1Pottery, as one of the most important artefactual categories for archaeological research, is widely used as a basic tool for creating chronological schemes and archaeological cultural units. Yet, pottery vessels are highly diverse objects that encompass a wide range of raw materials, shapes and appearances. Each pot is assembled by individuals choosing from a broad range of possible configurations, which result in multiple combinations of parameters. Assuming that these combinations are not random but reflect specific skills, practical considerations and technological options, as well as cultural values and social concepts, this high variability in pottery needs to be organised in order to answer specific research questions.

2The archaeologist, when faced with masses of pottery from excavations or surveys, needs to choose the most important parameters from the vessel and record these in a spreadsheet or database, before the pottery can be sorted into types and classes .[1] Thus, the pottery documentation process (recording, photographing, and drawing) represents an important intermediate step between fieldwork and ceramic analysis. It provides a link between the actual objects, which are often stored away in find magazines, and the subsequent scientific evaluation (Ozainne 2017). The appropriate tool for this data collection is a pre-defined recording scheme, which ensures the documentation of primary information about the objects in a consistent and economic way. These field notes can then be turned into a digital file and used as database for analysis or as catalogue to accompany vessel drawings in publications.

3For want of a common recording standard, there is a multitude of archaeological schemes to record and classify pottery in African archaeology. These different approaches are often shaped by and bound to local research traditions and thus vary considerably, hampering cross-cultural comparisons in African pottery studies, even on a regional scale. For this reason, the last decades have seen a growing interest by those working on African pottery to exchange in workshops and meetings.

4To name but a few examples:

• several « Tables rondes » in Aix-en-Provence, organised by A. Gallin and D. Commelin, outcomes were the web page of CERAFIM (https://lampea.cnrs.fr/cerafim/) and the Actes de la Deuxième Table Ronde « La Céramique imprimée du Sahara et de ses marges » (Gallin – Commelin 2004)

• a 2-day-symposium « La céramique nubienne antique » in Lille (June 2006), organised by B. Gratien;

• meetings on roulette decoration, organised by A. Haour und K. Manning, resulting in the publication “African Pottery Roulettes” (Haour et al. 2010);

• various meetings on pottery from the Bayuda, Sudan, organised mainly by J. Phillips, R. David and S. Büchner ( www.academia.edu/28723474/Bayuda_project_proposal );

• workshop on Saharan and Sub-Saharan handmade pottery organised by the Trans-SAHARA project, 2015 in Leicester (Gatto 2020);

• pottery workshops at conferences of the International Society for Nubian Studies (ISNS), e.g., in Prague 2016 and Paris 2018;

• workshop on “Ceramics of Ancient Nubia”, in Warsaw (May 2018), organised by A. Berlin, G. Majcherek and T. Rzeuska ( https://www.asor.org/...ineceramics/workshops-2018 ).

5These meetings aimed at 1) a scientific exchange for comparing pottery at a regional or supra-regional level and 2) agreeing on correlations between various terms and schemes employed by ceramic studies in different regions and research periods. They were triggered by the need to achieve a broader knowledge for comparing regional ceramic materials and the need for a common language in pottery studies and classifications. These meetings as well as a number of publications on African ceramics clearly show a range of cross-cultural similarities in African pottery traditions, both, over wide geographical distances as well as over great time depths (e.g., Drost 1967). Examples for widespread ceramic characteristics in Sub-Saharan Africa are:

• shaping with the paddle-and-anvil technique, also known as “pounding the clay with a paddle into a concave mould”[2];

• surface texturing of vessels by rouletting or mat impression[3];

• prominence of impressions as decoration technique (e.g., the ubiquitous use of rocker stamping in its different varieties) and certain decorative patterns, like the Saharan “Wavy Line” and “Dotted Wavy Line” patterns[4];

• intentional blackening of the pot’s surface by fumigation, i.e., by adding carbon-rich vegetal matter during the firing process or by sprinkling organic substances on vessels still hot from firing[5].

6These over-regional similarities in African ceramic traditions are not to be seen in the sense of essentialist culture concepts, implying that all potters shared these traditions or had common cultural roots. They should rather be considered as a chance to identify and analyse the mechanisms behind these trans-regional commonalities in ceramic technologies and styles.

7Comparison is fundamental to archaeology but it is usually employed on a regional scale. In a broader perspective, a common recording language and a detailed documentation scheme are essential to evaluate pottery in a consistent way and to achieve meaningful results. They provide the analytical basis to acknowledge wider connections within the African continent, for example in the transmission of craft practices and technical know-how beyond cultural boundaries or through mobility patterns.

The manner of comparisons and how they are used is at the discretion of the researcher. Points of interest for cross-cultural ceramic comparisons are decorative patterns (e.g., Livingstone Smith 2007b) as well as for example details of manufacturing techniques, the correlation between vessel function and wall thickness or temper, or the morphological variability in relation to subsistence practices or degrees of mobility, etc. One of the Entangled Africa members, the Connecting Foodways project, investigates entanglements in culinary traditions through the comparison of food-related coarse wares across different cultural complexes, taking into account functional traits like e.g., vessel form, temper, and use-wear traces (Matthews 2022; Nowotnick – Matthews 2022). Accordingly, large corpora of undecorated and utilitarian ceramics stand ready to be exploited as indicators of cultural interaction within Africa.

8It is the commonalities beyond cultural boundaries that make past and future efforts worthwhile to establish correlations between different recording systems, or to go one step further and create a common framework. This should consist of an easy-to-handle basic standard for recording pottery and, most important, a common language respectively terminology. The importance of the terminology to be used in the description of pottery was already agreed on in the 1960s at the Second Conference of West African Archaeologists in Ibadan, however no final conclusions were reached upon since that time (WAAN 1967: 44; Gosselain – Livingstone Smith 2013). A common basic framework for pottery recording would facilitate comparison, on a regional but in long-term perspective also on a cross-regional and even a diachronic scale when focussed on specific research questions.

9Researchers involved in the priority program Entangled Africa[6] have started to approach this task. The Entangled Africa program aims at studying inner-African relations between the rain forest and the Mediterranean between c. 6000 – 500 BP. It comprises projects with diverse research agendas and study areas, ranging from West African potting terms in Mali to ancient pathways in Northern Ethiopia, and from prehistoric axes to medieval palaces (Linstädter – Sigl 2021). Notwithstanding their wide geographical, temporal, and methodological range, many of the Entangled Africa projects use pottery as a marker for cultural and chronological groups. Pottery thus provides the best means to facilitate collaboration of the involved projects in studying cross-cultural contacts and interaction within Africa and to start with within the geographical Entangled Africa sphere which means Saharan and sub-Saharan regions.

10A first Entangled Africa pottery workshop was organised in June 2019 in Frankfurt/Main, bringing together researchers of various projects and their ceramic finds[7]. Spreading out pottery sherds from different study areas in Nigeria, Chad, Sudan and Ethiopia on the table in Frankfurt stimulated discussions on similarities and interregional parallels that can be drawn between the different regions, cultural phases and ceramic styles (Fig. 1). Soon after, discussions shifted from the actual pottery sherds to the various uses of specific ceramic terms. It thus became obvious that a consistent terminology and a common approach to recording pottery are of utmost importance for any cross-cultural comparison between ceramic inventories wide apart.

11At the annual Entangled Africa meeting in Berlin in December 2019 we emphasised the necessity to find a common understanding on certain terms and to establish a basic set of criteria for pottery recording. For this purpose, we compiled the existing ceramic recording schemes used by the involved projects[8] and examined them for common features in their systematics. Based on this synopsis, we created a synthesis representing those categories that occur in all ceramic recording schemes, such as shaping technique, firing condition, surface treatment, etc. This provides the framework for a mutual comprehension between different ceramic inventories and the basis for a common recording scheme. For decoration, the most complex issue of pottery classification, a short catalogue of decorative patterns was compiled to facilitate a quick general characterisation of a pottery assemblage.

12It was originally planned to discuss these preparatory results in further ceramic workshops in 2020, both internally within the Entangled Africa program as well as with other researchers working on African pottery. Due to the Corona pandemic, all hands-on workshops had been cancelled and our discussions shifted to the virtual space. In six online meetings between June and November 2020, the Entangled Africa pottery specialists agreed on details and approaches for a common recording system (cf. https://www.dainst.blog/...gled-africa/en/reports/ ).

13We agreed to base the recording system on the vessel as major unit, instead of individual sherds. That means that multiple fragments of a pot are counted as one unit, but also a single sherd can represent the complete pot it once belonged to. A vessel unit is thus formed by those sherds which belonged to the same pot[9], whereby common identity is achieved either by sherd joins or by strong indications of shared identity based on the same fabric, form, and finish, etc. (Keding 1997: 36-37; Jesse 2003: 81). Details on this ‘vessel unit’ then include information on form, manufacturing technique, ware, firing, surface and decoration of the vessel. Although these categories are recorded by most researchers and seem rather trivial, we have observed significant differences in the level of detail and the units of recording. For example, some projects recorded dimensions in real units (in mm or cm) and some in pre-defined size categories (small, medium, large). Moreover, a project dealing with surface material from a survey focused mainly on decorative styles, whilst a project concerned with food-related vessels puts much attention on fabrics and use-wear traces.

14To overcome such structural differences, unification was necessary. The task was to find a balanced way between a rapid data recording and a core database that is detailed enough to provide all essential information for understanding the assemblage. Striving for systematic comparisons between distant assemblages, two basic requirements should be met:

• a number of main categories need to be present in all recording systems,

• these include sub-categories that should be documented in a consistent way, employing the same terms and units in all schemes.

15We established a standard minimum list of categories, sub-categories and values to be used for pottery recording by the Entangled Africa projects. It is the outcome of joint efforts, established by all participants of the pottery workgroup. We furthermore provide a user manual (Appendix 1) and a catalogue of decorative effects (Appendix 2) as pragmatic tools to enable quick and easy application.

16The main aim of the recording scheme is to be applicable to all kinds of pottery assemblages, be it from a survey, an excavation, or a study collection, and be it single sherds or complete vessels. Furthermore, the recording categories should be easily understood by ceramic specialists as well as newcomers to guarantee a broad acceptance and thus a wide application of the scheme. Therefore, simple and very general terms were listed as values for the different categories, tallying vessels in open or closed shapes, rims and bottoms as simple or modelled forms, and tempering materials as organic or mineral inclusions, or a mixture of the two. The recording scheme will be briefly characterised below, while a more detailed user manual can be found in Appendix 1.

17As stated above, the main structuring entity is the “vessel unit”, of which a set of technological features, measurements and descriptive details are to be documented. Basic measurements include the weight, the diameter (rim, body, base), the wall thickness and the preserved height of the vessel. The vessel shape as well as rim and bottom forms are described in a very general way, using main vessel classes such as bowl, cup, jar, etc. The manufacturing method differentiates between hand-built and wheelmade or a combined shaping technique. The firing conditions, such as surface colour, firing zones (oxidised, reduced) as well as firing quality and hardness are useful categories to describe involved technologies and craftsmanship. Ware group (fine ware, utility ware, coarse ware), tempering material, surface treatment, use traces and modifications should be recorded as well. For describing decoration, we opted for a two-fold system. The focus of the recording scheme is on the decoration technique and a repertoire of decorative patterns. Additionally, a short catalogue of effects was established to account for a quick characterisation of the pattern (see below and Appendix 2).

18The basic recording scheme was set up as an Excel spread sheet (Fig. 2) which can be used as pro-forma sheet for field recording of primary data and serve as database for ceramic evaluation. This serves as low-key solution, being both easily accessible and ready to use for managing larger datasets, including data analysis and graphic tools. Spreadsheets provide the link between paper forms, necessary when working in remote areas without reliable power supply or internet coverage, and sophisticated software solutions to which the datasets can be mapped for data storage, statistical computing, or open-access communication.

19Of course, not all criteria can be investigated from every assemblage. And not all categories mentioned in the basic recording scheme are equally apt for comparison. Emphasis was therefore placed on data relevant for cross-regional comparability. Beyond these, further background data need to be recorded, if the scheme is intended to serve as a field record. Basic information to be added are, for example, details on the find spot, the object’s place of storage, the state of preservation, as well as references to other documentation media (e.g., photographs, drawings, etc.).

20Thus, the proposed scheme is to be understood as a basic framework for future ceramic studies. It is always feasible to extend it to individual agendas and requirements of a research project, as long as its basic components and terms are maintained. Following this recording scheme allows for a first rough characterisation of a ceramic inventory, whether from an excavation, a survey, or an archived collection. If applied consistently for multiple assemblages, it enables inter-site and inter-regional comparison between different ceramic inventories, being capable of bridging greater distances, for example to understand similar approaches in potting traditions or in day-to-day activities like food preparation or consumption. To which extent comparison is done, if at all, depends on the respective research agenda and questions.

21As its individual components have been compiled from various projects across Africa, this recording scheme inevitably represents a compromise. Each Entangled Africa research project has contributed terms and approaches but was also compelled to abandon one or the other familiar vocabulary in order to build the broadest possible consensus. This proved to be beneficial because the joint competences of its participants contributed to critically review individual approaches and to achieve a better appreciation for alternative research strategies.

22Pottery decorations are essential elements for cross-regional comparisons. Although they represent the most complex aspect when recording African pottery, decorations are generally regarded as culturally and chronologically diagnostic. In contrast to more functional features, such as wall thickness or tempering material, specific pottery styles and their distributions are conceived to reflect past sociocultural identities and thus illustrate social spaces of shared knowledge[10]. At a regional level, pottery decoration is often used to define an archaeological group or cultural unit. However, the broad geographical spread of specific decorative patterns, e.g., Wavy Line, Leiterband or single decorative elements such as a plastic wavy band, indicate broader distribution patterns that allow to grasp inter-regional entanglements and connections beyond and between archaeological cultures

23To deal with the complexity of recording pottery decoration and to provide a system easy to handle, an approach developed during the Cologne research project ACACIA for the Wadi Howar region was adopted. In order to facilitate a quick initial recording of pottery in the field, a so-called “short decoration catalogue” was compiled there. This compilation included rough classification categories that have descriptive and – above all – chronological relevance. Thus, “(Dotted) Wavy Line”, Laqiya pattern, Leiterband, but also mat-impressions and roulette are basic categories. The decisive factor for the classification into a category is the overall impression that the decoration of a vessel unit makes on the person working on it. This “short decoration catalogue” has proven to be very effective for initial evaluations of the Wadi Howar ceramic material and therefore seemed a good approach for recording decorative effects in the regions covered by the Entangled Africa projects. Unlike the basic recording scheme, which documents decoration by technique, here the visual effect of the decor is taken into account rather than the tool or the motor action with which it was applied. Very small sherds may not allow to identify layout and pattern, but even in this case a rough classification of the decoration technique as impressed or incised is possible indicated in the basic recording scheme.

24The main focus of the decoration catalogue therefore is the general impression of the design. This means here, that the combination of layout and decorative pattern is more important than the individual motif or technique. The decoration catalogue shall facilitate a quick descriptive assignment of a pottery assemblage and a first chronological and / or cultural identification. It is, however, not intended to replace a detailed data recording of ceramic decoration, which takes into account that different parts of a vessel can be decorated by different tools, techniques, motifs, etc. A detailed recording of the decoration can be achieved in a separate scheme which is designed in compliance with a project’s specific needs. This is also the place to include detailed recording of rim top and rim band decorations as both, especially the rim top, display a special repertoire of decorative patterns.

25The proposed catalogue is a subjective compilation present in a limited number of assemblages and hence is far from being exhaustive. It reflects the decorative repertoire present in the Entangled Africa projects which participated in the workshop. As such, it already offers a good sample of decorative elements present in Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa.

26The table shown in Fig. 3 provides an overview of the decorative effects categorised so far. The illustrated catalogue of effects can be found in Appendix 2. It was intended to create a manageable list of effects that enables an initial and quick characterisation of an assemblage and to define a set of consistent names and terms for these effects. Most important were striking designs which have a specific chronological and cultural relevance but ever present “run-through” patterns, such as zigzag lines, are also included.

27This paper describes efforts made in unifying ceramic recording schemes and proposes a standard for African ceramics, listing the minimum range of variables required to be recorded. It is intended as a methodological report serving as a guide for practical and educational purposes and to trigger further scientific discussion. In respect to the wide range of collaborators and their diverse scientific backgrounds, it is hoped that the suggested recording scheme represents a good starting point for optimising collaboration within the field of African ceramic studies. The intention is less to convince everybody to adopt this scheme but to invite researchers to participate in networked and better coordinated research activities.

28With these efforts, we hope to establish a useful standard for data recording as well as a common vocabulary to describe archaeological pottery in Africa. We placed emphasis on using criteria that are well-established in ceramic processing rather than introducing new ones. Agreeing on common categories and sub-categories shall also limit recording much additional data that would mean intolerable extra work for the archaeologists, who are oftentimes overloaded with the amounts of pottery finds recovered.

29For newcomers in pottery analysis, this proposed recording scheme may provide a helpful guideline for data collection which is immediately applicable in practice and which can be extended to individual research objectives. For long-established projects, the most likely option would be to map pre-existing data to the criteria of the recording scheme. In the case that mapping is not feasible, additional work will be inevitable in order to complete the minimum list of values. This would be a worthwhile effort as it provides a number of benefits. First, an “extended” ceramic scheme allows for a much greater sphere of application. When all basic categories are recorded in a systematic way, they can be used for comparisons by a much wider circle of researchers, far beyond the involved project members. Second, a more comprehensive pottery database is better suited for future assessments, as it avoids the need to re-evaluate original finds for answering new or hitherto unconsidered research questions. Third, the manual provided in Appendix 1 can be used as practical guide for field recording.

30The Entangled Africa pottery workgroup furthermore considered sustainable perspectives of research data management principles, especially with regard to challenges dealing with big data, long-term data storage, and the growing importance of Open Access policies. The transfer from paper datasheets or Excel files to a curated database is a necessary step for long-term storage, for data analysis as well as accessibility of primary data by other researchers, within Africa and beyond. Inspired by developments in natural science studies which established common tools for data repositories, e.g. the Neotoma Paleoecology Database (www.neotomadb.org) or OssoBook ( www.archaeobiocenter.uni-muenchen.de/...index.html ), the Entangled Africa pottery workgroup explored similar ways of adopting digital tools.

31As the best solution for attaining these objectives we opted for the iDAI.field database. IDAI.field is an open source database system for fieldwork records from excavations and surveys that was established as part of the iDAI.world documentation system by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) (Cuy et al. 2019; http://field.dainst.org/#/ ). It provides an adjustable platform and serves for sustainably managing and storing ceramic data among others. Several archaeological projects of the DAI, have successfully migrated pre-existing ceramic data into iDAI.field (Hamel et al. 2022). Our established ceramic recording scheme is currently implemented there. This will then be tested first with ceramic data from Elephantine (Egypt), and successively expanded with data of the Entangled Africa projects. IDAI.field ensures sustainability of data storage and accessibility and furthermore acts as an online publication tool for research data.

32This paper is the result of lively discussions within the SPP 2143 Entangled Africa pottery workgroup. We like to thank all participants of the meetings for their contributions and constructive comments: J. Eger, N. Gestrich, A. Grünberg, T. Karberg, M. Köster, J. Linstädter, C. Magnavita, S. Pedersen, K. Pfeiffer, D. Raue, J. Sigl (in alphabetical order). The priority program Entangled Africa (SPP 2143) is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). For continuous support we thank the coordination team of the SPP 2143, J. Linstädter, J. Sigl, F. Lukas and A.-K. Bahr as well as E. Fäder and the research data management team. For help with the French language, we would like to thank A. Gallin. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments and critics.

This practical guideline shall guarantee a proper and concise handling of the recording scheme. Comply with the following instructions to minimise difficulties in completing it:

• Data should be recorded using a consistent terminology.

• It is not necessary to fill out all fields.

• Where data is missing, empty fields can be avoided by stating “not determinable” (nd), to indicate that this variable had been considered by the recorder.

• If one of the default options is not applicable, state “other” in the field. Note that the variable “other” does not lead to any meaningful database queries or comparisons.

The following section explains the categories and sub-categories to be recorded and defines its values. It also includes some practical notes and examples which had emerged in the Entangled Africa workshop discussions[11].

1) vessel unit / Gefäßeinheit / unité de vase

• give a unique identifier (ID number) to clearly determine the main unit

Basic recording unit is the vessel, i.e. the idealised complete pot, even though we often deal with single sherds. All entries therefore refer to the vessel.

Example: The fragment is a strap handle with parts of the vessel wall. To record the “manufacture”, consider the technique used to produce the vessel. Thus, although handles are hand-modelled, the whole vessel was shaped on the wheel and would thus be classified as “wheelmade”.

2) vessel part / Gefäßteil / partie du récipient (Fig. 4)

• indicate whether the pot is complete or which vessel parts are present (multiple entries are possible)

Note: “Complete” means that the full form of the vessel can be reconstructed, even if it is fragmented. Multiple entries are designed for rim + handle, or rim + base. There is no need for a multiple entry when rim fragments have larger parts of the body attached (indicate this as “rim” only).

3) number of sherds / Anzahl der Scherben / nombre de tessons

• quantify the number of sherds belonging to this vessel unit

4) weight of sherds / Gewicht / poids

• determine the weight for all fragments of the vessel with a kitchen scales (in gram)

5) diameter / Durchmesser / diamètre (Fig. 4)

• measure the diameter with a rim chart in cm, for

a) rim

b) body (This value shall indicate the maximum diameter of the pot.)

c) base

Rim charts are available for download, e.g., https://potsherd.net/atlas/topics/tools

Note: For open forms, like bowls, the maximum diameter often is the same as the rim diameter.

6) height / Höhe / hauteur (Fig. 4)

• indicate the preserved vessel height in cm

Note: The height of sherd(s) corresponds to their correct orientation within the vessel. Take this measurement from the length of the centre line in a drawing.

7) wall thickness / Wandungsstärke / épaisseur du paroi (cf. Fig. 4)

• measure the thickness of the vessel wall at the a) rim, b) body / wall, and c) bottom, in full mm.

Note: If wall thickness varies considerably within a vessel, choose a representative value.

8) vessel form / Gefäßform / forme du récipient

a) distinguish between open or closed form (This should be recognisable for most diagnostic sherds. Vessels with a straight profile are considered open forms.)

Note: If a wide bowl has a slightly inturned rim / lip, it would still be an open vessel. Thus, always consider the entire vessel if it represents an open form or a restricted form.

b) if possible, further specify the general vessel sub-category using the indicated types (Fig. 5)

Note: Recording vessel forms always implies a certain degree of subjectivity and a grouping is always reliant on the full corpus. Therefore only general shape categories are provided here.

9) rim form / Randform / forme de bord (Fig. 6)

a) distinguish between direct (simple) and modelled rims

b) further specify the rim form using the indicated values

Note: direct rims include simple forms that end in round, flat, pointed or bevelled tops; modelled rims can be quite sophisticated in their design.

10) base form / Bodenform / form de base (Fig. 7)

a) distinguish between plain (simple) and modelled bases

b) further specify the base shape using the indicated values

The minimum option is to make a general distinction between handmade and wheelmade, because the shaping technique is not easily recognizable when dealing with sherds. Use combined when both main techniques were employed to produce the vessel (for example, when the base was moulded and the rim was added and finished on a potter’s wheel).

combined | kombiniert | technique combinée

12) surface colour / Oberflächenfarbe / couleur de surface

• record the colour of the vessel for a) external and b) internal surface, using the main colours. Multiple entries are possible, starting with the predominant colour.

Note: This category refers to the visible surface colour. The surface colour depends heavily on the clay type, the firing technique, and a possible coating. To ensure comparability, try to avoid complex terms like “light reddish-brown”, etc.

• record the treatment for

a) external surface and

b) internal surface, using the following values

14) ware group / Warengruppe / groupe de façon (groupe de mode de fabrication)

• indicate if vessel is of fine ware, utility ware, or coarse ware

Note: The ware group refers to the general impression of the pot and hints for a first functional characterisation. Although the understanding and definition of fine ware, utility ware, and coarse ware depends on the nature of the assemblage and differs among researchers, a rough categorisation can be achieved for most pots by considering the vessel size, the wall thickness, the fabric and the surface treatment.

15) temper type / Magerung / dégraissant

• indicate which type and size of non-plastic materials were added to the clay, using a two-fold-system of temper type (organic, mineral, mixed temper) and temper size (fine, medium, coarse particles)

Note: Temper is best visible on a fresh break. The study of temper is a complex issue as it is difficult to determine which of the non-plastic inclusions were intentionally added and which were natural components in the clay. The choice for a specific kind and size of temper provides clues to manufacturing traditions and the potential function of the vessel.

• specify the main non-plastic inclusions visible in the break, choosing from the list of values.

Note: Multiple entries are possible but should be limited to the four major types of inclusions. Start with the most dominant kind of inclusion.

17) firing zones / Brandzonen / zones de cuisson (Fig. 8)

• specify the differently coloured firing zones in the fresh break of the sherd

• always start from the exterior surface to the core to the inner vessel face

• use the following codes:

O for oxidised firing atmosphere (light to red surface colour),

R for reduced firing atmosphere / lacking oxygen (dark coloured, e.g., dark brown, grey, black), and

I for irregular firing pattern

Example: for multiple zones use a combination of O and R, such as

O = fully oxidised vessel

R = dark fired (reduced) vessel

OR = only outer surface is oxidised, inner vessel surface is dark (reduced)

ORO = typical “sandwich firing pattern” with oxidised surfaces and black core

ROROR = five alternating zones of firing with dark (reduced) surface layers and black core

Note: Firing zones indicate the different atmospheric phases in which the vessel was fired, which strongly influence the surface colour of a vessel. Depending on the atmospheric conditions, the duration and the temperatures in the firing process, a vessel can show different firing zones. The whole vessel unit is addressed here. If firing zones are different on the rim as on other parts of the vessel, choose the most representative value for the vessel.

• specify if the firing is even or uneven

Note: This category gives hints for the firing technology as an uneven firing would point to less controlled conditions, such as pit firing, whereas an even firing can be achieved by the use of a pottery kiln.

Black-topped firing pattern is typical for some cultural entities in the Middle Nile Valley, such as C-Group and Kerma. The pot’s rim and inner surface was intentionally fired black, while the exterior surface is bright red, which is the result of a special kind of firing technique (upside down).

19) hardness / Härte / dureté

• determine the hardness of a sherd according to the 4-fold-scheme (Schneider et al. 1989: 11)

• this can be achieved by scratching with the fingernail and a knife

Note: Hardness tells about pottery technology: a hard sherd is commonly fired at higher temperatures than a softer one.

20) decoration technique / Verzierungstechnik / technique de decoration

• indicate the main technique of decoration, e.g. impression, incision, paint, application, etc.

• further specify these main categories, considering the tool and movement with which the décor was applied

Note: The list presented here is not consistent in its structure. Roulette and mat impressions are at times regarded as impressed decoration techniques or as surface treatments. These were deliberately singled out here as widespread and major surface elements on African pottery. Some decoration techniques have chronological implications in certain parts of Africa (e.g., mat impressions appear in Northeast-Africa from the 2nd millennium BC onwards).

21) decoration / Verzierung / décor (see Appendix 2 - Catalogue of decorative effects)

22) use wear traces / Gebrauchsspuren / trace d'utilisation

• specify possible wear marks from vessel use for

a) external surface and

b) internal surface as well as

23) modifications / Modifikationen / modifications

• indicate if the vessel was repaired or the sherd was used as a tool

24) remarks / Bemerkungen / remarques

• state further observations concerning the vessel unit

A so-called “short decoration catalogue” was compiled during the Cologne research project ACACIA for the Wadi Howar region in order to facilitate a quick initial recording of pottery in the field. This compilation included rough classification categories that have descriptive and – above all – chronological relevance. Thus, “(Dotted) Wavy Line”, Laqiya pattern, Leiterband, but also mat-impressions and roulette are found as categories. The decisive factor for the classification into a category is the overall impression that the decoration of a vessel unit makes on the person working on it. The “short decoration approach” has proven to be very effective for initial evaluations but can in no way replace a detailed recording of the decoration, which then also takes into account the position of the decoration and the fact that different vessel parts may be decorated differently.

Based on the Cologne experience, a similar list of decorative effects was created for the Entangled Africa pottery workshop, which was successively supplemented by examples in the course of the workshop meetings.

The catalogue thus collates the most common decorative effects to provide a reference for quick identification and classification. As stated above, this primarily concerns the most prominent effect of decoration and the overall impression. Specific details on the individual motifs, the location, and the decoration technique are to be documented in a more detailed project-specific recording.

For each category we compiled technical descriptions, and the occurrence within the Entangled Africa assemblages. These are supplemented by illustrations from actual sherds or schematic drawings of the decorative pattern. We used common and unambiguous terms, employed in relevant publications to ensure an easy recognition and broad application.

The Catalogue of decorative effects can be accessed and downloaded from the following Link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6531500 .

For more examples of the different categories see the "Entangled Africa pottery reference catalogue": https://arachne.dainst.org/catalog/969

We present here a recording scheme for archaeological ceramics in Africa. This is an outcome of workshop discussions within the priority program Entangled Africa and is put up as methodological report for further discussion. This basic recording scheme is intended to provide a common terminology for pottery recording which is easy to handle as well as to facilitate comparison between pottery assemblages of the Entangled Africa sphere in Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. It is hoped that other projects will be interested in expanding its data with further materials and thus contribute to a broader interdisciplinary exchange on African pottery.