Journal of Archaeological Science (1998) 25, 707–718

Article No. as970268

From Clay to Pots: A Petrographical Analysis of Ceramic

Production in the Callejón de Huaylas, North-Central Andes,
Peru
Isabelle C. Druc*
Département d’anthropologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7

Q. Hugh J. Gwyn
Centre d’applications et de recherches en télédétection (CARTEL), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke,
Québec, Canada J1K 2R1

(Received 24 July 1997, revised manuscript accepted 14 November 1997)

At the cross-roads of ethnoarchaeology and ceramic studies, this article investigates the compositional relationship
between the different constituents of ceramic paste. The question related to provenance and technical studies is how one
can recognize the different raw materials in the ceramic, when both are soils. The context of study is the ceramic
production of three potters of the Callejón de Huaylas in the Peruvian Andes. Detailed petrographical analysis of
unfired earths, and of the pot produced, shows mineral differences between the raw materials. These can be identified
within the ceramic fragment. Variability in granulometry and composition is introduced during the manufacturing
process as a result of the preparation and mixing of the constituents. Differences between manufacturing centres and
clay sources are even more obvious with X-ray fluorescence analysis. The different raw materials used can be identified
in the pot if raw materials are sampled around the centre of production. Analysis of traditional ceramics is essential in
appreciating ceramic technology and its influence upon the mineral and chemical composition of ceramic paste. This
will enable a richer analysis of prehistoric ceramic production and distribution.  1998 Academic Press

Keywords: CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY, PROVENANCE, PETROGRAPHY, CERAMIC PRODUCTION,

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY, PERU.

Introduction Research context and problematic

I
n an attempt to facilitate the petrographical study
and provenance analysis of archaeological cer-
amics, samples of raw materials used by three
contemporary Andean potters and fragments of their
finished pots were subjected to petrographical analysis.
The query underlying this study relates to (1) the
identification of the different raw materials used in
making the ceramic, and (2) the importance of distin-
guishing between them for provenance and ceramic
studies. First, the research context and problematic are
introduced. Next, the study region is described. Last,
the results of the petrographic analysis are presented
and discussed. The analyses anchor the discussion on
the transformations observed during paste prep-
aration. The composition of the different raw materials
and pots are then compared with each other, on an
inter-category level, as an approach to the question of
material variability and provenance. The result of
chemical analysis adds data for the discussion.
*Present address: Peabody Museum, Division of Anthropology,
Yale University, 170 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520-8118.
707
0305–4403/98/070707+12 $30.00/0
Initially, the sampling of raw materials in the Callejón
de Huaylas, in the North-Central Peruvian Andes, was
designed for provenance studies and comparison with
petrographical and chemical analyses of archaeological
ceramics (Druc, 1997). Aside from sampling clays, a
series of interviews was conducted with modern potters
(Druc, 1996). The interviews focused on the first stages
of ceramic production, enquiring about the type, prov-
enance and preparation of raw materials. Potters were
asked what clay they used, what kind of temper was
added, and where the materials came from.
The potters’ answers to the interviews prompted the
present study. The potters said they use two clays, or
‘‘earths’’, distinguished by colour: a yellow earth (tierra
amarilla) and a black earth (tierra negra). Neither of
these clays was designated as a temper and potters
denied using temper. The concept of temper as a
material added to the clay (Shepard, 1968; Balfet,
Fauvet-Berthelot & Monzon, 1983) is not explicit
in these potters’ terminology. Arnold (1993) also
observed this with the Quinua potters he interviewed
 1998 Academic Press
708 I. C. Druc and Q. H. J. Gwyn

in the Central Andes. Thus, for the sake of clarity, the material and the geological environment of the source
potters’ terminology will be kept. It will also avoid the of the raw material. The main point is thus to deter-
mixed connotation of temper as the non-clay material mine which inclusions pertain to the first material
added to the paste and as a geological constituent in (i.e. the black earth) and which to the second (i.e.
the paste (i.e. all the aplastics or non-clay particles, the yellow earth). The region of provenance of each
added and natural). material can then be investigated.
Whatever the terminology, the problem remains.
Can the presence of different clayey earths be detected
in the ceramic product? Can they be differentiated? Petrographical Studies of Andean Ceramic
Can we evaluate the proportion used by the potter? Raw Materials
How do materials and production techniques, as seen
Unlike for Central America, studies in the Peruvian
in petrographical thin sections, influence our interpret-
Andes that seek to understand clay and temper (or raw
ation of the archaeological data? Petrography is the
materials) relationships are few; those involving
technique used to investigate such questions. In this
petrography still less so. To our knowledge this is the
study, the raw materials used are analysed to charac-
first detailed petrographical study of pottery raw mat-
terize their mineral composition, distinguish the clays
erials in the Peruvian Andes. Three mineralogical
(the black and yellow earths) in the produced pot,
studies on modern ceramic raw materials are known
investigate what changes occurred after preparation
for the Peruvian area, two of which are only side
and mixing of the ingredients, and determine how to
studies of larger projects. The major contribution is
distinguish the raw materials in archaeological cer-
that of Arnold (1972), who conducted X-ray diffrac-
amics. Other compositional changes such as those
tion and mineralogical studies of ceramic raw materials
produced during the firing stage are not studied here.
from Quinua, in the Ayacucho Valley, Central Andes.
They concern pyrotechnology rather than provenance,
These analyses were integrated into a wider study of
and are best studied with other techniques. Besides, tra-
the ceramic ecology and production from Quinua
ditional firing is done in open fires, where the tempera-
(Arnold, 1975, 1993). Lavallée (1967) studied ceramic
ture is not high enough to induce changes in the paste
production from Aco, in the Central Andes, and
mineralogy visible under a petrographic microscope.
provides some mineralogical information on clay
Although provenance studies have been based on
composition. There is also the petrographical study by
chemical analysis of ceramics, data from the mineral
Ixer & Lunt (1991) on Inca ware, which includes the
composition and the study of ceramic technology help
analysis of modern ceramic paste for comparison. A
in interpreting the chemical results. Provenance studies
few other petrographical studies exist, but they con-
also need comparative material for the allocation of
cern pre-Hispanic ceramics (e.g. Krzanowski, 1986;
production origin. Usually, raw clays are sampled
Guffroy, 1994).
around the presumed centre of production and com-
We are aware of no petrographical studies of raw
pared to the ceramic fragments. A similarity in com-
materials and modern ceramic paste for the present
positional patterns indicates the same origin. However,
study area. Thus this study provides new data and
comparing ceramic and clay (raw or laboratory fired)
offers an extensive analysis of local raw materials used
yields only approximate results when working with
in ceramic production not previously available. The
coarse wares. As the addition of a second material can
results of these analyses have been used in a much
alter the chemical composition of the clay base, it is
larger study as comparative material for Early Horizon
important to identify the constituents and determine
Chavı́n ware production and distribution (Druc, 1997).
their influence (Neff, Bishop & Arnold, 1988; Neff,
Bishop & Sayre, 1988). It is also important for techno-
logical studies. Adding aplastics helps in the working
of the paste, reducing the clay’s plasticity. It counter-
The Study Region
acts the effect of shrinkage, opens the paste to allow The study is centred in the Callejón de Huaylas, a high
water to circulate and gases to escape, and reinforces inter-Andean valley between the snow-free Black
the clay and ceramic geotechnical properties (Shepard, Cordillera and the snow-capped peaks of the White
1968; Velde & Druc, in press). Finally, the identi- Cordillera (Figure 1). It is situated in the Ancash
fication of the number of raw materials used by a Department, 350 km north-east of Lima, the Peruvian
potter is an indication of technological knowledge and capital. The valley has a north–south orientation and a
their region of provenance delimits the clay-catchment gentle declivity, with altitudes of 3200 m near Huaraz
area expected around a ceramic centre. to 2800 m at the northern end. The valley bottom is
Aplastic identification is usually done through 500 m to 1 km wide between the towns of Huaraz and
petrographical analysis. The petrographic microscope Caraz, with a 100 km stretch along the Santa River
allows for the study of aplastic inclusions larger than providing fairly flat arable land. The Santa later cuts
0·02 mm (the limit between clay and silt in the geology left through the Cordillera Negra to run to the Pacific.
scale). The clay is too fine for the instrument’s resol- The Callejón is also the most important Andean valley
ution. Aplastics yield information on the parent of the Ancash Department. Its temperate microclimate
 From Clay to Pots 709

The present limit of the glaciers is 5000 m, but old

moraines attest to a lower limit at around 3200 m
Peru (Bodenlos & Ericksen, 1955). Potters collect their clays
at sources situated along this ancient limit. Clay

Rio
resources are 3 to 12 km away from the workshop,
Ancash
while yellow earth is found closer (Druc, 1996). There
Lima
is also an abundant supply of water in the White
W

Ma
hit
Cordillera, a necessity in pottery production, and wood

ran
Santa

~ on
Rio eC is found in the valley for firing the pottery. In contrast,
Huaylas ord no good ceramic clay sources are reported along the
ille
Caraz ra Black Cordillera side of the valley. The climate is also
favourable to pottery production in this Andean val-
Ca

Yungay
lle

Musho
ley; it is dry and sunny enough to produce ceramic
Bl

jo

Nep ~
ac

Rio ena
nd

from May until September.

kC

Marcara-Huaricoto
eH

Pariahuanca
Traditional production of cooking ware and liquid
or

Tarica
dil

ua

Rio
containers uses the coiling technique. The walls are
yla
ler

Casma HUARAZ
' de
Chavin
a

Recuay
Huantar straightened with the paddle-and-anvil technique and
polished with a pebble. No slip is applied. The pots are
ey then fired in open fires. Traditional olla potters are
ua
r m
slowly losing work, except in the two producing
Rio
H villages of Taricá and Pariahuanca. This is the result of
Pacific
Ocean
lower demand for this product, which competes with
N plastic containers and aluminium ware, the latter being
za
ale

preferred for cooking with gas and as a mark of social

ort

status. Ceramics are indeed best sold or traded for

oF

grain in more rural parts, where wood-fire cooking is

Ri

0 20 40
km still the norm.
Figure 1. Map of the study region.

is favourable to agriculture and much of the sierra

population is concentrated there.
The region is already well known for its ceramic
production and the quality of its clay. Two villages
near Huaraz are ceramic production centres: Taricá
and Pariahuanca. Two of the cases presented here are
drawn from these potters’ populations. A few indi-
vidual potters are also found further north in the
valley. Daniel Marquez from Musho (Case 3) is one
of them.
All potters and ceramic-producing centres are situ-
ated along the western slopes of the White Cordillera.
There are no potters along the Black Cordillera slope,
other than tile or mud-brick producers. The geology of
the Callejón de Huaylas partly explains this situation.
The White Cordillera is formed of a granitic and
granodioritic batholith surfacing in the Callejón,
intruded into volcanic and sedimentary sequences of
the valley (Egeler & de Booy, 1956; Cobbing et al.,
1981). The tonalites and granodiorites composed of
biotite and hornblende, zoned plagioclase and potash
feldspar are partially metamorphosed into mica schist.
Due to seismic activity, the morainic dams blocking
glacial lakes often break, flooding the valley with
alluvium and till debris. The weathering action and
the alluvial and glacial deposits form a residual clay
of good pottery quality, found in numerous small
deposits. These are easily accessible along the eroded
slopes of the Cordillera.
Methodology
The two raw materials used by the potters were
sampled along with fragments of the fired product, the
pot. For each potter, the analysis set consisted of
samples of both raw materials, and a ceramic fragment
made out of them. Thin sections were made for petro-
graphical analysis. A thin section is a slice cut from rock
or consolidated soil, glued to a glass slide and thinned by
successive polishing to 0·03 mm thickness. Minerals this
thin are transparent to light and their optical properties
can be studied with a petrographic microscope in both
normally and crossed polarized transmitted light. Iden-
tification of the lithic fragments and minerals depends
on their optical properties, shape and texture, which
are characteristic for each mineral type. The study of
ceramic thin sections follow the same methods. For this
study the ceramics were cut perpendicular to the surface
and impregnated with epoxy to protect the grains from
being torn away during the preparation of the thin
section. The epoxy is easily distinguished from the
ceramic and raw materials.
The mineral composition (lithic fragments and indi-
vidual minerals) of each thin section was recorded in a
matrix form, following a presence/absence list of the
most commonly occurring grain species. The matrix
constitutes an analytical criterion allowing for com-
parison between thin sections. Exceptional mineral
occurrences are noted to complete the individual
study. Qualitative observations on texture and grain
710 I. C. Druc and Q. H. J. Gwyn

Table 1. Wentworth grain size classification terminology (modified
after Folk, 1965)
ö Grain size

1 Granule (2–4 mm)
0 Very coarse sand (1–2 mm)
1 Coarse sand (0·5–l mm)
2 Medium sand (0·25–0·5 mm)
3–4 Very fine and fine sand (0·063–0·25 mm)
5 Coarse silt (0·031–0·063 mm)
6–9 Clay (<0·002 mm) and fine silt (0·002–0·031 mm)
distribution in the ceramic paste are made for the
ceramic samples for further technological studies. The
petrographic analysis focuses on identifying the differ-
ent mineralogical constituents and the granulometry of
each sample. The mineralogical identification allows
comparisons between the composition of the two
earths and the fired product, while the granulometry
data is informative about the variability related to the
paste preparation.
Grain sizes are based on the Wentworth classi-
fication and the terminology used is shown in Table 1.
The examples described below serve to illustrate the
clay–pot relationship. However, many more samples
of modern clay and pots were analysed, both petro-
graphically and chemically, along with archaeological
material. To enlarge the discussion, we present, follow-
ing the petrographical analysis, an SEM analysis of
three of the samples presented here as well as an
overview of the results of the chemical analysis of the
raw materials and modern pots. The chemical analyses
were performed using X-ray fluorescence with an
energy dispersive device; the JOEL SEM microanalysis
used the AN10000 Link program.
Results and Discussion
This section presents the results of the petrographical
analysis of three potters, emphasizing variations
specific to each case. A brief description of the context
is given before going into more technical and compo-
sitional matters. Petrographical observations are
summarized in Tables 2–4.
Case 1: Nicanor Zaavedra, Taricá
Nicanor Zaavedra is a senior potter of Taricá, the
larger of the two villages in which the whole popu-
lation is engaged in ceramic production. Traditional
wares produced in Taricá include cooking pots (ollas)
and maize toasters (cancheros). They are sold in the
markets of the valley or traded in the hamlets at higher
altitudes.

Table 2. Clay composition

Lithics Minerals
Provenance Sedimentary Metamorphic Volcanic Clear Mafic

S35 Vicos, Shale 3–6* Quartzite Basalt 2–3* Mica

Nicanor Z. silstone andesite plagioclase pyroxene
(Taricá) clay pellet 4–6* opaque
quartz-arenite 2–3*
S48 Vicos, Shale Mica schist — Strained-quartz Muscovite
Francisco F. quartzite plagioclase pyroxene
(Pariahuanca)
S45 Yanamito, Shale — — 2* Mica
Daniel M. plagioclase opaque
(Musho)

*Granulometry is expressed in the ö (phi) scale which corresponds to the Wentworth classification in Table 1.

Table 3. Yellow earth composition

Lithics Minerals
Provenance Sedimentary Metamorphic Volcanic Clear Mafic

S36 Taricá Quartz-arenite Quartzite — Quartz with Muscovite

5–6* extinction pyroxene
sandstone zoned opaque
clay pellets plagioclase
S47 Pariahuanca Quartz-arenite (plagioclase) Pyroxene
quartzite 4–5* Schist opaque
S44 Musho Siltstone — — 2–4* Mica
plagioclase pyroxene

*Granulometry is expressed in the ö (phi) scale which corresponds to the Wentworth classification in Table 1.

Table 4. Paste composition of fired pots
Lithics
Potter and Sedimentary Metamorphic
site (
1–3)* (
1–3)*
S38 Zaavedra, Quartzite Y Schist B
Taricá shale B tectonized
quartz-arenite quartzite B
Y
S50 Flores, Quartzite Y Muscovite
Pariahuan shale B schist B
ca quartz-arenite quartzite Y
Y tectonized
quartzite B
S46 Marquez, Muscovite Micaschist B
Musho shale B
quartzite Y
*Granulometry is expressed in the ö (phi) scale which corresponds to the Wentworth classification in Table 1.
B=black earth, Y=yellow earth.
Nicanor Zaavedra, like the other traditional potters
of Taricá, acquires his black earth from Vicos, 7 h
(about 9 km) away on foot up in the White Cordillera.
The yellow earth is local, from Cerro Huamantanga,
near Taricá. Analyses show that both materials contain
non-plastic mineral and lithic inclusions, but in differ-
ing proportions and composition types. The black
earth is a hard, well-compacted sediment, that must be
crushed with a hammer. When hydrated, it becomes
plastic. The materials are ground separately and sieved,
the large inclusions are cobbed by hand. They are then
mixed together with water and worked until the desired
homogeneity and consistency are obtained. Nicanor
Zaavedra is helped by a young daughter who is respon-
sible for polishing the wares with a pebble. Two of
Nicanor’s sons have started their own workshop in
another part of the village. However, they specialize in
wheel-made ware (cups and teapots) produced with a
refined clay and fired in an open brick kiln.
Three of Nicanor’s samples were analysed under
a petrographic microscope: unprepared black earth
(S35), unprepared yellow earth (S36), and a fired olla
fragment (S38). Their composition is described below
and presented in Tables 2–4.
S35—Composition of the Vicos black earth. S35 is
predominantly composed of yellow and black shale
fragments (35 of the 45 grains in the thin section,
Figure 2(a)). The other lithic fragments are siltstone,
fine quartz sandstone, one fine-grained quartzite of
granule size, volcanic clasts, secondary calcite grains
and clay pellets. Some siltstone fragments grade into
claystone, there are shale fragments with silt bed-
ding and shale with laminations of mica plates. Shale
fragments range in size from medium to very coarse
sand and granules (0·5–4 mm). The volcanic and
orthoquartzitic clasts are bordered by a clay crust.
The volcanic clasts have a trachytic texture with
plagioclase, pyroxene and olivine; some are more
From Clay to Pots 711
Minerals
Volcanic Clear Mafic Ratio
(0–3)* (0–4)* (0–4)* B/Y
Basalt B Plagioclase Muscovite 1/1
andesite B pyroxene
opaque
(2–4)* Biotite 2/1
— opaque
— Strained- Biotite 2/1
quartz B opaque
zoned-plagioclase
Y
andesitic, with no mafic minerals. Quartz and some
plagioclase, pyroxene, white mica and opaque minerals
are also found in the black earth. There is no biotite or
hornblende visible in the thin section. The rock frag-
ments are rounded to subrounded. The shape of the
grains, diversity of composition, granulometry, and
compassion of the material indicate the source as an
unsorted partially cemented clay-rich sediment.
S36—Composition of the Taricá yellow earth. The
yellow earth (Figure 2(b)) used as a second material
is a mix of clay and sand of yellow grey colour in
crossed polarization. The thin section shows a few
large arenaceous fragments: fine quartz-arenite with
mica cement, sandstone and fine-grained quartzite. The
latter are similar to the quartzite fragments seen in the
black earth, but without any clay crust and more
angular. There are some clay pellets and secondary
calcite grains. The majority of the inclusions are how-
ever monomineralic grains: many individual angular
quartz grains with rolling extinction, potash feldspar,
zoned plagioclase, fine white mica flakes, orthopy-
roxene and a few opaque minerals. There are no shale,
volcanic or intrusive rock fragments, and no biotite or
hornblende crystals visible in the thin section. Quartz
grains represent 70% of the inclusions and are silt to
fine sand-sized. The other inclusions range from silt to
coarse sand. There are no very coarse sand and granule
grains except for fragments of quartz-arenite and or-
thoquartzite. Inclusions are subrounded to subangular.
S38—Composition of Nicanor Zaavedra’s pot. The
lithic fragments (lithics) in the ceramic paste are sedi-
mentary fragments of shale and quartz-arenite; meta-
morphic fragments comprising many occurrences of
quartzite and mica schist; and fine-grained volcanic
fragments (Figure 2(c)). One stressed quartzite is
present. Granulometry ranges from coarse silt to
coarse sand, with a few very coarse grains. There are
712 I. C. Druc and Q. H. J. Gwyn
Figure 2. Photomicrographs of raw materials and ceramic from Case
1, Taricá. Crossed polarized light. (a) Vicos black earth (S35) shows
yellow compacted shale fragment and a coarse sedimentary volcanic
clast. (b) Yellow earth (S36) shows very coarse quartzite in a silty
matrix. (c) Nicanor Zaavedra’s pot (S38) showing full width of the
ceramic wall (exterior surface is on the darker side). A black
compacted shale fragment lies beside a quartzite grain (lower left)
and silty shales are embedded in a clay matrix with many clear
minerals and oxide grains.
no intrusive rock fragments. The individual minerals
consist largely of quartz and feldspar, with many
plagioclases. The mafic minerals are pyroxene and fine
mica and some opaque minerals. There is no horn-
blende or biotite. The matrix is red in cross-polarized
light compared to its yellow colour when unfired. It is
a well-compacted material and grain distribution is
homogeneous, resulting from adequate paste kneading.
Analysis of 301 grains in thin section yields 69%
quartz and feldspars, 8% mafic and opaque minerals,
and 23% lithics. Shales from the black earth comprise
94% of the lithics; however, four of the lithic grains are
orthoquartzite which do not come from the black
earth. Also, arenaceous material is much more com-
mon and smaller than the shale fragments. Image
analysis reveals that the monomineralic grains account
for only 3·77% of image surface area, while the clay-
shale fragments total 7·4% (with only 3 shale fragments
in the image field). The rest is the clay matrix of the
ceramic paste.
Concluding remarks for Case 1. As observed in thin
section, the yellow earth is more sandy than the black
earth. It is an unsorted sediment, with loose grains in
a clay-sand matrix (similar to an unconsolidated feld-
spathic quartz wacke). The black earth is a shale sedi-
ment with a few arenaceous and volcanic clasts. The
mixing and firing of the paste yield a composite compo-
sition, with a somewhat finer granulometry than in the
original raw materials. This is explained by the prep-
aration procedure, including the grinding, sieving and
cobbing of the coarser fragments. All granules of shale
have been crushed or eliminated. The large orthoquartz-
ite fragments are either greatly reduced in size or cobbed
while sieving. Crushing yields smaller multigrain frag-
ments and individual quartz and feldspar grains.
The ceramic has a bimodal grain distribution, with
fine to medium sand-size mineral grains and medium
to coarse lithic fragments. This bimodality suggests
the presence of two constituents. The fine fraction is
usually attributed to the clay, the coarse to the temper.
An obvious explanation would be that the fine quartz
and feldspar grains are natural inclusions in the clay
and the coarse lithic fragments pertain to the temper
material. On this basis, a provenance study would look
for a sandy clay source and for some coarse quartzitic
sand as temper.
However, analysis of the raw materials yields a more
complex picture. The coarser felsic grains in the paste
come, as noted, from the yellow earth, since there is no
quartz and feldspar of similar size in the black earth.
All the lithic fragments (the coarse fraction) come from
the black earth except for a few coarse quartzite
fragments. Shale and the fine-grained volcanic frag-
ments are found only in the black earth and therefore
come from this material. The remaining inclusions, in
the fine fraction range, come from both materials, with
a higher percentage of clay-rich grains coming from the
black earth and more arenaceous inclusions coming
from the yellow earth. Also, some inclusions are only
found in the ceramic, such as the strained quartz, and
not in the raw material samples. However, other thin
 From Clay to Pots 713

sections of the Vicos black earth do show fragments

of strained quartzite, as well as large biotite flakes.
Material sampling and internal variability are thus
responsible for their absence in the raw material
analysed here.
Analysis of this sample shows that no exclusive limit
exists between the raw materials used when both are of
a mineral nature derived from geological deposits.
Composition and granulometry of inclusions are indi-
cators that must be correctly interpreted. In the case of
the analysis of archaeological material, this interpret-
ation is best supported by a stratified sampling of the
soils around the production centre. This may help
identify the different materials used in making the
ceramic and their possible catchment areas.

Case 2: Francisco Flores, Pariahuanca

Pariahuanca is a small village 4 km north of Taricá, a
little away from and above the main valley road. It is
the smaller of the two pottery-producing villages of the
valley, after Taricá. The pots produced are ollas and
big corn beer jars. The latter are a specialization in
Pariahuanca and are not produced in Taricá. Pro-
duction is, however, less intensive than in Taricá,
except for a few potters, like Francisco Flores. The
manufacturing process is the same as in Taricá. The
black earth also comes from Vicos, but the yellow
earth is local.

S48—Composition of the Vicos black earth. The clay

matrix is very fine with few monomineralic silt and fine
sand grains (quartz, alkali feldspar, white mica and
pyroxene) and rare lithic fragments: fine to medium
sand grains of shale, medium sand of quartzite and
mica schist (Figure 3(a)). There is one coarse strained
quartz. The sediment includes long carbonate and
oxidized spurs.

S47—Composition of the Chopijirca yellow earth. The

yellow earth is a yellow-grey clay with a few medium to
coarse sand sedimentary and metamorphic rock frag-
ments (quartz-arenite, equigranular orthoquartzite,
quartzite, quartz-feldspar mica schist) and individual
minerals (quartz, feldspar, pyroxene, opaque minerals,
rare plagioclase) (Figure 3(b)). There are no shale
fragments and no volcanic clasts. The size of the lithic
fragments ranges from medium to very coarse sand.
There are seven lithic fragments in the section, and
15% clear monomineralic grains. The latter are of fine
to medium sand including a few coarse sand quartz
grains.
S50—Composition of Francisco Flores’s pot. The
ceramic is composed of many quartz and feldspar
grains, mafic minerals, and lithic fragments (micaceous
shale, quartz arenite, quartzite, and stressed ortho-
quartzite). There are fine oxidized biotite flakes. Min-
eral grain size ranges from fine to medium sand, lithics
from fine to very coarse sand.
Figure 3. Photomicrographs of raw materials and ceramic from Case
2, Pariahuanca. Crossed polarized light. (a) Vicos black earth (S48)
shows a black shale clast with silt inclusions in a clayey matrix. (b)
Yellow earth (S47) with a medium quartz arenite in a matrix of clay
with fine quartz and feldspar grains. (c) Francisco Flores’s pot (S50)
showing medium to coarse silty shale fragments in a matrix of clay
with many silt and sand inclusions.
Like in Taricá’s pot (S38), both the black and yellow
earths provide clay particles to the ceramic paste and
clear inclusions. The quartz and feldspar also come
from crushed fragments of orthoquartzite and sand-
stone in the yellow earth (Figure 3(c)). The shale and
schist fragments come from the black earth.
714 I. C. Druc and Q. H. J. Gwyn
Table 5. Si/Al ratio in the raw material and ceramic samples from
Pariahuanca
S47 S48 S50
Sample yellow earth black earth ceramic
Mean 2·60 1·97 2·02
.. 0·72 0·19 0·59
SEM analysis of S50 clay matrix. Both raw materials
present a high content of clay particles. Thus, a scanning
electron microscope (SEM) analysis of the clay matrix
was performed to see how the clay Si/AI ratio differed
from one sample to another. For each sample, the elec-
tron beam focused on four different spots free of aplas-
tics. The mean and standard deviation (..) of the
microanalysis results are presented in Table 5. The yel-
low earth Si/AI ratio (S47) is in general much higher than
in the black earth (S48), while the ratio in the ceramic
thin section (S50) is intermediate. The latter also shows
more variability from one spot to the other. This reflects
the dual composition of the clay matrix with clay par-
ticles coming from both the yellow and the black earths.
These Si/AI ratios are indicative of the type of clay
used. Illite Si/AI ratios range between 1·53 and 2·62,
while the ratio in montmorillonite is between 2·58 and
3·47 (Newman, 1987). From this, we see that the Vicos
black earth (S48) could be classified as an illite type-
clay, and the yellow earth (S47) as a mixture of illite
and montmorillonite. Consequently, the ceramic paste
is composed of these two type-clays.
Concluding remarks for Case 2. The ceramic compo-
sition observed in thin section S50 does not fully
correspond to the observed composition of both raw
materials (compare photomicrographs in Figure 3(a),
(b) & (c)). The shale fragments in the ceramic are not
found in the original black earth sample. However, we
know from previous analyses that they come from the
black earth, because the yellow earth used does not
contain shale fragments. The difference observed be-
tween the raw materials and the finished product could
be explained by internal sampling variability (within
the pot) and production variability (the potter used
a different batch to produce the pot we sampled).
Stressed quartzite is present in the black earth along
with shale fragments. This is seen in another Vicos thin
section (not illustrated here), but is not found in the
yellow earth samples. Without comparative material,
these fragments could have been incorrectly assigned as
coming from a different source.
The SEM analyses show the variability in Si/AI ratio
between the three materials. The black earth has the
smallest standard deviation, expressing good homo-
geneity. The yellow earth variability in Si/AI ratio
is greatest, closely followed by the ceramic results.
Because of the similarities of these results from samples
of different provenance caution has to be exercised in
identifying clay sources in bulk and spot analyses.
Case 3: Daniel Marquez, Musho
Daniel Marquez is one of the two potters still produc-
ing in the small village of Musho and the surrounding
area. Musho is linked to the Santa valley below by a
dirt road and is about 40 km from Taricá. D. Marquez
produces cooking pots once or twice a year. The rest
of the time, he works in his fields and repairs shoes. No
member of his family participates in the pottery pro-
duction. He acquires his black earth from Mount
Yanamito, half an hour away (about 3 km) whereas
the yellow earth is local.
S45—Composition of the black earth from Yanamito.
This earth is composed of silt and shale. There are
many very fine silt-sized quartz, feldspar and mica
flakes, and numerous shale fragments (Figure 4(a)).
The sediment is not well compacted, especially the
shales, as compared to the shale fragments in the
Taricá sample S35 from Vicos. Shale clasts are of
medium to coarse sand. Monomineralic grains include
quartz, fine sand-sized alkali feldspar and plagioclase,
and a few opaque minerals. There are only 15 mono-
mineralic grains of sand in the thin section.
S44—Composition of the yellow earth from Piscuy-
Musho. This earth is a yellow grey sediment with a high
clay content (87%, Figure 4(b)). There are no lithic
fragments except for a medium, round and altered
siltstone grain. The main aplastics are fine to medium
sand quartz, alkali feldspar and plagioclase, and very
fine sand mica and pyroxene. The inclusions are
coarser, and the clay matrix in the yellow earth is finer
than in the black earth from Yanamito.
S46—Composition of Daniel Marquez’s pot. The cer-
amic thin section shows a silty matrix composed of
quartz, feldspar and mica. The lithic inclusions are fine
to very coarse sand shale, fine sand mica-quartz-schist,
and medium sand orthoquartzite fragments (Figure
4(c)). The main monomineralic grains are fine to coarse
sand quartz, alkali feldspar, zoned plagioclase, and
biotite. No pyroxene are visible and some of the quartz
are strained.
Concluding remarks for Case 3. In this case, the yellow
earth is distinguished from the black earth in the
ceramic thin section by the coarser granulometry of the
individual clear inclusions. The angularity of the large
quartz grains also attests to the grinding of the material
during paste preparation. The shale fragments are very
fine to very coarse sand. Their abundance in the clay
matrix and the size range suggest their natural presence
in the original black earth material.
The analysis, however, shows that both raw
materials are clays and neither could be classified as
particularly sandy as might be expected. The striking
difference is in their petrography which shows a higher

Figure 4. Photomicrographs of raw materials and ceramic from Case
3, Musho. Crossed polarized light. (a) Yanamito black earth (S45)
showing poorly compacted shale fragments in silty clay sediment. (b)
Yellow earth (S44) shows a clay sediment with fine quartz and
feldspar inclusions. (c) Daniel Marquez’s pot (S46) with medium to
coarse shale fragments.
sand-sized quartz and feldspar content in the yellow
earth and the presence of shale fragments in the black
earth.
Ratios of raw materials
The ratios of the black and yellow earths used in the
production were determined through observation and
From Clay to Pots 715
interviews with the potters. Nicanor Zaavedra (Taricá,
Case 1), uses one measure of black earth for one of
yellow earth. However, Francisco Flores (Pariahuanca,
Case 2) and Daniel Marquez (Musho, Case 3) use two
measures of black earth for one of yellow earth. How
can these ratios be measured if one looks only at the
ceramic thin section? Can we deduce material propor-
tions from petrographical or SEM analyses? It would
be very useful to be able to do this in ceramic studies.
From the case studies, we see that when two clays, or
when clayey and sandy materials are mixed, their ratios
cannot be correctly measured.
In the ceramic thin section from Musho (S46), the
proportion of Yanamito black earth to yellow earth
appears higher than might be expected because of the
2:1 mix (Case 3, Figure 4(c)). The same was observed
for Case 2. Nicanor 1:1 ratio (Case 1), however, is not
obvious in the ceramic thin section (S38). There
appears to be more yellow earth than the proportions
would suggest. After mixing the raw materials, two
aspects become important, the clay mineralogy in the
black and yellow earths and the aplastics. This is well
illustrated with the SEM analysis of the clay matrix of
Francisco’s pot (Case 2) in which the mean Si/AI ratios
in black and yellow earths partly overlap (Table 5).
Granulometry of inclusions can also mislead the
material attribution. In the usual way, one intuitively
allots the fine inclusions to the clay and the coarse ones
to the temper, along with the lithic fragments. However
as we saw, these rules cannot be applied blindly (Tables
2–4). This ambiguity makes it more difficult to estimate
raw materials proportions. It seems that measuring the
volume of temper added to the clay is best left to
non-soil tempers, such as crushed bone, shell or even
rock tempers. Experience with local geology and pot-
tery tradition, as well as clay sampling can, however,
ensure a clearer interpretation of the ceramic data.
Raw materials and pots comparison
The mineral composition and granulometry of the black
and yellow earths, and pot thin sections allow qualitative
intracategory comparisons (Tables 2–4). They are in-
dicative of the compositional variability expected in the
region being studied and within the materials used.
Understanding this variability is important as it influ-
ences the accuracy of the provenance attribution. The
greater the variability, the less specific the fingerprint
and the more difficult the provenance designation.
In all three cases, the black earth is characterized by
its shaley composition and the presence of small quartz
and feldspar grains. Two of the black earth samples
come from the same source (Vicos), while the third has
a different provenance. Yellow earth composition is
different in all three cases. However, all yellow
materials are a clay-sand mix, characterized by an
orthoquartzitic composition.
Although different materials are used, two of
the three ceramic thin sections from Musho and
716 I. C. Druc and Q. H. J. Gwyn
Pariahuanca’s pots appear quite similar (Figures 3(c)
and 4(c), S46 and S50). The shale fragments in particu-
lar account for the similarity, although there are slight
differences in compaction and bedding orientation.
Ceramics S46 and S50 would have been put together in
the same petrogroup if an analysis had been conducted
with no contextual knowledge of their provenance.
Taricá and Pariahuanca pots, though made in
centres 4 km distant and using the same black earth
source, do not compare as well. This suggests an overall
similarity in clay bed composition along the White
Cordillera between the Vicos and Yanamito sources
(35 km), with local intrasource variations. Intersource
variability is underlined by the presence of stressed
quartzite, sand-size biotite flakes and small pyroxene in
the Taricá and Pariahuanca material, while they are
absent from the Musho samples. Intrasource variability
is illustrated in the two Vicos samples (Case 1 & 2). In the
Vicos black earth used by Nicanor, the shale fragments
are more compact, and there are volcanic and ortho-
quartzitic clasts. In contrast, the Vicos black earth used
by Francisco shows a higher clay content, less quartz and
less compact shales. Though there is clearly some intra-
source variability, the greatest variability in the ceramic
thin section is introduced by the addition of the yellow
earth, which is local and varies in granulometry and
composition. This result is to be expected in an analysis
of variance, that is that there is more variability between
sites than within sites.
These examples show the compositional variability
that exists in the same production area, but also the
similarity over a wider region. Taricá and Pariahuanca
are nearby villages. They do not show strong geo-
logical differences that would serve as discriminating
mineral factors between the two ceramic centres.
Besides, the two centres use the same black earth
source (Vicos). In this case, the production area in-
cludes both villages, encompassing a surface of
25 sq km. The local topography and geology allows
reduction of this production area to a 12 km strip
along the Santa river up to the clay resource area in the
White Cordillera. However, petrographical analysis
showed that the production area from Musho should
also be included in this production area, because its
ceramic composition is only poorly distinguished from
the other two production centres 35 km away.
Because the production centres and workshops are
located in a restricted geographical area with similar
geology, these results are not surprising. However, we had
expected stronger differences between Musho and the two
ceramic centres of Taricá and Pariahuanca. Production
technology is also the same, as is the care given to
preparing the raw materials. Of the workshops visited
(not all of which are presented here), none refined the
black earth or the yellow earth, or ground it finer. Hence,
similarity of granulometry is also observed. In this case,
provenance is identified by the mineralogy and not by a
particular preparation technique that would lead to a
fine-grained or coarse-grained ceramic paste.
EDXRF analysis of modern materials from the Callejón
de Huaylas
The three workshops studied show distinct if limited
mineral differences, but these were still insufficient to
distinguish one production centre from the other. How
could this be improved with EDXRF analyses? Chemi-
cal analysis often reveals trace and minor element
differences not observable in petrography, and in effect
they constitute an independent set of variables. Trace
elements are also particularly sensible to local varia-
tions. These observations may lead to different ceramic
clusters and interpretations.
Chemical analyses were performed of 22 Early Hor-
izon ceramics (900–200 ) from the site of Huaricoto,
near the village of Marcara, and 26 samples of black
earth, yellow earth and modern ceramics from Taricá,
Pariahuanca, Marcara, Musho and a few other work-
shops in the Callejón de Huaylas. The 17 chemical
variables on which the statistical analysis was based
were: Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, K, Ca, Ti, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni,
Cu, Zn, Sr and Zr. (The chemical data are readily
available from I.C.D.) A principal components analysis
was first conducted to extract the factors which later
served as independent variables in a cluster analysis.
Thus, inter-element relationships (significant in chemical
analysis) are taken into account, which wouldn’t have
been the case if the cluster analysis had been done
directly. The six principal components account for 81%
of the total variance: PC1=28·84%, PC2=15·50%;
PC3=12·14%; PC4=10·10%; PC5=8·08%; PC6=6·48%.
The main contributors to PC1 are CaO–MnO and MgO,
and similarly Al2O3 and Cu–Zr are the principal con-
stituents of PC2. The clustering centroid method was
used with the first five principal components as vari-
ables. Two other methods (Wards and Complete link)
were evaluated, which gave essentially similar results.
Figure 5 shows the dendrogram of the hierarchical
clustering of the 48 archaeological and modern
samples. The samples are clustered in five groups, with
a few loose samples at the bottom of the tree. The first
group is composed of 18 of 22 archaeological ceramics
and a black earth sample from Taricá. The second
cluster groups eight samples, two of which are ceramics
from Huaricoto; the rest are yellow earth, unfired paste
mix and fine clay samples. The following two groups
down the tree are composed of black and yellow earth
samples and modern ceramics. The last cluster groups
two ceramics, one ancient and one modern. Finally,
four samples are not linked to any group. These are a
modern ceramic, a yellow and a black earth, and an
archaeological ceramic.
We are interested here in the clustering of the modern
ceramics and raw materials. The classification of the
archaeological ceramics of Huaricoto is discussed else-
where (Druc, 1997). We see from the dendrogram (Fig-
ure 5), that the first group of raw materials (S32 to S36)
consists of yellow earth samples, one unprepared black
earth, and two paste mixes from Taricá. Two ancient
 From Clay to Pots 717

H1 similarity between S47 (unprepared yellow earth) and

H9
H13
S50 (modern ceramic) from the same workshop in
H14 Pariahuanca. The black earth used in the paste mix to
H18
H20 make this pot (S48) is found higher in the tree, along
H16 with the Vicos black earths. As observed in petro-
Huaricoto H19
ceramics H11 graphy, the Taricá black earth (S35) is different from
H8
H10
the other Vicos samples. It is found at the bottom of
H7 the tree, apart from the yellow earth (S36) and the pot
H17
H22
(S38). The Musho yellow earth and pot samples are
H3 found lower down the tree (S46, S44), indicating their
H5
H12 dissimilarity with the other samples. However, the
H21 Musho black earth (S45) is classified with the other
' FC
Tarica S26
H15 black earths higher up, confirming the similarity ob-
' FC
Tarica
' M
Tarica
S32
S27
served in petrography. If only pots are compared,
' Y
Tarica S30 Taricá and Pariahuanca productions (S50, S38) are in
' M
Tarica
Marcara Y
S37
S41 the same group, while the products from Musho are in
' Y
Tarica S36 a different one. The differences between the production
H6
' VB
Tarica S29 areas (Taricá/Pariahuanca and Musho) are ‘‘visible’’
Pariah. VB S48 within the dendrogram (Figure 5). This was less
Marcara VB S40
Marcara VB S39 evident when the petrography was examined alone.
Marcara M S42
Pariah. M S49
Musho B S45
Marcara P S43
' FP
Tarica
Pariah. Y
S28
S47
Conclusion
Pariah. P S50
Yungay P S53 Three cases from different ceramic production centres
' P
Tarica
' P
S31
S38
within the Callejón de Huaylas have been presented. In
Tarica
' P
Tarica S38-2 all cases, the raw materials are sandy-clay soils of slightly
Caraz P
H2
S55
varying composition. Case 1 (Taricá) shows that the
Musho P S46 granulometry and composition of the raw materials can
' B
Tarica S35
Musho Y S44 help identify the origin of the constituents of the ceramic
H4 paste (as coming from the black or the yellow earth).
Figure 5. Classification of archaeological and modern ceramics and However, for the fine fraction with quartz and feldspar,
raw materials from the Callejón de Huaylas. H=archaeological no secure attribution can be made, as those minerals are
ceramics from Huaricoto, P=modern pot, B=black earth, found both in the black and the yellow earths. In Case 2
VB=Vicos black earth, FC=fine clay for tourist ware, Y=yellow (Pariahuanca), sampling variability is shown to be a
earth, M=unfired mix, FP=fine pot (tourist ware). Hierarchical
clustering, centroid method. source of misinterpretation if only a few black earth and
ceramics are compared. SEM analyses of the clay matrix
of the black and yellow earths and ceramic also showed
ceramics are linked to this group. The next four items differences in homogeneity and composition. The yellow
(S29 to S39, Figure 5) are Vicos black earth samples earth is least homogenous, and consequently the ceramic
from different workshops in Taricá, Marcara, and presents mixed clay ratios. In Case 3 (Musho), both
Pariahuanca. The proximity of these samples in the clus- black and yellow earths are clays with similar amounts of
ter indicates a similar composition, hence a fairly homo- aplastics but their petrography differs, with shale in the
geneous composition throughout the black earth source. black earth and sand-sized quartz and feldspar in the
The next two samples are a paste mix from Marcara and yellow earth. All three cases show slightly different paste
Pariahuanca, and a black earth from Musho (S45). S43, compositions that can only be interpreted correctly with
a sandy clay from further north in the Callejón, is also respect to their provenance and production, if samples of
linked to this group. The next group (S28 to S38-2) the different earths are available. As for the raw materials
includes modern ceramics and two yellow earths. S38 ratios, the analyses showed that in two out of three cases,
and S38-2 are from the same centre in Taricá though they the difference in material proportions could be evaluated.
are not linked as closely as might be expected. The last However, approximate ratios can be estimated from
samples show less similarity with the other samples and looking at the ceramic thin section alone. Concerning the
link latest to the tree. This clustering shows the simi- identification of raw materials in the ceramic paste, it was
larities between the yellow earth and the ceramics as shown that the modes in the granulometric distri-
compared to black earth and ceramics. This is also seen bution curve can help detect the presence of different
in the group of yellow earth, paste mix and ceramics materials. However, one must consider the possible
versus the Vicos black earth group. mixing of two soils, as presented here, and not interpret
The samples analysed in this paper are dispersed in the bimodality as the expression of the clay on one side
the second half of the dendrogram. There is a strong and temper on the other.
718 I. C. Druc and Q. H. J. Gwyn
Petrographical analysis works very well for classi-
fication and yields useful information on ceramic pro-
duction and technology, including provenance. For
provenance studies it is important to use other analytic
methods concurrently. This is well illustrated in our
study of the chemical data. Black earths cluster to-
gether, indicating similar composition throughout the
region, while yellow earths and ceramics are often
grouped together with subgroups related to differences
in production centres. This corresponds to a pattern of
production where several centres acquire one material
at the same place, while using a more local material as
second constituent unique to each centre. The results of
the cluster analysis also show that soils compare better
with ceramics than raw clays. Thus, soil sampling (and
not only clay sourcing) around the supposed centre of
production may yield interesting information for both
provenance and technology. However, the best com-
parative materials for coarse ware are other vessels of
known provenance.
Besides the satisfaction of tracing the raw materials
to the finished product, this study brings a special
awareness of the ‘‘underlying’’ materials in the pots,
and of the ceramics as technological products. Al-
though direct comparison from present to past is not
possible, the hypothesis of two-clay ceramics can be
proposed for the pre-Hispanic production of the
region. This possibility can be tested along with a
geology survey. The case of ceramic production in the
Andes is complicated by the Inca strategy of relocating
people and craft specialists, potters included (however,
no potter relocation was reported in the study region).
Despite this, the potters (past and present) exploit the
resources around the production site and they learn
which clay is good and how to work them. Identifying
the raw materials is one way to evaluate the catchment
area and materials possibly used to the ancient potters,
as well as their technological knowledge. Although it is
very difficult to identify the two clays present without
having some pieces of the puzzle, it is at least possible
to narrow down the number of production scenarios.
The results of this study enlarge our knowledge of
pottery production of the Huaylas region. However it
has a much larger scope of application. We have
obtained an insight into the natural variability in clays
and the diversity introduced in pots. The recognition of
the complexity of raw material identification in a
two-clay paste should assure sounder interpretation of
archaeological material. Also, it shows that without
appreciation of the ceramic technology, a geological or
chemical analysis can be misleading.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible with grants from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada, the Natural Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (A4250) and from the
Université de Montreal. We thank the different depart-
ments of the Université de Sherbrooke for access to
their laboratories. All analyses were conducted at the
Université de Sherbrooke with the help of the Dépar-
tement de géographie et télédétection for petro-
graphy, and Dr Regina Zamojska (Département de
chimie) for the EDXRF analyses. We are thankful to
the reviewers of the manuscript for their insightful
remarks.
References
Arnold, D. E. (1972). Mineral analysis of ceramic materials from
Quinua, Department of Ayacucho, Peru. Archaeometry 14, 93–
102.
Arnold, D. E. (1975). Ceramic ecology of the Ayacucho Basin, Peru:
implications for prehistory. Current Anthropology 15, 183–194.
Arnold, D. E. (1993). Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean
Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Balfet, H., Fauvet-Berthelot, M.-F. & Monzon, S. (1983). Pour la
Normalisation de la Description des Poteries. Paris: Editions du
CNRS.
Bodenlos, A. J. & Ericksen, G. E. (1955). Lead-Zinc Deposits
of Cordillera Blanca and Northern Cordillera Huayuash, Peru.
Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Cobbing, E. J., Pitcher, W. S., Wilson, J. J., Baldock, J. W., Taylor,
W. P., McCourt, W. & Snelling, N. J. (1981). The Geology of the
Western Cordillera of Northern Peru. Overseas Memoir 5. London:
Institute of Geological Sciences.
Druc, I. C. (1996). De la etnografı́a hacia la arqueologı́a: aportes de
entrevistas con ceramistas de Ancash (Peru) para la caracteriz-
ación de la cerámica prehispánica. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais
d’études Andines 25, 17–41.
Druc, I. C. (1997). Caractérisation et analyse de provenance de la
production céramique dans l’aire d’influence Chavı́n (Andes Centre-
nord). Ph.D. Thesis. Université de Montréal.
Egeler, C. G. & de Booy, T. (1956). Geology and petrology of part of
the southern Cordillera Blanca, Peru. Geology Serie 17, 1–86.
Folk, R. L. (1965). Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austin:
Hemphill’s.
Guffroy, J. (Ed). (1994). Cerro Nañañique: Un E u tablissement Monu-
mental de la Période Formative, en Limite de Désert (Haut Piura,
Pérou). Paris: ORSTOM.
Ixer, R. & Lunt, S. (1991). The petrography of certain pre- Spanish
pottery from Peru. In (A. Middleton & I. Freestone, Eds) Recent
Developments in Ceramic Petrology. Occasional Paper 81. London:
British Museum Publications, pp. 137–164.
Krzanowski, A. (Ed.) (1986). Cayash Prehispanico. Prace Komisji
Archeologicznej 25. Varsovie: Polska Akademia Nauk-Oddzial.
Lavallée, D. (1967). La poterie de Aco (Andes centrales du Pérou).
Objets et Mondes 7, 103–120.
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. & Arnold, D. E. (1988). Reconstructing
ceramic production from ceramic compositional data: an example
from Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 15, 339–348.
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L. & Sayre, E. V. (1988). A simulation ap-
proach to the problem of tempering in compositional studies of
archaeological ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 15,
159–172.
Newman, A. C. D. (Ed.) (1987). Chemistry of Clays and Clay
Minerals. Mineralogical Society, Monograph 6. New York:
Longman Scientific & Technical.
Shepard, A. (1968). Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington,
D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Velde, B. & Druc, I. C. (in press). Archaeological Ceramic Materials.
Origin and Utilization. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.