Approaches to recording

This section provides more detailed methodological guidance on recording pottery.

The following attributes may be recorded during analysis:

• fabric
• vessel type
• the form of component parts
• sherd type
• decoration
• surface treatment
• vessel size
• source
• method of manufacture
• evidence for use
• condition

The advised method is to sort every sherd in a contextual unit according to each different attribute, resulting in, for example, a pile of plain body sherds of Fabric 1, two plain everted rim sherds in Fabric 1 with the same rim diameter, a body sherd in Fabric 1 that has an incised wavy line on the body, a pile of plain body sherds in Fabric 6, a pile of body sherds in Fabric 6 that have an internal clear glaze, and so on.

Fabric type

The purpose of fabric characterisation is to determine the likely location of the production site at which that item was made.

Pottery fabrics should be distinguished on the basis of the character of the clay and inclusions, in accordance with accepted methods (Orton and Hughes 2013). Reference should always be made to existing, relevant, local, regional or national pottery type series or PTS (CIfA 2014a, 3.7.4) and their terminology and coding systems should always be followed. Concordance should be provided where more than one appropriate fabric series exists (eg local and national).

Add previously unrecognised fabrics or significant variations of known fabrics to any actively curated PTS, with specimen sherds offered and specimens selected for petrographic/chemical analysis, as agreed in the updated project design. Describe new fabrics in full.

If specimen sherds have been removed from the stored assemblage, leave proxy documentation in the original box or bag to show that the contents are incomplete.

Where no appropriate PTS exists, compile a project-specific series. Specimen sherds of each type, supported by full written descriptions, should be set aside and reserved in the archive. Fabric descriptions, both macroscopic and microscopic (X10 or X20), should be recorded in standard format (PCRG 2010, 22–29, Appendices 1–8; Tomber and Dore 1998, 4–8; Orton and Hughes 2013). Concordance should be provided with appropriate regional or national fabric series where possible.

Fabric recording systems should allow for fabrics to be grouped and quantified by broad class, whether based on main inclusions (eg flint, grog, etc for prehistoric pottery) or general type (eg oxidised, reduced, colour-coated, blackware, tin-glazed, etc). This can be achieved using an alpha-numeric system (PCRG 2010, Appendix 1 and various county-/unit-specific fabric type series) or by recording fabric class separately. This hierarchical approach facilitates inter-regional comparison (Doherty 2015, 21) and also allows for different levels of recording to be undertaken, as appropriate. Where practical, fabrics should be defined in consultation with local geology maps for a 10 km radius, to identify local clays and tempers.

Use petrographic analysis for checking and refining fabric descriptions determined with a binocular microscope.

Vessel form

The aim of form analysis is to define the vessel type and component parts.

All recognisable forms of vessels and component parts should be recorded within fabric groups by contextual unit.

Where appropriate, use the Guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramic Forms (MPRG 1998) at all stages of analysis. This classification provides a nationally accepted standard terminology for medieval and early post-medieval forms, avoiding confusion and facilitating inter-site and inter-regional comparison.

Record vessel types using a hierarchy of

• vessel class (eg bowl, jar, jug, etc)
• vessel type (eg carinated bowl, rounded jar, ring-necked flagon, etc) where possible

Form type codes should conform to extant local/regional form reference series. Where these exist and are published, and forms are well defined, detailed form descriptions are not required. Concordance may need to be provided if more than one appropriate form type series exists (eg local and national).

Form elements (eg rim, base, handle) should be recorded for new types or for kiln assemblages.

Decoration

Decoration and form are closely related, given that the type of vessel usually determines the nature and positioning of the decoration.

Decoration is usually carried out before firing, and can be divided into three components:

• technique (eg incised, impressed, applied)
• motif (eg wavy horizontal lines, cross-shaped, scales)
• position (eg on the rim, body, handle)

Record each of these in separate fields on a record sheet, spreadsheet or database. Use standard terminology, where this exists (PCRG 2010, 33; MPRG 1998; Webster 1976).

Vessel size

Vessel size is usually determined by measuring the external diameter of the rim in millimetres. The hand-built nature of the majority of prehistoric pottery (particularly of the Neolithic and Bronze Age) means that rim circumference can be irregular, and a minimum and maximum diameter may need to be recorded.

Bases are not usually typologically sensitive, so diameters of bases only need to be recorded where this is justified by the project aims and objectives (for example in a kiln assemblage where this might help to characterise the range and level of standardisation of kiln products).

Record vessel height when a total profile is present.

Girth and vessel wall thickness are usually recorded only for prehistoric pottery (PCRG 2010, 32–3).

Surface treatment

Record surface treatment for any techniques that are carried out before firing; this includes the use of a slip or glaze, wiping, burnishing, knife-trimming, finger smearing, scratch-marking, etc.

As with decoration, it is advisable to record the technique and the position separately.

Some fabrics are differentiated on the basis of their appearance (eg cream-slipped ware, Black-burnished ware), in which case it is not necessary to record surface treatment.

Evidence for manufacture

Methods of manufacture include

• vessel manufacture (eg hand-built, wheel-thrown, moulded), although this is often included in the description of a fabric, so need not be recorded separately
• forming and attaching component parts (eg pulled rod handle, luted wheel-thrown strap handle)
• manufacturing faults (eg warping, bloating, cracking)

Evidence for use

The ways a vessel was used can leave evidence such as wear marks, leaching and residues (eg soot, limescale, food deposits).

Record both the position (including whether internal or external) and extent of evidence for use.

Post-firing modifications

Record all elements such as graffiti, tally marks, ownership marks, perforations and repairs by their position and technique. Lettering should also be transcribed into the record.

Quantification

The aim of quantification is to determine the relative amounts of each different type, sorted according to the attributes described above, that are present in a single contextual unit. This will lead to an understanding of which types are prevalent in specific features and structural phases as well as across the site as a whole. The aim is to enable the investigation and comparison of the populations of different pottery types in order to inform questions of chronology, use, social and economic conditions and site formation processes.

As noted by Orton, Tyers and Vince in 1993 (166), ‘This is a subject which has often generated more heat than light in recent years.’ This statement remains true more than 30 years later. Varying approaches have been used by different period specialists as well as those working within the same period, sometimes even within the same region (Doherty 2015, 9). However, this is an area where consistency, at least within period specialisms, is necessary to achieve meaningful comparison between site assemblages. The level of quantification will depend on the aims and objectives of the project, balanced with the condition of the assemblage and the character of the archaeological deposits. Cost and time should not be the determining factor and adequate time should have been agreed for the appropriate level of quantification; in fact, more time is actually spent on the initial sorting than on recording (Darling 1994, 4).

The main methods of quantification are

• sherd count – to the nearest sherd, not in estimated quantities of fives or tens; count freshly broken sherds as one
• sherd weight – to the nearest gram
• vessel count – usually an estimate. It is often helpful to use two methods (see below), such as rim EVE together with Maximum (or Minimum) Vessel Count, to give a more informed estimate of the vessel population. Rim EVE will often give an estimated vessel count that is much lower than the Maximum (or Minimum) Vessel Count

There are a number of ways to obtain vessel counts. An actual count is highly unlikely, especially in large assemblages, but can occasionally be achieved on sites such as shipwrecks, where pots may be easier to identify separately.

The usual method is to calculate an Estimated Vessel Equivalent (EVE) based on rim percentage, recorded using a rim chart (Orton and Hughes 2013). Bases can also be measured to provide a base EVE, although this is usually only appropriate on pottery production sites, where there are large amounts of material to be quantified.

In prehistoric assemblages it is not always possible to produce rim and base EVEs because pots are not always entirely regular in form, so other methods of acquiring an estimated vessel count may be more appropriate.

It is possible to produce an Estimated (or Maximum) Vessel Count (ENV), where every sherd counts as one vessel unless it either fits with another sherd or is demonstrably part of the same vessel as other sherds. This often becomes apparent during sorting without too much extra effort. If two sherds do join together, they count as one vessel. The Minimum Number of Vessels (MNV) assumes, wherever possible, that groups of sherds of the same fabric belong to the same vessel.

Other objective methods for quantifying vessels have been proposed, each with advantages and disadvantages (Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993, chapter 13; Orton 1993). It is most important that there is clear, consistent guidance from specialist groups on the agreed approach for each period.

Date

For some assemblages, the earliest date (terminus post quem) and latest date (terminus ante quem) of a given type, as differentiated during sorting, may be recorded. Note any sherds that can be identified as residual or intrusive, given the character of the rest of the pottery in the context, as they may assist in understanding depositional processes and the reliability of pottery groups.

Additional information

Additional information to be recorded includes

• cross-context joins, where two sherds from different contextual units fit together
• evidence for re-use, such as turning pottery sherds into spindle whorls, counters or lids
• sherd condition, recorded in terms of type, position and extent; this provides evidence of breakage and post-deposition activity, and includes abrasion, burning, leaching or being water-worn

Sherd selection

Record which sherds or vessels have been selected for further treatment, such as drawing, photography or scientific analysis.

Comments

Record any observations or notes that do not relate to the sorting of pottery for quantification in a free text field.

The record

In the past, specialists would record onto paper pro forma, which more recently have then been entered into digital databases, but it is now common practice to enter data directly into a database or spreadsheet. In either instance, it is essential to list all codes used to denote fabric or form types, or any other attribute, in a glossary or concordance that provides the full meaning. This concordance forms part of the metadata that should be supplied with all digital records, detailing the data fields recorded and software packages used.

Recorded data should be accessible to other people and steps should be taken to ensure that it remains so. It is advisable to follow guidelines provided by the Archaeology Data Service.