Φιλική Συναυλία

Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology for
Mario Benzi
Edited by
Giampaolo Graziadio
Riccardo Guglielmino
Valeria Lenuzza
Salvatore Vitale

BAR International Series 2460

2013
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of Briish Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
[email protected]
www.archaeopress.com

BAR 2460

Φιλική Συναυλία: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2013

ISBN 978 1 4073 1068 8

Aricles writen in English by non-naive speakers were edited for language by Teresa Hancock Vitale

Printed in England by Informaion Press, Oxford

All BAR itles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all itles in print, prices and means of payment is available free
from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 THE POTTER’S WHEEL IN MYCENAEAN GREECE: A RE-ASSESSMENT

INA BERG

ABSTRACT Except for vessels themselves and a small number of kilns, little evidence from mainland Greece has survived that
provides clues about how vessels were formed. This lack of evidence is coupled with a scholarly focus on fabrics, shapes and
illustrations in catalogues, resulting in a mere cursory treatment of forming techniques. Unfortunately, this lack of engagement with the
specifics of pottery manufacture has allowed misconceptions to persist in scholarship. More importantly, the demonstrated association
of manufacture with specific facets of identity should encourage us to place forming techniques at the centre of our investigations.

KEYWORDS Potter’s wheel, Mycenaean Greece, identity, wheel-forming techniques, skill

1. IntroductIon Despite this multitude of evidence, it is fair to say that our

knowledge is most detailed in relation to Crete and the
‘The girls were crowned with garlands, while the Cyclades (Berg 2007a; 2007b; 2009; in preparation), while
young men had daggers of gold that hung by silver knowledge of production equipment and organisation is
baldrics; sometimes they would dance deftly in a ring surprisingly scarce for mainland Greece itself. Wheelheads
with merry twinkling feet, as it were a potter sitting at of Middle Helladic date have been found on the island of
his work and making trial of his wheel to see whether it Aigina and at Mycenae and are comparable with the types
will run, and sometimes they would go all in line with identified by Evely (Georgiou 1986). Streily believes that
one another, and much people was gathered joyously this lack of discoveries is most likely due to the use of wood
about the green’ and other organic materials in the construction of potter’s
wheels, and the great difficulty in identifying fragmentary
Homer, Iliad 18.599-601 wheelheads (Streily 2000: 231). Thus, it is almost certain
(transl. Butler 1925) that a large number of unidentified fragments of potter’s
wheels still await discovery in museum collections across
Analysis of pottery is an important tool in trying to Greece. The same sentiment applies to the technical
understand how past societies functioned. Mycenaean analysis of the pottery itself. A browse through a sample
pottery is no exception. Mario Benzi, whose achievements selection of excavation reports and pottery catalogues
are being honoured in this Festschrift, has contributed a reveals the general lack of engagement with forming
great deal to our knowledge. Not only has he enhanced techniques – with most authors never explicitly stating the
scholarly understanding of the pottery on mainland Greece, kinds of forming methods utilized, and a tacit assumption
but he has also attempted to understand the Mycenaeans’ that wheel-throwing was the primary forming method
impact further afield in, for example, Rhodes, Kos, and utilized for the manufacture of almost all vessel shapes
Iasos. While the reach of this article is considerably and wares, especially in the Mycenaean periods (laudable
less ambitious, it is hoped that it demonstrates how exceptions can be found in the syntheses provided by
technological investigations can contribute fruitfully to Lewis 1983 and Spencer 2007). Seeing the emphasis that
information gleaned from stylistic features, wares, and is placed on pottery studies both in relation to Bronze Age
shapes. Crete and the Cyclades, the lack of comparable studies
for mainland contexts until recently is remarkable and
Much is known about the potter’s wheel in Bronze Age is probably best explained by the development of the
Greece. Thanks to work by Xanthoudides (Xanthoudides discipline and the perceived standardisation and mass
1927) and Evely (Evely 1988; 2000), we have a detailed list production of pottery in the Late Bronze Age. It comes
of evidence for turning devices, including bats, supports, as no surprise to see that those scholars that list forming
pivot sockets, and wheelheads. In addition, we have techniques among their catalogue entries are those
evidence of 15 potential pottery workshops and numerous concerned with the Middle Helladic periods where greater
potting kilns compiled by Streily (Streily 2000). Finally, variety in potting techniques is clearly apparent [Table 1].
there is overwhelming evidence of the potter’s wheel
in form of the characteristic ‘rilling’ on the interior and Being a pottery specialist with a keen interest on
exterior of vessels indicating that its first appearance in unearthing the chaîne opératoire of potting traditions, I
Greece can be dated to the ‘Lefkandi I’ and Tiryns cultures am intrigued by this very specific lacuna in Mycenaean
of the EH IIB and III periods (Wünsche 1977: 27; Rutter pottery studies. I would argue that scholars, by neglecting
1995). Its application increases over time and continues forming techniques, are missing out on vital evidence to
without a break into the Mycenaean period where almost enhance our understanding of Helladic societies. Three
all of the pottery is assumed to have been wheel-thrown. key areas for interpretative opportunities spring to mind:

113
 Ina Berg

Table 1: Depth of forming technique reporting in a cross-section of excavation reports and pottery catalogues
Forming technique No forming technique Forming technique identified in some cases
Publication
identified for every vessel identified (assumed wheelmade, unless stated otherwise)
Dietz 1980 X
Rutter 1995 X
Zerner 2008 X
Akerström 1968 x
Akerström 1987 x
Alden 2000 x
French 1967 x
French 1969 x
Frizell 1986 x
MacGillivray
2008 x
Moore and Taylor
1999 x
Mountjoy 1983 x
Mountjoy 1986 x
Mountjoy 1999 x
Mountjoy 2008 x
Mühlenbruch
2007 x
Slenczka 1974 x
Stubbings 1947 x
Stülpnagel 2000 x
Wace et al.
1921/22-1922/23 x
Catling 2009 X
Crouwel 1991 X
French and Taylor
2007 X
French 1965 X
French 1966 X
Frizell 1980 X
Heath Wiencke
1998 X
Immerwahr 1971 X
Mountjoy 1976 X
Mylonas Shear
1987 X
Rutter 1990 X
Rutter 1993 X
Thomas 2005 X
Voigtländer 2003 X
Wardle 1969 X
Wardle 1973 X

1) Potting equipment; 2) Forming techniques; and 3) potter’s workshops at Berbati (LH I-IIIA) and Kolonna (EH
Potting traditions and identity. III and MH II/III). Zygouries (LH IIIB) has clear evidence
of pottery magazines, but not of manufacturing activities.
2. pottIng equIpMent Potter’s kilns have come to light at Sindos (EH), Ayios
Mamas (EH), Polychrono (EH III), Lerna (MH), Sparta
As noted above, there is little available evidence of potting (MH II), Kirrha (MH III), Kolonna (MH III), Plasi (MH?),
equipment (and indeed facilities) for the Greek mainland. Eretreia (MH?), Pylos (LH I-IIA), Ayios Kosmas (LH II),
A mere two wheelheads are known - one each from Aigina Berbati (LH I-IIIA), Aigina (LH IIIA), Thebes (LH IIIB),
and Mycenae from Middle Bronze Age contexts (Georgiou Asine (LH IIIB), Tiryns (LH IIIC), Velestino (LH IIIC),
1986). They are complemented by evidence from certain Aigeira (LH IIIC) and Dimini (no date) (Streily 2000, with

114
 the potter’s Wheel In Mycenaean greece: a reassessMent

references; Gauss 2007). While not much information is possible for small and medium-sized pots. But this toil was
available about the wheelheads from Aigina (which is said always easier with the assistance of a second pair of hands.
to be a Cretan import) and Mycenae, they appear to fall Larger vessels, or those made from heavier clays, were
within the type categories established by Evely (Evely better produced by coils and always needed ‘the second
1988, 2000). Similarities in design, diameter and material person, and at times a considerable output of energy’
make it likely that their capabilities were equivalent to (Evely in: http://www.spiritofgreece.gr/).
wheels from Crete, and experiments carried out in relation
to Minoan potter’s wheels are therefore equally valid for The acknowledgement that the reconstructed potter’s
mainland ones. wheels were most suitable for wheel-throwing of small or
medium-sized vessels indicates that the maximum speed
Type 3 wheelheads are the most common type in the that could be attained is equivalent to other experimental
Aegean [Figure 1]. They are large (between 20 and set-ups. Experiments with a Canaanite-Israelite potter’s
60cm in diameter) and weigh between 2 and 15kg, with wheel provide an interesting parallel. Here, a 60cm wide
a particular preference for weights around 10kg (Evely wooden board was placed on top of a stone socket/pivot
1988; 2000). Experimental work carried out by Evely and arrangement; the maximum speed that was attained with this
Politakis at Knossos and Morrison and Park at Mochlos has potter’s wheel was 60 rotations per minute (rpm) (Amiran
shown that their relatively lightweight design is incapable and Shenhav 1984). The same applies to experiments
of storing the momentum in the same way as heavy stone conducted by Powell who reconstructed Egyptian stone
wheelheads (Evely, Politakis, Morrison and Doug 2008; pivot potter’s wheels (Powell 1995). While she was able to
http://www.spiritofgreece.gr/, Morrison and Park 2007- achieve between 55 and 106rpm with different wheelhead
2008). The experimental vessels that were produced by designs, materials and lubricants, the wheels did not store
the Mochlos team were small, simple bowls and cups. At the momentum and slowed down quickly when not pulled/
Knossos,‘speeds sufficient to permit throwing, centering, pushed continuously. These limitations only permitted the
raising and shaping and finally turning were all readily throwing of small bowls; large vessels would have had to

115
 Ina Berg

be made in stages. A further experiment was conducted Table 2. Experimentally derived rpm for different
on two EB III basalt wheels from Tel Yarmouth. Using manufacturing stages of medium-sized pots (Foster
lubricant and an assistant, the wheel was capable of 1959: 62)
attaining 80rpm and could thus be used to wheel-coil (see
Task Potter 1 (expert) Potter 2 (expert)
below for a detailed discussion and definition) vessels of
Pre-centering/opening 140 105
different shapes and sizes. Wheel-throwing, on the other
Opening 90
hand, was only possible for small vessels (less than 1kg of
Forming 85 60-80
clay) (Roux and de Miroschedji 2009).
Finishing rim <85
Ancient illustrations support the reconstructions and
Table 3. Experimentally derived rpm for different
experimental designs of these wheels. Egyptian tomb
manufacturing stages of small vessels (Foster 1959: 62)
paintings and Classical Greek vase paintings invariably
show potter’s wheels with a single large wheelhead Task Potter 1 (expert) Potter 2
located close to the ground, either operated by a potter (intermediate)
himself or by an assistant (Scheibler 1983: figs. 67-70; Centering 80-90 -
Hope 1981; Arnold and Bourrieu 1993). These potter’s Forming 60-80 -
wheels could achieve 60-110rpm and could create enough Centering and throwing - 60-105
momentum to throw small vessels, but were insufficient
for throwing larger shapes which had to be made in stages.
No archaeological or pictorial evidence currently exists of a fixed axle. It is rotated by the potter, an assistant, or
a double- or kick-wheel. with the help of a stick (in which case it is then called
a stick-wheel). It is unlikely to reach speeds greater than
Throwing speeds 100rpm and is more likely to be in the range of 60-80rpm
as its maximum speed. The wheelheads are heavy enough
It is often stated that wheel-throwing requires speeds of to retain the momentum for a limited time only. Potters
between 100 and 150rpm (e.g. Roux and de Miroschedji working on a slow wheel cannot throw pots with both
2009). However, the speed required for throwing a vessel hands and spin the wheel at the same time – their ability to
is not an absolute figure with a clear minimum and throw a pot is thereby limited by the momentum that can
maximum. Potters vary in the speeds they use according be created in bursts and the friction that is exerted by the
to their skill level (more experienced potters can work potting process which will slow it down. In many cases,
at lower speeds) and the stage of the forming sequence an assistant will have helped in the manufacture. The ‘fast’
(higher speeds are generally desirable for beginning a wheel is defined as one that runs with continuous rotary
vessel, while vessels are generally formed and finished at motion and can comfortably reach speeds of up to 150rpm.
lower speeds) [Tables 2 and 3]. Likewise, speeds will be The most common type is the double- or kick-wheel which
different depending on the height and width of a vessel has a disk on which to shape pots, a heavy flywheel to
with higher and wider pots/sections requiring lower speeds store the momentum and an axle connecting the two. This
to shape than smaller and narrower pots/sections (Foster means that the potter can throw a pot and regulate the
1959: 62). In sum, speeds regularly vary greatly in the speed at the same time without the need of an assistant.
making of any single pot and are frequently considerably Implicitly, it is assumed that speeds of up to 150rpm are
lower than the 150rpm cut-off mark. My own experiments necessary for a potter to wheel-throw a pot and hence the
with Veronica Newman, an experienced potter, have existence of wheel-thrown pots predicates the existence of
shown that wheel-throwing is possible at very low speeds. a ‘fast’ wheel. In contrast, wheel-coiled pots are made on
While not exciting or fast, it is nevertheless possible to ‘slow’ wheels and therefore imply that the ‘fast’ wheel was
pull up a vessel at low rotations - such as a 10cm tall cup not known or utilized. However, this binary opposition is
that was wheel-thrown at speeds as low as 36rpm. In a an artificial one.
separate experimental set-up, an experienced potter threw
a medium-sized vessel at 60rpm. The task was technically ‘Slow’ and ‘fast’ potter’s wheels have in common that they
easy, but perceived as ‘boring’ by the potter (Foster 1959: both use rotary movement in the shaping of vessels. While
62). Further experiments with eight potters on kick wheels the maximum speed each device can theoretically achieve
recorded 80rpm as the top speed with much of the forming is different, they represent a continuum of speeds rather
done at lower rpm (Foster 1959: 62) [Tables 2 and 3]. than a dichotomy. As speeds increase, larger and more
complex vessels can be wheel-thrown. However, the cut-
Slow vs. fast potter’s wheels off line is defined not by the device per se but rather by the
skill and expertise of the potter.
There is a long-standing literature on the potter’s wheel
that divides this device into two categories: on one hand, Unless we accept that the thousands of wheel-thrown
there is the ‘slow’ (or ‘simple’) wheel and on the other pots that survive from Bronze Age Greece were made
there is the ‘fast’ wheel (Orton et al. 1993: 120-125; Rice by devices of which no evidence whatsoever exists, the
1987: 132-135; Rye 1981: 74; Childe 1954). The ‘slow’ currently available evidence indicates that they were most
wheel is made of wood, stone, or clay and rotates around likely made on wheels equivalent to the Minoan ones.

116
 the potter’s Wheel In Mycenaean greece: a reassessMent

Already in 1980, Eiteljorg II argued against the notion of a shaping. Unlike wheel-throwing where the potter’s wheel
‘slow’ and ‘fast’ wheel (Eiteljorg II 1980). He demonstrated runs at speeds sufficiently high to develop rotative kinetic
that similar wheels were used in Late Mycenaean, Sub- energy (RKE) and allows the potter to pull up and shape
Mycenaean and Protogeometric periods; these wheels are the clay, wheel-coiling allows a potter to build up a rough-
commonly described as ‘simple’ wheels and are the very out with coils. Rotary force is only applied during the
potter’s wheels depicted also on Archaic and Classical thinning and shaping stages. As the wheel is utilized in
vases. We are therefore looking at one type of wheel only. both techniques, the resulting features are very similar, but
However, this does not imply that the wheel for which we not indistinguishable. RKE can be applied at each different
have evidence required less skill and training than later stage of the manufacturing process, resulting in four
Roman kick-wheels. As bilateral movements, like wheel- different wheel-coil categories with distinct observable
throwing and wheel-coiling, require an extended and features (Courty and Roux 1995; Roux and Courty 1998;
dedicated period of learning (commonly put at around 10 cf. also Rye 1981: 64-65).
years; see Berg 2007b for a detailed discussion), we can
assume that potters were highly skilled craftspeople who As recent work in the Levant and on Crete has shown,
had full mastery over the potter’s wheel and were able to the proportion of pots made by wheel-coiling can be
throw at slow speeds. substantial: in the Southern Levant, hybrid techniques
were used for a long time prior to proper wheel-throwing.
3. ForMIng technIques Wheel-formed vessels first made their appearance in the
Late Chalcolithic, and wheel-coiling is attested from the
As anthropological case studies amply show, the existence Early Bronze III period, though it only became widely used
of a device does not mean that it is being utilized to its full in the Middle Bronze II (Ben-Shlomo, Uziel and Maeir
potential or even for the originally intended purpose – the 2009; Roux 2003; 2009; Roux and de Miroschedji 2009).
potential can be extended beyond its originally intended I am aware of only one large-scale study that investigates
use or it may not be fully exploited. For example, Foster wheel-coiling on the Greek mainland (Spencer 2007): at
discusses the case of potters in Coyotepec, Mexico (Foster Lefkandi, wheel-coiling and wheel-throwing co-existed
1959). While most of the potters produced handmade from the very first introduction of the potter’s wheel. Ho-
vessels by working with moulds or a slowly rotating wever, only wheel-coiling becomes increasingly popular
support (molde), the most experienced potters in the from EH III into MH II and, as potters gain greater and
village were able to spin the support at speeds of up to greater expertise, the vessels made became taller. At
90rpm and thus create pots with wheel-thrown necks. Asine, wheel-coiling and wheel-throwing co-exist, but are
In Ticul, Mexico, on the other hand, a layperson gained sparsely utilized throughout EH III to MH II. On Crete,
access to an unused potter’s wheel. She taught herself how wheel-coiling is attested alongside the wheel-throwing
to make vessels using the technique of modified coiling, technique. At Malia, for example, hybrid techniques have
but despite access to a ‘fast’ wheel never actually learned been used for over 40% of all vessels utilizing the wheel in
how to throw a complete vessel (Arnold 2008: 242). their ma-nufacture. Wheel-coiling is used for the full range
of vessels from small to very large (Poursat and Knappett
As the two case studies show, a great variety of forming 2005). At Knossos, wheel-coiling was in existence from
techniques exist between purely handmade and fully the Early through to the Late Minoan period, but was
wheel-thrown that utilize the potter’s wheel to different primarily used for small to medium-sized vessels (Berg
degrees. 2009; Knappett 1999; 2004).

Unfortunately, because of our need for clear category While wheel-coiling and wheel-throwing are very different
types, archaeologists have a tendency to ignore the less intellectual concepts, both require the same stability in the
clearly defined techniques and continue to discuss vessels forearms and two-handed bilateral control and, because the
in terms of the binary opposition between handmade and expertise has to be acquired in a specific developmental
wheel-thrown. In fact, among my sample group of pottery sequence, both can take up to 10 years to perfect (Roux
catalogues from Greek mainland sites, I have found only and Corbetta 1989; Roux 2003). Neither should wheel-
a handful of examples where vessels made of intermediate coiling be perceived as a less advanced technique than
techniques have been acknowledged (e.g. Lewis 1983; wheel-throwing. Given the low maximum speed and
Rutter 1995; Kramer 2004; Spencer 2007 at EH III Lerna slowing momentum of the Bronze Age potter’s wheel,
and Boeotia; Zerner 2008, at MH Ayios Stephanos; less experienced potters would have struggled throwing
Furumark 1941 and Nordquist 1995, in relation to MH larger vessels. Instead, the wheel-coiling technique
Aiginetan gold mica kitchen jars). Equally important is allowed the process to be broken down into shorter time
our ability to actually identify such hybrid vessels – and as fragments by throwing each added coil section separately
a recent experiment has shown – not all pottery specialists – such an approach was ideally suited for the particular
are equally familiar with their characteristic features (Berg characteristics of the ‘simple’ wheel (Berg 2010).
2009).
With wheel-coiling so prominent in the Near East and
One of the major hybrid forming techniques is wheel- Crete, it is surprising that we have only one study that
coiling. Wheel-coiling was originally called wheel- investigates this particular technique in mainland Greece.

117
 Ina Berg

As forming techniques have not been a core research However, this does not mean that we should ignore the
focus and distinguishing between the different techniques information invested in other aspects of the pottery
can be very difficult, it is very likely that wheel-coiled manufacture. Rutter has highlighted the close link between
vessels have not been identified as such and have been wheelmade vessels, specific shapes, wares and decorative
classified together with their wheel-thrown counterparts. treatments at Lerna IV (Rutter 1995): when it first came
A programme of investigation into forming techniques, into existence, wheelmade production almost exclusively
especially of the Mycenaean period, should help establish focused on tankards, kantharoi and bass bowls – all vessels
whether it existed and how great a diversity of techniques used in visible consumption events. These vessels were
were utilized on mainland Greece. primarily produced in fine Gray or Non-Gray Burnished
wares – wares that were of high quality and required
4. IdentIty considerable investment in time to achieve the desired
burnishing effect. Finally, grooving was used to exaggerate
The reason that forming techniques are so important not the rilling produced by the wheel. This pattern clearly hints
merely as a classificatory tool, but for our interpretation at the high status and desirability of wheelmade pottery at
of past societies, is their demonstrated relevance in this time. A consumer’s ability to recognise this forming
expressing facets of people’s identities. Gosselain found technique by its characteristic rilling was so important that
that ‘certain facets of identity were related consistently it led to the application of grooving in exaggeration of the
to certain stages of the chaîne opératoire’ (Gosselain original features. With only a few potters able to produce
2000: 189). In particular, he established that visibility wheelmade pots, the invention and its resulting products
of a manufacturing stage was correlated with specific served to distinguish the vessel owner in public or private
identities. For example, easily visible techniques (e.g. consumption events.
tempering, secondary forming, decorations) reflect more
superficial, situational and temporary facets of identity, Thus, investigating forming techniques is not merely a
often responding to changing social, economic or symbolic classificatory exercise, but provides valuable information
pressures. Modifications to techniques only observable about a maker’s identity and his/her social relationships.
by fellow workers (e.g. clay selection, processing, firing) Forming techniques, therefore, are at the very core of
are the result of changes in local or regional identities. archaeology by helping us understand how past societies
Primary forming techniques are the least visible stage in interacted.
the manufacture. Because they are based on specialized
gestures and motor habits acquired through repeated 5. conclusIons
practice in a close-knit learning environment, they are the
most resistant to change. Thus, primary forming techniques Drawing on experimental work, ethnographic case studies
reflect the most individual and rooted aspects of social and the available archaeological evidence, this paper
identity, including kinship, learning networks, gender and has explored some of the misconceptions in relation to
social class (Gosselain 1998; 2000; Gelbert 1999). Mycenaean pottery manufacture. It has been argued that
only one type of potter’s wheel existed in Mycenaean
Recent work on motor skills and performed body times, one that was probably capable of achieving around
knowledge (also called non-discursive knowledge) has 100rpm. A wide variety of wheel-forming techniques
continued to reiterate the basic biomechanical principle could be executed on this wheel by potters who had
behind Gosselain’s ethnographic work. Namely that developed their expertise over many years. Because the
repeated action of particular bodily performance will potter becomes the pot, intimate facets of his/her identity
‘result in the embodiment of a suite of physiological are expressed in the manufacturing processes. The more
actions to the extent that it literally changes the neurology, visible aspects of the new wheel technology (i.e. the
musculature or skeleton’ (Budden and Sofaer 2009: rilling) were an important means to communicate this
208, with detailed discussion and references; Sofaer and technological novelty and the potter’s skill to consumers.
Budden, in press). As a result of this repeated action, the
act itself becomes part of the maker and forms part of his/ reFerences
her identity. To unlearn a motor skill is almost impossible
as it has become part of the maker’s body, though skills Åkerström, A. 1968. A Mycenaean Potter’s Factory at Berbati
near Mycenae. In Atti e Memorie del I Congresso Internazionale
can of course be advanced and new skills added to the
di Micenologia, 48-53, Rome.
repertoire. When this is the case, it also often changes
the identity of the maker (Gosselain 2008; Budden and Åkerström, A. 1987. Berbati: The Pictorial Pottery, Stockholm.
Sofaer 2009; Sofaer and Budden, in press). It is because of
this insurmountable biomechanical link between forming Alden, M. 2000. The Prehistoric Cemetery: Pre-Mycenaean and
technique and identity that some specialists are advocating Early Mycenaean Graves (Well Built Mycenae 7), Oxford.
that our current focus on fabric, shapes, and illustrations
should be replaced by an in-depth investigation into Amiran, R. and Shenhav, D. 1984. Experiments with an Ancient
forming techniques as the very first step in understanding Potter’s Wheel. In P.M. Rice (ed.) Pots and Potters. Current
pottery assemblages (Roux 2011). Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, 107-112, Los Angeles.

118
 the potter’s Wheel In Mycenaean greece: a reassessMent

Arnold, D.E. 2008. Social Change and the Evolution of Ceramic Paper presented at the 6th International Congress on the
Production and Distribution in a Maya Community, Boulder. Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Rome.

Arnold, D. and Bourriau, J. (eds) 1993. An Introduction to Foster, G.M. 1959. The Coyotepec Molde and some associate
Ancient Egyptian Pottery, Mainz. problems of the potter’s wheel. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 15, 53-63.
Ben-Shlomo, D., Uziel, J., and Maeir, A.M. 2009. Pottery
production at Tell es-Safi/Gath: a Longue Durée perspective. French, E.B. 1965. Late Helladic IIIA2 Pottery from Mycenae.
Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2258-2273. Annual of the British School at Athens 60, 159-202.

Berg, I. 2007a. Negotiating Island Identities: The Active Use of French, E.B. 1966. A Group of Late Helladic IIIB1 Pottery from
Pottery in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Cyclades, New York. Mycenae. Annual of the British School at Athens 61, 216-238.

Berg, I. 2007b. Meaning in the Making: The Potter’s Wheel French, E.B. 1967. Pottery from Late Helladic IIIB1 Destruction
at Phylakopi, Melos (Greece). Journal of Anthropological Contexts at Mycenae. Annual of the British School at Athens 62,
Archaeology 26, 234-252. 149-194.

Berg, I. 2009. X-radiography of Knossian Bronze Age Vessels: French, E.G. 1969. A Group of Late Helladic IIIB2 Pottery from
Assessing our Knowledge of Primary Forming Techniques. Mycenae. Annual of the British School at Athens 64, 71-93.
Annual of the British School at Athens 104, 137-173.
French, E.B. and Taylour, W.D. 2007. The Service Areas of the
Berg, I. 2010. Illuminating Technological Traditions through Cult Centre (Well Built Mycenae 13), Oxford.
X-radiography. Paper presented at the International Congress
on Archaeological Sciences in the Eastern Mediterranean and Frizell, B.S. 1980. An Early Mycenaean Settlement at Asine. The
the Near East (ICASEMNE). Late Helladic IIB-IIIA1 Pottery, Göteborg.

Berg, I. (in preparation). The Social Context of the Introduction Frizell, B.S. 1986. Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of
and Use of the Potter’s Wheel in Minoan Crete. the Acropolis 1970-1974, III, The Late and Final Mycenaean
Periods, Stockholm.
Budden, S. and Sofaer, J. 2009. Non-discursive Knowledge and
the Construction of Identity. Cambridge Archaeological Journal Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and
19, 203-220. Classification, Stockholm.

Butler, S. 1925. The Iliad of Homer (translation), London. Gauss, W. 2007. Ägina Kolonna in Frühmykenischer Zeit. In
E. Alram-Stern (ed.), Keimelion: Elitenbildung und Elitärer
Catling, H.W. 2009. Sparta: Menelaion I. The Bronze Age (The Konsum in der Mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Homerischen
British School at Athens Suppl. 15). Epoche (Festschrift S. Deger-Jalkotzy), 163-169, Wien.

Childe, V.G. 1954. Rotary Motion. In S. Singer, E.J. Holmyard, Gelbert, A. 1999. Technological and Stylistic Borrowings
and A.R. Hall (eds), A History of Technology, 1, From Early between Ceramic Traditions: A Case Study from Northeastern
Times to Fall of Ancient Empires, 187-215, New York. Senegal. In L.R. Owen and M. Porr (eds), Ethno-Analogy and
the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Artefact Use and Production,
Courty, M.A. and Roux, V. 1995. Identification of Wheel 207-24, Tübingen.
Throwing on the Basis of Ceramic Surface Features and
Microfabrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 17-50. Georgiou, H.S. 1986. Keos VI. Ayia Irini: Specialized Domestic
and Industrial Pottery, Mainz.
Crouwel, J.H. 1991. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery (Well Built
Mycenae 21), Oxford. Gosselain, O.P. 1998. Social and Technical Identity in a Clay
Crystal Ball. In M.T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social
Dietz, S. 1980. Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Boundaries, 78-106, Washington.
Acropolis 1970-1974, II, The Middle Helladic Cemetery, The
Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Deposits, Stockholm. Gosselain, O.P. 2000. Materializing Identities: An African
Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7,
Eiteljorg II, H. 1980. The Fast Wheel, the Multiple-Brush 187-217.
Compass and Athens as Home of the Protogeometric Style.
American Journal of Archaeology 84, 445-52. Gosselain, O.P. 2008. Thoughts and Adjustments in the Potter’s
Backyard. In I. Berg (ed.), Breaking the Mould: Challenging the
Evely, D. 1988. The Potters’ Wheel in Minoan Crete. Annual of Past through Pottery, 67-80, Oxford.
the British School at Athens 83, 83-126.
Heath Wiencke, M. 1998. Mycenaean Lerna. Hesperia 67, 125-
Evely, D. 2000. Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques, II, 214.
Jonsered.
Hope, C. 1981. Two Ancient Egyptian Potter’s Wheels. Journal
Evely, D., Politakis, V., Morrison, J., and Park, D. 2008. The of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11, 127-133.
Minoan Potter’s Wheel. A Study in Experimental Archaeology.

119
 Ina Berg

Immerwahr, S.A. 1971. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (The Poursat, J.-C and Knappett, C. 2005. Malia. Le Quartier Mu
Athenian Agora 13), Princeton. 4. La Poterie du Minoen Moyen II: Production et Utilisation
(Etudes Cretoises 33), Paris.
Knappett, C. 1999. Tradition and Innovation in Pottery Forming
Techniques: Wheel-throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos. Annual Powell, C. 1995. The Nature and Use of Ancient Egyptian
of the British School at Athens 94, 101-130. Potter’s Wheels. In B.J. Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports VI, 279-
308, London.
Knappett, C. 2004. Technological Innovation and Social Diversity
at Middle Minoan Knossos. In G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and A. Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook, Chicago.
Vasilakis (eds), Knossos: Palace, City, State (British School at
Athens Studies 12), 257-265, London. Roux, V. 2003. A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying
Technological Change: Application to the Emergence of the
Kramer, J.L. 2004. Analysis and Classification of the Late Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological
Helladic I Pottery in the Northeastern Peloponnese of Greece. Method and Theory 10, 1-30.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cincinnati.
Roux, V. 2009. Technological Innovations and Developmental
Lewis, H.B. 1983. The Manufacture of Early Mycenaean Pottery. Trajectories: Social Factors as Evolutionary Forces. In M.J.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota. O’Brien and S.J. Shennan (eds), Innovation in Cultural Systems.
Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology, 217-233,
MacGillivray, J.A. 2008. The Early Helladic Pottery. In W.D. Cambridge.
Taylour and R. Janko (eds), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at
a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia Roux, V. 2011. Anthropological Interpretation of Ceramic
(British School at Athens Suppl. 44), 159-176, London. Assemblages: Foundations and Implementations of Technological
Analysis. In S. Scarcella (ed.) Archaeological Ceramics: A
Moore, A.D. and Taylour, W.D. 1999. The Temple Complex Review of Current Research, 80-88, Oxford.
(Well Built Mycenae 10), Oxford.
Roux, V. and Corbetta, D. 1989. The Potter’s Wheel. Craft
Morrison, J.E. and Park, D.P. 2007-2008. Throwing Small Vessels Specialization and Technical Competence, New Delhi-Bombay-
in the LM IB Mochlos Potter’s Pit. Kentro. The Newsletter of the Calcutta.
INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 10, 6-10.
Roux, V. and Courty, M.A. 1998. Identification of Wheel-
Mountjoy, P.A. 1976. Late Helladic IIIB1Pottery Dating the fashioning Methods: Technological Analysis of 4th-3rd
Construction of the South House at Mycenae. Annual of the Millennium BC Oriental Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological
British School at Athens 71, 77-111. Science 25, 747-763.

Mountjoy, P.A. 1983. Orchomenos V: Mycenaean Pottery from Roux, V. and de Miroschedji, P. 2009. Revisiting the History of
Orchomenos, Eutresis and other Boeotian Sites, München. the Potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Levant 41, 155-173.

Mountjoy, P.A. 1986. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Rutter, J.B. 1990. Pottery Groups from Tsoungiza of the End of
Identification, Göteborg. the Middle Bronze Age. Hesperia 59, 375-458.

Mountjoy, P.A. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery, Rutter, J.B. 1993. A Group of Late Helladic IIA Pottery from
Leidorf. Tsoungiza. Hesperia 62, 53-93.

Mountjoy, P.A. 2008. The Late Helladic Pottery. In W.D. Taylour Rutter, J.B. 1995. Lerna III: The Pottery of Lerna IV, Princeton.
and R. Janko (eds), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze
Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia (British Rye, O.S. 1981. Pottery Technology: Principles and
School at Athens Suppl. 44), 299-387 London. Reconstruction, Washington DC.

Mühlenbruch, T. 2007. Tiryns XV: Die handgemalte geglättete Scheibler, I. 1983. Griechische Töpferkunst, München.
Keramik Mykenischer Zeitstellung, Wiesbaden.
Slenczka, E. 1974. Tiryns VII: Figürlich Bemalte Mykenische
Mylonas Shear, I. 1987. The Panagia Houses at Mycenae, Keramik aus Tiryns, Mainz am Rhein.
Philadelphia.
Sofaer, J. and Budden, S., in press. Many Hands Make Light Work:
Nordquist, G.C. 1995. Who made the pots? Production in the Embodied Knowledge at the Bronze Age Tell at Százhalombatta,
Middle Helladic Society. In R. Laffineur and W. Niemeier (eds), Hungary. In M.L.S. Sørensen and K. Rebay-Salisbury (eds),
Politeia. Society and state in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum Embodied Knowledge, Oxford.
12), 201-211, Liège.
Spencer, L. 2007. Pottery Technology and Socio-Economic
Orton, C, Tyers, P. and Vince, A. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology, Diversity on the Early Helladic III to Middle Helladic II Greek
Cambridge. Mainland. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.

120
 the potter’s Wheel In Mycenaean greece: a reassessMent

Streily, A.H. 2000. Bronzezeitliche Töpferwerkstätten in der

Ägäis und in Westanatolien. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
of Mannheim.

Stubbings, F.H. 1947. The Mycenaean Pottery of Attica. Annual

of the British School at Athens 42, 1-75.

Stülpnagel, H. 2000. Mykenische Keramik der Oberburg von

Tiryns. Material der Ausgrabungen 1984/85 im Bereich des
Grossen und Kleinen Megarons, Freiburg.

Thomas, P.M. 2005. A Deposit of Late Helladic IIIB1 Pottery

from Tsoungiza. Hesperia 74, 451-573.

Voigtländer, W. 2003. Tirynx X: Die Palastkeramik, Mainz.

Wace, A.J.B., Heurtley, W.A., Lamb, W., Holland, L.B., and

Boethius, C.A. 1921/22-1922/23. The Report of the School
Excavations at Mycenae, 1920-1923. Annual of the British
School at Athens 25, 1-434.

Wardle, K.A. 1969. A Group of Late Helladic IIIB1 Pottery from

within the Citadel at Mycenae. Annual of the British School at
Athens 64, 261-297.

Wardle, K.A. 1973. A Group of Late Helladic IIIB2 Pottery from

within the Citadel at Mycenae: The Causeway Deposit. Annual
of the British School at Athens 68, 297-348.

Wünsche, R. 1977. Studien zur Äginetischen Keramik der Frühen

und Mittleren Bronzezeit, Berlin.

Xanthoudides, S. 1927. Some Minoan Potter’s-Wheel Discs. In

S. Casson (ed.), Essays in Aegean Archaeology, 111-128, Oxford.

Zerner, C. 2008. The Middle Helladic Pottery, with the Middle

Helladic Wares from Late Helladic Deposits and the Potters’
Marks. In W.D. Taylour and R. Janko (eds), Ayios Stephanos.
Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern
Laconia (British School at Athens Suppl. 44), 177-298, London.

121