Archaeologia Polona, vol.

 : , – 
PL ISSN -

Ceramology: what is it and why?

Andrzej Bukoa

The author discusses key questions and fields of research in ceramological studies, not all
of which are present in archaeological publications. In the present paper, he concentrates on
some questions concerning pottery classification and the archaeometrical laboratory approach
to pottery analyses. Special attention is paid to clays for pottery making and different approaches
to provenance studies.

KEY WORDS: archaeometry, pottery, clay deposits, provenance studies, classification

attributes, vessel shape groups, stylistic traditions

FIELDS OF POTTERY RESEARCH AND ANALYTICAL QUESTIONS

Pottery from excavations has long been one of the most important archaeological
evidence of the past, a useful instrument for dating human occupation in view of its
ubiquity and universality in everyday life (De Boûard (1980: 12). Ceramological
research can be divided into three main fields: production, use and pottery stratifica-
tion processes. For each of these there are six key questions to be asked: time (when?),
place (where?), way (how?), quantity (how much?), purpose (why?) and efficient
cause (who?) (cf. Buko 1990: 23). Taken together, they form the framework for all
ceramological studies (Fig. 1).
The time factor is present in many publications. For most archaeologists it is the
chief and sometimes only aim of pottery research. Nevertheless, there is a broader
significance to questions regarding the time factor. Apart from simply wanting to know
how old it is, ceramologists ask about the usage time span of specific pottery types in
relation to their function and, for example, the time needed to make pottery (DeBoer
1974). Supplementary questions concern reuse of ancient pottery in the past, a phe-
nomenon confirmed in both written and archaeological sources (cf. Buko 1990: 165).
Questions concerning production centres, pottery use and reuse, and its ultimate
discarding are among the most important. Archaeologists are interested in ascertaining
which of the pottery products were made locally and how many display a clay matrix
unlike any of the local clay resources. Questions of provenance include the complex
a Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland
16
Buko

Fig. 1. Research questions (above) and fields of research concerning pottery production, use and
formation processes: fields of ceramological research (after A. Buko).

issue of pottery production centres and raw materials considered by potters as suitable
for pottery production (Nicklin 1970).
Pottery manufacture and use are issues dealt with commonly in archaeological
publications, but the actual questions addressed tend to differ: exploitation methods
(How clays were extracted? Did clay pastes differ depending on pottery function?),
pot-shaping and firing techniques (How was pottery made? What techniques of
surface finishing were in use? How was the pottery fired? etc.), distribution (How was
pottery sold? What about economic value and how was it measured?), use (definitions
of primary and secondary pottery function, and percentages of pottery used for one
or the other) and discarding (Why did pottery end up in the garbage? Can the
physical processes of pottery elimination from use be defined?). Another group of
questions concern organization of production, potters’ training, workshop economy,
clays, fuel resources and their exploitation, etc.
More seldom is research focused on analyses relating to quantitative estimates of
pottery production from a single archaeological site (Hołubowicz 1956: 115) or pottery
production centre (Thiriot 1986: 66 ff ).
Questions concerning the causes of certain phenomena naturally derive from the
above-mentioned pottery analyses. These concern such matters as clays for pottery
production (Why were only some clays exploited in a given period?), non-plastic
materials (Why the coarse calcareous inclusions are in the paste? Why use powdered
stone instead of fine river sand?), production techniques (Why there was concurrent
use of different pot-making techniques on a single site? Why new techniques were
adopted (or not) by production centres?), pottery use (limited range of vessel types
found on sites vs. available range of morphologically differentiated ceramic production
 Ceramology: what is it and why?
17
of any given period), and, to conclude, pottery stratification processes (different
preservation of pottery found on the same site and in the same layers, extent of physico-
chemical changes of the fabric resulting from long-term burial, significance of erosion
and corrosion processes observed on pottery).
Last but not least, there is the information that is to be gained about specific
pottery users – the main objective of any archaeological investigation into the human
past. Archaeologist try to individuate attributes referring to individuals known by
name (e.g., stamps on amphorae) and identify features characteristic of anonymous
workshops (i.e., evidence of production techniques) as well as of broader groups of
producers and users (i.e., given pottery style features). Not uncommonly, there is no
answer to be gained to any of these questions (Buko 1990: 26).
The questions and fields of study presented above cover the range of ceramological
research and only some of them can be found in publications. In the following I will
concentrate on some questions concerning the archaeometrical laboratory approach
to pottery studies.

CLAYS FOR ANCIENT POTTERY PRODUCTION

Studies concerning clays for ancient pottery production, focusing on the location
and characteristics of clay deposits, suitability for pottery making and systems of
clay extraction in the past, are still not very common. These questions are discussed
occasionally in ethnoarchaeological publications (cf. Nicklin 1970), leaving the field
of their significance for archaeological studies and methodological approach still
pretty much undefined.
The purposes of clay analyses are, to my mind, fourfold (Buko 1990: 82). First of
all, provenance studies. In other words, comparing the composition of the fabric
of a potsherd with that of the clay can help to answer questions concerning local and
non-local production. Secondly, the prospection and identification of ancient clay
extraction areas, clay transport methods, secondary clay deposits located close to
ancient workshops. This data contributes to an understanding of the organisation of
production and its advancement and reflects on issues like distance to natural resources,
production intensity and utilisation of clay deposits. The third aim is to identify the
thinking behind the choice of a given clay for exploitation. By investigating different
clay sources archaeologists can try to infer the reasons, whether technological or
other, behind the ancient potters’ decisions. Finally, there is the purely material goal
of identifying all the clay matrix components, including plastic and non-plastic ones.
Identifying ancient clay exploitation areas is one of the tasks of archaeological
fieldwork. It is known from ethnographical data that clay deposits are exploited in
one of four main ways depending on the geological context of a given territory.
18
Buko
Quarrying clay is the most common
method, especially if deposits are near the
surface. From the archaeological point of
view, such clay exploitation areas appear
as artificial depressions (Fig. 2) or surface
irregularities (often filled with water).
Commonly enough, the place names
will retain some element related to the
clay material.
Geologically older raw materials suit-
Fig. 2. Pawłów (southeastern Poland).
Ancient clay extracting areas preserved in the able for pottery production (tertiary
present landscape. Miocene clays, for example), which are
sometimes deposited in deeper layers, can
be exploited from valley walls or by the shaft method (reaching depths of 10 m and
more). Clay could also be dug directly from the river bed leaving no archaeologically
identifiable traces (cf. Buko 1990: 87).
The starting point in ancient pottery clay studies is a detailed map of clayish mate-
rials in a given area, reflecting the possibilities and limitations of clay exploitation.
Using the results of geological prospection, archival data and interviews with local
residents (in the examined area), one can prepare a detailed map of possible clay mate-
rials. The analysis of soil profiles can also be treated as a starting point for defining
ancient clay deposits. For example, geological prospection in one of the suburbs of the
town of Sandomierz (southern Poland) revealed that houses were standing on the level
of flood terraces of the Vistula River (separated from the river by an embankment
constructed at the beginning of the 20th century) and yet there were no traces of fluvial
deposits. Instead, Miocene clays occurred directly beneath the cultivable soil and talus
deposits. This stratigraphy could not have developed naturally, for the clays which
have a low level of resistance to denudation would have been washed away in the
past by the waters of the pre-Vistula and replaced by mud and sand, formations that
generally occur in river valleys. Consequently, it seems that the lower level in this
part of the town was created artificially, the alluvia having been excavated and removed
completely at some point earlier in time (Fijałkowski and Fijałkowska 1982: 361).
For areas with different clay resources the research program calls for samples of clay
materials to be taken for further examination from a number of test-pits arranged in
a grid. In the case of widespread clay deposits with internal stratification, detailed
analyses of the samples (chemical, petrographical, physico-chemical) are needed.
A key question is the extent to which pottery groups from excavations can be
differentiated and matched with clay deposits used by potters locally. Moreover,
it is important to identify factors responsible for a lack of correspondence between
potsherds and raw materials from a given area. In such cases, should imports of
 Ceramology: what is it and why?
19
ceramics be inferred or rather other phenomena related to local clays, pottery pro-
duction and methods of analyses?
Studies carried out by the author on Medieval ceramics from Sandomierz (south-
ern Poland) have revealed the three major limitations of identification studies:
1. heterogeneous structure of raw material deposits, 2. changes of the clay’s chemical
composition by the addition of non-plastic materials during the production process
and, 3. low compatibility of results from different laboratories.
To address the issue of chemical composition variability of raw material taken
from different parts of the same deposit, 13 samples from a large loess-clay quarry
were analysed for major and minor elements. Significant differences in the chemical
composition of the samples were observed depending on the sampling place. The
biggest differences were noted for calcium and magnesium, the smallest for potassium.
Differences of this kind are linked to different biochemical processes taking place in
the soil (Buko 1984).
Another factor responsible for the heterogeneous nature of raw material from the
same deposit is a potentially wasteful system of clay exploitation. It is known from
ethnographical studies that potters in 19th century and early 20th century Poland
were still digging clay from small pits in the vicinity of their villages. Since clay was
extracted for current needs, the pits used to be filled in successively with soil from
the upper layers. Not to waste time and energy, the pits would be dug small and
narrow and widened only when the actual clay deposit was reached. In effect, the
walls of the pit would collapse, thus ending the exploitation. New pits could be
located too close to ancient ones, resulting in intruding material from the upper
layers. Experimenting with suitable material, the potter may have even mixed clays
from different sources in successive batches (Czechowski 1918: 18).
The problems with non-plastic materials used by potters as intentional temper
are well illustrated by the results of the author’s experiment with 12 vessels which
he produced using different clays with granite inclusions. The composition of each
clay and each vessel was known. The experiment showed considerable modification
of the chemical composition of the fabric of the vessels compared to the clay they
were made of. It was impossible to recognize by chemical criteria alone the original
clays of the vessels in question. The differences of chemical composition between
clays and pottery were the biggest for potassium and sodium (cf. Buko 1990: 359).
Considering that these two issues are dependent on the nature of archaeological
materials and clays, appreciable difficulties arise when geologically complex raw
material deposits are analysed, not to mention ceramic fabrics which are mixtures of
different clays and non-plastic materials introduced (or eliminated) by the potter.
In studying the Medieval pottery and clays from Sandomierz, the author adopted
a number of methods: comprehensive investigation of clays in the modern town and
environs (circa 20 km radius), homogeneity analyses of clay deposits, and location of
20
Buko

Fig. 3. a – clay slab from silt taken from the

Vistula River after firing: one of the most com-
mon raw materials, very suitable for pottery
making; b – potsherd (11th c.) from Sandomierz
produced from such silt. The reddish item is
after re-firing (photo: A. Buko).

ancient clay pits. These were paralleled by examination of the pottery itself using
physical chemistry (X-ray diffraction, X-ray fluorescence), as well as geological and
petrographical (microscopy, thin sections) methods. Some elements of ethno-
archaeological studies were also carried out (cf. Buko 1984).
It is the author’s considered opinion based on this research that any study of an-
cient clays for pottery production requires a coherent program of research, including
the possible presence of pottery produced with a mixture of plastic and non-plastic
materials. Research efficiency is conditioned on well designed cooperation between
archaeologists, geologists and other scientists, resulting in a defined chain of analytical
procedures. This includes archival queries, detailed definitions of clay resources and
clay exploitation areas, inferences about the potential of clay resources from an analysis
of geological and geomorphological maps, field prospection, geological premises
for determining ancient clay extraction areas and many others (cf. Buko 1984). It is
only a combination of such studies that establishes the suitability of various clayish
materials for pottery production.
Another problem is generated by methods of comparative analysis of clayish raw
materials and pottery from excavations (Fig. 3a, b). Most importantly, how reliable is
the identification of clays used by ancient potters made by examination of potsherds
and local raw materials? One of the major research questions in this field is the
identification of factors (natural, cultural) responsible for regional and interregional
differentiation of clay pastes.
 Ceramology: what is it and why?
21
POTTERY PROVENANCE ANALYSES

For years provenance studies have spearheaded ceramological investigations, their

importance recognised as fundamental for investigations of historical trade networks
and socio-cultural interactions. Different authors have discussed the basic concepts
in the past. I would like to draw attention to the work of Shepard (1976) whose
general scheme of inference embraces concepts of style, material and technique.
Questions of pottery provenance take on different dimensions depending on the
historical and geographical area under investigation. Any sherd found on the Medieval
site in Storvågan (Lofoten Islands) in the arctic territories of Norway belongs by
definition to an imported vessel. There are no local clay resources (due to climatic
factors) suitable for pottery making. In this case, the archaeologist’s task is to attribute
each sherd to a specific European production centre (cf. Bertelsen et al. 1987). At the
same time, many northern Scandinavian sites yield examples of “asbestos” ceramics,
characteristic of some prehistoric cultures in Scandinavia. Ceramics is a term used
conventionally in this case considering the amounts – up to 90% – of asbestos fibre
in these vessels (Hùlthen 1991). The ware is relatively homogeneous in terms of
material, shape and “textile” decoration. Nonetheless, despite a well defined (local)
raw material composition, specific places of production still elude researchers.
Other kinds of problems are encountered on archaeological sites in the Mediter-
ranean. In the case of some ancient cultures (e.g., from the Roman Empire), pottery
finds frequently come from shipwrecks. Many pots (mostly ancient amphorae which
served as containers for wine, olives, fish sauces, etc.) were transported from specific
production centres. Some of them were stamped with the producers’ (owners’)
marks. But their importance for provenance studies goes far beyond that. For
vessels without such identification, provenance can be recognised based on in-depth
analyses of trade networks.
The situation on the Italian Peninsula in the Early Middle Ages turns out to
much more complex. There is a progressive deterioration of Late Roman production
centres between the 5th and 7th centuries with a large number of small, anonymous
workshops gradually replacing the big centres. This atomisation of producers is one
of the characteristic features of Early Medieval pottery (Vannini 1977), making any
pottery provenance studies extremely complex. Pottery becomes more stable for iden-
tification purposes only after the 12th century when the first protomajolica appears.
The key issue for identification studies is to define the attributes – morpho-
logical, stylistic and technological – which can be treated as significant for the
pottery under investigation and the given workshops. It is commonly held among
archaeologists that high-level similarities of vessel form and paste composition
(corresponding to suitably advanced specialisation levels) are relevant to these defi-
nitions. Yet such paradigms of inference can be abolished in the face of problems,
22
Buko
like with the pottery of the Papago Indians. In this case, ethnoarchaeological data
revealed that local potters were unable to produce pots with identical rim shapes
and moreover, potters could not point to any features distinguishing, in their eyes,
vessels of their production (van der Leeuw 1989). Similar problems can arise when
external attributes of clays are considered. As Dufournier has demonstrated (1989: 15,
note 9), even among pots from the same workshop, produced with the same clay,
products of a very different colour, from black through red and grey to pink and
even white, can be found. Moreover, pottery from the same workshop need not be
characterised by the same chemical composition all the time.
The obvious reason for such surprises is that potters frequently change clay
composition (depuration, tempering processes, addition of other clays, etc.). The
incompatibility of results obtained by different methods raises more interpretative
problems. One obvious fact is that some elements (carbon, chlorides, bromines,
sulphur, strontium, etc.) are volatile and are released from the clay during firing. On
the other hand, elements like phosphorus, for example, can lead to modifications of
another kind, resulting from the fact that they pass in both directions, from the
vessel to the soil and vice versa (Duma 1972; Lemoine and Picon 1982).
Different approaches and different methods have been developed in provenance
studies in the last decades. Analyses embraces chemical, petrographical (mineralogi-
cal) elements, analysed according to well defined sampling procedures and sample
treatment, classified successively by numerical (or other) methods (see: Wilson 1978;
Lemoine, Walker and Picon 1982; Schneider 1995).
Individuation of production characteristics using other criteria, through experi-
mental analyses, has also been put forward by some specialists. According to Hill
(1972), decoration patterns characteristic of a given producer (or workshop) can be
defined. Sander van der Leeuw is of the opinion that potters have their own “decora-
tion grammar” and “decoration syntax” which is always top of the mind (van der
Leeuw 1989: 58). Even casual, technological characteristics can prove to be significant
in distinguishing the production of a given workshop (Buko 1990: 339, fig. 152).
An approach based on individual production features (attributes of style and
decoration) defined as a given pattern is considered by many as particularly suitable
for identification studies. Such strategies are strictly linked with the concept of style
(Sackett 1977). A key issue is the choice of effective classification attributes for pottery
form classification (Fig. 4). As Morel (1981: 489) remarked, it is easier to recognise
pottery produced in big industrial workshops which are characteristic of pottery
production in Italy under the Roman Empire simply because of the degree of compat-
ibility of vessel forms. In small workshops, the situation is the opposite. Such a high
degree of morphological homogeneity, defined by Rice (1987: 202) as standardisation
of production, is one of the important factors useful in provenance analyses. Pottery
shapes can give us an indication of well defined standardisation patterns (Fig. 5).
 Ceramology: what is it and why?
Fig. 4. Methods of pottery classification:
A – by morphological structure, B – by complexity of

23
vessel profile, C – by stylistic attributes (after A. Buko).
24
Buko

Fig. 5. Morphological structure of Early Medieval Polish pottery (common forms). A – elementary
segmentation. Key: 0, I, II, III – profile reduction degrees (0–II – restricted, III – unrestricted).
B – detailed segmentation. Key: I – four elements, II–IV – three elements, V–VII – two elements,
VIII – one element structure (after A. Buko).

Another important element of pottery standardisation are paste recipes. Despite

the analytical problems emphasized above, clays for pottery production are strictly
related to the geology of the region under investigation. Their importance for
 Ceramology: what is it and why?
25
provenance studies lies in the fact that
a comparison of identified clay resources
with paste recipes can point to work-
shop location. It should be kept in
mind, however, that much depends
on the region under investigation and
other factors. Sometimes, as Nicklin
(1979) has demonstrated, clays defined
as suitable for pottery making have
never been used because of there being
no pottery-making tradition in the area.
The opposite is true when there are pot-
ters but no clay, necessitating long-
distance expeditions in search of clay
when the local deposits have run out.
Finally, as Cleary (1995: 88) has shown,
the source of raw material for pottery
production can be recognised by observ-
ing the presence (absence) of a particular Fig. 6. Red painted white jug from Sandomierz
petrographical element which is asso- (14th c.) (photo: A. Buko).
ciated with a single clay source.
Studies by the author have demonstrated the usefulness of the Vessel Shape Fami-
lies classification concept for individuating local (non-local) pottery traditions. Of
the five Families identified in Sandomierz (southern Poland) in the period between
the middle of the 10th and the middle of the 13th century two have been recognised as
non-local, resembling pottery production in another region (Greater Poland). The
characteristic attributes of these ceramics included well defined morphology (straight
walls and angle inflection point), decoration (deep, large fluting, almost relief in
nature) and choice of raw materials (clays with higher, 3–5% iron oxide content
imparting a brown or blackish colour on the vessels). It should be noted that
no deposits of clay yielding a white fabric after firing can be found in this region of
Greater Poland where this pottery tradition was one of the prevailing ones, while
in the Sandomierz region these clays are used even today (Fig. 6). Such a choice
of raw materials is, to believe ethnological studies, dependent on the presence of
migrant potters in a production centre. The same is true of the use of clay recipes
mixing different clays. Wherever they go, migrant potters can be depended on to
search for a clay they will consider as “good’ from their particular perspective, that is,
a clay demonstrating plasticity, inclusions and colour similar to that they have used
already. Not finding anything to their liking, they are apt to go for a compromise,
mixing their ”good” clay with raw materials available locally (cf. Buko 1984).
26
Buko
Research into traditional folk pottery in western Poland shows that the potters’
different origins can be traced in the forms produced. It is also clear that newcomers
did not impose their values on local potters who continued to be persuaded as to
the merits of their native production (Kołodziejska 1970). With these observations
in mind, the present author is convinced that the two Vessel Shape Families identi-
fied in the Sandomierz Medieval pottery assemblage as reflecting a Greater Poland
stylistic tradition reflect the activity of migrant potters originating from another
region (Buko 1980: 198).

FINAL REMARKS

Advances in methods of pottery analysis are the domain of a wide field of research-
ers in different disciplines, also those currently not in the mainstream of archaeological
practices. Many problems remain: questions of classification and typology, limited
laboratory contribution to sourcing and technological studies, undefined descriptive
models, lack of ceramic database systems, established pottery source publication
models, etc. There are also other factors limiting progress in ceramological studies.
One of the most important to be mentioned here is the problem of student education
programs which are insufficient in their present form to prepare them for advanced
research. Not the least is the problem of archaeologists who believe themselves well
prepared for the task of pottery research (do not all of us believe this!). The truth of
the matter is that few researchers are actually aware of the specific research process
involved in pottery studies and have a knowledge of advanced (not only “macroscopic”)
methods of analyses. Moreover, there is no working system for exchanging ideas. For
this reason interdisciplinary groups working on archaeological ceramics on both
national and international levels are extremely welcome. Such broad cooperation
and direct contacts will be useful also in other fields of pottery research. For many
archaeologists, it would be the best way to stimulate advanced research. From this
point of view archaeometry in ceramological research plays a crucial role in promoting
exchange and comparison of results, but also as a platform for joint projects under-
taken by archaeologists and specialists on the national and international level.
The time is ripe, I think, for proposing comprehensive interdisciplinary studies
on clays for ancient pottery production in direct relation with local geology, followed
by paste recipes (influenced by geological but also cultural factors) identified through
potsherd examination. The first important benefit of studies of this kind would be
a databank of different raw materials and possible paste recipes. Clay analyses are also
part of mainstream archaeological studies on natural resources, their exploitation
and significance (cultural, economic, symbolic) in the everyday life of local societies.
A good knowledge of clay materials could thus be regarded as a key to understanding
many unknown aspects of ancient pottery making and vessel provenance.
 Ceramology: what is it and why?
27
REFERENCES

Bertelsen, R., A. Buko, A. Fossnes, J. Hood, Z. Kobyliński, K. Lind and P. Urbańczyk 1987. The
Storvågan project 1985–1986. Norwegian Archaeological Review 20 (1): 51–5.
Boûard, de M. 1987. Allocution d’ouverture (in:): L’utilisation de la poterie dans l’analyse des processus
de stratification. In La céramique médiévale en mediterranée occidentale X e–XVe siécles, A. Galinié
and J. Pilet-Lemière (eds), 11–13.
Buko, A. 1984. Problems and research prospects in the determination of the provenance of pottery.
World Archaeology 15 (3): 348–65.
– 1990 Ceramika wczesnopolska. Wprowadzenie do badań. Wrocław.
Cleary, R.M. 1995. Irish Later Bronze Age pottery: a preliminary technological assessment. In The aim of
laboratory analyses of ceramics in archeology, A. Lindahl and O. Stilborg (eds), 77–90. Stockholm.
Czechowski, K. 1918. Garncarstwo. Wyroby zwyczajne i ozdobne z glin pospolitych. Warszawa.
DeBoer, W.R. 1974. Ceramic longevity and archaeological interpretation: an example from the upper
Ucayali, Peru. American Antiquity 39 (2): 335–43.
Dufournier, D. 1989. Céramologie, technologie céramique. In Actes du Colloque de Lille (– Mars
), numero hors-série de Nord-Ouest Archéologie, G. Blieck (ed.), 9–17.
Duma, G. 1972. Phosphate content of ancient pots as an indication of use. Current Anthropology 13:
127–30.
Fijałkowska, E. and J. Fijałkowski 1982. Problem przydatności surowców ilastych rejonu Sandomierza
dla ceramiki garncarskiej. Rocznik Muzeum Narodowego w Kielcach 12: 339–65.
Hill, J.N. 1978. Individuals and their artifacts: an experimental study in archaeology. American Antiquity
43 (2): 245–57.
Hùlthen, B. 1991. On ceramic ware in northern Scandinavia during the Neolithic, Bronze and Early Iron
Age. A ceramic-ecological study. Archaeology and Environment 8, Umeå.
Hołubowicz, W. 1956, Opole w wiekach X–XII. Katowice.
Kołodziejska, B. 1973, Rzemiosło garncarskie w zielonogórskim. Warszawa – Poznań.
Lemoine, C. and M. Picon 1982. La fixation du phosphore par les ceramiques lors de leur enfouissement
et ses incidences analytiques. Revue d’Archèometrie 6: 101–12.
Lemoine, C., S. Walker and M. Picon M. 1982. Archaeological, geochemical and statistical methods in
ceramic provenance studies. In Archeological ceramics, J.O. Olin and A.D. Franklin (eds), 57–64.
Washington D.C.
Leeuw, van der S.E., 1989. Keramikproduktion und Keramikhandel. Methodische Probleme ihrer
Erforschung. Lübecker Schriften zur Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte 4: 185–206.
Morel, J.P. 1981. Ceramique campanienne. Les formes, vol. 1, 2. Roma.
Nicklin, K. 1979. The location of pottery manufacture. Man 14: 436–58.
Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery analysis. A sourcebook. Chicago – London.
Sackett, J. 1977. The meaning of style in archaeology: a general model. American Antiquity 42 (3): 369–80.
Schneider, G. 1995. A short note on project planning and sampling. In The aim of laboratory analyses of
ceramics in archeology, A. Lindahl and O. Stilborg (eds), 23–27. Stockholm.
Shepard, A.O. 1976. Ceramics for archeologist. Washington D.C.
Thiriot, J. 1986. Les ateliers medievaux de poterie grise en Uzège et dans le Bas Rhône. Premières recherches
de terrain. Documents d’Archèologie Francaise, no 7, Paris.
Vannini, G. 1977. Archeologia medievale e ceramologia. Problemi specifici e prospettive di ricerca.
Quaderni del Centro per il Collegamento degli Studi Medievali e Umanistici nell’ Universita
di Perugia 7: 77–93.
Wilson, A.L. 1978. Elemental analysis of pottery in the study of its provenance: a review. Journal of
Archaeological Science 5 (3): 219–36.