Transitions in ceramics, a critical account and suggested approach: case-study through comparison of the EBA–MBA and MBA–LBA horizons at Qatna

Abstract

In recent years, the concept of transition in Near Eastern archaeology has received considerable attention, in particular in the realm of pottery studies. Despite this renewed interest, little attention has been given to the definition of transition as applied to ceramics in past and current investigations. The aim of this paper is to examine past usage of the idea of transition, to explore its current value in archaeology, and then consider the consequences of this for the interpretation of the archaeological record. In this study old data are combined and compared with new data from excavations at Qatna. This is proposed as a case study for a redefinition of transition in pottery sequences and as a starting point for a re-evaluation of the phenomenon at a more general level.

Keywords:

• transition
• pottery
• Bronze Age
• Levant
• Qatna

Acknowledgements

I would like especially to thank D. Morandi Bonacossi, whose advice, suggestions and criticisms have helped me very much. Further valuable help was provided by M. Luciani for western Syria, J. Oates for the Jezirah, M. D’Andrea for Palestine, P. Sconzo for the Euphrates valley. I am also deeply indebted to the three reviewers, the Editor and A. Canci for their comments and advice. I am finally grateful to Jim Bishop, who not only corrected the English form of this article, but also provided me with many valuable suggestions. It goes without saying that any remaining mistakes must be entirely ascribed to the author.

Notes

1 The 2010 campaign has focused on the excavation of the southern sector of the Eastern Palace: extensive remains of LB occupation have been found; the ceramic materials have, however, not been included in the present article. Their study together with that of architecture, stratigraphy and related materials will be subject of a forthcoming publication.

2 See Neff 1992, 143. The problem concerning the equal applicability of evolutionary processes to organisms and artefacts has already been extensively considered; see Lyman and O’Brien (2006, 699 and references within). Nevertheless, the underlying problem seems still unresolved _ many articles criticize the application of a Darwinian approach to archaeological questions (Boone and Smith 1998; Gabora 2006 contra Lyman and O’Brien 2006). The present author is of the opinion that Darwinian concepts such as those highlighted by Lyman and O’Brien (1998, 615–16) can play an important role in explaining archaeological phenomena.

3 The reason for such a change has been looked for in a different field of research: the arrival of new ethnic groups and/or the diffusion of the Amorites have been considered as explanations for the rise of MBA societies (Liverani 2011, 266.). As already observed (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 290; Yoffee 2005, 146–47), the role of the Amorites, thanks to the existence _ and maintenance _ of strong kin relations would be plausible in a society where even long range contacts were common.