The Ugly Duckling: Understanding the Making of an Early Copper Age Atypical Ceramic Vessel from the Great Hungarian Plain

1 Introduction

After the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain (Eastern Hungary), several aspects of life began to transform into the Copper Age. Among others, the first formal cemeteries in the region were established (Bognár-Kutzián, 1963, 1972; Patay, 1961, 1974) – along with keeping the Neolithic custom of settlement burials (Gyucha, 2015; Parkinson, Gyucha, & Yerkes, 2021; Raczky, Anders, & Siklósi, 2014; Szilágyi, 2015) – and a dispersed settlement pattern consisting of small hamlets appeared as a replacement of large, sometimes tell-centred Late Neolithic settlements (Parkinson, 2006a,b; Parkinson & Gyucha, 2007; Sherratt, 1982, 1983a,b). Research into the Early and Middle Copper Age has undergone radical developments in the last two decades. The generally accepted picture of the period has changed fundamentally during the twentieth century, due to a number of partly interrelated factors. One of the most important changes relates to the absolute and relative chronology of the period. Until the early 2000s, the Tiszapolgár culture was dated to the Early Copper Age (4500–4000 cal BC), while the Bodrogkeresztúr culture was dated to the first half of the Middle Copper Age (4000–3700/3600 cal BC) (Banner & Bognár-Kutzián, 1961; Bognár-Kutzián, 1963, 1972, 1985; Kalicz, 1958; Patay, 1961, 1974). There are several hundred sites dated to this period known today in the Great Hungarian Plain, which was, unlike today, a very diverse landscape full of meandering rivers where flooded, semi-flooded, and dry areas alternated with each other.

In the 2010s, however, it became clear based on several new AMS dates that although the Tiszapolgár culture can still be dated between the forty-fifth and forty-first century cal BC, the Bodrogkeresztúr culture is to be dated between the forty-fourth and fortieth/thirty-ninth century cal BC (Siklósi & Szilágyi, 2021, p. 35). According to this new and better-supported chronology, it has become clear that the two archaeological cultures, separated mainly by pottery style and other stylistic elements of the material culture, were partially contemporary (Raczky & Siklósi, 2013; Siklósi et al., 2022; Siklósi & Szilágyi, 2016, 2021).

The other important change was that during the twentieth century, most of the archaeological information from the period derived from cemeteries (Bognár-Kutzián, 1963, 1972; Patay, 1961, 1974). Only in the last 20 years, there has been a significant increase in the research of settlements (Gyucha, 2015; Parkinson, 2006a; Parkinson et al., 2021; Parkinson & Gyucha, 2007; Raczky et al., 2014; Szilágyi, 2015). There is now a large amount of data available on settlements and settlement patterns, which has helped to shade the previous picture. These data have clearly shown that the cultures of Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr cannot be separated from each other in time and space, neither in the settlements nor in the burials (Siklósi et al., 2022; Szilágyi, 2015). It has also become clear that in different social contexts, material culture can appear in different ways. For instance, we find many objects in graves that are different regarding their type, material, and quality from what we find in settlement features (Siklósi et al., 2022, p. 365).

On this basis, it became evident that the use of archaeological culture in the traditional sense does not provide a sufficient explanation for the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr styles that often appear simultaneously in space and time (Siklósi et al., 2022, pp. 351–352). Thus, it is important to examine the archaeological material from a new, additional approach, which – in complementing the typo-morphological classification – studies the individual choices behind each vessel.

The objective of our study is an Early Copper Age sherd that does not seem significant at first glance. It is a fragment of a poorly executed bowl with confused incisions, found in a settlement pit (Figure 1), which stands in stark contrast to the other well-shaped and sometimes richly decorated bowls known from the same site. Although such vessels were found sporadically in other Early Copper Age sites, for example from Rákóczifalva-Bagi-föld Site 8 or Rákóczifalva-Bivaly-tó Site 1/c (M. Szilágyi & E. Solnay, unpublished data) (Figure 2), such ceramic objects have never been subjected to detailed investigations. However, in the context of automatic gestures and deliberate individual decisions that determined pot-making, the study of these vessels is of particular importance and can reveal a great deal about the knowledge, skills, and identity of the potters, as well as about the transfer of knowledge within the community.

Figure 1

The analysed atypical ceramic vessel: (a) macro-traces of the fabrication process; (A) circular and oval depressions, (B) bulge of clay, (C) homogeneous internal structure, which can be slightly undulating, and (D) crescent-like thickening of the wall of the base and (b) decorative pattern.

Figure 2

Location of the analysed site and other Early Copper Age sites mentioned in the study.

Such vessels can be interpreted in many ways. For example, they can be referred to as practising pieces produced during learning (Crown, 2001, 2014; Dorland, 2021; Sofaer & Budden, 2013, p. 119; Striker, Howie, & Williamson, 2017, p. 65) or, as children’s toys or pieces made by a child, possibly for practice (Fassoulas, Rossie, & Procopiou, 2020; Fülöp, 2016, pp. 124–126; Gucsi, 2009, p. 454; Gucsi & Szabó, 2018, p. 223; Kreiter, 2007, p. 154; Trias, Rosselló, Molina, & Santacreu, 2015). Moreover, they can be connected with other activities, such as testing a new raw material (Striker et al., 2017, p. 66), or with a technological innovation, such as a new preparation technique (Roux & Courty, 1998, 2005). They are sometimes defined as vessels for special use, whose meaning can only be understood in the context of certain activities (Skibo & Schiffer, 2008, p. 110; Striker et al., 2017, p. 66). However, these interpretations are sometimes applied as generalizations without detailed analysis which can be misleading without examining the pottery making steps and studying the context in which it was made and found.

This study presents a method that can improve the interpretation of such vessels and which can be used in the case of similar research questions independently from the period or the geographical region. The aim of this study is to detect the circumstances of the production of a specific Early Copper Age vessel through the reconstruction of the biography of its making. The detailed analysis of the chaîne opératoire of pottery fabrication allows us to explore the previously described hypothesis (for example as a practising piece or a technological innovation) and to build a strong argument to oppose or support them in the case of this vessel. Furthermore, examining the context of the specific object analysed here will enable us to understand how it differs from similar ceramic types found at the same site. Although these similar vessels were known from other Early Copper Age sites from the Great Hungarian Plain, the present study is the first to focus on the examination of these objects.

2 Material

The studied vessel was found during the rescue excavations between 2010 and 2011 at the site NKT^[1]-17, Tiszagyenda-Vágott-halom (Sebők, Szilágyi, & Váczi, 2012). The site is located in the central part of the Great Hungarian Plain, in the Middle Tisza Region (Figure 2), on an elevation next to an old watercourse of the Tisza. The excavations revealed a total of nine burials and four pits dating to the Early Copper Age (Figure 3). The features were distributed in the southern part of the site. Their location suggests that the excavated area did not cover the entire Copper Age site (Solnay, 2022; Szilágyi, 2015, pp. 252–258).

Figure 3

Map of the excavation in Tiszagyenda-Vágott-halom highlighting the pit where the atypical vessel was found.

The excavated settlement features were all pits. It is usual to find settlement features and graves near one another, as the custom of settlement burials still existed – see for example Polgár-Király-ér-part (Szilágyi, 2015, p. 130) or Rákóczifalva-Bagi-föld Site 8 (Szilágyi, 2015, pp. 196–197) (Figure 2). The pottery assemblage found in the pits (Table 1) was dominated by bowls, jugs, and flowerpot-shaped vessels (Figures 4 and 5), often with incised, impressed, and dotted decoration (Figure 5d–e).

Figure 4

Different main pottery forms from the site: (a) “mik jug” with incised net pattern (grave 45/45), (b) depas-cup (grave 308/426), (c) barrel-shaped vessel (grave 308/426), (d) jar (pit 9/9), (e) tumbler (grave 308/426), and (f) pedestal (grave 258/425).

Figure 5

Selection of bowls from Tiszagyenda: (a) conical bowl (pit 289), (b) conical bowl (pit 289), (c) hemispherical bowl (grave 308/426), (d) S-profiled bowl with impressed dots (pit 9/9), (e) S-profiled bowl with a combination of incised lines and impressed dots (pit 289), and (f) carinated bowl with incised net pattern (grave 302/409).

In the nine graves, the skeletons lay in a contracted position on their right and left sides, which is typical for the period. Eight of the nine burials contained usual Early Copper Age vessels as grave goods (Table 1): “milk jugs”, barrel-shaped vessels, depas-cups, various bowl types, pedestalled vessels, and tumblers (Figures 4 and 5). Only a few vessels were decorated exclusively with incised patterns (Figures 4a and 5f).

Although we do not have absolute dates for the site, the composition of the pottery assemblage found in the graves and the settlement pits is very similar to another Early Copper Age site in the Middle Tisza Region, Rákóczifalva-Bivaly-tó Site 1/c (Figure 2), where an Early Copper Age settlement and a cemetery were excavated. The diversity of pottery styles in different contexts is striking in Rákóczifalva 1/c. “Milk jugs”, depas-cups, and cylindrical deep bowls occur almost exclusively in the cemetery, whereas the settlement assemblage is dominated by different types of bowls and pedestalled vessels (Siklósi et al., 2022, p. 21, Figure 4). According to the traditional typochronology, the settlement would have been dated to the final phase of the Tiszapolgár culture, or to the transitional phase between the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr cultures, while the cemetery would have been dated to the Bodrogkeresztúr culture, based on the large number of “milk jugs”, gold, and copper objects. However, based on AMS dates and Bayesian modelling, the settlement and cemetery at Rákóczifalva 1/c are almost entirely contemporary (Siklósi et al., 2022; Siklósi & Szilágyi, 2021, p. 21). Although due to the lack of absolute dates, we cannot declare the graves and the pits of Tiszagyenda to be contemporary, the high degree of similarity with Rákóczifalva 1/c suggests that there is no, or only a very little chronological difference between the graves and the settlement.

In order to understand the atypical bowl examined in this study, it was essential to know its context, therefore the entire Early Copper Age pottery assemblage of the site was analysed. At Tiszagyenda, the number of diagnostic vessels varied in terms of the different analytic methods used. Sherds from 706 vessels were found at the site, from which 682 were recovered in the pits and 24 from the graves. A total of 296 vessels were suitable for stylistic analyses (form and decoration) and 64 vessels were suitable for technological investigations among which 23 samples from necked vessels (jars and jugs) and bowls (conical, hemispherical, carinated, and S-profiled bowls) were subjected to thin-section petrographic analysis.

The conical bowl (height: 7.5 cm; base diameter: 4.8 cm; rim diameter: 12.5 cm) with a slightly curved side examined in this study was recovered from pit 9/9. The pit contained a total of 227 sherds, 69 of which were diagnostic^[2] from the stylistic point of view and 38 from the technological point of view, 9 of which were analysed petrographically (Table 1). Of the forms that could be identified, different types of bowls (conical, hemispherical, and S-profiled) dominated the assemblage, and, in addition, tumblers, jars, and barrel-shaped vessels were also found in the pit. Seventeen sherds were decorated with impressions or incisions.

3 Theory and Methods

The chaîne opératoire of pottery is a very complex process, which can be divided into major parts, such as fabrication, usage, and deposition. In this study, we will focus on the making of the vessel (Gosselain, 2002; Livingstone Smith, 2010; Orton, Tyers, & Vince, 1993, pp. 113–131; Rice, 1987, p. 115; Roux, 2019; Rye, 1981), since it is the most relevant to answer the question raised in the introduction, which is related to the circumstances of making it and the reason for its creation, whereas its actual function is less relevant.

Thus, we study the biography of the vessel through technological and stylistic analyses, without examining many of the subsequent steps, such as use. In the case of the vessel in question, we could not analyse its use since at least 80% of it is missing with most of the possible traces of use. In addition to the making process, we have taken the circumstances of its deposition into consideration, although not studied thoroughly.

During the analysis of ceramic fabrication, we focus on the following steps: (1) preparations, (2) collection and transformation of clay material, (3) forming, (4) surface treatment, (5) decoration, and (6) firing (Figure 6). The drying time before, during, and after these steps is also important (Roux, 2019, p. 110); nevertheless, it was not considered as an individual step in this study. Moreover, post-firing treatment is often regarded as the final step of pottery fabrication when the fired vessel is treated with some kind of organic material, for example, soaked into a liquid, made of plant or animal fats (Diallo, Vanhaelen, & Gosselain, 1995; Gosselain, 2002, pp. 183–198; Livingstone Smith, 2010, p. 12; Longacre, Xia, & Yang, 2000; Rice, 1987, pp. 163–166). This step has been little studied in the case of archaeological vessels (Drieu, 2017; Drieu, Lepère, & Regert, 2020) and cannot often be clearly separated from the usage of the pots (Drieu, 2017, p. 293), neither during the analysis nor by the potters themselves (for example first cooking). Thus, the post-firing treatment of the analysed vessel was not examined in this study.

Figure 6

Main steps of the ceramic fabrication process discussed in the article.

4 Previous Analyses on the Early Copper Age Ceramic Fabrication Process on the Great Hungarian Plain

Early Copper Age ceramic fabrication processes are understudied in Hungary. According to the available ceramic petrographic results on the Early Copper Age Great Hungarian Plain, the clay was extracted around the sites (Duwe, Parsons, Galaty, & Hoekman-Sites, 2021, pp. 248, 251–253; Parsons, 2005, p. 9), although some vessels from non-local clays are known, they also came from clay sources on the Great Hungarian Plain (Duwe et al., 2021, p. 253). However, it is important to remark that the geological map of the Great Hungarian Plain is very homogeneous, thus, the exact location of clay sources is difficult to assess (Duwe et al., 2021, pp. 249–253). The “recipe” of clay preparation was similar on the few analysed sites in the Körös Region, only smaller differences can be observed. The dominant temper was grog in various quantities and size ranges, and the clay raw materials were to be kneaded to different degrees (Duwe et al., 2021, pp. 246–248; Parsons, 2005, p. 8). The inconsistency in the quantity and quality of temper and homogenization may indicate differences in tradition (Duwe et al., 2021, p. 248), but can also be linked with other factors such as the energy or attention spent on the preparation of the clay.

Regarding ceramic forming, the technological analysis of pottery shaping is a new methodological approach in the analysis of Early Copper Age material on the Great Hungarian Plain. Besides the here examined Tiszagyenda, the preliminary results from another settlement, Polgár-Király-ér-part testify that bottom-up coiling was a common roughing-out (i.e. primary forming) technique there, when the vessels were built from coils of different sizes (Solnay, 2021, pp. 203–205). Another roughing-out technique, moulding also appeared on this site when a compact clay disc was pushed on/in a convex or concave form to take its shape (Solnay, 2021, pp. 207, 209). Besides, preforming (i.e. secondary forming) techniques can also be observed at Polgár-Király-ér-part, for example, scraping when the clay was removed or replaced on the surface of the pottery with a rigid tool (Solnay, 2021, p. 211).

The macroscopic analysis on the surfaces of Early Copper Age vessels from the Great Hungarian Plain frequently shows different types and degrees of regularization. The most widespread technique with characteristic traces in the region is universally called burnishing or polishing (Szilágyi, 2015, p. 268, Figure 122). The definition and separation of burnishing and polishing is a long-debated issue (Lepère, 2014; Martineau, 2010; Roux, 2019). However, the difference between the two techniques has not been studied previously in the case of Early Copper Age materials, and they cannot be clearly distinguished by macroscopic observation at Tiszagyenda. Thus, in this study, a general definition of burnishing is used which consists of rubbing leather-hard or dry clay with a hard, but smooth-surfaced tool – i.e. pebble (Binder & Courtin, 1994, p. 259; Dubreuil et al., 2023; Ionescu et al., 2019, p. 32; 2015; Ionescu & Hoeck, 2020; Roux, 2019, p. 96; Rye, 1981, p. 90). Smoothing also appears to be a frequently applied technique in the region (Szilágyi, 2015, p. 268, Figure 122); however, its macro-traces often disappeared due to the previously explained post-fabrication processes. Therefore, their number is possibly highly underestimated.

One of the most characteristic features of Early Copper Age pottery is the presence of plastic applications on the vessels. The most common plastic decoration found on almost all vessel types is knobs and lugs varying in shape and size and can be perforated, semi-perforated, or non-perforated. Their arrangement is fairly regular, on most vessel types, four pieces appear in a symmetrical arrangement in one or two rows on or below the belly line (Bognár-Kutzián, 1963, pp. 236–294; 1972, pp. 118–149; Szilágyi, 2015, pp. 83–98).

In addition to plastic applications, there are also incised decorations, which could be made using three techniques: impressing, dotted-impressing, or stabbing and incising. While impressed and dotted-impressed ornaments often formed a simple geometric motif that appeared as a single, independent design, incised ornaments often filled the surface of the vessel. Among these, the most common basic motif is a series of triangles running around the body of the vessels, filled in with hatched lines or net patterns. Also common is the geometric decoration, usually zigzag bands, or meanders filled with a net pattern. The basic motifs were often combined with each other, resulting in a rich variety of decorative patterns (Bognár-Kutzián, 1963, pp. 300–305; Szilágyi, 2015, pp. 77–99).

Contrary to the previous fabrication steps, studies on Early Copper Age ceramic firing temperature on the Great Hungarian Plain have never been published before. Thus, this is the first published examination in this field.

5 Results

Following the previously detailed methods, several types of analyses were carried out on the atypical vessel to reconstruct the fabrication process. However, the results can only be interpreted in the light of the whole ceramic material from the site (Table 1).

5.2 Collection and Transformation of Clay Material

Petrographic analysis indicates that the clay for this atypical vessel was collected in the vicinity of the site. In the clay mass, the amount of non-plastic inclusions is moderate (approximately 11–14%), mainly medium-sized (0.25–1 mm), although fine (0.1–0.25 mm) and very fine (<0.1 mm) inclusions could also be found (Figure 7a). Petrographic data suggest that the inclusions were well-sorted and evenly distributed in the fabric during the preparation of the clay mass. Mainly monocrystalline quartz and sporadically charred plant remains were observed in the paste. However, the occurrence of the latter was probably not purposeful, plant remains could appear naturally in the clay. This source of raw material has also been used for the fabrication of other vessels (such as bowls) and it is similar to different raw materials in the vicinity of the site.

Figure 7

Petrographic analysis: (a) parallel orientation of inclusions in the atypical vessel and (b) characteristic appearance of the matrix (not oriented) in other analysed samples. Both micrographs are 100x, XP.

In the Early and Middle Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain, the clay was often tempered (Duwe et al., 2021, pp. 246–248; Parsons, 2005, p. 8; Szilágyi, 2015, p. 75). However, contrary to most potteries from Tiszagyenda, no traces of any added tempering material could be identified in the analysed bowl. Other vessels were almost always tempered with grog or dried pieces of clay fragments. Besides this atypical vessel, there is only one untempered vessel in the analysed ceramic assemblage. The other bowls made from the same clay as the atypical vessel were also tempered in every case.

During the raw material preparation, the clay was properly homogenized by kneading or wedging suggested by the homogeneous and well-oriented fabric. This cannot be observed in the other petrographically (in thin sections) analysed vessels (23 pieces) from the site, the fabrics of which were generally not (Figure 7b), or only slightly oriented. This suggests that the raw material of this atypical vessel was better prepared than others.

5.3 Forming

After processing the raw material, the vessel was shaped into a desired form. In the case of the atypical vessel, the achieved form is a conical bowl with a slightly curved side. This bowl type is one of the most common vessel types both in the settlement pits and graves. Moreover, carinated, S-profiled, and hemispherical bowls, as well as a bowl with a wavy rim, have also been found on the site. The size of the atypical vessel is not unique, although it belongs to the category of smaller examples.

The vessel was modelled (in other terms, pinched or drawn) during roughing-out with repeated pressing or stretching of the compact clay mass with fingers. This was indicated by the oval depressions on the inner and outer surfaces (and occasionally with bulges of clay on the uneven surface), as well as the crescent-like thickening of the wall of the base and the homogeneous internal structure, which can be slightly undulating at the depressions (Figure 1a). This forming technique is unique compared to the roughing-out techniques of other bowls from the site. At Tiszagyenda, several pottery forms had their own tradition of shaping. The bowls were generally formed with the moulding technique (with or without coils forming the rim) (Figure 8a) or occasionally slab technique – the latter describes the technique when numerous small slabs were pushed in/on a convex or concave mould to take its shape (Figure 8b) (Solnay, 2022, p. 29). Moulded and modelled vessels are both made from one compact clay mass, which raises the question of separating the two techniques in the analysed assemblage. At Tiszagyenda, oval or longitudinal depressions are absent from the surfaces, the wall thickness is uniform, occasionally thinned at the base (not thickened, like in the case of this vessel), the lines of fractures can be central, radial, from the base towards the rim, and the internal structure was generally very homogeneous (Solnay, 2022, pp. 27–28). Thus, the difference in macro-traces in this assemblage supports the idea that the analysed vessel was not shaped with the same technique as the other bowls.

Figure 8

Two basic roughing-out technique of bowls: (a) Moulding technique (with coils forming the rim) and (b) slab technique. Macro-traces: (A) Central fractures from the rim to the base, (B) homogeneous surface, (C) S-Z-shaped internal configuration of the rim (coils), (D) homogeneous internal structure of the body, (E) numerous small, irregular fractures, and (F) small linear and oblique fissures on the internal surface.

Following the roughing-out, the vessel was not preformed. The absence of characteristic preforming techniques (such as scraping) was a common phenomenon on the site; however, a quarter of the potteries – including numerous bowls – were preformed with scraping (Figure 9a) and shaving (Figure 9b). In the latter case, the clay on the surface is removed with a smooth tool rather than a coarse one, or beating technique (in other words the paddle and anvil technique, when the wall of the vessel is beaten with a paddle).

Figure 9

Characteristic surface treatment techniques at the site: (a) scraping (grave 45/45), (b) shaving (grave 337/479), (c) smoothing (pit 9/9), and (d) burnishing (pit 9/9).

5.5 Decoration

Both plastic and incised decorations could be observed on analysed bowl. The small, rounded, unperforated knob in the centre of the vessel profile is not unusual, and similar plastic decoration was observed on several other vessels at the site (Figure 5a–c and f). The incised decoration, at first glance, appears to be a tangle of roughly incised lines covering the entire surface of the vessel.

However, when examined closely, the incised lines can be divided into two parts, above and below the line of the knob. Above, there are perpendicular lines forming a rough net pattern, which, based on the remaining fragment, is presumably forming triangles. A zigzag line runs along the bottom of the vessel, accompanied on either side by shorter parallel or perpendicular lines (Figure 1b and for the reconstruction see Figure 10f). Both the lower and upper motifs could be observed on the bowls found at the site, but in each case, in a much more regular arrangement and better execution (Figure 5e–f).

Figure 10

Reconstructions of the making of the incised decoration: (a) first set of incisions: sketch lines, (b) second set of incisions: first stage of the upper motif, (c) third set of incisions: second stage of the upper motif, (d) all lines of the finished decoration, (e) finished decoration without sketch lines and erased lines, and (f) possible reconstruction of the decorative motifs.

In some parts, the chronology of the drawing could be observed based on the intersecting lines (Figure 10a–c). Some lines have been covered again with clay after the incision as if to correct them (Figure 10d: dashed lines). In addition, some of the lines have not been erased, but because of their position, they are probably not part of the motif (Figure 10a).

6 Discussion

As a result of the technological and stylistic studies, the biography of the making of this atypical vessel was reconstructed (Figure 11), which differs in some respects and corresponds in others to the making of other bowls found at the site (Table 1).

Figure 11

Main steps of the ceramic fabrication process of the atypical vessel.

The clay may have been collected from a source close to the settlement and used by other potters as well. As opposed to the common “potting recipe” at the site, the atypical vessel was not tempered during preparation. The inclusions were well-sorted, and the clay was very well-prepared. One possible explanation is that, this bowl might be the evidence of the appearance of another tradition (i.e. paste preparation “recipe”) on the site, which presumes a non-local potter who worked on the settlement using local clay. However, this scenario seems unlikely since no other pot with similarly prepared raw material was found at Tiszagyenda. If a non-local potter stayed and produced vessels on the settlement, more such vessels would be expected. Another more likely explanation is that the individual who made the atypical vessel had not yet mastered all the steps of raw material preparation (such as tempering), and it is even possible that he or she was not involved in the collection of the raw material. Indeed, this is often one of the most regulated aspects of pottery making, and often only skilled potters are allowed to participate in this process (Frank, 2001, p. 81; Gosselain, 1999; 2002, p. 566; Gosselain & Livingstone Smith, 2005, p. 40; Wallaert, 2008). Such a degree of paste preparation indicates a high level of effort and attention, which could have been carried out by both a skilled and a less skilled potter. The latter might have invested more attention in the preparation of the paste during the learning process to achieve such an oriented clay paste.

When creating the mental image of the vessel, the potter was clearly trying to reconstruct a bowl type that was prominent in the repertoire of community knowledge. However, the roughing-out through modelling, and the complete absence of preforming, contrasts sharply with other bowl types. Modelling is considered to be one of the most basic methods of pottery making (Crown, 2001, p. 462; Gosselain, 2002, p. 86; Livingstone Smith, 2010, pp. 101–102). According to ethnographic observations, this can be used by skilled, mainly adult potters to create smaller vessels (Gosselain, 2002, p. 86; Roux, 2019, p. 60; Rye, 1981, p. 70) or children who were learning pottery production through making small, uncomplicated pots by modelling in the early stages of learning (Crown, 2001, 2014). The latter indicates that the producer of these vessels did not yet possess the technical knowledge and/or skills that are necessary to make bowls. In these studies, adults and skilled potters rarely shaped pots using this technique (Crown, 2001, p. 454; 2014, p. 75).

Fine smoothing and the absence of surface treatment that leaves characteristic traces (such as burnishing) occur at the site but are rare in the case of bowls. This may also indicate low level of skills of the potter who made the atypical vessel but can also be explained by other factors, such as a different function or a matter of taste.

When making the plastic and incised ornaments, the potter was most probably working from already existing patterns, and based on the knowledge available, created a mental image of the decorative motif. The arrangement of the knob is consistent with the known patterns from the site (and from the Great Hungarian Plain), but the incised ornaments in all other cases show a higher quality and a regular arrangement. Both incised motifs – the net pattern on the upper part and the zigzag line and its accompanying lines on the lower part – are present on other bowls recovered from the site, but these two are never combined on the same vessel. This phenomenon can perhaps be explained by the fact that the basic motifs of Early Copper Age decorative motifs are fixed, but they can be combined with each other in a very free and varied way. The various combinations of decorative elements suggest that the own creativity of the potters also played a major role in the final motifs. The corrected lines filled in with clay and the deviation from the sketch reflect the potter’s lack of practice, for which there are numerous archaeological and ethnographic examples (Crown, 2001, 2014; Dorland, 2021; Sofaer & Budden, 2013; Wallaert, 2008). At the same time, the irregular design of the decoration can also be applied to a vessel intended for a specific activity (Skibo & Schiffer, 2008, p. 110; Striker et al., 2017, p. 66), in which the appearance of the vessel and the incised motifs was regulated. An example of this can be seen at Rákóczifalva-Bivaly-tó Site 1/c, where a number of potteries with confused decorations were found among the grave goods (Siklósi et al., 2022, p. 9). However, this possibility is contradicted by the find context, as the fragment under study was recovered from a settlement pit.

At the end of the fabrication process, the pot was fired at an “equivalent firing temperature” of 800–850°C similar to most of the pottery at the site. However, it can be assumed that several pots may have been fired simultaneously (Gosselain, 1992, p. 145; Roux, 2019, p. 116; Rye, 1981, pp. 154–155), so this is not necessarily related to the skill of the potter or the purpose for which the pot was made. In addition, it has been observed in ethnographical examples that practising pots, usually made by children, were also fired (Crown, 2014, p. 78; Wallaert, 2008, p. 190), so this is not a crucial aspect when studying the reason for the creation of the pot.

Although several different explanations were considered, the overall analysis of the chaîne opératoire of pottery making suggests that the atypical vessel examined in this study was probably a practising piece produced during learning, with traces of the learning process at almost every stage of the production of this vessel. The potter probably did not yet possess the complete pottery-making tradition of the community. The decoration suggests that, despite the poor quality of the execution, he or she was fully aware of the basic rules of pot decoration. Knowing these rules at an early stage was therefore an important part of the learning process, and it can be assumed that the underlying symbolism was also acquired at an early stage. However, the motoric and cognitive skills needed to carry out the preparation steps correctly were not yet acquired. It would be too early to determine the age of the potter, although learning to form pottery often takes place in early childhood (Crown, 2014, pp. 75–77; Gosselain, 2002, p. 24; Silva, 2008, p. 234; Wallaert, 2008, pp. 188–192), adolescent or adult learning cannot be excluded (Gosselain, 2002, p. 24; Herbich & Dietler, 2008; Wayessa, 2011, p. 308).

At the same time, other explanations known from the research could be ruled out. Presumably, the vessel was not merely used to test the raw material, it was decorated after shaping – albeit in low quality – and the potter also tried to improve the motif, which suggests the importance of the decorative pattern. It is also unlikely for this vessel to have been a practising or test piece produced by adopting an innovation, as the modelling used in roughing-out is one of the simplest methods of shaping (Crown, 2001, p. 462; Gosselain, 2002, p. 86; Livingstone Smith, 2010, pp. 101–102), which was mainly used on simpler, smaller vessels. Moreover, modelling was not part of the dominant bowl forming tradition neither at Tiszagyenda nor at other Early Copper Age sites (Solnay, 2021, 2022). Furthermore, the children’s toy function cannot be proven in the case of the present vessel due to the lack of information on the age of the potter. It is probably not just a spoilt vessel, although the decoration is very confused. The pot was not tempered, which is very different from the traditions observed at the site and was made using an atypical technique. This suggests that the potter was aware of the difference in forming technology and did not attempt to reconstruct the usual shaping techniques. Finally, it is also a possibility that the pot was made in a hurry by an otherwise skilled potter solely for a specific activity. However, this is unlikely for several reasons. First, the well-sorted components and the high degree of processing of the paste of the pottery require a large investment of time and energy, which was not identifiable on any other vessels. Second, this atypical vessel was deposited in a pit with other pot fragments, where there was no evidence of any particular activity, while no similar vessel is known from any of the burials at the site.

7 Conclusion

In this study, technological and stylistic analyses were carried out to reconstruct the making of an atypical vessel found in an Early Copper Age site at Tiszagyenda-Vágott-halom (Eastern Hungary). The results were interpreted in the light of the entire pottery assemblage of the site in order to understand the circumstances of its creation and the reasons for its deviation.

The Early Copper Age atypical bowl from Tiszagyenda was probably a practising piece created during the learning process. This is suggested by the many unique features of the making of the vessel that were in contrast with the pottery fabrication and stylistic traditions of the site, especially in the case of the bowls. The unique elements in the production biography of this vessel are, for example, the absence of tempering material, the roughing-out by modelling, the absence of characteristic preforming and surface treatment techniques, and the making of the incised decoration.

This study presents a method that focuses on the micro-histories and the individual choices behind each object. This approach is of particular importance in studying the Early Copper Age Great Hungarian Plain, where the use of archaeological cultures in the traditional sense had to be reviewed and replaced by bottom-up approach that builds from small-scaled histories and individual narratives (Siklósi et al., 2022). This enables us to understand, among other things, the intentions and skills of the potters who made the vessels and the process of communal knowledge transfer. Thus, this Copper Age case study demonstrates the effectiveness of the approach of pottery biography to explore the embedded cultural values and representations, a part of habitus, and deliberate individual decisions, as well as expressions behind the vessels that provide valuable information about past practices.