54 RETHINKINGCERAMIC DEGENERATION: AN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN CASE STUDY Steven E. A primary researchconcern of archaeologists is the explanation of social change. Since archaeologists must deal with changeas itis mani- fested in the variability of material culture, itis not surprising that special attention has been givento studies of pottery, one of the most abundant forms of archaeological evidence,and onemost sensitive to tem- poral change. Unfortunately, interpretations of changingpottery reper- toires have usually failed to consider thesocioeconomic factors which also may be responsible for ceramic variation. This has been notably true when trends of change are judged to be Hdegenerative.htA study of ceramic change in the 'IJbaid and Uruk periods ofMesopotamia illustrates how can be correlated with the development of complex societies in the region. An Introduction to the Problem of Degeneration A heterodox approach to the explanation ofspecific Mesopotamian instances of supposed ceramic degenerationis-proposed in this paper for three fundamental reasons. First, traditional approaches all too often do not explain this form of change. At best they describe it and at worst, merely label it. Second, traditional approaches failto view changing material culture in light ofgreater economic frameworks which restrict behavior in all complex societies, includingour own. Third, traditional notions of degenerationare rarely explicitly defined, and tend to focus on examples of declining elegancein painted decoration to the exclusion of other aspects of ceramic change (cf.,Perkins 191+9:75). hDegeneration,hlas presently ill—defined, simply is not productive for the study of social change (cf., Lloyd 1978:45). Further,existing archaeological accounts of degenerationcommonly make the error of dealing with the resultsof change while overlooking the underlying basis of change: altered patterns of human behavior. An economic approach as adopted here,on the other hand, holds that one of the driving forces behind changingmaterial culture is the changing de- mands of society's economic conditions. From this point of view,apparent ceramic degeneration may bemore profitably explained by understanding why it became economically desirableto make less complex, less impressive forms of pottery, Thus, one means of understanding materialdegeneration is by way of the ancient potter's AMesopotamian Case Study ion of prehistoric and early historicsocial change in Mesopotamia most commonly has been derived fromthe character of major pottery sequences. As such, long-term "degenerative" trendshave attracted special archaeological attention and speculation. Such trends characterize Fa1coner 55 much of thepottery sequences through the'Ubaidand Uruk per!ods( ca. 5300-3600 B.C,;3600-3100 followingPorada1965; AdamsandNissen Thesesequences provide a settingin whichwe can review the shortcomingsof traditional descriptive interpretation and the pOSsible advantages ofan economically-based attemptatexplanation, Thisdiscussion will concentrateonthe 'Ubaid-Urukceramic se-a quences fromEridu in southernMesopotamiaandTepe Gawrain northern Mesopotamia. These sites wereselectedforseveralreasons,Use of data fromboth north andsouthmay helpcorrect forany geographical bias whichmight arise with theuseofdatatypicalof onlythe north or the south.Further, the vastamountofdescriptiye dataaval lable requi red, for purposes ofclan ty7that I concent rateonasmall, but hopefullyrepresentative,sample ofsignificant sites Mostimportantly, the Eriduand Gawra sequences have..beenthoroughlydescribedand discussed by authorssuch as Perkin s, Porada,OateS andOates,Lloyd,and Redman in their majortreatmentsofthe and Uruk periods. Finally, Eridu and Gawraprovide clearcont inuousportraits ofthe major tendencies of pottery development whichareusuallyclassifiedas"decadent" or "degeneratlye." Before considering thenature of specific'Ubaid and Uruk pottery ,oneshouldbefamiharwiththe larger chronologicalcontext of this scussion (see di Iable1)e The 'Ubaidand Uruk sequencesare known best from the Soundings doneat the southern Mesopotamiansiteof Eridu (Lloyd and Safar Safar 1950).The earliestIeveisexcava ted at Eridu are clearly 'Ubaid,though they contain decoratedpottery simi— lar to examples from NeolithiCsites(Hassuna, Samarra,Halafsites; see below) found farther forth. Subsequent to the publicationof the Eridu reports by Lloyd and Safar, Joan Oates revised the'Ubaid sequence into 'Ubaid phases I through Lj (Oates 1960; also see Table 2). TheUruk and Jamdat Nasr periodsin southernMesopotam i a In northern and centralMesopotami athe 'Ubaid and Uruk periods are preceded by a series of ceramic assemblages labeled "Hassuna," and "Halaf." The geographicaland chronologicaldIstinctionS among these later Neolithic assemblagesare problematic, butforour pur- poses here we can consider Hassuna to have commencedCa.6000B.C.and Halaf to have ended after5000B.C.(fo11ow!ng Porada1965:139ff,; Oates and Oates 1976:8; 1978;66). Notethat èlear 'Ubaid assemblagesdo not appear at northern Mesbpotamian siteS likeTepe Gawra until through the 'Ubaid period(see Table3).The Gawra excavationsare reported primarily in Spei ser Tobler (1950), 'Ubaid itsappearance innorthernMesopotamia as part of ap vast materiq) cuiture unity extending overthe Mesopotamian al luvfurn,westernIran(Goff 1971; Hamlin 1975;Hole, Elannery and Neely 1969; Hole 1977; LeBretoh 1957)and northern Arabia 1969; al-Masry 1973), It wasthefirstsuch "un in the prehistory ofsouthwes tern * Asiaq 'Ubaidce ramics show striking trendS of change,appear ingmost notablyafterthis unityhad beenachievedin'Ubaid 3, Intheassess— merits ofPerk! P Oates and orada Oates, Lloyd, andRedman fourtrends SeemSignificantatbothEndU and TepeCawra. They includetechnical change, Stanthirdizat ion,simp1 if ication , and large-scale distribution( see Tables 2and3). , . Table 1. Late Prehistoric Mesopotamian Chronologyas Seen at Eridu and Tepe Gawra YEARS B.C.(based SOUTHERNon Porado MESOPOTAMIA 1965: 139ff.;Oates and OatesNORTHERN 1976:8; AND Lloyd CENTRAL 1978:66) 0C'w•'l câ. 2900 CD 3100 EarlyLateJamdat Uruk Uruk Nasr(Eridu stratastratum V—i 1) i) (Gawra stratastrata MiddleLate Gawra Gawra 3600 1Ubaid L1 (Eridu strata VT HVI) (Gawra stratum XiJA—XlI) t) Early Gawra 1400000 'Ubaid 3 (Eridu strata (Gawra stratastrata XVi—xiv) XIX-XVij) 'Ubaid 314 148oo 2 (Eridu strata XIV—XH) (GawraHalaf/'Ubaid) stratum XX, mixed Transitionalid/Ha laf Ca. 60005300 1 (Eridu strata XIX-XV) Halaf/SamaHassuna rra/ a' Falconer 57 Table Southern 'Ubaid Pottery Trends as Seen in the Eridu Sequence (based on Perkins 1949; Oates 1960; and Porada 1965) TECHNICAL CHANGE rUbaid 1:E-ridu strata XIX-XV 1) I and Samarra pottery thought partly contemporary 2) Hassuna "milk jars" and "husking trays" in levels XVII and XV used to confirm this 3) Samarra decorative style shows greatest number of analogies to earliest Eridu pottery; designs so similar that they suggest a common origin (Oates 1960:42) 4) "Maltese square" designon plate floors reminiscent of Halaf 5) motifs "splashed on boldly and carelessly" compared to Halaf 6) fine quality monochrome paintedware is typical 'Ubaid 2: Eridu strata XIV—XII 1) wide bowls similar to late Halaf large plates; they retain some of the complexity of Halaf decoration 2) painting more careless 'Ubaid 4; Eridu strata VH—VI I) on the whole, "there seems to be a coarsening anda degradation of the art of pottery painting" (Perkins 1949:75) 2) at some sites in the south late 'Ubaid pottery painting became "quite careless and uninspired, and even at Eridu the later are less skillfully painted" (Oates 1960:39) 3) Lloyd calls late 'Ubaid vessels "decadent" (1978:45) STANDARD I ZAT ION beginning in 'Ubaid 1:Eridu strata XJX—XV... i) all 'Ubaid 1 forms continue through 'Ubaid 2, two-thirds into stratum XII, some to stratum VIII 2) various simple bowl types persist thoughout all the painted pottery levels 3) simple coarse buff ware occurs throughout the sequence 'Ubaid 4:Eridu strata VIl—VI 1) signs of tournette manufacture (anticipating Uruk period wheelmade pottery) 'Ubaid 4—Uruk: Eridu strata 1) appearance of light-co]ored wheelmade much coarser than 'Ubaid light ware 2) also red and bray wares (usually slipped; sheelmade) manufacture: a) smother kiln for dark fabric (reduction firing) b) use of slip as sole decoration (form of simplification too) Falconer 58 Table2(cont.) 'Ubaid 1:Eridustrata XIX-XV 1)paintedand unpainted coarse ware in additionto monochrome 2) "the decoration in generalis more intricate than the bold and free style generally associated with 'Ubaidpottery"(Oates 1960:36). 3) intricate geometric designs, tendingtoward rectilinear patterns 2: Eridu strata XIV-Xll 1)patternsoften clustered close together, creatingdark zones on light buff fabric 'Ubaid 3; Eridu strata Xf—VIU 1)decorationsimpler, less "busy" 2) simple, often bold curvilineardesigns 3) frequent use of negativespace (integration of unpainted back- ground into painted motifs;empty space is no longer dead space) 4) "lovely offering, bowlsof temples IX-VIHfarsurpass anything in the earlier levels for complexityand fineness of design and execution' (Oates 1960;36) 'Ubaid 4: Eridu strata Vil—VI 1) designs are bold and sweeping 2) use of slips isuncommon 3)large numbers of unpainted bowls fromburials LARGE—SCALE by 'Ubaid 3: Eridu strata Xl-VHI 1)rapid production "assured [pottery'sJ widespread north of Hesopotamia to Syria and iran" (Porada 1965:150) 2) extensive north-south Mesopotamiantrade links (e.g., between Eridu