There are some peculiarities with Viking Age ceramics. We cannot know the answers definitively but it is always nice to speculate.
WHY ARE VIKING POTS SO UGLY ?
WHO WAS MAKING THE POTS ?
WHY WERE FOREIGN POTTERS GOODS USED IN VIKING AREAS BUT NOT VICE VERSA?
WHY DID THE POTTERS IN VIKING AREAS NOT EARLIER ADOPT FOREIGN TECHNIQUES AS THEY DID FROM 1100AD OR SO?
Ghanaian mother teaches her daughter
WHY ARE VIKING POTS SO UGLY?
When compared with the products of English or Rhenish craftsmen the Viking material looks rather humble. It is lumpen in form and usually undecorated. There are no glazes or even oxide decoration. Why did Viking Age potters not make products which catch our eye as uch as their neighbours or even their forebears?
The answer to this question lies in the fact that these were home-made products of traditional craft. The manufacture was probably done by women who passed the traditional method down to their daughters- Before the concept of a fine banqueting table as a demonstration of wealth was introduced, pots did not signify anything other than their function. The food was most important. As contact with Europe increased and the status of a leading man was associated with wealth then fine vessels on the table became important. We can see a response to this process in the domestic products as so-called Slavic pots appear in the 10th and 11th century. These pots were not traded but they were decorated and attempted finer form than their predecessors.
Locally-made 'traditional' pottery has been looked-down upon until during the 20th century collectors began to accumulate itmes from the last surviving potters. Such potters used clay throughtout thier whole life, lived from their product and were in close contact with their customers. If the products were poor they would not have survived. Only the availability of cheap or free unbreakable light plastic containers has destroyed their livelihood.
The pots made by Viking Age houseiwves or slaves would have looked appealing to their users. After 1000 years in the ground they survive usually only as weathered sherds, rarely as complete pots. But, one must imagine carefully shaped and polished pieces made by skilled craftspeople. Viking Age pots were not ugly it is only their remains which seem so.
When compared with the products of English or Rhenish craftsmen the Viking material looks rather humble. It is lumpen in form and usually undecorated. There are no glazes or even oxide decoration. Why did Viking Age potters not make products which catch our eye as uch as their neighbours or even their forebears?
The answer to this question lies in the fact that these were home-made products of traditional craft. The manufacture was probably done by women who passed the traditional method down to their daughters- Before the concept of a fine banqueting table as a demonstration of wealth was introduced, pots did not signify anything other than their function. The food was most important. As contact with Europe increased and the status of a leading man was associated with wealth then fine vessels on the table became important. We can see a response to this process in the domestic products as so-called Slavic pots appear in the 10th and 11th century. These pots were not traded but they were decorated and attempted finer form than their predecessors.
Locally-made 'traditional' pottery has been looked-down upon until during the 20th century collectors began to accumulate itmes from the last surviving potters. Such potters used clay throughtout thier whole life, lived from their product and were in close contact with their customers. If the products were poor they would not have survived. Only the availability of cheap or free unbreakable light plastic containers has destroyed their livelihood.
The pots made by Viking Age houseiwves or slaves would have looked appealing to their users. After 1000 years in the ground they survive usually only as weathered sherds, rarely as complete pots. But, one must imagine carefully shaped and polished pieces made by skilled craftspeople. Viking Age pots were not ugly it is only their remains which seem so.
WHO WAS MAKING THE POTS?
It has been the case, with few exceptions, that potters rank very lowly in the handcraft heirarchy. Even when fine china was popular it was the factory owners and not the workers who achieved status. Today the likes of IKEA crush the life out of ceramic producion and sell items at a price which only encourages contempt for them in a throw-away society. To be able to sell a mug for 10kroner after it has been made in Vietnam and transported round the world is a travesty. At the same time, the hand-made products of skilled potters are discarded in developing countries in favour of plastic. Potters endangered houses with their fires and made cheap things, they worked with dirty clay and fire. Their product was a pot to piss in and was usually valued as such.
In subsistence ecomonies many things are locally produced and used by the maker or bartered. Once a monetary economy is established or a good increases in value it gains in status. At this point in patriarchal societies men take over. The majority of potters in the history of mankind have probably been women. Men had more important stuff to do like farming - or rather, the macho bits of farming, and building - again, the serious parts, monotony was for women and slaves. Maybe, in the egalitarian days of hunter-gathering both sexes worked with clay - I hope it was like that.
Because the majority of pots in the homelands of the Viking peoples were locally made - this has been proved by studying the styles of pots and sources of clay - the suspicion must be that it was people tied to the locality who made them. These would be women and slaves. The increasing popularity of 'Baltic' style ware from the 11th century onwards has been explained as due to increased contact between the Viking peoples and the Slavs. Slav women, as slaves or exomagously married - or Slav men, as slaves or captured or itinerant craftsmen (fantasy required here) came to live in the Viking areas and made the pots from local materials. They were not made en masse and traded to distant markets.
The sortepotter made in Denmark in the nineteenth century and traded to Sweden and Germany wer made by the wives and daughters of poor farmers as a supplement to their meagre income. Such women made up to 2000 pots in a Spring season. They started working with their mothers from about the age of nine and skill as a pottekone could help marriage prospects considerably. Their forebears did something similar even if they made less-sophisticated products and could not trade them for profit. - and the women of two such different times could probably recognise this aspect of their working lives only too well.
It has been the case, with few exceptions, that potters rank very lowly in the handcraft heirarchy. Even when fine china was popular it was the factory owners and not the workers who achieved status. Today the likes of IKEA crush the life out of ceramic producion and sell items at a price which only encourages contempt for them in a throw-away society. To be able to sell a mug for 10kroner after it has been made in Vietnam and transported round the world is a travesty. At the same time, the hand-made products of skilled potters are discarded in developing countries in favour of plastic. Potters endangered houses with their fires and made cheap things, they worked with dirty clay and fire. Their product was a pot to piss in and was usually valued as such.
In subsistence ecomonies many things are locally produced and used by the maker or bartered. Once a monetary economy is established or a good increases in value it gains in status. At this point in patriarchal societies men take over. The majority of potters in the history of mankind have probably been women. Men had more important stuff to do like farming - or rather, the macho bits of farming, and building - again, the serious parts, monotony was for women and slaves. Maybe, in the egalitarian days of hunter-gathering both sexes worked with clay - I hope it was like that.
Because the majority of pots in the homelands of the Viking peoples were locally made - this has been proved by studying the styles of pots and sources of clay - the suspicion must be that it was people tied to the locality who made them. These would be women and slaves. The increasing popularity of 'Baltic' style ware from the 11th century onwards has been explained as due to increased contact between the Viking peoples and the Slavs. Slav women, as slaves or exomagously married - or Slav men, as slaves or captured or itinerant craftsmen (fantasy required here) came to live in the Viking areas and made the pots from local materials. They were not made en masse and traded to distant markets.
The sortepotter made in Denmark in the nineteenth century and traded to Sweden and Germany wer made by the wives and daughters of poor farmers as a supplement to their meagre income. Such women made up to 2000 pots in a Spring season. They started working with their mothers from about the age of nine and skill as a pottekone could help marriage prospects considerably. Their forebears did something similar even if they made less-sophisticated products and could not trade them for profit. - and the women of two such different times could probably recognise this aspect of their working lives only too well.