‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ ‪ ،٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ‪٢٠١٢ ،٣‬ﻡ‬

‫∗‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

‫*‬
‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬

‫ﻤﻠﺨـﺹ‬
‫ﺘﻬﺩﻑ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻀﻭﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻘﺎﻭﻫﺎ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻶﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﺒﺎﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻨﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻤﺘﺩﺍﺨﻠﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻋﻜﺴﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﺤل ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﺒﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺴﻬﻤﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﺒﻘﺩﺭ ﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻜﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻤﻤﺎﺴﺎﻋﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻓﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺒﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﻜﺜﺭ ﺸﻴﻭﻋﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻼﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻨﺸﺭ ﻤﻌﺎﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﺒﺭﺍﻫﻴﻡ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪١٩٧٨‬ﻡ ﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺒﻌﻨﻭﺍﻥ" ‪The Collared-Rim Jar of The Early‬‬
‫‪ Iron Age‬ﺘﻁﺭﻕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻤﻰ ‪Collared Rim Jar‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺅﺭﺨﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻨﻬﺎﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺭﻭﻨﺯﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺎﺨﺭ ﻭﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺩﻱ ﺍﻻﻭل ﻓﻲ ﺠﻨﻭﺒﻲ ﺒﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ‬
‫)‪ .(Ibrahim 1978‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﻰ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻘﻁ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺼﻑ ﺍﻻﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤ ‪‬ﺩ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻨﻤﺎ ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻜﻴﻑ ﻴﺤﺎﻭل ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺒﻁ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ "ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻴﺔ" ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ‪ .‬ﺒﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﺨﺭ‪ ،‬ﺘﻁﺭﻗﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﻤﻬﻡ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ –ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻥ ﺍﻻﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺘﻀﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎل ﺘﺸﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﺘﻬﺩﻑ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺘﻭﻀﻴﺢ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺘﺤﺎﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻁﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻟﺭﻓﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ ) ;‪Ali 2010; Costin 2000; Kramer 1985‬‬
‫‪.( London 2000; Shrotriya 2007‬‬

‫* ﻗﺴﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻤﻌﻬﺩ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺭﺩﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺭﺩﻥ‪ .‬ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﺍﺴﺘﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ ‪٢٠١١/١٢/٧‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﻗﺒﻭﻟﻪ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺭ‬
‫‪٢٠١٢/٥/٢٤‬ﻡ‪.‬‬

‫© ‪ ٢٠١٢‬ﻋﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‪/‬ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﳏﻔﻮﻇﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪- ١٢٤-‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ ‪ ،٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ‪٢٠١٢ ،٣‬ﻡ‬

‫‪ -١‬ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻤﻬ ‪‬ﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ؛ ﻓﺎﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺤﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻭﻅﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺎﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻭﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﺯﻤﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻤﺤﺩﺩﻴﻥ؛ ﻤﻤﺎ ﻴﻌﻜﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺒﻜﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻜﺒﻴﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﻅﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻼﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ ) ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻤﺜل ﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺤﻭﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻻﻟﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ) ‪Tsuneki and Miyake 1996‬‬
‫ﺍﻨﻅﺭ ﻜﺫﻟﻙ ‪ Rice 1999‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻘﻊ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ( ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻭﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺒﻜﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻜﺒﻴﺭﺓ ﺍﻴﻀﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻐﺭﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺩﺍﺭ ﻓﺘﺭﺍﺕ ﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﻁﻭﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻠﻌﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ) ‪Kramer‬‬
‫‪. (1985:78‬‬
‫ﻟﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﻴﺴﺘﺤﻭﺫ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻟﻜﻭﻨﻪ ﻴﻌﻜﺱ ﺒﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺒﺎﺨﺭﻯ‬
‫ﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺴﻠﻭﻜﻴﺔ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻪ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻨﺎﺒﻊ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺒﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻜﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻴﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻫﻲ ﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺎﻋل ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﺸﻜﻠﺕ ﻋﺒﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﺤل ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﺘﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺯﻤﻨﻴﺎ ﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬

‫‪ ١,١‬ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‬

‫ﺘﺒﻠﻭﺭﺕ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺴﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻤﺭﻴﻜﺎ ﻭﺍﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭﻴﺔ – ‪Evolutionary‬‬
‫‪-Theory‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻨﺼﺏ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻟﺩﻯ ﺍﻫل ﺍﻻﺨﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﺎﻨﺏ‬
‫ﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ ﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ ﺤﻭل ﻓﻬﻡ ﻭﺘﺼﻨﻴﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﻁﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﺍﺴﺎﺴﻲ ﺒﺎﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل )‪ Morgan (1877‬ﻭ )‪ Tylor (1871‬ﺘﺭﻜﺯ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻤﻬﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ؛ ﺤﻴﺙ ﻭﻅﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﻻﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﻭﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻪ ﻭﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺴﻠﻡ ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻔﻲ ﻭﺘﻁﻭﺭﻱ ﻟﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻋﺩﺕ ﻋﺎﻤﻼ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻴﺩ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤﻴﺎﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻴﻭﻤﻴﺔ ﻋ ‪‬ﺩ ﻤﺅﺸﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﻭﻤﻥ ﹶﺜ ‪‬ﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺴﺎﺩ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺴﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﺍﺜﺭ ﺍﻴﻀﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ )‪( Petrie 1899‬‬
‫‪ .‬ﺍﻱ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺸﻜل ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺭﺍﻑ ﻀﻤﻨﻲ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪- ١٢٥-‬‬
 ‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

‫‪ ٢,١‬ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ‪-‬ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‬

‫ﻤﻊ ﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺭﻴﻥ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻌﺩ ﺍﻻﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ؛ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺒﻌﺽ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل ﻓﺭﺍﻨﺯ ﺒﻭﺍﺯ‬
‫)‪ (Boas‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺼﻭﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ‪cultural -‬‬
‫‪ .particularism‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﻜﺎﺌﺯ ﺍﻻﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ‬
‫ﻻ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻭﻤﻴﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ – ‪ – cultural context‬ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺒﻌﻴﻨﻪ ﺒﺩ ﹰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﻁﺕ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺠﺎﻨﺏ‪ .‬ﺍﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻻﺨﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﻤﻊ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻤﺴﺘﻤﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﻐﺭﺍﻓﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺸﺎﺭﻱ – ‪ -Diffusionism‬ﻟﻠﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﻤﺭﻜﺯ ﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ ﺘﻔﺘﺭﺽ ﺒﺄﻥ ﻟﻜل ﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻭ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ ﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺒﻬﺎ‪ -culture history-‬ﻭﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻭ ﺒﻤﺭﻜﺯ ﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻨﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺎ ﻴﺴﺎﻋﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻨﻲ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺨﺭﻯ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﺨﺭﻯ )‪ .(Service 1985‬ﻭﺒﻤﺎ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻜﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ ﻋﺜﻭﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻼﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺠل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ – ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻲ‪ -‬ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻨﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻻﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﺄﺭﻴﺦ ﻟﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺩ ﺍﺜﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻔﻴﺔ – ‪classification‬‬
‫‪ .studies‬ﻓﺎﻟﻤﺘﺼﻔﺢ ﻟﻠﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺨﻼل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺭﺓ ﻴﺭﻯ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﺒﺎﻟﻭﺼﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﺔ ﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﺭﺠﻌﻴﺔ ﻻﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻑ ﻟﻠﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺠﻭ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻑ )‪.(Rouse 1960; Sabloff and Smith 1969‬‬

‫‪ ٣,١‬ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬

‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻻﻜﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﺭﺒﻭﻥ ‪ (C14)١٤‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﻟﺤﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﻋﺎﻡ‪١٩٤٩‬ﻡ ﺍﺜﺭ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ؛ ﺇﺫ ﻟﻡ ﻴﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﺍﻻﺴﺎﺴﻲ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺴﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺎﺒﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺤ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﺠل ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﺘﺒﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺩ – ‪-New Archaeologists‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ )‪.(Binford 1965‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻤﻨﻅﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻱ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ ﻴﺭﺘﻜﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺘﻌ ‪‬ﺩ ﻨﺘﺎﺠﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻴﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ ﻭﺍﻨﻬﺎ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻨﺎﺠﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺘﻜﻴﻑ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﻟﻰ‪ .‬ﺍﻥ ﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻤﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺸﻜل ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻜﻜل‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺅﺜﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻅﻡ ﺍﻻﺨﺭﻯ ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻻﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﺜﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﺫﺍ ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺒﺎﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺒﺔ ﺸﻬﺩﺕ ﺘﻭﻅﻴﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺒﺘﺭﻭﻏﺭﺍﻓﻴﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺌﻲ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ‬

‫‪- ١٢٦-‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ ‪ ،٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ‪٢٠١٢ ،٣‬ﻡ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺭﻜﺯﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﺒﺎﻟﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﻟﻰ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﻘﺼﺩ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺼﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺨﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺘﻜﻴﻑ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻨﻊ ﻤﻊ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻭﺍﻨﻴﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل‬
‫ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺯﻴﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ )‪ .(Shepard 1965‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻨﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻻﺠﻨﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺘﻨﺼﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺘﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﺤﺘﻴﺎﺠﺎﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺴﺎﻋﺩﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺒﻭﻅﺎﺌﻑ ﺍﻭ ﻨﺸﺎﻁﺎﺕ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤﻴﺎﺘﻪ‬
‫)‪ .(Arnold 1993; Kolb 1989; Matson 1965‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺸﻜﺎل ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻫﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﺎﺭﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ )ﻤﺜﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻟﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻋﻭﻴﺔ(‪ .‬ﻤﻥ ﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺠﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﻨﻅﺭﻱ ﻴﻌﺘﻤﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﺼﺒﺢ ﻴﻌﺭﻑ ﺒﺎﺴﻡ "ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ" ﺍﻭ "‪ "ceramic ecology‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻬﺩﻑ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻓﻘﻁ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﻭﺼﻑ ﻟﻤﺭﺍﺤل ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﺘﻌﺩﺕ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻟﺘﺸﻤل ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻤﻪ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ ﺍﻴﻀﺎ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺘﺒﺤﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ – ‪ -social organization‬ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺎﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ )‪.(Deetz 1968; Longacre 1968‬‬

‫‪ -٢‬ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺭﻴﻥ ﺍﺜﺭ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻴﺴﻌﻰ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻬﺎ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻡ ﺘﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺒﻌﺽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻑ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻓﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ – ‪ - Analogy‬ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺎﻀﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﺭﻜﺯﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻜﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻔﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻟﻡ‬
‫ﻴﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﺭﺌﻴﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺩ ﺫﺍﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺘﻭﻀﻴﺢ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺒﺩ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺔ ﻫﺫﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻗﺒل ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺜﻴﻥ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﺒﺭﺯﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻋﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺒﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ؛ ﺤﻴﺙ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻜﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﺩﻭﺍﺘﻬﺎ ) ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ(‬
‫) ‪Gould 1974; Kramer 1979; Kleindiesnt and Watson 1956; David and‬‬
‫‪ .(Kramer 2001‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻁﻠﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﺴﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ‪-‬‬
‫‪ .Ethnoarchaeology‬ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﺍﻭﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻑ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻀﺭ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻀﺭ ) ‪Stiles‬‬
‫‪.(1977; Kramer 1979; Binford 1968‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺩ ﺤﻅﻴﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺼﻴﺏ ﺍﻻﻜﺒﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ‬

‫‪- ١٢٧-‬‬
 ‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

‫ﻻﺴﺘﻤﺭﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻟﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﻟﻐﺎﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻀﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺎﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺘﺠﻴﺏ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺭﻭﺤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺨﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﺍﺴﻬﻡ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺒﺭﺍﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﺎﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺤﺠﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺴﺒﺎﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ‪ ،‬ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﺒﺎﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﺒﻴﻨﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺵ ﺤﻭل ﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ‪ Style‬ﻭﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩﻩ ﻭﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺘﻪ )‪ .(Hodder 1979‬ﺍﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻔﻲ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺤﻅﻲ ﺍﻴﻀﺎ ﺒﺎﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺸﻜل ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺼﺎﻨﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﻴﻪ ﻀﻤﻥ ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻤﺎ – ‪ -emic‬ﻭﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺒﻠﻭﺭﺓ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ – ‪ .etic‬ﺍﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺭ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺭﺍﻀﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺎﻨﺕ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺤﺎﻭﻟﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺒﺎﻻﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻜﺜﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺘﻌﻘﻴﺩﺍ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻼﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺸﻜل ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻫﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺼﺭ ﻋﻤﺭ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻥ ﺒﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺒﻴﻨﺕ ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈ ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺸﻜﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺜﻼ ﺍﻟﺯﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻁﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺭﺒﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺔ – ﻭﺍﻻﻨﺘﻘﺎل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴل ﺍﻟﻴﺩﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻻﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻁﻲﺀ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺭﻴﻊ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﻴﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺌﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﺭﺒﻤﺎ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﺍﻨﻭﺍﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺼﺎل ﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻻﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﻟﺘﺤل ﻤﺤل‬
‫ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻭﺍﻤل ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔ ﺘﺒﺭﺯ ﺘﻌﺩﺩ ﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻨﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻤﺯﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻟﺘﻭﻀﻴﺢ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻨﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫)‪.(Arnold III 2000:118; Hegmon 2000:133‬‬
‫ﻤﺠﻤل ﺍﻟﻘﻭل‪ ،‬ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻁﺭﺤﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻨﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺘﻐﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻻﺸﻜﺎل ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻋﺩﻡ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻴﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻘﺎﺅﻫﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻜﻲ ﻟﻼﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻅﻬﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻭﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺘﻭﻀﻌﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪ -٣‬ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﻁﺕ ﻤﻊ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﺃﺜﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﻓﻲ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺴﻌﻰ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﻨﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﻁﺕ ﻤﻊ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺴﺔ‬

‫‪- ١٢٨-‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ ‪ ،٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ‪٢٠١٢ ،٣‬ﻡ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺭﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﺜﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺴﻌﻰ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﺘﻤﺤﻭﺭﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻨﺤﻭ ﺨﺎﺹ ﺤﻭل ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻭ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺠﻬﺎ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ )ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ( ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ -١‬ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻴﻨﺼﺏ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻭﻀﻴﺢ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻬﻤﻴﻴﻥ ﻴﺘﻌﻠﻘﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ؛ ﺃﻭﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺜﺎﻨﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻴﺭﻜﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻡ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﺩﻟﻭﻻﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪-‬ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﺘﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﻅﻤﺔ –‬
‫‪ –systems theory‬ﻴﺭﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﺎ ﺘﻜﻴﻔﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﻟﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﺠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﻤﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺒﻌﻀﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ )‪ .(style‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺘﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﻭﻤﺭﺍﺤل‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﻲ ﻓﻴﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ –ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺏ ﻴﺘﻤﺜل‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﺔ‪ -‬ﻓﻬﻭ ﺍﺜﺭ ﻤﻨﻔﺫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻴﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺒﺎﻟﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻻﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺭﻤﺯﻱ ﻓﻘﻁ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻻﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ‪ - technical choice -‬ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺍﻱ ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺤﺼﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻻﺨﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﻟﻡ ﻴﺤﻅ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﻁﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻀﻐﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺤﺘﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ ﺒﺩ ﹰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻱ ﻟﺩﺍﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻴﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ‬
‫ﻤﻨﻁﻠﻘﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻨﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻴﻔﺼل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﺎﺭﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻨﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻨﺘﺎﺠﺎ ﻜﻠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻁ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ‪ .‬ﺒل ﺍﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺘﻌ ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺎ ﻨﻅﺎﻤﺎ ﻤﻜﻭ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﺒﺸﺭﻱ ﻭﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻜﺒﻴﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻫﻤﺎ ) ‪Dobres 2010; Killick 2004; Lemonnier‬‬
‫‪ .(1986; 1993; Roux 2007‬ﻭﺒﻨﺎ ‪‬ﺀ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﺤﺘﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻴﻌﺘﻤﺩ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻅﻭﺭ ﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻥ ﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻴﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻠﻘﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ – ‪chaines‬‬
‫‪ -opératoires or operation sequences‬ﻭﺍﻥ ﻤﻤﺎﺭﺴﺔ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﺨﻼل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻤﺘﻔﺤل ﻭﻤﺴﺘﻤﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻤﻥ ﹶﺜ ‪‬ﻡ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﻷﻱ ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻪ ﺒﺘﻌﺭﻑ‬
‫ﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻨﻔﺫﺕ ﺨﻼل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ )ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ(‪ .‬ﻤﺴﺘﻨﺩﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻴﺭﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﺎ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎ ﻴﻌﻜﺱ ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﻤﺸﺘﺭﻜﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﺸﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻤﻥ ﹶﺜ ‪‬ﻡ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺘﻌﺭ‪‬ﻑ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺘﻤﻴﺯﻫﺎ ﻋﻥ ﻏﻴﺭﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻤﻤﺎ ﺘﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻻﺸﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻥ ﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺴﺔ ‪ -practice theory -‬ﺍﺜﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺒﻠﻭﺭﺓ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ) ‪.(Dietler and Herbich 1998‬‬

‫‪- ١٢٩-‬‬
 ‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﻓﺈﻥ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺜﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل ‪ Wright‬ﻻ ﻴﺭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﻋﺎﻤﻼ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺨﻼﻟﻪ ﺘﻌﺭ‪‬ﻑ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ – ‪ -social boundaries‬ﻟﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﺘﻨﺘﻘل ﻤﻥ ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﺁﺨﺭ ﻟﺫﺍ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻋﺩﻫﺎ ﻤﺅﺸﺭﺍ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﺘﺭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﺎ ﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺘﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻜﺜﺭ ﺩﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻌﺭ‪‬ﻑ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ )‪.(Wright 1985:22‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻴﺔ ﺤﺎل‪ ،‬ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺒﻴﻨﺕ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻭﻀﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ) ‪Gossalain‬‬
‫‪ ،(2000; Gelbert 2003; Stark et al. 2000‬ﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﺨﻼل ﻤﺭﺍﺤل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﺯﻭﻴﺩﻨﺎ ﺒﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻨﻊ ﻭﻤﻥ ﹶﺜ ‪‬ﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﺎ )‪ .(Ali 2010‬ﻭﻻ ﺒﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺸﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﻤﺼﻁﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﺭﺍﺩﻓﺎ ﻟﻤﺼﻁﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻱ‪ ،ethnic group-‬ﻭﺍﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ ﺒﻪ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﺨﺘﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺵ ﻤﻌﺎ ﻀﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺯ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﻲ ﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻜﺜﺭ ﻤﻥ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﺘﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺒﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ‬
‫ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﺸﺘﺭﻜﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻥ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻤﻴﻴﺯ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻜل ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺤﺴﺏ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ )‪ (Style‬ﻭﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﺎﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﺤﻁ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺠل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﻴﻥ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻻﻭل ﻴﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺄﺭﻴﺦ – ‪- chronology‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻻﺨﺭ ﻓﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺯﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻨﻲ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺭﻴﻥ ﺍﻋﻴﺩ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺒﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺄﺨﺫ‬
‫ﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﺨﺭ ﻴﺭﺘﻜﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﻅﻡ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺤﺘﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ‬
‫)‪ .(Conkey and Hastorf 1990‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ ﻴﺴﺘﻤﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺭﺍﺽ ﺒﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻌﻠﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺒﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﺨﺭ ﺍﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﻤﺘﻌﻠﻡ‬
‫)ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﻜﺘﺴﺒﺎ( ﻴﻨﺘﻘل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻡ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﻟﺏ ﺍﻭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺩﻡ ﺍﻭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﺒﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻭ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺏ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﺒﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺘﺯﻭﺩﻨﺎ ﺒﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ .‬ﻤﺜﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻥ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺯﻭﺍﺝ )‪ .(Deetz 1968; Longacre 1968‬ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻻﺨﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻔﺘﺭﺽ ﺒﺎﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﺎ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎ ﻴﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﺭﺩ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻜﻜل‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻨﻔﺫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ )‪ .(Hodder 1979; 1982; Wobst 1977; Bradley 1984‬ﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻴﺯﻭﺩﻨﺎ ﺒﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻀﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺤﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺜﺒﺎﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﻓﺈﻨﻪ ﻤﺎ ﺯﺍل‬
‫ﻤﺤﻁ ﺠﺩل ﻭﺍﺴﻊ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺜﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﻤﺩﻯ ﺘﻭﻅﻴﻑ ﻨﻤﻁ ﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ‬
‫ﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺘﻤﺎﻴﺯ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺩ ﺍﻻﺨﺭ ﺒﺎﻥ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺘﻨﺘﻘل ﻭﺘﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل‬
‫ل ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻙ ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺒﺎ ﺍﺨﺭﻯ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﺜﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﺨﺭﻯ )‪ .(Gossalain 2000‬ﻤﻥ ﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﺨﺭ ﻟﻌ ّ‬

‫‪- ١٣٠-‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ ‪ ،٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ‪٢٠١٢ ،٣‬ﻡ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﻟﺩﻯ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻤﺜل ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﺭﺩ )ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻤﻬﺎﺭﺓ( ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻭﻏﺭﺍﻓﻲ )‪ .(Ali 2009‬ﻭﺍﻥ ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﻜﺜﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺒﺎﻟﺼﺎﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﻤﻤﺎﺭﺴﺔ ﻨﻤﻁ ﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﻟﺘﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﺤﺘﻴﺎﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﻠﻙ ﻭﺭﻏﺒﺎﺘﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻁ ﻤﻭﻅﻑ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ ﻟﻴﻌﻜﺱ ﺍﻨﺘﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﺜﻨﻲ ﻤﺤﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻤﺎ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﺔ ﻟﺘﻌﻜﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻴﺘﻡ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﻨﻤﻁﺎ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎ ﻋﻥ ﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺨﺭﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻴﻔﺘﺭﺽ ﺒﺎﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ ﻻﺒﺭﺍﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ )‪ (Bradley 1984‬ﻭﺒﻌﻀﻬﻡ ﻗﺩ ﻴﺭﺒﻁ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﻭﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺘﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ )‪ .(Bowser 2000‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺘﻊ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﻴﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺒﺎﻟﺩﻴﻨﺎﻤﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﺫﺍ ﺘﻡ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﺩﻨﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺤﺎﻭل ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﺒﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﻨﻤﻁ‬
‫ﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ ﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻤﺎ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﻤﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺯ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻔﻬﻭﻤﻲ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﻤﻬﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ – ‪ - manufacture‬ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺘﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻨﻊ ﻟﻠﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺒﻤﻌﻨﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺨﺭ ﻴﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺒﺎﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﺍﻤﺎ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ‪ - production-‬ﻓﻴﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﻜﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻲ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼﻟﻪ ) ‪Rice 1996:‬‬
‫‪ .(173‬ﻭﺘﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ – ‪ - specialization‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻲ‬
‫ﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﻴﺴﺎﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺙ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻌﺭ‪‬ﻑ ﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل‬
‫ﻤﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻨﻊ ﻭﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺭﺓ ‪ .standardization -‬ﻓﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ‬
‫ﻴﺴﺎﻋﺩ ﺘﻌﺭ‪‬ﻑ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺴﻴﻁﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ) ‪Costin‬‬
‫‪ .(2000: 382; Roux 2003‬ﻭﻴﻭﻅﻑ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺴﺘﻨﺩﻴﻥ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺒﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺭﺓ ﺘﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﻨﻌﻜﺱ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺸﻜل ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻭﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺤﺠﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺼﺎل ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺎﻓﺔ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺸﻜﻴل ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ) ‪Rice‬‬
‫‪ .(1981:220‬ﺍﻤﺎ ﺍﻻﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﺘﻭﻅﻑ ﻻﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻓﺘﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺭﺸﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺤﺭﻓﻴﻴﻥ – ‪ -workshops‬ﻭﺍﻻﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﻅﻔﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺠل ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻱ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻻ ﻴﺯﻭﺩﻨﺎ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺩﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﺘﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻻﺩﻟﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ)ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻲ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ( ﻤﺠﺎﻻ ﻟﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻴﺭﻯ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺜﻭﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻙ ﻋﺩﺓ ﺍﻨﻭﺍﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺘﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻼﻨﺘﺎﺝ )‪ .(Costin 2000; Rice 1981, 1996‬ﻓﻜل ﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﻴﺨﺘﻠﻑ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺭﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺤﺘﻭﺍﻩ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻓﺭﺍﻴﺱ )‪ (Rice 1981‬ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻨﻭﺍﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪- ١٣١-‬‬
 ‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

‫‪ -١‬ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻻﻭل ﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل ﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺭﻴﺒﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻴﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ "ﺒﺴﻴﻁﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﻤﺘﺎﺡ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻴﻭﺠﺩ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺔ ﺍﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٢‬ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ ﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ .‬ﺒﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻨﻪ ﻴﺘﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﻤﻨﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﻤﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﻭﺍﺨﺭﻯ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻤﺴﺘﻬﻠﻜﺔ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻴﻁﻠﻕ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ "ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﻟﻴﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﺘﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎ ﺒﻔﺨﺫ – ‪ -lineage‬ﻤﻌﻴﻥ ﺩﺍﺨل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ .‬ﻴﻨﻌﻜﺱ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺒﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﻤﺜل ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﻭﺘﻘﻠﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺸﻜﺎل ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻨﻲ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﻴﺭﺓ )ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻟﺸﻜل ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٣‬ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﻴﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻴﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺒﺎﻻﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺘﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻔﺌﺔ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺘﺘﺤﻜﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺠﻤﻊ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﻭﺘﻭﺯﻴﻌﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -٤‬ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻤﺘﺴﻠﺴل ﺍﻭ ﻤﺭﻜﺏ‪ .‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺘﺘﺒﻠﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﻤﻥ ﹶﺜ ‪‬ﻡ ﻓﺎﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺘﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺒﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻻﻨﻭﺍﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺘﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ )‪(Rice 1981: 227‬‬
‫ﺍﻤﺎ ﺍﺫﺍ ﻭﻅﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪-‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻨﻭﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺠﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻤﻴﻴﺯ ﻨﻭﻋﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ؛ ﺃﻭﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘل‪ - independent production system -‬ﻭﺜﺎﻨﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺒﻊ – ‪attached‬‬
‫‪ .(Costin 2000) production system‬ﻤﺎ ﻴﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ ﺤﻴﺙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺘﻜﻤﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻴﺩ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻭ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺘﺴﻴﻁﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺨﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﺍ ﺘﺴﻴﻁﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻭﺘﻭﺯﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺘﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻻﺸﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩﻫﺎ ﻟﻴﺱ ﺒﺎﻻﻤﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻔﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺼﻴﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺴﺒﻴل ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬ﺩﻟﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺼﺎل ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﻻ ﺘﻌ ‪‬ﺩ ﺩﺍﺌﻤﺎ ﻤﺅﺸﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ‬
‫)‪ .(Arnold 1985; 1993; 2000; Neupert 2000: Stark et al. 2000‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻴﺠﺒﺭ ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎ ﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﺤﺩﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻤﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻤﻤﺎ ﺤﺫﺍ ﺒﺎﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺭﺴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻋﻭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻜﺜﺭ ﻤﻥ ﻋﺎﻤل ﻟﻠﻭﺼﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﺜل ﻟﻴﺱ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻓﻲ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻨﻤﺎ‬

‫‪- ١٣٢-‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ ‪ ،٦‬ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ‪٢٠١٢ ،٣‬ﻡ‬

‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﺨﻼل ﺘﺸﻜﻴل ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪ -٤‬ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻴﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻋﻥ ﻏﻴﺭﻩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ؛‬
‫ﻟﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺒﻪ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﻤﻥ ﻋﻤﻕ ﺯﻤﻨﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩﻩ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺴﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﺴﺒﺎﺒﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻤﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻘﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺸﻐﻠﺕ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻴﻥ )‪ .(Binford 1965‬ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭﻴﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻭﻭﻀﻌﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺎﻟﺏ ﺯﻤﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺯﺨﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻻ ﺍﻥ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺱ ﺒﺎﻻﻤﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻬل؛ ﻟﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺘﻪ ﺒﻤﻌﺯل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻜﻜل‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﻌﻭﺍﻤل ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﺘﺅﺩﻱ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﺨﺭﻯ ﻻ ﺘﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ؛ ﻓﺎﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺠﺯﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﻡ ﻭﺍﺜﺭﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻟﻔﻬﻡ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ) ‪Kramer 1985:92-95; Hegmon 2000:133-34 Stark‬‬
‫‪ .(2003:206-208‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﺫﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﺤﻀﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻁﻌﺎﻡ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﺸﻜﺎل ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺌﺹ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﻘﺎل ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻨﻘﻠﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻲ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺨﺼﺎﺌﺼﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺯﻴﺎﺌﻴﺔ )‪ .(Ali 2005; Arnold III 1999; Schiffer and Skibo 1997‬ﺍﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻓﺭﺒﻤﺎ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ )ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺒﻊ( ﻭﺍﺨﺘﻔﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻨﻭﺍﻉ ﻓﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﻁﺕ ﻤﻊ ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ )‪.(Kalentzidou 2000‬‬
‫ﻤﻤﺎ ﺴﺒﻕ‪ ،‬ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻨﺴﺘﻨﺘﺞ ﺒﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ‬
‫ﺍﺴﺘﻤﺭﺍﺭ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻻﺸﻜﺎل ﺍﻭ ﺍﺨﺘﻔﺎﺌﻬﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ ﻴﺘﻭﻀﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﻨﺎﺠﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﻁ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﻋﻭﺍﻤل ﺨﺎﺭﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺘﻜﻴﻑ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻤﻊ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫)‪ .(Loney 2000‬ﻭﺘﺭﻜﺯ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻭﺍﻤل ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻜﻤﺤﺭﻙ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﻴﺭ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﺨﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﺒﻴﻨﺕ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺤﺩﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﺒﺎﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻥ ﻴﺭﺍﻓﻘﻪ ﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﺼﺔ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻟﻼﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻨﺫ ﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻭﻤﻨﻅﻡ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻤﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻌﺭ‪‬ﻑ‬
‫ﺒﻌﺽ ﺴﻠﻭﻜﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺯﺨﺎﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺫﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﻭﻅﻔﺘﺎ ﺒﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻁﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺴﻠﻡ ﺘﻁﻭﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺒﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻻ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻭﺍﺭﻜﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻨﺕ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻙ ﺍﻻﻨﺴﺎﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻴﻨﺘﺞ ﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﺸﺎﺒﻬﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪- ١٣٣-‬‬
 ‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

‫ﻤﻤﺎ ﺤﺩﺍ ﺒﺎﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺜﻴﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺒﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻭﻜﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﺒﺘﻌﺎﺩ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﻘﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺘﺒﺩﺍ ﻤﻥ ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﺠﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺌﻲ ﺜﻡ ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺠل ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻜل ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﺤل ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻭﺍﻤل ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺅﺜﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻤﺘﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺠﻭﺍﻨﺏ ﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺨﺭﻯ ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﻨﻭﻋﺔ‪ .‬ﻤﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﻁﻠﺏ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻼﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻭﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻨﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﻤﺤﺘﻭﺍﻫﺎ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﻻﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻌﺩ ﻤﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﺫﺍ ﺍﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺙ ﺍﻻﺜﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﺎﺕ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﻨﺘﺞ ﻨﻭﻋﺎ ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺍ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺴﺒﻴل ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎل‪ ،‬ﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﺒﻁ ﻤﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﻨﻭﻉ ﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﻀﻤﻥ ﺤﻘﺒﺔ ﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻻ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻻﺜﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺭﺒﻁ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻭﺍﻤل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺠﻴﺔ )ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻬﺠﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ( ﻟﻡ ﻴﻌﺩ ﻋﺎﻤﻼ ﻜﺎﻓﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻭﺼﻭل ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﻭﻀﻴﺢ ﺤﻭل ﺍﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺱ ﻤﻥ ﺫﻟﻙ‪ ،‬ﺍﻥ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻭﺍﻤل ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﻐﻴﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻴﻌﺘﺒﺭ ﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﺍﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﺠﺎﻤﺩﺍ ﻤﺘﻠﻘﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻓﻘﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻨﻤﺎ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺩﻴﻨﺎﻤﻴﻜﻲ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻴﺎ ﻟﻴﻠﺒﻲ ﺤﺎﺠﺎﺕ ﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﻟﻼﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﺠﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﺠﻊ ﺍﻷﺠﻨﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Ali, N. 2005. The Development of Pottery Technology from the Late Sixth to the Fifth‬‬
‫‪Millennium BC in Jordan: An Ethno- and Archaeological Studies. (Abu Hamid as a key‬‬
‫‪site). BAR international series 1422. Oxford: Archaeopress.‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Ali, N. 2009. Ethno-Archaeological Evidence of Stylistic Variation of Small-Scale‬‬
‫‪Pottery Production Societies in Northern Jordan" Jordan Journal for History and‬‬
‫‪Archaeology 3(1): 101-122.‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Ali, N. 2010. Regionalism and Social Landscape as Inferred from an‬‬
‫‪Ethnoarchaeological Study of Pottery Production in Jordan: Archaeological‬‬
‫‪Implications. Journal of Anthropological Research 66:351-373.‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Arnold, D. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge‬‬
‫‪University Press.‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Arnold, D. 1993. Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean community.‬‬
‫‪Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Arnold, D. 2000. Does the standardization of ceramic pastes really mean‬‬
‫‪specialization. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 333-375.‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Arnold III, P. 1999. “Tecomates, residential mobility, and Early Formative occupation in‬‬
‫‪coastal lowland Mesoamerica”, in Pottery and People: a dynamic interaction. Edited by‬‬
‫‪J. Skibo and G. Feinman, Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pp. 157-170.‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪Arnold III, P. 2000. Working without a net: Recent trends in ceramic‬‬

‫‪- ١٣٤-‬‬
‫ﻡ‬٢٠١٢ ،٣ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬،٦ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ‬

Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(2): 105-133.

- Binford, L. 1965. Archaeological systematic and the study of cultural process.
American Antiquity 31: 203-210.
- Binford, L. 1968. Methodological considerations of the archaeological use of
ethnographic data. In Man the Hunter, Lee, R. and DeVore, I. (eds.) Chicago: Aldine,
pp. 268-273.
- Bowser, B. 2000. From pottery to politics: An ethnoarchaeological study of political
factionalism, ethnicity, and domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3): 219-248.
- Costin, C. 2000. The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of ceramic
production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4):377-403.
- Deetz, J. 1968. The Inference of Residence and Descent Rules from Archaeological
Data. In: S., and L. Binford (eds.). New Perspective in Archaeology: 41-48. Chicago:
Aldine.
- Dietler, M., and Herbich, I. 1998. Habitus, techniques, style: An integrated approach
to the social understanding of material culture and boundaries. In The Archaeology of
Social Boundaries, Stark, M. (ed.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, Pp.
232-263.
- Dobres, M.-A., 2010. Archaeologies of technologies. Cambridge Journal of
Economics 34: 103-114.
- Gosselain, O. 2000. Materializing identities: an African perspective. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3): 187-218.
- Gould, R. 1974. Some current problems in ethnoarchaeology. In Ethnoarchaeology,
Donnan, Ch., and Clewlow,C. (eds.), Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp.
29-48.
- Hegmon, M. 2000. Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3): 129-137.
- Hodder, I. 1979. Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning.
American Antiquity 44(3): 446-454.
- Ibrahim, M. 1978. The collared rim jar of the early Iron Age. In Archaeology in the
Levant, Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, Moorey, R., and Parr, P. (eds.). England: Aris and
Philips, pp. 116-126.
- Kalentzidou, O. 2000. Discontinuing traditions: Using historically informed
ethnoarchaeology in the study of Evros ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 7: 165-186.
- Killick, D. 2004. Social constructionist approaches to the study of technology. World
Archaeology 36(4): 571-578.
- Kleindiesnt, M., and Watson, P. 1956. ‘Action Archaeology’: the archaeological
inventory of a living community. Anthropology Tomorrow 5:75-78.
- Kolb, Ch. 1989. Ceramic Ecology in retrospect: A critical review of methodology and

- ١٣٥-
 ‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

results. In: Kolb, Ch. (ed.). Ceramic Ecology, 1988: current research on Ceramic
Materials: BAR international series: 513, 261- 376. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
- Kramer, C. 1979. Introduction. In Ethnoarchaeology: implications of ethnography for
archaeology, Kramer, C. (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1-20.
- Kramer, C. 1985. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology
14:77-102.
- Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: Towards an anthropology of
technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186.
- Loney, H. 2000. Society and technological control: A critical review of models of
technological change in ceramic studies. American Antiquity 65: 646-668.
- Longacre, W. 1968. Some aspects of prehistoric society in east-central Arizona. In: S.
and L. Binford (eds.). New perspectives in archaeology: Chicago: Aldine, 89-102.
- London, G. 2000. Continuity and Change in Cypriot Pottery Production. Near Eastern
Archaeology 63(2): 102-110.
- Matson, F. 1965. Ceramic ecology: An approach to the study of the early cultures of
the Near East. In: Matson, F. (ed.). Ceramics and Man: Chicago: Aldine.
- Morgan, L. 1877. Ancient Society. New York: Holt, 202-217.
- Neupert, M. 2000. Clay of Contention: An ethnoarchaeological study of factionalism
and clay composition. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4): 249-272.
- Petrie, F. 1899. Sequences in Prehistoric remains. The Journal of Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 29 (3/4): 295-301.
- Rice, P. 1981. Evolution of specialized pottery production: A trial model. Current
Anthropology 22: 219-240.
- Rice, P. 1996. Recent ceramic analysis: 2. Composition, production, and theory.
Journal of Archaeological Research 4(3): 165-202.
- Rice, P. 1999. On the origins of pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
6(1): 1-54.
- Rouse, I. 1960. The Classification of Artifact in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25
(3): 313-323.
- Roux, V. 2007. Ethnoarchaeology: A non historical science of reference necessary for
interpreting the past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14(2): 153-178.
- Roux, V. 2003. Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: quantifying
degrees of specialization. American Antiquity 68 (4): 768-782.
- Sabloff, J., and Smith, R. 1969. The importance of both Analytic and Taxonomic
classification in the Type-variety system. American Antiquity 34 (3): 278-285.
- Schiffer, M. and Skibo, J. 1997. The Explanation of artefact variability. American
Antiquity 62: 27-50.
- Shrotriya, A. 2007.Ceramic ethno-archaeology and its application. Anistoriton
Journal, ArtHistory 10 (3): 1-10.

- ١٣٦-
‫ﻡ‬٢٠١٢ ،٣ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬،٦ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﹼﺩ‬

- Stark, M.(ed.) 2003.Current issues in ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of

Archaeological Research 11 (3): 193-242.
- Strak, M., Bishop, R., and Misksa, E. 2000. Ceramic technology and social
boundaries: Cultural practices in Kalinga clay selection and use. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4): 295-331.
- Stiles, D. 1977. Ethnoarchaeology: A Discussion of Methods and Applications. Man.
New Series 12 (1): 87-103.
- Tsuneki, A., and Mizake, Z. 1996. The earliest pottery sequence of the Levant: new
data from Tell el-Kerkh 2, northern Syria. Paleorient 22 (1): 109-123.
- Wobst, H. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In: Cleland, C. (ed.).
Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin:
Anthropological Papers No. 61. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, 317-334.
- Wright, R. 1985. Technology and Style in ancient Ceramics. In Ceramics and
Civilization: Ancient Technology to Modern Science, vol. 2. W. Kingery (ed.)
Cleveland: The American Ceramic Society, pp. 1-20.

- ١٣٧-
‫ﻨﺒﻴل ﻋﺒﺩﺍﻟﺭﺤﻤﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬

Pottery Studies in Archaeology: The Interpretive Agenda

Nabil Ali*

ABSTRACT

This study sheds light on some interpretive aspects that can be inferred from
the archaeological study of pottery. Such studies are often restricted to the
formal characteristics of the pottery, although pottery is an interplay of the raw
material, culture and technology. These three aspects reflect the interpretive
stages connected with studies of pottery across the various periods in the
development of archaeology. Ethno-archaeological studies help in studying
the varieties of human behavior and culture that can be inferred from the study
of pottery, the most common type of artifact in the archaeological record.
KEYWORDS: pottery; ethno-archaeology; technology; culture.

* Dept. of Archaeology, The University of Jordan, Amman-Jordan

Received on 7/12/2011 and accepted for publication on 24/5/2012.

- ١٣٨-