4.6 Article

Re-assessing the notion(s) of craft standardization through diversity statistics: A pilot study on Late Chalcolithic pottery from Arslantepe in Eastern Anatolia

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245660

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study results suggest that the standardization of pottery is closely related to the scale of production, rather than the use of the wheel or its rotational speed. Standardization is more influenced by the procurement and processing of raw materials.
This paper proposes a new range of diversity indexes applicable to ceramic petrographic and geochemical data and potentially to any archaeological data of both metric and non-metric nature in order to assess the degree of craft standardization. The case study is the Late Chalcolithic pottery from Arslantepe in eastern Anatolia, ideal to test the standardization hypothesis, i.e. the assumed correspondence between craft standardization and increased rates of production, which in turn correlate with economic specialization. The results suggest that the procurement and processing of raw materials are more sensible indicators of standardization than vessel shape variability. Higher standardization is connected with the scale of production rather than with the use of the wheel or its rotational speed. The socio-economic centralization marks a process of labor division within the operational sequence and, more generally, a shift from communal to more segregated potting practices. As a result, the variability of both technical procedures and end products increases. In contrast univocal trends towards standardization can be found in coeval contexts from northern Mesopotamia, where the incipient urbanization served to create bonds between vessel makers, favoring the transmission of models and practices regardless of the centralized power.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available