The Artic Cooking Pot. Why Was It Adopted (Harry)

8/11/2019 The Artic Cooking Pot. Why Was It Adopted (Harry)

1/14

K A R E N H A R R Y A N D L I A M F R I N K

The Arctic Cooking Pot: Why Was It Adopted?

ABSTRACT Cross-culturally, clay cooking pots are correlated with societies situated in warm and dry climates and reliant on foods

that benefit from prolonged moist cooking. Neither of these conditions, however, characterized the aboriginal coastal Arctic, where clay

cooking containers were produced and used for more than 2,500 years. We explore the factors that encouraged pottery use in the Arctic

and conclude that the adoption of cooking pots resulted from the interplay of social and functional factors. We propose that it was

adopted (1) to meet the needs of socially constructed preferences for cooked foods and (2) to overcome specific problems associated with

other cooking methods within the local social and environmental context. We demonstrate the importance of adopting an integrated

perspective in the study of technologyone that considers how cultural values and social practices interact with environmental and

economic factors to shape technological decisions. [Keywords: adoption of ceramics, food-preparation techniques, pottery, Arctic,

Alaska]

A LTHOUGH FEW ARCHAEOLOGISTS think of theArctic region when they think about clay cookingpots, such vessels were important components of daily life

for the Arctic people along the western Alaskan and east-

ern Siberian coasts. Ceramic cooking vessels first appeared

about 2,500 years ago, and they remained in use until they

were replaced by metal pots in the historic period. Although

the advantages of clay containers for food processing arewell known (Arnold 1985:128144), their adoption by pre-

historic and early historic people was far from universal. In

fact, cross-cultural studies indicate that outside of seden-

tary, agriculturally based groups, most prehistoric people

found other ways to cook their foods. Despite their many

advantages, then, it is clear that the use of clay cooking pots

posed challenges to the people that used them. These chal-

lenges would have been particularly significant to the peo-

ple living in the Arctic region. Furthermore, the advantages

most commonly associated with the use of clay cooking

potsspecifically, the increased digestibility of foods pre-

pared with this technologywould have been irrelevant in

the Arctic. In this article, we explore these apparent contra-dictions and offer an alternative explanation for the adop-

tion of pottery in this region, one that relies not on dietary

food-processing requirements but on the culinary prefer-

ences of the Arctic people and the problems associated with

the use of other cooking techniques in this area.

AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 111, Issue 3, pp. 330343, ISSN 0002-7294 online ISSN 1548-1433. C2009 by the American Anthropological Association.

All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01136.x

ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE ADOPTION

OF CERAMICS

Scientists have long speculated on how the discovery of

ceramic technology might have come about (i.e., Amiran

1965:242; Childe 1936:89; Moore 1995:4546; Morgan

1978:14; Vandiver 1987), but until the 1980s there existed

little research into the question of why this technology

might have been adopted. This apparent lack of interestpresumably stemmed from the rather obvious advantages

of potteryin particular, its durability compared to other

containers.

But despite their advantages, ceramic containers were

not universally used by all societies, even those in which

knowledge of the technology clearly existed. There are

many reasons why a society might choose not to produce or

use ceramic containers, but the primary drawbacks have to

do with the bulky and fragile nature of pottery and with the

challenges associated with their manufacture. Compared to

other types of containers (e.g., baskets, gourds, or bags made

of textile, leather, or animal skins), pottery is heavy, diffi-

cult to transport, and easily broken. These characteristics

can create problems for people in any type of society but

would be especially problematic for those with mobile or

semimobile lifestyles.

A second, and perhaps even more serious problem,

has to do with the challenges associated with pottery


2/14

Harry and Frink Alaskan Cooking Pot 331

FIGURE 1. Distribution of pottery vessels in North America. With the exception of western coastal Alaska, most pottery was confined toareas having at least seasonally warm weather. (Map reproduced from Driver and Massey 1957: map 127.)

manufacture. Ceramic production requires the presence of

water and suitable clay, enough time in one location to

produce the pot, and (in general) a climate that is warm

and dry enough to allow wet pots to dry sufficiently beforefiring (Arnold 1985:119). As with the fragility of pottery,

these requirements are likely to pose more problems for

mobile than for sedentary people. This is because mobile

populations are less likely to be near the required resources

(i.e., suitable clays) at the appropriate time of the year (i.e.,

when the weather is warm and dry), and because they may

not be able to remain in one location for the number of

days needed to acquire the clay, prepare it (through grind-

ing, levigation, aging, etc.), mold the wet vessel, allow the

pot to dry, and then fire the dried product. Of these various

problems, Dean Arnold (1985:123) suggests that cold and

wet weather are the largest obstacles to the production and

use of pottery. Because of this, pottery production tends

to be strongly associated with temperate climates (e.g., see

Figure 1). The effect of climate appears to be even strongerthan the effects of sedentism, as indicated by the historic

absence of pottery among the sedentary communities of

the Northwest Coast and its presence among the nomadic

tribes of the Great Basin (Arnold 1985:123).

In recognition of the various challenges described

above and of the fact that many preindustrial societies

never used ceramic containers, archaeological research into

the origins and adoption of pottery has witnessed two

important shifts over the last few decades. First, rather

than taking for granted the presumed advantages of pot-

tery, archaeologists have began to scrutinize more carefully


3/14

332 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 3 September 2009

the specific benefits and drawbacks associated with its use

in particular settings (e.g., see Arnold 1985; Barnett and

Hoopes 1995; Rice 1999). Second, archaeologists have be-

gun to explore the role that social, as opposed to purely

functional, factors may have played in decisions to adopt

pottery. Most social models having to do with the adop-

tion of ceramics, however, are restricted to vessels hav-ing noncooking functions such serving or specialized ritual

purposes (Hayden 1995; Heidke 1999; Hoopes 1995; Vitelli

1995, 1999). The single notable exception to this pattern is

the model presented by Kenneth Sassaman (1992, 1995),

which considers the role that social relations may have

played in decisions on whether or not to adopt cooking

vessels in the southeastern United States.

In the following section, we summarize what is known

concerning the functional advantages associated with the

use of ceramic vessels. Because the focus of the research

presented in this article is on the adoption and use of

the Arctic cooking pot, we confine our discussion to the

advantages of cooking containers. Furthermore, becausesocial advantages are likely to be culture specific, our

discussion is restricted to an examination of functional

advantages.

WHY CERAMIC COOKING POTS? A CROSS-CULTURAL

PERSPECTIVE

The use of a ceramic cooking technology offers several pos-

sible advantages over other cooking methods. These advan-

tages, which have been summarized by Arnold (1985:128

144), include an expansion of resources in the diet, an in-

crease in the nutritive value recovered from foods, and an

increased efficiency in terms of the amount of time and la-bor needed to prepare meals. All of these advantages result

from the unique characteristics of ceramic containers: that

is, because they are both waterand fire resistant, they can be

used to cook foodsfor long periods of time, in liquids, and at

relatively high temperatures. The boiling process can steril-

ize or detoxify foods, making previously toxic foods safe for

human consumption. Additionally, simmering and boiling

can structurally breakdown the components of many foods,

making them easier to digest and utilize nutritionally. Fi-

nally, when preparing foods that require prolonged cooking

in liquids, pottery is more efficient in terms of labor require-

ments than other types of containers. As James Skibo and

Eric Blinman have stated:

Compared with other cooking containers, pottery ves-sels permit direct heating with less constant attention.Although indirect heating of water with hot rocks (as inbasketboiling)is an effectiveway to reach boiling or near-boiling temperatures, it requires continuous attention toavoid boil-over and to maintain those temperatures forlong periods of time. When ceramic containers are used,once the relationship between the heat source and thepot is established (nestled in coals, supported over thefire, etc.), constant temperatures can be maintained byoccasionally tending to the fuel. [1999:172]

Given the problems and benefits that accompany the

use of ceramic cooking technology, we might expect clay

cooking pots to be found primarily among sedentary, or

at least semisedentary, groups and among groups reliant

on food resources that benefit from the use of prolonged,

moist-cooking techniques. That such a correlation does in-

deed exist is demonstrated by both ethnographic and ar-chaeological data. For example, of the 35 fully sedentary

societies examined by Arnold (1985:112119), 32 (> 90 per-

cent) produced pottery, compared to only two of the eight

(25 percent) nomadic groups in his sample. Furthermore,

the ethnographic (Driver and Massey 1957:231) and archae-

ological records demonstrate a strong correlation with ce-

ramic cooking technology and agriculturally dependent so-

cieties, a correlation that probably has as much to do with

the foods being consumed as with the increased seden-

tism that accompanies food production. Most cultivated

plant foods around the worldor at least those (such as

wheat, rice, corn, and beans) that comprise the major di-

etary staplesare made more digestible through prolongedboiling.

Despite the near universal use of ceramic cooking tech-

nology in preindustrial agricultural societies, the produc-

tion and use of clay containers by hunting and gathering

societies is not unknown. In fact, we now know that in

most areas of the world the adoption of pottery preceded

the adoption of agriculture (Pavlu 1997; Rice 1999). Reasons

why hunter-gatherers might elect to cook in ceramic con-

tainers are similar to the reasons identified for agricultural-

ists: that is, we see ceramic cooking technology adopted by

hunter-gatherers who are dependent on foods that benefit

from prolonged boiling or simmering.

Table 1 lists a number of known hunter-gatherer so-cieties, both ethnographically and archaeologically iden-

tified, that made use of ceramic cooking technology.

(Omitted from this table are incipient farmers and other

hunter-gatherer groups that consumed significant quan-

tities of cultivated foods.) The data in this table indicate

that there exist three primary situations in which hunter-

gatherers adopted pottery: where aquatic resources com-

prised a major part of the diet, where nuts were processed

on a regular basis, and where populations needed to extract

the maximum nutrition from meat.

Worldwide, the earliest pottery is found within hunter-

gatherer societies in low latitude and coastal or riverine set-

tings (Rice 1999:32). Such locations favor ceramic manu-

facture because their climates are warm enough to allow

pottery production and because the presence of abun-

dant shellfish and marine resources would have encour-

aged sedentary or semisedentary settlement. Additionally,

for people reliant on a shellfish diet, ceramic cooking tech-

nology offers two important advantages. First, the time re-

quired to process large quantities of shellfish is substantially

lowered, because shellfish open automatically with the ap-

plication of heat. Secondly, it prevents nutrients from being

lost, as might happen from the dripping of juices over an


4/14


5/14


6/14


dug into the permafrost. How the food was prepared for

preservation and how it was defrosted played a large role

in the texture and taste of a particular meal. For example,

fermented meat acquired a much-prized sweet-and-sour fla-

vor (Starks 2007). Yet other dishes relied more heavily on

texture.Quaq(or koowhak), for example, was a favorite dish

created by partially defrosting meat. The timing of the de-frosting was critical to the flavor and texture of this dish; it

was to be thawed just enough that it was neither solidly

frozen nor too flaccid. Once the meat was completely

thawed, it its texture and taste were considered unpleasing

(Starks 2007).

Although many references exist to boiling foods in

the Arctic, ethnographic accounts indicate that boiled

foods were, in fact, merely briefly immersed in simmering

liquids (Frink and Harry 2008; Spray 2002:36). As with the

preparation of quaq, foods were said to be prepared this

way to create a favored texture. Cooked meat was said to be

best when the outside of the meat is thoroughly cooked

and almost too hot to eat, but the small center remains[frozen] like ice (Starks 2007:47). Raw-frozen meat that

had become thoroughly defrosted might also be quickly

parboiled to improve its texture, because defrosted meat

that had been neither dried nor fermented was considered

undesirable.

The point of this brief consideration of Arctic cuisine

is thatas within all culturesculinary tastes were both

culturally and biologically created (Messer 1984). A paucity

of vitamin C in the environment selected for general food-

preparationtechniques that did not involve extensive cook-

ing. However, the specific techniques selected resulted en-

tirely from cultural preferences. In the case of cooking,

there were no nutritional advantages to warming the food.Rather, the adoption of a cooking technology appears to

have resulted entirely from a biological and cultural de-

sire for a diversity of tastes and textures. Why this cooking

technology took the form of moist cooking in ceramic con-

tainers, however, can only be understood in reference to

the natural environmental conditions of the Arctic.

Cooking in the Arctic

Use of ceramic vessels in the Arctic was confined to the

western coast of Alaska and to a small strip of the northern

Canadian coastline (see Figure 1) as well as to the northeast-

ern coast of Siberia (Zhushchikhovskaya 2005). Because of

the relative paucity of archaeological and ethnographic in-

formation for Siberia, however, most of the data contained

in this article derives from the Alaskan regions.

Arctic cooking was carried out using the direct fire-

boiling method (see Figure 2; Driver and Massey 1957:228

223; Fienup-Riordan 1975:27): that is, with the pot set

directly in the fire. In the interior of the Arctic, in con-

trast, where ceramic vessels were not made, the indirect (or

stone-boiling) technique prevailed (see Figure 2). Regional

differences in the type of cooking container used reflect

differences in raw-material availability. Along the northern

Arctic coastline, where soapstone was abundant, stone ves-

sels were the preferred cooking medium (Driver and Massey

1957:229230). Only in those areas where soapstone was

not present was pottery used for direct boiling.

The spatial distribution of direct fire-boiling methods

corresponds to the distribution of the Arctic tundra. Inthe interior Arctic, where boreal forests prevailed, stone-

boiling methods were used (cf. Figures 2 and 3). As with

pottery manufacture, cooking on the tundra would have

posed challenges. Inclement weather would have precluded

cooking outdoors for most of the year, and the presence of

permafrost would have made use of underground roasting

pits difficult or impossible even during summer seasons.

By necessity, therefore, most cooking would have been

conducted indoors. In general, indoor cooking is equally

suited for either stone-boiling or direct fire-boiling meth-

ods.3 However, in the case of the Arctic, two aspects of the

environment may have limited the choices women had in

preparing cooked meals: first, there likely were shortagesof fuel wood; second, it would have been difficult to cook

inside during the cold winter months.

Wood on the Arctic coast is difficult to acquire. The pri-

mary source of fuel and wooden building material is drift-

wood, which must be acquired offshore and towed to land

by boat. Two lines of evidence suggest that the availability

of such material was limited prehistorically. First, there ex-

ist historic accounts to suggest that shortages of wood were

commonplace (Fienup-Riordan 1983:56; Frink 2003:224).

Second, evidence suggests that even on those occasions

when driftwood logs might have been readily available in

the ocean, the effort required to tow them to shore would

have been substantial. Even today, when motor boats areused to tow the logs, wood is considered a valued resource.

In prehistoric and early historic times, when the logs were

towed by kayak, we infer that the resource would have been

even more difficult to obtain.

That cooking was largely an indoor activity is cor-

roborated by archaeological and ethnographic evidence

(Dumond 1977; Oswalt and VanStone 1967; Staley 1992).

In the interior of the Arctic, houses were constructed of

wooden planks; on the western Alaska coast, however, they

were made either of driftwood logs covered with sod or sim-

ply of large sod blocks. Cooking inside these sod-covered

homes would have created a number of problems. First, to

remain structurally solid, the sod superstructure could not

be allowed to melt. Second, the poor venting inside these

structures, which also served as living quarters, would have

posed substantial risk to the respiratory health of the in-

habitants (Boadi and Kuitunen 2006).

Given the difficulties associated with acquiring fuel

wood and with having cooking fires lit inside the homes,

we propose that the Arctic environment encouraged the

use of cooking methods that minimized the amount of

fuel needed and the amount of heat released. To evaluate

whether the direct fire-boiling method is more efficient in


7/14


FIGURE 2. Distribution of boiling methods used in North America. (Map reproduced from Driver and Massey 1957: map 40.)

terms of fuel usage and cooking time than the stone-boiling

technique, a series of experiments were undertaken.

A COMPARISON OF DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT

COOKING

Two sets of experiments were undertaken to determine

whether more fuel is required by the stone-boiling tech-

nique than by the direct fire-boiling method. Containers

used during these experiments include the following: (1)

a waterproofed basket, (2) replicas of Arctic-style cooking

jars, and (3) replicas of prehistoric Southwestern U.S.-style

cooking jars (see Figure 4).

The basket, commercially purchased, was a handwo-

ven replica of an African Zulu beer basket. This basket

was selected because it was advertised to be woven suffi-

ciently tightly to be waterproof. The basket measured 20

centimeters at its maximum diameter by ten centimeters

in height, and when filled to the rim, it had a capacity of1,700 milliliters.

The ceramic replicas were made by Andreas Charest, a

graduate student at the University of NevadaLas Vegas. A

total of six vesselsweremade, three of each style.The Arctic-

style vessels were fashioned after Thule-style jars, which ap-

peared in the Arcticat about 1000 C.E. and continued in use

until well into the historic period. Unlike the rounded cook-

ing pots found in most other areas of the world, Thule cook-

ing pots are flat-bottomed with straight (vertical or slightly

flaring) walls. Additionally, they are characterized by thick

walls, low firing temperatures, organic or mineral tempers,


8/14


FIGURE 3. Distribution of the tundra zone in North America.

and coarse, soft pastes that easily disintegrate (Dumond

1984; Larsen 1950; OLeary 1999; Oswalt 1955; Redding-

Gubitosa 1992).

To make replicas of these vessels, a mixture of 70 per-

cent dry ground clay, ten percent chopped hay, ten per-

cent coarse (0.5 mm1.5 cm) sand, and ten percent fine(0.5 mm) sand was used. The clay used to make these and

FIGURE 4. Containers used in cooking experiments. The straight-walled vessels are Thule style; the rounded vessels with restricted necks areSouthwesternU.S. Puebloan style. Waterproofed basket is on the right.

the other vessels used in this study were primary clays col-

lected from the Shivwits Plateau of northwestern Arizona.

Once these materials were thoroughly mixed, the paste was

wetted and allowed to age for 48 hours. Following this ag-

ing process, the vessels were manufactured by creating a

round, flat base to which thick coils were added. The coils

were then pinched together and scraped to obliterate thecoil junctures, but to matchthe coarse texture seen in Thule

sherds, the walls were not smoothed or polished. The ves-

sels were made to relatively standardized sizes of about 15

centimeters in diameter at the base by 1213 centimeters

tall, with wall thicknesses that ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 cen-

timeters. Their capacities averaged about 1,200 milliliters.

Once the vessels had dried to the leather-hard stage, they

were coated with seal oil (a technique reported ethnograph-

ically; see De Laguna 1939:339; Fienup-Riordan 1975:14)

and fired in a Raku kiln under neutral atmospheric con-

ditions. The vessels were fired to a maximum temperature

of 800C, although the target temperature was lower and

for most of the 20-minute holding time the temperaturesranged from 690C to 750C. After the vessels had cooled,

they were again coated with seal oil to follow the proce-

dures reported ethnographically (Fienup-Riordan 2007:48;

Oswalt 1952:20).

The Southwestern-style pots were produced to mimic

the general attributes of cooking pots associated with the

Ancestral Puebloan cultures of the prehistoric northern U.S.

Southwest. In contrast to the Thule pots, Puebloan cook-

ing pots are usually rounded in shape, are finer tempered,

have harder pastes, and are thinner walled. Accordingly, the

production techniques used to produce the Puebloan-style

vessels differed from those used to make the Thule repli-

cas. Two of the jars were made using a recipe of 80 percentdry clay, seven percent ground sherd (measuring 1.0 mm


9/14


in size), and 13 percent mixture of ground igneous rock

(0.7 mm0.25 mm in size), ground olivine (0.125 mm

0.5 mm), and sand temper (0.25 mm). The third jar was

made using 80 percent dry clay and 20 percent ground

sherd (0.7 mm1.0 mm) temper.Once the dry clay and tem-

pering materials were thoroughly mixed, they were wetted

and allowed to cure for 96 hours. The vessels were thenmade using the coiling and scrape method. All vessels were

spherical in shape, measuring about 18 centimeters at their

widest point, 1415 centimeters tall, and having a 7.0- to

7.5-centimeter diameter orifice. The vessels capacities av-

eraged about 1,600 milliliters. All vessels were fired in an

electric oxidizing kiln to a maximum temperature of 750C,

with a 20-minute soak at that temperature.

Prior to initiating the first set of experiments, all of the

containers were filled with water to ensure that they were

waterproof. All three of the Puebloan-style vessels held wa-

ter without leaking. The basket and the three Thule-style

pots, however, were found to badly leak. Accordingly, addi-

tional steps were taken to waterproof these containers. Weelected to coat the interior of the basket with commercially

purchased roofing tar, a procedure that we believed approx-

imated the waterproofing techniques used by Native Amer-

icans, who were known to coat their baskets with pinyon

pitch or asphaltum (Braje et al. 2005; Buskirk 1986:186;

Frisbie 2001:35). To waterproof the Thule-style vessels, we

filled the vessels with water to which a few tablespoons of

seal oil had been added. The pots were then placed in an

oven and the contents brought to a low simmer. Although

the liquid initially leaked out, after only a few minutes the

pores became plugged and the leaking stopped. Again, this

technique was selected because we believed it likely mim-

icked what happened to actual Thule pots during the Arcticcooking process.

Experiment 1

In the first experiment, commercially purchased firewood

(in this case, pine logs) was used to determine the length

of time needed to bring water to a boil using both the

direct-boiling method and the stone-boiling technique.

Both the Thule-style jars and the Puebloan-style jars were

used in the direct-boiling method; for the stone-boiling

techniques, the Thule-style vessels and waterproofed bas-

ket were used. The direct-boiling experiments were carried

out by building a fire and, once the fire was determined tobe burning well, by placing the water-filled vessel directly

within the fire. All vessels were filled with one liter of water,

and all vessels were capped with a ceramic lid to improve

the cooking efficiency. In all cases, the lids were briefly re-

moved first at three minutes, and then every minute there-

after to determine when the water began to boil. In the

stone-boiling experiments, fires were again lit and, once

they were burning strongly, small (ranging from five to

eight cm in diameter) river-rounded basalt cobbles were

buried within them. As in the direct-boiling experiments,

the containers to be used were each filled with one liter of

FIGURE 5. Stone-boiling experiments. Upper frame shows thebasalt cobbles after being uncovered in the fire. Bottom frame

showsa student placing a hotcobble into thewaterproofed basket.

water, but in this case they were set off to the side, rather

than in, the fire. After 15 minutes, the rocks were removed

from the fire and placed in the vessels (see Figure 5), and

it was recorded whether or not the water was brought to a

boil.4

The results of these experiments are presented in

Tables 2 and 3. The results of the direct-boiling experiments

indicate that it took an average of 4.7 minutes to bring wa-

ter to a boil in the Puebloan-style jars and 10.2 minutes

in the Thule-style jars. The increased heating time needed

for the latter jars is not surprising, given their thicker walls

and higher porosity as compared to the former vessels. The

data presented in Table 3 indicate that it took an average

TABLE 2. Results of Direct-Boiling Experiments Using Regular Fire-

wood.

Vessel Minutes to boil (100C)

Puebloan-style jarVessel A 5Vessel B 5Vessel C 4

Thule-style jarVessel A 9.5Vessel B 10Vessel C 11


10/14


TABLE 3. Results of Stone-Boiling Experiments Using Regular Fire-

wood.

Number of stones Water broughtVessel used/time stones heated to a boil?

Thule-style vessel 3 stone/13 minutes No

Water-proofed basket 3 stones/12 minutes NoWater-proofed basket 3 stones/13 minutes YesThule-style vessel 3 stones/15 minutes YesThule-style vessel 3 stones/15 minutes Yes

of 14 minutes to bring the same amount of water to a boil

using the stone-boiling method. Clearly, the stone-boiling

method does require a lengthier heating time to achieve

the same result, although the relatively small difference

and overall short period of time needed for stone boiling

suggests that the differences in time may not have been

behaviorally meaningful to the Arctic people.

Experiment 2

Following completion of the first experiment, we con-

ducted a second set of experiments using smaller pieces

of wood. This second experiment was designed to more

closely mimic the fires that we thought were likely to have

been used indoors; the large pieces of firewood used in the

first set of experiments are likely larger than those used in

most indoor hearths. Accordingly, we conducted the sec-

ond set of experiments using small pieces of commercially

purchased starter firewood. The pieces of wood were of a

fairly standard size, with the typical piece measuring about

25 centimeters long by two centimeters in diameter. Thestarter wood, known as fatwood (see Figure 6), was har-

vested from the heart of old pine stumps and contains sub-

stantial quantities of pine pitch, which makes the wood

light very easily. The fatwood was considered a reasonable

proxy for wood soaked in seal oil, a material observed to

have been used as firewood by the junior author (Frink).

The second set of experiments was conducted by the

senior author (Harry) and involved only the Thule-style

pots. In the first part of the experiment, three different

Thule-style pots were filled with one liter of water, covered

with a ceramic lid, and set directly on the fire built from

the fatwood pieces. Pieces of wood were added as necessary

until the water was brought to a boil, and in all cases thefewest pieces of wood were used as possible. Once the water

reached a boil, the experiment was halted and the number

of pieces of wood used was recorded as well as the time

taken to bring the water to a boil. In all three instances, the

amount of wood used and time taken to bring the water

to a boil was remarkably consistent. On average, the direct

fire-boiling method using the starter wood required about

15 minutes and 20 pieces of wood to bring the water to a

boil (Table 4).5

In the second part of the experiment, a small fire of

starter wood was built and stones placed in or under the

FIGURE 6. Experiments conducted with the small pieces of fat-wood. Upper frame shows the size and quantity of fatwood used

to bring theThule-style pots to a boil. Bottomframeshowsa liddedThule-style pot on the fire.

fire. Wood was added as necessary to keep the fire burning,

and at a predetermined point, the stones were removed andplaced into the container of water. Three different trials

were carried out (Table 5). In the first trial, 18 pieces of

starter wood were used, an amount similar to that needed

to bring the water to boil in the direct fire-boiling tests.

After ten minutes, when the starter wood was beginning

to die down, the rocks were removed and placed into the

water-filled pot. Although the rocks heated the water, they

did not bring the water to a boil. In the second and third

trials, increasing amounts of starter wood were used in an

attempt to determine how much wood might be needed

to sufficiently heat the rocks to bring the water to a boil.

During the third trial, 88 pieces of wood were used, an

amount more than four times of that which was used inthe direct fire-boiling tests. Despite these greater amounts

TABLE 4. Results of Direct-Boiling Experiments with Small StarterWood.

Pieces of wood Minutes toVessel needed to bring to boil boil (100C)

Thule-style Jar A 19 14Thule-style Jar B 18 16Thule-style Jar C 22 16


11/14


TABLE 5. Results of Stone-Boiling Experiments with Small Starter

Wood.

Pieces of EndingVessel wood used Minutes temperature

Thule-style jar A 18 10 56C

Thule-style jar B 52 23 61

CThule-style jar C 88 33 61C

of fuel wood, we were still unable to bring the water to a

boil. In fact, the highest temperature achieved was 61C,

well below the 100C needed for boiling.

Discussion

The data presented here demonstrate that, when there is

no need to conserve fuel, the stone-boiling technique can

be quite efficient. It requires no more time to bring water

or broth to a boil than does the direct fire-boiling method

(although of course, to sustain these temperatures wouldrequire more effort). When fuel is limited or when there is

a need to keep the fire small, however, the direct fire-boiling

method is significantly more efficient, both in terms of fuel

wood and in terms of time. In fact, our results indicate

that, under these circumstances, boiling water using the

stone-boiling technique is at best impractical and perhaps

even impossible. This results because insufficient coals are

generated from these small fires, making it difficult to keep

the stones smothered by the fire.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, we argue that the adoption of the Arc-tic cooking pot can be understood only in reference to

both cultural and functional needs. That is, we propose

that the Arctic cooking pot was a functional solution to

a socially created need. Following the anthropological ap-

proach advocated by Pierre Lemonnier (1986) and Bryan

Pfaffenberger (1988, 1992), we view technologyas a cultural

choice. To understand how and why particular technologi-

cal choices are made, we support the adoption of a holistic

approach that simultaneously considers the entire cultural,

environmental, and economic context of the society under

study.

In the case of the Arctic cooking pot, we believe that

its adoption resulted from the interplay of several culturaland environmental factors. How the Arctic people elected

to prepare their food was, in part, nutritionally driven. A

paucity of vitamin C in the Arctic environment helped se-

lect for techniques that would preserve this important re-

source. Yet, there existed a wide variety of techniques ca-

pable of doing so that did not involve heat. The desire for

cooked foods was culturally created; it was a cultural-

specific culinary preference resulting from socially trans-

mitted experiences (Messer 1984).

Even so, there was still nothing in the culturally and

nutritionally favored cooking methods that required the

use of ceramics. The brief cooking times that were called

for could easily have been accommodated by stone-boiling

techniques that would not have required the use of clay

containers. Given the difficulty of making pottery in the

Arctic region, we might expect stone-boiling methods to

have been preferred. And, indeed, these methods were fa-

vored wherever wood was plentiful and houses were con-structed of materials that could withstand interior fires.

In the tundra regions, however, where wood was scarce

and houses were made of unprocessed earth or sod, direct-

boiling methods were used. Direct boiling was conducted

in soapstone wherever it was available; it was only where

soapstone was not readily obtainable that ceramic cooking

vessels were produced.

These correlations suggest that, despite the rather sub-

stantial challenges involved in making the pots, the ce-

ramic cooking vessel offered significant advantages to the

Arctic people. Furthermore, these advantages clearly were

perceived to be important enough to offset the difficulties

and inconveniences involved in their manufacture. But un-like most areas of the world where ceramic cooking vessels

were adopted, the benefits had nothing to do with the need

for sustained cooking. Rather, we argue, they relate more to

the needs to meet socially created culinary preferences, to

conserve fuel resources, and to preserve the livability of the

homes than to any improvements in the nutritional quality

of the foods being prepared.

KAREN HARRY Department of Anthropology and Ethnic

Studies, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

89154

LIAM FRINKDepartment of Anthropology andEthnic Studies,University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154

NOTES

Acknowledgments. This research was supported by a National Sci-ence Foundation Office of Polar Programs grant (#0452900, Pro-gram Officer Anna Kerttula de Echave). We would like to thankAndreas Charest for making the ceramic vessels and Mark Slaugh-ter for his help preparing the figures. Additionally, we would liketo thank Tom Boellstorff and three anonymous reviewers who pro-vided comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.1. Vessels that begin to sinter before the clay body is completelydry (i.e., before the chemically unbound water has been driven off)will explode in the firing process.

2. Experiments suggest that these vessels could be shaped in aslittle as 20 minutes.3. Of course, the use of stone-boiling techniques requires the pres-ence of suitable cobbles. (Because stones used in this techniquecan only be reused a few times before fracturing [see Sassaman1995:228229], large quantities of stone are required when this isthe primary cooking method.) For coastal communities, stone cob-bles can usually be easily found on the beaches. For inland deltacommunities, however, a paucity of useable stone may have beenan additional factor selecting against the use of the stone-boilingtechnology.4. Previous informal experiments had suggested that the rockswould need to be in the fire for about 15 minutes to become hotenough to bring the water to a boil. Those experiments indicatedthat, when kept in the fire for ten minutes or less, one liter of watercould not be brought to a boil using only three stones, whereas the


12/14


same number of stones kept in the fire for 15 minutes was alwaysable to bring the water to a boil.5. In volume, the 20 pieces of wood translate to about 1,2001,300cubic centimeters of woodapproximately the amount of woodthat would fill a liter-sized container.

REFERENCES CITED

Aikens, C. Melvin1995 First in the World: The Jomon Pottery of Early Japan.In The

Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in AncientSocieties. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, eds. Pp.1121. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Amiran, R.1965 The Beginnings of Pottery-Making in the Near East. In Ce-

ramics and Man. F. R. Matson, ed. Pp. 240247. Chicago: Al-dine.

Arnold, Dean E.1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Barnett, William K., and John W. Hoopes, eds.

1995 The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation inAncient Societies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Boadi, Swasi Owusu, and Markku Kuitunen2006 Factors Affecting the Choice of Cooking Fuel, CookingPlace and Respiratory Health in the Accra Metropolitan Area,Ghana. Journal of Biosocial Science 38:403412.

Bogoraz-Tan, Vladimir G.1904 The Chuckchee, vol. 1: Material Culture. New York: E. J.

Brill.Bollong, Charles A., C. Garth Sampson, and Andrew B. Smith

1997 Khoikhoi and Bushman Pottery in the Cape Colony: Eth-nohistory and Later Stone Age Ceramics of the South AfricanInterior. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16(3):269299.

Braje, Todd J., Jon M. Erlandson, and Jan Timbrook2005 An Asphaltum Coiled Basket Impression, Tarring Pebbles,

and Middle Holocene Water Bottles from San Miguel Island,California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropol-ogy 25(2):207213.

Buskirk, Winifred1986 The Western Apache: Living with the Land. Norman: Uni-versity of Oklahoma Press.

Childe, V. Gordon1936 Man Makes Himself. London: Watts.

De Laguna, Frederick1939 A Pottery Vessel from Kodiak Island, Alaska. American An-

tiquity 4(4):334343.1947 The Prehistory of Northern North American as Seen from

the Yukon. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology,3. Salt Lake City: Society for American Archaeology.

2000 Travels among the Dena: Exploring Alaskas Yukon Valley.Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Draper, H. H.1978 Nutrition Studies: The Aboriginal Eskimo DietA Modern

Perspective.In Eskimos of Northwestern Alaska: A BiologicalPerspective. Paul L. Jamison, Stephen L. Zegura, and Fred-

erick A. Milan, eds. Pp. 139144. Stroudsberg, PA: Dowden,Hutchinson, and Ross.Driver, Harold E., and William C. Massey

1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transac-tions of the American Philosophical Society 47(2). Philadel-phia: American Philosophical Society.

Dumond, Don E.1977 The Eskimos and Aleuts. London: Thames and Hudson.1984 Prehistory of the Bering Sea Region. In Handbook of North

AmericanIndians,vol. 5: Arctic. David Dumas,ed. Pp. 94105.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Eerkins, Jelmer W.2001 The Origins of Pottery among Late Prehistoric Hunter-

Gatherers in California and the Great Basin. Ph.D. disserta-tion, Department of Anthropology, University of California,Santa Barbara.

Fediuk, Karen, Nick Hidiroglou, Renee Madere, and Harriet V.Kuhnlein

2002 Vitamin C in Inuit Traditional Food and Womens Di-ets. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 15:221235.

Fienup-Riordan, Ann1975 Maraiuirvik Nunakauiami. Funded by the Alaska Human-

ities Forum. Unpublished MS, ANCSA Office of Bureau of In-

dian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska.1983 The Nelson Island Eskimo: Social Structure and Ritual Dis-tribution. Anchorage: Alaska Pacific University Press.

2007 Yuungnaqpiallerput: The Way We Genuinely Live. Seattle:University of Washington Press.

Friday, Joe1983 ANCSA Interview 83 VAK 23. Report. Anchorage: ANCSA

Office of Bureau of Indian Affairs.Frink, Lisa

2002 Fish Tales:Womenand Decision Makingin Western Alaska.In Many Faces of Gender: Roles and Relationships throughTime in Indigenous Northern Communities. Lisa Frink, Rita S.Shepard, and Gregory A. Reinhardt, eds. Pp. 93110. Boulder:University Press of Colorado.

2003 A Tale of Three Villages: Archaeological Investigation ofLate Prehistoric and Historic Culture Change in WesternAlaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uni-

versity of Wisconsin, Madison.Frink, Lisa, and Karen G. Harry2008 The Beauty of Ugly Eskimo Cooking Pots. American An-

tiquity 73(1):103120.Frink, Lisa, Brian W. Hoffman, and Robert D. Shaw

2003 Ulu Knife Use in Western Alaska: A Comparative Ethnoar-chaeological Approach.Current Anthropology 44(1):116122.

Frisbie, Charlotte J., ed.2001 Tall Woman: The Life Story of Rose Mitchell, A Navajo

Woman, c. 19741977. Albuquerque: University of New Mex-ico Press.

Haaland, Randi1995 Sedentism, Cultivation, and Plant Domestication in the

Holocene Middle Nile Region. Journal of Field Archaeology22(2):157174.

Harry, Karen G., Lisa Frink, Brendan OToole, and Andreas Charest2009 How to Make an Unfired Clay Cooking Pot: Understanding

the Technological Choices Made by Arctic Potters. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 16(1):3350.Hayden, Brian

1995 The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery.In TheEmergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in AncientSocieties. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, eds. Pp.257265. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Haynes, Terry L., and Robert J. Wolfe, eds.1999 Ecology, Harvest, and Use of Harbor Seals and Sea Lions:

Interview Materials from Alaska Native Hunters. Technical Pa-per, 249. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divi-sion of Subsistence.

Heidke, James M.1999 Cienega Phase Incipient Plainware from Southeastern Ari-

zona. Kiva 64(3):311338.Hoopes, John W.

1995 Interaction in Hunting and Gathering Societies as a Context

forthe Emergenceof Pottery in theCentral American Isthmus.In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation inAncient Societies. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes,eds. Pp. 185198. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Hrdlicka, Ales1975 Anthropology of Kodiak Island. New York: AMS Press.

Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko1986 Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Technologies. InWin-

dows on the Japanese Past: Studies in Archaeology and Prehis-tory. Richard J. Pearson, ed. Pp. 199216. Ann Arbor: Univer-sity of Michigan Center for Japanese Studies.

Lantis, Margaret1946 The Social Culture of the Nunivak Eskimo. Transactions of

the American Philosophical Society 35(3). Philadelphia: Amer-ican Philosophical Society.


13/14


Larsen, Helge1950 Archaeological Investigations in Southwestern Alaska.

American Antiquity 15:177186.Lemonnier, Pierre

1986 Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropologyof Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology52(2):147186.

MacNeish, Richard S.

1992 The Origins of Agriculture and Settled Life. Norman: Uni-versity of Oklahoma Press.Messer, Ellen

1984 Anthropological Perspectives on Diet. Annual Reviews ofAnthropology 13:205209.

Moore, Andrew M. T.1995 The Inception of Potting in Western Asia and Its Impact on

Economy and Society.In The Emergence of Pottery: Technol-ogy and Innovation in Ancient Societies. William K. Barnettand John W. Hoopes, eds. Pp. 3953. Washington, DC: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Morgan, Lewis H.1978 Ancient Society. New York: World.

OLeary, Matthew1999 Early Yupiit-Cupiit Regional Groups with Special Reference

to Ceramic Cooking Pot Designs. Paper presented at the 26thAnnual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association

Meeting, Anchorage, October 13.Osgood, Cornelius1940 Ingalik Material Culture. Yale University Publications in

Anthropology 22. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Oswalt, Wendell H.

1952 Pottery from Hooper Bay Village, Alaska. American Antiq-uity 18:1829.

1955 Alaskan Pottery: A Classification and Historical Reconstruc-tion. American Antiquity 21(1):3243.

Oswalt, Wendell H., and James W. VanStone1967 The Ethnoarchaeology of Crow Village, Alaska. Washing-

ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Pavlu, Ivan

1997 Pottery Origins: Initial Forms, Cultural Behavior, and Dec-orative Styles. Prague: Karlovy University Press.

Pfaffenberger, Bryan1988 Fetishized Objects and Humanized Nature: Toward an

Anthropology of Technical Systems. Man 23:236252.1992 Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of An-thropology 21:491516.

Ray, Dorothy Jean1975 The Eskimos of the Bering Strait, 16501898. Seattle: Uni-

versity of Washington Press.Redding-Gubitosa, D.

1992 Excavations at Kwigiumpainukamiut: A Multi-Ethnic His-toric Site, Southwestern Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Reid, Kenneth C.1989 A Materials Science Perspective on Hunter-Gatherer Pot-

tery. In Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches. GordonBronitskey, ed. Pp. 167180. Boulder, CO: Westview.

1990 Simmering Down: A Second Look at Ralph Lintons NorthAmerican Cooking Pots.In Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from theFar West. Joanne M. Mack, ed. Pp. 718. Nevada State Mu-

seum Anthropological Papers, 23. Carson City: Nevada StateMuseum.Rice, Prudence M.

1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 6(1):154.

Rodrguez, Camilo1995 Sites with Early Ceramics in the Caribbean Littoral of

Colombia: A Discussion of Periodization and Typologies. InThe Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in An-cient Societies. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, eds.Pp. 145156. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Roosevelt, Anna C.1995 Early Pottery in the Amazon: Twenty Years of Scholarly

Obscurity.In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and In-novation in Ancient Societies. William K. Barnett and John

W. Hoopes, eds. Pp. 115132. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Sassaman, Kenneth E.1992 Gender and Technology at the Archaic-Woodland Tran-

sition. In Exploring Gender through Archaeology: SelectedPapers from the 1991 Boone Conference. C. Claassen, ed. Pp.7179. Madison, WI: Prehistory.

1995 The Social Contradictions of Traditional and Innovative

Cooking Technologies in the Prehistoric American Southeast.In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation inAncient Societies. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes,eds. Pp. 223240. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Skibo, James2007 Why Pottery? A Perspective from the Upper Great Lakes.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 72nd AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin,April 2529.

Skibo, James M., and Eric Blinman1999 Exploring the Origins of Pottery on the Colorado Plateau.

InPottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. James M. Skiboand Gary M. Feinman, eds. Pp. 171183. Salt Lake City: Uni-versity of Utah Press.

Spencer, Robert F.1959 The North Alaskan Eskimo: A Study in Ecology and Soci-

ety. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 171. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Spray, Zona

2002 Alaskas Vanishing Arctic Cuisine. Gastronomica: The Jour-nal of Food and Culture 2(1):3940.

Staley, David P.1992 A View of the Early Contact Period in Southwestern Alaska:

The Archaeological Analysis of House 15, Chagvan Bay BeachSite. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska Fair-banks 24(12):1531.

Starks, Zona Spray2007 Arctic Foodways and Contemporary Cuisine. Gastronimca:

The Journal of Food and Culture 7(1):4149.Stefansson, Vihjlamur

1919 The Stefansson-Anderson Arctic Expedition of the Ameri-can Museum: Preliminary Ethnological Report, 14(1). Anthro-pological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History,

New York.1962[1913] My Life with the Eskimo. New York: Collier.Stimmell, Carole, and R. L. Stromberg

1986 A Reassessment of Thule Eskimo Ceramic Technology.InCeramics and Civilizations, vol. 2: Technology and Style.William D. Kingery, ed. Pp. 237250. Columbus: AmericanCeramic Society.

Vandiver, Pamela B.1987 Sequential Slab Construction: A Conservative Southwest

Asiatic Ceramic Tradition, ca. 70003000 B.C. Paleorient 13:935.

VanStone, James1989 Nunivak Island Eskimo (Yuit) Technology and Material

Culture. Fieldiana(n.s.), 12.Chicago:Field Museumof NaturalHistory.

Vitelli, Karen G.1995 Pots, Potters, and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society.

In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation inAncient Societies. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes,eds. Pp. 5564. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

1999 Looking Up at Early Ceramics in Greece.In Pottery andPeople: A Dynamic Interaction. James M. Skibo and Gary M.Feinman, eds. Pp. 184198. Salt Lake City: University of UtahPress.

Wein, Eleanor E., Milton M. R. Freeman, and Jeanette C. Makus1996 Use of and Preference for Traditional Foods

among the Belcher Island Inuit. Arctic 49(3):256264.

Zhushchikhovskaya, Irina S.2005 Prehistoric Pottery Making of the Russian Far East. BAR

International Series, 1434. Oxford: ArchaeoPress.


14/14

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jozch-esteban
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

The Artic Cooking Pot. Why Was It Adopted (Harry)

Documents