image/svg+xml
127
XII/2/2021
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies
for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
Chase A. M. Minos
1*
1
The Cyprus Institute, Science and Technology in Archaeology Research Centre (STARC), Athalassa Campus, 20 Konstantinou Kavaf Street, 2121,
Aglantzia, Nicosia, Cyprus
1. Introduction
Recent scholarship concerning the analysis of pottery-
forming techniques has argued that the tool, in this case
the potter’s wheel, is not a signifcant variable afecting
the results of analyses on macroscopic traces. However,
in the words of Van der Leeuw (1993, p.240), “techniques
cannot be studied in isolation, but should [rather] be seen as
the arena of mediation between what is materially possible
or impossible”. Therefore, any investigation into wheel-
making techniques cannot exist without analysing the wheel:
including its mechanical, physical, and even experiential
properties.
For my research, experimental archaeology was combined
with the analytical tool of
chaîne opératoire
to interpret the
potter’s wheel and conical cups from Crete during the Middle
to Late Bronze Age when the wheel was introduced, and the
technology developed (c. 2200 to 1500 BCE). The
chaîne
opératoire
approach was utilised in order to understand and
isolate making techniques on the wheel in the production
sequence and subsequently for investigating the choices
made in terms of techniques and wheels (Dobres, 2000; van
der Leeuw, 1993; Roux, 2019). This was then teamed with
an archaeological experiment aimed at assessing the variable
of the wheel type. Situated between actualistic and scientistic
(Outram, 2008), the experiment was designed to incorporate
accurate materials (clay) with hypothesised techniques, and
pottery wheels propelled by mechanical, electronic or human
input.
The conical cup was chosen as the ideal vessel as it was
perhaps the most ubiquitous pot from the Bronze Age on
Crete, found in a wide range of contexts from “palaces”
to domestic, funerary and ritual spaces (Gillis, 1990a and
1990b). Moreover, their simple, open shape and small size
means that they require fewer gestures for forming and
shaping on the wheel than a taller or closed shape. Their
production also embodies the major technological and
societal changes happening during the Bronze Age, such
as urbanisation and craft specialization (Schoep, 2004,
p.262; 2006, p.54; Tomkins and Schoep, 2012, p.6; Weiner,
2011; Hamilakis and Sherratt, 2012; Choleva, 2012; 2018;
Christakis, 1996). As such an unassuming vessel type in terms
of aesthetics and manufacture, the fact that this complex and
highly specialised technology of wheel-making technology
Volume XII ● Issue 2/2021 ● Pages 127–142
*Corresponding author. E-mail: chase.minos@outlook.com
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 1
st
February 2021
Accepted: 4
th
November 2021
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2021.2.2
Keywords:
potter’s wheel
Bronze Age
Crete
experimental archaeology
chaîne opératoire
ABSTRACT
Research into the study of wheel-making techniques has grown, but studies of the tool or the wheel
and its properties have remained understudied or considered insignifcant until recently. In order to
develop this research, the wheel and its practicalities, such as the physics, should be incorporated more
into research of making techniques. Through the application of
chaîne opératoire
and experimental
archaeology, this research questioned whether diferent wheel types produce diferent macroscopic
traces on pots produced by the same technique. There are several results presented here that can shed
light on the way archaeologists should investigate and understand early wheel potting, in particular the
physics of rotation, which has received minimal attention as a result of a predominance for researching
techniques over the tool (the wheel). The application of this research is used to better understand
pottery and potter’s wheels from their adoption and development during the Middle Bronze Age on
Crete, c. 2000 to 1500 BCE. A revision of experimental work and methodologies is combined with
archaeological experimentation in order to help clarify not only how tools such as the wheel were used
but subsequently what roles these craftworkers played in past societies.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
128
trickled down to or, perhaps, began with the manufacture of
these vessels is a testament to their importance.
Observation of macroscopic traces from replica pots
produced by the author were used to help inform interpretation
of how conical cups of a specifc period (Late Minoan IA,
c. 1500 BCE) from an assemblage in the South Corridor of
the Minoan Unexplored Mansion (MUM) in Knossos, were
manufactured on the wheel (Popham, 1984a; Figure 1).
The MUM is a large complex located west of the palace of
Knossos. Once connected to the Little Palace via a bridge
(Hatzaki, 2005), the MUM yielded a number of fnds related
to industrial activities, including incredibly fne pottery,
potter’s wheels, as well as large amounts of bronze working
materials (Popham, 1984; Christakis, 2019). This particular
assemblage contains pottery dating to the Late Minoan IA of
Bronze Age Crete, during which conical cups had reached
a standardisation in shape, size and manufacture that was not
seen in previous phases (Hatzaki, 2007, p.167). The MUM
pottery in general remains heavily selected, and as a result
the conical cups that were chosen to be kept tended to be
complete cups, with only a few being broken.
The experiment presented in this paper was designed to
assess three diferent wheel types following three techniques
that scholars have previously suggested were possibly in
use during the Late Minoan IA period (
cf.
Jefra, 2011).
The method by which a wheel rotates and the mechanical
components which enable rotation can afect traces left on
pottery. While an electric wheel provides stable rotation with
a motor, a kick or stick wheel delivers rotation through non-
motorised means. From this observation, the experiment
was designed to isolate the specifc variables of how non-
motorised wheels rotate and what efects the physics of
their rotation have upon macroscopic traces left on pottery.
The results suggest that the variable of the wheel, and
more specifcally the nature of its rotation, should be more
seriously reconsidered as a factor that afects macroscopic
traces left on pottery.
In this paper I briefy review the current state of knowledge,
highlighting the origins of the disparity between studies of the
technique and tool, and how they have afected scholarship.
Next, I consider the evidence for the wheel on Crete and discuss
their characteristics before detailing the experiment conducted
at the Centre for Experimental Archaeology and Material
Culture (CEAMC) at University College Dublin. A few key
results will be presented and then discussed with aspects of the
wheel that might be considered within the context of Cretan
archaeology, skill from the perspective of the experimenter
and the ancient potter, and pottery technologies.
1.1 The study of wheel techniques and tools
Many of the new methodologies for studying pottery
technology were developed during the 1980s and promoted
the importance of techniques over the tool. They were
founded upon on archaeological and ethnographic research
by scholars such as Anna Shepard (1956), Hélène Balfet,
and others working in places such as Crete (Thrapsano and
Margarites; Franchet, 1917; Xanthoudídes, 1927; Hampe and
Winter, 1962), the Maghreb in North Africa (Balfet, 1965;
1984), the Netherlands (Van der Leeuw, 1976a) Pakistan
(Rye and Evans, 1976) and India (Roux and Corbetta, 1989).
Indeed, Sander Van der Leeuw noted in 1993 (p.243) that
few scholars had conducted comparative research between
forming techniques, with the single exception of Balfet in
1965 and 1984. Yet, it is possible that Van der Leeuw himself
is one of the few scholars of the time to discuss and explore
the mathematics as well as physics of rotation in his
Studies
in the Technology of Ancient Pottery
(1976b)
.
By the later 1980s, this research coalesced into studies
in which the individual potter became the subject of
analysis, and his or her techniques became the variables.
Figure 1
. Conical cup in assemblage from
Minoan Unexplored Mansion (Popham, 1984a;
SMP.11689; KN.SM.3455). Reproduced with
permission from the British School at Athens.
Photo by author.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
129
Archaeologists sought evidence of combined techniques,
distinguishing between primary and secondary techniques
(Shepard, 1956, p.351), and what traces these left on the
pots. From this distinction, techniques began to supersede
the tools as signifcant aspects for the study of past potters.
In
The Many Dimensions of Pottery
,
Balfet (1984, pp.188–
189) concluded that the tool or the wheel was not sufcient
for “giving account of, or identifying, a specifc operational
sequence” within the production sequence. As a result, the
information obtained from the tool is often “ambiguous in
the absence of other factors” (Balfet, 1984, p.189). The
techniques of throwing and coiling then can be conducted
on any device. It was, therefore, pointed out by Van der
Leeuw following this paper that the wheel is more of
a constraint rather than a determining factor (Balfet, 1984,
p.200).
Subsequent research was built upon this assertion. On
the cusp of the 1980s, Roux and Corbetta (1989) conducted
a learning-study with Indian potters in which they found
the throwing technique to be more difcult to learn than
coiling, and therefore in the past there must have been
an intermediate technique that allowed for increased usage
and understanding of using centrifugal force. Thus, it was
argued that the development of wheel-thrown pottery in the
4
th
to 3
rd
millennia BCE was “comparable to the stages of
apprenticeship in wheel-thrown pottery today” (Roux and
Corbetta, 1989, p.7). The result of this research was the
development of methods for identifying the macroscopic
and microscopic traces between wheel made and handmade
pots, as well as between wheel-thrown and wheel-fashioned
ceramics. Roux and Courty (1998) developed four methods
involving the incremental addition of rotational kinetic
energy (RKE) to successive stages of coil building.
The methodology soon became established and
archaeologists on Crete also began to challenge old
dichotomous categorisations of techniques for Minoan pottery
(Knapett, 1999). More recently, it was applied rigorously to
ceramics from Bronze Age Crete (and Cyprus) by Caroline
Jefra (2011 and 2013). It is one of the most exhaustive
studies to date on the techniques of wheel-fashioning. She
argued that because older experiments tended to focus on the
capabilities of the device rather than the products, studies of
tools cannot alone clarify “exact formation techniques”, they
only elucidate diferent aspects of the production sequence
(Jefra, 2011, p.55). She went onto write that “utilising”
an appropriate wheel device for Minoan vessels without
verifcation that similar devices were available and used in
the same way on Crete (or Cyprus) would lead to a disparity
in the value of her typeset. Therefore, a modern electric
wheel was used for her experiments (Jefra, 2011, p.105).
Although an electric wheel may act as a controlled
variable during an experiment, it is demonstrated here that
diferent macroscopic traces can be produced by this type
of wheel when compared to more traditionally powered
wheels. Not only does this necessitate a re-investigation
into the basic properties of Minoan wheels and how they
afected manufacture; it also requires further reconsideration
of experimental methodologies involving the wheel for the
study of ancient pottery techniques.
1.2 Cretan Bronze Age Archaeology, The Evidence for
Potter’s Wheels
In Cretan archaeology, few truly engaged with both the tool
and the technique until the later 20
th
century (Knappett,
1999). In the early 20
th
century, Louis Franchet (1917, p.21)
suggested that a technique of hand-building was combined
with rotation in the Middle Minoan (MM) II period (circa
1900–1700 BCE). Evans (1921) and Dawkins (1903) also
made note of the fact that the wheel was not exclusively
for throwing, and yet many publications afterwards only
distinguished between hand and wheel made, as Doniert
Evely (2000, p.286) noted in his
Minoan Crafts
. Despite
the sheer number of ceramic sherds (and studies) from
Bronze Age Crete, eforts were concentrated far more on
distinguishing stylistic characteristics than manufacture (
cf.
Betancourt, 1984).
Recent experimental research by Jefra (2011) in Knossos,
Myrtos Pyrgos and Palaikastro, as well as Todaro (2016;
2017 and 2018) and Caloi (2011) at Phaistos have begun to
clarify the analysis of macroscopic forming traces on Bronze
Age Cretan pottery. Simultaneously, pottery typologies
have also avoided this dichotomy, and have identifed the
likely presence of multiple wheel-making techniques such
as in more recent publications by Knappett and Cunningham
(2012) on Palaikastro, and Choleva (2012 and 2018) on
Lerna and other mainland Greek sites. Yet, the tool still
remains understudied with the exception of work by Evely
(1988; 2000), Morrison and Park (2007) and Evely and
Morrison (2008), whose experiments focused on the wheel
and its design, drawing heavily from Evely’s own research
into the Minoan technology and crafts.
Until the evidence was categorised by Evely, early
descriptions of potter’s wheels often ranged from terms
such as “round table” by Hawes (1908, p.42) to being
diferentiated into the misleading “fast” and “slow” wheels.
The catalogue of Evely (1988 and 2000), however, does an
excellent job of organising Minoan wheels by their design.
The Early Minoan II to III (EM; circa 2400 to 2100 BCE)
periods are characterised by using mats made rarely of
ceramic, and instead they were likely wood or other organic
materials. One of the earliest ceramic examples comes from
Room 49 at Myrtos Fournou Koriphi (Figure 2, in which
eight “turntables” were found (Warren, 1972, pp.261–262).
One
tournette
or turntable had a socket on the underside, and
dates to EM IIB or circa 2200 BCE (Warren, 1972, no. 105),
and is one of the earliest examples of what Warren called
a “freely revolving” wheel. It is possibly a predecessor to
later freely revolving designs according to Warren (1972,
p.261).
From MM IB or circa 1900 BCE onwards, scholars such
as Sinclair Hood (1961–1962; 1966) and Betancourt (1985)
argued for the arrival of the so-called “fast wheel”. Many
of these potter’s wheels were grouped into Evely’s (1988)
Type 3C category. These were the most widespread on Crete
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
130
during all of the “palace” periods, circa 2000 BCE onwards.
They were characterised by fat, plain tops with a socket on
the underside. With the addition of a collar, this type of wheel
was what Evely called the hallmark and the fullest expression
of what was capable at the time (Evely, 1988, pp.100–
101; 2000, p.283). Proportions ranged from 30–40 cm in
diameter, with some as large as 60–70 cm (Evely, 1988,
p.101; Figure 3). Like the EM period much of the device was
made of organic materials, which makes interpretation of the
design difcult. As a result, archaeologists have tended to
rely on ethnographic work and modern potters.
Within the transition from Evely’s Type 1 to Type 3C, there
seems to be an increase in the development of a wheel design
that uses almost exclusively a ceramic wheel head. From the
MM I period onwards, the wheel begins to develop new
features such as a collar, perforations or at times scalloping
on the edges as seen at sites such as Tylissos (Hazzidakis
and Franchet, 1921, Figure 39 – MM I), Phaistos (MM I–II;
Evely, 2000, numbers 48 and 49; Pernier and Banti, 1956,
Figures 234a and 234b; Figure 4), Knossos (Figure 5;
Popham, 1984, pp. 84 and P74), and Gournia (MM III to
LM I; Hawes, 1908, numbers 32 and 33). Other examples
Figure 2.
Myrtos Pyrgos wheel no. 105 (after Evely 1988, Plate 11; Warren 1972, p. 261–262) Reproduced with the permission of the BSA and Professor
Peter Warren.
Figure 3.
Evely’s typology of Minoan wheel-head designs (after Evely 1988, Chart 1). Reproduced with the permission from the BSA and Dr Doniert Evely.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
131
Figure 4.
Middle Minoan I–II Wheel
heads from Phaistos; the one on the right
has a polished top surface as well (Pernier
and Banti 1951, p. 268, fgure 234a and b).
Reproduced with the permission from the
Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.
Figure 5.
Late Minoan I wheel head from Minoan Unexplored Mansion (Popham 1984, p. 84, no. P74; SMP.656); note perforations through wheel-head.
Reproduced with the permission from the BSA. Photo by author.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
132
come from MM III Ayia Triada (Evely, 2000, number 44),
MM III–LM I Vathypetro (Evely, 2000, number 51), Sissi
(Jusserat, 2009, Figure 8.3), LM III Kritsa chamber tombs
(Evely, 2000, number 61; Kanta, 1980, p.134) and LM III
at the Minoan Unexplored Mansion (Popham, 1984, pp.299
and P17; Figure 6).
Despite several pieces of evidence for the wheel heads, the
lower portion of the design remains elusive archaeologically.
For example, basal sockets are often found and could be part
of the shaft connecting to the wheel head, but they might
also resemble architectural features (Evely, 1988, p.117).
However, in experimental work by Evely and Morrison
(2008, p.284) and Morrison and Park (2007), the wheel
design was based upon pieces of evidence from a pit at
Mochlos which contained a bat (a removable disc to place
on top of a wheel head), a basal socket, and stone polishers
(Soles, 2003). Their experimental wheel design utilised
a crossbar and rotation which was supplied by the potter or
an assistant, but their research remains to-date one of the few
experiments with Minoan wheels (
cf.
Caloi this volume and
2019). Furthermore, their wheels represent one or variations
of one possible design. While ethnographic examples of
kick wheels from Thrapsano, Crete demonstrate that a heavy
piece of wood can work in a kick wheel design (Hampe
and Winter, 1962; Xanthoudídes, 1927; Figure 7), more
investigation and experimentation is required to determine
whether this was the case during the Bronze Age on Crete.
2. Methodology
The experiment discussed here aimed to contribute to this
need for more research. It was therefore directed at the
isolation of problems, or in other words, attempted to falsify
existing hypotheses which suggest that the wheel or tool
is not as signifcant as the technique (Popper, 1963). Such
an approach was guided by the following questions:
1. What efects do diferent types of wheels and their
rotational characteristics have upon the manufacture
of pottery?
2. What type of rotation was applied to the production of
Bronze Age Cretan pottery?
3. How was this applied to the production of conical cups?
The two methodological tools of this research were
the analytical tool
chaîne opératoire
and experimental
archaeology, each of which provide opportunities to
investigate production sequences and evidence at each stage
of production (Lemmonnier, 1986; Dobres, 1999 and 2000;
Coles, 1979). They help to elucidate some of the choices
made by potters in the past including factors such as the type
of clay, technique and, most relevantly, the type of device or
tool (Gosselain, 2018). Through an analysis of each aspect
of pottery technology, the choices made in each stage of
production become meaningful, aiding interpretation of
how raw materials are transformed into artefacts (Gosselain,
2018, pp.4–5). Technologies are also social phenomena in
which immaterial ideas coalesce with physical materials
and become articulated through human action and choice
(Sillar and Tite, 2000, p.2; Pfafenberger, 1988, p.241). With
experimental archaeology, the reproduction of past objects,
processes, and technologies can then be used as analogies
for the study of the archaeological record (O’Sullivan
et al.
,
2014, p.115; Ascher, 1961; Tringham, 1978; Coles, 1979;
Reynolds, 1999; Sillar and Tite, 2000). Moreover,
chaîne
opératoire
is not only the identifcation and classifcation
Figure 6.
Late Minoan III wheel head from the Minoan Unexplored Mansion (Popham 1984, p. 299, P17; SMP.738). Reproduced with the permission from
the BSA. Photo by author.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
133
of processes or stages in production, because each one
requires knowledge, experience or, indeed, a skillset that is
linked to human action (Pelegrin, 1990). When looking at
an archaeological deposit, the identifcation of gestures and
tools that might have led to specifc traces left on pots can be
hypothesised.
Prior to the experiment, I was able to train for 9 months
daily in potting techniques including wheel-throwing, wheel-
fashioning, and some hand-making while at CEAMC in
UCD. The wheels I trained with were the same wheels used
in the experiment. However, I did not have the opportunity
or time to train with the Ferrycarrig wheel prior to using it for
the experiments. While this was not enough time to master
wheelmaking techniques, the level of experience acquired on
each wheel can be considered as an opportunity to observe
traces from the perspective of an apprentice, particularly in
the case of the Ferrycarrig wheel. Given the poor quality of
manufacture often ascribed to conical cups, it might also be
Figure 7.
Traditional potters in Thrapsano,
Crete, as shown by Xanthoudídes in 1927
(p. 130, Plate XX).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
134
considered just how each variable (clay, wheel, techniques,
and the potter) afects the production and macroscopic traces.
During the experimental research, a total of 90 conical
cups were produced, ten each for the three wheels and
three techniques. The clay for the cups was sourced from
Valleymount, Co. Wicklow, Ireland, in the Poulaphouca
reservoir where the Lifey and Kings River valleys meet. The
clay was processed by hand, sieved through a 1-mm screen,
wedged at least 100 times, and left to cure in plastic bags
for around two-three weeks before use. Conical cups found
at several sites are made up of a range of clay recipes but
often they are raw clay tempered with non-plastic inclusions
around 1 mm (Day and Kilikoglou, 2001). Once made, all
cups were fred to 900 degrees Celsius, studied whole and
then broken to analyse the sections.
The techniques employed were wheel-coiling method 3 of
Roux and Courty (1998), pure wheel-throwing from a small
ball of clay, and “throwing of the hump”. It was not possible
Table 1
. Methods, wheels and alphanumeric code for the experimental dataset.
Technique/Wheel-typeElectric wheelKick wheelFerrycarrig wheel
Wheel thrown “of the hump”
1A (1-10)2A (1-10)3A (1-10)
Wheel fashioned: Method 31B (1-10)2B (1-10)3B (1-10)
Wheel thrown: small ball clay
1C (1-10)2C (1-10)3C (1-10)
Figure 8.
Potter’s wheels used during the experiment: (from left to right) kick wheel, Ferrycarrig wheel and electric wheel. Photos by author.
Figure 9.
Experimental data set with traces highlighted: technique 1C above (wheel thrown on the electric wheel) technique 3C below (wheel thrown on
the Ferrycarrig wheel). Photo by author.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
135
or necessary to reproduce and analyse cups based upon
more than one wheel-fashioning technique as Jefra (2011,
pp.158–160) argued from her experiment that method 3
was likely the most frequent technique in use between the
MM III and LM I period, the date of the archaeological
assemblage under analysis here (Popham, 1984; box number
KN.SM.3455).
Most importantly, three diferent types of wheels were
used: an electric wheel, a foot-pedal operated kick wheel
(Arden Pottery Wheel Company), and the “Ferrycarrig”
wheel, which was a kick wheel with a sandstone “fywheel”
made at the Ferrycarrig Irish National Heritage Park in
Wexford, Ireland (Figure 8; Table 1). Each wheel has its
own physical properties in terms of their type of rotation
including any associated, optimal gestures or postures. While
the electric wheel is steady and designed to maintain rotation
under constant pressures during pure wheel-throwing, the
kick and Ferrycarrig wheels are powered by foot or hand that
necessitates a modifcation of gestures during the making
process.
3. Results
Through a simple experiment, the type of wheel and its
rotational properties made a quantifable diference in the
macroscopic traces across three techniques and three wheel-
types. The frst key result is the observation that cups thrown
on the electric wheel and cups thrown on the Kick and
Ferrycarrig wheels revealed several features distinct of each
wheel type (Figures 9). Tearing at the rim (present across all
techniques) and some crevices in the walls occurred on ten
cups and only from the kick or Ferrycarrig wheels, but none
made on the electric wheel (Figure 14).
Qualitatively, both the electric and kick wheels allowed
for rotation to be relatively constant while pressures from the
hand were applied. The Ferrycarrig wheel by contrast, could
not be used in the same way. The weight and momentum of
the stone was relied upon to resist pressures of the hands,
or, in other words, there was no input from my foot or
a motor to sustain the rotation. In practice, there was little
control over the deceleration of the Ferrycarrig wheel due
to the momentum of the sandstone. After joining the coils
and while fnishing the shaping action, inconsistencies and
instability in the hands may have caused tearing at the rim.
This tearing, which might be called “crevices” (Roux, 2019,
p.177), also occurred in the lower portion of the walls and
may be a result of the clay’s properties. Despite measures to
homogenise the clay, crevices were created. Roux has argued
that crevices can be a result of stretching “wheel-fashioned
pastes” too quickly, or meagre clays with little homogeneity
(Roux, 2019, pp.145 and 177, Figure 3.9). This tearing
feature can be seen on several Bronze Age conical cups (see
Figure 10, bottom left cup).
In the case of the conical cups here, it is likely that non-
motorised wheels required opening and pulling out the clay
more quickly than on the electric wheel. On the electrical
wheel, there was more time to homogenise and centre due to
its ease of use. As for the wheel-fashioned cups, the tearing
could also be a result of not completely joined coils, which is
likely due to Method 3 being less efective for homogenizing
the clay despite being a faster method (Roux, 2019, p.84)
These features, along with a general lack of symmetry, can
be witnessed in both the experimentally produced (Figures 9
Figure 10.
LMIA Bronze Age Conical cups from Knossos (After Hatzaki 2001: fg. 5.18). Reproduced with the permission from the BSA.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
136
and 11) but also some LM IA Bronze Age cups from Knossos
(Hatzaki, 2007, p.5.18; Figure 10, Figure 12).
Another key result comes from the wheel-fashioned cups.
Joining the coils following Method 3 of Roux and Courty
(1998) was more difcult on the electric wheel than the kick-
wheel or Ferrycarrig wheel, but the electric wheel allowed
for more easily joining coils after the initial join. As joining
of the coils was much easier on the non-motorised wheels
there was less of a need to provide downward pressures,
which perhaps is the reason for this result. With the electric
wheel, the inability to join coils from the lack of speed control
meant a compression action was needed to ensure they joined
properly and so there were no large voids or tearing on the
lower interior wall near the base. By comparison, seven cups
produced on the kick wheel (2B cups) possessed a large
void/coil seam trace near the base and interior wall of the
cup (Figure 11; Figure 15). On six of the cups produced on
the Ferrycarrig wheel (3B cups), the coil seam is visible in
the same locations but lack the characteristic voids. This
diference is seen particularly well on cup 3B.3 (Figure 12).
Although the electric wheel possessed optimum velocity
and momentum, it struggled to work at the slow speed
I needed to join coils to the base of a pot. Secondly, the kick
wheel had a high velocity but little momentum, which forced
me to maintain rotation constantly for certain shapes and
gestures. On the other hand, its design made control of the
wheel at slower speeds much easier than the electric wheel
and even the Ferrycarrig wheel. Third, the Ferrycarrig wheel
had high momentum but low velocity. Although winding
up the wheel was more exhausting, the momentum allowed
for concentration on more easily joining coils and shaping
the vessels. Similarly, the kick wheel engages the upper and
lower body, forcing the potter in many cases to propel the
wheel by the foot and therefore imposing diferent postures.
As the kick wheel required standing, it immediately precluded
certain stabilising gestures that worked better for the electric
wheel. On the other hand, the electric wheel is a completely
steady-state device with little vibration, consistent rotation
provided by torque of the motor, and ease of use. Fatigue on
this modern wheel is limited primarily to the upper body. The
evidence from this experiment suggests that the mechanical
constraints, accompanied by a certain pragmatism (due
in part to fatigue), played a signifcant role in the overall
manufacturing process. Moreover, the non-motorised types
of wheels were quantifably diferent to the electric wheel.
Figure 11.
Experimental data set with traces highlighted: technique 1B (wheel coiled on the electric wheel) above; technique 2B (wheel coiled on the kick
wheel) below. Photo by author.
Figure 12.
Experimental Cup 3B.3 (Wheel-coiled on the Ferrycarrig
wheel), close-up. Note that the coil join at the bottom interior of the cup
is noticeable but did not leave a large gap as can be seen in the 2B cups.
Photo by author.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
137
4. Discussion
How ancient potters dealt with the introduction of new
techniques, improved wheel designs and the ever-increasing
mechanical capabilities of their tools remains complicated
to identify and understand. This research has sought to use
experimental archaeology to better understand this issue,
which inevitably involved thinking about the role of skill,
not only from the perspective of the experimenter, and the
ancient potter, but also what skill means in the context of
making pottery. Skill is a complex phenomenon, consisting
of talent, knowledge, and expertise, and which can be defned
as non-discursive, tacit, and embodied (Kuijpers, 2018,
p.2; Malafouris, 2004; Ingold, 2011, Budden and Sofaer,
2009; Bamforth and Finlay, 2008). It also incorporates
an understanding of the properties, limits, advantages as well
as a craftsperson’s response to raw materials practically and
sensorially (Day, 2013; O’Neill and O’Sullivan, 2019). In
pottery, knowledge impacts the ordering of time and space
(Crown, 2001, p.451), such as knowing when to fre, or
how long to wait for clay to cure or dry. Kuijpers (2018,
pp. 1 and 2), who set out an empirical method for assessing
skill in metalworking, argued that the nature of skill relates
to a person’s sensory interaction with the materials, and
what diferences in the quality of an object can be observed
from varying levels of skill (Kuijpers 2018, pp.3–5). Given
a conical cup, judging quality is complicated as they are
generally considered to be easy shapes to make, and the earliest
examples of them tend to be described as poor in quality or
lumped into categories like “crude ware” (MacGillivray,
2007, pp.130–131). In pottery, actions from the potter are
permanently preserved in the vessels through the process of
changing clay to its ceramic state. These imprinted traces can
be a result of diferent forming techniques that remain to be
analysed and interpreted (Roux, 2019).
From the perspective of the experimental archaeologist,
skill in a craft like pottery is an embodied knowledge too
(Malafouris, 2004) that can be interpreted and analysed.
Skill, then, is intimately tied with know-how of techniques,
the construction of tools like the wheel or a kiln, and sensory
knowledge, the most pertinent one being touch. How a potter
touches or feels the clay at crucial moments during the
construction is a knowledge and motor habit that translates
into skill. Too much or too little pressure at diferent points
can make a signifcant and measurable impact on the
fnished product. Therefore, learning how to make pottery or
successfully performing a technique is a vital aspect of skill.
For example, Roux and Corbetta (1989, p.16) demonstrated
that the earliest stages of learning to throw begin with small
conical shapes.
How then do these traces relate to the skill of the potter?
For Roux and Corbetta (1989) working in India, skill was
associated to a certain extent with the strength of a potter, and
thus the larger, higher, and more vertical the walls required
an increased level of skill (Roux and Corbetta, 1989, p.52).
However, they also point out that transitioning to diferent
levels of skill (1A to 3 to use their categories) involves
increasing input from both hands, stability, strength and, of
course, precision. In their research, they demonstrate that
small conical-shaped vessels were produced much earlier
in the learning stages (stages 1A to 1B; Roux and Corbetta,
1989, p.16).
Considering this experiment and the nature of conical cups
there is a similarity between the Bronze Age cups and the
experimental data that might be best explained from a couple
of perspectives. One possibility is that beginner potters were
perhaps unfamiliar or inexperienced with proper techniques,
and (or) they were new to the type of wheel. Alternatively,
it could be postulated that the clay used to produce Bronze
Age cups was recycled, and perhaps not “wedged” properly
prior to being used on the wheel. A certain pragmatism,
derived from the need to produce so many, may have afected
the manufacturing process – as it did during the experiment.
Recycling clay is a common practice in pottery, and if poorly
processed or wedged there can be air bubbles, and hard or
unhomogenised pieces of clay that complicate the production.
Figure 13.
Conical cup from Minoan
Unexplored Mansion, note unevenness. Also
note the internal traces which may point to
poor clay quality which may have yielded
tearing midway down the cup, or the drag
marks from non-plastic inclusions (Popham
1984; SMP11689). Reproduced with the
permission of the BSA.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
138
Minoan conical cups often contain some large inclusions in
the earlier periods (MM I to MM III), which suggests that the
clay recipe may not have been always ideal for the wheel.
Given that there was not enough time to incorporate
a second, or master potter, into the experiment, how my
own style or skill afected the macroscopic traces must be
considered. The aim of the experiment was to address the
efect of diferent types of potter’s wheels on the production
of conical cups and analysing the macroscopic traces for
quantifable diferences. During this experiment there were
other variables to consider too, such as to what extent diferent
techniques were afected by motorised and non-motorised
wheels. The clay, naturally sourced and processed, was another
variable that also contributed to an understanding of how these
types of wheels afect the workability of clay during various
shaping techniques. Finally, and overlying these variables,
is the skill of the experimenter (author). As a potter of
approximately 9 months before the experiment, my skill level
was that of a beginner to intermediate potter, being capable
of producing around 25–30 cm tall, closed vessels by the end
of the 9
th
month. However, my primary ability and focus of
training was on the production of small (10–15 cm in height)
open and closed shapes. Despite this focus, the incorporation
of a second potter would have certainly made assessing skill
and style more possible. If another potter of a higher skill level
had been involved, the diference might have been detected
from macroscopic traces, but this is also an inherently
diferent analytical framework. For instance, recent work
completed by Thér and Toms (this volume) demonstrated
that with more experimentation and isolation of variables,
Figure 14
. Quantity of tearing or crevices in
experimentally-produced cups.
Figure 15
. Number of cups presenting coil-
seam traces at interior base of cup.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
139
traces and orientation patterns associated (or not) with skill
and style might improve analogies between experimental
and archaeological ceramics. Experimental work by Gandon
and Roux (2019) also argued that master potters adjust their
gestures to suit wheels that are new to them, indicating that
future experimental work is still required.
Skill-level permeates techniques and tools, and it
conditions decisions made during manufacture in terms of
time, angles of the hands, and other material aspects of the
shaping process that inevitably have a measurable impact on
the macroscopic traces left behind. Therefore, lack of control
over early wheel designs and unfamiliarity with new wheel
techniques could be refected in the macroscopic traces
of conical cups. Powell (1995), for example, found that
velocity and momentum had a direct relationship with the
type of pots being produced, such that high velocity and low
momentum made possible the production of small biconical
and tall vessels (Powell, 1995, pp.333–334). As a result, she
suggested that the “obvious solution” of the potter would be
to produce wheels that could sustain more momentum, and
would be subsequently heavier (Powell, 1995, p.334). While
there is some evidence for an increase in the weight of the
potter’s wheel over time on Crete (Evely, 2000, Volume 2),
the lower portion of the wheel is relatively unknown and its
role in afecting macroscopic traces should be reinvestigated.
Without the lower design, it is difcult to assess the Minoan
wheel’s capabilities as well as its mechanical characteristics.
The primary evidence for the wheel on Crete derives from
the wheel heads that are preserved in ceramic or in rare cases,
stone (Evely, 2000). Many of them have channels on the edges,
are burnished on the top or have concentric grooves (Evely,
2000, p.283), all of which provide insight into how they may
have been used and how the technology developed over time.
The channels on the edges, for instance, might suggest they
were used for winding up and maintaining rotation by hand, as
one wheel from the MUM among others shows (Figure 5 and
6). The efect of utilising a winding up action and deceleration
for making pottery versus making pots with constant rotary
motion, will have required slightly diferent bodily gestures,
and likely some diferent skillsets in terms of potting technique.
Therefore, conducting more experimentation into changes in
the upper and the (elusive) lower portions of the wheel design
during the development of wheel technology on Crete could
help clarify the emergence of specialised potters experienced
or skilled in specifc ways of making on Crete.
5. Conclusions
The experiment conducted for this project demonstrated
that there are key traces as well as qualitative observations
associated with diferent types of devices and techniques.
There were consistent results which warrant a re-examination
of how archaeologists employ experimental archaeology for
the study of the potter’s wheel. Challenges to the technique
of throwing have efectively shown that techniques can be
variable (Roux and Courty, 1998), and experimental studies
concerning devices have explored that some mechanical
capabilities can preclude or
enable certain gestures (Gandon
and Roux, 2019; Evely, 1988; Powell, 1995; Morrison and
Evely, 2008). Moreover, O’Neill and O’Sullivan (2019)
have argued that the modern experience in a craft such as
blacksmithing, in their case, or pottery, as argued here, might
dissociate archaeologists from the ancient smith or potter.
Thus, I have argued here that the variable of the wheel,
particularly non-motorised wheels, should be more seriously
considered in the practice of experimental archaeological
research.
As a result, experts on the pottery technology of Minoan
Crete including Jefra (2013), Knappett (1999; 2004; 2015) and
others (
cf.
Caloi, 2011; Todaro, 2018) have voiced concerns
for the need of future experimental investigations into forming
techniques (Crewe and Knappett, 2012; Knappett, 2004, p.263
and 2005; Berg, 2007; Morrison and Park, 2007), but few
have voiced that call for the wheel. This renewed investigation
may also further studies into the regionalisation of potting
techniques on Crete. Regional potting traditions are already
known, not only in decoration and shape, but also with potting
techniques as Caloi (2011) and Todaro (2018) have recently
argued. Therefore, might there also be a case for regionality
among wheel types? Evely and Morrison’s experimental work
may represent one type of wheel in use during the zenith of
the wheel’s design on Crete, but how exactly did this design
come about, and was it the only one? What is certain, is that
more experimental work is required for addressing these
questions. As for the conical cup, examples like the one from
the MUM (Figure 1 and 13) necessitate a rethinking in terms
of which kind of wheel they were originally produced on as
well as how the wheel’s (or wheels’) characteristics afected
the manufacture of these cups when compared to other shapes.
Through further investigation into the design of the wheel,
conditions of potting in the past, including the technology,
tools, techniques, and gestures employed by the potters, might
be better understood.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Alan Peatfeld for supervising my thesis,
and Brendan O’Neill for constant engaging discussions
about the potter’s wheel, conical cups and pottery generally.
I also thank Jo Day for permission to study material in the
UCD Classical Museum and also for imparting some of her
expert knowledge about Minoan ceramic technology and
pottery to me; the Irish Archaeology Field School, Denis
Shine for allowing me to work in their facility and use
their “Ferrycarrig” wheel for my experiments; and Aidan
O’Sullivan and Brendan O’Neill for access to the materials
and facilities of the Centre for Experimental Archaeology
and Material Culture as well as for storing my data sets.
I would like to thank additionally Brendan O’Neill for taking
new photographs of my experimental data set. All the staf at
UCD and the Irish Archaeology Field School were incredibly
helpful in making this experiment and research possible.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
140
I would also like to express my thanks to the British School
at Athens and Amalia Kakissis for permission to study and
publish material from the Minoan Unexplored Mansion as
well as reproducing several images from BSA publications.
I would like to thank Peter Warren and Doniert Evely
as well for their permission to reuse their images and for
interesting conversations about wheels. The Italian School
of Archaeology at Athens and Ilaria Simiakaki has also
graciously allowed me to reproduce images from
Il Palazzo
Minoico di Festòs
(Pernier and Banti, 1951).
I also received
a bursary from the BSA to partially fund my attendance of
the Prehistoric, Greek and Roman Pottery Course, for which
I am very grateful. I would also like to thank in particular
from the BSA, Kostis Christakis for not only facilitating my
studies at the Knossos Stratigraphical Museum but for his
constant encouragement and support.
References
ASCHER, R., 1961. Experimental Archaeology.
American Anthropologist,
New Series
, 63(4), 793–816.
BALFET, H., 1965. Ethnographical Observations in North Africa and
Archaeological Interpretation, The Pottery of the Maghreb. In: F.R.
MATSON,
ed.
Ceramics and Man
. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., pp.
161–177.
BALFET, H.,
1984. Methods of Formation and the Shape of Pottery. In:
S.E. van der Leeuw and A.C. Pritchard, eds.
The Many Dimensions
of Pottery, Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology
. Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam, pp. 171–201.
BAMFORTH, D.B. and FINLAY, N., 2008. Introduction: Archaeological
Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning.
Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory,
15(1), 1–27.
BELFIORE, C.M., DAY, P.M., HEIN, A., KILIKOGLOU, V., LA
ROSA, V. MAZZOLENI, P., and PEZZINO, A., 2007. Petrographic
and Chemical Characterization of Pottery Production of the Late
Minoan I Kiln at Haghia Triada, Crete.
Archaeometry
, 49(4), 621–653.
BERG, I., 2007.
Negotiating Island Identities. The Active Use of Pottery in
the Middle and Late Bronze Age Cyclades
. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias
Press.
BUDDEN, S., and SOFAER, J.R., 2009. Non-discursive knowledge and the
construction of identity: Potters, potting and performance at the Bronze
age tell of Szazhalom-batta, Hungary.
Archaeological Review from
Cambridge,
19(2), 203–220.
CALOI, I., 2019. “Breaking with Tradition?” The Adoption of the Wheel-
Throwing Technique at Protopalatial Phaistos: Combining Macroscopic
Analysis, Experimental Archaeology and Contextual Information.
Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane
in Oriente
, 97, 9–25.
CALOI, I.,
2011. Le Innovazioni Tecnologiche Nella Messarà, dal Wheel-
Fashioning al Wheel-Throwing. In: F. Carinci, N. Cucuzza, P. Militello,
and O. Palio, eds.
Tradizione e Identità Minoica tra Produzione
Artigianale, Pratiche Cerimoniali e Memoria del Passato. Studi in onore
di Vincenzo La Rosa.
Studi di Archeologia Cretese, 10. Padova: Bottega
D’Erasmo, pp. 81–96.
CHOLEVA, M.,
2012. The First Wheelmade Pottery at Lerna, Wheel-
Thrown or Wheel-Fashioned?
Hesperia, The Journal of the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens,
81(3), 343–381.
CHOLEVA, M.,
2018. Craft Behaviours during a Period of Transformations.
The Introduction and Adoption of the Potter’s Wheel in Central Greece
during Early Bronze Age. In: I. Caloi and C. Langohr, eds.
Technology
in Crisis. Technological Changes in Ceramic Production during Periods
of Trouble.
Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, pp.
45–74.
CHRISTAKIS, K., 2019. The Emergence of a Metropolis, The Excavations
of the British School at Athens in the Valley of Knossos. In: N.C.
Stampolides, E. Papadopoulou, I.G. Laurentzatou, and I. Phappas, eds.
Emerging Cities Aptera, Eleutherna, Knossos.
Athens: Museum of
Cycladic Art, pp. 196–233.
CROWN, P.L., 2007. Life Histories of Pots and Potters: Situating the
Individual in Archaeology.
American Antiquity,
72(4), 677–690.
COLES, J., 1979.
Experimental Archaeology
. London: Academic.
CREWE, L., and
KNAPPETT, C., 2012. Technological Innovation and
Island Societies, Wheelmade Pottery on Bronze Age and Iron Age Crete
and Cyprus. In:
Parallel Lives, Ancient Island Societies in Crete and
Cyprus.
British School at Athens Studies, 20, pp. 175–185.
DAWKINS, R., 1903. Pottery from Zakro.
The Journal of Hellenic Studies
,
23, 248–260.
DAY, P.M., and KILIKOGLOU, V., 2001. Analysis of Ceramics from the
Kiln. In:
A LMIA Ceramic Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and
Pottery Production.
Hesperia Supplements, 30, pp. 111–133.
DOBRES, M.-A.,
1999. Technology’s Links and
Chaînes
, The Processual
Unfolding of Technique and Technician. In: M.A. Dobres, and C.R.
Hofman, eds.
The Social Dynamics of Technology, Practice, Politics and
World-Views
. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, pp. 124–146.
DOBRES, M.-A., 2000.
Technology and Social Agency. Outlining
a Practice Framework for Archaeology
. Oxford: Blackwell.
EVANS, A., 1921.
The Palace of Minos. Volume 1
. London: MacMillan
and Co., Limited.
EVELY, D., 1988. The Potter’s Wheel in Minoan Crete.
The Annual of the
British School at Athens,
83, 83–126.
EVELY, D.,
and MORRISON. J.E.,
2008. The Minoan Potter’s Wheel,
A Study in Experimental Archaeology. In: P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock,
L. Nigro, N. Marchetti, and L. Romano, eds.
Proceedings of the 6
th
International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,
May, 5
th
–10
th
2008, “Sapienza” – Università di Roma
. Volume 1.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 283–288.
GANDON, E., and ROUX, V., 2019. Cost of Motor Skill Adaptation to
New Craft Traits, Experiments with Expert Potters Facing Unfamiliar
Vessel Shapes and Wheels.
Journal of Anthropological Science
, 53,
229–239.
GILLIS, C.S., 1990a. Statistical Analyses and Conical Cups, A Preliminary
Report of the Conical Cups at Akrotiri, Thera.
Opuscula Atheniesia
,
18(5), 63–93.
GILLIS, C.,
1990b.
Minoan Conical Cups. Form, Function and
Signifcance
. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.
GOSSELAIN, O., 1998. Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball.
In: M.T. Stark, ed.
The Archaeology of Social Boundaries.
Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, pp. 78–106.
GOSSELAIN, O.,
2000. Materializing Identities, An African Perspective.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
, 7(3), 187–217.
GOSSELAIN, O., 2018. Pottery
Chaînes
Opératoires
as Historical
Documents. In :
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History
, pp.
1–41, Retrieved 7 Jul. 2019, from https,//oxfordre.com/africanhistory/
view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190277734-e-208.
HAMILAKIS, Y., and SHERRATT, S., 2012. Feasting and the consuming
body in Bronze Age Crete and Early Iron Age Cyprus. In: G. Cadogan,
M. Iakovou, K. Kopaka, and J. Whitley, eds.
Parallel Lives: Ancient
Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus
. British School at Athens Studies,
20. London: The British School at Athens.
HAMPE, R., and WINTER, A., 1962.
Bei Topfern und Topferinnen in
Kreta, Messenien und Zypern
. Mainz: Das Römisch-Germanische
Zentralmuseum.
HATZAKI, E., 2005.
Knossos, The Little Palace
. British School at Athens
Supplementary, Volume 38, London: The British School at Athens.
HATZAKI, E., 2007. Neopalatial (MM IIIB–LM IB), KS 178, Gypsades
Well (Upper Deposit) and SEX North House Groups. In: N. Momigliano,
ed.
Knossos Pottery Handbook. Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan
).
British School at Athens Studies, 14. London: British School at Athens,
pp. 151–196.
HOOD, M.S.F.,
1961–2. Stratigraphic excavations at Knossos, 1957–61.
Kr. Chron.
,
15–16(1), 92–98.
HOOD, M.S.F.,
1966. The Early and Middle Minoan Periods at Knossos.
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
, 13, 110–111.
INGERSOLL, D., YELLEN, J.E.,
and MACDONALD, W., 1977.
Experimental Archaeology
. New York: Columbia University Press.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
141
INGOLD, T., 2011.
Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and
Description
. London: Routledge.
JEFFRA, C., 2011.
The Archaeological Study of Innovation,
An Experimental Approach to the Pottery Wheel in Bronze Age Crete and
Cyprus
. Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Exeter.
JEFFRA, C., 2013. A Re-Examination of Early Wheel Potting in Crete.
The
Annual of the British School at Athens
, 108, 31–49.
JEFFRA, C., 2019.
CRAFTER: Potting Techniques of the Bronze Age.
EXARC
, 2019(1), 16–27.
JUSSERET, S., 2009. The Excavation of Zone 6. In: J. Driessen
, ed.
Excavations at Sissi, Preliminary Report on the 2007–2008 Campaigns
.
Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, pp. 157–161.
KANTA, A., 1980.
The Late Minoan Period in Crete. A Survey of Sites,
Pottery and their Distribution.
Göteborg:
Paul Aströms Förlag.
KNAPPETT, C., 1999. Tradition and Innovation in Pottery Forming
Technology, Wheel-Throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos.
The Annual of
the British School at Athens
, 94, 101–129.
KNAPPETT, C., 2004. Technological Innovation and Social Diversity at
Middle Minoan Knossos. In: G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis,
eds.
Knossos, Palace, City, State.
British School at Athens Studies, 12.
London: British School at Athens, pp. 257–265.
KNAPPETT, C., 2005.
Thinking Through Material Culture.
An Interdisciplinary Perspective
. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia
Press.
KNAPPETT, C., and CUNNINGHAM, T., 2012.
Palaikastro Block M: The
Proto- and Neopalatial Town.
Supplementary Volume, 47. London: The
British School at Athens.
KNAPPETT, C.,
and
HILDITCH, J., 2015. Conical Cups? The Minoan
Plain Handless Cup as Icon and Index. In: C. Glatz, ed.
Plain Pottery
Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East, Production, Use
and Social Signifcance
. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 91–113.
KUIJPERS, M.H.G., 2018.
An Archaeology of Skill: Metalworking Skill and
Material Specialization in Early Bronze Age Central Europe.
London:
Routledge.
LEMMONNIER, P.,
1986. The Study of Material Culture Today, Toward
an Anthropology of Technical Systems.
Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology
, 5, 147–186.
LEVI, D., 1976.
Festòs e la Civiltà Minoica
. Volume I. Rome: Edizioni
dell’Ateneo.
MALAFOURIS, L., 2004. The cognitive basis of material engagement:
Where brain, body and culture confate. In: E. Demarrais, C. Godsen,
and C. Renfrew, eds.
Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind
with the Material World
. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 53–62.
MACKENZIE, D.,
1903. The Pottery of Knossos.
The Journal of Hellenic
Studies
, 23, 157–205.
MACGILLIVRAY, A., 2007. Protopalatial (MM IB–MM IIIA): Early
Chamber beneath the West Court, Royal Pottery Stores, the Trial KV, and
the West and South Polychrome Deposits Groups. In: N. Momigliano,
ed.
Knossos Pottery Handbook: Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan).
London: British School at Athens, pp. 105–149.
MORRISON, J.E., and PARK, D.,
2007. Throwing Small Vessels in the
LM IB Mochlos Potter’s Pit.
Kentro, Newsletter of the INSTAP Study
Center for East Crete,
10, 6–10.
O’NEILL, B., and O’SULLIVAN, A., 2019. Experimental Archaeology and
(Re)-experiencing the Senses of the Medieval World. In: R. Skeates, and
J. Day, eds.
The Routledge Handbook of Sensory Archaeology.
London:
Routledge, pp. 451–465.
O’SULLIVAN, A., POWERS, M., MURPHY, J., INWOOD, N.,
GILHOOLY, B., KELLY, N., MALONE, W., MULROONEY, J.,
CORRIGAN, C., L’ESTRANGE, M., BURKE, A., KAZURO, M.,
MCDERMOTT, C., WARREN, G., O’NEILL, B., HEFFERNAN
M., and
SWEENEY, M., 2014. Experimental Archaeology, Making;
Understanding; Story-Telling. In: B. Kelly, N. Roycroft, and M. Stanley,
eds.
Fragments of Lives Past, Archaeological objects from Irish Road
Schemes. Archaeology and the National Roads Authority
. Monograph
Series, 11, Dublin: National Roads Authority, pp. 115–126.
PELEGRIN, J., 1990. Prehistoric Lithic Technology: Some Aspects of
Research.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge.
9, 116–25.
PERNIER, L., and BANTI, L., 1951.
Il Palazzo minoico di Festòs, scavi
e studi della missione archeologica italiana a Creta dal 1900 al 1950
.
Rome: La Libreria dello Stato.
PFAFFENBERGER, B., 1988. Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature:
Towards and Anthropology of Technology.
Man, New Series
, 23(2),
236–252.
POPHAM
, M.R., 1984a. The Excavation. In: M.R. Popham, ed.
The
Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. Text
. London: Thames and
Hudson, pp. 1–98.
POPHAM
, M.R., 1984b. The Pottery. In: M.R. Popham, ed.
The Minoan
Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. Text
. London: Thames and Hudson, pp.
151–186.
POPPER, K., 1963.
Conjectures and Refutations, The Growth of Scientifc
Knowledge
. London: Routledge.
POWELL
, C., 1995. The nature and use of ancient Egyptian potter’s
wheels. In: B. Kemp, ed.,
Amarna Reports VI
. London: Egypt Exploration
Society, pp. 309–335.
PRITCHARD, A.C., 1984. Introduction. In: S.E. van der Leeuw, and
A.C. Pritchard, eds.
The Many Dimensions of Pottery, Ceramics in
Archaeology and Anthropology
. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
RYE, O.S., and EVANS, C., 1976.
Traditional Pottery Techniques of
Pakistan. Field and Laboratory Studies
. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
REYNOLDS, P.J., 1999. The Nature of Experiment in Archaeology. In:
E. Jerem, and I. Poroszlai, eds.
Archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Age.
Experimental Archaeology, Environmental Archaeology, Archaeological
Parks. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference
Szazhalombatta, 3–7 October 1996
. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 387–
395.
ROUX, V., 2009. Wheel Fashioned Ceramic Production during the
Third Millenium BCE in the Southern Levant, a Perspective from Tel
Yarmouth. In: S.A. Rosen, and V. Roux, eds.
Techniques and People,
Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in Archaeology Proto-
Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant
. Paris: De
Boccard, pp. 195–212.
ROUX, V., and
CORBETTA
, D., 1989.
The Potter’s Wheel. Craft
Specialisation and Technical Competency
. Bombay: Oxford and IBH
Publishing Co.
ROUX, V., and
COURTY, M.-A., 1995. Identifcation of Wheel
Throwing on the Basis of Surface Features and Microfabrics.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 22, 17–50.
ROUX, V., and
COURTY, M.-A., 1998. Identifcation of Wheel-Fashioning
Methods, Technological Analysis of 4
th
–3
rd
Millennium BC Oriental
Ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science
. 25, 747–763.
ROUX, V., and JEFFRA, C., 2015. The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in
the Ancient Mediterranean. A Social Context-Dependent Phenomenon. In:
W. Gauss, G. Klebinder-Gauss, and C. von Rüden, eds.
The Transmission
of Technical Knowledge in the Production of Ancient Mediterranean
Pottery. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Austrian
Archaeological Institute at Athens 23
rd
– 25
th
November 2012
. Athens:
Die Deutsche Bibliothek, pp. 165–182.
SCHOEP, I., 2004. Assessing the Role of Architecture in Conspicuous
Consumption in the Middle Minoan I–II Periods.
Oxford Journal of
Archaeology
. 23(3), 243–269.
SCHOEP, I., 2006. Looking beyond the First Palaces, Elites and the Agency
of Power in EM III–MM II Crete.
American Journal of Archaeology
,
110(1), 37–64.
SHEPARD, A., 1956.
Ceramics for the Archaeologist
. Washington D.C.:
Carnegie Institute of Washington.
SILLAR, B., and TITE, M.S., 2000. The Challenge of “Technological
Choices” for Materials Science Approaches in Archaeology.
Archaeometry
. 42(1), 2–20.
SOLES, J., 2003. The Artisans’ Quarter Building A. In: J. Soles
et al.,
eds.
Mochlos IC: Period III. The Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast:
The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Sites.
Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.
TODARO, S., 2016. Shaping Tools and Finished Products from A Long-
Term Pottery Production Area at Phaistos. A Combined Approach to The
Study of Hand-Forming Techniques in Early and Middle Minoan Crete.
Creta Antica
, 17, 273–325.
TODARO, S., 2017. Forming Techniques and Cultural Identity in Early and
Middle Minoan Crete, Multi-Layered Vessels from a Pottery Production
Area at Phaistos.
Annuario ASAtene
, 95, 129–143.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 127–142
Chase A. M. Minos: A Return to the Wheel: Rethinking Experimental Methodologies for the Study of the Potter’s Wheel
142
TODARO, S., 2018. What is Essential is Invisible to the Eye. Multi-
Layered and Internally Supported Vases at Protopalatial Phaistos. In:
G. Baldacci, and I. Caloi, eds.
Rhadamanthys
. British Archaeological
Reports Series, 2884, pp. 39–48.
TOMKINS, P. and SCHOEP, I., 2012. Back to the Beginning for the
Early and Middle Bronze Age on Crete. In: I. Schoep, P. Tomkins, and
J. Driessen, eds.
Back to the Beginning, Reassessing Social and Political
Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age.
Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 1–31.
TRINGHAM, R., 1978. Experimentation, Ethnoarchaeology, and the
Leapfrogs in Archaeological Methodology. In: R. Gould, ed.
Explorations
in Ethnoarchaeology
. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.
169–199.
VAN DER LEEUW, S.E., 1976a.
Studies in the Technology of Ancient
Pottery. Volume I
. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
VAN DER LEEUW, S.E., 1976b.
Studies in the Technology of Ancient
Pottery. Volume II
. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
VAN DER LEEUW, S.E., 1993. Giving the Potter a Choice, Conceptual
Aspects of Pottery Techniques. In: P. Lemmonier, ed.
Technological
Choices, Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic
.
London: Routledge, pp. 238–288.
WIENER, M.H., 2011. Conical Cups, From Mystery to History. In:
W. Gaub, M. Lindblom, R.A.K. Smith, and J.C.Wright, eds.
Our Cups
are Full, Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented
to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65
th
Birthday
. Oxford:
Archaeopress, pp. 355–368.
WARREN, P., 1972.
Myrtos. An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete
.
British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplementary Volume 7.
London: Thames and Hudson.
XANTHOUDÍDES, S., 1927. Some Minoan Potter’s-Wheel Discs. In:
S. Casson, ed.
Essays in Aegean Archaeology, Presented to Sir Arthur
Evans in honour of his 75
th
birthday
. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 111–128.