Updating the “Ceramic Ring Scraper” Collection from Ancient Mesopotamia: New Discoveries from Asingeran
Ceramic Ring Scrapers (CRS) are among the most distinctive ceramic artefacts of the Late Chalcolithic (LC) and Early Bronze Age (EBA) in Southwest Asia. Widely distributed across a vast area extending from southern Mesopotamia to Elam, they have long been interpreted as specialised tools connected w...
Enregistré dans:
| Udgivet i: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/paleorient, |
|---|---|
| Hovedforfatter: | |
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Sprog: | Anglais |
| Udgivet: |
Paléorient
2026
|
| Fag: | |
| Online adgang: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Summary: | Ceramic Ring Scrapers (CRS) are among the most distinctive ceramic artefacts of the Late Chalcolithic (LC) and Early Bronze Age (EBA) in Southwest Asia. Widely distributed across a vast area extending from southern Mesopotamia to Elam, they have long been interpreted as specialised tools connected with large-scale pottery production and, by extension, with processes of economic centralisation. Yet the assumption that CRS represent a uniform technological tradition has rarely been critically examined. This paper addresses this issue through the study of a group of CRS recovered from the site of Asingeran in Iraqi Kurdistan and a reassessment of the broader archaeological evidence. The analysis indicates that CRS were already in use during the early phases of the LC, predating their traditionally accepted chronology. It also reveals significant variability in their manufacture, archaeological contexts, and patterns of distribution, challenging interpretations that assign a single function and meaning to these artefacts across different regions and periods. Rather than reflecting a uniform technology associated with centralised production systems, CRS are better understood as a flexible class of objects embedded within shared craft traditions that evolved through local adaptations and interregional interaction. Their widespread distribution therefore points not to the diffusion of a single technological package, but to the circulation of practices and technical knowledge within a broadly interconnected cultural landscape. By re-evaluating the chronology and significance of CRS, this study contributes to current debates on craft production, technological transmission, and social interaction in LC Southwest Asia. |
|---|