Technological choices in pottery production
Technological choices in pottery production: what, who and how?
In pottery production, each technological choice depends on a series of other choices, which together form a particular chaîne opératoire that produces a ceramic vessel with specific properties and performance characteristics. (Sillar & Tite 2000, 5). According to Sillar & Tite (2000, 4), there are five areas of choice within every technology: raw materials, tools, energy sources, techniques, and sequence. Techniques orchestrate raw materials, tools and energy sources under the participation of the human body. The sequence is the actual chaîne opératoire that links these acts, transforming raw materials into consumable products. It includes “the order of the techniques, the frequency with which they are repeated, and the locations at which they take place” (Sillar & Tite 2000, 4). The location where ceramic production takes place is based on the proximity to natural resources (e.g. clay, fuel, tempers, water, etc.) and the mode of production (e.g. household, workshop, manufactory, etc.), together with the amount of specialisation required for each step within each production mode (Rise 1981, 1991; Peacock 1982; Arnold 1985; Costin 1991, Sillar & Tite 2000).
Tim Ingold (1990, 7) distinguishes technology and technique according to their different properties: technique is embedded in the shaping of particular things, while technology consists of a knowledge of objective principles of mechanical functioning, which do not relate to the identity of their human carriers or their context of application (Ingold 1990, 7). In this sense, technological choices in pottery production are linked in the chaîne opératoire through the sequential application of different techniques, which are tied to the potter's professional experience and skill.
Ingold (1990, 8) rejects the commonly supposed view that “where there are techniques there must be technology, for if skill lies in the effective application of knowledge, there must be knowledge to apply”. According to him, it is the direct, practical contact with materials (whether mediated by tools or not) that is entailed in the process of creative work, where technical knowledge is gained and applied. Thus, skill is both a form of knowledge and a form of practice, or in his own words, “a practical knowledge or a knowledgeable practice” (Ingold 1990, 8). Moreover, as a form of knowledge, skill is different from technology. Skill is a tacit, subjective, context-dependent, practical ‘knowledge how’, acquired through observation and imitation rather than verbal instruction. Technological knowledge, by contrast, is explicit, objective, context-independent, discursive ‘knowledge that’, encoded in words or artificial symbols that can be transmitted by teaching (Ingold 1990, 8).
Having clarified what constitutes technological choice in relation to the chaîne opératoire and what technological knowledge is by contrast to technique and practical skill, it is time to define who makes technological choices in pottery production. According to Sillar & Tite (2000, 9-11), the word ‘choice’ suggests some kind of agency. During the selection process, potential alternative techniques are rejected in favour of the technique that will be used. This agency may be in the hands of an individual; however, this person is most unlikely to be traced in the archaeological record. Instead, archaeologists are looking at a whole group of manufacturers or a whole society and the way they adopt a certain technique, in contrast to other available options. What is observed is an interaction between individual choices and cultural choices (Sillar & Tite 2000, 9-11). Under this frame, Sillar & Tite (2000, 10) introduce the term technological tradition, which is described as an “active interplay between the conservative force of ‘cultural choice’ and the innovative nature of ‘individual choice’”.
A similar mechanism of choice appears in selecting techniques. According to Van der Leeuw (1993), different techniques can be used in different ways to produce the same result. For example, the base of a pot can be formed by coiling, moulding, throwing, or beating with a paddle on an anvil. Potters, however, are not always aware of all their available choices. They usually employ a limited number of techniques, most of which are used within a traditional frame and are taught from one generation of potters to another (Van der Leeuw 1993). On the other hand, when innovations by individual artisans occur within this traditionally shaped environment, techniques, materials, and tools for one type of technical activity are adopted and adapted for another purpose (Sillar 1996).
According to Van der Leeuw et al. (1991), these traditionally used techniques are unquestioned and comprise the technological style within which potters live, work, and learn. Lechtman (1977) suggests that this technological style is strongly influenced by social and ideological factors, while Lemonnier (1980; 1986; 1992; 1993) argues that no technique can be understood outside its local context of perceptions.
After discussing who makes choices in pottery production, it is time to see how such choices are made. According to Van der Leeuw (1994, 135), human beings employ perception and cognition to reduce the information overload within their environment into manageable proportions. Reduction is achieved by identifying apparent symmetries (similarities) to control information chaos. Cognition allows them to ‘fix’ certain symmetries in real, virtual or conceptual space in their memory, which then disappear. Repetition of the process permits them to retain temporal symmetries for further reference (Van der Leeuw 1994, 135).
In a cross-cultural analysis of chaînes opératoires, Van der Leeuw (1993) argues that, despite the variety of ceramic vessels and chaîne opératoire steps, there are similarities across pottery-producing traditions in how they produce specific forms. Van der Leeuw (1994, 136) argues against the assumption that potters, wittingly or unwittingly, have different ideas in making pottery. Even though it is assumed that different technological, functional, social, behavioural, economic, and other ideas affect potters in their work, he suggests that it is our modern, highly fragmented perception that distinguishes these areas anyway. According to Van der Leeuw (1994, 136), the process of pottery making operates as a cognitive function of the human mind, with a universal, transcultural rather than culture-specific application. Roux (1990, 142) also recognises the cognitive (physical) and non-cognitive (psychological) factors involved in pottery production, and she introduces the term “cognitive and perceptual-motor competences” that are developed by potters along the process of know-how (savoir-faire).
Renfrew & Scarre (1998) and Malafouris & Renfrew (2010) stress that a study of ancient material culture cannot take place outside the study of the human mind; however, Malafouris (2004) suggests that ethnology has manipulated the boundaries of human cognition. In relation to wheel-throwing, Malafouris (2008) argues that considering the human mind responsible for executing universally applicable cognitive functions in pottery making is no longer viable; instead, one needs to understand the process as an interaction between the potter’s brain and the technical features of wheel-throwing, which are constantly changing during the wheel-throwing process while the potter constantly adapts. In that sense, all material products should be regarded as different to each other, and the idea of technological tradition should be abandoned. Even though this idea is interesting in its own sense, this thesis suggests that an archaeological study on a large ceramic assemblage is unlikely to progress if each vessel is treated individually and outside its typological categorisation.