The Logic of Ceramic Technology in Marginal Environments: Implications for Mobile Life

Abstract

Explanations for the use of pots as practical domestic tools permeate the literature of technological adoption and change. While many arguments focus on the economic merits of pots, few have attempted to trace the conditions that promote or deter the adoption of pottery. This is especially true for the use of pottery by mobile peoples. We adapt an established model of technological investment to draw attention to three key variables affecting pottery adoption: manufacturing time, utility, and use time. We use the logic of this model to examine how social and environmental contexts, specifically residential mobility in marginal environments, impacts use of and investment in ceramic technology. We further illustrate how the model can be used to reveal seasonal patterns of behavior from the spatial distribution of pottery discarded by mobile foragers and herders.

Population Dynamics and Human Strategies in Northwestern Patagonia

“…In addition, the ceramics recovered show high manufacture inversion, as reflected in the average thickness (4.9mm), surface treatment (79% polished), temper size (63% fine) and firing (40% reduced). Following Sturm et al (2016) this conjunction of traits on the ceramic assemblage suggests a high reuse of vessels, probably for several years. The high proportion of non-local ceramic (mainly from the Chilean side of the Andes) indicates a high value of this technology in the area, not only for subsistence but also for trade networks.…”

No pottery at the western periphery of Europe: why was the Final Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland aceramic?

“…Although the use of animal skins/stomachs for containers (documented ethnographically, e.g. Sturm et al 2016) is notably absent from the archaeological record, it is unlikely that aceramic container technologies-whether plantor animal-derived-were vastly different or superior in Britain and Ireland to those used in other regions where pottery was adopted by hunter-gatherers. As such, mechanically superior organic container technologies seem unlikely to have influenced aceramicism.…”

The Climate Fluctuation of the 8.2 ka BP Cooling Event and the Transition into Neolithic Lifeways in North China

“…Except for Shizitan Loc 9/Loc 12 G, pottery sherds have been discovered in all other sites [112]. Pottery provided people with innovative cooking techniques, which facilitated a more thorough intake of nutrients from food resources, like the grease from animal bones and hard-to-digest plant resources such as millet [92,113]. However, pottery is breakable and not suited transport over long distances, therefore it does not fit well in highly mobile lifeways [114].…”

“…Such evidence indicates that even though the pottery and accompanying new cooking methods were widely adopted by foragers, vessels were not as intensively used as by the subsequent Neolithic farmers. The mobile lifeways and the limited levels of resource intensification might have confined the extent of people's reliance on pottery use [113].…”