[A large prehistoric pottery vessel from Arizona - a bulbous jar with flared rim, with encrusted, rough surface, later wax residue on the inside - height 7.25, width 7.5 inches - sold at Bonhams Skinner]
I have been reading, albeit rather slowly, the biography of Claude Lévi-Strauss, the eminent French anthropologist of the 20th century, at reference 1. The editor of my edition suggests reference 2 as a good place to start to get to grips with the work of the man himself, and I took him up on his suggestion. And have now, also rather slowly, been having a go at that.
Given that the book is, in large part, about the artisan potters of South America, it struck me that some background on these potters and their pots would be helpful - background which Lévi-Strauss does not think to provide - at least not yet.
My first stop was the article on pottery and porcelain at reference 3, which was helpful, albeit rather focussed on the fancy pottery and porcelain coming out of factories, rather than from villages deep in the jungles and forests of, for example, the Amazon. Factories which, I might say, have been around for well over a thousand years, if not several thousand years.
I then took a look at references 4 and 5, from Wikipedia. A bit of basics: '... Pottery is traditionally divided into three types: earthenware, stoneware, and porcelain. All three may be glazed and unglazed...'. In ascending order of both the difficulty and the temperature of firing.
But I was puzzled about the cooking pots in the forests of South America. It seemed unlikely that they were glazed - but on the other hand, if they were not glazed, what use would they be as cooking pots, because they would leak? At this point, I thought I might get on a bit quicker if I engaged with Gemini.
The opening question
My opening question - the answer to which was basically no. But village potters did have access to finishing techniques which gave some of the water proofing of glaze.
Matters were then confused my being referred to the factories and fancy pots of references 6 and 7, some way from the villages of present interest. He also told me something of the cracking of pots under thermal stress - be that from cooking the pots or from cooking with the pots. And something of the changes that came with the Spaniards in the 16th century.
Probably not word perfect, but near enough for my purposes.
First supplementary
This was something of a diversion, a wonder about the origins of the common phrase 'pots and pans'.
I had thought that there were perhaps several dichotomies encapsulated in the phrase: deep vs. shallow, wet vs. dry cooking, warm vs. hot cooking and earthenware vs. metal. This last on the grounds that earthenware pots could not take the thermal shocks involved in frying over a hot fire.
Gemini tries to point me at the first of these, deep vs. shallow.
But I thought that he was a bit weak on etymology. Littré does have a substantial entry for ‘pot’, which looks much the same as the OED one. Amongst various derivatives, we also have potage, potable, poterie and potier. And his 'poterie' includes household goods made of pewter (literally tin) or iron - not really included in the English term ‘pottery’. He also has ‘pan’, mainly as applied to coats or walls, but not in the present sense. An example of the way that different people organises things, think about things, in different ways - part of what can make translation so difficult.
He points me to the helpful reference 8, which includes a nice image of a pot, complete with scale, but of too low a resolution to look well here. And that which is now included above is a bit more relevant in terms of provenance.
Gemini tries to tell me that my phrase is as much a testimony to the Anglo-Saxon fondness for linked pairs of nouns as to anything deep about the nature of pots and pans. A fondness expressed, for example, in the wealth of double barreled names invented by marketing people. But I am not listening.
However, I do accept his diversion into the provision of legs for pots and pans.
Second supplementary
After a pause, I go in for a bit of checking with Bing, which prompts a second supplementary. Which kicks off an extended digressions into the different phrase 'pot and pan', rhyming slang for man or father, and then into the ways of OED, both in print and now online.
He pulls up lots of evidence of the use of the phrase 'pots and pans' from well before 1900, including a quote from Thackery's 'Vanity Fair', which he says he got from OED.
After a while it turns out that this quotation from 'Vanity Fair' is to be found in the online entry for 'lurk' at reference 9, which I would never have found under my own steam, from my print copy. However, now I know where to look, I find that it is there in my (hundred year old) print copy. I wonder whether my print copy really is obsolete, and take a look at references 10 and 11 - from which I learn that the answer is probably yes, provided I stump up a subscription. I don't think that you don't get it all for free. Yet to press the 'GO' button for that one!
Third supplementary
I find that I cannot make much sense of the layout of the stairs in a posh town house, as described by Thackery, and so try Gemini again.
Not so successful this time, as I still have not got the hang of it - the entertaining, if rather highly coloured, video at reference 12 notwithstanding. A video which, appropriately, was generated with the help of AI.
Conclusions
One does learn from Gemini, but one is sucked in, one is tempted down time-consuming, if interesting, by-ways. Which might suit me and which may well suit Google, with a view to revenue in the medium terms. Building all those big data centres is an investment, not a gift.
Also a reminder that learning is a two-way street. One wants the instructor to be responsive to your needs and interests, but he also needs to tell you what you actually need to know. He needs to tactfully put you on the right track.
Matters which bear on the need to ask him the right questions, on the likelihood that the first question may not be very clever. There needs to be a conversation, a process.
And, going back to my start point, I can now see that artisan pottery is a tricky business, with lots of mishaps and breakages, which makes the construction of elaborate myths and stories about potters much more plausible than it had at first seemed. So, there has been some progress.
PS 1: I was prompted by all this to turn up reference 13 again. Also helpful: the place of pottery in the technologies available to early man.
PS 2: the low resolution of the image of an old pot at reference 8 was surprisingly irritating visually, despite it being just the right sort of pot, with a scale bar. Now replaced by a slightly larger American pot at the head of this post.