berg meaningmakingpotter'swheelgreece

8/11/2019 Berg MeaningMakingPotter'SWheelGreece

1/19

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 234252

www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2006.10.001

Meaning in the making: The potters wheel at Phylakopi,Melos (Greece)

Ina Berg

Department of Archaeology, University of Manchester, School of Arts, Histories and Cultures, Humanities Bridgeford Street Building,

Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

Received 24 February 2006; revision received 28 September 2006Available online 12 December 2006

Abstract

It is now commonly accepted that technology is, to its very core, a social product through which we can explore culturalchoices. This cultural dimension of technology will be examined with reference to the introduction and use of the potterswheel at Phylakopi on Melos (Greece) during the Late Bronze Age. At this site, the co-existence of two diVerent manufac-turing techniques was so deeply embedded that, despite the presence of hybrid vessels, many aspects of the pottery produc-tion had become linked to either a local (hand-built) or Minoanising (wheel-thrown) tradition. It will be argued that thetraditional hand-building technique was associated with individual and rooted facets of the Melian identity (such as kin-ship, social class, or gender). Reasons for the initial stimulus for adoption of the potters wheel are considered to lie in its

potential for competitive social practice through association with exotic, symbolically laden technologies, craft productsand consumption rituals. The gradual application of the technology to ever more complex vessels, on the other hand, corre-sponds to the apprenticeship sequence outlined by Roux and Corbetta and may indicate an incomplete learning process ora certain lack of practice opportunities among local potters.2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cyclades; Technology; Cultural choices; Potters wheel; Apprenticeship; Identity; Late Bronze Age

Technology: Meaning in the making

It is now commonly accepted that technology

is, to its very core, a social product through whichwe can explore cultural choices. This outlook,however, is in stark contrast to what PfaVenberger(1992)has called the Standard View according towhich technologies emerge and develop as aresponse to environmentally driven needs in a

cumulative progression over time; taking Darwin-ism as a metaphor, it is assumed that those tech-nologies best adapted to satisfy the relevant

functional needs will be selected and propagated.Consequently, technological factors are directlyrelated to the artefacts function while socialmeaning is seen to reside in function-less stylisticfeatures that are often added to the surface (Bin-ford, 1965; Dunnell, 1978). Central to this view isthe assumption that manufacturing sequences areconstrained by natural and physical parameterswhereby each decision is seen to predict to a largeror smaller extent the next step within the sequence

* Fax: +44 161 2753331.E-mail address:[email protected]
mailto:%[email protected]:%[email protected]:%[email protected]


2/19

I. Berg / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 234252 235

(Franken, 1971; SchiVer and Skibo, 1987, 1997;SchiVer et al., 1994; Steponaitis, 1983, 1984). Sucha techno-functionalist approach leaves no spacefor the expression of socio-political meaning, suchas identity, learning networks, kinship relations,

or social stratiW

cation. This technology-societyduality has, in the case of ceramic studies, oftenled to an emphasis on investigations of physicalproperties, such as strength, resistance to thermalshock or abrasion, porosity, and heating eVective-ness (Hughes, 1981; Plog, 1980; Rice, 1984; Skibo,1992; for a recent summary see Rice, 1996).Change in manufacturing processes was explainedas performance orientated evolution towards atechnological best-Wt. Social meaning, on theother hand, was seen to reside exclusively in deco-rative features.

Over the last three decades, the techno-function-alist approach has been strongly criticised forupholding the dualism between technology and soci-ety, for preserving the assumption that decisions atany level of the chane opratoirepredetermine thenext step in the sequence, and its reliance on non-representative, lab-based experimental workwhereby certain technological features are measuredand speciWc characteristics assumed but rarely testedin ethnographic contexts (Livingstone-Smith, 2000;Gosselain, 1998; van der Leeuw, 1993). It is now

commonly accepted that the selection of raw materi-als and manufacturing techniques, for instance,should be considered as carrying social meaning inthe same way as stylistic features; technical behav-iour is no longer perceived as merely a passiveresponse to environmental or functional pressuresbut is acknowledged as being social practice itself(Dobres, 1999, 2000, 2001; Dobres and HoVman,1999; Gosselain, 1992, 1998; Hosler, 1996; Ingold,1999; Jones, 2002; Lemonnier, 1986, 1992, 1993;PfaVenberger, 1988, 1992; Roux, 2003; SchiVer,

2001; Sillar and Tite, 2000). All of the above scholarsemphasise the active role of technology in the con-struction and reproduction of social relationships.Cultural choices are made solid through prefer-ences for raw materials, tools, equipment, gesturesand knowledge. As a result, technical actions canhelp us explore underlying religious, symbolic, eco-nomic and political pressure(s) in relation to theexpression of identity, ethnicity, gender, age, socialboundaries, etc. Technology is hereby recognised asplaying an important part in forging, reaYrmingand/or contesting relationships and traditions. How-

ever, one should caution against the assumption that

interaction between the social and material spheresfollows a causal, linear trajectory whereby culturalviews are easily translated into material expression;instead, this interaction is best visualized as mutu-ally reinforcing socio-material practices whose

dynamic creates a meaningful arena in whichhumans simultaneously engage with each other andwith their material world (Dobres and HoVman,1999, p. 2). The dynamic qualities of the interactionbetween material, corporeal and meaningful experi-ence are perfectly captured by Dobres expressionmeaning in the making (Dobres, 2001).

So many ways of making a pot

If we accept that technological activities aremeaningful social practice then one would expect to

see great variety of outcomes at each step of the cha-ne opratoireinstead of a narrow range of predeter-mined sequential solutions. And indeed, a briefcross-cultural survey of ethnographic literaturedemonstrates that the relationship between clay,temper, forming technique, shape and function isimpacted on more strongly by social rules, traditionsand taboos (often expressed in terms of habits)than by technological requirements: Cameroonianpotters, for example, may add either sand or grog ordung or no temper at all to clay from the same

source (Livingstone-Smith, 2000, p. 28, 36). Sincefunction analysis has indicated that these clays donot actually require reWnement or tempering andcould be used without any additional treatment, theaddition of (particular) tempering materials has tobe understood as an important social practice (Gos-selain, 1998, p. 89). Based on wide-ranging Weld-work, van der Leeuw unequivocally puts the mythof predisposed choices to rest by stating that

virtually all known prehistoric techniques of pot-tery-making, and most ethnographically observed

ones, have a rather wide tolerance for clays andother raw materials needed, so that almost any ofthose techniques could probably be implementedalmost anywhere, if need be by introducing a fewminor modiWcations The non-availability of theappropriate raw material(s) turns out to be onlyvery rarely the limiting constraint in the manufac-ture of pottery (1993, p. 239).

Great variation also exists in the conceptualisa-tion of the pot and its forming sequence. Pottersmay, for example, perceive a vessel as a single unit or

as a combination of individually layered horizontal


3/19

236 I. Berg / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 234252

or vertical additions; as a result, vessels can be builtbottom-up, top-down, or in sections (uni-directionalor multi-directional) (Diaz, 1966; Krause, 1984,1985; van der Leeuw, 1993). With regard to theforming techniques used, modern scholars normally

talk in terms of either hand-building techniques orwheel throwing. However, forming techniques arebetter understood as two points along a spectrumranging from purely hand-built to purely wheel-thrown vessels with most methods lying somewherein between these extremes or indeed utilising both atdiVerent stages of the manufacturing process (Blan-dino, 2003; Bresenham, 1985; Courty and Roux,1995; Foster, 1959; Franken and Kalsbeek, 1975;Gelbert, 1999; Mahias, 1993; Miller, 1985; Nichol-son and Patterson, 1985; Roux, 2003; Roux andCourty, 1998; Saraswati and Behura, 1966; van der

Leeuw, 1993). The fact that a potter may combinediVerent techniques in the making of a single vessel(Saraswati and Behura, 1966, p. 61) and evidence ofdiVerent potters producing the same vessel type bydiVerent methods undermines the functionalist par-adigm (Miller, 1985, pp. 221222). Similarly, techni-cal choices invoked for Wring and post-Wringtreatment were shown to be functionally equivalentin Weld and laboratory experiments (Gosselain,1998, p. 87).

The role of cultural choices in modifying diversity

Although ethnographic and archaeologicalinvestigations have clearly demonstrated thatfunctionalism lacks in explanatory power becausea choice made at one level does not automaticallycondition the choices made at the next levels(Gosselain, 1998, p. 89), this does not imply thatchoices were randomly interchangeable. Clearly,choices aremade with regard to the manufactur-ing sequence, materials and tools, and some solu-

tions are retained while others are rejected.However, we should not think of these choices asnecessarily carefully considered options. It isunlikely that potters familiarised themselves care-fully with all available techniques, discussed theiradvantages and disadvantages, and reXected uponthe wider social and technical implications of atechnical variant prior to adopting or rejecting it.1

Rather we should regard these choices as Wrmlyanchored in a much wider realm of experiences,perceptions and conceptualisations of the potterwhat van der Leeuw has called his mappa mundi,his map of the world (van der Leeuw, 1993, p. 431).

Thus, alternatives are never true alternatives andneed to be considered in light of cultural choicesleading to a restricted number of culturallyacceptable variants (Gosselain, 1998, p. 82; see Sil-lar, 1997, pp. 1112 for the social meaning of thetempering material andesite). Interestingly,despite being ultimately limited by cultural fac-tors, rejection of alternative ways of doing is oftenrationalised in terms of technological disadvan-tages (e.g. the electric potters wheel will diminishcontrol by the potter, a regulated kiln will breakthe pots) both by the subjects themselves and the

researchers (Nicholson and Patterson, 1985, p.237;Nicklin, 1971, pp. 4243).

Anthropologists, economists, developmentagencies and market researchers have investigatedthe conditions that may lead to a successful adop-tion or, conversely, to rejection of new technolo-gies. The importance of existing value systems,eYcient information transfer, economic factors,customary motor habits, status of the advocateand/or potential adopter, ethnic identity, and poli-tics have been emphasized, but no reliable, predic-

tive formula has been found (Bargatzky, 1989;Barnett, 1953; Layton, 1989; McGlade andMcGlade, 1989; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Inlieu of a mathematical equation scholars seem tohave settled on the more fuzzy notion of compati-bility; new technologies must be somehow com-patible with the environment and the social(including technological) organisation of the soci-ety under investigation (Armit and Finlayson,1995; Lemonnier, 1986, 1993; Mahias, 1993; Nick-lin, 1971). While to predict the future of a technol-

ogy remains notoriously diY

cult, asarchaeologists we are in the enviable position tobe able to work backwards into the past; insteadof having to speculate about the future success orfailure of an innovation we can trace it backwardsto its beginnings. In the process, we may some-times be able to reconstruct the socio-technicalcontext of a new technology. In the following casestudy from the Greek Bronze Age, I will suggestthat the introduction of a new technologicalinvention, the potters wheel, can only be under-stood when we consider technology as a meaning-

ful marker of social identity Figs. 1 and 2.

1 This is not to deny the fact that many potters were indeed wellinformed about alternative ways of doing, either through havingheard about them or having observed them personally. See, for

example, Nicholson and Patterson, 1985, p. 237.


4/19


Case study: Bronze Age Greece Figs. 1 and 2

The potters wheel

In comparison to Mesopotamia where the pot-ters wheel had already been introduced during thefourth millennium BC (Pollock, 1999, p. 5), its Wrstappearance in Greece can be dated to the Lefkandi

I and Tiryns cultures of the EH IIB and III periods

(Wnsche, 1977, p. 27). On Crete, our earliest evi-dence dates to the MM III period. Thanks to workby Xanthoudides (1927)and Evely (1988, 2000), wehave a reasonably detailed understanding of thedesign, technical development and production con-text of the potters wheel and potting supports onCrete (for a general discussion on potting devices seeRice, 1987, pp. 132135) (Fig. 3). Evely has identiWed

several dozens of wheelheads which were found at a

Fig. 1. The Aegean and Melos.


5/19


great variety of locations covering the Middle andLate Minoan periods. Not unreasonably, it has beenassumed that these clay wheelheadsan essentialpart of the potters wheelcan stand proxy for theactual device (Fig. 4). They are large (2575 cm in

diameter) and appear to fall into two weight catego-ries with the smaller ones weighing 46kg and thelarger ones weighing 810kg (Evely, 2000). Theirlightweight design makes it unlikely that they wereable to store the momentum in the same way asstone wheels which can weigh up to 40kg. Untilexperimental work has clariWed the design, eYciencyand speed, three diVerent scenarios can be upheld:an apprentice maintained the speed during the pot-ting process, wheels were attached to heavy stonepivots in order to add essential weight, or thesewheels were only used for the production of small

vessels.2 In the Cyclades, wheelheads have beenfound at Phylakopi on Melos, Akrotiri on Theraand Ayia Irini on Kea. They provide evidence of theuse of the wheel at least by the (early) MiddleBronze Age, though most are contemporaneouswith the New Palace period on Crete. Similarities indesign, diameter and material make it likely thattheir capabilities were equivalent to wheels fromCrete (Georgiou, 1983, pp. 7578; Georgiou, 1986,pp. 3639).3

However, it is important to emphasise that the

existence of a potters wheel does not necessarilyimply the consistent utilization of rotative kineticenergy during the making of a vessel. Nor is theexistence of surface features commonly associatedwith wheel-thrown pottery (e.g. rilling around theinterior and/or exterior, concentric striations onthe base and compression ripples around the neck)incontrovertible evidence of its use. Rilling aroundthe interior or exterior surface, for example, canalso be associated with techniques which involvethe wheel as a secondary procedure such as coiling

and then wheel-shaping a vessel using rotative

Fig. 2. Suggested chronology and synchronism for the BronzeAge Aegean (adapted from Barber, 1987; Manning, 1999; War-ren and Hankey, 1989).

2 The experimental reconstruction of a CanaaniteIsraelite pot-ters wheel by Amiran and Shenhavprovides our closest parallel.Here, a 60 cm wide wooden board was placed on top of a stonesocket/pivot arrangement; the maximum speed that was attainedwith this potters wheel was 60 rpm (1984).

3 Although uncertain in the light of early evidence of wheel-thrown, Western Anatolian-derived shapes on the Greek main-land, the adoption of the potters wheel often has been regardedas the inevitable outcome of interaction with Minoan Crete, fromwhere this technology, so the assumption, was introduced to theAegean islands together with other expressions of Minoan life-

style (Papagiannopoulou, 1991, p. 61; Georgiou, 1986, p. 38).


6/19


kinetic energy (Courty and Roux, 1995; Roux andCourty, 1998; Henrickson, 1991). Concentric stria-tions on vessels merely indicate the use of a rota-tional movement at the time of removing the vesselfrom the bat and concentric ripples around theneck only occur in the Wnal stage of shaping a potand are thus not necessarily related to the primaryforming. Thus, what is conventionally considered awheel-thrown vessel might in fact be wheel-shaped.Based on experiments, Courty and Roux havedeveloped a methodology that allowed them todiVerentiate between truly wheel-thrown andwheel-shaped vessels (with a potential to further

distinguish between up to four diVerent wheel-

shaping sequences) (1995; Roux and Courty, 1998),but there are still many grey areas.

While Weldwork for the below case study tookplace prior to the publication of Courty and Rouxsarticles and thus does not distinguish betweenwheel-throwing and wheel-shaping, Knappettsanalysisof Middle Minoan pottery from Knossos,Crete, suggests the continued use of wheel-shapingfor several generations after the introduction of thepotters wheel (2004), and it is possible thatPhylakopi on Melos witnessed a similar develop-ment. Until a reliable method has been found to dis-tinguish macroscopically between wheel-throwing

and wheel-shaping, all subsequent references to

Fig. 3. Chronology of potting devices in Greece (based on Evely, 1988, 2000and Eliopoulos, 2000).

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of Minoan Potters wheel (after Evely, 2000: Wg. 11b).


7/19


wheel-made or wheel-thrown should be under-stood as referring to any kind of use of rotativekinetic energy during all or part of the formingprocess.

The social meaning of the potters wheel

Many archaeologists working in the prehistoricAegean still regard pottery primarily as a datingdevice or as a means to understand the technical ororganisational aspects of craft production. Meaning,on the other hand, is seen to reside in the use-contextand the added decoration. To view the technologyitself as meaningful social practice has only recentlybecome a topic of scholarly debate. Kiriatzi and hercolleagues, for example, investigated the introduc-tion of the potters wheel to Toumba in Central

Macedonia during the Late Bronze Age where coil-building or pinching had been the traditional pro-duction method. Mycenaean-type pottery, with aparticular preference for serving vessels, was madeusing the potters wheel. Additional diVerences wereobserved in the raw materials (calcareous versusnon-calcareous clays), their preparation (well-reWned versus relatively coarse) and Wring condi-tions (controlled kiln versus open-air Wring). Theauthors argued that the use of Mycenaean-type pot-tery in socially charged situations created an arena

for the negotiation of societal roles, identities andrelationships (Kiriatzi et al., 1997). That technologycan have social meaning has also been suggested forthe MM III period in Crete. Together with special-ist masons, scribes, and traders, Knappett envisagesthe existence of specialist potters who, throughexposure to Near Eastern potters, began producingwheel-made vessels for the Knossian elite. Associa-tion of the new technology and hence the resultingvessels with distant and mysterious cultures andknowledge could have provided the aspiring palatial

elite with a new means to consolidate and expresstheir authority (Knappett, 1999; cf Roux, 2003for acomparable Near Eastern case study).

While the two case studies view agency residing indiVerent social groups (bottom-up and top-down,respectively) they both imply that technology is not adistinct subsystem of society but is inseparably linkedto it and can therefore constitute socially meaningfulpractice. Unfortunately, due to our concerns with dat-ing, technological sequences and style as well as theneed of excellent datasets as a prerequisite for furtheranalysis, investigations into the social context of tech-

nology are still underrepresented. Based on the belief

that the social context of technological activities isparamount for a better understanding of past socie-ties, this work wishes to explore the pottery produc-tion at Phylakopi on Melos.

Historical background

Melos (Fig. 1) has been an important island sinceat least the Upper Paleolithic when obsidian Wndsfrom the Franchthi cave on the Greek mainland indi-cate that people had begun to exploit Melian obsidian(Perls, 1987). While obsidian is the most visible mate-rial, the use of kaolin for incised patterns on ceramicsis dated to the 6th millennium BC (Pantelidou-Gopha, 1995, pp. 140143). Surface scatters of lithicsdated to the Saliagos culture (c. 5th millennium BC)present the Wrst (seasonal) habitation remains on the

island (Renfrew and WagstaV, 1982). The transitionalGrotta-Pelos culture is well-represented on Melos.While stratigraphic material from Phylakopi itself isscant, settlement-cemetery pairs (e.g. Pelos Pyrgaki-Pelos, Samari-Kalogries) give a good impression ofthe dispersed nature of habitation in this period (Ren-frew and WagstaV, 1982). The early Middle CycladicPhylakopi I culture indicates that the settlement itselfhad become substantial. While there are altogethernine known sites on Melos, Phylakopi is emerging asthe dominant centre on the island, foreshadowing

complete nucleation in the late Middle Cycladicperiod (Renfrew and WagstaV, 1982). After destruc-tion at the end of the MBA, Phylakopi was rebuilt,and public buildings and the fortiWcation wall wereadded (Renfrew, 1978) (Fig. 5).

Between the Middle and Late Bronze Age, Phyl-akopialongside many other sites in the southernAegean, on the Greek mainland and along the coastof Asia Minorshowed a dramatic increase in thenumber of Minoan imports (actual objects as well assymbols and concepts) (Berg, 2000; Davis, 1992;

Davis et al., 2001; Hgg and Marinatos, 1984). Exca-vations also showed growth in the quantities of localimitations, most visibly in the pottery. This escalat-ing presence of Minoan features or local imitationsand the inferred culture change has been calledMinoanisation (for summaries see Berg, 2000;Broodbank, 2004; Papagiannopoulou, 1991). Notunlike Romanisation or Westernisation, Mino-anisation is steeped in imperialist notions and evo-lutionary views (Curchin, 1991, p. 55; Moore, 1987,p. 86; for Minoan examples see Cadogan, 1984, p.14; Doumas, 1982, p. 8; Schachermeyr, 1978, p. 424;

Wiener, 1984). While presented as an explanation


8/19


for the observed changes in material culture, theterm is actually almost void of any intrinsic meaningas it is used as an all-encompassing catchphrase andcarries no explanatory power (Berg, 2000). Culturechange as a result of the conjunction of two princi-pally autonomous societies can have a wide varietyof consequences, ranging from complete assimila-tion of the two cultures to complete lack of impact.Not only are there diVerences in the depth of culturechange but also in its direction and in its enforce-

ment: are we witnessing a one-way or two-way pro-cess and who was the driving force behind thechange? It has been suggested, for example, that thedemand for Roman practices and items was in somecases locally driven, rather than imposed by theRomans themselves (Haselgrove, 1990, p. 46; Mil-lett, 1990, p. 38). Thus, material culture must be seenas a dynamic force and as a means of communica-tion, as suggested by studies of ethnicity and cul-tural identity (Banks, 1996; Jones, 1997; cf. Hodder,1982). To understand the complex process of Mino-

anisation (of the pottery production) at Phylakopi,we must immerse ourselves in the local context of allsocieties involved in the interaction and consider thehidden meaning behind any cultural changes (forCycladic case studies see Berg, 2004; Davis, 1979,1980, 1984; Davis and Lewis, 1985; Davis andCherry, in press; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou,2005).

Excavation history and research parameters

The history of archaeological exploration of

Melos began in the late 18th century. First excava-

tions of the settlement of Phylakopi occurredbetween 1896 and 1899 (Atkinson et al., 1904;Hogarth et al., 1897/98; Mackenzie et al., 1898/99;Mackenzie, 1963; Smith, 1896/97). Because of thesubsequent discoveries on Crete, Dawkins andDroop undertook a small-scale supplementary exca-vation a decade later (1910/11; Barber, 1974). Ren-frew revived excavations at Phylakopi between 1974and 1977 to clarify the dating of speciWc features. Anextensive interdisciplinary study of the whole island

was conducted at the same time (Renfrew and Wag-staV, 1982). Preliminary reports and interpretativearticles have been published (Archaeological Reports197475, pp. 2325; 197576, pp. 2526; 197677,pp. 5455; Cherry and Davis, 1982; Renfrew, 1978),while the Wnal excavation report is close to publica-tion (Renfrew, in press). Between 1989 and 1992,Sanders and Catling undertook a survey of Melos(Archaeological Reports198990, p. 67). In 2003, ateam from the British School in cooperation withthe Greek Archaeological Service conducted a topo-

graphical and geophysical survey of Phylakopi inadvance of the conservation of the site and its devel-opment for tourism (Archaeological Reports20034,p. 71).

Many would argue that Renfrews 197477 exca-vations of Phylakopi (Fig. 5), upon which my analy-sis is based, present us with one of the best ceramicassemblages of the Aegean prehistoric world,remarking in particular upon up-to-date excavationpractices, the retention of all of the excavated pot-tery and its excellent state of preservationfurthercomplemented by selective assemblages from pre-

ceding investigations. However, while without doubt

Fig. 5. The town of Phylakopi in the Late Bronze Age with excavation trenches indicated (Renfrew and WagstaV, 1982: Wg. 4.3; repro-duced with permission from Colin Renfrew).


9/19


an exceptional collection, four major issues need tobe raised here: Wrst, the 197477 excavations weredesigned to investigate diVerent structures in uncon-nected parts of the town, resulting in trenches whosedeposits could not be reliably related chronologi-

cally without resorting to statistical procedures eachwith its own set of problems (Davis and Cherry,1984, in press); second, while each trench did pro-vide a Wne-grained sequence, individual deposits fre-quently had too small a sample size for meaningfulstatistical analysis. Third, the trenches were verysmall and did not allow the exploration of one com-plete architectural unit, thus depriving us of impor-tant contextual information. Fourth, although everyattempt was made to detect joins, the highly frag-mentary state of the pottery (less than 1% of thestudied were complete) made identiWcation of

shapes, motifs and forming technique often prob-lematic; in addition, assignment of forming tech-nique(s) to shapes was based on the fragmentsstudied and may conceal the existence of hybrid ves-sels where diVerent techniques were applied to diVer-ent body parts of the same vessel (Berg, 2000).

Seven of Renfrews excavated trenches providedreasonably large sample sizes and a chronologicalcoverage of the Middle Cycladic to Late CycladicII periods: trenches A, DI/E, C from theMegaron area, trench S from the Pillar Crypt

area, and trenches KKd, PK, PLa along the fortiW-cation wall (Fig. 5). Of those, trenches A and PLatogether contained almost 70% of all fragments. Interms of temporal coverage, 40% of all fragmentscame from MC layers, the remainder belonging tothe LC III periods. Overall, I studied 74,557sherds and 479 complete vessels (for a summary ofmajor shape categories, see Fig. 6). All ceramicswere analysed macroscopically according to 45variables, the most important ones for this workbeing fabric, shape, forming technique, and motif.

Resulting percentages are based on sherd count(Berg, 2000).4

Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery at Phylakopi

Two fabric groups can be clearly distinguishedmacroscopically and petrologically (Fig. 7) (Davisand Williams, 1981; Jones, 1986, pp. 271272; Bar-ber and Hadjianastasiou, 1989, pp. 154156). The

Local Fabric Group ranges from semicoarse to verycoarse clay with an orange to brown colour palette.All shapes (local as well as imitations of Minoanshapes) and surface treatments have been recognisedin this fabric. Included in this fabric group, but dis-

tinguishable from this fabric by its softer clay,

5

is theconical cup fabric which was exclusively used forsmall, open Minoan shapes and normally remainedunpainted. The Cycladic White Fabric Group ischaracterised by its whitish, often Wnely levigatedclay. Common shapes are traditional Melian servingvessels, especially cups and jugs, often decorated inBlack and Red naturalistic and curvilinear designs(Berg, 2000).

Analysis of the pottery assemblage from Phylak-opi demonstrated that, as at other Cycladic settle-ments, there was a rapid increase in locally produced

wheel-made pottery between the late MC and theLC II period (Fig. 8). However, when broken downby fabric group, it becomes apparent that the bulkof wheel-made vessels occurred in the conical cupfabric which specialised in small, open Minoanshapes (especially cups)larger Minoanising shapeswere made in the Local Fabric. The increase in theuse of the wheel for the Cycladic White and theLocal Fabric Group was noticeable but generallyremained under 30% of the total production (Fig. 9)(Berg, 2000).

Interestingly, the pattern of adoption appeared tofollow a particular sequence, namely from smallopen to large closed vessels, that is from simple tocomplex vessels in terms of the skill required fortheir manufacture. Fig. 10shows that in the late MCperiod only a few, small open vessels (conical cups,bell cups, straight-sided cups, saucers) were wheel-made. During the early and middle LC I period,other small open shapes are added to the wheel-made repertoire (panelled cups, hemispherical cups,rounded cups) as well as one large (2030cm in

height) open shape, the conical rhyton, a newMinoan-style shape. During the late LC I/II period,an increasing number of shapes are wheel-made.Newcomers are the semiglobular cup, the Melianbowl, the lamp and the amphora. The cup, bowl and

4 For any interpretation it should be born in mind that the sam-

ple size for Cycladic White fabric in middle LC I is small.

5 No systematic analysis of Wring temperatures and conditionswas undertaken as part of this study; however it is possible thatthe softness of the conical cups fabric indicates diVerent Wringconditions to that of the other fabrics (cf. Orton et al., 1993,p. 138). That diVerences between fabrics can be expressed also indistinct Wring processes has been shown by Kiriatzi and her col-

leagues (1997).


10/19


lamp are all small open vessels. The amphora is theWrst example of a wheelthrown, restricted vessel of c.3040cm in height with a narrow oriWce.

This particular pattern has also been observedat Ayia Irini on Kea, Akrotiri on Thera, Knossoson Crete, and Toumba in Central Macedonia(Berg, 2000; Kiriatzi et al., 1997; Knappett, 1999;Papagiannopoulou, 1991) and seems to be almost

generic. An explanation for this phenomenon has

been proposed by an outstanding ethnographicand experimental study by Roux and Corbetta(1989).

The potters wheel at Phylakopi: Biomechanical and

physical constraints

In 1986 and 1987, Roux and Corbetta carried out

ethnoarchaeological Weldwork in New Delhi, India,

Fig. 6. Common vessel shapes at Phylakopi. Minoanising shapes are underlined Scale 1:5. with permission from Colin Renfrew.


11/19


with the aim of investigating whether or not wheel-using potters are craft specialists (that is, wheel-throwing requires specialised knowledge and asustained period of learning) and how (if at all) thismanifests itself in the archaeological record (1989).

To achieve their aim, the authors investigated the

duration and nature of apprenticeship through eth-nographic and experimental data. Based on experi-ments with potters of diVerent levels of competenceand a control group of non-potters, the authorswere able to demonstrate that acquisition of the nec-

essary skills is very time consuming; this is because

Fig. 7. Melian fabrics. (a) Cycladic White (Renfrew and WagstaV, 1982: plate 16.2), (b) local fabric, (c) conical cup fabric. All with per-mission from Colin Renfrew.

Fig. 8. Phylakopi: Development of wheel-made/-shaped and handmade pottery through time.


12/19


potters have to master any one stage before they canacquire the necessary new skills (e.g. motor activi-ties) to move on to the next level of diYculty. Theyestimated that it will take a minimum of 10 to 15

years for an apprentice to become proWcient. Con-

trary to coil-building, the long duration of theapprenticeship in wheel-throwing is primarily due tobiomechanical and physical constraints and is there-fore of universal relevance. Cultural diVerences may

shape the social organisation of an apprenticeship

Fig. 9. Phylakopi: Development of wheel-made/-shaped use according to fabric.

Fig. 10. Phylakopi: dominant forming technique by shape (all local fabrics; Minoanising shapes in bold; hand D handmade;wheel Dwheelmade/-shaped; hand and wheel D equal proportions of handmade and wheelmade/-shaped).


13/19


but do not substantially inX

uence its duration (1989,p. 88, 140143).6

More importantly for archaeologists, their ethno-graphic and experimental work has demonstratedthat this learning process is expressed in an increasein pot size as the potter becomes more and morecompetent. Fig. 11a identiWes the three main learn-ing stages: During Stage 1 apprentices do not yetknow how to centre the clay on the wheel eVectively.As a result, they will be limited to throwing smallopen vessels of up to 6 cm in height. Once appren-tices have learnt how to centre the clay and useasymmetrical but simultaneous hand movementsthey can move on to throwing larger vessels of up to22cm in Stage 2. However, only the most experi-enced potters can throw unrestricted or restrictedvessels higher than 22 cm and thus reach Stage 3.

This experimentally derived sequence mirrors thepattern observed at Phylakopi (Fig. 11b): At Wrst,

small open vessels such as cups and saucers werewheel-thrown. Most of these are well below 10 cm inheight and were probably thrown oV-the-hump,requiring no perfectly centered lump of clay. Later,in addition to other types of cups, we witness theaddition of the rhyton, a large open vessel of about20 cm in height, to the wheel-thrown repertoire.Despite being rather large, the rhyton is a vessel easyto manufacture as it is an open shape without anysharp angles. While it can easily be made in onepiece, rhyta made of two separate halves that werelater joined are common. In the Wnal stage, there isevidence of wheel-thrown closed vessels of up to40 cm in height. These amphorae can be made in onepiece, but study of the fragments suggests that theMelian potters preferred to form the base and bodyusing coils7while joining the separately thrown neckand rim later.

If interpreted correctly, we can indeed observethe progressive stages of a wheel-throwing appren-ticeship at Phylakopi, indicating that the adoptionof the potters wheel was slow and gradual as eachnew generation built on existing skills and acquired

an increased everyday familiarity with the newtechnology. However, as amphorae were made intwo parts (regardless whether the base was coil-builtor wheel-thrown) I am left to conclude that theMelian potters never attained the Wnal stage of theapprenticeship and thus never learnt to exploit thepotters wheel to its full potential; while some may

6 Experiments undertaken by psychologists have demonstratedthat the 10-year rule for achieving expert performance as a potteris not speciWc to this activity but is universally applicable to com-

plex specialist tasks (e.g. sports, chess, computer programming).Expert performance [is] shown to be mediated by cognitiveand perceptual-motor skills and by domain-speciWc psychologicaland anatomical adaptations (Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996,p. 273). Ten years of extended, daily and deliberatepractice are re-quired to achieve the highest level of expertise in a certain area.Instead of innate talent or exceptional skill, only task-speciWc dai-ly practice over ten years coupled with motivation is seen to cor-relate with the highest level of performance or achievement(Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996; cf. Ingold, 2001). This data indi-cates that the wheel-throwing technique can, in principle, be ac-quired by anybody who is willing to invest the required eVort. Atthe same time, improvement beyond the initial stages is governedby physio-technical consideration as well as opportunity for daily

practice.

Fig. 11. (a) Height stages of a potters apprenticeship (after Roux and Corbetta, 1989). (b) Height stages of Melian potters.

a

b

7 Due to the fragmentary state of the assemblage it was rarelypossible to Wrmly assign bases to speciWc shapes. While the major-ity of bases are clearly handmade, there are several examples of

wheel-made bases.


14/19


argue that making an amphora in two (or more) sec-tions may simply be a matter of choice(rather thannecessity) on the part of a potter, discussions withmodern potters indicate that it would be unusual forsomebody to revert to a slower, more complicated

manufacture once they have achieved a suY

cientlyhigh level of competence to throw a vessel as one(Veronica Newman and Sandy Budden, pers. com-munications; Arnolds Mexican case study (1999)demonstrates that a decrease in skill is only soughtin a re-organisation of production to includeunskilled labour). Additional circumstantial evi-dence is provided by the study of decoration oncomplete vessels in the museums collection: virtu-ally no vessel shows evidence of the use of a rotatingpotting device for the application of decorationhorizontal bands or lines were not made by pressing

a brush against a rotating vase but by drawing themfree-hand. As wheel-throwing is a radically diVerenttechnique from, for example, coil-building, itrequires the acquisition of entirely new and unfamil-iar motor skills as well as continuous and directedexercise in order to progress to the next stage. Notonly may established potters have been incapable ofacquiring these new skills, but those that did makethe leap may have found progression towards largerand more complex shapes diYcult without continu-ous practice and learning support. Several hypothe-

ses can be put forward for this scenario: (1) Thenecessary expert learning support was unavailable,thus prohibiting progression to more advancedstages of learning. (2) Potters were working only ona seasonal basis for the population of a medium-sized Cycladic town (c. 14003000 inhabitants; cf.Renfrew and WagstaV, 1982, pp. 139140, 252) andlacked regular learning opportunities to improvefurther (see Footnote 5). If standardisation isaccepted as one of the potential indicators of (full-time) craft specialisation, then results from a recent

statistical analysis of conical cups strongly suggestthat production at Phylakopi was only part-time(Berg, 2004). Thus, it is indeed possible that the slowand incomplete advance in technology may at leastin part be due to the lack of learning opportunities,task-speciWc daily practice, motivation, and/orexperimentation. However, a third scenario shouldalso be considered, namely that socio-culturaltaboos may have prevented the application ofwheel-throwing techniques to large closed vessels(though this hypothesis is undermined by the partialuse of the wheel for throwing the lower body of sev-

eral large vessels).

The potters wheel at Phylakopi: Social constraints

While lack of expertise might have restricted theuseof the potters wheel primarily to open shapes,the types of vessels that were wheel-thrown indicate

that the choiceof this technology was social practice.Fig. 10 shows that most of the shapes that werewheel-thrown were primarily of Minoan origin.They include a wide range of cups, as well as lamps,amphorae, and rhyta. Other large Minoanisingshapes, such as hole-mouthed jars, bridge-spouted

jars and cooking pots, were normally hand-built,although few wheel-made examples exist of the jartypes. The great majority of local shapes, on theother hand, were hand-built.8Further analysis dem-onstrates that the observed pattern permeated allaspects of the pottery production, including fabric,

forming technique and decoration (Berg, 2000): theconical cup fabric was exclusively used for small,open Minoanising shapes which were wheel-thrown.Cycladic White was primarily used for local shapeswhich were handmade. The local fabric was used forboth, but Minoanising shapes were regularly wheel-made while those following the local tradition werepredominantly made by hand. Decoration also fol-lows this trend. Minoanising motifs are more com-monly found on Minoansing shapes and traditionalmotifs on local shapes. When the local fabric was

used for Minoanising shapes a pale slip was oftenadded to mirror the pale Cretan clay (cf. Evely,2000, p. 263for a comparable example from Chaniaon Crete). Potters marks only occur on local shapesand never on Minoanising ones.

Since we know that the Melian potters used thepotters wheel as competently as can be expected forthe diVerent stages of the learning process, we haveto reject the idea that they were physically incapableof applying the technique also to their local shapes.By using the wheel for Minoanising shapes, the pot-

ters produced exact copies of Minoan originals,including the pale fabric colour, shape, the formingprocess and the decoration. Melian shapes, on theother hand, continued to be manufactured accord-ing to the local tradition, namely using local shapes,handmade production and traditional motifs. For asyet unknown reasons, many Melian pottersregarded the two traditions as conceptually diVer-entwhat was appropriate for the production of

8 Exceptions to the rule are the Melian bowls and few other

small open cup shapes.


15/19


Minoanising vessels was inappropriate for the pro-duction of local shapes.9Ethnographic studies havedrawn attention to the potential for manipulationand expression of identity in the diVerent stages ofthe pottery production process and may, therefore,

provide clues as to why changes in the primaryforming technique are often perceived as incompat-ible with traditional ways of doing, and are conse-quently often resisted. In his Cameroonian casestudy, Gosselainfound that certain facets of iden-tity were related consistently to certain stages of thechane opratoire (2000, p. 189). He was able to dis-tinguish between three technico-social categories:

(1) Techniques that leave visible evidence on theWnished product(e.g. tempering or mixing clays,secondary forming techniques, decoration, cer-

tain Wring techniques and most post-Wringtreatments). Easily visible techniques allowother potters, customers, relatives and neigh-bours to be aware of an individuals tech-niques. As a consequence, these features areeasily transmittable, Xuctuate through timeand reXect the more superWcial, situationaland temporary facets of identity; they oftenare a response to changing social, economic, orsymbolic pressures.

(2) Techniques that leave no visible traces on the

Wnished product but are observed by fellowworkers, especially when the work is done on acollective basis (e.g. clay selection, extraction,processing and Wring). Consequently, modiW-cations are likely to reXect adjustment to localor regional identities.

(3) Techniques that do not leave visible traces onthe Wnished product(e.g. primary forming tech-niques which are generally obliterated by sec-

ondary forming treatments). They are mostresistant to change as they are based on spe-cialized gestures and motor habits acquiredthrough repeated practice. Thus, primaryforming techniques reXect the most individual

and rooted aspects of social identity, includingkinship, learning networks, gender and socialclass (Gosselain, 1998, 2000; Gelbert, 1999; cf.Mahias, 1993and Arnold, 1999with referenceto India and Mexico, respectively).

While Category 2 needs to await future scientiWcanalysis, Categories 1 and 3, I would argue, can beidentiWed at Phylakopi. On one hand, we have therapid adoption of easily visible features, such asMinoan shapes, motifs and fabric colour. Being eas-ily visible, the adoption of these features signals

more superWcial desires and may have been aresponse to customer demand, reXecting what Wie-ner has called the Versailles eVect (1984). On theother hand, the hesitant adoption of the actualforming technique and, indeed, the resulting techno-logical division in the pottery production at Phylak-opi are reXections of deep-rooted aspects of identity,such as kinship, identity or gender, making theadoption of a new technology all the more poignant.However, given the existence of hybrid vessels (func-tionally or socially) that combine Minoanising and

local features in non-deterministic ways, it is proba-bly best to consider the above pattern as presentingtwo extremes along a continuum (rather than a strictdichotomy) with an adherence to the Minoan tradi-tion on one end and the local tradition at the other.Indeed, the existence of variability indicates that theobserved pattern was not accepted by all potters andshould thus be considered socially meaningful initself.

No hint of any conceptual division is, forinstance, visible at Ayia Irini on Kea where the

adoption of Minoan shapes and the wheel-throwingtechnology were much more inclusive, extending toa much greater degree also to local shapes. Here, thenew technology was incorporated into the pottersrepertoire without resulting in any kind of division(Berg, 2000).

Conclusion

It has become apparent that technology can nolonger be viewed in purely technical terms and assuch as neutral in meaning. Forming techniques, in

line with any other aspect of technology, have been

9 The use of two diVerent production technologies within a so-

cial unit is a common phenomenon also in modern societies. Inher study of Andean potters of Las Anima, Hosler explains theuse of two diVerent manufacturing methods (prop-method andfree-form method) as a social strategy employed by the two com-peting social groups within the village. This division is indicatedby spatial stratiWcation, status distinction and gender role diVer-ences (1996). With this case study in mind, I studied the assem-blage from Phylakopi in order to assess whether the productionof local wares and Minoanising shapes was undertaken at thesame workshops or whether diVerent workshops specialised inthe manufacture of either tradition. Unfortunately, the fragmen-tary nature of the assemblage prohibited a high enough resolu-tion of the data. As regards spatial patterning no coherent casecan be presented as Renfrews excavations were limited to few

small and unconnected areas.


16/19


shown to be a social product imbued with meaning.As a result they are open to manipulation in socialnegotiations. By associating the production tech-nique, the Wnished product and the meaning placedon its use in society, the Phylakopi case study has

illustrated that practical and socio-symbolic con-tents of a technology interacted in subtle ways, andthat technologies can embody non-verbal culturalchoices.

Unlike at other settlements, the introduction ofthe potters wheel did not lead to a completereplacement of traditional handmade techniques.However, the preferential application of the pot-ters wheel to Minoanising shapes hints at the exis-tence of social taboos associated with thisrelatively novel forming technique. While the newtechnology might have caused social tension, the

incorporation of Minoanising shapes into theexisting repertoire appears to have been welcomed.The increase of Minoanising shapes was so pro-nounced that Furumark referred to a completereplacement of the traditional pottery repertoirethrough soulless copying of Minoan shapes (1950,pp. 195199). While exaggerating the scale of copy-ing, his comment clearly highlights the islandersneed and desire for these new kinds of vessels (andmay also explain the existence of hybrid combina-tions). The reason for an increased desire is com-

monly assumed to lie in the potential use ofMinoan pottery as a status symbol (cf. Papagian-nopoulou, 1991, p. 118). As Dawson and colleaguesargued, groups may wish to enhance their prestigein their own or the eyes of others by taking on thematerials, symbols, and regalia of other groupsthere is almost a magic of the power rubbing oVbyimitation (Dawson et al., 1974, p. 48). Thishypothesis is further supported by vessel function.For an object to function as status symbol it needsto be used in socially charged situations; this

makes storage and processing vessels less suitableas they are primarily used in private. Serving ves-sels, on the other hand, will also be used duringsemi-private or public occasions and are thereforesuitable communication vehicles. As most Minoanor Minoanising vessels fall under the category ofserving vessels (e.g. cups, spouted jars, jugs) it islikely that at least part of their function was to beused in situations of social signiWcance, such asdrinking and feasting. The occurrence of hundredsof conical cups (as well as bell-shaped cups, sau-cers, straight-sided cups) points towards the

enactment of competitive, resource- and labour-

intensive consumption strategies, possibly relatedto alcoholic beverages (Berg, 2004; Hamilakis,1996, 1999). As vessel shape and production tech-nique are inseparably linked to each other, it is notonly Minoanising pots but also the potters wheel

which became associated with a foreign cultureand its consumption patterns. Arguably, it was theintroduction of the potters wheel that Wrst permit-ted participation in new, Minoan-style drinkingand feasting rituals by increasing the output ofdrinking vessels (e.g. conical cups) to a hithertounknown level.

In addition to illuminating social practice, theabove case study also provides important insightsinto learning processes. If Roux and Corbettasmodel for apprenticeship stages is indeed consideredgeneric due to its emphasis on biomechanical and

physical factors, then we can witness an incompletelearning process among the potters at Phylakopi.While potters were able to produce vessels of up to20 cm in heightindicating that local potters onlyachieved Roux and Corbettas Stage 2, but did notachieve the highest level of expertisethen thelearning phase from Wrst introduction through tocompetent mastery of the technology was drawn outover 200250 years. Part-time work, incompleteinformation transfer, and/or cultural norms can allbe argued to have stood in the way of a quick and

complete adoption of the technology. It is only withthe penetration of the succeeding Mycenaean cul-ture into the Cyclades that we see Melian pottersconsistently producing large closed vessels with thepotters wheel.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of the paper was read at theDepartment of Archaeology Visiting Speaker Semi-nar Series, University of Southampton, in February

2004 and I thank all participants for their comments,particularly Yiannis Hamilakis and Sandy Budden.Thanks goes also to Chris Fowler who read and com-mented on an earlier version of this paper and to theanonymous reviewers whose comments wereextremely helpful. Professor Colin Renfrew kindlygranted permission for the study of the ceramics fromhis 197477 excavations at Phylakopi, Melos.

References

Amiran, R., Shenhav, D., 1984. Experiments with an Ancient Pot-ters Wheel. In: Rice, P.M. (Ed.), Pots and Potters. Current


17/19


Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology. Institute of Archaeol-ogy, UCLA, Los Angeles, pp. 107112.

Armit, I., Finlayson, B., 1995. Social strategies and economicchange. In: Barnett, W.K., Hoopes, J.W. (Eds.), The Emer-gence of Pottery. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washingtonand London, pp. 267275.

Arnold, D.E., 1999. Advantages and disadvantages of vertical-half molding technology: implications for productionorganization. In: Skibo, J.M., Feinman, G.M. (Eds.), Pot-tery and People. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 5980.

Atkinson, T.D., Bosanquet, R.C., Edgar, C.C., 1904. Excavationsat Phylakopi in Melos. Macmillan, London.

Banks, M., 1996. Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions.Routledge, London.

Barber, R.L.N., 1974. Phylakopi 1911 and the history of the LaterCycladic Bronze Age. Annu. Br. School Athens 69, 155.

Barber, R.L.N., 1987. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. Duck-worth, London.

Barber, R.L.N., Hadjianastasiou, O., 1989. Mikre Vigla: A Bronze

Age Settlement on Naxos. Annu. Br. School Athens 84,63162.Bargatzky, T., 1989. Innovation and the integration of sociocul-

tural systems. In: van der Leeuw, S.E., Torrence, R. (Eds.),Whats New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation.Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 1632.

Barnett, H.G., 1953.Innovation The Basis of Cultural ChangeMcGraw-Hill, New York.

Berg, I., 2000. The Minoanisation of the Southern Aegean: AComparative Approach through Ceramic Assemblages.Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

Berg, I., 2004. The meanings of standardisation: conical cups inthe Late Bronze Age Aegean. Antiquity 78, 7485.

Binford, L., 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of

culture process. Amer. Anthropol. 31, 203210.Blandino, B., 2003. Coiled Pottery. A&C Black, London.Bresenham, M.F., 1985. Descriptive and experimental study of

contemporary and ancient pottery techniques at Busra. Bery-tus 33, 89101.

Broodbank, C., 2004. Minoanisation. Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. 50,4591.

Cadogan, G., 1984. A minoan thalassocracy? In: Hgg, R., Mari-natos, N. (Eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Real-ity. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at theSwedish Institute in Athens, 31 May5 June, 1982. SkrifterUtgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4. Svenska Institutet iAthen, Stockholm, pp. 1315.

Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L., 1982. The Cyclades and the Greek Main-land in LC I: the evidence of pottery. Am. J. Archaeol. 86,333341.

Courty, M.A., Roux, V., 1995. IdentiWcation of wheel throwing onthe basis of ceramic surface features and microfabrics. J.Archaeol. Sci. 22, 1750.

Curchin, L.A., 1991. Roman Spain. Conquest and Assimilation.Routledge, London.

Davis, J.L., 1979. Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades inthe Later Bronze Age. In: Davis, J.L., Cherry, J.F. (Eds.),Papers in Cycladic Prehistory. Institute of Archaeology,UCLA, Los Angeles, pp. 143157.

Davis, J.L., 1980. Minoans and Minoanization at Ayia Irini,Keos. In: Doumas, C.G. (Ed.), Thera and the Aegean World 2.

Thera Foundation, London, pp. 257259.

Davis, J.L., 1984. Cultural Innovation and the Minoan Thalas-socracy at Ayia Irini, Keos. In: Hgg, R., Marinatos, N. (Eds.),The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Svenska Insti-tutet i Athen, Stockholm, pp. 159166.

Davis, J.L., 1992. Review of Aegean Prehistory I: the Islands ofthe Aegean. Am. J. Archaeol. 96, 699756.

Davis, J.L., Cherry, J.F., 1984. Phylakopi in Late Cycladic I: apottery seriation study. In: MacGillivray, J.A., Barber, R.L.N.(Eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades. Department of ClassicalArchaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,pp. 148161.

Davis, J.L., Cherry, J.F., in press. The Cycladic Pottery from LateBronze I Levels at Phylakopi. In: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), Excava-tions at Phylakopi, 19741977. British School at Athens, Lon-don.

Davis, J.L., Lewis, H.B., 1985. Mechanization of pottery produc-tion: a case study from the Cycladic Islands. In: Knapp, A.B.,Stech, T. (Eds.), Prehistoric Production and Exchange. TheAegean and the Mediterranean. Institute of Archaeology,UCLA, Los Angeles, pp. 7992.

Davis, J.L., Tzonou-Herbst, I., Wolpert, A.D., 2001. Addendum:19921999. In: Cullen, T. (Ed.), Aegean Prehistory A Review.Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, pp. 7794.

Davis, J.L., Williams, D.F., 1981. Petrological examination ofLater Middle Bronze Age pottery from Ayia Irini, Keos. Hes-peria 50, 291300.

Dawkins, R.M., Droop, J.P., 1910/11. Excavations at Phylakopi inMelos, 1911. Annu. Br. School Athens 17, 122.

Dawson, L.E., Fredrickson, V.-M., Graburn, N.H.H., 1974. Tradi-tions in Transition. Cultural Contact and Material Change.Lowie Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley.

Diaz, M.N., 1966. Tonal. Conservatism, Responsibility, andAuthority in a Mexican Town. University of California Press,Berkeley and Los Angels.

Dobres, M.-A., 1999. Technologys links and chanes: the proces-sual unfolding of technique and technician. In: Dobres, M.-A.,HoVman, C.R. (Eds.), The Social Dynamics of Technology.Practice, Politics and World Views. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 124146.

Dobres, M.-A., 2000. Technology and Social Agency: Outlining aPractice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford.

Dobres, M.-A., 2001. Meaning in the making: agency and thesocial embodiment of technology and art. In: SchiVer, M.B.(Ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. Univer-sity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 4776.

Dobres, M.-A., HoVman, R., 1999. The Social Dynamics of Tech-nology. Practice, Politics and World Views. Smithsonian Insti-

tution Press, Washington, DC.Doumas, C.G., 1982. The Minoan Thalassocracry and the Cyc-lades. Archologischer Anzeiger 97, 514.

Dunnell, R., 1978. Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy.Amer. Anthropol. 43, 192202.

Eliopoulos, T., 2000. A Minoan Potters Wheel with MarineDecoration from Skhinias, Mirabello District. Annu. Br.School Athens 95, 107114.

Ericsson, K.A., Lehmann, A.C., 1996. Expert and exceptional per-formance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task con-straints. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47, 273305.

Evely, D., 1988. The Potters Wheel in Minoan Crete. Annu. Br.School Athens 83, 83126.

Evely, D., 2000. Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques, vol. 2.

Paul strm Frlag, Jonsered.


18/19


Foster, G.M., 1959. The Potters wheel: an analysis of idea andartifact in invention. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 15, 99119.

Franken, H.J., 1971. Analysis of methods of potmaking in archae-ology. HTR 64, 227255.

Franken, H.J., Kalsbeek, J., 1975. Potters of a Medieval Village inthe Jordan Valley. North-Holland, Amsterdam/Oxford.

Furumark, A., 1950. The settlement at Ialysos and Aegean historyc. 15501400 B.C.. Op. Archaeol.. 6, 150271.

Gelbert, A., 1999. Technological and stylistic borrowings betweenceramic traditions: a case study from Northeastern Senegal.In: Owen, L.R., Porr, M. (Eds.), Ethno-Analogy and theReconstruction of Prehistoric Artefact Use and Production.Mo Vince Verlag, Tbingen, pp. 207224.

Georgiou, H.S., 1983. Minoan Coarse Wares and Minoan Tech-nology. In: Nixon, L., Kryszkowka, O.H. (Eds.), Minoan Soci-ety. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981. BristolClassical Press, Bristol, pp. 592.

Georgiou, H.S., 1986. Keos VI. Ayia Irini: Specialized Domesticand Industrial Pottery. von Zabern, Mainz.

Gosselain, O.P., 1992. Technology and style: potters and pottery

among the BaWa of Cameroon. Man 27, 559586.Gosselain, O.P., 1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crys-tal ball. In: Stark, M.T. (Ed.), The Archaeology of SocialBoundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC,pp. 78106.

Gosselain, O.P., 2000. Materializing identities: an African per-spective. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 7, 187217.

Hgg, R., Marinatos, N., 1984. The Minoan Thalassocracy: mythand reality. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Sympo-sium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 31 May5 June, 1982.Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

Hamilakis, Y., 1996. Wine, oil and the dialectics of power inBronze Age Crete: a review of the evidence. Oxford J.Archaeol. 15, 132.

Hamilakis, Y., 1999. Food technologies/ technologies of the body:the social context of wine and oil production and consump-tion in Bronze Age Crete. World Archaeol. 31, 3854.

Haselgrove, C., 1990. The Romanization of Belgic Gaul: somearchaeological perspectives. In: Blagg, T., Millett, M. (Eds.), TheEarly Roman Empire in the West. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 4571.

Henrickson, R.C., 1991. Wheelmade or wheel-Wnished? Interpre-tation of Wheelmarks on pottery. In: Vandiver, P.B., Druzik,G.S., Wheeler, G.S. (Eds.), Materials Issues in Art and Archae-ology II. Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, Penn,pp. 523541.

Hodder, I., 1982. Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Hogarth, D.G., Mackenzie, D., Edgar, C.C., 1897/98. Excavationsin Melos, 1898. Annu. Br. School Athens 4, 148.Hosler, D., 1996. Technical choices, social categories and meaning

among the Andean potters of Las Animas. J. Material Culture1, 6392.

Hughes, M.J. (Ed.), 1981. ScientiWc Studies in Ancient Ceramics.British Museum, London.

Ingold, T., 1999. Foreword. In: Dobres, M.-A., HoVman, C.R.(Eds.), The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politicsand World Views. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,DC, pp. viixii.

Ingold, T., 2001. Beyond art and technology: the anthropology ofskill. In: SchiVer, M.B. (Ed.), Anthropological Perspectives onTechnology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,

pp. 1731.

Jones, A., 2002. Archaeological Theory and ScientiWc Practice.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jones, R.E., 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scien-tiWc Studies. British School at Athens, Athens.

Jones, S., 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Routledge, Lon-don.

Kiriatzi, E., Andreou, S., Dimitriadis, S., Kotsakis, K., 1997. Co-existing traditions: handmade and wheelmade pottery in LateBronze Age Central Macedonia. In: LaYneur, R., Betancourt,P.P. (Eds.), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Crafts-menship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6thInternational Aegean Conference Philadelphia, Temple Uni-versity, 1821 April, 1996. Aegaeum 16. Universit de Lige,Lige, pp. 361367.

Knappett, C., 1999. Tradition and innovation in pottery formingtechnology: wheel-throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos. BSA94, 101129.

Knappett, C., 2004. Technological innovation and social diversityat Middle Minoan Knossos. In: Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E.,Vasilakis, A. (Eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State. British

School at Athens, London, pp. 257265.Knappett, C., Nikolakopoulou, I., 2005. MBA interaction net-works: crete, the cyclades, and the South-East Aegean. In:LaYneur, R., Greco, E. (Eds.), EMPORIA: Aegeans in theCentral and Eastern Mediterranean. Universit de Lige,Lige, pp. 175183.

Krause, R.A., 1984. Modelling the making of pots. In: van derLeeuw, S.E., Pritchard, A.C. (Eds.), The Many Dimensionsof Pottery. Universitat van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, pp.615706.

Krause, R.A., 1985. The Clay Sleeps: An EthnoarchaeologicalStudy of Three African Potters. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.

Layton, R., 1989. Pellaport. In: van der Leeuw, S.E., Torrence, R.

(Eds.), Whats New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innova-tion. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 3353.

Lemonnier, P., 1986. The study of material culture today: towardan anthropology of technical systems. JAnthArch 5, 147186.

Lemonnier, P., 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technol-ogy. Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Lemonnier, P., 1993. Introduction. In: Lemonnier, P. (Ed.), Tech-nological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures Sincethe Neolithic. Routledge, London, pp. 135.

Livingstone-Smith, A.L., 2000. Processing clay for pottery inNorthern Cameroon: social and technical requirements.Archaeometry 42, 2142.

Mackenzie, D., Atkinson, T.D., Edgar, C.C., 1898/99. Excavations

in Melos, 1899. Annu. Br. School Athens 5, 319.Mackenzie, D., 1963. Daybook of the Excavations at Phylakopion Melos, 1896, 1897, 1898 and 1899. no publisher, Athens.

Mahias, M.-C., 1993. Pottery techniques in India. Technical vari-ants and social choice. In: Lemonnier, P. (Ed.), TechnologicalChoices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neo-lithic. Routledge, London, pp. 157180.

Manning, S.W., 1999. A Test of Time. Oxbow, Oxford.McGlade, J., McGlade, J.M., 1989. Modelling the innovative

component of social change. In: van der Leeuw, S.E., Tor-rence, R. (Eds.), Whats New? A Closer Look at the Process ofInnovation. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 281299.

Miller, D., 1985. Artefacts as Categories. A Study of CeramicVariability in Central India. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.


19/19


Millett, M., 1990. Romanization: historical issues and archaeologi-cal interpretations. In: Blagg, T., Millett, M. (Eds.), The EarlyRoman Empire in the West. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 3541.

Moore, H., 1987. Problems in the analysis of social change: anexample from the Marakwet. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Archaeol-ogy as Long-Term History. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 85104.

Nicholson, P., Patterson, H., 1985. Pottery making in UpperEgypt: an ethnoarchaeological study. World Archaeol. 17,222239.

Nicklin, K., 1971. Stability and innovation in pottery manufac-ture. World Archaeol. 3, 1348.

Orton, C., Tyers, P., Vince, A., 1993. Pottery in Archaeology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pantelidou-Gopha, M., 1995. H No N M: HK. Greek Archaeological Society, Athens.

Papagiannopoulou. A., 1991. The InXuence of Middle MinoanPottery on the Cyclades. Paul strm, Gteborg.

Perls, C., 1987. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Fasc. 3:Les Industries Lithiques Tailles de Franchthi (Argolide,

Grce). Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.PfaVenberger, B., 1988. Fetishised objects and humanised nature.Man 23, 236252.

PfaVenberger, B., 1992. Social anthropology of technology. Annu.Rev. Anthropol. 21, 491516.

Plog, S., 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: DesignAnalysis in the Americas. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

Pollock, S., 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden that NeverWas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renfrew, A.C., 1978. Phylakopi and the Late Bronze Age I Periodin the Cyclades. In: Doumas, C.D. (Ed.), Theraand the AegeanWorld. Papers Presented at the Second International ScientiWcCongress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978. Thera Foundation,

London, pp. 403421.Renfrew, C. (Ed.), in press. Excavations at Phylakopi, 19741977.

British School at Athens, London.Renfrew, A.C., WagstaV, J.M. (Eds.), 1982. An Island Polity: The

Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Rice, P.M. (Ed.), 1984. Pots and Potters: Current Approaches inCeramic Archaeology. Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, LosAngeles.

Rice, P.M., 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Rice, P.M., 1996. Recent ceramic analysis: 1. Function, style, andorigins. J. Archaeol. Res. 4, 133163.

Rogers, E.M., Shoemaker, F.F., 1971. Communication and Inno-vations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. Free Press, New York.Roux, V., 2003. A dynamic systems framework for studying tech-

nological change: application to the emergence of the potterswheel in the Southern Levant. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 10,130.

Roux, V., Corbetta, D., 1989. The Potters Wheel. Craft Special-ization and Technical Competence. Oxford and IBH Publish-ing, New Delhi/Bombay/Calcutta.

Roux, V., Courty, M.A., 1998. IdentiWcation of wheel-fashioningmethods: technological analysis of 4th3rd millennium BCoriental ceramics. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 747763.

Saraswati, B.N., Behura, N.K., 1966. Pottery Techniques in Peas-ant India. Anthropological Survey of India, Calcutta.

Schachermeyr, F., 1978. AkrotiriWrst maritime republic? In:Doumas, C.G. (Ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. PapersPresented at the Second International ScientiWc Congress,Santorini, Greece, August 1978. Thera Foundation, London,pp. 423428.

SchiVer, M.B., 2001. Toward an anthropology of technology.In: SchiVer, M.B. (Ed.), Anthropological Perspectives onTechnology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquer-que, pp. 115.

SchiVer, M.B., Skibo, J.M., 1987. Theory and experiment inthe study of technological change. Curr. Anthropol. 28,595622.

SchiVer, M.B., Skibo, J.M., 1997. The explanation of artifact vari-ability. Amer. Anthropol. 62, 2750.

SchiVer, M.B., Skibo, J.M., Boelke, T.C., Neupert, M.A., Aronson,M., 1994. New perspectives on experimental archaeology. Sur-face treatment and thermal response of the clay cooking pot.Amer. Anthropol. 59, 197217.

Sillar, B., 1997. Reputable pots and disreputable potters: individ-ual and community choice in present-day pottery productionand exchange in the Andes. In: Cumberpatch, C.G., Blink-horn, P.W. (Eds.), Not so Much a Pot, More a Way of Life.Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 120.

Sillar, B., Tite, M.S., 2000. The challenge of technological choicesfor materials science approaches in archaeology. Archaeome-try 42, 220.

Skibo, J.M., 1992. Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspec-tive. Plenum, London.

Smith, C., 1896/97. Excavations in Melos. Annu. Br. School Ath-ens 2, 6376.

Steponaitis, V., 1983. Ceramic, Chronology and Community Pat-terns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic

Press, New York.Steponaitis, V., 1984. Technological studies of prehistoric pottery

from Alabama: physical properties and vessel function. In:van der Leeuw, S.E., Pritchard, A.C. (Eds.), The Many Dimen-sions of Pottery. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam,pp. 79127.

van der Leeuw, S.E., 1993. Giving the potter a choice. In: Lemon-nier, P. (Ed.), Technological Choices. Transformation inMaterial Cultures since the Neolithic. Routledge, London, pp.238288.

Warren, P.M., Hankey, V., 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronol-ogy. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol.

Wiener, M.H., 1984. Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: the tale of

the conical cups. In: Hgg, R., Marinatos, N. (Ed.), TheMinoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of theThird International Symposium at the Swedish Institute inAthens, 31 May5 June, 1982. Skrifter Utgivna av SvenskaInstitutet i Athen 4. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm,pp. 1726.

Wnsche, R., 1977. Studien zur ginetischen Keramik derFrhen und Mittleren Bronzezeit. Deutscher Kunstverlag,Berlin.

Xanthoudides, S., 1927. Some Minoan potterswheel discs. In:Casson, S. (Ed.), Essays in Aegean Archaeology. ClarendonPress, Oxford, pp. 111128.

berg meaningmakingpotter'swheelgreece

Documents