Advertisement

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 171–198 | Cite as

The human element: discerning the effects of potter’s behavior on the chemical composition of ceramics

  • Kent D. FowlerEmail author
  • Emma Middleton
  • Mostafa Fayek
Original Paper
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

It has long been known that the natural variability in clays, the resources chosen by potters, and the techniques used in manufacturing all affect the chemical composition of finished pottery objects. Understanding these effects is important in pottery provenience research because it cannot be assumed that the chemical composition of the pottery is the same as the raw materials used to produce it. There are, however, few studies devoted to monitoring the effects of potter’s practices on the chemical composition of finished products relative to the raw materials used in manufacturing them. In this study, we investigate the effects that procurement strategies and processing techniques have on the chemical composition of vessels made by Zulu potters in South Africa relative to the raw materials they use in manufacturing them. Our comparative analyses included clays used for potting, sediments, pastes, finished vessels, and building clays from five communities of potters. Our results show that the effects of different procurement strategies and processing methods range from negligible (there is a close geochemical match to resources) to profound (making it exceedingly difficult to discern the geological origin of raw materials). We argue that such analyses of ethnographic materials provide insights into explaining why pottery composition varies locally, regionally, and amongst functional types of vessels; the appropriateness of certain research designs, analytical methods, and statistical analyses; and how the petrographic and geochemical study of ethnographic pottery collections should be a primary and not ancillary effort in pottery provenience research.

Keywords

Ethnoarchaeology Ethnomineralogy Ceramic technology Ceramic manufacture Chemical composition South Africa 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The ethnographic research upon which this paper is based has been conducted since 2002. Fieldwork would not have been accomplished without the assistance of Rauri Alcock and Creina Alcock, Patricia Anderson, the late Juliet Armstrong, Jan Engelbrecht, Bill and Anne Harder, the late Frank Jolles, Francis Mdiba, Nkosi Msiza, Len and Catherine van Schalkwyk, Gavin Whitelaw, and Bonginkosi Zondi. We are eternally grateful to the potters and their families that shared both their time and knowledge with us over the years: the Nala, Magwaza, and Nxumalo families in Nkandla; the Dhlamini and Mtungwa families in Msinga; the Ngubane family in Ulundi; the Gumbi, Nonhlanhla, and Nyawo families of the Ntshengase Traditional Authority; and the Dlamini, Gumede, Khumalo, Mbuyisa, Mkhwamubi, Mngomezulu, Ndlovu, and Zikhali families of the Mathenjwa Traditional Authority. In the lab, we would like to thank Neil Ball and Dr. Frank Hawthorne for providing assistance and access to the XRD facility at the University of Manitoba. We are further thankful to Dr. Dean Arnold and an anonymous reviewer for their astute reading of the manuscript and thoughtful insights that improved the clarity of the paper.

Funding information

This research was funded by grants to KF from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant Nos. 752-99-1163, 756-2002-0381, 410-2008-2710), a University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship to EM, and by Canada Research Chairs in Environmental and Isotope Geochemistry and a Discovery Grant to MF from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. Armstrong J, Whitelaw G, Reusch D (2008) Pots that talk, izinkamba ezikhulumayo. South Afr Humanit 20:513–548Google Scholar
  2. Arnold DE (1985) Ceramic theory and cultural process. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold DE (2000) Does standardization of ceramic pastes really mean specialization? J Archaeol Method Theory 7:333–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold DE (2006) The threshold model for ceramic resources: a refinement. In: Gheorghiu D (ed) Ceramic studies: papers on the social and cultural significance of ceramics and Europe and Eurasia from prehistoric to historic times, vol 1553. BAR International Series, Oxford, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  5. Arnold DE (2011) Ceramic theory and cultural process after 25 years. Ethnoarchaeology 3:63–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold DE (2017) Raw material selection, landscape, engagement, and paste recipes: insights from ethnoarchaeology. In: Matières à Penser: raw materials acquisition and processing in Early Neolithic pottery productions, Proceedings of the Workshop of Namur (Belgium), 29 and 30 May 2015. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp 15–27Google Scholar
  7. Arnold DE, Neff H, Bishop R (1991) Compositional analysis and “sources” of pottery: an ethnoarcheological approach. Am Anthropol 93:70–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnold DE, Neff H, Bishop RL, Glascock MD (1999) Testing interpretative assumptions of neutron activation analysis: contemporary pottery in Yucatán. In: Chilton E (ed) Material meanings: critical approaches to the interpretations of material culture. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp 1964–1994Google Scholar
  9. Arnold DE, Neff H, Glascock MD (2000) Testing assumptions of neutron activation analysis: communities, workshops and paste preparation in Yucatan, Mexico. Archaeometry 42:301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baxter MJ (1994) Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, EdiburghGoogle Scholar
  11. Bishop R (1980) Aspects of ceramic compositional modeling. In: Fry RE (ed) Models and methods in regional exchange, vol 1. SAA Papers. Society of American Archaeology, Washington, D.C, pp 47–66Google Scholar
  12. Bishop L, Rands RL, Holley GR (1982) Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective. Adv Archaeol Method Theory 5:275–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buxeda I, Garrigós J, Cau Ontiveros MA, Kilikoglou V (2003) Chemical variability in clays and pottery from a traditional cooking pot production village: testing assumptions in Pereruela. Archaeometry 45:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4754.00093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cau Ontiveros MÁ, Montana G, Tsantini E, Randazzo L (2015) Ceramic ethnoarchaeometry in western Sardinia: production of cooking ware at Pabillonis. Archaeometry 57:453–475.  https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cogswell J, Neff H, Glascock M (1996) The effect of firing temperature on th elemental characterization of pottery. J Archaeol Sci 23:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornell DH, Thomas RJ, Moen HFG, Reid DL, Moore JM, Gibson RL (2006) The Namaqua-Natal Province. In: Johnson MR, Anhaeusser CR, Thomas RJ (eds) The geology of South Africa. Johannesburg/Council for Geoscience, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  17. Damjanović L, Mioč U, Bajuk-Bogdanović D, Cerović N, Marić-Stojanović M, Andrić V, Holclajtner-Antunović I (2016) Archaeometric investigation of medieval pottery from excavations at Novo Brdo, Serbia. Archaeometry 58:380–400.  https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Bonis A, Cultrone G, Grifa C, Langella A, Morra V (2014) Clay from the Bay of Naples (Italy): new insight on ancient and traditional ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc 34:3229–3244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dores Cruz Md (2003) Shaping quotidian worlds: ceramic production and consumption in Banda, Ghana c. 1780–1994. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Falabella F, Sanhueza L, Correa I, Glascock MD, Ferguson TJ, Fonseca E (2013) Studying technological practices at a local level: neutron activation and petrographic analyses of Early Ceramic Period pottery in central Chile. Archaeometry 55:33–53.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00681.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fowler KD (2002) Early Iron Age community organization in southern Africa: Social and symbolic dimensions of ceramic production, use and discard at Ndondondwane. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  22. Fowler KD (2006) Classification and collapse: the ethnohistory of Zulu ceramic use, South Africa. South Afr Humanit 18:93–117Google Scholar
  23. Fowler KD (2008) Zulu pottery production in the Lower Thukela Basin, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South Afr Humanit 20:477–511Google Scholar
  24. Fowler KD (2011) The Zulu ceramic tradition in Msinga, South Africa. South Afr Humanit 23:173–202Google Scholar
  25. Fowler KD (2015) Zulu ceramic production in the Phongolo River Basin, South Africa. South Afr Humanit 27:85–115Google Scholar
  26. Fowler KD, Fayek M, Middleton E (2011) Clay acquisition and processing strategies during the first millennium AD in the Thukela River basin, South Africa: an ethnoarchaeological approach. Geoarchaeol Int J 26:762–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garrett I (1997) Nesta Nala: ceramics 1985–1995. Master of Art, Fine Arts, University of NatalGoogle Scholar
  28. Gosselain OP (2002) Poteries du Cameroun méridional. Styles techniques et rapports à l’identité. vol 26. Monographies du CRA CNRS Edition, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosselain OP (2008a) Ceramics in Africa. In: Selin H (ed) Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures, vol 1. Spring, New York, pp 32–44Google Scholar
  30. Gosselain OP (2008b) Mother Bella was not a Bella: inherited and transformed traditions in southwestern Niger. In: Stark MT, Bowser BJ, Horne L (eds) Cultural transmission and material culture: breaking down boundaries. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 151–177Google Scholar
  31. Gosselain OP, Livingstone Smith A (2005) The source. Clay selection and processing practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Livingstone Smith A, Bosequet D, Martineau R (eds) Pottery manufacturing processes: reconstitution and interpretation, BAR International Series, vol 1349. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 33–47Google Scholar
  32. Huffman TN (2004) The archaeology of the Nguni past. South Afr Humanit 16:79–111Google Scholar
  33. Jacobson L (2005) The application of compositional analysis to provenance studies of archaeological pottery in southern Africa: A geochemical perspective using XRF spectroscopy. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of the Free StateGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobson L, van der Westhuizen WA, Dreyer J (1998) The compositional relationship between pottery and its source clay part 1: an example from the work of a traditional pottery on the farm Nonnashoek, Bethlehem, Free State. South Afr Field Archaeol 7:98–100Google Scholar
  35. Jacobson L, Van Der Westhuizen W, Dreyer J (1999) Correction: table 1. South Afr Field Archaeol 8:56Google Scholar
  36. Jolles F (2005) The origins of the twentieth century Zulu beer vessel styles. South Afr Humanit 17:101–151Google Scholar
  37. Lawton AC (1967) Bantu pottery of southern Africa. Ann S Afr Mus 49:1–434Google Scholar
  38. Livingstone Smith A (2010) Pottery traditions in Katanga (DRC): a comparative examination of roughing-out technologies. Anthropos 105:179–190Google Scholar
  39. Livingstone Smith A, Bosquet D, Martineau R (2005) Pottery manufacturing processes: reconstitution and interpretation. Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liège, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001, Colloque/Symposium 2.1. Archaeopress, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall CGA (2006) The Natal Group. In: Johnson MR, Anhaeusser CR, Thomas RJ (eds) The geology of South Africa. Geological Society of South Africa. Johannesburg/Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, pp 433–442Google Scholar
  41. Masucci M, Macfarlane A (1997) An application of geological survey and ceramic petrology to provenance studies of Guangala Phase ceramics of ancient Ecuador. Geoarchaeology 12:765–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matthews P, Charlesworth E (1981) Northern margin of the namaqua-Natal Mobile Belt in Natal. DurbanGoogle Scholar
  43. Middleton E (2012) A material science perspective on indigenous technical knowledge: modern Zulu pottery production in South Africa. Master’s Thesis, University of ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  44. Minc LD, Sherman RJ (2011) Assessing natural clay composition in the Valley of Oaxaca as a basis for ceramic provenance studies. Archaeometry 52:285–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neff H (2012) Comment: chemical and mineralogical approaches to ceramic provenance determination. Archaeometry 54:244–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neff H, Bishop L, Sayre EV (1988) Simulation approach to the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeologial ceramics. J Archaeol Sci 15:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Neff H, Bishop L, Sayre EV (1989) More observations on the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. J Archaeol Sci 16:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pizarro C, Pérez-Del-Notario N, Sáenz-González C, Rodríguez-Tecedor S, González-Sáiz JM (2012) Matching past and present ceramic production in the Banda Area (Ghana): improving the analytical performance of neutron activation analysis in archaeology using multivariate analysis techniques. Archaeometry 54:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rye O (1976) Keeping your temper under control: materials and manufacture of a Papuan potter. Archaeol Phys Anthropol Ocean 11:106–107Google Scholar
  50. Stahl AB, Md DC, Neff H, Glascock MD, Speakman RJ, Giles B, Smith L (2008) Ceramic production, consumption and exchange in the Banda area, Ghana: insights from compositional analyses. J Anthropol Archaeol 27:363–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2008.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stark MT, Bishop RL, Miksa E (2000) Ceramic technology and social boundaries: cultural practices in Kalinga clay selection and use. J Archaeol Method Theory 7:295–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stoltman JB (2006) Ceramics in archaeology: readings from American antiquity, 1936–2002. Geoarchaeology 21:643–645.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stoltman JBJ, Marcus JJ, Flannery KVK, Burton JHJ, Moyle RGR (2005) Petrographic evidence shows that pottery exchange between the Olmec and their neighbors was two-way. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:11213–11218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tite MS (1999) Pottery production, distribution, and consumption—the contribution of the physical sciences. J Archaeol Method Theory 6:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tite MS (2008) Ceramic production, provenance and use—a review. Archaeometry 50:216–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsantini E, Martínez Ferreras V, Ariño Gil E, Gurt I, Esparraguera JM, Pidaev S (2016) Pottery production in the Buddhist communities in Central Asia: the Kushan-Sassanian pottery workshop of Kara Tepe (Termez, Uzbekistan). Archaeometry 58:35–56.  https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tschegg C, Ntaflos T, Hein I (2009) Integrated geological, petrologic and geochemical approach to establish source material and technology of late Cypriot Bronze Age Plain White ware ceramics. J Archaeol Sci 36:1103–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van der Eyk JJ, MacVicar CN, De Viliers JM (1969) Soils of the Tugela Basin. Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission, PietermartizburgGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilmsen EN, Killick D, Rosenstein DD, Thebe PC, Denbow JR (2009) The social geography of pottery in Botswana as reconstructed by optical petrography. J Afr Archaeol 7:3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent D. Fowler
    • 1
  • Emma Middleton
    • 1
  • Mostafa Fayek
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of Geological SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations