successful production (Arnold 1988; Braun 1983; Rye 1981; Sillar 2000; Tobert 1984). To waste resources unnecessarily would not be a viable strategy in terms of subsistence practices — or ultimately social practices.

ware may well relate to the skilled or ‘specialist’ production of elite items and indeed be a valid argument for differential investments of skill. Owing, largely, to a lack of appropriate methodologies there has been little debate as to how that skill comes into being or the recursive social role that such skill may have. By referring to the case study it is possible to illustrate possible alternative interpretations of the data. Alternative explanations centre on a consideration of skill itself and on pots as a primary context of skill acquisition. Alternative explanations It is essential both for the renewal or reinvention of any potting tradition that the acquisition of skill will be facilitated and promoted. Technological knowledge is not genetically transmitted and each generation must learn from its predecessors (Wallaert-Pêtre 1998) in order to transmit factual knowledge into procedural knowledge (Anderson 1982, 1983, 1987). Even innovation requires an understanding of previous technological processes to emerge (Schiffer & Skibo 1987). It has been argued that the manner in which skill acquisition occurs has a close relationship to the nature of social institutions (Aronson 1989; Buechler 1989; Crown 2001; De Boer 1990; Greenfield 1984, 2000; Wallaert-Pêtre 1999). Moreover, societies are recognised as being constituted through multiple institutions with vertical and horizontal relationships that overlap and cross-cut one another (Bloor 1997; Giddens 1979, 1981). It may then be expected that an institution related to learning will determine the rules of acquiring and deploying skill. As it does not stand alone, the rules of that institution may be expected to both reflect and influence the nature of other institutions and broader social understandings.

By adopting institutionalised practices that encourage, or direct, learners to acquire skill, through working on these more simple vessels, risk to the continuity of the potting tradition and this material category is also protected. Given the nature of procedural knowledge it would seem likely that anyone who cannot eventually master the procedural knowledge required to produce a simple item, such as a cup, would be unlikely to master the skills required to produce larger and more complex items such as domestic vessels, urns, or fine-ware. Were enough practitioners forced to do so it would not be in the best interests of maintaining an understood potting tradition (Longacre et al. 2000). As noted by Hodder (1991) and Crown (2001) it would seem more likely that people who cannot, or do not wish to, develop potting skills would cease to try and do so.

To understand the rules that surround skill acquisition in any given society it seems logical to focus on skill itself. Firstly, pots, and even parts of pots, have to be seen as selected through cultural and social practices as a central context of skill acquisition (learning). By recognising the pot itself as another analytical layer sitting beneath ideas of production locale, for example household versus specialist industry (Peacock 1982; van der Leeuw 1976, 1977), it becomes possible to gain a finer grained picture of skill acquisition and the socially recursive role that it plays.

Fine-ware Fine-ware is argued to be technologically complex (Table 1). Therefore, if all vessels were made by equally skilled potters this vessel group should show a tendency for a higher degree of skill variability than a simpler vessel form such as cups. While this is apparently the case with regard to ‘cemetery’ fine-ware the data clearly shows this is not the case with regard to ‘settlement’ fine-ware (Tables 4a, 4b; Figures 1c, 1d). The stark difference in investment of skill between fine-ware related to the settlement context (Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás) and that related to the cemetery context (Dunaújváros-Dunadülö) makes discussion of them as separate entities entirely necessary.

Cups Cups are the least technologically complex vessel type within the assemblages studied (Table 1) and should therefore offer the greatest chance of technological success. Cups are implicated in both domestic and mortuary practices. They have a continuous presence throughout the Early to Late Middle Bronze Age within highly structured burial practices (Vicze 2001). Moreover, their small size (45-70 mm in height) suggests that they are more likely related to social drinking practices (see for example, Hamilakis 1998, 1999;

Cemetery fine-ware plays a significant and continuous role in the social performance of the mortuary ritual (Vicze 2001, 2003). However, its role does not require any pragmatic function to be exercised. Thus this vessel group offers the chance for potters, in the process of acquiring increased degrees of procedural knowledge, to tackle forms that, while demanding of greater expertise than cups, are not intended to perform a utilitarian

11

Differences between DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás (SETTLEMENT) and Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö (CEMETERY)

cups

fineware

urns

Clay preparation Manufacturing

X X

√ √

X X

Wall thickness Additions Interior surface treatments Exterior surface treatments Decoration Rim deviation on h. plane Rim symmetry Handle symmetry Profile symmetry

X X X X X √ X X √

√ √ √ √ X √ X X √

X X X X X √ X X X

firing

√

√

√

Significant differences (p = 0.05 or less)

3

9

2

Number of vessels

N= D-K 52 D-D 48

N= D-K 38 D-D 54

N= D-K 30 D-D 56

Table 6: Summary of the significant differences in skill investment between Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás and Dunaújváros-Dunadülö.

thickness. It is argued to require a greater degree of skill to produce than cups. Despite the poor investment of skill that this vessel group receives in relation to the mortuary domain it is seen to receive a conversely high investment of skill within the settlement domain. It is suggested that this is due to the very different requirements placed on these vessels in this context. Unlike cemetery fine-ware, settlement fine-ware must be able to meet close scrutiny and to perform in both a visual and utilitarian sense. To make it the recipient of a high investment of skill protects the resources of time, clay and fuel. As well as protecting resources, this strategy also ensures the longevity of pots intended to perform in a functional manner. The high investment of skill also protects the continued production of a prestige item implicated in visually articulating social relations of rank and position. Such material categories are well documented as being central to mechanisms used to negotiate and re-negotiate social relationships (Barley 1994; Bradley 1982; Barrett 1989; Day & Wilson 1998; Jones 2002; Miller 1985; Shanks & Tilley 1987, Sofaer Derevenski & Sørensen 2002; Sørensen 1997, 1991). Given that an increasingly structured and stratified social order is seen to develop from the final (Kulcs) phase of the Nagyrév through to the final closing phase of the Vatya-Koszider period (Csányi 2003; László 2003; Poroszlai 1996, 2000; Shennan 1993; Vicze 2001) it is suggested that settlement fine-ware was implicated in the constant negotiation and renegotiation of a highly stratified social order. Settlement fine-ware was linked with the performance of status negotiations and would be expected to encompass not only a high technological standard of utilitarian function, most probably for the serving of food (Budden 2002), but also to exhibit the highly desirable visual performance characteristics noted by Sofaer (2006).

function — so technological failure or reduced longevity becomes less important. Not being intended to perform a utilitarian function low-firing of cemetery fine-ware, as demonstrated through the data, (Tables 4a & 4b; Figures 1g & 1h) works as another mechanism to protect resources of fuel. Cemetery fine-ware, while not needing to meet the technological challenges of surviving daily use, are, however, implicated in the highly visual, and within this cultural milieu, structured (Vicze 2001) performance of burying the dead. To this end another strategy appears to come into operation that highlights a very clear targeting of skill. A number of pots reveal a mixture of skill investment for different technological signatures. Thus, while one part of the pot receives a very high investment of skill another receives a poor investment of skill. It is interesting that in the context of fine-ware this phenomenon is not arbitrary. The technological variables of decoration, rim symmetry and handle symmetry show no significant differences between settlement and cemetery fine-ware while other variables do (Table 6). This suggests the possibility of manufacture by more than one person with a targeting of different parts of the pot to be worked on by potters with incrementally varying degrees of skill. In this instance technological variables related to visual performance (see Table 6 shaded areas) have been targeted to receive a higher investment of skill than the rest of the pot within the cemetery context, thus protecting the important visual performance of this vessel group. This tactic is suggested to come from institutionalised practices promoting highly prescribed notions of how skill will be acquired and, therefore, deployed. Settlement fine-ware, like cemetery fine-ware, is morphologically highly complex with a very fine wall 12

people are expressed through dress (Sørensen 1997) why not also through urns which can wear bracelets and pendants, have breasts, or carry daggers (Poroszlai 2003) in a way not dissimilar to that noted by David (1990), Thomas and Tilley (1993), and Barley (1994).

It would seem then that the institutionalised practices surrounding skill deployment at this time were quite deliberately aimed at targeting a high degree of skill at this vessel group. This is entirely in keeping with the broader social concern to visually structure identity, including elite identity, through categories of material culture at this time.

It may be that the majority of urns are produced to perform in the social arena of the living, and transferred to the cemetery setting at a later point. In this case urns would have to perform a utilitarian function prior to a sacred, ideological one. This is certainly a situation known to exist in certain African communities where pots are used as water containers, or storage vessels, while they wait to be used as a container for the spirit of the deceased (David 1990).

Urns Urns are large as well as complex and are argued to require a greater degree of skill to produce than cups, and a similar degree of skill to fine-ware. As well as their large physical size (up to and occasionally exceeding 90 cm) the majority of urns are characterised by a tripartite morphology and further embellished with handles, lugs, and plastic, impressed and incised decoration further adding to their elaborate visual performance characteristics. Owing to their large size urns require a far greater investment of both time and physical resources, such as clay, tempering agents and fuel. The high degree of procedural knowledge required for the successful incorporation of these many characteristics into a single vessel form is in no doubt. If all vessels were made by equally skilled potters there is little doubt that urns should be expected to display a higher degree of skill variability than cups. It is of particular note that urns not only receive an outstanding investment of skill within settlement assemblages but also receive the high investment of skill within the cemetery assemblage. This situation suggests that skill is available to be targeted toward the mortuary domain and that, as this is not the case with cups or cemetery fine-ware, this may be suggested to reflect a consciously exercised institutionalised strategy.

Urns must then be able to meet close scrutiny and to perform in both a visual and utilitarian sense. To make urns the recipient of a high investment of skill protects the resources of time, clay and fuel and ensures the continuity of a material category that is clearly central to social expression both in life and at the time of death. Meanwhile, it may be that if some urns are produced directly for the burial context, with there being no intent of a preceding role within the settlement, it would make sense to protect resources and encourage the further acquisition of skill by potters who have not yet reached their full potential to work urns intended for the settlement. It would seem then that, as with settlement fine-ware, the institutionalised practices surrounding skill deployment have quite deliberately targeted a high degree of skill at this vessel group. As stated previously, this is entirely in keeping with the broader social concern to visually structure identity and elite identity through categories of material culture at this time.

Urns are implicated in the settlement domain as storage vessels and in some cases are linked to the storage of seed grain. They are argued to represent an important relationship between essential subsistence resources and surplus required by a settled, agrarian community (Poroszlai 2003). Meanwhile, within the mortuary domain urns are described by Vicze (2001) as being central to the burial rite and highly significant for articulating and structuring identity. It may indeed be suggested that urns physically form the ‘structural item’ of material culture around which, or within which, other forms of grave goods are placed. Urns are then subject to a structural arrangement of grave goods just as dress is subject to a structural arrangement on the body (Kristiansen 1999: 541; Sørensen 1997: 99). They form part of a carefully structured arrangement of vessels that appear in an appropriately ordered way in relation to other grave goods. The central positioning of urns within the burial ritual may be argued to be an expression of the social structuring of an after-life that can be understood through reference to the highly structured categories of material culture that are articulated during the life-course. For example, the highly structured organisation of the burial complex is itself a reflection of the structured social organization of the living (Vicze 2001: 24, 27–51; 2003: 155). Meanwhile, if identity and categories of

CONCLUSION It is argued that the observations of skill deployment from the Early to Late Middle Bronze Age in Hungary suggest institutionalised practices, related to the acquisition of skill, that are very clearly and intricately structured. This structuring works to protect the continuity of material categories that are implicated in regulating the social world. The institutional practices related to the adoption of skill for potting reflect the overriding concern of broader institutionalised practices which use a wide range of visual means to regulate a highly structured notion of identity and position within society, whether this be related to age, gender, kinship or skill (Csányi 2003; Kristiansen 1999; Sofaer Derevenski & Sørensen 2002; Sørensen 1991, 1997; Vicze 2001). Each vessel group has a different relationship one to the other that reflects the place they hold in articulating social relationships. It is suggested that these differing roles influence the degree of skill invested in their production. It seems unlikely from the evidence presented that any pots are simply made in a hurry and far more 13

and incremental manner of skill acquisition. If, as Pauketat and Emerson (1991) argue, pots have power then it must be accepted that such power rests, to a certain extent, with the original acquisition and maintenance of skill.

likely that pots exhibiting lower degrees of skill have been quite deliberately selected as an arena for skill acquisition by potters still in the early stages of acquiring procedural knowledge. While cemetery fine-ware, and some cups, can be argued to provide facsimiles of vessels required in an after-life, this role is played on to provide another step in the learning process. There is, meanwhile, little doubt that both settlement fine-ware and urns are related to a very dominant need for the expression of identity and status, and settlement fine-ware may well be argued as related to the specialist production of elite items. However, the analysis presented here has offered some insight into how this degree of skill becomes possible through a very intricately ordered learning strategy.

AUTHOR’S ADDRESS Sandy BUDDEN University of Southampton (Humanities) Highfield Southampton SO17 IBF UK [email protected]

In many ways the intricacy of the skill pattern revealed suggests the degree of importance attached to this concern with visual articulation of social roles and position. If, as has been argued, societies are constituted through multiple institutions with vertical and horizontal relationships that cross-cut and overlap one another, it may be expected that not only is the institution related to learning influenced by broader social practices but that the opposite may also be true (Bloor 1997; Giddens 1979, 1981). Analysis of the data suggests that within the institution related to learning there is a highly structured regime of learning with potters acquiring incrementally more complex degrees of procedural knowledge. At the top of this framework there must, by necessity, be a number of highly skilled practitioners. Given that their skill determines the continuity of the social strategy to articulate social relations through material categories these potters may be argued to be of sufficient importance that they can become recursively implicated in power relationships (Poroszlai 2002, unpublished manuscript). Given the cross-pollination of technical skill argued to exist at this time between material categories such as pottery, woodwork and metalwork (Sofaer 2006) then the same is held to be true for other craftsmen (Sofaer 2006). This places skill and craftsmanship firmly within the complex realm of social dynamics and power relations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper relates to my PhD research, ‘Renewal and Reinvention: the role of learning strategies in understanding social continuity and change in the Early to Late Middle Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin’, funded by the AHRC. This paper has benefited from many discussions with Dr Joanna Sofaer and in particular I would like to acknowledge the use of material from our joint paper given at the EAA in 2006. I would also like to thank the PCRG conference organisers for inviting me to present my work. None of this work would have been possible without the generous access granted by Ildikó Poroszlai and Magdolna Vicze to the assemblages studied. REFERENCES ARNOLD, D.E. 1988. Ceramic theory and cultural processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ANDERSON, J.R. 1982. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review 89: 369-406. ANDERSON, J.R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ANDERSON, J.R. 1987. Skill acquisition compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review 94: 192-210. ARONSON, L. 1989. To weave or not to weave: Apprenticeship rules among the Akwete Igbo of Nigeria and Baule on the Ivory Coast, in M. W. Coy (ed.) Apprenticeship: from theory to method and back again: 149-162. Albany: State University of New York. BARLEY, N. 1994. Smashing pots: Feats of clay from Africa. London: British Museum Press. BARLEY, N. 1997. Traditional rural potting in West Africa, in I. Freestone & D. Gaimster (eds.) Pottery in the making: World ceramic traditions: 140-145. London: British Museum Press. BARRETT, J. 1989. Food, gender and metal: questions of social reproduction, in M. L. Sørensen & R. Thomas (eds.) The Bronze Age-Iron Age transition in Europe: aspects of continuity and change in

Moreover, if procedural knowledge, as skill, is enacted as social performance (Dobres 1999; Goffman 1959; Ingold 1993a every potter or craftsperson may be seen to have access to variously defined notions to identity. The need to perform, to have your identity recognized makes the performer or actor vulnerable. Performance cannot be just the performance the potter chooses to make but must be socially sanctioned – handles and feet of the wrong kind means that a potter has not performed correctly. Erroneous performances threaten to destabilize the identity of the potter. Enough erroneous performances could destabilise traditions of material categories and ultimately the social world (Budden & Sofaer 2006 forthcoming). In a social world where material categories are evidently central to social expression, the skill acquisition strategy adopted protects the stability of wider social world by protecting the identity and position of ‘potter’ within it. This is achieved by ensuring a stable 14

European societies c.1200 to 500B.C. (BAR Int. Series 483): 304-320. Oxford: BAR Publishing. BERG, I. 2004. The meanings of standardisation: conical cups in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Antiquity 78: 74-85. BERG, I. 2007. Meaning in the making: The potter’s wheel at Phylakopi, Melos (Greece), Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 234-252. BUECHLER, H. 1989. Apprenticeship and the transmission of knowledge in La Paz, Bolivia, in M. W. Coy (ed.) Apprenticeship: from theory to method and back again: 31-50. Albany: State University of New York. BLOOR, D. 1997. Wittgenstein, rules and social institutions. London: Routledge. BRADLEY, R. 1982. Position and possession: Assemblage variation in the British Neolithic Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1: 27-38. BRAUN, D. 1983. Pots as tools, in J. A. Moore & A. S. Keene (eds.) Archaeological hammers and theories: 107-134. New York: Academic Press. BUDDEN, SA. 2002. Black is beautiful: The technology and social practice of producing Black Burnished Wares at Százhalombatta, Hungary. Unpublished Masters Dissertation: University of Southampton. BUDDEN, S.A. & J. SOFAER. (forthcoming). Potters, potting and performance. CAIGER-SMITH, A. 1995. Pottery, people and time. Somerset: Richard Dennis. CHAPMAN. J. 2000. Tension and subversion at funerals, in M. A. Dobres & J. Robb (eds.) Agency in archaeology. London: Routledge. CROWN, P.L. 1999. Socialisation in American Southwest pottery decoration, in J. M. Skibo & G.M. Feinman (eds.) Pottery and people: 25-43. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. CROWN, P.L. 2001. Learning to make pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 57: 451-469. CSÁNYI, M. 2003. Tiszaug-Kéményteto: A Bronze Age settlement in the Tiszazug, in Z. B. Kiss (ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium: 143-144. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage. DAVID, N. 1990. Vessels of the spirit: pots and people in North Cameroon (Video). University of Calgary. DAY, P.M. & D.E. WILSON. 1998. Consuming power: Kamares Ware in Protopalatial Knossos. Antiquity 72: 350-358. De BOER, W. 1990. Interaction, imitation, and communication as expressed in style: The Ucayali experience, in M. Conkey & C. Hastorf (eds.) The uses of style in archaeology: 82-104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOBRES, M.A. 1994. Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 211-258. DOBRES, M.A. 1999. Technology's links and chaînes: The processual unfolding of technique and technician, in M. A. Dobres & C. R. Hoffman (eds.) The social dynamics of technology: Practice, politics and world views: 124-146. London: Smithsonian

Institute. DOBRES, M.A. 2000. Technology and social agency. Oxford: Blackwell. GARDNER, H. 1993 (2nd ed.). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. London: Fontana Press. GARDNER, H. 1999. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. GIBSON, A. 2003. Introduction, prehistoric pottery, people, patterns and purpose: Some observations, questions and speculations, in A. Gibson (ed.) Prehistoric People, Pattern and Purpose (Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Publications 4/ BAR Int. Series 1156): v-xi. Oxford: BAR Publishing. GIBSON, A & A. WOODS. 1997 (2nd ed.). Prehistoric pottery for the archaeologist. London: Leicester University Press. GIDDENS, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan. GIDDENS, A. 1981. A contemporary critique of historical materialism. London: Macmillan. GOFFMAN, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin. GOSSELAIN, O.P. 1992. Technology and style: Potters and pottery among the Bafia of Cameroon. Man 27: 559-586. GOSSELAIN, O.P. 1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball, in M.T. Stark (ed.) The archaeology of social boundaries: 78–106. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press. GOSSELAIN, O.P. 1999. In pots we trust: The processing of clay and symbols in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Material Culture 4: 205-230. GOSSELAIN, O.P. 2000. Materializing identities: An African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 187-217. GOSSELAIN, O.P. 2001. Globalizing local pottery studies, in S. Beyries & P. Pétrequin (eds.) Ethnoarchaeology and its transfers (BAR Int. Series 983): 95-111. Oxford: BAR Publishing. GOSSELAIN, O.P. & A. LIVINGSTONE SMTH. 2005. The Source clay selection and processing practices in Sub-Saharan Africa, in A. Livingstone Smith, D. Bosquet & R. Martineau (eds.) Pottery manufacturing processes: reconstruction and interpretation (BAR Int. Series 1349): 33-47. Oxford: BAR Publishing. GREENFIELD, P.M. & J. LAVE. 1982. Cognitive aspects of informal education, in D. Wagner & H. Stevenson (eds.) Cultural perspectives on child development: 181-207. San Francisco: Freeman. GREENFIELD, P. 1984. A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life, in B Rogoff & J. Lave (eds.) Everyday cognition: 117-138. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. GREENFIELD, P. 2000. Children, material culture and weaving: historical change and developmental change, in J. Sofaer Derevenski (ed.) Children and material culture: 72–86. London: Routledge. 15

GREENFIELD, P.M., MAYNARD, A. E. & C.P. CHILDS. 2000. History, culture, learning, and development. Cross Cultural Research 34: 351-374. HACKING, I. 2004. Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: between discourse in the abstract and face-to-face interaction. Economy and Society 33: 277-302. HAMILAKIS, Y. 1998. Eating the dead: Mortuary feasting and the politics of memory in the Aegean Bronze Age, in K. Branigan (ed.) Cemetery and society in the Aegean Bronze Age: 115-130. Sheffield: Academic Press. HAMILAKAS, Y. 1999. Food technologies/ technologies of the body: the social context of wine and oil production in Bronze Crete. World Archaeology 31: 38-54. HODDER, I. 1991. The decoration of containers: An ethnographic and historical study, in W. Longacre (ed.) Ceramic ethnoarchaeology: 71-94. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. INGOLD, T. 1981. The hunter & his spear: notes on the cultural mediation of social & ecological systems, in A. Sheridan & G. Bailey (eds.) Economic archaeology (BAR Int. Series 96): 119-128. Oxford: BAR Publishing. INGOLD, T. 1993a. Technology, language, intelligence: a reconsideration of basic concepts, in K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (eds.) Tools, language and cognition in human evolution: 449-472. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INGOLD, T. 1993b. The Reindeerman's lasso, in P. Lemmonier (ed.) Technological choices: Transformations in material cultures since the Neolithic: 108-125 London: Routledge. INGOLD, T. 1999. Forward, in M. A. Dobres & C. R. Hoffman (eds.) The social dynamics of technology: vii–xi. London: Smithsonian Institute. JONES, A. 2002. Archaeological theory and scientific practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KRAMER, C. 1985. Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 14: 77-102 KREITER, A. 2006. Technological choices and material meanings: analyses of Early and Middle Bronze Age ceramics from a tell settlement in northern Hungary. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Southampton. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1999. Symbolic structures and social institutions: the twin rulers in Bronze Age Europe, in: A. Gustafsson et al. (eds.) Glyfer och arkeologiska rum-en vanbok till Rarl Nordbladh, Göteborg: Göteborg University. LÁSZLÓ R. 2003. Remarks in the Middle Bronze Age ‘prosperity’ in the Carpathian Basin. Ősrégészeti Levelek 5: 51-64. LONGACRE, W.A., XIA, J. & Y. TAO. (2000) I want to buy a black pot. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 273-293. MARSHALL, Y. & A. MASS. 1997. Dashing dishes. World Archaeology 28: 275-290. MAUSS, M. 1935 [2006] Les techniques du corps, in N. Schlanger (ed.) Marcel Mauss: Techniques, technology and civilisation: 77-95. Oxford:

Durkheim Press. MAUSS, M. 1947 [2006], Technology manuel d'ethnographie, in N. Schlanger (ed.) Marcel Mauss: Techniques, technology and civilisation: 97-140. Oxford: Durkheim Press. MAYNARD, A.E., GREENFIELD, P.M. & C.P. CHILDS. 1999. Culture, history, biology, and body: Native and non-Native acquisition of technological skill. Ethos 27: 379-402. MILLER, D. 1985. Artefacts as categories: a study of ceramic variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MINAR, C.J. 2001. Motor skills and the learning process: The conservation of cordage final twist direction in communities of practice. Journal of Anthropological Research 57: 381-405. MOZSOLICS, A. 1957. Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Großen Wanderung. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 8: 119-156. PAUKETAT, R & T.E. EMERSON. 1991. The ideology of authority and the power of the pot. American Anthropologist 93: 919-941. PEACOCK, D.P.S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman world: An ethnoarchaeological approach. London: Longman's. PETERSON, S. 1974. Shoji Hamada: A potter's way and work. Tokyo & New York: Kodansha International Ltd. PÉTREQUIN, P. 1993. North wind, south wind: Neolithic technical choices in the Jura Mountains, 3700-2400 BC. In P. Lemonnier (ed.) Technical choices: Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic: 36-76. London: Routledge. POROSZLAI, I. 1996. Excavations at Százhalombatta 1989 - 1995. Százhalombatta: Matrica Museum. POROSZLAI, I. 2000. Excavation campaigns at the Bronze Age site at Százhalombatta- Földvár I. 19891999; II. 1991-1993, in I. Poroszlai & M. Vicze (eds.) Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition SAX Annual Report 1. Hungary: Matrica Museum. POROSZLAI, I, 2002 Life on Bronze Age tells. Unpublished manuscript. POROSZLAI, I. 2003, Tell cultures of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. In Zsolt Visy (ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium: 142-143. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage. RICE, P.M. 1987. Pottery analysis: A sourcebook. London: The University of Chicago Press. ROGOFF, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ROUX, V. 1990. The psychological analysis of technical activities: A contribution to the study of craft specialisation. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 142-151. ROUX, V. & D. CORBETTA. 1989. The potter's wheel. Craft specialization and technical competence. Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi/Bombay/Calcutta. RYE, O. 1981. Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington: Taraxum. 16

SCHIFFER, M.B & J.M. SKIBO. 1987. Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology 28: 595-622. SCHLANGER, N. 1990. Techniques as human action two perspectives. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 18–26. SEITZ, J.A. 2007. The development of bodily kinaesthetic intelligence in children: Implications for education and artistry. http://www.york.cuny.edu/~seitz/HolisticEd.html (accessed 22/1/07). SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1987. Style and ideology. In M. Shanks & M Tilley (eds.) Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice: 137-195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SHENNAN, S. 1993. Settlement and social change in Central Europe, 3500-1500 BC. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 121-161. SILLAR, B. 1996. The dead and the drying: techniques for transforming people and things in the Andes. Journal of Material Culture 1: 259-289. SILLAR, B. 1997. Reputable pots and disreputable potters: Individual and community choice in presentday pottery production and exchange in the Andes, in C.G. Cumberpatch & P.W. Blinkhorn (eds.) Not so much a pot, more a way of life: 1–20. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph. SILLAR, B. 2000. Dung by preference: The choice of fuel as an example of how Andean pottery production is embedded within wider technical, social, and economic practices. Archaeometry 42: 43-60. SILLAR, B. & M.S. TITE. 2000. The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for materials science approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry 42: 2-20. SINOPOLI, C.M. 1999. Ceramic variability at Vijanagara, in J. M. Skibo & G. M. Feinman (eds.) Pottery and people: 115-136. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. SOFAER, J. 2006. Pots, houses and metal: Technological relations at the Bronze Age tell at Százhalombatta, Hungary, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25:127– 147. SOFAER DEREVENSKI, J. & M.L.S. SØRENSEN. 2002. Becoming cultural: society and the incorporation of bronze, in B.S. Ottoway & E. C. Wager (eds.) Metals and society: papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Conference in Lisbon 2000 (BAR Int. Series 1061): 117-121 Oxford: BAR Publishing. SØRENSON, M. 1991. Gender construction through appearance, in D. Walde & N. D. Willows (eds.) The Archaeology of gender: 121-129. Calgary: The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. SØRENSON, M. 1997. Reading dress: The construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 5: 93114. STARK, M. & W.A. LONGACRE. 1993. Kalinga ceramics and new technologies: Social and cultural

contexts of ceramic change, in W.D. Kingery (ed) The social and cultural contexts of new ceramic technologies: 1-32. Westerville: American Ceramic Society. TOBERT, N. 1984. Potters of El-Fasher: One technique practiced by two ethnic groups, in J. Picton (ed.) Earthenware in Asia and Africa: 219-237. London: Percival David Foundation. THOMAS, J. & C. TILLEY. 1993. The axe and the torso: Symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Brittany, in C. Tilley (ed.) Interpretative archaeology: 225-321. Oxford: Berg. van der LEEUW, S.E. 1976. Studies in the technology of ancient pottery. Amsterdam: Organisation for the Advancement of Pure Research. van der LEEUW, S.E. 1977. Towards a study of the economics of pottery making, in B. L. van Beek, R. W. Brandt & W. Groenman-van Waateringe (eds.) Ex horreo. Amsterdam: Albert Egges van Giffen Institut voor Prae- en Proto-histoire, University of Amsterdam. van der LEEUW, S.E. 1993. Giving the potter a choice: Conceptual aspects of pottery techniques, in P. Lemmonier (ed.) Technological transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic: 238-288. London: Routledge. van der LEEUW, S.E. 1999. Exchange and trade in ceramics: some notes from a potter's point of view, in J. P. Creilard, V. Stissi & G. van Wrjngaarden (eds.) The complex past of pottery: production, circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery: 115-136. Amsterdam: Gieben. van der LEEUW, S.E. & D.A. PAPOUSEK. 1992. Tradition and innovation, in A. Galley, F. Audouze & V. Roux (eds.) Ethnoarchéologie: justification, problèms, limites: 135-148. Juan-les-Pins: APDCA. VICZE, M. 2001. Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö, The Early and Middle Bronze Age cemetery of DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás. Unpublished PhD thesis: Eötvös Loránd, University of? Budapest. VICZE, M. 2003. Dunaújváros-Duna-dülö: Burials of the Vatya Culture, in Z. Visy (ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium: 155-156. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage. WALLAERT-PÊTRE, H. 1998. Ethnoarchaeology & pottery making: the necessity to understand apprenticeship strategies. Unpublished manuscript. University of Southampton Pottery Practical Course Lecture. WALLAERT-PÊTRE, H. 1999. Manual laterality apprenticeship as the first learning rule prescribed to potters, in L.R. Owen & M. Porr (eds.) Ethnoanalogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and production, Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 14: 185-206. WALLAERT-PÊTRE, H. 2001. Learning how to make the right pots: apprenticeship strategies and material culture, a case study in handmade pottery from Cameroon. Journal of Anthropological Research 57: 471-492.

17

18

THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE POT: WHAT OTHER CONTAINERS CAN TELL US ABOUT THE INCEPTION OF CERAMICS IN THE NEOLITHIC NEAR EAST Rachel CONROY Abstract: Any attempt to investigate the underlying mechanisms behind the adoption of pottery must take into account other container types and related traditions of manufacture. Within Near Eastern archaeology, the different elements that together form the material culture assemblage of a site are almost exclusively discussed in isolation. This paper aims to bring these elements together by discussing the relationship between ceramics and vessels of alternative materials in a holistic manner. This will centre upon their functional potential and the social contexts within which they may have performed. By so doing, this work will elucidate the role early ceramics played and why they began to be used when alternatives in stone, plaster, wood and basketry were in common use.

INTRODUCTION

APPROACHES CERAMICS

Ceramics are the most prolific of archaeological remains in the Near East. The chronology of the Near East, from the inception of ceramics through to the historic period, is based upon regional pottery typologies. The appearance of pottery itself is used as a chronological benchmark. The terms ‘Pre-Pottery Neolithic’ (PPN; also known as ‘Aceramic Neolithic’) and ‘Pottery Neolithic’ (PN; also known as ‘Ceramic Neolithic’) are ingrained in archaeological discourse as supposedly culturally distinct chronological phases (Table 1). Its assumed role as chronological marker has placed a considerable emphasis on the widespread introduction of pottery vessels, which is traditionally described as occurring at around 6000 BC (uncalibrated),1 though recent discoveries indicate that this occurred a few centuries earlier than originally thought (e.g. Le Mière & Picon 2003: 179). In fact, fired clay artefacts, including vessels, have been discovered dating approximately a thousand years before the traditional onset of the PN period. Also, there is a long history of varied clay use prior to the advent of ceramics, including the use of technical procedures such as burnishing, shaping and tempering.

TO

THE

APPEARANCE

OF

Theories regarding the inception of pottery vessels can be grouped into three broad categories of technological, economic and social approaches. Pottery has been described as “thoroughly ‘cultural’”, as its variation is dependant upon an individual, the potter (Hoopes & Barnett 1995: 1-2). Unlike vessels or tools manufactured from stone or bone, the potter is not restricted by the shape and size of the raw material (Childe 1965: 93). Pottery vessels may yield information regarding a society’s technology, subsistence, interactions, symbolic systems and household activities. Recent ceramic studies have attempted to formulate models of culture change, technological innovation and development as well as the role of material culture as a communicative tool. There are numerous studies of the inception of ceramics that could be drawn on for a comparative perspective to Near Eastern material, some of which adopt a contextual approach. Given limitations of space, I have decided to give a brief summary of approaches applied to this phenomenon in Japan and Greece, as these present two of the better-documented case studies.

The appearance of ceramic vessels in the Near East is an unusual phenomenon, in that it occurs relatively quickly across a wide geographical area (Figure 1). During the first half of the 7th millennium, almost all known archaeological sites are without ceramics. While a small number of sites bear very early evidence, in chronological terms, of the production of coarse ceramics, an influx of sites with evidence of ceramic use is apparent during approximately the last few centuries of the 7th millennium. Generally speaking, ceramics dating to the second half of the 7th millennium are not present in large numbers and there is little variation between types. Often only one or two ware types can be distinguished within a site assemblage (Le Mière 1989: 53). Smoothing and burnishing are the only common types of surface finish, though some decoration is attested. A larger number of pottery-using sites appear during the early to mid 6th millennium. During this time, an increase in regionalism occurs, which is apparent in the use of different types of pottery decoration (still a markedly rare occurrence), surface finish, tempering choices and vessel morphology (Le Mière & Picon 1999: 15) (Figures 2, 3).

Japan The earliest known Japanese ceramics date to the Jomon period, which spans approximately 10,000 years. Jomon pottery defies the traditional assumptions that the adoption of pottery is associated with agriculture, as the subsistence economy at the time of its inception was based upon hunting and gathering (Harris 1997: 20). Despite the long duration of the period, Jomon pottery displays marked continuity in its technical tradition. Early Jomon pottery is consistently low-fired, manufactured by hand using coil and slab techniques and fired in the open (Harris 1997: 24). Vessels from the earlier periods are often tempered with organic materials, whereas later vessels were primarily grit-tempered (Harris 1997: 24). It has been suggested on the basis of shape, that most early vessels were cooking pots (Aikens 1995: 13). Incipient Jomon ceramics (c. 10,000-7500 BC), the earliest known type, are usually found on inland sites in areas of southern Japan. Cave dwellings and rock shelters comprise 21.5% of the sites producing this type

19

Figure 1: Distribution of some early pottery-using sites. Approx. Date (uncal. BC)

Traditional Chronology (cal BC)

Notes

6600-5500

Early PPNB (9200-8300) Middle PPNB (8400-7500) Late PPNB (southern Levant)

6400-5100

PN

5450-4600

Pre-Halaf (6400-5900, Tell Halaf, Sabi Abyad) Proto-Hassuna (6000-5900, Yarim Tepe I)

7700-6900

Beginning of agriculture and livestock breeding, the ‘true Neolithic’ Integration of Neolithic culture throughout entire region Simultaneous appearance of ceramics in northern part of region c. 7000 cal. BC (c. 5950 uncalibrated BC). Ceramics not yet apparent in southern Levant, Iranian Plateau and Syro-Jordanian steppes. Ceramics appear in southern Levant around 6400-6200 cal. BC (c. 5400-5250 uncalibrated BC)

Table 1: Relative chronologies of the Near Eastern Neolithic (based on Aurenche et al. 2000).

Figure 2: Pottery Neolithic bowl rims with burnished surfaces from the Kahramanmaras.

Figure 3: Pottery Neolithic sherd illustrating rare but characteristic impressed decoration from the Kahramanmaras survey in southeastern Turkey. Image courtesy of Stuart Campbell and Elizabeth Carter.

20

of pottery (Aikens 1995: 12). This is a high percentage in comparison to discoveries from later phases and has further significance in that littoral occupations were extremely rare during this early phase (Aikens 1995: 12).

objects to their repertoire at the beginning of the Neolithic” (1995: 62), there are a number of insightful approaches that can inform the development of a new framework for the Near East.

Developments of the social role of early ceramics can be observed during the Middle Jomon phase (c. 6500-6000 BC). The production of plain vessels for the ‘domestic’ requirements of cooking and storage continued alongside the manufacture of more elaborate vessels utilised for ‘ritual and display’ purposes. These items were likely to have been produced by specialists, rather than at a household level (Aikens 1995: 14-15).

A large proportion (80-90%) of the Early Neolithic (EN) assemblage at Franchthi is a mineral tempered ware. The remaining ceramics vary in their construction, surface finish and/or firing, During the Middle Neolithic a new ware type was introduced, which quickly came to dominate the assemblage, accounting for 80-90% of the total sherdage recovered (Vitelli 1989: fig. 3). At the same time, the range of decorative techniques increases. Vitelli argues that, although during each period one ware dominated the potters’ output, the fact that a range of other wares was also being produced is significant. Vitelli suggests that “the choice of materials was neither random nor uninformed” (1989: 19). Furthermore, the choice of particular materials or decorative techniques might have had a social or symbolic value (Vitelli 1995: 61).

Regarding their origin, it has been proposed that Jomon vessels may be copies of baskets and that their initial function was to allow the boiling of foodstuffs (Rice 1999: 15). Evidence in the form of fire-cracked stones at some Late Pleistocene sites indicates that the process of boiling food using heated stones was occurring shortly before the manufacture of the first pottery vessels (Ikawa-Smith 1976: 514). The adoption of pottery would have made this process more convenient, particularly the processing of molluscs, a staple food (Ikawa-Smith 1976: 515).

It is argued that the existence of variability in the EN assemblage indicates that local production styles developed from an early stage in the technique. Whereas several potters may have made the dominant ware type during the EN and MN, Vitelli suggests that different individual potters were producing each of the ‘minor’ wares (1989: 21). Taking this into account, it is estimated that five potters were working within the EN and three within the MN. Calculations of the minimum number of vessels represented within the assemblage suggests that pottery manufacture was relatively sporadic at Franchthi during the EN, with each of the five potters making only 12-13 vessels each year. During the MN, despite the fact that fewer potters were working, their output increased to 150-175 vessels per year. The range of vessel shapes and decorative techniques also rose dramatically. The increased rate of production, in conjunction with an increase in technical consistency, is thought to indicate that potters were spending more time making vessels during the MN (Vitelli 1989: 21-22). The possibility of craft specialisation, even the existence of a “pottery ‘industry’”, during this later period has been suggested (Vitelli 1995: 56). An element of competition may have existed between the MN potters, each striving to produce yet more elaborate and innovative styles (Vitelli 1995: 56).

A direct link between the manufacture and use of Jomon pottery and “the evolution of the broad-spectrum, hunting-fishing-gathering, woodland/waterside economy” may be viable (Aikens 1995: 19). Jomon pottery provided an ideal mechanism through which a wide range of available foodstuffs could be stored and prepared (Aikens 1995: 19). It thus appears that the social and economic situation of the Jomon period played a significant role in the inception of potting in Japan. Knowledge of the properties of raw and fired clay already existed; therefore, accidental discovery need not be invoked as an argument. Instead, the key factor was the beginnings of a new “[…] social and environmental context in which people needed cooking and storage containers in large quantity. In this context there were obvious advantages to fired earth vessels that could be made for a fraction of the labor required by skin bags, bark buckets, plant-fiber baskets, or hollowed-out containers of wood or stone” (Aikens 1995: 19). Franchthi Cave, Greece

There is little evidence for vessels being produced to fulfil specific functions during the EN (Vitelli 1989: 24). It is not until the second half of the MN that vessels produced specifically to meet the demands of direct cooking were produced. These vessels were present within the two minor ware types. Their rounded bodies and high proportion of mineral temper are technical features that would increase resistance to thermal shock. Furthermore, they often bear evidence of secondary burning suggestive of original patterns of use (Vitelli 1989: 24). A reference to ethnographic data provides a very interesting context to the relatively late arrival of specially designed cooking vessels at Franchthi.

The earliest sherds from Franchthi Cave in Greece have been 14-C dated to around 6700 BC (calibrated). The assemblage recovered from this site provides the most complete stratigraphic sequence for early ceramics in southern Greece (Vitelli 1989: 17). Vitelli’s (1989, 1995) interpretation of this material has provided interesting models focussing on the social context of the ceramics. Although Vitelli’s research makes some potentially problematic assumptions, for example that pottery production was restricted to females (1989: 17), or that the first potters might have been “individuals with shamanic powers who added the making of ceramic 21

“Many traditional potters are economically able to continue their craft today, in spite of competition from inexpensive enamel and plastic containers, largely because traditional foods are judged to taste different, i.e. less good, if prepared in anything other than traditional ceramic vessels. The cultural preference for a familiar, traditional taste, which today contributes to the survival of traditional pottery-making, might well have worked against the immediate adoption of ceramic vessels for food preparation in a context where foods had long been prepared without pots. Perhaps we should expect that traditional pre-Neolithic (and pottery-less) means of food preparation persisted even well into the Neolithic, as is suggested by the apparently late use of pots for cooking at Franchthi” (Vitelli 1989: 25).

early development is underrepresented as a research topic. Ceramics have played a rather restricted role, with their interpretation largely limited to issues of typology and as a chronological tool (Faura & Le Mière 1999; Le Mière 1989, 2000; Le Mière & Picon 1987, 1999, 2003), rather than informing our knowledge of the social context of particular sites or regions. Within site reports, different classes of material culture are most often compartmentalised. Assemblages are artificially fragmented by archaeological systems of classification and fieldwork methodology, becoming a series of separate components presented in isolated discussions by a relevant specialist. The removal of this broader context impacts our understanding of material assemblages. Recent work has begun to readdress this balance, achieving valuable insights by approaching pottery and other artefacts from a contextual perspective (e.g. Campbell & Conroy (in prep); Nieuwenhuyse 2006; Nilhamn 2003; Verhoeven 1999).

This observation is insightful, as it acknowledges the role of cultural tradition and choice. These are certainly key issues to consider when approaching the introduction of any new technology, or form of material culture. Though these are intangible concepts and thus difficult to approach in archaeological contexts, it illustrates the advantage of being aware of such issues.

Most early pottery sites have varied container assemblages composed of several different vessel types. Furthermore, materials such as wood, hide and other organic materials that were probably used to make containers have rarely survived in the archaeological record. Neolithic container assemblages are therefore likely to have been even more varied than we can estimate based purely on the archaeological evidence. Assuming that containers have been made of a wide range of materials, it begs the question of whether ceramics actually presented any functional advantages over these existing container types. More interestingly, what was the potential interplay between different container types in particular social contexts?

Vitelli warns against devaluing the EN ceramics due to the lack of evidence for functional utility and our perception of them as ‘crude’ and technically unsophisticated. Like their counterparts in the Near East, many of the EN ceramics from Franchthi are burnished. Ethnographic research has illustrated burnishing to be a time-consuming, labour-intensive technique that can have unpredictable results before the technique is mastered (Vitelli 1995: 59). Likewise, the irregular shape and uneven firing of many EN vessels is explained as demonstrative of a lack of experience rather than care (Vitelli 1995: 60). This contrasts with coarse ware vessels of the MN, where a deliberate decision has been to manufacture a vessel to a ‘coarse’ standard (Vitelli 1995: 60).

WHAT WERE VESSELS USED FOR? The array of activities that vessels of differing materials are capable of fulfilling is an important factor for our understanding of the appearance of pottery. Table 2 summarises in a generic manner which containers are likely to have been used in the execution of different tasks. This is based upon the physical characteristics and capabilities of the different materials and does not take vessel shape or size into account.

Vitelli suggests that the first potters may have held an esteemed position within society, perhaps being ascribed a ‘shamanic’ status (1995: 61). I believe this extends the interpretation too far, yet the underlying principle is certainly interesting. The question of how potters and their products were perceived by others, particularly during the initial stages of the technique, may elucidate the question of the social role of pottery vessels in the Near East.

Contrary to general consensus, pottery vessels (encompassing burnished, unburnished and plastered variants) do not appear to be uniquely capable of any of the listed activities when compared to other materials. It is apparent that a small assemblage of other container types would be capable of performing a markedly varied set of functions prior to and after the introduction of ceramics. There appear to be some instances where nonceramic vessels could complement an assemblage by fulfilling tasks that a large number of ceramic vessels would be less capable of undertaking. The capability of existing containers to perform a wide range of functions probably explains why pottery does not appear to directly replace any one of the other container types, though it had

APPROACHES IN NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY Despite the integral importance of ceramics as a framework for understanding and interpretation within Near Eastern archaeology, their initial appearance and

22

unsuitable for a particular task is entirely and unavoidably subjective. We cannot be certain that the ability to fulfil a function effectively was not the most important factor in choosing what vessel to use for a particular duty during this period. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that functional efficiency was a significant consideration. Ideally, size, surface treatment, temper, firing and other technical factors would have been considered. However, shape was the only consistent information available in the sample. A positive aspect of the method of analysis employed is that the potential functional multiplicity of particular types of ceramics can be demonstrated.

the distinct advantage of a speedy and comparatively large-scale production. One therefore has to conclude that ceramics were not adopted as a response to a new set of practical needs, or as a solution to a particular functional problem, but were part of a varied system of container manufacture and use. HOW DID CERAMIC VESSELS SHAPE SOCIAL INTERACTION? Based upon the functions the various containers were capable of fulfilling, it is likely that ceramics, nonceramics and the people using them interacted with each other in different social spheres. To develop these ideas further, an examination of the most generic vessel shapes present within early ceramic assemblages can be used to formulate a more detailed idea of the social contexts in which ceramic vessels were used. The decision as to whether a vessel of a particular shape is suitable or

For the purpose of this analysis, consumption, subsistence and transportation are defined as the three broad social contexts for ceramic use. Each of these categories has been subdivided into more specific tasks (see Table 3).

Vessel Material

Direct heating/ cooking Indirect heating/ cooking Abrasive processing Non-abrasive processing S-Term storage dry/solid L-Term storage dry/solid S-Term storage liquid L-Term storage liquid Serving dry/solid Serving liquid Longer distance transportation Symbolic embellishment

Basketry

Wooden

Unfired Clay

Burnished Pottery

Un-burnished Pottery

Gypsum White Ware

Lime White Ware

Lime Coated Pottery

Gypsum Coated Pottery

Hide

P

P

P

P

9

9

X

X

P

X

P

9

9

9

P

9

9

X

9

9

P

9

9

X

X

X

9

9

X

9

9

P

X

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

X

9

P

9

9

9

9

9

9

X

9

X

X

X

9

9

X

9

9

P

9

9

X

X

X

P

X

X

X

9

P

9

9

9

9

P

9

9

9

9

9

9

X

9

X

9

P

9

9

X

9

9

P

9

X

9

9

P

9

9

X

X

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

Table 2: Suitability of vessels made from differing materials to particular tasks. Key: 9= suitable, X= unsuitable, P= potentially suitable. Direct cooking/heating: placement of a vessel directly over a fire with the aim of cooking or heating the contents. Indirect cooking/heating: placement of heated stones (or other suitable objects) within a vessel with the aim of heating the contents. Abrasive processing: use of a vessel for mixing or pounding products or materials (Rice 1987:Fig. 7.1). Non-abrasive processing: use of a vessel for such activities as sun drying, soaking, mixing and washing products or materials (Rice 1987:Fig. 7.1). Short term storage: use of a vessel to continuously hold a product or material for a period of no more than a few days. Long term storage: use of a vessel to continuously hold a product or material for a period of more than a few days. Serving (liquids or solids): use of a vessel for serving foodstuffs, liquids or other products within a limited spatial boundary. Longer distance transportation: transportation of a product or material within a vessel over a longer distance than that required for serving; for example, intra or inter-site movement. Symbolic embellishment: capability or ease with which the material used to make a vessel can be decorated.

23

Suitability

Task

Stone

Vessel Shape Rounded open bowl Rounded shallow open bowl Straight open bowl Straight shallow open bowl Rounded closed bowl Rounded shallow closed bowl Straight closed bowl Straight shallow closed bowl Jar with flaring neck, narrow orifice Jar with flaring neck, wide orifice Jar with insloping neck, narrow orifice Jar with insloping neck, wide orifice Husking Tray Other tray

S-Term Storage Liquid 3

Subsistence S-Term Storage L-Term Storage Dr/Solid Liquid 3 X

Transportation Short Long Dist. Dist. P X

P

P

X

X

P

X

3

3

X

X

P

X

P

P

X

X

X

X

3

3

P

P

3

P

3

3

X

P

3

X

3

3

P

P

3

P

3

3

X

P

3

X

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

P

P

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

P

P

3

3

X X

X X

X X

X X

P P

X X

Abrasive Process. 3

Non-Abrasive Process. 3

3

3

3

P

3

P

Vessel Shape Rounded open bowl Rounded shallow open bowl Straight open bowl Straight shallow open bowl Rounded closed bowl Rounded shallow closed bowl Straight closed bowl Straight shallow closed bowl Jar with flaring neck, narrow orifice Jar with flaring neck, wide orifice Jar with insloping neck, narrow orifice Jar with insloping neck, wide orifice Husking Tray Other tray

L-Term Storage Dry/Solid X

Consumption Direct Cooking/ Heating 3

Indirect Cooking/ Heating 3

Serving

Pouring

3

P

P

3

P

X

3

3

P

3

X

P

3

P

3

3

3

3

P

X

3

3

P

P

3

X

X

3

X

3

P

X

X

3

X

P

3

X

X

P

X

P

P

3

P

3

3

3

P

3

X

P

X

X

X

X

X

P

P

P

X

X

3 3

3 3

X X

X X

3 3

X X

Table 3: Links between basic ceramic vessel shape and potential social use.

From Table 3 it becomes apparent that some vessel shapes have a wide range of potential functions while others appear to be more limited. Husking and other trays are examples of containers that are likely to have had relatively limited functional capabilities, most likely restricted to consumption related activities. Other tasks appear also to be intrinsically linked to vessel shape, for example abrasive processing and pouring. Long distance transportation and direct cooking also have a relatively small number of vessel shapes that would most effectively meet the functional demand. In contrast, a

relatively large amount of vessel shapes would be suited to serving, non-abrasive processing, short-term storage of solids and liquids and short distance transportation, as these had less functionally specific demands than some of the above-mentioned activities. It appears that some vessels had the potential to be used in a variety of different social situations, in both consumption and subsistence related activities, for example. In contrast, other types may have had more defined boundaries of social use. One example is the link

24

I have inferred between husking and other trays and consumption activities. Jars with insloping necks would be most suited to roles in storage and transportation and would be less effective in carrying out consumption related tasks than many alternatives. It can thus be inferred that as assemblages became more varied in vessel shape, certain types may have become increasingly bounded to particular activities and social contexts.

37%

1% 1% 2% 3%

Broadening the context of investigation, Figure 4 gives an impression of the proportion of the most predominant vessel types within the assemblages from the sampled sites.2 What is apparent is that the shapes that appear more bounded to certain activities and particular social contexts from an early stage, namely husking and other trays, shallow bowls and certain jar types, form only a minor percentage (7%) of the total number of types represented. Vessels that are more flexible in their potential application and social use, particularly bowls, are predominant. Furthermore, the most common types of bowl are closed varieties, which have the widest variation in their potential utility, meaning that they could have played a part in consumption, subsistence and transportation contexts (Figure 5).

7% 31% 18%

bowl unknown jar deep bowl shallow bowl husking tray deep jar other

Figure 4: The most common vessel types present within the sampled assemblages.

11% 9%

The most common bowl sizes, based upon rim diameter, are those in the range of 120-199 mm, accounting for 43% of bowls (Figure 6). Bowls with a rim diameter of between 200-299 mm account for 28% of the sample. A vessel with a rim diameter of approximately 120 mm is the largest that can be comfortably held within one hand (Adams 1983: 212). A relatively large proportion of vessels fall within this category (22%). Vessels with diameters of more than 400 mm also occur relatively infrequently (7%). This appears to affirm that vessels with the most flexibility in function and the social situations they could be used within, appear to be predominant within early ceramic assemblages. Bowls at the lower and higher end of the size range would undoubtedly be more limited in their functional capability and their potential for interaction with people and other vessels within different social spheres. It is therefore not surprising that the largest vessels in the sample occur in small numbers.

37%

open closed vertical unknown

43%

Figure 5: The most common bowl types present within the sampled assemblages.

2% 5%

22%