Ali, N. 2010

8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

1/24

REGIONALISM AND SOCIAL LANDSCAPE AS INFERRED FROM ANETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDANAuthor(s): Nabil AliSource: Journal of Anthropological Research , Vol. 66, No. 3 (FALL 2010), pp. 351-373

Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20798826Accessed: 16-04-2016 18:58 UTC R F R N S Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/20798826?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentsYou may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Anthropological Research

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Sat, 16 Apr 2016 18:58:30 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

2/24

REGIONALISM AND SOCIAL LANDSCAPE AS INFERRED FROM AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN

Nabil Ali

Department of Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. E-mail: [email protected]

Key words: Ethnoarchaeology, Pottery production, Patterning in material culture, Jordan, Neolithic

In this paper, an ethnoarchaeological study of pottery from Jordan is used to highlight the importance of the context ofproduction and technique in order to gain

a better understanding of the formation of a distinct prehistoric cultural region and its social components. Stylistic differences are delimited by technological characteristics, and understanding the technological process of object-making is vital in searching for and explaining patterns in material culture. Different

production units can be responsible for different pottery forms, rather than the pottery being attributed to different cultures. Moreover, the context of production has a substantial effect on the end product, which conflicts with normative interpretations of presence/absence patterns of material culture. Focusing on the social dimension of a region enables identification of the social producers and an understanding of how they can be differentiated, even when they share the same technical structures in producing material culture. This study is based on ethnoarchaeological observations among traditional potters in modern-day Jordan and the results are used to analyze Neolithic pottery from the same country.

Observable patterns in artifact types are sometimes equated to specific cultural aspects of past societies. It has been assumed that each pattern consists of a suite of cultural elements (such as pottery or lithic types) and implies the existence of specific spatial boundaries. From an archaeological perspective, the physical contents of each boundary have been viewed as reflecting a cultural boundary and

by extension have been seen to be a reflection of the distribution of social units across the landscape. Based on these assumptions, we find in the archaeological literature terminologies that refer to material culture patterns as culture areas or culture groups, often thought to reflect social components such as tribes, clans, or even ethnic groups (Shennan 1989).

Recently, however, ethnoarchaeological studies have eschewed the simple correlation between material culture pattern and social boundaries. These studies show the complexity of the processes that create, maintain, and dissolve boundaries among social groups and the methodological techniques that can be used to explain these processes. How these boundaries can be materialized in material culture has been a source of disagreement among scholars. The discourse revolves around the concepts of style and technology and the extent to which these

Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 66, 2010 Copyright ? by The University of New Mexico

351


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

3/24

352 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

approaches can be of value in revealing social dimensions by studying material culture. For some scholars, stylistic variation in terms of decorative attributes or formal characteristics of material culture can reflect social information (David et al. 1988; Longacre 1991; Parkinson 2006; Wiessner 1983; Wright 1985) at the scale of a social group, or it can even signify individual variation. Accordingly, stylistic patterns and the identification of their spatial distributions can reflect social boundaries.

More recently, the concept of technology has been reevaluated by stressing the social dimension of technique and how it can explain social boundaries (Chilton 1999; Creswell 1996; Dietler and Herbich 1998; Hegmon 1998; Lemonnier 1986, 1993; Pfaffenberger 1992; Stark 1998, 2003). This r??valuation focuses on the technological choices undertaken by craftspeople during the different operational

sequences, the cha?nes op?ratoires, of material production. These choices are assumed to be more informative about social groups and less informative about the intended effect on the final product. The focus on the technical dimension as productive means over stylistic means (decoration) for measuring variations in pottery assemblages has been stressed in studies among small-scale pottery

producers (Deal 1998:33). However, these two approaches to the study of material culture do not reduce the importance of typological studies, which can detect variation but lack the ability to explain factors linked to sociocultural differences. Technical choices may contain the greatest amount of information about artisan social identity (Stark 2003:212). Also, once identified, technical choices might to some extent dictate morphological traits.

In this article, I examine the extent to which stylistic and technical variables in contexts of small-scale pottery production can be of value in elucidating social

producers in non-state societies. An ethnoarchaeological study was carried out among pottery-making villages in the mountainous region of Jordan. It was possible to identify the different social producers and how formal as well as technical indices have helped differentiate between the different villages. This study shows to some extent which technical choices dictate morphological traits. This study also examines the ambiguous use of the term region by archaeologists, especially in

the Levant, to denote culture area. The results of this ethnoarchaeological study were compared with those from analyses of archaeological pottery assemblages from the late sixth and first part of the fifth millennia cal bp in Jordan to illustrate the weakness of constructing a concept of regional boundaries without taking into account the context of production.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The correlation between pottery technology or stylistic pattern and social group is most strongly manifested at a regional level. A regional approach to pottery production enables comparison of different indices of production at site-to site levels in a given region and may be extended to other regions. A site is considered here to be the smallest sociospatial unit in which different producers operate. It is within this unit that the social and spatial means of production can be understood. The various producers will be more or less reflected by the


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

4/24

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN 35 3

sum of technical practices materialized in a pottery assemblage produced within the spatial unit of a site. Classifying a pottery assemblage in terms of technical or stylistic (either form or decorative) indices will permit identification of the products of each social unit, on one hand, and comparison of the products of different units, on the other. In this way, we will move in our analysis from the micro-scale of social processes that generate pottery to a macro-level at the spatial unit (the site). Comparison between sites will then be made based on the sum of the producers' practices that generate their production. The structure from which these practices are derived and the factors to which it responds will shed light on the causes that create homogeneity or heterogeneity in production either at a given site or among sites.

The identification of different producers' technical practices, as reflected

in their final products, has been evaluated via the concept of cha?ne op?ratoire (Cresswell 1996; Roux 1994). This approach enables the distinguishing of specific technical operations associated with different stages of the manufacturing process.

Detailed examination of the operational sequences of object formation yields two main related social dimensions of pottery production. It enhances our ability to relate different social producers and their products to the general structure (either cultural or materialist) from which they derive their practices. Also, it increases the possibility of measuring variation in the technical practices of different social producers in terms of their skills and motor habits that are related to the same technical structure.

This dynamic context of examining objects as they are made will enable establishment of a classification procedure that reflects either the technical variability of pottery production or the variation in this production at a smaller spatial scale?in other words, that of the site. The classification procedure will enhance the dynamic unit of comparison, rather than only the physical attributes of artifacts. These units are then relevant for a comparison between different objects produced at different sites.

THE DATA

This study uses an ethnoarchaeological study of pottery production in Jordan. The implications of the results of this study for prehistoric data sets will be evaluated

using Neolithic assemblages from the southern Levant.

The Ethnoarchaeological Study Area The data for this study are derived from a regional ethnoarchaeological study

of pottery in northern Jordan (Figure 1). The study area is located between the Yarmouk River to the north and the Zarqa River to the south. Topographically, this part of the country can be divided from west to east into four zones: the Jordan

Valley, the highlands, the plateau, and the steppe. The practice of pottery-making has long been established in the highland zone, the Ajlun Mountains, where some places reach an elevation of 1200-1500 m asi. The mountain chains, separated by wadis (valleys), run from east to west, ending in the Jordan Valley. From south to north, the most important wadis are Rajib, Kufranjeh, and el-Yabis.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

5/24


Figure 1. Map showing the location of the ethnoarchaeological study area

(adapted from visibleearth.nasa.gov).

Mountain villages typical in this region are distributed along the wadis or, in some areas, at higher elevations. The inhabitants depend largely on agriculture and animal husbandry for subsistence. They cultivate both summer and winter crops, such as cereals, figs, apples, and vegetables, including okra and chickpeas. The cultivation of olives is a major source of income. Animal husbandry includes raising goats, sheep, and to a lesser extent, cows.

Identification of the Potter Population

Two seasons of ethnoarchaeological fieldwork were carried out in northern Jordan in the summers of 1999 and 2000. Pottery production was identified as especially common in the Ajlun region, where ceramic objects are still produced in a number of villages. Production was documented in five villages distributed along the wadis mentioned above (Figure 2). However, the number of currently active potters in each village varies. In one village, there are three potters, whereas


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

6/24

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN 355

Figure 2. Location of villages mentioned in the text.

in another, there is only one. The identity of potters, in terms of gender and age, is significant to understanding the social processes of craft learning. With respect to the Ajlun area, pottery-making is a predominantly female activity. Women mine and prepare the clay, and shape and fire the pottery. At some stages of production, other members of the potter's household might help in the secondary activities of pot-making, such as raw material collection and transporting, or pot decoration.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

7/24


The precise ages of the potters are difficult to determine. The potters themselves estimated their ages within ranges. Members of one group consider themselves to be more than 50 years old, while the other group reports being 50 years old. One fact is obvious: pottery-making in the region is in decline.

Other significant aspects of pottery production have to do with when and from whom the skill is learned. The age at which the potter learns the craft correlates with the source of learning. In most cases, if the source of learning is the mother, the woman learns before getting married. However, if the potter learns the craft after marriage, the husband's kin will be the source of knowledge?either the wife's sister-in-law or the husband's first wife.

The Social Producers and Their Technical Structure

A detailed analysis of the operational sequences of pottery production in the Ajlun area will not be repeated here (Ali 2005a, 2005b), but the main production processes are summarized. Pottery production in this area takes place on a small scale and is seasonal. It takes place from June to September, and is interspersed

with agricultural activities. The potters in Ajlun area generally exploit clay beds located along the steep

banks of wadis or near springs. Potters often take children to help transport clay. The distance to clay sources (up to 3 km) has increased since some landowners prohibit the potters from using the clay sources on their agricultural land. Axes and hoes are used to dig the clay, which is collected in burlap bags typically used to transport wheat. Potters carry sufficient clay back to the village to make at least three or four water jars. Clay preparation involves drying, crushing, grinding, and sieving. Usually a hand-sized stone is used to break the clay chunks into smaller pieces. Then the potters grind the dried clay with a cylindrical stone on a hard, flat surface until the clay is fine enough to pass through a sieve. Potters typically add grog (crushed sherds or other baked clay) as temper. It is collected from archaeological sites, which are found close to the potters' villages. After the potter finishes grinding the clay and temper, she starts clay body preparation. This part of the manufacturing process involves four stages: determining the ratio of clay

to temper, dry mixing the clay and temper, wetting the mixture, and finally aging. The clay body will not be suitable for forming until further kneading is done. A handful of clay is periodically cut from the clay body, each time adding to it a sufficient volume of water, while kneading continually with the hands. When an adequate quantity is finished, more kneading is done on the clay mass as a whole.

Potters in the Ajlun area use two different cha?nes op?ratoires in making pots. They are mainly differentiated by the way the pot is formed and the type of temper. The molding technique is primarily used to produce cooking pots. The temper in this case is calcite. The coiling technique is used in the production of other shapes, such as water jars, with grog as the main temper. This technical variation is basically determined by pot function. All the potters in the study area use the coiling technique to make their water jars, and that process is described here. Shaping a water jar involves forming the base, the body, and the rim. The potter shapes the base from a ball of clay by flattening it between the palms until it reaches the desired shape and thickness. The body of the water jar is shaped


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

8/24


using a segmental coiling technique. Several coils are applied, beginning at the base. These coils are then joined to the base and to each other using vertical and horizontal pressure. The coils are thinned with the index finger and thumb. The vessel wall is then shaped by applying horizontal pressure with the fingers and/ or the side of a lunar scraper or a broken spoon against the internal face while supporting the external face with other hand. Other coils are used to build the next courses of the vessel?that is, to extend the body of the vessel upward. After each course, the vessel will be left to dry in a shaded area. It is finished either with wet palms or a wet wooden scraper. The neck and rim of the jar are formed the same way. The potter attaches two or four handles to the body of the vessel before she starts forming the neck and rim. The vessel-forming sequence takes eight or nine hours, and then the pot is left in a shady place to dry for four days. The drying and

firing of the pots require dry weather, which is why pottery in the Ajlun area is made mainly in summer.

Pots tempered with grog are fired in pits, using cow dung as the main fuel. The pit is roughly 30-40 cm in depth and 2 m in diameter. The firing is carried out in the courtyard of the house or a nearby open space. It generally involves four or

five vessels of different sizes and types. The number of manufactured vessels differs by village and by individual.

Potters did not complete more than ten water jars per season, plus a few smaller vessels. This number differs from season to season depending on the demand from either local consumers or outsiders. In some seasons, some potters did not produce any vessels. Thus the small-scale production at these villages can be described as a specialized household activity.

Pottery Variation and Production Units For this presentation, the term variation refers to the different practices of

producers who share the same technical structure. It is the output of dynamic processes that reflects the components of the structure, on the one hand, and the social factors that affect its performance, on the other. In this manner, the sum of the variation in a given product is greater than the technical structure itself.

As stated above, all potters in the study area use the coiling technique to produce various pottery types, such as bowls, water jars, juglets, and platters. Because water jars are frequently produced by the potters we observed, the manufacturing processes of this vessel type will be analyzed in order to shed light on variation among potters. The dynamic processes of producing this type of vessel have been documented in two villages: Arjan and Kufranjeh (Figure 2). Forty-four pots, which represent the product of four potters operating in these two villages, have been analyzed. The sample size is constrained by the scale of production and the number of potters still active in the study area. This handcraft is rapidly waning. In fact, despite this relatively low level of activity, the two villages selected in this study were characterized by higher production compared with other villages in the region.

Variation in production was measured based on morphological, metric, and technical indices. These indices were used to measure variation within and between sites.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

9/24

35 8 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Formal Variation In terms of formal variation, two criteria have been examined: morphological

and metric. The water jar assemblages from the two villages differ in both general and specific morphological features. In Arjan, the dominant water jar body shape is globular. In Kufranjeh, the ovaloid body shape prevails (Figure 3). This particular type of variation produced other, smaller differences (Table 1). For instance, it resulted in two different neck profiles. The type produced in Kufranjeh is characterized by a profile that slopes into the body and appears continuous

with the body itself, whereas the one produced in Arjan appears more detached from the body (Figure 3). The other resulting morphological variation concerns rim profile. In Kufranjeh, the dominant rim profile is flattened and horizontally everted, while in Arjan, it is either simple rounded or level-everted. The other

partial morphological variations between the pottery of the two villages are related to the handles. Water jars produced in Kufranjeh have four vertical loop handles, a feature very distinctive of water jars produced there (Figure 3). In Arjan, water jars generally have two loop handles that, in most cases, are applied horizontally across the body. Only in a few cases are vertical loop handles applied.

Figure 3. The morphological characteristics of water jars at Arjan and Kufranjeh.

Comparison between villages of morphological characteristics of water jars

Arjan Kufran jeh 0 20 cm

TABLE 1

Arjan Kufranjeh Body shape Rim profile Neck shape H andles

G lobular

Simple rounded or level-everted Detached from body Two handles

Sloping with the body Four handles

Ovaloid Flattened horizontal-everted


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

10/24


The second index for measuring variation among water jar assemblages at

the intervillage scale is metric analysis. Here, the coefficient of variation (CV) is used to describe and evaluate the degree of similarities and/or variability in vessel dimensions. In this case, variability will be expressed in the form of a percentage. The CV results show that the two water jar assemblages from Arjan and Kufranjeh can be distinguished from one another. The assemblage produced in Arjan has a higher percentage of variability than the one made in Kufranjeh. The higher range of variability is found in the pots' bases and apertures (Table 2, Figure 4), with lower variability in the pots' maximum circumferences. A low CV of 0.76% is observed in the pots' heights. The metric data from both villages show a level of variability that allows them to be categorized into two different pottery assemblages.

TABLE 2. Variation between villages in water jar dimensions (cm)

Variable_Mean_s_L_CV Arjan n = 24)

Bas e 2 0 5 1 67 8 19

Aperture 26 2 24 8 62Height 52 25 3 32 6 36 Circumference 145_6.49_4.47

Kufranjeh (n = 20)Base 24 0 71 2 96

Aperture 23 5 0 94 4 00Height 56 75 3 18 5 60Circumference 143 7 97 5 57

Coefficient of variation of water jars production between two villages

Base Aperture Height Circumference variables

Figure 4. Coefficient of variation (CV) of water jar production at inter-village scale.

Technological Parameters Most technological studies focus on paste composition, which may help

identify different production units and/or the organization of production (Arnold 2000; Neupert 2000; Stark et al. 2000). These studies have shown that different social groups can be distinguished on the basis of the raw material procurement as reflected in paste composition. However, different units of production related to


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

11/24


the same social group could be using different clay sources. The emphases on other parameters such as pot formation and morphology are proposed as interrelated

variables to identify units of production for those who share the same clay source (Costin 2000). The validity of the formal index (morphological and metric variables) for identifying different units of production at a regional scale was mentioned above. However, the technological variables in terms of pot forming were examined to achieve the same end because pottery sherds (less amenable to formal indices analysis) are more abundant in the prehistoric archaeological record than are intact vessels. Thus, different forming stages created with the same technical structure were observed. Similarities among these stages can be in the source of energy (pressure of the fingers/tools), the type of pressure (discontinuous pressure), and the clay mass into which the pressures are applied (coils). The identified stages consist of

Forming the coils Joining the coils Thinning the walls Shaping the walls Evenness of the walls Finishing the walls.

Forming the coils. A clear difference between the two villages is observed in terms of coil size (Table 3). In Arjan, the two potters use coils of the same average size. The potter in Kufranjeh uses smaller coils. Coil size impacts the thickness of the pot walls. In Arjan, the pot walls range between 1 and 1.5 cm thick, whereas in Kufranjeh the median thickness is 0.8 cm.

The size of the coils also contributes to the segmentation of the pot body (Figure 5). In the village of Arjan, the consistent use of coils of similar average size during the different phases of pot forming, in both the body and the neck,

TABLE 3

Correlation between the pot segment or course being formed and coil sizes (cm) Potter 1 (Arjan) Potter 2 (Arjan)

Forming the No. of body/courses Coils Coil size

No. of Coils Coil size

Potter 2 (Kufranjeh) N o. of Coils Coil size

3

4

5

Forming the neck and rim

19 5.5 5.5

26 5.5 5.5

8x5x5.5

24 6 6 22 5 5.5

20 5 5

10 5.5 5.5

24 8 3

24 7.5 2.5

34 7 2 24 6 2.5

20 4 2

20 5 2.5

Substage 1:3 Substage 2: 4 Substage 3: 4

5

6

5 4

23 5.5 5

10 2 2

15 2 2.5

17x3 2

18 3 2 30 5 2 29 5 2.5

28 6 3


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

12/24


results in visible, relatively equally spaced corrugations. In Kufranjeh, beginning

at the base, the body-forming segments are joined at intervals of 21.5 cm, 4 cm, 10.5 cm, 9 cm, and 5 cm (Table 4). The first corrugation of coils is not visible until

a height of 21 cm above the base (Figure 5b). This contrasts with the products of the potters in Arjan, upon which the first segment ends at a height of 14 cm Figure 5a).

TABLE 4. Comparison of pot segmentation at different stages of formation between two potters in different villages

Potter 2 (Arjan) Potter 2 (Kufranjeh) Course Height (cm) Diameter (cm ) Height (cm) Diameter (cm)

1 14 3 7 21 . 5 40 5 2 24 45 25.5 45.5

3 35 42 35 45 4 44 34 44 37 5

5 46 24 49 24 6 54 24 60 25

Figure 5. Technical features associated with using different coil sizes to build the lower part of the water jar: (a) Arjan (left), (b) Kufranjeh (right).

Coil-joining pattern. The potters in both villages are clearly dissimilar from each other in their method of joining coils. In Arjan, the two potters groove one end of each coil before joining it to the pot. This practice increases the wall thickness at

the joining area and results in the join exhibiting elongated voids. In contrast, the potters in Kufranjeh use the abutting method. This practice causes either an even wall thickness relative to the previous coil, or a slight decrease in thickness.

Thinning. Despite the clear differences in coil thinning among the potters, it is difficult to operationalize this process in terms of measurable differences

on the end products because the coils are erased at the thinning stage. However,


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

13/24


differences among the potters in the two villages can be seen in the regularity

of the pot walls following the thinning stage. This regularity is achieved by subjecting different parts of the coils to the same degree of thinning.

Shaping operation. The pot wall takes its final shape at this stage, which involves discontinuous pressure from fingers or a scraper. The degree to which the shaping operation can change the state of the wall achieved during the thinning stage contributes to the final wall morphology. The wall morphology can reflect the modification done to overcome the indentations and micro-relief left there during the rough-out stage (thinning), on the one hand, and those resulting from the shaping operation (caused by application of pressure while shaping), on the other. The evenness of rhythm in gesture and actions while achieving the final shape of the pot determines the regularity of the walls. Based on this, the potters in the two villages can be differentiated in terms of wall morphology. The potters in Arjan produced two shaping patterns that distinguish them from those in Kufranjeh. In Arjan, the pots exhibit asymmetrical wall faces, which are dominated by recesses or wavy grooves that have an irregular pattern. In contrast, the pots produced in Kufranjeh are characterized by a micro-relief pattern that resulted from intermittent scraping while shaping the walls (Figure 6).

Evenness operation. This stage is locally called ta 'adii or tajlis (an adjectival form meaning to correct and to level ). Such operations are conducted after the shaped pot has been left to partially dry. Wall evenness is achieved in two ways: by the addition of new clay to correct irregularities, or by smearing the existing

clay from the coils that were previously set in place. The latter method is more common in Kufranjeh, whereas the former is observed in Arjan.

Finishing methods. Despite the fact that the finishing operation in both villages involves the same means (with either a tool or the hand), the pot walls and the external faces are different. In Arjan, two methods are used in pot finishing: either smoothing with a wet hand at the stage where the clay is leather-hard or

Figure 6. Comparison of pot surface evenness: above (a) recesses on the pot from Arjan, right (b) overlapping layers

of clay on the pot from Kufranjeh.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

14/24


by use of a tool. For the former, the hand is usually dipped in water before being applied to the pot wall. The pots produced in Arjan are identified by their self slipped surface and irregular burnished-matte spots. In Kufranjeh, however, the same kind of pot features intermittent burnished-matte spots and self-slip areas.

REGIONALISM, SOCIAL SEGREGATION, AND POTTERY PRODUCTION

The main topic of this paper is evaluation of the extent to which technological or stylistic approaches can be used to identify social group boundaries. The shift between one kind of style and another is the characteristic that underpins research on this problem. Ethnoarchaeological regional pottery studies have supported the

use of technology?more precisely, technological style?as a means by which different social groups can be identified (Gelbert 2003; Gosselain 2000; London 1989; Stark 1998; Stark et al. 2000). This method of analyzing archaeological

pottery at a regional level has had positive results (Roux and Courty 2005). Use of the cha?ne op?ratoire method reveals the extent to which identification of fashioning or finishing techniques can be used to achieve this goal. Other pottery studies base their analyses on stylistic attributes (morphological and/ or decorative elements) as a way of outlining social group boundaries. They argue that technique can cross-cut social groups and is less informative than comparing stylistic attributes (Wright 1985). These critiques focus on fashioning technique?coiling or molding?to distinguish between social groups. The use of the same technique by different potters at a large spatial scale has been explained as resulting from the properties of the clay at the potters' disposal, which in turn determine the technique used (Vandiver 1987). The focus has been more on the so-called primary technique to evaluate the similarities and differences rather than on the sum of stages of production. The other analytical components of the cha?ne op?ratoire have been less closely evaluated, but they are more socially informative analytical units.

The analysis of the pottery-making repertoire of northern Jordan was

conducted using both morphological and technological indices. Both were evaluated to examine their validity in identifying social group boundaries. The morphological attributes of the analyzed pots were seen as a result of the technical actions (choices) carried out on the clay to transform it into a final product. These attributes, such as rim shape and vessel body shape, can be viewed as the result of the motor habits of the maker. Different motor habits were measured via the coefficient of variation. The results of such an analysis might be useful for identifying the products of different potters.

On the technological scale, the units of comparison are related to the different stages of the cha?ne op?ratoire. This makes the comparison process a dynamic one, as it would entail a potter's actions and their materialization in the final product. This method is especially significant since different potters use the same technical structure to transform their clay into the final product. The segregation of the pottery repertoires by social groups was made by classifying the pots based on finishing, shaping, and structure of fashioning. The latter is relevant in the segmentation


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

15/24


of the vessel body. Analysis of the fashioning technique, rough-out, and also the structuring of this technique to build up the pot can be of significance in classifying different potters' products. Furthermore, the shaping technique, as exemplified in the regularity of the pot walls, enables classification of the pots at the intra- and intervillage scale. The same can be said with respect to the finishing technique.

This study shows the validity of detailed analysis of the operational sequence of pottery-making in the identification of different social groups that share the same technical structure. Technical pattern comparison would reveal more information on the structural organization of pottery assemblages across space.

Moreover, such a comparison will aid in classification of the spatial distribution of the product of different production units at either the intra- or intersite scale. At the intrasite scale, it will aid in the identification of variation between different

production units that share the same technical structure. At the intersite scale, it will enable segregation of the different production units at a regional scale by which the producers will be mapped as social units across the landscape.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

How can we use the results of the ethnoarchaeological study to approach archaeological problems? It is common to consider ethnoarchaeological studies as thought laden for archaeologists. In this field of study, new assumptions can be tested and/or evaluated. Here, I investigate the validity of the ethnoarchaeological study by defining the correlations between the technical processes and the variability of production conditions. These correlations will demonstrate the validity of the notion of technical pattern as a tool that can assist us in relating material and cultural aspects. This investigation will enable me to examine the common use of such terms as archaeological culture or culture areas in studies of prehistoric periods. Approaching these two terms in archaeological studies implies four aspects: material culture traits, people, time, and spatial distribution.

Childe (1929), for example, combined these four aspects in his definition of an archaeological culture or culture group. He proposed that culture area is

represented by a complex of cultural traits (e.g., pots, implements, house forms, ornaments) that are shared by a group of people who inhabited a given space. The spatial distribution of these cultural traits can define the boundary of each cultural group during a specific time frame. Elaborating on Childe's definition, Clarke (1968) proposed another definition of archaeological culture. For Clarke, such a culture is a polythetic set of specific and comprehensive artifact-type categories

which consistently recur together in assemblages within a limited geographical area, and a culture group can be seen as a family of transform cultures; collateral cultures characterized by assemblages sharing a polythetic range but differing states of the same specific multistate artifact-types (Clarke 1968:188). Based on the polythetic structure of artifacts, we would expect less affinity for a specific artifact type among a culture group, but higher affinity for a set of artifact types. Furthermore, Clarke suggested that no group of cultural assemblages from a single culture ever contains, nor ever did contain, all of the cultural artifacts(Clarke 1968:35). The identification of archaeological cultures or culture areas


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

16/24


is not based on a simplistic relationship between material assemblage and culture traits because some traits can be found in one group but absent from another, and these differences cannot be used to signify different social groups. Instead, the concept of technology or technological style as cultural choice has been proposed, and several studies have shown that the study of technology can be a useful approach by which to identify social groups (e.g., Lemonnier 1986; Stark et al. 2000). This is in contrast to a simple focus on morphological characteristics or the classification of material culture. What makes technology a means of approaching different social groups is, in our case, the characterization of these social groups as small-scale societies with small-scale levels of production. In the following pages, I evaluate the use of technique and the context of production to shed light on the variations that material culture entails, the kinds of cultural information

that can be generated from technical classification, and how the interpretations of these variations could be misleading in terms of identifying prehistoric culture areas or archaeological cultures.

Pottery Variability and Conditions of Production: Where the Pattern Resides An example from the Neolithic is presented here to explain the extent to

which pottery technology can shed light on the causes of variation found among pottery objects. The Late Neolithic pottery assemblages from the basal level at the site of Abu Hamid (studied by the author) and the early phases of occupation at Teleilat Ghassul (studied by J. Lovell) are compared for evidence of regional differences in technological style (Figure 7). The pottery from Abu Hamid was found in pits (Dollfus and Kafafi 1993), some of which were interpreted as having been dwellings (Hourani 1997; 2002). The context at T. Ghassul is the same, although the latter slightly precedes Ghassul chronologically, according to Bourke (2007:29), who suggests that the Early Chalcolithic at Abu Hamid (middle phase), as well as at Pella and Tell esh-Shuna North, began earlier than at Ghassul. While Ghassul (in the southern Jordan Valley) was still in the Late Neolithic, the Early Chalcolithic had already begun in the northern Jordan Valley, according to this interpretation of a complex situation.

In her analysis of the pottery assemblages from the earliest phases at Ghassul, Lovell documented only a few forms (mainly open forms such as bowls and to a lesser extent, closed forms such as jars). Open forms came in a variety of fabrics, ranging from chaff-tempered buff to shell- and sand-tempered (Lovell 2001:33). Lovell found very few correlations between fabrics and form in the earliest phases. Potters appear to have employed a variety of fabrics for every vessel class, and even the temper showed little patterning (Lovell 2001:35). These results would be unexpected on the basis of a normative assumption. The search for uniformity in production, in this case, does not take into consideration the sociocultural processes and the conditions of production that might have affected production and would be reflected in the physical characteristics of pottery. Pottery classification and typology were approached as a set of physical attributes rather than as a result of human behavior. That is, the units of analysis were not dynamic (behavioral), and the conditions of production and the human behavior that produced these artifacts

were separated.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

17/24


Figure 7. Location of archaeological sites mentioned in the text.

To make the above relationship clearer, the pottery assemblage at the site of Abu Hamid (basal or lower levels) was analyzed (Ali 2005a) using the cha?ne op?ratoire method, focusing mainly on the process of pot formation. A sample of

800 sherds was the subject of detailed analysis. The parameters used to reconstruct the different steps of production, as in the ethnoarchaeological study, included the size of segments used, the set of gestures associated with thinning and shaping operations, evenness, and finishing. This method of analysis permits classification of the pottery assemblage into technical groups and the measurement of variation in each of them. Each group was characterized by a set of technical behaviors which,


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

18/24


in the end, reflected the technical structure for forming the pot. Based on these

parameters, the analysis of pottery from the lower levels at Abu Hamid has shown that the majority of the assemblage was formed using the coiling technique. This technique was identified based on surface features such as horizontal corrugations between coils, horizontal voids on surface, voids in section, and irregular wall thickness at a regular interval. After identifying the technique used to form the pot, the next step was to identify the technical behavior embedded in thinning the coils, shaping them, and finishing the pot walls. The thinning operation was differentiated on the basis of the wall morphology (i.e., by determining whether the coils were weakly, moderately, or intensively modified by the succeeding shaping operation) and how that would be reflected in the amount of variation in thickness. Most of the sherds are characterized by weak to moderate shaping intensity, and they exhibit a large amount of variation in thickness. Moreover, the latter parameter can be significant in measuring the degree of control in finishing pot walls with respect to the different forming sequences (i.e., the technique of shaping). After thinning the coils, the wall rough-out was shaped by discontinuous scraping with either a hand or a hard tool. This operation reflected the degree to

which the potter controlled and modified the walls of the pot after the thinning operation, both internally and externally. The degree of wall modification during shaping is evident in the morphology of the walls: whether they exhibit evidence of weak, moderate, or strong shaping intensity (Figure 8). If traces of thinning are still evident, then shaping would be considered weak (Figure 8a); moderate intensity would lead to a wall with relatively shallow micro-relief recesses (Figure 8b). Finally, if the wall is characterized by only a few, very shallow recesses, it

was subjected to a strong intensity of shaping (Figure 8c). Moreover, variation in wall thicknesses can reflect the degree of control with respect to different forming sequences. The Abu Hamid sherds tend to have irregular thicknesses. This result is consistent with the predominance of moderate shaping intensity found in the assemblage. Finishing is the last stage in the pot forming. Three finishing operations can be identified: hand-smoothing, hard-tool-smoothing and self-slip.

The most common technique is hand-smoothing. These variations reflect the variety of formation processes in the technical structure within the production units, just as was observed in the ethnoarchaeological

Figure 8. Examples of archaeological pottery from Abu Hamid, showing different production methods.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

19/24

3 6 8 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

pottery from northern Jordan. The cause of these variations in the performance of a similar technical structure can be related to different factors, including the different levels of the producers' skills and their motor habits, as well as the context of production. Most significant is the relationship between residential

mobility (the condition of production) and variation in technological performance (the quality of the product). The seasonality of residence at Abu Hamid may have impacted the quality of technical performance in pot-making (see also Arnold 1999 and Schiffer and Skibo 1997 on residential mobility and its effect on pottery

production). Seasonality might also affect variation in vessel function. At Abu Hamid, for example, three major vessels types have been identified: bowls (64%), wide-mouth jars (28%), and necked jars (8%).

The technological variations were measured using thinning and shaping intensity, and finishing types. These parameters helped to classify the pottery that has the same technical structure. Consequently, the variability may correspond to the unit of production rather than cultural groups, as inter- and intra-individual differences can produce important variations.

To evaluate the results from Abu Hamid and T. Ghassul we can postulate that both context of production and sociocultural factors might cause the variation observed in the ceramic assemblages. In the case of Abu Hamid, we have demonstrated that different production units were responsible for producing variation in the pottery (in terms of shaping). Moreover, seasonality, in terms of the context of production, may also have affected the dominance of medium intensity shaping in the assemblage. In the Neolithic phases at Ghassul, the lack of

patterning in the different fabrics and form types that Lovell (2001:35) identified in the assemblage might also reflect seasonality. This would explain why she found very few correlations between fabrics and form in the earliest phases. It appears that potters employed a variety of fabrics for every vessel class; even the use of temper showed little patterning (Lovell 2001:35). Seasonality might also explain the seemingly random use of temper (at Ghassul) and the intensity of shaping (at Abu Hamid). Moreover, at both sites few form types such as bowls were found.

In summary, unless the factors that affect artifact production are understood, it is unlikely that we will be able to identify patterns that reflect a sociocultural factor such as social group boundaries.

Cultural Areas or Social Groups: How Is the Landscape Formed? Most studies employ the term region geographically, referring mainly to

physcial characteristics such as topography and climate. The southern Levant comprises four such regions: the coastal plain, the highlands, the Jordan Valley, and the steppe. From both cultural and ecological standpoints, such divisions can shed light on the economic and adaptive conditions of prehistoric societies (e.g., Steward 1955). The region's diversity in natural resources and the technologies used to exploit them in part reflect sociocultural variability. A comparison among regions is foremost a means of identifying those variables that can result from the interaction between society and environment and which will be reflected in the

material culture. In contrast to this generalized conceptualization of region, others


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

20/24


stress micro-regional variation. Greenberg (2002:5) has pointed out that most archaeological studies treat regions as general units and pay less attention to the variation that can be found within them. In the highlands of the southern Levant, such micro-regions include the valleys between the mountains. They differ from the higher-elevation areas in terms of vegetation cover, soil types, and even average temperature. These micro-regions are exploited differently than higher areas and provide supplementary economic resources. Therefore, variation in economic practices would lead to variation in both settlement types and, consequently, material culture. Given this, how can we understand the human construction of landscapes and variation in material culture, and what would be the probable form of the social units that operated and produced these material cultures?

The starting point for this discussion is Banning's statement in his review

of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant that there is an underlying assumption not only that all the pottery, for example, made at a particular site at a particular time should be similar, but that it should share characteristics with other sites in the region occupied at that time (2002:150). This statement makes it clear that most typological studies of pottery employ a normative approach. Also implied is that diffusion is indirectly assumed as the cause of similarities between assemblages from different sites in a region. That is, a predetermined pattern of artifact distribution should be found when sites are compared, an implicit assumption based on the diffusion of attributes in space. The aim of such an assumption is to enable definition of a regional culture area

that can be spatially defined, and to identify similarities in the archaeological assemblage found within it. Such an approach to studying material culture is

well represented in the typological study of pottery from the sixth and early fifth millennia cal bp, a period that is still being debated in terms of its cultural divisions and patterns that can be spatially defined (Banning 2007). Commonly, this debate has been expressed in archaeological reports as follows: site X does not appear to be related closely to site Y, even though they are spatially close. This reflects a spatial break in the common cultural traits?pottery types?that would form a culture area, as would be expected using the normative model of

culture. The emphasis is on the spatial distribution of types (e.g., pottery) as part of the cultural characteristics of what is called a culture area or culture region. In contrast, the condition of production and the social processes of production are neglected. As seen above, both of these variables are a prerequisite if we want to evaluate and define the regional landscape and its social entities. The selection of a set of parameters that can be socially informative must be further elaborated. Such an approach, employed via the concept of cha?ne op?ratoire, provides dynamic parameters for comparison in order to identify the production of different social groups (Gelbert 2003; Gosselain 1998,2000; Stark 1998,2003; Stark et al. 2000). The ethnoarchaeological example showed that this analytical

method is useful for distinguishing between different producers that had similar technological structures. Both technological and morphological styles are thereby combined as dynamic units of analysis, where the latter is the result and part of the former. Morphological characteristics are better used for comparison if we know their underlying causes, especially in small-scale pottery production societies. If


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

21/24


we view morphological characteristics as a given, we will face a problem of how to explain the morphological variability in pottery from a single site. It was shown that morphological variability at a single site can be a result of different social production units rather than being correlated with cultural groups. The same can be said at the micro-regional scale. The variability of pot types does not represent cultural groups or cultures, but different social groups.

This leads us to reconsider our conception of the regional culture as it is normally defined by archaeologists working in the Near East (Garfinkel 1999; Gopher 1995; Gopher and Gophna 1993). Moreover, it leads us to rethink the causes of pottery variation across space and to avoid a direct and simple correlation between different ceramic styles and different cultures. The emphasis on the identification of the spatial and social contexts of production will help us to

reconstruct the prehistoric social landscape and to know how social entities were regionally organized.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper uses an ethnoarchaeological approach to examine pottery vessel production in two modern Jordanian villages in order to address the problem of the extent to which technological and stylistic approaches can be used to identify social group boundaries in non-state societies. Most studies focus on

primary techniques (coiling or molding) and stylistic variation (e.g., designs and morphology) to interpret social characteristics of the potter's culture. In contrast, this study is concerned with the use of the potters' technological choices to identify social group variations. The approach used in this study is based on a fine-grained analysis of the sum of the stages of pottery making. Such a fine-tuned analysis results in a dynamic unit of comparison that is more socially informative. This approach of pottery analysis has been evaluated via an ethnoarchaeological study of pottery production in northern Jordan, and a comparison with Neolithic pottery from the sites of Teleilat Ghassul and Abu Hamid.

The villages studied ethnographically were examined from a regional

perspective, stressing the process of object formation and not merely the finished product. The potters in both villages share the same technological structure, but their product exhibits variation at both intra- and intervillage scales. Identification of variation between potters has been evaluated using parameters of coil size, thinning, shaping, and finishing. These parameters enable the measurement of variation within and between villages. The ethnoarchaeological study suggests that different production units were responsible for pottery variation at a single village, and they cannot be assumed to reflect different cultural groups. Technical choices can, to some extent, affect morphological traits of pottery, and this result can help us to reconsider the way our classification system should be built and the nature of the interpretations that are formed. That is, patterns in pottery assemblages cannot be explained without taking into account both their causes and the dynamic context of pottery production. To attest these results, archaeological assemblages have been analyzed using the same approach. Variation in the assemblage from Abu Hamid has been analyzed based on the same stages of


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

22/24


production. This enabled a classification of the assemblage that shared the same primary technique of pottery-making. In addition, a relationship between the context of production and the extent to which it can affect the production stages

has been identified. Sociocultural factors such as potters' skill and motor habits influenced the variation noted in the pottery assemblage. That is, the existence of different production units might cause variation in the studied assemblage.

Moreover, seasonality, as a cultural factor, might also affect the quality and the functional types of vessels produced at the site. The context of production might affect to a large extent the patterning in fabric that we can use to classify the archaeological pottery assemblage.

Both the ethnoarchaeological and archaeological studies postulated that a pattern that can be recognized based on dynamic, behavioral criteria is more

advantageous for building a model enhancing interpretation than one merely based on static characteristics. Social groups that share a similar technological structures can be distinguished

using a fine-tuned analytical approach. Different units of production may show stylistic differences but cannot be assumed to represent different cultural groups.

A cultural group is a broad concept that includes not only stylistic differences, but also ways of life and economic, religious, and burial practices, to name just a few. A region should be analyzed not only in terms of social components, but also as a physical unit, particularly since these components are responsible for the similarities and differences that we observe as archaeologists, in this case in the study of regional Neolithic pottery production within the territory of

modern-day Jordan.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Drs. G. London, V. Roux, G. Dollftis, S. Pollock, . Kafafi and three JAR reviewers for commenting on this paper. For enriching the discussion, many thanks are due to Prof. M. Heinz and Dr. M. Benz. For figures drafting, special thanks are due to Mrs. C. Kohlmayer-Ali. For English editing, many thanks are due to Mrs. C. Berce and the Editor.

REFERENCES CITED Ali, . 2005a. The development of pottery technology from the late sixth to the fifth

millennium BC in Jordan: An ethno- and archaeological studies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1422.

-. 2005b. The relationship between subsistence strategies and pottery production areas: an ethnoarchaeological study in Jordan. Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 21:119-28.

Arnold, D. 2000. Does the standardization of ceramic pastes really mean specialization? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:333-75.

Arnold, P., III. 1999. Tecomates, residential mobility, and Early Formative occupation in coastal lowland Mesoamerica, in Pottery and people: A dynamic interaction. Edited by J. Skibo and G. Feinman, pp. 157-70. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Banning, E. 2002. Consensus and debate on the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant. Pal?orient 28:148-56.

-. 2007. Time and tradition in the transition from Late Neolithic to Chalcolithic: Summary and conclusions. Pal?orient 33:137^12.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

23/24


Bourke, S. 2007. The Late Neolithic / Early Chalcolithic transition at Teleilat Ghassul: Context, chronology and culture. Pal?orient 33:15-32.

Childe, G. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chilton, E., ed. 1999. Material meaning: Critical approach to the interpretation of material

culture. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Clarke, D. 1968. Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen. Costin, C. L. 2000. The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of ceramic

production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:377^02. Cress well, R. 1996. Prom?th?e ou Pandore? Propos de technologie culturelle. Paris: Kim. David, N., J. Sterner, and K. Gavua. 1988. Why pots are decorated. Current Anthropology

29:365-89. Deal, M., 1998. Pottery ethnoarchaeology in the central Maya highlands. Salt Lake City:

University of Utah Press. Dietler, M., and I. Herbich. 1998. Habitus, techniques, style: An integrated approach to

the social understanding of material culture and boundaries, in The archaeology of social boundaries. Edited by M. Stark, pp. 232-63. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dollfus, G., and Z. Kafafi. 1993. Recent researches at Abu Hamid. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37:241-63

Garfinkel, Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery of the southern Levant. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Qedem 39.

Gelbert, A. 2003. Traditions c?ramiques et emprunts techniques dans la vall?e du fleuve S?n?gal. Paris: Editions de la MSH / Editions Epist?mes.

Gopher, A. 1995. Early pottery-bearing groups in Israel: The pottery Neolithic period, in Archaeology of society of the Holy Land. Edited by T. Levy, pp. 205-25. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Gopher, A., and R. Gophna. 1993. Cultures of the eighth and seventh millennia bp in the southern Levant: A review for the 90s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:297-353.

Gosselain, O. 1998. Social and technical identity in clay crystal ball, in The archaeology of social boundaries. Edited by M. Stark, pp. 78-210. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

-. 2000. Materializing identities: An African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:187-218.

Greenberg, R. 2002. Early urbanizations in the Levant: A regional narrative. London: Leicester University Press.

Hegmon, M. 1998. Technology, style and social practices: Archaeological approaches,in The archaeology of social boundaries. Edited by M. Stark, pp. 264-79. Washington

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Hourani, F. 1997. Natural constraints, space organization models and rhythm of occupation

at Abu Hamid during the seventh and sixth millennium BP: A geo-archaeological study, in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, VI. Edited by G. Bisheh,

M. Zaghloul, and I. Kehrberg, pp. 67-76. Amman: Department of Antiquities. -. 2002. Le cadre pal?og?ographique des premi?res soci?t?s agricoles dans la

vall?e du Jourdain: Etude de l'impact des ?v?nements climatiques de l'Holoc?ne ancien sur la dynamique du peuplement humain. Ph.D. Thesis. Paris: Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon.

Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: Toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-86.

-, ed. 1993. Technological choices: Transformations in material culture since the Neolithic. London and New York: Routledge.


8/17/2019 Ali, N. 2010

24/24


London, G. 1989. Past present: The village potters of Cyprus. Biblical Archaeology 54:219-29.

Longacre, W. 1991. Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Lovell, J. 2001. The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the southern Levant: New

data from the site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. London: BAR International Series 974. Neupert, M. 2000. Clays contention: An ethnoarchaeological study of factionalism and

clay composition. Journal of Anthropological Method and Theory 7:249-72 Parkinson, W. 2006. Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary

maintenance during the transition to Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25:33-58.

Pfaffenberger, B. 1992. Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.

Roux, V. 1994. La technique du tournage: D?finition et reconnaissance par les macro

traces, in Terre cuite et soci?t?: La c?ramique, document technique, ?conomique, culturel. Edited by D. Binder and J. Courtin, pp. 45-58. Juan-les-Pins: Edition APDCA. XlVe Rencontres Internationales d'Arch?ologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes.

Roux, V., and M.-A. Courty. 2005. Identifying social entities at a macro-regional level: Chalcolithic ceramics of South Levant as a case study, in Pottery manufacturing processes: Reconstruction and interpretation. Edited by D. Bosquet, A. Livingstone Smith, and R. Martineau, pp. 201-14. Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Li?ge, Belgium, 2-8 September 2001, Colloque/Symposium 2.1. Oxford: BAR. International Series 1349.

Schiffer, M., and J. Skibo. 1997. The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity 6 2:27-50.

Shennan, S. 1989. Introduction: Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, in Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. Edited by S. Shennan, pp. 1-32. London and New York: Routledge.

Stark, M., ed. 1998. The archaeology of social boundaries. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Stark, M. 2003. Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11:193-242.

Stark, M., R. Bishop, and E. Miksa. 2000. Ceramic technology and social boundaries: Cultural practices in Kalinga clay selection and use. Journal of Anthropological

Method and Theory 7:295-331.

Steward, J. 1955. Theory of cultural change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Vandiver, P. 1987. Sequential slab construction; A conservative Southwest Asiatic ceramic

tradition, ca. 7000-3000. Pal?orient 13(2):9-35. Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American

Antiquity 49:253-76. Wright, R. 1985. Technology and style in ancient ceramics, in Ceramics and civilization:

Ancient technology to modern science, vol. 2. Edited by W. Kingery, pp. 1-20. Columbus, OH: American Ceramic Society.

Ali, N. 2010

Documents

Transcript of Ali, N. 2010