61
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers>
32 000 years of ceramic technology use
and the perception of containment
Mihael Budja
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SI
Mihael.Budja@ff.uni-lj.si
Introduction
When he conceptualised the Neolithic as a series of
technological, economic and social revolutions in
Southwest Asia, Vere Gordon Childe (1958.76–79)
introduced the premise that pottery making was per-
haps “the earliest conscious utilization by man of
a chemical change” associated with “thinking of
creation” and “making form where there was no
form”. The result was the ceramic vessel – a tool for
more intensive food processing “made by women
and for women”. He suggested that pottery making
was one of the steps in the progress of thoughts,
knowledge, and skills that humans made as mem-
bers of society in creating a culture as a kind of men-
tal matrix for action, which allowed man to “make
himself”.
Ceramics soon become broadly considered a key
materiality, taken to represent progress in econo-
mic, technological, and evolutionary terms. The in-
novative linking of their plastic medium of clay and
pyrotechnology to invent fired clay technology, and
to create a solid object, a ceramic container, is still
assumed to be a revolutionary step in the develop-
ment of modern human thought and practice, taken
along with agriculture and sedentism (Gamble 2007.
10–32).
We show bellow that the earliest step in the devel-
opment of ceramic (pyro)technology in Eurasia was
not the invention of vessels made from fire-hardened
clay, but of cones, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic
figurines, which were certainly not associated with
(pre)existing container or any other food storage
technology. The twenty-millennia-long episodic pre-
Neolithic trajectory of the fired clay figurine tradi-
tion in western Eurasia did not lead to the innova-
ABSTRACT – We present two parallel and 32 000 years long trajectories of episodic ceramic technol-
ogy use in Eurasian pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer societies. In eastern, Asian trajectory the pottery
was produced from the beginning. Ceramic figurines mark the western, European trajectory. The
western predates the eastern for about eleven millennia. While ceramic cones and figurines first
appeared in Central Europe at c. 31 000 cal BC the earliest vessels in eastern Asia was dated at c.
20 000 cal BC. We discuss women’s agency, perception of containment, ‘cross-craft interactions’, and
evolution of private property that that may influenced the inventions of ceramic (pyro)technology.
IZVLE∞EK – Predstavljamo dve vzporedni, 32 000 let dolgi trajektoriji ob≠asne uporabe kerami≠ne
tehnologije pri evrazijskih pred-neolitskih skupnostih lovcev in nabiralcev. V vzhodni, azijski trajek-
toriji, so kerami≠ne posode izdelovali ∫e od za≠etka. V zahodni, evropski, so najprej izdelovali kera-
mi≠ne figurice in sto∫ce. Za≠etek uporabe kerami≠ne tehnologije v Evropi je 11 000 let starej∏i od
za≠etka v jugovzhodni Aziji. Prvi kerami≠ni sto∫ci in figurice so se v srednji Evropi pojavile pred
31 000 leti pr.n.∏t. Prve kerami≠ne posode pa so v jugovzhodni Aziji za≠eli uporabljati pred 20 000
leti pr.n.∏t. Analiziramo vlogo ∫ensk, pomen shranjevanja in zasebne lastnine ter prenosa znanj in
ve∏≠in pri razvoju kerami≠ne tehnologije.
KEY WORDS – hunter-gatherers; ceramic technology; invention; containment; radiocarbon dating
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.2 
Mihael Budja
62
tion of ceramic container technologies. In Central
Europe the focus in the Palaeolithic was on figurines
and cones, followed by the first vessels production
in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Near East. In the
East Asia, the focus was on vessel making from the
outset. The western tradition predates the eastern
by about eleven millennia. While ceramic cones and
figurines first appeared in Europe at c. 31 000 cal BC,
the earliest vessels in southeaster Asia are dated to
c. 20 000 cal BC (see below). Residual analyses show
that they were used for food preparation and per-
haps for storage tasks.
However, it was suggested recently that man “did
not make himself” (Olsen 2010.9–10). Societies con-
sist of myriads of co-working entities comprised of
both humans and non-humans, and ‘things’, all those
physical entities we refer to as material culture, are
beings in the world alongside other beings such as
the humans, plant and animals, which constitute the
very basis of collective action and society. Emile
Durkheim (2005.278) indeed suggested a century
ago that “… it is not true that society is made up
only of individuals; it also includes material things,
which play an essential role in the common life.
The social fact is sometimes so far materialized as
to become an element of the external world.”
The making of pots was suggested to be closely con-
nected with a new understanding of the ‘co-depen-
dency of mind and matter’ that ‘shaped the human
intelligence’ in the Neolithic. The shaping of ceramic
vessels was correlated with conceptual innovations,
a true three-dimensional conception of objects. The
introduction of a different topology, ‘a surface around
a void’, thus required the conceptual separation of
the surface of an object from its volume, and distin-
guishing between interior and exterior surfaces
(Read, van der Leeuw 2008.1965).
Pots as bodies
The perception of human dependence on, and mix-
ing with, things at the level of being was embedded
in the phenomenology of Heidegger and Merleau-
Ponty. Martin Heidegger (1971.25) introduced the
concept of the ‘thing’ and the ‘thingness of the thing’,
suggesting that a thing is a totality – “the unity of a
manifold of what is given in the senses”. The jug is
a thing, as a vessel, he suggested, made from earth,
which stands on its own and takes on the task of con-
taining water and wine, which come from a rock
spring or from rain, or from the grape growing from
the earth. Pouring can slake human thirst or be a
libation to the gods. The jug thus connects humans,
gods, earth and sky. It is this “gathering and unit-
ing” that makes the jug a thing. The central aspect
of the phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty
(2005) is everyday practical experience of the world
and things. Perception, he suggested, is not a matter
of intellectual contemplation, but of active involve-
ment with things – bounded entities that endure
through time. It is the perception of the unity of the
body that gives unity to the thing. It is through our
bodies that, as humans, we are placed in the world,
and this bodily being in the world must be under-
stood through tasks and actions that have to be car-
ried out, and through the material possibilities open
to the body. So we may hypothesise that the pot has
agency and does things for humans (Gell 1998), and
acts as a “delegated non-human character” (Latour
1992.157).
It was not only knowledge of the properties of clay
and fire, but the perception of containment that
marks pots, suggested Carl Knappett et alii (2010).
It was also the blending of pots and bodies. He
noticed that, once ceramics were first introduced in
Neolithic in Europe and Near East, they were associ-
ated with two major forms of ‘containment’. The
first is that of the vessel and the second of human
and animal clay figurines. While in the first the as-
sociation with containment is obvious at the func-
tional level, in the second it is achieved through the
semiotic relation with the human and animal body,
which provide metaphors of containment.
Knappett also hypothesised that it was not only the
perception of clay vessels capacity to contain, but
rather the interactive properties, possibilities, or af-
fordances that emerge because of this capacity of
the vessel. Containers are thus not simply vessels,
but action possibilities that make possible new forms
of mediated action, agency, and material engagement,
both in terms of use and manufacture (Knappett
2004; Knappett, Malafouris 2008). He introduced
the relational concept of ‘affordances’ of objects, sug-
gesting that information and meaning reside in ob-
jects and in the mind, since objects in context afford
particular sets of actions to humans. ‘Affordances’,
he suggested, frame, while not determining, the pos-
sibilities for human (agent) action in relation to ob-
jects (Knappett 2004.46). In other words, objects are
a “sort of nexus, where mind, agency and material
meet and merge” (Knappett 2005.57). He strictly
followed Ian Hutchby’s (2001.444) notion that “af-
fordances are functional and relational aspects
which frame, while not determining, the possibil-
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
63
ities for agentic action in relation to an object. In
this way, technologies can be understood as arte-
facts which may be both shaped by, and shaping
of, the practices humans use in interaction with,
around and through them”. Hutchby termed his
approach the ‘third way’ in the discussion in socio-
logy of scientific knowledge. He embedded it between
technological determinism and constructionism. The
perception that new modes of social relations are
actively caused by particular forms of technology
relates to the first way. The second relates to the
perception that technological artefacts are entirely
socially shaped, in terms of both their form and
meaning.
It is worth remembering that the conceptualisation
of affordance (possibilities or opportunities), was in-
troduced by James J. Gibson (1979.16, 23, 127–143)
in ecological psychology, suggesting that the mind
directly perceives environmental stimuli without
additional cognitive construction or processing. He
criticised the dogma that the human perception of
function is indirect, being mediated by cultural rep-
resentations. He strongly argued that objects held
‘potentialities’ (i.e. affordances) for a ‘particular set
of actions’ that can be observed without categori-
sation related to actual cultural knowledge. Within
the terrestrial environment, affordances were con-
ceived as a “triad of medium, substances, and sur-
faces that separate them and where most of the
actions are”. The surfaces mark the layouts of ob-
jects that afford manipulation. Containers and pots
are listed among many others. They all have their
technical ‘properties or qualities’, but “what we per-
ceive when we look at objects are their affordan-
ces, not their qualities”, suggested Gibson (1979.
134).
Knappett et alii (2010.585) later replaced ‘affordan-
ces’ with ‘containment’, which they suggested is a
better term for both ‘action possibilities’ and ‘affor-
dances’.
In parallel studies in anthropology, perceptions of
containment were associated with ‘bounded object’.
They both related to pottery, an archetype for ac-
tions of containing, storing, pouring, mixing, and
to cooking in the context of domestic technology
evolution and food processing. The vessel was con-
ceptualised as “a necessary extension of the body”
in eating, drinking and other bodily functions, and
associated with “a sensori-affectivo-motor conducts,
individual desires and emotions” in daily house-
hold activities (Warnier 2006.193–195). Jean-Pierre
Warnier linked the body and material culture with
“a major change in the domestic technology of
containment” and “daily household activities” that
evolve gradually in a “technology of power”.
In the context of embodied mind theory in cognitive
science, Mark Johnson (1987.21) suggested that one
of the most pervasive features of our bodily experi-
ence is our encounter with containment and ‘bound-
edness’. He linked the conception ‘of bodily origins
of meaning and thought with the intimate aware-
ness of our bodies as ‘three-dimensional containers
into which we put certain things and out of which
other things emerge’. He recognised the human
body, and the house, as ‘typical schemata for phys-
ical containment’ that consist of a boundary that
demarcates an interior from an exterior.
However, the container metaphor concept and em-
bodied mind theory were linked to our conceptual
system, in terms of which we both think and act,
and is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (Lakoff,
Johnson 1980; 1999). They were linked, as well, to
our knowledge – we organise by means of struc-
tures called ‘idealized cognitive models’ (Lakoff
1987). These both related to Kant’s concept of ‘sche-
mata’ as structures of imagination and cognitive uni-
versals. In Kant’s theory of perception, the ‘schema’
is not an image, but ‘procedures for constructing
images’, thus involving perceptual patterns in our
bodily experience. It is a nexus between a pure con-
cept and a phenomenon (Johnson 1987.21).
In a philosophically oriented discussion of materi-
als, their transformations and affordances, Tim In-
gold (2006; 2007.35) suggested that there is no in-
side or outside, and no boundary separating the two
domains. Instead, there are relations along which
materials flow, mix and mutate. Persons and things,
then, are formed in the ‘meshwork’ of relations
between persons and things and things and things
along which materials flow, mix and mutate. In
‘animic’ perception and lines of relationships, it is
“a meshwork of interwoven substances”. It is not
that things are entangled in relations; rather, every-
thing is itself an entanglement, and is thus linked
to other things by way of the flows of materials that
make it up. ‘Affordances’ were thus related to skill
practices. Each generation, he claimed, thus contri-
butes to the next “by introducing novices into con-
texts which afford selected opportunities for per-
ception and action, and by providing the scaffold-
ing that enables them to make use of these affor-
dances” (Ingold 2000.353–354).
Mihael Budja
64
In more simplistic perceptions of containment, both
the human body and the Neolithic pot were consi-
dered as containers of fluids and substances which
enter and flow out of them, with their orifices, en-
trances and exits. It was suggested that the surface
acts as a human (Tilley 1996.318, 323–327) or ani-
mal skin (Mleku∫ 2007.273). A more formal linkage
was believed to be provided by the “occurrence of
face pots with eyes” and clay temper consisting of
crushed human bones (Tilley 1996.318). These ves-
sels were recognised as food containers linked to
feasting and ritual. The pots, although fragile, were
hypothesised as representing a highly symbolic items,
along with exotic food that would be associated with
feasts and ceremonial events to celebrate ancestral
forces and powers on the one hand, and to entertain
and impress neighbours, and to rise within and
between group competition for prestige, fame and
power on the other. Pots were believed to act as
‘metaphorical vehicles’ that link ‘notions of time and
death to the human body itself through the process
of burial ritual’ (Tilley 1996.114).
The even simpler idea that some pots represent peo-
ple was introduced by Ian Hodder (1988.382). It was
based on southeast European Neolithic pots that
occur in the form of a female body “with breasts,
arms, and feet, and there are similarities in the de-
coration used on pots and on female figurines”.
Conceptualising the idea of ‘entanglement’, he ex-
plained that “objects that stand up against humans
can only be known by humans through their cha-
racter as things that gather humans and other
things into heterogeneous mixes” (Hodder 2012.
13).
Sometimes pots became a part of the human body.
In a Bronze Age inhumation burial, the mandible of
a crouched inhumation was removed. It was then
placed on the deceased’s chest and a miniature ves-
sel inserted into the mouth of the deceased (Brück
2006.84) (Fig. 1). An early Neolithic vessel modelled
in the form of a headless female body contained a
fragment of a human skull (Kalicz 1980.23, Tab. 2)
(Fig. 2). The vessel could be seen as “mediator in
their own right, object as person, whose major
concern was the regulation of flows of substance”
(Fowler 2004.63) or ‘as containers, just as the hu-
man head is seen in many societies as the reposito-
ry of the human soul’ (Brück 2006.84). We may sug-
gest perhaps that the vessel and the skull fragment
metaphorically build a new composite body of the
deceased.
John Chapman (2000a; 2000b) suggested that pot-
tery is a medium that is ‘reliable and effective’ for
holding persons and groups together “through the
objectification of common traditions often rein-
forced by symbolic decoration”, and for providing
“a mechanism for symbolism of fission and rup-
ture”. Thus, complete pots may represent group so-
lidarity, integration and successful constitution,
whereas fragmented pots represent rupture, cleav-
age and friction, which lead to dissolution. In Early
Neolithic societies, where household and/or local
lineage institutions were weakly developed, the only
way to maintain social reproduction lay in repeated
social practices, including the smashing of pots. Thus,
“the decision to keep pots whole through daily
use is a metaphor for maintenance of social rela-
tions through continual renegotiation. Just as the
associations of its various uses bring and added
value to a vessel, so the enchainment of fractal
person to a ramifying group of kin brings such
people fame and reputation. Conversely, the rup-
ture of those social relations characterising a less
sedentary community would have elicited the res-
ponse of the fragmentation of much valued pottery.
But the even more striking collapse of social rela-
tions in a seemingly more stable sedentary commu-
nity’s may well have led to the large-scale fragmen-
Fig. 1. The Bronze Age burial at Garton Slack. The
mandible of the deceased was removed, and a ves-
sel was inserted into the mouth (from Brück 2006a.
Fig. 4).
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
65
tation of one of the that community’s important
symbolic resources-pottery” (Chapman 2000a.43).
Along with the (fragmented) vessel, which mediates
personal relationships between living members of
society, human bones are a metaphor for maintain-
ing relations between the living, the deceased and
the ancestors (Chapman 2000a.144; 2000b; Chap-
man, Gaydarska 2007.53–70). A social
practice of enchainment in this context
is believed to comprise the best, and
sometimes the only, explanation for the
deliberate fragmentation of pots and
bones (Chapman, Gaydarska 2007.203;
Chapman 2008.188). In these readings,
the fragmentation of vessels and bodies,
and the extraction of parts from wholes
and re-articulation of fragments in new
units is the major mode of social rela-
tions through which people and things
are constituted. People are not so much
individuals as ‘fractal’ and ‘dividuals’.
Who they are and what they do relate to
their transactions with each other, with
material culture and with the dead (see
Budja 2012.144–147).
We may hypothesise that the female body
was not the only source metaphors of
‘containing’ through which Neolithic farmers expe-
rienced being and understood the world around
them, but the animal body too. These appeared in
the form of rhytons, four-legged vessels embedded
in Neolithic contexts in the Balkans and the Adriatic.
They have been seen as stylised representations of
the lower body of different species of domesticated
animal, especially sheep, goat, swine and cattle (Pe-
ri≤ 1996). It has also been suggested that they have
some iconic resemblance to animals, which is not
intended to be representational, but to reveal their
hidden properties (Mleku∫ 2007). Representations
of wild animals appeared along with representations
of domestic species. Maria Gimbutas (1989.Fig. 186)
recognised a ‘Bear Mother’ in one of them (Fig. 3).
However, domesticated animals are not only good to
share households with (Haraway 2003). Neolithic
personal experience may have been greatly shaped
by the animals that people bred, exchanged and
hunted (Fowler 2001.160). They were engaged in
reciprocal social relations within the household (Na-
dasdy 2007). In communities where personhood is
stressed as a feature of the community and where a
clan is a person (a family might be another), not all
the people in the community are necessarily human,
but other social agents, such as animals (for details,
see Morris 2000; Fowler 2004.14–30; Voutsaki
2010.74).
Pottery and women in ethnographic contexts
Dean Arnold (1985.128–144) identifies a number of
generalisations about pottery and people based on
Fig. 2. The Early Neolithic ‘Gorsza Venus’ anthro-
pomorphic vessel portrays a headless female body,
and contained a fragment of a human skull (Ka-
licz 1980.Tab. 2).
Fig. 3. The Neolithic ‘bear-legged rhyton’ from Smil≠i≤. Maria
Gimbutas (1989.118, Fig. 186) related its iconicity to ‘Bear Mo-
ther’ goddess.
Mihael Budja
66
both ethnographic and archaeological observations.
The two of most interest here are the relationship
between pottery making and sedentism, and the cor-
relation between pottery as a tool and more inten-
sive forms of food processing. The perception of ce-
ramic vessels as tools for more intensive food pro-
cessing made by women for women soon became
broadly accepted. It was even suggested that ‘pot-
tery is one of the few technologies controlled by wo-
men for millennia’ (Longacre 1995.278). The idea
that pots represent people has also been demonstrat-
ed for north-eastern Africa, where they supposedly
act to order the social body there (Braithwaite 1982;
Welbourn 1984).
The cross-cultural survey in Murdock’s Ethnographic
Atlas database of preindustrial societies indeed shows
105 traditional societies, 76% of which have female
or predominantly female potters, 18% had male or
predominantly male potters, and 6% have equal par-
ticipation of men and women in pottery making (cf.
Skibo, Schiffer 1995.84). Paradoxically, in the same
database, 282 non-sedentary societies were listed,
103 of which made pottery.
However, a number of ethno-archaeological and an-
thropological studies have pointed out the symbolic
links between women and pottery. Studies suggest,
“not only [to consider] woman to be the efficient
cause of the clay pot but establish a symbolic iden-
tification between the two” (Lévi-Strauss 1988.180).
Thus, Jibaro Indians in Ecuador believe that the ves-
sel is a woman, and the Desana in Colombia and Bra-
zil, that a woman’s body is a cooking pot. Only wo-
men can create and use pottery because the clay, of
which they are made, like the earth itself, is a wo-
man. (Lévi-Strauss 1988.22, 181). Desana women
have to collect the clay from certain places that lie
outside their territory, but within the territory of
other exogamous groups involved in intertribal mar-
riage exchange. These groups are said to ‘cook’ their
brides before the marriage exchange (Reichel-Dol-
matoff 1978.280–282).
In sub-Saharan Africa the earth is similarly regard-
ed as female, and potters may have special relations
with it. On the other hand, a taboo against women’s
sculpting in hard materials such as stone, wood,
bone, ivory, and metals compounds is suggested. Only
men use these materials, and women may work only
with soft, materials such as clay, basketry, gourds
and leather (Teilhet 1978.97). In West Africa, female
potting thus widely corresponds with male smith-
ing, the potter being the wife of the blacksmith.
Among the Vere, the Dupa and the Dowayo in Came-
roon, access to pottery manufacturing is always re-
stricted to the wives of smiths. They are considered
both dirty and ritually impure, and therefore subject
to numerous taboos. They are marginalised and must
live apart and may not enter the huts of others. They
cannot share food or even draw water from the same
spring, and never eat from the same vessel. Their
separation is most strongly maintained by the belief
that potters may harm others, as they may cause di-
seases. They are not allowed to own cattle, because
of their “hot hands” (Barley 1994.64; Vander Lin-
den 2001.140; Pankhurst 2003).
The Ari people in Ethiopia belong to either farmer’s
(kantsa) or craft workers’ (mana) groups. The latter
are socially segregated from the former, and it is
taboo for kantsa to marry mana. Although potters,
who are predominantly women, and blacksmiths be-
long to the same group, marriage between them is
also prohibited. Potters usually work alone, although
daughters are allowed to make pots in the same
place as their mothers to learn “certain finger move-
ment patterns as they play in their mothers’ work
places”. There are no standardised procedures for
pottery making, and each potter goes through trials
and errors while creating their pottery. Based on
their experience, each potter develops a unique pro-
cedure for making pottery (Kaneko 2007.6; 2009.
387). It has also been suggested that “the pots are
widely assimilated to the person”, and that the wo-
men who make these pots describe the different sur-
face areas in terms of their own bodies (David et al.
1988.366; Welbourn 1984.20).
In Arnold’s (1985.101) perception of “the begin-
nings of pottery as an economic process”, it is sug-
gested that women in hunter-gatherer societies were
closely related to the household. He classified pottery
production with ‘pregnancy, infant care, cooking and
other household tasks’, because “pottery making is
easily compatible with child care responsibilities”;
it is “easily accomplished in the home and does not
require periods of absence from the home”; it is
“not dangerous and does not thus provide a haz-
ard for children”, it is “relatively monotonous and
does not require great concentration, can be car-
ried out in spite of interruptions and can be easi-
ly resumed”; and finally “once the process has be-
gun, it requires almost daily attention and thus it is
an ideal craft for females tied to the household”.
Much later, taking a cross-cultural perspective, Randi
Haaland (2009) similarly argued that vessels become
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
67
particularly important in activities associated with
women and hearth-centred activities, including chil-
drearing, water carrying, plant gathering, and food
preparation.
Parallel to this, cooking technology that used cera-
mic pots may have resulted in greater equality bet-
ween individuals in the nutritional value of foods
consumed. Meat sharing practices among foragers
may be nutritionally and quantitatively inequitable,
with women typically receiving less desirable por-
tions, even when pregnant or ill. Preparing a dish of
meat and vegetables cooked slowly in ceramic pots
could have improved women's access to critical nu-
trients by equalising the distribution of foods within
a group sharing meals from a single vessel. Patricia
L. Crown and Wirt H. Wills (1995a.175–180) also
hypothesised that women preferred ceramic vessels
to other containers (i.e. bags, gourds, baskets) or
cooking pits, because they could achieve an ‘econ-
omy of scale’ in manufacture that was not feasible
with other cooking technologies (i.e. boiling stones,
for cooking clay balls in Çatalhöyük see Atalay 2005;
Hodder 2012.151–195).
It has been suggested that women produce the tools
they use for food procurement and processing, and
pottery making might be embedded in a production
sequence that involves food gathering, crop tending,
harvesting, fetching water, food preparation, and
cooking. James A. Brown (1989.215–216) argued that
pottery has time-budget advantages for partly or
fully sedentary groups, because there are women
“who are occupied in a pattern of activities around
the base settlement”; these ”are tasks around which
craft production of many types easily fits the odd
bits of time left over”, and “consequently, under
these settlement practices, labour has negligible
costs”.
Plant cultivation and pottery production were sim-
ply added to foraging women's existing workload.
However, a behavioural chain analysis of maize pre-
paration among the Hopis in North America in 1900
reveals that women assumed fourteen tasks from
harvesting to serving, with seven of these tasks being
performed several mornings per week and four tasks
performed twice daily. We may agree, therefore, that
cultivation and pottery have not fitted easily into
women’s existing workload, although they depend ‘on
the time and labour of women’ (Eerkens 2008.320).
The locus of pottery production shifts from women
to men when access to traditional resources decreas-
es and pottery production becomes a more profitable
(subsistence) economic activity. A close link also
exists between male and the introduction of the pot-
ter’s wheel, which increased the efficiency of tech-
niques of hand-made pottery (Stark 2003.205).
Pottery in the transition to farming
Three general scenarios are available about both the
invention and adoption of pottery. The first relates
vessels to the use and display of ritual-specific ob-
jects made of fired clay and the emergence of specia-
lists, such as female shaman potters. The second
suggest the early use of pottery in practical func-
tions, like every day cooking and storage. The third
emphasises its role in altering or sustaining social
relationships.
Karen Vitelli (1999.188) found pots at the earliest
Neolithic site in Franchthi Cave in Argolid, but with
no evidence of cooking and limited volume capac-
ities, insufficient for food storage. These pots, she
argued, had a non-utilitarian function in ceremonies
and rituals that may have regulated social conflicts
at the onset of sedentism (Vitelli 1993.217). She hy-
pothesised that women were probably the inventors
and first practitioners of early Neolithic pottery mak-
ing in Europe. They were “individuals with sha-
manic powers”, she suggested, who had knowledge
of the “the seemingly magical transformation that
takes place during pottery firing” on the one hand,
and of the “medical and psychoactive properties of
plants and of altered states of consciousness” on
the other (Vitelli 1995.62). She estimated an annual
production of about 12–13 pots per year divided
among five potters at Franchthi (Vitelli 1989.21; see
also Perlès 2001.83). Similarly, in East Asia (China
and Japan) and the Russian Far East, the earliest pot-
tery appears only in very small amounts and at a
few sites (Keally et al. 2003.9; Cohen 2013). It has
been suggested that the vessels may not have been
used extensively for everyday food preparation, and
that it was a barely sustainable technology that per-
sisted in episodic, low-scale usage. One thus might
question how it survived and intensified later (Gibbs
2012.90; Gibbs, Jordan 2013.20).
It is worth remembering that Prudence M. Rice (1999.
1–54) at the same time introduced a more complex
interpretation of the appearance of utilitarian pot-
tery. She thought vessel production could be con-
sidered as a trajectory of a series of cultural trans-
formations, beginning with resource intensification,
through socioeconomic intensification, to technolo-
Mihael Budja
68
gical intensification “as a prestige technology and
a durable good”. There were two different process-
es, ‘initial emergence’ (‘invention’) and ‘adoption’
(‘innovation’), which can be separated by hundreds
or thousands of years, she continued. While the ‘in-
vention’ relates to processes of experimentation and
precedents for ceramic technology (clay-lined bas-
kets) and the social contexts in which these inven-
tions appeared, the innovation concerned pottery’s
“wider incorporation into the container technol-
ogy of previously non pottery-using societies”. The
innovation thus relates to the social and economic
settings in which ceramic containers became ‘water-
tight, fire-resistant’ tools widely used for day-to-day
cooking, food consumption and storage (originally
suggested by Brown 1989.213–216). Rice hypothe-
sised that pottery could have been particularly help-
ful for ‘broad spectrum collecting’ strategies, which
include diverse foods that often might be seasonal-
ly available in only small but highly concentrated
and highly predictable quantities, which can with-
stand high harvest rates, such as grains, beans, tu-
bers, shellfish, etc. Such food must be cooked and
requires sustained simmering or boiling water. Diet
can thus be better controlled by preparing meals
that included multiple ingredients (meat and veg-
etables). Boiling and the long-term heating of mixed
ingredients improved nutritional intake and allowed
an equal distribution of nutrients in a group. An ad-
ditional advantage is that cooking vessels can be left
untended for appreciable periods. She relates the
resource intensification to the intensified exploita-
tion of selected highly productive resources, and to
the emergence of socioeconomic competition by
‘aggrandizing’ individuals or groups who competed
for power, prestige, and status by means of compe-
titive feasts. Pottery containers seem to have been
most important for serving (display) rather than
cooking or long-term storage. They became medium,
both as prestige technology and containers of new,
exotic (e.g., cereals) or perhaps highly desirable
foods, for social and power expression.
Ingold introduced (1983.561–652) the ‘social stor-
age’ aspect of food accumulation. This refers to the
“… appropriation of materials in such a way that
rights over their future distribution or consump-
tion converge upon a single interest. In this sense,
the store has to be considered in its aspect as pro-
perty or wealth, and storage as a concomitant of
social relations of distribution.” It was hypothesised
that food containers in this context represented a
cultural code by which persons may be identified
with their property. On the other hand, social stor-
age represents the direct negation of sharing, which
requires a ‘practical portable storage, and much
stricter calculation’ of how much each individual is
obliged to make separate provision for bad periods
in the ‘delayed return’ systems of resource exploita-
tion. Vessels offer the possibility of measuring pro-
duce in standard units of volume, and calculating
how much each individual has given to, or received
from, joint efforts. We may assume this distribution
was an alternative to a general sharing of food that
made possible the ideological transformation from
hunting to farming.
However, behavioural ecology theory offers ‘prey
and patch choice’ or ‘diet breadth’ as an extension
of the microeconomic concept of ‘opportunity costs’
and ‘delayed return food production’ interpretative
models, which suggest that the transition to agricul-
ture “may have coevolved with incremental shifts
from public to private goods” (Codding, Bird 2015.
15; see also Winterhalder 1983; Bird, O’Connell
2006; Winterhalder, Kennett 2006; Bettinger et al.
2010). Hunter-gatherers distribute resources in two
different ways. Among immediate-return hunter-gath-
erers, there is no storage, and the day-to-day uncer-
tainties of hunting and gathering require unlimited
and uncontrolled access to territories and their re-
sources, as well as widespread intragroup sharing of
harvested resources. Land and resources are public
goods, belonging to everyone. Resources should be
freely used, redistributed, and shared to equalise dis-
parities. Meanwhile, society should punish hoarders.
Delayed-return hunter-gathers, however, accumulate
and store some resources for future use and thus
place limits on immediate consumption, often by pri-
vatisation, making them the property of those who
obtain them. Resources thus belong exclusively to
those who obtain them, and society should punish
those who take resources garnered by others with-
out permission.
These contrasting principles have supposedly had
important implications for subsistence intensifica-
tion. Open access to resources discourages intensive
foraging, which is so costly that individuals will not
risk it without an assurance that they can keep every-
thing they harvest. This means they need some as-
surance that the very low returns they obtain will
be safe from the claims of individuals who work less,
but who always receive the same share as everyone
else. If resources must be shared with freeloaders,
harvesters of low-return resources may well end up
expending more energy than they obtain. For this
reason, immediate-return hunter-gatherers “restrict
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
69
themselves to resources having returns high enough
to offset freeloader overhead, using just enough
low-return resources to squeeze by and punishing
those who hoard them. This keeps population size
and density low.” (Bettinger et al. 2010.12). Delayed-
return hunter-gathers, however, target low-return
resources, especially plants that are easily stored.
This sustains larger, denser, and more stable re-
source populations, while reducing the payoffs to
individuals who continue to specialise in high-return
resources, the use of which can be sustained only by
sharing.
Thus it has been suggested that delaying returns
restructured prey and patch choice dynamics in a
way that becomes contingent on social institutions
that solve problems of collective action associated
with stored foods, introducing ‘farming-friendly pro-
perty rights’, and thus allowing low-level food pro-
ducers to make the transition to rely completely on
domesticates (Bowles, Choi 2013; Codding, Bird
2015). Incipient forms of privatisation were hypo-
thesised as being associated with the appearance of
storage pits full of uncarbonised broomcorn and
foxtail millet in north China (Bettinger et al. 2010.
12). In the Western Great Basin in North America,
privatisation was linked to the invention of ceramic
vessels, which helps mobile groups to intensify ‘wild
seed’ exploitation, a resource that can be individual-
ly acquired, processed and stored privately (Eerkens
2004, see below).
Following Pierre Bourdieu (1984), on the other hand,
we can also see how feasts can convert economic
capital into either symbolic power or cultural capi-
tal. Brian Hayden (1990; 1995; 1998; 2009; 2011;
2014) introduced this perception of feasts into
archaeology, strongly emphasising the social impli-
cations of early pottery use and exotic food con-
sumption in the context of transition to farming.
He thought the association of ceramic containers
and feasts may even reflect a universal cultural tra-
dition (Hayden 1998). He made a clear distinction
between practical and prestige technology. The first
is based on the principle of performing tasks in the
most efficient and effective fashion possible, which
means the less time and work involved, the better.
In contrast, prestige technology is grounded on dis-
playing one's wealth, power, or control over labour
and resources. Its appearance, he suggested, reflects
‘economically based competition’ that is possible
only when technological advances occur in surplus
food production and storage.
Pottery and ‘aggrandisers’
To answer the question ‘Why clay pots?’, Hayden
(2003) suggested an economically oriented socio-
political scenario based on the interconnected con-
cepts of ‘private ownership’, ‘economically based
competition’ and ‘prestige technologies’ which ap-
peared among ‘transegalitarian’ hunter-gatherers.
The term ‘transegalitarian’ refers to societies that
recognise private ownership, use prestige items, pro-
duce some surpluses, hold feasts or other econom-
ically based competitive displays, have restricted
sharing, and a range of poor and wealthy families
that do not form permanent classes. They differ
from societies with permanent classes and political
hierarchies on the one hand, and egalitarian soci-
eties on the other hand, where sharing is manda-
tory and there is essentially little or no private
ownership or economically based competition. Hay-
den postulated that feasting constitutes a new kind
of human behaviour that probably first emerged in
the Upper Palaeolithic, and that it can be “intimate-
ly associated with the first specialized structures,
often referred to as communal buildings or ritual
structures”, where “surplus food can be converted
into other desirable things or relationships in short
spans of time”. Feasting, he continued, provides
the ‘underlying dynamics for the development of a
range of prestige technologies, including new food
preparation and serving technologies, including pot-
tery’. In this context, the domestication of plants and
animals were “the most important prestige tech-
nologies to have been developed specially for feast-
ings” (Hayden 2014.4; see also Benz 2015).
Hayden (2011) hypothesised that the transition to
private property emerged under conditions of re-
source abundance, where everyone could have been
assured of enough to eat under normal conditions.
However, the ability of a technology to extract and
store surpluses from environments with abundant
resources was required. If not, ‘technological bot-
tlenecks’ could have occurred in the procurement,
processing, or storage of seasonally abundant resour-
ces. Storage also led to seasonal, and in some cases
perhaps prolonged sedentism, as well as favouring
notions of private property, since stored foods rep-
resented a supplemental investment of labour by
individuals or households for their own benefit,
whether in terms of reproduction, power, survival,
or standard of living.
He proposed that the development of feasting among
hunter-gatherers constituted a new phenomenon
Mihael Budja
70
that could have motivated people to develop new
technologies. These technologies included not only
new extractive devices (such as fishhooks, nets, leis-
ters, sickles and weirs), but also new processing tools
(such as grindstones, boiling stones and earth ovens),
and new storage technologies. In favourable areas,
the cumulative effect of these innovations was to
make the production of surpluses relatively reliable.
The surpluses were owned by individuals or families
and used by them in strategies to enhance their own
survival and reproductive benefits (Hayden 2009).
These individuals are recognised as ‘aggrandisers’,
or “triple A personality types: ambitious, aggres-
sive, accumulative, aggrandizing, abrasive people”
(Hayden 2011.115). They invented a number of
strategies for converting food surplus production
into social and political ties through the creation of
debt relationships and the display of mutual sup-
port. The most common and most important of
these strategies include the hosting of feasts with
obligatory reciprocity as a way to indebt people, and
the creation of wealth (or prestige) objects (such as
ceramic vessels) used to validate social transactions
with obligatory returns, thus creating debts and forc-
ing people to produce surpluses. The pottery con-
sists of finely-made serving vessels or vessels used
to produce special foods. They all exhibit new and
prestige ceramic technology to be used to produce
prestigious materials and foods to impress guests.
Ceramic containers thus became a medium for
‘aggrandisers’ to build political alliances and court
potential followers during public gatherings. Christo-
pher Garraty (2011) suggested that these prestige
technologies became widely imitated and in time
reinvented as practical technologies.
The quantity, shape and size of pots associated with
luxury foods formed an important indicator of house-
hold status (Hayden 2001.59; 2003.458–469; see
also Van der Veen 2003.405–427). The quantity of
pots may indeed signify the use of ceramic vessels
as status indicators. Exceptionally large vessels may
point to the occurrence of communal feasts. A change
from large communal pots and serving bowls to the
use of individual plates, drinking vessels and cutlery
may indicate a change from eating from a communal
bowl to serving portions to individuals and to a shift
to hierarchical feasting. The development of social
complexity is often viewed as one in which feasting
becomes increasingly associated with elites. Paul
Halstead (2012) thus recognised Neolithic equivalen-
cy feasts as a basis upon which Early Bronze Age
palatial hierarchical commensality developed.
However, we may assume that hierarchical feasts
that evolved from community feasts should not be
limited by the assumption that hierarchical feasting
replaced all other forms of commensality compris-
ing larger than regular meals, but smaller than the
material signatures of very large community feasts
(Twiss 2012; Smith 2012). In societies undergoing
a transition to greater complexity, the functions of
solidarity and the creation and demonstration of
numerous crosscutting ties would have been of in-
creasing importance to households as well as to
emerging elites. Feasts would have been demonstra-
tions “of individuals’ and households’ ability to
mitigate failure, to demonstrate their resilience in
the face of anxiety and stress, and to manage the
memory-making of events after the fact” (Smith
2015.1230). Feasts are complex events in which suc-
cess is far from guaranteed, and the many points of
potential ‘feast failure’ provided an essential op-
portunity for continuously demonstrating social ties.
Following Hayden (2003.466) “many of the first
domesticates in most regions of the world are
clearly luxury foods or prestige items”. These foods
were “the rarest, the most difficult to procure or the
most-labour intensive to produce, together with
labour-intensive preparations” (Hayden 1996.137).
His main argument on subsistence intensification
does not concern food shortage, but the desire to
quickly produce more cereals or animals suitable for
feasting to obtain social and political advantages. It
was in interests of aggrandisers to reduce the cost
of these foods where possible. While this is initially
beneficial to them, it changes the status of such foods
in the long term and thus their value in prestigious
displays (Hayden 1998). Exotic foods were desired
not so much as foods, perhaps, but as symbols, as
‘markers of social distance’, and ‘status indicators’
(van der Veen 2003.415).
The competitive feasting scenario was related recent-
ly to behavioural ecology theory. Douglas Bird and
James O’Connell (2006) suggested that ‘costly sig-
nalling theory’ and ‘irrational behaviour’ can explain
the conditions under which high-cost, status-related
food production and distribution might be expected
to develop. Luxury foods were generally characte-
rised by the cost of acquiring or producing them,
and by the notion that they are functionally unnec-
essary. The cost of producing such foods often lim-
its their distribution to special occasions that can be
arranged only by those who can afford them. Those
unable to engage in feasting are marginalised, and
even forced into slavery. The roles of status, the pro-
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
71
duction of costly foods and feasting have been sug-
gested as initiating the development of despotic
corporate groups, control over the labour of others,
and the evolution of hereditary and inequality in
social stratification.
To answer the issue of what kinds of ‘meant-to-
impress foods’ could have been prepared in the ear-
liest ceramic vessels in Incipient Jōmon sites at c.
13 100–11 000 cal BC, Oliver Craig et alii (2013)
suggest that freshwater and particularly marine or-
ganisms were processed, even though neither site is
situated directly on the coast. Similarly, the presence
of lipids derived from aquatic organisms in the large
number of hunter-gatherers’ pottery in north-east-
ern North America and in Northern Europe show
that ceramic vessels developed in this region valued
exchange commodities, such as fish oil, at episodic
social gatherings during periods of high resource
abundance (Craig et al. 2011; Taché, Craig 2015).
Similar evidence has been provided by Alexandre
Lucquin et alii (2016). There was little indication
that ruminant animals or plants were processed in
pottery, although it is evident from the faunal and
macrobotanical remains that these resources were
heavily exploited.
A recent residue and use wear analysis of grind-
stones associated with the initial pottery at the Nan-
zhuangtou site in northern China shows they were
probably used to process the seeds of a range of wild
grasses (including millets), acorns, and tubers (Cohen
2013.69; see also Liu et al. 2013).
It is interesting that Fumiko Ikawa-Smith (1976)
argued decades ago that pottery was adopted in the
initial Jōmon in response to rising amounts of shell-
fish and other aquatic foods. She suggested that pot-
tery was adopted because it allowed better ways of
direct cooking. Some other ‘adaptationist’ views saw
the earliest pottery in the North American Midwest
as a specific response to the need for more efficient
containers for the extraction of oils from nuts (Oz-
ker 1982), or because cooking pots permit a wider
range of food resources and techniques of preparing
and processing foods to be used (Reid 1984; Arnold
1985.128–44).
Pottery and food resource intensification in
hunter-gatherer societies
James Brown (1989.208–212) suggested, contrary
to Hayden, that the earliest pottery ‘should be pro-
cessing vessels’ and not ‘food-serving containers as-
sociated with the tendency for increased economic
competition along with more pronounced inequal-
ity’. He postulated that early pottery appeared in
two separate contexts: sedentary cultivators who
used the vessels to process and make digestible cere-
al grains, and seasonally sedentary hunter-gatherers
who used vessels with either direct or indirect heat-
ing to extract additional nutrients from animal prod-
ucts or to process seeds and nuts more effectively.
The adoption of ceramic vessels thus becomes an in-
novation, he suggested, in households where ‘water-
tight, fire-resistant vessels are in greater demand
than existing sources of supply can deliver’. This de-
mand increases with new processing needs for small-
sized seeds and nuts, of which cereal-grain process-
ing is the most demanding of all. On the other hand,
sedentary and partly sedentary settlement systems
foster the adoption of pottery “… due to the cheap-
ness of this craft as an alternative to other con-
tainer crafts when a constraint is approached in
the available time that a craftsman has at his or
her disposal to dedicate to non-ceramic vessel pro-
duction. My basic proposition is that pottery, even
as a crude technology with limited applications,
has an advantage over other alternative contain-
ers, even sophisticated basketry, when budgeting
time-resources conflicts with or impedes the pro-
duction of non-ceramic containers.” (Brown 1989.
222). In other words, pottery making is only useful
when the demand for vessels is high, and large num-
bers can be produced in a single firing event. Firing
is one of the most time-consuming and energy-con-
suming steps, and can be done almost as easily for
one pot as for many. In economics terms, the per-
unit cost decreases with increasing output, a result
that is not true of other container technologies, such
as baskets, stone bowls, or wooden bowls, where
items are made one at a time at the same per-unit
cost regardless of total output. As a result, pots, which
may be weaker and shorter-lived than these alterna-
tive containers, are preferred because large numbers
can be produced at once (Eerkens et al. 2002).
Seasonal sedentism at least was required for pot-
tery making. Because of scheduling conflicts, mobile
hunter-gatherers may not be able to stay in one place
long enough to complete the pottery production se-
quence, from collecting clay to forming pots, drying
and firing them. It can take from several days to
several weeks. It is worth remembering that in many
parts of the world (like Siberia and the Russian Far
East), pottery can be made only in one season of the
year because the climate is otherwise too cold and
wet (see Zhushchikhovskaya 2005.36–44).
Mihael Budja
72
On the other hand, it is often said that the adop-
tion of costlier subsistence technology marks an im-
provement in food procurement. Better tools make
the process more efficient: maximising the rate of
nutrient acquisition improves health, either by in-
creasing nutrient intake or by reaching some intake
threshold more quickly, thus freeing time to pursue
other subsistence activities. This is true in the sense
that new technology often enables its users to extract
more nutrients per unit weight of resource processed
or area of land harvested. If we focus on efficiency,
and on the cost/benefit ratio as the key criterion, i.e.
the rate of nutrients gained relative to the effort
needed to acquire them, then the use of costlier
tools will often be associated with declines in sub-
sistence efficiency (Bird, O’Connell 2006).
Jelmer Eerkens (2004.661–663) linked pottery inno-
vation among mobile, non-farming groups in the
Western Great Basin in North America to the inten-
sification of wild seed exploitation. He related it to
a dietary shift from less predictable, frequently shar-
ed foods associated with a group-based procurement
and cooperation (meat) to more predictable, infre-
quently shared particulate plant foods that were
conducive to individual, or family-based procure-
ment, such as cereal grains, starchy seeds, nuts, ker-
nels, and legumes. Although meat sharing was com-
mon among hunter-gatherer groups as a means of
reducing risk and garnering social recognition, fam-
ilies were not obliged to share more predictable and
readily stored plant foods. Unlike most hunting ac-
tivities, foraging for these foods did not require col-
laboration or mutual assistance among group mem-
bers.
It is also worth mentioning the positive correlation
between pot use and the preparation of easily dige-
stible gruels that can substitute for mother's milk. It
has been argued that the processing of such gruels
facilitates earlier weaning and improves infant sur-
vivability, both of which act to increase populations
(Crown, Wills 1995b.248).
Eerkens (2004) suggested that the ethnographic
record demonstrates that seeds, which were pre-
pared in pots, were largely considered private goods.
However, whether pots were instrumental in the pri-
vatisation of seeds or were adopted to process an
already privatised resource is unclear. Because pots
can be individually made and used inside houses,
they are well suited to privatisation. Vessels were
differentially used within households, out of view of
the rest of the community, and they were not on dis-
play. This probably also explains why most pots were
not decorated.
Pots make very durable containers resistant to boil-
ing and other hard and permanent use; however,
they are less portable and more inclined to break
than other containers. Cooking pots are subject to
repeated thermal and mechanical stress and, there-
fore, tend to break and require replacement more
frequently than storage and service vessels. Because
of conflicts between weight and fragility, bigger stor-
age vessels may have simply not been moved at all.
Although it is broadly accepted that hunter-gatherers
do carry vessels with them, and that sedentary peo-
ples often transport pottery over long distances, one
solution to the weight and fragility problem is sim-
ply not to move the pots at all. It has indeed been
suggested that ‘caching pots’ may have been a used
to avoid carrying pots during the seasonal round,
thus making the technology worthwhile (Eerkens
2003).
‘Caching pots’ or temporary storage strategies may
have had major consequences for the lifestyles of
hunter-gatherers, since they could not have deposit-
ed pots anywhere in a field. Caching would have
tied people to particular places on the landscape
where they had deposited pots. This results in high-
er rates of site re-occupation, also referred to as ‘occu-
pational redundancy’ or ‘persistent places’ (Eerkens
2003). Such ties may have promoted reliance on
foods associated with these locations and may have
encouraged the notion of land ownership and terri-
toriality. At the same time, it is also likely that
‘caching behaviour’ would have prompted people to
modify pottery technologies to make their products
more suitable for storage during the off-season.
Thicker and stronger pots may have been a by-prod-
uct of this behaviour (Eerkens 2008).
The early introduction of container technology was
based on ‘family-by-family decisions’ within a context
where pottery-using families were living in close pro-
ximity to non-using families. Even on a small scale,
families might have adopted pottery at different
rates and for different reasons. ‘Dependent pottery
invention’ thus marks a process in which households
adopt technical knowledge from an external group,
but modify or ‘reinvent’ it in a way that is foreign to
the donor population. Households in different areas
may have adopted and ‘reinvented’ pottery in res-
ponse to different local needs. The appearance of
ceramic vessels seems to follow the ‘diffusion of in-
novation principle’, with small numbers of early
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
73
adopters, followed by a rapid increase in technolo-
gy adoption, and again with small numbers of late
adopters (Garraty 2011.223; Eerkens, Lipo 2014).
Pottery may indeed have first been used for storage
to better protect seeds from the adverse effects of
temperature fluctuations, moisture, and bacteria
(Diehl, Waters 2006.80–81), but was converted into
cooking pots elsewhere after a long period of expe-
rimentation. Eerkens (2008.320) suggested that bas-
kets which were woven so tightly they could hold
water and could be used to cook and serve foods
were replaced by ceramic vessels because the boiling
of small seeds became a major cooking activity. That
is, stone boiling in baskets demands constant atten-
tion from women to replace cooled stones with heat-
ed ones and to avoid holes being burnt in the bottom
of the basket. So pots provided a more efficient boil-
ing container, because they can be set over a fire with
less attention and more seeds could be processed.
In most regions in the southwest of North America,
most pots were locally made and used. Two or three
different pots per house were used during a limited
time of the year. Similarly, ‘caching pots’ were prob-
ably only used at certain times of the year (Eerkens
et al. 2002).
It is worth noting that maize cultivation preceded
pottery making in southwest North America. While
cultivation appeared in a ‘Pre-Ceramic interval’, the
initial appearance of ceramic technology was first
documented in the ‘Early Agricultural Period’ at c.
2130 cal BC (Huckell 2006; Mabry 2006). The intro-
duction of ceramic technology relates to the produc-
tion of anthropomorphic figurines; at some sites,
these are associated with very few, very small cera-
mic vessels. The latter have been defined as ‘incip-
ient plain ware pottery’. They are small, low-fired,
and have simple forms. They have highly variable
vessel wall thickness, textural surface treatments
such as incising, punctuating, and impressing, and
the rare use of slips or paint. Individual or small
group serving vessels dominate assemblages, follow-
ed by and storage and cooking pots (Heidke 2005;
2006; Mabry 2005; Garraty 2011; Eckert 2014).
Almost half of the early ceramics were deposited in
contexts interpreted as having a ceremonial, ritual,
or integrative function. Some are associated with
‘Big Houses’, which are up to three times larger than
other structures (Heidke, Stark 2002).
The various interpretations mentioned above sug-
gest that pottery technology may have appeared on
the one hand in association with temporary storage
strategy, seed protection and resource intensifica-
tion; with the evolution of territoriality and land
ownership hunter-gatherers perception; household-
level control of resources and private property pro-
tection. On the other hand, it may relate to the evo-
lution of culinary practices; ‘economy of scale’ and
women's workloads within households; aggrandis-
ing behaviour, competition and individual self-inte-
rest to produce surpluses, prestige, power and status.
The origins of ceramic technologies in hunter-
gatherer societies
We mentioned above that current evidence increas-
ingly reveals that hunter-gatherer societies devel-
oped ceramic technology a millennia before the ear-
liest Neolithic and the beginning of sedentism and
agriculture in Europe and Asia.
The invention of fire-hardened clay enabled hunter-
gatherers to make durable products, whether cera-
mic containers or ceramic human and animal figu-
rines. It was recognised as an early step in the devel-
opment of pyrotechnology. It might have been re-
lated to ‘cross-craft interactions’, a copying of shapes
and designs from one material (baskets, ground
stone and wooden bowls) to another (ceramic ves-
sels). This kind of transmission is known as skeuo-
morphism and may occur several times within a si-
milar timeframe, and has been proposed for both ce-
ramics making and copper metallurgy (Miller 2007.
238; Frieman 2013; Roberts, Radivojevi≤ 2015; Ra-
divojevi≤ 2015).
While pyrotechnology is defined as “deliberate pro-
cesses utilizing the control and manipulation of
fire” (McDonnell 2001.493), the transformation of
matter requires not only a working memory and
understanding of the separation between different
stages of complex production (Read, van der Leeuw
2008.1965), but also a shift in perceptions of the nat-
ural environment and the ‘animate’ qualities of soils
and minerals, which often relate to ‘ritual journeys’
for mineral acquisition (Boivin 2004).
Benjamin Roberts and Miljana Radivojevi≤ (2015.
300–301) suggested recently that two processes, in-
vention and innovation, underlie the appearance of
pyrotechnologies in prehistory. They both related to
ceramic making first, followed by copper metallurgy.
Invention is defined as the discovery of a new idea,
material or process, deliberately or by chance, and
may include a radically new product as much as a
Mihael Budja
74
recombination of technological components in a no-
vel manner. An innovation is recognised when “an
invention affects the evolution of the system and
is successfully transmitted within a population,
and beyond”.
The invention of any novel technology evolved
through an accumulation of knowledge of the pro-
cess’s components accumulated through experiment,
recombination or reapplication over a period of se-
veral decades, or centuries. It may have taken a few
generations of people before the invention devel-
oped and until it reached a form that functioned for
a desired purpose (Radivojevi≤ 2015). Changes in
material culture were thus more likely to have been
built up over a certain period, rather than being rad-
ical technological breakthroughs (Shennan 1989).
To address the question of what motivates inven-
tion, John Lienhard (2006.117–118, 158, 165) sug-
gested four major stimuli: profit, necessity, pleasure
and freedom. He identifies three stages ‘in the evo-
lution of any technology’: gestation, cradle and mat-
uration. Gestation refers to a fairly long ‘run-up pe-
riod before the invention takes an identifiable form’.
It is a period of creating a “capability that we strong-
ly desire, without knowing what form that capa-
bility will take”. During the cradle period, the in-
ventor seeks to understand the invention and alter
it in ways that make it serve a purpose. When the
invention reaches a form that is no longer dramat-
ically changed, the maturation period begins. The
trajectory of technological evolution is very rarely
completed during the lifetime of a single inventor.
It could take a few generations of inventors, who
contribute to the accumulation of knowledge before
the invention is sufficiently developed to be broadly
adopted. We may note that humans inherited a ‘risk-
innovative’ behaviour, e.g., a capacity to invent and
adopt innovations in stressful conditions, when in-
dividuals are more encouraged to be inventive in
times of economic or environmental uncertainty or
strong competition (Fitzhugh 2001). In the context
of resilience and sustainability theory, a new tech-
nological invention can be linked to the ability of
society to maintain sustainable development (Berkes
et al. 2003; Smit, Wandel 2006).
Indeed, early pots are found only in very small num-
bers at Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer sites in East Asia.
They remained confined to a small number of sites,
and persisted in episodic, low- scale usage until the
Early Holocene (e.g., Keally et al. 2003; Cohen 2013).
There seems to have been a relatively long and grad-
ual ‘experimental stage’ (for concept see Jordan,
Zvelebil 2009) that may not have involved signifi-
cant dispersals of ceramic (pyro)technology and ves-
sels.
The initial pottery in East Asia is chronologically em-
bedded in time spans at 19 286–18 886 and 16 138–
15 962 cal BC1 in the Xianrendong and Yinchuan
caves in southern China, and at 10 180–9691 cal BC
at the Nanzhuangtou site in northern China; at
14 986–13 839 and 13 855–13 536 cal BC at the
Odai Yamamoto 1 and Kitahara sites in Japan; at
14 139–14 297 and 13 735–13 354 cal BC at Khum-
mi and Gasya in the Russian Far East, and at 12 206–
12 034 and 12 106–11 688 cal BC in Eastern Siberia
in Russia (for radiocarbon dates, see Wu et al. 2012.
1699; Cohen 2013.61–70; Hommel 2014.Tab. 30.1;
Kuzmin 2015.Tab. 1).
Some of the earliest pottery fragments from Palaeo-
lithic hunter-gatherer sites in East Asia bear zigzag,
stripe or net impressions on the exterior and some-
times interior surfaces. Similar imprints can be made
by various techniques for shaping vessels, such as
beating out the walls of a hand-modelled vessel with
a paddle wrapped in cordage or plant fibres; mod-
elling a vessel inside a hard template or mould, such
as a basket; or modelling a vessel inside a semisoft
cord mould, such as a woven bag (Cohen 2013; for
a detailed analysis of ‘cross-craft interactions’, see
Zhushchikhovskaya 2005.21–23, 59–81; 2009;
2012). Some incipient Jomōn vessels have a square
form that imitates the form of rectangular wooden
trays or woven baskets (Gibbs, Jordan 2013.8).
It has been suggested that the invention of pottery
in Southwest Asia (Near East) was related to pre-
existing (pyro)technologies, such as lime plaster pro-
duction, and the production of ceramic figurines and
tokens. Kevin Gibbs (2015.340) and Peter Jordan
(Gibbs, Jordan 2016.31) argued recently that it re-
presented ‘a stage of innovation in the development
of container technologies ‘that was embedded in the
evolutionary Neolithic triad of ‘sedentism, followed
by agriculture and pottery’.
Pots in East and West Asia were ‘open fired’ or fired
in domestic hearths at low maximum temperatures
between 450–700°C, although the earliest pots may
have been fired at temperatures below 250°C (Zhu-
1 All radiocarbon dates in this paper are calibrated with OxCal v 4.2.4 at 68.2% probability.
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
75
shchikhovskaya 2009.126; Lu 2011.18; Cohen 2013.
66, 77). Both types of firing produce irreversible
changes in the clay body. The earliest invention of
ceramic (pyro)technology in East Asia predates its
appearance in the Near East by some ten millennia
(Cohen 2013; Kuzmin 2015; Gibbs, Jordan 2016).
The diffusion of ceramic technologies in Eurasia
Fabio Silva et alii (2014) and Peter Jordan et alii
(2016.590) recently hypothesised two independent
centres of ceramic (pyro)technology innovation in
hunter-gatherer societies, one in China and one in
Africa, and that “the earliest European pottery tra-
ditions may ultimately find their origins in one or
both of these”. They suggested two diffusion zones
of ceramic-making traditions out of the main cen-
tres. The northern tradition spread from East Asia
across Siberia, the Russian plain, and much of the
eastern Baltic, Eastern and Northern Europe. In the
south, pottery spread with farming from the Near
East to Europe, although in the Near East this may
not have been the result of an independent local in-
novation, but may have been influenced by the early
pottery traditions of North Africa.
Both corridors are related to modern biomes favour-
ing the rapid diffusion of pottery making. While the
northern corridor correlates with the distribution
of “temperate broadleaf/mixed forest’ and ‘tempe-
rate grassland/savannah/shrubland”, the southern
corresponds to “Mediterranean forest/woodland/
scrub”. The front speeds of diffusion through these
corridors was calculated with regression analysis
and statistical modelling of radiocarbon dates from
396 sites, with Xianrendong Cave in China and Sag-
gai in Sudan being taken as the starting points of
each diffusion. The rate of spread in the “Asian-ori-
gin diffusion zone is 1.2km/yr”, and 3.3km/yr in
the African-origin diffusion zone (Jordan et al. 2016.
595–596, 598) (Fig. 4).
However, as to where ceramic technology first ap-
peared, the answer becomes rather different when
we shift the focus from the origin of the earliest
ceramic vessels to the origin of ceramic figurine pro-
duction in hunter-gatherer societies in the Old World.
This occurred neither in East Asia, nor North Africa,
but in Central Europe.
The earliest invention of ceramic (pyro)tech-
nology in the Old World
We suggest that the earliest step in the development
of pyrotechnology in Eurasia was not the invention
of vessels made from fire-hardened clay, but of an-
thropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, which
were certainly not associated with (pre)existing con-
tainer or any other food storage technology. The
earliest evidence of burnt clay is available in an
Upper Paleolithic Gravettian (Pavlovian) context at
Dolní Věstonice, and relates to non-figurative pellets
and cones, dated to 30 732–29 956 cal BC (68,2%).
They predate ceramic figurines and similar pellets
at other sites by two thousand years. They were de-
posited very close to a central hearth and suppos-
edly unintentionally fired (Svoboda et al. 2014.3,
76; 2015.202, Tab. 1). At later sites, hundreds of
these were fired intentionally, with some bearing
fingernail imprints (Händel et al. 2009).
Fig. 4. The Jordan’ et alii
‘modelled first arrival
times’ for the spread of ce-
ramic technology and pot-
tery from the two hypothe-
sised centres of innova-
tion, in Eastern Asia and
North Africa. Authors: Jor-
dan P., Gibbs K., Hommel
P., Piezonka H., Silva F. and
Steele J. 2016. Modelling
the diffusion of pottery te-
chnologies across Afro-Eu-
rasia: emerging insights
and future research. Anti-
quity 90(351), p.599, Fig-
ure 4, reproduced with
permission Cambridge
University Press.
Mihael Budja
76
It is well known that some 10 000 ceramic artefacts,
among which hundreds of fragments of anthropo-
morphic and zoomorphic figurines and thousands of
pellets and cones, have been found at large Gravet-
tian (Pavlovian) open-air sites in central Europe (Ver-
poorte 2001; Králík, Einwögerer 2010; Králík 2011).
These sites show evidence of repeated/episodic occu-
pation, complex hearths, dwelling structures, burials,
and innovations in weaving, pyrotechnology and ce-
ramic making embedded in the period c. 31 000–
27 000 cal BC.
These figurative ceramics were made to be broken,
according to Olga Soffer et alii (1993; Soffer, Van-
diver 2005.424). Analyses indeed indicate that almost
all the figurines and statuettes were deliberately frag-
mented, although most of the pellets and cones,
which form a large part of the ceramic inventory,
were found in an intact state. The analysis of ceram-
ics suggests evidence of intentional thermal shock
created by re-wetting air-dried figurines before they
were thrown into a hearth. The figurines thus made
a loud noise as they exploded, creating a sort of
pyrotechnic ‘performance’, which was the primary
social and symbolic significance of these ceramic as-
semblages (Vandiver et al. 1989). It has also been
noted that a relatively large proportion of the well-
fired pieces were ‘kneaded, compressed, deformed
and punctured’ already during modelling while the
clay paste was still soft and easily reworked if a mis-
take is made. They were not – and perhaps it was
not the intention to make – well-formed figurines
(Králík 2011.243). In contrast, no fragmentation
was found of ivory objects or stone figurines.
While ceramic pellets and cones were identified at
almost all Pavlovian settlements, even at small camps,
figurine distribution was limited to the sites at Dol-
ní Věstonice I – Pavlov I, Petřkovice, Předmostí and
Krems-Wachtberg (Svoboda et al. 2015). The two lar-
gest assemblages are from the Dolní Věsto-
nice I and Pavlov I settlement cluster (Figs.
5, 6).
Figurines were made from several small
pieces of clay joined together, with heads,
limbs, ears and tails shaped separately and
then attached to the bodies (Sofer, Vandiver
1997.383–401). Rebecca Farbstein (2013.
28–31) recently identified different techni-
ques at two neighbouring sites, which she
terms ‘techno-stylistic traits’. At Dolní Vě-
stonice I, the limbs are ‘repeatedly consoli-
dated or compressed’ on zoomorphic and
anthropomorphic figurines to impart structural sta-
bility. The number of joints, which can be weak
points vulnerable to breakage, is thus minimised. In
contrast, the lack of compressed limbs at the Pavlov
I site might support the notion of pyrotechnic ‘per-
formance’, and the intentional fragmentation and
destruction of figurines. These different techniques
of making ceramic figurines at two neighbouring
sites show not only ‘distinct styles of finished fig-
urines’, but also mark ‘differences in social and em-
bodied practice and knowledge’.
Farbstein (2011.133–134, 143) also observed that
a carving (distinct from engraving) technique of sur-
face incision in ivory art was broadly adopted at
Pavlov I site, but was almost absent from Dolní Vě-
stonice I. Neither technique, on the other hand, was
commonly applied to ceramic figurines. All these sug-
gest that the Pavlovian hunter-gatherers did not fol-
low the same chaîne opératoire in designing diffe-
rent materials (i.e. ivory, bone, and stone). We may
assume that the introduction of a new ‘soft’ medium
was not merely the result of ‘cross-craft interactions’
that became objectified in the production of clay
figurine and invention of pyrotechnology.
The analytical focus has recently shifted from cera-
mic figurines to ceramic ‘pellets’. They were consi-
dered hitherto as debitage or waste. Some were in-
terpreted as animal legs or ‘limb fragments’ that
broke off from a larger figurine during the intention-
al pyrotechnic performance of fragmentation. Indeed,
some preserve breaks or joints (Farbstein, Davies
2015.338). Many others were made in the form of
cones or cylinders; the cones have oval or flat bases,
with imprints on some (Králík 2011.217–218, 323,
243).
Rebecca Farbstein and William Davies (2015.338)
that the parallel production of pellets and cones
Fig. 5. Upper Paleolithic Gravettian (Pavlovian) ceramic co-
nes from Pavlov VI (adopted from Králík 2011.Figs. 6, 13, 36).
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
77
reveals ‘technical flexibility and experimentation in
chaîne opératoire’ that can be ascribed to ‘other
social meanings’, while Miroslav Králík (2011.244)
suggested that cones with imprints on their bases
are not figurine fragments, but ‘final objects’ that
bear ‘meanings’.
What are the ‘social meanings’ of figurines and
cones? In the much later Pre-Pottery Neolithic in
the Near East, the ‘meaning’ of similar ceramic fig-
urines and identical cones (known as geometric fig-
urines) has been contextualised within social and
economic frameworks, and the identity of the body.
Ian Kuijt and Meredith Chesson (2004; 2007) iden-
tified a shift in figural representation from natural-
istic anthropomorphic images to geometric shapes
in the period 11 500–8500 cal BP. They suggested
that the transition from naturalistic to geometric
images correlates with pressures on community sub-
sistence and social structures. Large and densely po-
pulated communities ‘struggled with the stresses of
overcrowding, sufficient food production and re-
source depletion around settlements’ at the end of
the Pre-Pottery period. A new system of ownership,
and greater emphasis on the household as a social
and economic unit appeared, and because of ‘social,
economic, and shifts in public and private ritual, peo-
ple no longer created and employed ‘anthropological
imagery in significant quantities, and never again
produced naturalistic images that were tightly focus-
ed on the face and the person’ (Kuijt, Chesson 2007.
226–227). Perhaps during periods when social, eco-
nomic, and ritual practices were in contention, and
the development of storage technologies, the sur-
plus economy and social differentiation began, ‘geo-
metric figurines’ were involved in the process of
storing, counting and reproduction of goods. Denise
Schmandt-Besserat (1992.168–170) suggested that
they probably served as counters to measure cere-
als and, as mnemonic devices to store information.
They have been found at Mureybet III and Cheikh
Hassan, embedded in rectangular granary silos,
where they have been identified as tokens.
However, by the end of the Pavlovian, c. 27 000 cal
BC, ceramic technology disappeared, with no itera-
tions of this technology during the later Gravettian
in Central Europe.
Pyrotechnology and ceramic figurines appeared again
in North Africa, where at the cave of Tamar Hat (Al-
geria) a figurine of a wild ‘Barbary Sheep’ was found.
It was dated with a single date in the period 22 486–
21 250 cal BC (68.2%) (Saxon 1976; Bougard 2003).
A millennia later, they appeared in the central Me-
diterranean. Ceramic technology was independently
invented at 15 338–15 047 cal BC (68.2%) at Vela
Spila (on Kor≠ula island) in the Adriatic, and sub-
sequently lost from the socio-technical tradition at
this site about two thousand years later at 13 329–
12 985 cal BC (Farbstein et al. 2012). The thirty-six
ceramic figurines and fragments from Vela Spila are
the first evidence of an artistic and ceramic tech-
nology tradition in Europe after the Last Glacial Ma-
ximum.
Fig. 6. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic ceramic figurines from the Upper Palaeolithic Gravettian (Pavlo-
vian) sites Dolní Věstonice, Pavlov and Předmosti (from Verpoorte 2001.Figs. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9, 46, 3.73, 8.1, 54).
Mihael Budja
78
Pyrotechnology was again used to make art rather
than functional ceramic containers. Interestingly,
neither ceramic nor figurative art is known from
contemporaneous sites (Kopa≠ina, Badanj, Crvena
Stijena) in the Balkans, suggesting this combined
technological innovation and symbolic expression
was not shared across the region. Klisoura cave in
the Peloponnese is the only site at which evidence
of pyrotechnology has been found. Rebecca Farb-
stein (2013.33–34) hypothesised that ceramic inno-
vation did not spread across the social landscape
“because the artefacts did not move throughout
the landscape with these people during seasonal
migrations”, or perhaps “groups may not have ap-
propriated this technology, even if they were ex-
posed to it, because it held no social value or signi-
ficance in their culturally distinct society”.
An almost parallel appearance of ceramic technology
was documented more than 7000 km to the East at
the Maïninskaya site, on the Yenisei River in Western
Siberia at 18 213–17 769 cal BC (68.2%) (Hommel
2014.666) (Fig. 7).
Ceramic figurines and vessels first met in the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Near East
Ceramic figurine making and vessel production first
appeared together in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in
Near East. They were both hypothesised as marking
the beginning of the ‘Age of Clay’ and the advent of
‘house societies’, because of clay and soil, a ‘materi-
al and substance that humans became thoroughly
dependent on’ from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic on-
wards (Stevanovi≤ 1997; Hodder 2011.165). Clay
and soil are both building materials and substances
which enable house construction, hearth and oven
structures, plastered skull modelling, figurines and
vessel making on the one hand, and agriculture on
the other (Boivin 2008).
Only a few ceramic anthropomorphic figurines are
known from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, found at Netiv
Hagdud, Dhra‘ and el-Khiam. They are all stylised re-
presentations of portions the human body, or of an
entire body, and each involves a unique combination
of marked features or omissions. Ian Kuijt and Mere-
dith Chesson (2004; 2007) suggested that the focus
at first was on the stylised human body, mainly the
lower. Later, in the PPNB, the focus shifted to ‘per-
sonhood’, which they believe was characterised by
realistic representations of human faces. In this pe-
riod, along with small figurines, many new forms of
anthropomorphic ceramic representation appeared,
such as full-body anthropomorphic statues, large
busts with painted faces, face masks and plastered
skulls. The shift in focus correlates with the appear-
ance of large agricultural villages and rectangular
residential buildings, and domesticated plants and
animals on the one hand, and on the other, it relates
to the recognition of the individuality of the deceas-
ed, to the idealisation of a collective ancestry, and to
the creation of social memories in mortuary prac-
tices. The homogeneity of practices, they suggested,
“emphasizes the deconstruction or masking of in-
dividual differences and focus on collective identi-
ties” (Kuijt, Chesson 2007.224). In the late Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic B and C, ceramic zoomorphic figurines
almost replaced anthropomorphic ones. We menti-
oned above that replacement corresponds to stress-
es on community subsistence and social structures,
and the erosion of individuality and social differen-
tiation that entered into the negotiation of everyday
life.
Pottery has been recovered in very small amounts
from Pre-Pottery Neolithic contexts in the Southern
Levant and Upper Mesopotamia. At Kfar HaHoresh
in the Southern Levant, 23 pottery sherds have been
recovered ranging in date from the Early to Late Pre-
Pottery Neolithic B, c. 8750–7500 cal BC. The ap-
pearance of pottery was not an isolated event, but a
repeated or intermittent practice, since the pottery
fragments were embedded within a time span of
more than a millennium. Pottery making was prob-
ably very limited, for short-term personal use or for
use by distinctive individuals or in certain contexts
for very limited purposes (Biton et al. 2014).
The earliest pots at Tell Sabi Abyad in Upper Meso-
potamia ‘were shaped and finished carefully’. They
have regular wall profiles and rims, and an even wall
thickness. The vessels were intensively smoothed
and burnished, occasionally resulting in somewhat
glossy surfaces. Some were decorated with red slip
and painting. They may suggest ‘prestige’ pottery
production. Undecorated containers with a more uti-
litarian function, such as storage or cooking, rapidly
replaced them (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2010).
The use of pottery in Southwest Asia became wide-
spread at the start of the Late (or Pottery) Neolithic,
around or shortly before 7000 cal BC. Lipid residue
analyses show that vessels became associated with
extensive meat (ovicaprids) exploitation during the
Early Pottery period, but that this shifted towards the
mixed exploitation of meat and milk (Nieuwenhuy-
se et al. 2015).
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
79
Epiloque
We have emphasised that current evidence clearly
shows different, but parallel, trajectories of ceram-
ic (pyro)technology adoption and the production
of fired clay items, both of which began in the Up-
per Palaeolithic. In the west, the focus was on fig-
urines and cones in the Palaeolithic, followed by ves-
sels production in the Neolithic. In the east, the fo-
cus was on vessel making from the outset. The west-
ern tradition predates the eastern by about eleven
millennia. While pellets, cones and figurines first
appeared in Central Europe at c. 31 000 cal BC, the
earliest vessels in Xianrendong Cave are dated to
c. 20 000 cal BC (Fig. 7).
It is unlikely that any single model will ever reveal
where ceramic (pyro)technology first appeared or
how fast it spread or diffused from hypothesised
‘centres of innovation’. The first pottery making in
East Asia was confined to a small number of sites,
and persisted in episodic, low-scale usage until the
Early Holocene.
Residual analyses show that early pottery in East
Asia was used for food preparation and perhaps for
storage tasks, but small amounts of pottery found at
the earliest sites suggest that it may not have been
used extensively for everyday activities. It is unlike-
ly it was used to intensify wild seed exploitation,
and/or left as ‘caching pots’ out in the fields. We
may hypothesise that it might have marked incipi-
ent forms of privatisation, and may have been used
as prestigious containers of luxury foods (e.g., fish
oils).
We may also hypothesise that the appearance of
ceramics probably related to ‘cross-craft interactions’,
such as the lining of organic baskets, but this does
not explain why some of the earlier uses of ceramic
(pyro)technology in the European Palaeolithic did
not lead to the same innovation. However, the wide-
spread and twenty-millennia-long episodic trajectory
of the fired clay figurine tradition in western Eurasia
did not lead to the invention of ceramic container
technologies. Recalling arguments about chaîne opé-
ratoire techniques, these data may suggest the ‘em-
bedded nature’ of technological choices and social
and ideological practices to which ceramic inventions
and innovations were related (see the concept of
‘embedded technologies’ in Sillar, Tite 2000). The
makers of Gravettian figurines may have created ‘so-
cial boundaries’ by not sharing all of the same series
of technical gestures or related social behaviours,
and the intentional fragmentation and destruction
of figurines may suggest that the female body did
not provide metaphors of ‘containing’ before the
Neolithic.
Fig. 7. Parallel trajectories of ceramic technology adoption and burnt clay items making that both start-
ed in Upper Palaeolithic. The western focused on figurines and cones making in Palaeolithic, followed by
vessels producing in Neolithic. The eastern focused on vessels making from the very beginning. Radiocar-
bon dates relate to the earliest appearance of ceramic (pyro)technology at Dolní Věstonice, Pavlov, Petř-
kovice, Předmostí in Moravia, and Krems-Wachtberg sites in Austria (Svoboda et al. 2015.202,Tab. 1;
2014.76; see also Verpoorte 2001.86; Einwögerer, Simon 2008.42); Tamar Hat in Algeria (Bougard 2003.
32); Maïninskaya site, on the Yenisei River bank in Siberia in Russia (Hommel 2014.666); Vela Spila in
Croatia (Farbstein et al. 2012.3–5); Xianrendong Cave and Yunchayan cave in China (Wu et al. 2012.
1699, Tab. 2; Boaretto et al. 2009.9596, Tab. 3); Odai Yamamoto in Japan (Kuzmin 2015.Tab. 1); Khum-
mi, Ust Karenga and Studenoe in Eastern Siberia and Rusussian Far East (Kuzmin 2015.Tab. 1). The
radiocarbon dates are calibrated with OxCal v 4.2.4 at 68.2% probability.
Mihael Budja
80
The ‘body language’ of technical gestures and skills
employed to make ceramic figurines may have also
been a ‘form of silent discourse’ with which gen-
dered identity and status were negotiated (Dobres,
Hoffman 1994; Dobres 2010). However, the inten-
tional breaking of ceramic figurines may have medi-
ated relationships between the members of society
(see above, Chapman 2000a), but also acted as a
symbolic break in social alliances (Dobres 2010.109).
In the western ceramic (pyro)technology trajectory,
the earliest, ‘prestige’, pottery making appeared at
8750–7500 cal BC. This was quickly replaced by
thick, undecorated, organic tempered vessels that
were rather ‘entangled’ in contexts of domestic food
production, processing and storage, separated from
the entanglement surroundings of ‘wild animals,
death and burial’ (see the concept of ‘entanglement’
in Hodder 2012).
We may hypothesise in conclusion that the (pre)his-
tory of ceramic use in Eurasia relates to neither the
Neolithic revolution nor diffusion from a Palaeolithic
pottery centre in East Asia, but to two parallel and
very long trajectories of episodic ceramic technolo-
gy use in pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer societies. In
the eastern, Asian ceramic trajectory, pottery was
produced from the beginning. The human body was
probably not the ‘schemata’ that marked both con-
tainment and the perception of pots as ‘bounded
objects’ (i.e. containers) in Asian hunter-gatherer
societies. Ceramic figurines, cones and pellets mark
the western, European trajectory for the first twenty-
two thousand years. Pottery appeared together with
domestic food production. However, in East Euro-
pean hunter-gatherer societies, the domestic mode
of food production was not the cultural choice.
Arnold D. E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Pro-
cess. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
Atalay S. 2005. Domesticating clay: the role of clay balls,
mini balls and geometric objects in daily life at Çatalhö-
yük. In I. Hodder (ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatal-
höyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research. British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara Monograph. Cambridge: 139–168.
Barley N. 1994. Smashing Pots. Works of Clay from Af-
rica. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.
Benz M. 2015. Feasting – Ein vielschichtiges Konzept und
dennoch kein Passepartout. Gedanken zu B. Haydens “The
Power of Feasts”. Germania 93: 225–232.
Bettinger R. L., Barton L. and Morgan C. 2010. The Origins
of Food Production in North China: A Different Kind of
Agricultural Revolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 19:
9–21.
Berkes F., Colding J. and Folke C. 2003. Introduction. In F.
Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke (eds.), Navigating Social-
Ecological Systems. Building Resilience for Complexity
and Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 1–30.
Bird D. W., O’Connell J. F. 2006. Behavioral Ecology and
Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:
143–188.
Biton R., Goren Y. and Goring-Morris A. N. 2014. Ceramics
in the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: evidence from
Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science
41: 740–748.
Boaretto E. and 12 co-authors. 2009. Radiocarbon Dating
of Charcoal and Bone Collagen Associated with Early Pot-
tery at Yuchanyan Cave, Hunan Province, China. Proce-
edings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106(24):
9595–9600.
Boivin N. 2004. From veneration to exploitation. Human
engagement with the mineral world. In N. Boivin, M.- A.
Owoc (eds.), Soil, Stones and Symbols: Cultural Percep-
tions of the Mineral World. University College London
Press. London: 1–30.
Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of Taste.
Harvard University Press. Cambridge.
Bougard E. 2003. Ceramic in the Upper Palaeolithic. In A.
Gibson (ed.), Prehistoric pottery: people pattern and pur-
pose. Prehistoric ceramics research group. Occasional pub-
lication 4. British Archaeological Reports IS 1156. Archaeo-
press. Oxford: 429–434.
Bowles S., Choi J.-K. 2013 Coevolution of farming and pri-
vate property during the early Holocene. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(22): 8830–
8835.
Braithwaite M. 1982. Decoration as ritual symbol: a theo-
retical proposal and an ethnographic study in southern Su-
dan. In I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeo-
logy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 80–88.
References
∴
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
81
Brown J. A. 1989. The beginnings of pottery as an econo-
mic process. In S. E. van der Leeuw, R. Torrence (eds.),
What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation.
Unwin Hyman. London: 203–224.
Brück J. 2006. Death, Exchange and Reproduction in the
British Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology
9(1): 73–101.
Budja M. 2012. Interpretative trajectories toward under-
standing personhoods in prehistory. Documenta Praehi-
storica 39: 137–153.
Chapman J. 2000a. Fragmentation in Archaeology. Peo-
ple, places and broken objects in the prehistory of south-
eastern Europe. Routledge. London, New York.
2000b. Tensions at Funerals. Micro-Transition Ana-
lysis in Later Hungarian Prehistory. Archaeolingua,
Series Minor. Budapest.
2008. Object fragmentation and past landscapes. In B.
David, J. Thomas (eds.), Handbook of Landscape Ar-
chaeology. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA: 187–201.
Chapman J., Gaydarska B. 2007. Parts and Wholes. Frag-
mentation in Prehistoric Context. Oxbow Books. Oxford.
Childe V. G. 1958. Man makes himself. The New Ameri-
can Library of World Literature, Inc. New York.
Codding B. F., Bird D. W. 2015. Behavioral ecology and
the future of archaeological science. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 56: 9–20.
Cohen D. J. 2013. The Advent and Spread of Early Pot-
tery in East Asia: New Dates and New Considerations for
the World’s Earliest Ceramic Vessels. Journal of Austro-
nesian Studies 4(2): 55–92.
Craig O. E., Steele V. J., Fischer A., Hartz S., Andersen S.
H., Donohoe P., Glykou A., Saul H., Jones D. M., Koch E.
and Heron C. P. 2011. Ancient lipids reveal continuity in
culinary practices across the transition to agriculture in
Northern Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences USA 108(44): 17910–17915.
Craig O. E. and 13 co-authors. 2013. Earliest evidence for
the use of pottery. Nature 496: 351–454.
Crown P. L., Wills W. H. 1995a. The origins of Southwest-
ern ceramic containers: women’s time allocation and eco-
nomic intensification. Journal of Anthropological Re-
search 51: 173–186.
1995b. Economic intensification and the emergence of
ceramic containers in the American Southwest. In W. K.
Barnett, J. W. Hoopes (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery:
Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.: 241–
254.
David N., Sterner J. and Gavua K. 1988. Why Pots are De-
corated? Current Anthropology 29(3): 365–389.
Diehl M. W., Waters J. A. 2006. Aspects of optimization
and risk during the Early Agricultural Period in South-
eastern Arizona. In D. J. Kennett, B. Winterhalder (eds.),
Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture.
University of California Press. Berkeley: 63–86.
Dobres M.-A. 2010. Archaeologies of technology. Cam-
bridge Journal of Economics 34: 103–114.
Dobres M.-A., Hoffman R. C. 1994. Social Agency and the
Dynamics of Prehistoric. Journal of Archaeological Me-
thod and Theory 1(3): 211–258.
Durkheim E. 2005. Suicide. A study in sociology. Rout-
ledge. London, New York.
Eckert S. L. 2014. Ceramic in Pre-Hispanic North America.
In H. Selin (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the History of Science,
Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures.
Springer Netherlands. Dordrecht: 515–522.
Eerkens J. W. 2003. Residential Mobility and Pottery Use
in the Western Great Basin. Current Anthropology 44(5):
728–738.
2004. Privatization, Small-Seed Intensification, and the
Origins of Pottery in the Western Great Basin. Ameri-
can Antiquity 69(4): 653–670.
2008. Nomadic Potters. Relationships between Ceramic
Technologies and Mobility Strategies. In H. Barnard,
W. Wendrich (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old
World and New World Nomadism. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology. Los Angeles: 307–326.
Eerkens J. W., Neff H. and Glascock M. D. 2002. Ceramic
Production among Small-Scale and Mobile Hunters and
Gatherers: A Case Study from the Southwestern Great Ba-
sin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 200–229.
Eerkens J. W., Lipo C. P. 2014. A tale of two technologies:
Prehistoric diffusion of pottery innovations among hun-
ter-gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
35: 23–31.
Einwögerer T., Simon U. 2008. Die Gravettienfundstelle
Krems-Wachtberg. Archäologie Österreichs 19(1): 38–
42.
Farbstein R. 2011. The Significance of Social Gestures and
Technologies of Embellishment in Paleolithic Portable Art.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18: 125–
146.
Mihael Budja
82
2013. Making art, making society: the social significance
of small-scale innovations and experimentation in Pa-
laeolithic portable art. World Art 3(1): 23–39.
Farbstein R., Radi≤ D., Brajkovi≤ D. and Miracle P. T. 2012.
First Epigravettian Ceramic Figurines from Europe (Vela
Spila, Croatia). PLoS ONE 7(7): e41437.
Farbstein A. R., Davies W. 2015. Rediscovering Paleolithic
art: overlooked ceramic figurines from the Pavlovian. In
S. Sázelová, M. Novák and A. Mizerová (eds.), Forgotten
times and spaces: New perspectives in paleoanthropo-
logical, paleoetnological and archeological studies. In-
stitute of Archeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences.
Masaryk University. Brno: 328–339.
Fitzhugh B. 2001. Risk and invention in human technolo-
gical evolution. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
20: 125–167.
Fowler C. 2001. Personhood and social relations in the
British Neolithic with a study from the Isle of Man. Jour-
nal of Material Culture 6(2): 137–163.
2004. The Archaeology of Personhood. An anthropo-
logical approach. Routledge. London, New York.
Frieman C. J. 2013. Innovation and Identity. The Language
and Reality of Prehistoric Imitation and Technological
Change. In J. J. Card (ed.), Hybrid Material Culture. The
Archaeology of Syncretism and Ethnogenesis. Center for
Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale: 318–341.
Gamble C. 2007. Origins and Revolutions. Human Iden-
tity in Earliest Prehistory. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.
Garraty C. P. 2011. The origins of pottery as a practical
domestic technology: Evidence from the middle Queen
Creek area, Arizona. Journal of Anthropological Archa-
eology 30: 220–234.
Gell A. 1998. Art and Agency. Clarendon. Oxford.
Gibbs K. 2012. Not meant to last: mobility and disposable
pottery. Documenta Praehistorica 39: 83–93.
2015. Pottery Invention and Innovation in East Asia and
the Near East. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
25(1): 339–351.
Gibbs K., Jordan P. 2013. Bridging the Boreal Forest Sibe-
rian Archaeology and the Emergence of Pottery among
Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of Northern Eurasia. Sibi-
rica 12(1): 1–38.
2016. A comparative perspective on the ‘western’ and
‘eastern’ Neolithics of Eurasia: Ceramics; agriculture and
sedentism. Quaternary International 419: 27–35.
Gimbutas M. 1989.The Language of the Goddess. Thames
and Hudson. London.
Gibson J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Percep-
tion. Houghton Mifflin. London.
Haaland R. 2009. Aquatic Resource Utilization and the
Emergence of Pottery during the Late Palaeolithic and Me-
solithic: A Global Perspective from the Nile to China. In T.
Oestigaard (ed.), Water, Culture and Identity: Comparing
Past and Present Traditions in the Nile Basin Region.
University of Bergen. BRIC Press. Bergen: 213–235.
Halstead P. 2012. Feast, food and fodder in Neolithic-
Bronze age Greece: commensality and the construction of
value. eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies 2: 21–51.
Händel M., Simon U., Einwögerer T. and Neugebauer-Ma-
resch C. 2009. New excavations at Krems-Wachtberg – ap-
proaching a well-preserved Gravettian settlement site in
the middle Danube region. Quartär 56: 187–196.
Haraway D. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto:
Dogs, People and Significant Otherness. Prickly Para-
digm. Chicago.
Hayden B. D. 1990. Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and plan-
ters: the emergence of food production. Journal of Anthro-
pological Archaeology 9: 31–69.
1995. Pathways to Power. Principles for Creating Socio-
economic Inequalities. In T. D. Price, G. M. Feinman
(eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality. Plenum Press.
New York: 15–86.
1996. Feasting in prehistoric and traditional societies.
In P. Wiessner, W. Schiefenhövel (eds.), Food and the
Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Anthro-
pology of Food & Nutrition Providence Vol. 1. Berghahn
Books. Providence: 127–147.
1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution
of material systems. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 5: 1–55.
2001. Fabulous Feasts. A Prolegomenon to the Impor-
tance of Feasting. In M. Dietler, B. Hayden (eds.), Feasts.
Archaeological and Ethnographic Pespectives on Food,
Politics, and Power. The University of Alabama Press.
Alabama: 23–64.
2003. Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethno-
archaeological perspectives from Southeast Asia. World
Archaeology 34(3): 458–469.
2009. Funerals As Feasts: Why Are They So Important?
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(1): 29–52.
2011. Big Man, Big Heart? The Political Role of Aggran-
dizers in Egalitarian and Transegalitarian Societies. In
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
83
D. Forsyth, C. Hoyt (eds.), For the Greater Good of All.
Perspectives on Individualism, Society, and Leader-
ship. Palgrave Macmillan. New York: 101–118.
2014. The Power of Feasts. From Prehistory to Present.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Heidegger M. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. Harper
Collins Publishers Inc. New York.
Heidke J. M. 2005. Early Agricultural Period Pottery from
Las Capas and Los Pozos. In R. J. Sliva (ed.), Material Cul-
tures and Lifeways of Early Agricultural Communities
in Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 35.
Center for Desert Archaeology. Tucson: 171–206.
2006. Native American pottery. In J. H. Thiel, J. B. Ma-
bry (eds.), Rio Nuevo Archaeology Program, 2000–
2003: Investigations at the San Agustin Mission and
Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson Pressed
Brick Company, and Clearwater Site. Technical Series
No. 2004–11. Center for Desert Archaeology. Tucson:
7.1–7.93.
Heidke J. M., Stark M.T. 2002. Early ceramics in southeast-
ern Arizona: technology, iconography, and function. In
R. Harrison, Gillespie M. and Peurumaki-Brown M. (eds.),
Eureka: The Archaeology of Innovation and Science.
Proceedings of the 29th Annual Chacmool Conference.
Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.
Calgary: 345–356.
Hodder I. 1988. Comments. Current Anthropology 29(3):
382–383.
2011. Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrat-
ed archaeological perspective. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 17: 154–177.
2012. Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships
between Humans and Things. Willey-Blackwell. Mal-
den, Oxford, Chichester.
Hommel P. 2014. Ceramic Technology. In V. Cummings,
P. Jordan and M. Zvelebil (eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Ga-
therers. Oxford University Press. Oxford: 663–692.
Huckell L. W. 2006. Ancient Maize in the American South-
west What Does It Look Like and What Can It Tell Us? In
J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz (eds.), Histories of
Maize. Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory,
Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize.
Elsevier/Academic Press. Amsterdam: 97–107.
Hutchby I. 2001. Technologies, Texts and Affordances. So-
ciology 35(2): 441–456.
Ikawa-Smith F. 1976. On ceramic technology in east Asia.
Current Anthropology 17: 513–515.
Ingold T. 1983. The Significance of Storage in Hunting So-
cieties. Man 18(3): 553–571.
2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on
Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge. London.
2006. Rethinking the animate, re-animating thought.
Ethnos 71(1): 9–20.
2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dia-
logues 14: 1–38.
Johnson M. L. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily
Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. University
of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Jordan P., Zvelebil M. 2009. Ex Oriente Lux: The Prehi-
story of Hunter-Gatherer Ceramic Dispersals. In P. Jordan,
M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics before Farming: The Disper-
sal of Pottery among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Ga-
therers. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek: 33–89.
Jordan P., Gibbs K., Hommel P., Piezonka H., Silva F. and
Steele J. 2016. Modelling the diffusion of pottery techno-
logies across Afro-Eurasia: emerging insights and future
research. Antiquity 90(351): 590–603.
Kalicz N. 1980. Götter aus Ton. Das Neolithikum und die
Kupferzeit in Ungarn. Hereditas. Corvina Kiadó. Budapest.
Kaneko M. 2007. Variations in Pottery Making by Ari Pot-
ters in Southwestern Ethiopia: Analysis of the Finger
Movement Patterns Using in Forming Pots. Nilo-Ethio-
pian Studies 11: 1–15.
2009. Variations in Pottery Making in Southwestern
Ethiopia. In S. Ege , H. Aspen, B. Teferra and S. Bekele
(eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Con-
ference of Ethiopian Studies. Vol. 2. Department of
Social Anthropology. Norwegian University of Science
and Technology. Trondheim: 383–394.
Keally, Taniguchi Y. and Kuzmin V. Y. 2003. Understan-
ding the beginnings of pottery technology in Japan and
neighbouring East Asia. The Review of Archaeology
24(2): 3–14.
Knappett C. 2004. The Affordances of Things: a Post-Gib-
sonian Perspective on the Relationality of Mind and Mat-
ter. In E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C. Renfrew (eds.),
Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with
the Material World. McDonald Institute Monographs.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Cam-
bridge: 43–51.
Mihael Budja
84
2005. Thinking Through Material Culture. An Interdi-
sciplinary Perspective. Archaeology, Culture, and So-
ciety. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia.
Knappett C., Malafouris L. 2008. Material and Nonhuman
Agency: An Introduction. In C. Knappett, L. Malafouris
(eds.), Material Agency. Towards a Non-Anthropocentric
Approach. Springer. New York: ix–xix.
Knappett C., Malafouris L. and Tomkins P. 2010. Ceramics
(as containers). In M. C. Beaudry, D. Hick (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford
Handbooks in Archaeology. Oxford University Press. Ox-
ford: 588–612.
Králík M. 2011. Ancient Ceramics and Imprints on their
Surfaces. In J. Svoboda (ed.), Pavlov – Excavations 2007
– 2011. Dolnověstonické studie 18. Academy of Sciences
of the Czech Republic. Brno: 207–244.
Králík M., Einwögerer T. 2010. Imprints discovered on
Paleolithic ceramics from Krems-Wachtberg and Krems-
Hundssteig sites, Lower Austria. In C. Neugebauer-Ma-
resch, L. Owen (eds.), New aspects of the Central and
Eastern European Upper Palaeolithic. Methods, Chro-
nology, Technology, and Subsistence. Mitteilungen der
Prähistorischen Kommission 72. Österreichische Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften. Vienna: 255–272.
Kuijt I., Chesson M. 2004. Lumps of Clay and Pieces of
Stone: Ambiguity, Bodies, and Identity as Portrayed in
Neolithic Figurines. In R. Bernbeck, S. Pollock (eds.), Ar-
chaeologies of the Near East. Critical Perspectives. Basil
Blackwell. London: 152–183.
2007. Imagery and Social Relationships. Shifting Iden-
tity and Ambiguity in the Neolithic. In C. Renfrew, I.
Morley (eds.), Image and Imagination. A Global Pre-
history of Figurative Representation. McDonald Insti-
tute Monographs. Cambridge: 211–226.
Kuzmin Y. V. 2015. The origins of pottery in East Asia: up-
dated analysis (the 2015 state-of-the-art). Documenta
Praehistorica 42: 1–11.
Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:
what categories reveal about the mind. University of
Chicago Press. Chicago.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. L. 1980. Metaphors We Live By.
University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind
and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.
New York.
Latour B.1992. Where are the missing masses? The socio-
logy of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker, J. Law
(eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society. Inside Tech-
nology. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.: 151–180.
Lévi-Strauss C. 1988. The Jealous Potter. University of Chi-
cago Press. Chicago.
Lienhard J. H. 2006. How Invention Begins. Echoes of
Old Voices in the Rise of New Machines. Oxford Univer-
sity Press. Oxford.
Liu L., Bestel S., Shi J., Song Y. and Chen X. 2013. Paleo-
lithic human exploitation of plant foods during the last
glacial maximum in North China. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences USA 110(14): 5380–5385.
Longacre W. A. 1995. Why Did They Invent Pottery Any-
way? In W. K. Barnett, J. W. Hoopes (eds.), The Emergen-
ce of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient
Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.:
277–280.
Lu T. L.-D. 2011. Early pottery in China. Asian Perspecti-
ves 49: 1–42.
Lucquin A. and 13 co-authors. 2016. Ancient lipids docu-
ment continuity in the use of early hunter-gatherer pot-
tery through 9,000 years of Japanese prehistory. Proce-
edings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113
(15): 3991–3996.
Mabry J. B. 2006 Radiocarbon Dating of the Early Occupa-
tions. In J. H. Thiel, J. B. Mabry (eds.), Rio Nuevo Archa-
eology, 2000–2003. Investigations at the San Agustín
Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson
Pressed Brick Company, and Clearwater Site. Technical
Report No. 2004–11. Desert Archaeology Inc. Tucson:
19.1–19.5.
McDonnell J. G. 2001. Pyrotechnology. In D. R. Brothwel,
M. Pollard (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Science.
Wiley. London: 493–506.
Merleau-Ponty M. 2005. Phenomenology of Perception.
Routledge. London, New York.
Miller H. 2007. Archaeological Approaches to Techno-
logy. Elsevier, Academic Press. London, Amsterdam.
Mleku∫ D. 2007. ‘Sheep are your mother’: rhyta and the
interspecies politics in the Neolithic of the eastern Adria-
tic. Documenta Praehistorica 34: 267–280.
Morris B. 2000. Animals and Ancestors. An Ethnogra-
phy. Berg. Oxford, New York.
Nadasdy P. 2007. The gift in the animal: The ontology of
hunting and human-animal sociality. American Ethnolo-
gist 34(1): 25–43.
Ceramics among Eurasian hunter-gatherers> 32 000 years of ceramic technology use and the perception of containment
85
Nieuwenhuyse O. P., Akkermans P. M. M. G. and van der
Plicht J. 2010. Not so coarse, nor always plain – the ear-
liest pottery of Syria. Antiquity 84(323): 71–85.
Nieuwenhuyse O. P., Roffet-Salque M., Evershed R. P.,
Akkermans P. M. M. G. and Russell A. 2015. Tracing pot-
tery use and the emergence of secondary product exploi-
tation through lipid residue analysis at Late Neolithic Tell
Sabi Abyad (Syria). Journal of Archaeological Science
64: 54–66.
Olsen B. 2010. In Defense of Things. Altamira Press. Wal-
nut Creek.
Ozker D. 1982. An Early Woodland Community at the
Schultz Site 20SA2 in the Saginaw Valley and the Na-
ture of the Early Woodland Adaptation in the Great
Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers No. 70. Museum
of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Pankhurst A. 2003. Dimensions and conception of margi-
nalisation. In D. Freeman, A. Pankhurst (eds.), Peripheral
People. The Excluded Minorities of Ethiopia. The Red
Sea Press, Inc. Asmara: 1–27.
Peri≤ S. 1996. Kulth-Rhytone der neolitischen Viehzüchter
der Balkanhalbinsel. Starinar 47: 21–66.
Perlès C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first
farming communities in Europe. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
Radivojevi≤ M. 2015. Inventing Metallurgy in Western Eu-
rasia: a Look Through the Microscope Lens. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 25(1): 321–338.
Read D, van der Leeuw S. 2008. Biology is only part of
the story. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B 363: 1959–1968.
Rice P. M. 1999. On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 6(1): 1–54.
Reichel-Dolmatoff G. 1978. Desana Animal Categories,
Food Restrictions, and the Concept of Color Energies.
Journal of Latin American Lore 4(2): 243–291.
Reid K. C. 1984. Fire and ice: new evidence for the pro-
duction and preservation of Late Archaic fiber-tempered
pottery in the middle-latitude lowlands. American Anti-
quity 49(1): 55–76.
Roberts B. W., Radivojevi≤ M. 2015. Invention as a Pro-
cess: Pyrotechnologies in Early Societies. Cambridge Ar-
chaeological Journal 25(1): 299–306.
Saxon E. C. 1976. Pre-Neolithic pottery: new evidence
from North Africa. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
42: 327–329.
Shennan S. 1989. Cultural transmission and cultural
change. In S. E. van der Leeuw, R. Torrence (eds.), What’s
New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. Unwin
Hyman. London: 330–346.
Sillar B., Tite M. S. 2000. The challenge of ‘technological
choices’ for materials science approaches in archaeology.
Archaeometry 42(1): 2–20.
Silva F., Steele J., Gibbs K. and Jordan P. 2014. Modelling
spatial innovation diffusion from radiocarbon dates and
regression residuals: the case of early Old World pottery.
Radiocarbon 56(2): 723–732.
Skibo M. J., Schiffer B. M.1995. The Clay Cooking Pot: An
Exploration of Women’s Technology. In J. M. Skibo, W. H.
Walker and A. E. Nielsen (eds.), Expanding Archaeology.
University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City: 80–91.
Schmandt-Besserat D. 1992. Before writing Volume I.
From counting to cuneiform. University of Texas Press.
Austin.
Smith M. L. 2012. What it takes to get complex: food,
goods, and work as shared cultural ideals from the begin-
ning of sedentism. In M. E. Smith (ed.), The comparative
archaeology of complex societies. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge: 44–61.
2015. Feasts and Their Failures. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory 22: 1215–1237.
Smit B., Wandel J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and
vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16(3): 282–
292.
Soffer O., Vandiver P., Klima B. and Svoboda J. 1993. The
Pyrotechnology of Perfomance Art: Moravian Venuse and
Wolverines. In H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay and R. White (eds.),
Before Lascaux. CRC Press. Boca Raton: 259–275.
Soffer O., Vandiver P. 1997. The Ceramics from Pavlov I
–1957 Excavation. In J. Svoboda, P. πkrdla (eds.), Pav-
lov I – Northwest (The Upper Paleolithic burial and its
settlement context). The Dolni Vestonice Studies 4. Aca-
demy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Institute of Ar-
chaeology in Brno. Masaryk University. Department of
Anthropology at Faculty of Science. Brno: 383–401.
Soffer O., Vandiver P. 2005. Ceramic fragments. In J. Svo-
boda( ed.), Pavlov I Southeast: A window into the Gra-
vettian lifestyles. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Re-
public, Institute of Archaeology at Brno, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Ani-
mals. Brno: 415–432.
Stark M. T. 2003. Current Issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeo-
logy. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(3): 193–
242.
Mihael Budja
86
Stevanovi≤ M. 1997. The Age of Clay: the social dynamics
of house destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeo-
logy 16: 334–395.
Svoboda J., Novák M. and Sázelová S. 2014. Early Gravet-
tian occupations at Dolní Věstonice-Pavlov. Comments on
the Gravettian origin. In S. Sázelová, A. Hupková and T.
Mořkovský (eds.), Mikulov Anthropology Meeting. The
Dolní Věstonice Studies 20. Academy of Sciences of the
Czech Republic. Institute of Archaeology in Brno. Masaryk
University. Department of Anthropology at Faculty of Sci-
ence. Brno: 73–78.
Svoboda J., Hladilová π., Ivan Horá≠ek I., Kaiser J., Králík
M., Novák J., Novák M., Pokorný P., Sázelová S., Smolíko-
vá L. and Zikmund T. 2015. Dolní Věstonice IIa: Gravet-
tian microstratigraphy, environment, and the origin of
baked clay production in Moravia. Quaternary Interna-
tional 359: 195–210.
Taché K., Craig O. E. 2015. Cooperative harvesting of
aquatic resources and the beginning of pottery produc-
tion in north-eastern North America. Antiquity 89(343):
177–190.
Teilhet J. H. 1978. The Equivocal Role of Women Artists
in Non Literate Cultures. Heresis 4(1): 96–102.
Tilley C. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic. Early Pre-
historic Societies in Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
Twiss K. C. 2012. The archaeology of food and social di-
versity. Journal of Archaeological Research 20: 357–395.
van der Veen M. 2003. When is food a luxury? World Ar-
chaeology 34(3): 405–427.
Vander Linden M. M. 2001. Social Dynamics and Pottery
Distribution in the Faro Department, Northern Cameroon.
African Archaeological Review 18(3): 135–151.
Vandiver B. P., Soffer O., Klima B. and Svoboda J. 1989.
The Origin of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice,
Czechoslovakia. Science 246(4933): 1002–1008.
Verpoorte A. 2001. Places of Art, Traces of Fire. A Con-
textual Approach to Anthropomorphic Figurines in the
Pavlovian (Central Europe, 29–24 kyr BP). Archaeolo-
gical Studies Leiden University 8. Dolní Věstonice Studies
6. Leiden. Brno.
Vitelli K. D. 1989. Were Pots First Made for Foods? Doubts
from Franchthi. World Archaeology 21(1): 17–29.
1993. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery. Vol. 1. Classifica-
tion and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2. Excavations at
Franchthi Cave, Greece. Fascicle 8. Indiana University
Press. Bloomington.
1995. Pots, Potters, and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic
Society. In W. K. Barnett, J. W. Hoopes (eds.), The
Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in
Ancient Society. Smithsonian Institution Press. Wa-
shington D.C.: 55–63.
1999. “Looking Up”: at Early Ceramics in Greece. In J.
M. Skibo, G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and People. A
Dynamic Interaction. The University of Utah Press. Salt
Lake City: 184–198.
Voutsaki S. 2010. Agency and personhood at the onset of
the Mycenaean period. Archaeological Dialogues 17(1):
65–92.
Warnier J.-P. 2006. Inside and outside. Surfaces and Con-
tainers. In C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands
and P. Spyer (eds.), Handbook of Material Culture. SAGE
Publications Ltd. London: 186–196.
Welbourn A. 1984. Endo ceramics and power strategies.
In D. Miller, C. Tilley (eds.), Ideology, Power and Prehi-
story. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 17–24.
Winterhalder B. 1983. Opportunity-cost foraging models
for stationary and mobile predators. The American Na-
turalist 122(1): 73–83.
Winterhalder B., Kennett D. J. 2006. Behavioral Ecology
and the Transition from Hunting and Gathering to Agri-
culture. In D. J. Kennett, B. Winterhalder (eds.), Behavio-
ral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture. University
of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles London: 1–21.
Wu X., Zhang C., Goldberg P., Cohen D., Pan Y., Arpin T.
and Bar-Yosef O. 2012. Early Pottery at 20,000 Years Ago
in Xianrendong Cave, China. Science 336: 1696–1700.
Zhushchikhovskaya I. S. 2005. Prehistoric Pottery-Making
of the Russian Far East. British Archaeological Reports
IS 1434. Archaeopress. Oxford.
2009. Pottery-Making in Prehistoric Cultures of the Rus-
sian Far East. In P. Jordan, M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics
before Farming. The Dispersal of Pottery among Pre-
historic Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press.
Walnut Creek: 121–147.
2012. The Most Ancient Ceramics. The Course of Tech-
nological Innovation. Anthropology & Archeology of
Eurasia 51(1): 62–78.