The article discusses the various options for reconstructing pottery-forming techniques and for making reliable interpretations of forming practices based on archaeological evidence. It begins with a consideration of a classification of forming techniques that provides a framework with a suitable resolution within which observed phenomena can be understood. Such a classification should reflect meaningful distinctions among the forming practices: (a) in terms of the potter’s behaviour and also (b) in terms of the visibility of the effects in the archaeological record. The description of the forming practice reflects the fact that the forming method is a complex series of actions and often comprises more than one technique. The individual techniques are combined in two ways: (a) sequential, to create a single part, and (b) segmental, to create different parts. The relevant diagnostic attributes of pottery-forming practices are related to the structure and shape/size of the ceramics. They can be divided into five categories: (a) surface morphology and topography, (b) variation in the wall thickness, (c) remnants of segmental joints, (d) specific fractures, and (e) alignment and orientation of the components of the ceramic body. Two sources of misinterpretation of the diagnostic features define two types of ambiguous diagnostic features: (a) features that are correlated with a particular technique but are not necessarily a consequence of this technique and (b) features that are a necessary consequence of a particular technique but could also be a consequence of another technique. The analysis is intended to sufficiently narrow the range of possible alternatives by excluding those alternatives that cannot be the cause of the observed phenomena. Many features are randomly preserved on a small proportion of the pottery fragments, and thus, it is difficult to draw statistical inferences based on the evidence of these features. One diagnostic feature is prominent in this respect—the orientation of the components of the ceramic body. This can be observed and measured for every ceramic fragment. The analytical methods comprise direct visual observation and various imaging methods. Direct visual observation is carried out at three scales: macro, meso, and micro. Different scales of observation bring different types of information. Their use in combination is optimum for a reliable analysis. Various imaging methods can display what is difficult or even impossible to observe directly or what is observable at the cost of a destructive impact on the studied object. The image data can represent either the surfaces of the investigated objects or their internal structure, and 2D or 3D techniques are used in both cases. The observations related to pottery forming are most commonly classified or described in a given set of qualitative categories. The advantage of the qualitative approach is that the complex phenomena can be captured using appropriately defined categories. The quantitative approach relies on a measurable parameter or set of parameters to characterize the diagnostic features. The exact measurements have the potential to refine the analysis based on descriptive categories and create a stronger basis for scientific argumentation. However, in many cases, quantification reduces the complexity of the diagnostic features to just several aspects that can be measured. Therefore, it is important to combine the strengths of both of these approaches.

中文翻译：

---

陶瓷技术。如何重建和描述陶器制作方法

本文讨论了用于重建陶器成形技术以及根据考古证据对成形方法进行可靠解释的各种方法。首先考虑形成技术的分类，该技术为框架提供了合适的分辨率，可以在其中理解所观察到的现象。这样的分类应反映出形成实践之间的有意义的区别：（a）在陶工的行为方面，以及（b）在考古记录中对效果的可见性。成型实践的描述反映了以下事实：成型方法是一系列复杂的动作，通常包括不止一种技术。个别技术通过两种方式进行组合：（a）顺序创建单个零件，以及（b）分段，创建不同的部分。陶器制作方法的相关诊断属性与陶瓷的结构和形状/尺寸有关。它们可以分为五类：（a）表面形态和形貌，（b）壁厚的变化，（c）分段节段的残余物，（d）特定的裂缝，以及（e）组成部分的对齐和取向陶瓷体。对诊断特征的两种误解来源定义了两种类型的歧义诊断特征：（a）与特定技术相关但不一定是该技术的结果的特征；（b）特征是特定技术的必要结果的特征但也可能是另一种技术的结果。该分析旨在通过排除那些不能引起观察现象的备选方案来充分缩小可能备选方案的范围。许多特征被随机保存在一小部分的陶器碎片上，因此，很难根据这些特征的证据得出统计推断。在这方面，一个突出的诊断特征是陶瓷体各部分的定向。可以观察和测量每个陶瓷碎片。分析方法包括直接视觉观察和各种成像方法。直接视觉观察以三种尺度进行：宏观，中观和微观。不同规模的观察带来了不同类型的信息。结合使用它们是进行可靠分析的最佳选择。各种成像方法可以显示难以或什至无法直接观察到的东西，或者可以观察到的东西，但要以对研究对象的破坏性影响为代价。图像数据可以表示被调查对象的表面或其内部结构，并且在两种情况下均使用2D或3D技术。与陶器形成有关的观察结果通常在给定的一组定性类别中分类或描述。定性方法的优点是可以使用适当定义的类别来捕获复杂现象。定量方法依靠可测量的参数或参数集来表征诊断功能。精确的测量值有可能根据描述性类别完善分析，并为科学论证奠定更坚实的基础。但是，在许多情况下，量化将诊断功能的复杂性降低到可以测量的几个方面。因此，重要的是结合这两种方法的优势。