The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe
Page 81
In this context, it is interesting to note that on the Aldenhovener Platte in the Rhineland, main motifs have farmstead-specific characteristics (Krahn 2003, 516), whilst Zwickel-motifs seem to jump between the houses of different farmsteads from phase to phase (Krahn 2003, 525–526). Similar phenomena have also been observed at Vaihingen in south-west Germany and Bylany (Strien 2005; Pavlů 2000, 172). This can best be explained with the idea of female potters embedded in a marriage system with virilocal residence rules: women learnt pottery making as children, but after marriage were subject to a strong social control, so that decorative elements regarded as important were carried out according to the traditions of the husband’s family, with the wife’s own traditions continued for subordinate motifs (Sommer 2001, 260). Married-in wives, initially strangers in their new household, have a weak social position. Producing ostentatious and individually recognizable ceramics could be a sign of good household management and an effective means to improve this position (Pavlů 1997, 103–105; Pechtl 2009a, 130). The increasingly complicated decorations could be interpreted as an almost inflationary increase of an ostentatious labour investment. The massive increase in decorative variations in the later LBK is hence not down to simple evolution, but to a clear preference for innovation (Shennan and Wilkinson 2001), the potters’ active craving for the new. The receivers of these stylistic messages were first and foremost other household members and the immediate social environment of the potters.
USE AND DEPOSITION
LBK pottery is found on settlements, cemeteries, and special-function sites. Pottery from settlements is generally discarded material, redeposited several times, for instance in middens, before being incorporated into pit fills (Pechtl 2009a, 32–33, 58–60). In situ finds of ceramics in their context of use are rare. There are isolated instances of large vessels, mostly closed shapes, found in storage pits, suggesting a corresponding function (Pavlů 2000, plate 15.2; Kind 1989, 110–111, figs. 77–78). The well at Zwenkau yielded a small decorated bottle with a piece of string still tied around its neck (Engelbrecht and Lüning 2005, 170 fig. 301). This proves the use of bottles for storing and transporting water. Finally, at Vedrovice a thick-walled Kumpf was found in the cavity of an intact pit oven (Berkovec and Veselá 2004, 14 fig. 4I), suggesting a use for heating substances, probably food.
Definite instances of deliberate deposition of pots and their removal from primary use are extremely rare and probably connected to ritual activities, for instance in the deposits from the Herxheim pit enclosure (Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2006, 74–76). To this can be added deposits in conspicuous natural places, for instance the Bavarian Jungfernhöhle cave, used for secondary burial, or the nearby Motzenstein rock tor (Kunkel 1955; Hofmann and Orschiedt, this volume). The situation is different for graves, in which ceramics are quite regular grave goods. There are rarely more than one or two vessels (Jeunesse 1997, 70) and no specially made funerary ceramics, although certain shapes and decorations were apparently selected (Frirdich 1994, 340). Probably, these pots mainly functioned as containers for food or drink, but some, as at Essenbach in Bavaria, had been filled with colour paste (Jeunesse 1997, 80).
Chemical analyses to determine contents are still at an early stage. So far, the lipids of linseed and hazelnuts, more rarely of cereals, poppy, and animal products, including dairy fat, have been identified (Rottländer 1990, 10–14; Salque et al. 2012, 56–58). However, clay containers were so porous that liquids slowly seeped through the walls, which had to be additionally impregnated using several organic substances, including fats. This must be taken into account in chemical analyses. In principle, LBK pottery is heat-resistant and useable as cooking ware (van der Plas 1986, 40), but the average life expectancy, especially of frequently carried vessels and cooking pots, was probably a few years at most (Pechtl 2009a, 126).
Ceramics are little differentiated formally. For instance, the inventory from Stephansposching is dominated by Kümpfe (>80%), whilst bottles make up roughly 9% and bowls 7%. All other shapes together account for only about 2% (Fig. 29.3) (Pechtl 2009a, 55). However, the frequent shapes can be further subdivided according to their execution and decoration. The volumes of pots, too, are highly variable. In Bylany, most vessels could contain less than 5 litres, but larger examples of up to 20 litres capacity regularly occur (Pavlů 2000, 116, fig. 4.4.3.a). A piece with a staggering 90-litre capacity is known from Murr in southern Bavaria (Neumair 1992, 21–22).
FIG. 29.3. Examples of rare pottery forms from the LBK site of Stephansposching (southern Bavaria). 1: face pot; 2: pot with hollow pedestal; 3: richly ornamented steep-sided beaker; 4: three-dimensional ‘small horn’, probably from a zoomorphic vessel; 5: three-dimensional leg, probably from a footed bowl or figurine
(all from Pechtl 2009a). Scale c. 1:3.
At Bylany, the number of vessels seems to correlate with the number of inhabitants of a house (estimated in relation to house length), so that at least part of the ceramics were for individual use (Pavlů 2000, 282). Assuming that pottery was mostly used for food preparation and consumption, the following model can be suggested (Fig. 29.4): fine and often decorated pottery was used for serving, eating, and drinking. The frequent Kümpfe with roughly 0.5 litres capacity were probably for individual use, larger Kümpfe and bottles for communal use. Medium-sized, more coarsely made and rarely decorated pots were for short-term storage and mainly for food preparation. Large and heavy, mostly closed shapes were intended for longer-term storage (Pavlů 2000, 121, fig. 4.5.4.c, 282; Pechtl 2009a, 124–127).
FIG. 29.4. Suggested reconstruction of the ceramic inventory in use at any one time in an average household at the LBK site of Stephansposching (southern Bavaria). The shapes have been grouped into sets by type: bottles, Kümpfe, bowls, open forms and special forms (here represented by a zoomorphic vessel). The size of the symbols shows the vessels’ capacity: small symbols < 1 l, medium-sized symbols 1–5 l, large symbols > 5 l. The clay quality is differetiated by colour: white = fine ware, light grey = medium fine ware, dark grey = coarse ware. The proportion of decorated pottery is indicated by a spiral motif for fine ware and a row of finger impressions for coarse ware (after data from Pechtl 2009a, 55, 124–127, 736 fig. 19B, 755 fig. 46B).
At the Stephansposching settlement, the inventory of an average household estimated at ten people would have comprised about 43 vessels, with a roughly equal number of items for storage, cooking and food consumption, as well as one example of a special shape (Pechtl 2009a, 127, fig. 46B) (Fig. 29.4). There are hints of complex object biographies with several repairs and changes of function (Pechtl 2009a, 56; Engelbrecht and Lüning 2005, 170, fig. 301; Elburg and Herold 2010, 25, fig. 4). For instance, some Kümpfe from Bohemia were originally decorated with incised lines, but later drastically redecorated using red paint or by coating with black birch tar and applying lightly coloured bark pieces (Jíra 1911). Domestic pottery existed alongside vessels of different organic materials, only rarely preserved, such as baskets or bark and wooden containers, which are mostly undecorated (Engelbrecht and Lüning 2005, 171, fig. 302). The relatively unspecialized household ceramics were probably also used for a variety of crafts, as separate items for such uses can only rarely be identified, but there are sieves (Bogucki 1984), clay spindle whorls, and loomweights (Pechtl 2009a, 264–267). It remains unclear whether these items were deliberately fired. There are also isolated instances of personal ornaments in clay, namely beads and armrings (Brink-Kloke 1992, 125–126). A ritual purpose seems likely for the rare special shapes, such as miniature vessels, steep-sided beakers, vessels with representations or human faces, so-called altars, and zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines (Fig. 29.3) (Höckmann 1972).
Thus, ceramics were mostly used in and immediately around the house for domestic tasks, such as fetching water. Fine ware made for lavish serving vessels, also used for formal occasions. Especially during rituals and feasts, certain items became visible to a wider audience. For instance, we can envisage the unusually l
arge Murr vessel (Neumair 1992, plate I), with its 90-litre capacity and its unique decoration, as an important prop during a large-scale ceremony.
SIGNS AND SYMBOLS
The lavish decoration on many vessels is more than the result of an incidental aesthetic expression, but probably considered effective in several ways, for instance as magical protection for the vessel’s contents or as expression of social relationships (Pavlů 2000, 282). In any case, a communicative function can be supposed, with stylistic behaviour employed consciously and subconsciously, for instance in the context of a multi-layered definition of identity (Whittle 1996, 171; Rulf 1997, 13; Lukes 2004, 19). Most likely, the life of early farmers was strongly shaped by ritualized behaviours, resulting in great attention to sign-like decorations (Eisenhauer 2002, 132). Thus, in a formalized context decorated ceramics may have become a token of hospitality (Whittle 1996, 171). The complex decorations seem to work as a hierarchy of meanings active at different social scales, beginning with the overall style, then the different motifs of the main, rim, and Zwickel decorations, down to the specific way of their execution (Rulf 1997, 15). Different decorative zones are independent of each other and develop along different lines, indicating different meanings (Rulf 1997, 92; Pechtl 2009a, 134).
Style expresses group identities and reveals the boundaries of communication networks (Rulf 1997, 217, fig. 72), which in the LBK remain stable over several centuries. Thus in Alsace, two stylistic zones meet, with the settlement of Wettolsheim located at their boundary. There, both traditions exist side by side for many generations without resulting in an admixture of the two styles (Jeunesse 1994, 10–12). At Stephansposching, the differences between two competing styles were emphasized more and more strongly over time (Pechtl 2009a, 82). However, the radical stylistic change from LBK to the succeeding early Stroke Ornamented group in south-eastern Germany, Austria, and Bohemia or the Hinkelstein group in south-western Germany suggests that style also expresses ideology (Spatz 2003) and is hence an object of social discourse. On the other hand, these phenomena could be the creations of specific groups, emically defined through descent, which, at least during the increasing tribalization of the later LBK, most probably had ‘ethnic’ connotations.
The main decoration comprises a restricted spectrum of motifs, mainly arches, wavy lines, and spirals, which also exist in rectilinear form as angular bands and hooked meanders. Whilst this repertoire sees changes in the relative frequency of motifs, it remains essentially stable over at least 400 years, before there are tendencies towards its dissolution at the end of the LBK (Fig. 29.1) (Pavlů 2000, 284). During the first centuries of development, these symbols are treated in a very orthodox way and applied as emblematic single signs without any additional motifs (Fig. 29.1.1). This fosters social solidarity among this newly emerged and expanding farming society and consciously manifests their new, ‘Neolithic’ identity (Frirdich 1994, 357; Sommer 2001, 257–258; Lukes 2004, 25; Strien 2009). However, some regional or, arguably, clan-specific differences can already be observed (Strien 2009; Pechtl 2009b). In the further development of the LBK these motifs are kept, but increasingly integrated with other elements to create an overall composition (Fig. 29.1.2–1.4). Main motifs are treated much more conservatively than other decorative elements, supporting the idea that these were symbols with fundamental religious and cosmological meanings. The execution of the main motifs is influenced by household-specific traditions, showing a tendency to small-scale cultural differentiation (Frirdich 1994, 254; Krahn 2003, 515; Shennan and Wilkinson 2001, 592). During this process, newly established households enjoyed much greater freedom than older ones, perhaps because the lack of aged persons meant a reduced social control over the execution of motifs (Frirdich 1994, 256, 356). At the end of the LBK, several partly contradictory tendencies can be observed. On the one hand, the old decorative syntax and its associated motifs are abandoned, but on the other hand there is now a variety of concurrent styles which in themselves appear rather orthodox. There seems to have been a vigorous discourse perpetuated with and about ceramic symbols. Consequently, the monotony of, for example, early Stroke Ornamented ware, with its angular bands with dividing motifs, can be understood as a deliberately flaunted, religiously motivated counter-movement (Spatz 2003; Pechtl 2009a, 134; Link 2014, 216–229), part of a renewed tendency to limit oneself to emblematic main motifs.
The actual representational content of the main motifs remains more difficult to discern. Pots with face decorations, or shaped like animals or people, show that an equivalence of vessel and body applied to at least some items (Fig. 29.3.1, 29.3.4, and 29.3.5). However, clearly anthropomorphic motifs are extremely rare in the LBK. It is only the early Stroke Ornamented ware which turns almost exclusively to anthropomorphic motifs, albeit very abstract ones (Spatz 2003, 584–585). A stylized representation of horned animals has been discussed for the mirror-inverted double spirals of the early LBK (Pavlů 2000, 284). The main motifs are successively complemented with Zwickel-, rim, secondary, and structuring motifs. In contrast to the respectful treatment of the main motifs, these peripheral decorative zones are designed with a much greater degree of freedom (Pavlů 2000, 161; Krahn 2003, 515). These are apparently appropriate opportunities for innovation and individual expression and hence for messages at different levels (Pechtl 2009a, 134). The active striving for stylistic innovation begins here and, after a considerable delay of perhaps some generations, reflects back on the execution of the main motifs. In the Rhineland, the bands of the main motifs follow farmstead-dependent traditions, whilst Zwickel-motifs reflect the influence of individual potters and sometimes shift between farmsteads or neighbouring settlements from one generation to the next (Krahn 2003). Assuming pottery-producing women in a virilocal system, this implies that Zwickel-motifs were passed down the female line and not subject to the same pressure to conform which forced wives to adopt the band types current in their new household and passed down the male line. Bands and Zwickel-motifs hence carry different information on the potters’ family connections and provenance. At Vaihingen Zwickel-motifs characterize specific farmstead groups, which shows a different modality of transmission but means that here, too, membership of certain lineages was signalled (Strien 2005, 195).
The proportion of decorated ceramics, as well as the extent of surface area decorated and the variation of motifs steadily increase throughout the LBK (Fig. 29.1). This results in a loss of importance for the main motifs’ fundamental religious-cosmological symbolism and an increasing emphasis on the personal or family-dependent messages of the peripheral decorative zones. Whilst early on, decoration was a sign of cultural unity, it later became a medium for expressing regional identities or family and generational differences (Sommer 2001, 255). At the beginning of the LBK (5500–5300 BC), norms concerning the design of pottery were strictly monitored (Frirdich 1994, 354; Sommer 2001, 260). Potters could only gain personal prestige by manufacturing high-quality products and adhering to norms perfectly, that is, by endlessly replicating traditional designs. Later on (5300–5000 BC), changes in decoration were not only socially accepted, but innovation was explicitly sought (Shennan and Wilkinson 2001, 591–592), offering potters an arena for self-representation and conferring prestige through unusual decorations. This set in motion a self-perpetuating vicious circle, leading to increasingly baroque decoration and an almost inflationary increase of labour investment, a development only interrupted in the beginning of the middle Neolithic (5000–4900 BC), when ceramic decoration is consciously limited.
IN CONCLUSION
LBK ceramics thus played an active role in society. They undoubtedly held a prominent position in the set of available material culture: if we imagine an average LBK longhouse with its inventory, pottery, with several dozen objects, would be strongly visible and characterize living and cooking areas, as well as zones dedicated to more formal gatherings. In addition, during social occasions pottery was probably one of the most important sign-bearing media, a function
not restricted to representational special forms. Handling pottery was also a crucial part of countless everyday household tasks, private and public ritual practices, and large-scale social and religious events. Even in a purely physical sense, pottery shaped all these contexts, but it also adopted the diverse connotations of these activities and therefore could itself become the indispensable symbol of different practices, their meanings, and the Neolithic way of life itself. In short: it decisively shaped the cultural habitus of the LBK.
The material imposed few technical restrictions, and the constant need for new vessels, brought about by the short life expectancy of pottery, forced potters to produce regularly. This enabled a large part of the population to dedicate themselves to aesthetic elaboration and personal expression and to create new fashions in this medium. Pottery production and use gave women, whose social position was weakened by virilocal residence rules, the opportunity to demonstratively draw attention to themselves and to work creatively at their role in society (Sommer 2001, 260). However, innovation was mostly restricted to decoration, and even here basic structures and fundamental syntactic rules remained valid throughout the LBK. Considering the potential of clay as a plastic raw material, it is significant that the same shapes were produced far into the middle Neolithic. Overall, then, the use of vessels and the cultural settings in which they were important seem to have changed rather little and strongly restricted the kinds of innovation that were tolerated. This reinforces the crucial role of ceramics in the creation of cultural identity.