image/svg+xml
235
XII/2/2021
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
Alise Gunnarssone
1*
, Baiba Dumpe
1
, Vanda Visocka
1
, Artūrs Brēķis
2
1
National History Museum of Latvia, Pulka 8, Rīga, Latvia
2
Institute of Physics of the University of Latvia, Miera street 32, Salaspils, Latvia
1. Introduction
It is a well-established belief in the current scholarship
that Baltic ware pottery was made primarily by using
the methods of handmade pottery production with the
assistance of a turntable surface (Roslund, 2007, pp.160
and 171). Although many archaeologists have opposed
a separation of “slow” and “fast” potters’ wheels (Berg,
2020 pre-print, pp.4–6; Rice, 2005, pp.133–134; Eiteljorg,
1980, pp.447–449; Rückl and Jacobs, 2016, p.298), it still
plays a major role in how we discuss pottery (Roux and de
Miroschedji, 2009, p.155) and is used as a defning feature of
this pottery type without much further discussion. However,
the general technical features of the local Baltic ware
display a great variation between two regional production
techniques, showing it as a more complex and multifaceted
group of pottery.
Ethnographic material already shows us that wheel
coiled Baltic ware pots were not a monogamous group but
contained variation both in the tools and methods used by the
potter. This paper aims to understand Baltic ware production
in two regions that display a surprising diference in the
fnished product. The paper looks to: do a primary review
of the technological features of the pots (pot dimensions,
wall thickness, coiling technique); examine the production
traces in more detail than has been done previously; compare
and contrast the production traces found on Daugava and
Courland Baltic ware; correlate the production traces with
applicable wheel-coiled pottery production techniques
known in ethnography; and attempt to clarify the underlying
reasons for the diferent pottery production modes, based on
applicable ethnographic material.
2. Material, methodology and theoretical bases
2.1 Material selection
To compare the Baltic ware pottery of Courland and that of
the lower reaches of the River Daugava we chose material
from Talsi hillfort and the Salaspils Laukskola cemetery.
During the Late Iron Age, the lower reaches of Daugava
were inhabited by the Livs. Beginning with the 11
th
century,
Volume XII ● Issue 2/2021 ● Pages 235–246
*Corresponding author. E-mail: alise.gunnarssone@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 15
th
January 2021
Accepted: 5
th
August 2021
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2021.2.9
Key words:
Baltic ware
wheel-coiled pottery
potter’s wheel
ceramic manufacturing technique
Late Iron Age
the Baltics
Refectance Transformation Imaging (RTI)
ABSTRACT
Latvia in the 11
th
–13
th
century poses a curious case for the coexistence of two diferent practices of
Baltic ware production. The Baltic ware pots from lower reaches of the River Daugava and from
the Courland region look not just stylistically, but also technologically diferent. Our paper assessed
the production traces by using macro-observations, Refectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) and
extensive ethnographic material of Slavic pottery production of the 1900s, as well as using modern
replicas as visual aids to assist in the identifcation of the principal coil attachment methods.
The results showed that potters from the lower reaches of Daugava used the wheel’s rotation
extensively during the shaping process of Baltic ware. The production of the pots required the potter
to possess a level of technical skill which implied a level of professionalisation. Baltic ware from
Courland was less technically complicated and used comparatively more of the methods of handmade
pottery production.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
236
they adopted the Slavic pottery tradition,
i.e.
Baltic ware.
By the end of the 13
th
century, it had become the dominant
household and burial pottery (Šulte
et al.
, 2017, p.14;
Gunnarssone
et al.
, 2020, p.58).
Out of the 610 burials excavated at Salaspils Laukskola
cemetery (11
th
–13
th
century), 302 contained pottery, 167 of
these being Baltic ware (Zariņa, 2006, pp.307 and 463; Šulte
et al.
2017, p.13). As this has been shown to be a secondary
use of household pottery (Gunnarssone
et al.
, 2020, pp.58
and 64), it is representative of the general tradition.
The sample selection was restricted to 38 samples, based
on the preservation of the material traces. We concentrated
on pots with fully preserved bottoms but missing shoulder
and rim parts. This allowed for quality pictures of production
traces using RTI. We also included pots that had broken
vertically in half. Fully preserved pots were used to assess
height and general shape of this pottery type.
In Courland, the available material was less abundant. The
amount of ceramic material from settlements in Courland
has always been smaller than any comparative site of other
regions (Vasks
et al.
, 2011, p.92.; Šulte, 2011, pp.47–51). In
addition, handmade pottery was still in use (Kraukle, 2011,
p.69). The restricted material base forced a smaller sample
size. Luckily, production traces, such as draglines, imprints
from shaping,
etc.
, were well identifable on the sherds
analysed.
During the 11
th
–13
th
century, Courland was home for two
populations – the Vends and the Couronians (Asaris
et al.
,
2008, p.138). Talsi hillfort (10
th
–13
th
century, to a lesser
extent till the 15
th
century) was part of their relations (Asaris,
2001, p.70; Asaris and Tora, 1994, pp.19–22; Kraukle, 2011,
pp.74–77). The pottery of Talsi contained both sherds from
Baltic ware types generally common in Latvia, but also
sherds unique to Courland. This article focuses on the local
variants. It should be noted that, although the ornamentation
of the Talsi Baltic ware pots was unique, the general shaping
technique and proportions seem consistent with the rest of
Courland (Šulte, 2011, p.35).
For a detailed examination, we chose four samples of
Baltic ware sherds, containing both the base and the walls.
Sherds from the upper parts of pots we examined in detail
when they could be related to a specifc bottom sherd.
2.2 Methods
In this study the general proportions of the pots were
assessed in the typical measurements of height, diameter of
rim, and base and wall thickness. To make the identifcation
of the coil attachment methods used in our material more
convenient, we created a visual aid – three sample pots made
with three principal coil attachment methods. The samples
represent coil attachments from either side of the vessel and
from the top. These attachment methods are well known both
in handmade pottery (see Piličauskas, 2018, p.123; Dumpe,
2007, pp.36–37) and in the Baltic ware of other regions
(see Griežienė, ed., 2011, pp.22–24). The bases of the
vessels were made as a fat disc. These visual aides were not
intended for an in-depth comparative analysis of the surface
production traces noted in our archaeological material, but
only to aid in the correct identifcation of the coil attachment
principle used, taking into account the distortions introduced
by the latter shaping process.
Although previously we have made Baltic ware replica pots
on a hand-driven potter’s wheel, these pots were shaped on
a foot-driven potter’s wheel. The diameter of the fywheel was
the same as the head – 24 cm. The weight of the rotating part
was 14 kg. For comparison, the diameter of the hand-driven
wheel’s head was 33 cm, weight 9 kg. As is traditional for the
region, both fywheels were solid wood (Figure 10). In this
case the inertia (J = m x R
2
) available to the potter on this foot-
driven potter’s wheel was less than would be for the hand-
driven potter’s wheel. The shaping was done by a professional
potter/archaeologist with the help of a potter’s rib.
To produce these replicas, two diferent commercial clays
(local Quaternary and white clay from Germany) were used.
Using this type of clay allowed us to use diferent colours
(red and white) to make the connections of clay coils more
visible. Typically, as for Baltic ware, the clays were mixed
with small to medium fragments of burned and crushed
granite (Dumpe, 2021, p.503). In our case, these inclusions
reached up to 2 mm. No other specifc clay preparation has
been noted so far in the archaeological research of local
pottery.
Notably, clay is the most common material in the territory
of Latvia; therefore, it was and is easily accessible (see
Kuršs and Stinkule, 1972; Stinkule, 2014). In the territory
of lower Daugava, where Laukskola was located, Devonian
and moraine clay is common (Kuršs and Stinkule, 1972,
pp.27–44; Visocka
et al.
, 2021, p.12). Whereas in Courland,
various Quaternary clay deposits and moraine clay is
common, Devonian clay in this region being only common
on the South shore of Courland, for example, Jūrkalne and
Labrags (Kuršs and Stinkule, 1972, pp.48–75; Visocka
et al.
,
2021, p.12). There is no detailed research of how clay quality
could have afected the quality of the pots in the two study
regions; however, it is known that there are qualitative clay
beds in the surroundings of the sites analysed.
After a week of drying, we fred the pots in approximately
750
°
C in a 11
th
–12
th
century replica kiln (Dumpe, 2009,
pp.73–74). When the pots sufciently cooled down, we
broke them vertically in half (Figure 1).
To assess the technological aspects of the coiling and
shaping of the archaeological pottery in detail we looked at
the production traces visible on the surface. For determining
the production traces on the vessel surface, we used
Refectance Transformation Imaging (RTI). It allowed us to
create topographic models of these aspects. RTI was applied
to eight vessels from Laukskola cemetery and four from
Talsi hillfort.
RTI is a photographic method that captures surface
features by photographing a fxed artefact and illuminating
it from diferent angles. This results in creating a three-
dimensional virtual surface topography of the artefact
from multiple combined photographs. This study used the
highlight RTI method. The visualizations of the samples
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
237
we made following the Cultural Heritage Imaging (CHI)
guidelines of RTI highlight image capture (CHI, 2020).
Each sample was manually illuminated from angles of 15°
to 65°, with additional specifc angles for individual features.
We took an average of 50 photos of each sample. All
illumination angles were with an average distance of 40 cm
from the object. Photos were taken in RAW and processed
in JPEG image format. For processing of the images, we
used RTIBuilder – and for viewing the results, RTIViewer,
provided by CHI.
To interpret the production traces revealed by the RTI we
put a large emphasis on the previously gathered and analysed
ethnographic material. Often for analyses of western wheel-
coiled pottery this is done using the outline of the four methods
of wheel-fashioning by Roux and Courty (Roux and Courty,
1998, pp.748–750). In this study, we chose to use ethnographic
research by A. A. Bobrinsky on the stepwise adoption of the
potter’s wheel in the Slavic regions (Bobrinsky, 1978, p.27).
For this material it was more applicable, as it dealt with
this particular pottery type. Based on archaeological and
ethnographic material, Bobrinsky has separated seven stages
of the use of the potter’s wheel in Slavic pottery:
1. potter’s wheel was used as a rotating table to assist in
the hand shaping of pots;
2. potter’s wheel was used to smooth out the surface of
an already-constructed, hand-made pot;
3. in addition to smoothing out the surface, the potter’s
wheel was used for partial profling of the rim, while
the rest of the pot was made by hand;
4. potter’s wheel was used for partial or full shaping of
the pot (neck, shoulders, body) after a clay cylinder
was constructed by hand;
5. potter’s wheel was used to smooth out, shape, and also
to partially pull up the pot from a clay cylinder that
was constructed by hand;
6. potter’s wheel was partially used to shape a base
cylinder and to pull a pot up. However, the pot was
still attached to the wheel’s surface by hand or other
hand techniques were used in the process;
7. potter’s wheel was used to pull a pot from one lump of
clay. (Bobrinsky, 1978, p.27)
The ethnographic material was further used to not only
clarify the production methods, but also examine other
questions about the craft and pottery specialisation in the
discussed regions. The ethnographic research undertaken
primarily by Bobrinsky systemised not only the diferent
production methods for this pottery type, but showed how it
statistically linked with the tools used, the professionalisation
of the potter, his/her productivity, and much more (see
Table 3; see Bobrinsky, 1978). This basis allowed hypotheses
to be formed on the possible level of crafts development in
the given regions.
3. Results
3.1 Daugava Baltic ware
The height of Baltic ware pots from Daugava was generally
between 10–15 cm. Outliers ranged from 6 cm to 20.5 cm
height (Figure 2). The thickness of a pot wall varied in the
range 0.4–0.8 cm (Table 1). The largest vessel (height of
20.5 cm) had a wall thickness of 0.6–0.7 cm (measured at
the shoulder).
Although the outside surface of all the pots was always
fully smoothed out, the inside could display a variety of
production traces. The inside surface of the top two-thirds of
the pots was typically fully smoothed out – only rare traces
of coils could be distinguished. However, 20 pots had visible
fnger impressions from pressing these coils together on the
Figure 1.
Baltic ware pot replicas made by
Baiba Dumpe in 2020. 1 – coils attached
from the inside, 2 – coils attached from the
top, 3 – coils attached from the outside.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
238
inside surfaces (Figures 3 and 4, Table 1). The corresponding
traces on the outside of the pots were absent. In some cases,
the fnger impressions had possibly warped – indicating
in which direction the potter’s wheel could have rotated
(Figure 5).
Other production traces on the inside surfaces were
horizontal draglines created during the rotation of the wheel.
The draglines on the inside surface covered the whole
pot, including the base. The draglines on the walls were
consistently horizontal and with few noted interruptions or
stops. In some cases, the draglines formed a circle on the
inside surface of the pot base (Figure 5).
Out of the 38 examined pots, two had clear traces of
vertical draglines (Table 1). These were layered on top of
the horizontal draglines. They were seemingly created by
the potter attempting to straighten the vessel and correct for
a previous error.
Figure 2.
Variation of Baltic ware vessel height in Salaspils Laukskola cemetery.
Figure 3.
Baltic ware pot from Salaspils Laukskola cemetery, feature
No 100.
Figure 4.
Baltic ware pot in RTIViewer from Salaspils Laukskola cemetery,
feature No 100; with approximation of coil attachments.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
239
Table 1
. Production traces and wall thickness of burial pottery from Laukskola cemetery.
Burial NoWall thickness (mm)
Horizontal linesVertical linesFinger impressions
845.9–5.
3
x
–
x
1205.4–5.3
x
––
121
6.8–4.1
x
–
x
128
–
x
––
1366.0–4.3
x
–
x
153
7.3–5.2
x
–
x
1655.9–5.6
x
–
x
1696.7–5.4
x
–
x
1764.6–4.2
x
–
x
1775.1–5.1
x
––
185
7.2–5.3
x
–
x
191
7.4–5.8
x
–
x
193
6.1–3.8
x
––
1966.7–5.9
x
–
x
2024.9–4.1
x
–
x
2045.4–4.9
x
–
x
231
8.4–4.4
x
––
238
–
x
––
3416.0–4.5
xxx
4146.3–4.4
x
––
4446.8–5.1
x
––
4458.1–6.8
xxx
4788.0–6.1
x
––
4916.3–4.3
x
––
4986.6–5.6
x
–
x
513
6.1–5.6
x
–
x
5146.3–4.1
x
––
528
6.4–6.3
x
–
x
5416.0–4.6
x
–
x
546–
x
–
x
5696.5–4.1
x
––
5766.5–4.5
x
–
x
5778.5–5.3
x
––
593
8.5–3.9
x
––
595
7.0–5.5
x
––
feature 1007.5–4.5
x
––
stray fnd6.6–5.6
x
––
stray fnd7.9–5.3
x
––
In some cases, the outside surface of the pots had
preserved impressions of a
potter’s rib
(Figure 6). Wooden
and bone shaping tools (boards, knifes, templates) are well
known in ethnography and archaeologists have found some
of these in excavated pottery workshops of the same time
period (Tvauri, 2000, p.23; Griežienė, ed, 2011, pp.17–18;
Bobrinsky, 1978, p.52).
3.2 Courland Baltic ware
In Courland the Baltic ware had a bottom diameter of
8–10 cm (Table 2). The wall thickness tended to gradually
thin out from the bottom to the top of the pot. The base, as the
thickest part of the pot, ranged from 1.1–1.7 cm. The walls at
the bottom (2 cm from the ground) reached 0.9–1.4 cm. They
gradually thinned down, at 3 cm from the ground reaching
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
240
Figure 5.
Baltic ware pot bottom in RTIViewer from Salaspils Laukskola
cemetery, burial No 478; with noted fnger impressions and possible
rotation/drag directions.
Figure 6.
Baltic ware pots from Salaspils Laukskola cemetery: 1 – feature
No 100, 2 – burial No 582.
Table 2.
Technical measurements of Baltic ware from Talsi hillfort.
Inventory No.Base diameter (cm)Base thickness (mm)Wall thickness
approximately 2 cm
from the base (mm)
Wall thickness
approximately 3 cm
from the base (mm)
A 11431: 29941017
129
A 11431: 2962
81298
A 11431: 299110
15
––
A 11431: 299410
15
1410
A 11431: 2918
813
1010
A 11431: 2923
81511
10
0.8–1.0 cm thickness. This progression seemed to continue
as the rim sherds were all much thinner, at the thinnest
(shoulder) approximately 0.4 cm.
The bottoms of the pots had well integrated clay coils. The
potter had fully smoothed them out on the inside and outside
(Figure 7:1). However, the coils could still be noted on the
fracture (Figure 8).
The inside surface of the pot bottoms had a variety of
draglines (Figure 7:2). Some were more horizontal and could
have been created by the potter using the wheel’s rotation.
The longest visible horizontal dragline extended for 2/3 of
the pot’s circumference. Other draglines were more diagonal
or curved and were in line with the hand movements from
producing handmade pottery.
We were able to schematically reconstruct one Baltic
ware pot found in building E, of which the archaeologists
had collected multiple sherds (Figure 8). The diameter of the
rim was 14 cm and the diameter of the base was 8 cm. The
hypothetical height was 14 cm. There was a notable, gradual
thickening of the walls towards the base. The base was
1.3 cm thick, the wall approximately 2 cm from the ground
was 1.1 cm thick, and 6 cm from the ground the wall was
0.8 cm thick. The thickness of the top of the shoulder was
0.4 cm and the neck was 0.8 cm thick. Hence, the thickest
part was the base, but the thinnest was the bottom part of the
shoulder.
The inside of the bottom sherd of this schematically
reconstructed pot had horizontal draglines with several
interruptions. The lower diagonal draglines were from
an ending of a stroke that had circled the base (Figure 9).
The top diagonal draglines were similar but were overlayed
by other lines. The rim sherd of the same pot had more
consistently horizontal, uninterrupted draglines.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
241
4. Discussion
The wall thickness and uniformity of the Courland and
Daugava archaeological pottery were notably diferent.
Daugava Baltic ware had thin walls (0.4–0.8 cm) with
minimal variation in thickness (0.1–0.4 cm). The Courland
Baltic ware had much thicker walls, with the base being
the thickest (1.1–1.7 cm) and then a gradual thinning out
towards the shoulder (down to 0.4 cm). The variation in wall
thickness was around 0.9 cm.
The diference in wall thickness – and its consistency –
could be due to many reasons and infuencing factors which
are often closely related to each other. The main infuencing
factors are: the material, skill of the potter, pottery
traditions, or production methods. It could be observed that
the production traces on the Courland vessels were quite
pronounced – indicating that during the shaping process the
clay must have been quite soft. The use of soft clay would
have made it much more problematical to create pots with
thin walls. However, as noted before, deposits of good
quality clay are common in Latvia and the mixture used
was not particularly sandy or exhibit other notable factors
of poor clay. Hence, the softness of the clay was a choice
of the potter, not a restriction placed upon him. This left the
skill of the potter, production methods or the general pottery
traditions as the most likely reasons. As these are often
interlinked, it would not be possible to arbitrarily select just
one as being the dominant reason.
On the other hand, pottery from Daugava exhibited
surprising wall thinness and consistency. Such uniformly
Figure 7.
Baltic ware pot bottom in RTIViewer from Talsi hillfort, A 11431:2992.
Figure 8.
Baltic ware pot reconstruction from Talsi hillfort, A 11431:2918.
Figure 9.
Baltic ware pot bottom in RTIViewer from Talsi hillfort,
A 11431:2918.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
242
thin walls would be difcult to achieve under the best of
circumstances. It should be taken as a mark of high quality
and an indication of the skill of the potter.
Comparing the coiling technique visible on the fractures
of Daugava and Courland Baltic ware with the prepared
sample pottery, we could see that in both regions of Baltic
ware production the principal coiling technique was similar.
In both cases the coils were primarily attached from the
inside (Figures 1, 4 and 8). However, the bases of Daugava
Baltic ware seemed to be made in a diferent technique than
had been previously assumed. The clay particles were more
twisted and warped than the ones in the samples and the
bases tended to break in a diferent pattern (Figures 1 and 4).
The bases of Courland Baltic ware seemed to be fashioned
as the typical clay disc but had a peculiar braking pattern,
which may be attributed to the small sample set but should
be considered when doing further research.
Although in both cases the general building up of the
pot was done by attaching the coils from the inside, the
Daugava Baltic ware bases must have been created by
a diferent technique than we had previously assumed. There
are more techniques for creating pot bases recorded in the
ethnographic material, but a much larger scale experimental
study would be needed to establish which method was used
to create this part of the pot. As this unknown factor does
not further impede the analyses of the shaping techniques,
it will be left as an open question for a more specialised,
experimental study.
In both regions the production traces and draglines on pots
showed diferent shaping techniques and the application of
the potter’s wheel. The production traces on Daugava Baltic
ware showed extensive use of the wheel’s rotation to shape
the whole vessel. This was emphasised by the preservation
of the coil connections and potter’s fnger impressions on the
lower parts of the pot. The coiled cylinder had been roughly
put together by hand and the potter had not attempted
to smooth them out by hand before starting the wheel’s
rotation. With the rotation of the wheel the pot was shaped,
fully evening out and covering these production steps on the
top and middle of the pot. As the bottom part did not require
as much alteration or stretching, the impressions were left
visible. Only the outside surface was fully smoothed out for
aesthetic reasons, with the inside left unaltered.
For the Courland Baltic ware, the horizontal draglines were
much more focused on the rim. The bottom sherds showed
either a rotational movement with frequent interruptions or
handmade pottery-shaping techniques. The potter’s wheel
was beginning to be used to assist in the shaping process
– mostly for shaping of the rim. However, the handmade
techniques were still used extensively.
Archaeologists have noted that the adoption of the potter’s
wheel happens gradually and there are several intermediary
steps of wheel coiling before the pottery is fully wheel-thrown
(Roux and Courty, 1998, pp.748–750; Jefra, 2011, pp.106–
106; Rückl and Jacobs, 2016, pp.297–298). Bobrinsky has
traced this stepwise adoption of the potter’s wheel in his
in-depth studies of Slavic pottery. Based on ethnographic
material, he separated seven stages of how the potter’s wheel
had been used in making diferent types of Slavic pottery
(see section 2.2 Methods) (Bobrinsky, 1978, p.27).
Based on this separation and the production traces noted
in this study, the Baltic ware of Courland potters seems more
in line with the 3
rd
stage of pottery production. The pots
were smoothed out using the potter’s wheel and the potter’s
wheel was used to shape the rim of the vessels. However, the
bottoms of the pots were still predominantly shaped by hand.
As of the fragmental material and the draglines left from
smoothing out the surface, it was difcult to say precisely
where on the pot the rotational shaping began. The closest
parallel to the more widely-used four methods of wheel
coiling by Roux and Courty would be the 1
st
method (Roux,
2016, p.84).
Daugava potters used the potter’s wheel in accordance
with Bobrinsky’s 4
th
stage. After the base cylinder was
coiled by hand the pot was fully shaped using the rotation
of the wheel. The diference between the bottom 1/3 of the
pots and top parts of the pots provide an illustration of the
rudimentary hand-built cylinder. The closest parallel to the
widely-used four methods of wheel coiling could be the 3
rd
method (Roux, 2016, p.84).
According to ethnographical data from the early to
mid-1900s Slavic potters, the diference in the shaping
process and the wheel use had an important implication
for the professionalisation of the potter (Table 3). In the
ethnographical data, no potter working in or above the
4
th
stage of pottery production (using any type of non-
electrical potter’s wheel) had worked for home production or
commission. Potters at the 4
th
stage and above fully intended
to sell their wares in the regional (or larger) market. The 3
rd
stage was the transitionary period where the frst production
for a local and countryside market appeared (Bobrinsky,
1978, p.33). In other archaeological contexts, the level of
wheel use has also been interpreted to signify a certain level
of specialisation (Baldi and Roux, 2016, p.5).
Based on the previously mentioned parallels – the Baltic
ware produced in Daugava region already had specialised
potters making wares intended for the market. This was also
supported by the high quality (and its consistency) of the
produced wares. The quality and standardisation of Daugava
Baltic ware indicated a level of craft specialisation.
In the examined Courland pottery, these indications were
lacking. The ethnographic material shows that the 3
rd
stage
of pottery production was a transitional period. Potters could
have been working for commission or for some small to
medium-scale market. The quality and features of Courland
Baltic ware did not require such a high level of specialisation.
The potter could have made pots less frequently or not
invested as much initial time honing their skills.
Another question – did the diference in production methods
seen imply a diference in the tools that the potters used? In
ethnographic material (1900s), Western Slavic potters had
used six diferent types of non-electric pottery wheels: four
versions of the hand-driven wheel and two versions of the
foot-driven wheel (Figure 10) (Bobrinsky, 1962a, pp.34–44;
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
243
Table 3.
Production and trade practises of traditional Slavic potters in the 1900s from Bobrinsky, 1978, pp.29–33.
Technique used
(according to the stages)
Wheel usedDistribution modelSetting of distribution
0handmadecommission–
0handmadecommission–
0handmadecommission–
0handmadecommission–
0handmadecommission–
0handmadecommission–
0handmadelocal marketcity regions
3
hand dr. wheel – lightcommission–
3
hand dr. wheel – lightcommission–
3
hand dr. wheel – lightlocal marketcountryside
3
hand dr. wheel – lightlocal marketcountryside
3
hand dr. wheel – lightlocal marketcountryside
3
hand dr. wheel – lightregional marketcountryside
3
hand dr. wheel – lightregional marketcountryside
4foot dr. wheel – caruselregional marketcountryside
4hand dr. wheel – lightregional marketcountryside
4hand dr. wheel – lightregional marketcountryside
4hand dr. wheel – lightregional marketcountryside
5
foot dr. wheel – spinning toplocal marketcity regions
5
hand dr. wheel – heavylocal marketcity regions
5
foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
5
hand dr. wheel – lightcity marketcountryside
6foot dr. wheel – spinning toplocal marketcity regions
6foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
6hand dr. wheel – heavycity marketcountryside
6foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
6foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
6foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
7foot dr. wheel – spinning toplocal marketcity regions
7foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
7foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
7foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
7foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
7foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
7foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
7foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
?hand dr. wheel – lightlocal marketcountryside
?foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
?foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
?foot dr. wheel – caruselcity marketcountryside
?foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
?foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
?foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
244
Technique used
(according to the stages)
Wheel usedDistribution modelSetting of distribution
?hand dr. wheel – heavycity marketcountryside
1 ?hand dr. wheel – lightcommission–
3 ?hand dr. wheel – lightlocal marketcountryside
3 ?hand dr. wheel – lightlocal marketcountryside
4 ?foot dr. wheel – caruselregional marketcountryside
5 or 6hand dr. wheel – lightcity marketcountryside
5 or 6foot dr. wheel – spinning topregional marketcountryside
5 ?hand dr. wheel – heavycity marketcountryside
5 ?hand dr. wheel – lightcity marketcountryside
6 ?hand dr. wheel – heavycity marketcountryside
6 ?foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
6 ?hand dr. wheel – heavycity marketcountryside
7 ?foot dr. wheel – spinning toplocal marketcity regions
7 ?foot dr. wheel – spinning topcity marketcountryside
Table 3.
Production and trade practises of traditional Slavic potters in the 1900s from Bobrinsky, 1978, pp.29–33. (
Continuation
)
Figure 10.
Slavic potter’s wheels from
Bobrinsky, 1962, pp.35–44.
Bobrinsky, 1962b, p.38; Griežienė, ed., 2011, pp.16 and 19;
Bobrinsky, Melnikovskaja, 1977, p.177; Bobrinsky, 1991,
pp.37–48; Djukanović, 2011; Zelenin, 1991, pp.132–135).
In the 10
th
–13
th
century material of Pskov and Novgorod,
archaeologists have identifed fragments that they link to fve
of these wheel types: mushroom type; turntable; hand-driven
potter’s wheel with a fxed axis; foot-driven pottery wheel
of the carousel construction; and foot-driven pottery wheel
with a fywheel (Bobrinsky, 1962, pp.47–52; Plohov and
Sorokin, 2006, pp.107–108). Any of these potter’s wheels
could have been used in the Baltic region. However, without
direct archaeological evidence it would be questionable to
argue for the use of one potter’s wheel construction to the
exclusion of the others.
It is impossible to clearly say if Daugava potters used
one type of potter’s wheel while the Courland potters used
another type of wheel. What the production traces do suggest
is that the Daugava potters had used potter’s wheels with
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
245
enough inertia to fully shape the clay and produce consistent
draglines. The draglines visible on the pottery indicate
a sufciently large rotational inertia to resist the drag
produced by the potter’s fngers for several rotations.
Inertia is not intrinsic to one or two construction types
of a potter’s wheel. It is a property that relates to the mass
and radius of the potter’s wheel. Hence, both foot and hand
potter’s wheels could have been constructed to produce
enough inertia to leave the draglines seen on the Daugava
Baltic ware. In this case, to provide the needed inertia, it
should either be a hand-driven potter’s wheel of a reasonably
large radius – or a foot-driven potter’s wheel that has
a fywheel with enough mass/radius. As such consistent
draglines are not found on Courland Baltic ware, Courland
potters could have used a wheel with a smaller radius, but
this is not an essential requirement.
5. Conclusions
Baltic ware pottery, in the lower reaches of Daugava and
Courland, was in both cases wheel-coiled ceramics. In both
cases the coils were primarily attached from the inside. The
pot bases of Daugava pottery were made in a technique
that did not align with previous assumptions. A large-scale
experimental study would be needed to narrow down the
possibilities and conclude which technique was used to
produce the bases.
Many other technological features of the Baltic ware pots
in the two regions difered. The pots varied in wall thickness
and its evenness as well as in some production traces. The
diference in the Daugava and Courland Baltic ware seemed
to be based on the extent to which the potter’s wheel was
used. According to production traces, the Daugava potters
used the wheel more extensively than the Courland potters.
Using the system of stages of potter’s wheel use by Bobrinsky
– the Daugava potters operated in the 4
th
stage of pottery
production, while Courland potters operated in the 3
rd
stage
of pottery production.
Courland potters were still focusing on the techniques
used in handmade pottery. During the construction of the
body, they attached and evened out the coils without notable
use of the wheel’s rotation. The potters used the wheel’s
rotation to shape the profle of the rim/neck and to smooth
out the surface of the vessel. Based on ethnographic material,
this mode of production correlates with a production for
commission or for the local and countryside markets.
Daugava potters used the potter’s wheel more extensively.
They coiled a rudimentary cylinder by hand, but then further
on they relied on the potter’s wheel. They used the wheel’s
rotation to even out the coils, shape the pot and smooth out
its surface. Based on ethnographic material, this mode of
production correlates with a production for the countryside
market. The ethnographical data taken, together with the
quality and consistency of the produced wares by Daugava
potters, suggests a level of professionalisation for the
Daugava potters.
There is still the open question as to whether the diference
was in the potter’s skill alone or also in the tools they used.
The 4
th
stage of pottery production required a potter’s wheel
with sufcient inertia to withstand the drag of the potter’s
fngers to fully shape a medium-sized pot. The 3
rd
stage
of pottery production did not require as much inertia. The
shaping was done only at the rim part and hence the potter
could have used a lighter wheel construction. However, this
does not necessarily mean that, indeed, it was a lighter wheel
construction. The diference could still be simply in the
traditions, professionalism, and the skill of the potter.
Acknowledgements
This article was created with the support of the National
History Museum of Latvia. We are also grateful to the
anonymous reviewers who showed interest in our work and
made helpful comments to improve our manuscript.
References
ASARIS J., 2001. Talsi – from Curonian Central Place to Medieval Town.
In: M. Auns, ed.
Lubek style? Novgorod style? Baltic Rim central
places as areas for cultural encounters and urbanisation 1100–1400
AD, transactions of the central level symposium of the Culture Clash or
Compromise (CCC) project held in Talsi September 18–21 1998
. Vol. 3.
Riga: Nordik, pp. 69–75.
ASARIS, J., MUIŽNIEKS, V., RADIŅŠ, A., VIRSE, I., ŽEIERE, I., 2008.
Kurši senatnē. Couronians in antiquity.
Rīga: Latvijas Nacionālais
vēstures muzejs.
ASARIS, J., TORA., A., 1994. Pētījumi Talsu senpilsētā. In: Ē. Mugurēvičs,
ed.
Zinātniskās atskaites sesijas materiāli par arheologu 1992. un 1993.
gada pētījumu rezultātiem.
Rīga: Latvijas Vēstures institūta apgāds, pp.
19–22.
BALDI, J., ROUX, V., 2016. The innovation of the potter’s wheel:
a comparative perspective between Mesopotamia and the southern
Levant.
Levant,
48(3),
1–18.
BERG, I. 2020, pre-print. The Potter’s Wheel. In:
Encyclopaedia of Global
Archaeology
. Springer, pp. 1–13.
BOBRINSKY, A.A., 1962a. Drevnerusskij Goncharnyj Krug.
Sovetskaja
Arheologija
, 3. 33–52.
BOBRINSKY, A.A., 1962b. K Izucheniju Tehniki Goncharnogo Remesla
na Territorii Smolenskoj Oblasti.
Sovetskaja Arheologija
, 2. 31–50.
BOBRINSKY, A.A., 1978:
Goncharstvo Vostochnoj Evropy: istochniki
i metody izuchenija.
Moskva: Nauka.
BOBRINSKY, A.A., 1991:
Goncharnye Masterskie i Gorny Vostochnoj
Evropy.
Moskva: Nauka.
BOBRINSKY, A.A., MELNIKOVSKAJA, O.N., 1977. Goncharnyj Krug
u Poselenija Juhnovskij Kultury.
Sovetskaja Arheologija
, 2, 172–180.
CHI, 2020.
Refectance Transformation Imaging (RTI).
[online]. Cultural
heritage imaging. [viewed 07/12/2020]. Available from: http://
culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/RTI/.
DJUKANOVIĆ, V., 2011.
PEKVA: Large Hand-Wheeled Pottery Lid
for Covering Bread During Baking.
[online]. Conference: Traditional
Pottery Making from The Ethnoarchaeological Point of View. Scientifc
Research and Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage. National Museum in
Belgrade. 10
th
to 12
th
June 2011. [viewed 07/12/2020]. Available from:
http://narodnimuzej.rs/conference2011/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/V.-
Djukanovic_PEKVA-%E2%80%93-LARGE-HAND-WHEELED-
POTTERY-LID-FOR-COVERING-BREAD-DURING-BAKING.pdf
DUMPE, B., 2007. Agrā neolīta keramikas rekonstrukcijas. In: I. Stašulāne,
ed.
Latvijas nacionālā vēstures muzeja lasījumi 2004.–2006. Latvijas
Nacionālā vēstures muzeja raksti Nr.12.
Rīga: N.I.M.S. pp. 25–44.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 235–246
Alise Gunnarssone, Baiba Dumpe, Vanda Visocka, Artūrs Brēķis: A Case for Coexistence of Diferent Potting Practices – Baltic Ware in Latvia
246
DUMPE, B., 2009. Senās podniecības krāsnis Latvijā. In:
Pa Somugru
Pēdām Baltijas Jūras Krastā. Starptautiskās zinātniskās konferences
materiāli. 2009.gada 23.aprīlis, Turaida
. Rīga: Zinātne. pp. 65–75.
DUMPE, B., 2021. Trauki. In: I. Stašulāne, ed.
Latvijas Arheoloģijas
Rokasgrāmata.
Rīga: Zinātne. pp. 493–509.
EITELJORG, H., 1980. The Fast Wheel, the Multiple-Brush Com-pass,
and Athens as Home of the Protogeometric Style.
American Journal of
Archaeology
, 84(4), 445–452.
GRIEŽIENĖ, A., ed., 2011.
Tradicinės keramikos dirbinių formos, dekoras,
gamyba ir išdegimas.
Vilnius: S. Jokužio leidykla-spaustuvė.
GUNNARSSONE, A., ORAS, E., TALBOT, H.M., ILVES, K., and
LEGZDIŅA, D.,
2020. Cooking for The Living and The Dead: Lipid
Analyses of Rauši Settlement and Cemetery Pottery from the 11
th
–13
th
Century.
Estonian Journal of Archaeology
, 24(2), 45–69.
JEFFRA, C.D., 2011.
An Experimental Approach to the Pottery Wheel in
Bronze Age Crete and Cyprus
. Unpublished thesis (PhD). University of
Exeter.
KRAUKLE, R., 2011.
Talsu pilskalns 10.–15. gadsimtā.
Unpublished thesis
(M.A.). University of Latvia.
KURŠS, V., STINKULE, A., 1972.
Māli Latvijas zemes dzīlēs un rūpniecībā
.
Rīga: Izdevniecība “Liesma”.
PILIČIAUSKAS, G., 2018.
Virvelinės keramikos kultūra Lietuvoje 2800–
2400 cal BC.
Vilnus: Lietuvos istorijos institutas.
PLOHOV, A.V., SOROKIN, A.N., 2006. Detali Goncharnyh Krugov
s Gribovidnym Diskom iz Raskopok v Novgorode. In: V.L. Janin, ed.
Novgorod i Novgorodskaja Zemlja. Istorija i arheologija.
20
th
ed. Velikij
Novgorod. pp. 105–114.
RICE, P.M., 2005.
Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook.
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
ROUX, V., 2016.
Ceramics and Society. A Technological Approach to
Archeological Assemblages
. Paris: Springer.
ROUX, V., COURTY, M.A., 1998. Identifcation of Wheel-Fashioning
Methods: Technological Analysis of 4
th
–3
rd
Millennium BC Oriental
Ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science,
25(8), 747–763.
ROUX, V., DE MIROSCHEDJI, P., 2009. Revisiting the history of the
potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant.
Levant,
41(2), 155–173.
RÜCKL, Š., JACOBS, L., 2016. “With a Little Help from My Wheel”:
Wheel-Coiled Pottery in Protogeometric Greece.
Hesperia: The Journal
of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
, 85(2), 297–321.
STINKULE, A., 2014.
Māli Latvijas Zemes dzīlēs.
Rīga: RTU izdevniecība.
ŠULTE, A., 2011.
Talsu un Padures pilskalna keramika.
Unpublished thesis
(B.A.). University of Latvia.
ŠULTE, A., GUNNARSSONS, D.S.E., 2017. Ieskats Salaspils Laukskolas
apmetnes kapulauka un keramikas telpiskajā analīzē.
In: I. Antēna,
ed
. Latvijas Nacionālā vēstures muzeja zinātniskie lasījumi 2014.–
2016. Latvijas Nacionālā vēstures muzeja raksti Nr.23.
Rīga: Latvijas
Nacionālais vēstures muzejs. pp. 11–20.
TVAURI, A., 2000. Pihkva Pottsepad Viljandis ja Tartus 13. Sajandil.
Estonian Journal of Archaeology
, 4(1), 21–38.
VALTERS, A., ed., 1992.
Fizika
. Rīga: Zvaigzne.
VASKS, A., KALNIŅA, L., and DAUGNORA, L., 2011. Beltu pilskalns
.
Arheoloģija un etnogrāfja,
25, 73–99.
VISOCKA, V., KALNIŅŠ, M., KONS, A., 2021.
Resursu apzināšana
arheoloģijas kontekstā: māli Daugavas lejtecē, Kurzemē un Burtnieka
ezera apkārtnē/ Survey of the resources in the context of archaeology:
clays in the lower Daugava area, the Kurzeme region and the
surroundings of Lake Burtnieks
. In: A. Vilcāne, ed. LU 79. starptautiskās
zinātniskās konferences sekcija: Arheologu un etnogrāfu pētījumi Latvijā
2018.–2020. Conference proceedings, 11
th
March 2021. Rīga: University
of Latvia, pp. 12–13.
ZARIŅA, A., 2006.
Salaspils Laukskolas kapulauks 10.–13. gadsimts
.
Rīga: Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Apgāds.
ZELENIN, D.K., 1991.
Vostochnoslavjanskaja jetnografja.
Moskva:
Nauka.