Pottery in elucidating the household
Introduction
This article discusses some basic methods and approaches which are used to elucidate the household through the study of pottery. The paper is divided into 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 manufacturing 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 the presence of organic residues inside or outside the pots. Section four discusses the study of pottery decoration, which can often inform on the social and ideological context of pottery consumption. The fifth and final section concludes with the above approaches and raises questions about the study of ancient household activities through pottery and the degree of accuracy of this approach.
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 household utensils and other household items. 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 that 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 have been the same in Roman Britain. Such household pottery production might have existed in two forms: firstly, as a seasonal activity to replace damaged household pottery, 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 current academic terminology, which may not fully capture its complexity. During the cataloguing of archaeological ceramics, many vessel forms are described as functional, utilitarian, or domestic, in contrast to ‘elite’, non-utilitarian, or ceremonial vessels. Non-utilitarian pottery is usually recovered in smaller quantities; it is finely made and carries 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, often seen as plain, coarse wares, can be the product of strong technical skills in 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 at archaeological sites, particularly in Britain; if the only pottery available is in small fragments, understanding the ancient household becomes 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 yield substantial non-ceramic evidence linked to the household. Another approach might involve studying textual sources on the domestic activities of a specific 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 is likely to be obtained through ethnoarchaeological research, such as the study by Peacock (1982) mentioned earlier. Finally, ancient household activities can be examined through experimental archaeology, which can focus on the household itself or on the production and use of pottery within it (Rice 2005; Skibo 1992).
The study of pottery function
The study of pottery function is closely linked to the study of vessel forms and manufacturing technologies. Such analyses determine vessel use, which is broadly divided into 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 to 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 into typologies that describe specific functions. Understanding typology is not always clear and may include divisions and subdivisions depending on the degree of complexity of each ceramic assemblage. A ceramic typology is likely to be divided into wares (e.g., kitchen wares, table wares, storage wares, etc.), which in turn include different vessel forms (e.g., bowls, jars, cups, mugs, flasks, tankards, cooking jars, etc.). Of course, the names of such vessel forms are modern, and their functions may not necessarily match those 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 according to the chronological or typological complexity of each ceramic assemblage (e.g., mug types 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 corresponds to a specific form; however, multiple domestic functions, or even secondary non-domestic functions, are also likely to occur under a 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 intended consumption, and the number of people expected to share it. 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, flat bases and low gravity centres, which make them suitable for serving. 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 manufacturing technology is associated with the intended use of ceramic vessels. The successful performance of any vessel depends on its design characteristics, the selection of appropriate natural resources for its production, and the effective manipulation of those raw materials. Four technological parameters define vessel performance: wall thickness, resistance to mechanical stress, thermal behaviour and the combination of permeability, porosity, and 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 contents. Thick-walled cooking vessels can increase cooking time and fuel consumption; therefore, a good cooking pot should have relatively thin walls that allow heat to penetrate over a burning hearth. Stirring, mixing or pounding vessels, as well as transport vessels, tend to have thick walls to withstand mechanical stress. Thermal behaviour refers to the thermal stress generated on a pot’s surface when heat is applied directly to its walls or contents. Thermal behaviour also includes the tensile stress that develops in a hot pot as it cools. 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, it helps keep a vessel’s contents cooler during short-term storage and also reduces the thermal stress on 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 a use alteration could be associated with household activities. Use alteration is either noted as surface attrition or as surface accretion. Surface alteration may not always be functional or related to human action; it can also result from cultural interaction (e.g., superstition) or from weathering. 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 placed directly over the fire (Skibo 1992, 105-8).
Surface accretion is the adhering of organic materials to a pot’s surface. These can be carbon residues, resulting from cooking over an open fire, or organic residues left on the vessel’s surface by its contents (Skibo, 1992, 38-40). Carbon remains are usually noted as fire-clouding or sooting on the exterior walls. Soot is produced by fuel combustion, indicating direct contact with the fire; therefore, soot is used to separate cooking from non-cooking vessels. If a cooking pot has not been directly placed over a fire, it is common to observe an oxidised colour zone on its exterior. 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 high cost, while on several occasions, their results are either biased or inconclusive. Organic residues are associated with food processing activities; however, they may also be intentional surface treatments on pottery or result from 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 conveys social and ideological information, often related to its manufacturers, owners, or users. Such information is likely to be associated 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 about the social and ideological symbolism of ancient societies; however, it can also function as art, appreciated for its aesthetic value. The relationship between symbolism and art is not always straightforward; 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 a flute. This specific military context, depicted on a functional vessel, suggests that the idea of functionality may have been more complicated than we think today.
The symbolic function of pottery can relate to cults, religious rituals, and myths, which are associated with ceremonial food preparation and consumption across 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 likely implies a 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 be associated 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 to the 5th and 4th centuries BC, depict scenes of service from Greek mythology. Such kraters were wine-mixing vessels, and their elaborate decoration is likely to have functioned as a symbol of elite food consumption and banqueting. Of course, it is also possible that the above kraters were never intended for practical use in 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 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 Western societies: the ‘fine china’. In many Western societies of the 19th and 20th centuries, white stoneware was used only for special occasions, such as the arrival of an important guest, who was meant to be impressed by the household’s elaborate tableware. Whatever the case, the production and acquisition costs of pottery, which convey significant social or ideological symbolism, are higher than those of functional everyday pottery (Sinopoli 1991, 122-3).
Conclusions and suggestions
Elucidating the household is a complicated process due to various methodological issues. Firstly, the picture of the household in past societies is not always clear; it may include activities that do not fit the modern notion of a typical household (e.g., household pottery production). Secondly, the archaeological artefacts recovered from household contexts may not necessarily be associated with immediate household activities. Pottery can offer a great deal of information about the household; however, a distinction needs to be made 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 for elucidating the household, several important questions need to be answered first. Can the ancient household be accurately studied through pottery typologies? Is the 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, epigraphy, context parallels and chemical analysis techniques. A combined approach is likely to yield more information about the household than a study based solely on pottery.
Finally, the examination of pottery decoration is a complicated matter that requires careful consideration. Decoration can provide information about the household; however, it is more likely to convey its social or ideological symbolism. Such symbolism may not directly relate to practical household activities unless pottery depicts its actual use in a specific context. Furthermore, pottery decoration can be a form of art, often linked to various aspects of social behaviour. The study of pottery decoration and its social symbolism is likely to require archaeology to depart 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.