Pottery Studies and Archaeometry: Between Scientific Analyses and Archaeological Interpretation

Abstract

The consideration of the relationship between pottery studies and the application of hard sciences in archaeology includes the scrutiny of the importance of pottery studies in the history of archaeology as a discipline, and especially the differences in the approach to material culture between European and North American researchers. After modest beginnings during the 19^th century, petrographic analyses were introduced into ceramology during the first decades of the 20^th century, mainly thanks to the works of Anna Shepard. She was one of the initiators of the first conference on the ceramic technology, held as early as 1938. For archaeology in general, it is significant to note that the beginning of pottery studies, stressing the importance of social anthropology as well as the application of hard science methods, markedly predates the expansion of processual archaeology.

It is also vital to explore certain tensions and differences in approaches to ceramics, exiting today as the consequence of polarization inside archaeology, among researchers primarily leaning upon natural sciences, and the ones regarding material culture as the product of cultural processes. Archaeometry is widely applicable in ceramology, above all in identifying the pottery recipes, raw material provenance, firing regimes, and many other aspects that are the consequences of various cultural practices. Maybe paradoxically, the researchers leaning towards natural sciences have most frequently embraced the concept of technological choices, presupposing that every human activity is the consequence of social relations, leading artisans to choose one of several technical possibilities, depending upon social norms. On the other hand, ethno-archaeological research relativizes to a certain extent the “solid” and unambiguous results of natural sciences, more readily accepting the concept of technological style, i.e. considering the socially influenced technological traditions. The concept of archaeological biomarkers, i.e. research into the remains of organic matters on ceramic vessels, indicates the differences between the scientistically oriented European archaeology, as opposed to the North American, dominated by the anthropological dimension of research, and pottery is not treated as a mere source of data, but as an object of research in its own right.  

An additional difficulty in pottery studies is presented by the essential misunderstanding between archaeologists and natural scientists, also present in Serbia. We are still faced with the insufficient knowledge of possibilities of analytical techniques. On the other hand, the majority of research is conducted by the natural scientists, resulting in one-sided or multidisciplinary outcomes, and interdisciplinary studies are extremely rare. At the same time, although with exceptional possibilities, natural sciences applied to the research into the past are not infallible, and have been criticized on several levels, concerning the issues of raw material provenance, as well as identifying the remains of organic material on pottery vessels. Interdisciplinarity should undoubtedly be considered as an advantage in archaeological research, but we should bear in mind that the aim of pottery studies is the understanding of people and processes in the past, so the ultimate responsibility of interpretation rests upon archaeologists. For this very reason, they are obliged to understand the advantages as well as limitations of analytic techniques, and above all to formulate the theoretical framework, research topics and hypotheses.