Ancient ceramics are not self-interpreting and understanding their meaning is the most central issue facing the archaeologists that study them. Some assume that compositional analysis by various methods can provide this meaning, whereas...
moreAncient ceramics are not self-interpreting and understanding their meaning is the most central issue facing the archaeologists that study them. Some assume that compositional analysis by various methods can provide this meaning, whereas others assume that the notion of choice explains potters’ behavior. Both approaches, however, result in abstractions that need to be related to a variety of social, behavioral, technical, and environmental factors. Ancient ceramics, however, are usually interpreted with reference to archaeologists’ inexplicit assumptions about the nature of pottery, and their relationship to society. Are ceramics simply the product of culture and tradition, or are they more complex showing interrelationships between indigenous knowledge, landscape, mineralogy and performance characteristics? After decades of publications showing the limitations and constraints of mineralogy, fabrication technique, and climate on pottery production, some archaeologists still believe that pottery, because it consists of fired plastic clay, reflects the mental template of the potter with no environmental or material constraints. Ethnoarchaeological research over the last 50 years in Latin America and elsewhere, however, reveals that potters use their indigenous knowledge to engage their landscape, the raw materials that came from it, and their performance characteristics. The resulting pastes change over time because of changing raw material sources, particular forming technologies, and different vessel sizes, uses, and shapes. Using ethnoarchaeological examples from Latin America, this paper enumerates some probabilistic generalizations that elucidate the relationship of raw materials to landscape, performance characteristics, paste recipes, and forming technologies. It examines some of the factors that influence potters’ raw material selection and suggests that the choices potters make are not necessarily driven by tradition, a mental template, or non, technological criteria. Rather, all choices are multi-causal and linked to the potters’ material engagement of their indigenous knowledge with a variety of different external factors.