Content uploaded by Valentine Roux
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Valentine Roux on Jul 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
15
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
* Maison de l’archéologie et de l’ethnologie (MAE), Laboratoire Préhistoire et technologie,
CNRS / Université Paris Nanterre, Nanterre.
Fecha de recepción: 06-04-2020. Fecha de aceptación: 11-07-2020.
http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/CPAG.v30i0.15370
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS
AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
Cadena Operativa, redes tecnológicas e interpretaciones sociológicas
VALENTINE ROUX *
ABSTRACT In this paper, I first argue that technological analysis of archaeological assemblages
in terms of chaînes opératoires is a privileged qualitative approach to reconstruct
technological networks, namely networks of socially linked object-makers. This is a
first step before explaining dynamic phenomena such as diffusion of techniques or
emergence of shared norms at the population level. The second step is to call upon
sociological regularities since archaeology alone cannot provide a fine-grained temporal
resolution to evaluate how micro-level interactions might have scaled up in changes.
In the second part of the paper, I give archaeological examples and illustrate how to
use sociological regularities for explaining past dynamics.
Keywords: Technological Networks, Chaîne opératoire, Regularities, Diffusion Dy-
namics, Emergence of Shared Norms, Potter’s Wheel.
RESUMEN En este documento, sostengo en primer lugar que el análisis tecnológico de las ce-
rámicas arqueológicas en términos de Cadenas Operativas es un enfoque cualitativo
privilegiado para reconstruir las redes tecnológicas, es decir, las redes de productores de
objetos socialmente vinculados. Se trata de un primer paso antes de explicar fenómenos
dinámicos como la difusión de técnicas o la aparición de normas compartidas a nivel
de la población. El segundo paso consiste en recurrir a regularidades sociológicas, ya
que la Arqueología por sí sola no puede proporcionar una resolución temporal ajustada
para evaluar cómo las interacciones a nivel microeconómico podrían haber incremen-
tado en los cambios. En la segunda parte del documento, doy ejemplos arqueológicos
e ilustro cómo utilizar las regularidades sociológicas para explicar la dinámica del
pasado.
Palabras clave: Redes tecnológicas, Cadena Operativa, Regularidades, Dinámica de
difusión, Aparición de normas compartidas, Torno de alfarero.
16
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
INTRODUCTION
In ceramic studies, the chaîne opératoire approach is used to reconstruct
multiscalar networks linking either the different steps of the manufacturing tasks
(provenience studies linking sources of clay material/temper/pigments and vessels),
producers (linking those who collect clay material/temper/pigment and those who
manufacture the vessels —if distinct—, those who are responsible for one stage
of the manufacturing process and others —if distinct—, and/or those who use the
same manufacturing techniques), producers and distributors (linking producers and
distributors —if distinct—), producers and users (linking producers and users —if
distinct—), and users (linking those using the same type of vessels) 1. However,
these technological studies that provide network analyses rarely use formal models,
even though the power of social network models for interpreting dynamic social
processes is well established (Brughmans et al., 2016; Peeples, 2019).
In this paper, in line with Knappett (2018), I argue that both approaches are
desirable, starting with data networks and qualitative network analysis, and
pursuing with either network modeling or the use of sociological regularities.
The goal is to take benefit from Social Networks Analysis (SNA) to investigate
past social processes through the structure of relations among social entities
knowing that SNA has convincingly shown its role in the forms of change (Mills,
2017). In typical formal networks, social entities are the nodes and the relations
are the edges linking the nodes (Collar et al., 2015). These relations or ties may
be different “ranging from economic transactions to shared identities and other
affiliations” (Mills, 2017:380). In material network studies, one problem often
mentioned is that ties linking nodes are inferred from similarity between objects
across, or within, archaeological sites. The underlying principle is that shared
similar artefacts express interactions between sites or within sites and, therefore,
social relationships (Coward, 2013; Borck et al., 2015; Mills et al., 2013; Östborn
and Gerding, 2014). The limitation with this approach is that while, theoretically,
any shared trait can indicate cultural interactions, only some traits can help to
distinguish different types of connections and to assess the relational structure
of social groups (Knappett, 2018). Exchange networks are the most problematic
for defining the type of social relations between sites because the presence of a
same type of object on different sites does not necessarily indicate how the sites
interacted (directly versus indirectly) and through which actors (ex. consumers with
consumers and/or brokers and/or producers), knowing moreover that the objects
themselves may have played a role in the emergence of these exchange networks
which can be a result of varied sorts of interactions rather than the expression of
1. It would be difficult to quote all the relevant works on these topics; let us simply cite a recent
example of archaeological data from South-East Asia showing how the chaîne opératoire approach
can be applied to different raw materials (ceramics, stone, glass) in macro-regions to highlight
multiscalar networks (Bellina, 2017; Dussubieux and Bellina, 2018; Favereau and Bellina, 2016).
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
17
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
recurrent directed social interactions (as in the case with boundary objects; on
this topic see Mills (2018). Distribution and/or consumption networks, both often
conflated under the label of provenance-based networks, is a type of exchange
network with sites linked by similar objects whose route of circulation is traced
through raw material provenance (Mills 2017:387). They raise the same questions
about the type of relationships between sites.
I will focus here on the significant ceramic traits of social affiliation, i.e.
traits that indicate that the vessel producers (the nodes) are linked by shared social
identity (the edges). As we shall see, these significant traits are technical traits that
can testify that the vessels were manufactured by producers belonging to the same
social group. They will enable us to draw technological networks, here defined as
networks of socially linked object-makers. They answer the basic questions on the
nodes and links, what they are and how they structure networks, that is to say the
relational and social boundary issue of social network analyses (Knappett, 2013;
Mills, 2017; Knappett, 2018). Technological networks could also be called “affilia-
tion networks”, but not in the sense given by Knappett, who defines these networks
on the basis of “joint participation in daily practices” (Knappett, 2011:105), thus
mixing technical and consumer practices. Technological networks include only
those producers whose shared know-how signals social links between them.
In the first part of the paper, I recall the principles of the technological approach
and its relevance to draw technological networks and carry out multiscalar network
analyses. Once the technological networks are reconstituted, past dynamic phe-
nomena can be understood using different approaches. Network modeling is one
approach (Peeples, 2019). The analogical approach using the regularities highlighted
by Social Network Analysis is another one. In the second part of this paper, I will
show how to carry out analogical reasoning and use sociological regularities to
explain past social phenomena. Two phenomena are examined: the diffusion of the
potter’s wheel in north Lebanon and the emergence of common norms among the
Late Chalcolithic population in the southern Levant.
THE CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE: A SIGNIFICANT VARIABLE OF SOCIAL
AFFILIATION
A chaîne opératoire is a series of actions that transform raw material into fin-
ished product (Cresswell, 1976:13). It characterizes technical traditions, defined
as “patterned ways of doing things that exist in identifiable form over extended
periods of time” (O’Brien et al., 2010:3797). In ceramics, the steps organizing
the chaîne opératoire range from collecting the raw material to firing the pots.
Each of them is likely to be significant of shared social identity. This has been
well documented by anthropological and ethnoarchaeological studies (examples
in Lemonnier, 1993; Roddick and Stahl, 2016).
18
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
Technical traditions equal social groups
Two main rules can explain that technical traditions express shared social
identity and therefore equal social groups. The first rule is based on the studies on
craft learning in the domain of experimental psychology and movement sciences
(influenced by the ecological psychology school and social learning theories which
take social interactions into account, i.e. Mezirow, 2009). These studies demonstrate
that we always learn only one way of doing things and that way is the tutor’s one
(i.e. Bril, 2015). More precisely, technical skills are always acquired following a
model although learning cannot be reduced to imitation since it involves progres-
sively controlling the mechanical constraints of the technical task through specific,
culturally “selected”, working postures and movements which are long to master.
The tutor who provides the model educates the learner’s attention and directs his/
her exploratory activities towards the development of efficient skills (Bril, 2002,
2015, 2019, 2018). As a consequence of this social guidance and necessary repeated
human interactions, the developed culturally situated skills are in line with the
tutor’s ones (Bril, 1986, 2018; Ingold, 2001), contributing thus to the reproduction
of the tutor’s way of doing. The second rule articulates the individual to the group.
As we saw, learning to master technical tasks implies to follow a tutor’s model.
When the craft is carried out at the domestic scale (specialised or not), the tutors
are usually selected within one’s social group which makes that, “mechanically”,
the social group (also called “collective”) has the same way of doing things and
that technical boundaries are superposed to social boundaries whatever the type
of transmission, vertical, horizontal or oblique (examples in Roux et al., 2017).
Social groups practicing in the same way at the domestic scale may be of different
nature (in archaeology, to be determined with the help of archaeological contextual
data); however, they necessarily include individuals who are socially affiliated and
whose ties are more or less tight (family versus non family ties). When the craft is
carried out within workshop context, individuals can come from different social
backgrounds, but form a professional group, socially identified, who contributes to
the formation of technical traditions through transmission of the craft over genera-
tions (example of the guilds). This process by which traditions are created explains
why they equal social groups, i.e. groups in which a certain way of doing things
has been handed down from generation to generation through tutors belonging to
the same social group.
Social groups sharing technical traditions are also called “communities of
practice” (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Knappett, 2011; Knappett and Kiriatzi, 2016:12;
Roddick and Stahl, 2016). The concept of “communities of practice” describes how
group identity is created or reified through common practice and regular interac-
tions (Wenger, 2000). In Lave’s word: “participation as members of a community
of practice shapes newcomers’ identities and in the process gives structure and
meaning to knowledgeable skill” (Lave, 1991:74). In other words, this concept of
“community of practice” literally mean communities of individuals who practice
together and whose common practice makes them a community (Lave and Wenger,
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
19
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
1991). In this regard, such a concept is a mechanism, a process that generates the
regularity linking ways of doing and community identity. In archaeology, epistemo-
logical studies underline that validatable interpretation of archaeological data calls
upon regularities and not the mechanisms that generate and explain them (Gallay,
2011). Hence the choice to interpret ancient ceramic traditions in terms of social
groups/ collectives rather than “communities of practice” even though, from the
archaeologist’ view point, it is a convenient expression conflating the mechanism
and the regularity (communities defined by their common practice across time).
Forming technique matters
Let us first recall that ways of forming vessels are to be described in terms of
techniques, methods and tools if one wants to capture its cultural dimension (Roux,
2019a). Techniques are the physical modalities according to which raw material is
transformed. Method is the way techniques are carried out during the process of
transforming the raw material. It is an ordered sequence of functional operations
carried out by a set of elementary gestures for which different techniques can be
used. The same intention (for example to obtain pots with thin walls from base to
top) and the same object (a jug) can be obtained with different techniques (hand-
made versus wheel made) and different methods (ex. wheel throwing in one versus
two stages). Techniques are in limited number and can be the object of convergence.
On the contrary, methods are theoretically infinite and more likely to be specific.
The combination of techniques and methods reveals cultural solutions to universal
physical constraints, distinguishing between traditions linked through the trans-
mission of information, and convergent solutions to specific situations (Shennan,
2002:73). These cultural solutions are distributed across time and space. They are
at the heart of technical traditions which can include different ways of making
pots depending on their shapes. They can be identified on ancient ceramics by
conducting macro-, meso- and micro-observations (Roux, 2019a).
Now, each step of the chaîne opératoire can be perpetuated or modified inde-
pendently of each other (Gosselain, 2008). Among them, the way of forming vessels
is the most stable. Its temporal stability is well attested in archaeology (examples
of stability expressed through phylogenetic links between forming traditions over
more than 2000 years in the Sahel (Mayor, 2010), in the southern Levant (Roux,
2019) or in Taïwan (Wu, 2012). This can be explained by three factors: a) they
are not subject to evolution through copy and error (even though motor skills are
subject to copy-and-error as expressed by the morphometric variability of vessels
within the same technical tradition (Gandon et al., 2014); b) their mastery requires
long repeated direct interactions (Bril, 2015) within one’s own social group (Roux
et al., 2017); as a result, the motor and cognitive skills are embodied and not
likely to change through mere contacts with other traditions (Gosselain, 2000); c)
at last, they are not subject to be modified at the request of consumers who play
a major role in the evolution of ceramic production, but mainly in that of visible
20
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
features (shapes, color, decoration of finished products). This temporal stability of
the forming traditions makes them a privileged variable for assessing producers’
social affiliation.
In contrast, the other steps of the chaîne opératoire, although they may be
significant of social affiliation, especially when combined with each other, are
less relevant variables if considered independently of the forming techniques.
Indeed, they are less constrained by the learning and transmission mechanisms
and therefore more likely to change through direct and/or indirect interactions,
adaptation to changing environment and consumer’s demand. Thus, operations
such as clay preparation or decoration, once mastered, are easier to change than
forming techniques because they do not entail to learn (or de-learn) new motor
skills. Moreover, they are more exposed to change through direct transmission
(they can be carried out outside one’s own social group (examples in Gosselain,
2008) and/or indirect transmission through brokers or circulating pots (example in
Roux, 2015). Even though they can be significant of social affiliation (examples of
clay recipes which follow the same pattern than forming techniques across place
and time indicating social boundaries), their interpretation in terms of social ties
may therefore not be straightforward and will depend on contextual data. In other
words, linking socially two pots made with the same clay material or with the
same decoration will require further arguments, unlike forming technology (when
described in terms of techniques and methods) that univocally indicates potters’
social affiliation across space and time.
Chaînes opératoires and social networks
Let’s now consider three situations. In the first situation, technical traditions
are distinguished from each other on the basis of all stages of the manufacturing
process. In this case, similar technical traditions distributed at the local, regional
and/or macro-regional scale signal actors (object makers) who are socially related,
because of the learning and transmission rules discussed previously. Conversely,
dissimilar technical traditions at the local, regional and/or macro-regional scale
signal actors who are not socially related. Accordingly, the ties linking the nodes
can be qualified as strong or weak: strong ties represent “marked or close relation-
ships such as marriage, descent, or close friends, and/or membership in the same
subgroup” (Mills, 2017:388). “Weak ties describe infrequently accessed connections
(acquaintances)” (Collar et al., 2015:23). Ties can also be long- or short-distance,
depending on their spatial distribution. Combining relational (strong or weak ties)
and geographical distances (short or long) allows to acknowledge a wide range
of possibilities: strong short-distance ties draw the boundary of a clustered social
group; weak short-distance ties link distinct social groups co-existing spatially or
living close-by. Conversely strong long-distance ties describing similar technical
traditions practiced in distant places, link socially individuals/groups living in remote
places. They testify to the move of artisans at a certain period of time. Indeed,
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
21
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
on the one hand, a whole chaîne opératoire cannot be adopted through indirect
contacts —learning necessitates direct interactions while finished products do not
provide per se information on forming technology—; on the other hand actors may
adopt exogenous techniques through direct contacts, but never the whole chaîne
opératoire except in very rare cases attesting to the adoption of a new technical
system in order to change status (Gosselain, 2011). Weak long-distance ties link
distinct social groups living far away and having infrequent relationships.
The second situation describes the use of a same chaîne opératoire for different
types of finished products (different shapes/decors) depending on places. It expresses
different intentions of the artisan which may vary depending on the consumers’
demand. Indeed, finished products refers to the consumers’ sphere and not to the
producers’ one. It follows that new shapes or new decorations can be adopted given
new demands or new consumers. Thus, when producers belonging to the same social
group live far from each other, the respective consumers may require different
types of finished products, which will, however, be made with the same chaîne
opératoire. In this case, the similarity of the ways of doing testifies to the social
relationship of the artisans. The frequency of interactions is potentially visible
in the similarity of the shapes, and the links between producers can be weighted
accordingly. In other words, in the case of strong long-distance ties, suggesting
that producers are socially related, the frequency of interactions may vary and can
be measured against the morphological and stylistic traits of the vessels; the edges
linking the nodes can be weighed accordingly.
In a third situation, only forming technology may distinguish between tech-
nical traditions. Indeed, chaînes opératoires are not “closed package” as outlined
by Gosselain who insists that they are made of components which can be modified
through encounters with other practitioners (Gosselain, 2011:219). This explains
that one does not always come across contrasted technical traditions. There are
“hybrid” cases as exemplified by one case often met: only some stages of the
chaînes opératoires are similar; for example, the preparation of the clay material
and/or the surface treatments and/or the firing technique may differ, while the
forming technique and method may be the same. Here, a major statement is that
any technical tradition evolves in the course of time. In order to analyze the type
of ties linking “hybrid” chaînes opératoires, a diachronic perspective is required
and their evolution described or modeled through approaches like the cladistic
one (Manem, 2020). This approach amounts to reconstruct technological lineages
through phylogenetic trees across time and space. Ancestral and derived traits are
highlighted. In the domain of ceramics, the forming techniques and methods are
potential ancestral traits whose stability on the longue durée is well attested given
the favourable conditions mentioned above. In contrast, operations such as clay
paste preparation or surface treatments which are likely to evolve more rapidly
are the derived traits. On the basis of these phylogenetic trees, “hybrid” chaînes
opératoires can be socially linked through the transmission of shared ancestral
traits (forming techniques and methods), indicating descendants from a same social
group (ancestral kin ties) while, at the same time, derived traits indicate differential
22
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
evolution process across time and space. The main outcome is that when studying
“hybrid” chaînes opératoires, the links between the nodes (potters’ ceramic tradition)
can be assessed in terms of social affiliation and weighed with time parameters.
A last point is that, in social network analysis, assessing connections between
producers implies not only to assess similarity between their way of doing and
qualify ties as strong or weak, but also to examine the embeddedness of the network
(“the degree to which a node or subgroup is tied to other nodes or subgroups in
the network”, Mills, 2017:389). A qualitative approach to embeddedness is the
complexity of archaeological assemblages at the macro-regional scale: they can be
homogeneous versus heterogeneous depending on the number of chaînes opératoires
involved (clay provenience is here a major variable). This complexity depends on
the function of the sites (ex.: settlement versus shrines versus gathering sites) and
accordingly testify to movements of individuals between sites and social interactions
(Roux, 2019a). In a macro-region where sites are recognized as epicenters of
interactions, these sites indicate strong network embeddedness.
In sum, technical traits, namely the whole chaîne opératoire or salient traits
like the forming techniques, alone or combined with other traits such as the
clay preparation and/or decoration, are robust qualitative variables to infer and
draw technological networks and their boundaries with nodes corresponding to
object-makers (potters’ technical tradition) and edges to social affiliation ties
(strong versus weak ties combined with short- versus long-distance ties). These
links can be drawn independently of a fine time synchronization because two objects
made the same way indicate, whatever the time slice, that the same technology
has been transmitted through generations within the same social group (since as
a rule learning takes place within one’s social group). Technical traits are also
robust variables for evaluating interactions among object makers and therefore their
degree of embeddedness (quantification of interactions between actors, Borck et
al. 2015:37). At last, the direction of interactions can also be specified, either in
the case of centrality of sites, or movements of object-makers or influence between
actors linked by weak or strong ties.
As said in the introduction, reconstruction of technological network and network
analysis are only a first step. The second step aims at explaining evolutionary
phenomena such as diffusion of cultural traits or emergence of shared new norms.
However, archaeology alone cannot provide a fine-grained temporal resolution to
evaluate how micro-level interactions might have scaled up in changes (Roux and
Manzo, 2018). In contrast, the scope of SNA is to assess through quantitative/
computational studies how changes are generated depending on network properties
(how individual interactions generate change depending on the structure of the
network into which these interactions take place). The results obtained provide
regularities, also called invariants, stating the conditions for the actualization of
change. As we shall see, when applied back to archaeological data through analogical
reasoning, these regularities succeed in explaining evolutionary phenomena in
terms of social facts.
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
23
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
EXPLAINING ANCIENT EVOLUTIONARY PHENOMENA BY REFERENCE
TO SOCIOLOGICAL REGULARITIES
Epistemological analyses have well shown that archaeological interpretation
inevitably consists in drawing an analogy between archaeological data and
referential data, and then transferring the attributes of the referential data, namely
the regularities, to the former (Gardin, 1980; Gallay, 2011). Regularities (also called
models) are recurrent attributes linking objects and meaning. Their context of validity
corresponds to the conditions of their occurrence. In the domain of technology,
these regularities link diagnostic traits and chaînes opératoires, techniques and
technical skills, technical operations and quantitative data (ex. duration of work),
technical traditions and social groups, and dynamic phenomena with social network
structures.
Within the framework of this paper, I will use three sociological regularities
stating that initial borrowing of techniques requires weak ties and expertise,
diffusion of techniques requires strong ties and inventor’s consistent behavior, and
emergence of shared norms without large-scale coordination requires homogeneous
mixing population. The mechanisms generating them have been tested, simulated
and verified against empirical data by SNA studies. In particular, these studies have
used simulations to test the different conditions into which micro-level interactions
have scaled up in changes; some of them have tested the relevance of the results
obtained against empirical data (Manzo et al., 2018). Future studies can modify
the results obtained but one expects the conditions for generating the regularities to
be completed rather than to be demonstrated as wrong (Gallay and Gardin, 2009).
In this regard, they can be considered as “provisional” regularities. Meanwhile,
their use in archaeology enable us to explain the evolution of material culture
patterns. As a first step, ancient network properties (ex., weak versus strong ties,
homogeneously mixing population versus heterogeneous population) have to be
highlighted; it involves a qualitative technological analysis of the archaeological
material for drawing qualitative data networks. As a second step, the sociological
regularities linking network properties and dynamic phenomena can be used if
analogous situations are observed. They help us to explain why specific networks
have favored the evolutionary phenomena seen in the material culture patterns,
here the diffusion of the potter’s wheel in the central Levant, and the emergence of
shared norms among Late Chalcolithic heterarchical societies in the southern Levant.
Diffusion of the potter’s wheel in the Akkar plain, central Levant
Ceramic assemblages from the third millennium BC from the Tell Arqa site in
the Akkar plain in northern Lebanon have been studied using the chaîne opératoire
approach (Thalmann, 2006; Roux and Thalmann, 2016). Results obtained show that
a same technical tradition was practiced at Tell Arqa throughout the third millen-
nium BC and, from 2500 BC onwards, throughout the entire Akkar plain, where
24
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
settlements began to spread. The temporal continuity and spatial similarity in the
technological way of making ceramics such as revealed by the chaîne opératoire
approach led us to suggest that a same tradition had been transmitted through
generations and across places testifying to strong ties between individuals, of the
order of kinship. In a network format, the nodes would be the sites with ceramics
made the same way; the links connecting the nodes would be strong ties describing
relationships of social affiliation (whatever the time slice). The potter’s wheel, a
major technical breakthrough, started to be used in the first half of the 3rd millen-
nium BC. The type of wheel is Palestinian, used by the Bronze Age inhabitants
of the southern Levant (Roux and Miroschedji, 2009). In the second half of the
3rd millennium BC, another type of tournette was used, of Mesopotamian origin,
comparable to those found northwards.
What was the dynamic behind the adoption and diffusion of the potter’s wheel?
As we shall see, sociological regularities will help us in interpreting firstly the
initial adoption stage which describes the adoption of new techniques at the indi-
vidual scale, and secondly the diffusion stage which describes the diffusion of the
technique once it has penetrated the group. These two stages are below analyzed
successively for explaining how the potter’s wheel penetrated Arqa and became
predominant in the Akkar plain.
Initial adoption of the potter’s wheel
Sociologists have highlighted the importance of weak ties in the diffusion pro-
cess of cultural traits (Granovetter, 1973). Weak ties are supposed to be far more
likely to be bridges than are strong ties, linking otherwise unconnected different
small groups (Granovetter, 1983:208). The argument is that weak ties are neces-
sary for new information to spread within closely knit social structures that are
otherwise deprived of information coming from distant parts of the social system.
Without weak ties, new ideas would spread very slowly. However, as elaborated by
Granovetter, all weak ties do not act as bridges. In this regard, what is important
is not their numbers, but their likelihood of being bridges, and promote technical
diffusion. In this perspective, a study has been carried out recently to test the
hypothesis that, as for diffusion of techniques, expertise is necessary for weak ties
to act as bridges and new techniques penetrate cohesive social groups (Roux et
al., 2018). Experiments have been conducted in the Jodhpur region (India) where
potters have adopted gradually the kiln, resulting in a potter population made up of
early, late, and/or non-adopters. Numerous variables (finished products, action, and
product dynamics) were analyzed in order to assess potters’ expertise and assess
whether it correlates with potters’ adoption behaviours. Experimental results show
that early adopters have better results than late adopters, adapting more effectively
to new situations. This adaptation reflects a better understanding of the properties
of the techniques: individuals assess technical tasks not in light of their cultural
representations, but in light of a cost-benefit analysis leading them to perceive their
advantages. Because this mechanism generating potters’ behavior respond to cog-
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
25
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
nitive universals, we concluded that expertise is a necessary, albeit not sufficient,
condition for weak ties to act as bridges and thereby, new techniques to spread.
How to use this regularity to interpret the modalities of adoption of the potter’s
wheel at Tell Arqa? According to Thalmann (Thalmann, 2009, 2010, 2016), the
ceramic types from the first half of the third millennium testify to cultural affinities
or contacts with the Early Bronze II-III southern Levant. However, no other craft
bear witness to relationships between these two regions. In this regard, the ties
between Tell Arqa and the southern Levant can be qualified as “weak” (infrequently
accessed connections) by opposition to “strong” (close relationships). At the same
period, contacts with the north were limited “to the occurrence of pattern-combed
jars on the coast as far north as Ras Shamra (…), suggesting a mainly “southern”
orientation of the EBA culture of the Akkar before the middle of the third millen-
nium” (Thalmann 2009:10). A shift in contacts, now privileging the north and inland
Syria, started by the middle of the third millennium BC (Thalmann, 2009, 2010).
These contacts are signaled by some limited comparisons with Hama J and Amuq I
and J, by a few local imitations of “Hama beakers” and other “caliciform” shapes,
and by some actual imports from central Syria. Apart from pottery, contacts with
the north are signaled by metal (copper pins) and lithic (large Canannean blades
made of imported flint) objects. However, these are limited contacts as shown by
the strongly local character of mid-third millennium BC pottery, suggesting kind
of autarkic entity (Thalmann, 2009:12) and therefore weak ties rather than strong
ties with the north and inland Syria. By the early second millennium BC, the Akkar
settlements kept looking northwards (Thalmann, 2010).
In network terms, the archaeological data suggest that the borrowing of the
tournettes took place through weak ties, in the course of infrequent contacts. Indeed,
the Palestinian type tournette was adopted by the early third millennium BC when
Tell Arqa had a few contacts with southern populations. The Mesopotamian type
tournette was adopted later, by the end of the third millennium BC or early second
millennium BC, when Tell Arqa developed rare contacts with the northern popula-
tions (as detailed above). Now, sociological studies have shown that weak ties and
expertise are favourable conditions for the initial borrowing of techniques. This
regularity can be used given similar social conditions (weak ties). It can be then
transferred to the archaeological data in order to explain that infrequent contacts
with remote populations represented favourable conditions for the adoption of the
potter’s wheel. It also completes the account of this adoption since it includes as a
necessary condition, expertise: during visits to the South or the North, the experts
were able to recognize the advantages offered by the instrument and brought it back
to Tell Arqa (fig. 1). The archaeological interpretation obtained can be validated
with regard to the validity of the regularity (Gallay, 2011).
Diffusion of the tournette and the wheel coiling technique
Recently, sociologists have debated Granovetter’s hypothesis about weak ties,
arguing that this is the structure of strong ties that really matters to sustain rapid
26
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
wide diffusion. A unique study combining ethnographic data (collected in North
West India and Central Kenya), social network analysis and computational mod-
els has been conducted to test this hypothesis (Manzo et al., 2018). The results
obtained show that clustered strong ties are one condition for fast diffusion. Indeed,
weak ties are crucial to initiate the probability that some actors (the experts) will
borrow a new technique. However strong ties are essential to sustain the diffusion
process once the innovation penetrated the community. The higher the number of
connections between strong-tie related actors (that is to say the number of times
an actor is exposed to the new technique, a measure of local redundancy in com-
plex contagion studies), the more rapid the diffusion of a technique. Nonetheless,
strong ties were found to be insufficient in some cases. Diffusion process appeared
to be also determined by the potter’s behavior who initiated the new technique
depending on whether he/she consistently provided others with a coherent sig-
nal (consistently standing by the new technique; see a detailed example in Roux
and Gabbriellini, 2019). The general conclusion, after testing and modeling the
conditions favourable to diffusion, is that both local redundancy of within-group
strong ties and initiator’s behavior are important in the diffusion process, acting
as diffusion facilitators (Manzo et al., 2018).
Fig. 1.—Logicist diagram (Gardin, 1980) illustrating the use of a sociological regularity to interpret
the initial adoption of the potter’s tournettes at Tell Arqa. The sociological regularity is transferred
to the archaeological data given the analogy of social network properties (weak ties).
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
27
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
Towards the middle of the third millennium BC, settlements expanded in the
Akkar plain (Thalmann, 2000:1622). Tell Arqa, Tell Kazel and Tell Jamous (two
sites north of the Nahr el-Kebir) probably functioned as small regional urban
centers (Thalman 2009:5). At the same time, the potter’s wheel spread instantly, as
can be seen in the ceramic assemblages which, from this period onwards, include
exclusively vessels made with the wheel coiling technique. Now, let us recall that
the analysis of the chaînes opératoires involved in the manufacturing of the third
millennium ceramics show that at Tell Arqa a same tradition was transmitted over
more than a millennium (Roux and Thalmann, 2016). This indicates its transmission
within a same social group. The use of rotary instruments testifies to the devel-
opment of specialised skills, and therefore suggests that the craft was specialised
since the beginning of the third millennium BC. Its resilience suggests that it was
practiced within households (specialised families), knowing that family structure
resists better to social and/or political changes than structures depending on specific
institutions (ex.: attached specialists). Hence the hypothesis that, at Tell Arqa, the
potters’ households were linked by kinship ties. The presence of the same tradition
in the Akkar plain suggests that the potter families spread at the same time as the
development of the settlements. The consequence was a social network of potters
linked by kinship ties and in this regard, the existence of a local redundancy of
within-group strong ties.
This social structure is analogous to that favourable to the rapid spread of tech-
niques. Hence the possibility of transferring the related sociological regularity to
the archaeological data to explain how the ancient social network of potters in the
Akkar plain led to the rapid spread of the wheel coiling technique and the related
instrument, the Mesopotamian tournette: the high rate of diffusion was favored by
the strong kinship ties linking the potters living in the Akkar plain. It can be further
specified, by reference to the sociological regularity, that the potter’s behavior who
initiated the wheel coiling technique had been consistent (fig. 2).
Emergence of shared norms in heterarchical societies
The second example aims at showing how technological networks are also
powerful tools for understanding phenomenon such as the emergence of shared
norms at the population level in heterarchical societies (Roux, 2019b). The latter
describe societies whose components are “either unranked relative to other elements
or possesses the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways” (Crum-
ley, 1987:157). This definition applies to ancient societies where the production of
prestige objects by craft specialist co-exist with an absence of hierarchical features
(visible usually in architecture or graves). Such is the case of the southern Levant
Late Chalcolithic societies (4500-3900 BC). They have been interpreted either as
egalitarian (Gilead, 1988) or hierarchized (Levy, 1995). The debate is still vivid
as more evidence of so-called prestige objects points toward complex networks of
production and distribution and interconnected ties between communities sharing
28
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
similar symbolic norms despite limited evidence for hierarchical formation and
centralized political power (Rowan and Golden, 2009). Here, the question is to
understand how similar symbolic norms as expressed by the common use of cere-
monial objects 2 could have been shared by geographically dispersed communities.
Was it encouraged by a hierarchy or by the social structure itself?
In order to answer this question, I conducted a technological analysis of
numerous ceramic assemblages dated from 4500-3900 BC and distributed across
the southern Levant. The goal was to assess the links between the communities/
sites as well as their embeddedness. The main result obtained is that a same chaîne
opératoire was carried out by all the Ghassulian 3 communities of the southern Levant
(Roux, 2019c). It suggests that the Ghassulian communities (a site corresponding
to a community) were socially affiliated because shared practice requires learning
2. These objects include mainly wheel shaped bowls, basalt bowls, violin figurines, ivory
and copper items.
3. The Ghassulian culture is defined as a “coherent culture” by its artifacts and whose spatial
delineation covers present-day Israel and Jordan (except broadly for the regions located south of the
southern tip of the Dead sea).
Fig. 2.—Logicist diagram (Gardin, 1980) illustrating the use of a sociological regularity to interpret
the diffusion of the potter’s tournette in the Akkar plain. The sociological regularity is transferred to
the archaeological data given the analogy of social network properties (local redundancy of within-
group strong ties).
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
29
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
with socially related tutors as seen previously. Moreover, our technological analysis
highlighted that the communities were connected at the population level at a given
point in time as shown by the ceramic assemblage of the site of Abu Hamid, located
in the Middle Jordan Valley. This assemblage is in effect made of vessels coming
from all the regions of the southern Levant testifying to the visit of the site by all
the Ghassulian communities (Roux and Courty, 2007). This suggests, in return,
that the Ghassulian population was a homogeneously mixing population (each
individual had the opportunity to interact with one another through gathering sites
such as Abu Hamid) within a tight embedded social network (ceramic practices
testify to social links between all the sites).
Now, given these social conditions, one can question whether they could have
promoted shared norms without large-scale coordination. Recent researches by
sociologists (Centola and Baronchelli, 2015) have shown that the network structure
that promotes the emergence of shared norms is one with the higher connectivity
between individuals, namely a society where individuals can interact with all the
individuals of the community. This result is based on experiments on the web with
players who had to agree on the name to give to someone and who were tested in
three situations: interactions between actors close spatially, random interactions
and interactions with all the individuals. More studies are probably required to
demonstrate that homogeneously mixing populations (interactions with all the
individuals) is a necessary and/or sufficient condition for shared norms to emerge.
Meanwhile, it can be considered as a “provisional” regularity whose generating
mechanism has been tested.
The Ghassulian archaeological data indicate a social network (homogeneously
mixing populations) analogous with the social network structure favourable to the
emergence of shared norms without coordinated leadership. The related regularity
can be therefore transferred to the archaeological data and explain why this social
network structure was conducive to this dynamic process (fig. 3).
CONCLUSION
In this paper, I have first argued that the chaîne opératoire approach (i.e.
the technological analyses of archaeological assemblages) is a powerful tool to
reconstruct technological networks (i.e. networks of socially affiliated object-
makers). Then, I have proposed that, once technological networks are reconstructed,
social networks’ regularities (invariants) can be used to formulate explanatory
hypotheses about past dynamics (diffusion of technical traits, emergence of shared
norms). The condition for using these sociological regularities is that the ancient
technological network properties are analogous to those that have been shown to
be favourable to evolutionary social phenomena such as the diffusion of techniques
or the emergence of new norms.
In archaeology, because of time resolution which prevents us to evaluate how
micro-level interactions might have scaled up in changes, we cannot explain macro-
30
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
evolutionary changes. Hence the necessary use of sociological regularities to explain
why specific network properties represent favourable conditions to changes when
facing particular “historical” situations (particular factors proper to social group’s
history). Testing the mechanisms that generate sociological regularities enables SNA
studies to assess their validity (invariance of the conditions for their occurrence)
and, therefore, the related archaeological interpretation. They participate directly
to highlight evolutionary “laws” explained by social facts.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Juan Jesús Padilla for inviting me to
participate in the conference held in Madrid at the Museo Arqueológico Nacional
(14-11-2019) and to contribute to this special issue. I would also like to thank
Barbara Mills and two anonymous reviewers who have read drafts of this paper,
which has improved the final content.
Fig. 3.—Logicist diagram (Gardin, 1980) illustrating the use of a sociological regularity to interpret
the emergence of shared norms within the Ghassulian society. The sociological regularity is trans-
ferred to the archaeological data given the analogy of social network properties (homogeneously
mixing population).
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
31
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
REFERENCES
BELLINA, B. (2017): Khao Sam Kaeo. An early
port-city between the Indian Ocean and the
South China Sea, EFEO, Mémoires Archéolo-
giques 28, Paris.
BORCK, L., MILLS, B. J., PEEPLES, M. A. and
CLARK, J. J. (2015): “Are social networks
survival networks? An example from the
late pre-Hispanic US Southwest”, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 22, pp.
33-57.
BRIL, B. (1986): “Motor development and cultural
attitudes”, Themes in motor development, Sprin-
ger, pp. 297-313.
BRIL, B. (2002): “L’apprentissage de gestes te-
chniques: ordre de contraintes et variations
culturelles”, Le geste technique. Réflexions
méthodologiques et anthropologiques (B. Bril
and V. Roux, eds.), Editions érès, Technologies/
Idéologies/ Pratiques, Ramonville Saint-Agne,
pp. 113-150.
BRIL, B. (2015): “Learning to use tools: A functio-
nal approach to action”, Learning through and
for practice: contributions from Francophone
perspectives (L. Filletaz and S. Billet, eds.),
Springer International Publishing, New York,
pp. 95-118.
BRIL, B. (2018): “Action, Movement, and Culture:
Does Culture Shape Movement?”, Kinesiology
Review 7, pp. 79-87.
BRIL, B. (2019): “Comment aborder la question du
geste technique pour en comprendre l’expertise
et l’apprentissage?”, Techniques & Culture 71,
pp. 78-91.
BRUGHMANS, T., COLLAR, A. and COWARD, F.
(eds.) (2016): The connected past: challenges
to network studies in archaeology and history,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
CENTOLA, D. and BARONCHELLI, A. (2015):
“The spontaneous emergence of conventions:
An experimental study of cultural evolution”,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Scien-
ces 112, pp. 1.989-1.994.
COLLAR, A, COWARD, F., BRUGHMANS, T. and
MILLS, B. J. (2015): “Networks in archaeolo-
gy: phenomena, abstraction, representation”,
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
22, pp. 1-32.
COWARD, F. (2013): “Grounding the net: Social
networks, material culture and geography in
the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of the
Near East (∼ 21,000-6,000 cal BCE)”, Net-
work analysis in archaeology: New regional
approaches to interaction (C. Knappett, ed.),
OUP, Oxford, pp. 247-280.
CRESSWELL, R. (1976): “Techniques et culture, les
bases d’un programme de travail”, Techniques
et culture 1, pp. 7-59.
CRUMLEY, C. L. (1987): “A dialectical critique of
hierarchy”, Power relations and state forma-
tion, pp. 155-169.
DUSSUBIEUX, L. and BELLINA, B. (2018): “Glass
ornament production and trade polities in the
Upper-Thai Peninsula during the Early Iron
Age”, Archaeological Research in Asia 13,
pp. 25-36.
FAVEREAU, A. and BELLINA, B. (2016): “Thai-
Malay Peninsula and South China Sea net-
works (500 BC–AD 200), based on a reapprai-
sal of “Sa Huynh-Kalanay”-related ceramics”,
Quaternary International 416, pp. 219-227.
GALLAY, A. (2011): Pour une ethnoarchéologie
théorique, Editions Errance, Paris.
GALLAY, A. and GARDIN, J.-C. (2009): “Les
Méthodes logicistes en archéologie. Perspec-
tives et limites”, La cumulativité du savoir
en sciences sociales: en hommage à Jean-
Michel Berthelot (B. Walliser, ed.), Editions
de l’EHESS, Paris, pp. 110-161.
GANDON, E., ROUX, V. and COYLE, T. (2014):
“Copying errors of potters from three cultures:
Predictable directions for a so-called random
phenomenon”, Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 33, pp. 99-107.
GARDIN, J.-C. (1980): Archaeological Constructs:
An Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
GILEAD, I. (1988): “The chalcolithic period in the
Levant”, Journal of World Prehistory 2, pp.
397-443.
GOSSELAIN, O. (2000): “Materializing Identities:
An African Perspective”, Journal of Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory 7, pp. 187-217.
GOSSELAIN, O. (2008): “Mother Bella was not a
Bella. Inherited and transformed traditions in
Southwestern Niger”, Cultural Transmission
32
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
and Material Culture. Breaking down boun-
daries (M. Stark, B. Bowser and L. Horne,
eds.), Arizona University Press, Tucson, pp.
150-177.
GOSSELAIN, O. (2011): “Fine if I do, fine if I don’t.
Dynamics of technical knowledge in Sub-
Saharan Africa”, Investigating archaeological
cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and
Transmission (B.W. Roberts and M. Vander
Linden, eds.). Springer Science+Business
Media, New York, pp. 211-227.
GRANOVETTER, M.S. (1983): “The strength of
weak ties: A network theory revisited”, Socio-
logical theory 1:1, pp. 201-233.
GRANOVETTER, M.S. (1973): “The strength of
weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology,
pp. 1360-1380.
INGOLD, T. (2001): “Beyond art and technology:
the anthropology of skill”, Anthropological
perspective on technology (M.B. Schiffer,
ed.), University of New Mexico Press, Albu-
querque, pp. 17-32.
KNAPPETT, C. (2011): An archaeology of interac-
tion: network perspectives on material culture
and society, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
KNAPPETT, C. (2013): “Introduction: why net-
works?”, Network analysis in archaeology:
New approaches to regional interaction (C.
Knappett, ed.), Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 3-15.
KNAPPETT, C. (2018): “From network connectivity
to human mobility: Models for Minoaniza-
tion”, Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 25:4, pp. 974-995.
KNAPPETT, C. and KIRIATZI, E. (2016): “Tech-
nological Mobilities: Perspectives from the
Eastern Mediterranean–An Introduction”,
Human Mobility and Technological Transfer
in the Prehistoric Mediterranean (E. Kiriatzi
and C. Knappett, eds.), The British School at
Athens, Cambridge, pp. 1-17.
LAVE, Jean. (1991). “Situating learning in commu-
nities of practice”, Perspectives on socially
shared cognition (L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levin
and S.D. Teasley), American Psychological
Association, Washington, pp. 63-82.
LAVE, J. and WENGER, E. (1991): Situated Lear-
ning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
LEMONNIER, P. (1993): Technological choices:
Transformation in material cultures since the
Neolithic, Routledge, London.
LEVY, T. E. (1995): “Cult, metallurgy and rank
societies–Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500-3500
BCE)”, The archaeology of society in the Holy
Land (T.E. Levy), pp. 226-244.
MANEM, S. (2020): “Modeling the evolution of
ceramic traditions through a phylogenetic
analysis of the chaînes opératoires: the Euro-
pean Bronze Age as a case study”, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10816-019-09434-w
MANZO, G., GABBRIELLINI, S., ROUX, V.
and M’MBOGORI, F.N. (2018): “Complex
contagions and the diffusion of innovations:
Evidence from a small-N study”, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 25, pp.
1109-1154.
MAYOR, A. (2010): Traditions céramiques dans la
boucle du Niger. Ethnoarchéologie et histoire
du peuplement au temps des empires précolo-
niaux, Africa Magna Verlag, Journal of African
Archaeology Monographs Series 7, Frankfurt
am Main.
MEZIROW, J. (2009): Contemporary theories of
learning, Routledge, New York.
MILLS, B. J. (2017): “Social network analysis in
archaeology”, Annual Review of Anthropology
46, pp. 379-397.
MILLS, B. J. (2018): “Intermarriage, technological
diffusion, and boundary objects in the US
Southwest”, Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 25, pp. 1051-1086.
MILLS, B. J., CLARK, J. J., PEEPLES, M. A.,
HAAS, W. R., ROBERTS, J. M., HILL, J. B.,
HUNTLEY, D. L., BORCK, L., BREIGER, R.
L., CLAUSET, A. et al. (2013): “Transforma-
tion of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic
US Southwest”, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 110, pp. 5785-5790.
O’BRIEN, M. J., LYMAN, R. L., MESOUDI, A. and
VANPOOL, T. L. (2010): “Cultural traits as
units of analysis”, Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
365, pp. 3797-3806.
ÖSTBORN, P. and GERDING, H. (2014): “Network
analysis of archaeological data: a systematic
approach”, Journal of Archaeological Science
46, pp. 75-88.
CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND SOCIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
33
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
PEEPLES, M. A. (2019): “Finding a Place for Net-
works in Archaeology”, Journal of Archaeolo-
gical Research 27:4, pp. 451-499.
RODDICK, A. P. and STAHL, A. B. (eds.) (2016):
Knowledge in Motion: Constellations of
Learning Across Time and Place, University
of Arizona Press, Tucson.
ROUX, V. (2019a): Ceramics and Society: A Tech-
nological Approach to Archaeological Assem-
blages, Springer Nature, Cham.
ROUX, V. (2019b): “Modeling the Relational Struc-
ture of Ancient Societies through the Chaîne
opératoire: The Late Chalcolithic Societies of
the Southern Levant as a Case Study”, Integra-
ting Qualitative and Social Science Factors in
Archaeological Modelling (M. Saqalli and M.
Vander Linden, eds.), Springer International
Publishing, New York, pp. 163-184.
ROUX, V. (2019c): “The Ghassulian ceramic tra-
dition: A single chaîne opératoire prevalent
throughout the Southern Levant”, Journal
of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and
Heritage Studies 7, pp. 23-43.
ROUX, V., BRIL, B., CAULIEZ, J., GOUJON,
A.-L, LARA, C., SAULIEU DE, G. and ZAN-
GATO, E. (2017): “Persisting Technological
Boundaries: Social Interactions, Cognitive
Correlations and Polarization”, Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 48, pp. 320-335.
ROUX, V. and COURTY, M.-A. (2007): “Analyse
techno-pétrographique céramique et inter-
prétation fonctionnelle des sites: un exemple
d’application dans le Levant Sud Chalcolithi-
que”, Recherches en archéométrie: la mesure
du passé (A. Bain, J. Chabot and M. Mousette,
eds.), Archeopress, Oxford, pp. 153-167.
ROUX, V. and MIROSCHEDJI DE, P. (2009): “Re-
visiting the History of the Potter’s Wheel in
the Southern Levant”, Levant 41, pp. 155-173.
ROUX, V. (2015): “Standardization of ceramic
assemblages: Transmission mechanisms and
diffusion of morpho-functional traits across
social boundaries”, Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 40, pp. 1-9.
ROUX, V., BRIL, B. and KARASIK, A. (2018):
“Weak ties and expertise: crossing technolo-
gical boundaries”, Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 25, pp. 1024-1050.
ROUX, V. and GABBRIELLINI, S. (2019): “Firing
Structures and Transition Period in Rajasthan
(India, 2005-2015). Unstable Choices before
Definitive Selection”, Technology in Crisis.
Technological changes in ceramic production
during periods of trouble (C. Langhor and I.
Caloi, eds.), Presses Universitaires de Louvain,
AEGIS series, Louvain, pp. 35-44.
ROUX, V. and MANZO, G. (2018): “Social
Boundaries and networks in the diffusion of
innovations: a short introduction”, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 25, pp.
967-973.
ROUX, V. and THALMANN, J.-P. (2016): “Évolu-
tion technologique et morpho-stylistique des
assemblages céramiques de Tell Arqa (Liban,
3e millénaire av. J.-C.): stabilité sociologique
et changements culturels”, Paléorient 42, pp.
95-121.
ROWAN, Y. M. and GOLDEN, J.. (2009): “The
Chalcolithic period of the Southern Levant: a
synthetic review”, Journal of World Prehistory
22, pp. 1-92.
SHENNAN, S. J. (2002): Genes, memes and human
history: Darwinian archaeology and cultural
evolution, Thames & Hudson, London.
THALMANN, J.-P. (2000): “Le peuplement de la
plaine du Akkar à l’âge du Bronze”, First in-
ternational congress of the archaeology of the
Near East (Matthiae, P. et al., eds.), Universita
Degli Studi Di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma,
pp. 1615-1636.
THALMANN, J.-P. (2006): Tell Arqa, 1. Les niveaux
de l’âge du Bronze, Institut français du Proche-
Orient, Beyrouth.
THALMANN, J.-P. (2009): “The Early Bronze
Age: Foreign Relations in the Light of Recent
Excavations at Tell Arqa”, Interconnections in
the Eastern Mediterranean —Lebanon in the
Bronze and Iron Ages—. Proceedings of the
International Symposium (A.M. Affiche, ed.),
Ministère de la Culture, Direction Générale
des Antiquités, BAAL, Hors-Série, Beyrouth,
pp. 15-28.
THALMANN, J.-P. (2010): “Tell Arqa, a prosperous
city during the Bronze Age”, Near Eastern
Archaeology 73, pp. 96-101.
THALMANN, J.-P. (2016): “Rapport Préliminaire
sur les campagnes de 2008 à 2012 à Tell Arqa”,
Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Liba-
naises 16, pp. 15-78.
34
VALENTINE ROUX
CPAG 30, 2020, 15-34. ISSN: 2174-8063
WENGER, E. (2000): “Communities of practice
and social learning systems”, Organization 7,
pp. 225-246.
WU, H.-C., (2012): Peuplement et dynamique cul-
turelle à l’âge du Fer Ancien et Récent dans
le Nord-Est et le Nord de Taïwan: approche
technologique des assemblages céramiques du
site de Chiwulan (Ilan, Nord-Est de Taïwan,
650-1850 EC), PhD thesis, Université de Paris
Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Nanterre.
