KAREN HARRY AND LI AM FRI NK

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 benet 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 specic 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 the
Arctic region when they think about clay cooking
pots, such vessels were important components of daily life
for the Arctic people along the western Alaskan and east-
ern Siberian coasts. Ceramic cooking vessels rst 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 are
well 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 signicant to the peo-
ple living in the Arctic region. Furthermore, the advantages
most commonly associated with the use of clay cooking
potsspecically, 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.
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 111, Issue 3, pp. 330343, ISSN 0002-7294 online ISSN 1548-1433. C
2009 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 interest
presumably 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, dif-
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
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 conned to
areas 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 sufciently before
ring (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 re 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 stronger
than 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
332 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 3 September 2009
the specic benets 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 conne our discussion to the
advantages of cooking containers. Furthermore, because
social advantages are likely to be culture specic, 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 efciency 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 water and re resistant, they can be
used to cook foods for long periods of time, inliquids, 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, whenpreparing foods that require prolonged cooking
in liquids, pottery is more efcient 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 in
basket boiling) is aneffective way to reachboiling or near-
boiling temperatures, it requires continuous attention to
avoid boil-over and to maintain those temperatures for
long periods of time. When ceramic containers are used,
once the relationship between the heat source and the
pot is established (nestled in coals, supported over the
re, etc.), constant temperatures can be maintained by
occasionally tending to the fuel. [1999:172]
Given the problems and benets 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 benet 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 prolonged
boiling.
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 adoptionof agriculture (Pavl u 1997; Rice 1999). Reasons
why hunter-gatherers might elect to cook in ceramic con-
tainers are similar to the reasons identied for agricultural-
ists: that is, we see ceramic cooking technology adopted by
hunter-gatherers who are dependent on foods that benet
from prolonged boiling or simmering.
Table 1 lists a number of known hunter-gatherer so-
cieties, both ethnographically and archaeologically iden-
tied, that made use of ceramic cooking technology.
(Omitted from this table are incipient farmers and other
hunter-gatherer groups that consumed signicant 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 shellsh and marine resources would have encour-
aged sedentary or semisedentary settlement. Additionally,
for people reliant on a shellsh diet, ceramic cooking tech-
nology offers two important advantages. First, the time re-
quired to process large quantities of shellsh is substantially
lowered, because shellsh open automatically with the ap-
plication of heat. Secondly, it prevents nutrients frombeing
lost, as might happen from the dripping of juices over an
Harry and Frink Alaskan Cooking Pot 333
TABLE 1. Hunter-Gatherer Use of Ceramic Cooking Technology.
Culture group Location Reference Primary food cooked in vessels
Ethnographic culture
Eskimo (various tribes) North America Spencer 1959:472; Steffanson 1962: Meat (primarily sea mammal) and soup
176178; Van Stone 1989:2930 made of sea-mammal blood
Northern Alaska North America Osgood 1940:147 Meat and sh
Athapascan (Ingalik)
Khiokhoi pastoralists South Africa Bollong et al. 1997 Meat (prepare soups and render grease)
Bushman South Africa Bollong et al. 1997 Meat, grass seeds
Archaeological Culture
Upper Great Lakes area North America Skibo 2007 Nuts (render oil)
Southeastern U.S. North America Sassaman 1992, 1995 Nuts (render oil)
Southwestern Great Basin North America Eerkins 2001 Grass seeds
Amazon South America Roosevelt 1995 Aquatic resources (shellsh, sh)
Northern Columbia South America Rodrguez 1995 Aquatic resources (shellsh, sh)
Middle Nile Africa Haaland 1995 Aquatic resources (sh, mollusks)
and wild grain (sorghum)
Jomon Asia Aikens 1995; Ikawa-Smith 1986 Aquatic resources (sh, shellsh)
China Asia MacNeish 1992:160162; Aquatic resources (sh, shellsh)
Rice 1999:1516; and cereal grains
open re. Prudence Rice (1999:32) suggests that the latter
is particularly important in regard to shellsh, given their
relatively low protein and caloric yields.
Cooking pots are also often used among societies that
emphasize the processing of nuts or meat products. In par-
ticular, they are often associated with the rendering of oils
from nuts or of grease from bone. As Kenneth Reid (1989,
1990) has argued, because such activities require lengthy
periods of simmering, they can be carried out more ef-
ciently with ceramic as opposed to other types of water-
proof vessels. Additionally, cooking meat in ceramic con-
tainers allows for prolonged simmering, which softens the
connective tissues, thus increasing its digestibility, as well
as prevents nutrients from being lost.
In summary, there are many different factors that af-
fected whether or not a particular preindustrial society
elected to adopt ceramic cooking containers. Perhaps the
strongest determinant of whether a society would adopt
pottery was whether it was both sedentary and agricultur-
ally dependent; such communities without exception had
clay cooking pots. Among hunting and gatheringbased so-
cieties, the largest determinants were the weather and the
food resources utilized. With only a fewexceptions, hunter-
gatherer societies that adopted ceramic cooking technology
were those that (1) lived in areas that had warm and dry cli-
mates for at least part of the year and (2) relied substantially
on food resources that beneted from prolonged boiling or
simmering processes. A notable exception to these cross-
cultural patterns was the marine-based hunting communi-
ties of the Alaskan Arctic coast.
THE CONUNDRUM OF ARCTIC CERAMIC COOKING
TECHNOLOGY
It would be difcult to nd a climate less amenable to pot-
tery production than that of the coastal Arctic. Winters are
long, cold, and dark, and summers are wet, windy, and cool.
The problems suchconditions would have posed for pottery
manufacture and how Arctic potters might have manipu-
lated their manufacturing technology in response to these
challenges have been discussed at length elsewhere (Frink
and Harry 2008; Harry et al. 2009; Zhushchikhovskaya
2005). We will not reenumerate all of those challenges
here, except to note that the inclement weather would
have made it extremely difcult both to construct and to
re ceramics. In fact, it is likely that the only time that
pottery could be made at all would have been in the sum-
mer months when the daytime temperatures climbed high
enough to at least begin to allow the newly formed vessels
to start the drying process.
Yet, even during this season, it was apparently dif-
cult or even impossible to thoroughly dry the wet pots.
Ethnographic reports indicate that pottery in this region
was commonly underred or even left unred (De Laguna
1947:141, 2000:135; Oswalt 1955:32), and sherds recov-
ered from archaeological contexts demonstrate the same
(Stimmell and Stromberg 1986). This underring process
would have avoided the problem of having the still-damp
vessels explode during the ring process but would have
resulted in extremely weak vessels prone to disintegra-
tion.
1
For example, Cornelius Osgood (1940:146149) re-
ported that when cooking pots were not in use, they were
stored on raised planks above the ground to keep them
from absorbing water and that water was never kept in
the vessels because it would cause the clay to soften. Sim-
ilarly, Vihjl amur Stef ansson wrote that the unred pots
broke easily and spoiled in long spells of wet weather
(1919:312).
Although the at-bottomed, straight-walled vessels
could be quickly shaped, the drying process apparently
could be quite time consuming.
2
One Eskimo informant re-
called that pots were left in the re while the tide went out,
came in, and went out again (Fienup-Riordan 1975:15).
Another informant, who was born around 1897, recalled
334 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 3 September 2009
that the drying-and-ring process took even longer. Accord-
ing to him,
the pot was turned occasionally on all sides by the re.
Each time they would get it close to the heat and test its
stability now and then. They would do this practically all
summer and then towards the rst snow fall in the fall
time, the pot was placed upside down. . . . They made a
re underneath and made the heat go inside the pot as a
nal preparation for the nished product. [Friday 1983]
Not only did the regions weather make pottery man-
ufacture difcult but also the amount of time required
to harden the clay pots would have created substantial
scheduling problems for Arctic women. Because the short
period of time during which pottery could be made coin-
cided with the most intensive sh-harvesting season of the
year, constraints on womens time would have been high.
During these few summer weeks, women were busy with
the task of processing enough sh to last them throughout
the year (Frink 2002; Frink et al. 2003; Lantis 1946) and the
added burden of making pots during this time would have
tasked an already busy schedule.
Given these various problems associated with making
pots in the Arctic (and the resulting poor quality of the ves-
sels), the presence of a ceramic cooking technology in this
region is unexpected. Its presence is even more perplexing
when one considers that none of the foods consumed in
the Arctic required heating, much less sustained cooking
or high temperatures. Prehistoric and historic Arctic people
were (and largely still are) hunters and gatherers who relied
primarily on marine and tundra resources for their subsis-
tence. There, cooking pots were used primarily to heat sea-
mammal meat, rather than to open shellsh, process seeds,
or render oil or grease from animal fat. Although shell-
sh were clearly eaten along Alaskan Arctic coast (Hrdli cka
1975:46; VanStone 1989:31), they appear to have formed
only a minor part of the diet compared to sh, sea mam-
mal, and other types of meat. Perhaps because they were
not processed in large quantities, shellsh do not appear to
have been commonly cooked in vessels. The only ethno-
graphic references to their preparation that we could nd
indicate that they were eaten raw (Fienup-Riordan 1983:92;
Hrdli cka 1975:46; VanStone 1989:31) or after having been
lightly roasted on coals (Hrdli cka 1975:46).
Nor were cooking pots required to process seeds or
render oil. The Arctic climate precludes the existence of
starchy seeds, and sea-mammal oila mainstay of the Arc-
tic diet and lifestylecould be rendered without heat. Al-
though historically some Arctic groups extracted mammal
oil by protracted boiling (Bogoraz-Tan 1904), most groups
along the western coastline produced such oil by lling
seal pokes with pieces of blubber and storing them under-
ground, where the fat would liquefy into oil on its own
(Haynes and Wolfe 1999; Ray 1975:92).
The mainstay of the diet was sea-mammal meat, a food
that is not nutritionally enhanced by cooking. Instead, the
opposite is true; for Arctic people, the nutritional benets
of sea-mammal meat are maximized when it is eaten raw or
only slightly cooked (Draper 1978; Fediuk et al. 2002; Ziker
2002). The nutritional importance of uncooked or under-
cooked meat derives from its vitamin C content, which
otherwise is low in the Eskimo diet. Because heat destroys
vitamin C, undercooked foods traditionally served as the
primary source of this important vitamin for Arctic people.
In fact, virtually all of the foods eaten by the Arctic people
couldand usually wereeaten raw (see Wein et al. 1996).
Furthermore, even when they were heated, the foods would
be only briey exposed to hot temperatures. Modern-day
informants report that traditional cooking techniques, still
preferred by many today, involve only briey immersing
chunks of meat into hot water and removing them as soon
as they have been warmed through or only lightly par-
boiled (Frink and Harry 2008:111; Spray 2002). Thus, there
is nothing in this technique that favors the use of a ceramic
cooking technology. Because the meat is only thawed or
warmed in heated water, it could easily have been prepared
using the stone-boiling method, which does not require the
use of ceramic containers.
Given, then, the difculties associated with pottery
production in the Arctic area, the resultant weak and friable
vessels, dietary needs that could be met without cooking
the food at all, and the use of food-preparation techniques
that could easily have beenaccommodated by stone-boiling
methods, the question therefore remains: Why was the Arc-
tic cooking pot adopted? We argue thatin contrast to
most areas of the world where cooking pots were adopted
the answer lies not in dietary food-processing requirements
but, rather, in the interplay between socially derived culi-
nary preferences and the problems posed by the use of other
cooking methods.
THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT OF
COOKING IN THE ARCTIC
Arctic Culinary Preferences
As discussed above, Arctic nutritional needs could be met
without utilizing any cooking technology at all. Arctic peo-
ple are famously known as raw meat eaters, and, indeed,
much of the traditional diet consisted of uncooked foods.
However, the common practice of eating raw foods should
not be interpreted as an absence of culinary sophistication.
Raw foods were seldom eaten plain; rather, they were care-
fully prepared following the traditions and practices of the
culture. Women paid careful attention to both taste and
texture and skillfully manipulated foods to please the Arc-
tic palate. Zona Spray Starks (2007:41) suggests that Arctic
recipes reected the principal of contrasts, in which hot and
cold temperatures played against hard and soft textures.
For the Arctic people, the majority of their foods were
collected during the short summer season. To ensure that
the foods would last throughout the winter, they would be
preserved through fermentation, drying, or freezing. Re-
gardless of the technique used, until ready to be eaten,
most foods were kept frozen in underground storage pits
Harry and Frink Alaskan Cooking Pot 335
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 a-
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 avor and texture of this dish; it
was to be thawed just enough that it was neither solidly
frozen nor too accid. 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 briey 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 specic 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 conned 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 re-
boiling method (see Figure 2; Driver and Massey 1957:228
223; Fienup-Riordan 1975:27): that is, with the pot set
directly in the re. 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 reect
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 re-boiling methods
corresponds to the distribution of the Arctic tundra. In
the 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 difcult 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 re-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: rst, there likely were shortages
of fuel wood; second, it would have been difcult to cook
inside during the cold winter months.
Wood on the Arctic coast is difcult 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 are
used 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 difcult 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 difculties associated with acquiring fuel
wood and with having cooking res 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 re-boiling method is more efcient in
336 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 3 September 2009
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 re-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 suf-
ciently tightly to be waterproof. The basket measured 20
centimeters at its maximum diameter by ten centimeters
in height, and when lled to the rim, it had a capacity of
1,700 milliliters.
The ceramic replicas were made by Andreas Charest, a
graduate student at the University of NevadaLas Vegas. A
total of six vessels were made, three of eachstyle. The Arctic-
style vessels were fashioned after Thule-style jars, which ap-
peared in the Arctic at 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 at-bottomed with straight (vertical or slightly
aring) walls. Additionally, they are characterized by thick
walls, low ring temperatures, organic or mineral tempers,
Harry and Frink Alaskan Cooking Pot 337
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 ne
(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 are
SouthwesternU.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, at base to which thick coils were added. The coils
were then pinched together and scraped to obliterate the
coil junctures, but to match the 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 red in a Raku kiln under neutral atmospheric con-
ditions. The vessels were red to a maximum temperature
of 800

C, although the target temperature was lower and

for most of the 20-minute holding time the temperatures
ranged from 690

C to 750

C. 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 ner 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 percent
dry clay, seven percent ground sherd (measuring 1.0 mm
338 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 3 September 2009
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 then
made 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 orice. The vessels capacities av-
eraged about 1,600 milliliters. All vessels were red in an
electric oxidizing kiln to a maximumtemperature of 750

C,
with a 20-minute soak at that temperature.
Prior to initiating the rst set of experiments, all of the
containers were lled 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. We
elected to coat the interior of the basket with commercially
purchased roong tar, a procedure that we believed approx-
imated the waterproong 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
lled 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 Arctic
cooking process.
Experiment 1
In the rst experiment, commercially purchased rewood
(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 re and, once the re was determined to
be burning well, by placing the water-lled vessel directly
within the re. All vessels were lled with one liter of water,
and all vessels were capped with a ceramic lid to improve
the cooking efciency. In all cases, the lids were briey re-
moved rst at three minutes, and then every minute there-
after to determine when the water began to boil. In the
stone-boiling experiments, res were again lit and, once
they were burning strongly, small (ranging from ve 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 lled with one liter of
FIGURE 5. Stone-boiling experiments. Upper frame shows the
basalt cobbles after being uncovered in the re. Bottom frame
shows a student placing a hot cobble into the waterproofed basket.
water, but in this case they were set off to the side, rather
than in, the re. After 15 minutes, the rocks were removed
from the re 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 (100

C)
Puebloan-style jar
Vessel A 5
Vessel B 5
Vessel C 4
Thule-style jar
Vessel A 9.5
Vessel B 10
Vessel C 11
Harry and Frink Alaskan Cooking Pot 339
TABLE 3. Results of Stone-Boiling Experiments Using Regular Fire-
wood.
Number of stones Water brought
Vessel used/time stones heated to a boil?
Thule-style vessel 3 stone/13 minutes No
Water-proofed basket 3 stones/12 minutes No
Water-proofed basket 3 stones/13 minutes Yes
Thule-style vessel 3 stones/15 minutes Yes
Thule-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 rst experiment, we con-
ducted a second set of experiments using smaller pieces
of wood. This second experiment was designed to more
closely mimic the res that we thought were likely to have
been used indoors; the large pieces of rewood used in the
rst 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 rewood. The pieces of wood were of a
fairly standard size, with the typical piece measuring about
25 centimeters long by two centimeters in diameter. The
starter 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 rewood 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 rst part of the experiment, three different
Thule-style pots were lled with one liter of water, covered
with a ceramic lid, and set directly on the re built from
the fatwood pieces. Pieces of wood were added as necessary
until the water was brought to a boil, and in all cases the
fewest 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
re-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 re 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 the Thule-style pots to a boil. Bottomframe shows a lidded
Thule-style pot on the re.
re. Wood was added as necessary to keep the re burning,
and at a predetermined point, the stones were removed and
placed into the container of water. Three different trials
were carried out (Table 5). In the rst trial, 18 pieces of
starter wood were used, an amount similar to that needed
to bring the water to boil in the direct re-boiling tests.
After ten minutes, when the starter wood was beginning
to die down, the rocks were removed and placed into the
water-lled 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 sufciently 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 in
the direct re-boiling tests. Despite these greater amounts
TABLE 4. Results of Direct-Boiling Experiments with Small Starter
Wood.
Pieces of wood Minutes to
Vessel needed to bring to boil boil (100

C)
Thule-style Jar A 19 14
Thule-style Jar B 18 16
Thule-style Jar C 22 16
340 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 3 September 2009
TABLE 5. Results of Stone-Boiling Experiments with Small Starter
Wood.
Pieces of Ending
Vessel wood used Minutes temperature
Thule-style jar A 18 10 56

C
Thule-style jar B 52 23 61

C
Thule-style jar C 88 33 61

C
of fuel wood, we were still unable to bring the water to a
boil. In fact, the highest temperature achieved was 61

C,
well below the 100

C 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 efcient. It requires no more time to bring water
or broth to a boil than does the direct re-boiling method
(although of course, to sustain these temperatures would
require more effort). When fuel is limited or when there is
a need to keep the re small, however, the direct re-boiling
method is signicantly more efcient, 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 insufcient coals are
generated from these small res, making it difcult to keep
the stones smothered by the re.
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 viewtechnology as 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 cultural
and 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-
specic 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 difculty 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 res.
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 signicant advantages to the
Arctic people. Furthermore, these advantages clearly were
perceived to be important enough to offset the difculties
and inconveniences involved in their manufacture. But un-
like most areas of the world where ceramic cooking vessels
were adopted, the benets 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 FRINK Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies,
University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154
NOTES
Acknowledgments. This research was supported by a National Sci-
ence Foundation Ofce of Polar Programs grant (#0452900, Pro-
gram Ofcer Anna Kerttula de Echave). We would like to thank
Andreas Charest for making the ceramic vessels and Mark Slaugh-
ter for his help preparing the gures. Additionally, we would like
to 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 completely
dry (i.e., before the chemically unbound water has been driven off)
will explode in the ring process.
2. Experiments suggest that these vessels could be shaped in as
little as 20 minutes.
3. Of course, the use of stone-boiling techniques requires the pres-
ence of suitable cobbles. (Because stones used in this technique
can only be reused a few times before fracturing [see Sassaman
1995:228229], large quantities of stone are required when this is
the primary cooking method.) For coastal communities, stone cob-
bles can usually be easily found on the beaches. For inland delta
communities, however, a paucity of useable stone may have been
an additional factor selecting against the use of the stone-boiling
technology.
4. Previous informal experiments had suggested that the rocks
would need to be in the re for about 15 minutes to become hot
enough to bring the water to a boil. Those experiments indicated
that, when kept in the re for ten minutes or less, one liter of water
could not be brought to a boil using only three stones, whereas the
Harry and Frink Alaskan Cooking Pot 341
same number of stones kept in the re for 15 minutes was always
able to bring the water to a boil.
5. In volume, the 20 pieces of wood translate to about 1,2001,300
cubic centimeters of woodapproximately the amount of wood
that would ll a liter-sized container.
REFERENCES CITED
Aikens, C. Melvin
1995 First in the World: The Jomon Pottery of Early Japan. In The
Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient
Societies. 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 in
Ancient Societies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Boadi, Swasi Owusu, and Markku Kuitunen
2006 Factors Affecting the Choice of Cooking Fuel, Cooking
Place 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 African
Interior. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16(3):269
299.
Braje, Todd J., Jon M. Erlandson, and Jan Timbrook
2005 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, Winifred
1986 The Western Apache: Living with the Land. Norman: Uni-
versity of Oklahoma Press.
Childe, V. Gordon
1936 Man Makes Himself. London: Watts.
De Laguna, Frederick
1939 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 Biological
Perspective. 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
American Indians, 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 15:221
235.
Fienup-Riordan, Ann
1975 Maraiuirvik Nunakauiami. Funded by the Alaska Human-
ities Forum. Unpublished MS, ANCSA Ofce of Bureau of In-
dian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska.
1983 The Nelson Island Eskimo: Social Structure and Ritual Dis-
tribution. Anchorage: Alaska Pacic University Press.
2007 Yuungnaqpiallerput: The Way We Genuinely Live. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Friday, Joe
1983 ANCSA Interview 83 VAK 23. Report. Anchorage: ANCSA
Ofce of Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Frink, Lisa
2002 FishTales: Womenand DecisionMaking inWesternAlaska.
In Many Faces of Gender: Roles and Relationships through
Time 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 of
Late Prehistoric and Historic Culture Change in Western
Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin, Madison.
Frink, Lisa, and Karen G. Harry
2008 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, Randi
1995 Sedentism, Cultivation, and Plant Domestication in the
Holocene Middle Nile Region. Journal of Field Archaeology
22(2):157174.
Harry, Karen G., Lisa Frink, Brendan OToole, and Andreas Charest
2009 How to Make an Unred Clay Cooking Pot: Understanding
the Technological Choices Made by Arctic Potters. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 16(1):3350.
Hayden, Brian
1995 The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery. In The
Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient
Societies. 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:
InterviewMaterials fromAlaska 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 InteractioninHunting and Gathering Societies as a Context
for the Emergence of Pottery in the Central American Isthmus.
In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in
Ancient Societies. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes,
eds. Pp. 185198. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Hrdli cka, Ales
1975 Anthropology of Kodiak Island. New York: AMS Press.
Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko
1986 Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Technologies. In Win-
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, Margaret
1946 The Social Culture of the Nunivak Eskimo. Transactions of
the AmericanPhilosophical Society 35(3). Philadelphia: Amer-
ican Philosophical Society.
342 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 3 September 2009
Larsen, Helge
1950 Archaeological Investigations in Southwestern Alaska.
American Antiquity 15:177186.
Lemonnier, Pierre
1986 Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology
of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
52(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 of
Anthropology 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. Barnett
and John W. Hoopes, eds. Pp. 3953. Washington, DC: Smith-
sonian Institution Press.
Morgan, Lewis H.
1978 Ancient Society. New York: World.
OLeary, Matthew
1999 Early Yupiit-Cupiit Regional Groups with Special Reference
to Ceramic Cooking Pot Designs. Paper presented at the 26th
Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association
Meeting, Anchorage, October 13.
Osgood, Cornelius
1940 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 Classication and Historical Reconstruc-
tion. American Antiquity 21(1):3243.
Oswalt, Wendell H., and James W. VanStone
1967 The Ethnoarchaeology of Crow Village, Alaska. Washing-
ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Pavl u, Ivan
1997 Pottery Origins: Initial Forms, Cultural Behavior, and Dec-
orative Styles. Prague: Karlovy University Press.
Pfaffenberger, Bryan
1988 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 Jean
1975 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. Gordon
Bronitskey, ed. Pp. 167180. Boulder, CO: Westview.
1990 Simmering Down: A Second Look at Ralph Lintons North
American Cooking Pots. In Hunter-Gatherer Pottery fromthe
Far West. Joanne M. Mack, ed. Pp. 718. Nevada State Mu-
seum Anthropological Papers, 23. Carson City: Nevada State
Museum.
Rice, Prudence M.
1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 6(1):154.
Rodrguez, Camilo
1995 Sites with Early Ceramics in the Caribbean Littoral of
Colombia: A Discussion of Periodization and Typologies. In
The 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: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1992 Gender and Technology at the Archaic-Woodland Tran-
sition. In Exploring Gender through Archaeology: Selected
Papers 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 in
Ancient Societies. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes,
eds. Pp. 223240. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Skibo, James
2007 Why Pottery? A Perspective from the Upper Great Lakes.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 72nd Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin,
April 2529.
Skibo, James M., and Eric Blinman
1999 Exploring the Origins of Pottery on the Colorado Plateau.
In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. James M. Skibo
and 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 Beach
Site. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska Fair-
banks 24(12):1531.
Starks, Zona Spray
2007 Arctic Foodways and Contemporary Cuisine. Gastronimca:
The Journal of Food and Culture 7(1):4149.
Stef ansson, Vihjl amur
1919 The Stef ansson-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. In
Ceramics and Civilizations, vol. 2: Technology and Style.
William D. Kingery, ed. Pp. 237250. Columbus: American
Ceramic Society.
Vandiver, Pamela B.
1987 Sequential Slab Construction: A Conservative Southwest
Asiatic Ceramic Tradition, ca. 70003000 B.C. Pal eorient 13:9
35.
VanStone, James
1989 Nunivak Island Eskimo (Yuit) Technology and Material
Culture. Fieldiana (n.s.), 12. Chicago: Field Museumof Natural
History.
Vitelli, Karen G.
1995 Pots, Potters, and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society.
In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in
Ancient Societies. William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes,
eds. Pp. 5564. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
1999 Looking Up at Early Ceramics in Greece. In Pottery and
People: A Dynamic Interaction. James M. Skibo and Gary M.
Feinman, eds. Pp. 184198. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
Wein, Eleanor E., Milton M. R. Freeman, and Jeanette C. Makus
1996 Use of and Preference for Traditional Foods
among the Belcher Island Inuit. Arctic 49(3):256
264.
Zhushchikhovskaya, Irina S.
2005 Prehistoric Pottery Making of the Russian Far East. BAR
International Series, 1434. Oxford: ArchaeoPress.
Harry and Frink Alaskan Cooking Pot 343
Ziker, John
2002 Raw and Cooked in Arctic Siberia: Diet and Consumption
Strategies in Socio-Ecological Perspective. Nutritional Anthro-
pology 25(2):2033.
FOR FURTHER READING
(These selections were made by the American Anthropologist Edito-
rial Interns as examples of research related in some way to this
article. They do not necessarily reect the views of the author.)
Elston, Robert G., and P. Jeffrey Brantingham
2002 Microlithic Technology in Northern Asia: A Risk-
Minimizing Strategy of the Late Paleolithic and Early
Holocene. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropo-
logical Association 12(1):103116.
Frink, Lisa
2009 The Identity Division of Labor in Native Alaska. American
Anthropologist 111(1):2129.
Goebel, Ted
2002 The Microblade Adaptation and Recolonization of
Siberia during the Late Upper Pleistocene. Archeological Pa-
pers of the American Anthropological Association 12(1):117
133.
Park, Robert
2005 Growing Up North: Exploring the Archaeology of Child-
hood in the Thule and Dorset Cultures of Arctic Canada.
Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Asso-
ciation 15(1):5364.
Ziker, John
2002 Raw and Cooked Arctic Siberia: Diet and Consumption
Strategies in Socio-Ecological Perspective. Nutritional Anthro-
pology 25(2):2033.