1

SOCIAL CHANGE AND CULTURAL CONTINUITY AMONG TARASCAN POTTERS: A SOCIAL CHANGE AND CULTURAL CONTINUITY AMONG TARASCAN POTTERS: A CASE STUDY IN HUCASE STUDY IN HUÁÁNCITO, MICHOACNCITO, MICHOACÁÁN, MEXICON, MEXICO

Eduardo Williams, Eduardo Williams, Ph.DPh.D.. Centro de Estudios ArqueolCentro de Estudios Arqueolóógicosgicos El Colegio de MichoacEl Colegio de Michoacáánn AprilApril, 2014, 2014

SOCIAL CHANGE AND CULTURAL CONTINUITY AMONG TARASCAN

POTTERS: A CASE STUDY IN HUÁNCITO, MICHOACÁN, MEXICO1

Eduardo Williams, PhD

El Colegio de Michoacán

How and why do ceramics and their production change through time? Following the perspectives of Dean Arnold, this study tries to answer these questions by tracing social change among potters and changes in the production and distribution of their wares in Huáncito, a Tarascan Indian community located in the Cañada de los Once Pueblos (Michoacán, Mexico). During a period of over 20 years the author has witnessed changes in the families of artisans and the evolution of a ceramic style on a household, community, and regional level. The structural modifications and patterns of cultural continuity discussed in this paper offer a model for ethnographic analogy and archaeological interpretation. This study bridges the gap between archaeology and ethnography, using the analysis of contemporary pottery production and distribution to generate original theoretical explanations for archaeologists working with pre-Hispanic pottery assemblages.

Introduction

This paper is a tribute to Dr. Dan Healan, for his many years of work in Mesoamerica.

His research in Tula and Ucareo-Zinapécuaro (Michoacán) has been of the foremost

importance for the development of archaeological knowledge in Mesoamerica. For the

present writer, Healan’s work on the production and distribution of obsidian has been of

1 © Eduardo Williams. Prepared for the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting. Austin, Texas (April 2014).

2

paramount importance for developing new ideas and areas of research on strategic

resources in ancient Michoacán, beginning with salt production, moving on to aquatic

resources, and presently dealing with pottery production in Tarascan Indian households

(Williams 2014).

Ceramic styles, production strategies, and distribution networks change through

time, offering an inexhaustible source of research opportunities, but at the same time

creating a huge challenge for archaeological interpretation. How and why do ceramics

and their production change through time? Following the perspectives of Dean Arnold

(1985, 2008), this study tries to answer processual questions about social change and

cultural persistence by tracing changes among potters and transformations in the

production and distribution of their wares in Huáncito, a Tarascan Indian community

located in the Cañada de los Once Pueblos (Michoacán, Mexico). During a period of

over 20 years the author has witnessed changes in the families of artisans and the

evolution of a ceramic style on a household, community, and regional level (e. g.

Williams 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 2014; Shott and Williams 2001, 2006). The

structural modifications and patterns of cultural continuity discussed in this paper offer

a model for ethnographic analogy and archaeological interpretation. This study bridges

the gap between archaeology and ethnography, using the analysis of contemporary

pottery production and distribution to generate original theoretical explanations for

archaeologists working with pre-Hispanic pottery assemblages. This research

underscores the role of ethnoarchaeology as an analytical tool to investigate the

relationship between material culture in systemic context (Schiffer 1988) and the

fragments of matter that comprise the archaeological record.

Huáncito is located in La Cañada de los Once Pueblos, a small and narrow

valley north of the Meseta or Sierra Tarasca (Figure 1). This is a very characteristic

geographic unit, and one of the regions still occupied by people of Tarascan ancestry

(West 1948). The Tarascan people are one of the most conservative in terms of their

culture, although it has been modified through the mixture and synthesis brought about

by the Spanish Conquest (Beals 1969). Potters in general were considered by George

Foster as more conservative regarding their “basic personality structure” in comparison

with other non-urban human groups. This is due to the structure and nature of the

potter’s work, which favors those who adhere strictly to known and proved customs, in

order to avoid an “economic catastrophe”. Pottery manufacture is not an easy task, as

there are literally hundreds of aspects in which a small variation in materials or

3

procedures may have a negative effect on the resulting works. This generates a basic

conservative attitude, a caution against any thing new, which according to Foster (1965:

49-50) extends to the whole view of life.

Figure 1. Map of Michoacán indicating the location of the study area.

Discussion

The main goal of the present research is to understand the basic aspects of pottery

production in Huáncito, as well as the changes seen over time, from the first visits made

by the author to the potting compounds in 1990 to the present day. This diachronic

perspective is useful to understand the social processes and their manifestation in

material culture, that is to say the ethnographic or systemic context and the

archaeological context. What follows is a discussion of the topics covered by the

present investigation.

Organization of the Potter’s Work

Pottery production in Huáncito is an occupation developed on a strictly domestic level,

with the family as the basic unit of production. This type of family organization for

artisan production is typical of peasant societies (Beals 1969). According to Kenneth

Hirth, the household was the “back bone” of all economic systems in antiquity, and it

still is today. Most of the food, fuel, and other resources were produced in the

4

household, and they were so important that without them society would simply not be

able to function. Households were not self-sufficient, as seen through ethnographic

research in Mexico and many other places around the world. Exchange between

families and other groups within a settlement was indispensable to offset the inevitable

shortcomings (Hirth 2013: 125).

Figure 2. The molding of pots, as well as drying and polishing, are usually performed by women and girls.

Some families of potters in Huáncito are of the nuclear type, consisting of the

father, mother and sons and daughters, while others are extended families,

encompassing up to three generations. Pottery-making work is organized in such a way

that each family member has his or her own specific functions, although sometimes

these divisions are not so strict, and a member of the household unit can help another in

carrying out a particular task. For instance, it is the wife who usually performs the

molding of pots, as well as drying and polishing (Figure 2), while decoration can be

performed indistinctly by men or women. The most difficult aspects of pottery

production, such as getting the clay from the natural deposits, (Figure 3) and grinding

the clay (Figure 4) as well as getting the firewood (Figure 5), are usually performed by

men, with some help from women and children. Nowadays in many families children go

to school, so they are only able to help in pottery making during their free time.

Burning the Pots

Foster believed that the potter’s kiln used in Michoacán was of Spanish Colonial origin,

and that pottery had always been fired in the open in pre-Hispanic times (Foster 1955)

5

(Figure 6). We now know that kilns were used in ancient Mesoamerica (Arnold 2005),

so the potter’s kiln we see today in Michoacán and other areas may very well be an

example of “technological syncretism”. Virtually every house in Huáncito has its own

potter’s kiln (or more than one), although sometimes a potter can use the kiln of a close

relative, such as mother or mother-in-law.

Figure 3. Clay is extracted from the earth by men, with some help from their wives.

A medium-sized kiln in Huáncito can hold some six dozen pots, which require

between one and two loads of firewood to burn properly (1 load= ca. 100 pieces of

wood of ca. 45-50 cm each). Pine wood is preferred, but it has to be brought from other

towns, since the area around Huáncito has been heavily deforested in recent years.

Open air pottery firing has survived in some Tarascan towns, such as Zipiajo,

located in the Zacapu basin to the southeast of Huáncito. Here pots are fired without

kilns, which results in a particular kind of pottery with a more “rustic” appearance. First

pots and griddles are piled up on top of the firewood (Figure 7), then they are covered

with grass (Figure 8), and finally they are burned in the open (Figure 9). We know that

both kiln and open firing coexisted in Mesoamerica in ancient times; the use of either

one or the other technique had to do with variables such as the available space in potting

compounds (Arnold 2005).

6

Figure 4. Clay used to be ground with big rocks in order to pulverize it for making the paste used in pottery making.

There is concern worldwide about the availability of fuel for several domestic

and industrial activities. Many urban centers and rural communities, especially in Third

World countries, are facing the problem of growing deforestation because of an increase

in demand of firewood for cooking (Figures 10 and 11), heating, construction,

production of artifacts and other activities (Sheehy 1988). These factors surely must

have existed in the pre-Hispanic world as well; in fact the pressure on fuel resources

may have been increased considerably in the ancient past, since transport technology

was limited to porters and alternative energy resources were rather limited (Sheehy

1988: 203).

Pottery Decoration

Potters in Huáncito use an earth called charanda to paint pots in a distinctive red-brown

color. This earth is bought from people from Tarecuato, a nearby Tarascan town, and

this is the only place where it is found. Another natural color used by these potters is a

black soil obtained from ant hills, which comes from Zirahuén, located in northern

Michoacán. However, nowadays relatively few people use natural colors, which are

more expensive and harder to find than commercially made paints.

7

Figure 5. Firewood was brought to the potting compounds in Huáncito on horse back. Nowadays the hills around town have been heavily deforested. Therefore, firewood is brought by truck from further afield.

Figure 6. The kiln used in Huáncito and other areas of Michoacán is a product of pre-Hispanic and Colonial technology. Much firewood is used in this town for pottery making and other needs.

8

Figure 7. In Some Tarascan pottery producing towns, like Zipiajo, pots are fired in the open, without the use of kilns.

Figure 8. The pots are covered with grass, which will be burned together with firewood. This part of the process is carried out by women in Zipiajo.

9

Figure 9. The grass is burning over the pots, which will be unevenly fired producing a particular “rustic” look, very different from the wares made in Huancito.

The motifs used in pottery decoration are usually naturalistic, such as flowers

and animals from the region: rabbits, birds, etc. Among the flowers, the Poinsettia is

very common; it is grown in many homes around Huáncito and it blooms especially in

winter (therefore it may be linked symbolically with important events of the ritual

calendar, like the Day of the Dead, Christmas, and the New Year) (Figure 12). Although

there is a certain uniformity in all ceramic decoration in this town, each artisan has his

or her own personal style, and a certain design is made in a distinctive way in each

potting compound.

One of the aims of this study is to determine how innovations like the one

mentioned above are transmitted within a community of potters. According to Dean

Arnold (1989: 174), the relationship between style and society is one of the most

important subjects of archaeological research. Archaeologists have proposed several

models relating style with social behavior. One of these models is based on kinship, in

which the patterns of descent and residence account for the transmission of a style from

one generation to another (Figure 13).

Arnold has put to the test his kinship-based hypothetical model in a modern

peasant community (Ticul, Yucatán), in which pottery production is geared almost

exclusively toward the outside market, as is the case in Huáncito. According to Arnold’s

10

study, most potters in Ticul learned the trade in the household where they live, and their

father lives in the same household. Therefore, Arnold holds that a patrilocal-patrilineal

model has the potential to explain the learning patterns of pottery production in this

town (Arnold 1989: 179).

Figure 10. In many Tarascan households firewood is still used for fuel in the kitchen, in addition to firing the potter’s kilns.

Figure 11. Firewood consumption in Huáncito is a widespread custom with a deleterious ecological impact.

11

Figure 12. Each potter has his or her own personal style of decoration, and a certain design is made in a distinctive way in each potting compound.

Arnold thinks that in traditional societies pottery making is learned through

imitation and practice, more than by direct learning. Teaching the potter’s craft involves

learning a series of complex motor patterns and habits for fabrication, combined with

the cognitive knowledge of raw materials (such as clays, non plastic additives and fuels)

(Arnold 1989: 180).

Arnold’s study shows that a kinship-based model is valid for linking learning

patterns and residence in a pottery-producing population. This conclusion has important

implications for identification of social groups in the archaeological record.

Conclusions

As we have seen in this paper, ethnoarchaeology looks at traditional industries, in this

case pottery making, in order to generate hypotheses that will eventually be used to

interpret and explain the archaeological record. This study bridges the gap between

archaeology and ethnography, using the analysis of contemporary pottery production

and distribution to generate original theoretical explanations for archaeologists working

with pre-Hispanic pottery assemblages. This research underscores the role of

ethnoarchaeology as an analytical tool to investigate the relationship between material

12

culture in systemic context (Schiffer 1988) and the fragments of matter that comprise

the archaeological record.

Figure 13. Pottery decoration follows personal styles which are passed down from generation to generation.

The present pottery-making traditions in Michoacán and other parts of Mexico

show patterns of cultural persistence, for instance the use of firewood, kilns and open-

air firing, which have persisted over many centuries, as well as patterns of change, like

the new decorative techniques and styles that are constantly being incorporated into the

potter’s repertoire.

This ethnoarchaeological investigation among the Tarascan potters of Huáncito

is just starting, although we have the advantage of our previous work in the area 20

years ago. In the last 20 years the role of ethnoarchaeology has become stronger and

more important in Mexican archaeology. We hope to continue with this work in the

coming years, thus making a real contribution to the development of archaeological

knowledge in Mesoamerica.

13

THE ENDTHE END

References cited

Arnold, Dean 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1989 “Patterns of Learning, Residence, and Descent among Potters in Ticul, Yucatan,

Mexico”, in Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 174-184. Unwin Hyman, Londres.

2008 Social Change and the Evolution of Ceramic Production and Distribution in a

Maya Community. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Arnold, Philip 2005 “El quemado de las ollas en la Sierra de Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz: un estudio de

ecología cerámica”, in Etnoarqueología: el contexto dinámico de la cultura material a través del tiempo, edited by Eduardo Williams, pp. 35-54. El Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora.

Beals, Ralph L. 1969 “The Tarsacans”, in Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by R.

Wauchope, Vol. 8, pp. 725-776. University of Texas Press, Austin.

14

Foster, George 1955 Contemporary Pottery Techniques in Southern and Central Mexico. Publication

22, Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans. 1965 “The Sociology of Pottery: Questions and Hypotheses Arising from

Contemporary Mexican Work”, in Ceramics and Man, edited by Frederick R. Matson, pp. 43-61. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 41. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Nueva York.

Hirth, Kenneth 2013 “Economic Consumption and Domestic Economy in Cholula’s Rural Hinterland,

Mexico”. Latin American Antiquity 24(2), pp. 123-148. Sheehy, James 1988 “Ceramic Ecology and the Clay/Fuel Ratio: Modeling Fuel Consumption in

Tlajinga 33, Teotihuacan, Mexico”, in Ceramic Ecology Revisited 1987: The Technology and Socioeconomics of Pottery, edited by Charles C. Kolb, pp. 199-226. BAR International Series 436(i). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Schiffer, Michael 1988 “The Structure of Archaeological Theory”. American Antiquity 53, pp. 461-485. Shott, Michael and E. Williams 2001 “Datos censales sobre la vida útil de la cerámica: estudio etnoarqueológico en

Michoacán”, in Estudios cerámicos en el occidente y norte de México, edited by E. Williams and P. C. Weigand, pp. 97-126. El Colegio de Michoacán/ Instituto Michoacano de Cultura, Zamora and Morelia.

2006 “Purepecha Pottery Ethnoarchaeology”, in Integrating the Diversity of Twenty-

First-Century Anthropology: The Life and Intellectual Legacies of Susan Kent, edited by Wendy Ashmore, A. Rosen, M. A. Dobres and S. M. Nelson, pp. 47-56. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 16(1). University of California Press, Berkeley.

West, Robert C. 1948 Cultural Geography of the Modern Tarascan Area. Smithsonian Institution,

Institute of Social Anthropology Publication 7. Washington. Williams, Eduardo 1992 "Pans, Pots, and People: Ceramic Ecology in West Mexico". PIA: Papers from the

Institute of Archaeology 3, pp. 44-51. 1994a "Ecología cerámica en Huáncito, Michoacán" in Arqueología del Occidente de

México: nuevas aportaciones, edited by Eduardo Williams and Robert Novella, pp. 319-363. El Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora.

1994b “Organización del espacio doméstico y producción cerámica en Huáncito,

Michoacán”, in Contribuciones a la arqueología y etnohistoria del Occidente de

15

México, edited by Eduardo Williams, pp.189-226. El Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora.

1995 “The Spatial Organisation of Pottery Production in Huancito, Michoacán,

Mexico”. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 6, pp. 47-56. 2014 “Cambio social y continuidad cultural en la cerámica de Huáncito, Michoacán,

México”. Materialidades: Perspectivas Actuales en Cultura Material [in press].