Module Notes and Reading List

V62ACE

Archaeological Ceramics

Spring Semester 2011-2012

A 10 credit module

Archaeological Ceramics
V62ACE
Spring Semester 2011-2012
Module convenor:

Dr. Eddy Faber

Edward.Faber@nottingham.ac.uk
Room A08, Tel. 846-8106

Laboratory demonstrator: Alison Meakes

Summary of Module Content:

This module will combine theoretical and practical work, in which the student is
introduced to the production and consumption of archaeological ceramics and the
ways in which archaeologists investigate these concepts. A number of case
studies will be presented in lectures to indicate how ceramic industries can be
located within their social, technological and economic contexts. Practical classes
will be used to allow students to develop skills in handling, recording and
interpreting ceramic materials.

Practical arrangements

Lectures are held in B14 Engineering and Science Learning Centre on Friday
3rd February 9am-11am and then lectures are in A02, Humanities Building,
Fridays 9am-10am for all other weeks
The seminar on Friday 9th March will be held in A02, Humanities Building,
9am-10am
Laboratories are held in A05, Humanities Building, Fridays 10am-12 pm.

Schedule
Week 19

Week 20

Week 21

Week 22

Lecture 1
B14 Engineering and Science
Learning Centre, 9-10am,
3/2/12
Lecture 2
B14 Engineering and Science
Learning Centre, 10-11am,
3/2/12
Lecture 3
A02, 9-10am, 10/2/12
Laboratory 1
A05, 10am-12pm, 10/2/12
Lecture 4
A02, 9-10am, 17/2/12
Laboratory 2
A05, 10am-12pm, 17/2/12
Lecture 5
A02, 9-10am, 24/2/12
Laboratory 3
A05, 10am-12pm, 24/2/12

Introduction to the course structure.

Raw materials for ceramic production
Anthropological approaches to
ceramic production and consumption
Technological choices for mixing clays
and adding non-plastics
Pottery handling session 1:
Classification, MNI and EVE
Forming methods
Experimental replication of different
forming methods
Decorative techniques
Pottery handling session 2

Week 23

Lecture 6
A02, 9-10am, 2/3/12
Laboratory 4
A05, 10am-12pm, 2/3/12

Week 24

Seminar.
A02, 9-10am, 9/3/12
Laboratory 5
A05, 10am-12pm, 9/3/12

Week 25

Practical skills test

A05, 10am-12pm, 16/3/12

Week 26

Lecture 7
A02, 9-10am, 23/3/12
Laboratory 6
A05, 10am-12pm, 23/3/12
Lecture 8
A02, 9-10am, 30/3/12
Laboratory 7
A05, 10am-12pm, 30/3/12
Lecture 9
A02, 9-10am, 4/5/12

Week 27

Week 32

Laboratory 8
A05, 10am-12pm, 4/5/12

Firing procedures
Individual labwork:
preparing/undertaking experimental
reconstruction
Informal reports on progress of
replication projects
Pottery handling session 3 1 hour
revision session
1 hour individual labwork:
undertaking/recording experimental
reconstruction
To take place in A05 the
Archaeological Materials Lab.
Students will be assigned to two
groups for the test which will last c.
45 minutes.
Integrating analytical techniques in
the study of ceramics
Technological analysis 1
Case study: High status pottery
production in Middle Minoan Crete
Technological analysis 2
Case Study: Teaching and learning
pottery production among the
Ancestral Puebloans in the American
south-west
Individual labwork: recording
experimental reconstruction

Assessment
Individual practical skills test
(20%) which will take place in A05
Materials Laboratory on Friday 16th March 2012
Individual coursework (80%). A 2000 word project report with
supporting images due for submission at 12 noon on Tuesday
15th May 2012
Workload
9 hours lectures
1 hour seminar
20 hours timetabled and independent laboratory work
10 hours researching for practical skills test
30 hours researching/writing project report
30 hours further reading
Total: 100 hours

Module Aims

To provide an overview of the production and use of ceramics in the past,

developing especially some of the concepts and ideas presented in V62206

(Archaeology of Technology and Production). Via a series of case studies and

laboratory sessions, students will learn how archaeological ceramics can be
placed within their social and technological contexts, and will be introduced to
analytical techniques by which archaeologists study ceramic technology and
provenance.
Learning Outcomes
Knowledge and Understanding
By the end of this module, students should have developed an understanding of:
a) The theoretical concepts of ceramic production
b) how archaeological evidence for ceramic production fits within broader
contemporary social contexts
c) how archaeologists analyse the remains of ceramic workshops and the
artefacts themselves to reconstruct their production
Intellectual Skills
Students will consider critically the aims and methods of archaeological ceramic
studies, and will appreciate the potential of analytical studies into the
investigation of ceramic provenance and technology. The practical sessions will
allow students to develop a basic competence in assessing and recording ceramic
assemblages. In the experimental reconstruction they will be expected to
demonstrate competence in placing experimental work within archaeological
technological and social contexts and to apply conclusions from these studies to
broader archaeological questions.
Professional Practical Skills
Students will develop a basic familiarity with the examination of ceramic
assemblages and will be introduced to analytical techniques by which they can be
studied.
Transferable/Key Skills
a) Research skills are developed through designing and undertaking
individual projects
b) Verbal presentation and argument skills are promoted by participation in
seminars and practical sessions.
c) Independent study skills and self management are promoted by the
laboratory work and written coursework requirement.

Departmental attendance policy (cf. p.25 of the Student Handbook):

Lack of attendance can result in very serious penalties (see the Quality Manual
for the University Regulations on Attendance:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/qualitymanual/studyregulations/
attendanceprocedures.aspx).
You should note that where students are absent without authorisation, to
the point that it is not possible to continue with the course, the Registry will write
to the student stating that they will be deemed to have withdrawn from the
University and their student record will be amended to show that they have
withdrawn. Where required the University will report non-attendance to
appropriate authorities including the UK Border Agency.
Attendance at Lectures and Seminars is compulsory and all students will
be required to sign an attendance register at each session. If you cannot attend,
you must inform the Departmental Office by e-mailing both archaeologyenquiries@nottingham.ac.uk and the Module Convenor stating your reason for
absence. Any student who is deemed to have unsatisfactory attendance for
lectures and seminars will be issued a warning by the department and may be
called for interview. Attendance will be considered at exam boards.
It is the responsibility of the student to ensure they attend lectures and
seminars and that they make the department aware of any extenuating
circumstances they may have.
University Regulations on Attendance
Students must attend all teaching activities necessary for the pursuit of their
studies, undertake all associated assessments and attend meetings and other
activities as required by their School or the University. Where students face
difficulty in attending sessions or undertaking assessments and examinations, it
is their responsibility to inform their School of this fact and to provide a
satisfactory explanation. Please see
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/qualitymanual/studyregulations/
attendanceprocedures.aspx for further details on attendance regulations at the
University.
Individual Schools and Departments have systems in place to monitor
attendance during the academic year. Unauthorised absences are reported to the
Registry and recorded as appropriate. Where students are absent without
authorisation, to the point that it is not possible to continue with the course, the
Registry will write to the student stating that they will be deemed to have
withdrawn from the University and their student record will be amended to show
that they have withdrawn.
Where required the University will report non-attendance to appropriate
authorities including the UK Border Agency.

Assessment - Practical Skills Test

The practical skills test is an individual test on the examination, recording and
interpretation of archaeological ceramics. The test will be based on you handling
and examining sherds. It will assess your skills and understanding of how to
view, describe, record and interpret archaeological ceramics, based on
information from the lectures, your experience of handling pottery during the
laboratory classes and your reading on the subject.
This test is not aimed at catching you out with unusual typologies or rare
examples. It is aimed as reinforcing the basic skills that will allow you to work
with any pottery assemblage and allow you to understand and use published
typologies and pottery reports.

Assessment - Coursework
The coursework is an individual project on reconstructing the production and/or
decorative techniques used for making archaeological ceramics. There is so much
scope and potential within ceramic studies in terms of chronology or location that
it is up to you to choose a type of ceramic that fits your personal interests. The
only limitations are where raw materials are unobtainable or where the process is
too hazardous to carry out.
You should discuss your idea with Dr Faber before you begin to carry out the
experiment. There will be an informal seminar on Friday 9th March where
everyone will briefly present their idea to the rest of the group. This is an
invaluable chance to get feedback on your idea and to ensure you can describe
the context of your project.
Be aware, clay has to dry before it can be fired. You should allow three or
four days (at least) in your schedule for this to happen. Do not leave it until the
last minute. Also note, the lab will not be available over the Easter vacation. You
must get your labwork done during term time. It is your own responsibility
to organise your schedule.
Designing your project
Amongst other things, you will have to consider a variety of questions:
What is the archaeological context for your project?
What techniques or processes are you trying to replicate?
What raw materials do you need? Are these available?
Is it possible to replicate the processes in the Lab? Some processes are
too hazardous, for instance salt-glazing produces toxic fumes and would
damage the kiln.
What attributes of your artefact will you have to measure? For instance, you
might want to consider whether you need to weight the amounts of the raw
materials, or measure the object in case is shrinks during drying or firing.
Recording your labwork
You will need to record your replication experiment:
Keep a detailed written account of what you have done, including the
materials you have used and details of the firing schedule (temperature,
duration, etc.).

Keep a photographic record of your work. Your coursework for this

laboratory involves both a written description and illustrations.

Writing your report

Your project report will have to contain a variety of information within the 2000
word limit:
You will need to define and discuss the archaeological context of the
question. There is no point in undertaking an experimental replication
unless there is an archaeological context for the work.
You will need to describe the methodology used for the reconstruction,
documenting all stages of the reconstruction process, the choices you
made of which technique to use and why, and the results. You should
illustrate the stages of the replication, including successful and/or
unsuccessful results. Make sure the illustrations are large enough that the
point of interest is clearly visible in the picture.
You will need to evaluate the results of the project. Remember that you
are using laboratory materials and equipment, which may differ from the
original materials used to produce the archaeological artefact. Do not
forget that an unsuccessful replication is not a failure. It can be very
useful to understand why certain technological choices do not work or
were not used.
You need to include a reflective statement about the project on what you
feel you have learned from undertaking the experiment.
You will need to reference the sources you use correctly refer to the
student handbook. Remember to indicate the source of any illustrations.
Refer to the work you from which you obtained the illustration or indicate
if it is entirely your own.

Structuring, Formatting and Submitting Your Work

Handing in your work:
All coursework submitted for the Department of Archaeology should be wordprocessed. Unless otherwise advised, submit TWO copies of each piece of
coursework with a coversheet stapled to each copy. You should use the datestamp machine to stamp both coversheets. Coversheets and the date-stamp
machines can be found outside the Taught Courses Office. Post both copies into
the Archaeology coursework box outside the Taught Courses Office, do not put
coursework into plastic wallets. The coursework box is emptied daily by the
Taught Courses Office Administrators.
Electronic Submission of Essays
In addition to submitting two hard copies of all assessments, students are also
required to upload an electronic copy of work through WebCT (see below). This is
so that the work can be examined by plagiarism detection software each piece
of work will receive an originality report highlighting where the material used in
the essay has come from (this includes other students essays). Deadlines for
submitting digital copies are the same as those for the hard copies.
The benefit of electronic submission is that you will be issued with a digital
receipt as proof that your work was submitted on time.

Instructions for submitting work

First, log on to your WebCt account and select the module for which the work is
due. Once in the correct account you will find a folder entitled Assignments, or
something similar (if there is no such file, contact your module convenor and the
departmental administrator)

Click on the Assignments folder and this will bring you to the folders for the
modules assessments there may be more than one, so make sure you click on
the correct link for the piece of coursework you are submitting.

Once you have clicked on the correct file you will be asked to fill out your details
and then upload your files you can submit documents in MS Word,
WordPerfect, PostScript, PDF, HTML, RTF and plain text but please note that the
file size must be less than 20MB. If you have trouble uploading your file please
contact the module convenor and departmental administrator.

Finally, you are asked to review the document you have submitted, just to make
sure that it is the correct one/version. Dont panic when you see that the
formatting has been removed, the final submitted version will appear correctly.
Once you press submit, you will be issued with a digital receipt retain a copy of
this as proof of submission. Some tutors will allow you to view copies of your
originality reports but this is at the discretion of individual staff members.
Essay length: Writing to word limits is an important skill. In this module you
have been set a limit of 2000 words for the coursework. These word counts do
not have to include your reference list but the main text must not exceed the
limits. Do not exceed this limit by more than 30%. Writing an over-sized essay
for this module will reduce the time you have for other coursework assignments.
You therefore penalise yourself if you write an essay which is too long.
Word processing: Essays MUST be word processed (or typed). Line spacing:
1.5 or 2 NOT 1. Font size preferably 12, smaller can be difficult to read.
Illustrations: A picture may save many words (see above on essay length).
Many essays benefit from illustrations. Consider carefully whether illustrations
will contribute to the overall presentation and content of your essay. If you can
easily scan a diagram or other illustration into your essay, definitely consider it.
Alternatively, photocopy the illustration, cut it out and glue it in. Hand-drawn
illustrations are fine, but they can take a lot of time if they are to look reasonably
neat.
BUT: however you present your illustrations, make sure you indicate the source.
Refer to the work you got it from, or indicate if it is entirely your own work
(important: see below on referencing).
Referencing: Many students find it very hard to understand how and when to
reference. Proper referencing is essential, not least because without it you might
be accused of plagiarism that is, presenting someone elses work without
acknowledging it. Plagiarism is a form of theft (in this case, of intellectual
property) which the University treats very seriously.
If you are unsure of how to use references and to set out bibliographies, check
pp. 29-31 of the Student Handbook.
Plagarism and Collusion
Plagiarism is a form of cheating and theft. The official University definition of
plagiarism is that, It is an academic offence for a student to use another
persons work and to submit it with the intent that it should be taken as his or
her own.
This is one reason why the correct citation of references is so important. If a
student is found to have plagiarised the work of someone else a mark of zero can
be given to the work, and they may be subject to further disciplinary procedures.
Plagiarism can be either the direct copying word-for-word of another persons
work, or a re-wording of someone elses work that does not make the source
clear. If you transcribe a short passage from a book into an essay it is very
important that you indicate this (for example by using inverted commas around

10

the extract) and that you cite the source. It is also plagiarism to copy sections of
your own work from another essay that you have submitted. For a full account of
the procedures for dealing with plagiarism, see the University Quality Manual
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/quality-manual/assessment/offences.htm
Related to plagiarism is collusion, where two or more students pool their work
and then they each submit is as though it was a product of their own individual
effort. Collusion will also be penalised.
Examples of plagiarism or collusion include:
cutting and pasting text from websites or other electronic sources
submitting essentially the same work for more than one item of
assessment (self plagiarism)
copying other peoples work without indicating by the use of inverted
commas and/or a citation that you have taken the material from another
source
Note that plagiarism refers not only to written work but also to graphics,
drawings and other materials presented as course-work.
The University has a very strict plagiarism policy. When you register with the
Archaeology Department during Week 1, you must sign a statement confirming
that you understand the implications and possible punishments which the offence
of plagiarism carries and that you understand what is expected of you in order to
avoid plagiarism.

Marking Criteria
The final deadline for the submission of written work is 12.00 noon on Tuesday
15th May 2012. Criteria for marking exams and essays are outlined in the
Student Handbook on pp. 32-40.
It is important that you should take care over:
Presentation and structure
Spelling and grammar
Referencing
These aspects matter in the real world and will be important for employability in
any future career.
Other items I will be also looking for in the assessments
Critical thinking - evidence that you have understood the principles and
approaches outlined in this module and are able to apply them to
research.
Evidence of your own work and ideas. I do not really want to see text
books or my lectures repeated back to me. You have the freedom to work
on a topic that interests you.
Evidence for the integration of information from different sources.
Evidence of wider reading around the subject.

11

Reading Lists
All of the items on the reading list are available from the Universitys libraries
(unless specifically indicated). Some of them do not come up on the results for
simple searches, and so you may need to try searches of different attributes to
find them. Particularly good examples are indicated by an asterisk (*) before the
authors name.
General Reading List
Probably the best introduction for archaeological ceramics is:
*Rice , P.M. 1987 Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: Chicago
University Press. Especially strong on enthnography, good chapters on
clays as materials
Other good general texts include:
*Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic theory and cultural process. New Studies in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Especially strong on
ethnography.
Freestone, I.C. and Gaimster, D. (eds.) 1997 Pottery in the Making. London:
British Museum Press. A good survey of a wide range of pottery types from
around the world with some technological information.
Freestone, I.C., Johns, C. and Potter, T. (eds.) 1982 Current research in
Ceramics: Thin-section studies. British Museum Occasional Paper 32.
London: British Museum Press. Includes a good range of case studies.
Grim, R.E. 1968 Clay Mineralogy. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill. An aspect
of the fundamental science of clay.
Kingery, W.D. Bowan, H.K. and Uhlmann, D.R. 1976 Introduction to Ceramics.
2nd edition. New York: John Wiley. A good introductory text on ceramics.
*Neff, H. (ed.) 1992 Chemical characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology.
Monographs in World Archaeology no. 7. Madison: Prehistory Press. An
excellent series of case studies.
*Orton, C., Tyers, P. and Vince, A.G. 1993 Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. A good
introduction.
*Pollard, M.A. and Heron, C. 1996 Archaeological Chemistry. Royal Society of
Chemistry paperbacks. Very good description of analytical techniques, the
geochemistry of clays and provenancing ceramics including a case study.
*Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington,
D.C.: Taraxacum. A good introduction.
Shepard, A.O. 1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington: Carnegie
Institution. A good introduction. Despite being published so long ago the
work was ahead of its time and stands up to more recent publications.

12

Sinopoli, C.M. 1991 Approaches to archaeological ceramics. New York and

London: Plenum Press. A good introduction.
Velde, B. and Druc, I.C. 1999 Archaeological Ceramic Materials. Berlin: Springer
verlag. A good introduction.
Approaches to describing and quantifying pottery,
Particularly good publications for skills and approaches to studying pottery
assemblages include:
Gibson, A.M. and Woods, A. 1997 Prehistoric pottery for the archaeologist.
London: Leicester University Press. 2nd ed.
Miller, H.M.-L. 2007 Archaeological approaches to technology. Amsterdam and
London: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Millet, M. 1975 How much pottery? In M. Millett (ed.) Pottery and the
archaeologist . London: University of London, Institute of Archaeology. pp
77-80.
*Orton, C., Tyers, P. and Vince, A.G. 1993 Pottery in archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge manuals in
archaeology. This is a particularly good introduction.
Slowikowski, A., Nenk, B. and Pearce, J. 2001 Minimum standards for the
processing, recording, analysis and publication of post-Roman ceramics.
London: Medieval Pottery Research Group.
Stopford, J. 1990 Recording medieval floor tiles. London: Council for British
Archaeology.
Selected examples of studies on pottery assemblages and typologies
Although if you look you will find good examples of pottery reports for most
periods and regions, and so you should be able to find something that suits your
personal interests:
Brooks, C.M. 1987 Medieval and later pottery from Aldwark and other sites.
London: Published for the York Archaeological Trust by the Council for
British Archaeology. The Archaeology of York Vol. 16.
Cumberpatch, C.G. and Blinkhorn, P.W. (eds.) 1997 Not so much a pot, more a
way of life: current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Gibson, A. (ed.) 2003 Prehistoric pottery: people, pattern and purpose. Oxford:
Archaeopress. BAR international series 1156.
Green, C.S. 1999 John Dwight's Fulham pottery: excavations 1971-79. London:
English Heritage.

13

Hook, D.R. and Gaimster, D.R.M. (eds.) Trade and discovery: the scientific study
of artefacts from Post-Medieval Europe and beyond. London: Dept. of
Scientific Research, British Museum.
Howard, H. and Morris, E. (eds.) 1981 Production and Distribution: a ceramic
viewpoint. British Archaeological Reports International Series 120. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports.
Kinnes, I. and Varndell, G. (eds.) 1995 Unbaked urns of rudely shape": essays
on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Knight, D. 1999 A regional ceramic sequence: pottery of the first millennium BC
between the Humber and the Nene. In J.D. Hill and A. Woodward (eds.)
Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
MacGillivray, J. A. 1998 Knossos: pottery groups of the Old Palace period.
London: British School at Athens.
Momigliano, N. 2007 Knossos Pottery Handbook: Neolithic and Bronze Age
(Minoan). London: British School at Athens. British School at Athens
Studies 14.
Spavold, J. and Brown, S. 2005 Ticknall pots and potters from the late fifteenth
century to 1888. Ashbourne, Derbyshire: Landmark Publishing.
Stopford, J. 2005 Medieval floor tiles of northern England. Pattern and purpose:
production between the 13th and 16th centuries. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Woodward, A. and Hill, J.D. (eds.) 2002 Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Young, J. and Vince, A.G. 2005 A corpus of Anglo-Saxon and medieval pottery
from Lincoln. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Lincoln archaeological studies, no. 7.
Raw materials for ceramic production
*Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic theory and cultural process. New Studies in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grim, R.E. 1968 Clay Mineralogy. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
*Rice , P.M. 1987 Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: Chicago University
Press. Ch.2-4.
Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington,
D.C.: Taraxacum. Ch. 4.
Shepard, A.O. 1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington: Carnegie
Institution. Ch. 1.
Whitbread, I. K. 2001 Ceramic petrology, clay geochemistry and ceramics
production - from technology to the mind of the potter. In Brothwell, D. R.

14

and Pollard, A. M. (eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences.

Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. pp. 449-59.
Anthropological approaches to ceramic production and consumption
Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and
explaining the organisation of production. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.)
Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 3. Tucson and London:
University of Arizona Press. pp. 1-56.
Crown, P. L. 2001 Learning to make pottery in the prehispanic American
Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57: 451-69.
David, N., Sterner, J. and Gavua, K. 1988 Why pots are decorated. Current
Anthropology, 29: 365-89.
Earle, T. 1981 Comment on P. Rice, Evolution of specialised pottery production: a
trial model. Current Anthropology, 22: 230-1.
Gosselain, O. P. 1992 Bonfire of the enquiries. Pottery firing temperatures in
archaeology: what for? Journal of Archaeological Science, 19: 243-59.
Gosselain, O. P. 1998 Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In Stark,
M. T. (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington D.C.:
Smithsonian Institute Press. pp. 78-106.
Gosselain, O. P. 1999 In pots we trust: the processing of clay and symbols in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Material Culture, 4: 205-30.
Helms, M. W. 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Kilikoglou, V., Vekinis, G., Maniatis, Y. and Day, P. M. 1998 Mechanical
performance of quartz-tempered ceramics: part I, strength and toughness.
Archaeometry, 40: 261-79.
*Lechtman, H. 1978 Style in technology - some early thoughts. In Lechtman, H.
and Merrill, R. S. (eds.) Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and
Dynamics of Technology. 1975 Proceedings of The American Ethnological
Society. New York: West Publishing Co. pp. 3-20. Available via WebCT.
*Lemonnier, P. 1993 Technological choices: transformation in material cultures
since the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
Lemonnier, P. 1993 Introduction. In Lemonnier, P. (ed.) Technological Choices:
Transformations in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic. London:
Routledge. pp. 1-35.
Livingstone Smith, A. 2000 Processing clay for pottery in northern Cameroon:
social and technical requirements. Archaeometry, 42: 21-42.

15

Livingstone Smith, A. 2001 Bonfire II: the return of pottery firing temperatures.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 28: 991-1003.
Livingstone Smith, A., Bosquet, D. and Martineau, R. (eds.) 2005 International
Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. Pottery manufacturing
processes: reconstitution and interpretation. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Miller, D. 1995 Consumption studies as the transformation of anthropology. In
Miller, D. (ed.) Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies.
London: Routledge. pp. 264-95.
*Minar, C. J. and Crown, P. L. 2001 Learning and craft production: an
introduction. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57: 369-80.
Pfaffenberger, B. 1988 Fetishised objects and humanised nature: towards an
anthropology of technology. Man, 23: 236-52.
*Pfaffenberger, B. 1992 Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 21: 491-516.
Sassaman, K. E. and Rudolphi, W. 2001 Communities of practice in the early
pottery traditions of the American Southeast. Journal of Anthropological
Research, 57: 407-25.
Sillar, B. 1996 The dead and the drying: techniques for transforming people and
things in the Andes. Journal of Material Culture, 1: 259-89.
Sillar, B. 2000 Shaping culture: making pots and constructing households. An
ethnoarchaeological study of pottery production, trade and use in the
Andes. Oxford: J. and E. Hedges.
*Sillar, B. and Tite, M. S. 2000 The challenge of 'technological choices' for
materials science approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry, 42: 2-20.
*Stark, M. T. (ed.) 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press.
Stark, M. T. 1998 Technical choices and social boundaries in material culture
patterning: an introduction. In Stark, M. T. (ed.) The Archaeology of Social
Boundaries. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press. pp. 1-11.
Sterner, J. 1989 Who is signalling whom? Ceramic style, ethnicity and
taphonomy among Sirak Bulahay. Antiquity 63: 451-459.
van der Leeuw, S. E. 1984 Dust to dust: a transformational view of the ceramic
cycle. In van der Leeuw, S. E. and Pritchard, A. C. (eds.) The Many
Dimensions of Pottery. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. pp. 707-73.
*van der Leeuw, S.E. and Pritchard, A.C. 1984 The many dimensions of pottery:
ceramics in archaeology and anthropology. Amsterdam: Universiteit van
Amsterdam.

16

van der Leeuw, S. 1993 Giving the potter a choice: conceptual aspects of pottery
technology. In Lemonnier, P. (ed.) Technological Choices: Transformations
in Material Culture Since the Neolithic. London: Routledge. pp. 238-88.
Wallaert-Ptre, H. 2001 Learning how to make the right pots: apprenticeship
strategies and material culture, a case study in handmade pottery from
Cameroon. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57: 471-93.
Whitbread, I. K. 2001 Ceramic petrology, clay geochemistry and ceramics
production - from technology to the mind of the potter. In Brothwell, D. R.
and Pollard, A. M. (eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. pp. 449-59.
Woods, A. J. 1986 Form, fabric and function: some observations on the cooking
pot in antiquity. In Kingery, W. D. (ed.) Technology and Style. Ceramics
and Civilisation. II. Columbus, Ohio: American Ceramic Society. pp. 15772. Available via WebCT.
Wright, R.P. 1986 The boundaries of technology and stylistic change. In
Kingery, W. D. (ed.) Technology and Style. Ceramics and Civilisation. II.
Columbus, Ohio: American Ceramic Society. pp. 1-20. Available via
WebCT.
Technological choices for mixing clays and adding non-plastics
Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic theory and cultural process. New Studies in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braun, D. P. 1982 Radiographic analysis of temper in ceramic vessels: goals and
initial methods. Journal of Field Archaeology, 9: 183-92.
Bronitsky, G. and Hamer, R. 1986 Experiments in ceramic technology: the
effects of various tempering materials on impact and thermal-shock
resistance. American Antiquity, 51: 89-101.
Courtney, M.-A. and Roux, V. 1995 Identification of wheel throwing on the basis
of ceramic surface features and microfabrics. Journal of Archaeological
Science. 22: 17-50.
Di Caprio, N. C. and Vaughan, S. J. 1993 An experimental study in distinguishing
grog (chamotte) from argillaceous inclusions in ceramic thin sections.
Archaeomaterials, 7: 21-40. Available via WebCT.
Hasselman, D.P. 1969 Unified theory of thermal shock fracture initiation and
crack propagation in brittle ceramics. Journal of the American Ceramic
Society. 52: 600-604.
Kilikoglou, V., Vekinis, G., Maniatis, Y. and Day, P. M. 1998 Mechanical
performance of quartz-tempered ceramics: part I, strength and toughness.
Archaeometry, 40: 261-79.

17

Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. and Sayre, E. V. 1988 A simulation approach to the

problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 15: 159-72.
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. and Sayre, E. V. 1989 More observations on the problem
of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. Journal
of Archaeological Science, 16: 57-69.
Rice , P.M. 1987 Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Rye, O. S. 1976 Keeping your temper under control: materials and the
manufacture of Papuan pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in
Oceania, 11: 106-37. Available via WebCT.
Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington,
D.C.: Taraxacum.
Sackett, J. R. 1990 Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestism.
In: Conkey, M. and Hastorf, C. (eds.) The Uses of Style in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 32-43.
Shepard, A.O. 1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington: Carnegie
Institution.
Skibo, J.M., Schiffer, M.B. and Reid, K.C. 1989 Organic tempered pottery: an
experimental study. American Antiquity 54: 122-46.
Steponaitis, V.P. 1983 Ceramics, chronology, and community patterns: an
archaeological study at Moundville. New York: Academic Press.
Vekinis, G. and Kilikoglou, V. 1998 Mechanical performance of quartz-tempered
ceramics: Part II, Hertzian strength, wear resistance and applications to
ancient ceramics. Archaeometry 40: 281-292.
Whitbread, I. K. 1986 The characterisation of argillaceous inclusions in ceramic
thin sections. Archaeometry, 28: 79-88.
Whitbread, I. K. 1995 Greek Transport Amphorae: a Petrological and
Archaeological Study. Athens: Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4.
Whitbread, I. K. 2001 Ceramic petrology, clay geochemistry and ceramics
production - from technology to the mind of the potter. In Brothwell, D. R.
and Pollard, A. M. (eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. pp. 449-59.
Forming methods
Reviews of basic forming methods.
*McCarthy, M.R. and Brooks, C.M. 1988 Medieval pottery in Britain, AD 9001600.
Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1988.

18

*Rice , P.M. 1987 Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: Chicago University

Press. pp 124-44.
*Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington,
D.C.: Taraxacum. Ch. 5.
*Shepard, A.O. 1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington: Carnegie
Institution.
Recording forming methods, Intensification of production, Use of potters wheel.
Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic theory and cultural process. New Studies in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Balfet, H. 1984 Methods of formation and the shape of pottery. In van der
Leeuw, S. E. and Pritchard, A. C. (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Pottery.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. pp. 171-201.
Braun, D. P. 1982 Radiographic analysis of temper in ceramic vessels: goals and
initial methods. Journal of Field Archaeology, 9: 183-92.
Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and
explaining the organisation of production. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.)
Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 3. Tucson and London:
University of Arizona Press. pp. 1-56.
Courtney, M.-A. and Roux, V. 1995 Identification of wheel throwing on the basis
of ceramic surface features and microfabrics. Journal of Archaeological
Science. 22: 17-50.
Day, P. M., Wilson, D. E. and Kiriatzi, E. 1997 Reassessing specialisation in
Prepalatial Cretan ceramic production. In Laffineur, R. and Betancourt, P.
P. (eds.) TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean
Conference. Philadelphia , Temple University, 18-21 April 1996. Lige:
Universit de Lige. pp. 275-90.
Earle, T. 1981 Comment on P. Rice, Evolution of specialised pottery production: a
trial model. Current Anthropology, 22: 230-1.
Knappett, C. 1999 Tradition and innovation in pottery forming technology:
wheel-throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos. Annual of the British School at
Athens, 94: 101-29.
Krause, R.A. 1984 Modelling the maing of pots: an ethnoarchaeological
approach. In van der Leeuw, S. E. and Pritchard, A. C. (eds.) The Many
Dimensions of Pottery. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. pp. 615706.
*Mahias, M.-C. 1993 Pottery techniques in India. In Lemonnier, P. (ed.)
Technological Choices: Transformations in Material Culture Since the
Neolithic. London: Routledge. pp. 157-80.

19

Rice, P. M. 1991 Specialisation, standardisation, and diversity: a retrospective.

In: Bishop, R. L. and Lange, F. W. (eds.) The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O.
Shepard. Colorado University Press. pp. 251-79.
Rye, O.S. 1977 Pottery manufacturing techniques: X-ray studies. Archaeometry
19: 205-11.
Vandiver, P., 1987. Sequential slab construction: a conservative southwest
Asiatic ceramic. tradition, ca. 7000- 3000 BC. Palorient 13/ 2: 9-35.
Decorative techniques
Why are pots decorated?
David, N., Sterner, J. and Gavua, K. 1988 Why pots are decorated. Current
Anthropology, 29: 365-89.
Hodder, I. 1991 The decoration of containers: an ethnographic and historical
study. In Longacre, W. A. (ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Tuscon:
University of Arizona Press. pp. 71-94. Available via WebCT.
Hole, F. 1984. Analysis of structure and design in prehistoric ceramics. World
Archaeology 15: 326-347.
Pollock, S. 1983. Style and Information: An analysis of Susiana ceramics, Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 354-390.
Rice , P.M. 1987 Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: Chicago University
Press. Ch.5 and Ch.8.
Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington,
D.C.: Taraxacum. Ch. 4.
Shepard, A.O. 1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington: Carnegie
Institution.
Vickers, M. and Gill, D. 1994 Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
How do archaeologists study decorative techniques?
Betancourt, P. P. and Swann, C. P. 1989 PIXE analysis of Middle Minoan
pigments from Kommos. In Y. Maniatis (ed.) Archaeometry: Proceedings
of the 25th International Symposium. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 177-81.
*Day, P. M., Relaki, M. and Faber, E. W. 2006 Pottery making and social
reproduction in Bronze Age Mesara, Crete. In Wiener, M. H., Warner, J. L.,
Polonsky, J. and Hayes, E. E. (eds.) Pottery and Society: The Impact of
Recent Studies in Minoan Pottery. Gold Medal Colloquium in Honor of Philip
P. Betancourt. 104th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of
America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5 January 2003. Boston: Archaeological
Institute of America. pp. 22-72.

20

Hurst, H. and Freestone, I.C. 1996 Lead glazing technique from a medieval kiln
at Hanley Swan , Worcestershire Medieval Ceramics 20, 13-18. Available
via WebCT.
*Kilikoglou, V. 1994 Scanning Electron Microscopy. In Wilson, D.E. and Day,
P.M. Ceramic regionalism in prepalatial Crete: the Mesara imports in EM I
to EM IIA Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens, 89: 70-75.
Maniatis, Y., Aloupi, E. and Stalios, A. D. 1993 New evidence for the nature of
the Attic black gloss. Archaeometry, 35: 23-34.
Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M. S. 1981. Technological examination of Neolithic-Bronze
Age pottery from central and southeast Europe and from the Near East.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 8: 59-76.
Mason, R.B. and Tite, M.S. 1997 The beginnings of tin opacification of pottery
glazes, Archaeometry 39, 1, 41-58.
*Noll, W., Holm, R. and Born, L. 1975 Painting of ancient ceramics. Angewandte
Chemie International Edition, 14: 602-13.
Speakman, R. J. and Neff, H. 2002 Evaluation of painted pottery from the Mesa
Verde region using laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). American Antiquity, 67: 137-44.
Tite, M.S., Freestone, I. Mason, R. Molera, J, Vendrell-Saz, M. and Wood, N.
1998 Lead glazes in antiquity- methods of production and reasons for use,
Archaeometry 40, 2, 241-260.
Tite, M. S. and Maniatis, Y. 1975 Examination of ancient pottery using the
scanning electron microscope. Nature, 257: 122-3.
Tite, M.S., Bimson, M and Freestone, I.C. 1982. An examination of the high gloss
surface finishes on Greek Attic and Roman Samian wares. Archaeometry
24: 117-26
Tite, M. S., Freestone, I. C., Meeks, N. D. and Bimson, M. 1982 The use of
scanning electron microscopy in the technological examination of ancient
ceramics. In Olin, J. S. and Franklin, A. D. (eds.) Archaeological Ceramics.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press. pp. 109-120. Available via
WebCT.
Firing procedures
Bryant, G.F. 1970 Two experimental Romano-British kiln firings at Barton-onHumber, Lincolnshire. Scunthorpe: Borough Museum and Art Gallery.
Bryant, G.F. Experimental Romano-British kiln firings at Barton-on-Humber,
Lincolnshire. Barton-on-Humber: Workers' Educational Association,
Barton-on-Humber Branch.

21

Day, P. M., Relaki, M. and Faber, E. W. 2006 Pottery making and social
reproduction in Bronze Age Mesara, Crete. In Wiener, M. H., Warner, J. L.,
Polonsky, J. and Hayes, E. E. (eds.) Pottery and Society: The Impact of
Recent Studies in Minoan Pottery. Gold Medal Colloquium in Honor of Philip
P. Betancourt. 104th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of
America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5 January 2003. Boston: Archaeological
Institute of America. pp. 22-72.
*Gosselain, O. P. 1992 Bonfire of the enquiries. Pottery firing temperatures in
archaeology: what for? Journal of Archaeological Science, 19: 243-59.
Heimann, R. B. 1982 Firing technologies and their possible assessment by
modern analytical methods. In Olin, J. S. and Franklin, A. D. (eds.)
Archaeological Ceramics. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press.
pp. 89-96. Available via WebCT.
Kilikoglou, V. 1994 Scanning Electron Microscopy. In Wilson, D.E. and Day,
P.M. Ceramic regionalism in prepalatial Crete: the Mesara imports in EM I
to EM IIA Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens, 89: 70-75.
*Livingstone Smith, A. 2001 Bonfire II: the return of pottery firing temperatures.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 28: 991-1003.
McCarthy, M.R. and Brooks, C.M. 1988 Medieval pottery in Britain, AD 900-1600.
Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1988. pp 40-54.
Mahias, M.-C. 1993 Pottery techniques in India. In Lemonnier, P. (ed.)
Technological Choices: Transformations in Material Culture Since the
Neolithic. London: Routledge. pp. 157-80.
Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M. S. 1975 A scanning electron microscope examination of
the bloating of fired clays. Transactions and Journal of the British Ceramic
Society, 74: 229-32.
Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M. S. 1981 Technological examination of Neolithic-Bronze
Age pottery from central and southeast Europe and from the Near East.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 8: 59-76.
Nicholson, P.T. and Patterson, H.L. 1989 Ceramic technology in Upper Egypt: a
study of pottery firing. World Archaeology 21: 71-86.
Nicholson, P.T. 1981 Ceramic pyrometry: two Ibibio examples. In H.Howard and
E.L.Morris (eds.) Production and Distreibution: a Ceramic viewpoint.
Oxford: BAR International Series 120. pp 347-359.
*Rice , P.M. 1987 Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: Chicago University
Press. Ch.4 and Ch.5.
*Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington,
D.C.: Taraxacum. Ch. 6.

22

Shepard, A.O. 1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington: Carnegie

Institution. pp 74-93.
Swan, V.G. 1984 The Pottery kilns of Roman Britain. Commision on Historical
Monuments Supplementary Series 5. London: Her Majestys Stationary
Office.
*Tite, M. S. 1995 Firing temperature determinations - how and why? In Lindahl,
A. and Stilborg, O. (eds.) The Aim of Laboratory Analyses of Ceramics in
Archaeology. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets
Akademien. pp. 37-42.
Tite, M.S., Bimson, M and Freestone, I.C. 1982. An examination of the high gloss
surface finishes on Greek Attic and Roman Samian wares. Archaeometry
24: 117-26
Tite, M.S. and Maniatis, Y. 1975 Scanning electron microscopy of fired calcareous
clays. Transactions and Journal of the British Ceramic Society, 74: 19-22.
Integrating analytical techniques in the study of ceramics
Arnold, D. E., Neff, H. and Bishop, R. L. 1991 Compositional analysis and
'sources' of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological approach. American
Anthropologist, 93: 70-90.
*Attas, M., Fossey, J. M. and Yaffe, L. 1982 Variations of ceramic composition
with time: a test case using Laconian pottery. Archaeometry, 24: 181-90.
Attas, M., Fossey, J. M. and Yaffe, L. 1987 An archaeometric study of Early
Bronze Age pottery production and exchange in Argolis and Korinthia
(Corinthia), Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology, 14: 77-90.
Attas, M., Yaffe, L. and Fossey, J. M. 1977 Neutron activation analysis of Early
Bronze Age pottery from Lake Vouliagmeni, Perakhora, Central Greece.
Archaeometry, 19: 33-43.
Berg, I. 2008 Looking through pots: recent advances in ceramics X-radiography.
Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1177-1188
Cumberpatch, C.G. and Blinkhorn, P.W. (eds.) 1997 Not so much a pot, more a
way of life: current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Day, P. M., Kiriatzi, E., Tsolakidou, A. and Kilikoglou, V. 1999 Group therapy in
Crete: a comparison between the analyses by NAA and thin-section
petrography of Early Minoan Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science,
26: 1025-36.
Day, P. M., Relaki, M. and Faber, E. W. 2006 Pottery making and social
reproduction in Bronze Age Mesara, Crete. In Wiener, M. H., Warner, J. L.,
Polonsky, J. and Hayes, E. E. (eds.) Pottery and Society: The Impact of
Recent Studies in Minoan Pottery. Gold Medal Colloquium in Honor of Philip

23

P. Betancourt. 104th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of

America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5 January 2003. Boston: Archaeological
Institute of America. pp. 22-72.
Faber, E.W., Day, P.M. and Kilikoglou, V. 2009 Fine-grained Middle Bronze Age
polychrome ware from Crete: combining petrographic and microstructural
analysis. In P. Quinn (ed.) Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic
Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 13956.
Hook, D.R. and Gaimster, D.R.M. (eds.) Trade and discovery: the scientific study
of artefacts from Post-Medieval Europe and beyond. London: Dept. of
Scientific Research, British Museum.
Jones, R.E. 1986 Greek and Cypriot pottery: a review of scientific studies.
Athens: British School at Athens
Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M. S. 1981 Technological examination of Neolithic-Bronze
Age pottery from central and southeast Europe and from the Near East.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 8: 59-76.
Middleton, A. and Freestone, I. (eds.) 1997 Recent developments in ceramic
petrology. London: British Museum.
Mommsen, H., Beier, T. and Hein, A. 2002 A complete chemical grouping of the
Berkeley neutron activation analysis data on Mycenaean pottery. Journal
of Archaeological Science, 29: 613-37.
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. and Sayre, E. V. 1988 A simulation approach to the
problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 15: 159-72.
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. and Sayre, E. V. 1989 More observations on the problem
of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. Journal
of Archaeological Science, 16: 57-69.
Neff, H. 1992 Chemical characterization of ceramic pastes in archaeology.
Madison, Wis: Prehistory Press.
Peacock, D.P.S. 1970 The scientific analysis of ancient ceramics: a review. World
Archaeology 1: 375-389
Perlman, I. and Asaro, F. 1969 Pottery analysis by neutron activation.
Archaeometry, 11: 21-52.
*Quinn, P. (ed.) 2009 Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic Approaches to
Archaeological Ceramics. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Quinn, P.S., Day, P.M., Kilikoglou, V., Faber, E.W., Katsarou-Tzeveleki, S. and
Sampson, A. 2010. Keeping an Eye on Your Pots: The Provenance of
Neolithic Ceramics from the Cave of the Cyclops, Youra, Greece. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 37: 1042-52.

24

*Reedy, C.L. 2008 Thin-section petrography of stone and ceramic cultural

materials. London: Archetype.
Speakman, R. J. and Neff, H. 2002 Evaluation of painted pottery from the Mesa
Verde region using laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). American Antiquity, 67: 137-44.
Tite M.S. 1999 Pottery production, distribution and consumption the
contribution of the physical sciences Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 6, 181-233.
Tite, M.S., Bimson, M and Freestone, I.C. 1982. An examination of the high gloss
surface finishes on Greek Attic and Roman Samian wares. Archaeometry
24: 117-26
Whitbread, I. K. 1986 The characterisation of argillaceous inclusions in ceramic
thin sections. Archaeometry, 28: 79-88.
Whitbread, I.K. 1989 A proposal for the systematic description of thin sections
towards the study of ancient ceramics technology. In Y. Maniatis (ed.)
Archaeometry: proceedings of the 25th international symposium.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
*Whitbread, I. K. 1995 Greek Transport Amphorae: a Petrological and
Archaeological Study. Athens: Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4.
Whitbread, I. K. 2001 Ceramic petrology, clay geochemistry and ceramics
production - from technology to the mind of the potter. In Brothwell, D. R.
and Pollard, A. M. (eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. pp. 449-59.
Whitelaw, T., Day, P. M., Kiriatzi, E., Kilikoglou, V. and Wilson, D. E. 1997
Ceramic Traditions at EMIIB Myrtos, Fournou Korifi. In R.Laffineur and
P.P.Betancourt (eds.) TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship
in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean
Conference. Philadelphia , Temple University, 18-21 April 1996. Lige:
Universit de Lige. pp. 265-74.
Williams, D.F. 1983 Petrology of ceramics. In D.R.C. Kempe and A.P. Harvey
(eds.) The petrology of archaeological artefacts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wilson, A. L. 1978 Elemental analysis of pottery in the study of its provenace: a
review. Journal of Archaeological Science, 5: 219-36.
*Wilson, D. E. and Day, P. M. 1994 Ceramic regionalism in Prepalatial Central
Crete: the Mesara imports at EM I to EM IIA Knossos. Annual of the British
School at Athens, 89: 1-87.
Case study: High status pottery production in Middle Minoan Crete

25

Cadogan, G., Day, P. M., MacDonald, C. F., MacGillivray, J. A., Momigliano, N.,
Whitelaw, T. M. and Wilson, D. E. 1993 Early Minoan and Middle Minoan
pottery groups at Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens, 88: 218.
Carinci, F. 1997 Pottery workshops at Phaestos and Haghia Triada in the
Protopalatial period. In Laffineur, R. and Betancourt, P. P. (eds.) TEXNH:
Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference. Philadelphia ,
Temple University, 18-21 April 1996. Aegeum 16. Lige: Universit de
Lige. pp. 317-322.
Day, P. M., Relaki, M. and Faber, E. W. 2006 Pottery making and social
reproduction in Bronze Age Mesara, Crete. In Wiener, M. H., Warner, J. L.,
Polonsky, J. and Hayes, E. E. (eds.) Pottery and Society: The Impact of
Recent Studies in Minoan Pottery. Gold Medal Colloquium in Honor of Philip
P. Betancourt. 104th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of
America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5 January 2003. Boston: Archaeological
Institute of America. pp. 22-72.
Day, P. M. and Wilson, D. E. 1998 Consuming power: Kamares Ware in
Protopalatial Crete. Antiquity, 72: 350-8.
Faber, E.W., Day, P.M. and Kilikoglou, V. 2009 Fine-grained Middle Bronze Age
polychrome ware from Crete: combining petrographic and microstructural
analysis. In P. Quinn (ed.) Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic
Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 13956.
Floyd, C. 1997 The Alternating Floral Style as evidence for pottery workshops in
East Crete during the Protopalatial period. In Laffineur, R. and Betancourt,
P. P. (eds.) TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean
Conference. Philadelphia , Temple University, 18-21 April 1996. Aegeum
16. Lige: Universit de Lige. pp. 313-6.
Jones, R.E. 1986 Greek and Cypriot pottery: a review of scientific studies.
Athens: British School at Athens
Knappett, C. 1999b Tradition and innovation in pottery forming technology:
wheel-throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos. Annual of the British School at
Athens, 94: 101-29.
MacGillivray, J. A. 1998 Knossos: pottery groups of the Old Palace period.
London: British School at Athens.
Case Study: Teaching and learning pottery production among the
Ancestral Puebloans in the American south-west
Crown, P.L. 1999 Socialisation in American Southwest pottery decoration. In J.M.
Skibo and G.M. Feinman (eds.) Pottery and People: a Dynamic Interaction.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. pp 25-43.

26

Crown, P. L. 2001 Learning to make pottery in the prehispanic American

Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 57: 451-69.
Kamp, K.A. 2001 Prehistoric children working and playing: a southwesten case
study in learning ceramics. Journal of Anthropological Research 57: 42750.
Minar, C. J. and Crown, P. L. 2001 Learning and craft production: an
introduction. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57: 369-80.

27