CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tich matek : the technology of Luo pottery production and the definition of ceramic style

Dietler, Michael, Herbich, Ingrid·1989·World Archaeology
DOI 10.1080/00438243.1989.9980096
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The paper describes an operational sequence of production for the ‘household ceramic industry’ of the Luo people of Kenya, indicating the variations in technical and design choices at various stages which characterize the traditions of manufacture and the resultant micro‐styles of different potter communities. Examination of the technology of production among the Luo calls into question the basic premises of the functional definition of style proposed under the ‘information exchange’ hypothesis of M. Wobst. Rather, in agreement with the approaches of P. Lemonnier and J. Sackett, ceramic style is seen to originate in the patterns of choice inherent in all production operations, and neither communication functions nor information targets can be inferred from a consideration of the costs of stylistic behavior.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00438243.1989.9980096

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The implications of this study appeal to wider debates in archaeology and (ceramic) ethnoarchaeology that call for a transformation in knowledge production.

    “When viewed using a global lens, the implications of this study appeal to wider debates in archaeology, and (ceramic) ethnoarchaeology that calls for a transformation in knowledge production (i.e. Hall, 1983; Dietler and Herbich, 1989; Stahl, 1995; Ndoro, 1996; Stark, 2003; Karega-Munene and Schmidt, 2010; Lane, 2011; Pikirayi, 2015; Chirikure, 2016, Chirikure, 2020; Cunningham and MacEachern, 201”

    From Nyanga pottery and the Manyika ethnohistory: towards a decolonised archaeology of the Nyanga agricultural complex (2021) · cites this paper as Dietler and Herbich, 1989

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Bunzel R., 1972, The Pueblo Potter: A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitve Art
  2. Colson E., 1949, Life among the Cattle‐owning Plateau Tonga: The Material Culture of a Northern Rhodesia Tribe
  3. Cresswell R., 1976, Techniques et culture, 1, 5
  4. DeBoer W., 1984, The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, 527
  5. Drost D., 1967, Töpferei in Afrika: Technologic
  6. Evans‐Pritchard E. E., 1949, Rhodes‐Livingstone Journal, 7, 24
  7. 10.2307/280113 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/BF01117093 · DOI
  9. Herbich I., Kenyan Pots and Potters
  10. 10.1016/0278-4165(86)90012-7 · DOI
  11. Merton R. K., 1957, Social Theory and Social Structure
  12. Ogot B. A., 1967, History of the Southern Luo
  13. Peacock D. P. S., 1982, Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach:
  14. 10.1017/CBO9780511521171 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/0278-4165(83)90014-4 · DOI
  16. Rice P., 1987, Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook
  17. 10.1016/0278-4165(82)90008-3 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/BF01117454 · DOI
  19. Southall A. W., 1952, Lineage Formation among the Luo
  20. 10.1086/622910 · DOI
  21. Whisson M., 1964, Change and Challenge
  22. Wobst M., 1977, For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, 317

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dietler, M., & Herbich, I.
Venue
World Archaeology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1989-06
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
148-164
ISSN
  • 0043-8243
  • 1470-1375
DOI
10.1080/00438243.1989.9980096
Cited by
74
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review