330
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
Traditionally, the forms and production of funerary
pottery in the Argaric Culture have been consider-
ed homogeneous both diachronically and spatially
throughout archaeological culture (Contreras et al.
1987–88; Cámara et al. 2005; Milá et al. 2007;
Aranda, Molina 2005; Aranda 2004; 2010; Albero,
Aranda 2014). Nonetheless, archaeometric studies
in recent years reveal the existence of the fragile
nature and low potential durability of certain types
of vessels recovered in funerary contexts, features
that are in turn closely related to low firing tempe-
ratures and friable character of the fabric, features
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)>
production technology and functionality
Laura Vico Triguero1, Jesús Gámiz Caro1, Francisco Martín Peinado2,
Alejandra García García 1, Eva Alarcón García 1, Francisco Contreras Cortés 1,
and María Auxiliadora Moreno Onorato1
1 Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Granada, Granada, ES
lvico@ugr.es< jegamiz@ugr.es< alejandragarcia@ugr.es< eva@ugr.es< fccortes@ugr.es<
auxiliomoreno@ugr.es
2 Department of Edaphology and Agricultural Chemistry, University of Granada, Granada, ES
fjmartin@ugr.es
ABSTRACT – The interpretation of the manufacture and function of Argaric burial potteries has not
been subject to a global and systematic study. As such, this paper has reconstructed the sequence of
ceramic production of burial potteries of Peñalosa using analytical techniques (stereomicroscopy, X-
ray diffraction and optical petrography). Ceramic ware technological features, as well as other indi-
cators of use and repair, indicate that the pottery was used prior to the burial either in domestic con-
texts or during funerary rituals. This finding contrasts with data obtained at other Argaric sites, where
technological and formal features point to pottery production specifically intended for burials.
IZVLE∞EK – Razlaga izdelave in namembnosti lon≠enine v argarskih pokopih ∏e ni bila predmet ce-
lovite in sistemati≠ne ∏tudije. V ≠lanku predstavljamo rekonstrukcijo sekvence kerami≠ne proizvod-
nje lon≠enine iz grobov na najdi∏≠u Peñalosa, in sicer z razli≠nimi analitskimi tehnikami (stereo-
mikroskopija, rentgenska difrakcija in opti≠na petrografija). Tehnolo∏ke zna≠ilnosti kerami≠nih po-
sod, pa tudi drugi kazalniki njene uporabe in popravil, ka∫ejo, da je bila lon≠enina pred pokopom
uporabljena bodisi v gospodinjskih kontekstih bodisi med pogrebnimi rituali. Ti rezultati so v nas-
protju s podatki, ki so znani na drugih argarskih najdi∏≠ih, kjer tehnologija in oblika posod ka∫ejo
na lon≠arsko proizvodnjo, posebej namenjeno pokopom.
KEY WORDS – ceramic production technology; burial pottery; Argaric Culture; Peñalosa; Bronze Age
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – proizvodna tehnologija keramike; grobna lon≠enina; argarska kultura; Peñalosa;
bronasta doba
Argarska lon;enina iz grobi[;a Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)>
proizvodna tehnologija in funkcionalnost
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.18
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
331
are at least two types of ceramic production in the
graves of Argaric contexts, as also the Cuesta del Negro
study reveals (Contreras et al. 1987). We thus
hypothesize that these technological differences in
grave goods may respond to a hierarchical scale
which exists between different sites of this culture.
Earlier research has highlighted these differences.
Concentrations of prestige goods among certain
groups of burials at the settlement of Cerro de la
Encina (Granada) (Aranda et al. 2008) contrast with
finds at other Argaric sites, such as Cuesta del Negro
(Granada) (Molina et al. 1975; Contreras et al. 1987)
or Castellón Alto (Granada) (Molina et al. 1986), that
in a certain sense places these latter locations at a
lower secondary settlement hierarchical level (Aran-
da et al. 2008.251). It is in this second group of set-
tlements where Peñalosa would be placed.
In this study we have applied stereomicroscopy (ST),
X-ray diffraction (XRD) and optical petrography (OP)
to characterise pottery fabrics and reconstruct cer-
tain aspects of their manufacture. Moreover, the
examination of surface features, such as perforations
for vessel repair or traces of burning indicating ex-
posure to fire, provide data regarding their use and
reuse.
Finally, this study attempts to identify the symbolic
value afforded to ceramic grave goods in the Arga-
ric Culture and determine if there are any variations
of funerary rites between settlements in the south-
east Iberian Peninsula, based on analyses of Peña-
losa’s funerary vessels. Only from a specific study,
starting from a local or regional scale, can the role
of this type of funerary material be defined in the
Argaric ritual.
Geological context of Peñalosa
The archaeological site of Peñalosa is located in the
Upper Guadalquivir, in the heart of the eastern Sierra
Morena mountains, in the municipality of Baños de
la Encina (Jaén, Spain).
At Peñalosa, mainly Carboniferous, Triassic and Mio-
cene materials emerge (Fig. 1). The prehistoric settle-
ment is located on a schist base from the Carbonife-
rous, the most abundant material in this area. Two
kilometres west there is an area of arkose, metar-
kose, metaquartz, and sandstone. Parallel to these
metaquartzites and Triassic sandstones, Miocene ma-
terials of marine deltaic facies appear. Igneous ma-
terials also appear in the local context in the form
linked to a type of manufacture exclusively destined
for burials that differs from those intended for do-
mestic contexts (Cámara et al. 2005).
Little archaeometric research has been carried out in
the field of Argaric pottery. More traditional studies
have focused on the formal features to define the
production of funerary and domestic pottery of this
period (Schubart 1975a; 2004; Contreras et al.
2000). The methodology applied in these studies
was to resort to statistical analyses to define their
morphometric variability, and also to determine
their degree of formal standardization (Lull 1983;
Contreras 1986; 2000; Contreras et al. 1987; Van
Berg 1988; García López 1992; Arteaga, Schubart
2000; Aranda 2001; 2004; 2010). However, very lit-
tle research has focused on the technological chara-
cterisation of these vessels, and what exists tends to
be biased. The most complete technological study in
this regard was carried out on pottery of the Cuesta
del Negro settlement (Purullena, Granada) (Contre-
ras et al. 1987), and the remaining studies are ap-
proaches to pottery manufacture. This is the case for
Los Cipreses (Murcia) (Milà et al. 2000) and prior
analyses on a small sampling from Peñalosa (Cáma-
ra et al. 2005), the object of the current study. A
more recent study was carried out for the assem-
blage of Cerro San Cristóbal (Granada) (Albero,
Aranda 2014), although with limited pottery sam-
pling linked to a single funerary context. It is for
this reason that new contributions such as the cur-
rent study are essential to identify patterns of ritual
in Argaric Culture from the technological point of
view, even more so when bearing in mind that death
and the passage to the next life have a strong symbo-
lic value in these early societies (Lull 1997–1998).
The study of the assemblage of the archaeological
site of Peñalosa goes further and reveals evidence of
much more elaborate circumstances of the manu-
facture of funerary pottery. These items present tech-
nical evidence that make them functional for food
consumption and processing, which we will address
in this work. This suggests ceramic funerary grave
goods were used prior to their deposition in the
grave. These features are similar to those found on
pottery from Cuesta del Negro (Contreras et al.
1987). However, other studies propose the non-func-
tional manufacture of these vessels, and suggest that
they were only created to be part of graves (Milá et
al. 2007; Aranda, Molina 2005; Aranda 2004;
2010; Albero, Aranda 2014). This indicates that
there are at least two types of ceramic production in
the graves of Argaric contexts. This indicates that
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
332
of granodiorites, granites, aplites, pegmatites, and
granite porphyry. The granodiorites outcrop appears
4km east and northwest from Peñalosa, in a re-
markable extension that forms the ‘Cerro de Galjar-
da’ and the ‘Peña de la Reina’. The granites emerge
to a lesser extent, located 6km northeast of the set-
tlement. In these materials, a mineralogical compo-
sition of quartz and feldspar predominates, with the
presence of hornblende and biotite phenocrystals.
The intrusions of igneous rocks appear in the sur-
rounding of the site as pegmatite aplite dykes and
granitic porphyry, which are found in the schist of
the Carboniferous. In the Quaternary, the geological
formations have alluvial origin, formed by clasts of
quartzites, grauvacas, and clasts of schist, arkose and
igneous rocks, where silt materials predominate
(García González et al. 2010).
Archaeological context of Peñalosa
Peñalosa is dated to the Bronze Age Argaric Culture
(Fig. 2), which developed in the southeast Iberian
Peninsula between 2200 and 1550 cal BC (García-
García 2018). It is characterized by the location of
hill settlements, funerary contexts under the sub-
soil of the villages, as well as the uniqueness of their
artefacts (Lull et al. 2009), whose typology is re-
peated throughout the Argaric territory (as seen in
Argaric chalices, carinated vessels, daggers with ri-
vets, punches, flat axes, hal-
berds, gold rings, cooper or sil-
ver bracelets, or bone bead
necklaces) (Schubart 1975b).
The settlement is distributed in
four large units (Acropolis, Lo-
wer, Middle, and Upper Terra-
ces) and is delimited to the east
by a wall. The numerous mines
(copper and silver) in the vici-
nity, which were exploited du-
ring the Argaric period (Contre-
ras et al. 2000, Contreras, Mo-
reno 2015; Hunt 2011) indicate
that the site played a major role
as a mining centre, with metal-
lurgy as its main economic acti-
vity. Radiocarbon dating carried
out on remains of charred wood
place it between 1850 and 1450
BC (Contreras et al. 2014).
Peñalosa’s funerary record com-
prises 32 graves (Fig. 3) that fall
in line with the structural and distributive patterns
characteristic of burials of the Argaric Culture (Lull
1983; Contreras et al. 1987; 1997; Aranda, Molina
2005; Aranda et al. 2008; 2012). These consist of
inhumations placed in cists, pithoi, natural or artifi-
cial hovels, and masonry features that are always
beneath domestic dwellings. Although usually sin-
gle burials, some are known to contain two or three
individuals (Contreras et al. 1995; Contreras 2000).
Materials and methods
The assemblage of grave goods at Peñalosa com-
prises 34 well-preserved vessels that are either com-
plete or can be reconstructed based on their mor-
phometry, allowing typological classification (Fig. 4).
The assemblage comprises a chalice-shaped vessel
called a copa, bottles, bowls (hemispherical, spheri-
cal, carinated, and parabolic), carinated and minute
vessels traditionally associated with the practice of
ceramic craft (Contreras et al. 2000; Alarcón 2010).
Other ceramic groups consist of ovoid and globular
cooking vessels (ollas) and storage pots (orzas) serv-
ing as burial containers (pithoi).
Decorative motifs among the funerary ware of Peña-
losa, as is typical in the Argaric Culture in general
(Lull 1983), are rare (approx. 2%). Only one ovoid
pot (BE-14546) bears incisions on its rim, a recur-
Fig. 1. Geological map of the area surrounding Peñalosa (from García-
González et al. 2010).
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
333
rent motif common to domestic ware of the Argaric
Culture (Contreras et al. 2000). Lugs near the rims
are present in three cases: a bowl (BE-10312), a pot
(BE-14546), and a chalice (BE-14601).
The pottery assemblage from the Peñalosa funerary
record was selected for the current archaeometric
study. The vessels were first described to identify
evidence of some of the technological choices ap-
plied during their production (surface treatments,
forming techniques, firing atmosphere), use and
maintenance (Tab. 1). These processes were observed
through certain marks on the pot-
tery surface (coils marks, spatula
marks, cracks, etc.), which were ob-
served on a macroscopic level or
through a stereomicroscope in those
cases where such marks were diffi-
cult to identify because intense treat-
ments had homogenized the surface
(Rafferty et al. 2015).
Then, three analytical techniques (ste-
reomicroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and
petrographic characterization) were
applied to characterise the operatio-
nal sequence of the analysed pottery.
All samples were subjected to a stereomicroscopic
examination that enabled us to classify the ceramics
from the identification of technological features.
These features were the criterion for selecting sam-
ples for more specific analytical techniques.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to study the mine-
ralogical composition of the samples. The selection
of XRD samples was made based on technological
groups (TG), excluding samples the analysis of which
would be too destructive. Finally, for optical petro-
graphy we selected samples with peculiar technolo-
gical and mineralogical characteris-
tics, and which had been previously
analysed by XRD. Samples of all the
TG established by stereomicroscopy
were represented in this analysis.
Stereomicroscopy (ST)
This first analysis (n = 34 vessels)
had a double function: to characte-
rize the technological evidence and
create technological groups (TG). TG
are groups of ceramic samples which
have common physical features iden-
tified by stereomicroscopy (Gamiz
et al. 2013; Gamiz 2018.314), and
this facilitates the subsequent repre-
sentative sampling of each group
with regard to other analytical tech-
niques.
Stereomicroscopic examinations
were carried out with a Leica L80
stereomicroscope (7.5X–60X magni-
fication), Leica EC3 camera and a Lei-
ca Achro 0.5x objective. Images were
captured with the Leica Application
Suite software. This analysis enabled
Fig. 2. Map of Spain with the position of Peñalosa and the other
Argaric sites cited in the text.
Fig. 3. Map of the site of Peñalosa and the position of the burials
(from García-García 2018a).
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
334
the characterisation of pottery manufacture to dif-
ferentiate TG. The TG are created from variables
which describe the technical capacities of pottery
items and their links to a specific use. The evidence
which enables the description of these variables is
the result of gestures and techniques that were used
by the potters who made these objects. Therefore,
the compactness of the ceramic paste is used to de-
fine the intensity and time of raw material prepara-
tion. Compactness is measured by the presence/ab-
sence of striae in the matrix, as well as the physical
appearance of the pottery. According to the size,
shape and frequency of grains of the same mineral
that appear in the paste, we can determine if these
grains were intentionally added by the potter (Mag-
getti 1982; Gibson, Woods 1990; Spataro 2002; Gá-
miz 2018), and these particles are called ‘temper’
(Whitbread 1995; Gámiz et al. 2013). However, the
angularity variable was not used to define the cre-
ation of TG due to the homogeneity of the results.
The description of these variables follows the qual-
itative methods and reference tables published in
other studies (Castro 1989; Gámiz et al. 2013).
Colour of the ceramic surface and matrix was not
used to define TG due to the homogeneity of the re-
sults, but it was important to define the firing atmo-
sphere (reducing, oxidizing, or mixed). The descrip-
tion of the colours considered first tonality (dark, me-
dium, and light) and secondly colour (black, beige,
brown, orange, grey, or white). All these data is
shown in the following table along with the visual
analysis (Tab. 1).
Statistical treatment of data
In order to obtain technological groups which pre-
sent technological similarities or variables obtained
through stereomicroscopy, a cluster statistical analy-
sis was employed to create the TG and TG subgroups.
Three variables were taken into account in this ana-
lysis: paste compactness, grain size, and grain per-
centage.
Cluster analysis identifies the degree of similarity
between different variables among all cases and
groups them in two-dimensional graphs (dendro-
grams) (Shennan 1992). Clusters are formed either
by scanning the matrix for the most similar entities
and joining them, or by successively subdividing the
matrix (Rice, Saffer 1982). These groups were estab-
lished with a degree of similarity above 95%, and
Ward’s method with the ‘squared Euclidean distance’
and ‘between-groups linkage’ method was used in
the statistical analysis, which was carried out with
the program IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21.0.
X-ray diffraction (XRD)
X-ray diffraction analysis used 28 representative
samples from all the TG obtained by stereomicro-
scopy. XRD characterises the mineralogical compo-
sition of pottery, not only for estimating the firing
temperature but also shedding light on the potential
provenance of the raw materials (Quinn, Benzonel-
li 2019). The pottery analyses were coupled with
the sampling of two local geological outcrops in the
area of Peñalosa, potential sources of the raw mate-
rials used to make the pottery. This raw material
Fig. 4. Histogram of the predominant pottery forms of the burials of Peñalosa.
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
335
samples were lower Carboniferous source rocks
(García González et al. 2010).
The samples were reduced to fine powder (10μm)
and analysed for provenance in the Centre of Scien-
tific Instrumentation of the University of Granada
(Spain) with a BRUKER D8 ADVANCE diffractometer
with Cu radiation (sealed tube) with a LINXEYE de-
tector. The parameters of measurement were 2s per
scanning step, with 0.0393766 increments, with a
limit of 2 theta starting at 3 and stopping at 70.0108
at a power of 40Kw and 40mA. The data was ob-
tained by DIFRAL plus XRD Commander software.
The peaks of the diffractograms were read through
the XPowder 12 Version 2014.04.37 software, where
the different crystalline phases of the minerals that
make up the ceramic matrix were characterized by
consulting the Difdata database, before contrasting
the results with those of the rruff.info project data-
base which comprises a semiquantitative characte-
rization (Tab. 2). The RIR (Reference Intensity Ra-
tios) (Chung 1974; Martín 2004) method was then
applied to identify each of the mineral phases of
the samples.
Petrographic analysis
The vessels analysed by thin section were BE-50898
(carinated bowl), BE-10361 (hemispherical bowl),
BE-3070 (bowl), BE-10349 and BE-10329 (storage
vessels). This method offers information concern-
ing the fabric, defining ‘fabric’ as the physical link
between the grains and ceramic matrix (Castro
1989), and allows evaluation of other aspects of the
structure of the ceramic matrix (e.g., presence of vit-
reous phases). The information obtained from this
technique also serves as a complement to results ob-
tained by ST and XRD. A Nikon Eclipse 6400 POL
mounted with x4, x10 and x20 lenses served to carry
out the thin section analyses. This me-
thodology used some of the variables
proposed by Ian Whitbread (1995),
Bruce Velde and Isabelle Druc (1999)
and Antonio Castro (1989), as detailed
below.
The analytical technique applied to the
current study takes into account the
following variables: proportion of fine
(<10μm) and coarse (>10μm) fractions
and pores/striae, minerals, degree of
compactness, vitrification (originated by
ceramic firing or cooking), optical ac-
tivity, pore and inclusion orientation,
particle morphology. These factors
serve to define the different pottery
fabrics of the Peñalosa funerary assem-
blage, and comprise its characterization
and description. The matrix texture and
chemical structure of the grains could
provide thermal shock resistance and
mechanical properties to the final pro-
duct.
The analytical procedure therefore
served to characterise the technologi-
cal level of Peñalosa's funerary pottery,
assigning each technological feature to
a sequence of concrete production se-
quences divided into the following con-
catenated phases: raw material procu-
rement, clay preparation, kneading, for-
ming, surface treatment, drying and fir-
ing.
9323 66.4 1.7 1.5 0 0 0 0 28.2 0 2.3
281110 77.6 0 3.5 0 0 0 0 16.8 0 2.1
10356 67.1 3.3 11.1 2.2 1.9 5.7 4.7 0 0 3.9
10312 64.1 7.7 9.2 0 5.4 4.6 0 0 0 6
10156 80.1 7.1 5 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 3
12163 86.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 0 2.8
14584 82.8 2.8 8.8 0 0 0 0 2.6 0 2.9
9526-1 92.3 2.6 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3
12130 85.8 0 6 0 0 0 0 5.4 0 2.8
3070 94.3 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.3
14546 75 4.4 13.1 0 0 0 0 4.4 0 3.1
3075-2 70.6 10.5 14.6 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 2.5
20129 83.7 1.4 10.1 0 0 0 0 2.6 0 2.3
20149 76.3 6 13.3 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 1.9
20367 84.7 2.6 8.2 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 2.6
20369 84.6 4.5 5.4 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.5
3069 87.3 1.7 5.6 0 0 0 0 3.1 0 2.2
3075-1 88 2.6 5.5 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 2.5
6066 88.8 4.2 3.1 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 2
14601 87.7 3.3 4.4 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 2.7
15211 82.7 0 5.9 0 0 0 0 0.9 6.9 3.6
20128 92.2 0 2.9 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 2
281111 91.7 2.2 2.3 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 2.1
281112 81.2 4.7 5.3 0 0 0 0 6.5 0 2.4
10361 90.7 0 3.2 0 0 0 0 4.2 0 1.9
10349 75.8 14.5 5 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 1.2
10329 79.7 8.3 6.4 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 1.8
12127 69.2 7.6 12.3 0 0 0 0 2.7 4.8 3.5
50898 73.8 5.2 10.6 3.5 0 0 0 2.6 0 4.2
Tab. 1. Semiquantitative percentages obtained of X-ray diffrac-
tion analyses through RIR method of funerary grave goods of
Peñalosa.
Sa
m
pl
e
Q
ua
rt
z
M
ic
ro
cl
in
e
A
lb
ite
D
io
ps
id
e
Sm
ec
tit
e
H
or
nb
le
nd
e
C
um
m
in
gt
on
ite
Ill
ite
-M
us
co
vi
te
O
rt
ho
cl
as
e
A
m
or
ph
ou
s
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
336
Results
Pottery surface analysis
The Peñalosa funerary vessels reveal that potters
took special care in preparing their surfaces, most
often in the form of burnishing (27 vessels). This
technique produces a homogeneous, fine metallic
effect. Only the surfaces of very small cups (up to
3cm high and 4cm wide) received just a smoothing
treatment. Furthermore, the surfaces of storage ves-
sels (BE, 10349, BE-10329, BE-12127) and three cook-
ing vessels (BE-14546, BE-3070, BE-20149) show
signs of smoothing with a spatula, a procedure that
served as a base for a subsequent slip.
The pottery forming marks preserved in eleven ves-
sels surfaces (Tab. 1) make it possible to define at
least three different forming techniques in Peñalosa,
identifiable through the roughness and marks of
these surface treatments, as well as the orientation
of the matrix grains (Gamiz et al. 2013). These tech-
niques are: basketry moulding (Fig. 5), pinching, and
coiling or slabbing. Coiling is identified in large ves-
sels (up to 42cm long and 23cm wide) such as sto-
rage vessels, and slabbing in two bowls. These form-
ing techniques consist of the superposition of coils
(coiling) or slabs (slabbing) which are subsequently
joined with some surface treatment to form the body
of the vessel (Heras 1992; García, Calvo 2013).
More complex forms such as carinated ware, in turn,
were made with a mixed technique with their bases
fashioned by pinching or moulding and their upper
bodies made from coiling or slabbing. Finally, there
are small vessels manufactured by pinching rounded
clay masses.
Surface colours alternating between dark (black or
brown) and light (beige or orange) indicate a predo-
minately mixed firing atmosphere combining phases
of reduction and oxidation in 31 samples. Some ves-
sels (e.g., BE-10156, and BE-281111) have homoge-
neous hues (usually black) on both their outer and
inner surfaces, indicative of a reduction atmosphere.
We also observed some surface marks suggesting
vessel reuse. Pot BE-6066, for example, bears soot
or a cooking marks along its base, indicating a culi-
nary use (Skibo 1992; Rafferty et al. 2014) before
being used as a burial pot. Furthermore, certain ves-
sels reveal signs of repair. This is the case with a
hole on the stem of a chalice (BE-14601) (Fig. 6) and
the body of a bowl (BE-20369). The perforations
served to fasten broken fragments together by means
of some type of organic cord. This fact reflects an
interest by Peñalosa human groups in preserving
specific ceramic shapes. These items were likely en-
dowed with symbolism for this culture, as detailed
below.
Characterization of the pottery fabric
Stereomicroscopic results
The stereomicroscopic analyses yielded three TG
based on the criteria of compactness, grain size and
percentage. These can be further divided into sub-
groups based on their grain quantity. The groupings
were carried out by means of multivariate statistical
analyses and illustrated by a cluster diagram (Fig. 7).
The main difference between TG is the grain percen-
tage. Groups 1 and 2 are characterized by a medium
to high grain percentage (30–50%), and a low one
in the case of group 1a (10–20%). Subgroups are dif-
ferentiated by compactness and grains size. All of
them present compact fabrics while that of Group 1a,
made up mostly of storage vessels, is less compact.
The size of the grains is variable throughout the as-
semblage, 50% of groups contain fine grains and the
other 50% medium grains.
Beside the main variables, other characteristics such
as particle shape as well as the colours of the cera-
mic matrix and surface were taken into account. The
tendencies of grain form and size can be ascribed to
specific vessel forms. Subangular and rounded par-
ticles are most often associated with bowls or cups,
that is, the smaller-sized pottery group (up to 14cm
wide and 10cm high). Angular grains, in turn, are
most common to medium-sized vessels and linked
to larger forms such as cooking pots and storage
vessels. This leads to the notion that the potters only
added temper in certain cases, conditioned by the
Fig. 5. Microphotography of impressions of bas-
ketry moulding from a carinated ware.
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
337
intended use of the vessel. In fact, the vessels with
angular grains coincide with forms typically linked
to cooking pots and storage vessels, a correlation
that is not accidental as the addition of temper to
the matrix is intended to strengthen the mechanical
and thermal resistance of vessels (Steponatis 1984;
Gámiz et al. 2018).
It is also noteworthy that the inner cores of the ves-
sels, like their surfaces, tend to have a double colour-
ation. This reflects mixed firing that, as noted above,
combined oxidizing and reducing atmospheres. More-
over, certain samples (BE-20129) also bear traces in-
dicating reduction over practically all of their surface.
Mineralogical characterization
X-ray diffraction analyses reveal that quartz, present
in a high proportion (between 67 and 97%), is the
main mineral phase shared by all the samples. Other
minerals such as plagioclase (1.5–14.6%), feldspars
(1.3–10%), and phyllosilicates (2–28%) also appear,
but in lesser proportions (Tab. 2; Fig. 8A).
Differentiating the samples is conditioned by the pre-
sence of alkaline feldspars (microcline) and plagio-
clases (albite). However, these minerals are absent
from one sample (BE-12163) which contains only
quartz and a high concentration of phyllosilicates.
This absence could be linked to the raw material ex-
traction zone, as detailed below.
Most cases reveal an illite-muscovite phase that is
possibly thermally altered, as can be seen by the
Fig. 6. Copa (chalice) with a repair hole on its stem.
Fig. 7. Dendrogram of the technological groups gleaned from the statistical analysis.
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
338
peaks in the diffractogram attain the level of 4.49Å.
Smectite was also detected in three of the samples
(BE-10312, BE-10356 and BE-10156), while potassi-
um feldspars appear to be rare (BE-15211 and BE-
12127). Although there are two cases (BE-10356 and
BE-10312) revealing amphiboles, specifically horn-
blende and cummingtonite, they bear mineralogical
characteristics common to the others (quartz, feld-
spars and plagioclases). A small fraction of pyroxenes
is only observed in two samples (BE-10356 and BE-
50898). As their percentage is below 3.5%, they may
originate from the sediment itself.
Sediment analyses were carried out on two samples
from an area abounding with sandstones (S-3), a po-
tential source of amphiboles, and on samples of clays
extracted near the archaeological site (S-11). The
results of these analyses (Fig. 8B) indicate a minera-
logical composition similar to that of the Peñalosa
funerary pottery, with the only anomaly being the
presence of chlorite and cinnabar. However, the ab-
sence of these minerals in pottery can be explained
by their destruction when exposed to temperatures
above 500°C (Schultz 1964; Linares et al. 1983). On
the other hand, the sandstone sample (S-3) does not
reveal evidence of amphiboles, which suggests the
exogenous origin of items with this type of compo-
sition, or another raw material from other geologi-
cal areas not yet determined.
Optical petrography
According to this analysis, three fabric types were
differentiated (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10):
● Fabric 1, represented by a carinated vessel and a
hemispherical bowl, bears a fine texture (90%) with
few pores and striae (10%), and small subrounded
grains (< 1mm). Both the grains and the pores/striae
are arranged obliquely in the ceramic matrix.
● Fabric 2, represented by a bowl, is medium com-
pact and characterized by equal coarse (35%) and
In
te
ns
ity
2Theta
In
te
ns
ity
2Theta
Fig. 8. A Main peaks identified by C-ray diffraction of the funerary pottery of Peñalosa; B main peaks
identified by X-ray diffraction among the sediment samples of Peñalosa. Sme Smectite, Ilt-Ms Illite-Musco-
vite, Hbl Hornblende, Cum Cummingtonite, Qz Quartz, Or Orthoclase, Mc Microcline, Ab Albite, Di Diop-
side, Cin Cinnabar, Chl Chlorite.
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
339
Su
r.
M
at
ri
x
Su
r.
 C
ol
or
%
A
ng
ul
os
ity
Sh
ap
e
C
om
pa
ct
-
Sa
m
pl
e
G
ra
ve
Sh
ap
e
Tr
ea
tm
en
t
G
ra
in
s
G
ra
in
s
gr
ai
ns
ne
ss
Fo
rm
in
g 
te
ch
ni
qu
es
Ex
t
In
t
C
or
e
Ex
t
In
t
M
ar
Ex
t
In
t
Sp
ot
 C
ol
. 
10
34
9
23
St
or
ag
e 
ve
ss
el
SS
SS
D
G
M
G
LB
R
ED
G
LB
R
LB
R
D
B
R
40
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
M
ed
iu
m
C
oi
lin
g
10
32
9
23
St
or
ag
e 
ve
ss
el
SS
SS
D
G
M
G
LG
ED
G
D
G
D
G
LG
40
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
M
ed
iu
m
C
oi
lin
g
12
12
7
4
St
or
ag
e 
ve
ss
el
SS
SS
LB
R
LB
E
LB
E
D
B
R
D
B
R
D
B
L
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
M
ed
iu
m
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
14
54
6
16
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
SS
SS
LB
R
LB
R
LB
R
D
G
D
G
D
B
R
40
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
B
as
ke
tr
y 
m
ou
ld
in
g
30
69
1
B
ow
l
B
B
M
B
E
M
B
E
M
B
E
IL
G
M
B
E
M
B
E
B
L
40
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
12
16
1
5
B
ow
l
B
B
M
G
M
G
M
G
D
G
D
G
B
L
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
14
58
4
6
B
ot
tle
B
B
M
B
E
M
B
E
LB
R
M
B
E
LB
R
B
L
40
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
20
36
7
15
b
C
ha
lic
e
B
B
LG
M
B
E
M
B
E
IB
L
D
G
D
G
B
L
40
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
M
ed
iu
m
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
28
11
12
18
B
ow
l
B
B
LB
R
LG
D
G
ID
B
D
G
D
G
G
L
20
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
20
12
8
9
B
ow
l
B
B
D
B
D
G
LB
R
ED
B
-I
D
B
D
B
E
D
B
E
B
L
40
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
Sl
ab
bi
ng
10
35
6
25
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
M
G
LB
R
D
G
ED
G
D
G
D
G
B
L
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
M
ix
ed
 te
ch
ni
qu
e 
(b
as
ke
tr
y 
m
ou
ld
-
in
g 
an
d 
sl
ab
bi
ng
)
20
36
9
15
b
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
LB
R
LB
R
LB
R
D
G
D
G
B
L
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
30
75
-1
2
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
M
G
M
G
M
G
D
G
D
G
B
L
40
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
95
26
-2
18
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
B
B
M
O
M
O
M
O
D
O
D
O
B
r
30
 %
Su
br
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
M
ix
ed
 t
ec
hn
iq
ue
 (
pi
nc
hi
ng
 a
nd
co
ili
ng
)
12
12
5
4
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
D
O
D
O
D
B
E
EB
L
D
G
D
G
B
L,
W
30
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
20
13
0
4
B
ow
l
B
B
M
G
M
G
M
G
D
G
D
G
D
B
R
30
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
Sl
ab
bi
ng
10
15
6
24
B
ot
tle
B
B
D
B
R
D
G
D
G
IB
L
D
G
D
G
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
10
31
2
25
B
ow
l
B
B
LG
D
B
E
LG
EM
G
-I
D
O
D
B
E
D
B
E
B
L
30
 %
Su
br
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
M
ed
iu
m
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
14
60
1
6
C
ha
lic
e
B
B
M
O
M
O
M
O
D
O
D
O
B
L
30
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
14
59
6
6
M
in
ut
e 
ve
ss
el
S
S
M
B
E
M
B
E
M
B
E
D
B
E
D
B
E
B
L
30
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
Pi
nc
hi
ng
30
75
-2
2
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
LB
R
LB
R
LB
r
ED
O
LB
R
D
G
B
L
30
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
60
66
3
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
B
B
LB
R
LB
R
LB
r
M
B
E
D
G
B
E
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
C
oi
lin
g
30
70
1
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
SS
SS
LB
E
LB
E
LG
LB
E
LG
B
L
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
28
11
11
18
B
ow
l
B
B
LB
R
LB
R
LB
R
D
G
D
G
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
20
12
9
9
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
B
B
LG
M
G
LG
EB
L-
IB
L
D
B
D
B
E
B
L
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
95
26
-1
18
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
B
B
D
O
D
O
D
G
ED
G
-I
D
O
D
B
E
D
B
E
B
E
20
 %
Su
br
ou
nd
ed
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
50
89
8
31
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
D
O
D
B
M
G
EB
L-
ID
G
M
B
E
D
G
B
L
10
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
M
ix
ed
 te
ch
ni
qu
e 
(b
as
ke
tr
y 
m
ou
ld
-
in
g
an
d 
co
ili
ng
)
12
13
0
9
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
LB
E
D
G
LB
E
ED
G
-I
LB
E
M
B
E
D
G
B
l
10
 %
Su
br
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
15
21
1
7
B
ow
l
B
B
M
B
E
M
B
E
M
B
E
D
B
D
B
R
B
l
10
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
10
36
1
22
B
ow
l
B
B
M
B
E
M
B
E
M
B
E
D
B
E
D
B
E
B
r
20
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
Pi
nc
hi
ng
14
58
3
6
M
in
ut
e 
ve
ss
el
S
S
M
G
M
G
M
G
D
G
D
B
E
20
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
Pi
nc
hi
ng
93
23
13
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
B
B
D
B
R
D
O
D
B
E
D
B
D
G
B
l,B
r
20
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
28
11
10
18
B
ow
l
B
B
D
O
D
B
D
R
ID
G
D
G
D
G
B
l
10
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
12
16
3
18
C
ar
in
at
ed
 v
es
se
l
B
B
D
O
D
B
D
G
ID
G
D
O
D
O
B
l,B
r
10
 %
R
ou
nd
ed
Sm
al
l
H
ig
h
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
20
14
9
15
a
C
oo
ki
ng
 v
es
se
l
SS
SS
LB
R
LB
R
LB
E
ED
B
-I
D
B
D
G
D
G
B
l
30
 %
A
ng
ul
ar
M
ed
iu
m
M
ed
iu
m
un
id
en
tif
ie
d
Ta
b.
 2
. T
ec
hn
ol
og
ic
al
 f
ea
tu
re
s 
of
 c
er
am
ic
 a
ss
em
bl
ag
e 
un
de
r 
st
ud
y.
 S
ur
su
rf
ac
e,
 E
xt
ex
te
ri
or
, I
nt
in
te
ri
or
, M
ar
m
ar
ge
, S
S
sm
oo
th
in
g 
sp
at
ul
at
e,
 B
bu
rn
is
hi
n
g,
S
sm
oo
th
in
g,
 D
da
rk
, M
m
ed
iu
m
, L
li
gt
h,
 G
gr
ey
, B
L
bl
ac
k,
 O
or
an
ge
, B
E
be
ig
e,
 B
R
br
ow
n
, E
ex
te
rn
al
, I
in
te
rn
al
, W
w
hi
te
.
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
340
fine fractions (35%) and pores/striae (30%). Their
grains are small (< 1mm), arranged obliquely, and
their fabric is medium compact.
● Fabric 3, represented by orzas, is dominated by a
coarse fraction (40%) over a fine fraction (30%) that
bears a high proportion of pores and striae (30–
50%). The grains are medium-sized (> 1mm) and
angular-shaped, indicating they correspond to added
temper (Maggetti 1982). Moreover, the temper is
arranged in a chaotic and non-oriented manner.
Additionally, the three different types bear optical
activity fabrics resulting from firing. The absence of
full vitrification, that would be confirmed by ab-
sence of cracks and pores (Cultrone et al. 2001; Pa-
vía 2006), indicates that firing temperatures were
below 800°C, although these clays show optical ac-
tivity or isotropy, so could be in a first stage of vitri-
fication (Shapiro 2012).
The thin section analyses corroborate the presence
of minerals obtained by XRD, as well as other phas-
es that could not be identified by this method. This
is the case of iron oxides and oxyhydroxides that im-
pregnate pottery fabrics and may derive from nat-
ural clay or have formed during the firing process.
The coarse fraction is formed by metamorphic rocks,
associated mainly with micaschists. Quartz is the
predominant mineral in the fabrics, as indicated by
XRD, and appears in different sizes and shapes (mo-
nocrystalline and polycrystalline). Plagioclases (al-
bite) and feldspars (microcline), in turn, appear in
less quantity. There are also occasional fragments of
mafic minerals such as micas or amphiboles. These
different elements indicate that the vessels are of
micaceous, not calcareous, fabric. Finally, the matri-
ces reveal the sporadic presence of graphite plant in-
clusions which probably come from where the clay
was extracted.
Discussion
Origin of the raw material
The pottery’s mineralogical composition (which in-
cludes quartz, plagioclase, feldspars, and phyllosili-
cates) is characteristic of sedimentary and metamor-
phic rocks, types of outcrops that are characteristic of
Peñalosa’s surroundings (Fig. 1) (IGME 1974; Jara-
millo 2005; García González et al. 2010). These
comprise mainly quartzitic sandstones, mica-schists
and quartzites whose alteration processes can yield
clay bearing a mineralogical composition similar to
that identified from the samples of pottery.
Therefore, the pottery’s mineral phases point to lo-
cal production. Moreover, their mi-
neralogical composition suggests a
catchment area extending to a ra-
dius of 5km around the Peñalosa,
where the potters took advantage
of the natural resources offered by
the environment.
The two cases bearing traces of am-
phiboles, by contrast, indicate the
existence of raw materials from
other geological areas not yet deter-
mined. However, other studies car-
ried out in Peñalosa (García Gon-
zalez et al. 2010) have identified
pegmatite aplite dykes and a grani-
tic porphyry area 4km from the ar-
chaeological site, where this type of
raw material could be found.
Preparation and modelling of
raw materials
The results indicate specific produ-
ction strategies for specific types of
pottery forms. Vessels designed for
the preparation and consumption
Fig. 9. Petrographic fabrics (Fabrics 1 and 2) of the Peñalosa fune-
rary pottery. Crossed-polarized (XP) and plane-polarized light (PPL).
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
341
of food are compact, indicating
thorough kneading of clay which
yielded fabrics that are devoid
of striations and pores as well as
more resistant, avoiding fractu-
res due to the elimination of sur-
plus water during drying, firing
and use (Schiffer, Skibo 1987).
Compactness is also linked to a
homogeneous distribution of
temper after thorough and pro-
longed kneading of the clay.
Moreover, these vessels are mo-
stly characterised by obliquely
arranged grains, indicating the
direction of the pressure during
forming (Tite 2008).
Orzas are characterized by more
porous and less compact matri-
ces. The fabrics of vessels bearing these features are
usually linked to food storage. Their porous nature
makes them more efficient in preserving food (Gá-
miz 2018) in both solid and liquid form. However,
the fact that their surface reveals a smoothing treat-
ment suggests that they were not designed to con-
tain liquids, as these are more effective when they
undergo waterproofing treatments such as burnish-
ing (Schiffer et al. 1994).
In sum, different technological features take place
between the phases of preparation of the clay, its
kneading and the forming of the vessels. This infers
that the manufacture is conditioned by the intended
function of the pottery, thus differentiating between
vessels serving for food preparation, consumption,
and storage. This therefore suggests a well-defined
strategy of manufacture denoting potters with an ad-
vanced knowledge of their craft.
Clay drying phase
A common characteristic of the different Peñalosa
vessels is that their drying time appears to have been
adequate, as seen through the low density of their
pores and striae. The absence of fractures is also in
line with a slow dehydration process. Their tempers
allowed an optimal drying phase and led to greater
resistance during firing (Schiffer, Skibo 1987). The
size of the pores and cracks among storage vessels,
by contrast, increases due to the thickness of their
walls, factors favouring a greater capacity to contain
water. Nonetheless, this has a negative effect on their
compactness during the drying and firing phases, an
effect that can be mitigated, as noted above, by add-
ing temper so as to maintain the mechanical resis-
tance of these vessels (West 1992; Schiffer et al.
1994).
Once at the leather-hard phase, the vessels received
the characteristic surface burnishing. In certain cases,
as noted for a hemispherical bowl (Schiffer, Skibo
1987), the vessel was first treated with a slip layer
to smooth the entire surface and eliminate any po-
tential imperfections that could negatively affect the
vessel in firing.
Pottery firing
Surface and matrix colour as well as mineralogical
composition were taken into account to identify the
firing strategies.
Light to dark colour variations both on surface and
in the paste are due to different firing atmospheres
resulting from open firings or ‘firing pits’, i.e. simple
structures serving throughout the entire prehistory
of the Iberian Peninsula (García, Calvo 2006) that
do not allow the control of the firing atmosphere.
We could not firmly establish the firing temperature
of the Peñalosa vessels as the mineralogical compo-
sition analysed by both XRD and thin section ana-
lysis lacks carbonates, especially calcite, a good indi-
cator of firing temperature (Linares et al. 1983).
Furthermore, there is no evidence of new mineral
phases resulting from the disappearance of other mi-
nerals that are characteristic of high firing temper-
atures (above 850°C) (Linares et al. 1983). Hence,
Fig. 10. Petrographic fabrics (Fabric 3) of the Peñalosa funerary pot-
tery. Crossed-polarized (XP) and plane-polarized light (PPL).
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
342
other types of mineral associations must be taken
into account when approaching the question of fir-
ing temperature. The absence of chlorite, which
tends to disappear at temperatures above 500°C, as
well as the appearance in all samples of thermally
altered phyllosilicates, suggests a firing temperature
above 500°C (Linares et al. 1983). There are sever-
al factors indicating temperatures below 800°C: the
absence or low bearing of pyroxenes; high percen-
tages of albite, feldspars and smectites; and substan-
tial presence of illite-muscovite, whose dehydroxy-
lation is not initiated before attaining 850–900°C
(Peña-Poza 2011). Furthermore, no signs of vitrifi-
cation are visible in the thin section analyses, indi-
cating that firing temperatures did not exceed 750–
850°C (the temperature range for non-calcareous
clay which depends on the firing atmosphere) (Ma-
niatis, Tite 1981; Pavía 2006).
All of the preceding evidence suggests that the fu-
nerary pottery of Peñalosa was fired at temperatu-
res ranging between 500–800°C, a hypothesis that
would require confirmation from future experimen-
tation. Nevertheless, this is a point of inflexion with
regard to the hypotheses stating that Argaric vessels
from these contexts were minimally fired (Albero,
Aranda 2014), or unfired as in the case of the ear-
lier macroscopic studies of funerary pottery from
Peñalosa (Contreras et al. 2000). Contreras et al.
(2000) interpreted the light surface colour as a sign
of non-firing (e.g., sample BE-15211), while recent
archaeometric analyses of the same sample reveal
that it was fired. This demonstrates the nullity of the
variable of external colouring to determine if cera-
mics are fired or not. In this sense, DRX or petrogra-
phic analyses are more reliable techniques to assess
firing temperatures.
Ceramic vessels fired at the previous temperature
range are endowed with characteristics that make
them functional, with improved mechanical resis-
tance and hardness (Rye 1981; Simon et al. 1989;
Albero 2014). The function of these vessels is linked
to processing, consuming and storage. This link be-
tween technology and function is further evidenced
by marks of use on the external walls (bearing soot,
cooking marks or cracks).
However, another study defends the argument that
this range indicates low temperatures and/or short
exposure, and uses the notion of low temperatures
for those oscillating between 500 and 700°C (Albe-
ro, Albero 2014). We think that this range is normal
in prehistoric contexts (such as that of Peñalosa),
due to the absence of kilns suggesting that the fir-
ing was carried out in fire-pits or open fires with li-
mited control over temperatures and firing times.
Furthermore, these firing structures could hardly at-
tain temperatures exceeding 950°C under normal
conditions (Gosselain 1992; Tite 2008). In fact, as
evidenced by metallurgical experimentation (More-
no et al. 2010), only bellows or tuyères yield such
high temperatures. Therefore, we suggest that the
notion of low temperatures be equated with firings
below 500°C, because below this temperature the
vessel would not be functional due to low resis-
tance (Skibo 1997).
Evidence of pottery use and repair
It is also noteworthy that certain funerary vessels at
Peñalosa bear signs of use and repair. The burn
marks along the base of pot BE-6066, for example,
indicate an exposure to fire. This confirms that cer-
tain vessels of Peñalosa served for cooking prior to
their deposition as grave goods. The perforation
through the stem of a chalice also served for its re-
pair. This characteristic ceramic form has been, as
noted above, at times associated exclusively with fu-
nerary contexts (Torre 1974; Molina, Pareja 1975).
Signs of reuse, as well as finds of chalice-type vessels
unearthed in domestic dwellings (Contreras et al.
2014), lead to speculation that not only reinforces
the hypothesis initially raised by Vicente Lull (1983)
that typical Argaric chalices served in both domestic
and funerary contexts, but also suggest that this form
saw use in the domestic spheres before being depo-
sited in burials. A detailed comparison of the diffe-
rent chalices from each context in order to assess
possible techno-typological variations is nonetheless
necessary to be able to offer more firm postulations
on this subject.
Conclusions
The technological study of the Peñalosa funerary pot-
tery makes it possible to delve deeper into the ques-
tion of the manufacture of these types of artefacts
throughout the Argaric Culture, leading to new as-
sessments as to their use as well as to speculations
about Argaric funerary rites.
Besides their characteristic typology, the homoge-
neous technological production features of the Peña-
losa’s funerary pottery suggests potters of great skill.
The surface treatment (burnishing), as well as certain
technological aspects (compactness of the fabric, ab-
sence of large inclusions, clear orientation of the
grains, etc.), suggest devotion of time and effort to
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
343
their manufacture. The population of this culture
therefore buried their dead in the company of ves-
sels of high quality and marked aesthetic value, a
pattern observed also at other Spanish Argaric sites
in the Province of Granada (e.g., Cuesta del Negro,
Cerro de San Cristóbal, Cerro de la Encina) as well
as at the more distant site of Fuente Álamo in Alme-
ría (Contreras et al. 1987; Albero, Aranda 2013;
Schubart 2004; Aranda et al. 2005; 2008).
Moreover, the great hardness and resistance of Peña-
losa’s ceramic fabrics differ from those recorded at
other sites, suggesting vessels of low technological
quality (Contreras 1986; Aranda, Esquivel 2006).
These notions, together with the evidence of prior
use before becoming grave goods, indicate they were
originally intended for food processing, storage or
consumption. This study suggests three possible sce-
narios: (1) the vessels were produced explicitly to
serve in a ritual directly preceding the burial; (2)
they served initially as domestic artefacts before tak-
ing on a funerary role, or (3) both. The first scenario
indicates that they formed part of a funerary ban-
quet, a hypothesis advanced by other researchers
(Aranda, Esquivel 2006), although the hypothesis
of previous use in domestic contexts is not rejected.
This is indicated by finds of animal and plant re-
mains, and traces of organic residues identified by
physical-chemical techniques (García-García 2018;
García-García et al. 2018). The second scenario is
that of reuse of domestic ware as funerary grave
goods, as is the case at Cuesta del Negro (Granada)
(Contreras et al. 1987), a site where characteristic
forms such as carinated vessels, bowls, cooking ves-
sels are recorded in both domestic and funerary con-
texts. In this case it is evident that the vessels were
produced for a functional use (Contreras et al. 2014).
Nonetheless, it must be noted that it is not possible,
due to the lack of reliable data, to determine whether
they served in a ritual or for everyday common do-
mestic ware.
Our study of the Peñalosa funerary vessels also re-
veals differences among Argaric funerary patterns
from other settlements, where the ceramic grave
goods were deliberately manufactured for burials
(Milá et al. 2007; Aranda, Molina 2005; Aranda
2004; 2010; Albero, Aranda 2014).
Settlements such as Peñalosa could have occupied a
secondary position within the hierarchy of the Arga-
ric territory. These settlements functioned as centres
of production to supply more vital centres. In this
sense, Peñalosa was a metallurgical settlement cen-
tred on the extraction and production of metals (cop-
per and silver). 
Although these communities maintained traditions
within the framework of a common cultural system,
the archaeological record offers evidence of regional
particularities. As Peñalosa was a settlement geared
toward metallurgy, the wealth of its grave goods is
manifested mainly through metal objects, and silver
and gold jewellery (Contreras et al. 1995), which
does not mean that this settlement is located in a
high hierarchical position due to the presence of this
type of grave goods, but rather that these are present
in Peñalosa for its easy acquisition. The inhabitants
buried their dead with pottery that has had a previ-
ous use. For this reason, the value given to these
types of elements in ‘less-entity’ settlements can be
very different from that granted in other greater
centres, where the vessels are manufactured exclu-
sively for burials. As noted by Cesar Carreras Mon-
fort and Jordi Nadal Lorenzo (2003), although an
economic value can have an influence on the social
importance given to objects, it is noteworthy that
certain goods valued by one society may not be va-
lued by another. Thus, lifestyles, forms of social or-
ganisation and social values within the same culture
may influence pottery production from one settle-
ment to another.
The current study has only been able to carry out a
limited number of comparisons with other Argaric
funerary pottery assemblages due to the general
lack of technological analyses. There is a real need
for future analyses along these lines in order to de-
fine more accurately the nuances of territorial fune-
rary rites, and to question the wider character of the
Argaric Culture that has been traditionally framed
under the paradigm of cultural unity. Besides, the
restriction of the sample to funerary contexts does
not allow us to determine reliable reasons which led
to certain production strategies. Therefore, current
research focuses on analysing the pottery assem-
blage from domestic contexts of Peñalosa in order
to learn more about the organisation of pottery pro-
duction, and the choice of certain forms and tech-
niques.
Albero D., Aranda G. 2014. Elección tecnológica y expre-
sión social: Análisis arqueométrico de cerámicas funera-
rias argáricas del Cerro de San Cristóbal (Ogíjares, Grana-
da). Complutum 25: 109–127.
https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CMPL.2014.v25.n1.45358
Aranda G. 2001. El análisis de la relación forma-conte-
nido de los conjuntos cerámicos del yacimiento arqueo-
lógico del Cerro de la Encina (Granada, España). British
Archaeological Reports IS 927. Archaeopress. Oxford.
2004. Craft specialization in pottery production during
the Bronze Age in south eastern Iberia. Journal of Ibe-
rian Archaeology 6: 157–179.
2010. Entre la tradición y la innovación: el proceso de
especialización en la producción cerámica argárica.
Menga 1: 77–95.
Aranda G., Esquivel J. A. 2006. Ritual funerario y comensa-
lidad en las sociedades de la Edad del Bronce del sureste
peninsular: la cultura de El Argar. Trabajos de Prehistoria
63(2): 117–133. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2006.v63.i2.20
Aranda G. Molina F. 2005. Intervenciones arqueológicas
en el yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce del Cerro de la
Encina (Monachil. Granada). Trabajos de Prehistoria 62:
165–179. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2005.v62.i1.61
Aranda G., Molina F., Fernández S., Sánchez M., Al Oumao-
ui I., Jímenez-Brobeil S., and Roca M. G. 2008. El poblado
y necrópolis argáricos del Cerro de la Encina (Monachil.
Granada). Las campañas de excavación de 2003–05. Cua-
dernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad
de Granada 18: 219–264.
Aranda G., Alarcón E., Murillo-Barroso M., Montero I., Ji-
ménez-Brobeil S., Sánchez M., and Rodríguez-Ariza M.O.
2012. El yacimiento argárico del Cerro de San Cristóbal
(Ogíjares, Granada). Revista de Prehistoria de Andalucía
3: 141–164.
Arteaga O., Schubart H. 2000. Formas de la cerámica ar-
gárica de Fuente Álamo. Fuente Álamo. In H. Schubart,
V. Pingel, and O. Artegada (eds.), Las excavaciones ar-
queológicas 1977–1991 en el poblado de la Edad del
Bronce. Conserjería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía.
Sevilla: 99–106.
Cámara J. A., Milá M. S., Arana R., and Contreras F. 2005.
Estudio arqueométrico de diversos materiales cerámicos
procedentes de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén). Anu-
ario Arqueológico de Andalucía 2: 37–50.
Carreras Monfort C., Nadal Lorenzo J. 2003. Reflexiones
en torno a la cultura material: Nuevas aproximaciones.
Pyrennae 33: 65–80.
Castro A. 1989. Petrografía Básica. Texturas, clasifica-
ción y nomenclatura de rocas. Paraninfo. Madrid.
Chung F. 1974. Quantitative interpretation of X-ray dif-
fraction patterns: Matrix flushing method of quantitative
multicomponent analisys. Journal of Applied Crystallo-
graphy 7: 519–525.
https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889874010375
Contreras F. 1986. Aplicación de métodos y análisis es-
tadísticos a los complejos cerámicos de la Cuesta del
Negro (Purullena, Granada). Unpublished PhD thesis.
Universidad de Granada. Granada.
(ed.) 2000. Proyecto Peñalosa. Análisis histórico de
las comunidades de la Edad del Bronce del Piedemon-
te Meridional de Sierra Morena y Depresión Linares-
Bailén. Arqueología Monografías 10. Conserjería de Cul-
tura. Sevilla.
Contreras F., Moreno M. A. 2015. Minería y metalurgia del
cobre entre las poblaciones argáricas. La aportación del
poblado de Peñalosa. In J. L. López (coord.), Phicaria III
encuentros Internacionales del Mediterráneo (Mazar-
rón, 7–9 march 2014). Universidad Popular de Mazarrón.
Mazarrón: 37–57.
Contreras F., Rodríguez M. O., Cámara J. A., Moreno A.
1997. Hace 4000 años. Vida y muerte en dos poblados
de la Alta Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía. Conserjería de
Cultura. Sevilla.
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
344
References
∴
This research was supported by the project "Arqueología y Química. Reconstruyendo los hábitos alimenticios en
la cultura de El Argar" (HAR2015-66009-P) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. We
are grateful for the kindness and help of the staff of the Museum of Jaén (where the Peñalosa collection is locat-
ed) especially from its director Francisca Hornos Mata and her curator Carmen Repullo. The authors thank the
reviewers for their contributions and comments to this work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
345
Contreras F., Capel J., Esquivel J. A., Molina F., and de la
Torre F. 1987. Los ajuares cerámicos de la necrópolis ar-
gárica de la Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Granada). Avan-
ce al estudio analítico y estadístico. Cuadernos de Prehi-
storia y Arqueología de La Universidad de Granada 12:
135–155.
Contreras F., Cámara J. A., Lizcano R., Pérez C., Robledo B.,
and Trancho G. 1995. Enterramientos y diferenciación so-
cial I. El registro funerario del yacimiento de la Edad del
Bronce de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén). Trabajos
de Prehistoria 52(1): 87–108.
https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.1995.v52.i1.433
Contreras F., Moreno A., Arboledas L., Alarcón E., Mora A.,
Padilla J. J., and García-García A. 2014. Un poblado de la
Edad del Bronce que tiene mucho que decir, Peñalosa:
últimas novedades en la acrópolis oriental. Cuadernos de
Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Grana-
da 2: 347–390.
Cultrone G., Rodríguez-Navarro C., Sebastian E., Cazalla O.,
and de la Torre M. J. 2001. Carbonate and silicate phase
reactions during ceramic firing. European Journal of Mi-
neralogy 13: 621–634.
https://doi.org/10.1127/0935-1221/2001/0013-0621
Gámiz J. 2018. La cerámica neolítica de Los Castillejos
(Montefrío, Granada). Estudio tipológico, decorativo y
tecnológico. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universidad de Gra-
nada. Granada.
Gámiz J., Dorado A., and Cabadas H. 2013. Análisis de ce-
rámica prehistórica con estereomicroscopía: una guía re-
visada sobre la descripción de las fases de producción.
Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Grana-
da 23: 365–385.
García González, D., Lozano J. A., Carrión F., and López C.
F. 2010. Aprovisionamiento de georrecursos en la cuenca
alta del Río Rumblar (Jaén) en el II milenio a.C. In S.
Domínguez, J. Ramos, J. M. Gutiérrez, and M. Pérez (eds.),
Minerales y Rocas En Las Sociedades De La Prehistoria.
Grupo HUM-440, Universidad De Cádiz. Cádiz: 321–330.
García López M. M. 1992. La Bastida de Totana: estudio
de materiales arqueológicos inéditos. Universidad de
Murcia. Murcia.
García Rosselló J., Calvo Trías M. 2006. Análisis de las evi-
dencias macroscópicas de cocción en la cerámica prehistó-
rica una propuesta para su estudio. Mayurqa 31: 83–112.
García J., Calvo, M. 2013. Making Pots: el modelado de
la cerámica a mano y su potencial interpretativo. Bri-
tish Archaeological Reports IS 2540. Archaeopress. Oxford.
García-García A. 2018. La alimentación en la cultura del
Argar. Análisis de residuos orgánicos en las cerámicas
de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén). Unpublished
PhD thesis. Universidad de Granada. Granada.
García-García A., Vico L., Alarcón E., Cantarero A. S., Mora
A., Padilla J. J., Moreno A., Martín F., Manzano E., and Con-
treras F. 2018. More than vessels. Manufacture and use
of grave gods from funerary contexts in the argaric set-
tlement of Peñalosa (Jaén). 24th European Association of
Archaeologist (Barcelona, 5–8 september 2018). Univer-
sitat de Barcelona. Barcelona.
Gibson A., Woods A. 1997. Prehistoric pottery for the
archaeologist. Leincester University Press. London.
Gosselain O. P. 1992. The bonfire of enquiries pottery fir-
ing temperature in archaeology: what for? Journal of
Archaeological Science 19: 243–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(92)90014-T.
Heras C. M. 1992: Glosario terminológico para el estudio
de las cerámicas arqueológicas. Revista Española de An-
tropología Americana 22: 9–34.
Hunt M. A., Contreras F., and Arboledas L. 2011. La proce-
dencia de los recursos minerales metálicos en el poblado
de la Edad de Bronce de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina,
Jaén). In Sociedad Española para la Defensa del Patrimo-
nio Geológico y Minero (ed.), Actas del V Simposio Inter-
nacional sobre Minería y Metalurgia Históricas en el
Sudoeste Europeo (León, 2008). León: 195–206.
IGME 1974. Mapa geológico de España a escala 1/50.000.
HOJA 884, Instituto Geominero de España. Madrid.
Jaramillo A. 2005. Recursos y materias primas en la
Edad del Bronce del Alto Guadalquivir, medioambiente
y registro arqueológico en la cuenca del Río Rumblar.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Universidad de Granada. Gra-
nada.
Linares J., Huertas F., and Capel J. 1983. La arcilla como
material cerámico: características y comportamiento. Cua-
dernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 8:
479–490.
Lull V. 1983. La Cultura del Argar. Un modelo para el
estudio de las formaciones económico-sociales prehi-
stóricas. Akal. Barcelona.
1997–1998. El Argar: La muerte en casa. AnMurcia 13–
14: 68–80.
Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C., and Risch. R. 2009. El Argar:
la formación de una sociedad de clases. In M. Hernández,
J. A. Soler, and J. A. López (eds.), En los confines del Ar-
L. Vico Triguero, J. Gámiz Caro, F. M. Martín Peinado, A. García García, E. Alarcón García, F. Contreras Cortés, and M. A. Moreno Onorato
346
gar. Una cultura de la Edad del Bronce en Alicante.
Museo Arqueológico de la Provincia de Alicante. Alicante:
224–245.
Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C., and Risch R. 2011. Proyecto
La Bastida. Memoria de Actuaciones 2010. Murcia.
Maggetti M. 1982. Phase analysis and its significance for
technology and origin. In J. S. Olin, A. D. Franklin (eds.),
Archaeological ceramics. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Washington DC: 121–33.
Maniatis Y., Tite M. S. 1981. Technological examinations
of Neolithic-Bronze Age pottery from central and south-
east Europe and from the Neas East. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 8(1): 59–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(81)90012-1.
Martínez A., Ponce J., and Ayala M. M. 1999. Excavaciones
de urgencia del poblado argárico de Los Cipreses, Lorca.
Años 1992–93. Memorias de Arqueología 8: 156–182.
Martín J. D. 2004. Using XPowder: A software package
for Powder X-Ray diffraction analysis. www.xpowder.
com.
Milà M. S., Buxeda J., Alías A., and Arana R. 2000. Caracte-
rización arqueométrica de cerámicas argáricas del yaci-
miento de Los Cipreses (Lorca). Cuadernos del Laborato-
rio Xeolóxico de Laxe 25: 399–402.
Milà M. S., Arana R., Cámara J. A., and Contreras F. 2007.
La cerámica argárica de Peñalosa. Un estudio arqueomét-
rico. In J. Morín, D. Urbina, and N. Ferreira (ed.), As Ida-
des do Bronze e do Ferro na Península Ibérica. Actas del
IV Congresso de Arqueología Peninsular (Faro, 14 a 19 de
Setembro de 2004). Universidade do Algarve. Braga: 171–
184.
Molina F., Pareja E. 1975. Excavaciones en la Cuesta del
Negro (Purullena, Granada). Campaña de 1971. Excava-
ciones Arqueológicas en España 86. Servicio de Publica-
ciones del Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Madrid.
Molina F., Aguayo P., Fresneda E., and Contreras F. 1986.
Nuevas investigaciones en yacimientos de la Edad del
Bronce de Granada, in Homenaje a Luis Siret (1934–
1984). Junta de Andalucía, Conserjería de Cultura. Sevil-
la: 353–360.
Moreno M. A., Contreras F., Renzi M., Rovira S., and Cor-
tés H. 2010. Estudio preliminar de las escorias y escorifi-
caciones del yacimiento metalúrgico de la Edad del Bronce
de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén). Trabajos de Pre-
historia 67(2): 305–322.
https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2010.10041.
Pavía S. 2006. The determination of brick provenance
and technology using analytical techniques from the phy-
sical sciences. Archaeometry 48: 201–218.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2006.00251.x
Peña-Poza J. 2011. Estudio arqueométrico de cerámicas
procedentes del yacimiento de Sratosiedle (Gubin, Polo-
nia). Strat Critic 5(3): 82–90.
Quinn P. S., Benzonelli A. 2019. XRD and Materials Ana-
lysis. In S. López Varela (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Ar-
chaeological Sciences. Wiley Blackwell. Chichester, West
Sussex: 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119188230.saseas0619.
Rafferty J., MacCain R., and Smith J. (2015). Cooking pots
as burial urns. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology
40(1): 48–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2327427114Y.0000000016
Rice P. M., Saffer M. E. 1982: Cluster analysis of mixed-
level data: Pottery provenience as an example. Journal
of Archaeological Science 9(4): 395–409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(82)90045-0.
Rye O. 1981. Pottery technology. Taraxacum, Whashing-
ton, D.C.
Schiffer M. B., Skibo J. M. 1987. Theory and experiment
in the study of technological change. Current Anthropo-
logy 28: 595–622. https://doi.org/10.1086/203601
Schiffer M. B., Skibo J. M., Boelke T. C., Neupert M. A., and
Aronson M. 1994: New perspectives on experimental ar-
chaeology: surface treatments and thermal response of the
clay cooking pot. American Antiquity 59(2): 197–217.
https://doi.org/10.2307/281927
Schubart H. 1975a. Cronología relativa de la cerámica se-
pulcral en la cultura de El Argar. Trabajos de Prehistoria
32: 79–92.
1975b. Relaciones mediterráneas de la cultura del Ar-
gar. Zephyrus 26: 331–342.
2004. La cerámica argárica en la estratigrafía de Fuen-
te Álamo: Campañas de 1977–1982. Spal 13: 35–82. 
https://doi.org/10.12795/spal.2004.i13.02
Schultz L. G. 1964. Quantitative interpretation of minera-
logical composition from X-ray and chemical data for Pier-
re Shale. Professional Paper 391-C. US Geological Survey.
Shapiro A. 2012. Petrographic analysis of the Crusader-
Period pottery. In E. J. Stern (ed.), Akko I. The 1991–
1998 excavations. The Crusader-Period pottery. Part I.
Israel Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem: 103–126.
The Argaric pottery from burial at Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain)> production technology and functionality
347
Shennan S. 1992. Quantifying Archaeology. Academic
Press. Oxford.
Simon A. W., Coghlan W. A. 1989. The use of indentantion
testing to obtain precise hardness measurements from pre-
historic pottery. American Antiquity 54(1): 107–122.
Skibo J. M. 1992. Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Per-
spective. Plenum. New York.
1997. Ceramic surface treatment and Abrasion Resis-
tance: An experimental study. Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science 24: 311–317.
Spataro M. 2006. Pottery typology versus technological
choices: an early neolithic case study from Banat (Roma-
nia). Anale Banatului S.N., Archeologie-Istorie 14(1):
63–78.
Steponatis V. P. 1984. Technological studies of prehistoric
pottery of Alabama: physical properties and vessel func-
tion, The many dimension of pottery: ceramics. In S. E.
Van der Leeuw, A. C. Pritchard (eds.), Archaeology and
anthropology. Albert Egges van Giffen Instituut voor Prae-
en Protohistorie. Universidad de Amsterdam: 79–122.
Tite M. S. 2008. Ceramic production, provenance and use:
A review. Archaeometry 50(2): 216–231.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00391.x
de la Torre F. 1974. El ajuar de la necrópolis argárica
de la Cuesta del Negro en Purullena (Granada). Memo-
ria de Licenciatura. Granada.
Trancho G. J., Robledo B., Martínez-Ávila M. S., Alarcón E.,
and Contreras F. 2013. Indicadores paleopatológicos en
el poblado minero de Peñalosa. In A. Malgosa, A. Isidro,
P. Ibañez-Gimeno, and G. Prats-Muñoz (eds.), Actas del XI
Congreso Nacional de Paleopatología. Andorra la Vella:
711–736.
Velde B., Druc I. 1999. Archaeological Ceramic Materials.
Springer. Berlin.
Van Berg P. L. 1998. La Collection Siret à Bruxelles 2. La
Céramique de la Culture d’el Argar (2300–1600 avant
notre ère). Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Bruxelles.
West S. M. 1992. Temper, Thermal Shock, and Cooking
Pots: A Study of Tempering Materials and Their Physical
Significance in Prehistoric and Traditional Cooking Pot-
tery. Unpublished MA thesis. Department of Materials Sci-
ence and Engineering. University of Arizona. Tucson.
Whitbread I. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petro-
logical and Archaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory Occa-
sional Paper 4. British School at Athens. Athens.