Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research 9781407307480, 9781407337425

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAINE OPERATOIRE AND CERAMICS: CLASSIFICATIONS AND TYPOLOGY, ARCHAEOMETRY, EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY, AND ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY
UTILITARIAN AND RITUAL POTTERY OF THE GOROKHOVO CULTURE: CONTINUITY AND CHANGES IN AN ANCIENT SOCIETY
TYPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF IMPRESSED CERAMIC WITHIN THE STRATIGRAFICAL SEQUENCE OF THE SEMICIRCULAR CONCENTRIC DITCHES IN THE NEOLITHIC VILLAGE OF RENDINA (POTENZA-ITALY)
CHARACTERISING SURVIVING RESIDUES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CERAMICS: A BIOMOLECULAR APPROACH
EXPLORING THE CHAINE OPERATOIRE OF CERAMICS THROUGH X-RADIOGRAPHY
THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE POTTER’S WHEEL IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
FROM RAW MATERIALS TO UTILISATION. CERAMICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE METALLURGICAL ACTIVITY AT VALENCINA DE LA CONCEPCIÓN (SEVILLE, SPAIN): TECHNOLOGICAL CHOICES AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
ANTHROPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES: FOUNDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
CHAINE OPERATOIRE, TECHNICAL GESTURES AND POTTERY PRODUCTION AT SOUTHERN ANDES DURING THE LATE PERIOD (c. AD 900 – AD 1450) (CATAMARCA, NORTHWESTERN ARGENTINA, ARGENTINA)
AN EXAMINATION OF EMIC POSSIBILITIES: EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND CYPRIOT CERAMIC TYPOLOGY
FROM CLAY TO SHERD: UNDERSTANDING THE MANUFACTURE, USE AND TAPHONOMY OF PREHISTORIC CERAMICS BY EXPERIMENT
EXPERIMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE POTTERY FIRING PROCESS OF LATE BRONZE AGE POTTERY FROM NORTH-EASTERN BOHEMIA
RITUAL CHAINS
MICROTRADITION AND AGENCY IN DOMESTIC POTTERY PRODUCTION: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
THE SWALLOW POTTERS: SEASONALLY MIGRATORY STYLES IN THE ANDES

Citation preview

BAR S2193 2011

Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research

SCARCELLA

Edited by

Simona Scarcella

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CERAMICS

B A R Scarcella 2193 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2193 2011

17/01/2011 14:38:25

Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research

Edited by

Simona Scarcella

BAR International Series 2193 2011

ISBN 9781407307480 paperback ISBN 9781407337425 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307480 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Simona Scarcella

1

Chaîne opératoire and ceramics: classifications and typology, archaeometry, experimental archaeology, and ethnoarchaeology Charles Kolb

5

Section I: Typology Utilitarian and ritual pottery of the Gorokhovo culture: continuity and changes in an ancient society S.Panteleeva

20

Typological features of impressed ceramic within the stratigraphical sequence of the semicircular concentric ditches in the Neolithic village of Rendina (Potenza, Italy) F. Occhiogrosso

30

Section II: Archaeometry Characterising surviving residues from archaeological ceramics: a biomolecular approach C. Spiteri, C. Heron, O. Craig

40

Exploring the chaîne opératoire of ceramics through X-radiography I. Berg

57

The life-history of the potter’s wheel in the Ancient Near East N. Laneri

64

From raw materials to utilisation. Ceramics associated with the metallurgical activity at Valencina De La Concepción (Seville, Spain): technological choices and social implication N. Inácio, F. Nocete, J.M. Nieto, M. R. Bayona, D.Abril

73

Anthropological interpretation of ceramic assemblages: foundations and implementations of technological analysis V. Roux

80

Section III: Experimental archaeology Chaîne opératoire, technical gestures and pottery production at Southern Andes during the Late Period (c. AD 900 – AD 1450) (Catamarca, Northwestern Argentina, Argentina) G. De La Fuente

89

An examination of emic possibilities: experimental archaeology and Cypriot ceramic typology C. Jeffra

103

From clay to sherd: understanding the manufacture, use and taphonomy of prehistoric ceramics by experiment D. Millson

117

Experimental reconstruction of the pottery firing process of Late Bronze Age pottery from North-Eastern Bohemia R. Thér, M. Gregor

128

Ritual chains D. Gheorghiu

143

i

Section IV: Ethnoarchaeology Microtraditions and agency in domestic pottery production: an ethnoarchaeological perspective M. Deal

147

The swallow potters: seasonally migratory styles in the Andes G. Ramon

160

ii

INTRODUCTION Simona Scarcella This publication originated during a session that I organized for the 15th European Archaeologist Conference, that was held in Riva del Garda (Trento - Italy) in September 2009, on the “The chaîne opératoire approach to ceramics studies”. It was focused on the concept of the chaîne opératoire as applied in contemporary ceramics studies. Particular attention was given to experimental and archaeometrical approaches that allow for a better understanding of the technological aspects of a culture. All of the contributions within the EAA session showed how the results of an experimental experience or of a set of archaeometrical analyses could lead to a deeper understanding of the link between ceramic process and cultural phenomena. These papers will not only address archaeometry experimental archaeology but also other aspects of the ceramic studies, with the aim of presenting an overview of the current state of archaeological ceramic studies. The various ways in which ceramics express social and cultural identity, have for a long time been the focus of archaeological inquiry. Nowadays, progress in archaeology has accomplished important developments both in terms of its theoretical perspectives and the new analytical tools applied to archaeology. In the next paragraph, I will establish a brief historical overview of the different approaches available to researchers interested in ceramic study. Given the brevity of this contribution, it is not fully representative of all the theories at work in the domain of archaeology, but it serves as an overture for ceramic studies. In addition, a more detailed report on the history of archaeological ceramic studies will be introduced by Charles C. Kolb in the next chapter. It is necessary here to provide a preliminary remark: I have used the term approach as a way to envisage the solution of a problem using specific theoretical reasoning. It is grounded on a series of postulates that form the paradigm, or model, of the approach. Inversely, methodology refers to its execution and refers to the practice of problem solving. Within every approach, a researcher can make use of different methodologies in order to accomplish his objective. former involves a set of classification parameters that do not necessarily correspond to the purpose of the producers and users of the studied objects. Further criticism of the classificatory approach questioned its objectivity, in consideration of what was defined by Anna O. Shepard (1956, 97-100) as the “pottery sense’. This concept expresses the strong possibility that the observation of an object, and its subsequent classification, may depend more on the impression gathered by the archaeologist through past experiences than on a series of objectively defined parameters. In the context of Processualism, the embracing of the ethnographic, experimental and archaeometrical research in the field of ceramics, determined an absolute evolution of the classificatory approach. All these approaches allowed the formulation of hypothesis concerning production systems which appeared to be more suited to emic reprocessing of data. Forms and decorations are no more the sole objectives of classification, they are now linked to other parameters connected to the technological aspects of the ceramic process. Whilst, experimentations and archaeometrical investigations offer objective methods of analysis able to address the question of the ‘pottery sens’ sensu Shepard. However, more traditional studies on the classification of shapes and decorations still find an application in archaeology. This is due to the fact that classification can be developed over a short time frame and it is cheaper than archaeometrical analysis or experimentation. From a technological perspective, pottery is considered as the result of a series of choices made by the craftsmen. These choices are not limited to shape or decoration of the ceramics but affect other factors such as the forming shapes, finishing, firing, and so on. They are influenced by the skills and the knowledge of the craftsmen, the

A short history of ceramic studies Classification is the most immediate approach to the study of ceramics. The collective volumes edited by Whallon and Brawn (1982) and by Adams and Adams (1991) can be considered as the starting point for a theory of classification. Both discuss three basic notions: variable, attribute/value and type. Variables are the elements chosen in a hierarchical order by the archaeologist as discriminating criteria for the analysis; attributes/values represent the different states of variability of the variables; and types indicate the class of items that share those attributes/values. As the main goal of a classification is the definition of the type, the approach may also be referred to as typology. The earliest studies on archaeological ceramics utilized a classificatory approach and the principal variables selected by researchers were the shape and the decoration of the vases. The recurrence of types of forms and decorations leads to the identification of cultural aspects and then to the differentiation of the ethnic groups along synchronic and diachronic axes. This key concept is the basis of the first major phase in the history of archaeological theory: culture history. Vera G. Childe was the first to apply this notion to the study of prehistoric cultures in Europe. Classification was traditionally considered as the only solution for the interpretation of ancient cultures (Gifford 1960; and see Wheat et al. 1958 for an elaboration of taxonomic and type cluster concepts). This position quickly came under attack and new theories were developed (see Jernigan 1986 and Douglass and Lindauer 1988 for a more general debate; Dunnel 1978 for an Evolutionary perspective; Arnold 1971 for an Ethnographic view). The major doubts arose from the distinction between etic and emic perspectives. As opposed to the latter, the

1

limited to a description of the ethnographic facts, but it should try to describe the social and economic consequences of these facts. This procedure allows for a better identification of the archaeological remains as they are more easily associated with human action. Moreover, ethnoarchaeology provides information about matters that are not investigable during an excavation or laboratory research, such as what an artefact was made for or its ideological value...

level of organization of production, as well as by other environmental, functional, artistic and symbolic factors (Binford 1962; Matson 1965; Arnold 1985; Lemonnier 1986; Kolb 1989; Hodder 1991; Roux 2003; Tilley 2006, 61). The link between the technical choices and the social and environmental contingencies characterizes the process of transformation of the raw material into finished product, i.e. chaîne opératoire (Cresswell 1976; Lemonnier 1976; van der Leeuw 1993; Cresswell 1996; Gosselain 2000; Sillar and Tite 2000). Such research on production processes use archaeometrical, experimental and ethnographical approaches in order to determine the technical choices made by prehistoric craftsmen. Archaeometry is widespread in ceramic studies as it can be applied to different domains, i.e. dating, geophysics, human palaeobiology, artefact studies, botanic and archaeozoology, conservation heritage (see Brothwell and Pollard 2004 for an extensive overview). In the case of artefact studies, petrographical and chemical analysis are used in order to identify the material and subsequently determine its provenance (a recent and exhaustive list of scientific methods is offered by Hurcombe 2007, 78-90). As opposed to the past, nowadays archaeologists are more involved in the practical implementation of the analysis. They are no more relegated to results interpretation, but they attend to the sampling and the preparation of the tests. The researchers’ direct involvement allows for a better management of the artefacts’ study both in terms of awareness, project planning and cost reduction. Archaeological experiment is based on the concept of analogy: observation and comparison between the reproduced object and the archaeological one provide information about the technical procedures applied in the manufacturing process. Experimentation is extensively practiced both by amateurs and professional researchers. While different levels of expertise can be reached, best practices should be observed to realize an accurate experience. In this regard, Coles (1973, 1979) provided the two most important contributions on the construction of the experimental paradigm. As scientific thoroughness is fundamental in an experimental project, Alan K. Outram (2008) suggests that experimental archaeology should be considered as a part of archaeological science. As experimental archaeology, the ethnoarchaeological approach uses the principle of analogy. In this case the comparison is made between data collected within modern communities and the archaeological evidences. Even if ethnoarchaeology boasts considerable specialist literature (for a history of this approach in ceramic domain see: Longacre 1978; Arnold 1985; Kramer 1985; Longacre 1991; Hegmon 2000; David and Kramer 2001; Roux 2007), Arnold’s “Ceramic theory and cultural process” (1985) could be considered as the manifesto of this discipline. The goal of the author is to create an ethnographic perspective able to interpret the ceramic process and its relationship to the environment and to society. A goal of the ethnoarchaeological approach is to identify the economic and social effects trigged by human behaviour and actions, which are visible as material evidences. In others words, ethnoarchaeology must not be

Synopsis of the book The order of the contributions in this volume follows the above presentation of approaches and methods. Most papers focus on a specific method, some develop an interdisciplinary approach, while others focus on theoretical issues. The work of Sofya Panteleeva is related to the classificatory approach. Her study of the shapes and decorations of vessels is the basis for her analysis of cultural phenomenon in the Gorokhovo culture (4th – 1st centuries BC). The association between formal and decorative features allows her to define some peculiar characteristics of utilitarian and funeral ceramics from the Pavlinovo fortress and Sopininsky and Mourzincky I cemeteries. Through the comparison of typological data, the author provides an interpretation of the origin of the Gorokhovo culture and its relationship with the Sargat culture during the Iron Age in the Trans-Urals region of Russia. In contrast to this research using the classificatory approach to understand the relationship between a given site and the surrounding territory, Francesca Occhiogrosso’s contribution focuses on the internal evolution of a site. Ceramic assemblages originating from the semicircular ditches of the Neolithic village of Rendina (around the VI millennium BC) are analysed through a classificatory approach with three levels of analysis: morphological, decorative and technological. The comparison between these three sets of data allows her to identify some steps of the diachronic evolution of ceramic production on the site. The paper written by Cynthianne Spiteri et al. traces the history of ORA (organic residue analysis) and its relatively recent application to the study of ancient pottery, providing a comprehensive account of its use. An examination of the study of marine biomarkers in ceramic vessels confirms the efficacy of this methodology in understanding the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. X-ray radiography remains a still little known methodology for the identification of technological aspects in the manufacturing process. Thus, Ina Berg’s paper introduces this technique using the case study of ceramic assemblage from Knossos dated from the Earlier to the Middle Minoan period. X-ray radiography has shown important results allowing us to reconsider the earliest hypothesis on the introduction and exploitation of the wheel technique in Crete. X-ray radiography is also the main technique used by Nicola Laneri in his study of ceramics originating from different sites in Iran, Turkey and Syria dated between

2

ceramics was carried out in order to define their characteristics and to reconstruct faithful reproductions; some firing structures were constructed and the reproduced ceramics were fired; lastly a verification of the results through archaeometrical analysis was done on the ceramics. This research illustrates how the preliminary planning and the application of scientific method may contribute to the thoroughness of such an experiment. The paper of Gheorghiu Dragos concerns the firing process. Experimental experiences and ethnographical observations are the basis of some considerations on the concept of agency, i.e. the series of human behaviours that are influenced and influence the social and economical system of a community. In particular, the author examines the ritual aspect of some activities linked to the firing process. The concept of agency is developed by Michael Deal as well, with particular attention to the role of individual action in domestic ceramic production. Two case studies are presented: the Tzeltal Maya and the Greek Cypriot. The author compares the principal phases of different specific domestic ceramic productions, with special attention given to their spatial organization, in order to create a referential paradigm for the interpretation of archaeological phenomenon. Beginning with ethnographical examples from Peruvian Andes, Gabriel Ramón Joffre analyses the different relationship between itinerant potters and the villages where their products were distributed. The association of two parameters, i.e. itinerant productions and stylistic attributes, provides a frame of reference for the understanding of the archaeological remains.

the V and II millennium BC. Comparison of data from different contexts allows him to reconstruct a diachronic analysis of the origins and developments of the wheel technique in Ancient Near East. The reading of the lifehistory of the potter’s wheel is presented from an anthropological perspective in order to understand the social implication of the adoption of the wheel in Near Eastern societies. Strictly linked to the concept of the chaîne opératoire, Nuno Inacio’s et al. research reconstructs the whole manufacturing process of some ceramic tools, i.e. crucibles and tuyères, associated with metal production on the site of Valencina de la Concepción (2750-2500 BCE). The different steps of this chaîne opératoire (raw materials selection, paste preparation, manufacturing technique and firing temperature estimation) are evaluated by means of a variety of archeometrical analysis. The main goal of Valentine Roux’s paper is to offer a model for studying the synchronic and diachronic variability of ceramic assemblages in archaeology. Starting from an anthropological and ethnographical approach, the author suggests a model to allowing for the definition of the techno-petrographical groups which correspond to evidence of the manufacturing process within a social group, in a specific moment and place. Guillermo De La Fuente’s paper is situated between the sections using archaeometry and experimental archaeology since his contribution illustrates interdisciplinary research exploiting both analytical approaches. His study is focused on ceramic assemblages originating from several sites in the Abaucán valley in North-Western Argentina and dated to the late Period (c. AD 900 – AD 1450). According to the notion of the chaîne opératoire, a set of archaeometrical and experimental analysis is required in order to identify the primary and secondary forming techniques used in the manufacturing process for the production of specific types of vessel shapes. Through a series of experimental experiences around the production of vases with the wheel technique, Caroline Jeffra proposes new elements for a discussion on the typological classification previously proposed by other researchers on a series of vessels from the LC period in Cyprus (c. 1650 – 1200 BC). This paper aims to determine in an emic way the relation between the attributes used to create the classification. The new hierarchy proposed by Jeffra follows a precise scheme determined by the “vessels shaping chaîne opératoire” as indicated by experimental testing. The research proposed by Dana Millson highlights an important but unrecognized aspect of the experimental approach. Through the reproduction of ancient objects experimentation provides an understanding of their function, the author suggests that it can also allow for an interpretation of the processes of taphonomy affecting the conditions of archaeological objects. Richard Ther’s et al. research seeks to define the techniques of firing in the site of Turnov - Maškovy Zahrady (North-Eastern Bohemia) during the Late Bronze Age. The research was undertaken in three phases: a set of archaeometrical analysis on the original

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I should especially like to thank David Davison for the opportunity to publish this volume and all the authors for their involvement in this project. Special thanks to Felicity Bodenstein, Sara Camplese, Claudia Di Lecce and Kim Marvel for the English editing of some papers. I decline any responsibility for production problems and for the content expressed by authors in their own chapters. AUTHOR’S ADDRESS Simona Scarcella EHESS – TRACES, UMR 5608 5, allée Antonio Machado 31058 Toulouse [email protected] REFERENCES Adams W. Y. and Adams E. W., 1991. Archaeological typology and practical reality. A dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Arnold, D. E. 1971. Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan potters: etics and emics. American Antiquity 36, 20-40. Arnold, D. E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Social Process. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 3

Lemonnier, P. 1976. La description des chaînes opératoires: contribution à l’analyse des systèmes techniques. Techniques et Culture 1, 100-151.

Binford, L. R. 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28, 217-25. Brothwell D. R. and Pollard A. M., 2004, Handbook of archaeological sciences. Chichester, Wiley & sons Ltd. Coles, J. M. 1973. Archaeology by experiment. London, Hutchinson University Library.

Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147-186.

Coles, J. M. 1979. Experimental archaeology. London, Academic Press.

Longacre, W. A. 1978. Ethnoarchaeology. Reviews in Anthropology 5, 357-363.

Cresswell, R. 1976. Avant-propos. Techniques et culture 1, 5-6.

Longrace, W. A. 1991, Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

Creswell, R. 1996. Prométhée ou Pandore: propos de technologie culturelle. Paris, Kimé.

Matson, F. R. 1965. Ceramic ecology: an approach to the study of the early cultures of the Near East, in F. R. Matson (ed.) Ceramics and Man, 202-217. Chicago, Aldine.

David, N. and Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Outram, A. K. 2008, Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 40, 1-6.

Douglass, A. and Lindauer, O. 1988. Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical approaches to ceramic design analysis: a response to Jernigan. American Antiquity 53, 620-626. Dunnel, R. C. 1978. Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43, 192-202.

Roux, V. 2003. A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change: application to the emergence of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10, 1-30.

Gifford, J. C. 1960. The type-variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator of cultural phenomena. American Antiquity 25, 341-347.

Roux, V. 2007. Ethnoarchaeology: a non historical science of reference for interpretating the past. Journal of Archaeological Method and theory 14, 153-178.

Gosselain, O. 2000. Materializing identities: an African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 187-217.

Shepard, A. O. 1956. Ceramic for the archaeologist. Washington, Carnegie Institution. Sillar, B. and Tite, M. S. 2000. The challenge of “technological choices” for materials science approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry 42, 2-16.

Hegmon, M. 2000. Advances in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 77, 129-138.

Tilley, C. 2006. Objectification, in C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuchler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer (eds.), Handbook of material culture, 60-73. London, Sage.

Hodder, I. 1991. The decoration of containers: an ethnographic and historic study, in W. A. Longrace (ed.), Ceramic ethnoarchaeology, 71-94. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. London, Routledge.

van der Leeuw, S. 1993. Giving the pottery a choice, in P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological choices. Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic, 238-288. London, Routledge.

Jernigan, E. W. 1986. A non-hierarchical approach to ceramic decoration analysis: a Southwestern example. American Antiquity 51, 3-20.

Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A. 1982. Essays on archaeological typology. Evanston, Center for American Archaeology Press.

Kolb C. C., 1989. Ceramic ecology, 1988. Current research on ceramic materials. Oxfors, British Archaeological Reports.

Wheat, J. B., Gifford, J. C. and Wasley, W. W. 1958. Ceramic variety, type cluster and ceramic system in South-western pottery analysis. American Antiquity 24, 34-47.

Kramer, C. 1985. Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 14, 77-102.

4

CHAINE OPERATOIRE AND CERAMICS: CLASSIFICATIONS AND TYPOLOGY, ARCHAEOMETRY, EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY, AND ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY Charles C. Kolb Introduction I am pleased to have been asked to provide an introductory essay to this volume on current research on archaeological ceramics. The 14 chapters derive, in the main, from revised contributions presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) held in Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 15th-20th September 2009. Simona Scarcella organized a session that focused on the ‘The chaîne opératoire approach to ceramic studies’ and sought to relate ceramic processes and cultural phenomena, and this monograph includes presentations from that meeting as well as solicited papers. She has organized these contributions into four sections (the numbers of contributions in this volume are in parentheses): 1) typology (2); 2) archaeometry or archaeological science (5); 3) experimental archaeology (5); and 4) ethnoarchaeology (2). The majority of the presentations focus on European contexts (northeast Bohemia, Crete, Cyprus, northern England, southwest Iberian Peninsula, southern Italy, southern Romania, and Scandinavia) with the Near East (Iraq, Turkey, and Iran), the Russian trans-Urals, northwest Argentina, northern Peruvian Andes, and southern highland Mexico also represented. Chronologically, the Old World papers span the periods from the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition through the Chalcolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages, plus contemporary potters; the New World papers focus on contemporary ethnoarchaeology with one on prehistoric ceramics dating CE 900-1200. I did not have the opportunity to attend the conference and only recently received copies of the papers. Therefore, I thought it would be useful to examine the concept of chaîne opératoire and the four topics (ceramic classification and typology, scientific analysis and archaeometry, ceramic ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology related to pottery and its uses) from a perspective of the New World side of the Atlantic and provide emendations and comments on these topics and the 14 papers. I am familiar with the work of several of the contributors to this volume (Carl Heron, Ina Berg, Valentine Roux, Guillermo De La Fuente, Dragos Gheorghiu, and Michael Deal) and enjoyed learning from them and from those authors whose research is new to me. I am an anthropological archaeologist cross-trained in the physical sciences, my own ceramic studies deal primarily with materials from Mesoamerica (Basin of Mexico), Central Asia (Afghanistan), and the Great Lakes region of North America. In addition, I have also conducted research in East Africa (Uganda) and the Andes (Peru). As Associate Editor, I have also written the ‘Archaeological Ceramics’ column for the Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin for 18 years and organized and chaired the annual ‘Ceramic Ecology Symposium’ at the American Anthropological Association meetings for 24 years. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to prepare previous status reports on ceramic studies (Kolb 1989b, 1996, 2001). I shall begin with a brief overview of clay and pottery and move quickly to the chaîne opératoire approach and similar paradigms. Ceramics have played an important role in human culture and often had multiple functions in the past. The earliest known use of fired clay was for small human and animal figurines dating from c. 25,000 BP in the Upper Paleolithic in Europe, while the first ceramic containers, actual pottery, appeared ca. 12,000 BP in Japan and China. Ceramics in the form of abundant largely indestructible sherds and occasional vessels are one of the more common archaeological materials that have survived over the last 8,000 years, and ceramic analysis has, therefore, become a fundamental part of many archaeological investigations (Kolb 1989b). Even today, earthenware remains as a common ceramic material used extensively to fabricate tableware and decorative objects and is commonly bisque (or biscuit) fired to temperatures between 1000-1150°C (18002100°F), and glost- (glaze) fired from 950-1050°C (17421922°F). However examples of the reverse (low biscuit and high glost firing) may also be produced, especially by studio potters where bisque temperatures range 9001050°C (1652-1922°F) with glost temperatures range

Clay and earthenware Clay is a naturally occurring material composed predominantly of fine-grained minerals and/or sheet silicates with grain sizes