Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T06:29:17.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ceramic fabric analysis and survey archaeology: the Sphakia Survey1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Jennifer Moody ,
Harriet Lewis Robinson ,
Jane Francis ,
Lucia Nixon  and
Lucy Wilson
Jennifer Moody
Affiliation:
Classics Department, University of Texas, Austin
Harriet Lewis Robinson
Affiliation:
Otisfield, Maine, USA
Jane Francis
Affiliation:
Dept of Classics, Modern Languages and Linguistics, Concordia University
Lucia Nixon
Affiliation:
Magdalen andSt Peter's Colleges, Oxford
Lucy Wilson
Affiliation:
Dept of Physical Sciences, University of New Brunswick at Saint John
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Macroscopic Fabric Analysis, the systematic study and description of ceramic fabrics with the aid of a handlens and other simple equipment, has grown in importance along with systematic archaeological survey. Microscopic Fabric Analysis, or ceramic petrology, is better known, but more expensive and time-consuming. Using examples drawn from Sphakia Survey material, the authors show that Macroscopic Fabric Analysis of large pottery collections with a high proportion of coarse ware sherds, when combined with targeted microscopic analysis, provides detailed, reliable information on crucial topics such as chronology, in this case from FN/EM I–Turkish; function (cooking, transport, storage, and beehives); and regional interaction. The authors also discuss issues connected with publication, including the use of electronic publications such as the Sphakia Survey website, and the rigorous comparison of individual fabrics, and they make a case for adopting standard ceramic terminology.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 98 , November 2003 , pp. 37 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This article is dedicated to the memory of William A. McDonald. Both his pioneering work in the Aegean with surface survey, and his passionate observations on the necessity of doing more with coarse ware, inspired Moody and Robinson in their approach to pottery in the 1970s and 1980s leading to this and other related work.

We should like to thank the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sciences and the Greek Archaeological Service, particularly Maria Andreadaki-Vlazaki, Vanna Niniou-Kindeli, and Stavroula Markoulaki of the 25th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in Khania, for granting us the permits and giving us the practical assistance that have made the work of the Sphakia Survey and this ceramic fabric study possible. We thank also the Canadian Archaeological Institute in Athens for processing our permits. We are most grateful for financial support for all members of the project, from Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario; the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; the Institute for Aegean Prehistory; the University of New Brunswick at Saint John; in Oxford, Lady Margaret Hall, Magdalen College, the Faculty of Literae Humaniores, the Research and Equipment Committee, and the Craven Committee; and Baylor University.

We are very grateful to the British Academy for providing us with a grant (SG-35094) from the Albert Reckitt Archaeological Fund to cover the cost of printing the two colour plates.

We have enjoyed the legendary hospitality of Sphakia since we began working there. Thanks are due especially to Khrysi and Thodori Athitakis (Anopoli); and to Spiro Vranakis and the Koukounarakis family (Frangokastello). We would also like to thank all the students and specialists, who have worked and/or continue to work on the Sphakia Survey, for their dedicated participation. Please see our web site for a complete list and photos, http://sphakia.classics.ox.ac.uk/projteam.html.

This article, in particular, would not have been possible without the efforts of many colleagues, students and friends. We are for ever grateful to the pottery specialists who were willing to study our ‘crummy little sherds’. Without their help, the crucial identification of Index Sherds would have been much more difficult, if not impossible: Maria Andreadhaki-Vlazaki, Pamela Armstrong, Peter Day, JoAnn Freed, Birgitta Hallager, John Hayes, Margrete Hahn, Alan Johnston, Stavroula Markoulaki, Holley Martlew, Margaret Mook, Holly Raab, Jeremy Rutter, LeeAnn Turner, Lucia Vagnetti, David Wilson.

To the students who patiently recorded ceramic fabric data for us, we say thank you. Your seemingly endless days with a hand lens have paid off: Jennifer Butler, Amy Cruz, Christy Debauge, Quyona Gregg, Seth Murray, Tracy Pilant, Meryn Scott, Colby Sharp, Randy Southers, Chris Turner.

Without ceramic fabric comparanda from neighbouring sites, the Sphakia material would have largely remained a ‘floating’ sequence. The generosity of our colleagues, who gave us permission to study their excavated collections, has allowed us to set Sphakiote pottery in a regional context. Our thanks go to: Maria Andreadaki-Vlazaki (Nopigia, Khamalevri); Anna Lucia D'Agata (Thronos); Costis Davaras (Stylos); Leslie Day (Kavousi); Emmanuele Greco (Gortyn); Erik and Birgitta Hallager (Kastelli Khanion); John Hayes, Hector Catling and Hugh Sackett (Knossos); Athanasia Kama (Samonas, Monastiraki), Katerina Kopaka and Christina Papadhaki (Gavdhos); Holly Raab (Akrotiri); Yannis Tzedhakis (Khania, Nerokourou, Debla); Lucia Vagnetti (Nerokourou); Antonios Zois (Vryses Kydonias); Joe and Maria Shaw, Aleydis Van de Moortel and Jeremy Rutter (Kommos).

For expertise on the vessels used for beehives and other aspects of beekeeping, we are grateful to Eva Crane, Christos Zymvragoudakis, and Renée Bouchard.

We are truly indebted to Debi Harlan, who worked long and hard to integrate existing but separate Sphakia Survey databases, including the ceramic fabric sections, into a single, usable, relational database.

Last, but far from least, we would like to thank Simon Price and Oliver Rackham for their constant support and crucial contributions to the work presented here and to the Sphakia Survey in general. Their thoughtful collaboration from the inception of the Survey to the present has been invaluable.

We, of course, are ultimately responsible for the final contents of the paper and trust that the readers will quickly inform us of any omissions, errors, or misrepresentations.

Special abbreviations:

1. Works Frequently Cited

Haggis–Mook, ‘Kavousi’ = D. Haggis and M. Mook, ‘The Kavousi coarse wares: A Bronze Age chronology for survey in the Mirabello area, Crete’, AJA 97 (1993), 265–93.

Moody, ‘Development’ = J. A. Moody, ‘The development of a Bronze Age coarse ware chronology for the Khania region of west Crete’, Temple University Aegean Symposium, 10 (1985), 51–65.

Moody, ‘Prehistory’ = J. A. Moody, ‘The Environmental and Cultural Prehistory of the Khania Region of West Crete’ (Ph.D. dissertation; University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, 1987).

Moody–Robinson, ‘Fabrics’ = J. Moody and H. I. Robinson, ‘The fabrics of life in Sphakia’, in Πεπραγμένα Η ́ (Herakleion, 2001), A2, 349–57.

Moody–Robinson, ‘Interaction’ = J. Moody and H. L. Robinson, ‘Early Iron Age interaction in southwestern Crete: the Sphakia and Ag. Vasileios Surveys’, in Πεπραγμένα Θ ́.

Πεπρογμένο Η΄ = Πεπραγμένα του Η΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολοιγκού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο1996 (Herakleion, 2001).

Πεπραγμένα Η ́ = Πεπραγμένα του Η ́́ Διεθνούς Κρητολοιγκού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο2001 (forthcoming).

Wilson–Day, ‘Regionalism’ = D. E. Wilson and P. M. Day, ‘Ceramic regionalism in prepalatial central Crete: the Messara imports at EM I–EM IIA Knossos’, BSA 89 (1994), 1–87.

Wilson–Day, ‘South front’ = D. E. Wilson and P. M. Day, ‘EM IIB ware groups at Knossos: the 1907–1908 south front tests’, BSA (1999), 1–62.

2. Chronology, Fabrics, Wares

3. Petrographic Terms (Inclusions, Grain Size, Light)

References

2 Matson, F. R. (ed.), Ceramics and Man (New York, 1965 Google Scholar; London, 1966) and Catling, H. W., Richards, E. E. and Blin-Stoyle, A. E., ‘Correlations between composition and provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery’, BSA 58 (1963), 94–115 Google Scholar.

3 For example, Jones, R. E., Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies (Athens, 1986)Google Scholar; Riley, J., ‘The contribution of ceramic petrology to our understanding of Minoan society’, in Krzyszkowska, O. and Nixon, I. (eds), Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981 (Bristol, 1983), 283–91Google Scholar; Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M., ‘Technological examination of Neolithic to Bronze Age pottery from central and southeast Europe and from the Near East’, JAS 8 (1981), 59–73 Google Scholar; Peacock, D., ‘The scientific analysis of ancient ceramics’, World Archaeology, 1 (1970), 275–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vaughan, S. J., ‘Observations from an Aegean perspective on the relationship of archaeology and science as reflected in the study of ancient pottery’, in Morris, C. (ed.), Klados. Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream (BICS Supp. 63; London, 1995), 261–70Google Scholar; and Day, P. M., ‘Pottery production and consumption in the Sitia Bay area during the New Palace period’, in Tsipopoulou, M. and Vagnetti, L. (eds), Achladia: scavi e ricerche della Missione Greco-Italiana in Creta Orientale 1991–1993 (Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici; Incunabula Graeca 97; Rome, 1995), 149–75Google Scholar.

4 Kilikoglou, V., Vekinis, G., Maniatis, Y. and Day, P. M., ‘Mechanical performance of quartz-tempered ceramics; Part I, strength and toughness’, Archaeometry, 40/1 (1998), 261–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kiriatzi, E., Andreou, S., Dimitriadou, S. et al. , ‘Co-existing traditions; handmade and wheelmade pottery in Late Bronze Age central Macedonia’, in Laffineur, R. I. and Betancourt, P. (eds), TEXNH (Aegaeum 16; Liège and Austin, Texas, 1997), 361–7Google Scholar; Knappett, C., ‘The provenance of red lustrous wheel-made ware; Cyprus, Syria or Anatolia?’, Internet Archaeology, 9 Google Scholar (2000; http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issuecf/knappett_index.html); Aloupi, E., Kilikoglou, V., Day, P. M. and Joyner, L., ‘Provenance and technological characterisation of fine tableware’, in Themelis, P. G. (ed.), Πρωτοβυζαντινὴ Ελέυθερνα (Rethymnon, 2000), 1/2. 207–35Google Scholar; Tomkins, P. and Day, P. M., ‘Production and change in the earliest ceramic vessels in the Aegean. A view from early Neolithic Knossos, Crete’, Antiquity, 75 (288) (2001), 259–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See the publications of Sanders, G., ‘Excavations at Sparta: the Roman stoa 1988–91. Preliminary report, part I: Medieval pottery’, BSA 88 (1993), 251–86Google Scholar; Haggis-Mook, ‘Kavousi’; Wilson-Day, ‘Regionalism’; iid., ‘South front’; Moody–Robinson, ‘Fabrics’; eaed., ‘Interaction’.

6 Moody, ‘Development’; ead., ‘Prehistory’.

7 Catling et al. (n. 2).

8 Matson (n. 2).

9 Furumark, A., Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification (Stockholm, 1941)Google Scholar, reprinted as Mycenaean Pottery, i: Analysis and Classification; ii: Chronology (Stockholm, 1972)Google Scholar.

10 Beazley's, J. D. method is clearly described in his article ‘Citharoedus’, JHS 42 (1922), 70–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Catling et. al. (n. 2) on Minoan and Mycenaean coarse stirrup jars; and Peacock (n. 3).

12 The divide in approaches to ceramic analysis between prehistoric and later excavated pottery is seen very clearly at Knossos. While Wilson-Day, ‘Regionalism’, ‘South front’, use a combination of MICFA and MACFA for their assessments of Minoan pottery, the recently published handbook on Greek and Roman pottery from Knossos ( Coldstream, J. N., Eiring, L. J. and Forster, G., Knossos Pottery Handbook. Greek and Roman (BSA Studies 7; Athens, 2001)Google Scholar has little detailed discussion of ceramic fabrics. The results of laboratory analysis are given where available and different fabrics are mentioned butnever systematically described; the authors deliberately chose not to use Munsell numbers so that Knossian surface and core colours cannot be related to those from other sites. Inclusions are sometimes identified (‘white calcite’) but all too often listed as ‘brown and grey particles’ (p. 22). Discussions of coarse wares are mainly limited to cooking pots, and take up only 8% of the book (and 9% of the plates). Note, however, the comparative work done of Iron Age ceramics from Tenos and other Cycladic islands by Gautier, J., ‘“Les Cyclades Antiques”. Caractérisation des centres de production céramique par microscopie optique’, in Dalongeville, R. and Rougemont, G. (eds), Recherches dans les Cyclades. Résultats des travaux de la RCP 583 (Lyons and Paris, 1993), 167–204 Google Scholar; and the ongoing programme of analyses of 7th c. BC to Roman pottery from Abdera, carried out by the 19th Ephorate and the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Blackman, D., ‘Archaeology in Greece’, AR 48 (2001–2002), 88 Google Scholar.

13 Haggis–Mook, ‘Kavousi’.

14 Wilson-Day, ‘Regionalism’; iid., ‘South front’; cf. Day's work on MM–LM I material at Akhladia (n. 3) (1995).

15 We note that our definition of Ware differs to some extent from Wilson and Day's (see Ware section below).

16 Wilson–Day, ‘Regionalism’, 2.

17 For a description of the Sphakia Survey, list of publications, and personnel please see the Sphakia Survey website, L. Nixon, J. Moody, S. Price, O. Rackham, The Sphakia Survey; Internet Edition (2001), http://sphakia.classics.ox.ac.uk.

18 Weinberg, G., ‘Excavations at Tarrha, 1959’, Hesp. 29 (1960), 90–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Ashmolean Museum (inv. ae. 282–4). Bosanquet, R. C. and Dawkins, R. M., The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations, 1902–1906 (BSA supp. 1; London 1923), 90 Google Scholar and fig. 73; ‘Faranga (Pharangas) in Anopolis yielded late Mycenaean vases (Ash. Mus.)’ (J. I. Myres in letter of 1895 to Dawkins, quoted in A. Brown (ed. with K. Bennett), Arthur Evans's Travels in Crete 1894–1899 (BAR IS1000; Oxford, 2001) nos. 231–3)Google Scholar.

20 Hood, S., ‘Minoan sites in the far west of Crete’, BSA 60 (1965), 99–113 Google Scholar and ‘Some sites in south-west Crete’, BSA 62 (1967), 47–56 Google Scholar.

21 Faure, P., ‘Sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétois’, BCH 91 (1967), 114–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétois (suite)’, BCH 93, (1969), 174–213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Rice, P., Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook (Chicago, 1987)Google Scholar; Wilson-Day, ‘Regionalism’.

23 For a detailed treatment of the Wares issue, see Rice, P., ‘Re-thinking the ware concept’, American Antiquity, 141 (1976), 538–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Betancourt, P. P., A History of Minoan Pottery (Princeton, 1985)Google Scholar.

25 See discussion in Hallager, E. and Hallager, B. P. (eds), Late Minoan III Pottery: Chronology and Terminology: Acts of a Meeting held at the Danish Institute at Athens, August 12–14, 1994 (Monographs of the Danish Institute i; Athens, 1997), 185–92Google Scholar.

26 This section and the petrographic descriptions included in the text are the result of analyses done by Lucy Wilson.

27 Tzedakis, I., ‘Δυτικὴ Κρήτη’, A. Delt. 25.2 (1970), B. 473 Google Scholar; Davaras, K., ‘Δυτικὴ Κρήτη’, A. Delt. 26.2 (1971), B. 508–19Google Scholar, at 511. Very little pottery from Graeco-Roman Sphakia had been published prior to the Survey. Weinberg's excavations at Tarrha in 1959 (n. 18) and Hood's survey work on the Frangokastello Plain (n. 20) represent the bulk of the material. Excavations in north and central Crete have proven more helpful, with material from Knossos, Kommos, Gortyn, Phalasarna, and Khania, in particular, providing identifications, parallels and chronologies for some fragments.

28 Whitbread, I. K., Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4; Athens, 1995)Google Scholar.

29 Cf. Moody, ‘Development’; ead., ‘Prehistory’; Moody-Robinson, ‘Fabrics’.

30 See T. Whitelaw, P. M. Day, E. Kiriatzi, V. Kilikoglou and D. E. Wilson, ‘Ceramic traditions at EM IIIB Myrtos, Fournou Korifi’, in Laffineur-Betancourt (n. 4), 265–74 and Day, P. M., Wilson, D. E., and Kiriatzi, E., ‘Pots, labels and people: burying ethnicity in the cemetery at Aghia Photia, Siteias’, in Branigan, K. (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1; Sheffield, 1998), 133–49Google Scholar.

31 We have conducted a number of experiments making pots from local, Cretan terra rossas and have found them to be satisfactory clay bodies. We plan to publish these results in another article.

32 Special thanks to Lucia Vagnetti for allowing us to examine the Nerokourou FN–EM material and for looking at our material.

33 Cf. Moody, ‘Prehistory’.

34 Cf. Day et al. (n. 30).

35 Cf. Rice (n. 22), 230 and Rye, O. S., ‘Keeping your temper under control: materials and the manufacture of Papuan pottery’, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, 11 (1976), 106–37Google Scholar, at 118.

36 Jerolyn Morrison and Moody have successfully replicated EM-MM calc fabrics from the Khania area using crushed aeolianite.

37 We thank Peter Day and David Wilson for this information.

38 The surface and core colours of Silver-Blue Spotted are very similar to those noted by Day and Kilikoglou for pottery fired in the LM I kiln from Kommos: Shaw, J. W., Moortel, A. Van de, Day, P. M. and Kilikoglou, V., A LM IA Ceramic Kiln in South-central Crete. Function and Pottery Production (Hesp. supp. 30; Princeton, 2001), 122 Google Scholar.

39 It is possible that these speckles are fine feldspar, though this identification needs to be double-checked petrographically. Fine feldspar is a well-known fluxing agent; a fluxing agent reduces the firing temperature where a clay sinters and vitrifies, and would be desirable for ceramic functions where porosity is undesirable such as table ware, transport and long term storage (Rice (n. 22), 96–7). Although feldspar powder may have been added to the paste intentionally (if indeed the speckles prove to be feldspar), it seems more likely that clays naturally containing this material were sought out.

40 Similar conclusions have been reached by Shaw et al. (n. 38), 132, for their fabrics and wares from Kommos.

41 Haggis-Mook, ‘Kavousi; discuss the use of non-local fabrics as chronological markers for the Kavousi area. In their example, pottery made out of the very distinctive Mirabello Fabric, and probably originating in the Vrokastro-Gournia area, does not occur after the Neopalatial period.

42 Moody-Robinson, ‘Interaction’.

43 Peacock, D. and Williams, D., Amphorae and the Roman Economy. An Introductory Guide (London, 1986), 86–92 Google Scholar.

44 See Peacock and Williams (n. 43), 88–92, for distribution; Empereur, J.-Y. and Hesnard, A., ‘Les amphores hellénistiques’, in Levèque, P. and Morel, J.-P. (eds), Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, ii (Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon 331; Paris, 1987), 9–71 Google Scholar, fig. 29. 3; and, R. Tomber Dore, J., The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A Handbook (London, 1998), 88–9Google Scholar.

45 For a general description and history of ARS, see Hayes, J. W. H., A Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery (London, 1997), 59–62 Google Scholar; see also id., Late Roman Pottery (London, 1972), 13–299 Google Scholar.

46 Gortyn: Di Vita, A. and Martin, A., Gortina II. Prelmio: il materiale degli scavi Colini: 1970–1977 (Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 7; Padua, 1997), 132–54Google Scholar; Knossos: Hayes (n. 45) (1972), 112–16, fig. 19; 166–9, fig. 32.

47 Research on the mechanical and thermal properties of ceramics and pottery has a long and distinguished history (see Rice (n. 22) for summaries). The pioneering work by Maniatis and Tite (n. 3); Tite, M. S., Kilikoglou, V., Vekinis, G., ‘Strength, toughness and thermal shock resistance of ancient ceramics, and dieir influence on technological science’, Archaeometry, 43 (2001), 301–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kilikoglou et al. 1988 (n. 4), and Vekinis, G. and Kilikoglou, V., ‘Mechanical properties of quartz tempered ceramics: Part II, Hertzian strength, wear resistance and applications to ancient ceramics’, Archaeometry, 40 (1988), 281–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is of special interest. They differentiate between ‘toughness’, the ability of a pot to stand up to mechanical and thermal shock, and ‘strength’, the ability of the pot to hold its contents. They note that, in general, ‘strong’ pottery is made from fabrics with low densities of inclusions and high firing temperatures. However, ‘tough’ pottery and pottery with high thermal shock resistance require high inclusion densities and low firing temperatures (Tite et al., 321).

48 See H. L. Robinson, ‘Potters' use of natural resources for cooking pottery: examples from the Sphakia Survey’, in Πεπραγμένα Θ ́ for a discussion of tripod cooking fabrics from Sphakia.

49 Rye, O. S., Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction (Washington, DC, 1981), 27 Google Scholar; Rice (n. 22), 237.

50 Rice ibid., 240.

51 Herron, M. K., ‘A formal and functional analysis of St. John's series pottery from two sites in St. Augustine, Florida’, in Rice, P. (ed.), Papers in Ceramic Analysis (Ceramic Notes 3; Gainesville, Fla., 1986), 31–45 Google Scholar.

52 Rye (n. 49), 27; Schiffer, M., Sibbo, J., Boelke, T., Neupert, M. and Aronson, M., ‘New perspectives in experimental archaeology: surface treatment and response of the clay cooking pot’, American Antiquity, 59 (1994), 197–217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Rye (n. 35); Bronitsky, G. and Hamer, R., ‘Experiments in ceramic technology: the effects of various tempering materials on impact and thermal shock resistance’, American Antiquity, 51 (1986), 89–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rice (n. 22).

54 Grimshaw, R. W., The Chemistry and Physics of Clays and Other Ceramic Materials (New York, 1971), 791; Rye (n. 35) (1976), 110–1Google Scholar; Rice n. 22, 367–8; Kilikoglou et al. (n. 4).

55 ‘The process of adhesion and densification (but not complete fusion or vitrification) of a particular material upon heating close to but below the melting point’ (Rice (n. 22), 482).

56 Arnold, D., Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process (Cambridge, 1985), 128 Google Scholar.

57 Lawrence, W. G., Ceramic Science for the Potter (Philadelphia, 1972), 181 Google Scholar; Braun, D., ‘Pots as tools’, in Keene, A. and Moore, J. (eds), Archaeological Hammers and Theories (New York, 1983), 107–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tite et al. (n. 47), 321.

58 Rye (n. 35), 117.

59 Tite et al. (n. 47), 312.

60 Bronitsky-Hamer (n. 53), 97–8; Kilikoglou et al. (n. 4), 272.

61 Robinson (n. 48).

62 Lewis, H. [now Robinson], The Manufacture of Early Mycenaean Pottery (Ph.D. dissertation; Ann Arbor, 1983), 71 Google Scholar.

63 Robinson (n. 48).

64 L. Nixon, ‘Specialised prehistoric ceramic objects from Sphakia’, in Πεπρογμένο Θ΄.

65 For more technical analyses on the properties of ‘strength’ and ‘toughness’ in amphorae see Kilikoglou et al. 1988 (n. 4); Vekinis and Kilikoglou (n. 47 ).

66 Rice (n. 22), 362–3. Tite et al. (n. 47).

67 Maniatis and Tite (n. 3) and Vekinis and Kilikoglou (n. 47), 288–9, have analysed the ‘strength’ and ‘toughness’ of Punic amphorae made out of sand tempered fabrics. They found that ‘stronger’ fabrics had smaller inclusions, while ‘tougher’ fabrics had greater quartz content. They note that high ‘toughness’ would be especially important when transporting liquids by boat.

68 Rice (n. 22), 231. A third century AD pottery lease from Oxyrhynchus mentions both sandy earth as one of the components of the wine jars to be made, and pitch for lining; Cockle, H., ‘Pottery manufacture in Roman Egypt: a new papyrus’, JRS 71 (1981), 87–97 Google Scholar; text p. 87, ll. 14–16 and translation p. 90.

69 Lawall, M., ‘Graffiti, wine-selling, and the reuse of amphorae in the Athenian agora, ca. 430 to 400 B.C.’, Hesp. 69 (2000), 3–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for dried meat, see p. 80.

70 Columella, , De re rustica xii. 20 Google Scholar. 8. For adding calcium carbonate to wine in order to lower acidity, see A. Pandell, ‘The acidity of wine’, http://tvww.urine.perspective.com/ (1999).

71 Marangou-Lerat, A., Le Vin et les amphores de Crète de l'époque classique à l'époque impériale (Études crétoises 30; Athens, 1995), 35–122 Google Scholar.

72 Tomber-Dore (n. 44), 101–2 for two North African amphora fabrics.

73 Marangou-Lerat (n. 71); Coldstream et al. (n. 12), 161.

74 Rice (n. 22), 228.

75 Rye (n. 47), 27; Rice (n. 22), 227.

76 Tite et al. (n. 47), 321; Vekinis and Kilikoglou (n. 47), 274. For the movement of pithoi see Voyatzoglou, M., ‘The jar makers of Thrapsano in Crete’, Expedition, 16 (1974), 18–24 Google Scholar; and Whitelaw et al. (n. 30), 268, where the transport of large pithoi from the Mirabello area on the north coast of Crete, to the site of Myrtos Foumou Korifi on the south coast, has been demonstrated by MACFA and MICFA methodologies for the Early Minoan period.

77 Recent experiments in the replication of Minoan ceramic fabrics byjerolyn Morrison and Marie Archambeault have demonstrated this for olive oil and honey (AIA, New Orleans 2002/3 Poster Session).

78 Nixon (n. 64).

79 This fabric is a refinement of the ceramic Fabric called Mixed Metamorphic Sand+ in Robinson (n. 48).

80 For general discussions of ancient beekeeping, see Jones, J. E., Graham, A. J. and Sackett, L. H., ‘An Attic country house below the Cave of Pan at Vari’, BSA (1973), 355–452 Google Scholar; Anderson-Stojanović, V. R. and Jones, J. E., ‘Ancient beehives from Isthmia’, Hesp. 71 (2002), 345–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 No securely identified clay beehive lids have been found by the Sphakia Survey; J. Francis, ‘Beehives and beekeeping in Graeco-Roman Sphakia’, in Πεπραγμένα Θ ́.

82 Columella, , De re rustica ix. 6 Google Scholar. 2. There is a long gap in our knowledge of Sphakiote bee-keeping between the LR period, when the CHR/LR type ceramic hives were used, and the Turkish-earlier 20th c. period, when hives in Sphakia were upright hives made of cypress wood and placed at the top of agricultural terraces, usually in stone-walled bee enclosures. They were not then routinely moved. Migratory bee-keeping in Sphakia, using European box beehives, began only when motor transport became widely accessible. See J. Francis, ‘Finds of Graeco-Roman beehives from Sphakia, SW Crete’, and I. Nixon, ‘Traditional bee-keeping in Sphakia, SW Crete’, abstracts of paper presented to conference on bee-keeping in the Graeco-Roman world (Oxford, 2000) at http://sphakia.classics.ox.ac.uk/beeconf/.html

83 Experiments with cylinders made of different clays, including sand clay, will be undertaken to determine whether any temperature changes can be correlated to the use of spcific clays.

84 See discussion of speckles in n. 39.

85 Ibid.

86 Moody-Robinson, ‘Interaction’.

87 We are grateful to Aleydis Van de Moortel for discussing this manufacturing technique with us, and for allowing us to mention the Kommos material here. She adds that the same combination of coarse and fine fabrics probably occurred also at Phaistos and Ag. Triada, but that their fabrics have not yet been published in detail. Note also Van de Moortel, ‘Adopting Knossian ways: Neopalatial versus Protopalatial pottery production in the western Mesara’, in Πεπρογμένο Θ΄.

88 Coldstream et al. (n. 12), 141.

89 Tomber-Dore (n. 44), 26–7 publish in-depth descriptions of fabrics from two Terra Sigillata workshops, Lyons and Pisa.

90 For a more detailed discussion of Italian Terra Sigillata in Crete see: Knossos: Coldstream et al. (n. 12), 141–3; Gortyn: Di Vita–Martin (n. 46), 125–6.

91 Apokoronas: Moody, ‘Development’; ead., ‘Prehistory’; Riley (n. 3), 283–91.

92 A study of ceramic fabrics done by Moody in the mid 1980s shows that sponge spicule fabrics form 0.9% of a subsample of the MM II–LM I Nerokourou pottery; 17% of a subsample of the LM III pottery from the Ag. Aikaterini Square excavations in Khania; 26% of a subsample of the LM III pottery from Samonas; and 26% of a subsample of the LM III pottery from Stylos.

93 Francis, J., Price, S., Nixon, L. and Moody, J., ‘Agiasmatsi: a cult cave in Sphakia, SW Crete’, BSA 95 (2000), 427–71Google Scholar.

94 We should like to thank Athanasia Kanta for allowing one of us to study this material in the mid 1980s.

95 Day (n. 3).

96 Joyner, L. and Politis, K. D., ‘Catering for pilgrims: petrographic analysis of late antique kitchenware from the Monastery of St Lot at Deir 'Ain 'Abata, Jordan’, Internet Archaeology, 9 Google Scholar (2000; http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue9/daa_index.html); P. Tyers, Potsherd. Atlas of Roman Pottery (Internet edition, 2002, http://umnv.potsherd.uklinux.net/).

97 Tomber-Dore (n. 44).

98 Nixon et al. (n. 17); L. Nixon, ‘Paper, video, website: new technologies and the Sphakia Survey’, in Canadian Archaeological Institute at Athens' Colloquium on Ancient Greece at the Turn of the Millennium: Recent Work and Future Perspectives (in press). The authors of the present article note that Sanders sent them information about his work at Corinth and Sparta by e-mail, after seeing the Sphakia Survey website; and further, that Van de Moortel, whose work on the Kommos material is acknowledged in n. 87, was able to recognize a fabric from one of the digital images on our website.

99 Armstrong, P. and Hatcher, H., ‘Byzantine and allied pottery, phase 2: past works on materials analysis and future prospects’, in Maguire, H. (ed.), Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery (Washington DC, 1995), 1–8 Google Scholar.

100 Cherry, J. F., ‘Frogs around the pond: perspectives on current archaeological survey projects in the Mediterranean region’, in Keller, D. and Rupp, D. (eds), Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean (BAR IS 155; Oxford, 1983), 375–416 Google Scholar.

101 The Beazley Archive at Oxford has investigated ways of linking online resources, so that researchers can search more than one database at a time. In spring 2001 the Archive inaugurated a project to develop a model for searching across datasets in classical archaeology held at a selection of sites elsewhere in Europe with considerable experience in electronic documentation. These are the Forschungsarchiv für antike Plastik in Cologne; the Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Department of the Musée du Louvre; and the Paris office of the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) in the University of Paris X. In June 2001 the Foundation Council of the LIMC, representing some forty countries, agreed to participate in the project (introduction to the Beazley Archive website, http://imvw.beazley.ox.ac.uk). To be more specific, D. Kurtz and G. Parker (pers. comm.) have proposed a distributed model, where a web front-end processes a query, sends it to individual servers, then combines and display results, e.g. in summary format, or in a browsing screen with full information and images. The same kind of cross-searching could beused for databases containing information about ceramic fabrics, including images.

102 Jones (n. 3); Tzedakis, Y. and Martlew, H., Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of Their Times (Athens, 1999)Google Scholar.

103 Vitelli, K. D., ‘Greek Neolithic pottery by experiment’, in Rice, P. M. (ed.), Pots and Potters. Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology (Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 24; Los Angeles, 1987), 113–31Google Scholar.

104 Matson (n. 2); Blitzer, H., ‘Traditional pottery production in Kentri, Crete: workshops, materials, techniques and trade’, in Betancourt, P. P. (ed.), East Cretan White-on-Dark Ware (Philadelphia, 1984), 143–58Google Scholar; ead., ‘Koroneïka: storage-jar production and trade in the traditional Aegean’, Hesp. 59 (1990), 675–711.

105 Hampe, R. and Winter, A., Bei Töpfern und Töpferinnen in Kreta, Messenien, und Zypern (Mainz, 1962)Google Scholar; Voyatzoglou (n. 76); Blitzer (n. 104) (1984, 1990).

106 See Rice (n. 22), 311–12 for a history.

107 Peacock (n. 3); Tomber-Dore (n. 44) (1998); Tyers (n. 96).