Tite 2008 a Cerambic

Archaeometry

50

, 2 (2008) 216–231

doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00391.x

*Received 3 August 2007; accepted 4 December 2007© University of Oxford, 2008

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKARCHArchaeometry0003-813X1475-4754© University of Oxford, 2008XXXOriginal Articles

Ceramic production, provenance and use—a reviewM. S. Tite

*Received 3 August 2007; accepted 4 December 2007

CERAMIC PRODUCTION, PROVENANCE AND USE—A REVIEW*

M. S. TITE

Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

The contribution of the physical sciences to the reconstruction of the production technology(i.e., processing of raw materials, forming, surface treatments and firing methods) forearthenwares, stonewares, porcelains and stonepaste bodies are summarized. The organizationof production and the reasons for technological choice are considered. Provenance studiesbased on both chemical analysis and thin-section petrography are discussed, with theinvestigation of Minoan and Mycenaean pottery being taken as the case study. Theapproaches to determining how pottery vessels were used in antiquity are outlined. Finally,future developments in ceramic studies are briefly considered.

KEYWORDS:

EARTHENWARE, STONEWARE, PORCELAIN, STONEPASTE, SLIPS, GLAZES, PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY, PROVENANCE, USE

© University of Oxford, 2008

INTRODUCTION

Because, once produced, ceramics are virtually indestructible, they are found in quantity at themajority of archaeological sites dating from the Neolithic period onwards. Their study interms of style has, therefore, always been central to the archaeological interpretation of a site,region and period, and in consequence, ceramics have been a major focus of archaeometric orarchaeological science studies from their beginnings in the 1950s.

The primary aim of the application of the physical sciences to the study of ancient ceramicsis to contribute to the reconstruction of their life cycle from production through distribution touse, and then to help in the interpretation of this reconstructed life cycle in terms of the behaviourof the people involved. The groundbreaking volume by Anna Shepard (1956), entitled

Ceramicsfor the archaeologist

, is generally considered to have provided the starting point for such studies.The reconstruction of the production technology of ceramics involves determining, first,

what raw materials were used and how they were prepared and, second, how the ceramicswere formed, surface treated and decorated, and fired. Distribution or provenance studies tryto establish, on the basis of their chemical composition and/or thin-section petrography,whether pottery was locally produced or imported, and if the latter, to identify the productioncentre and/or the source of the raw materials used. The scientific investigation of the use towhich ceramic vessels were put involves principally the examination of the resulting surfacewear, soot deposits on the surface and organic residues, both on the surface and absorbed intothe body of the pottery.

The subsequent interpretation of the ceramic life cycle involves the consideration ofquestions relating, for example, to the extent of craft specialization and mode of production,to the possible reasons for the technological choices made in production, and to the pattern

Ceramic production, provenance and use—a review

217

© University of Oxford, 2008,

Archaeometry

50

, 2 (2008) 216–231

of exchange and trade. In attempting to answer these questions, it is necessary to take intoaccount the archaeological context in which the ceramics were produced, distributed and used.That is, one needs to adopt the ceramic ecology approach, first proposed by Matson (1965),which attempts to link pottery production to the environment in

all

its aspects (i.e., physical;biological, including human biology; and sociocultural). In addition, ceramic ethnoarchaeology,which involves the direct observation and study by archaeologists of variability in ceramicproduction, distribution and use among extant societies, has a potentially valuable contributionto make (Longacre 1991).

From its first volume onwards, the journal

Archaeometry

has contained papers reporting onpottery provenance studies based on the determination of chemical compositions (Emeleus1958). Technological studies involving the firing of replicate Roman pottery kilns (Mayes1961) and the determination of the pottery firing temperatures by means of thermal expansionmeasurements (Roberts 1963) followed shortly. Further technological themes included thestudy of surface coatings on earthenware (Maggetti

et al.

1981); the production of glazedwares, including stonepaste bodies (Allan

et al.

1973) and porcelains (Tite

et al.

1984), as wellas earthenwares; and more recently, in the context of technological choice, mechanical andthermal properties (Kilikoglou

et al.

1998). Finally, in the context of use, papers on organicresidues in pottery (e.g., Charters

et al.

1993) have been published.The emphasis of

Archaeometry

has always tended to be on the publication of papersdescribing new scientific techniques or new applications that involve the acquisition of quan-titative, rather than qualitative, data. Thus, the papers on pottery provenance have more ofteninvolved the determination of chemical composition rather than thin-section petrography.Similarly, those on production technology have tended to involve the determination of firingtemperatures rather than the investigation of forming methods, and those on use, the analysisof organic residues rather than the study of surface wear.

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

The history of ceramics begins with the production of earthenware vessels at around 10 000

bc

in Japan and around 6000

bc

in the Near East. With the introduction of wheel throwing inthe Near East in the fourth millennium

bc

, the majority of the techniques (i.e., refiningand tempering clays, the full range of forming methods, slip and painted decoration, kilnfiring with controlled temperatures and atmospheres) required for the production of unglazedearthenware were known. Subsequent technological innovations included the production ofglazed earthenware in the Near East, glazed stoneware and then porcelain in China and Europe,and stonepaste bodies in the Islamic world.

Earthenwares

The starting point for the technological study of earthenwares is the investigation of theselection and processing of the raw materials used in their production. Both non-calcareousand calcareous low-refractory clays, defined as containing less than about 5% and greaterthan about 10% lime (CaO), respectively, were used. In order to ensure that the clay wassufficiently plastic for forming but that its drying shrinkage was not so great as to result incracking, the as-received clays were frequently either refined to remove excessive quantitiesof non-plastic inclusions or had temper added to them. Typical sources of temper includedsand, grog (i.e., crushed sherd), organic material (e.g., chaff), crushed flint, shell or limestone.

218

M. S. Tite


Archaeometry

50

, 2 (2008) 216–231

Forming methods

The primary techniques for forming pottery vessels include modelling froma lump of clay by pinching, drawing or beating using a paddle and anvil; pressing or pounding intoa mould; building up from coils or slabs; and throwing on a wheel. With training and practice,it is often possible to infer the method of forming used from visual examination of surface markings,cracks and joins, pore and temper distribution and orientation, and variations in wall thickness.However, as first shown by Rye (1977), further information on the methods used can beobtained by investigating void and inclusion orientation using radiography. Radiography canalso provide information on the way in which handles, spouts and rims were attached.

Surface treatments

The surface treatments of pottery vessels, which serve both as decorationand as a means of reducing their permeability to liquids, include burnishing and the applicationof mineral pigments, a slip or a glaze. The introduction of scanning electron microscopy (SEM)with attached analytical facilities to the examination of ancient ceramics during the 1970sprovided a powerful technique for the investigation of these surface treatments. Thus, bythe SEM examination of a polished section through the surface and body of a pottery sherd,burnishing and the application of a slip, both of which can produce a high-gloss surface finish,can be readily distinguished from each other (Middleton 1987).

In the context of surface treatments, a series of papers on the examination of the high-glosssurface finishes on Greek Attic black- and red-figured ware, Campanian black coated ware andRoman

terra sigillata

pottery has been published in

Archaeometry

(Tite

et al.

1982; Maniatis

et al.

1993; Gliozzo

et al.

2004). Using a combination of SEM, electron microprobe analysisand X-ray diffraction (XRD), it was confirmed that a three-stage, oxidizing–reducing–oxidiz-ing firing cycle was used in the production of both the Greek Attic and Campanian wares. Inboth cases, the coating was produced by the application of a fine-textured, non-calcareous clayslip, containing up to about 15% iron oxide, to a coarser-textured clay body. After firing to thereducing stage, the black coating consisted of fine particles of hercynite and magnetite in animpermeable, well-vitrified matrix, whereas the body remained porous. Therefore, during thefinal oxidizing stage of the firing, the impermeable coating remained black, whereas theporous body was re-oxidized to a red colour. The high-gloss red coating on Roman

terra sig-illata

was also produced by the application of a fine-textured, non-calcareous slip with highiron oxide content. However, in this case, a single-stage firing, with oxidizing conditionsmaintained throughout, was used, and the red coating consisted of fine particles of hematite ina partially vitrified matrix.

Glaze types

The first glazed clay objects were produced in Mesopotamia at around 1500

bc

;that is, at about the same time as glass objects began to be produced in significant quantities.Hedges and Moorey (1975) and Hedges (1976) published the results of the analysis, using acombination of optical emission spectroscopy (OES) and X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF),of a comprehensive range of glazed pottery from Mesopotamia spanning the period from about1300

bc

to

ad

550. These results showed that the glazes were of the alkali–lime–silica type,with soda contents greater than potash contents, and were, therefore, similar in compositionto contemporary glass. Furthermore, there were no significant changes in glaze compositionduring this more or less 2000-year period. Paynter and Tite (2001), by analysis of the glazesin cross-section in an analytical SEM, subsequently confirmed that Mesopotamian glazes andglasses were very similar in composition. They, therefore, suggested that glass productionprovided the technology required to produce an alkali–lime–silica frit, which was then groundto a powder and applied to the clay body to produce a glaze.


219


Archaeometry

50

, 2 (2008) 216–231

The next stage in the development of glaze technology was the appearance in Anatoliaof transparent high-lead glazes, containing 45–60% lead oxide, sometime during the firstcentury

bc

. From there, lead glazes spread throughout the Roman world, and then continuedto be used extensively in the Byzantine and Islamic worlds, in medieval Europe and upto the present day in both Europe and the Near East. Information on the productiontechnology of high-lead glazes, which involves the application of a suspension of either alead compound by itself or a mixture of a lead compound with silica, is provided byDe Benedetto

et al.

(2004) for the Roman period, and by Waksman

et al.

(2007) for theByzantine period. As discussed in a review paper on the use of lead glazes in antiquity (Tite

et al.

1998), the principal advantages of high lead over alkali–lime glazes are easier prepara-tion and application of the glaze suspension due to the insolubility of lead oxide, thereduced risk of crazing due to the lower thermal expansion of a lead glaze and the greateroptical brilliance.

Subsequently, as outlined by Mason and Tite (1997), tin-opacified glazes were introducedinto Abbasid Iraq sometime during the eighth and ninth centuries

ad

, possibly inspired by thearrival of, and desire to imitate, Chinese whiteware imports. Tin-opacified glazes were thenproduced in Fatimid Egypt in the 10th–11th century

ad

, where the glazes used were of thelead–alkali type, containing 25–35% lead oxide and 5–10% alkali (soda plus potash). FromEgypt, the tin-opacification technology spread throughout the Islamic world, including toIslamic Spain, from where it reached Italy in the 13th century

ad

, resulting in the beginningsof Italian maiolica production.

Firing procedures

The estimation of the firing temperature used in the production of pottery,together with the relationship between firing atmosphere and colour, have been major themesin ceramic technological studies.

The wide range of methods used in determining the firing temperatures employed inantiquity all involve establishing a relationship between the firing temperature and changesin either the mineralogy or the microstructure of the pottery (Heimann and Franklin 1979).The mineralogical changes can be followed using, for example, XRD (Maggetti 1982) and,for the iron-bearing phases, Mössbauer spectroscopy (Wagner and Wagner 2004). The micro-structural changes, which involve the progressive sintering and vitrification of the clay matrixof the pottery, can be observed either directly by examination in section in a SEM (Maniatisand Tite 1981), or indirectly through changes in those properties that are dependent onmicrostructure. These latter include thermal expansion or shrinkage (i.e., dilatometry), whichwas one of the first methods to be developed and reported in

Archaeometry

(Roberts1963; Tite 1969). These techniques all provide a measure of heat input that is a combinationof firing temperature and time. Thus, the effect on mineralogy and microstructure of a firingtemperature of 900

°

C for 1 h is similar to that of a firing temperature of 950

°

C for a fewminutes.

Having obtained an estimate of the firing temperature, the next question is: What doesthis tell you about the method of firing? The two basic regimes for firing earthenware are anopen firing with no permanent structure, such as a bonfire, and firing in a closed and morepermanent structure, such as a kiln (Gosselain 1992). Open firings typically reach theirmaximum temperatures in 20–30 min, and this temperature is maintained only for a few minutes.In contrast, kiln firings, as a result of the much greater thermal mass and the separation of fuelfrom the pottery, typically take an hour or more to reach maximum temperature, and in the firingof earthenware, this temperature is typically maintained for some 30 min. Although the range of

220

M. S. Tite


Archaeometry

50

, 2 (2008) 216–231

temperatures reached in open and kiln firings (typically 600–950

°

C) tend to overlap, the heatinput for kilns will be greater due to the longer firing time and, therefore, the estimated firingtemperatures will tend to be higher.

A consequence of the very fast heating rates for open firings is that normally only coarse-textured pottery can be open fired; otherwise, steam resulting from loss of absorbed andchemically combined water cannot escape, and the vessel will crack. In contrast, because ofthe much slower heating rates, both fine-textured and coarse-textured pottery can be readilyfired in a kiln.

The firing atmosphere employed is normally apparent from the colour of the pottery. Thus,red or buff pottery indicates an oxidizing atmosphere, whereas black to grey pottery indicateseither a definite reducing atmosphere, or insufficient firing time for the organic material withinthe clay to have been burnt out. Mössbauer spectroscopy, which provides information onthe oxidation states of the iron in the pottery, can help in distinguishing between these twooptions for black to grey pottery. In addition, it can sometimes help to establish whethera firing was oxidizing throughout, or whether it was initially reducing and was then followedby an oxidizing stage (Wagner and Wagner 2004).

Stonewares and porcelains

As compared to earthenwares, stonewares—which, in the context of China, include green-wares, or celadons—are made from more refractory clays, are fired to significantly highertemperatures, and have more vitrified and harder bodies with lower porosity. Porcelains aresimilarly made from refractory clays, are fired to even higher temperatures and have vitrified,hard, low-porosity bodies. As compared to stoneware bodies, which tend to be grey to greenin colour, porcelain bodies are white and, because of greater vitrification, are sometimestranslucent.

Stonewares were first produced in China during the Shang dynasty (

c

. 1700–1027

bc

).Subsequently, Yue greenwares were produced during the Six Dynasties (

ad

265–589), withthe production of greenwares, or celadons, continuing until the Song dynasty (

ad

960–1279)and, in some regions, into the Ming dynasty (

ad

1368–1644). Porcelain production beganin north China during the sixth and seventh centuries

ad

, and in south China during the10th century

ad

.A major theme in the scientific study of Chinese stonewares and porcelains has been

identifying the different types of clays used in different parts of China (Guo Yanyi 1987).Wood (2000) has suggested that these differences reflect the plate tectonic history of China,and the original nature of the North China and South China continental blocks that collidedto form the Nanshan and Qinling mountain ranges. Thus, the stoneware and porcelain rawmaterials in north China are rich in true clay minerals and, therefore, are plastic for working andrefractory in firing. In contrast, southern raw materials tend to be rich in quartz and secondarypotassium mica. They are therefore less plastic and less refractory than the northern clays.

Among the extensive literature on the scientific examination of Chinese stonewares andporcelains are three papers published in

Archaeometry

(Tite

et al.

1984; Pollard and Hatcher1994; Yap and Younan Hua 1994) that indicate the nature of the information that can beobtained. Thus, Xing and Ding porcelains from north China are both made using a kaoliniticclay with a high alumina content. In contrast, porcelains produced at Jingdezhen in southChina during the Yuan dynasty (

ad

1279–1368) were based on the use of porcelain stone,which consists of a fine aggregate of quartz, muscovite (potash mica), albite (sodium feldspar)


221


Archaeometry

50

, 2 (2008) 216–231

and, sometimes, kaolinite. Initially, a kaolinized porcelain stone was used by itself but,subsequently, a porcelain stone containing a negligible amount of kaolinite was used, and tothis, kaolin was added as a separate component (Tite

et al.

1984).A further early study of Chinese porcelain was the analysis of the cobalt blue pigment

employed for the underglaze decoration on Ming dynasty blue-and-white ware (

ad

1368–1644)(Garner and Young 1956; Banks and Merrick 1967). The results indicated that cobalt low inmanganese was used before

ad

1425, whereas after that date cobalt containing significantamounts of manganese was used. Since cobalt ores occurring in China normally contain a highproportion of manganese, whereas those occurring in Iran are manganese free, it is suggestedthat, at around

ad

1425, there was a switch from the use of cobalt ore imported from Iran,to the use local ore.

European porcelains

From the 15th century

ad

onwards, Chinese porcelains were importedinto Europe in increasing amounts, and the potential profits to be gained from a Europeanporcelain industry were widely appreciated.

The first documented European porcelain was produced in Italy in about

ad

1575, underthe patronage of the Medici. Analyses of Medici porcelain bodies indicate that they wereproduced from a mixture of about 60% quartz, 25% white firing clay and 15% marzacotta,which is a sintered mixture of sand and alkali similar to that used in the production of Italianmaiolica glazes (Kingery and Vandiver 1984). Therefore, Medici porcelain differs significantlyfrom clay-based Chinese porcelain and, instead, bears some similarities to Islamic stonepaste bodies,discussed below. Production of Medici porcelain involved firing the bodies to about 1100

°

C,and because of the short firing range between maturing and melting, there was considerable lossof pieces, As a result, active production ceased after the death of the Grand Duke Francesco in

ad

1587, and a hundred years or so elapsed before there were any further attempts in Europeto produce porcelain.

The first successful, and sustained, European porcelain production was established atSt Cloud, near Paris, at the end of the 17th century

ad

. Like the Medici porcelain, this wassoft-paste porcelain, with the body being produced from a mixture of quartz, alkali and clay,plus, in this case, limestone. The firing temperature was again around 1100

°

C, but St Cloudporcelain was easier to produce than Medici porcelain, both in terms of plasticity duringforming and increased firing range (Kingery 1986). Soon after, in

ad

1708, the first successfulEuropean hard-paste porcelain was produced at Meissen, by a research team under the directionof Johann Friedrich Böttger. The bodies were produced using kaolin and calcined gypsumwith a firing temperature of about 1400

°

C (Kingery 1986). After Böttger’s death in

ad

1719,the gypsum was replaced by a few per cent of feldspar, which was added as a flux, with aconsequent reduction in firing temperature.

In England, a diverse range of porcelain types, both soft-paste and hard-paste, wereproduced during the second half of the 18th century

ad

(Tite and Bimson 1991). These includedglassy porcelain (early Chelsea and Longton Hall), which was similar in composition to thatproduced in France; soapstone porcelains (Worcester and Vauxhall), which employed the‘soapy rock’ (i.e., talc) from the Lizard peninsular; and bone-ash porcelain (Bow, Lowestoftand later Chelsea), which was characterized by the presence of calcium phosphate derivedfrom bone. The first hard-paste porcelain in England was produced at Bristol in

ad

1768, fromwhere production very soon moved to Plymouth. These hard-paste bodies were made froma mixture of quartz sand, China clay and China stone, both of which contain kaolinite andfeldspar.

222

M. S. Tite


Archaeometry

50

, 2 (2008) 216–231

Stonepaste bodies

A major technological innovation introduced by Islamic potters was the development ofstonepaste bodies in which quartz sand or crushed quartz pebbles is the major component(Allan

et al.

1973; Mason and Tite 1994). As described by Ab

u

’l Q

a

sim (Allen

et al.

1973) inthe early 14th century

ad

, stonepaste bodies typically consist of some 10 parts of quartz, onepart of a white firing clay and one part of glass frit. The clay gives plasticity to the quartzbody, thus facilitating forming, and together with the glass frit reacts with the quartz duringfiring to produce an interstitial glass that bonds together the quartz particles. The result isa hard white body, the precursor of which was ultimately faience, produced from the fourthmillennium

bc

onwards in the Near East and Egypt, from a mixture of quartz and alkali fluxbut with no added clay.

The production of true stonepaste bodies, comparable in composition to those described byAb

u’l Qasim, first occurred in Fatimid Egypt during the period ad 1025–75. Subsequently, thestonepaste technology was introduced into Syria and Iran during the late 11th–12th centuryad. As in the case of tin-opacified glazes, the introduction of stonepaste bodies was probablyagain inspired by a desire on the part of Islamic potters to imitate porcelains that were beingimported from south China from the beginning of the 11th century ad.

Subsequently, during the late 15th and early 16th centuries ad, Isnik ware was producedin Ottoman Turkey, in imitation of imported Chinese blue-and-white porcelain. Although acomparative latecomer, Isnik ware, with its high purity, its entirely colourless glaze, its veryfine-textured slip, which provided an excellent base for the underglaze decoration, and itshard, dense, white body, represented the technological and artistic peak of stonepaste ceramicproduction in the Islamic world (Tite 1989; Paynter et al. 2004).

Organization of production

Having reconstructed the various aspects of pottery production, the next question that onemust try to answer is: How was the pottery production organized and what was the extent ofthe associated craft specialization? Various typologies for the modes of pottery productionhave been proposed, of which that by Peacock (1982), for Roman pottery, is typical and hasbeen much cited. Peacock defined a sequence involving increasing specialization and size ofwork unit that ranges from household production and household industry, through individualand nucleated workshops, to manufactory and factory.

Except when direct evidence comes from the excavation of a pottery workshop, one has toinfer the mode of production from the surviving pottery itself. Factors that need to be consideredin this latter situation include the degree of standardization, the labour requirements and levelof craft skill, the level of technology and investment in permanent facilities and equipment,and the pattern of distribution.

Andrews (1997) has reconstructed the production technology employed for three types oflate Iron Age pottery from the Auvergne region in France and then, through consideration ofthe raw materials, labour requirements and level of technology, he has attempted to infer themode of production. The most sophisticated of the three types was ‘painted’ pottery, decoratedwith red, cream, white, grey and black pigments or slips. Its production required a wide rangeof raw materials, a complex sequence of procedures for processing, forming and decorating,together with the associated investment in equipment (e.g., a wheel and kiln). He thereforeargued that its mode of production was a nucleated workshop in which a team of specialist

Ceramic production, provenance and use—a review 223

© University of Oxford, 2008, Archaeometry 50, 2 (2008) 216–231

artisans was employed. In contrast, the production of the black burnished ware required onlya single clay for both body and slip, with a wheel for forming as the principal investment inequipment. Because of the use of a wheel, production in an individual workshop, rather thanhousehold production, was proposed. Finally, the white-slipped flagons exhibit evidence for‘assembly line’ production, suggesting production in a manufactory.

Technological choice

In order to understand the reasons for the technological choices (i.e., choice of clay andtemper, forming method, surface treatment and firing procedure) made in pottery production,it is essential to appreciate that technology is embedded in the overall situational context(Sillar and Tite 2000).

Regarding direct influences on technological choice, we start by considering the morematerial influences, such as the natural environment, technological knowledge and the economicsystem. These influence technological choice, first, via the availability of raw materials, tools,energy sources and techniques and, second, via the properties and performance characteristicsthat they possess in procuring, processing, forming, surface treatment and firing. For example,the plasticity, and the drying and shrinkage rates, of available clays greatly influence thechoice of processing techniques. Very plastic clay prone to substantial shrinkage may requirethe addition of temper, whereas less plastic clay may need to be refined or have wet dungadded to improve its plasticity. However, these choices are co-dependent on the choice offorming and firing methods. Potters forming their vessels on the wheel usually prefer fineplastic pastes, a coarse fabric being both irritating to the potter’s hands and less responsiveto the forming technique. But, in addition to drying more slowly and shrinking more, finerfabrics tend to be less tolerant of sudden changes in the firing temperature and benefit fromthe steadier (controlled) firing that a kiln can offer. This is one of the reasons why there is afrequent (but not universal) relationship between the use of the wheel in pottery forming andthe use of kilns to fire the pottery.

In addition to the material influence, cultural influences must be taken into account,since the two spheres are so thoroughly interdependent that it is impossible to consider onewithout the other. Thus, the availability of raw materials is dependent on the local environmentand the technical ability of the potter to collect and process them, but it also depends onthe potter’s perception of the clay as a suitable material for pottery making and the politicsof who controls the resource. Similarly, choice of both temper and forming method mayhave some cultural significance, or may express some aspect of group identity or socialstatus. For example, Jones (2000) discusses how the choice of clay and temper in the Orkneysduring the Neolithic period could have had ancestral and ideological significance. Similarly, inethnoarchaeological studies in southern Cameroon, close links have been established betweenthe methods of forming used by the potters and their ethnolinguistic groupings (Gosselainand Livingstone-Smith 1995).

Regarding indirect influences on technological choice, the performance characteristicsrequired by the pottery when in use are of primary importance. For pottery vessels used fortransport and storage, the necessary performance characteristics are the ability of the vessels toretain their contents and to survive impact without cracking. Therefore, the relevant physicalproperties are strength and toughness. On the basis of strength and toughness measurementson calcareous clay test bars, fired to 950°C, Kilikoglou et al. (1998) established that the strengthof the test bars decreased progressively with increasing content of quartz temper, and that, for

224 M. S. Tite


a particular quartz content, strength also decreased with increasing size of the quartz particles.The reason proposed for the decrease in strength was the increased probability of crackinitiation due to the network of microcracks resulting from the differential shrinkage/expansion of the clay and quartz inclusions during drying and firing. Conversely, fracturetoughness increased significantly when the volume fraction of quartz temper was increasedfrom 10% to 20%. In this case, the microcrack network results in an increase in the dissipation ofenergy through crack deflection and bifurcation and, therefore, a decrease in the probability ofcrack propagation. However, there is no evidence that the opposing requirements for maximumstrength and toughness were either a problem in producing effective transport and storagevessels, or a significant factor in influencing technological choice (Tite et al. 2001, 318).

For the storage of water in regions where the climate is hot, the vessel walls additionallyneed to be permeable in order to achieve effective evaporative cooling. Therefore, the bodiesneed to be coarse tempered, and the surfaces unsealed. Conversely, for cooking pots, low per-meability through the vessel walls is essential; otherwise, heat is wasted in evaporation ofwater from the surface. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological accounts indicate that pottersachieved this low permeability by the application of a resin to the interior surface, or by pro-gressively sealing the surface with food residues during use (Schiffer 1990).

A further important performance characteristic of cooking pots is their ability to surviverapid changes in temperature without cracking. Steponaitis (1984) showed that, in the regionaround Moundville, Alabama, during the period from 1000 bc to ad 1500, the temper typeused in cooking pots changed sequentially from plant fibre to coarse quartz sand, then to finequartz sand, then to grog and, finally, to coarse shell during the Mississipian period. He thenargued that coarsely ground shell provides the most appropriate temper for cooking pots, andthat the use of shell temper can be seen as the final stage in a technological developmentaimed at achieving the ‘ideal’ cooking pot. The first advantage of shell temper was that theplaty shell particles were more effective at stopping crack propagation than rounded or angularquartz sand or grog particles, and thus resulted in a higher thermal shock resistance. Thesecond advantage was that because the thermal expansion of shell temper was significantlylower than that of quartz, the bulk thermal expansion for a shell-tempered body was lowerthan that of a quartz-tempered body and, therefore, the stresses driving crack initiation duringthermal shock were less.

Tite et al. (2001), in a critical survey of published data, have argued that thermal shockresistance has played a definite role in the technological choices made in the production ofcooking pots. Thus, in order to maximize the energy dissipation during crack propagation andminimize the risk of catastrophic failure, cooking pots routinely contain high concentrationsof temper and were normally fired at comparatively low temperatures. However, the extentto which shell or limestone temper was deliberately chosen, specifically because of eitherthe resulting reduced bulk thermal expansion of the body or, for shell temper, the increasedeffectiveness in stopping crack propagation, is less clear.

In summary, it is apparent that there are many alternative clays, tempers and firing temper-atures that can be used in production such that the resulting pottery adequately satisfies thestrength, toughness, thermal shock resistance and permeability requirements in use. Thus, it isgenerally inappropriate to view ancient potters as struggling to cope with the various negativeeffects of their environment and, thus, needing to undertake a series of systematic experimentsto establish the technological choices appropriate to achieving the performance characteristicsrequired in use. Instead, the technological choices made will depend on the overall environ-mental, technological, economic, social, political and ideological context of production.



PROVENANCE STUDIES

In its first volume, following on from the work of Sayre and Dodson (1957), Archaeometrycontained a paper on the provenance study of pottery by means of minor and trace elementanalysis using neutron activation analysis (NAA) (Emeleus 1958). Subsequently, reports onpottery provenance studies have continued to be a significant component of most volumes ofArchaeometry. Thin-section petrography is less well represented in Archaeometry, althoughsome important methodological papers (e.g., Whitbread 1986) have been published.

Chemical analysis

Initially, OES, NAA and XRF were the primary techniques used, with the last two continuingin use until the present day. OES was first superseded by atomic absorption spectrometry(AAS) (Hughes et al. 1976), and more recently by inductively coupled plasma spectrometrywith either OES (ICP–OES) (Hatcher et al. 1995) or mass spectrometry (ICP–MS). The latter(ICP–MS) provides a sensitivity and range of elements analysed that competes with NAA.However, NAA retains significant advantages in terms of easy inter-laboratory comparisonsand rapid sample preparation (Speakman and Glascock 2007). Thus, NAA uses a powder sample,whereas ICP–MS requires full acid dissolution of silicate-based pottery. Even so, because of thereduced availability of nuclear reactors required to activate samples, ICP–MS is now tendingreplace NAA, and the future of NAA is becoming uncertain.

Chemical analysis for major, minor and trace elements provides a compositional ‘finger-print’ for grouping together pottery made from the same raw materials and for distinguishingbetween groups of pottery made from different raw materials. Because of the variability inchemical compositions within an individual clay or temper source and the possible similarity incomposition of different sources, provenance studies based on compositional ‘finger-printing’ involve the analysis of a large number of samples, which are then grouped togetherusing statistical methods. Principal components analysis and cluster analysis provide the twoprimary statistical techniques for defining different compositional groups (Baxter 1994).In addition, Beier and Mommsen (1994) have developed statistical methods to bring togetherinto a single group samples whose chemical compositions differ only because of the dilutioneffects of the presence of different amounts of chemically pure temper inclusions, such asquartz.

In attempting to match these compositional pottery groups to possible clay sources, in orderto establish whether they were locally produced or imported, one needs to consider both theprior treatment of the clay and the potential changes in composition during burial. Thus, inpreparing the clay, the potters could refine it to remove non-plastic inclusions, they couldadd further non-plastic inclusions as temper or they could mix together more than one clay.In terms of changes in composition during burial, Freeth (1967) showed that major/minorelements such as sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium can be readily leached from ordeposited within pottery during burial in a range of environmental conditions. More recently,there have been several papers published in Archaeometry that have both confirmed andextended these results to include alteration of all alkali metal contents (i.e., Na, K, Rb and Cs).Buxeda i Garrigós et al. (2002) further established that, due to the formation of sodic zeolite,analcime, there is less leaching of Na for high-fired pottery, whereas, due to the increase in theamount of glass phase, there is more leaching of K and Rb. Although Bishop et al. (1982, 296)argued that transition and rare earth elements, which are of particular importance in defining

226 M. S. Tite


compositional groups, tend to be immobile, Schwedt et al. (2004) have recently shown thatsome alteration in the rare earth element content can occur during burial.

Thin-section petrography

Although, in the context of papers published in Archaeometry, pottery provenance studiesbased on chemical analysis predominate over those based on thin-section petrography, this lattertechnique has played a crucial role.

First, when the non-plastic inclusions derive from distinctive igneous and metamorphicrocks, thin-section petrography of coarse-textured pottery provides a predictive method foridentifying the source of the raw materials used in the production of pottery. Very occasion-ally, a particular ‘key’ inclusion allows one to identify the precise source of the raw materials.This was the situation for a type of Neolithic pottery, known as Hembury ware, which is foundwithin an area in south-west England, some 300 km across and stretching from Cornwall toWiltshire. This pottery contains fragments of a metamorphized igneous rock known as gabbro,which, within the distribution zone of the pottery, is only found on the Lizard peninsula inCornwall (Peacock 1969; Harrad 2004). It is, however, extremely rare to be able to identifya clay or temper source on the basis of a particular ‘key’ inclusion. Instead, as undertakenfor the Tonto Basin in Arizona (Heidke and Miksa 2000), more complete petrographicdescriptions of the inclusions present in pottery under investigation, and their comparisonwith the petrography of sands collected in the potential source area, are normally essential.

Within a more homogeneous geological region, dominated by sedimentary rocks, it is muchmore difficult to suggest source areas for the non-plastic inclusions, since the quartz sand,limestone, flint and shell, which are typically present, are widely available. However, withknowledge of the local geology, the presence or absence of even these common inclusionsdoes help to establish whether or not local production was a possibility. Furthermore, thin-section petrography forms a crucial component of an integrated methodology for potteryprovenance studies, which is outlined below in the context of the study of Minoan andMycenaean pottery. This project has been chosen for more detailed discussion because itillustrates both the development in approach from the 1960s through to the present day andthe depth of information that can be obtained through long-term commitment to the study ofpottery from a particular geographical region.

Minoan and Mycenaean pottery

The chemical analysis, using OES, of Minoan and Mycenaean painted pottery, current in theAegean and beyond between about 1500 bc and 1200 bc, was one of the earliest large-scalepottery provenance studies to be undertaken. More than 1000 sherds from over 50 sites onCrete, the Greek mainland and throughout the eastern Mediterranean were analysed, and onthe basis of the pattern of concentrations for nine elements, it was possible to characterizesome 18 compositional groups (Catling et al. 1963; Catling and Millett 1965a). By com-parison of the concentration patterns for pottery from the two major production centres(i.e., Minoan Knossos and Mycenaean Peloponnese) with that from other sites, it was possibleto distinguish locally produced pottery from that imported from these two centres. The resultsshowed that, during the period from 1400 bc to 1200 bc, the Mycenaeans were the dominantmercantile power in the eastern Mediterranean, exporting pottery to Melos, Chios, Cyprus,Rhodes, Syria (Tell Atchana) and Egypt (Amarna). However, as discussed further below,



chemical analysis was less successful in establishing the origin of stirrup jars, which are foundat various locations on Crete and the Greek mainland, including a large number at Thebes, andwhich frequently bear inscriptions in linear B script (Catling and Millett 1965b; Catling et al.1980).

Chemical analysis, with a change from the use of OES to AAS, continued to dominateMinoan and Mycenaean pottery studies through into the 1980s (Jones 1986), but then, in themid-1980s, Ian Whitbread and Peter Day started to supplement chemical analysis with thin-section petrography. Subsequently, a fully integrated methodology involving provenance, tech-nological and use studies was introduced (e.g., Day et al. 1997, 1999). The first step in suchan approach is to divide the pottery assemblage under investigation according to chronology,shape, size and surface decoration. These groups are then examined with a hand lens or low-power binocular microscope, in order to assess, and further subdivide, on the basis of surfacemarkings, surface treatment and types of non-plastic inclusions/temper. Thin-section petrography,chemical analysis and firing temperature determinations, from the microstructures seen in SEM,were then undertaken on selected sherds. Geological surveys of the area for clay and tempersources, together with ethnoarchaeological studies of present-day traditional potters were alsoundertaken.

One outcome of the use of thin-section petrography was the resolution of the uncertaintiesregarding the origin of stirrup jars found at Thebes (Day and Haskell 1995). Petrographyconfirmed that, as predicted by chemical analysis, a high proportion were imported fromwestern Crete, and were most probably the product of one workshop, or a group of nucleatedworkshops. Petrography also established that, of the remainder, some were produced inThebes itself and some were imported from two separate locations in central Crete, whereas,on the basis of chemical compositions alone, the origin of these jars was unresolved, Thebesitself, the Argolid or central Crete each being possible.

Second, this integrated approach helped in resolving questions relating to the movementsof potters and the transmission of technology. Thus, it was established that the productiontechnology of the ‘Minoan’-style pottery of EMIIB–MMIA date found on the island of Kytheramatched the contemporary technology in use in areas of central Crete (Broodbank and Kiriatzi2007). Calcareous clays were used in both cases and the firing practices were similar, but theclay and temper used in the ‘Minoan’-style pottery found on Kythera matched those availableon the island. It was therefore argued that Cretan social groups settled on the island, bringingwith them their own potters. Similarly, ‘Mycenaean’-style pottery found on the Plain of Sybarisin southern Italy used calcareous clays, and was wheel thrown and kiln fired to consistentlyhigh temperatures, but the clays had chemical signatures consistent with local production(Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2003). Again, therefore, it seems probable that potters working in theMycenaean tradition were permanently based in southern Italy. In contrast, in central Macedonia,calcareous clays were not always used in the production of the ‘Mycenaean’-style pottery, andthe firing temperatures were much more variable. Thus, the Mycenaean influence tended tobe restricted more to style than to technology, suggesting production by local potters.

Further, the integrated approach has also been used to reassess the evidence for specializa-tion of pottery production in Crete during the Prepalatial period (Day et al. 1997). On thebasis of the use of specific raw materials in the production of different types of pottery (e.g.,cooking vessels, dark-on-white painted wares and storage jars), the large-scale and wide-rangingdistribution over the island of pottery from identified production centres, and the technologicalskill employed in firing different types of pottery, it was concluded that pottery, as a specializedcraft activity, was already well established by the Prepalatial period. This contrasted with the

228 M. S. Tite


previously held view that craft specialization in pottery production did not start in Crete untilthe advent of palaces. Subsequently, Tomkins and Day (2001) showed that Early Neolithicpottery found at Knossos was produced at a number of locations up to distances of about 70 kmfrom Knossos, which suggests production by specialists, rather than household production,even at this early date.

USE OF POTTERY VESSELS

The uses to which pottery vessels were put range from utilitarian—for example, for storage, foodpreparation (e.g., soaking, grinding), cooking (e.g., boiling, roasting), serving and individualeating or drinking—through to sociopolitical and ritual. The latter non-utilitarian functionsinclude presentation as a gift, and use as a prestige object to display success or power.

The first step in investigating the use to which particular pottery vessels were put is acareful assessment of the archaeological contexts (i.e., houses, graves, religious contextssuch as temples and altars) in which the vessels were found. One then needs to consider thedimensions and shape of vessels, which provide an indication of their capacity, stability andthe ease of manipulation and removal of contents in use. Similarly, the nature of the surfacedecoration provides an indication of their potential role in sociopolitical and ritual contexts.

Finally, one investigates the surface traces resulting from vessel usage such as surface wear,soot deposits on the exterior of the pottery, and organic residues either adhering to the interiorsurface or absorbed into the porous body of the pottery. Surface wear or attrition, in the formof scratches, pits and chips resulting from contact with a hearth, carrying, stirring, serving andwashing, can provide evidence for the ways in which pottery was used (Skibo 1992). Perhapsmore important is the presence of a carbon or soot deposit, which is the primary criterion foridentifying a cooking pot.

The analysis of the organic residues resulting from the original food contents of potteryvessels have been extensively studied during the past two decades (Heron and Evershed 1993).Although this aspect of pottery studies is more relevant to the investigation of past human diet,there is one study that has specifically provided information on how the cooking pots were actuallyused. Charters et al. (1993) investigated the distribution of the bulk quantities of lipids over theinterior, from rim to base, of different types of reconstructed late Saxon vessels from England.They showed that shallow bowls have accumulated only low concentrations of lipids, suggest-ing that they were not used for cooking. In contrast, jars have high concentrations of lipidssurviving on the upper inner surfaces, whereas ‘top hat’ vessels have lipids distributed fairlyuniformly over the inner surfaces. On the basis of these distributions, it was suggested that jarswere used for boiling food, with lipids rising to the surface of the liquid, and that ‘top-hat’ vesselswere used for roasting meat, fat from the meat coating the entire inner surface of the vessel.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

A primary requirement for the future is for an increasing proportion of ceramic studies toadopt the holistic approach, illustrated above for Minoan and Mycenaean pottery, in whichproduction, from the procurement and processing of the raw materials through to firing thepottery, is considered together with provenance and use. In addition to the physical examinationof the ceramics, such studies will need to include fieldwork to collect samples of potential rawmaterials. Also crucial to the success of such studies is the examination, at least in visually inhand specimen, of complete pottery assemblages from archaeological sites under investigation.



A further important development for the future will be to extend the comparison of theraw materials used in ceramic production with those used in the production of other types ofartefact, and thus build up a picture of the interrelationship and transfer between differenttechnologies. Possible topics in this context include comparison of the alkali fluxes (i.e.,plant ash and natron) used in pottery glazes, glass, faience and Egyptian blue; the source ofthe cobalt pigment used in ceramics, glass, faience and paintings; and the source of the leadused in lead glazes (Wolf et al. 2003), leaded bronzes and lead metal artefacts.

In addition, ceramic production, provenance and use studies will need to make full use ofnew developments in instrumentation. Of particular importance will be new techniques thatcan reduce the detection limits for a wide range of elements, achieve a high throughput ofanalyses and minimize artefact damage. In this context, the high X-ray flux generated bya synchrotron radiation source will facilitate both XRF with low detection limits and highsample throughput, and high-resolution XRD, again with high sample throughput. Althoughtheir inhomogeneity, resulting from the presence of non-plastic inclusions, will limit its use forthe analysis of ceramic bodies, laser ablation ICP–MS for both elemental and isotopic analysisalso has the potential to make a valuable contribution in the analysis of glazes and colorants.

REFERENCES

Allan, J. W., Llewellyn, L. R., and Schweizer, F., 1973, The history of so-called Egyptian faience in Islamic Persia:investigations into Abu’l-Qasim’s treatise, Archaeometry, 15, 165–73.

Andrews, K., 1997, From ceramic finishes to modes of production: Iron Age finewares from central France, in Not somuch a pot, more a way of life (eds. C. G. Cumberpatch and P. W. Blinkhorn), 57–75, Oxbow Monograph No. 83,Oxford.

Banks, M. S., and Merrick, J. M., 1967, Further analysis of Chinese blue and white, Archaeometry, 10, 101–3.Baxter, M. J., 1994, Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Beier, T., and Mommsen, H., 1994, Modified Mahalanobis filters for grouping pottery by chemical composition,

Archaeometry, 36, 287–306.Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., and Holley, G. R., 1982, Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective,

in Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol. 5 (ed. M. B. Schiffer), 275–330, Academic Press, New York.Broodbank, C., and Kiriatzi, E., 2007, The first ‘Minoans’ of Kythera revisited: technology, demography, and land-

scape in the Prepalatial Aegean, American Journal of Archaeology, 111, 241–74.Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Mommsen, H., and Tsolakidou, A., 2002, Alteration of Na, K and Rb concentrations in

Mycenaean pottery and a proposed explanation using X-ray diffraction, Archaeometry, 44, 187–98.Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Jones, R. E., Kilikoglou, V., Levi, S. T., Maniatis, Y., Mitchell, J., Vagnetti, L., Wardle, K. A.,

and Andreou, S., 2003, Technology transfer at the periphery of the Mycenaean world: the cases of Mycenaeanpottery found in central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy), Archaeometry, 45, 263–84.

Catling, H. W., and Millett, A., 1965a, A study in the compositional patterns of Mycenaean pictorial pottery fromCyprus, The Annual of the British School at Athens, 60, 212–24.

Catling, H. W., and Millett, A., 1965b, A study of inscribed stirrup jars from Thebes, Archaeometry, 8, 3–85.Catling, H. W., Richards, E. E., and Blin-Stoyle, A. E., 1963, Correlations between composition and provenance of

Mycenaean and Minoan pottery, The Annual of the British School at Athens, 58, 94–115.Catling, H. W., Cherry, J. F., Jones, R. E., and Killen, J. T., 1980, The inscribed stirrup jars and West Crete, The

Annual of the British School at Athens, 75, 49–113.Charters, S., Evershed, R. P., Goad, L. J., Leyden, A., Blinkhorn, P. W., and Denham, V., 1993, Quantification and

distribution of lipid in archaeological ceramics: implications for sampling potsherds for organic residue analysisand the classification of vessel use, Archaeometry, 35, 211–23.

Day, P. M., and Haskell, H., 1995, Transport stirrup jars Thebes as evidence of trade in Late Bronze Age Greece, inTrade and production in premonetary Greece: aspects of trade (eds. C. Gillis, C. Risberg and S. Sjökerg), 87–109,Paul Aström, Jonsered.

Day, P. M., Wilson, D. E., and Kiriatzi, E., 1997, Reassessing specialisation in Prepalatial Cretan ceramic production,Aegaeum, 16, 275–90.

230 M. S. Tite


Day, P. M., Kiriatzi, E., Tsolakidou, A., and Kilikoglou, V., 1999, Group therapy in Crete: a comparison betweenanalyses by NAA and thin section petrography of Early Minoan pottery, Journal of Archaeological Science, 26,1025–36.

De Benedetto, G. E., Acquafredda, P., Masieri, M., Quarta, G., Sabbatini, L., Zambonin, P. G., Tite, M., and Walton,M., 2004, Investigation of Roman lead glaze from Canosa: results of chemical analysis, Archaeometry, 46, 615–24.

Emeleus, V. M., 1958, Technique of neutron activation analysis as applied to trace element analysis in pottery andcoins, Archaeometry, 1, 6–15.

Freeth, S. J., 1967, A chemical study of some Bronze Age pottery and sherds, Archaeometry, 10, 104–19.Garner, H., and Young, S., 1956, An analysis of Chinese blue and white, Oriental Art, 2, 43–51.Gliozzo, E., Kirkman, I. W., Pantos, E., and Memmi Turbani, I., 2004, Black gloss pottery: production sites and

technology in northern Etruria, Part II: gloss technology, Archaeometry, 46, 227–46.Gosselain, O. P., 1992, The bonfire of enquiries—pottery firing temperature in archaeology: what for? Journal of

Archaeological Science, 19, 243–59.Gosselain, O. P., and Livingstone Smith, A., 1995, The ceramics and society project: an ethnographic and experimental

approach to technological choices, in The Aim of laboratory analyses of ceramics in archaeology (eds. A. Lindahland O. Stilborg), 147–60, Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien Konferenser 34, Stockholm.

Guo Yanyi, 1987, Raw materials for making porcelain and the characteristics of porcelain wares in north and southChina in ancient times, Archaeometry, 29, 3–19.

Harrad, L., 2004, Gabbroic clay sources in Cornwall: a petrographic study of prehistoric pottery and clay samples,Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23, 271–86.

Hatcher, H., Tite, M. S., and Walsh, J. N., 1995, A comparison of inductively-coupled plasma emission spectrometryand atomic absorption spectrometry analysis on standard reference silicate materials and ceramics, Archaeometry,37, 83–94.

Hedges, R. E. M., 1976, Pre-Islamic glazes in Mesopotamia—Nippur, Archaeometry, 18, 209–13.Hedges, R. E. M., and Moorey, P. R. S., 1975, Pre-Islamic ceramic glazes at Kish and Nineveh in Iraq, Archaeometry,

17, 25–43.Heidke, J. M., and Miksa, E. J., 2000, Correspondence and discriminant analyses of sand temper compositions, Tonto

Basin, Arizona, Archaeometry, 42, 273–99.Heimann, R., and Franklin, U. M., 1979, Archaeo-thermometry: the assessment of firing temperatures of ancient

ceramics, Journal of the International Institute of Conservation—Canadian Group, 4, 23–45.Heron, C., and Evershed, R. P., 1993, The analysis of organic residues and the study of pottery use, in Archaeological

method and theory, vol. 5 (ed. M. B. Schiffer), 247–84, Academic Press, New York.Hughes, M. J., Cowell, M. R., and Craddock, P. T., 1976, Atomic absorption techniques in archaeology, Archaeometry,

18, 19–37.Jones, A., 2000, Life after death: monuments, material culture and social change in Neolithic Orkney, in Neolithic

Orkney in its European context (ed. A. Ritchie), 127–38, The MacDonald Institute, Cambridge.Jones, R. E., 1986, Greek and Cypriot pottery: a review of scientific studies, Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1,

Athens.Kilikoglou, V., Vekinis, G., Maniatis, Y., and Day, P. M., 1998, Mechanical performance of quartz-tempered ceramics.

Part 1: strength and toughness, Archaeometry, 40, 261–79.Kingery, W. D., 1986, The development of European porcelain, in Ceramics and civilization III: high technology

ceramics: past, present and future (ed. W. D. Kingery), 153–80, American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH.Kingery, W. D., and Vandiver, P. B., 1984, Medici porcelain, Faenza, 70, 441–53.Longacre, W. A., 1991, Ceramic ethnoarchaeology, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Maggetti, M., 1982, Phase analysis and its significance for technology and origin, in Archaeological ceramics (eds.

J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin), 121–33, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Maggetti, M., Galetti, G., Schwander, H., Picon, M., and Wessicken, R., 1981, Campanian pottery: the nature of the

black coating, Archaeometry, 23, 199–207.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.Maniatis, Y., Aloupi, E., and Stalios, A. D., 1993, New evidence for the nature of the Attic black gloss, Archaeometry,

35, 23–34.Mason, R. B., and Tite, M. S., 1994, The beginnings of Islamic stonepaste technology, Archaeometry, 36, 77–91.Mason, R. B., and Tite, M. S., 1997, The beginnings of the tin-opacification of pottery glazes, Archaeometry, 39, 41–

58.



Matson, F. R., 1965, Ceramic ecology: an approach to the study of the early cultures of the Near East, in Ceramicsand man (ed. F. R. Matson), 202–17, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 41, Aldine, Chicago.

Mayes, P., 1961, The firing of a pottery kiln of a Romano-British type at Boston, Lincs, Archaeometry, 4, 4–30.Middleton, A. P., 1987, Technological investigation of the coatings of some haematite-coated pottery from southern

England, Archaeometry, 29, 250–61.Paynter, S., and Tite, M. S., 2001, The evolution of glazing technologies in the ancient Near East and Egypt, in The

social context of technological change (ed. A. J. Shortland), 239–54, Oxbow, Oxford.Paynter, S., Okyar, F., Wolf, S., and Tite, M. S., 2004, The production technology of Iznik pottery—a reassessment,

Archaeometry, 46, 421–37.Peacock, D. P. S., 1969, Neolithic pottery production in Cornwall, Antiquity, 43, 145–9.Peacock, D. P. S., 1982, Pottery in the Roman world, Longman, London.Pollard, A. M., and Hatcher, H., 1994, The chemical analysis of oriental ceramic body compositions: part 1: wares

from north China, Archaeometry, 36, 41–62.Roberts, J. P., 1963, Determination of firing temperatures of ancient ceramics by measurement of thermal expansion,

Archaeometry, 6, 21–5.Rye, O. S., 1977, Pottery manufacturing techniques: X-ray studies, Archaeometry, 19, 205–11.Sayre, E. V., and Dodson, A. W., 1957, Neutron activation study of Mediterranean potsherds, American Journal of

Archaeology, 61, 35–41.Schiffer, M. B., 1990, The influence of surface treatment on heating effectiveness of ceramic vessels, Journal of

Archaeological Science, 17, 373–81.Schwedt, A., Mommsen, H., and Zacharias, N., 2004, Post-depositional elemental alterations in pottery: neutron

activation analyses of surface and core samples, Archaeometry, 46, 85–101.Shepard, A. O., 1956, Ceramics for the archaeologist, Carnegie Institution Publication 609, Washington, DC.Sillar, B., and Tite, M. S., 2000, The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for materials science approaches in archae-

ology, Archaeometry, 42, 2–20.Skibo, J. M., 1992, Pottery function: a use-alteration perspective, Plenum Press, New York.Speakman, R. J., and Glascock, M. D., 2007, Acknowledging fifty years of neutron activation analysis in archaeology,

Archaeometry, 49, 179–83.Steponaitis, V. P., 1984, Technological studies of prehistoric pottery from Alabama: physical properties and vessel

function, in The many dimensions of pottery (eds. S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard), 79–127, Universityof Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Tite, M. S., 1969, Determination of the firing temperature of ancient ceramics by measurement of thermal expansion:a reassessment, Archaeometry, 11, 131–43.

Tite, M. S., 1989, Iznik pottery: an investigation of the methods of production, Archaeometry, 31, 115–32.Tite, M. S., and Bimson, M., 1991, A technological study of English porcelains, Archaeometry, 33, 3–27.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., and Bimson, M., 1984, A technological study of Chinese porcelain of the Yuan dynasty,

Archaeometry, 26, 139–54.Tite, M. S., Kilikoglou, V., and Vekinis, G., 2001, Review article: strength, toughness and thermal shock resistance of

ancient ceramics, and their influence on technological choice, Archaeometry, 43, 301–24.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, 241–60.Tomkins, P., and Day, P. M., 2001, Production and exchange of the earliest ceramic vessels in the Aegean: a view

from Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete, Antiquity, 75, 259–60.Wagner, F. E., and Wagner, U., 2004, Mössbauer spectra of clays and ceramics, Hyperfine Interactions, 154, 35–82.Waksman, S. Y., Bouquillon, A., Cantin, N., and Katona, I., 2007, The first Byzantine ‘Glazed White Wares’ in the early

medieval technological context, in Archaeometric and archaeological approaches to ceramics (ed. S. Y. Waksman),129–135, BAR International Series 1691, Oxford.

Whitbread, I. K., 1986, The characterisation of argillaceous inclusions in ceramic thin sections, Archaeometry, 28, 79–88.Wolf, S., Stos, S., Mason, R., and Tite, M. S., 2003, Lead isotope analyses of Islamic pottery glazes from Fustat,

Egypt, Archaeometry, 45, 405–20.Wood, N., 2000, Plate tectonics and Chinese ceramics—new insights into the origins and distribution of China’s

ceramic raw materials, Taoci, 1, 15–24.Yap, C. T., and Younan Hua, 1994, A study of Chinese porcelain raw materials for Ding, Xing, Gongxian and Dehua

wares, Archaeometry, 36, 63–76.

Documents

Tite 2008 a Cerambic