Fabrics and decoration
Details and explanations regarding fabrics and decorative technology
In the author's original research on Attic Geometric and Orientalising finewares, fabric descriptions were obtained from a limited number of fragmented vessels or sherds that allowed hand specimen examination. Fabric identifications were derived from 86 of 391 ceramic artefacts, all from the Athenian Agora study collections. The material from the Kynosarges burials and the British School at Athens collections was unsuitable for such analysis. Identifications were conducted on existing fractures, cracks, or areas along chipped surfaces using a standard 10X hand lens under artificial light.
As part of field fabric examination (Orton et al. 1993), reaction tests with 10% dilute hydrochloric acid often help characterise calcareous inclusions. Such a test could not be performed on the discussed assemblage due to the destructive nature of this technique. Instead, fabric characterisations provided the following information: a) fabric colours based on the Munsell soil chart (1975), b) description of inclusions, c) density and distribution of inclusions and voids, and finally, d) hardness and feel of fracture. Fabric information was recorded according to the conventions by Orton et al. (1993).
Hand specimen examination was also carried out on 17 unpublished sherds, which were originally selected for destructive analysis, and a sampling permit was obtained from the local authorities (1st Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, permit reference ΥΠΑΙΘΠΑ/ΣΥΝΤ/Φ44/64642/2881). This material was used to compare and test the validity of hand specimen characterisations across all assemblages studied in the author's research project. The analysis of these sherds will be discussed in another article, together with the results of archaeometric analyses.
In the study of decorative technologies, the author's research project first documented the nature of external treatments on Athenian Geometric finewares. This included simple colour descriptions of decorative elements and coated areas according to the Munsell (1975) soil colour chart, as well as the identification of coating and slip quality. A similar approach was followed by Ilieva (2014) in the study of regional standardisation of North Aegean G 2-3 wares; however, her approach was not entirely technological, as it did not include microscopic analysis of decorated colours and slips, nor did it discuss all the parameters related to colour variation.
For simplicity and effective analysis, colour descriptions were divided into three broader colour groups, as explained in the figure below.
The most common colours observed on Attic Early Iron Age pottery belonged to Group 1; however, some vessels with black or brown-black decoration showed spots that had faded to red or brownish red (Group 2). Similarly, some vessels that were most likely intended to look brownish red or red exhibited areas along their surfaces that had faded to orange and reddish yellow (Group 3). As observed in the archaeological record, Athenian Early Iron Age potters were capable of controlling firing cycles using ceramic test pieces (Papadopoulos 2003); nevertheless, unevenly coloured surfaces still occurred. These colour changes were difficult to explain and may have resulted from several factors.
Firstly, according to Tite et al. (1982) and Maniatis & Tite (1981), the colours of ancient pottery resulted from different concentrations of iron and manganese in paints produced by suspending clay in water. The unevenly coloured surfaces of some ceramics studied by the author could therefore have resulted from the simultaneous use of more than one type of paint per vessel; however, this possibility was highly unlikely. Instead, decorated finewares suggest that painters intended to use a single colour on as many vessels as possible.
Secondly, unevenly coloured surfaces likely resulted from differences in paint density as it was applied by brush strokes along the vessels’ walls. More specifically, brush strokes tend to leave thicker, darker layers of paint at the start of contact with a blank surface, while colours fade towards the end of a stroke. This can cause a natural reduction in the original colour's intensity, although the colour remains the same.
Thirdly, unstable kiln conditions and uneven heat distribution within kilns could also have caused the unevenly coloured surfaces of some ceramic products. In such cases, paints would have produced different colours because of fluctuations in firing conditions (oxidised or reduced), which are also related to the sequence and duration of each firing cycle.
Fourthly, one needed to bear in mind that colours in archaeological ceramics fade due to post-depositional conditions. Soil humidity and contamination could have affected the external appearance of pots over time, potentially leading to confusion in the identification of colours on excavated pottery. The effects of deposition on decorative colours have not been thoroughly studied; therefore, this parameter was not explored in relation to the author's original study. It could have been likely that all colour groups were variations of one colour, most likely black, naturally faded into different shades because of long-term deposition. Such a possibility required further investigation; however, the scope of the original project did not include conducting any relevant corrosion tests.
Based on the above observations, it was necessary to clarify that all colours in the figure were visually similar. The chemical composition of the paints used for the decoration of all vessels was most likely the same (as confirmed by a separate microscopic study), and variation among colour groups was due to firing. In the author's work, all colours were grouped by intensity and visual appearance, with darker colours in Group 1, intermediate colours in Group 2, and lighter colours in Group 3. The colour recorded on each vessel was considered the intended colour that the manufacturer intended to produce. This was the darkest colour on the vessel’s surface, and no other colours were observed on the faded spots.
Apart from decorative elements and coating colours, the author's original project also recorded the quality of coatings and slips of decorated fineware. More specifically, coatings were regarded as thick layers of paint that covered a significant portion of the vessel’s surface. Their external appearance could have either been lustrous or matte. By contrast, slips corresponded to two different things. Firstly, genuine slips: thin layers of non-iron-rich suspension derived from the original clay used to produce the vessel. Slips were yellow, and their external appearance was, in most cases, lustrous. Secondly, plain washes: for simplicity, these were recorded as thin and matte ‘slips’ and they were typical ‘blank’ surfaces in the colour of the original clay. In general, all fineware was produced with some form of external treatment. The least elaborate was the thin matte wash, while the most elaborate was the thick lustrous coating. The definitions used in the study of slip and coating quality are summarised below:
Closed ceramic containers, such as amphorae and oinochoai, were coated or slipped only on their external surfaces; however, open vessels, such as kantharoi and skyphoi, were coated or slipped both externally and internally. For simplicity, all coatings and slips recorded and analysed in the project related to the vessels’ external surfaces.