See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317546136
The spreading of the potter’s wheel in the ancient Mediterranean. A social
context-dependent phenomenon
Chapter · January 2015
CITATIONS
READS
9
1,793
2 authors:
Valentine Roux
Caroline Jeffra
French National Centre for Scientific Research
University of Amsterdam
89 PUBLICATIONS 2,768 CITATIONS
20 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Early Wheel Use in Crete and Cyprus: PhD Research View project
Tracing the Potter's Wheel View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Caroline Jeffra on 12 June 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
W a lt e r G a u s s – G u d r u n K l e b i n d e r - G a u s s –
C o n s ta n c e v o n R ü d e n ( e d s . )
The Transmission of Technical
Knowledge in the Production of Ancient
Mediterranean Pottery
Proceedings of the International Conference
at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Athens
23rd – 25th November 2012
Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut
Sonderschriften Band 54
Das Österreichische Archäologische Institut ist eine Forschungseinrichtung des Bundesministeriums für Wissenschaft
und Forschung
Umschlagbild: Töpfer auf Siphnos (Foto K.-V. von Eickstedt)
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.ddb.de> abrufbar.
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.ddb.de>
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
ISSN 1998-8931
ISBN 978-3-900305-78-9
Copyright © 2015 by Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Wien
Redaktion: Jennifer Palinkas, Eva Diana Breitfeld-von Eickstedt, Barbara Beck-Brandt
Umschlaggestaltung: Büro Pani; Andrea Sulzgruber
Satz und Layout: Andrea Sulzgruber
Gesamtherstellung: Holzhausen Druck GmbH
Content
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7
Walter Gauß – Gudrun Klebinder-Gauß – Constance von Rüden
Skill and Learning Networks
Potting Skill and Learning Networks in Bronze Age Crete . . .......................................... 17
Ina Berg
Approaching Ancient Techniques. From Technology to Bodily Learning and Skill ............ 35
Constance von Rüden
Making Pots in a Transcultural Perspective: The Impact of Moving
Potters on the Transmission of Technical Knowledge
In the Footsteps of the Philistine Potters. Tracking the Dissemination of Technical
Knowledge in the Production of Twelfth Century B.C. Aegean-Style Pottery to the
Coastal Southern Levant ........................................................................................ 51
Ann E. Killebrew
Mobility in the Bronze Age Aegean: The Case of Aeginetan Potters ............................... 63
Bartłomiej Lis – Štěpán Rückl – Maria Choleva
An Aeginetan Potters’ Workshop in Athens? .............................................................. 77
Gudrun Klebinder-Gauß – Sara Strack
Winners, Losers, and Survivors of Roman Imperialism. A Case Study from the Northern
Peloponnese ........................................................................................................ 97
Conor P. Trainor – Peter J. Stone
The Italo-Mycenaean Connection. Some Considerations on the Technological
Transfer in the Field of Pottery Production ................................................................ 115
Elisabetta Borgna – Sara T. Levi
Technological Innovations in Pottery. Examples from Celtic ›Princely‹ Sites
(6th to 5th Century B.C.) in Continental Europe .. .......................................................... 139
Ines Balzer
Technical Change in Social Context
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean. A Social
Context-Dependent Phenomenon ............................................................................ 165
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
Pottery Production during the Third and Second Millennium B.C. in Western Syria.
The Development of Ceramic Technology as a Result of the Rise of Qatna as a
Regional Capital .................................................................................................. 183
Marco Iamoni
6
Content
Ceramic Technology in Rapid Transition. The Evidence from Settlement Deposits
of the Shaft Grave Era at Tsoungiza (Corinthia) .. ........................................................ 207
Jeremy B. Rutter
Some Reflections on Ceramic Technology Transfer at Bronze Age Kastri on Kythera,
Kolonna on Aegina, and Lerna in the Argolid .. ........................................................... 225
Michael Lindblom – Walter Gauß – Evangelia Kiriatzi
Wheelmade Pottery and Socioeconomic Changes in Indigenous Mediterranean
Gaul Societies during the Early Iron Age .................................................................. 239
Anne-Marie Curé
Between Transfer and Interaction: Phoenician Pottery Technology on the
Iberian Peninsula . . ................................................................................................ 257
Dirk Paul Mielke
Technical Choices as Social Choices
Roads, Markets, Migrants. The Historical Trajectory of a Male Hausa Pottery
Tradition in Southern Niger . . .................................................................................. 277
Olivier Gosselain
Production and Ceramic Technology at the Late Bronze Age Site of Alassa-Pano
Mandilaris (Cyprus-Kouris Valley). First Things First: Understanding the Nature of the
Raw Material(s) and Other Source(s) ....................................................................... 297
Ariane Jacobs – Christina Makarona – Karin Nys – Philippe Claeys
The Production and Distribution of Early Greek-Style Cooking Wares in Areas of
Cultural Contact: The Case of Southern Italy and Sicily ............................................... 311
Alessandro Quercia
The Art of Firing: Kiln Technology and Firing Practise
Kiln Construction and Use in Greece. Communicating Technical Knowledge .................. 333
Ian Whitbread – David Dawson
A Closer Look at Updraft Pottery Kiln Constructions Based on Middle Helladic
to Iron Age Examples in the Aegean .. ....................................................................... 351
Susanne Prillwitz – Anno Hein
Addresses of Contributors ...................................................................................... 367
165
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
THE SPREADING OF THE POTTER’S WHEEL
IN THE ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN
A SOCIAL CONTEXT-DEPENDENT PHENOMENON
Abstract
The potter’s wheel is commonly considered to be a technology whose advantages in manufacturing time and regularity
of the finished products could explain its general diffusion around the Mediterranean from the 3rd to 1st millennium
B.C. In this paper, we propose to re-examine this hypothesis by comparing and explaining four different case studies
dating to the 3rd and 2nd millennium B.C. As we shall see, these examples show that the potter’s wheel was adopted
according to different modalities and rhythms depending on social contexts. The importance of social context in the
diffusion phenomenon is well acknowledged by the anthropology of techniques. It can be explained in terms of universal mechanisms as shown by ethnographic data collected in India. We conclude that the spreading of the potter’s wheel
was not content dependent, but very much dependent on social context.
Introduction
The potter’s wheel is commonly considered as a technique whose advantages in terms of time
manufacturing and regularity of the finished products could explain its general diffusion around
the Mediterranean in the course of the 3rd–1st millennium B.C. However case studies suggest a
more complex story with different historical trajectories characterized by different time lapses
between the moment of the introduction of the potter’s wheel and its adoption. They raise the
puzzling question of the conditions for the diffusion of a new technique. In this paper we propose to examine this issue by considering four different case studies taking place in the 3rd and
2nd millennium B.C. Two are from the 3rd millennium B.C. Northern and Southern Levant, and
two from the 2nd millennium B.C. Crete and Cyprus. In the first part of the paper, these four
cases are examined. Then the social contexts in which the wheel has been adopted or rejected is
discussed in the light of an ethnoarchaeological case study which provides clues for explaining
the non-diffusion of techniques across social boundaries. We conclude by specifying the contexts in favor of the spreading of the potter’s wheel in the Mediterranean.
Methodology
To understand the process of the diffusion of the potter’s wheel in the Mediterranean from the
3rd to 1st millennium B.C., stratigraphically sequential ceramic assemblages have been studied
following a technological approach.
This approach considers both the chaînes opératoires and the related range of morphological vessels1. It implies a successive classification of the sherds according to technical groups,
techno-petrographic groups (the petrographic groups within each technical group), and morphofunctional types (the types within each techno-petrographic group). This classification orders
two pieces of information: the technical practices underlying the variability of the ceramic
assemblages, and the range of vessels made according to these practices. It assesses whether
1
Roux 2011.
166
1
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
Map showing locations of case studies (© V. Roux – C. Jeffra)
technical practices vary depending on morpho-functional types; that is, whether ceramic assemblages include one potting tradition – here defined as inherited ways of doing – comprising one
or more technical practices applied to different types of vessels, or different potting traditions
applied to a comparable functional range of vessels. Accordingly, the social context of production can be characterized, with the number of potting traditions indicating whether potters
were a homogeneous or a heterogeneous group. Characterizing this context should enable us
to understand the conditions that prevailed in the adoption or rejection of the potter’s wheel2.
The Historical Case Studies
We consider four contrasted historical case studies with regard to the adoption of the potter’s
wheel: two describing the progressive adoption of the potter’s wheel (in the Northern Levant
and Crete) and two describing the non-borrowing of the potter’s wheel (in the Southern Levant
and Cyprus) (fig. 1).
The Northern Levant
The first historical case study is Tell Arqa, located north of Tripoli, in Lebanon. It presents a
continuous sequence of occupation from 2800 B.C. to 1800 B.C. organized in five phases (from
T to N) (tab. 1).
2
Roux 2003; Roux – Rosen 2009.
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
167
Table 1 Periodization of the stratigraphical sequence of Tell Arqa3
Phases
N
P
R
S
T
Layers
14
P1
15
P2
16 A–B
P3
16 C–D
Dates
1800 – 2000 B.C.
2250 B.C.
R
17
2450 – 2500 B.C.
S1
18 A
2750 – 2800 B.C.
S2
18 B
S3
19
20
Phase P, which starts around 2500 B.C., witnesses major changes characterized by a hierarchical development of settlements in the Aqqar plain, an optimization of agriculture, an increase
in storage capacities, a standardization in cereal processing (as shown by the standardization of
the grinding material), an increase in the presence of domesticated cattle, and the development
of long distance exchanges as shown in particular by the importing of Canaanean blades. At the
same time, the potter’s wheel is widely adopted and used for the manufacture of all vessels4.
The different layers correlate well with distinct changes of morpho-stylistic features in the
ceramics, as indicated in table 2.
Table 2
Main morphological and stylistic ceramic features from each archaeological layer
Archaeological layers
Main morphological types
Main surface treatments and decor
Layer 20/19
(Phase T-S)
Jars, jugs, carinated bowls similar to the Burnished vertical strips (sometimes crissEB II bowls from the southern Levant
crossed)
Layer 18
(Phase S)
Elongated jars, jugs with large mouths, Crossed combing on the inner and outer
small hemispherical cups
walls of the jars, burnished crisscrossed
strips on the other vessels
Layer 17
(Phase R)
Except for the elongated jars, appearance Crossed combing on the outer and/or inner
of a new repertoire: cups with handles, walls of the jars, burnished vertical strips
jug with divergent neck, lamps with four on the other vessels
spouts
Layer 16
(Phase P)
Appearance of new types of jars, table ves- Horizontal combing on the outer walls of
sels, cooking pots
the jars, burnished vertical strips on table
vessels
Layer 15
Morphological types of Layer 16
Surface treatments of Layer 16
The ceramic assemblages of each period present two main techno-petrographic groups:
▪ One group with walls not coated with slip and clay paste that does not include calcite, including storage, transfer, and consumption vessels. It is in the majority.
▪ One group with walls coated with slip and clay paste that includes calcite, including only
cooking pots. It is in the minority.
We will focus on the first group.
During Phase T-S, vessels are made according to three chaînes opératoires:
▪ ARQ-1 is characterized by burnished outer walls. The base consists of a clay disc upon
which a coil is superimposed flat. A second coil is placed at the junction of the inner base
and the wall of the body which is then coiled and shaped with discontinuous pressures.
The neck is also coiled but smoothed with continuous pressures. Once leather hard, the
3
4
Thalmann 2006.
Thalmann 2006.
168
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
walls are burnished. No rotary kinetic energy (RKE) is used in the fashioning process.
ARQ-1 is used for storage, transfer, and consumption vessels. This chaîne opératoire is in
the majority.
▪ ARQ-2 is characterized by combed outer walls. The chaîne opératoire is the same as ARQ1 except that inner and outer walls are scraped and combed. ARQ-2 is used for the manufacture of jars. This chaîne opératoire is in the minority.
▪ ARQ-3-RKE is characterized by the use of RKE for the finishing of small vessels whose
walls are either left plain, or scraped, turned, or burnished when leather hard. The roughing
out and shaping techniques are similar to those used in ARQ-1. Vessels are removed from
the rotary instrument with a string as shown by ellipsoidal striations. This chaîne opératoire is anecdotal, observed on only a few specimens.
During Phase S these chaînes opératoires are present in different proportions. ARQ-2 is used
now for the manufacture of all jars, while ARQ-3-RKE is used for small vessels whose shapes
are increasingly diversified. In the group of vessels made using ARQ-1, some specimens are
removed from a rotary instrument with a string. However, no other attribute indicates the use
of RKE: the rotary instrument was used only as a support for making the rotation of the vessel
easier as it was fashioned.
Phase R also presents these three chaînes opératoires, but with an increase in the morphometric types of vessels made according to ARQ-3-RKE. Additionally, the vessels made according to the ARQ-1 chaîne opératoire are now all removed from a rotary instrument with a string.
In Phase P all the vessels, whatever their type and their dimensions, are shaped with the help
of RKE. It is possible to identify three chaînes opératoires – ARQ-1-RKE, ARQ-2-RKE, and
ARQ-3-RKE. These three differ from the earlier chaînes opératoires only by the widespread
use of RKE in the shaping process. As before, ARQ-1-RKE includes burnished vessels, ARQ2-RKE includes combed jars, and ARQ-3-RKE includes smoothed and turned vessels.
In summary, during the 3rd millennium B.C., vessels were made according to three main
chaînes opératoires distinguished only by finishing techniques and surface treatments. These
chaînes opératoires vary depending on the morpho-metric types of vessel, which suggests that
the variation is functional and that the same tradition had been dominant for a millennium.
Technical changes occur mainly with the progressive use of RKE at the preforming stage, and
are visible in the types of vessels made with RKE. RKE is used for preforming small goblets in
2
Progressive use of wheel coiling for making successively larger vessels at Tell Arqa: 1. 2) Phase S; 3. 4) Phase R;
5. 6) Phase P. (Layout G. Monthel, CNRS, UMR 7055)
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
169
Phase T, for small lamps and cups in Phase S, and for bigger vessels like pitchers in Phase R. In
Phase P, all the vessels are preformed with RKE (fig. 2). The progressive use of RKE also corresponds to an evolution in the rotary devices. At first, one-sided convex circular stones were
used. These rotary stones produced very little RKE and could be used only for the preforming
of small pieces. Later they were replaced by tournettes originating from Palestine and Northern
Syria, with the substitution of one tool for another signalling contacts with southern and northern
artisans. These contacts resulted in the development of the use of RKE in the fashioning process. It is important to note that even if all the vessels are wheel coiled in Phase P, the chaînes
opératoires nevertheless remains the same, as shown by technical details such as the way of
making the base, of turning out the lip, of finishing the vessels, or of attaching the handles.
Such technical stability over a millennium indicates that the craft has been transmitted within
the same social group throughout the 3rd millennium B.C. The general use of RKE in Phase P
suggests that at that time the potters were specialized given the skills necessary for mastering
the use of RKE5. It follows that potters were probably specialized since the beginning of the
3rd millennium B.C. given the existence of a single social group throughout the sequence as
attested by the transmission of the same potting tradition.
Crete
The second case study includes material from Knossos, Myrtos-Pyrgos, and Palaikastro on
Crete. Each site was occupied more or less continuously during the Middle to Late Bronze
Age6 (Middle Minoan [MM] and Late Minoan [LM]), when rotative potting was applied
to ceramic manufacturing, a craft which can be described as specialized by this point7. By
MM IB–IIB (ca. 1900 – 1700 B.C.), a number of innovations occurred, including the potter’s
wheel, administrative documents, monumental architecture, increased long-distance trade or
exchange, and regionally-defined political organization8. A further expansion of these earlier
innovations followed during MM IIIA – LM IA (ca. 1700 – 1550/1450 B.C.) when ceramic
styles became less regional, bureaucratic organization was more centrally administered, and
population increased9.
Although the general categories of ceramic vessels produced during this time remain largely
unchanged – composed mainly of pouring and drinking, cooking, storage, and transport vessels – there are diachronically visible alterations to vessel shapes. Over the course of early
wheel use in Crete, there is a diachronic shift in the morphology of the ceramics. From MM IB
to LM IA, vessels with flat bottoms were less likely to have slightly convex bases, larger closed
forms started appearing with increasingly conically-shaped lower bodies, and the angle change
in carinated vessels was increasingly crisp. From MM IB until LM IA, potters applied rotative techniques to vessels of increasing size, starting with those smaller than 10 cm during
MM IB. By MM IIA, some potters were using RKE on vessels up to 20 cm, which increased to
30 – 50 cm by MM IIB (fig. 3). After MM III, potters were able to apply RKE to vessels larger
than 50 cm, and starting in LM IA potters were forming small to medium pithoi using rotation10. Table 3 illustrates the increasing popularity of rotative potting techniques in Crete over
5
6
7
8
9
10
Roux – Corbetta 1989.
These sites predate the Middle Bronze Age, but this case study is principally concerned with only the Middle to
Late Bronze Age material.
Roux – Corbetta 1989; Day et al. 1997.
Knappett 1999, 101 f. Antecedents for these innovations have been increasingly noted through indirect evidence,
suggesting that the presence of administration and monumental architecture seen in the Protopalatial period was an
expansion and further development of phenomena established during the Prepalatial period. For further discussion,
see Schoep 1999; Schoep 2002; Schoep 2006.
Betancourt 1985, 115.
Knappett 1999.
170
3
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
Progressive use of wheel coiling for making successively larger vessels in Crete: 1) MM IB small vessel; 2) MM II
medium vessel; 3) MM III large vessel (Photos C. Jeffra)
Table 3 Proportion of wheelmade and handmade Minoan vessels
by chronological period
Period
Wheelmade
Handmade
Middle Minoan IB
41 % (113)
59 % (164)
Middle Minoan II
88 % (1,436)
12 % (174)
Middle Minoan III
97 % (387)
3 % (4)
Late Minoan IA
99 % (133)
1 % (2)
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
171
the course of the Bronze Age, as identified within excavation publications11. Most significantly,
by LM IA, 99 % of vessels that could have been formed with rotation have been identified by
excavators as ›wheelmade‹.
Macroscopic analysis of the vessels identified specific wheel-coiling methods12, showing a
pattern of increasing homogeneity in manufacturing over time. Table 4 below summarizes the
differences between these methods.
Table 4
Description of differences between wheel-coiling methods
Coil Forming
Method 1
non-RKE
Method 2
non-RKE
Method 3
non-RKE
Method 4
RKE
Coil Joining
Coil Thinning
Roughout Shaping
RKE
RKE
RKE
Because macroscopic traces alone were used to identify methods, in a number of cases it
was unclear which method was used. In these cases, vessels were identified as belonging to two
categories, and are noted as method 2/3, for example. The use of binocular microscopy may
resolve this issue in the future.
Parallel to the increasing popularity of rotative potting in Crete, early wheel use can be
characterized by the rising dominance of specific methods. During MM IB, potters used a range
of methods to form small vessels, including 1/2, 2/3, 3, and 4. While larger vessels were only
rarely formed using rotation during this period, the methods used parallel those seen in the
small material, albeit in smaller overall quantities. By MM II, methods for producing small
vessels stabilized, with the vast majority of rotationally-formed vessels manufactured using
method 2/3 or, more frequently, method 3. At the same time, medium and medium-large vessels
were formed with an array of different methods, including 1, 1/2, 2, 2/3, and 3. As noted above,
this period witnessed a more widespread application of rotation to larger vessels; it is possible
that potters, having established a preferred method for small vessels, were turning their attention
to manufacturing larger vessels. This change then necessitated the development of potting skills
to cope with larger vessel size and greater clay quantities. Little can be said about method development for small vessels during MM III and LM IA aside from observing that potters seem to
have established their preferences. Except for the presence of so-called crude wares at Knossos
(which were identified as method 3/4), small vessels were manufactured using method 3 during
these periods. The methods for medium and medium-large vessels, however, do continue to
change after MM II. During MM III, potters still used methods 1, 2, and 2/3, but these examples
are less numerous than those made using method 3. By LM IA, only a small fraction of rotationformed vessels were manufactured using methods other than method 3.
What emerges, then, is a pattern of increasing homogeneity of methods over time, observed
within two subsets of the assemblages examined in Knossos, Palaikastro, and Myrtos-Pyrgos.
Small vessels were first formed using a range of rotative methods that gave way to a more standarized practice. Similarly, but slightly later, medium and medium-large vessels were first formed
using a range of rotative methods that stabilized over time and corresponded to the methods for
small vessels. The rapid, comprehensive, and consistent incorporation of specific methods associated with RKE potting seems to indicate that potters on Crete during this period were not in
separate groups. Instead, the evidence seems to point to high levels of information sharing and
a high degree of social homogeneity among potters, at least across Central and Eastern Crete.
11
12
Frequency data compiled from artefact catalogues in Knappett et al. 2007; Knappett – Cunningham 2003; Knappett – Cunningham 2012; Macdonald – Knappett 2007; Poursat – Knappett 2005.
Roux – Courty 1998, 748 – 750.
172
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
The Southern Levant
In the Southern Levant, the wheel-coiling technique appeared by the second half of the 5th millennium B.C., but did not become predominant before the second half of the 2nd millennium
B.C. Between the 5th and the 2nd millennia B.C., this technique disappeared twice: after the collapse of the Late Chalcolithic societies and after the collapse of the first urban societies. During
the Late Chalcolithic, the technique was restricted to the manufacture of ceremonial vessels, and
was probably in the hands of only a few craftsmen attached to a politico-religious elite. Once
the politico-religious elite and its demands disappeared, the transmission of the craft stopped13.
During the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C. (Early Bronze [EB] II and III), the potter’s wheel
returned and was thought to be extensively used, ostensibly spurred by the rise of urbanization
which favored techniques that speed up craft production. However, by the EB IV period, just as
at the end of the EB III period, the wheel-coiling technique again fell out of use. This change
questions the context of production of wheelmade ceramics during the EB III period. Analysis
of the EB III ceramic assemblages of Tel Yarmuth, a fortified urban center located in Southwestern Canaan, in the Central Shephelah (among the major EB III sites of the Southern Levant),
explored this issue14. At this site two tournettes have been discovered in situ15, attesting the use
of rotary instruments to produce ceramics.
Two main technical entities characterize the EB III ceramic assemblages of Tel Yarmuth, one
using RKE and another not using RKE16. The technical entity employing RKE is composed of
vessels made according to two methods corresponding with those described in table 4 above:
using RKE at the finishing stage (method 1) or at the shaping and finishing stage (method 2). It
is important to note that the tournette can be used as a rotary device for removing vessels only,
and not for the RKE it releases.
The vessels made on the tournette but not using RKE are primarily flat base bowls with a
simple rim, such as deep bowls and small jugs. The vessels made according to method 1 include
mainly open vessels: bowls with a simple rim (hemispherical bowls) or a profiled rim (écuelles),
or platter bowls with a simple (jatte) or profiled rim. The vessels made according to method 2
include mainly bowls with simple and profiled rims, but also deep carinated bowls, stump-base
jugs, and pots17.
These types are found throughout EB III, some of which were already present by EB II. During EB IIIA, the wheelmade vessels include the same types and subtypes that appear during
EB II, like the nonslipped flat base bowls and the stump jugs. During EB IIIB, there is an
increase in the number of wheelmade subtypes, and by EB IIIC most of the wheelmade subtypes remain the same except for the stump-jugs. In sum, there is a strong continuity throughout
EB III in the main morphological types made with RKE – simple rim bowls, profiled rim bowls,
jugs, and platter bowls (fig. 4).
The ceramics made with the help of RKE are in the minority. They represent only 0.6 % of the
assemblage and less than 3 % of the MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals, here 4,841 rims)
(tab. 5). This low number is found throughout the entire EB III period, indicating that during
this entire period fashioning with RKE was minimal.
Table 5
Percentage and actual number of wheel-coiled vessels distributed between the three phases of the EB III at
Tel Yarmuth
Tel Yarmuth
% wheel-coiled vessels
13
14
15
16
17
EB IIIA
EB IIIB
EB IIIC
3.85 % (22)
3.37 % (44)
3.36 % (100)
Roux 2008.
de Miroschedji 1999; de Miroschedji 2001; de Miroschedji 2006.
Roux – de Miroschedji 2009.
Roux 2009.
de Miroschedji 2000, fig. 18, 3. 5. 6. 8.
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
4
173
Vessels made on the tournette at Tel Yarmuth. Three methods were in use: YAR1 includes the vessels not fashioned
with RKE but removed from the tournette with a string (method 0); YAR2 includes the vessels finished with RKE
(method 1); YAR3 includes the vessels shaped and finished with RKE (method 2) (Layout G. Monthel, CNRS,
UMR 7055)
The different morpho-stylistic types made with RKE are also made without RKE. Thus,
there is no relationship between technique and morphological type. To better understand the
functional differences between the vessels made with RKE and without RKE, the spatial distribution of the vessels was examined. The different functions of the buildings excavated suggest that inhabitants in a palace and inhabitants in domestic dwellings correspond to different
categories. A differential spatial distribution of the wheel-fashioned ceramics according to
these categories of inhabitants could therefore reveal specific functions (in the broad sense of
the word, including cultural, symbolic, or social attributes). Now, there is no significant differential distribution of the wheelmade ceramics across the site. They are distributed all over
the different excavated areas: in public buildings like Palace B, in the habitation areas next to
Palace B (area G), and farther away (area H). Moreover, the ceramics are found side by side
with non-wheel-fashioned ceramics belonging to the same morphological types. Thus, spatial
data related to complete vessels and to sherds found in situ do not suggest any relationship
between the use of the wheel-coiling technique and the status of those who used them (i.e., the
function of the vessels).
Similarly, among wheelmade ceramics the different methods highlighted present no specific
distributions – they are found side by side. The unslipped or slipped flat base bowls made without RKE or according to method 1 are found in the same areas as the slipped profiled rim bowls
or the jugs made according to method 2. The simple rim bowls are found over all the excavated
174
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
areas, perhaps to be explained by their hypothetical function as lamps (most of them retained
traces of soot on their rims).
To summarize, the potters making vessels with RKE were limited in number throughout the
EB III as shown by the low number of wheelmade ceramics. We can suppose they were specialized given the skills necessary for mastering the use of RKE. Some of these craftsmen may
have been attached to the palace. Indeed, the first tournette was found in the hypostyle room of
Palace B1. Archaeological evidence shows that the tournette and part of the ceramic material
fell from an upper first floor where they were stored. The second tournette was found outside of
the palace in the immediately preceding level, but also dated to EB III. This context of discovery seems not to be domestic. If the provenience of the tournettes indicates the place where the
potter was working, and this place in turn indicates the status of the potter, we can then suppose
that the potters using the wheel were specialized craftsmen attached to palaces. The variability
in the wheel-coiling methods suggests different craftsmen.
Now, the Tel Yarmuth ceramic production is made with and without RKE. Therefore, it may
be attributed both to specialized potters attached to the palace and to potters not attached to the
palace, that is to a heterogeneous group of potters. The wheel-coiling technique never diffused
across these two groups of potters and when the EB III cities collapsed, it disappeared along
with the disappearance of the potters attached to the palaces.
Cyprus
The fourth case study includes tomb material from Enkomi, Ayios Iakovos, Klavdia, and Maroni
on Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. The start of the Late Cypriot Period (spanning Late
Cypriot [LC] I–IIB, ca. 1650 – 1320 B.C.) is marked in Cyprus by its entry into wider regional
networks. This period particularly involved trade links with Syria (principally Ugarit), Lower
Egypt (under the control of the Hyksos), and the increasingly urban coastal Levant18. Developments in areas of trade, settlement patterns, and regional contact during this period played a role
in the alteration of potting traditions, for contact with regional trade partners undoubtedly influenced the technological development of Cyprus19. Indeed, it was during this time that Cypriot
potters first began to produce pottery with rotational devices20.
Regional differentiation seems extensive during LC I, owing perhaps to a regional disparity
of trade contacts, natural resources, or organization. A desire for foreign goods among Cypriots
from a range of geographical and social backgrounds during LC I has been noted, but unique
localized identities were deliberately maintained21. Indeed, although no wheel-production
workshops have been positively identified, the areas closest to Syria and farthest from copper
resources tended to have the strongest traditions in wheelmade ware production during LC IA22.
By LC IIA, wheelmade vessels were less frequent and diverse, which has been taken to
indicate a corresponding decrease in the role of wheelmade wares in status-laden applications23.
By Late Cypriot IIC a progression toward a cohesive repertoire of pottery types is apparent.
It would seem that from this point, increasing homogeneity effectively replaced the ceramic
regionalism seen in earlier periods, perhaps another remnant of the Middle Cypriot Period.
Interestingly, by LC IIC, settlements were in fact autonomous with well-developed organization
in socio-political, administrative, and religious spheres24.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Crewe 2007a; Falconer 1994.
Eriksson 2007, 29.
Crewe 2007b, 213.
Crewe 2007b, 227.
Crewe 2007b, 225 f.
Crewe 2007b, 231.
Crewe 2007b.
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
175
Concerning changes to the assemblage at the start of LC I, RKE forming was applied to
existing wares, and new, exclusively RKE-formed wares had appeared. Red/Black Slip (R/BS)
continued to be made by hand in large quantities25 and production of Red/Black Slip Wheelmade
Ware (R/BSWM) belongs largely to this period26, commonly as jugs and bowls. Linked closely
with handmade Plain White (PW), it seems likely that Plain White Wheelmade Ware (PWWM)
was also first produced during LC IA, commonly as jugs and bowls27. Bichrome Wheelmade
Ware (BiWM) and White Painted Wheelmade Ware (WPWM) both appear during LC I in forms
not seen during the previous period. WPWM I specifically has a high frequency of carinated
bowls, kraters, jugs, and pilgrim flasks, but the tankard remains the most common28. WPWM II
disappeared from production by the end of LC IIB. Bichrome Wheelmade Ware appears during
this period in both RKE and hand-formed types, commonly with carinations and/or ring bases,
and new forms include pilgrim flasks, tankards, and kraters29.
In addition to the vessels with handmade and RKE-made counterparts, wheelmade Lustrous
Wares emerged during LC I but did not appear in handmade traditions. Cyprus may be the source
of these wares because the widest range of forms of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Wares (RLWM)
are found on Cyprus, and the greatest range of chronological periods were represented there30.
Clay sourcing analysis has also confirmed the high probability of Cypriot manufacture31. LC II
appears as a peak in the popularity of RLWM, which was commonly manufactured in spindle bottle forms. Black Lustrous Wheelmade Ware (BLWM) and White Lustrous Wheelmade
Ware (WLWM) both seem to be related to RLWM because each includes similar forms of spindle bottles and pilgrim flasks. It has been suggested that the color differences are a result of the
firing temperatures32, but they may also result from differential firing atmospheres, possibilities
which have been acknowledged for other Cypriot wares33.
Examination of excavation catalogues, as demonstrated in table 634, highlights the relative
frequency of wheel potting over time in Cyprus. Published identifications of wheelmade and
handmade ceramics demonstrate the prevalence of the latter, but do not clarify the specific methods used to manufacture these vessels. An examination of macroscopic formation trace evidence
indicates the heterogeneous nature of potting groups in Cyprus during this time.
Table 6
Comparison of quantities of wheelmade and handmade Cypriot vessels, by chronological period
Period
Wheelmade
Handmade
Unknown Manufacture
Late Cypriot IA
16 % (956)
70 % (4,077)
14 % (834)
Late Cypriot IB
29 % (2,628)
57 % (5,231)
14 % (1,262)
Late Cypriot IIA
29 % (935)
59 % (1,860)
12 % (387)
Late Cypriot IIB
50 % (258)
50 % (254)
The Cypriot ceramic assemblage from this period primarily includes closed-form vessels,
predominantly for communal-level storage and consumption, as well as some smaller bowls. The
assemblage divides into composite and non-composite categories; the construction of common
composite shapes such as tankards, kraters, jugs, bottles, and jars can be subdivided into stages
based on the manufacturing method used for body and neck. Vessels identified as non-composite were largely restricted to bowls. The observed composite construction sequences indicate a
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Åström 1972.
Crewe 2007a, 33.
Crewe 2007a.
Crewe 2007b; Åström 1972.
Merrillees 1985; Crewe 2007a; Crewe 2007b.
Eriksson 1992.
Knappett et al. 2005; Knappett 2000.
Eriksson 1992.
Åström 1972.
Frequency data compiled from artefact catalogues in Crewe 2007a; Gjerstad et al. 1934.
5
Vessels made using chaînes opératoires based on wheel coiling from Cyprus, with labels corresponding to the chaînes opératoires described
176
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
177
combination of two broad types of shaping techniques including coiling and the rotative joining,
thinning and shaping of stacked coils (as defined by the criteria highlighted above in table 4).
Furthermore, in some cases vessel bodies were likely constructed in two parts composed of an
upper and lower hemisphere, indicated by a thickened ›seam‹ at the widest point. It was observed
that vessels constructed using a two-part procedure were those which were proportionally wide
or large, which would have necessitated a functionally different formation method. Thus, Cypriot
manufacture (CM) 2a, 3a, and 4a can be considered functional variants of CM2, CM3, and CM4,
respectively, based on morpho-metric dimension. These variants likely result from the presence of
two traditions, one based on combining coiling and wheel coiling (CM1, CM2, and CM2a), and
another based solely on wheel coiling (CM3, CM3a, CM4, and CM4a). Although both variants
used wheel coiling for some aspects of vessel manufacture (at least for constructing the neck),
some potters opted to apply RKE only to the creation of vessel necks, while other potters opted
to use the wheel coiling technique for all segments of vessel construction. The potters who constructed vessel bodies using coiling were occupying a technological middle ground, incorporating
RKE potting into their practices while still relying on coiling. Because non-RKE potting was
not fully supplanted by RKE potting through time, the presence of this intermediate tradition is
striking. Table 7 below summarizes the observed wheel-coiling methods (see also fig. 5).
Table 7
Definition of Cypriot manufacture (CM) sequences by vessel component
Body
Neck
Cypriot chaîne opératoire
Coiling
Method 2/3
CM1
Method 3
CM2
Coiling, two-part procedure
Method 3
CM2a
Wheel coiling, method 3
Method 2/3
CM3
Method 3
CM4
Method 2/3
CM3a
Method 3
CM4a
Wheel coiling, method 3, two-part
procedure
In LC II, all the methods described above are observed, indicating that potters were not yet
as a group establishing a common method unlike at the end of LC II, when a drastic assemblage
change was also marked by the rising prominence of Mycenaean imports35. Some morphological
categories correlate to specific methods (such as tankards and spindle bottles with CM4, and pilgrim flasks with CM4a); other categories vary, such as jugs and kraters which show the full spectrum of observed methods preventing an attribution to a dominant techno-morphological identity.
There is a similar lack of strong correlation between individual ware categories and wheelcoiling methods. Only when these wares that parallel handmade wares (including PWWM,
WPWM, BiWM, and R/BSWM) are contrasted to those which represent new, exclusively RKEformed wares (RLWM, BLWM, and WLWM), do the data show promising results. New wares
were formed exclusively using CM4 or CM4a, whereas parallel wares were found to be formed
using the full range of chaînes opératoires described above; CM4 and CM4a were used to form
more than half of the examples studied. Thus, perhaps the best way to characterize Cypriot potting from this period is as heterogeneous. Some potters maintained production of pre-existing
wares, using pre-existing non-rotative techniques, while others produced new wares using a
single chaîne opératoire, with the added procedure of two-part construction when required by
vessel morphology. Between these two technical identities are the potters who applied new rotative methods to the construction of pre-existing wares. These three distinct approaches, coupled
with the fact that rotative methods were applied to all vessel sizes from the earliest use of the
wheel, provide support for the idea that potters in LC Cyprus were a heterogeneous group that
may have included or exchanged mobile artisans who brought specific methods with them that
had been formalized elsewhere.
35
Steel 1998.
178
6
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
Right: Hindu potter throwing a pot on a flywheel. Left: Muslim potter throwing a pot on a foot wheel (Bulandshar
district, Uttar Pradesh, India, 2011) (Photos V. Roux)
Discussion
When comparing the contexts of ceramic production36 in the four historical case studies, it
appears that the adoption of the potter’s wheel depends on whether the context of ceramic production is homogeneous or heterogeneous. When the whole ceramic production is in the hands
of a socially homogenous group of potters, the wheel-coiling technique diffuses rapidly within
the whole group – as in Lebanon and Crete. When ceramic production is distributed between
different groups of potters, then the wheel-coiling technique does not cross social boundaries
and does not diffuse – as in the Southern Levant and Cyprus. Now the question is to what extent
the social context of ceramic production may explain the repeated non adoption of the potter’s
wheel as observed in multiple historical and ethnographic cases (see this volume).
The non-borrowing of technical traits between distinct social groups has been commonly
observed by social anthropologists. In fact, the non-borrowing phenomenon itself defines boundaries between technical traits and informs us about the existence of distinct social groups37. This
phenomenon is observable even in highly competitive economies like present-day India38. In the
region of Bulandshar (Uttar Pradesh, North India), potters are found in two endogamous religious communities: the Prajapati Hindu potters and the Multani Muslim potters. The Muslims
came from the Indus Valley through successive waves of migration between the 15th and the
19th century. Hindu potters use the flywheel, make unglazed pots, and fire their vessels in open
firings, while Muslim potters use the foot wheel, make glazed and unglazed pots, and use vertical updraft kilns (fig. 6). The Multani technical system is more efficient than the Hindu. First,
the foot wheel is more stable and enables the control of speed throughout the forming process.
Conversely, the speed of the flywheel cannot be controlled, as it decreases progressively once
launched. Second, the glazing technique is mainly applied on cooking pots that present better
thermal properties than non-glazed pots. Last, the kiln presents further advantages over the open
firing by enabling better control over the increase in temperatures while diminishing vulnerability to wind or humid weather. The Muslim and Hindu potters are in close contact: they live in
the same villages and often visit each other. The techniques used by the Muslims are therefore
well known to the Hindus. Furthermore, the vessels made by the Hindu and Muslim potters are
bought with indifference by Hindu and Muslim clients. However, for more than 200 years the
36
37
38
Roux 2003.
Dietler – Herbich 1998; Hodder 1985; Lemonnier 1993; Gosselain 2000; Gosselain 2008; Stark 1998; Stark et al.
2008.
Roux 2013.
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
179
Hindus have never borrowed any of the
techniques used by the Muslim potters.
This situation corresponds to the
case studies in the Southern Levant and
in Cyprus. Now the question is why
techniques do not diffuse when they
are distributed between different social
groups? In other words, what mechanisms explain the non-diffusion of the
wheel-coiling technique as observed
empirically over several millennia and
which still apply today in highly competitive situations?
In order to answer these questions,
we interviewed 40 Hindu potters of
different age groups and living in dif7 Prayer over the flywheel. A woman with a skin disease came
ferent villages in the region of Bulandwith offerings to exchange for the clay slip considered to
shar to investigate the reasons behind
have curative qualities. The potter acts as a healer (Shikarpur,
the non-borrowing of Muslim techniBulandshar district, Uttar Pradesh, India, 2011) (Photo
cal traits (the foot wheel, the kiln, and
V. Roux)
the glaze).
We report here briefly on the responses to questions about the non-borrowing of the foot
wheel. These responses reflect how the perception of the properties of the foot wheel is shaped
during the learning process. First, among the youngest and the younger potters, a significant number had never seen the foot wheel even though they live next to Muslim potters. Only when they
start to be involved in the distribution of the pots do they have the opportunity to go to Muslim
potters’ households (to buy vessels) and see their instruments. Second, it appears that the younger
the potters the more they believe that there are functional differences which make their wheel
better: thus, they believe that the foot wheel is more tiring because both arms and legs are at
work during potting, or they insist that the flywheel is more practical because its rotation does not
need to be continuously maintained by foot, or they say that they are accustomed to the flywheel
and that they do not know how to use the foot wheel. Therefore, they cannot change. When they
grow older, other arguments come up linking instruments and ceramic production: the flywheel
is better suited for their vessels: thick vessels with a capacity up to 50 l, while the foot wheel is
better suited for the Multani thinner vessels because it is more stable. Others argue that »this is
the way our community does it« or »we cannot touch the wheel with the foot because wheel is
the chakra [Sanskrit word for wheel] of Vishnu [Hindu god]«. Religion appears as an important
reason given the symbolic dimension granted to the wheel, which even extends to the clay slip
collected from the wheel. The slip is loaded with prophylactic qualities and applied by the potter
on skin diseases in exchange for offerings, connecting the potter with his traditional instrument
through this conflation of technical and religious or magical actions (fig. 7).
In the course of apprenticeship, perceptions thus slowly evolve regarding the properties of
the instrument and the relationship between the instrument and social identity. This relationship
is all the more emphasized as the potters become aware of the existence of another group of
potters who do not belong to their community. If one is to summarize the main reasons not to
adopt the foot wheel, they include technical, sociological, and symbolic factors. However, when
these reasons are put into context they reflect primarily a relative perception of the properties of
the foot wheel meant for the Hindu community to assert itself towards the Muslim one.
Indeed, the technical reasons for not adopting the foot wheel relate mainly to the type of vessel
made on each type of wheel. This reason takes place in a social context where each community
makes different types of vessels according to different processes: Hindu potters throwing thick
wheel-thrown vessels whose body is entirely paddled; Muslim potters throwing thinner vessels
180
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
whose bottom only is pounded. As for the sociological and symbolic reasons, they relate to community identity (»in our community we work like this«), and to community religion (»in our religion we cannot touch the wheel with our feet«). These reasons take place in a context where two
distinct social groups of potters live close by and use different technical systems. In such a context,
the mechanism of conformism exacerbates the differences and emphasizes the identity relationship39 between social group and technology (»I work like this because my group does it like
that«, »because I make different items«). In other words, such a context reinforces the relationship
between technological norms and social community and plays therefore directly on potter’s choice.
The wheel did not diffuse in the Southern Levant in the 3rd millennium B.C. and in Cyprus
in the 2nd millennium B.C. while ceramic production was distributed between different groups
of potters. These historical situations can be explained by those mechanisms that promote similarity and conformism, affiliation and differentation, when techniques are distributed between
distinct social groups such as attached versus independent specialists, specialized versus nonspecialized artisans, local versus foreign artisans.
Conclusion
Our study suggests that understanding the different modalities of the diffusion of the potter’s
wheel in the Mediterranean involves a two-level analysis. First, it requires a description of
the particular historical case studies in each region. Second, it requires interpreting the rejection or the adoption of the potter’s wheel by considering the regularity according to which the
social context of the introduction of the potter’s wheel plays on potters’ choice. Regularities
are empirical contextualized relations between facts (here the adoption or non-adoption of the
wheel-coiling technique) and attributes (here the sociology of potters)40. They can be deduced
from historical scenarios or observed in a present-day situation. The regularity here highlighted
specifies that when ceramic production is in the hands of socially homogeneous groups of potters, the context is favorable for the diffusion of the wheel-coiling technique; however, when
production is in the hands of socially heterogeneous groups of potters, the context is not favorable. It explains that the diffusion of the potter’s wheel in the Mediterranean was not uniform
and generated many different historical scenarios.
Acknowledgments
We thank Walter Gauß, Gudrun Klebinder-Gauß, and Constance von Rüden for their kind invitation to participate in the workshop »The Distribution of Technical Knowledge in the Production
of Ancient Mediterranean Pottery«. Analysis of the Tell Arqa and Tel Yarmuth ceramic assemblages has taken place within the framework of the Archaeological Expeditions of Tell Arqa and
Tel Yarmuth financed by the Ministry of French Foreign Affairs. Permission to study material in
Crete was granted by The British School at Athens, particularly Carl Knappett, Gerald Cadogan,
and Colin Macdonald. Access to the Cypriot material discussed was granted by Kristian Göransson at Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm and Thomas Kiely at the British Museum. The ethnoarchaeological investigation in India has been conducted in collaboration with Blandine Bril (EHESS,
Paris) thanks to a grant allowed by the lab Préhistoire & Technologie (UMR 7055). Caroline
Jeffra would like to particularly thank the Fyssen Foundation for the support of their Postdoctoral Study Fellowship, and the University of Exeter for support through the Exeter Research
Scholarship.
39
40
Henrich – Boyd 1998; Moscovici 1984.
Gallay 2011.
The Spreading of the Potter’s Wheel in the Ancient Mediterranean
181
Bibliography
Åström 1972
P. Åström, The Late Cypriote Bronze Age: Architecture and Pottery, SCE 4, 1 C (Lund
1972).
Betancourt 1985
P. P. Betancourt, The History of Minoan Pottery (Princeton, NJ 1985).
Crewe 2007a
L. Crewe, Early Enkomi. Regionalism, Trade and Society at the Beginning of the Late
Bronze Age on Cyprus, BARIntSer 1706 (Oxford 2007).
Crewe 2007b
L. Crewe, Sophistication in Simplicity: The First Production of Wheelmade Pottery on
Late Bronze-Age Cyprus, JMedA 20, 2007, 209 – 238.
Day et al. 1997
P. M. Day – D. E. Wilson – E. Kiriatzi, Reassessing Specialization in Prepalatial Cretan Ceramic Production, in: R. Laffineur – P. P. Betancourt (eds.), Τέχνη. Craftsmen,
Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th
International Aegean Conference. Philadelphia, Temple University, 18 – 21 April 1996,
Aegaeum 16 (Liège 1997) 275 – 290.
Dietler – Herbich 1998
M. Dietler – I. Herbich, Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the
Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries, in: Stark 1998, 232 – 269.
Eriksson 1992
K. O. Eriksson, Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware (Ph. D. Thesis University of Göteborg
1992).
Eriksson 2007
K. O. Eriksson, The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. An Account
of the Archaeological Importance of White Slip Ware, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 10 = Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 38 (Vienna 2007).
Falconer 1994
S. E. Falconer, The Development and Decline of Bronze Age Civilization in the Southern Levant: A Reassessment of Urbanism and Ruralism, in: C. Mathers – S. Stoddart
(eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8 (Sheffield 1994) 305 – 334.
Gallay 2011
A. Gallay, Pour une ethnoarchéologie théorique: mérites et limites de l’analogie
ethnographique, Collection des Hespérides, Errance (Paris 2011).
Gjerstad et al. 1934
E. Gjerstad – J. Lindros – E. Sjöqvist – A. Westholm, Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus, 1927 – 1931, SCE 1 (Stockholm 1934).
Gosselain 2000
O. P. Gosselain, Materializing Identities: An African Perspective, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 2000, 187 – 217.
Gosselain 2008
O. P. Gosselain, Mother Bella Was Not a Bella. Inherited and Transformed Traditions in
Southwestern Niger, in: Stark et al. 2008, 150 – 177.
Henrich – Boyd 1998
J. Henrich – R. Boyd, The Evolution of Conformist Transmission and the Emergence of
Between-Group Differences, Evolution and Human Behavior 19, 1998, 215 – 242.
Hodder 1985
I. Hodder, Boundaries as Strategies: An Ethnoarchaeological Study, in: S. W. Green
(ed.), The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, Studies in Archeology (New York
1985).
Knappett 1999
C. Knappett, Tradition and Innovation in Pottery Forming Technology: Wheel-Throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos, BSA 94, 1999, 101 – 129.
Knappett 2000
C. Knappett, The Provenance of Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware: Cyprus, Syria or
Anatolia? Internet Archaeology (2000) <http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue9/knappett_
toc.html> (18. 02. 2015).
Knappett – Cunningham 2003 C. Knappett – T. Cunningham, Three Neopalatial Deposits from Palaikastro, East Crete,
BSA 98, 2003, 107 – 191.
Knappett – Cunningham 2012 C. Knappett – T. Cunningham, Block M at Palaikastro. The Proto- and Neopalatial
Town, BSA Suppl. 47 (London 2012).
Knappett et al. 2005
C. Knappett – V. Kilikoglou – V. Steele – B. Stern, The Circulation and Consumption of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: Petrographic, Chemical and Residue Analysis,
AnSt 55, 2005, 25 – 59.
Knappett et al. 2007
C. Knappett – A. Collar – H. Sackett – P. Warren – V. E. G. Kenna, Unpublished Middle Minoan and Late Minoan I Material from 1962 – 3 Excavations at Palaikastro, East
Crete (PK VIII), BSA 102, 2007, 153 – 217.
Lemonnier 1993
P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since
the Neolithic, Material Cultures (London 1993).
Macdonald – Knappett 2007 C. V. Macdonald – C. Knappett, Knossos: Protopalatial Deposits in Early Magazine A
and the South-West Houses, BSA Suppl. 41 (London 2007).
Merrillees 1985
R. Merrillees, A Late Cypriote Bronze Age Tomb and Its Asiatic Connections, in:
J. N. Tubb – O. Tufnell (eds.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour
of Olga Tufnell (London 1985) 114 – 133.
182
de Miroschedji 1999
de Miroschedji 2000
de Miroschedji 2001
de Miroschedji 2006
Moscovici 1984
Poursat – Knappett 2005
Rosen – Roux 2009
Roux 2003
Roux 2008
Roux 2009
Roux 2011
Roux 2013
Roux – Corbetta 1989
Roux – Courty 1998
Roux – de Miroschedji 2009
Roux – Rosen 2009
Schoep 1999
Schoep 2002
Schoep 2006
Stark 1998
Stark et al. 2008
Steel 1998
Thalmann 2006
View publication stats
Valentine Roux – Caroline Jeffra
P. de Miroschedji, Yarmuth: The Dawn of City-States in Southern Canaan, Near Eastern
Archaeology 62, 1999, 2 – 19.
P. de Miroschedji, An Early Bronze Age III Pottery Sequence for Southern Israel, in:
G. Philip – D. Baird (eds.), Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant (Sheffield 2000) 315 – 345.
P. de Miroschedji, Tel-Yarmouth et l’urbanisation de la Palestine aux 4e–3e millénaire,
in: J. Guilaine (ed.), Communautés villageoises du Proche-Orient à l’Atlantique
(8000 – 2000 avant notre ère): Séminaires du Collège de France, Collection des Hespérides (Paris 2001) 267 – 280.
P. de Miroschedji, At the Dawn of History: Socio-Political Developments in Southwestern Palestine in the Early Bronze Age III, in: A. M. Maeir – P. de Miroschedji (eds.),
»I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times«. Archaeological and Historical Studies in
Honor of Amihai Mazar (Winona Lake, IN 2006) 55 – 78.
S. Moscovici, Psychologie sociale (Paris 1984).
J.-C. Poursat – C. Knappett, La poterie du minoen moyen II: production et utilisation:
fouilles exécutées à Malia, le quartier Mu IV, EtCret 33 = Fouilles exécutées à Malia; le
quartier MU IV (Paris 2005).
S. A. Rosen – V. Roux (eds.), Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on
Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the
Southern Levant, Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem 9
(Paris 2009).
V. Roux, A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying Technological Change: Application to the Emergence of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 10, 2003, 1 – 30.
V. Roux, Evolutionary Trajectories of Technological Traits and Cultural Transmission:
A Qualitative Approach to the Emergence and Disappearence of the Ceramic WheelFashioning Technique in the Southern Levant during the Fifth to the Third Millenia BC,
in: Stark et al. 2008, 82 – 104.
V. Roux, Wheel Fashioned Ceramic Production during the Third Millenium BCE in the
Southern Levant: A Perspective from Tel Yarmuth, in: Rosen – Roux 2009, 195 – 212.
V. Roux, Anthropological Interpretation of Ceramic Assemblages: Foundations and Implementations of Technological Analysis, in: S. Scarcella (ed.), Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research, BARIntSer 2193 (Oxford 2011) 80 – 88.
V. Roux, Spreading of Innovative Technical Traits and Cumulative Technical Evolution: Continuity or Discontinuity?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20,
2013, 312 – 330.
V. Roux – D. Corbetta, The Potter’s Wheel. Craft Specialization and Technical Competence (New Delhi 1989).
V. Roux – M. A. Courty, Identification of Wheel-Fashioning Methods: Technological
Analysis of 4th–3rd Millennium BC Oriental Ceramics, JASc 25, 1998, 747 – 763.
V. Roux – P. de Miroschedji, Revisiting the History of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant, Levant 41, 2009, 155 – 173.
V. Roux – S. A. Rosen, An Introduction to Technological Studies in the Archaeology of
the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant, in: Rosen – Roux
2009, 11 – 22.
I. Schoep, The Origins of Writing and Administration on Crete, OxfJA 18, 1999,
265 – 276.
I. Schoep, Social and Political Organization on Crete in the Proto-Palatial Period: The
Case of Middle Minoan II Malia, JMedA 15, 2002, 101 – 132.
I. Schoep, Looking beyond the First Palaces: Elites and Agency of Power in EM III–
MM II Crete, AJA 110, 2006, 37 – 64.
M. T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry (Washington 1998).
M. T. Stark – B. J. Bowser – L. Horne (eds.), Cultural Transmission and Material Culture. Breaking Down Boundaries (Tucson 2008).
L. Steel, The Social Impact of Mycenaean Imported Pottery in Cyprus, BSA 93, 1998,
285 – 296.
J.-P. Thalmann, Tell Arqa I. Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 177 (Beirut 2006).