The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Israel.

• Author: London, Gloria Anne

In a book dealing with the sociology of pottery, one anticipates learning about the organization, institution, and development of that sector of society that produces pottery for use and distribution throughout the society as a whole. This slim and costly volume addresses some of these concerns. The perspective of the pottery industry Wood presents will be acceptable to most biblical archaeologists in that he describes Bronze and Iron Age pottery as made on the outskirts of cities by men who mass-produced wares of a high technological level to serve the needs of a largely urban population. The "technology seems to remain unchanged throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages", and the industry was a sophisticated organization at times under royal jurisdiction, much like other craft production. However, the archaeological remains are sufficiently ambiguous to allow an alternate perspective of the pottery industry, the society, the people, and their material culture, especially since "we lack good examples of urban industry production". The pottery industry may have been a rural activity, not only in times of reduced urbanization, as Wood suggests, but during most periods.

Wood treats the ceramics industry as a stable monolithic entity, yet technological studies of the manufacturing techniques of pottery demonstrate the coexistence of different technologies as well as significant changes throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. Early Bronze II and III Age wares from Tell Yarmuth display diversity of materials and techniques which imply a heterogeneous ceramics industry (London 1988).

If the pottery achieved the high technological level Wood describes, why was so much painted pottery imported? Why are the native wares so thick? If potters ranked among royal craftspeople, why did they have such a low status as Wood suggests? Wood relies on ethnographic data to infer a low status for potters, but is it appropriate to transfer the present day status of traditional potters to their ancient counterparts (McGovern 1989: 4)? If pottery was a sophisticated and highly valued product of royal potters, and "consumers undoubtedly placed a high value on cooking and eating vessels", why are metal kitchen containers mentioned in dowries, but not the ubiquitous clay pots (London, Egoumenidou, and Karageorghis 1989: 18; Roth 1991)? Price lists of clay pots indicate that they were inexpensive containers which were as replaceable as they were breakable. It is archaeologists...