Content uploaded by Valentine Roux
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Valentine Roux on Jan 31, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
actesdecolloques
16
Technology in Crisis
Technological changes in ceramic
production during periods of trouble
Edited by Ilaria Caloi & Charlotte Langohr
Technology in Crisis.
Technological changes in ceramic production
during periods of trouble
Technology in Crisis.
Technological changes in ceramic production
during periods of trouble
Edited by Ilaria Caloi & Charlotte Langohr
© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2018
http://pul.uclouvain.be
Dépôt légal : D/2018/9964/49
ISBN : 978-2-87558-749-7
ISBN pour la version numérique (pdf) : 978-2-87558-750-3
Imprimé en Belgique par CIACO scrl – n° d’imprimeur : 97673
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, adapted or translated, in any form or by any
means, in any country, without the prior permission of
Presses universitaires de Louvain
Graphic design: Marie-Hélène Grégoire
Cover image: Translated Vase_2007 TVW 5 (detail)
photo: Wooil Kim
© Yeesookyung
Volume set in Adobe InDesign CS6 by Nicolas Kress
Distribution: www.i6doc.com, on-line university publishers
Available on order from bookshops or at
Diffusion universitaire CIACO (University Distributors)
Grand-Rue, 2/14
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Tel: +32 10 47 33 78
Fax: +32 10 45 73 50
duc@ciaco.com
Distributor in France:
Librairie Wallonie-Bruxelles
46 rue Quincampoix
75004 Paris, France
Tel: +33 1 42 71 58 03
Fax: +33 1 42 71 58 09
librairie.wb@orange.fr
Contents
1. Technological changes in ceramic production during periods of trouble 21
Methodological approaches and matters of scale
Ilaria Caloi
Charlotte Langohr
2. Firing structures and transition periods in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015) 35
Unstable choices before denitive selection
Valentine Roux
Simone Gabbriellini
3. Craft behaviours during a period of transformations 45
The introduction and adoption of the potter’s wheel in Central Greece during Early Bronze Age
Maria Choleva
4. The times they are A-changin’ 75
Pottery production and technological change at Mochlos in the earlier Prepalatial period
Thomas M. Brogan
Luke Kaiser
Eleni Nodarou
5. Recognisingconictandcrisisinprehistoricsocieties 93
The contribution of pottery
Ina Berg
6. Change and continuity in the pottery tradition at Kontopigado, Alimos, during the late 13th
and the early 12th c. BC 111
Elina Kardamaki
Konstantina Kaza-Papageorgiou
7. Hand-made pottery groups in Mainland Greece during the 13th and 12th c. BC as a sign of
economiccrisis? 139
Bartłomiej Lis
8. The troubled century? 151
Potting practices and socio-political changes at Mitrou, East Lokris, between the end of the 14th
and the beginning of the 12th c. BC
Salvatore Vitale
9. Fromthehandtothewheel 177
Revisiting the transformations of the Late Cypriot ceramic industry of newares during the 13th-
to-12th c. BC transition
Artemis Georgiou
10. Local and imported pottery in the Southern Levant during the 13th-12th c. BC 201
Exploring through the ‘crisis’ years
David Ben-Shlomo
11. Crisis years and pottery systems 217
An overview of the Italian Late Bronze Age
Marco Bettelli
Elisabetta Borgna
Sara T. Levi
List of Illustrations
Fig. 2.1 The different ring structures used by the potters in Pachpadra: (top) open multiple-hearth
circular rings, (middle) enclosed multiple hearts circular ring, (bottom) vertical updraft
kiln (©Valentine Roux) 37
Tab. 2.1 Number of lineages and households per clan within the two sub-castes of the town of
Pachapdra: the Bandas and Purubiyas 38
Fig. 2.2 Distribution of the ring structures per sub-caste (Banda and Purubiya) 38
Fig. 2.3 Distribution of the ring structures per gotrā (clan) 39
Fig. 2.4 Evolutionary curves of the open ring, the enclosed ring and the kiln (from 1994 to 2015) 40
Fig. 2.5 Adoption times of the kiln in Pachpadra according to sub-castes (Purubiya, Banda). The
x-axis represents time, the y-axis represents the cumulative relative frequencies of potters that
have adopted, in the range 0 (nobody) to 1 (everybody). Each dot represents, for a specic
time period (x-axis), the cumulative relative frequency of potters (y-axis) that have adopted
the innovation 40
Tab. 2.2 Correlation coefcient (QAP) between the kinship and diffusion networks, and between the
advice and kinship networks (QAP is a coefcient that measures the relations between two
different matrices; p is the correlation’s statistical value, signicant when < 0.005) 41
Fig. 3.1 Sites preserving EBA II wheel-made pottery (by the author) 46
Fig. 3.2 Sites preserving EBA III wheel-made pottery (by the author) 48
Fig. 3.3 The four wheel-coiling methods (after Roux & Courty 1998: g. 1, table 1) 49
Fig. 3.4 The main wheel-made repertoire at EB 2 Lefkandi (photos by the author) 51
Fig. 3.5 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 during late EBA II (photos by the author) 52
Fig. 3.6 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 (EBA II): a) rilling and
grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints in section
(horizontal axis); (c) wiped upper surface by RKE (above), turned lower surface (below)
(photos by the author) 52
Fig. 3.7 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.2 during late EBA II (photos by the author) 53
Fig. 3.8 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.2 (late EBA II): a) irregular
micro-relief and horizontal striations running around the internal face, indicative of the
wheel-coiling Method 2; (b) coil joints in section (vertical axis); (c) striations due to the
wiping by RKE (above), covered by the smoothing of the surface (below) (photos by the author) 53
Fig. 3.9 Distribution of wheel-based chaînes opératoires during late EBA II at Lefkandi (by the author) 54
Fig. 3.10 Distribution of wheel-made pottery over the three EBA II-III phases at Lefkandi (by the
author, based on Spencer 2007) 55
Fig. 3.11 The main wheel-made repertoire at EBA III Lefkandi (photos by the author) 56
Fig. 3.12 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 during EBA III (photos by the author) 56
List of Illustrations
12
Fig. 3.13 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 (EBA III): a) rilling and
grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints in section
(horizontal axis); (c) wiped upper surface by RKE (above), smoothed lower surface (below)
(photos by the author) 57
Fig. 3.14 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.3 during EBA III (photos by the author) 57
Fig. 3.15 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.3 (EBA III): a) rilling and
grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints in section
(horizontal axis); (c) striations due to the wiping by RKE (above), covered by burnished
surface (below) (photos by the author) 58
Fig. 3.16 Distribution of wheel-based chaînes opératoires during EBA III at Lefkandi (by the author) 58
Fig. 3.17 The main wheel-typology at late EBA II Pefkakia (photos by the author) 59
Fig. 3.18 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.1 during EBA II at Pefkakia (photos by
the author) 60
Fig. 3.19 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.1 at Pefkakia: a) rilling and
grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints on the inside
of a depas base; (c) wiped upper surface by RKE (above), turned lower surface (below)
(photos by the author) 60
Fig. 3.20 Similar diagnostic macro-features of two wheel-fashioned shallow bowls from Pefkakia and
Lefkandi (photos by the author) 61
Fig. 3.21 Distribution of wheel-made pottery over the four EBA II-III phases of Pefkakia (by the author) 62
Fig. 3.22 The main wheel-made repertoire at EBA III Pefkakia (photos by the author) 63
Fig. 3.23 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.2 during EBA III (photos by the author) 63
Fig. 3.24 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.2 (a) irregular micro-relief and
horizontal striations running around the internal face; (b) coil joint in section (vertical axis);
(c) striations due to the wiping by RKE (above), covered by smoothed surface (below)
(photos by the author) 64
Fig. 3.25 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.3 during EBA III (photos by the author) 64
Fig. 3.26 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.3: (a) irregular micro-relief
and horizontal striations running around the internal face; (b) coil joint in section (vertical
axis); (c) striations due to the wiping by RKE (above), covered by burnished surface (below)
(photos by the author) 65
Fig. 3.27 Distribution of wheel-based chaînes opératoires during EBA III Pefkakia (by the author) 65
Fig. 4.1 Plan of the Prepalatial cemetery at Mochlos after 2012 (D. Faulmann) 76
Fig. 4.2 Section through Trench 97/9825 marking the Prepalatial phases (M. Eaby & D. Faulmann) 77
Fig. 4.3 Phase 1a. Fabric 1. Local metamorphic fabric (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 77
Fig. 4.4 EM I Cooking dish with a pierced rim (P12210) (L. Bonga) 78
Fig. 4.5 Jar (P12208) (L. Bonga) 78
Fig. 4.6 Phase 1a. Fabric 2. (Local?) metamorphic fabric with biotite mica (XPL, x50) (E. Nodarou) 79
Fig. 4.7 Jar jandle (P12203) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 79
Technology in Crisis
13
Fig. 4.8 Cooking dish with pierced rim (P11177) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 80
Fig. 4.9 Kampos-group bottle (P12221) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 80
Fig. 4.10 Goblet (P 12238) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 81
Fig. 4.11 Calcite-tempered fabric (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 81
Fig. 4.12 Jar with a lug handle (P12220) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 82
Fig. 4.13 Micaceous fabric (imported) (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 82
Fig. 4.14 Jar (P12251) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 83
Fig. 4.15 Bowl (P12270) (L. Bonga) 83
Fig. 4.16 Fabric with granitic-dioritic inclusions (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 84
Fig. 4.17 Cooking dish (P11165) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 84
Fig. 4.18 Jug (P11167) (L. Bonga) 84
Fig. 4.19 Jar (P12284) (L. Bonga) 85
Fig. 4.20 Jug (P12261) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 85
Fig. 4.21 Cup (P12309) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 86
Fig. 4.22 Cooking dish (P12296) (L. Bonga) 86
Fig. 4.23 Tripod cooking pot (P12307) (L. Bonga) 86
Fig. 4.24 Jug (P9949) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 86
Tab. 5.1 Taos District, Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Changes in pottery and settlement patterns
(based on Fowles et alii 2007) 96
Tab. 5.2 Development of ceramic variables through time (by the author) 102
Tab. 5.3 Development of dominant forming technique at Phylakopi (all local fabrics; Minoanising
shapes in bold; hand = hand-made; wheel = wheel-made; hand and wheel = equal proportions
of hand-made and wheel-made) (by the author) 104
Fig. 5.1 Conceptualising the pottery production at Phylakopi (by the author) 105
Fig. 6.1 Map of Attica in LH IIIB with Kontopigado in red (after Privitera 2013 modied by authors) 112
Fig. 6.2 Kontopigado. The installation with the channels (K. Kaza-Papageorgiou) 112
Tab. 6.1 Pottery and building phases in Kontopigado. Destruction/abandonment oors indicated with
red lines (by the authors) 113
Fig. 6.3 Characteristic shapes and fabrics from Kontopigado. Plain jug from the upper level of well 7,
workshop installation (LH IIIB2-LH IIIC Early 1) (L. Valsamis) 116
Fig. 6.4 Characteristic shapes and fabrics from Kontopigado. Plain amphora from pit 1 (LH IIIC Early
1), workshop installation (L. Valsamis) 117
Fig. 6.5 Deep bowl of type A from Tiryns. LH IIIB2 Late (E. Kardamaki, R. Tsembera) 118
Fig. 6.6 Rosette deep bowl from Tiryns. LH IIIB2 Late (E. Kardamaki, R. Tsembera) 119
Fig. 6.7 Deep bowl of type B from Tiryns. LH IIIC Early 1 (E. Kardamaki, R. Tsembera) 119
List of Illustrations
14
Fig. 6.8 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Solidly painted
deep bowl (E. Kardamaki) 119
Fig. 6.9 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type
A variant (E. Kardamaki) 119
Fig. 6.10 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type
A variant (E. Kardamaki) 120
Fig. 6.11 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type
A variant with monochrome interior (E. Kardamaki) 120
Fig. 6.12 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type
A variant with non-canonical decoration (LH IIIB1?) (B. Konnemann) 121
Fig. 6.13 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl/
stemmed bowl with wavy band (L. Valsamis) 121
Fig. 6.14 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Monochrome painted deep bowl
(E. Kardamaki) 121
Fig. 6.15 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type A (E.
Kardamaki) 122
Fig. 6.16 Kontopigado, settlement, oor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Deep bowl
with wavy band (B. Konnemann) 122
Fig. 6.17 Kontopigado, settlement, exterior dumps. Deep bowl of type A variant with monochrome
interior (LH IIIB2-LH IIIC Early 1) (E. Kardamaki) 122
Fig. 6.18 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type B (E.
Kardamaki) 122
Fig. 6.19 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Stirrup jar of brown
fabric ware with white slip (overred?) (L. Valsamis) 123
Fig. 6.20 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Closed shape of brown fabric
ware with white slip (Overred?) (L. Valsamis) 123
Fig. 6.21 Kontopigado, settlement, oor deposit, upper building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Piriform jar
of brown ware with white slip (E. Kardamaki) 124
Fig. 6.22 Kontopigado, settlement, oor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Hand-made
collar-necked jar with legs (E. Kardamaki) 125
Fig. 6.23 Percentages of Aeginetan and wheel-made bases from cooking pots in well 7 and pit 1 (by the
authors) 126
Fig. 6.24 Percentages of legs from Aeginetan and wheel-made tripod cooking pots in well 7 and pit 1
(by the authors) 126
Fig. 6.25 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level, workshop installation. Aeginetan cooking jar (LH IIIB2
Late) (B. Konnemann) 126
Fig. 6.26 Kontopigado, settlement, oor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Aeginetan
tripod cooking pot (E. Kardamaki) 127
Fig. 6.27 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Local wheel-made
cooking jug (B. Konnemann) 127
Technology in Crisis
15
Fig. 6.28 Kontopigado, settlement, exterior dump. Local wheel-made cooking tripod (LH IIIB2 Late-
LH IIIC Early 1) (V. Hachtmann; E. Kardamaki) 127
Fig. 6.29 Kontopigado, well 7 (LH IIIB2 Late), lower level, workshop installation. Local wheel-made
cooking jug (L. Valsamis) 128
Fig. 6.30 Kontopigado, settlement. Local cooking lid (LH IIIB2 Late-LH IIIC Early 1) (E. Kardamaki;
L. Valsamis) 128
Fig. 6.31 Kontopigado, settlement, oor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Local
wheel-made cooking pot (V. Hachtmann, E. Kardamaki) 128
Fig. 6.32 Kontopigado, settlement, oor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Local
wheel-made cooking pot (V. Hachtmann, E. Kardamaki) 129
Fig. 6.33 Kontopigado, settlement, middle building phase. Cooking installation with cooking pot of
Figure 32, and Aeginetan cooking tripod of Figure 26 with other vessels directly on the oor,
outside the cooking installation (modied after Kaza-Papageorgiou & Kardamaki 2017: plan 3) 129
Fig. 6.34 Kontopigado. Well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. ‘Industrialʼ vessel
(L. Valsamis) 131
Fig. 6.35 Kontopigado. Well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Medium-sized tub
(E. Kardamaki) 131
Fig. 6.36 Kontopigado. Floor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Spouted crater with
wavy band (E. Kardamaki) 132
Fig. 6.37 Kontopigado. Well 7, lower level, workshop installation. Spouted crater with horizontal whorl
shells (LH IIIB2 Late) (B. Konnemann) 133
Fig. 7.1 Map of Greece showing the location of sites discussed in the text (by the author) 141
Fig. 7.2 Frantzis. Hand-made and burnished cooking pots (after Karantzali 2013: g. 10: 54-55 and
54-55b) 142
Fig. 7.3 Pefkakia. Hand-made and burnished cooking pot (after Batziou-Efstathiou 2015: g. 46 [BE
50895]) 142
Fig. 7.4 Palace of Pylos. Hand-made jug (after Blegen & Rawson 1966: gs 343 and 370 [no. 829]) 143
Fig. 7.5 Mitrou. LH IIIB2 deposit. Hand-made tripods cooking pots (LP782-030-018 and LP782-033-
028) (by the author, courtesy of Mitrou Archaeological Project) 143
Fig. 7.6 Chania near Mycenae. LH IIIB deposit. Hand-made piriform jar (after Palaiologou 2015: 65-
66, g. 16 [BE 27338]) 144
Fig. 8.1 Map showing the location of Mitrou and other important Central Greek sites mentioned in the
text (B. Lis & T. Ross) 152
Fig. 8.2 Mitrou, NW excavation sector, MH to LH IIIB2 Late period plan (G. Bianco & A. Van de
Moortel) 156
Fig. 8.3 Mitrou, NE excavation sector, MH to LH IIIB2 Late period plan (G. Bianco & A. Van de
Moortel) 157
Fig. 8.4 Mitrou, NE excavation sector, section P-P east-west looking north, Trenches LM784, LM783,
and LN783 (G. Bianco & A. Van de Moortel) 158
List of Illustrations
16
Tab. 8.1 Typology of Mitrou deposits based on site formation processes (by the author) 158
Fig. 8.5 Clay preparation practices in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: Mitrou’s ne fabrics; c-d:
Mitrou’s medium-coarse fabrics (S. Vitale) 159
Tab. 8.2 Correlation between clay preparation, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political history* (by the
author) 160
Fig. 8.6 Primary vessel body formation methods in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: Possibly coil-
built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIA2 Early cooking and storage shapes; c: Possibly coil-built
and wheel-fashioned LH IIA alabastron; d: Possibly coil-built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIA2
Early closed shape; e: Possibly coil-built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIA2 Early stemmed
krater; f: Possibly coil-built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIB2 Late deep semi-globular cup; g:
Combination of coil-built (upper body) and coil-built and wheel-fashioned or wheel-thrown
methods on an LH IIA alabastron (a-b: H. Tsikoulos & S. Vitale; c-g: S. Vitale) 161
Fig. 8.7 Primary vessel body formation methods in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a: Possibly coil-
built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIB2 Late closed shape; b-c: Possibly wheel-thrown LH IIIA2
Early conical cup; d-e: Coil-built and wheel-fashioned or wheel-thrown LH IIIB2 Late closed
shapes; f-g: Coil-built and wheel-fashioned or wheel-thrown LH IIIB2 Late open shapes (S.
Vitale) 162
Tab. 8.3 Correlation between forming techniques, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political history* (by
the author) 163
Fig. 8.8 Surface treatments in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: Smoothed LH IIIB2 Late stirrup
jars; c: Wiped LH IIIA2 Early kylix; d-e: Burnished LH IIIA2 Early krater and kylix; f:
Polished LH IIIA2 Late one-handled bowl (S. Vitale) 164
Fig. 8.9 Open shapes with patterned- or linear-painted exteriors and monochrome interiors in Mitrou’s
pottery assemblages. a: LH IIIB1 bowl; b-h: LH IIIB2 Late small stemmed krater or large
stemmed bowl, deep semi-globular cups, spouted cup, Group A/B deep bowl and ring-based
krater (a, e: M. Rossin & T. Ross; b-d, f-g: T. Ross) 165
Tab. 8.4 Correlation between surface treatments, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political history* (by
the author) 166
Tab. 8.5 Correlation between treatments of open shape interiors, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political
history* (by the author) 166
Fig. 8.10 Vessels’ secondary formation and nishing practices in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a: LH
IIIB1 jug; b, h: LH IIIB2 Late amphora; c: LH IIA alabastron; d: LH IIIA2 Early kylix; e: LH
IIIB1 closed shape; f-g: LH IIIB2 Late Group A/B deep bowl and spouted cup (S. Vitale) 167
Fig. 8.11 Examples of complex decoration in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: LH IIA rhyta; c-f: LH
IIIA2 Late kylikes (a-b, d-f: T. Ross; c: B. Konnemann & T. Ross) 168
Fig. 8.12 Local idiosyncrasies in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: LH IIIB2 Late Group A deep
bowls with Boeotian Stripe; c: LH IIIB2 Late shallow cup; d: LH IIIB2 Late Group A deep
bowl with different patterns on either sides; e: LH IIIB2 Late Group A deep bowl with
inverted U-pattern (a, c-e: T. Ross; b: M. Rossin & T. Ross) 169
Fig. 9.1 Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text (digital data courtesy of the Cyprus
Geological Survey Department, map drafted by the author) 178
Tab. 9.1 Relative and absolute chronological dates for Bronze Age Cyprus (based on Knapp 2013b:
521, Table A2) 178
Technology in Crisis
17
Fig. 9.2 A White Slip II Ware bowl from Limassol Tomb 19 (after Karageorghis & Violaris 2012: pl.
XIII: 6; courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 181
Fig. 9.3 A Base-ring Ware Y-shaped bowl from Limassol burial feature No. 621/VI: 32 (after
Karageorghis & Violaris 2012: pl. XLIII: 32; courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 181
Fig. 9.4 Base fragment of a Base-ring Ware jug from Maa-Palaeokastro (Courtyard A/32). Flat,
thin base. Visible traces of hand-made manufacture inside (by the author, courtesy of the
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 183
Fig. 9.5 Shoulder fragment of a Base-ring Ware juglet from Maa-Palaeokastro (1954.FW3.Box1).
Ridge around neckline, squat and globular body. Fingermarks visible inside (by the author,
courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 183
Fig. 9.6 Base fragment of a Base-ring Ware juglet from Maa-Palaeokastro (West of Building II/1).
Flaring ring-base with ridge on the outside. Indications of the use of a turntable for the
vessel’s manufacture (by the author, courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 183
Fig. 9.7 A deep bowl from Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b: cat. no. 21: TE III 23) 184
Fig. 9.8 A deep bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro (by the author, courtesy of the Department of
Antiquities, Cyprus) 184
Fig. 9.9 Fragmentary deep bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro with pictorial decoration of a bird (by the
author, courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 185
Fig. 9.10 Hemispherical bowl of wheel-made manufacture in White Slip II-Late decoration from
Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b:
cat. no.
26: TE III 28) 189
Fig. 9.11 Fragmentary hemispherical bowl with wishbone handle of wheel-made decoration and White
Slip II-Late decoration from Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b:
cat. no.
69: TE III 69A) 190
Fig. 9.12 Y-shaped bowl of wheel-made manufacture from Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b:
cat. no.
161: TE III 199) 190
Fig. 9.13 Base fragment of a juglet from Palaepaphos-Evreti. Traces of hand-made manufacture visible
inside (after Georgiou 2016b:
cat. no.
77: TE VIII 76A) 190
Fig. 9.14 Y-shaped bowl in Plain Wheel-made Ware from the Sanctuary of the Ingot God, Enkomi
(after Courtois 1971: g. 94:F, inv. no. 16.76; courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 192
Fig. 10.1 Map of the Southern Levant with sites mentioned in the text (after Ben-Shlomo 2010: g. 2.1) 201
Fig. 10.2 Main types of Philistine 1 pottery from Tel Ashdod and Tel Miqne-Ekron (courtesy of T.
Dothan; ©Israel Exploration Society) 205
Fig. 10.3 The pottery kiln from Tell Jemmeh (Victor Krantz; ©Smithsonian Institution) 206
Fig. 10.4 Local Canaanite pottery types from Tell Miqne-Ekron Field III, Strata VII-VI (12th-early 11th
c. BC) (S. Gitin; ©Tel Miqne Excavation) 208
Fig. 10.5 Shaping techniques of Bronze and Iron Age pottery from Tell es-Sa: 1) coils on an EB III
platter; 2) faint coils on an MB IIB bowl; 3) distinct coils on an LB II biconical krater; 4)
coils and scraping on an LB II lamp; 5) coils on an Iron I hemispherical bowl; 6) distinct coils
on an Iron I Philistine ‘feeding bottle’ jug; 7) parallels coils on an Iron IIA jug; 8) parallel
coils on an Iron IIA stand; 9) single coil on an Iron IIA chalice (by the author) 210
Fig. 10.6 Petrographic groups of the EB III-Iron II pottery from Tell es-Sa (by the author) 211
List of Illustrations
18
Fig. 10.7 Breakdown of Tell es-Sa functional classes of pottery according to petrographic groups (by
the author) 211
Fig. 11.1 a. Italy and the Central Mediterranean with the zones and sites mentioned in the text:
Castellieri (horizontal strokes); Terramare (oblique strokes); Southern Tyrrhenian and Aeolian
Islands (circle). 1. Fondo Paviani; 2. Afragola; 3. Broglio di Trebisacce; 4. Rocavecchia; 5.
Lipari; b. Terramare and Terramare-like pottery from the Po Plain and peninsular Italy (1.
Casinalbo, after Cardarelli 2014: g. 217, T. 40; 2-3, 5-6. Rocavecchia, after Pagliara et alii
2007: g. 12:IV.12; 2008: respectively gs 12:11; 13C:26; 11:9; 4. Gricignano, after Albore
Livadie et alii 2004: g. 3A:9) 218
Fig. 11.2 Number of settlements in Terramare area according to different phases of the Bronze Age
(based on Bettelli et alii 2004; Cardarelli 2009) 219
Fig. 11.3 Total extension of settlements in Terramare area according to different phases of the Bronze
Age (based on Bettelli et alii 2004; Cardarelli 2009) 219
Fig. 11.4 Estimated population in Terramare area according to different phases of the Bronze Age
(based on Bettelli et alii 2004; Cardarelli 2009) 220
Fig. 11.5 a. The lower Tyrrhenian and the Aeolian Islands during MBA3, Thapsos-Milazzese period
(left) and RBA, Ausonian I period (right) (A. Di Renzoni); b. The acropolis of Lipari during
Milazzese (dark grey) and Ausonian I (light grey) periods (after Bernabò Brea & Cavalier
1980; drawing by A. Di Renzoni); c. Thapsos-Milazzese pottery from the Aeolian Islands and
Tropea promontory (after Adamo et alii 1999: g. 9: 179, 187; Pacciarelli 2001: g. 13:3,
6-7, 10); d. Ausonian I pottery from the Tropea promontory (after Pacciarelli 2001: g. 17:1-
2, 4, 6, 9, 11) 222
Fig. 11.6 a. Large bowls from different Bronze Age sites of the Friuli region (North-Eastern Italy).
a1: Canale Anfora, next to Aquileia (Udine), MBA (©Laboratorio di Preistoria e Protostoria,
University of Udine; G. Merlatti); a2: Pozzuolo-Braida Roggia (Udine), RBA 2 (after
Borgna 1994: 121 no. 144; g. 47); a3: Variano (Udine), FBA (©Laboratorio di Preistoria
e Protostoria, University of Udine; G. Merlatti). b. Necked globular jars from different
Bronze Age sites of the Friuli region and Venezia Giulia. b1: Canale Anfora, MBA/RBA 1
(©Laboratorio di Preistoria e Protostoria, University of Udine; G. Merlatti); b2: Monte Grisa
(Trieste), RBA (after Moretti et alii 1978: g. 1.3); b3: Pozzuolo-Braida Roggia (Udine),
RBA 2 (after Borgna 1994: 102, no. 98, g. 38). c. Carinated vessels from different Bronze
Age sites of Friuli. c1: Porpetto (Udine), MBA (after Vitri 1991b: 149, g. 32, 2); c2: Udine,
RBA 1(?) (after Vitri et alii 1991: g. 3.13); c3: Pozzuolo (Udine), RBA 2 /FBA (after
Cassola Guida et alii 2004: 79, g. 1B 2). d. Carinated cups/bowls from different Bronze
Age sites of Friuli: d1: Canale Anfora, MBA/RBA (©Laboratorio di Preistoria e Protostoria,
University of Udine; G. Merlatti); d2: Udine, RBA (after Vitri et alii 1991: g. 3.4); d3:
Rividischia (Udine), RBA 2 (after Lambertini & Tasca 2006: 133, g. 21); d4: Castions di
Strada (Udine), FBA 1 (after Cassola Guida et alii 2004: g. 5A 1) 226
Fig. 11.7 1-2. Italo-Mycenaean pottery from Broglio di Trebisacce (after Vagnetti 1984: pls 46.3,
49.3); 3. Italo-Myceanean or ‘early Protogeometric’ vessel from Broglio di Trebisacce (after
Vagnetti & Panichelli 1994: pl. 77.1); 4. Dolio from Rocavecchia (after Guglielmino 1999:
g. 3); 5. Protogeometric pottery from Lipari-Ausonian I (after Bernabò Brea & Cavalier
1980: pl. CXCIV:2, 4, not to scale), 6-8. Santa Maria di Leuca (after Orlando 1990: gs 30-32) 229
2. Firing structures and transition periods in
Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015)
Unstable choices before definitive selection
Valentine Roux
Simone Gabbriellini
1. Introduction
1
In prehistory, the so-called transition periods are framed by a before and an after, periods that are culturally
well-identied owing to collections of traits whose inter-site differentiation marks out spatiotemporal outlines.
This allows us to characterise cultural groups and give them a cultural and sociological interpretation, that is to
say, an interpretation in terms of singular and historical features on the one hand and of population structure on
the other. The term ‘population structure’ refers to “instances where individual subpopulations/groups exhibit
low within and high between variability” (Shennan et alii 2015: 103). In prehistory, this variability of features
clearly distinguishes well-identied chrono-cultural groups. The mechanism underlying the formation of spatial
congurations signicant to population structure is cultural transmission, which is done by trainers, often parents,
who tend to be selected within one’s social group. Regarding the transmission of techniques, the consequence is
that technological boundaries conform to social boundaries (Lave & Wenger 1991; Stark 1998; Gosselain 2000;
2011) thus revealing population structures.
In contrast, the transition periods, or in-betweens, are characterised by a strong variability in cultural traits,
a form of ‘disorder’ indicated by congurations of old and new traits that do not allow cultural boundaries
to be marked out clearly, preventing from any attempt at anthropological interpretation that could identify
population structure. In this way, the numerous debates and controversies about transitions, such as the middle/
upper Palaeolithic or the Mesolithic/Neolithic, boil down to a problem of interpreting assemblages of which
the variability makes attribution to specic populations difcult (Guillomet-Malmassari 2012; Kuhn 2013;
Guillomet-Malmassari 2014). Are the populations concerned the same as for the previous period – the new traits
corresponding then to local adaptation, the evolution of inherited traits or interactions? Or, on the contrary, are
they new populations that share traits with the old populations that live alongside them due to local adaptation
and/or interactions?
The difculty of interpreting variability in cultural and sociological terms is greater still when it is observed
on both an intra- and inter-site scale, and when it affects the various cultural domains differentially (Perlès
2013). In order to understand these transition periods better and improve their anthropological interpretation,
one of the questions that should be answered is what process creates a variability that succeeds in destabilising
a previous form of uniformity and stability. In other words, given the mechanism of transmission that favours
meaningful spatiotemporal congurations of cultural groups, the question is the following: what is the process
that has for effect that the transmission of technical practices no longer produces, at a given moment, signicant
congurations of population structure but, on the contrary, a variability non-signicant of this structure and,
from this point of view, specic to the so-called transition periods?
We should be clear that in asking this question this article does not have the aim of studying the historic
dynamic at work on the level of events – of a ‘crisis’ type – at the origin of transition periods. These dynamics
are singular and intrinsically non-reproducible, and so can be studied only on a case-by-case basis. The aim, on
the contrary, is to search for regularities by examining the process through which intra- and inter-site variability
1 This article is a revised and extended version of a French article: V. Roux & S. Gabbriellini, Structures de cuisson et période de
transition au Rajasthan (Inde, 2005-2015). Des choix instables avant sélection dénitive, in Transitions historiques, edited by C.
Müller & M. Heintz, Paris (2016), 157-168. V. Roux, CNRS, UMR 7055, Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, 21 allée de
l’université, Nanterre 92023 cedex, valentine.roux@cnrs.fr - Simone Gabbriellini, CNRS, GEMASS, ISCC, 20 rue Berbier-du-Mets,
Paris 75013, simone.gabbriellini@cnrs.fr
2. Firing structures and transition periods in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015)
36
perturbs cultural order. In other words, this means casting light on the variability triggering mechanism and the
context in which it is set off so as to raise the question of possible regularities underlying the specic dynamics
that are at the origin of the so-called transition periods.
This mechanism will be studied by examining in an ethnographic context the introduction of new ceramic
ring techniques of which the present consequence is a variability that no longer reects the population structure.
1.1. Ethnographic data
The region considered is that of Jodhpur (Rajasthan, India) where the ceramic production is in the hands
of Muslim and Hindu potters. Until 1987 the vessels produced and the technical systems deployed distinctly
distinguished these two communities: the Muslims were specialised in producing culinary ware, the Hindus in
producing storage vessels; the former used earthen wheels, paddles with V-shaped rim proles, and open single-
hearth triangular ring structures, whilst the latter used stone wheels, paddles with straight rim prole, and open
multiple-hearth circular rings. In this way, the variability in the technical systems reected the structure of the
potters’ population.
From 1987, just as the production reduced itself to a single vessel type (i.e. the white water jar) now
manufactured by both communities (Roux 2015), the ring structures started to change. The kiln was introduced
by a Muslim potter who had gone to work in Gujarat where kilns were used. It was then adopted, and it spread
progressively inside the Muslim population in the following twenty years. The kiln also spread among the Hindu
potters. However, this diffusion did not occur from interactions with their Muslims neighbours – given the well-
acknowledged phenomenon of afliation/differentiation (Roux et alii 2017) – but through interactions with the
potters of a remote town outside the vicinity of Jodhpur. The Hindu potters’ adoption of the kiln also took about
twenty years. The result is that in 2015 all the potters in the Jodhpur region use kilns and the spatial variability
in ring structures no longer distinguishes between the two communities of potters.
Nonetheless, there is a town, Pachpadra, which is a special case in that three ring structures are found there
instead of a single one as before. In other terms, there is a case in which an intra-site variability has appeared that
goes beyond the inter-sites variability of the present and previous periods. This begs the question of the cultural
meaning of this variability, as this variability is all part of a trend that will ultimately result in the selection of a
single ring structure.
2. The narrative of the ring structures in Pachpadra
The town of Pachpadra is a centre well-known for manufacturing water jars for more than 50 years. It is a
town with a present population of about 10,000 inhabitants with a close-knit urban fabric and a potters’ quarter
consisting of 38 households. Nowadays, the 38 households use three ring structures (Fig. 2.1): ve of them are
open rings, 11 enclosed rings, and 22 vertical updraft kilns.
The open rings – circular multiple-hearth rings installed over pits and covered with shards – are the
traditional rings that were used until the 1990s by all the Hindu potters in the region. They enable several
hundred vessels to be red at one time – up to about 800.
The enclosed rings were introduced in 1995 by the Barmer ‘Small Industries Craft Organisation’ (SICO),
a regional organisation working to promote local crafts. Enclosed ring works on the same principle as open
ring, also allowing several hundred recipients to be red at one time. The difference is that the rings are
installed on a at surface and enclosed by a wall ca. 60 cm in height, sheltering the vessels from gusts of wind,
with 16 to 20 openings (depending on the enclosure’s diameter) allowing multiple-hearths ring at once. In
order to promote enclosed rings, loans were offered to the potters for both building brick or stone enclosure
and buying a new type of wheel. Few of them did so.
Technology in Crisis
37
Fig. 2.1 The different firing structures used by the potters in Pachpadra: (top) open multiple-hearth
circular firings, (middle) enclosed multiple hearts circular firing, (bottom) vertical updraft
kiln (©Valentine Roux)
The introduction of the kiln started also in 1995 through the Rajasthan SICO, which came to Pachpadra to
improve the craft industry. The kiln used was a vertical updraft square kiln with four mouths (4 x 2 m). The oor
was made of metallic bars. It could contain 170 jars. Around 15 potters attended the workshop which consisted of
building the kiln and ring pots. It took place at Gov’s place2. However, it was not a success given the difculty in
controlling the re and therefore the risks of breakage. Nobody took the kiln. By the end of 1997, representatives
of SICO came to Pachpadra from Jaipur to initiate the glazing technique which requires ring in a kiln. The kiln
oor was under a dome without a central pillar made of superimposed bricks laid in a rst stage on jars covered
with ash; it was probably the Jaipur type of kiln. Only Gov and Jag made one with the help of Puk, as the latter two
were involved in construction work. However, this kiln was not a success given heating difculties. There were too
many losses. A few months later, in February 1998, the SICO representatives from Jaipur came back to Pachpadra
to initiate another type of kiln, a smaller version of the kilns currently in use. The kiln’s oor is made up of a
central platform in the shape of a horseshoe leaning against the wall, and metal bars are placed between the wall
and the platform. The workshop was held again at Gov’s place. Around 20 potters attended the workshop. After the
workshop, three potters made one kiln: Gov, Jag, and Nar (Gov’s brother). The kilns were funded by SICO. They
used Jaipur’s clay for making the glazed gurines. In the end, nobody adopted the glazing technique or the new
type of kiln because they did not reach expected prots. Gov used the kiln for two years only, Jag and Nar for four
years. Around 2005, Jag decided to make a bigger kiln, with a capacity of 80 to 100 jars, to re his products. The
rst person who followed Jag’s example and built such a large kiln was Gov. He kept it for a few years but did not
use it much and alternated it with open ring depending on the number of pots to be red. He destroyed it a few
years later. The adoption of the kiln by others followed mainly between 2009 and 2011.
Each of the three ring structures has its advantages and disadvantages which the potters put forward to explain
why they prefer one or the other. Generally, those who choose the open rings say that they allow the ring of
several hundred vessels at the same time and consequently only a single ring per month is required. Furthermore,
they also asserted that it saves them from having a xed structure that occupies space and forces them to re
regularly with only a limited number of vessels included in each ring. Those who choose the enclosed ring
prefer it because the enclosure protects the ring from gusts of wind. Moreover, it circumvents the need to cover
2 Gov, Jag, Puk and Nar are abbreviations for potters’ names.
2. Firing structures and transition periods in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015)
38
the sides of the structure with shards – which saves considerable time in preparing the ring. Lastly, just like the
open rings, the enclosed structure lets them re a sufciently large number of vessels to make only one or two
rings a month. As for those who choose the kiln, they justify their choice by explaining the kiln consumes one
and a half times less fuel, that preparing the ring is much quicker since it only takes two hours instead of seven,
and that, lastly, the increase in the number of rings per month is not a problem for them.
2.1. The sociological composition of the potters
The potters of Pachpadra, who are all Hindus belonging to the Prajapati caste, are divided between two main
endogamous sub-castes: the Bandas (18 households) and the Purubiyas (20 households). Each of these sub-castes
consists of clans or gotrā that are exogamous. Each of these gotrā is formed of a varied number of lineages; a
lineage groups together individuals sharing the same clearly identied ancestor and includes a certain number of
households.
The Bandas and the Purubiyas each comprise an equivalent number of gotrā. However, the Bandas form a more
homogeneous group than the Purubiyas in terms of the gotrā that groups the most families together. This gotrā,
Godela, is formed of a single lineage, whereas for the Purubiyas the gotrā with most households comprises seven
distinct lineages (Table 2.1).
Sub-Cast Clan (gotrā)Households Lineages
Banda
Godela 9 1
Kavadia 7 2
Bidanodhan 2 1
Purubiya
Eniya 18 7
Sinavida 1 1
Khator 1 1
Total 6 38 13
Tab. 2.1 Number of lineages and households per clan within the two sub-castes of the town of
Pachapdra: the Bandas and Purubiyas
2.2. The variability of the ring structures in light of the population sociology
The three ring structures are evenly distributed between the two sub-castes (Fig. 2.2). Thus, ten Purubiya and
Banda households possess a kiln, four Purubiya and ve Banda households use an enclosure, four Purubiya and
two Banda households have an open ring, while two Purubiya households and one Banda household use two
ring structures among which the kiln.
Fig. 2.2 Distribution of the firing structures per sub-caste (Banda and Purubiya)
Technology in Crisis
39
The distribution of the ring structures also does not depend on the clans within the Purubiya and Banda sub-
castes. Figure 2.3 highlights the following three points:
▪ Intra-clan variability in ring structures exists among the Eniyas, the largest clan of the Purubiyas. The various
households show ve different technical situations: open ring (4), enclosed ring (4), the kiln (8), open ring
and the kiln (1), or enclosed ring and the kiln (1). In the last two cases, the use of the two ring structures
depends on the type of vessels to be red, their number, and/or the season.
▪ This intra-clan variability of ring structures can also be observed with a Banda clan, the Kavadia. Their
households show four different technical situations: open rings (2), enclosed rings (2), the kiln (2) and
enclosed ring and the kiln (1).
▪ This variability contrasts with the uniformity of the ring structures within the Godela clan which comprises
the largest number of families among the Bandas. They all have adopted the kiln.
Fig. 2.3 Distribution of the firing structures per gotrā (clan)
3. Explaining the variability of the ring structures in Pachpadra
3.1. Material and methods
To understand the simultaneous intra-clan variability and uniformity, we examined the process of the kiln’s
diffusion. The kiln has become the predominant trait in the region’s pottery production, now in the majority in
Pachpadra, and is destined – on the basis of the evolution at regional level – to be selected in the end by all the
potters. We were especially interested in understanding why the kiln diffused more widely among the Godela clan,
as compared to the Eniya clan who uses different ring structures.
For this purpose, we conducted oral interviews. All the potters of Pachpadra (38 potters) were asked to
reconstruct their technical history, meaning the different choices they made during their lifetime in terms of the
type of production and ring techniques, including the dates of adoption of enclosed rings and/or the kiln. This
allowed us to reconstruct the diffusion networks of these ring structures. Potters were also asked to make explicit
whom inuenced them in their choice of refusing or adopting the kiln or the enclosure, as well as the type of
relationship – namely, kinship, friendship, or neighbour – relating them to the named source of inuence. Parts of
the interviews were also devoted to drawing complete family trees specifying kinship relationships between the
2. Firing structures and transition periods in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015)
40
potters. Coding potters’ narratives and coupling them with their family trees, it was possible to reconstruct both the
advice and kinship ties relating the potters in Pachpadra.
The variability of ring structures could then be analysed in light of the adoption time of the kiln, the relationships
between the diffusion, advice, and kinship networks, as well as the segmentation of the clans into lineages and the
technical behaviour of the rst adopters of the new ring structures.
3.2. Results
In a rst stage of analysis, the adoption curves of the enclosed ring and the kiln (Fig. 2.4) were plotted. They
illustrate how the three ring structures were progressively used in Pachpadra. The ‘transition period’ reached its
peak in 2010-2011 when open rings, enclosed rings, and kilns were distributed evenly among the households
of Pachpadra.
Fig. 2.4 Evolutionary curves of the open firing, the enclosed firing and the kiln (from 1994 to 2015)
The diffusion process of the kiln was then examined by comparing the adoption times of the kiln between the two
sub-castes. Figure 2.5 shows that they are comparable. From this point of view, the rhythm of the adoption of the
kiln according to each sub-caste tells us nothing about what has caused the intra-clan variability.
Fig. 2.5 Adoption times of the kiln in Pachpadra according to sub-castes (Purubiya, Banda). The x-axis
represents time, the y-axis represents the cumulative relative frequencies of potters that have
adopted, in the range 0 (nobody) to 1 (everybody). Each dot represents, for a specific time period
(x-axis), the cumulative relative frequency of potters (y-axis) that have adopted the innovation
Technology in Crisis
41
Secondly, we examined the relationships between the kinship and diffusion network on the one hand, and
between the advice network – the relationship network of the potters having adopted the kiln – and the kinship
network on the other.
The results are as follows (Table 2.2):
▪ On the scale of Pachpadra, a statistically signicant correlation exists between the kinship network and the
diffusion network. This means that the adoption of the kiln mainly takes place under the inuence of a potter
with a family tie.
▪On the scale of the sub-castes, one observes, on the one hand, that the correlation between the kinship and
diffusion network is stronger with the Bandas than with the Purubiyas, on the other, that there is a signicant
correlation between the advice network and the kinship network with the Bandas (corr: 0.42, p-value 0.0),
indicating that the Bandas having borrowed the kiln are close relatives. This second correlation distinguishes
the Bandas from the Purubiyas. In other words, the Bandas tend to adopt the kiln if their parents adopt, which
seems to be less the case for the Purubiyas as the source of inuence of the Purubiyas is not necessarily parental.
▪Lastly, at the scale of the clan one observes that the correlation between the diffusion network and the kinship
network is stronger with the Godelas (Banda) than with the Eniyas (Purubiya) for which it is on the same level
as in the sub-caste. The same conclusion follows than for the sub-castes: among the Godelas, the kinship ties
played in favour of the diffusion of the kiln, contrarily to the Eniyas.
Sub-cast Kinship network and
diffusion network QAP
p-value Advice and kinship
network QAP
p-value
TOTAL 0.16 0.000 0.17 0.000
PURUBIYA 0.15 0.002 0.18 0.012
Eniya 0.16 0.002 -
BANDA 0.24 0.000 0.42 0.000
Godela 0.59 0.000 -
Tab. 2.2 Correlation coefficient (QAP) between the kinship and diffusion networks, and between the
advice and kinship networks (QAP is a coefficient that measures the relations between two
different matrices; p is the correlation’s statistical value, significant when < 0.005)
In brief, our results show that the kiln has spread through kinship ties within the clan (Godela) which is made of
a sole lineage. This is not the case with the Eniyas, a clan made of seven lineages. However, this difference in the
diffusion of the kiln cannot be explained by the number of lineages. Indeed, within Gov’s lineage (Eniya), the one
including the most numerous households (7), kinship ties have done little for the spreading of the kiln. In the same
way, one cannot invoke a difference in parental relationships between the two sub-castes: among the Kavadias,
a Banda clan gathering seven households distributed between two lineages, the parental ties have not played in
favour of the adoption of new ring techniques. What then do the Eniyas (Purubiya) and the Kavadias (Banda)
have in common with one another but not with the Godelas (Banda)?
This puzzling question of the difference in ring structures between the Godelas, Eniyas, and Kavadias has been
examined in light of the behaviour of the early adopters of the kiln and the enclosure.
As stated above, the two early adopters of the kiln in Pachpadra were Jag (Banda, Godela) and Gov (Purubiya,
Eniya). However, both have a different technical story. Since building the kiln in 2005, Jag has stood by his choice.
Jag is recognised as an expert and has built numerous kilns in Pachpadra for potters belonging to different sub-
castes and clans. Gov is also recognised as an expert and was among the rst to try the kiln. However, instead of
standing by one ring structure, he kept trying different ones: he tried the enclosed ring between 2003 and 2005,
then tried using a kiln between 2005 and 2009; moreover, since 2006, he has reverted to open ring which is the
ring structure he currently uses.
This changing behaviour is also found with the most expert potter in the Kavadia clan (Banda), Puk. In Pachpadra,
Puk was the rst one to have tested the enclosed ring technique. In 2009, he tried several different sizes of kiln.
He had many ring setbacks and failures; at present, he only uses the enclosed ring, keeping the kiln as a storage
space.
2. Firing structures and transition periods in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015)
42
In summary, when the initiator (Jag) successfully stands by his invention, the diffusion of the invention tends
to spread widely among the kinship network through social learning. When the initiator does not stand by his
invention (Gov, Puk) and tries out different techniques (marked by trials of ring structures resulting in reversions,
i.e. returns to the initial ring structures), then a negative signal is sent, and the invention does not diffuse widely.
This difference in early adopters’ behaviour explains, in particular, why the variability in ring structures is not
correlated either with the sub-caste, the clan, or the number of lineages.
4. Discussion
Pachapdra is a town inhabited by potters witnessing a period of transition in ring techniques. Before 1995,
only one type of ring was used, open ring. Since 2005, three types of ring are used whose distribution does
not correspond to the sociological composition of the population. In the long run, and by reference to the regional
situation, only one structure will be used, the kiln. In this respect, Pachpadra is a case in point for examining the
mechanisms at work in the emergence of cultural trait variability at the intra-site level during a transitional period,
before the denite selection of one trait.
In order to understand how variability emerged within a single location and for a limited period of time, an
analysis of the variability of the ring structures was conducted.
This analysis highlights that, at the scale of Pachpadra, there is a statistical correlation between the kinship and
diffusion networks, signicant also at the sub-caste level with a strong correlation between the advice and kinship
networks. However, this correlation concerns mainly one clan, the Bandas. Indeed, among the Eniyas and the
Kavadias, kinship ties did not favour the adoption of the kiln. Differences in the number of lineages per clan cannot
be taken as an explanation. Kinship ties are not acting as a facilitator even within the same lineage, whether among
the Eniyas or the Kavadias.
Instead, our data suggest that the early adopter’s behaviour had a major inuence, positive or negative, to
accelerate or slow down the diffusion of the new ring technique. Constant behaviour, consisting in standing by
a technique, favoured the diffusion of the kiln among the Godela (Banda) with the consequence of progressively
generating a homogeneous tradition within this clan. On the contrary, trial and error attitudes among the Eniyas
(Purubiya) and the Kavadias (Banda), marked by reversion phenomena, slowed down the process of diffusion of
the kiln with the result that technical variability increased.
These empirical observations can be explained in light of the conclusions of a recent study that relies on a unique
combination of ethnographic data, social network analysis, and computational models and that has been conducted
on a large scale in two different countries (India and Kenya) (Manzo et alii 2018). The general scope of the results
obtained relies on the capacity of the highlighted mechanisms to engender the empirical curves of diffusion.
According to the conclusions of this study, if those actors who are in the best structural position to spread the
innovation do not consistently provide others with high-quality learning opportunities, then uncertainty and doubts
about the to-be-adopted traits prevail, and network reachability and local redundancy are likely to act as diffusion
obstacles rather than facilitators (Manzo et alii 2018). In Pachpadra, Gov and Puk’s attitudes make that doubts
about the kiln prevail among their parents, kinship ties acting then as diffusion obstacles rather than facilitators as
shown by the high diversity of ring structures within Gov and Puk’s lineages.
This mechanism entails a non-linear adoption of the new technical options and therefore a form of disorder
during a certain time period accentuated by the successive appearances and disappearances of the various ring
techniques on the household scale. This mechanism is opposed to that fostering gradual adoption, of a linear type,
resulting in the progressive uniformity of the traits.
The non-linear adoption of the techniques has been observed in a context where various technical behaviours –
acceptance versus exploration – were followed by the rst expert adopters. In a recent study, it has been possible to
show that the rst adopters of new techniques are usually experts because they are the ones in a position to perceive
the properties of the new task and therefore adopt them (Roux et alii 2018). In a situation where the population is
exposed to different techniques, one can expect to have different reactions among the experts. Thus, in Pachpadra,
on the one side, there is an innovator with a deep understanding of the properties of the kiln (Jag); the consequence
is a stable behaviour and this behaviour, a positive source of inuence. On the other, there are innovators with
an exploratory behaviour (Gov and Puk); the consequence is a trial and error attitude and this attitude, a negative
Technology in Crisis
43
source of inuence. When these experts belong to different social segments, different rhythms of adoption of
techniques are expected and therefore a high variability in technical systems for a certain time period.
The history connected to the introduction of new ring structures depends, of course, on particular circumstances
and cannot be in the nature of a regularity. On the other hand, the mechanism that has generated the variability
observed and the context in which it operates, can be considered general in its scope. The consequence is a
variability which is not signicant of ‘ways of doing’ specic to certain social groups.
Lastly, let us note that the variability studied here was observed at the intra-site scale. But a comparable variability
can be envisaged at the inter-site scale given that comparable conditions are in place: the introduction of several
technical options, the form of social heterogeneity between the settlements, and the variable innovator’s strategies.
5. Conclusions
The question of the particular identity of transition periods in archaeology has been here answered in
anthropological terms. These periods are characterised by the introduction of new traits inside communities in
which both the ties between the individuals and the various inventors’ strategies generate a variability in the
adoption process with, as a consequence, a strong spatial and temporal variability in cultural traits that does not
correspond to the population structure.
In other words, when several traits come into competition the coverage of the kinship networks and the initiator’s
strategies may have a direct effect on the selection processes and on the diffusion of the cultural traits. This leads
to a variability in cultural traits for a certain time, the time of a transition, the time in which the traits are selected
which in the future may characterise the population structure.
Acknowledgements
The ethnographic investigations and the sociological analyses have been funded by the ANR (The French National
Agency for Research) within the framework of the program CULT (Metamorphosis of societies – “Emergences
and evolution of cultures and cultural phenomena”), project DIFFCERAM (Dynamics of spreading of ceramic
techniques and style: actualist comparative data and agent-based modelling) (n°ANR-12-CULT-0001-01).
References
▪Gosselain 2000 = O.P. Gosselain, Materializing identities: an African perspective, Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 7.3 (2000), 187-217.
▪ Gosselain 2011 = O.P. Gosselain, Fine if I do, ne if I don’t: Dynamics of technical knowledge in Sub-Saharan
Africa, in Investigating archaeological cultures: Material culture, variability, and transmission, edited by
B.W. Roberts & M. Vander Linden. New York, London (2011), 211-227.
▪Guillomet-Malmassari 2012 = V. Guillomet-Malmassari, D’une révolution à l’autre : Pour une Épistémologie
de la problématique de transition en préhistoire (Mémoires de La Société Préhistorique Française 54), Paris
(2012).
▪Guillomet-Malmassari 2014 = V. Guillomet-Malmassari, La question du passage entre le Paléolithique et le
Mésolithique ou le développement d’un long processus scientique aux XIXe et XXe siècles, in Transitions,
ruptures et continuité en Préhistoire, edited by J. Jaubert, N. Fourment & P. Depaepe, Actes du XXVIIe
Congrès Préhistorique de France, Bordeaux-Les Eyzies, 31 Mai-5 Juin 2010, Paris (2014), 509-518.
▪Kuhn 2013 = S.L. Kuhn, Questions of complexity and scale in explanations for cultural transitions in the
Pleistocene: A Case Study from the Early Upper Paleolithic, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
20.2 (2013), 194-211.
▪Lave & Wenger 1991 = J. Lave & E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge
(1991).
2. Firing structures and transition periods in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015)
44
▪Manzo et alii 2018 = G. Manzo, S. Gabbriellini, V. Roux & F.N. M’Mbogori, Complex contagions and the
diffusion of innovations: evidence from a small-N study, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25.4
(2018), 110-1154.
▪Perlès 2013 = C. Perlès, Tempi of change: when soloists don’t play together. Arrhythmia in ‘continuous’
change, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20.2 (2013), 281-299.
▪Roux 2015 = V. Roux, Standardization of ceramic assemblages: transmission mechanisms and diffusion of
morpho-functional traits across social boundaries, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015), 1-9.
▪Roux et alii 2017 = V. Roux, B. Bril, J. Cauliez, A.-.L Goujon, C. Lara, G. de Saulieu & E. Zangato,
Persisting technological boundaries: social interactions, cognitive correlations and polarization, Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017), 320-335.
▪Roux et alii 2018 = V. Roux, B. Bril & A. Karasik, Weak ties and expertise: crossing technological boundaries,
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25.4 (2018), 1024-1050.
▪Shennan et alii 2015 = S.J. Shennan, E.R. Crema & T. Kerig, Isolation-by-distance, homophily, and “core” vs.
“package” cultural evolution models in Neolithic Europe, Evolution and Human Behavior 36.2 (2015), 103-
109.
▪Stark 1998 = M.T. Stark (ed.), The archaeology of social boundaries (Smithsonian Series in Archaeological
Inquiry), Washington, WA (1998).
rapportsdefouilles
thèsesdedoctorat
monographies
actesdecolloques
The book
This volume comprises the proceedings of a workshop with the same title which took place in February 2016
at UCLouvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). It was organised within the framework of the ARC13/18-049
(concerted research action) “A World in Crisis?”. This workshop questioned the reliability of pottery as crisis
indicator within the archaeological data set. More particularly, following the perspective of archaeological and
anthropological research that assesses pottery technology as a social product, there is an interest in addressing
the social and cultural aspects of technological change in pottery production in the specifi c context of crisis
and period of trouble. The main goal of our examination was to detect whether and how technological choices or
changes observed in the archaeological ceramic record may refl ect periods of transition, disruption, crisis or
change pertaining to social, political, economic and environmental conditions. We proposed to address these
questions by bringing together experts in charge of the study of pottery at diff erent Bronze Age Mediterranean
sites in order to discuss, confront and contextualise their respective assemblages and associated contexts.
This two-day workshop emphasised that the majority of our case studies allow the identifi cation of continuous
changes in pottery production systems, i.e. changes that do not evidence any clear cessation of transmission in
potting practices. These are interpreted as indicators of periods of transition, of socio-political and economic
transformation, rather than moments of crisis or disruption. On the contrary, discontinuous changes in
pottery production systems have been observed in those contexts where new paste recipes and/or innovative
forming techniques were introduced by foreigners and adopted by local people. Finally, the contributions also
highlighted that our observations needed to be replaced in a broader contextual framework, especially in the
case of the Late Bronze Age ( 13th-12th c. BC ) Mediterranean systems’ collapse. Indeed, several archaeological
contexts here examined have demonstrated a relative continuity of ceramic traditions at the 13th-12th c. BC
transition, while other forms of transmitted technological knowledge had abruptly stopped.
The authors
David Ben-Shlomo, Ina Berg, Marco Bettelli, Elisabetta Borgna, Thomas M. Brogan, Ilaria Caloi, Maria Choleva,
Simone Gabbriellini, Artemis Georgiou, Luke Kaiser, Elina Kardamaki, Konstantina Kaza-Papageorgiou,
Charlotte Langohr, Sara T. Levi, Bartłomiej Lis, Eleni Nodarou, Valentine Roux, Salvatore Vitale
The series AEGIS (Aegean Interdisciplinary Studies) attempts to make the results of new archaeological
research on Aegean and especially Minoan societies available to the scientifi c and wider public at a rapid
pace. Monographs, PhD dissertations, proceedings of scientifi c meetings and excavation reports complete
each other to off er a general view of this time frame which is of primary importance to understand the
ancient world and its historical, political, symbolical and social sequences.
97673 29 €