Variability in coiling technique in LBK pottery inferred by experiments and pore structure micro-tomography analysis

Abstract

The article aims at identifying the origin of voids left by burnt-out organic material within the ceramic paste of Neolithic pottery from the Czech Republic territory. In methodological terms, an experimental reference collection was created and compared with the original early Neolithic pottery from the sites of Bylany by Kutná Hora and Těšetice-Kyjovice. The key analytical procedure consisted in non-destructive 3D microtomography (uCT) analysis, which is especially well suited for the study of the internal spatial organization of voids and temper. It allows to determine whether it is possible to define different manufacturing techniques employed for vessel construction on the basis of internal distribution of voids. The research identified cow dung as the probable organic temper within the original LBK ceramic paste. The ‘S’-forming technique, consisting in pressing the coil to the vessel wall, most closely corresponded to features observed at the Neolithic vessels.

Detecting and explaining technological innovation in prehistory

“…As the data on forming processes between the area of emergence of the LBK culture and its final expansion area is still sparse, it remains difficult to understand the exact causes for this increase in idiosyncrasies. One has to note, however, that variety in procedures of coil adjunction was also observed on the LBK site of Bylany, in Bohemia (Neumannová et al 2017).…”

“…Besides these chronological sequences, a growing number of researchers also investigate European early Neolithic pottery from a technical point of view, focusing on raw materials and paste recipes, forming processes, surface treatments, decoration techniques, and/or firing processes, thus assessing continuity and ruptures in pottery production (e.g. Spataro 2006;Marton 2004;Szakmány et al 2005;Capelli et al 2006;Szakmány and Starnini 2007;Biró et al 2007;Binder et al 2010;Manen and Convertini 2012;Gabriele and Boschian 2013;Kreiter 2010;Kreiter and Szakmány 2011;Angeli et al 2015;Van Dooselaere et al 2016;Angeli and Fabbri 2017;Kvetina et al 2017;Neumannová et al 2017). However, in the European early Neolithic contexts, where mobility is a structural component of farming communities, the interpretation of ceramic technical change perceived in the archaeological record can be challenging.…”