Pottery in elucidating the household
Introduction
This article discuses some basic methods and approaches, which are used to elucidate the household through the study of pottery. The paper is divided in five sections. The first section explains the difficulties of defining the nature of the household in past societies. It focuses on which parts of household activity are actually investigated and how pottery helps. The second section explains how the study of vessel function provides information on household activity. This section explains that vessel function is linked to vessel forms and manufacture technologies, which are designed to cover specific household needs. The third section discusses evidence of direct domestic use, such as surface and subsurface damage, signs of direct contact with fire and presence of organic residues inside or outside the pots. Section four discuses the study of pottery decoration, which can often inform on the social and ideological context of pottery consumption. The fifth and final section concludes on the above approaches and raises some questions regarding the study of ancient household activities though pottery, as well as their degree of accuracy.
The study of the household through pottery: rising issues
For thousands of years, clay has been one of the most important materials for the manufacture of domestic utensils and other items used in the household. In archaeology, pottery is highly informative of domestic activities; however, it is not the only baked-clay product associated with the household. In fact, household activities are supported by a range of backed-clay products, such as bricks, tiles, lamps, basins, etc. (Rice 2005; Orton et al. 1993; Peacock 1982; Sinopoli 1991). Most commonly, clay vessels serve as containers and their basic characteristics relate to their suitability for certain domestic tasks (Rice 2005, 208). Even so, the use of pottery in any household can be combined with the use of several other domestic objects made of non-clay materials, such as metal, wood, stone or bone.
A domestic activity may also be the production of pottery itself, made for domestic or commercial consumption (Sinopoli 1991, 102). Household pottery production is not always visible in the archaeological record. Peacock (1982), for example, follows an ethnographic approach to argue that the mode of domestic pottery production in recent societies is likely to had been the same in Roman Britain. Such household pottery production might have existed in two forms: firstly, as a seasonal activity meant to replace damaged pottery for the actual household, and secondly, as a small-scale ‘workshop’ production, connected with the open market (Peacock 1982, 13-23).
This article primarily focuses on the functional side of domestic pottery. Even so, the study of vessel function is often limited by the current academic terminology, which does not necessarily capture the complexity of vessel functionality. During the cataloguing of archaeological ceramics, many vessel forms are described as functional, utilitarian or domestic by contrast to ‘elite’, non-utilitarian or ceremonial vessels. Non-utilitarian pottery is usually recovered in smaller quantities; it is finely made and carrying richer decoration compared to utilitarian pottery. Although this is often true, cooking or serving pots, which are seen as utilitarian, are also likely to be used for display or ceremonial purposes. Furthermore, utilitarian pottery, which is often seen as plain coarse wares, can be the product of strong technical skills in relation to its manufacture and decoration (Rice 2005, 210).
In conclusion, the study of the household is way more complicated than most people think and cannot be solely elucidated through the study of pottery. Furthermore, the study of domestic forms requires the recovery of complete vessels, or at least vessels with complete profiles. In most cases, intact pots are rare in archaeological sites, particularly in Britain; if the only pottery available is in small fragments, then the understanding of the ancient household is difficult. A more accurate approach could include the study of all ceramic and non-ceramic materials recovered in a domestic context. For example, domestic activities are likely to have been combined with other human activities, such as house-building, tool-repairing, agriculture or animal husbandry. Such activities are likely to offer substantial non-ceramic evidence that are linked to the household. Another approach might include the study of textual sources referring to the domestic activities of a certain chronological period. Textual sources may not necessarily describe the functional side of domestic life; however, they are likely to offer useful information on its socio-ideological context. Other information on the household are likely to be obtained through ethnoarchaeological research, such as the study by Peacock (1982) mentioned earlier. Finally, ancient household activites can be examined through experimental archaeology, which can either target the actual household, or even the production and use of pottery as part of the household (Rice 2005; Skibo 1992).
The study of pottery function
The study of pottery function associates with the study of vessel forms and manufacture technologies. Such analyses determine vessel use, which is broadly divided in three categories: food processing, storage and transportation. The study of vessel use can target vessel content (liquid or dry), duration of use (short or long), type of processing (with or without fire) and transportation distance (short or long). According Rice (2005, 2009, fig. 7.1), each of the above uses requires a combination of different vessel forms and clay compositions, which leads to the most suitable vessel for each task (Rice 2005, 209; Rye 1981).
Vessel forms are grouped together in typologies describing specific functions. The understanding of typology is not always clear and can include divisions and subdivisions depending on the degree of complexity of each ceramic assemblage. A ceramic typology is likely to be divided in wares (e.g. kitchen-wares, table-wares, storage-wares, etc.), which are then likely to include different vessels forms (e.g. bowls, jars, cups, mugs, flasks, tankards, cooking jars, etc.). Of course, the names of such vessel forms are modern and their function may not necessarily match the function of similar archaeological ceramics (Rise 1992, 211). Other ceramic typologies may require the definition of a broader functional group (e.g. cooking pots, serving pots, mixing pots, storage pots, etc.), consisting of different vessel forms (e.g. bowls, jars, cups, mugs, flasks, tankards, cooking jars, etc.), which are then divided in sub-forms or shapes (e.g. convex of spherical bowls, open or closed jars, small or large cups, one-handled or two-handled mugs, rounded or cylindrical flasks, rimmed or flanged tankards, spouted or plain cooking jars, etc.). To make things more complicated, shapes can be further subdivided depending on the chronological or typological complexity of each ceramic assemblage (e.g. mug type A1, B1, A2, B2, early, late, transitional, etc.).
With this degree of complexity in mind, ceramic specialists use typological divisions to identify the primary function of pottery in the household, which usually matches a specific form; however, multiple domestic functions, or even secondary non-domestic functions, are also likely occur under the broader understanding of the household. According to Skibo (1992), the study of technofunction identifies the differences between intended and actual function, usually through the study of ethnographic parallels; still, ceramic vessels can become multifunctional at any point of their use-life (Skibo 1992, 35-8).
Vessel forms are linked to specific functions based on four general features: capacity, stability, accessibility to content and transportability. Capacity is measured in cubic centimetres (cc) and refers to vessel size. By examining capacity, one can determine the nature of the content (liquid or dry), its quantity, the duration of its intended consumption and the number of people who were expected to share the content. Stability refers to vessel handling; it is determined by the vessel’s proportions, centre of gravity and some characteristics of the vessel’s base. Stable vessels tend to have wide and flat bases, combined with low gravity centres, which make them suitable for serving purposes. The accessibility to a vessel’s content is determined by the width of its orifice. Vessels with small orifices may be suitable for transporting liquids, while others with wide orifices may be suitable for serving and consuming liquids or foodstuffs. Transportability relates to secondary shape characteristics, such as handles, which reduce the danger of fragmentation during transport. Some vessels with strong grips can also be used for food preparation and serving activities (Rice 2005, 224-6).
The study of manufacture technology associates with the intended use of ceramic vessels. The successful performance of any vessel depends on its design characteristics, the selection of proper natural resources for its production and the effective manipulation of such raw materials. Four technological parameters define vessel performance: wall thickness, resistance to mechanical stress, thermal behaviour and the combination of permeability-porosity-density. Storage vessels are usually built with thick walls, which increase stability and prevent moisture from permeating their content. By contrast, thick-walled vessels are unsuitable for cooking as fire cannot penetrate to heat their content. Thick-walled cooking vessels can increase cooking time and cooking fuel consumption; therefore, a good cooking pot should have relatively thin walls, which allow the penetration of heat over a burning hearth. Stirring, mixing or pounding vessels, as well as transport vessels, tend to have thick walls to stand mechanical stress. Thermal behaviour refers to the thermal stress generated on a pot’s surface when heat is applied directly on its walls or content. Thermal behaviour also includes the tensile stress created on a hot pot when this is cooling down. Thermal behaviour can be controlled with various inclusions tempered in the vessel’s clay. Grog, for example, increases thermal strength as its coefficients are similar to the pot’s baked clay. Permeability refers to the penetration of moisture inside the pot, either from its exterior or interior surfaces. Permeability is usually reduced by applying a slip or glaze, which blocks humidity. Porosity refers to the presence of pores on the vessel’s interior walls, which allow a small quantity of liquid to penetrate through. High porosity is not desirable for vessels intended for long-term storage; however, in some cases, high porosity helps in keeping a vessel’s content cooler during short-term storage and also reduces the thermal stress of cooking vessels. Density is described as the exact opposite of porosity. Vessels with dense walls are good for storing as they demonstrate stability and durability (Rice 2005; Rye 1981).
Evidence of direct use
According to Skibo (1992), the study of use alteration on ceramic vessels reveals evidence of direct use. Such use alteration could associate with household activities. Use alteration is either noted as surface attrition or as surface accretion. Surface alteration may not always be functional and may not always relate to human action; it can also be the result cultural interaction (e.g. superstition), or even the result of weather deterioration. Spotting non-functional use alteration can be confusing, particularly when the surface of pottery is eroded or if small sherds are the only available finds (Rice 2005 234-5; Skibo 1992, 44).
Surface attrition is the removal or deformation of the pot’s surface. This can either be abrasive or non-abrasive. Abrasive attrition is normally due to mechanical action such as stirring, mixing, grinding or scratching a vessel’s interior with a hard object. If this is the case, the interior walls, rims or bases of household vessels exhibit distinct mark patterns, which resemble scratches. Non-abrasive attrition, on the other hand, does not relate to human mechanical action and leaves no use-related marks. Examples of non-abrasive attrition include salt erosion noted in water containers and surface spalling, noted in cooking vessels that have been placed directly over fire (Skibo 1992, 105-8).
Surface accretion is the adhering of organic materials on a pot’s surface. These can either be carbon residues, which result from cooking over an open fire, or organic residues, which are left on the vessel’s surface by its content (Skibo, 1992, 38-40). Carbon remains are usually noted as fire-clouding or sooting on the exterior walls. Soot is produced because of fuel combustion, indicating direct contact with fire; therefore, soot is used to separate cooking from non-cooking vessels. If a cooking pot has not been directly placed over fire, it is common to note an oxidised colour-zone on its exterior surface. This is normally generated by the edges of the flames around the ceramic vessel (Rice 2005, 235-6).
The most common organic residues discovered on pottery are resins, gums, carbohydrates, animal fat and vegetable oil. Such residues can be identified with various chemical methods, such as phosphate analysis, gas chromatography and isotope analysis. Gas Chromatography, for example, has shown that Roman amphorae were used to transport wine and olive oil (Rice 2005, 233-4; Skibo 1992, 39-40). Lipid analysis enables the distinction between ruminant (e.g. ovine or bovine) and non-ruminant fats (e.g. porcine). This method was recently used to distinguish the contents of two different ceramic vessel traditions recovered from Upper Ninepence, Walton, in the Welsh borderlands (Dudd et al., 1999). The main disadvantage of chemical methods is their expensive cost, while in several occasions their results are either biased or inconclusive. Organic residues associate with food processing activities; however, they may also be a form of intentional surface treatment on pottery or they may be the result of discard and post-deposition. (Rice 2005, 233-4; Skibo 1992, 39-40).
The study of the pottery’s symbolic context
The study of symbolism in pottery consumption is complicated and cannot be properly explained in such a short space. According to Skibo (1992, 34) pottery has three main functions, which are likely to appear simultaneously: the tecnofunction, the sociofunction and the ideofunction. These three divisions demonstrate that pottery is not only produced for practical household tasks, but also transmits different social and ideological information, often related to its manufacturers, owners or users in general. Such information is likely to associate with social status, religious beliefs, gender, social, tribal or professional affiliations (Orton et al. 1993, 227). A Roman Arretine bowl from the workshop of M. Perennius noted in Brown (1968, pl.1) was most likely used for serving; however, its stamped decoration, which represents an erotic scene between a hetaira and a young man, is likely to imply that the bowl was used in symposia, in a strictly male context.
The study of pottery decoration can reveal information on the social and ideological symbolisms of ancient societies; however, pottery decoration can also function as art, which is appreciated for its aesthetic value. The relationship between symbolism and art is not always straight forward; therefore, the study of pottery decoration requires a careful approach. The famous Chigi Vase noted by Arias (1962, pl.16IV) demonstrates the above problem. This Protocorinthian olpe (c. 640 BC) attributed to the Macmillan Painter is a serving vessel, which seems to accommodate a practical domestic function; however, its decoration is unique and elaborately produced, depicting hoplites confronting an enemy unit under the sounds of flute. This specific military context, depicted on a functional vessel, is likely to suggest that the idea of functionality could have been more complicate than we may think today.
The symbolic function of pottery can relate to cult, religious rituals and myths, which associate with ceremonial food preparation and consumption in different cultures (Goody 1982). A Greek stamnos vessel, attributed to the Dinos Painter c. 420 BC, depicts a group of Maenads mixing wine in front of a handless image of god Dionysus (Arias 1962, pl.206). The elaborate decoration of this liquid container is likely to imply some ceremonial function, perhaps the mixing and serving of wine during the Dionysian festivals.
An interesting aspect of pottery decoration is the depiction of domestic activities on ceramic vessels; however, such elaborate decoration may not always associate with functional pottery designed for the typical household. For example, four Apulian red-figured kraters published by Sichtermann (1966, pl.55, 100, 102, 137), dating between the 5th and 4th centuries BC, depict serving scenes taken from the Greek mythology. Such kraters were wine-mixing vessels and their elaborate decoration is likely to have function as a symbol of elite food consumption and banqueting. Of course, it is also possible that the above kraters were never meant to be practically used for such occasions; instead, they might have been originally produced as elite funerary dedications.
Domestic pottery is also likely to function as a symbol of social stratification. Skibo’s (1992) ethnoarchaeological case study on the Kalinga people of the Luzon Island in the Philippines demonstrates a peculiar paradox: although this community used ceramic vessels for cooking, metal vessels, which could have been more functional for cooking, were used to decorate the households and functioned as symbols of social status and wealth (Skibo 1992, 29). This type of pottery function is similar to a relatively recent concept in the Western societies, that of the ‘fine china’. In many Western societies of the 19th and 20th century, white stonewares were only used for special occasions, such as the arrival of an important guest, who was meant to be to impressed by the household’s elaborate tablewares. Whatever the case, the production and acquisition cost of pottery, which conveys significant social or ideological symbolisms, is more expensive compared to functional everyday pottery (Sinopoli 1991, 122-3).
Conclusions and suggestions
Elucidating the household is a complicated process due to various methodological issue. Firstly, the picture of the household in past societies is not always clear; it is likely to include household activities that may not relate to the modern notion of a typical household (e.g. household pottery production). Secondly, the archaeological artefacts recovered from household contexts may not necessarily associate with immediate household activities. Pottery has to offer a lot of information on the household; however, there needs to be a discrimination between utilitarian and non-utilitarian wares. This distinction is not always clear. Thirdly, intact pottery is rarely recovered during archaeological excavations, particularly in modern Britain. Instead, small quantities of broken sherds are likely to reveal limited information on household activities.
Although pottery can be useful in elucidating the household, there are several important questions that need to be answered first. Can the ancient household be accurately studied through pottery typologies? Is primary or secondary use of pottery easily distinguished in the archaeological record? Is the study of use alteration trustworthy, bearing in mind that environmental or random cultural parameters can bias the evidence? Based on the above questions, an efficient approach for elucidating the household is likely to require the collaboration between pottery studies and various other scientific disciplines. Pottery analysis can be combined with ethnographic studies, experimental archaeology, textual sources or epigraphy, context parallels and chemical analyses techniques. A combined approach is likely to offer more information on the household compared to any study that is solely based on pottery.
Finally, the examination of pottery decoration in a complicated matter that requires careful consideration. Decoration can provide information regarding the household; however, it is more likely to offer information regarding its social or ideological symbolisms. Such symbolisms may not directly associate with practical household activities, unless pottery is depicting the actual use of pottery in a specific context. Furthermore, pottery decoration could be a form of art, often connected with various aspects of social behaviour. The study of pottery decoration and its social symbolisms is likely to require the detachment of archaeology from typical art-historical approaches; however, this should be the topic of another paper.
Bibliography
Arias, P.E., 1962, A History of Greek Vase Paintings, London: Thames and Hudson.
Brown, A.C., 1968, Catalogue of Italian Terra-Sigillata in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dudd, S.N., Evershed, R.P. and Gibson, A.M., 1999, ‘Evidence for varying patterns of exploitation of animal products in different prehistoric pottery traditions based on lipids preserved in surface and absorbed residues’, Journal of Archaeological Science (26), 1473-82.
Goody, J.C., 1982, Cooking, Cuisine and Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orton, C., Tyres, P. and Vince, A., 1993, Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peacock, D.P.S., 1982, Pottery in the Roman World, London and New York: Longman.
Rice, P.M., 2005, Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Rye, O.S., 1981, Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction, Washington: Taraxacum.
Sichtermann, H., 1966, Griechische Vasen in Unteritalien aus der Sammlung Jatta in Ruvo, Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth.
Sinopoli, C.M., 1991, Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York: Plenum.
Skibo, J. M., 1992, Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective, New York and London: Premium Press.