FF:PAPVA_52 Development of pottery - Course Information

PAPVA_52 Development and Function of Pottery on the Turn from Prehistory to Ancient History in the Near East

Extent and Intensity

0/2/0. 4 credit(s). Type of Completion: k (colloquium).

Teacher(s)

Maria Bianca D Anna (lecturer), Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D. (deputy)

Guaranteed by

prof. PhDr. Zdeněk Měřínský, CSc.
Department of Archaeology and Museology – Faculty of Arts
Contact Person: Mgr. Lucie Valášková
Supplier department: Department of Archaeology and Museology – Faculty of Arts

Timetable

Mon 17. 2. 9:10–12:25 K23, Tue 18. 2. 12:30–15:45 K23, Wed 19. 2. 9:10–12:25 K32, Thu 20. 2. 14:10–17:25 K31, Fri 21. 2. 12:30–15:45 K32, Mon 24. 2. 9:10–12:25 K23

Course Enrolment Limitations

The course is offered to students of any study field.

Course objectives

This two-week seminar focused on pottery production and use during the Early and Late Chalcolithic periods mainly in Greater Mesopotamia, but some case studies concerned also the Levant. The main objective was to investigate how pottery may reflect the social, economic and political organisation within which it was produced and how it acted back and affected people’s social relations.

Syllabus

• During the first week, the regional and chronological framework and the main characters of Early (Ubaid) and Late Chalcolithic societies have been outlined. Though intense relationships among regions of Mesopotamia and beyond are attested from the Neolithic, it is during the 5th mill. that, for the first time, southern and northern Mesopotamia testify a strong homogeneity in material culture. The causes, implication and significance of such similarity have been differently interpreted and recently a certain emphasis has been stressed on the local diversities of the Ubaid communities. By the end of the 5th mill., a strong break is recognisable in all Mesopotamia and structural changes in craft production reflect significant novelties in the economic and social spheres. Regional differences between northern and southern Mesopotamia but also within the better known northern Mesopotamia and southeastern Anatolia can be detected mainly on the basis of different ceramic types distribution. During the 4th millennium BCE the combined presence of architectural monumentality, craft specialization, redistributive practices and complex administrative techniques is interpreted as evidence for the emergence and consolidation of social inequality in the forms of hierarchical institutions. These were presumably able to monopolise and redistribute resources in exchange for skills and labour. Not only in terms of typological affinity or dissimilarity, the Late Chalcolithic pottery assemblages largely testify all these phenomena. During the first week, attention was also granted to various approaches to pottery studies in archaeology. Students were asked to read some literature and present short summaries (10 to 15 minutes) of main topics, as what is pottery? How is pottery made? Ceramic typologies; issues concerning ceramic chronology and cultural interconnections between different sites, regions or groups of people on the basis of pottery similarity or differences; pottery use; ceramic and ethnoarchaeology. During the second week, students prepared presentations of specific case studies. Small groups of two to four students have been asked either to critically synthesise some literature on specific topics or to analyse some ceramic assemblages and their contexts from different perspective. The theoretical and methodological agenda discussed in the first week constituted the basis to work on ceramic assemblages and their technologies; the social contexts of production; intra-site distribution; and ceramic function.

Literature

• Frangipane M., 2002, “Non-Uruk” Developments and Uruk-linked Features on the Northern Borders of Greater Mesopotamia, in Campbell S., Postgate N. (eds.), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking Uruk inthe Near East, Iraq Archaeological Reports 5, British Schoo
• Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of
• Pollock S., 1999, Ancient Mesopotamia. The Eden that Never was, Cambridge: Chapters 1
• Rice P.M., 1987, Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago
• Carter R.A., Philip G., 2010, Decostruncting the Ubaid, in Carter R.A., Philip G. (eds.),
• Rothman M.S. (ed.), 2001, Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors, Santa Fe
• Sinopoli C. 1991, Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York
• Skibo J. M., 1992, Pottery Function. A Use-Alteration Perspective, New York and London
• Akkermans P.M.M.G., Schwartz G.M., 2003, the Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Society (c. 16,000-300 BC), Cambridge: Chapters 5 and 6

Teaching methods

During the first week, frontal lessons were used to provide the students with information about the main topics of the course. This was achieved in 4 (two to three hour) frontal lessons. The students were anyway asked to actively participate with questions and comments. During the second week, a seminar was organised. Students were asked to prepare PPT presentations and a lecture. This part of the course implied that students had to deepen specific topics; summarise key issues; present them to the class; and participate to the teaching process.

Assessment methods

Students were evaluated on the basis of their presence to the classes and their active involvement in the course. Even though the seminar was organised in small groups of students, each participant had to present one part of the assigned topic. The students could rely on my presence at the institute also outside the teaching hours to better prepare their presentations. At the end of the course, students were asked to anonymously fill a form to evaluate both the course and the teaching methods. Presence: 70%

Language of instruction

English

Further comments (probably available only in Czech)

Study Materials
The course is taught once in two years.

• Enrolment Statistics (Spring 2014, recent)
  
• Permalink: https://is.muni.cz/course/phil/spring2014/PAPVA_52