Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:33:51.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Project Holocene: The Clayful Phenomenology of Jōmon Flame Pots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2020

Paul Louis March Open the ORCID record for Paul Louis March [Opens in a new window]
Paul Louis March*
Affiliation:
Keble College, OxfordOX1 3PG, UK Email: paul.march@keble.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As a ceramic artist, I was surprised to find that archaeological research gives little attention to the extraordinary sensorial qualities of Jōmon flame pots. To understand why, I consider the challenges of including sensory experience in archaeological method and the problems of leaving it out. Turning to the typological approach to Jōmon pottery, I highlight the assumptions it makes about cognition before introducing Material Engagement Theory (MET) as an alternative. A MET-oriented reanalysis of the typological evidence places sensation at the centre of enquiry and removes the need to interpret symbolic, representational content. Through MET, I consider the sensorial qualities of flame pots, not as prehistory but as they appeared recently and unexpectantly during the process of modelling clay into sculptures for a contemporary art project. Flame pots joined conceptually with the explorative activity of clay. A prehistoric/contemporary artefact/modelling system was created and developed itself into a method of monitoring intra-systemic experience—clayful phenomenology. The findings cover five themes: enacted agency, iconicity from indexicality, bending rules/undermining habits, the choreography of material engagement and the phenomenology of space.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

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.)

References

Bailey, D.W., 2017a. Southeast European Neolithic figurines: beyond context, interpretation, and meaning, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.013.040Google Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 2017b. Disarticulate—repurpose—disrupt: art/archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(4), 691–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D.W., Cochrane, A. & Zambelli, J., 2010. Unearthed: A comparative study of Jōmon dogū and Neolithic figurines. Norwich: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts.Google Scholar
Barnes, G.L., 2015. Archaeology of East Asia : The rise of civilization in China, Korea and Japan. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2013. The archaeology of mind: it's not what you think. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bausch, I., 2016. The splendour of the middle jomon culture: ceramics from the central Japanese highlands. Aziatische Kunst 46(2), 42–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, M.A., 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, A.M., 1999. Communication and material culture: Pleistocene tools as action cues. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. & Chalmers, D.J., 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crnobrnja, A. 2011. Arrangement of Vinča culture figurines: a study of social structure and organization. Documental Praehistorica 38, 131–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, D., Miclea, M. & Opre, A., 2004. The information-processing approach to the human mind: basics and beyond. Journal of Clinical Psychology 60(4), 353–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F., 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia (trans. Massumi, B.). Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Eco, U., 1989. The Open Work (trans. Cancogni, A.). London: Hutchinson Radius.Google Scholar
Egami, N., 1973. The Beginnings of Japanese Art. New York (NY): Weatherhill.Google Scholar
Gell, A., 1992. The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology, in Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics, eds Coote, J. & Shelton, A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gell, A., 1996. Vogel's net: traps as artworks and artworks as traps. Journal of Material Culture 1, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell, A., 1998. Art and Agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ghobadi, A., 2015. The Land of Flame Pottery: Regional Patterns in the Social Construction of Group Identities in the Middle Jōmon. PhD thesis, American University.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J., 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Habu, J., 2004. Ancient Jōmon of Japan. (Case Studies in Early Societies 4.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2013. Archaeology and the Senses. Human experience, memory, and affect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2017. Sensorial assemblages: affect, memory and temporality in assemblage thinking. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(1), 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. & Jones, A.M., 2017. Archaeology and assemblage. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M., [1927] 1962. Being and Time (trans. Macquarrie, J. & Robinson, E.S.). London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1971. ‘The thing’, in Poetry, Language, Thought (trans. Hofstadter, A.). New York (NY): Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 2002. Off the Beaten Track (trans. Young, J & Haynes, K.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Higgin, M., 2016. In-the-making: An Anthropological Study of how Clay Becomes a Work of Art. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Imamura, K., 1996. Prehistoric Japan: New perspectives on insular East Asia. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 1999. Tools for the hand, language for the face: an appreciation of Leroi-Gourhan's gesture and speech. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 30(4), 411–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2010. The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Is there a place for aesthetics in archaeology? 1994. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4(2), 249–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffra, C., 2015. Experimental approaches to archaeological ceramics: unifying disparate methodologies with the chaîne opératoire. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7(1), 141–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaner, S. 2018. The precocious potters of ancient Japan. Apollo Magazine 24 November. https://www.apollo-magazine.com/precocious-potters-ancient-japan-Jōmon/Google Scholar
Kenrick, D., 1995. Jōmon of Japan: The world's oldest pottery. London: Kegan Paul International.Google Scholar
Kidder, J. & Esaka, T., 1968. Prehistoric Japanese Arts: Jōmon pottery. Palo Alto (CA): Kodansha.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D., 2009. Projections, problem space, and anchoring, in Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds Taatgen, N.A. & van Rijn, H.. Austin (YX): Cognitive Science Society, 2310–15.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D., 2017. Thinking with external representations, in Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, interactivity and human artifice, eds Cowley, S.J. & Vallée-Tourangeau, F.. Cham: Springer, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., 2005. Thinking Through Material Culture: An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, T., 1988. Kaen Doki Youshiki [Flame-style pottery], in Jōmon Doki Taikan, ed. Kobayashi, T.. Tokyo: Shogakkan, 303–6.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, T., 2004. Jōmon Reflections: Forager life and culture in the prehistoric Japanese archipelago. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2008. At the potter's wheel: an argument for material agency, in Material Agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric perspective, eds Knappett, C. & Malafouris, L.. NewYork (NY): Springer, 19–36.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2011. The aesthetics of material engagement, in Situated Aesthetics, ed. Manzotti, R.. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 123–39.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2013. How Things Shape the Mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2014. Creative thinging: the feeling of and for clay. Pragmatics & Cognition 22(1), 140–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2015. Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement. Time and Mind 8(4), 351–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2018. Mind and material engagement. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 18, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massumi, B., 1995. The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique, 31, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, P.L., 2019. Playing with clay and the uncertainty of agency: a Material Engagement Theory perspective. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 18, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, P.L. & Glavneau, V., 2020. Craft, in Encyclopaedia of Creativity (3rd edn), eds Pritzker, S. & Runco, M.. Boston (MA): Elsevier, 215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, P.L., Ross, W. & Vallée Tourangeau, F., n.d. Jomon gyres as humans gaze: the relationship between flame pot morphology and eye movements.Google Scholar
Meegan, E., 2014. Bodies of evidence? Re-imagining a phenomenological approach to space and time in prehistoric Malta, in Exploring Prehistoric Identity in Europe: Our construct or theirs?, eds Ginn, V., Enlander, R. & Crozier, R.. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Milner, M., 1950. On Not Being Able to Paint. London: Heinemann.Google ScholarPubMed
Morphy, H., 1994. Aesthetics across time and place: an anthropological perspective. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, 257–60.Google Scholar
Nanoglou, S., 2009. Representing people, constituting worlds: multiple ‘Neolithics’ in the Southern Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica 36(1), 283–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naumann, N., 2000. Japanese Prehistory: The material and spiritual culture of the Jōmon period. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Noë, A., 2005. Real presence. Philosophical Topics 33(1), 235–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamoto, T. & Reynolds, J., 2009. On Jōmon ceramics. Art in Translation 1(1), 49–60.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, C., Hamilakis, Y., Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. & Díaz-Guardamino, M., 2019. Digital sensoriality: the Neolithic figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29(4), 625–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, R., 2007. Debating Jōmon social complexity. Asian Perspectives 46(2), 361–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, J., 2017. ‘Art’ in archaeology and anthropology: an overview of the concept. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(4), 587–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J., 1983. Intentionality, an Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjöstrand, Y., 2017. The concept of art as archaeologically applicable. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(2), 371–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeates, R., 2017. Towards an archaeology of everyday aesthetics. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(4), 607–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sofaer, J.R., 2015. Clay in the Age of Bronze: Essays in the archaeology of prehistoric creativity. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley-Baker, J., 1984. Japanese Art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Steinhaus, W. & Kaner, S. (eds), 2016. An Illustrated Companion to Japanese Archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Terasaki, Y., 1991. Kaen Youshiki ni Tsuite [Kaen-style pottery]. Niigata Koukogaku Kaiwa Kai. Kaihou 8, 1–19.Google Scholar
Vallée-Tourangeau, F. & March, P.L., 2019. Insight out: making creativity visible. The Journal of Creative Behavior. DOI: 10.1002/jocb.409Google Scholar
Wells, P., 2017. Visually complex objects, ontology of space and political dynamics. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(4), 617–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar