|
|||||||
Traditional Naga Pottery: With Special Reference to the Lotha Naga | |||||||
Paper Id :
17935 Submission Date :
2023-07-18 Acceptance Date :
2023-07-23 Publication Date :
2023-07-25
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For verification of this paper, please visit on
http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/anthology.php#8
|
|||||||
| |||||||
Abstract |
The study is an attempt to reconstruct the history of the Naga art of pottery with special reference to the Lotha Naga through oral tradition andfirst-hand information from those still performing this art. The Lotha Naga inhabits the Wokha district in the state of Nagaland in the North-Eastern region of India. They are one of the major tribes in Nagaland but studies on the tribe and the Nagas in general are wanting as compared to the rest of India and so through this paper a step has been taken to fill in the gaps. The technological advancement of this tribe will be partially highlighted with this study on their art of pottery makingthrough which the role of women in it as well as their trade relations will be brought forth. Since there was no recorded history in writing,in practice, among the Lotha Naga, all knowledge was passed down orally and by way of seeing and learning from generation to generation. The paper is divided into sections dealing with the areas manufacturing pots, its production and usage and trade that ensued from it.
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Keywords | Lotha, Naga, Earthenware, Pottery, Wokha. | ||||||
Introduction | Situated in the strategically located Northeast region of
India which acts as a buffer zone between India and Burma and is also a gateway
to Southeast Asia, Nagaland is home to sixteen tribes, the Lotha forming one of
the major Naga tribes who racially belong to the Mongoloid stock and are
linguistically placed in the Tibeto-Burman group of languages as per Sir George
Grierson’s classification of languages in his Linguistic Survey of India
(Tibeto-Burman family)(284). The area taken under studyis the Wokha district
resting in the western region of the state, with the Ao Naga to its north, the
Rengma and the Angami Naga to its South, the Sema Naga to its east and the
plains of Assam to its west. Wokha is home to the Lotha Naga tribe with an area
of 1,628 sq. km and accounts for 9.82% of the total geographical area of the
State, holding the position of being the third smallest district of Nagaland. Pottery
has often been related to the Neolithic revolution: as humans began to settle
down and cultivate agriculture and domesticate wild animals, culture and
material goods began to develop for the first time. Humans and objects became
inseparable. It seemed like things never thought of and sought before became
essentials now. As human life progressed so did the material goods which were
becoming more and more sophisticated and their needs expanded. Withagricultural
development many objects became a necessity; pottery being one of them.It
became quintessential to the agriculturists to now have storage for their
surplus, to store the raw material itself and also the cured food items,
therefore vessels and jars started to take shape in stones, woods, bamboo, and
clay itself.Contrarily, this view is refuted by Manjil Hazarika, on the grounds
that in East and Southeast Asia, pottery preceded agriculture (30). ‘Pottery is
said to have had no single origin. But developed out of children making mud
pies, and adults making figurines of men and animals, and so on. The hardening
of clay by fire was known at least equally early since it occurs
unintentionally when a patch of clay is chosen for a hearth’(Singer et al.
376).Another example is of basket making which has been suggested as the
antecedent of pottery-making.But it was only one of the many influences and is
by nature a substitute material and has no characteristic form.It was worked to
imitate the objects naturally found in nature like natural containers, such as
gourds, ostrich eggs, and sections of bamboo. The history of pottery is
accordingly largely moulded by the histories of other materials (Singer et al.
377). As regards Southeast Asia, pottery appeared here in the early
Holocene(Miksic xix).Bellwood shows how the pottery of the cultures of East and
Southeast Asia resembles in their simplest of designs of cord-marking,
finger-impressed, combed and incised(121).The Lotha potteries share
similarities with the Southeast Asian Societies of Hongkong, Thailand, Taiwan,
Philippines, Malaysia, which too practiced cord-marking the surface of their
pots. Cord-marked pottery is a characteristic feature of Neolithic culture and
falls under one of the earlier forms of pottery but certainly not the earliest
and was the most common art of pottery in Northeast India. |
||||||
Objective of study | We find fragments on pottery of the Naga tribes briefly in
the monographsby the British Colonialists. The colonial administrators’
documentation focused largely on those aspects of the society which would benefit
its governance in the area. The Buranjis, which are the royal chronicles of the
Ahom rulers, record the relationship between the Ahoms and the Nagas. There was
much trade and political relations between the Lothas and the Ahoms and
although we receive a lot of information on these aspects, other areas are
unaccounted for seriously. Also, the period before the Ahoms is completely
unknown in the writings. And this is why there is an understanding of the need
for further studies to be carried out on the areas with unpaid attention
before. The paper strives to fill the vacuum in one such area- pottery. |
||||||
Review of Literature | V.
Gordon Childe supposes the pottery making to pre-food production economy with
the accidental burning of baskets plastered with clay to make it watertight but
assuredly says that with Neolithic times, pottery was well-established on a
large scale for storing cereals which could withstand heat and hold liquids. He
calls it the ‘earliest conscious utilization by man of a chemical change’ (76).
Sir
Lindsay Scott’s writing on pottery making from the earliest times to the
Neolithic period, from unbaked clay figurines to fired clay basins on the
floors, all eventually leading to pottery making throws some good knowledge
into its process (in Singer et al.
376). Writings
on traditional pottery-making are but very little. Some fragments on it were
mentioned in the monographs prepared by the colonial administrators hence, are
provided here. Beginning with the surrounding Naga tribes of the Lothas such as
the Angami, Ao, Rengma and Sema Naga is pertinent. A society should never be
studied in isolation after all. We have J.H. Hutton, a colonial administrator,
with his first-ever monograph on the Nagas in 1921 on the Angami Nagas (57).He
did not do justice on the subjects of pottery while documenting the Angami
Nagas as it fell outside the purview of the interest of colonial rule. In his
writings on the Angami, he mentions other tribes in passing reference, of which
the Lothas also figure. However, nothing substantial bore out of his works too.
J.P.
Mills while writing on the Lotha, has hardly covered pottery. As other colonial
administrators, these aspects of life were rather neglected in the process of
covering the polity, society, and religion of the tribals in the monograph
brought out (1922). Mills in his monograph on the Ao Nagas has barely managed
to write a single line regarding earthenware (35). However, when it came to the
Rengma Nagas at least some information came forward. Turns out, the Rengma and
the Lothas shared similar practices in pottery making. Similarities such as,
women being the manufacturers, the seasons of this art being in the winter
months from November till the start of the new agricultural year. The
observance of taboos during the making of pots too were the same with the
Lothas. However, some relaxation among the Rengmas was extended towards men who
could make pottery pipe-bowls for their own consumption only (68).Because the
economy and production/manufacturing were grim in the Naga Hills, they felt it
unimportant to document them. All in all, the colonial administrators with
their monographs on the Naga tribes were poor representations of the arts and
crafts of the people. Other
than these immediate neighbours of the Lothas, among the Phom Nagas of
Nagaland, Vasa has written that the Naga pottery making may be classified into
two- the paddle-and-anvil and slab-building. However, he goes on to say that
the decoration defers from tribe to tribe(3). |
||||||
Main Text |
Naga Art of Pottery Earthenware
is one of the most important materials among the tribes of Northeast India.
There is a deeper understanding to this material culture rather than the end
product itself.To comprehend a time period when pottery in its crudest form was
not used by the Lothas is of much difficulty and would require going back to
the remotest of times which is impossible in this case due to lack of
literature as well as archaeological studies. Among the other Naga tribes too
there existed the ancient practice of pottery making, some of them are the
Angami, Ao, Konyak, Lotha, Rengma, Tangkhul, but not all tribes manufactured
them. However, there is no evidence of potters-wheel as can be inferred by one
when taken a look at the type of pots made. The art was crude and the pots handmade
unlike their Assamese neighbours who did use potters-wheel for their earthen
pots except for the Hiras who did not use the wheel. The
soil of the Naga Hills is generally red-laterite superficially covered by loamy
soil that can be distinguished as red soil, grey-brown soil, black-grass land,
sandy soil, silty soil and clayey soil(Shikhu 2). Pottery-making was however
not permanent and was carried out during the dry seasons only as the weather
was suitable for this particular production and more so because harvesting, a
big engagement of the Lotha with agriculture as their main occupation was over
by this time since the harvesting months are from October to November. Hence,
December to March and April became the months of art and craft production for
the Lotha. Pottery in particular was manufactured during the months of March
and April.It was a semi-specialised craft and was produced by the villages of
Wokha, Nungying, Yanthamo, Riphyim, Yikhum and Lotsu among the Lotha.The entire
process right from the fetching of clay to its end product was carried out by
women and men never engaged in crafts as such. It was a taboo. Types
of clay The
earthenware of the Lothas is round and cord-marked and is made from locally
available grey and red clay (the latter is less preferred and is treated as of
inferior quality)(Miksic324).These are called secondary clays which have been
transported by water, wind or ice from their primary source and have acquired
additional impurities in the process. (Singer 1954: 379) The grey clay is
called linyikcho meaning black clay
similar to the one found in the Angami country which is of a bluish-black
colour called khegsa:(Notes on Some
Industries of Assam from 1884-1895 126)li
for liko meaning land, nyik for black and cho for ochon meaning soil
or mud and the red clay is called linyoncho,
nyon for red, the commonest.The clays
that mostly occur in nature are plastic if mixed with an appropriate amount of
water(Singer 379).The clay good for pottery at Wokha is said to be found in a
place called Titaphen which is below
Mount Tiyi Collge, some 1 to 2 kms from Wokha village. In Nungying it is found
by the village pond. At Riphyim the clay is found at the bank of the river
stream lying between Yanhen and Yanthan which translates as old village and new
village of Riphyim. At Yikhum, pottery-makingissaid to have started first by a
Rengma lady who married a Lotha man of Yikhum and had settled there. The Lothas
bought pots from Yikhum referring to it as ‘Moyoipvu’
which means Rengma pots. Lotsu was the only village among them to have the red
clay which was closer to pink than red, somewhat light pink in colour, obtained
from a place named Chohankvu where
they went to fetch the clay. Here we may observe that in these villages, clay
was found on the banks of rivers or streams. And these villages are located not
far away from one another. The
clay is a very dark grey, glutinous with small pepples mixed with it. Those who
are strong and willing grind these stones and turn it into fine powder to mix
with the clay which is believed to result in a much better quality of pots. The
Lothas of Wokha village dug deeper into the land which was on the banks of the
stream of Etsujukha.It is believedthat
the clay found deeper is of much better quality so the land from where the clay
is/was procured came to appear like a sort of cave over time, enough just for a
person to enter. The clay was obtained
from the banks of the stream, cleaned then and there by separating the clay
from the stones and pebbles before bringing it home.No other filtration process
is known nor done. The women carried the clay in bamboo baskets with banana
leaves aligned inside. Manufacturing
Process The
clay was first broken up and pounded on a large flat stone until the air from
the soil was fully released; no other material was added to the clay for the
grey or black variant most often, as for the red clay finely crushed pebbles
were added, after which it was left overnight to ferment in banana leaves and
then it was moistened and kneaded with little water. This was perceived to give
the clay better durability. After much kneading when the clay was ready and
soft, a portion was taken to form the base, sized according to the need. A
round flat base in the shape of a disk was first made by hand which was made
thick, and then it was beaten by the pvutumphen which
was the bat to beat the base of the pot. The bat was shaped like the modern
cricket bat but flat on both sides.It was one and half feet in length and one
inch in thickness with a breadth of 10 cm approx.which was manipulated by the
handle. For the wall a portion of clay was taken according to the size of the
pot and was rolled out and then attached to the base which was then flattened
by hand first. It starts bigger at the bottom half and rises to become slender
as it approaches the rim. The rim being wider above the neck was curved to be
lifted off the fire easily. Unlike the Mizos and Tibetan ways of rolling strips
of clay to build the wall of the pots by toppling them one after the other
forming the wall and later flattened, the Lotha took just one big lump or a
ball of clay and worked its way to give the pot its wall. As the wall was being built, the inside of itwas
supported by the left hand moulding it simultaneously with the outside of the
pot being beaten with a flat knife-like tool made of wood, a smooth and
polished mallet called tsitumphen. It
supported the wall from the outside and flattened it giving it a smooth finish.It
was carefully manoeuvred to give the desired shape and uniform thickness, a
practice also found in the early British and north-west European pottery of
prehistoric times of working with a ball of clay(Singer 384).The result of this
was a thicker base at the centre than the periphery. Among the Lothas, one may
watch the women knead but not shaped. The tsitumphen was
made of a kind of bamboo found in the Wokha district called vepvu and khumkiro. It was a flat bamboo of around 6-8mm in thickness and 15-25
cm in length with a breadth of 5-8cm. It’s one end was sharpened in the shape
of a right-angled triangle while the other endwas left flat or was shaped the
same. After it was given its requisite shape and thickness it was sun dried; a
practice found among the cultures of North-East Indian tribes and the
Hebrideans too. ‘When the wet clay is air-dried, the water evaporates and the
crystals come into direct contact with one another. This evaporation causes
contraction. A further smaller contraction occurs in firing, when the water
chemically combined with the clay is driven off. (Singer 380) All the pots were
made in the like fashion. It was dried for three to four days depending on how
fast it dried as dictated by the weather. ‘When the clay reaches a leather-hard
stage, burnishing is commonly undertaken to reduce porosity’ (Singer 381).The
Lotha smoothened out their pots one last time with a smooth pebble. Then, the
pots were taken to be fired. Similar
to the Mizos and many hill tribes, the firing of clay was not done inside the
village but was done outside the village on a rough platform in bonfires or in
fields that was harvested last year and was now out of cultivation.A practice
found in Lotsu village was to fire their pots at a very high temperature for a
short time. In early pottery, the range of firing-temperatures seldom exceeded 1000-degree Celsius(Singer
378). Firing was done outside the village also due to of the Lothas belief in that if others watched them
fire the clay, the pots cracked. So, it was done in a place away from people’s
view, also it is to be remembered that fire was burnt in the open without kilns
so there could also be the possibilities that they took precautions to avoid
fire-caused accidents which may burn down the entire village as houses were
built of hay and wood. Firing of clay was not done with just any wood. A good
burning wood was essential to keep the fire going for an hour and over to
achieve a standard quality of pots and a great amount of wood was used up in
the process which were plenty in the forests surrounding the tribe. Woods such
as Nchung tsung, Orung tsung and Nshyu tsung were used which are known to be very
good for firing among the Lotha Naga. Only straight branches were used in order
to prevent the pots from tilting in the process of burning the pots.A rough
platform was first created by placing two large logs vertically at some
distance from other another then the woods were place horizontally upon which
the pots would be placed upside down carefully, avoiding any dents to be formed
in the process. Pots were not layered but were laid out over a large platform. Then
wood chips and dry branches of shrubs would be placed over and in between the
potsin order to ensure proper and complete burning of the pots. Many pots were
burnt together at one and the same time and were collected the next day before
dawn. It wasn’t done for any practical reasons though, but for the same belief
in preventing the pots from breaking and ensuring a durable use out of it. The
end result was a black earthenware which was an outcome of a deficiency in
oxygen during the process. For further elimination of porosity, before using
the pots they were heated and then cured by smearing pork fat or rice beer so
that the cracks were filled,if any,thus avoiding spilling. This practice is not
unique to the Lotha alone, for ethnographic and ethno-archaeological accounts
indicate that potters of other communities too achieved this low permeability through
the vessel walls essential for cooking pots by the application of a resin to the
interior surface, or by progressively sealing the surface with food residues
during usein order to prevent the evaporation of water from the surface(Schiffer
373-381). The
Lotha Naga household still uses these pots called Chonpvu literally meaning clay pot. The pots we are talking about
here are understood in terms of cooking pots and dishes. There was very little
variety and innovation to these pots, made mainly for utility to meet the basic
needs of the people with no decorative whatsoever. Aesthetics had very little
thing to do with the Lotha pottery. At its most, the pots were given a string
pattern by patting the pot while still wet with a flat piece of wood covered
with coarse string binding (Khuzu)
(Mills 41). These pots had some weight to it.Pots were used for cooking mainly
rice and curry, brewing rice beer, boiling water and dyes, for dying the wools
and for storing of grains and food items. The pots varied in size depending on
its utility but there was hardly any variety in shape. It is interesting to
note that no pots were made with handles or lids and one had to carry it by its
rim or press it against one’s body. The Lotha earthenware were never painted or
glazed either and when fired, turned out black in colour. Among
the Lothas,pottery making was considered a women’s role and men never engaged
in such oddities; pottery as women’s industry has generally been found at the
primitive level. Perhaps, the fact that cooking was considered solely women’s work
so the pots to cook them in came to become their industry too. Nothing can be
said for sure how it solely became the craft of the womenfolk among the Lothas
but not only were they who manufactured them but traded in them too. Men did
not go about this business. Along with pottery, many crafts and work were termed
as women’s job and it was considered a taboo for men to be engaging in such
works. A taboo so strong that men were to not even look at the pots being fired,
less the pots should crack. Women had to maintain many taboos while carrying
out this activity such as, abstaining from sexual intercourse with their
husbands, avoiding foods with strong or pungent smells, fermented foods and
other foods including beef, goat’s flesh, dog’s flesh, for to eat such things
would cause the pots to “ring” badly (Mills 41).Similarly, there were crafts
which only men carried out and for women to touch the tools or the article in
the making was though to bring ill luck. And hence, was strictly observed by
both men and women. The Lotha society was rooted in superstitions therefore
their lives were dictated by taboos and beliefs. Exchange
The
pots produced were for domestic use as well as an exchange for other goods and
articles but mostly for food. The main factor behind the adoption of pottery
has been suggested economy; the exploitation of a new raw material or process
follows an advantage to attract capital and to overcome the inertia of custom
(Singer377). Barter was the system of the day and pottery making had certainly
economic value to it. When money became widely used with colonial rule, the pots
were purchased using currency. But the exchange of pots since the ancient times
was done through barter and remained the popular medium of exchange for pots
for a long time. The finished product was traded with the neighbouring villages
and even with tribes bordering them. Women from other Lotha villages not
producing them went with big baskets, bigger than the usual, carried on their
heads to buy them. They would go in groups walking to the villages
manufacturing them and upon reaching would exchange them with food grains and
produces and rest the day in the village itself at any house willing to
accommodate them. Usually, they were never declined and readily hosted. They
filled each pot with hay before laying them in order into the bamboo basket, to
prevent them from clashing against one another causing breakage. Those who
wished to carry back more would align sticks longer than the basket itself
inside surrounding it acting like a wall. In this way more pots could be
brought along. Not all Lotha villages made pots. Infact, the Lotha villages
producing them were few. It became a sort of monopoly of these villages over
pot making for the Lotha country due to the availability of clay in these areas
and not for the reasons of safe-guarding the craft. No other village is known to
have manufactured pots although many villages tried to, it is said that the
pots were of inferior quality and cracked so the craft was given up and the
Lotha villages bought these pots from the aforesaid villages. People not only
went to these villagesto procure them for their domestic use but traded going
from village to village inorder to sell or exchange them rather, for other
goods needed by them. Sometimes, the manufacturers would themselves go about
selling them too. The tribes who came to trade with the Lothas for pottery were
the Angamis, Aos, Rengmas and the Semas. Since only Changki village among the
Aos manufactured pots, the Aos neighbouring the Lothas procured their pots from
the Lotha villages directly making pots or from those villages acting as
middlemen. The Rengmas residing close to the Lothas whom the Lothas call Nangkhang
mostly brought with them rice,so did the Semas as the Semas did not make pots
themselves to exchange them for the Lotha pots. But many also brought
commodities other than rice, though not much in quantity, like red ginger,
garlic, beans, peas, sesame seeds, taro, yam, corn, millet and potatoes but
rice was the principal item of exchange for the Lotha pots. Later, they came to
be exchanged for a can of oil in the colonial period.The barter system was
carried out in such manner that for a pot whatever the size, the buyer had to
give vegetables or grains or rice filled to the brim of the pot as its price. Since
the Naga tribes cultivated similar crops, trade could not become extensive
between the tribes but remained limited to very little commodities and regions.
Later when largely money came into the picture, pots were bought at Rs.1 or 50
paise depending on the size of the pot. Their immediate needs were met by this
trade however limited it may have been. This way trade was carried out and pots
were distributed over all the remaining villages for use.This was a commodity
holding permanence for trade of the Lotha. |
||||||
Conclusion |
Production of earthenware vessels by women was not exclusive
to the Lotha or Naga women for that matter but was in other parts of mainland
Southeast Asia, beginning with Northeast Thailand and extending to South,
Central, and North Thailand, Laos along the Mekong River, Cambodia, Southern
and Central Vietnam and peninsular Malaysia (Miksic 300).The mode of production
was simple as single clay was used to make and polish the pots,which was
obtained from the banks of the rivers or streams owned communally by the
villagers, and human labour did not involve all the production units of the
village like in the case of agriculture. The entire process also did not take more
than two weeks. The pots were produced by individual households for themselves
or for exchange but could be fired together with those of others in one
platform. The tools used were simply made of wood and bamboo including the
pestle used for pounding the clay; these were locally available, procured and
readily made at home by each household. As regards specialisation and skill, it
was seasonal and did not require heavy training; the Lotha potters were
part-agriculturists and part-craftsmen always. It was the same as any craft, in
ways that whatever the mother knew would be taught to the daughter and was only
considered natural like weaving, spinning, cooking etc. Speaking on the
production process that went into it, emphasising the labour here which solely
rested on women’s shoulder, right from the procurement, to the forming, to the
art and craft right up to exchange and purchase were theirs, the benefits it
returned however went to domestic help for the family. Nothing was ever hers to
keep. Women also inherited no property or money from their parents nor their
husbands or their sons for that matter. The little they could keep or be given
was limited to moveable property which was negligible. The backbone of the
family’s economy or even the village itself rested on her however, whatever she
produced or contributed was invisible to be honest. Her contributions were
neglected or were utterly dismissed as moral duty or obligation as a woman,
even though her labours went directly and indirectly into the contribution of
the village economy domestically so also by ways of trade and exchange. The
heavy bride-price among the Lotha should attest to the economical side of
it:women being the backbone of its economy and the reproducer of offspring’s
who would then work in the fields.When one studies the Lotha economy to depth
the fundamental role of women is indismissible. The questions which remain
unanswered are why did the Lothas not develop or ever learn the use of the
potter’s wheel, being in contact with the Assamese living adjacent to them,
over the long course of interactions yet why did the Lotha art of pottery
remain crude as ever? No innovations were made nor creativity added by ways of
design or intricacy in its facade. Perhaps “tradition” per se was maintained
and encouraged from one trainer to a trainee or rather from one generation to
another, or they simply couldn’t care less for any room for improvement.
Whatever the case be, the importance of this industry among the Nagas, the
Lotha Naga here cannot be disproved. |
||||||
References | 1. Bellwood, Peter. First Farmers: The Origins of
Agricultural Societies. Blackwell Publishing’s, 2005. |