Making pottery in Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period

Archaeologists rely heavily on pottery to understand past societies and economies. Although medieval pottery has been extensively studied, the people behind its production remain largely overlooked. This creates a significant imbalance in the way we understand pottery and may lead to interpretative biases concerning the societies that produced it. A substantial body of scholarship has examined in great detail amphorae, tableware and more recently, cooking wares, as well as kiln technology and workshops. Little attention has been given, however, to literary and archaeological evidence about professional potters.

Most studies primarily focus on potters active during the Roman period. The documentation for that period is extensive, but the analysis does not often take into account the specialization of the potters. Furthermore, data are rarely studied in conjunction with the regional economic context.

This study seeks to address these gaps by bringing into focus the people who created one of the most commonly encountered categories of archaeological material. By comparing different sources of information and all available evidence the present research aims to improve our understanding of the social and economic status of potters in Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period.

More specifically, this study seeks to identify the different categories of potters, both professional and non-professional, and to examine how their status varied according to their degree of specialization, the scale of production, and the socioeconomic context in which they operated. It also asks what proportion of pottery production may have been carried out by occasional, non-specialized, or makeshift potters, and how such forms of production interacted with more organized or professional modes of pottery-making. In addressing these questions, the study examines the full spectrum of ceramic production, from household and occasional production to specialized workshop activity.

Ethnoarchaeology provides an important comparative framework for this analysis. Studies of modern pottery production and potters are especially valuable for reconstructing the techniques, working conditions, and social contexts of medieval potters. Taking into account the point of view of potters themselves can help avoid some of the interpretative traps that persist in archaeological and anthropological studies, particularly when technical choices are explained only from an external analytical perspective.

However, this study also addresses a methodological problem: ethnoarchaeological insights are often used selectively, a practice that can create interpretative biases. In order to use ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological evidence critically, it is also necessary to reflect on how the researcher’s own position, identity, assumptions, and analytical approach may influence the interpretation of the material under study.

For this reason, the research was further enriched through experimental practice and the systematic documentation of the procedures followed within a conceptual framework informed by autoethnography. [1] The technical difficulties and recurrent errors encountered during this process were systematically recorded and ultimately proved to be among its most valuable outcomes. They revealed aspects of learning, skill acquisition, and practical experience that neither textual nor archaeological evidence can fully convey.

Throughout the history of archaeological research, a linear understanding of the technological development of pottery production has often prevailed. From the invention of the potter’s wheel onward, production has frequently been understood as following an uninterrupted trajectory toward its increasingly widespread use, culminating in the universal adoption of the “faster,” foot-powered wheel. However, research has shown that the reality was far more complex: on the one hand, different types of wheels coexisted with a variety of technological procedures; on the other, highly specialized and efficient production methods were sometimes abandoned in favor of simpler and less demanding techniques.

These variations should not be interpreted as linear evolutionary stages, but rather as alternative and equally valid models of production, reflecting different socioeconomic contexts. Such models were shaped by the scale of the economy, the extent and nature of trade networks, forms of social organization, and the institutional mechanisms governing the production and distribution of ceramics.

The production of ceramic vessels always presupposes a specific set of knowledge and skills. However, ceramic production is not a uniform phenomenon; rather, it extends across a broad spectrum, from practical skill to professional specialization.

This discussion already appears in the work of David Peacock, Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach (1982). Focusing mainly on the Roman period, Peacock proposed a hierarchical classification of forms of ceramic production comprising eight categories, beginning with household production and extending to state or military production. Similarly, Véronique Françoise, referring to the Ottoman period, distinguishes three levels of activity on the basis of the type of products and their circulation: (a) seasonal potters operating within the framework of household production; (b) farmers who occasionally engaged in pottery-making, producing ceramics that circulated only locally and were not glazed; and (c) those who worked in large workshops in urban centers, where ceramics—primarily glazed wares—were distributed through organized trade networks.

Understanding and explaining complexity in medieval pottery production is essential. At the same time, it is necessary to consider that the technical choices made by potters were shaped through the interaction of cultural, environmental, and socioeconomic factors. Examining these factors makes it possible to understand not only technological change, but also the ways in which ceramic production was embedded within broader social and cultural contexts. Similar perspectives have also emerged in anthropology and ethnoarchaeology, as well as in studies of prehistoric and classical archaeology.

The autoethnographic observation of pottery learning likewise revealed that technical development does not follow a single or linear path. For this reason, particular attention was paid to the kinds of mistakes commonly made by potters at the beginning of their training. These included difficulties in producing more complex forms, achieving thinner and more regular walls and attaching handles successfully.

The intermediate degrees of technical training are often the most difficult to identify, since they result from a long process of observation, practice, and gradual skill refinement. The experimental process also highlighted the specific challenges faced by potters who learn to use the wheel after first mastering hand-building techniques, since the transition from one mode of forming to another requires a different set of gestures, rhythms, and technical responses. Even apparently simple factors, such as the level of clay hydration, proved crucial.

As far as the medieval period is concerned, textual and archaeological data, when considered together, reveal a more layered system of ceramic production than has previously been assumed. This synthesis points to a flexible and dynamic organization of pottery-making, corresponding to the diverse socioeconomic contexts in which potters worked. Economic decline and isolation may have given rise to alternative economic strategies, whereas growth, urban complexity, and expanding demand may have encouraged specialized production for most ceramic products.

For this reason, a new approach is needed, one that moves beyond the study of medieval ceramic objects alone and incorporates the socioeconomic position of the people who produced them. Who was the potter? What was their social position? In which networks did they participate? What raw materials and what kinds of infrastructure were available to them? The answers to these questions help explain why responses to technological or economic instability differed from place to place. Cultural memory, methods of learning, and social and economic contexts were interconnected and shaped technical practices, ultimately contributing to the specialization of ceramic production.

In the future, the results of this study will be incorporated into a publication aimed at developing a more comprehensive framework for the study of medieval ceramic production, incorporating not only technological processes and material evidence, but also the socioeconomic position, working conditions, and community of potters.