Object
Cypriot amphora with a Phoenician inscription
A Cypriot vessel, a Phoenician inscription and a findspot nobody recorded: one object that teaches us to separate what is written on it from where it came from.
KINDS OF FINDS
Read a sherd as part of an assemblage, and ask why a similar shape is only the beginning of identification.
Pottery guidance recommends recording vessel form, fabric, technology and quantities. Firing waste can help identify production. Source 1. These methodological principles come from work on English production sites; they are not a regional dating typology transplanted to the Levant.
“Ceramic” identifies material, while “jar” or “bowl” identifies a vessel kind. Keep both fields separate when reading a description. Then ask whether the comparison concerns fabric, shape, manufacturing method or a combination.
Choose a documented photograph and read its caption first. Write down what you can see and what you know only from the source record. Then ask what connects the vessel to a place and time. Do not supply a production origin or use merely from an attractive colour or a familiar silhouette.
To move beyond a general identification, build a small table for the publication you are reading: item number, recorded context, surviving part, proposed comparison and confidence in dating. Distinguish a detail described in the report from one you infer from an image. If the author refers to a section drawing or plate, open it too: the argument about form may depend on documentation absent from a photograph of one fragment.
Now compare two possible statements in a reading exercise, not an account of an excavation: “a sherd resembling a dated type came from a fill” and “an assemblage was recorded on a floor.” Do not decide in advance that one is stronger. Ask how the fill formed, how objects relate to the floor, and whether the evidence supports the same event. The word “assemblage” does not remove the need to examine accumulation.
The opening jar has its own collection record, 2. Identify which fields describe the object and which supply an attribution or date. Being complete and clearly photographed does not give it the excavation context of another example on this site. Use it to learn descriptive terms, without transferring its date to another fragment simply because both are called jars.
The pottery-making article develops the recording process; the materials-and-exchange article examines the distance between resemblance and shared origin. If your question is when an event happened, continue to the dating guide and first ask what links the pottery to that event.
Continue to Nazareth to ask how an assemblage enters a settlement argument, or to the dating guide. The jar shown here is an identified Bronze Age museum object, not a find from the Nazareth excavation.
Source
The research and references behind this page. Rights to external content remain with their owners.
Harriet White, Sarah Paynter, Duncan Brown · 2015 · Checked
The Metropolitan Museum of Art · Checked
Adjust the reading experience to suit you. These tools complement your browser and device accessibility settings. Changes apply to this page; they are kept for another visit only if you allowed that in the privacy dialog.
Your choices apply to this page only. Moving to another page restores the defaults.