Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T23:00:08.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of Methods of Potmaking in Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

H. J. Franken
H. J. Franken
Affiliation:
University of Leiden, Stationsweg 25, Leiden, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A good deal of information is being collected about the potter's craft in many parts of the world. Some work has been done on the analysis of potmaking in antiquity, but as far as the present writer knows, the importance of this type of analysis for archaeological studies has not been critically investigated. This paper intends to present the reader with the results of research into the methods of potmaking in two cultural periods in Palestine, as well as with some of the problems that came up during this research. The two periods concerned are the Early Iron Age (ca. 1200–1000 B.C.) and the Medieval period from the beginning of the Islamic conquest to ca. 1500 A.D.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 64 , Issue 2-3 , July 1971 , pp. 227 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1971

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

1 Franken, H. J. and Kalsbeek, J., Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Allā, Vol. I (Leiden, 1969)Google Scholar.

2 In Deir ‘Allā, Vol. I, the comparative study has been restricted to a minimum. See Ch. 9 and Paul Lapp's criticism in VT 20 (1969), 254. Since the publication of that Vol., the measure of the reliability of dating by means of comparative pottery studies has been further investigated. Some of our conclusions are found in this article.

3 O. Tufnell (Lachish III [1953]) gives 700 types for the Iron Age, and generally less than 5 examples of each type were found.

4 Franken-Kalsbeek, op. cit., 172.

5 Ibid., 102–04.

6 Dothan, M., Excavations at Afula, in ‘Atiqot (Jerusalem, 1955), 43–44Google Scholar.

7 Bennett, C. M., Fouilles d'Umm el-Biyara, in Revue Biblique 73 (1966), 372–403Google Scholar.

8 Cf. Fig. 1, to be published in Deir ‘Allā, Vol. II, together with Figs 2, 3, 4 and 5.

9 Cf. Fig. 2.

10 Cf. Fig. 3 (bowls period 1).

11 Cf. Fig. 1.

12 Cf. Fig. 4.

13 Cf. Fig. 5.