Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T08:31:24.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temper Identification: “Technological Sherd-Splitting” or an Unanswered Challenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anna O. Shepard
Anna O. Shepard*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Boulder, Colorado
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two recent publications offer stimulating generalizations about pottery analysis. Weaver (1963) considers how archaeologists can secure assistance in pottery analysis. Fontana and others (1962) question the cultural significance of temper. Advice in both studies is based on pottery from a simple level of technological development. A broader view of contemporary potters' techniques shows that paste composition may or may not have cultural significance. Simple rules of analysis are misleading because of the complexity of pottery and the varied role it has played in culture.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , April 1964 , pp. 518 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1964

Access options

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

References

Catling, H. W., Blin-Stoyle, A. E., and Richards, E. E. 1961 Spectrographs Analysis of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery. Archaeometry, Vol. 4, pp. 31–8. Berkshire, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, B. L., Robinson, W. J., Cormack, C. W., and Leavitt, E. E. Jr. 1962 Papago Indian Pottery. University of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
Guthe, C. E. 1925 Pueblo Pottery Making, A Study at the Village of San Ildefonso. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, No. 2. New Haven.Google Scholar
Johnson, F. 1951 Collaboration among Scientific Fields with Special Reference to Archaeology. In “Essays in Archaeological Methods,” edited by Griffin, J. B., pp. 34–45, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 8. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Rogers, M. J. 1936 Yuman Pottery Making. San Diego Museum Papers, No. 2. San Diego.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. 1883 Illustrated Catalogue of the Collections Obtained from rhe Indians of New Mexico and Arizona in 1879. Second Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pp. 307-465. Washington.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. H. 1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 15. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Weaver, E. C. 1963 Technological Analysis of Prehistoric Mississippi Ceramic Materials: A Preliminary Reporr. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 1, PP. 49–56. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar