Ceramics and Society is a practical guide to technological studies of ceramics. Valentine Roux, principal author of the volume, traces the origins of her theoretical and methodological approach to the works of French sociologist Marcel Mauss, prehistorians and pioneers in technological studies André Leroi-Gourhan and Jacques Tixier, and the anthropologist Pierre Lemmonier. Their ideas converge on the central focus of the book, the concept of chaînes opératoires—the specific gestures or actions implemented by artisans in transforming material resources into desired cultural forms. Roux's contributions to technological studies bring concepts from these earlier works to an original approach not proposed previously in the study of archaeological ceramics. Her presentation in a chapter-by-chapter ordering of a systematic strategy presents the core of her project. Drawing on the fields of ethnoarchaeology and archaeology to elaborate on ceramic processes, Roux provides figures, graphs, and images—arguably the most powerful features of the book—that guide the reader through a hierarchy of issues in the five chapters following the introduction.

Chapters 2 and 3 are rooted in the author's long-term ethnoarchaeological and archaeological studies of technical processes in the early stages of pottery production drawn primarily from her research in South Asia. These discussions identify diagnostic traits visible in sherds and vessels that are the bases for identifying chaînes opératoires in the “lives” of the ceramics that we study archaeologically. The first level of analysis is materials selection and the steps performed in transforming raw clay materials into finished products. It is followed by various technical operations, nicely illustrated, for example, in a discussion of inclusions in clay paste, moving from classifications of petrofacies such as grain size inclusions and mineralogy, and whether the latter may be from local or nonlocal deposits. Roux introduces analytical techniques (X-radiography) and micro- and macroscopic markers (such as porosity) that can help identify different stages of ceramic production.

In Chapters 4 and 5, Roux discusses potters’ practices that are visible as diagnostic markers on exterior and interior surfaces. They are interpreted as gestures or mindsets distinctive to traditional ways of producing “sociologically and functionally” acceptable products. Classification on this level involves detailed sorting procedures using hierarchical selection strategies inclusive of technical criteria, petrographic analyses, and morpho-stylistic measures. Helpful tables and imagery assist in following these procedures. In distinction to the geoscience principles outlined in preceding chapters, potters’ responses to questions about observed features sometimes lack clarity with respect to their foundations. For example, in response to interview questions about why potters performed certain actions, they might say that it is simply better to produce the vessel in a certain way or that it is what they were taught. Additional refinements include variability in technical skill interpreted as indications of workmanship. These include level of expertise, individual signatures, motor habits, and standardization.

In Chapter 6, Roux describes the goal of her project as the resolution of “historical processes and diversity” (p. 316) in a broad range of synchronic and diachronic issues. In barest outline, they comprise socioeconomic contexts defined as the organization of production, distribution, and circulation; cultural histories, the filiation and absence of filiation involving innovation and diffusion; and evolutionary forces and laws underlying the order and “diversity of historical trajectories” (p. 308). There is an expectation of the tendency over time of “less energy expenditure” (p. 308). Other evolutionary forces relate to conditions of technical change resulting from either autonomous developments or social mutations.

In this final chapter, Roux offers a challenge to reconcile Francophone and Anglophone approaches. Francophone studies at U.S. universities and colleges focus on French literature, culture, and intellectual history. Francophone studies of technology and evolution are rooted in the research of the prehistorians and anthropologists discussed in the introductory chapter. Leroi-Gourhan's research and his introduction of the concept of chaînes opératoires resulted from his studies of lithic technologies. In this book, Roux's attempt to integrate the concept and its principles into the study of archaeological assemblages of ceramics is a novel and welcome contribution.

Roux characterizes Anglophone approaches to technological studies of ceramics as “models waiting to be applied on relevant empirical data” (p. 316). Just as many American archaeologists may not be familiar with Francophone approaches and their explanatory frameworks, readers of American Antiquity may find Roux's view of technological research limited. Anthropological archaeologists, with their roots in four-field approaches, look broadly at a range of human behaviors. They have demonstrated the significance of technical choices on gender and specialization, community and artistic practices, intersections of materials and sustainability, and agency and group signaling along with their social, political, and economic implications.

My final thoughts on Roux's challenge fall into two areas: her method and her theory. In general, most of the methods proposed in the book are practiced by many anthropological archaeologists. In anthropology, they have their origins in the pottery analyses of Anna Shepard, which date back to the study of Pecos Pueblo in New Mexico (Papers of the Southwestern Expedition 7:389–587, 1936) and her book, Ceramics for the Archaeologist (1956). Anthropological archaeologists have since built upon her methods (Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, 1991). It is the interpretive strategies and basic theoretical frameworks that differ between approaches taken by Roux and by anthropological archaeologists (for example, Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, written by Carla Sinopoli, 1991; and Gendered Labor in Specialized Economies, edited by Sophia E. Kelly and Traci Ardren, 2016).

Where does this leave analytical approaches to ceramics rooted in Francophone and Anglophone archaeologies? Roux's approaches are consistent with Francophone origins. Anglophone approaches vary somewhat in different world areas, and I have commented here on the perspectives of anthropological archaeologists. My understanding of theoretical differences is based on basic principles in their relative disciplines. Most archaeologists who conduct research in the Old World are conversant with the tenets of Roux's approach, but they may be underappreciated by anthropological archaeologists focused on New World archaeology. However, an effort to “reconcile” (reunite, merge) seems unhelpful. I prefer understanding and appreciating distinct approaches as a more workable practice in future research and scholarly conversations.