Cross-craftsmanship (Archaeology)

In the past, Bronze Age painted plaster in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean has been studied from a range of different but isolated viewpoints. One of the current questions about this material is its direction of transfer. Within this current debate, Aegean prehistorians mainly have suggested a transfer from west to east while Knapp, Sherratt and Woolley suggested that a transfer from east to west is also possible.
The discussion of transfer has been based mainly on iconographic and a few isolated technological studies. Therefore, I aim, first, to investigate the direction of technological transfer and see how it related to the iconographic transfer. Second, I aim to shed light on the forces behind the technological transfer of this painting tradition.
My research has brought both technological and iconographic (and other) approaches closer together: 1) by completing certain gaps in the literature on technology and 2) by investigating how and why technological transfer has developed and what broader impact this had on the wider social dynamics of the late Middle and Late Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean.
I approached the topic of painted plaster by a multidisciplinary methodology. After a thorough macro- and microscopic study, a selection of analytical techniques were employed to a set of carefully selected samples from twelve sites. These combined data provided the mineralogical and chemical characterization of pigments and plaster. Underlying this approach was the attention paid to conservation and preservation issues. This resulted, for instance, in two pilot studies in which the data of two non-destructive techniques were compared to those of the more traditional ones with a view to future sample reduction strategies.
Furthermore, the analytical results were enriched by small-scale experiments conducted in order to reveal more about the technologies involved. Moreover, these experiments provided insights in human aspects of the craft, its labour division and complexity. When human actors and their interactions are placed in the centre of the scene, it demonstrates the human forces through which transfer was enabled and how multiple social identities and the inter-relationships of these actors with each other and their material world were expressed through their craft production and organization.
The investigated data from sixteen sites has been contextualized within a wider framework of Bronze Age interconnections both in time and space because studying painted plaster in the Aegean cannot be considered separate from similar traditions both in Egypt and in the Near East.
This study made clear that it is not possible to deduce a one-way directional transfer of this painting tradition. Furthermore, by integrating both technology and iconography with its hybrid character, a clear „technological style‟ was defined in the al fresco work found on these specific sites. Every aspect of both technology and iconography reinforces each other within this technological style and shows how iconography and technology are inseparable.
Based on my own research, I suggest that the technological transfer most likely moved from west to east. This has important implications in the broader politico-economic and social dynamics of the eastern Mediterranean during the LBA. Since this art/craft was very much elite-owned, it shows how the smaller states in the LBA, such as the regions of the Aegean, were capable of staying within the large trade and exchange
network that comprised the large powers of the East and Egypt. The Minoan, Cycladic and Mycenaean people had their own resources to offer in LBA trade and exchange networks, and gift-giving and these assets were clearly appreciated at several large centres. The painted plaster reflects a very visible presence in the archaeological record and, because it cannot be transported without its artisans, it suggests specific interactions of royal courts in the East with the Aegean peoples. At all of these places in the East, other material remains of Aegean origin were found. These reinforce the notion of contact but it does not necessarily reflect the physical presence of Aegean people on a permanent or temporary basis. Only the painted plaster required at least temporary presence of a small team of painters and plasterers. Exactly this factor forms an argument in support of travelling artisans, who, in turn, shed light onto broader aspects of contact, trade and exchange mechanisms during the late MBA and LBA.

I'm pleased to be able to tell you that the Intra-Cross-Craft Workshop announced late last year will be going ahead! It will form a session at the Third Conference of the Faculty of Archaeology at the University of Warsaw, which will be held in hybrid mode. The schedule is now ready, and registration is now possible here: https://www.archeologia.uw.edu.pl/en/the-3rd-conference-of-the-faculty-of-archaeology-uw-the-past-has-a-future-2-2/

Please click on 'Intra-Cross-Craft Analysis Workshop: Investigating Linkages within Craft Industries' and scroll down the bottom to reach the registration form.

Intra-cross-craft analysis is the application of the cross-craft analysis framework within, rather than between, craft industries. Analysis of cross-craft interaction has enabled a much better understanding of the linkages between different industries and their impact, including shared tools and facilities, motifs and styles, materials, techniques, skills and knowledge, and strategies of procurement and distribution. As many production industries are, in fact, a collection of multiple crafts, intra-cross-craft analysis should be able to generate a much better understanding of production in past societies.

This study centres on the analysis of a group of black glaze vase fragments with overpainted and/or incised decoration produced during the first half of the 2nd century B.C. in the workshop at Jesi-Aesis. This workshop was set-up in about the mid 3rd century B.C. in order to provide for the needs of the colonists who, following the Roman conquest of the ager Gallicus (284/3 B.C.), were settling in the territory. Within the local black glaze ware production, which from the earliest phases presented Etruscan-Latial characteristics, the group of fragments examined here appears as an extraneous presence, bringer of a Hellenistic tradition. It introduced innovative elements, such as some vessel forms and, above all, a particular decorative technique. These new elements, together with the episodic nature of its production, apparently limited to few years or a little longer, suggested the undertaking of an in depth analysis of this ceramic group, with the aim of gaining a more precise understanding of its characteristics and identifying its most likely models of reference. The majority of the fragments under examination were found in two “sealed” contexts close to each other: the fill of a demolished kiln that was not rebuilt (F2/US6) and that of a small cavity (E94/US56). Both contexts were in a sector of the workshop that was active between the late 3rd and about the mid 2nd centuries B.C.
  The decorated fragments belong to just over 60 vases that were discarded, because of firing defects or other accidents, and then put to one side and finally recycled. Almost all the fragments relate to just one form, the bowl without a real foot Morel 2150, borrowed in the West from the Hellenistic East from the late 3rd century B.C. onwards. It seems to have been produced with a range of profiles and proportions with two main types: “type 1”, deep bowl with incised lines half way up the inner wall; “type 2a-b”, shallower bowl, with smooth walls, with or without a groove below the rim on the interior.
  The decoration is positioned on the upper part of the inner wall, but on some fragments, it also extends to the lower part. The main decorative motif (bordered by painted lines and dots) is incised, often with the addition of painted details (leaves, fruit, dots) made using diluted clay coloured white and light red with pink and orange tones.
  The repertory of motifs is quite varied but the ivy tendril, which is the commonest on overpainted Hellenistic ceramics, both in the “Gnathian” style and the “West Slope” style, is predominant. Diversely, other vegetal motifs, particularly the ear of wheat, and other geometric patterns seem to be typical of the “West Slope” ceramics. Moreover, the particular rendering of the vegetal tendril and the constant use of incised technique are typical of the latter style.
The thinness of the walls, the bowl profile and, above all, the typical grooves present on the type 1 bowls have made it possible to identify the most likely typological model on which they were based; bowls, sometimes with summarily rendered decoration, produced in southern Apulia and at Herakleia in Lucania between the late 3rd and the 2nd centuries B.C. The type 2a-b bowls can be generically referred to examples from these regions and others on the eastern coast of the Ionian Sea, types that do not present the toreutic taste that distinguishes type 1. To conclude, the bowls produced in the workshop at Jesi-Aesis appear to re-propose various morphological and decorative models that refer to diverse craft-working traditions, both in the “Gnathian” area and the “West Slope” area.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that such an innovation was due to the initiative of local potters who worked following a traditional repertoire. Rather, it is more likely that the new elements were the work of potters who came from elsewhere, bringing with them the particular knowledge and technical experience that was indispensible for the creation of this type of pottery. It is impossible to judge the ability of the immigrant artisans and the quality of the artefacts they produced from the material documenting this event. However, the typological variety, range of decorative motifs used, and the different way of making the vases suggest not only a certain diversity among the immigrant artisans, but also a difference in professional level both between the latter and between the local assistants and apprentices.
The event documented in the pottery workshop at Aesis belongs to a historical phase (late 3rd-first half of the 2nd century B.C.) that was particularly complex and traumatic for many regions in the Adriatic-Ionian basin. Firstly, the end of the Second Punic War, and then the fall of the Macedonian kingdom, had heavy political, economic, and social repercussions for the populations of south-eastern Italy and north-western Greece. These military events led to a diaspora among which there must have been artisans. They were a privileged category of refugees, as their personal patrimony consisted of particular technical knowledge. It may be presumed that one of their chosen destinations was the northern part of Adriatic Italy, where the consolidation and increase in the colonial presence of Rome offered stability, new opportunities and prospects for the development of one’s own activity.
The episodic nature of this ceramic production, which continued for no more than a few years and was apparently without a market beyond the local one, is of particular interest. This suggests its success was modest. However, we must consider that the population of possible buyers was almost exclusively constituted by old and new central Italian colonists, who, by culture and economic activities leaned towards traditional consumption, and therefore were not very inclined towards using “exotic” vases. Further, considering that it was only from the second half of the 2nd century B.C. onwards that the territory of what is now the Marches region began to accept the various manifestations of Hellenistic culture, thanks to Roman mediation, it could be suggested that not only did our immigrant potters arrive “out of place” but also “out of time” for imposing pottery of Hellenistic taste on a cultural and social context that was not ready to accept and appreciate such a novelty.

This is a call for expressions of interest for a workshop that I am planning to organise in 2022, to explore the application of cross-craft interaction analysis within, rather than only between, craft industries (intra-cross-craft analysis).

Studying past production through cross-craft interaction has enabled a much better understanding of the linkages between different industries and their impact. Such connections may encompass shared tools and facilities, motifs and styles, materials, techniques, skills and knowledge, and strategies of procurement and distribution. Their identification has helped archaeologists to reconstruct previously inaccessible processes in past production, revealing, for example, mechanisms that generated innovation through information exchange or elements of craft organisation.

However, many industries are in fact a collection of multiple crafts, and objects considered the product of one industry are often produced through the skill and labour of more than a single individual, each of whom brings with them specialist knowledge and techniques. ‘Metallurgy’, ‘jewellery manufacture’, ‘textile production’ or ‘carpentry’ are all good examples of umbrella terms that mask the diversity of crafts that were often used side-by-side to create the final product.

Applying the cross-craft analysis framework within industries, an approach I have termed intra-cross-craft analysis, enables these intra-craft interactions to be recognised and investigated. My first application of intra-cross-craft analysis to a type of complex multi-component metal cup was able to demonstrate the existence of overarching strategies regarding material cost and time expenditure, which had been previously undetected. Just as with the standard cross-craft approach, intra-cross-craft analysis should generate a much better understanding of production in past societies.

The workshop would take place as part of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Faculty of Archaeology at the University of Warsaw. This will be held in hybrid mode from 14th–18th March. The exact session format and the possibility of publication will depend upon the level of interest. Therefore, I would like to gather expressions of interest from archaeologists working in any region or any time period, on any form of material culture, who would like to explore the implications of this intra-cross-craft approach in their own field. Please could you send your proposed title and abstract (200 words max) to intra-cc@gmx.com by 16th December. Please do circulate this widely amongst your colleagues and friends.

If you require more information, a paper that expands on this description of intra-cross-craft analysis, as well as detailing two case studies, is currently in press, and a draft can be made available on request to intra-cc@gmx.com.

Itinérances des artisans potiers et pratiques inter-artisanales en Italie centro-méridionale (VIII e-VI e s. av. J.-C.). Tradition, innovation et contacts techno-culturels Itinérances des artisans potiers et pratiques inter-artisanales en Italie centro-méridionale (VIII e-VI e s. av. J.-C.). Tradition, innovation et contacts techno-culturels Colloque international Naples, 17 septembre 2021 Centre Jean Bérard Ce colloque porte sur les contacts et transferts techno-culturels dans les traditions potières de l'Italie centro-méridionale entre les VIII e et VI e s. av. J.-C. L'Italie est un observatoire privilégié permettant d'étudier les mouvements d'artisans grecs vers la Péninsule et les phénomènes d'émulation entre traditions potières grecques, étrusques et italiques. Il s'agira en premier lieu d'analyser et de comprendre les mouvements des artisans potiers. Leur mobilité apparaît à la fois sociale et spatiale, les artisans s'installant sur les lieux où leur technè est recherchée. Ces déplacements favorisent ainsi une transmission des savoir-faire, mais aussi, quelquefois, des phénomènes d'intégration. La mobilité des artisans constitue un fait social qui doit être abordé en tenant compte du rôle des producteurs et de la place des communautés réceptrices. Ce rapport représente une des clés de lecture pour comprendre les changements ou le « conservatisme » des pratiques potières. L'artisan est un agent important du transfert de la nouvelle technologie, certes, mais également de l'acquisition de nouveaux modes de consommation. Néanmoins, la mobilité des artisans ne se superpose pas toujours à la circulation des objets. Il est fondamental d'essayer de les distinguer. Questionner le processus de l'emprunt permet de s'interroger sur les modes de transmission et d'apprentissage des savoir-faire.

Interest in the interconnections between crafting industries has recently grown into an exciting new avenue of investigation into past societies. So far this ‘cross-craft’ approach has mainly concentrated on intersections of technique when working different materials, such as the shared use of pyrotechnologies. Through two case studies, this paper examines whether the principles of cross-craft analysis could also be usefully applied within the context of a single, yet multifaceted, material industry such as metallurgy.

The first case study examines the range of choices made when crafting what is often considered a standard Aegean product: the silver shallow cup with gilded rim and handle. This has implications for our understanding of standardisation and the identification of crafting traditions and workshops. The second case study investigates the wide variety of uses for gold and tin foils in the production of metal and multi-material objects, and whether it is possible to determine how the production and distribution of metal foils was organised.

The exceptional properties of metals mean they can be worked in a wide variety of ways; each technique requires specialised knowledge, equipment, working environment and auxiliary materials. Certain techniques are only available when working a specific metal and the individual characteristics of each metal may call for a particular sequence of processes. As with other cross-craft research, these interlinkages and differences have the potential to shed light on wider aspects of crafting in ancient societies.

This edited volume investigates knowledge networks based on materials and associated technologies in Prehistoric Europe and the Classical Mediterranean. It emphasizes the significance of material objects to the construction, maintenance, and collapse of networks of various forms – which are central to explanations of cultural contact and change. Focusing on the materiality of objects and on the way in which materials are used adds a multidimensional quality to networks. The properties, functions, and styles of different materials are intrinsically linked to the way in which knowledge flows and technologies are transmitted. Transmission of technologies from one craft to another is one of the main drivers of innovation, whilst sharing knowledge is enabled and limited by the extent of associated social networks in place. Archeological research has oftentimes been limited to studying objects made of one particular material in depth, be it lithic materials, ceramics, textiles, glass, met...

[Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meeting, San Diego, 2019] In recent years, scholarship on labor in the Roman world has begun to emphasize collaboration across industries as well as the interactions of craft producers, traders, and consumers in urban environments. Discussion of these issues in the context of rural environments, however, has lagged behind, as scholars often discuss rural activities such as agricultural production, mining, and quarrying in isolation from one another. In this paper, I explore the ways that the exploitation of resources in rural, provincial landscapes of the Roman world encouraged cooperation across industries and served to link urban and rural economic and social networks.

I take as a case study the rural landscapes surrounding Carthago Nova (mod. Cartagena) in the Roman province of Hispania. This corner of southeastern Spain was famously rich in argentiferous galena—mined for silver and lead in antiquity, and it also boasted fertile agricultural land and a multitude of marine resources. These natural resources were exploited by indigenous communities from early on and they drew Phoenician and Carthaginian merchants to trade and eventually settle on the Mediterranean coast over the course of the first millennium B.C.E. When the Romans conquered Carthago Nova in 209 B.C.E., they inherited not only this important port city of Carthaginian foundation but also its surrounding rural territory. Mining intensified across the rural landscape, as silver was extracted for Roman coinage and lead ingots were shipped for use in Roman urban infrastructure across the western Mediterranean.

In this paper, I discuss the archaeological and epigraphic evidence for labor in mining and related industries during the period of intensive exploitation of the region from the second century B.C.E. through the mid-first century C.E. This evidence suggests that a mixed labor force of indigenous communities and new immigrants to the region contributed skills that enabled the industry to be successful under Roman rule. In particular, I discuss aspects of pre-Roman mining practice that were adapted to large-scale Roman mining, as well as the contributions of laborers in other local industries (especially agriculture for food and esparto grass) in the rural landscape that served to feed, clothe, and equip miners with appropriate tools. Finally, I discuss how these activities cemented economic and social ties between the rural landscapes and urban center at Carthago Nova and the wider Roman world.