Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology
Author(s): Michelle Hegmon
Source: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 7, No. 3, [Ethnoarchaeology] (Sep.,
2000), pp. 129-137
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20177417
Accessed: 15/10/2009 19:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory1, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2000
Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology
Michelle Hegmon1
Ceramic ethnoarchaeology has developed considerably since Kramer's (Kramer,
1985, Annual Review of Anthropology 14: 77-102) review. More sophisticated
readings of social theory and analyses that consider multiple variables and levels
of variability have led to better understandings of social boundaries. Percep
tions of ceramic change are becoming increasingly sophisticated, thanks to more
long-term projects as well as research that takes advantage of new opportunities,
including historic collections and nontraditional settings. The newly developing
ethnoarchaeology is contributing to general anthropological understandings of
material culture and society.
KEY WORDS: ethnoarchaeology; ceramics; pottery; social boundaries; social theory.
INTRODUCTION
More than 15 years ago, in her comprehensive review, Carol Kramer noted that
ceramic ethnoarchaeology had "quashed some simplifying assumptions (and) illu
minated a range of behavioral diversity" (Kramer, 1985, p. 97) in pottery-making
societies. Ethnoarchaeology had provided important, but frustrating, cautionary
tales. It seemed that almost anything was possible: sometimes styles correlate with
ethnic groups, sometimes they don't; sometimes skill increases with age, some
times it doesn't; sometimes potters learned mostly from kin, sometimes mostly
from others. At the same time, Kramer more hopefully suggested that ethnoar
chaeology had "begun to outline modal patterns of considerable potential value to
archaeologists."
Since 1985, ethnoarchaeologists have continued to document variability
among pottery-making societies; variability is a major theme in Longacre's
(Longacre, 1991) volume, Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Furthermore, ethnoarchae
ologists (and others who draw on ethnoarchaeological data) have increasingly
'Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402.
129
1072-5369/OO/O9OO-0129$ 18.00/0 ? 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
130 Hegmon
moved away from simple cautionary tales and begun?theoretically and
empirically?to make sense of the variability and elucidate valuable modal pat
terns. The results of ethnoarchaeology are rarely simple, but recent research is
demonstrating that many processes are comprehensible in more complex ways.
There is, obviously, no one straightforward relationship between pottery style and
social interaction; however, as Gosselain (2000) shows with his data from sub
Saharan Africa, we can gain some understanding of why some pottery attributes
seem to spread by diffusion whereas others correlate with social group boundaries.
In this issue, Brenda Bowser has assembled a group of papers that together
examine three variables of ceramic analysis?decorative style, production tech
nology, and composition?and that consider the implications of these variables
for interpretations of social and economic processes. The perspective is broad, but
necessarily so. Ethnoarchaeologists, increasing ability to make sense of variability
and to outline modal patterns derives in large part from consideration of interre
lationships among the variables as well as the complexity and varying temporal
scales of the social processes that are involved. Style (or the way a pot is finished)
may be decorative, but it is not divorced from production technology (Longacre
et al., 2000); similarly, composition is a product of the organization and technology
of production as well as the geology of the raw materials, as Arnold (2000) shows.
By means of introduction, I consider two general issues that have been ad
vanced in ethnoarchaeology since 1985 and consider the papers in this context,
emphasizing the understandings that can be gained by considering multiple an
alytical variables. For good reason (i.e., Costin, 1991), I leave discussion of the
organization of production up to Cathy Costin (Costin, 2000). Also, I do not dis
cuss pottery use and disposal, for although they were considered by Kramer ( 1985)
and have been the subject of important recent work (e.g., Longacre, 1985; Mills,
1989; Nelson, 1991), they receive little attention in this issue. For the same reason,
I regrettably do not consider gender in any detail. Although gender has been the
subject of important ethnoarchaeological and historic research (e.g., Hodder, 1991 ;
Mills, 1995; Welbourn, 1984), and Bowser (2000) does consider the implications
of her results with regards to women's political strategies, it is not a focus in the
issue as a whole.
SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
In 1985, archaeologists were coming to the realization that pottery character
istics sometimes correlated with social boundaries and sometimes did not. Fortu
nately, researchers persevered, and as it has matured this research has developed
and incorporated a sophisticated understanding of the dynamic and variable nature
of social boundaries. Now researchers recognize that sometimes material culture is
actively used to mark, establish, and maintain boundaries (e.g., Bowser, 2000), and
sometimes social or political differences result in material (often compositional)
differences (Neupert, 2000; Stark et ai, 2000). What is important about these new
Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology 131
developments is that they provide an understanding of the variable relationships
between material culture and social boundaries. This kind of understanding some
times can be used to derive correlates that can be applied archaeologically, and at
the same time this understanding contributes to a much broader (anthropological
and theoretical) understanding of material culture as part of society. At least two
expanding research perspectives have contributed to these insights.
Archaeologists are gaining a better understanding of social theory and thus
of the dynamic nature of social processes. Schiffer's (Schiffer, 2000, p. 1) broad
definition of social theory as "bodies of general knowledge about sociocultural
phenomena" is applicable in this context, though I find a slightly more focused
definition to be more useful. By social theory I mean primarily the vast body
of literature, often interdisciplinary, that explores the nature of human sociality
across time and space. (In addition to the usual Giddens (esp. 1984) and Bourdieu
(esp. 1977), archaeologists can draw important insights from many other sources
including recent work in geography (e.g., Harvey, 1996; Soja, 2000; see also Earle
and Preucel, 1987) as well as debates in sociocultural anthropology (e.g., Ingold,
1996).) This literature forces archaeologists to reevaluate apparently "common
sensical" concepts derived from their own experiences, particularly the assumption
that common-language nouns (such as family, ethnic group, society) necessarily
describe concrete and universal entities (see Wolf, 1982, p. 3). Major branches
of social theory are striving to understand how social institutions come to be
constituted and maintained across time and space and are realizing that mate
rialization is an important part of this process. Thus, archaeologists have much
to learn from, and also contribute to, social theory (see especially references in
Gosselain, 2000).
More specifically, social theory makes clear that social groups are not im
mutable entities, somehow "reflected" in the material culture they produce, and
a number of ethnoarchaeological studies illuminate the complex processes of es
tablishing and maintaining social and ethnic identities. Researchers associated
with the Mandara Archaeological Project explore how (at least in that region of
West Africa) ethnicity is a mutable aspect of individual and group identity and
material culture is used in the negotiation of identity (e.g., David et al., 1991;
MacEachern, 1998, 2000; Sterner, 1989). A different case is presented by Bowser
(2000) who shows, in fascinating detail, how potters in the Ecuadorian Amazon
use pottery decoration to signify their current political alliances and how that
decoration is less strongly associated with the women's inherited ethnic identity.
In this case, the potters actively incorporate decoration into their political strate
gies at the level of what Giddens (1984) calls "practical consciousness"; pottery
making and politics are intertwined. Although the Mandara and Amazon cases
seem to involve yet another frustrating contrast (sometimes pottery is strongly
correlated with ethnicity, sometimes more strongly with political alliances), at
a deeper level the variability is comprehensible. In both cases, people use their
material culture to negotiate mutable aspects of their social identity; the primary
132 Hegmon
difference is the label assigned to that identity (ethnicity or political alliance).
This apparent discrepancy illuminates the problems that can result from different
applications of the same terms by different researchers, especially terms such as
ethnicity that are in common usage but that also invoke a complex body of social
theory.
Consideration of different kinds and levels of variability in pottery has led
to more nuanced understandings of the ways social identity and political alliances
may relate to that variability. Such insights were advanced by archaeological and
ethnoarchaeological research that considered different kinds of style (see review
in Hegmon 1992, pp. 522-524), for example, some kinds of style may be emblems
of social groups, others assert aspects of individual identity (Wiessner, 1983). Ar
chaeologists have also recognized the interdependence of concepts that had been
considered to be discrete or even opposing, particularly technology and style.
The concept of technological style (especially following Lemonnier's (Lemonnier,
1986) exposition of technological style as a cha?ne de op?ratoire) has advanced
archaeologists' understanding of the ways that production techniques might have
social significance, such as the compositional differences between the pots made
in the nearby Philippine Kalinga villages of Dalupa and Dangtalan documented by
Stark et al (2000). Conversely, an understanding of political factionalism and re
sultant social networks allows Neupert to better interpret compositional patterning
in Paradijon, elsewhere in the Philippines.
A different way of conceptualizing aspects of both technology and style is
provided by Schiffer and Skibo's (Schiffer and Skibo, 1987) concept of perfor
mance characteristics, which Longacr? et al (2000) apply to understand the black
pots made in Barangay (the Philippines). A group of potters who make particularly
durable pottery also smudge their pots. The smudging may slightly increase the
strength of the pots, but mostly the resultant shiny black surface is a signal for
potential buyers, thus, blackness serves as a visual performance characteristic.
The detailed studies of Neupert (2000), Stark et al. (2000), Longacre et al.
(2000), and Bowser (2000), all focus on a relatively small group of potters in
one or a few villages. In contrast, Gosselain (2000) considers pottery style and
technology across much of sub-Saharan Africa, finding that though easily copied
roulette decoration seems to have spread through diffusion, forming techniques are
associated with cultural boundaries. Although their studies involve vastly different
scales, Gosselain (2000) and Stark et al (2000) reach similar conclusions: there is
some correlation between group/political boundaries and technological traditions,
although it is not clear if differences in technology are perceived as aspects of group
identity. At first glance, Gosselain's results seem to contradict Bowser's (discussed
earlier). Gosselain finds evidence for decorative styles spreading through diffusion,
whereas Bowser concludes that decoration is actively used to signify potters'
political alliances. But again the problem is mostly terminological, specifically the
use of the word "decoration" in both contexts. That is, Gosselain focuses on the
various roulette tools used to impress designs on pottery whereas Bowser considers
Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology 133
complex and symbolically charged designs that represent features of mythology
(cf. Gebhart-Sayer, 1985; see also DeBoer's [DeBoer, 1991] discussion of these
designs as an example of pervasive style). This contrast reinforces the importance
of considering different kinds and levels of variability in pottery and the ways that
variability relates to social identity.
CHANGE
Changes in pottery are one of the staples of archaeological research, the
basis of myriad chronologies as well as studies of interaction and social change.
Yet in 1985 Kramer concluded that ceramic ethnoarchaeology had contributed
relatively little to an understanding of ceramic change, beyond the insight that
potters are often fairly conservative. Fortunately, archaeologists' understanding
of ceramic change has advanced significantly since 1985, as a result of several
research directions.
First, several of the important ethnoarchaeology projects mentioned by
Kramer (1985) were fairly new at the time Kramer was writing and thus could
provide little time depth. The situation is very different today, as some of these
projects are still ongoing and producing important insights into change over the
course of decades. William Longacre established the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology
Project in the Philippines (his first extensive fieldwork there was in 1975-1976),
and he and his students continue work in that area (Stark et al, 2000; Longacre
et al, 2000; Neupert, 2000). Some of this Philippine work explicitly addresses
issues of pottery change, (e.g., Graves, 1985; Stark, 1991). Similarly, Nicholas
David began the Mandara Ethnoarchaeology Project in Cameroon in 1984, work
expanded into parts of Nigeria and Ghana, and continues to the present. Dean
Arnold's ceramic ethnoarchaeology in various communities in Latin America has
also been ongoing since the late 1960s and thus provides important perspectives
on continuity and change.
Secondly, several bodies of research address issues of change specifically,
from various perspectives. For example, Miller (1982) considered the social impe
tus for innovation and change, and more recent accounts argue that (ceramic and
other) technologies are part of prestige systems and thus linked to the develop
ment of social hierarchies (Clark and Gosser, 1995; Hayden, 1998). Research on
the origins of pottery (Barnett and Hoopes, 1995) considers not just dating but the
social and ecological context of the development of ceramic technology, insights
that are also applicable to understanding later changes in that technology. Other
research on cultural traditions and innovation (van der Leeuw, 1991, 1994; van der
Leeuw and Torrence, 1989) considers the nature of ceramic technological systems
and the ways in which production techniques might lead to some changes. For
example, because potters from Negros (the Philippines) form pots rim first, it is
unlikely that they will adopt the pottery wheel without a drastic change in their
production sequence (van der Leeuw, 1994).
134 Hegmon
Third, Hardin and Mills (2000) provide an example of what promises to be
a productive new approach to studies of ceramic change, that is ceramic ethno
historical archaeology (see also Mills, 1995). By studying a large collection of
Zuni pottery made during a period of rapid culture change around the turn of the
last century, they are able to understand several processes (including drift, the loss
of visual models, commercialization, and demographic shifts) that contributed to
changes in the styles of designs painted on the pottery. Many wonderful collections
of historic pottery reside in museums across the world, and if researchers follow the
lead provided by Hardin and Mills and engage in ethnohistorical archaeology, our
understanding of ceramic change and other processes will make much progress.
Finally, ethnoarchaeologists are finding ways to gain insights from the too
rapidly changing world today. An important goal of ceramic ethnoarchaeology has
been to study the rapidly disappearing traditional potters who still practice their
craft in a few areas of the world (Kramer, 1985, p. 97). Such work is extremely
important, and is still possible in some areas (e.g., Bowser, 2000), though even
traditional potters such as the Kalinga are changing rapidly. The loss of tradi
tional crafts may be a cause for despair, but it does not signal an end to important
ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Research with potters who are producing in the con
text of today's world economy can still produce important ethnoarchaeological
insights, such as the ways potters classify their designs (Friedrich, 1970); rela
tionships among scale, skill, standardization, and production techniques (Arnold,
1999; Longacre, 1999); and ways traditions are related to perceptions and con
strain innovation (van der Leeuw, 1991, 1994). Work in contemporary settings
is also leading to new avenues of research that might expand the kinds of con
tributions archaeologists can make. Kalentzidou's work (Kalentzidou, 2000) is
particularly significant in this regard. She not only explains change in a pot
tery industry (decline in the production of elaborate wares), but she also con
tributes to our understanding of changing national boundaries and the end of the
Ottoman Empire.
CONCLUSIONS
In its infancy, ethnoarchaeology was conceived as "ethnographic research
for an archaeological purpose" (Schwartz, 1978 p. vii). As Thompson (1991)
noted in his conclusion to Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, such research could in
volve a fairly direct search for material correlates of behaviors, or it could be
directed towards understanding a culture as a whole. Thompson also argued that
archaeologists who do ethnographic research and lose sight of their archaeolog
ical goals are no longer doing ethnoarchaeology. Of course the issue is partly
terminological, involving definitions of ethnoarchaeology and archaeology, but I
would also suggest that recent work is expanding the boundaries of
本文档为【Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑,
图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。