INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2010

Interpreting Pottery G112

Scraping the base of coil built cooking pots, Machaca, Cuzco, Peru

Course Coordinator:

Dr. Bill Sillar

b.sillar@ucl.ac.uk

Room B16

Tel: 020 7679 1538 (internal 21538)

The full text of this handbook with online reading lists is available here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/studying/masters/courses/ARCLG112

INTRODUCTION
This handbook contains basic information about the content and administration of this course. If you have queries about the objectives, structure, content, assessment or organisation of the course, please consult the Course Co-ordinator, Bill Sillar. Further important information, relating to all courses at the Institute of Archaeology, is to be found at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students and in the general MA/MSc handbook. It is your responsibility to read and act on this information which includes details about submission and grading of coursework; disabilities; communication; attendance; and feedback, etc. AIMS This course will introduce students to a wide range of techniques used in pottery studies, a consideration of the research questions that ceramic research can be used to address, and a concern for the appropriate reporting of ceramic research. More specifically the course aims: 1. 2. 3. 4. To introduce students to the technology of pottery making from clay selection to firing with reference to archaeological and ethnographic examples as well as student practicals. To question the practice and purpose of diverse approaches to pottery processing, classification and analysis. To explore the ways in which archaeological evidence of pottery production, trade and use can be studied and interpreted. To critically examine the development of pottery studies in archaeology.

OBJECTIVES Upon successful completion of this course, students will, among other things: 1. 2. 3. Be familiar with the physical processes of pottery production and be able to give careful consideration to the social context within which it takes place. Have an overview of recent archaeological approaches to the collection, analysis and interpretation of ceramics. Be able to evaluate the relevance and applicability of various methods of ceramic analysis used the in archaeological units, museums and similar institutions in relation to wider archaeological research questions

LEARNING OUTCOMES On successful completion of the course students should be able to demonstrate/have developed: 1. 2. 3. The ability to read and listen to a range of different approaches to a topic and to write a reasoned argument as to why they favour one or more of these. Begun to develop the observational skills needed to identify the form, surface and fabric of pottery and critically consider what this may mean in relation to the production or life history of the pot. The ability to observe, or read about, analytical procedures and critically reflect on how these procedures and their presentation affects the interpretation of data.

TIMETABLE
Mondays 10.00 am - 12.00 noon + practicals till 3.00 p.m.

Room B13
4th October Course Outline: The pottery cycle (raw materials, forming, firing and use) and the interpretation of archaeological assemblages. Practical: Sorting an assemblage of Iron Age pottery sherds from Meare Lake Village.

12th October Preparing the paste: selection and preparation of clay and temper, the clay/water system. Practical: working with different clays and tempering materials 18th October Pottery forming techniques: ethnographic and archaeological examples. Practical: techniques used in making and decorating pots. 25th October Pottery firing methods: differences in their function and archaeological identification. Practical: examination of fired brickets and archaeological pots to discuss how to identify fabric groups and firing methods from archaeological remains. 1st November Organisation of production: craft specialisation and standardisation Practical: looking for signs of pottery technology on ethnographic and ancient pots. Reading Week (8th to 12th November) 15th Nov. 22nd Nov. Made for Export? Identifying sources and interpreting distribution patterns Practical: Further examples of pottery technology identifying student projects Dealing with Assemblages: the excavation, identification and quantification of archaeological assemblages Practical: Discussion of how to quantify and record pottery assemblages

24th November - Deadline for 1st Essay

29th Nov. Pottery Consumption: use, breakage and disposal. Practical: Continuing with the Meare Lake Village pottery assemblage with a focus on the effects of disposal habits, taphonomic processes and dealing with fragmentation.

6th December. From excavation to interpretation: the role of pottery specialists and the use of finds drawings, tables and charts Discussion We will work on and discuss the recording of the Meare Lake Village pottery assemblage in relation to the pottery reports that students have been reading 13th December Course Overview: Student presentations and discussion session

19th January 2009 Deadline for 2nd Essay

COURSE OUTLINE This is a half unit option for M.A., and M.Sc. students. It is intended to provide a general foundation and introduction to pottery studies. The course picks up on many of the themes introduced in the core course of the Artefact Studies MA and Technology MSc., but, by focusing on pottery we will be able to explore the applicability of these themes in the practical analysis and interpretation of a specific class of artefacts. The course consists of lectures and seminar/practicals. The practical sessions will effectively be seminars that incorporate both the handling of materials and a discussion on the problems, and purpose of pottery analysis. There will be a particular focus on dealing with pottery assemblages and the diverse ways in which pottery can be classified. This will include a brief introduction to more detailed scientific methods of analysis (e.g. petrography and elemental analysis) but these can be explored further in the 2nd term course Archaeological Ceramics G 114. This course will introduce students to the wide range of ways that archaeological pottery has been studied with a strong emphasises on understanding techniques used in pottery making and practical approaches to the study of pottery assemblages from excavations. The course starts with a consideration of the properties of clay in order to discuss how potters choose specific techniques to collect and process clays, to mix a clay paste that alters or enhances the physical properties of natural clay, and for the forming and firing of their ceramics. The potters choice of raw materials and techniques will be considered in relation to both the physical properties of the materials and the influence of the wider technological, economic, social and ideological setting of specific cultural situations. We shall then be able to look at archaeological pottery with a view to identifying the forming techniques that were used in the past; this will be based on examining the surface of the finished artefacts and fabric analysis. Ethnographic and experimental work will be used throughout the course to illustrate some of the problems and potential of ceramic analysis. We shall discuss traditional (cultural-historical) approaches to pottery analysis, which were primarily based on the study of the morphology, decoration and distribution of the pottery. This will be compared to more recent material science approaches to the analysis of archaeological ceramics that have also been used to yield information on ceramic technology, the provenance of the pottery and dating. We will review a number of themes that are commonly addressed through artefact analysis (such as: Technology, Organisation of Production, Typologies, Trade and Exchange, Consumption, and Style). The course aims to help students consider the relationship between artefacts and the people who used them, as well as how to relate artefact analysis to other aspects of archaeological research.

Modern Pottery Firing: Raqchi, Peru

TEACHING METHODS AND READING MATERIAL

Teaching for the course is through formal lectures, seminars, artefact handling sessions, and laboratory visits. The course consists of ten two-hour sessions. These usually start with a one hour lecture introducing a research theme and will either be followed by a practical that aims to introduce students to the techniques of pottery making and archaeological analysis, or a further lecture and seminar session taking a research topic to greater depth and discussing the essential reading for that week. These varied formats are combined in order to provide you with a broad introduction to appropriate literature, the opportunity to engage actively in debating these issues yourself, the chance to handle clay and see the effects of different techniques and to compare this to the evidence from archaeological pottery. Seminars have weekly recommended readings, which students are expected to have read ahead of the class, so that they are be able to follow and actively contribute to discussion. Part of this handbook includes an outline of each session in the course, and identifies one or more essential readings and a few supplementary references relevant to each session. The essential readings which should be consulted in advance of each session, which students will be expected to have done, to be able fully to follow and actively to contribute to discussion. Information is provided as to where in the UCL library system individual readings are available. Further copies of most individual articles and chapters are in or are currently being put in the Teaching Collection in the Institute library (where permitted by copyright), and their location can be accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. Almost all material is housed in the Institute of Archaeologys own library (INST ARCH) Photocopies placed in the teaching collection have a numerical code only (e.g. INST ARCH 1234) Books that are in the main library shelves or behind the issuing desk have alphabetic and numerical codes that can be used to identify the shelf location (e.g. INST ARCH DC 300 BAR). A supplementary reading list will be given out latter in the course, this provides further references organised around the same themes as the lectures and essay topics. These further references can be consulted for your own interest and when preparing essays. PREREQUISITES There are no prerequisites for this course. This course (G112) is a prerequisite for taking G114, Archaeological Ceramics, in the second term. WORKLOAD: TEACHING HOURS AND ASSESSMENT The course consists of 20 class hours of lectures, seminars and practicals (with a further 10 hours of less formal practicals and/or guidance in selecting material for essays). Students are expected to undertake at least 60 hours private reading to prepare themselves prior to class and explore themes in greater depth after class, as well as a further 110 or so hours of reading and practical work to prepare their TWO course work essays. This adds up to a total workload of some 200 hours for the course. If there is sufficient interest we may also organise a fieldtrip to visit a pottery workshop or museum collection, but this will be voluntary and is not considered as a part of the course workload. METHODS OF ASSESSMENT This course is assessed by means of a total of 6,000 words of coursework, divided into two essays of ca. 3000 words, essays that are noticeably longer than 3000 words will not have followed the assessment criterion and will be penalised accordingly (relevant illustrations and the bibliography are not included as part of the word limit). The topics and deadlines for each assessment are specified below. If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should contact the Course Co-ordinator. The Course Co-ordinator will be willing to discuss an outline of their approach to the assessment, provided this is planned suitably in advance of the submission date.
HEALTH AND SAFETY The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice which provides guidance on laboratory work, etc. This is revised annually and the new edition can be found on the Institutes Intranet. All work undertaken in

the Institute is governed by these guidelines and students have a duty to be aware of them and to adhere to them at all times. This is particularly important in the context of the laboratory work and fieldtrips which may be undertaken as part of this course.

TEACHING SCHEDULE Lectures will be held 10:00-12:00 a.m. on Mondays, in room B13. On days when smaller group practical classes are organised the class will be split into groups and practicals will run from 11.00-12.00 12.00 -1.00 and 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. either in Room B13 or in the outside workspace in the basement. A visit to a pottery workshop and museum may be scheduled if there is sufficient interest, arrangements for this will be discussed with the class later in the term. ATTENDANCE A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. Departments are required to report each students attendance to UCL Registry at frequent intervals throughout each term. Except in the case of illness, students are required to attend a minimum of 70% of all the lectures for the course. READING LISTS The following is an outline for the course as a whole, and identifies essential and supplementary readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to where in the UCL library system individual readings are available; their location and Teaching Collection (TC) number, and status (whether out on loan) can also be accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. Essential readings a to keep up with the topics covered in the course. Copies of individual articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the Teaching Collection in the Institute Library (where permitted by copyright). CITING OF SOURCES Coursework should be expressed in a students own words giving the exact source of any ideas, information, diagrams etc. that are taken from the work of others. Any direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between inverted commas. Plagiarism is regarded as a very serious irregularity which can carry very heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to read and abide by the requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism to be found in the IoA Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK The coursework must be stapled to a completed blue coversheet (available from the web, from outside Room 411A or at Reception) and submitted to the course co-ordinators pigeon hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception by the appropriate deadline. Late submission will be penalized unless permission has been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed. Please see the Cousework Guidelines document for further details on the required procedure. SUBMISSION DEADLINES Essay 1: Essay 2: Wednesday 24th November Wednesday 20th January.

SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK TO TURNITIN In addition to submitting your coursework as described above, it is now a requirement that you submit it electronically to the Turnitin system. The ID code for submitting your work for this course is 202624. The Password is: IoA1011 In advance of submitting your coursework for marking you may, if you wish, run your work through the system in order to obtain a report on the originality of the wording and then make any necessary adjustments prior to final submission. Turnitin advisors will be available to help you at specified times

if you need help generating or interpreting the reports. It is important to recognise that the final decision about whether work contains plagiarism rests with academic staff. Consequently, the presence or absence of matches in a Turnitin report does not, by itself, provide a guarantee that the work in question either contains or is free from plagiarism. Detailed instructions on the use of the system will be supplied separately. KEEPING COPIES Please note that it is an Institute requirement that you retain a copy (this can be electronic) of all coursework submitted. When your marked essay is returned to you, you should return it to the marker within two weeks. You may like to keep a copy of the comments if you are likely to wish to refer to these later. TIMESCALE FOR RETURN OF MARKED COURSEWORK TO STUDENTS. You can expect to receive your marked work within four calendar weeks of the official submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written explanation from the marker, you should notify the IoAs Academic Administrator, Judy Medrington. COMMUNICATION If any changes need to be made to the course arrangements, these will normally be communicated by email. It is therefore essential that you consult your UCL e-mail account regularly. DYSLEXIA AND OTHER DISABILITIES If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please make your lecturers aware of this. Please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia are reminded to indicate this on each piece of coursework. FEEDBACK In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback from students during the course of the year. All students are asked to give their views on the course in an anonymous questionnaire which will be circulated at one of the last sessions of the course. These questionnaires are taken seriously and help the Course Co-ordinator to develop the course. The summarised responses are considered by the Institute's Staff-Student Consultative Committee, Teaching Committee, and by the Faculty Teaching Committee. If students are concerned about any aspect of this course we hope they will feel able to talk to the Course Co-ordinator, but if they feel this is not appropriate, they should consult their Degree Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the Chair of Teaching Committee (Dr. Mark Lake).

GENERAL READING (Books, Collected Papers and Review Articles).

Arnold D. E. 1985 Ceramic theory and cultural process. New studies in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH KD ARN Barley N. 1994 Smashing Pots; feats of clay from Africa British Museum Press, London. INST ARCH DC 300 BAR / ANTHROP QUARTOS Q 83 BAR. Berg, I. 2006 Breaking the mould : challenging the past through pottery: 3rd International Conference on Prehistoric Ceramics Oxford: Archaeopress. INST ARCH KD 3 Qto BER Bishop R. L. and F. W. Lange (eds.) 1991 The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard University Press of Colorado, Niwot INST ARCH KD 3 BIS Freestone I. & D. Gaimster (eds.) 1997 Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions British Museum Press, London. INST ARCH KD FRE Gibson A. and A. Woods 1990 Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist Leicester University Press, Leicester INST ARCH KD 3 GIB Orton C., P. Tyers & A. Vince 1993 Pottery in Archaeology Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH KD 3 ORT Peacock D. P. S. 1982 Pottery in the Roman world: an ethnoarchaeological approach. Longman, London. INST ARCH DA 170 PEA Rice P. M. 1987 Pottery Analysis; A sourcebook University of Chicago Press, Chicago. INST ARCH KD 3 RIC Rice P. M. 1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style, and Origins Journal of Archaeological Research 4(2): 133-161. INST ARCH 1753 Rice P. M. 1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition, Production and Theory Journal of Archaeological Research 4(3): 165-202. INST ARCH 1754 Rye O. S. 1981 Pottery Technology; principles and reconstructions. Manuals on Archaeology no. 4 Washington D.C. INST ARCH KD 1 RYE Shimada I. ed 2007 Craft production in complex societies : multicraft and producer perspectives Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press INST ARCH K SHI Simopoli C. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics Plenum Press, New York INST ARCH KD 3 SIN Skibo J. M. and G. M. Feinman (eds) 1999 Pottery and People: a dynamic interaction Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. INST ARCH KD 3 SKI Stark M. T. 2003 Current Issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology Journal of Archaeological Research 11(3): 193-242 Tite M. S. 1999 Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption the contribution of the physical sciences Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 181-233. INST ARCH PERS Tyres P. 1996 Roman Pottery in Britain Batsford, London. INST ARCH DAA 170 TYE van der Leeuw S. E. and Pritchard A. C. (eds.) 1984 The Many Dimensions of Pottery; Ceramics in archaeology and anthropology CINGULA 7. Amsterdam: Institute for Pre- and Proto-History, University of Amsterdam. INST ARCH KD 3 LEE Publications of the European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics (so far Nos 1-9 have been published)

Some Useful Web sites:

Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group: http://www.pcrg.org.uk/ Medieval Pottery Research Group: http://www.medievalpottery.org.uk/ Roman Pottery: http://www.potsherd.uklinux.net/ Ceramic Building Materials Group: http://www.geocities.com/acbmg1/ Ceramic Petrology Group: http://www.ceramicpetrology.uklinux.net/index.html Glossary of Ceramic Attributes/terms http://archnet.asu.edu/archives/ceramic/hgloss/hgloss.html Ceramic analysis sites by Alan Vince: http://www.postex.demon.co.uk Gazetter of Bronze & Iron Age pottery: http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/research/potteryGazetteer/

Introduction to the course, the pottery cycle and the interpretation of archaeological assemblages

Introduction to the pottery cycle from the selection of raw materials to the firing and use of the vessel (i.e. the collection and processing of raw materials, the shaping and decorating of the vessels, drying and firing the pots and their use). The pottery cycle is also as an organising principle for first part of this course.

Practical: Iron Age Pottery from Meare Lake Village

Dealing with archaeological assemblages, a consideration of the difficulties of recording and analysing excavated pottery assemblages and how this may influence the questions that are addressed and how the pottery is interpreted.
The Pottery Cycle Rye O. S. 1981 Pottery Technology; principles and reconstructions. Manuals on Archaeology no. 4 Washington D.C. INST ARCH KD 1 RYE van der Leeuw S. E. 1984. Dust to dust: a transformational view of the ceramic cycle. In S.E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.) The many dimensions of pottery: ceramics in archaeology and anthropology. Cingvla 7. Amsterdam: 707-773. INST ARCH 1755 Further Reading: Arnold D. and J. Bourriau (eds.) 1993 An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery Deutsches Archologisches Institut Sondeschrift 17, Abteilung Kairo, Philipp von Zabern, Germany. Atkin, J. 2004 Handbuilt Pottery Techniques Revealed New York: Barrons Barrett J. C. 1991 Bronze Age Pottery and Problems of Classification in J. Barrett, R. Bradley and M. Hall (eds.) Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase Oxbow Monographs No.11, Oxford pp.201-231. INST ARCH DAA 410 W.7 BAR Gibson A. 2002 Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus INST ARCH KD 3 GIB Gibson A. and A. Woods 1990 Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist Leicester University Press, Leicester Hamer, F. & J. 2004 The potters Dictionary of Materials and Techniques. (5th edition) London: A & C Black Kempton W. 1981 The folk classification of ceramics: A study of cognitive prototypes. New York: Academic Press. Miller D. 1985 Artefacts as categories: A study of ceramic variability in central India. Cambridge University Press. Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 1995 The study of later prehistoric pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication. PCRG Occasional Papers 1 and 2. INST ARCH KD PRE Read D. 2007 Artefact Classification: a conceptual and methodological approach Left Coast Press van der Leeuw S. E. 1991 Variation, Variability and Explanation in Pottery Studies in: W. A. Longacre (ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. pp.11-39. Woodward A. and J. D. Hill (eds.) 2002 Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis Oxford : Oxbow INST ARCH DAA 100 Qto WOO Glossary of Ceramic Attributes/terms http://archnet.asu.edu/archives/ceramic/hgloss/hgloss.html Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: http://www.prehistoric-ceramics.org.uk

Preparing the paste: selection and preparation of clay & temper

The strength and appearance of a completed pot and the behaviour of the clay paste during production is dependent on the raw materials selected by the potter and the way that they are processed. In this lecture/seminar we will discuss the geological origins and physical properties of clay and inclusions, the various methods that potters use to prepare and mix these materials, and how this alters the quality and behaviour of the clay paste. In order to explain this we will need to discuss the clay/water system (i.e how the properties of clays are dependent both on their crystal structure and the amount of water between the clay crystals) and how the potter works with these natural phenomena.

Practical: handling clays and tempering materials

During the practical students will prepare a range of different pottery pastes using a variety of clays and tempering materials so that they can feel how this alters the behaviour of the mixture.
Essential Reading: Gosselain O. P. And A. Livinstone-Smith 2005 The Source: Clay selection and processing practices in Sub-Saharan Africa in A. Livingstone Smith et al. (eds.) Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstruction and Interpretation, BAR International Series 1349: 33-47 Rice P.M. 1987, Pottery analysis, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. INST ARCH KD3 RIC. Chapter 3 Further Reading: Arnold D. E. 1971 Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan potters: etics and emics. American Antiquity 36: 20-40. INST ARCH Pers Barley N. 1994 Smashing Pots; feats of clay from Africa British Museum Press, London. INST ARCH DC 300 BAR. Colbeck, J. 1988 Pottery materials: their composition, preparation and use London: Batsford, INST ARCH KD 2 COL Gosselain O. P. 1999 In pots we trust: the processing of clay and symbols in Sub-Saharan Africa Journal of Material Culture 4(2): 205-230 INST ARCH Pers. Grimshaw, R. W. 1971 The chemistry and physics of clays and allied ceramic materials New York: Wiley-Interscience INST ARCH BA 11 GRI Hamer F. & J. 1991 The potters dictionary of materials and techniques. 3rd edition London. INST ARCH KD 1 Qto HAM Pollard A. M. and C. Heron 1996, Archaeological chemistry, Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. INST ARCH JD POL Pages. 104 - 121 Sillar B. 1996 The Dead and the Drying: Techniques for Transforming People and Things in the Andes Journal of Material Culture 1(3) 259-290. Tobert N. 1984 Ethno-archaeology of pottery firing in Darfur, Sudan; Implications for ceramic Technology studies. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3(2) 141-156 INST ARCH Pers. Velde B. and I. C. Druc 1999 Archaeological Ceramic Materials Origin and Utilization Berlin: Heidelberg. (On Order) Velde, B 1992 Introduction to clay minerals : chemistry, origins, uses and environmental significance London, Chapman & Hall GEOLOGY F 62 VEL Woodward A. 2002 Inclusions, Impressions and Interpretations In A. Woodward and J. D. Hill (eds.) Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis Oxford : Oxbow 106-118 INST ARCH DAA 100 Qto WOO Worrall W. E. 1986 Clays and ceramic raw materials London: Elsevier. INST ARCH BA 11 WOR

10

Pottery Forming Techniques: ethnographic and archaeological examples

There are a wide range of potential pottery production methods (e.g. pinching, coiling, hammer and anvil, moulding, or throwing). During this lecture we will explore a number of these methods, what tools they require, and the implications for the organisation of production, and what evidence we can use to interpret the use of these methods. We will again highlight the relationship between the clay paste prepared by the potter and the choice of forming techniques.

Practical: techniques used in making and decorating pots

During the practical students will continue with the clay pastes that they prepared the week before to see how suitable they are for different forming and decorating techniques.
van der Leeuw S. (ed.) 1993 Giving the potter a choice: conceptual aspects of pottery techniques in P. Lemonnier (ed.) Technological Choices: transformation in material culture since the Neolithic London: Routledge 238-288 (Previously INST ARCH 2199) Rye O.S. 1981, Pottery technology, Washington DC: Taraxacum. INST ARCH KD1 RYE. Especially Chapters 4-5 Further Reading: Arnold D. and J. Bourriau (eds.) 1993 An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery Deutsches Archologisches, Germany. EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS M 20 ARN Brandt, R. W., W. Groenman-van Waateringe and S. E. van der Leeuw (eds.) 1987 Assendelver Polder papers Amsterdam : Universiteit van Amsterdam INST ARCH DAHB Qto BRA Courty M. A. and V. Roux 1995 Identification of wheel throwing on the basis of ceramic surface features and microfabrics Journal of Archaeological Science 22:17-50. INSTARCH Pers. David, N., J. Sterner & K. Gavua 1988 Why pots are decorated Current Anthropology 29:365-388. INST ARCH 743 Livingstone Smith A., D. Bosquet, R. Martineau 2005 Pottery manufacturing processes: reconstitution and interpretation : International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR international series 1349. Loney H. L. 2000 Society and technological control: a critical review of models of technological change in ceramic studies American Antiquity 65(4):646-668 + responses American Antiquity 66(4):726-41 INST ARCH Pers. To be added to the teaching collection Mahias M-C. (1993) 'Pottery Techniques in India: Technical variants and social choice' in: P. Lemonnier (ed) Technological Choices: transformations in material cultures since the Neolithic, pp.157-180. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD LEM Nicholson, P. T. and Shaw, I. (eds.), 2000, Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Rice P.M. 1987, Pottery analysis, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. INST ARCH KD3 RIC. Chapter 5 Sillar B. and M. Tite 2000 The challenge of technological choices for material science approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry 2-20. INST ARCH 2192 van der Leeuw S. 1976 Studies in the Technology of Ancient Pottery Organisation for the Advancment of Pure Research, Amsterdam. Vandiver P. B. 1988 The implications of variation in ceramic technology: the forming of Neolithic storage vessels in China and the Near East Archaeomaterials 2: 139-174 INSTARCH Pers.

11

Pottery Firing Methods: differences in their function and archaeological identification

In this seminar we will discuss some of the factors that may influence the choice of firing technique, the degree to which these can be recognised using archaeological evidence, and how this relates to the organisation of pottery production.

Practical: examination of experimental brickets and archaeological pots to discuss how to identify and record fabric groups.
The practical will consist of looking at fired pottery brickets to see how they have been affected by the firing process and how the choice of different clays and tempering materials affect the appearance and properties of the fired pottery fabric.
Gosselain O. P. 1992 Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery firing temperatures in archaeology: what for? Journal of Archaeological Sceince 19(2):243-259 INST ARCH Pers. Livingstone-Smith, A. 2001 Bonfire II: The Return of Pottery Firing Temperatures. In Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 991-1003. INSTARCH Pers. Further Reading: Adan-Bayewitz D. and M. Wieder 1992 Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 189205 INST ARCH Pers. Heimann R. B. 1982 Firing Technologies and Their Possible Assessment by Modern Analytic Methods. In: J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin (ed.) Archaeological Ceramics Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 89-98 INST ARCH KD 3 OLI Magetti M. 1982, Phase analysis and its significance for technology and origin in Franklin & Olin (eds.), Archaeological Ceramics, Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. INST ARCH KD3 OLI. Pages 121-134 Johnson J. S., J. Clark, S. Miller-Antonio, D. Robins, M.B. Schiffer and J. M. Skibo 1988 Effects of firing temperature on the fate of naturally occurring organic matter in clays Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 403-414 Paynter S. and M. Tite 2001 The evolution of Glazing Technologies in the Ancient Near East and Egypt in: A. J. Shortland (ed.) The Social Context of Technological Change: Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 BC. Oxbow Books, Oxford. INST ARCH DBA 100 SHO Rice P.M. 1987, Pottery analysis, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. INST ARCH KD3 RIC. Chapter 4 Rice P. M. (ed.) 1997 The prehistory & history of ceramic kilns Westerville, Ohio: The American Ceramic Society INST ARCH KD 1 RIC Robinson A. M. 1979 Three approaches to the problem of pottery fabric description Medieval Ceramics 3: 3-35. Rye O.S 1981, Pottery technology, Washington DC: Taraxacum. INST ARCH KD1 RYE. Chapter 6 Sillar B. 2000 Dung by Preference: The choice of fuel as an example of how Andean pottery production is embedded within wider technical, social and economic practices. Archaeometry 43-60. Swan V. G. 1984 The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain Royal Commission on Historical Monuments Supplementary Series No 5. INST ARCH DAA 170 SWA Tite M. S. 1995 Firing temperature determinations How and Why? In Lindahl A. and O. Stilbord (eds.) The aim of laboratory analyses of ceramics in archaeology Konferenser 34, Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Stockholm. 37-42 Tomber R. & J. Dore 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph No. 2. INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto TOM

12

Organisation of production and craft specialisation

The organisation of pottery production, particularly the degree of craft specialisation, has been used by several researchers as a method of assessing the social and economic organisation of past societies. In this seminar we will discuss how the evidence for pottery making (e.g. the location, spatial organisation, scale and intensity of production) can be interpreted from archaeological evidence.

Practical: recognition of pottery technology on ethnographic and ancient pots

This practical will take a selection of pottery to discuss how we can identify pottery production techniques from the form and surface appearance of ancient pots.
Essential Reading please read at lest two of the following: Harry K. G. 2005 Ceramic specialization and agricultural marginality: Do ethnographic models explain the development of specialized pottery production in the prehistoric American Southwest? American Antiquity 70(2): 295-319 INST ARCH Pers Costin, C. and Hagstrum, M. 1995 Standardization, labour investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic production in late Prehispanic highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619-39. INST ARCH 2986. Further Reading: Arnold D. E. 1985 Ceramic theory and cultural process. New studies in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH KD ARN Arnold, D. E., 2008 Social change and the evolution of ceramic production and distribution in a Maya community Boulder: University Press of Colorado INST ARCH DFB 300 ARN Barnett W. K. and J. W. Hoopes 1995 The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Clark J. E. 1995 Craft specialization as an archaeological category Research in Economic Anthropology 16: 267-294. INST ARCH 2175 Costin C. L. 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. In M. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological method and theory 3: 1-56. INST ARCH 1024 Day P. M. and E. E. Wilson and E. Kiriatzi 1997 Reassessing specialization in pre-palatial Cretan ceramic production Aegaeum annales d'archologie genne de l'Universit de Lige. Lige, Belgique : L'Universit 16: 275-290 INST ARCH Pers. Franken H. J & Kalsbeek J. 1975 The potters of a medieval village in the Jordan Valley, NorthHolland Ceramic Studies in Archaeology No.3 Amsterdam. INST ARCH DBE 10 FRA Hagstrum M. B. 1985 Measuring Prehistoric Ceramic Craft Specialization: a Test Case in the American Southwest Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 65-75 Jordan P., and M. Zvelebil 2010 Ceramics before Farming: the Origins and Dispersal of Pottery among Hunter-Gatherers of Northern Eurasia from 16 000 BP Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press London G. A. 1986 Response to Melissa Hagstrum, Measuring Prehistoric Ceramic Craft Specialization: a Test Case in the American Southwest Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 510-1 McGovern P.E. (Ed.) 1989 Cross-craft and cross-cultural interactions in ceramics Westerville, OH: American Ceramic Society INST ARCH KD 3 MCG

13

Peacock D. P. S. 1982 Pottery in the Roman world: an ethnoarchaeological approach. Longman, London. INST ARCH DA 170 PEA.
Phillips, David A. Jr. 2006 Comment on Harry's Discussion of Ceramic Specialization and Agricultural Marginality in the Prehistoric U.S. Southwest American Antiquity 71(2): 397-398

Rautman M. 1998 Handmade Pottery and Social Change: the view from Late Roman Cyprus Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11(1): 81-104 INST ARCH 3091 Rice P. M. 1991 Specialization, Standardization, and Diversity: a retrospective in: R. L. Bishop & F. W. Lange (eds.) The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard Colorado: University of Colorado Press. 257-279. INST ARCH 2200 Shimada I. ed 2007 Craft production in complex societies : multicraft and producer perspectives Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press ???? Sillar B. 1997 Reputable pots and disreputable potters: individual and community choice in present-day pottery production and exchange in the Andes. In: C. Cumberpatch and P. Blinkhorn (eds) Not So Much a Pot, More a Way of Life Oxbow Monograph, Oxford. 1-20. Underhill, Anne P. 2003 Investigating Variation in Organization of Ceramic Production: An Ethnoarchaeological Study in Guizhou, China. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(3):203-275. INST ARCH Pers

14

Made for Export? Identifying sources and interpreting distribution patterns

Pots are frequently traded, exchanged or transported away from their production sites. This is important evidence from which we can interpret some aspects of socio-economic relationships in the past, ideally, this requires the identification of the source of the raw materials (i.e. relating the pottery fabric to the geological origin of the raw materials) or production sites (e.g. locating the kilns and piles of wasters at the production centre). We can also prepare distribution patterns by recording the location and quantity of specific pottery forms, styles or fabric types, but, the interpretation of these distribution patterns should include a careful consideration of how this evidence was collected and what has affected the intensity and reporting of previous archaeological work used in the study.

Practical: Further examples of pottery technology and discussion of potential practical essay topics
Essential Reading: Orton C., P. Tyers and A. Vince 1993, Pottery in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH KD3 ORT. Chapter 15. Knappett, C., Kilikoglou, V., Steele, V. and B. Stern, 2005. The circulation and consumption of Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware: petrographic, chemical and residue analysis, Anatolian Studies 55, 25-59. Further Reading: Arnold D. E., H. Neff, and R. L. Bishop 1991 Compositional Analysis and sources of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological Approach American Anthropologist 93: 70-90 INST ARCH Pers On-line Connell S. V. 2002 Getting Closer to the Source: Using Ethnoarchaeology to Find Ancient Pottery Making in the Naco Valley, Honduras Latin American Antiquity 13(4): 401-417. OnLine Hodder I. 1974 Regression analysis of some trade and marketing patterns World Archaeology 6(2), 172-189. INST ARCH Pers. Howard H. and Morris E., (eds.) 1981 Production and distribution: A ceramic viewpoint, B.A.R. International series No.120, Oxford. INST ARCH KD 3 HOW Lyne M. A. B. & R. S. Jefferies 1979 The Alice Holt/Farnham Roman Pottery Industry C.B.A. Research Report No 30. London. Morris E. L. and A. Woodward 2003 Ceramic Petrology and Prehistoric Pottery in the UK Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69 279-303 INST ARCH 3092 Parker-Pearson M. 1990 The production and distribution of Bronze Age pottery in South-Western Britain Cornish Archaeology 29: 5-32 Peacock D. P. S. & D. F. Williams 1986 Amphorae and the Roman economy; an introductory guide. Longman, London. YATES P 70 PEA Rice P. M. 1987, Pottery analysis, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. INST ARCH KD3 RIC chapters 13 and 14 Pg 371-425 Tite M. S. 1999 Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption the contribution of the physical sciences Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 181-233. INST ARCH 2534 Pool C. A. And G. J. Bey III 2007 Pottery economics in Mesoamerica Tucson: University of Arizona Press INST ARCH DF 100 POO Tomber R. & J. Dore 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph No. 2. INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto TOM Tyres P. 1996 Roman Pottery in Britain Batsford, London. Wilson L. and Pollard A. M. 2001 The Provenance hypothesis in D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard (eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences Chichester: Wiley and Sons Ltd. 508-517

15

7 Dealing with Assemblages: the excavation, identification, quantification and reporting of archaeological assemblages
The study of archaeological pottery starts at the point of excavation when important decisions are made about what material to recover, what contextual information to record and the initial cleaning and sorting of the pottery. Archaeological pottery is usually sorted through a series of stages, initially separating it from other excavated materials, then sorting the pottery into different groups or categories. At what stage is it necessary to consider the research questions that the pottery is being used to address and how the pottery assemblages will be related to previous work in the area? In this lecture we will consider how archaeological pottery is treated from the moment of excavation to its presentation in the finds report and how this affects the types of data that are available for interpretation, including a consideration of the use of illustrations, tables, graphs and other ways of summarising and presenting data

Practical: Discussion of how to quantify and record pottery assemblages Return to Meare Lake Village
Essential Reading: Allison, P. M., Why do excavation reports have finds catalogues? In: Not so much a pot, more a way of life: current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology C. G. Cumberpatch and P. W. Blinkhorn 77-84 Monograph 83 Oxford: Oxbow Orton C., P. Tyers and A. Vince 1993, Pottery in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH KD3 ORT. Chapters 4, 7, 9, and 16. Further Reading: Symonds R. P. & S. Wade 1999 Roman pottery from excavations in Colchester, 1971-86 Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust INST ARCH DAA 410 E.7 COL Wheat J. B. 1991 Ceramic Classification: Bradfield and Shepard, Types and Varieties in: R. L. Bishop and F. W. Lange The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 121-131. INST ARCH 2211 Barrett J. C. 1991 Bronze Age Pottery and Problems of Classification in J. Barrett, R. Bradley and M. Hall (eds.) Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase Oxbow Monographs No.11, Oxford pp.201-231. INST ARCH DAA 410 W.7 BAR Gibson A. and A. Woods 1990 Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist Leicester University Press, Leicester INST ARCH KD 3 GIB Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 1995 The study of later prehistoric pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication. PCRG Occasional Papers 1 and 2. INST ARCH KD PRE Hingley R. and S. Willis (eds.) 2005 Roman finds : context and theory : proceedings of a conference held at the Univeristy of Durham Oxford: Oxbow Books INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto HIN Institute of Field Archaeologists 2000. Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials. http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/index.php?page=15 English Heritage 2006 Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment The MoRPHE Project ManagersGuide http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/MoRPHE-ProjectManagers-Guide.pdf?1254229256

Deadline for 1st Essay this week!!

16

Questions to consider when reviewing you ceramics reports

Choose a site report or a detailed report of an assemblage of pottery from a period and/or a region of the world that you are interested in and review the role that the ceramic report has in relation to both this particular site and the study of contemporary ceramics from the area. What are the intentions of the report? Does the author explain these clearly? (e.g. what research questions were they addressing? Are these mainly related to the production, distribution and use of the pottery, or to the dating, function and cultural affiliation of the site? How easy is it to identify which ceramics came from which archaeological contexts? Can you relate the ceramics to other finds or other environmental data from the same context? Is there any description of how the ceramics were excavated, cleaned and catalogued? Does the author describe the methods of analysis used? How are the ceramics described? (e.g. fabric descriptions, illustrations, quantification of data). How is the pottery quantified? (e.g. by fabric, form, type or date, is this in relation to each context, or broad periods. What features of the ceramic are highlighted in the illustrations (e.g. do the drawings, photographs, tables etc. emphasise fabric, form, surface treatment, decoration, or manufacturing technique?) What percentage of the pottery is illustrated? Are these illustrations described as typical or exceptional pieces? How is this ceramic report related to previous work on contemporary pottery? (e.g. by reference to previous reports and pottery typologies or previous research questions.) How easy would you find it to compare the illustrations and descriptions in this report to an assemblage of pottery from another archaeological site? Does the report explain where this ceramic assemblage is now? (In case you want to go back and do your own analysis?) How is this ceramic analysis used in the rest of the site report? Does it contribute to the research agenda for the site as a whole?

17

Pottery Consumption: use, breakage and disposal

This session will consider the function of pottery and how we can analyse pottery use from the vessels themselves (e.g. size, form and surface appearance as well as more specific techniques of residue analysis) and wider archaeological evidence (e.g. the context in which the vessels were recovered, iconographic evidence etc.) We will also discuss the importance of studying pottery breakage and disposal patterns as an aid to interpreting the use of space around the site, in relation to understanding the function and value of the pottery within consumption sites, and to help understand taphanomic processes on site.

Practical: Continuing with the Meare Lake Village pottery assemblage with
a focus on the effects of disposal habits, taphonomic processes and dealing with fragmentation.
Essential Reading: Pick a pottery report describing an assemblage of pottery from a period or region that interests you and begin to prepare a critique to discuss during the last class of term. Some of the criterion you may wish to consider when looking at finds reports are given on the next page. Further Reading: Allison P. M. 2004 Pompeian Households: an analysis of their material culture Monograph 42 Cotsen Institute of Archaeology: University of California: Los Angeles Arthur J. W. 2002 Pottery Use-alteration as an indicator of socioeconomic status: an ethnoarchaeological study of the Gamo of Ethiopia Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(4) 331-355 Online Biddulph, Edward 2005 Last Orders: choosing pottery for funerals in Roman Essex Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24(1): 23-45 INST ARCH Pers. Bollong C. A. 1994 Analysis of Site Stratigraphy and Formation Processes Using Patterns of Pottery Sherd Dispersion Journal of Field Archaeology 21 15-28 Online Costin, C. and Earle, T. 1989 Status distinction and legitimation of power as reflected in changing patterns of consumption in Late Prehispanic Peru. American Antiquity 54:691-714. Online Deal M. and M. B. Hagstrum 1995 Ceramic reuse behavior among the Maya and Wanka: Implications for Archaeology in J.M. Skibo, W. H. Walker and A. E. Nielsen (eds.) Expanding Archaeology Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press 111-125. INST ARCH 2177 Frankel D. and J. M. Webb 2001 Population, Households and Ceramic Consumption in a Prehistoric Cypriot Village Journal of Field Archaeology 28: 115-129 Online Hayden B. & A. Cannon 1983 Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya highlands Journal of Anthropological Archaeology vol.2. 117-163. INST ARCH 1387 Heron C. and R. P. Evershed 1993 The analysis of organic residues and the study of pottery use in Schiffer M. B. (ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 5 Academic Press. New York 247-284. INST ARCH Pers. Hill J. N. 1968 Broken K. Pueblo: Patterns of form and function in Binford L. R. and S. R. New Perspective in Archaeolgy Aldine Chicago p. 103-142. INST ARCH 2787 Schiffer M. B. 1989 Formation Processes of Broken K Pueblo: Some Hypotheses. In: R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones (eds.) Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 37-58 INST ARCH AK 10 Qto LEO Wilkinson T. J. 1989 Extensive Sherd Scatters and Land-Use Intensity: Some Recent Results Journal of Field Archaeology 16 (1989) 3146 OnLine

18

9
Full day Practical We will work on and discuss the recording of the Meare Lake
Village pottery assemblage in relation to the pottery reports that students have been reading and that of Rouillard (below), the data from your analysis will then be used for a short presentation and discussion on the last session of term.
Essential Reading: Rouillard S. E. 1987 The Iron Age Pottery from Meare Village East in Coles, J. (ed.) Meare Village East: the excavations of A. Bulleid and H. St George Gray 1932-1956 Somerset Levels Papers No 13: 183-221 Bullied and Gray original Meare 1910-33 Excavations report On the web at: http://www.gallica.co.uk/meare/ Further Reading: Coles, J. And S. Minnit 1995 Industrious and Fairly Civilized: the Glastonbury Lake Village Somerset Levels Project and Somerset County Council Museums Service, Somerset Cunliffe B. 2005 Iron Age communities in Britain : an account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman conquest London: Routledge INST ARCH DAA 160 CUN Cunliffe B. and C. Poole 1991 Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Volume 5. The excavations 1979-1988: the finds CBA Research Report 73 INST ARCH DAA Qto Series COU 73 Gibson A. 2002 Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus INST ARCH KD 3 GIB Moore, T., 2007 Perceiving Communities: Eschange, Landscape and Social Networks in the Later Iron Age of Western Britain Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26(1): 79-102 Orme B. J., J. M. Coles and C. R. Sturdy 1979 Meare Lake Village West: a report on recent work Somerset Levels Papers 5: 6-17 Peacock D. P. S. 1968 A petrological Study of Certain Iron Age Pottery from Western England Procedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, pp.414-427. INST ARCH Pers Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 1995 The study of later prehistoric pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication. PCRG Occasional Papers 1 and 2. INST ARCH KD PRE Rouillard S. E. 1987 The Iron Age Pottery from Meare Village East in Coles, J. (ed.) Meare Village East: the excavations of A. Bulleid and H. St George Gray 1932-1956 Somerset Levels Papers No 13: 183-221 Woodward A. and J. D. Hill (eds.) 2002 Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis Oxford : Oxbow INST ARCH DAA 100 Qto WOO Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: http://www.prehistoric-ceramics.org.uk

19

10 Interpreting Pottery: Overview and Student Presentations

In this session we will re-visit issues that have emerged during the course with students either bringing examples of pottery reports that they have looked at, or examples of pottery they have started to analyse and discussing strengths and limitations within these.

International Pottery Research Conference !!

10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
11.30 a.m. refreshments Each student should prepare a 5 minute presentation which briefly introduces the pottery assemblage or report which they have selected and then discuss how their review of this relates to one or more of the issues raised by the course. This may be any aspect of the production technology, iconography, distribution, use, disposal, excavation, curation, publishing or archiving of the pottery. Students should use their own observation of the vessel or previous excavation reports to address these issues, or suggest further analysis that could be undertaken. It may also be appropriate to suggest why the particular assemblage being considered is not appropriate material for addressing certain issues.

20

Essay Topics
ASSESSMENTS This course is examined by means of TWO essays. Both essays have a maximum of 3000 words (and they are each worth 50% of the overall course marks). Ideally your first essay should take a question from group A. Your second essay should be taken from group B. If you wish to answer two questions from either group A or B, or if you wish to design a question of your own, then you MUST discuss this with the course co-ordinator in advance. WORD-LENGTH Strict new regulations with regard to word-length have been introduced UCL-wide with effect from the 2010-11 session. If your work is found to be between 10% and 20% longer than the official limit you mark will be reduced by 10%, subject to a minimum mark of a minimum pass, assuming that the work merited a pass. If your work is more than 20% over-length, a mark of zero will be recorded. The following should not be included in the word-count: bibliography, appendices, and tables, graphs and illustrations and their captions. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Please note that new, stringent penalties for late submission have been introduced UCL-wide from 201011. Please see the Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website (or your Degree Handbook) for further details of penalties. Late submission will be penalized in accordance with these regulations unless permission has been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed. (The mark will be reduced by 5 percentage points for the first days delay, a further 10 percentage points if it is submitted in the subsequent 6 days, and a mark of 0 will be given thereafter.) The submission date for these penalties will be monitored via Turnitin (see below), so in addition to submitting hard copy, students must submit their work to Turnitin before midnight on the day of the deadline. Students are required to submit hard copy of all coursework to the course co-ordinators pigeon hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception on, or before, the appropriate deadline. The coursework must be stapled to a completed coversheet (available from the web, from outside Room 411A or from the library). Students who encounter technical problems submitting their work to Turnitin should email the nature of the problem to ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk in advance of the deadline in order that the Turnitin Advisers can notify the Course Co-ordinator that it may be appropriate to waive the late submission penalty. If there is any other unexpected crisis on the submission day, students should telephone or (preferably) email the Course Co-ordinator, and follow this up with a completed ERF

Turnitin ID code: 202624. Password: IoA1011

Turnitin advisors will help you via email ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk if needed. Institute of Archaeology coursework guidelines are given here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/handbook/common/marking.htm. The full text of this handbook with online reading lists is available here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/studying/masters/courses/ARCLG112

21

NOTE: Your essay will be assessed on the quality of the research, the breadth of reading, the depth of analysis and its completeness. You should seek to demonstrate a good knowledge of relevant literature and a critical consideration of the methodological and philosophical issues you have chosen to discuss. Where a practical project has been undertaken take care to describe the purpose of the research, the methods used, the results of your analysis, the conclusions you have reached and, where appropriate, discuss any wider implications arising from your study or further analysis that you feel should be undertaken. All written work should have a clear structure and be concisely and unambiguously expressed in good English. Illustrations (such as drawings, photographs, tables and charts) frequently provide essential examples and present data succinctly, but their relevance must be explained at an appropriate point in the text. The topics chosen for each item of coursework should not overlap significantly with the topics of other items of coursework on this or other courses. The basic readings for these essays will be found in relation to the appropriate lecture or practical class and the supplementary reading list provides further references organised around the similar themes to the lectures and essay topics. If you have any problems identifying or locating appropriate reading material please ask Bill Sillar for guidance. If you would like to write an essay on a different topic please discuss this with the course co-ordinator.

Essay Questions: A:
1

3000 Word Essay

Write a short (c. 800 word) discussion of how the properties of raw materials and the potters actions can influence ceramic fabrics. Then write three (c.700 word) discussions of distinct materials that have been used by potters to temper clays (e.g. grog, quartz, flint, chaff etc.). For each of these three materials discuss using examples the properties that can affect a) paste preparation b) forming, c) firing, d) use. How would you identify, describe and quantify a range of fabrics within an assemblage of archaeological pottery sherds? Explain the reasons for the methods you adopt. How does the pottery cycle (of clay preparation, vessel forming and firing) allow analysts to recognise some of the stages in a pots Chane Opratoire? What might be the advantages and disadvantages of adopting this as an approach for analysing an archaeological pottery? (Note if you choose this question for your first essay you cannot do question 13 for the second essay.) Using examples from ceramic studies, critically discuss the degree to which ethnoarchaeologists and archaeologists have been successful in using pottery studies to identify and explain changes in the organisation of production. What has the Ceramic Ecology approach contributed to our understanding of the past? Does ceramic research require a distinctive framework from other aspects of archaeological or artefact research? To what extent can the degree of standardisation in pottery production be measured, compared or interpreted? Hand made, course tempered pottery frequently co-exists alongside finer quality products, and may even continue to be made when more specialist production fails. Why?

22

B:
8

3000 Word Essay

Discuss changes in the production, distribution and function of pottery in England from the early Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon period. How should these changes be understood? (You may address this question in relation to another area and time period, but please discuss this with the course coordinator first.) Discuss the relationship between the detailed material analysis of a carefully selected sample of pottery sherds (e.g. for ceramic petrology, XRF, or SEM analysis) and the analysis and interpretation of a complete pottery assemblage from an archaeological excavation. Pottery can be classified using many different criteria (e.g. form, fabric, decoration, mineral composition, elemental composition, etc.), but it is also important to build on previous typologies in order to promote good communication between colleagues. What would influence your approach to the recording and reporting of an assemblage of pottery? You are in charge of co-ordinating the processing and analysis of the ceramic material from a archaeological excavation. How would you proceed? Discuss different methods used to determine the source(s) of pottery and map its distribution. How would you begin to interpret which factors influenced this distribution pattern? After consultation with the course coordinator select either a single pot or a small group of related pots and prepare an illustrated Chane Opratoire that explains its/their production as a linear sequence of transformations (e.g. from clay collection to use). Show which stages can be identified from material evidence on the artefact and discuss which stages would require confirmation through further analysis or more contextual information. In conclusion discuss what you have learnt from undertaking this exercise and if you think it is a useful focus for archaeological analysis. Take a small pottery assemblage. After analysing this material write a brief report of the assemblage. Then critically discuss the benefits and limitations of your report. Choose a site report from a period and/or a region of the world that you are interested in and review the role that the ceramic report has in relation to both this particular site and the study of contemporary ceramics from the area.

10

11

12

13

14

15

23

TIMETABLE

Interpreting Pottery G112

Mondays 10.00 am - 12.00 noon + practicals till 3.00 p.m.

Room B13
4th October Course Outline: The pottery cycle (raw materials, forming, firing and use) and the interpretation of archaeological assemblages. Practical: Sorting an assemblage of Iron Age pottery sherds from Meare Lake Village.

12th October Preparing the paste: selection and preparation of clay and temper, the clay/water system. Practical: working with different clays and tempering materials 18th October Pottery forming techniques: ethnographic and archaeological examples. Practical: techniques used in making and decorating pots. 25th October Pottery firing methods: differences in their function and archaeological identification. Practical: examination of fired brickets and archaeological pots to discuss how to identify fabric groups and firing methods from archaeological remains. 1st November Organisation of production: craft specialisation and standardisation Practical: looking for signs of pottery technology on ethnographic and ancient pots. Reading Week (8th to 12th November) 15th Nov. 22nd Nov. Made for Export? Identifying sources and interpreting distribution patterns Practical: Further examples of pottery technology identifying student projects Dealing with Assemblages: the excavation, identification and quantification of archaeological assemblages Practical: Discussion of how to quantify and record pottery assemblages

Wednesday 24th November - Deadline for 1st Essay

29th Nov. Pottery Consumption: use, breakage and disposal. Practical: Continuing with the Meare Lake Village pottery assemblage with a focus on the effects of disposal habits, taphonomic processes and dealing with fragmentation.

6th December. Practical We will work on the recording of the Meare Lake Village pottery assemblage and discuss this in relation to the pottery reports that students have been reading 13th December Course Overview: Student presentations and discussion session

Wednesday 19th January 2009 Deadline for 2nd Essay

24