The Development of 'Cultural Regions' in the Neolithic of the Near East: The 'Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon' 9781841719177, 9781407329321

Citation preview

BAR  S1482  2006   BALOSSI RESTELLI  

The Development of ‘Cultural Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East The ‘Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon’

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ‘CULTURAL REGIONS’ IN THE NEOLITHIC

Francesca Balossi Restelli

BAR International Series 1482 B A R

2006

The Development of ‘Cultural Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East The ‘Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon’

Francesca Balossi Restelli

BAR International Series 1482 2006

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1482 The Development of 'Cultural Regions' in the Neolithic of the Near East © F Balossi Restelli and the Publisher 2006 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841719177 paperback ISBN 9781407329321 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719177 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2006. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

PREFACE The Pottery Neolithic period in the Near East, is the first moment in which regional systems of specific socio-political and cultural character are clearly evidenced. The transformations of the Neolithic revolution are achieved and each area of the Near East develops its own particularities. This is well evident in the east, with the expansion of the Hassuna and Samarra cultures, and later with Halaf. In the west, where the Pre-Pottery communities had attested a monumental and majestic growth, this second phase was once seen as a period of crisis. In comparison to the remarkable architectural and social development of the Aceramic Neolithic, the second phase of the Neolithic appears indeed to be a period of regression. Many sites are abandoned, and the sites occupied in this period are less impressive than those of the preceding phase. The focus on the economic, technological and organisational characters of these societies though, has indicated the importance and continuity of the Ceramic Neolithic in the process of “Neolithisation”. It is in this period that the economic and social characters become more strongly defined within the political and geographical organisation of the different groups. It is only in this second phase that there is, at times, evidence of the specialisation in the economy and in the production of different classes of material culture. Clear stylistic indicators confirm new strong political and probably economic boundaries, the increase in communication and contact between regions, and the technological development of these groups. Hassuna, Samarra and then Halaf are those of the eastern regions, well known and quite satisfactorily identified, mostly on the basis of their ceramic production. In the west, similar regional developments have been identified in the Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon and in the Yarmukian, both supposedly identified and characterised by a specific ceramic tradition. The first of the two, initially defined when only 3-4 settlements of the Syro-Cilician region had been investigated, is the issue of the present work. Many years of excavations have brought to light various sites in this region, and yet the typological and technical characters, and the distribution of this particular ceramic production, that gives the definition to the region (Dark Faced Burnished Ware) are still to be thoroughly understood. The identification of this pottery and the definition of the “Syro-Cilician culture” is based on the description given by Braidwood more than fifty years ago and thus evidences today a high degree of ambiguity, due to the advancement of discoveries. Its distribution is, consequently, unclear. Furthermore, little attention on the other elements (economy, social organisation and so on), that characterised this “regional culture”, have, as today, been paid. Aim of this work is that of defining, on the basis of all new available data, the Dark Faced Burnished Ware, recognising its area of production and thus, including an analysis of architectural, economic and environmental data, verifying the existence of a “DFBW region” and its characters. The distribution of DFBW to external areas is also investigated, with the intent of explaining the relations between these regions during this Pottery Neolithic phase. Occasion for this research was offered by the renewed excavations at Yumuktepe-Mersin, one of the central sites in Braidwood’s definition of the “Syro-Cilician culture”, and by the possibility of analysing two of the main contexts of DFBW, that of Judaidah, in the Amuq, the one from which the first recognition of this pottery derives, and that of Ain el-Kerkh, in the Rouj basin, that evidences strong similarities with the Amuq. The work has been articulated in three main phases, the sequence of which has been respected in the exposition: 1- technical and typological definition of the DFBW; 2- its distribution and characters within the horizon of DFBW producers; 3- its “external” distribution.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Point 1 is based on first hand unpublished material from Yumuktepe, a typological, technological and functional classification of which is accompanied by archaeometric analyses. The verification of correspondence between the conclusions reached and the original definition of DFBW was then made by analysing the Judaidah material kept at the Oriental Institute in Chicago. The same analysis was then done for other settlements of the region, by looking at collections of ceramics from the Quoeiq and the sites of Ain el Kerkh, Akarçay, Çatal Höyük, Mezraa Teleilat, Sakçe Gözü, and Tabbat alHammam. Publications were then used for observations on the other sites. DFBW is reported of in far away regions, well into Mesopotamia, down on the Lebanese coast and up into Anatolia; the third part of the work tackles the problem of recognition, in areas with distinct ceramic traditions, of this pottery. Ultimate aim of this part is that of understanding what kind of relations there were between these areas and the “classical” DFBW region. Fundamental is thus not only the morphological identification of DFBW, but the use and role that it had in each place, since changes in its function might indicate cultural and social differences. Most interesting, during this analysis, was the discovery that distinct regions interacted in varied and individual manner with the DFBW region. The final image that is thus created is more composite and complex than what imagined, but very well illustrates the multiple dynamics of territorial distribution, movement and social relations between communities of still egalitarian organisation, in this period of formation of larger regional cultures. A distinct chapter also tries to give a chronological summary of the analysed developments, as reconstructed from comparisons in the ceramic assemblages of all sites and in correlation with the available radiocarbon dates. This is done with the hope of providing fresh instruments for the further investigation of such developments.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is the result of a PhD research carried out during the years 2000 – 2004 at the University of Rome La Sapienza. Was I to thank all the people that have helped me in this work, I would probably need to use up all the space of the dissertation. Little would have I been able to do had it not been for the many I have encountered on my way, not only those who have contributed from a scientific point of view, but all those that have made my tours in Syria, Turkey, the US and England more pleasant. If I enjoyed carrying out this work it is mainly to them. The first idea and formulation of the issue has come from Isabella Caneva and her excavation at Yumuktepe, which has been my real introduction to the Near Eastern Neolithic and also to modern Near East. She has given me the possibility and permission to study the Mersin ceramics and it is with her that most of the discussions on the prehistoric stratigraphy of the tell have been made. I have to admit that the part I enjoyed the most was data collecting. Travelling around in hunt of sherds and people, jumping on buses, being hosted by Turkish friends, eating sushi in Syria, visiting excavations, sharing ideas with other archaeologists, of whom for the first time I really felt I was a colleague. The list of people to thank for this is the longest and I will surely skip someone, please may this be forgiven: Professor Henry Wright, Professor Özdoğan, Professors Tsuneki, Iwasaki and Takisawa, Professor Hodder, Dr. Ray Tindel, Dr. Miguel Faura, Dr. Marie Le Mière, Dr. Kemal Sertok, Dr. Akif Yücel, Dr. Ian Carroll, Rana Ozbal and Dr. Fokke Gerritsen, Osamu Maeda, Takahiro Odaka, Benjamin Diebold, Ali Merzeci, Sureyya and Gulseren, Hayat hanım, Hava hanım and Duygu, Jonathan Last, Guneš Duru, Mine Ünsal and Celal Küçük. With many, discussions on the DFBW have proved extremely fruitful. Damned be the day I decided to throw myself into archaeometric analysis! I Felt I was an idiot, I didn’t understand anything that was going on: geologists’ terms, mathematics, chemistry. Wasn’t it for Professor Palmieri, Dr. Paola Morbidelli, Dr. Italo Muntoni, Dr. Alessandro Lentini, Fiori, Calì and Stellino I would have done nothing. To the CNR and Professor Civitelli, that made all this possible, by providing funding and allowing the use of their instruments, goes all my gratitude. Also my greatest thanks go to Professor Henry Wright who helped me gain access to Matson’s thin sections from Judaidah and to Dr Claire Milner who accepted to send them over to Italy. Sitting down to write was the most difficult, but probably the most gratifying. Many are those that helped me, knowing so or not, through this phase. Marcella Frangipane, my professor, had to put up with all my moments of discouragement and was marvellous in hinting the way towards the solutions. Most of the theoretical issues I had problems with, I found answers for in the courses of Professors Whallon and O’Shea, followed at the University of Michigan, and in suggestions given to me by Professor Sinopoli. Discussions and correspondence directly on the issue of DFBW with many scholars and professors have obviously contributed enormously to my work, in adding new data, suggesting hypotheses, and reassuring me on the plausibility of some of the ideas I was formulating. Professor de Contenson, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse, Benjamin Diebold, Prof. Yutaka Miyake, Dr. Miguel Faura and Dr. Marie Le Mière are those with whom I have discussed the most. Their kindness and helpfulness is precious. I cannot end the list without nominating some of those, friends and colleagues, who have helped, inspired, supported, shared and tolerated……Gassia, Luigi, Paolo, Alessandra, Giulia, Tiziana, Filomena, and Valeria are only a few. Maybe, hopefully, one day, I will be able to see and solve all the questions and issues that still remain open and recognise all the errors I have made. To my mother, the tenacity and stubbornness of whom has apparently invaded my life too, I dedicate this work.

iii

CONTENTS Index of Tables, Figures and Plates

PART I

THE ISSUE OF DARK FACED BURNISHED WARE

CHAPTER 1

FOCUSSING ON A HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY AND THE RESEARCH DESIGN FOR ITS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4

Dark Faced Burnished Ware. A Neolithic Pottery Production of Cilicia and Northern Syria The First Recognition of DFBW; its Historic and Cultural Significance The Dark Faced Burnished Ware as seen today The Ceramic Neolithic in the Near East Regional Relations in the Pottery Neolithic Pottery in the Neolithic Levant Amuq and Cilicia. Is their a Regional Culture? Theoretical and Methodological Premises Material Culture as an Active Expression of Social Practice The Recognition of Culturally Significant Attributes in Material Culture The definition of Culture and Society How does Material Culture underline interaction between groups?

PART II

THE DFBW REGION

CHAPTER 2

MERSIN – YUMUKTEPE

2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.6 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.8 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.8.4 2.8.5 2.8.6 2.9 2.10

Yumuktepe. The “First” Neolithic Site of Anatolia The Garstang Excavations. Stratigraphy and Relative Chronology The General Stratigraphy of the site DFBW at the Height of its Splendour. Which are the levels? The Turkish-Italian Excavations. Stratigraphy and Relative Chronology Architectural Features of the Neolithic Levels Absolute Chronology Radiocarbon Samples from Mersin Pottery Analysis Technical - Technological Classification The Influence of Culture on the Techniques of Manufacture The Classes Broad Vessel Shapes within the Technological Classification Cultural, Technical or Functional Choices? The Morphological Typology Methodology and Theoretical Issues The “Red” Wares The Dark Burnished Ware – Class 3 The Gritty Dark Ware – Class 4 The Fine Dark Burnished Ware – Class 5 Recapitulation of the Typology of Dark Wares Decoration on the Yumuktepe Pottery The Pottery Production of Levels XXXIII – XXVIII

x

1 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 6 7 8

11 11 11 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 23 24 25 25 27 28 30 31 34 37 39

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

2.10.1 2.10.2 2.10.3 2.10.4 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.13.1 2.13.2 2.13.3 2.14

The Assemblage Analysed Trench H1 Trench F2 – level 3 Deep Sounding SA - WA Garstang’s Ceramic Finds and the New Materials. A Comparison and Tentative of Coming up with a Proper Stratigraphical Correlation Elucidations on the Mersin DFBW Dark Faced Burnished Ware in the Later Neolithic Levels at Yumuktepe The Appearance of Painted Pottery The Dark Ware from Levels XXV and XXIV Late Neolithic Transformations of the Dark Ware Considerations on the organisation of production as testified by the Pottery of the Early and Middle Neolithic Levels

CHAPTER 3

ARCHAEOMETRIC ANALYSES OF THE POTTERY

3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 3.6

Science and Archaeology The Analysis. Experimental Methods, Data Processing and Statistical Issues Which are the pottery characters that can answer the questions? Experimental Methods: Chemical, Mineralogical and Petrographic Analysis. Sample Choice Geological Setting Results Petrographic Analysis X-Ray Powder Diffraction Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES) Experimentation on the Firing. Reduced or Oxised? Discussion on the Archaeometric Results

CHAPTER 4

THE REST OF CILICIA

4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2

A Poorly Known Region For Prehistoric Occupation Tarsus – Gözlükule Women excavating in the 1930s The Pottery Production of Neolithic Gözlükule

CHAPTER 5

JUDAIDAH AND THE AMUQ REGION

5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.5 5.6

The Oriental Institute of Chicago and Research in the Amuq Plain Looking for Monumental Sites Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Earlier Occupation Phases The Phase A and B Sounded Sites Tell al-Judaidah Tell Dhahab Wadi al-Hammam Recognising and Distinguishing Phases A and B The OIC Procedures in the Ceramic Analysis The Pottery of Phase A The Phase B Pottery The First Mixed Range and its Pottery A New Look at the Amuq DFBW. Comparisons with Yumuktepe 2001 - The Ceramic Collection at the OIC Reordering Levels JK3 28-25. Amuq Phase A DFB Wares JK3 24: Phase B and the Development of the Very Fine Ware The First Mixed Range. An Attempt of Reconsidering a Contaminated Context The Take Over of Painted Wares; Where Goes the Dark Faced Burnished? Some observations on Matson’s thin sections Ceramic Production and Social Interaction. Judaidah and Yumuktepe Stratigraphy and Chronology

vi

39 39 40 40 41 43 43 41 44 44 45

91 92 92 92 93 93 94 94 95 99 102 103 107 107 107 108 111 111 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 115 117 118 118 118 120 122 123 124 126 128

Contents

5.6.1

Correlations between the Amuq and Cilicia

CHAPTER 6

THE ROUJ BASIN

6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.5 6.6

The Japanese Survey and Excavation Project University of Tsukuba Archaeological Mission to Syria Chronology and General Stratigraphy of the Rouj Basin The Soundings and Excavations Ain el-Kerkh Kerkh 2. The 5 x 5 metre Test Pit Aray and Abd el-Aziz The Ceramic Production The Pottery Assemblage of the Rouj 2 Period; Classification and Relations The Dark Faced Burnished Ware in Period 2 Rouj 3 and the Halaf pottery The Rouj Basin and its External Relations Ceramic Production and Interaction with the West Some Observations from Archaeometry Relations with the Eastern Ceramic Neolithic Cultures Chrono-stratigraphic correlations Absolute Chronology Rouj Neighbours: Qminas and Tell Matsuma

CHAPTER 7

NORTH - WESTERN SYRIA. THE OTHER DFBW SITES

7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.3 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.5 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 7.6

Dark Faced Burnished Ware as Local Production Ugarit, not only tablets Ras Shamra. Has Archaeology got Nothing to do with Politics? Stratigraphy and Architectural Sequence of the Settlement Ceramics at Ras Shamra Cultural and Chronological Considerations Examination of the Absolute Chronology Janoudiyeh Qal’at el Mudiq, Apamea The Neolithic Settlement covered by a Roman Monumental City Neolithic Pottery at Qal’at el Mudiq Hama, in the Fertile Orontes Valley Much Earlier than the Norias Uncovering the Early Occupation under the Hama Citadel The Ceramic Production of Hama M In Conclsion: South of the Amuq and Rouj, but within the Borders of DFBW Production

CHAPTER 8

MOVING TO THE EAST

8.1 8.1.1 8.1.2 8.1.3

The Nahr el-Qoueiq A Densely Occupied Valley The Pottery Assemblage of the Qoueiq The Qoueiq and its External Relations

128

143 143 144 145 145 146 146 147 147 149 151 151 151 153 156 157 159 162 175 175 175 176 176 179 179 182 183 183 183 184 184 184 184 186 193 193 193 196

CHAPTER 9

A DFBW HORIZON ? RECAPITULATING AND EVALUATING THE DATA

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6

The Recognition of a Ceramic Production: The DFW Cultural and Social Relations as Suggested by the Dark Faced Ware Economic Organisation of the DFW Producing Communities The Environmental Setting Architectural and Settlement Characters Communication Networks and Kinship Ties

PART III

EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE “DFW HORIZON”

CHAPTER 11

THE MOULDERS OF WHITE WARE. THE MEDITERRANEAN COAST AND SOUTHERN BORDERS OF DFW PRODUCTION vii

203 204 206 207 209 210

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

10.1 10.2 10.2.1 10.2.2 10.3 10.4 10.4.1 10.4.2 10.5 10.5.1 10.5.2 10.5.3 10.5.4 10.5.5 10.6 10.6.1 10.6.2 10.6.3 10.7 10.8

Vaisselle Blanche, A Very Particular Tradition Tell Sukas A Coastal Site to the South of Ras Shamra A Ceramic Production with Abundant White Ware Tabbat al-Hammam Byblos Excavating the Early Phases of Occupation The Pottery Production in Neolithic Byblos The Beqa’a Survey and Excavations in the Valley of the Beqa’a, Lebanon Labweh Neba’a Faour Ard Tlaili Byblos, The Beqa’a and Their External Relations Ramad In a Fertile Plain with Oak and Pistachios The Pottery Production at Ramad Absolute Chronology Relations between White Ware Producing Settlements and The DFBW Horizon Tell Nebi Mend

CHAPTER 11

TOWARDS THE EUPHRATES AND BEYOND

11.1 11.2 11.2.1 11.2.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.5.1 11.5.2 11.5.3 11.5.4 11.6 11.6.1 11.6.2 11.7 11.8

External Relations With the East Tell Sabi Abyad Dark Ware on the Balikh Stratigraphic Distribution of Pottery and Chronological Assumptions Other Balikh and Neighbouring Settlements Further East. The Khabur The Syrian Northern Euphrates Region. The Tishrin Dam Dja’de Mughara Tell Kosak Shamali Tell Halula. A Village of Farmers and Herders on the Euphrates The Pottery Production of Halula The Euphrates in Turkey Beyond the Borders Mezraa Teleilat Höyüğü and Akarçay Tepe The Euphrates Region and its Relation with the West. Confusion on Names Archaeometry and Suggested Exchange of Pottery

CHAPTER 12

MINERAL TEMPERED WARE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA

12.1 12.2 12.2.1 12.2.2 12.3

Anatolian Neolithic Pottery Çatal Höyük The Evolution of Pottery at Çatal East Çatal and Cilicia. Where are the Links? Cultural Autonomy and Material Culture Affinity

CHAPTER 13

AT THE BORDERS: BETWEEN ANATOLIA AND MESOPOTAMIA

13.1 13.2 13.3

Research in the Southern Plains of Turkey Sakçe Gözü South-Eastern Anatolian Relations

CHAPTER 14

OUTSIDE THE DFW HORIZON

14.1 14.2

Which is DFW? Dark Mineral Tempered Ware but not DFW

viii

213 214 214 214 215 215 215 216 217 217 217 218 219 219 220 220 220 221 222 222 229 229 229 231 232 232 233 233 233 234 234 236 236 236 238 240 249 251 251 253 255 261 261 264 269 270

Contents

14.2.1 14.2.2 14.2.3 14.2.4

Local or Imported? Lebanon and Western Syria Sakçe Gözü Middle and Upper Euphrates and Neighbouring Regions

PART IV

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

CHAPTER 15

CHRONOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. DEVELOPMENT OF DFBW/DFW

15.1 15.2 15.3

Relative Chronology from Typology and Absolute Dating Stratigraphic Correlations on the Basis of the Ceramic Classification Absolute Chronology. Comparing Relative Chronologies to 14C Dates

A

TEMPORAL

CHAPTER 16

A RECAPITULATION

16.1 16.2 16.3

The DFW “Regional Culture” and the “DFW Horizon” The External Relations. Distribution of “DFW” Society and Culture in the Ceramic Neolithic

BIBLIOGRAPHY

270 271 272 272

FRAMEWORK

FOR

THE

275 275 277

281 282 284 289

ix

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic Near East

INDEX OF TABLES 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 3.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

List of the principal characters of the ceramics considered diagnostic of different regional developments in the Neolithic Garstang’s interpretation of the stratigraphy of the early levels of occupation at Yumuktepe List of new trenches opened and occupation levels discovered 14C dates from Yumuktepe Approximate absolute dates for the different analysed levels of Mersin with 14C samples Count of found and analysed sherds from the levels corresponding approximately to Garstang’s XXVII and XXVI of the new excavations Attributes used to determine technologic classification of the pottery Terminology used in describing surface treatment Count of sherds from levels XXVII and XXVI for each of the defined classes Quantification of the different surface treatments present in the class 1 pottery Percentage of different surface treatments present within class 1 Distribution of broad vessel shapes within the technological classes Quantity of sherds (mainly rims) from which shapes were recognisable Abbreviations used for naming the morphological types identified Number of rim sherds used for the morphological typology of ceramics from levels XXVII/XXVI Percentage of shapes present in classes 1 and 2 from levels XXVII/XXVI Percentage of different shapes present in class 3 in levels XXVII/XXVI Description of the various shapes and profiles singled out in class 3 Number of sherds identified, in class 3, for each morphological type in levels XXVII/XXVI Percentages of different shapes present in class 4 in levels XXVII/XXVI Description of the various shapes and profiles singled out in class 4 Number of sherds identified, for class 4, for each morphological type in levels XXVII/XXVI Percentages of different shapes present in class 5 in levels XXVII/XXVI Description of the various shapes and profiles singled out in class 5 Number of sherds identified for each morphological type of class 5, in levels XXVII/XXVI Typology of classes 3, 4 and 5 compared. The total number of rim sherds for each is given Presence and technique of decoration of vessels from levels XXVII/XXVI Stratigraphic correlation of the old and new excavations, based on the pottery assemblage ICP chemical results. Major (wt%) and trace element (ppm) contents of samples from Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI Presence of phases A and/or B in the Amuq sites, as indicated by Braidwood Correspondence between layers and phases in Judaidah Wares present in Amuq Phase A and their percentage on the total ceramic assemblage of those levels Principal attributes of the 3 classes of pottery of Phase A in Judaidah Wares present in Amuq Phase B and their percentage on the total ceramic assemblage of those levels Principal attributes of the classes of pottery of Judaidah Phase B, with indication of the differences existing with those of phase A Main wares present in Judaidah FMR and their percentage on the total ceramic assemblage Major distinctions between the two groups of early DFBW from Judaidah observed by Matson Correlations between the DFW pottery of Mersin and the dark wares of Judaidah Phase A Correlations between the DFW pottery of Mersin and the dark wares of Judaidah Phase B List of Matson’s thin sections from Judaidah levels A-B-FMR, that have been analysed Braidwood’s hypothesis of chronological correlation between Mersin and the Amuq Breniquet’s « cultural » definitions of the early phases of occupation at Yumuktepe Stratigraphic correlation proposed by Breniquet between the Mersin and Amuq Phases A-C Proposal of stratigraphic correlation between Mersin and the Amuq, on the basis of the diagnostic characters and attributes of the ceramic production First hypothesis of correlation between Mersin and Judaidah phases A-B Stratigraphic correlation between the Amuq and Mersin, for the early phases of occupation List of Sites surveyed and dated to the Early Ceramic period, in the Rouj basin Comparative chronology of the Rouj excavated sites and their levels Indication of the moment of appearance of the different ceramic classes and other particularly diagnostic elements of the Rouj 2 sub-phases List of the most diagnostic attributes of the earlier DFBW with an indication of the presence of these

4 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 21 23 23 27 27 27 28 29 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 42 100 112 113 114 114 115 116 117 118 120 122 124 128 128 128 129 130 130 144 144 145 150

Index of Illustrations

6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5

same attributes amongst the early DFbW of Yumuktepe (XXXIII- XXVIII) and Amuq A List of the most diagnostic attributes of the DFBW from Rouj 2c, with an indication of the presence of these same attributes amongst the DFW of Mersin XXVII-XXVI and Amuq B (and partly FMR). Diagnostic attributes of the DFBW from Rouj 2d and indication of their presence amongst the DFBW/DFbW of Mersin and Amuq List of analysed samples from Ain el Kerkh ICP chemical results. Major (wt%) and trace element (ppm) contents of samples from Ain el-Kerkh List of diagnostic characters and attributes of the ceramic production common to both the Rouj and the Amuq and indication of their first appearance in the two regions Tentative stratigraphic correlation between the Amuq and the Rouj Basin Stratigraphic correlation of the Amuq and Rouj sequence, proposed by the Japanese team excavating the Rouj Basin Proposed correlation between Mersin, Amuq and Rouj stratigraphy 14C dates from the Rouj sites Ceramic Classes from Ras Shamra period VB and their relative quantities Summary of the most diagnostic attributes of the DFBW of Ras Shamra period VB Pottery classes of Ras Shamra VAI period and their relative quantity Diagnostic characters of DFBW in Ras Shamra period VAI Temporal distribution of ceramic classes and their diagnostic characters at Ras Shamra, the Rouj and Judaidah. Proposed correlation of the phases of Ras Shamra, Rouj, Judaidah and Mersin 14C dates from Ras Shamra Tentative stratigraphic correlation between Qal’at el Mudiq and the Rouj sequence. Proposed correlation of Hama layers with those of the other DFBW sites, on the basis of the ceramic production List of sites dated to phases Qoueiq A and/or B. List of the major and diagnostic characters of the dark burnished ware of the Qoueiq and of the other ceramic categories present Quantitative distribution of ceramic categories in the Neolithic levels of Tell Sukas. 14 C dates from the Upper Ancient Neolithic levels of Byblos. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, based on M. Stuiver and P.J. Reimer 1993. Suggested stratigraphic correspondence between Byblos, Rouj and Ras Shamra. 14C dates from Ramad Tentative and provisional stratigraphic relation between some DFBW sites (Rouj and Ras Shamra) and Ramad and Byblos Percentages of the pottery classes of pre-Halaf Sabi Abyad, per level 14 C dates from the pre-Halaf levels of Sabi Abyad Ceramic classes present in Neolithic Kosak Shamali and their quantities Radiocarbon dates from Halula Classification of dark coloured and mineral tempered ceramics, made by the excavators, at the sites of Akarçay, Mezraa Teleilat and Sabi Abyad Radiocarbon dates from the three Pottery phases of Akarçay Tepe Dating of the various phases of occupation of Çatal East, as on the basis of 14C dates Attributes and characters of the mineral tempered ware of Çatal East VI-I, that differ from Mersin’s DFBW List of Period I main ceramic characters at Sakçe Gözü Main characters of the pottery assemblage of Period II at Sakçe Gözü Main and diagnostic elements of the pottery assemblage at Sakçe Gözü, in period III Stratigraphic distribution of shared ceramic characters at the sites of Coba Höyük, Mersin, Judaidah and in the Rouj Relative Chronology for all the DFW and DFW-related sites, based on comparisons between ceramic assemblages Chronological correlation proposed by Miyake between the Rouj, Ras Shamra and the Amuq de Contenson’s chronological correlation between some of the DFBW sites (Mersin, Amuq, Ras Shamra, Hama, Byblos) 14 C samples from various sites the levels of which are attributable to the different Rouj phases on the basis of stratigraphy and ceramic classification and typology Hypothesised dates for the 4 subphases of DFBW development preceding Halaf xi

150 152 154 155 158 158 159 159 160 177 177 177 178 179 180 181 183 185 193 194 214 216 217 221 222 231 232 233 235 237 238 253 254 262 263 263 264 275 276 276 278 279

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

INDEX OF FIGURES INSERTED WITHIN THE TEXT 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 a-d 3.10 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 12.1 12.2 15.1 16.1 16.2

Plot of calibrated 14C dates from Yumuktepe. 2 sigma intervals are considered Comparison, respectively, between total number of sherds and total weight of sherds in each class Principal characters of the 5 main technological classes evidenced in Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI Percentage of shapes present in the total assemblage and for each technological class Graph comparing the quantities of different shapes present for the sherds of class 1 with distinct surface treatment Indication of all computable diameters of class 3 vessels Indication of all computable diameters of class 4 vessels Indication of all computable diameters of class 5 vessels Comparison of vessel diameters in classes 3, 4 and 5, for the different shapes Total quantities and percentages of the different vessel shapes present for classes 3, 4 and 5 XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 1a XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 1b XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 1c XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 2 XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 3 XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 4 XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 5 XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 6 Bivariate diagrams illustrating the results of the chemical data (Ca vs Fe, Al vs Fe, Fe vs Mg, Ca vs Al). 1-6 are the archaeological classes Bivariate diagram illustrating the results of the chemical data (Ca vs. Al). 1-6 are the archaeological classes Bivariate diagrams illustrating the results of the chemical analysis (Ca vs Fe and Fe vs Mg). Samples are from different period 2 levels of occupation at Ain el Kerkh. DFBW and Kerkh Ware have been differentiated Bivariate diagrams illustrating the results of the chemical analysis (Ca vs Fe, Ca vs Al and Fe vs Mg). Samples are from classes 3 and 7 from Mersin and Ain el Kerkh (Rouj), from all periods of occupation considered Plot of calibrated 14C dates from the Rouj sites Calibrated dates from the Rouj sites and Mersin compared Plot of calibrated 14C dates from Ras Shamra Calibrated dates from Ras Shamra and the Rouj sites compared Calibrated dates from Ras Shamra and Mersin compared Map with the position of Anatolian sites nominated in the chapter Sequence (calibrated BC absolute dates) of the Central Anatolian sites compared to that of Mersin. Plotting of the 2σ interval of the 14C dates from all sites Exemplification of the regional developments and relations recognised amongst communities with DFW of DFW-like ceramics Exemplification of the development of “regional cultures” in the Middle Neolithic period in the western and central regions of the Near East

16 19 20 24 28 30 31 32 36 37 96 97 97 97 98 98 98 99 101 102 155 156 160 161 181 182 182 250 250 279 283 284

INDEX OF PLATES (FULL PAGE FIGURES AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER) 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Location of the sites mentioned and analysed in the present work Mersin. Plan of the tepe with indication of Garstang's and Caneva's trenches. c) Garstang's levels XXVII-XXV; d) Caneva's level XXVI in trench EBA; e) approximate positioning of the English and Italian Middle Neolithic architectural finds in respect with each other. (Garstang 1953; Caneva 2004). Examples of sherds from the 5 main classes identified in Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 1 (Pinkish Gritty Ware). Examples of the variability of shapes amongst outward curving necks of jars Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 1 (Pinkish Gritty Ware). Examples of necked jars and of pierced lugs that are at times found on such shapes Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 1 (Pinkish Gritty Ware). Examples of necked jars Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 1 (Pinkish Gritty Ware). Examples of the rare, non necked jars found within this class (plates, bowls and hole-mouth jars), and of the shapes of the vessels of this class that are, at times, xii

9 47 48 49 50 51 52

Index of Illustrations

2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.42 2.43 3.1

burnished and red slipped Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 1 (Pinkish Gritty Ware). Examples of shapes on which a red wash is, at times, found Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 2 (Pinkish Fine Ware). Examples of the most common vessel shapes Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 2 (Pinkish Fine Ware). Examples of the rare shapes that are not necked jars Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 3 (DFbW). Morphological types P1 and P2 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 3 (DFbW). Shape variability within variety I of morphological type oB1 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 3 (DFbW). Morphological types sB1, clB1and oB2 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 3 (DFbW). Morphological types sB2, clB2 and oB6 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 3 (DFbW). Morphological types oB6 (continues from Pl. 2.17), hmJ1, hmJ2 and liJ1 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 3 (DFbW). Morphological types liJ1 (continues from Pl. 2.18), liJ2 and Ne1. Single sherds that have not been inserted in the typology are also illustrated Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 4 (Gritty Dark Ware or DFuW). Morphological types oB1, clB1 and oB2 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 4 (Gritty Dark Ware or DFuW). Shape variability within varieties I and II of morphological types sB2 and in types clB2 and oB6. A decorated variation of type clB2 is also illustrated Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 4 (Gritty Dark Ware or DFuW). Morphological types oB7 and hmJ1 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 4 (Gritty Dark Ware or DFuW). Morphological types hmJ1 and hmJ3 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 4 (Gritty Dark Ware or DFuW). Morphological types liJ1, liJ2 (varieties I and II) and liJ3 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 4 (Gritty Dark Ware or DFuW). Morphological type liJ3 (continues from Pl. 2.23). Single sherds of peculiar shape that have not been inserted in the typology are also illustrated Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Morphological types P1, P2, loB3, G1 and G3 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Morphological type oB1 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Morphological types oB1 (continues from previous plate) and sB1. The varieties of both types are also illustrated Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Morphological type sB1 (continues from preceding plate) Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Morphological types clB1 (with varieties I and II) and sB2 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Morphological types clB2 and oB3 (the latter, with varieties I and II) Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Shape flexibility within variety I of morphological type sB3 I. The decorated variant sB3 I v.1 is also shown Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Differences existing within variety II of morphological type sB3. The decorated variant is also shown (sB3 II v.1) Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Shape flexibility within varieties I and II of morphological type clB3 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Shape flexibility in type clB4 and in varieties I and II of morphological type oB5 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Shape flexibility within variety III of morphological type oB5 and variety I of sB5 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Shape flexibility within varieties I and II of morphological type sB5 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Differences in shape within variety III of morphological type sB5 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Differences in shape within variety I of morphological type clB5 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Differences in shape within varieties II and III of morphological type clB5 Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Class 5 (Fine DFbW). Differences in shape within morphological types liJ1, liJ2 and neJ5. The variant of liJ1 (with small handles) is also illustrated Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Examples of impressed pottery: 1-4 and 8 are class 1 sherds; 5-6 are of class 3; 7 of class 5. Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Early Neolithic pottery. a) bases of cream coloured, slipped ware from trench WA and from Garstang’s excavation; b) impressed DFbW from Garstang’s excavations; c) impressed DFbW from trenches H1, F2 and SA respectively Mersin XXIX-XXVIII. DFbW from trench F2 and H1. Examples of bowl profiles Mersin XXIX-XXVIII. DFbW from trenches F2 and H1. Varieties of deep and slightly closed shaped bowls Mersin XXIX-XXVIII. Class 3 (DFbW) and class 4 (Dark Gritty or DfuW – cooking pots) from trench F2. Examples of the variety of hole-mouth jar shapes Mersin XXV-XX. Dark Burnished Ware from the Late Neolithic levels of occupation Examples of firing effects of the sections of the vessels (1-7) and the re-firing of a class 3 and a class 5 sherd xiii

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 105

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 13.1 13.2

Tarsus pottery. a) Light Gritty Ware; b-f) DFBW: b) medium paste, burnished; c) light burnish or unburnished; d) fine paste and burnished; e) as b, but with impressed decoration; f) as d, but with impressed decoration Amuq A DFBW (actinolite paste) Amuq A DFBW of particular and diagnostic shapes of the period Amuq A pottery from Judaidah Amuq B DFBW of medium texture Amuq B1 DFBW, simple, impressed and with pattern burnish Amuq B Washed Impressed Ware, Dark Faced Unburnished Ware, Brittle Painted Ware Amuq B Simple Coarse Ware and Coarse Incised Amuq B2 (FMR) DFBW Amuq B2 (FMR) DFBW of the most diagnostic shapes of the period Amuq B1-2: a) pattern burnish on DFBW; b) sherds from Dhahab, which are considered to be diagnostic of the late period; c) DFBW impressed sherd Amuq B1-2 and Mersin XXV-XX, comparisons between painted pottery Ain el-Kerkh. Structures 167, 72, 151 and 124 Ain el-Kerkh. Trench D26, layer 2; central trench, layers 3-4; central trench layer 2 Rouj 2a: Kerkh Ware and DFBW Rouj Coarse Ware and Coarse Incised Rouj 2d Dark Faced Unburnished Ware Rouj 2d Cream Ware, Fine Painted Ware and Coarse Painted Ware Rouj 2b DFBW Impressed DFBW from Rouj 2a, 2b and 2c Rouj 2c DFBW Rouj 2d DFBW, some of which with pattern burnish Ain el-Kerkh: impressed DFBW of period 2b, ceramics covered in lime plaster and painted, and pedestal bowl with pattern burnished decoration Hassuna incised ware from Rouj 2c-d, Impressed DFBW and Red Washed Impressed Ware from Qminas Ras Shamra. Architectural remains of phases VA1 and VA2 Ras Shamra. Céramique Lustrée (DFBW) Ras Shamra impressed DFBW and White Ware Ras Shamra DFBW with pattern burnish and impressed decoration and painted pottery Dark Burnished Ware and White Ware from Apamea and DFBW from Hama Qoueiq DFBW Qoueiq: the most common shapes of DFBW and Dark Faced Unburnished Ware Qoueiq DFBW with pattern burnish decoration and painted pottery Qoueiq dark mineral tempered hole-mouth jars (Monochrome Unburnished Ware) Qoueiq Chaff Impressed Ware Qoueiq Chaff Incised Ware Tell Sukas architectural remains of phase N and mineral tempered pottery Impressed and incised pottery from Byblos DFBW from the Beqa’a White Ware from Ramad Impressed Burnished Ware from Ramad Sabi Abyad incised, impressed and painted Standard Ware Sabi Abyad painted “DFBW”, incised “DFBW” and DFBW with pattern burnish Sabi Abyad pottery of eastern influence Pottery from Djad’e Mughara and Kosak Shamali Halula ceramics. Black series, Chaff Impressed and Incised, painted pottery Mezraa Teleilat Chaff tempered Ware, impressed, painted and incised Mezraa Teleilat Chaff Impressed Ware, painted ware and vessel with pattern burnish Çatal Höyük East. Straw tempered, burnished pottery from the early levels Çatal Höyük East pottery: tub shapes, tubular lugs and vessels with various kinds of feet Çatal Höyük painted ware from the west mound with indication of stylistic similarities and differences with Mersin Mersin XXIII-XX. Painted ware with indication of stylistic similarities and distinctions with Çatal Höyük Sakçe Gözü mineral tempered and burnished ware (incised and punctured) Sakçe Gözü mineral tempered and burnished ware (roulette impression, punctured and pattern burnish)

xiv

110 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 187 188 189 190 191 197 198 199 200 201 202 224 225 226 227 228 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 257 258 259 260 266 267

1 FOCUSSING ON A HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 1.1 DARK FACED BURNISHED WARE. A NEOLITHIC POTTERY PRODUCTION OF CILICIA AND NORTHERN SYRIA 1.1.1 The First Recognition of DFBW; its Historic and Cultural Significance “The existence of an “essential” assemblage of DFBW in SyroCilicia would be confirmed by the sites of Mersin, the Amuq, Gozlu Kule, Ras Shamra” …… “we may hypothesize that we are dealing with the traces of a cultural pattern which had its greatest strength of focus in Syro-Cilicia” (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 502).

Robert Braidwood, in the excavation and analysis of prehistoric occupation in the Amuq plain (Antakya, Turkey), observed a ceramic production with particular technical characters, quite peculiar in comparison to those commonly known for more or less contemporary communities in the eastern regions of the Near East. The name he gave to it, Dark Faced Burnished Ware, was quite explicit about some of its physical and aesthetic attributes; a major element characterising it, apart from the evident dark colour and burnished surface, is a mineral tempered paste. This was discovered in the Early Ceramic Neolithic settlements of Syria and Cilicia and could be followed up, obviously through many changes and developments, to much later Chalcolithic periods (from Amuq periods A to E). The known Neolithic cultures of the eastern regions of the Near East, in Mesopotamia and the Zagros flanks, and in the Levant, were characterised by chaff and vegetal tempered ceramics, with coarse pastes. Nothing with mineral inclusions, as the DFBW, seemed to be found in those areas; rather, but this was to be realised later on, mineral inclusions reminded Anatolian contexts, like that of Çatal Höyük, which furthermore, apparently also preferred brown and dark colours for its pottery. Excavated and known sites at Braidwood’s time were not many and he did not have elements for comparing this ceramic production with that of these other regions. The more or less contemporary Hassuna culture in Northern Mesopotamia was known, and its pottery was very coarse, chaff tempered and light coloured. Kathleen Kenyon had excavated Jericho, in Palestine, but the equivalent, contemporary levels had not yet been reached at the time in which the Oriental Institute was digging in the Amuq and even when they will be, little will remind the Amuq mineral wares. Braidwood, was instead aware of the strong similarities in ceramic production between the Amuq and

AND THE

RESEARCH DESIGN

FOR ITS

Cilician sites as Mersin (Yumuktepe) and Gözlükule (modern Tarsus), and Syrian coastal sites as Ras Shamra; he thus thought these should be clustered together, in opposition to the eastern Hassuna sites, and be considered as one single cultural unit (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 502). In later excavations and publications, James Mellaart thought he could recognise similar pottery production in Central Anatolia, and specifically in Çatal Höyük and he talked about relations with Mersin (Mellaart 1961, 159). He did not propose, though, a direct participation of the Central Anatolian site within the Syro-Cilician culture, as expressed by Braidwood. The contacts between the two sites would have simply determined the creation of similar models for ceramic production. The consideration of other elements of material culture, settlement pattern and architecture planning was also considered in his general comparison of sites, but the data available for these other cultural and social expressions was so minimal that in definitive the Syro-Cilician culture ended up by being recognised solely by the presence of DFBW. Furthermore, the variability within DFBW in the Amuq proper was actually quite big. Colours would range from blacks to browns, but even to reds and oranges, nor did particular shapes appear to characterise it. This relative vagueness and fluctuating definition, not problematic when comparing two specific and neighbouring sites, will become, with the years, source of great confusion. The DFBW communities, apart from the particular pottery production, did not differentiate themselves enormously from the other Ceramic Neolithic communities of the Near East; partly farmers and herders and partly hunters, these were not necessarily fully sedentary year round, but did start developing major architectural techniques (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 505). It should be said though, that such assertions were based on extremely ephemeral architectural data and even information on primary resources was rare. The chronological delimitation of this Syro-Cilician cultural development is very important, since this too has been source of abundant confusion. Braidwood sees Mersin and the Amuq as a clear cultural unity during phases A, B and probably also C of the latter’s occupational sequence, thus approximately from the first ceramic developments to

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

the Halaf culture, probably something like 1500 years later (7000-5600 BC). 1.1.2

compositional and technical, with a less interested look at the archaeological classification of the material. Miyake, in the Rouj basin, is, on the opposite, working on the classification and spatio-temporal description of the mineral tempered pottery of that area. Finally, thanks to the newly inaugurated work in the Amuq basin by the Oriental Institute of Chicago (after a standstill of over 50 years), analysis is being taken up again on the issue.

The Dark Faced Burnished Ware as seen today

Since the 1960s, when DFBW was officially taken to be the diagnostic element for the recognition of the SyroCilician Neolithic culture, archaeologists have started recognising it in various parts of Anatolia, Syria and Northern Mesopotamia. The problem is that scholars mostly rely on Braidwood’s definition of the ware, and often don’t go into the trouble of describing and characterising the pottery they find. Even in farther sites, dated to much later periods, reference to DFBW is at times made, without a critical analysis of this pottery and without its presence being seen as problematic in the historical reconstruction (Esin 2001, 103-104). This has inevitably determined a loss of preciseness in the definition and recognition of DFBW, and consequently, in its historical and cultural significance.

The urgency of considerations and analyses on this particular ceramic production is ever more concrete now, because of all these new discoveries and of the large distribution that this pottery apparently has. Sites from the Euphrates to the coast and up into Anatolia are mentioned as having DFBW and thus as being in contact with the Amuq region. It is true that even in the East, the Hassuna and Samarra cultures, more or less contemporary, testify to great movement and inter-regional relations. In northern Mesopotamia, these find an explanation in the political and economic developments of this later Neolithic period, whilst the socio-economic and political organisation in the west is not so well known. Extremely crucial is thus the analysis of the DFBW horizon and its definition also for helping to understand the developments of Middle and Late Neolithic communities in the west and their relations with the Mesopotamian contemporary societies.

Early excavations next to Mersin, at Gözlükule, or at coastal sites like Ras Shamra, and, later ones, in more southern areas of Syria, as is the case of Hama, together with the Qoueiq survey, further east in Syria, and the latest investigations along the Balikh, Khabur and Euphrates rivers have brought to a clearer spatial delimitation of the distribution of dark, mineral tempered ware, even though a verification of their authentic equivalence or similarity with Braidwood’s burnished ware is at times deficient (Pl. 1.1). Whether and to which extent this presence indicated cultural, social or economic interaction with the initial “DFBW area”, furthermore, has not yet been thoroughly analysed.

1.2 THE CERAMIC NEOLITHIC EAST 1.2.1

IN THE

NEAR

Regional Relations in the Pottery Neolithic

The Neolithic developments in the different regions of the Near East, though distinct and partly autonomous, followed similar trends and created smaller or larger regional systems of circulation of people, knowledge and goods, which led to the development and achievement of well defined regional traditions. These were at times defined by specific socio-political systems. This was true of the PrePottery Neolithic and it is most valid for the later Pottery Neolithic developments.

Two are traditionally considered the Ceramic Neolithic horizons of the Near East; one characterised by light coloured and painted ceramics in the east (including Hassuna and Samarra) and the other, to the west, composed by dark coloured, monochrome and burnished wares. It is thus generally accepted that the DFBW horizon exists, that it is limited to the regions next to the Amuq and Cilicia, that it is opposed to the eastern, chaff ware Neolithic communities.

The PPN communities of the Levant and Eastern Anatolia had developed a strongly sedentary way of life, highly dependent on agriculture, and with a very advanced architectural growth. Amongst the eastern groups (Jazira and Zagros), instead, a mobile style of life was followed, with highly variable economic choices and an apparently less structured socio-economic organisation. The different ecological and environmental conditions of east and west are probably partly to blame for this major distinction in development: low, hilly flanks with abundant wild wheat and minimal animal transhumancy, in the Levant and lower Taurus, and strongly varying, high mountains and plains, which forced animals and people to long and continuous seasonal movements, in the east.

New field investigations have brought to the discovery of other sites within the supposed “nuclear” area, as is the case of the Japanese mission in the Rouj basin, and these have given fresh input and brought new interest to the issue (Miyake 1997). Even so, research has concentrated in these new sites and areas, rather than going back to consider the initial definitions and characters of DFBW. Marie Le Mière, from the French CNRS has mostly concentrated on the analysis of DFBW from sites along the Khabur, Balikh and Euphrates, like Sabi Abyad, Halula, Kosak Shamali, Akarçay tepe. She is probably the scholar who, more than others, has been and is tackling the issue of DFBW. Her view, though, is almost exclusively archaeometric,

The end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, in the Levant 2

1 - Historical Controversy and Research Design

and Anatolia, is characterised by a so-called crisis, which reflects the end of this particular kind of socio-economic growth and is followed by deep and radical changes in the territorial relations and the organisation of the groups. Ideology and cult, which were central elements of cohesion and identification in the Pre-Pottery communities, together with social organisation, experience major changes. Regional networks get wider; these early pottery producing populations, though still egalitarian societies, are the first to feature large-scale socio-political structures, with a composite and more complex economic organisation and to influence large areas of the Near East. From this period onwards, developments of single regions, especially in the east (northern Mesopotamia), will be quite easily separable and distinguishable. In fact, we are able for the first time to see clear characterising elements in material culture, that underline cultural and social separation of single groups. The DFBW horizon fits exactly in this picture.

could take more than what was due to him and also to testify the quantity of staple that each seal owner (possibly a family) had taken (Frangipane 2000). It is evident from the above examples that Mesopotamian communities were developing, in the Pottery Neolithic, a composite and complex socio-economic organisation, that intra-regional relations were a structural part of the system, that the cultural, as well economic and political “strength” of these networks was such that outward forces were probably constant, but, at the same time, social and cultural identification very strong. Material culture evidently became the principal mean of identification and distinction from “The Others”. In fact, as will be briefly described in the next paragraph, the pottery production of the Jazira sites is strongly distinctive. For many years, the eastern communities have been object of specific research and studies, whilst Levantine archaeologists mainly concentrated on the more “majestic” developments of the Aceramic period, thus leaving the Pottery Neolithic period in a sort of “dark age”. For this reason the Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf cultures are well known even amongst amateur readers, whilst not so is for the Yarmukian, Lodian and, later, Wadi Raba cultures. Amongst these latter developments is also the so-called Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon, in Cilicia and Northern Syria.

The eastern societies, which had followed a more elastic and broad economic model in the PPN, do not suffer the major crisis and change which the Levantine communities undergo, but develop, instead, (beginning of VII millennium BC) new cultural and economic trends, which slowly start to expand to neighbouring areas. A typical example of this is the northern Jazira, where sites like Maghzalia and, immediately later, Umm Dabaghiyah, Tell Sotto, Yarim Tepe, show a new and strong organisation. These sites tend to a specialisation of their economy and appear to be organised in such a way that, together with their neighbours, which thus, at times, have a different specialisation, they form small economically self-sufficient groups of sites (Balossi R. 2001, 66). The northern Jazira communities form a strong network of economic and social relations and share the same material culture; they belong to the same cultural and social entity. Later on (approximately 6000 BC) these will evolve into the Hassuna culture, whose influences will be felt well into western, Levantine settlements and regional horizons. The site of Umm Dabaghiyah gives a further important indication of the developments of the economic organisation of these Ceramic Neolithic sites. The disproportionately large storage buildings, in fact, indicate its function was probably not limited to the single site, but rather that goods were there processed and stored for people from other communities too, or for those who conducted a semi-nomadic life and came by only in certain periods of the year (Frangipane 1996, 59). Both cases indicate a communal and organised management of the goods, thus the beginning of an administrative system.

These western groups, on the contrary of what happened in the Jazira, experienced a major change at the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic, moving, in most cases, from fully sedentary societies to semi-nomadic, pastoral and agricultural communities, a transformation linked to the fact that this is the period of animal domestication in the west. This too happens in more or less the first half of the VII millennium BC. Such groups, which had been essentially agriculturalists and hunters in the past, move probably to a mixture of the three main economic means (animal breeding, hunting and agriculture). It is recent research in modern Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Israel that which has brought to light numerous Pottery Neolithic settlements, that have been then grouped into these distinct “cultural units” exclusively on the basis of differences in their material culture, mainly pottery and lithics. Little is still known of their socio-economic differences. The economy of these communities was variously relying, as pointed out above, on agriculture, herding and hunting, but there are no indications, for the moment, of an economic organisation as those of the east: there are no communal storage structures and no sealings.

A similar and probably more complex situation is seen in more or less the same period or slightly later at Sabi Abyad, in the Balikh valley, where nearly 300 sealings with at least 61 distinct seal impressions have been found inside the storage structures. It is probable, in that case, that the goods were kept in a communal storage structure, and that each family had access to a certain, fixed, amount. The use of the sealing served to check that no unauthorised

These were, obviously, not closed entities; on the contrary, material culture evidences contacts, probably regular and frequent, between different regions. As a matter of fact, it is at times still quite difficult to distinguish specific and spatially delimited ceramic assemblages, as is instead possible in the east. An indicator of movement and 3

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

communication between areas is, for example, attested by the finding, within the lithic production of most of the southern Levant sites, of Amuq points, which evidence direct or indirect links with the region to the north.

that of analysing a statement that has in fact become such (“sites that produce DFBW are part of a single sociocultural entity”), to try and understand whether under the apparent indication of similarity given by the ceramic production is in fact a deeper, economic, social and organisational unity.

In the same period, Central Anatolia too, which had had intense and quite complex developments in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, apparently sees the advent of groups with a mixed economy and networks of communication that cross many and far away borders. Unfortunately, data on the Ceramic Neolithic of Central Anatolia is limited to very few sites, amongst which Çatal Höyük is that with the most abundant data; others are being excavated in these years (Musular and Tepecik) and only few reports have been published. Çatal Höyük was occupied by a community with a mixed hunting, herding and cultivating economy, and, although its fine frescos and coloured plasters suggest a highly complex and developed society, it does not have, as the Levantine sites, indications of particular and complex administrative or economic organisation. 1.2.2

Ceramic is the starting point of this work and, apart from analysing the DFBW production, comparisons will inevitably have to be made with the pottery of neighbouring areas and groups. This is done to identify influences in material culture and hypothesise on the relations between communities. Obviously, assemblages of all the Near Eastern Neolithic communities cannot be described, even though many regions will be dealt with in this work. I shall mainly focus, in most cases, on those aspects which are of interest in this research and leave the rest, simply pointing out its extraneous character to that of the DFBW region analysed. A very brief, note-like list of the characters of the main and diagnostic ceramics of the regions involved in this work might be useful though, as a start, just to have an idea of the varieties of this production and of the Neolithic groups manufacturing them (table 1.1). This list also gives an indication of the “cultural” distinctions that are generally made for the Neolithic period, as they more or less follow the distribution of these ceramic categories. The list only gives a macroscopic, figurative description, without introducing discussions on techniques and clays. The given ceramics are only the most frequent categories for each of the regions nominated and they are not strictly contemporary.

Pottery in the Neolithic Levant

Pottery is the most commonly cited element of material culture in discussing relations between regions and sites, as clearly evidenced by the definition of the Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon and as above described. The distinctions that the ceramic assemblages show is in most cases considered as a good enough proof to separate and recognise a “cultural region” from another. Obviously, such statements are very problematic and they often open up more issues than solve them. The aim of this work is

Northern Jazira Chaff Untreated surface or tempered smoothed Northern Syria and Cilicia Mineral Burnished tempered Jordan and Coastal regions Untreated White Ware (calcareus material) Chaff Untreated or tempered smoothed Chaff Untreated or tempered smoothed, at times burnished Central Anatolia Mineral Burnished tempered

Applied decoration, later incised and painted

Bowls, large necked jars, trays

Impressed and pattern burnished

Bowls, jars, trays

Husking trays (Hassuna)

Thick bowls and basins Incised (herringbone) Incised, impressed (pointillé, combing…) or applied decoration

Bowls and jars

(Yarmukian) (Wadi Raba)

Applied decoration (Tepecik); later painted

Table 1.1 - List of the principal characters of the diagnostic ceramics of different regions in the Neolithic. The first 4 columns indicate temper, surface treatment, decoration and broad shapes of the distinct classes of pottery, whilst the last column nominates specific diagnostic elements of those categories or the names usually given to the “cultures” producing them.

4

1 - Historical Controversy and Research Design

the material world, of its analysis and interpretation.

1.3 AMUQ AND CILICIA. IS THEIR A REGIONAL CULTURE?

Early 20th century archaeology, more simply operated a direct equation between culture and material objects (Montelius, Childe, amongst many), thus building correlation charts between objects, their attributes and the cultures producing them (the chrono-typological charts). Through spatial and chronological distribution of these attributes, boundaries between cultures and relations between different groups were identified. Explanations for the choices of specific attributes in artefact production were not sought. Knowledge of the contexts of finding and of use of objects were irrelevant to these interpretations. Similarity in single attributes and style between artefacts of distinct groups was simply considered an indication of common or shared cultural traits.

By now, not only the goal of this work should be clear, but also the result it hopes to achieve. Dark Faced Burnished Ware is the starting point, but the target too. My main goal is a technological and historical definition of this ceramic production, at least for the period here in concern. This should eliminate the ambiguity that still reigns on the issue and permit the recognition of its proper distribution within and out of the region. This also means evaluating its proper historical value, its right to be considered as diagnostic of a cultural environment. The analysis of the distribution of DFBW will be a necessary condition for dealing with this issue. Where do we find it and especially, how does it vary from place to place? Is it simply imported or locally manufactured? This has totally distinct implications on organisational and cultural grounds, since it might indicate the participation of two groups within an at least partially similar material production, or, in the opposite case, relations between communities that do not necessarily touch the realm of culture, but are rather economic or political in nature.

Processual archaeology became more interested in the ecological and technical constraints that individual and social knowledge posed on artefact production, thus explaining most material culture choices as technical restrictions. The function of artefacts was a major object of study. A most common example of this, in the case of pottery analysis, was that of cooking ware, for which the choice of calcite tempers or of coarse paste was considered a necessary condition if a good performance of the pot was wanted. The choice of such attributes by the potter was thus considered as associated with the use for which those vessels were being constructed. This determined a strong development of technological analyses and experimentation, and the collaboration between material sciences and archaeology for the identification of technical choices (van As 1991-92). Archaeologists started working with geologists and other natural scientists, bringing into archaeology enormous quantities of new knowledge and issues. This approach, though extremely enlightening and advancing for material culture studies, somewhat resulted in a disregard for cultural and social significance of artefacts, in favour of an exclusively environmental, technical and economic determination of their modes of production and contexts of use. Analysis also became extremely specialised and the global, general issues were at times lost.

Braidwood’s definition of the DFBW Horizon comprises a very long period, including three distinct phases of the Amuq sequence, from the beginning of the Ceramic Neolithic to the developed Halaf culture. The more complex social dynamics, economic organisation and the wide interregional relations of Halaf culture, though, indicate a clear boundary with the preceding phase. Because of this different social and organisational structure, I have decided to tackle only the first phase, thus the development of DFBW before the advent of Halaf influence and of the participation of the western regions in the Halaf Culture. DFBW attributes change greatly at the beginning of the Halaf period, fact this which encouraged the choice of separating the two moments.

1.4 THEORETICAL PREMISES

AND

METHODOLOGICAL

Processual archaeology did recognise that artefacts did not only have a “techno-function”, but also a socio-ideological role (socio and ideo-function), but these two aspects were never tackled together. Binford actually asserted that these characters, in an object, were perfectly separable and that only the “material” value of the object, alias its technofunction, could really be understood; socio and ideofunction was beyond the archaeologist’s possibilities of comprehension (Binford 1972, 200). Other scholars, as Wobst and Wiessner, explained the function of style in an object as that of communicating and transmitting information on social and personal identity and thus analysed the socio and ideo-functions of material culture (Wobst 1977 and Wiessner 1985). Technical and social

1.4.1 Material Culture as an Active Expression of Social Practice Archaeologists separate the material, tangible manifestations of human culture and classify them as “material culture”, as opposed to intangible, non-material culture (D. Clarke 1968, 19-20); both, though, are and derive from actions and activities of human beings, they are phenomena of human cultures (Sullivan 1977, 189). Through artefacts people recreate their material world and their social relations (Sillar 2000, 2); material culture is essential in the construction and reproduction of social relations and cultural values (Sillar and Tite 2000, 2). These statements indicate the deepness and complexity of 5

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

choices though, still remained distinct in the study of material culture.

relations. In a different society the opposite might be true. This might not be only between different forms, but also within the same ones, as for example with utilitarian and elite ceramics. All material objects are created within a particular social context and in their production and use they recreate or alter that context. Material culture is, in fact, not only a passive reflection of social entities, but rather it is an active element of social practice (Michelaki 1999, 6). The study of material objects thus necessarily has to be strictly linked with the wider definition of the culture producing it, since only through this general understanding can the single material elements be rightly defined.

Recent works have started concentrating on the complexity of significance and messages conveyed by material culture (Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Pfaffenberger 1992; Lubar 1996; Hegmon 1998; Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Chilton 1999; Sillar 2000). The factors to which the production of an artefact is due are infinite and range from the aesthetic “idea” of the producer to the intended use of the object, ideo- and socio-function, context of use, raw material availability and other environmental characters, technical and manual capability of the artisan, chance, mode of production, and so on. Separating these factors into technical and stylistic, as Binford proposed, is impossible. Everyone agrees on the fact that decoration of a particular object has a precise ideological or symbolic communicative role, but the novelty of these recent approaches tells us that, for example, the shape of a vessel, generally considered as a technical attribute, and thus essentially linked to its use, might also derive from a cultural concept or have an ideological meaning. Likewise, a particular temper in clay processing might not simply be due to its abundant presence near the site, but to a particular meaning that people gave to it.

1.4.2 The Recognition of Culturally Significant Attributes in Material Culture "We have to follow the things themselves, for their meanings (which) are inscribed in their forms, their uses, their trajectories”. (Appadurai 1986: 5)

What is there in material culture that is expression of the individual artisan and what is a socio-cultural attribute? And further, how do we distinguish exclusively technical characters from socially meaningful ones? Fundamental, to answer these questions, is first of all a thorough study and analysis of the material culture, as the approach of processual archaeologists has first inaugurated. The extreme elaboration and vastness of material culture in its entirety, though, is such that it has to be split into smaller, more manageable units to be tackled. Materials science, in this sense, has provided a major contribution, as it provides more universally applicable information on the properties of raw materials, their sources, tools, energy, etc, which becomes a base line against which the role of cultural factors can be considered. It is only the knowledge of all the alternative possibilities that the craftsman had for manufacturing a specific object that can help us in tackling the issue of choice. Many times the craftsman is probably not even aware of the opportunity of selecting other attributes; the archaeologist, instead, has to develop the knowledge of all the possibilities, in order to understand the choice made by the artisan (Sillar and Tite 2000, 11).We need to ask ourselves whether the choice for particular attributes, technologies, shapes, decorations was the only one possible or whether the range was large, if the final pick went on the most “functional”, on the less time consuming, on the most workable, whether it was an imitation of the neighbour’s choice. This should help us contextualise material culture, give it a social role, an economic one and understand its mode of production.

Technology thus becomes a whole with the ideological and social characters of material production. Material culture is in fact produced both by physical and cognitive processes. In this sense, Pfaffenberger rightly pointed out the “sociality of human technology”, since technical choices too are socially or culturally structured (Pfaffenberger 1992, 493). Cultural meaning is expressed in the choice and utilisation of particular materials, at particular times (Sillar 2000, 4). This shows that technologies can be analysed as cultural choices, depending, thus, as much on the social, ideological, economic setting as on any functional criteria (Appadurai 1997). The techniques used are, together with functional choices, culturally determined, reproducing particular social relations, thus proving that meaning and material practice are inseparable. What thus needs to be tackled and understood is the “cultural meaning” of artefacts (Tite 1999). It is obvious from all the above, that material culture is, more than ever, a central element for the recognition of cultural and social traits. All aspects and components of material culture, furthermore, have to be analysed as potential conveyors of complex meanings. In this work I will try to analyse all attributes of material culture in their potentially multiple significance.

In fact, the importance of the material is not only in the object itself, but in how it is made, where it is used and found, how and when it is used, and by whom, how it is kept and discarded. Answering these questions positions material culture in its social context, which signifies in fact understanding its cultural meaning and contributes to a general reconstruction of the society in its whole, of which it is expression.

It should be added that, in any particular historical context not all aspects of material culture, nor their use participate in the reproduction and transformation of the system in an equivalent way. In a certain society, for example, meaning may be attributed more actively to metal goods than textiles, in reproducing certain meanings and social 6

1 - Historical Controversy and Research Design

Technological choices can give clear hints of the modes of production; morphological standardisation too. The first can also tell us stories of function, use, value of the object. Its shape and the quantities in which it is retrieved might do the same. The distribution of material culture within a site and within structures is a useful indicator of social or economic organisation.

though, along the path for a general definition of the society producing those material objects. The Syro-Cilician culture, that I will try to delimit and describe in this work, as any other cultural system, is determined by the complexity of all material aspects. This statement is very broad and probably for this reason, vague; it is very important, though, that the definition and composition of a culture and society be extremely clear and unambiguous, for us to be able to focus on the instruments and data that can bring to their reconstruction. For this reason I will waste a couple of words on this here.

Obviously it is only the recurrent, characterising, attributes that are potential indicators; variants are generally considered individual choices, errors, trials and are difficult to be used by the archaeologist for generalisations on socio-economic organisation and cultural boundaries (recent theoretical developments on agency are actually starting to take into consideration such issues too), even though strong variability in the assemblage does probably give some general indications on the modes of production. Material culture is socially structured (Shanks and Tilley 1987, 89); its classification and typology is thus the instrument for the recognition of the “mental templates”, of the culturally, socially and economically constructed models that determine the material production with those particular attributes. Classification and typology should try to follow the actual patterns in the data, which reflect, to a greater or lesser extent, the conscious or unconscious decisions of the producers, thus the cultural processes underlying and generating the artefacts and their uses.

Childe stated that culture is defined by an assemblage of regularly occurring artefacts and features (Childe 1956, 16). Clarke affirmed that culture consists of learned and instinctive modes of behaviour and their material manifestations, socially transmitted from one generation to the next and from one individual to the other (D. Clarke 1968, 19-20). For Binford, culture, as man’s extrasomatic means of adaptation (White 1959, 8), is not shared by all, but participated in; people construct their cultural system by living in it (Binford 1972, 198). In his view, and that of processual archaeologists, culture is a system, composed by subsystems, the dynamic articulation of which is the locus of cultural process (Binford 1962). Subsystems are, for example, techno-economic organisation, social structure, ideology, they are behaviour patterns that relate human communities to their ecological setting and to other communities (Arnold 1985, 16).

The period analysed in this dissertation is one of newly born pottery production, thus, initially, one of technological experimentation and certainly one in which ideological and symbolic meaning were well rooted into the pots. The tackling of pottery attributes will thus have to constantly keep in mind the multiple reasons that can have brought the artisans to pick one attribute more than another and should try to distinguish when, instead, effective technical limitations probably left no choice but one. 1.4.3

Society, in such broad definitions, is always separated from “culture”. It is by all considered to represent a group of people that live together, with a “complex” organisation and not necessarily all of the same culture. Through cooperation in various activities, a sense of community and shared group identity is reproduced (Sillar 2000, 5). Society includes, in fact, all aspects of community life: economic, political, ideological; it is the interaction of activities between people that create a society.

The definition of Culture and Society

“Communities and societies are made up of people, but we only recognise them as a community or as a society because people who belong to them share some ideas about how things are and how things should be: they have a common set of categories with which they "word" the social and the natural world around them and they share a definition of the good things and the bad things in life. From this point of view, a community is a set of shared values and categories”. (Bailey 1971:9)

The distinction between these two concepts is quite evident in complex societies and in modern situations (as reported by anthropology). In fact, complex economic or political ties might create societies composed by multi-cultural groups. In simple, the distinction between culture and society in prehistoric communities is probably not so obvious, and presumably the two things partially coincide. If we look at the origin, at the birth of the two concepts, in fact, we are forced to say that culture is an offspring of society. It is through interaction between people, that culture is born, thus through society. The two, though, evolve following different rules and characters; society is regulated by economic, political and social laws, that can change without leading to a change in culture. In prehistoric societies, thus, there can be cases in which society and culture are actually represented by the same entities.

The study of material culture is, for archaeologists, the essential feature in the analysis and understanding of human cultures and society organisation, it is the instrument through which we can succeed in collecting evidences that, pieced together, reconstruct the structure of the groups behind it. What exactly, though, is the relation between material production and culture? The analysis of the mode of production of materials can help reconstruct the economic and social organisation within the group, the distribution pattern of these might give indications on further economic or political ties; all these are only steps, 7

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Relations between different cultural groups, as that due to single exchange of products, might not be a sufficient enough force to form large multi-cultural societies. Since I believe that economic and political pressure in the Early Pottery Neolithic was not strong enough for these to arise, I will use the two terms culture and society quite interchangeably, during this work. Even so, it will be noted in the end, that a partial distinction between the two might be applied to Cilicia and the north-Syrian communities.

Economic or political interaction between two distinct social groups, might bring to share particular aspects of the material production, but not all and probably only the ones necessary and involved in the organisation and functioning of the relations. In such a case, Shanks and Tilley also testify of the possibility of the opposite situation: style might be “actively used to mark out boundaries of different social groups where there is intense interaction between them” (Shanks and Tilley 1987, 89). Different style in material culture would thus be expressly used to distinguish oneself from the neighbour with which economic or political relations are entertained.

Through material production analysis and the comprehension of modes of production, stylistic distributions, and exchange, an attempt to reconstruct fragments of the units (economic, technological, social…) constituting these societies shall be made, the comparison of which will hopefully help us understand and define the latter and their relations, thus verifying Braidwood’s hypothesis of a regional cultural system. 1.4.4 How does Material interaction between groups?

Culture

The sharing of social and cultural traits by two groups, instead, would imply similarities in most aspects of material culture, as well as architectural and settlement organisation. The partial sharing of material production, for example similarities only in pottery production but not in other classes of material culture, might reflect yet another picture: that of interaction sphere as opposed to the participation within the same system or social organisation.

underline

Braidwood defined the “Syro-Cilician Culture” on the basis of the distribution of Dark Faced Burnished Ware and on somewhat vague similarities in architectural techniques. He did not attempt to define the socio-political and economic relations between groups, for which he would not have had enough available data, whilst one of the major issues of this work is exactly that of defining relations between the DFBW communities. The principal element of analysis, here, will be ceramic production, of which I shall try to reconstruct as much as possible techniques, modes of production, similarities between groups, use, role, stylistic variability, etc. All these are a reflection of the social and economic organisation of the Syro-Cilician communities of the Middle Neolithic, which use and produce this pottery and of which I hope to be able to give some account. I rely, for this, on the fact that pottery technology is strongly embedded with environmental, economic, social, political and economic contexts and practices. I will then need to compare this class of material culture with other elements, in order to be able to argue for the actual participation of the “DFBW sites” within one single “cultural system”. A comparison and correlation with settlement distribution and organisation, architecture and primary resource procurement and use will try to generate a global picture of the Dark Faced Burnished Ware communities and their external relations.

The assumption that similarity in material culture might reflect social interaction is generally accepted by all. In other words, if people occupying a certain geographical area shared many elements of their material practise, they must have shared some aspects of the social forms and cultural understandings that went with them. Items that are widely exchanged should, thus, reflect broad socio-cultural relationships and, following the same logic, rates of cultural change may be directly related to rates of social interaction between groups (Binford 1972, 204). Differences in artefact patterning, either over space or time, reflect distinctness in material practises that are largely due to diversity in behaviour and social relations. Two important points have to be exposed though before these statements can be held for true. First of all, it should be clear that various degrees and modes of social interaction are possible, and consequently the amount and type of material culture shared changes with these. Not only, but interaction can also be of economic or political nature and not necessarily cultural. Secondly, two different cultureareas might show a similar adaptive mean of coping with their environment; they would thus make similar choices in material production, but not necessarily share cultural traits. The similarities might be functional, but not cultural (Neff 1993, 27).

8

1 - Historical Controversy and Research Design

9

CHAPTER 2 MERSIN – YUMUKTEPE 2.1 YUMUKTEPE. THE “FIRST” NEOLITHIC SITE OF ANATOLIA

brown. No doubt that what is being described appears to correspond to Braidwood’s definition of the DFBW.

When the excavation of the site of Yumuktepe (in the modern city of Mersin), on the coast of Cilicia, started, in 1936, there was no other nearby site that could help in interpreting the finds; no other prehistoric site had yet been extensively dug in Anatolia, nor in fact in most of the Near East. The best known Neolithic sites, like Çatal Höyük, Çayönü, Jericho, and Jarmo still awaited discovery (Garstang had excavated at Jericho before moving to Turkey, but he hadn’t reached any of the Neolithic levels). In the second half of the ‘30s, together with Garstang, who took up the exploration of Yumuktepe as professor of the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Liverpool (Garstang 1937; Garstang 1938; Garstang 1939), though, other important investigations started: the Oriental Institute of Chicago was excavating in the Amuq (Braidwood R. and Braidwood L. 1960) and Hetty Goldman was working at Gözlü Kule (Tarsus. Goldman 1956, 3). Three important archaeological expeditions, at least one of which was to become a benchmark for research in the Near East, were taking place at more or less the same time, not only in areas extremely near to each other, but, as it turned out later, all these sites had been occupied in a more or less contemporary period, during the Neolithic, and showed very clear similarities in their material culture. It will essentially be from the results of these three field expeditions that the term Syro-Cilician Neolithic culture will be coined. Garstang, at the time of his final publication (Garstang 1953), was unaware of the presence of early levels, contemporary to Mersin’s earliest phase, at Tarsus, less than 30 km away, and still didn’t know of the strong resemblance that the pottery from Judaidah and Dhahab showed with that of Mersin (the Tarsus final report was only published three years later). In 1960 instead, when the Braidwoods’ report was published, both data from Mersin and from Tarsus were available. It on these sites that Braidwood based his definition of Syro-Cilicia as a cultural region, characterised, amongst others, by the presence of a similar pottery production (“The existence of an essential assemblage of DFBW in Syro-Cilicia would be confirmed by the sites of Mersin, the Amuq, Gozlu Kule, Ras Shamra” – Braidwood R., Braidwood, L. 1960: 502).

The new excavations at the site of Mersin-Yumuktepe, by the Universities of Istanbul and of Rome, “La Sapienza”, resumed in 1993, 46 years after the expedition of the University of Liverpool had ended, have provided a great opportunity for a new reading and interpretation of the issue of DFBW and its circulation towards the end of the VII and beginning of the VI millennium B.C. New materials and new excavation and recording techniques supply a quantity and quality of information that in those earlier years was unthinkable of even in excellently led digs. The site, that, as has been explained in the preceding chapter, forms the core part of the present analysis, meets every match: right period, long occupation and sequence, and material from different moments of the sequence. Obviously re-analysing the site, so long and so many discoveries after Garstang, necessarily brings to find errors in his interpretation; may this not be a trial to his work, but the construction of a new building upon his foundations. Garstang’s first results cannot and shouldn’t be set aside, but integrated by the new ones. Furthermore, the recent excavations, which have until now concentrated mainly on the earliest levels of occupation, still show some stratigraphic enigmas that we can only try to fill and understand by comparing them with Liverpool’s sequence. Preliminary to the presentation and discussion of the material from these new investigations, is thus the necessity to recall some important data from the ‘30s.

The early pottery of Yumuktepe is described by Garstang as a “good quality pottery”, mineral in temper, burnished and mostly found in colours as grey, black, and dark

2.2 THE GARSTANG EXCAVATIONS. STRATIGRAPHY AND RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY 2.2.1

The General Stratigraphy of the Site

Yumuktepe - when Garstang visited it, a quiet family picnic place next to the Soğuk Su river - had clearly been a favourite amongst places in the past too (Marcolongo 1998; Caneva and Marcolongo 2004); occupied nearly uninterruptedly from the Ceramic Neolithic to the Iron Age, it was also an important settlement in the Byzantine and Islamic periods (Garstang 1953, 2). The Prehistoric settlement at Yumuktepe (Pl. 2.1) is particularly long lasting and especially so the early and middle Neolithic sequence, which covers more than 11m of deposit. This obviously makes the site invaluable for its

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

potential in providing information on such early communities. Little of these 11m though, has been extensively exposed; actually all the information we have on the earliest levels of occupation comes from a very small sounding (trench A), approximately 2m in width, on the western slope, in which Garstang had recognised 6 stratigraphic levels. The new investigations have dug a very small, new trench (trench SA – “south of A”) just next to it (Pl. 2.1); instead of Garstang’s 6 levels, 32 have been evidenced (Caneva 1998, 10). Garstang had tried to reach virgin soil with this trench, but he hit the water table and was forced to stop approximately 80cm before the point in which, little less than 50 years later, the new excavation reached the target.

In the old stratigraphic interpretation, the following level, XXVI, was separated from the preceding apparently because of an improved architectural technique (the paucity of finds should be reminded though). Pottery showed “a general conformity with that of the earlier levels” (Garstang 1953, 34). Level XXV shows some innovations in the ceramics, amongst which the definite development of painted decoration and the strong presence of gritty, light coloured ware (Garstang 1953, 36). These two levels are grouped together and labelled as Upper Neolithic. With level XXIV the panorama changes: open-air silos and rectangular compounds characterise this phase (the latter were also found in level XXV), underlining probably a new function of the area. New motives in the painted and decorated pottery suggest to Garstang the incipience of the Hassuna period and he thus calls this phase protoChalcolithic (Hassuna period is nowadays defined as Late Neolithic), followed by 4 levels, in which the circular silos disappear, but the pottery follows on the line of development started in the preceding level; these are catalogued together as early Chalcolithic. Here, Halaf motives start being noticed, but only level XIX will represent proper Halaf culture (table 2.1). The occupation of Yumuktepe after this point is not of central interest to this work, since I am concentrated on the development of the DFBW horizon, which is then in decline and replaced by the painted ware horizons, be they Halaf or other.

The main area exposed by the university of Liverpool was concentrated on the NW slope of the mound. From the first Iron age remains encountered, the dig went down quite extensively up to when they reached the famous fortified Chalcolithic level XVI. Earlier, Neolithic layers were then reached more to the west; a new trench, a step downhill, was opened and taken to level XXV. Here, the trench was made smaller and only its western part was carried on further, to reach just one other phase of occupation, level XXVI1. Another trench (trench X), to the north of the main area of excavation, had reached level XXIV, but most information on this trench must have got lost during the war and very little is said in the 1953 report. The dating of these early levels of occupation was essentially done on the basis of the pottery and lithic industry, and partly on the architectural data. Levels XXXIII (the last level counted at the bottom of trench A) to XXVII were called lower Neolithic, basically because of the absence of clear architecture and because of what seemed a homogeneity in the ceramic production; this is essentially monochrome and very simple, globular in shape. Colours are dark, changing from black to grey and chocolate, at times reaching a reddish tone; the ware was generally fine and the surface burnished. Garstang says little about the temper, but it does seem clear that this pottery had mineral inclusions, just as did another class of pottery present in these levels: a coarse gritty ware, wet smoothed and grey to intense brown in colour. Impressed decoration, though not found on the majority of the pottery, was apparently a characteristic feature in the phase. With such few data and no connection whatsoever to architectural features of these levels it is clear that no internal temporal or cultural subdivisions could be done at the time of Garstang’s study. Today, as will be seen further on, it is felt that even such layers might represent different phases of development and change in material culture production, and thus could be separated in at least two periods.

Levels XIX XXIV-XX XXVI-XXV XXXIIIXXVII

period or phase Halaf – Chalcolithic ProtoChalcolithic Upper Neolithic Lower Neolithic

Table 2.1 - Garstang’s interpretation of the stratigraphy of the early levels of occupation at Yumuktepe.

2.2.2 DFBW at the Height of its Splendour. Which are the levels? The definition and the whole issue of DFBW sprung out not from Yumuktepe, but from the Amuq, where DFBW is present from the early levels of occupation both at tell alJudaidah and at Dhahab (the two earliest sites excavated in the plain), and from Robert Braidwood, who gave this pottery a central role in his analysis of maturing Neolithic societies of the Levantine regions. The Dark Burnished Ware goes through a long series of developments and changes, until, not long after the introduction of painted pottery, we assist to its gradual decline. The painted pottery, in the Amuq, is recognised very early as being Halaf influenced and Halaf proper, thus taken as indicating that a new and different culture had taken over. The “SyroCilician” culture comes, at that point, to an end.

1

Garstang is not clear in telling us whether he has removed the building of level XXVI or ended the excavation leaving it in situ. As will be explained later, anyway this went, this feature is no longer visible at the site.

12

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

The phases that, in the Amuq, mark the development of DFBW are A and B. It has already been underlined that Amuq C, while still showing burnished wares, is already dated to Halaf and implies a long series of other issues that are not going to be tackled in this study. The levels of Yumuktepe mainly implicated in this study will thus be those antecedent to the arrival of Halaf influenced painted pottery, thus levels XXXIII-XXVII, but also the following levels XXVI and XXV (It will also be seen that levels XXIV-XX correspond to the pre-Halaf phases and have direct correlations with the Amuq. These levels though, are only preliminarily analysed in this work ).

marine conglomerates, originating from a couple of kilometres from the site and which must have thus been brought expressly, have exactly the shape and size, as well as the position, of those visible in Garstang’s plan of level XXVI. To the south of these Garstang had found the large building of level XXVI, whereas Caneva identified a building to the north of the conglomerates (Pl. 2.1) (Sevin et al. 1996: 29). To the south too though, Caneva found a single room with various phases of rebuilding (A12). Being it not very clear whether Garstang had removed the large pluricellular structure found in level XXVI and having evidenced the presence of different moments of rebuilding, the exact correlation of this new phase with that of Garstang is actually very hard. The single room found to the south of the conglomerates (Pl. 2.1), which apparently belongs to an earlier phase of construction than that of the other structure (Caneva 2004, 39), appears to be positioned underneath Garstang’s rooms 300 and 301. It could thus be hypothesised that this room belongs to level XXVII. The building to the north would thus either belong to level XXVI, and thus be contemporary to Garstang’s building, or to some other slightly earlier phase. Material from this edifice is very abundant and, even though the floors have not yet been reached, it is all coherent.

2.3 THE TURKISH-ITALIAN EXCAVATIONS. STRATIGRAPHY AND RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY When excavations resumed at Mersin in 1993, a series of specifically aimed actions that would help position and clarify Garstang’s trenches and stratigraphy were carried out. As mentioned, World War II had destroyed drawings and notes from the British excavations and the draft drawings in Garstang’s publication were not of much help in positioning the older interventions. Certainly of no help were the many trees and terraces built by the local authorities since then, to transform the mound into a park, picnic area and tea garden. Exact correspondence of today’s levels with Garstang’s is near to impossible, but an approximate correlation has been reached.

In a small sounding to the south (H1), another room with stone walls (A25) has been discovered (Caneva 2004, 35). Here too, levels and phases are not easy to determine, but material culture would suggest nearness to levels XXVII/XXVI, even though some differences might indicate a slightly earlier occupation.

Concentrated on the western side of the mound, Caneva and her team located Garstang’s trench A and started by analysing the earlier phases of occupation of the site. A small pit hole was dug at the base of trench A and extended to the west (trench WA), intended to reach virgin soil and this was achieved, as has been mentioned, some 80cm under the level of trench A (Pl. 2.1). The cleaning of trench A and “repeating” of a small “excavation” next to it (sounding SA), too, was interesting, even though it resulted in the difficult task of trying to link 6 levels (XXXIIIXXVIII) to 32 (Caneva 1998, 10). Unfortunately, neither of these two operations gave substantial architectural remains and both pottery and lithic material too was not very abundant, but it confirmed the absence of any aceramic occupation at the site (at least on this side of the mound) and demonstrated the presence of stone foundations since the earliest phases. A small trench (trench F), opened to the north of A, evidenced traces of Early Ceramic Neolithic occupation, contemporary to the latest levels of trench SA (Caneva 2001b). Here too only very little traces of architecture have been found with the ceramics and lithics.

The large multicellular structure found by Caneva’s team (XXVII-XXVI) was covered by a very shallow deposit of undisturbed archaeological strata; above this was mixed and contaminated soil, confirming that the bottom of the Liverpudlians’ trench B must have been very near. Only on the eastern part of the trench the bottom of Garstang’s excavation had remained higher and a pack of well stratified deposit at least 60cm thick was sealing level XXVII/XXVI. Apparently devoid of architecture, many strata of burnt soil mixed with ashes followed one another, and the material culture was clearly identifiable with that of the underlying occupation. Above this batch of clean soil, the new excavations have brought to light residues of level XXV and XXIV structures (Pl. 2.1) (Caneva 1999, 111; Caneva 2004). These are round, possibly storage constructions (silos) and an apsidal building. Another small area in trench F has also evidenced the remains of a probable terrace, dated, on the basis of radiocarbon dating and of a painted pottery very similar to that discovered in levels XXV-XXIV, to a similar or slightly later moment to that of the silos.

The earliest level extensively explored and which gave substantial architectural remains should correspond to Garstang’s XXVII. This trench was opened more or less where Caneva thought Garstang’s last large trench would be (Garstang’s sounding B. Garstang 1953, fig. 12) and she actually found clear indices that she was facing at least some remains that Garstang too had seen. Two large

These small discoveries give important, but still quantitatively little information, especially in the case of level XXIV. The enlargement of the excavated area with an extra 175 m² was intended to remedy to this; up to now 13

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

though it has not yet reached the Middle and Early Neolithic levels. Two very interesting structures dated to the Late Neolithic (XXIII-XX) and various butts of walls and stone surfaces have been exposed (Caneva 2001c, 27). Here too, a Chalcolithic terrace has cut into these earlier structures (Caneva 2004, 62).

possibly domestic, since slightly larger in size (Garstang 1953, 28). The large building uncovered during the recent investigations, instead, is composed by larger spaces (Pl. 2.1). Two niches, interpreted by Caneva as hearths, both facing east and plastered, characterise the building. Its dimension and the position of the conglomerates, at the entrance of the edifice, has suggested its possible “monumentality” (Caneva 2001a, 27). No single find from this building has confirmed this, though. The plan is manifestly incomplete, especially towards the west and north, where single walls seem to end into nowhere, but it does seem verisimilar that these delimit outdoor areas, maybe functioning as animal pens. Single, small, rectangular delimited areas, like A12 and A25 (Pl. 2.1), to the south of this sizable system of rooms are more difficult to insert in this general plan, but are probably deposits or storage facilities; in the latter in fact, many fragments of clay bins have been recovered. Overall, levels XXVII and XXVI appear to be characterised by domestic and storage areas, and possibly animal pens too, with substantial architecture, decidedly appropriate to a Neolithic community of farmers and herders. Evident rebuilding is going on at all times, as the adding of walls and the superposing of rooms above other constructions underlines, this too, typical of the ever altering demands of the group.

Other late phases of the settlement have been discovered in trenches higher up the mound, to the south, dating to the Chalcolithic (levels XVI to XIIb), but fall out of the scope of this work and shall not be considered. Findings and the stratigraphy of the recent campaigns at Yumuktepe are summarised in table 2.2; the overall abundance of levels relative to the period under study underlines the strong potentials, today, of a resumption of work on the Neolithic phases of occupation of the site. Caneva’s trenches Pit trench WA SA, H1 F 1-2 EBA 1-6, F, NA, H1 GF 1-6

Stratigraphic correspondence Pre- XXXIII XXXIII-XXVII XXIX-XXVIII, XXIV and later (terraces) XXVII-XXVI, XXV-XXIV XXIII-XX

Table 2.2 - List of new trenches and occupation levels uncovered.

2.4 ARCHITECTURAL NEOLITHIC LEVELS

FEATURES

OF

Above this phase, level XXV presents a radical modification of the setting of this part of the village: a rectangular area, clearly too large to have been roofed, which must thus represent an enclosure for domestic animals, lay, with a totally different orientation, right above the level XXVI building. Other similar long walls, are found around this corral confirming that large part of the area must have been set aside for the care of animals.

THE

A rapid glance over the structural remains of the Neolithic settlement is required at this point. These will help in reconstructing the village’s life. The structures found are not many and there seems to have been a great deal of reconstructing within short periods, facts these which render the attribution of constructions to different phases more difficult. Differences and changes between the main phases though, are evident, not only in the techniques of construction, but also in the function reserved to specific areas of the site.

A similar, but enriched appearance is that of the later level XXIV, in which silos appear to be placed beside the animal pens. Plant storage and animal control and management all took place in this area. These have been found both by the English team, in the central area (trench B) and in the bottom of trench X (Garstang 1953, 45), and by the more recent Italian excavations (A40 and A41). The most interesting consideration that has been done is that of the organisation of these activities; apparently, in this one area, animals and grains of more than a single family unit were kept. A community organisation of storage and animal management has thus been suggested. It could be argued that each family had its own sheepfold and animal pen and maybe its own grain silos too, but the concentration of many in one same area is surely of great significance. The silos and animal pens do not seem to be, in other words, inside the house, and thus in a “private” area, but in a specific sector of the village where various families possibly joined to keep their primary means of subsistence. It has been suggested that this area was at the margins of the village proper. How exactly this organisation was dealt with is difficult to say, especially since we have no knowledge of the position and character of the domestic structures in this phase, nor have we an idea of the number

From sounding SA and from trench F, wattle and daub constructions are visible, either in the sections or as small, very difficult to delimit, butts of walls (Caneva 2001a, 27); stone foundations do not seem to be always present, but are visible in some cases. With level XXVII and XXVI, in trenches H1 and EBA, large cobblestone foundations are the rule (it seems probable that part of the wall height was in stone too), clearly collected from the neighbouring river bed. These are essentially two stones wide and at times other small stones are used to stabilise the wall by closing up hollow points. Unfortunately, the wall proper has never been found and it is thus not known whether there were mud bricks or still a pisé – wattle and daub like structure. The partial building found by the English excavation team has a tripartite plan, with a long central corridor onto which face various small rooms, interpreted by Garstang, because of their small size and apparent absence of doors, as storage areas. Only one space (room 306) was seen as 14

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

of inhabitants of the village. It is possible though, that control over the resources stored was run by the community in its whole. It could even be possible that the herding of the animals was communally operated, that some people were in charge of driving the animals to pasture for other animal owners too.

2.5

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

2.5.1

Radiocarbon Samples from Mersin

Fourteen radiocarbon dates are available for the Yumuktepe levels of interest here (table 2.3). These all 14 come from the new excavations. One C sample had been taken by Garstang too, for the very earliest levels of occupation, but its standard deviation of 250 years is too high to consider that date valid. The 2 sigma interval of the calibrated dates has been plotted out in order to calculate the maximum overlap of the dates and hypothesise the time span per period (fig. 2.1).

The following late Neolithic levels XXIII-XX are strongly linked, not simply because they exhibit similar plans, but essentially because in various cases walls are built directly on top and in continuation of those of the underlying levels. Some rare silos can still be seen in level XXIII, but mostly they disappear. Various single roomed rectangular structures are built very near one to the other. Slightly smaller in size than those of levels XXV and XXIV, Garstang has interpreted these as houses. Mud brick elevations on cobblestone foundations are present and horseshoe shaped hearths are found inside. The area is evidently a domestic one. Traces of a threshing floor in an open space next to the dwellings are in line with the mainly agricultural activity of the villagers. In 1998 and 1999 a very particular structure was discovered, unluckily not entirely exposed, partly eroded and also cut by a Chalcolithic terrace (Caneva 2001c, 29). The remains of this construction seem to show a cobbled floor surface, thus probably outdoor, delimited to the north by a large and thick stone wall, slightly to the north of the area exposed by the English.

The level with the best and most homogeneous dates is XXVI, in which all 3 samples give practically the same result (6159-5842 BC). The 2 dates from level XXVII too mostly coincide and date this moment to approximately 6320-6030 BC. The only date from level XXIV seems to be out of place, since later than those from level XXIII. The two samples from XXV are homogeneous and date the phase to 6000-5720 BC, only very slightly later than level XXVI. For the earliest occupation layers, where exact correspondence between the new stratigraphy and Garstang’s levels is nearly impossible, time range goes from very early in the VII millennium, down to overlap level XXVII around 6200 BC. A tentative and approximate summary and rounding off of this data is given in table 2.4.

With the later Halaf levels (XIX-XVII) the plan of this area of the site changes completely, showing particular rectangular buildings together with round tholoi-like structures. sample

phase

context

date BP

stand. dev.

Rome-467 Rome-734 Rome-1344 Rome-1343 Rome-1011 Rome-808 Rome-1226 Rome-807 Rome-957 Rome-956 Rome-806 Rome-809 Rome-1010 LTL282A Rome-1345

XXXIII XXXII ? XXIX ? XXIX ? XXVIII ? XXVII XXVII XXVI XXVI XXVI XXV XXV XXIV XXIII XXIII

WA 4a SA 5 F2 3c (lens) F2 3c F2 3b NA A36 2a A25 1b* EBA1 A20 EBA6 1m EBA6 A10 EBA4 A41 1a NA-A' 1b F2 A71 2p E6 1 d1 GF6 A46

7920 7790 7750 7640 7545 7380 7280 7160 7100 7090 7030 6980 6675 6886 7010

90 80 80 80 75 80 70 80 70 70 90 80 70 65 75

calib. BC 1 sigma max min 7045 6646 6684 6484 6647 6465 6585 6425 6456 6268 6377 6094 6222 6030 6156 5923 6020 5891 6016 5844 5992 5800 5979 5739 5658 5531 5843 5713 5986 5797

calib. BC 2 sigma max min 7075 6512 7026 6457 6749 6438 6641 6241 6498 6230 6418 6032 6326 5994 6214 5842 6157 5807 6156 5805 6063 5721 6009 5715 5720 5479 5965 5645 6017 5723

Table 2.3- 14C dates from Yumuktepe. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, Stuiver et al. 2000. Dates published by Caneva 1998: 12, Caneva 2004: 36, 52, Caneva et al. 2005, and at http://www.canew.org/download.html. Some of the correlations I make between Caneva’s levels and Garstang’s do not correspond, in this chart, with what Caneva suggests as possible correlations. This is due to the difficulty in comparing the ceramic production with that referred of by Garstang, who gives and describes phases more than single levels (XXVII-XXVI, XXXIII-XXX…). These correlations should be considered as temporary and approximate suggestions originating from the study and categorisation of the ceramic finds from the new excavations.

15

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

7200 7000 6800 BC calibrated

6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 5400

calibrated

BC calibrated dates 7070-6500 BC 6500-6250 BC 6320-6030 BC 6150-5840 BC 6000-5720 BC 5720-5470 BC

14

C

dates

from

Yumuktepe.

sigma

intervals

are

considered.

had no influence in separating one group of sherds from the other2. This choice, that caused the actual job of combining attributes to be less mathematical and categorical, but more reasoned, proved extremely interesting since distinct groups were identified by different qualities; in one case, for example, the grain of the clay and the dimensions of inclusions caused the separation of two groups of sherds, whereas in another situation this aspect was considered non-influent, thus insufficient to divide a class of ceramics. This will become clear later on, with the actual description and representation of the classes and types.

Rounded off calib. dates 7000-6500 BC 6500-6300 BC 6300-6150 BC 6150-6000 BC 6000-5700 BC 5700-5500 BC

Table 2.4 - Approximate absolute dates for the different analysed levels of Mersin with 14C samples.

2.6

2

III XX III XX

XXXIII-XXIX XXVIII XXVII XXVI XXV XXIV

of

IV XX V XX

Layers

Plot

V XX

2.1-

VI XX VI XX

Fig.

VI XX I VI XX I VI XX II VI XX II VI XX IX XX I XI XX II XI XX

5200

All the analysed material comes from the new, TurkishItalian excavations, even though comparisons have later been made with Garstang’s collections held at the Mersin museum and at the University College London. It constitutes the entirety of ceramic sherds found during the new excavations; no sampling whatsoever of the material has been undertaken (Arcelin and Tuffreau-Libre 1998) (table 2.5). Ceramics from levels XXVII/XXVI, central moment of development of the Dark Faced Burnished Ware, have been the object of study and comparisons have been made with the earlier and immediately following phases.

POTTERY ANALYSIS

Finally the central issue of this whole presentation: the pottery and especially the Dark Faced Burnished Ware. As has been pointed out in the preceding chapter, such a study has to two different levels of analysis. The first limited to the site of Yumuktepe itself, analysing the mode of production and development. The second, at a regional level, whose main interest will be that of verifying the validity of the definition of DFBW, its distribution, its role and meaning in such communities, the chronological relations between sites that do show this same pottery, and the social and political implications of such contacts. In this chapter only the first level of analysis is going to be tackled.

Fragmentation of the sherds is very high and we were able to reconstruct very few entire vessels. This is especially true in the case of the very fine burnished wares, but it is generally an overall condition. Probably one of the factors determining this is the fact that very rarely, in the course of

The attributes utilised in classifying Yumuktepe’s Neolithic pottery production have been: kind and dimension of the temper (and thus the type of paste), firing atmosphere, surface treatment and colour, thickness of the walls, decoration, shape and size of the vessel (when possible). No strict hierarchy was given to these, because I hoped to understand directly from the material, from case to case, which elements appeared to be the most relevant and which

2 Spaulding (1953:305) argues that the relevant attributes and their hierarchy are given by statistics. This is in part surely true, but the context of production of the material culture analysed should not be forgotten, since it might prove as irrelevant even frequently recurring characters. In fact “the process of typology is one of searching for and discovering order or structure in a set of data and not a process of imposing any arbitrary order on the data” (Whallon 1982: 127).

16

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

excavation have intact floors been found. All sherds come from fills, coherent and properly sealed by the above levels, but probably all layers that coincide with the abandonment of the structures and thus probably also with the abandonment and discharge of pottery. This is unfortunate also because it doesn’t permit a functional analysis of the structures, that the finding of proper in situ material would have greatly accounted for.

is in itself a complex task; many scholars have discussed how elements that we might consider technical could in fact derive from cultural and social practices (Oldenziel 1996, 62; Sillar 2000; Sillar and Tite 2000). Cultural meaning can be expressed, for example, in the choice and utilisation of particular materials, whereas we might view its adoption as due to environmental availability. Artefacts are generally considered to have two dimensions, a functional one and a non-utilitarian symbolic one. Function is seen in those attributes that are utilitarian in character, while those that are not fall under the heading of style. Binford, and like him many scholars in the past years, stressed that separating technical, thus functional, attributes of an object from those emphasizing its symbolic value was a straight forward and quite accessible operation. Binford talked about primary and secondary functional variation (Binford 1972, 200) in reference to this double “role” of material culture and whilst the latter was more complicated to untangle, explaining the function of a vessel through its technical and morphological attributes was considered undisputable. Technology in fact, was considered subject only to function (R. Wright 1984). Today we know that the distinction between the two is not so evident: technology is not a passive phenomenon, technology is active, it too can contribute to variability in material style. For example, the colour of a pot can be determined by firing conditions, but it might also be particularly meaningful to the consumer; in such a case we could say that the kind of firing has become essential to the style of the vessel (Knappett unpublished, 17). It is thus evident, today, that technology, function and style are not easily isolable elements of material culture. Pfaffenberger correctly talks, in this regard, about the “sociality of human technology” (Pfaffenberger 1992, 493), in which technology, distinct from technique, is a combination of technical and social actions. The consequences of such a definition are quite relevant, as they warn against isolated technical studies that do not consider the social component which can be implicit in each stage of the manufacturing process (Bronitsky 1989). These views have often reversed the common view of the environment as a constraint on society, to one in which the habitat is actually seen as the enabling sphere within which people act, at times reaching the opposite extreme of underestimating technical limits in the production of material culture (Griffiths 2001, 271).

Levels XXVII-XXVI N° sherds

weight

m³ soil

21747

218022g

70

Table 2.5 - Count of found and analysed sherds from the levels of the new excavations. An approximate assessment of the m³ of soil removed, during the excavation is also given.

Apart from the small size, sherds did not show particular signs of decomposition or particular surface alteration. Only in one case, that will be seen later on, a whole class is characterised by the presence of carbon deposits, mostly on the inside of the sherds, but this is quite evidently use alteration and not due to deposition. Some sherds do present some calcite deposit on the surface, but not in great quantities. This indicates that post depositional disturbance or alteration of the pottery, generally due to climatic and ecological events, geological sorting and deposition, and animal or human activities, has been very limited. A confirmation of infrequent depositional disturbance is also given by the rarity of intrusive material; in general, most sherds found in these levels are coherent with the overall assemblage (intrusive sherds are absent in level XXVII, whereas in level XXVI 27 have been counted, belonging to the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic levels ). The material will be presented below following the steps of its analysis. Not an end to itself, but an analytical tool, a way of organising the formal variability present in the material culture, the typology presented here does not want to become a standardised, fixed one, used in communicating amongst scholars; initials given to the different types should be read and forgotten. What should be remembered are the patterns in the ceramics that the typology will evidence, their consistency and implications, their spatial and temporal developments, and, later on, their relations with types of other nearby sites.

2.7 TECHNICAL CLASSIFICATION

-

My first level of categorisation of the Mersin pottery assemblage has been that of classifying the various kinds of “productions”, the “ways of making” the ceramics, the “traditions of pottery making” (Read 1982), not considering thus the shape of the vessels. The attention, here, goes to the clays, the kind of tempers, the thickness of walls, the firing, the surface treatments: techniques used, that are cultural choices made precisely because they reproduce particular valued, social relations (Sillar 2000, 4), as well as technical properties.

TECHNOLOGICAL

2.7.1 The Influence of Culture on the Techniques of Manufacture The attributes chosen in building the classification were both technical and formal in nature, but it should be said that distinguishing technical from non technical characters

17

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

2.7.2

The Classes

tempered pottery, nor is it common in the Late Neolithic phases.

The attributes for the recognition of the technological classes, decided before starting out on the analysis of the material, are given in table 2.6.

The next relevant consideration that the pottery manifests is a clear clustering into two major categories: one, the majority, of pinkish-orange sherds and one of dark coloured sherds (Pl. 2.2). The frequent presence of red, oxidised cores among the sherds with dark surfaces indicates that the inky colours had probably been intentionally sought for, as will be demonstrated later on. We could thus say that 79,23% of the sherds had been fired in an oxidising atmosphere, against 20,55% reduced (0,22% of the sherds are intrusive in the context and thus excluded). It is within these two major clusters that the single classes have been identified. Quantities of sherds within these categories are given in table 2.8 and fig. 2.2.

-Definition of paste (type, quantity and dimension of temper) -Firing (type of atmosphere throughout the whole firing process) -Colour of the surfaces -Thickness of vessel walls Table 2.6 - Attributes used to determine technologic classification of the pottery.

Colour of the surface and thickness of vessel walls proved, at times, not to be statistically relevant in comparison with the other attributes and thus often ended up not being distinctive of the single classes, thus groups have been essentially defined on the basis of temper and firing atmosphere.

Classes 1 and 2, both oxidised, differentiate themselves essentially on the basis of their paste; with a greater amount of inclusions the first class, generally of medium size, but rarely also coarse, and a finer temper and less porous texture the second, class 1 sherds also seem to be slightly thinner and the surface coarser (table 2.9 and fig. 2.3). In both cases the dimension of mineral inclusions is generally homogeneous, at times with two size clusters, one of very small and one of slightly larger grits.

Description of surface treatment needs an explanation of the terminology used. Even though it is the usual terms that recur (smoothing, burnishing, polishing…) and we probably all feel comfortable in how we use them, a comparison with other publications or a direct look at the pottery of other sites often finds us puzzled. At times language differences can be incriminated, but in other occasions there simply seems to be a disparity in how a sherd is viewed. For example, I find enigmatic the use of the French terms “lustrée” and “polie” by de Contenson; he argues that the “ceramiques lustrées” from Ras Shamra are rarely “polies” (de Contenston 1992: 148), whilst other authors use the two terms without distinction. An even worst problem I have come across, which a no matter how clear terminology will probably not be able to overcome, is due to the subjectivity of the definitions. Each archaeologist describes her/his sherds according to the overall assemblage under study. This unavoidably means, for example, that if the general trend at a site is to highly burnish all vessels, some lightly burnished sherds from the same context, being compared to those, might end up being simply recorded as smoothed. The same sherds though, if found at another site that has no burnishing at all, will surely be defined as burnished. Even though I realise that ultimately it is only the direct view of the material that will clear all doubts, I shall try to make terms as comprehensible as possible; for this reason a list of the terms used in describing surface treatment of the Yumuktepe pottery assemblage is presented (table 2.7). Hopefully, these definitions will be of help in interpreting the descriptions given.

Only in the coarse textures of class 1 there is a wide range of measurements. The amount of the larger grits present, too, varies quite strongly from case to case, but it could roughly be said that in class 2 concentration of visible mineral temper is quite low, whereas it is considerably higher amongst the class 1 sherds. Through an observation of the sections of sherds at a stereomicroscope it could be seen that inclusions were mostly both sharp edged and rounded, pebble-like shaped. Surface treatment is little or none in class 1, whereas class 2, maybe simply because of its finer texture but more probably because it did get smoothed down, has a flattened, uniform surface. Furthermore, the quality of the firing seems to be higher in class 2, where most of the cores are red, indicating full oxidisation (Pl. 3.1); not so is the case in class 1. From a technological point of view, the distinction between these two groups leaves no doubts, even though it is at times difficult to set strict boundaries between them because of the variability in both classes, as can be seen from tables 2.9 and 2.10. Easier than linking pottery attributes to a number, for mnemonic purposes, a tentative of giving these classes a proper name could be made: class 1 would be the Pinkish Gritty Ware and class 2 the Pinkish-Orange Fine Ware, but both names are not totally satisfying and are partly misleading when compared to the other classes3.

All the ceramic assemblage of these levels is characterised by pastes with mineral temper. Only 0,16% of the ceramics of levels XXVII/XXVI have vegetal temper, thus indicating their definite extraneousness from the assemblage. The origin of these 42 sherds is actually quite enigmatic, since in the earlier levels too, there is no vegetal

3

“Orange” would be more correct, but this would cause confusion, due to the existence of an Orange Gritty and Orange Fine Ware at Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad in Syria.

18

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

Smoothing

with a cloth, sponge or other performed when clay is soft instrument/object humid

Burnishing

with a stick, obsidian, leather, spatula, bone, pebble or other hard object

performed when clay is leather-hard

Polishing

with hard and/or softer instruments

performed when clay is leather-hard

Slip

with a sponge, by poring over the vessel or by immersion of the vessel

Performed before the vessel is dry

Self-Slip

with a sponge

performed when clay is humid

Wash

with a sponge, by poring over the vessel or by immersion of the vessel

Performed before the vessel is dry

causes a slight compression of the surface; has a matte rather than gloss appearance; surface is overall regular the compression of the surface is greater than when smoothed; the result is bright and often the strokes are visible, giving an overall effect of luster combined with matte or a non-uniform luster; the strokes are given directionally and thus may produce a pattern the surface is regular, shiny and glossy; it is a stronger, more accurate and homogeneous burnish; before a good polish, surface must have already been smoothed and evened or else the depressions will not be polished addition of a patina of fine and very watery clay on the surface. it can be the same clay used for the vessel or different and colorants can be added slip performed by wetting the surface and creating a patina with the vessel’s own clay (no added clay) basically a slip in which the clay applied is so watery that the proper surface of the vessel can be seen through the patina; generally a coloured pigment is added; term coined and used by Braidwood for the Amuq.

Table 2.7 -Terminology used in describing surface treatment.

Class

Level XXVII

N° sherds 1 11683 2 545 3 1110 4 856 5 1422 6 55 coarse veg. 36 coarse min. 31 intrusive 0 Total

15738

weight 72347g 72059g 9332g 9554g 7130g 385g 385g 894g 0g

% 74,23 3,46 7,05 5,44 9,04 0,35 0,23 0,20 0

172086g 100

Level XXVI Total N° sherds weight % N° sherds weight % 4687 35267g 78 16370 107614g 76,12 102 1540g 1,70 647 73599g 2,58 264 2520g 4,39 1374 11852g 5,72 277 3580g 4,61 1133 13134g 5,02 635 2414g 10,57 2057 9544g 9,80 11 36g 0,18 66 421g 0,27 6 39g 0,10 42 424g 0,16 0 0g 0 31 894g 0,10 27 540g 0,45 27 540g 0,22 6009

45936g 100

21747 218022g 100

Table 2.8 - Count of sherds from levels XXVII and XXVI for each of the defined classes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 coarse veg. coarse min. intrusive

Fig. 2.2 – Comparison, respectively, between total number of sherds and total weight of sherds in each class.

19

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

20

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

Turning back to the surface treatment, we noticed that the Pinkish-Orange Fine Ware (class 2) is homogeneous throughout, with a slight smoothing of both inside and outside. The Pinkish Gritty Ware instead, has some degree of variability, not enough, though, to further divide the class into other separate groups.

Class 1

Level XXVII Pinkish Gritty n° gr. Ware no treatment 10036 59430 light 5432 wash/smooth. 628 reddish wash 899 6666 red burnish 27 157 slip 93 662

Level XXVI

sherds (0,64% of the whole assemblage of levels XXVIIXXVI) that show a light cream coloured slip. The fabric is clearly that of the Pinkish Gritty Ware and so is the thickness and firing; like in the case of the burnished examples, these will indicate a strong similarity with another class (class 5). Exclusive of class 1 seem to be impressed finger decorations along the neck of the vessel and, more rarely, other decorative impressed and incised elements. These will be considered later on though, when analysing decorative elements of the pottery.

Total

n° 3711

gr. 27648

n° gr. 13747 87078

635 323 15 3

4720 2759 119 21

1263 1222 42 96

10152 9425 276 683

The deliberateness in the dark colour of the other group of wares, which will be discussed more extensively later on, provokes a first interesting observation on the ceramic assemblage of Yumuktepe: a dark as opposed to pinkish or reddish colour gives a totally different view to the vessel, reason for which it is believed that these two major groups, into which the whole ceramic assemblage of the site of Yumuktepe can legitimately be divided, probably underline two separate spheres of material meaning and value.

Table 2.9 - Quantification (number and weight in grams) of the different surface treatments present in the class 1 pottery.

Class 1 – Pinkish Gr. Level XXVII Level XXVI Total no treatment light wash/smoothing reddish wash red burnish slip Total

85,9 5,37 7,69 0,23 0.79 100

79,17 13,54 6,89 0,32 0,06 100

82,53 9,45 7,29 0,27 0,05 100

Three classes have been separated amongst the dark wares, the first two of which are at times arduous to distinguish, precisely because of the difficulty of being scientific in the distinction between smoothed and burnished surfaces. Class 3 is characterised by mineral inclusions, medium in size and in concentration, but at times also fine or coarse (table 2.9). Thickness too varies, but is mainly attested at 6mm. Particular of class 3, in comparison to the following class 4, are the surface colours and treatment; in both categories browns, greys and at times black are the tonalities used, but generally in class 3 these are much brighter and vivid. This is partly due to the second element distinguishing the two: class 3 sherds are always burnished, treatment which inevitably lightens up the colours. Class 4 sherds generally have no burnish.

Table 2.10 - Percentage of different surface treatments present within class 1. Calculations are approximated to two decimals after the comma.

The great majority of sherds are not treated at all (82,53% of the whole class); at times though, a very slight smoothing is present, but this hardly ever covers the grits, that are thus visible, often also with grooves indicating that the motion of smoothing moved the grits along the surface. In other cases a very thin patina covers the surface and the protruding grits and has been interpreted as the result of an extremely watery wash (the vessels might have been mopped with a sponge-like instrument). This patina, in various occasions, appears slightly redder than the sherd proper; this could either be due to reactions to firing of a wash with tiny particles of a basically un-tempered clay, or of a different clay altogether; the observation at the microscope has not evidenced any colour addition nor the presence of a slip.

Class 4 sherds can be equally described as mineral tempered, even though mostly medium to coarse in temper size and medium to high in the concentration of inclusions (table 2.9). Thickness is generally slightly greater than that of class 3 and surface is simply smoothed on the outside and left coarse on the interior. The definition of the surface treatment is somehow complicated though, because of a strong use alteration: all class 4 sherds have carbon deposits (Skibo 1992, 147-173), mainly on the inside, and at times on the outer surface too, which might have contributed to weaken or tone down colours, or even to cancel the presence of a burnish. Due to the variability within these classes, the difficulty is in assigning to one class or the other the “border” sherds, slightly thick class 3 sherds, for example, or class 4 sherds with a finer paste. In some cases, the doubt unfortunately remains and the possibility of a small error in group division should be contemplated. It should also be remembered that vessels made for a specific function could end up being used for something else, or, in a second moment of their life, end up

Finally, 27 sherds did actually exhibit a proper wash, red in colour, which was then burnished. Because of the small number and of the similar treatment to that of classes 3 and 5, these 27 sherds might be variations within this category, they could be the result of an individual’s choice and action, within the wider realm of a socially determined pottery production. A confirmation of this comes, in my view, also from a look at their shapes; it will be shown that these too are very peculiar for class 1 vessels, but very near to those of class 3. Another peculiar case is that of 96

21

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

for some other activity. For example, a class 3 vessel could be used for cooking and thus end up looking duller and blackish, thus liable to be confused with a class 4 vessel. With a small sherd fragment, such a confusion could be even easier. Important distinction too, even though quantitatively not so relevant, is that the class 3 material is at times decorated, either by impression or by pattern burnish, but this will be discussed further on.

dung to cover the vessels at a moment in which temperatures were still high enough for the reaction to take place. In the other two classes 3 and 4, this double core colour is not so clearly visible. Class 4 generally has totally dark and mostly homogeneous cores, possibly indicating an overall atmosphere in which either there was no oxygen, temperatures were not high enough, or time was too short for minerals to oxidise (Pl. 3.1). Since some sherds show changes in colour on the surface, it has been supposed that the pots must have been in contact with the flames (Shepard 1968, 217). In class 3 the conditions are probably similar, even though quite often there are traces of an initial stage of oxidisation on one of the surfaces or in the core of the vessels.

The third class (class 5) attested amongst these dark wares is probably the one that stands out the most, striking in thinness of both the vessel walls and their paste, and so different from any of the other categories that it can be confused with nothing else (table 2.9). Inclusions in the paste are so minute that they cannot be distinguished, not only by naked eye, but also by microscope. No vegetal inclusions are present, if not casual once-in-a-while tiny fragments. The mean thickness of sherds is 4mm, but different parts of the vessel body are 2mm thick or more rarely 6mm.

This lengthy description of firing condition had the intent of focusing the attention on the fact that firing seems to be a major element in the distinction of vessel categories. Firing, in other words, appears to be specific for each class; archaeometric analyses that will be tackled later on (chapter 3) will show that the potters were actually firing most classes separately and that this colour difference was not simply due to the different mineral composition of the three classes and to their varying thickness.

The surface colour of this category is mostly grey, dark or light, often black and more rarely brownish-beige. In some very rare cases there are some oxidised sherds, which might represent “malfunctions” in the firing system, but could have been, here too, intended variations; in fact 6 very small sherds (maybe part of the same vessel) have a red burnished slip that creates a very nice and elegant contrast with the dark black burnished and shiny vessels. The surface treatment of class 5 is the other stunning particularity, since many sherds are polished and shiny (more than 60%) and the others accurately burnished. Generally, the interior of the vessels is highly burnished too. This fact is quite relevant, since it will later be noticed that in the Amuq it is general praxis to burnish only the interior of the rim and not all the surface. Only rare sherds have impressed decoration, generally obtained with a three or four teeth fork-like instrument pressed on the surface in order to form series of curving lines.

Class 5 has been called Fine burnished Dark Ware, class 3 burnished Dark Ware (the “b” is kept in small letters in order not to mistaken the abbreviation with the DFBW larger category, the one defined by Braidwood); class 4 Gritty Dark Ware. Other 3 groups of ceramics are present in the assemblage, even if in very small quantities. Two of these classes are composed respectively by very coarse vegetal tempered sherds and by coarse mineral tempered sherds, both light in colour, partly oxidised and very thick (over 8-10 mm). Sherds are so small that no shape is understandable, nor is there any rim sherd that can give hints in this sense. It is not easy to say whether these sherds are intrusive. The third group, class 6, is quite particular. Sherds are extremely thin, rarely over 2mm, even though the paste seems to have abundant chaff inclusions. Light brown in colour, these were probably fired at open air. Further complicating the comprehension of this group of sherds is their shape. All sherds are perfectly straight! Rims are present and different sherds have been refitted together up to a quite relevant size, but not a single curve has been seen. Could these be the surfaces of bins? Could they be “plasters” of bins or pits in the floor? One of the two faces is always slightly smoother than the second, even though it is not clear whether this smoothing could be due to contact with some other surface or simply to a difference in treatment of the outside or inside. The rims, refitting, and the apparent feeling of coils at touch made me decide this group should be kept together with the ceramics, but the absence of comparisons and the ephemeral data these few sherds give don’t help to come up with a convincing interpretation.

It is this class that most evidences the deliberateness of the choice for the dark surface colours. Cores in fact testify the presence of two phases in the firing process. A first moment was evidently in an oxidising atmosphere, since part of the core is red, indicating the reaction of some mineral or carbonaceous component of the paste in presence of oxygen, but this phase was generally not long enough (or the temperature never high enough) for such a reaction to be complete and reach the centre of the core (which in fact remains dark in most cases) (Pl. 3.1). In a second moment, probably extremely short, the atmosphere was then reduced and thus the surface of the vessel became dark. I assume that this phase was short because only an extremely thin layer (essentially the surface) turned dark (Balossi and Morbidelli 2005). Whether this following condition was a consequence of a proper second firing or was provoked during the first instants of the cooling down of the vessels is difficult to say. Obtaining a reducing atmosphere probably meant throwing vegetal matters or 22

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

were used for liquids, since their smoothed surface made them more impermeable. Some bowls are present amongst the pinkish-orange wares (classes 1 and 2), but they are quite a minority, except in the case of the red washed and burnished wares that are apparently composed solely of small fine bowls and cups (table 2.12 and fig. 2.5). I believe this observation on the latter group confirms the earlier interpretation (see paragraph 2.7.1) of this small group of vessels as being a variation within class 1, characterised by a combination of surface treatment of the dark wares and paste and firing techniques of the red wares. The shapes (only 3 vessels have been recognised, but the sherds too were very few) of these vessels are in fact exactly like those of class 5 (table 2.11). It could thus further be dared and said that, whilst manufacturing a bulk of red ware, “a potter” was taken by the desire/was ordered/distracted and formed a number of pots at the fashion of the fine dark, class 5 ware.

2.7.3 Broad Vessel Shapes within the Technological Classification The cultural and social meaning of a pot is not simply linked to the techniques with which it is produced; these are combined with a shape and a size. Essential is thus the recognition of patterns in the use of the various technological groups. Broad shape grouping, done, on the totality of the rim sherds (body sherds with a very evident shape were considered too), by separating necked and unnecked jars, bowls, goblets, and plates (fig. 2.4), has given unhoped-for results, as table 2.11 might already allow to guess. It appears at a first glance that there is a division between the kind of manufacture (the class) preferred for making jars and that for bowls. Even though some grade of overlap is often present, jars were mostly made out of the class 1 and 2, red oxidised, wares (table 2.11). Unfortunately, no entire vessels have been reconstructed so it is impossible to tell what height these jars had and to reconstruct the whole shape, but rim openings are quite various, letting hypothesise that there was probably an assortment in capacities too. Classes 1 and 2 seem thus to be preferentially linked to storage, either long or short term and maybe other activities such as water collecting, for which a necked jar might be more suited than a hole-mouth (Skibo 1992). It is probable, furthermore, that class 2 jars

Deep bowls and some rare hole-mouth jars characterise the burnished Dark Ware, thus representing a different functional class to that of the red wares (tables 2.11-12 and fig. 2.5). Surely not suitable for long term storage, bowls are more probably related to everyday use, possibly with food preparation and conservation. The presence of the burnish and the low porosity of the vessel deriving from it probably indicate that if these were used for food preparation it could not have been on fire.

Class Shape and Diameter 1 Pinkish Gritty Ware - no surface Jars, mainly with neck. ∅ at rim 14-18 cm. Rare bowls, with rim ∅ of 14treatment 16 cm. 1 “ – light wash/smoothing Jars, mainly with neck. Rim ∅ 14-18 cm. 1 “ - reddish wash Mainly necked jars with rim ∅ of 14-18 cm and shallow bowls. 1 “ - red burnish Small bowls and goblets. ∅ 6-10 cm. 2 Pinkish Fine Ware Jars, mainly with neck. Rim ∅ 16-18 cm. 3 burnished Dark Ware Bowls, mainly deep and with straight walls. Rim ∅ 15-20 cm. Some rare hole-mouth jars with rim ∅ of 10-20 cm. 4 Gritty Dark Ware hole-mouth jars. Rim ∅ 18-40 cm. Some short necked jars with rim ∅ of 14-16 cm and some deep bowls with rim ∅ of 16-36 cm. 5 Fine burnished Dark Ware Small bowls with walls at different angulations with rim ∅ 9-16 cm. Small plates of 12-16 cm in ∅. Goblets 8 cm in ∅. Table 2.11 - Distribution of broad vessel shapes within the technological classes. ∅ = diameter

Classes 1 Pinkish Gritty Ware - no surface treatment 1 “ – light wash/smoothing 1 “ - reddish wash 1 “ - red burnish 2 Pinkish-Orange Fine Ware 3 burnished Dark Ware 4 Gritty Dark Ware 5 Fine burnished Dark Ware

Necked Jars without neck jars (hole-mouth) or short collar-like neck 588 119 12 74 0 20 5 5

4 22 0 11 54 75 13

Bowls (various wall inclinations)

Plates

Handles

92

5

28

13 38 3 3 113 44 541

0 2 0 3 16 0 9

1 5 0 0 0 0 1

Table 2.12 - Quantity of sherds (mainly rims) from which shapes were recognisable, for each technological class, in levels XXVII/XXVI.

23

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Total assemblage

Class 1

Class 2

Class 4

Class 3

Class 5

Necked jars holemouth jars Bowls Plates

Fig. 2.4 – Percentage of shapes present in the total assemblage and for each technological class.

The Gritty Dark Ware (class 4), instead, was most evidently used on fire, as the abundant carbon use wear deposits indicate. The shape of the vessels apparently confirm that this was their first intended function and not a secondary use of the pots, since the by far most common shape found is the hole-mouth jar, a jar with no neck, typical of cooking pots. The absence of handles in these pots is striking, but handles were overall extremely rare in these levels of Yumuktepe and the only ones found are on the Pinkish Gritty Ware (class 1) (see table 2.11) and always vertical (not too suitable for cooking ware). The only other shape found in this ware is a large and quite straight walled bowl.

Each technological class is thus apparently characterised by particular shapes too (fig. 2.4) and, even more interestingly, these shapes seem to relate to distinct activities. Unfortunately, the distribution of these different sherds has give no information on the activities carried out in distinct areas of the settlement. 2.7.4

Cultural, Technical or Functional Choices?

It has been pointed out earlier that meaning and material practice are inseparable and, even though it has just been noticed that the technological classes identified in the Yumuktepe assemblage respond to specific functional characteristics, it cannot be hypothesised that all their attributes are linked to the material use of the pots. The choice and utilisation of particular materials is in fact an expression of cultural behaviour; techniques used are cultural choices and reproduce precise values (Gosselain 1999, 206). We are much too often used to seeing such “choices” as resulting from constraints of the environment on society or from clear-cut functional needs, whilst we

Last of all and again entirely different is the shape of the very Fine Dark burnished Ware (class 5), class in which only rather small bowls, goblets and plates are obtained (table 2.12). These are all elegant and fragile looking ceramics. Their smaller size, as well as the shapes, make these resemble a modern “dinner-set”.

24

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

should rather turn the concept around and say that “the environment is the enabling sphere within which people act” (Sillar 2000, 13). Why, for example, do all ceramics from these levels of Yumuktepe have grit and mineral tempers? Why is 70% of the pottery oxidised and thus reddish in colour and the rest dark? In both of these cases I believe there was an intentional preference, a codified choice. Mineral temper permits the construction of very thin vessels, but it is also more difficult to fire; furthermore, vegetal tempered vessels are quite permeable and would be good, for example, as storage jars, since they would permit a continuous exchange of air and keep the staples breathing. Contemporary societies in other regions of the Near East demonstrate this quite clearly, as, for example, the Hassuna culture in northern Mesopotamia which was characterised by chaff tempered wares. Sites in northern Syria, like Judaidah and Ain el Kerkh, which have clear evidence of contacts both with Mersin and with the east, had both mineral tempered and chaff tempered vessels. In central Anatolia instead, the potters of Çatal Höyük seem to make a similar choice to that of the Mersiners, since, in levels more or less contemporary to these, they decrease enormously their production of straw tempered ware and concentrate on the quartz tempered pottery (Last 1998). Whether this analogy is due to contacts between these two groups, which we know must have been taking place, since Çatal was next to Mersin’s obsidian sources, it is too early to say, but there do seem to be two “cultural fronts” as to the choice of clay tempers for pottery production: one to the east, characterised by chaff and vegetal tempered wares and one in Anatolia, in which mineral tempers increase in importance very early.

decoration as the expression of the ideo- and socio-function of material culture, that can help distinguish kin groups and cultures, but we might here have an example in which technological choices could be read in a similar way and give us further, intra-group information. Not only does the black colour seem to be connected with the idea of something nice and maybe even precious, as the shiny mirror-like Fine burnished Ware might suggest, but colour contrast between vessels of daily use and storage jars/water containers might hide a definite separation of these activities in the peoples minds, a different hierarchy or organisation of such activities.

2.8

THE MORPHOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY

2.8.1

Methodology and Theoretical Issues

At this stage of the analysis attention should probably move slightly back to the main issue of this work, that is DFBW. Amongst the classes evidenced from Yumuktepe, certainly 2 (classes 3 and 5) are those which would most fit the definition of DFBW given by Braidwood, but a third too, class 4 (Gritty Dark ware), might not have been too far from that definition, even though within the Amuq assemblage a Dark Faced Unbunished Ware is distinguished from the rest of the burnished pottery. Furthermore, being the technological characters of the Gritty Dark Ware so similar to those of classes 3 and 5, and especially, having hypothesised that the dark colour might be the main distinguishing feature of this Cilician pottery production (separation between red wares and dark wares as a socially significant quality), I feel it to be correct, for the moment, to keep and analyse class 4 together with the other two groups. Classes 1 and 2 instead, will be left out of this more specific typological study, even though they will still be central, for comparative reasons, in understanding the dark wares, and will still be reconsidered, for example, with the archaeometric analyses of sherds.

Dark colours are apparently preferred for the finer and most attractive ceramics, certainly for the most labour intensive ones to manufacture. As has been said, classes 3 and 5 sherds are dark coloured (also see Pl. 3.1). Red colours are instead found mostly on vessels with untreated surface and often “ruined” by visible grits and grooves. I must admit that the silvery and shiny, light-reflecting, and at times obsidian-like effect of a polished black pot cannot even be dreamt of on a red polished vessel. Class 4 (Gritty Dark Ware) too, though, is dark in colour even if mostly composed by coarse ware. By considering vessel shapes, attention should be pointed to the fact that pots of daily use (burnished Dark Ware/class 3, cooking Ware/class 4, Fine burnished Dark Ware/class 5) are black and storage jars (Pinkish Gritty Ware/class 1 and Pinkish-Orange Fine Ware/class 2) are pinkish-orange (Balossi in print). Could this imply that there is a coincidence between the technofunction and socio- or ideo-function of the vessels (Sacket 1977, 370)? Evidently to some extent, yes. The choice of certain materials, styles and production procedures, the meaning given to a particular technique were in some way associated with the actual sphere of use of the vessels. Undoubtedly, the attributes given to a vessel were also linked to the social and ideological role of such activity/function, as well as to the value of the vessel proper. We are generally more used to looking at

Paragraph 2.7.2 has already provided an idea of the shapes of the Middle Neolithic vessels of Yumuktepe, even though in a rather general sense. Interest, there, was in fact in analysing function (in its most global meaning) of the various classes, as well as the technological choices of the potters of Yumuktepe. What is of concern now is a more precise morphological division of shapes in order to further detect patterns of similarly moulded vessels. I have had the occasion to remark that patterns in a set of data reflect, to a certain extent, the conscious or unconscious decisions of the producers, and thus a good typology should reflect the cultural or social processes underlying and generating the artefacts and their uses. Whereas size and broad shape of the pots have helped to investigate in depth the issue of technological models, a thorough categorisation of single body profiles will take further towards the analysis of the “stylistic” attributes of the pottery. Differently sloping walls of a bowl or atypical rims, though functionally and

25

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

technologically belonging to the same category, can be the expression of separate social or cultural entities. At an intra-site level, distinguishing such patterns could identify potters or kin groups, in an inter-site analysis it could distinguish interaction spheres and cultural similarities. Such a detailed morphological typology thus, even though still analysing only Mersin’s material, has as central among its aims, that of the appreciation of regional and interregional distribution (production and exchange) of the pottery.

Numbers, following the letters generally refer to the rim or to other minor characters, and the tendency has been to give smaller numbers to more plain rims and higher numbers to more complex ones. Whilst this choice was taken for facilitating the process of analysis, it was then decided to present the material in this way too, since I found it also proved useful and quite straightforward for consultation and for understanding the variety of shapes and profiles present. This double level of naming has no intent at all in giving a hierarchy of morphological attributes, it does not view profiles as more important than rim shapes in defining groups of different shapes. Each type identified is of value in itself, at no minor grade than the others. A consequence of the typological comparison between classes was the changing of some numbers in the nomenclature of types, since, as will be seen, not all shapes are present in each class. Where possible, it was tried to maintain, even in the different classes of pottery, the same number for similar shapes; the omission of a number in one class would thus immediately indicate the absence of that shape, but its occurrence within rest of the Dark Faced Ware of the site. This operation was quite successful in classes 3 and 4, not so for class 5, as will be seen later.

This double context (intra and inter-site) of employment of the data, derived from the recognition of morphological patterns, requires necessarily that these be not too detailed, or else comparisons and discussion across regions would become basically impossible. In fact the less social interaction there is between two groups, the less cultural transmission, thus material culture similarities, and this means that they will also be more difficult to detect. At the same time though, for intra-site considerations, attention to even the smallest elements is probably useful. These two levels of analysis correspond to the multiple significance and importance that all objects generally have. A most obvious example of this is that of decorated ware: a group of people can be characterised, and thus distinguished from others, by a particular type of painted decoration on its pots. Probably no one not belonging to the group would recognise that within such vessels, though, there are distinct classes, characterised by a different way of applying the paint, or by a small variation of the rim. Such associations might represent internal kin separations or, in later periods, distinct workshops. For someone belonging to the group, the message understood by the vessel will be that of kin affinity, whereas the same vase will simply represent the originating village for someone belonging to a different social entity.

The first typology was made on the original material, in Mersin, before most of the drawings were completed. A comparison of shapes based on the drawings though, back in Rome, has brought several changes in the types that had been evidenced before. These changes have essentially consisted in unifying groups of rims into more broad types. A great variability within the pottery types has in fact been observed throughout the assemblage and above all in classes 3 and 4, in each type of which the variability of attributes is quite high. Such a variability is actually normal and often predictable in such simple Neolithic societies that probably still don’t have any standardisation of craft production. It was thus realised that too strict a definition of the types probably did not give evidence and respect this “liberty” of the craftsmen in realising slightly distinct pots, even when having in mind the same model. This has brought to create more “sub-types” (identified by I or II, following the type number), or to merge groups of bowls with the same kind of rim but slightly distinct inclination of the walls (for example oB1 with sB1 and clB1). I have still left indication of their original distinct classification, but consider them to have a common “prototype” and thus the same significance.

The ambition of capturing both messages has conditioned the construction of the morphological typology, causing, in the most complex cases, like for the class of Fine burnished Ware (class 5), a grouping on two levels (indicated by a combination of letters and numbers, for type abbreviations), one more general and a second more specific, as will be explained later on. These typologies have been constructed separately for each technological class and thus the nomenclature adopted was initially independent; only later were they compared one to the other, in order to detect possible recurrences in shapes between the three groups and thus to understand how they were related to one another, and to a same tradition. This has been greatly helped by the use of a common naming system, maybe complicated to keep in mind, but which would immediately recall potentially similar groups. Capital letters have been used to indicate the general shape of the vessel, thus B for bowl, J for Jar, P for plate, small letters indicate specific profile attributes of these shapes, like oB (open bowl) for strongly everting walls, or sB for a bowl with straight, nearly vertical walls (table 2.13).

As has been discussed in paragraph 2.6.1, degree of fracture of the sherds is very high and low, instead, has been the amount of refitting possible, thus morphological typology has been recognised from rims and little else. Furthermore, rims are often very small and are thus at times useless even for guessing the inclination of the walls. This is especially true in the case of the very Fine burnished Ware of class 5, where on 771 rims found 26,3% of these were too small to be used (203) (table 2.14). Bases have been supposed to be mostly round, accordingly with

26

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

the few that have been refitted, since otherwise extremely difficult to distinguish.

Jars are incontrovertibly the main form of both class 1 and 2 (table 2.15 and fig. 2.5). One difference though is notable; whilst the percentage of jars present in the two groups is very similar (87% and 83%), the Pinkish Gritty Ware has a stronger preference for necked jars (Pls. 2.32.5): only 16% do not have a neck, against 34% of the Pinkish-Orange Fine Ware. Jars with no neck are essentially large bowls or hole-mouth jars (Pl. 2.6), mostly with a plain, slightly thickened rim. The necked jars of class 1 have a much greater variability in the inclination of the neck. Cylindrical, slightly and strongly everted, and inward profiles are present, all on both short and longer necks. Rims are either everting (often on the cylindrical collars) or plain. From the shoulder of these pots it is often possible to infer that the body was most probably globular in shape and, in any case, quite wide. The 34 handles found appear to be all vertical handles, applied straight under the neck (on the shoulder), thus implying that the pots were held from above (Pls. 2.4 and 2.5). Class 2 necked jars (table 2.15 and fig. 2.6) seem to have a much more reduced variability (Pl. 2.8). Rims are generally plain and axial, and necks are short and never too everted. Typical of class 2 is also a less globular shape, or actually a jar with near to vertical walls, simply with a slight S-shaped curve towards the rim, often too slight to be called a neck (first vessel in Pl. 2.5). Unfortunately, it is impossible to infer from this variability any functional difference, especially because the capacity of these vessels is not known; I believe, though, that there must have been both a functional and a socialsymbolic difference between class 1 and 2.

The abbreviations used for naming such morphological types are given in table 2.13. P B G loB oB sB clB J hmJ liJ neJ Ne

Plate Bowl Goblet Low/shallow bowl, open shape Open walled bowl Straight walled bowl Slightly close walled bowl Jar Hole-mouth jar Jar with short “lip” (not quite a neck) Necked jar Necks

Table 2.13 - Abbreviations used for naming the morphological types identified.

In illustrating the morphological groupings, more than one sherd is given for each type, where needed, in order to expose the variety within categories and the level of confidence in the reconstruction of vessel profiles from the single sherds. Class N° rim sherds 1 Pinkish gritty ware - no surface treatment 804 1 “ - light wash/smoothing 29 1 “ - reddish wash 136 1 “ - red burnish 3 2 Pinkish fine ware 37 3 Burnished dark ware 188 4 Gritty Dark ware 119 5 Fine burnished dark ware 568

Bowls were mostly made with a slightly better surface finish than the jars, as the percentages of shapes for the various kinds of surface treatment show. This proves to be very interesting because, even though, in the technological classification, the non-treated surfaces have been separated from those with the very light clayey wash, the actual visible difference between a non-treated surface of class 1 and one with a very light clayey wash is really very slight, actually so minimal that originally I wasn’t even sure whether distinguishing them would be of any significance (Pls. 2.6 and 2.7). This strong difference in shape preference proves it was.

Table 2.14 - Number of rim sherds used for the morphological typology of ceramics from levels XXVII/XXVI.

2.8.2

The “Red” Wares

Tables 2.8 and 2.11 (paragraph 2.7.2) have given a quantitative idea of the different shapes in which the Pinkish Gritty and Pinkish-Orange Fine Wares were moulded. I will not go into much further detail here, because, as was already discussed, such data would be of little use in this specific work. I here simply want to point out a couple of characters in order to give a better understanding of the degree of shape variability and help focus more on the function these vessels might have had. Class

% jars

Of which necked jars

of which jars with no neck

% bowls

% plates

1 Pinkish Gritty Ware - no surface treatment 1 “ - light wash/smoothing 1 “ - reddish wash 1 “ - red burnish 2 Pinkish-Orange Fine Ware

87,93 55,17 70,58 0 83,78

73,13 41,37 54,41 0 54,05

14,80 13,79 16,17 0 29,72

11,44 44,82 27,94 100 8,10

0,62 0 1,47 0 8,10

Table 2.15 - Percentage of shapes present in classes 1 and 2 from levels XXVII/XXVI. The absolute numbers are given in table 2.11.

27

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

600 1 Pinkish Gritty Ware - no surface treatment

500 400

1 “ - light wash/smoothing

300 1 “ - reddish wash

200 100

1 “ - red burnish

Pl at es

Bo w ls

N ec ke d

ja ho rs le m ou th ja rs

0

Fig. 2.5 Graph comparing the quantities of different shapes present for the sherds of class 1 with distinct surface treatment.

2.8.3

this has been underlined in the typology (oB1/sB1/clB1 and oB2/sB2/clB2 have been kept separate), even though I do believe that the model (prototype) for these differently sloping walls was probably the same or a similar one (table 2.17). I would tend to believe, for example, that oB1, sB1 and clB1 might in fact represent the same type. The illustrations of these are at plates 2.10-15. All the drawn sherds of the class are illustrated, with no exclusion whatsoever, in order to give evidence of the internal variability existing within the types and also provide the instruments for anyone interested in proposing alternative typologies. This will be the case for the other two classes of dark wares, too.

The Dark burnished Ware – Class 3

Central amongst the dark wares in Mersin is certainly the Dark Burnished Ware. I will use for it the abbreviation DFbW (and Dark Faced burnished Ware when the name is written out) to refer to Mersin class 3; hopefully this will not cause confusion with Braidwood’s vaster term DFBW. Within this class we have earlier recognised a certain variability in texture size, wall thickness and colour, but very clear is also the uniformity of this group of sherds; burnish is the main element of cohesion, but the overall choice of shapes is so too. On a total of 188 rims utilised in the typology (table 2.14), 113 were of bowls and 59 of jars, indicating a preference for the former (table 2.15 and 2.16, fig. 2.5). Class 3

%

necked jars jars with no neck or with small lip bowls plates

2,65

Very large plates (Pl. 2.10) are also typical of this class of pottery. These too are extremely plain and non-elaborate, with plain axial rims. Jars (of which more or less 50% are hole-mouth and the other 50% jars with a small lip or neck) compose up to little more than ¼ of the whole assemblage and thus probably have quite an important role within the repertoire, even though clearly not the primary one (Pls. 2.14 and 2.15). Necked jars have invariably plain and axial rims (Pl. 2.15). More than necked jars though, these are simple jars with a small protruding lip, generally quite straight and vertical, hardly any higher than 1 cm, which makes such vessels rather belong to the group of holemouths than to that of necked jars. Real necked jars are only represented by 5 sherds (2,65 % of class 3 rims), thus clearly showing that this was not a typical shape of the Dark burnished Ware (DFbW). As has been noticed before, necked jars were essentially a Pinkish-Orange ware shape.

28,72 60,10 8,51

Table 2.16 - Percentage of different shapes present in class 3 in levels XXVII/XXVI.

In general, shapes are very simple, with no particular sinuosity of profiles, plain rims and no projecting decorative elements. Only rims 1 and 2 are present and a slight complication, basically a minor sinuosity at the height of the rim, is visible in a certain number of bowls. The typical shapes appear to be very deep and quite straight sided bowls, evidently containers with a great capacity. The inclination of the walls is quite variable, and evidence of

Quantities confirm what has just been said about the general simplicity of shapes, as the abundance of group B1 vessels (Pls. 2.10 and 2.11) demonstrates: a plain, quite deep bowl, with plain axial rim (table 2.18).

28

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

Type

Description

P1

Very open shape, shallow, near to a plate, plain rounded axial rim

P2 o B1

Very flat plates, plain, slightly tapered rim Open bowl with quite deep, plain rounded rim. Wall thickness is slightly varied Straight walled shape, plain rounded axial rim. This group has a strong dimensional variability Bowl with slightly closing walls, plain axial rim Bowl with slightly opening walls and squared rim Straight walled bowl, squarish rim, at times slightly everted on the exterior, roundish on the inside Bowl with slightly closing walls (very near to straight), rim squarish on the outside, rounded in the inside - bevelled in the interior) Open bowl with slightly everting rim, resulting into a light sinuosity of the profile near the rim. The variability within the degree of flaring is high and at times the rim curves outwardly so much that it has a horizontal orientation, suitable for holding a cover

s B1 cl B1 o B2 s B2 cl B2 o B6

hmJ 1

Hole-mouth jar, nearly spherical in shape, plain rounded axial rim

hmJ2

Hole-mouth jar with squarish rim Globular shape, plain, rounded, axial, but slightly everting lip-like rim. Type with very little standardisation Globular jars with very short and vertical lip or collar Group of necks with axial and plain rim. No indication of the vessel’s shape is available

liJ1 liJ2 Ne1

Rim diameter Ø approx. 36cm Ø 28-36cm Ø 18-31cm

Variant

Ø 20-30cm Ø 20-23cm Ø 21-24 cm Ø 26 cm Ø 16cm

Ø 17-29 cm

v.1 groove under the rim

Ø 10-20 cm Ø 14-16 cm Ø 8-9 cm

Table 2.17 - Description of the various shapes and profiles singled out for class 3. The size interval of rim diameter in each group (minimum and maximum size) is given, when computable; when a single size is given, this comes from a single sherd. Groups P1 and P2 are the only ones in which the rule of the smaller number representing a simpler rim is not followed: the two groups are characterised by a similar rim, but a different profile.

Type P1 P2 oB 1 sB 1 clB 1 oB 2 sB 2 clB 2

N° sherds Type 8 oB 6 8 hm J1 30 hmJ 1 v.1 11 hm J2 15 liJ 1 8 li J2 7 Ne 1 9 singles Total 188

difficult to interpret since the absence of carbon deposits on the interior does not hint to its use as a cooking pot.

N° sherds 29 14 2 13 9 16 5 4

A last particular rim sherd that should be mentioned is one of type clB2 (sherd 266/00) (Pl. 2.13; this peculiar and rare kind of rim, sort of pointed towards the inside, will be seen often in earlier dark wares, which will be reported of later; apparently this “beak” type rim is the vestige of a more ancient tradition at the site and its finding in this phase might be a remembrance of this old tradition (Pl. 2.40).

Table 2.18 - Number of sherds identified, in class 3, for each morphological type, in levels XXVII/XXVI.

Diameter size of vessels can give important information on the size and thus use of the ceramics; in our case, it is the only known dimension, since whole pots are extremely rare and the height of vessels has hardly ever been computable. Most interesting will be comparing diameter size of the 3 different classes of wares, but even within class 3 such an analysis provides some interesting comments. The size range of the various pots is in fact quite limited and essentially between 15 and 30 cm in diameter (fig. 2.6). A couple of hole-mouth jars are under that size, but rim diameter in such pots is not the maximum diameter of the pot and thus the vessels themselves probably still fall within the average range size (in terms of capacity) for this class. Plates are, homogeneously, slightly larger and were probably used as serving dishes or communal eating plates. Unfortunately little can be said about the size of the necked jars since neck diameter in this case does not tell much about the other dimensions of the vessel.

Four sherds were apparently unique and couldn’t be included in the typology (Pl. 2.15). Of these, two rim sherds prove quite interesting: sherd 273/00, in fact has a rim that reminds very much those of a particular vessel type belonging to class 4 (oB7), even though not so its profile (Pl. 2.18), whilst the shape of sherd 428/00 is quite similar to those of a class 5 type (sB3 I, Pl. 2.27). Two vessels might thus have been moulded in a shape that was not typical of class 3 ware, but instead inspired from the class 4 and 5 pots. Whereas this kind of situation is probably very common, it would be extremely interesting to know whether these two vessels had also been used as a class 4 and a class 5 pot. Sherd 428/00 is well smoothed and burnished, and very dark grey in colour, thus quite similar in aspect, too, to the class 5 vessels, and might have very well functioned as a small eating bowl, as hypothesised for class 5 vessels; sherd 273/00 is more

29

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

The great majority of pots in this class are hole-mouth jars (Pls. 2.18 and 2.19), with a presence of over 62% (75 rim sherds, as can be seen in table 2.13) on the totality of rim sherds. These clearly constitute the leading shape and give an indication of the main use of this pottery.

40 35

vessel diameter

30 25 20 15

Type

Profile and shape

o B1

Open bowl with slightly sinuous, plain axial rim. Bowl with slightly closing walls, plain rim (this type is actually composed only by 1 rim sherd from class 4, but it is kept as such since the other classes have proven the existence of such a type) Open bowl with flattened, squarish rim. Straight walled bowl, squarish rim Straight walled bowl, squarish and thickened rim, with a slight bulge on the interior. Bowl with slightly closing walls and squarish rim.

10 bowls plates holemouth jars necks/necked jars

5 0

Fig. 2.6 - Indication of all computable diameters (cm) of class 3 vessels. Each black dot represents a rim sherd. Vessels with the same broad shape are grouped together.

2.8.4

cl B1 o B2 s B2 I

The Gritty Dark Ware – Class 4

s B2 II

The Gritty Dark Ware, which the technological analysis has suggested should be composed mainly by cooking ware, is, even more than class 3, composed by very simple shapes. Plates and necked jars are absent and the repertoire is composed essentially by hole-mouth jars and bowls (table 2.19). Class 4 necked jars jars with no neck or with small lip bowls plates

cl B2 o B6

%

o B7

0,84 62,18 36,97 0

Table 2.19 - Percentages of different shapes present in class 4, in levels XXVII/XXVI.

hm J1 hm J3 li J1

Even more than in the Dark burnished Ware (class 3) though, variety within morphological groups is high, as can be easily seen from the figures (Pls. 2.6-21). Identifying homogeneous groups for this class of vessels has in fact been considerably difficult, because of a strong disparateness, both in profiles and in rims (table 2.20). This is especially true amongst the hole-mouth jars, in which rims are of a wide variety, ranging from plain axial, through all the scale of rounded and less rounded, up to perfectly squared (Pls. 2.18 and 2.19). The inclination, and thus the globularity of these jars, too, varies continuously. Evidently, in cooking pots, exact morphological models were not so fundamental as in other vessels. This might mean that such ceramics were not exposed and exchanged as much as the others, thus their shape was not a strong means of communication, or that each family made their own, thus differentiation would be synonym of distinct producers/users. These vessels might thus have had a minor role in communicating kin or group distinction. The greater heterogeneity of cooking ware shapes must indicate a different role of this pottery within the general economic and social organisation of the village.

li J2 I li J2 II

li J 3

Open bowl with rim slightly curving towards the exterior, with a bulge on the inside. Sinuous profile at the height of the rim Open bowl with bulge on the interior of the rim resulting into a small step-like profile, possibly for positioning a cover. Jar with no neck, plain axial, rounded rim. Type with a quite large variability. Globular jar with no neck, thickened rim with bulge in the interior Globular shape with short and straight, slightly tapered, lip and thickening at the curving point of the profile. Small globular vessels with hint of short but straight collar. Plain axial rim Small globular vessels with hint of short but straight collar. Vessel walls are much thicker than in 1I and the rim thickens even further at the curving point of the profile. Globular jar with a small flaring collar.

Rim diameter

Variant

Ø 22cm

Ø 20-26 cm Ø 30cm Ø 34cm Ø 18-22cm

v. 1 impressed decoration

Ø 18-24 cm

Ø 24-28cm

Ø 16-26 cm

v. 1 impressed decoration

Ø 20-30cm Ø 11-20cm

Ø 12-22 cm Ø 28-40 cm

Ø 17-20 cm

Table 2.20 - Description of the various shapes and profiles singled out in class 4. The size interval of vessel rim diameter in each group (minimum and maximum size) is given, when computable; when a single size is given, this comes from a single sherd.

Considerable though is also the amount of bowls found (Pls. 2.16-2.18), which strongly remind shapes of the Dark burnished Ware (DFbW – class 3). Shapes are similar to 30

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

those seen in class 3, except for one type, oB7, which was absent in the Dark Faced burnished Ware (table 2.22). This group is characterised by a small step-like profile on the interior of the rim, which could well be interpreted as an indentation on which rested the cover of the pot, item this quite common on cooking ware. The fact that neither class 3 nor class 5 vessels seem to have this would confirm its exclusive link with cooking ware; unfortunately, no fragments of covers have as yet been found to be able to confirm this. The sB2 group too, might suggest this, since various rims tend to be wider and slightly indented, whereas sB2 rims in class 3 are simply flat (table 2.20).

Even though more or less similar, there is a general tendency for larger sizes amongst the class 4 vessels compared to those of class 3 (fig. 2.7). Bowl diameters range between 20 and 35 cm, whilst in class 3 many were under 20 cm. Hole-mouth jars, too, mostly range around and over 20 cm, where class 3 vessels were mostly around 15 cm. This, even though slight, distinction in vessel dimensions, is in my view a further confirmation of the independent character and function that the two classes of wares have.

Another particularity of the Gritty Dark Ware is apparently the greater frequency of jars with a lip, or a small collar (Pls. 2.20 and 2.21). These are basically hole-mouth jars to which the rim has slightly grown, but their capacity and overall shape is exactly like that of hole-mouth jars, reason for which I have not catalogued them as necked jars. Such shapes, though present, were not so common in class 3 Dark Faced burnished Ware. Lastly, compared to that class, this group of ceramics has fewer deep and capacious bowls (table 2.21).

Class 5 of very pure tempered ware, extremely thin vessel walls and incredibly well finished surfaces, is certainly “The Fine Ware” of Yumuktepe. Be it a prestigious ware or be it simply the “good set” of pottery, its particular social as well as technical function and value is confirmed by the distinctiveness of shapes in which this pottery is moulded.

2.8.5

The first important difference with the other two classes is size (fig. 2.9). Homogeneous throughout, as it was for classes 3 and 4, all vessels are much smaller in this group, fact this which further strengthens the distinction of this class from the others. The great majority of pots have a mouth opening between 10 and 15 cm in diameter, and only goblets are, obvious enough, a little smaller, as well as the mouth openings of necked jars. Interestingly, plates have the same diameter as bowls, fact this which was not true in the Dark Faced burnished Ware (class 3), where the first were always wider (Pl. 2.22). One really wonders what these plates could have been used for, since they hardly ever reach 15 cm in diameter, that’s exactly the size of a modern dish of a small espresso cup. Their size, exactly like that of the cups, does make me suppose they could be used in combination, for “sitting” the cups on.

Type N° sherds Type N° sherds Type N° sherds o B1 9 cl B1 1 li J1 4 o B2 6 cl B2 6 li J2 I 4 o B6 5 cl B2 v.1 4 li J2 II 4 o B7 3 hm J1 37 liJ 3 6 s B2 I 3 hm J1 v.1 1 singles 4 s B2 II 4 hm J3 18 total 119 Table 2.21 - Number of sherds identified, for class 4, for each morphological type, in levels XXVII/XXVI.

Curiously enough, whilst among the class 3 Dark burnished Ware no examples of decorated sherds were found, two sherds (Pls. 2.16 and 2.17) of class 4 hole-mouth jars have an impressed decoration near the rim. These will be considered more thoroughly later, but it should be anticipated here that their rarity and the peculiarity of one of the two do indeed make them appear more as exceptions than as significant regular motives of the cooking ware.

The shapes too, as has already been noticed elsewhere (paragraph 2.7.2), are very distinct. Over 95%, in fact, are bowls (goblets and bowls are here considered together) (table 2.18) and the fineness and accuracy used in shaping this group of ceramics results in such a preciseness of profiles and rims that, on the contrary of what has just been seen in class 4, these bowls seem to be identified by stricter and more specific morphological types (table 2.23). Rims appear somewhat codified, even though their general characters are those already encountered in both Dark burnished Ware (class 3) and Gritty Dark Ware (class 4). They are either plain, or present a more or less evident bulge in the interior, they are rarely squarish and variously flaring outwards and sinuous. As the size, thickness is even and homogeneous throughout. Goblets are present in this class, but, because of the high fragmentation of sherds, it has been difficult to distinguish them (Pl. 2.22); in fact what differentiates the bowl from the goblet is simply the relation between the diameter and the height, dimensions that very rarely were known. It is thus highly probable that amongst the bowl rim sherds are also those of goblets. Another particularity, and peculiarity, of this class is the

45 40

hmJ

vessel diameter

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

The Fine Dark burnished Ware – Class 5

bowls holemouth jars

Fig. 2.7 - Indication of all computable diameters (cm) of class 4 vessels. Each black dot represents a rim sherd. Vessels with the same broad shape are grouped together.

31

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

presence of the only handle in the whole of the Mersin dark faced repertoire for this phase. Found on a small, I would say miniature, hole-mouth jar (Pl. 2.37), the tiny handle is attached to the body of the vessel just under the rim. Class 5 necked jars jars with no neck or with small lip bowls and goblets plates

profiles, no peculiar ring bases, not even flat bases, but slightly rounded bottoms, no composite rims, but, at the most, outward flaring and thin ones. The higher presence of sinuous profiles and flaring rims though, does seem to indicate a greater care in shaping these vessels (Pls. 2.312.37). Their fragile appearance furthermore, due to the 2-4 mm thinness of their walls, their small size and their shininess, would seem to confirm their singular role amongst the whole assemblage.

% 0,88 2,28 95,24 1,58

Differences in colour of the vessels or in surface treatment do not evidence any pattern within the single types, in other words, types include variously shaded and polished pots. Though it is probable that colour, resulting from the firing, varied uncontrollably within the desired range of dark tones, the burnish was surely linked to some specific use for which the vessel was intended, even though the presence of the unpolished surfaces might be due to technical reasons as well as functional.

Table 2.22 - Percentages of different shapes present in class 5 in levels XXVII/XXVI.

Because of this greater shape uniformity, I have tried to be more careful, here, in ascribing group names; I wanted comparisons between types to be immediate and also didn’t want to loose possibly relevant data by setting a-priori importance to the attributes. The leading idea of this reasoning was the hypothesis that distinct attributes, within the same vessel, might have socially distinct meanings. For example, the wall profile of a vessel and its rim; one might be functional and the other representative of the owner of the pot or the artisan that made it. Thus within groups, rightly formed by combining and identifying those pots with the largest amount of similarities, single attributes have been kept distinct, by giving them a specific letter or number. Numbers indicate the rim type, and it has been chosen here to link a specific rim to a single number, thus similar rims can be immediately detected in different vessel shapes (table 2.23). For this reason, it will be noted that in some shapes (indicated by the letters) certain numbers will be skipped, since rim types for those profiles are missing. The rule of the smaller number corresponding to the simpler rim remains valid, as in classes 3 and 4.

The percentage of well burnished, polished surfaces is approximately 60% of the whole class. Very complicated, when building this typology, has resulted the division of the differently sloping walls of the bowls and jars; slightly opening, straight and slightly closing walls are not always easily separable and there seems to be no solution of continuity between them (for example, Pls. 2.22-2.25). This problem was also felt with the other two classes, but here even more, because of the greater quantity of rims and rim types. For this reason, even though a division was attempted, groups of bowls with the same kind of rim, but slightly varied inclination of the walls were then drawn together again (for example, oB1, sB1 and clB1) (table 2.23). Impossible to know is whether they represent distinct types or simply slight craftsmen variables of the same model, but the absence of a clear distinction between these groups would tend to argue for the second option.

Shapes, though with a greater variety than that of Dark burnished and Dark Gritty Ware, are relatively simple: no sharp edges, but sinuous and continuous lines in the

25

vessel diameter

20 15 10 B

bowls plates holemouth jars necks/necked jars goblets

5 0

Fig. 2.8 - Indication of all computable diameters (cm) of class 5 vessels. Each black dot represents a rim sherd. Vessels with the same broad shape are grouped together.

32

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

Type

Profile and shape

Rim diameter

P1 P2 lo B3

Rounded plain rim, in axial position, with no thickening. Plain rim, very thin and tapered. Very shallow bowl, rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim. Bulge is variously evident in the interior. Goblet, plain rounded rim, minimal thickening, walls and rim are very thin. Only sherd 210/00 is identifiable surely because we were able to reconstruct the whole diameter and height. Where only a small rim sherd is found and we don’t know the relation between height and width, it is impossible to say whether the vessel was a bowl (oB1) or a goblet. It is probable that such fragments, grouped here with oB1, belong to the group G1. Goblet, rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim. As for G1, where only a small rim sherd is found and we don’t know the relation between height and width, it is impossible to say whether the vessel was a bowl (oB4I) or a goblet. It is probable that such fragments, grouped here with oB4I, belong to the group G4. Open bowl, plain rim with a very slight bulge on the inside. Slightly pointed. Variability in the inclination of walls. Some examples have a slight carena towards the bottom. Deep, straight walled bowl. Plain, thinning rim, slight bulge in the interior. Certain variety in vessel size, thickness and bulge.

Ø 12-16 cm

Slightly closing vessel walls, plain rim thickening a little in the interior. Slightly closing vessel walls, plain rim, internal bulge nearly absent. There is a certain variability in wall thickness. Straight walled bowl with flattened rim. Slightly closing vessel walls, plain but slightly flattened rim with a near to absent bulge.

Ø 10-12 cm Ø 10-13 cm

G1

G3

o B1 s B1

cl B1 I cl B1 II s B2 cl B2 o B3 I o B3 II s B3 I s B3 II

Open bowl with everting walls, rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim. Bulge evident on the inside. Open bowl with everting walls, rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim; bulge only hinted. Straight walled bowl. Rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim. Bulge on the inside is evident. There is a variability in wall thickness. Straight walled bowl. Rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim. Bulge is only hinted.

cl B3 I

Closing vessel walls, rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim. Strong bulge in interior.

cl B3 II

Closing vessel walls, rim is straight on the outside, whereas the interior profile sinuously tends to the exterior, creating an outwardly pointed rim. No thickening of rim in the interior. Open bowl with everting and slightly flaring rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior; thin walls. Open bowl with everting and slightly flaring rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior; thicker walls. Open bowl with everting and slightly flaring rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior; rim profile is underlined on the outside by a slight groove under the rim and its profile is slightly projecting from the general vessel silhouette. Straight walled bowl. Everting and slightly flaring rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior. The variety in the dimension of bulge is such that it was impossible to separate sherds in 2 groups. Straight walled bowl. Everting and slightly flaring rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior. Thicker vessel walls than variety I. Straight walled bowl. Everting and slightly flaring rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior. Small band on the exterior of the rim makes it project slightly from the rest of the vessel profile. This group shows a certain variability in dimensions. Closing vessel walls, everting and slightly flaring, sinuous rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior. There is quite a variability of wall sinuosity. Closing vessel walls, everting and slightly flaring, sinuous rim, variable dimension of bulge in rim interior. Vessel walls are thicker than in variety I. Closing vessel walls, everting and slightly flaring rim, with diverse bulge dimensions. Rim externally more pronounced and slightly projecting from the body profile. Closing vessel walls. The whole vessel profile is slightly flaring, plain rim, small projecting band in the interior. Small hole-mouth jars with everting lip. Small jars with slightly distinct, low collar. Plain rim. Jars with neck with a straight profile, rim is slightly everting.

o B5 I o B5 II o B5 III s B5 I s B 5II s B5 III cl B5 I cl B5 II cl B5 III cl B4 liJ1 liJ 2 neJ 5

Variant

Ø 8 cm

Ø 8-18 cm

v.1 impressed decoration

Ø 10-22 cm

v.1 impressed decoration v.2 impressed decoration v.3 projecting band on outside

Ø 13-18 cm

v. 1 externally projecting band under rim v.1 small band under rim on the interior

Ø 10-16 cm Ø 9-16 cm Ø 10-15 cm

v.1 impressed decoration

Ø 12-14 cm, 1 fragment diameter of 17 cm Ø 13-17 cm, 2 fragments have a Ø of 8 cm Ø 10-13 cm

v.1 applied band with impressed decoration

v. 1 very slight lip like projecting rim

Ø 12 cm Ø 11-14 cm Ø 12-16 cm Ø 8-16 cm Ø 13-14,5 cm Ø 8-17 cm Ø 13-16 cm

Ø 8-16 cm

Ø 7-16 cm Ø 10-12 cm Ø 6 cm

v.1 with small handles

Table 2.23 - Description of the various shapes and profiles singled out in class 5. The size interval of vessel rim diameter in each group (minimum and maximum size) is given, when computable; when a single size is given, this comes from a single sherd.

33

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

The different kind of rims identified are 5, from plain axial ones to more asymmetric ones, everting and flaring outwards. There is a strange rarity of flattened, squarish rims, that were instead frequent in the Dark burnished (class 3) and Gritty (class 4) Ware, which might be due to the less “elegant” appearance of the latter, or simply to the thinness of these vessels. Like in classes 3 and 4, the most plain rims are more frequently found (table 2.24 and Pls. 2.22-2.25). Type N° sherds Type P1

6

P2

3

loB 3

2

sB 1 v.2 sB 1 v.3 clB 1 I

G1 G3 oB 1

1 1 49

oB 1 v.1 sB 1 sB 1 v.1

1 57 1

The composition of shapes perfectly fits into the hypothesis of use of this fine ware as the “good set of plates”, the “dinner-service”; there are possible small plates (Pl. 2.22) that combine with small bowls (Pls. 2.23-2.36), goblets (Pl. 2.22), and small jars (Pl. 2.37). Calling the latter jars might be misleading, considering their size (see liJ 1 and neJ 5), since they are more like little temporary containers, maybe for serving foods or liquids from, and certainly not storage jars. It is mainly the small size of this repertoire and its high quality that brings me to think it could have been used for special occasions. In this case, the pottery production that functioned as the everyday ware would have been that of class 3.

N° Type N° Type N° sherds sherds sherds 2 sB 3 II 65 clB 5 I 14 1 12

sB 3 II v.1 clB 3 I

2 49

clB 1 II sB 2 clB 2

19 5 6

clB 3 II oB 5 I oB 5 II

21 9 8

oB 3 I oB 3 II sB 3 I sB 3 I v.1

12 17 87 1

oB 5 III sB 5I sB 5II sB 5III

7 37 24 9

clB 5II clB 5III clB 4 liJ 1 liJ1 v.1 liJ 2 neJ 5

8

10 5

Total

564

The more strict morphological typology of class 5 sherds and the recognition, amongst those vessels of very specific and distinct rims, is probably the only case within these three classes in which it might be supposed that such specific profile diversities could represent intra-site patterns, workshop separations, kin characterising elements. It has been seen though, from the random quantities in which these rims are found, as well as from their apparently casual association with shapes and profiles, that such a hypothesis has no proof and must still await further information to be tested. The general larger quantity of rim types and complex profiles amongst the Fine Burnished Ware, can be due, though, to the greater attention that each potter put into their fabrication and this search for a higher quality could well result into a greater personalisation of the vessel. Even though I am unable to recognise manufacture patterns, thus, it is highly probable that these were evident for the ancient villagers of Mersin.

6 8 2 1

Table 2.24 - Number of sherds identified for each morphological type of class 5, in levels XXVII/XXVI.

The quantities of sherds present for each morphological type evidence that the most frequent shape amongst bowls is that with straight, vertical walls (50,35%), followed by the slightly closing ones (25,7%), whereas not so common seem to be those more open in shape (16,31%). Compared to all these, goblets (G, 1,73% - but probably many more are amongst those rim sherds of which the diameter could not be calculated) and plates (or covers?) (1,41%) are pretty rare, as well as the small jars (J, “jarettes”) (3,01%) (table 2.24). Numerically, the most abundant rims are 3 and 1 (257 and 151 sherds respectively), which are the most simple and essentially the same, since rim 3 is nothing else but a rim 1 in which the inside surface has not been flattened enough (table 2.24); the bulge is in fact due to the last coil that has been left slightly projecting (Pls. 2.25 and 2.28). They are the easiest rims to obtain since simply rounded and on a similar axis to that of the vessel profile. Sure, it is impossible to say whether this is the result of a potter’s hand, being more used or simply more capable of moulding in a certain way, or whether it is a voluntary action linked to the vessel’s significance or function, but the much higher presence of these two rims, together with the overall strong difference in frequency between the various kind of rims would seem to argue against the second hypothesis. In fact, if all rims had a specific social or functional significance, it might be expected that they be present in similar numbers (if, for example, each family had their characterising rim), or that they be limited to distinct profiles (if a rim was linked to a shape), which is not the case.

2.8.6

Recapitulation of the Typology of Dark Wares

The main morphological characters of the dark wares will be here highlighted comparatively, in order to strengthen the definition and distinction of the three categories, but also to show their relationships. Size is the first important distinction at least between the Fine burnished Ware and the other two classes; considerably smaller than both of them, the dimensions of this pottery are coherent with the thinner walls and with their probable function as eating/serving “set” (fig. 2.10). Plates have a completely different size in classes 3 and 5, so dissimilar that a completely different use of the two must be supposed (fig. 2.10). Necked jars, unfortunately, cannot be rightly compared, since of none could the body size be reconstructed and neck diameter is not a sufficient element to build comparisons on. Neck size of class 3 sherds are the same as those of class 5, but it is quite evident that the vessels’ sizes must have been quite different. Between Dark burnished (class 3) and Gritty Dark (class 4) Ware too, some relevant differences in size have been noticed, with the tendency of class 4 pots in being slightly larger. Their use as cooking pots probably required quite large mouth openings, and the hole-mouth and collared jars (liJ1-3) are the most evident example of 34

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

this, since they reach up to a maximum of 40cm in diameter.

this might be due both to the greater care and energy that was dedicated to their manufacture and to the special role that these vessels had within the community, a role for which the desire to distinguish different pots might have been stronger, or even “compulsory”. Shapes that are exclusive of class 5 are, obviously, many of the bowls, but also goblets and very shallow bowls.

The profiles and shapes of the pots too, have shown evident distinctions between the three classes. The higher presence of hole-mouth and short collared jars in class 4, compared to the Dark Faced burnished Ware (class 3), is very strong and is probably the consequence of their distinct function (fig. 2.10). The absence of plates among this group of sherds, furthermore, would seem to confirm the hypothesis that these vessels were used for preparing food, but not for serving it, task this which was instead left to the other two classes. It has in fact been seen that Dark burnished Ware (class 3) is mainly moulded in the form of bowls, with fewer hole-mouth and necked jars, as is class 5.

The Fine burnished Dark Ware (class 5) and the Gritty Dark Ware (class 4) have few morphological similarities, whilst strong analogies are visible between class 4 and 3 vessels (table 2.25). This is especially true of hole-mouth and collared jars and of bowls that show the thickening at the rim, which, I have hypothesised, could have been used for positioning a cover (oB6 and oB7). Most of these shapes are totally absent in the fine ware. In general, walls that thicken strongly at the rim, appear to be rare in class 5, whilst mostly typical of the Dark Gritty Ware, as, for example, type sB2II demonstrates (Pl. 2.17).

Even though, these two classes have been interpreted as having similar use, the enormously higher percentage of bowls in the fine ware (class 5) (fig. 2.9-10), together with their much smaller size, does reinforce the idea of a specific and different context of utilisation of these vessels: small, personal, drinking or eating cups in this latter case, and large “family” bowls the others.

Again, classes 3 and 5 seem to show stronger similarities (especially in plates and closed bowls), but the contrast in dimensions leaves no doubt about their distinct destinations (see, for example, Pls. 2.9 and 2.21). It is evident, as has been have stressed several times, that plates 12-16 cm in width (class 5) and others 28-36 cm (class 3) were used in a distinct way. The presence of small goblets furthermore, and the extreme rarity of jars, in group 5, mark a clear boundary with the class 3 Dark burnished Ware. It was proposed earlier that this general shape separation between classes 3 and 5 could be interpreted as functional: the first might be used for serving and preparing foods, whilst the second for eating them in. The fineness of the latter though, might also underline a distinction in the context of use, with these kept for special occasions and the less fine Dark burnished Ware for everyday needs. The greater size of class 3 vessels might be a confirmation of this if we think about eating habits of present day, country Turkish people (and with them, in fact, most of the world’s population), who eat all out of the same, central, dish. In special occasions instead, single bowls and plates might be served out.

Even though the typology has been initially built singularly for each one of the dark ware classes, their comparison immediately brought to note strong similarities between these, in the shapes proper (table 2.25). There are, in each of the three classes, some overlapping shapes, some pots, in other words, that, according solely to their shape, could safely be assigned to one or the other class. It was thus decided that strong evidence should be given to this, since such affinities and homogeneity in the material culture surely denote its common cultural and social origin. In other words, it is believed that the conformity of shapes attests, if not a local, in the sense of intra-site, production of all three of these classes of vessels, at least their belonging to a same material culture tradition. Type names are valid in each class and represent the same, or similar, shape, no matter if they are in class 3, 4 or 5. Obviously, one enormous difference is given by class 5, where the considerably distinct size actually confers a singular aspect to the vessels. Even so, since it is sought to give testimony of the congruence and affinity present within the whole ceramic assemblage, the same nomenclature of class 3 and 4 pots was given to class 5 too; would it not further complicate, it would probably be correct to add a small “m”, for miniature, in front of these names.

Remarkable and exciting is, in light of this comparison of typologies, the reconsideration of the rim sherds that had been left as singles in the typologies of classes 3 and 4; some of these in fact appear to belong to shapes of the other classes. For example, sherds 428/00 and 472/00 (Pl. 2.15), that had found no partners in their ware group (cl. 3), are in fact moulded in shapes similar respectively to sB3I and loB4 of class 5. This might indicate that the potter making these class 3 vessels had perfectly in mind and was following a class 5 model for moulding his pot. This too, in my opinion, underlines a certain overall homogeneous character of this pottery production.

The first interesting consideration that derives from the comparison of the 3 typologies is that class 5 displays the highest number of morphological types and the most complex kind of rims (table 2.25). I have suggested that

35

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Bowls

40

class 3 class 4 class 5

35 30

vessel diameter

25 20 15 10 5 0

Plates

40

14

Necks and Necked Jars

12

vessel diameter

30 25 20 15 10

10 8 6 4

5

2

0

0

45

Holemouth Jars cl.4

40 35 30 vessel diame

vessel diameter

35

25 20 15 10 5 0

Fig. 2.9 - Comparison of vessel diameters in classes 3, 4 and 5, for the different shapes.

36

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

600

500

400 P B 300

hmJ liJ neJ

200

100

a) 0 cl. 3

cl. 4

Class 3

cl. 5

Class 4

Class 5

b) Fig. 2.10 – Total quantities (a) and percentages (b) of the different vessel shapes present for classes 3, 4 and 5. These shape categories do not consider vessel size, thus exact correspondence between groups should be cautious, when comparing class 5 vessels, which are generally much smaller than those of the other two classes. Vessels not given a name in the typology because of their singular shapes are here included. P = plates; B = bowls; hmj= holemouth jars; lij = lip jars; nej = necked jars. type class 3 P1 8 P2 8 loB 3 G1 G3 o B1 30 sB1 11 cl B1 I 15 clB 1 II o B2 8 s B2 I 7 s B2 II cl B2 9 o B3 I o B3 II s B3 I s B3 II cl B3 I cl B3 II cl B4

class 4

9 1 6 3 4 6

class 5 6 3 2 1 1 49 57 12

type o B5 I o B5 II o B5 III s B5 I s B5 II s B5 III cl B5 I cl B5 II

19

cl B5 III

class 3 class 4 class 5 9 8 7 37 24 9 16 8 29

6 12 17 87 65 49 21

Ne 1

5

8

NeJ 5 singles

4

14 13 9 16

5 3 37 18 4 4 4 6

ON

THE

YUMUKTEPE

On the role of decoration as symbolic and stylistic expression of material culture many scholars have expressed themselves (Binford 1972, 200; Wiessner 1985). Style is ON the artefact, according to Binford (Binford 1986), Wobst (Wobst 1977), Wiessner and Pollock (Pollock 1983), amongst others, it is added to the artefact. I prefer to view it as Sacket puts it (Sacket 1986): style is IN the artefact, not only on it, it is a way of doing it, it indicates the choices made in manufacturing it. This means that stylistic preferences regulate technological choices too. Certainly, the decoration on the pot is the easiest stylistic attribute to capture for the archaeologist, the most evident transmission of social information and as such it will probably be kept on being analysed. The analysis of stylistic variation can be used to detect cultural, spatial and temporal boundaries, and social, economic and political organisation. Furthermore, there can be different levels of stylistic patterning: from household sphere to regional interaction.

4

o B6 o B7 hmJ1 hmJ2 hmJ3 liJ1 liJ2 I liJ2 II liJ 3

5

2.9 DECORATION POTTERY

2 10

5 4

Table 2.25 - Typology of classes 3, 4 and 5 compared. The total number of rim sherds for each is given. The types in bold those exclusive of one single class.

37

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

In the case of these Middle Neolithic levels of Yumuktepe, unfortunately, decoration will give little information. Motives on the pottery are so rare, that they cannot be considered as characterising particular groups, shapes or sizes. On the total of 21747 sherds analysed for these two levels just over 60 had some clear decoration. Among these, the majority have impressed motives, more rarely incised ones, and only two cases have evidenced pattern burnish. No sherds have painted decoration, if the group of class 1 sherds with the reddish, watery wash are excluded. Those are 1222 fragments, equivalent to 7,29% of class 1, thus quite a high number. In no single case though, has a motive been detected; the wash basically consisted in an irregularly reddish surface of the pot (a couple of these sherds also had incised decoration). Thus, even though such attribute (the red coloured wash) probably had some stylistic significance, it would appear more correct to classify it amongst the surface treatments and not with the decorations. Interesting is the fact that, though not a main attribute and character of the Pinkish Gritty Ware (because too rare) this kind of surface treatment is found only on this ware. In the Middle Neolithic levels of Yumuktepe, the same decorative element is very rarely found in two different technological classes. Class 1 has cases of vessels with red wash, but it also has nail impressions at the point of juncture between the neck and shoulder, in necked jars (41 examples of this have been found) (table 2.22). These are mostly sequences of fingertip impressions, in which particularly evident is the nail (Pl. 2.38). Examples of such a decorative element are only on 0,25% of class 1 sherds (or 0,18% of the whole pottery), evidencing thus to a relatively unimportant role that this element had in that pottery production. class 1 2 3 4 5

n° 50 (41 + 9) 2 2 2 7

Also the three classes of dark ware very rarely evidence decorated sherds, nearly all of which impressed (table 2.26). Amongst the Dark Burnished Ware, 4 sherds are decorated, one of which with vertical cuneiform like impressions, probably obtained with a stick, laid out horizontally, under the rim (Pl. 2.38:6). A second is impressed too, with segments or lines (Pl. 2.38:5). Both are quite particular motives that no other class attests. The other two sherds have a not too neat pattern burnish decoration of criss-crossing lines. Though rare in Mersin, frequent examples of this technique will be encountered in contemporary north Syrian sites. Probably less characterising are the two designs on Gritty Dark Ware sherds (Pls. 2.17 and 2.19): one is a “collar” of very small nail impressions surrounding the rim and the other has a series of impressed segments of different lengths covering the whole sherd (Pl. 2.19), exactly like in two Fine Pinkish Ware sherds. Both motives have been seen in class 1 and 2; it might well be that these two cases found on the cooking ware were simply imitated from those classes and that class 4 was essentially nondecorated. Amongst the very Fine Dark burnished Ware (class 5) seven sherds are impressed. The motives represented are only 2 and they are slightly more complex than the ornaments seen until now. The first, found in two cases, is an applied, projecting band approximately 1 cm under the rim (Pl. 2.29), on which small vertical segments have been impressed. The second is a rocker impression made with a comb/fork instrument (Pls. 2.38, 2.24 and 2.28). Both these decorative elements will be seen, on exactly the same pottery, at Judaidah, in the Amuq.

technique of decoration impressed, incised impressed pattern burnish impressed impressed

Though rare in Mersin, these motives and techniques of ornamentation will be regularly found in other contemporary sites to the east and south east and thus hopefully help interpret regional interactions.

Table 2.26 - Presence (number of sherds) and technique of decoration of vessels from levels XXVII/XXVI.

Sacket states that style is in the artefact and not on it; is it then only the impressed or incised decoration that are evidence of this stylistic behaviour? What about surface colour? It has been hypothesised in paragraph 2.7.4. that colour might have a functional/symbolic meaning: at Mersin, dark pots have been interpreted as used for daily activities linked to food preparation and consumption, whilst red vessels are most probably linked to food storage or water collection. The two categories would thus be used by different groups of people and in distinct occasions. Was this effectively the case, surface colour, which is not a decoration in the classical sense, but an integral part of the process of production of the pot (firing choices and technology), would have to be considered as probably the major and most evident stylistic expression of the Mersin ceramic production.

The only examples of incised decoration from these levels of Mersin are nine Pinkish Gritty Ware sherds, in which clear incised lines are variously oriented, some intersecting each other, but mostly parallel (Pl. 2.38). Their very small number and the fragmentation of sherds makes it impossible to identify a proper pattern (table 2.26). Class 2 has evidenced even less decoration: 2 sort of combed impressed fragments are the only examples found, and their extreme similarity would even seem to suggest they come from the same vessel (table 2.26). The two sherds are covered by small impressed, dashed, parallel lines, probably obtained with some kind of straight comb. In no other Mersin sherd of this level have we found the same type of motif, but there is no reason to believe that these fragments are intrusive from other phases.

38

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

2.10 THE POTTERY PRODUCTION XXXIII – XXVIII 2.10.1

OF

fact be evidenced later on that the dark burnished ware was absolutely dominant in the earlier levels at Yumuktepe. Another possible interpretation could be, though, that of a specific function of this room, which brought to the use of only specific categories of ceramics (the DFbW).

LEVELS

The Analysed Assemblage

Unfortunately, until today, the levels preceding XXVII have been investigated very little, thus material from these is still not enough for an independent analysis, nor can Garstang’s publication be of much use, since he too exposed these earlier levels only minimally. Considerations can be sought, though, by comparing production with that of the immediately later phase. Levels preceding XXVII have been found, by the new excavations, in trench F2 and in the deep sounding SA, corresponding to a total of approximately 4 m³ of soil. The ceramics from trench H1, which has been interpreted by Caneva as corresponding to levels XXVII-XXVI (Caneva 2004), do have a character that might recall these earlier levels. Both these trenches give slightly varying information on the ceramics, factor that is plausibly explainable by their different chronological attribution. Sherds found in trench F2 are 319 whilst only 187 come from SA; it is thus quite understandable why these considerations should be regarded as preliminary and certainly subject to review with the first extensive excavations of these levels. The material from these trenches too, is highly fragmented and minimal refitting was possible. 2.10.2

In room A25 various fragments of a kind of thick plastering for baskets have also been found. Extremely coarse, chaff tempered and crumbly, it often gives the feeling it has not even been fired. Wall thickness reaches 30 mm, but the most interesting feature that brings to imagine it might simply be a “plaster” is the basket impression on the outer surface. Apparently, all these “vessels” are manufactured by pressing clay on the inside of baskets. Never is the inner surface (the one not pressed on the basket) treated in a particular way, nor is there any attempt at all to cover the basket impressions, fact this which makes me believe that the basket was not used as a mould, but, rather, the opposite way round, the clay served as protective plaster for the baskets. The size of such vessels is quite big and the shapes are essentially very simple, large, deep “bowls”. All this would seem to indicate that these were probably storage bins, filling the tiny room A25 of trench H1. These were probably regularly sterilised (and thus hardened) by setting fire to chaff and vegetal materials thrown inside them, as traces of burning and fire on various fragments suggest. These finds could indicate a function of A25 as storage room. Was this the case and was the room belonging to levels XXVII-XXVI, the rarity of class 1 and 2 sherds would certainly be strange. These have in fact interpreted as classes mainly used for storage.

Trench H1

It has already been mentioned, when discussing the architectural remains discovered with the new excavations, that the small rectangular room (A25 – Pl. 2.1), found in trench H1, has very similar characters to those of the main structure of levels XXVII-XXVI, in the central excavated area (Caneva 2001a, 27). The 14C date would confirm this contemporaneity. The ceramic assemblage though, shows some differences. Examples of the already known pottery from levels XXVII-XXVI are present, but with distinctions and characters that appear to slightly separate the two contexts.

Peculiarities of the dark burnished pottery from this trench might suggest instead a temporal distinction with the structure in EBA. Temper is more or less the same, but granulometry is extremely more homogeneous and all the assemblage is fine or medium-fine in texture. Thickness of the vessel walls, too, is more delimited here, whilst it has been seen that class 3 varied from 4 to over 10 mm. Variance is restricted in this case to the interval 3-8 mm, but with a strong majority of vessels being around 6 mm thick. Another relevant difference is in colour, since the dark greys, blacks and dark browns do not seem to dominate in this batch of material. Intense browns, reddish browns, even light browns are very frequent; the tendency is already that of a brown colour, darker than that of the pinkish ware, but the reduced surfaces of the later period are not reached yet. All sherds are well burnished, even though they never obtain the polished effect of some succeeding samples. Shapes too point out some important differences. Amongst jars, one single fragment of rim with a slightly protruding lip (liJ) is found and no necks (neJ) at all. Shapes are hole-mouth jars and very deep, straight walled or slightly inverting bowls. Rims are plain, similar to those seen before, but with a few interesting peculiarities. Rims cut abruptly, or straight, rims thickened in the interior, most of which were absent in the EBA building, are the most frequent and apparently typical of this context. Two of the 192 fragments of early DFbW

First important difference is the relative quantity of dark ware present; in fact, amongst slightly more than 300 sherds, 192 are Dark burnished, thus approximately 2/3 of the total, whereas in levels XXVII-XXVI classes 3, 4 and 5 together reached only 20%. Class 5, of Fine Dark burnished Ware is totally absent from this context and so appears to be the cooking Gritty Dark Ware. Fragments of Pinkish Gritty Ware were very few in trench H1 (approximately 20 sherds, or 6%), of which a couple had the reddish wash and 1 the red burnished surface. Other typical level XXVII-XXVI ceramics discovered here were less than 40 sherds (12%) of Pinkish-Orange Fine Ware and 5 fragments of class 6. This situation, compared to the level XXVII-XXVI contexts, might bring to hypothesise a slightly earlier date for this room; it will in

39

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

have impressed motives. One has a series of vertical moon crescents (nails), arranged next to each other and surrounding the whole vessel, whereas the second has a sequence of lined up segments (Pl. 2.39c) (Caneva 1999, 110).

way between bowls and hole-mouth jars (Pls. 2.40 and 2.41). Proper hole-mouth jars are present too (Pl. 2.42). A couple of thickened rims, optimal for supporting a cover, are present in a couple of sherds. The size of these vessels is considerably smaller than that of later levels XXVII/XXVI; maximum diameter of bowls is 20 cm and the minimum is 7 cm; very frequent are 7, 8 and 11 cm diameters. Last of all, the recovery of two impressed fragments too corroborates the observations made with the H1 material (Pl. 2.39c).

Distinctions between the two contexts thus appear to be rather substantial. In H1 DFbW (class 3) seems to have a greater importance than in EBA. More importantly, the characters of this pottery are quite distinct: lighter colours are frequent and greater homogeneity in temper size and wall thickness might underline a greater care in manufacture. Minor technical skill might explain the absence of the very Fine burnished Dark Ware (class 5). Morphological differences, as has been pointed out, are strong too. Whilst the absence of specific classes of pottery could, at a first glance, be explained by the different function of the two structures and confirm the contemporary radiocarbon dates, the technological and morphological distinctions would argue for a slightly earlier age of room A25 compared to EBA. The very small dimension of the context calls for further investigations to definitely understand this situation. 2.10.3

Trenches F2 and H1 overall illustrate a quite similar pattern of pottery production; differences are essentially the absence of bins in F2 and of Dark Gritty Ware in H1, which might be due to the functional characters of the excavated contexts. F2 and H1 might thus cover a similar occupation phase. The smaller quantity of pinkish ware and higher presence of dark ware in trench F2, together with the small colour distinctions, could also suggest a slightly earlier date of F2. 2.10.4

Deep Soundings SA - WA

The soundings carried out next to Garstang’s trench A, on the north-western slope of the tepe, reaching down to virgin soil (WA), though very limited and thus with little material finds, have given a first taste of the strong differences as well as the long life and changes of the dark burnished ware we have seen. 314 sherds have been recovered from these two trenches

Trench F2 – level 3

The attributes of the pottery from this trench are very similar to those of H1, in respects especially to the DFbW. Not a single fragment of the coarse bins comes from this area, but again, rare fragments of class 1 and 2 are found. 319 sherds have been collected from this excavation, 6 of which are perfectly identifiable as Pinkish Gritty Ware, 8 as Fine Pinkish-Orange Ware and 2 belong to class 6. On the contrary of what seen in H1 though, 22 sherds of Gritty Dark Ware have been found too.

Sounding SA shows the first important distinction with the later phases, which is the apparent absence of pinkish ware (classes 1 and 2). There are dark burnished sherds, with a character similar to that of those just seen in H1 and F2. Dark greys and blacks are absent, but dark and intense browns are the most frequent colours, walls are very thin, texture is fine. Three impressed fragments, very similar to those found in trench F2 have been found in SA level 2 (Pl. 2.39c). This Dark burnished Ware is found in all the WA layers except in the earliest two (WA 4 and 5).

Again, the majority of the pottery is Dark Faced burnished (285 sherds, 88%), confirming what observed in H1. No Fine Dark Burnished Ware is present. All technological attributes noticed in the burnished ware from that trench are observed here too. Thickness of the vessel walls is even more delimited, varying only of a couple of mm and mainly ranging around 4 mm. Granulometry is very homogeneous, with nearly all fragments being fine in texture (only 24 are medium-fine), and colours are dark only in a minority of sherds. 11 of the 281 fragments of Dark burnished Ware (class 3) are dark grey or black. Very light colours like in A25 though, are not so common and what seems to be preferred here are various tones of intense brown and a sort of violet-brown, scarlet, a very strong and particular colour that has never been seen in any other level or trench. Forty-seven (16,72%) sherds have this intense colour. All fragments are burnished, often also in the interior (88%). Traces of the burnishing are at times visible and they evidence a very careful and regular hand.

In one of the later layers of SA, 1 single fragment of Gritty Dark Ware was found. Instead, a completely new kind of pottery is common in the first three layers of the sounding. Its paste is highly sandy in temper, with a homogeneous but quite large granulometry, medium in texture. Fragments are quite thick, ranging around 8-10 mm and 1015 mm at the base of the vessel; the surface has a slip, light coloured (cream to pinkish or buff). Most of the mineral sandy inclusions are white, well visible on the interior surface, which has no slip, but is just slightly smoothed. The exterior slip is often also burnished. Another astonishing difference between this pottery and the dark burnished ware, are the shapes: for the first time flat and well evidenced bases are seen (Pl. 2.39a). These probably belong to bowls, as the retrieval of a rim seems to indicate. This group of sherds will be temporarily called class 7, but

Morphological types confirm the characters noticed in H1: very deep bowls with straight or slightly closing walls and beak shaped rims are very common. These are actually half 40

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

a proper definition of the class should await further excavation and the finding of more sherds.

the fact that the coarser wares (this is how he calls the pinkish wares) become more frequent than the burnished wares only from a certain point onwards, he does not note that, within trench A, impressed decorations are more frequent in the earlier layers than in the later ones (Garstang 1938, 102; 1953, 19). These attributes and changes though are reported of in the 1938-42 reports on the Liverpool Annals. With the aid especially of these earlier reports I shall here try to propose a correlation of levels and pottery finds from the old and recent excavations.

Summing up, it could be said that, according to the little information at the moment at our disposal, the first pottery production of Mersin appears to be obtained with a sandy tempered, thick walled but fine to medium textured ware; to this one, though, nearly immediately, comes alongside the Dark burnished Ware, which will undergo numerous transformations and adjustments.

2.11 GARSTANG’S CERAMIC FINDS AND THE NEW MATERIALS. A COMPARISON AND TENTATIVE OF COMING UP WITH A PROPER STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION

Class 7, found in the earliest layers of WA and SA, is difficult to recognise in the English reports. Not explicitly referred to, it might well correspond to what Garstang describes as salmon-pink slip on brown ware, or pinkyyellow slip on grey core. A confirmation of the possible presence of this ware, I believe might be illustrated in the 1953 publication: fig. 11: 5 and 7 in that report show two vessels with a light cream coloured slip, which might actually be equivalent to our class 7, early sandy ware (Pl. 2.39a). The two bases drawn in fig. 11: 5 further argue in favour of this, since very flat and distinct, as are those found in trench SA and WA.

Having analysed the ceramic finds from the recent and ongoing excavations at Yumuktepe, it is now necessary to compare the results with what Garstang, in his publications of the ‘30s and in the final Mersin report of 1953, had noted on the behaviour and characters of the pottery. This should not only help to better correlate the two excavations, but it should also give an idea of how the material at that time had been sampled and analysed. Disparities in observations in fact, especially when discussing numbers and quantities, might be due to this.

Turning now to the Dark Burnished Ware proper, Garstang reports its presence since the earliest levels of Yumuktepe. Even though he indicates sherds as mostly of dark colours, as black, grey and dark brown, Burkitt, who had participated at the excavations with Garstang, noted that the black variety of this ceramic group is “slightly more predominant” near the top of the lower Neolithic levels than at the bottom. Furthermore, he describes the dark burnished pottery of the lower Neolithic levels (7.50 - 4 m above point 0) as “never very coarse, but neither very fine”, which is exactly what was noticed in the earliest trenches excavated by Caneva (Burkitt 1939, 70). Shapes illustrated by Burkitt are essentially hole-mouth jars and deep bowls, as those encountered in trenches H1, F2 and SA-WA (Burkitt 1939, plate XXXVIII ). Sherds 17 to 34 in figure 11 of Garstang’s 1953 report could very well belong to this period, and probably sherd 19 too, which is very similar to one found in trench F2. All these observations seem to indicate a clear chronological correspondence between the “lower Neolithic” described by Burkitt and the new trenches F2-SA-WA and possibly H1 (Pl. 2.39b).

Comparing the first phases of pottery production in Yumuktepe with those identified by the English team is complicated especially because their report gives a summary of levels XXXIII-XXVI all together. There is no internal distinction, that can help separate what was earlier, and might thus correspond to trenches SA, F2 or H1. In the earlier reports too, Garstang considers the whole of trench A together, and his stratigraphic distinctions of pottery finds are quite hard to follow. Garstang has identified 12 different groups of ware within trench A, but it is very difficult to recognise with certainty the groups that have been described in this work, nor is their internal stratigraphic distribution clear. From this report it can be understood though, that the latest levels uncovered in trench A had painted pottery and were thus later than what has been called, here, phase XXVII-XXVI, where no painting is yet known. Some interesting observations are possible when Garstang exposes the “later Neolithic” layers (upper Neolithic, prepainted ware), since he does note some changes compared to the early layers, like the presence of finer wares and frequent short necked jars, that remind us of the Fine Dark burnished (class 5) and of the Pinkish Gritty Ware (class 1).

There are two other important elements that might clear this correlation: the first is that of impressed decoration on the dark ware and the second that of the appearance of Pinkish ware. It has been noted that, though quite rare, impressions on the Dark Burnished ware seem to be more common in the earlier levels than in XXVII-XXVI. Burkitt’s description is undoubtedly in line with mine: “if the proto-Chalcolithic was the period of the early painted pottery and the upper Neolithic that of monochrome fine wares, the lower Neolithic is the age of incised (or impressed) decoration.” Impressed dark burnished ware was, by the new excavations, found in all early trenches,

In the final 1953 report Garstang does not explicitly comment on the beginning of the very Fine Dark burnished Ware (class 5), nor on the rise of the Pinkish untreated Wares (classes 1 and 2), he does not bring the attention on

41

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

even though in very small numbers. As stated by Burkitt, in comparison with the impressed ware from levels XXVIIXXVI, its presence was higher in the earlier levels (0,88% against 0,19%).

The 8-metre line should thus probably be taken as the dividing point, in the old English excavations, between the later and earlier ceramic phases I have identified in this analysis. Above metre 8, but below metre 9.25, which is when painted ware starts being produced, are the levels contemporary to EBA, at least according to the ceramics. Under metre 8 are instead the layers relating to the discoveries of trenches H1, F2, SA and WA. H1, in my opinion, would rather seem to belong to this second group.

As for Pinkish Ware (classes 1 and 2), this is probably what Garstang refers to as “coarse ware”. I believe that the choice of this term is due mostly to its non-treated surface and not to the texture of the sherds, that can be fine, medium and coarse, exactly as the dark wares. Illustrations of this pottery clearly confirm their attribution to the Pinkish Ware: necked jars are present and some holemouth jars (Garstang 1938, plate XXXII; Burkitt 1939, plate XXXV). Strangely enough there is no reference to nail and finger impressions on the neck of these jars. As to their stratigraphic attribution, Burkitt has pointed out in 1941-42, for the lower Neolithic layers, “the total absence of the lighter coloured wares…,which had become so familiar in the higher levels”, as has been seen by the Italian deep soundings too.

A last interesting observation is that, between metres 6.5 and 6, the English excavations had discovered some “crude, half-baked pottery” Burkitt 1939, 70), which might be like to the bin-like fragments noticed in trench H1. Stratigraphic position, in metres above point 0, referring to the English excavations Above 9.5 m

It can safely be concluded, from the above, that the early levels uncovered in SA and WA, which have no Pinkish Ware (classes 1 and 2), no very Fine Dark burnished Ware (class 5), and some examples of impressed decoration, should correspond to the lower Neolithic layers that Burkitt positions between metres 7.5 and 4, above point 0 (table 2.27). Trench F2, and possibly H1, which have small quantities of Pinkish Ware, might be contemporary or slightly later and overlap with the levels named upper Neolithic by Burkitt.

9.5 – 8 Metres

4 - 8 Metres

If the chronological correlation and pottery similarities between the old and new excavations seems now clear for the earliest levels, even more so it is for the upper layers. Above metre 8, Burkitt locates the beginning of a “thin fine porcelain-like” ware, well burnished and often 2-3 mm thick. This clearly corresponds to the fine burnished, class 5 pottery (table 2.27). Below metre 8 this ware disappears, point this, that might indeed indicate the passage from our level XXVII-XXVI pottery to that of trench F2, which has no class 5 ware at all. A further argument in favour of this interpretation is given by Burkitt when he says that, even though the very fine ware disappears, a quite thin and fine textured pottery, burnished and mainly scarlet in colour, is still found in the immediately preceding metres (Burkitt 1939, 67). The description of these sherds incontestably corresponds to that of the 47 dark burnished fragments found in trench F2 (see paragraph 2.10.2). Furthermore, he states that the pinkish ware starts to decline under metre-8, and not that it disappears abruptly, again a coincidence with the H1 and F2 finds. Above this metre-8 line, Burkitt notes that impressed decoration on the burnished ware is rarer (exactly as in the level XXVII-XXVI pottery analysed here) and the presence of necked jars or vessels with everted rim in the Pinkish Ware (or coarse ware, to use Garstang’s terminology).

Dating elements in Correlation the the pottery with recent production excavations

Correlation with Garstang’s architectural stratigraphy

Painted ware Necked jars in Pinkish Ware Very Fine burnished Dark Ware Very few impressed decorations No very Fine burnished Dark Ware Decreasing Pinkish Ware Crude-half baked pottery Scarlet coloured Fine burnished Ware Burnished Ware, carefully manufactured, fine but not too fine large quantity of impressed decoration Absence of Pinkish Ware Sandy tempered, slipped, light coloured

XXV-XXIV

A40-A41

Large building in XXVII-XXVI trench EBA, (H1?) XXVIII-

Trench and H1

F2

Trench SA

--XXXIII WA

Table 2.27- Stratigraphic correlation, for the levels considered up to now, of the old and new excavations at Yumuktepe, based on considerations on the pottery assemblage.

The correlation between the finds of the recent excavations and their stratigraphy and those of the Neilson expedition of the ‘30s (table 2.27) cannot be considered satisfying until proper architectural levels are not taken into consideration too. In fact, the stratigraphic table proposed in the 1953 report (which considers architectural features and metres) appears to be in part contradictory with the pottery distribution just seen (Garstang 1953, 2). One cause of the difficulty of correlating absolute depths and occupation phases is probably also the presence of later

42

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

terraces built into earlier deposits, as have also been identified by the Italian excavations.

Morphology and stylistic choices too evidence strong affinities between classes 3 and 4, thus confirming, in my view, that they are expression of a same production. Last of all, the fact that class 4, as class 5, only appears in a second moment compared to class 3, could indicate that the latter might have been the inspiring model for these. We might thus slightly change Braidwood’s definition and say there is, in Mersin, a Dark Faced Ware (DFW) more than a Dark Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW). In this are included, in my view, not only classes 3 and 5, but class 4 too. Confirmation of all this obviously has to come by comparing Mersin to other contemporary sites and especially to the Amuq. This is the reason for which I will use distinct abbreviations for Braidwood’s broader definition of the DFBW horizon and for the dark burnished ceramics of Mersin. The latter will be identified as DFbW (class 3) and Fine DFbW (class 5).

2.12 ELUCIDATIONS ON THE MERSIN DARK FACED CERAMICS: DFW AND DFbW Having recognised and reviewed in detail the pottery sequence of Yumuktepe, it is now time to return to the central issue of Dark Faced Burnished Ware. This particular pottery production has been taken, for years, as the diagnostic element of the Syro-Cilician culture of the Pottery Neolithic. Can we finally be sure that the term DFBW is unmistakable and immediately recognisable in a specific kind of pottery? Obviously, the final answer will come only with a comparison between different sites that evidence this same pottery tradition, but the Mersin material certainly brings to some first observations.

2.13 DARK FACED BURNISHED WARE IN LATER NEOLITHIC LEVELS AT YUMUKTEPE

The first important aspect is the recognition of at least three distinct groups of “DFBW”. These diverge one from the other for both technological and functional characters; I have also hypothesised that their role and value was probably quite different. These three groups have in common: mineral temper and mainly dark surface colour. Whereas the mineral temper is not, in Mersin, a characterising and exclusive element of this dark ware, but of all the pottery produced at the site, and it does not thus give independent value to the “DFBW”, the firing was expressly controlled to obtain the dark surface colour.

2.13.1

THE

The Appearance of Painted Pottery

Separating the three “sub-groups” of dark wares, that have been recognised are, at a macroscopic level, paste texture and surface treatment. Dark burnished Ware (class 3) is fine to medium textured, with some examples of coarse ware; the Gritty Dark ware (class 4) is generally medium and coarse, whilst very fine is only the very Fine Dark burnished Ware (class 5). The first and last are burnished, the middle group is simply smoothed.

The introduction of painted pottery in the layers following XXVII-XXVI marks the beginning of a whole new ceramic tradition. In these more recent phases we assist to the downfall of DFbW, which does not disappear immediately with the beginning of painted pottery, but it decreases enormously in number (Garstang nominates DFW until Chalcolithic level XVI). These differences in artefact patterning, over time as over space, which reflect distinct material practises, are certainly also due to differences in behaviour, social relations and cultural understanding (Sillar 2000, 5). The introduction of painted vessels is the result of a change in cultural traditions and probably interregional economic and political relations. For this reason it is interesting to follow the path of the DFW in its phases of decline.

Classes 3 and 5, the Dark burnished and the Very Fine Dark burnished share the attribute of burnish and could more safely correspond to Braidwood’s DFBW “etiquette”. The Gritty Dark Ware though, is missing exactly this one very characteristic element. If we were to follow literally the definition of this ceramic production, this ware should probably not be included amongst the DFBW. What is, though, Braidwood’s category of DFBW? Composed of two distinct classes of ceramics, it is certainly not a class, but more likely, as he too states, a way of making pottery, a family of ceramics. Are we thus to view it this way, can we say that class 4 doesn’t belong to the DFBW? Can we not, in this case, trace a common and unitary tradition and origin for all three classes? We have seen that colour in the DFBW is a fundamental attribute. The explicit choice of using a dark colour for the Mersin cooking ware (that will be further demonstrated in chapter 3), in a site in which light coloured and red vessels were present and abundant strongly links this class with the other “DFBW”.

Data from the layers immediately following levels XXVIIXXVI is unfortunately very little, and the study of pottery from these contexts is yet at a preliminary stage. Definite counts are not always present and in some cases quantities will be expressed as approximate estimates. Garstang and Burkitt neither, help much in this search, since they are mostly concerned with the newly developed painted ceramics. In figure 20 in the 1953 report, in which the level XXV sherds are drawn, various examples of dark wares are visible, indicating the continuity of this production. Furthermore, shapes seem to be quite similar to those noticed until now. Descriptions of this pottery are rare and mostly limited to cases with decorations or special shapes. Garstang does note though some distinctions between the burnished wares of the earlier, Neolithic, layers and those of levels XXIV and following: the large number of red burnished wares and not only black, incisions and ‘pointillé’ decorations, often filled in white paste. Illustrations as that of figure 35, furthermore, indicate the 43

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

presence of necked jars, similar to shapes we will see in the Amuq, but totally absent from any earlier deposit in Yumuktepe. These changes denote that dark faced ware was not simply declining in the phases of painted pottery development, but its role was not the same one anymore. 2.13.2

shape between the decorated and undecorated sherds, thus it is not shape/use that determines the surface treatment. In this context, the dark wares have the same characters as before (Pl. 2.47): Gritty Ware (class 4), Dark burnished Ware (class 3) and Fine Dark burnished Ware (class 5) are all present (141, 45, 43 sherds respectively). The only possible difference noted amongst these is a carinated profile, quite unusual for the earlier Neolithic phase, and some rather flattish bases. Flat bases will become common in all the following periods, thus this might be seen as a first indication of change of the dark wares. The Dark wares in this context are apparently still quite frequent: an eye estimate, done by comparing crates of material suggests that these should be approximately 1/6th of the total number of sherds. Also colours seem to be less dark (Pl. 2.47). They are in fact, mainly greys and dull browns, reaching, at times, even beige tones. For the first time, the non-burnished surface of class 4 sherds is much more evident; sherds are somewhat thicker and attention to the smoothing too seems to have diminished. These sherds thus appear with a coarser surface than earlier on. Two impressed fragments have come to light, one of which identical to an older one (cuneiform shaped instrument impressed various times under and around the rim), and the second fitting well into that same tradition. Garstang, in level XXIV, has found quite a number of fragments of dark, burnished, incised and impressed ware, filled with a white, probably limestone, paste. Whereas the recent investigations have recovered samples like those, they all come from a slightly later moment, probably contemporary to layers XXII-XX, as will be shown later.

The Dark Ware from Levels XXV and XXIV

The first indications of painted pottery that have been found during the recent excavations come from a small north-eastern corner of the largest excavation trench (EBA). Only approximately 20cm deep, since the top had been cut off by an English trench in the ‘30s, this is the area in which part of a typical level XXIV silo was found and next to it a partial apsidal structure (Pl. 2.4). Trench F too, the excavation of which was quite difficult because disturbed by two ancient terraces (a first one, cut into the early Neolithic levels and dated to level XXV or XXIV, and a second one, Chalcolithic in age, cut into the former). The pottery from this level shows an interesting mixture of ceramic categories which very well illustrate the moment of passage from the DFW horizon to later painted pottery levels. Dark wares are present, in a proportion somewhat similar to that of the preceding phase (25%, 229 DFW sherds and 558 of light coloured ware), and with these mainly two kinds of painted vessels. The Pinkish Wares of level XXVII/XXVI instead, are very rare if not absent. The two classes of painted wares, both of light coloured clay, differ strongly, not only in the decoration, but also in the paste composition and texture. Both mineral in temper, one has a very high density of medium–small sized sand in its paste, whilst the other is of very fine texture. Decoration varies too, since colour is more faded and dull (reds and different shades of brown) on the sandy ware, and density of the colour is irregular, with very evident blobs left by probable fingers. The painting on the finer ware is of much stronger and intense colours, dark red, scarlet and brown, very often vessels are burnished and at times this happens after the pot has been decorated. Motives are quite varied, from horizontal and vertical zig-zags to wavy lines (the socalled yildirim), “chessboards” and variously arranged lines. As indicated above, decorations are indeed similar to those illustrated by Garstang for levels XXIV and XXIII (Garstang 1953, figs. 36, 52). This latter group is the one that will develop greatly in the succeeding period. These two categories of light coloured wares have apparently taken over the Pinkish wares of levels XXVII-XXVI. A confirmation of this seems also to be their shape, since most of the rim fragments found belong to jars and evidence of necked jars is high. Other shapes as flower pots with flat bases and near to vertical walls, trays, jars with very high and straight necks, and some bowls with the carinated profile, which will become so frequent in the Halaf period, are also present. The number of undecorated sherds of both the sandy and the finer mineral tempered ware is rather high, but it is also probable that in some cases such fragments are parts of pots decorated in other areas of the body. Furthermore, there is no distinction of

2.13.3 Ware

Late Neolithic Transformations of the Dark

The later Neolithic levels uncovered in trench GF, which correspond to Garstang’s XXIII-XX layers, indicate a stronger and further change in the dark ware production. The DFW, in some cases, reminds of characters that will be seen in the Amuq C phase, thus contemporary to the development of the Halaf culture. In Mersin there are still no clear indications of Halaf occupation in these levels; painted pottery continues to develop, generally on very fine pastes, light in colour, cream to buff and light brown, and some have white calcareous inclusions. Decoration is generally of curving lines, zigzags and variously repeated horizontal lines; necked jars are the most frequent shape, but bowls and other profiles are also present. Within these developments, the first substantial change in the DFW is the disappearance of the Fine burnished Ware, class 5. Extremely rare sherds of this very fine and thin walled pottery were uncovered. A new group of grey coloured ware is instead noticed, that slightly reminds the fine wares. Thickness of walls, dimension and profile of shapes and surface treatment though, clearly distinguish it from earlier class 5 (Pl. 2.43, last sherd). Paste and texture are extremely fine and mineral in temper, even though a 44

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

quite numerous presence of small vegetal inclusions is visible. The sherds’ sections indicate a firing similar to that testified in the Fine burnished Ware, with a beginning of oxidisation, followed by a reducing phase that transforms the surface into grey colour. Walls are approximately 8mm thick, thus well over the maximum dimension of any class 5 sherd. The surface is generally burnished, but never polished, and colours are mostly light greys. Black is not common. Flat bases and slightly flaring walled bowls (Pl. 2.43), never noticed in the lower levels, are present (similar shapes have been found by Garstang and are illustrated in his 1953 report at figures 54, 2 and 56, 2). Very large braziers and other vessels with a strongly thickened rim are novelties of this phase too (compare to Garstang 1953: fig. 56, 5).

thickness and paste, strongly remind ceramics from the site of Sakçe Gözü, to the east. If dark faced ware had already wholly changed its role and function with the passage from level XXVIII to XXVII, maintaining though its central social importance within the material culture of the site, with the beginning of painted ware, it not only further changes technologically and shape-wise, but its role certainly seems to start declining. The decrease in number is an indicator of the diminishing use of this pottery. Class 3, though, has a longer life span; it is still present, partly with the same characters and partly modified according to new technological choices, even though in a lower percentage. The disappearance of the fine ware can probably be explained with a take over of its function and role by the fine painted vessels. The fact that many painted vessels are jars though, indicates that this pottery was not a simple “substitution” of the Fine Dark Burnished Ware, but it probably includes more composite functions and roles.

The simple Dark burnished Ware, equivalent to the earlier class 3 material, too, undergoes some important modifications. First of all there is a great increase in reddish brown and dark red colours. The sections too show a different technique of firing; mostly dark in levels XXVII-XXVI, here at least 30% of the sherds have sections of very bright red colours. This is obviously linked to the different colour obtained on the surface. Sherd thickness tends to be greater than in the former period. Shapes are mostly similar to the earlier ones, except for the appearance of small lugs, totally unknown before. A typical burnished ware of this phase is a deep bowl, with straight opening profile and a round rim, approximately 8mm thick, brown in colour, but with the colour at the rim and immediately below it slightly lighter or brighter, tending to a yellowish brown or a reddish brown. These are the bowls that will be recognised in the Amuq phase C sequence.

2.14

CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ORGANISATION OF PRODUCTION AS TESTIFIED BY THE POTTERY OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE NEOLITHIC LEVELS This general analysis of the Mersin pottery has given interesting information on the modes of production. Knowledge on the potters’ skills is evidenced not only from a look at the finished pot, but from the analysis of the different manufacturing stages (choice of the clay and its preparation, the physical act of fabricating the vessel, its firing).

On cooking pots some changes appear too: generally lighter in colour, thus preferring the grey tones to the browns, the vessels exhibit for the first time variously shaped lugs. Furthermore, cooking ware in many cases becomes quite “crude”, coarser in appearance; surface is at times hardly smoothed, and some pastes have a very high percentage of sandy temper. The sherds that have this “more careless” treatment, hardly fit in the DFW group, as it has been defined since the former phases.

The clays of all Mersin vessels are mineral tempered, a character that gives them a good resistance, but also implies a complicated and careful firing, necessitating good control on the fire. The thinness of walls reached in many vessels too (not only class 5, the very Fine Dark burnished Ware, but also on many class 1 pots), though aided by the small grit inclusions, indicates a good manual ability. The capacity of obtaining homogeneously black or dark surfaces, last of all, denotes a great knowledge of the firing system: the reaction of pots to particular fuels, to the way and moment in which these fuels were used, and their response in presence or absence of oxygen during the firing, had clearly been noted and these observations were actively utilised in such process. The shapes and morphological typology of the Mersin pottery has furthermore evidenced a significantly strong relation between technological characters of pots and their profile and size. Furthermore, the overlap in shapes between considerably distinct technological categories is minimal. Pinkish wares with no surface treatment and a paste of medium texture, generally 6-8 mm thick, are used mostly for necked jars, shapes, these, that are nearly absent in the dark wares.

Quantities of dark ware in this phase are not available yet, but again, an approximate estimation indicates an even lower presence than that testified in level XXIV. A small group of impressed sherds has been found in the recent excavations in these later levels. Most of them are like those illustrated by Garstang for the earlier level XXIV, and consist of points and deep lines, filled with white paste (Garstang 1953, fig. 36). These are all found on dark, brown coloured, burnished wares, quite in line with the typical class 3 of levels XXVII/XXVI. Others have a rocker impressed decoration, on a light grey and brown surface, which in that point was not burnished. These decorated sherds, stylistically but also for their colour,

45

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

This relation between classes and types suggests a strongly codified production, probably highly charged with symbolic and social meaning. Even though denoting an excellent manufacturing ability, none of the analysed data gives us an indication of the existence of a specialised production, intended as the presence of full-time specialist craftsmen. In ethnology and anthropology a specialist craftsman is recognised by the time spent performing the occupation, by the proportion of subsistence obtained through specialist’s production, but also, at times, by the existence of a “recognised” title for his/hers production. In archaeology such attributes are very difficult to detect. Rice underlines that a result of specialisation may be standardisation, and/or major elaboration (Rice 1984, 47). What has been noticed in levels XXVII-XXVI in comparison to the earlier phases is a major elaboration, a stronger codification and certainly a greater technological ability: different classes appear and are technologically and functionally distinct. This is, in my view, not yet accompanied though by a real standardisation of production. Types are in fact rather varied and do not seem to repeat strictly their morphological attributes, nor do they suggest their manufacture by specialised craftsmen. Rather, many different potters (the women of the village? Each for its own family?) following the same model. For example, in class 5 (Fine Dark burnished Ware), the presence or absence, and the different size, of the bulge in the interior of the rim could result from different hands; the variously changing height of the necks of class 1 jars, and the apparently random presence of impressed fingers at the point of attachment of the neck, too, are probably differences due to the potter’s manipulative practice, to his/her motor habits, or to his/her receptive social and cultural setting. The codified and fixed paste-shape (classfunction) relation though does not represent a strict standardisation, but rather an economy of practice by the potters, who are able to repeat the same action frequently and without investing too much energy in continuous experimentation (Sillar 2000, 79). Potters certainly had a great experience, to a point in which we might even call them specialised. Specialisation of production furthermore was not something unseen of before; in different occasions, even for Pre-Pottery communities has it been hypothesised (Kuijt 2000, 315). This is the case of Middle PPNB ‘Ain Ghazal, where Quintero and Wilke to suggest the existence of specialised stone tool workshops (Quintero and Wilke 1995, 26). I do not think though that these were full-time specialists, fact this which would imply changes both in the artefacts and in the economic and social configuration of the society that are not visible in Mersin. The architectural finds too, though not abundant, do not appear to attest the presence of full-time specialised workmen; no workshops have been discovered. Only the silos/storage area and the animal pens of levels XXV and XXIV had suggested the communal character of some activities and thus the presence of “community” shepherds and guardians, but this is no evidence that these be fulltime specialists. 46

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

47

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

48

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

49

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

50

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

51

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

52

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

53

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

54

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

55

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

56

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

57

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

58

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

59

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

60

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

61

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

62

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

63

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

64

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

65

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

66

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

67

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

68

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

69

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

70

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

71

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

72

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

73

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

74

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

75

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

76

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

77

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

78

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

79

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

80

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

81

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

82

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

83

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

84

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

85

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

86

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

87

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

88

2 – Mersin - Yumuktepe

89

CHAPTER 3 ARCHAEOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE POTTERY 3.1

SCIENCE AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Physical, biological and geological sciences have by now become integral parts of archaeological analysis, both on the field and back in laboratories, when studying the material remains of past societies. The characterisation of objects or other archaeological remains, in fact, gives invaluable information on technology, craftsmanship, function and use of objects, economic organisation, exchange and movement of material culture, origins of resources, and so on (Bishop et al. 1982). Sherds from broken pottery have several macroscopic attributes, like decoration, colour, shape, surface treatment, that promote its role as a cultural and chronological indicator. These have been looked at quite extensively, for the Yumuktepe pottery. The microscopic properties of these sherds, which will be the object of analysis in this chapter, may answer, instead, questions concerning technology, function, origin, exchange, fundamental for a complete comprehension of the qualities and meanings of the pottery (Kingery 1996: 185), as well as for invaluable information on the modes of manufacture, through which clues to the organisation of labour can be inferred (Arnold et al. 1991). Pottery, in a strictly geological sense, can be seen as a “metamorphosed” sedimentary rock, with clays as main ingredient, and to which tempering materials, as sand, grit, or organic materials as chaff or shell, are added (Glascock 1992: 11). The recognition of sources of clays, as can be easily imagined, is more difficult than that of other materials, as obsidian, for example, in which case the sources are generally very distinct; clays are abundant all over and minerals characterising ceramic pastes are generally common to vast areas. In this work, various are the issues that archaeometric analysis could help solve. The first is that of the proper definition of DFBW. Still debated amongst scholars, the particularity of its technological characters, of which there has been a scent in chapter 2, can hopefully be thoroughly understood with a characterisation of the pottery. Does the Mersin DFBW distinguish itself from the rest of the pottery production also in its composition? Was, thus, a specific paste chosen for this pottery or was it realised simply by using a particular technology? The classification of the pottery in Yumuktepe has brought to the identification of 3 distinct classes amongst the dark coloured, mineral tempered pottery; are these three linked

by the same or similar paste, and differentiated from the other two classes by it too? If particular pastes are actually discovered, could these be related to specific functions? Would they be responsible for the dark colour of the vessels, as suggests Marie Le Mière for the dark burnished pottery of Kosak Shamali, on the Euphrates (Le Mière 2001: 180)? Archaeometric data available on DFBW is minimal, most of the work having been done by Marie Le Mière, in regions and sites that, as will be seen further on, do not belong to the central zone of development and production of this pottery, but are more probably importers of it or of its model (Le Mière 1989b; 2000; 2001; Le Mière and Picon 1987; 1998). These, still, provide a guide line on the possible interpretations and characters of this pottery, in such areas. Matson, in the Amuq, has carried out thin section analyses of various samples from tell Judaidah, which is the “guide-site” for any research on DFBW, but these are published in the form of notes, within Braidwood’s text, and lack the proper qualitative and quantitative results of the analysis (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). In the present work Matson’s original thin sections (held at the Matson Museum at Pennsylvania State University) and the sherds from which these had been cut (kept at the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan) have been re-analysed and compared with the 4 Mersin samples . The Rouj team, furthermore, has kindly provided me with a small sample of DFBW sherds from the site of Ain el Kerkh. The analysis of these samples and thin sections has allowed, as will be exposed further along in this work, a further comparison of the dark burnished wares, at a regional level, also by addressing the issue of its definition, movement and export. These will be reported of following the archaeological, macroscopic, examination of the ceramics from those two sites. A central point that should be stressed is the sense of “cultural relevance”, between the paste with which a pot is made and its shape, thickness, colour, and decoration, in other words, between the visible and the invisible (to a naked eye) character and attribute of the vessel. As has also been stressed previously, the macroscopic classification of the pottery reflects cultural or behavioural constructs, reproduces culturally determined models. Technologies too can be culturally specific, since they are created through

4

To Dr Claire Milner and Professor Henry Wright go my greatest thanks for having given me this opportunity.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

intentional human action. For example, in Mesoamerica, the Aztecs alloyed gold with copper because both were of a shiny yellow colour and thus more precious to their eyes. The alloyed gold was, to them, the purest, the most precious, a value that none of the Spanish invaders could obviously understand (Jones 2002: 92).

colour of the DFbW/DFW derives from a deliberate choice of the firing atmosphere. The temperatures would give indication of the technical capacity and hint to the possible firing “structure”. Once characterised the DFbW of Mersin and discovered its differences or similarities with the other pottery classes at the site, it would be quite relevant to understand whether this pottery was locally made or imported, answer this that can only be searched through comparisons with geological data of the area, local clays and by comparing the compositions of all ceramics of the site.

Specific components though, might, at times, not be relevant for the recognition and definition of a class of artefacts, as specific macroscopic attributes might not be. It is often statistics that we use to identify the relevant and irrelevant attributes. Another important aspect to keep in mind is that our knowledge is not the potters’ knowledge. Properties of materials might be known to us, but not necessarily to the prehistoric craftsman. Whilst we suppose that they did realise, most of the time, through experimentation and innovation, that the use of a particular paste gave the object specific properties and attributes (ex. greater resistance of the pot or better impermeability), we should furthermore remind ourselves that it was not always functional/use performance that prehistoric potters searched with their technological choices.

3.2 THE ANALYSIS. METHODS, DATA PROCESSING ISSUES

3.2.2 Experimental Methods: Mineralogical and Petrographic Analysis.

Chemical,

Chemical analysis (Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry ICP-AES) and mineralogical analysis (X-Ray Powder Diffraction) were performed on all samples. Thin section examination at the polarized light microscope was chosen for the identification of compositional, structural and texture characters of the paste (the results of the latter are still being elaborated. General petrographic observations will be made in this work, but 5 the final results will be published elsewhere) .

EXPERIMENTAL AND STATISTICAL

ICP is a quantitative analysis that determines the presence and quantity of chemical elements in the sample. Such a method is based on the principle that the electrons of the atoms of every chemical element, when excited, release light of a particular wave length (Renfrew and Bahn 1991: 316). The sample, in a solution, is atomised and excited in a plasma, at very high temperatures (6000°C). Chemical analyses were performed at the ITABC - C.N.R. (Rome, Italy) using a Perkin Elmer Plasma 40 (ICP) emission spectrometer on 0.1 g of ceramic powder, taken from the same 1cm² powdered sample described above6. Solutions were prepared with 4 ml of HF and 2 ml of HClO4 ; this was heated, in a crucible, up to nearly dry the solution. After cooling, 4-5ml of HClO4 were added and again the sample was heated until the powder did not dissolve completely. Solution was used diluted in distilled H2O (100mg/25ml).

3.2.1 Which are the pottery characters that can answer the questions? In the characterisation of pottery pastes, the clay itself may be distinctive, but more often it is the inclusions, minerals or rocks, that are characteristic (Renfrew and Bahn 1991: 315). These can be naturally present in the clay or added deliberately. Whilst this makes analysis more complicated, the distinction between what might be natural and what added is extremely important in the study of ancient technology and also of the possible function of the vessels. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses are necessary to characterise and identify pastes and to distinguish, where possible, the natural components of the clay and the added tempers. Grain size of inclusions too can be determinant in identifying attributes of vessels.

The Plasma Spectrometer was set to measure the following elements: Al, Fe, Mg, Ca, K, Na, Mn, Sr, Ba, Cr, Ni. Standard solutions for each of the 11 searched elements were prepared and used to program the computer’s software.

Information on the proper modes of vessel moulding, is in this case, not a major issue for microscopic analysis, since coils were often well visible at the naked eye and we thus already have quite clear indications about this. Surface treatment too was quite visible by eye, in the case of burnishing and smoothing; slightly more complicated was the detection of slips on the dark coloured wares.

5

Money to cover part of the costs was granted by the CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche), within a project for the funding of young researchers. The rest was achieved in collaboration with the ITABC (Istituto per le Tecnologie Applicate ai Beni Culturali) of Montelibretti (Rome), an institution belonging to the CNR. Work was carried out in collaboration with geologists Paola Morbidelli and Alberto Palmieri. 6 I am grateful to Mr Calì for the precious teaching and help in sample preparation.

Temperatures and firing conditions of vessels are obviously amongst the goals of the analysis of pottery production, especially in this case, since it is proposed that the dark

92

3 – Archaeometric Analysis

X-Ray Powder Diffractometric analysis, permitting the determination of the mineralogic composition of the sherds, was performed using a PHILIPS PW 1830 diffractometer with unfiltered CuKα radiation (40 KV, 20 mA)7. Data were recorded in the 3°-60° 2θ range, with a scanning speed of 1°/min and a time per step of 2 s/step, 1° divergence slit, 0.1 mm receiving slit, and 2° antiscatter slit.

undertaken. Next to the samples of the 5 main archaeological classes, I have also taken 2 samples from class 6, class which has a total of 66 sherds (ba 14, found in A 18 2a, and ba 17, from EBA 5 1g) and has evidenced, at a macroscopic observation, a very peculiar appearance and composition. The analysis of these two class 6 samples had the main aim of better understanding the real character and function of this category.

Samples, of approximately 1cm², were powdered with a small agate mortar to a grain size of less than 30µm and set on a round glass slide of 1cm of diameter.

Analysis started with the material from levels XXVIIXXVI.

3.2.3

3.3

Sample Choice

GEOLOGICAL SETTING

From the site of Mersin, nowadays slightly inland in respects to the Mediterranean coast, in very few kilometres one finds itself on the high slopes of the southern Taurus chain. Imposing rivers descend from such relieves bringing with them a great quantity of sediments. To these is due to the formation of the Çukurova delta, composed by Holocene alluvial soils (Geological Map (scale 1:100 000), Adana, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey, Ankara ). These Holocene deposits reach up to 10 m in thickness about 2km seaward of the shoreline, in the sea, and the sedimentation rates are estimated to be 10-100 cm per 1000yr (Bodur and Ergin 1992). Mersin is at the western border of the delta.

The archaeological, morpho-stylistic classification of the Mersin pottery from levels XXVII-XXVI was carried out on all found sherds (21747). For the archaeometric analyses a stratified random sampling was chosen, in order to include in the sampling the most possible examples of the existing population (Drennan 1996: 239). The first subdivision of the population, preceding sample choice, was that of the 5 main archaeological classes, but even within them further subgroups have been created, considering differences in surface colour, firing conditions and macroscopic matrix/grain size ratio, in order to represent, in the sampling, most variables. Within these subgroups, treated as though they were completely separate populations, samples were chosen randomly, with the aid of a table of random numbers.

The southern side of the Taurus is formed by extensive calcareous outcrops dated to the Miocene and is characterised by a strong Karst formation (Equini Schneider 1999: 14). The movement and slight variation of fluvial beds evidences recent, and probably still active, tectonic events. Most of the outcropping formations around the site are dated to the lower and middle Miocene. The Palaeozoic formations are essentially argillites, quartzites and Silurian limestones; these are followed by Devonian quartzites and dolomitic limestones. Diverse limestones characterise all following formations, in the Carboniferous, Permian, and Jurassic (travertine is abundant and visible on the hill and mountain slopes just behind the modern city). Outcrops of these are visible in various points of the coast and interior. The Palaeogene is essentially constituted by marls and marly limestones and the lower Miocene by limestones in ramp facies. Abundant clays and limestone of marine origin constitute the Pliocene formations and contain relevant quantities of fossils. A geological analysis for the building of a tunnel between Mersin and Tarsus has reported the following main rock units: Paleozoic dolomitic limestone, schist, breccia and marble, Mesozoic limestone and magmatic rock complexes (granophyre, gabbro, diorites), Cenozoic sandstone-marl-conglomerate and reef limestones (Türkmen and Özgüler 2000), thus confirming the above descriptions.

One major problem of such a sampling is the overrepresentation or under-representation of some of the subgroups. In fact, the same number of samples has been chosen from each of these groups, whilst in reality the absolute quantity of sherds per group is not the same one. For example, class 1, at Mersin constitutes 76% of the whole ceramic assemblage, whilst class 3 doesn’t reach 6%. Yet, the same number of samples has been chosen from each class. This clearly indicates that the representativeness of these samples is not equivalent. Being this a first study of the ceramics of the site and aiming mainly at the issue of DFBW, more than at a complete study of Mersin’s production, this solution was thought to be the most useful; a further study of Yumuktepe ceramics would surely remedy to such a choice. Fifteen samples for each of the archaeological classes were analysed. Unfortunately, for class 2, I was unable to sample a sufficient number of sherds. These are for the moment only 2 and thus not very reliable indicators of their group. Hopefully a greater sampling will be part of a further research, in which analysis of local clays too is

7

This analysis was carried out at the Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Facoltà di Geologia, Università “La Sapienza”, Rome. A special thanks goes to Mr Fiori and Mr Stellino for their help in analysing these samples and to Prof. Civitelli, then director of the department, who gave me the permission to use their instruments and facilities.

Volcanic activity in the region, indicated by ultrabasic rocks, started in the Cretaceous and continued at the end of the Eocene with andesites and basalts alternated with flysch 93

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

(Equini Schneider 1999: 16). Outcrops of these are visible just north of the modern city of Mersin, thus in the very neighbourhoods of Yumuktepe. No less than 30% of the rock species in the north-western part of the Mersin bay are ultrabasic.

reaches a maximum of 0,1/0,3 mm, even though cases with 1mm minerals have also been observed (calcite crystals, pyroxene grains). Lithic fragments are larger and can reach 2 or occasionally 3mm. In the 23% of samples with rare non plastic materials, mineral size is mostly around 0,015mm and there is often no mineral size distinction between matrix and skeleton. Most samples (76%) show a low degree of sorting.

Partly covered by the Miocene carbonates, in the Mersin area, is an approximately 6 km thick ophiolitic massif. This is a 60 km long NE-SW trending complex, composed by three distinctive structural elements: an ophiolitic mélange, a subophiolitic metamorphic sole and ultramafic and mafic rocks (Parlak and Delaloye 1999: 147). The ophiolitic mélange consists of conglomerates, sandstones, shales, mudstones, radiolarites, blocks of Permian to Cretaceous limestones, serpentinised harzburgites, gabbros, basalts, fragments of sub-ophiolitic metamorphic rocks and granitic blocks. This unit is tectonically overlain by a metamorphic sole that exhibits upper amphibolite facies close to the hanging peridotite contact and greenschist facies downwards.

SEM analysis has evidenced that minerals mostly have a very angular and fractured shape, and have a non serial orientation within the matrix. Only in two samples (ba14 and ba17, both of class 6) a clear orientation of the non plastic materials within the matrix is evident. The shape of the minerals possibly suggests they are added components (temper) not belonging to the clay matrix, whilst the rare mineral orientation would hint to a mode of fabrication of these ceramics with coils, as has already been observed macroscopically. The two samples with a clear orientation of the minerals, parallel to the sherd’s surface, might instead indicate the use of the “slab technique” for their manufacture; bands of clay were probably formed in slabs and then attached one to the other.

These few data on the geology of the Mersin region are fundamental for understanding the origin of the ceramics, the compositions of which have been analysed and will be reported next, especially in the rareness, as in this case, of analysis on local clays.

3.4

RESULTS

3.4.1

Petrographic Analysis

Observations at the optical microscope have also confirmed the definitions of surface treatments of the different samples. Burnish has been identified in 29 samples, all of classes 3 and 5; class 5 sherds have evidenced a much finer burnish/polish than the class 3 sherds. The single red coloured class 5 sample analysed (ba86) has furthermore evidenced a proper slip. None of the other samples have instead evidenced burnish or slip.

Some general observations will be made here on the thin analysed sections (total of 64 samples) with a light polarized microscope and a SEM (full results of the petrographic analysis are being published elsewhere ).

Only 15% of the samples have a non carbonatic matrix; in general, the majority of samples have a paste matrix with high carbonate content. As to what concerns the skeleton, common to the great majority of samples, even though in varying abundance, are: quartz grains, plagioclase, calcite, biotite laths, pyroxene grains, feldspar, and minute Fe-Ti oxide grains (Balossi and Morbidelli 2005). On top of this basic component, some samples then evidence other specific crystals, as iddingsitised olivine (31%), large and abundant calcite crystals (9%), basic volcanic fragments (11%). The calcite grains have kinked twin-planes, euhedral and angular cristal borders with no reaction coronas, thus possibly suggesting a rather low firing temperature. Other samples, though always characterised by the same basic components, thus suggesting a common or near origin, have given evidence also of other mineral inclusions, as metamorphic or intrusive rocks, and schists. These might be added or proper to clays collected from distinct areas. Apart from these particular situations, the same mineralogical and lithic components recur in most samples and the distinction between them essentially falls in the different reciprocal ratios of such components.

Porosity of sherds is quite variable (1-15 vol%); most samples (76%) appear to be rather porous, with pores varying in dimension and shape: from sub-rounded to elongated, in general parallel to the surface of the sherd. In approximately 8% of the samples, porosity is low and in 15% of the cases minimal or absent. On the basis of the shape and direction of the pores, which are mostly parallel to the sherds’ surface, it can be deduced that these must be mainly due to shrinkage of the paste on occasion of the drying and firing and not to the presence of vegetal inclusions. Microscopic observation has furthermore identified no trace of straw or other vegetal temper, thus confirming that such pores were due to firing. Macroscopic observations too had seen exclusively mineral temper in all Mersin ceramics. The incidence of non plastic materials within the matrix ranges between 20 and 30vol% in most of the studied samples. Only in some samples (23%), which resulted as all belonging to the very fine class 5 sherds, these were much rarer. Mineral size varies greatly and generally

The absence of calcite of secondary formations in the majority of samples excludes post-depositional contamination of sherds from water deposits. 94

3 – Archaeometric Analysis

Some samples evidence fossils (18%) and some ARFs (argillaceous rock fragments) (36%), probably part of the clay matrix, whilst 12 sherds (from all classes) evidence chamotte, most obviously as added material.

The last identified group of sherds, that with volcanic rock fragments, is, this too, only composed by samples of a single class (DFbW, class 3; 6 sherds). Two samples further differentiate themselves from the rest of the assemblage because of the presence of schists. Mineralogical components of the paste are mainly calcite, muscovite, pyroxene, quartz, plagioclase, K-feldspar grains, in which schists are dispersed. These are the two class 6 samples, for which we had already noticed also a different mode of manufacture.

When crossing this data with that of the archaeological classes of the analysed samples, some interesting observations emerge. First of all, the samples with low and minimal porosity all belong to class 5, that of the Very Fine Dark Face burnished Ware. These are also those with a low incidence of non plastic materials and dimension of crystals near to 0,015mm. Class 5 thus, even before looking at paste composition, already distinguishes itself from the rest of the assemblage on the basis of paste texture and porosity. Another group with rather homogeneous porosity and texture (25% incidence of non plastic materials, fine to coarse in dimension, within all samples – Wentworth scale) has been evidenced and included all class 1 samples, together with some class 3 sherds. A last group of sherds has been identified where grain size of non plastic materials has a wide variability, where, in other words, within a single sample the dimensions of non plastic materials range between very coarse and very fine; this group is composed solely of class 4 samples.

The petrographic observations might, in conclusion, suggest that the pastes with specific characters (those with calcite crystals, iddingsitised olivine, volcanic rock fragments, or schists) could have been used preferentially for specific classes (respectively class 4, 1, 3, 6); the opposite though does not appear to hold true, in other words, there does not seem to have been one single type of paste for each archaeological class. Rather, granulometry and manufacture appear to better distinguish categories of ceramics. Last of all, the general similarity in components of most of the assemblage might suggest that the clay sources used were near to each other and thus possibly local. Geological investigations and analyses on the clay deposits though are needed to confirm such a hypothesis.

Looking then at paste composition, the group of sherds with the “basic” crystals (quartz grains, plagioclase, calcite, biotite laths, pyroxene grains, feldspar, and minute Fe-Ti oxide grains) is that characteristic of 10 class 1 and the class 2 sherds, 2 class 3 and 1 class 4 sherds. Even though not exclusive of one class, there appears to be a preference of this composition for class 1 (possibly also class 2?). The other class 1 samples, together with 2 class 5 samples and 2 class 3 sherds belong to the group with reddish iddingisitised olivine. For the other 13 class 5 samples, it is difficult to identify the paste composition because of the very fine dimension of non plastic materials. Some rare quartz grains, pyroxene crystals, iddingsitised olivine or minute fragments of granitoid rocks, though, are at times visible. The presence of olivine recalls the second class 1 group of sherds and we will later see that mineralogical and chemical analyses in fact suggest strong analogies between these two classes. Optical microscope and especially SEM analysis have furthermore evidenced that the identified crystals in class 5 samples mostly have a very angular and fractured shape, thus possibly suggesting they were added components (temper), not belonging to the natural clay matrix.

3.4.2

X-Ray Powder Diffraction

Diffractometric analyses have evidenced the regular occurrence of calcite, together with quartz, plagioclase, Kfeldspar, pyroxene, and biotite/muscovite, in most samples. Calcite or quarz are in general the most abundant mineral. Present are also pyroxene and amphiboles. As evidenced by the geological setting, all these minerals are available in the area near the site. When mineralogical composition of the different samples is compared, some interesting groups can be identified. The most represented group, is characterised by the presence of Qtz, Cal and Kfs, with a low quantity of Px and Ms (Kretz 1983), as can be seen in figures 3.1-3.3. Thirty-three samples (51,56%) all have an extremely similar composition, with Cal, Qtz, Kfs, Ms and Px. Relative quantities of these minerals differ slightly and this large group can thus be further subdivided into 3 smaller subgroups on the basis of these variations: a first, most abundant one (22 samples) has, in order of decreasing, Cal, Qtz, Kfs, Ms and Px (fig. 3.1); the second subgroup (7 samples) evidences a high quantity of Qtz, followed by Kfs, Cal, and a low quantity of Px and Ms (fig. 3.2); the third subgroup is very similar to the second, but has a lower presence of Cal (fig. 3.3). A low presence of Plagioclase (Pl) is also visible in these samples. Muscovite is found also in a second identified mineralogical group, composed of 7 samples (10,93%), where the minerals present, in order

The samples characterised by abundant and large calcite crystals only belong to class 4 (6 sherds, 40% of this class’s samples), thus possibly indicating, for this paste too, a preferential use for a specific category of ceramics. This would be very interesting as calcite increases thermal shock resistance (Bronitsky and Hamer 1986; Wallace 1989), a quality that is certainly most welcomed for cooking ware; the preference of this composition for cooking pots might thus be actually linked to the function of the vessels. 95

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

of decreasing abundance, are Qtz, Kfs, Pl, Ms, Cal, and Px (fig. 3.4). A third group (4 samples, 6,25%) has a dominant presence of Qtz, followed by Kfs, Bt, Ms, and Cal. Eight samples (12,5%) indicate a reversed situation, with Cal dominating over Kfs, Qtz, Ms, Smectite (Sm), and Px (fig. 3.6). Peculiar is the presence of, even though very weak, peaks of some clay minerals (Sm), possibly indicating for this group of ceramics, a lower firing temperature than that of the other groups. The last two groups identified have a quite distinct mineralogical composition, the first (7 samples, 10,93%), with a nearly exclusive presence of Cal (fig. 3.7) and the second (4 samples, 6,25%) with Amphiboles (Tremolite) (fig. 3.8). Within the latter group sample ba14 slightly differentiates itself because of the presence, next to Tremolite, of Takanelite.

use of Calcite, which reduces thermal shock, for the cooking ware might not be casual. The last mineralogical group (fig. 3.8) is composed of 4 samples, two of which of class 3 and the other two of class 6. These observations are very interesting as they indicate preferential compositions for the single classes. As the petrographic analysis had evidenced, the strongest homogeneity in composition is that of classes 1 and 5. Classes 3 and 4 instead, even though clearly made with exclusive kind of pastes, evidence a variety of compositions (respectively mineralogical groups 2-3 and 45). This variability in paste for classes 3 and 4 had been seen also from the thin sections. Hypotheses on the firing temperatures can be made on the basis of these X-Ray diffractions. Calcite, present in all the mineralogical groups except group 6 and all of primary formation, as the petrographic observations have shown, suggests that firing temperatures did not exceed calcite decarbonation. CaCO3→CaO+CO2 reaction begins at about 750°C at Patm in the absence of CO2 in the fluid and complete calcite decarbonation is reached around 850°C (Maggetti 1982; Duminuco et al. 1996). The stability of calcite could be slightly lowered by the presence of quartz (CaCO3 + SiO2 → CaSiO3 + CO2) (Skippen 1972), but the burning of vegetable fibres used as combustible would bring this temperature up again because of the increase in the molar fraction of CO2. We could thus imagine a firing temperature somewhere around 700°C. The presence of Muscovite in mineralogical groups 1-4 too suggests that firing temperatures of these ceramics probably didn’t reach 800°C. Group 4 furthermore, next to Muscovite also has very low peaks of clay minerals, thus indicating a yet lower temperature for this group.

A comparison between these groups and the archaeological classes represented by the samples testifies for a certain homogeneity in class composition. The first mineralogical group (figures 3.1-3.3) is composed by all class 1, 2 and 5 samples, plus only two class 3 samples. Of these, furthermore, the class 5 sherds all fall in the first subgroup, whilst the class 1 sherds are present in all three subgroups. As the petrographic analysis had evidenced, these three classes (1, 2 and 5) have a very similar composition and class 5 is the most homogeneous of all. The second mineralogical group (fig. 3.4) is then composed only by class 3 samples, as is the case of the third group (fig. 3.5). These are the groups with the lowest Cal and an evident presence of Ms. The low Cal of most class 3 samples had also been evidenced by the petrographic observations. All class 4 samples fall between mineralogical groups 4 and 5 (respectively figures 3.6 and 3.7). The first is that with the most Ms and the low peaks of clay minerals. The second is that with an exclusive presence of Cal. Again, as the petrogaphic analyses had also evidenced, this preferential 3000 2500

Cal

Qtz

ba22 ba20

2000

ba50

1500

ba56 Qtz

1000 Ms

500

Ms

Cal Pl

Kfs

Px

Cal Cal

ba57 ba61

Qtz

58.7

54.7

50.8

46.8

42.8

38.8

34.8

30.9

26.9

22.9

18.9

14.9

11

3

6.98

0

Fig. 3.1 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 1a.

96

3 – Archaeometric Analysis

3000 Qtz

2500 2000

ba46 ba53

1500

ba55

KfsCal

1000

ba98

Qtz Ms

500

Px

Pl

Cal

Qtz

56.7

53.1

49.5

46

42.4

38.8

35.2

31.6

28.1

24.5

20.9

17.3

13.7

10.2

6.58

3

0

Fig. 3.2 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 1b.

2500 Qtz

2000 ba82 ba51 ba59 ba52 ba12

1500 Kfs

1000 Cal Qtz

500

Qt

Cal Px

Pl

Ms

59.6

56.1

52.6

49

45.5

41.9

38.4

34.9

31.3

27.8

24.2

20.7

17.2

13.6

10.1

6.54

3

0

Fig. 3.3 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 1c.

1200 Qtz

1000

Kfs

800

ba102 ba34

600 400

Ms

Ms

Ms

Pl

Cal

ba31 Px

Cal

ba6

200

56.3

51.8

47.4

43

38.5

34.1

29.6

25.2

20.8

16.3

11.9

7.44

3

0

Fig. 3.4 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 2.

97

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

2500 Qtz

2000 ba32 ba33 ba37 ba38

1500 Kfs

1000

Cal

Qtz

Bt Ms

500

Qtz

57.9

53.6

49.4

45.2

41

36.8

32.5

28.3

24.1

19.9

15.7

11.4

7.22

3

0

Fig. 3.5 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 3.

4500 4000

Cal

3500 3000 2500 2000

Kfs Qtz

59.7

55.9

52.1

44.6

Cal

40.8

37

33.2

29.5

Px

21.9

Ms

18.1

10.6

6.78

3

14.3

Ms

Sm

500 0

48.4

Ms

25.7

1500 1000

ba40 ba41 ba43 ba132

Fig. 3.6 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 4.

6000 Cal

5000 4000

ba9 ba10 ba42 ba127

3000 2000 1000

Ca

Cal

Cal

56.5

52.1

47.6

43.1

38.7

34.2

29.8

25.3

20.8

16.4

11.9

7.46

3

0

Fig. 3.7 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 5.

98

3 – Archaeometric Analysis

2000 1800

Amp

1600 1400 1200

Amp

1000 800 600 400

ba7 ba14 ba17 ba103

Amp

25.6

33.1

Cal Kfs Qtz

Px

59.4

55.6

51.9

48.1

44.4

40.6

36.8

29.3

18

21.8

14.3

10.5

6.76

3

200 0

Fig. 3.8 - XRD analysis of some samples of mineralogical group 6.

3.4.3

Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)

Chemical results (matrix + temper), run on all samples, are listed in table 3.1.

larger cluster, do appear to distinguish themselves slightly from the rest, as was, here too, evident from the mineralogical analysis.

Most samples show Ca-rich pastes (table 3.1), thus suggesting that near the site were Ca-rich clay banks or mineral deposits. If we plot the results of the chemical analysis on a diagram, as in figures 3.9 a-c and 3.10, we can more easily make some interesting observations on the composition of the analysed samples. From the Ca vs. Fe diagram there is first of all clear evidence of one group of sherds with particularly low presence of Ca, but rather high Fe; these are all class 3 samples (ba 6, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 102, 104 - fig. 3.9 a). Amongst these, a small number has the highest Fe content (ba 32, 33, 37, 38) of all samples and actually differentiates itself slightly from the rest; we could thus imagine two kind of subgroups. These differences are also well evident in the Fe vs. Mg and Ca vs. Al diagrams. Very interestingly, these two chemical groups correspond exactly to two identified in the mineralogical analysis (figs. 3.4 and 3.5); the first of the groups is furthermore that characterised by the presence of metamorphic rocks, as evidenced by the thin sections. All this confirms the distinct composition of most class 3 sherds.

The low Ca content of the majority of class 3 (DFbW) sherds, that suggests for these the use of a non calcareous clay or temper, proves very interesting since Marie Le Mière (Le Mière 2001:189), at Kosak Shamali, finds that the ceramics recognised by her as DFBW have a very low presence of Ca. She considers this element as diagnostic in the recognition of this category of ceramics. The high Ca content of some of the class 4 samples might be intentional; in fact the high Ca presence certainly gives a better resistance (minor stress) to the paste, since the thermal expansion, in the temperature range up to 600°C (thus the cooking range), is lower than that of Quartz tempers and similar to that of clay matrices (Tite and Kilikoglou 2002: 1). Hoard has furthermore pointed out that the calcium ions improve the working properties of the clay, thus pots can have thinner walls and be more globular in shape, thus further reducing stresses associated with temperature change (Hoard et al. 1995). The peculiarity of the high Ca content of some class 4 sherds might suggest that, in those cases, paste composition was intentionally chosen, but the fact that not all the class’s samples have such a character (ba 41, 43, 130, 131, 132 have lower Ca) leaves this issue open.

The diagrams then show a rather homogeneous group of sherds, the majority, that cluster more or less in the middle. These are all the class 1, 2 and 5 samples, thus confirming the homogeneity in composition that the mineralogical and petrographic analysis had also evidenced. In this large cluster are also 4 class 3 samples (ba 7, 98, 103, 107) which, in the mineralogical analysis too had fallen out of the class 3 groups, and the majority of class 4 samples. A last cluster, characterised by a particularly high Ca content is then formed by some class 4 sherds (ba 9, 95, 127, 133), all belonging to mineralogical group 5 (fig. 3.7). Last of all, the two class 6 sherds, even though rather near the central, 99

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Sample Arch. Cl. Al ba11 ba12 ba13 ba15 ba46 ba47 ba48 ba50 ba51 ba52 ba53 ba55 ba59 ba61 ba82 ba56 ba57 ba6 ba7 ba31 ba32 ba33 ba34 ba35 ba37 ba38 ba39 ba98 ba102 ba103 ba104 ba107 ba9 ba10 ba40 ba41 ba42 ba43 ba95 ba96 ba127 ba128 ba129 ba130 ba131 ba132 ba133 ba2 ba4 ba5 ba18 ba19 ba20 ba21 ba22 ba23 ba24 ba25 ba86 ba89 ba90 ba93 ba14 ba17

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6

Fe

Mg Ca

K

Na Mn Sr Ba Cr Ni

4,23 3,05 1,90 13,06 1,57 0,95 0,03 279 3009 135 60 5,85 3,94 2,34 8,74 2,43 0,81 0,03 308 4993 153 98 6,44 4,31 2,41 10,29 2,71 1,02 0,04 323 3635 128 80 4,27 2,67 2,17 9,44 1,11 0,27 0,02 185 2695 153 15 5,29 2,71 1,83 9,35 2,28 0,47 0,04 183 2513 103 140 5,48 3,36 1,62 8,34 2,34 0,67 0,04 203 240 110 153 6,08 3,21 1,80 9,92 2,56 0,69 0,04 260 4175 105 118 5,81 3,84 2,35 7,11 1,97 0,43 0,03 195 3580 140 133 5,8 3,47 1,82 10,57 2,07 0,77 0,03 230 3408 108 110 6,06 3,77 2,50 9,45 2,28 0,75 0,04 278 3538 128 155 6,41 3,78 2,11 9,84 1,71 0,97 0,04 333 305 138 165 6,16 4,07 2,48 10,22 2,22 0,94 0,05 320 210 193 193 5,87 3,59 2,37 8,96 1,73 0,96 0,03 297 522 137 97 5,29 4,3 2,94 10,51 1,53 0,56 0,08 235 243 253 390 6,09 3,74 2,09 10,50 2,24 0,72 0,04 298 4380 125 153 4,69 3,68 2,38 11,13 1,34 0,431 0,03 284 2425 138 143 7,164 5,07 2,49 7,15 1,85 0,33 0,07 165 4039 249 557 8,57 5,025 1,49 0,7 4,15 1,30 0,10 138 4150 108 140 8,64 4,451 5,43 5,90 1,44 0,38 0,04 71 2268 446 92 5,81 4,89 1,09 0,56 4,1 1,43 0,12 123 6173 138 163 6,82 7,34 1,1 1,83 1,97 0,89 0,03 90 6165 95 8,00 8,18 1,58 1,27 2,01 1,17 0,09 126 4684 73 28 8,97 4,23 0,92 0,45 4,19 1,77 0,05 113 3958 53 18 11,86 4,87 0,9 0,01 4,44 1,62 0,16 200 405 105 148 8,04 7,53 2,64 3,72 1,25 1,27 0,07 83 2755 108 9,28 8,14 2,13 4,41 1,28 1,44 0,1 80 135 105 65 9,22 4,13 0,87 - 4,56 1,48 0,06 163 353 85 95 5,28 2,59 1,72 7,95 2,31 0,43 0,03 155 3350 108 148 10,5 4,33 0,75 0,38 5,19 1,69 0,07 168 5763 80 108 8,95 5,12 5,49 6,28 0,91 0,35 0,07 70 90 85 143 7,14 4,30 0,90 0,875 4,74 1,59 0,06 133 513 70 105 5,48 3,23 1,92 10,37 1,68 0,39 0,05 200 195 180 248 3,41 2,66 0,95 14,20 1,28 0,2 0,01 300 2668 128 90 6,74 3,07 2,98 11,81 1,53 0,34 0,02 60 1054 432 25 7,89 3,79 3,36 9,67 2,60 0,42 0,05 75 2733 328 190 7,78 4,9 5,11 5,92 0,95 0,31 0,05 58 1348 263 20 7,73 3,31 3,98 10,44 1,04 0,46 0,04 58 1110 451 75 4,61 7,62 6,76 5,49 1,1 0,46 0,09 123 3333 608 940 6,58 2,82 2,70 14,74 0,92 0,30 0,03 56 1196 316 70 4,07 6,10 5,72 10,86 1,1 0,41 0,07 80 1858 480 710 6,28 2,14 1,78 15,10 1,05 0,15 0,03 68 40 398 198 8,98 3,10 3,07 10,13 1,7 0,4 0,04 85 875 433 170 7,71 3,13 2,94 10,49 1,28 0,22 0,04 40 18 415 155 7,52 4,52 4,05 6,59 2,29 0,58 0,07 115 118 463 238 6,72 4,53 3,84 7,12 1,16 0,57 0,08 133 188 460 200 3,53 6,06 11,99 4,05 0,99 0,27 0,08 60 2183 1063 1340 3,79 2,06 0,98 17,28 2,35 0,16 0,03 490 198 153 225 5,37 3,81 2,46 9,84 2,39 0,43 0,03 284 1932 151 194 5,77 3,82 2,29 9,29 1,66 0,36 0,05 163 2490 115 193 4,84 3,59 2,16 10,43 2,28 0,58 0,03 268 2118 118 7,06 4,49 2,94 10,39 2,23 0,925 0,04 354 4995 166 123 5,96 3,57 2,31 8,63 2,01 0,29 0,05 188 155 155 253 6,35 3,81 2,26 11,2 2,68 0,63 0,03 310 188 163 208 5,96 4,2 2,82 8,69 2,26 0,36 0,05 153 3023 138 23 6,79 4,10 2,44 9,37 2,81 0,87 0,05 278 183 143 195 6,138 4,39 2,80 8,01 2,44 0,33 0,06 159 3118 151 204 6,19 4,09 2,5 8,21 2,53 0,31 0,18 180 220 155 400 5,71 4,25 2,63 9,72 2,8 0,48 0,08 285 310 163 330 5,97 3,78 2,49 10,49 2,08 0,35 0,05 193 3375 138 253 5,35 3,99 2,02 9,37 1,98 0,53 0,04 168 1475 298 123 4,73 3,35 2,63 10,5 1,86 0,53 0,06 188 1698 135 263 4,82 3,95 2,48 10,79 1,71 0,44 0,08 208 2390 128 278 4,11 5,04 9,24 5,40 1,30 0,05 0,06 38 115 248 265 4,32 5,15 8,39 6,57 1,5 0,16 0,07 45 88 358 233

Table 3.1 - ICP chemical results. Major (wt%) and trace element (ppm) contents of samples from Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI. - = below detection limit.

100

3 – Archaeometric Analysis

Ca vs. Fe

9 8 7

1

Fe

6

2

5

3

4

4

3

5

2

6

1 0 0

5

10

15

20

Ca

Al vs. Fe 9 8

1

Fe

7 6

2

5

3

4

4

3 2

5 6

1 0 0

5

10

15

Al

Fe vs. Mg 14

Mg

12

1

10

2

8

3

6

4

4

5

2

6

0 0

2

4

6

8

10

Fe

Fig. 3.9 a-c – Bivariate diagrams illustrating the results of the chemical data (Ca vs. Fe, Al vs. Fe, Fe vs. Mg). 1-6 are the archaeological classes.

101

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Ca vs. Al 14

Al

12

1

10

2

8

3

6

4

4

5

2

6

0 0

5

10

15

20

Ca

Fig. 3.10 – Bivariate diagram illustrating the results of the chemical data (Ca vs. Al). 1-6 are the archaeological classes.

Le Mière argues that the dark colour of DFBW, in the sites analysed by her (Sabi Abyad, Kosak Shamali), is due to its chemical composition and not to a deliberate choice obtained with specific firing techniques (Le Mière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996: 127; Le Mière 2001: 180). At Ras Shamra, as for Mersin class 5, de Contenson has hypothesised a reducing atmosphere for the firing of these dark vessels (de Contenson 1992: 148), and Thuesen and Riis, at Hama, go even further and hypothesise that vegetal matters or dung were thrown on the pile of pots, once the firing was nearly complete, thus creating a dark patina on the surface (Thuesen and Riis 1988: 21).

As in the mineralogical analysis, there appears to be, here too, a general similarity in compositions of most Middle Neolithic ceramics from Mersin; it is only some pots from classes 3 and 4 (and possibly class 6) that distinguish themselves from the main cluster. Apart from suggesting the use of local clays for the manufacturing of most of the assemblage, this also indicates the absence of a clear cut specialisation in production, implying the choice of specific pastes. The high Ca in some class 4 samples and the low Ca in some class 3 samples though, might suggest a partial intentionality in paste composition, oriented to meet functional or symbolic needs of those ceramics.

3.5 EXPERIMENTATION REDUCED OR OXIDISED?

ON

THE

Colour of a vessel varies for many different reasons: paste composition, temperature reached by the fire, duration of firing, and atmosphere of the firing context, apart from secondary causes as stains, use, carbon deposits and so on. The oxidation phase of a firing, that changes the colour of the paste, is a chemical process through which the carbonaceus matter in clay combines with oxygen and forms carbon monoxide or dioxide, that passes off as gas. Different carbonaceus matter oxidises at different temperatures, some start at 225°C, but others at 500°C (others, as gypsum, only oxidise at very high temperatures - 1200°C-, but this is not the case of the components of the Mersin pastes). Minerals too oxidise at distinct points; magnetite oxidises at 400°C, thus at a very low temperature. Colour varies according to the oxidising substances and to the temperature reached and it is difficult to set specific correlations between composition and resulting colour. As a general rule, though, we can say that if a pot’s surface is light, there has surely been full oxidation, if it is grey, three might be the explaining causes: 1. partial oxidation, 2. reduction, 3. the pot could have been smudged. Whilst the latter can be easily excluded from the cases analysed here, the first two might both be plausible. Firing temperatures for most samples, and amongst these class 3 sherds, has been hypothesised around 700°C; oxidising temperature was thus certainly

FIRING.

Firing is a central element in the Yumuktepe pottery manufacture and in the categorisation of the ceramics, since on its basis the two large families of light and dark wares have been distinguished. The dark surface colour of the DFW is clearly a result of the firing, but what is important to understand is whether this happened because of a deliberate human intervention in the firing process, or simply because the particular kind of paste used could only result into a dark tone. The macroscopic analysis in chapter 2 has already suggested that vessels of class 5 were blackened on purpose, probably by creating a reducing atmosphere in the fire during the last phases of the firing. This is further confirmed by the archaeometric analyses which have shown that class 1, light in colour, and class 5, dark (but often with a red core; Pl.3.1), have the same paste composition. Clearly thus there must have been an intervention during the firing in order to obtain the dark class 5 pots. In the case of class 3 though, this is not so immediately evident, as most of the vessels have a distinct composition and clear traces of oxidisation are not visible.

102

3 – Archaeometric Analysis

reached. Firing time cannot be deduced (atmosphere could have in fact been oxidising, but time too short for it to take place), but the fact that the surface colour is just as dark as the core, demonstrates, in my view, that no oxidation process ever started. The firing context of class 3 sherds must have thus been in reducing atmosphere.

3.6 DISCUSSION RESULTS

ON

THE

ARCHAEOMETRIC

Even though still preliminary and needing further sampling and elaboration, these first archaeometric analyses have provided interesting observations on the Mersin ceramic production. Most evident is the homogeneous and similar composition of classes 1, 2 and 5, and some class 3 and 4 sherds, suggested by the mineralogical and chemical analysis and partly also by the petrographic study. This indicates either an intentionality in the choice of the paste (clay and temper) for these classes or an undistinguished use of the clays and tempers nearest to the site. The fact that the samples within this main cluster make up for more than 90% of the samples suggests in my view that the clay and tempers used must have been in any case those most available in the vicinities of the site. It is certainly possible that, amongst the available clays, potters had identified that most suitable for the manufacture of pottery, but the lack of a clear specialisation is evidenced by the use of a same or similar paste for most archaeological classes.

To test this hypothesis, an experiment was carried out. It was decided to re-fire, in oxidising atmosphere, 2 sherds, one of class 3 (from mineralogical group 2) and one of class 5 (from mineralogical group 1a), the two DFBW classes. The idea was that if their dark colour depended on the composition of the sherds, these would remain dark, if they depended on the fire reducing atmosphere, they would change into a lighter colour. The two samples were fired in a modern kiln, at 800°C. The class 5 sherd turned brick red and the class 3 sherd brown (Pl. 3.1), thus confirming that it was not paste composition that determined the dark colour of the sherds, but firing atmosphere. This last consideration on the surface colour of DFBW at Mersin further strengthens the central role of technology (intended as the whole process of pottery manufacture) in ceramic production at that site, as opposed to the simple choice of different raw materials for the realisation of distinct classes of pottery. The recognition of the importance of dark colour as a diagnostic element of DFBW also finally settles, in my opinion, the participation of the Mersin cooking ware (class 4), this too dark in colour, within this wide category of ceramics. In fact, having identified the dark colour as voluntarily searched for, I believe it correct, at least for the case of Mersin, to include the Dark Gritty Ware too within this tradition. In reporting how the Ticul of Yucatan saw their own ceramic production, Arnold indicates colour and hardness of the vessels as the most important attributes for the categorisation of the pots; these attributes were much more important than paste, thickness, shape and size (Arnold 1971: 27). The “DFW” might be something similar, a “family”, a broad category with a specific meaning, composed by more than one class.

Specialisation is instead evident, in my view, in other technological characters of the ceramics. For example, the totally distinct granulometry of classes 1 and 5, in presence of an analogous composition. A possible explanation of this could be that their particular paste was found in nature, already so composed and deposited with the finer clays separated from the coarser ones (this is common in seawater deposits); the presence though, in class 1 thin sections, of crystals with abrupt edges and very angular shape, has been taken as demonstrating added temper, and thus that the paste used is not already so composed in natural soil deposits. It should thus be hypothesised that potters were collecting the same clays and mineral tempers, but sorting them in size, in order to use thinner tempers for class 5 and larger ones for classes 1 and 2. This can be either done by hand sorting, wet sieving, or pounding. All three are testified in ethnography (La Violette 2000: 62; Sillar 200: 56). The first two of these systems might bring to a differentiation of components, as it is possible that specific minerals be eliminated in the sorting because all of larger or smaller size and weight. Quartz crystals, for example, rather hard, might be larger than calcite ones and thus be eliminated in the sorting. This would result, at an archaeometric analysis, in a distinct paste composition of the ceramics made with the differently sorted materials. Only in the case of pounding is all the material certainly saved and included in the paste preparation. On the basis of this it could thus be hypothesised that classes 1 and 5 were made of the same or similar pastes, where in the case of class 5 the temper was first pounded and crushed to reach the suitable size for such fine ware (Balossi and Morbidelli 2005). It would thus be manufacture techniques rather than paste composition that distinguish these 2 classes.

Lastly, the absence of kilns at Mersin and their overall rareness in these early periods brings to suppose that the DFW pots were fired in open air piles, where the piles of pots were then covered, at least in the last phase of the firing and/or cooling process, with earth or organic materials, in order to create a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere. In such piles temperature rises much faster than in kilns, thus subjecting pots to a greater thermal stress (Varndell and Freestone 1997: 33), a stress that could have been probably handled by the thicker mineral tempered pots, but more difficultly by the very fine profile bowls and plates of the Fine DFbW (class 5). In this latter case, we might thus imagine that dung was used as fuel, since it burns more slowly and homogeneously than grass and twigs. Testimony of the use of dung in the Near East is abundant.

Class 3 (DFbW) has evidenced a different situation: the chemical, petrographic and mineralogical analyses 103

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

evidence for most samples (86,6%) a distinct composition to that of the majority of ceramics, demonstrated, in the first, by low Ca and Mg, in the thin sections, by the presence of Metamorphic rocks, and, in the mineralogical analysis, by very low Cal and high Qtz and Kfs. This more specific paste might suggest, especially in view of the homogeneity of composition of the other samples, a deliberate search for such components and thus a specific choice for the paste composition of class 3. The absence of a single kind of paste though indicates that the “technological specialisation” was not very strict and, most importantly, that it was probably properties of the minerals that were searched and not necessarily “paste identity”. The “specialisation”, or paste choice, was thus possibly linked to the function of the vessels. The components do not appear to be extraneous to the Mersin geological setting and thus suggest in the case of this class too a local origin, but more thorough investigations are needed to confirm this with certainty. In fact, the evident distinctness of the class 3 composition from that of the majority of the Mersin ceramics could bring to hypothesise an import of these vessels.

and characterising paste. It has been suggested by different scholars that the DFBW is indeed defined by a specific paste (Le Mière 2001; Le Mière and Picon 1987), but Mersin would not seem to confirm this. Were we even to remove the cooking ware from the large dark face family and leave the DFbW proper (class 3) and its fine version (Fine DFbW, class 5), we would be facing, at Yumuktepe, distinct and various paste compositions. Dark faced pottery at this site is thus recognised rather by its macroscopic external attributes than by its paste composition.

The mineralogical, petrographic and chemical analyses have more clearly suggested, for class 4 (the cooking ware), a possibly functionally specific and certainly local paste. This class mostly clusters separately from the other categories, even though having the same basic minerals and lithics, and thus brings to hypothesise a specific and voluntary selection of paste components. The high calcite and the presence of metamorphic or intrusive rocks in the paste all increase thermal shock resistance, thus aiding their use on fire. This case thus, more evidently than class 3, might evidence a technological specialisation. Overall thus, it is evident from all the above that the great majority of pottery from these ceramic Neolithic levels at Yumuktepe (classes 1, possibly 2, 5 and some ceramics of classes 3 and 4) was made by using the same raw materials and tempers, probably those most readily available. Differences within the classes are then underlined mostly by technological and manufacturing features, as granulometry, firing and surface treatment. It was the potters’ technical capacity, and not so much the pot raw materials, that drove product quality towards users’ requirements. The groups of class 3 and 4 ceramics with a distinct composition then suggest possible functional specific choices (both in the sense of use and of symbolic function), as well as still leaving open the issue of possible exchange of ceramics with other sites. Lastly, the issue of DFW and its origin. The archaeometric study has clearly evidenced that class 5, that of the Fine DFbW, is of local origin, since it has the same composition of class 1. Classes 3 and 4, which I have suggested should be considered part of the large DFW family, are certainly partly local (a thorough geological investigation will tell us whether all could be local). Furthermore, the DFW family in its entirety does not appear to have one single diagnostic 104

3 – Archaeometric Analysis

105

4 THE REST OF CILICIA 4.1 A POORLY KNOWN PREHISTORIC OCCUPATION

REGION

FOR

In the area around Mersin, little else is known for prehistoric periods. A Cilician survey, conducted by SetonWilliams in the early 1950s, with the help of later-to-be famous for his investigations in Central Anatolia, James Mellaart, Waechter, du Plat Taylor and Munn-Rankin, is the one which most of all identified possible prehistoric settlements; the majority of these have remained, still today, without proper investigations and all that can thus be done is list them to have an idea of occupation densities. Gözlükule (Tarsus) is the only other site actually excavated, from which some relevant information on the DFBW/DFW issue and on the probable relations between Neolithic groups of the region can be extrapolated. Ten sites, excluding Mersin and Tarsus, have been found by the British Institute survey in Cilicia, which apparently had dark burnished Neolithic ware on the surface. These are: Boz, Çavuşlu, Çukur Köprü, Hacı Bozan, Incirlik, Kabarsa, Pascu, Sultan Tepe, Tarmil, and Velican (SetonWilliams 1954, 130). The Nielsen Expedition directed by Garstang, and composed by various of the same people who later followed Seton-Williams back into Cilicia, had investigated, more or less 15 years before, this area and located several of the sites later revisited by the survey group. Çavuşlu Höyük, approximately 6 km from Mersin, is a small mound, with probable later Hittite and Roman occupation, but with numerous sherds of DFBW, which indicate its occupation in the Pottery Neolithic period. The Nielsen expedition carried out a series of small soundings at the site, in some of which it reached directly the Neolithic layers. Both the Very Fine burnished Wares and the more coarser ones were found, indicating an occupation probably parallel to that of Mersin XXVII-XXVI. The contemporary presence of two communities living only 6 km apart is a very interesting factor in considering occupation density for this phase; with mountains straight at their back, it is possible that the relatively small plain of Cilicia constituted a fairly densely occupied region.

4.2

TARSUS – GÖZLÜKULE

4.2.1

Women excavating in the 1930s

Less than 30 km east from Yumuktepe, another site, 300 x 25m large, was occupied in a more or less contemporary period: that of Gözlükule, today in a very similar situation as that of Mersin, at the outskirts of the modern town of Tarsus, visited much more than its neighbouring city because on the pilgrim route following saint Paul’s journey to Rome. Like Yumuktepe, this site was transformed into a picnic park with pine trees, once the excavations were estimated as terminated, but fortunately, the smaller and more quiet dimension of modern Tarsus compared to that of the continuously enlarging Içel, has until now saved the site from property speculation, that characterise every modern, highly socially contrasted, Turkish city. Excavations at Gözlükule started in 1934, led by Hetty Goldman, one of the first women archaeologists from the United States of America. Goldman was sponsored jointly by Bryn Mawr College, Harvard and the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) for her 4th major excavation, at Tarsus (Brody 2002). Goldman had been the first US woman to direct an officially sanctioned excavation, that of Colophon in Ionia (Bois 1996) and, later, the first woman to be appointed professor at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. The excavation was to search for possible links between Greece and Anatolia. Unfortunately, as had happened for her first excavation, which had been interrupted by the beginning of the Balkan war, the same was in Tarsus, when, after 1939 Goldman was forced to stop research because of the break of World War II. In five years of excavation, a lot had been uncovered for the later, historic periods, providing extremely interesting information especially on the Hittite occupation of Gözlükule, but only small deep soundings had achieved to reach the earliest, prehistoric layers of interest for this work. In 2001, research was resumed at the site, by a Turkish team of the Boğazici University, lead by Dr. Asli Ozyar and Dr. Gulhan Danişman. It is yet too early to have any results from these new investigations, but their central importance and enormous potential for the understanding of the Neolithic developments of Cilicia is evident and will hopefully give their first fruits soon. In 1949, after WWII, a study season was organised, during which the Goldman Gözlükule team tried to reorder and acquire the most data possible from the materials

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

previously excavated. Matcheld Mellink, another pioneering woman archaeologist, was part of the group and her role was that of studying the prehistoric pottery production of the site.

and collared jars (Pl. 4.1a). Mellink further says that collared jars, at the site, were only made with this ware (Mellink 1956, 70). An interesting observation comes from a comment of Mellink’s on the quality of this pottery which might suggest the existence of a group of sherds equivalent to Mersin class 2 of more compact and smoothed samples. In fact, cores of these wares are generally dark, as for Yumuktepe class 1, but some better made specimens are light throughout and have smoother surfaces. Even though Mellink does not separate these from the larger group of the Gritty Ware, it might indeed be possible that a distinction like that for Mersin categories 1 and 2 be present.

Trench A, more or less on the top of the mound, is the only excavated area that reached Neolithic occupation; these, though, coincided exactly, with the point in which ground water was encountered, thus, as with Braidwood in Judaidah, major problems and difficulties were faced by the archaeologists. Furthermore, it was impossible to reach virgin soil. Trenches 8 and 9 also reached quite deep levels, but probably not earlier than Early Chalcolithic (Goldman 1956, 5). As can be easily imagined, no architecture was recovered from underwater and only pottery and obsidian were the indicators of a Neolithic occupation. The investigated area, in trench A, was very small, and further decreased, as water was hit 30,50 m below point 0, to 1,25 m². Obviously, under such conditions, no stratigraphic distinctions could be made and thus all descriptions and analyses of the materials is given in one single bulk. 4.2.2

The Dark burnished Ware, as the Gritty Ware, is clearly the same as that of Mersin. It is a brown, reddish brown, dark buff or black coloured pottery, burnished and mineral tempered. Very exciting is the fact that Mellink is the only scholar who, as in Mersin, has thought it convenient to separate the very thin Dark Faced burnished Ware (class 5) from the thicker and coarser one (thin, black polished ware and dark burnished hole-mouth ware, within the larger group of Dark Burnished Wares. Mellink 1956, 66). Tarsus, then, has both class 3 and 5 DFbW, even though a little enigmatic is the description of the non-fine dark ware as to what concerns shapes. Mellink lists only hole-mouth jars as composing the Dark Burnished Wares of medium and coarse temper, fact this which would remind more Mersin class 4, that of kitchen ware, than class 3. Furthermore, she specifies that the interior is not treated and that mica inclusions are visible. The resemblance of this description and of the illustrations of this ware to the Dark Gritty Ware (class 4) are far too strong not to be acknowledged and I thus strongly suspect that what is being described as the dark burnished hole-mouth ware, at least partially, actually corresponds to Mersin class 4 (Pl. 4.1c). The presence of class 4 and 5 sherds without class 3, though, is decidedly unthinkable and, the illustrations help in this sense, as some possible class 3 sherds are visible (Pl. 4.1b). A possible explanation of the fact that Mellink indicates hole-mouth jars as the most frequent shape, might be the extreme fragmentation of the material, which makes rim inclination extremely difficult to detect. Her indication of the existence, amongst the hole-mouth jars, of very well burnished, lustrous examples, too, argues in favour of the interpretation of some as class 3, rather than class 4 sherds. It should also be added that Mellink calls hole-mouth even shapes with an extremely wide mouth opening, which I have instead preferred calling bowls (at times, closed bowls. See paragraph 2.8.1), circumstance this which might cause a little false confusion and create inexistent distinctions.

The Pottery Production of Neolithic Gözlükule

Having seen, photographed and studied the Neolithic pottery of Yumuktepe is both a great help and a misfortune when going through Mellink’s plates and descriptions of the Tarsus ceramics. An immediate alikeness between the two assemblages in fact makes one feel at home and comfortable. This is partly a risk though, since it is more difficult to detect slight distinctions and particularities of the site compared to that of Mersin. Obviously, the nearness of the two settlements does allow to imagine the presence of two interconnected communities, of related groups, and thus with a common material culture. Detecting small differences though, might give important chronological information, for example. “The pottery of Neolithic Gözlükule falls into two main groups: dark burnished wares, less numerous but most distinctive for the type of culture involved; and light gritty fabrics, forming the bulk of the household wares and mainly used for larger vessels (Mellink 1956, 65).”

This sentence immediately gives an understanding of what was meant above as nearness and similarity with the Mersin material; exactly the same thing could in fact be written in reference to the levels XXVII-XXVI studied from that site. The light ware is a gritty ware (Mellink 1956, 67), handmade, constituting the majority of the whole assemblage, around 60% in the earliest layers and increasing to 70% higher up. Surface colour varies from light red to pink and reddish buff, or beige, the gritty surface feel is due to inclusions as sand, grit, lime, shell, quartz and sometimes mica. The description is exactly that of the Pinkish Gritty Ware (class 1) from Yumuktepe and similar is also the quantity, which in the more western site was of a little less than 80% of the whole assemblage. Other element of resemblance is that of shape, since in Gözlükule too this particular ware is used to mould necked

Specific characters of the Fine Black ware, apart from its general description, remind and clearly draw together Mersin class 5 and this pottery, such as the rare presence of red sherds, the astonishing technical quality of the surface finish and the absolute quantity of this pottery, being, as in Yumuktepe, 5% of the whole assemblage. Decoration is the 108

4 - The Rest of Cilicia

same as in Yumuktepe, with nail and pointed object impressions, as well as the rocker impression (Pl. 4.1f). As was the case for Garstang, Mellink too illustrates many impressed sherds (Garstang 1953, 19, 21). We have seen from the recent Yumuktepe excavations that this large quantity might actually not correspond to reality, but simply to the choice of sherds for illustration. The thicker and coarser Dark burnished Ware too is at times impressed, as has been seen in the western neighbouring site (Pl. 4.1e).

what supposed by Hetty Goldman in the 50s, when no dates at all were available.

No matter the slight inaccuracies in comparisons, I would quite confidently conclude considerations on the Tarsus Neolithic pottery by considering the two settlements as belonging to the same ceramic, and probably cultural, tradition. The pottery assemblage on its whole has in fact the same composition of the Yumuktepe one, with light coloured gritty ware as the main production and dark burnished ware of at least 2, but most probably 3 distinct classes. Shapes and thus function of these vessels and classes appear to be the same too, as the first group is mainly used for collared jars, the Coarse Dark ware for hole-mouth jars and the Fine Dark Ware for small bowls. The immediately following period too shows continuity in contacts and relationships with Mersin, as the same matt red-painted, chevron, zig-zag and yildirim (“thunder”) lines are found on the light, slipped or burnished ware (Mellink 1956, 72). Unfortunately, no description of the DFBW is given for this period, but, being the two settlements so close and similar, it is legitimate to suppose that this continued to be produced and used in the same way as before. Unluckily, Gözlükule doesn’t have any 14C date that can help position it within the general DFbW developments, but a couple of chronological considerations, which emerge clearly when comparing the Mersin and the Tarsus assemblages, are of great aid in dating the earliest excavated levels at the site. The first clue is given by the general composition of the assemblage, in which DFbW is not the only ware produced and actually the most commonly found is the light gritty ware. This sets a terminus post quem at Mersin level XXVIII, since the earlier occupation phases at the Içel site where only composed by DFbW. The terminus ante quem is, of course, supplied by painted pottery, which is not found in these Neolithic levels at Tarsus, but in the immediately following ones (attributed by Mellink to the Chalcolithic period), and which would correspond to Mersin XXV-XXIV. It is quite clear, thus, that the Neolithic layers of Tarsus correlate to Mersin XXVII-XXVI. Other evidence of this is the presence of the Very Fine Dark Burnished Ware, class 5, absent before level XXVII, and of the rocker impressions, which in Mersin too were not seen in the earliest phases. In absolute dates, thus, were developments in Tarsus and Mersin exactly contemporary (and the nearness of the two settlements indeed argues in favour of this), Neolithic Gözlükule should correspond to approximately 63205840BC, which is more or less a millennium earlier than 109

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

110

5 JUDAIDAH AND THE AMUQ REGION 5.1 THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF AND RESEARCH IN THE AMUQ PLAIN 5.1.1

CHICAGO

Looking for Monumental Sites

Ironically enough, the archaeological expedition that has given us the most information on the Neolithic developments of the western regions of the Near East, and that is still used by scholars as principal reference for stratigraphic, chronological and cultural reconstructions, started off in 1932 as the “Syrian-Hittite Expedition”, mainly concerned with the archaeology of the first millennium Hittite kingdoms (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 1). The expedition, that Robert Braidwood joined in 1933, was the first of the 3 main missions of the Oriental Institute of Chicago in the Near East (later came the expeditions in eastern Turkey and the Iraqi-Jarmo project ). Not only does the first identification and definition of Dark Faced Burnished Ware come from this expedition, but so does the initial delineation of a Dark Face “horizon”, and yet, its main interests were those of finding monumental architecture of the late Hittite period. Braidwood himself states that “operations of really adequate size for the full exploration of prehistoric horizons were not made” and that only towards the end of the final season did they try to concentrate on earlier and smaller sites, but lack of time and political problems did not permit their thorough investigation. The size of mounds was a major obstacle, since many of the mounds in the plain of Antioch (modern Antakya) are very big and long lived, and tons of earth of later horizons would have had to be removed in order to reach these earlier phases. Two small sites, Tell Kurdu and Tell Dhahab, were those chosen for investigating especially the earlier levels, but too short was, then, the excavation. Prehistoric excavations were limited and small scale and yet today’s prehistorians still construct their sites’ chronologies through a comparison with the stratigraphic sequence drawn from the excavation of such settlements; the Amuq sequence is still relied upon as a key chronological meter stick for dating sites in Turkey, Syria, and the Levant. This, even though, already in those years, Braidwood admitted that “in none of our horizons is the bulk of material sufficient…for a really objective quantitative treatment” (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 1); that “non sufficient” material is at the base of all reconstructions of cultural and organisational characters of the region in the most ancient times.

The plain of Antakya, today in Turkey and known as Hatay, was part of Syria until 1938, thus for all the years in which the Oriental Institute expedition conducted its researches there. This probably contributed to the choice of the name “Syro-Cilician” culture used by Braidwood to identify the region of production and distribution of the DFBW. Surrounded by mountains on all sides, the Amuq is an approximately 30 x 30 km wide, very rich and fertile valley (even though nowadays cotton cultivation is severely and dangerously drying up the ground water table), watered by three rivers, the Orontes, the Afrin and the Karasu, with a rainfall of 600-700mm per year. For this reason, and for its strategic position on one of the routes of communication between Syria and the south and Turkey, the valley has been intensely occupied from at least the 7th millennium BC to present day. The Orontes river was in the past partly navigable, giving direct communication with the Mediterranean sea, and the landscape provided a unique combination of resource niches for human exploitation. Until it was drained in the 1950s, the lake Amuq formed the most conspicuous feature of the valley, but, as Braidwood had already suggested (Braidwood 1937, 9-10), recent geomorphologic studies have demonstrated its late formation, with a gradual increase in its water level through the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. At the time of the prehistoric settlements of interest here, thus, there was probably no lake in the valley. A survey of the entire region conducted in the years of the first investigations by the Oriental Institute of Chicago brought to discover and register 178 sites, of which 8 were then excavated and 15 were, at that time, dated to the Early Ceramic Neolithic period8. Chronology of the surveyed sites was tentative and not very precise at that point; phase XIV of Judaidah was considered the period representative of this particular moment, but this was before the study on the material culture recovered from the excavations was undertaken and it greatly refined the stratigraphy and interpretation. In 1995, the Oriental Institute renewed and coordinated investigations in the area under the name of Amuq Valley Regional Projects (AVRP). Archaeological surveys, excavations, and geomorphologic analyses have been since then conducted, and are still ongoing. The survey

8

These were: Bükütepe (site 50), Gültepe (56), Tell Turundah (60), Tell Mahmutliye (61), Burj ‘Abdal (68), Tell Faruq (69), Hasanuşaği al Dai’ah (93), Tell Kurdu (94), Tell Karataş (117), Qaddahiyyat Ali Bey (118), Tell Davutpaşa (164), Çatal Hoyuk (167), Tell Qinanah (169), Tell al-Judaidah (176), Tell Dhahab (177).

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

discovered more than 50 new sites that the previous expedition, more than 50 years earlier, had not seen and results thus very promising for future research.

reproductions and “re-elaborations” of Halaf ware. It is very unfortunate, that we are missing the link between Phase B and C, which would have been a crucial moment for the understanding of the DFBW horizon developments and the impact, on it, of the first painted ceramics and contacts with the eastern culture of Halaf. The study of some of the FMR pottery from Judaidah and the comparisons with the more continuous sequence of the Rouj Basin in Syria will let us envisage and hypothesise on some of the possible characters of the Dark Face in this moment of passage, but no evidence on the modes and times of evolution of this intermediate phase are yet available in the Amuq.

5.1.2 Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Earlier Occupation Phases Unfortunately, neither the old survey nor the new one have yielded a large amount of ceramics that can help date and analyse the sites; some early, Neolithic sites have been identified, but only excavation has given an idea of the temporal sequence and occupation development of such sites. Prehistoric settlements in the Amuq plain don’t seem to be very many, but this data is certainly biased by the fact that many early cultural layers have been obscured by later occupations. A clear demonstration of this was given by a look at some of the material from the recent excavations (I am very grateful to Benjamin Diebold for having spared some of his precious time in guiding me through the bags of survey collections in the Antakya AVRP storage rooms): the collected sherds from the surface of Tell al-Judaidah, the site that yielded the most information for the earliest phases of occupation of the Amuq plain, showed no early pottery at all! The later phases of the settlement have evidently covered these ancient levels so deeply that no natural or artificial soil movements have been able to bring the material back up to the surface.

As indicated, Dark Faced Burnished Wares continue in the Amuq until phase E, but the tendency of the painted wares to “overthrow” this tradition is quite clear, and this is one of the reasons for which this dissertation has set its lower time boundary at the beginning of Phase C. Phase B, as will be seen, already has painted wares, but the DFBW is still highly predominant and shows many characters that remind those of Yumuktepe; the phases that will be taken into account are thus A and B, that had first been identified, at the time of the first survey of the region in the ‘30s, as the single period, Judaidah XIV. The excavated sites that have evidenced early levels (A and B) of occupation are Tell al-Judaidah, Tell Dhahab and Wadi al-Hammam, a cave sounded by O’Brein (table 5.1). The identification of the first 2 phases of prehistoric occupation of Hatay, which are those of interest here, have been essentially based only on the ceramic finds from the three sites nominated above (to be honest, only on the material of Judaidah, to which the others were then compared). Unfortunately, architectural and settlement data is minimal, as will be seen, reason for which uncertainties in the interpretation and “classification” of the sites still remain. Many scholars, today, have reanalysed the stratigraphy of these sites and given slightly varying explanations, but it is evident that excavations are desperately needed for a better and clearer understanding of these older phases.

The OIC team, in the ‘30s, recognised ten prehistoric phases of occupation (A-J) in the Amuq, starting with the Ceramic Neolithic and reaching approximately the end of the 3rd millennium BC. The relative chronological position of the successive phases was fixed by stratigraphy and by comparisons between the materials found. Phases A to E, according even to today’s excavators, are characterised by the presence of the DFBW technological family (Yener et al. 2000, 213). Clearly, such a long period exceeds the interests of this work, since phase E is a Chalcolithic, ‘Ubaid related, period9. Unfortunately, no excavated site in the Amuq has given the whole prehistoric sequence, thus the overall stratigraphy has been built by comparing and combining materials and levels found in different sites. Typology and pottery classifications, have suggested that the earlier part of the sequence might not be complete and have actually identified some possibly missing phases. One of these is the beginning of Phase C, which is assumed to be signalled by the first appearance, in the Amuq, of Halaf pottery (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 26). The Amuq levels found by the OIC excavations, as well as by the new Tell Kurdu excavations (Diebold, in Yener et al. 1999), instead, evidence an already developed industry of local

Site Judaidah Dhahab Wadi al-Hammam

Phase A yes yes yes

Phase B yes no no

Table 5.1 - Presence of phases A and/or B in the Amuq sites, as indicated by Braidwood.

Attribution to phase A was done, in all three cases, only on a typological basis, either because the excavation soundings were too little and yielded no architecture that could help build a stratigraphic sequence, or because digging was taking place under the water table and it was thus impossible to detect floor levels and layers. Furthermore, the ceramic assemblages on which these typological studies have been carried out were quite small; recent excavations at other sites, like Ain el Kerkh in the

9

In Yumuktepe, the levels that mark the end of interest, for this particular work, are those in which painted pottery somehow takes over the DFbW; initially the dark ware is still more or less present in the same proportions and similar characters as before, as we have seen in the silo level XXIV, but we then assist to a gradual decrease in favour of the painted ware.

112

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

Rouj basin (Syria) and Yumuktepe proper, have demonstrated the possible existence of a pre-A phase, which might be present in the Amuq too. Phase B, which was only recognised in the Judaidah sounding, only consists of 1 floor level, thus, here too, data is very little and difficult to interpret. As we will see, though, the distinction between A and B is quite clear.

This phase is composed only by two layers. Above it, a deposit of mixed material was found, called by Braidwood First Mixed Range (FMR) and essentially composed by Phase B materials, Halaf and Ubaid ware, as well as Phase F ceramics. It is evident that in this point of the mound, the deposit had been disturbed in early times, before the deposition of the clean phase F soils, context that seals this First Mixed Range. These layers will be taken into consideration in this study because of the presence, as will be seen, of materials that are absent in phase B, but strongly remind examples of DFBW from the nearby Rouj Basin sites, coming from pre-Halaf levels. Furthermore, floor 23, assigned by Braidwood to this FMR (table 5.2), has the only clear and apparently undisturbed architectural remains amongst all early phases at the site, fact this so relevant as enigmatic, in a supposedly mixed layer10! We will see, from the analysis of the pottery of this phase that there might be a different interpretation of the stratigraphy, which would, to a good extent, clear this ambiguity.

Even though Phase A materials have been identified in Dhahab and Wadi al-Hammam too, it is only from the Judaidah ceramics that considerations and analyses of this assemblage come from. It is, in fact, the only site that has both A and B Phase occupation, and can thus give an idea of the evolution between the two. The ceramics from Wadi al-Hammam, as has already been said, to which the OIC team had access to were only a very modest sample collection, of no use for a thorough study of the site’s production, but only for noting the presence of already known wares and pottery attributes. The Dhahab collection, similarly, was commented and compared with the Judaidah material, once the classification was terminated. As will be seen later, the interpretation and chronological positioning of the latter site are still a matter of animated debate.

5.2

THE PHASE A AND B SOUNDED SITES

5.2.1

Tell al-Judaidah

Levels and floor surfaces Jk3: 22, fl.23 Jk3: 24-25 Jk3: 25-28

Corresponding phases FMR B A

Table 5.2 Correspondence between layers and phases in Judaidah, as given by Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 21.

Judaidah is certainly the most important of the three sites, be it only because of the retrieval of, no matter how ephemeral, architectural features, and because it was apparently occupied in both phases A and B and can thus help in a diachronic analysis of the ceramic production (table 5.2). The excavation of this site by the OIC team has been crucial in establishing the cultural sequence of the ‘Amuq. We will show that, through a comparison with the Yumuktepe material, even further observations on its stratigraphic sequence can be made, and possibly the division of phases refined.

5.2.2

Tell Dhahab

Very near Judaidah, Tell Dhahab has had a very unlucky fate, compared to its neighbour; circular in shape and with a diameter of approximately 60 m, in 1938, when the OIC did a small sounding at the site, Tell Dhahab is nowadays little less than 1/3 of that size (Yener et al. 2000, 195 and 1999 http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/AMU/Dhahab. html), mainly because it is used by local people as a source for soils for building. As the site’s existence is threatened, the Amuq Valley Regional Projects survey team has mapped in these recent years the topography of the tepe and recorded the stratigraphy of the entire mound, visible in a 10 meter high profile, where soil had been “looted”.

The tepe was one of the largest of the plain, and still is today, since fortunately it is not one of the most damaged by modern soil removals or erosions. It is in the southeastern part of the valley, very near today’s Reyhanli border between Turkey and Syria.

The three small soundings that have been carried out at the site have all yielded some pottery interpreted as belonging to phases A: a step trench (TT1) 4 m wide, TT2, an operation of 2,5 x 3 m, and TC at the very centre of the mound. Unfortunately, the material that came out of such investigations was not stratigraphically consistent, but appeared to have a mixture of phase A, F and H materials.

Investigations, (started in 1935), reached the early levels only in sounding JK. Started off as a 10 x 15 m trench, by the time it got down to Phases A and B, its size had greatly diminished; it is not easy to calculate the trench’s size at that point, but be it enough to say that, all the phase A excavations together (that is, Judaidah and Dhahab) sum up to 41,2 m³ of soil, a very small area indeed. This sounding ended approximately 75 cm after reaching virgin soil; by that time though, the water table had long been hit too; the whole of phase A in fact was dug under water, reason for which no architectural remains were recognisable. Water was first encountered when digging the levels of Phase B.

10

The Braidwoods, in the process of re-elaborating the excavation data back in Chicago, actually hypothesised that the stone foundations pertained to a late phase B or phase C structure, that would have later been cut by mixed deposits (JK3: 22), dated probably to phase F. The presence of mixed pottery material within the layer (JK3: 23debris) in which these foundations would have been cut, though, leave some open questions to this interpretation too.

113

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

production. Stratigraphy and a first subdivision of materials at the sites had given an idea of the occupation sequence, but it was only the strict classification and its association with the stratigraphy that finally gave the definite sequence, still used today as reference for all chronological interpretations of near, and not so near, sites.

The pottery was thus divided into the distinct phases by following the typology reconstructed from the other sites. No architectural remains were found for the early occupation. 5.2.3

Wadi al-Hammam

The ceramic assemblage was first selected and catalogued at the site, divided into groups of wares (“families”), which were taken to represent particular traditions of craftsmanship (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 29). An eye selection of approximately 10% of each of the classes recognised was then sampled and on this group of sherds, taken back to the USA, was then run the more detailed and exhaustive work. Even though such a system does not permit to build charts and tables with strict statistical comparisons between wares and sites, it certainly provides enough information for evaluations also on the quantitative relations within the ceramic assemblage.

Wadi al-Hammam is a small cave on the limestone cliffs, just some 500 m away from Judaidah. It has been excavated by O’Brein, an “itinerant prehistorian”, to use Braidwood’s words, that the OIC team apparently didn’t have much control on. It actually seems that Braidwood likes to separate himself from this particular excavation, and he does so often by calling Wadi al-Hammam the “O’Brein cave”. Dug without the intervention of the OIC team, even the access, for the Braidwoods, to the materials to be studied wasn’t easy and they only managed to get hold of a “handful” of sherds from the site. The layer that gave evidence of apparently phase A material is below level 4. Little more can be said about the site, since it has no long stratigraphy and no architecture.

5.3 RECOGNISING PHASES A AND B 5.3.1

AND

Aim of the following paragraphs will be that of commenting these ceramics at the light of my own visit to the Chicago collection and of my knowledge of Yumuktepe’s assemblage.

DISTINGUISHING

5.3.2

The OIC Procedures in the Ceramic Analysis

The Pottery of Phase A A

The full definition of the phases of occupation in the Amuq plain was given in Chicago, after a thorough study of the sampled materials, most relevant of which the pottery

Jk 3, 28-25 DFBW

79-84%

"coarse simple"

8-13%

"washed impressed"

5-10%

Table 5.3 - Wares of Amuq A and their percentage on the total ceramic assemblage of those levels.

DFBW

•Mineral temper in fine-medium concentration •Paste: mostly medium, but fine and coarse sherds are present too •Wall thickness: 4-14 mm •Core: mostly dark •Surface colour: surface is variable between orange-buff and black, and sometimes reddish. Most frequent colour is dull grey-brown buff •Surface treatment: most often burnished, sometimes with a self-slip, rarely a slip. Luster varies, but it is never very high •Decoration: impressed, approximately 11% •Most common shape: deep, straight walled bowl, but common are also necked jars. Bases are often flat and ledge handles are common Coarse •Vegetal (chaff) and some mineral temper Simple •Paste: coarse •Wall thickness: 10-20 mm •Core: mostly dark •Surface colour: from light yellow-orange buff to dirty orange-brown buff •Surface treatment: none, or slightly smoothed / wet smoothed •Decoration: at times, simple or impressed applied bands under the rim. Some forming a rope pattern •Shapes: ovoid jars, some deep bowls and jars with a small collar or neck Washed •Mineral temper, with, rarely, little vegetal inclusions Impressed •Paste: medium and coarse •Core: mostly dark •Surface colour: dirty grey-brown or orange-brown buff to dark grey-black. Most frequent is the dull grey-brown •Surface treatment: red ochre wash on the inside and over the rim on the outside. The external surface is burnished •Decoration: impressions •Shapes: mainly hemispherical bowls Table 5.4 -Principal attributes of the 3 classes of pottery of Phase A in Judaidah.

114

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

The first striking observation of the Phase A pottery production is the near to exclusive presence of the DFBW (table 5.3). This ceramic group makes up to approximately 80% of the total assemblage in Judaidah. Characters of this ware though, as will be seen, show a very high variability within the class. Even in the later Phase B, quantities remain over 50%, whilst, in Mersin, DFW (DFbW + Dark Gritty Ware) doesn’t reach 25%. The other salient aspect is the existence of a chaff tempered ware, the so-called Coarse Simple, totally absent in Yumuktepe. Two are thus the premises, before even looking into the proper attributes of the ceramics, that apparently separate the production of the two sites.

defining the class, red wash and the way it is spread on the surface is too, to end, shapes and dimensions of the vessels are extremely “standardised” (Pl. 5.3b). Similarities in texture, paste, surface treatment and decoration with the Judaidah DFBW have been pointed out by Matson (Matson’s notes in Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 52). The only shape present is a hemispherical bowl, with a plain vertical or flattened rim, as in Mersin class 5. The red wash, present on all sherds, covers entirely the interior of the vessels and the external rim; the only variation that is sometimes visible are some strokes and proper “painted” lines of red wash on the exterior, forming some geometrical decoration. The logic followed by the impressed decorations is the same one of the DFBW, even though there appears to be a greater variety of styles and instruments used; nail and shell impressions are visible amongst these sherds, and the latter are at times impressed with a rocker-like motion, resulting into zig-zag lines covering a large part of the vessel. These will increase in Phase B. The specificity of this group would seem to contrast with the apparent diversity and heterogeneity of the DFBW category. Clearly interesting would be to understand whether this group of vessels had a similar function to the one hypothesised for the Yumuktepe class 5 ware, and thus this seemingly standardised production be due to their more “prestigious” role.

The DFBW, THE one that surely deserves this name since this is the ceramic collection the name comes from, changes greatly in surface colours, in quantity and dimensions of the tempers and in firing atmosphere. The high quantity of light and orange-reddish tones at times appears as a contradiction within the definition proper of “Dark” Faced Burnished Ware, especially since we know that within the Mersin assemblage this was not so frequent. Cores are mostly dark and cases of oxidised outer layers and black cores comprehend up to 2/3 of the whole class, case this totally absent in the Yumuktepe material. In some sherds with a dark surface, “beneath this thin black layer (surface), never more than 1mm thick, is a thin oxidised zone which indicates that the black surfacing was produced after firing” (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 49). The centre of the core is then, in many cases, dark. This reminds of the Yumuktepe class 5 Fine Burnished Ware, the section colours of which are completely analogous. Shapes too are quite variable, though simple, ranging from bowls to hole-mouth and necked jars (Pls. 5.1 a-b and 5.2). Decoration is restricted to bowls and essentially consists of impressions made with blunt and sharp instruments with various shapes; these are impressed all over the surface or in bands and lines on part of the vessel’s body (Pl. 5.1c). Such a fluctuation and irregularity inevitably made me wonder whether this broad ware group might disclose further internal “class” subdivisions, and it was also with this hypothesis in mind that the analysis of the Judaidah collection held in the Oriental Institute was carried out.

5.3.3

The Phase B Pottery B

Jk 3 - 24

DFBW

52-57%

Coarse Simple

6-11%

Coarse Incised

3-8%

Coarse Red Slip

2-7%

Washed Impressed

8-13%

Dark Unburnished

3-7%

Brittle Painted

5-10%

Lustrous Red Film

0-5%

Table 5.5 - Wares present in Amuq Phase B and their percentage on the total ceramic assemblage of those levels.

Amuq Phase B sees the beginning of various new ceramic groups, as well as a development of the former, already existing ones. DFBW (Pl. 5.4, 5.5) is still the main ceramic production at the site, but in lower percentage compared to the earlier period, and Washed Impressed (Pl. 5.6), with the same characters as before, sees a slight increase (table 5.5). Apart from the Brittle Painted Ware, the other productions develop all in perfect continuity with the ceramics of the preceding period: Coarse Simple Ware is now also incised and slipped (Pl. 5.7), and a ceramic essentially identical to the DFBW is left unburnished (Dark Unburnished Ware) (Pl. 5.10), or has a red slip applied to it (Lustrous Red Film) (table 5.6). For this phase too, all data on the pottery production comes from Tell Judaidah, since it is the only site in which such period was recognised with certainty.

The Coarse Simple, on the contrary to what has just been indicated for the DFBW, is a well homogeneous category, paste is essentially coarse, rarely with full oxidisation of the core, colours are all light buff and creamish and shapes are very simple (Pl. 5.3a). That this is one single category there is thus no doubt. Coarse and quite fragile, it seems quite probable that this pottery was reserved for some specific use, that was not linked to cooking, nor to the holding of liquids. Last of all, the Red Washed Impressed Ware, is a very specific group, not only characterised by a similar temper, surface treatment and broad shape analogies; wall thickness is strongly homogeneous, surface colour has a minimal variation, impressed decoration is a decisive attribute 115

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

The Brittle Painted is the real novelty of the period. Braidwood sees this phase as one of indicators of strengthening contacts with the east and in particular with the Hassuna culture, because of the presence of incised and DFBW

Coarse Simple Coarse Incised Coarse Red Slip Washed Impressed Dark Unburnished

Brittle Painted

Lustrous Red Film

painted examples, similar to those of that society, as well as the counter presence of Dark Burnished Wares in the Hassuna area (Pl. 5.5).

•Paste and surface treatment like in Phase A, but body walls tend to be thinner, burnish more accurate. •Overall increase in dark colours, but many light, orange and brown colours too. Also some red-slips. •Decoration: pattern burnish appears, impressed decoration is the most common. Rocker impression is also found. Burnish is at times omitted where impressions are made •Shapes: very low bowls, tray-like shapes become common. Some low open bowls with an abrupt carination near the rim. High straight collared jars are common. Most characteristic shape remains the hemispherical bowl •No observable change from the previous period •Coarse Simple with incised or impressed decoration. •Shapes appear to be only of low collared jars •Coarse Simple with a burnish and red, ocherous slip • Increase in complexity of the red wash decoration: exterior body with diagonal lines. Impressions more elaborate: rocker impression and use of multiple pointed objects •Same clay and inclusions of DFBW, but generally coarser paste •Surface colours : more drab •Surface treatment: wet-smoothed •Shapes: mainly large hole-mouth jars with thickened rims (cooking pots), some deep bowls (might have been used as lids) •Mineral inclusions •Paste: mostly medium and coarse, very coarse •Core: mainly good oxidisation •Surface colour: light creamy buff to brown-black, but normally orange-buff •Surface treatment: mostly burnished or smoothed •Decoration: red-orange, purple-red or black paint, applied either before or after the burnishing. At times the decoration can also be on the inside •Shapes: high-sided hemispherical bowls, a few hole-mouth jars and some high collared necks •Mineral temper, medium to high concentration, at times with some straw •Paste: mostly coarse, but great variety •Core: partly dark •Surface colour: orange-brown buff to dark grey-brown buff •Surface treatment: film of an red-orange colour applied on the exterior and part of the interior. Some sherds are polished •Shapes: straight-sided bowls, hole-mouth jars, collared jars (like the DFBW), and bowls with slightly incurving rims

Table 5.6 - Principal attributes of the classes of pottery of Judaidah Phase B, with indication of the differences existing with those of phase A.

If we were to follow the reasoning and method that guided classification and typology building of the Yumuktepe material, we would probably see this division of “Wares” in the Amuq Phase B as too “detailed”. In my mind, it would be important to underline the similarity (if not identity) of the coarse simple incised and slipped, with the one with untreated surface. I would tend to see these three classes as one single group; the “way of making” vessels in these classes are in fact the same and what changes is just the surface treatment and decoration, the “end effect”. This certainly indicates the common origin and shared craftsmanship, even though the vessels were then probably assigned to distinct use and role.

incontrovertible and I would tend to see this particular production as emerging from the same tradition of the dark wares. Thus, in comparison to the previous phase, we notice in the Amuq, the introduction of one completely new class of pottery, together with the further development, probably not simply technological but also functional, of previously known groups of vessels. Of this latter case is also the Dark Faced Unburnished Wares, interpreted by the Braidwoods mainly as cooking pots; during phase A, cooking ware was probably present, though undistinguished from the rest of the DFBW by the Braidwoods, whilst now further specific technical characters evidently separate the two groups of vessels.

Distinct “craftsmen traditions” in this phase would, in my view, be essentially 3: 1) dark faced, mineral tempered ware, 2) coarse chaff ware and 3) brittle painted, mineral tempered ware. A fourth group, that of Washed Impressed Ware, might also be included, even though its technologic analogies with the DFBW are remarkable and

We might thus be assisting, here in the Amuq, to something similar to the ceramic specialisation noticed in Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI. Washed Impressed in fact, which was present and with the same characters in phase A too, is certainly a highly specialised pottery, both technically, stylistically and probably functionally. The development of 116

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

the Dark Faced Unburnished Ware, is a further signal of this stronger relation between technology and function of some vessels. The class which, according to Braidwood’s reports, still does not seem to have a specific function is the DFBW proper, this very large group which is the most frequent at the site and the one of most interest here. The apparent great variability within the group, would seem to go against this trend of increasing technical and typological (stylistic) specialisation. 5.3.4 FMR

Dark Faced Burnished Ware mostly has the same paste and tempers as before, apart from a small group, noticeably distinct in paste, surface treatment and shapes, which reminds very nearly the Amuq C Dark Burnished Ware from Tell Kurdu11. Other characters are evidenced, that do not seem to belong neither to Phase B nor to the following Phase C, thus possibly confirming the presence of the stratigraphic gap already noticed by Braidwood. There is an increase in the use of the slip, not only black, but frequently also red-orange (less than 5 fragments of red slip ware have been found in Mersin too amongst the class 5 Very Fine burnished Ware). New forms are visible and the number of deep bowls, which were typical of Phases A and B, are much reduced (Pls. 5.8 and 5.9). Common are very low bowls and straight-sided and open bowls. Rare but present are vessels with a tripod base, which had never been noticed before, neither are they known from Yumuktepe. Carinated shapes are often seen, but the most frequent shapes are the high, and generally straight, collared jars. A further and probably, at a first glance, more noticeable difference between the DFBW of Phase B and that found mixed in the FMR is the strong decrease in the impressed decoration. This came up to 12-17% in the earlier period, whilst it is calculated around 3-8% at this time. Furthermore, whilst pattern burnish decoration was very rare (4-9%) then, it is now attested in 13-18% of the decorated sherds (Pl. 5.10a).

The First Mixed Range and its Pottery Jk 3 - DFBW (A-B-C type) 23-22 "Dark Unburnished" (B-C type) "Local Painted" (C type) "Halaf Painted" (C type) "Ubaid Painted" (E type) "Washed Impressed" (A-B type) "Non Brittle Painted" "Brittle Painted" (B type) "Coarse Simple" (A-B type) "Coarse Incised" (B type) "Coarse Red Slip" (B type) Smooth-faced Simple (F type) Chaff-faced Simple (F type)

42-47% 7-12% 1-6% 1-6% 1-5% 1-3% 0-5% 0-4% 0-4% 0-4% 0-4% 5-10% 10-15%

Table 5.7 - Main wares present in Judaidah 1°MR and their percentage on the total ceramic assemblage of those levels.

Dark Faced Unburnished Ware too, even though not showing major changes, apparently undergoes a slight variation in use during the phase/s represented by the material of the FMR. We assist in fact to a great decrease in bowls, whereas hole-mouth jars (proper cooking pot shape) remain predominant. From the above it is clear that what is really intrusive in JK3 levels 22 and 23 are the painted potteries (except Brittle Painted) and the Phase F simple wares, whilst the other ceramics would appear in perfect continuation with the earlier ones seen.

Table 5.7 does not mention all the ceramics found in these layers, but just the more frequent ones. The intention is to give an idea of the degree of contamination of this range; the horizons to which these ceramics belong are given in brackets. Later Neolithic and Chalcolithic material is present, in high numbers too and is obviously out of the scope here, but this mixed and contaminated context should not scare away from the analysis of these layers. This is one of those rare cases, in fact, in which even from a non well stratified deposit it is possible to notice and recognise extremely important developments of the pottery production. This will become even more clear once the Amuq ceramics will be compared with those of the Rouj basin to the east, but even an intra-site study of Judaidah in this phase gives some useful hints on the developments of the ceramic production immediately subsequent to the phase B described above.

The first recovered levels of occupation after Phase B, in Judaidah, are those of Chalcolithic Phase F, and thus quite predictable was the discovery of pottery from those levels. Phase C, D and E occupations, instead, have not been identified by the OIC excavations, but the ceramic assemblages from the FMR indicate the site must have been settled in some of those periods. As the finds from the FMR seem to indicate ceramics directly evolved from those of Amuq B, but Amuq C pottery is absent, the presence of yet another phase (the missing phase?) might be hypothesised.

The first obvious observation is the presence of all the Phase B wares within the FMR of Judaidah (Lustrous RedFilm Ware, not referred to in the chart, was recognised in three sherds). The attribution to Phase B though, as will be seen, might not always be correct, since some technical variations, new shapes and changes in the surface treatments, especially of the DFBW, are evidenced in numerous sherds. This supposedly Phase B pottery in the FMR might thus not be “Phase B” after all.

11

Tell Kurdu Dark Faced Burnished Ware and Amuq Phase C are out of the chronological boundaries set by this work and will thus not be referred to with a detailed account, but a short and preliminary description and comment on this pottery will be given in paragraph 5.4.5.

117

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

5.4 A NEW LOOK AT THE AMUQ DFBW. COMPARISONS WITH YUMUKTEPE 5.4.1

Judaidah Phase A, evidenced in a very small trench and dug under water, is composed by 4 layers, contexts that the Braidwoods rightly kept together because of the scarcity of data. No major changes were in fact visible within the pottery assemblage of those levels and a very accurate classificatory study based on such few materials would, in any case, not have been very reliable. Three major pottery classes were present, apparently quite distinct one from the other, and these are taken to represent the earlier phase of occupation of the Amuq plain. DFBW is considered as one single class, with no great internal distinctions, but simply a great technologic and typological variability. And yet, in reading the descriptions of the DFBW of these 4 levels, it is clear that the authors themselves were aware of the presence of distinctive characters within the group of Dark Faced Wares. Matson, who was essentially interested in the composition and technical aspects of the ceramics, is explicit about this; he recognises two clearly distinct groups of clays, an “actinolite type paste” and a “calcite in red clay” paste (table 5.8). Thickness of vessel walls of these two groups is distinct (4-14mm the first, but mostly thin, 8-12mm the second), even though with some overlap, the cores of this second type are generally oxidised throughout, whereas this is not the case with the actinolite paste, surface colours are lighter and often red, where the former are mostly dark. Other differences occur between the two, such as shape: this lighter coloured ware is apparently only moulded into bowls with the typical and exclusive presence of ledge handles (Pl. 5.3c). Apart from this singularity of the handles, this group of sherds has a distinctive appearance because of a peppering of white calcite grains throughout the paste. Matson says that it is 23% of the DFBW sherds from Phase A that belong to this group of calcite red clays. Braidwood does not mention directly this separation of two “classes” of Dark Faced Wares, but the coincidence of the percentage indicated for ledge-handle bowls and that of the light calcite paste, 23%, cannot be casual. Their illustrations in the Braidwood volume at fig.22:18-22 and plate 12:6 (Pl. 5.3 here), furthermore, show their broadly thicker walls. Examples of bases of these sherds are given by Braidwood in figure 25:4-5.

2001 - The Ceramic Collection at the OIC

The classification and chronological subdivision of the early Judaidah pottery that has been set out above, whilst sufficient for a general understanding of the developments of the region, is not refined enough for an in depth comparison with the Mersin material. For an accurate comparison between the two sites I was very kindly accorded permission to vision the materials in Chicago and Ann Arbor (where, not only a small collection of Amuq ceramics are kept, but also some of the samples that Professor Matson had done thin sections and archaeometric analysis on) (Balossi 2004). The analysis of the ceramics was done keeping a continuous eye on the Mersin collection and categories and thus trying to recognise similarities in the developments and productions. I wanted to understand whether the two sites produced the same classes of ceramics and which were, in case, the technologic and typological distinctions between them. This work has not only proved, as will be seen, the complexity of the Amuq DFBW group of ceramics, as in Yumuktepe, but stimulating stratigraphic and chronological hypotheses for the sites of Judaidah, Dhahab and Yumuktepe. In the following paragraphs I shall try to point out, phase by phase, the characters and attributes I feel help to build this more refined classification and that start creating a network of material culture correlations with Cilicia (and, as will be noticed further on, with the Rouj basin to the east). I will only concentrate on the DFBW/DFW and related classes of ceramics (essentially the Washed Impressed) and leave the other groups for a more general discussion on cultural similarities and contacts between the two areas, towards the end of the chapter. Reference will always be made to the materials published in the 1960 OIP LXI volume and only in rare cases supplemented with drawings and photographs made at the OIC during the 2001 visit. 5.4.2 Reordering Levels JK3 28-25. Amuq Phase A DFB Wares “…23% of the Phase A burnished material…Braidwood has classified morphologically with the DFBW…distinctive appearance and presence of ledge handles…group should be classed as a unique variant”. F. Matson

(Matson, notes in Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 49-50) Actinolite paste 4-14 mm thickness Mostly dark cores Dark surface colours Shapes: bowls, hole-mouth and collared jars

Calcite red clay 8-12 mm thickness Mostly oxidised cores Mostly light, buff, light brown and red surface colours Shapes: bowls with ledge handles

Table 5.8 - Major distinctions between the two groups of early DFBW from Judaidah observed by Matson.

118

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

All these descriptions inevitably led me to think about the earliest pottery from trench WA (see paragraph 2.10.4 and Pl. 2.36a), the thicker walled vessels, with a high percentage of what seem to be calcite grains in the paste, light colours and well burnished surfaces. The Yumuktepe pottery apparently had a proper slip, but apart from that, such characterisations seemed to fit in quite well with those given by Matson in describing the light coloured wares. Unfortunately, there are no shapes from the Yumuktepe materials and, most important of all, no ledge handles, but this could very well be due to the scarcity of sherds found and to the small dimension of the excavated area: only 1 was the rim sherd of this class of ceramics discovered in the Cilician site. The direct analysis of this ceramic production in Chicago, left little doubts about its similarity with that of Mersin. Even though we do not know whether the pastes and clays are the same, macroscopic typological and technologic characters appear to be strongly alike. Tempers and paste look similar, colours are nearly identical, wall thickness too. The Judaidah fragments do not seem to be slipped, but the overall aesthetic appearance is really the same one as the WA Mersin sherds. It thus seems that, already since the early occupation of these two sites, similarities in the material culture were present.

in Mersin (Pl. 2.40a), more complicated results the analysis and correlation of the remaining DFBW from Phase A. The observation that comes to mind at a first view of the collection of DFBW from this period is a general resemblance with class 3 in Mersin (Pls. 2.3c and 2.112.16). Indeed the characters are extremely near to those of class 3: cores are mostly dark, surface colour is, in this phase, mostly of various shades of brown and greys, from light to intense, and dark brown, whilst blacks are rare. In Yumuktepe too, in the earlier periods of development (levels XXXIII-XXVIII), black was not too common a colour for the DFbW. Some examples of the purplish colour noticed exclusively in Mersin trench F (approx. level XXVIII) are present at Judaidah as well. Thickness is highly variable, with a tendency for walls thicker than what was seen in Yumuktepe. Burnishing is not always done with the same intensity, and, in general, less accuracy has been noticed in Judaidah than in Yumuktepe. Shapes too diverge slightly and so do decorations. Deep bowls and hole-mouth jars are present, just like in Cilicia, with simple rims, slightly flaring, or flattened ones too, but collared jars are nearly just as frequent; a vessel, this one, that was never moulded in this ware, in Mersin (Pls. 5.1 and 5.2). Class 1 and 2, the Pinkish Wares, were those used for jars by the Yumuktepe’ans (Pls. 2.4-6, 2.8). As for decoration, most of the impressions are common to the two sites, but, again, the Amuq seems to have a greater variety: apart from all kind of signs left by pointed objects, nails and fingers, applied decorations as round bottons, cords or bands are present (Pl. 5.1). On the overall though, I think it could be safely stated that the medium textured DFBW of Judaidah Phase A, though more varied, has indeed strong analogies with Mersin class 3.

In Mersin, this pottery comes from the deepest layers found, it is apparently characteristic of levels 4-5 of trench WA, where it appears before the beginning of the typical DFbW, the dark, burnished and thinner ware. In a later level (WA 3) DFbW and this thicker and calcite whitespotted pottery are seen together. In Judaidah, these two groups were reported of together, in the same horizon. A re-subdivision, by level, of all Phase A sherds in the OIC, though, has brought to a very exciting discovery12. The great majority of these “calcite red clay” sherds were in fact found in levels JK3 28-26, where fewer are the other dark burnished wares; these diminish in level 25 and become rare in Phase B. This slight stratigraphic divergence with the rest of the burnished ware, would seem to confirm their, at least partially, distinct character. Furthermore, the correlation with the earliest Yumuktepe ceramics, argued for by the technologic and manufacture similarities, finds confirmation in the apparently coinciding stratigraphic sequence of these pottery classes within the two sites.

Some, very rare, fragments of burnished ware are extremely fine (Pl. 5.1b), and apart from showing a strong affinity with Yumuktepe’s class 5 of Very Fine Dark Faced Burnished Ware, do seem to confirm that Judaidah too did not have one single class of DFBW. Two of the very fine sherds seen are even highly polished, as the best class 5 examples in Mersin. Amongst these are some of the sherds illustrated in figure 24 of the OIP volume; in particular, figures 24:413 (Pl. 5.1, 5th sherd) and 25:1 (Pl. 5.1 6th sherd) are absolutely identical to Mersin’s class 5; their shapes though, are not typical of the Cilician site. Fragments as thin as 2mm though, are rare and colour is nearly never black but brown or grey. Shapes, like in the case of the thicker DFBW, are not only bowls, as Mersin had testified, but various small collared jars are present too (Pl. 5.1b). Again, decoration, present but not very common, is both impressed and applied, in the form of “buttons” (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960 fig. 25: 3; fig. 26: 5; fig. 27:46-48), crescents or horizontal bands.

Whilst this particular burnished ceramic production seems to have strong technological and chronological counterparts 12

This operation was not always very easy because of the renumbering of layers that had been done back in Chicago. The JK trench in fact, had started off as a small excavation sector, later enlarged towards the east, thus in an area uphill compared to the one already excavated. This and the steep slope in this point of the mound caused an initial disorientation in stratigraphic correlations, since level 1 of the previously investigated area corresponded to level 4 of the newly opened eastern enlargement; all old levels had thus to be converted to match the later dug area. The changing of nomenclature on the pottery sherds had, for the great part, already been done by the excavators, but some cases had been skipped. Dr R. Tindel’s help was invaluable in trying to reorder and interpret these.

13

This sherd in particular was found in a pit, thus its attribution to Phase A cannot be taken with certainty.

119

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

The Very Fine DFbW in Mersin appears in levels XXVIIXXVI, thus when the medium coarse DFbW of class 3 is already long produced. This pottery has no apparent chronological link, in Mersin, with the sandy calcite pottery phase, as it would instead appear in Judaidah. Many of the fine sherds illustrated by the Braidwoods and kept at the OIC though come from Tell Dhahab (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960 fig. 27: 12, 28, 34, 39-41), which, as will be seen later on, might not strictly belong to this phase and

should thus temporarily not be considered. Other fragments of this ware that I have personally seen in Chicago furthermore come from level 25, thus the latest of the phase; it might well be that, in Judaidah, such fine ware had already developed towards the end of Phase A, but its rarity, together with the great boom that it will have in the following period, would rather tend to see these sherds as intrusive.

Yumuktepe classification

Judaidah Phase A DFBW Technical and Typological Differences

Calcite, thick ware of trench WA (cl. 7) cl. 3 of levels XXVIII and earlier

present present

cl. 3 of levels XXVII-XXVI

present

cl. 5 of levels XXVII-XXVI cl. 4 of levels XXVII-XXVI

present absent

(actinolite paste) Not slipped, but burnished generally with thicker walls Mostly thicker and with a less careful burnish. Collared jars, apart from bowls and hole-mouth jars. Greater variety of decorations. Very few black surfaces -

Table 5.9 - Correlations between the DFW pottery of Mersin and the dark wares of Judaidah Phase A. The third column gives a quick summary of the peculiarities of Judaidah’s ceramics, in comparison with the same classes in Mersin.

Phase A is also characterised by the presence of the Washed Impressed Ware, which, even though kept separate from the DFBW by the Braidwoods, as I have said, actually has strong similarities with it (Pl. 5.3b). The temper and paste are the same, both are burnished and surface colour is identical too. Also Matson confirms this; the only difference he points out is that the paste of the Washed Impressed Ware has a finer quartz, thus resulting into a duller burnished surface. Shapes are similar too, even though that of the latter is limited to bowls. The only clear distinction is the red wash in the interior and on the exterior of the rim, which is never seen amongst the class traditionally called Dark Faced Burnished. The impressed decoration on the washed ware, furthermore, has the same style of the one seen in the DFBW. Basically, without the red wash, two sherds of these classes would not be distinguished. Such a strong analogy between these two groups of pottery certainly indicates their origin from a common tradition of pottery making and we believe that the Washed Impressed should be considered essentially a DFBW class, separated from the rest only at a secondary and more detailed analysis. A further demonstration that Washed Impressed and Dark Face are “relatives” is given by some Phase B sherds illustrated in OIP figure 50; here, pottery catalogued as DFBW has impressed decoration in particular, unburnished, areas of the vessel, delimited by burnished bands; this is exactly the same principle underlining the decoration on the Washed Impressed (Pl. 5.5c).

and delimited shape and size, furthermore, the same one, might confirm this. Both were the “nice” vessels, the serving set. If this was the case, it would further emphasise the “liberty” and autonomy of production of Mersin and Judaidah, in the sense that each devised its own, distinct, “good set of bowls”. At the same time though, the need for such sets by both sites, would be a first indication of similarity in their social organisation.

Quite astonishing is the total absence of this washed ware from Yumuktepe, site that apparently shares this same tradition of dark mineral tempered wares. All clues would tend to see it as the Judaidah counterpart of the Mersin Very Fine Burnished Ware; it is indeed appealing to see their roles as similar. The fact that, in both sites it is only the vessels of these two classes that have such a specific

The sudden change in the pottery assemblage of Amuq Phase B, that is testified by the first appearance of painted pottery, does not seem to be in the slightest confirmed by the Dark Faced Burnished Ware. Transformations and differences in that class are noted, both technologically and typologically, but they all follow a gradual trend of evolution, with no major distortions.

This general comparison of the early pottery phase in the Amuq and the Mersin assemblage, indicating strong analogies, does surprisingly evidence, in Judaidah, the presence of ceramics that in Yumuktepe belong to various chronological phases. The impression is that Judaidah A comprehends more than one moment of the Yumuktepe development (table 5.9): the early burnished and light coloured, calcite ware is present (Pl. 5.3c) in levels 28-26, an equivalent of Mersin’s class 3, Dark Faced Burnished Ware, shows characters both of the early, purplish thinner bowls (Pl. 5.2) (XXIX-XXVIII), and of the later dark brown and grey, medium tempered vessels (XXVII-XXVI). The Very Fine Dark Burnished Ware (Mersin class 5) is evident too, even though in a very small percentage and maybe intrusive (Pl. 5.1b). What is totally missing in Judaidah A is Mersin class 4, the cooking ware, which will appear, though, in the following Phase B. 5.4.3 JK3 24: Phase B and the Development of the Very Fine Ware

120

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

classes14. Bowls, necked jars, tray-like vessels and plates, carenated jars and bowls are all found amongst the very fine ware too. Furthermore, size difference is not so noticeable; fine ware bowls reach, in fact, more than 20cm in diameter. Obviously, thinner vessels tend to be smaller and thicker ones larger, but the degree of overlapping seems to be quite high. This, again, was not the case in Mersin. Grey and black examples of Very Fine Burnished bowls remind very closely those of Mersin levels XXVIIXXVI. Highly polished examples, though, which in Mersin were approximately 60% of the whole class, are very few.

As has been stated the changes in the Dark Faced Burnished Ware see slightly thinner vessel walls, a more careful burnish, and a change in percentages of surface colour: the increase in really black sherds and darker colours. This moves more towards the trend of the Mersin Dark Face, where from level XXVIII to the later XXVIIXXVI we assist to a similar situation. Light colours as reds and orangish-browns (rare in Mersin) are very common too, though, thus still underlining the partial independence of the two productions. Furthermore, seldom fragments of the more purplish colour are still noticed in this phase, whilst in Yumuktepe these were confined only to the earliest occupation levels. Another particularity that is noted only in the Judaidah material is that burnish in the interior of the vessel hardly ever goes below the rim. This is probably due to a physical constraint, in collared jars, where the interior is not reachable by a hand, but the finding of this feature on bowls too clearly qualifies it as an intentional attribute of the Judaidah Dark Face. Again, this underlines that the Cilician and the Amuq sites where probably interpreting in their own way a similar “vision” of pottery making. Shapes too, confirm this, since, even more than in the previous phase, Judaidah develops a Dark Faced Burnished Ware typology that is totally absent in Mersin. Low tray-like vessels appear and become quite common in Phase B (Pl. 5.4). Some of these are represented in OIP figure 43, but many, illustrated only for the First Mixed Range (OIP figures 74, 75; here Pl. 5.8), have totally flat bases. Yumuktepe has nothing similar, at least not until the much later painted pottery levels. Carenated shapes are also seen frequently, and these too have no counterparts in the region to the north (Pls. 5.4 and 5.5a). Flaring necks and high straight ones increase and continue to characterise many of the Judaidah jars. Small strainers, of which we will see interesting counterparts in the Rouj Basin, are also seen in this Phase (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, fig.47:19) (Pl. 5.4).

Impressed decoration amongst the Dark Faced Burnished Ware of Amuq B is still present, even though in a rather small proportion, and the washed impressed has a slight increase, whereas both I and Burkitt have noticed, in Mersin, its strong decline with levels XXVII-XXVI. Rocker impressions are new in the Judaidah material, confirming the late appearance of this kind of impressed decoration (Balossi and Frangipane, 2002, have underlined how rocker impression is generally a late expression of impressed decoration in Neolithic sites throughout the western regions of the Near East.) (Pl. 5.5). Again, Mersin has no evidence of such a decorative pattern, until levels XXII-XX, thus at a much later phase (2.13.3). Here too thus, according to the Mersin assemblage, there would be some kind of overlap in the chronological attribution of decorations. The appearance of pattern burnish decoration in Amuq phase B (Pl. 5.5) would be in line with the Mersin findings, where rare examples of it have been found in levels XXVI-XXVI. Its rarity though indicates in my view they are an extraneous character to the Yumuktepe ceramic production, maybe arrived or borrowed by the south15. The other character that would see Mersin XXVII-XXVI and Amuq B as contemporary would be the presence in both sites of impressed decorations obtained by using multiple pointed objects. Certainly the two settlements have strong differences, but something does indicate a common trend. Particular of Judaidah is instead the combination of impressed decoration delimited by burnished bands, which has an appearance very similar to that of the red washed impressed (Pl. 5.5c).

These particular shapes are not only seen in the classical Dark Faced Ware, but also on the very Fine Ware, the one corresponding to Yumuktepe class 5 (Pl. 5.5a). Whilst in Phase A the examples of class 5 ware were very few and often of doubtable provenance, in this period the Very Fine Ware certainly sees an important development. Still much less than the rest of the burnished ceramics, its presence is regular and homogeneous. Rarely, this pottery reaches the fineness of the one in Mersin, but a comparison with the rest of the Dark Faced Burnished in Judaidah does indeed show it is THE fine ware of the site, comparable thus to Mersin class 5. Furthermore, there is clear testimony here of the same kind of firing atmosphere as the Yumuktepe vessels as cores often have a dark centre, followed by a red, oxidised outer layer and, again, a dark, reduced layer on the outer part of the section. The dark colour was thus, clearly pursued, as was also demonstrated by the archaeometric analysis on the Mersin ceramics (chapter 3).

The little changes noticed in the Washed Impressed ware, in Phase B, are all in line with the developments noted until now. The beginning of painted decoration probably

14

This too might explain why the Braidwoods did not separate the very fine and medium-coarse burnished ceramics into two distinct groups. 15 Breniquet 1995, 13 asserts that pattern burnish, an Amuq characteristic, is replaced (“remplacée) in Mersin by incised decoration filled with white paste. We rather believe that both these two kinds of decoration are not typical of Yumuktepe and that they characterise two different moments of development of decoration on dark wares; a demonstration of this is the fact that white filled decoration is quite common in sites to the east of the Amuq, in the Rouj basin, sites that have a strong tradition of pattern burnish decoration too. The pattern burnish, as we will see, results, in such sites, as a slightly earlier tradition than that of the white filled decoration. In Mersin too, even though both very rare, the latter decoration is found later (level XXIV by Garstang and even later by the new excavations).

Differently to what happened in Mersin, no clear cut typological difference is visible between these two 121

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

influenced the production of this ware and might have caused the increase in complexity of the red wash (Pl. 5.6a) and the greater elaboration of the impressed decorations (as in the DFBW proper) This particular group of vessels is the first indication of a very homogeneous class of vessels, in which paste, colour, surface treatment, shape, size and decoration are nearly “standardised”. The variety of impressed decorations present on it, though, would tend to make us imagine that each family or group of people had its own, and thus produced its own.

for which I often had the impression I could see an unburnished ware in earlier Amuq Phase A too. In this phase, in any case, the distinction becomes quite evident, or at least, the really unburnished cases are unquestionable of. These are mainly hole-mouth jars and deep bowls, similar thus in shape to class 4 in Mersin (Pl. 5.6). On the contrary, amongst Dark Faced Burnished Ware, hole-mouth jars seem to diminish in comparison with Phase A (the leading shapes are deep bowls and collared jars). Unfortunately, no traces of carbon deposits are seen and there is thus no confirmation of the possible use of these pots on fire. The ware, surface treatment and shape similarities with Yumuktepe class 4 (Gritty Dark Faced Ware), though, are, in my view, strong enough to draw these two classes of vessels together. The appearance of one in Phase B and of the other in levels XXVII-XXVI, would further argue for the at least partial contemporaneity of the two phases. By phase B thus, Judaidah evidences all the DFW classes noted at Mersin in levels XXVII-XXVI (table 5.10).

The last important change of Phase B, as regards to dark wares, is the first appearance of Dark Faced Unburnished Ware. I have already had the occasion to point out the fact that recognition of burnishing, smoothing and polishing is often a very subjective operation and that the smoothing at one site might be seen as a burnishing at another. At a close comparison, for example, the burnishing on the Judaidah ceramics is much less evident than that in Mersin, reason Yumuktepe classification

Judaidah Phase B DFBW

Technical and Typological Differences DFBW levels XXVIII and earlier

rare

cl. 3 of levels XXVII-XXVI

present

cl. 4 of levels XXVII-XXVI

present

cl. 5 of levels XXVII-XXVI

present

analogous Burnishing on the inside is limited to the rim. Colours, though with an increase in blacks and greys, are of a much greater variety. Collared jars, tray-like vessels, carenated shapes, vessels with feet, apart from bowls and very few hole-mouth jars. Pattern burnish, rocker impression, greater complexity of decorations. analogous Characters of this class are exactly like those of class 3, described above. Minor accuracy and fineness of the Judaidah vessels compared to those of Mersin.

Table 5.10 - Correlations between the DFW pottery of Mersin and the dark wares of Judaidah Phase B. The third column gives a quick summary of the peculiarities of Judaidah’s ceramics, in comparison with the same classes in Mersin.

with the classes previously known from Phase B. Was such a circumstance real, it would certainly settle the stratigraphic controversy involving the architectural remains. As Braidwood suggested, the foundations of the structures of level 23 could easily be interpreted as belonging to a late Phase B or to the unknown beginning of Phase C; its elevation would have been cut by some later phase. Since this interpretation seems the only one able to explain the presence of a consistent architectural deposit, I would tend to consider it valid; the FMR would thus be reduced to single layer 22, whilst floor 23 could be considered as a Phase B2 (the 2 is to distinguish it from the real phase B). With this in mind, I would pass on to analyse the Dark Faced Ware of layer 23, trying to understand its relations and differences with the underlying Phase B.

5.4.4 The First Mixed Range. An Attempt of Reconsidering a Contaminated Context The FMR, composed of two levels (JK3 23-22), has been included within this work because of the exclusive characters that some of the Dark Faced Burnished Ware found in it evidence. Even though the contexts are clearly mixed, it was obvious to the Braidwoods too, that the material from these layers was hiding important information on the developments of pottery production after Phase B. This becomes especially valuable if we consider that the Amuq sequence is still missing the passage between Phases B and C, on which these strata could enlighten. The first operation, when going through this pottery in Chicago, was, like in the case of Phase A, separating sherds of layers 23 and 22. Layer 23, in fact, was an occupation surface, with architectural features (puzzling to understand how a context, with coherent architecture, could have uncoherent materials), whilst 22 was simply a level of fill, debris. The exciting discovery of this division of materials was that all the late ceramics, the Halaf, Ubaid and phase F pottery, fell into layer 22! Level 23 was, in fact, left only

The first thing to be pointed out is the ever greater increase in Mersin class 5, the Very Fine Dark Faced Burnished Ware (Pl. 5.8). Much more frequent than in Phase B, this pottery still never reaches the fineness of the one in Yumuktepe. Shapes are more or less the same as those of Phase B. The overall presence of bowls, though, is much reduced and the largest part of the burnished ware sherd bulk is made up by the jars. As in the previous period, there 122

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

is no apparent distinction in shapes between the fine class and the medium-coarse tempered burnished wares. Separating the two classes was quite difficult and it would seem to suggest that the Yumuktepe pottery, on the contrary, had a more specific and codified role. This is also confirmed by the homogeneity in surface colours, character this that, even in the First Mixed Range, does not seem to be respected; even though dark surfaces are now quite frequent, red, orange and beige colours are also very common.

polished, with impressed decoration has, in fact, a direct correlation with a Judaidah sherd: the two fragments are hardly distinguishable and would have easily been interpreted as coming from the same site, was their origin unknown (Pls. 2.29 and 5.10c). 5.4.5 The Take Over of Painted Wares; Where Goes the Dark Faced Burnished? Dark Faced Burnished Ware is cited by the Braidwoods until Phase E, thus well into the Halaf and Ubaid periods; the continuously changing characters of this pottery and the recognition of distinct classes within its broader category, though, can easily alert us on the transformation that this ceramic production must have undergone by the time it reached the Chalcolithic culture of Ubaid. Furthermore, Phase C marks a major conversion within the material culture tradition of the area: painted pottery becomes predominant. Coarse wares disappear, as does the Washed Impressed and the Brittle Painted. It is easy to imagine that Amuq C itself must have been somewhat of a revolution within the evolution of ceramics in the region.

Shapes, has been said, do not change much in comparison to the previous period, what change though are their proportions: low tray/plates are more frequent now, as are carenated bowls (Pl 5.8-9). Particular are the latter, with a carena very low along the vessel wall, a shape that reminds strongly that of Halaf Cream Bowls. These are not very frequent, but their presence does seem to confirm that we are in a slightly later phase than B. One straight walled bowl with signs of a tripod base was found. This particular vessel has a very complex pattern burnish decoration, this too much more frequent in layer 23 than in Phase B (Pl. 5.10). Not much can, obviously, be said on one single piece, but its importance, as will be realised later on when comparing Judaidah with the nearby Rouj basin, is outstanding. Nothing like it had ever been seen in earlier contexts.

Painted Pottery has one enormous advantage over monochrome ware: its much greater potential of communication. Styles and motives can be infinite on a painted vase. We know, from various studies on the Halaf pottery, that, in this period, ceramics were indeed an important vehicle of information exchange and transmission. It has even been demonstrated that pots themselves were being exported and/or imported to/from other sites, and that their large distribution was not due to their use as containers for some other exported product (Le Blanc and Watson 1973). We thus also deduce from the high production (and, obviously, demand) of painted vessels -and on this too many pages have already been written in the past- that Halaf was a moment of increased movement and more complex inter- and intra-group relationships.

Impressed decorations diminish strongly in this level, both on the very fine ware (in which they had always been quite rare though), and on the medium-coarse burnished ware (Yumuktepe class 3). Pattern burnish, this too generally found on the medium-coarse burnished ware and not so much on the very fine one, instead, increases. Basically, what we see in comparison to Phase B is not so much a qualitative difference in the burnished pottery, but a quantitative distinction of classes and characters. Very Fine Ware increases, impressed decoration, on the opposite diminishes; pattern burnish, on class 3 burnished vessels, is found more often, and so are dark colours. Washed Impressed Ware has a sudden falloff. Dark Faced Unburnished Ware does not change characters, but bowls are more rarely moulded in this ware, which gradually becomes exclusively used for hole-mouth jars. The presence of a couple of new shapes (low carenated bowl and tripod bowl), in the burnished, medium tempered ware, too, marks the distance with Phase B. Amongst the DFBW, tray-like vessels are many more and hole-mouth jars decline. These quantitative changes in ratios of classes in layer 23 have been noticed by going through the material in Chicago, but they are also deducible, in most cases, from the OIP report.

What happens to the monochrome dark burnished wares in this period of grand development of colour pigments on pottery? First of all, its total quantity no longer exceeds greatly over the rest of the ceramic assemblage. In fact, painted pottery is more or less found in the same quantity as DFBW, in Amuq C. An immediate observation is that of the disappearance of both Washed Impressed and of the Very Fine Burnished Ware (Mersin class 5)16. These two classes were those interpreted as the “nice” vessels, those that probably had a more representative role, those with the most evident socio/ideo-function. The coincidence between the vanishing of these and the emergence of the painted pots is probably not casual. The first do seem to have been

Both the technological and typological distinctions noted before with the Mersin pottery, have been seen in layer 23 too, even though the regular finding of some identical fragments keep on reminding about the similarities and sharing of traditions that must have characterised the two sites. One class 5 fragment from Mersin, black and highly

16 Of this last class some, very rare, fragments have actually been seen in Tell Kurdu, like the one illustrated in Braidwood and Braidwood 1960 fig. 107, 9. Amongst these are some well oxidised, fine and thin walled vessels with a red surface, thus not properly Dark Faced Wares.

123

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

replaced by the latter. Fine tempers are still present, but generally found on thicker walled pots.

ceramic tradition is starting its decline, or its second life. This subsequent phase of Dark Faced Burnished Wares, just as complicated to untangle as the first one, deals with totally different issues, regional distributions and political developments, reason for which I have chosen to put a stop to the research here.

Whilst the unburnished ware (Mersin class 4) sees no major changes, the classical burnished wares, equivalent to Mersin class 3, undergo major changes too, that normally enable us to distinguish quite easily the DFBW from phases B and C. Even though some sherds still have characters similar to their older “ancestors”, we assist, in general, to an increase of sandy tempers and a considerable thickening of vessel walls. The burnishing technique is also different and, though we have not studied it in particular, the impression, in comparison to the earlier cases, is of a rather carelessly given treatment, with long and visible strokes, that often leaves a sort of bi-chrome effect on the pot. Braidwood calls it a red-orange “wiped burnish”. In fact, on brown vessels, the burnish (as an effect of the firing atmosphere) produces a yellowish-red band near the rim, or a brownish band on the darker colours. At times, the burnishing appears only on the rim. Slip was also noted by Matson. On the contrary of the earlier tendency, black and dark colours are more frequent than the, yet present, orange and red surfaces. Shapes too, show quite a change: straightsided open bowls, as those seen in the FMR, are quite common, as are the carenated ones, that now more than ever appear to be imitating the shape of some Halaf Cream Bowls. All these are pretty large and thick walled vessels. High collared jars alone are by far the most frequent shape, and flaring necks are greatly characteristic. Hole-mouth jars have definitely declined, and are mostly found amongst the Dark Faced Unburnished Ware, a class this which carries on with no major changes from Phase B. One last, but extremely important point is the rarity of decoration on the DFBW of Phase C. Impressions have all disappeared and only a few fragments with Pattern Burnish were found in tell Kurdu (which might even come from earlier layers?!). It is evident thus that Dark Faced Burnished Ware no longer covered the role and function of before; it probably didn’t have any major communicative role, which was taken up by the new painted ceramics, and its more “massive” and duller look probably indicates that it continued to be used simply as daily utilitarian pottery.

5.4.6

Some observations on Matson’s thin sections

The Matson Museum of the Pennsylvania State University has very kindly accorded me the permission to look at the thin sections of ceramics from Judaidah phases A, B and FMR, that had been made by Matson in the early years of the excavation (I thank immensely Dr Milner, Curator and Director of Exhibits at the Matson Museum of Anthropology, for this permission). Furthermore, the actual samples from which these thin sections had been taken have been found in the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan by professor Henry Wright; I was able to see those too and this helped immensely in giving the class attribution to the thin sections that I was looking at. My hope was that of understanding, by an initial glance at these materials, whether, as at the macroscopic level, there are some “microscopic” diagnostic elements for the identification of DFBW at a regional level, as some scholars argue, and whether possible exchange of these ceramics can be noted. The thin sections analysed are listed in table 5.11, where I have also indicated the proposed correlation with Yumuktepe’s ceramic classes. The geological context in the Amuq, as in northern Syria, is not very different from that of Mersin. Here too in fact is a large ophiolitic complex together with abundant limestone formations. The Amuq is surrounded by the Amanus Mountains to the west and by low limestone hills (the same ones of the Rouj) to the south and east. The Amanus are a complex of ultrabasic rocks, metamorphic rocks and limestone (Yener et al. 2000, 168). Extensive basalt outcrops are seen in the area (Lease and Laurent 1998, 85). Interesting is also the flow of the rivers reaching the Amuq, as they bring with them different geological materials from their water sources. The Afrin river, in fact, flows down from the Gaziantep-Urfa platform bringing along ultrabasic and sedimentary rocks. Cores for analysis have been taken at Lake Gölbasi located to the north of the Lake Antioch basin (http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/AR/97-98/97-98_ Amuq.html#Geo). Interesting considerations have been made on the noted presence, in these cores, of potassium, calcium, and chromium. Potassium, being associated with clay minerals, would, in fact, appear to relate to clay deposition within early lakes, while calcium might have accumulated as a result of the drying up of the lakes and the consequent formation of soils on the lake bed. Finally, chromium (and associated nickel) is probably a result of the erosion of the Amanus Mountains (ultrabasic rock), the component rocks of which are rich in these elements.

DFBW had started off as THE pottery of the Amuq region, covering in its broadest category all functions of the ceramics; then sided by the coarse chaff wares, when, though, it was still the major production, and the coarse bowls and jars were probably containers that did not move around very much. Very fine examples of DFBW were, at this time, produced and others decorated, responding to particular social and ideological, as well as functional, needs of the communities. These roles, though, were later probably taken up by another ceramic tradition and slowly shapes and technological characters of the DFBW diminished and were delimited to more strictly utilitarian demands. The DFBW does not disappear yet, but, certainly, its cultural horizon is completely transformed and the

124

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

Braidwood classification DFBW DFBW DFBW DFBW DFBW DFBW red washed impressed coarse red slip brittle painted ?

Correlation with Mersin classes and phases "sand temper" XXXIII-XXX cl.3 XXIX-XXVIII cl.3 XXVII-XXIV DFBW XXIII-XX cl.4 XXVII-XX cl.5 XXVII-XXIV -

Samples 1054 892 806, 825, 830, 838, 893, 1050, 1051, 1055 833, 835, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1079, 1080 1052 827, 891, 893 809, 1056, 1057 1090 1091, 1092, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099 808, 820, 834, 894, 898

Table 5.11 – List of Matson’s thin sections from Judaidah levels A-B-FMR, that have been analysed. The sample numbers are the original Matson ones. On the basis of the macroscopic observations made on the sherds from which the samples were taken I hypothesise a typological and chronological correlation with the Yumuktepe ceramics.

Matson has never published a detailed report of the analyses, but just summaries aimed at specific issues on particular categories of pottery. I have no knowledge of what percentage, out of the total samples he has taken, are the ones I have been able to see, nor do I know how the samples were chosen in the first place. Statistical reliability of these analyses is thus certainly not high, but initial observations can certainly help in the comparing this material with that of Mersin.

with the Rouj, as well) though does leave open the possibility of an exchange of some ceramics between these neighbouring regions. The presence of olivine is very high amongst the Judaidah sherds, no matter the class. Very rare are in fact the samples that have no olivine and it is also generally found in large quantity within the sherd. In Yumuktepe olivine was present, but it was most found in classes 1 and 2 (and 5, which has the same composition as class 1), the local light, pinkish coloured ware. Only 5 amongst the class 3 (DFbW) sherds, instead, evidenced olivine. This difference in behaviour might again suggest that the DFbW, which is the pottery shared amongst these sites, was actually mostly locally made, even though following a same typological tradition. The rarity in Cc and the frequent ARFs at Judaidah could argue for the same conclusion. Confirming the local character of this particular composition is the single Coarse Red Slip (a clearly local class) sherd analysed (1090); in fact, even though also with vegetal inclusions, the usual Qz, Px and olivine crystals were visible in the thin section.

The thin sections have evidenced a situation partly similar to that of Mersin, with the presence of quartz grains, pyroxene grains, plagioclase, biotite laths, and feldspar. On top of this main component, some samples evidence specific crystals, as olivine and basic volcanic fragments. The most important difference with Mersin though is the extreme rarity of calcite. In fact, only 2 samples (806, 1079) have indication of Cc; these two cases evidence, together with Cc, only Qz.. It might be possible that this absence of Cc is due to the firing of ceramics at higher temperatures, over calcite decarbonation (approximately 800°C); in fact the geological setting evidences high presence of limestone as well as calcium deposits in the Amuq basin. Unfortunately, not having chemical nor mineralogical analyses of these samples it is impossible to tell whether this difference is due to firing or to the use of different pastes. Another difference that appears at a first observation is the abundance, at Judaidah, of ARFs (argillaceous rock fragments), which, even though present at Mersin, were never as abundant; this suggests that paste amalgamation was less careful in the Amuq site. Fossils too are much more abundant in Judaidah than they were in the Cilician site, and this might have to do with the different geological formation of the two areas. These are present in most Brittle Painted Ware samples and in the DFBW sherds from the later phases.

One last observation should be made on the single sherd with “sand temper”, which typologically I have assimilated to the early burnished ware of Mersin (class 7), even though not much can be said on a single sherd. It can here simply be noted that its composition appears to be quite distinct from that of the other DFBW samples, as the thin section has evidenced a great quantity of carbonatic rock fragments, followed by quartz grains. As for the other classes, differences in composition with the Yumuktepe class 7 are evident. In conclusion thus, these observations on the Judaidah thin sections do seem to suggest an autonomous production in the Amuq and Cilician sites, where it is mostly the similar geological characters of the two regions that are to blame for analogies in paste composition. Furthermore, even though samples are few and the available data very partial, it would appear that only the Brittle Painted Ware had a rather homogeneous paste composition. The other classes evidence, from a petrographic point of view, various distinct inclusions.

None of the observed crystal components of the pastes of the Judaidah ceramics appear out of place in the geological scenario of the region, thus, as for Mersin, local production can be hypothesised (especially when fossils are present within the paste). The similarity in the geological formation of this area with that of Cilicia (and, as we will see later, 125

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

5.5 CERAMIC PRODUCTION AND SOCIAL INTERACTION. JUDAIDAH AND YUMUKTEPE

tempered wares and the other with mineral, oxidised ceramics that accompany the Dark Burnished ones, this, at least, in the main period taken into consideration. The evidence that they did not share the totality of their assemblage is, in my view, a first indication of the fact that the two communities did not exactly belong to the same socio-cultural entity. Other socio-cultural boundaries appear to be those of the Amuq groups, as will been noticed when analysing the Rouj basin to the east. The percentage of DFW present in the two sites, too, is substantially different: 52-57% of DFBW, 3-7% of Dark Faced Unburnished and 8-13% of Washed Impressed, in Judaidah Phase B, whilst in a more or less contemporary period, in Mersin, DFW only reaches 20%.

The production of pottery, like all other elements of material culture, is influenced by social and political factors, as well as technological ones. This has amply been talked about in another occasion, but such a statement comes in use here in agreeing upon the fact that, if people occupying a certain geographical area shared many elements of their material practise, these same people must have “shared some aspects of the social forms and cultural understandings that went with them” (Sillar 2000, 5). Figuring out how much and what of these social forms two groups had in common, though, is not simple. Binford has affirmed that items that are widely exchanged also reflect broad sociocultural relationships (Binford 1972, 204), but, again, the kind and degree of such networks are not directly deducible from a count of the items in common. An understanding of the function of such items, the dynamics of their distribution, together with a comparison with other characters of the societies involved are necessary and preliminary steps for approaching this issue. The common presence of particular classes of ceramic production, in fact, does not necessarily reflect the participation in a same socio-cultural entity, but simple contact and communication between two communities. Differentiation between a “shared” culture of a stylistic nature and a “shared” culture of a socio-political nature is the basis for distinguishing the tradition, thus the common cultural background, from the interaction sphere. Diachronic evaluations of change in the ceramics, too, provide relevant data in this direction, since rates of cultural change (testified by the changes in the pottery production) may be directly related to rates of social interaction.

Contacts between the two sites though have been clearly noted in the material culture, and these do suggest their taking part in a same network of communication. The diachronic considerations of their material culture similarities are those that probably best give an idea of the strength and development of such interactions. The lowest levels (JK3 28-26) of Amuq A and the basal trenches WA and SA in Mersin are the first traces of occupation known until now in the two regions and the we’ve seen that the ceramics found do seem to indicate some common tradition for that period (data from Mersin is unfortunately very little, but the comparison with the Judaidah Calcite Red Clay pottery has somewhat validated it). Not only do the technological choices for this production appear to be similar in both sites (Mersin class 7), but shapes too, very simple, are more or less the same ones. I avoided calling this DFBW, in order to separate it unmistakeably from the “classical” group of dark burnished vessels. If this is really the only pottery produced at both sites at the beginning of their occupation, we might indeed conclude that, at that time, the Mersin and Judaidah communities were, culturally, much closer than later on. Until further excavations of those levels do not take place, though, little can be said with certainty.

In the present paragraph, I shall try to tackle this point, in respects to the Amuq plain and Cilicia. The discovery of similar and identical groups of pottery, has evidenced, in fact, clear contacts between the two areas; the nature of such relations, though, is what mostly matters, in order to reconstruct the social and political dynamics of these Middle Neolithic groups. By simply considering the ceramics of the two sites analysed until now, little can actually be concluded on such a broader issue. Once other sites and regions will have been taken into consideration and chronological relations cleared, I shall return to this problem of the “Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon”. Here I simply want to discuss the two sites of Judaidah and Yumuktepe, and the hypotheses that the comparison of their pottery productions suggest on the kind and intensity of contacts between them. Considerations regarding the ceramics of these two sites obviously have to comprehend the whole assemblage and not only Dark Faced Burnished Wares. The expression of the sites’ traditions is in fact given by the complexity of all categories of vessels present.

Next to this ceramic class, but supposedly slightly later in time (level 25 in late Phase A), develops, in both sites, what I have called class 3 in Mersin, the “classical” Dark Faced burnished pottery. Again, shapes are quite similar and apparently most technical choices too. It was noticed that the Judaidah potters were less careful in treating the surfaces of their pots, that vessel walls tended to be thicker and that there was less of a strict control about the colour that these should have, but, more or less, the traditions seemed to meet. Shapes were often similar and the same scarlet colour noticed in Mersin for the earlier phases is, even though not very often, seen in Judaidah. Next to this, though, the Amuq develops the coarse chaff ware, making up to 8-13% of the whole assemblage, a quite relevant amount; side by side with a similar ware, thus, is something peculiar to one site only, demonstrating that, if the two communities had been part of one single socio-political entity in the previous phase, they were no longer so strongly interconnected.

Immediately one perceives the diversities of the Judaidah and Yumuktepe assemblages: one with coarse, chaff 126

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

paste, the surface burnished or well smoothed. Surface colour is beige, cream or buff and the pigments brick red, brown, or orange. Motives, in Judaidah appear to be less varied than the Mersin ones, being essentially vertical and wavy lines, at times crossed by horizontal bands. Very similar decorations though were present amongst the Yumuktepe painted ceramics, in levels XXV-XXIV (Pl. 5.11). The early painted wares in the Amuq plain and in Yumuktepe thus appear strongly linked one to the other. This, in fact, does not happen in the painted pottery later on, in neither of the two communities17. Furthermore, Garstang found in these levels (XXV-XXIV) at least one straight necked, burnished, jar, of those shapes typical of the later Amuq phases (B or FMR) (Garstang 1953, fig. 35. The Mersin vessel, though, has an incised decoration, filled with white calcareous paste that is never seen in Judaidah ). Apart from indicating the probable contemporaneity of these levels, these elements newly emphasise the connections existing between the plain of modern Antakya and Mersin. Not only was the DFW demonstrating the proximity of those communities, but the first painted pottery might have derived from a common tradition too.

Impressed decorations are common on the Dark Burnished Ware at both sites, but, again, Judaidah shows a different technological choice (I use here the term technological, distinct from technical, as explained in chapter 2.7.1.) and adds a red wash on many of the decorated bowls. Yumuktepe, at this time, is still producing only one indistinct class of DFbW. In the early periods of occupation (Phase A in the ‘Amuq and levels XXIII-XXVIII in Cilicia), Mersin potters thus apparently follow one single “technology” of pottery making, out of which all shapes are moulded. In Judaidah, at the beginning it seems to be the same (JK3 28-25), but the early introduction of chaff ware (JK3 25) sees the development of two distinct traditions at the site. The following phase (Phase B and levels XXVII-XXVI) sees a greater complexity in the ceramic production at both sites. The appearance of the orange mineral tempered wares in Mersin confirms how the two pottery traditions were distancing themselves. And yet the Dark Faced Burnished Ware still indicates similar origins: both sites develop the Very Fine ware, which I separated from the rest of the burnished ware, both sites had a coarser and grittier group, which was probably intended for cooking or food preparation (the Unburnished in Judaidah and class 4 in Yumuktepe). The affinities between these wares in the two settlements are extremely evident and there is no doubt about their conformity. The use and role of these even though similar classes of pottery though, was probably not always the same: Judaidah had the Washed Impressed as the more “precious”, nice set, whereas Yumuktepe strongly developed the Very Fine Dark Face possibly for a similar profit. The separation between the very fine (class 5) and the medium-coarse tempered dark pottery (class 3), which appears so crucial in Yumuktepe, where size and shape distinction, besides the technical differences, indicate a distinct use of the two, in Judaidah, actually does not seem so strong: out of these two “granulometric” varieties, the same shapes, often in the same size, are moulded, leaving to suppose that they might have been intended for the same use, maybe in different situations.

We are thus faced with two groups of people whose broader categories of ceramics seem to rise from a common tradition, a similarity that can, furthermore, be followed in time through the transformations of the material culture and the evolution of the groups’ organisations. In earlier periods, the links between Cilicia and Antakya might have been stronger and a real engagement of the communities in a single cultural entity might actually be hypothesised. This cannot unfortunately be proved with certainty though, because of the little data for such early phases. With the later developments, the two groups take a clear distance one from the other, resulting into a partly independent pottery production, and yet communication and relations are constantly confirmed by the contemporaneity and alikeness of particular changes in the ceramics. The links in the pottery are still too many to be simply explained as consequences of economic relations and the sharing of some social or cultural component must be hypothesised. The Amuq though, was probably also involved in eastern relations, from which Mersin was cut out, and Mersin itself might have, at the same time, orbited around other Anatolian communities.

The classes of ceramics in common, thus, indicate the “complicity” of the potters in a somehow shared system, but their varying technological choices, functions and contexts of use seem to underline the distance that the two sites had reached in this later period. This, together with the presence of shapes in the Amuq, totally absent in Yumuktepe, like flaring necks, carenated jars and bowls, low tray-like plates, would thus argue in favour of a relative independence of the two communities in pottery production.

With Amuq Phase C and the Halaf period, both sites manifest the influence of the eastern, Mesopotamian, culture and the network dynamics undergo a major change. As pointed out above, furthermore, the beginning of painted ceramics brings a whole load of other issues that would need a separate treatise.

Judaidah acquires its first painted vessels in Phase B; we have seen this happen in Mersin with level XXV, which, as will be argued in the following paragraph, for this reason, might be considered contemporary with Phase B. In both sites the ware is mainly mineral in temper, quite fine in

17

Two fragments, illustrated by Braidwood as probably coming from a late Phase B or early Phase C context (JK3 23), cut by the FMR, are, furthermore, very similar to others from levels XXIV-XXIII in Mersin. Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 83.

127

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

5.6

STRATIGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGY

5.6.1

Correlations between the Amuq and Cilicia

XXVII does not have painted wares and that XXVI, even though linked by Garstang to layer XXV, actually remains well in line with the earlier developments (table 5.13). Certainly, without having direct access to the material, it was nearly impossible for her to detect any distinctions within the earlier levels XXXIII-XXVI, hinted of by Burkitt, but properly defined only by this new study. Levels XXV-XX are all grouped together by Breniquet and, whilstpossible differences between these levels have been noted both in the painted wares and the DFBW, it is true that these were difficult to detect from the Garstang report. More difficult is to understand, in Breniquet’s explanations, why and on the basis of what, levels XXVXXIII are then, in the stratigraphic table she publishes (table 5.14) (Breniquet 1995, 28), supposed to be contemporary to Amuq A. Unfortunately, the lack in adequate explanatory footnotes does not permit to understand her reasons for hypothesising such correlations. No painted pottery is present in Amuq Phase A, whereas it is in Mersin levels XXV-XXIII. Furthermore, whilst in the presentation of the distinct phases of occupation in Mersin (table 5.13), the pre-Halaf levels with painted pottery were all given together, Breniquet now marks a division between layers XXIII and XXII (Breniquet too admits an incoherence in this. 1995, 11 and 13). Phase B, in which the great majority of pottery is still Dark Faced Burnished Ware, is by Breniquet considered contemporary to very late levels in Yumuktepe, when it is painted pottery that has already prevailed.

The sharing of so many traits of material culture, between Cilicia and the Amuq, does indicate that people and things must have been moving plentifully in the area. Changes and development of these characters, of course, did not necessarily have to happen at the same time, but I would tend to imagine a similar trend and progression, especially since sherds that correspond to the different phases of evolution of the ware in Mersin have been identified in Judaidah. The comparative analysis of the Judaidah and Yumuktepe Ceramic Neolithic occupation layers has provided a number of useful instruments for anchoring the phases of the two sites together and commenting their stratigraphic sequence with a greater attention to chronology. This matter has already been tackled by various scholars, amongst which Braidwood (table 5.12) and, later, Breniquet (Breniquet 1995), but the new excavations have certainly brought relevant information that somewhat modifies their interpretations. The most important results of such a stratigraphic and chronological re-elaboration have recently been published (Balossi R. 2004). Mersin XXXIII-XXVIII XXVII-XXIV XXIII XXII-XIX

Judaidah – Amuq Amuq A Amuq B (because beginning of painting) GAP Amuq C

of

Mersin XIX GAP? XX XXII XXIII XXV

Table 5.12 - Braidwood’s hypothesis of chronological correlation between Mersin and the Amuq for the earliest phases.

Braidwood relied on the descriptions in Garstang’s 1953 volume on Yumuktepe, which, as has been seen, are not very precise for these earlier phases of occupation. He fixes the end of Phase A at level XXVIII, because of the apparent beginning of painted pottery in Mersin from level XXVII. We have seen that this is not the case though, and that true painted wares appear from layer XXV. The red pigment that Garstang was talking about for the earlier occupation at the site is probably in fact the reddish wash visible on some of class 1 sherds. XXXIII-XXVI XXV-XX XIX

XXVI XXXIII

Amuq C B

A

Table 5.14 - Stratigraphic correlation proposed by Breniquet between the Mersin and ‘Amuq Phases A-C.

The scholar furthermore hypothesises a gap between levels XX and XIX, whilst Amuq B and C, that Braidwood himself argues are not directly sequential, are given straight one after the other. Garstang, on the other hand, never mentions a possible abandonment of the site, or even of the excavated area, after level XX. I would feel quite in accordance with Garstang, since the presence of several level XIX painted ceramics and their motives, that remind the level XXII and XXIII ones, do seem to indicate a continuity of development. Breniquet’s chronological table, thus, presents quite a few enigmatic points.

Néolithique à céramique lustrée Néolithique final à céramique peinte Contemp. à la fin de Halaf

Table 5.13 -Breniquet’s « cultural » definitions of the early phases of occupation at Yumuktepe.

Breniquet, before comparing the stratification of the two sites, comments the internal sequence of Yumuktepe (refer to paragraph 2.11 for comparisons). She realises that level 128

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

Far from being all clear and understood, I do believe that these new investigations in Mersin and the recovery and study of additional material, give a somewhat more accurate idea of the correlations between the two examined areas (table 5.15).

definite development of this category in Phase B, and even more convincingly, in level 23 (ascribed by Braidwood to the FMR, but by me reintegrated into the proper stratigraphic sequence of the site). As for the positioning of levels XXVII-XXVI, it has been clear throughout this chapter, that the Dark Faced Wares evidence great analogies with those of Amuq Phase B. In Judaidah, Fine Dark Faced pottery and the Unburnished Dark Ware, though, develop together with the Brittle Painted; in Mersin, these are instead present before the painted pottery. The absence of painted ceramics and the analogies between the later painted wares (levels XXVXXIV) and those of Amuq B (Brittle Painted Ware), would thus argue for the contemporaneity of Amuq B with Mersin XXV-XXIV, when Fine Dark Faced pottery and the Unburnished Dark Ware are still present and similar to those of the preceding phase. B might thus be contemporary to Mersin XXV-XXIV. Could XXVII-XXVI be considered contemporary to Amuq B too, though? Mersin classes 5, 4 and 3 would argue in favour of this, but the absence of painted ware might suggest an overlap with the preceding Amuq A (table 5.16).

The first important distinction with all earlier analyses is the tentative division of Amuq Phase A in two separate moments (see 5.4.2), one (A1) characterised by the Red Calcite ware and the other by the classical Dark Faced Burnished Ware. The first would be contemporary to the earliest levels at Mersin (approximately XXXIII-XXX), only exposed on a very small area in pit WA, whilst the second (A2) was distinguished in trench F and pits SA and WA. This hypothesised phase A1 still needs further data and investigations to be confirmed, but, as will be seen further on, it might also find a confirmation in the analysis of the Rouj sites. The contemporaneity and relationship between Mersin XXIX-XXVIII and Amuq A (A2), instead, is reasonably certain, since the Dark Faced Burnished Ware of the two sites in these periods presents clear similarities. Furthermore, Yumuktepe level XXVII-XXVI, with the maturation of the fine, class 5 polished dark ware is decidedly later than Amuq A; Judaidah, in fact, sees the

129

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Amuq Some of the characters of the DFW of these levels do appear to have already started developing in Amuq A, but only in JK3 24 (Amuq B) have such attributes matured. The absence of fine burnished sherds (Mersin class 5) from Amuq A and the high percentage of light colours amongst the DFW furthermore, would not convince of the correlation between Mersin XXVII-XXVI and Judaidah A. Mersin XXV-XXIV

Later phases generate less confusion even though they too still need some discussions. Yumuktepe XXIII-XX, with local painted ware, should be earlier than Amuq Phase C and would thus probably correspond with the most talked about gap in the Amuq sequence. Later, Mersin XIX and Amuq C, would then again, because of the appearance of Halaf pottery, belong to a more or less contemporary period. The preliminary analysis of the XXIII-XXIX DFW of Mersin would seem to confirm this.

Judaidah

A summary of all these inferences would, finally, result in table 5.17, which, even though more refined and derived from distinct arguments, is actually very similar to the one proposed more than 30 years ago by the Braidwoods (see table 5.12).

B1-B2 XXVII-XXVI XXIX-XXVIII XXXIII-XXX

A2 A1

Table 5.16 – First hypothesis of correlation between Mersin and Judaidah phases A-B.

Amuq C GAP B2 B1 GAP A2 A1

A second hypothesis, more plausible in my view and which will be later confirmed by other sites (Ras Shamra and Ain el-Kerkh), is that of the existence of a gap in the Judaidah sequence between A and B, a gap which would correspond with the development of the three mature DFW classes, but still not have painted ware (thus equivalent to Mersin XXVII-XXVI) (table 5.17).

Mersin ?-XIX XXIII-? XXV-XXIV XXVII-XXVI XXIX-XXVIII XXXIII-XXX

Table 5.17 - Stratigraphic correlation between the Amuq and Mersin, for the early phases of occupation.

Another point I am still not too sure about is the division of B1 and B2. These might in fact be simple developments and expressions of a same phase; the fact that they seem to correlate to one single phase of development in Mersin, would confirm this. Only new excavations, though, can give an answer to this and in the meanwhile it really makes no big difference.

Phase B decorated sherds; two or three rows of impressions, running horizontally below the rim, at times together with small applied “buttons”, segments of impressed points, parallel to each other, and finally even the fingerprints of figure 27: 37 are illustrated amongst Phase B material (fig. 50: 7, here Pl. 5.10). Amongst the small collection of Dhahab pottery at the Oriental Institute in Chicago, I have furthermore seen Dark Faced Unburnished Ware; this could, obviously, come from yet later phases (F, for example), but it might be a Phase B material too. A small, very fine in paste, tray-like vessel, instead, should undoubtedly belong to Phase B18 (Pl. 5.10). The presence of ledges on thick burnished vessels, as some of the decorations, cannot exclude also an earlier, Phase A occupation (even though these are present in the following period too). I thus have to conclude that a Phase B settlement in Dhahab appears to be most likely, but the mound might have also been occupied earlier, as was suspected by the Braidwoods.

Given these stratigraphic interpretations of the Amuq and Cilicia, on the basis of the two analysed sites, I would now like to move back to the other settlement (Tell Dhahab) that has evidenced occupation levels which should correspond, according to Braidwood, to Phase A. Because of the absence of a proper stratigraphy at Dhahab, I have avoided discussing the site until now. In fact, it was assigned, by the Braidwoods, to a specific phase, on the basis of the ceramics present, but, since these have been partly reordered it is now interesting to return to it.

At this point of the research, it would be very interesting to go back to all the other sites recognised during the early survey of the OIC and try to refine their chronological attributions. It should, in fact, not be forgotten that Judaidah, Dhahab and O’Brein Cave were not the only occupied sites in this Ceramic Middle Neolithic, but, on the

Even though the Braidwoods dated the site to phase A, Miyake, through a comparison with similar materials from the Rouj basin in Syria rather saw a Phase B settlement at the mound (Miyake 1997, 59). I would tend to agree with the latter, since the site’s pottery evidences some characters that this analysis has interpreted as late in the sequence. These are particularly evident in the impressed decorations illustrated from Dhahab: rocker impressions especially. It is true that some of the impressions shown in the OIP volume at figure 27 are found in Judaidah phase A too, but great similarities are also evident with figure 49, which displays

18

Braidwood, who was convinced that Dhahab occupation was dated to Phase A, justifies the presence of these tray-like vessels by saying that these trays were “antecedents” of the Judaidah Phase B ones. Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 73.

130

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

contrary, the plain was certainly one of the most settled in the region. That of re-classifying the sites is actually one of the intents of the recent research in the area, started in 1995 by the AVRP. Unfortunately though, surface collection does not seem to always give good data for such early periods, as we have shown with the case of surface pottery from Judaidah19.

19

See paragraph 5.1.2. On 32 sites, the collected surface sherds of which I went through with Benjamin Diebold, only 3 (Dhahab, Kuçuk Avara and Dutlu Hüyük) had evidence of sure Phase A/B pottery.

131

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

132

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

133

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

134

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

135

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

136

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

137

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

138

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

139

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

140

5 - Judaidah and the Amuq Region

141

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

142

6 THE ROUJ BASIN 6.1

THE JAPANESE SURVEY AND EXCAVATION

PROJECT 6.1.1 University of Tsukuba Archaeological Mission to Syria The University of Tsukuba, under the direction of Professor Iwasaki, inaugurated a composite and multidisciplinary mission to the Rouj Basin, in northwestern Syria, in 1990. The French archaeologist Courtois had, in the ‘70s, done some research in these environs, locating though, mostly late sites (Courtois 1973 had dated the first occupation of the Rouj basin to the beginning of the Bronze Age), but more recent scholars had already evidenced early prehistoric settlements by the time the Japanese planned their campaign. What was still unknown was the presence of Pre-Pottery Neolithic villages. The Rouj valley is an inland basin some 10 km west of the modern city of Idlib. More or less 37 km long, its width varies from 2 to 8 km. Totally surrounded by limestone mountains and by some basalt lava formations in a small southern corner, both of the Pliocene, the valley itself is a flat plain of quaternary alluvial deposits (Iwasaki and Nishino eds. 1992, 6). Lake Beloua, at the centre of the basin and now dried up, once characterised the region, in a first phase as a salted lake, but, towards the middle of its life-time, with fresh-water. Many springs still mark the plain, especially on the more lateral fans. It is quite clear, thus, that this area proved quite optimal for the location of ancient sites; river, springs, lake and wells abundantly supplied the inhabitants with water and the fertile plain supported a profit-bearing agriculture. By 1993, the Neolithic settlements identified by the Japanese team were 14, on a total of 40 discovered mounds (Iwasaki and Nishino 1993, fig. 7). Compared to the not so far Amuq plain, approximately 5/6 times larger in size, occupation density appears to be not so different (228 sites are today known in the Antakya region), whilst the number of Neolithic sites classified is much higher: 15, in fact, are the Neolithic deposits recognised by the Oriental Institute missions in Hatay. This, as pointed out in the preceding chapter, might be due to the fact that later occupations have covered the early deposits, in the large mounds of the Amuq plain. The same would be expected, though, in the Rouj. Eight, out of the 14 Neolithic recognised sites, appear

to have none or very ephemeral occupation above the early deposits and their identification is thus quite straightforward (table 6.1). The other 6 sites, though, are considerably large (and especially high above the plain) and have indications of a very long occupation (many up to Roman and Byzantine periods); yet surface collection has yielded a great amount of Neolithic material. Amongst the highest mounds of the plain, Tell Aray 1 (24 m high) and Tell El-Kerkh 1 (27 m high), have evidenced relevant quantities of early ceramics. The Amuq and the Rouj tells are thus probably subject to very distinct soil processes and disturbances. Analysing such geomorphologic events, might prove extremely interesting for future surface archaeology. All sites in the Rouj are found at the margins of the plain, on silt deposits, and the great majority is on the eastern side of the plain. Apparently, the south-western edge of the basin was not occupied during such early phases. This distribution of sites is certainly linked to the position and fluctuations of the lake level and the flood deposits, which expand, to the west, nearly up to the edges of the valley, thus leaving little space for settlements to grow, or even, covering older sites, that now result, thus, invisible to us archaeologists. The soundings that accompanied the survey concentrated on sites on the eastern edge of the plain and had the intent of getting a first view of their cultural sequence. Tell Aray 2 was first sounded, then Aray 1, Tell El-Kerkh 2 and Abd el-Aziz, and, whilst initially it was just small 5 x 5 m pits, in 1992 a 15m long step trench was excavated in Tell Aray 1. Since 1997, the site of Ain el-Kerkh, which is actually part of the larger Kerkh complex (together with Kerkh 1 and 2), is under thorough excavation. The easier access to Neolithic deposits of many sites in this area (due to the absence of later occupation) make the region a crucial and extremely important one in the study of the DFBW horizon. The chance of extensive exposures of these levels, together with the possibility of finding intact and continuous stratigraphic sequences, and the use of modern excavation techniques certainly appoint the Rouj basin as central in today’s research on the Ceramic Neolithic communities of these western regions.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

exclusive of that culture, whilst in the Amuq, only one fragment of possible husking tray was found, in Phase C (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, fig. 111: 10). Following this, period 3 gives evidence of Halaf painted wares and Halaf related ceramics (Iwasaki et al. 1995, 149). With the beginning of period 3, thus, the interests of the present work come to an end, even though occupation in the Rouj goes on, through Ubaid (period 4) and Early Bronze Age (5-6), all the way to Byzantine and then Islamic settlements. Chronological correlations between distinct and non communicating trenches at the same site is still at times complicated (table 6.2). This is the case, for example, of Aray 1, where test pit B is difficult to correlate to the step trench. Test Pit B, has 2 Halaf related sherds from layer 4 (Iwasaki and Nishino 1992, 47); is that enough to date it to the Halaf period, Rouj 3? Aray 1 Step trench too, is subject to some variation: the subdivision given above corresponds to that communicated by Miyake at the 2001 Orontes workshop, but earlier publications reported levels 25-22 as corresponding to Rouj 2c, 18-21 to 2d and 17-9 to Rouj 3.

6.1.2 Chronology and General Stratigraphy of the Rouj Basin After the first three years of survey and soundings in various sites the Japanese expedition had a pretty clear idea of the chronological sequence of the valley and had set a chart of stratigraphic attributions, that remains, more or less unvaried, today. Period 1 is the Pre-pottery Neolithic, only found at the Kerkh complex, until now. The presence of a Neolithic occupation preceding the beginning of ceramic production is particularly intriguing, especially since it is one of the rare “DFBW areas” to testify such an occupation. In the nearby Amuq plain, in fact, no settlements as old as these have been found. The Pottery Neolithic of the Rouj, the one characterised by the dark burnished ceramics, is period 2, subdivided into 4 distinct phases (table 6.2). As had been interpreted by Braidwood in the Amuq, here too, during a more advanced phase of period 2, signs of contact and relations with the eastern culture of Hassuna are evident. These are incontestably clear, due to the presence of Husking trays, Site 3. Tell Beteraad 6. T. Failoun 2 7. T. Aray 1 8. T. Aray 2 9. T. Aray 3 10. Abd el-Aziz 15. T. el-Kerkh 1 16. T. el-Kerkh 2 17. Ain el-Kerkh 18. T. Telyla 20. T. Marwan 2 24. T. Millis 25. T. Qalyoun 26. T. el-Ghafar 1

Amuq A

Amuq B

Halaf

Dimensions 230x180 m 500x150 m 185x320 m 200x160 m 90x90 m 90x90 m 450x330 m 120x120 m 600x150/250 m 50x50 m 500x270 m 200x260 m 150x150 m 140x180 m

Height 13 m 3-4 m 24 m 6m 3m 2-2,5 m 27 m 3m 4m 5m 12 m 20 m 10 m 4m

Table 6.1 - List of Sites surveyed and dated to the Early Ceramic period, in the Rouj basin. A tentative chronological relation to the Amuq is also given (thicker colour indicates certain attribution, the hatch indicates confirmation is still needed), together with the dimensions of the settlements. The numbers refer to the survey nomenclature. Drawn from Iwasaki and Nishino 1992, table 1; Iwasaki and Nishino 1993, fig.7 and Iwasaki et al. 1995, 185. Ain el-kerkh

el-Kerkh 2

-

-

9-14 15-22

1-3 (central area) 4-5 (central area) 6 (central area) 5-6 (sq. E10) 1-2(NW area) 3-5 (NW a.)

Aray 1 (step tr.) 5-8 -

23-25

Aray 1 (T.P.B)

Aray 2

Abd el-Aziz

1-? ?-4 5-9 10 13

-

1-8 9-17 18

1-2 3-4 5-11

1 4 5-6 7 12

Rouj Phase 6 4 3 2d 2c 2b 2a 1

Traditional chronology EBA Ubaid Halaf

Pottery Neolithic

PPNB

Table 6.2 - Comparative chronology of the excavated Rouj sites and their levels, as reconstructed by Tsuneki et al. 1999, 2; Iwasaki and Nishino 1993, 68; Tsuneki 2001, 44. Test Pit B layers, at Aray 1, are those most problematic to position and should be taken as still tentative.

144

6 - The Rouj Basin

Aray 2, test pit A, is, on the whole, quite enigmatic. In fact, dated all to Rouj 2c period by Miyake, but published as 2b2c in 1993 and 1995 (Iwasaki et al. 1995, fig. 12; Iwasaki and Nishino 1993, 68), the presence of painted ware in its lower levels (layer 8), as illustrated by Iwasaki in 1995, makes its date even more problematic, since, as will be seen later on, painted decoration is said to appear for the first time in the Rouj 2d period. It is probable thus that there were 2d levels at the site.

especially on the pottery productions. The site is particularly important also for the architectural and settlement data that it is supplying. Compared to Judaidah, where the contemporary levels were exposed on a tiny area and near to no architecture was revealed, Ain el-Kerkh is proving an excellent source of information for a reevaluation of Dark Faced Burnished Ware developments and the characters of the societies producing it. The first season started with one major exposition in the central part of the tell (squares E270, E290, E310) and various smaller soundings to test different areas of the settlement. One of the interesting results of the small pit trenches was the discovery that the phase in which the site was at its largest was probably that of Rouj 2c (Tsuneki et al. 1998, 11). The excavation exposed all Neolithic levels, from the Pre-Pottery to the Late Ceramic, pre-Halaf Neolithic, indicating an apparently uninterrupted occupation of the site in these phases. Only phase 2a was not recovered at Ain el-Kerkh, but, even so, the comparison with other sites that did evidence those layers underlines this constant progressive change.

Dating the early sequence from the pit trench in Abd elAziz is just as complicated. In fact, most of the excavated layers belong to the Ubaid period, but the presence of some Halaf sherds indicates that levels 15-16 are probably dated to that moment. The earlier stratigraphy (17-18) is more complicated; the absence of Halaf related pottery would in fact suggest a date to the 2d period, but there are no other elements confirming this (Iwasaki et al. 1995, 148 actually date levels 15-18 all to the Rouj 3 period). Further excavations and data are needed for these sites, in order to pin them down in a sure chronological frame. Of Ain el Kerkh, instead, a quite good and reliable stratigraphic attribution has by now been given, essentially thanks to the more extensive investigations and the greater quantity of recovered materials. It is thus essentially on this site that the analysis of the early ceramic productions is based and the other sites are mainly used to confirm and verify hypotheses.

6.2

THE SOUNDINGS AND EXCAVATIONS

6.2.1

Ain el-Kerkh

Architectural structures and installations show a great complexity and variety. Pavements made with fist size stones, plastered floors, pisé and mud brick walls with firm stone foundations are all found since the 2b period. Very interesting is a multi-room burnt house from Rouj 2c (str. 72) (Pl. 6.1c), with two larger rooms and small cubicle-like spaces all around, some of which stone paved. In one room (room 12) were some animal bones and in another (room 7) a tannour, which has been interpreted by the Japanese as the probable cause of the fire (Tsuneki et al. 1997, 13). It seems clear that such a structure was of domestic character, with a fire and cooking area, probably some storage facilities, and a living room at the centre. Another multi-room building (str. 109) from the same level has, in one room, a bin like structure that indicates its possible domestic function and the use of that particular room for the conservation of staples. Most impressive are the floors of all these structures. In numerous cases, in fact, they have a preparation in lime pebble stones, which is then covered in plaster, as, for example, structure 74 (Pl. 6.1c). This building, single roomed and square in shape, is particularly exceptional, because under its well made floor a neatly prepared burial was found. A pit, lined in stone both along its perimeter and on its walls, contained an infant burial, laid with animal bones and an Amuq point. Another very impressive structure of this phase is str. 167 (6.1a-b, d), that revealed the probable use of two “storey” buildings at the site (Tsuneki et al. 1999, 5). These were not two proper living floors, but most probably an underneath storage area, with a very low roof, and a second, living area (Noshiro and Fujii 2000, 31; Tsuneki et al. 2000, 3) (Pl. 6.1a, d).

The Kerkh complex, composed by three distinct “sites”, on its whole, extends well over 30 ha and is located towards the southern end of the Rouj Basin, on its eastern edge, right next to a spring. Its central and smallest tell (Kerkh 2) was sounded during the years of the survey (1992), in order to investigate on the Pre-Pottery occupation of the site, which was indeed recovered in the excavation. The largest tell, Kerkh 1, instead, has a very late habitation, with thick Early and Middle Bronze layers, Iron Age and RomanByzantine periods. It is most probable that these 3 sites were actually part of one single settlement, in which occupation did not extend all the time with the same length and especially in the same areas. Tell Ain el-Kerkh (the one to the north), amongst the three, had evidenced the largest quantity of Neolithic Pottery from the surface collections, and was, for this reason, the one chosen by the Japanese team for a more extensive and permanent excavation. Excavations in Ain el-Kerkh begun in 1997, under the direction of Professor Tsuneki, from the University of Tsukuba, and are yielding revolutionary information,

The architectural features assigned to the Rouj 2d period have very similar characteristics to those of the earlier 145

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

phases, but an apparent greater variety of annexed features was recovered. Tannours and fireplaces in external, outdoor areas were found, as well as multi-room and single-room buildings, always with stone foundations and pisé or mud brick elevation (Pl. 6.2). Floors were plastered in most cases and some structures had internal hearths. A good example of this is structure 332, in level 4, an apparently single-room rectangular building with a very well plastered floor (6.2c). A multi-cellular pisé structure (str. 245), in the following layer, revealed a great quantity of wheat in one of its rooms and was thus interpreted as a storage building (Tsuneki et al. 1999, 5). I rather like to think about all these structures as more or less domestic edifices, in which a little “private” storing of staples was done, as well as normal daily activities. Certainly, the presence of differently planned buildings, such as multicellular and single-roomed rectangular or even, smaller, squared structures probably indicates not only a variation in “family size”, but also in function. The greater architectural variety that is noticed in the Rouj 2d period, furthermore, might be due to a change in social relations and organisation. This would not only be evidenced by the distinct plans of structures, but also by the different use and division of space, underlined by the appearance of specific open air working areas.

hypothesise, though, the possible particular use of some buildings, maybe in communal circumstances. 6.2.2

Kerkh 2. The 5 x 5 metre Test Pit

Kerkh 2, as mentioned above, has been the object of a very small sounding, in order to assess the presence of a preceramic occupation at the mound. Virgin soil was reached only 4,30 m under top soil, and the occupation levels recognised were Pre-Pottery (layers 7-12) and Pottery Neolithic (layers 1-6). The most interesting structure is in level 7, the first PrePottery occupation phase (Iwasaki and Nishino 1993, fig. 16/2.). A multi-cellular, apparently rectangular shaped building, which was unfortunately not entirely exposed. The internal subdivision of spaces is most striking, since there appears to be a kind of central, T-shaped room, surrounded by small, storage like areas. Levels 2-4 had peculiar constructions, circular in shape, built in pisé and mud brick, interpreted by the excavators as storage structures (Tsuneki and Miyake 1996, 111). These large storage constructions, as the Ain el-Kerkh remains, are apparently outdoor. Unfortunately, the small dimension of the sounding cannot tell what was near these.

Such planimetries remind many more or less contemporary settlements. I would dare say that multi-cellular building 72, from Rouj 2c, shows some similarities with the building found in Yumuktepe XXVII-XXVI by the recent Italian excavations. At the same time though, the well plastered single room structures have strong connections with Ras Shamra on one side, but also with farther sites as Maghzalia and tell Sotto, in the Jazira. Apart from the plans of buildings, in Maghzalia and Sotto, some structures have a stone pavement, which might have been a preparation for a hard compacted clay surface. The analogies displayed by Tell Sotto are also linked to the general planning of the village: houses have storage bins, as that of str. 109, there are external areas with tannours, fireplaces and pits, as in Ain el-Kerkh 2d, and there are multi-roomed, clearly domestic, structures (Bader 1989, figures 5, 10, 46, 49, 51). In fact, most contemporary Neolithic sites of the Near East are built in this same way, as they respond to the similar needs of their inhabitants: Sabi Abyad on the Balikh, more extensively excavated, shows all these same elements and structures.

Even though no other particular architectural finds were made in this small pit trench, its attraction is quite clear, both in the PPN structure and in the presence of Rouj 2a material (even though with no related features), which is totally missing from the Ain el-Kerkh excavations. 6.2.3

Aray and Abd el-Aziz

The first site to be sounded in 1990, Aray too is composed by three distinct mounds, of which the first is the highest, reaching 24m above the alluvial plain. As Kerkh 1, it was occupied until Byzantine periods, and to this is due its particular elevation. Various structures have been found in the 13 overlapping levels of the Test pit; these were all composed by stone walls, with some traces of pisé or mud brick, but in general with a quite poor preservation. The Aray 1 pit (T.P. B) reached virgin soil, travelling through Halaf and Ceramic Neolithic settlements. Pottery was abundant, but architectural remains were all partial, and consisted of the already seen stone foundations, ash pits and traces of fireplaces. More interesting were the finds of a step trench, of which though, only the deepest levels reached Ceramic Neolithic, pre-Halaf layers. In these levels too, rows of stone walls cover one another.

The architectural remains of all period 2 levels in the Rouj trace a situation of clear domestic life and general primary activities. Many houses seem to have there own small storage area (str. 167 is the most particular of all in this respect). Open air working areas apparently are not enclosed, indicating that there was no desire to underline the private nature of such features, but more probably the same activities were carried out by the inhabitants in a common area. The presence of smaller and differently planned, single-roomed structures, does bring us to

Abd el-Aziz, only 3 km south of Aray, was sounded with a 5x5 m pit, which mainly revealed a Halaf occupation of the site. Storage bins, ash pits and rows of stone walls were characterised the different levels of occupation (Iwasaki et al. 1995, 146).

146

6 - The Rouj Basin

6.3

THE CERAMIC PRODUCTION

levels in Ain el-Kerkh. Unfortunately, not a very large sample of this pottery has been found, but its distinctiveness is so clear, that no confusion can be made with the following developments. The assimilation of the Kerkh Ware with the calcite, sandy clays recognised and distinguished from the rest of the DFBW, in the Amuq A1 period (see paragraph 5.4.2), is very tempting (Pl. 5.3c). The burnished surfaces, thicker vessel walls, gritty-sandy paste, with temper of regular but medium size, and shapes generally limited to bowls, are all characters that remind, both the Amuq earlier wares and the Mersin sherds from the lowest trench WA (Pl. 2.39a). Enigmatically though, none of these sherds are described as having ledge handles or other applied decoration, which are typical at Judaidah.

6.3.1 The Pottery Assemblage of the Rouj 2 Period; Classification and Relations It has been repeated since the beginning of this chapter that the fundamental importance of the Rouj basin in this study is given, apart from the quantity and preservation of evidences, by its vicinity to the Amuq plain, or rather by the apparent common cultural traditions that these two regions attest. The more extensive investigations and the availability of data from more than one site, grant the privilege of a typological as well as stratigraphic analysis of materials that the Judaidah and Dhahab collections do not permit. Quantitative and statistical evaluations are unfortunately not yet published for the Rouj. Broad size estimates are provided, though, allowing the observation of the most relevant changes in time.

Kerkh Ware is described (Iwasaki et al. 1995, 147) as the only ceramic characterising period 2a, but both counts from Kerkh 2 and Miyake’s comments on the development of pottery production in the Rouj (Miyake 1997, 59), mention Coarse Ware and Dark Faced Burnished Ware too, for these levels (Pls. 6.3b and 6.4) (Kerkh 2, in period 2a layers, has approximately 40-60% of DFBW, 5-10% of Coarse Ware and 30-46% of Kerkh Ware. Miyake 2001, 120).

I will, here, give a broad presentation of the ceramic classes of the Syrian Rouj Basin, in order to characterise each period and provide a first, preliminary illustration of the relations existing between this area and the already analysed regions. Dark Faced Burnished Ware will be discussed later on, with a more detailed and systematic approach.

The 2b period sees some quite relevant changes. The earlier sandy Kerkh Ware becomes quite rare and there is instead a strong development of the other two classes of pottery: the Coarse and the Dark Faced Burnished Ware. In layer 5 of Kerkh 2 (2a period), Kerkh Ware, which had already decreased since earlier level 6, constituted 32,6% of the total sherds and DFBW 61,6%, whilst in the following level 4, dated to the 2b period, Kerkh Ware falls off abruptly to 2,9% and DFBW rises to 95,2% (table 6.3) (Tsuneki and Miyake 1996, 118). In Ain el-Kerkh, the 2b levels testify an even stronger presence of DFBW to the disadvantage of Kerkh Ware (0,45%) (Tsuneki et al. 1998: 12. These sherd counts should be taken with great care, since they are still partial counts, in other words, they come from single excavated trenches and are based on a very little sample; often, in fact, they show inexplicable fluctuations).

The first ceramic levels of occupation in the Rouj Basin, those of 2a period, testify the existence of a very particular production, called Kerkh Ware. This is a crude, very thick pottery (approx. 10mm), with a sandy paste and a burnished, or at times highly smoothed, brown, light brown and buff surface. Inclusions include mica and the paste has a certain variability, from rather granular to fine textured (Tsuneki and Miyake 1996, 114). Burnishing, in general, is not of very good quality and the strokes of the instrument used are often visible. This sandy paste is apparently only moulded into thick walled, both shallow and deep, bowls, at times with a flat base, but in general a more rounded bottom (Pl. 6.3a). Recovered essentially from the Kerkh 2 soundings, some fragments also come from the lower 2a Kerkh Ware DFBW Coarse Ware Coarse Incised Coarse r. slip “Plastered” DF “Plastered” coarse White Ware DF Unburn. Husking trays Cream Ware Fine Painted Ware

2b 40/60% 40/60%

< 5% > 80%

2c -

2d > 50% decr.

decr. decr. decr. decr.

15/20% incr.

Table 6.3 – Indication of the moment of appearance of the different ceramic classes and other particularly diagnostic elements of the Rouj 2 sub-phases. Quantitative indications, in the form of percentages or relations with the preceding phase (increase, decrease), are given, where available.

147

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

The Coarse Ware strongly resembles that of Hatay; it is heavily chaff tempered, quite thick, surfaces are smoothed and at times roughly burnished. The shapes of this Coarse Ware are not easy to reconstruct, but large jars and bowls and some necked jars can be guessed (Pl. 6.4). Some very thick walls indicate possible bin-like shapes. Rare bases with low pedestals are known, but in general bases are simple and flat.

distinguish, in this period, the ceramics of Hatay and the Rouj Basin: one is the absence of Washed Impressed Ware in the Syrian sites and the other is the lack of plastered pottery in the Antakya region. The next developments of the 2c period see, in the Rouj Basin, no major changes in the ceramic classes present, but rather evolutions within them. DFBW is still the most important group, but Coarse Ware is nonetheless abundant and evidences for the first time, incised and applied decorations, as well as a red wash (Pl. 6.4b). All three of these decorations are present in the Amuq Coarse ware of Phase B too, since we can easily consider the red wash similar to the red slip of the latter region (being, the difference, simply in the intensity of the wash). As a matter of fact, having seen both the Amuq and the Rouj material, I would dare say that the surface treatment is the same one, be it called a slip or a wash (personally, I believe the term slip fits better). Shapes would seem to be similar to the earlier ones, with no evident variation. Plastered vessels increase in this phase and show the same characters described for the preceding period, numerous of them with red painted decoration over the plaster. A certain number of coarse chaff sherds have proper painted decoration on them and others have applied elements as bands and round buttons or semi-moons.

All this immediately gives the sense of the links between the Rouj Basin and the Amuq: both share DFBW and Coarse Ware production. A particularity of the Rouj appear to be sherds covered, both in the interior and the exterior, with white lime plaster, at times decorated with red painting (Pl. 6.12b). Nothing like this has been noted in the Amuq. In Rouj 2b, fragments of these are present but rare and Miyake suspects they might be out of context; 2c will be their moment of development (Miyake personal communication 2002). DFBW too, is at times covered with white plaster. The function of this plaster is hard to imagine and the only possible conjecture would seem their use for storing staples. The plaster in fact, being burnt, sterilizes and protects from parasites. A confirmation of such a function might be given by some very thick sherds that testify that large jars and bins too were made in this way. Why would the exterior of the vessel be plastered too though? Could this be due to the manufacturing mode? A possible way of obtaining such vessels would be that of immerging them into a pit in which lime was being burnt (maybe the same lime that was then used for the plaster floors); in this way, vessels would obviously get entirely plastered.

Husking trays are seen for the first time in a rather advanced phase of period 2c (Pl. 6.12a). Very interesting is, here, the near coincidence in the presence of incised Coarse Ware and husking trays. Both common in the Hassuna culture, their appearance together cannot certainly be casual. An increase in contacts with the east in this phase is thus imaginable. This would confirm Braidwood’s similar hypothesis for Hatay (see 5.3.3 and Braidwood 1960, 506). In the Rouj sites, there is a great variety of husking trays, some with finger prints on the inside, some with grooves or differently sized and shaped dots and lines.

Some vessel fragments made entirely of plaster are known from Ain el-Kerkh. These are examples of the so-called “White Ware”, considered as the antecedent of proper ceramics in various Levantine regions (Le Mière and Picon 1987, 1998). Its absence from period 2a, though, its overall rarity, and its continuation in the following 2c period, make the role of plaster vessels quite enigmatic, at this site. Some of these examples have red painted decoration, exactly like that of the plastered Coarse and DFB Wares. The analysis of the western, coastal regions, in chapter 10, will help better interpret this production.

It is with the 2d period that further transformations in the pottery production are noted. First thing is the decrease in Coarse Ware (Iwasaki et al. 1995, 147). Next is the advent of three new and distinct groups of ceramics: a Dark Unburnished Ware, a Cream Ware and a Fine Painted Ware. Dark Faced Burnished Ware is still the most important pottery, even though, as will be seen further on, it too has changed compared to the earlier phases. Amongst the Coarse Ware still present, the great majority of vessels are Husking trays, thus indicating continuity with the previous 2c period.

Essentially, thus, the 2b period is characterised by a great majority of DFBW, which will be analysed thoroughly later on, a Coarse Ware, apparently similar in all attributes to that of the Amuq, a very rare and disappearing Kerkh Ware, and fragments of lime plastered pottery.

The Unburnished pottery, just like that described for the Amuq by Braidwood and Matson, is made with pastes and clays similar to those of the DFBW; colours show clear affinities and manufacturing techniques too, just the surface treatment distinguishes the two classes. As in that case, here too, shapes are mainly hole-mouth jars and deep bowls, or jars with short everted collars (necks) (Pl. 6.5). Furthermore, the Japanese mention the risk of confusion

The assimilation proposed above of Kerkh Ware with the Amuq “calcite group” , together with the strong presence of the other two classes of pottery (Coarse Ware and DFBW) bring to compare the Rouj 2b period with Amuq’s Phase A. Kerkh Ware was in fact present in the previous Rouj 2a period, but rare if not absent were the other two ceramic classes characterising the Amuq A. Two features 148

6 - The Rouj Basin

between burnished and unburnished vessels, fact this which reminds of the Antakya region, the DFBW of which had astonished for the often poorer burnishing in comparison to that of the Mersin pottery, and where the border between these two classes was actually not always so clear.

with the Amuq Calcite Ware and the Mersin sand tempered category. According to Miyake, there are two types of Kerkh Ware, one with a calcareous white temper and the other with sandy inclusions. Both are present in the Amuq and they indeed also resemble the few fragments of pottery recovered from pit trench WA, in Mersin. Sherds catalogued as Kerkh Ware are from the surface of Aray 2 and from the Kerkh 2 sounding. In my study of the Ain elKerkh ceramics I have come across various sherds that would seem to correspond to the definition of Kerkh Ware, fact this which is not surprising, since these vessels are still found, even though in small quantities, in the Rouj 2b period.

The Cream Ware is a ceramic with mineral, grit inclusions, generally a fine texture, a buff or cream surface colour and a fully oxidised core. Slipped or burnished, often the two treatments are found together. Some cases have a red wash and others proper painted decoration. A case of pattern burnish on top of the painted decoration has been noted. Shapes of this Cream Ware are a great variety: shallow and deep bowls, necked jars and hole-mouth jars, and even lids. Some of the decorations on this ceramic remind both those of the Brittle Painted in Judaidah and examples of the Mersin painted ware from levels XXV-XXIV and XXIII, and relations might indeed be possible (Pls. 6.7 and 5.11). The paste, though, is certainly not brittle; in this sense, similarities would appear stronger with the Cilician site than with the nearer Amuq. Other painted wares though, and this will be analysed more thoroughly later on, indicate clear contacts with the east, thus indicating the complexity of the network of communication that the Rouj must have been involved in.

Proper Dark Faced Burnished Ware is not found, in period 2a, in such high quantities as later and it generally has very simple characters; it is never decorated and shapes are essentially bowls (Miyake 1997, 59). When I say “proper” Dark Face, I am automatically intending a mineral tempered ware, burnished and tending to a dark surface colour, that reminds strongly those seen and analysed in both the Amuq and Cilicia (Mersin class 3) (Pl. 6.3b). With Rouj 2b, DFBW increases enormously, reaching more than 98% of the whole production. Thickness of vessel walls varies quite a lot and there are cases of very fine 2-3 mm sections, even though the texture is never as fine as that of the Mersin Very Fine Dark Faced Burnished Ware (class 5). Surface colours are essentially brown, reddish brown and grey, whilst blacks, as in Judaidah, are nearly absent (table 6.4). The most common shape is that of deep, hemispherical bowls, but necked jars are found too (Pl. 6.7). Some of the bowls, even though not as frequently as one might imagine from the published illustrations, have ledge handles and bands applied below the rim, thus indicating that the use of such decorative elements was familiar here as in the Antakya plain. Applied decorative elements as “buttons” and half-moons, like some of Dhahab and Judaidah, are often illustrated. Necks are generally straight and of various heights, again, very similar to the Hatay early Dark Faced Ware. Rims are simple, axial, at times squarish, but those rims, sort of pointed towards the interior, that I noticed both in early Mersin and in Amuq A are present too (see sherds 4-7 of Pl. 6.7).

The Fine Painted Ware, even more, has elements and motives that recall those of eastern ceramics. Surface colours are light and paint, brown, orange or red, is generally given over a slip. The similarity of these motives and those of the slightly later Halaf period, is surprising and indicates a clear gradualness in its development. Affinities with Halaf ceramics are also evident in shapes, on the DFBW and on the Cream and Fine Painted classes. As in the Amuq, in fact, cream bowls, the typical carenated Halaf bowls, are found, before the arrival of proper Halaf painted motives. 6.3.2

The Dark Faced Burnished Ware in Period 2

Work at Ain el Kerkh, for which I was very kindly accorded permission by Professor Tsuneki in the summer of 2001, has consisted of going through the selected materials from the excavation, in order to get a more complete idea of the ceramic production and of the relations between the Amuq, Mersin and the Rouj Dark Faced Burnished Ware production. As can obviously be imagined, the first hand comparison, directly on the material, has a reliability and value decidedly stronger than when work is being done on published material. I was thus particularly fortunate to be able to vision the material from these three sites.

Impressed decoration is found on approximately 34% of the whole DFBW fragments (Tsuneki et al. 1998, 12), a very high percentage, but probably similar to that of Judaidah in the Amuq A Phase, if we include in the count the Red Washed Impressed too (absent in the Rouj). Only Yumuktepe does not seem to have such a strong amount of impressed pottery (but for this site too, numbers are not too clear). The impressions are the usual: nails, fingers and all possible pointed objects, mostly covering the whole body of the vessel. In some rare cases the impressions have been so intense and deep that they completely raised the surface,

It has already been noted above that DFBW is, throughout Rouj Period 2, the main ceramic production of the region. Characteristic of the first phase Rouj 2a is also the Kerkh Ware, which I have partly assimilated to the DFW tradition and, most important of all, for which I see strong analogies

149

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

provoking an extremely rough result (Compare with Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, pl. 17, 16-17) (Pls. 6.9a-b and 6.12a). Early DFBW (Rouj 2b) Colours browns and greys Shapes mainly hemispherical bowls Necked jars Impressed decoration Frequent impressed decoration Motives with nails, fingers and various pointed instruments Flat rims thickening and sort of pointed towards the interior

Amuq yes yes yes yes yes yes

Mersin yes yes no yes no yes

yes

yes

belongs to a late stage of development in the Rouj too. Familiar to this phase are also applied decorations on the Dark Burnished Wares, recalling the eastern culture of Hassuna and earlier Umm Dabaghiyah – Sotto (Pl. 6.9). In some rare cases this is combined with incised decoration, as is the case of a fine, black burnished vessel with round applied “buttons” from which depart, downwards, browlike incisions. DFBW (Rouj 2c) Increase in fine textures Increase in dark colours Better quality of the burnish Mostly jars with everted neck Presence of carenated profiles, flaring necks and trays Decline in impressed decoration Rocker impression Applied decoration Pattern burnish

Table 6.4 – List of the most diagnostic attributes of the earlier DFBW with an indication of the presence of these same attributes amongst the early DFbW of Yumuktepe (XXXIII- XXVIII) and DFBW of Amuq A.

In the Rouj 2c, which is a moment of major change and which signals the beginning of regular contacts with the eastern, Mesopotamian culture, what changes the most amongst DFBW are shapes. Whilst in the Rouj 2b period, the prevailing shape amongst the Dark Faced Burnished Ware was the bowl, in the following 2c phase, jars, generally with a short and everted neck are the most frequent (Pl. 6.9). The jar opening is quite large though, thus many of these shapes somehow resemble deep bowls, at least in their capacity. Sinuous and carenated profiles start becoming common, and jars with high cylindrical necks are seen often too (table 6.5). Flaring necks become habitual and will be even more so later on. Tray-like vessels, very low and shallow bowls, are visible in these contexts too. Most of these tendencies are similar to those noted in Judaidah with Amuq B.

Amuq yes yes yes yes yes

Mersin yes yes yes no no

yes yes yes (rarer) yes

yes rare (later) no rare

Table 6.5 – List of the most diagnostic attributes of the DFBW from Rouj 2c, with an indication of the presence of these same attributes amongst the DFbW of Mersin XXVII-XXVI and the DFBW of Amuq B (and partly FMR).

Truly particular and strongly recalling some impressed and burnished vessels from Amuq B are some sherds impressed when still very fresh and before burnishing. The results are deep impressions, that moved outward a quite large amount of clay, creating a rough surface (Pl. 6.7, 11th sherd). The burnish furthermore, functions somehow as a frame for the impressions, since the area around these is left untreated. Vessels from Judaidah (Amuq B), illustrated by Braidwood at figure 50 (here Pl. 5.5c) have the same appearance. The relation and distinctions between Rouj 2c and the following 2d period, from the point of view of Dark Faced Burnished Ware, are not easy to define. We have seen that the beginning of Rouj 2d is signalled by the appearance of the Unburnished, the Cream and the Fine Painted Ware; on the other hand, white vessels, plastered pots and bins disappear. The burnished ware itself though, evidences a strong continuity and the recognition of peculiar features is at times problematic. DFBW is still the predominant production, but it apparently shows, on the whole, thicker vessel walls and texture is not so fine as in the 2c period (table 6.6). Obviously, this is a generalisation and many cases of fine paste and not so thick sections are still found. In fact, some very fine, black sherds are seen. I noticed, in the selected collection of pottery from these layers, a new decrease in dark colours and, above all, an increase in red surfaces, but no confirmation of this amongst is found in the published material from the Rouj sites. The burnish is sometimes found only on the rim or the upper part of the vessel. In other cases, burnish and colour recall the Amuq C burnished ware; yellowish-brown colours near the rim and a careless burnish made with thick and large strokes. These are always on the thicker sherds, thus, exactly as the late wares of the Antakya region.

From a technological point of view, quality of the polish and burnish, in general, increases strongly with the Rouj 2c period. Texture and paste is still quite variable, but tends to be mostly fine, never reaching, though, the finest wares of Yumuktepe. It would thus seem impossible, in the Rouj, to separate the dark mineral tempered wares into two distinct classes, the coarser and the finer. Within this single broad group of dark burnished ceramics, dark surface colours appear to increase considerably in period 2c (table 6.5). Red and brown burnished surfaces, though constantly present throughout the sequence, are here a minority. Impressed decorations too, decline progressively. Again, all these changes are in line with those of the Antakya plain. The same can be said of the presence of pattern burnish decoration, which starts to develop in this period (it still has a very simple and, at times not well comprehensible, pattern) and will become, in the 2d period, the most used finish. Impressed decoration, rare, does not show particular distinctions from the earlier cases and only in Aray 2 some examples of rocker impression, which in the Amuq were thought of a late motive, were found (Pl. 6.12c). Trench A in Aray 2 has been dated to the 2c period, thus this motive, though rare,

150

6 - The Rouj Basin

Again, shapes are probably the most characteristic feature (Pl. 6.10). Cream bowls appear, amongst the dark burnished wares, together with other shapes that will later be typical of the Halaf ceramic production. Jars with flaring necks and everted rims are common in this phase too, as well as carenated profiles. Low plates or tray-like vessels are still found. Straight and high necks are more frequent than before. All these are generally well burnished. Other two new and very distinct shapes are pedestal bowls, bowls with open, flaring or straight walls, standing on a pierced pedestal, and necked jars with strainers on the opening (Pls. 6.11 and 6.12d).

since 2d should be contemporary with the beginning of this culture, in the East. This is demonstrated by the presence of shapes which remind typical Halaf ceramics, moulded out of the local and traditional Dark Faced Wares, and the hypothesis is that the inhabitants of the Rouj basin were first influenced by this distinct pottery production (and reproduced it on/in their own pots) and only at a later moment did they acquire the proper eastern vessels and the appreciation for such painted ceramics. Furthermore, the rarity of cream and flaring bowls, so frequent in the preceding period and typical of the Early Halaf, but not of the later developments, would confirm a middle to late Halaf date of Rouj 3.

Impressed decoration is by now nearly absent, whilst pattern burnish has become the main decorative technique. Usually the vessels have large horizontal burnished bands and in between two of them is a band of pattern burnish; the ornamentation is very carefully carried out, fine and elegant (Pls. 6.11 and 6.12d). The design obtained with the burnish is generally complex and composite; diagonal and triangular lines, zig-zags, criss-crosses and sequential, checked triangles cover the decorated area. Black or red colours, increase this delicacy and grace. In fact, in these finer and more cured vessels, colours are only rarely brown or grey and preference seems to go to more firm and resolute colours (red/black).

The sites in which Rouj 3 occupation has been uncovered are Abd el-Aziz and Aray 1. Unfortunately, for neither of these the dark burnished wares are described thoroughly. The predominant pottery is Cream Ware and there is Halaf painted ware, but the presence of Dark Faced Burnished Ware is also recorded. In what proportions this class is present though is not known, except for the fact that it no longer constitutes the majority of the pottery production. Shapes illustrated from the Abd el-Aziz sounding evidence simple bowls, flaring necked jars and straight, vertical necked jars, thus in continuity with the previous period. Carenated jars and cream bowls too, typical of the Rouj 2d are present. A couple of drawings of bases, furthermore, demonstrate the existence of ring and convex ones. I have underlined that one of the characteristic developments of Rouj 2d DFBW was that of the thickness of vessel walls; this would seem confirmed even by the later Rouj 3 pottery, where various are the sherds approximately 1cm thick and in numerous cases 15 or 20 mm are also reached (Iwasaki and Nishino 1992, 67 - fig. 27). No decorated sherds are illustrated. The apparent absence of pattern burnish is puzzling; in fact, in the previous 2d period, this decoration was particularly abundant. Furthermore, the Amuq sequence indicates pattern burnish amongst the dark wares even in Phase C, together with Halaf pottery.

Cases of applied motives are still present, even though not so frequent and some examples of incised decoration, filled with white paste, are seen in this phase. Vessels of the latter have been found in Yumuktepe, mainly by Garstang, from levels XXV-XXIV, and amongst these are also straight necked jars (Pl. 6.10a). Such shapes, totally absent from the earlier levels of Mersin, correspond exactly to those seen in Judaidah in phase B and later, and here in the Rouj, from period 2c onwards. DFBW (Rouj 2d) Thicker vessel walls Many red and brown surfaces Carenated and S-profiles, flaring necks, everted rims Cream bowls Pedestal bowls Jars with strainers Rare or absent impressed decoration Incised, white filled decoration Complex pattern burnish

Amuq FMR - C FMR - C B-C

Mersin XXIII-XX XXIII-XX rare XXIII-XX

FMR - C FMR no FMR -

no no no XXV -

no FMR

XXV - XX no

Nothing more am I able to say about the DFBW of later Rouj 3 period, but at least the little data available does not contradict what has been seen of its more recent developments from Tell Kurdu and Mersin. The intention of this little paragraph was simply that of reminding that Dark Burnished Wares, in the Rouj too, do not disappear with Halaf and that their evolution does seem to follow some general rules in all the analysed areas.

Table 6.6 – Diagnostic attributes of the DFBW from Rouj 2d and indication of their presence amongst the DFbW/DFBW of Mersin and Amuq. In this case, an indication of the phases and levels in which these are present is given.

6.3.3

6.4 THE ROUJ BASIN RELATIONS

Rouj 3 and the Halaf pottery

6.4.1 West

The later Rouj 3 period, out of the chronological boundaries of this work, is marked by the appearance of Halaf painted ware. It is interpreted by Miyake and the Japanese team as corresponding to a Middle Halaf period,

AND ITS

EXTERNAL

Ceramic Production and Interaction with the

In the previous paragraphs, the similarities in the pottery production of the Amuq plain and that of the Rouj Basin have very often been repeated and stressed. It is 151

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

unquestionable by now that the two regions had strong and continuous contacts, much more substantial and tight than those evidenced between Cilicia and the Antakya region. It is, in fact, not only the tradition of Dark Faced Burnished Ware that the two areas have in common, but in the whole ceramic assemblage. This shared material culture, furthermore, develops in time, following similar modes and trends; analogous technical and stylistic changes mark the progression and elaboration in the ceramic production. At a distance of more or less 50 km, as the crow flies, and linked by any easy communication route through the Orontes Valley, this is not very surprising. What is probably more remarkable is that, within a clearly common tradition of pottery making, each area and community also reveals its own particularities and varieties in the manufacture. Such distinctions are not simply technical, but technological (see 2.7.1); similar pottery “models” are interpreted in diverse ways, creating stylistic varieties. The best example of this is the Red Washed Impressed Ware. This is absent in the Rouj; dark, burnished and impressed ware was produced, but in no case is a coloured wash applied to the interior of the pots, nor on the exterior of the rim. Mersin too, has no instance of Washed Impressed Ware. I have advanced the hypothesis that the Washed Impressed Ware of the Amuq and the Very Fine DFbW of Mersin were stylistic varieties of the same thing. In other words, that these two classes had similar function and role at the two sites. Here I could propose the same reading of the issue, but it will be noticed further on that this hypothesis is complicated by the presence of a site, to the east of the Rouj, that evidences Red Washed Impressed Ware (Qminas). Why not Kerkh, but other more eastern communities yes?

and some applied elements). Low pedestals are noticed, amongst the more particular shapes, in the Rouj as well as in Judaidah; flat bases too. Dark Faced Burnished Ware too, can be similarly followed in its evolution in Hatay and the Rouj. In both areas is constitutes, at its beginning, more than 90% of the whole pottery production. Wall thickness appears to follow similar trends, with an initial move towards thinner pots, but a later countertendency, coinciding more or less with the introduction and development of painted ceramics, when dark burnished vessels were getting thicker and thicker. Surface colours tend to be brownish in a first phase, then concentrate on more dark, black and grey tones, to return to browns and even red colours in a later moment. Very similar impressed decorations characterise the early developments of the respective burnished wares, diminish severely in a second moment and are partly substituted by pattern burnished decoration (Pls. 5.1, 5.5, 6.9 and 6.11). Applied decorative elements are present in both regions, even though, and this is one of the first distinctions between the two areas, they seem to be much more common in the Rouj Basin, where many dark burnished vessels have projecting bands, round button like shapes, semi-moons and other similar features. On the opposite, rocker impressions, quite common in the Amuq, though present in the Syrian sites too, are rarer (examples of this kind of decoration have only been found in Aray 2). Shapes of the Dark Burnished Wares are even more astonishingly identical: initial deep bowls and hole-mouth jars characterise the early deposits in Ain el-Kerkh, Kerkh and Judaidah, followed by a gradual development and increase in necked and collared jars, that soon become the most common shape. Long and straight necks are common in the late phases in both valleys, just as everting and flaring rims and necks, S-profiles and carenated bowls. Impressively indistinguishable appear then, in the 2d period and during Judaidah’s FMR (layer 23), pedestal bowls, decorated with pattern burnish, thin walled and with a flaring profile (Pls. 5.8 and 6.11).

Similarities in the ceramic production indicate that the Rouj and Amuq were tied within a common line of development, at least since the beginning of the ceramic production. Mineral tempered wares are the rule from the beginning and Kerkh Ware (Pl. 6.3a) might be successfully compared to the “calcite” group of vessels with mineral and calcite inclusions, from the deepest layers of Judaidah (Pl. 5.3c). Textures and paste appear to be the same, as well as wall thickness, surface treatment and shapes, and the fact that both mark the beginning of pottery production in the two areas could be seen as a valuable confirmation of this interpretation. Surely, more detailed analysis focussed on this issue is needed to affirm this with certainty, but I feel quite confident in proposing this thesis, as derived from a simple macroscopic examination and comparison of the two classes of ceramics.

The 2d period also sees the first appearance of the Dark Faced Unburnished Ware, like the one that develops in the Amuq since phase B. Dark, with the same paste and texture of the DFBW, but with a simply smoothed surface, in both regions this ware is essentially moulded into hole-mouth jars and deep bowls. Percentages indicate a higher presence of these vessels in the Rouj than in Judaidah B, but with the FMR, quantities seem to more or less coincide. Even though the very fine burnished ware is not so easily separable from the medium, thicker one, the Rouj too thus evidences the complete series of DFW.

Kerkh Ware and the “Calcite Ware”, soon gave way to the Dark Faced Burnished Ware proper, which, again, follows similar configurations and attitudes; tempers and clays do not vary much, but they get, at times, finer. Walls too are thinner in most cases and there is an apaprent desire for darker colours. Next to this, Coarse Ware has exactly the same characters in the two areas (Pls. 5.7 and 6.4); not only, it is also decorated in the same way (incision, red slip

Painted pottery, both in Cream Ware and in Fine Painted Ware, is manifest in the Rouj from the 2d period, thus together with the first development of Unburnished pottery, as happens in Judaidah. A comparison between the painted productions of the two areas is not very easy. From a 152

6 - The Rouj Basin

stylistic point of view, in fact, there are some painted decorations that are very similar to those of the Judaidah Brittle Painted Ware, but the clay and paste are not alike (Pls. 6.7 and 5.11). The Rouj pottery, in fact, is quite fine and well tempered and generally burnished or slipped. Fragments of non brittle, painted ware are found in Judaidah, Phase B and these do show some analogies with pottery from Aray 2 and Ain el-Kerkh. Some painted sherds from Ain el-Kerkh are furthermore analogous to Phase C painted pottery of tell Kurdu. Overall, thus these ceramics do indicate a certain shared model or style for the early painted ceramics of the two regions, even though less strong than that of Dark Faced Burnished Ware. The Cream Ware and Fine Painted Ware might not be exactly the same class of the Brittle Painted from Judaidah, but the influences of one on the other are decidedly tangible.

intense red and brown pigments, as is the case for the Cream and Fine Painted Wares in Ain el-Kerkh and Aray 1. Triangular, zig zag and diagonal lines are seen in both areas. Judaidah appears to be poorer in this respect (a poverty which might coincide, though, with the well known gap in its sequence). Another element that appears to be common to the Rouj and Mersin but not to the Amuq is the white filled incised ware. This is also known from Ras Shamra, on the Syrian coast, but also to the north, at sites like Sakçe Gözü. The Amuq, which apparently has none, is thus surrounded by more or less contemporary sites that decorate some of their pottery in this way. This is indeed strange and the only possible explanation is that of the gap in the Amuq sequence after phase B. In fact, it is impossible to imagine that ceramic models travelled between the Rouj and Cilicia by skipping out Antakya; rather it is the phase in which this pottery develops that is missing in the Amuq.

These gradual but parallel changes in the DFBW production and the presence of other common classes of ceramics, indicate that contacts and relations between the Amuq and the Rouj were continuous. The data all goes towards the direction of indicating a constant line of contact, a permanent network system of exchange and communication, in which the Rouj and the Amuq were involved.

6.4.2

Some observations from Archaeometry

The macroscopic analysis of the ceramics from the Rouj, Yumuktepe and the Amuq has evidenced strong affinities, but at the same time autonomy and independence in specific aspects of their ceramic production. The latter is especially true for Cilicia, that partly distinguishes itself from the other two, whilst Amuq and Rouj apparently have only minor distinctions in their ceramic assemblages. The archaeometric analyses and preliminary comparisons between the Judaidah thin sections and the samples from Mersin have furthermore advanced the suggestion that the majority of the pots were locally made and that it was mostly typological models that were shared rather than pots exchanged. Similarly to what was done for Judaidah, a very preliminary archaeometric study on a small sample of sherds from Ain el Kerkh can provide a couple of other observations on this issue. Thirteen samples have been taken from Ain el Kerkh, as indicated in table 6.7 (kindly granted me by Prof. Tsuneki), all of DFBW, except 3 samples of Kerkh Ware. On these samples, petrographic, mineralogical and chemical analyses have been carried out.

This carries on in the Halaf period too, since vessel shapes and decorative motives in both valleys show clear association with that culture. Mersin, which, as has been seen, has strong links with the Amuq region, is consequently part of this larger network system involving the Rouj Basin. The overall distinction in the ceramic assemblage of Yumuktepe though, clearly indicates a different participation of the site within this system of relations and contacts. Amuq and Rouj probably participate wholly within one major network, even though they too have particularities and exclusive contacts with other regions. Mersin instead, has a partly independent ceramic production, thus indicating a less “strict” member of the “Rouj/Amuq Group”. Even the Dark Faced Burnished Ware proper has more similarities in the two more southern regions than with Yumuktepe. Colour variation, texture, shapes, and decorative elements as pattern burnish and applied motives are alike in Ain elKerkh and in Judaidah, whilst Mersin distinguishes itself even in these attributes. On the other hand, though, Judaidah has the very fine texture ware that is so common in Cilicia, whilst this does not seem to be so evident in the Rouj, and Cilicia has cases of incised decoration filled with white paste, frequent in the Rouj, but absent in Judaidah.

Strangely enough, a first observation from the thin sections has evidenced the total absence, within the ceramic pastes, of fossils, apparently frequent in the geological formations of the area. The mountains around the Rouj basin are of limestone of the Palaeogene and Neogene periods, with basaltic lavas of the Pliocene concentrated on the southern end of the basin (Tsuneki et al. 1998, 2). Fossils are reported to be abundant within the limestone, as well as flint nodules. Fossils had been characteristic of Judaidah ceramics and this difference is certainly not to be underestimated. ARFs too, abundant in the latter site, are here present only in two samples (and in very little quantity). As at Judaidah, calcite grains appear to be rare or absent in most samples, except for two cases (ba 168, 170), which have an essentially Cc component. Quarz grains and

Painted pottery from Yumuktepe levels XXV-XXIV, and even more the later XXIII-XX layers, has a much greater variety than that of Amuq Phase B, thus apparently nearing the Rouj in this. Several motives are similar, but also the paste and surface colours and treatment show affinities with the ceramics of the Syrian sites. The pottery from layers XXV-XX is mostly burnished and is decorated with 153

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

pyroxene appear to be the most common components of both the DFBW and the Kerkh Ware, and quite abundant are also, in these pastes, metamorphic rock fragments. Olivine instead is found essentially in the Kerkh Ware, and only rarely in the DFBW. hypothesised correlation with Mersin pottery ba 159 DFBW cl3 (XXVII-XXIV) ba 160 DFBW cl5/3 (XXVII-XXVI) ba 161 DFBW cl5 (XXVII-XXIV) ba 162 DFBW cl3 (XXVII-XXIV) ba 163 Kerkh W. “sand tempered” (XXXIII) ba 164 Kerkh W. “sand tempered” (XXXIII) ba 165 Kerkh W. “sand tempered” (XXXIII) ba 166 DFBW cl3 (XXIX-XXVI) ba 167 DFBW cl3 (XXIX-XXVI) ba 168 DFBW cl3 (XXIX-XXVI) ba 169 DFBW early cl3 (XXVIII) ba 170 DFBW early cl3 (XXX) ba 171 DFBW cl3 (XXIX-XXVI) sample ware type

When comparing these analyses with those of Mersin, a diagram plotting all class 3 and 7 ceramics from the two sites might be useful (fig. 6.2 a-c). Quite interesting is the fact that the ceramics from both sites, even though not strictly grouped together, do plot in three broad clusters (only one Ain el Kerkh sherd falls in the central cluster, but this might be due to the small sampling). Class 7 sherds are distributed in all three clusters, and thus give no specific indication for this particular class, but in general it does appear that at both sites there is a group of DFbW/DFBW with high Ca, one with medium Ca, and one with low Ca (and vice versa Fe and Al). Even though less evident, this behaviour can be seen in the Fe vs Mg diagram too. DFbW composition would seem to follow similar general trends in the two sites.

square layer period E311b E291a E270d E310c T.P.A T.P.A T.P.A T.P.A T.P.A T.P.A T.P.A D26a D26a

4 3 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 2 2

Rouj 2c Rouj 2c Rouj 2d Rouj 2d Rouj 2a Rouj 2a Rouj 2a Rouj 2a Rouj 2a Rouj 2a Rouj 2b Rouj 2b Rouj 2b

This does not mean that the composition of classes 3 and 7 is the same at the two sites, and in fact this is in my view not the case. Mineralogical and petrographic observations have indicated local differences and these diagrams too show that, even though near, the samples of the two sites do cluster separately. I thus believe that these diagrams suggest shared technological choices at the two sites, which would thus also imply the use of particular clays and pastes; paste selection was thus evidently important in the manufacture of DFBW, as the archaeometric analysis at Mersin has also shown. The specific differences in composition though suggest that ceramics were mostly locally made. It is probably the similarity in the geological setting of these areas that causes analogies (but not identities) in the paste. This does not exclude of course the possibility of ceramic exchange between the two regions, which we know were in contact.

Table 6.7 – List of analysed samples from Ain el Kerkh with the indication of possible correlation with the Mersin classification of ceramics.

As for Mersin and Judaidah, there does not appear to be, from the mineralogical nor petrographic analysis, a specific paste composition for the DFBW. In fact relative quantities of the basic components change and specific markers as carbonatic rock fragments, metamorphic rock fragments, or amphibole are found in different samples. The chemical analysis (table 6.8) gives a better view of these compositions and of group affinities. If plotted all together, the Rouj samples immediately evidence two main clusters (apart from a single Kerkh sample that falls on its own) (fig. 6.1 a-b). There appears to be one group of ceramics very low in Ca and high in Al and Fe (as was seen for one group of class 3 sherds in Mersin) and another group with quite high Ca content and lower in Fe and Mg. Amongst the samples high in Ca are obviously the two that had evidenced high Cc in the thin sections; mineralogical analysis had then evidenced high Cc also in samples ba 166 and 167, as is now also evident from the chemical analysis.

Macroscopic similarities were even stronger between Judaidah and the Rouj, but archaeometric comparisons are more difficult since we only have petrographic observations from the former site. A central element arguing for an at least partial autonomy of production between the two sites though is certainly the total absence of fossils within the paste of Ain el Kerkh ceramics and the rarity of ARFs. Olivine was furthermore present in great quantities, in most Judaidah samples, whilst in the Rouj site it is only found in the Kerkh Ware. The other basic components are the same, even though in differing quantities, but this is most probably due to the similar geological conditions and nearness of the two sites. I would thus for the moment conclude that the available data suggests in this case too, an at least partially autonomous production, based on shared ceramic models. Hopefully, new analyses will come to further challenge this issue.

A first observation that these diagrams bring is a confirmation of the fact that, in the Rouj too, as in the other two sites, there would not seem to be a single type of paste composition for the DFBW. Nor do the two clusters suggest a chronological distinction of pastes, since samples from all periods are distributed in both clusters. Two of the Kerkh Ware samples would seem to cluster with the samples low in Ca (one out of three samples falls in the middle of the clusters), but the small quantity of samples does not permit to affirm with certainty that this is a characteristic of the whole class. Mineralogically, all three samples show abundant olivine and metamorphic rock fragments.

154

6 - The Rouj Basin

sample ba 166 ba 167 ba 168 ba 163 ba 164 ba 165 ba 169 ba 170 ba 171 ba 159 ba 160 ba 161 ba 162

class DFBW DFBW DFBW Kerkh Kerkh Kerkh DFBW DFBW DFBW DFBW DFBW Fine DFBW DFBW

period 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2b 2b 2b 2c 2c 2d (final) 2d (final)

Al 8,02 4,62 4,90 3,44 5,60 6,76 8,76 2,71 7,05 7,29 7,21 6,75 3,56

Fe 5,64 3,59 3,06 4,10 6,39 5,60 6,10 1,88 7,63 6,28 6,13 6,91 2,91

Mg 3,53 0,23 0,28 2,84 4,74 3,69 4,01 0,68 2,40 1,34 3,19 2,62 0,83

Ca 2,09 20,09 20,27 10,80 4,46 2,66 2,06 20,16 2,09 1,59 2,82 2,29 18,98

K 0,62 0,96 1,27 0,97 1,61 1,61 1,20 0,91 1,46 0,44 1,24 1,55 0,28

Na 0,19 0,06 0,02 0,27 0,69 2,34 0,22 2,19 1,44 0,65 0,87 0,04

Mn 0,04 0,01 0,01 0,09 0,10 0,06 0,06 0,02 0,09 0,05 0,06 0,08 0,04

Sr 153 110 115 263 133 60 98 113 140 268 220 93 300

Ba 430 370 243 248 280 93 488 410 405 650 1128 1200 730

Cr 173 148 88 310 533 220 365 98 105 33 235 95 100

Ni 203 110 90 415 505 113 283 73 68 40 288 120 68

Table 6.8 - ICP chemical results. Major (wt%) and trace element (ppm) contents of samples from Ain el-Kerkh. - = below detection limit. Ceramic classes analysed are the DFBW and the Kerkh Ware.

9 8 7

Fe

6 5

DFBW

4

Kerkh

3 2 1 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

Ca

Mg

5 5 4 4 3

DFBW

3 2 2 1

Kerkh

1 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Fe Fig. 6.1 a-b - bivariate diagrams illustrating the results of the chemical analysis (Ca vs Fe and Fe vs Mg). Samples are from different period 2 levels of occupation at Ain el Kerkh. DFBW and Kerkh Ware have been differentiated.

155

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

12 10

Fe

8 Rouj

6

Mersin

4 2 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

Ca 14 12

Al

10 8

Rouj

6

Mersin

4 2 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

Ca 8 7 6

Mg

5

Rouj

4

Mersin

3 2 1 0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Fe Fig. 6.2 - bivariate diagrams illustrating the results of the chemical analysis (Ca vs Fe, Ca vs Al and Fe vs Mg). Samples are of classes 3 and 7 from Mersin and Ain el Kerkh (Rouj), from all periods of occupation considered.

Ubaid, were the known cultures of the land between the two rivers and their minor or greater diffusion tended to be considered as a sign of “advancement” and development toward civilization. The truth is that all these groups moved continuously, but probably so did the earlier societies, with the difference that the material culture of the latter is not so well “categorised” and recognisable and thus distinguishing their exchange and communication patterns is more complicated. Furthermore, the presence of elements of

6.4.3 Relations with the Eastern Ceramic Neolithic Cultures The issue of the eastern relations of these “western communities”, or rather, the opposite way round, of the western “borders” of the eastern communities, has, in the past, particularly attracted scholars, because the eastern cultures of Mesopotamia were those on which interest was mostly focussed. Hassuna, Samarra, Halaf and later on

156

6 - The Rouj Basin

Hassuna or Halaf pottery at one site does not directly imply its participation within that particular society. These Neolithic groups had strong external relations, were it because of their own seasonal mobility due to economic organisation, to the exchange, import and export of primary resources, or to marriage and kin alliances. These probably implied and caused the large distribution of particular elements of material culture, or of their models, to a different extent and intensity according to the degree and quality of the contacts. I have already alluded to Hassuna characters in the ceramics of the western societies and the appearance of Halaf is the one that marks the boundary of this work; it has also probably been understood that such attributes do not appear at all places with the same strength, nor, probably, do they emerge at the same time.

Another explanation though, could be simply chronological. I have in fact hypothesised a gap in the Judaidah sequence between Amuq A and B, period that might correspond, as will be seen further on, with Rouj 2c, the period of maximum contacts with Hassuna. The absence of occupation at the site (as for what concerns the excavated area) might be to blame for the lack of data on contacts between the north Mesopotamian culture and the Amuq. Later analysis of pottery from Ras Shamra will demonstrate this last hypothesis as the most plausible. Some of the painted pottery from Ain el-Kerkh too seems to show stronger eastern contacts of the Rouj than those of Judaidah. In fact, Ain el-Kerkh has some sherds with a painted decoration in all alike to that of tell Sabi Abyad’s (Balikh valley, period IIA) Standard Ware (Pl. 6.6c): horizontally and vertically repeated triangles, at times fully coloured and at times simply filled in with diagonal, parallel lines. These are also seen along the Euphrates, at Kosak Shamali and more to the north, at sites like Mezraa Teleilat. Such decorations are totally absent from the Antakya region and, of course, from Yumuktepe.

In Mersin, applied decorations on the analysed ceramics are nearly absent and the same can be said of incised decorations and coloured wash. These are generally all considered indicators of the Hassuna culture. Their absence would thus indicate rare or irrelevant contacts of Cilicia with the northern Jazira, as would be confirmed by the lack of husking trays, very common, instead, in the Rouj Basin from the 2c period onwards. Halaf ceramic production will, later on, be introduced within the material culture of Yumuktepe with much greater intensity. Certainly, distance must have played a major role in the minor contacts with Hassuna, compared with those of the other two regions.

It is thus evident, from the above, that, even though there might be a chronological distinction, the two regions of Amuq and Rouj, even though involved in one pattern and system of communication, probably had further and distinct orientations and relations. Rouj does seem more projected towards the east, and the results of this trajectory are well manifest in the pottery, whilst the Amuq had preferential contacts with Cilicia, as probably indicates the finer ware (Yumuktepe class 5), which the Rouj rarely has. The northern route too, which will be tackled later on, will be interesting to analyse, as the Euphrates proves to be a major way of communication, into which the Rouj basin is apparently partly involved (even though indirectly), but not so the Hatay.

Between the Amuq and Rouj we have seen that it is the latter that evidences stronger Hassuna influence. Their short distance, of simply 50km, and their membership to one single network of communication and exchange, does not to justify such a stronger presence of Hassuna characters in the Syrian valley. Both regions have incised decoration, often combined with a colour (slip or wash), both have applied bands and ledge handles, which remind the eastern ceramics of sites like tell Sotto, Yarim Tepe, Hassuna, but the presence of such characters in the Rouj sites is much higher and stronger than in Judaidah. Husking trays also testify this: absent in the Amuq (one single fragment found, in late layers), their quantity and variety in Ain el-Kerkh and the other Rouj sites is instead astonishing. One is immediately brought to imagine models describing human interaction, generally applied to describe trade and commodity distribution (C. Renfrew 1969). The commodity, in this case the ceramics, should be very abundant within the contact zone of two communities, whilst outside this zone the fall-off is considered to be very rapid. Obviously, varied options and behaviours exist in this model, especially, for later periods, when the existence of “ports of trade” and “colonies” can be hypothesised, but the essential factor to be underlined here is that a “border” between contact zone or area of intensive exchange and a further area of rarer contacts, maybe down-the-line, is possible. The absence of husking trays from Hatay and the minor quantity of incised, Hassuna wares might indicate that the plain was out of the proper “contact zone” and received only an echo of the Rouj-Jazira network system.

6.4.4

Chrono-stratigraphic correlations

Extremely difficult is the operation of interpreting material culture correlations between different and distant sites in a chronological manner. Social and cultural influences in fact, might not result immediately into the acquisition of similar ceramic productions and times of evolution and change in pottery manufacture might not be the same. If two areas, though, are actually part of one tight network system of contacts and relations, we should be legitimised to expect similar changes in their respective material culture production, within very little time distance. If the particular attributes do not derive from internal developments, but rather from contacts of one part only of the system with some other, outer region, as might be the case of the Hassuna influence in the Rouj Basin, then we should probably be more careful in assessing changes in time and space within the whole regional network. I shall try to evaluate this issue in comparing stratigraphic distribution of the pottery production of the two areas.

157

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Pottery Classes and Attributes Rouj Kerkh Ware / “Calcite” Ware 2a Coarse Simple 2a DFBW - more than 90% 2a Coarse Incised-red slip 2c Hassuna attributes (incisions, husking 2c trays…) DFBW increase dark colours 2c DFBW pattern burnish 2c DFBW rocker impression 2c DFBW long straight necks - frequent 2c attribute DFBW everted neck - frequent 2c attribute DFBW trays 2c Dark Faced Unburnished 2d Painted ceramics 2d Cream bowls 2d Pedestal bowls patt. burn. 2d Complex pattern burnish 2d DFBW thicker vessels (Amuq C 2d DFBW)

appears to evolve in a similar direction at the two sites, with an increase in dark colours, in straight and high necked jars, the first manufacture of tray-like, very low, plates, the appearance of pattern burnish, rocker impressions, and so on. Painted ceramics and Dark Faced Unburnished Ware, which characterise Amuq Phase B, though, do not make their entrance in the Rouj assemblage until later period 2d. This situation reminds very much of the one seen when comparing Yumuktepe with Judaidah; there too we assisted to the development of DFBW, with the appearance of the Fine Burnished Ware, the pattern burnish and other attributes typical of Amuq B, without any painted pottery. I had hypothesised, in that case, either a gap in the Judaidah sequence (see paragraph 5.6.1), or simply a later beginning in painted wares in the Cilician site. The similarity of the situation here would bring me to favour the first explanation. In fact, we have seen that the Rouj basin and Hatay act in more or less identical ways in their overall ceramic production and a later appearance of painted wares here in the Rouj, compared to the Amuq, would thus be difficult to explain. The temporal concurrence, furthermore, of the emergence of painted and dark unburnished ceramics, together with the increased frequency in the use of pattern burnish and the rarity of impressed decoration, that is seen in the following period 2d and with the beginning of Phase B in Antakya, is too good a coincidence to be purely casual. Period 2d would, in fact, fit very well with the Amuq Phase B1-B2 (Judaidah layers 24-23). This could thus confirm the presence of a gap in the Judaidah stratigraphy between between Amuq phases A and B (table 6.10), a gap which would correspond with Rouj 2c. Rouj 2c would then correspond more or less with Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI, phase in which both areas in fact evidence great transformations in the DFBW, compared to the earlier phases, but no painted pottery was yet produced.

Amuq A1 A1-A2 A2 B B B B B B B B B B FMR FMR FMR C

Table 6.9 - List of diagnostic characters and attributes of the ceramic production common to both the Rouj and the Amuq and indication of their first appearance in the two regions.

In table 6.9 I try to summarise attributes and characters of the ceramic assemblage of the Amuq and the Rouj Basin which I believe can be used for reconstructing a chronological comparative chart. I have long discussed the similarities and correlations between these features for the two regions and shall thus give for granted the equivalence of the categories in the two areas (ex: Kerkh Ware ≈ Calcite Ware; Rouj Coarse Simple ≈ Amuq Coarse Simple, etc.). The correspondence between the earlier stages of development of the Ceramic Neolithic of the Rouj sites and of Hatay appears quite straightforward and consistent. In fact, the first phase of development in both regions is characterised by a major presence of Kerkh/Calcite Ware and the more or less parallel production of Coarse Ware. I would thus be quite confident in seeing Rouj period 2a as more or less coinciding with Phase A1 in the Antakya region.

Rouj 3 2d 2c 2b 2a

Period 2b, unfortunately, has little diagnostic elements that can pinpoint it down. It has been seen though, that this moment is identified by a great quantity of DFBW, many of which with a high amount of impressed decoration. Most of the shapes are deep bowls and hole-mouth jars, but necked jars start being manufactured too. Phase A2 in Judaidah has a very similar situation. Furthermore, no incised, nor red slipped, Coarse Ware is seen in this phase, as is the case of Rouj 2b. This sets a terminus ante quem at Amuq Phase B, for Ain el-Kerkh central trench layers 5-6 (Rouj 2b); I would thus hypothesise the possible correspondence between Rouj 2b and Amuq A2.

Amuq C GAP B2 (ex FMR layer 23) B1 GAP A2 A1

Table 6.10 - Tentative stratigraphic correlation between the Amuq and the Rouj Basin.

Moving back to Rouj 2d, there is in the region, no apparent gap in occupation between the end of period 2 and the Halaf influenced layers of period 3. This is amply demonstrated by the ceramic production, where characters that will be present in period 3 begin appearing during the 2d phase (cream bowls are the main example) and thus evidence continuity between the two moments. A further confirmation of this is, in my opinion, given by the presence, next to the classical one, of Dark Faced Burnished Ware with very thick walls and a burnish done with large, often visible, tools. This is typical of Amuq C

As we move to later periods, interpretations become more difficult. Rouj 2c, in fact, is characterised by the introduction of incised or red slipped Coarse Ware, as happens in Amuq B. Dark Faced Burnished Ware, too, 158

6 - The Rouj Basin

DFBW, but is never present in B1 nor B2. Rouj period 2d, thus, would seem to start with Judaidah layers 24-23 and continue up to the beginning of the Halaf layers.

impression is present) to the second part of Amuq Phase A (Tsuneki and Miyake 1996, 121; Miyake 1997, 59). The proposal of a Phase B occupation at Dhahab though, allows to correlate Rouj 2c with a phase later than Amuq A.

Confirming this long duration of Rouj 2d would also be the analogies between some of the Rouj 2d painted ceramics and those of late Yumuktepe painted pottery from levels XXIII-XX (see 6.4.1) (phases XXV-XXIV and XXIII-XX in Mersin, are decidedly distinct, because of their totally different DFBW, changed proportions of ceramic classes present and new painted ceramics), which immediately precede Halaf level XIX. I would not be surprised if some internal subdivision, as is in Mersin XXV-XXIV and XXIII-XX, be detected in the future within Rouj 2d.

The ceramics from Rouj periods 2c and 2d clearly both have strong similarities with those of Judaidah phase B. It is thus difficult to separate these two phases; the archaeologists studying this issue have initially solved the problem by interpreting both 2c and 2d as being partly contemporary to Phase B20; I have just underlined, though, that the absence of painted and unburnished ware in Rouj 2c is, in my opinion, a too strong difference to permit us to correlate these two phases. Rouj 2c, should be, in my opinion, earlier than Amuq B. Needless is it to say though, that the hypothesis of the gap between Judaidah A and B, proposed in chapter 4 and which would “create a space” in the sequence for Rouj 2c, still needs demonstration on the field. Last of all, and here I agree again with the Japanese scholars, links between the DFBW of Judaidah level 23 (Phase B2, Braidwood’s FMR) and Rouj 2d are strong and evident. The only difference with what hypothesised by the Japanese is the fact that they consider the whole FMR, thus levels 23 and 22, as good contexts (Tsuneki et al. 1999: 10; Tsuneki et al. 1997, 25).

The length and gradualness of the appearance of Halaf is somehow also a confirmation of the gap in the Amuq stratigraphy, which had already been detected by Braidwood. Amuq B1-B2, which I propose as corresponding to Rouj 2d, would only coincide with a first moment of this period, whilst the later part of Rouj 2d, with Mersin XXIII-XX, would coincide with the well known gap. The chronological chart proposed by the Japanese team for the Rouj basin (table 6.11) is slightly diverse from the one I imagine. There are no major discrepancies in the correlations with the Amuq for the earlier phases, which, as said above, are quite clear and straightforward. Only 2a period is given as antecedent the Judaidah stratigraphy because of the recognition and definition of Kerkh Ware, thought of as exclusive of this region (Iwasaki et al. 1995, 148). I have instead proposed a correlation between Kerkh Ware and the Calcite tempered, thick ware of Phase A1. Period 2b, then, is considered contemporary to Phase A (A2), assertion I completely agree with. Later developments, though, see several distinctions in our interpretations (tables 6.11 and 6.12). Rouj 2d

Amuq C GAP B2 (ex FMR layer 23)

Mersin ?-XX-XIX XXXIII- ?

2d 2c 2b 2a

B1 GAP A2 A1

XV-XIV XXVII-XXVI XXIX-XXVIII XXXIII-XXX

Table 6.12 - Proposed correlation between the Mersin, Amuq and Rouj stratigraphy.

6.5

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

Various samples for 14C dating, analysed though by two different laboratories, are available from the Rouj. Some of the dates obtained unfortunately have an extremely high standard deviation and are thus difficult to compare with the other dates. I thus decide not to use such dates; they are listed, but not regarded in the considerations that follow (table 6.13). My intent, here, is to compare, where possible, the stratigraphic relations proposed above between the three different sites and based on typological grounds, with the absolute chronology of the settlements.

Amuq FMR B

2c A 2b 2a

Rouj 3 2d

Pre-A

Table 6.11 - Stratigraphic correlation of the Amuq and Rouj sequence, proposed by the Japanese team excavating the Rouj Basin.

Because of Braidwood’s attribution of the Tell Dhahab excavated sequence entirely to Amuq Phase A, Miyake and the Japanese archaeologists obviously have a major problem in positioning the upper limits of that phase in their chronological and stratigraphic sequence. Dhahab, in fact, has many examples of rocker impressed decoration on the DFBW, which Rouj 2b has not one example of. For this reason Miyake is forced to date Rouj 2c (where rocker

20

Tsuneki and Miyake 1996, 121; Iwasaki et al. 1995, 148. More recent publications of the Japanese actually indicate the possible presence of a gap in the Rouj sequence between 2c and 2d. Miyake 1997, 55 and oral communication at the Orontes workshop 2001. With this hiatus, Amuq B would end up only corresponding with Rouj 2c.

159

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Site Tell Aray 2 Tell Aray 2 El Kerkh 2 Ain el-Kerkh Tell Aray 2 Tell Aray 2 Ain el-Kerkh El Kerkh 2 Tell Aray 2 Ain el-Kerkh Ain el-Kerkh Tell Aray 2 Ain el-Kerkh Ain el-Kerkh Ain el-Kerkh

Sample N-6545 N-5974 N-6545 NUT A2-2106 N-5977 N-5976 NUT A2-2109 N-6548 N-5975 NUT A2-2024 NUT A2-2023 N-5978 NUT A2-2089 NUT A2-2104 NUT A2-2105

Phase 2a 2c 2a 1 2c 2c 1 1 2c 2c 2c 2c 2c 2d 2d

Date Context BP A liv. 5-6 8960 A liv. 11 8810 liv. 5 8680 D6, 4 8660 A liv. 6 8550 A liv. 8 8540 D6, 4 8390 A liv. 10 8310 A liv. 10 8230 E310, 6, str. 167 7730 E310, 6, str.167 7670 A liv. 3 7630 E270-290, 4 7420 E271,3, str. 240 7230 E271,2b, str. 211 6950

Standard Deviation 365 470 355 100 465 150 50 280 385 80 45 250 45 40 50

Calib. BC 1 sigma max min 8383 7550 8340 7423 8039 7328 7866 7842 8034 7036 7695 7438 7537 7378 7550 7006 7576 6609 6643 6461 6503 6456 6632 6182 6379 6226 6159 6025 5873 5737

Calib. BC 2 sigma max min 8998 7260 9018 6622 8421 6775 8159 7537 8584 6424 7934 7262 7576 7212 7949 6496 8030 6232 6693 6431 6592 6435 7044 5967 6399 6109 6210 6007 5978 5719

Table 6.13 - 14C dates from the Rouj sites. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, Stuiver et al. 2000. Dates hatched in grey are those not taken into consideration in the analysis, because of their too long standard deviation. Dates from Iwasaki 1995: 150-151; Tsuneki and Miyake 1996: 112; Tsuneki et al. 2000: 28.

I am not only interested in giving an absolute date to the analysed phases, which has, by the way, already been done and published by the excavators. Rather, the aim is to verify whether changes in the ceramic production of these sites coincide in time and whether chronology can help interpret modes and times of relations between these regions. As said above, in fact, social or cultural contacts might not result immediately into the acquisition of similar traits in the material culture, but be a later and more complex consequence of social, cultural and economic modifications within the groups. Unfortunately, the Amuq, which is nearer both culturally and spatially to the Rouj, has no absolute dates and we thus have to rely simply on comparisons with Mersin.

the end of the period at maximum a couple of hundred years later. For the 2d period, evidence is even less, with two dates that do not match, but take us certainly later than 6200 BC and into the 6th millennium BC (Tsuneki et al. 1999, 2 believe that period 2d was something like 400 years long ).

8000 7800

BC calibrated

7600

No dates are available for Rouj Phases 2a and 2b, but fortunately there are two reliable dates for the PPN period, which give us a terminus post quem for the earliest pottery layers.

7400 7200 7000 6800 6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 5400

1

1

2c

2c

2c

2d

2d

Sample s

In figure 6.3, the 2 sigma interval of each date is plotted in order to give a better idea of the possible dating of each phase.

Fig. 6.3 - Plot of calibrated 14C dates from the Rouj sites. 2 sigma intervals are considered. Period of occupation is indicated instead of the sample number.

Overlapping of dates from the same phase is minimal (fig. 6.3), thus the dating of these levels in the Rouj sites is still quite tentative, but it should still give an idea of their temporal distribution. From this table, it would result that the PPN period dated around the middle of the 8th millennium BC. The first two dates of the 2c period come from quite early layers of that phase, whilst the last one, from level 4 of the central trench in Ain el-Kerkh, marks the end of the phase. The absence of a proper overlap for these dates thus, might be explained by the actual different stratigraphic position of the samples proper. The first two, which do overlap, indicate a date of approximately 65006390 BC for the first Rouj 2c occupation (level 6 of the central trench at Ain el-Kerkh) and the last one indicates

The next chart (fig. 6.4), that juxtaposes carbon samples of the sites of Ain el Kerkh and Mersin, indicates that comparisons between the two are not so simple and straightforward.

160

6 - The Rouj Basin

8200 8000 7800 7600 7400 7200 7000 6800 6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 5400

IV XX 2d

V XX V XX VI XX VI XX VI XX

2d I VI XX I VI XX

2c II VI XX II VI XX 2c

1

1

2c IX XX I XI XX II XI XX

5200

Fig. 6.4 – Comparison of calibrated dates from the Rouj sites and Mersin. The 2 sigma interval is used. The Y-axis indicates BC calibrated dates and the X-axis the 14C samples. The chronological phase or level to which the samples belong is indicated instead of the sample number. In Arab numbers are the Rouj samples (corresponding to those given in the above table) and in Roman numbers the Mersin ones.

This plot of the Rouj dates (fig. 6.4), together with the Mersin ones (discussed in paragraph 2.14), evidences interesting, but also apparently contradictory, considerations. Phases 2a and 2b, which I have supposed should correspond to Yumuktepe’s XXXIII-XXVIII, might indeed fall more or less in the same range as the respective Mersin dates (since in between samples of period 1 and those of 2c). Rouj 2c, though, which has been correlated to Mersin XXVII-XXVI, has two dates that fall earlier than Yumuktepe XXVIII (see table 6.12). These two dates range approximately around 6500-6390 BC, whilst Mersin XXVII-XXVI is more or less dated 6300-6000 BC (tables 2.3, 2.4). The last date from Rouj 2c (sampled from the latest level of the phase and thus later than the other two) would instead seem to overlap perfectly with the Mersin interval. Was Miyake correct in dating the Rouj 2c as starting before the end of Amuq A we would have no incongruence in the dating of this period. In fact, Amuq A is contemporary with Mersin XXIX-XXVIII, the dates of which overlap with those of Rouj 2c. Rouj 2d though, is in a similar situation as 2c.

Of the two dates, one corresponds to Mersin XXV, as hypothesised by the typological analysis, whilst the other is slightly earlier, correlated to Mersin XXVI. The relation between Rouj 2d and Mersin XXV is without doubt, also because of the absence of painted pottery in the preceding phases of both sites. It somehow appears that most Rouj samples slightly antedate the Mersin ones. I would find it difficult to imagine that, in the case of two areas for which we have demonstrated constant contacts, changes in the ceramic production were always occurring first in the Rouj and only later at Mersin. I would thus tend to be confident in the single 2c and 2d dates that do correlate respectively with Mersin XXVIIXXVI and Mersin XXV. The absence of dated contexts in the Amuq is a great lack in this sense, as its intermediate position between the other two regions would have made it an excellent case for comparison.

161

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

6.6 ROUJ NEIGHBOURS: QMINAS MATSUMA

TELL

from the latter valley. How is it possible that this category, evidenced in the Amuq and at Qminas, was not found at all in the Rouj sites?

A little more than 10 km east of the Rouj valley, south of the modern town of Idlib, many tells mark the landscape. Of these, at least two have witnessed Neolithic occupation: Tell Qminas, just next to the Tsukuba University dig house, and Tell Mastuma, a couple of km to the west (Egami et al. 1988-89). Qminas (or Kumynas, as the modern Syrian road posts indicate) was excavated in cooperation with the Japanese team working at Tell Mastuma. Extremely low on the plain, Qminas has Aceramic Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic occupation only. Tell Mastuma instead, 20m in height, was inhabited for a very long time, from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Unfortunately for us, the known Neolithic occupation is limited to a very thin layer at the very bottom of a 4,5 x 4,5 m trench (Tsuneki 1995, 76-77).

Together with this ceramic, Coarse Ware, both vegetal and mineral in temper, is found.

AND

Photographs and drawings of the sherds, together with these descriptions, very clearly evidence their identical character to that of the Rouj and Amuq ceramics. Difficult to position along the stratigraphic scale of these, data does seem to indicate though, a quite old chronology, probably corresponding to Amuq A1-2. Only 3 sherds of what is called by the authors Brittle Ware, might recall later Amuq B phase, but for the moment, information is too little to confirm this. Tell Mastuma, unfortunately, is of little help in this discussion, since data from this site is minimal. The Neolithic level i was characterised by a certain number of pits and some flat limestone had been placed to form a kind of surface, directly on the bedrock.

Eleven small trenches were opened, in 1981, at Qminas, site that was and still is endangered by many modern dwellings and ploughing. Maximum size of the trenches was 4 x 4 m. These investigations brought to the identification of 2 main phases of the settlement, the Lower phase, PPN, and the Upper, Ceramic Neolithic; the latter is further divided into A and B (B being later). Variously disposed stones and some hearths and pits were found in the lower phase, whilst the architectural remains of the Upper Neolithic occupation were slightly more consistent and evidenced a stone paved floor and stone foundations of walls, together with various pits.

200 sherds were recovered from this level, 44,4% of which were of DFBW. Coarse Ware is very rare, but Cream Ware and some Halaf sherds are present. Amongst the DFBW, long necked jars with pattern burnish have been recognised (Tsuneki 1995, 97). It would thus seem that this site, surely sharing the same cultural attributes, appears to have a later occupation, compared to that of Qminas; Cream Ware would indicate a Rouj 2d settlement, but the presence of pattern burnish might also represent earlier layers. Pattern burnish, in fact, as has been seen, first appears in the 2c period. Finally, the Halaf sherds are probably the testimony of a later, Rouj 3, inhabitation at Tell Mastuma.

Dark Faced Burnished Ware constituted the majority of the whole assemblage, some sherds of which have impressed decoration (the authors use the term incised, but it is quite evident that they mean impressed. Masuda and Sha’ath 1983, 201) and the most frequent shapes are hemispherical bowls and collared jars. Some bowls have ledge handles and some an applied cordon under the rim. These characters strongly remind the descriptions already made on the early DFBW. Sherds described as light coloured and burnished wares, with thicker walls, ring the bell of the Kerkh Ware, whilst, and this is probably the most important aspect, the presence of a red washed impressed burnished ware in Phase B of the Upper level is a real novelty for the area. The DFBW and the Kerkh Ware are well understandable, in a site so near to the Rouj Basin; the Red Washed Impressed, though, absent at Ain el-Kerkh and at all the other sites of the valley, is really unexpected. Its quantity is apparently not very big, reason for which the excavators decide to classify the Red Washed Impressed as a variant of the DFBW, instead of as an independent class, as Braidwood had done. As I have had the occasion to repeat a couple of times, I agree with this categorisation. I have in fact interpreted this class as a “variety” of decorated DFBW. The presence of Red Washed Impressed 10 km east of the Rouj Basin, brings back the problem of its absence 162

6 - The Rouj Basin

163

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

164

6 - The Rouj Basin

165

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

166

6 - The Rouj Basin

167

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

168

6 - The Rouj Basin

169

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

170

6 - The Rouj Basin

171

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

172

6 - The Rouj Basin

173

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

174

7 NORTH - WESTERN SYRIA. THE OTHER DFBW SITES 7.1 DARK FACED BURNISHED WARE LOCAL PRODUCTION

AS

The analysis of Cilicia (Mersin and Tarsus), the Amuq and Rouj basins has brought to delimit a first area of DFBW/DFW production; all three regions, in fact, have such a quantity and variety of Dark Burnished Wares that they are with no doubt to be considered producers of this category. All three furthermore, have evidenced within the DFBW category, the existence of two or three groups of pottery, that in Mersin have been called DFbW, Fine DFbW and Dark Gritty Ware (DFuW). Even though data for Cilicia only comes from two sites, it is possible to hypothesise a quite dense occupation and all communities were probably characterised by a dark burnished ceramic production. In North-Western Syria, near and around the two discussed plains it was probably the same. Many sites are known, even right into Lebanon, or down, in Syria, to Hama and even further south, which have dark burnished wares. Some of these have DFBW as their main pottery production, but also start showing different characters, probably deriving from contacts and relations with other areas. Yet other groups probably belong to a distinct cultural sphere, even though the presence of DFBW/DFW in their pottery assemblage is still high. Similarities in the material culture can be due to simple economic or political contacts between groups, or because of actual cultural com-participation. It has been pointed out in chapter 1 that various degrees and modes of social interaction are possible, fact this which determines the different amount and type of shared material culture. The sharing of social and cultural traits by two communities generally results into similarities in the majority of their material culture. The partial sharing of material production, for example, similarities only in part of the pottery production, might simply indicate the presence of a zone of interaction between communities and cultures, which does not necessarily correspond to their engagement within the same system or social organisation. “Border” situations, of sites positioned between two distinct systems are the most difficult to understand, as the potters living in such communities might be influenced by both cultural units. The bulk of the material is the one that should probably indicate the real participation within one sphere or the other, but its recognition is not always that

simple. Ceramic production might in fact result from the combination of diverse cultural models, and gaining an understanding of their origin might not be so prompt. In this chapter, Syrian sites which I believe still belong to the “DFBW/DFW horizon” will be analysed, with the final aim of identifying the cultural borders of the burnished ceramics and setting parameters for distinguishing between these and spheres of interaction between different cultures. These sites, furthermore, confirm a feeling that the Rouj sites had already hinted to, of complex external contacts, not shared by all the DFBW/DFW sites.

7.2

UGARIT, NOT ONLY TABLETS

7.2.1 Ras Shamra. Has Archaeology got Nothing to do with Politics? The site of Ras Shamra, or Minet el-Beida, on the Syrian coast, slightly north of the modern port city of Latakya, was first discovered by the French archaeologist Schaeffer in 1929. That the political divisions and European control over the Middle East has been a determining factor in the subdivision of archaeological research amongst Europeans and the United States is no news; Syria was, after World War I, under French mandate, and it was indeed a French team that started, and was then traditionally assigned to continue, the excavation at the site. After Schaeffer, others amongst the most famous French Near Eastern archaeologists have passed through Ras Shamra: Jean Margueron and Henri de Contenson are those to which most of the investigations are due. Ras Shamra, or better, Ugarit, is famous for its archives and tablets, its alphabetical Ugaritic language, palaces and ancient splendour. Before all this, though, Ras Shamra was settled by Neolithic people, probably very similar to those discussed until now. De Contenson was he who, most of all, went on to investigate, and later publish, these prehistoric levels. These excavations took place many years later than the first discovery of the site, when Syria was already independent and king Assad in place (1972-76). Even though the excavation of the prehistoric levels was relatively small, Ras Shamra provided more information than Mersin and Judaidah on the architectural features of this period. An interesting and most important fact is also the presence, for these levels, of radiocarbon dates, of which there is such an urgent need. Finally, the availability

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

of a final report on the prehistoric occupation at the site is a privilege not to be underestimated.

7.2.3

Ceramics at Ras Shamra

The pottery of phases VB and VA is more or less the same; what change are the values and ratios of ceramic classes present.

7.2.2 Stratigraphy and Architectural Sequence of the Settlement

Period VB is characterised essentially by two ceramic classes, that of “céramiques lustrées”, constituting the great majority of the assemblage, and the “céramiques friables” (table 7.1). The former is clearly a burnished ware, the colour, shapes and decoration of which strongly recall the DFBW. De Contenson describes it as a mineral tempered, very fine, polished and well fired pottery (de Contenson 1992, 15). The “foncé” colour of this class (Courtois 1992, 209), too, brings to see it as the traditional DFBW and the photographs published by de Contenson well demonstrate this too (de Contenson 1973; 1977; 1992). Colour actually varies quite a lot, moving from dark red to brownish red, brown, grey or black. This colour variability strongly reminds of Judaidah, where the colour of DFBW was rather fluctuating, as is here. De Contenson hypothesises that these pots were fired in a reducing atmosphere and he further goes on to imagine the reducing effect and its implications on the vessel colour (de Contenson 1992, 148); this too links the Judaidah and Mersin DFbW with that of Ras Shamra. Shapes are generally open, globular bowls or larger basins, and collared jars (Pl. 7.2). The latter are similar to those of Judaidah, especially the long and straight necked ones (Pls. 5.4 and 5.9). Lugs are present, as in the early phase of Judaidah, and thickness of vessels varies considerably, the minimum being approximately 3mm. 94% of the ceramics of this earliest phase is of this burnished ware (the count is made from a total of 2058 sherds).

The earliest settlement found at Ras Shamra is dated to the Aceramic Neolithic (phase VC) and it is followed by two phases of Ceramic Neolithic (VB-A), preceding the Halaf occupation (IV). De Contenson only uncovered the early, Neolithic layers in a small sounding west of the Ba’al temple, and only in a very small area could he reach virgin soil; the excavation stopped approximately 1m above the level of the plain surrounding the tell (de Contenson 1992, 12). Level VC, the earliest occupation, was further divided into three distinct phases. Dug in a small area of 40 m² by de Contenson and in another small trench by Kuschke, architectural remains of this moment are minimal. The later VB period has an indication of somewhat more massive, but fundamentally similar, stone structures. A wall with a possible small reinforcing buttress was discovered in the corner of the trench and sparse hearths indicated the occupation and use of external areas. It is period VA, excavated on a larger area than the preceding phases, that presents the best examples of architectonic remains. Divided into 4 sub-phases, characteristic of this period are plastered pavements. Structures have stone wall foundations and are apparently all mono-cellular. Some floors are simply of strongly pressed mud. In the 4 sub-phases of period VA, various structures and walls are rebuilt on top of each other, insisting exactly on the same point. Floors too are re-made frequently. External hearths, in this period too, are quite common. In VA1, the earliest of VA occupations, one single structure was uncovered, with stone walls, and two well plastered floors one above the other (Pl. 7.1a), the earliest of which had a post hole in the centre of the room and a hearth against the northern wall (de Contenson 1992, 17). At the time of the second floor, the room was much smaller, but with indications of a mud brick elevation above the stone foundations. Worth noting, but maybe casual, is the similar orientation of all walls in the levels of period V (Pl. 7.1b).

De Contenson doesn’t separate, within the burnished pottery, distinct groups of ceramics; he does not distinguish the very fine, in this early stage, but does announce its appearance in level VA. The existence of fine DFBW in later VA period is also confirmed by Liliane Courtois and her granulometric analyses (Courtois 1992, 216). Categories of differently burnished vessels, underlining a possible distinction between cooking pots and the more classically defined DFBW, instead, do not seem to be so evident as to create distinct classes. De Contenson does say that pots were burnished with a certain variability, thus the presence of both a group of cooking and one of better burnished vessels cannot be totally excluded. He furthermore points out that there are fragments of non burnished vessels, which he interprets, though, as the unburnished parts of burnished sherds (de Contenson 1992, 47). We have seen, from the Juidaidah material, that even at that site, in the earlier periods, the cooking ware is not easily separable from the rest of the DFBW. In general, furthermore, all the burnished wares in the Amuq and in the Rouj, have proved to be less well burnished than in Yumuktepe, fact this which might explain why the two categories of cooking and non cooking dark wares are not

Following period V is IV, ascribed to the Halaf culture, and after that III, with the Ubaid related and Early Bronze Age occupation. Architectural structures of phase IVC continue being in all similar to those of the preceding period; remains of rectangular structures with stone foundations and plaster floors are well visible, as well as external activity areas. Stone silo bases and cobbled pavements are also found in this phase, the first of which strongly remind the Mersin level XXV silos.

176

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

always clearly distinguishable in these more southern and eastern sites.

Together with these two ceramic productions 11 fragments of “vaisselle blanche”, the White ware noticed in the Rouj and, as will be seen later on, characteristic of the Lebanese Neolithic communities, were found in the phase VB levels (Pl. 7.3c). More of it will be evident in the following VA period.

Also recalling some Judaidah dark burnished wares is the finding of many bowls with a simple burnished band on the exterior, under the rim. The only difference is that the interior is here entirely burnished, whereas at Judaidah it is still only the rim have this treatment.

In conclusion, Ras Shamra appears to make use of the same main ceramic classes found in the Amuq. No Red Washed Impressed Ware is present though, and even the link between the Soft Ware and the Judaidah Coarse Ware is still debateable. Stronger possibly appear the links with the Rouj basin, with which it shares the White Ware, absent in the Antakya plain, and the absence of the Red Washed Impressed.

Decoration is a further element that brings to assimilate the Ras Shamra and the Judaidah and Rouj DFBW/DFW. Little less than 3% of the dark burnished sherds have impressed decoration, a percentage that is probably similar to that of the other sites. Impressions are the usual: fingers and nails, dots, small segments, V shapes (the latter are very rare) (Pl. 7.3a-b) (de Contenson 1992, 148). Some sherds also have bands in relief along and under the rim, similar to what found in Judaidah. Decorations are indeed identical to those noticed in the latter site, the Rouj and Yumuktepe, the style being nearer to that of the first two areas. A sherd from period VB, furthermore, strongly recalls cases from the Judaidah and Ain el-Kerkh assemblages (Pls. 6.3, 5.5 and 7.3b); this has nail impressions made when the clay was still very soft, causing an extremely rough surface due to the protruding “lumps” of clay.

Relative quantity of the DFBW, its shapes, colour variety, presence of lugs and the identical character of the impressed decorations confirm without doubts the common origin of this pottery production with that of Judaidah and the Rouj (table 7.2). Mersin instead, which shares most of these aspects, lacks, on its vessels, the use of lugs, thus slightly separating itself from these other sites. Ras Shamra VB – DFBW Surface colours vary (light and dark) Abundant lugs Typical DFBW impressions (3%) Bowls, hole-mouth jars, collared jars

Together with the dark burnished ware, which evidences strong similarities with the Amuq DFBW, is a chaff tempered, quite thick and porous class, with a surface colour varying from cream to pinkish-yellowish (table 7.1), called by de Contenson “céramique friable” (Soft Ware). It actually constitutes a minority in the assemblage, being 3,2 % of the pottery. The description made of this particular category would seem to remind, here too, the Amuq, where next to the DFBW was the coarse, vegetal tempered ware. Its percentages were apparently slightly higher in Judaidah than here (see paragraph 5.3.2. Very little description of the shapes is unfortunately given, possibly because of its fragmentary state due to its greater friability.

Table 7.2 - Summary of the most diagnostic attributes of the DFBW of Ras Shamra period VB.

Period VA has been divided by de Contenson in two phases, I and II (the latter being later), because of differences in the pottery production. VAI, composed by the two layers 1 and 2, sees a decrease in DFBW (table 7.3). Next to it develops what the French call “céramique commune”, the physical and technical characters of which are actually not described very clearly. This “céramique commune” is also referred to as “céramique matt, non lustré”. Possibly this has characters similar to those of the Hassuna pottery, since among it husking trays are mentioned (remember that husking trays have not been found in Judaidah, to the east of Ras Shamra!), fact this, which brings to hypothesise a vegetal temper for this class. The difference between it and the Soft Ware (“céramique friable”), though, is not so evident.

De Contenson actually does not remark this equivalence between the Judaidah and Ras Shamra Coarse Ware; rather he sees another ceramic category, that appears in Ras Shamra during the following VA period, as analogous to the Amuq Coarse Ware. The description of these two categories though are so similar that I would not rule out the possibility of an equivalence even in this earlier phase.

Ras Shamra VAI DFBW Matt non lustré (commune) White ware Plastered ware Soft ware Husking trays

Ras Shamra VB Dark Faced Burnished Ware 94-97% Soft Ware 3% White Ware 0,05% Table 7.1 - Ceramic Classes from Ras Shamra period VB and their relative quantities.

70,61% 28,41% 0,77% 0,18% present

Table 7.3 - Pottery classes of Ras Shamra VAI period and their relative quantity.

177

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

De Contenson assimilates this class to the Amuq Coarse Ware, fact this which would seem confirmed also by the later presence of a “rouge matt céramique commune”, and also the indication of incisions and impressions on some of it. Coarse ware, in Amuq phase B was in fact also red slipped and incised (de Contenson 1992, 20). The relation between “céramique friable” and “céramique commune”, still remains enigmatic, but evident is the link with the Amuq and Rouj pottery. White Ware, even though still rare, increases slightly in this period.

comprehension, does indicate, with a none negligible persistency, the affinities between the Rouj/Amuq ceramics and those of this seaside village. Kerkh Ware is not signalled, but its nearness to some of the DFBW might be to blame. A for Judaidah, it might be possible that this category was indeed present. A new analysis of the ceramics at the light of the Rouj discoveries might bring to interesting observations in this regard. According to these descriptions, the pre-Halaf levels at Ras Shamra didn’t evidence any painted wares, fact this which is quite puzzling. It has in fact been seen, by now, that the beginning of painted wares does not coincide with the end of the DFBW production, but that the two coexist for still some time, before the introduction of Halaf material culture and the major changes in DFBW. Painted ceramics at Ras Shamra appear during phase IVC. Characterising the beginning of period IV at Ugarit is a light coloured painted pottery with geometric motifs.

Most interesting, in VAI, are the developments of DFBW, since these recall a by-now quite well known evolution: surface colours get darker and blacks appear, the very fine ware is evident for the first time, and a distinction between medium and coarser Dark Face and fine Dark Face is made. Courtois, who has carried out archaeometric analyses on a few ceramic samples, confirms the existence of at least 2 distinct categories of DFBW, with strongly different granulometry (Courtois 1992, 216). Impressed decoration decreases, a higher degree polish and burnish is visible on the very fine vessels, and, finally, pattern burnish decoration is first seen (table 7.4).

Period IV ceramics are described as markedly in contrast with the preceding phase V and clearly belonging to the Halaf horizon. The Rouj sites though have shown how the border between the DFBW period and Halaf is contaminated and difficult to delimit; in fact, in the 2d period, many Halaf characterising elements begin to appear in both the painted wares and the burnished ones. In Judaidah this was not so evident possibly because of the gap in the sequence between phase B and C, but in Mersin too, the difficulty of separating levels XXV to XX is symptomatic of the permeation of the local ceramics with external influences and the gradualness of changes. In any case, the first painted pottery, in all three analysed sites (Mersin, Judaidah and Ain el-Kerkh), appeared when DFBW still had its “classical” characters of the previous, mature, phase, thus before direct Halaf influence.

Ras Shamra VAI - DFBW Darker colours Fine burnished ware Better polish Pattern burnish Less impressed decorations Table 7.4 - Diagnostic characters of DFBW in Ras Shamra period VAI.

In the following VAII period (layers 3 and 4), changes continue more or less along this path, with a further numerical decrease in DFBW altogether. DFBW constitutes, at this point, only 24% of the total assemblage (such a percentage is very similar to that of DFW in Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI). The “céramique commune” has in fact become the majority, reaching 75% of the entire ceramic production, whilst the “céramique friable” has totally disappeared.

Period IVC still evidences many cases of typical period V DFBW. This is the period in which complex pattern burnished decorations appear on the DFBW and especially on the very fine one (Pl. 7.4a). In Ras Shamra though, the pattern burnish is often accompanied by impressed decoration, delimiting the burnished part. Rocker impression, though never nominated by de Contenson, is actually seen on some illustrated sherds with pattern burnish, thus indicating that this form of impressed decoration was present too and probably that, like at the other analysed sites, it was a quite late character (de Contenson 1973, 21). Next to these late DFBW characters (found in Rouj 2d and Amuq B2) is also a red and/or black polished ware, more similar to the DFBW of Amuq C. As has just been reminded, even in Rouj 2d, thus before Halaf levels, Amuq C DFBW has been seen and the same can be said of Judaidah and Mersin.

Amongst the burnished ware new and interesting shapes appear, as pedestal bowls, some of them with a perforated foot, long and straight necked collared jars, and low tray like vessels (Pl. 7.2). Carenated profiles become common too (Pl. 7.3a). The first shape has been noticed in the FMR at Judaidah and in the Rouj 2d period, and the others too are more typical of later DFBW vessels in those sites. Pattern burnish becomes more common than impressed decoration on the fine DFBW. Exciting is the presence, in this phase, of a plastered ware (enduite carbonate), at times with red paint over the plaster; again, Ras Shamra evidences links with the Rouj, that skip out the Amuq.

The “céramique commune” is by far the most frequent category of period IVC and it is at times found with a red slip. The most important innovation of the phase, though, is, as anticipated above, the first introduction of painted

This quick description of the Ras Shamra period V ceramics, even though still leaving some gaps in the 178

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

wares. Even though in this phase characteristic Halaf painted sherds are found, there is one category that de Contenson himself compares to the Mersin painted ceramics from level XXV-XXIV: the “céramique orange à décor peint matt” 21. The paste of this is light coloured, whilst paint is mostly dark red or brown (lie-de-vin). Pottery is also burnished over the paint. Motifs are essentially geometric straight bands and wavy lines (Pl. 7.4b).

Judaidah, at Yumuktepe, Tarsus and in the Rouj basin. Furthermore, as at those sites, the population of Ugarit too, will later be confronted and permeated with the new Halaf arrival. These common developments and especially their continuity in time give a strong impression of communities constantly and permanently in touch. The overall similarity of the ceramic assemblage, both in the type of classes present and in their relative quantities, through time, indicates that relations were not limited to the importexport of one particular ceramic category or technology, nor to simple economic relations between the villages; relations must have been more profound, more socially and culturally embedded.

The similarity with Mersin and also with some painted brittle ware from Judaidah is striking. These considerations on the Ras Shamra IVC pottery would thus indicate the importance of this level, still, in the analysis of DFBW developments and of the relations between this coastal site and the interior. 7.2.4

De Contenson hypothesises that the burnished pottery was imported from the Amuq, whilst the Soft Ware was locally made, but how can it be possible that a village imported more than 90% of its ceramic needs? Ras Shamra potters more probably produced DFBW, following and sharing a model with the rest of the Syro-Cilician area (Braidwood too had already expressed this idea: “…inclined to consider Ras Shamra as lying at least on the border, if not within, the regional focus of the “essential” Syro-Cilician DFBW assemblage”. Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, 502).

Cultural and Chronological Considerations

Even though differently documented and more difficult to interpret because direct vision of the material has not been possible, the ceramics from the coastal site of Minet elBeida do give strong indications of the affinity and cultural links of the settlement with the other DFBW sites analysed until now. The main ceramic production of these earliest phases, DFBW, undergoes, here as at the other sites, the by now well known process of development, that brings it to a gradually more “technologically specialised” pottery. Two or three categories of DFBW, probably with functional and social differences, become evident in time. Evolution and differentiations take place on paste texture, on surface colour, on shapes and on the decorations, and at all analysed sites these appear to happen in more or less the same order and fashion.

DFBW Non diff. paste texture Various colours Impressed decoration Fine paste Darker colours Pattern burnish Carenated profiles Pedestal bowls Rocker impression Complex pattern burn. Amuq C DFBW Other classes White Ware Soft Ware Husking trays Plastered Ware Red slip Common W. Painted Ware

De Contenson argues that the early Dark Faced Burnished Ware of Ras Shamra VB is a forerunner of Syro-Cilician DFBW (de Contenson 1992, 149); new data have shown that it was probably not like this, but rather that these developments were more or less contemporary with those of the Rouj, Amuq and Cilicia. Actually, the very earliest phases, testified by the Kerkh Ware in the Rouj and the more sandy tempered, slipped and burnished pots in Mersin, might even be earlier than the Ras Shamra production (see tables 7.5, 7.6 and 7.9). What appears out of doubt is contact between these villages and groups since the beginning of their occupation.

Ras Shamra

Rouj

Judaidah

VB

2a-b

A1-2

VB VB VAI VAI VAI VAII VAII IVC IVC

2a-b 2a-b 2c 2c 2c 2d 2d 2c 2d

A1-2 A1-2 Gap A-B or B1 Gap A-B or B1 Gap A-B or B1 B/FMR FMR B FMR

IVC

2d

FMR

VB-A VB VAI VAII VAII IVC

2b 2a 2c 2(b)c 2c 2d

A B B

Table 7.5 - Temporal distribution (moment of first appearance) of ceramic classes and their chronologically diagnostic characters at Ras Shamra, the Rouj and Judaidah.

Chronological correlations on the basis of these pottery developments are somewhat complicated, but some clues prove extremely useful in linking this site to the others. The DFBW/DFW evolution at Ras Shamra could be summarised in 3 main steps: 1- non differentiated in paste texture, impressed, variously burnished, variously coloured; 2- distinction between fine and medium-coarse, darker colours, beginning of pattern burnish, new shapes, as carenated profiles, bowls on pedestal, long and straight necked jars; 3- complex pattern burnish, very fine and polished, low trays, further carenated profiles (table 7.5). These phases, corresponding to Ras Shamra VB, VA and

Tendency to darker colours, clear-cut division between finer and medium-coarse pastes, moulding of more complex shapes (carenated, pedestalled etc.), abandonment of impressed decoration and a strong impulse, instead, on pattern burnish, are all elements that characterise the later evolution of DFBW here at Minet el-Beida, but also at

21

As will be seen in the following paragraph, de Contenson admits there was probably a stratigraphic distinction between the appearance of this pottery (earlier) and that of Halaf tradition (later).

179

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

IVC, could quite easily be correlated to Rouj 2a-b, 2c and 2d, or Judaidah A1-2 and B (and the hypothesised gap in between). When the other ceramic classes are taken into consideration too, though, this picture faces major complications (table 7.5).

east (Rouj), west (Ras Shamra) and north (Mersin) of the Amuq site, together with the realisation that all these missing aspects belong, in the other sites, to one single and possibly contemporary phase (Rouj 2c - Ras Shamra VA, Mersin XXVII-XXVI), cannot be justified, if not by hypothesising that the Judaidah stratigraphy is missing such a phase. The presence of a gap in the Judaidah sequence between Amuq A and B, already proposed in chapter 5.6.1 and tables 5.16 and 5.17, simply on the basis of a comparison between the Mersin and Judaidah pottery assemblages, is thus now, in my view, amply confirmed by these last observations.

The correlation between Ras Shamra VB and Rouj 2a-b is quite evident, but it is difficult to decide with which of the two is mostly to be the contemporaneity. The presence of 11 fragments of White Ware would tend for 2b, since we know from the Rouj that the development of this category was largest in 2c, but that some fragments were also found earlier, in 2b. De Contenson, furthermore, maintains that “vaisselle blanche” formally starts in VA (de Contenson 1992, 149), which would thus be contemporary to Rouj 2c.

It is probably evident at this point that, in comparing the pottery production of the Rouj and of Minet el-Beida, periods VAI and VAII seem, both, to have elements of Rouj 2c and their chronological distinction is thus extremely difficult to note; the diversities mentioned by de Contenson between the two levels are apparently not visible when comparing them to the other DFBW sites. This is demonstrated by the finding of White Ware and Red Slipped Common Ware in VAII, and of pattern burnish, Fine DFBW and Hassuna influenced pottery in VAI; in the Rouj all these are undistinguished characters within the Rouj 2c period.

If VA is contemporary to 2c, VB to 2b, then, it is as yet unknown what happened at Minet el-Beida in a period contemporary to Rouj 2a. It might well be that the site was not yet occupied, since no mineral tempered pottery similar to the Kerkh Ware appears to be mentioned. It is certainly not thinkable, in any case, that, as suggested by de Contenson and pointed out earlier, the DFBW of the coastal site be earlier than Rouj 2a. The coincidence between VA and Rouj 2c is demonstrated not only by the presence of White Ware. Husking trays, clear evidence of Hassuna influence, appear, in fact, at Ras Shamra, in period VAI, and in the Rouj, in 2c. These two phases are also those in which, in both regions, pattern burnish is first seen on the DFBW and the moment in which it is first possible to distinguish a fine textured and a less fine group of burnished vessels. Plastered ware also appears to develop in these levels. Ras Shamra starts producing these calcite coated vessels in VAII, whilst their first recovery in the Rouj is from period 2b. Miyake affirms, though, that the real use of plastered ware, as that of White Ware, is in period 2c and the sherds found earlier are very few and stratigraphically not clear (Miyake personal communication 2002). The contemporaneity between VA and 2c would thus still hold true. Red slipped Common ware is a novelty of VAII as is the Coarse Red Slipped Ware in the Rouj 2c. In neither site nor region, finally, pattern burnish is well developed in this phase and it is at times even impossible to identify a proper motif; more complex and clear pattern burnish will evolve in fact in later periods IVC and 2d.

The appearance of painted pottery, complex pattern burnish and examples of typical Amuq C DFBW in Ras Shamra IVC, would, finally, well correlate with Rouj 2d, in which similar changes are noted. This would mean postdating the beginning of the Halaf period to IVB (or to a later moment of IVC). The presence of Halaf influenced pottery would not be a major obstacle in this, as in the Rouj too, phase 2d, which still has earlier DFBW developments, has clear signs of Halaf and Halaf influenced ceramics. Furthermore, the Ras Shamra publications are a bit vague on the stratigraphy of IVC; Schaeffer had initially affirmed that Halaf started with phase IVB. De Contenson then admits that the lowest 15cm of stratigraphy in level IVC actually have non-Halaf painted pottery (but slipped and burnished painted pottery, mainly with red parallel bands), but he considers 15 cm too little to give them a separate phase (de Contenson 1992, 29). I believe this might be a confirmation of the presence of a pre-Halaf level with painted pottery, fine, pattern burnished Dark Faced Burnished Ware, which should correspond to Rouj period 2d. Ras Shamra IVC (first 15cm) VAI-II

It urges me, at this point, to make a short, but extremely important, digression. The concomitant presence of certain classes of ceramics at Ras Shamra and in the Rouj, but their absence from Judaidah has been pointed out above. The two former sites, in fact, have Plastered Ware, White Ware, husking trays, and, in both, painted pottery does not appear for the first time together with the development of the very fine DFBW (Rouj 2c and Ras Shamra VA), but later. This last aspect was also noted at Yumuktepe, but not at Judaidah. The absence of all these ceramic categories and attributes from Judaidah, but their presence in sites to the

VB VC

Rouj 2d 2c 2b 2a 1

Judaidah B - FMR GAP A2 A1 -

Mersin XXV- XXI? XXVII-XXVI XXIX-XXVIII XXXIII-XXX -

Table 7.6 - Proposed correlation of the phases of Ras Shamra, Rouj, Judaidah and Mersin, solely on the basis of the ceramic assemblages.

Certainly, these stratigraphic correlations (table 7.6) need to be refined, as it is unthinkable that, in sites with such a similar ceramic production, distinctions noticed at one site 180

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

are not present at another; this is the case, for example, of Rouj 2c, which is apparently divided in two phases at Minet el-Beida (VAI-II).

The plotting of the 2 sigma interval of these samples gives a quite good overlapping of dates for VC, the pre-pottery period, which would be dated from 7200 BC to 7130BC, but if we consider the lower reliability of the VC2 date (GIF-3960), the Aceramic phase might be dated even as far as 7550-7130 BC (fig. 7.1). VB and VA unfortunately only have one date each and thus no comparisons can be made within the site. Period VB should be dated somewhere around the middle of the VII millennium and VA towards the end of it (6200 BC). No dates at all are available for the following IVC period.

7.2.5

BC Calibrated

De Contenson’s stratigraphic correlations with the Amuq are quite near those proposed here (table 7.6); the correlation between VB and Amuq A is sound and shared, whilst it is not so for the later phase (de Contenson 1982, 95). Period IVC is considered, in his last and final publication, equivalent to Amuq C and VA (note that he too doesn’t distinguish the two phases VAI and VAII when comparing with the Amuq) to Amuq B. De Contenson also proposes, though an overlap of Ras Shamra IVC with two distinct periods: that of Mersin XXIV-XX, with its archaic painted ware, and with Halaf Mersin XIX (de Contenson 1963, 37; de Contenson 1998). He thus indirectly confirms my hypothesis of IVC (or its initial part) as being earlier than Halaf. Examination of the Absolute Chronology

Six Radiocarbon dates were taken for the Ras Shamra levels analysed here, but they are quite old dates, from the 60s, from a time in which radiocarbon still had many difficulties and errors. One date, GIF-102, is decidedly to be discarded, because of the standard deviation of 400 years, but others too, with a deviation ranging around 100, should be considered with great care. I will not eliminate these as it is the only available data, but attention should be given to their results and confirmation should be searched in the material culture.

9400 9100 8800 8500 8200 7900 7600 7300 7000 6700 6400 6100 5800

400 101 100 140

Calib BC 1 sigma max min 8700 7600 7541 7208 7312 7055 7055 6535

Calib BC 2 sigma max min 9300 7100 7586 7137 7473 6774 7283 6456

7686

112

6640

6435

6749

6265

7184

84

6159

5928

6223

5844

Standard Deviation

GIF- 102 VC P-460 VC1 P-459 VC1 GIF-3960 V C 2

9030 8364 8142 7900

P-457

VA

VB

VA

A comparison with the Rouj dates, partly appears to respect the suppositions made on the ceramic correlations. In fact, Aceramic periods 1 and VC overlap and set a date towards the second half of the 8th millennium BC (fig. 7.2). The Ras Shamra dates, though, seem slightly younger than the Rouj ones, as has also been noted when comparing Mersin with the Rouj. The single VA date too, though actually overlapping with the latest Rouj 2c sample, appears to position this phase slightly later than the hypothesised corresponding one in the Rouj. Similar is probably the situation of IVC, since, the Rouj 2d dates slightly overlap with this one VA sample. IVC, thus, even if without analysed carbon samples, would seem to be slightly later than Rouj 2d, to which, according to the pottery classification it would appear to correlate.

Date BP

VB

VC2

Fig. 7.1 - Plot of calibrated 14C dates from Ras Shamra. 2 sigma intervals are considered. The period of occupation is indicated instead of the sample number.

Sample PhaseContext

P-458

VC1

Sample s

In the 1980s calibration was not commonly used nor were the programs for calibrating always available, thus the dates given by de Contenson are far off the ones obtained today (de Contenson, in fact, as most scholars did at that time, gives the BC dates by subtracting 1950 from the BP radiocarbon dating. de Contenson 1982, 95). His BC date for radiocarbon sample P-458, for example, is 5736±112, whilst when calibrated it actually results in a quite earlier date (table 7.7). The whole Ras Shamra sequence is thus supposedly earlier than what thought then by the French archaeologist.

SC, 12,15m SC, 13,75m (=14,75m) 13m (=14m) SH, 13,45m SC, 11,15m (=12,15m) upper limit of the level SC, 9m (=10m) upper limit of the level

VC1

Table 7.7 - 14C dates from Ras Shamra. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, Stuiver et al. 2000. The date hatched in grey is not taken into consideration, because of the too high standard deviation. Dates published in Radiocarbon 5, 1963, 83; Radiocarbon 8, 1966, 138; de Contenson 1977, 21-23; de Contenson 1982, 95.

181

In fact, if we compare the Mersin and Ras Shamra chronology, the ceramic-defined phases, in that case, do coincide (fig. 7.3).

7.3

VA

2d

2d

Fig. 7.2 - Calibrated dates from Ras Shamra and the Rouj sites compared. The comparison is done on the 2 sigma interval. The Y-axis indicates BC calibrated dates and the X-axis the 14C samples. The chronological phase or level to which the samples belong is indicated instead of the sample number. In Roman numbers are the Rouj samples and in Arab numbers the Ras Shamra ones.

Pottery is “foncée”, dark and burnished or polished. Shapes are simple bowls, hole-mouth jars, necked jars, some of which quite high and vertical. Impressed decoration is present on various sherds, both with nail imprints and small segments created by the impression of little pointed or cuneiform-like objects.

VA

I certainly believe that de Contenson and van Liere are correct in considering this settlement as part of the Amuq Ras Shamra horizon, but nothing more can be added because of the lack of information. An early date is probably to be hypothesised, due to the presence of impressed decoration, but it is impossible to say whether the site was also occupied later on.

XXVIII

XXVIII

XXIX

V B

XXXII

XXXIII

V C 1

7900 7700 7500 7300 7100 6900 6700 6500 6300 6100 5900 5700 5500 5300

V C 1

This constant temporal shift of the Ras Shamra dates to a later moment, in comparison to the Rouj dates, is strikingly analogous to what has been noticed for the Rouj and Mersin dates (fig. 6.4). In that case too, the chronological comparison between phases that had previously been correlated on the basis of the pottery production showed a systematic dislocation of the Mersin dates to a later moment in respects to the Rouj developments. The reoccurrence of this mismatch (fig. 7.2) might suggest the possibility of a “systematic error” or some yet unknown factor influencing the Rouj dates.

XXIV

2c

XXV

2c

XXIII

2c

Samples

XXV

VB

XXVI

1

XXVI

VC 1 VC 1

Janoudiyeh is a settlement dominating a gorge on the Orontes valley, a very particular position for a Neolithic site. Not far south from the Amuq plain, its position is exactly at the point of separation between that valley and the Ghab plain. Very little is known of this site and only short descriptions of its material are available (de Contenson 1969a; de Contenson and van Liere 1964). What de Contenson and van Liere stress are the analogies in material culture with Byblos and Ras Shamra. Amongst the lithics, Amuq points are also found (de Contenson 1969a, 69).

XXVI

1

JANOUDIYEH

XXVII

8000 7800 7600 7400 7200 7000 6800 6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600

XXVII

BC calibrated

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Fig. 7.3 - Calibrated dates from Ras Shamra and Mersin compared. The comparison is done on the 2 sigma interval. The Y-axis indicates BC calibrated dates and the X-axis the 14C samples. The chronological phase or level to which the samples belong is indicated instead of the sample number. In bold are the Ras Shamra samples. The grey filled-in areas indicate the chronological interval of periods VB and VA and their overlap with the supposedly correlating levels in Mersin.

182

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

7.4

QAL’AT EL MUDIQ, APAMEA

The dark burnished ware, which “dominates” the assemblage of phase Va, is described as dark coloured and often very fine, at times very well polished (Collon et al. 1975, 34). Shapes are not particularly well illustrated, considering the fact that only 14 were the rim fragments recovered for the dark ware of phase V, but the classic DFBW profiles appear to be present: bowls, hole-mouth jars and jars with a very small collar (Pl. 7.5a). One example of a jar with a high and slightly flaring neck, which strongly reminds those of Judaidah and the Rouj, is illustrated. There are some sherds with the usual horizontal lug under the rim and rare impressed fragments. Amongst the illustrations, examples of pattern burnish are visible, most of which come from level IV (Collon et al. 1975, pl.XIII, n°89); only 4 fragments are attributed to phase Va.

7.4.1 The Neolithic Settlement covered by a Roman Monumental City Apamea is one of the biggest Syrian tourist attractions, visited because of its monumental Roman structures. Slightly east of the river Ghab and approximately 80 km south-west of Aleppo, Qal’at el Mudiq has revealed, in a couple of soundings, Neolithic occupation. No data on the dimension of the Neolithic settlement, or on its characters is available, as the overwhelming buildings and columns that cover it prevent investigation of the earlier occupation. Yet, Belgian excavations were able to dig in between the later monuments and uncover small “patches” of the prehistoric settlement (Collon et al. 1975, 7). The soundings (A1-3, B1 and T.N.) started in 1970 and managed to excavate these levels for a total area of approximately 90m².

Unfortunately, little else is said about the Neolithic pottery, so very brief can be the comments. Even though the excavation reports don’t mention it, White Ware is illustrated amongst the material found (Pl. 7.5b) (Otte 1976, 117). Coarse Ware and Dark Burnished Ware being the two ceramic categories present, together with White Ware, I would say we are legitimised to consider this site within the pottery tradition analysed until now. The presence of fine dark ware and of pattern burnish furthermore, would seem to indicate a somewhat late phase within the developments of DFBW. Pattern burnish is apparently more frequent in phase IV, though, the period in which painted pottery is also present. These two characters, which indeed do develop together in the other DFBW sites, would thus tend to attribute phase IV, or part of it, to the latest DFBW phase analysed here (the one corresponding to Rouj 2d). Period V would thus be the preceding phase, probably nearer to Rouj 2c than 2b, as impressed decoration does not seem to be common at all.

The Ceramic Neolithic levels have been found directly above virgin soil (phase Vb) and on top of these Halaf, Ubaid and Bronze age occupations have been identified. No architectural remains of the Ceramic Neolithic have been discovered, a part from some burials. On the basis of the lithic remains and the sherds, the general phasing for early Qal’at el Mudiq was set. Periods I-IIIb are supposedly Middle and Ancient Bronze Age, underlain by an Ubaid IIIc, a phase IV characterised by painted pottery and Va by dark ware. In the description of ceramic evolution at the site, Dominique Collon states that phase Va “has no particularly relevant pottery sherd” (Collon and Zaqzouq 1972; Collon et al. 1975, 9-10). Fate wants that this is exactly the phase of interest here! Unfortunately, many of the sherds have been thrown before being studied, thus somewhat limiting the publication and analysis. 7.4.2

Was this stratigraphic correlation correct, it would result that the settlement of Qal’at el Mudiq was not occupied (at least in the excavated area) during the early phases of DFBW development. Two radiocarbon dates from level IV and IIIb are available for this site, but the standard deviation is of more than 200 years and I thus choose not to consider them (Reference to these dates is: IRPA 168, IRPA 170. Collon et al. 1975, 191). I, again, wish to stress that the rarity of data from this site makes the proposed correlations (table 7.8) and discussions highly tentative.

Neolithic Pottery at Qal’at el Mudiq

Burnished and polished, dark pottery, is apparently very common in both phases IV and Va, in the latter of which this particular ceramic dominates. Together with this dark ware, both periods have a vegetal tempered pottery (present mostly in phase IV, though), but no quantitative data is available to tell the relative frequency of these two categories of ceramics. Here too, I would say we could be justified in hypothesising a link with the vegetal tempered and the coarse ware of the Amuq, Rouj, etc. Some of the sherds in fact appear to have a reddish wash, as was in the areas mentioned above, whilst others are plain. This pottery is found in period III too. Description of the ceramics from these levels is minimal and most of the information is actually to be drawn from the illustrations.

Qal’at el Mudiq IV Va ?

Rouj 3 2d 2c 2b 2a

Table 7.8 – Tentative stratigraphic correlation between Qal’at el Mudiq and the Rouj sequence.

183

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

7.5

HAMA, IN THE FERTILE ORONTES VALLEY

the first real traces of walls (stone foundations) are visible.

7.5.1

Much Earlier than the Norias

7.5.3

The Ceramic Production of Hama M

Dark Faced Burnished Ware is the only pottery present in the earliest layers of period M, up to level 26. At that point Plain Ware appears and constitutes approximately 50% of the assemblage. The Plain Ware has vegetal inclusions, a wall thickness that varies from 10 to 20 mm and, most interesting of all, its surface can either be plain, wet smoothed or have a red wash. This description distinctly reminds strongly that of the Amuq and Rouj Coarse Ware. Shapes of this Plain Ware are difficult to reconstruct, but mostly appear to be large bowls, generally with open, but at times slightly closing walls; the latter might actually be hole-mouth jars. Next to this pottery are also some examples of plaster coated sherds, already seen both in the Rouj and at Ras Shamra. No other categories of ceramics accompany the dark burnished and light plain wares, in these later layers of period M.

140 km south of Aleppo, and thus approximately 80 km south of the Rouj basin and slightly more from Ras Shamra, from which it is also separated by the Jebel Ansariya, is the long lived city of Hama, nowadays visited for its Norias, old waterwheels, which were built to bring up the Orontes water for irrigation. Hama is historically known because through it passed, stopped and, most importantly, built, many civilisations and powers, as the Hittites, Arameans, Assyrians, Seleucids, Romans, Byzantines, and, at last, the Arab Ayyubids and Ottomans. Excavations on the citadel by Danish archaeologists have revealed an extremely long occupation starting with the Ceramic Neolithic, but maybe even earlier. The Orontes valley, oriented north-south, is the border line between the eastern arid region of Syria and the Mediterranean region. It constitutes today, as it did in the past, a preferential communication route. This, together with the high fertility of the plain and the rainfall level between 400 and 600mm (or 200-400mm in particularly arid seasons) made of the Orontes valley an excellent area for occupation, especially for the early farmers in the Neolithic period.

This first general description of the assemblage authorises us, I believe, to consider Hama as part of the “DFBW horizon”. Coarse Ware and DFBW would demonstrate this, together with Plastered Ware. As at most other sites, there is no indication at all of Red Washed Impressed Ware. The Dark Faced Burnished Ware proper, which from level 36 to 27 is seemingly the only one found at the site, is of dark colours, even though the surface is not always homogeneous, thus indicating a certain difficulty in controlling the firing atmosphere. Important is the acknowledgement that the dark tone of the surface was intentional, as Thuesen and Riis point out in describing the core of this DFBW. As in most Mersin sherds, in fact, “a section of the sherd will show a dark core surrounded by a light layer at the surface, which again has a darker shade”, indicating that a reducing atmosphere was created in the last phase of firing by throwing some organic material on the pots being fired (Thuesen and Riis 1988, 21). This confirms, in my opinion, the already expressed hypothesis for which the large “family” of DFBW/DFW, which contains more than one category of pottery, has an identity of itself, a cultural and social meaning, and one of its diagnostic characters is its dark colour. Thuesen and Riis affirm that lighter surface colours increase in time, which would seem to be the opposite tendency of what noted in the other DFBW sites. I believe, though, that an explanation of this could be given by analysing the chronological distribution of the Hama levels, as I will point out below.

7.5.2 Uncovering the Early Occupation under the Hama Citadel The Danish excavation of the Hama citadel identified 13 periods of occupation (A-M). Of these, period M, the last reached, is the one of interest here. Called by Thuesen the “Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon”, as can easily be guessed, this period is characterised by the presence of dark and burnished pottery (Thuesen and Riis 1988, 4). Period M has been recovered only in the small sounding G11x, with a debris 5,5 m thick. 7 are the levels of occupation in which period M has been divided, composed by a total of 20 layers (16 to 36) and separated by the excavators into two phases (M4-7 and M1-3) according to the material finds. Following period M is an L phase with strong affinities with Halaf and Ubaid cultures (Thuesen and Riis 1988, 35). A particularity of the ceramic distribution at Hama is the fact that dark burnished ware and painted pottery never coexist. This fact has brought the Danish archaeologists to imagine a gap in the sequence, since never, in the other sites with DFBW is this noticed (Thuesen and Riis 1988, 90). Architectural remains are extremely ephemeral in period M, as no walls at all have been encountered (too small was the excavated area). Floor segments, some fragments of which plastered, have been identified, permitting thus the distinction of 7 levels of occupation. Some of the plastered pieces have traces of red colour, indicating the use of colouring floors and probably walls. It is in period L that

Very fine DFBW is not mentioned amongst the Hama M sherds, and it is difficult to tell whether these were really absent or they were simply not distinguished from the rest of the dark burnished wares, as happened in the Rouj and the Amuq. Burnishing on Hama vessels most of the time does not cover the internal surfaces, as was the case of the Amuq, 184

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

whilst in the Rouj and at Ras Shamra the interior was generally burnished. Shapes are the usual bowls, 10-20 cm in diameter, and others with slightly closing walls, 14-24 cm in diameter. One single bowl with a flaring rim and one with a carenated profile have been found; in spite of their rarity these are indicators of similarities with the Rouj and Amuq. Hole-mouth jars are present and jars with a very slight collar, whilst necked jars are rare (Pl. 7.5c). Lug handles as those of the Amuq and Rouj are present on quite a number of burnished sherds, here too underlining the link between such productions (Pl. 7.5c).

dark tones but also to reds and lighter buffs. It is only later, with Amuq B, Rouj 2c and Ras Shamra VA that dark colours become predominant. If we suppose, thus, that the gap in the Hama sequence coincides with the Amuq B/Rouj 2c period, then the “increase of lighter colours” in the “later” Hama M1-3 becomes clear. Stratigraphic correlations with the other DFBW sites, on the basis of all that has just been said on the pottery production, appear to me partly straightforward (table 7.9), even though, exact correspondence between layers can, obviously, not be done; a broad indication of relationship between phases, though, is certainly possible, whilst more precise equivalences probably need further field research.

Decoration on this pottery is present, even though not extremely common. Impressed decoration, with the wellknown nail imprints and small segments, are the most typical (Thuesen and Riis 1988, 213 fig. 28 and 214 fig. 1). In the later layers (17) impressions diminish and some incised lines start to be observed. Pattern burnish, which is the typical decoration of later, pre-Halaf Dark Faced Burnished Ware, does not appear in any Hama M sherds, nor does rocker impression.

Hama GAP

Rouj 2d 2c M 26-16 2b M 27-36 2a

Ras Shamra Amuq Mersin IVC B-FMR XXV-XXI? VA GAP XXVII-XXVI A2 XXIX-XXVIII VB A1 XXXIII-XXX

Table 7.9 – Proposed correlation of Hama layers with those of the other DFBW sites, on the basis of the ceramic production.

The general description of the dark wares, in synthesis, corresponds with that seen up to now in the previous sites and the overall assemblage clearly indicates that the same pottery tradition of the Rouj and Ras Shamra was being followed at Hama M. Diachronic evolution too denotes parallel and analogue changes, symptomatic of continuous contact between these groups.

The lowest layers of period M, up to 27, are those with exclusively DFBW, thus, they could be correlated to Amuq A1 and Rouj 2a (table 7.9). The introduction of Plain Ware, which I have associated to the Rouj and Amuq Coarse Ware, in level 26, both with a plain surface and with a red wash, and the finding of Plastered Ware are possible indications of contemporaneity with Rouj 2b or 2c. Deciding amongst the two though is not easy. Plastered Ware is more typical of the later phase, but some fragments of it have been found in Rouj 2b (and the Hama examples are very few too). Coarse Red Slip (which I believe can be correlated to the Hama Plain Red Washed), though, only appears in Rouj 2c. The available evidence would thus certainly appear to suggest a stratigraphic analogy between late period M and Rouj 2c, but being the distinction of layers within period M not clear, it might be possible that both phases 2b and 2c are therein represented. To further complicate the picture is the absence of pattern burnish decoration, that is found in Rouj 2c.

The differences noted with the Amuq are the same ones that the Rouj sites and Ras Shamra have evidenced, which have been explained by hypothesising a gap in the Judaidah sequence (between phases A and B). In light of the affinities between Hama and the other DFBW sites, the absence of painted wares earlier than Halaf period (L) is certainly a major clue for hypothesising a gap in the Hama sequence between M and L. Furthermore, even the typical Amuq C DFBW is not mentioned in period L. The absence of rocker impression and pattern burnish, too, strengthen this assumption, as both are late attributes of the DFBW. It is thus probable that the layers equivalent to Rouj 2c-d, Ras Shamra VAIVC and Amuq B are absent from the sequence of G11x, dug in the Citadel of Hama. This does by no way mean that the settlement had been abandoned at that time; simply the specific G11x area might not have been occupied, or the later L period might have cut into those layers, in a way similar to that done by period F into the Judaidah JK3 sequence.

The lack of radiocarbon dates from Hama M does not permit the positioning of these layers in an absolute chronological frame. Were we to follow the Ras Shamra and Mersin dates the oldest period M layers would date to the first half of the VII millennium BC and the second part of period M to a very approximate 6400-5800 BC (see table 2.4).

Were the gap in the Hama sequence and the stratigraphic correlations confirmed, this might also explain why there was an abundance of light colours amongst the DFBW. In the Rouj, at Ras Shamra and in the Amuq, in fact, the earliest period of DFBW production is characterised mainly by brownish surface colours. The following period is characterised by variously coloured surfaces, tending to 185

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

quite common, thus suggesting a late date for the occupation of this site. Ras Shamra, which is the most rich in data, certainly covers most of the known sequence, but might be missing the earliest phase, corresponding to Rouj 2a, the one in which mineral tempered ware was the only produced.

7.6

IN CONCLUSION: SOUTH OF THE AMUQ AND ROUJ, BUT WITHIN THE BORDERS OF DFBW PRODUCTION The Syrian Levantine region (thus towards the coast), in an area at a latitude more or less between that of the Rouj and Hama, has revealed strong ceramic affinities with the known DFBW producing communities. These communities are characterised by a predominant dark burnished, mineral pottery, clearly comparable to the classical DFBW, and by a more or less coarse, vegetal tempered pottery, often plain in surface, but at times with a red wash. In the later phases of occupation, percentages of DFBW diminish, as happens in the Amuq and Rouj, and elements like the appearance of pattern burnish confirm the identity in the development of this ware throughout the region with that of the Rouj and Amuq.

Other sites in the region were certainly inhabited in that period and probably had similar relations. As in the Rouj, here too, groups show external relations, recognised by the White and Plastered Ware and by the incised decoration, which characterise, as will be seen further on, the pottery assemblages of more southern communities (chapter 11). It has been demonstrated that Judaidah was missing the phase in which these “extraneous” elements appear; thus, even though indication of contacts with these regions are not found, it is highly probable that such southern and south western relations were proper of the Amuq too.

Not all settlements evidence such diachronic changes, but all represent at least one moment in this chain and evolution. Apamea, for example, shows mainly early characters of the “DFBW horizon”, such as its very high percentage against the other ceramic classes, or the presence of impressed decoration. Janoudiyeh, instead, has no sherds with impressed decoration, but pattern burnish is

In general, it would appear that these Syrian sites acted in an analogous way to that of the Rouj basin (and the Amuq): ceramics are akin, evidencing the participation within the same system and cultural unit of the Rouj and Amuq, and similar are probably the external links towards the south.

186

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

187

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

188

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

189

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

190

7 – North-Western Syria. The Other DFBW Sites

191

8 MOVING TO THE EAST 8.1

THE NAHR EL-QOUEIQ

8.1.2

8.1.1

A Densely Occupied Valley

When Mellaart studied the Qoueiq pottery in the late 70s the only comparative material he had in the vicinity was that of the Amuq. The Rouj basin sites had not yet been excavated, nor other Neolithic sites along the Euphrates, which will be seen later on, and which in fact show strong similarities with the region of Aleppo. Sakçe Gözü was known, up in the Gaziantep plain in Turkey, and of course the two Cilician sites of Mersin and Tarsus, but all were too far to be used as good and reliable parallels for the Qoueiq material. To this difficulty should be added the absence of any chronological indication, being the pottery all from surface collection. Mellaart’s job was thus extremely complicated. Yet, most of his comments and attributions hold true, still today. In his report, photographs of the pottery are absent, thus making it more difficult to interpret descriptions, but, having had the opportunity to study the collections from the Qoueiq survey, that are held at the University College London, work has been much facilitated.

The Qoueiq river, originating in Turkey, slightly south of Gaziantep, finds its way slowly down to Syria, for a total length of 135 km, going right through Aleppo and ending, 30 km later, in the meanders and marshes of the salt flat of El Matah, east of Idlib. The Syrian side of the valley, which includes slightly more than half the length of the river, has been intensively surveyed in the 70s by an English team lead by John Matthers, survey which has brought to the discovery of a great quantity of Neolithic settlements (Matthers 1981). Twenty-six sites (table 8.1) amongst the identified have been dated by Mellaart, who has studied the pottery from the survey, to a period corresponding to Amuq A and B. This particularly intensive Neolithic occupation might simply be due to the fact that alluvial deposit in the Qoueiq valley has been much less than in other nearby plains, as that of the Amuq, for example. Waterfall in the Qoueiq is high enough for a good rain-fed agriculture and the fertility of the region was certainly a strong attraction for people to settle there. The Amuq, Rouj and other coastal areas, though, were in more or less the same conditions, and we can thus imagine high occupation density there too. Dating of the Neolithic sites to one or the other of the phases (Amuq A or B) was done exclusively on the basis of the pottery production, since no stratigraphy at all was, obviously, available and the lithic industry did not evidence major changes within the Neolithic period. The Pottery Neolithic phases of the Valley have been called Qoueiq A and B, basically following the Amuq nomenclature. Mellaart, in fact, states that “similarities are very evident with the Amuq material in the next valley, but (sherds are) not wholly identical” (Mellaart 1981, 132). Tell Aajar Tell Aar Tell Ahmar Ain et Tell Ain Fuwwar Tell Aktareine Tell Archaq Tell Bahouerte

Bahouerte A Bahouerte B Tell Bararhite Tell Battal Chimali Tell Berne Tell Bouhaira Tell Chair Tell Fafine

Tell Tell Tell Tell Tell Tell Tell

Ilbol Jaadiyeh Kadrich Maled Qaramel Rifaat Sourane

Table 8.1 - List of sites dated to phases Qoueiq A and/or B. From Mellaart 1981, fig. 201.

The Pottery Assemblage of the Qoueiq

The Qoueiq sites testify a long sequence of occupation, from the Palaeolithic, through Neolithic and Chalcolithic and well into historical times. According to Mellaart, the Neolithic ceramic development of the Qoueiq is a continuous one, without any clear foreign influences; clearly definable imports are extraordinarily rare (Mellaart 1981, 134). The British archaeologist had indeed noticed and strongly affirmed the links between the Amuq pottery and that of the Qoueiq. This implies, I would say, that, since he denies major foreign influences, Mellaart must have considered the Amuq-like pottery as part of the local tradition and thus the Qoueiq valley as participating within the same regional development and cultural horizon as that of the Dark Faced Burnished Ware producers. The Neolithic pottery evidenced in the Qoueiq is of various categories (table 8.2). There is a mineral tempered ware, generally dark in colour and burnished, which is the one comparable to the western DFBW. This is rarely decorated, colours are both dark brown, grey and lighter brown and red, like at Judaidah in the later B2 (FMR) period. The rarity of decorated sherds is quite strange in comparison with the western tradition, but might be due to chronological differences, or to the fact that earlier materials (thus from deeper deposits) are generally found in minor quantities on the surface. Many of the characters of the western DFBW are recognisable in the Qoueiq. Sherds

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

There is one miniature bowl from Kadrich, very fine in paste and only a couple of mm thick, dark grey-black in colour, with pattern burnish both outside and inside (Pl. 8.3b, 2nd sherd)). I don’t remember to have come across anything like this neither in Mersin nor in Judaidah, but the style used is decidedly the same one. The sieve mentioned above, too, has pattern burnished decoration on the exterior, with the same pattern found on the similar, Ain el Kerkh examples (Pl. 6.10).

with a medium size temper are common (Pl. 8.1a), but next to them are also the very fine pastes, like Mersin’s class 5 vessels (Pl. 8.1b). The latter are mostly dark in colour, whilst the first are also often found in lighter, reddishbrown tones. Mellaart distinguished these two classes by calling them Monochrome Burnished and Fine Monochrome Black or clinky ware (Mellaart 1981, 168 and fig. 201). Burnishing is often limited, in the interior, only to the rim, as was the case in the Rouj and Amuq. Vessel wall thickness is varied, but does reach 2-3 mm in a few cases, like the Judaidah and Mersin very fine sherds (the apparent absence of such fine vessels in the Rouj is even more enigmatic now that the Qoueiq, east of the Rouj, has instead given clear evidence of it). Shapes are the usual: bowls, hole-mouth jars and necked jars, mostly with high and straight necks, very common in the west (Pl. 8.2). From Berne is also a 14 cm wide neck with a built in sieve, exactly like others seen in the Rouj, at Ain el Kerkh (Pl. 8.1c).

The applied cordon, the impressed fingernail decorations and some deep bowls, testify for an early date of the occupation of some of the Qoueiq sites and a certain link in the production of the dark burnished wares with that of the western DFBW tradition. Mellaart calls this first phase Qoueiq A. The following phase is evidenced by the presence of finer pastes and vessels, pattern burnish decoration and straight necked jars, belonging to the Qoueiq B and corresponding to Amuq B. Mellaart furthermore noticed that darker colours were more common in this second phase (Mellaart 1981, 139-140), fact that would well correspond to the changes in the Amuq. The complex pattern burnish, as pointed out above, indicates a very late moment in the development of DFBW, immediately preceding the Halaf period.

DFBW Impressed (rare) Classes 3 and 5 (Mersin classes) Interior burn only rim Light and dark colour Bowls, h-m jars, flat bases Collared and necked jars Complex patt. burnish Amuq C-like Thick and light grey, like Mersin XXIII-XX Chaff Simple Red slip/wash Impressed Incised (rare) Dark and burnished Other wares DFUnB Mineral smoothed Mineral impr. red wash Painted and burnished Halaf

Next to these typical DFB sherds are also others that are clearly dated to a later period. Identical to the Amuq C and to some Rouj 2d and 3 vessels, these are mostly about 10 mm thick, burnish is given in thick and well visible strokes, colours are either black, yellowish-brown or red, and shapes include cream bowls and carenated profiles (table 8.3). Mellaart gives a perfectly fitting definition to these, which could be used for describing the Amuq and Rouj vessels too. He calls them “sturdier monochrome burnished bowls which have little in common with the older dark burnished ware tradition and frequently imitate Halaf shapes” (Mellaart 1981, 143). Mellaart too had dated these to the Qoueiq C period, since their identity with the Amuq C sherds is incontrovertible. Some sherds, approximately 8mm thick, light grey in surface colour and with a core similar to that well known from the very fine DFBW of the west (dark in the two most external parts, lighter in the middle and dark again at the centre of the core: d+l+d+l+d) are exactly the same as those found in Mersin XXIII-XX. Shapes too correspond, since various flat bases and flaring profiles are seen. These probably correspond to the ones called by Mellaart Greyish-black slipped or unslipped burnished wares, that he dates to phase C.

Table 8.2- List of the major and diagnostic characters of the dark burnished ware of the Qoueiq and of the other ceramic categories present.

As for the decorations, it has already been pointed out that impressions were present, but quite rare amongst the collected sherds. Motives were the same ones found in the Amuq and Rouj: fingernails and dots. One single vessel, of which two sherds were found, has a very particular decoration, unknown in the west but very common, as will be seen later, at a northern site in the Gaziantep region: Sakçe Gözü (chapter 13) (Pls. 8.1d and 14.1b-c). Some, not too frequent, sherds have an applied cordon below the rim, recalling the earliest burnished ware in the Amuq. Pattern burnish decoration, which, in the west, is later, is found amongst the Qoueiq material. Mostly, it has complex designs and various examples are identical to those of the Rouj 2d and Judaidah JK3 23 (Period B2) (Pl. 8.1a-b). These are seen both on black and on orange coloured pots.

It is thus clear from the above that the DFBW production of the Qoueiq appears to be in all similar to that of the western DFBW tradition, covering more or less the whole pre-Halaf and Halaf period. Data from all these phases is not homogeneous, nor can the absence or rarity of some data from a specific site be taken with to much confidence, since surface material might not respect the real nature of the settlement and surely does not always reflect the dimensions and quantity of the different occupation phases. 194

8 – Moving to the East

classes of ceramics. The most important case, because present in very high quantities and at different sites, is that of a chaff tempered, smoothed and impressed or incised ware (I have seen this chaff impressed pottery amongst the collection material from Bahouerte, Batal, Bouhaira and Kadrich). Most of these sherds have a red wash. There is also a large category of chaff tempered and burnished pottery, non decorated, most commonly of dark colours and often mistakable with the thicker and later DFBW, were it not for the clear chaff inclusions visible in the core (this is certainly present at Archaq, Bararhite, Bahouerte, Batal, Berne and Bouhaira). These two classes of ceramic have no links at all with the western ceramics. The chaff, coarse ware of Judaidah is, in fact, never impressed, nor is it burnished. The impressed motives, furthermore, do not recall any of the decorations found on the DFBW of the Rouj, Amuq or Mersin. There are fork like objects, impressed repeatedly throughout the whole body of the vessel, or zigzagged like for the rocker impressions, there are lines of dots, incised segments with variable orientations, but there are no nail impressions at all (Pl. 8.5).

Mellaart has provided a list of sites with Pottery Neolithic occupation, but the absence of a site from such list does not necessarily mean that such levels were not present at the site (for five of the sites amongst those listed as having preHalaf occupation, I personally have found no diagnostic sherds amongst the UCL collection). Only excavation can probably give the last answer to this issue. What is of interest here thus, is simply the acknowledgement of a DFBW production, covering the three distinct phases of occupation A-B-C, which probably corresponds very closely to the DFBW developments of the A-C periods in the Amuq and period 2-3 in the Rouj. Another western character is that of Dark Face Unburnished Ware, present here in quite a number of sites, and easily distinguishable from the burnished examples of dark, mineral tempered ware. This is essentially formed by hole-mouth jars, mostly with thick rims, clearly functioning as cooking pots (Pl. 8.4a). Colour is always grey. These have been called by Mellaart Monochrome Unburnished (table 8.2) and dated both to the Qoueiq A and B periods, but some might also be of later date, since they are known, in Judaidah, also in Halaf period and even later.

James Mellaart talked of affinities between the Qoueiq chaff impressed and pottery from Ras Shamra. I don’t think that any of the classes described from that site actually recall the Qoueiq ware as much as do those from the eastern Euphrates settlements, and thus rather imagine an eastern contact for this category. Sherds like these will be seen in the Euphrates region, at sites like Halula, Dja’de Mughara, Kosak Shamali and up in Turkey, at Mezraa Teleilat. Chaff burnished sherds too are known from Mezraa Teleilat. Thus, like in the case of the mineral tempered red washed ware, these ceramics suggest eastern relations of the Qoueiq region. Some of the incised sherds do appear to be similar to the coarse incised from Judaidah (Pl. 8.6), but others are completely extraneous to the Amuq tradition. Zigzags, points, parallel lines are at times nearly excised, and are dissimilar to anything seen from Judaidah. Mellaart does suggest some comparison between the Amuq coarse ware and the Qoueiq chaff pottery, but he too doesn’t seem to be too convinced (Mellaart 1981, 138). There is a plain chaff tempered ware in the Qoueiq too, though, the description of which might indeed resemble that of the Amuq. Had there been only this plain ware and some examples with incised decoration, I probably would have suggested that these ceramics were influenced by the western coarse ware, but being there other chaff tempered ceramics that have no link with the Amuq ones (both the impressed and the burnished ones), it cannot be excluded that these smoothed and incised cases too, derive from some other pottery tradition. The red slip or wash on some examples is another element of similarity with the Amuq and Rouj vegetal tempered pottery. This double presence of chaff tempered ware typical of the west and other, decorated one, more common in the east, most probably explains Mellaart’s statement according to which the Qoueiq chaff ware was comparable and yet not identical to the Amuq ceramics (Mellaart 1981, 137). Two distinct

As indicated in table 8.2, some of the typical Amuq Chaff Ware, simple, incised or red slipped, is common in the Qouieq, thus confirming, here too, its participation within the same cultural horizon. We will soon see though, that this chaff pottery is probably not all of western origin. Early painted pottery has been found very rarely amongst the survey material, but the few examples are indeed similar to those of Judaidah, the Rouj and Yumuktepe. Paint is generally red, on a light, buff coloured surface and the pot is always burnished. Motives are very simple, with straight vertical lines or wavy yildirim-like decoration (Pl. 8.3b). The sherds present in the UCL collection are less than a handful, thus not much can be said at the moment, but the similarity with those of the west is certain. The ceramic categories that recall the west and underline probable communication and relations between that region and the Aleppo area are thus diverse and confirm that such ties must have been strong and systematic. Dark or painted mineral wares are not the only ceramics found during the survey of the Aleppo region. Next to these is still a mineral tempered pottery, with no burnished surface, but simply smoothed and at times with impressed decoration. This is actually very rare (I have found some examples only from Bahouerte and Bouheira), but its presence is interesting, especially in light of another, similar, mineral tempered ware, impressed, dark in colour and covered with a red wash. This latter category will be seen along the Euphrates at Mezraa Teleilat (chapter 11) and in the Balikh valley at Sabi Abyad, but is totally unknown in the west. Non-western pottery tradition is also suggested by other 195

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

distribution as the indicator of such boundaries, an area of overlap of distinct material traditions (styles) is often recognisable. We might also expect, in the case of very restricted relations between groups, though, a “dead land”, a sort of no mans region, creating the border line. The Qoueiq might represent the first case. We know that communication and relations between the Mesopotamian and Levantine communities were taking place and were probably quite regular. Hassuna elements of material culture are frequently found throughout the area and, slightly later, the Mesopotamian Halaf culture will enter imperatively into the western settlements. This was thus not a closed border and the Qoueiq valley was most probably in the middle of it.

traditions of chaff tempered pottery, in fact, seem to be copresent in the Qoueiq. 8.1.3

The Qoueiq and its External Relations

This work has been trying to discuss relations between Neolithic societies through the analysis and comparison of their ceramic production. Sometimes the tendency to directly equate material culture and culture is very strong, but, as these analysed examples are evidencing, in reality things are much more complicated. Until now, a quite delimited area has been identified, that has similar ceramic assemblages; this comprehends the Amuq, the Rouj, Ras Shamra and other Syrian sites along the Orontes (Hama, Apamea, etc.). The Cilician sites of Mersin and Tarsus, though, have demonstrated a slightly varying situation, with a partial participation within this same ceramic production indicated by the sharing of only particular categories of pottery with this southern region. The Qouieq seems to show a yet distinct situation, in which all the ceramic categories of the Amuq, Rouj, and similar sites, are visible, but there is yet more. The Aleppo region shares the DFBW tradition with the Amuq and Rouj; certainly, DFBW is produced within this area and not imported from the west, as it is found in too large a quantity and it is accompanied by the whole ceramic repertoire of the west. Other ceramic classes, extraneous to that region, are also present, though. The links that these suggest are towards the east, with the Euphrates region and further away. The Qoueiq thus evidences relations that the Amuq and Rouj do not seem to have. Obviously, the geographical position of this area, in between the Euphrates and the Rouj basin, motivates this, but doesn’t explain of what kind and intensity were such relations. Unfortunately, the Qoueiq material being derived from a survey, there is no stratigraphy that can assess sure correlations of materials, but the stratigraphic attributions at the eastern Euphrates sites that yield these particular ceramic categories do appear to indicate a general contemporaneity with the Amuq DFBW developments.

To which of the two areas does the Qoueiq belong though? These “middle” territories, in fact, cannot simply be considered mixed ranges, areas belonging to neither of the two regions and with a composite but essentially impersonal ceramic production. Being there no excavated site to give quantitative information on the pottery of the Neolithic levels, it is quite difficult to tell which of the two ceramic traditions was more abundant. DFBW does seem to be important in this region and certainly, compared to its presence in the Euphrates sites of Kosak Shamali or Halula, it would appear to be more relevant and abundant. The most important factor, though, arguing for the participation of the Aleppo region within the “DFBW horizon”, is, in my view, the fact that all three of the DFW categories are visible in the Qoueiq, whereas this will not be so in the east, where only the traditional, medium paste burnished ware (that equivalent to Yumuktepe class 3) is found (chapter 12). Next to this, also the presence of the Amuq and Rouj Coarse ware argues for this vision of boundary separations. The Chaff impressed and Chaff burnished ware instead are clearly of eastern origin, as has been pointed out, but next to them, other eastern elements as the painted triangular motives found at Sabi Abyad, or the mineral tempered red wash pottery seen in Mezraa and Sabi Abyad, do not seem to be present in the Qoueiq. This region thus, shares all Amuq and Rouj ceramic categories, whilst only some models of pottery productions from the east reach it.

In analysing relations between two territorially distinct groups, the recognition of the “boundary” between one and the other is always the most complicated issue. Border lines between communities are not all of the same nature: some can be more “porous”, whilst others might be highly restricted (Sampson 1988, 171). Taking artefact

The Qoueiq could be considered, in this view, as the last, most eastern representative of the DFBW pottery tradition.

196

8 – Moving to the East

197

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

198

8 – Moving to the East

199

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

200

8 – Moving to the East

201

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

202

9 A DFBW HORIZON ? RECAPITULATING AND EVALUATING THE DATA 9.1 THE RECOGNITION PRODUCTION: THE DFW

OF

A

CERAMIC

The first aim of the present work, preliminary to any discussion on the existence of a DFBW horizon, was that of reaching an exhaustive definition of DFBW itself. The analysis of the pottery production, began with the Mersin material, has demonstrated the existence of distinct classes of ceramics all characterised by a dark colour and a mineral tempered paste. These have been assimilated to the DFBW defined by Braidwood and in fact direct affinities have been identified with the Judaidah material. The fact that Braidwood’s category of DFBW resulted as including more than one class of pottery indicated the need for a new definition of this category, and in the past chapters the term DFW has at times already been used. The analysis of the Mersin material has evidenced that the ceramic categories that certainly fall within Braidwood’s definition of DFBW are 2 (classes 3 and 5). DFBW, as indicated by the Chicago team, is a mineral tempered pottery, with colours tending to dark tones and a burnished surface. Mersin has evidenced, and Judaidah has then confirmed, that, on the basis of granulometry and typology, two groups of DFBW can be distinguished. The name DFBW, thus, no longer refers to one category of ceramics, but rather indicates a group of classes. Such a group could be considered as a “family”, a technological group in a sense, comprising several categories of vessels. This “family”, does indeed -in this I think Braidwood was righthave a historical as well as a typological significance, since the categories that belong to it are clearly linked by particular attributes, that distinguish them from the rest of the ceramic production. I have proposed to call this group DFW, in order to distinguish it from Braidwood’s DFBW definition. The archaeometric and technological analysis of the Mersin pottery have suggested that the dark colour of DFBW/DFW was one of its most important defining attributes. It was demonstrated in fact that this was deliberately searched and special attention was put onto firing in order to obtain such dark tones. For this reason, when discussing class 4 at Mersin (the kitchen ware), the dark coloured surfaces of which were apparently deliberately obtained, I decided to keep it within the broader category of dark vessels, with class 3 and 5. This class, that can be assimilated to the Amuq B DFUW (Dark Faced Unburnished Ware), has no burnished surface, reason for which Braidwood left it

separate from the DFBW. Morphological and technological attributes too argue, in my view, in favour of the similarities between class 4 and the other two mineral tempered wares. Even more so, this relation becomes evident in Judaidah, where, apart from being the only dark wares and being moulded into similar shapes, the two classes of DFBW and DFUW are the only ones with mineral temper in the whole site. At Ras Shamra, unburnished dark ware is present and it is nearly impossible to distinguish from the burnished sherds; indicating here too the similar characters of the two classes. Why not then, since widening the definition of the DFBW and turning it into a “family” more than a “class” of pottery, include DFUW into this larger group? The ceramic tradition shared by the analysed sites is one of dark coloured, mineral tempered vessels, not necessarily, even though preferentially, burnished. DFW is thus the broader category of vessels, the ones shared by all these settlements. DFW is then composed by a DFbW, a Fine DFbW and a DFuW22. A fourth class, the Kerkh Ware, which is rarely dark in colour, but has been possibly identified at Judaidah and Mersin as well as in the Rouj, might be viewed as an antecedent of this particular pottery tradition. This would also demonstrate the local origin of the dark mineral tempered wares in all these sites. The comparison, then, between Mersin, Judaidah, Ras Shamra and Ain el Kerkh has, in my opinion, quite confidently demonstrated the identity of the DFW of these distinct settlements. Typological, morphological, stylistic similarities, that can also be followed throughout their temporal developments, are the evidence of this. Interestingly enough similarities are not limited to the technological attributes and the modes of manufacture, but are visible in shapes, colour and decorations, in all three of the classes concerned. Identical vessels have been noticed at Ain el Kerkh and at Judaidah, and Ras Shamra too has evidenced the presence of some pattern burnished sherds that could easily be confused with others from the Rouj. Shapes are thus identical in all sites and so are decorations, even though rare. Apparently, there is no desire of the single sites to distinguish their DFW production from that of the other settlements. The only case of this kind might be that of the Red Washed Impressed ware from Judaidah, found at no other site (apart from the enigmatic appearance 22

The use of the small letters, as stated before, is decided in order to distinguish this nomenclature from the original one given by Braidwood.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

at Qminas), which I have interpreted as being a “stylistic variation” of the fine DFBW small bowls.

these settlements. The north-west Syrian sites thus share all their ceramic production.

Mersin is the site that most distinguishes itself, since certain shapes, typical in all the other settlements are not found at all. This is the case of straight necked jars and of flaring necks, very common in the DFbW at all the other sites. Shallow tray-like bowls, too, are not seen in these earlier levels at Yumuktepe. They will be found in the later Neolithic phases (XXV-XXIV), but moulded out of another class of vessels (the early painted ware). Decorations too are not exactly identical in this northern site; whilst the early nail impressions are found, in fact, very rare is the pattern burnish, which develops in the later phases. This rarity might be due to a lack of data, but it might also indicate that such a decorative style was not typical of the Cilician site. A similar situation is probably that of Tarsus.

Painted ware similar to that of these sites is found at Mersin as well, whereas chaff tempered pottery is totally absent. The non Dark Faced Ware at Mersin is composed by a light coloured category with mineral inclusions. Mersin and Tarsus, less than 30 km apart, are evidently alike in their ceramic assemblages, but clearly distinguish themselves from the rest of the north Syrian Neolithic communities. Cilicia thus has the DFWs in common with the Syrian settlements, with a minor variability in shapes and decorations, whilst no similarities at all are visible in the non DFWs.

9.2 CULTURAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED BY THE DARK FACED WARE

Such considerations would lead us to hypothesise the participation of the North-Western Syrian sites within one single “socio-cultural system” (that might be referred to as the “DFW socio-cultural system”), whilst Cilicia should probably be imagined as a separate, but related, system. The “DFW Horizon”, intended as the geographical and historical boarders of the DFW distribution, would thus include at least two distinct “cultural units”. The geographical extension of this horizon is quite limited and would permit relatively easy communication between sites of both areas. As will be seen later on, the comparison of economic and architectural data, even though rare, would not seem to argue against such a hypothesis. I would imagine for these communities strong economic, political and social ties, probably justified by tight kinship relations. The Qouieq, although evidencing all the ceramic classes found in the Amuq, Rouj and neighbouring sites, also testifies the presence of particular categories of pottery that, as anticipated, are typical of Neolithic communities of the Euphrates region. The Qoueiq might stand out as the most eastern limit and border of this particular network system of North-Western Syria.

AS

Artefacts are socially constructed, they are composed of social relations, they are a direct expression of culture (1.4.1). Technology too, it has been underlined several times, is created through intentional human action and is therefore culture dependant and not simply a result of technical capacity (2.7.1) (Lemonnier 1993). Similar statements have brought Braidwood to hypothesise that all sites evidencing DFBW were part of one single cultural system. The pottery analysis has certainly evidenced the strong similarities in the production of DFW at Mersin, Tarsus, Judaidah, Ras Shamra, Janoudiyeh, Apamea, Hama, Ain el Kerkh and the other Rouj sites, Qminas, ad the Qoueiq, thus clearly indicating strong contacts and relations between these sites. Only Mersin and Tarsus slightly separate themselves from this group of sites, as they evidence less variety in shapes and decorations of the DFW, but the affinities are so strong in this case too that a participation of these within the same network of communication can still be suggested.

Archaeologists generally assume that socio-political territories show up in the record as restricted distributions of stylistic elements on a landscape, and that the outer limits of the distribution would approximate the sociopolitical boundary. Many ethnographic surveys have demonstrated though that all kinds of objects move across such boundaries. It has been amply shown that overlaps in the distribution of stylistic characters of different groups are often present in bordering areas between the two groups (Sampson 1988, 171). The degree of overlap can actually be a good clue of the kind of relations between two regions; no overlap might indicate the desire of the two systems to strongly distinguish themselves, whilst the finding of many “foreign stylistic elements” would evidence continuous relations between the two entities. The abundant presence, in the Qoueiq, of chaff tempered, impressed ware, typical, as will be seen later, of the Middle Euphrates region, could be interpreted exactly as one of these cases. Qoueiq is the bordering area, between the North-Western Syrian system of Neolithic communities and that of the Euphrates. It is interesting to note that not

The comparison of one single pottery group though is not enough for the definition of cultural, economic and political relations between sites. Economic and architectural features, together with all available indications of organisational characters of these communities will be discussed further along in this chapter, but a first important indication on the relationships between settlements can be given by the comparison of the whole ceramic assemblages. It has been pointed out, in fact, that the settlements of North-West Syria share all their ceramic categories. Chaff tempered ware, in all alike to that of Judaidah, is found in the Rouj and at Ras Shamra, as well as at Apamea, at Hama, at the site of Qminas and in the Qoueiq. Incised decoration and red wash on some of this pottery has also been recognised at most sites. Later developments of painted ceramics, too, indicate evident similarities between painted motives and colours used at all 204

9 – A DFBW Horizon?

one sherd of this chaff impressed ware has been found west of the Qoueiq, thus somehow configuring the Aleppo district as a kind of buffering zone between the two regions.

all be linked to daily activities. Class 3 might have been used for food preparation (not on fire) and consumption, or for short term conservation, class 4 was entirely composed by cooking pots, and class 5 constituted the “nice” set of “dining” dishes, glasses, or, in any case, eating vessels. DFW was thus, at Mersin, only used for daily activities. It was not, though, a prestigious category of pottery (only class 5 might be), fact that could easily justify the sharing of it with other regions.

This system of relations between these two regional cultures (Cilicia and North-West Syria) is very particular and has a long duration in time, as similarities among the DFWs can be followed, through all the pre-Halaf Neolithic phases. DFW is in fact produced at Mersin for approximately one millennium and in other sites for even longer. Relations between sites, though, change in time and this appears quite strongly in Cilicia. The early levels of Mersin have testified a nearly 100% presence of dark burnished ware (as seen in NW Syria) and suggest an active participation to the DFW horizon during that phase. The later levels (XXVII-XXVI), testify a DFW presence of about 20%, a much lower percentage than that of other contemporary communities; although indicating prolonged relations, this suggests a possible diverging behaviour of the site in this succeeding moment. Furthermore not a single sherd of the Yumuktepe pinkish mineral tempered ware of this second phase was found in Syria and not a single Syrian Coarse Chaff Ware at Mersin. This also brings us to an interesting observation on the earliest phase of the “DFW horizon”, when indeed ties appear to be strong and more global: relations between the areas had evidently not caused the total assimilation of the two regions, but each had kept its independence and autonomy, an autonomy that readily reappears with the beginning of the VI millennium BC (Mersin levels XXVII-XXVI), when the pinkish mineral pastes start being produced at Mersin. This might explain the stylistic divergences between the Mersin DFW and that of the Syrian sites.

In Judaidah, it might be hypothesised that the non DFW too was probably only used for storage, since shapes are all quite large, vessel walls thick and, consequently, pots heavy. The Rouj might indicate a similar situation. The presence of abundant necked jars among the Judaidah DFBW (the Mersin class 3) however might indicate that these too were used for storage (maybe of liquids), function that in Mersin was instead covered by classes 1 and 2. It could be added furthermore, that liquids, at Judaidah, could only be kept in DFbW since the coarse chaff ware would be too permeable and all contents would be lost. In Judaidah thus, DFW apparently has a wider functional distribution than at Mersin. Most attributes of DFW could be function-specific: the impermeability of DFbW is given by the medium-fine mineral temper, but also increased by the burnished surface; the fineness of plates and glasses of class 5 could only be obtained with a mineral tempered pottery; mineral temper as that of class 4 pots was certainly more suitable for cooking than the coarse vessels with chaff inclusions. A first hypothesis might thus indicate that it was because of its technical and functional attributes that DFBW was largely distributed even in culturally autonomous regions.

I have implied that the sharing of DFW by different sites and especially regions, for which the rest of the material culture might suggest cultural autonomy, indicates relations between these. But what kind of relations? And, why would two at least partly independent cultural regions share only one section of their ceramic assemblage and not the rest of their production? A first reply to these questions is probably to be sought in the function/significance/meaning of the shared DFW, an indication of which can come from its material function23. I would argue that, being all attributes and characters of the Cilician DFW similar to those of the Syrian sites, the function of this category of ceramics must have probably been the same or similar in both regions.

Whilst the above observations might indeed be correct, I do not believe they satisfactorily solve the issue. In fact, were the groups so independent, why didn’t they, at one point of the development evolve a distinct class of cooking pots or of serving dishes? In other words, once they acknowledged the technical properties of this particular category of vessels, why didn’t they create their own stylistic variables? Why did the potters continue searching the dark colour? There must be something more to the simple utilitarian-function (techno-function) that determines the sharing of such a tradition, something probably linked to the socio-ideological function held by the DFW. I would like to think that Tilley’s interpretation of Neolithic symbolism in Europe could be the correct reading of the ideological role of DFW in these western regions of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Tilley rightly points out that preparation, cooking and sharing of food is a major focus of symbolic elaboration in all societies and even more so during the Neolithic, when symbolic behaviour reaches a tremendous increase (Tilley 1996, 66). Often, social relations are constructed through the medium of food consumption (Jones 2002, 167).

Mersin has given quite clear evidence of the use that was intended for each of its ceramic classes: classes 1 and 2, the non DFWs, were probably used for storage and maybe also water collection and transport, whilst the DFWs seemed to 23

The significance of an object is determined by its material function (ethic) (Kristiansen 1984, 85), but its role/meaning determines and influences the way in which it will be produced, its technological and morphological attributes (emic) (Jones 2002, 96-97).

205

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

groups must have given the same meaning to this particular class. Lastly, the interpretation of DFW as a ceramic category linked to food preparation and consumption, in a period in which these were charged with particular symbolic meaning, might succeed in explaining the reasons for its large diffusion.

A very interesting case has been observed in Neolithic Orkney (Jones 2002, 148): at the site of Barnhouse, clear technological and stylistic distinctions have been noted amongst certain ceramic classes within the settlement, which appear to correspond to different households. Apparently, part of the vessels in the assemblage were produced singularly by each household and stylistic distinctions too underline this household character. Morphological, use wear and content analysis (fatty acids) have demonstrated that these were the vessels used for storage. Smaller size vessels, used for daily activity, instead, were decorated with schemes that suggested communal, settlement specific identity and had similar technical characters in all households. Vessels used in cooking and consumption activities, which are those involved in routine negotiation and sedimentation of social identities, thus expressed, in their technical and stylistic characters, site and group identity, whilst the storage vessels were household specific.

9.3 ECONOMIC ORGANISATION PRODUCING COMMUNITIES

OF THE

DFW

Ceramic Neolithic is an advanced phase of the Neolithic Revolution, a phase in which domestication, both of animals and plants, was accomplished in most places. Exploitation of domesticates as opposed to wild animals still fluctuates significantly in the more western regions of the Near East, whilst agriculture has already gained firm ground and cultivation has, more or less everywhere, a stronger role than wild plant collecting. Compared to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, many Near Eastern communities in these regions move to a less sedentary life, probably in consequence of a changed economy, in which animal breeding begins to have an important role. Modes and precise characters of such organisations are not identical all over, on the opposite, clear varieties are evident. Because of this, trying to identify the cultural borders that have been hypothesised with the ceramic analysis, through the simple examination of primary resource procurement would have been a near to impossible task. Important, though, is now to see whether these groups do evidence similar economic choices.

Be, as it may, by accident, it is certainly peculiar that the DFW shared, in the Neolithic, by Cilicia and Syria is exactly the ceramic category involved in food preparation and consumption. A last thing should be noted, regarding possible moments of social interaction linked with this food preparation and consumption. Archaeometric analyses have shown that exchange of vessels, at least between Yumuktepe, Ain el Kerkh and Judaidah, though possible, seems not to have been so frequent. These pots, thus, were essentially sitespecific, with possible cases testifying the encounter of people/pots from different settlements. The local origin of the majority of vessels probably indicates, first of all, the obviously more frequent intra-group activities involved in strengthening social ties. Secondly, being these vessel categories the “unifying and identifying element” of all the sites of the DFW horizon, there was probably no need to “bring over”, on the occasion of encounters between groups, one’s ceramics; those of the “hosting” site were used.

The groups of DFW producers, in accordance with the general developments of the Ceramic Neolithic throughout the Near East, are all farmers. Palaeobotanical and Palaeozoological data is not present from all the analysed sites, but in all known cases domestic emmer and barley are recognised. At Yumuktepe, domestic plants were the great majority already in the earliest phases of occupation, as the botanical samples analysed by Hala Barakat from the deep sounding SA demonstrate (Sevin et al. 2001, 77). More than 90 % of the carbonised seeds found belonged to wheat, barley and legumes (amongst which lentils were the most abundant) (Barakat 1994). Amid the wild plants, central role had fruits, as olives, figs and almonds (Barakat 1998, 18). In the later Neolithic phases (XXVII-XXVI), the situation was exactly the same (Barakat 1997).

The analysis of the ceramic production and distribution has suggested, in conclusion, the presence of at least two, if not three (if the Qoueiq is to be considered as a separate unit), socio-cultural regions, involved in an intense and complex network system of relations. The character uniting these regions, central thus in separating them from the other areas that will be analysed further on, is that they are all producers of DFW. This particular pottery production might circulate and be exchanged between these regions, even though clear evidence of this has not been testified by the archaeometric results of the three analysed sites (Mersin, Judaidah and Ain el-Kerkh), but all the settlements considered up to now are certainly also producers of this category. The finding of similar morphological and stylistic characters among the DFW of all these settlements indicates not only their full participation within its tradition, but also the fact that all

Judaidah, and probably the other Amuq sites, had a large quantity of domestic cereals too (Helbaek 1960, 540-543), as well as Ain el Kerkh, where, out of 2,2 kg of carbonised grains, all except 10 seeds (8 of barley, 1 legume and 1 unidentified) were of domestic wheat (Tsuneki et al. 2000, 20). At Ras Shamra, carbonised seeds have demonstrated the domestic status of cereals, already from phase VC. Pollen cores taken from phase VB are furthermore packed with cereal pollens, fact that testifies the relative vicinity of 206

9 – A DFBW Horizon?

mixed herding and hunting choice. Roles and importance of these different economic exploitations though, are not identical in all sites. Mersin probably has the most distinct character, because devoid of hunting. This uniqueness of the Cilician site is particularly intriguing since its ceramic production too has shown some clear distinctions from that of the other DFW communities. Unfortunately no economic data is present from Gözlükule, the settlement whose ceramic assemblage is exactly like that of Yumuktepe.

the agricultural fields from the site (de Contenson 1992, 192). Next to the cereals, all the mentioned sites have domestic flax, too. No other DFW sites have botanical data, but I believe that cultivation was the main mean for the procurement of staples in the other sites as well. Patterns of animal exploitation are, differently from what seen above, not so identical in the different communities. Yumuktepe is probably the most particular site, since minimal hunting is testified. Bones from the deepest trench, SA, have shown large quantities of domestic sheep/goat, cattle and pig, whilst wild animals are fish, cormorans and mussels (Buitenhuis and Caneva 1998, 126). It is possible that its seaside position is partly to blame for this, but an entirely pastoral and fishing economy is still outstanding for this period. This is especially so, since other, contemporary settlements next to the sea, like Ras Shamra, Byblos and Sukas, evidence a great deal of wild, hunted animals (deer, gazelle and wild pig are the most common).

9.4

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

It has been pointed out that the reason for such a strong distinction between the Mersin’ers exploitation of primary resources and that of the other communities, that share with the Cilician site their ceramic production, cannot be simply due, as proposed by Buitenhuis and Caneva, to its position next to the sea. Ras Shamra has in fact demonstrated that hunting can easily be an occupation for coastal people. The environment is thus not the only one to be “guilty” of the Mersin’ers choice.

All the other DFW sites of which data on the fauna is available, testify a mixed behaviour, partly pastoral and partly hunting, even though domestic animals are generally the majority. At Judaidah, in the Amuq, sheep/goat, cattle and pig are domestic, but next to these are gazelle and deer, amongst others. At Ain el Kerkh, in the Rouj, the situation is very similar. Approximately 90% of the animals are domestic, and next to these are gazelle, roe deer (capreolous capreolus), fallow deer (dama sp.), red deer (cervus elaphus), and various small animals (Tsuneki et al. 1999, 25). Interesting is the observation on an increase of sheep and goat, at the expenses of cattle and pig, in the Rouj 2d phase (Tsuneki et al. 1998, 28). This might signal a move to a more mobile settlement pattern than in the previous 2b-c phases. In Aray 2 the same thing was noticed, probably a little earlier, already from the Rouj 2c period (Hongo 1996, 127), and in Kerkh 2 as well. It would thus appear that in the whole Rouj basin there was a gradual move to sheep and goat herding in a later phase. Next to this a reasonable role was always left to hunting.

And yet, the environment’s role in the organisation and development of these societies is certainly central. Sufficient rainfall is the first necessity for Neolithic agriculture, that has not yet developed proper irrigation systems, but hunting too follows the available fauna and hunters move with the animals. Herding, then, is regulated by the morphology of the lands, by water availability and vegetation. Last of all, communication routes are also determined and somewhat limited by the ecosystem. This is probably the most effect-full moment to give an aimed description of the environment inhabited by the DFW communities. In fact, now that data has been presented and answers to different arguments suggested, morphologic, orohydrographic, and vegetational characterisation of the regions under study might bring to further explanations and opinions on the analysed developments. Again, Mersin, the Amuq and the Rouj show, even from an ecological the point of view strong affinities. The settlements in the three regions are all on alluvial soils, in plains or at their margins. The richness of alluvial soils (both because of water availability and fertility) must have surely played a major role in the decision to occupy such areas. Rainfall was more or less around 600 mm, thus well within the limits for rainfed agriculture. Vegetation was of Mediterranean type, thus quite rich in trees (pistacia, quercus…).

Such changes do not totally upturn the economic basis of the settlements though, which basically remains quite mixed. Ras Shamra is the only site that shows major changes within the phases studied. In this Syrian coastal site, people move, between phases VB and VA, from being essentially hunters to herders. In VB, in fact, wild animals constitute 85,7% of the whole bones, whilst in VA these fall to 29,6% (de Contenson 1992, 204-205). Animal exploitation in Ras Shamra VB thus seems to be nearer to that of its Pre-Ceramic level. Only in phase VA the ratio of wild-domestic animals brings the site to a condition, more or less, like that of the other DFW sites.

The orography of the region is alternating: the Taurus mountains stand right over Yumuktepe and Tarsus, whilst the Amuq plain is surrounded by the Amanus mountains to the north and the last fringe of the Jabal Ansariya to the south.

What appears from the above is an agriculture-based economy of all the DFW communities, correlated with a 207

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

The Orontes river has its headwaters in Lebanon, near Ba’albek, and, in Syria, it flows through the modern city of Homs, into Hama, past Apamea and up to Turkey, into Antakya, before finally reaching the sea. Clear enough is, here too, the direct and practicable route between the Amuq and Janoudiyeh, Apamea and Hama.

The Amanus reach imposing heights of more than 2000 m, but also permit one of the easiest passageways to the south and to Mesopotamia. Two are the preferred paths, the Beylan (today called Belen), which is also known as the “Syrian gate” and is just below the modern town of Iskenderun, and the Arsanlı Bel (Nurdağı geçidi), north of Islahiyye. Both paths are mentioned by classic authors and were thus supposedly used in prehistoric times too (Alkım 1969, 280).

The Ghab valley, in the middle of which are the sites of Qal’at el Mudiq (Apamea) and Janoudiyeh, is, still today, one of the most fertile of Syria. The abundance of its ecological niches gives it an incredible variety and richness of resources. Hama is at the very beginning of the valley, an extremely favourable position in between the cultivable fields and the hilly pastures. Pollen analyses have shown that a strong deforestation started during the Pottery Neolithic, in this valley, whilst the PPNB had been the period of maximum forests (Yasuda 2001, fig. 14). This probably didn’t affect enormously the overall economic organisation of these societies, but was possibly the cause of a greater mobility of groups in comparison to the earlier Pre-Pottery phases.

Rivers are a prerequisit of all these sites: Mersin along the Soğuk Su, the Amuq with three rivers coming into the plain, the Orontes, the Afrin and the Karasu. It is especially following the courses of the Orontes and Afrin that the easiest trails south, towards settlements like Apamea and Hama, or south-east to the Rouj, could be covered. It should not be forgotten that the Orontes was partly navigable in the past. The Rouj alluvial plain too was crossed by a river and was also characterised by the presence of a lake. Next to these rivers, in the plains, were many springs, due to the quite high water table, thus water problem, both for farming and for animals, was nonexistent. Even the presence of very near mountains and higher elevations was an advantage for the communities living in the valleys and plains, since it allowed herders to move only very little away from their settlements in the dry season, when animals were to be taken to graze at higher altitudes. And probably, whilst herders were away with the sheep and goat, the rest of the community stayed back and cultivated the lands nearby the settlements.

The Qoueiq valley too formed a fertile basin, within which two major tributaries joined the main river. Today the whole valley is drained and under cultivation. Probably less vegetated than the more western Syrian regions, this was still a very favourable place to occupy in Neolithic times. Water, fertile land, sufficient annual rainfall and easy communication trails were thus common to all the communities of DFW producers. No major environmental obstacle divided the different areas and settlements, but on the opposite, preferential routes were exactly those leading one to the other. Communication between the DFW settlements does appear somewhat “facilitated” by the environmental conditions; probably the most “comfortable” routes were those utilised and preferred.

The preceding paragraph has evidenced, in the Rouj, an apparent decrease in cattle during the end of the pre-Halaf, “DFBW period” and an opposite increase in ovi-caprines. This might well be due to a strong increase of cultivated land and a consequent incompatibility with cattle. Cattle, in fact graze, near the site, on land that would normally be cultivated. Sheep and goat, instead, can move further away to fields far from agriculture. The fertility of the plain and the quite high population density, testified by the at least 14 Neolithic sites, might have easily brought to an intensification of cultivated lands in the plain and thus to a move to sheep and goat exploitation instead of cattle.

To the south, the Orontes valley continues into Lebanon, nearly touching, at Ba’albek, the Beqa’a valley, thus potentially reaching the southern borders of modern Lebanon. As will be underlined further on, relations of the DFW sites with this region are clearly attested. To the east of both valleys is the Jabal ash-Shargi, separating the Mediterranean region from the Syrian steppes, and the lowest mountain pass that leads to the other side is at a height of 1200 m. This might have been a deterrent to frequent and continuous relations from one side of the mountain chain to the other, even though certainly not to communication all together.

Ras Shamra is on the Mediterranean coast, at its back is the Jabal Ansariya, that reaches considerable heights (more than 1500 m), but various valleys lead to the interior, to meet the Gab valley (Orontes river). The Nahr el-Kebir, that reaches the sea at Latakia, thus only a couple of km south of Ras Shamra, rises from the southern borders of the Amuq plain. We thus understand how easy must have been the communication between these two areas. Today the only forests still remaining in Syria are on the Jabal Ansariya. The economy of Ras Shamra certainly demonstrates that these mountains were well exploited, by hunting gazelle, deer, boar and other wild animals. Vegetation around Ras Shamra was mainly of pine and oak forest.

Links with the eastern regions could have easily used the more northern route, east of the Rouj, passed the Nahr alQoueiq and straight to the Euphrates valley, from where any direction was granted. This role of the Qoueiq as a “communicating” route and a “meeting place” of two distinct systems has also been suggested by the ceramic production. 208

9 – A DFBW Horizon?

like those, by all known, of Anatolian Çatal Höyük are never seen. Structures are both multi-roomed and monocellular, and, though clear indications of their function are rare, hearths and various working instruments indicate their domestic use.

A last issue should be reminded here: that of obsidian procurement. Obsidian in fact, as has been stated several times, came essentially from Central Anatolia and reached most of the DFW analysed sites. Even though quantities of obsidian are significantly less in the more southern sites, all were involved in a network of obsidian exchange, in which it is probable that Mersin had a central role, because of its nearest position to the settlements of the Konya plateau. More or less 24% of the lithic industry at Judaidah in phases A-B was in obsidian, against more than 80% at Mersin, and moving to the south, this percentages fall off abruptly, to 0,8% at Byblos and 1,1% at Ramad. Analyses made quite a number of years ago on obsidian samples from various Neolithic sites have demonstrated that the Mersin obsidian came essentially from Central Anatolian Acigöl (Hasan Dağ) and Çiftlik (Göllü Dağ) (Cauvin M-Cl. 1994, 17; Renfrew et al. 1966, 45). Strangely enough samples from Judaidah, Ras Shamra, Tabbat al-Hammam, Byblos, Ramad and even from the furthest Jericho indicate Çiftlik as the probable source. Acigöl obsidian was only found at Byblos. Certainly the exchange of obsidian was one of the activities that characterised, maintained and possibly justified the network between the different DFW sites. I would not think, though, that it was the major element of cohesion, especially for what concerns the external relations of the DFW horizon with the more southern settlements like Byblos, the Beqa’a and Ramad. The very low percentage of obsidian in these sites would seem to indicate that obsidian arrived probably as a consequence of gift giving or una tantum exchange and not following a proper route of “trade”. In the case of Mersin and the Amuq, it is probable that the already strong contacts brought about a greater movement and exchange of this primary resource.

9.5 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERS

AND

Activity areas were mostly outdoors. This is visible at Ain el Kerkh, in the latest levels, at Mersin, here too in the late phases (XXV-XXIV), and at Ras Shamra. Hearths, ovens and other specific areas are all outside, in community ground. Some external areas were also cobble paved, thus underlining their structured/planned character; activities were done outdoors, apparently in common areas, but well organised and set. Small hearths inside the structures were probably used for cooking. Judaidah, in level 23, has two external hearths and various remains of stone walls next to them, thus confirming, no matter the meagreness of its data, what Ain el Kerkh, Mersin and Ras Shamra testify. The small rooms of a particular structure (str. 72) at Ain el Kerkh have been interpreted as storages for staples. This is most probably so, but the small dimension of the storage, compared to other more or less contemporary ones in the east (Sabi Abyad, Umm Dabaghiyah, Yarim Tepe), indicates, in my opinion, that it could not have served for the whole community; most probably such a storage was used by a family or some kind of smaller unit of people. It cannot be excluded though, as the Japanese suggest, that this was indeed a common storage. Another interesting structure has been identified at Ain el Kerkh, this one clearly used by a single family; structure 167 has, in fact, a lower, probably underground storey, that might have been used for the conservation of food or other goods. The multicellular building found by Garstang in Mersin XXVI, might have had a similar function. The large quantity of silos, all concentrated in one area, in Mersin level XXIV, has been used as an indicator of commonly led and managed storage activities, but the fact that the silos are small and many, probably also indicates that such a management simply consisted in the establishment of “community” guards for the storages, which remained though, “private”; in other words, staples of different owners were never mixed.

SETTLEMENT

Difficult is the classification of the architecture and settlement organisation of the DFW sites, because of the rarity and partiality of information. The absence of data does not permit reliable comparisons. The sites with some consistent architecture are not many. Ain el-Kerkh, Mersin and Ras Shamra are essentially the only three cases. Excavation was not extensive on either of the three, so nearly impossible are comments on the settlement planning and distribution of buildings and activity areas, but some considerations can still be made.

More complex management systems were developing in this same period, further to the east, at the already nominated Sabi Abyad and probably at Umm Dabaghiyah and Yarim Tepe too. Apart from the dimension and plans of the storage structures, sealings, discovered from these sites, are a further demonstration of this. Seals have been found in the Syrian and Cilician regions. Never though, have sealings (cretulae) been discovered. These are only stamp seals and made of different materials, but most commonly in stone. 16 stone stamp seals were found at Judaidah in phases A and B, even though not all are clearly attributed to a specific context; 2 single ones were found in Mersin, one next to the silos of level XXIV and the other in A25, thus belonging to level XXVII or XXVIII. Furthermore, one stone seal was found by Garstang in the

Building techniques are common to all, but this is normal in regions in which the most available material is clay. Stone foundations are generally covered by mud bricks or pisé; plastered floors are quite common, both in mud and in real calcium plaster. Important is that buildings are isolated, each with its own walls and surrounded by open space. Agglutinant structures 209

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Syrian settlements might indicate an even stronger kin relation, that could be interpreted, as has been proposed above, as forming a single socio-cultural unity. These groups might be part of the same economic, organisational and cultural system. Cilicia would thus form another, distinct but similar, organisation.

earliest levels of occupation. In the Rouj basin, at Ain elKerkh a series of tokens have been found and 14 stamp seals made of stone, clay and bone. At Ras Shamra, tokens were rare and 3 clay stamp seals have been uncovered. Qminas too, has evidenced a stone seal. These are all small, often pierced and decorated with geometric motives. The constant presence of the stone seals does suggest that some form of common management was taking place, but the absence of sealings, very common in the Middle Euphrates regions and testifying the complexity of the community administrative system, probably indicates a more primitive kind of organisation. Too few are still the elements available for a proper understanding of the management of primary products. The homogeneity in the data from the different sites of the Syro-Cilician area, though, is a further indication of a common desire to distinguish some form of private property. Shapes and motives of these seals furthermore evidence great similarities within the DFW horizon (Mezzasalma 2001, 303).

Communication between kinships is multileveled, fact this that can explain the different quality and intensity of relations between systems and the complex nature of networks. Stronger relations are certainly those linked with primary resource procurement and biological reproduction of the group. Groups of hunter-gatherers and of early farmers are often not big enough to be biologically “selfsufficient”. Kinship ties will thus be created in order to reach the Minimum Equilibrium Size (MES), necessary for a safe reproduction of the group. As for primary resources, the high variability of a territory (either caused by seasonal fluctuations, patchiness of resources or general ecological conditions of the landscape) would correspond to a bigger size of a kinship network. Where primary resources are abundant and risks of bad crops low, thus groups nearly self sustaining, networks might be smaller in size. The need for other, non primary resources too (prestigious or not), might cause the setting of other liaisons between distinct groups or even kin, creating networks of kinship (for example, obsidian procurement might be one of many reasons for the tight relations of Cilicia with the more southern region ).

In conclusion, even though limited, the data on architecture and site planning does appear to be more or less homogeneous and helps confirm, together with the economic data discussed above, the probable analogies in social and economic organisation of the DFW communities.

9.6 COMMUNICATION KINSHIP TIES

NETWORKS

AND

In the Neolithic, network systems generally become quite large and increasingly important. For this reason moments of social activity, intended to enforce network ties, are central in the organisation of Neolithic communities. Ritual food consumption (feasts) is certainly one of these (Appadurai 1989). Gift exchange too becomes crucial in the early Neolithic, since it provides a means of establishing social ties and dependencies between individuals and groups (Tilley 1996, 101).

The analysis of DFW distribution and of the overall ceramic assemblages of the Syrian and Cilician sites has brought to hypothesise the existence of two distinct sociocultural systems in strong relation with each other. It has then been seen that the data from the economic organisation might confirm some distinction between Cilicia and North-Western Syria. Theoretical issues on the organisation of egalitarian societies and their communication networks will be here quickly enquired, in order to seek a better understanding of the organisation of these DFW producing communities and of the nature of their relations.

It has been evidenced that contacts and links between communities of DFW producers, testified by more or less similar material culture, economic and organisational characters, were not all at the same level and were not all of the same kind. Relations between the DFW producing communities most probably followed rules similar to those of kinship networks. The two true cultural units composing the DFW system, Cilicia and North-West Syria, probably economically and organisationally autonomous, had an identical production of DFW. A hypothesis according to which the explanation for the sharing of this particular ceramic production should be searched in its role and function within these societies has been advanced and it has also been suggested that this might be linked to social and symbolic activities that the different systems shared. Moments of common social activities were probably taking place, and to these the development and the sharing of similar technological choices and material culture is certainly due. Objects, in fact, can serve as a medium for

In all simple societies it is social relations that dominate the organisation of the groups (Kristiansen 1984, 77). Economic and political ties are generally all disguised under social liaisons. In simple societies such relations are structured in the form of kin ties. Genealogical relationships are established, that regulate communication between groups. The kinship system establishes human relationships aimed at regulating the economic and biologic success of a group. The stylistic and morphological similarities in the DFW production noted for the North-Western Syrian and the Cilician Neolithic communities are certainly indicators of kinship networks. Furthermore, the identity of all pottery assemblage and the affinity in economic organisation of the 210

9 – A DFBW Horizon?

producing and reproducing relations between persons (Tilley 1996, 250). The apparent use of DFW for food preparation and consumption, as indicated by its morphology and technological characters, might see in feasts and consumption in general the most probable of such activities (Friedman 1994). It might well be that through DFW these groups recognised and underlined their common origin and lineage, remaining though substantially autonomous and independent from an economic and organisational point of view. Such a system would be decidedly different from what is known to develop in the same period in Mesopotamia. At the base of the Umm Dabaghiyah-Sotto culture is in fact the economic specialisation of its communities. Single groups would not survive, since economically dependent from the others (Balossi 2001). The settlements in the Jazira evolve to create a system of interdependence between groups, that in this way move towards a greater cultural homogeneity. Halaf will be, in fact, the direct consequence of this. In the west, cultures remain distinct and groups probably tend for themselves, but communication networks are indeed strong. As already pointed out, no egalitarian society is a closed system; on the contrary, external relations for the settling of matters, as the access to pastures and to hunting areas, for the property of farming grounds, for obtaining specific resources or goods, and not last, for assuring the biological reproduction of the group, impregnate all the communities’ lives and organisations. Social activities become critical for the maintenance of such relations, as is amply shown by many ethnographic studies (Minc 1986, 44; Wiessner 1982a, 172; Wiessner 1982b, 78). The sharing of the same category of ceramics might be a result of these. On limited territories, furthermore, connections might have been so strong and constant to provoke the unification of certain groups within single unitary cultural systems (Cilicia would be one and North-West Syria the other).

211

10 THE MOULDERS OF WHITE WARE. THE MEDITERRANEAN COAST BORDERS OF DFW PRODUCTION 10.1 VAISSELLE BLANCHE, PARTICULAR TRADITION

A

VERY

Many Lebanese Neolithic sites are characterised by the production of the so-called Vaisselle Blanche (White Ware), a very particular production of carbonate vessels, that strongly recall, from a technological point of view, the abundant plaster production of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. These carbonate vessels are well known in Neolithic sites on the Mediterranean coast of the Near East. Because of this similarity in technology with that of the preparation of lime, well known and mastered since the preceding Pre-Pottery period, these are considered by some as the forerunners of proper ceramics (Freirman 1971). Their appearance has always been linked to the first stage of ceramic development. Experiments have shown that this particular production is made of recarbonated lime (calcium carbonate), thus exactly in the same way as floor and wall plasters (Balfet et al. 1969). This possibly explains the development of White Ware (name generally used to indicate the carbonate vessels) in the Levant, region in which, during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, the use of plaster was highly common and developed. Further analyses have evidenced cases of gypsum plaster vessels too, for example at Ramad. The two techniques for obtaining carbonate calcium and gypsum plaster are totally distinct, as the first needs fire temperatures reaching at least 800°C whilst the second only necessitates 190°C (Garfinkel 1987, 71). Moulding the two materials is also very different: gypsum in fact hardens quite fast and can thus be modelled in its plastic state. Calcite instead has no plastic state and thus needs a supporting mould to be shaped in. De Contenson argues that both techniques were well known by the Neolithic period and thus the choice of one material or the other was dependent on the geology of the area and/or on the intended function of the vessel (de Contenson and Courtois 1979, 178). Calcium carbonate vessels are very fragile, not at all resistant to thermal shock, but highly water resistant (impermeable). This probably also explains the use of plastering ceramics, as has been noted in the Rouj. On the contrary, gypsum vessels melt at contact with water. White Ware has already been encountered in the Rouj basin and at Syrian coastal sites, as Ras Shamra and Hama. Quantities were never so high as to consider this production a local tradition. Next to White Ware, proper lime plastered ceramics have also been signalled. Hypotheses on their function are various, but I believe the

AND

SOUTHERN

one proposed of their use for storing staples remains the best explanation, due to the sterilising effect of the plastering process. In the Rouj, plaster was on both faces of the pot, whilst it will be seen here that in some cases (Byblos, for example) only the interior was plastered. This might be a confirmation of the fact that it was in the interior that plaster (i.e. sterility) was needed. At Ras Shamra and in the Rouj, White Ware does not appear from the very first phases of occupation, but it is seen together with already well developed pottery. On the coastal sites too, even though present at the very beginning of the Pottery Neolithic occupation, next to it are proper clay ceramics (only at Ramad, the Pre-Pottery levels have evidenced some sherds of White Ware). The vision of it as an “ancestor of pottery” would thus appear not so sure. Rather could it simply be that an old, well known technique (that of plaster production and that of storage bins), was being applied to a new shape and function, derived from pottery manufacture? Its main originality and innovation would have been that of being transportable (a “movable storage bin”). Whatever the response, the interest in these White Ware producing sites is due to the contemporary appearance of a dark and burnished, mineral tempered pottery. This appears in large quantities since the earliest occupation phases and is very similar to the DFBW, thus being a possible indicator of contacts between the southern coastal sites and the DFW horizon. Moving south from Ras Shamra, the first site to evidence such an assemblage is Tell Sukas, in Syria and not very far from Ugarit itself. The analogy of its pottery assemblage with that of southern Lebanese sites is very surprising, since one would expect stronger contacts with the neighbour Ras Shamra, but, as will be seen, distinctions in the ceramic production of these two settlements are very clear. Together with Sukas, the other excavated White Ware producing sites are Tabbat al-Hammam, Byblos, Ramad and Nebi Mend. The Beqa’a valley too, only surveyed though, has testimony of this particular production. The White Ware producing sites are probably not part of the DFW horizon, but it will be evident in this chapter that relations with the latter region are indeed strong and constant.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

10.2

TELL SUKAS

10.2.1

A Coastal Site to the South of Ras Shamra

not correspond to those in which such decorations were used, or that such a tradition was simply not common to the Tell Sukas potters.

On a small promontory facing the sea, 26 km south of the modern Syrian city of Latakia and 6 km south of Jabla is the site of Sukas, a quite imposing tell 24 m high above sea level. Its position between two small gulfs, too, is particularly impressive. The site was not occupied only in the Neolithic period, but inhabited up to modern times and the most frequently encountered ruins are medieval (Riis 1970, 10). The settlement has been excavated in the 50s and 60s by a Danish team and various of their soundings have uncovered Neolithic remains.

DFBW N11 N10 N9 N8 N7 N6 N5 N4 N3 N2 N1

The Neolithic period is represented by phase N, followed by phase M (Chalcolithic), and its identified layers go from 59 to 84; these are grouped into 11 levels of occupation (Sukas N1-11) (Riis and Thrane 1974, 3). N11 is the earliest settlement, lying directly on virgin soil, and its architectural remains are decidedly few: mostly pits, some of which lined with stones, and a floor surface. The following levels testify proper stone foundations of walls, some of which covered by a kind of pisé, often plastered floors, mud bricks (from N8), and cobbled pavements (Pl. 10.1a). In he later levels, hearths are identified and various objects and in situ elements of material culture. The plans of structures are generally rectangular and quite well preserved, but a couple of slightly curving walls are seen too. Particular find has been a small fragment of plaster, in N5, decorated with paint and bitumen (Hours et al. 1994, 329). Bitumen is apparently quite common at the site, since it is also present on pottery. 10.2.2 Ware

217 19 11 51 76 13 25 16 111 74 17

Light White Plastered Faced Ware Ware Ware 154 42 19 35 22 26 1 8 29 71 1 1 36 9 2 11 5 1

DFUnBW 1 1 7 8 9

Table 10.1 – Quantitative distribution of ceramic categories in the Neolithic levels of Tell Sukas. The number of Plastered Ware sherds is most probably higher, as Riis and Thrane have not classified these as such but within the category of ceramics they belonged to (for example, a DFUnBW plastered only on one side would fall with the DFUnBW and not with the Plastered Ware).

White Ware is made with a calcareous paste and the addition of mineral and vegetal inclusions, and at times bitumen. This of bitumen, visible especially in layers N11 (27 sherds) and N10 (16 fragments), is a novelty in the panorama of the ceramics analysed up to now. Its use tends to decrease in later phases. In N3 two new pottery categories appear: the Dark Faced Unburnished Ware (DFUnBW) and a light coloured ceramic, sometimes with incised decoration (Pl. 10.1b). The distinction of the former is most interesting as only few other sites (Judaidah, Mersin and Ras Shamra) did identify this category and separate it from the rest of the dark wares, even though I have supposed that most of the settlements probably did produce such a pottery. The light coloured ware, instead, is very difficult to interpret, especially since no indication is given on the type of paste and temper it has. Shapes of these appear to be essentially bowls with quite thick walls. Light coloured mineral tempered pottery will be found at Byblos and at the Beqa’a sites too, and might have some relation with this category.

A Ceramic Production with Abundant White

Most surprising is the pottery production of Tell Sukas because of the great quantity of White Ware. Next to this is “DFBW”, that usually constitutes the majority of the production (except in levels 10-9), but White Ware follows from very near (table 10.1). Apparently, furthermore, no Coarse Ware, as seen in the DFW sites of the Amuq and Rouj, is found. Dark Faced Burnished Ware is mainly moulded into bowls, but many jars are found too, mostly with a neck (Pl. 10.1b). Necks are generally straight and only very slightly flaring. The typical lug handles seen in the Amuq and at most sites are frequent in the earlier levels, but are also present in the later ones. At times, the interior is not burnished, but Riis and Thrane think that this is only in the closed jars, where the interior was not well reachable by hand. Bowls would instead be burnished both inside and outside.

With this little data it is not very simple to discuss relations and the sharing of material culture between this site and the others analysed, but a few interesting considerations can be made. Ras Shamra, which is the nearest settlement and, as Sukas, is on the coast, shows significant differences in its pottery production. The coarse ware (poterie friable and poterie matt), for example, of phases VB and VA, is not found at Tell Sukas and no mention is made of Hassuna Husking Trays. “DFBW”, even though poorly described (probably also due to the very limited number of sherds present), does have the characters of the traditional dark burnished pottery, with lug handles and mostly bowl shapes. Unfortunately, no information on surface colour,

One single sherd decorated with pattern burnish and one with impressed decoration have been found (in N11), thus indicating either that the periods represented at this site did 214

10 – The Moulders of White Ware

those noticed at Judaidah (Braidwood 1940, 198 and Pl. XXII). Amongst a very small sample of sherds kept in the Oriental Institute of Chicago, that I was able to see, colours of the burnished pottery appeared to be very dark; Braidwood mentions light tones and reds too, though. Impressed decoration is present, as well as incised decoration. The latter, found in a few samples at Sukas, will be typical of Byblos. Links with the Lebanese coastal site become even more evident, with the finding of incised white filled decoration on medium-coarse, mineral tempered ceramics. Next to these is a Cord Impressed Ware, another definite Byblos character (Braidwood 1940, 200 and Pl. XXIII). This is burnished in the interior, whilst the exterior has cord impressions.

thickness and degree of burnishing is given. It does not appear, though, that very fine, Mersin class 5 sherds are present. If link with the traditional DFBW there is, and so it does appear to be, this would be with the category corresponding to Mersin class 3 (and, later, with the class 4 cooking ware). Two decorated fragments are decidedly too few to theorise on the modes of decoration, and we cannot exclude that they were imported from north – north-east. According to Riis and Thrane, the early Neolithic levels should correlate with Ras Shamra VB and the latest ones go right up to Ras Shamra IVC (Riis and Thrane 1974, 68). Were this the case, other major distinctions would characterise Tell Sukas from the rest of the DFW settlements: the absence of painted pottery and of pattern burnish in the later DFBW (in fact, the only example found is from level 11).

Not much more is given to know about the pottery of this site, but the categories present are quite evident. Cord Impressed Ware was not present at tell Sukas, but all the other categories were; whilst White Ware, very common in the former settlement, was not discovered at Tabbat alHammam. This is quite surprising since it was found at Ras Shamra too, and at other DFBW/DFW sites. Analysis of Byblos pottery, in the following paragraphs, will indicate that these distinctions are most probably chronological more than cultural and that Sukas and Tabbat were probably not occupied at the same time. The ceramic tradition they belong to, though, was apparently the same one and, as will be seen further on, it included other coastal settlements to the south.

A clue to the comprehension of this site’s ceramic production probably comes from the other, more southern, coastal sites of Lebanon (Byblos being the one with the most data), as Sukas does have clear indications of sharing part of the DFBW/DFW tradition, but it also underlines a distinct line of communication and relations. White Ware and Plastered Ware were shared by Ras Shamra and by inland settlements as those of the Rouj and Hama, but in none of those cases were they as abundant as in Tell Sukas, and as they will be in more southern sites, fact this which might indicate that the former had “imported” the tradition of making these containers from somewhere else (as Sukas, and Byblos, for example). As will be seen below, furthermore, many other “anomalies” of the Sukas assemblage are easily explained when comparing it to the Lebanese sites.

BYBLOS

10.4.1

Excavating the Early Phases of Occupation

Many important archaeologists passed by, stopped and worked at Byblos, a site whose name rings a bell also for non archaeologists. The site was occupied till modern times, and has a glorious past, especially in historical periods.

The parallels with the coastal sites will also bring to reconsider the chronological interval proposed for the site by Riis and Thuesen.

10.3

10.4

TABBAT AL-HAMMAM

The settlement is composed by two tells, 350 m from the sea, on the Lebanese coast, and the Neolithic phases uncovered are on the highest of the two (Dunand 1973, 2). Excavated by the French, its Neolithic levels received a lot of attention and excavation of those phases was quite extensive. 3000 m² have in fact been unearthed. Excavation in those years did not use the methods and theories common today and levels were arbitrarily set every 20cm, thus they do not correspond to any real period, ancient surface or change of soil fill (Dunand 1973, xi). Levels LVIII-LVI represent the lower Ancient Neolithic and levels LV-XLVI represent the upper Ancient Neolithic. The following two levels (XLV-XLIV) have been correlated to the Halaf period and called Byblos Middle Neolithic. 2 radiocarbon dates are available for the Upper Ancient Neolithic, but one of the two has a far too long standard deviation to be considered reliable. The other sample would date this Byblos phase to the last couple of centuries

On the Syrian coast, at a slightly lower latitude than that of Hama, is the settlement of Tabbat al-Hammam. The site is actually half way along the road linking Byblos to Sukas. Surveyed and tested by Braidwood in the ‘30s, the site’s Neolithic ceramic assemblage has been by him assimilated to that of Judaidah, which, need it not be said, he certainly knew well. Neolithic layers were only recovered on the bottom of trench TT1, though, thus providing little architectonic and stratigraphic data. Information from this site is very little, but an analysis of the ceramic description might actually bring to assimilate the site more to Byblos and the Beqa’a sites than to the other DFBW/DFW producing communities, as will be clearer later on in the chapter. DFBW is present at the site, some of which with ledge handles and applied elements, some button shaped, like 215

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Sample

Level

BP

st. dev.

GrN 1544 W 627

U.A.Neol U.A.Neol

7360 6550

70 250

1 sigma max min 6330 6091 5711 5299

2 sigma max min 6394 6031 5976 4861

Table 10.2 - 14C dates from the Upper Ancient Neolithic levels of Byblos. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, M. Stuiver et al. 2000. The hatched date is not considered because of its too high standard deviation. From Hours et al. 1994, 89 and Dunand 1973, 34.

of the VI millennium BC (table 10.2), which would be more or less contemporary to Mersin XXVII (table 2.4).

Mineral tempered ceramics, which are the other category of vessels present in Byblos 1A, are mostly smoothed or burnished in surface, and their colours range from light cream to brown and darker shades (Karam 1976, 157). Pastes are generally quite fine and examples of very fine ware are mentioned too (Karam 1976, 156). Shapes are the usual, simple bowls, short collared jars and hole-mouth jars (Unfortunately, illustrations for these sherds are minimal and we thus have to rely on verbal descriptions). Lugs are present on some of the latter, which were probably used as cooking pots. Impressed decoration is the most used, even though overall not very frequent. Two are the most typical motifs used: the rocker and the cord impressions (Karam 1976, 143). The site of Labwé will show that the development of this cord impressed pottery is probably to be dated later than the appearance of both White Ware and “DFBW” (10.5.2). Other examples of incised and white filled decorations were found; the first will mostly develop in the later period, though. Incised motifs are quite complex and composite, with wavy lines alternating or delimiting dotted areas, triangles, and other geometric forms (Pl. 10.2).

Architectonic remains for these two phases are many and well preserved. Various structures, mostly rectangular and monocellular, but also with annexed rooms which probably functioned as storages, were built with stone walls, hard compacted mud surfaces, or even plastered floors. Dimensions of the structures vary and can be more or less divided into two groups, one of 4 - 5,5 m rectangular rooms and another of 2,75 – 4,5 m. A structure with an oval apse was found in the lower Neolithic levels and another one, similar, in the Upper Neolithic, had a concentration of burials around it and a certain number of small “idols” (Dunand 1960). It is clear that this latter structure had some particular symbolic role and function. Under the floor of the main room, in another structure, a burial pit with bones of at least 9 people was found, again indicating the particular function of this building. Byblos is the first of all the sites I have gone through until now to show clear symbolic and ceremonial indications, the first in which small figurines have been found, and it is also the one with the clearest and most complete architectural plans. This is most obviously due to the extensive and long lasting excavation, which has not been possible at the other settlements, but certainly strange is the apparent absence of major symbolic elements from the DFW horizon. 10.4.2

Whilst the plain dark burnished ware, most abundant in the earlier phases, could remind the Rouj and Amuq DFBW, incised dark burnished ware has been seen until now, only at Sukas, where it was not very abundant. The Beqa’a sites will testify to its use and confirm their analogies and nearness to the Byblos material culture (see 10.5.2). Incised decorations also remind the Late Neolithic communities of southern Syria and Jordan, like the Yarmukian (Kafafi 2001, 51-52). Apparently, the Lebanese area shared those same decorations with the regions in the interior, but using a distinct technological tradition of pottery manufacture, which is that of mineral tempered, burnished and mostly dark coloured wares (Yarmukian incised ware has chaff inclusions). In these last attributes, Byblos sounds more attached to the northern DFW tradition.

The Pottery Production in Neolithic Byblos

The first particularity of the ceramics of Ancient Neolithic Byblos is the absence of coarse, chaff wares. White, calcareous vessels and mineral tempered pots characterised the assemblage. The same composition, as will be seen later on, is that of the Beqa’a settlements, which decidedly form, with Byblos, a unitary regional development.

Middle Neolithic Byblos, phase 1B, sees the disappearance of White Ware and a stronger development of the mineral tempered ceramics, the most frequent decoration of which was, in this period, incision. Motifs are more or less the same ones of the previous period. Vessels tend to get slightly thicker and pastes less fine in this period, behaviour that will be noted at Labweh, in the Beqa’a, too. Very interesting is the presence of complex pattern burnished designs on various sherds, reminding numerous DFBW sherds from the Rouj (2d), Judaidah (B2 or FMR) and Ras Shamra (IVC).

Ancient Neolithic Byblos, or phase 1A, has a quite large presence of White Ware. This will totally disappear in the next, Middle Neolithic Period. Next to this are also plastered sherds, with a calcareous plaster mostly on the inside surface, but in one single case also on the outside (Dunand 1973, Pl. LIII ). This use has already been noted in the Rouj, where it was considered a non-local tradition. Here, amongst a ceramic production characterised by calcium pots, plastered ware appears perfectly in place.

216

10 – The Moulders of White Ware

24

the Rouj persists . It has furthermore been evidenced that the single date from the 1A phase in Byblos corresponds well with that of Mersin XXVII, phase that has in fact been interpreted, from the ceramic assemblage, as correlated with Ras Shamra VA (table 7.6).

Throughout these levels, painted pottery is absent. Some rare fragments will be found in the following Late Neolithic 1C. Again, a similar situation will be seen in the Beqa’a, at Labweh. In this 1C period, mineral tempered pottery becomes thicker and coarser, thus loosing the DFBW look it had in the previous phases. Incised decoration diminishes strongly and becomes less accurate.

Byblos 1B 1A

In general thus, Byblos evidences a very particular ceramic assemblage, partly resembling the DFBW and maybe derived from contacts with the DFBW region, but on the other hand developing its own specific characters. The mineral tempered and burnished vessels, some of which also with impressed decoration (stylistically distinct from that of the north), in part remind the Rouj tradition, whilst the white, calcareous wares are a clear local tradition. Tell Sukas had evidenced a very similar situation. The presence, even though not so frequent, of White Ware, in the Rouj and other DFW settlements, is a further demonstration of links between the two regions. The absence of coarse, chaff tempered ware, which in the DFW villages constitutes the majority of the ceramic production, in the later levels, is yet another proof of the partial autonomy of the two areas in their pottery manufacture. Finally, the frequent and increasing in time use of incised decoration probably indicates strong and preferential contacts and relations of the coastal region with the southern Levant communities, like those of the Yarmukians, in which such decorative technique was extremely common.

Rouj 2d 2c 2b

Ras Shamra IVC VA

Table 10.3 Suggested stratigraphic correspondence between Byblos, Rouj and Ras Shamra.

10.5

THE BEQA’A

10.5.1 Survey and Excavations in the Valley of the Beqa’a, Lebanon Diana Kirkbride started a survey in the Beqa’a in the 60s, which was then carried on by Wescombe and Copeland and revealed a great number of Neolithic sites (Copeland and Wescombe 1966). Internal stratigraphic and chronological interpretations have brought the archaeologists working there to coin a specific nomenclature indicating the different Neolithic phases of occupation: the Labweh phase is the earliest, followed by a Neba’a Faour stage and then by an Ard Tlaili phase, which should correspond to the Halaf period. Links in the pottery production, as well as settlement and ritual characters, are very strong with coastal Byblos. Even though there is DFBW in these sites, their strongly distinct assemblage underlines, as at Byblos, their independent development from that of the DFW horizon.

Such external relations of Byblos both with the northeast and the southeast are maintained in time, even though, later, probably more strong become those with the latter region. The steep increase in incised decoration is the clue to this, but the appearance of pattern burnish decoration in Middle Neolithic Byblos (1B) is a possible testimony of the continued relations with the DFW region.

10.4.2

Labweh

The site of Labweh, which gives the name to the earliest Ceramic Neolithic phase in the Beqa’a, is very near to one of the sources of the Orontes river and has apparently only Neolithic deposits. Its first occupation is PPN. This would make of the site, was excavation resumed, an extremely informative settlement, since it would testify the passage between the PPN and the PN. Unfortunately, part of the settlement has been destroyed by bulldozers, modern terraces and a road that passes right in the middle of it and has dug down to virgin soil (Kirkbride 1969, 46).

Chrono-stratigraphic relations between Byblos and the analysed DFW communities is not very simple, but a couple of comments can probably help in anchoring down the sequence of the coastal site, and comparing it to the chronological tables that are being built as work goes on. Two are basically the elements that can give some clues as to stratigraphic correlations: the temporal distribution of White Ware and the appearance of pattern burnish decoration. The first is exclusively found in Byblos 1A (Ancient Neolithic), whilst the second starts and develops into complex designs in 1B (Middle Neolithic). In the Rouj Basin, White Ware is a 2b and 2c production, whilst complex pattern burnish is typical of the following 2d period. At Ras Shamra, VA is the phase of White Ware and IVC that of complex pattern burnish. It might well be that such typological equivalences reflect a chronological correspondence between these phases (table 10.3). Radiocarbon dates of Ras Shamra (table 7.7) and Byblos (table 10.2) would not seem to argue against this and as for the Rouj dates, the usual problem of a too early position of

Two soundings, A and B, have been made and, even though small, did show some interesting architectural features. Various rectangular structures have been found, with stone wall foundations, plastered floors, hearths and ovens (Marfoe 1995, 45). A particularly well preserved 24 It was noted when comparing Mersin to the Rouj, that the 14C samples of the latter region were apparently systematically earlier than the corresponding dates from the other site.

217

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

was, here, lost. DFW is apparently, here, one single class of ceramics, whilst in those other regions it was more like a “family” (a way of seeing and thinking pottery) including 3 distinct categories, probably complex and composite in meaning and function.

building is quite impressive: with 2 rooms, an open courtyard, walls with two lines of stones and a very well plastered floor. Its plaster is white and compact and continues up the base of the walls, in the interior. A hearth, plastered together with the floor it is on, was discovered in the most ancient Ceramic Neolithic level. From various sections and cuts on the tell, clear traces of red plaster have been noticed. Architectural features, thus, were quite elaborate and developed; probably similar to what has been seen at Byblos (similarities with the latter settlement are also evidenced by the lithic production).

In the following, Halaf period (Ard Tlaili Phase in the Beqa’a), Halaf pottery is seen at the site, and next to it is red and black DFBW, similar to that of Amuq C. Unfortunately very little data is available for the site in this period, but it is most probable that in this later period, ties and inter-regional relations became stronger and the site thus felt the effects of Halaf culture much more than what had been with DFW.

The pottery production of the site started off, in the earliest phase, exclusively with White Ware and “DFBW” (Marfoe 1995, 45). “DFBW” was mostly moulded into bowls, but only one shape was completely visible and it was that of a cooking pot, with lug handles and combed decoration (Pl. 10.3). Copeland states that surface colour was mostly dark (Copeland 1969, 91). Decoration was quite common; apparently not only impressed, but also incised or scratched, as has been noted in Byblos and, even though rarely, in Sukas; thus was absolutely anomalous for DFW.

10.5.3

Neba’a Faour

To the south of Labweh, on the foothills that delimit the Beqa’a valley and very near to the sources of the Nahr ezZeghir is the site of Neba’a Faour. The site has only been surveyed and thus no data on the type of settlement is available, but pottery collections and lithics have dated the site to the Early Pottery Neolithic, probably during a later moment than that testified by Labwe, and to the Halaf period (Copeland 1969, 87).

In the later period, a very hard, mineral tempered pottery, light in surface colour, is found next to the White Ware and the DFBW. It is not a coarse ware, but is in general thicker than the DFBW examples. This is often impressed and incised, or scratched, and reminds strongly that of Byblos. Comb impressions are frequent, again, as evidenced in Byblos.

White Ware is very common and next to it is the dark burnished ware. Since these are surface collections, stratigraphic considerations cannot be made, but according to Marfoe (by comparison with the other Beqa’a sites) White Ware should be more common in the earliest phases and tend to diminish later (Marfoe 1995, 51), as has indeed been demonstrated by Byblos. According to Krause there are both DFBW and Dark Faced Unburnished Ware (Krause 1970, 93). Colours are grey, brown or black, but mostly of lighter tones; there are sherds decorated with impressions and many cases with a highly burnished surface. The comb-like impressions noticed at Labweh are present here too and at times the whole external surface of the bowl is covered with these lines. Shapes are bowls and hole-mouth jars, some with applied button-like shapes or lugs.

Coarse Ware is not present in Labweh, and its function is probably carried out, here, by the White Ware and/or the incised and comb impressed. The first was mainly moulded into large bowls, many of which on a pedestal and with a flaring profile (Pl. 10.4). Painted pottery too was not seen until the arrival of Halaf sherds. A repetition of the Byblos and Sukas behaviour and ceramic development is thus noticed at this site. This very rapid description of the Labweh ceramics, even though still leaving many gaps in the comprehension of its developments, indicates quite clearly the partial extraneousness of Labweh potters from the DFW tradition. As Byblos, this site’s main production, especially in the most ancient phases, is white, calcareous pottery. Mineral tempered, dark ceramics are present, but their attributes and characters are not always those of the northern DFBW sites; the use of incised, next to impressed decoration, reminds strongly the Byblos assemblage and thus confirms its local character and its contacts with other communities, like those of the Yarmukian. It is probable that the dark mineral tempered wares did derive from northern influences, but were then re-elaborated with local attributes and techniques. The fact that DFW does not seem to be present in the complexity of its variability (very fine and polished, medium and burnished inside and outside, cooking pots) might indicate that the meaning which was linked to this pottery in the Amuq, the Rouj and Mersin,

As at the previous sites, it is extremely difficult, without a photograph, to say whether such a description corresponds to that of the known DFBW. Certainly, shape and surface treatment recall the dark burnished tradition (Pl. 10.3), but how identical or similar these productions are is impossible to say without looking and comparing the actual sherds or at least pictures of them. The decoration does not indicate similarities with the northern DFW area, but with Byblos and Labweh. As for Labweh, I think we can probably say that the ceramic tradition of this site was distinct from that of the Rouj, Amuq, etc., and that “DFW”, indeed present, was “freely interpreted” and produced with particular, “coastal” characters. Neba’a Faour probably shared its pottery tradition with the other Beqa’a settlements and with Byblos, with whom it also showed many similarities in the lithic production. Again, the fact that the Rouj basin and 218

10 – The Moulders of White Ware

by a broad category of DFW, apparently not particularly fine in paste and with the most common bowl and holemouth jar shapes. Straight necked jars are present too and remind the Amuq and Rouj quite strongly. The fact that the three classes of DFW are not distinguishable indicates, as I have already pointed out above, that the function of DFW here might have lost its ideo-social component, or that its role had changed compared to the one it had for the Rouj and Amuq communities.

Ras Shamra, amongst others, have White Ware is a proof of contacts between these two distinct regions; the DFW sites have White Ware and the White Ware sites have a “DFW” or DFW-like pottery. 10.5.4

Ard Tlaili

The site which gives the name to the last phase of Ceramic Neolithic in the Beqa’a, Ard Tlaili, is just east of Ba’albek, near the sources of the Orontes. It is actually a Halaf period site, thus out of the scope of interest of this research, but I decided to briefly introduce it, because it helps understand the independence of the Beqa’a ceramic tradition from that of the DFW region.

Contacts with the DFW horizon were visible in all sites (Rouj, Ras Shamra and the other more southern Syrian sites as Qal’at el Mudiq, Janoudiyeh, Hama, all have White Ware); the apparent absence of White Ware from the Amuq should not be considered, since a gap in the Judaidah sequence has been hypothesised for the period of maximum distribution of this category and might thus hide the presence of such vessels in that region too. The presence of dark ware, in this coastal region, and that of White Ware, in the DFW area, are the indication of relations between the two areas.

From the layers of a rectangular stone walled structure, typical Halaf painted pottery has been found. Next to this is DFBW, red and black, similar to that of Amuq C, with some cases of pattern burnish decoration, but the rest of the ceramics still follow a distinct development. White Ware is apparently no longer present, but impressed and incised decoration on coarse and medium paste ceramics are still very frequent. Decorations are of all shapes: segments, dots, zig zags, hatches, vertical and horizontal lines (Pl. 10.3). This tradition of decorating, as has been pointed out above, is not proper of the northern, DFBW settlements; in those sites impressions were present, but in more earlier phases and they were never interchangeable with incision. Incision was present on some of the Coarse Ware, where impression was never seen. Furthermore, with the beginning of painted pottery, both impression and incision disappeared. Incised decoration, is instead common in the Yarmukian culture and in general in the communities of southern Syria and Jordan.

The variability and local character of these productions, though, indicate that behind contact and exchange of material culture there was a dynamic process of procurement, knowledge, acquisition and elaboration of techniques and models. It was not simply a matter of import-export, but models were also gained, changed and reproduced locally. Actual import of ceramics probably also took place, but, again, the meaning that this pottery adopted in its new place was not necessarily the one that it had amongst its original producers. That the model of the dark burnished pottery derived from that of the Amuq and related regions, I think there should be no doubt about, since Braidwood, who excavated both Judaidah and Tabbat, assimilates the vessels from these two sites without any doubt or reserve.

Ard Tlaili is evidently later than the other Beqa’a sites and might correspond to Middle Neolithic Byblos or even Late Neolithic, when White Ware is no longer found, but incised mineral tempered pottery is increasing.

The use of impressed and incised decoration on the ceramics, both on the dark faced and on the not so dark mineral tempered wares of the region, is an indication of the partially autonomous development of the coast and Beqa’a from that of northern Dark Burnished Ware settlements. In fact, many of the incised patterns remind the pottery of the Levantine Neolithic communities as those of Wadi Raba and the Yarmukian, with which these populations might actually have been in contact.

In a period in which the wide distribution of Halaf culture tends to flatten differences and create a large, more or less unitary, regional development, the Beqa’a, though involved too, apparently still shows its autonomous characters in the ceramic production, thus underlining its independence. 10.5.5

Byblos, the Beqa’a and their External Relations

Chronological considerations have indicated that relations and contacts with the DFW region were apparently stronger in the earlier period, when plain dark burnished pottery showed clearer similarities with the Ras Shamra and Amuq ceramics. Later developments brought to the increase of incised and comb-impressed ceramics, that are hypothesised to be of south-eastern influence. Contacts with the northern regions though, were not over though, as some rare examples of pattern burnished sherds have been found at Byblos. Tabbat al-Hammam too demonstrates that relations with the north-east continued in this late phase;

I believe that all the above has well evidenced that Sukas, Tabbat, Byblos and the Beqa’a have analogous ceramic assemblages and thus probably belong all to one common cultural unit. The Beqa’a valley, which is only a little more than 120-140 km south-south-west of Hama, and the other two sites (Byblos and Sukas) have evidenced a ceramic production that, though clearly denoting influence and link with that of the Dark Faced Burnished Ware producing communities, has characters of its own. The main vessel production was, initially, that of White Ware, accompanied

219

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

the absence of White Ware, that has been dated only to Byblos phase 1A, testifies for a probable late occupation of this settlement, when cord impressed pottery develops 25 more strongly . The recognition of many dark burnished sherds of Amuq character at Tabbat al-Hammam, thus indicates that movement and communication between these regions was still underway.

impressed and incised local ceramics develop parallel to and independently from the Halaf ones. In conclusion, I believe it quite safe to hypothesise strong links between Sukas, Tabbat, Byblos and the Beqa’a, all so-called White Ware producers. Tabbat is part of this group despite the absence of proper White Ware, because this is probably due to chronological distinctions rather than cultural ones. Connections and relations with the DFW horizon are evidenced by the Dark Faced Burnished and Unburnished ware, but the southern sphere of influence would appear to me strong too, and probably prevails over the former in the later pre-Halaf phase.

These stratigraphic and chronological observations, together with the acknowledgment of the early development and disappearance of White Ware (no longer found in Byblos 1B), bring to a consideration on the temporal interval of occupation of Sukas and Tabbat alHammam; the former has White Ware, but no cordimpressed, whilst the latter evidences the exact opposite situation. This might be taken to indicate an early occupation of Tell Sukas and a later one of Tabbat. Both sites, though, share their material production with Byblos and the other mentioned settlements. Sukas and Tabbat are both on the coast and positioned at a quite short distance one from the other. The possibility that they might be occupied by people participating to the same regional developments, in different, subsequent periods, is certainly a very interesting and intriguing possibility. Might they be the same people, who have moved?

10.6

RAMAD

10.6.1

In a Fertile Plain with Oak and Pistachios

Slightly to the south east of the Beqa’a, in Syria, is the site of Ramad, first surveyed and then excavated, by the French archaeologist de Contenson, the same one to which the Ras Shamra prehistoric excavations are due. As the Beqa’a settlements, its position was optimal for a dry farming and pastoral community, as the plain is very fertile and rain water annually exceeds 200 mm.

Other sites, as Hachbai, Kirri, Kubbah I and Shamsine I (Copeland 1969) have been found during the surveys in the Beqa’a, that probably belong to the same periods and have a similar ceramic production, thus indicating a broadly unitary behaviour of all the Beqa’a settlements (Copeland and Wescombe 1966, 8 and plates 7-10). More recent surveys have identified yet other sites that show strong similarities with coastal Byblos (Azoury 1976, 148). Other Lebanese sites too, like Jaita I, Nahr Damour, Ras Beyrouth, Batroun, Bdita and Jaita (Copeland and Wescombe 1965, 72, 90, 110, 117) might show, at analysis, a similar situation (Artin 1994).

The excavation of the tell has exposed three main levels, the first two of which dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, and the third to the Pottery Neolithic. Clear traces also indicate the presence of a later Ubaid occupation at the site. In the PPN levels a well developed architecture has been discovered, with structures with stone foundations and mud brick walls, whilst level III, the Pottery Neolithic one, has only revealed pits (de Contenson 1974). This has brought de Contenson to hypothesise an increase in transhumance, possibly confirmed by the economic data, which shows an increase in domestic animals in period III (de Contenson 1971, 285).

Interesting is to note that no Hassuna influence is seen amongst these coastal settlements. No Husking Trays and no coarse chaff pottery. In my view, this is a further demonstration of the autonomy of development and traditions of this “White Ware horizon” from that of the dark burnished ceramics. In the following Halaf period things seem to be slightly different. Halaf pottery is in fact found in the Beqa’a. Partners, modes and mechanisms of relations are probably different in this period, even though, in this phase too, the coast and Beqa’a do seem to evidence a slight autonomy. In fact, the two pottery traditions do not mix so much as they had in the previous period. Painted Halaf Ware remains such and so does the DFW; the

10.6.2

The Pottery Production at Ramad

Phase III of Ramad, has been divided by de Contenson in 3 subphases (A-C) because of distinctions and developments of the ceramic production (de Contenson 1967b ). These three moments are very similar to those just described for the Beqa’a and, in fact, the ceramics of Ramad show strong analogies with those. White Ware, which is very abundant in period IIIA (the earliest), appears already in the Pre-Pottery period II (de Contenson and van Liere 1966a, 169). Typical shapes are the by now well known bowls on a pedestal (Pl. 10.4). Some sherds have traces of red paint, character this which has only been noted in the Plastered Painted Wares of the Rouj.

25

This absence might simply be due to the small dimension of the sounding (22m²), that didn’t uncover any late levels of occupation. Was the late date of the settlement confirmed, instead, interesting would be to note that Sukas and Tabbat, two very near sites, were not inhabited at the same time (the former is in fact only dated to an early phase).

Next to White Ware, in phase II, there are also examples of a very soft pottery, very low fired, which de Contenson 220

10 – The Moulders of White Ware

relations, with the north and with the south (Wadi Raba, Yarmuk…), exactly as has been seen for the Beqa’a and Byblos. Furthermore, the lithic production confirms both contacts with the north (Amuq and Byblos points are present) and with the south (there are similarities with the lithic industry of Tell el-Farah and Jericho) (van Liere and de Contenson 1963, 181; de Contenson and van Liere 1964, 122).

assimilates to that of Ras Shamra VB (potérie friable). The fact that no similar pottery is ever mentioned in the more northern White Ware settlements, found in between Ramad and Ras Shamra, does leave some doubts to this hypothesis though. Level IIIA is characterised by White Ware, as at Byblos, Sukas, the Beqa’a and many other settlements of the region. Next to this one is a dark burnished ware, brown in colour, with fine mineral inclusions and a burnished, but at times polished surface. Shapes of this pottery are simple bowls, hole-mouth jars, goblets and small jars with a slightly flaring rim or neck. The variety of shapes is apparently greater than what noticed in the Beqa’a, but I believe this is mainly due to the greater quantity of material retrieved, than to an actual poorness of that region. Shapes are clearly those noticed on the DFW, but small elements as ring bases do appear uncommon. A small lip for pouring from a jar, too, is something quite rare. The presence of incised and scratched decoration on the dark burnished ware is a further and strong indication of the autonomy of this production from the northern one of the Rouj, Amuq and neighbours (Pl. 10.5). As Byblos, the Beqa’a and other sites, Ramad has put to use its own decorative style on the dark burnished wares, which might indeed derive from the northern tradition (Pl. 10.5). No pattern burnish is ever indicated for the Ramad dark ware. Typical northern impressed decoration, though, is present.

In period IIIB White Ware starts decreasing, whilst, in proportion, Dark Burnished pottery increases, but no major changes appear in the attributes of the two categories. Period IIIC, instead, sees the introduction of a mineral tempered ceramic, light in surface colour and, at times, with incised decoration. This is probably the same ceramic class as that seen in the later phases at Labweh (10.4.2), thus confirming the link between Ramad and the Beqa’a. Differently to what occurred in the other sites, Halaf influence does not appear to have touched this site, which was thus most probably abandoned in this period, since all around it Halaf characters are visible. 10.6.3

Radiocarbon dates are available for the Preceramic levels of Ramad, but not for phase III. Dating phase II, though, might help position Ramad in respects to sites as Ras Shamra, with which it shows clear links in its material culture.

I say “probably” derived from the north because, at this point, doubt might arise arguing in favour of an independent origin of this dark burnished ware, or of indirect influence by the DFW tradition. In fact, so many of its characters have changed from those traditionally seen and described in the Rouj, Amuq and Cilicia, that one might be brought to think that the production of dark and burnished ceramics might actually be autonomous. Distances between these regions, though, were relatively little, especially if thinking of Neolithic, very often pastoral, communities, which were moving frequently between these villages. The contemporaneity of developments, too, might argue against a totally independent origin of the dark mineral ceramics at Ramad. Pottery production of Ramad and the nearby settlements is partly autonomous, but also exhibits the result of external Sample

Phase

Context

GrN GrN GrN GrN GrN GrN GrN

II II III or II II II II or I I final

Qu. Qu. Qu. Qu. Qu. Qu. Qu.

4426 4427 4823 4822 4827 4826 4428

H 10 - 50 cm C8 - 250 cm C8, 165cm M4, 180cm C8, 250cm H10, 50cm C8 - 510 cm

Absolute Chronology

The first date (table 10.4) appears to be too early in respects to the others, but the remaining dates for period II overlap perfectly, suggesting a date of approximately 70406643 BC (when considering the 2 sigma interval). The best overlap of dates for Pre-Pottery Ras Shamra was around 7000 BC (see table 7.7), thus more or less contemporary, or slightly earlier, than Ramad. Considering that de Contenson hypothesises a gap between phases II and III, the pottery developments at Ramad should probably be coincident with those of Ras Shamra VB-A (maybe even later), fact this with reinforces the hypothesis of contacts between these areas.

BP

st. dev.

8210 7920 7880 7900 7920 8210 8200

50 50 55 50 50 50 80

Calib BC (1 σ) max min 7324 7082 7030 6668 6978 6645 7026 6652 7030 6660 7324 7082 7447 7077

Calib BC (2 σ) max min 7450 7076 7040 6643 7035 6592 7041 6614 7050 6643 7450 7076 7516 7054

Table 10.4 - 14C dates from Ramad. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, M. Stuiver et al. 2000. Dates published from de Contenson and van Liere 1966b, 175; Radiocarbon 9, 1967, 129; de Contenson 1967a, 21.

221

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

In fact, similar and synchronous evolutions in the ceramic production of neighbouring regions are undoubtedly indicators of existing relations between the two areas.

white, calcareous vessels had already disappeared also on the coast. Confirmation of this last point, though, can only be searched in further excavation and stratigraphic data.

On the basis of analogies in the pottery production, a tentative correlation between phases of occupation can be made, which is for the moment not refuted by the absolute chronologies (table 10.5).

No more can thus, at the moment, be concluded for this site, positioned just at the north of the Beqa’a’ valley. Indices do tend to see the settlement as having similar ceramic production as that of the Beqa’a, Ramad and probably Byblos, even though incised pottery does not seem to be as frequent and a couple of chaff tempered sherds are reported, whilst they never appear amongst the coastal site. No other known settlements of this period, would fit with the Tell Nebi Mend assemblage though; I would thus prefer to believe, for the moment, in a lack in data and assimilate this northern, Syrian site to the coastal and Beqa’a settlements.

Ramad IIIC IIIB IIIA

Byblos 1B 1A

Rouj 2d 2c 2b

Ras Shamra IVC VA

Table 10.5 - Tentative and provisional stratigraphic relation between two DFBW sites (Rouj and Ras Shamra), Ramad and Byblos.

10.7

10.8 RELATIONS BETWEEN WHITE WARE PRODUCING SETTLEMENTS AND THE DFW HORIZON

TELL NEBI MEND

In the Homs-Tripoli gap (this area is generally considered to be more or less the border between northern and southern Levant ) is the site of Nebi Mend, near the modern Syrian city of Homs, of which unfortunately very little on such early levels of occupation has been published. Excavation of the site started, by the University of London (UCL), in 1975 and has reached the Neolithic levels in small soundings within the large trench VIII, that have yielded remains of mud walls and floor fragments (Parr 1998; Mathias and Parr 1989, 16). Ephemeral traces of lime plaster have also been found.

Tell Ramad has substantially confirmed what the Beqa’a sites, Byblos and Tell Sukas had shown, and so it would appear for Tell Nebi Mend too. From an analysis of the ceramic production of these sites, relations with the tradition of Dark Faced Burnished Ware producers is evident, but it is also apparent that the two areas do not belong to the same cultural horizon. White Ware is a central characteristic of all the sites of the Lebanese coast and hinterland, of Sukas and of Ramad. Its importance, in the earliest phases of occupation of these sites, is equivalent or even stronger than that of the dark, mineral tempered ware produced. Examples of White Ware outside this area, within the DFW horizon, underline that influence in material culture was bilateral and not only coming from the DFW region. Exchange and imitation were thus in both directions.

The site is reported to have, in this period, pottery of DFBW tradition. This is described as a mineral tempered, black and polished pottery, the shapes of which are difficult to reconstruct. Flat bases are visible amongst the sherds, fact this not very common amongst the Mersin DFbW and generally found in the Amuq, Rouj and Mersin only in later phases of the DFbW evolution (phases B and 2c-d). No impressed decoration or pattern burnish is mentioned for this site, but we should probably wait for a definite publication to be sure of this.

The relevance that DFW had, within the ceramic assemblage of these villages is a central point in evaluating the cultural nearness of the Lebanese area to the DFW horizon. In fact, whilst it will be seen that, for example, contemporary sites on the Euphrates have quantities of dark mineral wares which do not reach, at times, 10% of the assemblage, and are often much less, in this case, the DFW is the first or second (after White Ware) category of ware produced. The degree of alikeness and similarity between pottery manufacture of the Rouj and Byblos appears to be much stronger than that of the Rouj and the Upper Syrian Euphrates area. In fact, the Lebanese region shared a large part of the ceramic assemblage with the Rouj and other DFW sites.

Next to this dark and polished pottery is another mineral tempered ware, medium-coarse in paste and light coloured (Parr 1983). This is characterised by cord or basket impressions throughout the whole vessel body. The illustration of some of these sherds and the description do recall the Ramad, Byblos and Beqa’a sites, where next to the dark burnished ware was this cord impressed and scratched pottery (Mathias and Parr 1989, fig. 6). Mathias and Parr, too, argue in favour of a link of this site with the Levantine coastal tradition, represented, amongst the others, by Byblos, Sukas and Tabbat al Hammam. The White Ware, characteristic of the coastal and Beqa’a sites, has never been mentioned, until now, for Tell Nebi Mend (Mathias 2001). This, as at Tabbat al-Hammam, could be due to chronological factors, as the settlement might be occupied only in the later pre-Halaf phases, when the

Strong influences derived also from the south and east, from Jordan, and are well visible in the incised decoration, so common in later Byblos, Ard Tlaili and the late phases of the other Beqa’a sites. The paste and texture of the pots,

222

10 – The Moulders of White Ware

though (type and quantity of inclusions, firing), rather appear to me as those of the DFW. Colours are not always so dark, class distinctions do not appear to be the same as at Judaidah, or in the Rouj, and decoration is at times incised. This, apart from indicating an autonomous production, might underline a distinction in the role of DFW. This abundance of cord impressed and incised, mineral tempered ceramics, together with the plain, dark and burnished vessels, is that which has allowed to assimilate Tabbat al-Hammam and Tell Nebi Mend to this regional development too. Though data from all these sites is still quite limited, at a first rough look, these appear to share their pottery production with that of the other coastal and Beqa’a sites. For both I have hypothesised a slight chronological distinction, that would explain the absence of White Ware. The absence of chaff tempered pottery, characteristic of the Amuq, Rouj and Ras Shamra, from this region, is a further indication of autonomy (as the presence of cord impressed pottery). The absence of painted ceramics further underlines the distance with the DFW area, where painted decorations appear well before Halaf influence. Major elements, thus, argue for the autonomy and independence of the ceramic production of the coastal regions, even though sure and strong similarities with the DFW horizon testify for fixed and constant relations with it. Why then, did these communities adopt DFW? One possible reading of the matter could be given by the technological properties of the other ceramics produced by these coastal sites. Certainly, White, calcareous ware could not be used on fire. Yarmukian pottery, the other category that these communities, later on, apparently got to know, might have then been used for that scope, even though not very resistant to thermal shock, but that came later (Orrelle and Gopher 2000, 299). The dark, mineral tempered ceramics were basically, for the first period, the only vessels that the inhabitants of these coastal areas could use for cooking. According to such an interpretation, DFW and its underlying technology would not be exchanged and taught because of the prestige of its vessels or their use in symbolic and ritual occasions (as in many situations of artefact exchange), but rather for their practical and revolutionary property of being able to resist exposition to direct flames. This would also justify the often totally distinct style with which this category of pottery was treated and decorated; in the case of the DFW groups, where I hypothesised that this pottery was used in moments of social feasting and interaction, this was never the case.

223

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

224

10 – The Moulders of White Ware

225

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

226

10 – The Moulders of White Ware

227

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

228

11 TOWARDS THE EUPHRATES AND BEYOND 11.1

EXTERNAL RELATIONS WITH THE EAST

The Amuq and Rouj sites, as well as other settlements of DFW/DFBW producers, have shown, in the immediately pre-Halaf layers, evidence of contacts with the East: Husking trays, even though rare, are the strongest clues of relations with the Hassuna culture of northern Jazira. Communication with such regions must have necessarily passed through the middle coarse of the Euphrates, the Khabur and Balikh valleys, and the Neolithic communities that were occupying such regions could have been the possible “middlemen” in this route of interrelations. Faura and Le Mière argue that the pottery production of the sites along the Middle Euphrates orbits within the SyroCilician ceramic tradition (Faura and Le Mière 1999, 288). They thus argue for a cultural proximity of the Syrian regions and the most western fringes of Mesopotamia. Even though evidence of contact is well documented, I believe that the distribution and classification of ceramics indicate a rather complicated series of relations. The Euphrates sites (Dja’de Mughara, Kosak Shamali, Halula, Hammam Seghir) and also the more eastern Khabur and Balikh sites (Sabi Abyad, Assouad) are all characterised by a mainly vegetal tempered pottery. Mineral tempered wares are present, but their attribution to DFW is not always sure: in some cases the vessels are not burnished and in others the surface colour is not dark. These “middle” regions will be strongly involved, a little later, in the expansion of Halaf culture from the east; it is my opinion that in this earlier stage too their pottery production indicates stronger links with the east than with the western, DFW horizon. Dark burnished pottery is present in some of the Euphrates sites, thus testifying influence and contact with the west. Its definition and its comparison with the “traditional” DFBW, though, is still debated. Even though the general characters (mineral temper, darkish colour and variable burnish) of the DFW are at times observable, there is, for the moment, no parallel in its evolution and changes in time with that noticed in the west, nor are the known decorations always represented. Shapes too, even though rather simple and common, not always repeat those characteristic of Rouj and Amuq DFBW/DFW. The intent of this chapter will thus be that of briefly going through the pottery assemblage of the Euphrates and Balikh

sites (with a quick comment on the Khabur too), solely with the aim of identifying similarities with the western ceramics. In doing so, I shall start from Tell Sabi Abyad, even though it is one of the most eastern and thus more distant settlements from the DFW region. This choice is due to he fact that the pottery of most of these sites has been studied and published by one single scholar, Marie Le Mière, who mostly refers to the Sabi Abyad pottery, this too by her published, for comparative and descriptive considerations. The analysis and comprehension of the ceramics of this site are thus preliminary to that of the others.

11.2

TELL SABI ABYAD

11.2.1

Dark Ware on the Balikh

Along the Balikh, on its eastern bank, the settlement of Tell Sabi Abyad, has revealed an important Neolithic sequence. Occupation starts from pre-Halaf, Pottery Neolithic, but the levels that have given the most important architectonic testimonies are those dated to Halaf and those immediately preceding it. The pre-Halaf levels are from 11 to 7; 6 is the most well known burnt village of transitional period, phase to which are dated also 2 other levels (5-4), followed by the Halaf (3-1) occupation. Unfortunately, the levels below 6 have only been dug in a small trench (P15) and have thus given only limited data on the architectural developments of the early settlement. Small cobblestone pavements, pits and building debris have been found. Only the latest two levels 8 and 7 have testified remains of stone and pisé walls. The transitional levels, instead, have attested an extremely complex and extensive village plan, composed of domestic houses and various storage structures. The pottery production of Sabi Abyad is mainly composed by the so-called Standard Ware, quite variable from a technological point of view, but essentially vegetal in temper and light in surface colour (Le Mière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, 129). Surface treatment is mutable, mostly burnished, but many fragments are slipped or simply smoothed. Some are painted, have applied, impressed or incised decoration. Standard Ware sums up to 99,6% of the assemblage, in level 11, and slowly decreases to 79,8% in level 7 (table 11.1). Some impressed, painted and impressed, and incised Standard Ware sherds remind very strongly sherds noticed in the Qoueiq (Pls. 11.1a and

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Mière and Nieuwenhuyse, the colour of these sherds is due to its mineral composition: firing even in an oxidising atmosphere would have left the vessels brownish in colour (Le Mière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, 127). Shapes, quite simple, might be similar to those of the Amuq, and especially so high and straight necked Sabi Abyad DFBW jars from transitional level 6, which are in all similar to Amuq B DFBW shapes, were it not for the red paint (pl. 11.2a), which is never found on the Judaidah vessels. This Sabi Abyad “DFBW” is, at times, painted red (72,5% of the decorated DFBW sherds), incised, impressed (1 single sherd) and also has 2 cases of pattern burnish (Pl. 11.2a-c). This variability in decoration is certainly not typical of western DFbW, which is characterised solely by impressions and by pattern burnish. A dark, red washed, often impressed, mineral tempered ware, has been noted in the Qoueiq, somehow recalling the DFbW, but interpreted as an autonomous production; it could be linked to this Sabi Abyad ware. Again, the Aleppo region (Qoueiq), in between two distinct traditions, would appear to share various traits with both.

8.5), that can thus be interpreted as eastern influences, indicating relations between the two regions. Impressed and incised motives, though, are not frequent at Sabi Abyad (2.34% of the Standard Ware) and, often, painting accompanies the incisions or impressions (Le Mière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, 138) (Pl. 11.1), fact this which is never noticed in the Qoueiq. The painted motifs are in general different from those, rare, of the Qoueiq. Sabi Abyad mostly has repetitions of triangles, either totally filled in or hatched (Pl. 11.1b), which will be seen in various other contemporary settlements to the north and west of Sabi Abyad (but not as far west as the Aleppo area). Very few sherds, strongly resembling the Yumuktepe and Amuq early painted ceramics, are visible in the pre-Halaf levels (Pl. 11.1c). These are possibly of western origin (either their model or the pots proper), as such motives appear decidedly extraneous to the local ceramics. Mineral tempered ware is present at Sabi Abyad, but in much lower quantity than at any of the Syro-Cilician sites. Three classes of pottery with mineral inclusions have been intendified by the excavators: a DFBW, a Grey-Black Ware and a Mineral Coarse Ware. The latter, burnished, with vessel walls thicker than 10mm and a third of the cases with carbon deposits both inside and outside, is extremely rare. This class has been interpreted as that of cooking pots; its low presence would bring me to imagine though that other ceramics too must have been used for cooking. Grey-black Ware never exceeds 3,5% of the total assemblage, sherds are grey or blackish in surface, always burnished, mineral temper is very fine and, most interesting of all, the dark surface colour is apparently not casual but intentionally obtained. Akkermans in fact states that the Grey-black Ware was fired in reducing atmosphere (Akkermans 1989, 109). This strongly reminds the western dark ware tradition: in Mersin, the dark colour of DFbW is intentional, due to the reducing atmosphere reached in the last phase of the firing. This aspect and the fact that surfaces of the Grey-black Ware are always burnished might suggest a direct analogy with the western DFbW. Shapes too would argue in favour of a similarity between these two classes: jars with long straight or flaring necks and carenated bowls, shapes typical of the Amuq and Rouj DFbW, are testified amongst the Grey-black Ware. Decoration though, extremely rare amongst Grey-black Ware (3, out of the 50 pre-Halaf Grey-black sherds have incised and a combination of incised and impressed motifs and no pattern burnish at all is found), would appear to be proper only of the western DFbW.

The description of the distinct Sabi Abyad categories, as I have pointed out above, would seem to argue, in my view, for stronger analogies between the western DFBW and the Grey-black Ware, than with the Sabi Abyad DFBW. Initial reports of the Sabi Abyad team, do reveal some difficulties in the interpretation of the DFB and Grey-black Wares; initially in fact no distinction was made between the two categories and one single class of mineral burnished ware was identified. Even later, when the classes were distinguished, it was often repeated that the Grey-black Ware, macroscopically, would fit Braidwood’s description of the Amuq DFBW better than the Sabi Abyad DFBW (Le Mière, furthermore, in initial analyses of the paste components, refers to 3 analysed samples of Grey-black Ware and suggests, on the basis of their composition, not only a correlation with the western DFBW, but a direct import of these from the west. Le Mière 1989, 234). It is the low presence of calcium in the Sabi Abyad DFBW that has later brought Le Mière to hypothesise a correlation with the Amuq DFBW (Le Mière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, 127 and notes 6 and 7). Could it not be that both the Sabi Abyad DFBW and the Grey-black Ware belonged to a same tradition of dark burnished wares, and maybe be in one case imported and, in the other, locally reproduced? The fact that some of the vessels of these two classes were used in the same way might argue in favour of this. In fact, approximately 25% of the DFBW sherds and 33% of the Grey-black sherds have black sooting on the surfaces, indicating use on fire477. Shapes of these classes furthermore are quite similar. Extremely interesting fragments of a bowl (possibly footed) have been found, in level 6c, with a shape and

What has actually been identified as “DFBW” at Sabi Abyad is another class of ceramics, both black and red in surface colour, but mainly brown, and burnished. Inclusions are apparently quite large, thus excluding the presence of anything similar to the Very Fine DFbW vessels (Mersin class 5). Vessel walls too, are never below 5mm in thickness (Akkermans 1989, 117). According to Le

477

Black sooting has been found also on the Mineral Coarse Ware. Apparently, Sabi Abyad pottery categories have a minor functional specificity than what was noted at Mersin.

230

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

decoration decidedly recalling the footed pattern burnished bowls from Judaidah FMR and from Ain el Kerkh 2d (Pls. 5.8, 6.10, 6.11, 11.2c). Whilst there still is uncertainty in interpreting ceramic categories as deriving from the western DFbW, specific examples clearly testify the existence of contacts and possibly imports from that area.

11.2.2 Stratigraphic Distribution of Pottery and Chronological Assumptions Standard Ware, that does not appear to have parallels with the Syro-Cilician DFBW/DFW horizon, except with the Qoueiq, is the main ceramic production of the site since its very first occupation, thus confirming, as has been said, that the pottery tradition of the two regions was not the same one. Standard Ware is nearly the only category found in level 11 (table 11.1); with level 10 all the other classes start to appear. Grey-black Ware remains, throughout all levels, more or less 1/3 of the DFBW, which increases in time and reaches its maximum in level 7 (15,8% of the assemblage). Even though the percentage of dark ware present in this phase would actually be similar to that found in Mersin, we have seen that analogies with the western DFbW are not very clear; furthermore, the rest of the assemblage is totally different. No occupation phase of Sabi Abyad would thus give the feeling of having taken part in the DFW horizon.

Marie Le Mière’s analyses too, as has been mentioned, have apparently indicated imports of dark burnished ware from the west, as she has identified 3 samples with a totally distinct composition, which is common instead in ophiolithic zones, of which the Amuq is one. One last, but central issue to point out is the fact that the category of DFBW that seems to be found in these eastern regions, the one that was either exported or imitated, was Mersin class 3 (DFbW), thus not the finest, possibly more prestigious ware, nor the kitchen vessels, but the medium paste, burnished, pottery that in the west was of daily use, for food preparation or/and consumption. Finally, as pointed out above, a vegetal tempered impressed pottery typical of Sabi Abyad has been noticed in the Qoueiq region and rare western type painted sherds were uncovered at Sabi Abyad; relations between these two regions are thus amply confirmed. Whilst some ceramics might be imported, it is probable though that others were locally produced and re-elaborated. It should also not be forgotten that the Balikh probably had strong contacts with the north, through the Euphrates, and mineral tempered, burnished ware was quite common in eastern Anatolia too. Not all influences might thus come from the west.

Level

DFBW

11 10B 10A 9 8 7 6 5 4

0,2 1,4 9,1 6,6 11,3 15,8 11,9 15,3 14,5

GreyBlack 0,7 5,5 4,2 3,4 1,9 5,7 4,1

Min. Coarse 0,2 1,1 0,9 2,2 1,6 1 1,3 5,1 8,3

Standard 99,6 96,8 84,5 91,2 82,9 79,8 84,9 73,9 73,1

Table 11.1 - Percentages of the pottery classes of pre-Halaf Sabi Abyad, per level. For the transitional phase (levels 6-4) the total is on the pre-Halaf wares and not on the total sherds found. From Le Mière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, tables 3.4 and 3.17.

Even though the Balikh region appears to have been in contact with the west, and possibly north, Sabi Abyad surely had preferential relations with Mesopotamia, as testified by the high quantity of vegetal tempered ware (table 11.1), by the presence of Husking trays and painted pottery with animal figures, very similar to those of the eastern Umm Dabaghiyah and Hassuna horizons, as well as other applied decoration as semi-moons and dots (Pl. 11.3). Bowls with a painted cross in the interior, too, remind Mesopotamian motifs.

Radiocarbon dates indicate an approximate contemporaneity of Sabi Abyad level 8 with Yumuktepe XXVI-XXV (table 11.2), thus with Amuq B and the Rouj 2c-2d (Akkermans 1991). Two dates are too few though to give a precise chronological correlation; there is furthermore no clue of the length of the preceding and following levels of occupation. Amongst the diagnostic ceramics are the brown pattern burnished bowl, identical to the Rouj 2d and Judaidah JK3 23, which was found in level 6, and two sherds with pattern burnish from levels 8 and 7, similar to Rouj 2c examples. These would confirm the contemporaneity of level 8 with Rouj 2c and Mersin XXVI, as suggested by the radiocarbon dates. Impressed sherds too, though, are seemingly from these same periods, whereas in the west these were earlier, thus giving some problem to the chronological interpretation.

Characters of the pottery production of Sabi Abyad, in sum, argue for an independent tradition from that of Syria and Cilicia, probably nearer to the Mesopotamian one, but with contacts and relations with the west too. The Qoueiq is probably a preferential way of communication with the west. In regards to DFBW, its analogy with the traditional Syro-Cilician one is, in my opinion, still not clear. Local, or at least non-western re-elaborations of this pottery are visible, especially in its decoration, element this that presents major oppositions in considering it a direct import from the DFW communities.

In conclusion, even if the above data is rather poor, it does grant an idea of a general contemporaneity of the pre-Halaf levels in the west with those of the Balikh.

231

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Sample

Level BP

st. dev.

1 sigma

ceramics, thus indicating the regional character of this production.

2 sigma

max min max min

GrN – 16805Liv 8 7145 30

60225931 61555922

UtC – 1009 Liv 8 7080 80

60155842 61575751

The Balikh site of Damishliyya has one new interesting category of pottery that the other neighbouring sites do not evidence. Next to the chaff tempered ceramics (80% of the whole assemblage), is a pottery with mixed, plant and mineral inclusions (Akkermans, 1993, 34), which in the lower pottery layers of the site (3-4), is at times grey or darkish coloured. This is furthermore, in 50% of the cases, burnished. Its mixed inclusions, though, argue for an independence of its development from that of the western DFW.

Table 11.2 - 14C dates from the pre-Halaf levels of Sabi Abyad. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, M. Stuiver et al. 2000. From Akkermans 1996, x.

11.3 OTHER SETTLEMENTS

BALIKH

AND

NEIGHBOURING

Tell Assouad, some 20 km north of Sabi Abyad, confirms the independent character of the ceramic production of this area from that of the west. Only the earliest two levels (VIII-VII) of this site have revealed ceramics and, as for the other Balikh site, the majority of the production is plant tempered (Cauvin 1972; Le Mière 1979, 12). There are three radiocarbon dates from Assouad, all of which with a very high standard deviation and non-coherent among themselves, thus considered as unreliable. According to such dates, level VIII would be dated to the second half of the VIII millennium (2 sigma interval is 7750-7050 BC), a date corresponding, in the west, to the Pre-Pottery phases. The extreme rarity of painted sherds might indeed agree with an early date for Assouad levels VIII and VII, but certainly not so old.

Abu Hureyra, which is on the Euphrates, to the west of the Balikh, is mainly a Pre-Pottery site, and thus has only rare ceramics, but, again, this site too, indicates its autonomy from the western tradition. Ceramics are mostly chaff tempered and light in colour. Marie Le Mière has hypothesised that one single sherd might have been imported from the west (Le Mière, 1989, 57; 2000, 532-3). This was grey in colour and burnished, and its composition suggested a similarity with other DFBW she had analysed in the neighbouring sites.

11.4

FURTHER EAST. THE KHABUR

To the east of the Balikh is the Khabur river, the last large “frontier” before the Jabal Sinjar area of development of the Hassuna culture. Neolithic settlements on the Khabur strongly evidence contacts with that area, visible mostly in the pottery production. Tell Kashkashok, just north of the modern city of Hasseke, is one of these sites. Painted ceramics remind the Umm Dabaghiyah ones and the later Hassuna (Matsutani 1991, 27). Some motifs are exactly like those that have been seen at Sabi Abyad and thus indicate contacts between the two areas. All these vessels are chaff tempered, and form the great majority of the assemblage. Husking trays are present too. Tell Kashkashok is thus essentially a Hassuna site, well within the Mesopotamian tradition. Yet, even in this site, some mineral tempered pottery is present. Little more than 4% of the total assemblage in level 3, the level corresponding to Hassuna 1a, has mineral inclusions and a tendency to dark surface colours. This is always burnished and at times also has a slip, but with no surface decoration. Shapes are not typically western, as most profiles have a distinct carena. These do not, thus, suggest any stylistic connection with the western, DFW horizon, even though the exchange of technological attributes cannot be excluded. Considering that the overall assemblage is different and that the Balikh sites, nearer to the Amuq than the Khabur, have no indication of this dark burnished ware, I would suspect an independence of this category from the more complex and characteristic Amuq and Rouj DFW. It is probable that mineral tempered ceramics of western origin arrived here, as contacts are suggested by the presence of eastern ceramics in the DFW region, but the particularity of shapes

Next to the vegetal tempered pottery, Assouad has gypsum plaster vessels. Even though the vessels might physically look like the White Ware seen in the west, they should not be assimilated; technology, use, and durability is completely different. Furthermore, they are obtained with a completely distinct process, from carbonate calcium (chapter 11; Copeland 1979, 254). As for the mineral tempered ceramics present at Assouad (classes D and E), even though at times they do have a polished surface, which might recall the DFBW, there light (cream, beige, light brown) or red surface colour and the oxidising firing atmosphere underline their autonomous character. In the case of Assouad, thus, the pottery production does not appear to indicate western contacts. The simple presence of mineral tempered ceramics, in fact, is by no means evidence of contacts with the western, DFW tradition. Certainly, seen the nearness with Sabi Abyad, which instead has dark pottery, such absence is strange; a possible explanation of this difference, still to be investigated though, could be a chronological. Also at Breilat and Mafraq Slouq, other contemporary Balikh sites, vegetal tempered pottery represents the majority of the ceramic production (Le Mière and Picon 1998, 13). The rarer mineral tempered pottery is again light coloured (Copeland 1982, 253). As at Assouad, there was no trace of incised or impressed ware, nor dark burnished wares, thus again, their assemblages would appear as independent from that of the western DFW (Copeland 1979, 256). Here too are the gypsum plaster 232

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

the river, in Syria, is at its highest water capacity. Just below is the enormous Assad dam.

and the limited technological and stylistic variability of this particular class would indicate only a partial sharing of characters with the DFW; rather we could imagine a local re-elaboration and manufacture of external traditions. Furthermore, similarities with the various attributes of the burnished and mineral wares of the west are so few that we cannot totally exclude the possibility that this mineral ware tradition was totally independent from that of the west.

The most northern Pottery Neolithic site in the Tishrin dam area, Djad’e Mughara, has been excavated by the French archaeologist Eric Coqueugniot. Mainly a PPN settlement, ceramic has been found in its upper layers. No clear stratigraphic distinctions of the pottery layers have been made yet, thus the assemblage is all analysed in one single block. More than 90% of the pottery is vegetal tempered, at times with a burnished surface, smoothed or even polished. Impressed, incised and painted sherds are illustrated amongst the vegetal tempered, which we hadseen examples of at Sabi Abyad, but also in the Qoueiq (Pls. 11.4a, 11.1, 8.5). Next to this, Le Mière reports the presence of DFBW and Grey-black Ware, as well as a coarse mineral tempered pottery (Faura and Le Mière 1999, 286). The picture thus appears extremely similar to that described for Sabi Abyad in the Balikh. Their more western position compared to that of the Balikh might suggest stronger contacts with the Qoueiq, as some painted, mineral tempered fragments, very similar to the early Qoueiq painted pottery (11.4b and 8.3), would suggest. Husking trays are present at Dja’de, thus, again, confirming external relations analogous to those of the Balikh.

Bouqras, at the confluence between the Khabur and Euphrates, even though a very distinct and unique site, evidences a similar situation, with a low quantity of mineral tempered (10% of the total assemblage) burnished or wet smoothed vessels (Le Mière 1989, 59). Some furthermore have a red wash (or slip?) (Akkermans P.A. et al. 1982, 53). The assemblage is in the majority vegetal tempered though. There are also some painted ceramics that reminds those with triangular decorations from Sabi Abyad and the typical Umm Dabaghiyah-Sotto pottery (Akkermans 1989, 128). This site thus, like Kashkashok, shows a much stronger link with the eastern ceramic tradition than with that of mineral tempered wares of the west. If the DFW is to represent a particular horizon and material culture tradition, as has been hypothesised in chapter 9, and if it is linked to a specific use or function, with precise technological characters, then I believe that this mineral tempered and burnished pottery of Kashkashok and neighbouring sites should not be assimilated to the DFW. We could call it “DFW-like”, in the absence of anything better, even though we should remember that its origin from the western DFW is still to be demonstrated.

11.5.2

The University of Tokyo has conducted excavations at the Neolithic site to the south of Djad’e, on the same, eastern bank, at the confluence of the Nahr Sarine with the Euphrates.

Single imported vessels from the west were probably present, as has been previously underlined and as is pointed out by many scholars. Sites as Tell Sotto (Merpert et al. 1981, 57) and Yarim tepe (Hassuna culture) too, in the Jazira, have evidenced possible dark faced burnished sherds, that have been interpreted as imported directly from the west because of their particular paste composition (Bader et al. 1994, 63). Umm Dabaghiyah too is said to have some dark burnished sherds (Kirkbride 1972, 9). The extraneousness of these sites from the DFW tradition is evident, but these sherds, like the Hassuna elements in the west, indicate existing lines of communication between these autonomous kin networks.

11.5 THE SYRIAN NORTHERN REGION. THE TISHRIN DAM 11.5.1

Tell Kosak Shamali

Level 18 is the only one dated to the pre-Halaf period (Nishiaki 2001, 53). This level has been exposed on an area of 12 x 8 m, in sector A. Level 8 in sector B trench too, evidenced a Late Neolithic phase. Architectural remains are very poor, being the area cut and eroded by later occupation. Standing structures have not been found, but pits and many limestone cobbles, which might have originally been used for buildings. Rare traces of hearths are the only other indices from these levels. Class n° sherds % Bulk 1495 92,9 DFBW 31 1,9 Grey Black 46 2,9 Mineral coarse 11 0,7 Min. coarse like 26 1,6 Total 1609 100

EUPHRATES

Table 11.3 - Ceramic classes present in Neolithic Kosak Shamali and their quantities. From Le Mière 2001, 180.

Dja’de Mughara

The engineering project for the construction of the nth dam on the river Euphrates brought to an international salvage project for the survey and rescue excavation of the archaeological sites present in the basin’s perimeter. The dam area is exactly at the border with Turkey, thus where

Affinities of the Neolithic pottery with that of Sabi Abyad and of the Qoueiq are remarkable, as has also been noticed with Djad’e (Nishiaki 1999, 71). Here too, it is Marie Le Mière who has studied the ceramic assemblage, and, as in 233

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

the neighbouring sites and areas, she has recognised, next to a majority of vegetal tempered sherds (all of which included in the “bulk” category of the assemblage; Le Mière 2001, 180), DFBW, Grey-black Ware, Mineral Coarse, and a Mineral Coarse-like (table 11.3).

Faunal and Floral remains have attested, for the Ceramic Neolithic period of Halula an economy based essentially on agriculture and herding. Hunting, in fact, apparently diminishes strongly in comparison to the Pre-Pottery phases.

Recognition and description of these categories is exactly like that of the Sabi Abyad, pre-Halaf levels. Some of the vegetal tempered pottery has painted decoration with triangles, exactly like that of Sabi Abyad (Pl. 11.4d), others are impressed, or painted and impressed, as the Qoueiq ones (Pl. 11.4c) seen also at Djad’e Mughara (Pl. 11.4a) and, rarely, in the Balikh (Pl. 11.1). Shapes are the usual bowls, short necked jars and hole-mouth jars.

11.5.4

The Pottery Production of Halula

Perfectly in line with the ceramics seen until now in the Euphrates valley, Halula is probably more enlightening because of a longer and more systematic excavation and mostly because of the multiphase occupation of the site, which gives valuable data for a diachronic analysis. Three pre-Halaf ceramic phases have been identified at the site, on the basis of the morphological evolution of the pottery (Faura and Le Mière 1999, 283).

As in the Balikh settlement, archaeometric analyses of Kosak Shamali DFBW have demonstrated, according to Le Mière, that its colour is due to composition and not to firing atmosphere, and that the composition is extraneous to the region. Low in Calcium (Ca) and high in Iron (Fe), these vessels, as those ones, should have come from the west (Le Mière 2001, 180).

The earliest phase (III) is characterised mainly by the “Black Series of Halula”, which constituted 44% of the total assemblage. This class has mineral inclusions, a black or brown colour and burnished external surfaces, with a smoothed interior. Interesting is to note the presence of calcite temper and the not very high firing temperature. Shapes were mainly deep bowls, hole-mouth jars, some of which with lugs (Pl. 11.5a). The relation between this “Black Series” and the Grey-black Ware of the other Balikh and Euphrates sites is not too clear, even though these are effectively distinguished by Faura and Le Mière, since Grey-black Ware also appears, later, at Halula.

Radiocarbon dating does not help much in this comparison of sites’ ceramic productions, since the single date published, in 2001, for the Late Neolithic level 18 (Tka11668 6140±120 BP), which calibrated would have a 1σ interval of 5279-4855 BC and a 2σ interval of 5359-4734 BC, is far too late for this phase (Nishiaki 2001, 157)478. 11.5.3 Tell Halula. A Village of Farmers and Herders on the Euphrates

Another 21% of the ceramics had mineral inclusions, but no description of them is given; these are called “série fine lisée” and “série fine polie”, leaving open any kind of interpretation, even on their possible differences. The next 28% of the assemblage is composed by a coarse, vegetal tempered ware, mainly moulded into hole-mouth jars, some of which with handles or applied cordons. The rest of the pottery from Halula has a mixture of vegetal and mineral inclusions, but nothing is said about its surface treatment, thickness or shape.

Since 1989 the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona has been financing a rescue excavation on the Upper Syrian Euphrates, at Tell Halula. 800 m from the western bank of the river, the tell has an archaeological deposit of 11 m and is 8,3 ha large (Molist et al. 1996). The excavators have hypothesised that the dimension of the site, during the Pottery Neolithic, was of 6,8 ha. Investigations have testified an occupation of the site from Middle PPNB to the Ubaid period, thus a quite long habitation of the settlement.

Le Mière and Faura have suggested that the Black series of Halula might have some relations with the Kerkh Ware, thus with the earliest pottery producing levels of the Rouj. This contact with the west might be confirmed by the fact that in this early phase more than 70% of the ceramics are mineral tempered, thus reflecting a situation similar to that of the early DFW horizon.

After the 1997 campaign, the Ceramic Neolithic levels had been uncovered for a total of approximately 1000m² and had resulted into 14 levels of occupation (Molist and Faura 1999, 31). The architectural remains of this period are quite complex and varied. Rectangular and squared plan buildings are found next to round tholoi. Outdoor spaces with hearths and ovens surround many of the structures, indicating that most of the domestic activities probably took place outside. Particularly interesting is the finding of a built canalisation, 20 m long.

In the later periods the percentages of ceramics change drastically and Halula too goes towards a situation similar to that evidenced by Kosak Shamali and Djad’e, where the great majority of ceramics were vegetal tempered. The change in class percentages with the later periods is an indication of a switch in production, which might reflect an innovation in external relations. There might have been an initial stronger orientation to the west and a following move to contacts with the east. Was this the case we would have to imagine a chronological distinction between Halula

478

A couple of dates for the Ubaid period at Kosak Shamali that give nearly identical intervals to the Neolithic one, thus testifying for the probable error in this date (Nishiaki 2001, 157. Tka-11859, from level 10 (Ubaid), dates the phase at 6130±110 BP ).

234

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

Sample

Phase

BP

st. dev.

? ? ? ? ?

Pre-Halaf Pre-Halaf Pre-Halaf Pre-Halaf Pre-Halaf

7530 7690 7440 7710 7880

60 130 80 70 120

1 sigma max min 6439 6268 6644 6425 6402 6223 6637 6459 7038 6535

2 sigma max min 6462 6233 7025 6245 6442 6086 6676 6430 7078 6459

Table 11.4 – Radiocarbon dates from Halula. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, M. Stuiver et al. 2000. BP dates are from Saña Seguí and Helmer 1999, 271.

incised decoration, or a red slip. Next to these, mineral tempered ware is mainly composed by the “fine polie” and the “fine lissée”, followed by rare examples of Grey-black Ware, the “Black series of Halula” and “DFBW”.

III and the occupation phases of Kosak Shamali and Djad’e, with the latter being later. The Radiocarbon dates from Halula do appear to be quite old (table 11.4), but there is little comparative data from which we can see its relation with the other settlements. Only Sabi Abyad has can come in help with a level 8 that would indeed appear to be later in date (table 11.2). The presence at both Kosak Shamali and Djad’e of a PPN occupation preceding the Pottery Neolithic levels and the fact that no interruption in occupation has been suggested by the excavators, though, leaves the issue open. Why then does this early phase have such distinct ceramics, from those of the neighbouring sites? Could this apparent unlikeness be a false witness due to the scarcity of data on vessels’ evolution and the still unclear stratigraphy of the other sites? We will later see that the site of Akarçay gives further data for the interpretation of this early phase along the Euphrates (11.6.2).

Halula basically has mineral tempered ceramics since the beginning of its pottery sequence and, in early phase III, this actually constitutes the majority of the assemblage. Throughout the site’s sequence, distinctions are noted, by the excavators, between various mineral tempered sherds, and these are separated into distinct categories, named either Black series of Halula, Grey-black Ware, DFBW, or simply “fine polie” and “fine lisée”. Relations between such classes are not always evident, nor is the equivalence between Halula DFBW and the Rouj - Amuq DFBW so straightforward. Whilst the Black series might have strong similarities with the category of Kerkh Ware in the west, and thus confirm an early, stronger contact with that region, later dark burnished wares are certainly the result of partially autonomous re-elaborations and productions, as the distinct stylistic choices indicate. This partial independence of manufacture and the overall diversification of the assemblage is, in my opinion, an indicator of separate cultural horizons of Halula (and with it the other Tishrin sites) and the west.

In the second Halula pottery phase (II), the vegetal tempered pottery, as anticipated, increases to 78%, whilst the mineral temper is below 20%, and the mixed, mineral and vegetal tempered sherds decrease too. Amongst the first, which mostly have simply smoothed surfaces, are some with applied cordons under the rim, at times with impressed or incised decoration on them (Pl. 11.5b), and others with small handles or lugs. Shapes are mainly holemouth jars and large, deep bowls. The difference with the earlier chaff ware is thus not major. There are, though, some rare examples with red paint, some slipped and one single fragment of husking tray (Faura and Le Mière 1999, 284). The painted motifs have strong analogies with those noted at Djad’e and with the few known from the Qoueiq (Pls. 11.5c and 9.3), whilst, very strangely, none of the typical Sabi Abyad coloured triangular decorations are illustrated (Pl. 11.1).

Halula confirms the analogies in material culture both with the eastern Mesopotamian traditions and with the western ones. Le Mière calls it a frontier site, within the western tradition, but facing the Mesopotamian influences. Even though relations with the Qouieq are clear, as the identical chaff tempered impressed and incised sherds indicate (Pls. 8.5 and 11.5), as well as some painted decorations, it is my opinion that Halula shows stronger links with the east, at least in the later phase I, when, next to the vegetal tempered wares are husking trays and ceramics with applied decoration. In the earlier phase, when mineral tempered ceramics were more abundant, the Euphrates might have been more oriented to the west. The presence of chaff impressed sherds like those of the west in the latest levels, furthermore, is a clear clue to continuing relations with the west even later. Amuq points too signal constant links with the west.

The mineral tempered pottery is mainly fine and burnished or polished, and some examples have impressed decoration. Rare sherds of Grey-black Ware are decorated with pattern burnish. Here, more than at Sabi Abyad, there are indices that push this category of pottery towards the western DFBW. The last phase (I), still mainly characterised by vegetal tempered pottery (75%), sees the development of a new shape, that of necked jars. As at the other Euphrates sites, at Sabi Abyad and in the Qoueiq, some have impressed or

Last of the Syrian Euphrates sites, Hammam Seghir, just south of the Tishrin dam sites, probably had a similar ceramic production to that seen for these settlements; for 235

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

this site, Le Mière indicates the presence of a dark and burnished pottery, that she assimilates to the DFBW (Le Mière 1989, 56). The whole Middle Euphrates region was thus probably involved in similar external relations, which linked it partly, and probably more strongly, to the east, and partly to the west.

The lithics give a further proof to the autonomy between the Amuq and Kumartepe. In the former region, in fact, lithic production consists mainly of a blade industry, whilst at Kumartepe the majority of instruments are on flakes.

11.6

THE EUPHRATES IN TURKEY

11.6.1

Beyond the Borders

Neolithic settlements not too far south of the Karababa dam, along the Turkish Euphrates, show a totally distinct assemblage, which, we will see, clearly indicates relations with the southern Tishrin settlements.

11.6.2

Following the Euphrates up north, into modern Turkey, other Neolithic sites are encountered. Some are very near those of the Tishrin dam, 20 km, or slightly more, away.

Mezraa Teleilat Höyüğü and Akarçay Tepe

Of very recent excavation and still only preliminarily published are the two sites of Mezraa Teleilat and Akarçay. Both are being investigated within the international project for the salvage of historical sites threatened by the Karkemish dam. Both on the eastern bank of the river and very near to each other, the two communities must have been related. A Turkish team and a mixed, Turkish, Spanish and Japanese team are working at these two sites, which are both revealing extremely interesting remains. Both have uncovered a continuous sequence from the PPN through to the Pottery Neolithic.

Sites as north as the Karababa dam, like Sürük Mevkii and Kumartepe are decidedly out of the DFW diffusion zone, as their pottery assemblages are mainly chaff tempered. Another settlement of this area, on the western bank of the Euphrates is Gritille, but ceramics were practically absent from this site (Voigt and Ellis 1981, 101). Pottery at Sürük Mevkii is poorly fired, light in surface colour, but with grey cores; sherds with mineral inclusions are rare (Stein 1992, 21). Burnished ware, often with handles or lugs, is identical, according to Stein, to that of Kumartepe. These are mostly light in colour, though, thus not exactly what I would call DFBW. Furthermore, many of the burnished sherds are chaff tempered (Stein 1992, 22; Roodenberg et al. 1984, 6). Both in the Amuq and in the Rouj, on the contrary, non-DFBW was rarely burnished479; only later, painted wares will be. Shapes are, as usual in this period, bowls, hole-mouth jars, low necked jars. Marie Le Mière talks about DFBW at Kumartepe (Le Mière 1989, 55), even though in Roodenberg’s report there is no mention of dark colours for the mineral tempered sherds, nor of impressed decoration, nor pattern burnish, nothing, in other words, which might with certainty pin point to the presence of this ware.

The Karkemish area is already within the Mesopotamian plain; the Euphrates has in fact by now left the mountainous Turkish territory and starts to slow down its descent, into the open country, plateaus and hills of Mesopotamia. Even from a geographical point of view thus, a stronger link of this area with the Middle Euphrates is justified. The ceramics indicate a possible gap in the occupation at Akarçay towards the later Pottery Neolithic period; painted pottery has, in fact, not yet been found at the site. Later Halaf occupation, though, is attested by the finding, out of context, of its ceramics (Arimura 2001, 346). Mezraa Teleilat does not, as yet, appear to have any gap in the Ceramic Neolithic period. Both sites have a PPN occupation too. Comments on the pottery of these two sites in the neighbourhoods of the modern town of Birecik are still very preliminary, especially since the internal sequences are yet to be compared by the excavators and the relation between the two sites analysed.

According to the excavators, Coarse Ware and Painted Ware at Kumartepe have strong analogies with the Amuq Coarse and Brittle Painted (Roodenberg et al. 1984, 8). There is no indication of incised decoration or red slip on the Coarse Ware though, as was instead in the Amuq. Painted sherds, rare, have motifs that strongly remind the western ones; these had been found, after all, also at Djad’e and Halula.

The occupational sequence at Mezraa Teleilat has been divided as follows: Phase IIA is the Pottery Neolithic, IIB the transition between PN and PPN, and IIC the Pre-Pottery Neolithic occupation phase (Karul et al. 2001, 168). A very large Middle Assyrian building covers a part of the Neolithic settlement and has thus strongly slowed down investigations for those earlier levels. The preliminary stratigraphic distinction of the occupation at Pottery Neolithic Mezraa has been made by the excavators on the basis of the ceramics, that have been divided into a great number of distinct categories, at times difficult to separate chronologically.

The few elements, remind the Tishrin dam assemblages, thus suggesting some form of contact, even though the total absence of impressed, incised, or pattern burnish decoration in the Turkish sites could indicate yet another ceramic tradition. 479

This aspect might actually indicate some relations of these northern sites with the Tishrin settlements, where chaff ware was at times burnished.

236

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

Mezraa Teleilat Höğüyü has painted, smeared, burnished, plain, impressed, incised, slipped ware, vegetal and mineral tempered ceramics. Akarçay Tepe has a minor variety, possibly sign, this, of a shorter period of occupation. No painted, incised, nor impressed pre-Halaf sherds have been found at this site. The absence of impressed pottery at this site might indicate an early occupation, as we had seen that in the Middle Euphrates this appeared only at a later moment (Halula phase II).

triangular decoration of the painted vessels, with a variant, according to which triangles are not filled but “netted” (Pl. 11.7c). The Qoueiq pattern burnish is never like this, nor have any such sherds been noticed in the DFBW area. Painted pottery at Mezraa is both on chaff and mineral tempered vessels. Motifs are again often similar to those of the Tishrin sites and of Sabi Abyad (sequences of triangles) and mostly distinct from the Qoueiq ones (Pl. 11.7b). Some painted decorations recall the Mersin “yildirim” (lightning), vertical wavy lines (Pl. 11.7, 8th sherd). This is quite surprising, since nothing like it has been noticed in the more southern Euphrates sites, nor in the Balikh; the nearest area to have witnessed such motifs is the Qoueiq. Since other relations with the Qoueiq appear to be very few it might well be that this similarity is casual.

Both sites have a majority of vegetal tempered pottery, as the Tishrin sites in Syria. Often, the chaff tempered ceramics are burnished or even slipped (as was seen in the Qoueiq). In both settlements fragments of husking trays indicate clear south-eastern relations (with the Jazira), already before Halaf period. At Mezraa these are also evidenced by the presence of vegetal tempered ware with applied decorations, as half-moons and other small geometrical shapes, which remind Umm Dabaghiyah and Hassuna ceramics. Such decoration had been noticed before, in the Balikh (Sabi Abyad transitional phase).

Next to these vegetal tempered wares both sites have some mineral tempered pottery. Akarçay has evidence of the “Black Series” of Halula (in this very fortunate case, the team working at Akarçay is composed by the same archaeologists working at Halula, thus the recognition of the same class at the two sites must be sure. Faura personal communication 2001). The mineral tempered ware of Mezraa is quite varied. Being the sites so near, one of the categories must correspond to the “Halula Black series”, present at Akarçay. This class, as has been thoroughly described, has no decoration at all. Amongst the Mezraa mineral tempered ware, though, the only undecorated one is the class called DFBW by the excavators (Karul et al. 2001, 169 and Özdoğan personal communication 2001). Another class of pottery with mineral inclusions is slightly smoothed and with impressed decoration, whilst the third category also has some rare, but apparently non-casual, vegetal inclusions and has a dark red thick slip covering the whole vessel (Karul et al. 2001, 170 and personal observation. Hypotheses also propose that the red is not a slip but actual paint). According to the descriptions, the only class that might correspond to the Halula Black series is the one that in Mezraa is called DFBW. Was this so, what relations would there then be between the Halula DFBW and the Mezraa DFBW? Interpretations are obviously not too clear yet. When we move on to the red slipped mineral tempered ware from Mezraa, again we have a problem in comparing this ceramic with that of the neighbouring sites: this class, quite common at Mezraa, could recall the painted/washed and impressed ware found in the Tishrin area, at Sabi Abyad and in the Qoueiq (in the Qoueiq, Mellaart uses the term wash, at Sabi Abyad it is defined paint and at Mezraa slip, but I believe that it is in all cases the same thing).

At Mezraa it is cordons applied under the rim of chafftempered ware, small lugs, and pierced handles that recall the Tishrin assemblages: these were in fact typical of Halula and neighbours. Chaff incised ware has been called by the excavators “Hassuna type incised ware” and has strong analogies with pottery seen at Halula and the Tishrin sites, and in the Qoueiq too (Pl. 11.6a) (Karul et al. 2001, 150). Impressed, chaff tempered, sherds have the same decorative motifs of the Halula, Djad’e, Kosak Shamali and Qoueiq ones (Pl. 11.6b); dots impressed with the use of a fork, rocker impressions, segments, and lines alternate at times with incised diagonal, straight or wavy lines. Evident is their total independence from the kind of nail decorations common on the DFBW in the west. Particular are also to note cases of analogous motifs made on distinct ceramic categories: chaff tempered pottery at Mezraa and mineral tempered burnished ware in the Qoueiq (Pls. 8.1d and 11.7a). As will be seen later on, such a motif is extremely frequent at Sakçe Gözü, in the Gaziantep plain. The variety of motifs (painted, impressed and incised), at Mezraa, is particularly high; many recall those seen at Sabi Abyad and in the Tishrin and are clearly distinct from those of the Qoueiq, but others are apparently, for the moment, exclusive of the Birecik site. This is the case of incised triangles, filled in with impressed dots, or of painted curls (Pl. 11.7, 6th sherd). Some pattern burnish is seen, but it has a strange and uncommon pattern, since it repeats the Akarçay Black series (plain)

Mezraa Teleilat Painted DFBW (no decoration) Smoothed and impressed Red slip

Sabi Abyad Grey-black ware (mostly plain) DFBW (plain, painted, incised, impressed) Red wash, at times impressed Mineral coarse (carbon deposits)

Table 11.5 - Classification of dark coloured and mineral tempered ceramics, made by the excavators, at the sites of Akarçay, Mezraa Teleilat and Sabi Abyad. The lines link classes that, on the basis of their description, could be correlated.

237

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Radiocarbon samples from Akarçay do indicate an apparently earlier date for phase III (the earliest phase) than that of the earliest Sabi Abyad date available, which is from level 8 though (tables 11.6 and 11.2); we do not know though how much time had passed since Sabi Abyad levels 11 and 10, and these might in fact be positioned near to Akarçay phase III. Very interesting is to note that the phase III date is very similar to that hypothesised for Rouj 2a, the phase of Kerkh Ware (6.5.1). The burnished pottery of early Halula, to which that of Akarçay is said to be very similar, has been tentatively assimilated by Marie Le Mière to the Kerkh Ware; this date of the Turkish site, coincident with that of Rouj 2a, would be in accordance with this hypothesis.

At Sabi Abyad this ware was called DFBW! Again, we see some confusion on the use of the term DFBW; clearly distinct categories of ceramics are given this same name (table 11.5). Overall, concerning relations of the Karkemish region, it appears quite evident that these are mainly with the Euphrates sites just to the south (as indicated by the presence of the Halula Black series, the Sabi Ayad-like painted designs, the impressed and incised chaff ware and the applied decorations). Through these, influences from the more south-eastern sites (Hassuna) probably arrived.

11.7 THE RELATIONS NAMES

EUPHRATES REGION AND ITS WITH THE WEST. CONFUSION ON

The overall assemblage composition of the Euphrates and Balikh sites has underlined strong differences between these eastern sites and the western, Syro-Cilician DFBW settlements. In the majority of cases, vegetal tempered pottery constitutes, in the east, the largest bulk of the production. Chaff ware is at times burnished and often impressed (both in the Tishrin sites and at Mezraa. Some rarer fragments have been found at Sabi Abyad too). Decorations and surface treatments common in Sabi Abyad, on the Balikh, are found on the Euphrates, both in Turkey and in Syria (painted triangular motifs and incised decorations…). Mineral tempered pottery too, is very much alike in those communities: Grey-black Ware has been recognised all over, a dark and burnished ware with red paint (called alternatively slip or wash) was discovered both at Sabi Abyad and Mezraa, a simple darkish ware, with burnished surface and calcareous inclusions was identified at Halula (Black series), Akarçay, Mezraa, and might be present at Sabi Abyad too. The overall ceramic composition of the Upper Euphrates and Balikh settlements is thus quite consistent and congruent, bringing to hypothesise a certain cultural unity of the whole region, as also evident from the environmental and geomorphologic unity of the region.

Sample

Phase

BP

st. dev.

? ? ?

I II III

7280 7470 7970

59 59 120

1 sigma max min 6219 6032 6407 6234 7063 6652

2 sigma max 6234 6440 7298

min 6012 6219 6506

Table 11.6 – Radiocarbon dates from the three Pottery phases of Akarçay Tepe. Calibration has been run with the software Calib 4.3, Stuiver et al. 2000. From Balkan-Atlı and Molist 2002.

It is possible that, being the stratigraphic sequence of the other sites still not refined, other sites too might hide an initial “mineral tempered phase”. Only the Balikh site of Sabi Abyad clearly appears not to share such a phase, as level 11 is already characterised by a strong majority of chaff tempered ware. The survey of the mineral tempered ceramic categories of these Euphrates and Balikh settlements has emphasised the confusion which still reigns in the recognition of dark burnished ware, not only from a technological point of view, but in its cultural definition. North of Birecik, at sites as Sürük and Kumartepe, borders of a new and distinct ceramic tradition have clearly been crossed. Relations between these and the DFW horizon are minimal. Once we move south, into the northernmost highlands of Mesopotamia, things begin to be less clear. Mineral tempered, dark coloured sherds are found, but many of the technological choices potters made for the vessels appear extraneous to the DFW tradition. For most sites different names are given to the categories present (Black series, Grey-black Ware, Fine polie, Fine lisée….), but DFBW is also indicated, and interpretations are not simple. To complicate things is also the near to impossible task of stratigraphic correlations between these sites and thus the uncertainty that comparisons are being made between categories and site phases which might in fact not have been co-existent. In this analysis I have more or less considered all these sites as contemporary. This might not be the case and many of the differences noted might thus be due to chronological diversity.

Extremely interesting, as has been anticipated in chapter 9, is the finding of some of the above cited characters amongst the Qoueiq ceramics: the chaff impressed ware and the dark, mineral tempered, red painted/slipped ware. This confirms the central position of Qoueiq as the “bordering region” between two possibly distinct networks, one of the western DFBW communities, and one of the Euphrates region. Two are the situations that show a slight divergence from the above description: Akarçay Tepe and the early phase of Halula. Both show a high presence of ceramics with mineral inclusions. I have imagined an earlier occupation compared to that of the other sites for Halula III, and would thus now be brought to imagine the same for Akarçay.

None of the analysed sites have evidenced a manufacture of a mineral tempered, dark coloured ceramic, which 238

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

is thus composed mainly by grit tempered ceramics, even though low quantities of chaff are often visible in the pastes. None of the described classes though appear to be strongly related to those of the southern Euphrates region; rather the pottery assemblage of Çayönü appears to me as a quite autonomous production. The high presence of chaff tempered ceramics that characterised the Euphrates sites is absent at Çayönü, nor is there evidence of the chaff impressed pottery. Possible similarities are between the mineral tempered, red slipped ware of the two regions and between the vessels with the applied bands. These, together with the presence of husking trays at Çayönü indicate that contacts between the more northern Anatolian site and the Euphrates-Balikh region (and maybe even more to the east, the Hassuna area) must have been taking place. The description of the Çayönü “DFBW” has clearly evidenced, though, its total autonomy from that of the west. At the nearby site of Tülintepe Esin has recognised what she calls DFBW, mineral in temper, but with small quantities of chaff too, the decorations of which consisted of knobs, lugs, plain and incised applique' ridges, human face, eye and snake motives (Esin 1993, 107). This and the Çayönü “DFBW” are probably similar categories, even though the former evidences greater variety in the decorations, but both are both substantially distinct from the western SyroCilician DFBW that is being studied here.

responded exactly to the same morpho-stylistic characters, but, especially, which followed the same temporal evolution and changes of the Rouj and Amuq DFBW/DFW. Impressed decoration, pattern burnish, fine and less fine pastes, which develop in a very specific order in the west are apparently only casually and rarely found, combined to the dark burnished ware, in the east. Furthermore, the three distinct classes that form the DFW in the west are not distinguished in these eastern regions; here, the DFW (DFBW) is apparently composed by one single class. This indicates, in my opinion, that if contact there was and/or import of Syro-Cilician DFBW, this was probably not regular and that a possible local manufacture of dark burnished ware (testified by the relative high quantity of dark burnished pottery) had re-elaborated its original attributes and characters and thus created a partially new and autonomous ceramic category. The different names that are given to mineral and burnished sherds – Black series, Fine polie, Fine lisée, DFBW, Mineral coarse – correspond to very similar descriptions and bring to suspect that some might be equivalent. This might be most plausible for the Mezraa DFBW, for example, and the Akarçay Black series (table 11.5). Even within the same site this assumption might be true: at Sabi Abyad both “DFBW” and “Grey-black Ware” sherds might in fact have been conceived of as one same large group, as suggested above.

Since relations with the Euphrates Neolithic sites are indeed testified by Çayönü, discussions on the origin of the tradition of the Euphrates mineral tempered ceramics still remains open. Contacts between the Euphrates - Balikh sites and the western Syro-Cilician region are visible in the Qoueiq, where the chaff impressed and incised, and painted wares have been identified. The mineral tempered vessels of the Euphrates – Balikh region, furthermore, do appear to show clear technological links with the west, especially in the earlier periods (Halula III and Akarçay). The great variety of categories and decorations of the Euphrates mineral tempered pottery (table 11.6) and the similarities between some of these and the Çayönü vessels (the red slipped ones, for example), though, might indicate the north as a possible “inspirer” of mineral tempered ceramics too.

The site of Assouad, even though very near Sabi Abyad, has given no apparent indication of contacts with the west in its pottery assemblage. Its mineral, burnished ware is never dark in colour. This clearly indicates that there was another, distinct, ceramic tradition with mineral tempered vessels and burnished surfaces. This might have been influenced by the western horizon, but might even have developed independently. The simple presence of a mineral tempered ceramic does thus not necessarily imply relations with the Syro-Cilician DFBW horizon. Burnished ware, brownish in colour, but also light pinkish and buff, and mineral in temper, at times with applied decorations, is found, in eastern Anatolia, at Çayönü and Til Huzur, further away than the sites of Kumartepe and Sürük Mevkii, mentioned above. The last two Pottery Neolithic phases (out of 3) of Çayönü have “DFBW in the broadest sense of its meaning” (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1993, 96). With a first glance at the description of this class though, we see that these vessels have some organic temper together with grit; immediately is a first distinction with the western DFBW. Colours are more or less those observed in the traditional DFBW. Decoration of this category is constituted by applied button-like knobs. Another sand and grit tempered pottery, with rare organic inclusions, is light pinkish coloured with various decorations, amongst which finger impressions and applied bands. In this case, decoration reminds that of the DFBW of the west, but not so the ware. A last category is, again, mainly of sand and grit temper, but painted or red slipped. All Çayönü pottery

Eastern relations of the Euphrates – Balikh region (with Iraqi northern Mesopotamia) become very clear in the later periods, when husking trays, chaff tempered vessels with applied decorations, or painted triangles are common in most of the analysed settlements. Again, such contacts appear to involve the whole region and are not limited to few or single sites. Most of these eastern characterising attributes, furthermore, are also found more to the west, well into the Qoueiq area. On the overall, I believe it will probably be accepted that, certainly the Balikh region and probably the Euphrates too, are more strongly linked to the Mesopotamian material culture tradition than to the western one; this tendency will increase in time. The Khabur area, even more so, has 239

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

seem to be no accordance with Le Mière’s hypothesis. It should be considered that I am comparing ICP analysis with XRF, from different laboratories; this operation is not always possible because of different calibrations of the instruments. Even though, archaeometric analyses appear to still be far from helping to solve our issue.

demonstrated a strong link with the Hassuna, eastern communities, and its mineral tempered ceramics only vaguely remind the DFBW of the west (or the Anatolian ones?).

11.8 ARCHAEOMETRY EXCHANGE OF POTTERY

AND

SUGGESTED

Possibly interesting is the fact that the analysed samples of Kerkh Ware would appear to have higher quantities of both chromium and nickel (ranging between 220 and 533 ppm, the first, and 113 and 505 ppm, the second. See table 6.8) and some samples do appear to have values near to that of the Bouqras sherd. Could this be the demonstration of the western provenance of the Bouqras and Sabi Abyad sherds?

Marie Le Mière, from the Maison de l’Orient in Lyon, has been conducting, since many years now, archaeometric analyses on the Neolithic ceramics of various sites of the Near East and amongst these are several samples of “DFBW”. Amongst the sites that have been discussed in this chapter are some of those she has been interested in. Samples have been tested from Sabi Abyad, Kosak Shamali and Abu Hureyra. Unfortunately, she does not publish the complete analyses of such samples, but only comments on some of their results, thus direct comparison with the analyses conducted in this work is not yet possible. Furthermore, samples analysed by her are single or a handful of sherds from each site, thus very preliminary studies and their results cannot be generalised to all the category of pottery these should represent. Even so, I will try here to summarise her results and give some general comments on the basis of what was determined for Mersin, Ain el-Kerkh and Judaidah (chapters 3 and 7).

The DFBW samples from Kosak Shamali (Le Mière 2001, 189) have been interpreted by Le Mière in a similar way as those of the Balikh site. Out of 31 sherds found of so-called DFBW, 7 have been analysed, together with 4 sherds of Grey-black Ware (these were, at the site, a total of 46 sherds). Grey-black Ware has resulted, in this case, as having a similar composition to that of the large bulk of pottery of the site, thus evidently of local origin (Le Mière 2001, 189). The DFBW samples turned out to be of two well distinct compositions; both apparently peculiar, but only of one of them has been linked by Le Mière with an ophiolithic area. The sherds that according to Le Mière originate from the western ophiolithic area apparently have high Fe content and low Ca. The same is said about three “DFBW” samples from tell Sotto and Yarim tepe, where the Fe value is 7,62 wt% and that of Ca is 3,71 wt%. In the west, both Ain el Kerkh and Mersin had evidenced two clusters of DFBW, one with high Ca and the other with low Ca and high Fe and Al. This second group might indeed have a composition similar to that of the Kosak Shamali, tell Sotto and Yarim tepe sherds Le Mière has interpreted as imported from the west. One single grey and burnished sherd from Abu Hureyra has brought Le Mière to similar considerations to those for Kosak Shamali and Sabi Abyad (high Al, low Ca. Le Mière 2000, 533).

X-ray fluorescence of 21 sherds from the pre-Halaf levels of Sabi Abyad have been interpreted by Le Mière as indicating 3-4 different groups of composition, one of which more strongly distinct from the others and interpreted as imported (Le Mière 1989, 234). This is the group of 3 Grey-black Ware sherds (DFBW was at that time still left undifferentiated from the Grey-black Ware). The high percentages of chromium (Cr) and nickel (Ni) suggest to Le Mière that their origin might be in an ophiolitic zone, of which, as we have seen, the Amuq is one. The typological and stylistic similarities, according to Le Mière, between the Dark Faced Wares of Sabi Abyad and those of the west (Amuq, Rouj and Cilicia), would confirm an import of these sherds from that particular ophiolithic region. The same is said of a single sherd from Bouqras, that has 550 ppm of Cr and 250 ppm of Ni (Le Mière and Picon 1987, 136). Percentages of chromium and nickel in the DFBW from Ain el-Kerkh, as resulted from our ICP analysis, are an average of 144 ppm and 134 ppm respectively, and those from Mersin class 3 (DFbW) are 266 ppm and 221 ppm (considering all periods together). According to the analyses carried out on samples that belong to the supposed area of origin, there would thus

These first archaeometric analyses demonstrate the potentially promising character of such an approach. Unfortunately though, these are still too few and publications extremely partial. Hopefully in the next years an increase in this kind of analyses will bring further data to the issue of DFBW.

240

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

241

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

242

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

243

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

244

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

245

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

246

11 – Towards the Euphrates and Beyond

247

12 MINERAL TEMPERED WARE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA 12.1

ANATOLIAN NEOLITHIC POTTERY

The volcanic region of Central Anatolia has certainly had, in the Neolithic period, a primary role in the retrieval and distribution of obsidian, down to the Cilician and Levantine settlements. The high percentage of obsidian instruments in Neolithic Yumuktepe has been, in the past, one of the most cited elements of evidence for arguing that Cilicia and Central Anatolia were united by a similar and probably common social and cultural background. Theories of people’s migrations from the south, up to the Konya plain, left place to opposite hypotheses, of plateau groups that moved down to Cilicia, with obsidian (Mellaart 1961, 166), but still today ideas fluctuate from one to the other (Özdoğan 2002, 255). Confirmation of links between Cilicia, Amuq and Central Anatolia have been searched by scholars in all the components of material culture. Mellaart refers of strong and clear similarities between the Mersin pottery and that from Çatal East, and between later Mersin, Çatal West and Hacılar (Mellaart 1961, 164, 166). Çatal East, the occupation of which should coincide with Mersin XXXIII-XXV, thus exactly the period of interest of this work, has mostly mineral tempered ware, brown or grey in colour, becoming black in its middle phases, and, most important of all, burnished. Shapes, as vessels more or less all over the Near East in these early periods of ceramic production, are very simple, hole-mouth jars or deep bowls. Clear enough, such a description, without further specifications, could be ascribed to vessels from Yumuktepe, and in fact exactly this has happened in the past. If one looks around the Konya plain and at Anatolia in general, though, a surprise might bring to revalue such an interpretation. Quite a few Ceramic Neolithic sites are known, today, in Central Anatolia, some nearer to Cilicia than Çatal, like Can Hasan, and others in Cappadocia, like Koşk Höyük, Pınarbaşı Bor, Musular, Tepecik. Just south of Çatal, still in the Konya plain is also the site of Pınarbaşı, phase B of which is dated to the Pottery Neolithic (Fig. 12.2).

Most of these sites are characterised by mineral tempered ceramics, all are burnished and, even though there is a certain variation in surface colour, in many sites these are of brown or other darkish tones. Certainly, one might simply say that this confirms the relationships between Central Anatolia and the more southern regions, but it will be seen in this chapter that many others are the elements of the ceramic production of these areas which do not coincide, thus making it extremely difficult to justify the existence of a large unitary ceramic tradition. A further consideration is, to my advice, useful before tackling Central Anatolia and its pottery assemblage. Mineral tempered ceramics characterise the assemblage of most Anatolian Neolithic communities, no matter their cultural horizon, geographical position and temporal relation. In fact, well burnished vessels with mineral inclusions and dark surface colours are typical of settlements like Ilıpınar (from level IX onwards) (Roodenberg et al. 1989/90, 84), Yarımburgaz (Özdoğan et al. 1991, 69; Özdoğan 2001, 9-10) and Höyücek (Duru 1995, 460-1; Duru 2001, 54), in northwest Anatolia, and Erbaba (Bordaz 1973, 284), in the Lake district. In nearby sites like Hacilar (Mellaart 1970, 103) and Kuruçay (Duru 1992) ceramic is mainly mineral in temper and burnished, but surface colour is lighter. In eastern Anatolia, at Çayönü, there is a certain quantity of mineral tempered pottery, dark in colour and burnished, as has been pointed out in paragraph 12.7. The same can be said of Cappadocia, where Musular (Özbaşaran 1999, 151; Özbaşaran 2000, 131; Özbaşaran 2001, 39) and Koşk show examples of mineral tempered, darkish coloured, burnished vessels. Furthermore, where chaff tempered pottery is found, this is nearly always burnished: this is the case of Çayönü and Tilhuzur, in the east, Tepecik and Musular in Cappadocia. It thus appears that Anatolia, even though extremely heterogeneous in its regional developments (Matthews 2002, 96-97), had somewhat a “tradition” of mineral inclusions and, especially, burnish, on its ceramics.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Fig. 12.1 - Map with the position of Anatolian sites nominated in the chapter.

Fig. 12.2 – Chronological Sequence (calibrated BC absolute dates) of the Central Anatolian sites compared to that of Mersin. From Thissen 2002: 324.

250

12 – Mineral Tempered Ware in Central Anatolia

between the Konya plain and the Amuq, even more so would it be with Yumuktepe.

Most of Anatolian Neolithic communities followed a similar technological choice in their pottery manufacture. Certainly not due to a common cultural horizon, as differences in shapes and decorations demonstrate, this choice must rather be linked to the sharing of technical knowledge, and maybe even partly to environmental conditions, resource availability and to the use to which vessels were assigned (an analogous situation is that of Ceramic Neolithic in Mesopotamia, where all pottery, no matter its cultural horizon, is vegetal tempered). Impossible, at the moment, is to say whether this use originated in some specific place and expanded or was exported towards different regions. What is here most important is the realisation that, whilst when analysing the ceramic assemblages of sites like Sabi Abyad, in Mesopotamia, the simple distinction between mineral and chaff temper might have corresponded to a cultural distinction between western (the DFW horizon) and eastern (Mesopotamian Hassuna and pre-Hassuna cultures) traditions or influences in pottery making, when investigating Anatolian ceramics, the kind of paste, colour and surface treatment are not necessarily sufficient for the recognition of a cultural tradition. Shape, decoration, size and other morphological elements become in fact essential. This should put on the alert against too quick comparisons between ceramics of these Neolithic settlements.

Figure 12.2, taken from Laurens Thissen’s work done for the CANeW (Central Anatolian Neolithic eWorkshop), is here given as a guideline to the occupation of Central Anatolia during the period of development of DFbW in the south. My reference being Mersin levels XXXIII-XXVI, it is quite evident that nearly all Çatal East sequence falls within the time interval of interest. This permits not only a comparison of categories and types of vessels between the two sites, but also a diachronic analysis of their developments.

12.2

ÇATAL HÖYÜK

12.2.1

The Evolution of Pottery at Çatal East

The monumental and extraordinary site in the Konya plain, near the modern town of Çumra, which revealed so many and astonishing finds, strangely enough, has a very poor pottery collection for the early phases, those covering the occupation of the eastern mound (Mellaart 1963a, 101). During the first years of excavation Mellaart even thought that there was no pottery at all in the levels preceding VI (Mellaart 1964, 39). Later finds demonstrated that Çatal East had no pre-pottery occupation at all, even though the finding of sherds remained rare. The new excavations, in the southern part of the tepe, have uncovered only early layers, from XII to VII, and a level VI building in a small area, and the total number of sherds found summed up, until 2001, only to approximately 1600 (Last personal communication 2001; Last 1998; Last 1999). Even so, a classification of the ceramics has been made and changes in time are indeed visible546.

Mellaart argues, in comparing Çatal ceramics to those of Mersin, that “the absence of stabbed, impressed or rouletted ornament…found on contemporary pottery in Cilicia and the Amuq, is perhaps not as important as hitherto believed” (Mellaart 1961, 164, 166). The pottery of the two sites, no matter this distinction, is to be considered, in his view, as belonging to a same tradition. In light of what has just been said above, I instead believe this absence to be highly significant.

Two are the pottery classes that characterise the earliest levels XII-VII. A “straw tempered” and a “sand tempered” (Last personal communication 2001); Mellaart hadn’t separated the two and described the category as one of burnished, light coloured (cream to buff or light grey) ware, with

In this chapter, I shall only rapidly analyse the site of Çatal, with the intent of defining the degree of similarity of the ceramic assemblage with that of Cilicia and thus of the DFW horizon. I do not aim at a definition nor a thorough analysis of the Anatolian groups, but I want to debate the exactitude of calling DFBW/DFW vessels from sites like Pınarbaşı Bor (Silistreli 1983, 259) and Çatal Höyük, in the Konya plain. Comparisons will be made with the Yumuktepe ceramics; were cultural traditions actually shared

546

This analysis of the ceramic assemblage of Çatal Höyük is based partly on published material and partly on personal observations made on occasion of a visit to the site, in 2001. For this my special thanks go to Professor Hodder and to Dr Jonathan Last, who patiently and kindly disentangled for me the pottery sequence of the site.

251

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

of the co-presence of this new category of ceramics together and the already known sand and straw tempered wares. The following phase VI, is one of major change, when the straw and sand tempered pottery become extremely rare and the dark coloured “quartz tempered” evolves into “The” pottery production of Çatal East. To this same phase also corresponds an important innovation in lithics procurement. Analyses and research have in fact demonstrated that obsidian, initially exploited from the Göllü Dağ East, was, from level VI onwards, extracted from the Nenezi Dağ (Carter T. et al. 2001). This change in the source of obsidian might have been due to an alteration in external relations; certainly the coincidence of the two events is curious.

mineral and vegetal inclusions (Mellaart 1966, 170). Wall thickness is quite high, generally ranging around 10 mm, but reaching double that size too. Only in later phases will thinner walls be found. At times the surface is slipped and burnished. Shapes are mainly deep bowls, some larger basins and, more rarely, hole-mouth jars (Pl. 12.1). A typical shape of both the vegetal and mineral tempered ware is a “tub” shape, a kind of squarish basin, with a flat base and thus very sharp-edged (Pl. 12.2a). Lugs and small handles are first found in level X, even though in very small numbers (Pl. 12.1). Probably the most interesting thing to note about these two categories (the straw and the sand tempered) is their identical shapes, colours and surface treatments; technological and morphological choices were apparently the same even though inclusions changed. In none of the other analysed sites was this ever noticed; the Amuq coarse simple and the DFbW, for example, had different pastes, but also distinct shapes, thickness, colours and surface treatment.

This mineral tempered ceramic of levels VI-I is the one generally assimilated to the Mersin DFbW (Hours et al. 1994, 94). The increase in darker colours and the thinner vessel walls do actually recall the dark burnished pots of Mersin. Both technical and morphological characters show some distinction though: paste has a larger quantity of inclusions and is thus more fragile, burnish is in general less accurate than at Mersin547, and there appears to be less control of the firing atmosphere. In fact, many vessels have a mottled surface. Colours are mainly dull, and jet black like at Mersin is hardly ever seen. From level IV onwards lighter tones and browns will also be visible, as well as reds. Shapes are typically hole-mouth jars and globular, deep bowls (Mellaart 1961, 162). Rims are very simple and no elaboration at all is noticed. The squarish or thickened, asymmetric rims of Mersin appear not to be visible at this site. Necked jars are absent from the whole Çatal East sequence (one single sherd with a short collar was found in level IV).

Straw tempered ware starts diminishing strongly in level VII and will then disappear with the following phase VI. In the early levels though, the straw tempered is much more frequent than the mineral, sand tempered ware, that amounts to approximately 10% of the total assemblage. The sand tempered pottery might be somewhat assimilated to Mersin’s earliest mineral tempered class, the one found in trench SA (see 2.10.4). Strongly burnished and at times slipped surfaces, light colours, medium size and very rich in inclusions, all these are characters that the Mersin pottery had too. Flat bases too were visible at Yumuktepe. None of the few shapes restorable at that site recall the Çatal ones though. Mersin generally has flaring profiles, bowls with straight and open profiles, whilst in the Konya plain closed bowls and “tub shapes” are most frequent. Lugs and handles, furthermore, are never found in Cilicia (Pls. 12.1-2).

Lugs become very common in these later levels; some are pierced, with a single or double hole, and most are upturned, with a sort of pointed shape facing upwards (Pl. 12.1). Next to these, examples of tubular and pierced lugs are found from level VI onwards (Pl. 12.2b). These strongly remind lugs from Hacilar VI (and earlier) and other sites of the lake district to the west of the Konya plain, like Kuruçay. The position of these on the vessels’ profile is also particular: generally very high just below the rim. They were

In level VII a new class of pottery appears, that will become characteristic of the later levels VI-I at Çatal East. This is still mineral tempered, less fine in texture than the earlier sand tempered, but never coarse, vessel walls tend to be thinner, surface colours darker and burnishing more accurate (Mellaart 1966, 170). Last calls this “quartz tempered”, since he realised that the paste is different from that of the other class. Shapes are mostly deep, globular bowls. Level VII is considered a transitional phase, because

547

I realised, when going through the sherds, that most of what I, on the basis of the Yumuktepe material, would have called smoothed, Jonathan Last defined burnished.

252

12 – Mineral Tempered Ware in Central Anatolia

Before that, at Yumuktepe, no vegetal/straw tempered ceramics had ever been found, but the technological description of the sand, mineral tempered pottery of Çatal East levels XII-VII could recall that of the Cilician site levels XXXIII-XXX (2.10.4). It has been pointed out though, that shapes, even though quite simple, are not analogous in the two settlements.

most probably used to hang up the pots with ropes, or to tie lids on the pots, rather than to lift them. Confirmation of this is given by the finding of sherds with lugs very near the base of the pot. Some lids have a pierced lug on top, that might have been used to tie the lid to the pot. Lugs and handles, as has been seen in chapter 2, were totally absent from Yumuktepe DFbW. The light coloured Gritty Ware (class 1), that has frequent handles, furthermore, has no single example that resembles the lug and handle shapes of Çatal East. In later levels, basket-handled shapes will appear; these will be very common amongst the West mound painted pottery and their finding in this earlier period is very interesting since it demonstrates the local character of the developments in the pottery manufacture (Last 2000 and Mellaart 1965, 152). These too have no parallels at all with the south. Other elements that will be frequent in the later phases of occupation of the site are also already visible in the rare carenated profiles and in the single sherd with an applied bulls head, coming from phase V.

level I II III IV V VI VII VIII-VII VIII IX-VIII IX X XI XII Pre-XII

Table 12.1 – Dating of the various phases of occupation of Çatal East, on the basis of 14C

From phase IV, sherds with incised lines under the rim appear, as well as lids and footed vessels (either single, four feet, or a ring base. Pl. 12.2c). Footed pots are also present in the Anatolian Lake district area, but not at Mersin.

dates. Simplified from Cessford in print. Dates are published from Cessford 2001; Cessford 1998: table 3; Radiocarbon 11, 1969: 154-6; Radiocarbon 7, 1965, 191-2; Mellaart 1964, 116.

The development of the Çatal quartz, mineral tempered pottery might suggest an increase in similarities between the two regions. Colours of the sherds get darker and vessel walls thinner. Again, though, there is something preventing from identifying these classes (the DFbW of Mersin and the quartz tempered of Çatal) as a same and unitary category of vessels. Vessel walls are thicker in the more northern site, burnishing is less accurate, shapes are independent from the southern ones; lids, feet and lugs, frequent in the Konya plain, are absent in Cilicia; impressed decoration, so common on the Mediterranean coast, is not found up in the plateau (table 12.2); the tub shapes seen so frequently at Çatal are unknown at Mersin.

With the inhabitation of the west mound things change; painted pottery develops and, next to it, incised and white filled decorations on a monochrome burnished ware. Various elements, as particular profiles and lugs, demonstrate the continuity with earlier attributes and characters of the ceramics though. 12.2.2

BC date 2 sigma interval 6370-6090 6410-6210 6470-6090 6510-6290 6640-6460 6740-6470 6790-6460 6840-6490 7010-6730 7050-6800 7070-6840 7460-6840

Çatal and Cilicia. Where are the Links?

What has emerged from the above is a ceramic production with indeed very similar technological characters to those of Mersin, but a great deal of morphological and stylistic distinctions. The earliest pottery of Çatal East, the one with vegetal inclusions, is actually extraneous to Cilician early ceramics. These disappear, in the Konya plain site, at level VI, the 14C dates of which correspond, in time, probably to a period preceding Mersin XXVIII (tables 12.1 and 2.2), thus before or, at the latest, with the first developments, there, of DFbW.

The attributes and characters extraneous to the Cilician tradition are many and, instead, many aspects noticed on the dark ware at Çatal East are common to other sites and regions of Anatolia. This is the case of lugs, amongst which, the tubular ones remind, as has been pointed out, sites of the lake district, whilst the nearest similitude for the upturned ones is at Ilıpınar, on the sea of Marmara (at that site though, these upturned handles are mostly found on collared jars). 253

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

and when cooking pots (class 4) become distinct from ceramics for food preparation and consumption (classes 3 and 5), Çatal continues displaying thicker, variously coloured, burnished pots. Not only: the Konya plain site never evidences very fine pastes and 2-3mm thin walls, as is the case of Mersin.

The basket shaped bowls with handles too, are never noticed in the southern regions. Less accurate burnish Basket-handle shapes Tub shapes Flat bases Feet lids Lugs and handles Simpler rims Absence of impressed decoration

The differences the sites of Çatal and Mersin appear to have in the specific characters and attributes of the mineral tempered ceramics, together with the omnipresence, in Anatolian Neolithic sites, of ceramics with mineral inclusions, burnished surface and, in the majority of cases, dark colour (these are

Table 12.2 – Attributes and characters of the mineral tempered ware of Çatal East VI-I, that distinguish it from Mersin’s DFbW.

present in the Marmara region at Ilıpınar, Menteşe, Yarımburgaz, in the lake district at Hacılar, Höyücek, Kuruçay, Bademağacı, Erbaba, in Central Anatolia at Can Hasan, Musular, Pinarbaşı Bor, etc.), would support the

Furthermore, when “basket bowls” will become more common, amongst the painted ware of Çatal West, the differences with the Mersin pottery will become, even greater. In fact, even though some (but not many) painted motifs might remind the Cilician ones (Pls. 12.3a and 12.4a), many are the distinctions (Pls. 12.3b and 12.4b): pots are generally painted also in the interior, in the Konya plain site, whilst this never occurs at Yumuktepe; secondly, colour is much thicker and more “invasive” on Çatal pots. In Mersin, decorations are somehow more “watery” or delicate and strokes are finer. Lastly, motifs representing animals are found at the plateau site, whilst Mersin only evidences geometric decorations. This strongly links Çatal with the Central Anatolian tradition; animals, both in relief and painted, are found on ceramics at Hacılar, in the lake district, and Koşk Höyük, Pinarbaşı Bor, and Tepecik, in Cappadocia.

idea of a common technological tradition, not necessarily linked to regional cultural identities. Such a common technology might derive from direct or indirect communication between groups which are largely autonomous. The expressions of single and autonomous cultural units within Anatolia are evidenced mostly in the vessel shapes and their decorations. When analysing these, the differences between the northern Marmara region, Central Anatolia, the Lake district and the eastern regions come to light immediately (and with these, also some similarities that indicate inter-regional contacts). The same is valid for Mersin; in fact, whilst between Yumuktepe and Judaidah, many were the elements of identity, in the class definitions, in the pottery types and in their temporal distribution, this is hardly ever verified with Çatal Höyük.

On the contrary to all this, the choice of mineral inclusions, the basically dark colours, the presence of a burnish, even though less evident than at Yumuktepe, are all elements that argue in favour of a link between the ceramics of these two sites. And one does have to admit that it does occur, at times, to see sherds from Çatal Höyük that may be confused with others from Mersin.

Contacts between the two regions cannot be denied, because of the arrival of obsidian to the south, but it appears to me that these relations brought very little innovation to the ceramic production of the involved communities. Technical influence cannot be excluded, but it is difficult to say who might have “initiated” who.

Even the technical characters though, do not always follow the same evolution at the two sites. In levels IV-III, in fact, red and light coloured burnished wares appear, next to the darker ones. Mersin burnished ware, at that time (more or less level XXVIII, according to the absolute dates) was essentially dark brown and a kind of dark scarlet. From this moment, furthermore, the Konya plain site increases its light coloured pots, whilst at Yumuktepe it is the opposite. When Yumuktepe develops the very fine black burnished vessels (class 5), in levels XXVII-XXVI,

Also others are the elements that indicate autonomy of development and cultural distinction of the two communities. A first one is that of primary economy. Çatal Höyük East has fully domesticate cereals and thus an agricultural economy (Helbaek 1964; Asouti and Fairbairn 2002, 183, 185); next to it, though, is a still strong role of hunting (Martin et al. 2002, 198199). Domestic sheep and goat are present, but herding is decidedly of minor importance than the latter. Other Central Anatolian sites show a similar situation: Can Hasan has wild animals, next to 254

12 – Mineral Tempered Ware in Central Anatolia

of reasoning. In the Bordes/Binford debate, differences in material culture were discussed, whilst the situation analysed here is exactly the opposite way round, since it is similarities in material culture and not differences that are being debated. They, however, could be explained with the same arguments. The similarity in the manufacture of pottery could be associated either with one single cultural unit, or with distinct and autonomous groups which might share technical knowledge or/and functional attributes of their vessels. I believe the second option might be the more plausible for explaining the affinities noted in the ceramics of different Anatolian regions.

caprovids, indicating a mixed, cultivating, herding and hunting, society (J. Renfrew 1968, 55-6). This should bring to imagine a partial mobility of the group, in order to permit such an activity, but at the same time sedentary farmers, who would provide staples for the community. In Mersin economy, as has been pointed out earlier (paragraph 9.2), hunting appears to have, instead, no role at all. The great majority of animals found at the site are domesticates, thus indicating that the community lived essentially of agriculture and herding (Barakat 1998, 18). This distinction certainly does not demonstrate that the two groups were part of a different socio-cultural system, but it does indicate a differently articulated and varied economic and probably social organisation.

Anatolian Neolithic sites, though only very briefly touched, all give evidence of similar technical/technological choices in the ceramic production. This is valid all over, from the Sea of Marmara to the Mediterranean coast and, east, to Anatolian Upper Mesopotamia, and the tradition is maintained in time and only lost with the development of painted ceramics. Socio-cultural unity can by no means be hypothesised for such a large area, and clear distinctions have been in fact indicated in morpho-stylistic aspects of the ceramics of these regions; examples of these differences are the pitch black, incised, necked jars of the Sea of Marmara, or the red slips of some Cappadocian sites. The autonomy of these regions is also demonstrated by other traits, such as architecture, the role of symbolism and economic organisation (Matthews 2002, 97).

Ideological worlds of the two regions, furthermore, appear antipodal. Çatal Höyük has animal and human clay figurines, not found in Mersin, houses are decorated and have many altars, symbolic and ritual accessories. Nothing at all of this was visible in the Cilician site (Caneva 2001c, 26). I believe that these last elements further confirm the independence of the Central Anatolian and Mediterranean communities. This appears to me a very good case of economic and social contacts, that do not become that intense and frequent though, to bring to a cultural and organisational unification. Exchange of technical knowledge and ideas on pottery manufacture could be justified by such kind of relations.

12.3 CULTURAL AUTONOMY CULTURE AFFINITY

AND

The similarities in pottery production of the Anatolian Neolithic communities, thus, do not seem to be due to cultural affinities of the producers, but rather to other aspects, which, as Binford proposed in the case of lithics, could be linked to the function assigned to the vessels (cooking, thus resistance to thermal shock, storage of water, thus impermeability etc.).

MATERIAL

The debate between Bordes and Binford on the interpretation of typological distinctions within the Palaeolithic lithic industry has marked the history of material culture studies. The main difference of their approaches was that Bordes interpreted typological distinctions in the industries as illustrating the presence of diverse, culturally autonomous, groups (Bordes and De Sonneville-Bordes 1970). Each type of industry would thus recognise one group. Binford instead, saw the typological differences in the lithics as indicating possible functional diversity of the objects within a same group (Binford and Binford 1966; Binford 1973). Time and subsequent research proved both right.

In chapter 1 (1.4.2) the recognition of culturally significant attributes in material culture has been discussed and I then insisted on the social and cultural components that regulate material culture production and on the fact that technology too can be highly charged with social and symbolic practices. What common social practices can be here involved if groups are culturally autonomous? Next to the social and symbolic variables of material practice are also the economic, scientific (Lubar 1996, 33) and material -knowledge and tradition- forces (Dobres and Hoffman 1999, 3) that determine material production.

The explanation of the Anatolian case evidenced above might gain help by following this double type 255

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

similarities, but also of contacts and exchange between communities. The attributes recognised as an expression of these technical choices are those that would respond to Binford’s reading of Palaeolithic lithic industry.

The two spheres, technical and social, are thoroughly interdependent and it is difficult, most of the time, to separate, on an object, what derives from one and what from the other. Both are present, though, on every element of material culture. Compared to lithics, ceramics probably carry many more social and ideological messages, even though their identification is not always very easy. In the case of the pottery of Anatolian Neolithic communities the recognition of two categories of attributes might somehow reflect this double definition of material culture. The mineral temper, the burnishing of the surface and the frequent dark colours of the pottery, might, in this case, be an expression of techniques of manufacture, shared by all the Anatolian communities. These could depend partly on availability of raw materials and on environmental characters in general, and partly on the sharing of technical knowledge (Arnold 1985, 17). They also depend on the function that is imagined for the vessel at the moment of production; as stated by Binford for lithics, analogous technical choices might be made in the manufacture of vessels when these are assigned to a similar use (Sillar and Tite 2000, 7).

Particular shapes of the vessels, decoration, lugs and other applied elements, which are instead, most of the time, the result of cultural practice, are not homogeneously distributed throughout Anatolia, but rather underline many distinct regions of development. These last attributes would represent Bordes view of material culture attributes. The visibility of both meanings (functional and cultural) within a group of ceramics, apart from proving both Binford’s and Bordes’ interpretations correct, is extremely interesting, since it demonstrates the complexity of rules that regulate material culture production. This interpretation of technical similarities, but cultural autonomy of Anatolian communities, might be the same one able to explain relations between the Konya plain and Cilicia. Economic and maybe political interaction between Çatal Höyük and Yumuktepe might have contributed to the distribution and exchange of knowledge, technical ability, primary resources (obsidian), and to a certain extent material culture, thus provoking technical similarities in the ceramics, but this interaction was never deep enough to upset and unite the cultural and social organisation of the two regions. The typologies and decorative styles of the pottery are in fact well distinct.

The sharing of technical skills does not necessarily imply the participation within the same cultural traditions. In fact, exchange of knowledge can be a consequence of economic ties between communities, that do not necessarily involve intense social and cultural interrelations. The homogeneity of environmental characters in most of the Anatolian communities might also explain part of these common technical choices. It would thus appear that Anatolian Neolithic groups shared technical knowledge and choices, probably in consequence of environmental

256

12 – Mineral Tempered Ware in Central Anatolia

257

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

258

12 – Mineral Tempered Ware in Central Anatolia

259

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

260

13 AT THE BORDERS: BETWEEN ANATOLIA AND MESOPOTAMIA 13.1 RESEARCH TURKEY

IN THE

SOUTHERN PLAINS

OF

The southern Turkish plains of Kahraman-Maraş and Gaziantep are the last two large piedmont plains before the beginning of the vast Euphrates alluvium, they are somewhat the “antechamber” of Mesopotamia. Half way between Adana (and thus Mersin) and the Euphrates, where the Neolithic settlements of Mezraa Teleilat and Akarçay were, Neolithic occupation was quite intense in this region too. A survey of the Kahraman-Maraş plain has been carried out by Elisabeth Carter in the early 90s and has evidenced this. Six Neolithic sites have been discovered in the first year of survey and these have evidenced a pottery production in part similar to that of the Amuq, and partly showing strong affinities with that of Tarsus and Mersin (Carter 1994, 333). Halaf culture will be strongly present in a later phase, just like at the more eastern, Euphrates sites. The excavation of the site of Domuztepe, in the KahramanMaraş plain, has demonstrated this very clearly, with its large and complex Halaf occupation. Unfortunately, the little available data on the pre-Halaf materials does not allow a precise comparison with the DFW tradition. Its position, though, and the few comments by Carter, suggest that relations between these regions and the DFW producers must have been taking place. Reports from the site of Sakçe Gözü, slightly to the south of the Kahraman-Maraş plain, allude to the presence of partly independent communities from those of the south, since its ceramic assemblage shows, next to indisputable similarities, quite distinct characters. Strangely enough, the pottery from Sakçe Gözü appears to be partly different also from that of the very near settlements on the Euphrates, around Birecik (Chapter 11).

13.2

SAKÇE GÖZÜ

Along the road from Adana to Gaziantep and not more than 50 km from the Syrian border, is the multi-mound site of Sakçe Gözü. The site is on a highland just south of the Kahraman-Maraş plain and at the point in which two streams divide, one of which is to reach, further south, the Amuq plain. A road, eastward, through the highlands, furthermore, reaches Gaziantep and then the Euphrates, where Neolithic occupation is known (Mezraa Teleilat and Akarçay). The Arsanlı Bel, one of the two easiest and most used passages through the Amanus mountains, is not far

from the site, thus it is easily imaginable that Sakçe Gözü must have laid along an important route, in the past. Reached in a daring and adventurous way, first by sea, then train and finally with four whole days on a horseback from Adana, the site was excavated in 1908 and 1911 by the English Nielson Expedition (the same that will later investigate Yumuktepe), led by John Garstang (Garstang 1908, 98). Another season of excavations was taken up, many years later, in 1949, by some members of the original team and other English archaeologists (du Plat Taylor et al. 1950). The mounds composing the site are 5 and the one that has evidenced Neolithic occupation is mound A, Coba Höyük. Mound B, Songrus Höyük, might have been occupied more or less at the same time, but excavation was too little at this site to give clear chronological indications. At Coba, instead, a large trench (A) reached virgin soil and provided the sequence of occupation of the settlement. A second area, trench Z, reached Pottery Neolithic occupation too and gave a clearer sequence of the pottery developments during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic; in fact this is the one from which most data comes. Three pottery phases have been defined and described by Seton-Williams on the basis of the stratigraphy and ceramics of trench Z, and confirmed by a comparison with trench A sherds. Architectural remains have evidenced hearths and both round and rectangular structures in mud brick with stone foundations. The ceramic assemblage of these levels proves very interesting for our analysis of dark burnished wares, since characteristic of Coba Höyük is a black and grey burnished and mineral tempered pottery (Garstang et al. 1937, 121). The excavators identified relations in the ceramics with those of Judaidah and Ras Shamra, as well as with eastern Mesopotamian sites known at that time, as Chagar Bazar and Arpachiyah (Garstang et al. 1937, 130). The largest bulk of material from this site is kept partly in London, at UCL, and partly at the Gaziantep museum (French and Summers 1988). I have personally had the chance to see both of these collections. Both have been repeatedly analysed and articles have been published at different times, revisiting the stratigraphic sequence of the site and the ceramic similarities with that of other settlements (du Plat Taylor et al. 1950, figs. 12, 15), as well as publishing new data.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

The first, earliest phase of occupation is characterised by black or grey, strongly burnished ware, so well burnished that Seton-Williams talks about a slip (Garstang et al. 1937, 132). Some, even though rare, fragments are light brown or reddish-brown in colour. These are quite thin, mineral in temper, with a fine medium paste. Shapes are straight sided bowls or hole-mouth jars, with simple or slightly thickened rims. Necked jars too are found, some with high vertical necks, like the very well known ones of the nearby southern sites.

Thicker, grey burnished vessels are found in the following period II. Burnishing is not so well done as in the black and thinner vessels, but paste is just as fine and, even though most pots are grey in colour, brown and reddish surfaces appear too. The core of these sherds is generally dark in the centre, but has a lighter external area, before becoming dark again in proximity of the external edges (section is dark+light+dark+light+dark) (appendix 1, case 4). This core is typical of the very fine Mersin pottery. Incised decoration in this period becomes very rare and the main technique used is “punctuation” (impression) (table 13.2). Most of the vessels are plain though, as in Period I. The punctured decoration appears to result in a characteristic, composite and multiple horizontal line, formed by the continuous repetition of dots and small segments (Pl. 13.1b-c). The motif is very particular and has been recognised, outside Coba Höyük, only in two single cases, one at Berne, in the Qoueiq, and the other at Mezraa Teleilat, on the Turkish Euphrates (Pls. 8.1d and 11.7a). It would thus appear to be something specific of Sakçe Gözü. At a closer look, it can be easily realised that the “puncturing” must have been done with a rocking motion, just like in the rocker impressed ware known from the south. A kind of fork, maybe with different size “teeth” was moved along the body of the vessel. This is not easy to understand from the drawings, and had thus not been, to my knowledge, mentioned by other scholars, but some of the photographs taken of this pottery clearly evidence the mechanism (Pl. 13.1c)588. Next to this rocker-fork decoration (“punctured” in Garstang’s terminology), is another motif, obtained in exactly the same way, except this time the instrument impressed on the vessel is a small and rather straight segment. This, referred to as “roulette decoration”, is simply another version of the rocker technique (Pl 13.2a-b)589. Some sherds of a simple “pointillé” technique, impressed dots, also appear and will further develop in the following period. These sherds with variously impressed decoration on the exterior frequently have a pattern burnished interior. This consists of a kind of burnished diagonal “net” decoration (Pl. 13.1b, 2nd and 3rd sherds). Such a decorative choice has never been noticed before in other areas.

Decoration on these burnished vessels is mostly incised with zigzags or triangles, herringbones and diagonal lines (Pl. 13.1a). Often, these incisions were filled with white calcareous paste (table 13.1). Pattern burnish is found on some sherds, strongly recalling the Rouj and Amuq decorations (Garstang et al. 1937, 133 refers to pattern burnish as pebble burnishing). Interesting is to note that incised decoration appears to be limited mostly to bowls, whilst the pattern burnish, and later the impressed decorations, prefer necked and hole-mouth jars. The excavation of the late 40s apparently found very few sherds of the incised black pottery in the earliest levels of occupation of the site, but this might be due, as the archaeologists themselves hypothesise, to a functional difference between the different excavated areas of the settlement (du Plat Taylor et al. 1950, 83). Painted sherds, on mineral tempered ware, were very rare in this period, but present; light coloured, the paint was normally given in red bands. Next to these were also chaff tempered, thick sherds, with no treatment of the surface. This first period of occupation in the Gaziantep plain, thus results in being characterised by a burnished pottery that, undecorated, strongly reminds the one of the Amuq DFbW. The bowls, even though technically the same as the very fine black polished and burnished ware of Yumuktepe and Amuq, had an incised decoration unknown in the DFW horizon (table 13.1). Nevertheless, the rare sherds of painted pottery prove to have strong affinities with the southern ones, thus arguing in favour of contacts between these regions. The chaff tempered pottery, a minority in this early phase, might be of southern influence too, but might also be a local tradition. After all, the Neolithic settlement of Mezraa Teleilat, not many kilometres to the east, has a great quantity of vegetal tempered, coarse pottery.

In period II thus, the changes noticed in the dark, mineral tempered, burnished ware both involve technical and stylistic aspects (table 13.2). The very thin and black vessels, with incised decoration, diminish, whilst thicker walled pots with diverse rocker impressed external decorations and pattern burnished interior become common. Their shape is mainly that of bowls with a rather closed profile, often with a slightly everted rim or inward

Sakçe Gözü Period I Fine black burnished (polished) incised mineral tempered. Incisions often white filled Grey-black burnished non decorated Dark burnished ware with pattern burnish Chaff tempered, plain ware Painted pottery (rare)

588

I owe the greatest thanks to Dr Kemal Sertok, then director of the Gaziantep museum, for permitting me to see and photograph the Coba Höyük ceramics held at the Gaziantep museum. 589 du Plat Taylor et al. 1950, 90 give two distinct definitions (Roulette ware and Rocker ware) to two sherds that, to my advice, could go under the same group.

Table 13.1 – List of Sakçe Gözü Period I main ceramic characters.

262

13 – At the Borders. Between Anatolia and Mesopotamia

oriented walls and flat bases. Colours of these are mainly grey, but lighter tones are also seen.

important elements that set a clear boundary between these two areas.

Together with this burnished pottery, some painted sherds of Halaf period appear, but might be intrusive. Some rare fragments of burnished sherds with red painted linear decorations recall instead those of the preceding period.

Stratigraphic correlations are difficult too. The excavations of 1949 have in fact come upon slightly diverging considerations on the early ceramic sequence in comparison to those of the early investigations. In the period I identified by du Plat Taylor and colleagues, incised, fine black burnished sherds, which are the main character of Garstang’s period I, are in fact rare. Punctured impressions and pattern burnish decoration is described and illustrated amongst the present decorations of the mineral tempered dark burnished ware of period I. They furthermore state that painted pottery, similar to that of preHalaf Mersin, is present, whilst Garstang saw it mostly in the following period II. Their description, for this period, would rather appear to correspond to Garstang’s period II. In du Plat-Taylor’s period II, the burnished wares appear to have the same characters of the previous phase, but next to these is the new presence of Halaf and Samarra pottery. Again, in the following period III, burnished wares have little novelty if not the finding of pointillé decoration, whilst Halaf pottery has greatly increased and developed. No matter these incongruities Du Plat and colleagues argue that the phases identified correspond to those of the beginning of the century (du Plat Taylor et al. 1950, 83). They hypothesise, though, a later date for the whole sequence, as they consider period I to be pre-Halaf Chalcolithic (du Plat Taylor et al. 1950, 56). According to the pottery description I would rather see a correspondence between du Plat Taylor’s period I and Garstang’s period II and probably their periods II and III both coincide with Garstang’s III.

Sakçe Gözü Period II Grey/brown burnished mineral tempered vessels Rocker technique decoration (punctured and roulette) Pattern burnish on interior of impressed vessels Pointillé decoration on burnished vessels (rare) Plain, chaff tempered coarse ware Painted pottery Table 13.2 – Main characters of the pottery assemblage of Period II at Sakçe Gözü.

In period III plain fabrics still predominate, but there is a noticeable increase in Halaf painted pottery (table 13.3). The plain wares remain grey or brown, mineral in temper and burnished. Some are still decorated with the punctured and roulette rocker motives, or small and fine punctured dots (Pl. 13.2c). Probably the most interesting novelty of phase III is the presence of the complex pattern burnish on jars and bowls, as it recalls the DFbW tradition. In this period, light coloured (brown and reddish-brown, buff) sherds increase. Cream bowls are present amongst the painted pots, but abrupt profiles are noticed in the burnished ware too. Variety of shapes is in fact much greater than before. Flaring necks become common, and many of them have pattern burnish decoration, very similar to that seen in Rouj 2d and in Amuq B2 (Pl. 13.2d). A couple of examples of these might already be found in previous period II (Pl. 13.2d, 1st sherd), but they are most frequent in period III. Coarse, vegetal tempered ware continues to be found, with no particular changes from the previous period.

Correlating this site’s stratigraphy and pottery assemblage to the ones known from the DFW horizon is quite complicated. Certainly, there are clear elements that indicate relations between these two regions, be it the fine polished, mineral tempered bowls, too identical to those of Mersin XXVII-XXVI to be casual, or the use of pattern burnish, especially that with the more complex patterns on the exterior of jars and bowls, of Garstang’s phase III. Some non decorated burnished vessels with dark coloured surfaces have a very strong affinity with those of Judaidah, especially with those of phase B: straight necked jars, flaring profiles, as well as low tray-like shapes. Some rare painted pottery too is so similar to hypothesise a southern influence or even import.

Sakçe Gözü Period III Grey/brown but also light coloured, burnished and mineral tempered vessels Rocker technique, puncture and roulette decoration (at times with pattern burnish in the interior) Pointillé decoration on burnished vessels Complex pattern burnish Burnished vessels with flaring necks and carenated profiles Plain, chaff tempered coarse ware Halaf painted pottery

No matter these correlations, decorations and stylistic choices of the inhabitants of Coba Höyük appear to be quite distinct from those of the south. Incised mineral tempered pottery is not known from these periods at Mersin, nor at Judaidah. Yumuktepe does testify black polished and incised sherds, at times filled with white paste in levels XXIV-XX. These are technologically very similar to those noticed in the Gaziantep site, but the motives do not appear to be too close. Mersin evidences mainly dotted and herringbone patterns, whilst diagonal lines and

Table 13.3 – Main and diagnostic elements of the pottery assemblage at Sakçe Gözü, in period III.

This summary of the ceramics present at Coba Höyük has probably given the feeling of an, at least stylistically, if not technologically, autonomous ceramic assemblage. Relations with the southern DFW tradition are observable more or less in all 3 phases, but there are always some 263

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

variously filled triangles are the typical designs at Coba Höyük. Judaidah apparently has no incised decoration at all on the dark burnished wares, but the Rouj does testify sherds with this decoration, some of which white filled, in period 2d. As for rocker impressions, these too are not common in the south; only some, rare, sherds are found in Mersin, these too from later levels XXIII-XX.

Table 13.5 tries to summarise the different phases in which analogous ceramic attributes from Coba and the DFW sites appear. It is immediately evident that there are some discrepancies in correlations. What can be affirmed with certainty is that the earliest Sakçe Gözü occupation cannot be as old as phases A in the Amuq and levels XXXIIIXXX in Mersin. In fact, none of the elements characterising that period are present in the Gaziantep site. Period III has Halaf pottery and should thus be considered coincident with Amuq C and Rouj 3, or slightly overlapping with the previous phases (B2 and 2d, because of the presence of complex pattern burnish). Basically, thus, the 3 phases of Neolithic occupation of Coba would be dated to a time within these two limits. The presence of incised, white filled ware in phase I might confirm, like du Plat and collegues have proposed, that the whole Coba sequence should be moved up, to a late pre-Halaf period. Phases I-III would cover a period more or less corresponding to Mersin XXV-XX/XIX. The thickness and grey colour of the burnished vessels would fit well into such a chronology, as the Mersin XXIII-XX dark burnished ware has the same characters. Style and decoration would be confirmed as autonomous from the Mersin and Amuq ones. Was this correlation correct, it might be further hypothesised that the rare incised and white filled black sherds of Mersin and the Rouj could have been of northern origin, either imported or imitated from Sakçe Gözü.

In general relations between the Cilician and Gaziantep sites appear to be quite limited. Probable contacts might have caused affinities in the technological choices (grey burnished ware) and partly in the stylistic ones too (complex pattern burnish on necked jars and bowls), but, in general, stylistic developments appear strongly divergent, so dissimilar that one might even imagine an intentional desire to distinguish themselves from each other (table 13.5). The presence of chaff tempered pottery might suggest greater connections with the Amuq, but the differences in the dark burnished ware (as seen with Mersin) might bring to imagine an eastern, Euphrates and Mesopotamian, origin and correlations. Archaeometric analyses that have been carried out by Le Mière on Coba Höyük material, have unfortunately given no hints as to the origin and distribution of the ceramics of the settlement (Le Mière and Picon 1987, 141). Stratigraphic correlations between Yumuktepe, the AmuqRouj and Mersin are still very tentative. The thick, grey burnished ware reminds that of Mersin XXIII-XX. Some of it is found, at Coba, in Garstang’s period I, but it becomes more common in II and III (table 13.5). The presence of the incised and white filled decoration and of the rocker impressions too would recall late levels at Mersin (XXIIIXX). Pottery Characters Fine black burnished (polished) Grey-black-brown burn. non decorated Incised. Often white filled Chaff tempered, plain ware Dark burn. ware with pattern burnish Painted pottery (rare) Thick grey burnished Complex pattern burnish

Coba

Mersin Judaidah Rouj

I

XXVII- gap AB; B

2c

I

XXVII- gap AB; B

2c

I

XXIVXX -

2d

I-III II-III

II-III II-III III

-

13.3 THE RELATIONS

ANATOLIAN

Coba Höyük has clearly evidenced a stylistic and also partly technological independence in the ceramic assemblage both from that of Mersin and of the southern Amuq region. Some characters, as the presence of chaff tempered pottery might be originating from the the Antakya region, but could be of eastern origin too (Euphrates communities). Relations between the ceramics of Sakçe Gözü and Mezraa Teleilat, though, appear minimal. There is no trace at all, at the more western site of the two, of the painted wares of the other, nor of the chaff impressed ware, apparently so typical of the Upper Euphrates area. Even the burnished and mineral tempered ceramics have a different look. Brown colours were much more frequent at Mezraa and amongst the few impressed sherds of this latter site, decorations appear more similar to the Mersin and Amuq ones than to those of Sakçe Gözü. Incised decoration is totally absent, not to talk about white paste filling. Furthermore, at Coba there is no sign of the red slipped mineral tempered pottery present at the other settlement. One single fragment, from Mezraa, has the typical punctured decoration found on many sherds of the western site, but this is a single case (Pl. 11.7a).

A-B

B XXVIIXXIV XXVB XXIV XXIII- B2 XX B2

SOUTH-EASTERN

2c

2d 2d

Table 13.5 – Stratigraphic distribution of shared ceramic characters at the sites of Coba Höyük, Mersin, Judaidah and in the Rouj.

To further complicate the picture comes the site of Karkemish, along the Euphrates, exactly on the border between Turkey and Syria, thus less than 30 km south of Mezraa Teleilat and half way down to Halula and the other 264

13 – At the Borders. Between Anatolia and Mesopotamia

that case, acts as a border between cultural developments and roads of communication. Could the case have been similar during the Ceramic Neolithic? The fact that both Mezraa and Akarçay, in the Neolithic, have so few similarities with Coba, whilst Karkemish, on the western side of the river, shows apparently more contacts with the latter, might give credit to such an explanation. There would thus not be a chronological distinction between these sites, but an actual separation in communication and network systems.

Tishrin settlements, but on the other side of the river (west). The Neolithic material from this site is not published, but only quickly described by Woolley, and yet, from his account some essential information seems to indicate a strong affinity with Sakçe Gözü. Woolley mentions a well burnished, dark, mineral tempered pottery, often incised, with herringbone patterns or simple lines (Woolley 1934, 154). This is never white filled though. Next to incised decoration are also cases of pattern burnish. No mention at all is made of chaff tempered impressed ceramics, like those recently found a few kilometres upstream. The explanation of such apparently strong similarities in the ceramic production of Karkemish and Coba, and their evident distinction from Mezraa might be due to chronological differences, but the presence at all these sites of pre-Halaf and Halaf ceramics makes this hypothesis difficult to believe.

For the Kahraman region it is even more difficult to formulate any hypothesis, since data is very little. In later periods, Halaf culture reached the plain and, according to Carter, it also appears that contacts with the southern DFW regions were taking place before then. Data should be reanalysed though, in light of the recent typological and technological studies carried out on Dark Faced Ware, especially having seen, in Anatolia. that the similarity in technological features not necessarily indicates cultural affinities.

Much later in time, during the Late Chalcolithic, again Sakçe Gözü apparently evidences no contacts with the Euphrates sites (which are all on the eastern side of the river), but does evidence strong correlations with Sakçe Gözü and is somewhat like a “linking” region between the northern Malatya plains and the Amuq. The Euphrates, in

265

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

266

13 – At the Borders. Between Anatolia and Mesopotamia

267

14 OUTSIDE THE DFW HORIZON 14.1

WHICH IS DFW?

The first part of this work has analysed the essence of Dark Faced Ware, giving it a technological and morphological explanation and description, but also trying to understand its possible significance and the reason of its large diffusion. The Neolithic groups, the characters of which have been discussed in the first section and summarised in chapter 9 were apparently all united not only by the presence of DFW, but also by the fact that this pottery has been interpreted as having the same or similar role and function within all sites. Clues to this have been indicated by the presence of all three distinct classes of the “family” (Mersin classes 3, 4 and 5), by the near to identical typologies and by the functional interpretation hypothesised for the various types of vessels. The importance of the last point is central, since, as has been stated earlier, the significance of an object is determined by its material function and role (Kristiansen 1984, 85). It is the function/role of an object that, together with morphology, technique and decoration, identify the artefact as the expression of a particular culture. The object is not the object unless it contains within it the essential quality (Lechtman 1984, 30). Two artefacts could, in fact, have the same technological and morphological characters, but belong to distinct cultures and have totally different roles within those communities (as has been discussed in 1.4); in an analysis, the aim of which is that of interpreting the culture that produces them, distinction between the two will be fundamental. It is the discovery of the underlying cultural beliefs of an artefact that can help contextualise the object and understand the cultural and social organisation and relations that are behind it (Prown 1996, 22). If the meaning given to an object by two distinct groups is different, the object too should be considered different. In fact, it is not only archaeologists that classify ceramics, these were categorised by their producers too and the classes were probably created according to the role/function of the artefacts. Cases known from anthropology and ethnology are hundreds. For example, in central India, colour and morphology of pottery are associated to principles such as caste and gender (Miller 1985), thus categories of vessels are defined by colour and shape distinction; the latter on its own is not sufficient to illustrate a class of artefacts. Furthermore, being these classes linked to a caste or gender rather than function, vessels from one group may be used for quite varied functions (Kramer and Douglas 1992). Another similar

case has been noticed by Arnold amongst the Ticul in Yucatan, where colour of the vessel and hardness were seen as the important attributes for the categorisation of the pots (Arnold 1971, 27). Shapes have no apparent primary role in distinguishing categories of vessels. The above examples are important because they implicitly underline that, in order to define a “cultural unit” between regions on the basis of common material culture, we have to be sure that the categories of the objects used for demonstrating this have the same role in all the groups involved. The importance of these concepts in the analysis of DFW distribution is central; in fact, the finding of this ceramic category over such a vast region immediately brings to wonder whether in this long distance movement the essence and role of DFW was maintained or not. The consequences of the answer to this question are major. If the role and meaning of DFW gets lost in these movements of exchange, reproduction, imitation of material culture, throughout such vast territories, then would it be correct to carry on calling it DFW? Pottery might be imported into another area, maintaining its morphological and technological characters, but losing the function it had in the original area. In this last case can we talk about “cultural unit” of the two regions with that particular ceramic? In none of the regions external to northern Syria and Cilicia the very Fine Dark Faced burnished ware (“the dinner set”) has been found (Mersin class 5); having hypothesised that the role of DFW was linked to food consumption and to moments of social activities, this absence is certainly significant. I have often pointed out that, because of this and of other particular characters of the pottery, the function/role of DFW used at these external sites (for example on the Lebanese coast and at Ramad) appeared to me distinct from that of the “core” regions. This indicates, in my view, a cultural autonomy of these groups, which does not however exclude contacts, the consequence of which might be exchange of artefacts and imitation of specific elements of material culture. Since class 5 (the fine black ware) is never found in any “external” site, when talking about exchange, movement and finding of DFW outside Syria and Cicilia, it is generally to a class similar to Mersin class 3 (DFbW) that

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

called DFBW, whilst no clear Sabi ceramics have been evidenced in the Qoueiq, the nearest region belonging to the DFW horizon).

one is referring. This has already been pointed out when going through Marie Le Mière’s analyses on “DFBW” from various Neolithic sites. Class 3, or DFbW, in those studies and in many others, has become a synonym of DFBW. This work has shown that, DFBW is a wider category, including more than one single pottery class and it has also been hypothesised that to it is also linked the class of cooking pots (Gritty Dark Ware), which was referred to by Braidwood as a separate group, with the name of Dark Faced unburnished Ware (DFuW). In some sites, a class 4-like category is found, but this too appears to be more rarely and less widely distributed than class 3. Why was it only this one class to be shared, exchanged or imitated by groups outside the DFW tradition? and, was it this class after all?

The issue of quantity too is not a minor one. In fact, the presence, at a particular site, of 1% or so of ceramics extraneous to the assemblage and thus hypothesised as imported, does not radically modify our reconstruction of the cultural, social and economic traits and relations of that community. It does indicate that the site was in contact with a group producing this pottery and that these connections brought to the exchange or the “gift giving” of some ceramics. When the quantity of pottery considered as extraneous to the site is instead quite high, other, more complicated, dynamics of social and cultural relations are to be hypothesised. At tell Sabi Abyad in the Balikh, the class interpreted by Le Mière as imported DFBW constitutes, in level 5, more than 15% of the assemblage; was its interpretation as DFBW true it would imply the existence of a specialist person or community, producing this particular category of pottery for Sabi Abyad. Halaf will evidence such a situation (Le Blanc and Watson 1973), when all the communities involved in the exchange of pottery become part of and share the Halaf culture. Sabi Abyad instead, does not appear to share other cultural traits with the groups from which the pottery supposedly originates (the DFW horizon); this pottery, furthermore, does not appear to have the same meaning that it had where it was first manufactured and used. Why then, should the dark mineral tempered ware be exported to Sabi Abyad? Could it not be that, as a consequence of contacts (economic, social…), the Balikh community started manufacturing such a pottery, for reasons not linked with its original cultural and social function?

The area of distribution of DFW or similar is decidedly vast and it is very unlikely that, all over, this broad category of pottery maintained the same meaning and function. In this chapter I shall try to group together areas that I believe have more or less similar relations with the DFW horizon (the one described in chapter 10) and concentrate on them singularly, trying to identify the character and intensity of these connections with Syria and Cilicia.

15.2 DARK MINERAL TEMPERED, DFW 15.2.1

BUT NOT

Local or Imported?

It is mainly the relative quantity in which a category of material culture is present that is considered as an indicator of its local or imported origin.

Against a systematic import from the DFW region and a major “cultural contamination” between these areas are also the many typological and stylistic varieties that these different regions show in the dark mineral tempered wares. Indeed the origin and prototype from which such ceramics derived might have been one and a certain movement of vessels is probable, together with the movement of people, but I do not see the regular export of large quantities of DFW as a plausible explanation, according to today’s data, of its presence in the Balikh and Euphrates regions. I rather imagine local re-elaborations of ceramic models that might come from the west, but might also be northern in origin or even local.

A known contemporary situation is that of the Jazira sites of the Umm Dabaghiyah and then Hassuna cultures, where indications of import/export of ceramics are clear. The system of these two Mesopotamian cultures though, was one of economic specialisation, in which each group belonging to the system carried out some specific activity (as specific pottery manufacture, onager hunting etc.) for all related communities. In the case of two distinct cultural and social systems, import of ceramics has a totally distinct significance. This might in fact be laden with symbolic meaning and underline social interaction and activities between the two independent communities (Hodder 1982), or it might be a consequence of economic relations. In most cases, though, one would imagine to find in each site elements of the material culture of the group with which some sort of relation exists. Objects must be exchanged with other objects that have similar biographies, similar social and symbolic connotations (Tilley 1996, 253). The presence of pottery from group A in site B, but no group B element in site A, would be quite enigmatic (this is the case, for example, of Sabi Abyad in the Balikh, site that has a so-

In the analysis of the DFBW/DFW of the “peripheral” regions, two are those that have evidenced the greatest quantity of this mineral tempered, dark coloured pottery: the settlements with White Ware in the Beqa’a, Syrian and Lebanese coast and neighbouring areas, and the site of Sakçe Gözü in south-eastern Anatolia. Early levels of some Euphrates sites too (Halula and Akarçay tepe) have shown a predominance of vessels with mineral inclusions. At the coastal sites and adjacent areas this dark burnished ware, in all similar to the class 3 DFBW, is found in large quantities 270

14 – Outside the DFW Horizon

The overall distinction of pottery assemblages of these groups and those of the DFW horizon indicate that these contacts never brought to a complete sharing of material culture and to a socio-cultural unification of the communities. Though networks were probably set up between these regions, providing constant communication and exchange, areas remained essentially autonomous.

and constitutes approximately 50% or more of the whole ceramic assemblage. This is the case at Sukas, Tabbat alHammam and probably at Ramad, Nebi Mend and in the Beqa’a. Byblos, which is a little to the south of Sukas and Tabbat, has a great quantity of dark, mineral tempered ware too, but it mostly resembles class 4 cooking ware, more than the burnished group 3. As for the early levels at Halula and Akarçay tepe, nearly the whole assemblage is formed by this pottery with mineral inclusions. In Sakçe Gözü too, the enormous majority of the pottery is mineral tempered and dark in colour. These large quantities are, in my opinion, in no way interpretable as imported. There are no clues that indicate large scale exchange of, or trade in ceramics and the consequent strong relations that would be established between the groups involved in this “transaction”.

Yumuktepe and Tarsus too had a partly distinct ceramic assemblage from that of the Syrian settlements, but differently from what is visible here, in that case all the characters of Dark Faced Ware developed exactly in the same way as in Syria. Identical class subdivisions within the DFW family are present and can be followed through time. This has been taken to indicate that the value and role given to DFW in Cilicia and north-western Syria, by the Neolithic communities, was equivalent, and that these regions participated in inter-site moments of social activity, in the form of “feasts”, directed to reinforce kin, social and/or economic ties.

Apart from that regarding the origin of this ceramic category, another question is central: why was this pottery so largely adopted? The strictly functional character of the ceramic category might be one of the reasons for its movement through distinct communities. Particularly resistant to thermal shock and impermeable, DFW could have been, for example, used by other sites for their cooking pots. 15.2.2

Though such events cannot be excluded for the coastal sites and neighbouring groups of the interior too, the absence of the fine class 5 ware would appear to indicate they were not using the same instruments for expressing community identity nor participating in the same social activities as the other, more northern, settlements. A confirmation of this also comes from the developments of later pre-Halaf period. Both in Cilicia and north-western Syria in fact, even though cultural systems were probably autonomous, special relations between the two regions were expressed by the use of similar motives on the first painted ceramics. This is not the case in the coastal and more southern settlements, where the only affinity in the ceramic assemblage, in the period immediately preceding Halaf, is the DFW, which diminishes, though, in favour of the combed impressed ware; the latter underlines a gradual separation of the southern and coastal settlements from the DFW horizon33. Byblos evidences this very well - but all the other sites would seem to act in the same way too (Tabbat al-Hammam, Labweh, Neba’a Faour, Ard Tlaili, Ramad, Nebi Mend) – in the passage from period 1A to 1B.

Lebanon and Western Syria

The communities of the Mediterranean coast and the immediate interior, characterised in this Neolithic period by the abundant production of white, calcareous ware, were clearly in contact with the DFW region, as the presence of White and Plastered Ware in the latter area has also testified. I would thus quite naturally ascribe the presence of a mineral, dark coloured ware to such relations. Technological and morphological similarities with the class 3 DFBW have been suggested by the analysis made on the published materials and confirmed by Braidwood’s statements on the pottery of Tabbat al Hammam. Apparently no fine, class 5 ware, has been found, whilst unburnished dark pottery is present. I have advanced the hypothesis, in chapter 10, that the adoption of this particular pottery technology by the coastal groups and their neighbours might indeed be linked to its functional character. Calcium carbonate vessels, the only other containers made by these populations in the earlier phases, are very fragile and not in the least resistant to thermal shock, even though highly water resistant (impermeable). This is the reason that brings me to suggest that an immediate consequence of contacts between these people and the DFW horizon would have been the adoption of the mineral tempered pottery, furthermore even at origin (in the DFW region) used for food preparation and consumption. An extremely practical, functional reason might be at the base of this sharing of traits in the ceramic assemblage between the DFW region and these more southern groups.

Combed-impressed ware is moulded into shapes very similar to those of the DFW (hole-mouth jars and deep bowls) and it is thus quite probable that the CombedImpressed ware was used for activities similar to those performed by the Dark Faced-like ware, thus food preparation and consumption. The fact that such an activity, that in the original DFW region was laden with strong social and organisational significance, could be in a way substituted by another category of pottery is a further 33

The two categories of pottery are reported together in all the analysed sites and no relative quantities are given. Byblos, but also Labweh and Tabbat al-Hammam have suggested the diachronic distinction between the two, though, with the DFW-like being earlier and the Combed-impressed later.

271

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

proof that the coastal communities and their neighbours were not fully participating within the DFW horizon. For them DFW had acquired a different meaning.

that contacts were probably strongest with this region. Judaidah, instead, which lay south of Sakçe Gözü along a quite easy route of communication, has no evidence of such ceramics (the Rouj does, though). Whilst the relations of the coastal region of Syria and Lebanon were essentially with the Amuq, but not with Cilicia, in this case, it is probably the latter that has the most contacts with the Gaziantep site. Relations are furthermore apparently stronger in the later pre-Halaf periods, when incised ware and light grey, thicker but fine paste vessels as those of Sakçe Gözü are seen in Mersin.

I would thus conclude that Tabbat al Hammam, Byblos, the Beqa’a sites, Ramad and probably also Nebi Mend belonged to a distinct cultural tradition, an autonomous socio-cultural and economic system, which was related to the DFW region of north-western Syria in a broad interregional network of communication34. Sukas too was part of this regional development, even though its position much nearer to the “DFW Horizon” (the site is just south of Ras Shamra) evidently caused it’s greater similarities with the material culture of that area, than what was the case with the other “White Ware sites”. Even though difficult to reconstruct, the character of such contacts must not have involved major cultural modifications, nor brought to an important social reorganisation; it will only be the arrival of Halaf influence that will draw some of these groups to similar social and organisational characters. 15.2.3

No matter the technological similarities, the very strong distinctness in style and decoration, of the Sakçe Gözü pottery, is an indication of autonomy of the two communities. This separation brings to an interesting consideration on the Neolithic routes of communication: two were probably the roads linking north (Anatolia) and south (Mesopotamia), one was possibly passing along the Euphrates and the other along the coast, comprehending Mersin. The autonomy of Sakçe Gözü from both these areas would imply it was not strongly involved in any of these routes and that east-west movements were not very common.

Sakçe Gözü

Sakçe Gözü, in the Gaziantep region in Turkey, clearly evidenced a totally different situation to the one just reported. Characterised by a mineral tempered, grey coloured and burnished pottery, it has been paralleled to the DFW tradition, but distinctions are numerous, both from a morphologic and a stylistic point of view. Stratigraphic correlations of this site are not very clear and various points remain obscure in the description of the pottery, thus further complicating the interpretation; too many though are the apparently exclusive pottery attributes of this settlement for imagining that its original “inspirer” could have been solely the DFW communities. Furthermore, we have seen that mineral tempers and dark colours were quite common in most Anatolian Neolithic ceramics. The ceramic production of Sakçe Gözü is thus, in my view, an autonomous production from that of the DFW, and similarities, when actually demonstrated, are mostly due to the exchange and sharing of technical parameters.

15.2.4 Middle and Neighbouring Regions

Upper

Euphrates

and

The Tishrin dam sites and those on the Turkish Euphrates (Mezraa and Akarçay) have evidenced similarities in their ceramic productions, fact that might testify their participation within a same cultural and social region. All, furthermore, are culturally distinct from the western DFW tradition: dark burnished ware is only present in small quantities, not all its three classes have been identified, and last of all, there is a strong presence of chaff tempered ware, that links the region more to the eastern, Mesopotamian cultures. External relations of the Tishrin dam sites are quite complex. Ceramic elements of these eastern regions have been evidenced in the Aleppo district (chaff impressed ware and some painted ware) and vice versa (mineral burnished and some examples of early painted brittle ware along the Euphrates), thus testifying for contacts with the Qoueiq area. These do not go west of this area though and thus do not involve the whole DFW region. Contacts with the south-east, Balikh area, are evidenced too, by the presence of the typical Sabi Abyad painted motives at most of the Euphrates settlements. At the same time, communication with Anatolia proper has been suggested.

Relations with its contemporary neighbours are in part still enigmatic, since the site appears to share only few elements with the eastern Teleilat Mezraa and, to the west, with Mersin and Tarsus. It is certainly curious that similar technology to that of DFW was used in the manufacture of the pottery, when typology and decoration are highly autonomous. Coba Höyük is the only non DFW horizon sites that has very fine, polished dark pottery, technologically similar to that of Mersin class 5 (Fine DFbW), possibly indicating an especially close relation with the south and west. Some incised, fine and black ware, typical of this site, was found at Mersin, thus indicating

No matter the similarities, the overall distinction of the ceramic assemblage of the Euphrates region is an evident indication of the autonomy of these communities from those of the DFW region, Northern Mesopotamia proper and more northern Anatolia, although the nature of contacts with these different regions is not easy to understand. Byblos and neighbouring sites too have evidenced

34

The absence of both White and Plastered ware at Mersin might indicate that these relations were only with the north-west Syrian DFW culture and didn’t involve Cilicia.

272

14 – Outside the DFW Horizon

make use of established genealogical relationships, and are naturally able to identify some type of kinship link with virtually any family within any region (Graves 1991, 121). Women tend to exchange with villages with which their region has reliable peace pacts or a common historical origin and, most importantly, it is unlikely that these potters use the opportunity for interregional exchange as a means to negotiate their identity or reinforce their regional boundaries. These have in fact been established long before similarities in the pottery decoration can be viewed and interpreted (Graves 1991, 143).

multidirectional relations: with southern, Yarmuk communities, as well as with those of the DFW horizon. In that case distinction in material culture influences from the two areas is extremely clear. Anatolia, instead, has testified a very strong technological affinity, in its pottery production, to that of Syria and Cilicia, thus making it more difficult to identify the extent and direction of interregional contacts. None of the analysed sites in the east have evidenced a manufacture of a mineral tempered, dark coloured ceramic, which responded to the same morpho-stylistic characters, and, especially, which followed the same temporal evolution of the Rouj and Amuq DFW. Colours are dark most of the time, thus maybe indicating greater affinity with the western mineral tempered ceramics than with the Anatolian ones, but few others are the indications of identity between this and the western DFWs.

What kind of relations did these regions have? Probably persistent in time, but not very intense, as the overall ceramic productions remained autonomous; common ceramics or/and technology, suggest some kind of allegiance of those groups. Ties could be, in my view, well summarised by the “interdependent model”, that Headland and Reid have formulated in describing the relations between groups of hunter gatherers and neighbouring populations. They report on the fact that most, if not all tribal people can be in more or less continuous interaction with neighbouring communities, often including state societies, for thousands of years without changing their cultural and social organisation (Headland and Reid 1989, 44). Never are egalitarian societies closed systems, but rather part of complex regional systems -tied together by trade, exchange and politics- that included surrounding argiculturalists, pastoralists, but also nomadic or seminomadic hunters that frequented the region. These groups cooperate and exchange primary resources, participate in common social activities, but do not acquire the other groups’ social or cultural identity, nor economic organisation. These groups are thus somehow interdependent one with the other for their survival, but do not come to share cultural or social characters. Agta are nomads that, in the Philippine, live out of hunting, but they acquire almost all the rice they need (the main staple of the region) by trading meat with agriculturalists. This exchange/trade has gone on for hundreds of years, without the Agta becoming agriculturalists (Headland and Reid 1989, 45).

Some sherds clearly of western origin have been found in these eastern regions, like the pattern burnished bowl at Sabi Abyad, arguing for the exchange, even though sporadic, of vessels at these large distances. These elements would argue for a stronger relation with the DFW horizon than with the Anatolian tradition, but more specifically oriented analysis is needed to verify this hypothesis. At Mezraa Teleilat, the presence of applied elements on the mineral tempered ceramics also indicate, in fact, Anatolian influence. Two are, in conclusion, the distinct interpretations I have given to the ceramics born from relations between Euphrates, Balikh and the west: a first, small, group is composed by exchanged vessels, but the more abundant is instead a local pottery, probably derived from contacts with the west, and later evolved independently. This might be the case of most Grey-black sherds and of the Sabi Abyad “DFBW” too. It is, in my opinion, the technological attributes of the western DFW that have been adopted, whilst, as already stated, the vessels are most probably given a distinct meaning and function. As for the sites of White Ware producers, technical properties of the vessels might be one of the reasons for which dark burnished wares were adopted, as their good resistance to thermal shock and impermeability. It is not the most prestigious ceramics that are shared, but the more utilitarian vessels.

Our case probably involves greater distances and maybe minor intensity, but must have functioned on a similar basis. Furthermore, even though there is no testimony of this, we cannot exclude that nomadic populations, covering distances between the west Syrian communities and the Euphrates, are those to “blame” for having brought the DFW to the east. That relations were ruled by complex networks of interconnecting cultural systems is out of doubt, and temporal distinctions noticed in analysing the developments of DFW, have given interesting clues as to the intensity and continuously changing character of groups’ interaction and relations. The early phases of DFW development, in fact, have appeared to be strongly oriented to long distance relations involving the Euphrates and probably the Balikh (testified by the Halula Black series and the mineral tempered pottery at Akarçay), whilst in the

Exchange, in non western societies, is really a form of diplomacy, and for this reason it cannot be understood in purely economic terms (Bradley and Edmonds 1993, 1117). Exchange is concerned with the creation, protection, manipulation of social relationships (Jones 2002, 96). The finding of pots in areas far away from their place of origin indicates they could have been given as gift or as a balanced exchange between two people of different communities. Examples from ethnography are very clear and the dynamics explained could give hints on the character of the relations discussed. Kalinga women who exchange or give gifts of pottery, even with remote regions, 273

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

second part of the period under study, when husking trays, chaff tempered vessels with applied decorations, or painted triangles are common in most of the analysed settlements, we have assisted to a move of the Euphrates groups towards the east, evidencing clearer and stronger contacts with the groups of the Jazira. Similarities in the ceramic production have not prevented to notice the socio-cultural independence of the Euphrates and eastern regions from those of the DFW. Unfortunately, there isn’t much other data, asides from pottery, that can confirm this; known architectural features and economic data indicate for all these communities mixed farmingherding resources, together with hunting, and simple monoor multi-cellular rectangular structures. East of the Balikh, indications of contacts with the DFW tradition are only sporadic and referable to single sherds found in a few sites. These might have arrived indirectly, through the mediation of some other “middle” group, or they might actually be the consequence of some, probably not regular, encounter between western and eastern communities. I should end by reminding that amongst the bulk of dark mineral tempered wares from the Middle Euphrates and Balikh that are hypothesised to be of western influence, there might be north, Anatolian influenced ceramics too.

274

15 CHRONOLOGY. A TEMPORAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF DFBW/DFW 15.1

RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY FROM TYPOLOGY AND ABSOLUTE DATING

Since Oscar Montelius’s chronological tables based on artefacts’ classifications, in the 19th century, many have been the developments in the dating systems, but his idea of sequences of artefacts as temporal and spatial indicators remains at the base of all reasoning (Trigger 1989). Probably the statement that is still most true and universally accepted, today, is that the best way to assign a relative date to an object is to match it with an artefact already recognised within a well established typological system. Using the ceramic production, I have suggested, all along this work, stratigraphic correlations between sites. What I have used as chronological indicators are: the appearance of a specific category of pottery (the painted ware, for example, or the red slip Coarse Ware), the various stages of development of the DFbW (appearance of the very fine pastes, of the pattern burnish, of bowls with sinuous profiles or cream bowls, the disappearance of the impressed decoration, and so on). For sites external to the DFW horizon, the character of the first manifestations of DFW has been used as a chronological indicator of the moment of “contact” with the DFW region. If it was pattern burnish that was found at such a site, for example, whilst no impressed, dark mineral ware was seen, those Mersin Amuq Rouj Ras Shamra Apamea C 3 IVB XIX

Hama L

Ramad

GAP?

2C

VA

VA

A2

2B

VB

?

A1

2A

?

GAP

1B

IIIC IIIB

M26-16

M27-36

1A

?

IIIA

GAP

?

?

?

Qminas

IV

Tabbat al-

IVC

Sukas

2D

Akarçay

B1

C a l 5900 i 6000 b 6200 r a 6500 t e d

Mezraa

5500 5600

?

Sakçe

GAP? B2

Mastuma

B C

Ard Tlaili

XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII

ON THE

Table 16.1 is a comprehensive summary of the discussions on chronology. Of this I shall pick out those points that might be most controversial, either because other scholars have given different hypotheses or because they are actually still problematic.

Neba'a Faour

XXVI XXVII

15.2 STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATIONS BASIS OF THE CERAMIC CLASSIFICATION

Labweh

XXV

I have not been able to do this for all the analysed sites, since those that have too few or vague links with the DFBW assemblage or have a difficult internal stratigraphy are still impossible to fix to a chronological table. For these sites I am only able to give some general comments and considerations.

Late Neol. GAP

XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV

Byblos

particular levels were dated to a late period in the development of DFbW, contemporary to Rouj 2c or 2d. Obviously, the more diagnostic elements available, the more reliable is the chronological positioning of a single site. For this reason, I have, in each case, tried to list (often in the form of tables) the reasons and attributes according to which I chose one date instead of another.

7000

Table 15.1 - Relative Chronology for all the DFW and DFW-related sites, based on comparisons between ceramic assemblages. For the sites on the right no internal stratigraphy is given, but only a general chronological attribution of their occupation in relation to the DFW horizon.

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Amuq D C FMR B

Rouj 3 2D

“Néolithique Moyen” (1B). Ramad, that I have assimilated to the White Ware producing settlements, has this particular category in phase IIIA, period that, though, also shows nail impressions on the dark burnished ware. White Ware is also found in the pre-Pottery layers of the site. For such reasons, I have proposed that both Byblos 1A and Ramad IIIA occupations start earlier than the other “White Ware phases” in the DFW sites. Byblos 1A would then continue on, to be contemporary with Rouj 2c, Ras Shamra VA, etc., thus not totally contradicting de Contenson’s proposal (table 15.3). For Ramad, the situation is slightly more complicated. Ramad IIIB still has White Ware, whilst the following IIIC doesn’t; this last phase, furthermore, develops a light coloured, mineral tempered pottery characterised by incised decoration, in all similar to that of Byblos 1B. I have thus hypothesised that Ramad IIIC might be considered more or less contemporary with the beginning of Byblos 1B, and thus IIIB should be earlier.

Ras Shamra IVB IVC GAP VAII

2C A ?

2B 2A

VAI VB ?

Table 15.2 – Chronological correlation proposed by Miyake between the Rouj, Ras Shamra and the Amuq. Miyake 1997: 55.

Miyake and the Japanese team working in the Rouj have proposed an early date, preceding that of all other sites of the neighbouring regions, for their 2a period (table 16.2) (Iwasaki et al. 1995, 148 ; Tsuneki and Miyake 1996, 121; Miyake 1997, 55). In a comparison between the Kerkh Ware (diagnostic of such a phase) and Mersin ceramics from the deep sounding SA and WA (see 2.10.4), I have proposed that Mersin too might have had such a phase (XXXIII-XXX) and possibly Judaidah as well (phase that I have called Phase A1). In fact, I have hypothesised a correspondence between the thicker and coarser, mineral tempered pottery from both sites to that of the Rouj Kerkh Ware.

MersinAmuq Ras Shamra Hama Byblos XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV C XXV XXVI XXVII B XXVIII

Hama, on the Orontes, has its earliest levels characterised only by a mineral tempered, burnished pottery, and the later pottery developments show a strong analogy with that of Judaidah period A; for this reason I have, here too, proposed an early date (corresponding to Judaidah A2) for levels M36-27. De Contenson has proposed, in 1982 (table 16.3), that Hama M was contemporary to Amuq B and Ras Shamra VA, and not earlier; I have stressed that the presence of impressed decoration at that site is, in my opinion, a probable indication, instead, of an early phase at the Orontes site too. It should also be add that the site of Akarçay, on the Euphrates, would seem to have such old occupation phases, as Le Mière and Faura have suggested (see paragraph 11.5.4 and Faura and Le Mière 1999, 283), and Halula too. At Ras Shamra, instead, such an early date might actually be missing, since de Contenson mentions the simultaneous appearance of “poteries friables” and “lustrées” (7.2.3), in phase VB.

IVC

L

VA

M

Néolithique Ancien

XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIIIA

VB

Table 15.3 – de Contenson’s chronological correlations between some of the DFBW sites. de Contenson 1982: 97 and de Contenson 1963: 37. It should be pointed out that at the time in which this table was published no data was yet available on the Rouj basin sites.

This chronological “positioning” of White Ware and incised ware has also helped to interpret and date tell Sukas and Tabbat al-Hammam, in Syria: early the first, with White Ware, but no incised decorations, and late the second, that, the opposite way round, has incised ware, but no white calcareous pots.

Amuq Phase A2 is characterised by the quite thin walled, darkish in tones (but mostly brown) and burnished, mineral tempered sherds. Impressed decoration in the form of nails, fingerprints and similar shapes, was not found on the majority of the pots, but it indeed identifies this period. This is visible at Mersin, in the early layers up to XXVIII, in the Rouj 2b, Ras Shamra VB, Hama M 26-16, and also, even though rarer, at Ramad, in phase IIIA.

The Rouj 2c evidences important novelties in the DFBW production, that have brought me to correlate them with Amuq B. These are: the increase in dark colours, the simple pattern burnish decorations, the rocker impression, jars with long and straight necks, everted and slightly sinuous profiles, and low tray like bowls. Next to these aspects, is also the appearance of a red slip on the coarse, chaff tempered pottery. One distinction though, that I have considered major, is the absence of painted pottery in the Rouj 2c, whilst this is already present in Judaidah levels

White Ware has been another important element with chronological value. It is found in Ras Shamra from VA, in the Rouj it characterises phase 2c, in Byblos it is typical of the “Néolithique Ancien” (1A) and it disappears in the 276

15 – Chronology. A Temporal Framework for the Development of DFBW/DFW

lowest 15 cm appeared to correlate with the pre-Halaf phases. Schaeffer had initially dated the Halaf period to IVB and de Contenson talks about these first 15cm of IVC as of having non-Halaf painted and burnished ware.

25-24 (Phase B). Rouj 2d will be the first moment of development of painted ceramics in the basin. Since Yumuktepe too has demonstrated a phase without painted ware (XXVII-XXVI), but with well developed characters of the DFBW, similar to those of Rouj 2c and Amuq B, it appeared in the least bizarre that Judaidah would develop painted ware at an earlier stage than that of the other two communities, one, furthermore, to the west of the Antakya plain and one to the east. I have thus advanced the hypothesis that Judaidah might be missing, in its sequence, a phase in which the DFBW developments had already reached the phase B characters but there was still no painted ceramic. This is in fact seen in Mersin XXVIIXXVI, when DFB already have characters that they will maintain in later levels XXV-XXIV, but there is no painted pottery. At Ain el Kerkh too, the novelties in the DFBW between 2c and 2d are not many and it is in Rouj 2d that painted ware appears. The hypothesis of the gap has been further supported by the presence, at both Ras Shamra VA and in Rouj 2c respectively west and east of the Amuq), of husking trays, White and Plastered Ware, all absent from Judaidah. The phase contemporary to Mersin XXVII-XXVI, Rouj 2c and Ras Shamra VA must thus be missing in the Amuq.

Judaidah B1 and B2 are probably part of the same phase; they both correlate with Rouj 2d and Ras Shamra IVC and most of the ceramic characters are actually the same. Complex pattern burnish designs are found in B1 too, in fact. Byblos too, in the “Néolithique Moyen” has clear examples of complex pattern burnish decoration on the dark burnished ware, that correlate it to the other sites. The Qoueiq, is the “bridge” linking east and west, and has thus evidenced links with both regions. Its chronology has been built, by Mellaart, following that of the Amuq and thus correlations with the west are immediate. More difficult is the correlation with the communities of the Euphrates region and with the site of Sakçe Gözü, because internal stratigraphic reliability of the surveyed sites is too small. Chronological sequences and correlations have been proposed, but still need confirmation. For Sakçe Gözü, a late sequence has been hypothesised (≈ Rouj 2c-d-3), because of an already advanced development of DFBW, whilst the Euphrates sites surely date to an earlier phase. Teleilat Mezraa, along the Euphrates, has a great variety of pottery categories, amongst which, Chaff Impressed and Red Slipped Chaff Impressed Ware, both present in the Qoueiq in phase A. This and the dark mineral and burnished ware with impressed decoration possibly testify an occupation of the site at least from a period contemporary to Amuq phase A2. Husking trays and transitional Neolithic-early Halaf ware, furthermore indicate a continuation of the occupation into later periods. As has been stated before, I have hypothesised an earlier date for the site of Akarçay, which might thus be contemporary to Amuq A1. This settlement has, then, husking trays, that testify contemporaneity also with the Hassuna developments (and thus with Rouj 2c in the west); Halaf painted ware furthermore indicates a probable late occupation, that has not yet been confirmed by architectural retrievals.

Ras Shamra VA is by all scholars correlated with Amuq B and Rouj 2c; the presence of simple pattern burnish, darker tones of the surfaces, near to absent impressed decoration, good quality burnish, confirms the contemporaneity with the Rouj 2c and, thus, with the gap in Judaidah’s sequence between Amuq A and B. The presence of husking trays further links the level with Rouj 2c. The major discrepancy between this interpretation and those given by other scholars is with that proposed by Miyake. He hypothesises an overlap between Amuq A, Rouj 2c and Ras Shamra VA (table 15.2). Whereas I agree with the Ras Shamra and Rouj correlation, I have antedated Amuq A. At Apamea, dark burnished ware dominates the ceramic assemblage in phase VA. Amongst this are straight and high necked jars that suggest a Rouj 2c occupation, whilst pattern burnish and painted wares develop in the following phase IV, thus assimilated to the later period 2d.

The Tishrin sites too testify an early occupation, because of the presence of the Halula Black series and the Chaff Impressed Ware; Halaf ceramics also confirms that their occupation went on to later periods. The same can be said of Sabi Abyad, in the Balikh. Last of all, for the Beqa’a sites no more than proposing a duration of occupation and general chronological correlations could be done, with the available data.

Rouj 2d is the moment of appearance of painted pottery, that in which DFbW develops complex pattern burnished decorations, pedestal bowls, jars with sieves; it is the phase in which cream bowls and sinuous shapes are first visible amongst the DFbW vessels. DFbW generally get thicker, the strokes of the burnish visible, colours are various: blacks, greys, browns, yellowish-browns and reds. Such changes are noted in the FMR level 23 at Judaidah (phase B2) and some are also seen at Ras Shamra IVC and at Yumuktepe, from level XXV onwards. Ras Shamra IVC is attributed by all scholars to the Halaf period, thus corresponding to Amuq C and Rouj 3. I have argued, in paragraphs 7.2.3 and 7.2.4, that level IVC, or at least its

15.3 ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY. COMPARING RELATIVE CHRONOLOGIES TO 14C DATES Some of the analysed sites have been excavated in the early years of the XXth century and thus have not been sampled for radiocarbon dating. For other sites, though, 14C dates 277

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

have been reported and analysed. A confirmation of the phasing of single sites has been looked out for as the work went on and has, most of the time, supported the proposed sequences.

is dated to a period more or less contemporary to Rouj 2c, thus indicating a possible abandonment of the site during the last, pre-Halaf phase (Rouj 2d). Halaf period occupation, probably existing at the site, since painted pottery of that period was found, has not been confirmed until now by any architectural finds.

All available radiocarbon dates have been calibrated with the same software Calib 4.3., written by the Quaternary Isotope Lab of the University of Washington. It has been taken for granted that all radiocarbon dates have been calculated on the Libby half-life (5568 years), though this is hardly ever specified in the publications. Calculations have thus been done accordingly. Being standard deviations of the dates quite varied (these fluctuate from ± 45 to slightly over ± 100) comparisons between dates has been done on the 2σ interval (table 15.4). This certainly causes a less precise date, but overlaps between dates are more common, thus allowing comparisons between levels and sites. 14C samples from the Pre-Pottery phases of some sites (Ras Shamra, Ain el Kerkh, Ramad) have been considered, since samples were very few or absent all together for the DFW period. These provide a terminus post quem for the dating of the first pottery levels.

Rouj 14 Site C sample Phase 2a Akarçay Akarçay III Yumuktepe Rome-467 Yumuktepe Rome-734 Ramad GrN 4823 Ras Shamra P-458

Observations on the apparently earlier dates of the Ain el Kerkh sequence have already been made, and I have argued for the stronger reliability of the later dates (NUTA2 2089 and NUTA2 2105) for both phase 2c and 2d, which would fit better in the contemporary with coincidence between the Cilician ceramic developments and those of Ain el Kerkh (see 6.5). Naming to the phases has been given using the Rouj nomenclature (2a-d), since that of the Idlib basin is the most complete and certainly uninterrupted sequence available. This is to be of assistance when comparing tables 15.4 and 15.1 and when referring to the various considerations made within this work on the developments of the DFBW.

2σ max2σ min 7298 7075 7026 7035 6749

6506 6512 6457 6592 6265

2b

Yumuktepe Rome-1344 6749 Yumuktepe Rome-1343 6641 Yumuktepe Rome-1011 6498

6438 6241 6230

2c

Ain el-Kerkh NUT A2-20236592 Ain el-Kerkh NUT A2-20246693 Ain el-Kerkh NUT A2-20896399 Byblos GrN 1544 6394 Yumuktepe Rome-808 6418 Yumuktepe Rome-1226 6326 Yumuktepe Rome-807 6214 Yumuktepe Rome-957 6157 Yumuktepe Rome-956 6156 Ras Shamra P-457 6223

6435 6431 6109 6031 6032 5994 5842 5807 5805 5844

2d

Ain el-Kerkh NUT A2-21046210 Ain el-Kerkh NUT A2-21055978 Yumuktepe Rome-806 6063 Yumuktepe Rome-809 6009 Yumuktepe Rome-1010 5720 Yumuktepe Rome-1345 6017

6007 5719 5721 5715 5479 5723

14

Table 15.4 – C samples from various sites the levels of which are attributable to the different Rouj phases on the basis of stratigraphy and ceramic classification and typology. The hatched samples are the problematic ones.

The two Ras Shamra dates from VB and VA appear to confirm the hypothesised correlation between these two phases and Rouj periods 2a-b and 2c, even though more dates would be needed in order to have a greater reliability. The single Byblos 1A date too falls in Rouj 2c, fitting well with the hypothesis of table 15.1. Interesting, and corroborating the typological correlations, are the early dates of Halula, whilst the single Kosak Shamali date is certainly too late. Ramad is probably the most enigmatic site, since its Pre-Pottery phase seems to continue well into the period of Ceramic Neolithic35.

Other sites remain excluded from this chronological comparison because without 14C dates. Tell Sukas, for example, has one radiocarbon sample from period M, immediately following the phase contemporary to the DFW horizon. This dates period M to the first half of the 5th millennium BC, which certainly does not refute the dates seen until now, but does not give any clues as to the chronological position of this site either (K-936, 5910±100 BP. Radiocarbon 15, 1973, 108). Dates published by Kirkbride from the Beqa’a sites of Labweh and Ard Tlaili unfortunately do not have the indication of the standard deviation and cannot be calibrated (Kirkbride 1969, 50 and 55. Labweh has a date of 7900BP and Ard Tlaili of 6840BP, which is a mean from 3 dates ).

Akarçay Tepe has an early date too, for phase III (table 11.6) and, as has been pointed out in chapter 12, its first phase is probably to be correlated, together with that of Halula, to the Rouj 2a. The last occupation phase at the site

The plotting of all the available 14C dates (2σ intervals) envisions, more clearly than when single sites were being compared with each other, the whole pre-Halaf phase of DFW development (fig. 15.1). On the x-axis is the

35

It should be remembered though, that period II at Ramad had White Ware and might thus in a way be considered as “Pottery Neolithic” and not Pre-Pottery. de Contenson and van Liere 1966a, 169.

278

15 – Chronology. A Temporal Framework for the Development of DFBW/DFW

reference to the contexts from which each 14C sample derives and the different colour indicates the site. Very excitingly, these mainly confirm the relative chronology that has been built on the ceramic typologies of the different sites. Contexts from which the 14C samples were taken have been ordered stratigraphically according to what proposed in table 15.1 and the absolute dates apparently confirm this sequence. Division lines between the different phases have then been set by comparison of dates with the known Mersin chronology. Figure 15.1 further validates the late appearance of pottery at Ramad, compared to that of the other sites. Akarçay and Mezraa find proof of the contemporaneity of their initial settlement with that of Rouj 2a, the Kerkh Ware period, and so does Mersin, as had already been pointed out before.

BC for the last phase, 2d. A more elastic comparison of these dates, I believe, would bring to table 15.5.

Were we to summarise figure 15.1, we could probably date the 4 pre-Halaf phases (by considering the overlap of 2 sigma intervals) as: 6750-6510 BC for the first phase 2a, 6500-6440 BC for 2b, 6160-6100 BC for 2c and 5980-5720

Period 2d would seem to be too long in comparison to the others and also to the beginning of Halaf. A comparison with the Halaf dates would surely evidence this overlap and probably push the end of the pre-Halaf phase back in time.

BC calibrated max/min

Phases 2a

7000

6500

2b

6500

6300

2c

6300

6000

2d

6000

5450

Table 15.5 – Hypothesised dates for the 4 subphases of DFBW development preceding Halaf. The Rouj nomenclature has been used to identify them because such phases coincide with its internal sequence.

8300 8100 7900 7700 7500 7300 7100

Calibrated BC date

6900 6700 6500 6300 6100 5900 5700 5500 5300 5100 4900 4700

1

2a

2b

2c

2d

Ain el-Kerkh

Sukas

Akarçay

Ramad

Mersin

Sabi Abyad

2d

XXIV

XXV

XXIII

XXVI 8 XXV

8

XXVI

2d

I

VA XXVI

2c

XXVII

1A sup

XXVII

pre-Halaf II

XXVIII

Halula

pre-Halaf

XXVIII 2c

2c pre-Halaf

XXXII XXIX

lev II

pre-Halaf VB

lev II lev II

lev III/II

pre-Halaf

III

Ras Shamra

XXXIII

VC2

lev II

1 lev I

lev II/I

Table 16.4

VC1

4300

1 VC1

4500

Byblos

Fig. 15.1 – Plotting of 2σ intervals of all the available calibrated radiocarbon dates from the analysed sites. On the xaxis are the contexts of retrieval of the radiocarbon samples. The colours correspond to the sites, as indicated.

279

16 A RECAPITULATION 16.1 THE DFW “REGIONAL CULTURE” AND THE “DFW HORIZON” This work set off with a long list of issues and open questions, probably too long to be exhausted in one go. At the end, all have been stirred up and some are still unsolved, but I hope to have contributed in giving a new direction and a fresh move to the study of Dark Faced Burnished Ware. This particular pottery production had first been identified in one single site (Judaidah), where it received its typological definition, but it had later become the defining element of a specific cultural development. This role gave it a historical importance not common to all material productions and opened theoretical and practical issues concerned with the definition of a ceramic production and with the recognition of a culture or society on the basis of this category of material culture. Since then, new findings brought to other typological descriptions of similar ceramic categories, but rarely was the general issue taken up again, thus contributing to an ever increasing confusion over DFBW and over the characters of the communities producing this pottery. Thanks to these new discoveries though, time had now ripened for a new definition of DFBW, for a proper identification and explanation of its distribution, its meaning and the role it had within the communities that produced or received it. The analysis of the Yumuktepe ceramic assemblage was used as an instrument for the definition and recognition of the dark mineral tempered ware. Not only technological and typological investigations were carried out, but great attention was also given to the social and economic significance that this ceramic might have had. Two distinct classes were recognised within the DFBW and a third class, that of cooking ware, evidenced strong typological and technological similarities with these. These three classes have, in my view, technological and typological affinities that strongly link them to Braidwood’s definition of the DFBW. This has brought me to call this family of ceramics enclosing the two DFBW classes and the cooking ware, Dark Faced Ware (DFW). The main characters of this broad category of ceramics are mineral temper, a prevalence of dark colours and, importantly, a function linked to food preparation and consumption. The three classes (DFbW, Fine DFbW and DFuW) have distinct typologies, morphologies and some specific technological choices (as the burnished surface, for example). In each

class, specific recurrent and temporally diagnostic morphological and stylistic characters have been noted too, as is the case, for DFbW, of the impressions in the earlier phases, and the pattern burnish in the later ones, or of the tray-like vessels in the younger levels. It is the concomitance of all the attributes that define the DFW and that help recognise the kind of relations of the groups that produce it. Preceding this phase in which 3 diverse classes of dark faced ceramics (DFbW, Fine DFbW and DFuW) are found, a single class of medium-fine, darkish coloured, and burnished pottery, has been seen to characterise the production of the DFW sites. The evolution of this into the “specialised” category of 3 classes of ceramics has been followed in time, permitting the clear definition of the spatial and chronological origins of DFW. The decline of the DFW is then marked, later, by the beginning of painted pottery, which takes over in importance the dark vessels. At this point the very fine DFbW is no longer produced, as its social importance is probably substituted by that of the painted ware. Archaeometric analyses of the Mersin material have shown that most pottery was probably locally produced and that potters at the site had some technological specialisation. Specialisation consisted mostly in the modes of preparation of the paste and in the manufacture techniques, rather than in the choice of the components of the paste. Specific pastes were recognised for some classes (classes 1 and 5), but this has been interpreted as a chance due to the availability of clays and tempers near the site. For other classes there isn’t one single type of paste, but rather each has exclusive groups of pastes that are, in some cases, characterised by similar properties. This is the case of the DFbW and the DFuW, where the distinctness in pastes has in fact been interpreted as possibly linked to the different function and role of these ceramics. Very important though has been the discovery that, at Mersin, DFW as a category is not characterised by a single paste composition. This ware, thus, cannot be recognised by its clay and temper. The analyses have furthermore confirmed that the dark colour of the DFW was intentionally searched for during the firing process. Different ceramic categories were thus fired separately, according to the end colour desired. Comparisons with the Amuq region proved the identity between the Mersin DFW and the one originally identified and defined by Robert Braidwood. First hand analysis on

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

north-western Syria, instead of the “DFBW regionalculture”, as Braidwood had first defined it. The groups participating within this cultural region have a mixed economy of farming, herding and hunting; site distribution and settlement organisation are quite homogeneous.

the material indeed evidenced strong similarities with the Cilician site. The 3 classes of DFW were in fact recognised and, most interesting, an early, distinct group of thicker walled, burnished vessels was noticed (temporarily called class 7 at Mersin). Diachronic comparisons from both sites showed parallel gradual modifications in the production of this pottery, confirming contacts between the two sites.

Relations of this area with Cilicia have been hypothesised as preferential and intense. The exact correspondence of all DFW classes has suggested a similar function and use of this family of wares in both regions. The DFW is the only ceramic production that northern Syria and Cilicia had in common, fact which has been taken as indicating the central role DFW had as a linking factor between the two areas (fig. 16.1). It has been hypothesised that DFWs, because of their shapes suggesting food preparation and consumption, were used in moments of social interaction and activity, within and between communities. Since Cilicia participated in such common activities, kin relations of some sort possibly linked this region with the sites of the south. It has thus been suggested that a wider term should comprehend the two areas, in order to underline this strong social and possibly economic link, the most evident consequence of which was this similarity in the ceramic production: north-Syria and Cilicia have been defined as the “DFW Horizon”, being though part of two distinct cultures. We might thus also talk about two “DFW regional cultures”, that together formed this wider network of intense social and probably also economic relations.

Morphologically, Mersin and the Amuq sites evidenced some identical vessels, but also quite clear distinctions. The Cilician site in fact appeared to have a minor variability in shapes. Technological and typological affinities though, testified for their origin from a common tradition and indicated most probably the same use/function that this pottery had at the two sites. It was thus models that were shared, rather than actual vessels exported, and this carried on through time. Contacts and relations between the two areas have been imagined as regular and intense. The overall distinction of the rest of the ceramic assemblage of the two sites implied, however, a non total sharing of cultural traits. Yumuktepe (and Tarsus) and the Amuq were thus most probably not part of the same cultural system. They might have been in the earlier phases, in which dark burnished pottery was the only pottery produced (Amuq A1 and Mersin XXXIII-XXX), but when the fine burnished wares developed and next to them other categories of pottery appeared, these two regions were no longer sharing all the same cultural developments.

16.2 THE EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION OF “DFW”

The Rouj, together with Ras Shamra and other north-Syrian sites (Apamea, Hama, Janoudiyeh) have instead evidenced a ceramic assemblage in all comparable to that seen in Judaidah, and have thus been interpreted as being part of the same cultural region with the Amuq. Ceramic categories and typologies are the same and most differences between these sites have been interpreted as due to chronological distinctions. This is the case, for example of Tell Sukas, which has White Ware but no incised ceramics, and Tabbat al-Hammam, which, the reverse way round, has incised sherds, but no White Ware; because of this material culture distribution, the former has been dated to an early period, whilst the second is later. Within this cultural system would also be the communities of the Qoueiq valley, even though evidencing material characters of external areas too.

RELATIONS.

Identification of DFW outside this area was the most difficult part of the job. Many regions in the Neolithic Near East, in fact, evidenced dark coloured, mineral tempered pottery, but in most cases not all the characters and classes recognised in the DFW within the “DFW horizon” were found. Central Anatolia is the area that, even though with the most technological similarities, has been considered the less influenced and less related to the developments of the DFW region. Morphology and classification of the ceramics have demonstrated, in my opinion, the independence of production in Çatal Höyük from that of Cilicia, and so have the architectural and organisational distinctions between the two regions. The presence of mineral tempered, burnished and often dark coloured pottery in most Anatolian sites, right up to the Aegean coast too, has furthermore reinforced the idea according to which the technological similarity of the two areas was not backed by cultural nearness nor direct social relations. Modes of production might have been learnt or transmitted from one zone to another, but in the studied sites these appeared to be autonomously manufactured and used. Economic relations, that were certainly taking place with southern Cilicia (exchange of obsidian), were not strong enough to bring to cultural unification, nor to intense social relations. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic period too, millennia earlier, had been characterised by a similar situation; in

The architectural, settlement and economic data give little help in the recognition of this regional culture, but hopefully, future investigations in this sense will confirm what hypothesised on the basis of the ceramics (fig. 16.1). The region so delimited, which excludes Cilicia, is possibly the one that goes nearest to Braidwood’s intention and definition of a DFBW region. Having I interpreted the unburnished dark ware (DFuW) as characteristic of the tradition of the dark ware producing communities, this regional development has been called the “DFW region” of 282

16 - A Recapitulation

In none of the above examples, I believe it correct to talk about DFW. We could use the term “DFW-like” if we believe in the technological and typological influence played by this particular pottery production in the manufacture of the dark wares of the sites on the Lebanese coast, along the Euphrates or at Coba Höyük, but the distinct technologies, typology, style and the varied function and role that these suggest, prevent from assimilating all these ceramics into one large category, that in its region of origin is indeed burdened with a precise social and cultural meaning.

fact, Central Anatolian sites as Aşıklı had rare or no indication of contacts with the south. Different was the situation to the south of the DFW cultural tradition, towards the southern coast of Syria and Lebanon and, in the interior, in regions as the Beqa’a. Here too the presence of a DF-like pottery was abundant, but again its function has been hypothesised to be different from that of the Amuq and neighbours. No Fine DFbW was present and distinction between the burnished and unburnished pottery was often not easy to be made. The fact that the only other vessels present in this area were those of White, calcareous Ware, has brought to hypothesise that DFW had been adopted by these communities for its technical properties, that permitted to use it on fire, for containing liquids and for food consumption. Here too a culturally autonomous region has been imagined, which derived, from the North, the technological characters for some of its utility vessels, in consequence of contacts with that area. Neolithic egalitarian societies are open systems, always in contact with the surrounding communities, thus no surprise to see multiple type and intensity of responses to these contacts. Whilst it was noticed that in the earlier phases the coastal area was quite strongly linked to the north, later developments probably bring these groups to orient more to the south, towards the Yarmukian culture of northern Jordan.

What, most importantly, emerges from this analysis is the complexity and multilevel character of relations between these Neolithic egalitarian communities and the distinct ways of material culture sharing into which these result. These differences, of which I try to give an exemplification in figs. 16.1 and 16.2, cannot be simply detected by a morphological analysis, but need to include a search for the meaning of material objects, their life and their context. Direct equation between culture and material culture cannot be made, if the essence of the material culture is not discovered.

Within these different levels and types of external relations of the DFW communities are also their contacts with the northern Gaziantep region and those with the eastern Euphrates, Balikh areas and even further groups. Sakçe Gözü is probably the most difficult to interpret, since to a very strong technological similarity corresponds a very clear stylistic diversity, that would nearly bring to suspect a voluntary desire to take a distance from the DFW communities. In fact, the technological similarity appears too strong to be casual, thus suggesting contacts between the two regions, and yet the style of their pottery shows very rare common elements. The Balikh and Euphrates sites, instead, evidence, on one side, probable imported vessels, maybe from the western “DFW horizon”, and on the other show a local production of dark mineral tempered ware; this shows a clear distinction in morphology and in role/function from that of DFW. Inspiration for the manufacture of this pottery might have come from the west, but maybe also from the northern Anatolian sites (Mezraa and Akarçay being the “bridge” sites in such relations). Function (in the sense of use) might be at the origin of its adoption. At Sabi Abyad, in the Balikh, a coarse mineral tempered ware has been interpreted as cooking ware, but it is found in too small a quantity to satisfy all requests of cooking pots for the site. It is thus plausible to imagine that some of the other dark wares too, and thus possibly those the models of which could have been imported from the west, might have been used for such a function.

Sakçe Gözü

Tishrin Akarçay Mezraa DFW Horizon

Mersin Tarsus

Amuq Rouj Ras Shamra Apamea Hama Janoudiyeh

Balikh Hassuna

Qoueiq

Sukas Tabbat al Hammam Byblos Beqa’a Ramad Nebi Mend

Fig. 16.1 – Exemplification of the regional developments and relations between communities with DFW or DFW-like ceramics. Circles unite those communities that are considered part of one single regional culture (the sites of the Levant are in a dashed circle because a thorough internal analysis of these has not been made) and the lines linking them indicate contacts of possibly social and/or economic nature. The dashed lines indicate less intense or indirect relations.

283

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Fig. 16.2 - Exemplification of the development of "regional cultures" in the Middle and Late Neolithic periods in the western and central regions of the Near East. The arrows evidence inter-regional communication (thicker when more intense network systems between areas are hypothesised).

16.3 SOCIETY NEOLITHIC

AND

CULTURE

IN THE

areas. A similar picture, but at a much greater scale and probably with other cultural implications, is the one that will later evidence the Halaf culture. The issue of the distribution of Halaf painted ware has been thoroughly analysed by many scholars, that have shown that, in this case too, such movement of vessels and sharing of pottery models underlined strong social and cultural links between communities and regional developments. In that case, though, also architecture, burial customs and other attributes of material culture were indicative of the cultural and social vicinity of the groups that participated in this supra-regional network. In the phase of the DFW Horizon, things are not so evident and it is essentially ceramics that underline relations. Is there any similarity at all, then, in the structure of these early Ceramic Neolithic cultures and that of the following Halaf? Can Halaf give us some hints on

CERAMIC

With the help of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs I would like to end this work by going back to reconsider a series of anthropological and theoretical issues that have been presented at the beginning of this research. It has been observed that it was mostly models of pottery that were moving between and within regions during this Ceramic Neolithic period, more than vessels. This has been explained as underlining the circulation of people and hence social interaction between communities. This great distribution of DF and DF-like ware, thus, indicates that social relations were abundant and crossing very large 284

16 - A Recapitulation

Near Eastern regions carrying capacity is rather low, generally keeping the number of people of a simple community of early agriculturalists small, hence far below the level of the MES; the formation of regional and supraregional networks in order to ensure their growth will be also necessary for these communities. These networks, built on social and symbolic relations between groups, are essentially mechanisms with which information regarding “external” areas is pooled and specific social rules are built in order to be able to act upon this information when needed. The most common social rules are marriage taboos or conditions, but gift giving and periodical ceremonies are other two typical cases. Exchange of goods is one of the results of social interactions (Birdsell 1958, Wiessner 1982).

the character of these communities? How do these communities insert themselves in the general trend of developing prehistoric groups in the Near East? Even though data is not extremely abundant, we have seen that the DFW and contemporary groups had a subsistence economy variably based on agriculture, herding, hunting and possibly also collecting. These were mostly sedentary, but at times and in some communities, nomadic or seminomadic conditions can be hypothesised. In the later Halaf period, economic and settlement organisation will be very similar to the one seen here (Akkermans 1996, chapter 6). What kind of population could we imagine for these groups? Unfortunately we have no indication of the dimensions of the analysed settlements, since the excavated portions are often too small to give an idea. Halaf though, can possibly give some suggestions. In fact most Halaf sites are very small, rarely reaching or surpassing 2 ha. On the basis of this and of the number of buildings found, Akkermans has suggested for Tell Sabi Abyad, one of the main Halaf sites in the Balikh, a population of around 50 and maximum 90 people. We could thus imagine, for our sites, something in the low range or slightly smaller than this.

If we are to imagine, as I believe is probably the case, that communities in Cilicia, in Northern Syria and in the other analysed regions could have been near the size suggested for Sabi Abyad, we would immediately see that these were all far from being biologically self-sufficient. Wobst has conducted a simulation on early foraging communities, following demographic growth over a long term, in order to see whether an absolute number for the MES could be calculated (Wobst 1974). He came to the conclusion that the average size of the group had no effect on the result of the simulation and that groups between 165 and 333 were those that could be considered biologically self-sufficient. In communities on the low range of this interval, marriage and mating rules would be minimal (since mating taboos would create too many obstacles to the growth of these smaller communities), whilst in those with 300 inhabitants would be the most number of rules. Certainly, thus, all our DFW and DF-like communities, with a population well below this number, used their kinship networks also to settle inter-group marriages and ensure the reproduction of the group.

Not one single element suggests any possible hierarchical differentiation within these communities: no architectural differentiation, no burial distinctions, no prestige ware. Clearly these are simple egalitarian societies, with organisation and structure based on kinship relations. As all foraging and early agricultural systems these communities necessarily have to adapt to environmental fluctuations, adaptation that determines the dimensions of their territory and the quantity and quality of intercommunity relations, in other words the formation of regional and supra-regional networks, based on kinship. Kinship systems are symbolic constructions that establish and regulate human relations. Through kin relations societies are formed, but, at a higher level, interaction between these creates cultural groups and technocomplexes, to put it into David Clarke’s terms (Clarke 1968, 330-333).

Subsistence economy is the other central element influencing kinship relations. Again, Sabi Abyad might come be of help in this regard. Akkermans has calculated that, at Sabi Abyad, in mediocre environmental conditions, on an average population of 50, an area of 400-700 ha was needed around the site to satisfy subsistence needs, thus a radius of 1,1-1,5km around the settlement (Akkermans 1996, 216). In the period of the DFW horizon, the rare systematic surveys, as that of the Qouieq or of the Amuq, do not indicate a very high density of contemporary settlements. Hence, we could suppose that competition on direct territorial claims, were they similar to those of Halaf Sabi Abyad, must have been minimal. It must be also taken into account the yearly unpredictability of the territory would bring to greater territorial networks, even though probably not over a region as wide as that needed for biological reasons. In the case of groups in which hunting activities had a strong role, the access to much larger territories was certainly sought for and thus rights to these must have been claimed by settling long lasting social relations with other groups.

The dimension of kin networks depends on many factors, but most evident are the carrying capacity of the environment in which a group lives and the reaching of the MES (Minimum Equilibrium Standard), the minimum number of people needed for a group or system to be biologically self-sufficient, in other words, to be able to reproduce itself on the long term. The carrying capacity of the environment is given by the primary resources necessary for sustaining a group, present, in the territory surrounding a site. Obviously, if predictability in the territory’s productive capacity is low, networks have to be large, in order to ensure food availability (Yengoyan 1968). Furthermore, when productive capacity is low, groups tend to be small, in order to have less mouths to feed. In most 285

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

interpretation becomes more difficult when we move outside these boundaries. In fact, both in the DFW Culture and in the DFW Horizon, meaning and material practice of the DFW coincide, the context of use, as well as the technological characters of the pottery are the same, thus underlining a similar ideo- and socio-function of this one family of ceramics. In the other regions instead, style of the dark burnished pottery is not exactly like that of the DFW Horizon; decoration is often different, and it is rather more “technical” characters that are shared. In Eastern Anatolia, at Sakçe Gözu, for example, the dark ware has very evident technological affinities, but strong stylistic diversities; it might well be that these have been expressly searched for to mark out cultural difference in the presence of intense interaction with the DFW Horizon. Hence we might be looking at a technocomplex, at distinct cultural groups, that are somehow related and interact. The absence of other data, as economy or architecture, unfortunately does not allow us to hypothesise what their interaction was based on. In the case of Central Anatolia, differences in the dark ware production are even greater: some technological affinities are evident, but shapes, style, and often colour differ. Here thus, links are even less and the kind of interaction that might have been taking place between these, clearly distinct, networks is more difficult to define. If we look towards the east, to the Euphrates and Balikh regions, things are not very different from those of Çatal Höyük, even though the overall independent ceramic production (mainly chaff ware) could make it easier to identify those elements that might derive from relations with the west. Clearly, in both cases, cultures are distinct and the similarities in the material culture must be due to social contacts, in Anatolia possibly being of economic origin (exchange of obsidian?), while in the east they are still difficult to understand.

A further important element in analysing these communities is the apparent absence of any sign of conflict. No evidence has been noticed in the studied cases, that might suggest evident competition either within or between sites. This confirms what has been analogously suggested by the rather sparse settlement distribution and density. These early farming communities were mostly cohesive groups rather than competitive groups. This is important as it suggests stronger social symbiotic or tolerant relations and more frequent moments of interaction between groups. It would somehow seem that these early Ceramic Neolithic communities had an organisation very similar to that generally theorised for foraging societies. Resources as obsidian (mostly from Anatolia), basalt or special clay sources are other important needs of these early societies and their procurement too is certainly regulated by symbolic relations between kins. In the case of these resources, we can probably imagine that it was through relations between different networks, or between different cultures or cultural groups that these were exchanged and maybe even very far away areas reached. It is clear that the different levels of kin networks embrace distinct fields and kinds of relations and that closer and smaller networks share much more cultural, organisational and social characters, compared to the larger technocomplexes or cultural groups. Dimensions of these networks depend thus on many factors, of which those that have been listed are only the most materialistic and evident; these do give though a clear picture of the system of relations between communities and societies that appear to have characterised the Early Neolithic Ceramic period in the 6th millennium BC.

I have underlined, in chapter 1, that material culture is socially constructed. This statement too becomes more evident at this point. The importance of DFW is in fact precisely in its social value and use. It has been hypothesised that DFW was used in a particular context and with a specific meaning, that all people belonging to that cultural horizon understood and knew. This pottery is thus originated from social interaction and communication. It is not very common, in analysing a prehistoric context, to be able to identify the social value of specific categories of material culture; this has been a very lucky case, possibly due to the fact that during the Neolithic period pottery was always an important vehicle of ideological and symbolic meaning. This will be, in my opinion, exactly the case also during the following Halaf period, when the exchange and movement of a much more striking and eye-catching pottery underlines, here too, different levels of kinship networks.

In this sense, the evident diagnostic element of interaction between communities and regions is surely the presence of common elements of material culture, and in this specific case it is the large distribution of our DFW that underlines the presence of networks and “cultural systems”. Furthermore, the function that this had within the DFW Horizon (food preparation and consumption), strongly confirms its central role in the proper moments of social and kin interaction, as clearly pointed out in chapter 9. Single groups and settlements must have been organised in regional kinship networks, that were then surely linked to supra-regional network systems, creating ever larger connections, in which at times, to some of its groups, only echoes and indirect reflections of far away kin relations would arrive. The function of style, this was pointed out in chapter 1, is that of communicating and transmitting information on social identity; now this sentence can be understood in its full sense. DFW is most possibly used, in the moments of social interaction between kinships, to underline, reiterate and confirm affinity, accordance, identity. This is certainly valid within the DFW Culture and the DFW Horizon; the

Now, how do we relate kin networks to cultures and societies? I have theorised that Cilicia and Northern Syria do not participate exactly in the same cultural horizon, because not all (or the majority of) their material culture 286

16 - A Recapitulation

had come in contact, maybe indirectly, and the presence of this pottery is an echo of this relation. The single cultural areas that participate within a regional network or even a supra-regional system do not, in fact, all act in the same way and have the same relations. It is probably, thus, one specific culture or community of the wider network, that had contacts with Hassuna and thus transmitted the results of this interaction to the west. This creates a system that is not connected by any strong particular material culture affinity, but possibly characterised by economic, technological, or simply social relations.

matches. Singularly though, in accordance with Gordon Childe (chapter 1) and also with David Clarke’s definition of culture, I have defined them as two cultures (Clarke 1968, chapter 6). We are, in my opinion, facing two kinship groups or cultures, one in Cilicia and one in Northern Syria, that evidence very strong interaction, so strong that they produce a large quantity of analogous elements of material culture, used to communicate this social identity. Clearly, these two cultures together form a culture group, as Clarke defines a system made of more than one culture (Clarke 1968, chapter 7). Obviously, a culture group is characterised by a larger geographical area and greater population than a single culture, but it has a minor degree of material and social similarities, and thus less complex rules of relations, than those that regulate the two single cultural components.

Until the advent of factors as economic specialisation, accumulation of goods, and social differentiation, that appear with Ubaid culture (V millennium BC) and bring a revolutionary change in the social and economic organisation, I believe dynamics within and between communities of the Near East do not move much from this model, even though with varying dimensions and intensity of networks.

Even though the word society has a very modern connotation to it and is very difficult to use in prehistoric contexts, I might somehow suggest that this Cilician-North Syrian cultural group be considered as a sort of unitary society, a very tight supra-regional network. The quantity and quality of material cultural affinities should testify for the sharing, or the complementarity, of economic, technological and social rules within this cultural group, even though the lack of archaeological data does not allow us to directly identify them. Sixth millennium BC Near East was thus probably characterised by many independent but strongly interacting cultures and communities, simple in social and economic organisation, but with very complex kinship rules, through which inter-regional relations were regulated. Each cultural area had contacts of distinct type and intensity, not always directly proportional to its geographical distance from the other cultures and networks, but following lines of development that we hardly understand. These probably evolve from biological, social, economic, or technological needs. The difficulty in recognising the borders of these regional developments is in their continuous reproduction and enlargement; it is like a chain reaction, in which everyone looks to its neighbour and these kinship relations evolve in all directions, taking in elements characteristic of other relations too. The easiest case, in this sense, was that of the Qoueiq, where pottery of the DFW Culture and of the Euphrates has been identified in more or less the same proportion, thus suggesting a more or less equal participation within both networks (as its geographical position between the two regions might hint). Hassuna pottery, from the Jazira, has been identified in the Levant and DFW horizon. This is a further indication of the degree of communication and interaction that was going on in the Neolithic. Clearly, the DFW region and Hassuna had no direct and intense contact, and yet elements of the material culture of one are found in the other. Somehow these two large and independent supra-regional networks 287

CITED REFERENCES Geological Map, 1: 100 000, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey: Ankara. AKKERMANS, P. A., VAN LOON, M., ROODENBERG, J. J., WATERBOLK, H. T. 1982 - The 1976-1977 Excavations at Tell Bouqras, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes XXXII, 1: 45-58. AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. 1989 - Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad: prehistoric investigations in the Balikh Valley, northern Syria, British Archaeological Reports International Series 468, BAR Publishing: Oxford. AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. 1991 - New radiocarbon dates for the later Neolithic of northern Syria, Paléorient 17, 1: 121-125. AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. 1993 - Villages in the steppe: later Neolithic settlement and subsistence in the Balikh Valley, northern Syria, International Monographs in Prehistory: Ann Arbor, Mich. AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. 1996 - Tell Sabi Abyad: late Neolithic settlement : report on the excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden (1991-1993) in Syria, Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul: Istanbul. ALKIM, U. B. 1969 - The Amanus Region in Turkey; New light on the historical geography and archaeology, Archaeology 22: 280-289. APPADURAI, A. 1989 - The anthropology of consumption: a transnational perspective, Westview Press: Boulder, CO. APPADURAI, A. 1997 - The Social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: ARCELIN, P., TUFFREAU-LIBRE, M. 1998 - La quantification des céramiques: conditions et protocole : actes de la table ronde du Centre archéologique européen du Mont-Beuvray, (Glux-en-Glenne, 7-9 avril 1998), Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray: Glux-en-Glenne. ARIMURA, M., BALKAN-ATLI, N., BORELL, F., KRUELLS, W., DURU, G., ERIM-ÖZDOĞAN, A., IBAÑEZ, J., MIYAKE, Y., MOLIST, M., ÖZBAŞARAN, M. 2001 - Akarçay Tepe Excavations 1999, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Resevoirs Activities in 1999, Tuna, N., Velibeyoğlu, J. (eds.), Middle Eastern Technical University, Ankara: 327-357. ARNOLD, D. E. 1971 - Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan potters: etics and emics, American Antiquity 36, 20-40. ARNOLD, D.E. 1985 - Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, New Studies in Archaeology 18, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. ARNOLD, D. E. 1991 - Ethnoarchaeology and investigations of ceramic production and exchange: can we go beyond cautionary tales?, in Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, Bishop, R. L., Lange, F. (eds.), University Press of Colorado, Boulder: 321-345. ARNOLD, D. E., BISHOP, R. L., NEFF, H. 1991 - Compositional analysis and "sources" of pottery: an ethnoarcheological approach, American Anthropologist 93, 1: 70-90. ARNOLD, D. E., NIEVES, A. L. 1992 - Factors affecting ceramic standardization, in Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach, Bey, G., Poole, C. Boulder , Westview: 93-113. ARONSON, M., STARK, M. T., SKIBO, J. M. 1994 - Production and use technologies in Kalinga pottery, in Kalinga Ethnoarcheology: Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory, Longacre, W. A., Skibo, J. M. (eds.), Smithsonian

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.: 83-111. ARTIN, G. 1994 - Bilan Critique de la Préhistoire du Liban, thèse de maitrise , Université Saint Joseph, Department d'histoire et de géographie, unpublished. ASOUTI, E., FAIRBAIRN, A. 2002 - Subsistence Economy in Central Anatolia during the Neolithic: the Archaeobotanical Evidence, in The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. International Developments and External Relationships during the 9th-6th Millennium Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Gerard, F. and Thissen, L. (eds.), Ege Yayınları, Istanbul: 181-192. AZOURY, INGRID 1976 - Report on a prehistoric survey of the northern Biqa', Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B 11, Reichert: Wiesbaden. BADER N.O 1989 - Earliest cultivators in Northern Mesopotamia. Investigations of Soviet Arch. Expedition in Iraq at Tell Maghzalia, Sotto, Kultepe, Moskva. BADER, N. O., BASHILOV, V. A., LE MIÈRE, M., PICON, M. 1994 - Productions locales et importations de céramique dans le Djebel Sinjar au VIe millénnaire, Paléorient 20, 1: 61-68. BALFET, H., LAFUMA, H., LONGUET, P., TERRIER, C. 1969 - Une invention Néolithique sans lendemain; vaissellesprécéramiques et sols enduits dans quelches sites du Proche Orient, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 66: 188-192. BALKAN-ATLI, N., MOLIST, M. in print - Akarçay Tepe: A New Neolithic Site in Southeastern Anatolia, in Proceedings of the 3 International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. BALOSSI RESTELLI, F. 1998 - Processi di Formazione delle prime Società Neolitiche Mature tra Zagros e pianura nordmesopotamica , tesi di laurea, università di Roma, "La Sapienza", unpublished. BALOSSI RESTELLI, F. 2001 - Formation Processes of the First Developed Neolithic Societies in the Zagros and the Northern Mesopotamian Plain, Studi di Preistoria Orientale 1, Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche Antropologiche dell'Antichità, Università di Roma "La Sapienza": Rome. BALOSSI, F. 2004a - New Data for the Definition of the DFBW Horizon and its Internal Developments. The Earliest Phases of the Amuq Sequence Revisited, Anatolica XXX: 109-149. BALOSSI, F. 2004b - The Pottery Production of levels XXVII-XXVI, in I. Caneva (ed.), Yumuktepe-Mersin, a Reappraisal, Lecce: 135-141. BALOSSI R., F. in print - Ceramic Production in the Middle Neolithic Village of Mersin. Specialisation and Intra-Regional Relations, in Proceedings of the 3rd ICAANE, Paris. BALOSSI R., F., FRANGIPANE, M. 2002 - La Ceramica Impressa nel Vicino Oriente (Impressed Pottery in the Near East), in Le ceramiche impresse nel Neolitico antico. Italia e Mediterraneo, (eds.) M.A. Fugazzola, A. Pessina, V. Tiné, Istituto poligrfico dello stato, Roma: 3-15. BALOSSI R., F., MORBIDELLI, P. 2005 – “Quando lo sgrassante è di troppo”. Un’indagine critica sui dati. archeometrici in Tecnologia di lavorazione e impieghi dei manufatti, B. Fabbri, S. Gualtieri,, G. Volpe (eds.), Atti della 7ª giornata di archeometria della ceramica, (Lucera, 10-11 aprile 2003): 97-90. BARAKAT, H. 1998 - Archaeobotany at Yumuktepe, in 5. Yilinda Yumuktepe. The V. Anniversary of the Excavations at Yumuktepe (1993-1997), Köruğlu, K. (ed.), ege yayınları, Istanbul: 17-19. BARAKAT, H. 1994 - Archaeobotanical research in Yumuktepe: 1994 season, unpublished. 290

References

BARAKAT, H. 1997 - Yumuktepe 1997: archaeobotanical report, unpublished. BINFORD, L. R. 1962 - Archaeology as Anthropology, American Antiquity 28, 2: 217-226. BINFORD, L. R. 1972 - Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process, in An Archaeological Perspective, Binford, L. R. Seminar Press, New York: 195-207. BINFORD, L. R. 1973 - Interassemblage Variability - the Mousterian and the Functional Argument, in Explanation of Culture Change, Renfrew, C. (ed.), Duckworth, London: 227-254. BINFORD, L. R. 1986 - An Alwayara Day: Making Mens' Knives and Beyond, American Antiquity 51: 547-562. BINFORD, S. R., BINFORD, L. R. 1966 - A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian Levallois Facies, American Anthropologist 68: 238-295. BIRDSELL, J. B. 1958 – On population structure in generalized hunting and collecting populations, Evolution 12: 189-205. BISHOP, R. L., ROBERT L. RANDS, G. HOLLEY 1982 - Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 275-330. BLACKMAN, M. J. 1988 - Ceramic technology and problems of social evolution in southwestern Iran, Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology 1: 103-108. BODUR, M., ERGIN, M. 1992 - Holocene sedimentation patterns and bedforms in the wave-current-dominated nearshore waters of Eastern Mersin Bay (eastern Mediterranean), Marine Geology 108, 1: 73-93. BOIS, DANUTA 96 - Hetty Goldman (1881-1972). BORDAZ, J. 1973 - Current Research in the Neolithic of South Central Turkey: Suberde, Erbaba and their Chronological Implications, American Journal of Archaeology 77, 282-288. BORDES, F., DE SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D. 1970 - The Significance of Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages, World Archaeology 2: 61-73. BRADLEY, RICHARD, EDMONDS, M. 1993 - Interpreting the axe trade, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. BRAIDWOOD, R. J. 1937 - Mounds in the Plain of Antioch, an Archeological Survey, OIP 48, University of Chicago press: Chicago. BRAIDWOOD, R. J. 1940 - Two Sondages on the Coast of Syria, South of Tartous, Syria XXI: 183-226. BRAIDWOOD, R., BRAIDWOOD, L. 1960 University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

- Excavations in the Plain of Antioch, Oriental Institute Publications 61,

BRENIQUET, C. 1995 - La stratigraphie des niveaux préhistoriques de Mersin et l'evolution culturelle en Cilicie, Anatolia Antiqua III: 1-31. BRODY, SEYMOUR SY 2002 - Hetty Goldman (1881-1972), http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hgoldman.html. BRONITSKY, G. 1989 - Pottery Technology. Ideas and Approaches, Westview Press: Boulder, San Francisco, London. BRONITSKY, G., HAMER, R. 1986 - Experiments in ceramic technology: the effects of various tempering materials on impact and thermal-shock resistance, American antiquity 51, 1: 89-101.

291

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

BROWN, J. A. 1982 - On the Structure of Artifact Typologies, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, Whallon, R., Brown, J. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois: 176-189. BUITENHUIS, H., CANEVA, I. 1998 - Early Animal Breeding in South-Eastern Anatolia: Mersin-Yumuktepe, in Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi, Anreiter, P., Bartosiewicz, L., Erzsébet, J., Wolfgang, M. (eds.), Archaeolingua, Budapest: 121-130. BURKITT, M. 1939 - Explorations in Cilicia; the Neilson expedition: 1938-39. The Earlier Cultures at Mersin, Annals of archaeology and anthropology XXVI: 51-72. CANEVA, I. 1998 - 9000 Years ago Yumuktepe, in 5. Yilinda Yumuktepe. The V. Anniversary of the Excavations at Yumuktepe (1993-1997), Köruğlu, K. (ed.), ege yayınları, Istanbul: 9-12. CANEVA, I. 1999 - Farmers on the Cilician Coast; Yumuktepe in the Seventh Millennium BC, in Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (eds.), Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul: 1-10. CANEVA, I. 2001a - A View from Afar: the Origins of the Political Space in Cilicia, in La Cilicie: Spaces et Pouvoir Locaux, Jean, E., Dincol, A., Duruğonul, S. (eds.), De Boccard, Istanbul: 567-570. CANEVA, I. 2001b - From Village to Town at Mersin-Yumuktepe, in 1 International Congress of Archaeology of the Near East, Università di Roma, "La Sapienza", Rome: 165-170. CANEVA, I. 2001c - De Çayönü à Mersin: Les Premiers Villageois de l'Anatolie du Sud-Est, in Communautés Villageoises du Proche-Orient à l'Atlantique, Guilaine, J. (ed.), Editions Errance, Paris: 13-34. CANEVA, I. 2004 – The Early Human Occupation (7000-6000 BC), in Yumuktepe-Mersin, a Reappraisal, Caneva, I., Sevin, V. (eds.), Lecce: 33-44. CANEVA, I., MARCOLONGO, B. 2004 – The History of the Mound, in Yumuktepe-Mersin, a Reappraisal, in Caneva, I., Sevin, V. (eds.), Lecce: 23-31. CANEVA, I., SEVIN, V. (eds.) 2004 - Yumuktepe-Mersin, a Reappraisal, Lecce. CANEVA, I., Köröğlu, G., Köröğlu, K., Özaydin, T. 2005 – 2003 Yumuktepe Höyüğü Kazıları, Kazı Sonunçlari Toplantısı Konya 2004, Ankara: 203-214. CARTER, E. 1994 - Report on the Kahramanmaraş Archaeological Survey Project from 24/9/93 to 11/11/93, in XII. Araştırma Sonunçları Toplantısı, Ankara. CARTER, T., POUPEAU, G., BRESSY, C. 2001 - "People and Place": New Information on Technical Change at Çatal Höyük, in Archaeological Institute of America, 102nd Annual Meeting, abstract published in American Journal of Archaeology 105, 2: 280. CAUVIN, J. 1972 - Sondage à Tell Assoual (Djezireh) Syrie, Annales archeologiques arabes syriennes 22, 1/2: 85-103. CAUVIN, M.-C. 1994 - La circulation de l'osidienne au Proche-Orient Néolithique, in Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, Gebel H.G., K. S. K. (eds.), Berlin: 15-22. CESSFORD, C. 1998 - Table catal/Archive_rep98/cessford98.html.

3

Radiocarbon

dates

for

Building

CESSFORD, C. 2001 - A new dating sequence for Çatal Höyük, Antiquity 75: 217-275.

292

1,

http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/

References

CESSFORD, C. in print - Absolute Dating at Çatal Höyük, in Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995–99 season, Hodder, I. (ed.), Çatalhöyük Project Volume 5. McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. CHILDE, G. V. 1956 - Piecing together the Past, Routledge: London. CHILTON, E. S. 1999 - Material meanings: critical approaches to the interpretation of material culture, University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City. CHRISTENSON, A., READ, D. 1977 - Numerical Taxonomy, r-mode factor analysis and archaeological classification, American Antiquity 42: 163-179. CLARKE, D. 1968 - Analytical Archaeology, Methuen: London. COLLON, D., OTTE, C., , OTTE M., ZAQZOUQ, A. 1975 - Sondages au Flanc Sud du Tell de Qal'at el-Mudiq. 1970, 1972, 1973, Fouilles d'Apamée de Syrie. Miscellanea. 11, Centre Belge de Recherches Archéologiques à Apamée de Syrie: Brussel. COLLON, D., ZAQZOUQ, A. 1972 - Céramiques des Carrés A1 et B1 ouverts au Flanc du Tell en 1970 et 1971, in Apamée de Syrie. Bilan des Recherches Archéologiques 1969-1971, Balty, J., Balty, J. C. Centre Belge de Recherches Archéologiques à Apamée de Syrie, Bruxelles: 65-78. de CONTENSON, H. 1963 - New Correlations between Ras Shamra and al-Amuq, Bulletin, American Schools of Oriental Research 172: 35-40. de CONTENSON, H. 1967a - Troisième Campagne à tell Ramad, 1966, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 17: 17-24. de CONTENSON, H. 1967b - Les trois Premières Campagnes de Fouilles à tell Ramad (Syrie), Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres : 531-536. de CONTENSON, H. 1969a - Contribution à l'étude du Néolithique en Syrie. Description de diverses trouvailles de surface, Mélanges de l'Université de Saint Joseph 45: 61-82. de CONTENSON, H. 1969b - Quatrième et Cinquième Campagnes à Tell Ramad, 1967-1968. Rapport Préliminaire, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 19: 25-30. de CONTENSON, H. 1969c - Sixième Campagne à tell Ramad en 1969. Rapport Préliminaire, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 19: 31-36. de CONTENSON, H. 1970 - Septième Campagne de Fouilles à tell Ramad en 1970. Rapport Préliminaire, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 20: 77-80. de CONTENSON, H. 1971 - Tell Ramad a Village of Syria of the 7th and 6th Millennia BC, Archaeology 24: 278-285. de CONTENSON, H. 1973 - Le Niveau Halafien de Ras Shamra. Rapport Préliminaire sur les Campagnes 1968-1972 dans le Sondage Préhistorique, Syria 50: 13-33. de CONTENSON, H. 1974 - Huitième Campagne de Fouilles à tell Ramad en 1973. Rapport Préliminaire, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 24: 17-24. de CONTENSON, H. 1977 - Le Néolithique de Ras Shamra V, après les Campagnes 1972-1976 dans le Sondage SH, Syria 54: 1-23. de CONTENSON, H. 1982 - Les Phases Préhistoriques de Ras Shamra et de l'Amuq, Paléorient 8, 1: 95-98. 293

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

de CONTENSON, H. 1992 - Préhistoire de Ras Shamra: les sondages stratigraphiques de 1955 à 1976, Editions Recherche sur les civilisations: Paris. de CONTENSON, H. 1998 - Ras Shamra et Mersin: état de la question, Paléorient 24, 2: 111-113. de CONTENSON, H., COURTOIS, J.-C., LAGARCE, E., LAGARCE, J., STUCKY, R. 1973 - La XXXIIIe Campagne de Fouille à Ras Shamra en 1972. Rapport Préliminaire, Syria 50: 283-309. de CONTENSON, H., COURTOIS, L. 1979 - A propos des vases en chaux: recherches sur leur fabrication et leur origine, Paléorient 5: 177-182. de CONTENSON, H., LIERE, W. J. V. 1964 - Holocene Environment and Early Settlement in the Levant, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 14: 125-128. de CONTENSON, H., LIERE, W. J. V. 1966a - Seconde campagne à Tell Ramad, 1965. Rapport preliminaire, 167-174. de CONTENSON, H., LIERE, W. J. V. 1966b - Premiers pas vers une chronologie absolue à Tell Ramad, Annales Archéologiques de Syrie XVI/2: 175-176. COPELAND, L. 1969 - Neolithic Village Sites in the South Beqaa, Lebanon, Mélanges de l'Université de Saint Joseph 45: 83114. COPELAND, L. 1979 - Observations on the prehistory of the Balikh valley, Syria, during the 7th to 4th millennia B.C., Paléorient 5: 251-275. COPELAND, L. 1982 - Prehistoric Tells in the Lower Balikh Valley (Syria). Report on the Survey of 1978, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes XXXII: 251-271. COPELAND, L., WESCOMBE, P. J. 1965 - Inventory of Stone Age Sites in Lebanon I, Mélanges de l'Université de Saint Joseph 41: 30-175. COPELAND, L., WESCOMBE, P. J. 1966 - Inventory of Stone Age Sites in Lebanon II, Mélanges de l'Université de Saint Joseph 42: 1-174. COURTOIS, J.-C. 1973 - Prospection archéologique dans la moyenne vallée de l'Oronte, Syria 50: 53-99. COURTOIS, L. 1992 - Examen au microscope pétrographique de poeries néolithiques de Ras Shamra V et IV, in Préhistoire de Ras Shamra: les sondages stratigraphiques de 1955 à 1976, Contenson, H. d. Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, Paris: 209-222. DOBRES, M.-A. 2000 - Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology, Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, UK; Malden, Mass. DOBRES, M.-A., HOFFMAN, C. R. 1999 Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington.

- The social dynamics of technology: practice, politics, and world views,

DRENNAN, ROBERT D. 1996 - Statistics for Archaeologists. A Commonsense Approach, Plenum Press: New York and London. DUMINUCO, P., RICCARDI, M. P., MESSIGA, B., SETTI, M. 1996 - Modificazioni tessiturali e mineralogiche come indicatori della dinamica del processo di cottura dei manufatti ceramici, Materiali e Processi 5: 281-288. DUNAND, M. 1960 - Les plus anciennes installations de Byblos, in Actes du Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques. 294

References

DUNAND, M. 1961 - Rapport préliminaires sur les fouilles de Byblos en 1957, 1958, 1959, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 16: 69-73; 75-79; 81-85. DUNAND, M. 1973 - Fouilles de Byblos. Tome V. L'architecture, les tombes, le matériel domestique, des origines néolithiques à l'avénement urbain, Adrien Maisonneuve: Paris. DURU, R. 1992 - The Results of the 1978-1988 Excavations at Kuruçay Höyük I. Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Settlements, Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari V. Dizi, no.44, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi: Ankara. DURU, R. 1995 - Höyücek Kazýlarý 1991/1992, Belleten 59: 447-490. DURU, R. 2001 - Höyücek Excavations, in Istanbul University's Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000), Belli, O. (ed.), Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund, Istanbul: 52-55. EGAMI, N., ISHIDA, K., WAKITA, S. 1988-1989 - Tell Mastuma: a preliminary report of the excavations in Idlib, Syria, 1986-1988, Bulletin, Ancient Orient Museum 10: 47-75. EQUINI SCHNEIDER, E. 1999 - Elaiussa Sebaste I, L'Erma di Bretschneider: Roma. ESIN, U. 1993 - The Relief Decorations on the Prehistoric Pottery of Tülintepe in Eastern Anatolia, in Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeological Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. (eds.), Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche, Archeologiche, Antropologiche dell'Antichità, Roma: 105-119. ESIN, U. 2001 - Salvage Excavations at Tepecik, in Istanbul University's Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000), Belli, O. (ed.), Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund, Istanbul: 102-107. FAURA, J.-M., LE MIÈRE, M. 1999 - La Céramique Néolithique du Haut Euphrate Syrien, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998, del Olmo Lete, G., Montero-Fenollós, J.-L. (eds.), Editorial Ausa, Barcelona: 281-298. FRANGIPANE, M. 1996 - La nascita dello stato nel Vicino Oriente antico, Laterza: Bari. FRANGIPANE, M. 2000 - The development of administration from collective to centralized economies in the Mesopotamian world. The transformation of an institution from 'system-serving' to 'self-serving', in Cultural Evolution Contemporary viewpoints, Feinman, G., Manzanilla, L. (eds.), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York: FREIRMAN, J. D. 1971 - Lime as the Precursor of Fired Ceramics, Israel exploration Journal XXI: 212-216. FRENCH, D. H., SUMMERS, G. D. 1988 - Sakçegözü material in the Gaziantep Museum, Anatolian Studies 38: 71-84. FRIEDMAN, J. 1994 - Consumption and Identity (introduction), Harwood Academic Publishers: Switzerland. GARFINKEL, Y. 1987 - Burnt lime products and social implications in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B villages of the Near East, Paléorient 13, 1: 69-76. GARSTANG, J. 1908 - Excavations at Sakce Gözü, in Northern Syria. Preliminary report, Annals of archaeology and anthropology (Liverpool) I: 97-117. GARSTANG, J. 1937 - Explorations in Cilicia. The Neilson expedition: preliminary report, Annals of archaeology and anthropology XXIV: 52-68. GARSTANG, J. 1938 - Explorations in Cilicia. the Neilson expedition: preliminary report II, Annals of archaeology and

295

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

anthropology XXV: 12-23. GARSTANG, J. 1939 - Explorations in Cilicia; the Neilson expedition: fourth interim Report. Parts I and II. Excavations at Mersin: 1938-39., Annals of archaeology and anthropology XXVI: 38-50. GARSTANG, J. 1953 - Mersin, Clarendon Press: London. GARSTANG, J., LLOYD, S., BARNETT, R., FITZGERALD, G. M. 1939 - Explorations in Cilicia; the Neilson expedition: Fifth Interim Report. Parts III and IV. Explorations at Mersin: 1938-39., Annals of archaeology and anthropology XXVI: 89170. GARSTANG, J., LLOYD, S., FITZGERALD, G. M., DUN, A., MARSHALL, D., BURKITT, M. 1938 - Explorations in Cilicia. the Neilson expedition: Third Interim report. Excavations at Mersin: 1937-38. Parts I and II, Annals of archaeology and anthropology XXV: 71-110. GARSTANG, J., PHYTHIAN-ADAMS, W. J., SETON-WILLIAMS, V. 1937 - Third Report on the Excavations at Sakcegeuzi, 1908-1911, Annals of archaeology and anthropology (Liverpool) XXIV, 3-4: 119-140. GLASCOCK, M. D. 1992 - Characterisation of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics, in Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, Neff, H. (ed.), Prehistory Press, Madison: 11-25. GOLDMAN, H. 1956 - Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol II. From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. GOSSELAIN, O. P. 1999 - In pots we trust: the processing of clay and symbols in Sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of Material Culture 4, 2: 205-230. GRAVES, M. W. 1991 - Pottery Production and Distribution Among the Kalinga: A Study of Household and Regional Organization and Differentiation, in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, Longacre, W. A. (ed.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson: 112-143. HEADLAND, T. N., REID, L. A. 1989 - Hunter-Gatherers and Their Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present, Current Anthropology 30, 1: 43-66. HELBAEK, H. 1960 - Cereals and Weed Grasses in Phase A (Appendix II), in Excavations in the Plain of Antioch, Braidwood, R., Braidwood, L. (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 540-543. HELBAEK, H. 1964 - First Impressions of the Çatal Höyük Plant Husbandry, Anatolian Studies 14: 122-123. HOARD, R.J., O’BRIEN, M.J., KHORASGANY, M.G. and GOPALARATNAM, V.S. 1995 – A materials-science approach to uniderstanding limestone-tempered pottery from the Midwestern United States, Journal of Archaeological Science, 22: 823832. HODDER, I. 1982 - Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. HODDER, I. 1989 - The Meanings of Things. Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, One World Archaeology 6, Unwin Hyman: London. HONGO, H. 1996 - Faunal Remains from tell Aray 2, Northwestern Syria, Paléorient 22, 1: 125-144. HOURS, F., AURENCHE, O., CAUVIN, J., CAUVIN, M.-CL., COPELAND, L., SANLAVILLE, P. 1994 - Atlas des Sites du Proche Orient (14 000-5 700 BP), Maison de l'Orient: Lyon. 296

References

IWASAKI, T., NISHINO, H. 1991 - An Archaeological Study on the Development of Civilization in Syria, Report of the University of Tsukuba, Archaeological Mission to Syria I, Institute of History and Anthropology of the University of Tsukuba: Tsukuba, Japan. IWASAKI, T., NISHINO, H. 1992 - An Archaeological Study on the Development of Civilization in Syria, Report of the University of Tsukuba, Archaeological Mission to Syria II, Institute of History and Anthropology of the University of Tsukuba: Tsukuba. IWASAKI, T., NISHINO, H. 1993 - An Archaeological Study on the Development of Civilization in Syria, Report of the University of Tsukuba, Archaeological Mission to Syria III, Institute of History and Anthropology of the University of Tsukuba: Tsukuba, Japan. IWASAKI, T., NISHINO, H., TSUNEKI, A. 1995 - The Prehistory of the Rouj Basin, Northwest Syria. Preliminary Report, Anatolica XXI: 143-187. JONES, ANDREW 2002 - Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. KAFAFI, ZEIDAN 2001 - Jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan. The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age I Occupation, ex Oriente : Berlin. KARAM, N. 1976 - Recherches sur la Céramique Néolithique et Enéolithique de Byblos, thèse du 3ème cycle, Université de Strasbourg, unpublished. KARUL, N., AYHAN, A., ÖZDOĞAN, M. 2001 - 1999 Excavations at Mezraa-Teleilat, in Ilisu ve Karkamiş Gölleri Altında Kalacak Arkeolojik ve Kültür Varlıklarıinı Kurtarma Projesi. 1999 Yili Çalısmaları, Tuna, N., Öztürk, J., Velibeyoğglu, J. (eds.), Ankara: 162-173. KINGERY, W. D. 1996 - Materials science and material culture, in Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies, Kingery, W. D. (ed.), Washington, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Press, 181-203. KIRKRIDE, D. V. 1969 - Early Byblos and the Bequa'a, Mélanges de l'Université de Saint Joseph 45: 45-60. KIRKBRIDE, D. 1972 - Umm Dabaghiyah 1971: a preliminary report, Iraq 34: 3-15. KNAPPETT, C. J. 1997 - Ceramic production and distribution in protopalatial Crete; technological, economic and social perspectives, PhD, University of Cambridge, unpublished. KRAMER, C., DOUGLAS, J. E. 1992 - Ceramics, caste, and kin: spatial relations in Rajasthan, India, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11, 2: 187-201. KRAUSE, G. 1970 - Lesefunde von Jall Machnaqa, in Kamed el Loz 1966/1967, Hachmann, R. (ed.), Rudolf Hadelf Verlag, Bonn: 87-100. KRETZ, K. 1983 - Symbols for Rock-forming Minerals, American Mineralogist 68: 277-279. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1984 - Ideology and material culture: an archaeological perspective, in Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Spriggs, M. (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 72-100. KUIJT, I. 2000 - Life in neolithic farming communities: social organization, identity, and differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York. KÜSTER, F. W., THIEL, A., FISCHBECK 1979 - Tabelle Logaritmiche per Chimici, Farmacisti, Medici e Fisici, Ulrico Hoepli: Milano.

297

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

LA VIOLETTE, A. 2000 - Ethno-Archaeology in Jenné, Mali. Craft and status among smiths, potters and masons, BAR int. ser. 838, Hadrian Books, Oxford. LAST, J. 1998 - Catal Höyük Pottery, http//:www.catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive-rep98/lastpot98.html. LAST, J. 1999 - Pottery from the East Mound, 1998, http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep98/Lastpot98.html. LAST, J. 2000 - West Mound Pottery / Batı Höyük Seramikleri, http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep00/last00.html. LE BLANC, S. A., WATSON, P. J. 1973 - A Comparative Statistical Analysis of Painted Pottery from Seven Halaf Sites, Paléorient 1, 117-133. LE MIÈRE, M. 1979 - La céramique préhistorique de Tell Assouad, Djezireh, Syrie, Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique: Paris. LE MIÈRE, M. 1989a - Les Débuts de la Céramique sur le Moyen-Eufrate, in To the Eufrates and Beyond. Archaeological studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon, Haex, O. M., Curvers, H. H., Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (eds.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam and Brookfield: 53-64. LE MIÈRE, M. 1989b - Clay Analyses of the Prehistoric Pottery: First Results, in Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad: prehistoric investigations in the Balikh Valley, northern Syria, Akkermans, P. M. M. G. BAR Publishing, Oxford: 233-236. LE MIÈRE, M. 2000 - Pottery and Plaster Analysis (Appendix 4), in Village on the Euphrates: The Excavation of Abu Hureyra, Moore, A., Hilman, G. C., Legge, A. J., Moore, A. T. M. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 532-533. LE MIÈRE, M. 2001 - The Neolithic Pottery from Tell Kosak Shamali, in Tell Kosak Shamali vol.1, Nishiaki, Y., Matsutani, T. (eds.), Oxbow Books, The University Museum, University of Tokyo, Tokyo: 179-211. LE MIÈRE, M., NIEUWENHUYSE, O. 1996 - The Prehistoric Pottery, in Tell Sabi Abyad: late Neolithic settlement : report on the excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden (1991-1993) in Syria, Akkermans, P. M. M. G. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, Istanbul: 119-284. LE MIÈRE, M., PICON, M. 1987 - Productions locales et circulation des céramiques au VI millenaire au Proche-Orient, Paléorient 13, 2: 133-148. LE MIÈRE, M., PICON, M. 1998 - Les débuts de la céramique au Proche-Orient, Paléorient 24, 2: 5-26. LEASE, N., LAURENT, R. 1998 - Etude des Sources d'Approvisionnement en Basalte en Syrie du Nord durant le Troisième Millénaire, in Espace Naturel, Espace Habité, Fortin, M., Aurenche, O. (eds.), Maison de l'Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon: 8391. LECHTMAN, H. 1984 - Andean value systems and the development of metallurgy, Technology and Culture 25, 1: 1-36. LEMONNIER, P. 1993 - Introduction, in Technological Choices: transformation in material culture since the Neolithic, Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Routledge, London: 1-35. LUBAR, S. 1996 - Learning from Technological Things, in Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies, Kingery, W. D. (ed.), Washington, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Press, 31-34. MAGGETTI, M. 1982 - Period Analysis and its Significance for Technology and Origin, in Archaeological Pots, Olin, J. S., Franklin, A. D. (eds.), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington: 121-133. MARCOLONGO, B. 1998 - Yumuktepe and its Landscape, in 5. Yilinda Yumuktepe. The V. Anniversary of the Excavations at Yumuktepe (1993-1997), Köruğlu, K. (ed.), Ege Yayınları, Istanbul: 19-20. 298

References

MARFOE, L. 1995 - Kamid el-Loz. The Prehistoric and Early Historic Contest of the Site. Catalog and Commentary, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 41, Dr. Rudolf Habelt: Bonn. MARTIN, L., RUSSELL, N., CARRUTHERS, D. 2002 - Animal Remains from the Central Anatolian Neolithic, in The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. International Developments and External Relationships during the 9th-6th Millennium Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Gerard, F. and Thissen, L. (eds.), Ege Yayınları, Istanbul: 193-216. MASUDA, S., SHA'ATH, S. 1983 - Qminas, the Neolithic site near Tell Deinit, Idlib (preliminary report), Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 33, 1: 199-231. MATHIAS, G. unpublished - The Neolithic Material from Tell Nebi Mend, in Workshop on the Archaeology of the Orontes Valley. MATHIAS, V. T., PARR, P. J. 1989 - The Early Phases at Tell Nebi Mend: A Preliminary Account, Levant XXI: 13-32. MATSUTANI, T. 1991 - Tell Kashkashok : the excavations at Tell no. II, University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo. MATTHERS, J. 1981 - The River Quoeik, Northern Syria and its Catchment, British Archaeological Reports International Series 98, Oxford. MATTHEWS, R. 2002 - Homogeneity versus Diversity: Dynamics of Central Anatolia, in The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. International Developments and External Relationships during the 9th-6th Millennium Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Gerard, F. and Thissen, L. (eds.), Ege Yayınları, Istanbul: 91-104. MELLAART, J. 1961 - Early Cultures of the Anatolian Plateau: I. Part I: The Neolithic of the Konya Plain. part II: The Early Chalcolithic of the Konya Plain, Anatolian Studies 11: 159-184. MELLAART, J. 1963a - Excavations at Çatal Höyük, 1962. Second Preliminary Report, Anatolian Studies XIII: 43-103. MELLAART, J. 1964 - Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963. Third Preliminary Report, Anatolian Studies 14: 39-119. MELLAART, J. 1965 - Çatal Hüyük West, Anatolian Studies 15: 135-156. MELLAART, J. 1966 - Excavations at Çatal Höyük, 1965, Anatolian Studies 16: 165-191. MELLAART, J. 1970 - Excavations at Hacilar, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh. MELLAART, J. 1975 - The Neolithic of the Near East, The World of archaeology Thames and Hudson: London. MELLAART, J. 1981 - The Prehistoric Pottery from the Neolithic to the beginning of E.B. IV (7000 - 2500 BC), in The River Quoeik, Northe in rn Syria and its Catchment, Matthers, J. (ed.), Oxford: 131-319. MELLINK, M. J. 1956 - Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery, in Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol II. From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, Goldman, H. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ: 65-75. MERPERT, N. I., MUNCHAEV, R. M., BADER, N. O. 1981 - Investigations of the Soviet expedition in northern Iraq, 1976, Sumer 37: 22-54. MEZZASALMA, A. unpublished - Contare e ricordare: sviluppo dei primi sistemi amministrativi nelle economie neolitiche del Vicino Oriente, tesi di laurea, Università di Roma "La Sapienza", 2001. MICHELAKI, K. 1999 - Household Ceramic Economies: Production and Consumption of Household Economies Among the Maros Villagers of Bronze Age Hungary, PhD, University of Michigan, unpublished.

299

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

MILLER, D. 1985 - Artefacts as categories: a study of ceramic variability in central India, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. MINC, L. D. 1986 - Scarcity and Survival: The Role of Oral Tradition in Mediating Subsistence Crisis, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 39-113. MIYAKE, Y. 1997 - A Study of DFBW in Western Asia (II), Studies of Prehistory and Archaeology of the University of Tsukuba 8, University of Tsukuba: Tsukuba. MIYAKE, Y. unpublished - The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in the Rouj Basin, in Workshop on the Archaeology of the Orontes Valley,2001. MIYAKE, Y. 2001 – Pottery, in Archaeology of the Rouj Basin, Iwasaki, T. and Tsuneki, A. (eds.), Department of Archaeology, Institute of History and Anthropology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba: 119-141. MOLIST, M., FAURA, J. M. 1999 - Tell Halula: Un Village des Premiers Agriculteurs-Eleveurs dans la vallée de l'Euphrate, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998, del Olmo Lete, G., Montero-Fenollós, J.-L. (eds.), Editorial Ausa, Barcelona: 27-40. MOLIST, M., ALCALDE, G., Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico Español 1996 - Tell Halula (Siria): un yacimiento neolítico del Valle Medio de Eufrates, campañas de 1991 y 1992, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Bienes Culturales, Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico Español: Madrid. NEFF, H. 1993 - Theory, Sampling, and Antalytical Techniques in the Archaeological Study of Prehistoric Ceramics, American Antiquity 58, 1: 23-44. NISHIAKI, Y. 1999 - Tell Kosak Shamali: Preliminary Report of the Excavations (1994-1997), in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998, del Olmo Lete, G., Montero-Fenollós, J.-L. (eds.), Editorial Ausa, Barcelona: 71-. NISHIAKI, Y., MATSUTANI, T. 2001 - Tell Kosak Shamali vol.1, Oxbow Books, The University Museum, University of Tokyo: Tokyo. NORUSIS, M. J. 94 - SPPS Professional Statistics 6.1 inc. NOSHIRO, S., FUJII, T. 2000 - Identification of Charcoal from Tell el-Kerkh (appendix 1), Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum XXI: 31-36. OLDENZIEL, R. 1996 - Object/ions. Technology, Culture, and Gender, in Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies, Kingery, W. D. (ed.), Washington, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Press, 55-69. ORRELLE, E., GOPHER, A. 2000 - The Pottery Neolithic Period. Questions about Pottery Decoration, Symbolism, and Meaning, in Life in neolithic farming communities: social organization, identity, and differentiation, Kuijt, I. (ed.), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York: 295-308. OTTE, M. 1976 - Données Nouvelles sur le Néolithique d'Apamée (sondage A4), Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 26: 101-118. ÖZBAŞARAN, M. 1999 - Musular: A General Assessment on a New Neolithic Site in Central Anatolia, in Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (eds.), Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul: 147156. ÖZBAŞARAN, M. 2000 - The Neolithic Site of Musular - Central Anatolia, Anatolica XXVI, 129-151.

300

References

ÖZBAŞARAN, M. 2001 - Musular Excavations, in Istanbul University's Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000), Belli, O. (ed.), Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund, Istanbul: 36-40. ÖZDOĞAN, M., ÖZDOĞAN, A. 1993 - Pre-Halafian Pottery of Southeastern Anatolia, with special reference to the Çayönü sequence, in Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeological Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. (eds.), Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche, Archeologiche, Antropologiche dell'Antichità, Roma: 87-103. ÖZDOĞAN, M. 2001 - Yarımburgaz Cave Excavations, in Istanbul University's Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000), Belli, O. (ed.), Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund, Istanbul: 8-11. ÖZDOĞAN, M. 2002 - Defining the Neolithic of Central Anatolia, in The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. International Developments and External Relationships during the 9th-6th Millennium Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Gerard, F. and Thissen, L. (eds.), Ege Yayınları, Istanbul: 253-262. ÖZDOĞAN, M., MIYAKE, Y., DEDE, N. O. 1991 - An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace, Anatolica XVII: 59-121. PARLAK, O., DELALOYE, M. 1999 - Precise 40Ar/39Ar ages from the metamorphic sole of the Mersin Ophiolite (southern Turkey), Tectonophysics 301, 1-2: 145-158. PARR, P.J. 1983 - Tell Nebi Mend Project, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 33, 2: 99-117. PARR, P. J. 1998 - Tell Nebi mend: A Type Site for the Orontes Valley, in Proceedings for the Syposium on Recent British Archaeological Work in Syria, Council for British Research in the Levant, London and Amman. PFAFFENBERGER, B. 1992 - Social anthropology of technology, Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 491-516. PLAT TAYLOR, J. D., SETON WILLIAMS, M. V., WAECHTER, J. 1950 - The Excavations at Sakcegözü, Iraq 12, 2: 53138. POLLOCK, S. 1983 - Style and Information: an Analysis of Susiana Ceramics, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 354-390. PROWN, J. D. 1996 - Material/Culture: Can the Farmer and the Cowman still be Friends?, in Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies, Kingery, W. D. (ed.), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.: 19-30. QUINTERO, L. A., WILKE, P. J. 1995 - Evolution and Economic Significance of Naviform Core-and-Blade Technology in the Southern Levant, Paléorient 21, 1: 17-33. READ, D. W. 1982 - Toward a Theory of Archaeological Classification, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, Whallon, R., Brown, J. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois: 56-92. RENFREW, C. 1969 - Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory, Current Anthropology 10: 151-169. RENFREW, C., BAHN, P. 1991 - Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice, Thames and Hudson: London. RENFREW, C., DIXON, L., CANN, J. 1966 - Obsidian and Early Cultural Contact in the Near East, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30-72. RENFREW, J. 1968 - A Note on the Neolithic Grain from Can Hasan, 18: 55-56. RICE, P. 1984 - Archaeological Study of Specialized Pottery Production, in The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, van der Leeuw, S., Pritchard, A. (eds.), Albert Egges van GIffen Instituut vor Prae-en 301

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Protohistoire Universitat van Amsterdan, Amsterdam: RIIS, P. J., THRANE, H. 1974 - Sûkâs III. The Neolithic Periods, The Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia 3, Munksgaard: København. ROODENBERG, J., THISSEN, L., BUITENHUIS, H. 1989-1990 - Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Investigations at Ilıpınar in NW Anatolia, Anatolica XVI: 61-144. ROODENBERG, J. J., WILKINSON, T. J., BAYRI-BAYKAN, S. 1984 - Surveys and Soundings at Kumartepe: an Interim Report, Anatolica XI: 1-16. SACKET, J. 1977 - The Meaning of Style in Archaeology, American Antiquity 42: 369-380. SACKET, J. 1986 - Style, Function and Assemblage Variability: A Reply to Binford, American Antiquity 51: 628-634. SAMPSON, C.G. 1988 - Stylistic Boundaries among Mobile Hunter-Foragers, Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington and London. SAÑA SEGUÍ, M., HELMER, D. 1999 - The Process of Animal Domestication in the North of the Euphrates Valley (Syria). Socio-Economic Implications, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998, del Olmo Lete, G., Montero-Fenollós, J.-L. (eds.), Editorial Ausia, Barcelona: 257-278. SCHIFFER, M. B., SKIBO, J. M. 1987 - Theory and experiment in the study of technological change, Chicago, 595-622. SETON-WILLIAMS, M. V. 1954 - Cilician Survey, Anatolian Studies 4: 121-174. SEVIN, V., CANEVA, I., KÖRÜĞLU, K., KÖRÜĞLU, G. 2001 - Yumuktepe Excavation and Surveys in the Surrounding Region, in Istanbul University's Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000), Belli, O. (ed.), Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund, Istanbul: 76-79. SHANKS, M., TILLEY, C. 1987 - Social Theory and Archaeology, Polity press: Cambridge. SHEPARD A.O. 1968 - Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Carnegie Institution: Washington. SILISTRELI, U. 1983 - Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey: Pýnarbaþý Bor, 1982, Anatolian Studies 33: 258-259. SILLAR, B. 2000 - Shaping Culture. Making pots and Constructing Households. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Pottery Production, Trade and Use in the Andes, British Archaeological Reports International Series 883, BAR Publishing: Oxford. SILLAR, B., TITE, M. S. 2000 - The Challenge of "Technological Choices" for Materials Science Aproaches in Archaeology, Archaeometry 42, 1: 2-20. SKIBO, J. M. 1992 - Pottery Function. A Use-Alteration Perspective, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology Plenum Press: New York and London. SKIPPEN, G. B. 1972 - Experimental Data for Reactions in Siliceaous Marbles, Journal of Geology 79: 457-481. SPAULDING, A. C. 1953 - Statistical Techniques for te discovery of artifact types, American Antiquity 18: 305-313. SPAULDING, A. C. 1982 - Structure in Archaeological Data: Nominal Variables, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, Whallon, R., Brown, J. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois: 1-20.

302

References

STEIN, G. 1992 - Archaeological Survey at Sürük Mevkii, A Ceramic Neolithic Site in the Eufrates River Valley, Southeast Turkey, Anatolica XVIII: 19-32. STUIVER, M., REIMER, P.J., REIMER, R.W. 2000 - CALIB 4.3., WWW program and documentation, www.calib.org, University of Washington and Queen's University of Belfast: Seattle and Belfast. SULLIVAN, A. 1977 - Inference and Evidence: A Discussion of Conceptual Problems, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, Schiffer, M. (ed.), 183-222. TAYLOR, WALTER W. 1948 - A Study of Archaeology, Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 69, Menasha. THISSEN, L. 1993 - Pottery Tradition and Innovation at Ilipinar, Anatolica XIX: 295-305. THISSEN, L. 2002 - The CANeW 14C databases. Anatolia, 10,000-5000 cal BC, in The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. International Developments and External Relationships during the 9th-6th Millennium Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Gerard, F. and Thissen, L. (eds.), Ege Yayınları, Istanbul: 299-338. THUESEN, I., RIIS, P. J. 1988 - Hama. Fouilles et Recherches 1931-1938. The Pre- and Protohistoric Periods., Fondation Carlsberg: Copenhague. TILLEY, C. Y. 1996 - An ethnography of the Neolithic : early prehistoric societies in southern Scandinavia, New studies in archaeology Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. TITE, M. S. 1999 - Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption - The Contribution of the Physical Sciences, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6, 2: 181-233. TITE, M. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2002 – Do we understand cooking pots and is there an ideal cooking pot?, in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics, Kilikoglou, V., Hein, A. and Maniatis, Y. (eds.), British Archaeological Reports, int.s. 1011, BAR Publishing, Oxford: 1-8. TRIGGER, B. G. 1989 - A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. TSUNEKI, A. 1995 - Neolithic and Early Bronze Age layers of Tell Matsuma: the results of sounding at square 15Gc, Tokyo, TSUNEKI, A. 2001 – Site, Stratigraphy and Structures, in Archaeology of the Rouj Basin, Iwasaki, T. and Tsuneki, A. (eds.), Department of Archaeology, Institute of History and Anthropology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba: 43-56. TSUNEKI, A., MIYAKE, Y. 1996 - The Earliest Pottery Sequence of the Levant: New Data from Tell el-Kerkh 2, Northern Syria, 109-123. TSUNEKI, A., HYDAR, J., MIYAKE, Y., AKAHANE, S., ARIMURA, M., NISHIYAMA, S., SHA'BAAN, H., ANEZAKI, T., YANO, S. 1998 - Second Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Tell el-Kerkh (1998), Northwestern Syria, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum XIX: 1-37. TSUNEKI, A., HYDAR, J., MIYAKE, Y., AKAHANE, S., NAKAMURA, T., ARIMURA, M., SEKINE, S. 1997 - First Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Tell el-Kerkh (1997), Northwestern Syria, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum XVIII: 1-37. TSUNEKI, A., HYDAR, J., MIYAKE, Y., HUDSON, M., ARIMURA, M., MAEDA, O., ODAKA, T., YANO, S. 1999 - Third Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Tell el-Kerkh (1999), Northwestern Syria, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum XX: 1-31. TSUNEKI, A., HYDAR, J., MIYAKE, Y., MAEDA, O., ODAKA, T., TANNO, K., HASEGAWA, A. 2000 - Fourth 303

Balossi – The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East

Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Tell el-Kerkh (2000), Northwestern Syria, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum XXI: 1-36. TÜRKMEN, S., ÖZGÜLER, E. 2000 - Geology of the conveyance tunnel for the Mersin-Tarsus Plains Irrigation Project, Icel, Turkey, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 59, 3: 207-210. VAN AS, A. 1991-1992 - Pottery technology: the bridge between archaeology and the laboratory, Newsletter, Department of Pottery Technology, University of Leiden 9/10: 1-6. VAN LIERE, W. J., CONTENSON, H. D. 1963 - A Note on five Early Neolithic Sites in Inland Syria, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 13: 175-209. VARNDELL, G, FREESTONE, I. 1997 - Early Prehistoric Pottery in Britain, in Freestone, I., Gaimster, D. (eds.), Pottery in the making. World ceramic traditions, British Museum Press, London: 32-37. VOIGT, M. M., ELLIS, R. S. 1981 - Excavations at Gritille, Turkey: 1981, Paléorient 7, 2: 87-100. WALLACE, D. 1989 - Functional factors of Mica and Burnishing, in Pottery Technology. Ideas and Approaches, Bronitsky, G. (ed.), Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco, London: 33-39. WHALLON, R. 1982 - Variables and Dimensions: The Critical Step in Quantitative Typology, in Essays on Archaeological Typology, Whallon, R., Brown, J. A. (eds.), Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois: 127-161. WHITE, L. 1959 - The Evolution of Culture , McGraw-Hill: New York. WIESSNER, P. 1982a - Beyond Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: A Comment on Binford's Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, American Antiquity 47, 1: 171-177. WIESSNER, P. 1982b - Risk, reciprocity and social influences on !Kung San economics, in Politics and history in band societies, Leacock, E., Lee, R. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 61-84. WIESSNER, P. 1985 - Reconsidering the Behavioural Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 50: 160-166. WOBST, H. M. 1974 – Boundary conditions for Paleolothic social systems: a simulation approach, American Antiquity 39: 147-178. WOBST, M. 1977 - Stylistic Behaviour and Information Exchange, in For the Dircetor: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, Cleland, C. (ed.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI: 317-342. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1934 - The Prehistoric Pottery of Carchemish, Iraq I, 2: 146-162. WRIGHT, R.P. 1984 - Technology, Style and Craft Specialisation: Spheres of Interaction and Exchange in the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, 3rd millennium B.C., Harvard University Press: Harvard. YASUDA, YOSHINORI 2001 - Forest and Civilisations, Roli Books: New Delhi. YENER, A., EDENS, C., HARRISON, T. P., VERSTRAETE, J., WILKINSON, T. J. 2000 - The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998, American Journal of Archaeology 104: 163-220. YENER, K. ASLIHAN, EDENS, CHRISTOPHER, CASANA, JESSE, DIEBOLD, BENJAMIN, EKSTROM, HEIDI, LOYET, MICHELLE, OZBAL, RANA 1999 - The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. Tell Kurdu Excavations: Preliminary Report,1999, http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/AMU/99/Anatolica_00.html .

304

References

YENGOYAN, A. 1968 – Demographic and ecological influences on Aboriginal Australian marriage sections, in Man the Hunter, Lee, R.B. and DeVore, I. (eds.), Aldine, Chicago: 185-199.

305