TY - JOUR
T1 - The beginnings of pyrotechnology, part ii
T2 - Production and use of lime and gypsum plaster in the pre-pottery neolithic near east
AU - Kingery, W. David
AU - Vandiver, Pamela B.
AU - Prickett, Martha
N1 - Funding Information:
*Other sites at which architectural plasters have been reported with a clear indication of the nature of the bond material are: Abu Gosh (Balfet 1978); Beisamoun (Balfet 1978); Beidha (Kirkbride 1967, 1968); Bouqras (Akkermans et al., 1983); Far'ah (de Vaux 1961); Kill Tepe (Merpert, Munchaev, and Bader 1976); Laboueh (Balfet et al. 1969a, 1969b); Nahal Oren (Noy, Legge and Higgs 1973); Shaqaret M'siad (Kirkbride 1966a, 1966b); Tell Assouad (Cauvin 1972); Tell Sotto (Merpert, Mun-chaev, and Bader 1976, 1977); Umm Dabaghiyah (Kirkbride 1975); Yarim Tepe (Merpert, Mun-chaev, and Bader 1976); Tepe Guran (Meldgaard, Mortensen, and Thrane 1963). tSamples No. 86-1 and No. 86-2 received from collection of Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, courtesy of O. Bar-Yosef. Sample No. 86-6 received from collection of Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, courtesy of Mr. A. Eitan, Director of Department of Antiquities and Museums. Samples No. 86-17 and 86-18 received from collection of the Ankara Museum, Ankara, Turkey, courtesy of Museum Director, Inci Bayburtluoglu, and Turkish Director of Museums and Antiquity, Nurettin Yardimci. Samples 86-23 and 86-25 received from collection of Musee de I'Homme, Paris, courtesy of H. Balfet. Samples No. 85-7 and 85-6 received from collection of The Institute for Archaeology, London, courtesy of Kathryn Tubb. Sample No. 85-1 received from collection of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, courtesy of T. Cuyler Young. Sample No. 85-10 received from collections of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, courtesy of R. Moorey. Samples No. a/69/l90-210, No. a/81-190-20, and No. a/68-220-230 courtesy of F. Hole.
PY - 1988/1
Y1 - 1988/1
N2 - Characterization techniques of modem materials science have been used to extend a prior study (W. H. Gourdin and W. D. Kingery, “The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian Lime Plaster” Journal of Field Archaeology 2 [1975]: 133-50) ofplaster materials and their processing in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (ca. 7200-6000 B.c.). The “invention” of lime plaster can be traced back to at least the Epi-Paleolithic Geometric Ke-baran (ca. 12,000 b.c.) and its use in architecture to theNatufian (10,300-8500 b.c.). The production of lime and gypsum plasters is described as a multi-step process requiring selection and collection of raw materials, heating of limestone at 800-900°C (gypsum at 150-200°C), slaking the quicklime in water to form the hydroxide, mixing with various additives, applying and shaping as a paste, and often coating with a slip coat and burnishing—a skilled craft activity having some structural similarities to pottery manufacture. Plaster production expanded in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), and the geographic distribution of lime and gypsum plaster indicates interactions and technological interchanges throughout the Near East. Quite different interactive techno-complex areas are defined by lime plaster, gypsum plaster, and whiteware production, perhaps characteristic of the difficulties in applying ideas of “bounded” cultural regions. Rather inadequate comparative site data indicate coeval existence of egalitarian villages and of towns with a greater degree of social and economic complexity. The invention and innovation ofplaster technology and its evolution into an industry is a classic case of the long time interval between initial invention and the subsequent technological innovation coming into general use. Once begun, the industry underwent autocatalytic development and there were further innovations such as mineral aggregate additions; surface slips; burnishing; use for beads, containers, and sculpture; fiber reinforcement; and composite material applications. PPNB sculpture techniques were developed to a level similar to those used today. Geographical distribution, patterns of production and usage, and product development are all supportive of the idea that incipient craft specialization and social complexity were well developed in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In addition, plaster innovations achieved conditions necessary for metal smelting, provided all the necessary technology, and set the stage for the subsequent adoption of pottery as a Neolithic industry. Describing the Neolithic revolution in terms of the “invention” of pottery, plaster, and agriculture is incorrect; it was rather a period of industry establishment based on much earlier inventions.
AB - Characterization techniques of modem materials science have been used to extend a prior study (W. H. Gourdin and W. D. Kingery, “The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian Lime Plaster” Journal of Field Archaeology 2 [1975]: 133-50) ofplaster materials and their processing in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (ca. 7200-6000 B.c.). The “invention” of lime plaster can be traced back to at least the Epi-Paleolithic Geometric Ke-baran (ca. 12,000 b.c.) and its use in architecture to theNatufian (10,300-8500 b.c.). The production of lime and gypsum plasters is described as a multi-step process requiring selection and collection of raw materials, heating of limestone at 800-900°C (gypsum at 150-200°C), slaking the quicklime in water to form the hydroxide, mixing with various additives, applying and shaping as a paste, and often coating with a slip coat and burnishing—a skilled craft activity having some structural similarities to pottery manufacture. Plaster production expanded in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), and the geographic distribution of lime and gypsum plaster indicates interactions and technological interchanges throughout the Near East. Quite different interactive techno-complex areas are defined by lime plaster, gypsum plaster, and whiteware production, perhaps characteristic of the difficulties in applying ideas of “bounded” cultural regions. Rather inadequate comparative site data indicate coeval existence of egalitarian villages and of towns with a greater degree of social and economic complexity. The invention and innovation ofplaster technology and its evolution into an industry is a classic case of the long time interval between initial invention and the subsequent technological innovation coming into general use. Once begun, the industry underwent autocatalytic development and there were further innovations such as mineral aggregate additions; surface slips; burnishing; use for beads, containers, and sculpture; fiber reinforcement; and composite material applications. PPNB sculpture techniques were developed to a level similar to those used today. Geographical distribution, patterns of production and usage, and product development are all supportive of the idea that incipient craft specialization and social complexity were well developed in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In addition, plaster innovations achieved conditions necessary for metal smelting, provided all the necessary technology, and set the stage for the subsequent adoption of pottery as a Neolithic industry. Describing the Neolithic revolution in terms of the “invention” of pottery, plaster, and agriculture is incorrect; it was rather a period of industry establishment based on much earlier inventions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84974966013&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84974966013&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1179/009346988791974501
DO - 10.1179/009346988791974501
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84974966013
SN - 0093-4690
VL - 15
SP - 219
EP - 243
JO - Journal of Field Archaeology
JF - Journal of Field Archaeology
IS - 2
ER -