The evidence for rural ceramic manufacture is limited. The best evidence comes from the city at Doganella itself and the suburban sites of SD216 and SD250 (Perkins and Walker 1990, 38, 43, 94). The other rural sites where wasters were found are small with the exception of the village at CAP46 which seems to have produced coarseware.
Fig. 184. Distribution map of wasters
© P Perkins 1997
This may suggest that much of the pottery production took place in an urban context, but that there was also some rural production. This pattern of evidence derived from finds of kiln bricks and wasters should be treated cautiously because to judge from the firing of the most common pottery (Coarseware 1) the kilns used to produce the pottery were probably simple bonfires or clamp kilns, and these leave little archaeological trace (Swan 1984, 53-4).
The evidence of the distribution patterns of different types of pottery also suggests that the urban centre was not the only source of ceramics in the valley. These are considered in the following sections.