The Ceramics of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic: Abu Hamid and the Burnished Tradition - article ; n°1 ; vol.33, pg 51-76

G. Dollfus, Z. Kafafi, J.L. Lovell

Description

Paléorient - Année 2007 - Volume 33 - Numéro 1 - Pages 51-76
Abstract: Intense debate on the nature of archaeological cultures and chronologies of the prehistoric periods of the southern Levant has led to a confusing array of dates and schemes. It is unclear if perceived differences between assemblages relate to chronological or “cultural” differences (whatever the latter might be taken to mean). Our previous comments on Abu Hamid ceramic assemblages were necessarily preliminary; here we present a more detailed typological scheme, with further details on radiometric dates. We seek clear publication of ceramic types, with fully quantified assemblages from a well-stratified site, but we also seek a common-sense approach that engages with current theory on “culture’, technology and style boundaries, and also avoids the straight-jacket of archaic terminology.
Résumé: Un vif débat sur la nature des «cultures» et des chronologies des périodes préhistoriques au Sud-Levant a conduit à une abondance, parfois confuse, de dates et de classifications. Il est ainsi difficile de distinguer si les différences perçues entre les assemblages recueillis sur les sites sont d’ordre chronologique ou «culturel» (si toutefois un sens est donné à ce terme). Les remarques relatives à la céramique des niveaux de base et moyens d’Abu Hamid précédemment publiées étaient préliminaires. Nous proposons ici une classification typologique plus précise, accompagnée d’informations sur le contexte des dates radiométriques; l’objectif est d’allier à une typologie céramique d’un site bien stratifié les données quantitatives portant sur les assemblages analysés. Nous avons privilégié cette approche qui tient compte autant des théories admises sur le terme «culture» que des limites des études technologiques ou qui font appel au style et avons aussi cherché à éviter l’étroitesse d’une terminologie devenue archaïque.
26 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: PALEORIENT
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2007
• Nombre de lectures: 10
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

T HE C ERAMICS OF THE L ATE N EOLITHIC AND C HAOLLCHIITC : A BU H AMID AND THE B URNISHED T RADITION

J.L. L OVELL , G. D OLLFUS and Z. K AFAFI

Abstract:Intense debate on the nature of archaeological cultures and chronologies of the prehistoric periods of the southern Levant has led to a confusing array of dates and schemes. It is unclear if perceived differences between assemblages relate to chronological or “cultural” differences (whatever the latter might be taken to mean). Our previous comments on Abu Hamid ceramic assemblages were necessarily preliminary; here we present a more detailed typological scheme, with further details on radiometric dates. We seek clear publication of ceramic types, with fully quantified assemblages from a well-stratified site, but we also seek a common-sense approach that engages with current theory on “culture’, technology and style boundaries, and also avoids the straight-jacket of archaic terminology.

Résumé :débat sur la nature des « cultures » et des chronologies des périodes préhistoriques au Sud-Levant a conduit à uneUn vif abondance, parfois confuse, de dates et de classifications. Il est ainsi difficile de distinguer si les différences perçues entre les assemblages recueillis sur les sites sont d’ordre chronologique ou « culturel » (si toutefois un sens est donné à ce terme). Les remarques relatives à la céramique des niveaux de base et moyens d’Abu Hamid précédemment publiées étaient préliminaires. Nous proposons ici une classification typologique plus précise, accompagnée d’informations sur le contexte des dates radiométriques ; l’objectif est d’allier à une typologie céramique d’un site bien stratifié les données quantitatives portant sur les assemblages analysés. Nous avons privilégié cette approche qui tient compte autant des théories admises sur le terme « culture » que des limites des études technologiques ou qui font appel au style et avons aussi cherché à éviter l’étroitesse d’une terminologie devenue archaïque.

Keywords:Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Wadi Rabah, Chronology, Ceramics. Mots-clés :Néolithique récent, Chalcolithique, Wadi Rabah, Chronologie, Céramiques.

In the last five to ten years, there has been considerable When Abu Hamid (in the central Jordan Valley, on its east discussion on the nature of the “cultural” horizons to which  bank) was being excavated (1986-1992)3, there were few avail- burnished ceramics from Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic able publications on the Late Neolithic levels at neighbouring from southern Levantine contexts have been said to relate1  sites. While sites like Munhata were known, these were fully . It is becoming increasingly clear that detailed presentation of the published only some time after their excavation4. Only a few radiometric data, in conjunction with the phasing details for  small-scale soundings at sites like Ghrubba5were available. precise types, is necessary to untangle the web of interactions Nonetheless, it was clear to the excavators when they reached that must have operated in the 6th and 5th millennia BCE.  the lower levels that Abu Hamid would provide a major resource Debate has largely focused on the placement of various of comparative data for southern Levantine sequences6. small, short-lived sequences in relation to better stratified, but often more enigmatic, material2. We are grateful for the oppor- tunity to clarify and expand upon some of our previous remarks here. gère 3 s . /C A N j R o SraomnaYdnaec,rF,JtysierivUnuk cilarpjohcealogointarthenetbecweetm or i d ni a s n tèr w e it d h es th A e ffa c i o r n e t s i é n t u r o a u n s - support of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities. 1. G OPHER , 1995; G OPHER and G OPHNA , 1993; for the northern Levantcf.4. P ERROT , 1968; G ARFINKEL , 1992. inter aliaL E M IÈRE et P ICON , 1987 and 1998. 5. M ELLAART , 1956. 2. G ARFINKEL , 1999; L OVELL , 2000; B ANNING , 2002; B OURKE and L OVELL  D, 6. OLLFUS et K AFAFI , 1986 and 1988; D OLLFUS et al., 1986, 1988, 1993 2004. and see more recently: L OVELL et al., 1997 and 2004; A LI , 2005; R OUX , 2005.

Paléorient, vol. 33.1, p. 51-76 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2007

Manuscrit reçu le 22 février 2007, accepté le 26 juin 2007

52

It was plain to the excavators that Phase II7related in some way to the “Wadi Rabah” horizon8, which J. Kaplan first defined after his excavations at Wadi Rabah itself9and later extended and discussed as a more widespread “culture”10. The excavators linked the “basal” levels to J. Perrot’s Munhata phase (Munhata 2a) on the basis that there was an absence of clear Yarmoukian diagnostic parallels and that stratigraphi- cally these levels predated the “Wadi Rabah” horizon11; it also appeared that there were certain links with some of the material at Ghrubba12. In all, after a first field sorting by two of us (G.D. and Z.K.), almost 20,000 sherds were fully analyzed by J.L. Lovell during the post-excavation work on the Abu Hamid assem- blages. A breakdown of the numbers of sherds per phase appears in table 1. Table 1:A breakdown of the numbers of sherds of Area A analysed per level. “Unspecified” sherds were discarded during the first sorting because the context was considered of low integrity, or because the sherds were extremely small (<1 cm). Levels Analysed Unspecified 2 4246 5555 3 9697 15485 4 2765 1021 5 3108 1145 T OTAL  4302219816 23206 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The approach to the creation of a typology at Abu Hamid was very much based on previous work by Lovell on Teleilat Ghassul and has been documented elsewhere13. In short, the fabric, form and decoration of each sherd was recorded. There is a particular reason for recording all of these attributes for each sherd. One of the abiding problems in southern Levantine prehistory is establishing the relationship between different short-lived sequences. While there are multiphase sites, many are published in a selective fashion that obscures relevant detail on transitions and this shackles attempts to key in other,

7. In preliminary publications we have called these the middle levels. 8. D OLLFUS et al., 1993: 254. 9. K APLAN , 1958. 10.Ibid., 1972; G OPHER and G OPHNA , 1993; G OPHER , 1995. 11. D OLLFUS et al., 1993: 253. 12. K AFAFI , n.d. 13. L OVELL , 2001; L OVELL et al., 1997.

J.L. L OVELL , G. D OLLUFS and Z. K AFAFI

newer assemblages14. Abu Hamid is a multiphase site that has important parallels with other more problematic, yet emblem- atic sequences15. It was therefore important to be able to provide information on all phases and sub-phases of the site, and to calculate relevant data for various attributes. Typologies that simply discuss dominant forms and list associated fabrics, while useful, do not allow true interrogation of the data and derive from a style of analysis that is now outmoded. The Abu Hamid project has pursued a particular interest in integrated multi-disciplinary study of various aspects and attributes of the same material. We are particularly interested in the aspects of production of the material that we study, not just the ability for this material to provide a date or chrono- logical horizon for the levels in question. We were concerned to produce a body of data that could answer a wide range of questions regarding the chronological transitions and transfor- mation of the social world of the people we purport to study16. If we are interested today in the intention of the crafts- people whose products we study, and in thechaîne opératoire, then we need to be able to document the relative frequencies of certain types. Singular examples (or studies of small numbers of individual pieces) will not result in representative studies of lithic reduction, ceramic forming or any other aspect of prehistoric production. Such studies need to be conducted within a statistical framework and archaeological context, since it is only by looking at repetitive action that we can establish, with some degree of certainty, that the artisan was, in fact, intending to create [and re-create] a piece in a certain way. We can presume that certain results were unintentional accidents, which were not often repeated. However, where a bowl or lithic type is encountered again and again, we can assume that, however the type was invented, the artisan noted that a certain set of steps resulted in that effect and she or he set out to repeat it. In the case of a pottery typology, which also records fabric, decoration and other attributes against each sherd, we can examine associations of certain variables and build a picture of the creative world of the potters who made the ceramics we study. This may seem obvious, but it is only through intensive studies of manufacturing process married with statistical sampling of types and forms that holistic presentations of an assemblage are possible.

14. See L OVELL , 2001: 41-42. 15. D OLLFUS et al., 1993: 253-254. 16. See also the more recent study of N. Ali, who has made a more ethnoarchaeological study of the Phases I and II material: A LI , 2005.

Paléorient, vol. 33.1, p. 51-76 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2007