Not meant to last: mobility and disposable pottery

Abstract

IntroductionA number of recent publications indicate that the emergence of pottery remains an important topic in Old World archaeology (e.g., Barnett, Hoopes 1995;Gheorghiu 2009; Jordan, Zvelebil 2009a;Rice 1999;Yasuda 2002). Models from a range of theoretical perspectives have been proposed to explain why people began using fired clay vessels (Brown 1989;Rice 1999). A recurring theme implicit in some of these models is that pottery developed as a durable container that was intended to have a long use-life. But is it possible that early pots were not always fashioned with longevity in mind? Were pots sometimes used for a short period, perhaps to achieve a single, specific task, and then discarded? Accepting that the origins of pottery was likely complex and varied, this paper explores the potential roles of 'disposable' pottery in early pottery-using groups and speculates that disposable pottery may have particular advantages for mobile groups. Pottery origins and mobilityExplanations for the adoption of pottery come from a variety of perspectives (Rice 1999). However, many recent discussions have stressed either the functional advantages of pottery or its potential role as a prestige object. Functionalist explanations typically consider pottery an adaptation for food preparation, and focus on its benefits as a watertight and vermin-proof storage container, or emphasise its role in new culinary contexts (Rice 1999.6-10). Such explanations suggest that the introduction of new foodstuffs or the benefits of cooking food in a more efficient way -through the direct application of heat 84-provided the stimulus for the adoption of pottery as a functionally superior container.Explanations that consider the prestige value of pottery have built primarily on the work of Brian Hayden (1995;1998), who argues that early pottery played a role in ritual feasting displays, especially in the context of increasing resource intensification. Feasts allowed aggrandising individuals to impress or mobilise others and thereby influence socio-economic relationships. As a new and presumably difficult item to make, pottery would have had prestige value that could enhance the status of its owner. During feasts, pottery -and especially fine, decorated pottery -could be used to display or serve prestige foods, such as oils or alcohol. Hayden (2009) suggests that undecorated and seemingly utilitarian vessels can be explained from a prestige perspective if they were involved in the preparation of these foods.These two kinds of explanation -functionalist and prestige -differ in significant ways, yet in both there is an emphasis on well-made pottery that was presumably intended to be durable. For functionalist explanations, there is an expectation that early pottery should be sufficiently well-made in order to fulfil its functional roles as a cooking or storage container. While there may have been early phases of experimentation characterised by cruder vessels (e.g., Brown 1989), the development of pottery should be towards well-made, functional...

Petrographic study of the pottery of hunter–gatherers from the lower basin of the Colorado river (Argentina) during the Late Holocene

“…Some authors consider that the low population density and mobile lifestyle of the hunter–gatherer groups were factors that limited the demand for pottery objects. As a result, it is likely that pottery production was carried out at the household or individual level within the domestic sphere (Eerkens, 2008; Gibbs, 2012). Considering our case of study, the low quantity of pottery recovered and the masses of clays recorded at one of the sites (i.e., ZA1), suggests that pottery production would have taken place in residential spaces.…”

Archaeological Traces of Hunter-gatherer Seasonal Occupation in Western Coastal Estonia from the Second Half of the 6th Millennium to the End of the 3rd Millennium BC

“…The anthropological and archaeological literature on seasonal mobility is abundant, covering most parts of the world, and much has been written about adaptations of pottery to hunter-gatherer lifestyle and mobility (e.g., Arnold 1985; Simms, Bright 1997;Gibbs 2012;Hommel 2012;Santacreu 2014;Emmitt 2017;Heitz, Stapfer 2017). Aceramic sites or sites with very few ceramic finds of people with established pottery traditions are a much less discussed phenomenon (but see Pippin 1998;Eerkens 2003;2008;Cole 2012 about the United States Great Basin area).…”

A comparative perspective on the ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ Neolithics of Eurasia: Ceramics; agriculture and sedentism

“…It is possible that in some areas, the invention of pottery encouraged a more sedentary lifestyle. However, there are other ways that groups can resolve conflicts associated with pottery production and a mobile lifestyle, such as caching vessels, designing vessels with mobility in mind, or even making relatively disposable pottery (Gibbs, 2012).…”