comments

EFFECTS OF TEMPER ON STRENGTH OF CERAMICS:

RESPONSE TO BRONITSKY AND HAMER

James K. Feathers
Results of strength tests on sand- and shell-tempered ceramics reported by Bronitsky and Hamer (1986) are
硒 cult to interpret because offlawed experimental procedures and have questionable relevance to the archaeo­
logical record. Results from an improved procedure suggest shell-tempered ceramics as produced in prehistoric
southeastern Missouri were stronger and tougher than sand-tempered counterparts.
Los resultados de las pruebas de resistencia efectuados en los temperantes de las ceramicas, basicamente concha
y arena, que han sido reportados por Bronitsky y Hamer (1986) son d如 les de interpretar, debido a que los
procedimientos experimentalesfueron defectuosos y ademas es cuestionable en lo que se refiere al registro ar­
queol6gico. Sin embargo, los resultados deprocedimiemtos mas refinados nos sugieren que la ceramica construida
usando concha como temperante, durante el perfodo Prehist6rico de la region sur-oriental del estado de Missouri
(E.U.A.).

Increasingly, archaeologists are expanding the scope of prehistoric ceramic analyses; traditional
stylistic concerns are augmented by technological and functional studies (e.g., Braun I 983; Edwards
and Segnit I 984; Maggetti and Schwab 1982; Smith 1983; Stimmel and Arnold I 982). Changes in
ceramics are being interpreted in terms of reducing production costs or improving performance of
pottery as it functioned in a prehistoric system (e.g., Hally 1986; Nance and Mentzer 1980; Saffer
1980; Tankersley and Meinhart 1982; Wallace and Viana 1982; Windes 1977). Particular attention
has been paid to the physical effects of different tempering materials (e.g., London 198 I; Million
1980; Plog 1980; Reid 1984; Rye 1976; Slavacek 1968; Steponaitis 1983). One interesting puzzle
is explaining the sudden replacement of sand by shell temper during the Late Woodland in much
of eastern North America. An assessment of the mechanical and thermal properties of sand- vs.
shell-tempered ceramics is presented in a recent paper by Bronitsky and Hamer (1986). The authors
propose that improved physical properties of pottery containing shell temper may account for its
selection over sand, at least for their study area in Virginia. Their argument hinges on strength tests
on sample briquettes of shell- and sand-tempered material. Their recognition that replicate sherds
rather than archaeological sherds are requisite for strength tests is important. However, their effort
is flawed in experimental design, testing, and reporting, making their results not only difficult to
interpret but perhaps not applicable to the Virginia sherds they attempted to study. Results of similar
experiments, though still in a preliminary stage, are reported here in an attempt to correct some of
the problems in the Bronitsky-Hamer paper.

EXPERIMENT AL PROCEDURE
Bronitsky-Hamer Procedure
Bronitsky and Hamer performed strength tests on sample replicates rather than on prehistoric
ceramics. This approach can be supported on two grounds. First, prehistoric ceramics have been
degraded to an unknown degree through use and postdepositional processes. Second, most strength
tests require several samples of identical shape and size. This experimental condition is difficult,
though not impossible, to obtain from the archaeological record, particularly when variations in
sherd curvature are considered.

James K. Feathers, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

American Anuquity, 54(3)，l989, pp: 579-588.
Copyright © 1989 by the Society for American Archaeology

579
580 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 54, No. 3, 1989]

If replicates are to be constructed for strength tests, however, care should be taken to approximate
the prehistoric materials. Because so many variables affect strength (including material selection,
mixing, forming technique, and firing time , temperature, and atmosphere) shell tempering may
produce stronger pottery than sand under one set of conditions but not under another. If the
parameter of interest is relative strengths of sand- and shell-tempered materials at the time of
transition in eastern North America, then samples should be constructed to match the range of
transitional materials as closely as possible, while still maintaining experimental control. If these
conditions are unknown or impractical to reproduce, this should be acknowledged and results
presented with appropriate caution. Bronitsky and Hamer report no analysis of the Virginia spec­
imens to which their experiment is inferred to apply, nor do they make any attempt to duplicate
the materials and technologies represented by the Virginia ceramics in the manufacture of their
replicates. There are other problems as well in the preparation and firing of their samples and in
their testing procedures .
First, " commercial clay" was used as the matrix for the temper. It is not stated what kind of
commercial clay was used, but one would expect that the specifications of the commercial product, e.g.,
maturing temperature, particle-size distribution, firing range, and mineral constituents, all of which
affect the ceramic product, could be defined with some precision and reported . Natural materials,
loosely termed clays, that were used for ancient pottery manufacture are complex mixtures of clay
minerals and other minerals such as quartz, feldsp ar, shales , carbonaceous materials, and anything else
that might find its way into a sedimentary deposit. These natural clay bodies are still used for brick
and tile manufacture, but modem commercial clays often are artificial blends of clay and other
minerals produced for a desired set of characteristics relating to working, firing, and use. Clays
vary greatly in forming, firing, and performance characteristics, so different results using different
clays are expected. Strength of clay bodies differs, for example, according to their maturing
temperature , when a desired degree of sintering and vitrification is achieved. Maturation may occur
at temperatures well below l,000°C for some commercial clay bodies.
The procedures for preparing temper also are questionable. Bronitsky and Hamer attempted to
」
control temper amount and size, but little ustification is given for their choices. Temper amount
varied from 40 to 80 percent , and the size classification was fine (particles <.5 mm) and coarse
(particles > 1.0 mm). There is no indication this resembles Virginian pottery or that these variations
even produce a workable clay body from which pottery can be formed.
A more serious problem is the distinction drawn between burned and unburned shell temper.
Bronitsky and Hamer used both in their experiments. Shell was burned for the expressed purpose
of decomposing calcium carbonate, but the burning procedure was so uncontrolled that it is unknown
if any decomposition occurred. Moreover , the justification given for burning the shell probably is
not relevant, since it is not demonstrated that the carbonate was decomposed prehistorically.
The shell from oysters, clams, mussels, and other shellfish usually is composed of the calcium
carbonate mineral aragonite. Upon heating to about 200-400°C, the crystal structure slightly alters
to form the mineral calcite without any compositional change (both are CaC03). Decrease in specific
gravity (2.929 for aragonite, 2.711 for calcite) results in about a 7-percent increase in volume. Under
an oxidizing atmosphere, the carbonate begins to decompose at 700 or 800°C depending on the rate
of heating, into calcium oxide (CaO), or lime , and carbon dioxide (CO2 ). (Under reducing conditions
decomposition may be delayed until 900°C.) The gas is lost, and upon cooling in the atmosphere,
lime rapidly hydrates to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)i). The hydration is accompanied by
expansion, and it is this expansion that causes pottery containing free lime (CaO) to spall and crack.
The physical properties ofa ragonite, calcite, calcium hydroxide, and lime differ greatly, so knowledge
of which phases are present in the pottery is important. Bronitsky and Hamer burned their shell by
dousing oyster shells in gasoline and setting them afire, a method clearly not used in the process
being replicated or in contemporary ceramic laboratories . While this procedure probably converted,
at least partially, the aragonite to calcite, it is unknown and was not ascertained experimentally if
any decomposition to calcium oxide occurred.
Burning shell has another consequence. The oxidation of the organic binder and the breakdown
of the aragonite crystal render shell quite friable so that it exfoliates easily into plate-like particles.
Raw shell-aragonite-is difficult to grind (hardness of 3.5-4 ． 0 on Mohs' scale, compared to 3.0
 COMMENTS 581

for calcite) and fractures in a different fashion than calcite (aragonite particles are much more block
like than plate like). If prehistoric potters in North America initially burned shell before using it as
temper, as appears to have been the case (Million 1980), the selective drive probably was the effect
on grinding or particle shape, not the decomposition of the carbonate. Preliminary decomposition
of the carbonate will protect pottery heated to 700 or 800°C from failure by lime spalling (Bronitsky
and Hamer's justification), but little evidence exists that shell-tempered pottery in North America
was fired high enough to cause decomposition. X-ray diffraction analyses of sherds from Missouri
and West Virginia, conducted by the author, show the presence of calcite but not lime, hydroxide,
or other high-temperature calcium compounds. It is possible that recarbonation has occurred through
time, but the plate-like shape of the shell particles in these sherds suggests the original temper was
calcite. Conversion to calcium hydroxide converts shell particles into a fluffy powder. It also is
possible that partial decomposition occurred in the original firing and the CaO reacted with other
elements, such as sodium, to form glass (which cannot be detected by X-ray diffraction), but this
has not been demonstrated.
The forming and firing procedures used by Bronitsky and Hamer are poorly justified and uncon­
trolled. They report their sample briquettes were formed in such a way as to cause random alignment
of the temper particles. How this could be achieved with nonspherical particles is not explained,
nor is the objective justified. Inclusion alignment is an important factor in strength (Davidge 1979).
Coiling, practiced throughout eastern North America, produces alignment of shell inclusions parallel
to the central axes of the coils (Rye 1981). This would provide added resistance to any crack extending
through the pottery walls perpendicular to the original coil axes, though it would not be as effective
against cracks running parallel to the coil axes. Random alignment of shell particles produces more
or less average reinforcement in all directions and may be advantageous in situations where applied
force is directed randomly. Bronitsky and Hamer provide no analysis of prehistoric sherds to justify
random alignment. They seem to have decided at the outset that the reason for a shift to shell
tempering was because of chemical composition. Consequently, their design ignores the potential
consequences of particle alignment.
Bronitsky and Hamer dried their briquettes at 105°C for 1 hour. This drying time may not have
been sufficient to drive out all absorbed moisture and may account for the otherwise inexplicable
weight loss they report. At temperatures used by Bronitsky and Hamer, most weight loss during
firing-if sufficient drying precedes the firing-is a consequence of dehydration of the clay (500-
700°C, depending on the clay) and combustion of organic materials (complete by 500°C). Sand
undergoes no weight loss, and shell does only if allowed to decompose at 700°C or higher. Bronitsky
and Hamer report that raw clay fired at 800°C lost 7.4 percent of its weight. With 40 or 80 percent
sand temper, the weight loss should have been 4.2 and 1.4 percent, respectively. The reported values
of 5.4-11.4 percent are unexplained. The weight loss reported for their shell-tempered samples
ranges from 7.4 to 10.8 percent, again too high unless the shell partially decomposed. If decom­
position were involved, then the 80 percent shell samples should show a greater weight loss than
the 40 percent ones. They do not in 3 of 4 cases. If these anomalous values are a function of
insufficient drying, doubt would be cast on the strength-test results because steam released during
firing could weaken the bodies, unless the heating rate was sufficiently slow. In any case, they require
explanation.
The briquettes were fired at 800°C. No data are given on rate and duration of firing, though both
variables are as important as maximum temperature in determining what physical changes occur
during firing. For example, with a slow rate of heating, calcite decomposition can begin at 700°C;
at a faster rate it may not begin until 800°C. Because rate and duration of firing are not reported,
little is known about the true degree of firing in their experiment, let alone what relation it might
have to the prehistoric ceramics to which they apply their conclusions.
Bronitsky and Hamer employed an impact test for mechanical strength. While rough qualitative
results can be obtained from this test, it is not the best choice. Fracture in ceramics occurs from
stress concentration at defects in the materials (Davidge 1979). These defects can be pores, bound­
aries between clay and temper, or other microscopic flaws. The strength of a material is defined by
the amount of energy required to initiate fracture at the tip of the defect or crack. Fracture stress
depends on the size and geometry of the crack and the surface energy required to extend the crack.
582 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 54, No . 3, 1989]

The latter, the energy used to create new surfaces, is considered intrinsic to the material. The best
quantitative strength data are obtained by notching the test specimen so that the size and geometry
of the crack are controlled.
Most ceramics are brittle and, once fracture has been initiated, more than enough energy usually
is available to rupture the sample completely. Fracture is catastrophic. For some ceramic materials,
however, additional energy is required beyond fracture initiation to complete the fracture. The
amount of energy required for complete failure is termed work of fracture and is a measure of
toughness. Mechanical properties of materials can be improved by increasing toughness as well as
absolute strength.
Impact tests usually are designed to measure the amount of energy necessary for complete fracture,
i.e., toughness. A liability of these tests is their inability, without sophisticated equipment, to
distinguish work of fracture from absolute strength (Davis et al. 1982). Bronitsky and Hamer try
to make this distinction by recording the relative impact load necessary to create visible cracks
versus that necessary for complete rupture. However, the size of fracture-initiating flaws is micro­
scopic (a few tenths ofa millimeter). While the initiation of visible cracks may be a useful parameter
to measure in itself, visible cracking is related only indirectly to the final failure process.
The most common strength test is the static bend test, for which equipment readily is available
for measuring both strength and work of fracture. Toughness as measured by static force may differ
from that obtained from impact tests. Materials are usually, though not always, tougher under
impact than against static load (Davis et al. 1982). At any rate, the use of an impact test may have
prevented Bronitsky and Hamer from realizing the source of the greater resistance to fracture of
the shell-tempered material , as explained below.

Procedurefor Missouri Study

The experimental procedure reported here derives from an analysis of the sand/shell transition
that occurred in southeastern Missouri during the Late Woodland (A.D. 600-800). Preliminary
investigation of late sand- and early shell-tempered pottery showed similarities in firing (both
typically are oxidized, though many sherds of both groups show some reduction) and form (large
」 ars dominate both assemblages.) Differences are in hardness (3.0 for sand and 2.25 for shell on
Moh 's scale) and apparent porosity (22.9 percent for sand, 46.0 percent for shell). The shell-tempered
pottery also typically is slipped, perhaps to counteract the higher porosity. At first glance, shell
temper appears to have produced mechanically inferior pottery, but it was hypothesized that the
shell temper in fact increased strength and durability (Dunnell and Feathers 1986).
To test this hypothesis replicate test bars of the sand- and shell-tempered materials were con­
structed. Clays, sand , and freshwater mussels were collected from the same areas as the archaeological
materials . The mineral composition of the clays, collected from a variety of geomorphological
locations , and archaeological specimens was analyzed by X-ray diffraction. Illite, quartz, plagioclase
feldspar, and traces of titanium dioxide were identi fied. All the clays had similar composition and
closely matched the composition determined for several varieties of sherds (except that shell­
tempered sherds also contained calcite).
The collected sand consisted of well-rounded quartz particles, similar to those appearing in the
sherds. Freshwater mussels are harvested commercially in the area, and shells from a variety of
species were collected from a shell dump. The shell was burned for 1 hour at 500°C in a small
laboratory furnace and then crushed using a mortar and pestle. X-ray diffraction analysis confirmed
conversion to calcite and detected no decomposition to calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide. Both
sand and shell particles were screened to control size.
Size distribution and amount of temper were estimated from cross sections of sherds through
comparison with standards. Temper was classified as coarse and fine; the size distributions of each
temper in each classification are given in Table 1.
Two levels of temper amount, 25 and 45 percent, approximating the prehistoric range, were used.
Clay, water, and temper were mixed and hand wedged until a workable consistency was obtained.
The material then was rolled into coils. Coiling aligned the shell particles parallel to the direction
 COMMENTS 583

Table I . Range of Grain Size in Temper Classes.

Coarse Fine
Sand Shell Sand Shell
l.0- 2.0 mm
。

0 0 0
2 3 5
0 O O
2 5 3
.5一1.0 mm 5

2 8
2 7
.0--0.5 mm 95
Note: Values are in percentage of weigh t.

of tensile stress in the bend test. This alignment maximizes the contribution of the shell to the
strength of the entire body (Davidge 1979 ). The coils were pressed into plaster of paris molds to
form bars of 12 x 12 x 1 24 mm. Plaster of paris ensured even drying. The bars were removed
from the molds after about 30 minutes, air dried for 3 days, and then oven dried for 24 hours at
IOS°C.
The choice of firing regime depended on estimating prehistoric procedure. Shell-tempered bars
fired in an oxidizing atmosphere at I 00°C per hour to 700°C with an hour soak at peak temperature
failed by "lime blowing," or spalling from CaO hydration. Raw clay bars, fired under similar
parameters to 400°C, were not stable and lost shape on contact with water. This provided an upper
and lower limit on oxidized firing for shell-tempered pottery. Sand-tempered pottery could have
been fired at higher temperatures. However, bars fired under the same rate and duration to 600°C
closely matched the color and apparent porosity (measured by comparing dry and saturated weights)
of the prehistoric sherds, both sand and shell tem pered, and these firing parameters were chosen .
The bars were fired in an electric kiln using a program controller to regulate rate and duration of
firing. Open-air firings were not attempted because of the difficulty in controlling the firing conditions.
Most bars were fully ox汕 zed by this procedure, as evidenced by the orange-to-buff color throughout
the body. Because sherds show varying amounts ofr eduction, additional bars were fired in a reducing
atmosphere. The reducing atmosphere was created by placing the bars in a closed silicon-carbide
container filled with wood chips and then placing the container in the kiln.
The bars were broken with a static three-point bend test carried out on an Instron testing machine.
An electronic strip chart recorded load as a function of time. The load was applied through a
crosshead moving at a rate of .2 mm/minute. Absolute strength and a qualitative assessment of
work of fracture can be calculated from the resultant curves.

RESULTS
The Bronitsky- Ha mer Study
Bronitsky and Hamer's impact-test results are difficult to evaluate because of experimental un­
knowns . They found their burned-shell-tempered samples to be significantly stronger than either
sand- or unburned-shell-tempered samples in both "crack" and "shatter" categories. The "shatter"
category corresponds to complete fracture , but the "crack" category pertains to some unknown
point between initial and complete fracture. The shatter values are the only ones that can be
inte rp reted.
Two important unknowns make interpretation difficult. One is the degree of carbonate decom­
position occurring in the preparation of the burned shell. The other is the degree of carbonate
decomposition occurring in either the burned or unburned shell during firing. If their burned shell
partly or completely converted to CaO before use as temper , it certainly would hydrate during
mixing and forming. Upon firing to a sufficient degree, dehydration into Cao and subsequent
rehydration upon cooling would involve no net volume change. On the other hand, the unburned­
shell-tempered samples could undergo decomposition of calcium carbonate during firing, and sub­
sequent hydration into Ca(OH)i would involve a net volume increase for shell of24 percent (change
in specific gravity from 2.93 to 2.24). This increase usually results in spalling or failure.
Thus a too-high firing regime (800°C) may explain the poor performance of the unburned-shell-
584 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 54, No. 3, 1989]

Table 2. Modulus of Rupture, 45 Percent Temper.

Reduced Oxidized
Sand Shell Sand Shell
(kg/m2 x 10-6)

.328 .340 .245 .302

.317 .306 .230 .269
.290 .330 .208 .287
.325 .324 .212 .257
.311 .289 .224 .288
Mean .314 .318 .224 .281
Note: All samples fired to 600°C. Atmospheres were reduced or oxidized.
Sand temper was fine grade, shell was coarse grade. Differences between oxi­
dized sand and oxidized shell and between reduced sand and oxidized sand
are significant at the.0005 level. Differences between reduced shell and oxi­
dized shell are significant at the.0 I level. Differences between reduced sand
and reduced shell are not significant.

tempered samples. Alternatively, if there was no prior conversion to CaO in the burned shell, the
differences between the burned- and unburned-shell samples are more difficult to explain, since at
high temperatures of firing both the initially burned and unburned shell would undergo the same
phase changes. If significant decomposition occurred during firing, both shell samples would be
weakened, the entire experiment being conducted at too high a temperature to achieve valid results.
If, on the other hand, little or no decomposition occurred either in preparation of temper or in
firing, then the greater strength of the burned-shell samples must be attributed to something else.
One possibility is the 7-percent volume increase occurring from the conversion of the aragonite
(specific gravity of 2.9) to calcite (specific gravity of 2.7). This expansion would occur during firing
in the unburned shell-tempered samples, perhaps accounting for their weakness. If this was a
significant cause of weakness, however, one might expect the unburned-shell-tempered samples to
be weaker than the sand-tempered samples, but the reported strengths of the two are comparable.
A second possibility accounting for the difference between the burned- and unburned-shell samples
is the differential shape of particles. Aragonite is harder (3.5-4.0 on Mohs'scale) than calcite (3.0),
and it fractures in a different manner. Calcite breaks into plate-like particles, and aragonite tends
to break into block-like particles that more resemble the rounded sand grains. The plate-like structure
may increase strength and, certainly, toughness.
Bronitsky and Hamer also compared like tempers of different grain sizes and reported significant
differences. Tempers using fine unburned shell and fine sand produced significantly stronger bodies
than did coarse tempers. No significant difference was found between fine and coarse burned shell.
They argue specimen strength increases with decreasing grain size. This may be true generally for
rounded grains because of the decreased size of crack-initiating flaws. (High porosity [20-40 percent
in southeastern Missouri sherds] may, however, reduce the effect of grain size because the pores as
well as the temper act as weak points in the sherds.) For irregular-shaped particles, such as the plate­
like calcite grains, larger grain sizes may create stronger and tougher bodies by increasing adhesion.
This may account for the greater strength and lack of size effect found with the burned-shell samples.

Data from Missouri Study

Strength results for two sets of samples from the southeastern Missouri study are given in Tables
2 and 3. The first set contained samples of either 45 percent coarse shell or 45 percent fine sand
temper. Halves of each temper class were fired in an oxidizing environment, the other halves in a
reducing environment. The second set consisted of samples with varying amounts and sizes of
temper, all fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. Values are expressed as the modulus of rupture.
Under oxidizing conditions, shell-tempered materials are significantly stronger than sand-tem­
pered ones. The difference is slight under reducing conditions. Reduction increases the strength of
 COMMENTS 585

Table 3. Modulus of Rupture, Variable Temper.

25% Temper 45% Temper

Fine Coarse Fine Coarse
(kg/m2 x JQ-6)

Sand temper .358 .327 .274 .271

.339 .335 .187 .197
.259 .203 .163
Shell temper .307 .285 .309 .363
.322 .285 .272 .378
.322 .331 .309 .353
Note: All samples fired to 600°C in an oxidizing atmosphere.

both materials but more so for the sand-tempered ones. Unlike Bronitsky and Hamer's results,
where no differences occur as a function of temper amount, these results show stronger values for
25 percent sand of both size grades and for 45 percent shell in the coarse size grade. Differences in
temper size are significant only for shell, where the coarse grade is stronger than the fine.
More interesting than the data on raw strength is the evidence for toughness. The difference in
toughness between sand- and shell-tempered samples is illustrated qualitatively in diagrams plotting
load vs. time (Figure 1). The ordinate records the amount of load applied to the specimen in the
three-point bend test. The abscissa charts increasing time. The left side of the peak shows the elastic
loading of the specimen and the load system compliance as a function of increasing load. The peak
indicates the point at which the bending strength of the material was exceeded. Its value can be
translated into modulus of rupture by consideration of specimen size. The right side of the peak
shows the speed of crack growth. The steep slope on the right side of the peak for the sand-tempered
sample indicates rapid crack growth, with complete fracture almost immediately following crack
initiation. The more gradual slope for the shell-tempered sample indicates slower, or stable, crack
growth. Additional force must be applied over time to complete the fracture. The area under the
5

B
1
>11

3
a
11 0 1

TIME
Figure L Results of the static bend test comparing samples tempered with sand (A) and shell (B). Bars were
fired to 600°C in reduced atmosphere. A qualitative assessment of toughness can be made by comparing the
lopes on the right side of the curves. Gentle slope indicates a period of stable crack growth. Increaseltoughness
for the shell sample is shown by the shaded area under the curve to the right of a line extending perpendicular
fro!'!_ the_ base line t_o the peak. Each time gradation represents 12 sec, during which the crosshead applying load
and impinging on the sample at a rate of.2 mm per minute moved.04 mm.
586 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 54, No. 3, 1989]

B
3
-O ) l 0 V O 1

5
3

TIME
Figure 2. Results of the static bend test comparing various shell-tempered samples: (A) 25 percent fine-grade
shell, (B) 25 percent coarse 酐 ade, (C) 45 percent fine grade, (D) 45 percent coarse grade. Bars were fired to
60°C in an oxidizing atmosphere. Comparison of slopes on right side of curve allows qualitative assessment of
toughness (see Figure I).

curves is equivalent to work of fracture. Figure 2 shows similar curves for four shell-tempered
samples of varying temper size and amount. A greater toughness for larger grain size and greater
amounts is indicated.
The higher strength and toughness of the shell-tempered samples can be explained by the nature
of the calcite grains. When viewed under high magnification (160 x), the particles appear as bundles
of longitudinal fibers. When these fibers are aligned parallel to the direction of stress, they increase
strength because of the greater force required to break them as compared to the force required to
break the clay matrix. They particularly increase toughness by increasing the work of fracture through
reinforcing effects. Because of the difficulty in propagating a crack across the fibers, the particles
tend to be pulled out from the matrix rather than broken. This pulling action absorbs considerable
energy. For samples with lower amounts of temper, less shell is available for reinforcement. For
samples with finer particle size, less energy is required to pull the smaller shell fragments out of the
matrix. Using fibrous material to strengthen ceramics, creating "composites," is common practice
in modern industry (Davidge 1979).
The process of reduction increased greatly the strength of sand-tempered but not shell-tempered
pottery. Whatever the strengthening mechanism ofreduction, possibly fluxing action offerrous iron,
 COMMENTS 587

it apparently affects mainly the clay matrix and therefore is independent of the effects of temper.
Reduction does allow a higher firing temperature for shell-tempered pottery, however. Middle
Mississippian shell-tempered pottery from southeast Missouri typically is reduced and much harder
and less porous than the earlier shell-tempered pottery. The explanation may be a higher firing
regime.
Given that many Late Woodland sherds also show some degree of reduction, making less sig­
nificant the differences in absolute strength, the selective force favoring shell tempering may have
been an increase in toughness. In applications where absolute strength (as measured by initial crack
expansion) was less important than structural integrity (as measured by work of fracture), the shell­
tempered pottery would have proved much more dura ble. A tough material is more crack tolerant.
Small cracks become stable and complete failure is avoided. Thus, for example, one would expect
improved thermal shock resistance in tougher materials because thermal shocks which do not
produce catastrophic failure still produce an array of surface cracks that can contribute to subsequent
strength reductions.
Given the arguments presented here, the conclusions reached by Bronitsky and Hamer appear
unfounded. They argue the advantage of using burned shell is to minimize failure from calcite
decomposition. They do not show that calcite decomposed in either their samples or the prehistoric
sherds they studied. The advantage of burning shell may instead have been to ease grinding and to
produce a fibrous composite material that increased the longevity of the pottery.
Stimmell et al. (1982) offer an alternative advantage of shell tempering. In the presence of salt
(NaCl), the decomposition of calcite may be delayed until higher tem peratures, at which time partial
decomposition may result in the formation of glass or high-temperature mine rals, such as gehlenite,
both of which would strengthen the body. Glass formation is not detected by X-ray diffraction and
small amounts are difficult to detect even with electron microscopy. Gehlenite easily is detectable
by X-ray diffraction and was found in Upper Mississippi Valley sherds studied by Stimmell et al.
However, none has been detected in southeastern Missouri or West Virginia sherds. If salt played
such a key role, moreover, excess amounts of sodium should be present in the sherds. Stimmel et
al. found no excess sodium, and neutron activation analysis of southeastern Missouri sherds showed
less sodium in shell-tempered sherds than in sand-tempered sherds or raw clay.
Bronitsky and Hamer argue that the phenomenon of quartz inversion created a great risk in using
sand as temper. The contraction of quartz as it reverts to its alpha phase on cooling may cause
ceramics to crack, thus requiring careful firing. They argue the firing constraints were eased when
shell tempering was adopted (although, at least in southeastern Missouri, many shell-tempered
sherds also contain significant amounts of sand). In fact, the opposite may have been true. Quartz
inversion probably was less of a problem than the risk of overfiring shell-tempered pottery to the
point of calcite decomposition . Overfiring was not a problem for sand-tempered ware (in fact, higher
temperatures probably were advantageous), and the ability to prevent overfiring was a necessary
technical advance before shell tempering could be adopted.

Acknowledgments. This paper could not have been written without the patient assistance of William D.
Scott, Professor of Materials Science at the University of Washington . I also thank my advisor, Robert C.
Dunn ell, who encouraged me to write this paper and consistently provided advice.

REFERENCES CITED
Braun, D. P.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeologcial Hammers and Theories, edited by J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene, pp.
10 7- 134 . Academic Press, New York.
Bronitsky, G., and R. Hamer
1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effect of Various Tempering Materials on Impact and
Thermal-Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 51:89-1O I.
Davidge, R. W.
1979 Mechani cal Behavior of Ceramic.sCambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Davis, H. E., G. E. Troxell, and G. F. W. Hancock
1982 The Testing of Engineering Materiasl. McGraw-H ill, New York.
588 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 54, No. 3, 1989]

Dunnell, R. C., and J. K. Feathers

1986 Later Woodland Manifestations of the Malden Plain, Southeastern Missouri. Paper presented at the
1986 Southeastern Archaeological Conference Annual Meeting, Nashville.
Edwards, W. I. , and E. R. Segnit
1984 Pottery Technology of the Chaleolithic Site of Teleilat Ghassul (Jordan). Archaeometry 26:69-77.
Hally, D. J.
I 986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:
267-295.
London, G.
1981 Dung-tempered Clay. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:189- 195. Maggetti,
M., and H. Schwab
1982 Iron Age Fine Pottery from Chatillon-a-Glane and the Heuneburg. Archaeometry 24:21-36.
Million, M. G.
1980 The Big Lake Pottery Industry. In Zebree Archeological Project: Exca va tion, Data Interpretation and
Report on the Zebree Homestead Site, Mississippi County, A rkansas, edited by D. F. Morse and P.A. Morse,
pp. 18.1- 18 .42. Arkansas Archeological Survey. Submitted to the Memphis District, U.S. Corps of Engi­
neers, Contract No. DACW 66-76-C-0006.
Nance, C. R., and E. H. Mentzer
1980 Changing Woodland Ceramic Functions and Technologies on the Northern Gulf Coastal Plain. South­
eastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:51- 55.
Plog, S.
1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Reid, K. C.
1984 Fire and Ice: New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Late Archaic Fiber-Tempered
Pottery in the Middle Latitude Lowlands. American Antiquity 49:55-76.
Rye, 0. S.
1976 Keeping Your Temper Under Control: Materials in the Manufacture of Papuan Pottery. Archaeology
and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11:106-137.
1981 Pottery Technology. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.
Saffer, M.
1980 Technological Analysis of Some Sapelo Island Pottery: Social and/or Functional Differences. South­
eastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:35-38.
Slavacek, C.
1968 Experiments in Aboriginal Ceramics. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 16:125-150.
Smith, M. F., Jr.
1983 The Study of Ceramic Function from Artifact Size and Shape. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, De­
partment of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Steponaitis , V. P.
1983 Ceramics, Chronology and Community Patterns: A n Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic
Press, New York.
Stimme ll, C., and C. D. Arnold
1982 A Technological Reconsideration of Thule Pottery. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the
American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.
Stimmell, C., R. B. Heimann, and R. G. V. Hancock
1982 Indian Pottery from the Mississippi Valley: Coping with Bad Raw Materials. In Archaeological Ce­
ramics, edited by J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin, pp. 219-228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.
Tankersley, K., and J. Meinhart
1982 Physical and Structural Properties of Ceramic Materials Utilized by a Fort Ancient Group . Midcon­
tinental Journal of Archaeology 7:225- 243.
Wallace, D., and C. Viana
1982 Functional Factors in Burnishing anjd Micaceous Ware. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting
of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.
Windes, T. C.
1977 Typology and Technology and Anasazi Ceramics. In Settlement and Subsistence Along the Lower Chaco
River: The CGP Surve y, edited by C. A. Reher, pp. 279-370. The University of New Mexico Press, Al­
buquerque.

Received January 21, 1987; accepted Ma y 27, 1987