- Email: [email protected]
Raw materials and paste from wheel-thrown ceramics from the gnezdovo burial ground
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49 E-mail: [email protected]
43
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
O.L. Sharganova Moscow State University, Lomonosovsky Pr. 27, Building 4, Moscow, GSP-1, 119991, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
RAW MATERIALS AND PASTE FROM WHEEL-THROWN CERAMICS FROM THE GNEZDOVO BURIAL GROUND
This article presents the results of the technological study of wheel-thrown ceramics from the Gnezdovo burial ground. Analyses of the raw materials, methods of preparation and compositions of paste have shown that ancient potters obtained clay from several sources, but the major tradition was to use wet, plastic, ferrous clay with a low or moderate sand content. The most typical paste included clay + grit + organic solution. Other recipes were less common: clay + grit; clay + grit + organic substance of undetermined origin; clay + sand + organic solution. A blend of ceramic traditions is observed at the level of clay paste selection, as seen in two vessels made of a mixture of two types of clay. These ¿ndings suggest that the Gnezdovo population was ethnically heterogeneous, and that one of the ceramic traditions was predominant. Keywords: Ceramic tradition, technology, raw material, clay paste.
The Gnezdovo complex of archaeological sites (the threshold of the 9th/10th – early 11th century) is located on the Dnieper bank to the west of the city of Smolensk. It consists of two forti¿ed settlements surrounded by open settlements, and eight groups of burial mounds (see Figure). Gnezdovo has been studied for over 130 years, and its ceramics represents an important source for studies of the ethnic and cultural composition of the population and its origins. Traditionally, the studies are mostly focused on the morphological features of pottery, while some notes concerning the technology of pottery making are hypothetical and based just on the visual examination of vessels.
In the Gnezdovo assemblage, wheel-thrown ceramics constitute about 90 %. It has been recovered from both settlements and burial mounds along with hand-built ceramics (Kamenetskaya, 1998: 125). This type of pottery was most broadly used from the middle to the second half of the 10th century. Analyses of pottery shapes suggested that this type of ceramics was brought by the population migrating from western and partially northwestern Slav lands, from Moravia and Southern Poland (Ibid.: 133). The objective of the present article is to analyze and present the data concerning certain aspects of the technology of the Gnezdovo pottery making. The author
Copyright © 2011, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.06.005
44
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
ɚ
b
c
d
0
1000 m
0 50 m
Scheme of archaeological sites near the village of Gnezdovo (Gnezdovsky mogilnik, 1999: 129). I – Central group; II – Gluschenkovskaya; III – Lesnaya; IV–VII – Dneprovskaya: IV – Pridneprovskaya, V – Dneprovskaya (eastern part), VI – Dneprovskaya (central part), VII – Dneprovskaya (western part); VIII – Olshanskaya; IX – Levoberezhnaya. ɚ – burial mounds; b – large burial mounds; c – forti¿ed settlements; d – unforti¿ed settlement.
aimed at collecting information on the technology of ceramic manufacturing and its generalization in order to isolate the technological traditions of the Gnezdovo population*. In total, 162 ceramic vessels have been analyzed**. The vessels were found in four groups of mounds at Gnezdovo (Central, Lesnaya (Forest), Zaolshanskaya, and Dnieprovskaya). These groups were broadly coeval, in fact, fully contemporaneous at a certain stage. Therefore technological data relating to this ceramics have been pooled. That this approach is warranted follows from the results of the analysis (see below). *Special thanks of the author go to A.A. Bobrinsky, Y.B. Tsetlin and I.A. Gei, researchers of the History of Ceramics Laboratory at the Institute of Archaeology RAS, for their generous help and to T.A. Pushkina, Associate Professor of the Department of History, Moscow State University, for the opportunity to study archaeological materials. **The study sample includes pottery housed at the Department of History of Moscow State University (excavations by D.A. Avdusin and T.A. Pushkina of 1973, 1974, 1976–1989, 1991–1993) and at the Smolensk State Museum-Reserve (excavations by D.A. Avdusin in 1949 and 1950).
All ceramics are associated with burial complexes whether as funeral urns or offertory vessels. The pottery not directly associated with the burial (from the mound, ¿lling of the ditch, etc.) was not used in the study. A number of completely restored vessels were not subjected to technological analyses either. In all, 68 specimens from the Central group, 38 specimens from the Lesnaya group, 48 specimens from the Zaolshanskaya group, and 8 specimens from the Dneprovskaya group were analyzed. The technological analyses of the ceramic items were carried out according to the method elaborated by A.A. Bobrinsky (1978, 1999). It is based on the historicalcultural approach involving the patterns of formation and development of ceramic traditions in pottery making. Ceramic technology is regarded as a source of information on the cultural and historical past of the population. The study is aimed at identi¿cation of particular skills relevant to ceramic manufacturing. A.A. Bobrinsky regarded ceramic technology as a specially organized system of labor skills. Three major stages in pottery making are recognized; every stage is further subdivided into steps: I. Preparatory Stage including (1) choice, (2) extraction, and (3) preparation
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
of raw material, (4) paste compounding; II. Creative Stage including (5) making a base, (6) making a hollow body, (7) shaping the vessel, (8) mechanical treatment of the surfaces; III. Consolidation Stage including (9) making the vessel solid and (10) making it waterproof. The stability of the system of ceramic manufacturing is stipulated by the empirical characteristics of technical knowledge, and its transmission to future generations mostly through family relations. This stability is manifested in the invariability of labor skills. Innovations are normally introduced when the potters must work in a technological milieu different from that in which they worked previously. Then the potters are forced to adapt to the new tradition, but the old tradition is not abandoned. To adopt new techniques, the potters combine their habitual technologies with new ones. Thereby hybrid technologies emerge. The incorporation of new techniques of manufacturing pottery into habitual ones may mirror the marital relationships between household members (Bobrinsky, 1999: 63–68). The present article is focused on the Preparatory Stage of ceramic manufacturing that includes the choice and preparation of the raw materials and making the paste. These skills are termed as accommodating. The accommodating skills can be changed during the lifetime of one generation of potters. The present study includes: (1) sampling the ceramic fragments from various vessels; (2) additional ¿ring of the samples in a mufÀe furnace at a temperature of 800 ºC in order to assess the relative degree of ferrous content and to create similar conditions for observation; and (3) qualitative and quantitative analyses of compositions of raw material and paste. Fresh breakage surfaces were analyzed with the aid of the binocular microscope MBS-10. Choice of raw material (plastic, mineral, and organic). Natural clay was used as a plastic raw material. Analyses of raw materials were aimed at establishing the relative degree of ferrous content and the qualitative composition of the natural admixtures (sand, ironstone, limestone, etc.) in order to determine the criteria of choice of the clay. The degree of ferrous content was determined according to the color of potsherds upon additional firing in oxidizing medium under the temperature of 800 ºC. Clay with a considerable ferrous content gains the terracotta color, while clay with the low or no ferrous content becomes cream-colored or white. Of the examined 162 ceramic vessels, 148 items were made of clay with a considerable ferrous content; 12 vessels, of nonferrous clay; and two vessels, of a mixture of ferrous and nonferrous clay. The presence of sand and its properties impact plasticity, one of the most important characteristics of clay. Since no methods for determining plasticity of
natural clay by backed potsherds have been elaborated so far, the only way to make the judgment about this characteristic of the clay is to analyze the properties of natural admixture of sand in clay. It is known that ancient potters, same as modern ones, used both rich and mild clays. The rich clay contains a very small amount of sandy dust (the sand grains smaller than 0.1 mm). Mild clay contain whether small rounded sand (the grain size varies from 0.1 to 0.3 mm) or sandy dust with the minor admixture of larger sand grains (Ibid.: 24). To determine the degree of sand content in clay, the following sand fractions were calculated in each specimen: below 0.1 mm; 0.10–0.25 mm; 0.25–0.40 mm; 0.4–1.0 mm, and above 1.0 mm. Since the precise calculation of the smallest fractions is hardly possible, the following terms have been used: “solitary,” “rare”, “few”, “present,” and “many”. In addition to sand, ironstone is another typical admixture in the paste that has been noted in all the ferrous clay types and in certain samples of the nonferrous clay. Limestone has been noted in only one specimen in the form of inclusions of 0.5 mm. This specimen also contains natural inclusions of white shale measuring from 0.2 to 2.00 by 0.5 mm. The used clays can be classi¿ed into several types according to the degree of ferrous and sand content. Clay 1 (20 specimens). Ferrous, low sand content: solitary or rare grains measuring 0.2–1.0 mm; the sandy dust is practically absent. The clay with the natural admixture of sandstone and shale can be regarded as a sub-type of clay 1 and designated as clay 1a (1 specimen). Clay 2 (47 specimens). Ferrous, low sand content: very little sandy dust and few sand seeds measuring 0.1– 0.4 mm; solitary larger sand seeds. Clay 3 (74 specimens). Ferrous, moderate sand content: grains measuring 0.1–0.4 mm, rare larger particles, little sandy dust. Clay 4 (5 specimens). Ferrous, high sand content: much sandy dust and many sand particles measuring 0.10–0.25 mm; grains measuring 0.25–0.40 mm are less numerous; large particles are rare. Clay 5 (1 specimen). Ferrous, moderate sand content: most grains measure less than 0.3 mm; larger grains are rare. The ¿nest natural inclusions of likely feldspar add the characteristic gloss to the breakage surface. Clay 6 (6 specimens). Nonferrous, very low sand content: practically no sandy dust detectible with a microscope; rare inclusions of sand grains measuring 0.1– 0.3 mm; solitary larger grains. The clay includes ironstone (both oolitic and detrital); the amount of ironstone is considerable in certain specimens. Clay 7 (3 specimens). Nonferrous. The sand content is close to that noted in clay 3. This clay includes sandy dust, sand grains measuring 0.1–0.3, and solitary grains
45
46
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
reaching 1.0 mm and larger. The amount of ironstone, mostly oolitic, is lower than that in clay 6. The sand concentration and size of grains suggest its natural character in the described clays. The sand intentionally added to the paste normally has grains larger than 0.4–0.5 mm and its proportion is not less than 15–20 %, because sand with ¿ner particles produces bad effect on plasticity of clay (Ibid.: 25). In sum, clay with a minor admixture of sandy dust making the clay rather plastic was mostly used (96.2 %). Clay with a high sand content is represented by 5 specimens only (3.1 %). The analysis of clay provides us with certain information on the sources of raw materials, speci¿cally, it helps to recognize if the plastic raw material was obtained from different or similar sources (Ibid.). The qualitative composition of the natural admixtures points to a possible region of the raw material source, while their ratio is suggestive of a particular place within the region (Ibid.). A.A. Bobrinsky notes that the ratio of natural admixtures can vary within regions because of the variation of clay, for instance, in terms of depth. The qualitative composition of natural admixtures proved a more reliable indicator (Ibid.: 26). Thus it can be concluded that the ferrous clays 1, and 2–4 belong to a single “region,” but to different “places”: all of them comprise natural admixture of sand and solitary inclusions of ironstone. Clays 1a and 5–7 containing particular composition of natural admixtures are associated with different “regions.” For instance, clay 1a is characterized by shale inclusions; clay 5 possibly contains feldspar inclusions; nonferrous
clay 6 comprises large amount of soft detrital ironstone; nonferrous clay 7 incorporates oolitic ironstone. Potters used granite and gneiss grit and sand as mineral additives to the paste. Organic additives are represented by solutions, apparently, by dung husks. Raw material preparation. Most vessels were made of wet natural clay (98.8 %). Only one vessel was made of dried and fractured clay. Two vessels were manufactured of mixed ferrous and nonferrous clays: in one case, the nonferrous clay was dry and the ferrous one was wet; in another case, both clays were wet. The distribution of ceramic samples according to the maximal size of grit grains is as follows: 1.1– 2.0 mm, 65 specimens; 2.1–3.0 mm, 82 specimens; 3.1– 4.0 mm, 13 specimens; and 4.1 – 5.0 mm, 1 specimen. The group of vessels containing the grit of 1–2 mm and 2–3 mm dominates (40.4 and 50.9 %, respectively). The grit is mostly non-calibrated, and each specimen contains grains measuring 0.3 mm and more. Four specimens include very few grains smaller than 0.3–0.4 mm, so it can be conjectured that the grit was sifted with the aim of removing the small fraction. Thus, the tradition of using wet natural clay with uncalibrated grit (maximum grain size, 2–3 mm) dominated at the stage of the raw material preparation. Paste compounding. The following compositions of paste have been recognized: clay + grit, clay + grit + organic solution, clay + grit + organic substance of undetermined origin, clay + sand + organic solution (Table 1). The most common paste composition was C + G + Or (86.4 %) containing ferrous clay with a low and moderate sand content (clays 1–3). This composition is also typical
Table 1. Correlation between clay types and paste compositions Paste compositions C+G
C + G + Or
C + G + O?
C + S + Or
Total number of vessels
Clay1
3
16
1
–
20
Clay 1a
–
1
–
–
1
Clay 2
3
40
4
–
47
Clay 3
2
68
4
–
74
Clay 4
1
4
–
–
5
Clay 5
–
1
–
–
1
Clay 6
1
6
1
1
9
Clay 7
1
2
–
–
3
Mix of two clay types
–
2
–
–
2
11
140
10
1
162
Clay type
Total number of vessels
Note: C, clay; G, grit; S, sand; Or, organic solution; O?, organic substance of undetermined origin.
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
47
Table 2. Concentration of grit in vessels made of various clays Concentration of grit in paste* 1:2
1 : 2…1 : 3
1:3
1 : 3…1 : 4
1:4
1 : 4…1 : 5
Total number of vessels
Low sand content (1, 1ɚ, 2, 6)
–
2
28
21
24
1
76
Moderate sand content (3, 5, 7)
1
–
24
27
24
2
78
High sand content (4)
–
–
–
4
1
–
5
Mix of two clay types
–
–
1
1
–
–
2
1
2
53
53
49
3
161
Clay type
Total number of vessels
*The concentration of grit in samples in columns 2, 4, and 6 is hardly determinable.
Table 3. Concentration of grit in ceramic paste of various types Concentration of grit 1:2
1 : 2…1:3
1:3
1 : 3…1 : 4
1:4
1 : 4…1 : 5
Total number of vessels
C+G
1
–
5
4
1
–
11
C + G + Or
1
1
44
47
44
3
140
C + G + O?
–
–
4
2
4
–
10
Paste*
*Conventions are the same as in Table 1.
of vessels made of nonferrous clays (clays 6 and 7). For the composition of C + G (6.8 %), also the clay of all types were used (with the exception of those represented by solitary samples). The rare variant C + S + Or includes nonferrous clay (clay 6). Thus grit represents the most typical artificial admixture detected in nearly all samples. Its concentration varies in pastes from 1 : 2 to 1: 4 and 1: 5. In most samples (96.2 %) is constitutes 1 : 3 and 1 : 4, and there is no apparent correlation between the proportion of sand in clay and the proportion of grit (Table 2). The reason may be that the fragments derive from vessels manufactured by two groups of potters, one of which used clays with a low amount of sand, whereas another employed clay where the content of sand was moderate. It should be noted that that in the recipes comprising clay with a low sand content (highly plastic clay), the grit concentration predominantly was 1 : 3. Clay 4 with a high sand content is represented by few specimens, so no de¿nite conclusions can be drawn about it. The analysis of the grit concentration in various ceramic pastes has shown that in most cases it equals 1: 3 and 1: 4 (Table 3). The following should be noted about the relationship between the grit size and its concentration in the ceramic paste (Table 4). The ¿nest grit (up to 2 mm) is most often occurs in the proportion of 1 : 4 (15.5 % of the total
number of vessels with grit) and 1 : 3 … 1 : 4 (13.7 %); 1 : 3 is less common (8.7 %); the coarsest grit (up to 4 and 5 mm) is encountered in the proportion of 1 : 3 (5 %) and 1 : 3 … 1 : 4 (2.4 %). In all three samples with a high concentration of grit (1 : 2 and 1 : 2 … 1 : 3), the grit is ¿ne: up to 2 mm in two of specimens and up to 3 mm in one specimen. The proportion of ¿ne grit (up to 3 mm) in paste is usually 1 : 3 (19.2 %) and 1: 3 … 1 : 4 (16.7 %); in some specimens it is 1 : 4 (13.6 %). Sand represents another non-plastic component in ceramic paste. It was recorded only in one specimen in the proportion of 1 : 2. The size of sand grains varies from 0.2 to 0.8 mm, although the fraction of 0.2 – 0.3 mm is the most typical. Organic components of ceramic paste are most dif¿cult to detect and analyze. Various evidence suggesting the presence of organic substances have been identified in most specimens (151 of 162): (a) herb imprints; (b) cavities left by finely ground plant material; (c) thin layers of dried liquid fraction of dung covering the surfaces of cavities (glossy red thick ¿lms, colorless or reddish transparent glossy ¿lms, and dense dark brown “oily” films). Loose white clots, often with a hollow center, with size varying from 0.1–0.2 mm to 0.2–0.5 mm, and do not boiling under the inÀuence of hydrochloric acid, are possibly associated with the dung admixture. Some specimens contain insigni¿cant amount of organic
48
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
Table 4. Relationship between grit size and its concentration Grit concentration 1:2
1 : 2…1 : 3
1:3
1 : 3…1 : 4
1:4
1 : 4…1 : 5
Total number of vessels
1.1–2.0
1
1
14
22
25
2
65
2.1–3.0
–
1
31
27
22
1
82
3.1–4.0
–
–
7
4
2
–
13
4.1–5.0
–
–
1
–
–
–
1
Total number of vessels
1
2
53
53
49
3
161
Grain size, mm
substance that can hardly be identi¿ed as an arti¿cial admixture. In terms of temper, several categories of organic admixture, speci¿cally dung husks, can be established. All of them contain solitary or rare plant inclusions up to several millimeters in size and ¿ne vegetative fraction that most often represents cavities remaining from dried and burnt inclusions about 0.1 mm in diameter in various proportions. The liquid fraction is not homogenous. In the fragments of ¿ve vessels, it is represented by bright red, dense and glossy ¿lms that are quite visible and often numerous. Most vessel fragments (over 130 specimens) contain transparent ¿lms that sometimes show reddish color and often dark brown spots of “oily” coating. This sort of solution is represented by two varieties: with numerous and rare ¿lms (65 vessels each). This is possibly determined by the different concentration of similar organic components. Six vessels form a special group. Their fragments show solitary traces of large vegetative inclusions, while any traces of ¿ne vegetative fractions are either very few or absent. Films are absent, although some specimens show heterogeneity in coloration of clay especially along the edges of lens-shaped cavities. Almost all these samples contain a relatively large amount of loose whitish inclusions (0.1–0.2 mm) described above. It cannot be said with certainty if this diversity is determined by a different origin of the raw material or by different methods of its preparation. In sum, regarding the preparatory stage of pottery production, the technological analysis of wheel-thrown vessels from Gnezdovo has revealed the following. At Gnezdovo, the tradition of utilizing plastic (low sand content, 42 %; moderate sand content, 45.7 %) and ferrous clay was predominant. The nonferrous clay (5.5 %) and ferrous clay with a high sand content (3.1 %) were less often used. The composition C + G + Or was most widespread (86.4 %). Only one variant of the organic solution is represented in most samples. Pastes lacking organic substances (C + G) and those containing organic substance of undetermined origin (C + G + O?) are
present in few specimens (6.8 and 6.2 %, respectively). The paste containing sand as a mineral admixture (C + S + Or) was noted only in one specimen. These complex recipes cannot be related to a mixture of various traditions because the function of temper was different. The mixture must have occurred earlier and elsewhere. The analysis of pastes indicates a predominance of one paste composition, suggestive of a single tradition and thus, it would seem, of ethnic homogeneity of Gnezdovo potters at that stage of manufacture. The existence of various groups of potters using the same technique of paste preparation is evidenced by the fact that the sources of clay were different. The presence of two vessels made of mixed clays with different ferrous content most likely reÀects the process of adaptation of alien potters to the new sources of raw material (Ibid.: 67). This inference is supported by a small number of such vessels. Another feature suggesting the migration of pottery makers is the usage of plastic raw material of one sort, but differing from the local material by pyrometric properties (Ibid.: 71). Such a situation was possible when the potter making vessels in a new place used the clay visually similar to habitual, but which turned to be unusual in terms of the ferrous content after ¿ring. The comparatively small number of Gnezdovo vessels made of the nonferrous clay supports such supposition, the more especially that the local nonferrous clay is similar to the ferrous clay in the degree of sand content and therefore in its “working” properties. Such “mistakes” are typical of potters unfamiliar with local raw materials. Two vessels described in this article deserve special mention. The ¿rst vessel (burial mound L-85, No. 14) was made of clay 5 that was not typical of the local potters. It is also distinguished by its height. However, the composition of the paste is traditional. This may suggest that the potter belonged to the same cultural group that left the Gnezdovo burial ground. Another vessel (burial mound L-153, No. 3) was manufactured of nonferrous clay with a low sand content. The composition of the
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
paste is C + S + Or. No other examples of this paste composition have been recorded. There is no evidence pointing to blending of this tradition of paste making with the dominating one. According to the shape, the vessel can be attributed to the ceramics from the Middle Dnieper area (Kamenetskaya, 1988: 261). The technological analysis lends support to the idea that this was a distinct category of ceramics, which had probably been imported to Gnezdovo. In conclusion, the ¿ndings reveal a coexistence of different local traditions of pottery manufacture. At all levels, one of the traditions predominated, whereas others were less represented. The technological heterogeneity concerns the selection of clay, its processing, and the preparation of the paste. The reason for this heterogeneity may be that people buried at Gnezdovo differed by descent. The results of the analysis of ceramic technologies suggest that one of the ethnic groups was predominant, whereas others were in the minority.
49
References Bobrinsky A.A. 1978 Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy: Istochniki i metody izuchenia. Moscow: Nauka. Bobrinsky A.A. 1999 Goncharnaya tekhnologiya kak obyekt istoriko-kulturnogo izucheniya. In Aktualnye problemy izucheniya drevnego goncharstva. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Univ., pp. 5–109. Gnezdovsky mogilnik: Issledovaniya i publikatsii. 1999 Pt. 1: Arkheologicheskiye raskopki 1874–1901 (po materialam GIM). Moscow. (Trudy GIM; iss. 36). Kamenetskaya E.V. 1988 O nekotorykh tipakh keramiki Gnezdova. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 258–262. Kamenetskaya E.V. 1998 Keramika Gnezdova kak pokazatel torgovykh i etnicheskikh kontaktov. In Istoricheskaya arkheologia: Traditsii i perspektivy. Moscow: Pamyatniki istoricheskoi mysli, pp. 124–134. Received January 13, 2010.
43
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
O.L. Sharganova Moscow State University, Lomonosovsky Pr. 27, Building 4, Moscow, GSP-1, 119991, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
RAW MATERIALS AND PASTE FROM WHEEL-THROWN CERAMICS FROM THE GNEZDOVO BURIAL GROUND
This article presents the results of the technological study of wheel-thrown ceramics from the Gnezdovo burial ground. Analyses of the raw materials, methods of preparation and compositions of paste have shown that ancient potters obtained clay from several sources, but the major tradition was to use wet, plastic, ferrous clay with a low or moderate sand content. The most typical paste included clay + grit + organic solution. Other recipes were less common: clay + grit; clay + grit + organic substance of undetermined origin; clay + sand + organic solution. A blend of ceramic traditions is observed at the level of clay paste selection, as seen in two vessels made of a mixture of two types of clay. These ¿ndings suggest that the Gnezdovo population was ethnically heterogeneous, and that one of the ceramic traditions was predominant. Keywords: Ceramic tradition, technology, raw material, clay paste.
The Gnezdovo complex of archaeological sites (the threshold of the 9th/10th – early 11th century) is located on the Dnieper bank to the west of the city of Smolensk. It consists of two forti¿ed settlements surrounded by open settlements, and eight groups of burial mounds (see Figure). Gnezdovo has been studied for over 130 years, and its ceramics represents an important source for studies of the ethnic and cultural composition of the population and its origins. Traditionally, the studies are mostly focused on the morphological features of pottery, while some notes concerning the technology of pottery making are hypothetical and based just on the visual examination of vessels.
In the Gnezdovo assemblage, wheel-thrown ceramics constitute about 90 %. It has been recovered from both settlements and burial mounds along with hand-built ceramics (Kamenetskaya, 1998: 125). This type of pottery was most broadly used from the middle to the second half of the 10th century. Analyses of pottery shapes suggested that this type of ceramics was brought by the population migrating from western and partially northwestern Slav lands, from Moravia and Southern Poland (Ibid.: 133). The objective of the present article is to analyze and present the data concerning certain aspects of the technology of the Gnezdovo pottery making. The author
Copyright © 2011, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.06.005
44
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
ɚ
b
c
d
0
1000 m
0 50 m
Scheme of archaeological sites near the village of Gnezdovo (Gnezdovsky mogilnik, 1999: 129). I – Central group; II – Gluschenkovskaya; III – Lesnaya; IV–VII – Dneprovskaya: IV – Pridneprovskaya, V – Dneprovskaya (eastern part), VI – Dneprovskaya (central part), VII – Dneprovskaya (western part); VIII – Olshanskaya; IX – Levoberezhnaya. ɚ – burial mounds; b – large burial mounds; c – forti¿ed settlements; d – unforti¿ed settlement.
aimed at collecting information on the technology of ceramic manufacturing and its generalization in order to isolate the technological traditions of the Gnezdovo population*. In total, 162 ceramic vessels have been analyzed**. The vessels were found in four groups of mounds at Gnezdovo (Central, Lesnaya (Forest), Zaolshanskaya, and Dnieprovskaya). These groups were broadly coeval, in fact, fully contemporaneous at a certain stage. Therefore technological data relating to this ceramics have been pooled. That this approach is warranted follows from the results of the analysis (see below). *Special thanks of the author go to A.A. Bobrinsky, Y.B. Tsetlin and I.A. Gei, researchers of the History of Ceramics Laboratory at the Institute of Archaeology RAS, for their generous help and to T.A. Pushkina, Associate Professor of the Department of History, Moscow State University, for the opportunity to study archaeological materials. **The study sample includes pottery housed at the Department of History of Moscow State University (excavations by D.A. Avdusin and T.A. Pushkina of 1973, 1974, 1976–1989, 1991–1993) and at the Smolensk State Museum-Reserve (excavations by D.A. Avdusin in 1949 and 1950).
All ceramics are associated with burial complexes whether as funeral urns or offertory vessels. The pottery not directly associated with the burial (from the mound, ¿lling of the ditch, etc.) was not used in the study. A number of completely restored vessels were not subjected to technological analyses either. In all, 68 specimens from the Central group, 38 specimens from the Lesnaya group, 48 specimens from the Zaolshanskaya group, and 8 specimens from the Dneprovskaya group were analyzed. The technological analyses of the ceramic items were carried out according to the method elaborated by A.A. Bobrinsky (1978, 1999). It is based on the historicalcultural approach involving the patterns of formation and development of ceramic traditions in pottery making. Ceramic technology is regarded as a source of information on the cultural and historical past of the population. The study is aimed at identi¿cation of particular skills relevant to ceramic manufacturing. A.A. Bobrinsky regarded ceramic technology as a specially organized system of labor skills. Three major stages in pottery making are recognized; every stage is further subdivided into steps: I. Preparatory Stage including (1) choice, (2) extraction, and (3) preparation
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
of raw material, (4) paste compounding; II. Creative Stage including (5) making a base, (6) making a hollow body, (7) shaping the vessel, (8) mechanical treatment of the surfaces; III. Consolidation Stage including (9) making the vessel solid and (10) making it waterproof. The stability of the system of ceramic manufacturing is stipulated by the empirical characteristics of technical knowledge, and its transmission to future generations mostly through family relations. This stability is manifested in the invariability of labor skills. Innovations are normally introduced when the potters must work in a technological milieu different from that in which they worked previously. Then the potters are forced to adapt to the new tradition, but the old tradition is not abandoned. To adopt new techniques, the potters combine their habitual technologies with new ones. Thereby hybrid technologies emerge. The incorporation of new techniques of manufacturing pottery into habitual ones may mirror the marital relationships between household members (Bobrinsky, 1999: 63–68). The present article is focused on the Preparatory Stage of ceramic manufacturing that includes the choice and preparation of the raw materials and making the paste. These skills are termed as accommodating. The accommodating skills can be changed during the lifetime of one generation of potters. The present study includes: (1) sampling the ceramic fragments from various vessels; (2) additional ¿ring of the samples in a mufÀe furnace at a temperature of 800 ºC in order to assess the relative degree of ferrous content and to create similar conditions for observation; and (3) qualitative and quantitative analyses of compositions of raw material and paste. Fresh breakage surfaces were analyzed with the aid of the binocular microscope MBS-10. Choice of raw material (plastic, mineral, and organic). Natural clay was used as a plastic raw material. Analyses of raw materials were aimed at establishing the relative degree of ferrous content and the qualitative composition of the natural admixtures (sand, ironstone, limestone, etc.) in order to determine the criteria of choice of the clay. The degree of ferrous content was determined according to the color of potsherds upon additional firing in oxidizing medium under the temperature of 800 ºC. Clay with a considerable ferrous content gains the terracotta color, while clay with the low or no ferrous content becomes cream-colored or white. Of the examined 162 ceramic vessels, 148 items were made of clay with a considerable ferrous content; 12 vessels, of nonferrous clay; and two vessels, of a mixture of ferrous and nonferrous clay. The presence of sand and its properties impact plasticity, one of the most important characteristics of clay. Since no methods for determining plasticity of
natural clay by backed potsherds have been elaborated so far, the only way to make the judgment about this characteristic of the clay is to analyze the properties of natural admixture of sand in clay. It is known that ancient potters, same as modern ones, used both rich and mild clays. The rich clay contains a very small amount of sandy dust (the sand grains smaller than 0.1 mm). Mild clay contain whether small rounded sand (the grain size varies from 0.1 to 0.3 mm) or sandy dust with the minor admixture of larger sand grains (Ibid.: 24). To determine the degree of sand content in clay, the following sand fractions were calculated in each specimen: below 0.1 mm; 0.10–0.25 mm; 0.25–0.40 mm; 0.4–1.0 mm, and above 1.0 mm. Since the precise calculation of the smallest fractions is hardly possible, the following terms have been used: “solitary,” “rare”, “few”, “present,” and “many”. In addition to sand, ironstone is another typical admixture in the paste that has been noted in all the ferrous clay types and in certain samples of the nonferrous clay. Limestone has been noted in only one specimen in the form of inclusions of 0.5 mm. This specimen also contains natural inclusions of white shale measuring from 0.2 to 2.00 by 0.5 mm. The used clays can be classi¿ed into several types according to the degree of ferrous and sand content. Clay 1 (20 specimens). Ferrous, low sand content: solitary or rare grains measuring 0.2–1.0 mm; the sandy dust is practically absent. The clay with the natural admixture of sandstone and shale can be regarded as a sub-type of clay 1 and designated as clay 1a (1 specimen). Clay 2 (47 specimens). Ferrous, low sand content: very little sandy dust and few sand seeds measuring 0.1– 0.4 mm; solitary larger sand seeds. Clay 3 (74 specimens). Ferrous, moderate sand content: grains measuring 0.1–0.4 mm, rare larger particles, little sandy dust. Clay 4 (5 specimens). Ferrous, high sand content: much sandy dust and many sand particles measuring 0.10–0.25 mm; grains measuring 0.25–0.40 mm are less numerous; large particles are rare. Clay 5 (1 specimen). Ferrous, moderate sand content: most grains measure less than 0.3 mm; larger grains are rare. The ¿nest natural inclusions of likely feldspar add the characteristic gloss to the breakage surface. Clay 6 (6 specimens). Nonferrous, very low sand content: practically no sandy dust detectible with a microscope; rare inclusions of sand grains measuring 0.1– 0.3 mm; solitary larger grains. The clay includes ironstone (both oolitic and detrital); the amount of ironstone is considerable in certain specimens. Clay 7 (3 specimens). Nonferrous. The sand content is close to that noted in clay 3. This clay includes sandy dust, sand grains measuring 0.1–0.3, and solitary grains
45
46
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
reaching 1.0 mm and larger. The amount of ironstone, mostly oolitic, is lower than that in clay 6. The sand concentration and size of grains suggest its natural character in the described clays. The sand intentionally added to the paste normally has grains larger than 0.4–0.5 mm and its proportion is not less than 15–20 %, because sand with ¿ner particles produces bad effect on plasticity of clay (Ibid.: 25). In sum, clay with a minor admixture of sandy dust making the clay rather plastic was mostly used (96.2 %). Clay with a high sand content is represented by 5 specimens only (3.1 %). The analysis of clay provides us with certain information on the sources of raw materials, speci¿cally, it helps to recognize if the plastic raw material was obtained from different or similar sources (Ibid.). The qualitative composition of the natural admixtures points to a possible region of the raw material source, while their ratio is suggestive of a particular place within the region (Ibid.). A.A. Bobrinsky notes that the ratio of natural admixtures can vary within regions because of the variation of clay, for instance, in terms of depth. The qualitative composition of natural admixtures proved a more reliable indicator (Ibid.: 26). Thus it can be concluded that the ferrous clays 1, and 2–4 belong to a single “region,” but to different “places”: all of them comprise natural admixture of sand and solitary inclusions of ironstone. Clays 1a and 5–7 containing particular composition of natural admixtures are associated with different “regions.” For instance, clay 1a is characterized by shale inclusions; clay 5 possibly contains feldspar inclusions; nonferrous
clay 6 comprises large amount of soft detrital ironstone; nonferrous clay 7 incorporates oolitic ironstone. Potters used granite and gneiss grit and sand as mineral additives to the paste. Organic additives are represented by solutions, apparently, by dung husks. Raw material preparation. Most vessels were made of wet natural clay (98.8 %). Only one vessel was made of dried and fractured clay. Two vessels were manufactured of mixed ferrous and nonferrous clays: in one case, the nonferrous clay was dry and the ferrous one was wet; in another case, both clays were wet. The distribution of ceramic samples according to the maximal size of grit grains is as follows: 1.1– 2.0 mm, 65 specimens; 2.1–3.0 mm, 82 specimens; 3.1– 4.0 mm, 13 specimens; and 4.1 – 5.0 mm, 1 specimen. The group of vessels containing the grit of 1–2 mm and 2–3 mm dominates (40.4 and 50.9 %, respectively). The grit is mostly non-calibrated, and each specimen contains grains measuring 0.3 mm and more. Four specimens include very few grains smaller than 0.3–0.4 mm, so it can be conjectured that the grit was sifted with the aim of removing the small fraction. Thus, the tradition of using wet natural clay with uncalibrated grit (maximum grain size, 2–3 mm) dominated at the stage of the raw material preparation. Paste compounding. The following compositions of paste have been recognized: clay + grit, clay + grit + organic solution, clay + grit + organic substance of undetermined origin, clay + sand + organic solution (Table 1). The most common paste composition was C + G + Or (86.4 %) containing ferrous clay with a low and moderate sand content (clays 1–3). This composition is also typical
Table 1. Correlation between clay types and paste compositions Paste compositions C+G
C + G + Or
C + G + O?
C + S + Or
Total number of vessels
Clay1
3
16
1
–
20
Clay 1a
–
1
–
–
1
Clay 2
3
40
4
–
47
Clay 3
2
68
4
–
74
Clay 4
1
4
–
–
5
Clay 5
–
1
–
–
1
Clay 6
1
6
1
1
9
Clay 7
1
2
–
–
3
Mix of two clay types
–
2
–
–
2
11
140
10
1
162
Clay type
Total number of vessels
Note: C, clay; G, grit; S, sand; Or, organic solution; O?, organic substance of undetermined origin.
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
47
Table 2. Concentration of grit in vessels made of various clays Concentration of grit in paste* 1:2
1 : 2…1 : 3
1:3
1 : 3…1 : 4
1:4
1 : 4…1 : 5
Total number of vessels
Low sand content (1, 1ɚ, 2, 6)
–
2
28
21
24
1
76
Moderate sand content (3, 5, 7)
1
–
24
27
24
2
78
High sand content (4)
–
–
–
4
1
–
5
Mix of two clay types
–
–
1
1
–
–
2
1
2
53
53
49
3
161
Clay type
Total number of vessels
*The concentration of grit in samples in columns 2, 4, and 6 is hardly determinable.
Table 3. Concentration of grit in ceramic paste of various types Concentration of grit 1:2
1 : 2…1:3
1:3
1 : 3…1 : 4
1:4
1 : 4…1 : 5
Total number of vessels
C+G
1
–
5
4
1
–
11
C + G + Or
1
1
44
47
44
3
140
C + G + O?
–
–
4
2
4
–
10
Paste*
*Conventions are the same as in Table 1.
of vessels made of nonferrous clays (clays 6 and 7). For the composition of C + G (6.8 %), also the clay of all types were used (with the exception of those represented by solitary samples). The rare variant C + S + Or includes nonferrous clay (clay 6). Thus grit represents the most typical artificial admixture detected in nearly all samples. Its concentration varies in pastes from 1 : 2 to 1: 4 and 1: 5. In most samples (96.2 %) is constitutes 1 : 3 and 1 : 4, and there is no apparent correlation between the proportion of sand in clay and the proportion of grit (Table 2). The reason may be that the fragments derive from vessels manufactured by two groups of potters, one of which used clays with a low amount of sand, whereas another employed clay where the content of sand was moderate. It should be noted that that in the recipes comprising clay with a low sand content (highly plastic clay), the grit concentration predominantly was 1 : 3. Clay 4 with a high sand content is represented by few specimens, so no de¿nite conclusions can be drawn about it. The analysis of the grit concentration in various ceramic pastes has shown that in most cases it equals 1: 3 and 1: 4 (Table 3). The following should be noted about the relationship between the grit size and its concentration in the ceramic paste (Table 4). The ¿nest grit (up to 2 mm) is most often occurs in the proportion of 1 : 4 (15.5 % of the total
number of vessels with grit) and 1 : 3 … 1 : 4 (13.7 %); 1 : 3 is less common (8.7 %); the coarsest grit (up to 4 and 5 mm) is encountered in the proportion of 1 : 3 (5 %) and 1 : 3 … 1 : 4 (2.4 %). In all three samples with a high concentration of grit (1 : 2 and 1 : 2 … 1 : 3), the grit is ¿ne: up to 2 mm in two of specimens and up to 3 mm in one specimen. The proportion of ¿ne grit (up to 3 mm) in paste is usually 1 : 3 (19.2 %) and 1: 3 … 1 : 4 (16.7 %); in some specimens it is 1 : 4 (13.6 %). Sand represents another non-plastic component in ceramic paste. It was recorded only in one specimen in the proportion of 1 : 2. The size of sand grains varies from 0.2 to 0.8 mm, although the fraction of 0.2 – 0.3 mm is the most typical. Organic components of ceramic paste are most dif¿cult to detect and analyze. Various evidence suggesting the presence of organic substances have been identified in most specimens (151 of 162): (a) herb imprints; (b) cavities left by finely ground plant material; (c) thin layers of dried liquid fraction of dung covering the surfaces of cavities (glossy red thick ¿lms, colorless or reddish transparent glossy ¿lms, and dense dark brown “oily” films). Loose white clots, often with a hollow center, with size varying from 0.1–0.2 mm to 0.2–0.5 mm, and do not boiling under the inÀuence of hydrochloric acid, are possibly associated with the dung admixture. Some specimens contain insigni¿cant amount of organic
48
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
Table 4. Relationship between grit size and its concentration Grit concentration 1:2
1 : 2…1 : 3
1:3
1 : 3…1 : 4
1:4
1 : 4…1 : 5
Total number of vessels
1.1–2.0
1
1
14
22
25
2
65
2.1–3.0
–
1
31
27
22
1
82
3.1–4.0
–
–
7
4
2
–
13
4.1–5.0
–
–
1
–
–
–
1
Total number of vessels
1
2
53
53
49
3
161
Grain size, mm
substance that can hardly be identi¿ed as an arti¿cial admixture. In terms of temper, several categories of organic admixture, speci¿cally dung husks, can be established. All of them contain solitary or rare plant inclusions up to several millimeters in size and ¿ne vegetative fraction that most often represents cavities remaining from dried and burnt inclusions about 0.1 mm in diameter in various proportions. The liquid fraction is not homogenous. In the fragments of ¿ve vessels, it is represented by bright red, dense and glossy ¿lms that are quite visible and often numerous. Most vessel fragments (over 130 specimens) contain transparent ¿lms that sometimes show reddish color and often dark brown spots of “oily” coating. This sort of solution is represented by two varieties: with numerous and rare ¿lms (65 vessels each). This is possibly determined by the different concentration of similar organic components. Six vessels form a special group. Their fragments show solitary traces of large vegetative inclusions, while any traces of ¿ne vegetative fractions are either very few or absent. Films are absent, although some specimens show heterogeneity in coloration of clay especially along the edges of lens-shaped cavities. Almost all these samples contain a relatively large amount of loose whitish inclusions (0.1–0.2 mm) described above. It cannot be said with certainty if this diversity is determined by a different origin of the raw material or by different methods of its preparation. In sum, regarding the preparatory stage of pottery production, the technological analysis of wheel-thrown vessels from Gnezdovo has revealed the following. At Gnezdovo, the tradition of utilizing plastic (low sand content, 42 %; moderate sand content, 45.7 %) and ferrous clay was predominant. The nonferrous clay (5.5 %) and ferrous clay with a high sand content (3.1 %) were less often used. The composition C + G + Or was most widespread (86.4 %). Only one variant of the organic solution is represented in most samples. Pastes lacking organic substances (C + G) and those containing organic substance of undetermined origin (C + G + O?) are
present in few specimens (6.8 and 6.2 %, respectively). The paste containing sand as a mineral admixture (C + S + Or) was noted only in one specimen. These complex recipes cannot be related to a mixture of various traditions because the function of temper was different. The mixture must have occurred earlier and elsewhere. The analysis of pastes indicates a predominance of one paste composition, suggestive of a single tradition and thus, it would seem, of ethnic homogeneity of Gnezdovo potters at that stage of manufacture. The existence of various groups of potters using the same technique of paste preparation is evidenced by the fact that the sources of clay were different. The presence of two vessels made of mixed clays with different ferrous content most likely reÀects the process of adaptation of alien potters to the new sources of raw material (Ibid.: 67). This inference is supported by a small number of such vessels. Another feature suggesting the migration of pottery makers is the usage of plastic raw material of one sort, but differing from the local material by pyrometric properties (Ibid.: 71). Such a situation was possible when the potter making vessels in a new place used the clay visually similar to habitual, but which turned to be unusual in terms of the ferrous content after ¿ring. The comparatively small number of Gnezdovo vessels made of the nonferrous clay supports such supposition, the more especially that the local nonferrous clay is similar to the ferrous clay in the degree of sand content and therefore in its “working” properties. Such “mistakes” are typical of potters unfamiliar with local raw materials. Two vessels described in this article deserve special mention. The ¿rst vessel (burial mound L-85, No. 14) was made of clay 5 that was not typical of the local potters. It is also distinguished by its height. However, the composition of the paste is traditional. This may suggest that the potter belonged to the same cultural group that left the Gnezdovo burial ground. Another vessel (burial mound L-153, No. 3) was manufactured of nonferrous clay with a low sand content. The composition of the
O.L. Sharganova / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 43–49
paste is C + S + Or. No other examples of this paste composition have been recorded. There is no evidence pointing to blending of this tradition of paste making with the dominating one. According to the shape, the vessel can be attributed to the ceramics from the Middle Dnieper area (Kamenetskaya, 1988: 261). The technological analysis lends support to the idea that this was a distinct category of ceramics, which had probably been imported to Gnezdovo. In conclusion, the ¿ndings reveal a coexistence of different local traditions of pottery manufacture. At all levels, one of the traditions predominated, whereas others were less represented. The technological heterogeneity concerns the selection of clay, its processing, and the preparation of the paste. The reason for this heterogeneity may be that people buried at Gnezdovo differed by descent. The results of the analysis of ceramic technologies suggest that one of the ethnic groups was predominant, whereas others were in the minority.
49
References Bobrinsky A.A. 1978 Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy: Istochniki i metody izuchenia. Moscow: Nauka. Bobrinsky A.A. 1999 Goncharnaya tekhnologiya kak obyekt istoriko-kulturnogo izucheniya. In Aktualnye problemy izucheniya drevnego goncharstva. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Univ., pp. 5–109. Gnezdovsky mogilnik: Issledovaniya i publikatsii. 1999 Pt. 1: Arkheologicheskiye raskopki 1874–1901 (po materialam GIM). Moscow. (Trudy GIM; iss. 36). Kamenetskaya E.V. 1988 O nekotorykh tipakh keramiki Gnezdova. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 258–262. Kamenetskaya E.V. 1998 Keramika Gnezdova kak pokazatel torgovykh i etnicheskikh kontaktov. In Istoricheskaya arkheologia: Traditsii i perspektivy. Moscow: Pamyatniki istoricheskoi mysli, pp. 124–134. Received January 13, 2010.