V.3 Identifying Patterns of Production
p. 102-108
Texte intégral
Patterns of production: from Anthropology to Archaeology
1The organisation of pottery production is a topic that has been much studied in ethnography since the various components characterising it (location and size of the production unit, workforce, labour division and specialisation, artisan identity and gender, work output or scale of distribution) provide an insight into multiple cultural, organisational and economic aspects of a society (Costin 2000; Roux 2003; Duistermaat 2016). To summarise broadly, workshop organisation has often been defined by opposing “workshop”/specialised production to domestic/unspecialised production; the first involving the production of items used by individuals other than the producers (notion of surplus). To go beyond this division which can be somewhat simplistic, a list of other attributes is also often associated with the concept of a specialised workshop (see Costin 2020 for a recent synthesis on the subject and for further references):
the presence of equipment and facilities set in a non-residential, formally structured space;
the presence of several (as opposed to a single potter) trained artisans which may not be related by kinship;
full-time workers with an internal division of labour;
work unit focused on the production of a limited range of standardised (with few mechanical variations) items;
high scale of production;
location in urban (or sub-urban) areas.
2If some of the listed elements may indeed characterise specialised archaeological production contexts for the Mediterranean and the Near-East, ethnographic and archaeological studies also bring some nuances, as specialised production with a fairly high output can take place in a domestic context or does not specifically imply a limited range of products. Furthermore, it has been noted that the number of artisans needed to supply a given population is often overestimated by archaeologists and that most craft productions in the preindustrial world were probably part-time, seasonal activities.
3The determination of these different parameters may also prove difficult in archaeology, for aspects such as the economic specialisation (part-time or full-time labour), the scale of the production, the social identity or gender of the producer and his social relation to his environment are generally not accessible in the archaeological record. Direct archaeological evidence is given when the physical location of a place of production is known. In most cases, it is materialised by the presence of firing structures (often kilns in the Levant). It can sometimes be associated with other permanent structures as clay tanks, or misfired pottery (wasters), raw material (clay or temper), unfired vessels or tools. Such evidence may allow to determine the size of the workshop, to study the spatial organisation of production activities within the workshop or in relation with its broader environment. One may even assess the approximate number of artisans in case specific installations such as a potter’s wheel can be associated with a worker station. When misfired or unfired pottery is present, it is also possible determine the degree of standardisation of the production, as for instance in Tell Leilan.
4Most often however, archaeologists have to deal with indirect evidence: the pottery found on consumption sites. In this instance, one may attempt to characterise the organisation of the production through a comprehensive study combining the reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire (see Section ii.5), archaeometric analyses of the clay fabrics (see Section ii.3), chrono-typology (see Section v.1) as well as the distribution and use of the pottery. One of the main evidence generally brought forward to identify specialised production is standardisation. Similar raw material, shaping and decoration techniques can be an argument to consider that a group of ceramics was produced in the same place. Caution is nevertheless necessary as similar raw material can be used by several production units or potters and inversely several clay recipes can be used in one production unit. Morphological standardisation of the vessels is also a key-element, although one must bear in mind that the assessment of metrical standardisation is a relative concept that becomes meaningful when comparing several assemblages. It is generally considered that little metrical variation, when observed on a large quantity of vessels, is an index for a small amount of full-time or at least trained potters. However, in the case of long chronologies and therefore many production events, one should take into account the cumulative effect that would increase the degree of variations.
The Patterns of Production of Syrian Cooking Ware (Brittle Ware)
5From the Hellenistic period onwards, Levantine cooking wares share a common recipe using iron-rich clay with quartz and a common repertoire—a cooking set—composed by a cooking pot, a shallow casserole, a lid, and sometimes a kettle. Despite these common features, several large regional facies can be distinguished. Northern Syria and the Euphrates region share a similar cooking ware tradition, usually called Brittle Ware, while Asia Minor, Cyprus, southern Syria and northern Palestine or southern Palestine have their own morphological repertoire and presumed or known production centres. In Syria, the Brittle Ware production centres seem to have held a complete monopoly of the market as no major competing cooking ware is attested until the Middle-Islamic period (Vokaer 2011). The worshops producing Brittle Ware are so far unlocated. However, fabric analyses (combining binocular, petrographic and XRF analyses) allowed to determine the existence of several distinct groups corresponding to “workshops” or rather “production locus” as the number of production units and their precise location remain unknown. Three of them are located in north-western Syria, one around Apamea ( “Production locus” 4) and two probably in the surroundings of Antioch ( “Production locii” 1 and 6). A fourth one was situated in Euphrates region ( “Production locus” 3). Information on the chronology of the production centres and their distribution profile was obtained by studying the distribution of shapes and fabrics through time and space. “Production locus” 1 was active from the Roman to the Abbasid period or later. “Production locus” 4 has the longest lifespan so far: from the Roman to the Mamluk period. “Production locus” 3 seems to operate from the 1st to the 5th century ad, while “Production locus” 6 is active during the Early Islamic period only. During their respective periods of production, the different “workshops” shared a common morphological repertoire and a relatively similar paste recipe (at least for “Production locii” 1, 4 and 6, with a quartz-rich fabric) so that, from the consumer’s point of view, it was not possible to differentiate the vessels of the various production centres (fig. 55). Their distribution profile shows that they supplied the large cities located close to them but were also oriented towards an extra-regional market. For instance, “Production locus” 4 supplied Apamea for more than a millennium as well as neighbouring and further sites, as far as Dibsi Faraj (figs. 56-58). “Production locus” 1, presumed to be in the region of Antioch, supplied the city and the whole northern Syria, especially after the 5th century ad when it replaced the Euphratean “Production locus” 3 that was previously active in this region (figs. 56-58). During the Abbasid period, when the Brittle Ware distribution reached its largest scale (from Cilicia to the Persian Gulf), fabric analyses allowed to identify finds belonging to “Production locus” 1 from Tarsus to the Euphrates, covering a distance greater than 400 km (fig. 58). Brittle Ware from “Production locus” 6 is so far less frequent but still relatively largely distributed (fig. 58).
Figure 55. Main shapes of Brittle Ware

Unless mentioned, drawing: A. Vokaer and Cad: A. Stoll.
1: Dibsi Faraj, 1st-2nd c. AD; 2: Ain Sinu (from Oates 1959, pl. LVIII) 2nd-4th c.; 3: Apamea, 4th-5th c.; 4: Apamea, 6th-8th c.; 5: Apamea, 6th-8th c.; 6. Dibsi Faraj, 7th-9th c.; 7: Dibsi Faraj, 8th-10th c.; 8: Dibsi Faraj, 3rd-5th c.; 9: Apamea, 6th-8th c.; 10: Dibsi Faraj, 7th-9th c.; 11: Dibsi Faraj, Roman and Byzantine; 12: Ain Sinu (from Oates 1959, pl. LVIII), 3rd-4th c.; 13: Apamea, 6th-9th c. and 14: Apamea, 6th-8th c.
Figure 56. Brittle Ware distribution in the Roman period

Drawing A. Vokaer and N. Bloch.
Figure 57. Brittle Ware distribution in the Byzantine period

Drawing A. Vokaer and N. Bloch.
Figure 58. Brittle Ware distribution in the Early-Islamic period

Drawing A. Vokaer and N. Bloch.
6The scale of distribution and the limited range of variations appearing in the clay recipe and in the morphological repertoire point towards specialised workshops. But in the absence of the physical sites, one cannot determine the internal organisation of the production units, their size or number, or whether these were specialised in the production of cooking ware only. An interesting point of comparison is the rather exceptional example of Kefar Hananya in ancient Palestine (see Adan-Bayewitz 1993; Adan-Bayewitz et al. 2009). The village was specialised in the production of cooking ware during the Roman period and was so renowned that mentions of its products appear in the rabbinic literature. In comparison with Brittle Ware, Kefar Hananya vessels were nevertheless distributed on a relatively moderate scale, that of Galilee. One could thus imagine a similar mode of production for at least Brittle Ware “Production locii” 1 and 4, located near two important cities they supplied but distributing eastwards along important economic axes. Even if the size and relationship of the workshops cannot be determined, one can estimate that these were operated by trained artisans and were organised production centres, either located in one region or even on one site as in Kefar Hananya. Moreover, the combined study of the typology, fabrics and of their geographical distribution clearly indicates that this type of cooking ware was the subject of an intensive production and of large-scaled trade.
Auteur
Associate Professor, Centre de Recherches en Archéologie et Patrimoine, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International - CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Rural-Urban Dynamics in the East African Mountains
Sylvain Racaud, Bob R. Nakileza, François Bart et al. (dir.)
2016
Kenya’s Past as Prologue
Voters, Violence and the 2013 General Election
Christian Thibon, Marie-Aude Fouéré, Mildred Ndeda et al. (dir.)
2014
Music and Dance in Eastern Africa
Current Research in Humanities and Social Sciences
Kahithe Kiiru et Maina wa Mũtonya (dir.)
2018
Where Women Are
Gender & The 2017 Kenyan Elections
Nanjala Nyabola et Marie-Emmanuelle Pommerolle (dir.)
2018
Le Kenya en marche, 2000-2020
Marie-Aude Fouéré, Marie-Emmanuelle Pommerolle et Christian Thibon (dir.)
2020
Kenya in Motion 2000-2020
Marie-Aude Fouéré, Marie-Emmanuelle Pommerolle et Christian Thibon (dir.)
2021