Project Holocene: The Clayful Phenomenology of Jōmon Flame Pots

Abstract

As a ceramic artist, I was surprised to find that archaeological research gives little attention to the extraordinary sensorial qualities of Jōmon flame pots. To understand why, I consider the challenges of including sensory experience in archaeological method and the problems of leaving it out. Turning to the typological approach to Jōmon pottery, I highlight the assumptions it makes about cognition before introducing Material Engagement Theory (MET) as an alternative. A MET-oriented reanalysis of the typological evidence places sensation at the centre of enquiry and removes the need to interpret symbolic, representational content. Through MET, I consider the sensorial qualities of flame pots, not as prehistory but as they appeared recently and unexpectantly during the process of modelling clay into sculptures for a contemporary art project. Flame pots joined conceptually with the explorative activity of clay. A prehistoric/contemporary artefact/modelling system was created and developed itself into a method of monitoring intra-systemic experience—clayful phenomenology. The findings cover five themes: enacted agency, iconicity from indexicality, bending rules/undermining habits, the choreography of material engagement and the phenomenology of space.

Perspectival Kinaesthetic Imaging

“…The development of mobile eye-tracking allows experimentation with eye movements ‘in the wild’ while action happens in real time (for a recent application see March, 2021; March and Vallée-Tourangeau, 2022). The process of making can be recorded, tracking the eye’s pathway (made of fixations and saccades) in relation to the pathways of the hand.…”

Where the touching is touched: The role of haptic attentive unity in the dialogue between maker and material

“…It is often claimed, by researchers and skilled practitioners alike, that making is a dialogue between maker and material (Aktaş and Mäkelä, 2019; Brinck and Reddy, 2020; Groth et al, 2013; Ihde and Malafouris, 2019; Ingold, 2013, 2022; Leroi-Gourhan, 1993[1964]; Karana, 2019; Kneebone, 2020; Mäkelä and Aktaş, 2022; Malafouris, 2013; March, 2019, 2021; March and Glavneau, 2020; Pallasmaa, 2009; Petreca, 2019; Ross and Vallée‐Tourangeau, 2021; Sennett, 2009; ValléeTourangeau and March, 2020; Walls, 2019). This statement seems to capture a basic characteristic of making as a relational process.…”