archaeological ceramics module notes & reading list (nottingham) 2011-12

Module Notes and Reading List

V62ACE

Archaeological Ceramics

Spring Semester 2011-2012

A 10 credit module

2

Archaeological Ceramics

V62ACE Spring Semester 2011-2012

Module convenor: Dr. Eddy Faber

[email protected]

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 Lecture 1

B14 Engineering and Science

Learning Centre, 9-10am, 3/2/12

Introduction to the course structure. Raw materials for ceramic production

Lecture 2 B14 Engineering and Science

Learning Centre, 10-11am, 3/2/12

Anthropological approaches to ceramic production and consumption

Week 20 Lecture 3 A02, 9-10am, 10/2/12

Technological choices for mixing clays and adding non-plastics

Laboratory 1 A05, 10am-12pm, 10/2/12

Pottery handling session 1: Classification, MNI and EVE

Week 21 Lecture 4 A02, 9-10am, 17/2/12

Forming methods


Experimental replication of different forming methods

Week 22 Lecture 5 A02, 9-10am, 24/2/12

Decorative techniques


Pottery handling session 2

3

Week 23 Lecture 6 A02, 9-10am, 2/3/12

Firing procedures


Individual labwork: preparing/undertaking experimental

reconstruction

Week 24 Seminar.

A02, 9-10am, 9/3/12

Informal reports on progress of

replication projects

Laboratory 5

A05, 10am-12pm, 9/3/12

Pottery handling session 3 1 hour revision session 1 hour individual labwork:

undertaking/recording experimental reconstruction

Week 25 Practical skills test A05, 10am-12pm, 16/3/12

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.

Week 26 Lecture 7 A02, 9-10am, 23/3/12

Integrating analytical techniques in the study of ceramics


Technological analysis 1

Week 27 Lecture 8 A02, 9-10am, 30/3/12

Case study: High status pottery production in Middle Minoan Crete


Technological analysis 2

Week 32 Lecture 9 A02, 9-10am, 4/5/12

Case Study: Teaching and learning pottery production among the Ancestral Puebloans in the American

south-west

Laboratory 8

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

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

4

(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.

5

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 archaeology-

[email protected] 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.

6

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.).

7

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 word-processed. Unless otherwise advised, submit TWO copies of each piece of coursework with a coversheet stapled to each copy. You should use the date-

stamp 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.

8

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.

9

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.

10

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

11

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

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.

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.


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. 157-72. 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


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.

18

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 900-1600.

Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1988.

19

*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


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. 615-

706.

*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.

20

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,


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.

21

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-on-Humber, 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.

22

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


*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,


23

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.


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

24

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. 139-56.

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.

25

*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.


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.


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

26

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: 21-8.

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


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. 139-

56.

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.

27

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: 427-50.

Minar, C. J. and Crown, P. L. 2001 Learning and craft production: an

introduction. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57: 369-80.

archaeological ceramics module notes & reading list (nottingham) 2011-12

Documents