Ceramic technology. How to reconstruct and describe pottery-forming practices

Abstract

The article discusses the various options for reconstructing pottery-forming techniques and for making reliable interpretations of forming practices based on archaeological evidence. It begins with a consideration of a classification of forming techniques that provides a framework with a suitable resolution within which observed phenomena can be understood. Such a classification should reflect meaningful distinctions among the forming practices: (a) in terms of the potter’s behaviour and also (b) in terms of the visibility of the effects in the archaeological record. The description of the forming practice reflects the fact that the forming method is a complex series of actions and often comprises more than one technique. The individual techniques are combined in two ways: (a) sequential, to create a single part, and (b) segmental, to create different parts. The relevant diagnostic attributes of pottery-forming practices are related to the structure and shape/size of the ceramics. They can be divided into five categories: (a) surface morphology and topography, (b) variation in the wall thickness, (c) remnants of segmental joints, (d) specific fractures, and (e) alignment and orientation of the components of the ceramic body. Two sources of misinterpretation of the diagnostic features define two types of ambiguous diagnostic features: (a) features that are correlated with a particular technique but are not necessarily a consequence of this technique and (b) features that are a necessary consequence of a particular technique but could also be a consequence of another technique. The analysis is intended to sufficiently narrow the range of possible alternatives by excluding those alternatives that cannot be the cause of the observed phenomena. Many features are randomly preserved on a small proportion of the pottery fragments, and thus, it is difficult to draw statistical inferences based on the evidence of these features. One diagnostic feature is prominent in this respect—the orientation of the components of the ceramic body. This can be observed and measured for every ceramic fragment. The analytical methods comprise direct visual observation and various imaging methods. Direct visual observation is carried out at three scales: macro, meso, and micro. Different scales of observation bring different types of information. Their use in combination is optimum for a reliable analysis. Various imaging methods can display what is difficult or even impossible to observe directly or what is observable at the cost of a destructive impact on the studied object. The image data can represent either the surfaces of the investigated objects or their internal structure, and 2D or 3D techniques are used in both cases. The observations related to pottery forming are most commonly classified or described in a given set of qualitative categories. The advantage of the qualitative approach is that the complex phenomena can be captured using appropriately defined categories. The quantitative approach relies on a measurable parameter or set of parameters to characterize the diagnostic features. The exact measurements have the potential to refine the analysis based on descriptive categories and create a stronger basis for scientific argumentation. However, in many cases, quantification reduces the complexity of the diagnostic features to just several aspects that can be measured. Therefore, it is important to combine the strengths of both of these approaches.