Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology

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