Aquatic Adaptations and the Adoption of Arctic Pottery Technology: Results of Residue Analysis

Abstract

The late adoption of pottery technology in the North American Arctic between 2,500 and 2,800 years ago coincides with the development of a specialized maritime economy. Arctic pottery technologies present an excellent case study for examining possible correlations between hunter-gatherer pottery and aquatic resource use. Review of the timing and distribution of early pottery in Alaska shows that early pottery is rare and dates at the earliest to 2,500 years ago; the earliest pottery is found in small numbers and primarily in coastal areas. Despite expectations that pottery use would be strongly linked to marine lipids, biomarkers and compound-specific δ13C values of 20 sherds from the Cape Krusenstern site complex, dating from 2700 to 200 cal B.P. years ago, are most consistent with freshwater aquatic resources; mixtures of freshwater aquatic, marine aquatic, and terrestrial resources are also possible. While additional analysis of a larger sample and zooarchaeological reference specimens is necessary, our study suggests that the development of pottery production by Arctic peoples is more complex than previously appreciated. This research is the first synthesis in over 30 years of early pottery in Alaska and is the first to include residue analysis of a small sample of pre-1500 B.P. pottery.

Leftovers: The presence of manufacture‐derived aquatic lipids in Alaskan pottery

“…; Anderson et al . ). However, if we assume that the post‐firing surface treatment of pottery with oil and blood was solely for the purpose of waterproofing the pottery, as described by Harry et al .…”

“…The discerning ethnographic descriptions of the practice of repeated greasing of pots with oil and blood after firing remain a valid concern for lipid residue results on pottery from Alaska and possibly elsewhere in the world, especially when those results indicate a predominant presence of aquatic lipids (Farrell et al 2014;Anderson et al 2017). However, if we assume that the postfiring surface treatment of pottery with oil and blood was solely for the purpose of waterproofing the pottery, as described by Harry et al (2009b), we may investigate whether such treatment was necessary in the first place.…”

“…The growing body of modern literature on Alaskan pottery technology and function is mainly focused on Thule pottery (Arnold and Stimmell 1983;Frink and Harry 2008;Harry and Frink 2009;Anderson et al 2017). Furthermore, there is abundant ethnographic information on this early historic ceramic technology as people were still using ceramic pots during the early contact period in the area (for an extensive summary, see Anderson 2019).…”

“…; Anderson et al . ). The ubiquity of such aquatic oils is intriguing and has been interpreted to reflect the dominance of maritime and riverine subsistence economies.…”

“…Materials such as grass, hair, feathers and even aquatic oils were used as tempering agents in the clay, or were applied to the surface of the pottery vessel (de Laguna 1940;Frink and Harry 2008;Anderson 2019;Admiraal and Knecht 2019). Recent lipid residue analysis has shown that prehistoric Alaskan pottery was used almost exclusively for processing freshwater or marine (aquatic) animal fats and oils (Solazzo and Erhardt 2007;Farrell et al 2014;Anderson et al 2017). The ubiquity of such aquatic oils is intriguing and has been interpreted to reflect the dominance of maritime and riverine subsistence economies.…”