Rethinking Ceramic Degeneration:An Ancient Mesopotamian Case Study

Item Type Article

Authors Falconer, Steven E.

Publisher University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology

Journal Atlatl

Download date 16/02/2021 13:12:41

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/110277

54

RETHINKING CERAMIC DEGENERATION:AN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN CASE STUDY

Steven E.

A primary research concern of archaeologists is the explanation ofsocial change. Since archaeologists must deal with change as it is mani-fested in the variability of material culture, it is not surprising thatspecial attention has been given to studies of pottery, one of the mostabundant forms of archaeological evidence, and onemost sensitive to tem-poral change. Unfortunately, interpretations of changing pottery reper-toires have usually failed to consider the socioeconomic factors whichalso may be responsible for ceramic variation. This has been notablytrue when trends of change are judged to be Hdegenerative.ht A study ofceramic change in the 'IJbaid and Uruk periods of Mesopotamia illustrateshow can be correlated with the development of complexsocieties in the region.

An Introduction to the Problem of Degeneration

A heterodox approach to the explanation of specific Mesopotamianinstances of supposed ceramic degeneration is-proposed in this paper forthree fundamental reasons. First, traditional approaches all too oftendo not explain this form of change. At best they describe it and atworst, merely label it. Second, traditional approaches fail to viewchanging material culture in light of greater economic frameworks whichrestrict behavior in all complex societies, including our own. Third,traditional notions of degeneration are rarely explicitly defined, andtend to focus on examples of declining elegance in painted decorationto the exclusion of other aspects of ceramic change (cf., Perkins 191+9:75).hDegeneration,hl as presently ill—defined, simply is not productive forthe study of social change (cf., Lloyd 1978:45).

Further, existing archaeological accounts of degeneration commonlymake the error of dealing with the results of change while overlookingthe underlying basis of change: altered patterns of human behavior. Aneconomic approach as adopted here, on the other hand, holds that one ofthe driving forces behind changing material culture is the changing de-mands of society's economic conditions. From this point of view, apparentceramic degeneration may be more profitably explained by understanding whyit became economically desirable to make less complex, less impressiveforms of pottery, Thus, one means of understanding material degenerationis by way of the ancient potter's

AMesopotamian Case Study

ion of prehistoric and early historic social change inMesopotamia most commonly has been derived from the character of majorpottery sequences. As such, long-term "degenerative" trends have attractedspecial archaeological attention and speculation. Such trends characterize

Fa1coner 55

data frombias whichor the sourequi red,hopefullythe Eriduby authors

both north andmight arise wi

th. Further, tfor purposes ofrepresentative,and Gawra sequesuch as Perkin

treatmentsprovide c

lopment wh

southth thehe vastclan ty7sample of

nces have..bs, Porada

therconare

forcor

dataofI

in

rpat

and Uruk per!1965; Adams

we can review tretation and the pOSexplanation,

scrLloy

i

fas

( ca.issenhesible

ceramic se-ain northern

Use ofraphicalthe northaval lablemall, but

importantly,and discussed

, and Redman

nature of specificr with the larger chronolog

e The 'Ubaid and Uruk sequeat the southern MesopotamianSafar 1950). The earliest I

though they contain decoratC sites (Hassuna, Samarra,h. Subsequent to the publifar, Joan Oates revised theLj (Oates 1960; also see Tab

Mesopotam i a

and Uruk potterycontext ofare knownof Eriduexcava ted

tery simi—sites;of th

d sequThe

eenceUruk

'Ubaidof ap vasal luvf1969;1973),Asiaqnotablymerits ofSeem Si

change,

Tables 2

, weste rnle 1977 ; L

It was the

t materiq) cuIran (Goff 197eBretoh 1957)first such "un

appearance in northern

ing trendachievedd Oates

Mesopotamia as partthe Mesopotamian

nery and Neely1969; al-Masrysouthwes tern

much of the pottery sequences through the5300-3600 B.C,; 3600-3100 following

These sequences provide a settingshortcomings of traditional descriptive inteadvantages of an economically-based attempt

This discussion will concentrate onquences from Eridu in southernMesopotamia. These sites were

'UbaidPoradain which

odsand N

Mesopotamiathe 'Ubaid-Uruk

and Tepe Gawraselectedmay help

use ofamount

thatsig

een

severalrect fortypical

descripticoncent ra

ficant sitthoroughlyS and Oates,

in their majorEridu and Gawraof pottery deve"degenerat lye."

reasons,any geogof onlyye data

teonases Mostde ibed

dof

leaich

, Oate

t inuoususually

and Uruk perportraits oclassified

this di

Before considering the, onescuss

shouldion (see

beI

ods. Finally,the major tendencies"decadent" or

famiable

ha1)

'Ubaid

best from the Soundings done(Lloyd and Safarat Eridu are clearly 'Ubaid,lar to examples from Neolithisee below) found farther fortEridu reports by Lloyd and Sainto 'Ubaid phases I throughand Jamdat Nasr periods

In northern and central

icalncessite

eve is

ed potHalafcation

'Ubaile 2).

in southern

Mesopotami aare preceded by a series of ceramic asse

and "Halaf." The geographicalamong these later Neolithic assemblagesposes here we can consider Hassuna to hHalaf to have ended after 5000 B.C. (foand Oates 1976:8; 1978;66). Notenot appear at northern Mesbpotamian sitethrough the 'Ubaid periodreported primarily in Spe

a

av

11

the 'Ubaid and Uruk periodsmblages labeled "Hassuna,"and chronological dIstinctionre problematic, but for our pe commenced 6000 B.C. andCa.

ow!ng Porada 1965:139ff,; Oatthat èlear 'Ubaid assemblagesS like Tepe Gawra until

(sei ser

e Table 3).

S

ur-

esdo

its

urn

Ho

*

The Gawra excavationsTobler (1950),

are

iture unity ex1; Hamlin 1975and northern A

'Ubaid

afterPerk!

tend;Horabi

in the prehice ramthis

P

ics show strikunityhad beenorada Oates an

ing overle, Elana

story of

gnS

atiza

cantthird3).

ifitanand

, .

botht ion,

Endsimp

S of change,in 'Ubaid 3

, Lloyd, andU and Tepe1 if ication

appear ing, IntheaRedman fou

Cawra. They include

, and large-scale dist

mostssess—r trends

technribut

icalion ( see

Tab

le 1

.La

te P

rehi

stor

ic M

esop

otam

ian

Chr

onol

ogy

as S

een

at E

ridu

and

Tep

e G

awra

(bas

ed o

n P

orad

o 19

65: 1

39ff.

;O

ates

and

Oat

es 1

976:

8; L

loyd

197

8:66

)

YE

AR

S B

.C.

SO

UT

HE

RN

ME

SO

PO

TA

MIA

NO

RT

HE

RN

AN

D C

EN

TR

AL

câ. 2

900

Jam

dat N

asr

3100

Late

Uru

k

Ear

ly U

ruk

3600

1Uba

idL1

stra

ta

(Gaw

ra s

trat

aJA

—X

l t)

(Gaw

ra s

trat

um X

iI)

(Gaw

ra s

trat

a X

Vi—

xiv)

(Gaw

ra s

trat

a X

IX-X

Vij)

(Gaw

ra s

trat

um X

X, m

ixed

Hal

af/'U

baid

)T

rans

ition

alid

/Ha

laf

Hal

af/

Sam

a rr

a/H

assu

na

(Erid

u st

ratu

m 1

)

(Erid

u st

rata

V—

i i)

(Erid

u st

rata

VT

HV

I)14

000

00

148o

o

5300

Ca.

600

0

'Uba

id 3

(Erid

u st

rata

2(E

ridu

stra

ta X

IV—

XH

)

1(E

ridu

stra

ta X

IX-X

V)

Late

Gaw

ra

Mid

dle

Gaw

ra

Ear

ly G

awra

'Uba

id14

'Uba

id 3

•'l w C' 0 C

D

a'

Falconer 57

Table Southern 'Ubaid Pottery Trends as Seen in the Eridu Sequence(based on Perkins 1949; Oates 1960; and Porada 1965)

TECHNICAL CHANGE

rUbaid 1: E-ridu strata XIX-XV1) I and Samarra pottery thought partly contemporary2) Hassuna "milk jars" and "husking trays" in levels XVII

and XV used to confirm this3) Samarra decorative style shows greatest number of analogies

to earliest Eridu pottery; designs so similar that they suggesta common origin (Oates 1960:42)

4) "Maltese square" design on plate floors reminiscent of Halaf5) motifs "splashed on boldly and carelessly" compared to Halaf6) fine quality monochrome painted ware is typical

'Ubaid 2: Eridu strata XIV—XII1) wide bowls similar to late Halaf large plates; they retain

some of the complexity of Halaf decoration2) painting more careless

'Ubaid 4; Eridu strata VH—VII) on the whole, "there seems to be a coarsening and a degradation

of the art of pottery painting" (Perkins 1949:75)2) at some sites in the south late 'Ubaid pottery painting became

"quite careless and uninspired, and even at Eridu the laterare less skillfully painted" (Oates 1960:39)

3) Lloyd calls late 'Ubaid vessels "decadent" (1978:45)

STANDARD I ZAT ION

beginning in 'Ubaid 1: Eridu strata XJX—XV...i) all 'Ubaid 1 forms continue through 'Ubaid 2, two-thirds into

stratum XII, some to stratum VIII2) various simple bowl types persist thoughout all the painted

pottery levels3) simple coarse buff ware occurs throughout the sequence

'Ubaid 4: Eridu strata VIl—VI1) signs of tournette manufacture (anticipating Uruk period

wheelmade pottery)

'Ubaid 4—Uruk: Eridu strata1) appearance of light-co]ored wheelmade much

coarser than 'Ubaid light ware2) also red and bray wares (usually slipped; sheelmade) manufacture:

a) smother kiln for dark fabric (reduction firing)b) use of slip as sole decoration (form of simplification

too)

Falconer 58

Table 2 (cont.)

'Ubaid 1: Eridu strata XIX-XV1) painted and unpainted coarse ware in addition to monochrome2) "the decoration in general is more intricate than the bold and

free style generally associated with 'Ubaid pottery"(Oates1960:36).

3) intricate geometric designs, tending toward rectilinear patterns

2: Eridu strata XIV-Xll1) patterns often clustered close together, creating dark zones

on light buff fabric

'Ubaid 3; Eridu strata Xf—VIU1) decoration simpler, less "busy"2) simple, often bold curvilinear designs3) frequent use of negative space (integration of unpainted back-

ground into painted motifs; empty space is no longer dead space)4) "lovely offering, bowls of temples IX-VIH far surpass anything

in the earlier levels for complexity and fineness of designand execution' (Oates 1960;36)

'Ubaid 4: Eridu strata Vil—VI1) designs are bold and sweeping2) use of slips is uncommon3) large numbers of unpainted bowls from burials

LARGE—SCALE

by 'Ubaid 3: Eridu strata Xl-VHI1) rapid production "assured [pottery'sJ wide spread north of

Hesopotamia to Syria and iran" (Porada 1965:150)2) extensive north-south Mesopotamian trade links (e.g., between

Eridu and Gawra)3) lenticular tortoise jars found in Xl suggest transport north

in bulk, especially to Gawra (levels I) (Porado 1965:150)4) a typical form, the beveled-rim bowl spread from southwest

Iran to Syria, "with a massive appearance the reasons forwhich are as yet unexplained" (Porada 1965:153; but see Beale

Falconer59

Table 3. Northern 'Ubaid and Uruk Pottery Trends as Seen in theTepe Gawra Sequence (based on Perkins 1949; Porada 1965)

TECHNICAL CHANGE

Gawra strata XX-XVU:1) fabric coarser than Halaf2). pottery not as well fired3) pottery has little surface treatment4) 'Ubaid motrfs "simple,

Gawra strata XVI—XV:1) general monochrome quality decline, especially seen in crudeexecut ion

Gawra stratum XIII:1) pottery "technically and artistically at its highest levelSince Halaf" (Perkins 1949:49)

Gawra strata XIIA and XII: Early Gawra)1) designs revert to those of XIX-XV, not XIII2) pottery often overfired

Gawra strata XIA and XI; (Porada's Middle Gawra)1) sudden change in shapes and fabric; crude shapes, irregularprofiles2) fabric called "decidedly inferioru (Perkins 1949:166)

Gawra strata XVI-XV:1) decrease in number of shapes from earlier 'Ubaid and Halaf

Gawra stratum XIII:1) new forms, new motifs, rare examples of new methods of orna-mentation (ribbing, incision and applique)

Gawra strata XUA and XII: (Porada's Early Gawra)I) greater vessel homogeneity storage jars as a standard-ized form)2) tournette urather widely employedu

Gawra stra XIA and XI: Middle Gawra)I) decrease in variety of forms; almost all distinctive lateforms disappear2) tournette used less often than in XII

Gawra stratum IX:I) fast wheel introduced, becomes common in Cawra VI II

...

.•_•..

Falconer 60

Table 3

Gawra strata XX-XVH:I) Halaf; individual painted elements

early 'Ubaid: bowls with continuous elements2) common use of negative space

Gawra stratum XIII:1) beakers with bold and sweeptng bands, and much use of

negative space

Gawra strata XIIA and XII: Early Gawra)1) increase in proportion of undecorated pottery2) storage jar painting highly simplified

Gawra strata XIA and XI: (Porada's Middle Gawra)1) painting ceases; no other ornamentation takes its place

until painted pottery regains popularity in the latestUruk/early Jamdat Nasr levels

LARGE-SCALE DISTRIBUTION

(See Table 2, points

Falconer61

1. Change. Generally, 'Ubaid pottery exhibits definitedecline T firing and decoration when compared withthe finely-crafted Samarra and Halaf wares which precede it, Samarra andFlalaf assemblages have traditionally been noted for extremely sophisti-cated painted design. 'Ubaid pottery is interpreted as partially con-temporary with Samarra wares, especially at the central Mesopotamian siteof Chogha Mami. (Oates 1968,

More significantly, it is saidtb share complex Samarra design principles to such an extent that Oateshas suggested a common origin (1960:1+2). Decorative similarities withHalaf pottery are similarly enumerated in 'Ubaid

I and 2 at Eridu, Thetrend of declining technical quality starting in 'Ubaid 3 clearly involvesreduced attention to finely detailed ornamentation.

At Tepe Gawra, Halaf pottery provides the standard against whichsubsequent ceramics are compared. 'Ubaid pottery from the four lowestlevels in this sequence also shows relaUve decline in quality of fabric,firing and decoration. This trend progresses to the point that Perkinsrefers to the fabric seen in levels XIA and Xl as "decidedly inferior"(1949:166). However, we should note Perkins' contrasting opinion of thepottery in Gawra stratum XI I, which is considered "technically andartistically at its highlest level since Halaf" (1949:49). This stratumwould seem to represent a significant, if unexplained, pertubation withinthis long-term quality decline.

2.Standardization The ceramics excavated at Gawra show a num-ber of trends of increasing standardization. The number of forms in laterUruk levels is diminished distinctly in comparison to Halaf or Early 'Ubaidstrata. Vessel homogeneity within this repertoire of forms appears tobecome enhanced. However, once again Gawra stratum XIII proves to beenigmatic. Contrary to the long-term change before and after it, thislevel contains unexpected elements of morphological and decorativevariability.

Evidence for standardization at both sites reflects introductionand increasing use of pottery wheel technology in the late levels (EriduVII and later, Gawra XIIA and later). The appearance and proliferation ofincreasingly uniform wheel-made wares such as Perkins' ware(Eridu Vil-VI) would seem to reflect increasingly standardized productionprocedures.

3. Simplification. Published descriptions of increasing sim-plicity i fsnpainted decoration. Throughout the 'Ubaid-Uruk

the intricate geometrft designs of Samarra and Halaf ceramicsgradually give way to motifs which, require less work to cover a similaramount of vessel surface. At Tepe continuous painted elements re-quiring less time for execution replaced more 1-lalaf patterns,and the use of "negative space" decoration became common as earlyasGawra strata XX-XVII. Negative space techniques utilized lesscomplete coverage of pottery vessel surface, emphasizing the contrastbetween open background and painted design, rather than repetition andclose association of different motifs (see Perkins 1949:1+7), Many forms

Falconer 62

incorporated progressively less decoration to the extent that Urukexamples were not slipped or painted at all (e.g., Gawra XIA and xi),

4. Large-scale Distribution. As noted above, the 'Ubaid marksthe first period in which north and south

a generally consistent material culture. By the end of thetUb&d sequences at .Eridu and Gawra, common monochrome and slipped wareshad attained wide geographic distribution throughout the MesopotamianPlain and its peripheries. Porada has suggested one factor responsiblefor this trend. She maintains that rapid production assured the far—reaching spread of pottery throughout Mesopotamia and beyond to Syriaand Iran (Porada 1965:150). Not surprisingly, both Perkins and Poradahave suggested long range trade as the mechanism responsible for exten-sive distribution, especially between northern and southern Mesopotamia.

Traditional Approaches

Exploration of these aspects of 'Ubaid/Uruk ceramic transitionshas typically continued further than limited appraisal of the "coarsen-ing and degradation of the of pottery paint to quote Ann Perkins'hallmark study (1949:75). Unfortunately, even more recent works haveseen fit to describe these ceramic changes in terms of aesthetic judg-ments. Seton Lloyd, for example, simply labels late 'Ubaid vessels"decadent" (1978:45). Indeed, declining complexity seems highly disturb-ing to many authors (including especially Perkins, Porada and Lloyd),eliciting from them description and interpretation in terms of "lack ofinspiration," artistic regression, or technological decay.

However, these value-laden accounts of pottery change can do nomore than describe the results of that change. By simply categorizingceramics as "degraded' or "decadent" these authors fail to explore whythis pottery has changed so as to arouse their displeasure. Their aesthe-tic impressions clearly do not suffice as explanation.

An alternative approach has sought to explain declining potterysophistication in terms of subsiding interest in the craft. It is usuallyproposed that such a change is triggered by increased emphasis on otherindustries. Joan Oates, for example, has suggested that "perhaps theincreased use of metal at this time contributed to a lessening of interestin the potter's craft" She specifically cites a "falling offof interest in painted pottery manufacture particularly at the end of the'Ubaid period" (1960:39). Lloyd seems especially taken by the increasing"profusion" of metal objects in northern Hesopotamia during the Urukperiod. In fact, he sees this increase in metal objects as a crucial in-dicator of the 'Ub.aid/Uruk transition (1978:75).

As impressive as the evidence might be, this approach. must also bejudged inadequate. In ancient societies growing in complexity, it shouldnot be assumed that one technology (metallurgy) would necessarily cause ahalt in the development of another (ceramics), unless one is replacing theother. This would not seem to have been the case in 'Ubaid/Uruk Mesopotamia,

Falconer 63

in fact, ceramics and metallurgy may have enjoyed some aspects of mutualtechnological improvement. For example, the introduction and developmentof kiln technology may well have benefitted both industries,

Clearly, the approaches adopted by Perkins, Porada, Oates, andLloyd have not identified the roots of change. While it is impossible toaddress all the problems of understanding degeneration with one example,want to outline what may be a more comprehensive explanation of the

technical decline, standardization, simplification and expanded distribu-tion observed in 'Ubaid and Uruk pottery assemblages,

An Economically—based Hypothesis

The perspective adopted for this case study emphasizes the influ-ence of economic variables on the manner in which pottery was producedand distributed. initially, therefore, we must develop a clearer pictureof the ways in which producer and consumer interacted.

Modern economists account for interaction between producer andconsumer in terms of marketing behavior. Marketing involves "businessactivities that direct the flow of goods and services from producer toconsumer or user" (Alexander 1960). In the broadest sense, market acti-vities simply link producer and consumer,

However, marketing theory can be applied properly only under cer-tain conditions of economic exchange. Although it is not assumed at theoutset that 'Ubaid and Uruk period ceramics were exchanged as part of amarket economy, I would suggest that 'Ubaid/Uruk ceramic industry was notconfined entirely to household production and use. In this study a "for-malist" approach is adopted using the concepts and analytical methods ofWestern market economics to understand ancient Mesopotamian behavior.

"At the very heart of formal economics isthe postulate of economic rationality or eco-nomizing...Deliberate decisions must be madeabout how scarce means can be optimally allo-cated to alternative ends. Thus, the economicproblem is defined as an allocative problemand the theory that purports to illuminatethis problem is essentially a set of formalpropositions about th.e 'logic ofThe basIc units of analysis are rational,autonomous indiyiduals..."(Kaplan 1968;233—-231k; see also Schneider 197'i; Nash. 1961 ;l86),

USubstantivists," following especially Polanyl and Dalton, wouldargue against the validity of any analysis based on market exchange andIndividual decision making (see e.g., Dalton 1961; Sahl ins 1969). Theyare not concerned with the economizing behavior of individuals, but ratherwith the aggregate behavior of social institutions, Thus, substantivistswould not approach this 'Uhaid-Uruk case study via analysis based on eco--nomic rationality and decision-making behavior in a marketing context.

Falconer6ti

However, I propose to show that the fundamental aspects of 'Ubaid-Urukpottery development are explained best through the use of at least a nom-inally market-based economic analysis.

The question of whether markets and "true" market exchange existedin antiquity will not be answered definitively here.. We can note, how-ever, the unambiguous existence prior to the "Ubaid and Uruk periods ofsignificant commodity surpluses and extensive distribution networks, twocrucial prerequisites for regional market exchange. Storage of surplusesis suggested by installations dating as early as the seventh and sixthmillennia . , in western Asia at sites such. as Beidha (Kirkbride 1966,1968), Cay8nU (Braidwood, etal, 1971, 197ti) and Umm Dabaghiyah (Kirkbride1972, 1973a, 1973b, 1975). The presence of surplus wealth just prior tothe 'Ubaid period has been domonstrated further at the Samarran Site oflell es—Sawwan, At Tell es—Sawwan, beneath several substantial buildingscommonly considered to be temples, a large number of burials were foundcontaining a wide array of valuable objects, often made of alabaster (Abual-Soof 1968). Trade networks, especially those dealing in obsidian, alsopredate the 'Ubaid and Uruk periods by thousands of years (Wright 1969).Of special interest for this study is the suggestion made by Watson andLeBlanc (.1973, in Redman 1978:199) that elite groups living in differentHalafan communities maintained widespread contacts which encouraged theexchange and imitation of commodities such as Halaf painted pottery (seealso Davidson and McKerrell 1976). In light of this evidence, the pos'-sibility of market exchange may well afford us fresh insight into theproblem of these apparently enigmatic 'Ubaid-Uruk pottery transitions.

The most important consideration in this discussion is that thesuccess of large-scale commodity production and exchange depends upon theflow of information, in the form of decisions, between producer and con-sumer. For example, decisions to buy constitute "demand," decisions tosell are considered (Fisk 1967:5). This information flow willalso include decisions by pottery makers concerning the best, that isthe most profitable, means of ceramic production. In any market-basedanalysis the profit motive must be considered the major force guidingeconomic behavior.

The four trends of change in the Eridu and Gawra sequences enu-merated above implicate decisions in favor of a specific mode of produc-tion. Increasingly standardized, simplified pottery entails correspond-ingly standardized, simplified means of production. In addition, thiskind of production certainly includes widespread product distributionand, most likely, a pervasive element of craft specialization. In sum,the physical prope.rti:es basic to "Ubatd'-•Uruk pottery fit well with charac-

suggested for th.e general system responsible for this pottery:mass, production.

Mass production systems incorporate standardized, simplified manu-facturing techniques to enable high volume production of marketable com-modities. In mass production economies widespread distribution and ex'-change of goods are necessary for the system's survival. Therefore, crea-tion and consumption of these goods cannot be restricted to one and thesame household. Further, such an economic system must involve manufactureof by craft specialists,

Falconer65

The success of the ceramic producer lies in his ability to ex-change goods at a price higher than his •production and distribution costs.This balance is especially precarious for the mass producer, for he en—gages in business in millions, but profits merely in pennies (after Fiskl967;54). The slim nature of this profit margin means that successfulmas.s production requires mass consumption. !,t is this considerationwhich has far—reaching ramifications for the nature of any mass productionsystem and the products it creates.

A basic assumption underlying the approach outlined here is thatthe physical qualities of pottery are largely the result of the amountof time and energy put into its manufacture (cf., Balfet 1965; Irwin 1978:300). It is suggested that craft specialization, and decreased energyexpenditure per pot provide the increased efficiency of production neededto serve a potter—consuming market growing in size (cf., Easterfield1962:35). Adaptive responses to widespread market demand may involve pro-duction of standardized regional trade wares such aa Fourmile Polychrome(Whittlesey nd. :10-11), Papuan MaMu wares (Irwin 1978:300ff.), andMesoamerican Late Classic and Postclassic Plumbate (Shepard 19148; 1968:354) and Fine Orange Ware (Rathje 1973; Sabloff and Rathje 1975; Connorand Rathje 1973), These. responses to market pressure also will includeless time consuming production techniques and products as seen in Yoruba(Cardew 1969:89, 91) and Tzeltal (Nash 1961:188) pottery making. Stan-dardization and simplification of production,, and craft specializationwithin the production system therefore provide a multi-faceted strategywhich is especially adaptive for the mass producer. These characteristicscollectively can be considered behavioral aspects of mass production.

Concluding Remarks

Before simply concluding that 'Ubaid-Uruk pottery was indeed massproduced, and that traits like those of 'Ubaid and Uruk wares might be usedas indicators of profound Socioeconomic change during these periods (e.g.,the rise of managed economies) we must strike several cautionary notes.

First, for the sake of precision, any analysis of past exchangeshould discern whether the commodities being traded included primarilythe vessels recovered archaeologically, their ancient contents, or both.The contents and even the general function of many of the wares consideredhere are not matters of general agreement. Therefore, I am unable in thisbrief treatment to differentiate apparent ceramic mass production whichwas a by—product of other changes from that which, was adopted for its ownsake.

Second, if ceramic simplification is truly indicative of mass pro-duct ion? one must ask, why polychromes make a significant reappearance inthe Jamdat Nasr period following the "Ubaid-Uruk sequence (Porada 1965:159). This might seem especially perplexing in light of the apparentlycommon use in this period of the fast wheel, a significant element oftechnological standardization and, presumably, continued mass production.

However, one cannot assume that technological innovations, such asthe tournette and fast kick wheel, are straightforward material correlates

Falconer 66

of the earliest mass production. This correlation seems implicit in sometreatments of ceramic industry (Adams Neumayer 1967:5;Woolley l963i577-578; cf. discussions in Nicklin 1971;48, and in Foster1959b:l00.ffj, and is apparent in previous comments on the tUbaid_Urukpottery sequence. Joan Oates has suggested that the invention of thefast pottery wheel certainly contributed to the decline inPUbaid] painted pottery and its eventual disappearanceu Oatesand Oates have subsequently elaborated on this idea in terms of a generalloss of old craft skills in the 'Ubaid and Uruk periods (1976:122-123).Fortunately, we can amend such stereotyped expectations on the basis ofFoster's work with Mexican village potters (l959a, 1959b, 1960, 1965).His studies have demonstrated the fallacy of strictly equating high volumeproduction with wheel technology. Foster has illustrated an array ofcomparably efficient production techniques (notably the use of circularmolds) available between the extremes of basic hand construction and fullyWheel-thrown pottery. Therefore, contrary to Oates and Oates, the earli-est mass production and reduced product quality would not have requiredpottery wheel technology. In the Eridu and Gawra sequences this tech-nology makes its appearance (Eridu strata Vil—VI; Gawra strata XIIA and•xii) only after the 'Ubaid transitions described above. Rather than beingthe technological foundation for mass production, the tournette and fastwheel may really represent subsequent elaborations which allowed develop-ment of more refined decorative techniques in later periods (e,g,, JamdatNasr).

Third, it has been argued that Uruk period bevelled-rim bowls andJamdat Nasr period conical cups provide the "earliest strong evidence fora managed ecbnomy" (Redman 260). This position has been pro-pounded in greater detail by Nissen (1970) and Johnson (1973) who inter-pret bevelled-rim bowls as standardized, centrally produced food rationvessels used within Mesopotamia's first centralized redistributive economy.However, these authors neglect the earlier 'Ubaid and Halaf economicchanges which provided the foundation for Uruk managed economy. Halafexchange networks involved a significant degree of regionally centralizedproduction of trade wares at sites like Chagar Bazar, Tell Halaf andTell Brak (Davidson and McKerrell 1976:52-53). Furthermore, bevelled-rimbowls have been reinterpreted recently as the products of decentralized,household manufacture (Beale 1978:306). Clearly, the role of centralizedmanufacture in ancient Mesopotamian ceramic industries remains a matterof contention. Unfortunately, the data utMized in this study are unsuit-able for analysis of individual forms or wares as a means to address thisquestion. One should note, however, that very simple and extremely ela-borate painted pottery forms coexisted as early as 'Ubaid 2, and that whilepottery-making centers could have been in use in the 'Ubaid and llrukperiods, centralized productIon was not necessarily responsible for allvarieties of 'Ubaid and Uruk, ceramics. Therefore, characterizations ofentIre Industries or exchange systems as or "uncentralized"(cf. Johnson 1973, 1975). provide minimal insight into specific instancesof 'Ubaid-Uruk ceramic degeneration and mass, production.

Finally,, in applying any formalist economic approach one must avoidthe simple tautology of assuming that marketing conditions prevailed inthe past, followed by use of analysis based on marketing principles to

Falconer67

corroborate that initial assumption. have attempted to avoid circularityin this treatment, Rather, have pointed out the overriding need foralternatives to mere description of This study stronglysuggests that to understand the evolution of complex society in Mesopotamiawe should not limit our investigations to the better-known evidence ofUruk or later periods (e.g., bevelled-rim bowls, common use of potterywheels). These periods best illustrate complex regional economic systemsas accomplished facts. To comprehend the development of these systemsour attention must be directed earlier. indeed, through market—basedanalysis we may be able to explain the emergence of Mesopotamia's firstmaterial culture unification, 'Ubaid-Uruk ceramic mass production is of-fered here as an initial hypothesis to enhance our understanding of thegrowth processes which led ultimately to the establishment of Mesopotamiaricivilization.

Sources Cited

Abu al-Soof, B.1968 Tell es-Sawwan: Excavation of the Fourth Season (Spring, 1967).

Sumer 24:3-15.

Adams, Y.W.1968 invasion, Diffusion, Evolution? Antiquity 1+2:1911-215.

Adams, R. McC. and H.J. Nissen1972 The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Society.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Alexander, R.S.1960 Marketing Definitions, A Glossary of Marketing Terms. American

Marketing Association.

Balfet, H.1965 Ethnographic Observations in North Africa and Archaeological

Interpretations: The Pottery of the Maghreb, in Ceramics and Maned. by F.R. Matson, pp. Viking Publications in Anthro-pology, 11+.

Beale, T.W,1978 Bevelled Rim Bowls, and their tmplications for Change and Economic

Later Fourth Millennium B,C.? Journal of NearEastern Studies

Bibby, G.

1969 Looking for Dilmun, Knopf, New York.

Braidwood, R.J,, H, Cambel, C,L. Redman and P.J, Watson1971 Beginnings of Village-farming Communities in Southwestern Turkey,

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 68(6):l236-1240

Falconer 68

Braidwood, R.J., H. Cambel, B. Lawrence, C,L, Redman and R, Stewart1971+ Beginnings of Village—farming Communities in Southwestern Turkey:

1972,. Proceedin9s of the Nat of Sciences 71(2):

Cardew, H.1969 Pioneer Pottery. London,

Connor, J,G, and W.L, Rathje1973 Mass Production and the Ancient Maya: Experiments in Cracking

Maya Pots, Paper read at the Annual Meetings of the Society forAmerican San Francisco.

Dalton, 6.

1961 Economic Theory and Primitive Society. American'Anthropologjst63: 1-25,

Davidson, I.E. and H. McKerrell1976 Pottery Analysis and Halaf Period Trade in the Khabur

Region, Iraq 38:45-56,

Easterfield, T.E,

1962 Standardization as an Aid to Productivity. Productivityment Review, Special Number, June 1962.

Fisk, G.

1967 Marketing Systems, An Introductory Analysis. Harper and Row, NewYork,

Foster, G.M.

l959a The Coyotepec Molde and Some Associated Problems of the Potter'sWheel, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15:53-63.

1959b The Potter's Wheel: An Analysis of Idea and Artifact in Invention.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15:99-117.

1960 Archaeological Implications of the Modern Pottery ofAmerican Antiquity 26:205-211+.

1965 The Sociology of Pottery: Questions and Hypotheses Arising fromContemporary Mexican Work, in Ceramics and Man ed. by F.R, Matson,pp. 43—61. Viking Publications' 1+1.

C.L.

1971 Before the !ron 9;l3l-152.

Hamlin1 C.

1975 Dalma Tepe. tran

Hole, F,

1977 Studies in the Archaeological History of the Deh Luran Plain, theExcavation of Chagha Sefid. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology,Universityof Michigan, 9,

69

Hole, R., K.V. FIanncry and J.A. Ncely1969 Prehistory and Human ol the Dch Luran Plain: An Early

Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. Memoirs of the MuseumUniversity of Michi9on, 1. Ann Arbor.

G,J.1978 Pots and Entrcpots: A Study of Settlement, Trade and the Develop-

ment of Economic in Papuan Prehistory. WorldArchaeology

Johnson, G.A.1973 Local Exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran.

The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological

1975 Locational Analysis and the Investigation of Uruk Local ExchangeSystems, in Ancient Civilization and Trade ed. by Sabloffand C.C. 339, University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kaplan, D,1968 The Formal-Substantive Controversy in Economic Anthropology:

on its Wider Implications, ofAnthropology

Kirkbride, D.1966 Five Seasons at the Prepottery Neolithic Village of Beidha in

Jordan, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98(l):8-72.

1968 Beidha: Early Neolithic Village Life South of the Dead Sea.Antiquity

1972 Umm Dabaghiyah 1971: A Report. An Early Ceramic Sitein Marginal North Central Jazira, Iraq. Iraq

l973a Urnm Dabaghiyah 1972: A Preliminary Report, Iraq 35:1—7,

1973b Umm Dabaghiyah 1973: A Third Preliminary Report. Iraq 35:3-10.1975 Umm Dabaghiyah A Fourth Preliminary Report, Iraq 37:3-10.

LeBreton, L,1957 The Periods at Susa: tlesopotamian 19(2):

Lloyd, S.1978 Thames and Hudson1

Lloyd, S. and F. SafarEridu, A Preliminary Communication on the First Season's Excava-tions January-March Surner

Eridu, A Preliminary Communication on the Second Season's Exca--vations 4:115-127,

Falconer 70

al-Masry, A,H.1973 Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia; The Problem of lnterregional

interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertalon, Department ofAnthropology, University of Chicago.

Nash, -

1961 The Social Context of Economic Choice in a Small Society, Man61:186—191.

Neumayer, H.1967 Greek Vase Painting. London.

Nicklin, K.1971 Stability and Innovation in Pottery Manufacture. World

logy 3(1):13'1i8,

Nissen, H.1970 Grabung in den Quadraten K/L XII in Uruk-Warka. Baghdader

Mitteilungen. 5:137.

Oates, J,1960 Ur and Eridu, the Prehistory. Iraq 22:32—50.

1968 Prehistoric Investigations Near Mandali, Iraq, Iraq 30:1-20.

1973 The Background and Development of Early Farming Communities inMesopotamia and the Zagros. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety

Oates, D. and J. Oates1976 The Rise of Civilization. Phaidon, Oxford.

Perkins, A.L.The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. University ofChicago, Chicago.

Porada, E.1965 The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia. in Chronologies in Old

World ed. by R. Ehrich. University of Chicago,Chicago.

Rathje, W.L.1973 Last Tango in Mayapan7 A Research Design for Ancient

Maya Production-Distribution Systems, submitted to the advancedseminar Civilization and $ch.ool of American

Santa Fe.

Redman, C,L.1978 The Rise of Civilization; From Early Farmers to Urban Society in

the Ancient Near East. W.H, Freeman and San Francisco.

Sabloff, J.A, and W.L. Rathje1975 The Rise of a Maya Merchant Class. scientific American 233(Lt):

72-82.

Safar, Fuad -

1950 Eridu; A Preliminary Report on the Third Season's Excavations,Sumer 6(1):27—35.

H.1969 Economic Anthropology and Anthopological Economics. Social

Information 8(5) : 13--33, .

Schneider H, . :

197k Economic Man. Free Press, New

Shepard, A.O.1948 Plumbate, A Mesoamerican Trade Ware. Carnegie Institute of

Washington, Publication 573. Washington, D.C.

1968 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie InstitUeof Washington,Publication 609. Washington, D.C,

Speiser, E,A. •

1935 at Tepe Gawra, vol, University of PennsylvaniaPress, Philadelphia.

Tobler,1950 Excavations at Tepe Gawra, vol 2, Uni.versity of Pennsylvania

Press, Philadelphia.

P.J. and S.A. LeBlanc1973 Excavation and Analysis of Halafian Materials from Southeastern

. Turkey: The Halafian Period Reexamined. Paper presented at theannual meetings of the American Anthropological Association,New Orleans. .

S.n.d. Material Culture Correlates of Exchange Systems: A Model. Ms.

on file, Arizona State Museum Library, Tucson,

Wright,1969 Obsidian Analysis and Prehistoric Near Eastern Trade: 7500-

3500 B.C. The University ofMichigan Museum of Anthropology,Anthroooloqical Papers, 37. Ann Arbor.

Woolley, Sir Leonard -

1963 Techniques, Arts and in The History of Mankind, 1. UNESCO,