The aim of laboratory analysis carried out on pottery fragments recovered from the Poienești-Lucaşeuca (PL) site of Orheiul Vechi and the Getic site of Butuceni was to verify the hypothesis that there was a continuity in pottery technology traditions and the hypothesis that there was continuity in raw material use. In order to verify these hypotheses, i.e. to determine whether we are dealing with continuity or with changes in pottery manufacturing, two factors must be taken into account: know-how and raw material. This means that it is necessary to perform both technological and raw material analyses. For the purposes of this study the following methods were used: MGR-analysis, chemical analysis by WD-XRF, thin-section studies and an estimation of physical ceramic properties. The results of archaeometric analysis of pottery from the PL site of Orheiul Vechi and the Getic site of Butuceni did not substantiate the hypothesis that there had been a continuity in pottery technology traditions. The results of archaeometric analysis of pottery from the PL site of Orheiul Vechi and the Getic site of Butuceni did, conversely, confirm the hypothesis that there was a continuity in raw material use. At both sites and in both phases there is a marked emphasis on local production of ceramics using locally sourced raw materials. The analyses performed show how vital technological analyses are in the study of ancient pottery. If only chemical composition and/or thin-sections are analysed (which is the most common practice) and a report is then written up based on even the precise findings of a technique such as WD-XRF and on sophisticated statistical methods, there is a chance that the resultant cultural and historical conclusions may be erroneous. Without technological analyses, the conclusions drawn solely from the results of chemical analysis/thin-section studies would be that from an archaeometric point of view, there is nothing to suggest a lack of continuity in ceramic production traditions between the Getic site and the PL site. In summary, the similarities in production between pottery from the Getic site and the PL site are clearly reflected in the raw materials used, both in terms of plastic ingredients and intentional temper. However, the results of preliminary technological analyses suggest that there is a lack of continuity in pottery technology traditions. In this way, given the differences observed in the physical ceramic property values, a broader range of analyses is required that will enable us to more accurately reconstruct the ceramic technology.