@inbook{
author = "Vuković, Jasna and Bikić, Vesna",
year = "2022",
abstract = "Pottery function and use are one of the most complex issues in pottery studies because they comprise the study of different interactions,
behaviors, and activities related to ceramic vessels. In the early days of
archaeology as a discipline, pottery studies were focused on the classification of pots and the establishment of sequences to understand chronological and spatial relations between pottery groups, as the most prominent
markers of archaeological cultures. Therefore, pottery usage did not attract attention as an important segment of research, except in the early
days of American archaeology: in the pioneering attempts of pottery classification, evidence of use, such as layers of soot suggesting cooking, were
taken into account (Nelson 1916). Apart from sporadic considerations
about function, it was not until the ‘80s that studies of pottery function
achieved full recognition. It seems that stressing an obvious fact – that
the pots are tools (Braun 1983), designed to be used (Skibo 2013, 27), was
necessary to bring about a shift in considerations about pottery. With the
seminal works of D. Hally (1983a,b, 1986), and especially of J. Skibo and
M. Schiffer (Schiffer and Skibo 1987, 1989, 2008; Skibo 1992, 2013; Skibo
and Blinman 1995), examination of pottery function was theoretically
grounded, and its methods were fully established, including experimental
and ethnoarchaeological research.
In the study of pottery function and use, making a division between
two aspects of function – intended and actual use, is of great importance,
especially because focused studies aimed exclusively on pottery function
are still rare. Intended function refers to the technical choices potters make related to function (Skibo and Schiffer 2008, 18; Skibo 1992, 35-37; 2013,
27) or, in other words, the determination of the suitability of ceramic vessels for specific functions depending on their performance characteristics.
These are defined as the “behavioral capabilities that an artifact possess to
fulfill its functions in a specific activity” (Schiffer and Skibo 1987, 599), or
as the ability of a vessel “to do certain things” (Hally 1986, 268), and they
are mostly related to resistivity to mechanical and thermal stresses during
use. These mechanical and physical properties depend on vessels’ formal
attributes, usually recorded during pottery data processing: fabric, surface
treatments and decoration, wall thickness, and shape.
The significance of shapes was early recognized as important for the
considerations about function (Linton 1944; cf. Hally 1983b). Some of the
performance characteristics are exclusively connected with vessel forms:
capacity (Smith 1985, 273, table 11.2), stability, ease of access, and transportability (Shepard 1956, 237; Rice 1987, 225), among others. Contours
of the vessels’ walls also affect performance, especially its thermal properties: for example, the presence of a low neck – constriction – reduces
evaporation and prevents boiling over, and is, therefore, suitable for simmering for longer periods (Smith 1985; Rice 1987, 240; cf. Vuković 2019a)
in contrast to open pots, suitable for boiling. Metric parameters (height,
volume, and rim, shoulder and base radii) and different indexes – calculated ratios between some of the metric parameters – were also examined
as important indicators of suitability for specific functions (Smith 1985;
Hally 1986). Besides the fact that indexes enable strong empirical data,
their numerical values are especially useful for comparative analyses of
different assemblages or vessel classes.The potential function or suitability of a vessel for a specific function
does not reveal how the vessels were actually used. The actual function
refers not only to traces of use – use alterations (use-wear and surface
accretions), but also to use-related activities, and it is based on the identification of traces and the examination of their distribution and frequency
(Skibo 1992; 2013; for an overview, see Forte, this volume). Considerations of some kinds of surface attrition, i.e. mechanical damage, are also
useful for the identification of re-use and extended use of pots.
The analyses of function, including ethnoarchaeological research,
were first developed to primarily understand prehistoric pottery. In contrast to assemblages from prehistoric sites, considerations about pottery
function within the ceramic assemblages from the historical periods are
quite rare. Due to many primary sources, which contain data on vessel
types and their use, the course of ceramic studies was mainly based on
issues of typology, production centers, especially in the case of fine wares,and chronology, both of individual types and whole assemblages. Therefore, the issues of function were approached primarily from the aspect of
formal attributes and morphology. Along with the shape and wall curvature, much attention was paid to the fabric, i.e. the types of inclusions, and
thickness of the vessel walls, as clear indicators of their function.
Among the pottery assemblages from historical periods, namely, the
Classical era, use-wear analyses were sporadically done. In this regard,
Margaret Ward’s (1993) functional analysis of terra sigillata (Samian ware)
from the Roman fort at Piercebridge (United Kingdom) is rather representative. The Samian ware collection revealed evidence of frequent and
extended use, most probably in a process of mixing ingredients (spices),
based on the presence of heavy abrasion on the bases and walls (Ward
1993, 19; Peña 2007, 60, Fig. 4.2). The function of Batavian hand-made
pottery in the Roman military context of the Augustan castrum in Nijmegen (Netherlands) was also examined (Stoffels 2009, 147-149). Based
on the presence of soot and secondary burning, it was established that
these pots had actually been used as cooking pots. The presence of two
other functional groups (tableware and storage), and the spatial distribution of vessels, suggest the usage of locally made pottery for cooking,
presumably to fulfill the eating habits of the native Batavian auxiliary soldiers in the Roman fort (Stoffels 2009, 153). On the other hand, P. Arthur
(2007b) examined cooking-pot types in relation to food resources, including archaeozoological and archaeobotanical remains, to determine the
distribution and application of different cooking techniques in the centuries between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. He put forward
an interesting thesis that a change in cooking pots, from predominantly
closed with flat bases to predominantly open forms with convex bases,
should be seen as a consequence not only of regionally available meat,
cereals, and vegetables but also migrations of people, that is, a culture of
food preparation and cooking habits. A similar assumption was made in
the case of tableware, primarily African Red Slip ware, which changed in
terms of size and typology during the same period. However, the use of
ceramic vessels in historic sources, i.e. old cooking texts, challenges Arthur’s model due to a different nomenclature, primarily when it comes to
the function of olla and caccabus (Donelly 2015, 143–144). On the other
hand, during the 5th and 6th centuries, a decrease in the variety of pottery
types, i.e. profiles and sizes (volumes), was recorded. This was largely due
to the economic regression and the disappearance of large-scale pottery
production (Arthur 2007a, 164-165). This phenomenon, clearly visible in
the archaeological record, coincides with the data in the texts. Nevertheless, Arthur’s model showed that cooking pots can be evidence of cultural
(gastronomic) boundaries in antiquity, although due to the unreliability of his conclusions, it was suggested that other methods should be included,
primarily analyses of use-alterations and residue analyses (Arthur 2007b,
146). Concerning the modes of cooking in late antique pottery, according to the distribution of sooting clouds, it was assumed that pots with
rounded bottoms were probably placed on some kind of metal base, trivet,
or grid that allowed equal heat distribution, while closed, flat-based cooking-pots were placed by the fire and in front of the hearth or stove; their
thin walls allowed heat to be distributed more evenly on one side without constant mixing (Vroom 2008, 299–301, Figs. 13,15). In contrast, late
medieval cooking-pots, glazed as well as unglazed, exhibit visible sooting
clouds on the outside. Although it was suggested that they were placed
directly in the fire (Vroom 2004, 286), these use-accretions rather indicate
the position of the pot at a distance from the heat source.
In early medieval archaeology, the need to examine pottery from the
aspect of use was first recognized in the research of the old Slavic settlements. Excavations in Central Europe in the 1970s and ‘80s yielded,
among other things, large ceramic assemblages containing whole vessels.
They provided a deeper insight into the technological style, but also the
use of pottery in the early Middle Ages. One of the best examples is the
site of Březno near Louny (Czech Republic), a Slavic settlement dated to
the 9th century. Relying on ethnographic studies, an extensive experiment
focused on building old Slavic huts and living in them, including food
preparation, was conducted (Pleinerová 1986; Pleinerová and Neustupny
1987). The research revealed that the pots were placed in front of the oven
opening because of the need for frequent stirring; therefore, half of the
cooking pot was exposed to open fire. Additionally, the correlation between mode of use of certain oven types, cooking technique, and the form
and size of the vessels was established (Curta 2001, 286, 289–290), revealing some aspects of the household organization of old Slavic communities.
Finally, secondary use, reuse, and recycling are important parts of
the artifacts’ life cycles (Schiffer 1987, 13-15, 271) or use-lives. Reuse – a
change in the user or use or form of an artifact following its initial use
(Schiffer 1987, 28), or use of an object in a secondary context when it can
no longer serve its original function (Deal and Hagstrum 1995, 111), are
an important part of dynamic interactions between people and pottery, as
well as an important aspect of formation processes. Recycling – the return
of the artifact to the manufacturing process (Schiffer 1987, 28-32), in the
case of pottery needed to be redefined, and it was proposed that recycling
should refer to the usage of fragments of pots, as tools, building material,
or raw material (Vuković 2015). Important ethnoarchaeological research
(Deal 1998) revealed the complexity of ceramic vessels’ use-lives, but these
issues were more rarely examined on pottery revealed from archaeological contexts (for example Sullivan 1989). The usage of ceramic sherds as
tools attracted some more attention in the research of archeological assemblages (López Varela et al. 2002; Van Gijn and Hofman 2008). An extremely important contribution regarding these stages of vessels’ use-lives
was made by T. Peña (2007), who examined numerous secondary uses of
Roman amphorae, including their reuse in burial customs, and the recycling of their fragments (props for cooking vessels, tools, gaming pieces,
weights, etc.).
The issue of extended use is usually connected with repairs of the
pots. The most frequent ways of mending ceramic vessels were making
perforations along the breakage, and tying together the vessels’ fragments
with some kind of string, rope, and even with metal wire (Dooijes and
Nieuwenhuyse 2007, 2009). Roman terra sigillata, for example, was often
repaired with rivets and staples (Ward 1993, 19–20), while amphorae were
mended using the hole and clamp technique with the use of lead (Peña
2007, 237–249) or by filling the cracks with wax, resin, gypsum, crushed
ceramics or glass, using animal glue, beeswax, or pine resin as adhesives
(e.g. 213-215). The repairing of pots was usually connected to their high
value, and a statistical method, the so-called frequency-of-mending (FreqMend), describing the frequency of repair per pottery type, was developed
(Senior 1995). This is why analyses of secondary use, reuse, and extended
use reveal a deeper insight into lifestyles and common practices of communities of the past.",
publisher = "University of Belgrade – Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade",
journal = "Pottery Function and Use: A Diachronic Perspective",
booktitle = "Pottery Function in the Archaeology of the Continental Balkans: An Overview",
pages = "67-37",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_3763"
}
