Plausible Inferences from Ceramic Artifacts

Author(s): W. D. Kingery
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Winter, 1981), pp. 457-467
Published by: Boston University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529794
Accessed: 21/03/2010 11:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Boston University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
PlausibleInferencesfrom CeramicArtifacts

W. D. Kingery
MassachusettsInstituteof Technology
Cambridge,Massachusetts

Ceramicartifactexaminationrequiresevaluation,eitherimplicitlyor explictly,
of conjectures(hypotheses,postulates)from whichmoreor less credibleinfer-
encescan be deducedand tested.Thenatureof the inductionprocessand the
natureof artifactdataare discussedin orderto evaluatethe sortsof inferences
withwhichwe are concerned,and how we mayhopeto achievea higherdegree
of credibility
for theplausibleinferencesthatwe derivefrom examination of ce-
ramicartifacts.Theseinferenceslead directlyto statementsaboutthe history
andprehistoryof ceramictechnology,whichis a worthygoal in itself,butalso
a requirement for subsequentarchaeological,anthropological, and historicalin-
ferences.Essentialrequirements for morerapidadvancement of thefield are dis-
cussed.

Introduction Plausible Inference

We have a heritageof trialby combat, an adversarylegal
system and debating procedures, and in general tend to
anticipateconfrontationsof the good and the bad. Perhaps
it is not strangethat in this environment, stylistic analysis
is occasionally picturedas somehow opposed to and "less
scientific" than chemical analysis. In my view, nothing
could be furtherfrom the truth.
I should like to attemptstartingwith an empty plate, so
to speak, going on to consider the natureof plausible in-
ferences, the natureof data extractablefrom ceramic arti-
facts and how these, in tandem,can lead to credibleceramic
artifact interpretations.These interpretationsare directly
relatedto the history and prehistoryof ceramic technology
andform a basis for subsequentinferencesaboutmanyother
things.
I shall not discuss experimentalmethods in any detail;
that decision is made easy by the fact after eight years
Michael Tite's book, Methods of Physical Examinationin
Archaeology,1continuesto providesuperbgeneralcoverage
of that subject, and more recent descriptionsof rapidlyde-
veloping techniques are easily accessible.
Time limitations have led me to organize a conceptual
and incomplete rather than an analytical and fully docu-
mented presentation,and to provide ratherless anecdotal
evidence than might be usual.
1. M. S. Tite, Methodsof Physical Examinationin Archaeology (Seminar
Press: New York 1972).
Philosophic discussions of science often focus on the
negative concept of demonstrativefalsification; historical
discussionsmore often focus on the positive aspectsof cred-
ible discoveries. There have been many analyses of induc-
tion and the developmentof plausibleinferences, but by far
the best is the one by G. Polya, who has rationalizedthese
positive inductive approaches in a unified treatment on
which we shall rely.2 It illuminates some of the common
groundof naturalscience, archaeology,and history.3While
there are several patternsof plausible reasoning, we shall
for illustrative purposes consider only one: examining a
consequence implied by and deduced from a conjecture.If
the deduced consequence is true, then we can have more
confidence in the credibilityof our conjecture,but it is not
in any logical sense proved "true." If the deduced conse-
quence is false, logic requires that the hypothesis is also
false. The history of the hardestof our hardsciences, how-
ever, shows thatthe truthor falsity of an experimentalresult
or observation is never absolute.4 As a result, outside of
puremathematics,we are always operatingin a gray region
of shaded inference such as illustratedin Table 1.
2. George Polya, Patterns of Plausible Inference Volume II Mathematics
and Plausible Reasoning (PrincetonUniversityPress:Princeton,NJ 1954).
3. Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.: New York
1953).
4. M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge(Universityof ChicagoPress:Chicago
1958).
 458 Plausible Inferencesfrom Ceramic ArtifactslKingery

One way of differentiatingthe series mathematics-phys- Table 1. Examining a consequence.a

ics-materialsscience-archaeologyis that mathematicsdeals
Demonstrative 1. Conjectureimplies Mathematics
with defined systems in which consequences can be quite
consequence
definitely true or false; physics deals with defined systems
2. Consequence false
in which near certainty can sometimes be approached;ar- 3. Thereforeconjecture
tifact interpretationoperatesin the centralregion of shaded, false
relativelyuncertaininference. Clearlyone way in which we Shaded
can aim to achieve more credible conclusions is by dealing Demonstrative 1. Conjectureimplies
with more certain"consequences," and thatis a very strong consequence
reason why some tests and measurementsare preferableto 2. Consequenceprobably
others. false
Workingin an area where any one test is unlikely to be 3. Thereforeconjecture
fully conclusive standingalone, or even highly convincing, less credible ,
we must ask: How can we make our inferences more cred- Uncertain 1. Conjectureimplies =
consequence ,
ible, hopefully even highly credible? Various possibilities
2. Consequence uncertain =
exist; the patternsof a few are illustratedin Table 2. If a 3. Thereforeconjecture ,
consequenceis verified such thata conjecturebecomes more credibility unchanged Q
credible, subsequent successive verifications can only in- Shaded
crease its credibility. By analogy, however, we might well lnductive 1. Conjectureimplies
expectthat these successive verifications would occur, so consequence
the strength of additional confidence generated by cumu- 2. Consequenceprobably
lative verifications increases when the new consequences true
verified are very diffierent from the previous ones. This is 3. Thereforeconsequence
a pointwhere statisticscan get us into trouble.While achiev- somewhat more
ing credibility for a "statistical conjecture" is possible, credible
lnductive 1. Conjectureimplies
statistics can never tell us how "different" are different
consequence
"statistical conjectures"! 2. Consequence true
Even more importantthan successive verifications, the 3. Thereforeconsequence Mathematics
degree of confidence generatedby a verification of a con- more credible
sequence is related to the likelihood of the consequence aadaptedfromPolya,op. cit. (in note2) 26.
occurringor being observed independentof the conjecture
being tested. For thatreason, quantitativeand mathematical
consequences that are inherently unlikely and improbable
standingby themselves lead to a much strongerdegree of
credibility than qualitative tests, which do not seem nec-
essarily unlikely with or without a precedent hypothesis. Table 2. Different sorts of consequences.
Statistics can help here, but also can be dangerous (see
Polya in note 2). Successive Verification:
But, we may ask, how does all this affect the study of A. 1. Conjectureimplies several similar consequences
ceramic artifacts as archaeological material?Well, first it 2. All these similar consequences true
3. Thereforeconjecturemore credible
suggests posing the question as to whether the traditional
B. 1. Conjectureimplies several verydiJ%erent consequences
sortsof stylistic analysisor the kinds of measurementssome-
2. All these verydiJ%erent consequences true
times described as "physics applied to archaeology," can, 3. Thereforeconjecturemuchmorecredible
by themselves, lead to strong conclusive statements.With- "Incredible" Verifications:
out arguing the point, I shall assert that the historical evi- A. 1. Conjectureimplies a consequence which is quite likely
dence says no;5we are most commonly, but not always, in in any event
the region of shaded inference (TABLE 1). Therefore, it be- 2. Consequencetrue
hooves us to seriously consider ways in which successive 3. Thereforeconjectureonly slightly more credible
verificationsof very diffierent sorts and even quantitative B. 1. Conjectureimplies a consequence which is almost
incrediblestandingby itself
2. Consequencetrue
5. Bonn Symposium. Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium 3. Thereforeconjectureis muchmorecredible,even
on Archaeometryand Archaeological Prospection (Rudolf Habelt Verlag: almost certain
Bonn 1978).

mathematical
verifications(TABLE 2) may be attemptedin
an effort to achieve strong, highly credible supportfor our
conjectures.
Artifact Data
The sorts of informationavailable from careful exami-
nation of a ceramic artifactare not unlimited, but they are
also seldom fully utilized.
Provenance.For artifactinterpretationit is an enormous
advantage to know precisely from where an artifact has
come. I have a so-called "T'ang" horse I believe was man-
ufacturedin China early in this century, as is true of some
museum samples,6 but all I really know is that it was pur-
chased from a dealer in China about 40 years ago; it is not
an appropriateobject for research. I am currentlyinterested
in the preparationof prehistoricAzilian pigment materials,
which is a bit complicatedbecause some fractionof museum
samples were made in the late l9th century.
In provenancewe often need to have a descriptionof the
entire sample environment, not merely its archaeological
stratificationand site location, associated artifactsand fea-
tures, importantas those are. Is the environmentone sub-
jected to ground water? What is the radioactivity of the
surroundingsoil? What is the geology of the area? What
are the characteristicsof the local mineral deposits? These
sorts of environmentdata are extremely importantbut sel-
dom available.
Style.A principaland powerful tool of museum curators
and classical archaeologistshas been style.7 Recognizable
motifs, patterns, sizes, and shapes characterizeparticular
artifactassemblages, artists, periods, and localities. Well-
known controversies,however, such as the one surrounding
the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art's "Bronze
Horse"8 and many less famous examples, argue that con-
clusions based on style alone may be in the region of rel-
atively weak inference. There is on display at the Musee
de St. Germain-en-Layein Paris an Azilian pebble with an
animal representation,but stylistic argumentindicates that
animal representationsare not Azilian. What are we to
conclude?
ExternalCharacteristics. Falling into the gap between
6. S. J. Fleming, "Thermoluminescentauthenticitystudies of unglazed
T'ang dynasty ceramic tomb goods," Archaeometry16 (1974) 91-95.
7. Ruth Amiran, "The beginnings of pottery making in the Near East,"
in F. Matson, Ceramics and Man (Aldine Publishing Co.: Chicago 1965)
240-247; idem, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Rutgers University
Press: New Brunswick, NJ 1970); Arthur Lane, Early Islamic Pottery
(Faber:London 1947); idem, Later Islamic Pottery (Faber:London 1971);
Soame Jenyns, Japanese Pottery (Farberand Farber:London 1971).
8. D. W. Zimmerman,M. P. Yuhas, and P. Meyers, "Thermolumines-
cence authenticitymeasurementson core materialfrom the Bronze Horse
of the New York MetropolitanMuseumof Art," Archaeometry16 (1974)
19-30.
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 8, 1981 459
the work of a physicist and thatof an archaeologist,careful,
thoughtfulexaminationof a ceramic artifactwith the naked
eye, magnifying glass, or low-power binocularmicroscope
can often lead to useful data.9 For example, there is some
differenceof opinion aboutthe time of appearanceof wheel-
thrown ware. A ceramist looking at the cross section and
foot of a 3500 B.C. sample from Tepe Yahyal° can be most
confident that it was thrown on a fast wheel. Articulating
the reasons for this conclusion may be somewhat more dif-
ficult as it is a conclusion based on ceramic experience as
well as either physics or archaeology;other wheel-thrown
waremay be very difficultto identify. We recentlyexamined
a sample for which wildly different chemical analyses had
been reportedto the archaeologist in charge. Observation
with a binocularmicroscope indicatedthat the sample was
a mixtureon a scale such that sampling technique was re-
sponsiblefor the variablechemical analyses, ratherthanany
archaeologicalfactor. In anothercase, we have examined
a sample of sandstonerefractoryused for copper smelting,
and been able to establish with subsequentmicroscopy that
structuralchanges of the heat-alteredregion are related to
the time-temperaturehistory of the smelting process.11
Many other examples can be cited in which thoughtful,
careful sample examinationis most fruitful.
LaboratoryReplication. A proposed ancient process can
only become more credible if laboratoryreplicationshows
that it is indeed a possible and practical method. Thus, it
has been an importantconstituentin many classic and im-
portantstudies.l2
Ethnographic Observations. Direct observation of tra-
ditionaltechniquesfor makingor using ceramic articlescan
provide detailed informationabout ways of working that
experience has shown to be successful, and also provides
insight into ways of looking at phenomena and operations
9. Gisela Richter, The Craft of AthenianPottery (Yale University Press:
New Haven 1923); MargaretMedley, The Chinese Potter (CharlesScrib-
ner's Sons: New York 1976); RutherfordJohn Gettens, The Freer Chinese
Bronzes. Vol. II. TechnicalStudies (SmithsonianInstitution:Washington,
D.C. 1969); Nils Palmgren,WalterSteger, and Nils Sundius, Sung Sherds
(Almquist and Wiksell: Stockholm 1963).
10. W. D. Kingery, EdwardOrtonJr. Memorial Lecture: "Social needs
and ceramic technology," BullACS 59 [6] (1980) 598-600.
11. W. D. Kingeryand W. H. Gourdin,"Examinationof FurnaceLinings
from RothenbergSite #590 in Wadi Zagha," JFA 3 (1976) 351-353.
12. L. Franchet,CeramiquePrimitive (Geuthner:Paris 1911); G. P. Wu,
PrehistoricPottery in China(Universityof London:London 1938); Charles
Kieffer and A. Allibert, "Pharoanic Blue Ceramics:the Process of Self
Glazing," Archaeology 24 (1971) 107-117; Joseph V. Noble, The Tech-
niques of Painted Attic Pottery (Farberand Farber:London 1965); Gustav
Weiss, Alte Keramik neu entdekt (Ullstein: Frankfurt/Main1979); John
Coles, Archaeology by Experiment(HutchinsonUniversity Library:Lon-
don 1973).
460 Plausible Inferencesfrom CeramicArtifactslKingery
that influence productionmethods in a way very different
from our own culturalenvironment.13
Dating. The principaland most importantlaboratoryde-
velopment of the last 30 years has been the new capability
offered by carbon-14, magnetic, thermoluminescence,fis-
sion track, and surface-hydrationdating.l4
Chemical Composition. Artifact chemistry can be done
on severallevels, often complicatedby the fact thatminimal
sample destructionis allowed and that sampling problems
can be substantial.In additionto the question of obtaining
a representativesample from any one artifact, there is the
associated problem of how to treat the artifactpopulation.
Overall analyses can consist of the major constituents, or
of trace elements, or of particularisotopesl5 or any of
these can be appliedto particularconstituentsin the artifact;
for example, feldspar or quartzgrains added as tempering
or present as impurities.l6 One or more of these measure-
13. Franchet,op. cit. (in note 12); H. E. Wulff, The TraditionalCrafts
of Persia (M.I.T. Press: Cambridge 1966); FrederickMatson, "Archae-
ological Ceramics and the Physical Sciences Problem Definition and
Results," Seminaron Ceramics as Archaeological Material (Smithsonian
Institution:Washington,D.C. 1980) and in this issue of the JFA; N. David
and H. Hennig, The Ethnographyof Pottery: a Fulani Case Seen in Ar-
chaeological Perspective. Addison WesleyModular Publications 21 (Ad-
dison Wesley 1972); Owen S. Rye and CliffordEvans, TraditionalPottery
Techniquesof Pakistan. Smithsonian Contributionsto Anthropology21
(SmithsonianInstitution:Washington, D.C. 1976).
14. HenryN. Michael and ElizabethK. Ralph, Dating Techniquesfor the
Archaeologist (M.I.T. Press: Cambridge 1971); William J. Young, ed.,
Application of Science to the Dating of Worksof Art (Museum of Fine
Arts: Boston 1978).
15. I. Perlmanand F. Asaro, "Pottery analysis by neutron activation,"
Archaeometry 13 (1971) 21-52, and in R. H. Brill, ed., Science and
Archaeology(M.I.T. Press:Cambridge1974) 182-195; EdwardV. Sayre,
"Summaryof the Brookhaven Programof Analysis of Ancient Glass,"
William J. Young, ed., Application of Science in Examinationof Works
of Art (Museum of Fine Arts: Boston 1967) 145-154; EdwardV. Sayre
and R. W. Smith, "Analytical studies of ancient Egyptianglass," in A.
Bishay, ed., RecentAdvances in the Science and Technologyof Materials
3 (PlenumPress:New York 1974) 47-70; RobertH. Brill andJ. M. Wamp-
ler, "Isotope Ratios in Archaeological Objects of Lead," Application of
Science in Examinationof Worksof Art (1967) 155-166; RobertH. Brill,
W. R. Shields, and J. M. Wampler, "New Directions in LeadIsotope
Work," ibid. (1973) 73-83; Robert H. Brill, Kazuo Yamasaki, I. Lynus
Barnes, K. J. R. Rosman, and Migdalia Diaz, "Lead Isotopes in Some
Japaneseand Chinese Glasses," Ars Orientalis 11 (Freer Gallery of Art:
Washington,D.C. 1979) 87-109; J. Yellin, I. Perlman, F. Asaro, H. V.
Michel, and D. F. Mosier, "Comparison of neutron activation analysis
from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratoryand Hebrew University," Ar-
chaeometry 20 (1978) 95-100; J. B. Lambert and C. D. McLaughlin,
"Analysis of early Egyptian glass by atomic absorptionand x-ray pho-
toelectronspectroscopy," in G. F. Carter,ed., Archaeological Chemistry
II (AmericanChemical Society: Washington, D.C. 1978) 189-199.
16. Diana C. Kamilli and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky,"Petrographicand
electronic microprobeanalysis of ceramics from Tepe Yahya, Iran," Ar-
chaeometry21 (1979) pt. 2; J. Oates, T. E. Davidson, D. Kamilli, and
ments may or may not be useful in leading to plausible
interpretationsand inferences about the artifacts and the
artifactpopulation.Withoutsome clearinferentialobjective,
it would seem that a lot of time and effort and money could
be expendedwith but little advantage.Fortunately,modern
instrumentalmethods make such efforts substantiallyless
time- and fund-consumingthan was formerlythe case.
Physical Properties. Artifact properties can be deter-
mined in an almost unlimited number of ways depending
on the apparatus,samples and skills available.l7 Strength,
hardness,color, density, porosity, Mossbauerspectra,mag-
netic properties, electrical properties, thermal properties,
and many others are susceptible to measurementand have
been measured.As is trueof chemical determinations,these
measurementsare only likely to have significance when
coupled with a clear inferentialobjective.
Phase Composition.The individualcrystallineand amor-
phous phases present and their relative amountscan often
be determinedby optical, electron, and x-ray diffraction
techniques aided by chemical analysis of the individual
phases, which can be done withouttoo muchdifficultyusing
moderninstrumentalmethods.l8 The natureand amountof
differentphases presentcharacterizea particularartifactin
a way thatstrengthensand complementschemical analyses.
Ceramicartifacts,however, are seldom equilibriumassem-
blages, so it is rare for process inferences to be strongly
supportedby phase data alone.
Microstructure. By microstructure,we mean the size,
composition, shape, and relative amountsand arrangement
of the differentphases present, including porosity, as well
as the observation of partially complete reactions at the
boundariesbetween phases.19Microstructurecan be deter-
H. McKerrell, "Seafaring merchants of Ur?" Antiquity 51 (1977)
221-234.
17. Palmgren,Steger, and Sundius, op. cit. (in note 9); FrederickMatson,
"Ceramic ecology: an approachto the study of the early cultures of the
Near East," Ceramics and Man (Aldine Publishing Co.: Chicago 1965)
202-217; idem, "Archaeologicalceramicstudypossibilitieswith a thermal
gradientfurnace," in C. W. Beck, ed., Archaeological Chemistry(Amer-
ican ChemicalSociety: Washington,D.C. 1974) 34-47; Horace C. Beck,
"Notes on glazed stones, part I, glazed steatite," Ancient Egypt and the
East ( 1934) 19-37; J. D. M. Coey, R. Bouchez, andN. V. Dang, "Ancient
techniques," JApplPhys(1981 in press).
18. M. Bimson, "The examinationof ceramics by x-ray powder diffrac-
tion," StudCon 14 (1969) 83-89; H. P. Rooksby, "A yellow cubic lead
tin oxide opacifier in ancient glasses," Physics and Chemistryof Glasses
5 [1] (1964) 20-25; Walter Noll, R. Holm, and L. Born, "Bemalung
antikerKeramik,"AngewandteChemie 87 (1975) 639-651; WalterNoll,
"Mineralogie und Technik der bemalten Keramiken Altagyptens,"
NJbMinerAbh133 (1978) 227-290; WalterNoll, "AnorganischePigmente
in Vorgeschichteund Antike," FortschrMiner57 (l979) 203-263.
l9. Anna O. Shepard, Rio Grande Glaze Paintware. Publication 528
(Carnegie Institute:Washington, D.C. 1942); idem, Plumbate, a Meso-

mined optically in polished or thin sections and with the
much higher magnificationappropriateto fine-particle-size
clay constituentsby scanning electron microscopy, or in a
few rare cases, by transmissionelectron microscopy. Be-
cause the microstructuretends to be characteristicof par-
ticular mineral assemblages and reaction processes, it is a
much strongertool than chemical analysis or phase analysis
standingalone, but it also requiresmore ceramic and phys-
ical chemical backgroundto properlyinterpret.20It should
be used more often.
Summary.It seems that, in principle, these are the dif-
ferent sorts of artifactualdata with which we can test our
conjecturesand from which we can drawinferences:Prove-
nance, Style, External Characteristics,LaboratoryRepli-
cation, Ethnographic Observations, Dating, Chemical
Composition, Physical Properties, Phase Composition,
Microstructure . at strengtheningour inferences is warranted.For example,
This list of possibilities, with the exception of laboratory
dating and electron microscopy, has been available for 50
years and more, and all of these methods have been long
employed in studies of ceramic artifacts. There has, how-
ever, been a dramaticchange in the power of these methods
with the electronic, computation, and instrumentationrev-
olutions of the last 20 years. More, and more precise, mea-
surements are possible; this increased capability puts a
greaterburdenof choiceon artifactexaminers.
In passing we may note that it is implicit in the greater
observationalpossibilities thatrequirementsof artifacteval-
uatorsto maximize their results with what are increasingly
effective laboratoryexaminations,sooner or laterwill force
substantialchanges on the overall budgetarypatterns ap-
propriatet.o serious archaeologicalstudies.
Inferences
According to the patternsof the inductive reasoningthat
we have briefly discussed, it isfirst of all necessaryto have
a conjecture(hypothesis, postulate)thatcan be mademore
or less plausible,perhapseven highlycredible,by exam-
american Trade Ware. Publication 573 (Carnegie Institute:Washington,
D.C. 1948); Marie Farnsworth,"Greek Pottery:a MineralogicalStudy,"
AJA 68 (1964) 221-228; idem, "CorinthianPottery:Technical Studies,"
AJA 74 (1970) 9-20; W. D. Kingery, "A technological characterization
of two Cypriotceramics," in Bishay, ed., op. cit. (in note 15) 169-186;
M. S. Tite et al., "Technological studies of ancient ceramics," Proceed-
ings of the Conferenceon Early Pyrotechnology(SmithsonianInstitution:
Washington,D .C. 1981 in press).
20. W. D. Kingery, H. K. Bowen, and D. R. Uhlmann,Introductionto
Ceramics, 2nd ed. (Wiley: New York 1976); W. H. Gourdinand W. D.
Kingery, "The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian
Lime Plaster," JFA 2 (1975) 133- 150; W. D. KingeryandJ. D. Frierman,
"The FiringTemperatureof a KaranovaSherdand InferencesaboutSouth-
east EuropeanChalcolithic RefractoryTechnology," ProcPS 40 (1974)
204-205.
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 8, 1981 461
iningits consequences.Without some sort of conjectureto
direct the research effort, the most expert artifact exami-
nationmay become merely an exercise in technique. When-
ever possible, it is desirable to have clearly articulated
conjectures.Of course, having a conjecture, and deducing
consequencesfrom it that can be tested, presupposessome
knowledge specifically some knowledge about ceramics.
While the directionof the change in plausibility of our
inferences usually can be categorically stated, the strength
of theseconclusionsis alwaysa matterof judgment.Ex-
aminationof the historicallevel of acceptanceof inferences
in a field is the best guide to the degree in which a high
degree of credibility has been achieved. Judged by this
standard,it is fair to say thatwe are often dealing with weak
or moderatelyweak inferences when we interpretceramic
artifacts,2land that a good deal of advance thought aimed
a greatadvantageof carbon-14and thermoluminescentdat-
ing is that they yield quantitativenumerical data. When
resultsof these methods conflict with conclusions based on
stratificationdata, however, archaeologists normally as-
sume that "something went wrong" with the laboratory
measurements often rightly so. Precisely because these
methods lead to quantitativedata, strong efforts aimed at
improvingandrefiningthem, applyingthemto largerclasses
of artifacts, and eliminating factors leading to erroneous
results are of the greatest importance.
In the same way that the classes of artifactdata are lim-
ited, the classes of artifactinference are but few. We may
hope to infer:
1. when an artifactwas made;
2. where an artifactwas made;
3. how an artifactwas made;
4. by whom an artifactwas made;
5. why an artifactwas made.
Fromthese inferences, anthropologistsand archaeologists
and arthistoriansand even TV producersmay go on to other
sorts of inferences, but that need not concern us here.
Whenan artifactwas made.This formerly difficult and
vexing problem is fascinatinghistory and has now become
our most solid knowledge. The quite differentevidences of
provenance, style, carbon-14, thermoluminescence, and
other dating techniques, when in accord, lead to highly
credible statements about the age of artifacts. Extension
both of the range of materials and time periods that are
covered, as well as the reliability, availability, and use of
laboratorydating techniques, remains a continuing serious
need.
Wherean artifactwasmade.Dependingon the precision
aimed at and the conjecture proposed, non-trivial strong
21. Op. cit. (in note 5).
462 Plausible Inferencesfrom CeramicArtifactslKingery
inferences about exactly where an artifact was made have
seldom been possible by provenanceand style alone, even
when " style" is interpretedto mean measurementof several
different attributes.When combined with laboratorytests,
however, particularlytests that are of quite a differentkind,
highly credibleconclusions thata body of ware forms a self-
coherentgroup are entirely feasible. A criticism that might
be leveled at some particularresearches is that they used
only one laboratorytest, and, therefore,did not achieve the
degree of credibilitythat could have been possible, or that
they did not quantify measurementsto the extent possible.
A recent combinationof exhaustive stylistic and geograph-
ical distributionanalysisplus neutronactivationanalysis of
several elements on the same group of samples much more
than doubled the credibility of either analysis standing
alone.22
Now "self-coherent group" and "where an artifactwas
made" are not identicalstatements,and a severe deficiency
with regardto ceramic artifactinterpretationis the paucity
of data and standardswith regardto raw materialsused for
ceramics, variationsin raw materials, and our meager col-
lections and tests of raw materials.There has been but little
supportfor developing the level of characterizationof raw-
materialstandardsthat is an absolute prerequisiteto devel-
oping highly credibleinferencesaboutwhere an artifactwas
made.
Howan artifactwas made.There are many levels of the
question "how an artifactwas made," and inferencesabout
"how" are often ones from which the most interestingfur-
ther inferences can be anticipated.
We can pose questions as to how and from where raw
material was collected, how the raw material was treated
before forming, how the ceramic ware was shaped, how it
was finished, how it was decoratedor treatedbefore firing,
how it was fired, how it was decoratedor treatedafterfiring,
and so forth. By and large these questions are not absolute,
as is age or a geographical location, but are relative and
require a comparison which again implies standards, im-
plicit or explicit.
Consider the question "how was it fired?". The tem-
peratureof firingcan be estimatedin variousways thermal
expansion, porosity, magnetic properties, changes in mi-
crostructure-compared to standards,which are most often
refiring tests of the piece itself, and most often lead to
inferences only about the maximum temperatureto which
the particularsherd could have been exposed. Inferences
about general production techniques from one sherd are
obviously very weak. Experienced potters know that ob-
taininga uniformkiln temperaturein a well-designed, well-
22. M. F. Kaplan, G. Harbottle, and E. V. Sayre, "An archaeological
and chemical analysis of Tell el Yahudiyehware," BrookhavenNational
LaboratoryReport (BNL C-2203) ( 1979).
instrumentedkiln is quite difficult, and that interpretingthe
temperatureof one sample as the average kiln temperature
is absurd.An interpretationthat a range of apparent"firing
temperatures"at a single "kiln site" signify a "misfiring"
is clearly an inferenceinvolving muchjudgment. Oxidizing
and reducingconditionscan affect phase equilibria,the for-
mationof a liquidphase, the degree of vitrificationachieved
and, therefore, the apparentfiring temperature.A mostly
oxidizing fire with a final reduction, or a mostly reducing
fire with a final oxidation, can obscure interpretations.
From this simplest and most quoted productioncharac-
teristic, it is clear that both excellent comparisonstandards
and trainedjudgmentsbased on a good knowledge of phys-
ical chemistry, the potter's art, and ceramic structureand
propertiesare essential for the development of stong infer-
ences and properinterpretations.
Other aspects of the questions as to how a particular
artifactwas made show different variationson the theme,
but in each case we find that (a) adequate standardsand
(b) professional judgments are required. The training of
professionalceramistsis adequate,but demandsof the cur-
rentmarketplaceforce almost all into a sort of specialization
that does not develop the broad experience necessary for
evaluationof a wide range of artifactpropertiesand types.
A superficialpapering of pottery onto an archaeologistor
anthropologist,withoutthe requisitephysics, chemistry,and
thermodynamics,is more often harmfulthan helpful. I see
no readysolutionotherthanagencies andfoundationsgiving
their maximum supportto promising opportunitiesfor the
development of specialists in the field of artifact inter-
pretation.
With regardto standards,we must again admit that our
field is in its infancy, and that the level of currentassets
is completely inadequate.The potentiallymost useful tech-
niques are our new capacity for supermagnificationwith
transmissionand scanning electron microscopes (discussed
in this symposiumby Michael Tite), for trace-elementanal-
yses by neutronactivation and other methods, and for the
chemical analysis of tiny mineral fragments of a ceramic
with Auger spectroscopy and other instrumentalmethods.
Alas, there is but little with which to compare these data.
(This situation is in contrastto our hundred-years'experi-
ence with metallurgicaland geological optical microscopy
which, unfortunately,does not have the resolutionnecessary
for many aspects of examination required for clay-based
ware.) Supportingagencies should give high priorityto the
developmentof appropriatestandards.
By whoman artifactwas made. In combination with
provenance, style is the predominanttool of identifying
authorship, and the use of different aspects of style are
required.But styles can be cleverly forged, andothertests-
chemical analyses, physical properties, microscopic and
electron microscopic characterizations, thermolumines-

cence, etc. can provide independent confirmations that
rendera stylistic interpretationvery credible.
Whyan artifactwas made. Provenance, style, external
examination,laboratoryreplications, and ethnographicob-
servations lead to inferences about why an artifact was
made. Obviously, a funeraryurn is quite different from a
pitcher, but the intended function of an artifact may be
questionedfrom many levels and points of view. The num-
ber of similarartifactsand their uniformity,or perhapstheir
scarcity, may be pertinent.But additionalsupportfor such
inferences may be derived from measurablecharacteristics
having an influence on utility. As an example, crucibles
that melt at 950°C cannot possibly have been used as con-
tainersfor molten copper melting at 1050°C, as has some-
times been suggested. Ovens that have never been hotter
than a few hundreddegrees centigrade cannot have been
used for firing highertemperatureceramics. Permeablejars
cannothave been used for transportingwine, at least without
some sort of lining. An abrasive must be harderthan the
materialbeing abraded.
In general, laboratorymeasurementshave not been much
aimed at supportingor contradictinginferences about func-
tional utility and why artifactswere made. This may well
be an area of fruitfulresearch, which should be pursued.
Selection of Procedures
It is temptingto preparea table of macroscopicand mi-
croscopic, physical and chemical, field and laboratorypro-
cedures to be recommended. And we cannot avoid the
temptation to urge that provenance, style, and careful,
thoughtful, repeated hand lens and binocular microscope
examinationof external characteristicsbe a part of every
artifactexamination.Furtherproceduresshould be decided
only after the formulationof conjecturesto be tested.
Discussion
While the numberof different classes of artifactdata is
limited, there is an enormous number of quite different
specific measurementtechniques that may be used. Simi-
larly, while there are only a limited number of different
types of inferences that may be conjecturedabout artifacts,
there are numberlessspecific ones we might imagine. The
essential task in interpretingartifactsis to find a conjecture
that can be tested, and then to select and obtain measure-
ments and data leading to highly credible inferences.
Among the most importantof such data are provenance
and style, whose characteristicscan lead to surerinferences
as they become more precisely articulated,in some cases,
even mathematical and quantitative. Style of ceramics
shouldoften be extendedto includethe idea of technological
style of materials preparation,shaping, and finishing, as
well as size, shape, and decoration.
The principaltechnological advance toward credible ar-
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 8, 1981 463
tifact interpretationshas been the development of dating
techniques and technique improvement is a continuing
need. The principaldeficiencies preventinghighly credible
interpretations of artifactshave been ( 1) a lack of sufficiently
differentsorts of tested consequences (i.e., dependenceon
only one kind of test or several very similartests); (2) a lack
of interpretationsbased on a combined knowledge of mea-
surementtechniques,physical chemistry, and ceramictech-
nology; and (3) an almost complete lack of satisfactory
comparison reference standards, most particularlyin the
areas of raw materials(including their chemical and trace-
element variability), fine-scale microstructure,and fine-
scale chemical analyses on which to base interpretations.
High credibility requires confirmationsthat are as sure
as possible, as many as possible, as different as possible,
and as many as can be found that verge on being incredible
unless our conjecture is true (which usually means being
as mathematicaland quantitativeas possible). In this in-
ductive process there are no automatic procedures;judg-
ments are necessary. It is because of this judgmentalaspect
that we should separateout the process of artifactinterpre-
tation from the quite different and equally creative roles of
the archaeologist, design engineer, tort lawyer, anthropol-
ogist, and TV producer.
I have recentlyaskeda studentto review publishedstudies
of the influence of heat treatmenton flint flaking. This
requiresstudyof the appropriatephaseequilibriumdiagrams
(physical chemistry), the natureof flint microstructureand
microstructurechanges (physical ceramics), the structures
of naturalflint (petrography),and the fractureprocess (frac-
ture mechanics). He has much to learn. I mention this be-
cause I believe that the relatively weak inferences possible
from only one measurementsimilarlyrequiresthateffective
artifact interpretationmust utilize multiple and different
tools.
Informationas to when, where, how, by whom, and why
an artifactwas made leads very naturallyto importantideas
about the whole process of technological development.
Whether an artifact was wholly decorative or also useful
tells us much about why the technology was attemptedas
well as where, when, and by whom. It is both appropriate
and desirablefor us to forge ahead in the direction of syn-
thesizing, building, and developing an identity for the spe-
cialist field of artifactinterpretation.It leads to immediate
inferencesaboutthe history and prehistoryof ceramics, and
is an essential component of every approachtoward more
all-encompassinghistorical, archaeological, and anthropo-
logical interpretations.
Artifact interpretationdeserves being a discipline itself,
one able and willing to utilize multidisciplinarytools.
Acknowledgement
The helpful comments and assistanceof P. Vandiverand
464 Plausible lnferences from CeramicArtifactslKingery
H. Averback are much appreciated.
This work is parallelto other researchand has been sup-
ported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of
Energy under ContractNo. DE-AC02-76ER02390 and in
part by a grant from the Edward Orton Jr. Ceramic
Foundation.
W.D. Kingeryis Professorof Ceramicsat M.l.T. He is
authorof morethana hundredscientificpapers, the text
Introductionto Ceramics, and otherbooks.He has been
recipientof theRoss CoJfn PurdyAward,theJohn
JeppsonGoldMedal,and the SosmanMemorialLecture
Awardof theAmericanCeramicSociety.In 1975 he was
electedto theNationalAcademyof Engineering.
Bibliography
ALLIBONE, T. E., TheImpactof the NaturalScienceson Ar-
chaeology(Oxford University Press: London 1970).
AMIRAN, Ruth, "The Beginnings of PotteryMakingin the Near
East," in Frederick R. Matson. Ceramicsand Man (Aldine
PublishingCo.: Chicago 1965) 240-247.
AMIRAN, Ruth, AncientPotteryof the Holy Land (Rutgers
University Press: New Brunswick, NJ 1970).
ARNOLD, Volker, Ralf Busch, and Jurgen Hoika, eds., Unter-
suchungsmethoden
fur Keramik.Informationsblatter
zu Nach-
barwissenschaften
der Ur- undFruhgeschichte
7 (1976) 1-33.
BANNISTER, F. A. and H. J. Plenderleith, "Physico-chemical
Examinationof a Scarab of Tuthomosis IV bearing the Name
of the God Aton," JEA22 (1936) 3-6.
BECK, Horace C., "Notes on Glazed Stones, Part I, Glazed
Steatite," AncientEgyptand theEast (1934) 19-37.
BECK, Curt W., Archaeological Chemistry.Advancesin Chem-
istrySeries138 (AmericanChemicalSociety: Washington,D.C.
1974).
BETANCOURT, Philip P., VasilikeWare,an EarlyBronzeAge
PotteryStylein Crete.Resultsof thePhiladelphia
VasilikeWare
Project. Studies in MediterraneanArchaeology56 (Paul
Astroms Forlag: Goteborg 1979).
BEZBORODOV,M.A., ChemicundTechnologie derantikenund
mittelalterlichenGlaser (Verlag Philipp von Zabern: Mainz
1975).
BIMSON, M., "The Examinationof Ceramicsby X-ray Powder
Diffraction," Studiesin Conservation 14 (1969) 83-89.
BLOCH, Marc, TheHistorian'sCraft(Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.:
New York 1953).
BONN SYMPOSIUM- Proceedingsof the 18th International
Symposium
on Archaeometry
and Archaeological
Prospection
(Rudolf Habelt Verlag: Bonn 1978).
BOUCHEZ, R. et al., "Determinationdes Modes de Cuisson de
Ceramiquesde l'Iran Protohistorique,d'apres Leurs Proprietes
Magnetiqueset LeursSpectresMossbauer,"IXeCongresUnion
Internationale
des SciencesPrehistoriques
et Protohistoriques
(Laboratoire de Recherche Archeologique: Grenoble 1976)
1-33.
BRADFIELD, Wesley, CameronCreekVillage,A Site in the
MimbresArea in Grant County, New Mexico (The School of
AmericanResearch:Santa Fe, NM 1931).
BRILL, Robert H., "The Scientific Investigation of Ancient
Glasses," Proceedings ofthe EighthInternationalCongresson
Glass (Society of Glass Technology: Sheffield 1969) 47-68.
BRILL, RobertH., "Lead and Oxygen Isotope Ratios in Ancient
Objects," in T. E. Allibone, TheImpactoftheNaturalSciences
on Archaeology (Oxford University Press: London 1970)
143-164.
-BRILL, RobertH., ed., Science and Archaeology (M.I .T. Press:
Cambridge1971).
BRILL, Robert H. and J. M. Wampler, "Isotope Ratios in Ar-
chaeological Objects of Lead," in William J. Young, ed., Ap-
plications ofScience in ExaminationofWorksofArt (Museum
of Fine Arts: Boston 1967) 155- 166.
BRILL, Robert H., W. R. Shields, and J. M. Wampler, "New
Directions in Lead Isotope Work," in William J. Young, ed.
ApplicationsofScience in ExaminationofWorksofArt(Museum
of Fine Arts: Boston 1973) 73-83.
BRILL, RobertH., Kazuo Yamasaki, I. Lynus Barnes, K. J. R.
Rosman, and Migdalia Diaz, "Lead Isotopes in Some Japanese
and Chinese Glasses," Ars Orientalis 11 (FreerGallery of Art:
Washington, D.C. 1979) 87-109.
BROWNELL,W. E., StructuralClay Products (Springer-Verlag:
Wien and New York 1976) 121- 123.
CALEY, Earle R., "Symposium on ArchaeologicalChemistry,"
JChemEd28 (1951) 63-96.
CALEY, Earle R., Analyses of Ancient Glasses 1790-1957: A
Comprehensiveand CriticalSurvey(CorningMuseumof Glass:
Corning, NY 1962).
CARTER, Giles F., Archaeological Chemistry11. Advances in
ChemistrySeries 171 (American Chemical Society: Washing-
ton, D.C. 1978).
CATLING, H. W., "Analysis of Pottery from the Mycenaean
Period," in T. E. Allibone, The Impactof the Natural Sciences
on Archaeology (Oxford University Press: London 1970)
175-178.
COEY, J. D. M., R. Bouchez, and N. V. Dang, "Ancient Tech-
niques," JApplPhys(1981 in press).
COLES,John,ArchaeologybyExperiment(HutchinsonUniversity
Library:London 1973).
COOK, R. M., "The 'Double stoking Tunnel' of Greek Kilns
(Appendix:Ancient Kilns in Greece)," BSA 56 (1961) 64-67.
CORNWALL,I. W., Soils for the Archaeologist(PhoenixHouse:
London 1958).
DAVID, N. and H. Hennig, TheEthnographyof Pottery:a Fulani
Case seen in ArchaeologicalPerspective. AddisonWesleyMod-
ular Publications No. 21 (1972) .
DOBEL, Alan, Frank Asaro, and H. V. Michel, "Neutron Ac-
tivation Analysis and the Location of Wassukanni," Orientalia
46 (1977) 375-382.
ETO, Moriharu, "Firing Temperatureof Jomon Pottery," Zin-
ruigakuZassi-JAnthSocNippon71 (1963) 23-51.
FARNSWORTH, Marie, ''Greek Pottery: a Mineralogical
Study," AJA 68 (1964) 221-228.
FARNSWORTH, Marie, "Corinthian Pottery: Technical Sted-
ies," AJA 74 (1970) 9-20.
FARNSWORTH,Marie, I. Perlman, and FrankAsaro, "Corinth

and Corfu:A NeutronActivation Study of Their Pottery," AJA
81 (1977) 455-468.
FLEMING, S. J., "ThermoluminescentAuthenticity Studies of
Unglazed T'ang Dynasty Ceramic Tomb Goods," Archaeo-
metry16 (1974) 91-95.
FRANCHET, L., Ceramique Primitive(Geuthner:Paris 1911).
FRANKEN, H. J., In Searchof the JerichoPotters(Elsevier
PublishingCo.: New York 1974).
FRANKEN, H. J. and J. Kalsbeek, Pottersof a MedievalVillage
in theJordanValley(ElsevierPublishingCo.: New York 1975).
FRANKLIN,Ursula, "The Science of Ancient Materials a New
Scholarly Field," CanadianMiningand MetallurgyBulletin
March (1977) 1-4.
GETTENS, RutherfordJohn, TheFreer ChineseBronzes.Vol.
II. TechnicalStudies (Smithsonian Institution: Washington,
D. C. 1969).
GOURDIN, W. H. and W. D. Kingery, "The Beginnings of
Pyrotechnology:Neolithic and EgyptianLime Plaster," JFA2
(1975) 133-150.
GRIFFIN, James B., Essays on Archaeological Methods,Pro-
ceedingsof a Conferenceheld underAuspicesof the Viking
Fund.MichMusAnth No. 8 (The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI, 1951).
GUTHE, Carl E., PuebloPotteryMaking:A Studyof the Village
of SanIldefonso(Yale University Press: New Haven 1925).
HAMPE, Rolandand Adam Winter,Bei TopfernundTopferinnen
in KretaMessenienundZypern(Verlag des Romisch-German-
ischen ZentralmuseumsMainz: Mainz 1962).
HAMPE, Roland and Adam Winter, Bei TopfernundZieglernin
SuditalienSizilienundGriechenland (Verlag des Romisch-Ger-
manischenZentralmuseumsMainz: Mainz 1965).
HARRELL,George O. and Ralston Russell Jr., Influenceof Am-
bientAtmospherein Maturationof StructuralClayProducts.
Engineering
Experiment
Station,OhioStateUniversityBulletin
204 (1967) .
HEDGES, R. E. M. and P. R. S. Moorey, "Pre-IslamicGlazes
at Kish and Nineveh in Iraq," Archaeometry
17 (1975) 25-43.
HEIMANN, R. and U. M. Franklin,"Archaeo-thermometry: The
Assessment of Firing Temperaturesof Ancient Ceramics,"
JInternatInstConservation CanadianGroup4 (1981) 24-45.
HEIZER, R. F. and S. F. Cook, TheApplicationof Quantitative
Methodsin Archaeology.VikingFundPublicationsin Anthro-
pology 28 (Wenner-GrenFoundationfor AnthropologicalRe-
search, Inc.: New York 1960).
HENNICKE, H. W., ed., Mineralische Rohstoffeals kulturhis-
torischeInformationsquelle (Verlag des Vereins Deutscher
Emailfachleute:Hagen 1978).
HETHERINGTON,A. L., ChineseCeramicGlazes,2nd rev. ed.
(P. D. and Ione Perkins:South Pasadena,CA 1948).
HOFFMANN,BettinaandKlausGoldmann,eds., Brenntechniken
vonKeramikundihre Wiedergewinnung durchexperimentelle
Archaologie.ActaPraehistorica
et Archaeologica
9/10 (Verlag
Volker Spiess: Berlin 1979).
JENYNS, Soame, JapanesePottery(Farberand Farber:London
1971).
KAMILLI, Diana C. and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky,"Petro-
graphic and Electronic MicroprobeAnalysis of Ceramicsfrom
Tepe Yahya, Iran, " Archaeometry 21 ( 1979) pt. 2.
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 8, 1981 465
KAPLAN, M. F., G. Harbottle,and E. V. Sayre, "An Archeo-
logical and Chemical Analysis of Tell el Yahudiyeh Ware,"
Brookhaven NationalLaboratory Report(BNL C-2203) (1979) .
KIEFFER, Charles and A. Allibert, "PharoanicBlue Ceramics:
the Process of Self Glazing," Archaeology24 (1971) 107-117.
KINGERY, W. D., "A Technological Characterizationof Two
CypriotCeramics," in A. Bishay, RecentAdvancesin theSci-
ence and Technologyof Materials(Plenum Press: New York
1974) 169-186.
KINGERY, W. D., "EdwardOrtenJr. MemorialLecture:Social
Needs and CeramicTechnology," BullACS 59 ( 1980) 598-600.
KINGERY, W. D., "Plausible Inferences from Ceramic Arti-
facts, " JFA 8(1981)457-464.
KINGERY, W. D. and J. D. Frierman,"The FiringTemperature
of a KaranovaSherd and Inferencesabout South-eastEuropean
Chalcolithic Refractory Technology, " ProcPS 40 (1974)
204-205.
KINGERY,W. D. and W. H. Gourdin,"Examinationof Furnace
Linings from RothenbergSite #590 in Wadi Zagha," JFA 3
(1976) 351-353.
KINGERY, W. D., H. K. Bowen, and D. R. Uhlmann, Intro-
ductionto Ceramics,2nd ed. (Wiley: New York 1976).
LAMBERT, J. B. and C. D. McLaughlin, "Analysis of Early
EgyptianGlass by Atomic Absorptionand X-ray Photoelectron
Spectroscopy," in G. F. Carter,Archaeological Chemistry II
(American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C. 1978) 189-
199.
LANE, Arthur,EarlyIslamicPottery(Faber:London 1947).
LANE, Arthur,LaterIslamicPottery(Faber:London 1971).
LEVEY, Martin,Archaeological Chemistry, A Symposium
(Uni-
versity of PennsylvaniaPress: Philadelphia1967).
LINNE, S., The Techniqueof SouthAmericanCeramics(F. I.
Anders BoktryckeriAktiebolag:Goteborg 1925).
LITTMANN, Edwin R., "Maya Blue A New Perspective,"
AmAnt45 (1980) 87- 100.
MARCH, Benjamin, Standardsof PotteryDescription.Withan
Introductory
EssaybyCarlE. Guthe.OccasionalContributions
fromtheMuseumof Anthropology
of theUniversity
of Michigan
No. 3 (University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI 1934).
MATSON, FrederickR., CeramicsandMan. VikingFundPub-
licationsin AnthropologyNo. 41 (Wenner-GrenFoundationfor
AnthropologicalResearch, Inc.: New York 1965).
MATSON, FrederickR., "A Study of the TemperaturesUsed in
FiringAncient MesopotamianPottery," in RobertH. Brill, ed.,
Scienceand Archaeology(M. I. T. Press: Cambridge 1971)
65-79.
MATSON, FrederickR., "The Potters of Chalkis," in Eugene
N. Borza and RobertW. Carruba,eds., ClassicsandtheClas-
sical Tradition.EssaysPresentedto RobertE. Dengleron the
Occasionof His EightiethBirthday(The Pennsylvania State
University:University Park, PA 1973) 117-142.
MATSON, Frederick R., "Archaeological Ceramic Study Pos-
sibilities with a Thermal GradientFurnace," in C. W. Beck,
ArchaeologicalChemistryAdvancesin ChemistrySeries 138
(AmericanChemical Society: Washington,D.C. 1974) 34-47.
MATSON, FrederickR., "ArchaeologicalCeramicsandthe Phys-
ical Sciences: Problem Definition and Results," JFA 8
(1981)447-456.
 466 Ceramics and ArchaeologylMatsonand Kingery
McARTHUR, J. T., "Inconsistencies in the Composition and
Provenance Studies of the Inscribed Jars Found at Thebes,"
Archaeometry 20 (1978) 177- 182.
MEDLEY, Margaret, The ChinesePotter (Charles Scribner's
Sons: New York 1976).
MICHAEL,HenryN. and ElizabethK. Ralph, eds., DatingTech-
niquesfortheArchaeologist(M.I.T. Press: Cambridge1971).
NOBLE, Joseph Veach, TheTechniques of PaintedAtticPottery
(Watson-GuptillPublications:New York 1965).
NOLL, Walter, "Mineralogie und Technik der bemalten Kera-
miken Altagyptens," NJbMinerAbh 133 (1978) 227-290.
NOLL, Walter, "Anorganische Pigmente in Vorgeschichte und
Antike," FortschrMiner 57 (1979) 203-263.
NOLL, Walter, R. Holm, and L. Born, "Bemalung antikerKer-
amik," Angewandte Chemie87 (1975) 639-651.
OATES, J., T. E. Davidson, D. Kamilli, and H. McKerrell,
"Seafaring Merchantsof Ur?" Antiquity 51 (1977) 221-234.
OLDFATHER, William A., "A Note on the Etymology of the
Word 'Ceramic'," JAmCeramicSoc 3 (1920) 537-542.
OLDFATHER, William A., "The Meaning of 'Keramos' Once
More," BAmCeramicSoc 7 (1924) 114- 116.
OLIN, Jacqueline and Alan D. Franklin, eds., Archaeological
Ceramics(The SmithsonianInstitutionPress:Washington,D.C.
in press 1982).
PALMGREN,Nils, WalterSteger, and Nils Sundius,SungSherds
(Almquist and Wiksell: Stockholm 1963).
PARR, PeterJ., "Pottery, People, andPolitics," in RogerMoorey
and Peter J. Parr, eds., Archaeologyin theLevant.Essaysfor
KathleenKenyon(Aris and Phillips Ltd.: Warminster,England
1978) 203-209.
PARTINGTON,J. R., OriginsandDevelopment ofAppliedChem-
istry(Longmans, Green and Co.: London 1935).
PEACOCK, D. P. S., "The Heavy MineralAnalysis of Pottery.
A PreliminaryReport," Archaeometry 10 (1967) 97-100.
PEACOCK, D. P. S., "The Scientific Analysis of Ancient Ce-
ramics: A Review," WA1 (1970) 375-389.
PEACOCK, D. P. S., ed., Potteryand EarlyCommerce: Char-
acterization andTradeinRomanandLaterCeramics(Academic
Press: London 1977).
PERLMAN, I. and F. Asaro, "Pottery Analysis by Neutron Ac-
tivation," Archaeometry 13 (1971) 21-52.
PERLMAN, I. and F. Asaro, "Pottery Analsis by Neutron Ac-
tivation," in R. H. Brill, ed., ScienceandArchaeology (M.I.T.
Press: Cambridge 1974) 182- 195.
PIKE, H. H. M., "Pottery Firing Temperatures,"Archaeometry
18 (1976) 111-114.
POLANYI, M., Personal Knowledge(University of Chicago
Press: Chicago 1958).
POLYA, George, Patternsof PlausibleInference.Volume II of
Mathematicsand PlausibleReasoning(Princeton University
Press: Princeton 1954).
RICHTER,Gisela, TheCraftofAthenian Pottery(Yale University
Press: New Haven 1923).
ROOKSBY, H. P., "A Yellow Cubic Lead Tin Oxide Opacifier
in Ancient Glasses," Physicsand Chemistry of Glasses5 [1]
(1964) 20-25.
ROTTLANDER, Rolf C. A., "Zur Standardisierungder Form-
schusseln der Bildsigillata," ActaPraehistorica et Archaeolo-
gica 7/8 (1976/77) 53-63.
..
ROTTLANDER,Rolf C. A., "Zum Phosphategehaltkeramischer
Scherben," Archaeo-Physika 7 (1980) 87-94.
RYE, Owen S., "Keeping Your TemperunderControl:Materials
and the Manufactureof Papuan Pottery," Archaeologyand
PhysicalAnthropology in Oceania11 (1976) 106- 137.
RYE, Owen S., PotteryTechnology, PrinciplesandReconstruc-
tion (Taraxacum:Manualson Archaeology-4, Washington,
D.C. 1981).
RYE, Owen S. andCliffordEvans, TraditionalPotteryTechniques
of Pakistan,Field and LaboratoryStudies.Smithsonian Con-
tributions
to AnthropologyNo. 21 (The SmithsonianInstitution
Press: Washington, D.C. 1976).
SALEH, S. A., "Study of Glass and Glass-makingProcesses at
Wadi el-Natrun, Egypt in the Roman Period 30 B.C. to 359
A .D ., " Studies in Conservation
17 (1972) 143- 172.
SAYRE, EdwardV., "Summary of the BrookhavenProgramof
Analysis of Ancient Glass," in William J. Young, ed., Appli-
cationofSciencein Examination of WorksofArt(Museumof
Fine Arts: Boston 1967) 145- 154.
SAYRE, Edward V. and R. W. Dodson, "Neutron Activation
Study of MediterraneanPotsherds," AJA61 (1957) 35-41.
SAYRE, Edward V. and R. W. Smith, "Analytical Studies of
Ancient EgyptianGlass, " in A. Bishay, RecentAdvancesin the
ScienceandTechnology ofMaterials(PlenumPress:New York,
1974) 47-70.
SCOLLAR,Irwin, ed., Proceedings ofthe18thInternational Sym-
posium on Archaeometryand ArchaeologicalProspection,
Bonn,14-17, March,1978. Archaeo-Physika
10 (1979).
SCOTT, StuartD. and CharlesJ. Cazeau, "InterdisciplinaryAp-
proachto West Mexican CeramicHistory:Culturaland Miner-
alogic Sherd Analysis," AmCeramicSocBull 55 (1976) 213-
214.
SHEPARD, Anna O., RioGrandeGlazePaintware.CarnInstPub
528 (Washington, D.C. 1942).
SHEPARD, Anna O., Plumbate,a Meso-american TradeWare.
CarnInstPub 573 (Washington, D.C . 1948).
SHEPARD, Anna O., Ceramicsfor the Archaeologist.Carn-
InstPub609 (New Forewordto 5th printing, 1965: "Ceramic
studies 1954 to 1964") (Washington,D.C. 1956).
SHEPARD, Anna O., "Rio GrandeGlaze-paintPottery:A Test
of PetrographicAnalysis," in FrederickR. Matson, ed., Ce-
ramicsandMan(Aldine PublishingCo.: Chicago 1965) 62-87.
SHEPARD, Anna O., "Ceramic Analysis: The Interrelationsof
Methods; the Relations of Analysts and Archaeologists," in
Robert H. Brill, ed., ScienceandArchaeology(M.I.T. Press:
Cambridge1971) 55-63.
SHEPARD, Anna O. and Donald Horton, "Conference on Ar-
chaeological Technology in Ceramics," AmAnt4 (1939)
358-359.
SMITH, Cyril Stanley, "A Post-symposiumNote: Science in the
Service of History," in Robert H. Brill, ed., ScienceandAr-
chaeology(M.I.T. Press: Cambridge1971) 53-54.
SUNDIUS, Nils and WalterSteger, "The Constitutionand Man-
ufactureof Chinese Ceramics from Sung and EarlierTimes,"
in Nils Palmgren,WalterSteger, and Nils Sundius,SungSherds
(Almquist and Wiksell: Stockholm 1963) 373-505.
TICHANE, Robert, ThoseCeladonBlues(New York State Insti-
 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 8, 1981 467

tute for Glaze Research:PaintedPost, NY 1978).

TITE, M. S. "Determinationof the Firing Temperaturesof An-
cient Ceramicsby Measurementof ThermalExpansion:a Reas-
sessment," Archaeometry 11 (1969) 131- 143.
TITE, M.S., Methodsof PhysicalExamination in Archaeology
(SeminarPress: New York 1972).
TITE, M. S. and Y. Maniatis, "Examinationof Ancient Pottery
Using the Scanning Electron Microscope," Nature257 (1975)
122-123.
TITE,M. S. et al., ''Technological Studiesof AncientCeramics,"
Proceedingsof theConference onEarlyPyrotechnology (Smith-
sonian Institution:Washington, D.C. in press 1981).
WEISS, Gustav, Alte Keramak neu entdekt(Ullstein: Frankfurt/
Main 1979).
WILSON, A. L., "Elemental Analysis of Potteryin the Study of
its Provenance:A Review," JAS5 (1978) 119-236.
WINTER, Adam, Die AntikeGlanztonkeramik. PraktischeVer-
suche(Verlag Philipp von Zabern:Mainz am Rhein 1978).
WU, G. P., PrehistoricPotteryin China(University of London:
London 1938).
WULFF, H. E*, TheTraditional Craftsof Persia(M.I.T. Press:
Cambridge 1966).
YELLIN, J., I. Perlman, F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, and D. F.
Mosier, "Comparisonof NeutronActivationAnalysis from the
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratoryand Hebrew University," Ar-
chaeometry 20 (1978) 95-100.
YOUNG, William J., "Some Notes on Shoso-in T'ang and Ming
Pottery," Far EasternCeramicBulletin6 (1949) 55-61.
YOUNG, William J., ''Discussion on Some Analyses of Chinese
UnderglazeBlue and UnderglazeRed," FECB8 (1949) 20-26.
YOUNG, William J., ed., Applicationof Scienceto the Dating
of Worksof Art(Museum of Fine Arts: Boston 1973).
YOUNG, William J., ''A Specialist Seminar on Thermolumi-
nescence Dating," PACT2 (1978) andPACT3 (1979) (Conseil
de l'Europe: Strasbourg).
ZIMMERMAN, D. W., M. P. Yuhas, and P. Meyers, "Ther-
moluminescenceAuthenticityMeasurementson Core Material
from the Bronze Horse of the New York MetropolitanMuseum
of Art," Archaeometry 16 (1974) 19-30.