| Summary: | In this article, it is in debate the assumed correlation between pottery industry (phase) and social group. It is argued that this assumption is not adequate to understand either variability or change in material culture. Three case studies are presented in order to demonstrate that technological and iconographic similarities between artifact assemblages might correspond to different sociopolitical organizations and subsistence patterns; the identification of stylistic variability inside of a single phase might signalize political limits, as well as sociocultural identities; and typological variation (especially regarding decoration), used to define distinct phases, might mask cultural continuity and sociopolitical change within a single territory.
|
|---|
