Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:17:28.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Function of Paddle and Anvil in Pottery Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Vladimir J. Fewkes
Vladimir J. Fewkes*
Affiliation:
University Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently I published a brief notice on constructional methods in pottery making, which occasioned a number of interesting comments. The majority of the communications and verbal discourses centered upon the seeming error, on my part, “to exclude the paddle and anvil manipulation from the suggested classification.” It will be recalled that the notice in question stated: “On the basis of the work thus far accomplished, the following classification of strictly manual building methods of constructing pottery vessels may be suggested.” The emphasis on hand manipulation and the express limitation to building procedures appear to have made little if any impression on some readers. It seems in point, therefore, to outline briefly the function of the paddle and anvil in pottery making, as derived from my studies of literature and specimens, as well as from certain empirical knowledge. Admittedly, this note does not pretend to settle any problem nor to be conclusive; rather its aim is to call attention to the need of accurate technical detailing.

Information

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 7 , Issue 2Part1 , October 1941, pp. 162 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Fewkes, V. J., “Methods of Pottery Manufacture.” American Antiquity, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1940, pp. 172 ff.

2 Ibid., p. 172.

3 Rogers, M. J., “Yuman Pottery Making.” San Diego Museum Papers, Vol. 2, 1936.

4 Cf. Fewkes, op. cit. , p. 172.

5 The tectonic components are not coils in the true sense of the word.

6 Spier, L., “Havasupai Ethnography.” Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 81 ff., 1928, p. 139Google Scholar.

7 Gifford, E. W., Pottery Making in the Southwest. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 23, No. 8, 1928, pp. 353 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 Ibid. , p. 355.

9 Incidentally, the description detailing the “adding of concentric coils” in the building of the wall (op. cit.)identifies the tectonic method as the circuit variant of annular construction by fillets.

10 Gifford, E. W., The Cocopa. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1933 pp. 318 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 Roberts, F. H. H. Jr., “A Survey of Southwestern Archaeology.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 37, No. 1, 1935, p. 20 Google Scholar. For a somewhat revised version see Roberts, F. H. H., Jr., “A Survey of Southwestern Archaeology.” Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, for 1935, Washington, 1936, pp. 507 ff.

12 Gifford, E. W., “Pottery Making in the Southwest.” American Anthropologist, Vol 37, No. 3, 1935, p. 535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It will be recalled that Gifford in 1928 (op. cit., p. 353) recognized “ … two methods of making coiled pottery … in the Southwest. The principle criterion of method is the use or non-use of a wooden paddle and a stone or pottery anvil in shaping the vessel.” The confusion of constructional principles with other manipulations is self-evident; it was simply restated by Gifford in 1935.

13 Roberts, F. H. H. Jr., “Archaeology in the Southwest.” American Antiquity, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1937, p. 20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Shepard, A. O., “Technology of Pecos Pottery.” In Pottery of Pecos, II, Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, Vol. 7, New Haven, 1936. p. 553, fn. 1. Also Fewkes, V. J., Review of “Pottery of Pecos, II.” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 42, No. 1, 1938, p. 197 Google Scholar.

15 This communication is a partial result of certain pottery studies under a Grant-in-Aid of Research from the Society of the Sigma Xi, University of Pennsylvania Chapter, wh.ch is hereby gratefully acknowledged.