Fowler 2006

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/267336678
Classiﬁcation and collapse: the ethnohistory of Zulu ceramic

use, South Africa
Article in Southern African Humanities · January 2006
CITATIONS READS
15 5,173
1 author:
Kent D. Fowler
University of Manitoba
33 PUBLICATIONS 278 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Zulu Kingdom Archaeological Project View project
Manitoba Precontact Ceramic Technology Project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kent D. Fowler on 27 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Southern African Humanities Vol. 18 (2) Pages 93–117 Pietermaritzburg December, 2006
Classification and collapse: the ethnohistory of Zulu ceramic use

Kent D. Fowler
Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba, 435 Fletcher Argue, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada R3T 5V5; fowlerk@cc.umanitoba.ca
ABSTRACT
Understanding the classification of objects is important for discerning their cultural significance. However,
there has been very limited work on modern pottery classification systems of Bantu speakers in southern
Africa. The range of ceramic vessels used in Zulu society since the nineteenth century is described in this
paper to evaluate the principles producers and consumers use to distinguish different categories of pottery
containers and understand why ceramics continue to be produced despite a collapse in the ceramic repertoire
190 years ago. Archaeologists have long utilised the variables of vessel shape, size, and decoration to
monitor inter-assemblage variation to infer chronology and symbolise concepts of group relatedness. The
Zulu data reaffirm the importance of considering vessel shape and size in deriving a functional classification
and demonstrate how certain surface treatments express messages about identity, status, protection,
mystification, and appropriate contexts for vessel use. Thus, the Zulu case provides a significant behavioural
rationale for including surface treatment as part of a functional classification. It is suggested that the enduring
symbolic and ritual significance of pottery in Zulu society and the low capital investment required for
pottery-making aid in perpetuating the craft.
KEY WORDS: ceramics, ethnohistory, classification, function, culture change, Zulu.
INTRODUCTION
Ceramic ethnotaxonomy is the classification of pottery according to native, or emic,
categories. Such classifications have long been recorded in ethnographic research as a
point of departure for studying ceramic manufacture and use. In sub-Saharan Africa, a
number of studies have presented emic classifications of ceramic series in western and
eastern Africa (see Barley 1994; Braithwaite 1982; David & Hennig 1972; David et al.
1988; De Crits 1994; Delneuf 1992; Dietler & Herbich 1994; Drost 1967; Gallay 1992;
Gallay et al. 1996; Gosden 1982; Gosselain 1995; Haaland 1978; Herbich & Dietler
1991; Hodder 1979; Huysecom 1994; MacEachern 1998; Phillipson 1990). In southern
Africa, there has been very limited work on modern pottery classification systems of
Bantu speakers. Huffman’s (1973) study of Shona classification and Van der Lith’s
(1972) work on Lemba and Venda ceramic taxonomy stand out in this regard. A greater
number of studies have focussed on ceramic production and consumption amongst
Bantu-speaking peoples (see Armstrong 1998; Davidson & Hosford 1978; Garrett 1997,
1998; Kennedy 1993; Krause 1984, 1985, 1990; Laidler & Scot 1936; Lawton 1969;
Levinsohn 1984; Morais & Cruze e Silva n.d.; Reusch 1996, 1998; Schofield 1948).
While varied in scope and detail, these sources are important because they provide
insights into the manufacture and use of ceramic containers, from the time of European
settlement in the early nineteenth century, up to more recent practices. However, none
has specifically attempted to define a complete system of ceramic use categories.
This paper brings together historical observations, linguistic data, ethnographic
accounts, and recent ethnoarchaeological research on ceramic use amongst Zulu-
speaking peoples in eastern South Africa to redress the uneven level of detail in the
ceramic literature regarding ceramic use. My aim is to use these data to engage two
related issues of concern to historians, ethnographers, and archaeologists working in
Africa and elsewhere.
http://www.sahumanities.org.za 93
94 SOUTHERN AFRICAN HUMANITIES, VOL. 18 (2), 2006
The first issue concerns the principles potters and consumers use to distinguish
different categories of pottery containers and their potential value for deriving the
function of ceramics from archaeological contexts. In particular, I will address the
variables that would be most useful to archaeologists when attempting to derive a
functional classification of pre-colonial ceramic containers. The second issue involves
understanding why ceramics continue to be made and used in rural African communities,
despite dramatic changes in material culture since the introduction of European
substitutes. What links this issue with the former is a concern with the broader cultural
significance of objects that are unlikely to receive attention from other social scientists,
such as ethnographers and art historians. We cannot begin to utilise ethnographic analogy
to interpret archaeological remains without being both critical of the ethnographic source
of the analogy and demonstrating that we understand the impact of colonial rule and
ideology on the material cultural repertoire of the people who were/are the subject of
ethnographies (see Brumfield 2003). In archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, and historical
anthropology, issues of theory—such as how and why people use ceramic containers—
cannot precede the presentation of data on potters, production arrangements, and the
cultural significance of products.
THE POTTERS
The material drawn upon in this study is exclusively from potting communities in the
Thukela Basin of eastern South Africa (Fig. 1). The Thukela Basin is centrally located
in the province of KwaZulu-Natal and covers an area of approximately 4500 km2. The
Thukela River is the largest easterly flowing river in South Africa, draining from its
source in the Drakensberg Mountains into the Indian Ocean. The basin is geologically
and ecologically diverse with differences in seasonal temperature, rainfall, and vegetation
cover in each of the main ecozones (mountains, plateau slopes, valleys, and coast).
Potters living in the region tend to inhabit the Thukela valley system, a single bioclimatic
zone with a similar range of natural resources and climatic conditions.
Throughout this predominantly rural area, the majority of the population speak Zulu—
one of the four Nguni languages spoken in South Africa today.1 Zulus have been
subjected to considerable redefinition of administrative and political boundaries,
relocation from territories held during precolonial times, substantial economic
depression, and denial of political representation. Many historians consider Zulu a recent
cultural identity that is as much a result of the colonial and apartheid government policies
of segregation and ‘separate development’ as it is a consequence of the expansion of
the Zulu chiefdom and centralisation of authority imposed on its neighbours in the
early 1800s (Bonner 1983; Guy 1979; Hamilton & Wright 1990; Lambert 1995; Wright
1
The term isiZulu is often used by non-Zulu speakers to refer to the spoken language and is cited as a
definition in recent Zulu dictionaries (Dent & Nyembezi 1998). This is inadequate because isiZulu also
refers to customs and mannerisms that are characteristic of Zulus. Some confusion also exists for referring
to Zulu speakers as a homogeneous cultural group. The term owakwaZulu is used to refer to ‘a person of
the Zulu people’ (pl. abakwaZulu), which has been confused in recent orthography for non-Zulu speakers
in using the term umZulu to refer to a Zulu person (pl. amaZulu). In this contribution, I use the plural term
Zulus (abakwaZulu) when referring to Zulu-speaking people as a group (e.g. ‘the Zulus’), and the term
Zulu (best approximated by isiZulu) when referring to the culture of Zulus (e.g. Zulu society, Zulu pottery).
Incidentally, a similar system is applied in Mesoamerica when speaking of Mayas as a group of people,
Maya-speakers, and Maya culture (Coe 1980).
FOWLER: ZULU CERAMIC USE 95
Fig. 1. KwaZulu-Natal, showing the location of the Thukela Basin study area and major modern towns and
urban centres.
1989, 1995; Wright & Hamilton 1989). As such, people still identify in some way with
historically recent chiefdoms that have different but related social and political histories.
Zulus continue to organise social relations principally around the domestic settlement
(umuzi)—a polygynous, cooperative, usually co-resident, domestic group comprised
of affinal and agnatic kin—that is situated within territorially defined lineage groups
(i.e. clans) (Kuper 1982, 1993). In this study, I consider Zulus as an ethno-linguistic
group bound by a common socio-cosmic system, similar ideology and shared history
since at least AD 1750, at which time the last proto-historical phase of the region’s
Nguni sequence began, ending in the 1820s with permanent British settlement of the
region (Hall & Maggs 1979; Maggs 1989: 37; Whitelaw 1997).
Four of the eleven recently defined administrative and political municipal districts in
KwaZulu-Natal cover parts of the greater Thukela Basin. Potting communities in two
of these districts, Umzinyathi in the Upper Basin and Uthungulu in the Lower Basin,
are focussed upon in this study. These districts, however, do not adequately define the
study area because they extend outside the basin. I prefer to utilise geomorphological
criteria that distinguish the upper and lower reaches of the Thukela catchment area,
above and below a narrowing of the river valley east of Thukela Ferry.
Early studies of indigenous ceramics in KwaZulu-Natal are ethnological accounts,
combining a study of objects in local museums, very limited discussion with potters
and observation of potting practices, and much second- and third-hand information.
Laidler and Scot’s (1936) report describes ancient and modern pottery throughout
southern Africa. It is unsystematic in its presentation of materials by time, geographic
area, or group, but does contain some important information on manufacturing techniques
and materials, although few specifically related to the Zulu. Schofield’s (1948) and
Lawton’s (1969) monographs are notable also for their limited descriptions of techniques
and materials, rather than the usefulness of their chronological ordering of ceramic
series and explanations of cultural change, and only small sections are devoted to the
Zulu.
Potters of the Thukela have been the subject of research in recent years, and these
studies have been conducted from anthropological and art historical perspectives. Pottery
production in the KwaMabaso chiefdom, located in the former Msinga district in the
Upper Thukela Basin, was the subject of study by Dieter Reusch of the KwaZulu-Natal
Provincial Museum Service. The potters interviewed by Reusch (1996, 1998) reside in
the Umzinyathi District, which encompasses the former Nkandla and the Esidakeni
izigodi (sing. isigodi, district, division of territory) of the KwaMabaso chiefdom. His
work focussed on the relationship between the Msinga pottery production techniques
and vessel morphology, based on interviews with potters in one family (Reusch 1996),
and a partial summary of the ethnography and his research on ceramic use (Reusch
1998).
Research into pottery-making in the Lower Thukela Basin has focussed on potters
who currently reside within the Uthungulu District, containing the previous Mpabalane
and Inkanyezi izigodi. Most of this work has been conducted from an art historical
perspective with the aim of describing the art/craft of Zulu potting and the recent
emergence of pottery-making as a new source of income for economically depressed
rural families seeking to establish a tourist and commercial market for their work
(Armstrong 1998; Armstrong & Calder 1996; Garrett 1997, 1998). Potters in this area
have also been the subject of my research into ceramic variability and social boundaries
in present and past communities in the region. Short field studies during 1997 and 1998
culminated in longer-term fieldwork in 2002, aimed at generating ethnographically and
ethnoarchaeologically derived models of ceramic production, use and discard, that can
be used to interpret the organisation and use of space in precolonial agriculturalist
settlements (Fowler 2000, 2002a, b, 2004; Greenfield et al. 2005). The Thukela
Ethnoarchaeology Project has interviewed 22 potters from four families, and a census
of the kinds, quantities, and distribution of containers in use in these homesteads was
initiated.
In the following section, I present the information available from historical, linguistic,
and ethnographic sources to describe the range of ceramic vessels of known use in Zulu
society since the nineteenth century, and introduce the results of recent
ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in the region regarding the present-day uses of ceramic
vessels. This functional repertoire provides the basis to discuss the principles of ceramic
classification and continuity in the Zulu potting tradition.
THE ZULU CERAMIC FUNCTIONAL REPERTOIRE

Perhaps the earliest recorded mention of the use of clay containers by Nguni-speaking
peoples is provided by Joao Baptista Lavanha (1898: 293–4) in his description of local
people using sun-dried vessels and making ‘millet wine’ (i.e. beer), recorded during the
travels of the Santo Alberto along the Natal coast in the sixteenth century. Available
data on the range of Zulu izinkamba, the generic term for all earthenware vessels (Reusch
1998: 199), received little attention in early ethnographic sources, most likely because
interviews were conducted mostly with men. While references to the consumption of
beer (utshwala) are common in early accounts of Zulu life (e.g. Angas 1849; Bryant
1967; Cory 1926; Gardiner 1966; Krige 1936; Stuart & Malcolm 1969), prior to the
introduction and widespread adoption of metal containers, a wide range of pottery was
also used for cooking, serving, storing and carrying, and for the mixing of herbs and
medicines. Based on these accounts, the following discussion of the Zulu ceramic
repertoire organises vessel function into four main categories: food preparation; serving
and drinking; storage and transport; medicinal and ritual use. A fifth category considers
several other reported—but uncommon—uses for containers. The vessels in these
categories are shown in Figure 2.
Food preparation
Cooking vessels
Izinkamba refers to all vessels used to cook meat, cereals, and vegetables. Cattle and
goat meat is either roasted or boiled, while the intestines and offal are boiled. A proper
cooking vessel used to boil meat (ikhanzi) is a restricted, oval-shaped bowl that comes
in small and large sizes (Fig. 2.1). These vessels were set on three stones in a fire and
the top of the pot was covered with a smaller vessel (Krige 1936: 397). During Gardiner’s
(1966: 55–6) visit to King Dingane’s capital at uMgungundlovu (1829–38) he observed
meat being ‘stewed in a large black earthen bowl with a smaller one inverted, and
cemented [with cattle dung] round the top to prevent the steam from escaping’. These
bowls were not decorated, and the black exterior referred to by Gardiner resulted from
extensive carbon deposition (sooting) caused by repeated use. Bryant (1967: 197) also
described an ikhanzi with a rough surface texture, similar to beer brewing vessels (imbiza,
see below), which was lidded and quite similar to Gardiner’s 1836 sketch (Gardiner
1966: no. 2, facing page 412). Low-fired earthenware vessels used for cooking rarely
have burnished or polished surfaces because this decreases the ability of vessel walls
to contract and expand when heated. Surface modifications also decrease the amount
of thermal stress a pot can handle, which directly affects the use-life of vessels
Fig. 2. Emic functional classification of Zulu ceramic containers. Vessel forms inferred from descriptions
are shaded grey and containers that fall into more than one functional category are encircled by a
dashed line.
(Rice 1987: 231). It is unlikely that the cover referred to by Gardiner was hermetic.
Steam must be released through some aperture at the mouth, for if this does not occur,
the escaping steam will cause the vessel wall to spall, making it unserviceable. In addition
to the ikhanzi, pottery sherds (izindengezi) were also used to fry meat but only in ritual
contexts (Berglund 1976: 217; Reusch 1998: 28).
There is little information available on vessels used for cooking cereals and vegetables.
Various sources describe a small bowl called isoco (Fig. 2.2) used in cooking cereals or
vegetables (Bryant 1905: 474; Doke & Vilakazi 1972: 634; Grossert 1968: 494;
Nyembezi & Nxumalo 1966: 21) and Krige (1936: 387) notes a ‘saucepan’ called isiyoco
(Fig. 2.3). This is possibly the type shown in a photograph from the Marianhill archives
(Kennedy 1993: fig. 108, no. 10). Schofield (1948: 188) depicts cooking pots as wide-
mouthed spherical vessels. Reusch (1998: 23) suspected these could be izikhamba (sing.
isikhamba), which are still made by some potters in the Upper Thukela Basin. Older
informants in this area still remember the form, but it is no longer used for cooking. The
shape of this series of hemispherical bowls presented in Figure 2 is inferred both from
the above descriptions and examples—possibly from the nineteenth century—in the
Durban Local History Museum (NN 90.36) and the Natal Museum (No. 141).
As with vessels for boiling meat, vessels for cooking cereals and vegetables were
placed on three large stones in a fire (Grout 1863: 100–1; Krige 1936: 52). In the
nineteenth century, women would prepare staples of maize (ummbila) and millet
(amabele) for their household by first cooking them in a large ikhanzi and then crushing
them into a meal on a grinding stone situated near the doorway on the left-hand side
(looking inwards) of the kitchen hut (Grout 1863: 100–1). The meal would be placed in
a shallow basket, then either temporarily stored for making maize porridge staples such
as uphuthu (maize meal and sour milk), amahewu (thin, fermented maize porridge) and
umdokwe (a dish of fermented ground maize meal), or used immediately by the woman’s
husband to prepare umcaba (a dish made by mixing maize with sour milk). Other
vegetables (imfino) and beans (obhontshisi) were cooked in a similar fashion.
Most of these vessels are not made today. Even by the 1920s, Bryant (1967: 197)
reported that cooking vessels (ikhanzi) were no longer used, and were beginning to be
replaced by metal cooking pots (Guy 1979: 14; Kennedy 1993: 224). We know that the
iron tripod vessels, termed ibhodwe lensimbi or ibhodwe lesizulu, were present in
Zululand by the 1830s. Fynn listed iron pots and kettles among gifts presented to Dingane
on a visit, most likely in 1832. He also cites a report by Isaacs, published in the South
African Commercial Advertiser (12 September 1832), regarding the presence of iron
tripod cooking pots in homesteads along the Thukela (Stuart & Malcolm 1969: 195).
Slightly later documentation of iron cooking vessels exists in a photograph dating
between 1900–08 from the Mariannhill monastery archive (Kennedy 1993: fig. 137).
Beer brewing vessels

Beer has, and continues to play, an important role in Zulu social and ritual life. For
this reason, there is substantially more information about the vessels used in brewing
(fermenting) beer, and Bryant (1967: 274–5) and Reusch (1998: 24–6) give full accounts
of past and modern beer brewing processes.
Izimbiza (sing. imbiza) is the generic term for all vessels used in brewing beer. They
have a characteristic inverted pear (pyriform) shape and range widely in size (Fig. 2.4,
2.5). Bryant (1967: 197) described three izimbiza size categories when gathering
information in the 1920s: medium-sized (imbiza umndindimana), tall and large (imbiza
ugaga), and very large (imbiza uhoho). Only the medium-sized variety is identified by
Doke and Vilakazi (1972: 538), and none of these variations is mentioned in Nyembezi
and Nxumalo (1966: 19–21). However, the tall-large type (imbiza ugaga) is known
from other areas of the province (Grossert 1968: 494; Kennedy 1993: 237, no.10).
Reusch (1998: 24) reports that in the Upper Basin this variety averages 56 cm in height,
while another medium-sized type, known as imbiza impofana, averages 44 cm. By
today’s standards, the smaller imbiza are less than 50 cm in height and include the
imbiza umndindimana described by Bryant, and the imbiza impofana (Kennedy 1993:
225–6; Reusch 1998: 24).
Apart from their size and characteristic shape, izimbiza are also typically smeared
with cattle dung (ubulongwe) on their exterior surface. Cattle and their by-products are
media used to commune with the ancestors, and rubbing cattle dung on izimbiza provides
a way for the ancestors to help prevent lightning striking the homestead (Lawton 1969:
52). Izimbiza are made for private use within the homestead. Typically they are placed
in a sacred area (umsamo) at the back of the circular house, often partially embedded in
the floor. Both in the past and in the present, smaller izimbiza were used for the brewing
of beer, and only during special occasions were the larger vessels used. For instance,
Fynn (Stuart & Malcolm 1969: 269) observed the vessels used by Shaka
kaSenzangakhona’s mother ‘for boiling beer’ could hold up to 60 gallons (272 litres),
and in the course of his tours through ‘military towns’ Gardiner (1966: 55) recorded
that the ‘whole food consisted of “outchualla” [utshwala] in the morning and beef in
the evening, all provided by the King’. The missionary Francis Owen (Cory 1926)
noted that a hundred large pots of sorghum beer were placed before him and a thousand
men at uMgungundlovu in 1837 before he delivered a sermon. At this same site,
archaeologists have found indentations in excavated floors that probably held izimbiza
(Parkington & Cronin 1979).
By the late 1800s, mass-produced aluminium pots (ibhodwe lesilungu), known as a
‘white people’s pot’, were being used in the place of traditional izimbiza to brew a beer
known as imbamba. Reusch (1998: 26) reported that this type of beer is brewed in
kwaMabaso and is made by mixing two loaves of brown bread with one loaf of white
bread, three blocks of yeast, and one kilogram of sugar. It is only brewed in aluminium
pots because it is beer foreign to the ancestors. More recently, plastic drums
(imiphongolo) of varying sizes (20–50 litres) have also been used throughout the region
for fermenting beer and transporting water.
Serving and drinking

A wide variety of Zulu pottery vessels were used for serving cereals, vegetables and
beer. Because cereal and vegetable serving vessels were replaced fairly soon after
European contact, few examples have survived, and only some descriptions of the vessels
were recorded. Photographs in provincial archives and some line drawings (e.g. Schofield
1948) from the early twentieth century depict many vessels types. However, the names
given to certain vessels can vary locally, and we are sometimes faced with the uncertain
situation of relating vessel names and descriptions to images where certain vessels are
unspecified or have suspect identifications.
Despite this situation, there appear to have been four main vessel types used to serve
cereals and vegetables. What sets these serving vessels apart from other types is that
they are bowls; that is, unrestricted containers, in which the maximum circumference
of the vessel is at the mouth. As such, they are likely to be morphologically similar to
the hemispherical bowl shapes used in cooking (Figs 2.2, 2.3). All of these vessels
types are further qualitatively distinguished by their height.
The first two vessel types, isikhangezo and umgenqele, are described in the literature
as shallow wide-mouthed bowls used for serving only cereal and vegetable staples
(Bryant 1967: 198; Doke et al. 1958: 106). The function of the third type, umcengezi
(pl. imicengenzi), is less clear. While Bryant (1967: 198) and Doke et al. (1958: 106)
describe this as a shallow, wide-mouthed bowl used for serving cereal and vegetable
staples, it has also been described as a shallow, flat-bottomed vessel (Kennedy 1993:
224). Various other functions and media have been given for vessels with this name.
Müller (1917–18) says it is a shallow wooden platter for serving food, but probably
confuses this with ugwembe, a wooden meat-serving tray. Bryant (1905: 72) notes it
is a bowl used for washing hands. Doke and Vilakazi (1972: 106) identify its shape
but not its function, and Nyembezi and Nxumalo (1966: 20) say it is a food bowl.
All agree, however, that it is a broad, shallow, flat-bottomed hemispherical basin
or bowl that would be similar in form to isikhangezo and umgenqele as estimated in
Figure 2.6.
A fourth type, umcakulo (Fig. 2.7), is a deep bowl with a wide mouth used for serving
specific dishes, including uphuthu, amahewu and umdokwe. This vessel is no longer
used in the Lower Basin, and has been replaced by either enamel bowls or izinkamba,
in particular the small umancishana. In the Upper Basin (kwaMabaso), ukhamba lwamasi
(Fig. 2.8) are used for serving sour milk only, and never for staples (Reusch 1998: 27).
In contrast to cereal and vegetable serving vessels, the use of beer serving and drinking
vessels does not appear to have changed significantly since the nineteenth century.
Ukhamba (pl. izinkamba) is the generic term for blackened vessels used in serving and
drinking beer (utshwala). There are three morphological types of izinkamba (Figs 2.9–
2.14). The first type, referred to only as ukhamba, is a vertical oval-shaped vessel with
a flat base and wide mouth, and can range from 20–25 cm in height (Figs 2.9, 2.10).
The ukhamba forms parallel those of Zulu wooden milk pails (ithunga) and they can
share similar kinds of decoration (Hooper 1996; Kennedy 1993).
The second type of izinkamba (Figs 2.11–2.13) are ellipsoidal-shaped and are
distinguished by their size and given appropriate qualifying terms. Some are oriented
along the vertical axis and are higher than they are broad. The largest of this kind is
ukhamba udabulibheshu, which is usually greater than 25 cm in height (Fig. 2.11).
Reusch (1998: 29) explains that the term is a play on words, combining dabula (tear or
split) and ibheshu (a skin loin-cloth worn by men), implying that it is so big and heavy
when full of beer that a man will tear his loin-cloth if he tries to lift it. The ukhamba
ninepence (Fig. 2.12) is a medium-sized vessel, averaging 20 cm in height, and derives
its name from having been sold for 9 pence in the 1950s (Reusch 1998: 29). The
umgobagago and umancishana are the smallest vessels used to serve and drink beer,
and average around 15 cm in height (Fig. 2.13). Umancishana is seldom used to serve
or consume beer and is more commonly used for placing beer in the sacred area at the
back of the house (umsamo) as an offering to the ancestors. Bryant (1967: 197) noted it
was referred to as the ‘stingy-one’—the term ncintshana means ‘to be stingy with’
(Doke & Vilakazi 1972: 531). Krige (1936: 397) noted that it was ‘inhospitable to serve
drink in such small vessels’, and Schoeman and Mertens (1975) observed that using
umancishana was either a polite way of avoiding embarrassment by informing visitors
their hosts were low on beer, or it was used to signal that guests were no longer welcome.
The third type, iphangela, are the largest of the beer serving vessels used in KwaZulu-
Natal (Fig. 2.14). Like the other izinkamba, they are also ellipsoidal-shaped. However,
they are ellipsoidal along the horizontal axis in section (i.e. they are broader than they
are high), and can range from 30–40 cm in height. These vessels are quite heavy and
cannot be moved when full. Smaller drinking vessels are used to draw beer until the
iphangela can be lifted (Armstrong & Calder 1996: 112). Due to its size and capacity,
this vessel is best used for large gatherings. Kennedy (1993: 226–7, fig. 139) remarks
that it is used in the Upper Basin for short-term storage during such occasions, although
Reusch (1996, 1998) does not cite it being used.
Storage and transport

Apart from the use of calabashes, baskets, and, more recently, plastic containers,
several types of ceramic vessels have been used in Zulu communities to store and
transport fluid contents. They can generally be distinguished by the presence of a neck.
However, the beer brewing vessels, izimbiza, which are without a neck, have also been
used to store water. They appear to have been used for this purpose until the 1940s, but
have since been replaced by plastic cans and barrels.
Two kinds of vessels with necks, ingcazi and uphiso, were used to transport liquids.
There are two known varieties of izingcazi (sing. ingcazi). The body of the pot (Fig.
2.15) is similar in shape to izinkamba, but it has a long everted neck (Lawton 1969: 22–
3). This variety of izingcazi encompasses small- and large-sized containers that can
vary from 14 to 43 cm in height (Reusch 1998: 34). They have been used both to store
and to transport water or beer to work parties in the field or homestead (Lawton 1969:
23–4), and one of Reusch’s (1998: 34) informants noted that they could be used to
transport beer to a fiancé’s homestead. The second type of ingcazi is a small-sized
container with multiple spouts (Fig. 2.16). In the Upper Basin, these vessels are
distinguished by the number of spouts, such as ingcazi elinemilomo emithathu (ingcazi
with three mouths), and are currently sold as flower vessels (Reusch 1998: 34). Schofield
(1948: 189) and Lawton (1969: 62) mistakenly referred to examples of this form held
in the Durban Local History Museum as uphiso, the other type of necked-vessel used
for transporting liquids. The body form of an uphiso (Figs 2.17–2.19) is very similar to
that of an ukhamba, but it has a distinctive neck, resembling the tightly woven isichumo
basket that was also used to transport liquids (Armstrong & Calder 1996: 112; Van
Heerden 1996).
Medicinal and ritual use

Pottery containers are also used in ritual contexts to make offerings to ancestors and
for the preparation of medicines. One kind of vessel, with a pear-shaped body and in-
sloping neck, is used to make offerings to the ancestors, but different terms are used for
it in the Thukela Basin. In the Upper Basin, umgodi wenyoka (Fig. 2.20) is used to store
beer in the umsamo as an offering to the ancestors (Reusch 1998: 27). The term is
literally translated as ‘nest of snake’ or ‘hole of snake’, and Reusch (1998: 28) suggests
that a visit by the ancestors to the umsamo in the form of a snake could symbolise a
welcoming aspect. In the Lower Basin, the same form is given a different name,
umcengezi (Fig. 2.21). (As has been noted above, this name has also been reported for
broad, shallow bowls used for serving cereal and vegetable staples.) Like their counter-
part in the Upper Basin, umcengezi are also used to store beer for the ancestors, but
interviews did not elicit the same symbolic connection between this type of pot and
snakes.
Medicines mixed in pottery vessels are used in rituals dealing with fortifying
households, childbirth, and countering the effects of sorcery. When a homestead has
experienced bad luck, its inhabitants may choose to hire an herbalist (inyanga) to purify
and protect the homestead against further malevolence. The herbalist will prepare a
type of white medicine (intelezi) in a large ukhamba (Fig. 2.22) (ukhamba lwentelezi)
(Ngubane 1977: 110). The medicine is then sprinkled around the house and homestead
boundary, mimicking the spitting of medicines used in other purification rituals (Berglund
1976: 335). Ngubane (1977: 109–11) has also described the use of ‘clay pots’ in preparing
herbal medicines used to counteract the effects of sorcery, but did not specify what
types they may be. In addition to vessels, sherds (izindengezi) from any blackened
ukhamba are also used by an herbalist or an officiant of animal sacrifice to burn incense
(impepho) (Reusch 1998: 36).
Pottery plays an important role in all major events in Zulu households, and their use
during childbirth is no exception. Even before children are born, pottery is used to
prepare medicines for the mother. Brindley (1985: 101) describes a ‘medium-sized
clay pot’ that is used to administer a medicine (isihlambezo) given to pregnant women
in their third trimester to promote foetal growth, loosen the foetus in the womb, and
ease delivery. This medicine is mixed and delivered in a pot covered with a single sherd
(udengezi), sealed with cattle-dung to prevent a person’s shadow from falling over the
medicine, as this could cause the birth of a mentally handicapped child (Brindley 1985:
102). The vessel is then placed in the ancestral shrine at the rear of the household. For
further protection, the vessel may also be decorated with a red ochre (ibomvu) mixture
over the entire surface of the vessel or with only horizontal stripes and dots of ochre at
the shoulder (cf. Bryant 1967: 611). After the child is born, it is bathed in a shallow pit
dug into the shrine area or in an ukhamba broken at the shoulder (Brindley 1985: 104).
Alternatively, Reusch (1998: 36) describes how a similarly broken ukhamba is used to
hold a plastic dish (indishi yomntwana) where an infant is bathed for the first three days
after birth, which usually takes place at the local hospital. The vessel is then broken and
the sherds spread around the yard of the homestead. After these first three days of life,
the infant is purified and protected by the incense of medicines derived from parts of
wild animals (izinyamazane) or herbal white medicines (impepho) (Brindley 1985: 103,
104). The mother can also be protected by this incense during and after childbirth.
Beyond protecting the infant and aiding in the postpartum recovery of the mother,
another significant postnatal concern is the disposal of the afterbirth. Brindley’s (1985:
105) interviews in the Nkandla area of the Lower Basin reveal that the afterbirth must
be buried in the confinement-house at dusk on the day of parturition to prevent sorcery
against the mother or infant. In the Upper Basin, a different practice exists wherein the
paternal grandmother of a child places the afterbirth in a beer serving vessel bigger than
umancishana and disposes of it away from the homestead (Reusch 1998: 36).
Other uses
The ethnographic literature suggests that certain unspecified vessel types were used
for other purposes. In one of the extensive interviews conducted by James Stewart
(Webb & Wright 1976: 24, 36), he cites Baleni kaSilwana, councillor (induna) and
attendant (inceku) to Mpande and induna to Cetshwayo, as indicating that the ‘wash
water for the king was placed in an earthenware vessel about 12 inches [30.5 cm] high
and 15 inches [38 cm] in diameter’. He also noted that girls of the King’s ikhanda
(military barracks) urinated into clay pots, but the king used a calabash (Webb & Wright
1976: 45).
DISCUSSION
The foregoing description of Zulu ceramic use categories provides basic data to
evaluate the principles underlying the classification system and to investigate why pottery
continues to be made and used in KwaZulu-Natal. Both of these issues are directly
related to understanding the dynamics of culture change in the region as they are reflected
in the production and use of ceramic containers. As we move further back into the past,
when archaeology becomes our primary means of obtaining information, it is imperative
to develop appropriate methodological and theoretical frameworks to monitor the
relationship between social change and material culture change, in particular whether a
change in one mirrors a change in the other. This cannot be accomplished without an
adequate understanding of the variation in material culture repertoires through time, or
the reasons why certain kinds of material culture are discarded during times of transition
while others are retained. Because emic classification systems simultaneously employ
tangible (those observable with the senses) and intangible (those rooted in biological
heritage and cultural convention) criteria in categorising the surrounding world, they
provide a compelling starting point for investigating the reasons for material culture
change in the present, which may then be rigorously applied towards understanding the
past.
Principles of Classification
All ceramic containers are produced, selected for use, and classified in some way by
potters and consumers based on the attributes or characteristics that differentially affect
their appearance or performance under a variety of conditions. Ethnotaxonomies aim
to capture those differences, and archaeological typologies aim to duplicate (or at least
replicate) their organising principles. Classification and typology are not the same thing
(Rice 1987: 276). Classification is one set (or more sets) of empirical groupings designed
to order objects based on similarities and differences. Typology is a theoretically oriented
classification aimed at solving problems. It is therefore important that typological
schemes of ceramic use take into account the way potters and consumers may classify
ceramics according to their function. In understanding emic classifications, initially it
is more important to document the range of terminology used to refer to the ceramic
repertoire. Only then can we begin to investigate the dynamics underlying changes in
it.
Many investigators who have defined vessel terminologies note how they are seldom
evident or replicable to outsiders (e.g. Birmingham 1975; Weigand 1969), while others
have found that measurements of vessel sizes and proportions do correlate with shape
classifications, which would be useful for archaeologists (e.g. Longacre 1981; cf. also
Costin 1991). As such, a consideration of ethnotaxonomic principles can lead to argument
as to whether an archaeological typology is ‘real’ or ‘actual’ (Rice 1987: 283–5), but
such an exercise may lead to justifiable classifications and in my opinion, a typology
should have some general correspondence to the principles of categorisation used by
potters and/or consumers. Clearly, an emic classification is not more authoritative than
an etic, or scientifically-derived, one. However, the value to archaeology of knowing
how functional categories are derived in living contexts may be compromised if we do
not consider emic principles and how they may be applied to archaeological specimens.
The literature suggests that several principles are important to consider when
evaluating ethnotaxonomies of ceramic function. First, Gosselain (1992, 1998), Kempton
(1981) and Kaplan (1994) have observed that potters do not necessarily classify ceramics
to a greater number of categories, using attributes that reflect technical differences
between categories, than would non-potters. Second, a striking conclusion reached by
cross-cultural ethnotaxonomic, or folk classification, research is that consumers stress
functional attributes such as size, shape, handles, and the like, which distinguish pots
used in different activities on a daily basis (e.g. Kaplan 1994; Kempton 1981). Third, it
has been noted that the same or similar pots may be used in many activities during their
life span (e.g. Rice 1987: 293–7). Lastly, classifications of cultural material are generally
based on dichotomies or sets of oppositions that are often linked to structural differences
of the non-material world, both of which are significant to potters and consumers (e.g.
David et al. 1988; Kaplan & Levine 1981).
Studies of ceramic classification amongst present-day Bantu speakers in southern
Africa have reached somewhat different conclusions. Huffman’s (1973) study of Shona
classification and Van der Lith’s (1972) work on Lemba and Venda ceramic taxonomy
demonstrated that potters and consumers distinguish different use categories of pottery
by a specific name and utilise shape, size and the presence or absence of decoration, to
identify types. These findings differ from Krause’s (1984, 1990) research on
categorisation amongst Tswana, Ndebele, and Venda potters. Krause found that ceramic
forms were minimally sorted according to vessel size, rim shape and/or bottom shape.
Potters gave more credence to function (corresponding to size/capacity) and secondary
features (form elements, including rim shape, rim angle, bottom shape) and less to
overall shape in classifying vessel drawings (Krause 1990: 723–5), than potters in others
studies, such as those from Tlaxcala, Mexico (Kempton 1981). Importantly, Krause
(1990) found that decorative properties do not always distinguish pots of different size,
shape, or function. For example, Venda meat and vegetable cooking pots are distinguished
by their size, although they can have identical decoration.
Archaeologists working in southern Africa have regularly employed different systems
for classifying Iron Age ceramics to infer group identity for cultural-historical purposes
(for further discussion of these approaches see Huffman 1980). Technique taxonomies
concentrate on variation in decorative techniques (such as incision and appliqué) (e.g.
Fagan 1965; Huffman 1978; Robinson 1973; Soper 1971). Multi-dimensional lists
compare morphological and decorative traits in ceramic assemblages, such as which
motifs and/or techniques occur on different pot shapes (e.g. Maggs 1980a, b, 1984;
Maggs & Michael 1976; Phillipson 1976). Multi-dimensional typologies evaluate co-
variation in morphological and decorative traits, targeting regularities in motif and surface
treatment combinations (affiliate sets and modes) on different vessels shapes (e.g.
Huffman 1980).
These previous typologies used by archaeologists in southern Africa target regularities
in morphology (size and shape) and surface treatments (decoration and other
modifications to the surface, such as sealants). To investigate the production and use of
ceramics, it is necessary to develop typological schemes that target regularities in
manufacture (i.e. a technological typology) and use (i.e. a functional typology). Data
about the attributes of pottery that reflect these regularities must be collected.
Both archaeological and ethnoarchaeological studies generally agree that the shape
(or its elements) and size of ceramic containers are primary criteria potters and consumers
use to distinguish pots of different function. There is, however, disagreement about the
importance of decoration in emic functional classifications. What these studies have
not done is describe the possible linkages between the use of ceramic containers and
the structure of style systems that have been focussed upon by archaeologists working
in the region. As such, they do not provide a behavioural rationale for including surface
treatments as part of a functional classification. Therefore, it is necessary to establish
linkages between ceramic morphology (shape and size), surface treatments, and function
in order to evaluate what principles are considered by specific groups and how they
may differ. We will now turn to the principles employed in the organisation of the Zulu
ceramic system to examine this issue.
Form-function relationships
Ethnoarchaeological research in the Thukela Basin has established that both potters
and consumers consistently identify the following three morphological criteria in
classifying pottery:
• the presence or absence of a vertical or outsloping rim (often termed ‘neck’),
• overall body shape, and
• size, evaluated by either relative height or capacity (volume).
The first and second criteria are formal and are used to divide forms into morphological
types. The last criterion is scalar and is used to identify dimensional sub-types. The
result is a general formula involving:
rim presence/absence + shape = type; then,
type + size = sub-type.
These criteria agree with those employed in ceramic classification systems reported
for the Venda, Tswana, and Ndebele (Krause 1990). While dimensional sub-types can
rely on individual perceptions of size amongst most pottery producing groups (Gosselain
1992), variation in the height/capacity of vessels within a single series of Zulu pottery
(e.g. ukhamba, uphiso, imbiza, etc.) makes the identification of types and sub-types
rather clear. Based upon the morphological criteria, eleven types can be distinguished
(Fig. 3):
11. unrestricted, shallow, hemispherical bowls in which the mouth has the maximum
diameter (girth) (isikhangezo, umgenqele, umcakulo, isiyoco, and possibly isoco);
12. unrestricted, cylindrical vessels in which the mouth and girth have the same (or
very similar) diameter (izinkamba);
13. restricted, spherical-shaped vessel in which the mouth diameter is slightly less than
the girth (ukhamba lwamasi, ukhamba lwentelezi);
14. restricted, inverted pear-shaped vessel in which the mouth diameter is slightly less
than the girth (izimbiza);
15. restricted, ellipsoidal-shaped vessels in which the mouth diameter is one quarter to
one half the girth (ukhamba udabulibheshu, ukhamba ninepence, ukhamba
umgobagago, umancishana);
16. restricted pear-shaped pot in which the mouth diameter is smaller than the girth
(umgodi wenyoka, umcengezi);
17. restricted vessels with a flared rim and spherical shaped body (uphiso). Varieties
may also have a short vertical, cylindrical rim shape;
18. restricted vessels with an outsloping rim and ellipsoidal-shaped body (ingcazi);
19. restricted, spherical-shaped vessel with three or more cyclindrical-necked openings,
or spouts (ingcazi);
10. restricted, ovaloid-shaped vessel in which the mouth diameter is roughly one third
smaller than the girth (ikhanzi);
11. restricted, ellipsoidal-shaped vessels in which the mouth diameter is roughly one
third the girth (iphangela).
Fig. 3. Morphological classification of Zulu ceramic containers: 1. umcakulo/isoco; 2. isikhangezo/umgenqele/

umcengezi/isiyoco; 3, 4. izinkamba; 5. ukhamba lwamasi; 6. ukhamba lwentelezi; 7. imbiza
impofana; 8. imbiza ugaga; 9. ukhamba udabulibheshu; 10. ukhamba ninepence; 11. umancishana;
12. umcengezi; 13. umgodi wenyoka; 14, 15, 16. uphiso; 17. ingcazi; 18. ingcazi elinemilomo
emine, ‘ingcazi with four mouths’; 19. ikhanzi; 20. iphangela. Vessel forms inferred from
descriptions are shaded grey.
Zulu potters and consumers distinguish general size sub-types within several of
the morphological types. Vessel shape and size therefore designate a type-series
(e.g. ukhamba series, uphiso series, ingcazi series). In many instances, the size and
shape of vessels correspond to their function. For instance, in the ukhamba series, the
largest type of pot, iphangela, is used for serving and storing beer, while smaller pots
(umancishana, ukhamba ninepence and ukhamba dabulibeshu) are used for serving
beer. Taking an etic approach, archaeologists commonly compare the height and
maximum width (girth) of containers to distinguish size sub-types in archaeological
assemblages. Morphometric analysis of a small assemblage of historical and recently
manufactured Zulu vessels indicates that size sub-types can be differentiated using this
method. A plot of these two variables separates most functionally discrete sub-types,
such as small-, medium- and large-sized ukhamba, uphiso and ingcazi (Fig. 4). The
ukhamba series (Types 5 and 11) has the most size sub-types in the Zulu repertoire. The
metric distinctions separate out the different size sub-types in this series with one
exception. The ukhamba ninepence and ukhamba udabulibeshu sub-types are conflated
in a metric analysis as ‘medium-sized vessels’, although interviews and other
documentation describe ukhamba udabulibeshu as a ‘large vessel’. However, both
ninepence and udabulibeshu serve the same function (i.e. beer drinking vessels). Even
though the analysis grouped these two vessels into the same metric size-category, it still
correctly corresponds to the function of the vessels by distinguishing them from largest
member of the ukhamba series (iphangela, Type 11), which has different functions.
Apart from this one exception, the quantitative, etic distinctions mirror the qualitative,
emic divisions followed by both Zulu potters and consumers.
Several conclusions can be reached from the analysis of Zulu vessel forms. Size and
shape prove necessary variables to distinguish vessels used for cooking, serving, storage,
and transport. The Zulu data indicate that we must first develop a complete reckoning
of a form series before proceeding to more sophisticated analyses of vessel function.
The description of a series need not be complicated, and could be confined to defining
Fig. 4. Distribution of Zulu ceramic containers by height and maximum width. Groupings are based upon
emic size sub-categories with the exception of ukhamba ninepence and ukhamba udabulibeshu
in the ‘medium-sized’ category. See text for discussion.
size differences amongst variants of necked, restricted, and unrestricted forms, which
form the basic system originally offered by Shepard (1995), and is the one used here.
However, size and shape are insufficient to distinguish the function of vessels.
Ethnographic descriptions indicate that the same vessels may serve different functions
in different social contexts (e.g. vessels of the ukhamba series). Not being privy to such
information, archaeologists must use a different range of variables to infer the past
function of vessels. Formal (e.g. shape) and scalar (e.g. size) variables are the
cornerstones of functional analyses, but archaeologists must also come to an
understanding of how the mineral and chemical composition of clays are affected by
heating and cooling (thermal behaviour), and how these influence durability and
transportability (i.e. mechanical stresses). Specialised analytical techniques are used to
evaluate these properties of archaeological ceramics (e.g. Tite 1999). In addition, it is
imperative to collect detailed spatial data in order to assess adequately the association
of ceramics with the remains of different activities in past settlements (such as fire-pits,
house floors, livestock pens). Without these spatial data, it is impossible to reconstruct
different contexts of deposition and use.
Surface treatments and function

My interviews with more than twenty Zulu potters have not elicited correlations
between the decorative properties of pottery that would discriminate pots of different
size, shape, or function. However, it does appear that vessels of different function can
also be further grouped according to surface treatments. Surface treatments are any
purposeful modifications made to the surface of a vessel that alter its visual or tactile
properties. These modifications include the decoration techniques of incised and
impressed motifs, impression, smoothing, burnishing, and recently, the placing of
appliqué animals and words on vessel exteriors. The application of post-firing surface
coatings is another category of surface treatments used by Zulu potters. There are two
types: the first involves covering the exterior surface of izimbiza and ukhamba lwentelezi
with cattle dung, and the second involves applying a cattle fat and graphite concoction
after the first (bisque) firing, prior to a second firing (smudging), to give pots a matte
black appearance. After the second firing, the blackened pots may be burnished with a
piece of cloth, leather, or a smooth pebble.
While the specific symbolic meaning of certain motifs are difficult to elicit from potters
(Fowler 2005), the different surface treatments given Zulu vessels correlate with the social
visibility of pottery while in use. From ethnographic accounts, it appears that cooking
vessels received no surface treatments. As noted earlier, it is more practical for cooking
vessels to have unelaborated surface treatments because these can impede the adequate
cooking of foods. In Zulu households, cooking vessels were only used near the door of a
kitchen hut (Grout 1863: 100–1), and therefore had rather low social visibility. Izimbiza
used for beer brewing and short-term storage and the izinkamba zentelezi used for preparing
medicines have their exterior surfaces smeared with cattle dung. Although dung that has
close symbolic connections with cattle, the earth, and the ancestors, imbiza have the lowest
social visibility because they are placed in the sacred area at the rear of a hut. Similarly,
izinkamba zentelezi are also restricted to huts where they are stored or where medicines are
prepared for the sick. The visibility of this type of pot is probably a result of both the low
social visibility of the ill and its use in preparing medicines, which can be complicated by
witchcraft and sorcery if not stored properly or left unattended (Ngubane 1977). In contrast,
vessels used for serving a variety of food and beverages have the most elaborate surface
treatments, including surface blackening, burnishing and incised and impressed motifs.
Detailed decoration is therefore normally reserved for vessels used in contexts of high
social visibility (i.e. serving and eating). Vessels used for serving and drinking beer are
black-burnished and have incised, impressed or applied decoration, whilst food serving
and eating vessels are only black-burnished. Thus, a complementary way to distinguish
between vessels used in different capacities during their use life would involve a study of
surface treatments. However, the Zulu case emphasises that it is the combination of surface
treatments (i.e. design complexity) which contributes towards distinguishing pottery
belonging to broad functional categories.
This is good news for archaeologists interested in linking ceramic function with the
structure of style systems. The Zulu case suggests that the social context of ceramic use
at least partly determines the complexity of style. This hypothesis is testable, not only
using ethnoarchaeological and ethnographic data, but it is also amenable to archaeological
testing. For instance, while Zulu cooking pots are not decorated, it does not follow that
all cooking pots will be undecorated. Rather, it is more likely that cooking vessels will
not receive elaborate surface treatment because that would impede their performance.
This is a technical characteristic which potters consider when manufacturing vessels.
This being said, however, the Zulu data indicate that potters and consumers do not rely
upon technical differences to distinguish functional categories of ceramics, but instead
emphasise shape, size (a proxy for capacity) and surface treatments affecting colour
and texture. This lies in striking contrast to Kempton’s (1981) analysis, which observed
that decoration operates independently of morphology in functional terms. I would
suggest that, within the limited Zulu repertoire, decoration on these vessel types may
simply be imbued with more symbolic potency than pottery used for everyday food
preparation. Incised and impressed decoration reaffirms the function of vessels signalled
by shape, size, capacity, and colour. It is the very symbolic potency of ceramic vessels
in Zulu society that may be responsible for its continued use today.
Continuity in ceramic use

As with many other cultural groups in Africa and elsewhere, the collapse of the Zulu
ceramic repertoire appears to be a direct result of the influx of more durable European
metal containers (e.g. Gosselain 1995; Lindahl & Matenga 1995). Ceramic vessels for
cooking cereals and vegetables (isikhamba, isiyoco and isoco) and serving foods (umcakulo,
umcengezi, isikhangezo and umgenqele) are rarely made by Zulu-speakers today. In some
instances, such as among the kwaMabaso in the Upper Basin (Reusch 1998: 23) and the
Mthethwa (Lawton 1969: 57), some cereal and vegetable cooking vessel shapes are still
made but they no longer serve the same function. Seldom, in fact, are the terms for these
vessels identifiable by modern Zulu speakers, even if they are potters (Reusch 1998).
Given the range of available substitutes, many scholars have wondered why pottery
vessels continue to be made in rural southern Africa. Many claims for a decline in the
production of traditional crafts in southern Africa have appeared over the past 60 years
(e.g. Krige & Krige 1943: 50; Levinsohn 1984). However, pottery continues to be made
throughout southern Africa, and in this discussion I argue that there are economic,
social and symbolic reasons why ceramics continue to be produced by Zulu potters.
To understand why pottery continues to be made in Zulu communities, it is important

to understand its economic significance. Pottery economics involve production,
distribution and use, a process that brings raw material to a finished state and finished
products to consumers where they are used and reused for a variety of purposes,
including some for which they were not originally designed. These aspects of an object’s
lifecycle are often separated analytically because they involve different economic and
political strategies and sub-sets of social interactions (Pool 1992). In reality, distribution
and use cannot be disarticulated from production because together they form the process
of variety selection, which influences the kinds and quantities of objects produced
(and consequently how they are made).
From a production standpoint, pottery-making in present times is still a viable enterprise
because it requires relatively low capital investment. Potters have free access to clays, use
hand-forming techniques, and mostly utilise tools which are re-fashioned or recycled from
other objects. Rather, time spent learning and mastering the craft is a potter’s greatest
investment. In keeping production costs low, pottery is still rather inexpensive to purchase,
particularly for local consumers. No longer do potters only sell directly to patrons who visit
their homesteads. In recent years, they have actively sought to improve the distribution of
their finished products. In the Lower Thukela Basin, pottery is made on a speculative basis
for South African tourists who visit the nearby KwaShushu hotsprings in the late winter
and spring months and for visitors to the Ntunjambili Mission Hospital in the town of
Kranskop (Armstrong 1998; Armstrong & Calder 1996). In the Upper Basin, pots made by
the family members interviewed by Reusch (1996, 1998) are sold locally and in markets at
Pomeroy and Tugela Ferry. At quite some cost, other potters have transported vessels to
urban areas for sale in shops and markets, either directly or through middle-men. Promotion
of potter’s work has also been established through commissioned patronage (Garrett 1998).
While it is now common to see Zulu pottery sold in local markets, art galleries, and shops,
exporters have recently begun to seek out new and old pots in rural potting homesteads, to
sell in foreign galleries and art stores in the United Kingdom, the United States, and
elsewhere. Indeed, this is part of a much broader trend where one can find Zulu pottery,
basketry, woodwork, and beadwork at many tourist shops worldwide.
This expanded regional market has allowed potters to increase their revenue and
spend more time potting, resulting in several innovations. Traditional forms have been
miniaturised to fit more easily into luggage, and as in the Philippines (Stark 1993),
some potters have more recently begun to modify traditional shapes to make salt-and-
pepper shakers, bottles, flower vases, and candle-holders based on Western forms for
the non-local market (Garrett 1997). Many potters have come to focus on the more
aesthetic aspects of their art, elaborating and experimenting with decoration, in particular
the use of appliqué types of decoration. A new generation of potters from several families
who have had some success, have taken artist-in-residence position in art galleries. In
part, these changes have come from potters promoting themselves, but they do coincide
with a broader recognition of African craft as art. These recent trends indicate how the
scale of production, and the range of pottery containers produced, have also changed
since the 1950s. Interviews with elderly potters in Lower Basin reveal that their mothers
(c. 75 years ago) only produced pottery for local people and did not produce
commissioned works, but they made the same range of vessels associated with beer
production and consumption.
Despite claims to the contrary, I argue that the Zulu ceramic repertoire is presently
undergoing an expansion resulting from commission sales, the recognition of names of
master potting families in the region, and a greater acceptance of innovations to traditional
forms, particularly in terms of decoration. Nevertheless, with a continued preference
for blackened beer vessels, the modern Zulu potting tradition is being redefined by
different consumer groups. Elaborately decorated vessels based on traditional forms
are considered collectable objets d’art, while traditional beer making, serving, and
drinking vessels continue to be made.
The restriction of the ceramic repertoire is a direct consequence of the introduction
of metal trade goods subsequent to the establishment of the British colony at Port Natal
(now Durban) in 1824, and then more recently, the availability of inexpensive and
easily accessible metal and plastic containers. Quite simply, vessels in the brewing,
serving, and drinking of maize or sorghum beer are the only ones remaining for potters
to make. For this reason, the vessels associated with beer have become most important
for the continued practice of potting in Zulu communities.
Reusch (1998) has argued that vessels associated with beer are not imbued with
greater symbolic potency than domestic wares used for cooking, serving, storage, and
transportation. However, I disagree with this conclusion because it is inappropriate to
engage in many kinds of hlonipha behaviour with any other kind of container. Hlonipha
behaviour is a set of expectations involving both actions and speech that demonstrate
respect to others, such as interactions between wives in a homestead, wives and their
husbands, the young and the elderly, and the living and the ancestors. Ceramic containers
are used in many social contexts where respect behaviour and speech are played out.
Hlonipha is pervasive in Zulu social life in regard to the making and consumption of
beer during visits with neighbours, reconciliation ceremonies, making offerings
involving any invocation, guidance, or communion with the ancestors (amadlozi or
‘shades’), during weddings, work-party beer drinks, and other major community events.
It is inappropriate to use non-ceramic containers for serving beer in these contexts as it
may be regarded as disrespectful (a metaphor these days for ‘non-traditional’). At a
more general level, it is also important to consider that beer is more than food. As in
other African cultures, beer is a luxury food important for maintaining general well-
being in society (Arthur 2003), particularly by rewarding inter-homestead cooperation
(McAllister 2004).
Some ceramic forms still made today play a significant social role although they are
not associated with beer consumption. One of Reusch’s (1998: 34) informants noted
that beer-carrying pots (izingcazi) would presently be used to transport imibondo (sing.
umbondo), gifts of beer and foodstuffs from the family of a bride-to-be to the homestead
of her fiancé as a gesture of goodwill to confirm and strengthen the ties that will bind
the families together. It is part of the regular exchanges of gifts sent between families
before a marriage. There has been a great deal of discussion about bridewealth in the
archaeological literature in southern Africa (e.g. Huffman 2001). No comparable
discussion has focussed on the broader range of goods involved in the movement of
imibondo. A more detailed consideration and analysis of vessel function may lead to a
better understanding of the socio-cosmic significance of ceramics in past agriculturalist
societies, such as by deriving activity sets in archaeological assemblages to study the
location and contexts of pottery use (e.g. Deal 1998: 84).
CONCLUSION
Historical observations, ethnographic accounts, and recent ethnoarchaeological
research were drawn upon in this paper to propose an ethnotaxonomy of Zulu ceramic
containers. In examining the organising principles of this classification system, it was
concluded that neither Zulu potters nor consumers rely upon technical differences to
distinguish categories of ceramics. Instead, the functional attributes of shape and size
are explicitly emphasised in identifying vessel use categories, as they relate directly to
capacity, mobility, and the accessibility of contents (predominantly liquid). Surface
treatments affecting colour and texture operate in a more latent manner in signalling
function. They serve as visual clues about whether it is ‘right’ to use a specific pot in a
specific context. Amongst the Zulu black burnishing, some motifs, and dung surface
treatments may be used to express specific messages about identity, status, mystification,
and protection (cf. David et al. 1988; Fowler 2004; Sackett 1990).
These attributes of Zulu ceramic function appear to have cross-cultural significance
and hold several implications for the archaeological classification of ceramics in this
region. Most importantly, the Zulu case provides linkages between vessel function and
the size, shape and elaboration of surface treatments. The greater the complexity of the
style system, the more likely that the vessel will have functioned in a highly visible
social context involving display and conspicuous consumption. As well, vessels of the
same shape may serve more than one function exclusively during their use life or
when used in different contexts (e.g. izimbiza for beer brewing and beer storage, or
izingcazi when transporting, storing or serving beer). It is not merely enough then, to
assume that straightforward connections exist between the size, shape, and function of
vessels (e.g. Van Waarden 1987). Rather, the context in which vessels are used and
discarded must be taken into consideration. It is in these contexts that ceramics were
imbued with meaning.
In the Zulu case, it is quite likely that the meaning attached to vessels in the ceramic
repertoire have aided in their retention during the post-colonial era and continued
production to this day. Thus, there are both economic and socio-cosmic reasons for the
continued production of ceramics in rural African communities, despite dramatic changes
in material culture over the past 190 years. Potting provides impoverished rural families
with a supplement to family income, and in some cases, potters have been successful
enough to pursue potting as a full-time economic pursuit. Additionally, one cannot
underestimate the enduring symbolic and ritual significance of pottery in Zulu society.
Beer remains a luxury food in many African societies, and continues to mark status and
wealth through communal consumption. But beer is still a food, not a beverage. It is
inappropriate to seek guidance from your ancestors or to bond with strangers, friends,
or family without sharing food. When such things are no longer important in Zulu
society, only then may pottery cease to be made.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to numerous individuals and institutions for their role in the research
on which this manuscript is based. Professors Nicholas David and Diane Lyons offered
valuable advice, assistance and support during my tenure at the University of Calgary,
where early drafts of this manuscript were first prepared. In South Africa, I am deeply
indebted to the Van Schalkwyk family for their hospitality and friendship during
fieldwork in South Africa. The study could not have been accomplished without the
logistical support and translation skills of Mr Len van Schalkwyk; the aid and guidance
Mr Gavin Whitelaw and the staff of the Natal Museum; the late Dieter Reusch’s work
in kwaMabaso proved invaluable for comparative purposes; and Professor Frank Jolles
went beyond collegiality in sharing his knowledge of Zulu art. My deepest thanks to
Juliet Armstrong for introducing me to the Magwaza family and the important work
she and her students have accomplished on modern Zulu ceramic practices. All reviewers,
known and anonymous, have contributed greatly in demanding clarification of the
concepts and arguments put forth in this paper. Foremost, I am indebted to the potters
of the Nala, Magwaza, and Nxumalo families for their patience and sharing their
knowledge during my visits. Funding for this research was provided by the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant Nos. 752-99-1163 and
756-2002-0381).
REFERENCES
ANGAS, G. F. 1849. The Kaffirs illustrated. London: Hogarth.
ARMSTRONG, J. 1998. The Magwaza family. In: Bell, B. & Calder, I., eds, Ubumba. Aspects of indigenous
ceramics in KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg: Tatham Art Gallery, pp. 41–5.
ARMSTRONG, J. & CALDER, I. 1996. Traditional Zulu pottery. In: Wood, M., ed., Zulu treasures: of kings
and commoners. Ulundi: KwaZulu Cultural Museum, and Durban: Local History Museums,
pp. 107–14.
ARTHUR, J. W. 2003. Brewing beer: status, wealth and ceramic use alteration among the Gamo of south-
western Ethiopia. World Archaeology 34: 516–28.
BARLEY, N. 1994. Smashing pots. Feats of clay from Africa. London: British Museum Press.
BERGLUND, A.–I. 1976. Zulu thought-patterns and symbolism. Cape Town: David Philip.
BIRMINGHAM, J. 1975. Traditional potters of the Kathmandu Valley: an ethnoarchaeological study. Man 10:
370–86.
BONNER, P. 1983. Kings, commoners and concessionaires: the evolution and dissolution of the nineteenth-
century Swazi state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BRAITHWAITE, M. 1982. Decoration as ritual symbol: a theoretical proposal and ethnographic study in southern
Sudan. In: Hodder, I. R., ed., Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 80–8.
BRINDLEY, M. 1985. Old women in Zulu culture: the old woman and childbirth. South African Journal of
Ethnology 8: 98–108.
BRUMFIELD, E. M. 2003. It’s a material world: history, artefacts, and anthropology. Annual Review of
Anthropology 32: 205–33.
BRYANT, A. T. 1905. A Zulu-English Dictionary. Pinetown: Marianhill Mission Press.
––––––1967. The Zulu people as they were before the white man came. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter.
COE, M. D. 1980. The Maya. New York: Thames and Hudson.
CORY, G. E. ed. 1926. The diary of the Rev. Francis Owen, M.A., missionary with Dingaan in 1837–8.
Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.
COSTIN, C. L. 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization
of production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56.
DAVID, N. & HENNIG, H. 1972. The ethnography of pottery: a Fulani case study seen in archaeological
perspective. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
DAVID, N., STERNER, J. A. & GAVUA, K. 1988. Why pots are decorated. Current Anthropology 29: 365–89.
DAVIDSON, P, & HOSFORD, J. 1978. Lobedu pottery. Annals of the South African Museum 75: 291–319.
DEAL, M. 1998. Pottery ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya highlands. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press.
DE CRITS, E. 1994. Style et technique: comparaison interethnique de la poterie subsaharieene. In: Binder, D.
& Audouze, F., eds, Terre cuite et société: la céramique, document technique, économique,
culturel. Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA, pp. 343–50.
DELNEUF, M. 1992. Approche ethnoarchéologie de la poterie du village protohistorique de Groumoui (Nord
Cameroun). In: Audouze, F., ed., Ethnoarchéologie: justification, problèmes, limites. Juan-les-
Pins: Éditions APDCA, pp. 103–14.
DENT, G. R. & NYEMBEZI, C. L. S. 1998. Compact Zulu dictionary. Pietermartizburg: Shuter & Shooter.
DIETLER, M. & HERBICH, I. 1994. Ceramics and ethnic identity: ethnoarchaeological observations on the
distribution of pottery styles and the relationship between the social contexts of production and
consumption. In: Binder, D. & Audouze, F., eds, Terre cuite et société: la céramique, document
technique, économique, culturel. Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA, pp. 459–72.
DOKE, C. M., MALCOLM, D. MCK., & SIKAKANA, J. M. A. 1958. English and Zulu dictionary. Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.
DOKE, C. M. & VILAKAZI, B. W. 1972. Zulu-English dictionary. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University
Press.
DROST, D. 1967. Töpferei in Afrika: Technologie. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
FAGAN, B. M. 1965. Southern Africa during the Iron Age. New York: Fredrick E. Praeger.
FOWLER, K. D. 2000. The antiquity of craft production in southern Africa: once and future directions in
research. Paper read at the bi-annual meetings of the Canadian African Studies Association,
Edmonton, Alberta, April 2000.
––––––2002a. Early Iron Age community organization in southern Africa: social and symbolic dimensions
of ceramic production, use, and discard at Ndondondwane. PhD thesis, University of Alberta.
––––––2002b. Spatial models of settlement organization in southern Africa: a ceramic perspective. Paper
presented at the bi-annual meetings of the Society of Africanist Archaeologists, Tucson, Arizona,
May 17–20, 2002.
––––––2004. The archaeological identification and interpretation of pottery-making locations:
ethnoarchaeological and archaeological data from South Africa. Paper presented at the annual
Canadian Archaeological Association meetings, Archaeology at the Crossroads Conference,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, April 12–16, 2004.
––––––2005. Materializing gender: pottery style, costume, and bodily adornment amongst the amaZulu of
South Africa. Paper read at the 38th annual Chacmool Archaeological Association conference,
University of Calgary, Alberta, 11–14 November 2005.
GALLAY, A. 1992. A propos de la céramique actuelle du delta intérieur du Niger Mali: approche
ethnoarchéologique et règles transculturelles. In: Audouze, F., ed., Ethnoarchéologie:
justification, problèmes, limites. Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA, pp. 67–90.
GALLAY, A., HUYSECOM, É., MAYOR, A. & DE CEUNINCK, G. 1996. Hier et aujourd’hui: des poteries et des
femmes. Céramiques traditionelles du Mali. Geneva: Département d’anthropologie et d’écologie,
Université de Genève.
GARDINER, A. F. 1966 (1836). Narrative of a journey to the Zoolu country in South Africa. Cape Town:
C. Struik.
GARRETT, I. 1997. Nesta Nala: ceramics 1985–1995. MA(FA) dissertation, University of Natal,
Pietermaritzburg.
––––––1998. Nesta Nala: an overview. In: Bell, B. & Calder, I., eds, Ubumba: aspects of indigenous ceramics
in KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg: Tatham Art Gallery, pp. 47–9.
GOSDEN, C. 1982. The recognition and interpretation of the exchange of pottery in the Baringo District,
Kenya: some preliminary results. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 1: 13–29.
GOSSELAIN, O. P. 1992. Technology and style: potters and pottery among Bafia of Cameroon. Man 27:
559–86.
––––––1995. Identités techniques. Le travail de la poterie au Cameroun méridional. Description des chaînes
opératoires. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
––––––1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In: Stark, M., ed., The archaeology of social
boundaries. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 78–106.
GREENFIELD, H. J., FOWLER, K. D. & VAN SCHALKWYK, L. O. 2005. Where are the gardens? Early Iron Age
horticulture in the Thukela River Basin of South Africa. World Archaeology 37: 305–26.
GROSSERT, J. W. 1968. Zulu crafts. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter.
GROUT, L. 1863. Zulu-land: life among the Zulu-kafirs of Natal and Zululand, South Africa. London: Trübener.
GUY, J. 1979. The destruction of the Zulu kingdom: the civil war in Zululand 1879–1884. London: Longman.
HAALAND, R. 1978. Ethnographical observation of pottery making in Darfur, Western Sudan, with some reflections
on archaeological interpretations. In: Kristiansen, K. & Paludan-Muller, C., eds, New directions
in Scandinavian archaeology. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark, pp. 47–61.
HALL, M. & MAGGS, T. 1979. Nqabeni: A later Iron Age site in Zululand. South African Archaeological
Society Goodwin Series 3: 159–76.
HAMILTON, C. & WRIGHT, J. 1990. The making of amaLala: ethnicity, ideology and relations of subordination
in a precolonial context. South African Historical Journal 22: 3–23.
HERBICH, I. & DIETLER, M. 1991. Aspects of the ceramic system of the Luo of Kenya. Töpferei- und
Keramikforschung 2: 105–35.
HODDER, I. R. 1979. Pottery distributions: service and tribal areas. In: Millett, M., ed., Pottery and the
archaeologist. London: Institute for Archaeology, pp. 7–23.
HOOPER, L. 1996. Domestic arts: Carved wooden objects in the home. In: Wood, M., ed., Zulu treasures: of
kings and commoners. Ulundi: KwaZulu Cultural Museum, and Durban: Local History
Museums, pp. 73–91.
HUFFMAN, T. N. 1973. Shona pottery from Pumula township, Bulawayo, Rhodesia. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 27: 66–81.
––––––1978. The origins of Leopard’s Kopje: an 11th-century Difaquane. Arnoldia (Rhodesia) 8 (23): 1–23.
––––––1980. Ceramics, classification and Iron Age entities. African Studies 39: 123–74.
––––––2001. The Central Cattle Pattern and interpreting the past. Southern African Humanities 13: 19–35.
HUYSECOM, É. 1994. Djenne: une région aux productions céramiques très diversifiées. In: Bedaux, R. M. A.
& Van der Waals, J. D., eds, Djenne: une ville millénaire au Mali. Leiden: Rijksmuseum voor
Volkenkunde, pp. 122–30.
KAPLAN, F. S. 1994. A Mexican folk pottery tradition: cognition and style in material culture in the valley of
Puebla. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
KAPLAN, F. S. & LEVINE, D. M. 1981. Cognitive mapping of a folk taxonomy of Mexican pottery: a multivariate
approach. American Anthropologist 83: 868–84.
KEMPTON, W. 1981. The folk classification of ceramics: a study of cognitive prototypes. New York: Academic
Press.
KENNEDY, C. G. 1993. Art, architecture and material culture of the Zulu kingdom. PhD thesis, University of
Southern California.
KRAUSE, R. A. 1984. Modeling the making of pots: an ethnoarchaeological approach. In: Van der Leeuw, S. E.
& Pritchard, A. C., eds, Many dimensions of pottery: ceramics in archaeology and anthropology.
Amsterdam: Albert Egges Van Giffen Instituut voor Prae- en Protohistorie, Cingvla VII,
Universiteit van Amsterdam, pp. 171–97.
––––––1985. The clay sleeps: an ethnoarchaeological study of three African potters. Tuscaloosa: University
of Alabama Press.
––––––1990. Ceramic practice and semantic space: an ethnoarchaeological inquiry into the logic of Bantu
potting. Antiquity 64: 711–26.
KRIGE, E. J. 1936. The social system of the Zulus. London: Longmans Green.
KRIGE, E. J. & KRIGE, J. D. 1943. The realm of a rain-queen: a study of the pattern of Lovedu society.
London: Oxford University Press.
KUPER, A. 1982. Wives for cattle. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
––––––1993. The ‘house’ in Zulu political structure in the nineteenth century. Journal of African History
34: 469–87.
LAIDLER, P. W. & SCOT, F. S. A. 1936. South African native ceramics: their characteristics and classification.
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 26: 93–172.
LAMBERT, J. 1995. Chiefship in early colonial Natal, 1843–1897. Journal of Southern African Studies 21:
269–85.
LAVANHA, JOAO BAPTISTA 1898. Wreck of the ship Santo Alberto. In: Theal, G. M., ed., Records of South-
Eastern Africa, Volume 2. London: William Clowes and Son, pp. 283–341.
LAWTON, A. C. 1969. Bantu pottery of southern Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 49: 57–64.
LEVINSOHN, R. 1984. Art and craft of southern Africa: treasures in transition. Craighall: Delta Books.
LINDAHL, A. & MATENGA, E. 1995. Present and past: ceramics and homesteads: an ethnoarchaeological
investigation in the Buhera district, Zimbabwe. Studies in African Archaeology 11:
1–116.
LONGACRE, W. A. 1981. Kalinga pottery: an ethnoarchaeological study. In: Hodder, I. R., Isaac, G. L. &
Hammond, N. D. C., eds, Pattern of the past: studies in honour of David Clarke. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–66.
MACEACHERN, A.S. 1998. Scale, style and cultural variation: technological traditions in the northern Mandara
mountains. In: Stark, M. T., ed., The archaeology of social boundaries. Washington and London:
Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 107–31.
MAGGS, T. 1980a. Msuluzi confluence: a seventh century Early Iron Age site on the Tugela River. Annals of
the Natal Museum 24 (1): 111–45.
––––––1980b. Mzonjani and the beginning of the Iron Age in Natal. Annals of the Natal Museum 24 (1):
71–96.
––––––1984. Ndondondwane: a preliminary report on an Early Iron Age site on the lower Tugela River.
Annals of the Natal Museum 26 (1): 71–93.
––––––1989. The Iron Age farming communities. In: Duminy, A. & Guest, B., eds, Natal and Zululand
from earliest times to 1910: a new history. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press and
Shuter & Shooter, pp. 28–48.
MAGGS, T. & MICHAEL, M. A. 1976. Ntshekane: an Early Iron Age site in the Tugela Basin, Natal. Annals of
the Natal Museum 22 (3): 705–40.
MCALLISTER, P. 2004. Labor and beer in the Transkei, South Africa: Xhosa work parties in historical and
contemporary perspective. Human Organization 63: 100–11.
MORAIS, J. & CRUZ E SILVA, T. n.d. A tentative reconstruction of a model: modern traditional pottery from the
coastal plain, Gaza Province. Unpublished manuscript on file at Instituto de Investigação
Cientifica de Moçambique, Maputo Mozambique.
MÜLLER, FR. AGIDIUS 1917/18. Zur materiellen Kultur der Kaffern. Anthropos 12/13: 852–8.
NGUBANE, H. 1977. Body and mind in Zulu medicine: an ethnography of health and disease in Nyuswa-Zulu
thought and practice. London: Academic Press.
NYEMBEZI, C. L. S. & NXUMALO, O. E. H. 1966. Ingolobane yesizwe. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter.
PARKINGTON, J. E., & CRONIN M. 1979. The size and layout of Mgungundlovu 1829–1838. South African
Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 3: 133–48.
PHILLIPSON, D. W. 1976. The prehistory of Zambia. Nairobi: British Institute in Eastern Africa.
––––––1990. Traditional pottery manufacture in the southern Sudan. Origini: Preistoria e Protostoria delle
Civilta Antiche 13: 425–50.
POOL, C. A. 1992. Integrating ceramic production and distribution. In: Bey, G. J. & Pool, C. A., eds, Ceramic
production and distribution: an integrated approach. Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford:
Westview Press, pp. 275–313.
REUSCH, D. 1996. Reflections concerning the pottery from kwaMabaso, Msinga. In: Wood, M., ed., Zulu
treasures: of kings and commoners. Ulundi: KwaZulu Cultural Museum, and Durban: Local
History Museums, pp. 115–27
––––––1998. Imbiza kayibil’ ingenambheki: the social life of pots. In: Bell, B & Calder, I., eds, Ubumba:
aspects of indigenous ceramics in KwaZulu–Natal. Pietermaritzburg: Tatham Art Gallery, pp.
19–40.
RICE, P. M. 1987. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
ROBINSON, K. R. 1973. The Iron Age of the Upper and Lower Shire, Malawi. Malawi Antiquities Department
Publication 13. Zomba: Government Press.
SACKETT, J. R. 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestism. In: Conkey, M. W. &
Hastorf, C. A., eds, The uses of style in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 32–43.
SCHOEMAN, H. S. & MERTENS, A. 1975. The Zulu. Cape Town: Purnell.
SCHOFIELD, J. F. 1948. Primitive pottery: an introduction to South African ceramics, prehistoric and
protohistoric. Handbook Series 3. Cape Town: South African Archaeological Society.
SHEPARD, A. O. 1995. Ceramics for the archaeologist. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution.
SOPER, R. 1971. A general review of the Early Iron Age of the southern half of Africa. Azania 6: 5–52.
STARK, M. T. 1993. Pottery economics: a Kalinga ethnoarchaeological study. PhD thesis, University of
Arizona.
STUART, J. & MALCOLM, D. MCK. eds. 1969 (1950). The diary of Henry Francis Fynn. Pietermaritzburg:
Shuter & Shooter.
TITE, M. S. 1999. Pottery production, distribution, and consumption––the contribution of the physical sciences.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 181–233.
VAN DER LITH, A. A. 1972. Die keramiek van die Venda. In: Eloff, J. F. & Coertse, R. D., eds, Etnografiese
studies in suidelike-Afrika. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp. 202–45.
VAN HEERDEN, J. 1996. Zulu grassweaving. In Wood, M., ed., Zulu treasures: of kings and commoners.
Ulundi: KwaZulu Cultural Museum, and Durban: Local History Museums, pp. 131–142.
VAN WAARDEN, C. 1987. Matanga, a late Zimbabwe cattle post. South African Archaeological Bulletin 42:
107–124.
WEBB, C. DE B. & WRIGHT, J. B., eds. 1976. The James Stuart Archive of recorded oral evidence relating to
the history of the Zulu and neighbouring peoples, vol. 1. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal
Press.
WEIGAND, P. C. 1969. Modern Huichol ceramics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
WHITELAW, G. D. 1997. What Da Gama missed on his way to Sofala. Natalia 27: 30–41.
WRIGHT, J. 1989. The dynamics of power and conflict in the Thukela-Mzimkhulu region in the late 18th and
early 19th centuries: a critical reconstruction. PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand.
––––––1995. Political transformations in the Thukela-Mzimkhulu region in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. In: Hamilton, C., ed., The Mfecane aftermath: reconstructive debates in
southern African history. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, pp. 162–81.
WRIGHT, J. & HAMILTON, C. 1989. Traditions and transformations: The Phongolo-Mzimkhulu region in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In: Duminy, A. & Guest, B., eds, Natal and
Zululand from earliest times to 1910: a new history. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal
Press and Shuter & Shooter, pp. 49–82.
View publication stats

Fowler 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fowler 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Classiﬁcation and collapse: the ethnohistory of Zulu ceramic

Article in Southern African Humanities · January 2006

Zulu Kingdom Archaeological Project View project

Manitoba Precontact Ceramic Technology Project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Classification and collapse: the ethnohistory of Zulu ceramic use

THE ZULU CERAMIC FUNCTIONAL REPERTOIRE

Beer brewing vessels

Serving and drinking

Storage and transport

Medicinal and ritual use

Fig. 3. Morphological classification of Zulu ceramic containers: 1. umcakulo/isoco; 2. isikhangezo/umgenqele/

Surface treatments and function

Continuity in ceramic use

To understand why pottery continues to be made in Zulu communities, it is important

View publication stats

You might also like