Current challenges and problems in

Pottery/Ceramics in India
Shivam Phogat
MS12028
Semester Project Report
April 22, 2016
Abstract
Pottery and Ceramics have played an important part in the study
ancient history. While the first ceramic vessels must have provided Stone
age hunter gatherers with several new chances for cooking and consuming
foods, we have almost no idea how early pots were used. In this report we
will discuss about various approaches and procedures towards studying
the pottery and then kind of show its problems or limitations. It also
contains the information about why pottery should be considered and
how India is an important part of the world to look for ancient pottery
and ceramics.

Introduction

The discipline of pottery is by no means a mere study of past. Due to the

wide range of archaeological record, from organic to inorganic, many different
methods and approaches are taken in order to deal with the wide spectrum
of differing evidence. Nevertheless, the study of pottery is without a doubt
one of the important tasks taken on by any archaeologist. A great amount of
information can be gained from the study of pottery, despite its nonliving state.
It is for this very reason that this report will attempt to explore and explain the
research which is being done in the area of archaeology and then further will try
to explain the challenges it faces. As has already been stated, there are many
lessons to be learned from the study of pottery. These lessons vary in both
practice and utility. However, all play their part in putting together the past.
Much can be learned from pottery some of which is directly linked to the pottery
itself. Other information can be found which is more deducable than anything
else. This therefore makes the study of pottery one of two parts. Firstly, the
physical study of pottery and secondly the study of the cultural insight
pottery gives enabling archaeologists to understand the society from which it
came.

Types of Pottery

There are three main kinds of ceramic ware: earthenware, stoneware and porcelain, categorized according to the clay used to make them, and the temperature
required to fire them.
Earthenware is the oldest and easiest type of pottery. It is also the
softest, being heated at the lowest temperature (typically between 1000
and 1200 degrees Celsius). It includes maiolica, faience, and delft.
Stoneware is a denser type of pottery that is fired at a higher temperature (between 1100 and 1300 degrees Celsius). In addition, stoneware is
typically coated with a glaze of powdered glass and fired again at a higher
temperature. This causes the glaze to fuse with the clay body, creating
a vitreous, impermeable surface. Where earthenware usually ranges in
colour from buff to dark red, stoneware varies from grey to buff, or even
green - as in the case of celadon.
Porcelain of which Chinese Porcelain remains the finest and most valuable variant - is finer than stoneware, makes a ringing tone when tapped,
and has a characteristic translucence when held up to the light.

When and where was Pottery invented

According to archeological evidence, pottery first appeared during the era of

Paleolithic art in East Asia (China, Japan, and the Amur River basin in Eastern
Russia), before eventually spreading to the Middle East and the Mediterranean
basin during the Neolithic period, thousands of years later.
The first ceramic sculpture - the Venus of Dolni Vestonice, dating to about
25,000 BC - was unearthed at a Stone Age settlement in the Czech Republic,
but the first ceramic pots are the Xianrendong Cave Pottery (18,000 BC), found
in northeastern Jiangxi Province in southeast China. Up until the Jiangxi discovery, the earliest art of this type was the Yuchanyan Cave pottery (16,000
BC) discovered in Chinas Hunan province. In Europe, the oldest pottery was
developed in the Czech Republic. Another very ancient example is Vela Spila
Pottery (15,500 BC) from Croatia and Amur River Basin Pottery dating to
14,300 BC.

Pottery in India

Neolithic pottery was being practiced in India no later than 5500 BC, during
the Mehrgarh Period II (5500-4800 BC), notably in present-day northwest
India and Pakistan. The Mehrgarh I culture (70005500 BC) was not ceramic
Pottery developed further during the Merhgarh Period III (4800-3500 BC), and
especially during the Indus Valley Civilization, which flourished along the
Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra rivers. Also called the Harappan Civilization,
after the type site Harappa, in the Punjab, this civilization lasted from about
3500 to 1300 BC, passing through five phases of ceramic production. In 1300
BC it was followed by the Iron Age Indo-Gangetic traditions of painted grey
ware and northern black polished ware
2

Types of pottery of the Neolithic age in India :

Red ceramic, area of the Rajasthan Banas (Hematite).
Grey pottery from the basin of the Ganges.
Polished black pottery found in the area of Jariana and Delhi.

Why Pottery

There are atleast 4 reasons one can think of while researching an ancient site to
turn towards pottery. These are following
It was Common
Since its invention in the Neolithic period around 6000 BC. pots were
useful objects that everybody could own. Clay vessels found their way into
all aspects of life from everyday household use to trade to religious uses,
providing evidence of how a large spectrum of people lived out different
aspects of life. Rich or poor, all owned pottery so. unlike gold or silver,
there is plenty of it to be found and it reflects how ordinary people, not
simply the wealthy, lived. Almost every site in the Middle East that was
inhabited in ancient times is still marked by innumerous sherds scattered
about the area.
It broke easily and was not reused
When a vessel broke, it was thrown away and replaced rather than repaired. Though there is evidence that some pots were repaired, most were
simply cast on the ground, where they have remained to the present. Because pots are fragile, archaeologists can assume that they were broken
fairly soon after they were made and were not passed down from generation to generation. Unlike metal, hardened clay cannot be remolded into
other objects by later inhabitants of the site. For the ancients, a broken
pot was garbage to be thrown away, and a great deal can be learned from
people by studying their garbage. Imagine what you can tell about our
3

lives by the things that we cannot reuse and throw away, even in an era
when we are conscious of recycling.
It was durable
Once a pot broke, the individual sherds were durable enough to survive
indefinitely. Whereas wood tends to decay and metal corrodes, pottery
lasts. Unlike other materials, it is there for the archaeologist to find.
It changed form often
When a pot was replaced, it was not unusual for it to be replaced by a
slightly different vessel. Rims, bases, handles, and even the texture of the
clay used to make the pots changed over a period of tune. Certain shapes
and styles of decoration were popular at certain tunes but faded away at
others. In a sense, archaeologists look at potsherds the same way many
people observe automobile styles. You can tell when a car was made by its
grill, colors, or body style Likewise, you can tell when a vessel was made
by its shape, fabric, manufacture, and color.
The last reason, style change, is probably the most important one. Because
archaeological remains tend to be deposited on top of each other as time passes,
the pottery deepest in the ground is usually the oldest in an undisturbed site.
Tins shape and texture of sherds found at lower levels therefore represents die
style of relatively older pots.

Possibilities and their limitations

The interpretation of the materials, techniques and technological features of

the pottery, are often carried out through ways of understanding the material
culture that are typical of the western world. We must consider that the research
itself involves a close connection between archaeologists and the patterns they
observe in the artefacts. Thus, the possibility that the several relationships
established by archaeologists among the material culture may be far from the
behaviours and motivations existing in the past should be assessed.
In this sense, positivist positions based on numerical data have generally
considered that there is a wide gap between researchers and their object of
study. Moreover, this perspective, significantly present in ceramic Archaeometry, understands the materiality as something static, stable and unchanging that
can be objectively approached. This objective assessment is performed through
the use of techniques and methods from the natural sciences, which are applied
in order to achieve quantitative data about certain variables that characterise
the objects. Nevertheless, the use of quantitative data does not exclude the
possibility of undertaking ethnocentric interpretations based on our own way of
understanding nature or efficiency, among other many aspects.
Other perspectives on technology are not free from these problems either.
We must therefore be aware of our position as researchers when addressing
through the archaeological record specific social dynamics and identities in the
past.
Once the idea that any research is an extension of the scholar is accepted, it is
possible to be aware of our own views and minimise the systematic and exclusive
application of certain perspectives when approaching the past. Besides this

assumption, we can address the interpretation of material culture from a wider

perspective through the use of ethnoarchaeology and ethnoarchaeometry.
Along with these procedures, experimental archaeology is also a proper way
to solve specific issues related to materiality that may arise throughout the
research process.
Both ethnoarchaeology and experimentation may be key strategies to know
the feasibility of certain techniques and assess their potential cultural significance. Ethnography, ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology are essential in ceramic research to provide more coherent, comprehensive and diverse
frameworks that can be subsequently used to support our interpretations about
the technology of past societies and its significance. Therefore, some clarifications and qualifications regarding the possibilities and limitations that both
disciplines offer in the study of pottery technology are needed.

6.1

Ethnoarchaeology

Ethnoarchaeology is currently used in different ways to interpret ceramic technology. The aim of this section is not to draw a detailed approach to the huge
amount of ethnoarchaeological studies focused on modern. The goal here is to
highlight the possibilities and limitations that may involve the use of data obtained from studies focused on contemporary societies in order to improve our
approaches to the past.
In recent decades, studies focused on ceramic productions undertaken by
modern societies have become widespread and tried to address several concerns. Ethnography demonstrates that cultural, social and economic factors are
also technological and that the technical aspects of the materials can be used
to address the people behind the pottery. Thus, ethnoarchaeological studies
improved the archaeologists sources to investigate past societies, since these
approaches represent the ideal framework to assess the close interrelationship
existing between structure and agency.
In this respect, ethnoarchaeology enable us to test the viability of certain
theoretical approaches and archaeological interpretations. Its use revealed in
practice the complexity of the processes and phenomena involving ceramics, especially regarding technological variability, change processes and the dynamics
of cultural transmission. Also this discipline has focused on the link existing
between technological traits and social issues related to the organization of production, allowing us to realise the way pottery features are the consequence of
the social interaction between groups of potters and other individuals. Thus,
ethnoarchaeology has been used to examine the processes of pottery manufacture and use, as well as the distribution of ceramics and its relation to social
factors.
The study of materiality and ceramic technology in contemporary societies
can be very effective for archaeological purposes. However, the interpretation
obtained from these works may be partial and even counterproductive without
a proper framework of understanding between ethnography and archaeology.
Many researchers agree with this sentiment.
Processual archaeology stated from the beginning the serious limitations
involved in interpreting the significance of the ceramic technology exclusively
through deductive approaches of the past and theories solely centred in ancient pottery productions. The final aim of these studies is to draw general
5

laws. These universal laws permit us to interpret the past through comparisons
and direct analogies based on contemporary practices. These models advocate
unilinear social and technological evolution, where change is understood as a
process closely linked to environment and economy.
These foundations do not consider either the opinions of the individuals under study or the vision of their own culture. It is assumed that the data obtained
from people do not really corresponds to reality. Rather, their viewpoints respond to fictions created by the individuals, who intend to preserve a specific
image of themselves.
The contextual disciplines highlighted that technological choices made by
individuals do not always correspond to natural laws and universal predictable
models. They also emphasised the inadequacy of certain ceramic descriptions
and classifications often carried out in archaeology, since they may be far from
the concepts and ideas used by people in their daily lives.
In contrast, ethnoarchaeological observations of different social, cultural and
environmental contexts, as well as the careful use of this discipline through a
deep contextual analysis, has thrown light upon the cultural complexity involved
in the technological choices of the individuals along the life cycle of ceramics.
Thus, it has been emphasised that social practices and material culture are
strongly determined by the context in which individuals live, where ceramics
interact in complex ways with multiple aspects of culture. In this way, not all
hand-made vessels are manufactured, perceived, understood and used in the
same way, and thus also involve multiple and varied meanings.
In this sense, any culture relates to certain historical processes involving
different individuals as agents. In this framework, different interactions with the
social and natural environment are produced and diverse historical dynamics
are generated. Thus, it is risky to make universal generalizations regarding
technology based on models that have a low level of universality, since the
transmission of technological knowledge always takes place in specific contexts
and through concrete language and situations.
In short, although the possibilities of ethnography to enrich our explanations
about the past are suggestive, their use in terms of direct analogies related to
extinct prehistoric cultural practices is quite dangerous. The rationality patterns of modern societies do not necessarily fit with the rationale and concerns
of ancient communities. It is therefore necessary to admit the limitations of
ethnoarchaeology in archaeological interpretation.

6.2

Ethnoarchaeometry

The archaeometric characterization of ceramics and raw materials from modern

societies has led to a branch in ethnoarchaeology and ceramic studies called
Ethnomineralogy or Ethnoarchaeometry. The combination of archaeometry and
ethnoarchaeology favoured a deeper insight on the way the different potters
technological choices are carried out. On the one hand, archaeometry provides
an effective procedure for obtaining a large amount of accurate technological
data from the materiality. On the other, ethnography provides a framework
that explains such archaeometric data through several viewpoints (e.g., social,
ideological, identity, etc.)
Ethnoarchaeometry allows us to test methodologies commonly used in the
analysis of ceramics and to challenge their constraints and possibilities in the
6

study of the archaeological record.

Complementarily, ethnoarchaeometry assesses how social aspects are reflected in the composition of pottery with the aim to develop deeper interpretations regarding its technology. In this sense, attention is paid to the way
potters categorise clays through their mineralogical attributes or how the compositional variability observed in ceramics may respond to multiple social and
environmental factors.
This branch of ethnoarchaeology has also demonstrated that many archaeological interpretations made on the basis of archaeometric data may be overly
simplistic. Thus, they do not accurately respond to the social realities underlying the technological actions. Moreover, it is also highlighted that the
composition of ceramics may reflect particular social links or the existence of
factionalism within a single community.
A significant methodological, interpretative and conceptual progress in the
study of ceramic technology can be achieved by complementing archaeometry
and ethnoarchaeology.

6.3

Historical Anthropology

Historical Anthropology is another interesting discipline that should be briefly

mentioned in this section. This approach considers available knowledge (e.g.,
folklore, mythology, crafts, values and concepts, etc) related to specific historical frameworks that are close in space and time to the archaeological contexts
under study. Thus, this historical information may potentially be used to interpret archaeological data, although always avoiding essentialisms and timeless
identities.
This perspective, in which current material culture is used to interpret the
archaeological record, is also developed from ethnoarchaeometrical studies centred on the analysis of raw materials, pastes and pottery fabrics. Thus, several
studies consider the technological traditions and traits that define current pottery productions with the aim to deepen in the technology of ancient artefacts.
In spite of the usefulness historical anthropology it is obvious that this discipline have important constraints for approaching, for instance, the study of
prehistoric pottery. This is due to the impossibility of carry out analogies and
the lack of continuity between prehistoric and contemporary technological pottery traditions.

6.4

Experimental Research and Studies

Experimental research is one of the procedures commonly used in archaeology

to overcome some of the gaps that emerge when extinct technologies are approached from modern science. These experiments become reference models
in which we know all the details of the manufacturing process. Thus, they
improve our understanding of the physical changes occurring in the materials
due to technical processes that are associated with specific technological actions
performed in the past.
These gaps or weak points mainly arise when we try to address the significance of past technologies and explain technological change. In this sense,
experimentation with materials and techniques allows a better understanding
of the relationship that exists between the physical properties of the pottery,
7

manufacturing processes and the potters technological choices. Experimental

research can provide hypotheses about the needs that could have motivated
these choices, thus responding to specific archaeological problems through the
study of materiality.
Experimental research on ceramics in India has prolifically developed since
the 1980s, focusing on different materials and techniques. The purposes and accuracy of the studies vary depending on the methodology and objectives. On the
one hand, there are replicative experimental studies which attempt to recreate
the experience of the craftwork. Thus, their aim is to reproduce the techniques
and procedures presumably used in ancient times and recreate ceramic replicas
as accurately as possible based on the technological features observed in the
archaeological record.
Experimental studies in ceramics are quite varied. For instance, there are
experiments that focus on the application of certain surface treatments, such as
resins, slips or decorations. Others refer to the firing process and analyse the
behaviour of pottery regarding their composition and firing temperature, etc.
The criticisms made to experimental approaches lie in the fact that most research exclusively undertakes functional, materialistic or technical explanations
of the results obtained. They rarely refer to other aspects of the artefacts that
are also important to properly understand other dimensions of their use, such
as the symbolic or social spheres. Furthermore, there are some problems arising
from the significance that archaeologists give to inferences based on technological approaches in which the roles of apprentice, participant and researcher lie
in the same individual. In this sense, this framework is clearly deficient for establishing definitive conclusions about the reasons that motivate people to use
a certain technology in the past.

Summary

The discovery of pottery on an archaeological sight is a discovery of great importance. Pottery tells many stories of how it was made and who made it. It also
goes further than this and can tell a great deal about the people involved in its
production. Recent developments have transformed archaeology from closets
of curiosity to a viewing hole into the past. Without the existence of pottery
in the archaeological record that transformation would not have been possible.
Pottery holds an endless supply of information all which may not have been
tapped into.
India is a place of huge resources for ancient pottery and ceramics. Pottery
was one of the important part in daily household life in India. So, it is obvious
that an archaeologist would look at the wide variety of ancient works from
India out of curiosity. There are a lot of methods to study ancient pottery and
alongwith them are the current challenges and problems in the study of Pottery
in India. The methods and approaches were discussed and there limitations and
problems were also pointed out.
In conclusion, the possibilities and limitations of various methods in the
study of ceramic technology, we can summarise that the ultimate goal should
not be to reproduce prehistoric manufacturing techniques but rather to analyse
the qualitative and quantitative aspects of materials and techniques that could
be relevant in the potters technological choices in the societies under study. In

this way, the data obtained from experimental research become relevant once
related to the social context in which the materials and techniques are used.
For me, the current methods are not that sufficient and more should be done
in order to develop these methods. A method which accounts for materiality as
well as symbolism should be researched. With the increasing works in the area
of pottery, I hope the problems and challenges in the study of pottery would be
reduced and new technology will bring in less limitations.

References
Progress and Prospects of Pottery Industry in India - KC Gupta
The role of ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology in the study
of Ceramics - Daniel Albero Santacreu
Current issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology MT Stark
Ceramic ethnoarchaeology in Indian Subcontinent Carol Kramer
A study of Ceramic variability in central India Daniel Miller
An article about Ceramics by James H. Pace, Elon University
Wikipedia.org (ethnoarchaeology, chalcolithic, Indian Pottery)
www.visual-arts-cork.com/pottery.html
arthistorysummerize.info/Art./ceramic-and-pottery-in-india-in-ancient-times
www.essay.uk.com/coursework/the-archaeological-importance-of-the-studyof-pottery.php