Ali, N. 2010

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

Author(s): Nabil Ali
Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 66, No. 3 (FALL 2010), pp. 351-373
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20798826
Accessed: 16-04-2016 18:58 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20798826?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You 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 support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Anthropological Research
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Sat, 16 Apr 2016 18:58:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
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: nabil.ali@ju.edu.jo

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
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
POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN
353
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.
354
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
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.
356
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
357
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.
358
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.
Arjan
20 cm
Kufranjeh
Figure 3. The morphological characteristics of water jars at Arjan and Kufranjeh.
TABLE 1
Comparison between villages of morphological characteristics of water jars
Arjan
Body shape
Globular
Kufranjeh
Ovaloid
Rim profile
Simple rounded or level-everted
Flattened horizontal-everted
Neck shape
Detached from body
Sloping with the body

Four handles
Handles
Two handles
359
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)
Base 20.5 1.67 8.19
Aperture 26 2.24 8.62

Height 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 4.00

Height 56.75 3.18 5.60
Circumference 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
360
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
No. of
Coil size Coils Coil size
19 5.5 5.5
24 8 3
26 5.5 5.5
3
4
5
Forming the
neck and rim
Potter 2 (Kufranjeh)
No. of
Coils Coil size
23 5.5 5
Substage 2: 4 10 2 2
Substage 3: 4 15 2 2.5
24 7.5 2.5
5
17x3 2
+ 8x5x5.5
24 6 6
22 5 5.5
20 5 5
34 7 2
24 6 2.5
20 4 2
10 5.5 5.5
20 5 2.5
Substage 1:3
6
5
4
18 3 2
30 5 2
29 5 2.5
28 6 3
361
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 37 21.5 40,5
2 24 45
3 35 42 35
4 44 34 44
5 46 24 49
6 54 24 60
25.5 45.5
45
37.5
24
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,
362
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).
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.
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
363
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
364
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
365
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.
366 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
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,
367
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.
368
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
369
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
370
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
371
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.
372 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

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.
POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN 373

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
62:27-50.
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ali, N. 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REGIONALISM AND SOCIAL LANDSCAPE AS INFERRED FROM AN

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN

REGIONALISM AND SOCIAL LANDSCAPE AS

Jordan. E-mail: nabil.ali@ju.edu.jo

In this paper, an ethnoarchaeological study of pottery from Jordan is used to

a better understanding of the formation of a distinct prehistoric cultural region

and its social components. Stylistic differences are delimited by technological

same technical structures in producing material culture. This study is based on

Observable patterns in artifact types are sometimes equated to specific cultural

Recently, however, ethnoarchaeological studies have eschewed the simple

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

approaches can be of value in revealing social dimensions by studying material

sequences, the cha?nes op?ratoires, of material production. These choices are

producers in non-state societies. An ethnoarchaeological study was carried out

the weakness of constructing a concept of regional boundaries without taking into

production enables comparison of different indices of production at site-to

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN

sum of technical practices materialized in a pottery assemblage produced within

Detailed examination of the operational sequences of object formation yields two

using Neolithic assemblages from the southern Levant.

The Ethnoarchaeological Study Area

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

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

Identification of the Potter Population

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN 355

Figure 2. Location of villages mentioned in the text.

significant to understanding the social processes of craft learning. With respect to

the Ajlun area, pottery-making is a predominantly female activity. Women mine

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

wife's sister-in-law or the husband's first wife.

The Social Producers and Their Technical Structure

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN

The number of manufactured vessels differs by village and by individual.

Variation in production was measured based on morphological, metric,

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

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

Simple rounded or level-everted

Detached from body

Sloping with the body

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN

TABLE 2. Variation between villages

Base 20.5 1.67 8.19

Aperture 26 2.24 8.62

Base 24 0.71 2.96

Aperture 23.5 0.94 4.00

Circumference 143 7.97 5.57

between two villages

Base Aperture Height Circumference

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Forming the coils

Thinning the walls

Potter 1 (Arjan) Potter 2 (Arjan)

Coils Coil size

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN

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

Potter 2 (Arjan) Potter 2 (Kufranjeh)

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Figure 6. Comparison of pot surface

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN JORDAN

REGIONALISM, SOCIAL SEGREGATION,

on this problem. Ethnoarchaeological regional pottery studies have supported the

use of technology?more precisely, technological style?as a means by which

of fashioning or finishing techniques can be used to achieve this goal. Other

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