Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millenium BC [Hardcover ed.] 3700181272, 9783700181279

Citation preview

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs (Eds.) Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC

Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse

Oriental and European Archaeology Volume 10

Series Editor: Barbara Horejs

Publications Coordinator: Ulrike Schuh

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs (Eds.)

Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC

Accepted by the Publication Committee of the Division of Humanities and the Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences: Michael Alram, Bert Fragner, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Brigitte Mazohl, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Peter Wiesinger and Waldemar Zacharasiewicz

This publication has undergone the process of anonymous, international peer review. The paper used for this publication was made from chlorite-free bleached cellulose and is aging-resistant and free of acidifying substances.

English language editing: Stephanie Emra, Kelly Gillikin, Guy Kiddey, Jessica Whalen, Roderick B. Salisbury, Clare Burke Graphics and layout: María Antonia Negrete Martínez Cover design: Mario Börner, Angela Schwab

All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-3-7001-8127-9 Copyright © 2018 by Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Printing: Prime Rate kft., Budapest Printed and bound in the EU https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/8127-9 https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at

Contents Preface by the Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Anatolia & Eastern Aegean Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon: A Model for Pottery Production in the 3rd Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Lisa Peloschek Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs Function and Technology: A Pottery Assemblage from an Early Bronze Age House at Çukuriçi Höyük . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 John Gait – Noémi S. Müller – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Douglas Baird Examining the Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Distribution in the Konya Plain of South Central Anatolia, Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Ourania Kouka – Sergios Menelaou Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age Heraion: Exploring Stratigraphy, Architecture and Ceramic Innovation After Mid-3rd Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Greece Clare Burke – Peter Day – Eva Alram-Stern – Katie Demakopoulou – Anno Hein Crafting and Consumption Choices: Neolithic – Early Helladic II Ceramic Production and Distribution, Midea and Tiryns, Mainland Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Eva Alram-Stern Early Helladic II Pottery from Midea in the Argolid: Forms and Fabrics Pointing to Special Use and Import . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Lydia Berger Social Change – Cultural Change – Technological Change: Archaeological Studies and Scientific Analyses of Early Aeginetan Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Sylvie Müller-Celka – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Xenia Charalambidou – Noémi S. Müller Early Helladic II–III Pottery Groups from Eretria (Euboea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

6

Contents

Jörg Rambach Romanos-Navarino Dunes in the Pylia: The Early Helladic II Settlement and the Case of the Early Helladic II Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Georgia Kordatzaki – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Jörg Rambach Ceramic Traditions in Southwestern Peloponnese During the Early Helladic II Period: The Romanos Pylias Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Areti Pentedeka – Catherine Morgan – Andreas Sotiriou Early Helladic Pottery Traditions in Western Greece: The Case of Kephalonia and Ithaca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Yiannis Papadatos – Eleni Nodarou Pottery Technology(ies) in Prepalatial Crete: Evidence from Archaeological and Archaeometric Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Index Pottery and Analytical Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Geographical Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Preface by the Series Editor The 10th volume of the Oriental and European Archaeology publication series presents the results of an international conference, organised and hosted by the OREA Institute at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna from 21st to 23rd of October 2015. The idea for this volume about Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC is based on current projects by the organisers Eva Alram-Stern and the series editor, who are both dealing with archaeometric studies of Early Bronze Age pottery from Greece and Turkey. The outcome of these interdisciplinary investigations at Midea, the prehistoric Kaykos Valley (Pergamon), and at Çukuriçi Höyük required a broader scientific and socio-cultural contextualisation. This led to the organisation of the conference in Vienna, inviting well-known pottery experts, as well as young scholars, working in this particular scientific field. This volume presents long-term and well-established approaches used for a range of methodological and theoretical aspects of ceramic research in the Greek Aegean, that also offer a solid framework for new primary data and their interpretation from the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia. In addition, the main focus of this volume is on the socio-cultural aspects of the various analytical methods and their scientific results, aiming to provide a broader picture of the role of pottery in past societies, also understandable by non-experts in these highly specialised fields. The enormous amount of scientific data dealing with Early Bronze Age ceramics generally, offers a new insight into important aspects of societies in the 3rd millennium BC, such as the chaîne opératoire of production, vessel function, regionalism, and chronology. Finally, it is our view that such a cross-Aegean approach allows intra site comparison, and provides important insights into the relationships and meaning behind trends visible in Early Bronze Age pottery from different regions within the Aegean, particularly cultural-technological concepts and their social impact. The volume brings together 13 contributions that offer primary data from new analyses of ceramic material from western Anatolia, the east, northeast and central Aegean, as well as from Crete, and the Greek mainland. We are very thankful to the authors, who interpret this new data in relation to a range of socio-cultural, economic, chronological, functional and regional contexts. The fruitful discussions at the conference, by renowned experts in scientific ceramic analyses, has shed new light on key themes in ceramic and broader archaeological research, and, importantly, highlighted potential connections between the Aegean and Anatolia based on this new archaeometric data. My sincere thanks go to the authors of all contributions for sharing their expertise and perspectives about Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC, and to Eva Alram-Stern for her efforts in publishing the 10th OREA volume as soon as possible. The international review procedure supervised by the Academy publication committee guarantees the quality assessment of each publication in this series. Although this procedure sometimes requires the patience of authors and editors including the acceptance of publication delays, I am very thankful to the anonymous reviewers’ engagement and their helpful suggestions. Financial support for the conference has been provided by the FWF funded projects P 24798, P 25825 and Y 528 as well as by the OREA Institute and the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Finally, I am grateful to the experienced team, especially Ulrike Schuh for coordinating the editorial work and María Antonia Negrete Martínez for layouting the entire volume. Barbara Horejs Director of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Vienna, 13th of June 2018

ORIENTAL AND EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY Vol. 1

B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millenium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012 (Vienna 2014).

Vol. 2

B. Eder – R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May–2nd June, 2012 (Vienna 2015).

Vol. 3

M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka (Rahden/Westf. 2016).

Vol. 4

M. Luciani (ed.), The Archaeology of North Arabia. Oases and Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Congress held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013 (Vienna 2016).

Vol. 5

B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC. With contributions by Ch. Britsch, St. Grasböck, B. Milić, L. Peloschek, M. Röcklinger and Ch. Schwall (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 6

M. Mödlinger, Protecting the Body in War and Combat. Metal Body Armour in Bronze Age Europe (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 7

Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostägäis. Mit einem Beitrag von B. Horejs (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 8

W. Anderson – K. Hopper – A. Robinson (eds.), Landscape Archaeology in Southern Caucasia. Finding Common Ground in Diverse Environments. Proceedings of the Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 9

St. Gimatzidis – M. Pieniążek – S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba (eds.), Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands. Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Vienna 2018).

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction Eva Alram-Stern1 – Barbara Horejs2 After several decades of archaeometric investigations on Early Bronze Age pottery, now is the time to bring these manifold results and experts together for a holistic approach of a broader region through socio-cultural interpretations. The archaeometric approach to pottery in the (Greek) Aegean is based on a long tradition and nowadays forms a well-established scientific field in Bronze Age archaeology in that region. Thanks to various research groups and their longterm engagement in developing the methodological and theoretical background – such as the Fitch Laboratory of the British School and the Demokritos lab in Athens, the University of Bonn, and Sheffield University – pottery experts in the Aegean are now able to use various scientific methods based on a well-established scientific framework and comparable data. This state-ofthe-art interdisciplinary approach for Aegean ceramics not only produces a large amount of new and complex data, which are mainly used by specialists in this field, but also leads to a multifaceted picture hardly manageable by non-experts for their socio-cultural follow-up interpretations. Our main aim is focused on combining the archaeometric experts and their scientific questions and data to gain a broader archaeological-cultural contextualisation within one particular time horizon. Chronological and Geographical Framework Due to current scientific requirements, projects and available data, the Aegean and western Anatolia during the periods of Early Helladic I–II / Early Bronze Age 1–2 (c. 3000–2300 BC) have been selected as the general chronological and geographical frameworks. Ongoing research in petrographic3 and chemical analyses, specifically X-ray fluorescence (XRF)4 and Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA),5 were brought together with archaeological contextualisation to discuss potential social and economic patterns in the production and distribution of pottery within a trans-Aegean perspective. This volume represents the outcome of the conference “Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections between the Aegean and Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium BC”, which took place from 21.10. to 23.10.2015 at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. The selected focus is closely related to the OREA research group Anatolian Aegean Prehistoric Phenomena, which generally connects Greek and Turkish parts of the Aegean in a holistic approach. Both regions are starting and intermediary points of formative cultural processes, which are studied by archaeological and interdisciplinary basic research methods – conducted in detail with highly specialised analyses as well as supra-regional studies. This research strategy includes

3 4 5 1 2

Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; [email protected]. Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; [email protected]. Whitbread 2001. Gait et al., this volume. Mommsen et al. 1991; Mommsen 2007; Horejs et al., this volume.

10

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

Fig. 1   Archaeological sites in Turkey and Greece mentioned in this volume. Sites presented in detail are indicated in capital letters (design: M. Börner)

excavations, archaeological and environmental surveys, material studies and analyses of all types of artefacts. A further approach deals with chronology and periodisation, climate, subsistence, resources, technologies, rituals, networks, socio-cultural impact and theoretical issues. Recently generated data from our own fieldwork form the scientific fundament and are linked with old data. One of our current research foci concerns Early Bronze Age settlements, economies and technologies dating to Early Helladic (EH) I–II / Early Bronze (EB) 1–2 (3000–2300 BC) on both sides of the Aegean. The research group’s ongoing studies of pottery with conventional archaeological methods combined with petrographic and chemical analyses in micro-regional and trans-regional comparisons brought an abundance of new data to light. Their contextualisation within a broader archaeological perspective offers the opportunity to analyse potential patterns that might reflect trans-Aegean phenomena beyond their local or regional impact. These studies are conducted in various projects financed by the European Research Council, the Austrian Science Fund and the OREA institute. To them belong the Çukuriçi Höyük excavations, the Prehistoric Pergamon Region Survey (Kaykos/Bakırçay valley)6, the Midea project (Argolid) based on the Greek excavations by Katie Demakopoulou7 as well as the Romanos-Navarino project8. Altogether, they put into practice cooperation with archaeometric experts from the Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens, the Department of Archaeology of the University of Sheffield, the University of Bonn and the Austrian Archaeological Institute.

8 6 7

ERC project 263339; Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects no. Y 528 and P 25825. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) stand-alone project no. P 24798. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Lise Meitner program no. M 1468.

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction

11

The 18 papers presented in the conference, of which 13 were submitted to this volume, include manifold new results and data (Fig. 1).9 Additionally, the intense and fruitful discussions between the authors during the conference formulated new local, regional and interregional aspects – which will be summarised in the introduction. Thanks to the very engaged chairmen and chairwomen, the discussions mostly led to some crucial outcomes, which are represented in the following overview of this volume. Production, Function and Chaîne Opératoire Questions concerning the production of pottery and its chaîne opératoire require not only detailed scientific analyses of the ceramics themselves but also their environmental contextualisation should be considered – as pointed out in several papers. The clay composition used for the production of pottery is examined by petrographers, who – through microscopic analysis of the mineral composition of the fabric’s inclusions in combination with chemical analysis – can offer knowledge of the choice of raw materials. In general, this approach concerns the exploitation of specific raw material sources that are shared by a group of people of a potential centre of production, and therefore local production is identifiable in ceramic analyses. A selection of similar clay compositions is reflected in the use of a specific temper – such as calcite, marble or grog – in the production of pots with a special use, i.e. cooking or storage; this temper choice could have been shared by people in larger areas.10 Such behaviour would enable us to argue for a pattern in pottery production that could have been shared by people of a wider area. Moreover, the various techniques of pot building are recognisable through macroscopic examination of the pottery, such as using coils, plaques or a throwing table. According to ethnographic studies, these building techniques and their distribution are connected to special groups of people and offer information on potential communication networks, which are likely built upon kin affiliations.11 Furthermore, the degree of specialisation may broadly be assessed on the basis of firing temperatures as well as the controlling mechanisms over the oxidation process, respectively pointing to open fire or a kiln-like construction.12 Experimental studies in refiring sherds have been presented as a successful method for determining firing temperatures. Insight into the possible functions of pots is provided by residue and use-wear analyses.13 Additionally, an analysis of pottery fabrics and forms indicates that pots with certain characteristics were probably used for special purposes.14 Connectivity An important topic is how pottery of a particular region can give us indications of connectivity between the areas under study. Conventional archaeological research in this respect is based on identification and statistical recording of wares, forms and decoration, which are closely connected with value and the potential use of items. Ethnographic studies have shown that decorative techniques

The important papers regarding the relations between Crete and Anatolia at the beginning of the Bronze Age (FN–EB I), on the Chios-Çesme Strait, on Anatolianising types and Aegean traditions in the ceramics of the Late EB II, and on local and Anatolianising traditions across Boeotia during the Late EH II were not submitted by the authors and are therefore not included in this volume. 10 Rice 1987; Peloschek, this volume; Gait et al., this volume; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume; Pentedeka et al., this volume. 11 Gosselain 2000, 201–208, 210. 12 Daszkiewicz – Schneider 2001. 13 Tzedakis et al. 2008. 14 Riemer 1997; a function analysis of the pottery from Çukuriçi Höyük according to form and fabric is given by Röcklinger – Horejs, this volume. 9

12

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

are distributed “by loose and situational networks of interaction in which the geographic propinquity of sites and local processes of imitation and conformity play a leading role”.15 In contrast, investigations of pottery based on archaeometric analyses of clay composition can give an indication of the provenance of the clay and, therefore, of the circulation of the pots. These studies presuppose that potters used local clay deposits, and suggest that their local production centres can be identified and characterised. At the same time, large-scale macroscopic identification of fabrics, harmonised with petrographic analyses, can help to detect distribution patterns of pottery in large archaeological assemblages. Thus, both methods can help to define local use and middleto long-distance circulation of pots. As mentioned above, the papers of this conference cover the periods EB/EH I and II as well as its transition to the final phase EB III, which is to be understood as a predecessor of the Middle Bronze Age (see chronological chart Fig. 2). It goes without saying that each period has to be characterised against the background of its specific cultural development. Therefore, it can be shown that local pottery production in all its aspects differs from period to period and, consequently, reveals change over time. At the same time, it is worthwhile to investigate if technological and stylistic innovations were passed on through circulation or imitation of pottery. On a broader scale, changes through time in the circulation of pottery over large distances can give indications for changing contacts between regions in general. In summary, this conference volume aims to add important aspects to our picture of human agency,16 and also shed light on the changing social organisation, economy and identity of the agents who are the producers of pottery, as well as their consumers.17 Pottery analyses are able to illustrate how behaviour of production and distribution changes, and therefore demonstrate aspects of cultural-ecological development in the 3rd millennium BC. Regional Patterns Early Bronze Age I Papers dealing with EB I create an interesting picture for sites of inland and coastal western Anatolia: The area around Pergamon is characterised by production and circulation of pottery within the region although the pottery is integrated into the pottery style of the northeastern Aegean and the Troad. At the same time, pottery production centres show no specialisation. The very few imports from outside the region indicate that the region was more or less excluded from the main routes of eastern Aegean and western Anatolian exchange networks.18 The coastal site of Çukuriçi Höyük situated in central western Anatolia is also characterised by local production,19 and the marble-tempered fabric – although reminiscent of the fabric common in the Cyclades – most probably followed a local tradition mainly used for functional reasons.20 However, the picture of specialised production and use of pots at the coastal site of Çukuriçi Höyük is supported by the contexts connected with on-site metal processing.21 Evidence in the Konya plain show that Early Bronze Age pottery production has a long tradition dating back to the Late Chalcolithic/Final Neolithic period; this is especially evident from the habit of grog-tempering.22 A similar tradition is known from eastern Crete23 as well as in other areas of the Aegean.24 If we look at the western side

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 16

Gosselin 2000, 193–200, 209. Lemonnier 1993; Dobres – Hoffman 1994. For a further discussion see Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume. Horejs et al., this volume. Röcklinger – Horejs, this volume. Peloschek, this volume. Röcklinger – Horejs, this volume. Gait et al., this volume. Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume. Pentedeka et al., this volume.

13

?

rosso

verde

EC IA Panagia

Kampos

Chalandriani

EH I late

IIIB

EM IB

Palace Well Group

3100

Aphrodite’s Kephali Petras Kephala

Poros Katsambas Ayia Photia

2000 EC III Phylakopi I

EH III IV IV

II Cer. Ph. C

V

Eretria Lefkandi I Bouratzas

Manika 2-3

Ayios Kosmas A

EM IIB

EM IIA West Court House

EM III Upper East Well South Front House Foundation

South Front North East Magazines

Myrtos I Vasiliki I

2600

Knossos

EM IA

Gap ?

IIID

IIIC

II Cer. Ph. B

Talioti Perachora Y-Z

IV

EH II late

EH II developed

EH II early

III

Kastri Ayia Irini III

Ayia Irini II

Eutresis

Various Sites

II

Keros-Syros Aplomata

I

FN

EB 3b

EC IIB

IIIA

Perachora X

EB 3a

EC IIA

II

Tsepi

IV 1

EC IB

Markiani II

EH I early

IV 2

giallo

I

“earlier than Heraion I”

Pelos-Lakkoudes

2200

2400 EB 2

azzurro (early-late)

3000

Cyclades

Settlements Tombs

V 3-1 (b-a)

EB 1

LCh Heraion

Central GR Attica Aegina Lerna

Greek Mainland

III

VI 1 (d-a)

nero

IV

Myrtos II Vasiliki II

Palaikastro Vasiliki III

2000

VIIa

IV

III

2200

Va

EB 3b

II late

II early

2400

Vb

FN

Crete

EB 3a

I

Final Neolithic

BC

EB 2

2800

Western Anatolia

EB 1

Late Chalcolithic Heraion Poliochni

Eastern Aegean

Liman Tepe Çukuriçi Troy

Late Chalcolithic

2600

2800

3000

3100

BC

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction

Fig. 2   Chronological chart including assemblages discussed in this conference (E. Alram-Stern – Ch. Schwall; absolute dates according to Manning 1995, Manning 2008, and Weninger – Easton 2014)

of the Aegean, local production and consumption also characterises the EM I period of Crete as well as the EH I period of the northeastern Peloponnese. This is also seen in the emergence of regional pottery styles. Furthermore, aside from firing at low temperatures, firing temperatures were higher than in the previous period and the firing atmosphere was more controlled.25 In summary,

25

Burke et al., this volume; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.

14

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

all over the Aegean EB I seems to have been a period of local production and regional networks with an indication of the first trends in production specialisation. In the later part of EB I, exterior contacts with more distant regions are attested. On Crete during EM IB Cycladic-style pottery of the Kampos group is attested at several sites, and especially on the northern coast of Crete. These assemblages differ from site to site, each context showing different percentages of Cycladic-style pottery. Furthermore, although form and surface treatment are of Cycladic character, the pottery was most probably produced locally on Crete, and followed the typical Cycladic technological tradition of using calcite, along with the grog-tempering characteristic of Cretan pottery.26 In this way, EB I pottery of late EB I demonstrates interconnectivity not seen during the previous phase. This is mainly evident by the Cycladic Kampos Group on Crete, probably the material expression of intensified contacts with the Aegean. A similar picture arises in Attica and Euboea.27 However, EH I fruitstands, made of a fabric characteristically produced in the area close to Talioti in the Argolid, were circulated as far as Nemea in the Corinthia, indicating regular intensive interaction between these areas and also special use, which can already be argued for this period.28 Early Bronze Age II For the EB/EM/EH II all over the Aegean, local production continued to dominate imports from other regions. The majority of sites produced pottery locally and followed their own common potting traditions while participating in the same regional exchange network.29 Regional pottery styles with characteristic tablewares such as saucers and sauceboats are common all over mainland Greece, the Peloponnese and the Cyclades.30 They indicate an intensification of social activities, especially feasting based on the same eating/drinking rituals.31 In the northeastern Peloponnese, certain fabric recipes common in the entire area point to the possibility that larger groups shared a certain tradition of pottery making.32 However, during EB/EM/EH II, imports of tablewares from neighbouring regions demonstrate higher interconnectivity than has been seen before. In the Konya plain, the non-local “Metallic Ware” with serpentine inclusions was most probably imported from Cappadocia.33 On Samos, imports from Amorgos/Cyclades are known from Heraion II, in the developed phase of EB II. In the northeastern Peloponnese, dark-slipped green-brown tableware – easily distinguishable from the Argive products34 – had been imported from the Corinthia to the Argolid.35 In Crete, high-quality tablewares were exchanged between south-central and north-central Crete, suggesting these regions were host to specialised potting centres. Furthermore, fine, high-quality tablewares and transport jars were imported from the Cyclades, while western Crete shows imports from Kythera and the Peloponnese.36 Consequently, EB/EH/EM II is characterised as a period of prosperity and interaction characterised by the circulation of prestigious pottery, which indicates an increase in connectivity.

28 29

Day et al. 2012; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume. Pantelidou Gofa 2008; see also Alram-Stern forthcoming (a) und (b). Burke et al., this volume. Burke et al., this volume; Kouka – Menelaou, this volume. For the local traditions of Kephallonia and Ithaca see Pentedeka et al., this volume. 30 Alram-Stern, this volume; Berger, this volume; Rambach, this volume. 31 Pullen 2011, 190–192. 32 ‘Mudstone-breccia fabric’: Burke et al., this volume. 33 Gait et al., this volume. For characterisation and date of the metallic ware see Tuba Ökse 2011, 265, 269–270; Friedman 2001. 34 Alram-Stern, this volume. 35 Burke et al., this volume. 36 Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume. 26 27

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction

15

Early Bronze Age II Late – III With EB/EH II Late, pottery shows clear changes in form and technology as seen in the Anatolianising Lefkandi I/Kastri pottery group in the Aegean and the eastern Greek mainland. This development already started in EB II developed (Heraion II) on Samos and was interrupted with EB III (Heraion IV) when new pottery forms and decoration appeared. While all Anatolianising forms are already present in EB II developed (Heraion II), the depas amphikypellon only appears in EB II Late (Heraion III). The Lefkandi I/Kastri complex is not only connected with a change in form, but also the use of the potter’s wheel. However, on Samos these changes in technology and style are not connected with an augmentation of imports, which become common only with EB III Late (Samos V).37 In Eretria on Euboea during EH IIB, the “Helladic” shapes such as the sauceboat and saucer are used alongside the Anatolianising forms; however, the depas amphikypellon is not present. As on Samos, the Anatolianising forms were produced locally; in contrast, some pottery with Helladic shapes were imported so that it can be argued that, as in the Argolid, imports of pottery indicate contacts. In addition, a significant group of coarse ware, among them a pithos, was imported from the Cyclades. This shows that during EH IIB the circulation of pots is a reflection of an intensification of mobility especially in coastal areas. Also, the use of Anatolianising forms for eating/drinking in specific social contexts highlights potential changes in eating/ drinking rituals during this period.38 During EH III, pottery forms and surface treatment changed in Eretria, perhaps reflecting reproduction and adaption of external influences. Local clay sources continued to be exploited, but the potter’s wheel fell out of use.39 Similarly to coastal Euboea, at the site of Aegina-Kolonna the EH II pottery shows various imports from the Cyclades, Attica and the Peloponnese, which demonstrates the important role of Aegina in the exchange systems of the wider Aegean. In EH IIB, typological and technological changes also appear in Kolonna. In contrast to other sites, they produced tankards and hybrid forms of the “Helladic” pottery repertoire such as sauceboats and askoi.40 Another pottery complex dating to the end of EH II, synchronous with the House of Tiles at Lerna,41 comes from Romanos near Pylos in Messenia. This assemblage comes from the fill of a well and consists of mostly entire vessels, some of them extraordinary in size and shape; it is interpreted as the remnant of a special consumption practice, namely the deposition of pottery in the frame of communal feasting.42 This pottery shows a high degree of standardisation and specialisation, is almost exclusively made from local clay resources, and stands in the local potting traditions; although some pots have strong affinities to the Attic-Cycladic and northeastern Peloponnesian pottery traditions. Interestingly, even at Romanos, which is situated far away from the areas characterised by Anatolianising pottery, a rotating device was used for the production of shallow conical saucers.43 In contrast to the Aegean islands and the eastern Greek mainland, EM IIB Crete is not part of the Anatolianising pottery exchange network. It appears that only the Cretan Vasiliki Ware found in Akrotiri indicates a continuous contact of Crete with the southern Aegean.44 On Crete itself, the dense network of pottery exchange continues, although there is a shift towards products from eastern Crete, indicating a change in the mechanisms of interaction.45

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 37 38

Kouka – Menelaou, this volume. Maran 1998. Müller Celka et al., this volume. Berger, this volume. Wiencke 2000, 596. Rambach, this volume. Kordatzaki et al., this volume. Nikolakopoulou et al. 2008, 313. See Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.

16

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

Embedding the Conference Outcome into the Early Bronze Age Based on our current knowledge of the organisation of cemeteries and settlements46, small to medium scale community groups, probably connected to family groups, formed the foundations of Early Bronze Age societies around 3000 BC.47 As seen generally in the results of ceramic petrographic analyses, production from the very beginning of the Bronze Age ceramic onwards was widespread and located close to sites. However, production strategies varied from small-scale to less common extensive production.48 According to typological studies, networks of interaction between the villages produced regional pottery styles.49 In addition, production areas had a range of distribution patterns, some of which were based on local consumption whilst others had products circulating in a larger area. Generally speaking, imports of pottery are rare between 3000 and 2600 BC (EB I/1) in western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most probably found their way via communication networks built upon affiliations of communities.50 Furthermore, the exchange of goods in ceramic containers appears only rarely during these centuries. These exchange patterns changed during EB II, when imports of transport jars became more common,51 pointing to an intensified exchange of goods most probably based on a more stratified and economically differentiated society. In Cycladic cemeteries, specific sets of pottery vessels are connected to graves as burial goods from EB I onwards.52 The Kampos group in particular allows us to observe an expansion of these standardised sets of burial goods in graves as far away as Crete. Locally produced pottery was probably linked with the high mobility of distinct groups within the larger Aegean, and suggests ties of communities creating specific burial rituals and sharing perceived value of certain pottery vessels.53 The situation in western Anatolia during the 3rd millennium BC was different, and standardisation in pottery burial goods can be seen, for example, in the Yortan graveyard.54 Patterns within the various western Anatolian regions seem to have differed in terms of scales of connectivity. Whereas the central sites such as Troy or Liman Tepe are highly connected with the Aegean as well as inland Anatolia and beyond, the Bakırçay Valley (Pergamon) appears mostly isolated in this aspect. From the later EB I (2900–2700 BC) onwards a collective consumption of drinks and food becomes common, and is visible in standardised serving, eating and drinking sets in western Anatolia and the Aegean. This process is observable by the emergence of uniform vessel shapes and related technological features, such as surface treatment. The EB I chalices or pedestalled bowls, which are common in the northern and central Aegean as well as on Crete, contained liquid for more than one person and point to their importance in social events.55 In contrast to the local production and consumption of chalices in the Aegean, the large, red-fired chalices, so-called fruitstands (i.e. pedestalled bowls) common in the northeastern Peloponnese, were produced in the Argolid, and also circulated in neighbouring regions, such as the Corinthia.56 Therefore their

Pullen 1985, 145–146, 370–371; Maran 1998, 226–227; Triantaphyllou 2001, 22–25. Pullen 1985, 259–263; Harrison 1995; For a more recent review of Cretan Early Bronze Age society see Schoep – Tomkins 2012, 12–16; for social structures in EBA 1 western Anatolia including potential transformations see for example Kouka 2002; Ivanova 2013; Horejs – Mehofer 2014; Horejs 2016; Horejs – Schwall 2018; Schwall 2018. 48 Burke et al., this volume. 49 Gosselin 2000, 193–210. 50 For a possible kinship organisation of settlements, comprising several islands, in the Cyclades see Broodbank 2000, 86–87. 51 Wilson 1994, 40, 42–43; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume; Burke et al., this volume. 52 Doumas 1977; Rambach 2000. 53 Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume; for the connection of pottery to burial rituals see Soles 1992, 247–251. 54 Bittel 1939–1941; Orthmann 1966; Kâmil 1982; Seeher 1991. 55 Day – Wilson 2004, 55, 59. 56 Pullen 2011, 95. 46 47

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction

17

use in both regions underlines the shared dining practices of the emerging elites of this period.57 Comparable patterns are probably detectable in western Anatolia as well, but require further detailed analyses. The evidence of huge shallow bowls with highly polished surfaces across the region from at least 3000 BC onwards might represent a similar pattern.58 The typological evidence in EB II demonstrates a shared dining repertoire between communities all over the Aegean, based on individual eating and drinking vessels. Saucers and sauceboats were common in the entire area of the Greek mainland and the Aegean (including the western Anatolian coastal zones), and are rarely found on Crete.59 In late EB II, the appearance of an Anatolianising dining set partly replaces these and indicates an intensification of mobility from western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands and spreading over the coastal Aegean.60 On Crete, individual dining vessel sets consisting of goblets and plates are common.61 Use contexts including storage62 and deposition63 of standardised dining sets indicate shared dining practices and an intensification of social activities. Furthermore, such shared dining practices should be interpreted as part of the social language of emerging elite groups within a hierarchical system, as also seen in settlement architecture.64 Imports of eating and drinking vessels point to the importance of such communal meetings for inter-settlement communication.65 Acknowledgements: The conference was funded by the Austrian Science Fund projects P  24798-G18, Y  528 and P 25825 as well as by the ERC project 263339. The texts were edited by Stephanie Emra, Kelly Gillikin, Guy Kiddey, Jessica Whalen, Roderick B. Salisbury, and Clare Burke, the layout has been prepared by María Antonia Negrete Martínez; we warmly thank all of them. Thanks to the publication coordination by Ulrike Schuh, the proceedings were published within due time. We are grateful to all contributors to the conference and to this volume, which transformed the challenging idea of a broad contextualisation of manifold scientific results of ceramic analyses into reality.

References Alram-Stern forthcoming (a) E. Alram-Stern, The network of the Kampos group. Crete in context, in: 11ο Διεθνές Κρητολογικό Συνέδριο, Ρέθυμνο, 21/27 Οκτωβρίου 2011 (forthcoming). Alram-Stern forthcoming (b) E. Alram-Stern, Social and economic networks. Their emergence at the dawn of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, in: W. Gauß (ed.), Forschungen zur Frühägäischen Archäologie 2011. Frühbronzezeitliche Handels- und Fernverbindungen (forthcoming). Bernabò-Brea 1964 L. Bernabò-Brea, Poliochni. Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos I (Rome 1964). Bernabò-Brea 1976 L. Bernabò-Brea, Poliochni. Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos II (Rome 1976).

Haggis 1997; Day – Wilson 2004, 55. Blegen et al. 1950 (Troy); Sharp Joukowsky 1986 (Aphrodisias); Lloyd – Mellaart 1962 (Beycesultan); Hood 1981; Hood 1982 (Emporio); Bernabò-Brea 1964; Bernabò-Brea 1976; Doumas – Angelopoulou 1997; Cultraro 2004 (Poliochni); Lamb 1936 (Thermi); Efe 1988; Seeher 1987 (Demircihüyük); Eslick 2009 (Elmalı-Karataş); Kâmil 1982 (Yortan). 59 Because of such widespread phenomena, this period has been called ‘the time of the International Spirit’ by C. Renfrew (Renfrew 1972, 170–185). 60 Maran 1998, 432–433. 61 Day – Wilson 2004, 55. 62 Wiencke 2000, 235–236. 63 Rambach, this volume. 64 For a chiefdom hierarchy see Pullen 1985, 10–14; Renfrew 1991, 46–48; Wiencke 2000, 503–505, 649–652. 65 Alram-Stern, this volume; Burke, this volume.

57 58

18

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

Bittel 1939–1941 K. Bittel, Ein Gräberfeld der Yortan-Kultur bei Babaköy, Archiv für Orientforschung 13, 1939–1941, 1–31. Blegen et al. 1950 C. W. Blegen – J. L. Caskey – M. Rawson – J. Sperling, Troy I. General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements (Princeton 1950). Brodie et al. 2008 N. Brodie – J. Doole – G. Gavalas – C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon / Ορίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, McDonald Institute Monographs (Cambridge 2008). Broodbank 2000 C. Broodbank, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge 2000). Cultraro 2004 M. Cultraro, Island isolation and cultural interaction in the EBA northern Aegean. A case study from Poliochni (Lemnos), Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 4, 1, 2004, 19–34. Daszkiewicz – Schneider 2001 M. Daszkiewicz – G. Schneider, Klassifizierung von Keramik durch Nachbrennen von Scherben, Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 58, 2001, 25–31. Day – Wilson 2004 P. Day – D. Wilson, Ceramic change and the practice of eating and drinking in Early Bronze Age Crete, in: P. Halstead – C. J. Barrett (eds.), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5 (Oxford 2005) 45–62. Day et al. 2012 P. M. Day – A. Hein – L. Joyner – V. Kilikoglou – E. Kiriatzi – A. Tsolakidou – D. E. Wilson, Appendix a. Petrographic and chemical analysis of the pottery, in: C. Davaras – P. P. Betancourt (eds.), The Hagia Photia Cemetery II. The Pottery, Prehistory Monographs 34 (Philadelphia 2012) 115–138. Dobres – Hoffman 1994 M.-A. Dobres – C. R. Hoffman, Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 3, 1994, 211–258. Doumas 1977 Ch. Doumas, Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 48 (Göteborg 1977). Doumas – Angelopoulou 1997 Χ. Γ. Ντούμας – A. Αγγελοπούλου, Οι βασικοί κεραμεικοί τύποι της Πολιόχνης και η διάδοσή τους στο Αιγαίο κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού, in: C. G. Doumas – V. La Rosa (eds.), Η Πολιόχνη και ή Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο. Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αθήνα, 22–25 Απριλίου 1996 / Poliochni e l’antica età del bronzo nell’Egeo settentrionale. Convegno Internazionale Atene, 22–25 Aprile 1996 (Athens 1997) 543–555. Efe 1988 T. Efe, Demirciküyük III,2. Die Keramik 2. C. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik der jüngeren Phasen (ab Phase H) (Mainz 1988). Eslick 2009 Ch. Eslick, Elmalı-Karataş V. The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Karataş: Habitation Deposits (Bryn Mawr 2009). Friedman 2001 E. S. Friedman, Anatolian metallic ware. A third millennium BC ceramic phenomenon, in: I. C. Druc (ed.), Archaeology and Clays (Oxford 2001) 17–26. Gosselain 2000 O. P. Gosselain, Materializing identities. An African perspective, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 3, 2000, 187–217.

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction

19

Haggis 1997 D. Haggis, The typology of the Early Minoan I chalice and the cultural implications of form and style in Early Bronze Age ceramics, in: R. Laffineur – P. P. Betancourt (eds.), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th Interantional Aegean conference / 6e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16 (Liège 1997) 291–299. Harrison 1995 S. Harrison, Domestic architecture in Early Helladic II. Some observations on the form of non-monumental houses, Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 1995, 23–40. Hood 1981 S. Hood, Excavations in Chios 1938–1955, Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala I, The British School at Athens, Supplementary 15 (Athens 1981). Hood 1982 S. Hood, Excavations in Chios 1938–1955, Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala II, The British School at Athens, Supplementary 16 (Athens 1982). Horejs – Mehofer 2014 B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21‒24 November, 2012, Oriental and European Archaeology 1 (Vienna 2014). Horejs – Schwall 2018 B. Horejs – Ch. Schwall, Interaction as a stimulus? Çukuriçi Höyük and the transition from the Late Chalcolithic period to the Early Bronze Age in western Anatolia, in: S. Dietz – F. Mavridis – Ž. Tankosić – T. Takaoğlu (eds.), Communities in Transition. The Circum-Aegean Area in the 5th and 4th Millennia BC. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 20 (Oxford 2018) 530–537. Horejs 2016 B. Horejs, Neue Gewichtssysteme und metallurgischer Aufschwung im frühen 3. Jahrtausend – ein Zufall?, in: M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka, Oriental and European Archaeology 3 (Rahden/Westf. 2016) 251–272. Ivanova 2013 M. Ivanova, Domestic architecture in the Early Bronze Age of western Anatolia. The row-houses of Troy I, Anatolian Studies 63, 2013, 17–33. Kâmil 1982 T. Kâmil, Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia (Oxford 1982). Kouka 2002 O. Kouka, Siedlungsorganisation in der Nord- und Ostägäis während der Frühbronzezeit (3. Jt. v. Chr.), Internationale Archäologie 58 (Rahden 2002). Lamb 1936 W. Lamb, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge 1936). Lemonnier 1993 P. Lemonnier, Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic (London, New York 1993). Lloyd – Mellaart 1962 S. Lloyd – J. Mellaart, Beycesultan I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels, Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 6 (Ankara 1962). Manning 1995 S. W. Manning, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 1 (Sheffield 1995). Manning 2008 S. W. Manning, Some initial wobbly steps towards a Late Neolithic to Early Bronze III radiocarbon chronology for the Cyclades, in: Brodie et al. 2008, 55–59.

20

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

Maran 1998 J. Maran, Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Studien zu den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen sowie östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kupfer- und der frühen Bronzezeit, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 53 (Bonn 1998). Mommsen 2007 H. Mommsen, Tonmasse und Keramik. Herkunftsbestimmung durch Spurenanalyse, in: G. Wagner (ed.), Einführung in die Archäometrie (Berlin 2007) 179–192. Mommsen et al. 1991 H. Mommsen – A. Kreuser – E. Lewandowski – J. Weber, Provenancing of pottery. A status report on neutron activation analysis and classification, in: M. Hughes – M. Cowell – D. Hook (eds.), Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology. Techniques and Applications, British Museum Occasional Paper 82 (London 1991) 57–65. Nikolakopoulou et al. 2008 I. Nikolakopoulou – F. Georma – A. Moschou – P. Sofianou, Trapped in the middle. New stratigraphic and ceramic evidence from Middle Cycladic Akrotiri, Thera, in: Brodie et al. 2008, 311–324. Orthmann 1966 W. Orthmann, Keramik der Yortankultur in den Berliner Museen, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16, 1966, 1–29. Pantelidou Gofa 2008 M. Pantelidou Gofa, The EH I deposit pit at Tsepi, Marathon. Features, formation and the breakage of the finds, in: Brodie et al. 2008, 281–289. Pullen 1985 D. J. Pullen, Social Organization in Early Bronze Age Greece. A Multidimensional Approach (PhD Diss., Indiana University, Bloomington 1985). Pullen 2011 D. J. Pullen, Redistribution in Aegean palatial societies. Before the palaces. Redistribution and chiefdoms in mainland Greece, American Journal of Archaeology 115, 2, 2011, 185–195. Rambach 2000 J. Rambach, Kykladen II. Die frühe Bronzezeit. Frühbronzezeitliche Beigabensittenkreise auf den Kykladen. Relative Chronologie und Verbreitung, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 34 (Bonn 2000). Renfrew 1972 C. Renfrew, The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC (London 1972). Renfrew 1991 C. Renfrew, The Cycladic Spirit. Masterpieces from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collection (London 1991). Rice 1987 P. M. Rice, Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook (Chicago 1987). Riemer 1997 H. Riemer, Form und Funktion. Zur systematischen Aufnahme und vergleichenden Analyse prähistorischer Gefäßkeramik, Archäologische Informationen 20, 1, 1997, 117–131. Schwall 2018 Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostagäis, Oriental and European Archaeology 7 (Vienna 2018). Seeher 1987 J. Seeher, Demircihüyük III, 1. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978 (Mainz 1987). Seeher 1991 J. Seeher, Die Nekropole von Demircihüyük-Sarıket. Grabungskampagne 1990, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 41, 1991, 97–119.

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction

21

Sharp Joukowsky 1986 M. Sharp Joukowsky, Prehistoric Aphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies. Archaeologia Transatlantica III (Providence 1986). Soles 1992 J. S. Soles, Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete, Hesperia Supplement 24 (Princeton 1992). Triantaphyllou 2001 S. Triantaphyllou, A Bioarchaeological Approach to Prehistoric Cemetery Populations from Central and Western Greek Macedonia, British Archaeological Reports International Series 976 (Oxford 2001). Tuba Ökse 2011 A. Tuba Ökse, The Early Bronze Age in southeastern Anatolia, in: S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000–323 B.C.E. (Oxford 2011) 260–289. Tzedakis et al. 2008 Y. Tzedakis – H. Martlew – M. K. Jones, Archaeology Meets Science. Biomolecular Investigations in Bronze Age Greece. The Primary Scientific Evidence (Oxford 2008). Weninger – Easton 2014 B. Weninger – D. Easton, The Early Bronze Age chronology of Troy (periods I‒III). Pottery seriation, radiocarbon dating and the gap, in: B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia Before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21‒24 November, 2012 (Vienna 2014) 157–202. Wilson 1994 D. Wilson, Knossos before the palaces. An overview of the Early Bronze Age (EM I–III), in: D. Evely – H. HughesBrock – N. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood (Oxford, Bloomington 1994) 23–44. Whitbread 2001 I. K. Whitbread, Ceramic petrology, clay geochemistry and ceramic production – from technology to the mind of the potter, in: D. R. Brothwell – A. M. Pollard (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences (Wiley 2001) 449–458. Wiencke 2000 M. H. Wiencke, The Architecture, Stratification, and Pottery of Lerna III, Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens IV (Princeton, New Jersey 2000).

Anatolia & Eastern Aegean

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon: A Model for Pottery Production in the 3rd Millennium BC Barbara Horejs1 – Sarah Japp2 – Hans Mommsen3 Abstract: Surveys have revealed new insight into the prehistory of western Anatolia at the Bakırçay Valley and its hinterland. These surveys, conducted between 2008 and 2014, have at the outset focussed on the prehistory of the region, which has long been overshadowed by the famed ancient city of Pergamon that dominates the landscape and regional scholarship. This contribution presents the first results of archaeometric pottery studies and also a preliminary model for pottery production in the early 3rd millennium BC. From its typology, and also a macroscopic examination of wares and fabrics, this collection of pottery from the Early Bronze Age (EBA) is rather homogenous. However analysis of the material by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) reveals that the material may have originated from different sources. Altogether 112 prehistoric pottery fragments stemming from 12 sites in the area surrounding Pergamon were examined by Neutron Activation Analysis, of which 48 can be dated to the Early Bronze Age. These are presented in detail. The analysis reveals that prehistoric pottery workshops in the region of Pergamon operated over an extended period and used the same clay sources and/or the same clay recipes. However it also appears that some workshops were only active during a specific period. Presumably these workshops did not trade their products over vast distances, but satisfied local needs. Imports are hardly detectable in the Early Bronze Age pottery of the Bakırçay Valley, which fits into the overall social and economic picture of this micro-region during the 3rd millennium BC. Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Bakırçay Valley, pottery production, NAA, Pergamon, archaeometry

Introduction The prehistoric period has never been the focus of research in the area of the famed city of Pergamon, including the greater Kaykos or Bakırçay Valley. Aside from day-trips by W. Dörpfeld in 1908 and K. Bittel in the 1940s,4 our information about the prehistory of the region is largely based on a single survey conducted by J. Driehaus and published as an article in 1957.5 The glory of Hellenistic Pergamon seems to have captured the attention of all archaeological research in this area over the past 50 years, and as a result the prehistory of this part of western Anatolia has remained almost completely unknown. It is this deficiency that forms the starting point of our archaeological and environmental survey, which incorporates a broad spectrum of archaeological, archaeometric, and geoarchaeological analyses to examine old finds alongside new material and new sites. The aim of this project is to examine (1) settlement in the area and how it changed over time, (2) the environmental conditions in the valley and at the coast, (3) access to raw materials and their use in combination with potential sources in the region, and (4) how the region was integrated into the wider Aegean-Anatolian world. To date, the project has focused on the earliest permanent settlements in the region, including site clustering, the intensity of habitation, and how the settlement pattern has shifted over time. Investigations conducted between 2008 and 2014 have included archaeological surveys (intensive and extensive), geophysical prospection, and

3 4 5 1 2

Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; [email protected]. c/o Pergamongrabung, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut; [email protected]. Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Universität Bonn; [email protected]. Dörpfeld 1908; Dörpfeld – Hepding 1910; Bittel 1950. Driehaus 1957.

26

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

geoarchaeological analyses (drilling and source analysis).6 This contribution presents one aspect of EBA settlement and communities in the Bakırçay Valley along with an archaeometric analysis of pottery in the region, including old and new assemblages. The Environmental and Archaeological Context The Bakırçay (Kaykos) River is the defining feature of this micro-region, as demonstrated by the results of palaeogeographic investigations.7 Most of the settlements in the valley are located at the edge of the flood plain, at natural elevations or in the immediate coastal zone of the bay (Fig. 1). Presumably, regular flooding did not allow using the plain for purposes such as transport, meaning also that cultivation or pastoralism could only have taken place at the edge of the plain and at the transition zone to the adjacent ridges.8 However the exceptional location of Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe in the middle of the flood plain suggests a certain stability in the river’s course and water level, at least from the Late Chalcolithic through the Early Bronze Age (4th–3rd millennium BC). Spatial analysis of the character of the landscape in the Gümüşova Valley by D. Knitter using fuzzy logic and environmental data in a GIS demonstrated the limited extent of potential agricultural space.9 Various natural resources were exploited by communities in the region, including cherts, radiolarite, and flints (for knapped stone tools),10 serpentinite and basalt (for ground stone tools), andesite (for grinding stones), and clay (for spindle whorls and pottery). Some of these local sources have been identified by the geological investigations of D. Wolf, including a basalt source at Erigöl Tepe in the middle Bakırçay Valley, cherts and flints in various areas, as well as clay sources.11 Exotic raw materials, including obsidian, are thus far completely absent during the EBA.12 Only two metal objects dating to this period have been recovered in the valley; they are made of arsenical copper and from Mehofer’s analyses probably derive from regional western Anatolian copper deposits.13 Altogether nine archaeological sites dating to the Early Bronze Age (EBA 1) or the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age 1 transition have been identified (Fig. 1). Four are situated at the Aegean coast (Başantepe, Üyücektepe, Psaltıderesi Höyük, and Elaia), two sites are located in the lower Bakırçay Valley (Çiftlik and Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe), and three sites have been identified at the edge of the Yunt Mountain along small river valleys (Gavur Evleri, Üveçiktepe, Bağlı Tepe). The sites are interpreted as settlements based upon a variety of indicators (collected domestic materials, geophysics, architectural remains at the surface, drillings, etc.), although to what extent they were occupied on a permanent or seasonal basis cannot be determined with certainty. The sites are assigned to this period on the basis of pottery studies, argued elsewhere in detail.14 Due to the lack of excavated sites in the Bakırçay Valley, this pottery chronology is dependent on the excavated material of key sites in the broader region such as Thermi, Troy, Yortan, Liman Tepe, Bakla Tepe, Çukuriçi Höyük, and Beycesultan,15 to mention only a few. These studies provide a

6



9 7 8

12 13 14 15 10 11

For annual reports see Horejs 2010b; Horejs 2011a; Horejs 2012; Horejs 2013; Horejs 2014b; Horejs 2015; Horejs et al. 2016. Seeliger et al. 2011; Schneider et al. 2012; for the Gümüşova Valley see Horejs 2015. For detailed results see also Horejs 2010a; Horejs 2014c. Horejs 2014b, 110–111, figs. 32–34. Horejs 2015, 145. Horejs 2013, 207. Knitter et al. 2013. Horejs 2014c, 115, fig. 6; Mehofer in preparation. E.g. Horejs 2014c. Lamb 1936; Bittel 1939–1941; Kâmil 1982; Korfmann 2001; Kouka 2002; Erkanal 2008a; Erkanal 2008b; Ünlüsoy 2008; Horejs et al. 2011.

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

27

Fig. 1   Prehistoric sites in the Bakırçay Valley based on the Prehistoric Survey Project (map by DAI Pergamon and ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Börner)

detailed chronology of all catalogued sites for the first centuries of the 3rd millennium BC, defined as EBA 1 from the radiocarbon-based sequences at Çukuriçi IV–III and Troy I.16 The EBA Pottery Assemblage Pottery comprises the foremost category of finds recovered from our surveys and also from former investigations in the region. All this material is kept at the Pergamon depot. This pottery has been studied in all its conventional aspects such as shape, type, and measurements to develop a regional typology. From a total of 648 diagnostic ceramics, 198 pieces can be dated to the EBA or to the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the EBA. The statistical averages are, in general, distorted because of selection and storage practices employed in the first of half of the 20th century. In addition, our recent surveys had to follow selection strategies in the field. Comprehensive statistical analyses are only possible with material from sites that have been intensively surveyed (e.g. Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe or Değirmentepe).17 In spite of these difficulties, the assemblage of

Horejs – Weninger 2016. E.g. Horejs 2012.

16 17

28

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

around 200 diagnostic ceramics dated to the late 4th and 3rd millennia BC allow some general remarks on pottery from the period. First, the entire sample of ceramics is handmade. The typical domestic assemblage is composed of shallow bowls with open or carinated mouth (inverted or regularly rounded rims and horizontal tubular lugs), deep bowls with slightly curved or vertical body, necked jars, jugs, narrow-mouthed vessels, s-shaped jars, tripod cooking pots, and probably also pithoi18 (Pls. 1–6). The majority of fine to medium wares are fine-burnished or polished with dense and usually plain and often shiny surfaces. A few tablewares are decorated with incised linear motifs, comparable to Troy I and Çukuriçi IV. Fine to medium wares mostly feature dark-coloured surfaces (grey, dark brown, black) with light breaks (red, orange, brown), whereas the majority of medium to coarse wares are entirely brown or red without slip (Plate 7). Coarse wares are frequently smoothed or medium- to coarsely-burnished, sometimes decorated with small vertical knobs.19 In addition, all sherds have been defined macroscopically to categorise ware groups and to systematically define the technological properties of ceramics in the valley. Macroscopic classifications of hardness, porosity, break, colour, temper, and surface treatment have allowed us to delineate a local system of pottery ware groups (Plate 7).20 This analytical tool has been used to assess the ceramic assemblages at various sites, including Çukuriçi Höyük in the neighbouring region.21 From these studies, samples were selected for further archaeometric analysis. In the course of examining early pottery production in the environs of Pergamon, an archaeological-archaeometric project on the prehistoric pottery was initiated and conducted by S. Japp and H. Mommsen.22 Provenancing and Neutron Activation Analyses (NAA) of Pottery and Data Evaluation For discerning pottery production sites on the basis of pottery from archaeological surveys or excavations, a well-established and widely accepted method is analysing the elemental composition of the clay. The principles of this method have been described many times23 and are only briefly summarised here. This method is more robust if more elements are included in the analysis, especially if the number of experimental uncertainties (formerly called experimental errors) is rather low. The aim is to define the composition of the clay or clays used in the production workshop, which are generally different for different sites or regions and thus point to the place of origin of the clay. From its comparison to a human fingerprint, the method has also been called, ‘chemical fingerprinting’. Firing does not change the elemental composition of a ceramic object, except for some volatile elements such as or Br. Thus the pattern that is measured corresponds to the composition of the clay paste prepared by the ancient potter. The length of time during which the object has remained buried also does not alter the composition, aside from specific elements like Ca, which may be leached or deposited particularly at the surface layers, or Ba, which is sometimes introduced into the ground by the use of fertilisers. Also the alkali elements Na, K, Rb, and sometimes Cs can be affected.24 If, at a single workshop, different clay pastes were prepared, and adjustments in preparation affected several elements of the production process, or if different clays were mixed

20 21 22

The majority of pithoi seem to date to the 2nd millennium BC, but a few examples might be dated to the EBA. For more details see Horejs 2010a. Horejs et al. 2010c. See Röcklinger – Horejs, this volume. This project was part of the archaeological-archaeometric analysis of pottery excavated in Pergamon and its surroundings that was set up within the framework of the scientific program of the Pergamon Excavation of the German Archaeological Institute: see Pirson 2008, 141–142. The results of the first two sample sessions of Hellenistic and Roman pottery have already been published in Japp 2009; Mommsen – Japp 2009; Schneider – Japp 2009. 23 Perlman – Asaro 1969; Harbottle 1976; Wilson 1978; Mommsen 1986; Mommsen 2007. 24 Schwedt et al. 2006; Schwedt – Mommsen 2007. 18 19

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

29

together, then different patterns may be detected in products from the same workshop.25 On the other hand, if different workshops across a region used the same clays and the same clay preparation techniques or the same untreated clay, then the same pattern will be evident across the entire area. One example is the mud deposited along the river Nile, whose composition is remarkably similar throughout the valley.26 We can therefore assume that ceramic objects featuring the same elemental composition originated from the same geographical site or area, or sometimes from the production series of a single workshop. However, the location of this workshop is often unresolved. Its geographical location can be determined only by analysing material from the sites in question, for instance reference material such as samples from local clay beds or samples of kiln wasters or other locally produced pieces, which are even more telling than the composition of the prepared clay pastes. In the absence of such material, distribution models are considered. If pottery with a given composition is found at a site in large numbers, and if its occurrence decreases with distance from the site, then it is likely that it was produced at that site. Similarly, if the composition of pottery at a single site is identical across very different time periods, or across different ware types, then the material was likely produced at that site, as it is unlikely that imports from different periods or across ware types would be identical in composition. An archaeometric method well-adapted to the ‘chemical fingerprinting’ of pottery is Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). The method examines minor and trace elements from pottery samples and has been routinely applied in Bonn for around 25 years.27 Samples of about 80mg are obtained from pottery pieces by drilling into the sherd with a corundum (pure aluminium oxide, sapphire) drill bit. Reasonable efforts were made to avoid temper or large, non-plastic inclusions during drilling. The resultant powder is pressed into pills using pure cellulose as a binder. After pressing, a set of these samples, along with several pills of the Bonn pottery standard,28 is sent to the Reactor Institute in Delft, Netherlands to be analysed. From 2010, samples are exposed to neutron irradiation with a duration of 10h using a neutron flux of 5∙1012 neutrons/(cm²s). The samples are then returned to Bonn, where each pill is monitored with various sensors at intervals of four and seven days following the irradiation in order to identify different energy ranges. After 20 days, a third measurement is conducted in order to detect isotopes with a longer half-life. If present at concentrations above the detection threshold, up to 25–30 elements can be identified using this procedure. To identify pottery of the same composition and, hence, the same origin, at Bonn we have developed a statistical procedure that assesses the composition of pottery by groups of elements. Compared to Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Cluster Analysis (CA), this process is able to incorporate two features that are central to determining pottery provenance.29 First, the experimental uncertainties of NAA are different for different elements. This can be assessed by determining the statistical group forming calculations. Second, clay preparation procedures vary in the amount of additives for tempering material, and minor or trace elements like sand and calcite may dilute or enhance concentration values, thus increasing or decreasing all values at a constant rate (the so-called ‘dilution’ or ‘enhancement’ factor).30 We consider the impact of this effect by calculating a best relative fit factor for each individual sample pattern with respect to the average pattern of the group. This results in a more sharply-defined pattern for each group and allows for sufficient distinction between them.

27 28 29 30 25 26

For an example of clay mixing see Schwedt – Mommsen 2004. Mommsen 2006. Mommsen et al. 1991. Composition given in Mommsen – Sjöberg 2007. Beier – Mommsen 1994; Mommsen et al. 2002; Mommsen – Japp 2014. Mommsen – Sjöberg 2007.

30

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

The Samples and the Grouping Results

W 2 (12.80 %)

Altogether 112 samples from 12 sites were subjected to NAA.31 Tab. 1 lists the analytical raw data for 30 elements. Using the statistical method developed at Bonn to group together samples of similar composition, five groups of more than three samples each were identified (Ul18, Ul64, Ul73, Ul91, and PegK. Ul stands for ‘not located’, and PegK is a known group that is assigned, with high probability, to the settlement of Elaia32). From the calculations, another three groups of three samples each were identified, as well as five samples that could be chemically paired. Another seven samples belong to existing groups in the Bonn database, and 12 samples (11%) are chemical loners. Nothing can be concluded from these single pieces; they may be members of groups not yet identified, or they may have been contaminated: by the ancient potters, in the course of sampling, or by our laboratory. The concentration values of these chemical singles are listed in Tab. 1. The average composition for all 30 elements and the values by which the main groups were assembled are listed in Tab. 2. Tab. 3 provides an overview of the number of samples allocated to each chemical group and their distribution across different sites, which is interpreted and discussed below. Tab. 4 lists the individual members of each chemical group and gives the best relative fit factor for each sample with respect to the average grouping value. This factor must be applied to reproduce the average grouping values from the raw data given in Tab. 1. The extent to which the resulting groups can be separated is reflected in the composition values given in Tabs. 3 and 4. A discriminant analysis is one way to show the compositional differences of the groups mathematically. Fig. 2 gives the result of the four new groups containing more than five members. As the results indicate, each can be clearly distinguished from the other.

-2.5

-5

Ul64 Ul73

-7.5

Ul18

-10

-12.5

Ul91 130

p0001

140

150

W 1 (80.58 %)

Fig. 2   Results of a discriminant analysis (using all elements given in Tab. 2 except As, Ba, Br, and Na) of the samples of the four new, larger groups with more than five members, after correcting the individual samples using their best relative fit factor. The discriminant functions W1 and W2 comprise 81% and 13% of the between-group variance. The ellipses are the 95% confidence limits. The four groups are well separated.

The analysis was conducted at the Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik at the University in Bonn between 2011 and 2014. 32 Mommsen – Japp 2009. 31

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

31

Archaeological Discussion of the Chemical Groups From the start it should be emphasised that macroscopic examination of neither the fabric – matrix and temper – nor the surface treatment offered any hint of the resultant chemical groups. Rather, it seems that in each case, the clay was tempered artificially and that the type of temper was not necessarily consistent within each group. It is unsurprising that firing provided no clear criterion for grouping the fragments together, as pieces of variously-coloured fringes or cores and evidence of reduced firing were present in all groups. The same is true for vessel shapes and types. Therefore it is not currently possible to infer workshop specialisation from functional groups or forms. The 48 samples that are dated to the Early Bronze Age cluster into three of the new groups, while one sample belongs to a group that is already known. Four samples can be grouped into two pairs; however, isolating their production centre is problematic. One of the three new groups (group Ul91; Tab. 4) is mainly comprised of samples from the Gümüşova Valley, a distinct area in the upper Kaykos Valley. By exception, two fragments derive from the neighbourhood of Elaia, a settlement on the Aegean coast southwest of Pergamon (Fig. 1). Most likely, the potter’s workshop was situated in the Gümüşova Valley, and from the dating of the sherds was active from the Early Chalcolithic period until the Early Bronze Age in the 3rd millennium BC. It should be emphasised that 18 of the 33 samples – 55% of the samples collected during the surveys in the valley – belong to this group. The rest of the pottery that was analysed from the valley derives from other workshops in the region. From these results, we can presume that even if the valley was rather secluded, there was contact with other areas and exchange took place. It is worth mentioning that this is the only group in which the potter’s atelier was active solely in earlier periods. All of the other potential workshops in the main valley demonstrate continuities, while in the Gümüşova Valley, pottery production ceased around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. There is, however, at least one settlement of the Late Bronze Age in the area. To the second group are assigned a limited number of samples (group Ul18; Tab. 4), and these seem to be restricted to the upper Kaykos Valley, more than likely products of another workshop. These six samples come from Ayazköy, a settlement in the upper Kaykos Valley east of Pergamon (five samples), and Değirmentepe on the southwestern fringe of the Kaykos Valley (one sample). Only a single piece is assigned to the Early Bronze Age; all of the other samples are products of the Chalcolithic period and the Late Bronze Age, respectively. The workshop that fabricated these pieces was surely active over a longer period, however the gaps of time in-between the different periods has yet to be finally confirmed. The third group (group Ul64; Tab. 4) features samples from three sites, two of which are situated in the Kaykos Valley. Eight samples were recovered from Çiftlik at the northwestern section of the Kaykos Valley, of which six belong to the period of the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Fourteen fragments were recovered from Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe and include 13 from the Early Bronze Age or the period of the Late Chalcolithic period to the Early Bronze Age. Another three pieces were recovered from Başantepe near the coast to the north of the Kane peninsula. Four additional pieces, of which two are assigned to the period of the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age, might also belong to this group from their chemical structure, which varies only slightly. This workshop was presumably situated in the lower Kaykos Valley or at the northern Kane peninsula and was active at least during the early and the late phases of the Bronze Age. It is significant that the Bronze Age samples recovered from Pergamon do not fit into these groups, but for now remain chemical singles. Clearly the production sites in the lower and the upper Kaykos Valley did not supply Pergamon, where other workshops were in charge of production – presumably at Pergamon itself. Imports during the Early Bronze Age in this region are rare. One Early Bronze Age fragment from Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe (YELD 16) demonstrates similarities with samples from a chemical group that probably originated at Ephesos (EphI).33 This group is comprised of material stemming

Kerschner 2002; Mommsen et al. 2007, 26.

33

32

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Sample

Factor

As

Ba

Br

Ca %

Ce

Co

Cr

Cs

Eu

Fe %

Ga

Hf

K%

La

ATAR 22

1.000

14.0

2829.

2.06

7.82

63.5

23.4

219.

8.98

1.15

5.17

21.8

4.09

2.87

30.7

AYAZ 01

1.000

13.2

899.

2.39

2.17

88.9

10.2

141.

19.1

1.19

3.22

28.1

4.67

4.24

43.4

AYAZ 02

1.000

45.6

1351.

4.42

2.40

85.5

17.2

102.

11.8

1.46

4.08

23.3

5.65

2.45

41.9

AYAZ 03

1.000

33.7

1062.

3.13

2.47

89.8

20.0

106.

12.7

1.54

4.35

18.0

5.89

2.32

44.4

AYAZ 04

1.000

27.4

1642.

8.74

2.64

67.7

14.7

68.6

8.57

1.20

3.54

25.9

5.51

2.27

34.0

AYAZ 05

1.000

31.7

1396.

5.47

4.25

78.3

18.8

99.9

8.75

1.31

3.90

24.6

5.04

2.34

37.9

AYAZ 06

1.000

151.

1711.

4.02

1.89

79.3

16.2

86.9

14.3

1.17

3.61

17.1

5.31

2.61

39.8

AYAZ 07

1.000

92.0

2157.

6.85

2.68

77.2

16.3

63.6

6.79

1.29

3.76

25.7

6.42

2.42

38.8

AYAZ 08

1.000

34.2

1522.

5.14

2.26

81.8

19.2

119.

10.7

1.29

4.25

19.7

5.14

2.40

37.8

AYAZ 09

1.000

42.1

2901.

5.08

2.58

75.1

19.7

117.

9.96

1.46

4.62

30.3

5.48

2.55

38.6

AYAZ 10

1.000

38.4

2476.

2.83

2.32

76.1

19.3

54.1

4.72

1.27

3.85

28.9

6.03

2.34

40.6

AYAZ 11

1.000

21.9

2120.

3.88

2.49

85.8

17.0

57.5

6.77

1.40

3.78

31.7

5.80

2.49

43.8

BASA 01

1.000

71.5

2806.

4.12

1.48

94.0

16.2

69.9

6.52

1.21

3.38

14.2

5.88

2.51

52.1

BASA 02

1.000

39.9

2051.

3.17

1.50

82.3

15.1

61.2

5.10

1.05

3.32

17.8

6.65

2.74

38.2

BASA 03

1.000

33.2

2236.

4.13

2.02

126.

24.7

89.5

7.21

1.30

4.53

18.9

7.63

2.75

46.6

BASA 04

1.000

67.0

2959.

6.71

1.54

111.

15.5

53.1

4.97

1.23

3.09

16.9

6.31

2.57

47.5

BASA 05

1.000

24.7

1967.

4.70

1.64

73.9

9.40

45.7

5.42

0.96

3.00

18.1

5.80

2.28

38.6

CIFT 01

1.000

36.0

2052.

2.73

1.96

87.5

15.9

66.3

3.97

1.07

3.70

25.8

7.35

2.22

42.1

CIFT 02

1.000

60.9

1758.

2.76

1.61

103.

19.3

59.6

4.22

1.16

3.49

21.6

6.65

2.60

43.8

CIFT 03

1.000

13.7

2932.

10.4

1.75

99.1

16.3

63.0

3.78

1.44

3.84

23.3

5.82

2.67

50.7

CIFT 04

1.000

103.

3193.

3.45

1.49

76.2

9.84

57.8

4.63

1.18

3.73

24.4

5.39

2.57

46.5

CIFT 05

1.000

27.5

1668.

1.13

1.58

118.

13.3

60.0

5.56

1.30

3.68

25.2

5.90

3.01

46.2

CIFT 06

1.000

20.6

2231.

8.43

1.35

90.4

15.2

65.9

5.41

1.29

3.41

22.5

5.64

2.80

46.6

CIFT 07

1.000

35.9

4466.

8.78

1.59

74.6

14.3

138.

11.8

1.22

3.19

25.2

5.76

2.36

36.8

CIFT 08

1.000

21.1

2719.

12.4

1.42

96.3

15.1

74.1

9.74

1.39

3.61

19.0

5.25

3.04

48.2

CIFT 09

1.000

178.

2055.

4.13

1.63

106.

13.5

65.1

4.69

1.11

3.86

44.7

5.70

2.88

43.8

CIFT 10

1.000

28.1

3260.

5.34

1.60

69.8

6.52

39.5

3.57

1.21

3.27

23.7

5.06

2.08

43.3

DEGI 01

1.000

16.0

733.

1.61

2.04

75.5

13.8

157.

13.1

1.18

2.73

20.9

4.88

2.85

36.7

DEGI 02

1.000

53.0

820.

3.77

1.52

80.4

17.4

101.

10.9

1.42

4.17

15.8

5.84

2.25

41.0

DEGI 03

1.000

17.5

1191.

2.04

3.28

79.1

15.2

95.7

13.4

1.17

3.01

19.1

4.73

2.96

36.6

DEGI 04

1.000

31.9

961.

2.39

6.06

77.7

15.1

147.

15.4

1.22

2.87

23.5

6.55

2.47

36.5

DEGI 05

1.000

58.9

892.

3.07

3.50

83.8

14.2

143.

43.1

1.18

3.13

26.6

5.59

3.75

40.5

DEGI 06

1.000

29.3

1154.

2.03

3.37

92.4

14.7

111.

17.9

1.47

3.20

25.6

6.19

2.99

45.7

DEGI 07

1.000

12.4

1048.

1.97

3.34

83.2

18.3

156.

18.2

1.34

4.17

32.3

5.66

2.75

40.9

DEGI 08

1.000

37.1

1191.

3.01

3.11

84.9

14.8

149.

20.5

1.31

3.29

35.3

5.58

2.76

41.8

DEGI 09

1.000

19.0

1009.

1.78

2.36

85.9

14.3

138.

18.8

1.34

3.40

22.9

5.38

2.76

43.4

Tab. 1   Raw concentration data of 112 samples used in this study. Samples are original to the following 12 sites: Atarneus (ATAR), Ayazköy (AYAZ), Başantepe (BASA), Çiftlik (CIFT), Değirmentepe (DEGI), Elaia (ELAI), Erigöl Tepe (ERIT), Gümüşova Valley (GUEM), Hatiplar Kalesi (HAKA), Teuthrania (TEUT), and Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe (YELD). The table provides the concentration values C of 30 elements in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, and also the average measurement uncertainties (errors), also in % of C

33

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

Lu

Na %

Nd

Ni

Rb

Sb

Sc

Sm

Ta

Tb

Th

U

W

Yb

Zn

Zr

Sample

0.45

0.49

24.8

229.

155.

0.68

21.3

4.70

0.80

0.62

11.4

3.06

2.03

2.81

117.

178.

ATAR 22

0.47

0.49

27.3

118.

224.

1.02

20.0

4.86

1.17

0.69

18.3

3.43

3.37

3.15

63.6 153.

AYAZ 01

0.37

1.73

31.7

113.

124.

1.89

15.4

5.27

0.93

0.78

18.1

3.15

2.26

2.42

68.6 201.

AYAZ 02

0.41

1.66

32.4

86.8

131.

1.88

17.1

5.67

0.96

0.79

18.7

3.28

2.43

2.60

76.7 221.

AYAZ 03

0.31

1.64

20.4

68.2

95.5

1.66

13.9

3.92

0.83

0.60

14.7

2.43

2.05

1.92

63.1 206.

AYAZ 04

0.34

1.52

25.4

107.

104.

1.62

14.1

4.54

0.79

0.74

15.6

3.25

1.61

2.22

58.7 186.

AYAZ 05

0.34

1.44

27.0

112.

129.

7.03

12.9

4.09

0.80

0.64

17.0

2.90

3.02

2.14

86.7 205.

AYAZ 06

0.31

2.01

26.7

25.5

116.

1.96

14.2

4.36

0.89

0.58

16.0

2.52

1.66

2.12

66.5 271.

AYAZ 07

0.35

1.67

24.6

99.2

119.

2.02

15.2

4.58

0.90

0.63

17.2

3.28

2.20

2.06

76.6 197.

AYAZ 08

0.39

1.59

29.3

92.7

114.

1.84

16.9

5.01

0.89

0.74

16.2

3.66

2.52

2.40

74.5 194.

AYAZ 09

0.39

2.00

28.3

53.0

89.0

1.24

14.0

4.67

1.04

0.75

17.4

2.81

2.56

2.52

62.8

211.

AYAZ 10

0.35

1.94

28.8

35.2

111.

1.45

14.7

4.94

0.89

0.71

16.2

2.62

2.56

2.36

61.3 253.

AYAZ 11

0.36

1.66

31.4

47.5

118.

9.34

11.9

5.20

0.94

0.63

22.5

3.79

3.25

2.30

50.9 215.

BASA 01

0.32

1.49

25.9

37.5

119.

5.53

10.8

4.31

0.89

0.47

21.1

3.24

3.19

2.07

49.5 223.

BASA 02

0.35

1.52

32.2

42.6

128.

1.60

15.4

5.70

1.35

0.55

37.1

5.70

4.47

2.32

62.0 241.

BASA 03

0.35

1.57

30.2

63.1

111.

5.92

11.0

5.26

0.89

0.59

21.1

3.39

4.14

2.27

41.2 197.

BASA 04

0.28

1.82

22.2

--

92.2

0.80

10.9

3.66

1.03

0.45

25.2

3.60

1.99

1.89

55.0 180.

BASA 05

0.33

1.62

23.2

51.6

91.2

1.66

13.0

4.11

0.93

0.53

23.7

4.07

2.84

2.10

60.0 276.

CIFT 01

0.36

1.62

29.2

37.4

109.

1.21

13.1

4.67

0.93

0.68

22.9

3.71

2.61

2.27

54.4 230.

CIFT 02

0.38

1.42

35.6

32.9

98.5

1.12

15.5

5.92

0.88

0.73

22.3

4.59

3.20

2.54

60.7 216.

CIFT 03

0.32

1.61

28.3

63.1

107.

2.14

13.2

4.76

0.89

0.61

22.7

4.23

3.58

2.25

54.6 192.

CIFT 04

0.39

1.92

28.8

48.3

117.

1.25

14.6

5.09

0.98

0.69

24.7

4.37

2.92

2.49

60.3 206.

CIFT 05

0.35

1.38

29.1

93.7

114.

1.25

14.6

5.17

0.90

0.61

22.1

4.74

3.43

2.36

59.0 219.

CIFT 06

0.38

1.10

26.1

64.0

110.

3.02

15.7

4.39

1.06

0.59

16.5

3.82

3.21

2.65

66.2 216.

CIFT 07

0.39

0.82

33.3

--

141.

3.02

16.0

5.60

1.10

0.83

21.6

4.41

5.15

2.61

70.3 166.

CIFT 08

0.40

1.71

26.3

--

108.

1.65

14.2

4.38

1.00

0.64

23.5

3.66

3.83

2.29

58.5 185.

CIFT 09

0.37

1.47

27.0

--

81.5

0.86

15.0

4.82

0.92

0.61

23.7

4.24

3.64

2.44

62.7 196.

CIFT 10

0.39

1.25

28.7

58.7

148.

2.39

16.4

5.02

1.00

0.72

16.0

3.24

2.10

2.57

56.1 167.

DEGI 01

0.34

1.87

33.9

93.7

122.

2.41

15.7

5.93

0.88

0.64

18.5

3.21

1.44

2.40

77.2 215.

DEGI 02

0.43

1.01

28.2

56.3

162.

1.24

14.9

5.10

1.00

0.69

16.4

3.07

2.19

2.80

60.2 137.

DEGI 03

0.38

1.23

27.8

69.4

138.

3.40

14.4

5.04

1.00

0.64

17.7

4.30

2.35

2.54

65.7 248.

DEGI 04

0.43

0.85

31.1

101.

227.

2.03

16.3

5.31

1.15

0.65

18.2

3.19

3.08

2.78

71.8 191.

DEGI 05

0.45

1.36

34.2

62.1

171.

3.58

17.0

6.06

1.07

0.89

18.8

4.39

3.11

3.17

76.8 199.

DEGI 06

0.43

1.08

30.7

109.

156.

3.81

17.3

5.51

1.04

0.74

18.2

3.41

3.19

2.84

85.6 221.

DEGI 07

0.42

1.10

29.4

33.7

148.

4.18

16.3

5.33

1.05

0.70

19.4

3.65

3.22

2.63

75.2 201.

DEGI 08

0.41

0.99

29.9

81.5

157.

4.09

16.6

5.52

1.05

0.65

19.0

3.49

3.19

2.79

75.9 217.

DEGI 09

34

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Sample

Factor

As

Ba

Br

Ca %

Ce

Co

Cr

Cs

Eu

Fe %

Ga

Hf

K%

La

DEGI 10

1.000

12.2

871.

2.91

3.33

85.2

16.4

114.

18.6

1.37

3.98

31.2

6.15

2.50

42.3

DEGI 11

1.000

17.8

838.

2.33

1.94

79.9

14.8

138.

33.2

1.23

3.31

31.4

5.50

3.03

39.7

DEGI 12

1.000

18.1

1213.

2.57

3.42

80.4

15.8

128.

17.5

1.30

3.41

26.9

5.94

2.61

40.8

DEGI 13

1.000

23.4

1587.

5.88

3.14

84.2

12.6

97.4

12.9

1.40

2.74

29.9

6.69

2.85

41.0

DEGI 14

1.000

16.1

1304.

3.45

1.64

100.

14.6

113.

14.9

1.53

3.77

32.4

5.93

3.17

49.7

DEGI 15

1.000

30.3

1384.

3.86

5.00

80.4

14.4

84.1

16.3

1.26

3.46

23.5

5.46

2.64

39.7

DEGI 16

1.000

10.7

937.

2.76

2.42

96.2

20.4

153.

17.3

1.48

4.18

23.9

7.17

2.69

47.5

DEGI 17

1.000

16.3

1180.

2.69

1.72

97.3

14.6

99.1

15.0

1.50

5.22

37.8

6.32

2.74

48.3

ELAI 64

1.000

16.0

703.

8.02

4.57

71.9

12.1

85.2

9.61

1.15

2.87

23.4

8.64

2.15

34.5

ELAI 65

1.000

36.9

679.

9.23

2.38

48.4

10.9

70.7

24.6

0.84

3.06

26.0

4.20

2.84

19.2

ELAI 66

1.000

11.7

1220.

8.72

5.48

76.4

14.5

64.4

5.70

1.35

3.02

29.8

5.37

2.43

36.5

ELAI 67

1.000

11.8

1065.

3.59

2.79

75.3

12.9

70.6

4.86

1.31

3.50

39.7

5.88

2.38

40.0

ELAI 68

1.000

33.5

787.

5.97

1.48

47.2

10.3

65.6

28.5

0.86

2.73

23.7

4.29

3.34

20.9

ERIT 01

1.000

19.0

983.

1.57

2.49

90.6

16.3

217.

22.2

1.42

2.98

32.1

5.99

2.91

43.8

ERIT 02

1.000

15.2

1141.

2.42

1.96

88.9

18.6

190.

17.3

1.35

3.66

23.2

6.73

3.11

43.8

GRYN 07

1.000

36.5

825.

13.5

2.82

94.4

24.2

213.

12.7

1.67

4.86

35.4

7.54

2.47

46.5

GUEM 01

1.000

11.7

947.

1.92

5.28

94.4

17.6

133.

13.8

1.41

4.92

19.2

5.81

3.54

45.8

GUEM 02

1.000

19.5

1450.

3.07

2.47

102.

29.8

168.

21.8

1.74

5.85

49.9

6.42

3.38

48.5

GUEM 03

1.000

13.2

1263.

2.97

2.14

100.

24.5

128.

10.3

1.53

5.41

44.5

6.79

3.55

48.1

GUEM 04

1.000

9.95

948.

8.63

4.02

84.9

22.3

147.

15.5

1.47

4.13

33.0

6.24

2.35

41.8

GUEM 05

1.000

11.6

852.

0.73

3.06

99.7

18.0

143.

14.3

1.47

4.99

29.4

5.91

4.12

48.2

GUEM 06

1.000

9.25

1483.

3.50

2.38

88.9

15.7

86.9

6.76

1.46

4.42

22.0

6.62

2.64

44.6

GUEM 07

1.000

33.3

1810.

2.46

2.22

89.1

15.8

90.5

6.80

1.40

4.00

17.9

6.83

2.44

44.1

GUEM 08

1.000

11.1

1432.

3.12

2.13

86.9

14.0

73.9

5.72

1.30

3.95

21.9

6.24

2.21

41.9

GUEM 09

1.000

21.5

1912.

5.53

1.14

57.4

13.5

58.4

5.69

0.83

3.41

16.4

6.11

2.60

23.9

GUEM 10

1.000

10.1

1778.

2.33

2.79

79.2

13.9

73.8

5.93

1.38

3.66

20.6

5.67

2.15

41.2

GUEM 11

1.000

11.9

1698.

3.29

2.11

86.7

14.7

78.1

5.80

1.35

3.70

25.9

6.37

2.23

39.8

GUEM 12

1.000

30.6

1617.

5.45

2.55

83.0

14.6

74.1

5.73

1.31

3.64

16.9

6.21

2.50

41.8

GUEM 13

1.000

15.6

1198.

3.65

2.14

85.5

13.8

86.3

6.91

1.39

3.73

14.3

6.69

2.41

42.5

GUEM 14

1.000

16.2

1593.

7.67

2.34

85.9

15.1

78.7

5.78

1.32

3.57

17.9

6.39

2.22

41.3

GUEM 15

1.000

15.3

1418.

2.34

1.95

77.4

17.1

81.1

7.12

1.32

3.64

19.8

6.55

2.29

39.3

GUEM 16

1.000

8.38

1610.

3.83

1.87

84.0

15.9

76.8

6.32

1.18

3.64

16.9

5.86

2.44

38.4

GUEM 17

1.000

43.6

1270.

4.75

2.04

85.6

11.4

102.

7.10

1.38

3.62

16.6

6.83

2.55

41.4

GUEM 18

1.000

27.0

1683.

8.83

2.07

87.7

12.5

78.6

6.60

1.40

3.62

16.1

6.44

2.42

42.8

GUEM 19

1.000

22.8

1874.

3.38

1.98

83.9

11.3

78.4

5.51

1.39

3.37

20.1

6.64

2.51

42.7

GUEM 20

1.000

17.2

1524.

2.39

1.19

66.4

10.8

71.5

6.71

0.94

2.91

29.4

5.19

2.70

30.7

GUEM 21

1.000

9.49

1341.

5.21

2.14

80.6

13.9

84.1

6.75

1.39

3.77

22.3

6.89

2.67

43.5

GUEM 22

1.000

8.29

1457.

2.93

2.22

80.0

17.9

89.6

7.75

1.27

3.76

22.0

6.54

2.35

38.9

GUEM 23

1.000

12.3

2244.

2.15

2.95

83.8

20.5

76.5

6.23

1.42

3.71

17.6

6.30

2.73

41.3

Tab. 1   continued

35

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

Lu

Na %

Nd

Ni

Rb

Sb

Sc

Sm

Ta

Tb

Th

U

W

Yb

Zn

Zr

Sample

0.46

0.82

30.2

125.

140.

1.39

15.4

5.52

1.15

0.75

18.9

3.66

3.11

2.98

81.6 205.

DEGI 10

0.42

0.64

28.8

104.

179.

1.59

16.3

5.12

1.03

0.62

16.8

3.06

2.97

2.81

71.4 199.

DEGI 11

0.44

1.26

32.3

48.5

143.

3.92

15.4

5.29

0.94

0.67

17.8

3.35

3.10

2.64

74.3 232.

DEGI 12

0.45

1.13

27.4

82.6

141.

2.81

15.4

4.77

1.07

0.80

17.7

3.49

2.72

2.92

71.0 245.

DEGI 13

0.49

1.08

35.6

57.6

184.

2.26

17.6

5.49

1.23

0.79

20.8

4.76

3.51

3.35

68.7 226.

DEGI 14

0.41

1.13

24.9

90.7

140.

3.00

13.9

4.47

1.00

0.74

18.4

3.32

3.54

2.54

59.5 199.

DEGI 15

0.54

0.69

36.7

105.

150.

1.16

16.8

5.65

1.30

0.89

21.6

4.45

4.22

3.53

78.6 252.

DEGI 16

0.50

0.53

30.3

62.2

175.

1.84

17.1

5.61

1.21

0.90

20.3

3.23

3.25

3.32

91.1 259.

DEGI 17

0.35

1.46

21.1

97.6

117.

0.72

10.2

3.63

0.75

0.57

16.9

2.88

1.98

2.05

59.2 296.

ELAI 64

0.50

0.45

15.5

73.3

173.

2.16

12.3

3.54

1.55

0.71

27.2

2.07

2.11

3.42

64.4 139.

ELAI 65

0.35

2.34

23.5

--

119.

0.82

11.5

4.18

0.70

0.61

15.2

3.36

2.34

2.30

58.8 183.

ELAI 66

0.40

2.34

26.7

63.2

122.

0.97

13.6

4.56

0.81

0.62

17.7

3.10

3.09

2.50

61.0 220.

ELAI 67

0.48

0.53

17.2

--

192.

1.66

12.3

3.67

1.60

0.78

28.7

2.37

2.36

3.32

68.5 159.

ELAI 68

0.48

0.71

27.9

95.8

173.

3.53

18.8

5.23

1.22

0.84

20.5

4.91

3.33

3.16

67.3 227.

ERIT 01

0.44

1.20

27.4

118.

174.

4.17

17.2

4.82

1.11

0.72

19.9

4.50

3.79

2.68

70.4 251.

ERIT 02

0.61

1.14

32.2

157.

152.

2.14

19.7

6.15

1.24

1.15

16.8

3.16

3.91

4.17

97.7 289.

GRYN 07

0.50

1.08

33.3

113.

187.

1.18

19.9

5.88

1.14

0.81

18.2

4.40

3.71

3.31

89.6 229.

GUEM 01

0.62

0.95

39.5

92.4

187.

1.03

25.0

7.21

1.45

1.04

20.4

3.83

3.97

4.05

136. 194.

GUEM 02

0.61

1.20

34.1

92.1

168.

0.87

21.8

6.28

1.37

0.82

22.4

4.22

3.47

3.61

109. 263.

GUEM 03

0.49

1.57

29.2

164.

137.

1.04

16.8

5.73

1.02

0.92

16.2

3.28

3.21

3.39

79.1 239.

GUEM 04

0.53

1.05

35.8

132.

212.

1.07

21.2

6.14

1.20

0.83

19.4

4.48

4.24

3.23

85.4 213.

GUEM 05

0.43

2.07

31.2

90.5

135.

0.81

15.3

5.43

0.97

0.70

20.5

3.69

2.79

2.73

61.1 225.

GUEM 06

0.40

1.83

28.8

55.6

142.

0.78

14.6

5.36

1.03

0.67

20.6

4.03

2.92

2.58

65.5 250.

GUEM 07

0.35

1.82

28.5

--

121.

0.72

14.1

4.99

0.80

0.69

19.0

3.89

3.02

2.37

61.6 255.

GUEM 08

0.29

1.32

15.4

93.8

127.

1.01

11.6

2.75

0.90

0.44

18.0

3.23

2.38

1.78

60.1 214.

GUEM 09

0.38

1.76

29.6

34.5

118.

0.62

13.2

5.10

0.79

0.81

17.9

3.20

2.66

2.45

72.8 197.

GUEM 10

0.35

1.72

29.1

38.0

119.

0.76

13.5

4.90

0.84

0.67

18.5

3.17

2.43

2.39

63.4 233.

GUEM 11

0.34

1.94

28.4

63.4

123.

0.79

13.0

4.89

0.89

0.71

19.5

3.58

2.64

2.45

61.8 167.

GUEM 12

0.39

1.75

29.9

81.7

130.

0.89

13.8

5.18

0.91

0.66

19.5

3.36

2.75

2.57

65.3 253.

GUEM 13

0.35

1.79

31.6

32.9

132.

0.66

13.2

5.23

0.86

0.68

19.0

2.99

2.63

2.34

65.5 235.

GUEM 14

0.39

1.75

30.8

57.3

122.

0.97

13.3

5.21

0.82

0.63

16.8

3.00

3.31

2.60

73.6 223.

GUEM 15

0.35

1.66

28.0

30.5

112.

0.68

12.5

4.73

0.82

0.62

17.8

3.18

2.68

2.33

67.5 215.

GUEM 16

0.39

1.72

32.1

33.8

140.

0.97

13.9

5.70

0.89

0.78

20.2

3.70

3.06

2.55

58.0 249.

GUEM 17

0.42

1.90

34.7

42.3

132.

0.79

13.7

5.88

0.81

0.84

18.9

3.11

2.68

2.73

57.7 223.

GUEM 18

0.38

1.92

30.5

57.3

125.

0.81

12.6

5.51

0.80

0.74

18.9

3.22

2.59

2.54

63.6 242.

GUEM 19

0.36

1.36

20.4

35.1

129.

0.89

10.7

3.82

0.96

0.57

15.7

2.13

2.46

2.48

67.4 156.

GUEM 20

0.43

2.07

34.8

--

134.

0.75

14.3

5.85

0.89

0.78

18.9

4.46

3.41

2.76

64.1 233.

GUEM 21

0.34

1.76

26.5

58.7

126.

0.77

13.8

4.56

0.85

0.65

17.8

3.08

2.84

2.31

84.3 247.

GUEM 22

0.37

1.81

27.8

70.2

131.

0.94

13.7

4.98

0.90

0.66

18.4

3.42

3.32

2.50

90.2 244.

GUEM 23

36

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Sample

Factor

As

Ba

Br

Ca %

Ce

Co

Cr

Cs

Eu

Fe %

Ga

Hf

K%

La

GUEM 24

1.000

13.4

1652.

3.79

3.00

115.

20.9

83.1

6.83

1.21

4.23

28.3

6.13

2.44

38.0

GUEM 25

1.000

13.5

1607.

3.33

2.38

87.2

15.6

78.9

5.73

1.44

3.85

24.8

6.15

2.44

41.0

GUEM 26

1.000

9.05

1715.

6.53

3.02

80.2

13.3

75.3

5.57

1.40

3.85

22.1

6.53

2.40

42.2

GUEM 27

1.000

6.14

953.

1.60

3.34

70.1

22.1

160.

9.90

1.37

4.18

25.4

4.95

2.64

35.0

GUEM 28

1.000

14.4

1043.

1.21

2.85

83.7

16.5

157.

17.4

1.39

3.63

30.3

6.46

3.03

40.8

GUEM 29

1.000

8.27

777.

1.67

5.46

88.3

22.9

207.

12.2

1.38

4.76

29.9

5.44

2.93

42.2

GUEM 30

1.000

22.9

888.

1.25

3.85

88.4

13.6

127.

16.9

1.31

4.06

29.4

6.12

3.52

43.9

GUEM 31

1.000

4.79

777.

0.99

3.87

94.7

18.2

140.

14.0

1.39

4.69

28.1

5.15

3.77

46.8

GUEM 32

1.000

11.0

2276.

4.49

2.22

100.

17.9

135.

8.30

1.34

4.06

20.6

8.68

2.76

37.2

GUEM 33

1.000

7.62

1350.

2.15

2.72

82.9

15.7

89.4

6.90

1.45

4.13

27.6

6.87

2.24

40.8

HAKA 01

1.000

4.41

3121.

16.6

5.24

81.4

14.6

164.

29.1

1.41

3.93

22.4

6.60

2.77

42.8

TEUT 01

1.000

12.1

1363.

4.72

3.34

81.3

17.1

99.5

18.4

1.26

3.43

14.9

5.24

2.49

39.9

TEUT 02

1.000

14.5

1141.

2.00

2.50

82.2

17.8

95.5

18.6

1.33

3.86

21.6

6.01

2.42

40.5

TEUT 03

1.000

10.2

799.

2.47

2.59

83.9

16.6

121.

16.9

1.28

3.89

22.6

5.67

2.71

41.1

TEUT 04

1.000

33.2

1464.

2.21

2.88

78.3

13.0

81.0

14.4

1.20

3.53

17.7

6.20

2.46

37.4

TEUT 05

1.000

8.73

956.

1.90

2.97

87.3

13.7

111.

13.7

1.34

3.06

26.3

5.82

2.75

44.6

YELD 01

1.000

138.

2158.

7.45

1.95

67.6

7.48

67.8

5.98

1.32

3.13

16.5

5.69

2.31

44.5

YELD 02

1.000

198.

1795.

4.10

1.80

99.0

13.2

46.1

4.78

1.14

3.19

15.0

5.27

2.69

44.3

YELD 03

1.000

183.

1528.

31.6

2.00

79.0

13.8

55.8

4.94

0.98

3.83

18.6

5.70

2.69

38.1

YELD 04

1.000

11.7

1406.

2.18

1.87

69.7

8.35

43.1

4.99

1.08

3.43

17.0

5.25

2.94

41.3

YELD 05

1.000

69.5

1989.

7.51

--

71.3

11.7

55.3

3.86

1.23

3.32

12.6

5.21

2.38

44.3

YELD 06

1.000

44.6

1298.

12.1

0.83

85.5

12.6

47.1

5.42

1.14

3.44

12.2

5.69

2.88

43.5

YELD 07

1.000

41.9

1080.

37.0

1.56

133.

20.3

56.1

4.66

1.41

3.45

8.74

5.90

2.25

57.3

YELD 08

1.000

97.9

1730.

3.44

1.06

91.4

13.8

88.4

9.35

1.04

3.10

12.8

5.87

2.32

39.7

YELD 09

1.000

43.5

1512.

13.0

0.90

100.

9.02

57.9

5.02

1.21

3.32

14.0

6.16

2.60

63.8

YELD 10

1.000

112.

1276.

2.58

0.96

81.5

12.7

74.4

6.29

1.34

3.45

15.9

5.86

2.23

45.5

YELD 11

1.000

104.

1663.

2.77

1.42

72.8

9.60

54.4

7.77

1.14

3.46

17.7

5.67

2.70

43.5

YELD 12

1.000

151.

1245.

15.3

1.44

77.3

11.3

80.6

5.37

1.18

3.25

16.1

6.24

2.37

40.9

YELD 13

1.000

289.

1560.

2.92

1.52

82.1

14.6

75.2

4.64

1.25

3.65

9.89

6.07

2.87

43.7

YELD 14

1.000

84.0

2192.

4.05

0.74

59.9

7.15

58.9

4.88

0.99

3.58

18.2

5.67

3.00

37.4

YELD 15

1.000

136.

1780.

7.02

0.90

79.2

11.9

66.5

5.70

1.07

3.30

13.1

5.44

2.67

38.0

YELD 16

1.000

33.7

1740.

12.9

2.00

87.6

22.9

209.

7.68

1.50

4.96

28.7

4.90

3.34

41.1

YELD 17

1.000

196.

1660.

10.0

1.96

121.

12.0

49.8

4.85

1.18

3.24

17.7

5.65

2.47

74.3

YELD 18

1.000

172.

1515.

20.1

1.47

83.7

9.45

39.5

4.65

1.11

3.16

18.2

5.68

2.71

45.8

YELD 19

1.000

139.

1679.

10.3

1.62

144.

28.4

59.3

5.07

1.23

3.82

21.1

6.03

2.70

44.4

YELD 20

1.000

116.

2302.

4.42

1.77

86.5

8.93

57.7

6.66

1.08

3.40

12.2

6.11

2.29

49.1

YELD 21

1.000

52.9

685.

1.52

2.87

87.0

25.2

234.

14.6

1.27

4.72

31.4

5.49

4.20

40.6

ave.error

0.23

49.

0.52

0.19

0.43

0.10

0.65

0.11

0.021

0.012

4.2

0.058

0.055

0.13

in%

0.5

3.1

10.

7.7

0.5

0.6

0.7

1.1

1.6

0.3

19.

1.0

2.0

0.3

Tab. 1   continued

37

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

Lu

Na %

Nd

Ni

Rb

Sb

Sc

Sm

Ta

Tb

Th

U

W

Yb

Zn

0.32

1.87

26.9

76.3

110.

0.92

16.2

4.45

0.92

0.59

17.5

2.98

2.36

2.09

95.1 235.

GUEM 24

0.37

1.69

28.0

63.2

122.

0.68

13.8

5.17

0.87

0.71

18.9

3.06

2.48

2.41

80.9 240.

GUEM 25

0.37

1.89

31.6

42.7

120.

0.76

13.9

4.96

0.91

0.71

19.1

3.82

2.25

2.47

72.6 263.

GUEM 26

0.42

1.62

25.8

170.

129.

0.70

16.7

4.48

0.87

0.66

14.3

3.18

2.46

2.59

95.6 224.

GUEM 27

0.41

1.09

30.3

89.4

164.

3.90

17.0

4.90

1.00

0.62

19.7

3.93

3.19

2.71

78.7 252.

GUEM 28

0.50

0.29

31.0

182.

175.

0.75

21.6

5.52

1.15

0.71

17.2

3.41

2.70

3.29

88.6 198.

GUEM 29

0.47

0.88

29.6

61.3

196.

1.03

19.4

5.30

1.14

0.73

18.2

3.52

3.52

2.93

78.9 223.

GUEM 30

0.51

0.82

33.2

111.

197.

0.90

20.5

5.65

1.13

0.81

17.8

3.51

2.86

3.23

89.3 200.

GUEM 31

0.40

1.24

28.3

115.

152.

1.29

15.8

5.07

1.34

0.64

24.0

4.00

3.21

2.47

87.2 278.

GUEM 32

0.40

1.74

31.3

75.1

128.

0.78

15.0

5.01

0.91

0.67

19.1

3.23

2.70

2.58

87.8 275.

GUEM 33

0.40

1.70

25.6

98.6

176.

0.70

14.5

4.93

1.21

0.83

18.6

4.43

3.76

2.93

65.8 269.

HAKA 01

0.39

1.15

27.9

85.1

135.

1.90

13.7

4.97

0.96

0.62

18.5

3.52

2.82

2.46

69.6 184.

TEUT 01

0.40

1.32

30.3

--

138.

3.95

14.9

5.23

1.00

0.68

17.4

3.26

2.98

2.75

79.8 210.

TEUT 02

0.45

0.89

30.1

79.2

149.

1.59

16.5

5.29

1.16

0.73

18.3

3.48

2.65

3.01

78.3 198.

TEUT 03

0.35

1.20

26.3

65.3

122.

3.73

12.8

4.58

0.91

0.65

21.1

2.83

3.17

2.28

69.2 242.

TEUT 04

0.39

1.49

32.7

73.7

148.

3.26

14.2

4.96

0.98

0.62

19.5

4.04

2.50

2.65

86.5 249.

TEUT 05

0.32

1.50

30.4

30.3

134.

1.48

12.3

5.37

1.00

0.72

22.6

4.28

2.29

2.50

60.5 221.

YELD 01

0.32

1.58

29.2

462.

121.

1.39

12.0

4.93

0.89

0.57

22.4

3.49

2.00

2.14

67.8 210.

YELD 02

0.29

1.59

26.4

170.

118.

1.64

11.8

4.12

0.93

0.51

21.7

3.45

1.99

1.81

62.0 189.

YELD 03

0.31

1.78

26.3

55.5

121.

1.12

11.5

4.40

0.96

0.54

24.6

3.52

2.21

2.09

49.0 160.

YELD 04

0.35

2.80

31.4

60.8

91.4

2.18

14.2

5.75

0.85

0.65

21.5

3.25

1.70

2.05

53.5 193.

YELD 05

0.30

2.88

33.3

43.8

139.

1.36

11.2

5.61

0.99

0.65

23.6

3.24

1.71

1.99

59.8 203.

YELD 06

0.45

2.51

39.7

36.5

108.

1.20

13.2

7.16

0.95

0.86

26.6

2.15

1.59

2.88

50.3 208.

YELD 07

0.28

2.89

27.9

97.0

113.

5.28

10.9

4.70

0.98

0.61

18.7

2.77

1.63

1.76

65.1 226.

YELD 08

0.33

2.86

35.9

33.1

125.

1.58

12.3

5.89

1.00

0.63

25.9

3.18

1.79

2.27

52.3 261.

YELD 09

0.36

2.60

33.5

--

124.

2.59

13.3

5.92

1.01

0.70

20.8

2.88

1.93

2.42

58.0 208.

YELD 10

0.33

2.68

31.8

--

120.

7.39

12.3

5.23

0.94

0.63

23.1

2.99

1.85

1.94

61.0 188.

YELD 11

0.33

2.73

31.2

31.2

115.

2.85

12.1

5.14

0.91

0.64

21.1

2.89

1.87

2.10

51.5 233.

YELD 12

0.34

3.04

32.2

56.6

104.

4.63

13.6

5.58

0.86

0.75

19.4

4.31

1.95

1.83

72.8 204.

YELD 13

0.28

2.33

24.3

80.9

113.

1.65

11.5

4.15

0.91

0.50

22.2

3.54

2.18

2.05

47.6 230.

YELD 14

0.33

2.12

26.7

33.1

101.

2.71

12.6

4.65

0.86

0.57

20.3

3.25

2.05

2.13

61.5 220.

YELD 15

0.50

0.42

35.4

214.

165.

2.72

18.3

6.81

1.26

1.00

18.1

5.29

3.99

3.89

103. 167.

YELD 16

0.34

1.70

37.5

43.1

119.

2.59

11.7

5.49

0.89

0.59

28.6

3.19

2.30

2.18

57.8 197.

YELD 17

0.30

1.58

29.8

32.9

129.

6.61

11.0

4.72

0.86

0.55

23.3

3.51

1.81

2.06

55.0 179.

YELD 18

0.37

1.52

31.4

--

114.

2.03

12.3

5.13

1.01

0.57

23.2

4.09

2.45

2.38

54.4 221.

YELD 19

0.31

1.59

30.1

47.6

123.

2.00

11.5

4.62

0.92

0.51

23.3

3.76

2.57

2.14

59.4 224.

YELD 20

0.50

0.51

32.4

177.

224.

1.32

22.1

5.13

1.20

0.67

17.9

4.19

3.11

3.11

91.0 235.

YELD 21

0.013 0.011

1.3

26.

2.6

0.040 0.018

0.025

0.040

0.051

0.080

0.23

0.26 0.059

1.5

20.

ave.error

4.6

32.

1.9

0.5

4.0

7.5

0.4

6.6

9.3

2.2

9.2

in%

3.4

0.7

1.9

0.1

2.3

Zr

Sample

M 40.0 1504. 4.48 2.60 81.7 18.7 107. 10.8 1.41 4.22 21.4 5.49 2.38 40.2 0.37 1.67 29.6 98.8 119. 1.94 15.7 5.15 0.89 0.72 17.3 3.30 2.06 2.34 71.8 202.

σ (%) (20.) (47.) (24.) (39.) (5.4) (6.5) (8.0) (9.6) (3.5) (4.0) (25.) (4.0) (5.5) (4.3) (4.1) (7.2) (11.) (25.) (4.7) (14.) (3.3) (9.0) (4.1) (9.0) (5.5) (6.6) (19.) (5.4) (8.1) (9.5)

M 95.1 1953. 6.00 1.52 85.8 12.7 60.4 5.42 1.18 3.45 16.5 5.82 2.63 44.0 0.33 1.88 29.4 52.5 115. 2.91 12.7 5.00 0.93 0.61 22.2 3.67 2.59 2.18 57.2 206.

σ (%) (75.) (28.) (79.) (22.) (14.) (23.) (16.) (22.) (7.4) (6.1) (28.) (9.6) (9.9) (6.7) (6.4) (32.) (8.9) (47.) (11.) (77.) (8.3) (10.) (4.8) (11.) (6.6) (12.) (30.) (6.6) (11.) (13.)

Ul64 26 samples M 21.6 1418. 2.84 2.98 83.1 16.0 153. 17.5 1.31 3.44 27.0 5.97 2.74 40.8 0.42 1.07 29.5 79.6 150. 3.55 16.5 5.12 1.06 0.68 18.7 3.87 3.07 2.76 73.6 226.

σ (%) (51.) (87.) (84.) (45.) (1.9) (7.2) (15.) (12.) (2.1) (11.) (14.) (9.2) (4.6) (2.9) (4.2) (18.) (6.3) (32.) (8.2) (21.) (3.8) (6.3) (6.7) (7.6) (3.2) (13.) (11.) (5.1) (8.0) (9.9)

Ul73 10 samples M 16.7 1566. 4.03 2.34 83.8 14.6 80.5 6.20 1.37 3.75 21.1 6.41 2.41 41.5 0.38 1.81 30.1 56.1 126. 0.79 13.7 5.18 0.87 0.70 18.9 3.42 2.79 2.51 68.1 234.

σ (%) (58.) (18.) (46.) (16.) (4.4) (15.) (6.9) (8.6) (3.3) (5.0) (23.) (3.4) (5.9) (2.5) (5.4) (5.4) (6.0) (47.) (3.4) (14.) (3.3) (4.9) (4.9) (8.1) (3.4) (9.9) (12.) (3.2) (14.) (9.6)

Ul91 19 samples M 46.9 1963. 6.51 2.59 76.6 15.9 63.3 7.39 1.29 3.69 27.4 5.90 2.38 38.7 0.32 1.86 25.1 42.8 107. 1.69 14.2 4.39 0.87 0.63 15.6 2.52 2.08 2.13 63.6 242.

σ (%) (82.) (11.) (41.) (7.0) (8.1) (3.3) (13.) (18.) (4.3) (0.8) (15.) (6.5) (2.0) (8.9) (3.6) (7.4) (14.) (56.) (7.1) (16.) (1.7) (8.0) (4.0) (8.8) (1.8) (8.5) (20.) (6.7) (5.9) (11.)

Ul71 3 samples M 9.31 857. 1.21 4.08 96.2 18.0 138. 14.0 1.42 4.87 27.2 5.62 3.81 46.9 0.51 0.98 34.2 118. 198. 1.05 20.5 5.89 1.15 0.81 18.5 4.10 3.55 3.26 88.1 213.

σ (%) (42.) (10.) (52.) (29.) (1.0) (2.4) (2.6) (0.9) (1.5) (2.5) (19.) (6.4) (5.7) (1.1) (3.1) (14.) (3.5) (25.) (4.3) (14.) (1.5) (2.5) (3.8) (6.9) (2.5) (12.) (18.) (3.0) (4.7) (11.)

Ul74 3 samples M 21.7 779. 7.45 4.35 91.5 22.3 171. 13.9 1.59 4.41 28.7 6.72 2.46 45.2 0.53 1.02 33.1 165. 145. 1.40 18.2 6.22 1.15 0.99 16.8 3.12 3.34 3.71 85.3 267.

σ (%) (57.) (29.) (86.) (39.) (2.7) (8.3) (17.) (16.) (2.5) (5.2) (24.) (7.0) (2.9) (3.5) (8.9) (66.) (11.) (18.) (1.8) (40.) (3.5) (6.9) (4.6) (11.) (3.5) (4.9) (10.) (6.8) (9.2) (8.2)

Ul98 3 samples M 18.8 1363. 4.04 2.20 93.5 13.9 103. 14.2 1.47 3.87 33.1 6.33 2.92 46.1 0.48 0.92 31.0 67.8 166. 2.32 16.6 5.27 1.17 0.83 19.5 3.81 3.15 3.19 76.8 243.

σ (%) (29.) (21.) (48.) (45.) (3.5) (3.0) (6.0) (3.1) (1.4) (28.) (17.) (12.) (7.6) (4.6) (3.0) (39.) (9.1) (36.) (8.2) (27.) (1.5) (3.4) (3.2) (7.7) (3.0) (19.) (8.9) (1.9) (15.) (9.5)

X012 3 samples M 20.2 1248. 3.33 2.84 82.4 15.7 100. 16.3 1.31 3.58 24.1 6.06 2.47 40.8 0.38 1.35 30.2 79.0 132. 3.10 14.2 5.10 0.96 0.70 18.8 3.38 2.69 2.59 81.9 218.

σ (%) (47.) (37.) (55.) (15.) (2.8) (13.) (7.7) (20.) (2.1) (8.2) (24.) (9.0) (5.7) (3.0) (5.3) (19.) (8.2) (35.) (6.2) (39.) (3.8) (5.4) (4.8) (7.1) (7.4) (14.) (19.) (5.6) (12.) (25.)

PegK 15 samples

Tab. 2   Average concentrations M of elements in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, and root mean square deviations σ in % of M of groups formed with the dataset of 112 samples from the region of Pergamon. The individual sample data have been corrected with a best relative fit factor with respect to the average values M. These factors are listed in Tab. 4. Ul-No and X-No groups stem from workshops that are not yet geographically defined. PegK is with high probability assigned to Elaia

As Ba Br Ca % Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe % Ga Hf K% La Lu Na % Nd Ni Rb Sb Sc Sm Ta Tb Th U W Yb Zn Zr

Ul18 6 samples

38 Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

6

25+4[ + 1 ext.] 10+1-

19+1-

3

3

Ul71

3

3

Ul74

2 [ + 1 ext.]

1

1

Ul98

3

3

X012

7 loc. [+ 8 o t h e r, ext.]

4

1

2

PegK

6 located + 1 unknown

22:TroA/MYBE

16:EphI

2:PegL, 3:PegA, 20:X001, 27:TroB, 29:Pege

Specials

9+[1 ext.]

9+17

65+68

Degi 1+3, 5+11, 15+[Elai 45]

12

1

2

3

1

1

1

3

Chemical sample Singles pairs

112

1

1

1

2

21

5

33

5

17

10

5

11

Totals

Tab. 3   Distribution of the 112 Bronze Age samples from sites in the region of Pergamon into NAA elemental concentration patterns. Bold numbers highlight possible production places of the NAA group. - designates samples that are only associated to the group. The samples and groups not treated here will be discussed in a forthcoming paper. For the specials in the Peg˗groups see Mommsen – Japp 2009

Totals

Hatiplar Kalesi

Atarneus

Grynaion

Erigöl Tepe

2

1

Teuthrania 14+2-

18

Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe

1+11+1-

Ul91

Gümüşova Valley

5

1

Ul73

Elaia

1

8+1-

Değirmentepe

Çiftlik

Ul64

3+1-

5

Ul18

Başantepe

Ayazköy

Site

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

39

40 Name

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Totals

Members (fit factor) Existing groups

EphI

1

YELD 16 (1.03)

TroA/MYBE

1

ATAR 22 (0.99)

PegA

1

GUEM 03 (0.98)

PegK

7

DEGI 06 (0.90), 10 (0.94), GUEM 22 (1.04), TEUT 01 (1.03), 02 (0.99), 04 (1.06), 05 (0.98)

PegL

1

GUEM 02 (0.92)

Pege

1

GUEM 29 (0.96)

TroB

1

GUEM 27 (1.00)

X001

1

GUEM 20 (1.03) (data see table of raw data) (+ 3 other) New groups

Ul18

6

AYAZ 02 (0.99), 03 (0.94), 05 (1.07), 08 (1.02), 09 (0.97), DEGI 02 (1.00)

Ul64

25 (+ 1)

BASA 01 (0.97), 02 (1.05), 04 (1.01), CIFT 01 (1.00), 02 (0.98), 03 (0.92), 04 (1.00), 05 (0.92), 06 (0.97), 08 (0.88), 09 (0.95), YELD 01 (0.98), 02 (1.03), 03 (1.04), 04 (1.03), 05 (1.04), 06 (0.99), 10 (0.97), 11 (1.00), 12 (1.03), 13 (0.99), 14 (1.06), 15 (1.06), 18 (1.04), 20 (1.01) + other ATAR 18 (0.96),

Ul64- (assoc.) 4

BASA 05 (1.09), CIFT 10 (0.99), YELD 08 (1.06), 19 (0.92)

Ul73

CIFT 07 (1.10), DEGI 04 (1.07), 07 (0.97), 08 (1.00), 09 (0.99), 12 (1.02), ERIT 01 (0.92), 02 (0.95), GUEM 28 (0.98), TEUT 03 (0.99)

10

Ul73- (assoc.) 1

GUEM 30 (0.93)

Ul91

ELAI 67 (1.06), GUEM 06 (0.93), 07 (0.94), 08 (1.02), 10 (1.04), 11 (1.03), 12 (1.02), 13 (0.98), 14 (1.02), 15 (1.02), 16 (1.07), 17 (0.96), 18 (0.97), 19 (1.01), 21 (0.95), 23 (0.99), 25 (1.00), 26 (1.00), 33 (0.97)

19

Ul91- (assoc.) 1

ELAI 66 (1.12) Triples

Ul71

AYAZ 04 (1.04), 07 (0.99), 11 (0.97)

Ul74

GUEM 01 (1.01), 05 (0.98), 31 (1.01)

Ul98

GRYN 07 (0.96), GUEM 04 (1.05) + other ELAI 55 (0.99)

X012

DEGI 13 (1.07), 14 (0.96), 17 (0.97) Pairs (data see table of raw data)

=197

DEGI 01 (1.01), 03 (0.99)

=14

DEGI 05 (0.99), 11 (1.01)

=179

DEGI 15 (0.99) + other ELAI 45 (1.01)

=210

YELD 09 (0.99), 17 (1.01)

=81

ELAI 65 (1.01), 68 (0.99) Singles (data see table of raw data) AYAZ 01, 06, 10, BASA 03, DEGI 16, ELAI 64, GUEM 09, 24, 32, HAKA 01, YELD 07, 21

Tab. 4   List of members of the different groups and their best relative fit factor with respect to the average grouping values. The 48 pieces dated to the EBA are shown in bold

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

41

from the late Classical to the Hellenistic period, as well as a single Archaic piece, although this chronological disparity has yet to be explained. The production of EBA pottery is attested at Çukuriçi Höyük, and thus several pieces may originate from that site.34 This question will necessitate further analyses in future. A Model for Pottery Production in the Early 3rd Millennium BC From a preliminary view of the archaeological and archaeometric analyses, several workshops were active across the Bakırçay Valley. Some of the ateliers worked only during a specific period in prehistory, while others were in production over a longer period of time. We do not detect any specialisation in certain forms or functional groups. Presumably, these workshops did not trade their products across vast distances but instead satisfied local needs. This is supported by the fact that none of the existing prehistoric samples in the Bonn database can be assigned to the new groups. It is already assumed that the production of these products differs markedly, in terms of clay recipe, between early periods and during later – Hellenistic to Byzantine – periods. Moreover, pottery imports were uncommon in the region of Pergamon during the Early Bronze Age.35 It seems that, in this period, workshops scattered across the Bakırçay Valley produced the necessary table, cooking, and storage wares for the local population, satisfying demand almost entirely. Across the upper, central, and lower Bakırçay Valley, including the coastal area and the Gümüşova Valley, communities were generally connected in their preferences for pottery styles. Production, however, was mainly local. This is well-attested, for instance, in the Gümüşova Valley. The ongoing examination of various lithics and their sources might shed light on the extent of connectivity between communities in the region, especially with regard to the regional exchange of raw materials. The analyses detailed here are consistent with the results of other studies conducted in the region, and fit well into an initial, overarching picture of the societies of the Bakırçay Valley. In contrast to neighbouring regions such as the northeastern Aegean, the Troad to the north, and the central Aegean coast to the south, which were highly dynamic during the period, the Bakırçay Valley appears to have been socially and culturally isolated. Early Bronze Age communities in this area seem not to have been integrated into supra-regional networks. This is especially evident in the exchange of certain raw materials. For instance, at 3rd millennium sites in the Bakırçay Valley there is a complete lack of obsidian and other characteristic EBA innovations such as weights.36 While settlements in our region are served by local workshops, they also share typical Early Bronze Age pottery and metal styles and technologies that are identified with the northeastern Aegean koiné, as defined by O. Kouka.37 At the same time, the region seems to have been excluded from the main exchange routes of the Anatolian Trade Network model outlined by V. Şahoğlu.38 In this network, not only luxury objects but also raw materials, innovations, and technological knowledge were exchanged, demonstrating the rise of elites during the developed EBA from c. 2600 BC. Our examination of EBA pottery in the Bakırçay Valley provides initial insight into a previously unknown regional production of the 3rd millennium BC. From the presence of common styles and technologies of the eastern Aegean koiné, communities in this region were integrated into greater networks of the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia, but primarily turned to local, autochthonous networks to serve their needs.

36 37 38 34 35

Cf. Peloschek, this volume; Röcklinger – Horejs, this volume. For the limited number of imports during the Late Bronze Age see Horejs 2011b; Horejs 2014a. Cf. Rahmstorf 2006; Knitter et al. 2013; Horejs 2016. Kouka 2002; Kouka 2008. Şahoğlu 2005.

42

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Pergamon Excavation of the German Archaeological Institute and Felix Pirson for allowing samples to be sourced from the campaigns 2011, 2013, and 2014. We would also like to express our gratitude to the Turkish Antiquities Authority and the Bergama Müze for permission to export the samples to Germany and to conduct the Neutron Activation Analysis. We further thank Maria Röcklinger for assisting in the work, Mario Börner for creating the map, and the entire survey teams working in Pergamon between 2008 and 2015. The Prehistoric Survey Project was funded by the European Research Council (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia, 263339) and the Austrian Research Fund (START project Y 528). Finally, we would like to thank the staff at the Reactor Institute Delft, Delft University of Technology for assistance in irradiating the samples.

References Beier – Mommsen 1994 Th. Beier – H. Mommsen, Modified Mahalanobis filters for grouping pottery by chemical composition, Archaeometry 36, 1994, 287–306. Bittel 1939–1941 K. Bittel, Ein Gräberfeld der Yortankultur bei Babaköy, Archiv für Orientforschung 13, 1939–1941, 1–28. Bittel 1950 K. Bittel, Zur ältesten Besiedlungsgeschichte der unteren Kaikosebene, Istanbuler Forschungen 17, 1950, 10–29. Driehaus 1957 J. Driehaus, Prähistorische Siedlungsfunde in der unteren Kaikosebene und am Golfe von Çandarlı, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 7, 1957, 76–101. Dörpfeld 1908 W. Dörpfeld, Ausgrabungen in Pergamon. Technisches und Architekturtagebuch Pergamon 1908, 16–23. Dörpfeld – Hepding 1910 W. Dörpfeld – H. Hepding, Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908–1909, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 35, 1910, 345–526. Erkanal et al. 2008 H. Erkanal – H. Hauptmann – V. Șahoğlu – R. Tuncel (eds.), The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Urla – Izmir (Turkey), October 13th–19th 1997 (Ankara 2008). Erkanal 2008a H. Erkanal, Die neuen Forschungen in Bakla Tepe bei Izmir, in: Erkanal et al. 2008, 165–177. Erkanal 2008b H. Erkanal, Liman Tepe: new light on prehistoric Aegean cultures, in: Erkanal et al. 2008, 179–190. Harbottle 1976 G. Harbottle, Activation analysis in archaeology, in: G. W. A. Newton (ed.), Radiochemistry 3 (London 1976) 33–72. Horejs 2010a B. Horejs, Bronzezeitliche Besiedlungsmuster im Kaikostal. Interpretationen erster Surveyergebnisse im Umland von Pergamon (Türkei), in: B. Horejs – T. Kienlin (eds.), Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Beiträge zu den Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Schleswig 2007 und auf dem Deutschen Archäologenkongress in Mannheim 2008, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 194 (Bonn 2010) 47–67. Horejs 2010b B. Horejs, Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2008, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2009, 2, 2010, 168–174. Horejs 2010c B. Horejs, Possibilities and limitations in analysing ceramic wares, in: B. Horejs – R. Jung – P. Pavúk (eds.), Analysing Pottery. Processing – Classification – Publication (Bratislava 2010) 15–27.

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

43

Horejs 2011a B. Horejs, Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2009, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2010, 2, 2011, 164–168. Horejs 2011b B. Horejs, Bergama and the Bakırçay Valley in prehistory, in: Önen et al. 2011, 24–36. Horejs 2012 B. Horejs, Prähistorische Surveys am Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe und im Umland von Pergamon, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2010, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2011, 2, 2012, 146–150. Horejs 2013 B. Horejs, Der prähistorische Umlandsurvey, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten der Kampagne 2011, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2012, 2, 2013, 204–208. Horejs 2014a B. Horejs, The 2nd millennium BC in the Bakırcay (Kaykos) Valley. An overview, in: N. Çınardalı-Karaaslan – A. Aykurt – N. Kolankaya-Bostancı – Y. H. Erbil (eds.), Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir Bakış. Armağan Erkanal’a Armağan / Some Observations on Anatolian Cultures. Compiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal (Ankara 2014) 257–274. Horejs 2014b B. Horejs, Der prähistorische Umlandsurvey, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2012, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2013, 2, 2014, 109–117. Horejs 2014c B. Horejs, Pergamon and the Kaikos Valley in prehistoric times, in: F. Pirson – A. Scholl (eds.), Pergamon. Anadolu’da Bir Helenistik Dönem Başkenti / Pergamon. A Hellenistic Capital in Anatolia (Istanbul 2014) 106–119. Horejs 2015 B. Horejs, Der prähistorische Umlandsurvey, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2013, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2014, 2, 2015, 141–146. Horejs 2016 B. Horejs, Neue Gewichtssysteme und metallurgischer Aufschwung im frühen 3. Jahrtausend. Ein Zufall?, in: M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka, Oriental and European Archaeology 3 (Rahden/Westf. 2016) 251–272. Horejs – Weninger 2016 B. Horejs – B. Weninger, Early Troy and its significance for the Early Bronze Age in western Anatolia, in: E. Pernicka – S. Ülüsöy – St. Blum (eds.), Early Bronze Age Troy. Chronology, Cultural Development and Interregional Contacts. Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Tübingen, May 8–10 2009, Studia Troica Mono­ graphien 8 (Bonn 2016) 123–145. Horejs et al. 2011 B. Horejs – A. Galik – U. Thanheiser – S. Wiesinger, Aktivitäten und Subsistenz in den Siedlungen des Çukuriçi Höyük. Der Forschungsstand nach den Ausgrabungen 2006–2009, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 86, 1, 2011, 31–66. Horejs et al. 2016 B. Horejs – B. Milić – P. Pavúk, Der prähistorische Umlandsurvey, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2014, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2015, 2, 2016, 134–139. Japp 2009 S. Japp, Archäometrisch-archäologische Untersuchungen an Keramik aus Pergamon und Umgebung, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 59, 2009, 193–268. Kâmil 1982 T. Kâmil, Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia, British Archaeological Reports International Series 145 (Oxford 1982). Kerschner 2002 M. Kerschner, Die nichtlokalisierten chemischen Muster I und J und ihre Einordnung in die Keramikproduktion des südlichen und mittleren Ioniens, in: M. Akurgal – M. Kerschner – H. Mommsen – W.-D. Niemeier, Töpferzentren der

44

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Ostägäis. Archäometrische und Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Mykenischen, Geometrischen und Archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien, Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 3 (Wien 2002) 51–55. Knitter et al. 2013 D. Knitter – H. Blum – B. Horejs – O. Nakoinz – B. Schütt – M. Meyer, Integrated centrality analysis: A diachronic comparison of selected western Anatolian locations, Quaternary International 312, 2013, 45–56. Korfmann 2001 M. Korfmann, Troia als Drehscheibe des Handels im 2. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, in: Troia – Traum und Wirklichkeit. Exhibition Catalogue Stuttgart, Braunschweig, Bonn (Stuttgart 2001) 355–368. Kouka 2002 O. Kouka, Siedlungsorganisation in der Nord- und Ostägäis während der Frühbronzezeit (3. Jt. v. Chr.), Internationale Archäologie 58 (Rahden/Westf. 2002). Kouka 2008 O. Kouka, Zur Struktur der frühbronzezeitlichen insularen Gesellschaften der Nord- und Ostägäis. Ein neues Bild der sogenannten „Trojanischen Kultur“, in: Erkanal et al. 2008, 285–300. Lamb 1936 W. Lamb, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge 1936). Mehofer in preparation M. Mehofer, Spätchalkolithische und frühbronzezeitliche Metallurgie auf dem Çukuriçi Höyük. Metallverarbeitung im 4. und 3. Jt. v. Chr. in Westanatolien (in preparation). Mommsen 1986 H. Mommsen, Archäometrie (Stuttgart 1986). Mommsen 2007 H. Mommsen, Tonmasse und Keramik. Herkunftsbestimmung durch Spurenanalyse, in: G. Wagner (ed.), Einführung in die Archäometrie (Berlin 2007) 179–192. Mommsen et al. 1991 H. Mommsen – A. Kreuser – E. Lewandowski – J. Weber, Provenancing of pottery. A status report on neutron activation analysis and classification, in: M. Hughes – M. Cowell – D. Hook (eds.), Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology. Techniques and Applications, British Museum Occasional Paper 82 (London 1991) 57–65. Mommsen et al. 2002 H. Mommsen – Th. Beier – A. Hein, A complete chemical grouping of the Berkeley neutron activation analysis data on Mycenaean pottery, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 2002, 613–637. Mommsen et al. 2006 H. Mommsen – M. R. Cowell – Ph. Fletcher – D. Hook – U. Schlotzhauer – A. Villing – S. Weber – D. Williams, Neutron activation analysis of pottery from Naukratis and other related vessels, in: U. Schlotzhauer – A. Villing (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt, The British Museum Research Publication Number 162 (London 2006) 69–76. Mommsen et al. 2007 H. Mommsen – A. Schwedt – E. Trinkl, Herkunftsbestimmung der beiden Amphoren Panathenäischer Form KK 15 und KK 17 durch Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse, in: V. Mitsopoulos-Leon – C. Lang-Auinger (eds.), Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. 2. Teil: Funde klassischer bis römischer Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos IX/2/3 (Wien 2007) 26–27. Mommsen – Japp 2009 H. Mommsen – S. Japp, Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse von 161 Keramikproben aus Pergamon und Fundorten der Region, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 59, 2009, 269–286. Mommsen – Japp 2014 H. Mommsen – S. Japp, Statistical interpretation of elemental concentration data and the origin of Pergamene pottery, in: H. Meyza (ed.), Late Hellenistic to Mediaeval Fine Wares of the Aegean Coast of Anatolia. Their Production, Imitation and Use (Warsaw 2014) 31–40.

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

45

Mommsen – Sjöberg 2007 H. Mommsen – B. L. Sjöberg, The importance of the ‘best relative fit factor’ when evaluating elemental concentration data of pottery demonstrated with Mycenaean sherds from Sinda, Cyprus, Archaeometry 49, 2007, 357–369. Önen et al. 2011 E. Önen – M. Mutluer – N. Çetin (eds.), Proceedings of the International Bergama Symposium, 7th–9th April 2011 (Bergama 2011). Perlman – Asaro 1969 I. Perlman – F. Asaro, Pottery analysis by neutron activation, Archaeometry 11, 1969, 21–52. Pirson 2008 F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2007, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2008, 2, 2009, 83–155. Rahmstorf 2006 L. Rahmstorf, Zur Ausbreitung vorderasiatischer Innovationen in der frühbronzezeitlichen Ägäis, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 81, 1, 2006, 49–96. Şahoğlu 2005 V. Şahoğlu, The Anatolian trade network and the Izmir region during the Early Bronze Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24, 4, 2005, 339–361. Schneider et al. 2012 St. Schneider – D. Knitter – B. Schütt, Geoarchäologische Untersuchungen im westlichen Kaikostal – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2010, in: F. Pirson, Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2010, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2011, 2, 2012, 160–166. Schneider – Japp 2009 G. Schneider – S. Japp, Röntgenfluoreszenzanalysen von 115 Keramikproben aus Pergamon, Çandarlı, Elaia und Atarneus (Türkei), Istanbuler Mitteilungen 59, 2009, 287–306. Schwedt – Mommsen 2004 A. Schwedt – H. Mommsen, Clay paste mixtures identified by neutron activation analysis in pottery of a Roman workshop in Bonn, Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 2004, 1251–1258. Schwedt – Mommsen 2007 A. Schwedt – H. Mommsen, On the influence of drying and firing of clays on the formation of trace element concentration profiles within pottery, Archaeometry 49, 2007, 495–509. Schwedt et al. 2006 A. Schwedt – H. Mommsen – N. Zacharias – J. Buxeda i Garrigos, Analcime crystallisation and compositional profiles. Comparing approaches to detect post-depositional alterations in archaeological pottery, Archaeometry 48, 2006, 237–250. Seeliger et al. 2011 M. Seeliger – S. Schneider – H. Brückner – B. Schütt – B. Horejs – S. Feuser – M. Zimmermann – F. Pirson, Studying Pergamon’s environs. Geoarchaeological research in Elaia and Bakırçay Valley, in: Önen et al. 2011, 48–65. Ünlüsoy 2008 S. Ünlüsoy, Vom Reihenhaus zum Megaron. Troia I bis Troia III, in: M. O. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2008) 133–144. Wilson 1978 A. L. Wilson, Elemental analysis of pottery in the study of its provenance. A review, Journal of Archaeological Science 5, 1978, 219–236.

46

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Catalogue

Sample no.: AYAZ 06 Site: Ayazköy Object no.: AYAAlt/OF/01/0007 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with short rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1bA Applications/Decorations: horizontal loop handle State of preservation: abraded Description: polished Dimensions (in cm): width: 2 diameter (rim): 16 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 14 wall thickness: 0.6 drill: 0.5 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 567 Chemical group: Single Fabric: F-MF: dark grey; some fine and medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: beige-grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: AYAZ 08 Site: Ayazköy Object no.: AYAAlt/OF/01/0014 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with short rim Variation: inside bevelled rim Classification: Sb1bN State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 22 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 3 wall thickness: 0.5 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 504 Chemical group: U118 Fabric: F-MF: brown, core continuous red; tempering: medium/fine-medium, bigger pores, several fine and medium fine light-coloured and reddish particles, a few coarse, light-coloured particles Surface: brownish grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: AYAZ 10 Site: Ayazköy Object no.: AYAAlt/OF/01/0029 Shape: decorated body sherd Type: plastic decoration Classification: Dbs11 Applications/Decorations: vertical plastic application State of preservation: abraded Description: outer surface with black slip; 5 YR 2.5/1 – 7.5 YR 2.5/1, closed vessel Dimensions (in cm): height: 0.1 width: 0.6 wall thickness: 1.9

Dated: Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 501 Chemical group: Single Fabric: MF: reddish-brown slip, break core red, break edges grey-brown; tempering mid/frequent, slightly sandy, several medium fine light-coloured particles, some fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: exterior dark grey burnished, interior light brown Sample no.: BASA 01 Site: Başantepe Object no.: BATAlt/OF/01/0016 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with short rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1bA Applications/Decorations: horizontal loop handle Dimensions (in cm): height: 0.5 width: 2 diameter (rim): 18 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 12 wall thickness: 0.9 drill: 0.6 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 505 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF: interior fringe grey, exterior fringe ochre (10 YR 4/4), core continuous grey; tempering: mid/frequently, slightly sandy, several fine and medium fine differently coloured particles, mostly white and black, a few coarse white particles (quartz), little fine mica Surface: grey to greyish brown (~10 YR 4/2), medium fine burnished Sample no.: BASA 02 Site: Başantepe Object no.: BATAlt/OF/01/0005 Shape: necked jar Type: curved wall Variation: slightly thickened lip Classification: Nj3C State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 26 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 3 wall thickness: 1 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 504 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: F-MF: orange-brown (5 YR 5/6), core continuous red; medium amount of fine mica, several fine to medium fine, mostly light-coloured particles Surface: reddish beige, medium fine burnished Sample no.: BASA 03 Site: Başantepe

47

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

AYAZ 06 (1:2)

AYAZ 08 (1:2)

AYAZ 10 (1:2)

BASA 01 (1:2)

BASA 03 (1:2)

BASA 02 (1:2)

BASA 04 (1:3)

BASA 05 (1:3)

Plate 1   Analysed pottery from Ayazköy and Başantepe (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

48

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Object no.: BATAlt/OF/01/0010 Shape: shallow bowl Type: open-mouthed Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb10A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): not definable wall thickness: 0.9 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 508 Chemical group: Single Fabric: MF: slip, slurry possible, dark grey and brown (7.5 YR 4/4), core brown-grey; several fine and medium fine differently coloured particles, some medium fine mica Surface: grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: BASA 04 Site: Başantepe Object no.: BATAlt/OF/01/0007 Shape: deep bowl Type: slightly curved body Variation: outside wiped lip Classification: Db1O State of preservation: well Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 30 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 4.5 wall thickness: 1.1 Dating: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF-R: greenish grey (2.5 Y 4/3); several fine and medium fine light-coloured (white to orange) particles, little fine mica Surface: greenish, medium fine burnished Sample no.: BASA 05 Site: Başantepe Object no.: BATAlt/OF/01/0011 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with short rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1bA State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 30 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 7 wall thickness: 0.8 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 580 Chemical group: U164- (Th+) Fabric: MF: greyish-black; medium amount of fine and medium fine mica, several fine and medium fine lightcoloured particles Surface: black smooth, medium fine burnished Sample no.: CIFT 01 Site: Çiftlik Object no.: CIFAlt/OF/000/01/0001 Shape: shallow bowl

Type: dome-shaped Variation: inside bevelled rim Classification: Sb3P State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): not definable wall thickness: 1.2 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF-R: greyish-brown; several fine light-and dark-coloured particles, a few red medium fine particles Surface: grey, exterior medium fine burnished Sample no.: CIFT 02 Site: Çiftlik Object no.: CIFAlt/OF/000/01/0002 Shape: deep bowl Type: vertical upper body Variation: inside swollen rim Classification: Db2F State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 18 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 6 wall thickness: 0.8 Dated: Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF-R: brown; several fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: greyish-brown, medium fine burnished Sample no.: CIFT 04 Site: Çiftlik Object no.: CIFAlt/OF/000/01/0004 Shape: vertical handle Type: wide cross-section Classification: Vh1 State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): height: 1.3 width: 2.7 Dated: Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF-R: grey; several medium fine white particles, a few medium fine black particles Surface: grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: CIFT 05 Site: Çiftlik Object no.: CIFAlt/OF/000/01/0005 Shape: foot Classification: F0 State of preservation: abraded Description: oval cross section Dimensions (in cm): height: 2.1 width: 4.0 Dated: Chalcolithic to 2nd millennium BC Ware group: 515

49

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

CIFT 01 (1:2)

CIFT 02 (1:2)

CIFT 04 (1:2)

CIFT 05 (1:2)

CIFT 09 (1:3)

CIFT 10 (1:2)

ELAI 64 (1:2)

ELAI 65 (1:2)

Plate 2   Analysed pottery from Çiftlik and Elaia (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

50

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF: reddish-beige; several medium fine lightcoloured particles Surface: brown, rough Sample no.: CIFT 09 Site: Çiftlik Object no.: CIFAlt/OF/000/01/0008 Shape: necked jar Type: curved wall Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Nj3A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 42 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 3 wall thickness: 1.0 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF-R: grey; medium amount of medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: greyish-brown, medium fine burnished Sample no.: CIFT 10 Site: Çiftlik Object no.: CIFAlt/OF/000/01/0009 Shape: necked jar Type: globular body Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Nj1A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 18 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 8.5 wall thickness: 1.1 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 505 Chemical group: U164- (Rb-Cr-) Fabric: MF: grey, core continuous grey; tempering: mid/frequently, slightly sandy, medium amount of medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: greyish-brown, rough burnished Sample no.: ELAI 64 Site: Elaia Object no.: ELA09OF/206/01/0002 Shape: shallow bowl Type: funnel-shaped Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb7A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 15 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 23 wall thickness: 0.8 Dated: Middle Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 531 Chemical group: Single Fabric: MF-R: blackish-grey to black; some coarse, differently coloured particles, a few medium fine white particles, little fine mica

Surface: brownish-black, medium fine burnished; burnishing patterns visible Sample no.: ELAI 65 Site: Elaia Object no.: ELA09OF/206/01/0006 Shape: shallow bowl Type: dome-shaped Classification: Sb3 Applications/Decorations: flannel State of preservation: abraded Description: Troy A6 plate Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 18 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 8 wall thickness: 1.0 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 534 Chemical group: = 81 Couple with ELAI 68 Fabric: MR-R: grey fringes and ochre core (10 YR 5/3); several fine and medium fine light-coloured particles Surface: greyish ochre (~2.5 Y 6/3) slip, medium fine burnished Sample no.: ELAI 66 Site: Elaia Object no.: ELA09OF/208/01/0005 Shape: narrow-mouthed vessel Type: narrow-mouthed Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: N1A Applications/Decorations: beginning of handle/application State of preservation: abraded Description: fabric reminds on Kumtepe IB Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): not definable wall thickness: 0.8 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to ? Ware group: 529 Chemical group: U191Fabric: MF: greyish-brown to light brown; some fine and medium fine differently coloured particles; a few coarse, differently coloured particles Surface: light brown, roughly burnished Sample no.: ELAI 67 Site: Elaia Object no.: ELA09OF/208/01/0004 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with short rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1aA State of preservation: sintered Dimensions (in cm): angle: 70° width: 0.8 diameter (rim): 20–24 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 4–3 wall thickness: 0.6 Dated: EBA 1

51

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

ELAI 66 (1:2)

ELAI 67 (1:2)

ELAI 68 (1:2)

GUEM 06 (1:2)

GUEM 07 (1:2)

GUEM 08 (1:3)

GUEM 12 (1:2)

GUEM 11 (1:2)

Plate 3   Analysed pottery from Elaia, Bağlı Tepe (GUEM 06, 11, 12), Üveçektepe (GUEM 07) and the Driehaus collection (GUEM 08) in the Gümüşova Valley (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

52

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Ware group: 526 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: F: black fringes, ochre-brown core; several fine and medium fine differently coloured particles, little fine mica Surface: grey, fine burnished Sample no.: ELAI 68 Site: Elaia Object no.: ELA09OF/206/01/0004 Shape: necked jar Type: curved wall Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Nj3A State of preservation: abraded Description: Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 13 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 11 wall thickness: 0.8 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 532 Chemical group: = 81 Couple with ELAI 65 Fabric: MF-R: interior fringe grey, exterior reddish-brown to reddish-ochre; several fine and medium fine light-coloured particles, a few light-coloured coarse particles Surface: interior ochre to grey, exterior reddish-ochre, engobe, medium fine burnished, burnishing patterns visible Sample no.: GUEM 06 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM04/12/F03/01/0005 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with short rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1bA Applications/Decorations: loop handle State of preservation: well Description: broken, continuous brown fabric (surface 7.5 YR 5/6; break 7.5 YR 4/4) Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): not definable wall thickness: 0.7 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 509 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: F-MF: brown (7.5 YR 4/3), core continuous brown; several medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles, little fine mica Surface: light brown (7.5 YR 6/3), medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 07 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM01/12/F01/01/0003 Shape: deep bowl Type: vertical upper body Variation: squared lip Classification: Db2D Applications/Decorations: tubular lug

State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): wall thickness: 0.5 drill: 0.7 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA Chemical group: U191 Fabric: exterior grey, interior ochre (10 YR 5/4); several fine, medium fine and coarse light-, red- and dark-coloured particles, little fine mica Surface: grey, burnished Sample no.: GUEM 08 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜMI/altOF/01/0014 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with long rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1aA State of preservation: well Dimensions (in cm): angle: 49° width: 1.4 diameter (rim): 30 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 6.5 wall thickness: 0.6 Dating: EBA 1 Ware group: 567 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: F-MF: greyish-brown (7.5 YR 3/2); medium amount of fine to medium fine mica, several fine light-coloured particles, some medium fine and coarse red- and light-coloured particles Surface: grey to beige brown (7.5 YR 5/2), with red stripes in the interior, medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 11 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM04/12/F03/01/0012 Shape: lid Type: flat lid Classification: L2 State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 15 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 12 wall thickness: 1.5 Dated: EBA 1 to ? Ware group: 567 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: F-MF: grey; little fine mica, some fine and medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 12 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM04/12/F04/01/0004 Shape: lid Type: slip lid Classification: L1 State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 10

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

pres. diameter (rim) in %: 9 wall thickness: 0.7 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 530 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: MF: exterior dark grey, interior brownish-grey (10 YR 5/3); some fine mica and fine and medium fine light-coloured particles Surface: exterior black, interior grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 13 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM04/12/F04/01/0002 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with long rim Variation: outside wiped lip Classification: Sb1aN State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): angle: 62° width: 0.8 diameter (rim): 20 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 3 wall thickness: 0.6 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 567 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: F-MF: orange-brown (7.5 YR 5/6); little fine mica, some fine, medium fine and coarse light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: brown to reddish-brown (7.5 YR 4/6), medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 14 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM01/12/F01/01/0007 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with long rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1aA State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): angle: 67° width: 1.3 diameter (rim): 26 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 6 wall thickness: 0.9 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 567 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: F-MF: grey; several fine light-coloured particles, a few medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles, little fine mica Surface: grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 17 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM04/12/F03/01/0004 Shape: narrow-mouthed vessel Type: curved wall Variation: regularly rounded lip

53

Classification: N2A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 8 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 25 wall thickness: 0.7 Dated: Middle Chalcolithic to EBA Ware group: 565 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: MF: ochre (10 YR 5/4); little fine mica, several fine and some coarse, light-coloured particles Surface: brown (2.5 YR 6/3), medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 19 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM01/12/F01/01/0008 Shape: flannel Type: triangular Classification: Fl1 State of preservation: secondary burnt Dimensions (in cm): wall thickness: 0.95 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA Ware group: 541 Chemical group: U 191 Fabric: MF: light brown fringes (10 YR 5/3), grey core; a few coarse and some medium fine light-coloured particles, little fine mica Surface: beige grey (10 YR 6/3), thick slip, medium fine burnished Sample no.: GUEM 21 Site: Gümüşova Valley Object no.: GÜM04/12/F05/01/0005 Shape: vertical handle Type: strap handle Classification: Vh12 State of preservation: sintered Description: big open vessel, red slip inside and outside; medium fine burnished; like WG 519 Dimensions (in cm): height: 1.5 width: 3.4–4.5 wall thickness: 1.0 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA ? Ware group: 519 Chemical group: U191 Fabric: F: orange-red to orange-brown (5 YR 5/8–6/8); medium amount of fine mica, several fine and medium fine differently coloured particles, a few coarse, differently coloured particles Surface: reddish-brown (5 YR 4/6), burnished Sample no.: YELD 01 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT08/F07/001/01/0007 Shape: shallow bowl Type: narrow-mouthed Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb4A State of preservation: abraded Description: horizontal tubular lug

54

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 24 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 10 wall thickness: 0.7 drill: 0.9 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 507 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: R: brown and grey (10 YR 5/1–2), core browngrey; several medium fine differently coloured particles Surface: slurry, grey to greyish brown (7.5 YR 5/1 – 2.5 YR 5/1), medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 02 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/006/01/0001 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with long rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1aA State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): angle: 65° width: 1.1 diameter (rim): 22 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 5 wall thickness: 1.0 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 507 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: R: brown to greyish-brown (10 YR 5/2–3), core brown-grey; several medium fine differently coloured particles Surface: slurry, grey and brown (10 YR 6/2; 10 YR 5/1–2), medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 03 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/003/01/0002 Shape: shallow bowl Type: narrow-mouthed Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb4A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 24 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 5.5 wall thickness: 0.7 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 507 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: R: brown to greyish-brown (10 YR 5/3), core brown-grey; several coarse, differently coloured particles Surface: slurry, black to blackish-brown slip (3/10Y), medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 04 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/017/01/0001 Shape: foot

Type: curved base Classification: F3 State of preservation: abraded Description: base length: 5.2cm; base thickness: 1.5cm Dimensions (in cm): height: 2.0 width: 3.8 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 505 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF: red (2.5 YR 5/4–6), core continuous grey; tempering: mid/frequently, slightly sandy, several fine, differently coloured particles, a few coarse differently coloured particles Surface: grey to brown (7.5 YR 5/1 to 5/4), medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 05 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F05/A/012/01/0001 Shape: foot Type: curved base Classification: F1 State of preservation: abraded Description: base thickness: 4.9; diameter 1.5cm Dimensions (in cm): height: 2.0 width: 4.3 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF-R: light brown; several medium fine lightand dark-coloured particles Surface: light brown, medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 06 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/003/01/0001 Shape: shallow bowl Type: narrow-mouthed Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb4A Applications/Decorations: grooved/fluted State of preservation: sintered Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 15 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 4 wall thickness: 0.9 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 501 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF: reddish slip, break core red, break edges grey-brown; tempering mid/frequent, slightly sandy, several medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: exterior partly grey discoloured, interior reddish, burnished Sample no.: YELD 07 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F05/A/005/01/0002 Shape: base Type: flattened base

55

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

GUEM 13 (1:2)

GUEM 14 (1:2)

GUEM 17 (1:2)

GUEM 19 (1:2)

GUEM 21 (1:2)

YELD 01 (1:2)

YELD 02 (1:2)

Plate 4   Analysed pottery from Bağlı Tepe (GUEM 13, 17, 21) and Üveçiktepe (GUEM 14, 19) in the Gümüşova Valley and Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

56

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Variation: sharp transition Classification: B2A State of preservation: abraded Description: shallow bowl or deep bowl, straight wall, inside burnished Dimensions (in cm): diameter (base): 8 pres. diameter (base) in %: 11 wall thickness: 1.0 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: Single Fabric: MF-R: ochre; several medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: interior grey and medium fine burnished, exterior ochre Sample no.: YELD 08 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/006/01/0003 Shape: application Type: knob Classification: A3 State of preservation: secondary burnt Description: body sherd with slightly horned knob; possibly closed vessel (globular jar) Dimensions (in cm): wall thickness: 0.6–1 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 502 Chemical group: U164Fabric: MF: light brown, core brown to dark grey; several medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: partly black discoloured, otherwise brown, medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 09 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/002/01/0001 Shape: shallow bowl Type: dome-shaped Variation: inside bevelled rim Classification: Sb3N Applications/Decorations: knob State of preservation: abraded Description: shallow bowl is inside and outside medium fine burnished with engobe Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 28 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 5 wall thickness: 0.8 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 504 Chemical group: =210 Couple with YELD 17 Fabric: F-MF: ochre, core continuous red; tempering: medium/fine-medium, bigger pores, some fine and a few coarse black particles Surface: brown, medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 10 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe

Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/002/01/0003 Shape: loop handle Type: cord handle Variation: horizontal Classification: Lh1 Applications/Decorations: massive cord handle State of preservation: well Description: shallow bowl Dimensions (in cm): height: 3 width: 3 drill: 0.5 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 504 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: F-MF: red, core continuous red; tempering: medium/fine-medium, bigger pores, several medium fine white and some medium fine black particles Surface: brown, medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 11 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/002/01/0002 Shape: jar Type: s-shaped Classification: J2 Applications/Decorations: vertical handle 1 State of preservation: secondary burnt Description: massive and heavy body sherd with vertical handle (inside and outside medium fine burnished) tripod cooking pot? Dimensions (in cm): height: 2.3 width: 4.1 wall thickness: 1.4 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 501 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF: red slip with brown fringes, break core red, break edges grey-brown; tempering mid/frequent, slightly sandy, several medium fine white particles Surface: brown, exterior burnished Sample no.: YELD 12 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/006/01/0005 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with long rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1aA State of preservation: well Description: big and heavy shallow bowl, roughly burnished Dimensions (in cm): angle: 55° width: 1.6 diameter (rim): 42 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 5.5 wall thickness: 1.2 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 507

57

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

YELD 04

YELD 05

YELD 06

YELD 08

(1:2)

(1:2)

(1:2)

(1:2)

YELD 09 (1:2)

YELD 10 (1:2)

YELD 11 (1:2)

Plate 5   Analysed pottery from Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

58

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Chemical group: U164 Fabric: R: brown, core brown-grey; several fine and medium fine white particles, some medium fine black particles Surface: slurry, brown, roughly burnished Sample no.: YELD 13 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT08/F01/D/002/01/0003 Shape: narrow-mouthed vessel Type: curved wall Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: N2A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 18 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 3 wall thickness: 0.8 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 524 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: R: beige; some medium fine black particles, medium amount of white particles Surface: beige, roughly burnished Sample no.: YELD 15 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT08/F01/Ost/001/01/0001 Shape: jug Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Ju0A State of preservation: well Description: small and very thin wall Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 14 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 6 wall thickness: 0.5 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 505 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF: grey, core continuous grey; tempering: mid/frequently, slightly sandy, some medium fine light- and dark-coloured particles Surface: grey, medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 16 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT08/F01/F/001/01/0002 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with short rim Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Sb1bA State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): angle: 40° width: 1.5 diameter (rim): 30 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 6 wall thickness: 0.6 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 506 Chemical group: EphI

Fabric: F: grey fringes, reddish-brown core (7.5 YR 4/6); medium amount of fine grey and white particles and medium fine mica Surface: grey, slightly burnished Sample no.: YELD 17 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/002/01/0005 Shape: necked jar Type: curved wall Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Nj3A State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 32 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 8 wall thickness: 1.2 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 507 Chemical group: =210 Couple with YELD 09 Fabric: R: grey fringes and ochre-brown core (10 YR 5/4), core brown-grey; several fine and medium fine light-coloured particles, several coarse white and red particles, medium amount of fine mica Surface: slurry, green to greyish-brown (~10 YR 3/2), medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 18 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT09/F04/A/002/01/0004 Shape: necked jar Type: curved wall Variation: regularly rounded lip Classification: Nj3A State of preservation: abraded Description: inside and outside medium fine burnished: jug? Dimensions (in cm): diameter (rim): 14 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 6 wall thickness: 0.9 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 512 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF-R: black fringes, greenish-grey core (~10 YR 4/4); several fine and medium fine light particles, a few coarse differently coloured particles, medium amount of fine mica Surface: black, medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 19 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT08/F01/F/001/01/0001 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with long rim Variation: inside bevelled rim Classification: Sb1aN State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): angle: 57° width: 0.9 diameter (rim): 18

59

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

YELD 12 (1:3)

YELD 13 (1:2)

YELD 15 (1:2)

YELD 16 (1:3)

YELD 17 (1:3)

YELD 18 (1:2)

YELD 19 (1:2)

YELD 20 (1:2)

Plate 6   Analysed pottery from Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

60

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

WG 505

WG 507

WG 512

WG 529

WG 567

Plate 7   Most frequent ware groups of the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, defined in the Prehistoric Pergamon Surveys to represent around 40% of wares across the entire EBA assemblage (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban, M. Röcklinger)

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon

pres. diameter (rim) in %: 8.5 wall thickness: 0.6 Dated: Late Chalcolithic to EBA 1 Ware group: 505 Chemical group: U164Fabric: MF: grey with brown stripes (10 YR 4/3), core continuous grey; tempering: mid/frequently, slightly sandy, several fine and medium fine light-coloured particles, a few coarse fine-coloured particles, medium amount of mica Surface: interior grey, exterior light beige grey (2.5 YR 5/3), medium fine burnished Sample no.: YELD 20 Site: Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe Object no.: YYT08/F07/001/01/0004 Shape: shallow bowl Type: carinated bowl with long rim Variation: inside bevelled rim

61

Classification: Sb1aN State of preservation: abraded Dimensions (in cm): angle: 68° width: 1.3 diameter (rim): 14 pres. diameter (rim) in %: 10 wall thickness: 1.0 Dated: EBA 1 Ware group: 501 Chemical group: U164 Fabric: MF: ochre to orange to brown slip (7.5 YR 4/6), break core red, break edges grey-brown; tempering mid/frequent, slightly sandy, several fine and medium fine white particles, a few coarse differently coloured particles, medium amount of fine mica Surface: interior red (5 YR 4/4), exterior brownish beige (10 YR 5/3), burnished

Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia Lisa Peloschek1 Abstract: Marble-tempered ware is a macroscopically and microscopically distinctive ceramic ware particular to the Early Bronze Age Aegean. This study examines marble-tempered ware recovered from the site of Çukuriçi Höyük in western Anatolia and offers a preliminary interpretation of its use and distribution during the third millennium BC, which is the heyday of marble-tempered ware at the site. Chronologically, this coincides with the spread of Anatolising influences across the Aegean and, vice versa, intensifying contact between the Cyclades and coastal western Anatolia. Through petrographic analysis of 27 samples of the material, this study aims to uncover compositional characteristics that can be used to embed the ware within the local and regional geological landscape. Diverse explanatory models for the emergence of marble-tempered ware will be reviewed and considered against archaeometric and archaeological data. This study will examine whether the evidence is strong enough to support a model of interdependence between the Aegean and Anatolian cultural spheres with regards to the adoption of specific potting traditions and recipes, and, ultimately, the extent to which these materials can serve as cultural marker. Keywords: Çukuriçi Höyük, western Anatolia, Early Bronze Age, Cycladic influence, marble, clay manipulation, potting traditions

Introduction and Research Framework In the third millennium BC, the coastal area of western Anatolia was subjected to novel cultural influences arising from intensifying contact with the nearby Aegean. Contributions centred on this time horizon continue to focus mainly upon socio-economic issues, in particular prestige goods exchange. Yet interaction between the Aegean and western Anatolia also involved the distribution and trade of ceramic vessels. By examining the ceramic evidence it may be possible to not only identify imported products, but at the same time closely investigate the integration of ‘foreign’ attributes into the prevailing cultural milieu. To this end it is not only the stylistic peculiarities of ceramics, but also compositional and technological patterns that should be considered meaningful. The detailed analysis of a diagnostic ceramic ware, in particular so-called marble-tempered ware from Çukuriçi Höyük in western Anatolia, may serve as a starting point for a more comprehensive discussion of technological networks throughout the Aegean and Anatolia during the period. The term, ‘marble-tempered ware’ was introduced by Sarah Vaughan in 1994 when reporting her professional activities in a short note to the American Journal of Archaeology.2 The complete title of her report, ‘Marble-tempered ware: an example of cross-craft exchange in the Early Bronze Age Aegean?’ points to her intention to reconstruct networks and ceramic traditions across the broader cultural landscape. Her interest in the topic arose as she conducted petrographic studies of several ceramic assemblages at sites in the Cyclades that featured the intentional addition of marble fragments to clay pastes. Shortly afterward, in 1995, Vaughan, in collaboration with Norman Herz, gave an oral presentation entitled, ‘Marble from Amorgos and sources of Cycladic Early Bronze Age marble temper’ at the 4th ASMOSIA conference in Bordeaux.3 Another talk, which focused on the geological origin of marbles as possible tempering additives in ceramics of

3 1 2

Saxo Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; [email protected]. Vaughan 1994. Vaughan – Herz 1995.

64

Lisa Peloschek

the Cyclades, followed in 1997 at the 213th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society Symposium in San Francisco. This talk, in collaboration with, again, Norman Herz and Scott Pike, discussed, ‘The application of stable isotope analysis to a ceramic provenance study of Early Cycladic Marble Ware’.4 Soon afterward, at the Geological Society of America Meeting in 1999, the same team of researchers presented a paper entitled, ‘Ceramic provenance and the Aegean marble stable isotope database: a study of Early Bronze Age ‘Marble Ware’ from the Aegean Islands of Amorgos, Keros and Naxos’.5 However, more detailed research into this interesting topic seems not to have been carried out, and apart from several case studies no comprehensive publication highlighting cultural transfers within the Cyclades based on marble-tempered wares has been prepared. Tempering Practices as Cultural Traits? Almost twenty years later, I return to this research topic by tracing marble tempering in the ceramic traditions of central western Anatolia, thereby generating new impetus for the subject. Marble tempering is a common practice in the Early Bronze Age Aegean6 and to date has been considered a Cycladic technology.7 By focusing on the ceramic material at Çukuriçi Höyük, I intend to test the interpretive value of marble-tempered ware, and whether it can be considered a socio-cultural and chronological marker in Aegean-Anatolian prehistory. Can both regions be culturally linked through common traditions in marble tempering, and can evolving explanatory models offer a strong case for cultural connectivity? In examining the material from Çukuriçi Höyük, the following research questions are particularly relevant: • Is marble-tempered pottery at Çukuriçi Höyük represented by imported wares,8 similar to marble bowls and figures9 that found their way from the Cyclades to Anatolia during the Early Bronze Age? • Is marble tempering at Çukuriçi Höyük a local invention, emerging independently in the region, and triggered by the geological placement of the site and the availability of natural resources near the settlement mound? • Or, did this tempering practice emerge at Çukuriçi Höyük as a reaction to cultural interplay with the Cycladic cultural sphere, leading to an adoption of clay paste preparation methods originally native to the Cyclades and beyond? Stylistic imitation of Cycladic ceramic material is well-attested in several areas of Anatolia, most convincingly by the reproduction of Cycladic-style frying pans.10 Is it possible that clay manipulation methods were also shared as a result of technological transfer? Besides aiming to clarify the provenance of marble-tempered ware at Çukuriçi Höyük, this study will also examine preferences in the fabrication of peculiar vessel shapes. The emergence of marble-tempered ware at the site will also be investigated in a synchronic perspective, through a comparison with other well-excavated sites in the greater Aegean. Since the designation of

Vaughan et al. 1997. Vaughan et al. 1999. 6 Nodarou 2012, 85. 7 Davaras – Betancourt 2012, 96. 8 Imported Cycladic vessels emerge during the advanced Early Bronze Age 1 in Anatolia and continue into the Early Bronze Age 2 (Șahoğlu 2011a, 137). 9 Marble artefacts arriving from the Cyclades to the coastal region of western Anatolia have been discussed, for example, by Takaoğlu 2004, who suspected that their presence antedated the Anatolian Early Bronze Age 2 (Takaoğlu 2004, 67). Sotirakopoulou 2008, 537 refers to, ‘the presence of Cycladic or Cycladicising types of marble and clay vessels in the islands of the East and North Aegean and in western Asia Minor’. 10 Șahoğlu 2008, 487. Șahoğlu 2011a, 136–137 names the sites of Liman Tepe, Bakla Tepe, and Karahisar. 4 5

65

Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia

cultural periods over the course of the third millennium BC deviates between regions, a concordance is necessary: The Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age 1 (EBA 1) and 2 (EBA 2) periods in Anatolia are analogous to the Early Minoan IB period (EM IB) on Crete, the Early Helladic I period (EH I) on mainland Greece, and the Early Cycladic I (EC I) and beginning of Early Cycladic II (EC II) periods in the Cyclades. Terminological Issues and the Definition of “Marble Temper” In reviewing the published literature, one rarely comes across the term, ‘marble temper’,11 and more often one encounters fabric or petrographic descriptions referring to calcite-tempered12 wares or crushed calcite fabrics.13 A selection of terms extracted from relevant research articles is presented in Table 1.

Term

Site

Shapes

Chronology

Reference

“Calcite”

Dhaskalio (Keros), Cyclades

Baking pans, braziers, jars, jugs, bowls, pithoi, basins, cooking pots

Early Cycladic II

“Calcite”

Kavos (Keros), Cyclades

Bowls, jars

Early Bronze Age 2 Hilditch 2007, 242; 260

“Calcite-tempered”

Kephala Petras, northern Crete

Bottles, pyxides, bowls

Final Neolithic IV to Early Minoan IB

Nodarou 2012, 84–85

“Frequent crushed calcite fabric”

Ayia Photia, northeastern Crete

Bowls, chalices, pyxides, bottles

Early Bronze Age

Day et al. 2012, 119–121

“Marble ware”

Markiani (Amorgos), Cyclades

Storage vessels, pithoi, bowls, jars, pyxides, plates

Early Bronze Age

Vaughan 2006, 99–100

Hilditch 2013, 473–474

Tab. 1   Terminology applied in the description of possible ‘marble-tempered’ wares

What is the difference between marble- and calcite-tempered ware? There are three possibilities for the distinction: is there a difference in (1) the size of the inclusions and thus the presence or absence of fully-preserved marble fragments, or in the (2) geological association of the temper, in this case the calcite temper that does not necessarily have to derive from marble,14 or (3) is the terminology that is chosen dependent upon the geographical location of the study sites, alternating for example between the Cyclades and Crete, both of which were producers of these wares? Without a doubt, the term ‘calcite-tempered’ is far more established in archaeological and ceramological research than is the term ‘marble-tempered’. In this article, the term, ‘marble-tempered’ will be used when any of the following three parameters apply: (1) a geological association of the aplastics with marble, (2) a predominance of calcite grains and/or marble fragments in the clay paste, and (3) proof of the intentional addition of the temper to the clay paste.

13 14 11

12

A short review of the terms used to describe marble-tempered wares is already provided in Vaughan 1994. For example, Pentedeka et al. 2010; Nodarou 2012; Hilditch 2013. Day et al. 2012, 119–121. Besides its association with marble, calcite can also originate from limestone. Hilditch 2007, 242, for instance, notes the possibility that calcite-tempered wares at Keros might be associated with either limestone or marble deposits.

66

Lisa Peloschek

For example, even when a clay paste is densely packed with only calcite grains, several fragments of marble might be found to be embedded, and thus the term, ‘marble-temper’ may apply. In this case, the loose minerals are evidently former marble components that were separated into individual mineral grains, for instance through intentional crushing. Whenever a geological relationship to marble can be discerned, I will employ the term, ‘marble-tempered ware’ or use a related vocabulary. Contextualising and Characterising Marble-Tempered Ware at Çukuriçi Höyük Çukuriçi Höyük is a settlement mound located within the coastal area of central western Anatolia. It had direct access to the sea during all phases of occupation, and was at the same time surrounded by a fertile plain to its south, east, and northeast. Stratigraphic sequences cover the Anatolian Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age 1 periods.15 The focus of this study is the Late Chalcolithic (4250–ca. 3000 BC) and the Early Bronze Age 1 (2900–2750 BC) occupational horizons, corresponding to phases CuHö VII, VI, and IV at the site. In all phases of occupation at the site, ceramics exhibit great diversity in composition.16 The results of petrographic analyses attest to symptomatic changes in the selection of clay raw materials, and specific patterns with regard to chronology at the site emerge. Within the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age 1 levels at the settlement,17 a number of specific ware groups can be discerned. In cross-section, ware groups (WG) 15, 27, 40, and 51 are characterised macroscopically by a dense enrichment of angular whitish to transparent aplastics. The amount of aplastics and their size and distribution within the ceramic bodies varies. A common attribute is the presence of a dark greyish firing core framed by thin reddish margins (Fig. 1). Vessel surfaces exhibit marks of sporadic burnt-off organic matter, which contribute to its unevenness. Another property worth mentioning is the extraordinary hardness of specimens of, in particular, ware group 15, which is characterised by thick walls. The quantities in which the wares have been recovered at the site are by no means enormous: they constitute only 3% of the Late Chalcolithic and EBA 1 ceramic assemblages that have been studied. Petrographic analyses soon confirmed that the aplastics of the ware groups are identified as fragments of marble and, predominately, calcite grains. On the basis of the textural features of the marbles and the spectrum of recognised grain sizes, three petrofabrics18 can be differentiated: (1) Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_01 (Fig. 2.1), which contains marble fragments, can be regarded as the most commonly-represented petrofabric, comprising ten of the analysed samples. Looking at the selected marble fragments, their relative equigranular texture and the obvious lack of impurities is remarkable (Fig. 2.2). The size of the marble fragments is between 1.16 and 2.62mm. The individual calcite grains can reach a size of 0.48 to 1.18mm. Calcite grains distributed within the clay paste comply with the characteristics of the marble fragments noted above. Thus it is legitimate to assume that the calcite grains, being bits of broken marble, were most

For the earlier occupation phases, covering the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, see Horejs 2012; Horejs 2014; Horejs – Schwall 2015 and, most recently, Horejs et al. 2015. 16 Peloschek 2017 gives an overview of the most significant petrofabrics spanning from the Neolithic to the EBA 1 periods at Cukurici Höyük. 17 The transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age 1 at Cukurici Höyük has been set around 3000 BC (Horejs – Schwall 2015, 457). For the Early Bronze Age 1 remains at Cukurici Höyük, compare Horejs et al. 2011. The Early Bronze Age 1 sequence at the site dates to 2900–2750 BC, based on radiocarbon dating (Horejs et al. 2011, 31). 18 Preliminary notes on marble-tempered wares at Cukurici Höyük can be found in Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut 2013, 45 (then-labelled EPH-CW-001); Peloschek 2016a; Peloschek 2017. 15

Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia

67

Fig. 1   Macroscopic characteristics of marble-tempered wares. 1. Surface of ceramics falling within WG 15 showing pores of burnt-off organics; 2. WG 15 excellently illustrates a greyish-black firing core framed by reddish margins; 3. WG 27; 4. WG 4 (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia, photos: N. Gail/ÖAI)

likely generated by intentional crushing. Considering the rock type and preparation involved, the recipe for this clay involved marble tempering. The base clay, fired to a grey colour, contains only a few and very fine inclusions, consisting of muscovite micas, quartz, chert, alkali feldspars, few carbonates, and accessory augite and epidote. Clay pastes matching this composition are concurrently used in the production of finewares. (2) Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_02 (Fig. 2.3) is closely analogous with the paste described above. What distinguishes this ware, visible in thin-section, is the character of the marble that is added. The calcite grains that constitute the marble exhibit a more rounded shape and the grain size of the individual minerals varies considerably. Larger (up to 0.75mm) and smaller (ca. 0.06mm) calcite or dolomite grains are randomly assembled (Fig. 2.4). This is evidently a different type of marble from that of Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_01. Due to the character of the marble added, calcite grains in the clay matrix have an entirely different pattern of distribution. This observation again confirms that the calcite grains of the individual marble-tempered wares originate from respective rock species. The clay matrix principally matches the properties defined for EPH-MARBLE_01, yet possible volcanic rock inclusions are also attested. EPH-MARBLE_02 is represented in the ceramic assemblage at Çukuriçi Höyük in considerably lesser quantities than EPH-MARBLE_01. Only three samples have been studied in thin-section. Providing exact numbers for both EPH-MARBLE_01 and _02 is not possible as these pastes are macroscopically indistinguishable and are differentiated solely through petrographic analysis. (3) The range of marble-tempered wares at Çukuriçi Höyük is completed with Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_03. It contains calcite grains that exclusively correlate with those detected in EPH-MARBLE_01 (Fig. 2.5). Thus the ware may be understood as a finer variant of EPH-MARBLE_01, containing only the finer portions of crushed marble, i.e. marble powder.

68

Lisa Peloschek

Fig. 2   Photomicrographs of ceramic thin-sections. 1. Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_01; 2. Detail of a marble fragment in EPH-MARBLE_01; 3. Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_02; 4. Detail of a marble fragment in EPH-MARBLE_02; 5. Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_03; 6. Serpentinite and schist fragments in EPH-MARBLE_03. All images taken in XPL (L. Peloschek, ÖAI/ÖAW)

Of interest is the presence of sporadic quartz-mica schists in the coarser elements of this petro­ fabric, as well as mica schists (muscovite), sporadic serpentinite, and albite (Fig. 2.6). These rocks and minerals are natural constituents of the base clay that was used prior to manipulation. Marble Deposits and Geological Setting of the Region Çukuriçi Höyük and the adjacent later city of Ephesos are situated in a region where the Cycladic Complex and the Menderes Massif merge. Generally speaking, the area is defined by metamorphic

Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia

69

Fig. 3   Modern marble quarries at Belevi (Archiv ÖAI, A-W-OAI-DIA-021365)

rock, mainly mica schists and quartz-mica schists.19 The prevalence of this rock material is reflected in the ceramic assemblage at Çukuriçi Höyük with highly micaceous clay pastes20 constituting about 85% of all catalogued ceramics. The marble resources at Ephesos have been extensively studied by Walter Prochaska at the Montanuniversität Leoben. Petrographic and isotopic signatures of all relevant marble quarries in the greater environs have been compiled in previous years. Most importantly, the presence of grey and white marbles, and two clearly distinguishable types of marble, needs to be mentioned. Prochaska and Grillo explain this variability with reference to the geological setting of the region between two tectonic units.21 The two types of marble identified by Prochaska are compatible with those detected in the ceramic assemblage at Çukuriçi Höyük. Marble Ephesos II, as denominated by Prochaska, can be equated with the marble recognised in Petrofabrics EPH-MARBLE_01 and _03. Most characteristic is the homoeoblastic texture of the marble described by Prochaska and Grillo,22 which resembles the two marble-tempered ceramic variants (above). As major sites of deposition, the sources at Belevi (Fig. 3) and Kuşini23 have already been noted.

Most comprehensively, Çakmakoğlu 2007. The associations of marble and the other metamorphic rocks around modern Selçuk have been described by Yavuz et al. 2011, 217–219. 20 Peloschek 2016b, 254–256. 21 Prochaska – Grillo 2010, 68. 22 Prochaska – Grillo 2010, 69. 23 Compare also Kerschner – Prochaska 2011, 134. 19

70

Lisa Peloschek

Marble Ephesos I, by contrast, matches the rock fragments displayed in Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_02. This type of marble is native mainly to the region north of Belevi24 and, aside from its characteristic texture, is defined by the sporadic occurrence of dolomite crystals within the marble25 – recognised also in Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_02. Large-scale exploitation of both types of marble is attested from the Archaic period onwards, when they were used as building materials for Ephesian monuments. It is more than plausible that the marble-tempered petrofabrics at Çukuriçi Höyük originate in local or regional sources. At least sixteen different marble quarries petrographically corresponding to Marble Ephesos I and II have been identified by Yavuz and collaborators,26 with the closest marble outcrop to Çukuriçi Höyük located at Mount Panayırdağ. Another argument that would support a local or regional provenance of the marble-tempered wares is the suite of accessory mineral and rock inclusions noted in the clay pastes. Albites, serpentinites, and mica schists are indicative of the local geology.27 Considering those together with the marble fragments, which correspond to native sources, one can exclude the possibility that this ware had been imported from the Cyclades, and confirm instead its local or regional production. Percentage Representation of Petrofabrics: Local, Regional, or Cycladic Ceramic Traditions? In absolute terms, ceramics tempered with crushed marble (EPH-MARBLE_01 and _02) are represented in the Late Chalcolithic period by 66 fragments, and in the Early Bronze Age 1 by 65 fragments. In each of these periods, nine samples of ceramics tempered with marble powder (EPH-MARBLE_03) were recovered. As noted above, with regard to the overall ceramic assemblage at Çukuriçi Höyük, marble-tempered or marble powder-enriched ceramics make up a small proportion of the assemblage – only 3% – within relevant Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age 1 strata. As noted in the introduction of this paper, marble tempering is a ceramic tradition that is usually associated with the islands of the Cyclades. Recent studies have also verified the production of marble – or, rather, calcite-tempered vessels – on Crete, particularly in its northeastern part.28 There is a clear preference for these clay pastes in the production of Cycladic or Cycladicising vessel shapes in the Early Minoan I and II periods on Crete.29 The geological conditions on Crete provided appropriate calcite rock materials for tempering, facilitating local production. However, the ratio of marble- or calcite-tempered wares in ceramic assemblages was much lower than in the Cyclades at that time; for example, at Amorgos, up to 99% of the pottery30 consists of these wares.

Prochaska – Grillo 2010, 70; Kerschner – Prochaska 2011, 132–138. Kerschner – Prochaska 2011, 137. 26 Yavuz et al. 2011, 220 within a region of up to 25km north and northeast of ancient Ephesos. Various types of marbles outcropping are described in detail here. 27 Previously, Sauer – Ladstätter 2008, 184–185 with regard to late antique amphoras and cooking wares from the Vediusgymnasium in Ephesos. Their petrofabrics K to K4, represented by cooking wares containing the spectrum of rock/mineral inclusions identified in the base clay of marble-tempered wares, are attributed to local Ephesian clays. 28 Day et al. 1998, 133 (Ayia Photia cemetery); Day et al. 2012, 119–121; Haggis et al. 2007, 679–680 (Azoria); Nodarou 2012 (Kephala Petras). 29 For instance, Day et al. 2012, 119; Nodarou 2012, 86 with case studies. More generally: Wilson et al. 2008, 262 or Renfrew 2010, 288. 30 Vaughan 2006, 100. 24 25

Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia

71

Returning to western Anatolia, Çukuriçi Höyük is, to date, the only site with marble-tempered ware in this part of the prehistoric Aegean or western Anatolia.31 This may reflect the limited state of the publication record of integrated natural-scientific studies of ceramics in Anatolia. Shape Repertoire and Dimensions of Relevant Vessels Inspection of the Çukuriçi Höyük assemblage (Tab. 1) makes it clear that shapes associated with domestic, cooking/baking, serving, and storage activities were produced using marble- or calcite-tempered fabrics. These shapes also appear in the ceramic repertoire of Crete, particularly in the second quarter of the third millennium BC, coincident with an increase in the use of this ware for producing cooking pots.32 At Çukuriçi Höyük, ceramics tempered with crushed marble (Petrofabrics EPH-MARBLE_01 and _02) are principally represented by storage vessels and bowls (Fig. 4). The walls of these vessels have a thickness of 1.2 to 1.5cm. Clay pastes enriched with marble powder (Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_03), by contrast, were primarily used for the production of cooking vessels. The walls of these vessels are considerably thinner, at 0.5–0.7cm.

Fig. 4   Overview of vessel shapes represented in marble-tempered ware being associated with SE 216, SE 834 and SE 1361 at Çukuriçi Höyük (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia, photos: N. Gail/ÖAI)

No evidence for the marble tempering of ceramics has been recovered on the island of Samos (Menelaou et al. 2016). Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe in western Anatolia (Day et al. 2009) in the Anatolian EBA 2 periods were defined by a stronger interrelationship with the Aegean than during the EBA 1. Similarly, in the Middle and Late Bronze Age ceramic assemblage at Iasos, marble-tempered wares are not represented (Hilditch et al. 2012). 32 Day et al. 1998, 138. Broodbank 2007, 126 notices that in some regions of the Bronze Age Aegean world, marble/ calcite-tempered wares are preferred for cooking practices. 31

72

Lisa Peloschek

Thus the choice to produce storage vessels using clay pastes enriched with marble at Çukuriçi Höyük, and possibly elsewhere, may relate to the functional properties of the fabric – it is particularly solid. On Amorgos, S. Vaughan noted a preference for storage vessels and other thick-walled ceramic shapes in this ware.33 However, storage vessels at Çukuriçi Höyük are not exclusively manufactured using pastes with marble temper. In diachronic perspective, it is more often coarse and highly micaceous clay (EPH-METAMORPHIC_01,34 the most commonly-represented petrofabric at Çukuriçi Höyük) that is used for this purpose. With regard to the cooking wares, it is worth asking whether, especially in regions outside the Cyclades, such as Crete and the Çukuriçi Höyük area, there was a preference for forming these shapes using clay pastes with marble constituents. This practice is commonly observed in antiquity, for example in the Roman era,35 and is linked to vessel function. Culture or Nature-Based Technological Practices? Another aspect that needs to be addressed is the chronology of the emergence of marble-tempered ware at Çukuriçi Höyük, and whether a particular stimulus led to the discovery of marble as a tempering agent. In what context did marble-tempered ware develop, and how can it be understood with regard to local, regional, supra-regional, and foreign traditions? The earliest ceramic fragments attributed to marble-tempered ware (Petrofabrics EPH-MARBLE_01 to _03) date to phase CuHö VII, corresponding to the Late Chalcolithic period, and the ware continues to increase in use during the Early Bronze Age 1. Another clay paste containing sporadic marble fragments and calcite is attested (Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_04), though these are natural ingredients of the clay. One possible hypothesis is that the exploitation of this particular paste, and thus the approach to raw materials in environs featuring marbles, ultimately supported the use of marble as an aplastic additive in potting activities.36 However, the use of this paste cannot be directly correlated with the emergence of marble-tempered wares, as Petrofabric EPH-MARBLE_04 is not attested in the archaeological record prior to the Early Bronze Age 1. Which account, then, best explains marble-tempering at Çukuriçi Höyük, based upon the evidence? Does the practice follow Cycladic or other foreign traditions, or is it a development indigenous to this particular region of western Anatolia? An appropriate geological environment with a source of marble is required. There is no argument that would support the importation of marble from elsewhere in order to perform marble tempering, and it is more likely that, in such cases, it is finished vessels that would have been exchanged. In all regions where marble tempering is attested in prehistory – the Cyclades, Crete, and the region surrounding Çukuriçi Höyük – these natural conditions are provided. At other sites in western Asia Minor dating to the third millennium BC such as Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe, which have been comprehensively studied, no traces of marble tempering have been recognised. However, these sites lie in areas characterised by volcanic rather than metamorphic rock. At Iasos, a site with Early Bronze Age 2 remains and, according to the literature, strong influence of Cycladic traditions, marble-tempered ceramics are similarly absent.37 This is particularly surprising

Vaughan 2006, 100 mentions a wall thickness of 1.2 to 3cm for ceramic vessels on Amorgos (Cyclades) manufactured from marble-tempered clay pastes. 34 Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut 2013, 45 (“Petrographisches Hauptfabrikat”). 35 As an example, Kramar et al. 2012 can be mentioned. 36 In general, clay pastes containing calcite in the Mediterranean also appear in periods antedating the Anatolian Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. Compare Whitbread – Mari 2014 for the use of calcite-tempered ceramics on Late to Final Neolithic (5300–3200 BC) Salamis. Davaras – Betancourt 2012, 98 mention the appearance of considerably large quantities of calcite-tempered fabrics in the Cyclades already during the Final Neolithic period. 37 Hilditch et al. 2012. 33

Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia

73

as the landscape around Iasos is well-known for its marble deposits. Natural conditions, then, are no guarantor for the emergence of this potting practice. However, at Çukuriçi Höyük, no remains of the Early Bronze Age 2 exist and, by contrast, at Iasos no earlier materials have been studied. Strictly speaking, both sites have only a limited comparability. Marble tempering at Çukuriçi Höyük was begun in the Late Chalcolithic but intensified in the Early Bronze Age 1 when contact between western Asia Minor and the Cyclades increased.38 Thus the ceramic ware can be regarded, to some extent, as a chronological marker. However, its emergence cannot be considered a direct reflection of strengthened Aegean-Anatolian networks. The limited range of vessel shapes represented in marble-tempered ware were used for specialised activities such as storing, dining, or cooking. Therefore I would argue that the material properties and functional characteristics of the ware played a decisive role. Unlike marble tempering practices on Crete, which imitated Cycladic prototypes, ceramics at Çukuriçi Höyük followed regional or Anatolian traditions. Judging from the repertoire of shapes, this ware was not exceptional but conformed to coincident stylistic conventions of local coarse wares. Based upon the available evidence, the production of marble-tempered ware within the environs of Çukuriçi Höyük might not be directly related to Cycladic inspiration, but rather was influenced by increasing contact between both cultural spheres. That Çukuriçi Höyük’s potters were familiar with Cycladic pottery production techniques is aptly demonstrated by the fragment of a Cycladic-style frying pan, which from petrographic assessment was determined to be of local or regional production.39 Acknowledgements: This research was conducted over the course of the project P25825, ‘Interaction of prehistoric pyrotechnological crafts and industries. Natural resources, technological choices and transfers at Çukuriçi Höyük (western Anatolia)’, funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under the direction of B. Horejs (OREA, ÖAW). I am very grateful to the entire Çukuriçi Höyük project team for stimulating discussions, support, and help in many regards. Many thanks also to the Austrian Archaeological Institute for provision of the research and laboratory infrastructure.

References Broodbank 2007 C. Broodbank, The pottery, in: Renfrew et al. 2007, 115–237. Çakmakoğlu 2007 A. Çakmakoğlu, Pre-Neogene tectonostratigraphy of Dilek Peninsula and the area surrounding Söke and Selçuk, Bulletin of Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey (MTA) 135, 2007, 1–17. Davaras – Betancourt 2012 C. Davaras – P. P. Betancourt (eds.), The Hagia Photia Cemetery II. The Pottery, Prehistory Monographs 34 (Philadelphia 2012). Day et al. 1998 P. M. Day – D. E. Wilson – E. Kiriatzi, Pots, labels and people. Burying ethnicity in the cemetery of Aghia Photia, Siteias, in: K. Branigan (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield 1998) 133–149. Day et al. 2009 P. M. Day – Ch. G. Doumas – H. Erkanal – V. Kilikoglou – O. Kouka – M. Relaki – V. Șahoğlu, New light on the “Kastri Group”. A petrographic and chemical investigation of ceramics from Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 24/2008, 2009, 335–346. Day et al. 2012 P. M. Day – A. Hein – L. Joyner – V. Kilikoglou – E. Kiriatzi – A. Tsolakidou – D. E. Wilson, Appendix a. Petrographic and chemical analysis of the pottery, in: C. Davaras – P. P. Betancourt (eds.), The Hagia Photia Cemetery II. The Pottery, Prehistory Monographs 34 (Philadelphia 2012) 115–138.

Knappett – Nikolakopoulou 2014; Șahoğlu 2011b. The clay paste is micaceous, and in particular the presence of albite would be a strong argument for the vessel being attributed to the Küçük Menderes valley.

38 39

74

Lisa Peloschek

Erkanal et al. 2008 H. Erkanal – H. Hauptmann – V. Șahoğlu – R. Tuncel (eds.), The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Urla – Izmir (Turkey), October 13th–19th 1997 (Ankara 2008). Haggis et al. 2007 D. C. Haggis – M. S. Mook – T. Carter – L. M. Snyder, Excavations at Azoria, 2003–2004, part 2. The Final Neolithic, Late Prepalatial and Early Iron Age occupation, Hesperia 76, 4, 2007, 665–716. Hilditch 2007 J. Hilditch, Appendix d. Petrological analysis of the ceramics from Kavos, Keros, in: Renfrew et al. 2007, 238–263. Hilditch 2013 J. Hilditch, The fabrics of the ceramics at Dhaskalio, in: C. Renfrew – O. Philaniotou – N. Brodie – G. Gavalas – M. J. Boyd (eds.), The Settlement at Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice. The Excavations 2006–2008, Vol. I (Cambridge 2013) 465–482. Hilditch et al. 2012 J. Hilditch – C. J. Knappett – M. Power – D. Pirrie, Iasos pottery fabrics and technologies, in: N. Momigliano (ed.), Bronze Age Carian Iasos. Structures and Finds from the Area of the Roman Agora (c. 3000–1500 BC) (Rome 2012) 58–106. Horejs 2012 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük. A Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement in the region of Ephesos, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 117–131. Horejs 2014 B. Horejs, Proto-urbanisation without urban centres? A model of transformation for the Izmir region in the 4th millennium BC, in: B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia Before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, Oriental and European Archaeology 1 (Vienna 2014) 15–41. Horejs – Schwall 2015 B. Horejs – Ch. Schwall, New light on a nebulous period – Western Anatolia in the 4th Millennium BC. Architecture and settlement structures as cultural patterns? in: S. Hansen – P. Raczky – A. Anders – A. Reingruber (eds.), Neolithic and Copper Age Between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millennium BCE. International Workshop Budapest 2012, Archäologie in Eurasien 31 (Bonn 2015) 457–474. Horejs et al. 2011 B. Horejs – A. Galik – U. Thanheiser – S. Wiesinger, Aktivitäten und Subsistenz in den Siedlungen des Çukuriçi Höyük. Der Forschungsstand nach den Ausgrabungen 2006–2009, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86, 1, 2011, 31–66. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 4, 2015, 289–330. Kerschner – Prochaska 2011 M. Kerschner – W. Prochaska, Die Tempel und Altäre der Artemis in Ephesos und ihre Baumaterialien, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 80, 2011, 73–153. Knappett – Nikolakopoulou 2014 C. Knappett – I. Nikolakopoulou, Inside out? Materiality and connectivity in the Aegean archipelago, in: A. B. Knapp – P. van Dommelen (eds.), The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean (Cambridge 2014) 25–39. Kramar et al. 2012 S. Kramar – J. Lux – A. Mladenovič – H. Pristacz – B. Mirtič – M. Sagadin – N. Rogan-Šmuc, Mineralogical and geochemical characteristics of Roman pottery from an archaeological site near Mošnje (Slovenia), Applied Clay Science 57, 2012, 39–48.

Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia

75

Menelaou et al. 2016 S. Menelaou – O. Kouka – P. M. Day, Pottery production and exchange at the Heraion, Samos during the late third millennium BC. First steps in the study of technology and provenance, Journal of Archaeological Science, Reports 7, 2016, 480–488. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.01.014. Nodarou 2012 E. Nodarou, Pottery fabrics and recipes in the Final Neolithic and Early Minoan I period. The analytical evidence from the settlement and the rock shelter of Kephala Petras, in: M. Tsipopoulou (ed.), Petras, Siteia – 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a Two-Day Conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9–10 October 2010, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 16 (Athens 2012) 81–88. Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut 2013 Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut (ed.), Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2013 (Wien 2014). Peloschek 2016a L. Peloschek, Verarbeitungsprozesse von Tonrohstoffen im prähistorischen und frühkaiserzeitlichen Ephesos, in: K. Piesker (ed.), Wirtschaft als Machtbasis. Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion vormoderner Wirtschaftssysteme in Anatolien, Byzas 22 (Istanbul 2016) 187–205. Peloschek 2016b L. Peloschek, Archaeometric analyses of ceramic household inventories. Current research in Ephesos and at Çukuriçi Höyük, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/2015, 2016, 253–260. Peloschek 2017 L. Peloschek, Social dynamics and the development of new pottery signatures at Çukuriçi Höyük, 7th to 3rd millennium BC, in: B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC, Oriental and European Archaeology 5 (Vienna 2017) 125–137. Pentedeka et al. 2010 A. Pentedeka – E. Kiriatzi – L. Spencer – A. Bevan – J. Conolly, From fabrics to island connections. Macroscopic and microscopic approaches to the prehistoric pottery of Antikythera, Annual of the British School at Athens 105, 2010, 1–81. Prochaska – Grillo 2010 W. Prochaska – S. M. Grillo, A new method for the determination of the provenance of white marbles by chemical analysis of inclusions fluids. The marbles of the mausoleum at Belevi/Turkey, Archaeometry 52, 1, 2010, 59–82. Renfrew 2010 C. Renfrew, Contrasting trajectories. Crete and the Cyclades during the Aegean Early Bronze Age, Annual of the British School at Athens 18, 2010, 285–291. Renfrew et al. 2007 C. Renfrew – Ch. Doumas – L. Marangou – G. Gavalas (eds.), Keros, Dhaskalio Kavos / Κέρος, Κάβος Δασκαλιοῦ. The Investigations of 1987–88, McDonald Institute Monographs, Keros 1 (Cambridge 2007). Șahoğlu 2008 V. Șahoğlu, Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe. New evidence for the relations between the Izmir region, the Cyclades and the Greek Mainland during the late fourth and third millennia BC, in: Erkanal et al. 2008, 483–501. Șahoğlu 2011a V. Șahoğlu, Early Bronze Age pottery in coastal western Anatolia, in: V. Șahoğlu (ed.), Across. The Cyclades and Western Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC (Istanbul 2011) 136–143. Șahoğlu 2011b V. Șahoğlu, Trade and interconnections between Anatolia and the Cyclades during the 3rd millennium BC, in: V. Şahoğlu – P. Sotirakopoulou (eds.), Across. The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millenium BC (Istanbul 2011) 172–177. Sauer – Ladstätter 2008 R. Sauer – S. Ladstätter, Petrografisch-mineralogische Analysen ausgewählter Amphoren und Küchenwaren, in: M. Steskal – M. La Torre (eds.), Das Vediusgymnasium in Ephesos. Archäologie und Baubefund, Forschungen in Ephesos 14/1 (Vienna 2008) 173–186.

76

Lisa Peloschek

Sotirakopoulou 2008 P. Sotirakopoulou, The Cyclades, the East Aegean islands and the western Asia Minor. Their relations in the Aegean Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, in: Erkanal et al. 2008, 533–556. Takaoğlu 2004 T. Takaoğlu, Early Cycladic presence in central-western Anatolia. Evidence of stone bowls, Anadolu 26, 2004, 65–73. Vaughan 1994 S. J. Vaughan, Marble-tempered ware. An example of cross-craft exchange in the Early Bronze Age Aegean? American Journal of Archaeology 98, 2, 1994. Vaughan 2006 S. J. Vaughan, Macroscopic and petrographic studies of pottery from Markiani on Amorgos, in: L. Marangou – C. Renfrew – Ch. Doumas – G. Gavalas (eds.), Μαρκιανή Άμοργοΰ / Markiani, Amorgos. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations, British School at Athens Suppl. 40 (Athens 2006) 99–101. Vaughan – Herz 1995 S. Vaughan – N. Herz, Marble from Amorgos and sources of Cycladic Early Bronze Age marble temper, in: Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA), 4th International Congress, 9–13 October 1995, Bordeaux, France. Vaughan et al. 1997 S. Vaughan – N. Herz – S. Pike, The application of stable isotope analysis to a ceramic provenance study of Early Cycladic Marble Ware, in: 213th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. Abstracts of papers. Geochemistry and Archaeology (San Francisco 1997). Vaughan et al. 1999 S. Vaughan – N. Herz – S. Pike, Ceramic provenance and the Aegean marble stable isotope database. A study of Early Bronze Age ‘Marble Ware’ from the Aegean islands of Amorgos, Keros and Naxos, in: Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 48th Annual Meeting, 26–28 March 1999, Athens, Georgia, Geological Society of America – Abstracts with Programs 31, 3, 1999, 60. Whitbread – Mari 2014 I. Whitbread – A. Mari, Provenance and proximity. A technological analysis of Late and Final Neolithic ceramics from Euripides Cave, Salamis, Greece, Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 2014, 79–88. Wilson et al. 2008 D. E. Wilson – P. M. Day – N. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, The gateway port of Poros-Katsambas. Trade and exchange between north-central Crete and the Cyclades in EB I–II, in: N. Brodie – J. Doole – G. Gavalas – C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon / Όρίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, McDonald Institute Monographs (Cambridge 2008) 261–270. Yavuz et al. 2011 A. B. Yavuz – M. Bruno – D. Attanasio, An updated, multi-method database of Ephesos marbles, including white, Greco Scritto and Bigio varieties, Archaeometry 53, 2, 2011, 215–240.

Function and Technology: A Pottery Assemblage from an Early Bronze Age House at Çukuriçi Höyük Maria Röcklinger1 – Barbara Horejs2 Abstract: The interpretation of a vessel’s specific use can be based on various analytical components, such as use-wear and residue analysis, particular ceramic fabrics and shapes and, equally important, its archaeological context. This contribution presents contextual studies by discussing the pottery assemblage of a particular house at Çukuriçi Höyük in EBA 1, and discusses its technology and function. Intensive excavations revealed two settlement phases in EBA 1 (2950/2900–2800/2750 BC), with a clear specialisation in early metal production manifested in about 50 workshops. The pottery of the EBA 1 period represents a homogeneous spectrum without crucial developments or changes during a period of about 150–200 years. The vessels are hand-made and show a manageable variety of shapes, types and variations, and surface decoration is generally rare. A large variety of ceramic wares have been identified macroscopically, while fabrics have been tested by petrographic analysis. A critical combination and comparison of these methods revealed several results about EBA 1 pottery at Çukuriçi Höyük. Correlation of vessel shapes and ware groups shows a particular pattern indicating a strong relationship between function and technology in EBA pottery production. Furthermore, local pottery production seems to satisfy the particular needs of the Çukuriçi community, and the focus seems to be on products with a particular function. The interaction between technology and function provides new data for further socio-cultural interpretation of this particular metallurgical community. Keywords: Pottery use and function, pottery technology, contextual analyses, Çukuriçi Höyük, western Anatolia, Early Bronze Age

Introduction The case study in this contribution derives from Early Bronze Age (EBA) Çukuriçi Höyük, a tell settlement in western Anatolia. The site is located in the direct vicinity of the ancient city of Ephesos on the central Aegean coast (Fig. 1). It was occupied from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age period, which means from the early 7th to the first quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. The site is therefore one of the oldest known sites of western Anatolia.3 Based on a sequence of short-lived 14C-data for the entire EBA occupation at Çukuriçi Höyük, the two settlement phases IV and III can be dated within a time span of a maximum of 200 years, between 2950/2900–2800/2750 BC4. Palaeogeographical analysis5 conducted under the direction of Helmut Brückner showed that the prehistoric coastline can be reconstructed about 1.5km away from Çukuriçi Höyük. For this reason, and also because of maritime archaeozoological finds and obsidian originating from Melos found in all the settlement phases, this can be called a coastal site.6 The location of the site and its long7 occupation provides great potential for detailed diachronic studies in this region at the central coast of the Anatolian Aegean.

3 4 5 6 1 2



7

Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; [email protected]. Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; [email protected]. Horejs 2008, 101; Horejs 2010, 169; Horejs et al. 2015. Horejs et al. 2011, 43; Horejs – Weninger 2016; Horejs 2017, 17, Fig. 1.5. Cf. Stock et al. 2015. Cf. Horejs et al. 2010a; Stock et al. 2013. Imported Obsidian from Melos (Bergner et al. 2009), fish and molluscs (A. Galik in Horejs 2008, 101–102). A hiatus is assumed for the second half of the 6th, the 5th and the first half of the 4th millennium.

78

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Fig. 1   Location of Çukuriçi Höyük at the prehistoric Aegean lagoon based on palaeogeographic studies (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Börner, Horejs et al. 2015, 298)

Since the beginning of investigations in 2007,8 different fields of research such as pottery analysis, archaeozoology, archaeobotany, archaeometallurgy and geology have focused on questions concerning both the chronological development and spatial and socio-economic organisation. The Early Bronze Age settlements of Çukuriçi Höyük IV and III have already been analysed

8



The EBA 1 occupations have been excavated in two trenches (S1–S4 and M1) between 2007 and 2014 within research projects conducted by Barbara Horejs and funded first by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF Project no. P 19859-G02), and since 2010 by the ERC Project “From Sedentism to Protourban Societies in Western Anatolia” (START Project no. Y 528-G19; ERC Starting Grant Project no. 263339).

Function and Technology

79

extensively. These detailed studies have revealed a community highly specialised in metal processing,9 textile production and fishing.10 In addition, everyday crafts and the processing and storage of foodstuffs have been attested. Although a division of labour can be assumed, including highly specialised crafts like metallurgy and pottery production, a vertically stratified society is hardly recognisable.11 An alternative social model has recently been suggested.12 For the EBA 1 communities at Çukuriçi Höyük, a homogeneous society without hierarchical organisation is assumed. The dense and consistent structure of the settlement does not show any central building or structures, and metallurgical workshops, which possessed a central role, are spread homogeneously across the settlement area. It is assumed that specialised groups were developing and advancing appropriate knowledge in their fields of activity. This specialisation might have led to a temporary hierarchy within the settlement, but did not lead to the formation of a permanent polity. Several possibilities, including the short-term nature as well as the mode of hierarchy could be responsible for the fact that those social structures are not obvious in the archaeological record. Cemeteries, an important source for hierarchy in archaeology, are unfortunately not known for Çukuriçi Höyük. Although two gold foil beads from Çukuriçi Höyük support the presence of a temporary hierarchy at one stage, neither the architecture (e.g. megara) nor the material culture (e.g. precious and exotic objects) would be affected strongly enough by a temporary stratification to leave an unambiguous record. Similar social patterns are visible in contemporaneous cemeteries such as those at Yortan, Babaköy and Demircihüyük.13 Those show a relatively homogeneous society without a hierarchy of people or groups. In contrast, these homogeneous societies faced a process of continuous political centralisation, resulting in proto-urban centres.14 These processes had started no later than the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, based on developments starting most probably in the 4th millennium BC.15 Technological Background To analyse the technological aspects of pottery from Çukuriçi Höyük, a locally developed system of so-called ware groups (WG),16 based on a macroscopic description of all significant ceramics, was used. The clustering of single fragments into ware groups was based on criteria pertaining to hardness, porosity, break, colour, temper and surface treatment, and was defined independently of pottery shapes. Certain combinations of these criteria form the ware groups and represent technological categories for the entire settlement sequence. This system of ware groups offers not only a systematic overview of the local technology, but also a practical and useful tool for documenting huge amounts of ceramics from large-scale excavations.17 The pottery assemblage of the youngest settlement at Çukuriçi Höyük (phase ÇuHö III), with 814 significant pieces in total, is composed of 77 different ware groups. Within these, 22 wares can be described as fine, eight as fine to medium, 28 as medium, and 19 as coarse wares. These categories are defined by the average porosity and amount of temper particles of the groups. With fine wares, no pores are visible to the naked eye (0.12–0.25mm) and particles are rare (0–5%). Medium wares show pores only occasionally (0.25–0.5mm, 5–25% inclusions), and coarse wares



9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10

Cf. Horejs 2009; Horejs 2011; Horejs et al. 2011; Mehofer 2015; Horejs 2016. Britsch 2013; Britsch – Horejs 2014. Horejs 2016, 255. See Horejs 2016. Kâmil 1982; Bittel et al. 1939–1941; Seeher 2000. See Horejs 2014. Horejs 2014. Horejs 2007; Horejs et al. 2010b, 15–27; Röcklinger 2015, 21–33. For details of the ware group system and different case studies see Horejs 2007; Horejs et al. 2010b.

80

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

show large pores with a diameter greater than 0.5mm and an amount of inclusions of 25% and more. In absolute numbers, 263 fragments are made of fine and fine to medium ware, 386 of medium ware, and 143 of coarse ware (Fig. 2). 12 fragments were not defined due to their bad state of preservation. The most common ware group (WG 59) is a medium reddish-brown to brown ware, constituting 7.22% of the collection, followed by coarse ware with a red surface and break (WG 58), and fine to medium-black ware (WG 84), each constituting 4.65% of the collection. WG 42 is a medium-fine ware with a reddish-brown to grey core, and constitutes 4.53% of all ware collected (for macroscopic photos and a detailed description see Plate 1). The surface colours range from dark grey/black to reddish-brown and red. At 52%, dark colours like brown or black surfaces form the majority of the finds (Fig. 3).18

Ware groups phase ÇuHö III [n=814] n.d.

CW

MW

FW

0

100

200

300

400

Fig. 2   Distribution of EBA ware groups within ÇuHö III, based on 814 defined characteristic fragments (n.d.: not defined, CW: coarse ware, MW: medium fine ware, FW: fine ware) (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Röcklinger)

Distribution of surface colours within the different ware group categories [n=77] 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FW dark grey/black

F-MW brown

MW reddish-brown

CW red/orange

beige

Fig. 3   Distribution of surface colours within the different ware group categories (FW: fine ware, F–MW: fine to medium fine ware, MW: medium fine ware, CW: coarse ware) (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Röcklinger)

Röcklinger 2015, 34.

18

81

Function and Technology

Ware

Hardness

Break

Porosity

42

hard

slightly slaty

medium

Surface

Surface colour inside

Surface colour outside

Colour break

MB

2.5YR4/8

2.5YR4/8

7.5YR4/1

Remarks MW: medium fine burnished, dull, slightly uneven, reddish-brown, grey core.

Ware

Hardness

Break

Porosity

Surface

Surface colour inside

Surface colour outside

Colour break edges

Colour break core

59

hard

slightly slaty

medium

FB

10YR5/3–5/4

5YR4/4– 2.5YR4/6

outside: 10YR5/2

2.5Y4/8

Remarks MW: finely burnished, smooth, slightly shiny, reddish-brown to brown, red core.

Ware

Hardness

Break

Porosity

58

hard

slightly slaty

medium – fine

Surface

Surface colour inside

Surface colour outside

Colour break

MB

2.5YR4/6–5YR4/6

5YR3/3

2.5YR4/8

Remarks CW: medium fine burnished, smooth, slightly shiny, reddish-dark brown, core continuously red.

Ware

Hardness

Break

Porosity

Surface

Surface colour inside

Surface colour outside

Colour break

84

hard

grainy

fine

FB

7.5YR2.5/1–10YR3/1

7.5YR2.5/1–10YR3/1

7.5YR4/1–4/3

Remarks F– MW: finely burnished, smooth, even, slightly shiny, dark brown to dark grey, core brown to grey.

Plate 1   Most frequently used ware groups and detailed descriptions (ÖAI/N. Gail)

82

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Fig. 4   Ware group 78 (ÖAI/N. Gail)

In a few cases, ware groups typically for the older settlements at Çukuriçi Höyük (Neolithic and Late Chalcolithic) can be attributed to EBA pottery production as well. These fragments were defined as EBA by typological comparisons. Overall, within ÇuHö III, 29 ware groups, typical of earlier periods (Neolithic and Late Chalcolithic) and used for Early Bronze Age shapes, are present. This situation leads to the interpretation that these particular Neolithic and Late-Chalcolithic ware groups were used continuously for local pottery production until EBA, albeit only in small quantities. Due to their clear typological assignment and relative dating, these sherds were also included in the analyses of EBA pottery. Fine Wares Ware groups belonging to the category of fine wares (FW) consist of fine and very fine clays. Fine to medium fine (F-MW) ware will also be examined below. In both groups, (FW and F-MW) temper particles only consist of mineral components and pores that are barely visible to the naked eye, if at all. Surface colours can range from (dark-)grey/black in the case of seven groups, to brown (7 representatives) and reddish-brown (only one group). Six of these wares show a red/ orange surface, and two a beige surface. The surface itself can be very fine, medium-fine and fine-burnished19, which gives a shiny appearance. An exception is ware group 110 (Fig. 11, lower photo) that shows a roughly burnished surface. Traces of a slip indicate that this ware group originally featured a beige-reddish coating on both sides, which gives the impression of a smooth, dense and homogeneous surface. The core of this ware is, in contrast to the surface, light grey with small black elongated inclusions. Up to now, only eight fragments of this group have been identified in the assemblage. One of these fragments is the neck of a small amphora. Overall, 29 different fine and fine-to-medium ware groups are present at ÇuHö III (Tab. 1). Medium Wares When it comes to medium-fine pottery (MW), pores are visibly by eye, with a diameter not larger than 0.5mm. Depending on the material, non-plastic inclusions can range from 0.2cm to 0.8cm, although sizes from 0.6 to 0.8cm are rather rare. As with the fine wares, medium wares only feature mineral tempering occurring in different amounts (up to 25%). An exception could be WG 78, where an organic temper is conceivable (Fig. 4). In this case the organic inclusions, making 1–5%

19

In general, the term ‘burnished’ is used for surface finishing performed with a hard device (usually stone), leaving traces on the surface. The categories of ‘very fine’, ‘medium-fine’ and ‘fine’ describe the intensity of this practice. With fine burnishing, a smooth, glossy surface will be achieved. With rougher burnishing, irregularities can be levelled, leaving a dull surface. In contrast to a very fine burnished surface, polished surfaces were processed with soft tools leaving no traces. Cf. Horejs 2007, 56; Berger 2010.

Function and Technology

Ware group

83

Brief description

1

Surface: slipped and burnished, thick red to reddish-brown slip, burnishing traces visible, slightly shiny; break: grey to brown-greyish core

3

Surface: slipped, thin light-beige to white slip, smooth and shiny; break: red to reddish-brown sherd with thinner dark grey core

11

Surface: fine burnished, brown, dense surface; break: reddish-brown core

18

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, red slip; break: partially thick dark reddish-brown core – partially continuously burned

19

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, slightly shiny; break: dark grey to black, core continuously dark grey to black

24

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, brown surface; break: core continuously dark grey

41

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, slightly shiny, brown to grey brown; break: brown edges, core reddish-brown

43

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, slightly shiny; break: surface and core dark grey to black

47

Surface: medium fine burnished, dull surface, smooth, brown; break: core continuously brown

53

Surface: very fine burnished and polished, smooth, shiny, burnishing traces visible; break: surface and core dark grey to black

54

Surface: slightly shiny, smooth, red slip inside, brown to grey; break: core grey

64

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, dull, beige; break: core salmon to light rose

79

Surface: very fine burnished and polished, dense surface, shiny, brown, slightly uneven; break: broad grey core

82

Surface: medium fine burnished, smooth, dull, brown to reddish-brown; break: irregular reddish-brown to grey with red edges and grey core

83

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, shiny, burnishing traces visible, dark brown to dark grey; break: core red to dark grey

84

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, slightly shiny, dark brown to dark grey; break: core brown to grey

87

Surface: smooth, even, slightly shiny, brown to dark grey; break: reddish to dark grey

88

Surface: fine to medium fine burnished, highly micaceous ware, slightly shiny, burnishing traces visible; break: brown to dark brown

91

Surface: medium fine burnished, burnishing traces visible, slightly uneven, slightly shiny, red sherd with dense surface

105

Surface: finely burnished, even, shiny, brown to grey; break: core continuously red to brown

110

Surface: roughly burnished, temper perceptible, beige to red slip inside and outside; break: grey with fine black, yellow and white inclusions

116

Surface: very fine burnished, even, smooth, soft, slim black slip; break: core homogeneous, dark grey to black

181

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, slightly uneven, impressed decoration (rings); break: core dark grey

302

Surface: medium fine burnished, irregular surface, slim reddish-brown slip; break: grey core

306

Surface: finely burnished and painted, outside grey to dark brown, painting not covering

312

Surface: medium fine burnished, continuously grey

345

Surface: very fine burnished, very hard, thick orange slip, dull; break: core light grey with small white and red inclusions

8881

Surface: roughly burnished, even, rough, red to orange

8882

Surface: very fine burnished, even, slightly shiny, orange; break (exterior): orange; grey core, break multi-layered Tab. 1   Fine ware groups (single wares: light grey)

84

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Fig. 5   Ware groups 5 (upper photo) and 89 (lower photo) (ÖAI/N. Gail)

of all temper particles, are between 0.2 and 0.4cm in size, and therefore are described as rare and medium sized. Surface colours mainly range from dark grey/black and brown to reddish-brown and red. Grey and beige wares rarely occur. Overall, seven dark grey/black, seven brown, seven reddish-brown and seven red/orange as well as one beige ware groups are known within this collection. The surfaces of the medium-fine-wares show manifold treatments. So far, slipped, fine-burnished, very fine burnished and polished as well as medium-fine and roughly burnished surfaces are known in this category. Further surface treatments can be combinations of roughly burnished and roughly wiped surfaces with a sludgy slip, along with medium-fine burnished and wiped wares with a sludgy slip. The two slipped groups (WG 5 and 89) are typical for the Neolithic period of the settlement (Fig. 5). Since these fragments are clearly affiliated with EBA vessels by typology, these two ware groups have been included in the analyses as well (Tab. 2). Coarse Wares In contrast to the ware categories described above, the pores of coarse wares (CW) are clearly visible to the naked eye with a general size over 0.5mm. The non-plastic inclusions can reach sizes up to 0.8cm and are very frequent, ranging between 5% to over 25%. Within this facies, red and reddish-brown surface colours are dominant. Grey and black wares form the minority at 10% of the collection. The spectrum of surface treatments ranges from medium fine and roughly burnished, roughly burnished and wiped surfaces, to hybrid forms of roughly burnished and roughly wiped surfaces with or without a sludgy slip. Fine burnished and polished as well as fine burnished surfaces are not common. Three particular groups within the coarse wares form the socalled “pithos-wares”, mainly used for producing pithoi (Fig. 6). This category is characterised by high porosity, a roughly burnished red to reddish-brown surface, and commonly a wall thickness of over 1cm (Tab. 3).

Function and Technology

Ware group

85

Brief description

5

Surface: medium fine burnished, thin orange slip, smooth and slightly shiny; break: core dark grey

8

Surface: medium fine burnished, grey, grey-brown to reddish-brown, burnishing patterns clearly visible, dull, slightly uneven but dense; break: core red to dark grey

17

Surface: roughly smoothed, uneven, dull, yellowish-brown slip (?); break: dark grey core

26

Surface: roughly burnished, red; break: red surface (exterior), black core and interior surface

27

Surface: finely burnished, smooth, brown to black; break: dark grey core

30

Surface: roughly burnished, dull, surface and core continuously red

36

Surface: finely burnished, dense, brown, burnishing patterns visible; break: dark reddish-brown

37

Surface: finely burnished, greyish-brown to brown, slightly shiny; break: dark grey

40

Surface: roughly smoothed, dull, brown-grey; break: brown to dark grey core

42

Surface: medium fine burnished, slightly uneven, reddish-brown; break: grey core

46

Surface: medium fine burnished, burnishing traces visible, slightly uneven, slip?, slightly shiny, red to reddish-brown; break: continuously reddish-brown to brown

48

Surface: finely burnished, even, dull, slightly shiny, dark grey; break: continuously reddish-brown

49

Surface: medium fine burnished, cracky; break: dark grey core, highly micaceous

50

Surface: roughly burnished and smoothed, uneven, red, slip (?); break: interior red, core and break grey

52

Surface: medium fine burnished, grey, cracky; break: dark grey core, highly micaceous

55

Surface: finely burnished, smooth and even, shiny, burnishing patterns visible, dark grey to black; break: continuously reddish-brown

56

Surface: medium fine burnished, burnishing patterns visible, brown to grey; break: brown to grey

59

Surface: finely burnished, even, slightly shiny, reddish-brown to brown: break: red core

61

Surface: medium fine burnished, even, slightly shiny; break: continuously dark brown

71

Surface: medium fine burnished, brown to grey, heavily micaceous; break: continuously dark grey to red (exterior) and dark grey (interior)

76

Surface: medium fine burnished, even, dull, red; break: slim brown core

78

Surface: roughly burnished, sludgy slip, imprints of plants, brown; break: thick grey core

85

Surface: medium fine burnished, dull, burnishing patterns visible, slightly uneven, reddish to brown; break: continuously brown

86

Surface: medium fine burnished, slightly uneven, dull, brown; break: brown core

89

Surface: finely burnished, white to beige slip on a red to brown sherd, even and shiny; break: micaceous

100

Surface: medium fine burnished, beige to brown slip, sludgy slip?, imprints of plants, highly micaceous, rough but even; break: dark grey

117

Surface: finely burnished, burnishing patterns partially visible, dark grey; break: continuously dark grey core, highly micaceous

201

Surface: medium fine burnished, burnishing patterns pertly visible; break: core continuously red, core edges red to reddish-brown, brown

9842

Surface: very fine burnished and polished, beige surface and break Tab. 2   Medium fine ware groups (single wares: light grey)

The surface treatment can differ from category to category. In the case of fine wares, fine-burnished surfaces are dominant at 56%, followed by medium-fine burnished at 21%, and very fine burnished and polished surfaces at 13%. Frequently applied treatments on medium-fine wares are medium-fine burnished surfaces at 45%, and finely burnished surfaces at 26%. Roughly wiped surfaces with a sludgy slip form the minority at 15%. Vessels made of coarse wares mostly show medium-burnished surfaces at 48%. The second frequently applied treatment is a roughly burnished surface with a sludgy slip (25%).

86

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Fig. 6   Ware groups 34 (upper photo) and 45 (lower photo) (ÖAI/N. Gail)

Ware group

Brief description

15

Surface: roughly smoothed, reddish-brown sludgy slip, brown, dull and uneven; break: dark grey core

16

Surface: roughly burnished, dark reddish-brown; break: continuously dark grey to black

20

Surface: roughly burnished, slim beige to brown slip, slightly uneven, slightly shiny; break: black

23

Surface: roughly burnished and roughly smoothed, uneven, red to brown; break: dark grey core

32

Surface: roughly smoothed, sludgy slip, brown, uneven; break: brown

44

Surface: roughly burnished and roughly smoothed, uneven; break: continuously red to reddish-brown

51

Surface: medium fine burnished, slightly uneven and slightly shiny, slip on the exterior; break: reddish-brown, grey core

58

Surface: medium fine burnished, even, slightly shiny, reddish-dark brown; break: continuously red

60

Surface: roughly burnished, brown sludgy slip, uneven; break: continuously brown core

77

Surface: roughly burnished, sludgy slip, uneven, grains tangibly, brown to grey; break: continuously grey core

80

Surface: finely burnished and polished, dark grey to black slip, burnishing traces visible, slightly uneven, shiny; break: brown to dark grey

81

Surface: medium fine burnished, slim dark grey to black slip, slightly uneven, slightly shiny; break: brown, heavily tempered

313

Surface: medium fine burnished, partially uneven, red slip (?)

314

Surface: medium fine burnished, burnishing patterns visible, even, slightly shiny, heavily burnt

9841

Surface: medium fine burnished, thick red slip on both sides; break: light grey core “Pithos wares”

34

Surface: roughly burnished and roughly smoothed, sludgy slip, red to brown; break: dark grey core

35

Surface: medium fine burnished, red to reddish-brown suface; break: red

45

Surface: roughly burnished, uneven; break: continuously red to reddish-brown core

827

Surface: very fine burnished, red slip Tab. 3   Coarse ware groups (single wares: light grey)

Function and Technology

87

Overall, at 48%, medium fine wares are the prevailing group within the Early Bronze Age settlement ÇuHö III. Fine wares are represented at 33%, and coarse ones at 19%. Besides the results of the analysis of the macroscopically defined ware groups, on-going broad technological studies including petrographic and geochemical analyses by L. Peloschek clearly reveal evidence for local pottery workshops at the settlements of ÇuHö IV and III.20 Additional geo-archaeological surveys within this archaeometric project brought several clay sources to light that were used by the EBA potters. Typological Background and Chronology The ceramic spectrum of EBA 1 Çukuriçi Höyük (phases ÇuHö IV and III) forms a homogeneous group of wares and shapes, and is embedded in a supra-regional context. The pottery of both EBA phases is hand-made. Common shapes are so-called Knickrandschalen, jugs with high beaklike spouts and dome-shaped shallow bowls. Tripod cooking pots also form a prevailing shape.21 From its shape, the EBA 1 pottery of Çukuriçi Höyük can be associated with Troy I (phases Troy Ib-c, not the earliest stage), the cemetery of Yortan, and the phases XIX–XVII of Beycesultan.22 Younger shapes, such as wheel made plates or depata amphikypella, do not form part of the assemblage.23 Based on these comparisons, the two most recent settlement phases of Çukuriçi Höyük can be dated to the beginnings of the Early Bronze Age (EBA 1 by Efe24) and consequently to the first centuries of the 3rd millennium BC25 in relative chronological terms. A sequence of 12 radiocarbon dates fixes the Çukuriçi settlements IV and III between 2950/2900–2800/2750 BC. This date can be synchronised with the re-evaluation and modelling of the Troy Ib/c tree-ring sequence (2780 BC), thus placing phases ÇuHö IV and III at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age,26 soon after 3000 BC and Troy Ia. The ceramic types of EBA Çukuriçi Höyük can be correlated with Troy Ib-c,27 Beycesultan XIX–XVIII and Aphrodisias-Pekmez LC4–EB1/2(?),28 Yortan,29 Emporio V–IV, Thermi I–II30 and Poliochni (phase blue),31 and form a horizon that spans at least 200 years and corresponds at its core to the EBA 1.32 Vessel Shapes and Types The pottery assemblage of ÇuHö III includes eleven different categories describing the general shape of the vessels33 (see Plate 2). The most common shapes are shallow bowls (26%) followed by tripod cooking pots (11%), narrow-mouthed vessels and jugs (both 4%). Other shapes are amphorae, jars, deep bowls, globular jars, and miniature- and special shapes. Within the biggest

FWF project “Interaction of Prehistoric Pyrotechnological Crafts and Industries” (P 25825) managed by B. Horejs; Peloschek 2014; Peloschek, this volume. 21 Horejs 2010, 169. 22 Horejs 2011, 161. 23 Horejs 2011, 161. 24 Efe 1988, fig. 98. 25 Horejs 2011, 162. 26 Horejs et al. 2011, 43; Horejs – Weninger 2016. 27 Blegen et al. 1950. 28 Sharp Joukowsky 1986. 29 Kâmil 1982. 30 Lloyd – Mellaart 1962. 31 Cultraro 2004; Doumas – Angelopoulou 1997. 32 Blegen et al. 1950; Lloyd – Mellaart 1962; Sharp Joukowsky 1986; Korfmann – Kromer 1993, 164–169; Horejs et al. 2011, 41. 33 For detailed information about ÇuHö III pottery typology, see Röcklinger 2015. 20

88

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Shallow bowl

Tripod cooking pot

Deep bowl

Jar

Narrow-mouthed vessel

Amphora

Necked jar

Jug

Pithos

Globular jar

Flask

Plate 2   EBA 1 shapes of ÇuHö III (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Röcklinger)

89

Function and Technology

Sb 1

Sb 3

Sb 4

Sb 6

Sb 8

Tcp 1

Tcp 2

Ju 1

Ju 2

Plate 3   Most common pottery types at ÇuHö III; Sb 1: dome shaped shallow bowl; Sb 3: shallow bowl with a rim contracting heavily inwards; Sb 4: open shallow bowl; Sb 6: narrow-mouthed shallow bowl; Sb 8: shallow bowl with funnel-shaped rim; Tcp 1: tripod cooking pot with slightly curved rim; Tcp 2: tripod cooking pot with funnel-shaped rim; Ju 1: simple jug with sloping rim; Ju 2:jug with high beak-like spout (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Röcklinger)

90

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

group of vessels, five different types can be distinguished (see Plate 3). Besides simple domeshaped, open-mouthed, narrow-mouthed and funnel-shaped shallow bowls, shallow bowls with an inverted, carinated rim (Sb 3: Knickrandschale) form the bulk and therefore the prevailing shallow-bowl type. Since there is a lack of completely preserved shallow bowls within this settlement phase, comparisons with the older Early Bronze Age occupation (ÇuHö IV) show us that simple/ flat or, more commonly, rounded bases were used for these shapes. Typical appliqués are simple round knobs, vertically or horizontally pierced knobs, and horizontal handles with triangular or oval cross-sections sitting on the rim. Massive horizontal lugs, typical of Troy type A12,34 are not attested at the site. Generally, handles are very rare among these shapes. Tripod cooking pots come in two slightly different types. The first type shows a slightly curved neck and a round shoulder, resulting in a globuFig. 7 Jug with high beak-like spout and white painting (ÖAI/N. Gail) lar body. For this type, simple knobs opposite the handle are typical. The second type (Tcp 2) has a slightly funnel-shaped neck and a more flattened transition to the body. Due to the fragmentation of these vessels, it remains unclear if this type’s rims are level throughout or, as in one better preserved case from room 1 – ÇuHö III, slightly rising to a point opposite the vertical strap handle.35 This special feature might have served as a kind of spout. The vertical strap handle has an oval cross-section. Typical appliqués are long and narrow knobs positioned vertically on the transition from the shoulder to the neck. Since comparable types are only present at Beycesultan (phases XVIII, XVII, EB1),36 Emporio37 and Thermi,38 a regional group for this shape can be assumed during the EBA 1. In other contemporaneous sites such as Troy, Demircihüyük and Liman Tepe, the tripod cooking pot types described above seem to occur only in later phases (Troy V39, Demircihüyük “Q” ,40 Liman Tepe EBA III41). Within phase ÇuHö III, the bulk of these vessels are of ware group 59, followed by 77. Overall, 90 fragments of these vessels were found in the layers of phase ÇuHö III. Jugs are divided into two different types represented by 35 characteristic fragments within ÇuHö III. The two types consist of a simple jug with a sloping rim and a jug with a high beak-like spout. Both types have round or slightly flattened bases. The usual jug at ÇuHö III possesses a high beak-like spout (type Ju 2). Simple jugs are represented by only two examples. Both types most commonly have vertical handles with a round or oval cross-section starting at the rim. A unique example is a small specimen of a type-2 jug with white-painted parallel lines and three appliqués (Fig. 7). One of these is a vertical pierced lug. Although the others are not preserved, we assume that these belong to the same type of handle appliqué as the better maintained example.

36 37 38 39 40 41 34 35

Blegen et al. 1950, 60. Cf. Fig. 12. Llyod – Mellaart 1962, 122, fig. P.16,1, 2, 4,16; 128, fig. P.19.10; sheet 3.27. Hood 1981, 186, fig. 99.27; 394, fig.178.1179. Lamb 1936, plate IX.26. Podzuweit 1979, 212, plate 20.2.IV. Efe 1988, plate 60.9. Day et al. 2009, 346, fig. 3.

Function and Technology

91

10cm

Fig. 8   Reconstruction of an EBA 1 amphora with horizontal handle (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Röcklinger)

Only nine amphora fragments were found at ÇuHö III. Since no complete profile of this shape is preserved within either EBA settlement phases at Çukuriçi Höyük, the typological assignment is based on the vessels’ neck region. Within this phase, three different amphora types are present. Typical amphorae in EBA 1 Çukuriçi Höyük feature a cylindrical neck and a horizontally bent rim. Based on correlating the ware groups, characteristic horizontal handles with round cross-section and grooved decoration on the upper side can be associated with these shapes (Fig. 8). These handles have their best comparisons with so-called “stamnoi42” typical of the EBA Cyclades. According to A. Angelopoulou, this “two-handled container jar with splayed-out neck” does not appear earlier than EB II.43 Since our examples derive from closed contexts, not dating later than 2740 BC,44 the assumed time of first emergence of these shapes might be reassessed at least for the eastern Aegean region.45 Decoration At ÇuHö III, only 8% of all Early Bronze Age fragments are decorated. It is possible to distinguish between painted, impressed (fluted, grooved, scratched, impressed rings), incised and pierced fragments as well as different types of appliqués. Out of the 70 decorated pieces, only 38 were assigned to particular vessel shapes. The most frequently decorated shapes are tripod cooking pots and shallow bowls. In terms of handles, the horizontal type described above is associated with amphorae, and is the most decorated type.

44 45 42 43

Rambach 2000, Tafel IV, 9. Angelopoulou 2008, 159. Horejs – Weninger 2016, 133. Although these vessels are particularly typical for the Cyclades, comparisons with other regional sites like Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe show that these shapes also appear regularly in EBA sites in the Izmir region, again dating to EBII (oral information from V. Şahoğlu, Neolithic on-site symposion at Çukuriçi Höyük, 11th–12th October 2014).

92

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Correlation of Shapes and Wares For the interpretation of a vessel’s specific use, the definition by H. Riemer46 is used. He assumes that narrow-mouthed vessels are used for contents that will be stored for a longer period, whereas open and deep vessels should allow easy access to the content, and vessels like jugs and shallow bowls are used for consuming meals and drinks. The combination of the assumed function and the macroscopically defined ware groups shows that, at ÇuHö III, medium-sized shapes, used to store ingredients and defined in typological terms as narrow-mouthed vessels and amphorae, were made mainly of medium fine wares. Pithoi, as already mentioned earlier, were generally made of coarse wares (Tab. 4). Vessels used for preparing food, or which were intended to grant easy access to their contents, were basically made of medium fine wares as well (Tab. 5). Shapes for consuming food or drinks such as shallow bowls, jugs, and flasks, were commonly made of fine and medium-fine wares (Tab. 6).

Shape

FW

MW

CW

N

7

21

5

A

3

4

2

Nj

2

5

2

Gj

2

0

0

P

0

1

10

Total

14

31

19

Tab. 4    Correlation of vessels used for storage with the respective ware categories (N: Narrow-mouthed vessels, A: Amphorae, Nj: Necked jars, Gj: Globular jars, P: Pithoi; FW: Fine ware, MW: Medium fine ware, CW: Coarse ware)

Shape

FW

MW

CW

Tcp

13

44

26

Db

2

5

1

J

1

6

1

Total

16

55

28

Tab. 5   Correlation of vessels used for preparing food with respective ware categories (Tcp: Tripod cooking pot, Db: Deep bowl, J: Jar; FW: Fine ware, MW: Medium fine ware, CW: Coarse ware)

Shape

FW

MW

CW

Ju

16

13

7

Sb

104

75

20

Fl

2

0

0

Total

122

88

27

Tab. 6   Correlation of vessels used for consuming foods and drinks with respective ware categories (Ju: Jug, S: Shallow bowl, Fl: Flask; FW: Fine ware, MW: Medium fine ware, CW: Coarse ware)

Riemer 1997.

46

Function and Technology

93

If we look at the appearance, and in particular the surface colours of the different ware groups, it is apparent that shallow bowls, with 82% of the Knickrandschalen variety, are almost exclusively made of dark (dark grey, dark brown and black) ware groups. Storage vessels (amphorae, narrow-mouthed vessels, necked jars, globular jars and pithoi) feature medium-fine (50%) and roughly burnished surfaces (17%). Smaller storage vessels also show finely burnished surfaces (15%). Vessels used for cooking or preparing food mostly show a medium-fine or finely burnished surface. Rough burnishing with a sludgy slip represents only 19%. The latter treatment occurs with 74% of tripod cooking pots. Shapes such as shallow bowls or jugs most frequently feature a finely burnished (41%) finish, followed by a medium finely burnished surface (29%). The Case Study – Room 6 Various analytical methods can be used for interpreting a vessel’s particular use. These can be use-wear and residue analysis, but the particular ceramic fabrics along with the shapes also reveal something about primary function. Contextualising pottery with other find categories, features and stratigraphy, and incorporating other fields of research, such as metallurgy, archaeobotany or archaeozoology, gives us the opportunity to gain further insight into socio-cultural processes. In addition to the socio-cultural information gained from analysing metal processing, textile production, stock herding and plant remains, the study of pottery enables us to gain detailed insight into craft specialisation and organisation as well as the general organisation of a settlement. The aim of this case study was to discover whether there were particular technological groups or properties that correlate with pottery shapes and assumed functions, and if these can be linked with an EBA local pottery production site with specialised products focused on function. Further questions regarding the production itself should clarify if, how and to what extent pottery production for a particular purpose took place within the settlement. The pottery assemblage of room 6, the best-preserved room of phase ÇuHö III, shows a typical assemblage (in wares and shapes) of EBA 1 at Çukuriçi Höyük, and therefore forms a sound base for analysing the connection between function and technology in pottery production. In addition, technological comparisons within the settlement should provide a better understanding of pottery technology at Çukuriçi Höyük III. Architecture and Features Early Bronze Age layers contain agglutinative architecture, composed of rectangular rooms. According to spatial analyses and detailed studies of the depositional processes that took place within these buildings and rooms, a multifunctional use with manifold activities can be assumed for the youngest settlement phase (ÇuHö III). Detailed analyses of the deposition processes were based on the architecture, pottery, metallurgical features and small finds and other find categories (e.g., burned clay, grinding stones). Comparison of these spatial studies led to the result that special rooms were exclusively used for metal processing, while others were used primarily for everyday life. Although metal processing took place in almost every single room, in some cases metallurgical craft activities did not play a major role.47 The pottery assemblage discussed here hails from room 6 (Fig. 9) which is located to the south of the preserved part of the tell and consists of a rectangular space surrounded by stone wall socles. This room shows four different levels of use, each represented by individual clay floors including four oven installations, two pits, and one in situ pottery assemblage. The oldest level (D) contained only one oven installation and no finds. The most interesting level of use is the more recent level C. It contained two ovens as well as the in situ pottery assemblage mentioned

Röcklinger 2015.

47

94

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

6

detail room 6 using horizon c floor filling ash burned clay pottery

0

2

4m

Fig. 9   Location of room 6, ÇuHö III and close-up of level C (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Börner)

above. The first oven (oven 12) was located at the southern wall of the room and consists of eight different layers. The second oven (oven 16) was located in the centre of the room, and contained ash and burned clay. Between these two structures a pottery assemblage was found. The jug with a high beak-like spout was around 50% preserved. It was lying horizontally on the stamped clay floor and because of its relatively good state of preservation it can be interpreted as belonging to this phase of use. The floors within the settlement show a special pattern. Most of them had been

95

Function and Technology

built reusing material from former occupation layers, which can be seen in the composition of the ceramic material in the floors. It is therefore statistically attested that, within the floors, there is a high amount (up to 50%) of sherds belonging to older phases like the Neolithic or the Late Chalcolithic. Since the floors of room 6 mirror this special situation, large parts of material coming from the floors had to be excluded from analysing the rooms’ primary use. The next level (B) showed an accumulation of clay, which separates this level of use from the former level (C). Level B contained a floor and its repairs, as well as different layers of collapsed walls with pieces of plastering, and a possible post-hole or a pit. Within this level, no evidence for an oven was apparent. The most recent level (A) consisted of different clay layers, floor levels, a pit and an oven, which was located slightly to the south of the centre of the room. Because of the oven installations and other finds connected to metal processing such as a pounder, a cone, a fragment of a crucible, pieces of slagged clay and a needle, this room is interpreted as a metal workshop. A change of use was not recognisable through all four levels. The results of analysing the deposition processes lead to the result that, due to finds’ state of preservation, their approximate size and other criteria, only seven pottery vessels can be used for spatial analyses across all four levels of use. This assemblage consists of an amphora, two jugs, a tripod cooking pot and three shallow bowls.48 Nevertheless, since the material is well-stratified and the levels have been dated by 14C, it can be used for technological analyses. Ceramics Amphorae Within room 6, only one characteristic fragment belonging to an amphora is preserved (Fig. 10). In general, the most frequent ware groups used for these vessels are the fabrics 42 and 110 (Fig. 11). WG 42 is a medium fine ware with a medium finely burnished reddish-brown surface and a slightly slate-like break. WG 110 is a fine but roughly burnished fabric with a red surface and a grey break.

5 cm 1:3 1:2

5 cm 5 cm

Fig. 10   Amphora, room 6, level A (08/505/1/10+16) (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

Röcklinger 2015, 111–116.

48

96

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Fig. 11   Ware groups 42 (upper photo) and 110 (lower photo) (ÖAI/N. Gail)

Although it was not possible to determine the exact ware group of this particular piece, its closest counterpart is WG 42. According to the petrographic analyses,49 WG 42 belongs to the main fabric used at Çukuriçi Höyük. This contains coarse mica schists and quartz mica schists, and shows a highly micaceous clay matrix. Because of its excellent thermal properties due to increased silica content, it is often used for cooking pots as well. Tripod Cooking Pots Within room 6, 13 sherds of tripod cooking pots were found. Twelve of them were made of the main fabric already described. One was made of WG 77. As already mentioned above, along with WG 59 (main fabric), this group shows the most common fabrics used for this vessel type (Fig. 12). Ware group 77 (Fig. 13) belongs to the so-called sand-tempered fabric that only occurs within the EBA pottery. Important information given by the petrographic analyses is that this fabric was tempered with coarse-grained mica schist intentionally in order to make it very heat resistant, which evidently is useful for cooking pots. This special property of the fabric and the fact that the sand was inserted intentionally shows us that the inhabitants of EBA Çukuriçi Höyük had a well-developed strategy for combining technology with functionality in the vessels they made. Jugs In comparison to storage or cooking vessels, jugs (Fig. 14) show a more diversified fabric repertoire. The jugs from room 6 are made predominantly using petrographic main fabric. The jug

49

The petrographic analyses were conducted by Lisa Peloschek, within the project “Interaction of Prehistoric Pyrotechnological Crafts and Industries”, under the direction of Barbara Horejs and financed by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF Project no. P 25825).

97

Function and Technology

5 cm 1:3 1:2 Fig. 12   Tripod cooking pot (06/218/1/1) (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

5 cm 5 cm

Fig. 13   Ware groups 59 (upper photo) and 77 (lower photo) (ÖAI/N. Gail)

already mentioned with a high beak-like spout, found on the floor of level C, is made of WG 87, a fine metamorphic, reducing fired fabric with quartz and carbonates. Another example was made of WG 84, a fabric with calcite as a natural temper. In comparison to other houses within ÇuHö III, six fabrics were preferred in this case. Four of them (WG 19, 58, 78, 86) belong to the petrographic group of the main fabric (see e.g., Fig. 15 top). Most commonly used is the ware group 76 (Fig. 15), which can be described as a hard, medium-fine fabric with a grainy break. Based on

98

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

the petrographic analyses, this ware group can be determined as a fabric with metamorphic rocks and slate. Shallow Bowls Like jugs, shallow bowls (Fig. 16) show a more diversified fabric repertoire. Within room 6 all five ÇuHö III shallow-bowl types are present. The bulk is made out of the main petrographic fabric (WG 46, 49, 54, 55, 60, 61, 85, 105), followed by a reducing burnt fine metamorphic fabric with quartz and carbonates (WG 87). The most common ware group for shallow bowls in this settlement phase, WG 84, is found in three items in this room. This ware group can be defined as a fabric with naturally occurring calcite, which is characterised by the presence of discrete calcite grains in a slightly micaceous and partially calcareous clay matrix. Macroscopically, it is described as a fine to medium-fine fabric with a brown to grey core and a dark-brown to dark-grey medium fine burnished surface. The clay for this fabric most probably comes from a different source than that used for the main petrographic fabric. As investigations conducted by L. Peloschek and D. Wolf show, this raw clay material is rarely found in the surroundings of Çukuriçi Höyük. Besides these two groups, the second most used group within room 6 is WG 87. Together with WG 53, it also forms the second most frequently used ware group in phase ÇuHö III. Both show a fine to medium-fine burnished dark-brown to dark-grey surface and a dark-brown to greyish-black break. It may be a variant of the main fabric, but made from much finer sediment. The composition of the fabric is probably not connected to the function of the vessels, but it is definitely connected to the appearance of these vessels. Looking at surface colours, one can see that 82% of shallow bowls – so-called Knickrandschalen (type Sb 3) – are made of dark-coloured (dark grey, dark brown and black) ware groups. 59% of all dark wares used for this shallow bowl type are fine fabrics, 34% are medium fine and 7% coarse fabrics. The most frequently used ware group is WG 87, a fine and hard fabric with an almost clean to slightly slate-like break, followed by WG 84, a fine to medium-fine hard fabric with a grainy break and WG 53, which is again a fine but very hard fabric with an almost clean to slightly slate-like break. The surface treatment of these fabrics ranges from very fine burnished and polished to roughly or medium-fine burnished. In total, seven ware groups are finely burnished, and four show a medium-fine burnish (Fig. 17). Only two of these groups show a slip on the outside. WG 116 is a fine ware with a clean break and a very finely burnished surface. In contrast, WG 80 is a coarse ware with a grainy break, a polished surface and a slip (Fig. 18). A third group, which is represented only with one fragment, shows a red slip on the inside. Shallow bowls, generally interpreted as vessels for consuming food or drinks, are usually made of fine and medium fine wares. 59% of the Knickrandschalen are made of fine wares, and 77% of them are of dark brown to black wares. The surfaces are mostly well burnished and show a nice and shiny appearance. Conclusion The Early Bronze Age pottery assemblage of Çukuriçi Höyük phase ÇuHö III consists of 77 different macroscopically defined ware groups. These groups can be divided into fine, fine to medium fine, medium fine and coarse wares. The most frequently used ware groups belong to the medium-fine category, followed by fine and finally by coarse wares. A comparison of ware groups with vessel function showed that medium-sized vessels suitable for storing food e.g., amphorae and narrow-mouthed vessels, were mainly (46%) made of medium-fine wares, whereas pithoi were, with the exception of one example, made of coarse fabrics. Vessels for preparing food were made of medium-fine fabrics (52%). Containers used for consuming food or drinks (jugs, shallow bowls and bottles) were mainly made of fine wares (48%), followed by medium-fine wares (39%). Regarding the appearance of these different vessels, it is striking that shallow bowls, and

99

Function and Technology

5 cm 1:3

5 cm

1:2

5 cm

Fig. 14   Jug from room 6 (09/886/1/1) (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

Fig. 15   Ware groups 19 (upper photo) and 76 (lower photo) (ÖAI/N. Gail)

5 cm 1:3 1:2

5 cm 5 cm

Fig. 16   Shallow bowl from room 6 (08/505/1/7) (ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/Th. Urban)

100

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Fig. 17   Ware groups 87 (upper photo) 84 (middle photo) and 53 (lower photo) (ÖAI/N. Gail)

especially the so-called Knickrandschalen, which represent 82% of all shallow bowls, are made exclusively of dark-coloured (dark grey, dark brown, black) ware groups. This leads to the assumption that the selection of the colour and surface of these vessels was a specific practice in pottery production. Since colour does not have any functional aspect, the dark-coloured pottery production at ÇuHö phase III can be seen as a stylistic element or a particular fashion for the EBA Knickrandschalen. Producing these wares required a continuous reducing atmosphere during firing. This had to be balanced with the surface treatment. Shapes used for consuming food featured a dense surface to prevent liquids from penetrating into the vessel wall, and surfaces were usually burnished, even when not slipped. To prevent the burnished surface from flaking, low firing temperatures were required. Consequently, very specific knowledge was essential for producing these shallow bowls. Another successful way of ‘sealing’ these vessels was through the application of a slip. A good example of this practice is WG 80. This roughly made fabric with a grainy fracture was coated with a black slip to make the porous surface denser. Another fabric (WG 116), which can be described as a soft fabric, also was covered with a slip to improve surface properties. In contrast, no special surface appearance was created for shapes used for preparing or storing

Function and Technology

101

Fig. 18   Ware groups 116 (upper photo) and 80 (lower photo) (ÖAI/N. Gail)

foodstuffs. It can therefore be stated that functionality and design were combined for producing these particular tableware shapes. In the pottery assemblage of room 6, 14 ware groups were preferred. Seven of them belong to the main petrographic fabric, which consists of mica schist, quartz-mica schist, epidote, albite and occasional micrite. The main fabric most commonly appears in jugs (four out of six). The other fabrics preferred for jugs include metamorphic rocks and slate (WG 76) as well as calcite as a natural temper (WG 41). According to L. Peloschek, the last mentioned group is a fabric of special interest. It is as yet unclear whether this clay originates from a different region, or whether it has a source near the tell that has not yet been discovered. A comparison of petrographic groups with known clay sources suggests that all other fabrics used for EBA pottery can be considered as local fabrics. As indicated by the special knowledge required to produce black burnished wares and for instance ware group 77 (tripod cooking pots), pottery production and the exploitation of specific clay sources were conscious acts. Fabrics were prepared purposefully, particularly with regard to their thermal properties and their general composition. In the case of WG 77, clay was intentionally sand-tempered to produce heat-resistant vessels, which indicates a strong connection between the supposed function of a vessel and the technological background. In conclusion, we can say that the EBA pottery production for the consumers at Çukuriçi Höyük was a specialised craft. Not only the choice of clay sources and their natural properties, but also tempering, surface treatment and firing as well as the combination of function, technology and appearance played important roles. This is visible in the choice of fabrics e.g., for cooking pots and their needed thermal properties. Since no potter’s workshop at or around Çukuriçi Höyük has so far been identified, the use of local clay sources and the concise evidence of wares and fabrics lead us to assume that pottery production was carried out either within the Çukuriçi settlement or in its direct vicinity. Therefore, beside metal processing and textile crafts, pottery production was a local craft sector at Çukuriçi Höyük during EBA 1.

102

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Acknowledgements: Our thanks go to the ERC team, whose detailed studies form the basis of our work. The team includes Stefan Grasböck, Mathias Mehofer, Christoph Schwall, Christopher Britsch and Sarah Eder. Our special thanks go to Lisa Peloschek for providing information concerning the petrographic analyses and Johanna Traumüller. Research and analyses took place within projects financed by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF Project no. Y528-G02; P25825-G19), and the European Research Council (ERC Project no. 263339). We are most grateful for this support.

References Angelopoulou 2008 A. Angelopoulou, The ‘Kastri Group’. Evidence from Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) Naxos, Dhaskalio Keros and Akrotiri Thera, in: N. Brodie – J. Doole – G. Gavalas – C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon / Όρίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, McDonald Institute Monographs (Cambridge 2008) 149–164. Berger 2010 L. Berger, Zur Terminologie und Definition der Oberflächenbehandlung anhand gebrannter Gefäße in der prähistorischen Keramikforschung, in: Horejs et al. 2010b, 29–37. Bergner et al. 2009 M. Bergner – B. Horejs – E. Pernicka, Zur Herkunft der Obsidianartefakte vom Çukuriçi Höyük, Studia Troica 18, 2009, 251–273. Bittel et al. 1939–1941 K. Bittel – J. R. Stewart – J. L. Angel, Ein Gräberfeld der Yortan-Kultur bei Babaköy, Archiv für Orientforschung 13, 1939–1941, 1–31. Blegen et al. 1950 C. W. Blegen – J. L. Caskey – M. Rawson – J. Sperling, Troy I. General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements (Princeton 1950). Britsch 2013 C. Britsch, The Early Bronze Age Clay Small Finds of Çukuriçi Höyük (Master Thesis, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen 2013). Britsch – Horejs 2014 Ch. Britsch – B. Horejs, The role of textile production and fishing in the EBA metallurgical centre of Çukuriçi Höyük (Turkey), Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 24, 2014, 227–240. Cultraro 2004 M. Cultraro, Island isolation and cultural interaction in the EBA northern Aegean. A case study from Poliochni (Lemnos), Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 4, 1, 2004, 19–34. Day et al. 2009 P. M. Day – Ch. G. Doumas – H. Erkanal – V. Kilikoglou – O. Kouka – M. Relaki – V. Șahoğlu, New light on the “Kastri Group”. A petrographic and chemical investigation of ceramics from Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe, Arkeometri Sonuçlari Toplantısı 24, 2009, 335–346. Doumas – Angelopoulou 1997 Χ. Γ. Ντούμας – A. Αγγελοπούλου, Οι βασικοί κεραμικοί τύποι της Πολιόχνης και η διάδοσή τους στο Αιγαίο κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού, in: Ch. G. Doumas – V. La Rosa (eds.), Η Πολιόχνη και ή Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο. Διεθές Συνέδριο Αθήνα, 22–25 Απριλίου 1996 / Poliochni e l’antica età del bronzo nell’Egeo settentrionale. Convegno Internazionale Atene, 22–25 Aprile 1996 (Athen 1997) 543–555. Efe 1988 T. Efe, Demirciküyük III.2. Die Keramik 2. C. Die Frühbronzezeitliche Keramik der jüngeren Phasen (ab Phase H) (Mainz 1988). Hood 1981 S. Hood, Excavations in Chios 1938–1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala I, The British School at Athens, Suppl. 15 (London 1981).

Function and Technology

103

Horejs 2007 B. Horejs, Das prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Die Spätbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 21 (Rahden/Westf. 2007). Horejs 2008 B. Horejs mit Beträgen von A. Galik und U. Thanheiser, Erster Grabungsbericht zu den Kampagnen 2006 und 2007 am Çukuriçi Höyük bei Ephesos, Jahresheft des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 77, 2008, 91–106. Horejs 2009 B. Horejs, Metalworkers at the Çukuriçi Höyük? An Early Bronze Age mould and a “Near Eastern weight” from western Anatolia, in: T. L. Kienlin – B. W. Roberts (eds.), Metals and Societies. Studies in Honour of Barbara S. Ottaway, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 169 (Bonn 2009) 358−368. Horejs 2010 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük. Neue Ausgrabungen auf einem Tell bei Ephesos, in: S. Aybek – A. K. Öz (eds.), Metropolis Ionia II. Yolların Kesiştiği Yer. Recep Meriç İçin Yazılar / The Land of the Crossroads. Essays in Honour of Recep Meriç (İstanbul 2010) 167–175. Horejs 2011 B. Horejs, Neues zur Frühbronzezeit in Westanatolien, in: Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 2009, Akten der Tagung vom 6.–7. März 2009 am Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaften der Universität Salzburg (Wien 2011) 157–171. Horejs 2014 B. Horejs, Proto-urbanisation without urban centres? A model of transformation for the Izmir region in the 4th millennium BC, in: B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia Before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, Oriental and European Archaeology 1 (Vienna 2014) 15–41. Horejs 2016 B. Horejs, Neue Gewichtssysteme und metallurgischer Aufschwung im frühen 3. Jahrtausend – ein Zufall?, in: M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka, Oriental and European Archaeology 3 (Rahden/Westf. 2016) 251–272. Horejs 2017 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC. With contributions by Christopher Britsch, Stefan Grasböck, Bogdana Milić, Lisa Peloschek, Maria Röcklinger and Christoph Schwall, Oriental and European Archaeology 5 (Vienna 2017). Horejs – Weninger 2016 B. Horejs – B. Weninger, Early Troy and its significance for the Early Bronze Age in western Anatolia, in: E. Pernicka – S. Ünlüsoy – St. W. E. Blum (eds.), Early Bronze Age Troy. Chronology, Cultural Development, and Interregional Contacts. Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Tübingen, May 8–10, 2009, Studia Troica Monographien 8 (Bonn 2016) 123–145. Horejs et al. 2010a B. Horejs – M. Mehofer – E. Pernicka, Metallhandwerker im frühen 3. Jt. v. Chr. Neue Ergebnisse vom Çukuriçi Höyük, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 60, 2010, 7–37. Horejs et al. 2010b B. Horejs – R. Jung – P. Pavúk, Analysing Pottery. Processing – Classification – Publication, Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia 10 (Bratislava 2010). Horejs et al. 2011 B. Horejs – A. Galik – U. Thanheiser – S. Wiesinger, Aktivitäten und Subsistenz in den Siedlungen des Çukuriçi Höyük. Der Forschungsstand nach den Ausgrabungen 2006–2009, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86, 1, 2011, 31–66. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 4, 2015, 289–330.

104

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Kâmil 1982 T. Kâmil, Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia, British Archaeological Reports International Series 145 (Oxford 1982). Korfmann – Kromer 1993 M. Korfmann – B. Kromer, Demircihüyük, Beşik-Tepe, Troia. Eine Zwischenbilanz zur Chronologie dreier Orte in Westanatolien, Studia Troica 3, 1993, 135–171. Lamb 1936 W. Lamb, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge 1936). Lloyd – Mellaart 1962 S. Lloyd – J. Mellaart, Beycesultan I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels, Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 6 (London 1962). Mattová 2011 S. Mattová, Steinartefakte vom Çukuriçi Höyük (Diploma thesis, Comenius University Bratislava, Bratislava 2011). Mehofer 2015 M. Mehofer, Spätchalkolitische und frühbronzezeitliche Metallurgie auf dem Çukuriçi Höyük (PhD Diss., Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen 2015). Rambach 2000 J. Rambach, Kykladen. 1. Die frühe Bronzezeit. Grab- und Siedlungsbefunde, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 33 (Bonn 2000). Peloschek 2014 L. Peloschek, Archäometrie, in: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut (ed.), Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2014 (Vienna 2014) 49–50. Podzuweit 1979 C. Podzuweit, Trojanische Gefäßformen der Frühbronzezeit in Anatolien, der Ägäis und angrenzenden Gebieten. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Stratigraphie, Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans, Monographien 1 (Mainz 1979). Riemer 1997 H. Riemer, Zur Form und Funktion. Zur systematischen Aufnahme und vergleichenden Analyse prähistorischer Gefäßkeramik, Archäologische Informationen 20, 1997, 117–131. Röcklinger 2015 M. Röcklinger, Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik vom Çukuriçi Höyük. Kontextuelle Analysen zur Gefäßkeramik der Phase ÇuHö III (Master Thesis, Universität Wien, Vienna 2015). Seeher 2000 J. Seeher, Die bronzezeitliche Nekropole von Demircihüyük - Sarıket. Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Museum Bursa, 1990–1991, Istanbuler Forschungen 44, 2000. Sharp Joukowsky 1986 M. Sharp Joukowsky, Prehistoric Aphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies, Archaeologia Transatlantica III (Providence 1986). Stock et al. 2013 F. Stock – A. Pint – B. Horejs – S. Ladstätter – H. Brückner, In search of the harbours. New evidence of Late Roman and Byzantine harbours of Ephesus, LAC 2012, 2nd International Landscape and Archaeology Conference, Berlin, Quaternary International 312, 2013, 57–69. Stock et al. 2015 F. Stock – L. Ehlers – B. Horejs – M. Knipping – S. Ladstätter – S. Seren – H. Brückner, Neolithic settlement sites in western Turkey. Palaeogeographic Studies at Çukuriçi Höyük and Arvalya Höyük, Journal of Archaeological Science. Reports 4, 2015, 565–577.

Examining the Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Distribution in the Konya Plain of South Central Anatolia, Turkey John Gait1 – Noémi S. Müller2 – Evangelia Kiriatzi3 – Douglas Baird4 Abstract: This paper presents the results of an archaeological science study of Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2000 BC) pottery from six sites located in the southwestern Konya Plain of central Anatolia. 58 samples collected by the Konya Plain Survey were examined by petrographic and wave-length dispersive X-ray fluorescence. The large majority of the analysed pottery, including material from all six sites, displayed inclusions derived from sedimentary and volcanic rocks, together with organic temper, with a small proportion also tempered with grog, but overall with a composition consistent with the use of locally derived alluvial sediments as raw materials. Evidence of non-local imports is suggested by the presence of a small proportion of serpentinite sand tempered central Anatolian Metallic Ware samples (possibly from eastern Anatolia), and individual non-grouped samples. Overall, the analysis demonstrates a high degree of compositional and technological similarity in the pottery from all the sites examined, as well as seemingly comparable levels of access to sources of imported pottery. Keywords: Konya, central Anatolia, Early Bronze Age, pottery, petrography, wave-length dispersive X-ray fluorescence

The Konya Plain of central Anatolia represents an important region for investigating the origins of urban societies in southwestern Asia; as early as the Late Neolithic there is evidence of nucleated settlement on a large scale in the region, namely at Çatalhöyük. During the Neolithic period (c. 7400–6100 BC), Çatalhöyük witnessed the emergence of a large and densely occupied settlement that over time developed into a large tell-site, which has been considered as a precursor to urban settlements,5 although more recently it has been suggested instead that the earliest true urban settlement in this region dates to the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2000 BC).6 Towards the end of the Neolithic, c. 6200 BC, the settlement transferred to the adjacent West Mound, where it continued (albeit diminished in size) into the middle of the 6th millennium BC before its final abandonment. However, while much of the focus of archaeological enquiries at Çatalhöyük has been directed towards the earlier phases at the East Mound, comparatively less attention has been paid to the occupation of the West Mound during the Early Chalcolithic (c.6100–5500 BC) and to understanding the character and processes of its eventual decline and abandonment, and the impact that the loss of this site may have had on the social and economic landscapes of both the Konya Plain itself, but also more widely within central Anatolia and beyond. The history of the occupation of the West Mound, taken together with developments occurring elsewhere in adjacent areas of the southwestern Konya Plain during both the Chalcolithic and subsequent Early Bronze Age, therefore offers a valuable opportunity to investigate how large pre- and proto-urban nucleated settlements may have operated and interacted at a local and

3 4 5 6 1 2

Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens, Greece; [email protected]. Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens, Greece; [email protected]. Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens, Greece; [email protected]. Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, UK; [email protected]. Mellaart 1966. Baird 1996; Baird 2001; Baird 2005; Düring 2013.

106

John Gait – Noémi S. Müller – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Douglas Baird

regional level, and the role they may have played in the development of long-distance exchange networks and true urban settlement in the Early Bronze Age. In order to investigate these questions, the Fitch laboratory of the British School at Athens, working in collaboration with the Konya Plain Survey (KPS) undertaken by the University of Liverpool (under the auspices of the British Institute at Ankara),7 has recently initiated a new project: “Urbanism, Networks and the Dynamics of Pottery Production and Circulation in the Konya Plain of south central Anatolia”. Through combining macroscopic stylistic investigations of pottery collected by the KPS with detailed archaeological science studies of fabric compositions, production techniques, and distributions, this project aims to present a more detailed picture of the extent of intra- and inter-regional socio-economic interactions, and their development during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. While the project will eventually analyse material from 20 sites dating from the Early Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age (c. 6100–2000 BC), this paper presents only the preliminary results of the analysis of the Early Bronze Age pottery. Consequently, the full diachronic results and interpretations arising from the project will be presented at a future opportunity. Materials, Sampling and Methodology The KPS examined an area of approximately 1100km², and identified 172 single and multi-period sites dating from the Epipalaeolithic through to the Medieval period.8 Cultural material was recovered from these sites either during intensive surface collection or from examinations of pre-existing sections (e.g. from modern artificial irrigation channels).9 Following typological study and macroscopic examinations of the pottery sherds by the KPS team, sherds from a number of sites were selected for further analysis. Selections were made so as to encompass the range of macroscopically discerned variation in the fabrics seen within each site assemblage. In the present study a total of 58 sherds dated to the Early Bronze Age were selected from 6 out of 27 sites of this period identified by the KPS.10 All samples were analysed using wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence (WD-XRF), petrographic analysis with thin sections, and standardised ceramic chip re-firings.11 WD-XRF analyses were undertaken at the Fitch Laboratory using an analytical routine specifically designed for archaeological ceramics and related materials, with a custom calibration based on 43 international geological standard reference materials (CRM).12 Twenty-six major, minor and trace elements were measured using a Bruker S8-TIGER WD-XRF with a Rhodium (Rh) excitation source.13 Prior to analysis samples were cleaned with a tungsten carbide drill to remove surface accretions (including slips and painted decoration), crushed in an agate mortar and homogenised in an automatic mill. Glass beads of milled samples were prepared using c. 1g of ignited sample and 6g of a mixture of lithium borates. Thin sections of samples were prepared at the Fitch Laboratory and analysed using a Zeiss Axioskop 40 polarising microscope, with quantitative measurements of inclusions estimated with

9 7 8



10 11

12 13



Baird 1997. Baird 1996. Baird 1996; Baird 2002. Baird 2001. Owing to the lack of available material, samples K061 and K137 were examined by petrographic analysis and chip re-firing only, resulting in 56 samples analysed by WD-XRF. Georgakopoulou et al. 2017. The elements measured were Na, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, Fe, P, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Pb, Th.

Examining the Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Distribution in the Konya Plain

107

reference to the published grain frequency charts.14 Chip-refirings were performed in an oxidising atmosphere, with samples fired at 900°C for 1 hour. Macroscopic Examination of Samples In most instances, the analysed sherds have a wall thickness ranging between 10 and 20mm. The surfaces are generally uncoated, varying between grey, light brown, and orange-buff in colour, although a few samples retain evidence of a moderately thick white slip and/or are decorated with a thin orange-coloured wash. The surfaces are commonly moderately smooth, but only in a few instances are they burnished. Examination, by eye or under low magnification, of the sample fabrics in fresh fractures commonly reveals relatively porous structures, with thick black cores and narrow margins of light grey to orange-buff colour. Sand-sized inclusions of a variety of colours and appearances are frequent, with matt white and off-white inclusions and glassy, black, dark green or brown inclusions dominating. More rarely the inclusions may be light pink, orange, or grey, with some of the latter possessing weakly curved laminar structures resembling shell fragments or microfossils. Many samples also display voids formed by the combustion of organic material, which in some instances retain carbonised organic material. Although differences between individual samples are discernible from macroscopic examination, when considered collectively the majority of samples appears to display broadly similar fabrics, representing a continuum of variation between fine and coarse15 endmembers of seemingly similar composition. It appears that the sample assemblage is dominated by a single moderately coarse fabric rich in organic material, which was seemingly commonly fired to a low temperature. A variant to this dominant main fabric may be defined by the presence of grog inclusions, visible on the surface or in the fresh break of a small number of samples. A small proportion of the samples display noticeably less porous textures, occasionally with smaller sized inclusions, and more evenly oxidised fabrics. Among the latter are a number of samples of hard orange fabrics of uniform thickness (c. 5–7mm), with compacted orange surfaces and, in one instance, a dark brown vitrified slip on the rim (K118). This fabric appears to be distinct from the main fabric, and is found in only a small proportion of the assemblage. Geological Context Before considering in detail the results of the analyses, it is necessary to briefly summarise the relevant geological and environmental features of the landscape of the survey area (Fig. 1).16 The Konya Plain is a relatively flat, arid, high altitude (c. 1000m) inland drainage basin, covering an area of 11,000km². A number of rivers feed into the plain from the surrounding hills, laying down extensive alluvial fans. In the southwestern Konya Plain, the area investigated by the KPS, alluvial fans are formed by the Çarşamba and May Rivers, flowing north and north-east respectively to drain into the plain. In the centre of the survey area are dune and gravel ridges, relics from the shorelines of the Pleistocene lake. Outside of the survey area, to the south and southwest, lie volcanic massifs surrounded in places by sedimentary rocks, contributing in varying degrees to the composition of the alluvial fans. The soils within the survey area vary considerably, including lake marls, soft lime-rich soils and hill-slope soils, as well as the alluvial fans themselves.17

16 17 14 15

Matthew et al. 1991. As determined by the mean diameter of the inclusions. Boyer et al. 2006; Doherty 2013. Boyer et al. 2006.

108

John Gait – Noémi S. Müller – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Douglas Baird

Fig. 1   Soil map of southwestern Konya Plain indicating location of sampled Early Bronze Age sites and Çatalhöyük West Mound

The geomorphology of the Çarşamba fan, in particular the immediate hinterland of Çatalhöyük, has been studied in detail with the aid of coring, presenting a picture of the changing environment during the Holocene, which in turn has significant implications for the interpretation of ancient settlements, as well as their preservation and current visibility.18 As determined by Boyer et al. and Doherty,19 the Çarşamba alluvial fan began to form early in the Holocene, from c. 7500 BC, prior to the settlement of the East Mound, and deposition of the so-called ‘Lower Alluvium’ in the area continued until the Early Bronze Age.20 More specifically Boyer et al.21 documented that the Lower Alluvium was deposited in the distal areas of the fan probably into the 3rd millennium BC (Early Bronze Age). During the 3rd millennium the alluvial regime changed and a slightly different alluvial deposit, the ‘Upper Alluvium’, was deposited from the 2nd millennium BC until the 19th century AD22 in the southern and central part of the fan only. Significantly, owing to differences in the lithologies through which they flow, distinct differences have been recognised in the composition of the alluvial fans of the Çarşamba and May Rivers. The composition, and degree of mixing, of these two alluvial systems have been described by Doherty and Tarkan.23 The sediments of the upper Çarşamba are characterised by a mixture of

20 21 22 23 18 19

Boyer et al. 2006. Boyer et al. 2006; Doherty 2013. Boyer et al. 2006. Boyer et al. 2006. Boyer et al. 2006. Doherty – Tarkan 2013.

Examining the Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Distribution in the Konya Plain

109

Fig. 2   Dendrogram of the cluster analysis performed on the log-ratio transformed data from 56 Early Bronze Age pottery samples. Samples are coloured according to find location

limestone, chert, sandstone, mudstone, phyllite, and ophiolite, with only small amounts of andesitic and dacitic volcanic rock fragments.24 By contrast, however, the sediments of the upper May are dominated entirely by these volcanics. As both rivers near the point of their ancient confluence at the edge of the former Pleistocene lake, there is a gradual merging of the two compositional groups, with the May alluvium showing increasingly sedimentary and metamorphic characteristics, and vice versa. Farther downstream, the merged rivers passed through a former beach ridge, adding a component of coarse beach sand to the composition of the river sediment.25 Continuing northwards the composition of the sediment becomes increasing fine as the river slows.26 Analytical Results Chemical Analysis An initial assessment of the extent of compositional variation within the analysed assemblage of Early Bronze Age pottery is, in this instance, most easily seen by considering the results of the elemental chemical analysis. Cluster analysis of the log-ratio transformed data set27 using Si as a divisor and excluding Na, Pb, P and Cu for the 56 samples analysed is shown in the dendrogram (Fig. 2). The degree of similarity between samples is displayed by the relative height of the linkage distance on the Y-Axis. From this diagram, a very distinct group of samples is discernible at the left of the plot (K144–K055). Using the internal variation of this petrographically distinct and homogenous group, it is possible to determine a tentative cut-off for cluster formation for the total

26 27 24 25

Doherty – Tarkan 2013. Doherty – Tarkan 2013. Doherty – Tarkan 2013. Buxeda i Garrigós 1999.

110

John Gait – Noémi S. Müller – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Douglas Baird

assemblage of Early Bronze Age samples analysed (displayed as a horizontal broken red line on Fig. 2). There are a few additional samples that do not cluster with the remaining other samples (K140–K059 on the left, as well as K054 and K030 to the right of the dendrogram). The majority of the samples however, cluster together across the middle of the dendrogram (K117–K031). The left-most group (K144–K055) is distinguished from all other samples by very high concentrations of Mg, Cr, and Ni, along with elevated Co and reduced Sr contents. The low calcareous sample, K140, also has a very distinct composition with notably elevated Zr, and high La, Ce and Th content. The other non-grouped low-calcareous sample, K132, is distinguished mainly by elevated Rb and Zr values. However, among the samples belonging to the main cluster it is difficult to identify any clear differences or clear subgroups based on their elemental concentrations. According to Buxeda i Garrigós and Kilikoglou,28 the total variation, vt, of a compositional dataset can be used as an indication of the magnitude of the geochemical variability. The total variation of the entire dataset examined here is rather high at 5.75, indicating its polygenic nature. However, for a dataset including only the samples from the cluster K117–K031, vt is reduced to 0.79.29 This value is comparable to those of pottery assemblages found within production centres and can be assumed to broadly represent similar ceramic fabrics derived from geochemically similar raw materials.30 While there appears to be a tendency for certain sub-clusters within this main cluster to pertain to certain site(s), the dendrogram shows little overall correlation between elemental composition of the samples and sites. Even within the chemically distinct group on the left (K144–K055), the samples come from all four of the largest site assemblages examined. Petrography Further information regarding the composition, texture and structure of the sample fabrics is provided through petrographic analysis, which in addition to confirming the major compositional differences observed via chemical analysis, is also able to discern potential differences among samples derived from geochemically similar raw materials, such as appears to be the case with the samples forming the principal cluster (K117–K031) in the above dendrogram. Following the petrographic analysis, it is possible to divide the assemblage into three principal petrographic fabric groups (with various sub-group distinguished additionally), along with eight samples that are each unique among the samples analysed (Tab. 1, Tab. 2, Fig. 3). The groups are defined not only by their composition, but also by aspects of the sorting, texture, and maturity of the inclusions and the structure of the fabric. FG1 and FG2: fabrics with volcanic rock and sedimentary rock inclusions In confirmation of the results of the chemical analysis, the petrographic analysis identified that the majority of the samples analysed could be attributed to a single fabric group, FG1 (see Tab. 1 for details), dominated by inclusions of mono- and polycrystalline quartz (including chert), feldspars, brown hornblende, micrite, and rare volcanic rock fragments. The compositions of these inclusions are consistent with sedimentary and igneous (probably andesitic) rocks. In most samples, a significant quantity of moderately fine grassy organic material is also present. The quantity of organic material present suggests that it may have been deliberately added as a temper, although the precise origins of this material (e.g. chaff, straw, grass, dung) have not been determined. In some samples, orange-brown textural concentration features, possibly clay pellets, were also observed.

Buxeda i Garrigós – Kilikoglou 2002. The largest variation in element concentration within this subset is presented by Ca (τ.Ca = 4.42, followed by τ.Pb = 4.04, and τ.Mn = 3.15 and τ.P = 2.96). Notably these are all elements which are readily affected by post-depositional alteration, so that the effective ‘real’ total variation of this subset is likely smaller than 0.79. 30 Cf. e.g. Kilikoglou et al 2007. 28 29

Examining the Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Distribution in the Konya Plain

111

Some variation in texture and grain size is present, but appears to reflect a continuum of variation among otherwise compositionally similar fine to medium-coarse textured fabrics. Two further subgroups to the dominant fabric can be defined by the additional presence of shell-fragments (FG1b) or grog (FG1c). The presence of shell fragments (FG1b) appears to show a correlation with the site of Samık, located in the east of the survey area on lake marl soils from which it may be tentatively suggested the shell fragments were derived. While compositionally similar to FG1, and perhaps representing an extremely coarse endmember, a further fabric group, FG2, may be defined by the presence of very coarse, poorly sorted inclusions of igneous (volcanic) rock and sedimentary rock (see Tab. 1 for details). This fabric group is noticeably coarser in texture than FG1. A subgroup, FG2b, may again be defined by the presence of grog inclusions. The presence of volcanic and sedimentary rock fragments of similar composition in both FG1 and FG2 suggests that the inclusions were probably ultimately derived from the same geological sources. These sources appear to match those described as bordering the Konya Plain to the south and southwest, and from which the ‘Lower Alluvium’ of the Konya plain is derived through the mixing of the Çarşamba and May River fans. Differences in the texture and the relative proportions of types of inclusions within the fabrics may be anticipated to correlate with the maturity of the sediments and Fig. 3   Photomicrographs of petrographic fabric the distances they were transported, although groups: A, FG1 (K136); B, FG2 (K054); C, FG3 at present it is not possible to confirm a direct (K055). All images taken in cross-polarised light at relationship between the find locations of samx25; FoV = 4.9 × 3.7mm; scale bar = 1mm ples and their composition owing to the relatively small number of samples analysed from each site. Nonetheless, collectively, these two fabric groups appear to be consistent with the regional geological environment, and as such may be considered as probably locally made products of the southwestern Konya Plain. The shared geological origin of the raw materials for FG1 and 2 suggested by the petrographic analysis appears to be largely confirmed by the grouping of the chemical data, with members of both groups intermixed within the main group (K117–K031) identified in the dendrogram of the elemental compositions, The only exceptions to this are samples K054 and K030, placed by petrographic analysis in FG2 but which form a pair of samples on the right of the dendrogram. From petrographic analysis, it is possible to discern that these two samples contain proportionally larger quantities of coarse volcanic rock fragment inclusions than other members of FG2, which may account for the observed elemental differences. On this basis, these two samples are designated as subgroup FG2c.

112

John Gait – Noémi S. Müller – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Douglas Baird

Fabric group

Name

Description

Samples

FG1

Volcanic rock and sedimentary rock fabric

A fine to medium texture fabric (c. 10-40% inclusions;