# BEYOND CERAMIC PRODUCT. Large-Scale Pottery Production and the Construction of Labour Networks in Mesopotamia (4th–3rd Millennium BCE)

Claire Padovani

► To cite this version:

Claire Padovani. BEYOND CERAMIC PRODUCT. Large-Scale Pottery Production and the Construction of Labour Networks in Mesopotamia (4th–3rd Millennium BCE). Paléorient, 2025, 51, pp.99-118. 10.4000/15apm. hal-05417321

HAL Id: hal-05417321

https://hal.science/hal-05417321v1

Submitted on 2 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Paléorient

REVUE PLURIDISCIPLINAIRE DE PRÉHISTOIRE ET PROTOHISTOIRE
DE L'ASIE DU SUD-OUEST ET DE L'ASIE CENTRALE

MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF PREHISTORY AND
PROTOHISTORY OF SOUTHWESTERN AND CENTRAL ASIA

2025

51

Dossier thématique/Thematic Issue

Coordonné par/coordinated by P. Fragnoli, F. Balossi Restelli, J. S. Baldi

Sérialiser, standardiser, spécialiser : enquête sur un nexus techno-social à la base de la complexité sociale

Serialising, Standardising, Specialising: Investigating a Techno-Social Nexus Underlying Social Complexity

CNRS ÉDITIONS

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
51 2025

PALÉORIENT

Revue pluridisciplinaire
de préhistoire et protohistoire
de l'Asie du Sud-Ouest
et de l'Asie centrale

Multidisciplinary Journal
of Prehistory and Protohistory
of Southwestern and Central Asia

CNRS ÉDITIONS
15 rue Malebranche - 75005 Paris
PALÉORIENT

Revue pluridisciplinaire
de préhistoire et protohistoire
de l'Asie du Sud-Ouest
et de l'Asie centrale

Multidisciplinary Journal
of Prehistory and Protohistory
of Southwestern and Central Asia

Les manuscrits, les ouvrages pour recensions, la correspondance des auteurs devront être adressés à :

Paléorient – CNRS, USR 3225
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme Mondes (MSHM)
21, allée de l'Université, 92000 Nanterre – FRANCE

Tél.: 33+(0)1 46 69 24 34
Courriel: paleorient@cnrs.fr

Site Internet: www.mshmondes.cnrs.fr/paleorient

Du volume 3 (1975-1977) au volume 6 (1980),
Paléorient a fait l'objet d'un volume annuel.

À partir du volume 7/1, Paléorient est à nouveau
publié en deux numéros annuels qui peuvent être
fournis régulièrement sur commande permanente.

Paléorient volumes 3 (1975-1977) to 6 (1980) have
been published as single annual volumes.

From volume 7/1 (1981) Paléorient is once again
published with two issues per year.

Standing orders can be delivered regularly.

Pour toute information relative à la diffusion de
nos ouvrages, merci de bien vouloir contacter
notre service lecteurs :

*For any information concerning the distribution of*
*our publications please contact:*

CNRS ÉDITIONS
15, rue Malebranche, 75005 Paris – FRANCE

Téléphone : 01 53 10 27 00
Courriel : cnrseditions@cnrseditions.fr
Site Internet : www.cnrseditions.fr

Revue soutenue par le CNRS-SHS.

En application du Code de la propriété intellectuelle, CNRS ÉDITIONS interdit toute reproduction intégrale ou partielle du présent ouvrage, sous réserve des exceptions légales.

© CNRS ÉDITIONS, Paris, 2025
ISBN: 978-2-271-15960-1 – ISSN: 0513-9345
Dossier thématique/Thematic Issue

coordonné par/coordinated by P. FRAGNOLI, F. BALOSSI RESTELLI, J. S. BALDI

Serialising, Standardising, Specialising: Investigating a Techno-Social Nexus Underlying Social Complexity
Sérialiser, standardiser, spécialiser : enquête sur un nexus techno-social à la base de la complexité sociale

<table><tr><td>P. FRAGNOLI, F. BALOSSI RESTELLI, J. S. BALDI, Editorial Notes</td><td>5-6</td></tr><tr><td>F. BALOSSI RESTELLI, M. B. D'ANNA, P. FRAGNOLI, F. MANUELLI, The Mass Production of Food Serving Bowls from the 4<sup>th</sup> to the 1<sup>st</sup> Millennium BCE at Arslantepe (Türkiye)</td><td>7-26</td></tr><tr><td>C. PALADRE, Craftsmen and Sponsors. Organization of Glyptic Productions in proto-Elamite Iran</td><td>27-44</td></tr><tr><td>M. LUCIANI, Beyond Beauty: Jewelry, Brands and the Creation of Identity in Arabia</td><td>45-64</td></tr><tr><td>L. CARDARELLI, P. FRAGNOLI, M. B. D'ANNA, Quantifying Morphological Standardization through Binary Matrices with an Application to the Ceramic Assemblage of an Early Complex Society</td><td>65-88</td></tr><tr><td>G. DARDENIZ, E. AKALIN, Coloring Urartu: A Local Variety of Egyptian Blue in Anatolia</td><td>89-98</td></tr><tr><td>C. PADOVANI, Beyond Ceramic Product. Large-Scale Pottery Production and the Construction of Labour Networks in Mesopotamia (4<sup>th</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> Millennium BCE)</td><td>99-118</td></tr><tr><td>J. S. BALDI, So Many Bowls... but in Which Sense? On the Redistribution of Rations, Large Amounts of Bowls and Specialisation: Reassessing the Notions of Serial and Mass Production in Proto-Urban Mesopotamia</td><td>119-142</td></tr></table>

Varia

<table><tr><td>S. A. ROSEN, S. ATKINS, U. DAVIDOVICH, Cultic Activities at Mitzpe Shalem, Judean Desert: The Lithic Perspective</td><td>145-168</td></tr><tr><td>C. CASTEL, J. É. BROCHIER, A. AUTHIER, J.-L. BERTRAND-KRAJEWSKI, N. BLOND, B. CHAMEL, E. CIESIELSKI, I. KEUTER, T. KURONUMA, M. MARMARA, G. MOUAMAR, A. ROS, S. SANZ, S. SORIN, W. A. H. AL-GHAFRI, Al-Arid, an Early Bronze Age Site in the Southern Foothills of the Hajar Mountains (Sultanate of Oman). New Results from Two Further Seasons of Excavation in 2022 and 2023</td><td>169-188</td></tr><tr><td>G. CECCONI, P. BETZER, D. VARGA, A. DAVIDESKO, I. MILEVSKI, Spindle Whorls from the Chalcolithic Village of Yavne East</td><td>189-204</td></tr><tr><td>A. AL KASSEM, A. MAIER, J. RICHTER, D. T. BATZ, K. HOPPER, I. M. IBRAHEEM, Preliminary Results of Stratified Late Epipalaeolithic Sites within Looting Pits at Al Teibeh, Southern Syria</td><td>205-220</td></tr><tr><td>S. DERMECH, S. DESROSIERS, E. COQUEUGNIOT, A Study of the Geometric Decoration of the House of Paintings at Dja'de el-Mughara (Syria, Final PPNA, 9<sup>th</sup> Millennium BC)</td><td>221-242</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
# BEYOND CERAMIC PRODUCT

## Large-Scale Pottery Production and the Construction of Labour Networks in Mesopotamia (4th–3rd Millennium BCE)

C. PADOVANI

<footnote>**Abstract.** This paper investigates large-scale pottery production organisation in Mesopotamia during the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE through spatial analysis, providing new evidence on the formation and evolution of labour networks. It examines the interplay between urbanisation and the rise of centralised authority in the upscaling of pottery production. High demand for ceramic products can be addressed through various strategies, such as segmentation or integration of productive labour, visible by the dispersion, concentration or combination of production facilities. While urbanisation appears to have dispersed potters across urban peripheries for practical reasons, the clustering of producers in shared areas was probably favoured by a central authority, and possibly served as a means of shaping territory and asserting control over labour networks and kinship ties. In the 3rd millennium BCE, the potters' strategies for organising production, building on regionally inherited traditions, also contributed to structuring and consolidating these labour networks.</footnote>

<footnote>**Résumé.** Cet article étudie l'organisation de la production céramique à grande échelle en Mésopotamie aux 4e et 3e millénaires av. n.è. à travers une analyse spatiale, apportant de nouveaux éléments sur la formation et l'évolution des réseaux de travail. Il examine l'articulation entre l'urbanisation et l'émergence d'une autorité centralisée dans le processus d'intensification de la production céramique. Une forte demande en produits céramiques peut être satisfaite par le biais de diverses stratégies, telles que la segmentation ou l'intégration du travail de production, visible par la dispersion, la concentration ou la combinaison des moyens de production. Si l'urbanisation semble avoir dispersé les potiers en périphérie des villes pour des raisons pratiques, le regroupement des producteurs dans des espaces communs a probablement été favorisé par une autorité centrale et a possiblement servi de moyen pour façonner un territoire et affirmer un contrôle sur les réseaux de travail et les liens de parenté. Au 3e millénaire av. n. è., les stratégies mises en œuvre par les potiers pour organiser la production, en s'appuyant sur des traditions régionales, ont également contribué à structurer et consolider ces réseaux de travail.</footnote>

<footnote>**Keywords.** pottery workshop, large-scale production, spatial organisation, labour networks, economic archaeology, Chalcolithic, Bronze age, Mesopotamia</footnote>

<footnote>**Mots-clés.** production céramique, production à grande échelle, organisation spatiale, réseaux de travail, archéologie économique, Chalcolithique, âge du Bronze, Mésopotamie</footnote>
## INTRODUCTION: EXPLORING POLITICAL ECONOMY THROUGH POTTERY PRODUCTION PATTERNS

In northern Mesopotamia, during the Late Chalcolithic (thereafter LC), the beginning of large-scale, standardised or mass productions of utilitarian ceramic goods is considered a key indicator of deep social transformations in production and consumption, correlated with the emergence of early state formations and urbanisation processes (Baldi 2012b, 2016; Ur 2014; Pollock 2017; Sconzo 2019; Abu Jayyab and Gibbon 2022). Nevertheless, these production labels are mostly associated with the LC, and pottery production organisation does not appear to follow a linear or uniform trajectory of development throughout the 3rd millennium BCE (Fragnoli and Frangipane 2022), a period nonetheless characterised by ongoing urbanisation and the emergence of more mature forms of state.

In line with the tenets of processual archaeology, which seeks to explain cultural changes and identify universal laws through the use of quantification, models and systems theory (Evans 1978; Stein 1994; Wright 1994), the terms large-scale, standardised and mass productions are often used interchangeably to describe a process of production intensification, from the perspective of the ceramic product:

- Large-scale production can be described as a substantial quantity of stylistically similar products originating from the same place of production (workshop or site). Temporal considerations are crucial as these products have been manufactured within a relatively brief time-frame. However, estimating the intensity of production is challenging, and often relies on an intuition given by the accumulation of various material indicators such as waste deposits, tools, and products (Tosi 1984; Vidale 1990; McMahon 2013) or the use of techniques favouring an efficient and fast manufacture (Fragnoli and Frangipane 2022);

- Standardised production implies a large quantity of morphologically similar products, often associated to “industrial production” or large-scale workshops, as opposed to household production supposed to be less specialised and therefore less standardised, both terms being usually linked (see Fragnoli and Frangipane 2022 for discussion). Specialisation suggests a reduced number of potters—at the scale of the community or the settlement—devoting most of their available time to pottery production (Baldi 2016; Costin 2020).

However, specialised production refers sometimes to the uniformity and simplicity of shapes and decorations which may indicate the speed of the manufacture process (Rice 1981, ed. 1987; Wright 1984; Roux 2003), as well as to the complexity of the work and the skill of the potter involved (Forte 2019);

- Mass production is related to industrial processes, but is usually applied to archaeology to describe the production of a large quantity of depersonalised and standardised products by repetitive gestures (Blackman, Stein and Vandiver 1993). In Southwest Asia, the earliest instances of so called “mass productions” (see Baldi in this volume and Baldi in press for a recent reassessment of the term) are identified from the late 5th millennium BCE, by the presence of Coba Bowls in northern Mesopotamia and, in the second half of the 4th millennium BCE, by the presence of bevelled-rim bowls in Uruk-related sites of southern and northern Mesopotamia (Balossi Restelli 2008; Baldi 2012a; Pollock 2013; Helwing 2014; Lewis 2025). Both types of products were characterised by coarse material, medium-sizes shape, crude manufacturing techniques and absence of decoration. They were found in large quantity at various sites and were supposed to take part in regulated redistribution processes organised by a hierarchical power (Nissen 1970; Johnson ed. 1973; Wright and Johnson 1975; Millard 1988; Baldi 2012a), suggesting also an increasing degree of control over the production process (Pollock 2003; Frangipane 2018).

Mainly owing to the elusive nature of pottery workshop remains, the spatial organisation (i.e. the spatial relationships between production structures) and the integration of pottery workshops within their surrounding environment during periods of production intensification have been poorly investigated. Drawing on ethnographic models, the spatial clustering of potters is frequently seen as evidence for specialisation and standardisation of the production, with all three representing interconnected indicators of a particular stage of socio-economic complexity related to a high intensity of production (Van der Leeuw 1977; Peacock 1982; Tosi 1984). Within this framework of linear evolution, the clustering of potters has been interpreted—rather crudely, more by association of ideas than through detailed analysis of intrinsic mechanisms—as a correlate of urbanisation and the emergence of state-regulated production systems characterised by controlled labour organisation (Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Clark and Parry 1990; Stein 1996).

Paléorient
Production's spatial organisation was also interpreted in light of the ceramic product's intrinsic features. The standardisation of pottery manufacture techniques entails either a reduction in the number of producers—i.e. specialisation (Baldi 2016), or a social transformation leading to the selection of one technique over others, a process that requires the spatial proximity of producers at a given time (diffusion of one technique) or the replacement of producers (Roux 2020). Then, some studies have sought to reconstruct production spatial organisation from compositional, technological and morphological analyses of pottery assemblages (Blackman, Stein and Vandiver 1993; Stein and Blackman 1993; Fragnoli and Frangipane 2022; Fragnoli et al. 2025). High compositional or technological similarity is generally interpreted as evidence of centralised production, whereas greater diversity is taken to indicate more dispersed, independent production units. Such inferences are robust when drawn from a substantial and representative corpus of pottery, or from material securely contextualised in relevant spaces.

Nevertheless, varying degrees of clustering and dispersion are possible. For example, potters may be gathered within the same area of a site while working either in clearly distinct workshops (each workshop using different techniques) or within a large shared facility. These configurations are not random but are usually patterned (Padovani 2024b). They reflect different forms of control and socio-economic organisation that cannot be identified through compositional or technological similarities alone. Consequently, the spatial dimension of production can be used as another piece of evidence for specifying the social relations of large-scale production—in the broad sense of a production that must meet high demand—, and offers insights into the political economy in early state societies (Yoffee 1995; Frangipane 2022), especially in the policies and balances of power that potentially participate in shaping production and labour networks beyond the household level.

Moreover, the extent of control over pottery production cannot be assumed to follow a linear trajectory alongside state formation. The Ur III period, and the numerous administrative accounts detailing economic management and transactions, is considered a clear period of political control of the economy (Garfinkle 2013). In the case of pottery production, it is evident that the Ur III institutions attributed value to labour: each type of vessel—defined by its volume and likely its manufacturing complexity—was associated with a specific number of labour days, for which potters received compensation (Waetzoldt 1971). Nevertheless, while it is plausible that the state monitored the location

and movements of ceramic goods, potters and other workers involved in ceramic production, the production process itself does not appear to have been fully controlled. Rather, it may have been left to the discretion of the artisans, so long as they fulfilled state commissions (Padovani and Zingarello 2025; Pottorf 2025, ed. 2022). Although the Ur III state established a regulated framework aimed at fostering economic activities, it likely built upon pre-existing organisational structures. In Greater Mesopotamia, evidence of labour management and technologies of control—such as roads, extensive networks, accounting tools (e.g. bullae, sealings, writing), and storage facilities—largely predates the Ur III period and can already be observed by the late 5th millennium during the Late Chalcolithic period (Frangipane 2018; Benati 2022).

To explore the forms of production enabling to meet a high demand in ceramic products, the spatial layouts of four production sites in northern Mesopotamia—Tell Musharifa, Tell Karrana 3, Telul eth-Thalathat V and Aliawa—are here compared (fig. 1). Each site is characterised by a concentration of firing structures but belong to different cultural horizons, dating from the early 4th to the late 3rd millennium BCE (fig. 2).

The kiln is a pivotal element of the study. Its presence is usually considered evidence to attest of the locality of the production, but it can also help to estimate the scale of production (Hasaki 2011). The firing regulates the production rhythm since the kiln is always fired when full (Norsker ed. 1987; Rehder ed. 2000; Hasaki ed. 2021). It requires at least one potter or a group of potters (e.g. a potter and assistants) to fire one batch of pottery. The simultaneous use of two separate kilns by a single potter is rare and shared use of firing facilities by different productive groups is more frequently observed (London 2022, 2024). Therefore, a concentration of contemporaneous firing structures in a specific location of the settlement is a reliable archaeological indicator of a large-scale production, whether considered in terms of the extent of production sites, the volume of output, or the clustering of producers, depending on which lines of evidence are emphasized. The focus of this paper is not on classifying workshops by comparing the scale of output or the size of production sites, but rather on examining the spatial organisation of production facilities as a proxy for the underlying social organisation of labour. By analysing similarities and differences in the spatial organisation of the case-study sites, this study aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of producer centralisation and to investigate the construction labour control strategies from a bottom-up perspective.
MIND THE KILNS GAP: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION AREAS

This paper compares four sites varying in size, spanning from the early 4th to the late 3rd millennium BCE. The four sites were selected for their integration in the period of state formation, the concentration of firing structures within a same area and their differences of organisation (table 1).

The method employed proposes to locate the activity areas of the ceramic productive sequence on each site and to identify their relations (superposition, gathering, dispersal). Recent

archaeological work demonstrated it was possible to locate most of the activities, through the presence of structures and material characteristic of these activities (Tosi 1984; Dustermaat ed. 2008; Baldi 2015; Squitieri, Herr and Amicone 2022; Padovani 2023b, 2023c, 2024b). Firing structures can be distinguished from other installations because they are more visible in the field. Production waste, such as overfired ceramic pieces and ashes, indicate areas of discarding. Tools are generally recycled objects, such as recut sherds, pebbles and horns, used as scrapers or polishers. They are indicative of shaping areas when they are not found in a discarded context, associated with waste. The facilities associated with

<table><caption>**Table 1** – Summary of 4th–3rd millennium BCE pottery production sites examined in this paper, showing number of kilns for each stratigraphic level (C. Padovani).</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Surface (ha)</th><th>Workshop excavated surface (m²)</th><th>Workshop operating period</th><th>Level</th><th>Area</th><th>Number of firing structure</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Tell Musharifa (village)</td><td rowspan="3">6</td><td rowspan="3">475</td><td rowspan="3">LC2</td><td>lb</td><td>A</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Ic</td><td>A</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>llc</td><td>A</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Tell Karrana 3 (farm/ economic outpost)</td><td rowspan="2">0.15–0.20</td><td rowspan="2">250</td><td rowspan="2">ETG 1–3</td><td>2</td><td>Central</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>3b–a</td><td>Central</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Telul-eth-Thalathat V (production area)</td><td rowspan="5">0.05</td><td rowspan="5">250</td><td rowspan="5">ETG 4–5</td><td>?</td><td>B–CIII</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Post-2</td><td>DIII</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>DIII</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>CII</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>CII</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Aliawa (production area)</td><td rowspan="3">2.5</td><td rowspan="3">275</td><td rowspan="3">ETG 6–7</td><td>2a</td><td>Op. A</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>2b</td><td>Op. A</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Op. A</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** – Map of Southwest Asia showing the sites mentioned in the paper, with case study sites highlighted in bold (map C. Padovani; background map M. Sauvage, CNRS, USR 3225, Nanterre).</figcaption></figure>
manufacture are varied: brick or stone workstations (benches), basins, half-buried jars, pits, crates, plastered, paved or beaten earth surfaces. They indicate areas where raw materials were prepared or stored, and where work was carried out. It is easier to identify their function when they are associated with specific tools, pieces of raw pottery or raw materials (clay, fuel). Moreover, the spatial articulation and patterning of the production units inside a settlement or in the landscape imply relationships of power and control of the workforce (Erb-Satullo 2022; Frangipane 2022).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** – Chronological framework of the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in Southwest Asia, showing the pottery workshop operating periods of the case-study sites (C. Padovani).</figcaption></figure>

# RESULTS: VARIABILITY IN THE ORGANISATION OF LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION

## TELL MUSHARIFA

Tell Musharifa is located 40 km northwest of Mosul, and stands on a promontory measuring 300 m in length and 200 m in width (6 hectares), situated 500 m northwest of the Baqaq river (Fuji 1987). Two trenches were excavated: Trench A to the northeast (475 m²) and trench B to the southwest (125 m²). Both trenches uncovered three levels of buildings characterised by an homogenous pottery, dating the occupation from the late LC2. In trench B, remnants of a 1-meter-thick wall suggest the presence of a monumental building. Trench A revealed two levels of buildings (fig. 3), along with a concentration of kilns and tools. Musharifa is not an Uruk foundation. The pottery and architecture bear resemblance to levels XI-IX of Tepe Gawra (Fuji 1987) suggesting connections with the Nineveh plain, while the discovery of an uncontextualized eye idol hints at potential connections with the Khabur region.<fnref n="1" />

In level IIc, a large pit, shaded on figure 3, containing 2.4 meters of ash and production waste was situated to the northwest of the site, on the edge of the promontory. The firing structures responsible for generating this waste were probably affiliated with several households. For example, to the southeast of the pit, the single chamber firing structure K9 was adjacent to the western wall of dwelling R13 and certainly used by its inhabitants. In level IIb, K9 was overlaid by the enlargement of the dwelling R13, which involved the successive constructions of R14-11-12-17, and by level IIa, additional structures were erected atop the ash pit, which ceased functioning as a dumping area.

In level Ic, two buildings, separated by a pebble-paved street, were built in the same area. R1-8 was labelled as a “potter’s house” by the excavator, due to the seven single chamber firing structures and the numerous potter’s tools it featured. Nevertheless, the designation of “house” for this tripartite building with two appendixes for firing is questionable. The firing structure K8 and a depression to place a storing jar, occupied the courtyard providing access to the main room. The latter contained, adjacent to its southern wall, a cubicle to

<footnote n="1">1. The chemical characterisation of pottery wares provides compelling evidence supporting the existence of an exchange network between the sites of Brak and Gawra during the LC2 (Rothman and Blackman 2003).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** – Plan of trench A – Tell Musharifa (Fuji 1987, re-elaborated by C. Padovani).</figcaption></figure>

store tools and another circular depression. In the southeastern
courtyard, K3 was constructed slightly earlier than K2, and
both succeeded K1. Room R8 and K4 represent later additions
but belong to the same stratum. The floors of R2, R3, and R5
were laden with a substantial volume of pottery fragments,
whereas the quantity was comparatively lesser in R1 and R4.
Consequently, R2, R3, and R5 likely served as multifunc-
tional areas accommodating various activities of the pottery
operational sequence, as clay storage and shaping, and R1 and
R4 have been interpreted as residential quarters. However, the
small size of these rooms contrasts sharply with the extensive
areas dedicated to pottery production. Moreover, no domestic
installations, such as cooking hearths, have been identified.
Consequently, this so-called "potter's house" should be reclas-
sified as a potters' workshop, concentrating several units of
production. In level Ib, the architectural complex underwent
expansion following the partial collapse of R8, which was
built on the former ash pit. This expansion encompassed the
inclusion of K6 and K7.

The seven single-chamber firing structures of R1-8 dwell-
ing, averaging 2 m diameter, did not operate strictly concur-
rently. They are refurbishment of the same architectural level.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** – Potters tools from Tell Musharifa (Kokushikan Archaeological Mission To Iraq [KAMI], re-elaborated by C. Padovani).</figcaption></figure>

Therefore, the building must have produce pottery during a
relatively long period of time.

The tools, although lacking precise contextualisation,
display abundant diversity (fig. 4). Smoothing tools were
numerous and likely multifunctional, probably used for
shaping pots, refining shapes and burnishing surfaces. These
tools vary in shape and material: 5 goat horns, 1 goat shin,
1 rim shard, 8 flat pebbles (including 3 comma-shaped),
5 round pebbles. In addition, two thin and elongated spatulas
(one crafted from stone, the other from ceramic) were discov-
ered. They could have been employed for the application of
paint.<fnref n="2" /> The stone palette measuring 20 cm in diameter was
possibly used as a grinding tray for pigments.

The tripartite architecture of the R1-8 building, the pottery
and some of the tools (as the horns, ceramic smoothers and
palettes) are similar to Tepe Gawra levels XI-IX (Tobler
1950; Rothman 2002a). In Tepe Gawra level XIA, two build-
ings to the north of the settlement also possess large central
spaces (68 and 76) and two compartmented aisles. Series of
small rooms attached to the aisles, featured several firing
structures, of which at least some were used for pottery
production (respectively in room 64 and 81). Other crafting
activities, such as weaving, were also performed in the aisles.
The architectural plan of Tepe Gawra buildings followed the
same tripartite model observed at Musharifa, and, they were
gathered around the large court 74, forming a unified archi-
tectural complex probably housing several nuclear families
of the same lineage and some of their production activities.
Although Tell Musharifa building is smaller and might not be
used as a dwelling, in both settlements, pottery production is
organised in aisles, gradually added to the original tripartite

<footnote n="2">2. Same tools were found at Kosak Shamali A (Nishiaki 2003) and Tell Songor B (Matsumoto and Yokoyama 1995), and have been proven to be used for painting.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** – Tell Karrana 3, level 3b–a with photo of single-chamber firing structure AF 36 and superposed-chamber kiln AF 125 (Wilhelm and Zaccagnini eds. 1993, re-elaborated by C. Padovani).</figcaption></figure>

plan. Therefore, since Musharifa and Gawra shared the same pottery repertoire, the same architecture and the same spatial organisation of the production, we have grounds to speculate that they also shared the same social organisation and were part of the same network of economic relations. Actually, tell Musharifa might have functioned as one of the components of the production system connected to the large center of Tepe Gawra in the Nineveh plain, of which Sconzo (2019) noticed its incipient linear patterning in the LC1-2 period.

## TELL KARRANA 3

Tell Karrana 3 is situated in the wadi Karrana valley, 2.6 km north of the left bank of the Tigris River, and was excavated prior to the construction of the Mosul Dam in the 1980s. The settlement is concentrated on the upper part of the tell and is interpreted as a farmhouse settlement of 0.15–0.2 hectares, out of which 600 m² have been excavated in total. The perimeter has been eroded by wadis, and a few pottery fragments have been discovered to the east and southwest of the central

area, suggesting that only the central part of the site was occupied (Wilhelm and Zaccagnini eds. 1993). The occupation is continuous from the end of the LC5 (levels 4–3c) to the beginning of the Ninevite 5 period. Levels 3b–a, and especially levels 2 and 1, mainly feature “transitional” Ninevite 5 ceramics. The pottery assemblage is indigenous, with only a few elements associated with the Uruk horizon. Rova dates this transitional pottery to 3000–2900 BCE. Radiocarbon dating of four samples from level 3c and one from level 3b yields dates approximately between 3300 and 2900 BCE (Wilhelm and Zaccagnini eds. 1993).

In Tell Karrana 3 level 3b–a, the reorganisation of the production area is evident with each type of productive activity concentrated in a dedicated part of the site: granaries are gathered in the eastern section of the site, delineated from the pottery production zone by an extensive north-south oriented stonewall. Within the pottery production area, three firing structures averaging 2 meters in diameter were excavated (fig. 5). While the northern one may have been constructed later than the other two, it is plausible that all were operational concurrently. The firing structures are not contiguous but
are separated by brick and stone partition walls, constructed above the vestiges of the granaries from the previous level. For instance, the masonry of kiln AF125 is linked to that of parapet AF89, both of which are associated with a flooring layer 4 to 6 cm thick. It is conceivable that various phases of the operational sequence were clustered around each firing installation. However, no tools or other structures related to the production have been reported in the publication.

The dwelling surface area is very limited compared to that of the production facilities. The presence of these three firing units underscores the importance of the ceramic production activity within the settlement, possibly aimed at manufacturing containers for agricultural exports. In the pottery found on the site, Rova (1993) identified various wares with distinct compositions, as well as a wide variety of morphological features and surface treatments. This diversity suggests the involvement of several potters, each using their own techniques to manufacture fine ceramics with a broad range of decorations, yet a uniform repertoire of shapes.

This farmhouse was certainly part of a network of agro-pastoral outposts identified by Sconzo (2019). She identified 12 sites, including Karrana 3, spaced every 5 km on promontories along the left bank of the Tigris. These sites were paired with sites on the opposite bank and others located further inland.

## TELUL-ETH-THALATHAT V

Telul-eth-Thalathat V is one of a cluster of five tells situated 50 km west of Mosul. It has been an important site of a major communication route connecting the Tigris to the Upper Khabur during the LC1 (Abu Jayyab and Gibbon 2022). The excavated occupation on tell V, is restricted to the first half of the 3rd millennium BCE. The tell measures 20 × 25 m (0.03–0.05 hectares) and was occupied by agricultural and pottery production activities. A granary measuring 20 m long, built on an earthen terrace in the northern section of the tell, dates back to 2600 BCE and occupied half of the surface excavated (Fukai, Horiuchi and Matsutani eds. 1974). Three workshops, identified to the south and northwest of the tell and excavated over an area of 250 m², were constructed subsequent to the abandonment of the granary. Each workshop underwent several refurbishments. Establishing their contemporaneity and temporal succession proved challenging. Nonetheless, they were operational within a condensed timeframe during the ETG4-5 period. The northwestern workshop (CII) predates the north-eastern one (DIII), though their relationship with

the southwestern workshop (B-CIII) remains unclear. The contemporary settlement was located elsewhere, perhaps in the upper strata of Tell III, 200 meters to the west of Tell V (Fukai, Horiuchi and Matsutani eds. 1974).

As in Tell Karrana 3, a distinct area of the site was designated for pottery production, and firing structures were separated. The construction of the northwestern workshop (area CII) was a gradual process of concentration of the activities of the pottery operational sequence (fig. 6). Evidence of the functioning of a single open-hearth, measuring between 1 and 2 meters in diameter, was found. Following its third refurbishment, the low wall W2 was erected to separate the open-hearth to the northeast, from the newly built grey floor of 7 cm thick to the northwest. In level III, a working area with a carefully constructed floor was set up near the open hearth. The workshop was improved in level II with a fourth refurbishment of the open-hearth and the construction of wall W1 above the floor, delimiting room R8. A jar was buried up to the rim, into the floor of level II, to the north of room R8. It was covered by a broken pot base used as a lead. This space, adjacent to R8, likely served for clay ware production and storage, or possibly as a pot stand for shaping and drying large pots. The quantity of pottery sherds in the northeastern corner of room R8, and the ash layer on level II floor, suggest intense production activity. A pot stand sherd, a round scraper, and a heavily worn basalt grinding stone were discovered in this area, above the ash layer. Further east, in area DIII, rooms R28 and R30 also from level II, exhibit wall orientations, lengths, and thicknesses similar to those of Room R8. Therefore, they might have been part of a production area characterised by small room workspaces associated with firing structures.

In Area DIII, three firing structures averaging 2 meters in diameter were built above rooms R28 and R30. Among these, K3 is an open hearth, whereas K1 and K2 are two kilns featuring superposed chambers. Their combustion chambers were dug in the earth, whereas their upper chambers were built with bricks. Additionally, 50 cm southwest of K2, a jar was buried up to the rim.

In area B-CIII, the workshop was established in the circular building R3, exhibiting an inner diameter of 5.5 m, and opening toward the southwest. In its first setting, within R3, the single-chamber firing structure O3, measuring 3.5 meters in diameter, was associated to the buried jars P4, P5, P6, along with a plastered area located against the exterior wall of building R3, near the entrance (fig. 7). Jars P4 and P6 featured pre-firing perforated bottoms, suggesting a potential use for clay filtration. This process likely involved decantation: clayey soil was placed in a non-perforated jar, and water was poured

Paleorient
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6 – Workshop CII at Telul eth-Thalathat V (Fukai, Horiuchi and Matsutani eds. 1974, re-elaborated by C. Padovani).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7 – Workshop B-CIII featuring kiln O3 at Telul eth-Thalathat V (Fukai, Horiuchi and Matsutani eds. 1974, re-elaborated by C. Padovani).</figcaption></figure>
through the pot's rim, causing larger particles to precipitate to the bottom while the finest clay particles remained in suspension. For filtration, the clay-water mixture could then be transferred to the perforated-bottom jars, potentially lined with textile at the bottom. As the water drained, only the finest clay would be retained in the lower portion of the jar. This filtration system would have been compatible with the nearby kilns, as the heat generated during firing would accelerate water evaporation.

Subsequently, the superposed-chamber kiln O2, measuring 2,5 meters in diameter, was built above O3, and was associated to three half-buried jars, P1, P2, P3, each featuring a perforated bottom. Kiln O1 was a reconstruction of O2. The plastered area outside was removed, and a cubicle was added to the south of R3. This cubicle contained a stone pestle, likely a tool used by potters. Therefore, the manufacture of raw pottery shapes possibly occurred within R3's confines.

In the three workshops described above, clay preparation, shaping and firing were probably carried out nearby. In area DI, located 5 meters northwest to the three workshops, a significant accumulation of pottery waste was discovered, suggesting it served as a communal dumping ground used by the workshops. Despite each workshop being configured to optimise productivity by gathering most operational stages and using specialised technologies, such as pre-firing pierced jars for clay filtration in DIII, each workshop operated autonomously, producing pottery at its own rhythm. They operated as spatially enclosed systems, limiting their potential for scale expansion.

## ALIAWA

Aliawa is located in the Erbil Plain, 28 km southwest of the modern city of Erbil. The site encompasses a total area of 30 hectares, including the main tell (2.5 hectares) and several smaller tells surrounding it, ranging from 3 to 5 meters high and occupied mainly during the 2nd millennium BCE (Peyronel and Vacca 2020; Peyronel 2024). Occupancy at the site spans non-continuously from the Halaf period, evidenced by a few collected sherds during survey, to the Islamic period, excavated on top of the tell. The earliest excavated occupation so far dates back to the Early Ninevite 5 period and was unearthed to the south of the tell in 2022. This phase is characterised by a storage area with several burnt grain silos (Peyronel 2024). Subsequently, a large pottery workshop was built above this storage area, on the gentler slope of the tell, and used during the ETG 6-7 period, contemporaneous of the

Akkad empire. The chronological phasing of the workshop is currently provisional, established upon the architectural and pottery sequences, as well as ongoing radiocarbon dating conducted by the MAIPE team. In 2022, this workshop was excavated on 275 m². Clay pits were identified a few meters northeast (ibid.), while an artificial canal passed to the south of the tell, extending southeast towards Kurd Qarbustan, an urban-sized site, whose main tell was occupied from the early 3rd to the 1st millennium BCE (Ur et al. 2013, 2021).

The workshop was situated on the incline of the tell, arranged into series of brick terraces from north-west to south-east: L.179, L.83, L.115 (fig. 8). Undergoing at least three transformations within a brief timeframe, its initial phase was constructed above a thick layer of ash covering the burnt storage area.

Level 3 featured several groups of firing structures, integrated into the heavily burnt brick platform L.115, suggesting the workshop was probably constructed as a cohesive set. However, the presence of diverse and contemporaneous kiln clusters indicates different groups of potters operating in close proximity. The three kilns K.106, K.112 and K.127 were likely connected together, from chamber to chamber. Tools and cubicles were found close to the single-chamber structure K.99. The large brick platform provides a flexible space for shaping and drying multiple batches of pottery in close proximity to the kilns. To the north of the trench, a building with walls exceeding one meter in thickness, contained a basin and a workbench, as well as a meticulously built drain running through several coated rooms. While the building likely functioned as a space for clay preparation and water storage, it remains uncertain whether it was operational concurrently with the firing area. The building underwent significant alteration due to the installation of several firing structures and pits during the Hellenistic/Parthian and Islamic periods (level 1).

Level 2b was built directly above level 3 without layer of abandon between the two levels, but the southern part of level 2b was completely eroded (Forti et al. 2023). Modifications to the workshop layout are observed on the northern part. The orientation of the walls and terraces changed (fig. 8). The concentration of firing structures increased, featuring new kilns averaging 2 m in diameter integrated into rectangular compartments delineated by brick walls (cf. K.79, K.80, K.78, K.45). The newly constructed kilns were functionally interconnected by ducts that conveyed hot gases between them (Padovani 2023a, 2025, ed. 2023). In other words, when one kiln was lit, part of its hot gases travelled to an adjacent connected kiln, preheating the batch already loaded within.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8** – Plan of the production area at Aliawa, at the end of the 2022 excavation season (MAIPE, re-elaborated by C. Padovani).</figcaption></figure>

This system provided an efficient means of optimising thermal energy and implied coordinated labour among multiple potters to manage the firing process (Padovani 2025).

In addition, two large firing structures; K.74 and K.149, of more than 3.5 meters in diameter, were surrounded by brick terraces (respectively L.83 and L.179), provided ample space for loading and unloading pottery. The construction of these large kilns may reflect a need for more frequent firing of large-sized vessels. Level 2a corresponds to the construction of kilns K.159 and K.160, probably subsequent to the accidental burning and collapse of the large kiln K.153. Moreover, high-quality whetstone tools, made of a beautiful black stone and pierced on one side for suspension or wear, have

been found around K.153. These objects suggest a personal attachment and social significance, potentially reflecting hierarchical distinctions among the potters (fig. 9).

While excavations are ongoing, it is evident that the spatial organisation of the area differs from that previously described at sites like Tell Karrana 3 or Telul-eth-Thalathat V, where several workshops, gathering most of the activities of the operational sequence in a continuous spatial area, were arranged in close proximity yet distinctly separated. In contrast, at Aliawa level 2, the pottery manufacturing process was likely reorganised from separated workshops to large functional areas, with a tendency to integrate similar segments of different *chaînes opératoires*, particularly the firing stage.

## RESHAPING LABOUR NETWORKS: FROM LINEAGE-BASED WORKSHOPS TO INTEGRATED WORKFLOWS

At Tell Musharifa, several pottery production units, illustrated by two clusters of kilns, were gathered within a single building dedicated to ceramic manufacture, and spatially separated from residential areas by roads. These workshops were enclosed and roofed, enabling year-round activity, and could be expanded over time, by increasing the number of potters, in response to growing need. This configuration suggests that the workshops were not associated with a single household but were instead shared by several—likely related—households, that pooled their productive forces without fully merging them. This model of organising pottery production—through the aggregation of multiple units in a non-residential structure—is already attested during the LC1 on the outskirt of sites such as Kosak Shamali B (Koizumi and Sudo 2001) and

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 9** – Potters' tools from the Aliawa workshop (MAIPE).</figcaption></figure>
Tell Abr' in the Upper Euphrates (Hammade and Yamazaki eds. 2006), and possibly at Helawa in the Erbil Plain (Peyronel et al. 2019) and Tepe Gawra (Abu Jayyab 2023).

Multiple workshops of this type likely operated within each settlement, suggesting that the coordination of labour was decentralised. It aligns with the perspective that during LC1-LC2, power was not concentrated in a single authority but distributed among multiple, co-existing lineages (Butterlin 2018). Even if one lineage was more important than the others and could manage larger producing groups, all were of similar socio-economic structure, composed of households nested within one another (Schloen ed. 2001; Ur 2014). This enclosed and segmented social configuration did not allow to drive the integration of labour between different production units. Each workshop was likely managed by a distinct lineage and produced primarily for the benefit of that lineage. Moreover, the number of individuals capable of engaging in pottery production was likely limited by both availability and skill within each lineage group. This organisational logic was clearly illustrated, during the LC2, at Tepe Gawra level XIA/B when pottery workshops were part of larger compounds that gathered and controlled several production units of different crafts, or at level XI/XA when pottery workshops were gathered in a central buildings controlled by surrounding dwellings (Tobler 1950; Rothman 2002).

From the LC2 until the end of the LC period, the organisation of pottery production underwent significant changes, from lineage-based workshops to nucleated yet impermanent and loosely structured production areas on the edges of the settlements, as for instance at Tell T2 close to Tell Brak (McMahon 2015). A comparable trajectory may be observed in Area ID at Tell Hamoukar, where an expanding artisanal complex integrated into its surrounding neighbourhood in Phase 3 was progressively reconfigured in Phases 2 and 1 at the end of LC2, becoming an open and less structured working area on the depopulated edges of the site, producing a reduced diversity of pottery shapes (Abu Jayyab 2012; Al-Quntar and Abu Jayyab 2014). Direct evidence for production zones of this period remains limited in northern Mesopotamia. However, a recent study by Fragnoli et al. (2025), based on the petrography and trace elements analyses of a pottery corpus from Tell Brak, suggests that during the LC3, multiple production units—identified by their clay preparation recipe—operated concurrently but were sharing the same two clay sources. This indicates that, although potters may have been concentrated in the peri-urban zone of a site and exploited the same nearby raw materials, they nonetheless operated in independent workshops.

The situation is different in Uruk-related sites of northern and southern Mesopotamia, where producers were gathered in one (or more?) peripheral and long-lasting open-air zone as early as the LC2, both in large settlements and villages<fnref n="3" /> (Padovani ed. 2023). Such nucleation implies, at a minimum, the selection of a specific location, along with the collective management of the workspace. This, in turn, suggests labour relations that extend beyond the household level and might involve higher-level authorities with the capacity to coordinate production activities and to pursue specific economic objectives on behalf of a broader group. This spatial clustering might indicate a more centralised control over production activities at the settlement scale, with the aim of unifying and depersonalising the physical and social spaces according to economic functionality rather than fragmenting them along kin-based lines. However, within these designated production zones, the organisation remained relatively flexible—as indicated by the absence of formal architectural boundaries between production facilities—and allowing the integration of labour among some potters, as for instance the connection of kilns in Girdi Qala during the LC2 (Baldi and Zingarello 2021; Padovani 2025). This integration—and more broadly these productive areas—may still have been structured along kinship ties, as individuals typically associate with members of their own social group (Roux et al. 2017) and as “the ideology of the state [...] did not dissolve the many other, older forms of power in Mesopotamian society” (Yoffee ed. 2009: 214).

Between the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE, a shift in production organisation likely occurred at varying rates across regions. In the Northwestern part of the Greater Mesopotamia, such as at Tell Karrana 3 and Telul-eth-Thalathat V, each production unit, gathering all the activities of the *chaîne opératoire*, was singled out as a workshop, but several workshops were gathered in productive areas, away from dwellings. Each workshop typically included one firing structure, measuring between 1 and 2 meters in diameter. Telul V possibly functioned in relation to a larger settlement located hundreds of meters away, whereas Tell Karrana 3 was part of an extensive network along the Tigris, with producers spatially clustered according to their economic specialisation.

The clustering of the workshops in these extramural locations reflects strategic advantages in terms of access to raw material and the distribution of finished goods—especially

<footnote n="3">3. See for example Girdi Qala – Early/Middle Uruk (Baldi et al. 2016), Tell Rubeideh – Middle Uruk (Killick et al. 1988), Abu Fanduweh – Middle Uruk (Johnson ed. 1973), Abu Chizan – Middle Uruk (Moghaddam 2012), Ur pit F – Middle/Late Uruk (Woolley 1956), Tell el’Uwaili – Late Uruk (Calvet 1991).</footnote>
in the case of Karrana 3. Clay sources were probably located outside the settlements and fuel consisted of agro-pastoral by-products collected from surrounding fields, as well as shrubs, reeds or trees, growing along nearby riverbanks. However, these locations also implied a significant degree of logistical autonomy from the residential area, suggesting that production activities were socially dissociated from household-based support systems, i.e. from non-specialists relatives that would contribute to demanding tasks such as raw material procurement (London 2024). Consequently, the group of potters in each workshop must have cooperated with other groups working close to them to share intensive raw material collection workloads. Even if cooperation occurred for the survival of the group, the workshops remained clearly divided from one another, each using different firing structures (open-hearth, single-chamber firing structure or updraft kiln). The clustering did not promote the transfer of techniques among workshops or lead to an integration of the *chaînes opératoires*, suggesting that the potters were certainly from different social groups (Roux 2020). This model of organisation seems to correspond to an economic interdependence among distinct groups of potters who, although likely no longer producing exclusively for their own lineage, found strategic advantages in spatial clustering. This configuration is attested at Tell Banat (Porter and McClellan 1998) and later at Tell es-Sweyhat (Zettler 1997) and Tell Afis (Felli and Merluzzi 2005), but no examples have yet been identified in the northeastern and southern regions of Greater Mesopotamia.

In Early Dynastic Southern Mesopotamia—where evidence for production areas remains scarce—preliminary findings from large urban centres such as Fara (Hahn et al. 2022) and Lagash (McMahon et al. 2023) indicate that distinct groups of potters, were dispersed across the urban landscape rather than concentrated in a single production zone. They were not organised in distinct workshops but shared firing areas without architectural delimitations and may have carried out clay preparation and shaping in nearby, shared buildings, as possibly evidenced to the north of the main mound of Abu Salabikh (Postgate and Moon 1982).

At the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, at Aliawa and also at Logardan (Padovani and Zingarello 2025), the spatial arrangement of production activities—the architectural proximity of installations and the functional interconnections between kilns—indicate the integration of work between several groups of potters. This integration process differs from the clustering described above: rather than simply mobilising a larger workforce for specific, labour-intensive tasks, potters at Aliawa combined parts of their *chaînes*

opératoires, particularly the firing. Although each production unit manufactured its own pots, the firing system implied an harmonisation of firing schedules across the entire workshop. Such an organisation allowed for optimised fuel consumption, as discussed in detail elsewhere (Padovani 2025), and may also have facilitated operation with a limited workforce (Padovani forthcoming).

Indeed, this model of working relations entails an upscaling of the production (optimisation of the working process and expansion of manufacturing capacity) without necessarily expanding the workforce. In addition, this model puts forward a division of labour, not between the potters and their community, but among the potters themselves, or more broadly the people engaged in pottery production. The integration of work allows to boost production without increasing the workforce, but does not imply equality. Potters’ groups likely varied in size and capacity, creating interdependencies that were asymmetric. Nevertheless, to enhance competitiveness and mitigate the risks inherent to large-scale production (firing accident on large batches, irregular demand) that would have fragilized the whole workshop, each group—large or small—needed the others. Despite the competition between them, their proximity facilitated cooperation in labour-intensive tasks, resulting in a dynamic best characterised as *coopetition*—a combination of cooperation and competition (Brandenburger and Nalebuff eds. 1996).

As such, an internal hierarchy probably emerged, structured around factors such as age, experience, and possibly other social attributes (Padovani and Zingarello 2025). Archaeological evidence supporting this interpretation includes the presence of high-quality potters’ tools in one production unit. Within and between production units, a division of roles was probably occurring, wherein less-experienced or lower-status individuals undertook the more laborious tasks—such as raw material procurement—while more skilled or senior members were responsible for the core of pottery production: clay preparation, vessel manufacture, and firing. It is important to emphasize that this complex process of labour specialisation was organically related to the specificities of pottery production workflow and likely developed from within the workshop, rather than being imposed externally (ibid.). However, large concentrations of potters, such as at Aliawa, likely exerted greater environmental pressures and required reliance on well-established networks of resource supply and product distribution. In these ancient contexts of production, economic resilience may have taken precedence over formalised environmental awareness. Large-size workshops were probably closely
connected to institutions that needed ceramics on a regular basis, guaranteed compensation for the work performed, and created the most stable economic environment for the construction of such facilities.

## CONCLUSION

During the LC, the use of techniques to accelerate production and a process of both physical and social externalisation of producers from their households can be observed. The emergence of such a process presupposes strong and sustained demand for ceramic products. However, the workshops described above did not produce at the same intensity. In terms of output scale, Aliawa can be considered a large-scale production workshop, owing to the firing techniques employed to accelerate the production rhythm. However, in terms of spatial extent of product distribution, Tell Karrana 3—if indeed integrated into a trading network along the Tigris—may also be regarded as a large-scale production workshop, despite its relatively small size. Thus, by setting aside quantitative criteria—which while valuable are highly dependent on the scale of analysis and on archaeologists’ assumptions regarding the definition of “large scale”—and focusing instead on organisational criteria, it becomes clear that high demand for ceramic products could be met through various strategies such as segmentation or integration of labour. These strategies are reflected in the dispersion, concentration or integration of production facilities, shaped not by the types of products produced, but by the underlying social organisation of production. The integration of labour appears to have been driven less by the size of the settlement or the extent of the distribution network, and more by the formation of a central authority capable of coordinating work in shared production area and ensuring the regularity of resource supply and product distribution. In Uruk LC sites, potters started to gather and work together in specific operations of pottery production as early as the LC2, even in relatively small sites; whereas in non-Uruk LC sites, pottery workshops seem to have been located at the settlement peripheries to be closer to raw material and fuel, or relocated for practical reasons, such as changes in the settlement’s layout, yet they remained relatively uncoordinated. Where adopted, the Uruk model left a lasting imprint on the subsequent millennium. In the cities of the 3rd millennium, potters appear to have been dispersed across the urban landscape rather than all clustered in a same area. However, their internal organisation varied according

to regional traditions: segmented workshops in northwestern Mesopotamia and shared production areas with integrated work in southern and northeastern Mesopotamia.

It is important to emphasise that the process of labour integration was neither linear nor synonymous with potters’ alienation or loss of autonomy. By the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, work organisation remained far from the ultra-specialisation typical of industrial-era assembly-line production. The often-assumed depersonalisation or desocialisation associated with modern large-scale production is misleading (Mumford 2019). Throughout the 4th and 3rd millennia, production probably remained embedded in various forms of kinship ties and cooperation or coopetition between these groups, and did not tend toward the isolation of producers as cogs in a machine (Padovani forthcoming).

The very principle of a state involves the development of an authority at the territorial scale (Yoffee 2016). In this sense, the spatial embedding of production areas and the attempt to cluster producers probably became tools for crafting territories and asserting control above labour networks and kinship ties. However, potters also possessed power to act and could develop forms of resistance to state-imposed organisational structures. Even when potters were grouped together, they retained flexibility in organising their work. In other words, state authority might have exercised little control on the means of production, yet it could have acted as one among several possible catalysts for initiating the clustering and favouring the integration of labour among potters. For instance, in the second half of the 3rd millennium, workshops such as that of Logardan (Padovani 2024a), associated with the mature form of state that is Ur III (Padovani and Zingarello 2025), underwent continuous reorganisation, as evidenced by the frequent reconstruction of kilns and the rearrangement of working areas. However, the shaping and firing techniques employed in these workshops were already in use before the Ur III period and continued afterward. This suggests that potters did not follow a standardised model imposed by the state, but adapted rapidly the local production system to changing needs.

To conclude, the externalisation of potters from their household does not necessarily imply the standardisation of production and labour, but might be related to the differentiation of economic roles and the reduction in the number of producers, namely specialisation. Indeed, locating production outside residential areas reduced the involvement of potters’ social networks in ancillary tasks, thereby fostering tighter integration of work among distinct and limited groups of potters, increasing specialisation and amplifying inequalities among them (some focusing on the core tasks of pottery
making, others on supporting activities). Among the different strategies to meet a high demand in ceramic products, the integration of labour, achievable in favourable operational and political conditions, must have enabled to surpass a certain threshold of production intensity, relying only on the available specialists and without expanding the workforce. Moreover, once potters were spatially segregated from residential areas, they probably became closely identified with the most visible aspects of ceramic production—kilns and smoke—reinforcing their association with both their tools and craft in the eyes of community members and administrators observing them from a distance.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Luca Peyronel (University of Milan-La Statale) and Agnese Vacca (University of Milan-La Statale) for allowing me to use the data from Aliawa and for their feedback. I would like to thank the special issue guest editors for accepting this paper and the reviewers for their helpful comments.

CLAIRE PADOVANI
UMR 5133 Archéorient
Lyon - FRANCE
clairepadovani2@gmail.com

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABU JAYYAB K.

2012 A ceramic chronology from Tell Hamoukar's southern extension. In: Marro C. (ed.), *After the Ubaid. Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (4500-3500 BC)*. Papers from The Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent and Beyond. International Workshop held at Fosseuse, 29th June-1st July 2009: 87-127. Istanbul: Institut français d'études anatoliennes-Georges Dumézil.

2023 2022/2023 Mesopotamian Fellowship Report: Preliminary Report on the Tepe Gawra Lower Town Survey, [online] https://www.asor.org/news/2023/06/mesopotamian-fellowship-report-abujayyab.

ABU JAYYAB K. and GIBBON G.

2022 Stability and change in potting communities across Mesopotamia from the Early Ubaid to Late Chalcolithic 1. *Paléorient* 48 (1): 9-40.

AL-QUNTAR S. and ABU JAYYAB K.

2014 The political economy of the Upper Khabur in the Late Chalcolithic 1-2: Ceramic mass-production, standardization and specialization. In: McMahon A. and Crawford H. (eds.), *Preludes to Urbanism: The Late Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia: 89-108*. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

BALDI J. S.

2012a Coba bowls, mass-production and social changes in Post-Ubaid Times. In: Marro C. (ed.), *After the Ubaid. Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (4500-3500 BC)*. Papers from The Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent and Beyond. International Workshop held at Fosseuse, 29th June-1st July 2009: 393-416. Istanbul: Institut français d'études anatoliennes-Georges Dumézil.

2012b

Tell Feres al-Sharqi in the LC1-2 period. Serial production and regionalisation of ceramic traditions: A perspective from a small rural site. In: Marro C. (ed.), *After the Ubaid. Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (4500-3500 BC)*. Papers from The Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent and Beyond. International Workshop held at Fosseuse, 29th June-1st July 2009: 129-162. Istanbul: Institut français d'études anatoliennes-Georges Dumézil.

2016

For an epistemological innovation in the approach to paste technical traditions: Proto-historic North-Mesopotamian Coba bowls as a case study. In: Lozovskaya O., Mazurkevich A. and Dolbunova E. (eds.), *Traditions and Innovations in the Study of Earliest Pottery. Materials of the International Conference, Musée de l'Hermitage, St. Petersburg*: 227-230. Russia: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for the History of the Material Culture, The State Hermitage Museum, Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, UMR 8215 Trajectoires, CNRS-Université Paris 1.

In press

Mass production? For an archaeological critique and a craft-based reassessment of a misused concept for the Late Prehistoric Mesopotamian Bowls. In: De Groot B. and Mentesana R. (eds.), *Mass Production. Proceedings of the EAA Workshop Held in Belfast*. Tournhout: Brepols.

BALDI J. S. (ed.)

2015

Aux portes de la cité. Systèmes, céramiques et organisation sociale en Méopotamie du Nord aux 5e et 4e millénaires. Unpublished PhD. Paris: Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

BALDI J. S., NACCARO H. and RAHOOF K.

2016

Girdi Qala Trench C, stratigraphy and architecture. In: Vallet R. (ed.), *Report on the Second Season of Excavation in Girdi Qala and Logardan*: 47-52. Suleymaniah: Directorate of Antiquities of Suleymaniah.

Paléorient
BALDI J. S. and ZINGARELLO M.

2021 A ceramic tale of three “Oikumenai” from the Qara Dagh Area (Iraqi Kurdistan). In: Lebeau M. (ed.), *Identity, Diversity, & Contact. From the Southern Balkans to Xinjiang, from the Upper Palaeolithic to Alexander*: 219–252. Turnhout: Brepols.

BALOSSI RESTELLI F.

2008 Post-Ubaid occupation on the Upper Euphrates: Late Chalcolithic 1–2 at Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey). In: Kühne H., Czichon R. M. and Kreppner F. J. (eds.), *Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Near East, 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin*, vol. II: *Social and Cultural Transformations: The Archaeology of Transitional Periods and Dark Ages, Excavations Reports*: 21–31. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

BENATI G.

2022 The construction of large-scale networks in Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia: Emergent political institutions and their strategies. In: Domenici D. and Marchetti N. (eds.), *Urbanized Landscapes in Early Syro-Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mesoamerica Papers of a Cross-Cultural Seminar held in Honor of Robert McCormick Adams*: 103–144. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

BLACKMAN M. J., STEIN G. J. and VANDIVER P. B.

1993 The standardization hypothesis and ceramic mass production: Technological, compositional and metric indexes of craft specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. *American Antiquity* 58 (1): 60–80.

BRANDENBURGER A. M. and NALEBUFF B. J. (ed.)

1996 *Co-opetition*. New York: Doubleday.

BRUMFIEL E. M. and EARLE T.

1987 Specialization, exchange and complex society: An introduction. In: Brumfiel E. M and Earle T. (eds.), *Specialization Exchange and Complex Society: 1–10*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BUTTERLIN P.

2018 *Architecture et société au Proche-Orient ancien. Les bâtisseurs de mémoire en Mésopotamie*. Paris: Éditions Picard.

CALVET Y.

1991 Un niveau de la période d'Uruk à tell el'Oueili. In: Huot J.-L. (ed.), 'Oueili: Travaux de 1985. 5e campagne de fouilles de la Mission archéologique française à Larsa-'Oueili : 159-210. Paris: Recherches sur les civilisations.

CLARK J. and PARRY W.

1990 Craft specialization and cultural complexity. *Research in Economic Anthropology* 12: 289–346.

COSTIN C.

2020 What is a workshop? In: Hodgkinson A. K. and Lelek Tvetmarken C. (eds.), *Approaches to Analysis of Production Activity at Archaeological Sites*: 177–197. Oxford: Archaeopress.

DUISTERMAAT K. (ed.)

2008 *The Pots and Potters of Assyria: Technology and Organisation of Production. Ceramic Sequence and Vessel Function at Late Bronze Age Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria*. Turnhout: Brepols.

ERB-SATULLO N. L.

2022 Towards a spatial archaeology of crafting landscapes. *Cambridge Archaeological Journal* 32 (4): 567–583.

EVANS R.

1978 Early craft specialization: An example for the Balkan Chalcolithic. In: Redman C. L, Berman M. J., Curtin E. V., Langhorne W. T., Versaggi N. M. and Wanser J. C. (eds.), *Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating*: 113–129. New York: Academic Press.

FELLI C. and MERLUZZI E.

2005 Area E3: Il quartiere artigianale della fine del III millennio a.C. In: Mazzoni S. et al. (eds.), “Tell Afis (Siria) 2002–2004” [Special number], *Egitto e Vicino Oriente*, 28: 45–52.

FORTE V.

2019 Skilled people or specialists? Knowledge and expertise in Copper Age vessel from Central Italy. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 55: 1–20.

FORTI L., BRANDOLINI F., OSELINI V., PEYRONEL L., PEZZOTTA A., VACCA A. and ZERBONI A.

2023 Geomorphological assessment of the preservation of archaeological Tell Sites. *Nature Scientific Reports*: 1–14.

FRANGOLI P. and FRANGIPANE M.

2022 Centralisation and decentralisation processes and pottery production at Arslantepe (SE Anatolia) during the 4th and early 3rd millennium BCE. *World Archaeology* 53 (1): 1–28.

FRANGOLI P., CROCCO R., STERBA J. H. and BALOSSI RESTELLI F.

2025 Pottery production, early urbanization and the Uruk phenomenon at Tell Brak in Upper Mesopotamia. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences* 17, [online] https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02290-8.

FRANGIPANE M.

2018 Different trajectories in state formation in Greater Mesopotamia: A view from Arslantepe (Turkey). *Journal of Archaeological Research* 26: 3–63.

2022 Archaeological evidence of the political economy in Pre-State and Early State societies in the Near East. Mesopotamia and Anatolia, some remarks and comparisons. In: Frangipane M., Poettinger M. and Schefold B. (eds), *Ancient Economies in Comparative Perspective. Frontiers in Economic History*: 91–110. Cham: Springer.

FUJI H.

1987 Working report on the first season of Japanese archaeological excavation in Saddam Salvage Project (Tell Jigan). In: Demirji M. S. (ed.), *Research on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and Other Researches*: 33–61. Mosul: Dar al-Kutub Organization for Printing and Publishing.

FUKAI S., HORIUCHI K. and MATSUTANI T. (eds.)

1974 *Telul eth-Thalathat. The Excavation of Tell V. The Fourth Season (1965)*, vol. III. Tokyo: The Yamakawa Publishing CO.

GARFINKLE S.

2013 The third dynasty of Ur and the limits of state power in Early Mesopotamia. In: Garfinkle S. and Molina M. (eds.), *From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD, Proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid, 22–24 July: 153–168*. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
HAHN S. E., FASSBINDER E., OTTO A., EINWAG B. and AL-HUSSAINY A. A.

2022 Revisiting Fara: Comparison of merged prospection results of diverse magnetometers with the earliest excavations in Ancient Suruppak from 120 years ago. *Archaeological Prospection* 29 (4): 623–635.

HAMMADE H. and YAMAZAKI Y. (eds.)

2006 *Tell al 'Abr (Syria): Ubaid and Uruk Periods*. Louvain: Peeters Publishers.

HASAKI E.

2011 Crafting spaces: Archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnoarchaeological studies of spatial organization in pottery workshop in Greece and Tunisia. In: Mark L. L. and Lund J. (eds.), *Pottery in the Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond. Acts of the International Colloquium held at the Danish and Canadian Institutes in Athens, June 20–22, 2008: 11–28*. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

HASAKI E. (ed.)

2021 *Potters at Work in Ancient Corinth. Industry, Religion, and the Penteskouphia Pinakes*. Athens: American School of Classical Studies.

HELWING B.

2014 Bevelled rim bowls. In: Lebeau M. (ed.), *Arcane Interregional*, vol. I: *Ceramics*: 31–39. Turnhout: Brepols.

JOHNSON G. A. (ed.)

1973 *Local Exchange and Early State Development in Southwestern Iran*. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology.

KILLICK R. G., WATSON P. J., PAYNE S. and DOWNS D.

1988 Tell Rubeidheh: Stratigraphy, finds, human skeletal remains. In: Killick R. G. (ed.), *Tell Rubeidheh: An Uruk Village in the Jebel Hamrin*. Warminster: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

KOIZUMI T. and SUDO H.

2001 The stratigraphy and architectures of Sector B of Tell Kosak Shamali. In: Nishiaki Y. and Matsutani T. (eds.), *Tell Kosak Shamali*, vol. 1: 115–152. Tokyo: The University Museum.

LEWIS M.

2025 Investigating the firing temperature of Late Chalcolithic ceramics from archaeological sites of the Adhaim-Sirwan Basin, Iraqi Kurdistan using FTIR. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports* 62.

LONDON G.

2022 Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological insights to interpret first-millenium BCE material culture. In: Pfoh E. (ed.), *T&T Clark Handbook of Anthropology and the Hebrew Bible*. London: T&T Clark.

2024 Ethnoarchaeological examination of workspaces for rural producers of market-oriented wares. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports* 53.

MATSUMOTO K. and YOKOYAMA S.

1995 Excavations at Tell Songor B. *Al-Rafidian* 16: 1–274.

MCMAHON A.

2013 Tell Brak. Early Northern Mesopotamian urbanism, economic complexity and social stress, fifth-fourth millennia BC. In: Bonatz D. and Martin L. (eds.), *100 Jahre Archäologische Feldforschungen in Nordost-Syrien. Eine Bilanz: 67–80. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz*.

2015 A new world of work: Economic inequalities in 4th millennium BC Mesopotamia. *Origin* 38 (2): 23–39.

MCMAHON A., PITTMAN H., AL-RAWI Z., ASHBY D., BURGE K., GOODMAN R., HAMMER E. and PIZZIMENTI S.

2023 Dense urbanism and economic multi-centrism at third-millennium BC Lagash. *Antiquity* 96 (393): 596–615.

MILLARD A.

1988 The bevelled-rim bowls: Their purpose and significance. *Iraq* 50: 49–57.

MOGHADDAM A.

2012 *Later Village Period Settlement Development in the Karun River Basin, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Greater Susiana, Iran*. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series, 2347).

MUMFORD L. (ed.)

2019 [1966] *Le Mythe de la machine. Technique et développement humain*. Paris: Éditions de l'Encyclopédie des nuisances.

NISHIAKI Y.

2003 Functional and morphological observations on the Chalcolithic grinding stone from Tell Kosak Shamali. In: Nishiaki Y. and Matsutani T. (eds.), *Tell Kosak Shamali*, vol. II: *Chalcolithic Technology and Subsistence: 121–184*. Tokyo: The University Museum, The University of Tokyo.

NISSEN H.

1970 Grabung in den Quadraten K/L XII in Uruk-Warka. *Baghdader Mitteilunge* 5: 101–191.

NORSKER H. (ed.)

1987 *The Self-Reliant Potter: Refractories and Kilns*. Wiesbaden: F. Vieweg & Sohn.

PADOVANI C.

2023a Kiln technology and potters' agency in the Early Bronze Age: The social construct of Logardan firing areas, Western Qara Dagh. In: Marchetti N., Campeggi M., Cavaliere F., D'orazio C., Giacosa G. and Mariani E. (eds.), *Field Reports. Environmental Archaeology. Hammering the Material Word. Presented at the Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 6th–9th April 2021, Bologna: 475–490*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

2023b Kilns and potters: Measuring pyrotechnology diversity to assess dynamics of firing techniques diffusion within Southwest Asia communities, 6500–4700 BCE. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports* 53.

2024a The hill on fire: Strategies of ceramic production at Logardan during the second half of the third millennium BCE. In: Couturaud B. (ed.), *Early Bronze Age in Iraqi Kurdistan: 313–328*. Beyrouth: Presses de l'IFPO.
2024b La Morphologie des espaces de travail potiers. Un indice de l'organisation sociale du travail dans les sociétés de la fin du Néolithique et du Chalcolithique en Asie du Sud-Ouest (6500-4000 av. n.è.). In: Cheval C., Langlois O., Lauwers M., Palumbi G. and Procopiou H. (eds.), *Acteurs techniques, acteurs sociaux. Des vestiges matériels à l'organisation sociale du travail, de la Préhistoire à nos jours*: 147-157. Nice: CEPAM.

2025 Kiln connections: Pyrotechnological innovations in the ceramic industry of Southwest Asia during the 4th and 3rd millennium BCE. In: Haddow S. D., Mazzucato C., Thuesen I. (eds.), *Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East*: 295-307. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Forthcoming Mégamachines ou artisans du feu? Critique archéologique du «mythe de la machine», à travers l'étude des fours de potiers dans l'industrie céramique protohistorique en Mésopotamie. In: Anderson L., Glasson Deschaumes G., Grimaud E., Guimbretiere N. and Schuh J. (eds.), *Technocritique(s). Nanterre : Presses universitaires de Nanterre*.

PADOVANI C. (ed.)

2023 L'Organisation de la production céramique des premières sociétés urbaines. Analyse technique et sociale des pyrotechnologies et des espaces de travail potiers de l'Asie du Sud-Ouest (4e-3e millénaire av. n.è.). Unpublished PhD. Paris : Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

PADOVANI C. and ZINGARELLO M.

2025 An emerging proto-industrial paradigm: Recent data on the organisation of ceramic production in Ur III Mesopotamia. *Enki & Ptah* 1: 97-118.

PEACOCK D. P. S.

1982 *Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach*. London: Longman.

PEYRONEL L.

2024 The Erbil Plain in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. New data from the excavation and survey at Aliawa (Kurdistan region of Iraq). In: Couturaud B. (ed.), *Early Bronze Age in Iraqi Kurdistan*: 109-122. Beirut: Presses de l'Ifpo.

PEYRONEL L. and VACCA A.

2020 The Italian archaeological project in the Erbil Plain (2013-2017). In: Otto A., Herles M., Kaniuth K., Korn L., Heidenreich A. (eds.), *Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East*, vol. 2: *Field Reports. Islamic Archaeology*: 317-330. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

PEYRONEL L., MINNITI C., MOSCONE D., NAIME Y., OSELINI V., PEREGO R. and VACCA A.

2019 The Italian archaeological expedition in the Erbil Plain, Kurdistan region of Iraq. Preliminary report on the 2016-2018 excavations at Helawa. *Mesopotamia* LIV: 1-104.

POLLOCK S.

2003 Feasts, funerals, and fast food in Early Mesopotamian states. In: Bray T. L. (ed.), *The Archaeology of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires*: 17-38. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

2013 Commensality, public spheres, and Handlungsräume in Ancient Mesopotamia. In: Robb J. E. and Pauketat T. R. (eds.), *Big Histories, Human Lives: Tackling Problems of Scale in Archaeology*: 145-170. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research (SAR) Press.

2017 Working lives in an age of mechanical reproduction: Uruk-Period Mesopotamia. In: Burmeister S. and Bernbeck R. (eds.), *The Interplay of People and Technologies. Archaeological Case Studies on Innovation*: 205-224. Berlin: Topoi.

PORTER A. and McCLELLAN T.

1998 The third millenium settlement complex at Tell Banat: Results of the 1994 excavations: 11-63. Mayence: Philipp von Zabern.

POSTGATE J. N. and MOON J. A.

1982 Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1981. *Iraq* 44 (2): 103-136.

POTTORF A.

2025 N-il2 (“Menials”) as a Serflike Social Stratum during the Ur III Period. *Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History*, 12, 1: 83-113.

POTTORF A. (ed.)

2022 *Social stratification in Southern Mesopotamia during the third dynasty of Ur (ca. 2100-2000 BCE)*. Unpublished PhD. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

REHDER J. E. (ed.)

2000 *Mastery and Uses of Fire in Antiquity*. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

RICE P. M.

1981 Evolution of specialized pottery production: A trial model. *Current Anthropology* 22 (3): 219-240.

RICE P. M. (ed.)

1987 *Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook*. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

ROTHMAN M. S. (ed.)

2002a *Tepe Gawra: The Evolution of a Small Prehistoric Centre in Northern Iraq*. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications.

ROTHMAN M. S. and BLACKMAN M. J.

2003 Late fifth and early fourth millennium exchange systems in Northern Mesopotamia: Chemical characterization of sprig and impressed wares. *Al-Rāfidān* 24: 1-24.

ROUX V.

2003 Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: Quantifying degrees of specialization. *American Antiquity* 68 (4): 768-782.

2020 *Chaîne opératoire*. Technological networks and sociological interpretations. *Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada* 30: 15-34.

ROUX V., BRIL V., CAULIEZ J., GOUJON A. L., LARA C., MANEN C., DE SAULIEU G. and ZANGATO E.

2017 Persisting technological boundaries: Social interactions, cognitive correlations and polarization. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 48: 320-335.

ROVA E.

1993 Pottery. In: Wilhelm G. and Zaccagnini C. (eds.), *Tell Karrana 3, Tell Jikan, Tell Khirbet Salih*: 37-140. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
SCONZO P.

2019 Pots and places in the Late Chalcolithic period. A view from the Eastern Habur region (Kurdistan Region, Iraq). *Paléorient* 45 (2): 137–162.

SQUITIERI A., HERR J.-J. and AMICONE S.

2022 Stone tools, techniques, and spaces for the pottery *chaîne opératoire*. The case of pottery workshop of Gird-I Bazar (c. 1200–800 BC) in the autonomous region of Kurdistan, Iraq. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 67: 1–18.

STEIN G. J.

1994 Economy, ritual and power in “Ubaid Mesopotamia”. In: Stein G. J. and Rothman M. S. (eds.), *Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity: 35–46*. Madison: Prehistory Press.

1996 Producers, patrons, and prestige: Craft specialists and emerging elites in Mesopotamia from 5500–3100 BC. In: Wailes B. (ed.), *Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Childe: 25–38*. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.

STEIN G. J. and BLACKMAN M. J.

1993 The organizational context of specialized craft production in Early Mesopotamian state. *Economic Anthropology* 14: 29–59.

SCHLOEN J. D. (ed.)

2001 *The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East*. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

TOBLER A. J.

1950 *Excavations at Tepe Gawra*, vol. II: *Levels IX-XX*. Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.

TOSI M.

1984 The notion of craft specialization and its representation in the archaeological record of Early State in the Turanian Basin. In: Spriggs M. (ed.), *Marxist Perspective in Archaeology: 22–52*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

UR J.

2014 Households and the emergence of cities in Ancient Mesopotamia. *Cambridge Archaeological Journal* 24 (2): 249–268.

UR J., DE JONG L., GIRAUD J., OSBORNE J. and MACGINNIS J.

2013 Ancient cities and landscapes in the Kurdistan region of Iraq: The Erbil Plain archaeological survey 2012 season. *Iraq* 75: 89–117.

UR J., BABAKR N., PALERMO R., CREAMER P., SOROUSH M., RAMAND S. and NOVÁČEK K.

2021 The Erbil Plain archaeological survey: Preliminary results, 2012–2020. *Iraq* 83: 205–243.

VAN DER LEEUW S. E.

1977 The economics of pottery making. In: Van Beek B. L. (ed.), *Ex horreo: 68–76*. Amsterdam: University Printing Office.

VIDALE M.

1990 Stoneware industry of the indus civilization: An evolutionary dead-end in the history of ceramic technology. In: Kingery W. D. (ed.), *The Changing Role of Ceramics in Society: 231–254*. Westerville: American Ceramic Society.

WAETZOLDT H.

1971 Zwei unveröffentlichte Ur-III-Texte über die Herstellung von Tongefässen, *Die Welt des Orients* 6 (1): 7–41.

WILHELM G. and ZACCAGNINI C. (eds.)

1993 *Tell Karrana 3, Tell Jikan, Tell Khirbet Salih*. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

WOOLLEY L.

1956 *Ur Excavations IV: The Early Periods*. Philadelphia: The Trustees of the British Museum, The Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.

WRIGHT H. T.

1994 Prestate political formations. In: Stein G. J. and Rothman M. S., *Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity: 67–84*. Madison: Prehistory Press (Monographs in World Archaeology, 18).

WRIGHT H. T. and JOHNSON G.

1975 Population, exchange and Early State formation in Souhtwestern Iran. *American Anthropologist* 77: 267–289.

WRIGHT R. P. (ed.)

1984 Technology, style and craft specialization: Sphere of interaction and exchange on the Indo-Iranian borderlands, third millennium BC. Unpublished PhD. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

YOFFEE N.

1995 Political economy in Early Mesopotamian state. *Annual Review of Anthropology* 24: 281–311.

2016 The power of infrastructures: A counternarrative and a speculation. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory* 23 (4): 1053–1065.

YOFFEE N. (ed.)

2009 *Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations*. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

ZETTLER R.

1997 Surface collections and excavations in the Lower Town and Lower Town South. In: Zettler R. (ed.), *Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995 Preliminary Report: 35-72*. Ann Arbor: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of archaeology and anthropology.