image/svg+xml
109
XII/2/2021
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Editorial IANSA 2/2021
The Digital Conference “Archaeological Approaches
to the Study of the Potter’s Wheel”
Caroline Jefra, Chase A. M. Minos, Richard Thér
From 24
th
to 27
th
November, 2020, the international
conference “Archaeological Approaches to the Study of the
Potter’s Wheel” was held digitally, organised by Caroline
Jefra (University of Amsterdam, Tracing the Potter’s Wheel
Project), Richard Thér (Philosophical Faculty, University
of Hradec Kralové), Chase A. M. Minos (The Cyprus
Institute), and EXARC. Initially, the conference was to be
hosted by the University of Amsterdam, but was quickly
reconfgured to take place entirely online. The conference
brought together archaeologists, potters, anthropologists,
historians and classicists, with the aim of exploring a topic
which has garnered increased attention in recent scholarship.
The keynote lecture was presented by Sander van der Leeuw
entitled “Invention… in ceramics and the environment”
(https:// outu.be/hnUYLEbA6TM), and he also served as theme
three discussant (https://youtu.be/lLu18DrnBig) along with
Carl Knappett (theme one discussant, https://youtu.be/xzo-
uUAxcAw) and Valentine Roux (theme two discussant, https://
youtu.be/4aeBxdVGVOQ). Furthermore, the conference was
accompanied by a Potting Film Festival, which took the form
of a curated playlist of videos available on YouTube which
is published in EXARC’s online presence, available here:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqWUT1pOFU1NOY_
OTD2xFVmPyUG8tvIZF.
Recent scholarship on the topic has increasingly addressed
issues which relate to the way that individuals, communities,
and societies responded to the introduction of the potter’s
wheel. In region after region, period after period, existing
potting traditions were adjusted, altered, supplanted, or
otherwise changed as potters negotiated with the diferent
practices that this technological device enabled. To date,
however, discussions of the integration of rotational potting
have been largely seated within region- or chronologically-
focused literature. In order to encapsulate a variety of regions
and time-periods, three broad themes crossing regional and
chronological borders were highlighted and explored over
the course of the conference.
The frst theme centred on questions of the mode of
research, showcasing solutions reached in the absence of
a reliable, objective methodology for identifying the ways
that the potter’s wheel was utilised in pottery forming
sequences. This theme was included in the conference
sessions in order to foster a dialogue regarding standards
of practice in documentation, analysis, presentation, and
terminology when describing the evidence. Carl Knappett
took an introspective stance in his discussion of the papers in
this theme “Expressive Technique or The Mechanical and the
Thinking Hand”, drawing on a number of interdisciplinary
perspectives to interrogate the foundations of how and
why studies of the wheel are carried out. His basic concern
is not to forget aesthetic expression as one of the basic
dimensions of pottery technology. The efort to accurately
detect technological actions and elements bears a potential
risk of the reduction of the perception of technology into
a mechanical sequence of interdependent actions leading
to a functional product. While seeking for the causal links
between observable features and technical actions that
caused them, we must be aware that the reconstruction of the
production process does mean understanding the craft, the
artisan and her/his expressions.
Five articles from the presentations on this theme appear
in this volume, each addressing a diferent methodological
aspect of how the potter’s wheel is investigated and
recognised archaeologically. Two of these focus on issues
relating to the tool itself; in the frst, Brandon Neth and
Eleni Hasaki present a tool developed to aid and standardise
wheel velocity measurement during experiments, facilitating
greater comparability between experiments. Chase A. M.
Minos, on the other hand, makes a strong case for explicitly
considering the wheel as a variable within experiments,
how it relates to a potter’s skill, and what impact these
factors have upon macroscopic traces left on pots. Each
of these contributions serve to re-focus the emphasis of
experimental work to appropriately integrate, and report
on, the particularities of wheel devices when discussing and
describing the products made with these tools. Richard Thér
and Petr Toms, on the other hand, take a deep dive into the
way that wheel-throwing methods impact the orientation of
Volume XII ● Issue 2/2021 ● Pages 109–112
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 109–112
Caroline Jefra, Chase A. M. Minos, Richard Thér: The Digital Conference “Archaeological Approaches to the Study of the Potter’s Wheel”
110
particles and voids, as seen in optical microscopy, which
presents opportunities to analyse material more precisely
as well as to overcome barriers that other methods, such as
surface features analysis, might encounter. Francesca Porta
meanwhile turns her attention to an often-overlooked category
of vessels – very large storage containers – to establish
a baseline of observable traces, both using macroscopic
examination of surface features and X-ray analysis. These
large vessels are often left aside in experiment and analysis,
and F. Porta’s experiment and description of results allow
for better assessments of the material going forward. Lastly
within this theme, Caroline Jefra’s contribution outlines the
creation of and justifcation for an open-access generalised
type set of experimental material, which serves as a starting
point for comparisons against archaeological material
from many contexts. With such comparanda available,
scholars may focus their attention on creating more precise
experiments, or, lacking experimental skills or resources,
make assessments which would have been impossible for
them in the frst place.
Beyond the foundational level of interpretation and
documentation of evidence was the second theme, which
addressed current approaches to understanding the evolution
of the technique. It is acknowledged that each archaeological
context, in which these questions are asked, is formed of
its own particular context based on social, economic, and
cultural spheres, defning the character of the interplay
between device capabilities and potting practices through
time. Nine such examples are included in this volume,
representing material from the Near East, the Mediterranean,
Europe, Northeast Africa, and the Caribbean dating to the
Early Bronze Age (c. 4000 BC) through the Colonial Period
(1562 AD). In her discussion “Understanding the Evolution
of Wheel Potting Techniques”, Valentine Roux drew on her
extensive knowledge of the ways that the technology can
manifest archaeologically, and the methods for recognizing
the diferent ways of employing the wheel in pottery forming
archaeologically, to bring together the talks from this theme.
Considering the interpretation of surprising variability of
forming methods, she highlighted the role of context in
which the wheel is used for the evolution of the technological
practices connected with this specifc tool. She also raised the
issue of using standardised, unbiased language in discussing
observed evidence of manufacture.
Johnny Samuele Baldi’s contribution describes the earliest
material within this volume, focusing on the Uruk cultural
sphere, specifcally from recent feldwork from Syria and
Iraqi Kurdistan. In particular, he gives context to the rise of
the potter’s wheel as seen in the new data when considered
against existing knowledge of wheel emergence and use
in other areas of the Near East. The Middle Bronze Age
Sudanese site at Amara West discussed by Sarah K. Doherty
paints a diferent picture, investigating the role that Egyptian
colonization played in changing local potting traditions. In
a similar time period, Ilaria Caloi also raises some important
questions about the infuence or inspiration that Egypt might
have played in the way that the potter’s wheel was employed,
this time in south-central Crete. Also in modern-day
Greece, and during the Middle Bronze Age, Anthi Balitsari
discusses one specifc ware of pottery to explore the forming
diferences which exist between so-called “archetypical” and
“imitation” variations from the Argolid and Attica. Xenia
Charalambidou contributes further research from Greece, in
this case concerning Iron Age Naxos. Her discussion tackles
the traditional division of wheel-formed fne wares versus
hand-formed coarse wares, describing areas of technical
similarity for much needed nuance in the broader discussion
of these wares. Beatrijs de Groot’s work also concerns the
Iron Age, this time in southern Iberia. The relationship of
the introduction of the wheel and the establishment of
Phoenician trade colonies is discussed, especially in light of
the creation of so-called “hybrid” forms from this period.
The most recent archaeological contexts belonging to theme
two included in this volume come from Alise Gunnarssone
et al.
and Marlieke Ernst. A. Gunnarssone
et al.
describe
the interesting case of Baltic ware production from two
nearby regions during the 11
th
–13
th
century in Latvia, where
they argue for greater “professionalization” of production
in one region when compared against the other. M. Ernst’s
work concerns the colonial period in the Caribbean, where
the potter’s wheel was introduced during colonization and
important insights into the process can be gained from
a context where more types of evidence are available.
An approach that several of these theme two contributions
have in common is to critically examine broad categories
of “wares” from the standpoint that variation in production
technology may be indicative of diferentiation between the
potters. This is particularly evident in papers by A. Balitsari
and J. S. Baldi, where in the former it may be a regional
diference whereas in the latter it may relate to the relationship
between potters and the wider social context in which they
worked. I. Caloi also makes reference to this phenomenon
as well, though to a slightly lesser extent. This standpoint
of seeking diferentiation within previously undiferentiated
classes of material showcases a major asset in technological
assessment at the assemblage level. Following a revelation of
poorly-defned or unobserved diference within an otherwise
grouped class of material, it is possible to interrogate the
source of those diferences.
A second trend among papers observable is the role that
colonization plays in technological negotiations made by
potters. S. K. Doherty describes this in Sudan (Egyptian
colony), B. de Groot in southern Iberia (Phoenician colony),
and M. Ernst in the Dominican Republic (Spanish colony).
What is striking among these examples is the extent to which
local potters responded, adapted, or maintained existing
practices alongside practices brought with colonial agents.
The three examples highlighted here provide interesting
case studies against which other colonial contexts may be
compared to gain further insights into the social and cultural
mechanisms at work.
A fnal trend within the second theme of the conference is
investigating the nature of side-by-side divergent production
strategies. Two contributions, from X. Charalambidou and
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 109–112
Caroline Jefra, Chase A. M. Minos, Richard Thér: The Digital Conference “Archaeological Approaches to the Study of the Potter’s Wheel”
111
Figure 1.
Conference poster (author: Magdalena Zielinska).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 109–112
Caroline Jefra, Chase A. M. Minos, Richard Thér: The Digital Conference “Archaeological Approaches to the Study of the Potter’s Wheel”
112
from A. Gunnarssone
et al.
, take this approach in their
contexts. By examining the products of potters working
(potentially) within close proximity or within the same
region, it can be possible to fnd overlap in the previously
diferentiated material (as in the case of X. Charalambidou)
or further support for previously identifed diferences (as
in the case of A. Gunnarssone
et al.
). Either result provides
important insights into the social and cultural contexts in
which the potters were working.
The fnal theme of the conference extended beyond
the boundaries of the archaeological record, and relied
on the knowledge and experience of people negotiating
technological change, whether through historical
documentation, ethnographic accounts, or frst-person
descriptions of change within a crafting context. These
narratives are often used as the basis for archaeological
interpretation, so by emphasizing their importance as
a central theme, it was hoped that a better understanding
could be reached of both their usefulness and their limitations.
S. van der Leeuw acted as discussant for this third theme in
his talk “Ethnographic accounts of change within a crafting
context”. As the ethnographic accounts allow us to see
the potter’s decision-making in action, S. van der Leeuw
explored the mind of the potter considering all the variables
leading them to choose one technological alternative over
another and emphasizing the complexity of such a process.
Subsequently, he demonstrated this complexity in the case
of a basic invention staying behind the potter’s wheel: use
of rotation on a vertical axis for pottery forming, which can
be and has been performed in many diferent ways. Three
contributions within this volume address theme three of the
conference, and paint a picture of complicated negotiations
between practices over time. Deborah Winslow’s work
within a Sinhalese Sri Lankan potter community spans nearly
fve decades and describes the unexpected ways that internal
and external forces shape a community’s decisions about
which practices to maintain, and which to invest in. Notably,
these community-level decisions are in fact revealed to be
individual-level decisions which accumulate through time
and infuence to shape what might be visible to an outsider.
Jaume García Rosselló’s work with the Pomaire potters of
central Chile provides a perspective on the gendered nature of
production, showing the wheel as a force of “displacement”
whereby female, domestic, hand-making practices have been
replaced by male, workshop, wheel-thrown practices. The
wheel in this case is discussed as a feature of colonialism
existing in opposition to indigenous practice. Lastly, Daniela
Castellanos presents work in the Colombian Andes among
the Aguabuena potters. This work also fnds a gendered
and colonial framework through which to view changes in
production practices, but instead highlights various forms of
discontinuity in pottery production during time that shapes
the course of the technological changes which show the
schematic nature of a linear explanatory narrative.
Taken as a whole, the works within this volume illustrate
the many ways in which the wheel might be studied.
Separately, the contents of this volume present many
opportunities for others working on similar topics to fnd
interpretive inspiration, methodological guidance, and
contextual comparanda. By assembling the works into
this volume, it is hoped that future scholars might take the
guideposts provided here and push our understanding of
technical change in the past further while also better defning
the myriad of ways that technological change was negotiated
in a case-by-case basis. This publication is but one part of
the conference itself, and thanks to the digital nature of the
conference, presentations are available to view via EXARC’s
online presence. These are presented as playlists specifc to
theme one (https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqWUT1pOF
U1NyRJvH8Morbgeh2NIejw97), theme two (https://youtube.
com/playlist?list=PLqWUT1pOFU1NSOBjNucxJjBhuDAv
wI7Fe
), and theme three (https://youtube.com/playlist?list=P
LqWUT1pOFU1MKm83zGzWQD0UOiTnUl6Eq).