Thrace Through the Ages: Pottery As Evidence for Commerce and Culture from Prehistoric Times to the Islamic Period 1803274611, 9781803274614

Citation preview

Thrace through the Ages Pottery as Evidence for Commerce and Culture from Prehistoric Times to the Islamic Period edited by Zeynep Koçel Erdem and Reyhan Şahin

Thrace through the Ages Pottery as Evidence for Commerce and Culture from Prehistoric Times to the Islamic Period edited by

Zeynep Koçel Erdem and Reyhan Şahin

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-80327-461-4 ISBN 978-1-80327-462-1 (e-Pdf) © the individual authors and Archaeopress 2023

Cover: Top left: Late Bronze Age mud-brick relief recovered from Level V of Maydos-Kilisetepe, Gallipoli Peninsula (photo: G. Sazcı and M. Başaran Mutlu). Top right: Relief pot inspired by oinophora from Racătău, northern Thrace (photo: M.-C. Popescu with V. Căpitanu’s permission). Bottom left: Kantharos ‘karkhesion’ from grave no. E13ST37M33, Su Terazisi Necropolis (photo: S. Başaran). Bottom right: Glazed, mould-decorated filter jug fragment with geometric composition, from the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation (photo: B. Demi ̇rsar Arlı, Ş. Kaya, Ö. Erol, H. Arlı).

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents Foreword��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iii

Research History Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods�����������������������������������3 Zeynep Koçel Erdem

Pottery as Evidence of Commercial and Cultural Interactions Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe������������������������������������� 17 Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu Variation in Late Iron Age Thracian Ceramics from Bulgaria: A Preliminary Evaluation of Cultural Interaction on Ceramic Manufacture and Consumption����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 Ashlee B. Hart On the Terracotta Sarcophagi from Ionia and the Northern Aegean���������������������������������������������������������������� 45 Melike Zeren-Hasdağlı Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace during the Fourth Century BC������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 55 Nikos Akamatis Attic Vases in Thrace as Agents of Commercial and Cultural Values���������������������������������������������������������������� 71 Despoina Tsiafaki, Amalia Avramidou Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace: The Evidence from the Ganos (Işıklar Dağı/Tekirdağ) Survey���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 78 Reyhan Şahi ̇n Interprétation des Timbres Amphoriques et des Monnaies provenant des Fouilles d’Héraion Teichos��������� 93 Oya Yağız The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians in the Second Century BC – First Century AD�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 Mariana-Cristina Popescu Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112 Billur Tekkök Karaöz The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity������������������������������������������������ 132 Asuman Lätzer-Lasar

i

Pottery in Cult Rituals Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Pottery Artefacts in Menekse Catagi Pit Sanctuary�������������������������������������������� 145 Fisun Frank Pottery and Ceramic Finds in Domestic Cult Practices of Serdica������������������������������������������������������������������� 155 Mario Ivanov Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis��������������������������������������� 167 H. Arda Bülbül

Evaluating Pottery from Surveys and Excavations Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul������������������������������������������������������������� 183 Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün Ainos Pottery from the Early Period����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 Sait Başaran Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods�������������������������������������� 219 Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul������������������������������������������������������������������������ 266 Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey��������������������������������������������������������������������� 299 Ergün Karaca

Ceramic Ware Studies Gebrauchskeramik aus nordgriechischen Befunden���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 315 Maria Deoudi Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 323 Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 337 Filiz İnanan Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık������������������������������������������� 348 Ayşe Ç. Türker Mould-Decorated Filter Jugs Unearthed during the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation������������������������������������������� 362 Belgin Demi ̇rsar Arlı, Şennur Kaya, Özlem Erol, Hakan Arlı

ii

Foreword From prehistoric times onwards Thrace has been an important passageway between the Aegean and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Asia Minor. Pottery is one of the most important categories of archaeological evidence for tracing cultural and political phases and providing us with important data about production centres, commercial relations, daily life, religious rituals and burial customs. As classical archaeologists and ceramic specialists we are conscious of the scarcity of research on ancient pottery from both east and west Thrace. This inspired the current contribution, which we hope will help close this gap. We organised the Congress ‘Commercial Networks and Cultural Connections in Thrace: Evaluating the Pottery Evidence’ which took place from 26-28 April 2017 in Istanbul/Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University. Over three days, 40 speakers from eight countries (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Turkey, USA) were represented in 12 different sessions. We would like to thank all participants to the conference for their precious contributions. We also would like to thank the Rectorate of Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University/İstanbul and Dean of Faculty of Letters and students of Department of Archaeology for their support when organising this event. We are also grateful to Bursa Uludağ University, Astaş Holding Company, İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality and Beta Analytic-Testing Laboratory for their kind help and support. Initially we intended to publish the contributions in a volume devoted to the Congress proceedings. Subsequently we decided to include also contributions from colleagues who could not join us at the time but who also worked in this area. For this reason we chose to expand the publication to an edited volume organised thematically. We believe that an arrangement according to research questions, including how people have chosen to evaluate and interpret their material, will offer readers a view both of the variety of finds from different periods as well as an overview of different approaches. Within each section contributions appear in chronological order of the material presented. The volume opens with a paper devoted to research history by Zeynep Koçel Erdem: ‘Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods.’ Research in Turkish Thrace was relative scanty at the beginning of the 20th century, but by the last two decades of the century the region gained in popularity. Today Turkish Universities and Museums conduct large numbers of surveys and excavations here. Pottery is critical for evaluating commercial and cultural interactions; the papers in the first section focus on these themes. In their article ‘Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: MaydosKilisetepe’, Göksel Sazcı and Meral Başaran Mutlu use pottery from the site’s earliest settlement layers to review relations between Maydos Kilise Tepe, Thrace, Northwest Anatolia, and the Balkan Peninsula. The pottery especially illuminates interactions between the Black Sea and the Aegean during the Bronze Age. The second contribution belongs to Ashlee B. Hart. In her article: ‘Variation in Late Iron Age Thracian Ceramics from Bulgaria: A preliminary evaluation of cultural interaction via ceramic manufacture and consumption’ she embraces a theoretical approach. Her investigation of ceramics from an inland market site in western Bulgaria allow her to identify differences between the indigenous Thracian population and Greek settlers in the Late Iron Age. Melike Zeren Hasdağlı in her article ‘On the Terracotta Sarcophagi from Ionia and the Northern Aegean’ examines the special type of sarcophagi known as Clazomenian Sacophagi, whose decoration reflect the impact of Ionian art. She compares examples from Clazomenai, other Ionian cities and Aeolis with examples of the same type from Thrace, discussing them from the vantage point of style as well as from the perspective of burial customs. The circulation of Athenian and Atticising pottery in Thrace gives important clues about cultural and commercial relations. Nikos Akamatis, in his article ‘Remarks on the trade in red-figure pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace during the fourth century BC’ evaluates both Athenian and local red figure pottery of the 4th century from Macedonia and Aegean Thrace. Similarly, in their article ‘Attic Vases in Thrace as Agents of Commercial and Cultural Values’ Despoina Tsiafaki and Amalia Avramidou present a preliminary report of their research project Attic Pottery in Thrace (APT). Based on shapes, usage, and quantity of pottery found at sites in Thrace and its close periphery, they are able to trace patterns and preferences for Attic pottery. Reyhan Şahin, in her article ‘Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace: The Evidence from the Ganos (Işıklar Dağı/Tekirdağ) iii

Survey’ investigates the finds from the Ganos (Tekirdağ) survey. She evaluates the finds in their cultural contexts, and considers the distribution of local examples as compared to other sites in Thrace and neighbouring regions. Oya Yağız, in her article ‘Interprétation des Timbres Amphoriques et des Monnaies provenant des Fouilles d’Héraion Teichos.’ investigates amphora stamps from Heraion Teichos (Tekirdağ/Thrace) in relation to the coins from the same contexts. She uses the data to analyse trade relations between the poleis, emporia and castle-type settlements on the shore of Propontis. The emergence of new production centres in late Hellenistic and Roman times had a pronounced effect on the pottery repertoire of Thracian settlements. Mariana-Cristina Popescu in her contribution ‘The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians in the Second Century BC – First Century AD’ deals with those effects in the area inhabited by the Getae and the Dacians, Thracian tribes who settled north of the Danube, in the territory of present-day Romania. In her article ‘Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade’, Billur Tekkök Karaöz reveals the role of Ilion in interregional trade from the Aegean to Propontis and the Black Sea. She deals with the major types of local pottery during the late Hellenistic and Roman periods at Ilion as well as common imported pottery groups. Asuman Lätzer-Lasar in her article ‘The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic times to Late Antiquity’ deals with that site’s Roman pottery. She shows that the ceramics indicate that Ainos was settled throughout the Roman Period and had widespread commercial trade connections with the Mediterranean world and especially with the cities of western Asia Minor. The second section of the volume, Pottery in Cult Rituals, is dedicated to finds from religious contexts. In the opening contribution, ‘Late Bronze-Early Iron Age pottery artefacts in the Menekse Çatağı Pit Sanctuary’ Fisun Frank uses the finds from a prehistoric cult context to discuss chthonic practices as well as inter-regional cultural connections. Mario Ivanov evaluates an assemblage of cult pottery in ‘Pottery and ceramic finds in the domestic cult practices of Serdica.’ The material derives from private houses in Serdica (Sofia/Bulgaria) excavated from 2010-2012. Ivanov discusses morphological and functional features and draws some conclusions about the location of domestic cult spaces in private houses. H. Arda Bülbül, in his article ‘Evaluating a cult place in the light of the ceramics from the Northern Propontis’ examines the ceramic finds from the Ganos Mountain survey. The finds, which come from the Iron Age through the Roman period, shed light on the different phases of the cult place as well as on the various ethnic groups who worshipped there. The next section of the volume includes papers that evaluate pottery from surveys and excavations, using their specific contexts to help diagnose settlement types, the functions of individual buildings or specific spaces, and also settlement chronology. In her article ‘Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of İstanbul’ Şengül G. Aydıngün reveals results from two archaeological projects. The variety of finds emphasise the changing function of the Bosphorus, sometimes as a connector and other times more of a hindrance for cross-cultural interactions. Sait Başaran, in his article ‘Ainos Pottery from the Early Period’ reports on the 7th -6th century BC pottery from that site’s long running excavations. The material includes the earliest painted pottery which offers evidence for the establishment of the city of Ainos. Yasemin Polat and R. Gül Gürtekin Demir investigate the material from Anaia (Kadıkalesi). Their material comprises the imported Greek and Anatolian pottery dated between the seventh and first centuries BC. They evaluate the available material within the regional context of pottery interfaces. Gülseren Kan Şahin and Şengül G. Aydıngün, in their article ‘Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western İstanbul’, offer significant evidence for understanding the city’s settlement history and trade relations during the Hellenistic Period. Ergün Karaca, in his article ‘Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey’, evaluates the pottery finds recovered during surface surveys along the eastern coast of the Hebros River. These finds help him to determine the geographical location of settlements in this area and their trade relations. In the final section contributors classify and interpret ceramic wares. Two contributions deal with coarse ware. Maria Deoudi, in her article ‘Gebrauchskeramik aus nordgriechischen Befunden’ analyses the typology of kitchen ware from the 4th-3rd centuries BC from Maroneia. Sevingül Bilgin Kopçuk in her article ‘Coarse ware study from Ganos: A panoramic approach’, analyses survey material according to form and type and draws conclusions on trade relations. Two contributors focus on Byzantine Glazed Pottery. Filiz İnanan in her article ‘Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace’ analyses mainly Zeuxippus Ware from the Ganos Survey. Ayşe Çaylak Türker in her article ‘Byzantine Glazed Pottery From Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık’ investigates two incised wares – Aegean Ware and Zeuxippus Ware – along with plain glazed potsherds. The last contribution in this volume treats the latest finds. B. Demirsar Arlı, Ş. Kaya, Ö. Erol, and H. Arlı in their article ‘Mould-Decorated iv

Filter Jugs in Unearthed During the İznik Kilns Excavations’ examine a special group among Islamic ceramics from the 8th century onward. Based on various earthenware mould fragments with similar fabric characteristics and similar decorative techniques on the surface, they conclude that these vessels were produced in Iznik. Unforeseen conditions due to the coronavirus pandemic delayed this volume’s projected publication date. Yet this delay has allowed us to appreciate how day by day the amount of new evidence for pottery research in Thrace increases. For this reason we would like to end this foreword with our intention that this volume will be the first of future installments. We hope to discuss current discoveries in upcoming conferences in the near future and publish the results, thereby opening up the study of ancient Thrace to all scholars and keeping our knowledge of this vital area up to date. Zeynep Koçel Erdem and Reyhan Şahin

v

Research History

Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods Zeynep Koçel Erdem1 Abstract1 Due to its strategic importance, Turkish Thrace has always been an area of continuous passage between Anatolia, the Balkans, the Aegean and the Black Sea. According to the ceramics, the Thracian territory has been inhabited from the prehistoric period onwards. Both local and imported pottery groups prove the existence of different cultures. Although starting at the beginning of the 20th century, archaeological studies in Turkish Thrace were relatively low in number by comparison to Bulgarian and Greek Thrace. The surveys initiated by Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan in the 1980s can be characterised as a turning point for Thracian archaeology, as they opened new horizons in terms of archaeological research. Particularly the significance of excavations at Kırklareli, conducted by him, must be emphasised in this regard. Nowadays research on Turkish Thrace has been accelerated, with the study of ceramics gaining its deserved importance. In this article, although still limited, several studies on the ceramics from the Thracian territory will be surveyed. In the light of available data, acquired mainly from the published excavation and survey materials, traditional methods and new approaches in evaluating the pottery finds will be introduced in general. Keywords TURKISH THRACE, EASTERN THRACE, PROPONTIS, ATTIC POTTERY, ROMAN POTTERY, FIGURED POTTERY

Introduction Turkish Thrace, in other words, eastern Thrace, is located at position between Anatolia, the Balkans, the Aegean and the Black Sea, of strategic importance since prehistoric times. It hosted many cultures and communities such as indigenous people, Thracian tribes, Greek, Roman and Byzantine settlers for centuries in this dynamic location and wide hinterland. This article aims to provide an overview of past and present publications about ceramic studies of Turkish Thrace from prehistoric times to Late Antiquity in the light of various excavations and research conducted Prof. Dr. Zeynep Koçel Erdem, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected].

1 

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 3–16

in the area. The international symposium titled ‘Commercial Networks and Cultural Connections in Thrace: Evaluating the Pottery Evidence’ held at the İstanbul Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University in 2017 has been a crucial step in this direction. It provided an opportunity to scholars working on this subject to exchange views and share information by bringing together pottery evaluations from different periods from Turkish Thrace and other parts of Thrace for the first time. Although eastern Thrace has many archaeological remains from different periods, regular excavations and surveys carried out in the region have been very limited up to now. Excavations in Turkish Thrace are not many compared to those both in other parts of Turkey and the stakeholder countries of the Thracian lands with our country, Bulgaria and Greece. Therefore, Turkish Thrace has been defined terra incognita by some scholars in the context of archaeological studies, and various opinions have been expressed about the causes (Archibald 1998: 6; Sazcı 2020, 9). Several different factors have contributed to this situation: First, part of Thrace is in the military zone; second, with the establishment of archaeology departments -especially in the context of Classical Archaeology- most of the studies started in the Aegean and Mediterranean regions and researchers focused on these; third, agricultural activities in Thrace, rapid urban development, etc. can be considered other main factors. Yet, studies in Thrace have gained momentum with new excavation projects and surveys in recent years (for the history of archaeological studies in Thrace, see Sayar 2016, 193 f.). Current scientific studies throughout Turkish Thrace comprise the rescue excavations by İstanbul, Tekirdağ, Edirne, Kırklareli and Çanakkale Museums, excavations by the universities, various survey studies and independent individual scientific studies (Figure 1). The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums regularly publishes the results of the museums’ rescue excavations in Results of Museum Excavations Book, and reports on the results of university excavations and surveys other than museum excavations are presented in Excavation Results Meeting Books. Ceramics are also briefly mentioned in these publications, in addition to the findings in the study areas. Several archaeometric

Zeynep Koçel Erdem

Figure 1. The map showing the current excavations in eastern Thrace. Map: Google Earth.

analyses within the scope of ceramic studies have also been included in these books in recent years.

Excavations The first systematic scientific studies started in Turkish Thrace at the beginning of the early 20th century and continued with the establishment of the Archaeology department of the Istanbul University in 1930, with the excavations especially concentrated on tumuli started by Prof. Dr. Arif Müfit Mansel in Kırklareli (Belli 2000; Özdoğan 2008: 75 ff.).

The Istanbul Archaeology Museums, which conduct many rescue excavations throughout Istanbul, publish their findings in the Annual of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, which includes catalogued ceramics with brief information (Özek 2001). The monograph of the Istanbul Saraçhane excavation which contains interpretation of the excavation results and presentation of the ceramics is still among the standard reference sources for ceramic studies (Hayes 1992).

Some of the excavations carried out in and around Istanbul are: by A. M. Mansel Yalova in 1932; by the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, A. M. Mansel and A. Ogan Rhegion in 1938-1940-1941; by Ş. A. Kansu in the Yarımburgaz Cave in1960 (Belli 2000, 9 f., 269 f.; Sayar 2016, 193 ff.). These studies, some undertaken in collaboration with the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, contributed to the ancient history of Thrace and introduced the material culture and different cultural periods of the region.

Moreover, although not containing comprehensive information, some settlements and some ceramic finds are introduced, depending on various contexts in the cultural inventory books prepared by the aforementioned museums, which includes the registered artefacts and registered areas of the cities. (Keskinel et al. 2014; Kırçın 2013; Tombul 2015). Below, the ceramic studies of various periods of Turkish Thrace from the prehistoric period to Late Antiquity will be evaluated and discussed under the headings of excavations, survey studies and individual studies.2

The Istanbul University Fikirtepe and Pendik excavations, carried out between 1952 and 1954, help to understand the oldest cultural layers of Istanbul, especially the Neolithic period of the region (Belli 2000: 42 f.). Together with the survey studies started by Prof. Özdoğan in 1980, the excavations in Kırklareli Tilkiburnu (1980), Taşlıcabayır (1980), Aşağı Pınar (since 1993), Kanlıgeçit (1994) and Edirne Enez Hocaçeşme (1991-

Ceramics of the excavations from various periods of some settlements like Ainos (Edirne Enez), Menekşe Çatağı (Tekirdağ), Maydos (Çanakkale Gallipoli Peninsula Eceabat) and Bathonea (Istanbul Küçükçekmece Lake Basin) are introduced in this book.

2 

4

Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods

1993) are among the important studies to understand the material culture and introduction of ceramics from the prehistoric period (Özdoğan 1998, 8; Özdoğan, E. 2016). They provided an understanding of not only the place of Turkish Thrace between Anatolia and the Balkans, but also highlighted the local characteristics along with their impact on these two regions, and opened up new perspectives and enhanced results in Thracian archaeology. Even though the early studies were the first systematic scientific studies, detailed examinations and comments on archaeological material were not included. In these studies, ceramics were selectively collected and analogically dated. Among the tumulus excavation finds from Prof. Mansel’s work, only metal vessels were published as a monograph, still considered an important reference source (Onurkan 1998). New evaluations have been made with different perspectives in recent years. For instance, a doctoral thesis in which archaeological finds obtained from Prof. Mansel’s tumulus excavations were reinterpreted and new dating suggestions made in the context of ceramics that provided up-to-date information (Aksan 2015). The archaeological material obtained from the recent tumulus excavations has been approached with more systematic evaluations. For example, ceramic materials are also examined and evaluated in detail among with the other artefacts in the publications of the Tekirdağ Askertepe and Kırklareli Yündolan C tumulus excavations (Yıldırım 2007, 2010; Delemen et al. 2010).

Figure 2. A ritual askos from the Kurgan at Beşiktaş excavation. Photo: Y. Aslan, Asal et al., 2020, 41.

Recently, during the excavations carried out in Istanbul between 2004-2014 by Istanbul Archeological Museums within the scope of the ‘Marmaray’ subway line works numerous ceramic artefacts were unearthed, dating from the 7th century BC to the 4th century AD (Yenikapı, Sirkeci, Üsküdar excavations). In the Yenikapı Theodosius Harbour, Neolithic Age artefacts similar to Fikirtepe culture findings were found especially under the harbour filling. In addition to pottery fragments originating from the Greek colonisation in Greece and western Anatolia, Byzantine period artefacts were also found in the area. In the Sirkeci excavations, artefacts from the Greek and Roman periods were predominant (Pekin 2007; Asal 2010; Kızıltan et al. 2013; Kızıltan 2014, 2016; Kara 2011, 2015, 2019). The enormous amount of unearthed ceramic artefacts once again reveals the necessity and importance of using rapid examination and current methods instead of traditional methods which were used in the first years of Thracian studies. In this context, extensive laboratory analyses have been started. Kurgan tombs discovered during the Beşiktaş Metro Excavation of the Istanbul Archeological Museums in 2017 (Figure 2) and associated with the migration wave of Kurgan communities from

the northern steppes at the end of the Chalcolithic period, and similarly, the Cambaztepe Kurgan artefacts excavated in Silivri (Polat 2016), Istanbul, are the most recent finds that fieldwork and publication preparations are documenting. Although the investigation of ceramics by archaeometric analysis has become widespread in recent years, one of the pioneering works on this subject is a workshop organised within the scope of examining Late Antique pottery productions in Istanbul (Waksman 2012). The Ainos (Edirne Enez) excavation is the first comprehensive and long-lasting ancient settlement excavation in Turkish Thrace which started under the directorate of Prof. Dr. Afif Erzen from Istanbul University in 1971 and continued under the chairmanship of Prof. Dr. Sait Başaran from 1994. In addition to various publications made in recent years, especially on Orientalising, Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine period ceramics of the ancient city (Parman 1996; Başaran 2003, 2016; Karadima 2004, Irmak 2010; Laetzer Lasar 2016), a variety of masters and doctoral 5

Zeynep Koçel Erdem Ainos, with Hellenistic period pottery and amphora handles (Figure 3) published with selected examples (Atik 2003, 2006; Yağız 2007). And in the meantime the red-figured imports from Athens of the Classical period were also presented in various publications4 (Koçel Erdem 2002, 2007a, 2007 b, 2007 c) (Figure 4). In several Propontis coastal settlements such as Heraion Teichos (as detected in the surveys of the region also), an excess number of imported Attic ceramic groups have been recorded, especially from the middle of the 5th century BC. In addition to imported ceramics, mainly 4th century BC pottery was detected especially in the area interpreted by Prof. Atik as a ‘Hera / Kybele sanctuary’, unearthed in the acropolis of the city. Ceramics of apparently local production, associated with rituals dated between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD, were documented in another area called the Asclepius sanctuary and healing centre (Atik 2003).

Figure 3. Stamped Sinopean amphora handle from Heraion Teichos (Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı). Photo: Heraion Teichos Archive.

studies evaluating excavation ceramics also added important interpretations of the ceramic findings (Şahin 2013, 2016, 2017; Kurap 2020). The examination of the ceramics with archaeometric methods continued by taking samples from the clay deposits of Ainos and its surroundings in order to investigate the origin and production technique (Kurap et al. 2010).3

Although Perinthos/Herakleia is one of the important ancient settlements in Tekirdağ, no detailed work has been done other than museum salvage excavations. In the monograph on the unearthed basilica of the settlement as part of a building research, Late Antique ceramics were represented within the scope of the finds5 (Aslan 2016).

Among the other ancient settlement excavations carried out by universities, in the Tekirdağ Menekşe Çatağı Excavation, started by Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan in 1997 and after a short time-span continued under the leadership of Aslı Erim-Özdoğan (1994-2007, 2015), Early Bronze Age and Iron Age ceramics have been identified (Aksaç 2001; Özdoğan-Işın 2003). Apparently used as a sanctuary during the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, in addition to the ceramics of this period which provide important information in the context of local rituals, studies have also been made on Classical and Hellenistic period ceramics (Stoyanov-Erim-Özdoğan 2003; Turan 2006; Stoyanov 2020). Besides the findings from Menekşe Çatağı region, artefacts and cult vessels unearthed by the museum salvage excavation (1989) in Toptepe Mevkii near the ancient city of Tekirdağ Perinthos provided important information about the belief concepts in the region (Özdoğan 2016: xıı).

The Eceabat Maydos Kilise Tepe Mound excavations, the only in Çanakkale Gallipoli Peninsula carried out by Prof. Dr. G. Sazcı from Çanakkale 18 Mart University since 2010, provided important and up-to-date data in the context of the relationship between the Balkan, Troas, Black Sea and Aegean regions in the Bronze Age in the light of various finds as well as pottery evaluations (Sazcı 2016; Sazcı-Sazcı 2020, 75). In addition to prehistoric period artefacts, ceramics from the Archaic and Classical layers have also been studied in the excavation (Chabot Aslan-Sazcı 2016; Sazcı 2020, 62 f.). Another recent excavation in Istanbul is located in the Küçükçekmece Lake Basin (Bathonea) carried out by Prof. Dr. Ş. Aydıngün from Kocaeli University. During the excavations and surveys, numerous pottery finds from the Neolithic period to Late Antiquity have been unearthed and dealt with in various publications (Aydıngün 2017, 2019; Kara 2017; Kaya 2017; Türkmen 2017).

Heraion Teichos (Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı) is another centre very close to Menekşe Çatağı, its excavation carried out by Prof. Dr. Neşe Atik from Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University since 2000; the site is among the few regularly excavated in eastern Thrace. Many ceramics, especially from the Archaic to the Roman periods were found in the Heraion Teichos excavations similar to

In terms of understanding the relations between the regions through material culture, surveys and excavations in northwest Anatolia (the Troas Region) The 4th century BC Attic Red Figured ceramics of the ancient city are being prepared for publication by the author. Excavations in the Perinthos/Herakleia Ancient City (Tekirdağ Marmara Ereğlisi) will be carried out by Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University under my direction in 2021 with the official permission of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey. 4 

Analyses of some ceramics obtained in Tekirdağ Ganos Surveys are also carried out in the laboratories of Istanbul Mimar Sinan University Conservation and Restoration of Artworks Department like the Ainos (Enez) excavations. 3 

5 

6

Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods

Figure 4. Tondo of a red-figured cup from Heraion Teichos (Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı). Photo: Heraion Teichos Archive.

and the northern Aegean (Gökçeada / Imbros) can be evaluated within the context of eastern Thrace, due to their proximity and based on important data collected in recent years. In addition, the excavation results from Maydos, Troy and Gökçeada boost the interpretation of the period from the Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age of the area (Gökçeada Excavations: Erdoğu 2012; Hüryılmaz 2020). Ceramic studies undertaken in the wake of excavations at Troy and Parion offer important comparative material for Greek and Roman times (for Troy: Heath-Tekkök 2008; Tekkök-Biçken 1996, 2009; Tekkök et al. 2008; for Parion: Ergürer 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). In additional, a number of new survey result publications from the Troas region include information on the ceramics from different periods (Kaşka 2019).

In northwestern Thrace Prof. F. Dirimtekin initiated one of the early studies, documenting monuments of art history, while, ceramic finds were not mentioned. The research on the dolmens in the region comprised the evaluation of the ceramics found in the structures and their surroundings (Akman 2016). Nowadays, studies in the same region carried out by Prof. Dr. E. Beksaç from Trakya University within a cult area, and the surface ceramics together with some artefacts from various times have been briefly mentioned in the reports of the Research Results Books (Beksaç 2007). Under the directorate of Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan the Istanbul University Prehistory Department had started survey studies (1980-1990). They provided a rapid scan of almost the entire region of Thrace, and became a real turning point in the archaeological studies of Thrace. In conjunction with the following excavations mentioned above, this research brought a new momentum and perspective to the investigation, with important results presented in the study of the region’s local characteristics and the relations with different regions, discussed in detail for the first time in the light of ceramic studies (Özdoğan 2007, 2016).

Survey studies Parallel to the first scientific excavations in eastern Thrace, listed in the previous section (Belli 2000: 308f.; Özdoğan 2008: 76), a number of survey studies had been initiated: A. M. Mansel in 1936; N. Fıratlı in 1958; Z. Taşlıklıoğlu in 1959; Ş. A. Kansu in 1965. Although ceramics were not evaluated elaborately in these early studies, Prof. Z. Taşlıklıoğlu documented the various archaeological remains including ceramics, which he encountered in his epigraphic research between 19591970 in Thrace (Taşlıklıoğlu 1971).

With the increasing number of surveys and numerous ceramics identified during these investigations, information is now collected and examined more

7

Zeynep Koçel Erdem

Figure 5. Amphorae from the coastline settlements of Tekirdağ Şarköy Survey. Photo by the author.

systematically. Thus, stronger relations can be established between settlements and regions with regard to the understanding of particular local features of the identification of local and imported ceramics.

ceramics (Aydıngün-Aydıngün 2013; Aydıngün-Bilgili 2016). There are ongoing surveys in the central and Şarköy districts of the Tekirdağ province6 as well as simultaneously on the Gallipoli Peninsula in the province of Çanakkale, since 2008 directed by the author of this article from Istanbul Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University. Their aim is the identification cultural assets both in interior settlements and in coastline sites. In the ceramic evaluations within the scope of the study, the abundance of Classical- Late Roman ceramics is noteworthy, especially in the coastline settlements (Figure 5). In the Classical period ceramics, Attic wares and their local imitations are predominant (Koçel Erdem 2022). In the Hellenistic period, the output from western Anatolian workshops drew particular attention in the first evaluation7 (Koçel Erdem-Bülbül 2020). The Roman period terra sigillata of some regional centres was studied within the scope of this research (Karakaş 2019). Numerous ceramic slags and stilt fragments uncovered during the research indicate local productions.

Among the short-term surveys undertaken in eastern Thrace it is possible to list periodic, regional and studies related to a doctoral degree. In particular, the shortterm prehistoric period study conducted in Edirne in 1996 (Erdoğu 1996) and doctoral dissertation studies in the Edirne, Kırklareli and Tekirdağ provinces should be noted (Karaca 2019). Karaca published his doctoral study as a monograph and mentioned ceramics by their find spots. The article about the local imitations of the black-glazed wares detected in the analysis of a trial piece revealed remarkable results on the local productions in Thrace (Hasdağlı 2017). Two long-term planned surveys started in and around Istanbul; the first part of the ‘Istanbul Prehistoric Archaeological Surveys’ conducted by Ş. Aydıngün from Kocaeli University; the second is the ‘IstYA ProjectIstanbul Survey Project’ conducted by E. Güldoğan from Istanbul University Prehistory Department (Gündoğan-Altun 2015; Yumaklı 2015). In her study Aydıngün, made very important and new contributions to clarify the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, which are particularly problematic in the region. Moreover, she presented fresh interpretations about the connections between the Balkans and northwestern Anatolia and the migration routes in the light of Early Bronze Age

Still in the Tekirdağ Ganos region, the surveys and excavations of amphora kilns, carried out in collaboration with Prof. Dr. N. Günsenin and the The region is called the ‘Ganos Region’ by researchers. The Tekirdağ Ganos Region survey ceramics and other finds are in publication preparation.

6  7 

8

Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods

Figure 6. Ganos amphora from Tekirdağ. Photo: Seçkin Tercan.

Figure 7. A squat lekythos display on Tekirdağ Museum Photo: Seçkin Tercan.

Tekirdağ Museum laid the essential ground with regard to the identification, classification, new terminology suggestions and chemical analyses of commercial amphorae specific to the region (Günsenin 1992a, 1992b, 1997, 2003; Işın-Günsenin 1994). Ganos amphoras constitute the best-defined regional ceramic group during Late Antiquity (Figure 6). In addition, the research in Thrace revealed that the region’s ceramic tradition, continued from the beginning in ancient times until, the present day with the same methods.

yet another thesis, in which common wares have been evaluated the heading ‘eastern Thrace epigraphic and historical geography studies’ together with different groups. Carried out by Prof. Dr. M. H. Sayar, the research sheds light on the historical process of the region in the light of ceramics (Bektaş 2021). Together with various prehistoric materials ceramics have been investigated in a thematic survey of the Prehistoric Age carried out in Gallipoli Peninsula (Özbek 2010). Some Archaic-to Roman period ceramics have been examined in another survey conducted in Eceabat Sestos and its surroundings in the Gallipoli Peninsula (Körpe 2014). The Byzantine period of the region is investigated by Prof. Dr. A. Çaylak Türker, with ceramics discussed in various articles (Çaylak Türker 2005, 2019). Findings and ceramics of interior settlements, never investigated before, will be evaluated within the scope of a doctoral study that has just started in the Gallipoli Peninsula and focusses on localisation problems and occupational finds.8

Nowadays studies on ceramics are approached thematically, and although there are more publications on fine ware of the Classical and Hellenistic periods which provide relatively easy dating, an increase of common ware studies is noticeable in doctoral dissertations, which had been ignored up to now. The doctoral dissertation aiming to examine the economic structure of the region in the light of the Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman periods’ coarse wares found in the Tekirdağ Ganos Region survey is one of the first studies on this topic (Bilgin Kopçuk-Koçel Erdem 2019; Bilgin Kopçuk, 2022). Surface ceramics from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine period, found in the Bolayır (Lysimakheia) and Bakla Burnu (Kardia) settlements in Çanakkale Gallipoli Peninsula, have been the subject of

8  Within the scope of the aforementioned study, the findings of the Gallipoli Peninsula survey conducted under the direction of Koçel Erdem and the findings of the new research will be discussed.

9

Zeynep Koçel Erdem Gökçeada (Imbros) in the northern Aegean and Troas Region right next to Thrace provided important data for understanding the relations between regions through material culture, based on surveys and excavations. Furthermore, the excavations at Maydos, in the Gallipoli Peninsula, at Troy and Gökçeada provided remarkable evidence for defining the region’s the settlement phases from the Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age. The results of extensive surveys and excavations undertaken throughout Thrace by Prof. Dr. M. Özdoğan, added very important particulars to the archaeological studies of eastern Thrace. Also, the study of the ceramics unearthed in the recent excavations by the Istanbul Archaeological Museums on the Istanbul subway lines resulted in important changes to the chronology of the region.

Individual studies Except for the aforementioned general studies on ceramics form excavations and surveys, there are also a number of individual studies and publications documenting former excavation material preserved in exhibitions and warehouses of various museums. Hence, two red-figured vessels in the Tekirdağ Museum, dated to Classical period, were published in an article (Tuna-Nörling 2001; Koçel Erdem 2013) (Figure 7). Additionally, the Tekirdağ Naip and Karaevli Tumulus findings exhibited in Tekirdağ Museum were evaluated and published a long time after the excavations (Delemen 2004; Koçel Erdem 2009). Furthermore, ceramic finds of various periods have also been studied in some individual publications; in particular the Greek and Roman period ceramics found in Turkish Thrace have been discussed thematically in an article (Koçel Erdem-Şahin 2016).

In recent years, significant studies have been carried out on Orientalising, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic period ceramics of Ainos (Enez) Ancient City. The finds from Heraion Teichos also revealed important data from the Archaic to the Roman periods, with amphora handles, some published, an essential ceramic category for the understanding the regional trade net-works. Imported Attic red-figured ceramics are well presented among the other ceramic finds. In addition to imported ceramics, valuable information has been obtained about local productions. Some special types of ritual pottery, uncovered in places considered sanctuaries, and dating between the 4th century BC and the 1st century BC - 1st century AD, appear to have been produced in local workshops.

All these publications based on the visual examination of ceramics contribute to fill the historical gaps of the region. Conclusions The ceramics unearthed in many excavations and presented in studies on sites in Turkish Thrace (Tekirdağ, Kırklareli, Edirne, Istanbul and Çanakkale) and in the adjacent regions, north-western Anatolia and the northern Aegean, represent important findings for retracing and reconstructing the cultural history of eastern Thrace.

Additional substantial findings of Attic ceramics in Thrace are generally from the settlements on the Propontic coast and were particularly numerous in the region in the mid 5th century BC. Also, the excavations at Troy and Parion provided important comparative material in the context of Greek and Roman period ceramics. In addition, some recently published survey results add information on ceramic finds in the Troas region.

Considering the results obtained in the context of ceramics in general, their contribution from the early period excavations of Fikirtepe and Pendik in Istanbul is essential for decoding the influence of the different cultures of the region during the Neolithic period. In addition, the excavations at Kırklareli Tilkiburnu, Taşlıcabayır, Aşağı Pınar, Kanlıgeçit and Edirne Hocaçeşme and the new survey studies carried out in Istanbul provide important data on the recognition of prehistoric period ceramics.

So far, the identified corpus indicates that the ceramic repertoire of cities in Thrace in the ancient periods had a cosmopolitan structure consisting of different components, local and imported. Amphoras obtained from centres such as Heraion Teichos, Ganos and Ainos signify that the commercial activities involved different regions, especially the northern Aegean and Black Sea. Furthermore, the figured ceramics found in these cities during the Early Archaic period indicate that the pottery produced in Attica and the eastern Aegean were in circulation in the region with the Greek colonisation.

The sanctuary finds from the Archaic to the Roman periods in Heraion Teichos (Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı) and from the Late Bronze- Early Iron Age in Menekşe Çatağı, as well as the Toptepe cultic pottery, enhanced our understanding of the belief concepts in the region. The Early Bronze Age and Iron Age ceramics found in Menekşe Çatağı have been evaluated from different perspectives like chronology and origin: in addition, ceramics from the Classic and Hellenistic periods have been studied.

10

Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods

The ceramics retrieved from the aforementioned excavations and surveys are relevant in terms of recognising local and imported products, in establishing relations within Thrace and beyond and filling the chronological gaps. They enable scholars to draw important conclusions about the developing and changing cultural interaction between the regions via production, trade, population mobility, political relations, etc. in eastern Thrace from prehistoric times onward.

Aydıngün, Ş. 2019: ‘The Role of Bathonea Harbour in Ancient Trade’ in O. Dumankaya (ed.), Çağlar Boyunca Üretim ve Ticaret, Prehistorya’dan Bizans Dönemi’ne, Ankara, Bilgin Kültür Sanat: 521–33. Aydıngün, Ş., Aydıngün, H. 2013: ‘Erken Demirçağ‘da Istanbul Boğazı Üzerinden Trak, Frig Kavimlerinin Anadolu’ya Geçişine Ait ilk Bulgular’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 142: 65–78. Aydıngün, Ş., Bilgili, A.E. 2016: ‘Istanbul Tarihöncesi Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları ve Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası (Bathonea) Kazılarının Istanbul’a Katkıları’ in C. Yılmaz (ed.), Antik Çağ’dan 21. Yüzyıla Büyük Istanbul Tarihi 1. Istanbul, Kültür A.Ş: 374–402. Başaran, S. 2003: ‘Ainos’un Geç Hellenistik-Erken Roma Dönemi Seramik Buluntuları’ in C. AbadieReynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et romaine: Actes de la Table ronde d’Istanbul, 22–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul, Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes-Georges Dumézil: 71–7. Başaran, S. 2016: ‘Enez-Ainos’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 97–132. Beksaç, E. 2007: ‘Kuzeybatı Anadolu ve Trakya’da Erken Kültistik Kaya/Kaya Oyma ve Megalit/ Anıtlar ve Kült Alanları Projesi: Edirne ve Kırklareli İlleri 2005 Yüzey Araştırması’, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 24/1: 183–200. Bektaş, G. 2021: Şehir Devletinden Başkente: Gelibolu Yarımadası’nda Kurulmuş Olan Kardia, Agora, Paktye Şehir Devletlerinin Lysimakheia Başkentine Dönüşmesi Sürecinin Yüzey Buluntuları Aracılığıyla İrdelenmesi. PhD Thesis, Istanbul University, İstanbul. Belli, O. (ed.) 2000: Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve Istanbul Üniversitesi (1932–1999). Istanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları. Bilgin Kopçuk, S. 2022: Güneydoğu Trakya Bölgesi Hellenistik, Roma ve Geç Roma Yalın Seramikleri Işığında Bölgenin Ekonomik Yapısının İncelenmesi. Ph.D. Thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul. Bilgin Kopçuk, S., Koçel Erdem, Z. 2019: ‘Late Roman Coarse and Cooking Wares from Southeastern Thrace (Turkey)’ 7th International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Ware, Cooking Ware and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry. The End of Late Roman Pottery. The Last Centuries at the Crossroads. Valencia-Riba-Roja de Turia-Alacant [Paper presentation]. Chabot Aslan, C., Sazcı, G. 2016: ‘Across the Hellespont Maydos (Ancient Madytos), Troy and the NorthEastern Aegean in the Late Eight to Early Sixth Century BC’ The Annual of the British School at Athens 3/1: 121–62. Çaylak Türker, A. 2005: ‘Gelibolu’da Bizans Seramikleri ve Ökaristik Ekmek Damgası’ Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 22/2: 87–104.

Although the ceramic evaluations based on the published research can explain the history and archaeology of Thrace, the increasing number of studies, publications and archaeometric analyses that will complement the known archaeological findings will provide an additional wealth of new information on the material culture and ceramics of Thrace. Bibliography Akman, M. 2016: ‘Türkiye Trakya’sı Megalitik Anıtları’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 71–4. Aksaç, F. 2001: Trakya ve Marmara Projesi. Menekşe Çatağı Prehistorik Çanak Çömlek Buluntuları. Unpublished MA Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul. Aksan, M. 2015: Güneydoğu Thrakia Tümülüsleri: 1881–1964 Yıllarında Kazılan Tümülüslerin Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi. Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul. Archibald, Z. 1998: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Asal, R. 2010: Yenikapı, Marmaray ve Metro Kurtarma Kazıları Buluntuları Işığında Istanbul’un Roma ve Bizans Dönemi Deniz Ticareti. Unpublished MA Thesis, Trakya University, Edirne. Asal, R., Polat, M.A., Ortak, G. 2020: ‘En Eski Beşiktaş’ Beşiktaş Kent Kültürü Dergisi b+ 28: 31–41. Aslan, B. 2016: ‘Ausgewählte Funde aus den Ausgrabungen am Kalekapı’ in S. Westphalen (ed.), Herakleia-Perinthos. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen am Kalekapı in Marmara Ereğlisi 1992–2010, Istanbuler Forschungen 55. Tübingen, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag: 145–219. Atik, N. 2003: ‘Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı (Antik Heraion Teikhos) Hellenistik Devir Çanak Çömlekleri, 3. Uluslararası Eskişehir Pişmiş Toprak Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, Eskişehir, Eskişehir Tepebeşı Belediyesi: 298–306. Atik, N. 2016: ‘Tekirdağ’da Traklar ve Antik Heraion Teikhos Kenti’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 75–86. Aydıngün, Ş. (ed.) 2017: Istanbul Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası Kazıları (Excavations of Küçükçekmece Lake Basin) (BATHONEA). Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

11

Zeynep Koçel Erdem Çaylak Türker, A. 2019: ‘Ceramic Braziers From Çanakkale’ Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 4: 101–10. Delemen, İ, 2004: Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları. Delemen, İ., Çokay Kepçe, S., Yılmaz, Z. 2010: ‘Güneydoğu Trakya’dan MÖ 4. Yüzyıl Ortasına Ait Bir Savaşçı Mezarı’ TÜBA-AR: Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 13: 91–106. Erdoğu, B. 1996: ‘Edirne İli 1995 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 14: 273–91. Erdoğu, B. 2012: ‘Uğurlu-Zeytinlik: Gökçeada’da Tarih Öncesi Dönemlere Ait Bir Yerleşme’ Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 2/4: 1–16. Ergürer, H.E. 2013: ‘Seramikler’ in C. Başaran (ed.), Antik Troas’ın Parlayan Kenti Parion. 1997–2009 Yılları Yüzey Araştırmaları, Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları: 137–51. Ergürer, H.E. 2014: ‘Late Roman Light Coloured Ware From Parion’ in H. Meyza (ed.), Late Hellenistic to Mediaeval Fine Wares of the Aegean Coast of Anatolia Their Production, Imitation and Use. Warsaw, Iksio Pan: 175–219. Ergürer, H.E. 2015: ‘Parion, Agora ve Dükkanlarında Ele Geçen Sigillatalar ve Kırmızı Astarlı Seramikler’ in C. Başaran, V. Keleş (ed.), Parion Kazıları 10. Yıl Armağanı. Ankara, Bilgin Kültür ve Sanat: 87–99. Ergürer, H.E. 2016: ‘Parion Tiyatrosunda Bulunan Seramikler. 2006–2015 Yılı Çalışmaları, Mimarisi ve Buluntuları’ in C. Başaran, H.E. Ergürer (eds), Parion Roma Tiyatrosu. Ankara, İçdaş Yayınevi: 123–64. Güldoğan, E., Altun M. (eds) 2015: Silivri: Istanbul İli Yüzey Araştırmaları 2013. Istanbul, Silivri Belediyesi. Günsenin, N. 1992a: ‘Ganos: Bin Yıldır Şarap ve Amphora Üreten Kutsal Dağ’ Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 30: 197–207. Günsenin, N. 1992b: ‘Ganos: Centre De Production D’Amphores A L’Epoque Byzantine’ Anatolia Antiqua 2/2: 193–201. Günsenin, N. 1997: ‘Ganos Amphoraları: Analyses chimiques comparatives des amphores de Ganos, de l’île de Marmara et de l’épave de Serçe Limanı (Glass-Wreck)’ Anatolia Antiqua 5: 249–60. Günsenin, N. 2003: ‘Au Moyen-Age, un Centre De Production En Propontide Dominant Aussi Le Bassin Mediterraneen: Le Cas De Ganos’ in C. Bakırtzis (ed.), 7eme Congres International sur la Ceramique Medieval en Mediterranee, Thessaloniki, Caisse des recettes archéologiques: 67–70. Hasdağlı, İ. 2017: ‘Bir Deneme Parçası Işığında Doğu Thrakia’da Attika Taklidi Siyah Firnisli Seramik Üretimi’ Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 7/13: 42–67. Hayes, J.W. 1992: Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul 2: The Pottery. Princeton New Jersey, Princeton University Press.

Heath, S., B. Tekkök (eds) 2008: Greek Roman and Byzantine Pottery at Ilion (Troia) Study Collection and Catalogued Pottery. http://classics.uc.edu/Troy/GRBPottery/ Hüryılmaz, H. 2020: ‘Gökçeada-Yenibademli Höyük’te Keramik Endüstrisi: Troas Bölgesi Etkili ve Yerel Yapımlar’ in V. Keleş (ed.), Propontis ve Çevre Kültürleri, Propontis and Surrounding Cultures, Parion Studies 3. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları: 402–13. Iakovidou, A. (ed.) 2007: Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World: Congress International de Thracologie 18–23 October 2005 Komotini-Alexandroupolis. Athens, National Hellenic Research Foundation. Irmak, E.N., 2010: Enez’de (Ainos) Ele Geçen Oryantalizan Seramikler. MA Thesis, Trakya University, Edirne. Işın, M.A., Günsenin, N. 1994: ‘Tekirdağ İli, HoşköyGaziköy Amphora Fırınları Kurtarma Kazısı 1992’ Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 4: 497–512. Kara, Ü. 2011: Istanbul Yenikapı Limanı’nda Geç Roma– Erken Bizans Amphoraları Üzerindeki Yazıtlar (Graffiti ve Dipintiler) ve Damgalar. MA Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul. Kara, Ü. 2015: ‘Yenikapı Limanı’nda Ele Geçen Damgalı Amphoralar’ in A. Diler, K. Şenol, Ü. Aydınoğlu (ed.), Antikçağ’da Doğu Akdenizde Zeytinyağı ve Şarap Üretimi. Izmir, Ege Üniversitesi Yayınevi: 243–51. Kara, Ü. 2017: ‘Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası (Bathonea?) Kazıları’nda Ele Geçen Dipintolu LR2 ve Damgalı LR13 Amphoraları’ in Ş. G. Aydıngün, (ed.), Istanbul Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası Kazıları Excavations of Küçükçekmece Lake Basin (Bathonea). Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları: 277–87. Kara, Ü. 2019: Geç Antik Çağ’da (M.S. 4.-7.yüzyıl) Doğu Akdeniz’de Üretilen Ticari Amphoralarda Dipinti, Graffiti ve Mühür Kullanımı. PhD Thesis, Ege University, Izmir. Karaca, E. 2019: Milattan Önce Birinci Binde Doğu Trakya. Istanbul, Homer Kitabevi. Karadima, C. 2004: ‘Ainos: An Unknown Amphora Production Centre in the Evros Delta’ in. J. Lund, J. Eiring (eds), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 155–61. Karakaş, G. 2019: ‘Tekirdağ Yeniköy Mermer Höyük Kırmızı Astarlı Seramikleri’ in B. Öztürk, H.S. Öztürk, K. Eren, B.B. Aykanat, H. Azeri (eds), Mnemes Kharin. Filiz Dönmez-Öztürk Anısına Makaleler. Istanbul, Homer Kitabevi: 271–99. Kaşka, M. 2019: ‘Çanakkale Merkez ilçe Yüzey Araştırması Arkaik Dönem-Roma Dönemi Seramikleri’ in D. Yılmaz (ed.), Kuzey Troas’ta Yeni Araştırmalar. Neolitik Çağ’dan Demir Çağ Sonuna Kadar Çanakkale Merkez Yüzey Araştırması. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları: 171–91. Kaya, D. 2017: ‘Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası (Bathonea?) Kazıları Geç Antik Çağ Unguentariumları-2013’ in Ş. G. Aydıngün (ed.) Istanbul Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası

12

Ceramic Research in Turkish Thrace: Past and Present, Approaches and New Methods

Kazıları. Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları: 239–59. Keskinel,, B., Özdemir, N., Öztürk N. Ö., Güven, N., Meriç, G., Demirkıran, A., Erdem, L., Ayber, E.K., Şahin, Z., Çelik, Ö. 2014: Tekirdağ Kültür Envanteri. Tekirdağ, Tekirdağ Valiliği. Kırçın, Ş. 2013: Edirne Taşınmaz Kültür Varlıklari Envanteri 1–2. Edirne, Edirne Valiliği. Kızıltan, Z. 2014: ‘Marmaray-Metro Projeleri ve Yenikapı Arkeolojik Kurtarma Kazıları’ Colloquium Anatolicum13: 11–45. Kızıltan, Z. 2016: ‘Istanbul Kazıları: Marmaray-Metro Projeleri ve Arkeolojik Kurtarma Kazılarının Şehir Tarihine Katkıları’ in C Yılmaz (ed.), Antik Çağ’dan 21. Yüzyıla Büyük Istanbul Tarihi 1. Istanbul, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür AŞ: 338–69. Kızıltan, Z., Çelik, G.B. (eds) 2013: Saklı Limandan Hikayeler. Yenikapı’nın Batıkları. Istanbul, Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2002: ‘Heraion Teichos Antik Kenti Pişmiş Toprak Figürlü Kapları’ 2. Uluslararası Eskişehir Pişmiş Toprak Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı. Eskişehir, Eskişehir Tepebaşı Belediyesi: 17–30. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2007a: ‘The Red-figured vases from Tekirdağ Karaevlialti (Heraion Teichos)’ in Iakovidou 2007: 155–63. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2007b: ‘The Importance of Heraion Teichos (Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı) in the Black Sea Ceramic Trade During the 4th Century BC’ Studia Hercynia 11: 99–104. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2007c: ‘The Cult and the Mythological Scenes on Athenian Export Red Figure Vases During the 4th Century BC’ Anodos, 6/7: 241–52. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2009: ‘Finds from a plundered Tumulus at Karaevli, Tekirdağ in Turkish Thrace’ Anatolia Antiqua 17: 209–38. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2013: ‘Tekirdağ Müzesi’nden Meidias Üslubu’nda Bir Bodur Lekythos’ in M. Tekocak (ed.), K. Levent Zoroğlu’na Armağan. Istanbul, Suna & İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü: 385–94. Koçel Erdem, Z., 2022: ‘The Attic imports and their local imitations from the settlements east of the Hebros river (modern Turkey) in D. Tsiafaki, A. Avramidou, N. Michailidou, Y. Mourtos, M. Karta (eds), AtticPOT Attic painted pottery in ancient Thrace (6th-4th century BC). New approaches and digital tools, Xanthi, 307–322. Koçel Erdem, Z., Şahin, R. 2016: ‘Türkiye Trakya’sında Yunan ve Roma Dönemi Seramikleriyle İlgili Araştırmalar’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 237–40. Körpe, R. 2014: ‘Sestos ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırmaları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 32/1: 135–48. Kurap, G. 2020: Ainos (Enez) Siyah Figürlü Kyliksleri. PhD Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul. Kurap, G., Akyüz, S., Akyüz, T., Başaran, S., Çakan, B. 2010: ‘FT-IR Spectroscopic Study of Terra-Cotta

Sarcophagi Recently Excavated in Ainos (Enez) Turkey’ Journal of Molecular Structure 976: 161–67. Laetzter Lasar, A. 2016: ‘Das Römische Handelsnetz von Ainos: Ausgewaelte Keramik vom Spaethellenismus bis zur Spaetantike’ Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorvm Acta 44: 1–8. Onurkan, S. 1998: Doğu Trakya Tümülüsleri Maden Eserleri, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi’ndeki Trakya Toplu Buluntuları. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Özbek, O. 2010: ‘Gelibolu Yarımadası Tarihi Milli Parkı’nda Prehistorik Dönem Araştırmaları 2008 Sezonu’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 27/1: 239–59. Özdoğan, A.E., Işın, M.A. 2003: ‘Tekirdağ Menekşe Çatağı, Doğu Çatak Kazısı’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 24/1: 377–88. Özdoğan, E. 2016: ‘23. Yılında Kırklareli Projesi: Aşağı Pınar ve Kanlıgeçit Yerleşimleri’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 1–31. Özdoğan, M. 1998: ‘Tarihöncesi Dönemlerde Anadolu ile Balkanlar Arasındaki Kültür İlişkileri ve Trakya’da Yapılan Yeni Kazı Çalışmaları’ TÜBA-AR: Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 1: 63–94. Özdoğan, M. 2007: ‘Tarih Öncesi Dönemde Trakya’ Aktüel Arkeoloji 3: 12–24. Özdoğan, M. 2008: ‘Tarih Öncesi Istanbul’ Aktüel Arkeoloji 8: 74–84. Özdoğan, M. 2016: ‘Istanbul Üniversitesi Trakya Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları Projesinin 36. Yılında Genel Bir Durum Değerlendirmesi’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 7–18. Özek, H. 2001: ‘Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı Makaleler Bibliyografyası’ Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 17: 43–56. Parman, E. 1996: ‘Edirne Arkeoloji Müzesi’nde Bulunan Enez Kazısı 1990 Yılı Bizans Sırlı Seramikleri’ Anadolu Araştırmaları 14: 391–414. Pekin A.K. (ed.) 2007: Gün Işığında Istanbul’un 8000 Yılı. Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet Kazıları. İstanbul, Vehbi Koç Vakfı. Polat, M.A. 2016: ‘Cambaztepe Tümülüsü (Kurgan) Kazısı ön Değerlendirmesi’ Trakya Kazıları Özel Sayısı, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 231–37. Sayar, M.H. 2016: ‘The Research Activities of Turkish Historians and Archaeologists in Southeastern Thrace through the 20th Century’ in P. AdamVeleni, E. Tsangaraki, K. Chatzinikolaou (eds), Rhaidestos-Thessaloniki. Antiquities in a Refugee Journey. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki: 193–201. Sazcı, G. 2016: ‘Trakya-Anadolu Sınırında Bir Tunç Çağı Yerleşmesi: Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 57–71. Sazcı, G., Sazcı, D. Ç. 2020: ‘Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü’ in G. Sazcı (ed.), Maydos 1. Çanakkale, Ege Yayınları: 13–75. Stoyanov, R. 2020: ‘Attic Red-Figure Pottery 6th-4th Centuries BC from Menekşe Çatağı at Propontis’ in 13

Zeynep Koçel Erdem V. Keleş (ed.), Propontis ve Çevre Kültürleri, Propontis and Surrounding Cultures, Parion Studies 3. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları: 791–801. Stoyanov, R., Erim-Özdoğan, A. 2003: ‘Ceramic Finds form the Layer of Destruction on the Settlement Menekşe Çatağı in Propontis’ Ancient World and Archaeology 16/3: 215–39. Şahin R. 2013: Ainos (Enez) Kazılarında Bulunan Kırmızı Figürlü Keramikler. PhD Thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul. Şahin R. 2016: ‘Red-figured Pottery of the 4th Century BC from Ainos (Enez) in Thrace: The Final Phase of the Classical Tradition in Eastern Thrace’ in S. Japp, P. Kögler, P. (eds), Traditions and Innovations. Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial Periods, Proceedings of the 1st Conference of IARPotHP, Berlin, November 2013, 7th–10th. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 329–40. Şahin R. 2017: ‘Red-figure Pottery form Ainos /Thrace (Enez): Its Spectrum from the Earliest Finds until the End of the 5th Century BC’ TÜBA-AR: Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 20: 93–116. Taşlıklıoğlu, Z. 1971: Trakya’da Epigrafi Araştırmaları. Istanbul, Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi. Tekkök Biçken, B. 1996: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Troia. The Second Century B.C. to the Sixth Century A.D. PhD Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia. Tekkök, B. 2009: ‘The Roman Pottery’ in A. William (ed.), The Agora of Ilion. Final Reports of the Post-Bronze Age Excavations. Mainz. Tekkök, B., Akyol, A.A., Kadıoğlu, K., Demirci, Ş. 2008: ‘Bir Grup Troia Seramiğinde Sır ve Malzeme Analizleri’ Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 23: 173–86. Tombul, M. 2015: Çanakkale Kültür Envanteri, Arkeolojik Yerleşim Alanları ve Sanat Tarihi Yapıları. Istanbul, Matsis Matbaa Hizmetleri.

Tuna Nörling, Y. 2001: ‘Polyxena bei Hektors Lösung. Zu einem attisch-rotfigurigen Krater aus Tekirdağ (Bisanthe-Rhaidestos)’ Archäologischer Anzeiger 2001/1: 27–44. Turan D., 2006: Menekşe Çatağı Hellenistik Dönem Seramiği. M Thesis, Trakya University, Edirne. Tuna Nörling, Y. 2008: ‘Menekşe Çatağı Hellenistik Dönem Seramiği. Hellenistic Ceramics of Menekşe Çatağı’ in B. Erciyes (ed.), Marmara Araştırmaları Sempozyum Bildirileri. Yerleşim Arkeolojisi Serisi 2. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 13–22. Türkmen, G. 2017: ‘Bizans Dönemi Sırlı Seramikleri Hakkında Kısa Bir Değerlendirme’ in Ş. G. Aydıngün (ed.), Istanbul Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası (Bathonea) Kazıları. Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları: 297–313. Waksman, Y. 2012: ‘The First Workshop of Byzantine Ceramics Discovered in Constantinople/Istanbul: Chemical Characterization and Preliminary Typological Study’ in S. Gelichi (ed.), Atti del 9 Congresso Internazıonale Sulla Ceramica Medievale Nel Mediterraneo. Firenze, All’ Insigna del Giglio: 147– 52. Yağız, O. 2007: ‘Anses d’amphores timbrees trouvées à Tekirdaǧ-Karaevlialti (Ancient Heraion Teichos)’ in Iakovidou 2007: 698–704. Yıldırım, Ş. 2007: ‘Trakya’da Tümülüs Tipi Mezar Geleneği ve İkiztepe B Tümülüsü’ Aktüel Arkeoloji 3: 83–90. Yıldırım, Ş. 2010: ‘Askertepe Tümülüsü’ Anadolu/Anatolia 36: 149–78. Yumaklı, H. 2015: ‘Istanbul İli Yüzey Araştırmaları (İstYA) Projesi 2013 Yılı Silivri İlçesi Çalışmalarında Karşılaşılan Çanak Çömlek Buluntuları’ in Güldoğan, Altun 2015.

14

Pottery as Evidence of Commercial and Cultural Interactions

15

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe Göksel Sazcı1, Meral Başaran Mutlu2 Abstract12 In excavations since 2010 at the Maydos-Kilisetepe mound on the European side of the Dardanelles, eight layers have so far been identified dating mainly from the Bronze Age. Base rock has not yet been reached. While associations with Thrace in north-west Anatolia have been traced back to the Early Iron Age, analysis of ceramic finds at MaydosKilisetepe have revealed connections with the Balkans from the earliest layer currently reached. Other retrieved finds suggest that the settlement was related to both the Black Sea and Aegean regions throughout the Bronze Age. Considering archaeological deposits in the Aegean, the Bronze Age in the Troad was first evaluated by H. Schliemann and C. W. Blegen following excavations at Troy. This was then discussed in association with Anatolian archaeology as a result of recent excavations at Beşik-Yassıtepe and Troy by M. Korfmann. It was affirmed by results of excavations at Maydos-Kilisetepe that the region should also be evaluated in consideration of Balkan archaeological deposits. Keywords NORTHWEST ANATOLIA, MAYDOS KILISETEPE MOUND, BALKAN, BRONZE AGE, CERAMIC

The mound of Maydos-Kilisetepe is situated on the southern coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula in the Çanakkale (Dardanelles) Strait, opposite the northern shores of the ancient Troad (Figure 1). The tell settlement is currently located in the middle of the modern town of Eceabat, and the site is almost surrounded by recentlyconstructed buildings (Figure 2a). The area where the mound is situated in Eceabat was previously known as Maydos until the end of the 1930s. Maydos was mainly a Greek settlement until the end of the First World War when a population exchange took place between Greece and Turkey under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Maydos evidently received its name from Madytos, under which name this town was called throughout classical antiquity (Yavuz 2008: 457). The Turkish name of Kilisetepe (‘Church Hill’), on the other hand, takes its name from a nineteenth century Orthodox church dedicated to Hagios Demetrios that stood on top of the mound. The church was partially destroyed in 1915 1  Prof. Dr. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Archaeology, [email protected] 2  Asst. Prof. Fırat University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Art History, [email protected]

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 17–34

after bombardment by Allied forces during the Gallipoli Campaign. After that, only the foundation walls of the church survived at the site (Külzer 2008: 501-502). Several inscriptions found around the church, including fragments of gravestones, sarcophagi and dedications, enabled us to establish the name of the settlement (Krauss 1980; Isaac 1986; Külzer 2008). The mound measures 180 x 200 m and at its highest point is about 33 m above sea level (Figure 2b). Soundings conducted at the mound indicate that the total thickness of the cultural levels does not exceed 14 m. In terms of size, Maydos-Kilisetepe is among the largest mounds so far identified along the Dardanelles Strait (Özdoğan 1986: 51-71; Sazcı 2013: 29-40). Archaeological excavations at the mound, which are ongoing, have been directed by Göksel Sazcı from Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University since 2010. Investigations have so far revealed eight major cultural levels dating from the Early Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period, and virgin rock has not yet been reached (Figure 3). Excavations at Maydos-Kilisetepe since 2015 have now reached Early Bronze III Level VIII at the site. This level is represented by several rows of stones belonging to a defensive wall lying on a northeast-southwest axis and parts of walls perpendicular to it (Sazcı 2016a: 539- 550). Level VII, above the Early Bronze Age strata, is represented by four successive architectural phases. Level VII at Maydos-Kilisetepe can be synchronised roughly with the Middle Bronze Age period of Troy V. Radiocarbon dating from the oldest phase of this level provides the date of 2080‒2060 BC. Buildings with mudbrick walls on stone foundations in these successive four architectural phases were all oriented towards the Early Bronze Age defensive wall. Because the upper part of the defensive wall was cleared during this period, it is difficult to establish whether the Early Bronze Age defensive wall was used in Level VII. Beige ware pottery sometimes covered with a red coating is typical of this period (Figure 4) as well as the application of volutes on the handles, commonly-known from Troy V pottery. In terms of shape, one-handed mugs and jugs, trefoil-mouthed jugs and lids with handles, which are also typical of Troy V (Blegen et al. 1951: 235-251), characterise this level at Maydos-Kilisetepe (Figure 5). Additionally, of note are pottery features that show links not only with sites in northwestern Anatolia but

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu

Figure 1. Major settlements in Hellespont/Dardanelles region in the Bronze Age.

Figure 2a. Maydos-Kilisetepe in centre of Eceabat town, viewed from west side.

18

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 2b. Topographic plan of Maydos-Kilisetepe mound.

migrations of Thracian tribes in the 1200s BC, was observed starting from Troy Layer VIIb in the Troad (ca. 1180 BC), they were retrieved starting from Layer VII dating to early 2000 BC at Maydos-Kilisetepe (Figure 6d-i). Therefore, the portrayal of migration by Thracian tribes in the 1200s BC should be re-evaluated in consideration of finds from Maydos-Kilisetepe.

also with sites in Bulgaria, e.g. knobbed handles (Figure 6a–c). Such pottery does not exist at Troy. However, the site of Kanlıgeçit near Kırklareli in Turkish Thrace, where the material remains are otherwise very similar to those of Troy, yielded exact parallels for the Balkan shapes mentioned above (Özdoğan et al. 2010: 362-364, fig. 8; Özdoğan, Yılmaz 2012: fig. 127). Similarly, while the finger- and nail-imprint ceramic group, known as ‘Barbarian Ware’ (or currently as ‘Handmade Coarse/ Burnished Ware’, Hnila 2012) and associated with the

Most of the buildings of Level VI, representing the younger Middle Bronze Age at Maydos-Kilisetepe, were 19

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu

Figure 3. Levels identified at Maydos-Kilisetepe until end of 2017 field season.

uncovered during the course of the 2014‒2017 field seasons. This level, which corresponds to Early Troy VI, was an important period in the region’s cultural development. In the course of excavations, sections of walls with stone foundations belonging to large domestic structures; massive walls that might have had a defensive function as well as a battered fortification wall have been uncovered (Figure 7). At this stage of our work, it can be stated that the pottery called ‘Tan Ware’ and ‘Anatolian Grey Ware’ associated with this wall are in accordance with finds from other sites in the region representing the final stages of the Middle Bronze Age (Figure 8a-b). Handmade coarse wares with finger- and nail-imprints were also found in this layer (Figure 8c-g).

The retrieval of this ware form at Maydos-Kilisetepe is significant, suggesting that communication with the Aegean world and especially Thracian regions on the coast of the Black Sea could have been established by sea as well as river transportation. The architectural remains of Late Bronze Age Level V are much better preserved than those found in the preceding Level VI. Three different architectural phases, with evidence of fire, have been identified (Figure 7). Some of the older buildings were transformed into a workshop area during this time. Here, numerous bone implements, stone tools, storage pits, and silo bases with rectangular stone-paved floors and mud-brick walls have been uncovered. The interiors of some of the storage pits were plastered with 5 cm-thick clay. Although no botanical rests were found inside these storage pits, it is very probable they were used to store food. The middle and south part of the excavated area yielded additional rectangular buildings with mudbrick walls on stone foundations, beaten earth floors, and partially stone-paved floors. Inside the buildings, hearths and several stone bases of wooden posts supporting the roof were discovered. Carbonised matter on these stone bases proves that the posts were made of wood. Rectangular thin-walled silos made of stone and

Among the remarkable ceramic forms indicating the relationship between the Aegean world and Thrace in the Bronze Age are bowls with wishbone handles. It has been suggested that the origin of these bowls was Thessaly in mainland Greece and that they spread from there across Thrace via rivers (Horejs 2007: 296-297, pl. LXXIVa). To date, these wares have not been retrieved in either northwestern Anatolia or on the south coast of Turkish Thrace. It is possible to observe such wares unearthed at Maydos-Kilisetepe starting from Layer VI (Figure 9a) through to the end of Layer V (Figure 9b-e). 20

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 4. Pottery from Level VII with volute decoration.

21

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu

Figure 5. Pottery from Layer VII, local forms.

22

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 6. Ceramic wares of Thracian origin from Layer VII.

23

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu

Figure 7. Layers from the Bronze Age, architectural plans.

24

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 8. Pottery from Layer VI.

25

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu

Figure 9. Bowls with wishbone handles.

26

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 10. Mud-brick reliefs recovered from Level V, representing the Late Bronze Age.

27

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu clay were attached to the corners inside buildings. The interiors of these structures also contained hearths.

Maydos-Kilisetepe exhibit a link with the Aegean and Black Sea areas clearly highlights the role of the site in seaborne trade during this period. One of these finds is a lid of 7.2 cm diameter made from dark serpentine (Figure 11f). This lid, found in the workshop area in the north of the site, shows heavy wear due to its long use. It closely resembles examples common in the Minoan world (Warren 1969: 68-69, Type D185). This is not surprising since finds relating to the Minoan culture have previously been attested as far north as the site of Mikro Vouni on Samothrace. D. Matsas, excavator of Mikro Vouni, explains the presence of Minoans in the north Aegean as being connected with their interest in sources of metal in northern Greece and Macedonia (Matsas 1995: 243-246). In addition, the recovery of copper ingots at several sites in the Balkan hinterland could imply that Aegean links extended as far as the rivers Meriç (Maritsa, Evros) and Tunca (Tundža) in Bulgaria (Leshtakov 2007: 455-456; Echt et al. 2011: 2327). The finds overall suggest that Maydos-Kilisetepe could have played an important role as a station in exchange networks between the south Aegean and the Balkans.

Full examination of the recovered Late Bronze Age pottery has not yet been completed but as far as can be observed, wheel-made ceramics such as Anatolian Grey Ware and Tan Ware dominate the spectrum of the ceramic repertoire. Mycenaean pottery is present but in very small quantities. The use of handmade pottery increased, and some of these may have been imported, as discussed below. The most significant feature of these buildings is that their mud-brick walls had relief-decorated surfaces displaying several different motifs (Figure 10) (Sazcı 2013: 35-38, figs. 8-11; Sazcı 2016b: 64, figs. 14-15). Their form indicates that some of them were used as borders along the walls (Figure 10a–d) while others served as frames for the door and window openings (Figure 10fg). It is also likely that some of these mud-bricks with relief-decorated surfaces were placed on top of walls at the junction with the ceiling inside buildings (Figure 10e). Running wave-meanders, hooked-spiral (‘running dog’) or rug patterns, and concentric circles are the most common motifs represented so far. There are also cases in which both the rug and hooked-spiral pattern co-exist in the same decoration scheme.

Two stone mace heads from Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe constitute another category that illustrates the role of maritime exchange networks in the Late Bronze Age (Figure 11d-e). One of these mushroom-shaped mace heads was found in the workshop area, while the other came to light in a domestic context. The first of these mace heads, made from serpentine, measures 3.9 cm in diameter and has a truncated bottom. The second one, 6.7 cm in size, is missing its bottom. Mace heads similar to the ones found at Maydos-Kilisetepe have so far been recovered over a large area including Iran, Caucasia, Ukraine, and Romania (Boroffka, Sava 1998: 17-113). However, the closest parallels for the mace heads at Maydos-Kilisetepe come from sites in the north and north-west Black Sea (Romania, Moldavia, and Ukraine) (Boroffka, Sava 1998: 24, figs. 8-9, Type III; Bolohan 2007: pl. LXXIX IIa-III). This highlights the position of Maydos-Kilisetepe as a station on the maritime route between the Aegean and Black Sea.

The motifs observed on the relief-decorated mud-bricks in Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe also appear on pots from the same level (Figure 12), fragments, seals and other objects (Figure 11a-c). In particular, the hookedspiral pattern was apparently much preferred as it was frequently applied to various types of objects. Several pot-sherds from Maydos-Kilisetepe in beige-dark red colours bear such incised or stamped motifs as well as repeated triangles (Figure 12f-m). The hooked-spiral (or running-dog) motif recalls the finds of the Romanian Middle Bronze Age Wietenberg culture (Boroffka 1994; Dietrich, Dietrich 2011: 67-84). In particular, several potsherds, similar to those of the Wietenberg culture, are of beige-dark red colours and bear the incised or stamped hooked-spiral (or running-dog) pattern and repeated triangles. In addition, the rug pattern, which is more common in the central Balkans and in Transylvania than in western Anatolia and the Aegean, also appears on Maydos-Kilisetepe pots as decoration (Figure 12 a-e). Use of the rug pattern has been reported from the Middle/Late Bronze Age site of Vratitsa in Bulgaria (Khristova 2010: 38-62), and Middle Bronze Age Level 19 at Kastanas near Thessaloniki in northern Greece (Hochstetter 1984: pl. 1, 5-7; Hänsel 1989: 53). However, the combination of rug pattern and repeated triangles again recalls finds from the Wietenberg culture.

Three distinctive vessels, two mugs and a jug found side by side in Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe, present further evidence of the site’s link with the Black Sea region (Figure 13a-c). These handmade burnished wares, which find no parallel among ceramic repertories in Anatolia during this period, are rather common at numerous Middle Bronze Age sites in north-west Bulgaria (Krauss 2006: 12, fig. 4). Handmade dark wares with finger- and nail-imprint decoration were also unearthed in this layer (Figure 13d-h).

The finds from Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe also demonstrate links with regions other than Macedonia, Thrace and the Balkans. The fact that certain finds from

Level V at Maydos-Kilisetepe was destroyed after a devastating fire. Although some new artefacts were found in the following Layer IV, an architectural 28

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 11. Finds from Layer V.

29

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu

Figure 12. Imported wares from Layer V.

30

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 13. Wares of Thracian origin from Layer V.

31

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu continuity was observed. The finds from this layer could only be retrieved from a small area in the southern portion as the northern section was heavily eroded. The construction of rectangular structures known from Layer V was continued in this layer. In addition, new smaller structures with verticallylocated foundation stones were revealed. The vertically-positioned lower tier foundation stones mark an architectural change observed starting from Troy VIIb (ca. 12th–11th century BC) in the Troad and identified as a Thracian characteristic in the northern Aegean region (Becks et al. 2006: 184-185, fig. 5). However, this characteristic was only observed at Maydos-Kilisetepe starting from Layer VII dated to early 2000 BC, and was employed more frequently in Layer IV.

period. No evidence of invasion has been determined up to the end of Level IV. The new population of Level III built oval houses and used Greek Geometric pottery. These newly-constructed oval houses also had upright-placed stone foundations similar to their forerunners and used the coarse ware of earlier levels alongside newly-introduced types. Thus, available archaeological evidence from the last seven years of excavation at Maydos-Kilisetepe implies that links of the site with Balkan cultures, which began as early as the later stages of the Early Bronze Age, continued until the Geometric period. The first seven years of excavations at MaydosKilisetepe have been promising so far as the site, located at an important geographic point, has yielded finds that increase our understanding of the nature of cultural interactions between the Aegean, Anatolia and Balkans. It must also be mentioned that the first seven years concentrated on only a small part of the mound to establish the stratigraphy of the site. Future investigations will focus on other parts of the mound on a larger scale to understand better both the cultural affiliation of the site and its role in interregional exchange between different cultures in the Aegean, Anatolia and Balkans.

Analysis of the ceramic repertoire manifested that locally-produced ceramic wares still existed, but the quantity of dark handmade wares with finger- and nailimprint decoration (known as ‘Barbarian Wares’ or currently as ‘Handmade Coarse Wares’) was observed to have substantially increased. Furthermore, a new pottery group, handmade and burnished, (known as Buckel ceramics [Knobbed ware] or currently as ‘Handmade Lustrous Ware’, Hnila 2012) was unearthed. This new repertoire consists of a smaller group in comparison with the other ceramic wares. However, it can be stated that the total number of items in both ceramic groups having Thracian origins accounts for half the ceramic assemblage.

Bibliography Becks, R., Hnila, P., Pieniazek-Sikora, M. 2006: ‘Troia in der frühen Eisenzeit- Troia VIIb1-VIIb3, in M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia, Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, 181–188. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern. Blegen C.W., Caskey, J.L., Rawson, M. 1951: Troy II. I. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Settlements 2. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Blegen C.W., Caskey, J.L., Rawson, M. 1953: Troy. The Sixth Settlement 3. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Bolohan, N. 2007: ‘“Buffer Territories” in the Balkan’ in I. Galanaki, H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis, R. Laffineur (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders, Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Devolopments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005, Aegeum 27. Liege, Universite de Liege: 307–13. Boroffka, N.G.O. 1994: Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 19. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Boroffka, N.G.O., Sava, E. 1998: ‘Zu den steinernen ‚Zeptern/ Stössel- Zeptern‘, ‚Miniatursäulen‘, und ‚Phalli‘ der Bronzezeit Eurasiens’ Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30: 17–113.

Excavations conducted at Maydos-Kilisetepe demonstrate that the site had links with the Balkans as early as the end of the Early Bronze Age, if not earlier. The geographic location of the site was most likely one of the main reasons for the assumed link. Level VII, representing the early Middle Bronze Age, yielded pottery features that show links not only with sites in north-west Anatolia but also with sites in Bulgaria. Similarly, examples of so-called ‘Handmade Coarse Ware’, or ‘Handmade Lustrous Ware’, that began to appear after 1200 BC indicating newcomers from the Balkans in the Troad, have also been attested in Levels VII-V at Maydos-Kilisetepe. Following destruction of the site by fire at the end of Level V occupation, the new Balkan peoples managed to gain control over the site, as observed elsewhere in the region. This is supported by analysis of the architectural remains, pottery and associated small finds found in Level IV. However, it is safe to assume that the existing inhabitants of the site continued to live alongside the newcomers. This argument is also valid for succeeding Level III. It is clear from excavations that Level IV also ended with a destructive calamity, resulting in the collapse of all houses belonging to this 32

Thrace’s Gateway to Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age: Maydos-Kilisetepe

Figure 14. Wares of Thracian origin from Layer IV.

33

Göksel Sazcı, Meral Başaran Mutlu Dietrich, L.,Dietrich, O. 2011: ‘Wietenberg ohne Mykene? Gedanken zu Herkunft und Bedeutung der Keramikverzierung der Wietenberg-Kultur’ Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86: 67–84. Echt, R., Kubiniok, J., Thomas, M. 2011: ‘Inderdisziplinäre Forschungen in der Mikroregion Drama, Bulgarien’ in V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov, H. Popov (eds), Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel, Humbolt Union in Bulgarien. Sofia, Alexander von Humbold Stiftung: 19–42. Hänsel, B. 1989: Kastanas, Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975- 1979, Die Grabung und der Baubefund. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 7. Berlin, Spiess Verlag. Hnila, P. 2012: Pottery of Troia VIIB, Chronology, Classification, Context and Implacations of Trojan Ceramic Assemblages in the Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age Transition. PhD Thesis, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen. Hochstetter, A. 1984: Kastanas, Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975- 1979, Die Handgemachte Keramik Schichten 19 bis 1. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa. Berlin, Spiess Verlag. Horejs, B. 2007: ‘Macedonia: ‘Mediator or Buffer Zone’ in I. Galanaki, H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis, R. Laffineur (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders, Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Devolopments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11- 14 April 2005, Aegeum 27. Liege, Universite de Liege: 293–305. Isaac, B., 1986: The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden, E.J. Brill. Khristova, R., 2010: ‘Characteristics of Bronze Age pottery from the site at Vratitsa, Kameno municipality’ in: Proceedings of the conference ‘SouthEastern Bulgaria during the 2nd -1st Millenium B.C.’ 15 April 2008, Karnobat, Bulgaria. Varna, Knigoizdatelstvo Zograf: 38–62. Krauss, J. 1980: Die Inschriften von Sestos und thrakischen Chersones, Inschriften Griechischen Städte aus Kleinasien 19. Bonn, Habelt Verlag.

Krauss, R. 2006: ‘Indizien für eine Mittelbronzezeit in Nordbulgarien’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 3: 3–26. Külzer, A. 2008: Ostthrakien (Europe). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 12. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichische Akadademie der Wissenschaften. Leshtakov, K. 2007: ‘The Eastern Balkans in the Aegean Economic System during the LBA. Ox- Hide and Bun Ingots in Bulgarian Lands’ in I. Galanaki, H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis, R. Laffineur (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders, Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Devolopments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11- 14 April 2005, Aegeum 27. Liege, Universite de Liege: 447- 58. Matsas, D. 1995: ‘Minoan Long Distance Trade: A View from the Northern Aegean’ in R. Laffineur, W.D. Niemeier (eds), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 5th Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10- 13 April 1994, Aegaeum 12. Liege, Universite de Liege: 235–46. Özdoğan, M., 1986: ‘Prehistoric Sites in the Gelibolu Peninsula’ Anadolu Araştırmaları 10: 51- 66. Özdoğan, E., Schwarzberg, H., Özdoğan, M. 2010: ‘Kırklareli Höyüğü 2008 Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/2: 357–74. Özdoğan, M., Yılmaz, Ö. 2012: ‘Pottery Appendix’ in M. Özdoğan, H. Parzinger (eds), Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Kanlıgeçit bei Kırklareli. Ostthrakien während des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Im Spannungsfeld von anatolischer und balkanischer Kulturentwicklung. Archäologie in Euroasien 27. Berlin, Verlag Philipp von Zabern: 148–182. Sazcı, G. 2013: ‘Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü- Eine bronzezeitliche Hafensiedlung an den Dardanellen’ Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 43–1: 29–40. Sazcı, G. 2016a: ‘Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü Kazısı 2014 Sezonu Çalışmaları’ in: Özme, A. (ed.), Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 37/1: 539–50. Sazcı, G. 2016b: ‘Trakya - Anadolu sınırında bir Tunç Çağı yerleşmesi: Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 57–70. Warren, P. 1969: Minoan Stone Vases. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

34

Variation in Late Iron Age Thracian Ceramics from Bulgaria: A Preliminary Evaluation of Cultural Interaction on Ceramic Manufacture and Consumption Ashlee B. Hart1 Abstract1 Iron Age trade across the Mediterranean is well documented in the archaeological record. While the existence of foreign trade relationships is understood, the extent of their influence on indigenous identity has garnered less attention. This can be better understood through ceramic analysis. Ceramics have the potential to serve as markers of identity that may be impacted with novel cultural interactions and the arrival of new materials in a region over time. The purpose of this paper will be to examine changes in ceramics as the result of cross-cultural interactions. Thrace, a region of ancient Bulgaria, presents an ideal location to study such changes because the indigenous Thracian population during the Late Iron Age experienced the height of Greek colonialism. This chapter offers a preliminary evaluation of ceramics analysed from an inland emporium site in western Bulgaria during the summer of 2016. The results suggest the possibility for the evaluation of group identity, identity changes, and resistance to such changes by indigenous Thracians. Keywords THRACIANS, POTTERY, CROSS-CULTURAL INTERACTIONS, LATE IRON AGE, ANCIENT BULGARIA

Introduction Ceramics are arguably one of the most common artefacts found at archaeological sites. This is because they are used for a variety of culturally significant reasons. They are also prevalent due to their atomic makeup, which causes them to be brittle unlike ductile metal, meaning that breakage of ceramic occurs often and thus they must be replaced often. As a frequently produced material, ceramics are valuable for the way they trace cultural changes or consistencies over hundreds of years. In this respect ceramics are manifestations of cognitive ideas about cultural norms, technological advances, and stylistic preferences. In the history of archaeology, ceramics have served as the primary medium for studying archaeological groups but they have also been understudied in some areas of archaeology. In the case of ancient Thrace, many of PhD, Senior Archaeologist/Principle Investigator, PaleoWest. This preliminary research was conducted while working on my doctorate at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Email: [email protected]

1 

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 35–44

the large tempered, poorly fired, undecorated sherds have been set aside in favour of studying the more ornate fine wares and imported Greek wares. There are many reasons for this phenomenon and Thrace is not the only place where this happens, but that is not the purpose of this paper and will not be addressed here. Nonetheless, the indigenous Thracian ceramics in southern Bulgaria have not been systematically studied and no such results have provided information about the Thracian population and their interaction with the Greeks during the Iron Age. The movement of Greek peoples throughout the Mediterranean during the Iron Age has been a topic of frequent studies but the main focus of such studies has been the determination of areas where Greeks set up colonies based on the arrival of Greek materials (Malkin 2011). The establishment of settlements and the reinterpretation of cross-cultural relationships have also been widely studied (Rogers 2005). What has been less well studied is the effect of intercultural interaction on indigenous Thracians. This study asks about the ways common indigenous peoples experienced, understood, and dealt with foreign interaction as revealed through ceramic manufacturing and consumption. This paper aims to establish the value of ceramics in efforts to understand the past, particularly by studying the ways that ceramic manufacture and consumption are impacted by cultural ideology. The combination of all of the factors and decisions that shape these processes, when identified, may be used to understand societal beliefs for a given period of time. This concept will be used to examine the impact of cross-cultural interactions between Greeks in inland Thrace and indigenous Thracians during the Late Iron Age using a preliminary study of local ceramic sherds from Emporion Pistiros. Establishing ceramics Objects, or artefacts, of material culture can represent, or reflect, multiple aspects of a past culture including identity, economics, and socio-politics. Humans, as individuals and as members of associative groups both active and imaginary, try to make sense of the world and their surroundings in a way that is logical and consistent within a particular cultural system. This is partially achieved through the creation of meaning,

Ashlee B. Hart which is linked to particular objects within a society (Reckwitz 2002). Objects are integral to cultural processes as extensions of the human body and as part of the meaning packages that help to make the world stable and knowable. The creation of concepts and material culture are meaningful acts reflecting continual interaction and recreation of the known world. Archaeological ceramics, at face value, can be interpreted as objects of trade, utility, decoration, or prestige. Ceramic materials, as human creations, symbolically represent ideas of function, artistic design, and value as well as economic relationships within a society, which are also reflections of collective and personal identity. Through the interpretation of ceramics and changes in ceramic culture, a piece of human identity, the values and relationships that shape it, are revealed.

a means of communicating certain aspects of identity (Pikirayi 2007; Wiessner 1983; Hegmon 1992; Biehl, Gleser 2003). Technological choices have also been established across disciplines as an important social signature. The differentiation within technological choices made by individual potters can be noted in the archaeological and ethnographic record since the Neolithic (Lemonnier 1993; Sillar, Tate 2000). Thus, style and technological choices are both performative and communicative of identity. In such, ceramics serve as an ‘expression of identity’ (Bauer 2008). The production of which parallels the tenets of identity and can be investigated archaeologically through ceramic analysis. The choices made by a potter are influenced by many factors within a society. The archaeologist must attempt to understand the social and economic demands that justify the creation of each product, which is revealed through each step or decision in the production process (Costin 1991:4). Decisions about technological choices are made consciously and unconsciously on many levels, including by the society, the group, and the individual (Schlanger 1994). It is important to examine where resources, designs and production techniques originated from, who the intended audience or consumer was, and how the object was then used to underscore the specific socio-cultural ideological changes that occurred during cultural interaction (Arnold, Neff, Bishop 1991). Groups and individuals make choices about every aspect of the production process. The production process is called chaîne opératoire and the decisions the direct it are quite varied. Chaîne opératoire can be studied from an interest in technology or the meaningfully and socially negotiated set of material-based practices (Lemmonier 1992, 1993; Dobres, Hoffman 1994; Van der Leeuw 1977). Each of the questions involved in the creation of ceramic objects involves a discussion between the potter’s individual identity and the identities of the people for whom they are producing. Analysis of these influences gives rise to understandings about the type of labour, control of the production, technological knowledge or skill, trade availability, politics, and economics of the given group.

Although past material culture can reflect symbols, technologies, and ideas of the past, it remains difficult to interpret ‘identity’. Unlike concepts such as urban planning, subsistence strategies, or burial practices in which the process itself leaves an impact on the archaeological record, identity studies are concerned with the way people perceived the world around them in non-material terms, which were then manifested into material goods (e.g., Díaz-Andreu 2005; Brewer, Gardner 1996). At one time archaeologists tended to focus on the concept of ‘ethnicity’ as representative of race. Objects were used as direct evidence for different ethnicities. Ethnicity studies were used by nationalistic and racist agendas, which led to many archaeologists abandoning the approach all together (Arnold 1990). Recently, studies of identity have moved away from pure ethnic studies focused on identifying race-based groups to the examination of the dynamic production and reproduction of individual and group identities. Identity and ethnicity are multifaceted categories that cannot be understood as singular associations. Each individual has a multitude of independent identity associations that may be personal, group specific, or societal specific. Social identity approaches focus on the need of social groups to have, as Turner noted in 1982, an ‘awareness of a common category membership (and can be) usefully conceptualised as a number of individuals who have internalised the same social category membership as a component of their self concept’ (16). This means that the members of the group consciously and constantly create social identity, which in turn allows for changes in material culture within the archaeological record.

Change in material culture Changes in the ceramic appearance, use, and manufacture do not occur in isolation and thus the appearance of non-local styles at archaeological sites has traditionally been attributed to long distance trade or the migrations of peoples. The explanation for such changes however, cannot be simplified to a broad theoretical mass migration or desire for foreign goods. Instead, the smaller scale processes that occur within individual villages, households, and through human

The style of objects, or their unique shapes, features, and decoration, has been well established by ethnographers and archaeologists around the world as

36

Variation in Late Iron Age Thracian Ceramics from Bulgaria

agency must also be considered (Dobres and Robb 2000). These small changes may be revealed through an analysis of ceramics as people continued local traditions, imitated importations, or created a new tradition all together.

collisions, commerce, and individual identity can be interpreted through changes in ceramics. Identifying Thracians during Greek colonisation The Mediterranean basin throughout the first millennium BC was a multicultural region with a wide range of linguistic, religious, social, and ethnic groups. The diversity of the region encouraged extensive contact and trade, which led to permanent forms of interaction between groups (Demetriou 2012). From the Archaic Period until the Hellenistic Period the Phoenicians, Etruscans, Greeks, and Latins shared many cultural elements including political structures based on small city-states (Demetriou 2012). Before the Persian Wars in 409 and 469 BC the categories of Greek and nonGreeks did not exist (Gosden 2004). The Mediterranean, which had previously been a world of fluid identity, was broken down into a series of local identities after the Persian Wars and steadily the individual identities of non-Greeks began to be important factors in daily life. The process culminated in the campaigns of Alexander the Great taking Greek culture all the way to India and cementing a unifying Grecian identity (Archibald 1983). The first Greek colonies did not differentiate between Greek and non-Greek but once land became the defining factor of citizenship, identity became tethered to territory and ethnicity became a familiar factor. Wealth, land, and ethnic difference lead to feelings of superiority and inferiority in the exchange relationship (Gosden 2004).

The maintenance of cultural structures is an everchanging activity. Such maintenance does not cohere to a one-dimensional avoidance or acceptance of change. What is transmitted over time is not a whole cultural structure, ideology, organisation, or institution but rather pieces of these, even if they are incomplete and unconscious (Pauketat 2001). Cultural contact is continually contributing to the creation of memory over time that serves to authoritatively change longterm cultural structures for individuals as well as groups. At the moment of encounter an object does not change, but the individual may change, which may change perceptions of social space. Thus, the initial entanglement is not with the object but with social practices or ‘relational entanglement’ (Stockhammer 2012). The circumstances leading to social rules and rituals, that an individual processes, guide the ‘relational entanglement’. The second step, which Stockhammer (2012) calls ‘material entanglement’ is obtained through object creation. That is, the technological or stylistic changes brought about by initial cultural encounter are appropriated to create a new object that combines the familiar with the foreign. The outcome is a new product showing the results of cross-cultural encounters.

Literary sources referring to early contacts between the Greeks and Thrace prior to colonisation appear in both Homer’s tradition and Herodotus’ testimonies. They each raise questions and difficulties due to the uncertainty of the chronology (Baralis 2008). This makes the colonisation period heavily reliant upon archaeological excavations and interpretations (Zahrnt 2015). Archaeological evidence provides material support to reconsider the history of cultural exchange between Thracians and Greeks (Dimitrov 2008). The evidence of international contact during the Iron Age comes from foreign objects found across the Mediterranean, which may be initially ascribed to eighth century gift giving between elites rather than established mercantile networks as the distribution is limited (Malkin 2011). By the end of the eighth century however, there is clear evidence of an increase in the volume of trade between foreign entities.

In order to apply cultural entanglement to archaeological data one must analyse the relationship between individuals and objects as a dialectical relationship of acceptance and resistance (Kopytoff 1986). For example, one of the most influential considerations for potters, especially in marketplaces and ceramic workshops is consumerism. The systems of objects that people construct or consume serve both to instill personal identity and to enable people to locate others within social fields (Comaroff 1996). Consumerism drives the creation of material culture including ceramics, which means the market impacts the technological and stylistic development at individual archaeological sites as well as across regions. Potters can create objects that function to be sold or traded for individual consumption. As pieces that are not artwork alone, the potter must conform to the pressures of the customer’s interests, which are impacted by societal, group, and individual ideas, preferences, and restrictions. If the potter wishes to be financially stable they must create pottery that is desirable. Both the transmission and alteration of tradition are the result of the entanglement of humans and objects that allow for the success or failure of material traits (Hodder 2011). Ceramics can be understood through the process of cultural collisions, commerce, and individual ideology. Conversely, cultural

Thrace enjoyed a period of relative peace during the early Iron Age but the peace would quickly be broken by outside invasions (Hoddinott 1981). Colonialism was a regular activity throughout classical and pre-classical Greece. The numerous Greek cities established outside of Greece, which we call colonies, for lack of a better term, were independent entities. The mother cities 37

Ashlee B. Hart rarely had political control over new settlements and the ties were more religiously and ritualistically symbolic in nature (Malkin 2004). Greek colonies seemed to focus on resources and not political or religious aims. It was once noted by Plato that the very geographic nature of Greece was intended for the land to be one of trade and not of self-sufficiency (Wilson 1997). Some of the most commonly cited reasons for the creation of colonies include overpopulation, food shortage, warfare, and the need for raw materials. These theories however, can all be deterred when examining the whole picture of colonisation (Tsetskhladze 2006).

relationships have been widely considered (Rogers 2005). What has not been well analysed is the effects of intercultural interaction on indigenous Thracians. This study asks about the way common indigenous peoples experienced, understood, and dealt with foreign interaction as revealed through ceramic manufacturing and consumption. This preliminary research was conducted at Emporion Pistiros, Bulgaria in 2016 while comprehensive broad analysis continues in 2017. The Pistiros site is an urbanised settlement that represents an important commercial and cultural centre set in the heart of indigenous Thracian territory, in central Bulgaria. The site is located some 150 kilometres from the Aegean Sea and separated from it by the Rhodope Mountains (Figure 1). The location was strategic and beneficial for both Greeks and Thracians. It is in close proximity to mineral deposits including copper, iron, and gold, which in post-Greek times became the major focus of the site. The location on the river is also a place where several roads crossed allowing for trade in all directions. The river was navigable by small boats and, from Pistiros, wagons were used to transport goods further inland.

By the fifth century BC the Greeks were actively searching for locations that would give them access to the rich plains and mines of Thrace. The first attempts to form a colony were violently prevented by the Thracians. The establishment of Amphipolis on the Strymon River took three attempts. In 497 BC Miletus tried to establish a colony and was thwarted by the Edonian tribe. Then, in 465 BC an Athenian coalition endeavoured again and were fought off, but finally in 437 BC troops led by Hagnon succeeded and the colony was born (Webber 2011). Greek colonisation around the Black Sea began much later than colonisation around the Aegean Sea. It was not until the second half of the seventh century BC that the colonists were able to settle along the Black Sea. One of the most commonly cited reasons for the delayed colonisation of a prosperous land is geography. The Black Sea had a much different climate than the Aegean, and the colonists tended to seek places similar to their homeland.

Emporion Pistiros seems to have been founded in the fifth century BC under a treaty created in 431 BC between Sitalkes, the Thracian king, and the Athenians. It remained a place of cross-cultural exchanges until its decline, in the second century BC. The site is known from an inscription found nearby, which listed the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Thracian king for Greeks living at the site. It also detailed the extraction of tribute from the Greeks by the Thracian king (Demetriou 2012). An accepted name of the site includes the term ‘emporion,’ which refers to a market centre established by Greeks for the sole purpose of trade. Although the nature of the site and the name of the site are debated (e.g. Tsetskhladze 2000; Bouzek, Domaradzka 2008), as an inland location of cross cultural contact, the site presents unique possibilities for studying the interaction between indigenous Thracians and Greeks. The site provides a case study of multi-ethnic collaboration, with Greeks and indigenous Thracians living together and relying upon each other.

The commodities exported from Thrace included resources, food, and processed products, such as timber, charcoal, livestock, hides, grain, honey, and wax among other things. Thrace was not known for a particular commodity in the way that Egypt, for example, was known for grain, Macedonia for timber, or Thasos for wine. Thracian exports have also not been attested archaeologically (Tzochev 2015). Most probably ended up in Greek coastal settlements without leaving a trace and items that were exported further were not labeled with their primary origin. The import of manufactured objects was a way for Greek habits and ideas to take hold in Thrace, which contributed to new Thracian artistic and cultural styles (Baralis 2008).

Change and resistance to cultural interaction can be interpreted through the analysis of ceramics created before, during, and after the initial contact with Greek settlers because ideology is often revealed through manufacture and consumption. The primary goal of the 2016 study was to ask whether ceramic technology and decoration changed at all during the period of Greek interaction. Subsequently, the study compared aspects of the ceramic paste, temper, decorations, and vessel function to obtain information possibly revealing changes. A visual analysis of technological

Background of the case study The movement of Greek peoples throughout the Mediterranean during the Iron Age has been a topic of frequent study but the main focus of such studies has been the determination of Greek colonies, determinations made based on the apparent arrival of Greek materials (Malkin 2011). The establishment of settlements and the reinterpretation of cross-cultural 38

Variation in Late Iron Age Thracian Ceramics from Bulgaria

Figure 1: Map detailing the location of Emporion Pistiros.

choice was conducted on 116 sherds of Thracian handmade ceramics from Pistiros that were excavated between 2012 and 2015 by members of the Balkan Heritage Field School under the direction of Associate Professor Dr. Alexey Gotsev . There were no complete vessels analysed at this time. Of the ceramics surveyed for this study there were 43 rim sherds, 15 base sherds, 43 body sherds, and 15 handle sherds (Figure 2). The materials studied originated from areas inside of, and adjacent to, the fortification wall on the eastern side of the settlement. The material came from every level of excavation in the complete units B23, B24, B’3, and B’4 (Figures 3 and 4). Preliminary findings and discussion

Figure 2: Table with the division of sherd types.

Certain diagnostic features remained constant throughout the interaction period. Within the purely indigenous Thracian ceramics there was a high degree of consistency in the shape of the vessels and their decorative elements. The general repetition of shapes between the individual pieces from different contexts and time periods revealed consistency in vessel form. The vessels examined in the study typically represented cooking vessels. They were thick bodied, meant to be heated, and had characteristic discolouration in areas where flames met the vessel. Of all of the sherds studied, 25 percent had representative burning and 13 percent possessed handles, a feature diagnostic of cooking, pouring, or drinking vessels (Figure 5). The other common vessel shapes are associated with drinking

including pitchers or jugs and cups used probably for the consumption of wine. The non-cooking vessels tended to have finer rims and flat handles. These two major vessel forms represent the dietary lifestyle of the Thracians before Greek interaction and the continuity of such practices throughout the existence of the site. Greek settlers may have also adopted and used indigenous Thracian ceramic styles and forms, showing the exchange of cultural elements, which could be represented by Greek graffiti appearing on indigenous ceramics forms. 39

Ashlee B. Hart

Figure 3 and 4: Emporion Pistiros site plan from 2009 and the site plan with the current excavation units highlighted (Courtesy of Prof. Mechislav Domaradski Museum).

40

Variation in Late Iron Age Thracian Ceramics from Bulgaria

Figure 5: Graph detailing the totals of each measured feature.

and clay colour further supports the idea that there was a desire to reproduce Greek materials.

In addition to these formal consistencies, there was also continuity in the decorative elements of the Thracians ceramics. The typical geometric designs in this assemblage can be described as slashed incised lines, raised spheres, and checkered triangular patterns. Of the ceramics analysed, 24 percent had decorative elements designed into the clay body, including 10 with dashed lines, 16 patterned raised spheres, and 2 with checkered triangular designs. (Figures 6, 7, 8). The designs were present on all of the different Thracian ceramic forms, even when the shape or material of the vessel changed. Decorative finishes added after the ceramics were fired were not common in this small assemblage but they are present throughout ancient Thrace. The Thracians were known for gold and silver slip finishes on ceramics that have been interpreted as attempts to create ceramic vessels imitating metal vessels. This slip technology persisted throughout Greek interaction.

Within the ceramics analysed a marked change in the thickness of the vessels and the temper was noticed. The walls of the vessels became thinner and more uniform, while temper particles became finer, allowing for the observed thinning of the walls. This attempt to create slender, elegant pottery perhaps seems to represent an effort to replicate Greek examples imported from Attica. It may also speak to new techniques of ceramic manufacture taught to Thracian potters by Greeks. It is possible that the Greeks exposed the Thracians to different ways of preparing clay that removed impurities or large inclusions (Figure 9). They also may have taught them the size to which temper should be crushed to prevent vessels from shrinking without needing to create larger forms, resulting in thinner vessel walls. All of these transformations in manufacture may be contributed to the impact of consumerism in which a larger number of Greek settlers were occupying the land or indigenous Thracians had decided that Greek products were desirable making the changes financially profitable for potters.

The most noticeable change in ceramic production was the technology involved in their creation. The term technology refers to the different knowledge, skills, and tools utilised in the manufacture of ceramics, including what type of clay is used, what elements are added to strengthen the body, the method for shaping a vessel, the firing temperature, and the decoration. Early indigenous Thracian ceramics from Pistiros were handmade of grey clay, thick bodied, and poorly fired. As Greeks moved into the area, certain aspects of these technological choices changed. Imported Greek ceramics had thinner sections of red or brown clay, fine temper, and intricate decorative details. They were also wheel thrown and fired at high temperatures. The use of finer temper, higher firing temperatures, and a pottery wheel indicate that new technologies were adopted by the Thracians, while the imitation of decoration styles

Conclusion A new understanding of ceramic material culture is possible by looking at every stage in the production and use processes, or the technique, while also discerning the style, technology, and function. The analysis of all of these features combined is termed the ceramic identity because, like human identity, the associations and motives are complicated, multifaceted, and cannot be understood at a singular level. Also, in conducting an analysis of ceramics, ideas about the individual, group, and societal ideologies of the manufacturers and

41

Ashlee B. Hart

Figure 6, 7, 8: Examples of indigenous decorative elements applied to handmade ceramics.

consumers may be revealed. The adoption of foreign styles represents fundamental changes in the routine or practice of agents within both cultures involved in the interaction. Studying the changes in ceramic material culture can show the ways in which interaction unfolded, was handled, and ultimately how it changed the emergent, future culture.

only allows for a limited study. Further archaeological investigations must take place in order to gain a more encompassing and testable theory about the changes that were observed though this preliminary study. Future archaeological and archaeometric analyses will focus on establishing a typology and seriation of the Late Iron Age indigenous Thracian ceramics from southwestern Bulgaria. Additionally, the creation of a clear and succinct chronology that incorporates broad ideological changes as well as site-specific events will provide evidence for the changes in ceramics through time. Finally, future studies will utilise additional methodological approaches including thin section petrography and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry analysis to help understand the ways in which changes in ceramic material culture may reflect possible changes in ideology.

This preliminary study of Thracian ceramics at an ancient emporion, or market centre, reveals the importance of a broader approach to ceramic analysis. The preliminary analysis shows that some elements in the production and consumption of ceramics did change over time. Such changes may have been driven by market demand, personal choice, or something other than Greek interaction. As more is understood about the creation, distribution, use, technological changes, and deposition of indigenous Thracian ceramics during the Late Iron Age in Bulgaria, researchers will gain a better understanding of Thracian culture and ThracoGreek interaction.

Acknowledgements This research was conducted as a preliminary study for part of my PhD with funding from the Institute of European and Mediterranean Archaeology (IEMA) Research and Travel Grant and assistance from the Balkan Heritage Foundation. Thank you to Emporion Pistiros Site Director Ass. Prof. Dr. Alexey Gotzev, Balkan Heritage Program Director Dr. Angela Pencheva, and the Archaeology Museum Prof. Mechislav Domaradski

Project outlook This preliminary study revealed that some elements in the production and consumption of ceramics changed over time in Iron Age Thrace. Analysis through visual inspection, measurement, and statistical comparison 42

Variation in Late Iron Age Thracian Ceramics from Bulgaria

Figure 9: Example of a fine greyware wheel made bowl from Emporion Pirstiros.

staff for assistance and access to the ceramic materials at Pistiros. I am grateful to my colleagues at the University at Buffalo for their critiques, edits, and comments along the way.

Biehl, P., Gleser, R. 2003: ‘Theorien und Methoden der Stilanalyse’ in M. Heinz, M.K.H. Eggert, U. Velt (eds), Zwischen Erklären und Verstehen: Beiträge zu den erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen archäologischer Interpretation, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 2. Münster, Waxmann: 125–53. Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L. 2008: ‘Thracian Grey pottery in Bulgaria: Pistiros and Other Sites’ in: Pontic Grey Wares, International Conference Bucharest-Constanzza, September 30th–October 3rd 2008: 199–222. Brewer, M.B., Gardner, W. 1996: ‘Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and self Representations’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71/1: 83–93. Comaroff, J. 1996: ‘The Empire’s Old Clothes’ in D. Howes (ed.), Cross Cultural Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities. London, Routledge: 19–38. Costin, C. 1991: ‘Review: Ceramica Prehispanica Norperuana: Estudio de la Ceramica Chimu de la Coleccion Del Museo de America de Madrid by Martinez Cruz’ American Antiquity, 56/1: 178. Demetriou, D. 2012: Negotiating Identity in the Ancient Medierranean: The Archaic and Classical Greek Multiethnic Emporia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Díaz-Andreu, G.A. 2005:   The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. London, Routledge. Dimitrov, P.A. 2008. ‘The Case of Thracians and Greeks in the North-Eastern Aegean’ Bollettino di Archeologia On Line.

Bibliography Archibald, Z.H. 1983: ‘Greek Imports: Some Aspects of the Hellenic Impact on Thrace’ in Poulter, A. G. (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria, Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981, Part 1. Nottingham, University of Nottingham. Arnold, B. 1990 ‘The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany’ Antiquity 64: 464–78. Arnold, D.E., Neff, H., Bishop, R.L. 1991: ‘Compositional analysis and ‘‘sources’’ of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological approach’ American Anthropologist 93: 70–90. Baralis, A. 2008: ‘The Chora Formation of the Greek Cities of Aegean Thrace. Towards a Chronological Approach to the Colonization Process’ in P.G. Bilde, J. Hjarl Petersen (eds), Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflict and Coexistence. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 101–30. Bauer, A. 2008: ‘Import, Imitation, or Communication: Pottery Style, Technology and Coastal Contact in the Early Bronze Age Black Sea’ in P.F. Biehl, Y. Rassamakin (eds), Import and Imitation in Archaeology. Langenweißbach, Beier & Beran.

43

Ashlee B. Hart Dobres, M.A., Hoffman, C.R. 1994: ‘Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 211–58. Dobres, M.A., Robb, J. 2000. ‘Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude?’ in: Dobres, M.A., Robb, J. (eds) Agency in Archaeology. London, Routledge: 1–17. Gosden, C. 2004. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact From 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hegmon, M. 1992: ‘Archaeological research on style’ Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 517–36. Hodder, I. 2011: ‘Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective’ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17.1: 154–77. Hoddinott, R.F. 1981. The Thracians. London, Thames and Hudson. Kopytoff, I. 1986: ‘The Cultural Biography of Things’ in: Appadurai; A. (eds), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 64–91. Lemmonier, P. 1992: ‘Elements for an Anthropology of Technology, Museum of Anthropology’ Anthropological Papers No. 88. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. Lemmonier, P. 1993: Technological Choices: Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. New York, Routledge. Malkin, I. 2004: ‘Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek colonization’ Modern Language Quarterly 65/3: 341–64. Malkin, I. 2011: A Small Greek World: networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pauketat, T.R. 2001: ‘Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm’ Anthropological Theory  1/1: 73–98. Pikirayi, I. 2007: ‘Ceramics and group identities: towards a social archaeology in southern African Iron Age ceramic studies’ Journal of Social Archaeology 7: 286– 301. Poulter, A.G. (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria; Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, Part 1. Nottingham, University of Nottingham: 304–21. Reckwitz, A. 2002: ‘Toward a theory of social practices a development in culturalist theorizing’  European Journal of Social Theory 5/2: 43–263.

Rogers, J.D. 2005: ‘Archaeology and the Interpretation of Colonial Encounters’ in G. Stein (ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press: 331–54. Schlanger, N. 1994: ‘Mindful Technology: Unleashing the Chaîne Opèratoire for an Archaeology of Mind’ in C. Renfrew, E.B.W. Zubrow (eds), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 143–51. Sillar, B., Tite, M.S. 2000: ‘The Challenge of ‘Technological Choices’ for Materials Science Approaches in Archaeology’ Archaeometry 42: 2–20. Stockhammer, P.W. 2012: ‘Conceptualizing cultural hybridization in archaeology’ in P.W. Stockhammer (ed.), Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization. Berlin, Springer: 43–58. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2000: ‘Pistiros in the System of Pontic Emporia’ in M. Domaradzki, L. Domaradzka, J. Bouzek, J. Rostropowicz (eds), Pistiros et Thasos: structures exonomiques dans la peninsule balkanique aux 7e-2e siecles avant. Opole, Zuk Vogar: 233–46. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2006: ‘Introduction: Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation’ in: G.R. Tsetshladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas 1. Leiden, Brill: 23–33. Turner, J.C. 1982: ‘Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group’  in H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 15–40. Tzochev, C. 2015: ‘Trade’ in Valeva, J., Nankov, E., Graniger, D. (eds): 412–25. Van der Leeuw, S.E. 1977: ‘Towards a study of the economics of pottery making’ Ex horreo 4: 68–76. Webber, C. 2011: The Gods of Battle: The Thracians at War, 1500 BC-AD 150. [no place], Pen and Sword Military. Wiessner, P.1983: ‘Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points’ American Antiquity 48: 253–76. Wilson, J.-P. 1997: ‘The Nature of Greek Overseas Settlements in the Archaic Period: Emporion or Apoikia?’ in L.G. Mitchell, P.J. Rhodes (eds), The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece. London, Routledge: 199–207. Valeva, J., Nankov, E., Graniger, D. (eds) 2015: A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Malden, MA, Wiley Blackwell. Zahrnt, M. 2015. ‘Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE)’ in Valeva, J., Nankov, E., Graniger, D. (eds): 35–47.

44

On the Terracotta Sarcophagi from Ionia and the Northern Aegean Melike Zeren-Hasdağlı1 Abstract1 The Clazomenian sarcophagi are one of the most characteristic and important components of burial customs in Western Anatolia in the Archaic and Classical periods. It is widely known that these terracotta coffins take their place as significant representatives of Ionian art through their decorations. The Clazomenian sarcophagi are distributed primarily throughout Ionia and Aeolis regions except a third significant cluster coming from the northern Aegean coastline. In the northern Aegean region, there are many terracotta sarcophagi both with painted and relief decorations which seem closely stylistically connected to Ionia in the Archaic and Classical periods. This study aims to provide an insight into the stylistic resemblances between the Clazomenian type and similar terracotta sarcophagi found in the northern Aegean region, with examples coming from Ionia and Aeolis. Keywords TERRACOTTA, CLAZOMENAE

SARCOPHAGI,

NORTH

AEGEAN,

IONIA,

The Clazomenian sarcophagi and their distribution throughout the northern Aegean region The term Clazomenian sarcophagus principally represents a special form of box-like sarcophagus produced using an original, standardised shape and decoration schema. The earliest examples of terracotta sarcophagus burials in Clazomenae, dating from the second half of the 7th century BC, used a variety of shapes and showed no homogeneity regarding their decoration schemes (Hürmüzlü 2010: 96-100, 109-111). There was no standardisation at this very early phase. The sarcophagi reached uniformity in terms of shape and decoration principle towards to the second quarter of the 6th century BC. These standard types (Cook 1981: 134-139) remained fundamentally unchanged until the end of the sarcophagus burial tradition. In Clazomenae, many sarcophagi dated to the second quarter of the 6th century BC were decorated by artists such as the Borelli, Münich F3, and Hanover painters (Cook 1981: no. B.1-B.7, pl. 2-8.2; no.C.1-3, pl.10.1-2, 11, 12.1, 13.5; no.F.3, pl.29), who mostly embellished the reserving style under the influence of north Ionian Asst. Prof., Trakya University/Edirne, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected]. I would like to thank Dr Nikolaos Kaltsas, Prof. Dr Yaşar Ersoy, officials of İstanbul Archaeology Museum and İzmir Efes Museum, for their kind permission and support for the photographs used in this study.

1 

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 45–54

wild goat pottery. Terracotta sarcophagus production during the late 6th and early 5th centuries BC witnessed an increase which resulted in an emerging common style, defined as the Albertinum Group by Robert Cook and as Late Period Sarcophagus painting by the present author elsewhere (see esp. Cook 1981: 31-61; ZerenHasdağlı 2014a: 161-371; Zeren-Hasdağlı 2018: 373ff). In the Late Archaic Period, many of these sarcophagi, in numerous variations, were produced in this common style. Thus, their production is hard to confine to a single painter or workshop, as shown by recent studies revealing the individual styles of a considerable number of artists, including Yaka, İskele, Birgi, Özbek, Kalabak and Ovacık painters (Zeren-Hasdağlı 2018: 375387). In this period, the reserving style was still in use, while the use of black-figure technique increased and red-figure compositions made their appearance for the first time. The fields assigned to figure decorations were enlarged and architectural ornaments became much more prominent on the surface of the sarcophagi. In particular, the simple broken meander, horizontal palmette row, lotus palmette, Ionic kymation, astragalus and dotted cable motifs, which appeared in narrow bands separating the decoration fields, were the most commonly repeated motifs. These sarcophagi have mostly been uncovered in Clazomenae and neighbouring sites such as Teos, Erythrae and Chios, as well as Old Smyrna in the north (Cook 1981: 143-145). It seems that they became an important burial custom in the second half of the 6th century BC in Ionia and especially in the last quarter of that century in the Aeolis region. They have thus far been reported as appearing in Cyme (Atila et al. 2015: 19, pls. 17-18), Pitane and Lesbos (Cook 1981: 145) as well as Antandrus in the northernmost part of the Gulf of Edremit (G.Polat – Y.Polat 2006: 94-95, pl. 9; G.Polat – Y.Polat 2007: 3, pl. 10-11). Both the distribution and concentration of these finds suggest that other Aeolian sites that have not yet been systematically excavated so far may yield further finds. Despite the geographic proximity, sarcophagi are rarely found further towards the south of Ionia. Aside from a few examples from Ephesus, the other sites at which these sarcophagi have thus far been found are Samos and Rhodes (Cook 1981: 144-145). It was recently reported that a fragment of a sarcophagus that is in typical Clazomenian shape exists in Iasus (Berti 2020: 2).

Melike Zeren-Hasdağlı The northern Aegean coastline is home to the third largest cluster of finds. In light of the current data, the sarcophagi are widely distributed alongshore at sites such as Aenos (Başaran 2007: 271-277), Abdera, Galepsus and Acanthus (Cook 1981: 145, 164-165; Kaltsas 1998: 47, 57, no. T. 1370, T. 1404, pl.35; Kaltsas 2000: 3545, no. T.1370, T.1404, pls. 15-18, 20-24). On the basis of historical evidence (Roebuck 1959: 106-109; Tiverios 2008: 91-107), the fertile terrain along the shore from the Nestos to the Hebrus Rivers, which shows the densest concentration of Clazomenian type sarcophagi, was also the principal area of activity of the northern Ionian sites such as Clazomenae, Teos and Chios in the northern Aegean region. Amongst these, Abdera is the most significant centre in which both painted and unpainted Clazomenian type sarcophagi were obtained. Both in Abdera and in other areas in the region, the dates of the finds are generally close to each other. According to our current evidence, no sarcophagus dating from earlier than the mid-6th century has as yet been discovered. Most examples date back to the late 6th and 5th centuries BC, when sarcophagus production was also at its peak in Clazomenae and Smyrna, and into the 5th century BC, when production decreased in Clazomenae. Some later examples from the 5th century BC were unearthed in Galepsus and Methymna in Lesbos (Cook 1981: 68, no.J.12, fig.48; 177, no.K.23). In the middle of the 6th century, Abdera was ultimately recolonised by a second group escaping from Teos during the Persian Invasion, after its first colonisation by Clazomenians a hundred years before (Roebuck 1959: 107; Tiverios 2008: 91; Graham 1992: 46-47). All known sarcophagi that came into light in the cemetery areas of Abdera belong to the Teian Period, when burial customs are generally interpreted as a reflection of Teian character of the settlement (Perron 2010: 24). Teos itself has been suggested as another production site in terms of terracotta sarcophagi at least from the late 6th century BC (Zeren-Hasdağlı 2021: 360-363). This view is especially supported by increasing evidence with the help of results of recent excavations in cemeteries of Teos (Güllüsaç 2018: 194-196; Foça 2019: 40-52).

a Clazomenian sarcophagus (Cook 1981: pl. 45, no.G.1) as well as its similarity to an Acanthus sarcophagus that will be discussed fuller below. It seems possible that the rider on the headpiece has counterparts in the Late Period Sarcophagus painting in Clazomenae (Cook 1981: no.F.18, pl. 33.3; no.G.24, pl.72; no.G.29, pl.67). Furthermore, parallels of the disproportionate male figure standing next to the rider appear on two sarcophagi from Clazomenae (Cook 1981: no.G.1, pl.44; Zeren-Hasdağlı 2014b: fig. 3, no.2724). The main field of another sarcophagus from Abdera (Komotini AGK 2011) depicts a subject uncommon in Clazomenian type sarcophagus painting: the ambush of Troilus (Cook 1981: 177, no.G.7A, pl.77.3). This subject is also featured, albeit in a quite different manner, on a sarcophagus by the hand of a Kalabak painter (ZerenHasdağlı 2014a: 348-350). Although the subject is not totally unfamiliar to Ionian pottery painting (Lemos 1991:107-108, no. 800, fig. 58), the style is still quite foreign to Clazomenian type sarcophagus painting. A fragment belonging to another sarcophagus from Abdera (Kavalla D.440) has barely survived, with only the footpiece remaining intact, and only partial details of the animal struggle scene remain (KoukouliChrysanthaki 1970: fig.21; Cook 1981: 71, no.K.11, fig.50). Nevertheless, the styles shown on the lion and ram figures are reminiscent of the Late Period Sarcophagi painted by the Birgi and Ovacık painters who were active in Ionia (Zeren-Hasdağlı 2014a: 268, 343-44, res.23, 33, 179). Koukouli-Chrysanthaki also pointed out that the style of these animals is related to the Albertinum Group (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1970: 346). Acanthus, on the Athos Peninsula, provides us with a series of Clazomenian sarcophagi. There is no evidence confirming that Acanthus had a special kind of historical relationship either to Clazomenae or to northern Ionia and according to the ancient accounts it had been established as a colony of Andros. But it is very remarkable that the earliest graves excavated at the settlement, dating to the late 7th century BC, have revealed a considerable amount of Ionian and Aeolian pottery (Flensted-Jensen 2004: 824). Detailed stylistic analysis of painted decorations on some of the sarcophagi from the site suggests that painters, who had produced them, were quite likely directly in connection to northern Ionia. In the following two centuries, northern Ionian imported fine and wavelined pottery, or imitations of them, constitute an important pottery group in the site (Rhomipoulou 1978: 64-65). One sarcophagus from Acanthus (T1370) in the northern Aegean displays all of the characteristics of Late Period Sarcophagus painting in Clazomenae (Kaltsas 1998: 47-48, T1370, pl.35; Kaltsas 2000: 36-44, pl.15-16, 20-22; Zeren-Hasdağlı 2014a: 790-794, no.G.75, şek. 74, 94-96). The main decoration

Clazomenian type sarcophagi in Abdera are published and detailed stylistic analysis of them have been made to a large extent. According to scholars, the decorative scheme of a sarcophagus fragment in blackfigure technique from Abdera shows some similarity to the late 6th to early 5th century BC examples from Clazomenae (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1970: 331-342, fig.7-10; Cook 1981: 31, no.F.18, pls. 33.2-3), although the manner of execution of the comast scene on its footpiece diverges from finds from Clazomenae itself. The Abdera fragment takes also an important place especially regarding its figure poses, which resemble some Clazomenian black-figure pottery (BM. Inv. No: 1888,0208.78.a, BM. Inv. No: 1904,0601.1) and dancers on 46

On the Terracotta Sarcophagi from Ionia and the Northern Aegean

Figure 1. Satyr figures of a sarcophagus (C.8) from Clazomenae. Clazomenae Excavation Archive.

field of the sarcophagus, which is ornamented with the black-figure technique, depicts a unique subject for Clazomenian type sarcophagus painting: a symposium scene. However, the sitting poses of figures on the scene are familiar from nearly all symposium scenes on Attic pottery and can also be found on the satyrs of a sarcophagus from Clazomenae which was decorated by the Hannover painter (see Müderrisoğlu 2001: 2837, no.C.8, lev. 13) (Figure 1). Comast figures (Figure 2) shown on the Acanthus sarcophagus find their closest parallels on a crater fragment from Aeolian Cyme (BM. Env. No:1904,0601.1) whose similarity to Clazomenian sarcophagus painting has been mentioned by scholars

(Rumpf 1933: 67; Cook 1954: 27-28, pl.14; Cook 1981: 152; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1970: 339, fig. 16; Özer 2006: 103-107) (Figure 3). The Decoration style of the Cyme crater seems above all closely connected to the style of an individual sarcophagus painter, namely the Birgi painter (Zeren-Hasdağlı 2014a: 300). Another striking feature of the same sarcophagus from Acanthus is the reserving scene depicted on its footpiece. Both the composition formed by a herbivore between two predatory carnivores and the choice of filling ornaments seem to be closely linked to styles of some individuals such as the Özbek and Ovacık painters whose works are also known from Clazomenae and Smyrna. Furthermore, the hoplite heads shown on the lower panels of Acanthus sarcophagus are strikingly similar to the figures on the sarcophagi found in Ionian sites (Figure 4 a-b). Thus, this sarcophagus was quite likely painted by an artist whose style developed under the influence of the painters working in Northern Ionia. Another sarcophagus from Acanthus (T1404) exhibits features that differ from both the previous one and the dominant style of Late Period Sarcophagus painting in Clazomenae; nevertheless, it is difficult to claim that it is totally unique (Figure 5) (Kaltsas 1998: 57, T1404, pl. 56; Kaltsas 2000: 44-45, pl.17-18, 24). For instance, the palmette-spiral motive on its sidepiece can frequently be seen in narrow bands of Clazomenae finds (Cook 1981: 92, no.44, fig.57) and also makes its appearance as a central motif in a main scene shown on a sarcophagus from Ionia (Cook 1981: Louvre CA 1434, 56-57, no.G.53, Fig.42; Zeren-Hasdağlı 2014a: 180, şek.44). Furthermore, it also is possible to find a parallel to this very same element as a main motif on the headpiece scene of another example from Clazomenae (Özbilen-Güngör 2016: 121122, res.51). There is also a very similar use of large Ionic kymation on a simple ornamented sarcophagus uncovered in Yıldıztepe Necropolis in Clazomenae (Özbilen-Güngör 2016: lev.29, fig.56-57, lev.34, fig.65, no.70). A close parallel to the deer and goat figures as

Figure 2. Comast figure on the Acanthus (T1370) sarcophagus. Redrawn from Kaltsas 2000: pl. 15.

47

Melike Zeren-Hasdağlı

Figure 3. A youth figure on the krater from Cyme. Redrawn from Duemmler 1888: pl. VI. Figure 4a. Panel head from sarcophagus Istanbul 1353. Redrawn Cook 1981: pl.75, no.G.33 and photographs from Archive of İstanbul Archaeology Museums.

well as the tree motifs adorning the main scene on the Acanthus sarcophagus reveals itself on the headpiece of a sarcophagus, which also clearly diverges from the dominant style in Clazomenae and has been dated to the last decade of the 6th century BC with the help of its grave goods, from Ephesus (Figure 6) (Cook 1981: no. F.13, pl. 33.1; Yılmaz 2005: fig.1). It seems that it would not be inappropriate to view both of these sarcophagi from Ephesus and Acanthus as local productions (Langmann 1967: 112; Cook 1981: 29; Kaltsas 2000, 4445) somewhat diverging from mainstream trends in Clazomenae and Smyrna during the last quarter of the 6th century BC. Furthermore, the tree and the palmette chain on the Acanthus sarcophagus (T1404) also shows close resemblance to those found on some examples by the Hanover painter (Cook 1981: no.C.2, pl.11), who worked in Clazomenae in the 6th century BC. However, the main scenes of the Acanthus (T1404) and Ephesus sarcophagi with deer hunting theme with a dog and a tree in a landscape do not look too far from sarcophagi with both relief and painted depictions (e.g. the Polyxena sarcophagus: Çevirici-Coşkun 2017: 213, fig.5; Çan-Altıkulaç Sarcophagus: Sevinç 2001: 389, Fig. 4, 390, Fig. 5-6) and other media such as stelai (e.g. Diler 2017: 289, fig.4) and minor objects (e.g. stater: Tekin 2017: 117, fig.14; chalcedony stamp seal: Kaptan 2017: 259, fig. 4; chalcedony scaraboid: Boardman 1994: no. 826, 888, 895-896, 936) discovered in Anatolia and especially from the Achaemenid period.

Figure 4b. Panel head from sarcophagus Acanthus (T1370). Redrawn from Kaltsas 2000: pl. 16.

painter shares some common features with the Late Period Sarcophagus painting in Clazomenae, it is most frequently represented by the reserving fields painted on the more ornamented and degenerated sarcophagi found in Clazomenae, Teos, Ephesus, Rhodes, Aenos as well as Acanthus. The Acanthus/Poliyiro sarcophagus has been attributed to the Hopkinson painter (Cook 1981, 61, no.H.1, pl. 94), but although the style shown on the sarcophagus has some similarities to Hopkinson painter (Zeren-Hasdağlı 2022: 20-21) is stylistically seems closer to another sarcophagus from Acanthus

By the second quarter of the 5th century BC, when sarcophagus production was in decline in its homeland, a highly individualised style emerged by an artist named the Hopkinson painter by Robert Cook (Cook 1981: 61-64). Although the style of this 48

On the Terracotta Sarcophagi from Ionia and the Northern Aegean

Figure 5. The headpiece of Acanthus sarcophagus (T1404). Redrawn from Kaltsas 2000: pl. 17.

Figure 6. The headpiece and sidepiece from sarcophagus İzmir Ephesus Museum 2856. Redrawn based on Eichler 1966: pl.3.

in the late 6th and early 5th centuries. Nevertheless, it is difficult to assert that these sarcophagi were created by the painters whose works are also known from Clazomenae itself since some schematic differences in the application of decoration still exist.

(T1370) and mainstream trends in Clazomenae and Ionia during the last decades of the 6th – early 5th centuries BC, especially considering some of its motif choices and scenes with animal figures (Kaltsas 2000: 42). The panel heads on the Acanthus/Poliyiro sarcophagus have somewhat strange profile heads with characteristics that may almost be defined as unique within sarcophagus painting. The chevron motives on the inner corner strips can be compared to those on the long side decoration of the Ephesus sarcophagus (Figure 6) while the horizontal palmette row on its footpiece finds its counterparts on several examples from Clazomenae and Cameiros on Rhodes (ZerenHasdağlı 2022: 18-20).

A series of sites such as Abdera, Dikaia, Oesyme and Galepsus in Aegean Thrace provides sarcophagi either unpainted or relief decorated. Aside from simply decorated sarcophagi, Galepsus, which lies along the shore between the Nestos and Strymon rivers, also yields a relief decorated example on which a unique mythological theme for a painted sarcophagus is depicted: the blinding of Polyphemus (Cook 1981: 165; Bonanno 1998: Tav.122-123). Although our knowledge of the following two settlements is meagre, the fact that the earliest pottery finds from Oesyme, except for Thasian-Parian imports, originated in Western Anatolia may prove enlightening about early ties between this site and Ionia (Tiverios 2008: 82-84). Dikaia, in addition to being very close to Abdera, most likely occupied an outstanding location controlling the Porto Logos and Bistonis Lake area with its neighbour, and thus should have been appealing to Ionian migrants (Roebuck 1959: 106-107; Tiverios 2008: 104-105). Sargophagi that

The dominant styles well-known from sarcophagi coming from Clazomenae itself are also represented on those found in the Northern Aegean region. It is quite clear that the style shown on the Acanthus sarcophagus (T1370) and works by hands of the Birgi and Ovacık/Özbek painters closely resemble each other. A similar parallelism can also be claimed between the Acanthus sarcophagus (T1404) and Ephesus example and more broadly speaking between the Acanthus/ Poliyiro sarcophagus and many examples from Ionia 49

Melike Zeren-Hasdağlı have been reported so far from the aforementioned settlements are either simple rectangular boxes or they are in the familiar trapezoidal shape (Cook 1981: 164166, 177).

Relief decoration in Clazomenae appears to have been preferred for large and coarse wares such as basins, high stands and loutheria rather than sarcophagi, just as at the neighbouring site of Old Smyrna. In respect of the relief decoration, it is evident that a considerable number of motifs and figures are very familiar from contemporary Clazomenian pottery. One of the key motifs linking the Clazomenian finds to the sarcophagi from the northern Aegean is the Ionic kymation, the form of which can also be traced in Abdera, Acanthus and Mesembria-Zone (Ilieva 2009: 69-73, fig.6-7; Kaltsas 1998: 292-297, no.1365, 1391, 1460, 1565). Kymation rows on sarcophagus fragments from Samothrace and Mesembria-Zone (Ilieva 2009: fig. 7.2, 7.7) find close parallels on both painted Clazomenian type sarcophagi (Cook 1981: fig. 5, 55.8) and relief ware from Clazomenae (Cevizoğlu 2010: 36-37, taf. 12, 40.2). Supporting data have been gradually increasing day by day with the help of ongoing excavations in the region. The resemblance between the Ionic kymation, consisting of two rows as shown on a terracotta fragment from Stryme, and those on the painted Clazomenian type sarcophagi and relief ware is striking (cf. Ilieva 2009: 77, fig.4.12; 80, 7.12; Cook 1981, no.E.2b, pl.19.5; Cevizoğlu 2010: taf.13.6). Multiple Ionic kymation rows, as an element of Ionian-connected architectural decoration, make their appearance within a much wider area of the Mediterranean (Paros: Ohnesorg 2005: taf. 38, no.6-9, taf. 39, no.1-4; Metapontum: Mertens 1979: taf. 17, no. 3-4; Larissa: Åkerström 1966: taf. 20, no.1, taf. 21, no.2). Although the date is somewhat later, an Ionic kymation decoration on a relief sarcophagus originating at a site as far inland as Pesnopoy (Ilieva 2009: fig.3) raises the possibility of this being the furthermost reflection of the northern Ionian tradition in the region (Ilieva 2009: 71-72). The relative lack of relief decorated sarcophagi in Clazomenae may depend on their comparatively later dates than the painted examples. Transferring the relief decorative elements from large pottery to terracotta sarcophagi on a considerable scale might be a late invention in Clazomenae, at the very end of the 6th century BC towards the dawn of the Ionian revolution in 499-494 BC. Thus this practice might have not been fully developed in its homeland while making a stronger appearance in overseas territories where Ionian-influenced art might develop without being hindered by Persians. However, we must remain cautious about analogies based solely upon isolated decorative elements in Greek relief art.

A closer insight to the issue of relief decorated terracotta sarcophagi may help us enlarge our knowledge about the existence of these products in a wider area. The relief terracotta sarcophagi are well distributed throughout Aegean Thrace and settlements such as Mesembria-Zone, Abdera, Acanthus, Oesyme, Stryme, Pesnopoy, Samothrace, Thasos (Ilieva 2009: 6970), Sindos (Bonanno 1998: Tav. 117, 119), even though they do not seem equally common in Clazomenae itself (Bonanno 1998: 258) or in Smyrna. As for Clazomenae, it is quite difficult to claim that the relief sarcophagi played an important role within burial customs during the Archaic and Classical periods in the light of current evidence even though a few examples are known from the site. An elaborate sarcophagus cover on which relief was used as an additional decorative element is a good representative of this practice in Clazomenae (Cook 1981, no.G.4, pl.49). A similar situation seems to be also valid for the bath-tubes used as a burial means in Clazomenae (see: Cevizoğlu 2015: 63). Although the published examples in the region up to now are not as numerous as those in the North Aegean region, several representatives came from Erythrae (Bayburtoğlu 2015: 212-213, cat.no. 79), Chios and Samos (Cook 1981: 163). One of the remarkable places, in which terracotta sarcophagi with Ionic kymation had been applied in relief technique, were found is Sicily, a centre outside Ionia but with a very close relationship to Ionian art (Bonanno 1998: 32-35, 191-204, Tav. 40-41.2, Tav. 42, Tav. 43 (Gela) and 37-39, 207-209, Tav. 82-84 (Agrigento). Most of the relief decorated sarcophagi are covered by simple flat lids in accordance with their simple rectangular shapes, with some having lids resembling a gabled roof in the Northern Aegean region (Ilieva 2009: 71). Although both of these types of covers are observed on sarcophagi from Clazomenae as well, they were found alongside familiar painted sarcophagi rather than covering relief decorated ones as in the Northern Aegean. Together with the relative lack of relief decorated sarcophagi in Clazomenae itself, the striking resemblance between the aforementioned Sicilian examples and relief decorated sarcophagi from the Northern Aegean region may suggest a direct connection between those two regions at a first glance, but it is hard to claim that such a direct relationship really existed regarding sarcophagi. It should not be overlooked that although the relief decorated sarcophagi from the northern Aegean region cannot be directly linked either to Clazomenae or Ionia in the light of the current evidence, they still reflect the cultural influence to which Clazomenae belonged.

The north Ionian link, particularly in terms of the relief ware, manifests itself most clearly in the case of Chios, in which the kymation decoration of the sarcophagus (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: 69, pl. 9.13) seems conclusively linked to those on the sarcophagi found in Ionia. The connection here is not limited to a single motif but rather pervades a series of decorative 50

On the Terracotta Sarcophagi from Ionia and the Northern Aegean

elements, including the dancing women on the relief ware (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: 46-48, pl.1.1), the triton (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: 48-55, pl.2.2), a lion with a single lifted leg (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: 52-54, pl.3.4), the sphinxes (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: 51-52, Pl.1.3), the rosettes (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: pl.4.7), the abstract palmette variations (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: 78-80, 83-84, pls.2.2, 5.8) and the tongues (Simantoni-Bournia 1992: 68). Erythrae also partakes of this connection between the two sites in terms of relief decoration, as evidenced by antithetic sphinx figures (Bayburtoğlu 2015: 212-213, cat.no. 79), the lotus palmette chain (Bayburtoğlu 2015: 213-214, cat.no.81), Ionic kymation (Bayburtoğlu 2015: 212-214, cat.no. 79, 84), astragals, and cross and broken meanders (Bayburtoğlu 2015: cat.no. 212-213, 79-80) garnishing relief sarcophagus and architectural terracotta fragments from the site. Taken from the perspective of architectural terracottas Larissa reliefs represent a key point between Ionia and Aeolis (e.g. Kjellberg 1940: Taf. 24, 27; Åkerström 1966: 207, Abb.66, 209, Abb. 67, 48-50, Taf. 22-25, Taf. 26-27, Taf. 33-34). However, in terms of scenes with figures and motifs, the connections made with the architectural terracottas in the south of Ionia, some of which even extend into Caria, are much more impressive, a situation that may be explained by the activities of traveling craftsmen (Akkurnaz 2013: 163-393). When we consider the Acanthus/Poliyiro sarcophagus from this point of view it is possible to discover a series of parallels between that sarcophagus and relief embellishments from Southern Ionia and Caria: cf. the footpiece of the Acanthus/Poliyiro sarcophagus and architectural terracotta from Koranza (for Koranza see Akkurnaz 2015: fig.17. For Acanthus/Poliyiro sarcophagus see Zeren-Hasdağlı 2022: 18-19), partridge figures in the symposium scene on the Acanthus sarcophagus (T1370) and terracotta from Miletus (Graeve 2008: 355, fig. 2) and band motifs that are used abundantly on both sarcophagi and architectural terracottas.

Galepsus. A closer insight to the painted sarcophagi from Aenos clearly reveals that some of them differentiated from the mainstream trends in Clazomenae regarding their painting styles. Nevertheless, it is also striking to realise the physical existence of a well-known individual, namely the Hopkinson painter, in Aenos, whose other works had previously been identified in Clazomenae, Rhodes and Teos (Zeren-Hasdağlı 2022: 7-8, fig.3-4, no. H.10). As far as we know, Aenos was established by Aeolian colonists from Mytilene and Cyme (Roebuck 1959: 107; Isaac 1986: 140-148; Tiverios 2008: 118-119; Loukopoulou 2004: 870), but the city had no special historical or political ties with Clazomenae. However, the sarcophagus burial custom was not necessarily introduced there by northern Ionians because the Aeolian founders of Aenos had also their own terracotta sarcophagus tradition with deep roots. Mytilene, the place of origin of the Aeolean founders of Aenos, is very close to Methymna in Lesbos, a settlement where one Clazomenian type sarcophagus has been uncovered so far, while a number of terracotta sarcophagi have been revealed in Cyme. Despite the suggestion that the Clazomenian type sarcophagi might have appeared in Cyme at an earlier date (Atila et al. 2015: 19, 26, Fig. 17), the current data indicate that the date of their appearance closely aligns with the advent of the tradition in Aenos and Methymna. According to the data obtained up to now, the existence of terracotta sarcophagi at necropoleis in the northern Aegean sites is not as early as the appearance of Ionian pottery imports in the region. It is widely known that the demand for Ionian pottery throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts increased considerably around the 7th century BC. The northern Aegean region also appears as one of the places in which Ionian products circulated and afterwards, imitations of them were fashioned as evidenced by Thasos (Bernard 1964: 88-114), Maroneia (Ghali-Kahil 1960: 35; Salviat 1978: 87-92 and especially see Lemos 1991: 209-222; Lemos 1992: 157-173) and Abdera (Skarlatidou 2004: 249-259). These strong relationships, which have also been observed in materials other than pottery, have led scholars to propose the existence of an ‘Ionian koine’ in the region (for example see Skarlatidou 2004: 249ff; Perron 2010: 13ff). The activity area of this koine was possibly not restricted to the coastline between the Nestos and Hebrus Rivers, which seemed to be the main field of interest of the northern Ionians, but reached well beyond to the west, as illustrated by the case of Acanthus on the Athos Peninsula and Karabournaki in the Thermaic Gulf where Ionian and Aeolian pottery were in circulation (Rhomiopoulou 1978. 64-65; Vokotopoulou 1994: fig. 20; Tsiafakis 2000: 417-423). The fact that the sarcophagi around the northern Aegean region generally belong to the period after the middle of the 6th century coincides with the period in which

The final significant site in a consideration of the terracotta sarcophagi in the northern Aegean region is Aenos, located at the mouth of Hebrus River. A considerable number of Clazomenian type and other terracotta sarcophagi have been unearthed with the help of systematic archaeological excavations at the site. Clay analysis indicates that most of the sarcophagi found in Aenos are local productions (Kurap 2009: 72, 97; Kurap et al. 2010: 165). But when we come to the matter of painting styles, this homogeneity is replaced by a considerable diversity in which it is easy to notice hands of artists revealing Ionian and Attic styles besides local painters. The sarcophagi coming from the necropolis areas of the site are represented both by unpainted examples with relief decoration with Ionic kymation (Başaran 2007: 275, fig.2) and painted ones in Clazomenian type like those from Abdera, Acanthus and 51

Melike Zeren-Hasdağlı local production increased in all fields possibly due to a considerable number of newcomer Ionians including craftsmen in seek of a favourable environment in terms of production activities and circulation to the region (Perron 2010: 13-28). The terracotta sarcophagi may be considered amongst the most significant artefacts produced by this koine particularly from two points of view. Firstly, the fact that they are not suitable for carrying due to their fragility and weight (Cook 1981: 146; Kaltsas 2000: 46; Zeren-Hasdağlı 2022: 27-28) and the clay analysis so far (Kaltsas 2000, 47-49; Tsirliganis – Kallintzi 2000: 9-24) support the idea that they were made in this region unless otherwise proven. Secondly, it is difficult to consider these terracotta sarcophagi, whether of Clazomenian type or not, solely as an indicator of trade between Ionia and the northern Aegean, since they belong to the sphere of burial customs, an aspect that cannot be explained simply in economic or artistic terms but that is also strongly connected to traditions and beliefs.

Bayburtoğlu, C. 2015: Erythrai 1–2, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Başaran, S. 2007: ‘Enez’de Ortaya Çıkan Klazomenai Tipi Lahitler’ in G. Umurtak, Ş. Dönmez, A. Yurtsever (eds), Refik Duru’ya Armağan, Studies in Honour of Refik Duru. İstanbul, Ege yayınları: 271–76. Bernard, P. 1964: ‘Céramiques de la  prémiere moitié  du VIIe siècle à  Thasos’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 88: 77–146. Berti, F. 2020: ‘Un sarcophago tipo Clazomenae a Iasos’ Bollettino delléAssociazione Iasos di Caria 26, 2–5. Bonanno, C. 1998: I Sarcophagi Fittili Della Sicilia, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Cevizoğlu, H. 2010: Reliefkeramik Archaischer Zeit aus Klazomenai. Weißbach, Beier und Beran. Bonanno, C. 2015: ‘Klazomenian Sarcophagus or Bathtub? The Use of Bathtubs in Burial Contexts’, in R.G. Gültekin-Demir, H. Cevizoğlu, Y. Polat, G. Polat (eds). Keramos Ceramics: A Cultural Approach, Proceedings of the First International Conference at Ege University, May 9–13, 2011. Ankara, Bilgin Kültür Sanat: 61–72. Cook, R.M. 1954: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, British Museum 8 (Great Britain 13). London, British Museum Publications. Cook, R.M. 1981: Clazomenian Sarcophagi. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern. Cook, R.M. 1987: ‘A Clazomenian Sarcophagi in Geneva’ Antike Kunst 2: 156–58. Çevirici-Coşkun, F. 2017: ‘Polyksena Lahdi: Bir Pers Soylusunun Lahdi mi?’ in İren, K, Karaöz, Ç., Kasar, Ö. (eds): 204–21. Diler, A. 2017: ‘Anadolu-Pers Dönemi Sanatında İkonografi: Gelenek, Gerçeklik ve Paradoks’ in İren, K, Karaöz, Ç., Kasar, Ö. (eds): 284–305. Duemmler, F. 1888: ‘Vasenscherben aus Kyme in Aeolis’ Römische Abteilung 3: 159–180. Eichler, F. 1966: ‘Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1965’ Anzeiger der PhilosophischHistorische Klasse 103: 7–16. Foça, S. 2019: Teos Batı Nekropolisi: Mezar Tipolojisi ve Buluntular. PhD Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir. Flensted-Jensen, P. 2004: ‘Thrace from Axios to Strymon’ in M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen (eds), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford- New York: 810–53. Ghali-Kahil, L. 1960: La céramique grecque (Fouilles 1911–1956), Études thasiennes 7. Paris, École française d’Athènes. Graeve, V. 2008: ‘2006 Yılı Milet Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 29/3: 343–60. Graham, A.J. 1992: ‘Abdera and Teos’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 112: 44–73. Güllüsaç, Ş. 2018: Teos Batı Nekropolü (Hiddenbay Kurtarma Kazısı). MA Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Hürmüzlü, B. 2010: ‘Die früheste Gruppe Klazomenischer Sarkophage aus Klazomenai’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 125: 89–153.

In sum, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Clazomenian type and similar terracotta sarcophagi are the clearest indicators of the ‘northern Ionian koine’ and the northern Ionians active in the region, most likely alongside Aeolians, inhabiting the coastline sites in the northern Aegean region. The painted sarcophagi in Clazomenian type from the region show not only a great resemblance to their counterparts from Ionia in terms of stylistic trends, but it might also be possible in some cases to distinguish individuals who were responsible for painting of some those unearthed in Ionian sites. With the help of detailed stylistic evaluations and the current archaeological evidence it can be safely claimed that a considerable amount of the painted sarcophagi from the region during the late 6th and first half of the 5th centuries closely followed the main artistic trends in fashion in their homelands. Unlike the painted ones, the relief decorated sarcophagi seem to have followed their own path more independently in the 5th century BC. Bibliography Åkerström, A. 1966:  Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens. Lund, C.W.K. Gleerup. Akkurnaz, S. 2013: Hacıbayramlar Arkaik Dönem Mimari Terrakottaları, PhD Thesis, Adnan Menderes University Aydın. Akkurnaz, S. 2015: ‘Koranza Mimari Terrakottaları’ B. Söğüt (ed.), Stratonikeia ve Çevresi Araştırmaları, Stratonikeia Çalışmaları 1. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 45–70. Atila, C., Korkmaz, E., Gürman, B. 2015: ‘Kyme Doğu Nekropolü Mezar Tipleri’ in E. Okan, C. Atila (eds), Prof. Dr. Ömer Özyiğit’e Armağan. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 13–27. 52

On the Terracotta Sarcophagi from Ionia and the Northern Aegean

Ilieva 2009: ‘Vogue and Utility: Terracotta Products with Ionian Kymation Relief from the Aegean Shore of Thrace’ in G. Deligiannakis, I. Galanakis (eds), The Aegean and Its Cultures: Proceedings of the First Oxford-Athens Graduate Student Workshop Organized by the Greek Society and the University of Oxford Taylor Institution, 22–23 April 2005. Oxford, Archaeopress. İren, K, Karaöz, Ç., Kasar, Ö. (eds) 2017: Persler Anadolu’da Kudret ve Görkem. İstanbul, Yapı Kredi yayınları. Isaac, B. 1986: The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Kaltsas, N.E. 1998: Άκανθος Ι, νασκαφή στο νεκροταφείο κατά το 1979. Αthens, Tameío Archaiologikón Póron kai Apallotrióseon. Kaltsas, N.E. 2000: ‘Κλαζομενιακές Σαρκοφάγοι από το Νεκροταφείο της Ακάνθου’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 51: 35–50. Kaptan, D. 2017: ‘Anadolu’da Pers Dönemi Mühürleri’ in İren, K, Karaöz, Ç., Kasar, Ö. (eds): 254–67. Kjellberg, L. 1940: Die Architektonischen Terrakotten. Larissa am Hermos 2. Stockholm, CWK Gleerup. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1970: ‘Sarcophages En Terre Cuite D’Abdére’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 94/2: 327–60. Kurap, G. 2009: Ainos Pişmiş Toprak Lahitleri: Tanımlama, Koruma ve Onarım Çalışmaları. MA Thesis, İstanbul University, İstanbul. Kurap, G., Akyuz, S., Akyuz, T., Basaran, S., Cakan, B. 2010: ‘FT-IR spectroscopic study of terra-cotta sarcophagi recently excavated in Ainos (Enez) Turkey’ Journal of Molecular Structer 976: 161–67. Langmann, G. 1967: ‘Eine Spätarchaische Nekropole unter dem Staatsmarkt zu Ephesos’ in F. Eichler, E. Braun (eds) Festschrift für Fritz Eichler zum achtzigsten Geburstag dargebracht vom Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut. Vienna, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut: 103–23. Lemos, A.A. 1991: Archaic Pottery of Chios: The Decorated Styles. Oxford. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Lemos, A.A. 1992: ‘Un atelier archaique chiote en  Macédoine orientale’ in F. Blondé, J.Y. Perreault (eds), Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géométrique, archaïque et classique. Actes de la Table ronde organisée à l’École française d’Athènes (2 et 3 octobre 1987). Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 23. Athens, École française d’Athènes: 157–73. Loukopoulou, L. 2004: ‘Thrace from Nestos to Hebros’ in M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen (eds), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 870–84. Mertens, D. 1979: ‘Der ionische Tempel von Metapont. Ein Zwischenbericht’ Römische Mitteilungen 86: 103– 39.

Müderrisoğlu, B. 2001: Hanover Ressamı. MA Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara. Ohnesorg, A. 2005: Ionische Altare. Formen und Varienten einer Architekturgattung aus Insel – und Ostionien. Berlin, Gebr. Mann. Özbilen-Güngör, G.Ö. 2016: Geometrik ve Bitkisel Bezemeli Klazomenai Lahitleri. PhD Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Özer, B. 2006: Klazomenai Siyah Figür Seramiği. Ph.D. Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Perron, M. 2010: ‘Koine ionisante ou mobilité artisanale? Regard sur les influences de la Gréce orientale en Macédoine aux VIe et Ve siècles av. J.-C.,’ in P. Rouillard (ed.). Potraits de migrants, potraits de colons: Tome 2. Paris, de Boccard: 13–50. Polat, G., Polat, Y. 2006: ‘Antandros 2003–2004 Kazıları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27.2: 89–104. Polat, G., Polat, Y. 2007: ‘Antandros Nekropolü 2001–2006 Yılları Ön Raporu’ Arkeoloji Dergisi 9: 1–20. Rhomiopoulou, K. 1978: ‘Pottery Evidence from the North Aegean, 8th - 6th cent. BC’ Les céramiques  de  la  Grèce  de  l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident Centre Jean Bérard. Institut Français de Naples, 6–9 Juillet 1976. Paris, Centre Jean Bérard: 62–65. Roebuck, C. 1959: Ionian Trade and Colonization. New York, Archaeological Institute of America. Rumpf, A. 1933: ‘Zu den Klazomenischen Denkmälern’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 48: 55–83. Salviat, F. 1978: ‘La  céramique  de  style  chiote à Thasos’ Les céramiques  de  la  Grèce  de  l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident Centre Jean Bérard. Institut Français de Naples, 6–9 Juillet 1976. Paris, Centre Jean Bérard: 87–92. Skarlatidou, E. 2004: ‘The Archaic Cemetery of the Clazomenian Colony at Abdera’ in A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.-C. Tzannes, Y. Ersoy (eds). Klazomenai, Teos, Abdera. Metropoleis and Colony. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Abdera 20–21 October 2001. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press: 249–59. Simantoni-Bournia, E. 1992: La céramique à reliefs au Musée de Chios. Athens, Hē en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireia. Tekin, O. 2017: ‘Pers Döneminde Anadolu’da Para ve Ticaret’ İren, K, Karaöz, Ç., Kasar, Ö. (eds): 102–33. Tiverios, M. 2008: ‘Greek Colonisation of the Northern Aegean’ G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.) Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and other Settlements Overseas, Vol.2. Leiden- Boston, Brill: 1–154. Tsiafakis. D. 2000: ‘On Some East Greek Pottery Found at  Karabournaki  in Thermaic Gulf’ F. Krinzinger, V. Gassner (eds). Akten des Symposions Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer: Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Wien, 24. bis 27. März 1999. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 417–23.

53

Melike Zeren-Hasdağlı Tsirliganis, N., Kallintzi, K. 2000: ‘Ένα νεο εργαστήριο αρχαιομετρίας στη Θράκη. Έρευνες στον αρχαιολογικό χώρο Αβδήρων’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 14: 9–24. Vokotopoulou, J. 1994: ‘Anciennes nécropoles de la Chalcidique’ J. de La Genière (ed.) Nécropoles et sociétés antiques (Grèce, Italie, Languedoc):  actes du Colloque international du Centre  de  Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Lille III, Lille, 2–3 Décembre 1991. Naples, Centre Jean Bérard: 79–98. Yılmaz, F. 2005: ‘Two Clazomenian Sarcophagi in the Ephesos Museum Selçuk’ in B. Brandt, S. Ladstatter, V. Gassner, Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 371–76. Zeren-Hasdağlı, S.M. 2014a: Albertinum Grubu ve Çevresindeki Klazomenai Lahitleri. PhD Thesis, Ege University, İzmir.

Zeren-Hasdağlı, S.M. 2014b: ‘İzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi’ndeki 2724 Numaralı Klazomenai Lahiti’ Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 4: 157–81. Zeren-Hasdağlı, S.M. 2018: ‘Artists and Collaborators: A New Look at Clazomenian Sarcophagi’, R.G. Gürtekin-Demir, H. Cevizoğlu, Y. Polat, G. Polat (eds) Archaic and Classical Western Anatolia: New Perspectives in Ceramic Studies In Memoriam Prof. Crawford H. Greenewalt Jr. Proceedings of the Second KERAMOS International Conference at Ege University, Izmir, 3–5 June, 2015, İzmir. Leuven- Paris- Bristol, PeetersColloquia Antiqua 19: 373–91. Zeren-Hasdağlı, S.M. 2021: ‘Teos’un Pişmiş Toprak Klazomenai Tipi Lahitleri’ in M. Kadıoğlu (ed.) Teos Yazıtlar, Kültler ve Kentsel Doku, İstanbul, 360–63. Zeren-Hasdağlı, S.M. 2022: ‘Hopkinson Ressamı Üzerine Yeni Bir Değerlendirme’ Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 23: 1–33.

54

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace during the Fourth Century BC Nikos Akamatis1 Abstract1 This article examines various aspects of the red-figure pottery trade during the fourth century BC in two neighbouring areas, Macedonia and Aegean Thrace. Archaeological material from major sites of the Macedonian kingdom (Pella, Aigai, Aiane), Chalcidice (Olynthos, Akanthos, Torone) and eastern Macedonia (Amphipolis, Argilos, Thasos) are included. Regarding Aegean Thrace, emphasis is given to material from important ancient coastal cities, such as Abdera, Maroneia, Zone and Ainos, among others. It is important to note that shortly after the middle of the fourth century BC, during Philip II’s reign, the regions of modern-day Macedonia and Thrace belonged to the same political entity, the Macedonian kingdom. An overview of the red-figure pottery is presented for each region, according to modern-day archaeological research and bibliography. This overview includes the examination of red-figure vase-shapes, iconography, vase-painters and workshops. Special emphasis is given to the impact and distribution of Attic red-figure pottery, which represents the bulk of the archaeological material in almost all sites under view. Apart from Attic pottery, local production of red-figure vases is examined, as well as the import of red-figure vases from other pottery centres. Furthermore, remarks on the trade routes in antiquity are made. Finally, the trade of redfigure pottery is related to historical events.

Keywords MACEDONIA, THRACE, RED-FIGURE VASE-PAINTING, POTTERY TRADE

POTTERY,

Macedonia In antiquity, Macedonia, the region today running from the Pindus mountains to the river Nestos, and from Thessaly to the boundaries of Albania, the Republic of North Macedonia and Bulgaria, was politically divided until the middle of the fourth century BC (Figure 1). It entailed the kingdoms of Upper Macedonia, the kingdom of Lower Macedonia, the Chalcidian League at the peninsula of Chalcidice and several coastal city-states, such as Pydna, Methone and Amphipolis. The period of the first half of the fourth century BC is characterised by continuous change of borders and complex political relations. In the time of Philip II Researcher, Academy of Athens, Research Centre for Antiquity, [email protected]

1 

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 55–70

(359-336 BC), this region came under the rule of the Macedonian kingdom. Upper Macedonia, that took its name from its mountainous terrain, was actually the Western part of ancient Macedonia, comprising the modern Greek prefectures of Kozani, Kastoria, Florina, Grevena, as well as parts of the Republic of North Macedonia and south Albania. It consisted of several kingdoms related and allied to the kingdom of Lower Macedonia. In Upper Macedonia, red-figure pottery has been found mainly in Aiane, the seat of the kingdom of Elimeia (for Aiane, see Karamitrou-Mendesidi 2008; 2010 with further bibliography). A relatively few vases have come to light in other regions as well, such as ancient Eordaia, Lynkestis and Orestis (See Akamatis et al. 2023). The bulk of the fourth-century BC red-figure material derives from the excavation of cemeteries, where specific shapes, such as squat lekythoi, askoi and pelikai, dominate. Although Upper Macedonia did not have direct access to the sea, most of the red-figure pottery came from Attica. Apart from Attic red-figure, a few vases potted in west Greek workshops have been identified, as well as others of unknown origin. Regarding Attic red-figure pottery, several vases have been attributed to specific vasepainters and workshops, such as the Amazon Painter, the Painter of Ferrara T.408, the Group of the Vienna Lekanis, the F. B. Group, Group G (Figure 2) and the Painter of the Olynthus Fish-plates. One must also note the appearance of askoi, which were decorated with floral motifs, and of palmette lekythoi (Akamatis et al. 2023). In antiquity, central Macedonia was the heartland of the Macedonian kingdom. Especially important is the redfigure pottery from Pella, the capital of the Macedonian kingdom from the late fifth century BC and throughout the Hellenistic period (for Pella, see indicatively Papakonstantinou-Diamantourou 1971; LilimpakiAkamati, Akamatis 2003; 2012). So far, approximately 2000 red-figure sherds and vases have been published, contributing to our knowledge on trade of red-figure pottery in Macedonia. This material derives mainly from three excavation sectors, the Agora, the area of the new entrance of the archaeological site and the eastern cemetery. In the cemetery, squat lekythoi and pelikai predominate, while in the city the most usual vase shapes are kraters, lekanides, askoi, and more rarely pelikai, squat lekythoi, skyphoi and others. A steep rise

Nikos Akamatis

Figure 1. Map of ancient Macedonia, ca. 350 BC, with sites mentioned in text (Lane Fox 2011: fig. 1).

in red-figure pottery imports is noted from the late fifth century BC, while the bulk of material from Pella can be dated in the second and third quarters of the fourth century. The characteristic iconographic subjects that appear are floral motifs (Figure 3), animals, youths and athletes, scenes from the female world, busts, amazonomachies, grypomachies, dionysiac and, rarely, other mythological scenes. Works of several fourth century Attic vase-painters and workshops have been identified, such as the Erbach Painter, the Heracles Painter, the Helbig Reverse Group, the Telos Group, the Filottrano Painter, the Otchët Group, Group G, the Group of the Vienna Lekanis, the F. B. Group, the Painter of Ferrara T.408, the Painter of Agora P 17562, the Painter of the Reading Lekanis, the Painter of the Olynthus fish-plates, the Amazon Painter, the Marsyas/ Eleusinian Painter and the Painter of the Wedding Procession. Apart from Attic red-figure vases, at Pella vases that were locally produced have been identified, as well as few others, which were potted in Corinth and other workshops of south Greece, probably the Chalcidice, and beyond in the south Balkans or south Serbia (Akamatis 2008: 1-78; 2012: 143-52; 2014a: 42948; 2016: 100-114; 2018: 117-26; Lilimpaki-Akamati, Akamatis 2014: 188-204).

Figure 2. Red-figure pelike. Archaeological Museum of Aiane. Group G (Karamitrou-Mendesidi 2008: 136, fig. 227).

56

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace

Although Attic red-figure pottery dominated Pella’s market, production of local red-figure vases is attested from around the middle until the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third centuries BC. This workshop produced mainly lekanides, askoi and few pelikai. Almost all of the iconographic motifs follow Attic models of roughly the same period. Busts wearing Phrygian caps and accompanied by griffins or felines, busts wearing sakkoi, scenes from the female world and floral motifs are the most favoured iconographic subjects. Very interesting is the fact that Pella’s red-figure vases were made almost entirely for local use. Until this day, this pottery has been found only within a close distance to the city. It is also important to note that the birth of Pella’s local workshop did not end or even limit Attic red-figure vase imports. On the contrary, in the second half of the fourth century BC from the area of the Pella’s Agora, where the bulk of red-figure material has come to light, 59.5% of red-figure sherds are Attic, 38.6% can be attributed to the local workshop, and a mere 1.9% belongs to other workshops (Akamatis 2018: 125. For the Pella workshop, see Akamatis 2013; 2014b: 177-91; 2014c: 223-49).

Figure 3. Red-figure askos. Pella, Agora (Akamatis 2018, pl. 77, ask 5).

Attic red-figure pottery is predominant in other cities of central Macedonia as well, such as the first capital of the Macedonian kingdom, Aigai (for the history and excavations at Aigai, see Drougou, Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2006; Kottaridi, Walker 2011; Kottaridi 2013 with earlier bibliography). Excavations at the cemeteries and the city itself have brought to light red-figure pottery, which can be related to the finds from Pella. In the cemeteries, appear most often squat lekythoi, pelikai and askoi. Regarding vase-painters and workshops, there have been identified vases of Group G, the Amazon Painter, the Filottrano Painter, the F. B. Group and the Marsyas/Eleusinian Painter (Group G: Drougou 2005: 77-78, fig. 68, 83-84, fig. 78, 91-92, fig. 96. Amazon Painter: Drougou 2005: 134, fig. 160. Filottrano Painter: Kottaridi 2011b: 174, fig. 198. F. B. Group: Kottaridi 2011b: 179, fig. 205. Marsyas/Eleusinian Painter: Drougou 2005: 47-48, 141-42, figs. 29, 161; Kottaridi 2011a: 95, fig. 83). Furthermore, askoi with leafy twigs, griffins and animals, (Drougou 2005: 41, fig. 23, 52, fig. 30, 152–53; Graekos 2011: 73, fig. 56) and palmette lekythoi (Drougou 2005: 82, fig. 76, 88, fig. 88; Kyriakou 2008: 140-42, figs. 153-55) have been recovered. Apart from Aigai, in central Macedonia noteworthy quantities of fourth century red-figure pottery have also been found in other ancient cities, such as Edessa (askos with leafy twig: Chrysostomou 2013b: 96, 279 figs. 62, 235. Palmette lekythoi: Chrysostomou 2013a: 112, pls. XVII, ΧΙΧ; 2013b: 100, fig. 68, 242, fig. 206, 243, fig. 207a. Amazon Painter: Akamatis 2014c: 245, no. 20. F. B. Group: Chrysostomou 2013a: 111-112, pl. ΧΙΧ; 2013b: 162, 292, figs. 81-3), Veroia (askos with leafy twig,

Figure 4. Red-figure pelike. Pydna. Painter of the Wedding Procession (Besios 2010: 234).

57

Nikos Akamatis

Figure 6. Lekanis lid. Argilos. Otchët Group (Argilos, GreekCanadian Archaeological Excavation photographic archive). Figure 5. Lekanis lid. Olynthos. Group of the Vienna Lekanis (Robinson 1950: 119-121, pl. 86).

of Chalcidice (Figure 1). The bulk of material derives mainly from Olynthos, the capital of the Chalcidian League. Especially important are the publications of D. Robinson on pottery from the early excavations, which represent a focal point for the study of red-figure pottery in North Greece (Robinson 1933: 91-178, pls. 62144; 1950: 75-186, pls. 33-136. Also, Fless 2002: 27-40). Most favoured shapes in the necropolis of Olynthos are lekythoi, hydriai, pelikai and skyphoi, while in the city appear mostly lekythoi, kraters and lekanides (Fless 2002: 130). The vases’ iconographic themes, in general, are similar to those found in the Macedonian kingdom, and are characteristic of the fourth century BC. Regarding Attic vase-painters and workshops, at Olynthos have been identified vases of the Group of the Vienna Lekanis (Figure 5), the Otchët Group, Group G, the F. B. Group, the Painter of the Wedding Procession and the Painter of the Olynthus Fish-Plates, among others (Group of the Vienna Lekanis: ARV2 1501, 1; Robinson 1950: 119-121, pl. 86. Otchët Group: ARV2 1497, 18, 20, 23-25; Robinson 1933: 140, fig. 213, pl. 110; 1950: 121-22, pl. 87, 170-72, fig. 196c, pl. 114, figs. 197b, 197d, pl. 115. Group G: ARV2 1464, 48, 53, 1466, 99, 14681469, 138, 141, 149-155; Robinson 1933: 116-17, figs. 13334, 136, pl. 81, 127-28, pls. 93-94, 134, fig. 167, pl. 105, 155-56, fig. 282, pl. 126; 1950: 82-86, pls. 37-38, 90, pls. 45–47. F. B. Group: ARV2 1491, 189, 1492, 14; Robinson 1933: 135, fig. 173. Painter of the Wedding Procession: Valavanis 1991: 294-95. Painter of the Olynthus Fish Plates: McPhee, Trendall 1987: 46-47, nos. 121-26, 128). Commonly encountered too are lekythoi decorated with palmettes, busts, and various animals and birds (Robinson 1933: 173-79, pls. 141-144; 1950: 150-160, pls. 102-06), as well as askoi with floral motifs and animals

pelikai decorated with busts wearing Phrygian cap and palmette lekythoi: Touratsoglou 1973–1974: 716-17, pls. 513b-c, 515b-c. Sherds of lekanides with scenes from the female world and askoi with Phrygian caps and felines: Stefani, Pappas 2014: 198-99, pl. 55f-g. Bellkrater by the Toya Painter: Drougou 1982: 85–97), Mieza (palmette lekythoi: Romiopoulou, Touratsoglou 2002: 42, Π1537-1538, 43, Π1540-1541, 45, Π1549, 46, Π1551, 53, Π1564, 58, Π1583, 62, Π1594, 79, Π1633, 117, Π1734, 120121, Π1743-1744, 123, Π1754, 126, Π1761. Skyphos with mantled youth: Romiopoulou, Touratsoglou 2002: 5960, Π1586. Pelike of the Amazon Painter: Romiopoulou, Touratsoglou 1970: 388, pl. 324d) and Archontiko (Workshop of the Filottrano Painter: Lilimpaki-Akamati et al. 2011: 348-49. Pelikai depicting amazonomachy, and bust wearing a Phrygian cap: Lilimpaki-Akamati et al. 2011: 352-53; Akamatis 2014c: 244, no. 13), as well as in sites around the Thermaic Gulf (Aineia: Vokotopoulou 1990: 88-89, pls. 55a-f. Lete: Tzanavari, Filis 2002: 173, figs. 34-35, 174, fig. 37, 176, fig. 40. Derveni: Themelis, Touratsoglou 1997: 95, pl. 106 Γ1, 131, pls. 145-146. Toumba Thessaloniki: Chavela 2019: 376-77, 379-80, 382, figs. 5-8, 10). Finally, extremely important was the port of Pydna, in the region of Pieria (askoi with leafy twigs, palmette lekythoi: Besios, Noulas 2010: 130, figs. 4, 6, 132, fig. 8. Red-figure kraters: Besios 2010: 185, 205. Pelike by the Painter of the Wedding Procession: Besios 2010: 234-35. Fig. 4). Systematic trade in Attic red-figure pottery throughout the fourth century BC is also attested at the peninsula 58

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace

(Robinson 1933: 172-73, figs. 401-06, pl. 140). Worth noting is the find of part of a red-figure krater by the Filottrano Painter at Mekyberna, Olynthos’ harbour (ARV2 1454, 15; Robinson 1950: 185-86, pl. 132). Apart from Olynthos, fourth-century red-figure pottery has been found in quantities in other sites of Chalcidice, especially in Akanthos (palmette lekythoi: Kaltsas 1998: 29, pl. 9a, 90, pl. 97a, 99, pl. 107c, 115, pl. 129c, 206-07, pl. 215c-d. Painter of the Wedding Procession: Kaltsas 1998: 101, pl. 111. Workshop of the Filottrano Painter: Kaltsas 1998, 202, pl. 210f, Ε247. F. B. Group: Kaltsas 1998, 204, pl. 212e-f, Ε263-264), Torone (F. B. Group: McPhee 2001: 380, no. 8.137, 381, no. 8.140. Otchët Group: McPhee 2001: 386-87, nos. 8.169-170, 8.173, pls. 63-64. Close to the Filottrano Painter: McPhee 2001: 376, no. 8.113, pl. 61) and Aphytis (Misailidou-Despotidou 2007: 315, figs. 12-13, 318, fig. 17; 2009: 230, figs. 13-14, 233, fig. 18).

of Agora P17562: Kranioti 1988: 383, fig. 8. Group G: Romiopoulou 1964a: 91-92, pl. 21a. Amazon painter: Romiopoulou 1964a: 92-94, pls. 21b, 23). Abundant are also palmette lekythoi (Romiopoulou 1964a: 97, fig. 3a; Romiopoulou, Vogeikof-Brogan 2013: 116, fig. 12a, 122, fig. 21, 127, no. 507a, 133, fig. 36b, 190, fig. 113a) and askoi decorated with felines (Romiopoulou 1964a: 95, figs. 1a, c; Lazaridis 1973: 49, pl. 61b). Worth noting is also that excavations at Amphipolis have revealed several vases of the late Kerch style (Lazaridi 1984: 38, pl. 46b; Lazaridi 1987: 326, fig. 15; Malama 2000: 69, figs. 17-18; Romiopoulou, Vogeikof-Brogan 2013: 152-153, fig. 62. For fourth century red-figure sherds and vases from Amphipolis see also Malama, Vasilikoudis 2019, 574-77, figs. 1-4; Nikolaidi et al. 2022: 176-91). Finally, fourth-century red-figure pottery has also been found at other sites of eastern Macedonia (Tragilos: KoukouliChrysanthaki 1972: 531, pl. 465a. Vergi: Tasia 1986: 77, pl. 18a, 77-78, pl. 18c-d. Argilos: Giroux 2006: 56-57, pls. II-III, fig. 6; Akamatis 2020, 55-58) and at the island of Thasos (Ghali–Kahil 1960: 106, figs. 5-6, pl. 44, 110, fig. 25, pl. 46, 116, figs. 66-67, pl. 49, 117, fig. 74-75, pl. 49; Blondé 1985: 286, figs. 15, 27-29, 288, fig. 35).

From the last quarter of the fifth until the middle of the fourth century BC, a local workshop that produced red-figured pottery was active in Chalcidice, possibly at Olynthos, though it is probable that this pottery was produced in other centres as well. The workshop of Chalcidice produced mainly small size vases, such as skyphoi, small pelikai, oinochoai, hydriai, lebetes gamikoi, and more rarely small kraters, bolsals, lekanides and others. The iconographic themes include athletes and mantled youths, female figures, Erotes, busts wearing sakkoi or Phrygian caps, animals and rarely mythological scenes, mainly dionysiac. Vases of the Chalcidice workshop were mainly potted for local use, since very few of them have been found outside the peninsula of Chalcidice (Robinson 1950: 16–17; Zaphiropoulou 1970: 361-435; Yiouri 1972: 6-14; McPhee 1981: 297-305; 2001: 357-58).

Aegean Thrace Aegean Thrace is defined as the area from river Nestos to the straits of Propontis, and from the Aegean Sea to the mountain range of Rhodope (Figure 7). Nowadays, this region belongs to both Greece and Turkey. In antiquity, along the coast of Aegean Thrace important Greek colonies were founded, mainly by Greek islanders and from colonists from Asia Minor. In the hinterland lived various Thracian tribes. Imports of Attic redfigure pottery are testified from the fifth century BC all over the area under examination. According to available data, three sites have yielded amounts of fourth-century red-figure pottery worth noting: Zone, Ainos, and Abdera. Of course, a major problem that occurs is the limited published material from the region. This means that the drawing of conclusions is to some degree precarious and relies on the current state of knowledge, which may change in the near future with excavation and systematic publication of finds.

Eastern Macedonia was also an area, where fourthcentury red-figure pottery has been found in abundance. Lying at the sides of river Strymon, Amphipolis was the most thriving trade centre (for Amphipolis, see indicatively Lazaridis 2001; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2011: 409-436 with bibliography). Although red-figure pottery from the cemeteries has been published, relatively unknown is the archaeological material from the city itself. In the cemeteries, mainly lekythoi and pelikai were used, as in most cemeteries in North Greece, while in the city other shapes, such as kraters, lekanides and skyphoi, among others, seem to be dominant. In Amphipolis, there is attested the presence of vases from several well-known Attic redfigure vase-painters and workshops, such as the Otchët Group, the Group of the Vienna Lekanis, the Painter of Agora P17562, Group G, the Amazon Painter and others (Otchët Group: Lazaridis 1972: 69, pl. 43c; 1973: 49, pl. 60e; 1979: 74, pl. 50c; 1980: 10, pl. 17b; Kranioti 1988: 383, fig. 8. Group of the Vienna Lekanis: Lazaridis 1973: 49, pl. 62b; Kranioti 1988: 383, fig. 9. Painter

One of the most important sites that has yielded significant amounts of fourth-century red-figure pottery is Zone. The city is located close to modernday Alexandroupolis, and in antiquity was perhaps the most important colony of Samothrace at the Samothracian peraia, and the only one that struck coins. Excavation at Zone has brought to light parts of the fortification, cemeteries, houses, and the sanctuaries of Apollo and Demeter. Formerly Zone has been identified with Mesembria, a view that is nowadays not accepted by most scholars (for Zone: Isaak 1986: 130-31; Tsatsopoulou 1996: 917-26; Tsatsopoulou, 59

Nikos Akamatis

Figure 7. Map of ancient Thrace with sites mentioned in text (Valeva, J. Nankov, E., Graninger, D. (eds) 2015: A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Chichester, map 2).

Kallintzi, Zekos 1998: 8-55; Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi 2001; Tsatsopoulou 2009: 409-19). The earliest Attic red-figure vases from Zone are dated in late sixth century BC, while the bulk of the material belongs to the fourth century (for fifth century material: Vavritsas 1969: 69, pls. 90d, 91a; 1970: 75, pl. 109c; Tsatsopoulou 1987: 477, fig. 7, 478, fig. 10; Tsatsopoulou, Kallintzi, Zekos 1998: 41, fig. 13; Pardalidou 2015, 638-647). At the cemetery came to light significant amounts of fourth-century red-figure squat lekythoi (Iliopoulou 2015: 65-71). Furthermore, common shapes in the necropolis were the pelikai and skyphoi that were offered as grave goods, but were also used in oblation rituals (for pelikai: Tsatsopoulou 1990: 588 and also Vavritsas 1981: 6, pl. 18; Tsatsopoulou, Kallintzi, Zekos 1998: 40, fig. 12, Iliopoulou 2015: 57-59. For skyphoi: Iliopoulou 2015: 83-85). In the settlement mainly appear other shapes, such as kraters, skyphoi, lekanides, askoi and other closed vessels.

is the large number of palmette lekythoi that have been found in the cemeteries of the city (Vavritsas 1970: 7475, pls. 109a-b, 114a; 1973: 82, pl. 104c; 1979: 112, pl. 80c; 1980: 5-6, pls. 6b, 8a, 9a,d), supplemented by lekythoi decorated with busts (Vavritsas 1973: 82, pl. 104b; Ergon 1966, 72, fig. 84). Especially interesting is part of an Attic bell-krater that depicts a seated female figure between two men, one of which holds two spears (Figure 8) (Ergon 1966: 70, fig. 82; Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi 2001: 26, fig. 28). The left side of the krater is framed by another female figure. The subject, the stance of the central figure’s body, and of the head and arms, as well as several stylistic traits, allow the connection of the krater from Zone with bell krater no. 1089 in the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna. The latter is dated in the beginning of the fourth century BC and has been attributed to the Painter of Vienna 1089 (ARV2 1423, 1; Eichler 1974: 25-26, fig. 1, pl. 124). The iconographic subject of Zone’s krater cannot be securely identified, because the vase in not intact. The central figure is perhaps Helen or Aphrodite and the man behind her Paris or one of the Dioskouroi. Apart from the aforementioned krater, at Zone have been identified several other red-figured Attic vases that can be attributed to well-known workshops of the fourth century BC, such as the Otchët Group (Figure

Although archaeological material from Zone is in many cases fragmentary, the iconographical subjects of the red-figure vases are characteristic for the fourth century BC, since busts, floral motifs, animals, scenes from the female world, mantled youths, athletes and mythological scenes occasionally appear. Worth noting 60

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace

Figure 8. Red-figure krater. Zone (Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi 2001: 26, fig. 28).

Figure 9. Red-figure lekanis lid. Zone. Otchët Group (Vavritsas 1970: 75, pl. 114b).

Vavritsas 1979: 112, pl. 80a; 1980: 7, pl. 12b). Regarding the origin and distribution of these vessels only speculations can be made, especially since the material has not been fully published. However, it is interesting to note that apart from red-figure, in Zone lekanides decorated in the silhouette technique, possibly locally made, have also been found (Vavritsas 1980: 7, pl. 10c; Ergon 1984: 113, fig. 142). If Zone was indeed their place of production, it must have been an important pottery centre in antiquity.

9), possibly the Group of the Vienna Lekanis, the F. B. Group and Group G (Otchët Group: Ergon 1970: 69, fig. 72; Vavritsas 1970: 75, pl. 114b, possibly Ergon 1969: 76, fig. 85. Group of the Vienna Lekanis: Ergon 1969: 76, fig. 85. F. B. Group: Ergon 1968: 78, fig. 79; 1966: 71, fig. 83; 1967: 69, fig. 69; Vavritsas 1970: 75, pl. 112d. Group G: Triantafyllos 1994b: 84). Worth mentioning also is the large number of fourth-century red-figure sherds, the fragmentary state of which does not allow their attribution to specific ceramic workshops (for example Ergon 1968: 78, fig. 79; Vavritsas 1977: 137-38, pls. 79b, 82a, 83c; 1979: 107-08, pl. 76a-b; 1980: 7, pl. 12b-c; 1981: 2, pl. 4a).

Ainos, located in modern-day Turkish Thrace near the mouth of river Hebros, was a colony of the Aeolians, founded first by colonists from Alopekonessos, and later by others from Mytilene and Kyme. Excavations at Ainos have been conducted in the acropolis, the city and the sanctuaries (for historical and archaeological information about Ainos: Isaak 1986: 140-57; Tiverios 2008: 118-20; Başaran 2013: 11-90 with related bibliography). Red-figure pottery from the city has

Besides the aforementioned attic red-figure vases, in Zone parts of non-Attic red-figure pottery can also be identified that could have been locally made. These are mainly skyphoi decorated with busts and female figures (Busts: Ergon 1970: 68, fig. 70; Vavritsas 1970: 74, pl. 108b;Vavritsas 1980: 6, pl. 9b. Female figures: 61

Nikos Akamatis

Figure 10. Red-figure askos sherd. Ainos. Recalls the Group of the Vienna Lekanis (Şahin 2016: 340, fig. 15).

Figure 11. Red-figure askos. Abdera (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1991: 209, pl. 138c).

been studied by R. Şahin (Şahin 2013; Şahin 2016: 32940). During the fourth century BC among the most popular shapes were kraters, skyphoi and lekanides. Less often pelikai, squat lekythoi, askoi and other shapes were in use. The iconographical themes of the vases are characteristic of the fourth century BC, similar to those from Zone and Macedonia. Several sherds of well-known Attic workshops of this period have been identified, among them pieces of the Amazon Painter, probably the Filottrano Painter, the Otchët Group, the Group of the Vienna Lekanis (Figure 10), the F. B. Group and Group G. Present are also the common palmette lekythoi (Şahin 2016: 333-34, 338-40, figs. 2, 5, 12, 6 1719). At Ainos, a very few sherds of non-Attic unknown origin have been identified (Şahin 2016: 331-32, 340, figs. 14-15).

archaeological material dates from the birth of the colony until the Hellenistic times (for general historical and archaeological information about Abdera: Isaac 1986: 73-108; Tiverios 2008: 91-99; Kallintzi 2012: 131140). The bulk of known Attic red-figure vases from Abdera belongs to the fifth century BC (typically Romiopoulou 1964b: 377-78, pl. 439-40; Lazaridis 1965: 456, pl. 541a; Ergon 1966: 62, fig. 70; Samartzidou 1998: 70-82, pls. 2-10, 14-18, 20-25). From the city and its cemeteries derive relatively few vases of the fourth century. Characteristic are the examples of an askos with leafy twig (Figure 11) (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1991: 209, pl. 138c) and part of another askos, decorated with a bust wearing a Phrygian cap and with a feline (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1989: 223, pl. 154a). Finally, several red-figured vase fragments have been found during the excavations of the city. These belong mainly to kraters, askoi, pelikai and other closed vases (Lazaridis 1965: 457, pl. 549a, e, 459, pl. 558c, e, 460, pl. 561a, e-f; Vavritsas 1966: 62, pl. 47a-b; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1991: 209 pl. 139a). Regarding Attic pottery workshops, it is possible to identify vases of the F. B. Group and the Q Painter (Lazaridis 1965: 457, pl. 549a, e, 460, pl. 561a,

Abdera, founded by colonists from Klazomenai and around a century later by others from Ionian Teos, was also a very important city of Aegean Thrace. Excavation has brought to light part of the cemeteries, fortifications, harbours, houses, a figurine workshop and the sanctuary of an unknown deity. Important 62

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace

e-f; Samartzidou 1998, 74-75, pls. 12-13; Triantafyllos et al. 1999: 14, fig. 13). Moreover, palmette lekythoi and squat lekythoi decorated with busts wearing sakkoi have also come to light (Samartzidou 1998: 82, pl. 26; Triantafyllos et al. 1999: 14, fig. 13). No local redfigure pottery production is testified so far at Abdera, although in the second half of the fourth century the city’s workshops produced kylixes deriving from archaic tradition, some of which were decorated with silhouette geometric motifs (Kallintzi 2011: 463-74).

Conclusions In antiquity, the north Aegean was an area where pottery from various ceramic production centres was imported. Attic pottery, namely, is testified from the beginning of the sixth century BC (for an overview of Attic pottery imports in Macedonia: Tiverios 2012: 39-52; Drougou 2019: 139-55. Manakidou 2022: 385-404. For Thrace see Tiverios 2019: 189-206; Tsiafaki 2022: 57-76). The earliest attested red-figured vases, which belong to the Pioneer Group, have been found at Thasos (Maffre 2009: 187, fig. 1; Tiverios 2012: 41). Red-figure pottery trade continued throughout the fifth century BC. From the late fifth century BC is testified a steep rise in the import of Attic pottery, especially red-figure, which is continued throughout the fourth century (Akamatis 2008: 69, fig. 3; 2018: 126-28). All over the regions of Macedonia and Aegean Thrace alongside red-figure vases, other types of Attic pottery have turned up, such as white-ground and black-glazed, as well as panathenaic amphoras (white ground pottery: Triantafyllos 1992: 667, fig. 15; 1993: 615, fig. 11; Pingiatoglou 2014: 331-342 [Thrace]. Tiverios 2012: 45-46 [Macedonia]. Garyfallopoulos 2019: 127-38. Panathenaic amphoras: Tsatsopoulou et al. 1998: 42, fig. 14 [Thrace]; Tiverios 2000; 2001: 41-54; 2012: 46 [Macedonia]).

Many other sites in Aegean Thrace have yielded fourthcentury red-figure. These are primarily coastal sites, such as the city at the peninsula of Molyvoti, which has been identified by several scholars with Stryme (very important is the fifth century BC archaeological material from Stryme: Bakalakis 1967: 52-78, pls. 28-43; Triantafyllos 1992: 667, fig. 14. For fourth century BC parts of red-figure vases: Bakalakis 1967: 76-78, fig. 17, pl. 43; Triantafyllos 2012: 145, fig. 6, Arrington, Padgett 2019, 526, fig. 5), and Makri (Efstratiou, Kallintzi 1994: 71, fig. 56). Red-figure pottery has also been found on the island of Samothrace (numerous are fifthcentury BC vases from Samothrace: Dusenbery 1998: 583-666; Dinsmoor 1992: 501-15. Jiang 2019: 165-74. Much fewer are those of the fourth century: Karadima, Koutsoumanis 1992: 681, fig. 4; Dusenbery 1998: 609, xs-72-73, 626-30, xs-99-105, 644-45, xs-115-118, 659, h9-10, 660, xs-120). However, fourth-century redfigure vases have also been found on sites, which were not close to the sea, such as Linos, a mountainous site near Komotini, Ambelakia, Plotinopolis and Doriskos. (Linos: Anagnostopoulou-Hatzipolihroni 1988: 516, fig. 7; 1991: 479. Ambelakia: Triantafyllos 1994a: 355, fig. 7. Plotinopolis: Koutsoumanis 2001: 31, fig. 31. Doriskos: Triantafyllos 1971: 439, pl. 435a).

In Macedonia, Attic red-figure pottery products become abundant, especially in the second and third quarters of the fourth century. This fact should be related to some extent to the formation of the second Athenian League in 377 BC (Will et al. 1975: 30–33; Ηammond, Griffith 1979: 178; Cargill 1981; Schwenk 1997: 19-25). According to ancient authors, after the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians rebuilt their fleet using Macedonian timber (Xenophon, Hellenica 6.1.11; Borza 1987: 45-46; Psoma 2014: 135). The provision of timber, among other reasons, led to the honouring of the Macedonian king Archelaos (413-399 BC) as proxenos and euergetes of Athens, while Amyntas III (393-379 BC) signed a peace treaty with the city (Errington 1993: 33; Psoma 2014: 138). Throughout the fourth century BC, Athens had important political and economic interests in the region of the Thermaic Gulf, the Chalcidice and eastern Macedonia as well (Hammond, Griffith 1979: 186-87; Borza 1990: 195-96; Psoma 2014: 138-44).

Almost absent is red-figure pottery from Maroneia, one of the most important cities of Aegean Thrace (for some red-figure sherds from Maroneia: Deoudi 2013: 191-92, pl. 9). Principally, this is because the location of the city of the Classical period has not been securely identified and excavated (for the different opinions on the possible location of the Archaic and Classical city of Maroneia, see Tiverios 2008: 99-102; Triantafyllos 2012: 150-154). On the contrary, excavations have been conducted in the Hellenistic-Roman settlement of Maroneia (for the history and the excavation of the city: Isaac 1986: 111-122; Psoma et al. 2008: Ivii-Ixx; AnagnostopoulouHatzipolihroni 2012: 121-29 with bibliography). The fact that Maroneia had an important harbour, and that she was one of the most prominent cities of the region in economic and political terms, allows one to conclude that trade of red-figure pottery must also have taken place, even although relevant finds are lacking.

In Aegean Thrace, Athens had similar political and economic interests as in Macedonia. Some of the most important cities of the region were traditional allies of Athens, and members of the first and second Athenian Leagues, namely Abdera, Maroneia, Ainos and Samothrace (Pelekidis 1994: 106-08). Furthermore, using these cities’ harbours Athenians themselves, as well as other traders that carried Athenian ceramics,

63

Nikos Akamatis could sell pottery to the Thracian tribes of the hinterland, mainly the Odrysians (for the Odrysian kingdom typically: Jordanov 1996: 223-40; Archibald 1998; Martinez et al. 2015 with bibliography). Athenian intervention in Thracian politics is attested oftentimes throughout the fourth century BC. Characteristic is the case of two citizens of Ainos, who murdered King Kotys I (383-360 BC) and were honoured by Athens (Demosthenes, Against Aristocrates 23.118-119, 163; Aristotle, Politics 5.1311b). Finally, Aegean Thrace is on route to the Black Sea, where the Athenians also had political and economic interests.

to their technical features (gilding, applied colours): these have been found principally in Macedonia and the Black Sea. Regarding trade of Attic red-figure pottery inland ancient Thrace, characteristic is the example of Pistiros, the emporion, which has been located north of the mountain range Rhodope, in modern-day Bulgaria (for Pistiros: Bouzek et al. 1996; 2002; 2007; 2010; 2013). At this site, a lot of Attic red-figure vases have been found belonging to several Attic workshops, the presence of which is also testified in Macedonia, Aegean Thrace and the Black Sea coast, such as the Group of the Vienna Lekanis, the Otchët Group, the workshop of the Painter of Ferrara T.408, the F.B. Group and others (for the red-figure pottery of Pistiros: Archibald 1996: 77-88; Archibald 2002: 131-48; Bouzek 2010: 186-90; Petrova 2022: 255-67). At Pistiros have been found mainly parts of red-figure kraters, skyphoi and pelikai. Much less common are other shapes, such as lekanides, askoi, lekythoi and cups. According to most scholars, imported pottery, among other goods, arrived in Pistiros via the river Hebros, which was probably navigable in antiquity (Isaak 1986: 141; Bouzek 1996: 221-22). Coastal cities of Aegean Thrace are directly involved in the trade of this pottery, since, according to the famous inscription of Pistiros on the relations between Kotys I and the emporitai that led to the identification of the site, the population of Pistiros in the fourth century BC comprised of people from Thasos, Maroneia and Apollonia among others (for the inscription, see Velkov, Domaradzka 1996: 205-16). Furthermore, the city of Ainos, where significant amounts of red-figure pottery have been unearthed, is very close to the mouth of the Hebros, and probably participated as an intermediate station in the conveying of red-figure pottery to inland ancient Thrace.

The trade of red-figure pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace is related to that of the Black Sea, since both regions under examination are on route to the Euxine (on this regard see Erdem 2022: 307-321). During the fourth century BC the area of the Black Sea, especially the north part, is the place where abundant material of red-figure has come to light. On its coast appear material from several Attic workshops that are in common with those represented Macedonia and Aegean Thrace, such as the Group of the Vienna Lekanis, the Otchët Group, askoi decorated with leafy twigs, askoi decorated with busts wearing Phrygian caps and accompanied by felines, Group G, the F.B. Group, possibly the Filottrano Painter, palmette lekythoi, among others. Vases of important painters of the late Kerch style, such as the Painter of the Wedding Procession and the Marsyas Painter are also present in Macedonia and the north Black Sea coast. But also vases of minor painters appear there, such as the painter of the Olynthus fish-plates, the Painter of Agora Ρ17562, the Painter of the Reading Lekanis, the Amazon Painter and the Yalta Painter. Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that trade ships on route to the Black Sea made intermediate stops at coastal cities in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace to provide, among other goods, redfigure vases (for the trade of Attic red-figure pottery in the Black Sea area and the workshops mentioned above, see typically Sidorova, Tugusheva 2000; Fless 2002: 6495; Tugusheva 2003; Jaeggi 2012; Langner 2012: 35-50; Akamatis 2019, 213-24; Jaeggi, Petrakova 2022: 405-19).

Rivers and waterways also played an important role in the red-figure pottery trade in Macedonia as well. Red-figure pottery found in Aiane and ancient Eordaia in Upper Macedonia was probably transferred via the Haliakmon (Akamatis et al. 2023). Furthermore, Skylax informs us that the river Loudias, which passed close to Pella and Edessa, was navigable in antiquity (Skylax, Periplous 66.5-7). Finally, pottery within the boundaries of the Republic of North Macedonia probably arrived via the Axios river (Sanev 2013: 5, plan 1).

After the middle of the fourth century BC the area of north Greece becomes politically controlled by the Macedonians. Although political relations with Athens slowly deteriorate, the Attic pottery trade thrives in many Macedonian cities, such as Pella, Aigai, Aiane, Amphipolis and others. This fact allows us to conclude either that trade in Attic pottery was not directly affected by political events or that the traders were not exclusively Athenians. On the contrary, according to available data, Attic pottery is not that much seen in Aegean Thrace, perhaps due to the fact that the coastal cities of this region becomes less important from a political and economic view. Characteristic is the lack of the late Kerch style vases, which were expensive due

Worth noting is the abundance of Attic red-figure pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace during the fourth century BC. Even in areas where local workshops became active, such as Chalcidice or Pella, local red-figure vases mainly covered regional needs. Moreover, the existence of local workshop activity did not limit Attic imports. On the contrary, Attic red-figure products surpassed the quantity of local red-figure vases. In Aegean Thrace, perhaps Zone was 64

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace

a site where a local workshop of red-figure vases was also active. Other workshops, apart from local and Attic, represented are very scarce. In Upper Macedonia, a few vases from west Greek workshops (Agrinion Group) have been found (Akamatis et al. 2023), while in Macedonia proper some red-figure sherds may be identified as Corinthian (Akamatis 2008: 23, sk3; 2018: 125). Finally, at Pella sherds of local red-figure skyphoi from the area of the Republic of North Macedonia or south Serbia have been identified (Akamatis 2018, 217, sk 17-18, pl. 119). The situation changes drastically in the last quarter of the fourth century BC and onwards. Although Attic imports do not entirely cease, a radical reduction of these products is testified all over the Aegean. This is due to various reasons, mainly because after the death of Alexander the Great, Athens found herself on the periphery of the Hellenistic world. Redfigure production gradually stops and new pottery styles emerge. Within the world of the Hellenistic kingdoms, local pottery workshops spring up in many cities, covering local needs.

Akamatis, Ν. 2018: Η ερυθρόμορφη κεραμική από την Αγορά της Πέλλας. Thessaloniki, Zitis Editions. Akamatis, Ν. 2019: ‘Attic late red-figure pottery from Macedonia and the north Black Sea area. Workshops, trade and local impact’ in Α. PeignardGiros (ed.), Daily Life in a cosmopolitan World: Pottery and Culture during the Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the IARPOTHP, Lyon, November 2015, 5th-8th. Wien, Phoibos Verlag: 213–24. Akamatis, Ν. 2020: The Attic Red-Figured Pottery, Argilos 2. Athens, Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece no. 12. Akamatis, N., Gkelou, L., Lazopoulou, M. 2023: ‘RedFigure Pottery from Upper Macedonia’, in G. Giudice, E. Giudice (eds), Studi Miscellanei di Ceramografia Greca VIII (forthcoming). Anagnostopoulou-Hatzipolihroni, El. 1988: ‘Αρχαιολογική έρευνα στο Ληνό Ν. Ροδόπης’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 2: 511–16. Anagnostopoulou-Hatzipolihroni, El. 1991: ‘Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στο Ληνό Ν. Ροδόπης’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 5: 477–87. Anagnostopoulou-Hatzipolihroni, El. 2012: ‘Μαρώνεια. Δημόσια κτίρια στην πόλη των υστεροκλασικών και ελληνιστικών χρόνων (4ος-2ος αι. π. Χ.)’ in Adam-Veleni, P., Tzanavari, K. 2012: 121–29. Archibald, Z.H. 1996: ‘Imported Athenian Figured Pottery 1988–1991’ in Bouzek, J. et al. (eds) 1996: 77–88. Archibald, Z.H. 1998: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus unmasked, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Archibald, Z.H. 2002: ‘Attic Figured Pottery from Adjiyska Vodenitsa (Adžijska Vodenica), Vetren 1989–1995’ in Bouzek, J. et al. (eds) 2002: 131–48. Arrington, N.T., Padgett, J.M. 2019: ‘House, City, Country: Classical Fine Wares from the Molyvoti Peninsula (‘Ancient Stryme’), Thrace’ in Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 521–32. ARV2: Beazley, J.D. 1963: Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters2. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Bakalakis, G. 1967: Ανασκαφή Στρύμης. Thessaloniki, Scientific Publications of the School of Philosophy 3, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Başaran, S. 2013: ‘Enez-Ainos-Enos’ in A. Yeşil, A. Uzun Aksu (eds), Enez Doğal, Kültürel ve Turistik Güzellikleri. Istanbul, Istanbul Üniversitesi Yayınevi: 11–90. Besios, Μ. 2010: Πιερίδων Στέφανος: Πύδνα, Μεθώνη και οι αρχαιότητες της βόρειας Πιερίας. Katerini, Α.Φ.Ε. Editions. Besios, M., Noulas, K. 2010: ‘Νεκροταφεία Πύδνας: ανασκαφή στο αγροτεμάχιο αριθ. 691 Μακρυγιάλου’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 24: 127–34.

Bibliography Adam-Veleni, P., Tzanavari, K. (eds) 2012: Δινήεσσα. Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου. Thessaloniki, Editions of the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki no. 18. Akamatis, Ν. 2008: ‘Ερυθρόμορφη κεραμική από την Πέλλα’ Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 147: 1–78. Akamatis, Ν. 2012: ‘Ερυθρόμορφη πελίκη με σκηνή μάχης από την Πέλλα’ in E. Kefalidou, D. Tsiafaki (eds), Κεραμέως Παίδες. Αντίδωρο στον Καθηγητή Μιχάλη Τιβέριο από τους μαθητές του. Thessaloniki, Zitis Editions: 143–52. Akamatis, Ν. 2013: Ερυθρόμορφη κεραμική από την Πέλλα. Το τοπικό εργαστήριο. Thessaloniki, Zitis Editions. Akamatis, Ν. 2014a: ‘Pelops on an early 4th century BC red-figure krater from Pella’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 138: 429–48. Akamatis, Ν. 2014b: ‘Local red-figure Pottery from the Macedonian Kingdom: The Pella Workshop’ in S. Schierup, V. Sabetai (eds), The Regional Production of red-figure Pottery: Greece, Magna Graecia and Etruria. Gösta Enbom Monographs vol. IV. Aarhus, Aarhus Universitetsforlag: 177–91. Akamatis, Ν. 2014c: ‘Discovering Macedonian redfigure Pottery. A new Pelike attributed to the Pella Workshop’ Annual of the British School at Athens 109: 223–49. Akamatis, Ν. 2016: ‘Ερυθρόμορφη πελίκη του Ζ. της Γαμήλιας Πομπής στο Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο της Πέλλας’ in Μ. Giannopoulou, Chr. Kallini (eds), Ηχάδιν Ι. Τιμητικός Τόμος για τη Στέλλα Δρούγου. Athens, Edition of the Archaeological Receipts and Expropriations Fund: 100–14.

65

Nikos Akamatis Blondé, F. 1985: ‘Un remblai Thasien du 4e siècle avant notre ère’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109: 281–344. Borza, E.N. 1987: ‘Timber and Politics in the Ancient World: Macedon and the Greeks’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 131: 32–52. Borza, E.N. 1990. In the Shadow of Olympus. The emergence of Macedon. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Bouzek, J. 1996: ‘Pistiros as a River Harbour: Sea and River Transport in Antiquity and its Costs’ in Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, M, Archibald, Z.H. 1996: 221–22. Bouzek, J. 2010. ‘A note on Greek Pottery from the South House’ in: Bouzek, Domaradzka, Archibald 2010: 186–90. Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, M., Archibald, Z.H. 1996: Pistiros I. Excavations and Studies. Prague, Charles University. Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, M., Archibald, Z.H. 2002: Pistiros 2. Excavations and Studies. Prague, Charles University. Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, M., Archibald, Z.H. 2007: Pistiros 3. Excavations and Studies. Prague, Charles University. Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, M., Archibald, Z.H. 2010: Pistiros 4. Excavations and Studies. Prague, Charles University. Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L., Gotzev, A., Archibald, Z.H. 2013: Pistiros 5. Excavations and Studies. Prague, Charles University. Cargill, J. 1981: The Second Athenian League. Empire or free Alliance? Berkeley, L. Angeles, London, University of California Press. Chavela, K. 2019: ‘Η παρουσία της επείσακτης κεραμικής στον αρχαίο οικισμό της Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης (5ος-4ος αιώνας π.Χ.) in Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 371–90. Chrysostomou, A. 2013a: Αρχαία Έδεσσα. Τα νεκροταφεία, Studies of the Archaeological Institute of Thessalian Studies 5. Volos, Υπουργείο Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων, Πολιτισμού και Αθλητισμού. Chrysostomou, A. 2013b: Νέοι θησαυροί της εδεσσαϊκής γης. Edessa, Vagourdis Editions. Deoudi, M. 2013: ΜΑΡΩΝΕΙΑ. Ein Beitrag zur Stadtgeschichte. Post doctoral study, FriedrichAlexander-Universität Erlangen. Dinsmoor, A.N. 1992: ‘Red-Figured Pottery from Samothrace’ Hesperia 61: 501–15. Drougou, St. 1982: ‘Ερυθρόμορφος κρατήρας του 4ου αι. π.Χ. από τη Βέροια. Ο Ζωγράφος της Toya’ Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 121: 85–97. Drougou, St. 2005: Βεργίνα. Τα πήλινα αγγεία της μεγάλης Τούμπας. Athens, Publications of the Archaeological Society at Athens. Drougou, St. 2019: ‘H αττική «πολυτελής» κεραμική στο βασίλειο της Μακεδονίας στα χρόνια του Αλεξάνδρου Α΄ ’ Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 139–55. Drougou, St., Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Chr. 2006: Vergina. The Land and its History. Athens, Militos Editions, Ephesus Publishing.

Dusenbery, E.B. 1998: The Necropoleis. Catalogues of Objects by Categories, Samothrace 11. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Efstratiou, N., Kallintzi, D. 1994: Μάκρη. Αρχαιολογικές έρευνες 1988–1993. Thessaloniki, Vanias Editions. Eichler, F. 1974: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Austria 3, Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum 3. Vienna, Christoph Reisser’s Söhne AG. Erdem, Z. 2022: ‘The Attic Imports and their Local Imitations from the Settlements East of the Hebros River (Modern Turkey)’ in Tsiafaki et al. 2022: 307– 21. Errington, M. 1993: A History of Macedonia. Errington, C. (transl.). California, Berkeley, University of California Press. Ergon: Orlandos, A.K. (ed.), Το Έργον της Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας. Fless, F. 2002: Rotfigurige Keramik als Handelsware. Erwerb und Gebrauch attischer Vasen im mediterranen und pontischen Raum während des 4. Jhs.v.Chr, Internationale Archäologie 71. Rahden, M. Leidorf. Garyfallopoulos, A. 2019: ‘Αττικές λευκές λήκυθοι «κυρίου» τύπου στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του: διασπορά και χρονολόγηση, χρήση, εικονογραφία’ Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 127–38. Ghali–Kahil, L. 1960: Études Thasiennes 7. La céramique Grecque. Paris, de Boccard. Giroux, H. 2006: ‘La céramique Attique à figures rouges’ in La Genière, J. De (ed.), Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum France 1. Les clients de la céramique Grecque. Actes du Colloque de l’ Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres. Paris 30–31 Janvier 2004. Paris, Peeters: 55–57. Graekos, I. 2011: ‘Trade and exchange in the Macedonian court’ in Kottaridi A., Walker S. (eds) 2011: 67–74. Hammond, N.G.L., Griffith, G.T. 1979: A History of Macedonia 2, 550–336 BC. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Iliopoulou, S. 2015: Aρχαία Ζώνη ΙΙΙa. Το νεκροταφείο. Ταφικά έθιμα και πρακτικές. Komotini, Ephorate of Antiquities of Evros. Isaak, B. 1986: The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden, Brill. Jaeggi, O. 2012: Attisch-Rotfigurige Vasen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. aus den Sammlungen des Historisch-Kulturellen Reservats in Kerč. Kiev, Verlag Mystetstvo Publishers. Jaeggi, O., Petrakova, A. 2022: ‘Attic Painted Pottery from the Northern Black Sea Area’ in Tsiafaki et al. (eds) 2022: 405–19. Jiang, A. 2019: ‘Attic Red-Figure Pottery on Samothrace during the Classical Period’ Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 165–74. Jordanov, K. 1996: ‘The Political History of the Odrysian Kingdom 359–339 BC’ in Bouzek et al. 1996: 223–40. Kallintzi, K. 2011: ‘Κύλικες ιωνικού τύπου από το νεκροταφείο των Αβδήρων’ in Kotsou, E. (ed.), Ζ΄ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική. Αίγιο 4–9 Απριλίου 2005. Athens, Edition 66

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace

of the Archaeological Receipts and Expropriations Fund: 463–74. Kallintzi, K. 2012: ‘Επίθεση και άμυνα στην πόλη των Αβδήρων’ in Adam-Veleni, P., Tzanavari, K. (eds) 2012: 131–40. Kaltsas, N.E. 1998: Άκανθος Ι. Η ανασκαφή στο νεκροταφείο κατά το 1979. Athens, Publications of the Archaeologikon Deltion. Karadima, H., Koutsoumanis, M. 1992: ‘Αρχαιολογικές εργασίες Σαμοθράκης 1992’ To Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 6: 677–83. Karamitrou-Mendesidi, G. 2008: Αιανή. Αρχαιολογικοί χώροι και μουσείο. Aiane, Editions of the Archaeological Museum of Aiane. Karamitrou-Mendesidi, G. 2010: ‘Η Αιανή και η συμβολή της στην ιστορία της Άνω Μακεδονίας’ in Kyriatsoulis, A. (ed.), Μακεδονία, από την Αρχαϊκή ως την πρώιμη Βυζαντινή Εποχή. Συμπόσιο, Ιούνιος 2009. Weilheim, Verein zur Förderung der Aufarbeitung der Hellenischen Geschichte: 37–79. Kottaridi, A. 2011a: ‘Queens, princesses and high priestesses: the role of women at the Macedonian court’ in Kottaridi A., Walker S. (eds) 2011: 93–126. Kottaridi, A. 2011b: ‘The Royal Banquet: A Capital Institution’ in Kottaridi A., Walker S. (eds) 2011: 167–80. Kottaridi, A. 2013: Αιγές. Η βασιλική νεκρόπολη των Μακεδόνων. Athens, Publications of the I.S. Latsis Foundation. Kottaridi A., Walker S. (eds) 2011: Herakles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. 1972: ‘Αρχαία Τράγιλος (Αηδονοχώριον Σερρών)’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 27: 530–33. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. 1989: ‘Ανασκαφή αρχαίων Αβδήρων’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 222–32. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. 1991: ‘Ανασκαφή αρχαίων Αβδήρων’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 193–211. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. 2011: ‘Amphipolis’ in Lane Fox, R.J. (ed.) 2011: 409–36. Koutsoumanis, M. 2001: ‘Η αρχαιολογική έρευνα στην Πλωτινόπολη Διδυμοτείχου’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 15: 19–31. Kranioti, L. 1988: ‘Σωστική ανασκαφή στην Αμφίπολη’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 2: 371–84. Kyriakou, A. 2008: Η στενόμακρη Τούμπα της Βεργίνας. Ταφικές πρακτικές στη Μακεδονία του 4ου αιώνα π. Χ. Thessaloniki, D. Sfakianaki Publications. Lane Fox, R.J. (ed.) 2011: Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC-300 AD. Leiden-Boston, Brill.

Langner, M. 2012: ‘Kam es auf die Bilder an? Handelskontakte, Verwendungskontexte und locale Imitationen spätrotfiguriger Vasenbilder aus Athen’ in Schmidt, A., Stähli, A. (eds), Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Deutschland Beihefte 5. Vasenbilder im Kulturtransfer - Zirkulation und Rezeption Griechischer Keramik im Mittelmeerraum. Munich, Verlag C.H. Beck: 35–50. Lazaridi, K. 1984: ‘Ανασκαφές και έρευνες στην Αμφίπολη’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 33–39. Lazaridi, K. 1987: ‘Το γυμνάσιο της αρχαίας Αμφίπολης’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 1: 313–26. Lazaridis, D.I. 1965: ‘Άβδηρα’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 20: 453–61. Lazaridis, D.I. 1972: ‘Ανασκαφαί και έρευναι Αμφιπόλεως’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 63–72. Lazaridis, D.I. 1973: ‘Ανασκαφαί και έρευναι Αμφιπόλεως’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 43–54. Lazaridis, D.I. 1979: ‘Ανασκαφές και έρευνες Αμφιπόλεως’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 71–79. Lazaridis, D.I. 1980: ‘Ανασκαφές και έρευνες Αμφιπόλεως’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 8–13. Lazaridis, D.I. 2001: Amphipolis. Athens, Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Receipts Fund. Lilimpaki-Akamati, Μ., Akamatis, Ι., Chrysostomou, Α., Chrysostomou P. (eds) 2011: Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Πέλλας. Athens, Publications of the I.S. Latsis Foundation. Lilimpaki-Akamati, M., Akamatis, I. (eds) 2003: Pella and its environs. Thessaloniki, Α. Altintzis Editions. Lilimpaki-Akamati, M., Akamatis, I. 2012: ‘Pella from the Bronze age to the Hellenistic age’ in Tiverios, M., Nigdelis, P., Adam-Veleni, P. (eds), Threpteria. Studies on Ancient Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Editions: 8–25. Lilimpaki-Akamati, M., Akamatis, N. 2014: Ανατολικό νεκροταφείο Πέλλας. Ανασκαφικές περίοδοι 1991–2007. Thessaloniki, A. Altintzis. Maffre, J.-J. 2009: ‘Trente ans de recherches sur la céramique attique trouvée à Thasos par l’ École française d’ Athènes depuis 1956’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 20 χρόνια: 185–203. Malama, P. 2000: ‘Νεότερα στοιχεία από το ανατολικό νεκροταφείο της Αμφίπολης στα πλαίσια του έργου Διαπλάτυνση του Δρόμου Αμφίπολης-Μεσολακκιάς’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 14: 55–70. Malama, P., Vasilikoudis, N. 2019: ‘Κεραμική κλασικών χρόνων από τη θέση «Υδραγωγείο» στην Αμφίπολη’ Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 573–90.

67

Nikos Akamatis Manakidou, E. 2022: ‘Aττικά αγγεία στη Μακεδονία από τον Αλιάκμονα έως τον Στρυμόνα στην αρχαϊκή και την κλασική εποχή’ in Tsiafaki et al. (eds) 2022: 385–404. Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: Classical Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (480–323/300 BC). Thessaloniki, University Studio Press. Martinez, J.-L., Baralis, A., Mathieux, N., Stoyanov, T., Tonkova, M. (eds) 2015: L’ Épopée des rois thraces. Des guerres médiques aux invasions celtes 479–278 av. J.C. Découvertes archéologiques en Bulgarie. Paris, ‎Somogy éditions d’art. McPhee, Ι. 1981: ‘Some red-figure Vase–painters of the Chalcidice’ Annual of the British School at Athens 76: 297–305. McPhee, Ι. 2001: ‘The red-figured Pottery’ in A. Cambitoglou, J.K. Papadopoulos, O.T. Jones (eds), Τοrone 1. The Excavations of 1975, 1976 and 1978. Athens, Publications of the Archaeological Society at Athens: 353–90. McPhee, I., Trendall, A.D. 1987. Greek red-figured Fishplates, Antike Kunst Beiheft 14. Basel. Misailidou-Despotidou, V. 2007: ‘Άφυτις 2007’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 21: 311–22. Misailidou-Despotidou, V. 2009: ‘Άφυτις 1997–2006’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 20 χρόνια: 221–37. Nikolaidi, N.-L., Pylarinou, N., Stampouloglou, M. 2022: ‘H παρουσία αγγείων του αττικού Κεραμεικού στην κλασική Αμφίπολη’ in Tsiafaki et al. (eds) 2022: 176– 91. Papakonstantinou-Diamantourou, D. 1971: Πέλλα Ι. Ιστορική επισκόπησις και μαρτυρίαι. Athens, Publications of the Archaeological Society at Athens. Pardalidou, Ch. 2015: ‘Ερυθρόμορφη κεραμική’ in Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi, P. (ed.), Αρχαία Ζώνη Ι. Το ιερό του Απόλλωνα. Komotini, Ephorate of Antiquities of Evros: 636–47. Pelekidis, Ch.: ‘Οι Έλληνες στη Θράκη’ in Aikaterinidis, G. (ed.), Θράκη. Athens, Municipality of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace: 98–114. Petrova, V. 2022: ‘Attic Painted Pottery discovered in Pistiros (Vetren)’ in Tsiafaki et al. (eds) 2022: 155–67. Pingiatoglou, S. 2014: ‘Πινάκιο λευκού βάθους από τα Άβδηρα’ in Valavanis, P., Manakidou, E. (eds), Έγραφσεν και Εποίεσεν. Essays on Greek Pottery and Iconography in Honour of Professor Michalis Tiverios. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 331–42. Psoma, S. 2014. ‘Athens and the Macedonian Kingdom from Perdikkas II to Philip II’ Revue des Études Anciennes 116: 133–44. Psoma, S., Karadima, C., Terzopoulou, D. 2008: The Coins from Maroneia and the Classical City at Molyvoti. A Contribution to the History of Aegean Thrace. Μελετήματα 62. Paris, De Boccard.

Robinson, D. 1933: Mosaics, Vases and Lamps of Olynthus found in 1928 and 1931. Excavations at Olynthus 5. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. Robinson, D. 1950: Vases found in 1934 and 1938, Excavations at Olynthus 13. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. Romiopoulou, K. 1964a: ‘Αγγεία του 4ου αιώνος π. Χ. εκ των ανασκαφών της Αμφιπόλεως’ Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 103: 91–104. Romiopoulou, K. 1964b: ‘Άβδηρα’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 19: 376–78. Romiopoulou, K., Touratsoglou, I. 1970: ‘Περιοχή Λευκαδίων’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 25: 388. Romiopoulou, K., Touratsoglou, I. 2002: Μίεζα. Νεκροταφείο υστεροαρχαϊκών–πρώιμων ελληνιστικών χρόνων. Athens, Publications of the Archaeologikon Deltion. Romiopoulou, Κ., Vogeikof-Brogan, Ν. 2013: ‘Ελληνιστικό νεκροταφείο Αμφιπόλεως. Βορειοανατολικός τομέας: Ανασκαφή 1956’ Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 152: 195–238. Şahin, R. 2013: Ainos (Enez) Kazılarında Bulunan Kırmızı Figürlü Keramikler, PhD Thesis, University of Istanbul, Istanbul. Şahin, R. 2016: ‘Red-figure Pottery of the 4th Century BC from Ainos (Enez) in Thrace: The Final Phase of the Classical Tradition in Eastern Thrace’ in S. Japp, P. Kögler, (eds), IARPOTHP 1. Traditions and Innovations. Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial Periods. Proceedings of the 1st Conference of IARPOTHP, Berlin, November 2013, 7th10th. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 329–40. Samartzidou, S. 1998: Τα Άβδηρα στους Κλασικούς χρόνους. Ευρήματα από τις νεκροπόλεις. Ταφικά έθιμα. MA Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Sanev, G. 2013: ‘Red-figure Vases in the FYR Macedonia’ Revue Archéologique: 3–55. Schwenk, C. 1997: ‘Athens’ in L.A. Tritle (ed.), The Greek World in the Fourth Century. From the Fall of the Athenian Empire to the Successors of Alexander, London, N. York, Routledge: 8–40. Sidorova, N., Tugusheva, O. 2000: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Russia 5, Moscow 5, Puskin State Museum of Fine Arts. Attic red-figured Vases. Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Stefani, L., Pappas, Ν. Β. 2014: ‘Εισαγόμενα προϊόντα και εγχώρια κεραμική παραγωγή από την κλασική και ελληνιστική Βέροια’ in Kotsou, E. (ed.), Η΄ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική. Ιωάννινα 5–9 Μαΐου 2009. Athens, Edition of the Archaeological Receipts and Expropriations Fund: 191–204. Tasia, A. 1986: ‘Ταφικά ευρήματα από τη Βέργη Σερρών’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 41: 59–84. Themelis, P.G., Touratsoglou, G.P. 1997: Οι τάφοι του Δερβενίου. Athens, Publications of the Archaeologikon Deltion. 68

Remarks on the Trade in Red-Figure Pottery in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace

Tiverios, Μ. 2000: Μακεδόνες και Παναθήναια. Παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς από τον βορειοελλαδικό χώρο. Athens, Νational Βank of Greece Cultural Foundation. Tiverios, Μ. 2001. ‘Panathenäen und Makedonen. Panathenäische Preisamphoren aus dem nordgriehischen Raum’ in Bentz, M., Eschbach, N. (eds), Panathenaïka. Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren. Rauischholzhausen 25.11.-29.11.1998. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern: 41–54. Tiverios, Μ. 2008: ‘Greek Colonisation of the North Aegean’ in Tsetskhladze, G. (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and other Settlements Overseas 2. Leiden, Boston, Brill: 1–154. Tiverios, Μ. 2012: ‘Αττικά αγγεία πολυτελείας στη Μακεδονία’ in Tiverios, M., Misailidou-Despotidou, V., Manakidou, E., Arvanitaki, A. (eds), Η κεραμική της αρχαϊκής εποχής στο βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (700–480 π. Χ.). Thessaloniki, Zitis Editions: 39–52. Tiverios, Μ. 2019: ‘Αττικά αγγεία (πήλινα και μεταλλικά) στην αρχαία Θράκη. Η παράμετρος της εικονογραφίας τους και το Εργαστήριο του Ζωγράφου της Ερέτριας’ in Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 189–206. Touratsoglou, Ι. 1973–1974: ‘Διαπλάτυνσις οδού από Σ. Σ. Βεροίας προς Βέροιαν’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 29: 714–17. Triantafyllos, D. 1971: ‘Νομός Έβρου’ Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 26: 437–40. Triantafyllos, D. 1992: ‘Ανασκαφή τύμβων στα νεκροταφεία της αρχαίας Στρύμης’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 6: 655–67. Triantafyllos, D. 1993: ‘Σωστικές και δοκιμαστικές ανασκαφές 1993. Στρύμη, Πεντάλοφος, Κομνηνά’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 7: 601–18. Triantafyllos, D. 1994a: ‘Ανασκαφή ταφικών τύμβων στην περιοχή Ορεστιάδας’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 8: 349–57. Triantafyllos, D. 1994b: ‘Αρχαία Θράκη’ in Aikaterinidis, G. (ed.), Θράκη. Athens, Municipality of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace: 35–97. Triantafyllos, D. 2012: ‘Ανασκαφή Στρύμης (;)’ in Adam-Veleni, P., Tzanavari, K. (eds) 2012: 141–156. Triantafyllos, D., Kallintzi, D., Soulakis, N. 1999: ‘Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Αβδήρων’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 13: 1–14. Tsatsopoulou, T. 1987: ‘Αιγαιακή Μεσημβρία. Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στο χώρο της αρχαίας πόλης κατά το 1987’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 1: 469–78. Tsatsopoulou, T. 1990: ‘Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στην αρχαία Μεσημβρία κατά το 1990’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 4: 587–94.

Tsatsopoulou, T. 1996: ‘Μεσημβρία-Ζώνη 1987–1997’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 10b: 917–26. Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi, T. 2001: Μεσημβρία-Ζώνη. Athens, Edition of the Archaeological Receipts and Expropriations Fund. Tsatsopoulou, T. 2009: ‘Μεσημβρία-Ζώνη. Η συμβολή της αρχαιολογικής έρευνας στην αναζήτηση της ταυτότητας των αποικιών της Σαμοθράκης’ Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 20 χρόνια: 409–19. Tsatsopoulou, P., Kallintzi, D., Zekos N. 1998: Mesembria/ Zone, Makri. Archaeological Guide. Athens, Edition of the Archaeological Receipts and Expropriations Fund. Tsiafaki, D. 2022: ‘AtticPot. Αθηναϊκή παρουσία στην αρχαία Θράκη’ in Tsiafaki, D. et al. (eds) 2022, 57–76. Tsiafaki, D., Avramidou, A., Michailidou, N., Mourthos, G., Karta, M. (eds) 2022: AtticPOT. Attic Painted Pottery in Ancient Thrace (6th-4th Century BC). New Approaches and Methodological Tools. Xanthi, Two K Project. Tugusheva 2003: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Russia 6, Moscow 6, Puskin State Museum of Fine Arts. Attic red-figured Vases. Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Tzanavari, K., Filis K. 2002: ‘Σύνολα κεραμικής από τα νεκροταφεία της αρχαίας Λητής’ Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίον 57: 155–212. Valavanis, P. 1991: Παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς από την Ερέτρια. Συμβολή στην αγγειογραφία του 4ου π. Χ. αι. Athens, Publications of the Archaeological Society at Athens. Vavritsas, A.K. 1966: ‘Ανασκαφαί Αβδήρων’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 59–66. Vavritsas, A.K. 1969: ‘Ανασκαφή Μεσημβρίας Θράκης’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 59–69. Vavritsas, A.K. 1970: ‘Ανασκαφή Μεσημβρίας Θράκης’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 66–75. Vavritsas, A.K. 1973: ‘Ανασκαφή Μεσημβρίας Θράκης’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 70–82. Vavritsas, A.K. 1977: ‘Ανασκαφή Μεσημβρίας’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 136–39. Vavritsas, A.K. 1979: ‘Ανασκαφή Μεσημβρίας’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 107–13. Vavritsas, A.K. 1980: ‘Ανασκαφή Μεσημβρίας’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 3–7. Vavritsas, A.K. 1981: ‘Ανασκαφή Μεσημβρίας’ Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 1–6. Velkov, V., Domaradzka, L.: ‘Kotys I (383/2–359 BC) and Emporion Pistiros in Thrace’ in Bouzek et al. 1996: 205–16.

69

Nikos Akamatis Vokotopoulou, Ι. 1990: Οι ταφικοί τύμβοι της Αίνειας. Athens, Publications of the Archaeologikon Deltion. Will, É, Mossé, Cl., Goukowsky, P. 1975: Le Monde Grec et l’Orient. Tome 2. Le 4e siècle et l’époque Hellénistique. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Yiouri, E. 1972: ‘Η κεραμεική της Χαλκιδικής στον 4ο αι. π.Χ.’ in Κέρνος. Τιμητική προσφορά στον καθηγητή Γεώργιο Μπακαλάκη. Thessaloniki, Tzivanakis Press: 6–14. Zaphiropoulou, Ph. 1970: ‘Vases paintes du Musée de Salonique’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 94: 361–435

70

Attic Vases in Thrace as Agents of Commercial and Cultural Values Despoina Tsiafaki1, Amalia Avramidou2 Abstract12 Attic pottery appears to be very popular in various sites located in the area that once comprised ancient Thrace. Related to commercial networks or/and to the Athenian presence in the region, it is a key-component of the remaining material culture; a fact that makes its study essential for the understanding of the life, society, and culture of ancient Thrace. This is a principal goal of the research project Attic Pottery in Thrace (APT), a collaboration of the Democritus University of Thrace and the ‘ATHENA’ Research Center. The preliminary results presented here are based on published painted Attic pottery of the sixth-fourth centuries BC from sites located in the area. Our up-to-date research allows the observation of certain preferences regarding shapes, usage, and quantities of pottery discovered at key sites in ancient Thrace and an outline of the types of Attic painted pottery imported into each region, from Thasos and its peraia to Samothrace and the coast, and from the Black Sea colonies to the Thracian inland. In addition to the quantitative approach and the contextual analysis of vases (where applicable), equally instructive is the study of vases attributed to well-known Attic vase-painters vis-à-vis their findspots and the perspective of iconography. All these parameters contribute to a better understanding of pottery circulation and the influences between local and imported wares, as they enhance our notion of the organisation and commercial networks in the region. At the same time, they help us comprehend the complex sociopolitical dynamics between various groups interacting within the different economies of coastal and inland sites, such as natives and newcomers, traders and ruling-class, warriors and farmers. Keywords ATTIC POTTERY, ANCIENT THRACE, ICONOGRAPHY, SHAPES, COMMERCIAL NETWORKS

Introduction Greek vases enjoy a special place in the study of ancient Greek art and craft due to their continuous production, their wide geographical dispersal, their impressive PhD, Director of Research, Head of the Culture & Creative Industries Dpt, Athena Research Center, [email protected] 2  Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology, Democritus University of Thrace, [email protected] 1 

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 71–77

variety of shapes and decoration, and wide range of usage (Sparkes 1996; Stissi 2002; Giudice, Barresi 2003: 280-86; Boardman 2006; Nørskov et al. 2009). Despite their plain and cheap material of production (simple clay), they consist a principal tool for chronology and a major source of information regarding the knowledge of ancient Greek culture and life along with its impact on non-Greek communities. Ancient Greek painted pottery was produced in various centres in continental Greece, the Aegean islands and the coast of Asia Minor, but also in South Italy and Sicily (Magna Graecia) (Tiverios 1996; Cook 1997; Boardman 2006; Coulié 2013). Even though the number of the production centres was large, the distribution of their pottery products was related to many factors and parameters such as the waves of colonisation, market demand and taste, their use and function and undoubtedly the commercial network they were included in. Corinth and Attica are amongst the most significant pottery production centres that enjoyed excessive dispersion of their vases; the former monopolised the international pottery trade during the seventh and part of the sixth century BC, while the latter dominated the market from the third quarter of the sixth century BC and for nearly 200 years afterwards, i.e., during the peak of black- and red-figure production. The Attic production and particular its presence in the region of ancient Thrace is one of the principal goals of the research project Attic Pottery in Thrace (APT) that began in 2015 with the initial collaboration of the Democritus University of Thrace and the ‘ATHENA’ Research Center, and the subsequent participation of archaeologists from Greece and beyond.3 The preliminary results presented here are based on published painted Attic pottery of the sixth-fourth centuries BC from various sites located in the area known as ancient Thrace, a framework that is expanding to additional pottery categories and the inclusion of A work-package of the APT entitled Athenian Presence in Thrace through the Diffusion of Attic Painted Pottery (6th – 4th c. BC) with the acronym AtticPOT, has recently received a three-year funding from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) and the General Secretariat of Research and Technology (GSRT), under grant agreement No 929, within the framework of the Action ‘1st Call for H.F.R.I. Research Projects for the support of Post-doctoral Researchers’. APT has already produced an e-textbook (Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015) and conference papers, e.g. Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2022; forthcoming; Tsiafaki, Avramidou 2021.

3 

Despoina Tsiafaki, Amalia Avramidou newly excavated or unpublished material (Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2022; forthcoming; Tsiafaki, Avramidou 2021).

audience- provide us with abundant information on the development of the Atheno-Thracian relations during the Archaic and Classical periods. (Tsiafaki 1998; Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015) • Investigating the reception of Attic vases in Thrace, allows us to discuss the local perceptions of this type of pottery, certain preferred shapes and usages, and highlight any potential prevailing iconographic themes. At the same time, we can juxtapose our finds to data from Athens itself and other import-centres in the Mediterranean, using the Attic pottery as a common denominator. More importantly, Attic vases offer a dependable chronological frame to work with and are thus essential when contextualising the material. • Lastly, Attic vases can be compared to select metal vessels that originate or are said to originate from ancient Thrace and thus explore further matters of production (e.g. manufacturing centres, mobility and adaptability of craftsmen), usage and iconography.

The chronological frameset of our project is defined between 600-300 BC, following a) the range of the material under examination, i.e. the painted pottery and primarily the black- and red-figure vases, and b) the historical circumstances: it is during these centuries that the contacts (commercial, political, private etc,) between Athens and Thrace develop strong and ultimately reach their peak (ATL I, II, III; Tsiafaki 1998: 19-29, 247-264; Sears 2013; idem 2015; Tsiafaki 2016). In terms of geography, we explore an area largely defined by the extent of the Odrysian Kingdom, which during its acme controlled a considerable territory, stretching roughly from the Strymon valley to the West, to the Evros river to the East, and from the Aegean coast in the South to the river Danube to the North (Archibald 1998; Delev 2014; Bouzek, Graninger 2015: 12-21). Compared to other areas in the Mediterranean where Attic pottery is found, the imports of Attic vases in Thrace have not been extensively studied until today. A notable exception is the 1990-monograph of Maria Reho’s (Reho 1990) and single publications on individual sites and regions. Their listing is beyond the limits of this paper, but they had to be examined in order to make observations and come –even preliminary yetconclusions. Since the publication of Reho that deals with the topic of our interest, a significant period of time has passed, while various and extensive excavations have brought to light many more new Attic vases. The examination of the individual site publications shows that they aim at the presentation, knowledge and understanding of the certain place and they are not usually focus on the Attic pottery itself and its relation to the entire region. More significantly, there is no unifying treatment of the material discovered overall in the colonies, the trading posts and inland communities with focus the understanding the interpretation of this distribution. It is precisely this gap that our project wishes to fulfill: Through the investigation of literary sources and archaeological data, we attempt to explore the relation of ancient Thrace with one of the largest Greek ceramic centres, Athens. The goal is to examine this relation from a new prespective, other than the Thracian presence in Athens and its art (Desbals 1997; Tsiafaki 1998; Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015; Bozkova 2015; eadem 2017)

Attic vases in ancient Thrace Having sketched out the parameters of our research, our ultimate goal is to explore the dispersal of Attic vases in ancient Thrace, study their usage in each community (e.g., domestic, funerary, sympotic, votive etc.) and explore their role as potential status indicators. We undertake a qualitative and quantitative examination of painted pottery discovered in a variety of sites, ranging from sanctuaries to burials and urban centres. Here it is presented a small yet representative sample of the early phases of our work and it is discussed the vases’ shapes, usage and iconography within the local societies, while touching upon bigger issues related to commercial routes and their overall diffusion (Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2022; forthcoming). Even though our analysis is at an early stage, it can still be created a preliminary outline of the types of Attic painted pottery imported into different regions. The up-to-date data indicate a great dispersion of Attic vases throughout the ancient Thrace during the examined period (6th-4th c. B.C.). Aegean Thrace and the Black Sea area appear to concentrate the majority of the exported Attic pottery in the region, with the inland to follow (AEMTh 1987-2012; Reho 1990; Bouzek 1990; Tiverios et al. 2012; Bozkova 2015: 235-236; BAPD; Manakidou, Avramidou 2019). Greek colonies and emporia seem to import vases produced by the Attic workshop at least from the second quarter of the sixth century BC onwards, starting as it is expected, with black-figure vessels. Their number increases gradually through time indicating a more systematic import

The reasons why we chose Attic pottery as a keyinstrument to the implementation of our project are manifold and can be summarised to the following points: • The literary sources –albeit fragmentary, produced by Greeks and catered towards a Greek 72

Attic Vases in Thrace as Agents of Commercial and Cultural Values

and interest with the red-figure vases, during the fifth century BC (Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 112-28).

Moving on to the settlements on the Black Sea (Bouzek 1990; Oppermann 2002: 109-24; Dupont, Baralis 2014: 387-428), we note two important facts: the longlasting presence of Attic pottery in Apollonia and the large number of lekythoi and bell-kraters from the necropoleis and tumuli of the coastal Greek colonies (Apollonia, Mesembria, Odessos [Varna]) and the inland-sites (Tundzha, Evros) during the second half of the fifth century and especially the fourth century BC (Venedikov et al. 1962-1963: 65-204; Reho 1990; Fless 2002; Lazarow 20032; Hermary et al. 2010: 179-228; Bozkova 2015: 235-236; Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 12328; Bozkova 2017). Of particular interest is the increased number of fourth-century bell-kraters from the ancient settlement at Burgas, an area that has been suggested that served as distribution centre (Giuzelev 2008: 187192). This is indicative of the importance kraters had not only as funerary gifts of the elite (a good example is the necropolis of Harmanite in Apollonia), but also as vessels used in everyday practices. Similar finds have come to light from sites near the Evros river and elsewhere, suggesting that the krater was possibly a significant component of Thracian dining traditions, both formal and every-day. Based on this observation, it wouldn’t be unrealistic to assume that by the fourth century BC the upcoming members of society wished to adopt aristocratic practices, such as communal drinking, but since metal vessels were expensive (especially large containers such as the krater), they turned to the impressive yet far more affordable Attic clay productions.

Starting with Aegean Thrace (Vlachopoulos, Tsiafaki 2017) the southern end of Thracian territory, it is observed a significant number of sites, mostly Greek colonies, which appear to be interested in the Attic vases. Looking at Thasos and its peraia (the coast across from the island) one is impressed by the quantity of black- and red-figure published cups, originating up to date mainly from sanctuaries (Maffre 1979: 11-74; idem 2009: 185-203; Tiverios et al. 2012; Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 113-19; Vlachopoulos, Tsiafaki 2017; BAPD). Those known examples may possibly be related to rites of passage for young men (ephebes). Also substantial is the quantity of the known black- and red-figure kraters. On the contrary, closed shapes, like the amphora, and small perfume containers, such as the alabastron, seem to be rare. Painted Attic pottery has also been discovered in fifth and fourth century BC burials around the Strymon river, the natural border of ancient Thrace towards the West, with the lekythos, both red-figure and whiteground, being the predominant shape. Worth of note is that from funerary monuments at the site located in Molyvoti and related to ancient Stryme, come several amphoras and pelikai (Triantafyllos 1992: 655-67; Triantafyllos, Terzopoulou 2012: 141-54). The current excavations at the site have brought to light Attic pottery black- and red-figure that dates from the sixth down to the fourth century BC (Arrington et al. 2016: 15-33; Tsiafaki 2021; Arrington, Padgett 2019) Further east of Aegean Thrace, on Samothrace, it appears that the situation changes (Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 119-23; BAPD). The most prevalent shape on the island seems to be the krater, both in the black- and the red-figure technique, followed by redfigure skyphoi. Their main find spot until today is the sanctuary of the Great Gods with the rest of the sites to follow (Moore 1975: 234–50; Dinsmoor 1992; Dusenbery 1998; Avramidou, Tasaklaki 2019). In the peraia of Samothrace, excavations have revealed amongst other finds, numerous burials equipped with Attic pottery (Tiverios et al. 2012; Vlachopoulos, Tsiafaki 2017; BAPD). Lekythoi and hydriai appear to be the more common finds in the region. Noteworthy is the presence of Attic black-figure cups, skyphoi and red-figure kraters from the sanctuaries of ancient Zone near Alexandroupolis (Pardalidou 2015: 596-647), a trend that corresponds with the ceramic finds from Samothrace. Keeping in mind that Zone was part of the Samothracian peraia, this observation is not of great surprise. Overall, compared to the Thasian peraia, the quantities of Attic pottery from sites across from Samothrace appear to be fewer. Before, however, someone proceeds with any conclusions or interpretations based on that, it should be kept in mind that this region is less excavated and published that the area of Thasos and its peraia.

Apart from specific preferences on certain shapes, the inhabitants of the region seem to acquire vases produced by particular vase painters or better workshops, a tendency that may be taken as a possible indication for the commercial networks and probably routes, along with their function. Instructive is the study of vases attributed to well-known Attic vase-painters vis-à-vis their find spots because it is possible to hypothesise on their itinerary from the first import centre, usually a Greek colony, until the Thracian inland sites. Thasos and its peraia and Apollonia with its periphery are two good examples of important commercial centres that seem to have fueled the local markets with Attic pottery. The up-to-date research indicates that a number of known vase painters can be recognised on the Attic vases found in the region of ancient Thrace. Worth of note is that in certain instances they are attributed to important and representative vase painters of the Athenian Kerameikos, already from the sixth century BC (Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 129-30; BAPD). Among the black-figure painters identified so far on the sites of Aegean Thrace one can single out the C Painter, the Heidelberg Painter, the Haimon Painter, and the Polos Painter, while there are also a few works by great blackfigure Athenian painters of the sixth century BC, such 73

Despoina Tsiafaki, Amalia Avramidou as Sophilos, Lydos and Exekias – the latter being a rare phenomenon for the Black Sea sites (e.g., Apollonia). Regarding late-sixth and fifth-century red-figure painters, it should be mentioned the Berlin, Kleophon and the Peleus Painters that were discovered for example at the site located in the peninsula of Molyvoti (possibly ancient Stryme). One should also note the presence of at least two vases dated in the fourthcentury BC, attributed to the circle of the Pronomos Painter from Samothrace and Tragilos, respectively. On the other hand, it appears that different red-figure painters reached the Greeks of Apollonia and then through its network were marketed to the locals. More specifically, from the fifth century BC vases by the Achilles, Eretria and the Phiale Painters stand out, while in the fourth century it appears that the Black Thyrsos Painter was so popular that someone might say that had the monopoly within Apollonia and the Tundhza area. Quite impressive also are the quantities of vases by the Fat Boy Group found in Mesembrian sites around the river Ardas and in Vratsa (Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 113-128).

note is that in contrast to the Attic imports in Etruria and Magna Graecia (Mugione 2000; Reusser 2002), erotic imagery and popular myths occur less often in the repertoire of Attic painted pottery discovered in ancient Thrace. Comparing the find spots of Attic painted pottery from Thrace to the ones of metal vases and based on current archaeological evidence, it appears that the majority of black- and red-figure ware comes from sanctuaries and burial sites of Greek colonies, while most of the metal vessels were found in large burials of the Odrysian kingdom. For example, the large tumuli at Duvanli were equipped with precious metal vessels but rarely with Attic vases, and, even then, not more than one or two at a time (Filow et al. 1934; Venedikov, Gerasimov 1973). Also, quite significant is the difference in numbers between Attic cups and other drinking vases from coastal Thracian sites to those unearthed in inland centres of modern-day Bulgaria (Reho 1990; Lazarow 20032; Bozkova 2017). This phenomenon can be explained at least to a certain extent, if we take into account the impressive number of metal rhyta, cups, mugs, and other drinking vessels that have been discovered in Thracian tombs (Marazov 1996; idem 2011; Sideris 2015). Lastly, one should point out that certain shapes from the Athenian ceramic corpus, e.g., the hydria, are rather rare in Thrace, perhaps because their metal version or other alternatives were preferred.

Turning to iconography, one should point out for example, the limited depictions of Thracians, Scythians, Amazons, Orpheus and other local figures, while equally rare are the cases where both the shape (e.g., mug) and the decoration (e.g., Thracian) of a vase indicate a special commission in tune with local preferences and needs. A characteristic example here is the Attic red figure mug from the Harmanite necropolis in the town of Apollonia Pontica (Lezzi-Hafter 1997: 353-69; Oakley 2009: 66-74)

Conclusions Taking into consideration all the above, we may draw some preliminary conclusions based on the material examined so far. A first thing noted is that the centres that imported Attic painted pottery appear to change overtime from the sixth through the fourth century BC, while the main routes of dispersal seem to be from the Aegean coast of Thrace inland or later-on, through the colonies of the Black Sea; even though this does not exclude the existence of other routes as well.

As for the first, the limited interest in themes related to Thrace (mythical figures, episodes or mortal female and male Thracians) appears as surprise due to their popularity in the overall Attic vase painting of the same period. Looking at the iconography of the Attic vases as an overall and beginning with black figure in the sixth century BC, Thracian topics are included in the preference of the vase painters and they are widespread in red-figure vase painting of the fifth century BC. Figures in Thracian garments, Orpheus, Boreas, Phineus, Lykourgos, Thamyras and Bendis are some indicative examples of this tendency that it is observed in the themes depicted on the produced Attic vases (Desbals 1997; Tsiafaki 1998; Tsiafakis 2000: 36489; Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 69-110).

Second, there seems to be a preference for certain shapes in every region and over set periods of time. This assumption is supported by the selective nature of imports and the targeted usages of Attic vases within the local communities, e.g., dedicatory cups of the sixth and fifth century BC in Thasian sanctuaries, or lekythoi and kraters of the fifth and mainly fourth century BC in the necropoleis of Apollonia. The further study and examination of them might lead to observations regarding the usage and the function of those shapes within each individual society providing information on their ideology and organisation.

The current data indicates that the most popular topics on Attic vases from coastal and inland Thrace include Dionysiac scenes and members of his thiasos, representations of warriors, and, particularly for the fourth century BC, themes inspired by the women’s world, e.g. household scenes, women and Eros etc. (Reho 1990: 37-46; Avramidou, Tsiafaki 2015: 114-30) Worth of

Thirdly, after the end of the Persian Wars (479 BC) it is observed an increase in the numbers of the Attic 74

Attic Vases in Thrace as Agents of Commercial and Cultural Values

exports towards the Black Sea colonies, while from the middle of the century and because of the fallout with the Etruscan clientele, the Athenians sought new markets in the North Aegean and the Black Sea (Arafat, Morgan 1994: 108-134; Avramidou 2011: 66-67). As a result, it is understandable that they would have approached trading centres in Thrace and Euxeinos Pontus, a trend pursued more vigorously at the end of the fifth and especially the fourth century BC with products that satisfied the needs of the local market. These commercial activities were further assisted by the stabilised political scene in the area after the foundation of the Odrysian kingdom in the fifth century BC (Zahrnt 2015: 35-45; Delev 2015: 48-51; Archibald 1998). Furthermore, this trade would be supported more significantly by the numerous interactions between Greeks, especially Athenians, and Thracians during the Classical period.

on the local communities, their traditions, and their preferences.

Lastly, one needs to point out that, in contrast to Etruria and Magna Graecia where the impact of Attic pottery was such that it led to the birth of local workshops imitating Athenian prototypes, this does not seem to be a typical case in Thrace. In several instances there is an archaeological indication or a suspicion of a local production, as it is for example the black-figure vases produced on Thasos (Coulié 1996: 825-34; Coulié 2002). The range and longevity of these workshops, however, cannot be compared to the South Italian ones (Denoyelle et al. 2005; Mayo 1982; Trendall 1966; idem 1974; idem 1989). We should also keep in mind that the painted Attic pottery imported into Thrace (coastal and inland) was usually of mass production and simple decoration, while vases of high-quality were rare compared to the ones discovered on the Italian peninsula.

AEMTh = Archaeologikon Ergon in Macedonia and Thrace. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings, 1–26, 1987–2012, Thessaloniki. Archibald, Z.H. 1998: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford, Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. ATL I, II, III = Meritt, B.D., Wade-Gary, H.T., McGregor, M.F. 1939–1950: The AthenianTribute Lists I–III. Cambridge Mass.-Princeton. Arafat, K., Morgan, C. 1994: ‘Athens, Etruria and the Heuneburg: Mutual Misconceptions in the Study of Greek-Barbarian Relations’ in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 108–34. Arrington, N.T., Terzopoulou, D., Tasaklaki, M., Lawall, Brellas, M.L.D.J., White, C.E. 2016: ‘ Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project: 2013 Preliminary Report’ Hesperia 85: 1–64. Arrington, N.T., Padgett, M.J. 2019: ‘House, City, Country: Classical Fine Wares from the Molyvoti Peninsula (‘Ancient Stryme’), Thrace’ in Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 521–32. Avramidou, A., 2011: The Codrus Painter Iconography and Reception of Athenian Vases in the Age of Pericles. Madison, WI- London, The University of Wisconsin Press. Avramidou, A., Tasaklaki, M. 2019: ‘Attic Vases from the Sea Area between Samothrace and Lemnos’ in Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: 101–14. Avramidou, A., Tsiafaki, D. 2015: ATTIC POTTERY. Its contribution to the relationship between Athens and Thrace. Athens, Hellenic Academic Books (e-textbook) Available at http://hdl.handle. net/11419/3616 (last visit 20/03/2017). Avramidou, A., Tsiafaki, D. forthcoming: ‘Preliminary Results of the Research Project Attic Pottery in Thrace’ in Ancient Thrace: Myth and Reality, 13th

Acknowledgements The present work was supported by the project ‘Computational Science and Technologies: Data, Content and Interaction’/’Technologies for Content Analysis in Culture’, MIS code 5002437, co-financed by Greece and European Union in the framework of the Operational Programme ‘Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation’ 2014-2020. The authors would like to thank the friends and colleagues who contributed and facilitated this work in various ways: N. Akamatis, A. Bozkova, M. Damyanov and the academician M. Tiverios. Bibliography

Concluding on the Attic pottery discovered in ancient Thrace, our current state of research allows us to sketch a preliminary profile of imported Attic painted pottery per region from ca. 600 to 300 BC. This examination sheds new light on the popularity of shapes, the preferred import and diffusion centres, but it also provides interesting information on the usage of different shapes and the iconographic preferences of local societies. During the sixth and fifth century BC, Attic painted pottery seems to have functioned as a status symbol that characterised the aristocracy and the special position of its owner in the community. However, its extended usage in the fourth century resulted in a mass dispersal of painted Attic vases of mediocre quality that appear to have been accessible and affordable to the majority of the population, from coastal sites to the Thracian hinterland. Further study of the material (including black-glaze Attic pottery, other workshops etc.) will illuminate to a greater extent the role of Attic vases in Thrace and provide new data

75

Despoina Tsiafaki, Amalia Avramidou International Congress of Thracology, 3rd- 7th September, 2017 Kazanlak, Bulgaria. Avramidou, A., Tsiafaki, D. 2002: ‘Attic Kraters and Pelikai from Ancient Thrace’ In D. Paleothodoros (ed.), Greek and Etruscan Vases: Shapes and Markets, Panel 5.15, Archaeology and Economy in the Ancient World 34, 57–75. Heidelberg: Propylaeum. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeum.903.c12003 BAPD = Classical Art Research Center and the Beazley Archive, University of Oxford http://www. beazley.ox.ac.uk/xdb/ASP/default.asp (last visit 20/03/2017). Boardman, J. 2006: The History of Greek Vases: Potters, Painters and Pictures. London, Thames & Hudson. Bouzek, J. 1990: Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area. Prague, Charles University. Bouzek, J., Graninger, D. 2015: ‘Geography’ in Valeva et al. (eds) 2015: 12–21. Bozkova, A. 2015: ‘The Pottery of Ancient Thrace’ in Valeva et al. (eds) 2015: 229–42. Bozkova, A. 2017: Fine pottery between the Haemus, the Rhodope and the Pontus Euxinus (7th-1st c. B.C.) (in Bulgarian). Sofia, Faber. Cook, R.M. 19973: Greek Painted Pottery. London-New York, Routledge. Coulié, A. 1996: ‘Το θασιακό εργαστήριο µελανόµορφων αγγείων. Γιατί θασιακό’ AEMTh: Archaeologikon Ergon in Macedonia and Thrace 10A: 825–34. Coulié, A. 2002. La céramique thasienne à figures noires, Études Thasiennes. Athens, Ecole Francaise d’Athenes. Coulié, A. 2013: La céramique grecque aux époques géométrique et orientalisante (11e–6e siècle av. J.–C.). Paris, Picard. Delev, P. 2014: A History of the Tribes of South-Western Thrace in the First Millennium B.C. Sofia, St. Kliment Ohridski University Publishing House. Delev, P. 2015: ‘Thrace from the assassination of Kotys I to Koroupedion (360–281 BCE)’ in Valeva, J. et al. (eds) 2015.: 48–74. Denoyelle, M., Lippolis, E., Mazzei, M., Pouzadoux, C. (eds) 2005: Le céramique Apulienne: bilan et perspectives. Colloque Naples, Centre Jean Bérard, 30 novembre-2 décembre 2000. Naples, Collection du Centre Jean Bérard, 21. Desbals, M.A. 1997. La Thrace et les Thraces dans l’imaginaire grec aux époques Archaique et classique. PhD Thesis, University of Paris X-Nanterre, Paris. Dinsmoor, A.N. 1992: ‘Red-figured pottery from Samothrace’ Hesperia 61: 601–15. Dupont P., Baralis, A. 2014: ‘Ateliers céramique et réseaux d’échanges dans le Sud-Ouest de la Mer noire à l’époque classique et au début de l’époque hellénistique’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 138: 387–428. Dusenbery, E.B. 1998: The Nekropoleis and Catalogues of Burials and Catalogues of Objects by Categories,

Samothrace 11. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Filow, B., D., Welkow, I. Mikow, V., 1934: Die Grabhügelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Südbulgarien. Sofia, Staatsdruckerei. Fless, F. 2002: Rotfigurige Keramik als Handelsware; Erwerb und Gebrauch Attischer Vasen im Mediterranean und Pontishen Raum wiihrend des 4.jhs.v.Chr. Leidorf, Rahden. Giudice, F., Barresi, S. 2003: ‘La distribuzione della ceramic attica nell’area mediterranea: Dai dati Beazley alle nuove aquisizioni’ in B. Schmaltz, M. Söldner (eds). Griechische Keramik in kulturellen Kontext: Akten des Internationalles Vasen Symposions in Kiel vom 24– 28/9/2001. Münster, Scriptorium: 280–86. Giuzelev, M., 2008: The West Pontic Coast between Emine Cape and Byzantion during the First Millennium BC. Burgas, Lotus. Hermary, A., Panayotova, K., Baralis, A., Damyanov, M., Riapov, A. 2010: Apollonia du Pont (Sozopol). La nécropole de Kalfata (Ve-IIIe s. av. J.-C.). Fouilles francobulgares (2002–2004). Paris, Centre Camille Jullian. Lazarow, M. 20032: Ancient Greek painted pottery from Bulgaria (in Bulgarian). Sofia, Slavena. Lezzi-Hafter, A. 1997: ‘Offerings Made to Measure: Two Special Commissions by the Eretria Painter for Apollonia Pontica’ in J.H. Oakley, W. Coulson, O. Palagia (eds), Athenian Potters and Painters. The Conference Proceedings. Oxford, Oxbow Books: 353–69. Maffre, J.J. 1979: ‘Céramique attique à décor mythologique trouvée à l’Artémision de Thasos’ Thasiaca, Athens-Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplement 5: 11–74. Maffre, J.J. 2009: ‘Trente ans de recherches sur la céramique attique trouvée à Thasos par l’École française d’Athènes depuis 1956’ AEMTh: Archaeologikon Ergon in Macedonia and Thrace 20 years: 185–203. Manakidou, E., Avramidou, A. (eds) 2019: Η κεραμική της κλασικής εποχής από το Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (480–323/300 π.Χ.). Thessaloniki, University Studio Press. Marazov, I. 1996: The Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, Secor Publishers. Marazov, I. 2011: Thrace and the Ancient World–Vassil Bojkov Collection. Sofia, Thrace Foundation. Mayo, M.E. 1982: The Art of South Italy: Vases from Magna Graecia. Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Moore, M.B. 1975: ‘Attic Black Figure from Samothrace’ Hesperia 44: 234–50. Mugione, E. 2000: Miti della ceramica attica in Occidente: Problemi di trasmissione iconografi che nelle produzioni italiote. Taranto, Scorpione. Nørskov, V., Hannestad, L., Isler-Kerényi, C., Lewis, S. (eds), 2009: The World of Greek Vases. Rome, Edizioni Quasar. 76

Attic Vases in Thrace as Agents of Commercial and Cultural Values

Oakley, J.H. 2009: ‘Attic Red-Figure Beakers: Special Vases for the Thracian Market’ Antike Kunst 52: 66–74. Oppermann, M. 2002: ‘Zu charakter und dislokation der bemalten Griechischen importkeramik am Westpontos in archaischer und Klassischer Zeit’ in M. Faudot, A. Fraysse, E. Geny (eds), Pont Euxin et commerce: la genèse de la «route de la soie». Actes du IXe Symposium de Vani. Colchide, 1999. Besançon, Presses Universitaires Franc Comtoises: 109–24. Pardalidou, Ch. 2015: ‘Κεραμική’ in P. TsatsopoulouKaloudi (ed.), Αρχαία Ζώνη Ι. Το Ιερό του Απόλλωνα. Komotini, Ministry of Culture, Eforeia Archaiotiton Evrou: 596–647. Reho, M. 1990: La ceramica attica a figure nere e rosse nella Tracia bulgara. Rome, Bretschneider. Reusser, C. 2002: Vasen für Etrurien: Verbreitung und Funktionen attischer Keramik im Etrurien des 6. und 5. Jhrs. v. Chr. Kilchberg, Akanthus. Sears, M.A. 2013: Athens, Thrace, and the shaping of Athenian leadership. New York, Cambridge University Press. Sears, M.A. 2015: ‘Athens’ in Valeva, J. et al. (eds) 2015: 308–19. Sideris, Α. 2015: Theseus in Thrace. The Silver Lining on the Clouds of Athenian Thracian Relations in the 5th Century BC. Sofia, Thrace Foundation. Sparkes, B.A. 1996: The Red and the Black. Studies in Greek Pottery. London – New York, Routledge. Stissi, V.V. 2002: Pottery to the People. The Production, Distribution and Consumption of Decorated Pottery in the Greek World in the Archaic Period (650–480 BC). PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Triantafyllos, D., Terzopoulou, D. 2012: ‘Ανασκαφή Στρύμης(;)’ in P. Adam-Veleni, K. Tzanavari (eds), δινήεσσα. Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum: 141–54. Τiverios, M. 1996: Ελληνική Τέχνη. Αρχαία Αγγεία. Athens, Ekdotike Athenon. Tiverios, M. Misailidou-Despotidou, V., Manakidou, E., Arvanitaki, A., (eds) 2012: Η κεραμική της αρχαϊκής εποχής στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (700–480 π.Χ.), Αρχαιολογική Συνάντηση, Θεσσαλονίκη 19–22 Μαΐου 2011. Thessaloniki, Δημοσιεύματα Αρχαιολογικού Ινστιτούτου Μακεδονικών και Θρακικών Σπουδών, 11.

Trendall, A.D. 1966: South Italian Vase-painting. London, British Museum. Trendall, A.D. 1974: Early South Italian Vase Painting. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern. Trendall, A.D. 1989: Red-figure Vases of Southern Italy and Sicily. London, Thames & Hudson. Triantafyllos, D. 1992: ‘Ανασκαφή τύμβων στα νεκροταφεία της αρχαίας Στρύμης’ AEMTh: Archaeologikon Ergon in Macedonia and Thrace 6: 655–67. Tsiafaki, D. 1998: Η Θράκη στην αττική εικονογραφία. Komotini, Morfotikos Omilos Komotinis. Tsiafaki, D. 2000: ‘The Allure and Repulsion of Thracians in the Art of Classical Athens’ in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art. Leiden, Brill: 364–89. Tsiafaki, D. 2016: ‘Ancient Thrace and Thracians through the Athenian eyes’ Thracia 21: 261–82. Tsiafaki, D. 2021: ‘Όψεις της αρχαίας Στρύμης (;) μέσα από την αρχαϊκή κεραμική’ in J. Perreault, Z. Bonians (eds), ΆΡΓΙΛΟΣ, 25 ΧΡΌΝΙΑ ΈΡΕΥΝΑΣ. Οργάνωση πόλης και χώρας στις αποικίες του βορείου Αιγαίου, 8ος – 3ος αι. π.Χ. Πρακτικά του συνεδρίου της Θεσσαλονίκης,, 25 –27 Μαϊου 2017. Athens, Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece: 591–608. Tsiafaki, D., Avramidou, A. 2021: ‘Consumers of Attic pottery in the Western Black Sea region’ in M., Manoledakis (ed.), Peoples in the Black Sea, from the Archaic to the Roman period. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 20th – 23rd September 2018. Oxford, Archaeopress: 105–11. Valeva, J., Nankov, E., Graninger, D. (eds) 2015: A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Oxford, Wiley Blackwell. Venedikov, I., Gerasimov, T., Dremsizova, C., Ivanov, T., Mlandenova, Y., Velkov, V. 1962–1963: Apollonia: Les Fouilles dans la Necropole d’Apolonia en 1947–1949:. La Ceramique antique de la Necropole d’Apollonia. Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Venedikov, I., Gerasimov, T.D. 1973: Thrakische Kunst. Vienna-Munich, Schroll. Vlachopoloulos, A., Tsiafaki, D. (eds) 2017: Αρχαιολογία. Μακεδονία Θράκη. Athens, Melissa. Zahrnt, M. 2015: ‘Early History of Thrace to the murder of Kotys I (360 BCE)’ in Valeva et al. (eds) 2015: 35–47

77

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace: The Evidence from the Ganos (Işıklar Dağı/Tekirdağ) Survey Reyhan Şahi ̇n1 Abstract1 The subject of this study is the Attic and Atticising vessels that were collected during the Ganos Mountain (Işıklar Dağı/ Tekirdağ) Survey. The finds consist of bowls and drinking cups as well as plates and a few specimens of closed vessels. It is clear that the the form repertoire in Ganos consists primarily of Attic glazed pottery, especially during the 6th to late 4th centuries BC. Among the 34 investigated sherds only six fragments show the charactersitics of Attic Imports. In the light of available data one can say that Attic and Atticising pottery came to an end by the late 4th century. After this date matte black and brown slip as well as matte red slipped specimens typical of the west coast of Asia Minor appear. Here I consider the forms, origin and chronological distribution of the Attic and Atticising pottery from Ganos, and evaluate it comparatively with material from centres in Eastern Thrace and its periphery. Keywords GANOS, ATTIC POTTERY, BLACK GLAZED, GREEK POTTERY, LOCAL POTTERY

Ganos Mountain Survey: short research history (Figures 1, 2, 4) The Ganos Mountains (Işıklar Dağı) are located in Şarköy Town of Tekirdağ Province on the north shore of Propontis (Marmara Sea) (Figure 1). Ganos is mentioned by Xenophon as one of the places which was repeatedly promised to him by Seuthes (Xenophon, Anabasis 7/5.8). The city Ganos was cited by ancient authors throughout Antiquity (Isaac 1986: 214). Whether the city was settled during Antiquity by Greeks or Thracians remain unclear (Isaac 1986: 211-212). Today Gaziköy village in Tekirdağ Province is also associated with ancient Ganos. The material which is the subject of this study was collected during surveys of the Ganos Mountains between 2008 and 2013. Surveys began in 2008 under the direction of Prof. Dr. Zeynep Koçel Erdem from Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University in İstanbul. The main aim of the surveys was to identify the necropoleis and cult areas during the Greek and Roman Periods (Koçel Erdem 2009: 411).

The greatest amount of pottery studied here was collected from Dolucatepe (Figures 2, 4). This hill, which was examined during the survey in 2009, dominates the Şarköy Region (Koçel Erdem 2010: 310). An inscription from here indicates that there was a sanctuary dedicated to Apollo Torontenos in the area (Koçel Erdem 2010: 310-311; Sayar 1998 passim). Visible on the south and west sides of the hill are the remains of the Beyoğlu Fortress (Koçel Erdem 2010: 309). The available finds originate from the small scale settlement in the vicinity of this fortress (Koçel-Erdem 2012: 73). The pottery dating from the Late Bronze Age throughout the Greek and Roman era gives important clues about the settlement history of this area.2 The investigated black glazed finds originate from five different spots in the region. Late Classical to late Hellenistic pottery finds consist primarily of glazed and matte glazed bowls and drinking cups (Koçel Erdem 2010: 311; see also Koçel Erdem, Tercan 2014: 87). The 4th century BC black glazed pottery is remarkable in quantity (Koçel Erdem 2010: 310). Kartaltepe (Hieron Oros), a fortified castle on the highest point of Ganos Mountain (ca. 900 m), had a broad angle of view to the coastal area where Bisanthe is located (Koçel Erdem 2012: 73). According to ancient sources a Hieron Oros (sanctuary) presumably located here was dedicated to the Goddes Ganea (Koçel Erdem 2010: 307 ff.). Pottery sherds, terracotta figurines, and various metal objects from this area indicate a date range from the Archaic to Roman periods (Koçel Erdem 2010, 310; Theodosiev 1995 passim). Gaziköy (Ganos Acropolis) established on a high hill on the Propontis between Uçmakdere and Hoşköy (Hora) is a mound type settlement. The settlement, which had possibly been used as an Acropolis in antiquity, is close to the modern settlement Gaziköy (Koçel Erdem 2009: 413). The remarkable quantity of the pottery finds and architectural remains used as spolia in the modern houses range from Hellenistic to Byzantine (Koçel Erdem 2010: 307). Mermerhöyük, located in Yeniköy, founded on a hill on Çanakçı, is today the slope of a vineyard. On the hill remains of two tumulus graves can be seen. Scattered small finds range from the Classical to Byzantine periods, with coins and pottery from the For the general spectrum of the pottery throughout the different periods see also the article of H. A. Bülbül in this volume. Also for the coarse wares obtained from the Ganos Survey see the article of S. Bilgin Kopçuk in this volume.

2 

Assoc. Prof., Bursa Uludağ University, Department of Archaeology, email: [email protected].

1 

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 78–92

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace

Figure 1. Ganos Map: findspots: Koçel Erdem 2009, 306, fig. 1.

Figure 2. Dolucatepe/Kocatepe (Şarköy): Koçel Erdem 2010, 310, fig. 7.

Roman Period being the most dominant (Koçel Erdem 2009, 416; Koçel Erdem 2010, 318).

is identifiable by the forms of vessels, even though some were only partially rather than fully glazed. In this category are vessels with matte slip on the interior and on the upper half of the exterior, achieved by double dipping. In addition, local forms and fabrics can also be observed (Rotroff, Oliver 2003: 24).

Vessel forms and chronological distribution (Figures 3-6, 8-13) Along with Attic figured pottery, Classical Athenian black glazed pottery carried an important meaning due to its elaborate repertoire of forms and the special quality of its fabric and glaze. It was a special indication of the reach of Athenian products – or at least their impact (Slawish 2013: 185). Although there were many pottery producers during the Hellenistic era, the impact of Attic pottery can be seen via Atticising pottery which

Both Attic and Atticising pottery in a wide variety of forms are documented among the finds from the Ganos Mountain Survey. These include vessels primarily for drinking and dining. Cup/ stemless cup/ skyphos: No.1 is a foot fragment, with a concave outer face. It can be compared with the cup 79

Reyhan Şahi ̇n

Figure 3. Graph: Chronological distribution of the Black Glazed vessel forms.

Figure 4. Graph: Quantitative distribution of the Black Glazed vessel forms according to find place.

called a vicus cup (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 93). In the Athenian Agora this type of cup originates in contexts dated 480-460 BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 5, No. 440). No. 2 is a profiled foot typical of the stemless cup or skyphos. Its characteristic two-stage profile rounded on the outside can be differentiated from the small variants of this form, and is comparable to the larger variant from the last quarter of the 5th century BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 5, no. 499; fig. 20, No. 615).

rounded foot profile, is comparable to later examples from the last quarter of the fourth to the first quarter of the second century BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 4, No.352; Rotroff 1997: Fig. 12, No. 154).

Skyphoi: No. 3 is a fragment of an almost upright, plain rim with a horizontal handle. It can be compared to examples from the last quarter of the fourth through the first quarter of the second centuries BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 12, Nos. 154, 157). Foot fragments Nos. 4-6 can be dated to the late sixth-fifth centuries BC due to their short and simple profile with a light edge on the outside (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 4, No.305, 318 or 322, 335 and 349). No. 7, the lower wall of a skyphos with

Kantharos: The first group of fragments are characteristic of late Classical kantharoi mainly from the fourth but also into the third century BC. No. 9, a spur handled kantharos with plain rim and spherical underpart, can be compared with examples from the Athenian Agora of the second quarter of the fourth century BC ( Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 7, No. 707). Two rim fragments, Nos. 10-11, both with a plain profile, and No. 12, a wall fragment with a sharp angle between the upper part

Bolsal ?: No. 8 is a foot fragment with an outturned, simple profile. It is close to a bolsal from the second quarter of the fourth century BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 6. No. 558).

80

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace

Kylix/ Kantharos Cup- Kylix %30

Ephesos Priene Miletos

%19 %18

5 kylikes

Skyphos 12%. 13% 1 piece

Other drinking cups 6% 2%

Bolsal %20 6 pieces

Bowls

Plates

Jugs

%30 %32 7 pieces

%2 %13

%11

Askos 2%

3 pieces

Figure 5. Graph: Black Glazed forms from Asia Minor. Late 6th-5th c. BC 5th c. BC No. 4, 5

Dolucatepe

No. 1, 6

4th c. BC

3rd c. BC

No. 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 3, 12, 22

No. 16, 19

No. 28

No. 29

No. 10, 13

No. 17, 18

No. 7, 33

No. 26

2nd c. BC

Late 2nd-1st c. BC No. 20, 27

No. 34

Mermerhöyük No. 2

Kartaltepe Gaziköy (Ganos Akropolis) Beyoğlu Kale Öncesi Yerleşimi

No. 21

No. 30 No. 24

No. 31

No. 25, 32, 23

Figure 6. Graph: Chronological distribution of the finds from Ganos according to findspots.

Fabric colour Reddish YellowReddish Brown

Late 6th – late 4th century BC: Athenian 3, 7, 9, 13, 17, 21

Late 6th – late 4th century BC: Close Imitations of Athenian 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 23, 28, 33, 34

3rd century and later: Matt firnis Matt red slip: 16, 20 Matt Brown slip: 22, 29

Grey

No slip available: 14, 15, 19 Metallic black: 25 Semi matt black: 24 Matt black: 27, 31

Pale Yellow

30, 32

Figure 7. Graph: Quantitative distribution of the different fabrics of the Black Glazed pottery from Ganos.

and spherical underpart, can all be only generally dated to the fourth-third centuries BC (Rotroff 1997: Figs, 1, Nos. 1-21). No. 13, a wall fragment with a conical transition between the wall and foot, lacks datable diagnostic characteristics. It can be generally classified between 350-250 BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: No. 704, 717; Rotroff 1997: Fig. 8-9; Nos. 72-85).

with angular walls dating from the second half of the third century BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 15, No. 202). No. 17, a foot fragment with a high, plain profile, can be classified as a Hellenistic kantharos with globular body, dating from 225-175 BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig 19, No. 293). Bowls: Vessels fall into two main categories. First is the bowl with inturned rim, also known as the echinus bowl. Nos.18 and 19, two rim fragments, belong to this category. Both have shallow, sharply curved walls characteristic of the late fourth-third centuries BC (for No.18 cf. Rotroff 1997: Fig. 62; no.965; Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 8, No. 783, 826; for No.19 cf. Rotroff 1997, Fig. 63; nos.1021; Tekkök-Biçken 1996, Fig. 44, B36). No .20, a deeper variant, can be compared with examples from the late second century to the first quarter of the first century BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 63; Nos.1017).

The second group of kantharoi are characteristic of Hellenistic kantharoi from the third century and later. No.14 can be compared with Hellenistic baggy kantharoi from the second half of the third century BC due to its sharp foot profile and broad floor (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 16, pl. 22 Nos. 235, 242). No. 15 has a stamped ornament reminiscent of kantharoi from the Athenian Agora with a turned foot profile, typical of a variant that occurs during the fourth century and especially around the middle of that century and later. (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 122 ;see ibid. No. 7; cf. also Rotroff 1997: Nos. 261, 264). No. 16, with a light outturned rim and upright handle, is comparable to Hellenistic kantharoi

Nos. 21-29 form the second category, which are bowls with an outturned rim. The earliest is No. 21 with a small rounded thickened rim and lightly curved wall; this can 81

Reyhan Şahi ̇n

Figure 8. Kylix, Skyphoi and Kantharoi (Drawings: by author).

82

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace

be compared with examples from the Athenian Agora dating from 430-420 BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 8, No. 779-785). Rim fragment No. 22 can be compared with the bowls with light S-shaped profile from the last quarter of the fourth century BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 8, Nos. 754, 783, 785). No. 28, a foot fragment with a broad base, has parallels from the 3rd quarter of the 4th century BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 9, No. 887). No. 26, a foot with a high and light outcurved profile can be dated to the first quarter of the 3rd century BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 65; Nos.1085; Fig. 62; No.970: Fig. 59; Nos.874). Although Nos. 23-25 are similar to examples from the Athenian Agora (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 8, Nos. 802); exact parallels come from Parion from the late third century to the first quarter of the second century BC (for No.23 cf. Fırat 2018, pl. 7, no. 62 and 63; see also Gassner 1997; Taf.6, 94; for No. 24 cf. Fırat 2018: Drawing 9, No. 65, 66; For No. 25 cf. Fırat 2018: 107, nos, 59-65). This suggests that these specimens are local variants of outturned rim bowls specific to northwestern Anatolia. Finally, the latest example, No. 27, with a comparatively fine profile, can be compared with examples from the Athenian Agora dating from 150-70 BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 61, No. 956; cf. also plate with rolled rim from 150110 BC Rotroff 1997: Fig. 49, No. 685, 686).

with outturned rim and an echinus bowl, both from the second century BC, present the closest parallels to this piece (Rotroff 1997: No. 950; No. 1036). Jug and unguentarium: Few closed vessels are documented among the finds. No. 33, due to its discus shaped resting surface, small diameter, and fabric characteristics can be compared with the jugs from the Athenian Agora which date to the last quarter of the fourth century BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: Fig. 14, No. 1629). Another foot fragment, No. 34, with a shallow and almost discusformed foot, has quite a small diameter, and can be classified as an unguentarium. The Ganos example seems to have had a bulbous body shape similar to examples dating to the fourth century BC (Rotroff 1997: fig. 72, nos. 1163, 1169). Evaluating the available data from Ganos The form repertoire of the vessels consist of 17 drinking cups, 12 bowls, 3 plates, 1 saucer, 1 jug and 1 unguentarium (Figure 3). Attic and Atticising glazed pottery from the Ganos Survey does not include forms for storing and pouring wine and water. The earliest black glazed specimens, Nos. 4 and 5, are skyphoi from the late sixth-early fifth centuries BC. The earliest specimens of Attic glazed pottery from the nearby settlements, Heraion Teichos and Menekşe Çatağı, are kylikes, also of approximately this date (Bektaş 2011: Graph 14; Th. 1-2, Graph 34, Th. 4-6). In all of these locales, the majority of the vessels were drinking cups, followed by bowls. In Heraion Teichos the drinking cups are mainly from the fifth century BC, whereas bowls are mostly from the fourth century BC (Bektaş 2011: 10).

Plate and saucer: Two different forms of plate are represented among the finds: No. 30, a plate with turned rim, and No. 31, a plate with rolled rim. No. 30 can be compared with examples from Ephesus dating from the second half of the second to the first century BC (Mitsopolulos Leon 1991: 23). This type can also be classified as a local variant of an Attic type plate with turned rim, which probably originated from Ionia. No. 31 has a light curved, plain profile with shallow grooves on the outside, reminiscent of the foot profile of the plate with rolled rim. Due to its small diameter, the Ganos fragment can be differentiated form earlier examples dating from the fourth and third centuries BC. The closest parallel from the Athenian Agora dates to 110-86 BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 50, no. 694). A rim fragment with a broad projecting, light downturned rim, No. 29, can be classisifed as a ‘saucer’ according to comparable specimens from the Athenian Agora. These date to 260250 BC (Rotroff 1997: Fig. 52, No. 735, 737). Rotroff states that due to its simplicity the form was very popular in the Hellenistic world. The latter type of this form has a clearly downturned rim (Rotroff 1997:150).

As stated above, a significant number of finds from Ganos were obtained from so-called sacral spaces at Dolucatepe and Kartaltepe (Figure 4). The finds from sacral contexts elsewhere in Thrace are unfortunately very sparse. A. Bozkova evaluated the black glazed pottery from pit complexes from upper Bulgaria, some of which were used as sacrifical vessels (Bozkova 2010: 20). These finds consisted of bowls and drinking cups. As with the Ganos Survey material, black glazed pottery for storing and pouring wine and water was also missing from the pit contexts from Bulgaria (Bozkova 1989: 8). Additionally, available black glazed specimens from pits were all broken into small sherds. In the light of this evidence A. Bozkova concluded that black glazed pottery from inner Thrace was not for daily use but presumably only for cult activities (Bozkova 1989: 8). J. Burow, who investigated Hellenistic pottery from a sacrificial pit in Durankulak (Southern Dobrudja/ Bulgaria), found the same pattern and interpreted it along the same lines (Burow 2016: 106-115).

A controversial piece, No. 32, a foot fragment, has a deep grooved resting surface. This type occurs in different forms such as plate with upturned rim, one handler, bowl with outturned rim and echinus bowl (cf. Rotroff 1997: No. 858; No. 986). Since very tiny patches of colour show that it had a matte brown slip on the surface, we tend to compare this piece with examples from the second quarter of the second century and later. A bowl 83

Reyhan Şahi ̇n

Figure 9. Kantharoi and Bowls (Drawings by author).

84

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace

Yet there is a significant difference between Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace in terms of the variety of the forms and contexts from which the black glazed pottery is obtained (Figure 5). Y. Tuna-Nörling noted that Attic black glazed drinking cups from Asia Minor already between 550-470 BC came from diverse contexts such as domestic, sacral and sepulcral (Tuna-Nörling 1995, 133f.). In Ephesos, from which comes the most throughly investigated black glaze material dating from the mid-sixth century to the end of the fourth century BC, drinking vessels are documented in various contexts such as necropoleis and residential contexts (Trinkl 2006: 194). Similar results were also found at Priene (Şahin 2006: passim). Therefore in contrast to Eastern Thrace, by the Classical Period there was a variety of vessel forms both in Ephesos and Priene as well as other Ionian cities (Pfrommer 1985: passim; Şahin 2006: passim; Trinkl 2006 passim).

Chersonessos) showed the characteristics of Athenian products whereas in the inner regions local wares were preferred. According to Koçel Erdem this situtation can be seen in the inner parts of Gallipoli Peninsula (Koçel Erdem, Bülbül 2020, 580). The political situation, namely the rise of the Odryssian Kingdom over Thrace in the 480s BC, may have had a significant affect on the pottery repertoire of the region. The kingdom, founded in the middle reaches of the Hebros (Meriç), Tondzos (Tunca), and Harpessos (Arda) rivers, dominated almost the whole of Thrace by the middle of the fourth century BC, shortly before the era of Macedonian sovereignity (Karaca 2019: 53 ff.). Whereas the coastal cities such as Selymbria, Ainos, Elaious were members of the Atticdominated Delian League, the Odrys dynasty dominated the interior areas (Karaca 2019: 60). According to Xenophon the coastline of Hieron Oros (Kartaltepe) was controlled by Prince Seuthes of the Odryssian Dynasty before King Kotys I (382/83-359 BC) (Koçel Erdem 2010: 305, Koromila 2002: 65; Xenophon, Anabasis 7/ 5.8). Unfortunately we lack detailed information about Attic glazed pottery from these cities. The coastal city of Ainos on the mouth of the Hebros was, due to its location, most probably an important port for inner Thrace and likely served as a gateway for imported Attic pottery throughout the Archaic and Classical Periods (Şahin 2016: passim; Şahin 2017: passim; Şahin 2021: passim). The scarcity of Attic imports from the Ganos survey can be associated with the locations of the find spots where the research was conducted, since except Gaziköy the surveyed settlements were mostly located in inland areas.

The satrapal centres of Sardis and Daskyleion can also be evaluated in terms of vessel form variety. In both cities almost half of the finds, or a bit more, consist of drinking cups (Schaeffer, Ramage, Greenewalt 1997: 74120, Kat. Nos. Att. 137-586; Coşkun 2004, pl. 13-20). As in the Ionian cities, a broad variety of forms, especially in Daskyleion, draws attention. A less frequently encountered form, the lekanis, constitutes 7% of the finds from Daskyleion. Additionally there are some less common forms such as the krater, askos, fish plate, and squat lekythos, all represented with one or two fragments each (Coşkun 2004: pl. . 13-20). Chronological distribution: (Figure 3)

As stated above, the examples from Ganos dating from the third century and later show aspects characteristic of a hybrid taste, essentially a combination of Attic and West Anatolian forms. During the Hellenistic Period there was an orientation toward Anatolian workshops across Thrace, which might also be a result of the new political balance between Macedonian rule and the emerging Hellenistic kingdoms in Asia Minor. Similarly the settlements next to Thrace, on the west and north coast of Black Sea experienced a remarkable decrease in the quantity of Athenian and Atticising pottery from the second quarter of the third century BC (Zhuravlev 2014: 130). The Chremonidian War (267-261 BC), by which time the Athenians had been expelled from the region, surely contributing greatly to the emergence of this orientation (Egorova 2016: passim). After the war, people living in the aforementioned settlements started to import tablewares from centres in Asia Minor; even Pergamenian black glazed pottery was in high demand. Furthermore, in Geto Dacian Sites by the late Hellenistic Period imports from Asia Minor, especially from Pergamon and Ephesos, were extensively preferred (Popescu 2013: 91, Chart 3). The correlation between sociopolitical identity and trade connections

The earliest examples from Ganos dated to the late sixth century. This era is represented with only two examples, whereas from the fourth century there are 14 pieces, which constitute almost half of all the finds. The third century is represented by six pieces. Four fragments show the characteristics of the second century BC. Latest are four specimens that are matte glazed and probably date to the late second to early first century BC. Similar results can be seen at Heraion Teichos, Menekşe Çatağı and Baklaburnu in the Gallipoli Peninsula (Bektaş 2011; Graph14; Bektaş 2011: Graph 34; Turan 2006: 136), where the earliest black glazed examples are from the late sixth century BC. There too, Attic and Atticising glazed pottery is most frequently seen in the fourth century BC, and the effects of Atticising pottery continued almost until the end of the Hellenistic period (Turan 2006: 136; Bektaş 2021: 202, Graph. 3.18). There were surely some factors that defined the geographical distribution and chronological continuity of Attic Pottery. Z. Koçel Erdem noted that finds from the coastal area of the Gallipoli Peninsula (Thracian 85

Reyhan Şahi ̇n

Figure 10. Bowls, Plates, Jug and Unguentarium (Drawings by author).

86

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace

Figure 11. Kylix, Skyphoi and Kantharoi (Photos by author).

– and accordingly pottery repertoire – can also be seen at Sardis, an Achaemenid satrapal capital in Lydia. A. Berlin, in the light of selected contexts from Sardis, states that between the sixth and fourth centuries BC the city‘s ceramic repertoire was dominated by Lydian ceramics. Imported pottery and especially Attic specimens are scarcely represented. About 350 BC, just before Alexander‘s conquest of the city, the repertoire consisted of local Lydian, Achamenid, and Greek types of pottery (Berlin 2016: passim).

Attic black glazed imports and local manufactures of Atticising pottery in Ganos and its periphery (Figure 7) Among the 34 investigated pieces only six fragments, approximately 17% of all the finds (Nos. 3, 7, 9, 13, 17, 21), show the fabric characteristics of the Athenian workshops. Apart from these imports, macroscopic observations allow four distinct fabric categories to be differentiated among Ganos finds. The first category is

87

Reyhan Şahi ̇n

Figure 12. Kantharoi and Bowls (Photos by author).

very close to Attic examples, with shiny glaze and reddish yellow or reddish brown clay (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6,8, 10,11, 12,18, 23, 28, 33, 34). Specimens from this category date mainly from the late sixth to the late fourth centuries BC. The vessels in the second category are similar in clay colour to those in the first category, but differ in that they carry

a matte brown and/or red slip (Nos. 16, 20, 22, 29). In the third category are vessels with grey clay and semi-matte dark grey-black slip; specimens of this group date to the 3rd century and later. In the fourth category are two vessels (nos. 30, 32) with a pale yellow fabric and matte red slip, both dating to the 3rd century and later.

88

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace

Figure 13. Bowls, Plates, Jug and Unguentarium (Photos by author).

89

Reyhan Şahi ̇n This chronological classification of fabric diversity indicates that local production had already begun in the fifth century BC and came to dominate the market in the Ganos region in the course of the fourth century BC. İ. Hasdağlı, who dealt with the local pottery production in Thrace in the light of the black glazed pottery from different spots in the Eastern Thrace, also concluded that local black glazed pottery was already being produced in the fifth century BC. Elsewhere in Thrace as well as on the islands of Thasos and Samothrace, and at Apollonia on the Black Sea coast of Thrace, Attictype black glazed pottery was produced by local potters from the late fifth century BC (Hasdağlı 2017: passim). Overall in Thrace, local glazed pottery start to dominate the repertoire especially by the third century BC. Also in neighbouring Macedonia local ceramics with a partly Atticising repertoire dominated the market by the second quarter of the third century BC (Kotitsa 2016: 276).

were almost solely of Athenian origin (Trinkl 2006: 246250; see also the diagram in Trinkl 2006: 213, fig. 199) So in most cases the frequently imported vessel forms were also the forms that were imitated. However, there are exceptions to this generalisation. In some cases imported and local specimens were designated for different purposes. In Bulgarian Thrace for instance, the Attic black glazed form repertoire consist of drinking cups and bowls. Kylikes especially constituted a significant percentage of the imported specimens (Bozkova 2010: 20). Larger vessels for serving wine such as kraters, stamnoi, etc. are documented in Athenian figured pottery (Bozkova 2016: 478, 479, fig. 7). In contrast local pottery specimens were extensively designated for food serving purposes. Again in Durankulak bowls and kantharoi were largely Athenian in origin (Burow 2016: 111) whereas jugs with a variety of fabrics were probably local (Burow 2016: 106). Conclusions

As is the case with Ganos finds, local fabrics were undoubtedly not uniform in all these places. Apart from close imitations of Athenian fabric, grey ware was apparently relatively common in Thrace during the Hellenistic Period (Bektaş 2011: 168; fig. 42, Th85). At Heraion Teichos 15% to 20% and in Maltepehöyük 14% of all the Hellenistic finds have grey fabric (Turan 2006: 136; Bektaş 2011: Pl. 2, Th 6; pl. 16, Th.33; pl. 17 Th. 36; pl. 24, Th. 49; Bektaş 2021: 81, graph, 3.3). Menekşe Çatağı is another site where Atticising pottery in grey ware was obtained in remarkable quantity (Turan 2006: 136). Apart from these sites in Thrace, in centres in Asia Minor such as Ilion and Sardis as well as in Parion the quantity of grey ware from the third and second centuries is also remarkable (Berlin 1999: 86; Rotroff, Oliver 2003: 24; Fırat 2018: passim)

Black glazed pottery first appeared in the Ganos Region by the late sixth century BC, but until the late fifth century only small quantities are documented. The majority of finds are from the fourth century BC. It should be noted that presumptions of the origin of the pottery are solely based on macroscopic observations. Only a few fragments show the fabric chracteristics of Athenian productions. The time span of Attic imports and their close parallels in Ganos is from the late sixth to the late fourth centuries BC. In the third century BC vessels with local fabrics and also with an influence on form repertoire from Asia Minor dominate the finds. Among the local imitations grey fabric appears in significant quantity. A similar pattern can be gained from the vicinity of Ganos Mountain such as Menekşe Çatağı and Heraion Teichos (Karaevlialtı) in Tekirdağ as well as from Parion and Illion.

At this point another question can be asked about the defining factors in choosing the form repertoire of local imitations. Which vessel forms were frequently imitated by local manufacturers? In Ganos the scanty examples which were attributed to the Athenian workshops consist of drinking cups and bowls. Likewise, imitations of Attic productions mainly consist of cups and bowls. In Sardis also the examples that were produced in local fabrics were drinking vessels, bowls, jugs and plates (Rotroff, Oliver 2003: 20ff.). Again in Parion the majority of the vessel forms produced in local fabrics were bowls (Fırat 2018: 66). This evidence leads to the conclusion that the most frequently preferred Athenian vessel forms are also those which imitated extensively. This statement becomes clear by the case study of Ephesos, where a great quantity of black glazed pottery from the Tetragonos Agora was studied by E. Trinkl. She states that the finds from the Tetragonos Agora show that both Attic and non-Attic drinking cups and bowls occurred, whereas the vessel forms for special purposes

The current state of research is silent on the origins of the inhabitants around the Ganos Mountains. Whether Greek or Thracian, it is clear that they followed trends in Athens with a certain interest. For which purposes people used the black glazed pottery, especially during the sixth to fourth centuries, must be limited to presumptions since the available material originated only from surface survey. The majority of the finds come from Dolucatepe and Kartaltepe. Presumably both sites as well as a small scale settlement at Beyoğlu Fortress were used as sanctuaries, an idea supported by the finds from ritual pits in Bulgarian Thrace. One may assume that also in Ganos bowls and drinking cups were mainly for offering rituals or other special purposes related to cult. But this idea remains unsubstantiated at the moment, since 90

Attic and Atticising Glazed Pottery in Eastern Thrace

there is no material from an archaeological context from the region.

Şehir Devletlerinin Lysimakheia Başkentine Dönüşmesi Sürecinin Yüzey Buluntuları Aracılığıyla İrdelenmesi. PhD Thesis, Istanbul University. Berlin, A. 1999: ‘Studies in Hellenistic Ilion: the Lower City. Stratified assemblages and chronology’ Studia Troica 9: 73–157. Berlin, A. 2016: ‘Not So Fast: Ceramic Conservatism and Change at Sardis in the Early Hellenistic Period’ in S. Japp, P. Kögler (eds). IARPotHP 1. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 351–58. Božkova, A. 1989: ‘A. Bozkova,’ La céramique attique de vernis noir en Thrace, Ve - IIIe s. av. n.ère. (Bulg.m.franz.Res.)’ Archeologija 31/ 2: 1–10. Božkova, A. 2010: ‘Černofirnisova Keramika ot Klasičeskata Epocha v Bulgarija - Aktualen Pročit na Problema’ Arheologija 51,1/2: 18–28. Božkova, A. 2016: ‘Pits Of The First Millennium B.C. in Thrace’ in K. Bacvarov, R. Gleser (eds). Essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary, Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory 293. Bonn, Habelt: 475–83. Burow, J. 2016: ‘Die Hellenistische Keramik aus dem Opfergrubenbereich’ in H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak 3: Die Hellenistische Befunde, Rahden Westf : Marie Leidorf: 105–18. Coşkun, G. 2004: ‘Daskyleion’da Bulunan M.O. 5. Yüzyıl Siyah Firnisli Attika Seramikleri’ Olba 10: 89–134. Egorova, T. 2016: ‘Hellenistic Black Glazed Pottery from Panticapaeum’ in S. Japp, P. Kögler (eds), IARPotHP 1. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 517–28. Fırat, G. 2018: Parion Yamaç Hamamı 1515–1260 Sektörü Hellenistik Dönem Seramikleri. PhD Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun. Gassner, V. 1997: Das Südtor der Tetragonos-Agora: Keramik und Kleinfunde. FiE 13/1/1.Vienna, Verlag der Österrreischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hasdağlı, İ, 2017: ‘Bir Deneme Parçası Işığında Doğu Thrakia’da Attika Taklidi Siyah Firnisli Seramik Üretimi’, Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 13: 42–66. Isaac, B. 1986: The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Karaca, E. 2019: Milattan Önce Birinci Binde Doğu Trakya. İstanbul, Homer Kitabevi . Koçel Erdem, Z. 2009: ‘Preliminary Report of the Tekirdağ Ganos 2008 Survey’ Anatolia Antiqua 17: 411–26. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2010: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos 2009 Survey’ Anatolia Antiqua 18: 305–20. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2012: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos Dağı Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması 2010 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 29/3: 71–94. Koçel Erdem, Z., Bülbül, A. 2020: ‘The Hellenistic Ceramics from Inner Settlements of the Gallipoli Peninsula (Thracian Chersonese) in Turkish Thrace’in I. Kamenjarin, M. Ugarkovic (eds), Exploring The Neıghborhood. The Role of Ceramics in

The finds between the sixth to fourth centuries consist of drinking cups and bowls. There are no examples of kraters or other large sized vessels. This is especially the case in inner Thrace. This evidence supports the conclusion that in this region black glazed pottery was destined for special purposes such as cult rituals. This is in contrast to the pattern in Ionia where in addition to drinking cups and bowls there is a variety of large and small sized vessels. Except for only a few examples which must be handled with a certain scepticism, almost all of the finds seem to be local versions of Athenian vessels. This seems to be in contrast, for example, to Ephesos where almost the half of the black glaze pottery is classified as Athenian. The scarcity of Athenian black glazed pottery from the Ganos Surface Survey should be investigated in relation to the Odryssian Kingdom and the region’s likely local demographics. All locations except Kartaltepe (Ganos) are inland, and these were apparently within the sphere of the Odyryssian dynasty from the fifith century until the Hellenistic Period. The local Thracian dynasty possibly controlled the import–export relations of inner Thrace. It is true that the region’s welfare seems to have been modest compared to cities such as Daskylaion, Gordion or Sardis – wealthy places that could afford Athenian products. But such conclusions must be preliminary since all of the current data dealt with here dervives only from surface surveys. Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Zeynep Koçel Erdem for allowing me to study this material from the Ganos Survey and Dr. Andrea Berlin for proofreading of the text. I also would like to thank to Muhammed Çınar and Yasemin Suluova for their help in digitising the drawings and photos of the investigated pottery scherds. Ancient Sources Xenophon. Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. Carleton L. Brownson. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; William Heinemann, Ltd., London. 1922. Bibliography Bektaş, G. 2011: Thrakia, Troas, Aiolis, Ionia ve Mysia Bölgelerinden Toplanan Keramik: Prof. Dr. Aşkıdil Akarca’nın 1950–1980 Gezilerinden Bir Değerlendirme. Master Thesis, İstanbul University. Bektaş, G. 2021: Şehir Devletinden Başkente: Gelibolu Yarımadası’nda Kurulmuş Olan Kardia, Agora, Paktye 91

Reyhan Şahi ̇n Understanding Place in the Hellenistic World. IARPotHP 3. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 575–81. Koçel Edem, Z., Tercan, S. 2014: Ganohora’nın İzleri: Tekirdağ Ganos Dağı Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması. İstanbul, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Yayınları. Koromila, M. 2002: The Greeks and the Black Sea from the Bronze Age to the Early 20th Century. Athens, The Panorama Cultural Society. Kotitsa, Z. 2016: ‘Historical Change and Ceramic Tradition: The Case of Macedonia’ in S. Japp – P. Kögler (eds), IARPotHP 1. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 273–86. Kowalleck, I. 2008: ‘Attische und attisierende Keramik’ in M. Kerschner, I. Kowalleck, M. Steskal (eds), Archäologische Forschungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte von Ephesos in Geometrischer, Archaischer und Klassischer Zeit. Grabungsbefunde und Keramikfunde aus dem Bereich von Koressos, ÖJh Ergh. 9. Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut: 75–107. Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 1991: Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, Kleinfunde. 1. Teil: Keramik Hellenistischer und Römischer Zeit. FiE 9/2/2. Vienna, Verlag der Österrreischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mutlu, S. 2016: Adramytteion Siyah Firnisli Seramikleri. Master Thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, İstanbul. Pfrommer, M. 1985 : ‘Milet 1983–1984: 2. Studien zu einzelnen Fundgruppen, a) Klassische und hellenistische Keramik aus dem Heroon III’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 35: 39–76. Popescu, M.C. 2013: Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in Pre-Roman Dacia (2nd Century B.C.-1st Century A.D.), Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 40. Bucuresti, Editura A.R.A. Rotroff, S.I.1997: Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Wheelmade, Tableware and Related Material. The Athenian Agora 29. Princeton, New Jersey, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rotroff, S.I. , Oliver Jr., A. 2003: The Hellenistic Pottery from  Sardis.The Finds through 1994. Sardis 12. Cambridge, Mass., Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Sayar, M.H. 1998: ‘Weihung fur Apollon Torontenos’ in U. Peter (ed.), Stephanos Nomismatikos: E. SchônertGeiss zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin, Akademie Verlag: 585–90. Schaeffer, J.S., Ramage, N.H., Greenewalt Jr., C.H. 1997: The Corinthian, Attic and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis, Sardis 10. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Scherrer, P., Trinkl, E. 2006: Die Tetragonos Agora in Ephesos. Grabungsergebnisse von Archaischer bis in Byzantinische Zeit – ein Überblick. Befunde und Funde Klassischer

Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos 13/2. Vienna, Verlag der Österrreischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Slawisch, A.2013: ‘Absatzmarkt Ionien: Zur Rolle attischer Keramik als Indikator für die Unterbrechung’ in A. Slawisch (ed.), Handels- Und Finanzgebaren in der Ägäis Im 5. Jh. V. Chr., Byzas 18, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 185–206. Sparkes; B., Talcott, L. 1970: Black and Plain Pottery, of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C. 1–2. The Athenian Agora 12. Princeton, New Jersey, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Şahin, R. 2006: Keramik Attischen Typs mit Schwarzem Glanzton aus Priene. Master Thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main. Şahin, R. 2016: ‘Red Figure Vases of 4th Century B.C. from Ainos in Thrace: The final phase of the Classical Tradition in Asia Minor’ in S. Japp – P. Kögler (eds). IARPotHP 1. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 329–340. Şahin, R. 2017: ‘Red-figure Pottery From Ainos/Thrace (Enez):Its Spectrum From The Earliest Finds Until The End Of the 5th Century BC’ TÜBA-AR: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 20: 99–122. Şahin, R. 2021: ‘Antik Çağ’da Hebros (Meriç) Nehri’nin Trakya’nın İç Kesimlerinde Yerleşim Topografyasına ve Bölge Ekonomisine Etkileri-Effects of Hebros (Meriç) River on Settlement Topography and Economy in Inner Thrace in Antiquity’ in O. Dumankaya (ed.) Çağlar Boyunca Nehirler, Denizler ve Göller Prehistorya’dan Bizans Dönemi’ne, İstanbul, Doruk Yayıncılık: 599–617. Slawisch, A. 2013: ‘Absatzmarkt Ionien: Zur Rolle attischer Keramik als Indikator für die Unterbrechung oder Verschiebung von Handelsnetzwerken in der Ägäis im 5. Jh. v. Chr.’ in A. Slawisch (ed.) Handels- und Finanzgebaren in der Ägäis Im 5. Jh. V. Chr. Trade And Finance in the 5th C. Bc Aegean World, Byzas 18. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 185–206. Tekkök-Biçken, B. 1996: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Troia: Second Century B.C. to Sixth Century A.D. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Theodossiev, N. 1995: ‘The Sacred Mountain of the Ancient Thracians’ Thracia 2: 371–385. Tuna Nörling, Y. 1995: Die Ausgrabungen von Alt-Smyrna und Pitane. Die attisch-schwarzfigurige Keramik und der attische Keramikexport nach Kleinasien, Istanbuler Forschungen 41.Tübingen, Washmuth. Turan, D. 2006: Menekse Catağı Hellenistik Donem Seramiği. Master Thesis, Trakya University, Edirne. Zhuravlev, D. 2014: ‘Hellenistic Pergamene Tableware in the Northern Black Sea Region’ in H. Meyza, K. Domzalski (eds), Late Hellenistic To Mediaeval Fine Wares of the Aegean Coast of Anatolia Their Production, Imitation and Use. Varsovie, Éditions Neriton: 129– 215.

92

Interprétation des Timbres Amphoriques et des Monnaies provenant des Fouilles d’Héraion Teichos Oya Yağız1 Sommaire1 Les cités-états, les emporia et les forteresses fondés tout au long du littoral du Propontis avaient sans doute des relations commerciales intenses mutuelles. Le matériel numismatique et céramique découverts lors des fouilles archéologiques en Thrace, nous offre de nombreuses données très précieuses sur cette interaction. Les amphores commerciales qui portent des sceaux avec des inscriptions et des symboles, occupent une place importante dans le commentaire des relations commerciales entre les sites archéologiques. Dans cet article, les timbres amphoriques (thasiens) trouvées lors des fouilles d’Heraion Teichos en Thrace, seront interprétées en comparant avec les monnaies (des rois thraces) découvertes dans les mêmes contextes. Mots-clés AMPHORE, THASOS, MONNAIE, HÉRAION TEICHOS, ROIS ODRYSIENS Abstract The city-states, emporia and fortresses founded all along the coast of the Propontis undoubtedly had intense mutual commercial relations. The numismatic and ceramic material discovered during archaeological excavations in Thrace, offers us many very valuable data on these interactions. Trade amphorae, which bear seals with inscriptions and symbols, feature prominently in the commentary on trade relations between archaeological sites. In this article, the amphora stamps (thasian) found during the excavations of Heraion Teichos in Thrace, will be interpreted through a comparison with the coins (of the Thracian kings) discovered in the same contexts. Keywords AMPHORA, THASOS, COIN, HERAION TEICHOS, ODRYSIAN KINGS

Les anses d’amphores timbrées et les tares amphoriques découvertes lors des fouilles d’un site archéologique sont de première importance dans l’interprétation de ses relations commerciales et de son statut: est-il une polis ou bien un emporion. Le nombre insuffisant par exemple à Pistros de timbres amphoriques, met des doutes quant à la qualification du site comme emporion (Tsetskhladze 2000: 235). D’où, les anses d’amphores Prof. Dr. Oya Yağız, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected]

1 

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 93–100

timbrées servent non seulement à dater les niveaux archéologiques du site excavé mais aussi à interpréter son statut, ses relations commerciales et politiques. De même, le matériel amphorique appartenant à une cité, découvert lors des fouilles d’un site archéologique, sert à montrer clairement l’étendue des relations commerciales de cette cité par conséquent à déterminer les voies –maritimes, fluviales, terrestres- par lesquelles le transport des marchandises a été fait. İl en est de même pour les monnaies: le plus souvent elles sont indispensables pour dater les niveaux archéologiques et interpréter les trouvailles mais leur rôle primordial était de symboliser la souveraineté de la cité émettrice, son indépendance, sa puissance. Nous essaierons d’évaluer dans cet article le parallélisme entre le matériel amphorique et le matériel monétaire venant des fouilles d’Héraion Teichos, un site en Thrace Turque où l’on poursuit des travaux d’excavation depuis l’an 2000. Héraion Teichos est une colonie samienne fondée par Périnthe sur le littoral de la Propontide. Hérodote (4.90) cite Héraion comme une polis et Démosthène (3.4) parle du siège de la ville en 352 av. J.C. par Philippe II. Le site est située en Thrace Turque, à 15 km. de distance de Tekirdağ (ancien Rhaidestos). Le matériel archéologique très riche2 découvert lors des fouilles d’Héraion Teichos, nous informe sur les contacts commerciaux de la ville. Le nombre des timbres thasiens parmi les trouvailles amphoriques étant considérablement plus élevé que les autres cités productrices d’amphores, nous allons nous référer seulement à ces timbres et aux recherches qui ont déja fait les timbres thasiens l’objet de leur travail en les comparant avec les monnaies des rois thraces qui avaient gouverné à l’Est de la Thrace. La pénétration des amphores de transport et la circulation monétaire en Thrace aux 6ᵉ et 5ᵉ siècles. Avant d’aborder les thèmes proposés au sous-titre ci-dessus, il faudrait se rappeler quelles étaient les voies par lesquelles cette pénétration s’était accomplie durant des siècles. Le transport maritime Monnaies, céramiques attiques, tare d’amphores qu’on peut estimer avec des milliers de fragments et anses d’amphores timbrées (177 timbres) découvertes entre les années 2000–2006. Un monographie couvrant la totalité des timbres amphoriques est en voie de préparation.

2 

Oya Yağız de port à port avait atteint son apogée à la période de colonisation grecque et les routes terrestres et fluviales mentionnées dans les sources antiques sont mises au jour lors des fouilles archéologiques. La Via Egnatia (Collart 1976:180, note 27; Deniaux 1999:173), la route terrestre la plus ancienne et la plus fréquentée depuis les époques anciennes rejoignait d’autres routes qui la rattachait à l’intérieur de la Thrace.3 On peut parler d’un réseau routier terrestre et fluviable qui atteignait les polis et les emporia à travers toute la Thrace. Thasos avait fondé des emporia sur le littoral sud de la Thrace et tirait sa prospérité, de ses relations commerciales avec des centres de commerce et des tribus qui vivaient au nord de sa Pérée, par l’intermédiaire de ses emporia (Pébarthe 1999:130; Reger 2004, 772).

mentionné par les auteurs anciens et les inscriptions et ce vin était transporté dans ces amphores (Salviat 1986, documents épigraphiques: 147-156, textes litéraires: 156-181). Cette prospérité provenait des mines d’or et d’argent du mont Pangée en Thrace et des revenus de la Pérée de l’île sur le continent qu’elle exploitait depuis l’époque archaïque. Après la fin des guerres médiques allait commencer une période de paix qui durera une cinquantaine d’années (la pentécontaétie) où la suprématie et l’impérialisme d’Athènes amènera les sécessions de la ligue de Delos de certaines villes parmi lesquelles Thasos sera une des plus désavantageuses: elle perdra sa flotte et les revenus (465-463) provenant de ses emporia (Pébarthe 1999: 138-8140; Lefèvre 2007: 192-197).

L’époque archaïque est le point de départ de l’invention de la monnaie métallique et l’époque classique celui de son épanouissement. Les premières monnaies sans inscription étaient identifiables par leur iconographie comme les amphores par leur type, avant d’être timbrés par la cité productrice. Au début de l’époque archaïque le processus de passage de la monnaie marchandise à la monnaie frappée commence progressivement. Un amphore avec son contenu était probablement une monnaie marchandise échangée contre un autre bien, de même valeur mais vers le milieu du VIᵉ siècle la monnaie frappée se substitue peu à peu au troc et devient dans peu de temps, le principal intermédiaire des échanges commerciaux. Les amphores ne sont toujours pas timbrés à cet époque et ils sont loin d’être un symbole de souveraineté pour la cité productrice comme les monnaies en sont pour la cité émettrice.

Les monnaies des rois thraces de la même époque (Vᵉ siècle) sont absentes du matériel numismatique d’Héraion Teichos. Cela est compréhensible vu que les Odryses avaient commencé à résider à Héraion Teichos qu’à partir du milieu du IVᵉ siècle où le royaume, après la mort de Kotys I (383-359) continua à survivre à l’est de la Thrace. Les Odryses sont parmi les tribus thraces les seuls qui ont pu fonder un royaume avec une succession de rois attestés par les sources antiques. Le fondateur et le premier roi odryse Térès I (± 450) et son fils et successeur Sitalkès (431-424) ne semblent pas avoir frappé de monnaies. Mais un autre fils de Térès I, Sparadocos, bien qu’il ne soit pas au thrône, avait pu émettre des monnaies en son nom ce qui veut dire qu’il y avait des régions adjacentes / des dynasties au royaume odryse, gouverné par les autres membres de la même famille (Archibald 1998: 102-125). Les monnaies découvertes aux fouilles d’Héraion Teichos appartiennent aux rois de Thraces qui avaient régné au sud-est de la Thrace à partir du IV ième siècle (Yağız 2008:107-110) Quant aux monnaies appartenant aux premiers rois du Royaume Odryse qui avaient gouverné à l’ouest de la Thrace elles ont été découvertes aux fouilles archéologiques des sites voisins du territoire macédonien (Youroukova 1976: 12-15, Figs.44-53).

Thasos qui avait élargi sa sphère d’influence jusqu’à l’intérieur de la Thrace était une des cités les plus influentes de l’époque archaïque dont l’hégémonie perse n’avait rien changé à sa prospérité mais cette attitude est appelé en même temps ‘docilité’ par certains auteurs (Pébarthe 1999, 138). Elle frappait des monnaies anépigraphiques depuis le dernier quart du VIᵉ siècle. Ce monnayage à la Nymphe et au Satyre était très populaire (SNG Cop. Thrace II, 10071019) non seulement entre les emporia situés dans le cercle de Thasos mais aussi reconnu et imité par les tribus thraco-macédoniens, depuis le dernier quart du VIᵉ jusqu’au milieu du IVᵉ siècle av. JC.4 Quant aux amphores thasiens datant de la même période, ils étaient reconaissables par leur forme bien qu’ils ne soient pas timbrés. La qualité et le prix du vin thasien est

L’époque classique est marquée par l’expansion de la monnaie comme un instrument économique dans les échanges commerciaux. La demande de monnaie amènera les cités (polis) à doter leur monnaie d’une iconographie qui leur est propre, de leur ajouter une inscription montrant leur identité (ethnique), exprimé au genitif pluriel voulant désigner tous les citoyens (politai) qui deviendra le symbole de leur indépendance comme le drapeau qui symbolise les pays d’aujourd’hui. Les plus belles monnaies des cités autonomes ont été frappées au Vᵉ siècle.5 Quant aux timbres amphoriques,

3  Le nom du proconsul de Macédoine Cnaeus Egnatius (IIᵉ siècle av. JC) est mentionné par les milliaires comme le constructeur de la Via Egnatia or d’après les sources antiques cette route étaient empruntée par les Perses, Philippe II et Alexandre III aux époques plus anciennes. 4  Les monnaies thasiennes avec satyre et nymphe font partie d’un grand nombre de trésors découverts en Thrace : IGCH 691, IGCH 692, IGCH 695, IGCH 701, IGCH 702, IGCH 703, IGCH 710, IGCH 711, IGCH 712, IGCH 713, IGCH 716, IGCH 720, IGCH 721, IGCH 723, IGCH 742, IGCH 743.

5  Les chouettes d’Athènes, les poloi de Corinthe, les monnaies des cités de la Thrace, de l’İonie etc. mais les cités qui sont membres de la Ligue Delos seront forcées par Athènes qui deviendra la polis la plus puissante de cette alliance, d’arrêter leur frappe de monnaie.

94

Interprétation des Timbres Amphoriques et des Monnaies provenant des Fouilles d’Héraion Teichos

ils n’apparaïtront que vers la fin du même siècle et seront largement utilisé pendant l’époque suivante.

On peut parler alors du croisement de trois facteurs: rois thraces, timbres amphoriques et monnaies thasiens.

Timbres amphoriques et monnaies thasiens et le rôle des rois thraces dans le commerce des amphores et la circulation des monnaies (4ᵉ- 2ᵉ siècles av. JC. ).

Après la mort de Kotys Iᵉʳ (Figures 6-8) le royaume Odryse partagé entre trois héritiers a continué à survivre à l’est de la Thrace et Héraion Teichos est devenue la résidence de Kersobleptès (359-341), le fils de Kotys Iᵉʳ (Figure 9). Pendant le règne de ce roi de la partie orientale du royaume Odryse, Héraion Teichos ne semble pas perdre de son importance. Les monnaies de petits modules de ce roi, avec l’effigie d’une tête de femme, une divinité thrace (Bendis?) sont en circulation dans cette partie de la Thrace. Cette période de courte durée prendra fin vers le dernier quart du IV ième siècle où l’invasion macédonien avait déjà commencé mais les monnaies de bronze de petits modules des villes comme Héraion Teichos (Figure 10), Bisanthe, Adhyras, Kypséla avec le même revers que les rois thraces, vont continuer à circuler dans cette partie de la Thrace.

La première moitié du IV ième siècle av. J.C. est aussi la fin de l’époque classique où les grandes puissances allaient perdre pouvoir: la révolte de Cyrus le Jeune contre Artaxerxès II ( 405/4-359/8 ), celle des satrapes d’Asie Mineure (362/1) et la guerre du Péloponnèse (431404) allaient ébranlé non seulement l’empire maritime (la thalassocratie) d’Athènes mais aussi l’empire Perse. Thasos ayant vécu les attaques d’Athènes et de Sparte pendant la guerre du Péloponnèse, prendra la décision de faire une réforme monétaire après l’abolition de l’oligarchie (Lefèvre 2007: 343). Après un hiatus entre les années 404-391, la cité allait faire un changement dans sa production monétaire: les monnaies au types du Silène enlevant une nymphe, monnaies les plus populaires des époques archaïque et classique en Thrace vont laisser leur place aux monnaies avec la tête de Dionysos et Héraclès archer. Cette nouvelle série de tétradrachmes et ses subdivisons, avec la même iconographie que les timbres amphoriques, Dionysos/ Héraklès archer (Picard 1981: 341), des monnaies de bronzes avec les attributs d’Héraklès (Picard 1987: 7, 12-14) vont entrer en circulation. ‘L’image d’Héraklès archer renvoie au relief da la porte d’Héraclès et de Dionysos. Elle constitue le revers des monnaies d’argent contemporaines et symbolise l’emblème des éponymes (Picard 2017: 645-58), (Figure 5). Parallèlement aux monnaies, les amphores subiront aussi un changement et le timbrage des amphores thasiens commencera, avec la même iconographie que celle des monnaies (Figures 1,2,3,4). Cette période coïncide avec celui de Kotys Iᵉʳ (383/2-359), le roi thrace pendant le règne duquel le Royaume Odryse (Archibald 1998: 213-226) avait atteint son apogée. Les monnaies découvertes aux fouilles d’Héraion Teichos appartiennent aux rois de Thraces qui avaient régné au sud-est de la Thrace à partir du IV ième siècle (Yağız 2008: 107-110). Les ‘privilèges accordés aux emporitains de Thasos, d’Apollonia et de Maroneia faisant du commerce avec Pistiros’ sont attestées par la charte de l’emporion Pistiros (Bravo, Chankowski 1999: 286; Chankowski 1999: 583). Les monnaies des rois Odryses de l’ouest avaient fait sans doute frapper leurs monnaies aux ateliers de Maroneia et s’étaient inspirés de l’iconographie (cheval, protomé de cheval, cep de vigne, grappe de raisın) des monnaies de cette cité (Schönert-Geiss 1992: 195-198). Thasos devrait compter sur les rois thraces qui contrôlaient les voies terrestres à l’intérieur de la Thrace pour pouvoir exercer son commerce.

Les cités grecques (les polis) des époques archaïques et classiques subissent une déchéance, perdent leur autonomie et sont soumises aux nouvelles autorités, les monarchies héllenistiques. Le droit de battre monnaie, le symbole de leur indépendence, leur est enlevé et les nouveaux souverains, les rois (basileus) macédoniens sont leurs nouveaux gouverneurs. La production amphorique et la production monétaire d’une cité pouvant être parfois inversement proportionnelle -due aux changements politiques et économiques- le matériel archéologique venant du contexte des fouilles archéologiques est dans cette perspective de première importance. Cela est surtout valable pour la haute époque héllenistique où les cités ne pouvaient plus émettre leur propre monnaie mais cette restriction ne les empêchaient pas de faire de commerce et d’aller vendre leurs produits dans toute la Thrace. Dans cette perspective nous devons mentionner l’exemple d’une autre cité en Thrace turque, Ainos. Les tétradrahmes très connus de l’époque classique d’Ainos sont absents des trésors datant de la fin de l’époque classique par contre le nombre des timbres amphoriques est estimé avec des miliers d’exemplaires.6 Bien qu’elle soit privée à cette époque, de battre ses propres monnaies, Ainos était toujours un centre économique et un port important pour les produits d’importation. Les voies fluviales qui partaient de l’embouchure de l’Hebros vers l’intérieur de la Thrace, transportaient les produits d’importation Plus de deux milles timbres amphoriques ont été découverts à Ainos parmi lesquels les thasiens sont les plus nombreux. Une équipe d’amphorologues poursuit les travaux de corpus de ce matériel amphorique. Ainos abritait une communauté grecque et par conséquent les monnaies des rois thraces sont absentes des trouvailles monétaires.

6 

95

Oya Yağız non seulement aux cités de l’intérieur mais aussi aux cités et emporia du littoral Thrace de la Mer Noire comme Tomi, Odessos, Mesambria, Apollonia.

dans un site archéologique nous pousse à le nommer ‘emporion’ d’où, nous pouvons dire que vers le milieu du IVe siècle, Héraion Teichos était devenu un centre de commerce bien qu’elle soit citée comme une colonie grecque (polis) par Hérodote (Hdt. 4.90.2). Elle était sans doute au début un lieu sacré dans le chora d’une polis -Périnthe- abritant un sanctuaire dédié à Héra, comme à Samos, mais elle s’est transformée par la suite en un emporion comme c’est le cas de plusieurs emporia ioniens (Krämer 2016: 88-91). C’est une période où les rois thraces sont influents dans cette région de la Thrace et à Héraion Teichos les monnaies de ces rois constituent presque les trois-quarts de la totalité des monnaies. Les timbres thasiens anciens appartiennent à cette même période.

La haute époque héllenistique étant une période de tumulte et de chaos, les campagnes militaires incessantes des diadoques devraient rendre la vie encore plus difficile à vivre aux populations d’origines grecques et thraces. Lysimaque qui reçoit la Thrace au partage de Babylone, trouvera un pays chaotique et des tribus thraces difficiles à soumettre. La Thrace deviendra la région de l’empire la plus problématique à cause des guerres incessantes entre le diadoque et les Thraces. Ce qui attire l’attention parmi tous ces changements bouleversants, c’est le nouveau traffic économique en Thrace. Les trésors de monnaies découvertes en Bulgarie, en Macédoine et en Thrace nous informent sur la circulation monétaire de cette époque. Nous avons à cet égard un matériel très précieux et le nombre de trésors appartenant à la haute époque héllenistique est beacoup plus haut par rapport aux époques archaïques et classiques.7 L’économie n’était pas plus développé et la vie plus prospère, tout au contraire il doit s’agir d’un manque de sécurité et aussi de pertes de vie considérables par suite de ces guerres incessantes.

La circulation monétaire à la fin du IVᵉ et au début du IIIᵉ siècle est pour ainsi dire monotone et sans motivation pour les cités grecques. Elles ne peuvent plus produire leur propre monnaie, en dépit de quelques exceptions mais les ateliers compétents vont devenir des ateliers royaux. Les monnaies des rois héllenistiques seront les seules monnaies valables. Pourtant les timbres amphoriques continuent à être présents partout en Thrace et Macédoine, surtout les timbres thasiens anciens et par la suite, les timbres thasiens récents, qui monopolisent le marché des produits en amphores. Héraion Teichos pourrait avoir joueé un rôle de transition dans la commerce et la présence des timbres thasiens dans les sites pontiques peut être expliquée par sa localisation très stratégique: c’était une station où la voie (le futur Via Egnatia) qui venait de Néapolis -l’emporion de Thasos- joignait celle qui allait vers Apollonia. Donc, deux voies alternatives de commerce, l’une allant vers Byzantion, l’autre vers Apollonia.

Les normes de l’époque classique ayant été radicalement changés à l’époque héllenistique, nous sommes face en Thrace à un nouvel marché qui est tout à fait différent du précédant. De nouveaux centres commerciaux apparaissent. Les emporia de l’époque classique continuent à survivre mais de nouveaux sites -desquels on reçoit un riche matériel archéologique- sont qualifiés d’emporion. Ces emporia sont ou bien partie d’une polis tout en étant une de ses institutions ou bien sont simplement des centres de commerce. La majorité des monnaies venant des fouilles d’Heraion Teichos appartiennent aux rois thraces et les anses d’amphores timbrées, à Thasos. En nous référant aux données obtenues, nous pouvons classer Héraion Teichos parmi les centres de commerce de la fin de l’époque classique et du début de l’époque héllenistique. Cette période est en même temps la dernière étape de la production monétaire des cités. Elles disparaîtront petit à petit des trésors monétaires de la haute époque Héllenistique en laissant leur place aux monnaies héllenistiques royales. Mais la situation est très différente pour les amphores et les timbres amphoriques: les amphores, les fragments d’amphores et les timbres amphoriques continueront à survivre abondamment pendant toutes les époques jusqu’à l’arrêt de la fonction de la cité productrice. Leur présence en nombre considérable

Vers le milieu de la basse époque Héllenistique, en Thrace, nous voyons des sites semblables à Héraion Teichos parmi lesquels Manastır Tepe (Aquae Calidae), aux environs de Thermes de Burgas, attire l’attention plus que les autres (Kiachkina 1994: 180-81, 184-89). Les objets d’importation, amphores, tare d’amphores, timbres amphoriques et monnaies découverts pendant les fouilles poursuivies dans ce site, présentent les mêmes caractéristiques que ceux d’Héraion Teichos: une continuité d’objets qui datent du premier âge de fer jusquà’la domination romaine et un contexte archéologique similaire. Héraion Teichos est la première station de la route qui mène directement à Apollonia et à mi chemin de cette route, se trouve Tearos, les sources de l’Hébros et de ses branches. Les eaux de cette source thermale sont connues depuis l’époque archaïque. Tearos est mentionné chez Hérodote comme un lieu de cure. Selon l’historien, Darius dans sa campagne de Scythie s’ést arrêté à Tearos, il s’était fait soigné et il y avait même érigé une colonne. D’autre part, Héraion Teichos abrite dans l’emplacement même du sanctuaire, un centre de médecine qui

IGCH 689-IGCH 694 (6 trésors de l’époque archaïque); IGCH 695IGCH 732 (38 trésors de l’époque classique); IGCH 733- IGCH 980 (248 trésors de l’époque héllenistique)

7 

96

Interprétation des Timbres Amphoriques et des Monnaies provenant des Fouilles d’Héraion Teichos

Figure 3. Θασίων [……… ] Héraklès archer Ref.: Garlan 1999, Groupe C, Nos.313-329, (Date: ± 370).

Figure 1. [Θασίων ΄ Ηροφών] Σκύμνος Tête d’Héraklès, hermès Ref.: Garlan 1999, Groupe C, No.370, (Date: ± 370).

Figure 4. [Θασίων] Κρῖνις (?) Héraklès archer Ref.: Debidour 1979, p. 311 (Date: Troisième quart du IV ième siècle).

Figure 2. [Θασίων] ΄Ηροφών [Λεώφαντος] Tête d’Héraklès,œnochoé Ref.: Garlan 1999, Groupe C, No.367, (Date: ± 370). Figure 5. Monnaie de Thasos / AR - Drahme / 380-340 Dr.: Tête de Dionysos Rev.: ΘΑΣΙΟΝ Héraklès Archer Ref. SNG Cop. Thrace II, 1023.

97

Oya Yağız

Figure 9. AE (0.8 mm) Dr.: Tête de Déméter couverte de sphendone, à dr. Rev.: K E P Même revers. Réf.: Lischine 1902, 1354; Yağız 2008, p,111, 4-6. Figure 6. AR (Obol) Dr. : Tête barbue, à g. (Kotys ?) Rev.: K O T O Kotyle (Vase à deux anses, mesure pour le blé) Ref. BMC Thrace, p.202, 1.

Figure 10. AE (11 mm) Dr.: Même avers Rev.: H R A I Même revers. Réf.: Yağız 2013, No.1-3. Figure 7. AR (Trihemiobol) Dr. : Même avers Rev.: K O T Y Même revers. Ref.: BMC Thrace, p.202, 1.

est attesté par les trouvailles: offrandes votives en forme d’organes humains, instruments de médecine, restes de coquillages utilisés dans la fabrication des médicaments. On peut donc parler d’une route qui commence à HéraionTeichos et finit à Apollonia et qui abrite les stations d’un voyage de santé. Un modèle routier de SIG (Systèmes d’Information Geographique) présente un itinéraire comprenant trois routes directes alternatives d’Héraion Teichos à Apollonia (Tchekova 2010: 1-22). Ce modèle prend en compte non seulement le système moderne computarisé mais aussi les données archéologiques et les sources antiques. On peut ajouter à cette constatation, le culte d’Apollon Iatreos vénéré à Apollonia, surtout au deuxième siècle av. JC. Le prédominance des timbres rhodiens et la réduction du nombre des timbres thasiens de cette même période, peut être expliqué par le nouveau statu quo: Rome est le nouveau souverain et ses alliés sont les nouveaux privilégiés si bien que Rhodes devient un pivot de commerce. Vers le milieu du IIᵉ siècle av. JC, un proconsul romain, Gnaeus Egnatius fait construire Via Egnatia et les timbres rhodiens peuvent pénétrer ainsi jusqu’à l’intérieur de la Thrace, comme il était question un siècle auparavant pour les timbres de Thasos.

Figure 8. AE (14 mm) Dr.: Cavalier couvert de la chlamys, à dr. et mettant la main droite sur la tête de son cheval. Rev.: K O T Y Même revers. Ref.: Lischine 1902, 1351.

98

Interprétation des Timbres Amphoriques et des Monnaies provenant des Fouilles d’Héraion Teichos

Empereur, J.Y., Hesnard, A. 1987: ‘Les amphores hellénistiques’ Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines 2, P. Lévêque. J.P. Morel (eds), Paris : 9–71. Garlan, Y. 1999: Timbres Amphoriques de Thasos. Timbres protothasiens et thasiens anciens 1. Études Thasiennes 18. Athènes, École Française d’Athènes. IGCH: An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. M. Thompson, O. MØrkholm, C.M. Kraay (eds), New York 1973, The American Numismatic Society. Kiachkina, P. 1994: ‘Les contacts commerciaux des Thraces de la région de Bourgas avec le monde Egeen (4e –2 av. JC)’ Thracia Pontica 5: 175–90. Krämer, R.P. 2016: ‘Trading Goods-Trading Gods. Greek Sanctuaries in the Mediterranean and their role as emporia and “ports of trade” (7th-6th Century BCE)’ Distant Worlds Journal 1: 75–98. Lefèvre, F. 2007: Histoire du monde grec antique. Paris, Librairie Générale Française. Lischine, C.N. 1902: Monnaies Grecques. Thrace. Mâcon, Protat Frères. Pébarthe, C. 1999: ‘Thasos, l’Empire d’Athènes et les emporia de Thrace’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 126: 131–54. Picard, O. 1981: ‘Monnaies de Thasos’ Revue d’Archéométrie 1981. Actes du 20e symposium International d’Archéométrie Paris 26–29 Mars 1980 Volume 3: 341–47. Picard, O. 1987: ‘L’Administration de l’Atelier monétaire à Thasos au 4ᵉ siècle’ Revue Numismatique 29: 7–14. Picard, O. 2017: ‘Monnaies et timbres amphoriques à Thasos : quelques points de convergence’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 141.2: 645–58. Reger, G. 2004: ‘The Aegean’ in M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen (eds), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 772–93. Salviat, F. 1986: ‘Le Vin de Thasos, Amphores, Vin et Sources écrites’ in J.Y. Empereur, Y. Garlan (eds,), Recherches sur les amphores grecques Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Supplément 13, AthènesParis, Ecole française d’Athènes- Diffusion de Boccard: 145–200. SNG Cop. Thrace: Syllogue Numorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum. Thrace 2.Copenhagen 1943, Einar Munksgaard. Schönert-Geiss, E. 1992: ‘Griechisches Münzwerk: Die Münzprägung von Maroneia’ Numismatic Chronicle 152: 195–98. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2000: ‘Pistiros in the System of Pontic Emporia (Greek Trading and Craft Settlements in the Hinterland of the Northern and Eastern Black Sea and Elsewhere)’ in M. Domaradzki, L. Domaradzka, J. Bouzek, J. Rostropowicz (eds), Pistiros et Thasos: Structures économiques dans la péninsule Balkanique 7e2e siècle avant J.-C. Opole, Zuk Vogar: 235–46. Tzvetkova, J. 2016: ‘From Heraion to Apollonia. A GIS tour through South-Eastern Thrace’ Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Thracology Istanbul, 8–12 November 2010, M.H. Sayar (ed.), İstanbul 2016 (à venir).

Conclusion Les anciens pouvaient facilement reconnaître par sa forme la provenance d’un amphore. Les textes anciennes mentionnaient les cités productrices d’amphores en se réferant à leur forme (Empereur, Hesnard 1987: 10-11). Mais alors quelles sont les raisons qui vont mener les cités à timbrer leur amphore et de vouloir leur attribuer un caractère ethnique. En cherchant les réponses aux questions posées sur le timbrage des amphores, les amphorologues et les céramologues ont contribué grandement à la création d’un corpus sur les timbres amphoriques comprenant tous les composants du sujet: chronologie, transport, ethnic, épigraphie, iconographie, lien entre monnaies et amphores etc. Je voudrais ajouter un point de vue personnel -que je vais exprimer avec réserve n’étant pas un spécialiste du sujet- sur cette question prenant en compte la numismatique. Le phénomène de timbrage amphorique qui semble apparaître un peu avant la haute époque héllenistique, était peut-être le résultat de la perte de leur autonomie et ne pouvant plus frapper leur propre monnaie, les cités avaient commencé à timbrer leur produits de commerce comme amphores, tuiles, poids en leur ajoutant les symboles qu’elles avaient auparavant employés sur leur monnaies. Cela peut également provenir de la nécessité de faire de la commerce pour pouvoir survivre et en même temps de satisfaire les besoins des nouveaux souverains. Reconnaissance Je voudrais remercier Prof. Dr. Neşe Atik, directrice des excavations d’Héraion Teichos et M. Önder Öztürk, directeur du Musée Archéologique de Tekirdağ, de m’avoir donné la permission d’étudier le matériel.

Bibliographie Archibald, Z.H. 1998: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus unmasked. Oxford, Clarendon Press. BMC Thrace: A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum.The Tauric Chersonese, Sarmatia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace. Bologna 1963, Arnaldo Forni. Bravo, B., Chankowski, A.S. 1999: ‘Cités et Emporia dans le commerce avec les barbares, sous la lumière du document dit à tort ‘inscription de Pistros’ Bulletin de Correspondace Héllenique 123: 275–317. Chankowski, V. 1999: ‘Pistiros (Bulgarie)’ Bulletin de Correspondace Héllenique 123: 581–88. Collart, P. 1976: ‘Les Milliaires de la Via Egnatia’ Bulletin de Correspondace Héllenique 100–1: 177–200. Debidour, M. 1979: ‘Réflexions sur les timbres amphoriques thasiens’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.Thasiaca. Supplément 5: 269–314. Denieux, E. 1999: ‘Découverte d’un nouveau milliaire de la Via Egnatia à Apollonia (Albanie)’ Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité, 111.1: 167–89. 99

Oya Yağız Yağız, O. 2008: ‘Les monnaies d’Héraion Teichos’ Anatolia Antiqua 16: 110–17. Yağız, O. 2016: ‘Les monnaies d’Héraion Teichos avec l’inscription HRAI’ M.H. Sayar (ed.), Proceedings of the

Eleventh International Congress of Thracology, Istanbul, 8–12 November 2010, İstanbul 2016, (à venir). Youroukova, Y. 1976: Coins of the Ancient Thracians. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports.

100

The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians in the Second Century BC – First Century AD Mariana-Cristina Popescu1 Abstract1 Throughout the article the author stresses several observations regarding the impact of Asia Minor pottery on local production in the area inhabited by the Getae and the Dacians, Thracian tribes located north of the Danube, in the present-day territory of Romania. From a chronological perspective, the analysed items were produced between the second century BC and the beginning of the second century AD. During this period the Geto-Dacian civilisation reached its classical stage of development, which was suddenly ended by the wars against the Romans in the beginning of the second century AD and the founding of the Roman province of Dacia. Keywords GETAE, DACIANS, CERAMIC TABLEWARE, ASIA MINOR, INFLUENCES.

Introduction During the second century BC numerous imported goods such as wine, oil, ceramic wares, and items made of bronze and glass reached the area inhabited by the Getae and the Dacians, as well as north of the of the Danube, in the present-day territory of Romania, where the Thracian tribes were living. A recent study based on around three quarters of the Hellenistic and Roman ceramic tableware items discovered on GetoDacian sites has revealed that such goods were mainly produced in the centres of the Pontus and Asia Minor and a few in centres of Italy, southern Gaul, and the western provinces of the Roman Empire (Popescu 2013: 91-95). Approximately one third of the researched material originates from centres in Pergamum, Ephesus, Mytilene, the area of River Meander, or from centres in Asia Minor that remain, as yet, unidentified. I have thus identified West Slope vessels, Megarian bowls and related mould-made wares, lagynoi wares, appliqué wares, Pergamene sigillata, eastern sigillata B, lead glazed vessels, grey wares, and oinophora.2 The analysed material indicates that pottery from Asia Minor was present on Geto-Dacian sites from the second century BC until the beginning of the second PhD, National Museum of Transylvanian History, e-mail: [email protected] 2  Due to conservation issues, in my study of Hellenistic and Roman wares in pre-Roman Dacia (Popescu 2013) I did not include the two oinophora identified on the site of Poiana. They were published later (Popescu 2018: 9–24). 1 

century AD, reaching a peak between the final quarter of the second century BC and the first half of the first century AD (Popescu 2013: 93). The presence of Asia Minor wares does not prove the existence of direct relations between these production centres and the Geto-Dacian consumers, but much more likely suggests the export dynamics of these production centres. The Greek cities on the shore of Pontus Euxinus were probably the mediators. The distribution pattern of Asia Minor wares north of the Danube overlaps with that of Aegean amphorae that were present in this area ever since the fourth century BC. Amphorae from Rhodes, Thasos, Knidos, Kos, Sinope, or Heraclea Pontica were also discovered in the settlements where Asia Minor wares were identified (Glodariu 1974: 181205). The greatest concentration of amphorae has been recorded for the second and first centuries BC (Glodariu 1974: 36) and this is also the period for which specialists have recorded the largest quantity of wares from Asia Minor. This suggests that such wares reached the GetoDacian sites in association with amphorae, through the distribution network already in place for commerce with wine and oil. The result, visible today, of locals coming into contact with imported wares was the introduction of new shapes of drinking and pouring vessels and the adoption of new production and decoration techniques in the local workshops. Published data and illustrations regarding the pottery discovered on three Geto-Dacian sites, i.e. Brad, Răcătău, and Poiana, located east of the mountain range of the Carpathians, on the left bank of the River Siret, allow for several observations on the local production of drinking and pouring vessels inspired by models from Asia Minor (Figure 1). The three above mentioned sites stand out through the quantity and variety of Asia Minor pottery discovered, and all of the shapes typical to Asia Minor, except for the Pergamene kantharoi and the baggy kantharoi of Ephesus were documented on their territories (Popescu 2013: 194, 200-202, 204-206, charts 11, 14, 20). The sites are also to be singled out for the quantity and variety of fine wares that were most probably produced by local workshops (Căpitanu 1976: 58-59, 62-63, figs. 27-34; Căpitanu 1992: 140-145, figs. 8-12, 13/9-11, 14-16, 22-25, 29/2-4; Ursachi 1995: 168-207, pls. 80-121, 128-170, 272-

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 101–111

Mariana-Cristina Popescu

Figure 1. Map with the production centres in Brad, Racătău and Poiana.

286, 293-318; Vulpe, Teodor 2003: 79-88, 300-321, figs. 198-231).

present article, the adoption of Asia Minor shapes was a dynamic process, leading to the creation of shapes particular to each production centre. Even if they had access to the same models and produced the same general shapes, the latter can be distinguished through details of shape and decoration, so that each of the three centres individualised its style.

Little is known about the installations which were necessary for pottery production on these three sites. We only know that an almost entirely preserved pottery kiln was discovered in 1949 in Poiana, in a layer dated to the first century BC (Casan et al. 1950: 50). No physical-chemical or petrographic investigations of the pottery discovered there are available either, though they would help researchers to identify the production centres. Although there are few pieces of data about the production installations of pottery wares that would attest beyond doubt the existence of local production, and although other investigations are unavailable, the comparative analysis of the items published from the three sites indicates that despite the fact that the shapes found on their territories belong to a common Geto-Dacian facies, their variety and quantity support the hypothesis that production centres were active in each of these sites.

Autochthonous pottery inspired by Asia Minor models Local kantharoi imitations of Peramene kantharoi (Schäfer 1968: D 63, D65; Behr 1988: phase 1, phase 3, 118, 123, no. 6, 18, 19, abb. 2, 6; Meyer - Schlichtmann 1988: S6, 67, nos. 19-22, taf. 8, 29) (Figure 2, Nos. 1-3). Pergamene kantharoi decorated with West Slope motifs have been noted on Geto-Dacian sites starting in the second century BC. No Pergamene kantharoi have been discovered in the three sites under discussion here, but local items inspired by them show that the potters active in these centres were familiar with the shape.

The potters from the centres in Brad, Răcătău, and Poiana had access to contemporary wares from Asia Minor and they introduced to the production circuit a variety of shapes and decorations inspired by Asia Minor models. As I shall indicate throughout the

Vessels inspired by Pergamene kantharoi were published from the sites of Brad, Răcătău, and Poiana; they are made of grey fabric, with angular body and two handles attached to the area of maximum diameter and 102

The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians

5

1 6

7

2

8 3

Figure 2. Local kantharoi, imitations of Pergamene kantharoi: 1. Brad (Ursachi 1995, pl. 105/7); 2. Poiana (Vulpe, Teodor 2003, fig. 198/5); 3. Racătău (Căpitanu1992, fig 29/4); local kantharoi, imitations of Ephesian baggy kantharoi: 4. Brad (Ursachi 1995, 139/9 ); local kantharoi, imitations of skyphoi with low angular bodies: 5-6. Poiana (Vulpe, Teodor 2003, fig. 229/5, 6) 7-8. Brad (Ursachi 1995, pl. 140/1, 3).

4 103

Mariana-Cristina Popescu

5 1

6 Figure 3. Local kantharoi imitations of skyphoi with low angular bodies: 1-3. Brad (Ursachi 1995, pl. 149/6, 8; 151/8); 5-6. Racătău (Florea 1998, pl.3/8, 4/1); local kantharoi with West Slope motif: 4. Brad (Ursachi 1995, pl. 138/1).

2

to the body or to the body and the rim (Căpitanu 1992: fig. 29/4; Ursachi 1995: 181, pl. 105/7; Vulpe, Teodor 2003:302-303, nos. 521, 523, figs. 198/5, 7). These items are decorated with burnished motifs or left undecorated. Taking into account the dating of the models that circulated in pre-Roman Dacia (Popescu 2013: 35) they were produced in the three centres during the second century BC at the earliest.

3

Local kantharoi imitations of Ephesian baggy kantharoi (Mitsopoulous-Leon 1991: 36, B 37, taf. 31) (Figure 2, No. 4). The monograph on the site in Brad illustrates items with painted decoration, the shape of which is similar to that of the baggy kantharoi (Ursachi 1995: pls. 139/9, 148/5). They are close to the Ephesian shape (Ephesos IX. 2. 2, B 37). Baggy kantharoi enjoyed great popularity during the Hellenistic Period and have been mentioned in discoveries from the Pontic Basin as well (Lungu 2013: 186-189, pl. 22/CS 1 - CS 6). As in the case of Pergamene kantharoi, no original

4

104

The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians

1a 3

1b 4 Figure 4. Local bowls – imitations of Megarian bowls: 1a,b. Brad (Ursachi 1995, pl. 282/7 ); 2. Racătău (personal photos with V. Căpitanu permission); 3-4. Poiana (personal photos with S. Teodor permission).

items were identified at the site in Brad. The only original item known so far from pre-Roman Dacia was found on the site of Borduşani; it is decorated with West Slope motifs (Popescu 2013: 35-36, no 2, pls. 1, 28) and has good analogies, in terms of shape and decoration, among the similar items discovered in Ephesus (Mitsopoulous-Leon 1991: 46, B 37, taf. 31). The context in which the original item was discovered documents the possibility that the shape was adopted by the local workshops during the first century BC (Popescu 2017: 34).

2

105

Mariana-Cristina Popescu Local kantharoi imitations of skyphoi with low angular body3 (Schäfer 1968: D29-30; Behr 1988: variant C, 134, no. 3132, abb. 9; C. Meyer-Schlichtmann 1988: S8 nos. 28-36, taf. 4, 8, 29, 36) (Figure 2, Nos. 5-8, Figure 3, Nos.1-4, 6).

discovered on this site that I had the opportunity to document, I have identified several fragments of jugs decorated with painted motifs combined with barbotine motifs (Popescu 2014: 127, nos. 4-6, figs. 4 - 6 ) (Pl. V/2-4 ). The local potters most likely adopted the shape sometime during the second century BC and, just as in the case of the local kantharoi modelled after the skyphoi with low angular body, the shape seems to have continued to be produced until the Roman conquest.

Local kantharoi inspired by skyphoi with low angular body are known from all three centres under discussion (Căpitanu 1976: figs. 28/3,5, 29/2,4; Căpitanu 1992: 12/58, 13/8-10; Ursachi 1995: pls. 103/7, 104/8, 12-13, 138/8, 140/1, 3, 141/5, 8-9, 142/3-5, 7, 143/2-3, 147/2-6, 148/12, 6, 9, 10, 149/1-2, 5-9, 150/3, 151/2-6, 8, 304/1-5, 7, 305/5-6; Vulpe, Teodor 2003: 305, 317-319, nos. 553-554, 741-743, 746-750, 759-760, figs. 201/8-9, 202/1, 228/213, 228/5-9). They are made of grey fabric or most often of brick-red fabric and can be either covered with slip or not. Some are plain and undecorated, while others display burnished motifs and Hadra style painted motifs (dark motifs against a light background). The painted motifs are geometric or, more rarely, vegetal. Taking into account the period when the originals discovered on all three sites can be dated (Popescu 2013:36-38) it is possible that local potters adopted the shape sometime during the first century BC; it seems to have remained in production until the Roman conquest in the beginning of the second century AD (Popescu 2017: 35).

Pots inspired by oinophora (Figure 5, Nos. 1-5a,b). Parallelipipedic pots, with or without ram protomes, and one pot shaped as a horse and its rider were discovered in the settlements of Brad and Răcătău (Căpitanu 1994: 124, figs. 4-6; Sîrbu, Florea 1997, figs. 73/a-c, 74/1a-1d, 2a-2b, 80/1-2; Ursachi 1995: 190, 205, pls. 169, 170/2, 318/1-4). On the one hand, parallelpipedic pots, with or without ram protomes, are local adaptations of ramshaped Knidian reliefs (Mandel 1988: 116-117, taf. 33/12) and on the other hand the horse-and-rider item can be considered the embodiment of a local idea created through a new production technique. Knidian reliefs were adopted in very original variants by the local workshops. In the centre of Răcătău they are in the shape of a box, with or without a ram’s head, sometimes decorated with painted motifs and appliqués (Figure 6, Nos. 2a,b – 4a,b). In Brad they are box-shaped, but due to the small size of the published fragments one does not know if they displayed ram heads or not; when decorated, they have painted motifs, in the variant already traditional for the potters there (Figure 6, No. 1). The decorated items suggest that the masters were open to modelling new shapes but, at the same time, the case reveals their conservative side as well. They were open to learning new shapes and manufacturing techniques, but preferred their end products to be nicely decorated so they employed an already traditional decorative technique, i.e. painting.

Local bowls – imitations of Megarian bowls (Figure 4, Nos.1a, b - 4) Local variants of Megarian bowls were discovered at all three sites analysed here (Ursachi 1995: 184 - 186, pl. 282/7; Vulpe, Teodor 2003: 312, nos. 655-657, fig. 217/13). They are made of grey or brick-red fabric. As one can note, the shape, the decorative registers and certain decorative motifs such as imbrications, rosettes, or palmettes were adopted. The local potters either closely reproduced these motifs or they employed them in their own fashion, based on their own taste and technological knowledge. Taking into account the fact that local variants of Megarian bowls with imbricated decoration were produced in the local workshops, it is possible that the shape was introduced to the repertory of the three centres during the first half of the second century BC.

Taking into account the beginnings of oinophora production in Knidos (Mandel 1988: 126-131) and the end of Geto-Dacian habitation in the sites of Brad and Răcătău, the pots inspired by oinophora in the two centres were produced sometime towards the end of the first century AD/the beginning of the second century AD (Popescu 2018: 17).

Local jugs – imitations of lagynoi ware (Fig. 5, Nos. 1-4). The centre of Poiana provides several fragments of lagynoi with rounded body and painted decoration in the Hadra style that are very close to ‘white ground’ lagynoi (Figure 5, No. 1). Also, among the vessels

Decorative motifs and techniques inspired by pottery from Asia Minor Painted decoration (Figure 3, No. 4, Figure 7, Nos. 1-9).

3  I use the term kantharoi for local products modeled after imported kantharoi and skyphoi even if the term is incorrect due to the fact that Romanian specialised literature speaks of locally produced kantharoi either in relation to kantharoi or skyphoi imitations.

Even if the majority of pottery from Asia Minor documented on the three sites is painted according to the West Slope style (light motifs against a dark

106

The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians

6

7

1

Figure 5. Local jugs – imitations of lagynoi ware: 1. Poiana (personal photos with S. Teodor permission ); 2-4. Poiana (Popescu 2014, fig. 4-6); local kantharoi with barbotine decoration: 5. Poiana (Popescu 2014, fig. 2), 7. Racătău (Popescu 2014, fig. 1); local kantharos imitating lead glazed decoration: 6. Poiana (Popescu 2014, fig. 3).

2

background), local production centres showed a preference for painting their products in the Hadra style (dark motifs against a light background). This is indicated by the quantity and the variety of painted wares modelled after imported shapes but, even better, by the quantity and the variety of traditional painted wares (Ursachi 1995:202-207). Geto-Dacian potters preferred painting with dark coloured motifs that in the original variants were painted with light colours, as indicated by the few examples of local products inspired by low angular body skyphoi with West Slope decoration (Pl. III/4-5, VII/8). One also encounters cases where burnished motifs, specific to wares made of grey fabric, have been painted with dark colours against a light background (Figure 7, No. 3).

3

The start of pottery painting in the Geto-Dacian centres is placed sometime towards the end of the second century/the beginning of the first century BC (Florea 1998: 80-86). This way of decorating fine wares became a common, traditional practice during the period between the first century BC and the first century AD.

4

Mould-made and appliqué decoration (Figure 4, Nos.1a,b–4, Figure 6, Nos. 3a,b) From a technical perspective, the main result of local potters coming into contact with Megarian bowls was that they learned the technique of moulding. Thus, when the Geto-Dacian potters discovered the oinophora,

5 107

Mariana-Cristina Popescu

1 4a

2a 4b

2b

5a

3a

5b Figure 6. Local pots inspired by oinophora: 1. Brad (Ursachi 1995, pl. 169/1); 2a,b – 5a,b. Racătău (personal photos with V. Căpitanu permission).

3b 108

The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians

making pots in bivalve moulds was just an issue of adapting the techniques they had already mastered before. The decoration of some of the pots, inspired by oinophora with decorative plates (Figure 6, Nos. 3a,b), is an innovation by the potters from Răcătău who used decoration inspired by pots decorated with appliqué that they had had the opportunity to see first-hand (Popescu 2013, 116-117, nos. 118, 119-121, pl. 38) on a freshly adopted shape.

Some final considerations As one can note based on the published archaeological data and illustration, several common shapes modelled after Asia Minor drinking and pouring vessels were produced and, at the same time, shapes produced strictly in those centres can be identified in each of the three Geto-Dacian sites under discussion. The same is true for decorative techniques inspired by imported wares.

A new experiment: barbotine decoration (Figure 5, Nos. 2-7).

Among the shapes common to the three centres one can mention Megarian bowls and various shapes of kantharoi. Locally produced Megarian bowls are not numerous and the production of the three centres does not rise to the level of the local centres known for the production of such items (Casan-Franga 1967: 7-35; Vulpe, Gheorghiţă 1976: 167-204). The local kantharos on the other hand seems to have been the drinking vessel of foreign inspiration that enjoyed the greatest popularity at the three sites. Statistical data published, for example, in the monograph on the site at Brad show that ca. 1100 such vessels were identified there (Ursachi 1995: 179-180, 204). Two common shapes were produced in the three centres, inspired by Pergamene kantharoi and by skyphoi with low angular bodies. The greatly popular shape seems to have been that which imitates skyphoi with low angular bodies, if one admits that the published illustration can be relevant from a quantitative perspective. Kantharoi that imitate baggy kantharoi are only illustrated in the case of the settlement from Brad and they were probably produced in this centre alone.

During the first century AD new types of wares reached the three Geto-Dacian sites: Pontic sigillata and lead glazed vessels (Popescu 2013: 65-77, 80-83). They did not remain unnoticed. According to published data, local products with decoration inspired by these wares have been documented (Popescu 2014: 123-133). Geto-Dacian potters started to produce wares with barbotine decoration. The barbotine motifs may form the decoration themselves (Figure 5, No.7), they can be combined with burnished motifs (Figure 5, No. 5), or, together with painted motifs, they may form part of complex decorative compositions (Figure 5, Nos. 2-4). Barbotine motifs were also used to imitate lead glazed vessels. The autochthonous potters did not know how to produce lead glazes and, implicitly, how to manufacture lead glazed vessels, but they did know how to allude to the new pots in their own personal fashion. One kantharos fragment produced in Poiana, decorated with barbotine motifs, alludes to lead glazed skyphoi (Popescu 2014:127, no. 3, fig.3 ) (Figure 5, No. 6 ). The item has been modelled out of brick-red fabric and is covered with reddish brick-red engobe, left the colour of the fabric except for the barbotine motifs, so that there is a chromatic contrast between the wall of the vessel and the decorative motifs.

There are also shapes that seem to have only been produced in one or two of the discussed centres. Lagynoi painted in a dark colour against a light background or with painted decoration combined with barbotine motifs are only known among the items discovered at the site at Poiana. In their turn, items inspired by the oinophora are only known from the sites in Brad and Răcătău.

The ratio between vessels with barbotine decoration and those with painted motifs, is clearly in favour of the latter, and the decoration of pots with motifs made in both techniques suggests the hypothesis of an experiment. The ‘traditional’ association between grey fabric vessels and burnished decoration and vessels made of brick-red fabric and painted decoration was unsurpassable. The association of barbotine motifs with painted or burnished motifs stresses the fact that barbotine decoration was an experiment and illustrates a dynamic relation between producers and users. The latter prove rather conservative, if one takes into account the fact that during the first century AD the standard fine wares consisted of red vessels with painted decoration and grey vessels with burnished decoration.

In the case of the decorative techniques one can note the fact that painting with dark colours against a light background was preferred in all three centres. It is Significant that there are items painted in this manner that imitate both the shape and the decorative motifs of imported pottery. This is the case for local kantharoi that imitate skyphoi with low angular bodies decorated in the West Slope manner with garlands with long petals. Still, the centres in Răcătău and Poiana seem to have been much more open to innovation. In the centre at Răcătău potters attempted to embellish vessels with decorated plates and there, but also at the centre at Poiana, they tried to introduced decoration applied according to the barbotine technique.

109

Mariana-Cristina Popescu

6

1

7

2

8 3

4 9 Figure 7. Local kantharoi with painted decoration: 1-3. Brad (personal photos with V. Ursachi permission), 4. Poiana (personal photo with S. Teodor permission), 5-9. Racătău (personal photos with V. Căpitanu permission).

5 110

The Impact of Imports from Asia Minor on Local Production by Northern Thracians

v.Chr.- Mitte 2 Jahrhundert n.Chr, Pergamenische Forschungen 6, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter. Mitsopoulous-Leon, V. 1991: Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, Kleinefunde 1: Keramik hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos 9/2.2. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wisenschaften. Glodariu, I. 1974: Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică şi romană. Cluj, Editura Dacia. Popescu, M.-C. 2013: Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in pre-Roman Dacia (2nd century BC 1st century AD). Bucharest, Arhitectură. Restaurare. Arheologie. Popescu, M.-C. 2014: ‘Notă privind vase cu decor aplicat în tehnica barbotinei produse în atelierele geto-dacice’ în D. Măndescu (ed.). Influenţe, contacte şi schimburi culturale între civilizaţiile spaţiului carpato-dunărean, Piteşti: 123–33. Popescu, M.-C. 2017: ‘Kantharoi produced in the getodacian settlement of Brad. Several observations on models and chronology’ Caiete ARA 8: 31–40. Popescu, M.-C. 2018: ‘Oinophora  reflected in getodacian pottery workshops production in 1st century AD’ Acta Musei Napocensis 55/1: 9–24. Schäfer, J. 1968: Hellenistische Keramik aus Pergamon. Pergamenische Forschungen 2. Berlin-New York, De Gruyter. Sîrbu, V., Florea G. 1997: Imagine şi Imaginar în lumea geto dacilor. Brăila, Istros. Trohani, G. 2005: Locuirea getică din partea de nord a Popinei Borduşani (com. Borduşani, jud. Ialomiţa)1. Târgovişte, Cetatea de Scaun. Trohani, G.2006: Locuirea getică din partea de nord a Popinei Borduşani (com. Borduşani, jud. Ialomiţa) 2. Târgovişte, Cetatea de Scaun. Ursachi, V. 1995: Zargidava. Cetatea dacică de la Brad. Bucharest, Bibliotheca Thracologica. Vulpe, R., Gheorghiţă, M. 1976: Bols à reliefs de Popeşti, Dacia: Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire Ancienne 20: 167–204. Vulpe, R., Teodor S. 2003: Piroboridava. Aşezarea dacică de la Poiana. Bucharest, Bibliotheca Thracologica.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Mrs. S. Teodor (A. D. Xenopol Institute of Archaeology, Iaşi), Mr. V. Ursachi (Roman County Museum), and Mr. V. Căpitanu (Iulian Antonescu Museum Complex, Bacău), coordinators of the archaeological excavations on the sites of Brad, Răcătău, and Poiana, for allowing me in 2006 and 2009 to study the imported material found there and to document local products discovered on these sites until 1996. Bibliography Behr, D. 1988: ‘Neue Ergebnisse zur pergamenische Westabhankeramik’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 38: 97– 178. Căpitanu, V. 1976: ‘Principalele rezultate ale săpăturilor arheologice în aşezarea geto-dacică de la Răcătău (Judeţul Bacău)’ Carpica 8: 49–120. Căpitanu, V. 1992: ‘Noi contribuţii la cunoaşterea civilizaţiei geto-dacice în bazinul Siretului Mijlociu. Cetatea dacică de la Răcătău (Antica Tamasidava)’ Carpica 23/1: 131–92. Casan, I., Cihodaru, C., Constantinescu, S., Florescu, G., Grigoraş, M., Radu, P., Vulpe, R. 1950 : ‘Raport sumar despre activitatea şantierului arheologic PoianaTecuci, 1949’ Studii Și cercetări de istorie veche 2: 47–52. Casan-Franga, I. 1967: ‘Contribuţii cu privire la cunoaşterea ceramicii geto-dacice. Cupele “deliene” getice de pe teritoriul României’ Arheologia Moldovei 5: 7–35. Florea, G. 1998: Ceramica pictată. Artă, meşteşug şi societate în Dacia preromană (sec. 1 a.Chr. - 1 p. Chr.). Cluj, Presa Universitară Clujeană. Lungu, V. 2013: La céramique West Slope d’Istros, Histria 14, Bucarest- Paris, Académie Roumaine - De Boccard. Mandel, U. 1988: Kleinasiatische reliefkeramik der mittleren kaiserzeit. Die ‘oinophorengruppe’ und verwandtes, Pergamenische Forschungen, 5. Berlin-New York, De Gruyter. Meyer-Schlichtmann, C. 1988: Die pergamenische Sigillata aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon: Mitte 2 Jahrhundert

111

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade Billur Tekkök Karaöz1 Abstract1 Trade in fine tablewares and amphorae along with other goods and their distribution and value has been a new research parameter over the last 15 years. Ilion’s geographical location and its active role in trade on the ancient maritime routes from the Aegean to Propontis and the Black Sea, as well as the dynamics behind distribution patterns heading toward the Black Sea area will be reviewed from the early settlements in the region to the Roman period. Recent excavations have shown new results on the interaction of Ilion with the Aegean, inland Anatolia and the Mediterranean. Previous studies on trade interactions mostly focused on Archaic and Classical pottery production and distribution, especially in relation to post-Greek colonisation. Publication of the Attic and Corinthian pottery is well recorded. Commentary on cargos composed of agricultural products – wine and oil – have been a concern as well. Since well distributed groups from production sites had their trademarks (stamps) on vessels, they have been published on a grand scale. Amphora studies have not only provided data on agricultural production, but also the relationship between import preferences and historical changes, as well as local demographic change in a production site. In short, this information was dependent on the countable stamped amphora handles, whereas regional production centres with no stamps were excluded from the whole quantification value; however, local or regional products which are important to document the regional economy were not widely published. The information on local agricultural produce was kept silent. The workforce and the scope of production were studied by scholars. This study aims to present major types of local pottery production during the late Hellenistic and Roman periods at Ilion and will highlight common imported pottery groups and their chronology at the site. Keywords TRADE, FINE TABLE WARE, PRODUCTION AT ILION (TROIA)

COARSE

WARE,

LOCAL

Introduction The economics of pottery is set firmly within the framework of social development and the dynamics of economic and other cultural aspects that can reveal insights into the networks of connectivity through which knowledge transfer and exchange occurred. The Troad, on the major maritime trade route up Prof. Dr., Baskent University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Art History and Museology Department, [email protected]

1 

to the Black Sea, played an important strategic role throughout historical times. Ilion (Troia)’s location on the Dardanelles has provided evidence for imports from the Eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus, mainland Greece, the Greek Islands, and inland Anatolia from the 2nd millennium BC onwards (Memiş 2019: 215-217, Latacz 2002: 42). The excavations since 1989 have created immense knowledge about the site of Ilion. The nature of the excavations and an interdisciplinary approach to the study of ceramics have provided information on the economy of Ilion and its environs for production and land use. Troy’s economy during the Bronze Age has been studied on a grand scale (Pavúk 2005, 2010a,b, 2019; Korfmann 2006; Pernicka et al. 2014; Wagner et al. 2003). Here the aim is to review Ilion’s interaction with other regions starting from the earliest settlement period, the but focus will be on the Hellenistic and Roman phases of the city. Aspects of the economy, information on the local pottery production, the input behind local production, and changes in its patterns allow for a new reconstruction of the local economy and its development. Ilion permits a study of the economic system for each phase. Trade connections in earlier phases: From the 5th millennium BC, the Troad’s maritime route was in use from the Dardanalles to the Aegean (Höckmann 2003; Rose 2014: 9, note 10). However, the maritime connections among the Black Sea, Bosphorus, Sea of Marmara, Dardanelles, and Aegean during the Late Chalcolithic and Bronze Age are still unresolved (Özdoğan 2003). The earlier phases of Troy (Troy I-III) were titled a maritime culture by Manfred Korfmann; he related this phase to the northern Aegean and the Greek mainland (Rose 2014: 11; Korfmann 2001; Sazcı 2005). Troy’s geographical location and the city’s importance in the Late Bronze Age trade networks between the Aegean to the Black Sea have been discussed by scholars (Korfmann 1995; Kolb 2004). The early and middle Troy VI ceramics suggested a Dodecanese origin, and there must have been regular commercial interaction between Troy and the coastal cities (Pavúk 2010b). The Black Sea was possibly not open to Aegean maritime traffic during the Bronze Age: Rose commented after Pulak that there is currently insufficient evidence for such shipping prior to the 8th century B.C (Rose 2014: 36,note 130; Pulak 1998: 219; Kolb 2004: 591-95). No

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 112–131

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

traces of Bronze Age settlements have been found along the coastal areas of the Black Sea other than Bulgaria, nor any Mycenaean pottery, while stone anchors found off the eastern coast of Bulgaria have been compared with Aegean types.

309-310; Utili 1999: 78-82; Gebauer 1992: 71), grey ware from Smyrna dated to the end of the 7th Century BC by Polat (Polat 2002: 27, note 137; Bayne 2000: fig.45.9), and grey ware from the tombs in Tenedos dated to the 8th and 7th centuries BC (Takaoğlu,Yaman 2019). Grey ware from Daskyleion was dated from the 8th to 6th Century BC (Polat 2002; Polat 2004). In the northern Troad east of Biga along Kocadere River grey ware (karkhesion) matches with the finds from Tenedos and Dasklyleion (Rose,Tekkök et al. 2007:86, n.70, pl.V late 7th century BC). Grey ware production continued in the Troad region in limited quantities until the Early Byzantine period (Bieg,Tekkök et al. 2006: 162, taf.3-4 Killik Tepe, also in grey).

The pottery sets firm ground for the economic system of the city from the 2nd millennium down to its end. Most ceramic research for the earlier phases focuses on debates on the regional production of grey wares, mainly West Asia Minor (Trojan and other) products in the Bronze Age (1800-1300 BC, Troia VI Phase) (Pavúk 2010b; French 1967; Bayne 2000). The evidence for the continuity of the production of Anatolian Grey Ware after the collapse in 1200 BC (Troy VIIb) with the same fabric is published by Pavúk (Pavúk 2008;Pavúk et al. 2019:183).

Lydian pottery is not well represented and published in the whole Troad, although it was under Lydian control during the 7th Century BC until the Persian rule in the 6th century BC. Although most of the Lydian pottery discovered at Daskyleion appears to have been made at Sardis, some pieces do not seem to be of Sardian manufacture, suggesting provincial production (Gürtekin-Demir 2002). Daskyleion finds during this period reflect a multi-cultural settlement of Lydian, Phrygian and local residents during both the Lydian and the Achaemenid periods (Gürtekin-Demir 2002: 141-42; Bakir,Gusmani 1993: 141-44, Kat. Nr. 4; Bakir 1995: 273; 1997: 234-45). Greenewalt suggested that early Fikellura pottery was made somewhere in western Lydia between 625-575 BC, although only few examples were found in Ilion and in Dasykleion (Greenewalt 1971: 163, 165; Gürtekin-Demir 2002: 113-14).

During the 10th century BC Troy was in contact with other centres of ceramic production, and local production has been approved by NAA results (Rose 2014: 46 note10). During the 10th century BC, Protogeometric amphoras of local clay and a limited number of Euboean imports were noted (Rose 2014: 47,note 11). The pits in the West Sanctuary provided evidence for the production of local wares for cultic function, such as kraters, cups, a thymiaterion with animal frieze (Aslan 2009b: 149-150; Rose 1998: 74-77, Inv.N.P584); Rose 2014: 47,49 fig.2.3) and a local grey ware thymiaterion (Rose 1997: 83-84, Inv.N.P534). During the early 1st millennium BC Troy did not witness attacks or the arrival of a new population, nor a change in ceramic production. The ceramic assemblages remained remarkably consistent (Mountjoy, Hankey 1988: 30-32; Aslan et al. 2019).

A distinct local painted ware group named G2/3 Ware by Blegen (derived from its findspot at Ilion) with decoration using small geometric motifs, especially vertical zigzags, dots, hooked spirals, or step patterns set within fields of empty space on upper sections of the vessels; often the lower parts of the vessels have painted horizontal bands (Mommsen et al. 2001). The decoration was painted in brown, red, and orange slip on a light tan slipped background. The repertoire included kantharoi, small cups, jugs, kraters and occasionally bowls. The ware was produced from the middle 8th to middle 7th century BC in Troy and was exported to nearby islands – Thasos, Samothrace, Lesbos, Tenedos, Lemnos and Maydos – and possibly produced elsewhere besides Ilion (Aslan-Sazcı 2016: 6, fig.6, cat.3, fig.8,cat.11-12; Aslan 2002: 92-93; Blegen et al. 1958: 253-255; Rose 2014: 53, note 46; Takaoğlu,Yaman 2019: 333). After the destruction at Ilion, the ware ceased production (Aslan 2009a: 36-38).

Grey wares had a long tradition in north-western Anatolia and the north-eastern Aegean islands. Grey ware published by Lamb from Lesbos has shown a similar repertoire during the Bronze to the Iron Age. The Iron Age pottery of Lesbos, like that of Troy has more parallels in the eastern Aegean and Anatolia than in mainland Greece, at least through the 8th century BC (Spencer 1995: 304; Lamb 1932:1-3; Bayne 2000: 200217, 314). It was in the highest ratio in deposits at Troy from the Late Bronze Age to the Middle Archaic period; production decreased during the second half of the 6th century BC (Blegen et al. 1958: 21,155, 252-53; Pavúk 2002; Pavúk 2008; Aslan 2002: 91-92; Aslan 2009c). The grey ware forms differ comparably in Troy, Lemnos, Lesbos, Tenedos and Maydos but they form the same ceramic tradition.

The interaction of the region with inland Anatolia and islands (Lesbos, Tenedos and Maydos) from the 8th century BC has been discussed by scholars using

Besides Troy, Assos grey ware has been published dating to the second half of the 7th century BC (Bayne 2000:

113

Billur Tekkök Karaöz archaeological evidence (Rose 2014: 53; Aslan,Sazcı 2016; Arslan 2003, 6th century BC; Spencer 1995: 293, note 143 (fibulae); note 144 (grey wares); Takaoğlu,Yaman 2019).

Ilion and the Troad during the Hellenistic and Roman periods The imported groups of Hellenistic and Roman pottery to the Troad and surviving local ceramic tradition were published in grand scale from all major sites: Ilion (Tekkök-Bicken 1996; Tekkök 2000; Tekkök-Bicken 2000; Tekkök et.al 2001; Tekkök 2003; Bieg,Tekkök et al. 2006; Heath,Tekkök 2006 online; Bieg, Tekkök et al. 2008; Tekkök et al. 2009; Tekkök 2010; Tekkök,Pernicka 2012; Berlin 1999; Kozal 2001), Apollo Smintheion (Akyürek 1992; Yavuz 2020), Assos (Zelle 1990; 1997; 2003, Ayaz 2014), Parion (Ergürer 2012; 2015; 2016; 2018; Akkaş 2018) and Alexandria Troas (Japp 2008; 2011 et al.; Kaşka, Fırat 2015; Fırat-Kaşka 2019).

The imported pottery during the Late Archaic period was found as votives to a female deity around Altar B in Lower Sanctuary (Aslan 2002). These included Attic, Corinthian, and Ionian cups along with Swan Style cups possibly of local production. The quantities of Attic pottery in the late 7th century B.C. deposits at Ilion may have links with Sigeion, an Attic colony (Osborne 1996: 121-125; Körpe,Yavuz 2009). The control of trade, demand for tribute from the middle of the 6th century BC under Lydian control of the Troad and later under Achaemenid rule, and the ability of Ilion’s local economy to cope up with these changes also find answers in amphora studies (Lawall 2002: 211-12). The amphora imports during the late 6th century match with the amphorae in Daskyleion: wedge rim amphorae in northern Aegean fabrics and their local variants, biconical jars in local fabric, short stem toes in local or regional fabrics, and local series (Batır 1998; Atila 1999; Lawall 2002).

The surveys in the Troad have shown that ‘the pottery zones’ differ between the hinterland of Troy and the north of the Troad (Rose, Tekkök et al. 2007). Regional and local production series need to be identified and published in most sites to understand land use in northern and southern Troad. The distribution pattern of the regional groups with agricultural produce and imported groups from inland sources is another important aspect that needs to be further investigated (Tekkök, Akyol et al. 2016: 314-15).

During the 5th and early 4th centuries, habitation deposits are extremely rare in Ilion (Rose 2014: 146, note 20). The Persian king Xerxes visited the site with his army in 480 BC during his campaign against Greece and visited the temple of Athena to offer libations (Herodotus 7.43; Rose 2014: 144, note 3). During the 5th century BC the city was controlled by different powers: until 478 by Persia, from 478-428 BC by Mytiline and between 427-410 BC by Athens (Lawall 2002: 212; Rose 2014: 146, note 18 for detail). During this period the Attic pottery tradition dominated the region, and regional variants of Attic pottery, so-called Atticising wares, during the 5th and 4th Centuries copied forms after Attic common forms (Berlin, Lynch 2002; Sevinç et al. 1998; Tuna, Nörling 1999).

Ilion’s fortunes changed after Alexander’s visit in 334 BC; he changed the status of the city to polis and declared it free and exempt from taxation. After his death, during the course of Antigonus’ reign, the political structure of the Troad was significantly altered. This also marked a period of prominence for Ilion, both financially and politically, as it did for most of the cities lying along the coast of the Troad. Antigonus established a koinon of Troad cities centreed on the cult of Athena Ilias, both coastal and inland cities, including the northern Troad to the Sea of Marmara, including Chalcedon and Apamea Myrlea (Rose 2014: 159; for the coinage under koinon 160, fig.8.1). The pottery datable to the first quarter of 3rd century BC came from the deposits of an Early Hellenistic building in the West Sanctuary (Rose,Tekkök et.al forthcoming). The building served a ritual function and contained finds for weaving activity (spindle whorls, loom weights; Rose 2014, 199). The fine wares in the foundation deposits of the building were dominated by black glazed regional imitations of Attic pottery, referred to as Atticising (Cook 1965: 143). Both the literary evidence and recent excavations indicated production of Attic style fine wares in the north Aegean continuing south at least as far as the region of Knidos, Samothrace (Kopcke 1992: 287-88), Ainos (Enez) (Personal comm.with Prof. Sait Başaran), Phocaea (Özyigit 1999: 51; 325 BC), Smryna (Cook 1965: 143), Chios (Anderson 1954: 148, n.152), Ephesus (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 17; MitsopoulosLeon 1978: 113-123; Keil 1913: 232), and the region of

In the northern Troad the percentages of Atticising wares dominated during the last quarter of 5th to 4th Centuries BC (Rose, Tekkök et.al 2007:103). Trade ties between the Aegean and the Troad in the 4th century BC must have been related to Achaemenid aristocratic support for production. The festivals around the koinon of Athena Ilias may have increased trade activities around Ilion (Lawall 2002: 214, note 85). However, the trade networks that crossed the region clearly suffered during the subsequent Spartan invasion of 396/5 BC when a number of settlements and paradeisoi were burned along with Daskyleion itself (Rose 2014, 150: note 41). By 364/3 BC Sigeion and possibly Ilion were under the control of the Athenian general Chares who ruled there until the arrival of Alexander in 334 BC (Körpe,Yavuz 2012; Leaf 1923: 129, 190; Rose 2014:152). 114

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

Halikarnassos (Vaag et al. 2002: 16, notes 22 and 23). The wide variation in fabrics found with these vessels at Ilion reflects the possibility of many different producers along the coast of Asia Minor. Truly Attic imports do not appear in these Early Hellenistic contexts (Rotroff et al. 2003: 19). The forms included Classical kantharoi, West Slope style kantharoi, cups, bowls, kraters, amphorae, cooking pots, local plain ware jugs, grey ware jugs, basins, and a miniature amphora. West Slope style decoration appears on both the Classical type kantharoi and other shapes. Early West Slope style decoration on kantharoi includes incised vine decoration with dotted rosettes in thick white slip alternating above and below, a wreath in thick cream white slip and pendant buds in tan with no incision. Such decoration is employed on Pergamene kantharoi throughout the third century BC, but the form and fabric is not Pergamene. The decoration on a black glazed thin-walled cup comprised a thick line of a wreath in cream slip and incised lines typical of pendant bud decoration, but the buds in this case were left off. Such abbreviated rendering of West Slope decoration is also seen on miniature kantharoi in Ilion (Tekkök 2000: 92, n.32, pl.3). A krater with stylised ivy decoration with incised tendrils and thick tan leaves also forms an early example of the series. The early West Slope style decorated amphora shows a distinct fabric and surface treatment. The fabric is deep pink with much lime visible on the surface. The surface is covered by matte red/brown slip. The wall is very thick and heavy. Similar examples were found in Black Sea sites (Lomtadze, Žuravlev 2014).

After the construction of the city wall between 241 and 228 BC under the reign of Antiochus Hierax, the city expanded with new territories, and houses were built in the Lower City (Tekkök 2000: 86; Aylward 1999: 17475; Rose 2014: 180). The pottery discovered within this context of the city wall were standard tableware (black glazed fish plates, kantharoi, saucers, and an outcurved rim bowl), cookware and unglazed local plates (Tekkök 2000: 91, n.20-21, pl.7). Later occupation within the city wall contained pottery datable to 190-100 BC including local mold-made bowls (Tekkök 2000: 93, n.44-45, pl.5). The pottery datable to the last quarter of the 3rd century BC came from another building in the West Sanctuary called the Mosaic Building, possibly a temple with a square cella and deep pronaos (8.5x13). Rose commented that the building may have functioned as a horseman cult area due to the high number of horseman plaques found in the building fills (Rose 2014: 202-03, fig.9.6). The fills contain early Pergamene pottery with West Slope style, forms included kanthroi and kraters. The material from the clearing fills of the Mosaic Building shows similarity with the finds from the Temple B construction fills, which is quite significant since it provides a chronological link between the clean-up of the Mosaic Building and the construction of Temple B. The finds include Pergamene plates with outturned rims and black glaze bands (De Luca,Radt 1999: 16, n.44; ibid. 18, n.57; De Luca 1968: 137, n.237, pls. 48, 65, Building Phase 10, ca.170 BC), and West Slope style plates with offset rims in the regional fabric which are also found in the City Wall foundation trenches and Lower City (Tekkök 2000: 91, n.22, pl.1; Berlin 1999: 124, n.136, pls.1 and 23). A Classical type kantharos with ribbed lower body (Tekkök 2000: 90, n.4, pl.2; Berlin 1999: 126, n.159, pl.2) and Hellenistic kantharoi with low molded bases are regional products. Their fabrics are pinkish buff with a variety of firing features ending up with poor slip quality ranging from brown to black on the surface and often grey at the core (Tekkök 2000: 92, n.26, pl.2; Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 24, A11, fig.2; Berlin 1999: 120, n.105, pl.3; Samothrace Northern Cemetery; Karadima 1994: 199, fig. 3 and 4, end of 3rd-beginning of 2nd Century BC). The kantharoi have spool handles and West Slope style decoration is faded on the surface mostly floral or pendant buds in thin clay. Among the finds the stamped kantharoi with spur handles both have rectangular retrograde stamps in a single line with illegible letters that reads ΛΘΘΛ reverse Ε and C (P725 (z7.18) with three coins; C195 (Sigeion 355-334 BC); C214 (A.Hierax 241-228 BC); C194 (Augustus)). There were other stamps from earlier excavations in Ilion (Schmidt 1902: 195, n.3983 reads ACΠA second line CIAC double line rectangular retrogade stamp). (Figure 1).

The chytra with everted rim compares well in form with examples dated around 300 BC in Athens, pre-H1 construction fills in Ilion, and in Thasos (Athens ;Rotroff 1997: 387, n.1479, n.1480, fig.87, pl.111, 300-270 BC; Ilion Lower City; Berlin 2002: 154, n.108, pl.17; Thasos; Blonde 1985: 339, n.352, fig.56, local, ca.330 BC). The plain ware basin with molded stylised ivy decoration is of a regional fabric that rarely appears in later contexts, and the decoration and form find parallels within the second half of the 4th century (For the decoration, see Ghali-Kahil 1960: 136, n.42, pl.62; for the form, see Blonde 1985; 330, n. 293, fig.44, ca.330 BC). Plain ware jugs with either a distinct orangish buff limey fabric with fine silver mica, or a micaceous and calcareous grey fabric find parallels in late 4th or very early 3rd BC contexts in the Lower City of Ilion and in Datça/Reşadiye (Berlin 1999: 109, n.31, pl.7; Tuna 2003: 52, pl.41, n.2). While similar grey ware jars were claimed as local products at Seuthopolis (before ca. 275BC) and Histria, the examples from Ilion and others at Assos raise the likelihood of Early Hellenistic grey ware production in the Troad (Seuthopolis; Dimitrov,Chichikova 1978: 18, Histria; Alexandrescu 1978: 102, n.661, fig.22, Assos; Gebauer 1993: 87, no. 42, fig. 5, Ilion; Berlin 1999: 101).

Another example has a double line of stamps that reads as Αωρο ΘΕΟΥ with a genitive ending that refers to its 115

Billur Tekkök Karaöz use in the Sanctuary. There are no published examples of such stamped kantharoi, but a similar kantharois with graffiti Θ on the spur handle comes from the fills of Arsinoeion in Samothrace (Lehmann 1960: 86, n.195, pl. 8; unpublished examples of stamped variety as in Ilion from Samothrace; personal communication with Susan Rotroff). (Figure 2) There is another kantharos with West Slope style decoration with graffiti that reads MELITHE TRIA, naming three gods, which may have related to its function in the Sanctuary (Rose 1998: 87-88, fig.13; Rose 1999; 50; Lawall 2003: 95; Behr 1988: 118, n.4, fig. 1; end of 3rd Century BC, for form in Pergamon). It is a Pergamene style of kantharos with non-Pergamene fabric (Figure 3). Such a graffito on a drinking vessel and its association with the cult in the Sanctuary may have links to mystery cults in relation to Samothrace, coexisting with the worship of Dardanos and Cybele discussed by earlier publications. It is not clear whether the graffiti relates a deity to whom tria is offered or if melithe refers to the island of Samothrace. It could well be an indication of three things offered to the deity whose cult was practiced in the building (Lawall 2003: 95, note 10).

Figure 1. Kantharos handle with retrogade stamp (P725) (Troia Archive).

The West Slope style kraters first appear within the clearing fills of the Mosaic Building, especially with running olive branch, and find parallels in Pergamon where similar examples come from the Altar Foundation trenches, and in Building Phase 9 in Athens from deposits of 250-175 BC (Luca-Radt 1999: 88, n.441, pl.13; De Luca 1968: 130, n.191, pl.44; Rotroff 1997: 412, n.1679, fig.100, pl.134).

Figure 2. Kantharos handle with retrogade stamp (z08.0031:2. P340) (Troia Archive).

There were not any lamps from the Mosaic Building itself; all come from the post destruction clearing fills. The lamp with West Slope style decoration finds parallels in Pergamon (Schäfer 1968: 124, H8, pl.53, 3rd century BC). The lamps fall into Howland Type 30 and 32 and Schäfer’s Group K types in Pergamon, but the fabrics are all regional and they don’t show extensive use. They may have been intended as votives. They were over-fired which has resulted with a matte surface and hard fabric (Figure 4). Outcurved rim bowls are very common in the fills. The main characteristics are their turned rims; semiglazing is a common feature; firing is uneven. The examples with everted banded rim and rouletting interior has parallels in Pergamon Building Phase 6, 10 and elsewhere at the end of the third to second century BC (De Luca 1968, n.89, pl.89; n.232, pl.48). Grey examples are of local fabric (Figure 9). A miniature local pyxis with selfslip flaked off the surface may have been a votive (Figure 12).

Figure 3. Kantharos with West Slope style decoration and graffiti (P411; Rose 1998,fig.13) (Troia Archive).

116

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

The foundation deposits of two temples and the clearing fills after the Fimbrian destruction of the Late Hellenistic Building in the West Sanctuary in 85 BC provided a whole local production series and imported groups of pottery between the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. These included local basins with white and red slip decoration, white slip painted kraters, mold-made bowls related to a cultic activity and kraters with relief decoration possibly related to cultic activities in the sanctuary. A local bowl with a figural theme from a fresh mold depicts a ritual that involves drinking, which is illustrated by a krater, filled possibly by a female figure – she pours wine into the krater from a container possibly made of animal skin. Next to her is a nude young male figure holding a torch; he is standing behind a grain measure, holding something else in his right hand which is not clear. The male figure next to him also stretches out his right arm and again it is not clear what he holds with his left arm – the scene repeats. The rendering of the figures and the medallion is slightly irregular; the same matrice was used alternatively on another bowl. The nature of the ritual depicted here is hard to predict but it certainly relates to the deities worshipped in the temples. It must have served a special function in the Sanctuary. (Figure 5)

Figure 4. Lamp with traces of West Slope style decoration (z08.1832.104. L408) (Troia Archive).

Imports from the Black Sea centres rise, especially after the end of the 2nd century BC. This may have been linked with the construction of Via Egnatia in 141-119 BC, which ties the link from the Adriatic to Perinthos/ Herakleia (Zarmakoupi 2018). Amphipolis, founded by Athens in 438/7 BC on a strategic location on the maritime network linking the Aegean coast with the Thracian interior, was a centre of commerce during the Roman Imperial period, and the koinon of craftsmen in the city (89-94 BC) enhanced the commercial activity of the city (Zarmokoupi 2018: 278, note 67). Some producers of red slipped pottery in modern day Romania and Bulgaria exported tableware products, mostly cups and plates, from the Flavian period to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD via the Troad to the Aegean (Baltac 2018: note; Cluj-Napoca Meeting of RCRF comprises ceramic goods in Dacia and Lower Moesia from 1st to 7th Centuries AD. The catalog also includes pottery from production sites). The pattern of commonly imported groups of pottery (Eastern Sigillata A, B, Pergamene/Çandarlı wares, Italian Sigillata, Cypriot Sigillata, Thin Walled Wares, Early Roman Glazed Wares, Pompeian Red Ware, African Red Slip Ware, Phocaean Red Slip Ware) generally fall into similar percentages in coastal sites (Heath,Tekkök 2006, https://classics.uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/; Tekkök 2003; Bieg, Tekkök 2006; Tekkök et.al 2009; Tekkök 2010; Tekkök 2012). Some unidentified red slipped varieties

Figure 5. Local moldmade bowl, West Sanctuary, Temple B fills.

117

Billur Tekkök Karaöz

Figure 6. Clustered kilns (Y59), Hans Günter Jansen magnetometer scans (Troia Archive 1994).

Figure 7. X2 kiln, 1997 (Troia Archive).

118

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

Figure 8. Hellenistic plate, kiln waster from a different trench,1992 (Quadrant D9, Schliemann’s trench on the mound) (Troia Archive).

Figure 11. Hellenistic mold, late 2nd century BC, Quadrant A29.94.4 (Tekkök-Bicken 1996, 127, G2, fig.6).

Figure 9. Outcurved rim bowl, grey, late 2nd century BC (Tekkök-Bicken 1996, 39, A51, fig 11, end of 2nd century BC).

Figure 12. Pyxis grey, late 2nd century BC (Tekkök-Bicken 1996, 41, A69, fig 13).

Figure 10. Hellenistic moldmade bowl 2nd century BC , Quadrant D2.18.2, (Tekkök-Bicken 1996, 31, A29, fig.6, for the mold).

Figure 13. Kraters, molded rim, grey, 2nd century BC (Tekkök-Bicken 1996, 72, A179, fig.35 (right); A180 (left)).

119

Billur Tekkök Karaöz may have originated from unpublished Thracian sites (Tekkök et al. 2001).

The Trojan semi-fine grey Hellenistic ware shows that the clay originated from a Simois source and contains plenty of silverish mica on the surface. The repertoire of Hellenistic grey tableware includes plates (Figure 8), kantharoi, skyphoi, incurved and outcurved rim bowls (Figure 9), molded bowls (Figure 5, Figures 10-11 (mold)), pyxis (Figure 12), hydriai, and kraters (Figure 13); basins are among other groups in production (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 72, A180-A182, fig.35-36). The decoration with a hand tool, hand forming of the rim and the wall of the vessel suggests a workshop producing terracottas at the same time. But for the production of buff colour kraters and local basins, a Scamander and Simois mixed clay source is used, often resulting with gold mica flakes on the surface of the vessel (Figure 14).

Ilion under the Roman period was annexed to Asia, and local families held land for agriculture. The customs law of Asia makes allowance for individuals who are tax-exempt and exempts goods being transported for religious purposes (sacrificial animals), but at no point does it exempt the produce of sacred land from taxes when it is exported for trade (Wallace 2014: 52, note 63). Roman private investment in Asiatic land still needs to be sought after (Broughton 1934: 209). Local and regional production Local/regional products are important to document the regional economy, but they have not been widely published in the Troad region. Information on the local agricultural produce was kept silent. The workforce, the scope of production and trade elsewhere were studied earlier by scholars. (Garnsey 1983; Peacock 1982).

Three major types of basins were found in the West Sanctuary. Type 1 has an inturning ledge rim, often with handles, white washed on the surface or showing signs of applied white slipped decoration floral or pattern of circles on the wall. Plain white slip is often found on the exterior of Type 1 basins, sometimes accompanied by red over the rim. Floral or circle slip decoration on basins found in the West Sanctuary possibly related to Cybele and Dardanos cult function in the sanctuary (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 68, A164bis,fig.36). (Figures 17, 21). Type 2 basins occasionally have white slip as well (Figure 18).

In Ilion some groups of pottery were produced to be used in sanctuaries, especially slip coloured basins and cups, pyxides, small plates, grey kraters and basins. The local production of pottery during the late Hellenistic and Roman periods at Ilion has been dated with the help of imported groups and their findspots. To attest the origin of clay for local production NAA analysis was undertaken. (Pernicka et al. 2016: 514; Knacke-Loy 1995) The raw and prepared clay found in the kiln (Y59) and local pottery, terracotta and some lamps were analysed to correlate the clay with the source of local production. The finds were compared with the results from the raw clay from the two excavated kilns.

Massive pottery dumps resulting from clean-up of the West Sanctuary after the attack by Fimbria often allowed the reconstruction of nearly complete vessels, and indicated that there was little time between their use, presumably in the Sanctuary area itself, and their final discard. Clean-up fills included mold-made pottery in which 70 percent of the fragments are attributable to the Ionian workshops of Philon, the Monogram group, and the Ephesian workshops of Menemachos. 15 percent were locally produced, and 15 percent by unattributable workshops (Macedonian, Kymaean et al.). The fabric and execution of the local moldmade bowls are simple, often fired grey. The common decorative features are a net pattern, vertical stripes like petals, or simple birds or kraters. (Fig. 5, 10-11) These mold-made bowls are accompanied by various plainware forms including outcurved rim bowls, thin walled jars and casseroles.

Two river sediments Dümrek (Simois) and Menderes (Scamander) joined in the alluvial fill on the Trojan plateau from the Bronze Age, and the two river beds provided a wealth of data for clay types. Clay zones for Bronze Age pithoi and Hellenistic-Roman utilitarian vessels seem to originate from the same clay beds throughout the history of production (Kibaroğlu, Thurmm-Doğrayan 2013). The excavation in two Quadrants of the ‘industrial section’ of the site Y59 excavated in 1990, X2 excavated in 1997 has provided data for the local production. Y59 kiln although collapsed, contained lots of slags, kiln lining, unworked clay with few wasters (Fig.6). No plan of the kiln was drawn, data was gathered asking the workmen, the kiln was rectangular in form (Hasaki 2016: 216). X2 kiln’s interior was completely cleaned, there were virtually no finds to associate with production, but under kiln lining was a Çandarlı, Hayes Form 2 dish fragment dated to the 2nd Century AD. Perforated floor/stand for vessels was in mudbrick, walls were in stone. (Figure 7)

The white slip coating on the local Type 1 basin (Figure 21), local kantharoi, and kraters from the West Sanctuary is very similar to the decoration on Hellenistic thymiateria from both the West Sanctuary and other sanctuary sites (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 68, A164bis, 100-85 BC) (Figure 21). Thymiateria from the West Sanctuary appear in both local and Pergamene fabrics. In Mytilene, thymiateria and bowls in the white ground technique are commonly found at the Sanctuary of Demeter. The use of white slip is common 120

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

Figure 15. Local red slipped bowls, bowl with palmette stamp, Quadrants K17, z6. (Troia Archive 2000) .

Figure 17. Local basin (type 1) with inturning ledge rim and handle. (Troia Archive 2000).

Figure 14. Krater with incised floral pattern. (Troia Archive 2000).

Figure 18. Local basin (type 2)with outcurved bulge rim and horizontal handle. (Troia Archive 2000).

at Aeolian sites along the northwest coast of Asia Minor; unfortunately, most of this pottery remains unpublished. The ritual connection for white slip decoration is further supported by its common use on vessels, terracotta plaques, and statuettes often associated with cult activity. Ethnoarchaeological investigations at Akköy (near Ezine) where women potters produced basins and water jars as a part-time activity, their choice of patterns, and the meaning they put into patterns opened up a new path of understanding for the use of slip painting. (Figure 19) Women applied red-white slip floral decoration on vessels signifying fertility (Tekkök-Bicken 2000). The white and red slipping together appears on local water jars. The white slipping is often non-representational, but on some vessels, it shows simple floral patterns. The white slip used is mainly magnesium carbonate with magnesite and dolomite which is naturally found in the clay body. The red colour is iron oxide supplied from Ida Mountains (Tekkök-Bicken 2000) (Figure 20).

Figure 16. Pyxis lid, local. Quadrant A8/9. (Troia Archive 2000) (Tekkök-Bicken 1996, 29, A23, fig. 5).

121

Billur Tekkök Karaöz

Figure 19. Map of the Troad, showing the location of Akköy (Ezine) (Tekkök-Bicken 2000, map by Gebhardt Bieg).

Ilion in the Roman period

visited the site during the course of the 1st century AD. With their assistance, the city conducted a major building program: the Sanctuary of Athena, the West Sanctuary, the Bouleuterion, and the Theatre were all restored or rebuilt under their patronage. Alterations and a new building program in the West Sanctuary of Ilion started during the Augustan period, although subsequent adjustments, including the construction of the grandstand, were made later in the JulioClaudian and Flavian periods. The excavations in the West Sanctuary (1992-2000), probably dedicated to Cybele, and the Lower City, which includes the Roman residential district, yielded immense amounts of pottery (Rose, Tekkök- Karaöz, Heath 2023).

The inhabitants of the Roman provinces were able to develop identities they never knew they had until Rome gave them the language to express them. The dynamics of trade and army based control over the territories are well discussed by researchers (Hingley 2005). But local industries and continuing traditions need to be studied in each region. By the 4th century BC, Ilion appears to have been recognised as the mother city of the Romans. The city benefited from this connection, especially during the Julio-Claudian period, and the Imperial family often

122

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

at Ilion comes from several buildings in the West Sanctuary, a Roman debris level that covers a building destroyed in 85 BC, the bedding of the grandstand, fills above and below the grandstand, accumulated debris in the Lower Sanctuary area, a clearing fill deposit south of the Sanctuary, and from the Lower City houses and the water-bearing cave in the Lower City. The examples fall into two groups: plain and relief. The vast majority are plain Sigillata examples represented by plates Consp. 1, 18–19, plate with applied motif, conical cup variants of Consp. 22, flanged bowls Consp. 34.2.2, cups with articulated rims Consp. 32.1.1, dishes Consp. 3.2.1, chalice Consp. R4 (Ettlinger 1990; Tekkök 2003). The majority of the plain Italian Sigillata from the West Sanctuary dates to the late Augustan or early JulioClaudian period. Figure 20. Akköy pitchers, bowls with slip painting (Photo: Tekkök-Bicken 2000).

The relief examples of Italian sigillata at Ilion are few in number. Chalices with appliqué or relief decoration are all products of Arezzo (Tekkök 2003: 238, n.13-16). The stamped example comes from the workshop of M. Perennius Bargathes (Tekkök 2003: 238, n.15). The Italian Sigillata datable to the last quarter of the 1st and the 2nd century AD is less than one percent of the fine wares in the West Sanctuary, and less than five percent in the Lower City. Instead, Çandarlı ware dominates in this period. A few examples of late 1st to 2nd century AD Italian Sigillata dishes, Consp. 3 and 34, come from the disturbed fills in the West Sanctuary (Ettlinger 1990; Tekkök 2003: 238, n.11, nos.8-9). The second important group of western imports comprises thin-walled wares. At Ilion, they were imported from the late 1st century BC onwards. Unlike the Italian Sigillata, the percentage of thin-walled ware in closed groups is not insignificant. In the West Sanctuary, they amount to 5 percent of the total fine wares, and in a well deposit in the Lower City (Quadrant H17) they comprise 20 percent of the fine wares. Italian thin-walled beakers with barbotine decoration start to appear in the West Sanctuary by the last quarter of the 1st century BC (Tekkök 2003: 239, fig.1, n.23). The Augustan examples include plain forms, like beakers and cups used in the West Sanctuary. They come from the bedding of the grandstand and disturbed fills below the grandstand level (Tekkök 2003: 239, fig. 2, nos.24-25, nos.27-28). The accumulated debris over the building destroyed by Fimbria in 85 BC contained a thin walled sanded-ware cup which is later than the Augustan period (Tekkök 2003: 239, fig.2, n.29). From the bedding of the grandstand, a Tiberian context, comes a thorn ware cup (Tekkök 2003: 239, fig.2, n.26).

Figure 21. Local basin (type 1) with slip painting, West Sanctuary (Photo: Tekkök-Bicken 2000).

The pottery of the Augustan to Flavian periods helps to place Ilion within its historical context, particularly in its ties with Rome. Western imports appear during and after the Augustan period, however, the percentage is less than we might expect in view of Ilion’s links to Rome and the regular imperial visits to the city. There are three groups of imports: Italian Sigillata, Italian thin-walled ware and cooking wares. Of the total sigillata wares found less than 2 percent are imports from the West, the remainder are Eastern Sigillata: 86 percent are Pergamene/Çandarlı wares, 6 percent are Eastern Sigillata B, 2 percent are Eastern Sigillata A, 2 percent are Pontic, and the rest are unidentified Early Roman sigillata groups possibly produced at Aegean and Black Sea centres.

Two other closed Augustan deposits were found in wells, one in Quadrant D8 and the other in Quadrant H17. The contents of the D8 well have been published by Hayes (Hayes 1995:190-192, fig.3 and 5). The thin-walled wares

The overall percentage of the Italian Sigillata is similar to the figures from Assos (Zelle 1990). The Italian Sigillata 123

Billur Tekkök Karaöz

Figure 22. Thin walled cup series from Lower City with painted decoration and dipinti (Heath-Tekkok 2016, https://classics.uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/html/r-tw-cupsjugs.html).

Figure 23. Lead glazed early Roman skyphos (Tekkök vd.2008 Şekil 3,Ce 1).

Figure 25. Italian casserole, early Roman (Kozal 2001: 336, pl.20).

Figure 24. Pompeian redware and Aegean imitation (Heath-Tekkok https://classics.uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/html/pompeian-red.html).

124

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

Figure 26. Local jars from a cistern in Lower City, Quadrant z16 (Heath-Tekkök https://classics.uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/html/r-plain.html).

at Ilion can be linked to several production centres: one in Italy and others in the north and south Aegean. The Italian cups and beakers are mainly of boccalino a collarino type. Examples in the H17 Well are of Italian fabric (Tekkök 2003: 239, fig.2, nos.30-31), while similar examples from the well in D8 are of regional origin (Hayes 1995: 189-190, fig.3). There are a significant amount of imported grey thin-walled cups similar in appearance to Belgic products, cups with carinated body profiles, like the ones from the West Sanctuary, and thorn ware beakers along with regional grey ware beakers, cups and jugs. The thorn ware beakers first appear in the last quarter of the first century BC in the Lower City houses. Only a few examples of thorn ware cups come from the West Sanctuary; all date after the Augustan period.

and 3rd centuries AD, at which time they share the Aegean market with the Phocaean examples (Figure 22). At Ilion the examples of Eastern Sigillata B 1 come from an early Roman well fill, the construction and clearing fills of the West Sanctuary and early Roman construction in the Lower City houses, while ESB 2 ware comes from a well-dated sealed well deposit, the cleanup of a house during the Hadrianic period and various other fills related to the construction fills of the houses in the Lower City (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 91, C1C3;100-101, D11-D17;119, F21bis; 2001, 350-351, pl.4,21; 2012: 346-350, pl.1,2; Hayes 1995: 188, fig.n.15-17). Archaeometric analysis on the 49 sherds has shown a different provenance from Tralleis for four sherds, possibly Sardis (Tekkök 2012: 353, fig.2, K48,K49; Rotroff 2018 for Sardis production). A retrograde stamp in a rectangular form in two lines reads DΏ-RON, K19 has also a rectangular retrograde stamp that reads BAKKOY in two lines. Other examples display floral stamps at the centre of the bowl, one has a rosette stamp at the centre, and another bowl has an unreadable stamp with no letters. The DΏ-RON stamp inside relates to early production series; similar examples have been published from Ephesos and Ankara. In the late Augustan and early Tiberian levels of the basilica on the north side of the so-called State Agora of Ephesos numerous stamps of DΏ-RON were found.

The variety of North Aegean thin-walled wares at Ilion points to the need for a systematic study of nonItalian/Aegean thin-walled wares. The Italian series that appear in the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods completely disappear after the Claudian period. New fabrics with a limited repertoire of cups are introduced; these include the thin walled cups from the workshops of Phocaea and possibly another workshop near Ilion and Ainos (Enez) (Özyiğit 1991; 1992). Recent studies of Pergamene examples have also shown a possible production centre at Pergamon. Further inland, in or around Gordion, there is also a local production centre. After the third quarter of the 1st century AD, regional cups in a micaceous coarse fabric are the main shapes in the Troad and the northern Aegean (Tekkök 2003: 239, nos.40-41). With a minor change in fabric, they continue to be used into the 2nd

Trade with the Eastern Mediterranean to the North Aegean is attested by Eastern Sigillata A products from 150 BC. In the Lower City and West Sanctuary, Late Hellenistic contexts carry early forms such as (Hayes 1981: 14, pl.1,n.7,F.3 plate), around 110 BC. A smaller 125

Billur Tekkök Karaöz size of Hayes Form 4 is found in late Augustan and Tiberian contexts. (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 79, B11, fig.40). The Hayes Form 3 to 4 range is well represented at Ilion (Hayes 1981: 16, pl.1, n.9, F.4 plate). Late Hellenistic examples share the market with Pergamene wares of the same period. A plate with short oblique wall and hanging rim, a line with beading on the outer edge and impressed ovolo on the outer face of the rim – Hayes Form 9 – is not a common form, represented by only a few examples found after the middle of 1st century BC to Augustan deposits (Hayes 1981: 19, pl.2,n.7,F.9); TekkökBicken 1996, 49, A91, fig.17; Hayes 1981, 18, pl.2.9). A rouletted interior and thicker quality of slip are often found in early Roman examples of plates. Some show traces of a spacer mark on the base (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 79, B14, fig.40; Hayes 1981: 16, pl.1.10, Form4a). Other forms include Hayes Form 22 hemispherical cup/ bowl (Hayes 1981: pl.3,n.10,12) Hayes Form 43 bowl with flaring wall (Hayes 1981: 33, pl.6, n.8), Hayes Form 45 conical cup with convex sloping wall (Hayes 1981: 34, pl.6, n.11,12) and late forms of Eastern Sigillata A, as late as the mid 2nd century AD (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 129, G10-11, fig.73; Slane 1997: 324, type 43b).

examples. The distribution pattern and chronology for distribution to this region are comparable with examples from Assos and Parion (Zelle 1997: nos.147477). Imported cooking wares from the west are relatively uncommon finds at Troy. Pompeian-Red Ware pans comprise less than one percent of wares in the Lower City houses and in the West Sanctuary. The Augustan to Tiberian examples are in Italian fabrics, but the examples found in deposits of the later first century to the beginning of 2nd century AD are imitations in Aegean fabrics. (Figure 24) Italian cooking pans are likewise uncommon; occasional examples have been found in the Lower City houses (Figure 25). The deposits after the middle of the 1st to 2nd centuries AD are dominated by Phocaean cookware; shapes include frying pans, cooking dishes, and pots (Heath-Tekkök 2006: https://classics.uc.edu/troy/ grbpottery/html/r-cook.html). There is a massive increase in finds during the 3rd Century AD. The wells and cisterns provide evidence for local water jars, and X2 kiln may have served such production (Figure 26). The characteristics of the fabrics are their high lime content, opaque white stones and gold mica. The series start from the first century AD and continue into the 3rd century AD (Tekkök et al. 2001: 357-358; 366-367).

Early Roman Glazed Ware amounts to less than 1 percent of wares in the excavated sections of the site. Petrographical and chemical analysis (XRF) have shown that one fragment is from an unknown origin; others come from West Asia Minor workshops (Tekkök, Akyol vd. 2008). The selected examples come from the West Sanctuary (North Building fills) and Lower City houses. The relief decorated skyphoi are the most common variety. The period of lead glazed pottery in the Mediterranean is quite short, commonly appearing after 50 BC and ceasing around 50/60 AD. The examples in Ilion are imports from North Aegean centres (TekkökBicken 1996: 55, A114-A117,119, F22, fig.22;Tekkök, Akyol vd.2008: 175; Tekkök vd 2009: 15) (Figure 23).

Bibliography Akkaş, İ. 2018: ‘Parion Theater Commercial Amphora Findings’ in C. Başaran, E. Ergürer (eds). Roman Theater of Parion. Parion Studies 1. Ankara, İçdaş: 127– 39. Akyürek, N.E. 1992: ‘Terra Sigillata aus dem Heiligtum des Apollon Smintheios’ Asia Minor Studien 8: 125–65. Alexandrescu, P. 1978: La céramique d’époque archaique et classique (VIIe - IVe s.), Histria 4. Bucarest, Paris, Editura Academiei R.S.R., De Boccard. Anderson, J.K. 1954: ‘Excavation on the Kofinà Ridge, Chios’ The Annual of the British School at Athens 49: 123–82. Arslan, N. 2003: ‘Goldbleche aus Tenedos’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 53: 251–63. Aslan, C.C. 2002: ‘Ilion before Alexander: Protogeometric, Geometric, and Archaic Pottery from D9’ Studia Troica 12: 81–129. Aslan, C.C. 2009a: ‘New Evidence for a Destruction at Troia in the mid 7th Century BC’ Studia Troica 18: 33–58. Aslan, C.C. 2009b: ‘End or Beginning? The Late Bronze Age to Iron Age Transformation at Troia’ In C. Bachhuber and R.G. Roberts (ed.) Forces of Transformation. The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, Oxford: 144–51.

Pontic Sigillata imports start to appear during the Flavian period. Vessels that originate from various sigillata production centres of the northern coast of the Black Sea are grouped under the term Pontic Sigillata (Zhuravlev 2002). The Nicopolis ceramic report discusses and illustrates many examples of related forms circulating in Bulgaria in the Late Roman period (Poulter et al. 2007). The plain variety imitates Italian Sigillata plate and cup forms with bright orange lustrous slip (5YR 6/6) and appears in deposits of the late 1st Century AD (Tekkök et al. 2001: 352, n.39.49, pl.5; Kozal 2001: 329-330, n.37, pl.6, Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 135, G50, fig.79; G51,fig.74). Examples with barbotine decoration, thorns (Tekkök-Bicken 1996: 134, G44, fig.77 ), or girland decoration or stamped palmettes on the wall (Heath, Tekkök 2006: https://classics.uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/ html/pontic-sig.html 4/3/2021) are common examples found at Ilion. Slip is thick and lustrous in decorated 126

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

Aslan, C.C. 2009c: ‘Grey ware at Troy in the Protogeometric through Archaic periods’, in Avram, A. (ed.), Pontic Grey Wares, International Conference, Bucarest–Constantza, 2008 (Constantza, Romania), Pontica 42 Supplement 1. Constanta, Muzeul de Istorie Nationala si Arheologie: 267–83. Aslan, C.C., Sazcı, G., 2016: ‘Across the Hellespont:Maydos (ancient Madytos), Troy and the Northeastern Aegean in the late 8th to early 6th Century BC’ The Annual of the British School at Athens: 1–42. Aslan, C.C., Lawall, M., Lynch, K., Rose, B.C., Cohen, G. 2019: Troy Excavation Project Final Reports: The West Sanctuary 1: İron Age- Classical. Bonn, Habelt. Atila, C. 1999: Daskyleion’da ele geçen Arkaik dönem ticari amforaları. MA Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Ayaz, M. 2014: Assos Kuzey Stoası Kırmızı Astarlı Roma Seramiği. MA Thesis, Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale. Aylward, W. 1999: ‘Studies in Hellenistic Ilion: The Houses in the Lower City’ Studia Troica 9: 159–86. Baltac, A. 2018: ‘The Pottery Workshops at Ostrov (Durostorum), Farm N.4 spot, Constanta County’ in V. Rusu-Bolindet, R. Christian-Aurel, B. FlorinOvidiu, S. Mustafa, D. Petrut (eds), Atlas of Roman pottery workshops from the Provinces Dacia and Lower Moesia/Scythia Minor Cluj-Napoca, Mega Publishing House: 211–23. Bakır, T., Gusmani, R. 1993: ‘Graffiti aus Daskyleion’ Kadmos 32: 135–44. Bakır, T 1995: ‘Archaologische Beobachtungen fiber die Residenz in Daskyleion’ in P. Briant (ed.), Dans les pas des Dix-Mille: peuples et pays du Proche-Orient vus par un Grec (Pallas 43). Toulouse, Presses universitaires du Mirail: 269–85. Batır, B.V. 1998: Dasklyleion’da ele geçmiş amfora tipleri. MA Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Bayne, N.P. (1963) 2000: The Grey Wares of Northwest Anatolia in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements. Asia Minor Studien 37. Bonn, Habelt. Berlin, A.M. 1999: ‘Studies in Hellenistic Ilion: The Lower City. Stratified Assemblages and Chronology’ Studia Troica 9: 73–157. Berlin, A.M. 2002: ‘Ilion before Alexander: A Fourth Century B.C. Ritual Deposit’ Studia Troica 12: 131– 65. Berlin, A.M., Lynch, K. 2002: Going Greek: Atticizing Pottery in the Achaemenid World’ Studia Troica 12: 167–78. Bieg, G., Tekkök, B., Aslan, R.. 2006: ‘Die spätrömische Besiedlung der Troas: ein Überblick’ Studia Troica 16: 147–70. Bieg, G., Belke, K., Tekkök, B. 2008. ‘Die mittel- bis spätbyzantinische Besiedlung innerhalb des Nationalparks ‘Troia und die Troas’ Studia Troica 18: 163–97.

Behr, D. ‘Neue Ergebnisse zur pergamenischen Westabhangkeramik’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 38, 97–178. Blegen, C.W., Boulter, C.G., Caskey, J.L., Rawson, M. 1958: Troy IV: Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII. Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press. Blondé, F. 1985: ‘Un remblai thasien du IVe siècle avant notre ère’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109: 281–344. Cook, J.M. 1965: ‘Old Smyrna: Fourth Century BlackGlaze’ The Annual of the British School at Athens 60: 143–153. De Luca, G., 1968: Funde und Chronologie der Bauphasen, in O. Ziegenaus, G.de Luca (eds), Das Asklepieion. Der südliche Temenosbezirk in hellenistischer und frührömischer Zeit. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.1. Berlin: 57–140. De Luca, G., Radt, W. 1999: Sondagen im Fundament des Grossen Altars. Pergamenische Forschungen 12. Berlin, De Gruyter. Dimitrov, D., Chichikova, M. 1978: The Thracian city of Seuthopolis. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Ergürer, H.E. 2012: Parion Roma Dönemi Seramiği. PhD Thesis, Atatürk University, Erzurum. Ergürer, H.E. 2015. ‘Parion, Agora ve Dükkânlarda Ele Geçen Sigillatalar ve Kırmızı Astarlı Seramikler’ in C. Başaran, V. Keleş (eds), Parion Kazıları 10. Yıl Armağanı, Ankara, Bilgin Kültür Sanat: 49–86. Ergürer, H.E. 2016: ‘Parion Tiyatrosunda Bulunan Seramikler: A. Sigillata ve Geç Roma Kırmızı Astarlı Seramikleri’ in C. Başaran, H.E. Ergürer (eds), Parion Roma Tiyatrosu 2006 – 2015 Yılı Çalışmaları, Mimarisi ve Buluntuları. İstanbul, İçdaş: 123–64. Ergürer, H.E. 2018: ‘Sigillata, Late Roman Red Slip Pottery and Others’ in C. Başaran, E.Ergürer (eds), Roman Theater of Parion. Parion Studies 1. Ankara, İçdaş: 91–127. Ettlinger, E. et al. 1990: Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae Italico modo confectae. Materialien zur römisch-germanischen Keramik 10. Bonn, Habelt. Fırat, M., Kaşka M. 2019: ‘Seramik Eserler Doğrultusunda Aleksandria Troas Antik Kenti’nin Ticari Etkileşim Sahası: İlk Veriler’ in V. Şahoğlu, M. Şevketoğlu, Y.H. Erbil (eds), Kültürlerin Bağlantısı. Başlangıcından Roma Dönemi Sonuna Kadar Eski Yakın Doğuda Ticaret ve Bölgelerarası İlişkiler. Anadolu/Anatolia Supplement I.4, Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi: 393–400. French, D.H. 1967: ‘Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia I: The İznik Area’ Anatolian Studies 17: 49– 100. Garnsey, P. Hopkins, K., Whittaker, C.R. 1983: Trade in the Ancient Economy. London. Gebauer, J. 1992: ‘Die archaische geglättete graue Keramik’ in Ü. Serdaroğlu and R. Stupperich (eds), Ausgrabungen in Assos 1990, Bonn, Habelt: 65–101.

127

Billur Tekkök Karaöz Ghali-Kahil, L.B. 1960: Etudes thasiennes. VII, La céramique grecque (fouilles 1911–1956). Paris, De Boccard. Greenewalt, Jr, C.H. 1971: ‘Fikellura and ‘early Fikellura’ pottery from Sardis’ California Studies in Classical Antiquity 4: 153–80. Gürtekin-Demir, R.G. 2002: ‘Lydian Painted Pottery at Daskyleion’ Anatolian Studies 52: 111–43. Gürtekin-Demir, R.G. 2003: ‘Imported Painted Pottery from Asia Minor to Daskyleion in the Achaemenid Period’ in W.F.M. Henkelman, A. Kuhrt, Achaemenid History XIII. A Persian Perspective: Essays in Memory of Helene Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 203–26. Hasaki, E., Raptis, K.T. 2016: ‘Roman and Byzantine ceramic kilns in Greece (1st –15th c. CE)’ in N. Cucuzza, B.M. Giannattasio, S. Pallecchi (eds), Archeologia delle produzioni ceramiche nel mondo antico Spazi, prodotti, strumenti e tecniche. Ariccia, Aracne: 213–33. Hayes, J.W. 1981: ‘Sigillati Orientali’ Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale. Rome, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana: 1–96. Hayes, J.W. 1995: ‘An Early Roman Well Group from the Troia Excavations, 1992 (Quadrant D8)’ Studia Troica 5: 201–13. Heath, S., Tekkök, B. (eds), 2006: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Pottery at Ilion (Troia) Study Collection and Catalogued Pottery. http://classics.uc.edu/troy/ GRBPottery/ 31/5/2021 Herodotus 1969. Histories, A.D. Gudley (eng. transl.), Vol. 3. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA. Hingley, R. 2005: Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire London: Routledge. Höckmann, O. 2003: ‘Zu früher Seefahrt in den Meerengen’ Studia Troica 13: 133–60. Japp, S. 2008: ‘Late Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Pottery from Alexandria Troas’ in: B. BöhlendorfArslan, A.O. Uysal, J. Witte-Orr (eds), Çanak: Akdeniz ve Çevresindeki Arkeolojik Kazılarda Ele Geçen Geç Antik ve Ortaçağ Seramiği ve Mimari Seramiği, Byzas 7. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 55–72. Japp, S. Römhild, J.H., Schwarzer, H. 2011: ‘Die Grabungen im Bereich der sog. Zentralthermen in Alexandria Troas. Ein Vorbericht über die Kampagne 2009’ in: E. Schwertheim (Ed.), Studien zum Antiken Kleinasien VII. Asia Minor Studien 66. Bonn, Habelt: 217–37. Karadima, C. 1994: ‘The Northern Cemetery of Samothrace’ Stone Sarcophagus 92.T9,’ in L. Kypraiou (ed.), Hellenistic Pottery from the Aegean. Mytilini, Ephoreia Proistorikōn kai Klasikōn Archaiotētōn: 196–205. Kaşka, M., Fırat, M. 2015: ‘Aleksandria Troas Kazısı 2013 Yılı Hellenistik Dönem Seramiği Bulguları’ H. Metin, B.A. Polat-Becks, R. Becks, M. Fırat, (eds), Pisidia Yazıları. Hacı Ali Ekinci Armağanı/Pisidian Essays in Honour of Hacı Ali Ekinci. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 47–56.

Keil, J., 1913: ‘Ephesische Bürgerrechts- und Proxeniedekrete aus dem vierten und dritten Jahrhundert n. Chr.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 16: 231–44. Kibaroğlu, M., Thurmm-Doğrayan, D. 2013: ‘Trojan Pithoi: A Petrographic Approach to Provenance and production technique of Bronze Age Storage Vessels from Troy’ Journal of Applied Clay Science 82: 44–52. Knacke-Loy, O., Satir, M., Pernicka, E. 1995: ‘Provenance Studies on Trojan Bronze Age pottery, mineralogical and geochemical investigations’ in A. Erler, T. Ercan, Proceedings of International Symposium of Geology of Black Sea Region. Ankara, Chamber of Geological Engineers: 181–89. Kolb, F. 2004: ‘Troy VI: A Trading Center and Commercial City’ American Journal of Archaeology 108: 577–614. Kopcke, G. 1992: ‘Ceramics’ in J. McCredie, G. Roux, S. Shaw, J. Kurtich (eds), The Rotunda of Arsinoe. Samothrace 7. Princeton, Princeton University Press: 275–326. Korfmann, M. 1995: ‘Troia: A Residential and Trading City on the Dardanelles’ in R. Laffineur, W. D. Niemeier (eds), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proccedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heildelberg Archaeologischer Institut, 10–13 April 1994. Aegaeum 12. Liege, Université de Liège: 173–83. Korfmann, M. 2001 ‘Wilusa/(W)ilios ca. 1200 v. Chr. - Ilion ca. 700 v. Chr.: Befundberichte aus der Archäologie’ in B. Theune-Großkopf, U. Seidel, G. Kastl, M. Kempa, R. Redies, A. Wais (eds), Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Stuttgart, Theiss: 64–76. Korfmann, M.O. (ed.) 2006: Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft. Mainz am Rhein, Zabern. Kozal, E. 2001: ‘Studies in Roman Ilion: The Lower City. Stratified Domestic Assemblages’ Studia Troica 11: 309–42. Körpe, R., Yavuz, M.F. 2009: ‘Sigeion and Its Foundation’ in C.O. Aygün (ed.), SOMA 2007 Proceedings of the XI Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Istanbul Technical University, 24–29 April 2007, Oxford, BAR Publishing: 230–32. Körpe, R., Yavuz, M.F. 2012: ‘Pers Hakimiyetinde Troas Bölgesine Yapılan Göçler’ Çanakkale Araştırmaları Türk Yıllığı 10/13: 31–42. Lamb, W. 1932: ‘Grey Wares from Lesbos’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 52: 1–12. Latacz, J. 2002: ‘Wilusa (Wilios/Troia): Zentrum eines hethitischen Gliedstaates in Nordwest-Kleinasien’ in H. Willinghöfer, Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: das Volk der 1000 Götter. Stuttgart, Theiss: 196–201. Lawall, M. 2002: ‘Ilion before Alexander: Amphoras and Economic Archaeology’ Studia Troica 12: 197–243. Lawall, M. 2003: ‘In the sanctuary of the Samothracian gods myth, politics, and mystery cult at Ilion’ in M. Cosmopoulos (ed.), Greek mysteries: The archaeology 128

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

and ritual of ancient Greek secret cults. London: Routledge: 79–111. Leaf, W. 1923: Strabo on the Troad, Book 13, Chap. 1. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:. Lehmann, K. 1960: The inscriptions on ceramics and minor objects. Samothrace 2,2. London, Routledge- Kegan Paul. Lomtadze, G., Žhuravlev, D. 2014: ‘Hellenistic Pottery from the Necropolis of Olbia Pontike’ in P. Guldager Bilde, M. Lawall (eds), Pottery, People and Places. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 175–99. Memiş, E. 2019: ‘Ticari İlişkiler Bağlamında Troya Savaşlarına Yeni Bir Bakış’ in O. Dumankaya (ed.), Çağlar Boyunca Üretim ve Ticaret: Prehistorya’dan Bizans Dönemine. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat: 213– 29. Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 1978:. ‘Hellenistische Keramik mit Schlickerdekor aus Ephesos und ihr Verhältnis zur attischen Westabhang-Keramik’ in G. Schwarz, E. Pochmarski (eds), Classica e Provincialia, Festschrift für E. Diez. Graz, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt: 113–23. Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 1991: Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. Kleinfunde. 1. Teil: Keramik hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos 9/ 2, 2. Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. Mommsen, H., Hertel, D., Mountjoy, P.A. 2001: ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann Collection’ Archaeologischer Anzeiger: 169–211. Mountjoy, P.A., Hankey, V. 1988: ‘LH IIIC Late Versus Submycenaean: The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 103: 1–37. Osborne, R. 1996: Greece in the Making: 1200–479 BC. London, Taylor and Francis. Özdoğan, M. 2003: ‘The Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara and Bronze Age Archaeology: an Archaeological Predicament’ in G.A. Wagner, E. Pernicka, H.P. Uerpmann (eds), Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches. Berlin, Spirnger: 105–20. Özyiğit, Ö. 1991: ‘1989 yılı Phokaia Kazı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 12: 127–53. Özyiğit, Ö. 1992: ‘1990 yılı Phokaia Kazı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 13: 99–122. Pavúk, P. 2002: ‘Das Aufkommen und die Verbreitung der Grauminyschen Ware in Westanatolien’ in H. Blum, B. Faist, P. Pfälzner, A.-M. Wittke (eds), Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturaustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn. Tübingen, Attempto: 99–115. Pavúk, P. 2005: ‘Aegeans and Anatolians. A Trojan Perspective’ in R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference: Italian School of Archaeology, Athens, 14–18 April 2004,

Aegaeum 25. Liège, Université de Liège, Histoire de l’art et archéologie de la Grèce antique: 269–79. Pavúk, P. 2007: ‘What can Troia tell us about the MH Period in the southern Aegean?’ in: F. Felten, W. Gauß, R. Smetana-Scherrer (eds), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Salzburg, October 31st-November 2nd, 2004, ÄginaKolonna, Forschungen und Ergebnisse 1. CChEM 14. Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: 295–308. Pavúk, P. 2008: ‘Grey Wares as a Phenomenon’ in B. Horejs, P. Pavúk (eds), Aegean and Balkan Prehistory. http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory. net/index.php?p=article&id_art=5 (17/03/2021). Universitätsbibliothek. Pavúk, P. 2010a: ‘Minyan or not: The second millennium Grey Ware in western Anatolia and its relation to Mainland Greece’ in A.Phillippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki, J.C. Wright, Mesohelladika: The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplement 52. Athens, Ecole française d’Athènes: 931–43. Pavúk, P. 2010b: ‘Between the Aegean and Anatolia: The Shifting Character of Troy in the Middle and Late Bronze Age’ Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 53–2: 128–29. Pavúk, P, Thurmm, D., Pieniążek, M. 2019: ‘Economy and Storage Strategies at Troy’ in D. Garcia, R. Orgeolet, M. Pomadère, J. Zurbach, Country in the City Agricultural Functions in Protohistoric Urban Settlements (Aegean and Western Mediterranean). Oxford, Archaeopress: 169–87. Peacock, D.P.S. 1982: Pottery in the Roman world: An ethnoarchaeological approach. London, Longman Publishing Group. Pernicka, E., Eibner, C., Öztunalı, Ö., Wagner, G.A. 2003: ‘Early Bronze Age Metallurgy in the Northeast Aegean’ in G.A. Wagner, E. Pernicka, H. Uerpmann (eds), Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches. Berlin, Springer: 143–72. Pernicka, E., Rose, C.B. and Jablonka, P. (eds) 2014: Troia 1988–2008: Grabungen und Forschungen I. Forschungsgeschichte, Methoden und Landschaft. Studia Troica Monographien 5. Bonn: Habelt. Pernicka, E., Schifer, T., Schubert, C. 2016: ‘Keramikanalysen in Troia’ in E. Pernicka, C.B. Rose, P. Jablonka (eds), Troia 1987–2012: Grabungen und Forschungen 1. Bonn, Habelt: 642–65. Polat, Y. 2002: Dasklyleion’da MÖ 8–5.yüzyıllar Arasında Gri Seramik. PhD Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Polat, Y. 2004: ‘Daskyleion’dan Ele Geçen Tek Renkli Gri Bir Karkhesion’ TÜBA-AR 7: 215–24. Poulter, A.G., Beech M.J. 2007: Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: the Finds and Biological Remains. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Pulak, C. 1998: ‘The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview’ International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27: 188– 224.

129

Billur Tekkök Karaöz Rose, C.B. 1997: ‘The 1996 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia’ Studia Troica 7: 73–110. Rose, C.B. 1998: ‘The 1997 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia’ Studia Troica 8: 71–113. Rose, C.B. 2014: The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, C.B., Tekkök, B., Körpe, R. 2007: ‘Granicus River Valley Survey Project, 2004–2005’ Studia Troica 17: 65–150. Rose, C.B.,Tekkök Karaöz, B., Heath, S. 2023. The Lower City of Ilion. ‘Ceramics’ Bonn (in print). Rotroff, S. 1997. Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material. The Athenian Agora 29. Princeton: The American school of Classical Studies at Athens. Rotroff, S., Oliver, Jr. A. 2003: The Hellenistic pottery from Sardis: The finds through 1994. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 12. Cambridge (Mass.)-London, Harvard University Press. Rotroff, S., Daszkiewicz, M., Schneider, G., Owen, R. 2018: ‘Eastern Sigillata at Sardis: Evidence for a Local Industry’ Bulletin of the Amerıcan Schools of Oriental Research 380: 133–204. Rudolph, W. 1978: ‘Hellenistic Fine Ware Pottery and Lamps from above the House with the Idols at Mycenae’ The Annual of the British School at Athens 5/73: 213–34. Sazcı, G. 2005: ‘Troia I-III, die maritime Troia Kultur und Troia IV-V, die anatolische Troia-Kultur; eine Untersuchung der funde und Befunde im mittleren Schliemanngraben (D07,D08)’ Studia Troia 15: 35– 98. Schäfer, J. 1968. Hellenistische Keramik aus Pergamon. Pergamenische Forschungen 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schmidt, H. 1902: Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung trojanischer Altertümer. Berlin, G. Reimer. Sevinç, N., Rose, C.B., Strahan, D., Tekkök-Biçken, B. 1998: ‘The Dedetepe Tumulus’ Studia Troica 8: 305– 27. Slane, K. 1997: ‘The fine wares’ in S. Herbert (ed.), Tel Anafa II,i, Ann Arbor: 247–416. Spencer, N. 1995: ‘Early Lesbos Between East and West: A Grey Area of Aegean Archaeology’ The Annual of the British School at Athens 90: 269–306. Takaoğlu, T., Yaman, H. 2019: ‘Arkaik Dönem Kuzeydoğu Ege Kültürel Etkileşim Ağı İçinde Tenedos Adası’ in V. Şahoğlu, M. Şevketoğlu, Y.H. Erbil (eds) Kültürlerin Bağlantısı Başlangıcından Roma Dönemi Sonuna Kadar Eski Yakın Doğuda Ticaret ve Bölgelerarası İlişkiler. Anatolia Supp.I.14. Ankara: 321–35. Tuna-Nörling, Y. 1999: ‘Daskyleion I: Die attische Keramik’Arkeoloji Dergisi 6: 1–92. Tuna-Nörling, Y. 2003: ‘The Common ceramics of Hellenistic workshops at Reşadiye, in C. AbedieReynal (ed.) Hellenistic and Roman Ceramics in

Anatolia: Production and Exchange. French Anatolian Studies in İstanbul, May, 1996, Paris: De Boccard: 45–54. Tekkök, B. 2000: ‘The City Wall of Ilion’ Studia Troica 10: 85–96. Tekkök, B. 2003: ‘The Italian Imports to Troy in the Julio-Claudian and Flavian Periods’ Proceedings of the XIIIrd. International Congress of Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Meeting at Rome, September 2002, RCRF Acta, 38: 237–242. Tekkök, B. 2010: ‘Late Antique Troy (Ilion) and Troad’ 38. ICANAS Sempozyumu, Eylül 10–15, 2007, Ankara, Ankara: TTK: 3067–3075. Tekkök-Biçken, B. 1996: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Troia. The Second Century B.C. to the Sixth Century A.D. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia. Tekkök-Biçken, B. 2000: ‘Pottery Production in the Troad: Ancient and Modern Akköy’ Near Eastern Archaeology, 63: 94–101. Tekkök, B., Wallrodt, S., Gündem, C.Y., Rose, C.B. 2001: ‘Two Roman Wells in the Lower City of Ilion Quadrants C29 and w28’ Studia Troica 11: 343–82. Tekkök, B., Akyol, A.A., Kadıoğlu, Y.K., Demirci, Ş., 2008: ‘Bir Grup Troia Seramiğinde Sır ve Malzeme Analizleri’ Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 23: 173– 86. Tekkök, B., Akyol, A.A., Kadıoğlu, Y.K., Demirci, Ş. 2009 : ‘The Importance of Archaeometric Analysis on Ceramics from Archaeological Excavations: The Example of Early Roman Glazed Ware from Tarsus and Troia (Ilion)’ SERES, 1. International Ceramic, Glass, Porcelain, Enamel, Glaze and Pigment Congress, 12–14 October, 2009, Eskişehir. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları: 101–21. Tekkök, B., Pernicka, E. 2012: ‘Analysis of Eastern Sigillata Finds from Troia’ in A.A. Akyol, K. Özdemir (eds), Türkiye’de arkeometrinin ulu çınarları Prof.Dr. Ay Melek Özer ve Prof. Dr. Şahinde Demirci’ye Armağan. İstanbul, Homer Kitabevi: 345–59. Tekkök, B., Akyol, A.A., Kadıoğlu, Y.K., Albuz, G. 2016: ‘Thyatira Seramik Çalışmaları, 2013–2014 Arkeometrik Analiz Sonuçları’ Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 31: 311–31. Utili, F. 1999: Die archaische Nekropole von Assos. Asia Minor Studien 31. Bonn, Habelt. Vaag, L.E., Nørskov, V., and Lund, J. 2002: The Pottery: Ceramic Material and Other Finds from Selected Contexts, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos 7. Aarhus, Jutland Archaeological Society. Wagner, G.A., Pernicka, E., Uerpmann, H.P. (eds) 2003: Troia and the Troad. Scientific Approaches. Heidelberg, Springer. Wallace, Ch. 2014: ‘Ager Publicus in the Greek East: I. Priene 111 and Other Examples of Resistance to the Publicani’ Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 63/1: 38–73. 130

Ilion and its Role in Aegean Trade

Yavuz, O. 2020: ‘Smintheion Büyük Roma Hamamı Damga Bezemeli Geç Roma Seramikleri’ Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 5/22,4: 1315–46. Zarmakopi, M. 2018: ‘Urban Space and Housing in Roman Macedonia: Thessalonike, Philippi, Amphipolis and Dion’ in J. Fournier, M.-G.G. Parissaki (eds). Les communautés du nord Égéen: au temps de l’hégémonie romaine: entre ruptures et continuités. Fondation nationale de la recherche scientifique, Institut de recherches historiques). Meletēmata 77. Athens, Fondation nationale de la recherche scientifique, Institut de recherches historiques: 263–99.

Zelle, M. 1990: ‘Terra Sigillata von Assos’ in Ü. Serdaroğlu, R. Stupperich, E. Schwertheim (eds), Ausgrabungen in Assos, Asia Minor Studien 2. Bonn, Habelt: 97–137. Zelle, M. 1997: Die Terra sigillata aus der Westtor-Nekropole in Assos, Asia Minor Studien 27. Bonn, Habelt. Zelle, M. 2003: ‘Funde spätantiker Sigillata in Assos’ in: B. von Liesen and U. Brandl (eds), Römische Keramik. Herstellung und Handel. Kolloquium Xanten, 15.17.6.2000: 77–106. Zhuravlev, D. 2002. ‘Terra sigillata and red slip pottery in the north Pontic region, a short bibliographic survey’ Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 8/ 3,4: 237– 309.

131

The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity Asuman Lätzer-Lasar1 Abstract1 In research history, it was erroneously stated that the ancient city Ainos was abandoned during the Roman period due to the lack of historical records from that time period. Against this backdrop it is the aim of this paper to reconstruct the commercial trade connections of Ainos especially during the Late Hellenistic and Roman period, based on the ceramic evidence. Located at the estuary of the river Hebros the inhabitants of Ainos possessed two important resources for a supra-regional trade: firstly, an excellent shipping infrastructure that enabled long-distance and short-distance trade because of the use of river routes, as well as of sea routes. And secondly, Ainos provided rich clay sources as raw material, which fostered a comprehensive local pottery production beginning at least from the archaic period onwards. Besides the local production, Ainos also imported a variety of ceramic products from different places of the Mediterranean region. During the campaign in 2013 and 2014 the evaluation of the ceramic findings, which have been excavated by the Istanbul University in former years, proved that Ainos had widespread commercial trade connections to the circum-Mediterranean world in the forementioned time frame. In fact, the ceramic analysis showed that the city possessed dynamic trade relations particularly to the cities of Western Asia Minor. Keywords ROMAN CERAMICS, TRADE NETWORK, THRACE, WESTERN ASIA MINOR, PORT CITY

Introduction Ainos - already mentioned in the Iliad (Homer, Ilias 4,520) - is located in East Thrace, on the left bank of the river Hebros, where its estuary broadens to flow into the Aegean Sea. As a member of the Delian League, Ainos became a very powerful city in the Classical period (Loukopoulou 2004: 876). The geostrategic advantageous position of the city with its strong infrastructure for sea and river shipping made a supraregional trade of wheat and other goods possible. Ainos was well connected via short and long-distance routes to its hinterland as well as the wider Mediterranean PhD, Department of Classical Archaeology, University of Marburg, e-mail: [email protected]. The research was conducted while I was employed by the Center for Advanced Studies Morphomata, University of Cologne.

1 

trade network. However, in research history it has been assumed that the city lost its power and importance during the Roman period due to the lack of historical records and also archaeological remains on the surface. Furthermore, it also had been assumed that Ainos gained back again its power in the Byzantine period, at the time when it became the capital of the province Rhodope and seat of the bishopric (Külzer 2008: 170). However, for the Roman period it was considered that there must have been a gap in the settlement history. Some researchers even stated that the city must have been abandoned. The new cooperation project should shed some light on the Roman settlement and its port. Unfortunately, even with extensive geophysical survey it was not possible to locate the exact position of the Roman port. But fortunately, the excavation director collected the Roman ceramic pieces from former excavations and stored them in the excavation house. The evaluation of the ceramic material was much more successful regarding questions about the economic development of the Roman city. Although a contextual evaluation was not possible, as the pottery could neither be assigned to the original find context nor to a concrete location of its stratigraphic unit, and the sherds were not preserved separately by the stratigraphic unit, the evaluation of the material nevertheless provided stunning information about the spectrum of pottery used in Ainos and made it possible to sketch an elaborate trade network. In the following paragraphs the material will be presented by its chronological order, only the African Red Slip Ware will be handled separately due to its overarching time frame of existence in the archaeological record. Late Hellenistic period Fish plates are known from the classical period onwards and became very common in the early Hellenistic period. Normally the slip is black, but in Ainos there are examples of oxidising firing/red slips. This piece must be one of the latest types of fish plates that could also be produced during the Roman occupation in the provincia Asia (Figure 1, also see Sparkes, Talcott 1970, 147). Characteristic for a late dating of the plate is the poor quality of the reddish slip, which is only covering part of the vessel on the outside. Besides the fish plates, a decent amount of Grey Ware with black slip has been found in Ainos. The usual

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 132–144

The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity

Figure 1. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 2. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 3. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

Figure 4. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

133

Asuman Lätzer-Lasar

2016: fig. 4) on the outside or in the centre of the base (Lätzer-Lasar 2016: fig. 5). The macroscopic appearance (slip, surface, fabric) suggests that the vessels were produced in Ephesos and/or Pergamon and after 160 BC sold via the free port of Delos to the Mediterraneum and the Black Sea region. In the latest research, it is commonly recognised that almost every bigger city in Ionia and Attica could produce this kind of relief bowls (Rotroff, Oliver 2003). Without further archaeometric analysis the concrete provenance of these ceramics unfortunately remains unclear. Furthermore, some few fragments of the Appliqué Ware were found. On one fragment the common motif of an erotic love scene (symplegma) is illustrated (Figure 5). The picture shows in the lower part a man lying naked behind a woman. The image matches ‘Schema 5’ of the typology of Appliqué Ware from Pergamon, which is common after the mid of the second until the first century BC (Schäfer 1968: 80). Only a few sherds relate to the Eastern Sigillata A. The production of this ceramic begins further East, in the Syria-Lebanon region, in the second century BC. It is quite a phenomenon that Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) appears throughout the whole Western Asia Minor, but only in small quantities – around 2 % (Lätzer 2009: 129130) – and limited to few types, mainly plates of Hayes form 3 (Figure 6, see also Hayes 1985: Form 3). The same counts for Ainos, although the usual plate shapes of Hayes form 3 and 4 appear only once. It seems that this plate type was reserved for the Grey Wares with black slip. In Ainos instead, early cup forms like Hayes form L 20 appear (Figure 7), which are dated from the mid until the end of the first century BC.

Figure 5. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

types of the big round and flat plates with upturned rim appear (Figure 2). It is possible that this ware was imported from Ephesos, which was a production centre for this type of ceramic from the second half of the first century BC on (Ladstätter 2005a: 234; ZabehlickyScheffenegger et al. 1996: 49). The late Hellenistic repertoire is supplemented by so called Ionian Reliefbowls with typical leaf patterns (Figs. 3 and 4), for example rosettes with eight petals (Lätzer-Lasar

Figure 6. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 7. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

134

The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity

Figure 8. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 9. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Early Roman Imperial period As usual for Western Asia Minor, more fragments of Eastern Sigillata B (ESB) than of ESA were found in Ainos. The ESB repertoire shows vessel types that were produced during the first century AD, such as the flat dish Form 1 after Hayes (Figure 8; Lätzer-Lasar 2016: fig. 2, 8). The rim turns to the outside and on the inner lip is a tread groove. At the same time dishes with flat bases and inturned rim like form 19, respectively 60 show up (Figure 9; Lätzer-Lasar 2016: fig. 2, 9). No later dated ESBforms were found in Ainos. This could either happened because the connection to the production centres, such as Tralleis, has been cut, or that the demand for this kind of ceramics became obsolete.

In the Roman Republic Sicily was a main production centre (Montana et al.: 2003), as archaeometric analyses show. But recent archaeometric analyses from Priene and Ephesos prove that this ceramic group was produced locally (Lätzer 2009). Heath and Tekkök considered an Aegean production site in Ainos (Tekkök, Heath 20062009), which does not seem surprising considering the extensive production of clay sarcophagi in the Archaic period in Ainos. Roman Imperial period The Eastern Sigillata C or Çandarlı Ware makes the largest share during the Roman Imperial times. Many different types appear, such as the early form Loeschke A 9 (Figure 12), which occurs very early, also in Ilion, at the end of the first century AD (Hayes 1985: 74). Another early form type is the bowl Loeschke 26 which was produced during the second half of the first century AD. Other vessel types might be early as well, but due to their long production period of almost 200 years they cannot be regarded as the earliest types in Ainos: namely the vessel form Loeschke 19 (Figure 13) or Hayes 3, which production started in the last quarter

Another ceramic group that usually appears in early Roman contexts is the so-called Thin walled Ware (Figure 10). The predecessors are assumed to derive from Iberian-Celtic mugs (Marabini-Moevs 1973: 35). In Asia Minor they appear in the last quarter of the first century BC (Lätzer 2009: 148). The typical vessel form is a small jug with a very flat base, mostly with one or two small handles (Figure 10b). Very common for this ceramic group is a bichrome surface of black and claycolour (Figure 11). 135

Asuman Lätzer-Lasar

Figure 10. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

Figure 11. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

Figure 10b. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

136

The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity

Figure 12. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 13. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 14. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 15. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 16. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

137

Asuman Lätzer-Lasar

Figure 17. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 18. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 19. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 20. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

of the first century until the third century AD. In Ilion it appears to be the most dominant type during the second century AD.

This ware was traded in huge amounts to the whole Mediterranean region and indicates a change in dining habits (Hudson 2010). While before, the repertoire of vessel forms consisted of various types of smaller bowls, it changed after the third century to deep plates, such as the Hayes Form 3 (Figure 15). This vessel type can only be differentiated because of various rim types. The examples from Ainos are types which are dated from the second half of the fifth until the sixth century AD (Figure 16: Hayes Form 3 B; Figure 17: Hayes Form 3 C; Figure 18: Hayes Form 3 H; Lätzer-Lasar 2016: fig. 5).

Later vessel forms tend to become bigger in size, such as the plate Hayes Form 4, which is dated into the third century (Figure 14). These late types mark the ending point of ESC occurrence in Ainos. It then becomes replaced by the Late Roman C ware, which originated from Phocaia. Late Roman antiquity

In Ainos next to the various types of form 3, the forms 1 B (Figure 19), 2 A (Figure 20) or 10 (Figure 21) were found. While the first two forms where produced

The Late Roman C ware is characterised by big-sized vessel forms, for example bowls and plates (Hayes 1972). 138

The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity

Figure 21. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

Figure 23. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

Figure 22. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 24. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 25. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

Figure 26. Drawing by Asuman Lätzer-Lasar (University of Marburg).

139

Asuman Lätzer-Lasar of African Red Slip Ware confirms the enduring trade connection to the East until the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh century AD. Kitchen and utility ware Beside the tableware few examples of kitchen and utility wares were collected during the former excavations. Unfortunately, many of the types, such as casseroles with flanged rims and one applied handle, as well as cooking pots with upturned rims or globular pots with a rim that turns outside are not well dated. The form typology does merely change between the first and the third century AD. Several examples of mortaria from the Roman period have been found, which are characterised by a white-beige fabric, and a pouring spout that is attached to the broad rim. Single examples appear in a reddish fabric with a polished surface. Conclusion

Figure 27. Photo by Thomas Schmidts (RGZM Mainz).

The evaluation of the ceramics generated new information about the economic, social and cultural life of Roman Ainos. Although no contextual evaluation was possible, the documented spectrum of the ceramics proves that Ainos has not been abandoned during the Roman period. On the contrary, the abundance of finds and also the diversity of goods and forms indicate a lively city. Furthermore, the material evidently shows a continuing rely on a very wide network encompassing the Mediterranean until Africa. One could assume that Ainos, due to its geographical proximity to Greece, was more oriented to the West, but the material suggests that the trade relations of Ainos were exactly like those of the cities in western Asia Minor. The closest comparable city at the moment could be Ilion. Unfortunately, without any stratigraphic context, it was not possible to detect the locally produced ceramics of the Roman period. However, it is clear from the imports that Ainos was a well-connected metropolis with near and far trade relations that kept up-to-date throughout the Roman period when it came to ceramic fashion.

during the fifth century AD, the last form 10 is a plate from the seventh century AD (Lätzer-Lasar 2016: fig. 5, 26). Interestingly, the stamp on the inner side depicts a Lion of a late type. Hayes dated the lion between the late sixth and early seventh century. According to this, the supply of Phocaean wares to Ainos was stable during its production phase. Among the material one example of the so-called Lightcoloured Ware was found (Figure 22; Lätzer-Lasar 2016: fig. 6, 27). This ceramic group showed up in the Aegean region and Western Asia Minor during the late Roman period (Hayes 1972: 408-410, fig. 92,4). Typical is the rouletting on the broad rim of the bowl. African Red Slip Ware (ARS) from the 1st to 6th century AD Besides the Late Roman C ware, the African Red Slip ware (ARS), which was produced in nowadays Tunisia, was distributed to Ainos. The most striking fact is the long occurrence of African Red Slip in Ainos; the supply was granted for almost 600 years. The earliest type of ARS is from the Flavian period: a cup of the form 7 (Figure 23; Lätzer-Lasar 2016: fig. 7, 28; Hayes 1972, 3133). The decoration of the rim with a rouletting is very characteristic.

Bibliography Hayes, J.W. 1972: Late Roman Pottery. London, British School at Rome. Hayes, J.W. 1985: ‘Sigillate Orientali’ in G. PuglieseCarratelli (ed.), Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche 2. Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero). Rome, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana: 9–81. Hayes, J.W. 2008: Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware imports. The Athenian Agora 32. Princeton. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Heath, S., Tekkök, B. 2006–2009: ‘Greek, Roman and Byzantine Pottery at Ilion

The plates of form 5 C (Figure 24), 50 A (Figure 25) and 45 A (Figure 26) are common for the mid of the third century. The latest representative of African Red Slip ware is a base fragment of the plate form 105 (Figure 27; Hayes 1972: 164-169, fig. 31, var. 2). The existence 140

The Commercial Network of Ainos from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity

(Troia)’.  Retrieved

from http://classics.uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/ Hudson, N.F. 2010: ‘Changing Places: The Archaeology of the Roman ‘Convivium’’American Journal of Archaeology 114/4: 663–95. Külzer, A. 2008: Ostthrakien (Europe)Tabula Imperii Byzantini 12. Vienna, Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ladstätter, S. 2005: ‘Keramik’ in H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos. Die Wohneinheit 4, Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/ 6. Vienna, Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 230–358. Lätzer, A. 2009: ‘Studien zu einem späthellenistischfrührömischen Fundkomplex aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 78: 123–220. Lätzer, A. 2016: ‘Das römische Handelsnetz von Ainos: Ausgewählte Keramik vom Späthellenismus bis zur Spätantike’ Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 44: 707–14. Loukopoulou, L. 2004: ‘Thrace from Nestos to Hebros’ in M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen (eds), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 870–84. Marabini Moevs, M.T. 1973: The Roman Thin Walled Pottery from Cosa (1948 – 1954). Memoirs of the American

Academy in Rome 32. Rome, American Academy in Rome. Montana, G. , Mommsen, H., Iliopoulos, I., Schwedt, A., Denaro, M. 2003: ‘The Petrography and Chemistry of Thin-Walled Ware from an Hellenistic-Roman Site at Segesta (Sicily)’ Archaeometry 45: 375–89. Rotroff, S.I. 1997: Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material. The Athenian Agora 29. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rotroff, S.I., Oliver, A. 2003: The Hellenistic Pottery from Sardis. Sardis Monograph 12. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Schäfer, J. 1968: Hellenistische Keramik aus Pergamon. Pergamenische Forschungen 2. Berlin, De Gruyter. Sparkes, B.A., Talcott, L. 1970: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries BC. The Athenian Agora 12. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S., Sauer; R., Schneider, G. 1996: ‘Graue Platten aus Ephesos und vom Magdalensberg’ in M. Herfort-Koch, U. Mandel, U.Schädler (eds), Hellenistische und kaiserzeitliche Keramik des östlichen Mittelmeergebietes. Frankfurt am Main, Archäologisches Institut der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität: 41–60.

141

Pottery in Cult Rituals

143

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Pottery Artefacts in Menekse Catagi Pit Sanctuary Fisun Frank1 Abstract1 Anatolian Thrace is a region where different religious, cultural and tribal traditions lived symbiotically until the Classical and Roman periods. It is seen as a geographically small but culturally quite dynamic region where different traditions interact. Menekse Çatağı is the only votive area on the Marmara Sea coast that has these regional characteristics. The cult area consists of pits, ovens, hearths and numerous pottery vessels for ritual activities. Balkan influences in these pottery artefacts are much more visible than Anatolian influences. The potteries provide important information on Chthonic practices and help to understand regionalchronological connections. Menekse Catagi was also active during prehistoric times. The sanctuary was evaluated on a consistent basis in light of all these pottery artefacts and in consideration of the geological past. Keywords PIT SANCTUARY, EARLY IRON AGE, SEA OF MARMARA, POTTERY, CHTHONIC PRACTICES

Intoduction Menekse Çatağı is located in a rocky terrain 6.5m above sea level, just south of the Tekirdağ-Istanbul highway and 13km east of Tekirdag city centre, near the Sea of Marmara (Figure 1). The Menekşe stream, flowing in a north-south direction, divides it into two intersecting mountain slopes to east and west. Whether in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age or in the Classical period, the topography was quite different from the current day. Stratigraphy and phases are directly related to geological factors such as flood, drought and earthquake (Figure 2). Phase I: Archaic period temple complex that underwent various construction and repair phases between the 6th and the 4th centuries BC. Sacred places around the complex, such as votive pits and bothros, indicate chthonic practices. The presence of the temple reflects the latest practices in a sacred area that had been in use since prehistoric times. In this stage, a high amount of kylikes, skyphoi, Miletus type amphorae, sherds with red figures, animal and plant motifs were found in the

PhD Candidate, The University of Tübingen, Germany, e-mail: [email protected]

1 

structure. Those finds indicate heavy Aegean influences in Thrace. Phase II: Prehistoric votive sanctuary belonging to Late Bronze-Early Iron Ages. First and enlargement phases are terminated by a subsequent flood and start a hiatus. Phase III: Intermediate period from Late Bronze Age, with traces of a rectangular building. Phase IV: belongs to the Early Bronze Age, located on a narrow cliff at the southeast side of the hill (Figure 3). Menekse Catagi is a unique ritual sanctuary on the Marmara coast that belongs to the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age. Here is the only example of common beliefs and ritual practices of the votive pit traditions on the Marmara Coast and is similar to pit sites and complexes in Bulgaria: Sboryanovo, Polski Gradets, Malko Tarnovo, Radnevo, Adatepe, Gluhite Kamani, and Svilengrad. The sanctuary was extensively used during the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition period and Early Iron Age I, II/1. However, after elements of the Early Iron Age II/1 period were encountered, there is a chronological gap due to floods. Reuse continued, probably with the cult of Dionysos and ritual traditions, from the second half of the 6th century BC until the 3rd century BC. After this period, the sanctuary was completely abandoned The area is at the edge of a narrow stream, flowing in a north-south direction, and consists of ritual hearths and votive pits, which were opened periodically, on a semi-dry soil floor. There are 34 different sizes of votive pits and empty pits. Hearth and oven groups, urns and intensive ashy soils also give an idea of the ritual burning and cooking activities at the site. In the pits there are indications of different kinds of ritual practices, such as animal sacrifices and mass human burial. The votive objects in the pits are pottery, spindle whorls, shell and clay beads, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, bone, stone tools and also grinding stones. In view of the intensity of the quantity of pottery, the scarcity of the other votive artefacts is remarkable. Pottery: problems and relationships Pottery form groups represent conical bowls (most of which have a cord hole and aplic on the rim), tankard-

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 145–154

Fisun Frank

Figure 1. Location of Menekse Catagi and releated Early Iron Age sites in Bulgaria (map by Fisun Frank).

Figure 2. East and West Menekse Catagi with Tumulus of King Kersepleptes (© Asli Erim Özdogan).

146

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Pottery Artefacts in Menekse Catagi Pit Sanctuary

Figure 3. Classical and Late Bronze - Early Iron Age phases (©Asli Erim Özdogan; plan by S.Sarualtun).

shaped bowls, plates, pots and spouted peachers (Figure 4).

examples illustrate how different periodic or cultural regional traditions cope with new elements. These micaceous red and black slipped Beycesultan type wares demonstrate influence of local characteristics and fashion of the Anatolian culture in Menekse Catagi and in the Thracian region (Figure 7).

Special handles (horned, wishbone, loop etc.) and decorations (knobbed, relief, fingerprints, impressedstamped, excised-incised, fluted or pattern burnished etc.) provide information about characteristic features of the periods (Figure 5). The most famous pottery group in the Balkans, the so-called ‘knobbed wares’, are observed in Menekse Çatağı and also in the Trojan VIIb2 phase.

Ware groups are coarse and medium-coarse, wellmade, burnished and polished and mica tempered. Because almost all ware groups are represented in almost all pottery form groups, it is impossible to determine chronological characteristics only by ware group. Decorations and pottery forms reflect the period of manufacture. Although there are many variations in pattern, each is individual. The uniqueness of these samples make it difficult to statistically classify and to understand the frequency of their use but reveals different local production practices in the main Early Iron Age pottery tradition. The individual creativity of the pottery producers, including their general appreciation and habits enhances this diversity. A total of 37,974 pieces of definable sherd were found in and around the pits. Decorated and identifiable forms are represented in Menekse Catagi with a low rate of 2% against amorphous material. This is also known from

This handmade pottery is concentrated mainly in the Noua-Sabatinovka, Coslogeni, Babadag, Chatalka and Psenicevo cultural regions in Romania and the Bulgaria. Another famous pottery group is ‘fluted ware’ (Figure 6). This is also seen from the Balkans to the Greek mainland and from central Europe to northeast Europe. Menekse Catagi is interesting as ware group and surface treatment of two fluted pots are very similar to, and/or imitations of, Anatolian red slip wares. These are known in Taslicabayir Early Iron Age burial mound as ‘Fine Burnished Red Ware’ which has a typical ‘Chalcolithic’ look like in Anatolian inland (Özdogan 1987:12). These

147

Fisun Frank

Figure 4a. The pottery forms (Illustration by Fisun Frank, photograph by Fisun Frank, Savas Sarialtun).

Bulgarian Early Iron Age sanctuaries, including many votive pits such as Svilengrad, Adatepe and Gluhite Kamani (Nekhrizov, Tzvetkova 2012:187).

problem is known in southern Bulgaria, especially in Sboryanovo (Stoyanov 1997:19). This case shows that there is not much change in the attributes of the pottery throughout the period, and the typology of Late Bronze Age pottery continues to be used during the Early Iron Age.

From nearly 40,000 sherds only 14 pots and bowls have been restored in Menekse Catagi. The sherds were usually found inside and also around votive pits. This reveals that the sherds were thrown into the pits as well as scattered about. The presence of intensive pottery artefacts in the pits and around the area has led researchers to refer to it as being the most convenient pottery to hand. Ordinary and everyday pottery thus had a secondary purpose, to serve as sacrificial objects. However, urns were also made soley for ceremonial purposes.

In the Koprivlen settlement in Macedonia, which is very similar to Menekse Catagi, it is thought that the huge amount of pottery had previously been stored in a certain area and carried to the ritual area (Bozkova, Delev 2002:108-109). This possibility should not be not overlooked due to the coexistence of different period pottery characteristics, although this is not the ultimate finding in Menekse Catagi.

Ceramic forms, especially conical forms, are seen throughout the Bronze Age and the most typical Early Iron Age fragments are mixed inside the pits. A similar

The burial mound of Taşlıcabayır in Kırklareli is the closest ‘sacrifice zone’ establishing a relationship between Anatolian Thrace and Menekse Catagi. 148

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Pottery Artefacts in Menekse Catagi Pit Sanctuary

Figure 4b. The pottery forms (Illustration by Fisun Frank, photograph by Fisun Frank, Savas Sarialtun).

However, the pottery finds from both places are not exactly the same. This situation suggests that the sites discovered for the Early Iron Age on Thrace are also places that had unique characteristics concurrently. In Taşlıcabayır, a large number of vessels belonging to the tradition of the coarse-grained ‘Bulgarian Coastal Group’, ‘Çatalka’, ‘Psenichevo’ and ‘Sava’ groups were found. These vessels are identified as ‘Coarse Unburnished Ware’ which is seen in almost all of the Balkans. Apart from the deep pot and ‘Tankard’ forms, they do not resemble Menekse Çatağı in terms of formal properties. Taslicabayir type pots with single handles, flat or sometimes ‘wish bone’ handles, and libation pots are less well represented in Menekse Çatağı. It has also

been observed during field survey in Thrace that these dark and polished surfaced ceramics with intensive sand and mineral tempered are not seen in Menekse. Yet, they increased in Edirne and Kırklareli, Tekirdag, Saray and Vize provinces, and near the border of Greece and Bulgaria. The other coarse ware group with yellowbeige, black coloured, sand and mineral tempered walls which is frequently encountered in the Thrace region, is not found in Menekşe Çatağı. Yet, the fluted and incrusted motifs on these groups of wares, are known here. Also Iron Age pottery characters in Istanbul Yenikapi, while close to Menekse Catagi, have more resemblance to the features of dominant ware groups in northern Thrace as mentioned above. 149

Fisun Frank

Figure 5a. The decorations (Illustration and photograph by Fisun Frank).

Pšeničevo is an important Iron Age culture and is especially well known for the late phases of the southeastern Balkan Iron Age. Items of Pšeničevo culture are quite familiar in Taşlıcabayır and in Anatolian Thrace but they are represented only with a few samples in Menekse Catagi even though the location is close to this area (Figure 8). For example, the most characteristic decorations of the Pšeničevo, like eye circle and cord impress are rare in the Menekse Catagi.

Pšeničevo are not found in Menekse Catagi. Flooding coincides with this period, which explains why we cannot find advanced examples. Therefore, we cannot placet the beginning of the Menekse Çatagi EIA II period within the Pšeničevo cultural area from the existing characteristic individual finds. Troia VIIb2 is the only comparable period in Western Anatolia. However, between Menekse Catagi and Troia, which has the only stratified chronology in Western Anatolia, the first significant difference is that Menekse Catagi is not typically Anatolian. Balkan features are much more prevalent in Menekse Catagi.

Notably, it is not possible to find the combination of typical ‘S’ shaped incrusted decorations and fluted ware-spiral decoration or other typical ‘festoon’ motives known in the late period of the Early Iron Age in Menekse Catagi. This indicates that later phases of

It is interesting to note the sedimentary and chemical compositions of some Troia and Menekse pottery 150

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Pottery Artefacts in Menekse Catagi Pit Sanctuary

Figure 5a. The decorations (Illustration and photograph by Fisun Frank).

analysis samples, which indicate the Istrandja mountainous region. (Pinter 2005:169). This suggests a cultural or commercial transition through the sea of Marmara up to Troia in the south via Menekse Çatağı in the north.

locality of Menekse Catagi on the seaside and near a prehistoric stream, suggests why the sanctuary was located here. It also suggests why the burial mound belonging to Thracian King Kersepleptes was built close to this ‘sacred ritual field’.

All these findings represent the existence of a variety of local traditions in the same cultural area in the LateBronze-Early Iron Ages. The Menhirs, Dolmens and Stone Chambers of Sakar, Strandja and Eastern Rhodope are common, especially in northwest Turkish Thrace. However, these megalithic monuments have never so far been encountered on the Marmara sea coast. This situation, just like the many different ceramic traditions, supports the existence of many sub cultural groups in Thrace in this period.

Acknowledgements

The reasons why Menekse Catagi was chosen as a sacrificial area are not yet fully understood, but we know coincidence did not play a role in the selection of votive fields in the Balkans. Further, water applied as a means of purification is an indispensable element of chthonic deities and customs. Thus, the geographic

Bibliography

I would like to thank all the committy members of the Congress of ‘Commercial Networks and Cultural Connections in Thrace: Evaluating the Pottery Evidence’. Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Zeynep Koçel Erdem and Dr. Reyhan Şahin for their organisational efforts and good fellowship. I am grateful to Dr. Jennifer Thomson for the grammatical correction and to my husband Dr.Rüdiger Frank.

Bozkova, A., Delev, P. 2002 (eds): Rescue Archeological Investigations along the Gotse Delchev-Drama Road 1998–1999. Koprivlen 1. Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. 151

Fisun Frank

Figure 6. Fluted ware (Illustration and photograph by Fisun Frank).

Figure 7. Black slipped ware (Photograph by Fisun Frank).

152

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Pottery Artefacts in Menekse Catagi Pit Sanctuary

Figure 8. Cord and eye circle ornaments (Illustration and Photograph by Fisun Frank).

153

Fisun Frank Nekhrizov, G., Tzvetkova, J. 2012: ‘Ritual Pit Complexes in Iron Age Thrace: The case study of Svilengrad’ in A. Cilingiroglu., A. Sagona (eds), The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Edirne 19–24 April 2010. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 39. Leuven, Peeters: 177–211. Özdogan, M. 1987: ‘Taslicabayir. A Late Bronze Age burial mound in Eastern Thrace’ Anatolica 14: 5–39.

Pinter, F. 2005: Provenance study of the Ealy Iron Age Knobbed ware in Troia, NW Turkey and the Balkans. Petrographic and geochemical evidence. PhD Thesis, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen. Stoyanov, T. 1997: ‘Early Iron Age Tumular Necropolis’ in D. Gergova, T. Stoyanov, N. Chakalova (eds), Studies and prospects : proceedings of the conference in Isperih, 8 December 1988. Sboryanovo 1. Sofia, Izdatelska Kǎšta: 93–114.

154

Pottery and Ceramic Finds in Domestic Cult Practices of Serdica Mario Ivanov1 Abstract1 The paper presents the assemblage of cult pottery and ceramic objects from the excavation campaigns of 2010–2012 in Serdica, present-day Sofia, Bulgaria. All items were found in private houses, and this presumes their use in domestic cult rituals. The article discusses morphological and functional features of the vessels (censers, thymiateria and patera) and other ceramic finds of ritual use - terracotta, plates with votive or other functions. Chronologically the finds cover the entire period from the late first century AD to the middle of the third century AD. The archaeological context and functional features of the items provide suggestive information about some aspects of private cult practices, as well as about a probable location of domestic worship places. Keywords POTTERY, CULT, THYMIATERION, CENSER, TERRACOTTA, VOTIVE PLATE

Ceramic items of various kinds have been used for centuries in religious rituals and practices. Nevertheless, such objects from the territory of present-day Bulgaria are still awaiting their proper study. Some finds are discussed along the pottery assemblage of a city, site or workshop (Балканска 1964: 140–41; Султов 1964: 55; Kalcev 1991: 247; Любенова 1980: 40; Генчева 2002: 37; Кабакчиева 1986: 15–16; Bospatchieva 2004: 91–92; Sultov 1985), or are published as single items (Станчева 1967: 6–8; Минчев 1993) without emphasis of their function and use in ritual practices. In 2010–2012, a vast area of ca. 6000m2 of the Roman city of Serdica was excavated in the centre of Sofia (Figure 1). Seven large houses, two early Christian basilicas, part of a Late Antique thermal complex and six streets were discovered (Иванов 2020: 7–8, 116–117, обр. 1–2). The several cult vessels and ceramic items presented here were found among the rich ceramic inventory of the site. Pottery used in cult rituals The most widespread form of pottery used in ritual practices is the turibulum or censer for burning resin and other aromatic substances (Gose 1975: 38; Sultov 1985: 80–81). The vessels have little variation in their main PhD, Department of Classical Archaeology, National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Saborna Str., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria, e-mail: [email protected].

1 

form but, at the same time, they feature a rich diversity in the shape and decoration of the walls. The six items from Serdica (Figures 2–3) are of two main types with variations (Ivanov 2017: 249–251). The only censer of the first type (Figure 2, C1) has parallels in Pavlikeni, Butovo, Hotnitsa, as well as from the Roman villa near Prisovo (Veliko Tarnovo district) and the sanctuary in Pernik (Султов 1968: 55, Обр. 9г; Любенова 1980: 40; Sultov 1985: 80–81, Table XL, 4). The censers of the second type (Figure 2, C2–C3; Figures 3–5) are a widespread form with many parallels in Bulgaria and neighbouring territories (Popilian 1976: 116; Brukner 1981: 38–39; Sultov 1985: 81, Table XL, 5; NikolićĐorđević, 2000: 178, 181; Генчева 2002: 37, табл. XXIX, 1–4; Sándor 2009: 175, № 1189; Cvjetićanin 2013: 89). Several sherds of the second type censers are known from previous excavations in Serdica (Балканска 1964: 140–141). The archaeological context of the vessels indicate their use in domestic ritual practices (Ivanov 2017: 256–258). The function of the censers in funeral rituals (Wlach 1997: 295) does not differ from the one they had in domestic spaces, but there is no evidence for this in Serdica so far. The main purpose of clay censers in ritual practices is to be used as earthenware for burning aromatic substances in funeral rites and divine worship (Sultov 1985: 82; Минчев 1993: 39). The inner surface of the vessel often shows evidence of smoke and sometimes contains remains of burnt substances. Four of the Serdica items show such traces which support their ritual function. The censer C1 has no traces of burning but its ritual use could be supposed because of a similar item found in the sanctuary in Pernik (Любенова 1980: 40), while some others from Prisovo have traces of burning along with small particles of resin and charcoal (Sultov 1985: 81). Vessels of similar shape are also considered as specific items for the production of cheese (Ožanić Rogulić 2010: 174; Иванов 2020: 275–276). The technical features and rich decoration of the Serdica finds are also evidence in favour of the ritual use of the vessels. All censers have a complex form as well as rich relief and incised decoration. Four of them (C2–C5) have additional white lime coating on the outer surface, which is a characteristic feature of the censers (Figs. 4–5). The described combination of crude fabric with complex form and rich decoration is another argument for the specific function of the vessels, which apparently differs from fine and cooking ware.

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 155–166

Mario Ivanov Amongst the pottery assemblage from Serdica there is another item with ritual use. A handle of a clay patera was found in the north area of the site (Figure 6). It is made of refined clay with red slip on the surface. According to its stratigraphic position, the handle could be dated to the second-third decade of the second century AD (Иванов 2020: 276). There is no other find of this kind from Serdica so far. The function of the vessel is to perform ritual pouring of wine or other liquids onto an altar or another cult structure during a cult ceremony. The item from Serdica indicates the use of clay paterae along with, or, instead of bronze ones. Another specific kind of pottery used in religious worship are the small clay altars defined as arulae (Yavis 1949: 171) or thymiateria. They were made in moulds and are often combined with two clay lamps on the same base (Bailey 1975: 71; Минчев 1993: 39; Ladstätter 2013: 317). Their manufacture is usually part of the repertoire of workshops specialising in lamps and terracotta. Some famous production centres are Cnidus, Ephesus and Pergamum but there are workshops also in Italy and North Africa (Bailey 1975; Bailey 1980: 252; Ladstätter 2013: 319). Local manufacture is attested by the workshops of Philippopolis and Augusta Traiana (Kalcev 1991: 247, 267, Abb. 19–20; Bospatchieva 2004: 91–92) but taking into account the items presented below, it could be claimed that in Serdica local production of the same kind also existed. The four thymiateria found in Serdica (Figure 7) could be classified in three types according to the shape of the body: the first type with a cylindrical shaft on a square base (Figure 8), the second type with a prismatic shaft on a square base (Figure 9) and the third type with a pine-cone shaped shaft on square base (Figure 10). The items cover the entire chronological span from the end of first century AD to the middle of third century AD (Ivanov 2017: 253–254). Another thymiaterion with a relief image of an eagle on a crater was found in Serdica several decades ago (Станчева 1967: 6–8). The function of the four Serdica items is not explicit. Most probably they were used as votives in a domestic shrine. In this case, the form of the altar could be indicative for the worshiped deity. Both thymiateria T3 and T4 (Figures 9–10) are parts of the inventory of the same domestic shrine (Ivanov 2017: 259–260). The pine cone shaped body of T4 could be an allusion for a votive to Sabazius because of the symbolic meaning of the pine cone in the cult of the deity (Тачева-Хитова 1982: 288). For the same reasons the thymiaterion mentioned above with an image of an eagle is attributed to Zeus/ Jupiter or Zeus Hypsistus (see Станчева 1967: 7–8; Тачева-Хитова 1982: 321–22). Such an identification is highly probable without an additional inscription as is the case for the thymiaterion from Coventina’s Well

Figure 1. The excavated area in the central part of Serdica with discovered buildings (geodetic plan A. Kamenarov, D. Ognyanov).

156

Pottery and Ceramic Finds in Domestic Cult Practices of Serdica

Figure 2. Drawings of censers C1–C3 (author M. Ivanov).

157

Mario Ivanov

Figure 3. Drawings of censers C4–C6 (author M. Ivanov).

158

Pottery and Ceramic Finds in Domestic Cult Practices of Serdica

Figure 4. Restored censer C3 (photo M. Ivanov).

near Carrawburgh dedicated to a local deity (AllasonJones, McKay 1985: 41–47). It is not excluded for some small objects to be placed in the shallow upper part as offerings to the deities as well as to be used as small censers for burning fragrant substances (Yavis 1942: 171; Bailey 1975: 71). Unfortunately, the archaeological context of the Serdica finds does not provide specific information for this aspect (see Ivanov 2017: 256–259). A matter of importance is the use of a thymiaterion in burial rites as evidenced by the example from the village of Gledka (Дремсизова-Нелчинова, Балкански 1973: 59). Nevertheless, there is no data for such practices in the burials from Serdica so far.

11). The schematic treatment of the surface and the preserved segment of a round hole in the upper part of the item indicate that it is the rear side of the terracotta. However, there is no clear evidence which goddess was represented. The figurine could be dated to the last quarter of the first century AD–beginning of the second century AD (Иванов 2020: 276). In Room 2 of Building A1, a right hand holding a purse was found (Figure 12). It should be attributed to a figurine of Mercury/ Hermes. The date of the terracotta is in the second–third quarter of the second century AD. This item suggests the worship of the god in a private space of the house. Another fragment of a head of an uncertain deity (Figure 13) most probably belongs to the same layer of the room. Both finds indicate a certain cult activity in Room 2 as was concluded for the earlier period of the building (Ivanov 2017: 256).

Terracotta Terracotta figurines are not common in Serdica, but they have an important role in the reconstruction of private cult practices (Figures 11–16). The finds could be divided into two groups according to their use: figurines of deities and ceramic images of (real) people. The first group served as domestic images for worship, substitutes for the big cult statues in temples and shrines, while the second could be interpreted as material representations of personal needs or wishes expected to be fulfilled by the gods.

Four other terracotta pieces were found in the north area of the site, between houses A3 and A4. The two earlier items most probably belong to one and the same male deity (Figure 14). Only a part of the chest with right shoulder and a fragment of the back of the figurine are preserved. The sherds are too small and undiagnostic to recognise the god. Nevertheless, the terracotta is synchronous to the cult vessels C1 and T1 and belongs to the cult inventory of the earliest earth and timber building/s in the area.

The earliest find from the deities group is a fragment of the rear side of a draped female figurine (Figure 159

Mario Ivanov

Figure 5. Restored censer C5 (photo M. Ivanov).

Figure 6. A handle of a patera (photo M. Ivanov).

The next two finds are fragments of right and left feet of another male figurine from the first half of third century AD (Figure 15). The items are insufficient to allow recognition of the deity, but could be indicative of a possible change in the following decades of the location of the domestic cult area, as was supposed for building A1 and A2 (see Ivanov 2017: 256–257).

uncertain context disturbed by the construction of a modern sewer. The figurine most probably belongs to the first half of the third century AD and could be interpreted as a prayer and votive for a normal pregnancy and successful childbirth. It could be placed in the domestic shrine in front of the image/s of certain healthy god/s or a female deity protecting women and motherhood. The figurine of a pregnant woman is unique among the excavation finds from Serdica so far. It is a very interesting testimony of the performance, in private area, of a religious practice typical for the temples of healing gods (see Oberhelman 2014).

A single fragment of ceramic figurine of a pregnant woman (Figure 16) belongs to the second group of terracottas. Preserved is only a part of а female torso with her right hand on a slightly swelling belly. The item was found in the north area of the site, in an 160

Pottery and Ceramic Finds in Domestic Cult Practices of Serdica

Figure 7. Drawings of thymiateria T1–T4 (author M. Ivanov).

161

Mario Ivanov

Figure 8. Lower part of thymiaterion T1 (photo M. Ivanov). Figure 10. Restored pine cone shaped thymiaterion T4 (photo M. Ivanov).

Figure 9. Restored thymiaterion T3 (photo M. Ivanov).

Figure 11. The back of a terracotta figurine of an uncertain female deity (photo M. Ivanov).

162

Pottery and Ceramic Finds in Domestic Cult Practices of Serdica

Figure 12. A right hand holding a purse from a terracotta of Mercury/ Hermes (photo M. Ivanov).

Figure 14. Fragments of chest and back of terracotta figurine (photo M. Ivanov).

Figure 13. A fragmentary head from terracotta figurine (photo M. Ivanov).

Ceramic plates of religious use There are two intriguing pieces of this kind found in Serdica. The first is a ceramic plate representing a human figure holding in its hands a naїskos with Cybele (Figure 17). It was found in the northwest part of Building A5, in a third century AD context. The image is in flat relief showing Cybele with a tympanon in her left hand and two animals (which might be identified as lions) at her feet. The goddess is presented standing in a simplified naїskos – a rectangular frame with a fronton and three acrotheria. On the left of the cult image there is a human figure holding the frame with its right hand. The gender of the holder is not explicit because of the poor quality of the plate and the flat relief of the figures. Most probably it is a man with long hair in braids and

Figure 15. Two legs of terracotta figurine (photo M. Ivanov).

163

Mario Ivanov a short beard. The head and body are slightly turned to the naїskos with Cybele. The left part and bottom of the plate are broken. The function of the item is not quite certain. It could be a real object of worship in a domestic shrine similar to the terracotta images of other deities. Nevertheless, it looks more reasonable to suppose a votive use because of the unusual iconography. The male figure holding the naїskos with Cybele could be a symbolic representation of a real person offering a gift to the goddess as a vow. The second find is unusual too, and no less provocative. It is a small rectangular ceramic plate with a Greek inscription on its front side, with dimensions 6.2 by 5.4 cm (Figure 18). The object was found in the southeast area of Building A3, in a late third century AD context, but is probably slightly earlier. The top right angle of the plate is broken which caused the damage of the last (actually, the first) letter. The text is inscribed in four lines in a reflex manner. At the beginnings (in fact, at the ends) of the 2nd and 4th lines there are ivy leaves. A couple of twigs are incised below the inscription. The letters Ε, Σ, Υ and Ω have spiral ends. The inscription should be read as follows:

Figure 16. Fragment of terracotta figurine of a pregnant woman (photo M. Ivanov).

Εὐτυχῶ διά σέ Σάραπι Translation: ‘I prosper through you, Sarapis’. As can be seen by the reading of the inscription, the text is a kind of religious formula expressing satisfaction of life and prosperity thanks to belief in the god Sarapis. Although there is a definite sense of gratitude to the deity, the inscription can not be reckoned as a votive one. The unusual inscribing in a reverse manner is also not appropriate to a votive tablet, nor is the small size of the plate and the lack of an image. Most probably the clay item was used as a kind of stamp which corresponds well with the reflex inscription and the dimensions of the find. A possible function of the plate could be to add a pious and devotional text to bread or a kind of sacred cake served on religious feasts in the name of Sarapis on specific festive dates. The consumption and making of various kinds of ritual breads is well attested in Roman ritual practice alongside with meat, wine, honey and other food (see Glinister 2014). It should be mentioned that Sarapis was very popular in Serdica at the end of second century AD and during the third century AD. A large temple of the god, in syncretism with Zeus, was built in the southeast outskirts of the city (Бобчев 1940–1942: 218–222; Mavrov, SaltirovaPavlova 2014). The clay plate is first of its kind from

Figure 17. Clay plate with an image of a man holding a naїskos with Cybele (photo M. Ivanov).

Serdica and Bulgaria so far. It helps the understanding of new details of religious practices and rituals. In conclusion, the discussed pottery and clay finds for ritual use present a good picture of some aspects of private religious beliefs and rituals. The assemblage from Serdica covers a large amount of cult activity performed in household areas. It provides indications of the possible locations of private worship places in some houses of the city, as well as functional details for the vessels and other cult items in domestic ritual practices.

164

Pottery and Ceramic Finds in Domestic Cult Practices of Serdica

Тракийски светилища. Тракийски паметници, 2. София, Наука и изкуство: 15–140. Минчев, Ал. 1993: ‘Римска лампа-тимиатерион от Одесос’ Известия на народния музей – Варна 29/44: 37–44. Станчева, М. 1967: ‘Към изучаването на езическите култове в Сердика’ Музеи и паметници на културата 2: 6–10. Султов, Б. 1964: ‘Една villa rustica край с. Присово, В. Търновски окръг’ Известия на окръжния музей – Велико Търново 2: 49–64. Тачева-Хитова, М. 1982: История на източните култове в Долна Мизия и Тракия V в. пр. н. е. – IV в. от н. е. София, Наука и изкуство. Allason-Jones, L., McKay, B. 1985: Coventina’s Well: A Shrine on Hadrian’s Wall. Hexham, Trustees of the Clayton Collection. Bailey, D.M. 1975: ‘A Roman Lampstand of Cnidian Manufacture’ Antike Kunst 18.2: 67–71. Bailey, D.M. 1980: A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum, 2. Roman Lamps made in Italy. London, British Museum. Bospatchieva, M. 2004: ‘A Late Antiquity Pottery Workshop in Philippopolis (Plovdiv, Southern Bulgaria)’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 8.2: 89–104. Brukner, O. 1981: Rimska keramika u Jugoslovenskom delu provincije Donje Panonije. Beograd, Pokrajinski Zavod za Zaštitu Spomenika Kulture SAP Vojvodine Savez Arheoloških Društava Jugoslavije. Cvjetićanin, T. 2013: ‘Keramičke posude’ in Cvjetićanin, T., Glumac, M., Krunić, S., Ratković, D., Šljivar, D. Pokloni Sofjie i Milojka Dunjića. Beograd, Alta Nova: 27–92. Glinister, F. 2014: ‘Festus and Ritual Foodstuffs’ Erudito Antiqua 6: 215–27. Gose, E. 1975: Gefästypen der römischen Keramik im Rheinland. Köln, Habelt. Ivanov, M. 2017: ‘Earthenware in private worship. Examples from Serdica’ Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 7.2: 247–62. Kalcev, K. 1991: ‘Zur Herstellung der antiken Keramik in Augusta Trajana/Stara Zagora’ Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum, Acta 29/30: 245–73. Ladstätter, S. 2013: ‘Thymiaterien der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit aus Ephesos’ in G. Kökdemir (ed.), Orhan Bingöl‘e 67 Yaş Armaganı. A Festschrift for Orhan Bingöl on the occasion of his 67th Birthday. Ankara, Ege Yayinlari: 317–37. Mavrov, G., Saltirova-Pavlova, K. 2014: ‘The Temple of Sarapis in Serdica – Discovery, Anastylosis and Exhibition’ in V. Vachkova, D. Dimitrov (eds), Serdica Edict (311 AD). Concepts and Realization of the Idea of Religious Toleration. Sofia, TanNakRa: 277–90. Nikolić-Đorđević, Sn. 2000: ‘Antička keramika Singidunuma. Oblici posuda’ in M. Popovič (ed.), Singidunum 2. Beograd, Grafomarket: 11–244. Oberhelman, S. 2014: ‘Anatomical Votive Reliefs as Evidence for Specialization at Healing Sanctuaries

Figure 18. Clay plate with reflex inscription of Sarapis (photo M. Ivanov).

Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Nikolay Sharankov (Faculty of Classical and Modern Philology, Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’) for reading the reverse Greek inscription on the clay plate. Bibliography Балканска, А. 1964: ‘Керамика от разкопките в Сердика’ in Т. Герасимов (ed.), Сердика. Археологически материали и проучвания, т. 1. София, Издателство на БАН: 135–45. Бобчев, С. 1940–1942: ‘Храм на Сарапис’ Известия на българския археологически институт 14: 218–22. Генчева, Е. 2002: Първият военен лагер в Novae, провинция Мизия (Северна България). София-Варшава, Zakład Graficzny UW. Дремсизова-Нелчинова, Цв., Балкански, Ив. 1973: ‘Надгробна могила край с. Гледка, Кърджалийски окръг’ Археология 3: 58–69. Иванов, М. 2020: Сердика от Клавдий до Хадриан (Разкопки и проучвания 45). София, Национален археологически институт с музей. Кабакчиева, Г. 1986: Керамика от вилата при Ивайловград, II–IVв. София, Издателство на БАН. Любенова, В. 1980: ‘Светилището при Перник’ in Ив. Велков, Ив. Венедиков, К. Влахов, Ал. Фол (ed.), 165

Mario Ivanov in the Ancient Mediterranean World’ Athens Journal of Health, March 2014: 47–62. Ožanić Rogulić, I. 2010: ‘De caseo faciendo’ Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 27: 171–76. Popilian, G. 1976: Ceramica romana din Oltenia. Craiova, Scrisul Românesc. Sándor, B. 2009: Aquincumi látványraktár (Visual Store at Aquincum). Budapest, Demax Művek Kft. Sultov, B. 1985: Ceramic Production on the Territory of Nicopolis ad Istrum. Terra Antiqua Balcanica 1. Sofia, V. Tarnovo.

Wiegand, K. 1912: ‘Thymiateria’ Bonner Jahrbücher 122: 1–97. Wlach, G. 1997: ‘Grabbauteile und Grabinventare aus dem Gräberfeld Kriestein’ in H. Ubl (ed.), Katalog zur Schausammlung ‚Römerzeit‘ des Museum Lauriacum- Enns 2. Enns-Vienna, Mayer & Comp.: 294–99. Yavis, C. 1949: Greek Altars. Origin and Typology. SaintLouis, Saint-Louis University Press.

166

Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis H. Arda Bülbül1 Abstract1 The cult place located at Dolucatepe and the harbour settlement of Eriklice (Herakleia) at Şarköy/Tekirdağ have been investigated during the ‘Tekirdağ Ganos Mountain Archaeological Survey’. Within this scope pottery sherds have been collected from these areas.   In this presentation the ceramic finds from these areas will be surveyed chronologically as well as statistically. The material under investigation comprises finds from the beginning of the Iron Age until the Roman period. Among the finds both imports and the products of local workshops are attested. The acquired data are expected to shed light on the different ethnic groups who venerated the sanctuary and overseas trade relations in the region.  Keywords THRACE, SANCTUARY, POTTERY, HANDMADE POTTERY

Dolucatepe is the highest hill overlooking the sea with 690 metres height in Şarköy Tepeköy district, which was investigated during the ongoing ‘Surveys of Tekirdağ Ganos Mountain and its Surroundings’ beginning in 2008 (Figure 1) (Koçel-Erdem 2010: 310). The hill is thought to be a sacred area dedicated to Apollo Torontenos,2 based on an inscription which was first identified in 1886 (Figure 2) (Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1886: 83, Nr.9) on a church wall in Tepeköy, located on the piedmont of the area, and which has been evaluated by different researchers later on (Sayar 1998a: 233; Koçel-Erdem 2010: 310 ff.).3 The area was destroyed by antennas belonging to various institutions in the 1980s and also, the area was unfortunately blighted by illegal excavations in the same years. In addition, quarries on the slopes of the hill that continue to be used today present an ongoing threat to the remaining cultural assets. Although there is no identifiable architecture in the area due to this destruction, many marble pieces were discovered in the surroundings. Dolucatepe constitutes the main interest of this article, an area that has been defined as a ‘sanctuary’ in its Res. Ass. Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected] 2  It is claimed that Toronte is the old name of Tepeköy and Apollon Torontenos is translated as ‘Apollo from Toronte’. Sayar 1998a: 233; Sayar 1998b. 3  In addition, for a statue pedestal belonging to Apollon Torontenos, which found in Perinthos and is in the Thessaloniki Museum today, see Koçel-Erdem 2010; Sverkos 2016: 285–86. 1 

brief research history. From this perspective, which is explained from an epigraphic stance based on a single inscription, the time period which the sanctuary was in use, the role it played in relation to the environment in the light of the finds and the relationship between the sanctuary and the port in connection with the harbour settlement located nearby, as well as the surrounding area in which the sanctuary is in demand and its ‘ethnic’ structure are among the questions to be answered. This problematic will be evaluated through an integrated approach with other archaeological materials identified during the survey, principally ceramics. Numerous ceramic sherds from various periods as well as archaeological materials belonging to various find groups were identified during the research in the area. The finds include a well-preserved bronze Dardanos coin with ΔΑΡ ethnicity from the second half of the 4th century BC, a marble male torso from a private collection, an iron spearhead and sickle, a fragment of a marble votive stele and slag indicating production. Additionally, a knee fragment of a marble figurine, a left leg fragment of another figurine with a snake-wrapped support and another late Hellenistic period marble, an upright naked male torso, which were found in the area and brought to the Tekirdağ Archaeology Museum in 1994 can be counted among the other finds (Figure 3).4 The bottom and rim part of the ‘Lesbian Red Amphora’ dated to the last quarter of the 6th century BC is the earliest group in the area when the identified ceramic finds have been chronologically evaluated. The rim is outwarded and just below it is a groove in the neck transition; the bottom is narrow, cylindrical, filled with a small hollow on the interior of the toe and has the characteristic form of Lesbian amphorae (Clinkenbeard 1982: 252; Lawall 1995: 205; Sezgin 2012: 224 ff.). Both pieces are well fired, have a hard fabric and are tempered with sand and lime grains, also micaceous. The colours of the paste are 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow5 on the rim and 2,5YR 6/8 light red on the bottom, differing because of firing conditions. Similar examples in the same period 4  Within the scope of the scientific publication of the survey, these sculpture fragments are being prepared for publication by the author. It is very difficult to identify the torsos as they do not have any attributes, yet they may belong to Apollo and / or Dionysos iconographically. For eclectic gods in Thrace, see Dönmez-Öztürk, 2007: 52 ff. 5  In this study, Munsell Soil Color Charts, NY 2000 was used to identify all colors.

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 167–182

H. Arda Bülbül

Figure 1: Map of the research area and Dolucatepe (below) (Map: Google Earth).

are commonly detected in coastal cities of the Black Sea (Monakhov 2003: 47-49; Tzochev 2010: 98 ff.). Although it does not give exact information due to intense corrosion, another piece belongs to a body that can be identified with the Archaic Period and seen as a vessel decorated in black figure technique as understood from the scratched lines and paint residues. Based on similar examples, a thick band of black paint, paint residues on the continuation of the body and the quite straight form indicate the piece belongs to a kylix. However, it is impossible to define the figure or determine the place of production (Figure 4).

In this context, Lesbian amphorae, which were identified in the area and carried the best quality and most expensive wines of antiquity (Strab. Geog. XIV.2.19), provide important information about the purchasing power of the region at the end of the 6th century BC. Communication and relations of Dolucatepe with other settlements and different centres can be observed especially in the light of amphora pieces whose origin can be detected and black burnished sherds of good quality in the Classical Period. Accordingly, North 168

Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis

Figure 2. Inscription dedicated to Apollon Torontenos.

Figure 3. Finds of Dolucatepe.

Aegean types with an everted triangular rim were extensively found. These types are well-fired, tempered with fine sand grains, less lime and intense mica, so that paste colours range from 5 YR 6/6 reddish yellow to 7.5 YR 6/6 reddish yellow (Figure 5). Considering similar pieces found in the Black Sea and the Aegean coast of Thrace it is possible to date the group to the end of the 5th century BC (Bouzek 1990: 100-101; Arrington et al. 2016: 37-38).

Chios-produced amphora pieces are another group that can be evaluated in this period. These pieces are examples of two different styles of Chios, ‘Swollen Neck’ and ‘Cylindrical Neck’. Pieces are well-fired, hard paste tempered with less lime and mica, and paste colours range from light brown (10YR7/4 very pale brown) to reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow) (Figure 5). These two types were found together in the Bulgarian ‘Nesabar A’ Shipwreck which is dated to at the end of

169

H. Arda Bülbül

Figure 4. Sample of ceramic sherds from the 6th Cent. BC.

Figure 5. Sample of ceramic sherds from the 5th Cent. BC.

the 5th century BC (Parker 1992: 287, no: 737; also cf. Lawall 1995: 101.).

research. Thasos, Heraklia Pontike and North Aegean types draw the attention, especially in amphorae (Figures 6-7-8). Additionally, a Seutopolis type amphora base6 (Figure 9), dated between 310 and 260 BC, indicates that the sacred area was in contact not only with the coastal cities of the Aegean and Black Sea, but also with the inner parts of Thrace (Bulgaria Kazanlak Valley). The work of popular amphora production

In addition to all these, body sherds have been identified in the area which can be dated to the Classical Period, belonging to various groups of black slipped pottery, especially drinking cups, do not give much information in terms of quality due to their loss in burnishes, but show density in quantity.

The fragment has similar characteristics to the Seutopolis amphorae named by C. Tzochev in terms of its fabric and formal features. see Tzochev 2018.

6 

The variety of ceramics increases with the second half of the 4th century BC as far as was identified during our 170

Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis

Figure 6. Sample of Thasian amphora sherds.

Figure 7. Sample of Herakleia Pontica amphora sherds.

skyphos as well as numerous black slipped body sherds belonging to this period provide important information on the pottery repertoire used in Dolucatepe in the Late Classical-Early Hellenistic period (Figure 10).

centres of the century such as Cos and Knidos, South Aegean mushroom rims7 and the South Aegean market were also in evidence at Dolucatepe in the beginning of the 3rd century BC (Figure 10). A kantharos fragment belonging to this range with spur handle and an Attic

Plates, bowls and drinking cups belonging to the Hellenistic colour coated pottery group found in the

For recent research and new suggestions about ‘South Aegean mushroom rims’ see Dündar 2021. 7 

171

H. Arda Bülbül

Figure 8. Sample of North Aegean amphora sherds.

Figure 9. Seutopolitan amphora sherd.

area were dated back to the middle of 2nd century BC.8 Common wares dating to the Hellenistic and Roman periods are another group detected in the area that various types of kitchenware fragments like casserole can be related to analogically, especially with nearby cities located in the Troad, Thrace and the Black Sea.9

In addition to all these, the fragments evaluated within the terra sigillata group, which constitute the latest material identified in the area, belong to the ESC group and date to the end of the 1st century AD and the beginning of the 2nd century AD (Figure 11).10 Region in the light of Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman Coarse Ware’ by the Independent researcher S. Bilgin. I would like to thank her for the information. See also S. Bilgin Kopçuk’s contribution in this book. 10  The finds are presented in ‘‘Commercial Networks and Cultural Connections in Thrace: Evaluating the Pottery Evidence’ at the ‘International Congress of Thracian Ceramics’ held in Istanbul Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University in 2017 by G. Karakaş.

8  This group is being prepared for publication by Assoc. Prof. Dr. R. Şahin from Uludağ University. I would like to thank her for the information. 9  Common ceramics are evaluated within the scope of the doctoral dissertation titled ‘Economical Structure of Southeastern Thrace-Ganos

172

Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis

Figure 10. Sample of sherds from the 4th-3rd Cent. BC.

Figure 11. Sample of ceramic sherds from Late Hellenistic – Roman Period .

173

H. Arda Bülbül

Figure 12. Sample of handmade pottery sherds.

Figure 13. View from Eriklice (Herakleia) to Dolucatepe.

Another group referred to as ‘barbarian pottery’ in the literature is unique to the Balkans and comprises handmade, dark coloured, grit-added pottery fragments with a string or finger-printed band on the outer surface. This group includes rim fragments of a deep pot and various body parts where a part of the band decoration made with a rope on the lower part of the lip is preserved on the rim sherds. Although the body pieces are small, a finger-printed strip band can

be observed on them (Figure 12). These handmade potteries start to be seen in the Neolithic period in Balkans and were transported to Anatolia in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age (Özdoğan 2011: 671 ff.). This ceramic group is generally dated to the 6th century BC or before the Iron Age, regardless of context in the studies done so far.11 Handmade pottery named 11 

174

About the proposition of a group of handmade ceramics, which the

Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis

Figure 14. Comparison of Dolucatepe finds (left) and Eriklice (Herakleia) finds (right).

‘barbarian ceramics’ can be found on the Aegean coasts of Thrace such as Maroneia, Oisyme, Abdera, Mesembria and Thasos (Papadoupoulos 2001: 160ff.). It has also been identified in various contexts from the Archaic to the Roman period in systematic excavations carried out in the ancient emporia of Heraion Teikhos (Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı), which has particular importance in terms of its proximity to Dolucatepe.12 It has been suggested

especially by researchers working in the Balkans and the Black Sea that local people also used this type of handmade ‘Thracian Pottery’ in addition to the use of good quality imported ceramics from near or distant routes until the Roman period (Papadopoulos 2001). Considering the context of the find groups, we might say that they are right when claiming that ‘Thracian Pottery’ was used/ produced by local people, preserving their traditions among foreigners for whatever reason

author dated to the Archaic Period, as the Late Roman period in another work see: Theodor 2010. 12  In the ancient emporia where similar ceramics were uncovered from a sterile layer dating to the Hellenistic Period during the excavations carried out in the Heraion Teikhos (Tekirdağ Karaevlialtı). Prof. Dr. Neşe Atik who continued the excavations in

the area presented the finds in ‘Commercial Networks and Cultural Connections in Thrace: Evaluating the Pottery Evidence’ at the ‘Internattional Congress of Thracian Ceramics’ held in İstanbul Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University in 2017.

175

H. Arda Bülbül

Figure 15. Ceramic samples of Eriklice.

Figure 16. Chart of ceramic finds.

living in Thrace. Respecting the fabrics and firing methods of the fragments, it can be clearly seen that they have more compact paste, well-fired and have less temper unlike the loose paste with large substitutes, poorly fired fabric of the beginning of the Iron Age. Considering this difference and other finds in the area, it is possible to say that handmade pottery with string and finger-printed band strips found in Dolucatepe belong to the Classical or Hellenistic period rather than the Early Iron Age. However, since there are no ceramic

groups from a certain layer, it is not possible to give an exact date for now. Herakleia (Eriklice) appears as an ancient harbour settlement just below Dolucatepe (Figure 13). Since the area is under the modern settlement, artifacts we can detect by surface survey are limited yet have enabled the generation of highly qualified data. The ceramics are chronologically and typologically similar to Dolucatepe artifacts. In this context, Herakleia can 176

Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis

Figure 17. Remains of the ancient road.

Figure 18. Ancient offerings from Dolucatepe Sanctuary.

be considered as a centre from where products were shipped for Dolucatepe sanctuary. The prevalence of Mende, Thasos, North Aegean, and Chios types in Herakleia, especially in the 4th century BC, is the main commonality of the two areas (Figures 14-15).

archaeological material obtained during our research. The quantity and characteristics of the artifacts, especially the many amphorae and pottery fragments belonging to drinking vessels, are indicative of offerings related to the cult. In addition, it has been observed that the interaction area can be extended to the South Aegean with the presence of imported ceramics. Local observations were made with handmade pottery detected in the area and unanswered questions and unanswered new problems have emerged.

Conclusion In the light of the available data, it is not yet possible to say anything about the pre-Archaic existence of the Dolucatepe Sanctuary of Apollo. However, it can be said that the area was in contact especially with the Aegean Islands by the end of the Archaic period. With numerous imported ceramics identified in the area, it can be suggested that interest in Dolucatepe had increased and the area was gaining more prestige in the 4th century BC. For now, it is understood from the terra sigillata which is the latest artifact in the field (Figure 16) that the usage of the area continued at least until the 2nd century AD.

The diversity of the artifacts identified in the area also shows commercial relations as mentioned above. Sanctuaries played a critical role in trade in antiquity, similar to today, and they mostly needed emporia to link them to the market. In this context, Herakleia (Eriklice) might have played an important role in linking Dolucatepe to the overseas market, both in terms of its proximity and the similarity of the finds. The ancient road remains discovered near Şarköy Çengelli during the surveys could be one of the ancient routes that provided communication between Dolucatepe and Herakleia judging by its direction (Figure 17).

The identification of Dolucatepe as a sanctuary based on a single inscription so far is supported by the

177

H. Arda Bülbül The hand-made pottery raises many questions as it was found in the sanctuary. In this context, these ceramics were used either for the daily use of those responsible for its organisation or as offerings. However, it would seem unlikely that they were used by the people in charge of the organisation.

Acknowledgement I owe my thanks to precious Prof. Dr. Zeynep Koçel Erdem who allowed me to study the subject and always made her knowledge and experience available. I also would like to thank to O. Aktaş H. I. Varol, G. Sayın, Y. B. Korkut, S. M. Demirci, Y. D. Paksoy, E. Dalgıç for their help in drawings (both hand and digital) and editing the figures.

Although the ceramics identified in the area do not belong to a certain context, they were generally identified together with other offerings. Similar artifacts have been found both on the Aegean and the Black Sea coasts, usually inside tumuli in a context of grave goods (Ota 2015). However, similar types obtained from the ‘sacred place’ in Heraion Teikhos emporion constitute an important point of comparison.13 For this reason, pottery must have a special meaning in the region, thus, it is more likely that they were offerings. In this case, the question ‘to whom?’ comes to mind. According to the available information, there was a cult of Apollo in the area; however, it is not known whether there was a cult of another god/goddess either earlier or simultaneously. Although it cannot be clearly understood to whom the offerings were made from pottery evidence, who carried out the offerings is also problematic. For example, is it possible to refer to a ‘traditional’, ‘conservative’ ‘ethnic group’? Although it is known that the local communities in Thrace used Thracian place names even in the Roman period,14 responding to such questions without inscriptions or other artifacts may be misleading.

Bibliography Alcock, S. 2002: Archaologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monument and Memories. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Arrrington, N.T., Terzopoulou, D., Tasaklaki, M., Lawall, M.L., Brellas, D.J., White, C.E. 2016: ‘Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project: 2013 Preliminary Report’ Hesperia 85: 1–64. Bouzek, J. 1990: Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area. Prague, Charles University. Clinkenbeard, B. 1982: ‘Lesbian Wine and Storage Amphoras: A Progress Report on Identification’ Hesperia 51: 248–67. Damyanov, M. 2017: ‘Hand-made Pottery in the Greek Colonies in the Black Sea: The Case of Apollonia Pontica’ Poster presented at the 13th International Congress of Thracology, September 3–7, 2017, Kazanlak, Bulgaria https://www.academia.edu/34538238/ Hand_made_Pottery_in_the_Greek_Colonies_in_ the_Black_Sea_The_Case_of_Apollonia_Pontica (accessed: 10.03.2021) Dönmez-Öztürk, F. 2007: ‘Trakya Tanrıları ve Kültleri’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 125: 51–69. Dündar, E. 2021: ‘The Mushroom-Rimmed Amphora as an Indicator of Hekatomnid Regional Hegemony: An Analysis of Production Patterns Based a BackFilled Deposit at Patara’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts 136: 111–50. Eren, K. 2019: ‘Aphrodisias’ta Aphrodite kutsal alanının ‘Kadimliğin’ Temsili’ in Y. Ersoy, E. Koparal, G. Duru, Z. Aktüre (eds), Arkeoloji ve Göstergebilim, Tematik Arkeoloji Serisi 3. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 135–49. Kazarow, G. 1936: ‘Thrake (Religion)’ Real-Encyclopadie 6.A1: 472–550. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2010: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos 2009 Survey’ Anatolia Antiqua, 18: 305–20. Lawall, M.L. 1995: Transport Amphoras and Trademarks: Imports to Athens and Economic Diversity in the Fifth Century BC. Michigan, University of Michigan Press. Monakhov, S.J. 2003: Grecheskie Amphory v Prichernomor’e: Tipologia Amfor veduscich centrov. Ekesporterov tovarov v keramiceskoy tare, Moskow-Saratov. Ota, L. 2015: ‘Observation on the Sarmatian Graves in Wallachia in which Handmade Pottery was Deposited’ Thraco- Dacica 6–7 (29–30): 95–118.

It is important to emphasise elements of the past in order to create a memory in sacred areas (Alcock 2002: 1 ff.). While the torso with ‘Archaistic’ features identified in Dolucatepe sanctuary represents one such offering, handmade pottery can also be another part of the same connection (Figure 18). Offering practices through handmade potteries that date back to the Karanovo culture of the Balkans should be associated with the ancientness of the sacred space. However, this ancientness was displayed with sculptures in the ancient world in general and it was believed to form a part of the god in them.15 For this reason, sculptures that show features of the past demonstrated the legitimacy of the sanctuary and therefore themselves. In this context, it is interesting that a mobile find such as ceramics are found here with the same meaning. However, for more detailed information, results and comments, excavations are required in the area and in the region.

Also for ‘handmade pottery’ samples found in other sacred areas see: van den Broeke 2020; Damyanov 2017. 14  For more information see: Kazarow 1936, 475; Rostovtzeff 1957, 182, 233, 299. 15  For more information see: Eren 2019, 144 ff. 13 

178

Evaluating a Cult Place in the Light of the Ceramics from the Northern Propontis

Özdoğan, M. 2011: ‘Eastern Thrace: The Contact Zone Between Anatolia and the Balkans’ in S.R. Steadman, G. McMahon (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. Oxford, Oxford Handbooks: 657–82. Papadopoulos - Kerameus, A. 1886: ‘Arχαιοτητες και επιγραφαι της Θρακης’ Ελληνικός Φιλολογικός Σύλλογος 17: 65–113. Papadoupoulos, S. 2001: ‘The ‘Thracian’ Pottery of South East Europe: A Contribution to the Discussion on the Handmade Pottery Traditions of the Historical Period’ The Annual of the British School at Athens: 157–94. Parker, A.J. 1992: Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Rostovtzeff, M. 1957: The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire 1. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Sayar, M.H. 1998a: Perinthos- Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Wien. Sayar, M.H. 1998b: ‘Weihung fur Apollon Torontenos’ in U. Peter (ed.), Stephanos nomismatikos: Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin-Boston, De Gruyter: 585–90. Sezgin, Y. 2012: Arkaik Dönem İonia Üretimi Ticari Amphoralar, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.

Strabon: Strabon Antik Anadolu Coğrafyası, çev. A. Pekman, (2015). Arkeoloji ve Sanat. Sverkos, E. 2016: Catalogue of Exhibits, Rhaidestos – Thessaloniki Antiquities in a Refugee Journey. Thessaloniki, Archaological Museum Press. Theodor, E. 2010: ‘Handmade Pottery from the Late Roman Fortress at Capidava’ in A.Magureanu, E. Gall (eds), Between the Steppe and the Empire: Archaeolojical Studies in Honour of Radu Harhoiu at 65th Anniversary, Bucarest: Editura Renaissance: 211- 23. Tzochev, C. 2010: ‘Between the Black Sea and the Agean: The Diffusion of Greek Trade Amphorae in Sothern Thrace’ Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea I, Oxford, Archaeopress: 97–101. Tzochev, C. 2018: ‘Transport Amphora Production in the Interior of Ancient Thrace New Data from the Hellenistic City of Seutopolis and the Kazanlak Valley’ Proceedings of the 9th International Scientific Meeting on Hellenistic Pottery. Athens, Photolio Press: 545–65. Van Den Broeke, P.W. 2020: ‘Handgevormd Aardewerk uit de Ijzertijd en de Romeinse tijd van de Cultusplaats te Empel’ Metaaltijden 7: Bijdragen in de Studie van de Metaaltiden. Leiden, Sidestone Press: 135–60.

179

Evaluating Pottery from Surveys and Excavations

181

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul Haldun Aydıngün1, Şengül G. Aydıngün2 Abstract12 The western side of Istanbul metropolitan area forms the easternmost part of Thrace. Two archaeological projects are being carried out by Associate Prof. Dr. Sengul Aydingun in this region. One is the Istanbul Prehistoric Research Project. The other is the Bathonea excavations carried out on the shore of Lake Küçükçekmece. The results of both projects will be presented in a chronological order in the following paper. The ceramics recovered in the Istanbul Prehistoric Research project and the other finds provided us with valuable information to be added to the earlier evidence for the period of the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. In addition, the Lake Küçükçekmece basin Bathonea excavations bring new impetus to discussions about the 2nd millennia with new evidence for pottery. Ceramics dating to the second millennium BC were found in the Bathonea excavations. They are Central Anatolian type ceramics and appear for the first time in Istanbul and Thracia. The ceramics recovered from the research and excavations may help to answer whether the Bosphorus formed a barrier or a bridge in pre- and protohistoric times. As another new observation, the ceramics dating from the Early Iron Age recovered from both projects demonstrate that Phrygians passed through the Bosphorus. Keywords ISTANBUL, THRACE, POTTERY, NEOLITHIC, EARLY BRONZE AGE

The first archaeological studies belonging to the prehistoric and protohistoric ages of Istanbul and Thrace were started at the request of Atatürk with the excavation of Thracian tumuli (Mansel 1938; 1940; 1943), which Arif Müfit Mansel headed between 193639. Later, however, the western regions of Istanbul and Thrace were forgotten for a long time. The Yarımburgaz excavations headed by Sevket Aziz Kansu were the first of their kind as prehistoric studies on the Thracian side of Istanbul. They contributed to the cultural history of both Thrace and Istanbul in the 1960s (Kansu 1960; 1963a-b; 1972). Haldun Aydıngün, Associate Prof. Dr., Başkent University, Faculty of Fine Arts, e-mail: [email protected] 2  Prof. Dr, Kocaeli University Archaeology Department, e-mail: [email protected] 1 

Before these studies Turkish Thrace, including the rural area west of Istanbul, was considered devoid of almost any archaeological remains (Vajsova 1966: 31). During the 1960s D. French and J. Mellaart conducted research in and around Istanbul (French 1965; Mellaart 1966). Also Nezih Firatli from the Istanbul Archeology Museums and Feridun Dirimtekin from the Haghia Sophia Museum followed their research in Thrace and west of Istanbul in the 1960s and 1970s (Fıratlı 1958; Dirimtekin 1957). However, these studies were far from being conclusive. From 1978 until the beginning of the year 2000 a team under the leadership of Mehmet Özdoğan from Istanbul University continued the prehistoric investigations of Thrace and Marmara region (Özdoğan1983; 1985;1996 ). Several years after the studies mentioned briefly above, Kocaeli University started its own research on the western side of Istanbul with an international team, under the leadership of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şengül Aydıngün. The Istanbul Prehistoric Research Project, known with its Turkish acronym ITA (Istanbul Tarih Öncesi Araştırmaları), has been pursued in the western districts of Istanbul since 2007 (Map 1). Başakşehir / Yarımburgaz In general, ITA studies show that the earliest finds come from the large basin of Küçükçekmece, 1.5 km south of Yarımburgaz Cave. In the surveys we carried out in the slopes leading to the entrance of Yarımburgaz Cave, we found a number of ceramic sherds (Figure 1) dated to the Late Neolithic (Yarımburgaz V) and Chalcolithic (Yarımburgaz IV-II), as defined by Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan. Two sherds defined as Yarımburgaz V are black, matt and shallowly incised (Özdoğan 1986: 4-17). The most common pieces of ceramic found on the slopes leading to the cave’s entrances have sand and mica added, and are carefully handmade. Their surfaces are burnished, having a reddish or a ‘camel hair’ colour. Dots are seen occasionally for decoration. These specimens can be dated to Yarımburgaz IV. A well burnished, small piece of ceramic and a number of others with zigzag shaped incisions also carry the characteristics of Yarımburgaz IV (Figures 2-3). Further pottery which can be dated to Yarımburgaz IV-II levels was recovered around the entrance of the cave and

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 183–199

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Map 1. Investigated Locations.

Figure 1. Late Neolithic Pottery Samples from Yarımburgaz Layer 5.

on the other side of Sazlıdere River. The surfaces of these ceramics were perfectly burnished and their walls were very thin (Figure 4).

contain imprezzo, shallow grooves and deep incisions (Figure 5). The small piece of ceramic with a well burnished, black coloured surface with grooves filled with white paste seems to be part of a typical neighbouring local culture, namely the Maritsa Culture, which was spreading to Thrace-Maritsa and Ergene regions. Also, ceramics

These ceramic pieces are black, light brown, reddish brown and mottled. They are fine edged and produced from a very finely prepared clay. They can be confirmed as part of the Yarımburgaz IV-II horizon. Some of them 184

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

Figure 2. Small piece of ceramic and a number of others with zigzag shaped incisions characteristic of Yarımburgaz IV.

Figure 3. Small piece of ceramic and a number of others with zigzag shaped incisions characteristic of Yarımburgaz IV.

185

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Figure 4. Sazlıdere potteries – Yarımburgaz IV-II Horizon.

Figure 5. Sazlıdere – Imprezzo, shallow grooves and deep incisions, Yarımburgaz IV-II Horizon.

186

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

Figure 6. Sazlıdere – Well burnished, black coloured surface with grooves filled with white paste, Toptepe Type.

Figure 7. Sazlıdere – Dark coloured Kumtepe C – Troia I ceramics.

187

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Figure 8. Yarımburgaz – leg of a figurine.

Figure 9. Küçükçekmece Region.

188

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

with similar characteristics to this specimen were recovered within the original finds of the Toptepe 2 culture (Özdoğan, Miyake, Özbaşaran-Dede 1991: 59121) (Figure 6).

understood that these pieces came from a stratum of wet clay from the lowest layers of the well, 5.5-6m below the current surface, which can be attributed to the bottom of the lake. They had been thinly modeled, with a shiny outside surface and had been evenly fired (Figure 10).

Some of the pottery found around Yarımburgaz Cave and on the banks of Sazlıdere shows similarities with the ceramics of the Maritime Troia Culture’s handmade Troia I ceramics (Çalış-Sazcı 2002: 46-53), especially those matching with the handmade, dark coloured Kumtepe C – Troia I ceramics. Reddish, handmade ceramic fragments matching Troia II a and b levels have also been found (Figure 7).

From the earth thrown away from the same well, a ceramic piece with two knobs, foreign to the region, was recovered from the same level. In Bulgaria this type of ceramic was used from the 5th Millennium BC until the end of the Iron Age. Within the Turkish borders similar ceramics were reported from Kanlıgeçit excavations’ KG-3 stratum. C14 dating gives a possible time period of 2500-2020 BC, positioning them in the Early Bronze Age II (Özdoğan 2011:220-21; Özdoğan, Parzinger 2012: 276-77) (Figure 11).

In the season of 2016, with the participation of the representative from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, archaeologist Hüseyin Toprak, surveys were carried out outside Yarımburgaz Cave, during which he recovered a leg of a figurine (Figure 8) as a surface find (Aydıngün 2016).

Middle Bronze Age potteries /second millenium BC potteries in Avcılar

Avcilar /Küçükçekmece

In the excavations carried out on behalf of Kocaeli University on the west coast of Lake Küçükçekmece, some ceramics were discovered dating to the 2nd millennium BC. The ceramics were recovered at an elevation of 11.45-11.75m above the current sea level. Ceramics are wheel made, red clay, mica added, red slipped and polished. One is an almost complete pitcher with a long neck and with zigzag and diamond patterned decorations, polished from the neck to the body at frequent intervals giving a brilliant, metallic effect on the surface (Aydıngün 2013:1-14).

In the Avcılar-Firuzköy district, situated on the northwestern coast of Lake Küçükçekmece, during the season of 2007 a shallow but large well newly dug by the local villagers provided important clues for prehistoric life of the region (Aydıngün 2007:11-23; Aydıngün 2009: 15457) (Figure 9). The profiles created by the walls of the well contained ceramics. It was noticed that the sandy marine layers alternated with terrestrial ones and that some of the cultural layers were below the marine ones. The villagers had dug the well and throw away the soil a few metres away. There, a reverse mound had been unintentionally created with the oldest layers being on the top. The ceramics recovered from these top layers were dated to the Neolithic, while those found below the wet and muddy marine layers were dated to the Iron Age.

As noted in Yenikapı, it is understood that the Marmara Sea level had also changed twice in Küçükçekmece. Once a deep bay of the Marmara Sea, the lake became a lagoon but was still connected to the sea by a narrow channel.

Its analogues have been found in many early Hittite settlements and are probably produced to imitate metallic pitchers. In the Hittite texts of Boğazköy these pitchers are designated as ZA.LUM or HAB.HAB (Yaşar 1979: 59-62, 73-79). The same texts indicate that these pitchers were made of gold, silver and fired earth, and were used to make sacrificial offerings. They were produced mostly on a potter’s wheel during the Hittite Old Kingdom period. They are mostly shiny and light brown or in different shades of red. Besides the monochrome potteries, there were also others decorated with geometric lines. Ritual ceramics were finely produced with polished surfaces to give a metallic shine. The typical characteristic of the pottery of this period is for slender and long necks. The main feature of the ceramics of Central Anatolian Hittite wares during the first half of the 2nd Millennium BC is their red colour (Özgüç 2002: 248-55; Müller-Karpe 2002: 256-63; Fischer 1963) (Figures 12-13).

The ceramics designated as Neolithic, are mica added, finely burnished with a blackish colour. They show similarities with the pieces of Neolithic pottery recovered from the Yenikapı excavations. It was

Within the same 2nd Millennium BC context, one single piece of Cypriot white slip II ware (Figure 14) and two pieces of Mycenaean ceramics (Figures 15-16) were also recovered. These finds are important evidence showing

The geologists, who we invited to the site at different times, confirmed that the marine sediment depositions both in Istanbul Yenikapı and in the well at Firuzköy show strong parallels.

189

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Figure 10. Küçükçekmece Neolithic pottery.

Figure 11. Küçükçekmece Chalcolithic pottery.

190

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

Figure 12. Middle Bronze Age Central Anatolian (Early Hittite) type ceramics.

Figure 13. Middle Bronze Age Central Anatolian (Early Hittite) type ceramics.

191

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Figure 14. Middle Bronze Age, Cyprus .

Figure 15. Middle Bronze Age, Mycenaean pottery.

Figure 16. Middle Bronze Age, Mycenaean pottery.

192

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

Figure 17. Büyükçekmece, Prehistoric pottery.

193

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Figure 18. Çatalca İnceğiz, Early Iron Age pottery.

Figure 19. Çatalca İnceğiz, Early Iron Age pottery.

194

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

Figure 20. Çatalca İnceğiz, Early Iron Age pottery.

Figure 21. Çatalca Dağyenice, Early Iron Age pottery.

Figure 22. Çatalca Dağyenice, Early Iron Age pottery.

195

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Figure 23. Silivri Selimpaşa Hoyuk, general view.

Figure 24. Silivri Selimpaşa, Early Bronze Age I-II pottery.

Figure 25. Silivri Selimpaşa, Early Bronze Age I-II pottery.

196

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

that Küçükçekmece had a pivotal place in relations with Mediterranean and Aegean during that period.

finds were not made for this period could be related to the paucity of scientific excavations in the area as well as being associated with the relative increases in the sea level of Marmara. The later needs to be investigated by the experts in the field (namely geologists).

Büyükçekmece ITA surveys were carried out around the lake and a great number of ceramics (Figure 17) from the Early Bronze Age and Early Iron Age were recovered (Aydıngün, Aydıngün, Özdemir 2014:1-12 ).

Both the lagoons of Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece were bays before their entrances were first curtailed and later partly closed by the accumulations of sand and alluvial deposits. Evidence for the existence of a long distance trade between Black Sea region and Aegean comes from both of them. A possible trade route coming from the Aegean could enter these two bays heading north, continue on streams that are possibly navigable for small crafts and approach the Black Sea coast within a 20km distance, which could be easily covered with a single day’s land travel, to reach the natural harbour of Philea/Karaburun (Figure 27).

Çatalca- İncegiz A large number of Iron-Age ceramics have been recovered from a pyramidal shape cultic well that was found in Çatalca Inceğiz (Figure 18). These ceramics are handmade, dark coloured, with little stones added, irregularly fired (Aydıngün. et al. 2015 419-28). Similar ceramics were recovered in the Early Iron Age layers of the Gallipoli Maydos excavations (Sazcı, Çalış-Sazcı 2013:13-20) (Figures 19-20).

Thus evidence of tribes (Thraco/Phrygians) from the Balkans and Thrace crossing to Anatolia from Istanbul in the Early Iron Age are increasing.

Çatalca- Dağyenice Around a number of places which can be identified as rock monuments or sacred places in the forest of the village of Dağyenice in Çatalca (with three steps carved on the rocks and a tumulus) handmade ceramics were recovered. They are with knobs, have brown slip and can be dated to the Early Bronze Age (Figures 21-22).

Bibliography Algan, O., Yalçın, M.N., Yılmaz, Y., Perinçek, D., Özdoğan, M.,Yılmaz, I., Meriç,E., Sarı, E., Elmas, E.K, Ongan, D., Yeşiladalı, Ö.B., Danışman, G., Özbal, H. 2007: ‘Antik Theodosius Yenikapı Limanının Jeoarkeolojik Önemi: Geç-Halosen Ortam Değişimleri ve İstanbul’un Son On Bin Yıllık Kültürel Tarihi’ Gün Işığında İstanbul’un 8000 yılı. İstanbul, Vehbi Koç Vakfı yayınları: 242–45. Aydıngün, H. 2015: ‘Archaeological Findings of Thracian/Phrygian Tribes’ Crossing of Bosphorus (ITA) Istanbul Prehistoric Research Project’ in S. Fazlullin, M.M. Antika (eds), Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology 2013 (SOMA), Moscow. Oxford, Archaeopress: 24–33. Aydıngün, Ş. 2007: ‘A New Prehistoric Settlement Near Küçükçekmece Lake in İstanbul’ Bulletin of the Spanish Society of Orientalist 43: 11–23. Aydıngün, Ş. 2009: ‘Some Remarkable Prehistoric Finds at Istanbul-Küçükçekmece’ in H. Öniz (ed.), Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA) 2008, Oxford, Archaeopress: 154–57. Aydıngün, Ş. 2013: ‘İstanbul-Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası (Bathonea) Kazılarından M.Ö. 2.Bine Ait Eserler’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 144: 1–14. Aydıngün, Ş. 2016: ‘Yarımburgaz Mağarasında Son Durum’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 152: 217–230. Aydıngün, Ş. G., Aydıngün, H., Özdemir, O. 2014: ‘Athyra’ya Dair Arkeolojik Bulgular Büyükçekmece Araştırmaları’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 150: 1–12. Aydıngün, Ş., Eğilmez, H., Aydıngün, H., Gürbüz, İ., Gürbüz, G., Albukrek, M., Küçükali, G., Kuruçayırlı, E., Erdem, B. 2015: ‘Underground Structures from

Silivri- Selimpaşa höyük The mound of Selimpaşa is the last such settlement to survive on the western side of Istanbul (Figure 23) and is of corresponding importance. The ceramics collected from the top and around the mound are dated to the Early Bronze Age I and II. The sherds, giving clues about the shape of their original forms, evidence the existence of pots and bowls of Troia type A1 and A2, plates and a circular bottle (Figures 24-26). Three wheel made ceramic pieces, with mica added and red slip could be dated to the end of EBA III and the first half of the 2nd Millennium BC (Aydıngün, Heyd, Güldoğan2014: 21-34; Heyd 2016 ). Conclusion While the Late Neolithic period is attested around Yarımburgaz and Küçükçekmece lakes, after the Chalcolithic Age there is a cultural hiatus. This fact can be tentatively associated with the changes in the relative sea levels of Marmara (Algan, Yalçın et al. 2007). EBA I-III can be attested at the littoral settlements. Both in Thrace and in Istanbul the evidence for the Middle Bronze Age is increasing and the fact that sufficient 197

Haldun Aydıngün, Şengül G. Aydıngün

Figure 26. Silivri Selimpaşa, Early Bronze Age I-II pottery.

Figure 27. Karaburun Phliea.

198

Pre- and Protohistoric Ceramics from the Thracian Side of Istanbul

Istanbul Çatalca/Maltepe’ in M. Parise (ed.), Hypogea- Proceedings of International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities - Rome, March 11–17 2015. Urbino, AGE Arti Grafiche Editoriali Srl: 419–28. Aydıngün, Ş., Heyd, V., Öniz, H., Güldoğan, E. 2014: ‘İstanbul Tarih Öncesi Araştırmalarından Tunç Çağı Verileri’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 145: 21–34. Çalış-Sazcı, D. 2002: ‘Denizsel Troia Kültürü -The Maritime Troia Culture’ in M. Gülbiz, E. Işın (eds), Troia Efsane ile Gerçek Arası Bir Kente Yolculuk, Troy Journey to a City Between Legend and Reality, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık : 46–53. Dirimtekin, F.1957: ‘İnceğiz Mıntıkasındaki MağaraManastır ve Kiliseler’ Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 7/ 2: 26–31. Fıratlı, N. 1958: ‘Müzeden ve İstanbul’dan Haberler’ İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı 8: 29–32. Fischer, F.1963: Die hethitische Keramik von Boğazköy. Boğazköy-Hattusa 4. Berlin, Gebruder Mann. French, D.1965: ‘Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey- Surface Finds from Various Sites’ Anatolian Studies 15: 34–39. Heyd, V., Aydıngün, Ş., Güldoğan, E. 2010: ‘Geophysical Applications for ITA 2008: The Example of Selimpaşa Höyük’ Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 25: 553–69. Heyd, V., Aydıngün, Ş., Güldoğan, E. 2016: ‘KanlıgeçitSelimpaşa-Mikhalich and the Question of Anatolian Colonies in Early Bronze Age Souteast Europe’ in B. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours. Oxford, Oxbow: 169–202. Mansel, A.M. 1938: Trakya’nın Kültür ve Tarihi. İstanbul, Resimli Ay Matbaası. Mansel, A.M. 1940: ‘Trakya Hafriyatı’, ‘Les Fouilles de Thrace’ Belleten 4, 13: 89–139. Mansel, A.M. 1943: Trakya-Kırklareli Kubbeli Mezarları ve Sahte Kubbe ve Kemer Problemi. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Mellart, J. 1966: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beriut: Khayats. Kansu, Ş. A. 1960: ‘Haberler, 2- İstanbul ve Trakya Bölgesinde Tarih öncesi Araştırmaları’ Belleten 24, 96: 708–09. Kansu, Ş. A. 1963a: ‘Kanallı Köprü (Silivri) Kalkolitiğine ait Yeni Keramik Belgeler ve ‘Heraeum’un yeri’ Belleten 27, 106: 289–96. Kansu, Ş. A. 1963b: Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya’da Prehistorik İskan Tarihi Bakımından Araştırmalar, Belleten 27, 108: 658–60.

Kansu, Ş. A. 1972: ‘Yarımburgaz (Küçükçekmeceİstanbul) mağarasında Türk Tarih Kurumu adına yapılan Prehistorya Araştırmaları’ 7. Türk Tarih Kongresi-1970, Kongreye sunulan Bildiriler. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu: 22–32. Müller-Karpe, A. 2002: ‘Die Keramik des Mittleren und Jüngeren hethitischen Reiches’ in H. Willinghöfer (ed.), Die Hethiter und Ihr Reich. Bonn, Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 256–63. Özdoğan M. 1983: ‘Trakya’da Tarihöncesi Araştırmaların Bugünkü Durumu ve Bazı Sorunlar’ Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 10/11: 21–58. Özdoğan M. 1985: ‘Marmara Bölgesinde Kültür Tarihi İle İlgili Bazı Sorunlar ve Bunların Çözümüne Jeomorfoloji Araştırmalarının Katkısı’ Arkeometri Toplantısı Sonuçları 1: 39–162. Özdoğan M. 1986a: ‚Trakya Bölgesinde Yapılan Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları‘ 9. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Vol. 1. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu: 29–39. Özdoğan M. 1986b: ‘Yarımburgaz Mağarası 1986 yılı çalışmalarının ilk Sonuçları ve Bazı Gözlemler’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 32/33: 4–17. Özdoğan M. 1988. ‚Yarımburgaz Mağarası 1986 yılı Kazı Çalışmaları‘ Araştırma SonuçlarıToplantısı 5/2: 323–46. Özdoğan M. 1990: Yarımburgaz Mağarası, 10. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Vol. 1. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu: 373–88. Özdoğan M. 1996: ‘Tarihöncesi Dönemde Trakya. Araştırma Projesinin 16. Yılında Genel Bir Değerlendirme’ Anadolu Araştırmaları 14: 329–60. Özdoğan M. 2011: ‘Kanlıgeçit’ Arkeo Atlas 1: 220–21. Özdoğan, M., Miyake, Y., Özbaşaran-Dede, N. 1991: ‘An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarımurgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace’ Anatolia 17: 59–121. Özdoğan, M., Parzinger, H. 2012: Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Kanlıgeçit bei Kırklareli. Studien im ThrakienMarmara-Raum 3. Berlin, von Zabern. Özgüç, T. 2002: ‘Die Keramik der althethitischen’ in H. Willinghöfer (ed.), Die Hethiter und Ihr Reich. Bonn, Kunstund Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 248–55. Vajsova (Todorova) H. 1966 ‘Stand der Jungsteinzeit forschung in Bulgarien’ Slovenská Archeológia 14–1: 5–48. Sazcı, G. 2012: ‘Maydos Kilisetepe Höyüğü’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 140: 13–20. Yaşar, C. 1979: Boğazköy Metinlerinde Geçen Bazı Şeçme Kap İsimleri Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve TarihCoğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları.

199

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period Sait Başaran1 Abstract1

Introduction (Figures 1, 2)

Ainos (Enez), is located on the northern coast of the Aegean Sea, where the River Meriç (Hebros) meets the sea. Before colonisation, the city called Poltymbria was founded by Alopekonnessos and was then settled by the cities of Mytilene and Kyme. Ainos is an important port city located at the junction of land, sea and riverways connecting the Balkans to Anatolia and to the Aegean. From the date of its establishment until the 18th century, it has preserved its status as a dominant centre for trade, which transferred goods inland and to the Balkans via the Rvier Meriç, and also to the Aegean Sea. Due to its geographical location, Ainos has been shaped and enriched within the framework of tradeoriented economy rather than by agriculture.

Enez, called Ainos in ancient times, is situated in the Northern Aegean where the River Meriç (Hebros) reaches the sea (Herodotos 4, 90). It is first mentioned in the Iliad (Homer 4.520, Vergil, Aeneid 3,18; Müller 1893: 1028 vn) indicated the mythological founder of the city as Aeneas. Ancient sources state that Ainos was initially founded by Aeolians, including Kymeians, Mytilenians and Alopekonnessoi, as a colony during the 7th century BC.

The subject of our article covers the Early Period vases unearthed from the settlement areas of the ancient city of Ainos and especially from the Su Terazisi Necropolis, where excavations are ongoing. Due to the fact that ceramic vases produced in Ainos, both East Greek and Attic, were found in great quantities, only selected examples from the Early Period are introduced in our article. In the Su Terazisi Necropolis, among the local urns used in the tombs since the second half of the 7th century BC, imported amphoras from Attica and Northern Ionia were used as urns. In addition, a small number of Late Protocorinthian and Transitional Period skyphoi and aryballoi were found among the tombs dating back to this period. The North Ionian production of bird-, rosette- and eye bowls, kylikes and painted vases of Early Orientalising Style, and Early Corinthian pottery finds were frequently unearthed from tombs dating back to the end of this century. This shows that with the establishment of the city of Ainos (mid-7th century BC), relations based on trade started with the cities of Attica and Ionia. Even though imported goods dating back to the 7th century BC uncovered in the excavations at Ainos are so far few in number, we see that all forms in different styles and decorations were imported from Ionian and Corinthian centres since the beginning of the 6th century BC In the settlement areas and in the necropolis of Ainos, the varieties of Orientalising and Corinthian pottery decreased since the middle of the 6th century BC, whereas an increase in the import of Attica black figure pottery is observed. 

Keywords AINOS, ORIENTALISING, CORINTH, POTTERY, SU TERAZISI

Prof. Dr., Istanbul University (Emeritus), Director of the Ainos Archaeological Excavations of Ainos, e-mail:[email protected] This project was supported by the Ministry of Culture General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums, Istanbul University and TUBITAK.

1 

( Herodotus 7,58; Thucydides 7, 57; Pseudo Skylax 76; Erzen 1972: 238; cf. Müller 1893: 1028; Besevliev 1942, 157-178) However, there are sources pointing out to an older settlement, and older names given to the city before this colonisation; Strabo wrote that the region was named Poltyobria after Poltys-the king of the Thracians  (Strabo 7, 6.319). Stephanos Byzantinos (s.v.) called the region Apsinthos, after a Thracian tribe named Absinthians, located on the East of the River Meriç. Based on these sources, we understand that local Thracian tribes were settled in the region before the colonisation. Travelers who visited Ainos at different times – Critoboulus during the time of Mehmet the Conqueror, Bertrandon de la Broquière in 1433, Aubry de la Mottraye, Albert Dumont, Choiseul-Gouffier and F.W. Hasluck during the 18th and19th centuries – gave noteworthy information about Ainos. The ancient city of Ainos was settled continuously throughout its history. The excavations which started in the year 1971 were conducted at the following places: the Acropolis (Kale), Killik Hill, the Taşaltı area, at the Roman villa, the Kralkızı area, Çakıllık, Çataltepe tumulus, Hoca Çeşme mound, and at the Su Terazisi Necropolis. The excavations revealed important data regarding the archaeology of Ainos and the region.  Thracian settlement St. Casson, who visited Ainos at the beginning of the 20th century, mentioned that on the Acropolis he found pottery sherds dating back to the Chalcolithic Period (Casson 1926: 125, 174). Neither in trenches IV, IV a-b, D, and H excavated down to the bedrock on the Acropolis, nor in the trenches excavated on the Killik hill, has any data been found to validate Casson’s statements (Figures 2, 3). However, quite a few number of pieces of

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 200–218

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

Figure 1. Location of Ainos.

Figure 2. On the left, general view of the excavated areas in Ainos; on the right, excavated complex on the Acropolis.

201

Sait Başaran black coloured kitchen ware dating back to the Iron Age and dark grey coloured Aeolian pottery in disarray have been found in the aforementioned trenches. Based on their quality, inclusions, firing temperature, and their surface workmanship, the clay used in the production of this pottery is divided into two groups as coarse and fine. Incised zig zags, lines, and wave decorations may be seen on some of the dark grey coloured pottery sherds produced in local workshops. Among these sherds, knobbly Buckel pottery dating back to the 2nd millenium BC has also been found. Sharp profiled broad cups, short necked spherical types, flat handled cups and beakers are noteworty among the shapes of cups. A group of pottery, similar to this group of everyday pottery has been discovered in Thrace, in Western Anatolia, and in the Troas region, in layers dating back to the end of the 2nd and the beginning of 1st millenium BC (Akurgal 1956: 43-51; 1993, lev.6 a-h; Başaran 1996: 108, fig. 3; 2004, 118, fig. 6; Blegen 1958: 268-275; Erzen 1972: 245;  for grey coloured Aeolian pottery see: Blegen 1958: Pl.268-275; Cook- Dupont 1998: 135-136; Özdoğan 1987: 5-39; Skarlatidou 2004: 254, fig.19- 20; Utilli 1999,77). This pottery used by the local Thracian tribes before the foundation of Ainos was replaced from the beginning of 7th century BC by lighter coloured wares dominated by traditional Greek shapes.

band zones. Moreover, there are bands in the same colour that start where the handles join the body and run vertical to the pedastal of the amphora. On one of the Chian style amphora, discovered in Ainos black is used rather than red coloured bands (for egg shaped amphorae with ‘S’ shaped band see: Boardman 1967: 105; Hanfmann 1956: 180 ff. In the light of parallel specimens Figure 3 may be dated to the second half of the 7th century BC (Brann 1962: 57, 225, Pl.13;  Ersoy 2004: 55, fig.12; cf. Hürmüzlü 2010: 92, Abb.5; Sezgin 2004: 169-183; Sezgin 2012:  89-135).  Imported commercial amphorae have been discovered among the locally produced urns found in the early period layers of Su Terazisi Necropolis. As far as their clay, form, and decorative style go, these amphorae exhibit distinguishing features of the Northern Ionian amphorae (Başaran et al. 2018: 43, Pictures 2-3). These include fairly massive dimensions of the amphorae. This category can be exemplified by Figure 4 which has a thickened outturned rim, a low neck, and an oval profiled bulging body (It has 55 cm body diameter; 70 cm height).  On both sides of the white painted neck there are two red concentric circles painted with a brush, and on both sides of this vertical zigzag patterns (SOS) are rendered. The inner part of the white painted wide band on the transition section between the shoulder and the belly is decorated with fine lines painted in the colour of its clay. The other parts of its shoulder and its body are painted in fine, horizontal lines rendered by a brush in different shades of red. On the shoulder, between two handles, is incised the inscription ‘MENEKLEIDO EIMI’. These types of amphorae were produced in Attica, and in the Mediterranean basin they were used for the transportation of liquids. It dates back to the last quarter of the 7th century BC (Brann 1962, 30, 369 ff. Nr.H 45, pl.80; Kunze-Götte et al. 1999: 117, pl.76,nr.468; Jeffery 1990: 70.77 Nr.10e; Sparkes, Talcott 1970:  Nr.1503,pl.64;)

Pottery from the early period of Ainos With the arrival of the colonists, important developments took place in the commercial, social, and cultural life of Ainos. During the excavations at the Akropolis, Killik hill, Taşaltı slope, the Su Terazisi Necropolis many examples of vases from Western Anatolia, the Aegean Islands, and Attica have been found along with vases produced in Ainos. This indicates that, since its foundation, Ainos was an important centre, with an economy based on commerce. Imported goods from early dates consist of various pottery found among the cultural layers in graves dating back to the second half of the 7th century BC.

Apart from the imported amphorae, in Ainos great number of urns including amphorae, hydriae, dinoi, pyxides, oinochoe and craters, of grey and red clay, were produced locally, from the second half of the 7th century BC through out the 6th and 5th centuries. Local manufactures comprise 95% of the vases used as urns. Both open and and closed shapes of local originwere used as urns. Figure 5, a dinos found in the lowest layer of the Su Terazisi Necropolis was used as an urn; it was made of finely sifted grey clay with sand and mica inclusions. The surface is shiny burnished, well fired. The rim of the dinos is convex, it has a flat, wide surface. The rim joins the body without forming a neck. There is an incised wavy line decoration band on the shoulder. The pattern is bordered with incised lines both at the top and also at the bottom. It has two vertically placed flat handles on its shoulder; and on the other sides attached to the body, there are two decorative handles

Urns (Figures 3-8)  Among the vases which were used as urns after the middle of the 7th century BC there are amphorae of Northern Ionian and Attic origin. These amphorae are noteworthy among the imported goods. The imported amphorae – described as Chian productions in research – found in the early burial layers of the Su Terazisi Necropolis are noteworthy with their decorations and fine workmanship. Figure 3, an egg shaped Chian Style amphora, has fine yellowish clay with sand and gypsum inclusions. On the shoulders between the handles, it is decorated with an ‘S’ shaped band. The transition between neck and shoulder is decorated with thick bands and the body is decorated with sporadic thin 202

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

Figure 3. Chios amphora, second half of the 7th Century BC.

Figure 4. Attic amphora, last quarter of the 7th century BC.

Figure 5. Grey clay dinos.

203

Figure 6. Drawing of the Middle Corinthian round aryballos.

Sait Başaran

204

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

Figure 6a-6b. Pythos grave finds – Middle Corinthian aryballos and kantharos.

Figure 7. Stamnos.

Figure 8. Cups with rosettes.

205

Sait Başaran in the shape of stirrups. The vase which is found in the early burial layer of the Necropolis is locally produced and dates back to the first half of the 6th century. BC (Amyx, Lawrence 1975: pl.70,no 81; Furtwängler, Kienast 1989: 94 ff; İren 2003: Pl.6.33; Pl.8:47).

pottery. Among the various early period pottery sherds discovered in the second building layer of the Acropolis hill, on the eastern slope of Killik hill, on the Taşaltı slope and at Su Terazisi Necropolis, there are specimens of bird bowls. The contours of the bird figures on pottery sherds discovered in the IV a-b and D trenches on the Acropolis, and at the rock by the Taşaltı slope are either emphasised with dark colours in the silhoutte style, or combed diagonally with thin lines. The decorative zone between the figures is bordered with horizontal bands at the bottom and ray patterns on the sides. Empty spaces are filled with rosettes, double-outlined semicircles decorated inside with horizontal lines. The examples from Ainos date back to the end of the 7th century BC (Başaran 200:,375, fig.5; 1996:, 111, fig. 8; For other examples with bird decorations, see: Serdaroğlu 1995: 54,2; Utili 1999: 8, Abb. 1,2-8; Kerschner 1997, 107, pl.1,1-3; Mannack 2002: 91, Abb. 44; Hürmüzlü 2004: 82 ff. fig.10, 12; 2010, 105, Abb..20, 106, Abb.21; Skarlatidou 2004: 249, fig. 10; Walter 1968: pl. 44; Boardman 1967: 133-34) The clay analysis of the samples indicated that bird bowls had been produced in different workshops in Northern Ionia (Dupont 1986,61,d,3). Also, neutron activation analysis conducted by M. Kerschner on different groups of  kotylai and skyphoi with birds discovered in Miletus, showed that these groups pertain to Northern Ionia. (Kerschner et al. 2002:63-72,149; Calvet, Yon 1976: Pl.19, fig. 1a,1b,1c; Boardman1998: 51, fig.138)

An offering of a grey Thracian ‘kantharos’ and an aryballos was found in the pythos grave (Figure 6, 6a-b) (Başaran, Kurap 2016: 444, fig. 4; Grave no: E14ST38-M22 ). The kantharos is of a well fired clay with sand and mica inclusions. Its body is spherical, and it has a convex mouth with a wide surface. The high foot widens towards the bottom. It has flat, vertical handles. It is decorated with incised wavy lines on its shoulder and on its body The Middle Corinthian style spherical aryballos from the same grave is decorated with a goose and rosettes. The band over the wing of the goose, its neck, and its beard is in violet. Rosetttes that cover the surface, and the feathers of the bird are emphasised with incisions. The surface of the lip of aryballos and its bottom are decorated with violet leaf shaped rosettes. On the surface of the handle there is a violet coloured wavy band, and there are violet dot decorations on the edges which are comparable to the specimens from the Middle Protocorinthian Period (Amyx, Lawrence 1975: pl.37, No.195). The chronology of the aryballos indicates that the pithos grave and the kantharos date back to the beginning of the 6th century BC.  Another group of open vessels with a broad rim which were used as urns consist of stamnoi, Stamnoi found in Ainos are of finely sifted, fine grained, red clay (Figure 7). A wide shouldered, oval shaped body narrowing towards the bottom is attached to the slightly convex pedastal in a knot. Starting from the shoulder it narrows towards the top, and it ends with a short, straight mouth edge without forming a neck. Small, vertical handles are placed on its shoulder. Its body is decorated with thin and thick dark red bands. The band between the handles is also decorated with fine wavy lines mostly in dark red. Shallow mouth edges, handles, and pedastals are painted in the same colour. Due to its form and ornament the stamnos (Figure.7) dates back to the end of the 6th century BC (Risser 2001: Pl.4 -48; Güngör 2004: 127, fig.14, fn. 29; for a detailed study on wavy lined patterns see: Uzun 2016: 97-124; Ersoy 2004: fig.19e ). Many stamnos sherds of red and grey clay have been found at Killik hill and at the rock on Taşaltı slope. The similarities between the clays and the slips of these sherds with other local wares indicate that this form was produced in Ainos. 

Together with the bird cups, cups with rosettes that are quite common in Western Anatolia, and many other cups have been discovered in the Early Period of the Su Terazisi Necropolis. Figure 8, a cup from a simple earthen grave (E.19 ST49/25) has modest dimensions with 14.5 cm rim diameter and 5.6 cm height. On the surface of the cup, a rosette is painted on each side of the vertical rays next to each handle. The body is decorated with six horizontal bands, two thin. Inside its small round pedastal, a star pattern was roughly incised after firing. The cup is glazed inside, and it has three horizontal incised bands, painted white, red, and white in order. The cup dates back to the end of the 7th century BC (Akurgal 1993: 45, pl. 113a,b; Hürmüzlü: 2004, 85, fig.18; Calvet, Yon 1976: Pl. 20, fig.1d). Eye cups that were produced in Northern Ionia have been identified among the grave offerings above the early period layers of the Su Terazisi Necropolis. Along with well preserved two eye cups (Figure 9) a spherical Corinthian aryballos (Figure 10), and an Ionian kylix (Figure 11) have been found as grave offerings in a simple earthen grave from the necropolis (grave no. E12ST30/M27). The eye cups have fine walled, slightly concave, sharp profiled rims. The eyes for which the cups are named, one red, one black, are painted on a light coloured panel between horizontal handles. The

Pottery samples among grave offerings (Figures 9-23) Together with examples of urn vases briefly mentioned above, in habitats and in graves in Ainos we observe the use of 7th century BC Ionian and Corinthian imported 206

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

bottom part of the panel with the eyes is bordered with two or three horizontal bands; the sides are bordered with rays that run vertically from the mouth to the bottom. The insides of the cups have the same colour slip – red or black – like the outside patterns. Inside the cup, at the bottom there are incised lines of white, red and white. Some of them have a thin white band painted with a brush directly below the edge of its mouth. On the surface there is a decoration of one or two white circles painted with a brush. Eye cups date back to the beginning of the 6th century BC (Alexandrescu 1978: Pl.21, cat. 226-28, 233; Başaran 2013: Fig. 57; cf. Cook, Dupont 1998: 27; Walter-Karydi 1973: 80, Pl.125.10241025). 

From its foundation, Ainos imported pottery with decorations of Corinthian, and Orientalising styles. On the Acropolis, in the trenches excavated above the bedrock that constitute the 2nd. construction layer of the cultural phase, during the excavations on the Taşaltı slope, on the Eastern slope of the Killik hill, and in the ongoing excavations at the Su Terazisi Necropolis, many dazzling examples of vases with Oriental style decorations dating back to the second half of the 7th century BC and 6th century BC have been unearthed. The cups with Oriental style decorations discovered in Ainos have a wide range of patterns. The patterns are mainly wild goats, lions, panthers, wild boars, dogs, oxen, geese, roosters, griffon and sphinx like creatures; and band zones and friezes decorated with floral patterns, rosettes, rays, triangles, swastikas, meanders, lotus plants and palmettes. The most common cup forms from the aforementioned period are trefoil mouth oinochoae, low footed or flat foot plates, cups, lekanai, pyxides, craters, amphorae and kylikes. 

The type of clay used in the making of the Corinthian round aryballos (Figure 10) found in the same grave together with the cups is of an even, light green beige colour. The surface is well burnished, shiny and slick. On its body there is a bird figure with wings spread wide in the black figure technique. It has a long neck with its head turned left. There is a ray pattern on the surface of its mouth, and between the neck and the body; the surface of the rim is decorated with black dots. On the surface of the wide, flat handle there are vertical wavy lines; on the body below the handle there are three rosettes, and at the bottom there is a pattern of leaf rosettes. The details of the bird, and the space filling rosettes are emphasised with incised lines. There are violet coloured bands on the wings; the bands on the neck are decorated in patches of violet dots. In an amphora from grave no. E18ST47M18 that was used as an urn, two other aryballoi from the same workshop were found. Based on the finds discovered in the grave the aryballoi date back to the beginning of the 6th century BC. Also parallel specimens from other sites date back to the end of the Early Corinthian period (Amyx, Lawrence 1975: 21, Pl 6 Nr.36; Başaran 1996: 109 ff.;  Özkan 1992:  Fig.7).

A ring-pedastaled, trefoil-mouthed, broken oinokhoe which was found in the early period layer of the Su Terazisi Necropolis in grave no. E13-S37/230 is one of the finest examples of Early Oriental period pottery found in Ainos (Figure 12a-b). Despite the missing pieces on its bottom, and of its foot, the oinokhoe is well preserved. It is made of finely sifted yellowish orange clay with inclusions of sand, and mica. The surface of the vase has a fine, shiny yellowish white slip. The Ainos vase has similar fabric characteristics with Chiotian manufactures (cf. Walter-Karydi 1973: 77, fn. 223;  Cook, Dupont 1998: 47; Lemos 1991:  212). The upper part of the handle which is formed by three bands, is decorated with horizontal brown lines. The handle where it joins the mouth is shaped like a spool. On the wide part of the neck, between fine horizontal lines there is a braid design filled with black dots inside (cf. Aytaçlar 2005: 40; Lemos 1991: Pl.19,236, Pl. 21,237; Salviat 1978: Fig.6, pl.8, fig.19). Where the neck joins the shoulder there is a decoration of rays between horizontal lines. On the main decoration area on the shoulder band in the middle there are geese facing each other; on each side of the frieze there are wild goats, a human figure, and filling patterns that are executed in the reserve technique. The heads of the geese are violet (Cook, Dupont 1998: 49. Violet colour had been used on Oriental style pottery from early times). There are violet stains on their necks and on their bellies; their wings are emphasised with light red lines with thin brush strokes (cf. Walter-Karydi 1973: 4, Pl.9, 88; 21,Pl.37, 290a). Behind the goose on the right side, there is a naked man facing the geese; his silhouette is depicted in profile. His features are reminiscent of a sphinx; his arm, bent on the elbow looks like a later

Another group of imported pottery consists of kylikes. Various examples of widely used Ionian kylikes come from the graves. An Ionian kylix was found in the same grave as the eye cups and aryballoi (Figure 11). The kylix has high convex lips, the thick edges of its body rest on a conical pedestal. Except its surface, reserved lip edge, and the shoulder area between its handles, the kylix is glazed all over. The inside is glazed, except the reserve band below the mouth edge. Based on the classification of F. Villard and G. Vallet (Villard, Vallet 1996), it is of A2 type ( Başaran 1996:109 ff.). These types of kylikes date back to 620-600 BC. The fact that three different vases produced in different regions have been found in the same grave (Figures 9-11) dates the grave to the period between 600-590 BC.

207

Sait Başaran

Figure 9. Eye cups with red and black decorations.

Figure 10. Middle Corinthian round aryballos.

Figure 12a-b. Oinochoe with Oriental style decoration, late 7th century BC.

Figure 11. Ionian bowl of type A2, late 7th Century BC.

Figure 13. Lekanis lid with Wild Goat Style, end of Early Oriental Period.

208

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

addition. His violet coloured hair reaches his shoulders. In the middle of the main scene there is a grazing wild goat moving towards the geese. The details of the goats are rendered with the reserved technique, and violet is used on their shoulders and on their hips. The decorated frieze is bordered by vertical lines on each side of the handles. Under this frieze there are two thick bands; on the thin band in between them there is a red meander pattern. 

the lekanis lid is a mixture of light orange and beige in colour. It has inclusions of thin grained sand, mica, and lime particles. The outer and the inner surface of the lekanis lid is hard and shiny. Eyes, eyebrows, nose, and mouth details of the goats are drawn in detail. The painter painted an arched line under the eyes of the goats, which is a distinguishing detail from other contemporary goat figures.The belly is painted in the background colour underneath, and it is combed with vertical lines by leaving a thin line in reserve. The shoulder is empasised by a crescent-shaped thin line in the reserved technique. Violet dots are painted on the goats’ shoulders, hips, and necks. Reserved zones are skillfully filled with dot rosettes, clover, flower rosettes, horseshoe shaped chains, and triangles filled with dots (cf. Başaran 2002: 66, fig.1; Irmak 2010:74 ff.). The frieze with the wild goats is surrounded by a metope band: between two thick brush strokes, there are empty square spaces with a dot in the middle alternating with coloured squares. The band zones decorating the Ainos vases, with square-space patterns running periodically between the friezes or bordering the friezes, are frequently seen on the Chian influenced vases from Thasos and Neapolis (Lemos 1991: Pl.228,1, Pl.231,2 (Thasos); Salviat 1978: 88, pl.2, fig.3, pl.3, fig.5, 6, pl.4. figs.8,9; Walter-Karydi 1973: Pl.97, no.717,Pl. 98,no.722,695,725 (Naukratis). According to K. İren this pattern originated from Near Eastern textile decorations of the 8th and 7th centuries BC (İren 2003: 113, fn. 715). The straight part of the lid is decorated with a double ray pattern with horizontal bands in between. In Ainos where these types of decorations represent the end of the Early Oriental style, the hips and shoulders of animal figures on the vases are decorated with violet coloured stains. This suggests a date between the late 7th century and beginning of the 6th century BC (cf. Walter- Karydi 1973, 68). 

Red coloured lotus and bud string rising from the pedastal to the top of the body is bordered with double lines (cf. Walter -Karydi 1973: 84,Pl.62, fig. .515,516, pl.63,fig.518,52 (lotus bud);  pl.63,fig.526,531, Pl. 64,527,529, Pl.65, 530 (meander pattern); for lotus bud pattern see: Cook, Dupont 1998: 58). Zones of thick bands vary between brown and red. The colour variations on the vase come from using the brush in different paint thicknesses. The empty spaces on the vase are filled with finely rendered decorative patterns used on the Northern Ionian pottery such as dots, rosettes, chevrons, triangles with combed insides, squares, combed hand chains, swastikas, bud patterns hanging in between geese (cf. Aytaçlar 2005: 22), and spirals. However, the figure of the man painted in the silhoutte technique is clumsily rendered; Perhaps this was the first attempt by the vase painter to paint a human figure, and the painter might have worked in haste. Other elements allow us to date the oinokhoe to the end of the 7th century BC – the braid pattern on the neck of the vase (for the braid pattern during the early Orientalising Period see Aytaçlar 2005: 22); the violet used on the rendition of the geese and goats decorating the shoulder panel; the beauty and the richness of the filling patterns; the band zones underneath the body; the lotus bud pattern emerging from the foot; the meander pattern in between thick bands on the body of the vase; and the lotus bud pattern – must have been inspired by the decorations on Rhodian vases (cf. Aytaçlar 2005: 66). Its clay and its other attributes mentioned above makes us think that the oinochoe vase was most likely produced at a Chios influenced workshop in Ainos (for presumptions about local orientalising pottery production in Ainos, Thasos, Maronea, or Kavala, probably by craftsmen from Chios and of Chian clay see: Başaran 2003: 286 ff. fn..9; Cook, Dupont 1998: 51; Lemos 1991: 2;).

Among the finds discovered in the above referenced pithos grave, there is a table top amphora (Figure 14). The amphora’s dimensions are as follows: height: 17.5cm.; radius of the mouth: 8.4cm.; radius of the foot: 7.3cm. It is well preserved, except for a tiny break on its rim. The beige clay has fine sand inclusions; its surface has a shiny white slip. The rim is thick, and it is slightly convex. It has a high neck, an oval body, and a convex ring foot (Basaran et al. 2010:157, fig.11a-d ). Flat handles join the body at the mouth edge. Its neck is decorated with a finely painted tripartite braid, with dots in between. There are two thin, dark coloured lines surrounding the zone where the neck joins the shoulder. The wide shoulder frieze between the handles is decorated with a line of lion figures facing right, rendered in black figure technique. Lions are depicted with their mouths open, with tongues hanging down, crinkly nose tips, and almond eyes. Between their faces and their foreheads, there is an incised double line. The hair above their

In Ainos, many examples of Oriental period vases rendered with the reserved technique and decorated with wild goat patterns have been found. A fragment of a lekanis lid (30cm in radius) painted with the reserved technique, which was discovered in grave no. E09ST5M6 (inhumation in a pithos) at the Su Terazisi Necropolis, has white slip on the outside, depicting a line of grazing wild goats facing right (Figure 13) (Başaran et al. 2010: 157, fig.11-a-d). The clay used in 209

Sait Başaran mouths is emphasised with incised lines. Between their heads and necks are triangle shaped manes in violet. The triangles have double incised lines painted in violet inside. Their hips are emphasised with three incised violet lines. The tail is turned straight, and it is curved upwards from the lion’s backside. On the frieze under the body there is a lotus-bud pattern. This frieze is bordered by a repeating square metope frieze on its body and on its foot (cf. Salviat 1978, pl.5.fig.11; for a similar incense burner from Pitane see: Lemos 1991: Pl.187, no.1437).There is a band of tongue patterns on the transition to the foot. The empty zones between the lions are filled with petalled rosettes.

the grave must have been used between the years 600590 BC.  At the open cremation area no. E08ST1M18, along with charred bones, pottery finds as grave offerings were found. Among the available pottery, high and flat footed plates with the most dazzling floral patterns of the period constitute a rich group of finds. An example of one of these plates, Figure 17, has a high foot, and a convex, horizontal mouth. Its dimensions are: rim diameter 22.8cm; Height 9.7cm.; foot diameter 6.7cm.; foot height 3.2cm; and wall thickness 0.6cm. Appliqué, bobbin shaped handles on the rim, and evil eye shaped protrusions in between the handles enhance the beauty of the plates. On the mouth edge of the plate, in between bands of glazed lines, there is a zone of recurring square-metopes, and square-space bands one under the other. The wide face of the plate is decorated with exquisite artistry with lotus sprouts and a frieze of flower shaped rosettes in various shades of red and brown. The lotus leaves are spread wide, and they touch one another. The empty space between the leaves is filled with a square-metope band on top of the frieze. Lotus leaves and flower rosettes are rendered with double contours, giving depth to the composition (cf. Aytaçlar 2005: 23 for Ionian examples). These are attached to one another at the bottom with curled lines. The tondo of the plate is decorated with sprouts coming out of concentric circles, and diamond shaped leaves in between. The square-metope band between the body frieze and the tondo rosette is used a separation pattern. The style, choice of colour, homogeneity in style, and composition of the plates decorated with lotus-rosette patterned feet, and of the plates with flat feet indicate that they had been produced in the same workshop. Many fragments of lekanides, skyphoi, and shallow plates with similar decorations have been discovered in the settlement areas of Ainos, and at the Su Terazisi Necropolis (Erzen 1972: Pl. 10/19, Pl. 11,/21; Erzen 1983: Fig. 17; Erzen, Başaran 1990: fig. 4; Başaran 2002, fig. 7,9; Başaran 2013 fig.57;  cf. Irmak 2010, Cat. No:25-77;  Irmak 2010, 29 ff). The clay used in their production (usually with sand and mica inclusions, and with slight inclusions of gypsum) is dull, in various shades of orange (Irmak 2010,29 ff.). The homogeneous decoration, homogenous clay and paint materials of these vases-appreciated and used commonly in Ainos, make us think that this group had either been imported from Northern Ionia or produced in a workshop in Ainos (cf. texture of the Chios clay: Lemos 1991: 211. Since the Ainos clay has not been analysed yet, the places of production are not clear. For an opinion that Chios clay has been transported to other places see: Lemos 2000: 379; furthermore, Salviat 1978: 84-92).

The black figure and reserve techniques are used together on the amphora. Among the offerings in the pithos grave, a large piece from a lekanis decorated with lions has been found. Figure 15,  The lekanis has a wide rim, a vertical lip, a flat round body, and a button shaped foot. Ribbon shaped handles are attached to the body horizontally at the rim. There is a dark, double ray pattern on the rim. On its body, there are four lion figures in line to the right (cf. Walter-Karydi 1973: Pl.111.1011). The lions in the middle turn their heads towards back; the ones on the side look ahead. All the details of the lions are the same as the lions depicted on the amphora.  The top and bottom sections of the main decorative frieze are bordered with a zone of recurring squares and spaces, and a zone of tongue patterns. There is a band of brown and black tongue patterns on the transition to the foot. Empty spaces on the wide frieze are filled with flower rosettes. The amphora and the lekanis must have been painted by the same painter. Similar lekanides are common in Thasos, Samos, and Attica (Lemos 1991: pl.232.1,3,4, pl.233.1,2, pl.234.1-2,4; Salviat 1978: 89 pl.5.figs.10-11). The decorations of the two vases showing a Chian influence help us to date them back to 600-590 BC. This date range is supported by the Corinthian skyphos found in the aforementioned pithos grave. The skyphos, Figure 16, is made of a light greenish, buff coloured clay. Its disc shaped foot is slightly convex. The convex body rises towards a slight convex lip. The rim forms the surface of the handle and it is decorated with violet rays on a light cream slip; its body is decorated with two violet bands at intervals. Inner surface is painted in various shades of red and violet. The skyphos is dated to the beginning of the 6th century BC. These miniature skyphoi which come in different styles were produced in great numbers during the 6th century BC (cf. Amyx, Lawrence 1975: An.161, Pl.64, Nr.161; for the Late Early Corinthian, or Early Middle Corinthian date: Risser2001: Pl.9, Nr.108, second quarter of the 6th century). Since the grave finds date back to the Early and Middle Orientalising Period, it may be deduced that

A round aryballos (Figure 18) and an incense burner (Figure 19), discovered among the numerous finds from 210

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

Figure 17. High and flat footed plate.

Figure 14. Amphora, Early Middle Oriental Period.

Figure 18. Middle Corinthian Period aryballos.

Figure 15. Lekanis lid, Early Middle Oriental Period.

Figure 16. Middle Corinthian Skyphos.

Figure 19. Incense burner, circa 590-575 BC.

211

Sait Başaran the same cremation grave, are important proxies in dating the grave (Başaran et al.: 2009: 127). The body of the round aryballos is decorated with four, light red leaves. Around the rim, there is a finely painted flower rosette pattern. This type of aryballos, found frequently at the Su Terazisi Necropolis, dates to the Middle Corinthian Period (cf. Payne 1931: 320, Nr. 1263 from early 6th century BC; also cf.  Amyx 1988: 165, Pl.63a-b; İren 2003: 146 Cat .Nr.291 and related foot notes; Serdaroğlu 1995: 59, fig.1).

wild goats lined towards right. The style and the details of the goats rendered on a milk white slip are as elaborate as the goats on the lekanis lid. The detail of a line under the eyes of the goats and vertical lines on the thin reserve line under the belly are depicted similarly on the lekanis lid. Dot rosettes, clovers, flower rosettes, and horseshoe shaped chains are used as filling patterns in reserved spaces. The middle scene is bordered with a repeating square-space band zone in between thick glazed lines. The centres of the empty squares are decorated with black dots. The flaring horizontal rim is decorated with a repeating square metope-band with double lines in between (Başaran 1996: 112, fig.10). Fragments of pottery exhibiting common decorative traits with the lekanis, Figure 13, point to the same workshop, and probably to the same master. Like the lekanis, the plate, Figure 20, is dated to the end of the 7th century BC and the beginning of the 6th century BC.

An incense burner, Figure 19, in broken pieces has been found in the same grave. It has a square sectioned opening in the middle of its cylindrical shaped body; its top is shaped like an upturned cone with a ring shaped handle on the top. Its body narrows and ends with a ring shaped foot. On the body there is a meander pattern between red bands on a white slipped surface; at the top and at the bottom it is decorated with ray patterns (Başaran et al. 2009: fig.14; a similar incense burner has been found in ST5M6 during the 2009 excavations at the Su Terazisi Necropolis: Başaran et al. 2010: 157, re.11a-d ). The fact that the incense burner produced in Ainos, the floral patterned, high footed plate, and the Corinthian aryballos have been all been discovered in the same place make us believe that these finds and the cremation grave should be dated to 600-590 BC.

On the straight rimmed plate discovered in the IV a-c trench at the Acropolis, there is a line of sphinx figures rendered in the reserved technique, proceeding towards the left (Figure 21). The head is in profile and the facial features are in archaic style and rendered in detail with the silhouette technique. The transition from the narrow forehead to the nose is straight and the nose is pointed. The eye is almond shaped, the eyebrow is an arched line. Their hair is braided, falling on the shoulder. A tress of hair on the head reaches the wing in line shape, and it ends curving with a spiral. The feathers of the wing are combed in parallel lines and its tip is curved. The hips of the sphinxes are in the same colour as the background, prominent in line shape. On their wings, on the hips and belly portions of the thin bodies there are violet stain decorations. Reserved areas are filled with flower rosette patterns. The plate is a production of the Early Orientalising period (Lemos 1991: Pl.224.1, pl 222.1-2, pl.230.2, pl. 231.1). Even so, black figure plates with sphinx decorations are also common in Ainos. The main frieze where the sphinxes are depicted, is bordered with a repeating square-space band zone in between two thick glazed lines of dark and light brown. 

Other than the florally decorated, high footed plate that is mentioned above, we observe that plates decorated with figures, and abstract patterns were frequently used in Ainos. The plates are divided into two groups: plates with horizontal rims, and plates with vertical mouth edges. On the body fragment of an Oriental style plate, discovered within the 0.75m thick layer laying on top of the bedrock at the Acropolis, there are two goat figures in line facing right (Figure 20). They are rendered in the reserved technique. Even though the style of the goats is similar to those on the lekanis (Figure 13), there are some differences such as in the details of the heads: the mouths of the goats on the plate are longer, and their noses are much more prominent. Pendant triangles, semi-circular chains combed with lines, and a central dot attached to rosettes with lines are used as filling patterns. The pattern on the plate is reminiscent of the features of the Hamburg group (Başaran 1996: 112, fig. 10b, n. 16. Aytaçlar 2005: 63-69 dates the Hamburg Group between Early Orientalising Style 1, and Middle Orientalising Style). The plate dates back to 630-600 BC.

Many examples of vase fragments with lion figures from the Early Orientalising Period have been discovered (Erzen 1972:  Fig.20; Başaran 2003: Fig.5; Irmak 2010: 26 and ff.). On a fragment, Figure 22, discovered in the H1 trench at the Acropolis, there is a lion painted in the reserved technique on a milk white slip. The lion has an open mouth, with its tongue hanging down, almond shaped eyes, prominent eyebrows and pupils. The hair above the chin and the inner part of the ear are rendered in detail. Its mane is combed crisscross in tresses (cf. Akurgal 1993: 43, Pl.38,39, is dated between 620/610 BC). The stylisation of the tip of the lion’s shoulder is rendered with incised lines in the shape of

Plates painted in Wild Goat Style have been discovered frequently: in trench no. IV at the Acropolis and at the rock at Taşaltı Slope as well as at the Necropolis (Başaran 1996: 112, fig.10; Erzen 1972; 242,pl. 12, fig.24; 1984: fig.18; Başaran 2001: Fig.9; Irmak 2010: 30 ff., pl.1-32). Two different open shaped plate fragments discovered in trench no. IV at the Acropolis are decorated with 212

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

Figure 20.Wild Goats Style Plate.

Figure 23a-b. Kantharos ‘karkhesion’.

a question mark similar to the Protocorinthian styles. The style of the shoulder and the filling patterns date the plate to 620-610 BC (For the detail on the shoulder stylisation see: Bakır 1982: 131,141-147; Payne 1933: Pl.4.4 the lion figure on the pear shaped aryballos from the Middle Proto Corinth is clear.; Akurgal 1997: Pl. 22.2 Late Middle Proto Corinth II/ the shoulder stylisation of the lion on the Late Proto Corinthian Period conical oinochoe, pl. 35 a, the lion on the dinos 630 BC are similar examples. For the same dinos see: Amyx 1988: Pl. 25, 26; For details regarding the development of the pattern Akurgal 1993: 95 pl.102b,103a-b.).

Figure 21. Plate decorated with sphinx.

At the Su Terazisi Necropolis where excavations are ongoing, surprising vase styles are discovered frequently. Two similar shaped kantharoi with double handles discovered in the simple earthen graves from the Early period are noteworthy because of their shapes, and the decoration on one of them. The kantharos discovered in the grave no. E13ST37M33 (Figure 23 a-b) has the following dimensions: height 9cm.; radius of the mouth 9.3cm.; radius of the bottom: 7.2cm.; thickness 0.3cm. It is made of well sifted, light pinkish clay with inclusion of thin sand. The kantharos has a round cross section and a slight convex straight mouth. The body tapers down proportionately, and it ends with a

Figure 22. Lion decorated in reserved technique.

213

Sait Başaran flat foot. Flat handles joining the rim and the bottom are convex and curved in bow shape. The kantharos is a version of the ‘depas amphikypallon’ type, which is named ‘karkhesion’ by some archaeologists (Polat 2004: 216 ff.; also cf. Serdaroğlu 1995: 55 fig.5). Inside, the kantharos is painted in tile red colour; its outside has white slip. The rim is 1cm. thick, and is decorated with a band filled with squares. The body is divided into two panels by vertical lines starting where the handles are. The panels are decorated with various patterns in the reserved technique. The panel on side ‘A’ of the drinking cup is decorated with a ram protome. The details of the head of the ram, its mouth, its nose, and its eye are rendered in the line technique. Its pupil is violet in colour. Other parts are painted in violet. The area between the curved neck and the shoulder is separated by a thin line in the reserved technique, in the colour of the slip. Among the filling patterns on this surface, there are checkerboards, hanging hooks, triangles, dot rosettes linked to the centre with single lines, and rosettes linked to a semi-circle combed inside. On side ‘B’, there is a porcupine figure rendered in the silhouette technique. The quills on the back of the porcupine are decorated with red lines, and its body is decorated with dots. In the empty spaces, diamond shaped triangles, half rosettes, spiral patterns, rosettes linked to the centre with stems are used as filling patterns. The bottom is decorated with a star rosette pattern. A drinking cup with this interesting form and decorative patterns is one of the unique finds from Ainos. The depictions on these are rendered on an off-white background; the details of the bodies are rendered in the background colour in the reserved technique; the ram protome is set off by using violet colour on its shoulders. The artefacts decorated in this fashion, Figure 23a-b, are from the years 630-600 BC 

Figure 24a-b. Plates with abstract patterns, Middle Corinthian.

The patterns at the centre are surrounded with bands in white, in shades of red, in violet, in brown, and rarely in black colours. The insides of the plates and the rims are separated with wide bands. The workshops of these mass-produced plates are in debate. In Assos and Pitane, identical plates to that, Figure 24a, discovered in Ainos have been found (Serdaroğlu 1995: 54, nr.2; İren, 2003: Pl.64,309, Walter-Karydi 1973: Pl,12,123). The plate, Figure 24a, was discovered in the earth grave no. E13ST37M45, together with two cups with handles decorated with lotus bud chain patterns. A similar plate with abstract decorations, an eye cup, a Middle Corinthian pyxis, and three round aryballoi have been discovered in the same grave. The findings as well as the plates with abstract decorations indicate that the grave dates to the beginning of the Orientalising Period.

Plates with abstract patterns (Figure 24a-b.) Many examples of plates with abstract patterns from the Archaic Period have been discovered intact or nearly intact in graves. Apart from the necropolis, they are also documented in different parts of Ainos. We shall mention some examples of these plates in this paper. These plates have convex horizontal mouths and ring shaped feet. The rim diameter of the plates ranges between 10-14cm. Their shapes, and decorative styles are similar, but different patterns are used in their decorative elements. Their rims are mainly decorated with meander or line patterns. The inner decorations of the plates are arranged in circular friezes. The centres of the plates are decorated with a single circle, concentric circles, or rosettes. On the white, yellowish, and orange inner surfaces of the plates there are drop, ray, and sprout patterns painted in black, and in various shades of red and brown, spreading from the centre to the edges of the plate. 

Corinthian pottery (Figures 25, 26a-b, 27) The examples discovered in the settlement areas of Ainos, and in the Su Terazisi Necropolis indicate that Corinthian pottery was imported to Ainos starting from the third quarter of the 7th century BC. Among the oldest imported Corinthian pottery discovered in Ainos up to now, there are conical shaped aryballoi, 214

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

open-mouthed kotylai, and skyphoi. The bodies of the aryballoi are decorated with patterns of thin lines or fish scales; on their rims, shoulders, and feet they are decorated with tongue patterns. Even though the paint has mainly come off, traces of patches of violet, red, and brownish black colours may be observed on the tongue, and fish scale patterns (cf. Akurgal 1997, Pl.9;Hürmüzlü 2004,84,Fig.14n.30; Skarlatidou 2004: 254,Fig.21-23 Neeft 1987: nr.14, 129-272; Boardman 1998: 97, Fig.184). Among the pottery discovered in Ainos from this period, there are a small number of kotylai and skyphoi. Some of the kotylai are original; others are locally produced imitations. On the body of a frieze of a grave offering kotyle, Figure 25, found in a Transitional Period (630625 BC) grave, there are depictions of a bull, a lion, a goat, and a goose to the left. The details of the figures are rendered clumsily in line patterns. The frieze with figures is bordered with dotted patterned band zones in between two lines. Empty spaces are filled with dotted rosettes connected to the centre with lines. Ray patterns shooting up from the foot decorate the bottom of the body (Amyx 1988: Pl.20 Boston 49.403; Akurgal 1997: Pl. 41: 2). Corinthian pottery had been imported to Ainos starting from the Early Corinthian period; during the Middle Corinthian, and Late Corinthian Periods, the pottery imports showed a tendency to increase. During these periods the forms varied; aryballoi, alabastra, kotylai, and skyphoi were among the most common types of imported pottery. Moreover, flasks and amphoriskoi also have an important share among the imports (Görkay 2004,75-93). The Corinthian pottery from Ainos is mainly decorated with figures. The pear-shaped aryballos, Figure 26a-b, discovered in the Su Terazisi Necropolis, which dates back to the early Corinthian period, is one of the finest examples of that period (cf. Akurgal 1997: Pl. 45:1, pl. 47:1, Pl.52:1). A flask, Figure 27, with a round body, and a tall thin cylindrical shaped neck that is among the other finds shows the quality of the imported wares from the Middle Corinthian Period (cf. Akurgal 1997: 77 and ff., pl.53:2,3; Neeft 1987: No.14, 129-272). 

Figure 26a-b. Aryballos, Early Corinthian.

Figure 27. Middle Corinthian Period flask.

Figure 25. Transition Period cotyle.

215

Sait Başaran From 575 BC on, importation of Corinthian and Orientalising pottery diminished in Ainos. Grave goods of pottery produced in Corinth, in Attica, and Orientalising pottery were used in the same graves from this period. We observe that, starting from 575 BC, Ainos had heavily imported Attic black figure pottery. Ainos continued to import pottery of different productions of the Late Corinth and Late Orientalising Periods. However, starting from the end of the second quarter of the 6th century BC with the advent of exquisitely beautiful pottery produced in Athens, the importation of Orientalising, and Corinthian Pottery stopped. From this date on, the importation of Athenian black figured forms, especially kylikai had become prominent in Ainos.

Başaran, S.,  Kurap, G. 2016: ‘Enez (Ainos) 2014 Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 37/2: 441–62. Başaran, S., Karwiese, S., Brückner, H., Kurap, G., Mergen, B., Dan, A. 2018: ‘Ainos 2016 Yılı  Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 39/3: 30–51. Besevliev, V. 1942.: ‘La Colonisation Greque de la Cote Septentrional de la mer Egee dan l’Antiquite’ Belomorski Pregled 1: 157–78. Blegen, C.W., Cascey, J.L., Rawson, M. 1958: Troy. Settlements VIIa, VIIb and Troy IV. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Boardman, J. 1967:  Excavations in Chios 1952–1955. Greek Emporio, British School at Athens Supplement 6. Oxford, Thames and Hudson. Boardman, J. 1998: Early Greek Vase Painting. London, Thames and Hudson. Brann, E.T.H., 1962 : Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery Mid.8.th to Late 7th Century BC The Athenian Agora 8. Princeton New Jersey, American School of Classical Studies at  Athens. Calvet, Y., Yon, M.  1978: ‘Salamine de Chypre et le Commerce İonien’ Les Cérqmiques de la   Grece de L’est et Leur Diffision en Occident, Paris, Colloques Internationaaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.  Paris,  43–51. Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Casson, St.  1926: Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria: Their relations to Greece from the earliest timesdown to the time of Philip son of Amyntas. London,  Oxford university Press. Cook, R.M., Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery. London, New York, Routledge. Dugas, C.  1935: Les vases orientalisants de style non Mélien, Delos 17. Paris, de Boccard. Dupont, P. 1986: ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Bestimmung der archaischen Keramik Milets’ in W. MüllerWieder (ed.), Milet 1899–1980.Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung .Kolloquium, Frankfurt am Main 1980. Tübingen, Washmuth: 57–71. Ersoy, Y. 2004:’ Klazomenai 900–500 BC History and settlement evidence’ in A.Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.C. Tzannes, Y. Ersoy (eds), Klazomenai Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony,  Proceedings the International Symposium Held at the Archäaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 43–76. Erzen, A. 1972: ‘Enez (Ainos) Araştırmaları’ Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 1: 235–48. Erzen, A.  1983: ‘1982 Enez Kazısı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 5: 297–300. Erzen, A., Başaran, S. 1990: ‘1988 Yılı Enez Kazısı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 11/2: 107–23. Furtwängler, A. 1980: ‘Heraion von Samos: Grabungen im Südtemenos 1977, 1. Schicht-  und Baufunde, Keramik’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 95: 149–224.

Bibliography Akurgal, E. 1956: ‘Kyzikos ve Ereğli Araştırmaları, İon Yayılışının Tarihi Hakkında’ Anadolu-Anatolia 1: 43–51. Akurgal, E. 1993:  Eski İzmir I. Yerleşme Katları ve Athena Tapınağı, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Akurgal, M. 1997: Korinth Seramiği M.Ö.750–550. İstanbul, Cem Ofset Matbaacılık A.Ş. Alexandrescu, P. 1978: La céramique d’époque archaïque et classique (7. -4. s.), Histria 4. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române. Amyx, D.A. 1988:  Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period. California, University of California Press. Amyx, D.A., Lawrence, P. 1975: Archaic Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well, Corinth 7/2. Princeton, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Aytaçlar, M.N. 2005: Klazomenai Orientalizan Seramiği. PhD Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Bakır, T. 1982:  Korinth Seramiğinde Aslan Figürünün Gelişimi. İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Yayınları. Başaran, S. 1996: ‘Ainos Kazıları 1971–1994’ Anadolu Araştırmaları 14, 105- 41. Başaran, S. 2001: ‘Enez (Ainos) 1999 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 22/2. Ankara, Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları: 371–86. Başaran, S. 2002: ‘Enez (Ainos) 2001 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’ Anadolu Araştırmaları 16: 59–86. Başaran, S. 2003: ‘Enez (Ainos) 2001 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 24/ 2: 283–94. Başaran, S. 2013: ‘Enez-Ainos’ in A.Yeşil, A.Uzun, G.A. Aksu (eds), Enez Doğal, Kültürel ve Turistik Güzellikleri. İstanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları: 11–90. Başaran, S., Uçar Çakan, B., Emre, G., Kurap, G., Karwiese, St., Yılmaz, R. 2009:  ‘Enez(Ainos) 2008 Yılı Kazısı,Onarım-Koruma Çalışmaları’, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/2: 117–44. Başaran, S., Çakan, B., Karwiese, St.,Yılmaz, R., Kurap, G. 2010: ‘Enez (Ainos) 2009 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım-Koruma Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32/4: 145–68.

216

Ainos Pottery from the Early Period

Furtwängler, A., Kienast, H.J. 1989: Der Nordbau im Heraion von Samos, Samos 3.  Bonn,  R. Habelt. Görkay, K.  2004: ‘Anadolu’ya Korinth ve Attika Siyah Figür Seramiğinin İthali ve Dağılımı’ in  Z. Çizmeli-Öğün, T. Sipahi, L. Keskin (eds), I.II.Ulusal Arkelojik Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Anadolu/Anatolia Supplement Series 1. Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü:  75– 93. Güngör, Ü. 2004: ‘The History of Klazomenai in the Fifth Century and the Settlement on the Island’ in A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.C. Tzannes, Y. Ersoy (eds), Klazomenai Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony,  Proceedings the International Symposium Held at the Archäaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 121–31. Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1956: ‘On Some Eastern Greek Wares found at Tarsus’ in S.S.Weinberg (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East. Studies Presented to H.Goldmann. Locust Valley, J.J. Augustin: 165–84. Hürmüzlü, B. 2004:  Burial, Grounds at Klazomenai:Geometric through Hellenistic Periods, in A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.C. Tzannes, Y. Ersoy (eds), Klazomenai Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony,  Proceedings the International Symposium Held at the Archäaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press, 71–95. Hürmüzlü, B. 2010: ‘Die Früheste Gruppe Klazomenischer Sarkophage aus Klazomenai’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 125, 89–153. Irmak, N. 2010. Enez’de (Ainos) Ele Geçen Orientalizan Seramikler. Master Thesis, Thrace University, Edirne. İren, K.  2003: Aiolische Orientalisierende Keramik. İstanbul, Ege Yaınları. Jeffery, L.H. 1990: The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Kerschner, M. 1997: ‘Ein stratifizierter Opferkomplex des 7. Jh.s v. Chr. aus dem Artemision von Ephesos’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 66: 85–226. Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H., Akurgal, M., Niemeier, V.D. (eds) 2002: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis; Archäometrische und Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien. Vienna, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Kunze-Götte, E., Tancke, K., Vierneisel, K. 1999: Die Nekropole von der mitte des 6.bis zum ende des 5.Jahrhunderts, Kerameikos 7/2. Munich, Clarendon Press. Lemos, A.A. 1986: ‘Archaic Chian Pottery on Chios’ in J. Boardman, C.E.Vaphopoulou-Richardson (eds), A Conference a Homerieon in Chios 1984. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 233–49.

Lemos, A.A. 1991: Archaic Pottery of Chios. Decorated Styles, Monographs 30. Oxford, University Committee for Archaeology. Lemos, A.A. 2000: ‘Aspects of East Grek Pottery and Vase Painting’ in F. Krizinger (ed.), Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer: Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen, 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Wien, 24. bis 27. März 1999, Akten des Symposions. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 377–91. Mannack, T. 2002: Griechische Vasenmalerei : eine Einführung. Stuttgart, Theiss. Neeft, C.W. 1987: Protocorinthian Subgeometric Aryballoi.  Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Museum. Müller, D.H. 1893: ‘Ainos’ Paulys Real Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1/1: süt. 1028 ·ff. Payne, H. 1931: Necrocorinthia. A study of corinthian Art in the Arcahaic Period. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Payne, H. 1933: Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei. Bilder griechischer Vasen 7. Berlin, Keller. Polat, Y. 2002: Daskleion’da M.Ö.8.-5.Yüzyıllar Arasında Gri Seramik. PhD Thesis,  Ege Üniversity, İzmir. Polat, Y. 2004: ‘Daskyleion’dan Ele Geçen Tek Renkli Gri Bir Karkhesion’ Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 7: 215–23. Risser, M.K.  2001: Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery, Corinth 7/5. Princeton, New Jersey, American School of Classical Studies. Oppermann, M. 2007: Thraker, Griechen und Römer. An der Westküste des Schwarzen Meeres. Mainz am Rhein, von Zabern. Özdoğan, M. 1987: ‘A Late Bronz Age Burial Mound in Eastern Thrace’ Anatolica 16: 5–39. Özdoğan, M. 2000: ‘Enez Hoca Çeşme kazısı’ in O. Belli (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve  İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932– 1999). Istanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları: 51– 53. Özkan, T. 1992: ‘1990 yılı Tenedos Nekropol Çalışmaları’ Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 2. Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi: 1–9. Salviat, F. 1978: ‘La Ceramique De Style Chiote A Thasos’  Les Ceramiques de la Grece de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident: Colloque 6–9 juillet 1976, Naples. Paris, Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique: 87– 92. Serdaroğlu, Ü. 1995: Assos  (Behramkale). İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Sezgin, Y. 2004: ‘Clazomenian Transport Amphorae of the Seventh end Sixth  Centuries’ in A.Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.C. Tzannes, Y. Ersoy (eds), Klazomenai Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony,  Proceedings the International Symposium Held at the Archäaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 169–83. Sezgin, Y. 2012: Arkaik Dönem Ionia Üretimi Ticari Amphoralar. 2012, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.

217

Sait Başaran Sezgin, Y., Doger, E. 2009: ‘Klazomenai Üretimi Bir Grup Amphora  İ.Ö.650–620’    Arkeoloji Dergisi 14/2: 79– 94. Skarlatidou, E. 2004: ‘The archaic cemetery of the Clazomenian colony at Abdera’ in A.Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.C. Tzannes, Y. Ersoy (eds), Klazomenai Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony,  Proceedings the International Symposium Held at the Archäaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 249–59. Sparkes, B., Talcott, L. 1970: Black and Plain Pottery, of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries BC 1–2. The Athenian Agora 12. Princeton, New Jersey, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Uzun, K. 2016: ‘Klazomenai Dalgalı Çizgili Seramiği: M.Ö. 650–550’ Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 38:  97–124. Utili, F. 1999: Die archaische Nekropole von Assos. Asia Minor Studien 31, Bonn, Habelt. Vallet, G., Villard, F. 1996: ‘Mégara Hyblaea. V. Lampes du VIIe siècle et chronologie des coupes ioniennes’ in G. Vallet (ed.), Le monde grec colonial d’Italie du Sud et de Sicile. Rome : École Française de Rome: 271–92. Walter, H. 1968: Frühe samische Gefässe, Samos 5. Bonn, R. Habelt. Walter-Karydi, E. 1973: Samische Gefässe des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Samos 6/1. Bonn, R Habelt.

218

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods Yasemin Polat1, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demir2 1.

Abstract12 Anaia (modern Kadikalesi), located on the western coastal line of Asia Minor, is widely renowned for its Medieval settlement and historical castle. However, the historical background of the settlement dates back to the Prehistoric period. The convenient position of Anaia, with a harbour nearby and its proximity to other contemporary cities, both on the coastline and in the inner Aegean, may have been effective in receiving a variety of imported material culture within the context of the long chronological range of Anaia. This paper covers imported Greek and Anatolian pottery dated between the seventh and first centuries BC and aims to discuss the related material culture within the regional context of pottery interfaces. The ceramic assemblage includes imported pottery from the Greek Mainland as well as from other Anatolian settlements and implies that the ceramic preferences of Anaia were not very different from many other settlements of western Anatolia such as those in Thrace, Troas, Aeolis and Ionia. Keywords GREEK POTTERY, ANAIA, ORIENTALISING POTTERY, ARCHAIC, CLASSICAL, HELLENISTIC

The rich ceramic assemblage discovered at ancient Anaia (modern Kadıkalesi), located on the western coast of Asia Minor, near the territory of modern Kuşadası in Aydın province, yielded a wide range of pottery groups, dated between the Late Chalcolithic (ca. the fourth millennium BC) and the Islamic period (Mercangöz 2007: 452; for Late Antique pottery, see Doğer 2004: 1–3 and for Mycenean pottery, see Akdeniz 2007: 35–70). This paper aims at studying the ceramics dated to the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods, which were brought to light between 2001 and 2012. All of the pottery presented here was discovered in mixed deposits, resulting from the erosion of the hilltop; the layers are therefore unstratified and do not offer any datable contexts. The pottery was classified chronologically, first according to production centres, then to painting conventions, as follows: Assoc. Prof. Ege University/izmir, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Ege University/İzmir, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected]

1  2 

2. 3. 4. 5.

Orientalising Ionian pottery: Wild Goat Style, North Ionian (Klazomenian) black figure, banded bowls and dishes, wave-line kraters and Ionian cups. Local Anatolian pottery: Bichrome, West Anatolian Lined Ware. Corinthian pottery. Attic and Atticising pottery: Attic black figure vessels, Attic red figure vessels, Attic black glazed pottery, Atticising Black-Glazed pottery. Hellenistic pottery: West Slope ware, moulded bowls, simple glazed pottery, lamps of Ephesus type and brazier attachments.

Ionian orientalising pottery Wild Goat Style (Figure 1) Five fragments are decorated in Wild Goat Style, which reflect South Ionian painting conventions (Figure 1.1–5). The earliest pottery examples include oinochoe shoulder fragments with a wide and flat profile (Figure 1.1–2). Similar oinochoai of South Ionian origin have a rounded mouth, a slightly flaring, wide and long neck, a flat and wide shoulder, a wide spherical body, and a wide ring base; these were popular during the second half the seventh century (Middle Wild Goat Style I and early Middle Wild Goat Style II; SiA Ib/Ic; Walter 1968: pl. 93, no. 502). Both nos. 1 and 2 were painted in a fine, delicate technique. To the left of the frieze of no. 1, a sphinx (or a griffin) facing left turns its back to a bull facing right. Only the hind, tail and wing of the sphinx, and the tail of the bull are preserved. The edges of the wings are rendered in a series of diagonal lines that rise above the hind, rendered with an additional red coloured curve. The decoration of the wing and the hind is not common among contemporary depictions of sphinxes. A similar detail on a sphinx’s wing is known from a pyxis lid from Labraunda (Jully 1978: pl. 8, fig. 1.3). Further, the depiction of the bull to the right of the sphinx, rendered only with a single contour line framing a reserved area, is also an uncommon feature, rarely used in Wild Goat Style. A close parallel of this use is found on a rounded oinochoe with spherical body, now in Berlin and possibly dated to ca. 640–620 (Kunisch 1971: pl. 158, no. 3).

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 219–265

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.8

1.7

Fig. 1. Wild Goat Style

220

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

The forelegs of the sphinx (or griffin) on no. 2 are reserved; one of them contains a small solid coloured area. Only the paw of a single hind leg is preserved. In front of the sphinx, there is an open palmette ornament with sharp-edged petals, as well as several filling ornaments (leaf rosette, hooked swastika, and flower rosette); a hooked swastika is placed behind the forelegs. The shoulders of some oinochoai dated to ca. 640–620 are occasionally decorated with creatures such as griffins and sphinxes. During the Orientalising period, these animals are accompanied by sharp-edged palmettes, as seen on an example at the Louvre Museum (Cook, Dupont 1998: 41, fig. 8.9).

row of ‘S’ painted over a creamy white slip. The horizontal projection on no. 8 can be paralleled to sixth century thymiaterion examples from Ionia. Uzun suggested that this type of thymiaterion may be specific to Ionia (Boardman 1967: pl. 62, no. 828; Uzun 2007: 160, 162, fig.111–12 , G1–4. Although there is no figurative element that would indicate a Wild Goat Style decoration, the linear pattern over a creamy white slip may place this fragment in that group. Catalog 1. Oinochoe (?) shoulder fragment. DPZ. L: 0.046; W: 0.063; Th: 0.018. Clay reddish yellow (7.5 YR 6/6), micaceous, slightly porous, tiny flecks of limestone, slightly gritty. Decoration glossy black (5 YR 2.5 /1) and additional matt red (10 R 4/1) on creamy white slip. Exterior, from top to bottom, a row of tongues framed with a single horizontal line below, pendent triangle on the right; register, from left to right, partially preserved wing, hind and tail of a griffin or sphinx to left, filling ornaments (scroll, cross, swastika and four-dot rosette); bull to right (only the tail preserved). South Ionia. ca. 640-630. Middle Wild Goat Style I (SiAIb/Ic).

Nos. 3–5 belong to dishes, which were possibly stemmed, and are decorated with metopal areas, a common painting convention of the late seventh and early sixth centuries on Orientalising stemmed dishes (Figure 1.3–5). Similar stemmed dishes are especially popular in South Ionia during the late Middle Wild Goat Style I and Middle Wild Goat Style II (SiAId) (E.g. Kinch 1914: pl. 18, fig. 2a; Kardara 1963: 117–24; 118, fig. 74; 122, fig. 77; Walter-Karydi 1973: pl. 25.191; Cook, Dupont 1998: 43, fig. 8.11). The metopal areas are generally divided by a group of independent pendent rays, while the metopes are commonly painted with geometric and/or abstract patterns, as well as human and/or animal protomes. The figures on the metopes of nos. 3–5 are poorly preserved, making it impossible to reconstruct the general decoration scheme. However, the partly preserved mouth of an animal on no. 3, to the right of the rays, indicates that a goat was possibly depicted in one of the metopes. The stemmed dishes with metopal decoration are in all likelihood a South Ionian tradition; this is further supported by the NAA analysis of a similar example discovered at Smyrna and whose origin was determined to have been Miletus (Akurgal et al. 2002: 111, 120, fig. 47, cat. no. 78). This does not necessarily mean that Miletus was the only site that produced this type of dish, but it was certainly one of them.

2. Oinochoe (?) shoulder fragment. DPZ. L: 0.021; W: 0.074; Th: 0.008. Clay reddish yellow (7.5 YR 6/6), micaceous, slightly porous. Decoration dark brown over creamy white slip. Exterior, partially preserved register, from left to right, filling ornaments (upper part of swastika, flower rosette), open palmette; filling ornament (leaf rosette); sphinx, griffin or lion to left (two front legs and a single hind leg preserved), filling ornament (swastika) in between front and hind legs. Single band bordering lower frame of the register. South Ionia. ca. 640/30-620. Late Middle Wild Goat Style I – Early Middle Wild Goat Style II (SiA Ic)

Nos. 6–7 reflect a North Ionian tradition judging by their style and shape (Figure 1.6–7). Nos. 6–7 are both decorated with palmettes; no. 6 is a fragment from a large, closed vessel body, and no. 7 is a column krater fragment. The palmettes on both fragments have rounded ends similar to those of the North Ionian late Orientalising pottery of the first half of the sixth century (Venit 1988: pl. 5, no. 22, pl. 25, no. 93; Aytaçlar 2005: pl. 164, E.1309 (column krater from Naucratis; for similar oinochoai, see pl. 127, E.922 (Naucratis) and pl. 131, E.949 (Cyrene); Schlotzhauer, Villing 2006: fig. 5).

3. Dish rim and body fragment. DPZ. H: ca. 0.043; L: 0.065; W: 0.055; Th: 0.0080.009. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6), micaceous, slightly porous, seldom tiny flecks of limestone and grit. Slightly incurved rim, shallow bowl. Decoration glossy dark reddish brown red (5 YR 3/2), red (2.5 YR 4/6), and glossy matt additional red (10 R 3/6) over creamy white slip on the exterior and interior. Interior, from top to bottom, thick dark band along rim and below rim, two red horizontal lines over this band; over the register, from left to right,

The small fragment no. 8 has a plain black decoration painted over the wide projection (Figure 1.8). Below the projection, the vessel is decorated with a horizontal 221

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r short vertical guilloche with central dot, four pendant rays alternately painted red and dark, partially preserved outline of an animal (goat?) head in profile to left; single dark band framing the lower part of register. Exterior, three dark bands South Ionian. ca. 620-590. Late Middle Wild Goat Style I- Early Middle Wild Goat Style II (SiA Id).

8. Thymiaterion (?) rim and body. BUC. L: 0.0036; W: 0.068; Th: 0.004-0.006. Clay red (2.5 YR 5/8), micaceous, tiny flecks of limestone. Black (5 YR 2.5/1) painted on the exterior and over a white slip. Over the rim plate, thick dark band, row of white dots on the lower part of dark band; black painted false cable over white slip. Exterior, plain black painted. North Ionia

4. Dish body fragment. DPZ. L: 0.047; W: 0.044; Th: 0.009. Clay light brown (7.5 YR 6/4), micaceous, slightly porous, seldom tiny flecks of limestone and grit. Decoration matt red (10 R 4/6) and glossy dark (5 YR 2.5/1) over creamy white slip inside and outside. Interior, from top to bottom within the register, lower ends of three dark pendant rays and a filling ornament (ascendant triangle?) on left; four narrow dark bands over a broad red band of which the last dark band frames the upper border of the band below; a band of square bars (decorated with cross and solid squares alternately) framed with single dark band above and with a red and a dark band below. Exterior, two dark bands. South Ionia.620-590. Late Middle Wild Goat Style I-Early Middle Wild Goat Style II (SiA Id).

North Ionian/Klazomenian black figure pottery (Figure 2) Klazomenian black figure style, which was popular during the second half of the sixth century, is attested on a single fragment from Kadıkalesi. The fragment belongs to a column krater (Figure 2.9) and is painted with black glaze only, without the use of an additional colour. The rim area is decorated with a row of tongues separated by narrow lines, and the exterior edge, with curved lines; no other decorative element is preserved. The neck is plain glazed inside and out. The thick and long row of tongues over the rim is a common decorative pattern of the Klazomenian black figure style, and the well-preserved parallels generally bear a plain painted neck and a figurative main decoration on the body (Özer 2006: 118–19, pl.33, fig. 14, no. 289). Catalog

5. Dish body fragment. ABD. L: 0.036; W: 0.057; Th: 0.008. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/8), micaceous, limestone tempered. Decoration, red to reddish black (2.5 YR 4/8-2.5/1) over creamy white slip. Interior, filling ornaments (circle with a central dot, encircled with dots; ascendant triangle framed with ladder pattern). Exterior, single band South Ionia

9. Colum krater rim and neck fragment. ABD. H: 0.051; D (rim): 0.38; Th: 0.007. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); micaceous, tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration, red (2.5 YR 4/6) inside and out. Interior, plain painted. Exterior, a row of brush strokes (alternately thick and thin) over the rim, a row of thick brush strokes on the edge of rim, plain painted on neck North Ionia. 550-500.

6. Large closed vessel (amphora?) body fragment. CMY. L: 0.040; W: 0.041; Th: 0.011. Clay yellowish red (5 YR 5/6), micaceous, tiny flecks of limestone and grit. Red (10 R 5/8) painted over creamy white slip. Exterior, open palmette flower facing downwards and a single band below. North Ionia. 600-550. Late Orientalising period.

Banded bowls and dishes (Figure 3) Banded bowls and dishes are simple shapes that have been produced in several regions in different time periods; individual examples cannot be precisely dated or attributed to specific production centres. Only four pottery fragments belonging to bowls or dishes with simple banded decorations have been identified among the pottery assemblage (Figure 3.10–13). The fabric of nos. 10–11 includes a high amount of mica, grit and limestone, and the glaze of these examples has a matt red finish, which suggest they may come from the same production centre. The other two examples, nos. 12–13, have a different fabric and are both hard-fired. No. 12 has a glossy red paint, whereas no. 13 is painted with a diluted matt white slip. All four sherds have distinct profiles: no. 10 has a plain, very slightly everted rim, and a thin wall; no. 11 has a wide, everted rim with deep

7. Column krater support and handle fragment. ABS. L: 0.05; W: 0.077; Th (support): 0.011. Clay very dark brown (7.5 YR 5/6), slightly micaceous, dense amount of tiny flecks of limestone. Handle plain painted. Panel on the support matt dark brown (7.5 YR 4/4) painted over creamy white slip, palmette flower and lotus bud and a band of meander (?) below. North Ionia. 600-550. Late Orientalising period. 222

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

2.9

Fig. 2. North Ionian/Klazomenian black figure pottery.

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

Fig. 3. Banded bowls and dishes.

223

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 4.14

4.15

Figure 4. Wave line kraters.

body as well as a small and thick horizontal loop handle; no. 12 has a thin wall; no. 13 has an everted wide rim, a shallow bowl, and a ring base. The profile of no. 13 may be compared with similar bowls produced in the sixth– fifth centuries, such as those discovered in Miletus (dated to 600–550) and Gordion (YHSS 4, Late Phrygian Period, 540–330) (Held 2000: 100–101, fig. 56, K22–23 (Miletus); Henrickson 1994: 129, fig. 10.9h (Gordion)).

12. Dish rim, body and handle fragment. CMY. H: 0.032, D (rim): 0.11, Th: 0.003-0.004. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6), slightly micaceous. Plain rim; deep bowl; loop handle shaped in the form of a small triangle. Decoration red (2.5 YR 4/6). Interior, two horizontal bands below rim. Exterior, single horizontal band over rim; handle partially painted.

Catalog

13. Dish rim, body and base fragment. 2001.89.12. H: 0.028; D (rim): 0.17; D (base): 0.07; Th: 0.004-0.006. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); very slightly micaceous and slightly porous. Everted wide rim; shallow bowl; ring base. Decoration yellowish red (5 YR 5/6) on diluted creamy white slip. Exterior, not painted. Interior, from top to bottom, three short vertical lines over plain painted rim; four horizontal bands on body (two at central bowl and the other over upper body).

10. Dish rim and body fragment. AJR. H: 0.038, D (rim): 0.19, Th: 0.004-0.005. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 7/6), highly micaceous with limestone and grit temper. Rim, slightly everted, shallow bowl. Decoration red (2.5 YR 5/8). Interior, wide horizontal band from rim to mid-body. Exterior, single horizontal band. 11. Bowl rim, body and handle fragment. 2001.99.34. H: 0.45; D (rim): ca. 0.22; Th: 0.00050.006. Clay reddish yellow (7.5 YR 7/6), highly micaceous with limestone and grit temper. Everted wide rim; shallow bowl; thick and loop handle rising slightly below rim Decoration red (10 R 5/6). Over rim, interior and exterior rim plain red painted. Plain red painted over handle.

Wave-line kraters (Figure 4) One of the common decorative elements during the Archaic period is the wavy line that appears on several shapes such as dish, lekane, oinochoe, olpe, dinos, stamnos, amphora and hydria (See Uzun 2007 for further information on wavy-line style on various other 224

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

shapes). The wavy line pattern is the only decorative element on these vessels, which were produced in several regions. Two fragments of this type of kraters are known from Kadıkalesi (Figure 4.14–15).

of these drinking cups consists in a series of reserved or painted bands on the exterior and interior of the bowl (Cook, Dupont 1998: 129). Ionian cups were widely used and were among the most common drinking cups. Although described as ‘Ionian’, these drinking cups were also possibly manufactured at other sites beyond Ionia. Rhodos, Aiolis, Klazomenai, and Ephesus are also counted as centres that produced Ionian cups (Boardman, Hayes 1966: 111–15; Cook, Dupont 1998: 129; Schlotzhauer, Villing 2006: 61–62). Ionian cups were also produced at various centres in western Anatolia, on Mainland Greece and the islands, in Italy, Spain, the eastern Mediterranean as well as the Black Sea region between the mid-seventh and sixth centuries. The archaeometric analysis of various samples from these regions revealed that Miletus and Samos were prominent production centres for Ionian cups. The characteristic differences in shape may be the result of the different artistic treatments of various workshops. The scholars who studied Ionian cups have classified them according to their shape and decoration, and this study will follow their classifications (Megara Hyblaea: Villard, Vallet 1955: 29; Tocra: Boardman, Hayes 1966: 111–20).

No. 15 has a thin wall and a slight everted rim, and the wide wavy line appears on the shoulder. No. 14 has a plain rim and a short vertical neck, with the wavy line incised over a broad painted band. Close parallels for no. 14 (in terms of shape and decoration) in south Ionian production centres indicate a date around the late seventh century (Walter 1968: 566–67, pl. 110). Similar incised decoration is also attested at Klazomenai, in northern Ionia, and is dated a century later during the late sixth century—at a time when kraters similar to no. 15 were also produced (Uzun 2007: 179, fig. 127, H 29–30; 180, fig. 128, H31). Catalog 14. Krater rim, neck and body fragment AEM. H: 0.049; Th: 0.007-0.009 Clay yellowish red (5 YR 5/6); slightly micaceous with limestone temper. Decoration reddish brown to yellowish red (5 YR 4/4-5/6). Exterior, incised horizontal wavy line over a band framed with a horizontal line above and below on neck; single horizontal line at the end of neck. Interior., single band over neck. Late 7th century. South? Ionian.

17 fragments of Ionian bowls were discovered at Kadıkalesi: 13 of them are fragments of rim and body (Figures 5–7, nos. 16–28), three are fragments of base and body (Figure 8.30–32), and the last one is a fragment of a rim, body and handle pertaining to a miniature Ionian bowl (Figure 7.29).

Nos. 16–20 have similar shape characteristics: high flaring rim, shallow bowl, and a high foot (Figure 5). The most common distinctive characteristic is the series of fine parallel horizontal lines painted on the rim with a diluted red glaze. These parallel lines are drawn in a reserved area framed with two thicker bands. The fine fabrics of nos. 16–20 are homogenous, have some mica inclusions, and may be paralleled with the Little Master Cups from Samos. The parallels from Tocra are grouped under ‘Rhodos Type X’ by Hayes, ‘Type B3’ by Villard and Vallet, and ‘Group H’ by Thalmann (Villard, Vallet 1955: 29; Boardman, Hayes 1966: 114; Thalmann 1977: 70–71). The cups from Tocra, dated to the second quarter of the sixth century, have a similar fabric to those found at Kadıkalesi; they are slightly micaceous, and are decorated with a fine black glaze. Vessels similar to those from Kadıkalesi are also reported from Antandros, Samos, Aigina, Cyprus, Tocra and Etruria (Antandros: Zunal 2005: 56–57, cat. nos. 42–45; Samos: Isler 1978: 79–80, pl. XXXVIII, figs. 31–32; Walter-Karydi 1973: 22–24, 128, pl. 44, no. 381–418; Aigina: WalterKarydi 1982: pl. 4, 13, nos. 59–71; Cyprus: Thalmann 1977: 70–72, pl. IV, no. 13; Tocra: Boardman, Hayes 1966: 114, 123–24, fig. 57, no. 1277; Etruria: Cristofani 1978: pl. LXXXIX, no. 87–88).

Ionian bowls have in general a flaring high rim, a pronounced rounded transition from rim to body, a deep or shallow bowl, and a low or high conical foot. The two loop handles are placed at the transition point between rim and body, nearly at the point where the bowl reaches its widest diameter. The main decoration

Two fragments of Ionian cups (nos. 21–22) are difficult to distinguish from Attic examples only on the basis of the quality of fabric and glaze (Figure 6). However, a closer look at the fabric shows that the clay is very slightly gritty and micaceous. One of the fragments (no. 21) has a flaring rim with a slightly rounded end, and a relatively

15. Krater rim and handle fragment. ABI-13. H: 0.063; Th: 0.005-0.007 Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6). Micaceous with limestone temper; porous. Short and everted rim; short neck; thin-walled. Decoration red (2.5 YR 5/8). Interior, single horizontal band from rim to neck. Exterior, single horizontal band from rim to neck; partially preserved thick horizontal wavy line. 525-500. North Ionian (Klazomenai?) Ionian cups (Figures 5–8)

225

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 5.16

5.17

5.18

5.19

5.20

Figure 5. Ionian cups.

226

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

6.21

6.22

6.23

6.24

6.25

Figure 6. Ionian cups.

227

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r thinner wall at its thickest point. The transition from rim to body is angular and creates a convex angle, thus creating an offset profile on the interior. The other cup (no. 22) has a slightly inverted rim and a similar offset profile on the inside. The rim profiles of nos. 21–22 find a parallel in the Attic Little Masters Cups dated to the third quarter of the sixth century (Brümmer 1976: fig. 23, pl. 35, no. 1; Vos 1978: fig. 6, pl. 60, no. 1.3). Similar cups were also locally produced in western Asia Minor. A close parallel to nos. 21–22 was excavated at Amathous in Cyprus, and is classified under Group J by Thalmann, who suggested that the group was derived from the Attic Little Masters Cups of the third quarter of the sixth century, and was a rare type among eastern Greek productions (Thalmann 1977: 71–72, pl. IV.15. The cup from Amathous is decorated with a net pattern). Other eastern Greek imports of this group are reported from Italy (Borelli 1969: pl. 1.5, 2.4, suppl. 1.05); the finds at Gravisca have been associated with the finds at Samos (Boitani Visentini 1978: 220, pl. XCII, fig. 10.2).

horizontal line is placed at the transition from rim to body. The short rim profile appears similar to early examples of Ionian Cups (Cook, Dupont 1998: 131, fig. 18.1b). The conical foot fragments of nos. 30–32 have distinct profiles and fabric (Figure 8). No. 30 has a similar fabric and glaze to those of nos. 23–24, and no. 31 is identical to nos. 25–27. On the other hand, no. 32 has a distinct fabric and surface finish, different from the other Ionian cups discovered at Kadıkalesi. Although they have different fabric and glaze, the two foot fragments (nos. 30–31) have a similar profile and decoration, and have a series of thin bands encircling the tondo. The entire outer side of both fragments is glazed in plain black, with a reserved band at the base of the foot. The decoration scheme is reminiscent of Hayes’ Types VIII and IX (Boardman, Hayes 1966: 113–114, fig. 56, nos. 1219, 1228). The wide conical foot of no. 32 has a deep conical recess underneath the base. The top of the recess is pointed and arrives underneath the central part of the bowl. The bowl is thin-walled and is of high quality. The clay incudes a bit of mica and grit. The cup is similar to Attic cups, as well as to the Ionian cups with grey fabric that have been discovered in the Athenian Agora and dated to the second quarter of the sixth century (Boardman, Hayes 1966: 118–20; Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 88–89, fig. 4, no. 378, pls. 378–84).

A group of Ionian cups from Kadıkalesi (nos. 23–28) have micaceous clay, a matt glaze, and are of a coarser quality than nos. 16–22 (Figures 6–7). A narrow band decorates the outer side of the rim and upper bowl, and there is a reserved band between the handles. The decoration on the lower part of the bowl is too poorly preserved to be reconstructed, despite the presence of paint traces on nos. 23, 25, 26 and 27. On the inner side, a reserved band along the rim is followed by a dark glazed band directly underneath and by a narrow band around midbody. Although nos. 23–28 have a similar shape and decoration, they may be grouped according to their fabric and glaze. Nos. 23–24 are hard-fired, porous, have a slightly micaceous fabric with tiny limestone inclusions; they have thin walls and their glaze is very dark brown to black. Nos. 25–27 have a similar clay composition to nos. 23–24 but differ in the colour of the glaze, which is streaky red; the walls tend to be thicker when compared to nos. 23–24. Nos. 25–27 have a similar fabric and surface treatment to those categorised as Samian productions by Hayes. Hayes records that the glaze is visibly streaky and glossy, as attested on nos. 25–26 (Boardman, Hayes 1966: 115). No. 28, on the other hand, is similar to nos. 23–24 in terms of fabric and wall thickness but differs in the fine application of a diluted glossy glaze. The shape is similar to Hayes’ Type VIII and to Villard and Vallet’s Type B2, which are both dated to the first half of the sixth century (Brann 1956: 373, pl. 60, no. 96; Boardman, Hayes 1966: 120, fig. 56.1204, pl. 87; see also Metzger 1972: 43–46, pl. 9, no. 43, 47; Ploug 1973: 29–30, pl. V, no. 106; Gassner 1997: 27, 31, pl. 1, no. 23).

Catalog 16. Ionian Cup rim fragment. ACO. H: 0.025; D (rim): 0.18; Width: 0.037; Length: 0.029; Th: 0.002-0.004. Burnt; hard-fired; slightly micaceous. Decoration glossy black glazed (10 YR 2/1). Interior, single horizontal line below and over rim plate; plain painted below rim. Exterior, single horizontal line over lip; plain painted below rim. 17. Ionian Cup rim fragment. 2001-108.4. H: 0.033; Width: 0.042; Length: 0.034; Th: 0.004. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); hard-fired; slightly porous; slightly micaceous and gritty. Decoration, glossy black glazed (10 YR 2/1). Interior, single horizontal line below rim; plain painted below rim. Exterior, single horizontal line on lip; single horizontal line below rim. 18. Ionian Cup rim fragment. AAR. H: 0.027; D (rim): 0.19; Width: 0.036; Length: 0.29; Th: 0.003. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); hard-fired; slightly porous; slightly micaceous and gritty. Decoration, glossy black glazed (10 YR 2/1).

No. 29 is a miniature version of an Ionian Cup. It has a fine fabric and a glossy glaze (Figure 7). The interior of the cup is glazed all over, and the exterior rim as well as the area between the handles are reserved; a thin 228

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

7.26

7.27

7.28

7.29

Figure 7. Ionian cups.

229

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r Interior, single horizontal line above and below rim plate; plain painted below rim. Exterior, single horizontal line on lip; single horizontal line below rim.

band from top to mid-rim; below, reserved band; plain painted below rim. 24. Ionian Cup rim and body fragment. H: 0.0041; D (rim): 0.16; Width: 0.038; Length: 0.044; Th: 0.003-0.004. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/8); hard-fired; porous; micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration glossy black glazed (7 YR 2.5/1). Interior, rim plain painted; below rim, single horizontal line on a reserved surface. Exterior, single horizontal line above and below rim; single wide reserved band on upper bowl; below, plain painted.

19. Ionian Cup rim, body and handle fragment. ACI. H: 0.034; Width: 0.037; Length: 0.042; Th: 0.004. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/8); hard-fired; micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration, glossy yellowish red to black (5 YR 4/6-2.5/1). Interior, over a reserved surface, three parallel horizontal lines in diluted glaze framed with single horizontal line above and below rim plate; plain painted below rim. Exterior, single horizontal line on rim; single horizontal thin band below rim.

25. Ionian Cup rim, body and handle fragment. AFR. H: 0.034; D (rim): 0.19; Width: 0.032; Length: 0.036; Th: 0.003-0.005. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/8); hard-fired; micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration, glossy yellowish red to black (5 YR 4/6-2.5/1). Interior, painted along on top of rim; reserved over rim; single horizontal line on top of bowl. Exterior, single horizontal line on top and below rim; handle plain painted.

20. Ionian Cup rim fragment. AHB. H: 0.025; D (rim): 0.12; Width: 0.04; Length: 0.027; Th: 0.003. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/8); hard-fired; micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration matt yellowish red to black (5 YR 4/6-2.5/1). Interior, over a reserved surface, 11 parallel horizontal lines in diluted glaze framed with single horizontal line above and below rim plate. Exterior, plain painted along rim.

26. Ionian Cup rim and body fragment. AEM. H:0.039; D (rim): 0.06; Th: 0.004. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6); hard-fired; porous; micaceous and tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration matt red and reddish black (2.5 YR 4/8-2.5/1). Interior, from top to bottom, plain black painted along rim; narrow horizontal reserved band below rim; thick horizontal black band framed with a single red horizontal band above and below; single horizontal red band over reserved area on top of bowl. Exterior, rim and upper bowl reserved; plain painted near mid-body.

21. Ionian Cup rim fragment. 2001.82.10. H: 0.04; D (rim): 0.20; Th: 0.004 (body), 0.004-0.006 (rim). Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/8), hard-fired, fine, slightly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration black glazed. Exterior, single horizontal line at the end of rim. Interior, reserved rim; plain black glazed below rim. 550-525 22. Ionian Cup rim fragment. ADI. H: 0.032; Th: 0.003 (body), 0.002-0.006 (rim). Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/8), hard-fired, fine, slightly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration black glazed. Exterior, single horizontal line on lip and at the end of rim. Interior, reserved rim; plain black glazed below rim.

27. Ionian Cup rim and body fragment. ACK. H: 0.037; D (rim): 0.068; Th: 0.004. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6); hard-fired; porous and micaceous. Decoration matt red to reddish black (2.5 YR 4/8-2.5/1). Interior, plain painted along rim; single horizontal band near mid-body. Exterior, single horizontal band along rim. 28. Ionian Cup rim fragment. ABJ. H: 0.024; Width: 0.027; Length: 0.026; Th: 0.003-0.004 Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); hard-fired; slightly micaceous. Decoration glossy yellowish red to black (5 YR 2.5/1-4/6). Interior, plain painted along rim; reserved band below rim; plain painted below. Exterior, band along and below; rim plate, reserved. 550-525

23. Ionian Cup rim, body and handle fragment. H: 0.039; D (rim): 0.077; Width: 0.062; Length: 0.042; Th: 0.003-0.004. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); hard-fired; slightly porous; tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration matt dark reddish brown (5 YR 2.5/2). Interior, plain painted on top of rim; below rim, reserved. Exterior, single horizontal 230

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

8.30

8.31

8.32

Figure 8. Ionian cups.

231

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 29. Miniature Ionian Cup rim, body and handle fragment (three non-joining fragments). ABJ. H: 0.019; D (rim): 0.07; Th: 0.002-0.003. Clay yellowish red (5 YR 5/6); hard-fired. Decoration glossy black glazed. Interior, plain black glazed. Exterior, plain painted along rim; area between handles, two lines over a reserved surface; handle plain painted; area below handle plain painted.

32. Ionian Cup foot and lower body fragment. ACI. H: 0.02; D (base): 0.05; Th: 0.004. Clay burnt; hard-fired; micaceous and tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration glossy black (7.5 YR 2.5/1). Plain painted on the exterior and interior. Anatolian painting conventions Anatolian bichrome pottery (Figure 9) The bichrome technique was a common painting technique during the Anatolian Iron Age, and had distinct stylistic and regional variations, as well as several chronological divisions. Although the term suggests that only two colours were used —mainly red and black—white or creamy white was often used too. Two bichrome fragmentary vessels, which may be date to the late seventh or sixth centuries, were discovered at Kadıkalesi (Figure 9.33–34).

30. Ionian Cup foot and lower body fragment. BAG. H: 0.026; D (base): 0.058; Th: 0.005 Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/8); hard-fired; micaceous and tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration slightly glossy black (7.5 YR 2.5/1). Interior, two horizontal lines encircling a dot at central bowl. Exterior, plain painted. 31. Ionian Cup foot and lower body fragment. AAG. 2002-145.2. H: 0.024; D (base): 0.06; Th: 0.004 Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/8); porous; hardfired; micaceous and tiny flecks of limestone. Decoration slightly glossy black (7.5 YR 2.5/1). Interior, single horizontal line encircling central bowl. Exterior, lower body reserved; base, plain painted.

No. 33 belongs to a lid that was painted with matt red and black over a creamy white slip. The body displays bands, and the rim is decorated with a row of triangles alternately painted red and dark brown. The other fragment belongs to a shallow bowl (no. 34) and is instead painted with short vertical brush strokes over the rim. Both fragments are reminiscent of parallels reported from Porsuk in Phrygia (Dupré 1983: 213, pl. 72, nos. 87–90).

9.33

9.34

Figure 9. Anatolian bichrome pottery.

232

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

10.35

Figure 10. West Anatolian Lined Ware.

Catalog

Catalog 33. Lid rim and body fragment. DPZ. H: 0.02; Width: 0.052; Th: 0.006-0.007. Clay yellowish red (5 YR 5/6) highly micaceous; porous. Everted rim. Decoration red (2.5 YR 5/8) and matt dark reddish brown (2.5 YR 3/3) over creamy white slip. Exterior, from top to bottom, horizontal band over rim: row of pendent triangles painted with alternate colours in red and dark brown; single horizontal red line; two parallel horizontal red bands.

35. Skyphos rim and body fragment. 2001.199. H: 0.013; Th: 0.002. Clay reddish yellow (7.5 YR 6/6); hard-fired; slightly micaceous. Decoration glossy black glazed (7.5 YR 2.5/1); additional red (10 R 3/6) and white. Interior, from top to bottom, reserved along rim; below rim, over a black glazed band, a red horizontal band framed with a single horizontal white line above and below. Exterior, over a black glazed surface, a red horizontal band framed with a single horizontal white line above and below.

34. Bowl rim and body fragment. DPZ. H: 0.017; Width: 0.04; Th: 0.006. Clay reddish yellow (7.5 YR 6/6); slightly micaceous. Everted rim. Decoration dark reddish brown to red (2.5 YR 3/3-5/8). Interior, single horizontal line below rim. Exterior, short vertical lines in dark brown over rim plate.

Corinthian pottery (Figure 11) The three fragments of Corinthian pottery discovered at Kadıkalesi belong to closed vessels; one of them is possibly an alabastron (Figure 11.37) while the other two are aryballoi (Figure 11.36, 38).

West Anatolian Lined Ware (Figure 10)

The piriform aryballos has a pointed base and is decorated with two running dogs painted in silhouette (Figure 11.36). The decoration scheme that consists of a single or more rows of running dogs is named ‘Silhouette Style’ or ‘Subgeometric Style’ and is common on aryballoi during the Protocorinthian and Early Corinthian periods (Kinch 1914: pl. 44, no. 32,3; Ure 1934: pl. 3, 88.1; Hooper 1949: 185; Dunbabin 1962: 17, 18, pl. 2, no. 35–38; Connor, Jackson 2000: 60–61, cat. no. 17).

No. 35 is a fragment of the rim and body of a skyphos, and is painted inside and out with a slightly matt glaze similar to that attested on Ionian cups (Figure 10). The skyphos has a thin wall and is hard-fired. The main decoration consists of a series of narrow horizontal bands in additional white and red colours. The general decoration scheme and its execution on skyphoi closely resemble those from Gordion in Phrygia (Schaus 1992: 168–74, esp. 170–72 (skyphoi)) and from a grave dating to the sixth century at Börükçü Necropolis in Caria (Gider Büyüközer 2014: fig. 6). Schaus identified and named this sixth century group ‘West Anatolian Lined Ware’, and pointed out that this type of decoration was applied not only on skyphoi but also on Ionian cups to judge by the examples found at Gordion (Schaus 1992: 172–74).

No. 37 is an alabastron fragment on which a rooster is depicted (Figure 11). Only the chest, one of the wings, and the end of the wattles are partially preserved. The chest feathers are incised with short vertical lines and the wing feathers are rendered in additional incised red lines. Although the absence of further decorative

233

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 11.36

11.37

11.38

Figure 11. Corinthian pottery.

details prevents us from categorising this fragment into a specific stylistic group, the close parallels found on several other sites indicate that similar alabastrons of the Early Corinthian period (625–600) were decorated with two heraldic roosters that filled the body of the vessel. The tradition seems to continue during the Middle and Late Corinthian periods (Weinberg 1943: 57, pl. 28, no. 196; Payne 1971: 75, 76, figs. 20–21, pls 17.4, 17.11, 36.12; Boardman, Hayes 1973: 11, pls. 1.1832, 1833).

known (For early parallels, see Payne 1971: 146–48, 287, figs. 54 B, C, D; for late parallels, see Ure 1934: 43–46, pls IX–X; Payne 1971: 320–21, fig. 161. For a close parallel to no. 38, see Ure 1934: 43, pl. IX, 95.53). The lotus flower, together with the leaves connected to it on no. 38, cover the overall bottom area of the vessel. Early Corinthian (625–600) parallels of this group were studied by Payne, and a similar example was excavated in one of the graves dated 600–570 in the necropolis of Assus (Utili 1999: fig. 24, no. 352–53; for early examples of this type of decoration, see Payne 1971: 147, 287, figs. 54.B–D).

No. 38 belongs to a quatrefoil aryballos (Figure 11). Quatrefoil aryballoi are named after their floral decoration, depicting lotus flowers joined by four sharp-ended leaves. There are also other versions of this ornament, such as cinquefoil and sixfoil. This type of aryballos is common especially during the Late Corinthian I (575–550), but earlier versions are also

Catalog 36. Piriform aryballos body fragment. DPZ. H: 0.013; Width: 0.023; Th: 0.003. Clay pale yellow (2.5 Y 8/2). Decoration very dark greyish brown (2.5 Y 3/2). Exterior, register: 234

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

silhouette painted, two running animal figures (tail and single hind leg preserved on one figure; head and neck of the other are preserved).

45) seems to depict a scene that includes a chariot drawn by four horses and an attendant whose himation is further decorated with additional red paint and hastily-made incisions. It may date from the second half of the sixth century (E.g. see Kunze-Götte 1970: pl. 380, no. 3; Paul 1978, pl. 19, no. 3). The other mixing bowl is a dinos (no. 46) that bears a warrior holding a spear and wearing a helmet with a crescent-shaped top. The helmet visor is closed and covers the warrior’s face apart from the chin and eyes. Details were added with incisions on the upper part of the helmet, eyes, and neck. Attic vases with similar decoration date to the late sixth and the early fifth centuries (Follmann 1971: pl. 21, no. 3–5; Bonomi1991: pl. 24, no. 2).

37. Alabastron body fragment. ADD. H: 0.032; Width: 0.025; Th: 0.004 Clay very pale brown (10 YR 8/3). Decoration dark brown (10 YR 3/2-7.5 YR 5/6) and red (10 R 4/8). Exterior, rooster with vertically incised feathers on breast; red painted, on top of wing; details on wing, incised. 38. Aryballos bottom and body fragment. BGM. H: 0.03; Width: 0.052; Th: 0.003. Clay pale yellow (5 Y 8/2). Decoration dark greyish brown (2.5 YR 4/2).

Catalog

Attic pottery

39. Cup skyphos rim and body fragment. ABD. Length: 0.029; Width: 0.026; Th: 0.004. Plain, slightly everted rim: slight concave curve below rim. Exterior, black glazed on rim; reserved band below rim. Interior, black glazed. Haimon Group (525-475)

Attic black figure pottery (Figure 12) The Attic black figure pottery excavated at Kadıkalesi comprises drinking cups—a cup-skyphos (Figure 12.39) and five kylikes (Figure 12.40–44)—a krater (Figure 12.45) and a dinos (Figure 12.46). These Attic examples are dated between the mid-sixth and early fifth centuries. The drinking cups may be classified under several stylistic groups.

40. Kylix rim fragment. ACE. Length: 0.031; Width: 0.037; Th: 0.004. Plain and slightly everted rim; below rim, slightly concave and high curve. Exterior, from top to bottom, over and below rim, black glazed; reserved register between handles: a curved line. Interior, black glazed. Banded Little Master Cup (550-525)

One of the rim fragment has a slightly flaring rim (Figure 12.40). Although the decoration is not well-preserved, the rim is plain painted and, below it, a curved pattern is visible over a reserved band. Similar rim profiles and a banded decoration may be compared to the Banded Little Masters Cups dated to the third quarter of the sixth century (Vos 1978: pl. 61, fig. 1–4; Fellman 1989: pl. 24, fig. 1–7; Schaeffer et al. 1997: 84, pl. 35 (Att. 59)). No. 43 may also belong to the same group of drinking cups to judge by the partially preserved scroll pattern, which probably belongs to a palmette decoration placed on the band between the handles (For similar cups, see e.g. Felmann 1989: pl. 1, fig. 2.). Among other examples of Banded Little Master Cups are nos. 41 (foot fragment) and 44 (lower body fragment). The decoration on no. 44 is made of ascendant rays and a series of horizontal parallel curved lines, and calls to mind the Kassel group dated to the late sixth century (E.g. see Tuna-Nörling 1999: pl. 2, nos. 36–38). No. 42 is from a slightly later date (early fifth century) that is decorated with a satyr on the left and a dressed figure holding an ivy branch on the right (For parallels, see Burow 1980: fig. 28, pl. 31, no. 2–4). The skyphos fragment (no. 39), on the other hand, has a slightly everted rim and belongs to the Haimon Group of the late sixth and early fifth centuries (Bazant et al. 1990: 62, fig. 38, no. 1; pl. 38, no. 6).

41. Kylix base and foot fragment. BAG. H: 0.04; D (base): 0.072; Th (tondo):0.005. Short stem; wide resting surface of base. Exterior, stem and base black glazed. Interior, single band and a small circle with a central dot encircling central bowl. 42. Kylix body fragment. AEA. Length: 0.031; Width: 0.037; Th: 0.004. Exterior, from left to right, an animal or a satyr to left (left thigh and tail partially preserved); double ivy pattern; dressed men with partially preserved himation painted with additional red. Interior, black glazed. 43. Kylix upper body fragment. ABJ. Length: 0.021; Width: 0.017; Th: 0.003. Exterior, partially preserved scroll. Interior, black glazed. Banded Little Master Cup (550-525) 44. Kylix lower body fragment. AGF. Length: 0.042; Width: 0.045; Th: 0.007. Exterior, band framed with a three horizontal lines above and below; below, ascendant rays.

Two fragments belong to mixing bowls (nos. 45–46). The partially preserved decoration on the krater (no. 235

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 12.39

12.40

12.41

12.42

12.43

12.44

12.45

12.46

Figure 12. Attic black figure pottery.

236

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

13.47

13.48

Figure 13. Attic red figure pottery.

Interior, black glazed except a small reserved area at central bowl. Little Master Cup, Kassel Kylix (550-500)

e.g. Hölscher 1981: pl. 16, no. 1; for diagonal palmette chains, see Touchefeu-Meynier 1969: pl. 12, nos. 1–2; Ashmead, Phillips 1971: pl. 32, no. 3).

45. Krater ? body fragment. AMJ.52. Length: 0.059; Width: 0.042; Th: 0.008. Exterior, register: seven horses? to left (hind legs preserved); on the right, right foot of a male figure, walking to left and wearing a himation in added red placed between two hind legs of horse. Interior, from top to bottom, black glazed; two red horizontal lines. 550-500

Catalog 47. Calyx-krater neck fragment. AMT 1. Length: 0.062; Width: 0.06; Th: 0.009. Exterior, a row of lotus bud and open palmette flowers (single palmette and bud partially preserved). Interior, black glazed. 48. Calyx-krater? neck fragment. CML. Length: 0.024; Width: 0.04; Th: 0.006. Exterior, a diagonal row of open palmette flowers. Interior, broken.

46. Dinos upper body fragment. CMB. Length: 0.042; Width: 0.051; Th: 0.006. Exterior, from top to bottom, a row of vertical lines framed with a horizontal line below; register: a fighting warrior to left (helmet, left arm and hand holding a spear are partially preserved), upper part of helmet and spear overlaps the band above; incision at helmet and on the collar of armour preserved. Interior, from top to bottom, reserved narrow band; black glazed. 525-475

Attic and Atticising black glazed pottery (Figures 14–29) The majority of the pottery presented in this study is either Attic black glazed pottery or Atticising black glazed pottery produced outside of Attica (For past scholarship and interpretations on related material in Ionia, see Hasdağlı 2012: 125–30; Hasdağlı, Zeren 2012: 117; Hasdağlı 2018: 103–29; Berlin, Lynch 2002). The Atticising ceramics call to mind the regional products evinced by the test sherds attested in Thrace. Further evidence for local Atticising pottery production in Asia Minor is mentioned on an inscription dated to the fourth century BC, which determines that two Athenian potters, named Kittos and Bakkhios may get citizenship in return of making hydria and black (glazed) pottery. This may also suggest a possible local production at Kadıkalesi located nearby Ephesus (Hasdağlı 2017: 45). Both of these groups of fine pottery include a large variety of shapes such as kylix, stemless kylix, kantharos, cup-kantharos, skyphos, cup-skyphos,

Attic red figure pottery (Figure 13) Attic red figure pottery is represented by two small neck fragments of calyx-kraters (Figures 47–48), both of which decorated with floral motifs. No. 47 bears a chain of open palmette and lotus buds with scrolls, while no. 48 bears a diagonal chain of double open palmettes. This type of chains with floral ornaments is quite common on calyx-kraters throughout the period of Attic red figure pottery, during the late sixth and fifth centuries (For parallels of palmette and bud chains, see 237

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r bolsal, bowl with everted rim, bowl with everted and ridged rim, bowls with inverted rim, one-handled bowl, small bowl, saucer, and lamp.

All the related fragments discovered at Kadıkalesi belong to the subgroups of large stemless kylikes (cups with inset lips, cups with plain rim and delicate class) (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 98).

Kylix rim and body fragment (Figure 14.49)

The inset rim profile of no. 50 is seemingly the earliest example of stemless kylikes at Kadıkalesi, to judge by parallels dated to 480–470 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 268, fig. 5, pl. 22, no. 469). Nos. 51–53 also have inset rims inside and out, and are therefore similar to no. 50; however, nos. 51 – 53 may be dated to a slightly later time (470–450) (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 268, fig. 5, no. 471), while the plain rim on no. 54 suggests a date in the mid-fifth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 268, fig. 5, no. 475). One of the base fragments, no. 55, is reserved on the exterior, indicating an early date for the relevant type of kylikes like no. 50 and therefore should be dated within the same period of time (480–470) (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 268, fig. 5, pl. 22, no. 469). Nos. 56–58 are also base fragments and are grouped in the same type as nos. 51–53. No. 58 bears an incised decoration on the interior that may be dated to around 430 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 268, fig. 5, no. 487; for similar decoration, see fig. 50, no. 486 and others).

No. 49 is the only example of an Attic black glazed kylix that possibly belongs to the group of Acrocups with a shallow body dated to 480–460 to judge by parallels from the Athenian Agora (Sparkes, Talcott 1970:93–94, 266, fig. 1, 5, no. 440). Catalog 49. Kylix rim and body fragment. ADE. H: 0.024; Width: 0.03; Th: 0.004. Slightly inverted, high rim; pronounced transition to bowl. Black glazed on the interior and exterior. 480-460. Stemless kylix rim and foot fragments (Figures 15.50–61) A total of 12 fragments of stemless kylix were found in Kadıkalesi; five are rim fragments and the other seven are base fragments. We cannot identify their determining characteristics because of their limited state of preservation. These cups are stemless and have low bases, shallow and wide bowls, and horizontal loop handles on opposite sides. This particular shape is rare in the Archaic period and becomes popular, alongside skyphos, only after 480. During the early stages (500– 450), it has a shallow bowl and often a concave or inset rim, while in the second half of the fifth century, the rim profile becomes simple. Stamp and incised decorations become common on cups with simple rim profiles during the later part of the second quarter of the fifth century. The production of stemless kylikes decreases around the early fourth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 101–102).

No. 59 is part of the group of large stemless kylikes with simple rims. Similar examples from the Athenian Agora are dated to 460–450 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 102, 268, fig. 5, pl. 22, no. 474). Despite their limited state of preservation, nos. 60 and 61 can be placed in the group of delicate stemless kylikes. The delicate class is dated between the third quarter of the fifth and second quarter of the fourth centuries, and that type of pottery is decorated with stamped or incised patterns (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 102, 270, fig. 5, pl. 22, no. 493). Catalog 50. Stemless Kylix rim and body fragment. AVB. D (rim): 0.2; H: 0.004. Long rim with a slight concave profile on the exterior; sharp angled below rim; loop handle, rising diagonally. Fine black glazed inside and out. ca. 480-470.

Stemless kylikes attested at the Athenian Agora were grouped according to their size (small and large sized), and then each group was classified into several subgroups on the basis of their rim and body profiles.

14.49

Figure 14. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, kylix rim and body fragment.

238

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

15.50

15.51

15.52

15.55

15.53

15.54

Figure 15.50-55 Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, stemless kylix rim and foot fragments.

239

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 15.56

15.57

15.58

15.59

15.60

15.61

Figure 15.56-61 Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, stemless kylix rim and foot fragments. 16.62

16.64

16.63

16.65

Figure 16. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, kantharos rim and base fragments.

240

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

51. Stemless Kylix rim and body fragment. ADT. D (rim): 0.197; H: 0.0 41. Flaring rim, inset on the exterior and interior; wide bowl. Fine black glazed with metallic sheen on the exterior and interior. ca. 470-450.

interior of base glazed. Exterior of base, single shallow ridge. ca. 470-450. 59. Stemless Kylix base and body fragment. ANJ. D (base): 0.089; H: 0.021. Black glazed on the interior and exterior. Resting surface of base and exterior of base reserved; interior of base glazed band. Interior, narrow band with a central dot encircling central bowl. ca. 470-450.

52. Stemless Kylix rim and body fragment. AMJ 50. H: 0.049; Width: 0.056; Th: 0.009. Flaring rim, inset on the exterior and interior; wide bowl. Fine black glazed on the exterior and interior. ca. 470-450.

60. Stemless Kylix base and body fragment. 2001.48.7. D (base): 0.045; H: 0.017. Convex-sided ring base. Dark brown glaze on the interior and fine red glaze with brown-black blobs on the exterior. Interior, a row of tongues (rounded ends of tongues preserved) encircling central bowl. ca. 430.

53. Stemless Kylix rim and body fragment. D (rim): 0.224; H: 0.03. Fine black glazed on the exterior and interior. Flaring rim, sharp inset on the exterior and interior; wide bowl. Exterior, partially preserved black glazed above and red glazed below the fragment. ca. 470-450.

61. Stemless Kylix base and body fragment. H: 0.012; Width: 0.024; Th: 0.005. Convex-sided ring base Fine black glazed on the exterior and interior. Resting surface reserved. ca. 430.

54. Stemless Kylix rim and body fragment. ADJ. D (rim): 0.139; H: 0.032. Plain rim; wide bowl with a rounded profile. Fine black glazed on the exterior and interior. ca. 450.

Kantharos rim and base fragments (Figure 16.62–65) A fragmentary handle from a moulded kantharos (no. 62) is similar to examples from the Athenian Agora, which began to be produced during the second quarter of the fourth century; such kantharoi become less popular after the early third century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 83, 85). This fragment, as well as nos. 63–64, seem to be closer to the kantharoi with short and wide body dated to the second or third quarter of the fourth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 286, fig. 7, pl. 29, nos. 698–700). The rim profile of no. 65 makes a sharp turn and has a slenderer body profile, and can thus be tentatively dated to ca. 300 (Rotroff 1997: 85, 246, pl. 5, fig. 6, no. 42).

55. Stemless Kylix base and body fragment. ANZ-ANN 12; D (base): 0.084; H: 0.012. Interior not preserved. Exterior, reserved base; shallow ridge over base; black glazed band underside and interior of base 480-470. 56. Stemless Kylix base and body fragment. 2001.112.1. D (rim): 0.088; H: 0.024. Black glazed inside and out. Resting surface of base and exterior of base reserved; interior of base glazed. Interior, a row of tongue pattern encircling central bowl framed with narrow bands. Exterior of base, single shallow ridge. ca. 470-450.

Catalog 62. Kantharos rim and body fragment. ACE. D (rim): 0.092; H: 0.053. Thickened and out-turned hollow rim; narrow neck; vertical handle projecting out from rim; a triangular spur over handle. Black glazed inside and out. Second or third quarter of the fourth century.

57. Stemless Kylix base and body fragment. AHI. D (base): 0.092; H: 0.019. Black glazed on the interior and exterior. Resting surface of base and exterior of base reserved; interior of base glazed. Exterior of base, single shallow ridge. ca. 470-450.

63. Kantharos rim and body fragment. ABL.H: 0.021; Width: 0.036; Th: 0.002. Out-turned and thickened rim. Interior, black glazed. Exterior, reddish brown glaze over rim. Second or third quarter of the fourth century.

58. Stemless Kylix base and body fragment. 2001.107.10. D (base): 0.084; H: 0.02. Black glazed on the interior and exterior. Resting surface of base and exterior of base reserved; 241

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 17.67

17.66

17.68

Figure 17. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, cup-kantharos rim and base fragments.

18.69

Cup-kantharos rim and base fragments (Figure 17.66–68) The Attic cup-kantharos type at Kadıkalesi is represented by two small fragments of rim and body and a single base fragment. The cup-kantharos in general has a thickened, everted rim, making a concave, rounded high turn at the point of connection with the body. It has a relatively shallow bowl and a low, stepped conical foot. The two rim fragments (nos. 66–67) belong to the standard type of the early phase, dated 390–380 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 118–19, 282, fig. 6, no. 648). The base fragment (no. 68) is an example of the common late type of cup-kantharos with moulded rim. The resting surface and the reserved ridge of this base fragment are characteristic of similar vessels from the Athenian Agora that are dated to the third quarter of the fourth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 118–19, 283, pl. 28, fig. 7, no. 661).

Figure 18. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, skyphos rim and body fragment.

Catalog

64. Kantharos rim and body fragment. ANT. D (rim): 0.11; H: 0.029. Out-turned and thickened rim. Interior and exterior, black glazed. Second or third quarter of the fourth century.

66. Cup-kantharos rim and body fragment. ACH. H: 0.023; Th: 0.01- 0.004. Clay brown (7.5YR 5/3), burnt. Thickened and everted rim. Fine black glazed on exterior and interior. 390-380

65. Kantharos rim and body fragment. H: 0.032; Width: 0.046; Th: 0.0011. Out-turned and thickened rim. Interior and exterior, black glazed. ca. 300.

67. Cup-kantharos rim and body fragment. ACH. H: 0.021; Width: 0.03; Th: 0.009. Thickened and everted rim 390-380 242

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

19.70

19.71 19.73

19.72

19.74

19.75

Figure 19. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, cup-skyphos rim and base fragments.

no. 621). The moulded short base fragment (no. 75) is reserved; the underside of the base is black glazed and pointed at the centre. The central part of the interior bowl has a stamped palmette decoration encircled with rouletted decoration. The fine black glaze marks an Attic production and may be dated to 350–325 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 121, 285, pl. 28, fig. 7, no. 688).

68. Cup-kantharos base and body fragment. AHI. H: 0.02; D (base): 0.05. Conical foot with single deep ridge. Exterior, the ridge and resting surface reserved; black glazed inside the base. Skyphos rim and body fragment (Figure 18.69)

Catalog

The only example of this group is no. 69 and probably dates to 480–450 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 86, 260, fig. 4, no. 359).

70. Cup-Skyphos rim and body fragment. ABL-5. D (rim): 0.148; H: 0.025. Clay greyish brown (10YR 5/2); slightly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Sharp inset profile on the interior; flaring high rim. Interior and exterior, coarse black glazed. ca. 410

Catalog 69. Skyphos rim and body fragment. ADD. H: 0.037; Width: 0.03; Th: 0.004. Slightly concave, deep bowl; handle immediately below rim (single scar preserved). 480-450

71. Cup-Skyphos rim and body fragment. ACL. D (rim): 0.128; H: 0.026. Clay reddish yellow (5YR 7/6); highly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Sharp inset profile on the interior; flaring high rim. Exterior, coarse and matt brown to black glazed. ca. 410.

Cup-skyphos rim and base fragments (Figure 19.70–75) The five fragments of cup-skyphoi at Kadıkalesi have thick walls and may be grouped under two types (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 109, 111–12). Nos. 70–72 have parallels in the finds from the Athenian Agora dated to ca. 410; however, the fabrics of Kadıkalesi finds include some mica and tiny flecks of limestone, and they bear a matt glaze, which points out to a non-Attic production (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 111–12, 279, fig. 6, no. 617). Nos. 73 and 74 may have a slightly late date, possibly in the early fourth century, and are produced outside of Athens (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 111–12, 280, fig. 6,

72. Cup-Skyphos rim and body fragment. 2001.104.4. D (rim): 0.126; H: 0.02. Clay pinkish grey (7.5 YR 6/2); slightly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Sharp inset profile on the interior; flaring high rim. Interior and exterior, matt black glazed. ca. 410. 243

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 73. Cup-Skyphos rim and body fragment. ADD. D (rim): 0.12; H: 0.0 18. Clay pinkish grey (7.5 YR 6/2); slightly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Sharp inset profile on the interior; flaring high rim. Interior and exterior, matt black glazed. Early fourth century.

Catalog 76. Bolsal rim and body fragment. ACS. H: 0.04;0Width: 0.044; Th: 0.003. Clay pinkish grey (7.5 YR 6/2); slightly micaceous. Simple, vertical-sided rim; shallow bowl. Semi glossy black glazed inside and out. Last quarter of the fifth century.

74. Cup-Skyphos rim and body fragment. D (rim): 0.132; H: 0.014. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/4); micaceous. Sharp inset profile on the interior; flaring high rim. Interior and exterior, glossy black glazed with metallic sheen. Early fourth century.

77. Bolsal base and body fragment. ACN. D (base): 0.084; H: 0.01. Clay reddish yellow (5YR 7/6); slightly micaceous. Decoration reddish brown (5YR 4/4) to red (2.5YR 5/8) glazed on the exterior and interior. Underside of base, two concentric bands (one thick and the other thin) with a central dot. ca. 420.

75. Cup-Skyphos base and body fragment. AEH. D (base): 0.048; H: 0.017. Moulded base with two narrow ridges; resting surface ridged and reserved; short base; underside of base, pointed at the centre. Interior and exterior base, black glazed. Interior bowl, stamped palmette in the shape of cross; ruletted decoration encircling the palmettes. ca. 350-325.

78. Bolsal base and body fragment. ACS. D (base): 0.096; H: 0.021. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6); micaceous. Semi glossy black glazed on the interior and exterior. Last quarter of the fifth century. 79. Bolsal base and body fragment. ACS. D (base): 0.096; H: 0.014. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/4); micaceous. Semi glossy black glazed on the interior and exterior. Last quarter of the fifth century.

Bolsal rim and base fragments (Figure 20.76–82) A total of seven black glazed bolsal examples have been found at Kadıkalesi: six base fragments and one rim fragment. The fine glazes of these examples call to mind Attic parallels; however, all fabrics are micaceous and have colour tones between red and grey, indicating that they were produced outside of Attica. Bolsals have a low ring base, a relatively shallow bowl with nearly vertical sides, a simple rim and horizontal loop handles placed immediately below the rim. The decoration consists of a series of stamped palmettes on the interior and bands on the base. Bolsals were common in the late fifth century and fourth centuries (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 108). Nearly all the Atticising bolsal fragments from Kadıkalesi are dated to the last quarter of the fifth century, and the majority (nos. 76, 78–81) has a fine, glossy black glaze like the Attic examples (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 6, no. 541 (similar to nos. 72–74 here), no. 554 (similar to no. 75 here)). The rim profile of no. 76 is similar to the Attic bolsals of the last quarter of the fifth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 273, pl. 24, fig. 6, no. 541). No. 77, on the other hand, has a red glaze on the exterior and a reddish brown glaze on the interior, and may date to ca. 420 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 273, pl. 24, fig. 6, no. 541). No. 82 has a grey fabric and has traces of reddish slip on the reserved areas of the base, which suggests that the vessel probably belongs to the early type.

80. Bolsal base and body fragment. ACS. D (base): 0.082; H: 0.014. Clay light brown (7.5YR 6/4); micaceous. Semi glossy black glazed on the interior and exterior. Last quarter of the fifth century. 81. Bolsal base and body fragment. AMR-1. D (base): 0.076; H: 0.013. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/4); micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Semi glossy black glazed on the interior and exterior. Last quarter of the fifth century. 82. Bolsal base and body fragment. ADD. D (base): 0.076; H: 0.016. Clay grey (7.5 YR 6/1); slightly micaceous. Interior, very dark brown glazed. Exterior, matt black glazed. Rim and body fragments of bowls with everted rim (Figure 21.83–85) Only three fragments of bowls with everted rims were discovered, two rims and one base and body. This type of bowls with an everted rim is not common in the Athenian Agora before the last quarter of the fifth century. It goes through several variants before 244

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

20.76

20.77

20.78

20.80

20.79

20.81

20.82

Figure 20. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, bolsal rim and base fragments.

21.83

21.85

21.84

Figure 21. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, rim and body fragments of bowls with everted rim.

245

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r reaching its standard form (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 128–30). The earliest examples date to the last quarter of the fifth century and have a thickened rim and a smooth, rounded transition to the body, as visible on no. 83 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 128–29). Later, during the late fifth century, the curve on the upper body becomes deeper, while the lower body sharply ends towards the base; this type of transition to the body is more articulated in the fourth century. The transition from the upper to the lower body is nearly vertical before the mid-fourth century. No. 84 seems to be a non-Attic production to judge by the quality of its fabric and glaze; the shape characteristics point to a date around 380 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 129, 293, fig. 8, no. 803). The early type of this bowl has a low base and a flat, wide floor. The base tends to become higher in later times. The underside of the base is reserved and has several horizontal bands encircling a central dot. This type continues into the first and second quarters of the fourth century. After this period, the underside is completely black glazed. The centre of the bowl of no. 85 is decorated with stamped palmettes and eggs; the pot has a relatively high base and the underside of the base is encircled with bands over a reserved surface. These characteristics point to a date within the first half of the fourth century (Sparkes and Talcott 1970: 128–29, 293, fig. 8, no. 803; Arribas et al. 1987, 279, fig. 37, no. 95).

Rim and body fragments of bowls with a ridged flaring rim (Figure 22.86–87) Nos. 86 and 87 are examples of black glazed bowls with ridged flaring rims that are not very common on Attic and Atticising pottery. No. 86 is an actual Attic import and has a flaring, sagging and reserved rim with three ridges. Similar elements are attested on large stemmed dishes from the Athenian Agora; unlike no. 86, the Athenian examples have narrow bands instead of ridges over the rim. Although no. 86 is not exactly the same as the Athenian parallels a date between 500–480 may be suggested to judge by the similarity of its rim profile to the rims of the bowls excavated in the Athenian Agora (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 139–40, 304, fig. 9, no. 965, pl. 35). The other fragment, no. 87, is an Atticising example since it has a semi glossy glaze and its fabric (brownish colour) is different from that of Attic imports. The quality of the glaze suggests a late date. It has a flaring rim with two shallow ridges and may be dated a little later in the fourth century to judge by the limited number of parallels reported from Daskyleion, Kızçiftliği Höyüğü and Thasos (Blonde 1985: 294–95, fig. 8, no. 67–68; Bulut 2007: 37, 121 fig. 1c.15, fig. 18.12; Polat 2009: 110–11, 136, cat. nos. 99–100). Catalog 86. Bowl rim and body fragment. D (rim): 0.086; H: 0.018. Flaring rim with a wide, sagging rim plate. Glossy black glazed inside and out except rim plate, which has three deep ridges. The rim plate is reserved. ca. 500-480

Catalog 83. Bowl rim and body fragment. ACL. D (rim): 0.126; H: 0.029. Everted and thickened out rim; wide bowl. Decoration black glazed with metallic sheen on the exterior and interior. Last quarter of the fifth century.

87. Bowl rim and body fragment. ABL-1. D (rim): 0.11; H: 0.023. Clay pink (5YR 7/3). Flaring rim with two shallow ridges over rim plate. Semi glossy black glazed inside and out (5YR 2.5/1). fourth century.

84. Bowl rim and body fragment. ACO. D (rim): 0.186; H: 0.031. Clay light brown (7.5 YR 6/4); micaceous. Everted rim; slightly carinated below rim. Exterior and interior semi glossy yellowish red (5YR 4/6) glazed. ca. 380.

Rim and body fragments of bowls with inturned rims (Figure 23.88–90)

85. Bowl base and body fragment. ADI. D (base): 0.064; H: 0.033. High ring base. Decoration, black glazed. Exterior, reserved band at the transition to base. Interior, stamped palmettes, centrally placed in the shape of a cross; egg pattern encircling palmettes; palmettes around egg pattern. Underside of base, single thick and two thin bands encircling a central dot. First half of the fourth century.

Bowls with inturned rims are common from the midfourth century and throughout the Hellenistic period. Of the three examples excavated at Kadıkalesi (nos. 88–90), only no. 88 seems to be an Attic import dated to the third quarter of the fourth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 131–32, 295, pl. 33, fig. 8, no. 832), whereas nos. 89–90 are non-Attic types with a semi glossy black glaze and a slightly micaceous, brownish clay; the latter may be dated to the second half of the fourth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 132, 296, pl. 33, fig. 8, no. 841).

246

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods 22.86

22.87

Figure 22. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, rim and body fragments of bowls with a ridged flaring rim. 23.88

23.89

23.90

Figure 23. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, rim and body fragments of bowls with inturned rims.

247

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 24.91

24.93

24.92

24.94

24.95

24.96

Figure 24. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, one-handled bowl rim and body fragments.

Catalog

in the years before 480, it becomes common especially in the fourth century and continues to be used until the third century. One important criterion in dating these bowls is the shape of the handle that is attached to the rim. The handles have a horseshoe shape during the fifth century, while the fourth century examples have a triangular shape (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 124–26). Six one-handled bowl fragments were identified at Kadıkalesi. No. 91 is glossy black glazed, has a plain rim, wide body and a horseshoe-shaped handle near the rim. Although there is no exact parallel among the finds from the Athenian Agora, no. 91 may be dated to the third quarter of the fifth century on the basis of its shape characteristics (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 126). Both nos. 91 and 92 are Attic imports. No. 92 is also glossy black glazed, has a plain and narrow rim, and a wide body. Although only a small part of the bowl is preserved, the shape of the handle near the rim, as well as the body profile suggest a date within the fifth century.

88. Bowl rim and body fragment. ACD. D (rim): 0.169; H: 0.033. Inverted rim; flat and wide bowl. Black glazed inside and out. Third quarter of the fourth century. 89. Bowl rim and body fragment. ADI. H: 0.03; Width: 0.041; Th: 0.005. Clay brown (7.5YR 5/4); slightly micaceous. Inverted rim; wide bowl. Coarse black glazed inside and out. Second half of the fourth century. 90. Bowl rim and body fragment. AGE. D (rim): 0.13; H: 0.025. Clay reddish yellow (5YR6/6); micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Inverted rim; wide bowl. Coarse and matt black glazed inside and out. Second half of the fourth century.

Nos. 93–95, on the other hand, have a fabric distinct from Attic examples. Of these Atticising bowl fragments, the handle (with a horseshoe-shaped end) is preserved only on no. 93, and the rest are rim and body fragments, which may be dated to the last quarter of the fifth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 126–27, 253, pl. 31, no. 753). No. 96 is also an Atticising example with a grey fabric, a plain rim, and a triangular-shaped handle near the rim that slightly extends above the latter. The vessel may be dated to the second half of the fourth century (Berlin 2002: 151, pl. 11, no. 55).

One-handled bowl rim and body fragments (Figure 24.91– 96) The characteristic elements of one-handled bowls are the inturned rim, the shallow and wide body, the ring base, and the single handle starting immediately from the rim. This black glazed shape is among the common type of bowls attested at the Athenian Agora; despite being less popular than the banded one-handled bowls 248

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods 25.97

25.98

25.99

Figure 25. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, small bowls.

Catalog

95. One-handled bowl rim and body fragment. ACL. H: 0.025; Width: 0.025; Th: 0.004. Clay light reddish brown (5YR 6/4). Inturned plain rim; deep bowl; horizontal loop handle attached on the edge of rim. Interior and exterior matt black glazed. Last quarter of the fifth century.

91. One-handled bowl rim, body and handle fragment. D (rim): 0.142; H: 0.031. Plain and wide rim; wide bowl. Single handle attached to rim. The handle has a horse-shoe shaped end near rim. Third quarter of the fifth century.

96. One-handled bowl rim and body fragment. AZP. D (rim): 0.12; H: 0.02. Clay brown (7.5YR 5/2); highly micaceous. Flattened narrow rim; triangular horizontal loop handle. Interior and exterior, coarse and matt black glazed. Second half of the fourth century.

92. One-handled bowl rim, body and handle fragment. ACL. D (rim): 0.13; H: 0.025. Plain and narrow rim; wide bowl; handle attached to rim. fifth century?

Small bowls (Figure 25.97–99)

93. One-handled bowl rim, body and handle fragment. ANI. D (rim): 0.124; H: 0.027. Clay light reddish brown (5YR 6/4). Inturned plain rim; deep bowl. Semi glossy black glazed inside and out (10YR 2/1). Last quarter of the fifth century.

Three black glazed small bowls were discovered at Kadıkalesi: two Attic examples (nos. 97–98) and an Atticising production (no. 99). No. 97 has a thickened, inturned rim and a low, thick base with an external ridge. The exterior, the resting surface, and the underside of the base are reserved. This example is an early type, with parallels in the Athenian Agora dated to the second quarter of the fifth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 134, 297, pl. 33, no. 856–857). No. 98 also has an inturned rim, with a rounded end similar to that of the bowls with a wide base from the Athenian Agora dated to ca. 380 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 135, 299, fig. 9,

94. One-handled bowl rim and body fragment. ABF. D (rim): 0.09; H: 0.023. Clay very pale brown (10YR 7/4); micaceous. Inturned plain rim; deep bowl. Interior and exterior, semi glossy black glazed (5YR 2.5/1). Last quarter of the fifth century. 249

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 26.100

26.101

26.102

Figure 26. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, small bowls.

no. 882). The Atticising bowl (no. 99) with an inturned, thickened rim and a low ring base is painted overall, including on the underside of the base, with a dull black glaze. The fabric is light brown and includes mica. The close parallels from the Athenian Agora may point to a slightly later date (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 134, 298, fig. 9, pl. 33, no. 870, 876); however, the Agora examples have reserved areas on the resting surface and on the transition from body to base, indicative of an earlier date than that of no. 99. Therefore, no. 99 may be dated to the mid-fourth century at the earliest, to judge by the overall painted areas on the exterior and on the underside of the base.

Plain rim with a sharp turn on the interior. ca. 380 99. Small bowl rim, body and base fragment. ADI-ADD. D (rim): 0.072; D (base): 0.048; H: 0.028. Clay light brown (7.5 YR 6/3); very slightly micaceous. Black glazed with a metallic sheen on the interior and exterior. Mid-fourth century. Saltcellar (Figure 26.100–102) All the black glazed saltcellars have an inturned rim (nos. 100–102) of same type. Nos. 100 and 101 are both Attic imports. The ridge over the resting surface, the overall painted area on the underside of the base, the swelling body profile near the rim, and the sharp rim profile of no. 100 point to a date within the last quarter of the fourth century (Rotroff 1997: fig. 65, 16, no. 1076). No. 102 has an inverted rim, a shallow body, and a low ring base. The wall thickness is relatively thinner than the other two examples, and it is black glazed all over. The fabric suggests a non-Attic production centre for no. 102. The Attic parallels date to 350–325 (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 303, 137–38, fig. 9, pl. 34, no. 949).

Catalog 97. Small bowl rim, body and base fragment. BZM. D (rim): 0.036; D (base): 0.03; H: 0.031. Inturned and thickened rim; low ring base with a sharp edge. Exterior, resting surface and underside of base reserved. Second quarter of the fifth century. 98. Small bowl rim and body fragment. AHI. H: 0.018; Width: 0.03.

250

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

27.103

27.104

Figure 27. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, lamps.

Catalog

Catalog 100. Saltcellar rim, body and base fragment. ACL.D (rim): 0.062; D (base): 0.04; H: 0.04. Inturned and thickened out rim; ring base with a ridged resting surface. Black glazed on the exterior, interior and underside of base. Last quarter of the fourth century.

103. Lamp nozzle, bottom and body fragment. ANF. D (base): 0.046; H: 0.023. Inverted rim; long and flat nozzle. Glossy black glazed inside and out. Underside of lamp reserved. 104. Lamp bottom and body fragment. ADA. D (base): 0.036; H: 0.017. Slightly concave-sided on the lower base; high central cone; thick bottom. Decoration, black glaze with a metallic sheen on the exterior and interior. Underside of lamp reserved.

101. Saltcellar rim and body fragment. AAU. D (rim): 0.044; H: 0.025. Inturned and thickened out rim; thick-walled. Glossy black glazed on the exterior and interior. Last quarter of the fourth century. 102. Saltcellar rim, base and base fragment. ABM. D (rim): 0.07; D (base): 0.035; H: 0.026. Clay light red (2.5YR 6/6); micaceous. Inturned rim; shallow bowl; ring base. Exterior, base and underside of base semi glossy black glazed. Interior, reddish brown glazed (5YR 4/3). 350-325/300

Miscellaneous body fragments with stamped decoration (Figure 28.105–112) In addition to the pottery shapes mentioned above, there are eight body fragments belonging to unidentified vessel shapes. These fragments (nos. 105–112) are black glazed and have stamped and rouletted decoration. No. 105 is a deep and vertical body fragment, which may belong to a skyphos. It has a fine glossy black glaze and is decorated with a lotus and palmette chain on the exterior. Although stamped palmettes are common in Attic black glazed vessels, lotus was not a typical ornament. Attic vessels with stamped lotuses are few, and are uncommon during the fourth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 26, nos. 463, 477, 554, 585). Therefore, no. 105 probably dates to the last quarter of the fifth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 267, pl. 49, no. 463).

Lamps (Figure 27.103–104) Among the two fragments of Attic black glazed lamps from Kadıkalesi, no. 103 belongs to Type 21C to judge by the similar lamps discovered at the Athenian Agora. Type 21C lamps are dated to the last quarter of the fifth century and typically have a longer and wider flat nozzle than earlier examples. This type continued to be produced during the fourth century. Another characteristic aspect of Attic Type 21C lamps, as also attested on no. 103, is the lesser quality of the black glaze and the dull finish (Howland 1958: 48, pl. 6, 34, nos. 171–172).

Nos. 106–110 have a stamped palmette decoration over the floor of the open vessels and may be dated to the fifth–fourth centuries. No. 107 has an additional meander decoration, which, in examples from the Athenian Agora dated to the last quarter of the fifth century, is an ornament more common on closed vessels than on open vessels (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 26, nos. 480, 491, 510, 544). Based on their fabric distinct from the standard Attic one, nos. 109–110 are non-Attic sherds.

The other lamp (no. 104) has a concave bottom and a high central cone. The heavy and thick bottom is reminiscent of Type 25A attested at the Athenian Agora, where the examples have a globular body and a thick bottom. Type 25A lamps are dated between the second quarter of the fourth and the first quarter of the third centuries (Howland 1958: 67–68, pl. 9, no. 269). 251

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 28.105

28.107

28.110

28.106

28.108

28.109

28.111

28.112

Figure 28. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, miscellaneous body fragments with stamped decoration. 29.113

29.113c

29.114

Figure 29. Attic and Atticising Black Glazed pottery, miscellaneous non-Attic.

252

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

Nos. 111–112 may belong to kantharoi. No. 111 has a roulette decoration on the interior, and no. 112 has deep ridges on the exterior and may be dated to the second half of the fourth century (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: pl. 56, nos. 659, 286, pl. 29, no. 704).

111. Kantharos (?) body fragment. AFR. H: 0.042; Width: 0.048; Th: 0.006-0.008. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/4). Decoration, glossy black glazed. Interior, ruletted band. Exterior, black glazed. Second half of the fourth century.

Catalog

112. Kantharos body fragment. 2001.87.39. H: 0.018; Width: 0.03; Th: 0.007. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 7/4). Exterior, vertical ridges; decoration glossy black glazed. Interior, black glazed. Second half of the fourth century.

105. Skyphos (?) body fragment. AGD. H: 0.024; Width: 0.035; Th: 0.004. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 7/4). Decoration, glossy black glazed. Interior, black glazed. Exterior, a chain of lotus bud and palmette flowers. Last quarter of the fifth century.

Miscellaneous non-Attic fragments (Figure 29.113–114)

106. Central bowl fragment. 2001 88.16. H: 0.019; Width: 0.029; Th: 0.003. Clay light red (2.5 YR 7/6). Decoration, glossy black glazed. Interior, four stamped palmette placed across each other at central bowl. Underside of base, four horizontal lines encircling a central dot over a diluted red slip.

There is a group of fragmentary examples on which only black glaze is preserved. The black glaze and the fabrics are of high quality and thus difficult to distinguish from those of Attic products. However, their clays are slightly micaceous, which may point to a different production centre. These sherds (nos. 113–114) may belong to nonAttic black glazed pottery, or perhaps to Ionian black figure. A single example of a krater (no. 113) is nearly identical in shape and decoration to Attic examples—it is distinct only by its fabric. Like no. 113, no. 114 is a non-Attic black glazed vessel, visibly indistinguishable from its original Attic parallels of the mid-sixth century or slightly after (Kunze-Götte 1970: Suppl. B5, D1; pl. 339, nos. 1–2; pl. 340, nos. 1–2). On the other hand, the characteristic shape aspects of no. 114 show that the fragment belongs to an amphora: the rim is thickened to form a slight echinus profile similar to its Attic counterparts.

107. Stemless (?) kylix body fragment. ALB 3.H: 0.035; Width: 0.034; Th: 0.004. Clay light red (2.5 YR 7/6). Decoration, glossy black glazed. Interior, band with meander decoration encircling central bowl and a single stamped palmette preserved above this band. Exterior, single horizontal band at the transition between lower body and base. Last quarter of the fifth century. 108. Stemless (?) central bowl fragment. AMT 2. H: 0.019; Width: 0.035; Th: 0.005. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/4). Decoration, glossy black glazed. Interior, linked stamped palmettes; rouletted around the palmettes. Exterior, black glazed.

Catalog 113. Krater (?) base and lower body fragment. CMT. H: 0.036; D (base): 0.09; Th: 0.003. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); slightly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Lower body, wide; ring base; underside of base, centrally pointed. Decoration black glazed. Exterior, reserved area on the lower body; plain painted on base. Interior, central bowl: two bands (one thin the other thick) encircling a central dot; lower bowl black glazed.

109. Open vessel bottom fragment. ABR.H: 0.028; Width: 0.036; Th: 0.004. Clay light red (2.5 YR 7/6). Decoration, glossy black glazed. Interior, a row of tongue pattern encircling central bowl, stamped palmettes in between and around tongues. Exterior, black glazed.

114. Amphora rim and neck fragment. ALS, ADI. H: 0.053; D (rim): 0. 15; Th: 0.005. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); hard-fired, slightly micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone. Everted and thickened out rim; vertical-sided neck. Decoration dark red to black. Exterior, horizontal band over rim. Interior, lip reserved; glazed below. 550-525

110. Dish (?) central bowl fragment. 2006 29.1.H: 0.0031; Width: 0.033; Th: 0.006. Clay light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/4). Decoration, glossy black glazed. Interior, egg row framed with two horizontal lines at central bowl; linked stamped palmettes between bands; single horizontal band at the transition from lower body to base. 253

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 30.115

30.116

30.117

30.118

30.119

30.121

30.120

30.122

30.123

Figure 30. Moulded bowls.

254

30.124

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

decoration characteristics; however, they probably belong to the bowls with imbricate decoration of small leaves or figural and floral motifs (Rotroff 1982: pl. 4.24, pl. 5.25–26, pl. 17.99, pl. 18.103). Although nos. 121–122 have similar decorative schemes, they have distinct fabrics and differ in the execution of the leaf patterns. No. 121 has a grey fabric and a black glaze with a metallic sheen; the veined leaves have rounded extremities (The fabric of this fragment is similar to Hellenistic lamps of the Ephesian Type). On the other hand, no. 122 has a red fabric and a red to dark reddish grey glaze; the three rows of veined leaves have triangular ends. Parallels of nos. 121–122 are reported from Ephesus, Metropolis, Daskyleion, Knidos, Miletus, and Delos (Ephesus: Gassner 1997: 236–237, pl. 72, H.24, H.26 (150–50); Ladstätter 2003: 48, pl. 6 K.53; Metropolis: Gürler 2003: 11, 12, pl. X, A.17–20; Daskyleion: Dereboylu 2003: 59, KA 30; Knidos: Doksanaltı 2003: 30, 32, pl. XXIX.2 (second century); Miletus: Kossatz 1990: 22, 23, pl. 26, M 95, 82, fig. 39, M 679; Delos: Laumonier 1977: pl. 9–10).

Hellenistic pottery Moulded bowls (Figure 30.115–124) Moulded bowls were common during the Hellenistic period and were produced in various places in Mainland Greece and on the islands, as well as in Anatolia. These hemispherical bowls with relief decorations (Laumonier 1977; Rotroff 1982; Dereboylu 2003: pl. XLII–XLIII; Doksanaltı 2003: pl. XXIX, 1, 2, 4; Semeraro 2003: pl. LII–LV) were manufactured between 240/220 and 50 BCE in Athens (Rotroff 1982: 107–12). One of the earliest evidence for their production in Asia Minor comes from Metropolis, where the associated levels were dated to the second quarter of the third century; there, such bowls seem to have been produced until the first century (Gürler 1994: 61–62). The Kadıkalesi finds amount to a total of 10 fragments (four rim and body, one bottom and five body fragments). The rim fragments belong to Delos Type bowls. No. 115 is a rim and body fragment of a bowl decorated with an Ionic kymation over the rim band and with a floral ornament on the main register (only dots and the extremity of a leaf are preserved). The Ionic kymation over the rims of moulded bowls is a very common ornament (Hellström 1965: 60–61, pl. 9, no. 96–98 (second half of the second century–first half of the first century); Laumonier 1977: 124, pl. 28, no. 470; Kossatz 1990: 76–77, pl. 16, fig. 35, M 630, pl. 35, M 634; Gürler 1994: 157–158, pl. 10, fig. 58, no. 64–65 (second quarter of the third century)). Another rim and body fragment (no. 116) bears a Lesbian kymation on the rim and is among the fine productions: it is thin-walled, has a fine fabric, and bears a matt black glaze on the exterior and a matt red glaze on the inside. The Lesbian kymation is a less popular ornament than the more common Ionic kymation (Laumonier 1977: pl. 46.1702, pl. 47.5990; Kossatz 1990: 87, pl. 26, fig. 45, M 731, 60, pl. 9, M 411).

No. 123 is another small body fragment with floral decoration and a thin wall. The floral decoration consists of a curved branch and dots. Similar floral decorations show that the curved branches form a volute, alongside groups of three dots (Hellström 1965: 21, pl. 9.98; Laumonier 1977: 31, pl. 2, No. 428, 136, pl. 30, no. 1975; Kossatz 1990: 37, pl. 30 M241a; Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 68, 70, pl. 76.D2). No. 124 is red glazed on the interior and matt dark brown glazed on the exterior. The main decorative register bears small lotus flowers separated by alternating high palmettes and loutrophoroi/amphorae. Close parallels for the fabric and decorative schemes are attested at Sardis and date to the mid-second and first centuries (Rotroff, Oliver 2003: 104–106, 110–111, pl. 72.433, pl. 73.435–37, pl. 74.442). Catalog

Nos. 117–118 are very fragmentary; they have a grey coloured fabric and are black glazed inside and out. No. 119, a bottom fragment, also has a grey fabric and is decorated with acanthus leaves (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 68, 71, pl. 79.D 22). No. 120 seems to be one of the finest fragments of moulded bowls at Kadıkalesi thanks to its fine and hard-fired fabric, the black glaze with metallic sheen, as well as its thin walls. Rotroff stated that the glazes with a metallic sheen tended to be thickly applied during the late third–first quarter of the second century on the decorated bowls from the Athenian Agora (Rotroff 1982: 14). Therefore, no. 120 may be paralleled with the moulded bowls discovered at the Athenian Agora (Rotroff 1982: pl. 8, 73, no. 49).

115. Moulded bowl rim and body fragment. CKS. D (rim): 0.16; H: 0.031. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 7/6); micaceous. Glaze matt red (2.5 YR 5/6). Exterior, Ionian kymation over the rim; below, partially preserved dots and ivy leaves (?) 116. Moulded bowl rim and body fragment. ABM. H: 0.031; Width: 0.029; Th: 0.003. Clay light red (2.5 YR 7/6). Glaze very dark grey with metallic sheen on the interior rim (5YR 3/1), slightly glossy red below rim (2.5YR 4/6); very dark matt grey on the exterior (5YR 3/1). Vertical rim thinned out towards lip. Exterior, Lesbian kymation on the edge of rim.

Nos. 121–122 are very small fragments and thus it is impossible to determine their original shape or 255

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 117. Moulded bowl rim and body fragment. AON. H: 0.027; Width: 0.029. Clay grey (5Y 6/1); micaceous; hard-fired. Glaze matt black (5Y 2.5/1).

West Slope Ware (Figure 31.125–129) The West Slope Ware at Kadıkalesi, represented by only five fragments, is among the finest pottery groups of the Hellenistic ceramic assemblage. Four of the fragments are thin-walled and black glazed, with a delicate decorative style (nos. 125–128), while one sherd is rather thick-walled and has an incised decoration over a matt red glaze with additional white colour (no. 129).

118. Moulded bowl rim and body fragment. ACG. D (rim): 0.11; H: 0.026. Clay grey (5Y 6/1); micaceous. Glaze slightly glossy black on the interior (5Y 2.5/1). 119. Moulded bowl bottom and body fragment. AKI. D (base): 0.04; H: 0.023. Clay grey (5Y 6/1); micaceous. Glaze matt black (2.5 Y 2.5/1). Fragment of medallion and calyx. Medallion is empty; a narrow horizontal relief band at the transition to calyx; on the calyx, an acanthus leaf rising from the level of medallion.

No. 125 may belong to a kantharos or a cup-kantharos bearing a decoration of scrolls and leaves painted with in very light brown over the neck. The delicate painting is rendered over a finely applied black glaze. The quality of fabric and decoration calls to mind an Attic production, although the vessel might also have been produced in a different centre of similar quality. Close parallels are attested at the Athenian Agora and at Ephesus (Rotroff 1997: 252–53, pl. 11, fig. 10, no. 105 (ca. 300); Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 35, 45, pl. 24, B 15 (third century)).

120. Moulded bowl body fragment. AND. H: 0.025; Width: 0.035; Th: 0.003. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6). Glaze black with metallic sheen (5Y 2.5/1). Exterior, a long nymphaea lotus. decorated with overlapping lozenges on both sides of the central vein; curved leaves on both sides of the lotus. Late third – first quarter of the second century.

No. 126 has an everted rim and two shallow ridges over it. The body is decorated with a necklace pattern in white, and the curve of the necklace indicates that the fragment belongs to an area near the handle. This fragment seems to belong to the latest phase of a group of bowl-kantharoi with everted rim, known from the Athenian Agora and dated to 285–260 (Rotroff 1997: 92–93, 256, pl. 13, no. 134–39, fig. 11).

121. Moulded bowl body fragment. ADM. H: 0.021; Width: 0.017; Th: 0.002. Clay dark grey (2.5Y 4/1); micaceous. Glaze slightly glossy black with metallic sheen (Grey 1 2.5/N). Exterior, small leaf with a rounded end and a central vein.

No. 127 has an inturned rim with two deep ridges below, and possibly belongs to a skyphos or kantharos. It is impossible to determine the shape characteristics since the piece is very small and the handles are not preserved. The delicate decoration below the ridges consists of ivy branches and leaves painted in very light brown over a fine black glaze. This fragment is a nonAttic example and belongs to the Ephesian West Slope ware; it may be dated to the late fourth–early third centuries (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 37, 44, 47, pl. 34.B44).

122. Molded bowl body fragment. 2001.29.9. H: 0.03; Width: 0.02; Th: 0.003. Clay reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); slightly micaceous. Glaze matt red on the interior (10R 5/6) and matt red (10R 5/6) to dark reddish grey on the exterior (10R 3/1). Exterior, leaf with a pointed end and a central vein. 123. Moulded bowl body fragment. ACU. H: 0.023; Width: 0.026; Th: 0.003. Clay light red (2.5YR 6/6); slightly micaceous. Glaze red on the interior (10R 5/8) and matt reddish black (10R 2.5/1) to red (10R 5/8) on the exterior. Exterior, scroll and relief dots.

No. 128 is also black glazed and has a ridged body. The decoration is not preserved, but the shape and the glaze point to the West Slope style. This fragment may belong to a skyphos or a kantharos that is black glazed and ridged in the lower part of the body (Behr 1988: 129–30, fig. 7.22, pl. 14.3 (mid-second century); MitsopoulosLeon 1991: 36–37, 46, pl. 28.B30 (second half of the fourth century–third century); Gassner 1997: 62, 64, pl. 11, nos. 176, 181).

124. Moulded bowl body fragment. Width: 0.044; H: 0.044; Th: 0.006. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6); slightly micaceous; hard-fired. Glaze thick and slightly glossy red on the interior (10 R 5/8) and slightly glossy dark brown on the exterior (7.5 YR 3/2). Exterior, a row of long palmettes and loutrophoros/amphora alternately placed in between lotus flowers. Mid-second century – first century.

No. 129 is red glazed inside and out with white dots in between two incised lines. This piece is distinct from other West Slope fragments at Kadıkalesi since it is rather coarse with a dull glaze. It seems to be a late example of its kind (Behr 1988: 105, fig. 9, cat. no. 32 (mid-second century–early first century)). 256

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

31.125

31.126

31.127

31.128

31.129

Figure 31. West Slope Wares.

257

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r Catalog

from Daskyleion include many intact bowls (Tunuz 1993: 11–21, fig. VII–XVI, pl. I–V; Bulut 2009: 60–61, figs. 3–4). An everted rim, a convex wall and a ring base are the main characteristics of the shape of these bowls. The bowls have no handles; they are generally dipped, result in a completely glazed interior, whereas the exterior is semi-glazed. The fabric and glaze are of fine quality. The earliest examples of bowls with everted rims from the Athenian Agora are dated to the last quarter of the fifth century; they become popular during the fourth century and the Hellenistic period (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 128, nos. 777–808; Rotroff 1997: 156–157, figs. 59.866, 868). No. 130 has a homogenous fabric and similar shape characteristics to those attested at Daskyleion and Sardis and therefore may have been produced on the same workshop (Bulut 2009: 61 (Daskyleion); Rotroff, Oliver 2003: 25, 28, pl. 10, no. 53 (Sardis)). The Daskyleion parallels are dated to the second or third quarter of the fourth century. Similar bowls were also discovered at Samos (Technau 1929: 43, fig. 33.1–2) and in the Granicus Valley at Rüzgarlıtepe and Priapos (Rose et al. 2007: 83, 94, 95, pl. 2, no. 38, pl. XI, nos. 138–40 (Rüzgarlıtepe and Priapos)).

125. Kantharos /Cup-Kantharos rim and body fragment. CHS.D (rim): 0.084; H: 0.038. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6); slightly micaceous; hard-fired. Glaze slightly glossy very pale brown (10YR 7/3). Everted rim; long and narrow neck; rounded transition to shoulder. Exterior, ivy leaves around a ‘S’ curved branch painted with clay. 126. Bowl-kantharos rim and body fragment. 2001.54.5. H: 0.046; Width: 0.052; Th: 0.003. Clay light reddish brown (7.5 YR 6/4); slightly micaceous; hard-fired. Decoration slightly glossy black (10 YR 2/1) and white (2.5 Y 8/1). Everted rim; two horizontal narrow ridges at the turn of rim. Exterior, a row of necklace preserved near the start of handle (not preserved) 285-260 127. Skyphos/Kantharos(?) rim and body fragment. AJJ. H: 0.023; Width: 0.013; Th: 0.002. Clay reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); hard-fired. Glaze slightly glossy black. Inverted rim; two horizontal deep ridges below rim. 300-early third century or slightly earlier.

No. 131 also has an everted rim. The body has a smooth carination, which is common during the Hellenistic period. Rotroff mentioned that this type of bowls was discovered in various places (Rotroff 1997: 156). Similar bowls from the Athenian Agora are classified as Classical Type with everted rims, and the coarse-glazed examples are dated to 225–175; they seem to disappear after the third quarter of the second century (Rotroff 1997: 158). Similar bowls types are also reported from Ephesus and Cnidus and are dated to the late third and the second centuries (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 28, pl. 6.A29; Kassab Tezgör 2003: 39, pl. XXXII.6).

128. Skyphos/Kantharos (?) body fragment. H: 0.053; Width: 0.049; Th: 0.004. Clay pink (7.5 YR 7/4); slightly micaceous; hardfired. Glaze slightly glossy black (2.5 Y 2.5/1). Exterior, two horizontal ridges above the vessel; below, series of vertical ridges to base. Interior, plain painted.

No. 132 is a lekane with a flaring rim, a single deep ridge on the interior rim, and a matt red glaze all over the interior and exterior. Similar lekanis from the West Slope and coarse ware groups are reported from Pergamon. The examples with wider and saggier body and wider rim are grouped under the West Slope kraters (Radt, De Luca 2003: 4, pl. II; Behr 1988: fig. 15, no. 66–67, fig. 16; Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: pl. 50, B 105). The lekane shape is common in the Corinthian West Slope Ware and Attic black glazed pottery dating from the early third century onwards. The parallels from Pergamon are dated between the early third and the early second centuries (Behr 1988: 156).

129. Open vessel body fragment. CEE.H: 0.03; Width: 0.036; Th: 0.005. Clay reddish yellow (5YR 7/6); no inclusions. Glaze matt red (2.5 YR 4/8). Plain red painted on the exterior and interior. Exterior, a row of white dots framed with a horizontal incised line above and below. Mid-second – early first century. Simple glazed ware (Figure 32.130–135) Six fragments of simple glazed ware belonging to several shapes were discovered at Kadıkalesi. Simple glazed wares are seemingly the most common type of Hellenistic ware attested in the Hellenistic levels of various ancient sites.

No. 133 belongs to a dish with a ring base and a wide, flat body. It has a grey fabric and is black glazed inside and out with roulette decoration on the central bowl. Similar dishes dated to the first half of the third century are attested at Eretria (Metzger 1969: 42, pl. 1, no. 20; Metzger 1998: 211, fig. 232, nos. 214–16).

No. 130 is a bowl with an everted rim and is semiglazed. The nearest parallels to this type of bowls are attested from several ancient regions. The examples 258

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

32.130

32.131

32.132

32.133

32.134

32.135

Figure 32. Simple Glazed Wares.

259

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 33.136

Figure 33. Ephesian type lamps.

No. 134 is a base and body fragment of a fish plate with a ring base and a deep ridge with a high edge encircling the central saucer; the interior is matt black glazed all over and the exterior is unpainted. The fabric is grey. The main criterion for the dating of this small fragment is the profile of the saucer. Rotroff suggested that the high edge encircling the saucers from the Athenian Agora was an feature that started during the mid-third century, and that the glossy glaze was uncommon after 275 (Rotroff 1997: 148). Fish plates were popular during the Hellenistic period in Asia Minor and have been discovered at various sites. A similar fish plate dating to ca. 200 or thereafter is reported from Ephesus (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 22, 28, pl. A32–34).

Glaze, matt light red (2.5 YR 5/6). Everted rim; slightly carinated. Exterior, glazed from rim to carination. Interior, plain painted. Late third – second century. 132. Lekane rim and body fragment. D (rim): 0.33; H: 0.027. Clay light reddish brown (5 YR 6/4); highly micaceous. Glaze red (2.5 YR 5/6); matt finish. Everted wide rim; a single deep ridge at the edge of rim. Matt painted on the interior and exterior. Second century. 133. Dish base and body fragment. 2001.4. D (base): 012; H: 0.029. Clay grey (2.5 Y 6/1). Slightly glossy black glazed. Ring base; wide bowl. Glazed overall on the interior and exterior. Interior, ruletted at central bowl. First half of the third century.

No. 135 has a slightly micaceous clay and a coarse red glaze; it has a narrow conical base and a deep ridge on the resting surface. The shape characteristics indicate that this kantharos is a late example. Parallels from Ephesus with a grey fabric and a black glaze date to the second and first centuries (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 80–82, 84, pl. 101, F52).

134. Fish plate base and body fragment. AFG. D (base): 0.07; H: 0.026. Clay grey (5 Y 6/1); highly micaceous. Glaze matt black (2.5 Y 2.5/1). Ring base; shallow saucer. Ridged on the base. Interior, plain painted. Exterior, unpainted. Early second century.

Catalog 130. Semi-glazed bowl rim and body fragment. AEA 5-6. D (rim): 0.15; H: 0.026. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/6); highly micaceous. Decoration very dark greyish brown (10 YR 3/2). Everted rim. Interior, glazed overall. Exterior, dipped glazed from rim to below rim. Second/third quarter of the third century.

135. Kantharos base fragment. 2001.109.4. D (base): 0.06; H: 0.027. Clay light red (2.5 YR 7/6), slightly micaceous. Glaze matt red (2.5 YR 5/8). Conical foot. single horizontal ridge on the resting surface of foot and on the exterior. Plain red glazed on the exterior and interior, including underside of foot.

131. Semi-glazed bowl rim and body fragment. AAT. D (rim): 0.14; H: 0.029. Clay reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6); micaceous with tiny flecks of limestone; hard-fired.

260

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

Ephesian type lamps (Figure 33.136)

34.137

No. 136 is a discus and shoulder fragment of an Ephesian lamp, with a grey fabric and a dark grey slip. Although the decoration on the shoulder is poorly preserved, it was likely a meander-like geometric pattern. The high discus is the only criterion for dating, and this type of lamps are easily dated to the second and first centuries since they don’t offer any significant changes in shape (Howland 1958: 166; Günay-Tuluk 2003: 24–25, pl. XXVI.1 (early second century). Metropolis: Gürler 2003: 15, pl. XVI.D13 (first century); Ephesus: Gassner 1997: 253, pl. 77, H 107 (last three decades of the second century)). Ephesian type lamps have a typical grey fabric and grey slip, making it easy to recognise them by sight. Although some of the lamps from this group have a red fabric and slip, a grey fabric is much more common. The shape is in all likelihood inspired by their metal prototypes. The high nozzle has a rounded or triangular end, and the upper and lower parts of the body make an angular transition near the mid-body. A projecting ridge encircles the central discus, and the handle is placed on the shoulder (Howland 195: 166– 68). Ephesian lamps are generally dated to the second century; however, the finds from Metropolis imply that they were already in use from the second quarter of the third century and continued to be used in the late first century; they were also locally produced, to judge by the results of clay analyses (Howland 1958: 166; Metropolis: Gürler 2002: 145, no. 19 (first century)). Ephesian type lamps were widespread in western Anatolia, the Greek mainland and the islands, as well as in Cyprus.

Figure 34. Brazier attachment.

and their attachments from the British Museum were studied by M. Şahin. He reported that the examples in the British Museum were discovered in Ephesus, Mytilene, Knidos, Halicarnassus, Rhodes, Kalymnos, Athens, and in Italy, Egypt and Cyprus, which implies that the braziers were quite common in various regions in the Aegean and the Mediterranean during the Hellenistic period. He also suggested that Cnidus may have been one of the production centres (Şahin 2001: 129–30). The brazier fragment from Kadıkalesi can be compared to an example from Halicarnassus dated to the second half of the second century, with fabric and relief decoration (Şahin 2001: fig. 43 Ha 35, 101–102). Catalog

Catalog

137. Brazier attachment. H: 0.075; Width: 0.091; Th: 0.063. Clay light red (2.5 YR 6/8); micaceous with sand and limestone temper. Slip, matt and light grey (10YR 7/1). Head of a bearded satyrus: the long beard is formed by five vertical ridges, outlined with short horizontal lines; wide nose; protruding eyes and eye lid; eye brow not preserved. First half of the second century.

136. Ephesian type lamp fragment. APA. H: 0.016; Width: 0.036; Th: 0.002. Clay reddish grey (2.5 YR 5/1); micaceous. Slip matt dark reddish grey (2.5 YR 6/1). Raised discus and shoulder fragment. Relief decoration: short and curved thick band at the start of body; meander? pattern below. Brazier attachment (Figure 34.137)

Acknowledgements

In general, the braziers have a coarse fabric with sand, limestone, and mica inclusions. This shape has a central recess where the heat generated by the combustion of the fuel underneath could circulate. The sides of the braziers have three projecting plastic attachments oriented towards the interior of bowl. The pedestal has holes for air circulation. These large bowls also have handles to facilitate its transportation from one place to another. The plastic attachments of the braziers are generally relief decorated (Şahin 2001: 91). The braziers

We are grateful to Prof. Zeynep Mercangöz, the director of the excavations at Anaia, for inviting us to study the pottery presented here. Our special thanks go to the late Ertuğrul Kıraç, our PhD student at Ege University, who drew the illustrations used in this article. We are grateful to Nezih Aytaçlar who has kindly helped us in dating the Wild Goat Style pottery presented here.

261

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r 28–29). 26 of these are non-Attic, whereas 40 are actual Attic imports. Nearly all of the Attic pottery is high quality products of which the earliest is the black glazed group dated 550-525 BC. The non-Attic black glazed pottery are also of high quality, and is nearly identical with real Attic imports. Evidence for local regional workshops of Attic-style black glazed pottery are reported from Thrace and Ionia.

Conclusion Despite its fragmentary nature, these ceramics help us understand pottery trade networks during the period between the seventh and the first centuries BC. In general, Attic, Corinthian and Ionian pottery have visually distinctive fabrics, while other fabrics are not as easily associated to a specific provenience; no archeometric analysis was carried out, leaving that question unanswered. The largest part of the pottery falls into the category of Attic and Atticising imports, followed by Ionian imports. These two groups include both simple banded Ionian bowls and Attic black-glazed cups, as well as figurative Ionian (Wild Goat Style) and Attic pottery (black figure and red figure).

The Hellenistic pottery is represented by a total of 23 pots that includes Molded Bowls (Figure 30.115–124), West Slope (Figure 31.125–129), simple glazed ware (Figure 32.130–135), Ephesian Type lamp (Figure 33.136) and a brazier (Figure 34.137). All of this Archaic and later ceramic assemblage is evidently not unique to Kadıkalesi and its near environs but seemingly emphasises similar pottery preferences with those discovered in western Anatolia, such as Thrace, Troas, Aeolis and Ionia.

A rough count of the total imported pottery points in the direction of the Archaic pottery outnumbering that of the following periods. Out of the entire ceramic assemblage discovered at Kadıkalesi, 48 pottery fragments are dated to the Archaic period. 32 of these are Ionian productions: Wild Goat Style (Figure 1.1–8), Klazomenian black figure (Figure 2.9), banded plates and bowls (Figure 3.10–13), wavy-line kraters (Figure 4.14–15) and Ionian cups (Figures 5–8). The earliest datable pottery amongst this assemblage is South Ionian products dating to the third quarter of the seventh century. The earliest North Ionian ceramics at Kadıkalesi, on the other hand belongs to the first half of the sixth century which is followed by Klazomenian Balck Figure pottery of the second half the sixth century. Ionian cups were one of the most common drinking cups attested at many settlements beyond Ionia, such as in Thrace, Troas, and Aeolis, and is seemingly a major preference in the Archaic period of Kadıkalesi. Three ceramics belong to Anatolian Iron Age pottery styles, which comprise bichrome (Figure 9.33–34) and West Anatolian Lined wares (Figure 10.35) dated to the late seventh and sixth centuries.

Bibliography Akdeniz, E. 2007: ‘Kadıkalesi Miken buluntuları’ Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Dergisi 9.1: 35–70 . Akurgal, M., Kerschner, M., Mommsen H., Niemeier W.D. 2002: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien. Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes H. 3. Wien, Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut. Arribas, A., Trias, M.G., Cerda, D., De la Hoz, J. 1987: El Barco de El Sec (Calvia, Mallorca): Estudio de los materiales. Mallorca, Exm Ajuntament de Calvià Universitat de Les Illes Balears. Aytaçlar, N. 2005: Klazomenai Orientalizan Seramiği. PhD thesis, Ege University, Izmir. Ashmead, A.H., Phillips K.M. Jr., 1971: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. United States. 13. Bryn Mawr College. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Bazant, J., Bouzek J., Dufkova, M. 1990: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Tchécoslovaquie. 2. Prague, Musée National, Prague, Academia Praha. Behr, D. 1988: ‘Neue Ergebnisse zur pergamenischen Westabhangkeramik’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 38: 97– 178. Berlin, A. 2002: ‘Ilion before Alexander: A fourth century B.C. ritual deposit’ Studia Troica 12: 131–166. Berlin, A.M., Lynch, K. 2002: Going Greek: Atticizing Pottery in the Achamenid World, Studia Troica 12: 167–178. Blonde, F. 1985: ‘Un remblai thasien du IVe siècle avant notre ère’ Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 109: 281–344. Boardman, J., Hayes, J. 1966: Excavations at Tocra 1963– 1965. The Archaic Deposit 1. London, British School at Athens.

Only three examples are Corinthian (Figure 11.36–38) dated between the second half of the sixth and first quarter of the sixth century, and ten examples are Attic (Figures 12–13) imports. Thus, the majority of the Archaic imports came from both the southern and northern parts of Ionia, followed by Attic then Corinthian imports. The number of the Attic or Atticising ceramics increases during the Classical period. The main group during the Classical period is black glazed pottery, with a total of 66 pots. The shapes are widely varied: kylix (Figures 14–15), kantharos (Figure 16.62–65), cup-kantharos (Figure 17.66–68), skyphos (Figure 18. 69), cup-skyphos (Figure 19.70–75), bolsal (Figure 20.76–82), bowl (medium-sized, Figures 21–23; small-sized Figure 25.97–99), one-handled cup (Figure 24.91–96), saltcellar (Figure 26.100–102), lamp (Figure 27.103–104) and various other shapes (Figures 262

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

Boardman, J. 1967: Excavations in Chios 1952–1955. Greek Emporio. London, British School at Athens. Boardman, J., Hayes, J. 1973: Excavations at Tocra 1963– 1965, The Archaic Deposits 2 and Later Deposits. London, British School at Athens. Boitani Visentini, F. 1978: ‘Le ceramiche decorate di importazione greco-orientale di Gravisca’ Les Céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident. Naples, Publications du Centre Jean Bérard: 216–222. Bonomi, S. 1991: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Italia 65.2. Adria, Museo Archeologico Nationale. Paris. Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Borelli, L.V. 1969: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Italia 41.1. Orvieto, Museo Civico Claudio Faina. Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider. Brann, E. 1956: ‘A Well of the Corinthian Period found in Corinth’, Hesperia 25.4: 350–374. Brümmer, E. 1976: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 41.1. Hamburg, Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe. Munich, C.H. Beck. Bulut, H. 2007: Daskyleion’da Akhaemenid Satraplığı Sonu ve Hellenistik Dönem. PhD thesis, Ege University, Izmir. Bulut, H. 2009: ‘The destruction date of the Bulla archive at Daskyleion reconsidered: The evidence from the Black-Glazed Pottery’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 78: 55–67. Burow, J. 1980: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 47.3. Tübingen, Antikensammlung des Archäeologischen Instituts der Universität. Munich, C.H. Beck. Connor, P., Jackson, H. 2000: Greek Vases at the University of Melbourne. Melbourne, Macmillan. Cook, R.M., Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery. London, Routledge. Cristofani, M.M. 1978: ‘La ceramica greco-orientale in Etruria’ in Les Céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident. Naples, Publications du Centre Jean Bérard: 150–212. Dereboylu, E. 2003: ‘Daskyleion Kabartmalı Kaseleri ve Batı Yamacı Kapları Kronoloji ve Üretim Yeri Problemleri’ in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques Hellénistique et romaine, Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul : Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes: 55–63. Doğer, L. 2004: ‘Anaia-Kuşadası Kadıkalesi Kazısı 2002 yılı Bizans Dönemi seramik buluntularının ön değerlendirilmesi’ Ege Üniversitesi Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 13.1: 1–31. Doksanaltı, E. 2003: ‘Knidos Kap-Krio Hellenistik Sarnıç buluntuları’ in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul : Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes: 27–33.

Dunbabin, T.J. 1962: Perachora II: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia, Excavations of the British School at Athens 1930–1933, Pottery, Ivories, Scrabs and other objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Dupré, S. 1983: Porsuk I. La céramique de l’Age du Bronze et de l’Age du Fer. Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. Fellmann, B. 1989: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 57.11. Munich, Antikensammlungen ehemals Museum Antiker Kleinkunst, Munich, C.H. Beck. Follmann, A.B. 1971: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 34.1. Hannover, Kestner Museum, Munich, C.H. Beck. Gassner, V. 1997: Das Südtor der Tetragonos-Agora, Keramik und Kleinfunde. Forschungen in Ephesos 13.1.1, Wien, Verlag der Österreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gider Büyüközer, Z. 2014: ‘Börükçü Nekropol alanından bir Arkaik Mezar’ TÜBA-AR. Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 17: 111–128. Tuluk, G.G. 2003: ‘Ionia Bölgesindeki Hellenistik Döneme ait kandiller’ in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul : Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes: 17–25. Gürler, B. 1994: Metropolis’in Hellenistik Dönem seramiği. PhD thesis, Ege University, Izmir. Gürler, B. 2002: ‘Ephesos-Lampen aus Metropolis/ Ionien’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 71: 133–147. Gürler, B. 2003: ‘Hellenistic ceramic of Metropolis in Ionia’ in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul : Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes: 9–16. Hasdağlı, İ. 2012: ‘The Assessment of the 4th century B.C. finds from three wells uncovered at Clazomenae HBT (Hamdi Balaban Tarlası) Sector’ OLBA 20: 119– 164. Hasdağlı, İ., Zeren, M. 2012: ‘Klazomenai Kazıları Işığında Yerel Üretim Siyah Firnisli Cup-Skyphoslar Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler’ in I. Şahin (ed.), In Memoriam İsmail Fazlıoğlu Erdine: 115–124. Hasdağlı, İ. 2017: ‘Bir Deneme Parçası Işığında Doğu Thrakia’da Attika Taklidi Siyah Firnisli Seramik Üretimi’ Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 13: 42–66. Hasdağlı, İ. 2018: ‘The Black-Glazed Pottery from Klazomenai’ in R.G. Gürtekin-Demir et al. (eds), Archaic and Classical Western Anatolia: New Perspectives in Ceramic Studies In memoriam Prof. Crawford H. Greenewalt Jr. Proceedings of the Second KERAMOS International Conference at Ege University, Izmir, 3–5

263

Yasemİn Polat, R. Gül Gürteki ̇n-Demi ̇r June, 2015. Colloquia Antiqua, 19., -Leuven, Peeters: 103–129. Held, W. 2000: Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet. Milesische Forschungen Band 2, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern. Hellström, P. 1965: Pottery of Classical and Later Date, Terracotta, Lamps and Glass, Labraunda Swedish Excavations and Researches 2.1. Lund, C.W.K. Gleerup. Henrickson, R.C. 1994: ‘Continuity and discontinuity in the ceramic tradition of Gordion during the Iron Age’ A. Çilingiroğlu, in D.H. French (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 3. The Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6–12 August 1990. London, British Institute at Ankara. Hooper, R.J. 1949: ‘Addenda to ‘Necrocorinthia’ The Annual of the British School at Athens 44: 162–257. Howland, R.H. 1958: The Athenian Agora, Vol. 4, Greek Lamps and Their Survivals. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Hölscher, F. 1981: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 46.2. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, Munich, C.H. Beck. Isler, H.P. 1978: ‘Samos: La ceramica Arcaica’ in Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident. Naples, Publications du Centre Jean Bérard: 71–84. Jully, J.J. 1978: ‘Les céramiques Archaïques du sanctuaire Carien de Labraunda. Vue d’ensemble’ in Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident. Naples, Publications du Centre Jean Bérard: 31–33. Kardara, Ch. 1963: Rodiake Angeiographia. Athens. Kassab Tezgör, D. 2003: ‘La céramique fine de l’atelier A1 de Cnide’ in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul : Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes: 35–43. Kinch, K.F. 1914: Fouilles de Vroulia (Rhodes). Berlin, G. Reimer. Kossatz, A.U. 1990: Funde aus Milet, Teil 1, Die Megarischen Becher. Berlin, De Gruyter. Kunisch, N. 1971: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 33.4. Berlin, Antiquarium, Munich, C.H. Beck. Kunze-Götte, E. 1970: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 32.7. Munich, Museum Antiker Kleinkunst, Munich, C.H. Beck. Kunze-Götte, E. 1973: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. 37.8. Munich, Museum Antiker Kleinkunst, Munich, C.H. Beck. Ladstätter, S. 2003: ‘Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos, Funde und Ausstattung’ in C. Lang-Auinger (ed.), Forschungen in Ephesos, Band 8.4, Wien, Verlag der Österrreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 22–85.

Laumonier, A. 1977: Exploration archéologique de Délos 31. La céramique Hellénistique à reliefs. Ateliers Ioniens. Paris, De Boccard. Mercangöz, Z. 2007: ‘Kuşadası, Kadıkalesi Kazısı 2006 yılı çalışmaları’ 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, Ankara: 449–70. Metzger, I.R. 1969: Die hellenistische Keramik in Eretria. Eretria 2. Bern, A. Francke – Verlag AG. Metzger, H. 1972: Fouilles de Xanthos 4, Les céramiques archaiques et classiques de l’Acropole lycienne. Paris, Librairie C. Klincksieck. Metzger, I.R. 1998. ‘Keramik und Lampen’ in K. Reber (ed.) Die Klassischen und Hellenistischen Wohnhäuser im Westquartier. Eretria 10: Lausanne, Payot. Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 1991: Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, Kleinfunde, 1. Teil: Keramik hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos 9.2.2, Wien. Özer, B. 2006: Klazomenai Siyah Figür seramiği, PhD thesis, Ege University, Izmir. Paul, E. 1973: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. GDR. 2.2. Leipzig, Antikenmuseum der Karl Marx Universitat. Berlin, Akademie Verlag. Payne, H. 1971: Necrocorinthia, A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period. Maryland, McGrath. Ploug, G. 1973: Sukas 2, The Aegean, Corinthian and Eastern Greek Pottery and Terracottas. Copenhagen, Munksgaard. Polat, Y. 2009: ‘Gömeç Kızçiftliği Höyüğü ve Seramikleri’ Arkeoloji Dergisi 13.1: 81–139. Radt, W., De Luca, G. 2003: ‘Grabungen im Fundament des Pergamonaltars. Grobe Keramik-Graue Sondergruppe-Lampen’ in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul : Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes: 3–8. Rose, C.B., Tekkök, B., Körpe, R. 2007: ‘Granicus Valley survey project 2004–2005’ Studia Troica 17: 65–150. Rotroff, S.I. 1982: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls, The Athenian Agora 22. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rotroff, S.I. 1997: Hellenistic Pottery Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, The Athenian Agora 29. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rotroff, S.I., Oliver A. Jr. 2003: The Hellenistic pottery from Sardis: The finds through 1994. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Schaeffer, J.S., Ramage, N.H., Greenewalt C.H. Jr. 1997: The Corinthian, Attic and Lakonian pottery from Sardis. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Schaus, G.P. 1992: ‘Imported Anatolian pottery at Gordion’ Anatolian Studies 42: 151–77. Schlotzhauer, U., Villing, A. 2006: ‘East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research’ in

264

Imported Pottery at Kadıkalesi (Anaia): Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods

A. Villing, U. Schlotzhauer (eds), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean. London, British Museum Press: 53–68. Semeraro, G. 2003: ‘Hiérapolis de Phrygie. Les céramiques à reliefs hellénistiques et romaines’ in C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 mai 1996. Varia Anatolica 15. Istanbul : Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes: 83–90. Sparkes, B.A., Talcott, L. 1970: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries B.C., Athenian Agora 13. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Şahin, M. 2001: ‘Hellenistic braziers in the British Museum: trade contacts between ancient Mediterranean cities’ Anatolian Studies 51: 91–132. Technau, W. 1929: ‘Grieschische Keramik im Samischen Heraion’ Athenische Mitteilungen 54: 6–64. Thalmann, J.P. 1977: ‘Ceramique trouvée à Amathonte’ in E. Gejerstad (ed.), Greek Geometric and Archaic pottery found in Cyprus. Lund, Swedish Institute in Athens: 65–84. Touchefeu-Meynier, O. 1969: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France. 24. Limoges and Vannes, Musée Adrien Dubouché et Musée De La Société Polymathique. Paris, Champion. Tuna-Nörling, Y. 1999: Daskyleion 1. Die Attische keramik. Arkeoloji Dergisi 6, Izmir, Ege Universitesi Fakültesi.

Tunuz, Y. 1993: Daskyleion Daldırma Firnisli Seramiği, Senior dissertation, Ege University, Izmir. Ure, P.N. 1934: Aryballoi and Figurines from Rhitsona in Boeotia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Utili, F. 1999: Die Archaische nekropole von Assos. Bonn, Habelt. Uzun, K. 2007: Klazomenai Dalgalı Çizgi Bezekli Seramiği, Master of Arts dissertation, Ege University, Izmir. Venit, S.M. 1988: Greek painted pottery from Naukratis in Egyptian Museums. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. Villard, F., Vallet, G. 1955: ‘Megara Hyblaea, lampes du 7e siècle et chronologie des coupes Ioniennes’ Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’histoire 65: 7–34. Vos, M.F. 1978: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Netherlands. 4.2. Leiden, Rijksmuseum Van Oudheden, Leiden, Brill. Walter, H. 1968: Frühe samische Gefässe:Chronologie und Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefässe. Samos 5. Bonn, Habelt. Walter-Karydi, E. 1973: Samische Gefässe des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefässe, Samos 6.1. Bonn, Habelt. Walter-Karydi, E. 1982: Ostgriechische Keramik, Alt-Ägina 2.1. Munich, Philipp von Zabern. Weinberg, S.S. 1943: The Geometric and Orientalizing Pottery, Corinth 7.1. Cambridge MA, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Zunal, O. 2005: Antandros İonia kaseleri, Master of Arts dissertation, Ege University, Izmir.

265

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n1, Şengül G. Aydingün2 Abstract12 Between 2007 and 2017, new multidisciplinary surveys of Silivri, Çatalca, Büyükçekmece, Beylikdüzü, Küçükçekmece and Avcılar-Firuzköy revealed new archaeological data to illuminate the Hellenistic and Roman periods. These surveys contributed to the exploration of the region’s settlement patterns and interregional relations during the ancient periods. Located at the crossroads of the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and northern Thrace, the region comes to the fore with amphora finds indicating the presence of intensive maritime trade. However, Hellenistic pottery (3rd-1st centuries BC), which constitutes an important group of finds in the surface survey, will be emphasised in this work. The forms of various table vessels, mostly black glazed, western slope and mouldmade wares are associated with western Anatolia, Greece and Thrace. The production techniques give information about the social and economic identity of the pottery in the region and processes of change in this identity. Current trends in the production of Hellenistic pottery will be examined through a comprehensive approach to cultural relations through the distribution of regions and imported samples. Keywords ISTANBUL, HELLENISTIC PERIOD, POTTERY, PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES, TYPOLOGY.

Introduction The Istanbul Prehistoric Research Project took place in Silivri, Çatalca, Büyükçekmece, Beylikdüzü, Küçükçekmece and Avcılar-Firuzköy districts of İstanbul in 2007-2017 by participating representatives from Ministry of Culture and Tourism and scientists from Kocaeli, İstanbul, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart, Trakya, Sinop, Bristol (England), Strazburg (Switzerland), La Hey (The Netherlands), Doğu Akdeniz (Northern Cyprus Turkish Republic) and Madrid Aoutonomo (Spain) Universities. Due to rapidly growing urban development, determining and documenting archaeological cultural properties had a great importance. Therefore, since 2007, data has been collected to illuminate the region’s long term history with the help of inclusive surveys.3 Asst. Prof., Sinop University, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected] 2  Prof. Dr. Kocaeli University, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected] 3  For annual field reports: Aydıngün, Öniz 2008; Aydıngün 2009a; Aydıngün 2009b; Aydıngün 2009c; Aydıngün 2010; Aydıngün et al. 2010; Aydıngün 2013; and also Aydıngün 2017; for archaeological excavations reports: Aydıngün et al. 2011; Aydıngün, Bilgili 2015; 1 

The Hellenistic pottery that was found in the densely surveyed areas during the İstanbul Prehistoric Survey Project (ITA), which aims to contribute to filling the big gaps in İstanbul’s prehistoric chronology, is the subject of this research. All the pottery finds from the Hellenistic period that were documented throughout the research are evaluated. But in this study few photos and drawings are included. Even though pottery forms the densest one among the finds groups, terracotta figurines, glasses and metal objects as well as coins were also discovered. Our primary aim is to document the typology and distribution of Hellenistic pottery in the region; besides this to explain local and regional connections. Explaining local material culture, possible transportation networks, trade operations and sociocultural structures in the Hellenistic Period in Anatolian Thrace form a focus. The research area is not only located on an east-west direction land route but also at an intersection point of a north-south direction sea route (Map 1). Owing to its location, connecting two continents, it contributed to mankind’s cultural transmission from prehistoric times to the modern day (Aydıngün 2015: 24-26; and also Aydıngün, Aydıngün 2013). Thrace, which can be reached by passing the Bosporus from the Anatolian coast, is the region that enables the easiest transition from Asia to Europe because it was not divided by natural obstacles. The Istanbul region of Thrace is suitable for agriculture and farming, and also rich in water resources; its rich diversity of water and land animals have ensured its selection for occupation by humankind for hundreds of thousands of years. Typology and chronology Even though the Hellenistic pottery that is to be found in Thrace Region is known thanks to various archaeological surveys and excavations up to the present day,4 data concerning finds from the western and also Öniz et al. 2015. An update list of survey and excavations publications is maintained on the bibliography page of the website: (accessed on 06/06/2022). 4  For the general information about that Hellenistic Period field studies: Ainos: Erzen 1974: 218–9, figs. 13–14; Başaran 2003; Heraion Teichos: Atik 2003; Atik, Işın 2005; Koçel Erdem 2009; Thracian Chersonese: Koçel Erdem, Bülbül 2020: 575–81; Menekşe Çatağı: Turan 2006; and also from Bulgarian sites: Božkova 2002; Božkova 2005: 46–50; Božkova 2012; Božkova 2014; Božkova 2015; Božkova, Kiyashkina 2016; Božkova 2017; Chichikova 1984: 31–53 and 65–81; Varbanov 2012; Ivanov 1963: 156–7; Except that studies carried out in Tomis: Bucovală 1969; and Histria: Domăneaţu 2000.

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 266–298

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Map 1. The geographical location of the survey area of western Istanbul in the Mediterranean (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

the rim is a carefully drawn design of two reversing palmettes with scrolled tendrils. These fragments were recovered in the Çatalca İnceğiz region. It is possible to date fragments found in almost all important settlements of the Thrace and Black Sea regions back to the first half and third quarter of the sixth century BC on the basis of close similarities (For Ionian banded ware and black figure finds from Thrace and Macedonia: Bouzek 1990; Nedev, Panayotova 2003; Preshlenov 2003; Lambrino 1938; Alexandrescu 1978; Başaran et al. 2010: 118; Öncü 2014: 143, fig. 3).

part of Istanbul are quite sparse. While evaluated samples are scarce in proportion to Roman and Late Roman-Early Byzantine finds, they help in the identification of pottery wares from the western coast of Istanbul in the Hellenistic period between the late fourth century BC and early first century AD. Besides, amphora finds that provide information about trade connections in eastern Thrace and archaeologically demonstrate a certain level of shipping constitute an important find group (Kara 2016). The earliest finds from the Archaic period in the survey carried out in the western side of Istanbul are limited to two examples. The first belongs to a closed body fragment (Figure 1, No. 1). The upper part of the ovoid form is decorated with bands. This fragment with a badge motif formed with unconnected dots between bands is known from northern Ionian workshops (Cook, Dupont 1998: 28, fig. 6.2; Hürmüzlü 2003: 328, fig. 56, no. 217/9 and fig. 54, no. 214/2; and also Utili 1999: 148-9, fig. 2, nos. 15-19). The second example belongs to the rim of a black-figure crater (Figure 1, No. 2 a-b). On the outside, the rim is decorated with black lines (Blair Brownlee 1989: 371-372, pl. 61, nos. 54 and 57). Under

In the survey of the area, the rate of Hellenistic finds is about 30%. The pottery finds comprise the main groups of Hellenistic black glazed and semi-glazed ware, west slope ware, mouldmade ware known as Megarian bowls as well as grey ware. These materials can be divided into two categories: open forms, such as bowls, kantharoi, skyphoi, plates and dishes; closed forms such as jugs which date from the third and first centuries BC. The most common forms are drinking vessels. Also used for cooking, transportation and storage, various examples of coarse ware and amphorae were discovered. Pottery groups that have distinctive characteristics in the sense 267

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 1. Fragments of closed vessel with banded decoration and black-figured crater (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

of forms and decorations consisted of local samples which were popularly produced and used in Attica in the Hellenistic Period. Pottery that provides valuable data for analysing the social continuum reflects the general features of the Hellenistic tradition.

skyphos and plate fragments. Additional finds are a shallow or globular body, ring base and handle fragments belonging to these types of vessels. Because of their simple and practical shape echinus bowls are the most widespread form in eastern Thrace. There are bowl fragments, wide or small sized, with an incurved rim with a sharp angle; or in some cases, various types of hemispherical bodies with incurved rims (Rotroff 1997: 156 and 161). The fabric is fine and usually pink (7.5YR 7/4; 5YR 7/4) and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6, 7/6; and 7.5YR 6/6, 7/6), light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), or light red (2.5YR 6/6) with a small amount of mica and

The most common group of finds is black glazed vessels. This group, which was especially produced in the workshops of Attica, Macedonia and western Anatolia, is found in all centres that were examined during the surveys. Examples of this ware include a different type of echinus bowl with incurved rim, cup, dish, kantharos, 268

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

a little sand inclusions. It has a smoothed surface. The glaze is usually black, and sometimes has a slight sheen. Sometimes the lower part of the vessel is not always glazed. While vessels were mostly entirely covered with black glaze in early samples, some samples with slip on interior of the vessel or on exterior rims started to be densely produced towards the end of the Hellenistic period. Many fragments with similar shapes having the same fabric and glaze features suggest local production. Some fragments are decorated with incision, usually horizontal or wavy lines, stamped and grooved. Similar fragments of the Hellenistic period were found in many settlements of Thrace and Macedonia along with Attica that were in use from the second half of the fourth to the second centuries BC (Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 111-21, pls. 27-28; Kotitsa 2013: 67, fig. 1; Božkova 2002: 15357, figs. 144-47; Kallini 2012; Drougou 2012a; Drougou 2012b; and Egorova 2016).

west slope ware are made from pink (7.5YR 7/4; and 5YR 7/4) and reddish yellow (5YR 6/6, 7/6; and 7.5YR 6/6, 7/6) fabric with plenty of lime. Fabric and glaze quality to those of the west slope ware are similar to the black glazed pottery. Some open shapes of the west slope ware show a black glaze and are decorated with floral motifs in white or beige colours on a black glaze surface. The incision was also used on the surface. Some of these local versions faithfully duplicate import features. Almost all of the vessels were used for food and beverages throughout the Hellenistic period. These wares were apparently common there along with the products of other Thracian, Macedonian and western Anatolian workshops. The samples of the vessels that have this technique and decoration were in use during the late fourth-second centuries BC and are found from the settlements of Thrace (Božkova 2012; Damyanov 2017: 88, fig. 10; Božkova 2014: 211-13, fig. 32).

West slope ware comprises one of the main groups of Hellenistic tableware in the western Istanbul survey. Some small rim fragments of west slope ware related to small kantharoi, skyphoi, amphorae and craters were found in the survey areas. The fragments of

Mouldmade bowl fragments are represented by an intensive group of finds of Hellenistic table ware. Hellenistic mouldmade bowls, which once imitated precious metal bowls, are luxury tablewares (Rotroff 1982: 87-92). The most distinct vessel form of the

Figure 2. The view of the Selimpaşa mound (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

269

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Map 2. Map of surveyed sites in 2016 (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

Hellenistic Period has a moulded hemispherical deep body and rim slightly outturned. The mouldmade bowls that show close similarities with Attic samples from the late third century BC have reliefs on their bodies which have highly decorative figures and motifs (Rotroff 1982). These are subsumed under two groups, floral or figural decorated bowls. The bowls do not have foot or handle. According to the present evidence Megarian bowls are found at Ephesus (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 69, pl. 76; Dereboylu 2001: 21-44, pls. 9-23), Pergamon (Schäfer 1968: 64-100, figs. 12 and 19-20), Macedonia (Drougou 2012b; Anderson-Stojanović 1992: 29-35, pls. 155-58, nos. 106-46; Adam-Veleni  1990; Drougou, Touratsoglou 2012; Akamatēs 1993; Karadima 1997; Rotroff 2010), Thrace and the Black Sea area (cf. Bouzek 1990: 62-85, fig. 25; Domăneanţu 2000: 119-22, and 14446; Guldager Bilde 1993; and also Guldager Bilde 2010) and were commonly used throughout the second-first centuries BC. The main decorations on these vessels consist of imbricate, acanthus, long petals, raised dots, pinecones and figural motifs. The four most common motifs displayed on the rim were rosette, egg and dart, heart and ovolo. These vessels were made of grey (5YR 5/1, 6/1; 7.5YR 5/1), red (2.5YR 5/6), or pink (7.5YR 7/4) fabric with inclusions of lime. The fabric is hard and thin paste.

The most common form of grey ware is the plate of varying type. The most characteristic feature is black (7.5YR 2.5/1) or dark grey (7.5YR 4/1) slip, decorated with rouletting and palmettes on the floor of the vessels. Grey ware generally exhibits a hard, thin paste with sand and lime inclusions. Grey ware is known from a large number of production centres in western Anatolia, especially, import of grey ware is increasingly widespread in Macedonia after 150 BC, and this ware bridged the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (Anderson-Stojanović 1992: 13-19, pls. 4-5). Selimpaşa During the surveys of the Thracian region of Istanbul, Selimpaşa mound, which is situated within the borders of Silivri district, 55km away from Istanbul city centre (Eminönü), was studied (Aydıngün 2017: 373; Aydıngün et al. 2014a; Aydıngün et al. 2010; Heyd et al. 2010). The mound, which is situated in an environmentally protected zone, covers an area of 300x140 m dimensions (that is 42,000m2) (Aydıngün et al. 2014: 47; Heyd et al. 2010). The mound, oriented from north to south, stands out as a ridge on the western side of the spot where Kavaklıdere reaches the Sea of Marmara (Map 2). The mound has two levels, the hill and base. The highest peak 270

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 3. Fragments of tablewares from Selimpaşa mound (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

flows into the Sea of Marmara. This suggests that the area was chosen deliberately to facilitate prehistoric sea trade (Aydıngün et al. 2014a: 48). The earliest pottery fragments that were collected on the surface of the mound are belong to the Late Chalcolithic and the latest ones to the Hellenistic-Roman periods (Aydıngün et al. 2014a: 48; Aydıngün, Bilgili 2015: 374; Aydıngün 2017: 373-374).

today is 15m above sea level decreasing to 5m to the west with a gentle slope (Figure 2). Geophysical results (Heyd et al. 2010) indicate that it may have a settlement profile that with Early Bronze Age features, like up and down settlements surrounded with a 2m high fortification or defensive stone wall running toward Kavaklıdere where its top joined the sea on the east side (a useful survey of works on this site: Aydıngün et al. 2014a: 48, footnote 5-6; Heyd et al. 2010). The mound is crucial because it could be the last large mound remaining to the west of Istanbul, on Thracian side. The settlement at Selimpaşa was found open to the sea and also near a river which

Among the Hellenistic finds, black glazed and semiglazed bowls with incurving rim, plates with offset rim, and dishes with a thickened rim are the most frequently 271

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün dated to the last quarter of the first century BC to mid first century AD. According to the collected materials, it can be understood that the settlement was abandoned in the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age; after being settled for a short time in the Hellenistic or Roman periods or else used for maritime activities it was abandoned again. Selimpaşa mound may be supposed to have held an important role between regions with its location providing a link from southeastern Europe and Thrace to other territories, along with maritime activities related to trade between Black Sea and Aegean Sea through the Bosphorus. Even Selymbria (Silivri), one of the more important colonial cities of the Classical and Hellenistic periods, turned into a smaller settlement dependent on Byzantion (by any chance Perinthos) in the Roman imperial period and lost its urban features.

Figure 4. A rim fragment of a bowl from Selimpaşa mound (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

encountered forms (Figure 3, Nos. 1-13). Such ring base fragments of bowls are common. Also body fragments of open vessels can be attributed to this group. The common fabric colours in these fragments are light red (2.5YR 6/6), light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) and pink (5YR 7/4). The fabric is largely rounded lime, with sand inclusions and hardly fired. They have hard and nonporous structure. While black glaze can be seen on the interior and exterior of most of the open vessels, only on the exterior rim and interior part of it may reddishblack mottled and reddish brown slip appear (Figure 3, Nos. 9-13). Brownish slipped fragments are present, too. This tradition is also seen uninterruptedly in the transitional stage to terra sigillata production. Similar examples are also evaluated among pottery dating back to the third-first centuries BC.5 The rim diameter of incurved rim bowl forms varies between 10 to 20.6cm (Figure 4). The technique of west slope ware, which is suitable for ornamenting small tablewares, and features floral motifs with white or red paint and incision, was applied to a rim fragment of a skyphos (Figure 3, No. 14). This fragment has a white paint horizontal ivy leaf motif bordered from lower and upper sides with a horizontal incised line just below the rim. The fabric is hard and non-porous with lime inclusions, pink (5YR 7/4) coloured. But for closed vessels decorations are generally located on the upper parts of vessel bodies. A vertical handle of closed grey ware may belong to domestic deposits from the site (Figure 3, No. 15). There is thin black glaze on the outside. Its fabric is grey (7.5YR 5/1) and there are some lime inclusions. The upper surface is covered with thin black glaze. It can be

Çatalca-İnceğiz The research was conducted in 2011 within the scope of the Istanbul Prehistoric Surveys (ITA) at the nearby village of İnceğiz (Map 2), 70 km west of Istanbul and 9 km northwest of Çatalca (Aydıngün 2017: 375; Aydıngün, Aydıngün 2013: 71; Aydıngün et al. 2014b: 2223; Aydıngün et al. 2015b: 419-426, figs. 1-18; Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 116-125, figs. 1-20). The man-made, threestory Byzantine monastic caves and rock-cut churches, which are close to İnceğiz village, were located in a deep valley formed by the Karasu stream and have been known by the scientific world since the 1950s (Aydıngün et al. 2015b: 425-426, fig. 13-15). Dirimtekin reports that the İnceğiz cave monastery and the rock church system were used from the fourth century to the 14th century AD (Dirimtekin 1957). In addition, a residential area belonging to an ancient settlement, a necropolis, an ancient road, waterways and water resources, dated to the third century BC and the fifth century AD were found in the İnceğiz/Maltepe sites in 1992-1995 by the Directorate of Istanbul Archeology Museum. They were located at the hilltop of the İnceğiz rock-cut cave system, on a level named Maltepe which is oriented in a north-south direction. However, only the southern part of Maltepe was excavated (Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 116; Pasinli et al. 1994; Pasinli et al. 1995; Pasinli et al. 1996; Pasinli et al. 1997). Thanks to these studies, we may understand that the Maltepe site was a Thracian village or town which had close commercial relations with Byzantion and Perinhos where an Aphrodite cult was found (Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 116; Pasinli et al. 1995: 349). According to Pasinli, the settlers of the ancient village in Maltepe could have started to utilise the caves below as new settlements with their conversion to Christianity after the fourth century (Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 116; Pasinli et al. 1995: 349). In order to clarify whether there were traces related to earlier periods,

5  The most similar examples are echinus bowl vessels found in the Athenian Agora excavations, which represent an important archaeological basis, becoming popular in second half of the third century BC with a change in their form: Rotroff 1977: 163, fig. 63, pl. 76, nos. 993–1000. It is dated 325–275 BC. In addition, this form is well known through very close examples coming from the Northern Black Sea, Macedonia and Thrace region: Atik 2003: 301; Başaran 2003; Tolstikov, Žuravlev 2004: 269, pl. 93, no. 17; and also Başaran et al. 2010: 118–31; Kallini 2012: 162, fig. 1a.

272

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 5. General view of the archaeological site of Çatalca-İnceğiz (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

Figure 6. Drawing of Thracian cult pit in Çatalca-İnceğiz (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

273

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 7. Thracian cult pit in Çatalca-İnceğiz (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

the scientific committee of the Istanbul Prehistoric Research Project decided that the area should be resurveyed after a twenty year gap. Above the upper part of the İnceğiz cave system, two deep well-like shafts not previously mentioned by museum publications were found in the Maltepe plain area lying north-south during surface survey (Figure 5). According to the 1994 research in the Museum publications, the existence of a quite narrow water channel was mentioned flowing in the direction of the settlement as its northwestern terminal; it was also stated that this channel probably led to cisterns (Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 117-118; Pasinli et al. 1996: 208-209). From this perspective, an attempt was made to evaluate whether the above mentioned wells were cisterns or other structures built for different objectives. Following the research, the structures were defined as ‘Thracian cult caves’ and were welldocumented after having been investigated in detail (Figure 6) (Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 117-118, figs. 3-5, draw. 1; Aydıngün et al. 2015b: 420-421, figs. 4-6).

north, south, east and west suggests that this structure began to be carved out not haphazardly but in an attentive and well-planned way (Figure 7) (Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 117-118; draw. 1; figs. 4-5; Aydıngün et al. 2015b: 420-421, figs. 4-6). The pyramidal well is about 8m deep; a parallel example may be found in Bulgaria (Fol 1998; Aydıngün et al. 2015b: 421; Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 118). Among the material excavated and piled just near the well top, which belonged to the soil layer dispersed by illegal diggers, some pottery fragments dated from third century BC to first century BC. Moreover, a substantial quantity of burnt animal (dog, sheep and horse) bones and a number of human bones were seen in the soil layers inside the pyramidal well. This data suggests that the site was used for cremation, following which they cast broken utensils and animal bones as offerings into the well after executing cults and sacrificial rituals near to the pyramidal carved well top. This data also clarifies the existence of Thracian/ Phrygian peoples in the region. It is understood that the pyramidal pit was used even in the Hellenistic and Roman periods after the Iron Age with lekythoi, skyphoi, kantharoi, mouldmade bowls and amphorae, which were scattered by illegal diggers, high quality and

It was seen that the entrance of one of the wells is an extra regular square with sides 230x230cm. Besides being a man-made entrance, that its corners point 274

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 8. Fragments of tablewares from Çatalca-İnceğiz (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

275

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 9. Fragments of tablewares from Çatalca-İnceğiz (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

276

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 10. Fragments of tablewares from Çatalca-İnceğiz (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

277

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün expensive pottery fragments for their time (Aydıngün et al. 2015c: 121, figs. 10-12; Aydıngün 2017: 375, figs. 10-12). When the Çatalca İnceğiz valley is evaluated alongside the hand carved underground cave/well/ cistern systems in Maltepe hill and the monastic caves inside the valley, it would not be wrong to think the region was settled considerably earlier than previously thought, because of its easy to carve soft lime geological structure, temperate climate, surrounding convenient topsoil, and well-secluded and safe location. According to the findings of the ITA project scientific committee, the region was particularly selected and used for both cult and domestic purposes from the beginning of the third millennium BC to the mid-12th century.

handles, a high ring base with stamped decoration and body fragments of kantharoi, skyphoi and bowls were found (Figures 8-10, Nos. 11-25, 37-41). Pink or light red fabric is of thin paste and fairly hard. Closely similar black glazed examples from the necropolis of Apollonia are dated to the late fourth-early third centuries BC (Damyanov 2015: 27-28, figs. 8/1-2 and 9/1-2, Type VI). The black-glazed lid is finished by a knob above a raised dome; the edge and the interior of the lid are reserved (Figure 9, No. 42). A similar black glazed lid from the Athenian Agora is dated 300-250 BC (Rotroff 1997: 361, fig. 75, pl. 90, no. 1227). The Hellenistic tradition of mouldmade bowls represents the most important group of survey finds (Figure 9, Nos. 45-50; Figure 11, Nos. 46 and 48). These vessels were decorated with mainly floral and vegetal motifs in the middle zone. Their qualities of decoration were made in carelessly impressed motifs. The types found at Çatalca are of two decorative styles: pinecone or floral. Two fragments of a bowl (Figure 9, Nos. 48-49; Figure 11, No. 48) are decorated with nodules imitating a pinecone (cf. Kolia 2011: 53, fig. 8, no. AMA 2224; Rotroff 1982: 16, pls. 1-2, nos. 1-8). Some relief vegetal patterns of rays are set vertically from the bottom of the bowl (Figure 9, No. 45). Refined fabric is pink (5YR 7/4), grey (5YR 6/1), reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), and dark grey (5YR 4/1) coloured with limestone and mica inclusions. Black (5YR 2.5/1), very dark grey (7.5YR 3/1) or red (2.5YR 5/6, 4/6) slip of smoothed surface covered these vessels. We have seen the use of west slope decoration on Hellenistic tableware vessels (Figure 9, Nos. 51-58). The use of west slope style decoration seems very simple and uniform on most examples and mainly consists of garlands and rows of dots (Figure 9, nos. 53-57; Figure 11, nos. 52-53). Open forms with vertical rims and globular body were mostly used for drinking. The fragment is decorated on the rim with a garland of leaves, painted alternately in white. Very pale brown (10YR 7/3) fabric is hard, fine with some lime inclusions. The Slip is black (10YR 2/1) with metallic shine on the outside. Two fragments belong to open forms, probably a plate with offset rim and ivy leaf decoration (Figure 9, Nos. 55-57) (Similar decoration: Božkova 2012: 30, fig. 2.1 (from Nesebar); 32, fig. 4.1 (from Varna); and also 34, fig. 6.2 (from Nesebar); and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 51, pl. 50, no. B 105). A fragment belonging to the upper part of the body has an incised horizontal line between garlands of leaves painted in white (Figure 9, No. 55) It is striking that the olive garland on the closed form body fragment is painted rather carelessly (Figures 9 and 11, No. 53) (cf. Rotroff 1991: 83-85, pl. 32, no. 69). In these technically quickly made or pressed ornaments, the dye on the leaves is partly thick. These fragments of the type were found in the survey area, all belonging to the eastern Mediterranean and dated to the third-second centuries BC. In Dacia, similar west slope cups, kantharoi and skyphoi are decorated painted, incised and polished

Local versions of Attic vessels with black glazed and semi-glazed and also local eastern sigillata fragments were found in İnceğiz region (Similar fragments were also found in Thrace: Bouzek 1990; Božkova 1994; Božkova 1997; Božkova 2012; Tonkova 2017). Among them there are fragments of small cups, hemispherical bowls with incurved rim, shallow bowls, plates with outturned rim, dishes, skyphoi, kantharoi and lagynoi (Figures 8-9, Nos. 1-43; and Figs. 10-11, Nos. 10-41). Generally bowl fragments have incurved rim, rounded simple lip with hemispherical shape and high flaring ring base (Figure 8, Nos. 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11). Shallow open bowls with different shapes are known from the fourth century BC through to the beginning of the first century BC from the Athenian form (Rotroff 1997: 161164, figs. 62-64, pls. 75-78, nos. 965-1044). The fabric is pink (7.5YR 7/4) with a red (2.5YR 5/6) slip. Some black glazed plates display an outturned rim and flat conical body (Figure 8, No. 6). This form is well known from nearly everywhere in the Mediterranean. Some skyphoi have hemispherical body and low, vertical upper walls (a similar squat cylindrical skyphos comes from the excavations of the necropolis in 2008, Nesebar Museum: Božkova 2014: 211, fig. 31). They have a strap handle folded in the upper part (Figures 8-10, No. 10 and also Nos. 35-36). This form was quite popular in Mesambria and the northwestern Black Sea coast (Božkova 2014: 211; similar handle form: Popescu 2013: 97, pl. 1, no. 2; and also Lungu, Trohani 2000: 154, pl. 6, no. 27a-b). Through similar examples in northwestern Thrace it may be dated to the middle of the second to the early first century BC. They are of hard, fine, slightly micaceous fabric with light red (2.5YR 6/8) colour. Semiglaze covered all surfaces. The kantharoi with fairly horizontal handles have different sizes. Typologically similar examples from Bulgaria are dated to the third century BC (Božkova 1997: 9, fig. 2, type I.1). Some nearly horizontal, sometimes slightly rising kantharos handle fragments were found (Figure 9, Nos. 26-34). A vessel from Pydna with a similar handle profile is dated 320-300 BC (Kotitsa 2013: 67-68, fig. 1; and also Sparkes, Talcott 1970: 17). During the archaeological survey the 278

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 11. Fragments of tablewares from Çatalca-İnceğiz (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

279

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 12. General view of the northwest part of the Istanbul Küçükçekmece Lake Basin (Bathonea) (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

(Popescu 2013: 97 and 238, pl. 28, nos. 1 and 3). A grey ware base of a plate is in three fragments (Figures 9 and 11, No. 63). Base fragment is preserved ring base and sloping profile (cf. Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991: 84, pl. 98, no. F44). The floor of the plate is decorated with palmettes stamped around very fine rouletting. It is of fine, light grey fabric (10YR 6/1) with small lime and sand inclusions. This example has black (7.5YR 2.5/1) glaze on its interior surface. Early eastern sigillata forms, which are very common in Hellenistic centres, are also among the finds. A dish rim, whose body is quite shallow (Figure 8, No. 12), base fragments (Figure 8, Nos. 24-25) and also lagynoi with long, tubular neck and molded lip were found (Figure 10, No. 43).

season survey: Aydıngün 2007: 11-23). The earliest finds were discovered in the Firuzköy Peninsula which is situated on the Avcılar border of the Lake Küçükçekmece basin, at the western end of the lake and projecting into the middle of the lake. On the other hand, during the surveys around Lake Küçükçekmece, many architectural pieces and pottery from Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman periods were found (Aydıngün 2009a: 414). Firuzköy Peninsula is 4x170 km wide, projecting like a spit southwest from the mainland, between the River Sazlıdere, whose ancient name is Bathinias (for Bathinias: Aydıngün 2013: 51), to the northeast which flows in front of Yarımburgaz Cave and empties into the lake; and the River Eskinoz which connects to the lake from the northwest (Figure 12) (For summaries of the history of survey and excavations in Yarımburgaz: Aydıngün, Bilgili 2015: 375). Scattered pottery fragments from the soil, which were discarded from two dikes made by plantation owners in order to water their orchards about 100 m above the connection point of River Eskinoz and the lake at the Firuzköy site of Avcılar, provided very interesting data about Hellenistic pottery along with prehistoric finds around Küçükçekmece (Aydıngün 2009b: 260). Moreover, architectural pieces and pottery were also found in different places during the surveys around Lake Küçükçekmece (Aydıngün 2009a: 414). While research and excavations continue

Avcılar-Firuzköy Lake Küçükçekmece and its vicinity, where archaeological remains may be encountered scattered in many different spots, was the first research area of the surveys (Map 2) started in the years 2007-2008 (Aydıngün 2009a: 411). Archaeological data has begun to reveal that there have been settlements beginning from very early times in Lake Küçükçekmece basin, which is separated from the Sea of Marmara by a narrow coastal strip; first surveys then excavations were undertaken, considering the lake basin has the required properties that mankind has prioritised for settlement since earliest times (for results of the first 280

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 13. Excavation areas of Lake Küçükçekmece basin (Bathonea) (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

281

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 14. The small harbour at Lake Küçükçekmece basin (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

in three zones on Firuzköy Peninsula (Figure 12), surveys also continue at the Great Harbour (Büyük Liman) and its vicinity. Excavations of the Small Harbour (Küçük Liman) ruins, ancient roads, agora and apsidal building designated the I. Zone also took place (Figure 13) (For a general overview of the structure: Aydıngün, Bilgili 2015: 377; Aydıngün 2013: 44-45). As a result of the excavations, the remains of the harbour and walls extending parallel to the sea shore, and also the room-like structures adjacent to the harbour wall are also clearly understood (Aydıngün 2013: 42). According to the finds, the road named Small Harbour road, indicated as being in use from the Early Roman period, is connected with a pool sized 5x7m which can be dated back to the Hellenistic or Early Roman periods (Figure 14). An apsidal ruined building was unearthed by excavations which were initiated due to some ruins being sighted on the surface, in the upper zone of the Small Harbour. Large stone blocks with dovetail clamps that form the base of an apse indicate that an earlier Hellenistic structure might be found. The relevant blocks seem like they belonged to a Hellenistic exedra because of their dovetail clamp structure. The exedra was probably used as a water container/fountain/pool (?). It is estimated that the water channel, which was detected in the 2012 excavation season and examined by ASPEG, provided clean water for the exedra. The reopened tunnels are thought to have drawn water away from the exedra because the original water tunnels were

filled with soil and rubble over time. The exedra, which is understood to have been abandoned for a while after Hellenistic Period, was used as the base of the apse of a large basilica in Late Antique Period. The oldest find group from the I. Zone comes from the lower levels of the apse structure. Finds of Early Hittite statuettes and pottery fragments, which can be dated to the first half of the second millennium BC, are important in providing data on a phase of historical gaps in the chronology of Istanbul (Aydıngün, Bilgili 2015: 383, figs. 12-14). The excavation zone on the northernmost part of the eastern coast of Firuzköy Peninsula is called II. Zone (Figure 15). As a result of the 2013 surveys, research has been conducted in this zone, on the big cistern, castle, ‘columnar building’ and their surroundings. III. Zone is situated in the southernmost part of Firuzköy Peninsula. Ruins belonging to 1.5m wide terrace walls, which are thought to be from the Hellenistic or Early Roman periods, made of gathered spolia cut stones are found in the zone at the edge of the peninsula named the Great Harbour (Figure 16) (for a recent brief discussion of site: Aydıngün 2013: 41-53). Some ruins probably belonged to a lighthouse structure; the harbour and the stone piers have been found toward the shores of Lake Küçükçekmece during surface surveys and underwater research since 2007 (Aydıngün 2017: 376, footnote 17). We presume that it must have been used when trade was not very active in the Küçükçekmece harbours, but was used for unloading goods or providing a berth 282

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 15. Excavation area of II. Zone at Lake Küçükçekmece basin (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

Figure 16. The great harbour at Lake Küçükçekmece basin (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

283

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 17. Amphora finds from excavation area of II. Zone in Istanbul Küçükçekmece Lake Basin (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

and shelter in very stormy weather. It must have held the position of being the first or the last harbour that sailors making long-distance voyages passed while traveling to or from Constantinople (Aydıngün 2009b: 261). Recent studies indicate that Küçükçekmece was an important remote regional trade harbour which was well known for thousands of years thanks to finds such as small objects, figurines, coins, pottery and amphorae found in each of the three excavation areas (Figure 17) (Kuruçayırlı et al. 2015: 219-220, fig.11). It revealed the existence of an active sea trade business done between the Black Sea and many ancient centres from west to east of Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italia, Sicily, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Phoenicia, Syria, Aegean Islands) particularly between the fifth century BC to seventh century AD (Aydıngün 2017: 375).

Type II, pl. 14-15, nos. 53-56; 68-69, pls. 31-32, nos. 122-126). In particular incurving rim, high ring base and body fragments are mostly associated with types of bowls, dishes or kantharoi for drinking liquids and serving food (Figure 18, Nos. 26-36). There are no significant differences from these fragments and black glazed finds from the other survey areas. The very fine fabric is reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) and pink (5YR 7/4; 7.5YR 7/4) with a red (2.5YR 5/6) or black (7.5YR 2.5/1) glaze. There are also considerable finds of mouldmade bowls (Figure 19, Nos. 50-52). Hellenistic mouldmade bowl shapes with a hemispherical body and a concave neck were very popular, especially in Macedonia, but also in drinking vessels of the Ionian type. The most common bowls have thin walled and incurved rims. They were decorated with floral and vegetal motifs. Additionally among these bowls have Lesbian kymation or rosettes (Figure 19, Nos. 50 and 52) horizontally decorating the upper rim section (cf. Rogl 2014: 133, figs. 3, type 1, and

Some of the black glazed and semi-glazed fine ware fragments are related to open forms (Figure 18, Nos. 1-25). Survey finds have very similar fabric and surface treatment to Menekşe Çatağı Hoyuk (Turan 2006: 32, 284

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 18. Fragments of tablewares from Lake Küçükçekmece basin (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

fig. 14; and also 122, fig. 3, type 2). These bowl groups are dated up to the end of the second century BC. The majority of grey ware fragments include different parts of vessels, such as rims, bases, and bodies of fine tableware (Figure 19, Nos. 37-49). Among grey ware fragments we can distinguish some plates with roulette band decoration (Figure 19, No. 47). In addition, there are various sizes of grey ware dishes and bowls with plain surfaces. The exterior surfaces of these forms that could be found commonly in western Anatolia and the Black Sea in the Late Hellenistic period are completely

covered with thin black slip (7.5YR 2.5/1; 5YR 2.5/1). But the bottoms of the fragments in this group aren’t covered with slip. The grey (5YR 5/1, 6/1; Grey 1 5/1) fabric is very hard, thin and non-porous with seldom lime inclusions. Athyra Büyükçekmece lagoon, which is 44 km distance from the city centre and borders the western side of Istanbul in the Thracian region, was completely separated from 285

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 19. Fragments of tablewares from Lake Küçükçekmece basin (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

the sea by the building of a dam and started to be used as a drinking water reservoir in 1983 (for geographical maps of this area in Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 2, map 1). Thus, it lost its lagoon characteristics and turned into a typical lake. After the formation of the reservoir, the old coastal strip was submerged along with its archaeological traces. After a couple of dry years, the water of Büyükçekmece Lake receded about 500m to 2.5km at the end of the 2014 summer (Figure 20). After the withdrawal of the water, with the old coastal strip, a great deal of archaeological material from Prehistoric times to the Late Antique period was revealed in the marshy covering of the lakebed (Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 2, fig. 1). A coordinated study was started between the members of the Istanbul Prehistoric Survey Project and the Directorate of Istanbul Archeological Museums; so, 2014 surface surveys were conducted in Büyükçekmece Lake and Basin (Map 2) (For a detailed explanation of landscape changes in the survey area Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 2, footnote 3).

ancient times, and thus serving as a safe harbour for ships and sailors. The existence of cut blockstone and ruins of pillars belonging to larger structures was detected during examinations carried out beyond the limestone structure, on the eastern side of Lake Büyükçekmece (Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 4, figs. 6-9). At the same coordinates, two strap handle jugs (Figure 21, Nos. 1a-b and 2a-b), which were submerged by the lake, but were discovered stuck to a marshy lakebed after the water receded, dated to the Hellenistic/Early Roman period; also discovered was a complete small Spatheion style amphora produced in North Africa and dated to the fourth-fifth centuries AD (Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 4, figs. 10-11, draw. 3). It was observed that the lake basin and shore are abundant with amphorae and other pottery fragments (Figure 22). Coins from Hellenistic Byzantion and Roman imperial ones predominate among the coins found by the fishermen who live in huts at the lakeshore (Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 4, figs. 13-14). Apart from pottery finds, graves or offering steles with relief and inscriptions were found from the Hellenistic and Roman periods during the survey on the muddy basins of the eastern shore of Lake Büyükçekmece. Initial studies dated the steles to between ca. the third century BC and the first century AD. Those that have similar descriptions with figurative examples are referred to Byzantion gravestone workshops by Fıratlı (Fıratlı 1964: 44; and also Fıratlı 1965: 267-268).

A man-made structure which was built 1m above the lake, made of thick limestone boulders some of whom are 1.5-2m tall was constructed 20m north of the dam building, behind Büyükçekmece Bridge (Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 4, figs. 4-5). We consider that the structure, whose length could be traced for up to 750m, was intended to divide the lagoon, providing a cove in 286

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 20. Archaeological finds on the shore of Lake Büyükçekmece (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

(Symeon the Metaphrast, Greek Menologion: 614). The many blocks that have traces of Hellenistic clamps, a man-made structure cut from natural limestone, and relief votive or tomb stelae on the inner coast on the eastern shores of Büyükçekmece, which has become a lagoon of the Sea of Marmara, suggest that the ancient settlement may have been in this area. Complete vessels or fragments of pottery that point to settlement traces in the region, as well as Hellenistic-Roman period coins, and amphora fragments, which are vital for sea trade, give an indication of the location of Athyra Harbour (Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 1-12).

This dense archaeological material groups on the eastern coast of Lake Büyükçekmece suggest that the region was a harbour settlement in use in the Hellenistic and Roman periods as well as indicating traces of occupation in the region since prehistoric times (for the name of the settlement, its location: Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 1-12, footnotes 6-19). Strabo mentions that he encountered the River Athyras after Selymbria on his way to Byzantion, and that there was a settlement named Athyra (Άθυρα) at the point where the river connects to a cove of Propontis (Sea of Marmara) (Strabo: book 7). Procopius, the famous historian of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian, mentions the region briefy (Prokopius, PeriktismatonDeaedificiis, Buildings, VI/III: 289). It is explained in various sources that the region was used as a resting post from the west to the capital or from the capital to the west (Aydıngün et al. 2015a: 1-12). J. Cotovicus (Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum et Syriacum) mentions the existence of a 600 foot (approximately 230m) channel from the embouchure and the construction of a fortified harbour named Athyra in the ancient and medieval periods at the eastern side of the channel

Imitations of Attic black-glazed pottery are observed in the survey area of Athyra and continued from the second half of the fourth century to the beginning of the first century BC on stylistic grounds (Figure 23, Nos. 1-4, No; Figure 24, No. 1). Some remarkable fragments of bowl and plate have hard, thin paste, pink (5YR 7/4) to reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fabric with often small lime and sand inclusions. Black glaze (5YR 2.5/1) is matte and low quality. Similar shaped echinus bowls and platters have been found in the Athenian Agora (Rotroff 287

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 21. Jugs, found in Athyra on the shore of Lake Büyükçekmece (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

1997: 162, pl. 63, nos. 1020-21 and 1025; and also Rotroff 1997: 233, fig. 95, nos. 1574-75). Other frequently found drinking vessel fragments are classified as belonging to kantharoi and skyphoi. Except for only a few examples, they can be characterised as open and closed forms of body fragments without any decoration (Figure 23, Nos. 2-4). The very fine, pink (5YR 7/4) and reddish yellow (5YR 7/6, 6/6) fabric of these fragments have small lime inclusions. The texture and colour of the fabric vary considerably.

has outturned rim, rounded and hemispherical body. This form is very popular in the Hellenistic material from northern Thrace. The types found at Athyra are of three decorative styles: pinecone, floral and figurative. The rims of some bowl fragments (Figures 23-24, Nos. 5, 7 and 10) are decorated with a row of dots in the upper part (cf. Kolia 2011: 54, fig. 8, no. AMA 2228). A row of motifs in a horizontal position makes up the rim frieze (for similar rim frieze decoration from Pantikapaion: Žuravlev, Žuravleva 2014: 256, fig. 1.1; this fragment belongs to a large group of Ephesian vessels and date from the first quarter of the first century BC). The figurative and floral decoration of the bowl is placed entirely on the body in relief. A fragment of a bowl

Some amount of mouldmade bowls, which are very fragmentary, are found throughout the survey area (Figures 23-24, Nos. 5-17). A small group of rim fragments 288

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 22. Pottery finds from Athyra on the shore of Lake Büyükçekmece Lake (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

(Figures 23-24, No. 8) is decorated with nodules imitating a pinecone (Kolia 2011: 53, fig. 8, no. AMA 2224; Rotroff 1982: 16, pls. 1-2, nos. 1-8). On some vessels (Figures 2324, No. 6) the main decoration on the body is in relief rows of tendrils (for similar bowls from Odessos and Mesambria: Petrova 2014: 216, figs. 5.3, 12.3 and 15.1), rows of raised dots (Figures 23-24, No. 15) between two closely spaced raised lines (cf. Žuravlev, Žuravleva 2014: 257, fig. 2.3, Bosporan relief ware), lotus leaves, garlands with rosettes, and figurative decoration (Figures 23-24, Nos. 16-17). These raised or vegetal patterns of rays are set vertically from the bottom of the bowl. On some examples, the slip does not cover the vessel uniformly. The vessels may measure 6-20cm in diameter, but are most often 10-15cm. On the eastern coast of Lake Büyükçekmece, one example (Figure 23, No. 9) has about five rows of imbricate rounded lotus petals (for similar decoration: Rotroff 1982: 17 and 48, pl. 6, no. 35). It is one of the most common decorations in Mediterranean workshops (for similar imported mouldmade vessels in the Bosporan Kingdom: Žuravlev, Žuravleva 2014: 257258, nos. 2.5 and 3.6). Another body fragment (Figure

23, No. 11) is decorated with rounded lotus petal motifs in a rather simple design (Rotroff 1982: 46, pls. 3 and 94, nos. 13-14). These body fragments with thicker wall are classified as typical of the Attic floral bowl. Another floral bowl fragment with alternating palmette leaves has a black glaze on exterior. Four-leaf motifs are visible in the palmette leaves (Figure 23, No. 12). The refined fabric is pink (5YR 7/4; 7.5YR 6/1), grey (5YR 6/1), reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), light red (2.5YR 6/6), or dark grey (5YR 4/1) with limestone and mica inclusions. Black (5YR 2.5/1), very dark grey (7.5YR 3/1), grey (10YR 5/1, 7.5YR 4/1) or red (2.5YR 5/6, 4/6) slip of smoothed surface covered these vessels. The specific form of a feeder or small juglet was found in survey area (Figures 23-24, No. 18). It comprises over half of the upper body, a tiny tubular spout and a plain hole lip. The fabric is reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) with lime, and matte red (2.5YR 5/6) slip outside. A similar form is found in Apollonia; the feeder dates from the late fourth to the first half of the third century BC (Damyanov 2015: 28, fig. 9/4). Another similar feeder 289

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 23. A selection of tablewares from Athyra (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

was found in a tumulus near Dionysopolis, dated to the first quarter of the third century BC (Damyanov 2003: 26-29, table I/2). Fragments of storage and cooking ware for storing, cooking and serving food or liquids that were found in the survey area indicate use in domestic contexts.

The aforesaid structures were 41m long, parallel to the sea. Eight walls were built 90o to the sea and seven cells (five of them were possibly 4.5m wide chambers?) in between these walls (Figure 25). With to the use of stone masonry systems that may have been belonged to different periods in the wall construction, the detection of at least three different layers in the cell sections suggests that the structure was renovated in at least three periods after it was first built (layers that were thoroughly analysed: Öniz et al. 2014: 180-181, figs. 4-5 and 9; and also Öniz et al. 2017: 179, figs. 2a-c and 3a-d). Pottery fragments and amphora handles that were found in the fill within the building and in layers lying against it suggest that the structure was used between the fourth century BC and 10th century AD (Figure 26). The following find groups in particular – black and semi-glazed ware fragments like bowls, fish plates, cooking ware and jug fragments – are datable to the third-second centuries BC. A lamp fragment found between the first and second layers of the structure dates to the Roman period (Öniz et al. 2014: 181, fig. 6; and also Öniz et al. 2017: 180, fig. 4c). Moreover, marble pavement fragments found in the third layer give ideas about the floor of the building. This structure on the shore of Beylikdüzü has features in common with granaria (Öniz et al. 2014: 182, figs. 7-8). The styles of

Angurina Some settlement remains, which are thought to have belonged to a harbour, were found in a foreland 6km distance from the city centre of Beylikdüzü, Istanbul province, situated in the south of the peninsula between Lakes Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece (Map 2) (building complex and its contexts described and discussed in Öniz et al. 2017: 175-186, maps. 1-2; and also Öniz et al. 2014). Moreover, the seaside location and possible function of the structure support the idea of a harbour’s existence. In 2014 surface surveys were conducted to investigate the relevant structures in detail. As a result, is understood that the structure and harbour remains were used uninterruptedly between the fourth century BC and 10th century AD, renovated probably between the fourth-sixth centuries AD and restored once more in the upcoming centuries (Öniz et al. 2017: 177).

290

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 24. A selection of tablewares from Athyra (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

291

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün

Figure 25. The remains of the building complex at Angurina (Ş.G. Aydıngün, 2018).

these structures are also similar to shipyard buildings which were used from the Roman to Seljuk periods (for a general summary and opinions about the structure’s function and usage: Öniz et al. 2017: 181; Öniz et al. 2014: 183; Marksteiner 2006: 73; Fouache et al. 1999: 305; Asal 2010: 154). If this structure was itself a shipyard, its location was highly appropriate, because Beylikdüzü is conveniently situated for the lumber supply necessary for shipbuilding. It is known that this region was called Angurina in the Byzantine period and was one of the intersection points of Via Egnatia (for the Byzantine road system in eastern Thrace: Külzer 2011: 193; and also Külzer 2010: 438). A mention is made in the archive of Mount Athos (Aynaroz) of another old Greek village known as ‘Angurya’ outside Anarşaköy (Gürpınar) near Athyra (Büyükçekmece) on the ‘Via Egnatia’ (Lemerle at al. 1970-1982). Conclusions

provides new data about the region’s Hellenistic period, hitherto underrepresented archaeologically. Although there is no trace of public buildings, an attempt was made to define findspots from collections of pottery finds recorded in the landscape. The settlements which were examined during the surveys can be seen as having made rapid progress since Prehistory, several evolving into harbour cities, especially in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. After the third century BC, they took part in the trade activities around the region. In addition to trade activities, the region’s position on the important migration routes of the time triggered relations between the settlements and informed the character of the Hellenistic culture. This context influenced the Hellenistic/Early Roman pottery production traditions. In this way, we might understand the interaction between socio-cultural processes and settlement patterns in the Hellenistic/ Early Roman period.

Hellenistic pottery found during the 2007-2017 archaeological surveys on the western side of Istanbul

These pottery finds from southern Thrace are a reflection of the range of Hellenistic tableware and the

292

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Figure 26. A selection of tablewares from Angurina (G. Kan Şahin 2018).

changing status of society. The finds are evaluated in groups rather than a chronological classification. When the finds are analysed holistically, it is seen that the samples belong to the commonly used forms of the ware groups of the Hellenistic period. The typology of the material from the findspots persists in the Hellenistic tradition throughout. The great majority of pottery found in the survey area belonged to open vessels, being the most popular shapes, while large closed vessels were rarer. Their role and function can be relatively clearly defined. It is further observed that vessel shapes did not change very much during the Hellenistic period until the end of the first century BC. Nevertheless, the existence of a productive pottery workshop is not demonstrated for the region. It is seen that the pottery was concentrated densely between around the third and first centuries BC in the light of structural remains and architectural pieces belonging to Hellenistic Period which were found as a result of the above-mentioned research.

Bibliography Adam-Veleni, P. 1990: ‘Eine Werkstatt für Reliefgefäße in Petres/W. Makedonien’ in Akten des XIII. Intern. Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Berlin, 24.-30. Juli 1988. Mainz, von Zabern: 309–11. Akamatēs, I. 1993: Πήλινες μήτρες αγγείων από την Πέλλα. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της ελληνιστικής κεραμικής/ Pēlines mētres angeiōn apo tēn Pella. Symvolē stē meletē tēs ellēnistikēs keramikēs, Dēmosieumata tou Archaiologikou deltiou, ar. 51. Athens, Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων. Alexandrescu, P. 1978: La céramique d’époque archaïque et classique (VIIe-IVe  s.) Histria 4. Bucharest,  Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Anderson-Stojanovic, V.R. 1992: Stobi. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Asal, R. 2010: ‘Theodosius Limanı ve İstanbul Bizans Dönemi Deniz Ticareti/Theodosian Harbour and Sea Trade in Byzantine Istanbul’ in U. Kocabaş (ed.), İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 1. Marmaray Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, İstanbul, 5–6 Mayıs 2008. İstanbul, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Müdürlüğü: 153–60. Atik, N. 2003: ‘Tekirdağ/Karaevli (Antik Heraion Teikhos) Hellenistik Devir Çanak Çömlekleri’ Eskişehir Pişmiş Toprak Sempozyumu, 17–19 Haziran/ June 2003, 3. Uluslararası Eskişehir Pişmiş Toprak Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı. Eskişehir, Eskişehir Tepebaşı Belediyesi: 298–305 and figs. 1–14.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Şengül Aydıngün, director of the ITA survey, who participated in our work and shared our excitement, and her husband Dr. Haldun Aydıngün; also Burhan Gülkan for hand-made drawings and some photos.

293

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün Atik, N., Işın, M.A. 2006: ‘Tekirdağ/Karaevlialtı 2000, 2002, 2004 Yılları Kazı Çalışmaları’ in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27/1: 47–58. Aydıngün, H. 2015: ‘Archaeological Findings of Thracian/Phrygian Tribes’ Crossing of Bosporus (ITA) İstanbul Prehistoric Research Project’ in S. Fazlullin, M.M. Antika (eds), SOMA 2013, Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Moscow, 25–27 April 2013. Oxford, Archaeopress: 24–33. Aydıngün, Ş. 2007: ‘A New Prehistoric Settlement near Küçükçekmece Lake in Istanbul: Avcılar-Firuzkoy’ Boletín de la Asociacion Española de Orientalistas 43: 11–23. Aydıngün, Ş. 2009a: ‘İstanbul İli 2007 Yılı Tarih Öncesi Çağlar Yüzey Araştırması Sonuçları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 26/1: 411–26. Aydıngün, Ş. 2009b: ‘Küçükçekmece Gölü’nde Arkeolojik Araştırmalar’ Çekme-i Sağır Dünden Bugüne Küçükçekmece. İstanbul, Küçükçekmece Belediyesi: 251–63. Aydıngün, Ş. 2009c: ‘Some Remarkable Prehistoric Finds at Istanbul-Kucukcekmece’ in H. Oniz (ed.), SOMA 2008: Proceedings of the 12. Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5–8 March 2008, BAR International Series 1909. Oxford, Archaeopress: 154–57. Aydıngün, Ş. 2010: ‘Istanbul Prehistoric Survey in 2007 Season’ in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro, N. Marchetti (eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May, 5th-10th 2008, ‘Sapienza’-Università di Roma, Volume 2, Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag: 75–84. Aydıngün, Ş. 2013: ‘Küçükçekmece Gölü Havzası (Bathonea?) Kazıları (2009–2012)’ İstanbul Araştırmaları Yıllığı/Annual of Istanbul Studies 2. İstanbul, İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü: 41–53. Aydıngün, Ş. 2017: ‘İstanbul Tarih Öncesi Araştırmalarının 2007–2015 Yılları Arası Sonuçları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 34/1: 369–90. Aydıngün, Ş., Aydıngün, H. 2013: ‘Erken Demirçağ’da İstanbul Boğazı Üzerinden Trak/Frig Kavimlerinin Geçişine Ait İlk Bulgular’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 142: 65– 78. Aydıngün, Ş., Bilgili, A.E. 2015: ‘İstanbul Tarih Öncesi Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları ve Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası (Bathonea) Kazılarının İstanbul’a Katkıları’ in M. Karakuyu (ed.), Antikçağ’dan 21. Yüzyıla Büyük İstanbul Tarihi, Topoğrafya ve Yerleşim, Volume 1. İstanbul, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi (Kültür A.Ş.) Yayınları: 374–89.

Aydıngün, Ş., Öniz, H. 2008: ‘İstanbul-Küçükçekmece Kıyıları Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması’ in B. Gül, C. Koç, E. Sönmez (eds), SBT’08, 12. Sualtı Bilim ve Teknolojileri Toplantısı, 8–9 Kasım 2008, İzmir, Bildiriler Kitabı. İzmir, Alternatif Matbaacılık: 38–47. Aydıngün, Ş.G., Aydıngün, H., Özdemir, O. 2015a: ‘Athyra’ya Dair Arkeolojik Bulgular Büyükçekmece Araştırmaları’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 150: 1–12. Aydıngün, Ş., Eğilmez, A.H., Aydıngün, H., Gürbüz, İ., Gürbüz, G., Albukrek, M., Küçükali, G., Kuruçayırlı, E., Erdem, B. 2015b: ‘Underground Structures from Istanbul Çatalca/Maltepe’, in M. Parise, C. Galeazzi, R. Bixio, C. Germani (eds), Proceedings of International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities, Italy, Rome, March 11/17–2015. Supplemento al numero 1/2015, Hypogea 2015, Journal of Speleology in Artificial Cavities: 419–28. Aydıngün, Ş., Eğilmez, A.H., Aydıngün, H., Gürbüz, İ., Gürbüz, G., Albukrek, M., Küçükali, G., Kuruçayırlı, E., Erdem, B. 2015c: ‘İstanbul Çatalca/İnceğizMaltepe’deki Yer Altı Yapıları’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 149: 115–26. Aydıngün, Ş., Güldoğan, E., Heyd, V., Öniz, H. 2010: ‘2008 Yılı İstanbul Tarih Öncesi Çağlar Yüzey Araştırması’ in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27/3: 273–88. Aydıngün, Ş., Güldoğan, E., Heyd, V., Öniz, H., Yüğrük Planken, Ü. 2011: ‘Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası İlk Dönem Kazı Çalışmaları (2009 Yılı)’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32/3: 46–57. Aydıngün, Ş., Heyd, V., Güldoğan, E., Öniz, H. 2014a: ‘İstanbul’un Batısında Kalan Son Höyük: Selimpaşa/ The Last Mound in the West of İstanbul: Selimpaşa’ in A. Engin, B. Helving, B. Uysal, (eds), Armizzi Engin Özgen’e Armağan/Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen. Ankara, Asıtan Kitap: 47–54. Aydıngün, Ş., Heyd, V., Öniz, H., Güldoğan, E. 2014b: ‘İstanbul Tarih Öncesi Araştırmalarından Tunç Çağı Verileri’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 145: 21–34. Başaran, S. 2003: ‘Ainos’un Hellenistik-Erken Roma Dönemi Seramik Buluntuları’ in C. AbadieReynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques Hellénistiques et Romaines. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23–24 Mai 1996, Varia Anatolica 15. İstanbul, Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes-Georges Dumézil: 71–77. Başaran, S., Çakan, F.B.U., Emre, G., Kurap, G., Karwiese, S., Yılmaz, R. 2010: ‘Enez (Ainos) 2008 Yılı Kazısı, Onarım-Koruma Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/2: 117–44. Blair Brownlee, A. 1989: ‘Attic Black Figure from Corinth: II’ Hesperia 58/4: 361–95. Bouzek, J. 1990: Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area. Prague, Charles University.

294

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Božkova, A. 1994: ‘Importations grecques et imitations locales. La ceramique hellenistique en Thrace. Chronologie et centres de production’ in Γ› Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική: χρονολογημένα σύνολα - εργαστήρια; 24–27 Σεπεμβρίου 1991 Θεσσαλονίκη. Athens, Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας: 223–30. Božkova, A. 1997: ‘A Pontic pottery group of the Hellenistic age (A survey based on examples from the Bulgarian Black Sea coast)’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 1/2: 8‑17. Božkova, A. 2002: ‘Black-Glazed Ware’ in A. Božkova, P. Delev, D. Vulcheva (eds), Koprivlen, Volume 1, Rescue Archaeological Investigations along the Gotse DelchevDrama Road 1998–1999. Sofia, Nous: 153–57. Božkova, A. 2005: ‘Hellenistic Cantharoi from Southwestern Bulgaria’ in K. Rabadjiev, M. Milcheva (eds), Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Ludmili Getov, Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. 4. Sofia, University Publishing House St. Kliment Ohridski: 46–51. Božkova, A. 2012: ‘West Slope pottery from Bulgaria/’West slope’ керамика от България’ Archeology/Археология 53/2: 27–41. Božkova, A. 2014: ‘West Slope Pottery from Mesambria Pontike’ in P. Guldager Bilde, M.L. Lawall (eds), Pottery, Peoples and Places. Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery. Black Sea Studies 16. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 199–214. Božkova, A. 2015: ‘The Pottery of Ancient Thrace’ in J. Valeva, E. Nankov, D. Graninger (eds), A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell: 229–42. Božkova, A. 2017: Антична керамика между Хемус, Родопа и Евксинския Понт (VII-I в. пр. Хр.). Характеристика, разпространение и употреба/ Fine pottery between the Haemus, the Rhodope and the Pontus Euxinus (7th-1st c. BC.). Characteristics, distribution and utilization. Veliko Tarnova, Faber Publishers. Božkova, A., Kiyashkina, P. 2016: ‘Cist Graves from the Hellenistic Necropolis of Mesambria on the Black Sea Coast’ Acta Musei Tiberiopolitani 1: 23–34. Bucovală, M. 1969: ‘Tradiţii elenistice în materialele funerare de epocă romană timpurie la Tomis’ in A. Radulescu, M. Bucovală, C. Scorpan (eds), Pontice 2: 297–332. Chichikova, M. 1984: ‘Ancient Pottery’ in D. Dimitrov, M. Chichikova, A. Balkanska, L. Ognenova-Marinova (eds), Sevtopolis I: Bit i kultura. Sofia, Izdatel’stvo na Bulgarskata Akademija na Naukite: 18–114. Cook, R.M., Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery. LondonNew York: Routledge. Cotovicus, J. 1619: Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum et Syriacum, in quo variarum Gentium Mores et Institua insularum, regionum, vrbium situs (accessed on 06.06.2022).

Damyanov, M. 2003: ‘Early Hellenistic grave finds from the vicinity of Dionysopolis (on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast)’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 7/2: 25–36. Damyanov, M. 2015: ‘An Early Hellenistic Xiphos from Apollonia Pontica’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 19/3: 23– 36. Damyanov, M. 2017: ‘Pottery assemblage of the ritual fireplaces in the Necropolis of Apollonia Pontica (Excavations in 2005)’ in P. Kiyashkina, M. Damyanov, A. Bozkova, P. Delev (eds), Nessebar, Volume 4: Proceedings of the International Conference, Ancient Greek Necropolises along the Black Sea Coast, Nessebar, October 4–7, 2012. Veliko Tarnovo, Faber Publishing House: 86–100. Dereboylu, E. 2001: ‘Weissgrundige  Keramik und hellenistische Reliefbecher aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos’ in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Studien zur  hellenistischen Keramik  in  Ephesos, Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes. Vienna, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut: 21–44. Dirimtekin, F. 1957: ‘İnceğiz Mıntıkasındaki MağaraManastır ve Kiliseleri’ Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 7/2: 26–31. Domăneanţu, C.  2000: Les bols Hellénistiques à Décor en Relief. Histria 11. Bucharest, Institut de Mémoire Culturelle. Drougou, S. 2012a: ‘The Pottery in the Kingdom of Macedonia during the Hellenistic Period’ in S. Drougou, I. Touratsoglou (eds), Topics on Hellenistic Pottery in Ancient Macedonia/Θέματα της ελληνιστικής κεραμικής στην Αρχαία Μακεδονία. Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund: 54–58. Drougou, S. 2012b: ‘Relief pottery workshops in Hellenistic Macedonia. Preliminary observations/ Eργαστήρια ανάγλυφων αγγείων στην ελληνιστική Mακεδονία. Πρώτες παρατηρήσεις’ in S. Drougou, I. Touratsoglou (eds), Topics on Hellenistic Pottery in Ancient Macedonia/Θέματα της ελληνιστικής κεραμικής στην Αρχαία Μακεδονία. Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund: 248–59. Drougou, S., Touratsoglou, I. 2012: ‘Pottery in Macedonia during the 2nd century BC. The end of the Kingdom’ in S. Drougou, I. Touratsoglou (eds), Topics on Hellenistic Pottery in Ancient Macedonia/ Θέματα της ελληνιστικής κεραμικής στην Αρχαία Μακεδονία. Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund: 260–83. Egorova, T.V. 2016: ‘Hellenistic Black Glazed Pottery from Panticapaeum’ in S. Japp, P. Kogler (eds), Traditions and innovations. Tracking the development of pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial Periods, Proceedings of the 1st Conference of IARPotHP Berlin, November 2013, 7th–10th, International Association for Research on Pottery

295

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün of the Hellenistic Period (IARPotHP) 1. Vienna, Phoibos-Verlag: 517–28. Erzen, A. 1974: ‘Enez (Ainos) 1972 Kazıları’ İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, Güney Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 2–3: 217–38. Fıratlı, N. 1964: Les Steles Funeraires de Byzance Greco Romaine, in R. Louis (ed.), Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut français d’archéologie d’Istanbul 15. Paris, A. Maisonneuve. Fıratlı, N. 1965: ‘İstanbul’un Yunan ve Roma Mezar Stelleri’ Belleten 114: 263–328. Fol, V. 1998: ‘Megaliths in Thrace and Phrygia’ in N. Tuna, Z. Aktüre, M. Lynch (eds) Thracians and Phrygians: Problem of parallelism, Proceedings of an international symposium on the archaeology, history and ancient languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara 3–4 June 1995, METU. Ankara, METU, Faculty of Architecture Press: 19–27. Fouache, E., Sibella, P. Dalongeville, R. 1999: ‘Holocene variations of the horeline between Antalya and Andriake (Turkey)’ The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 28/4: 305–18. Guldager Bilde, P. 1993: Mouldmade Bowls, Centres and periphery in the Hellenistic World. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Guldager Bilde, P. 2010: ‘Mouldmade Bowls’ in N.A. Lejpunskaja, P. Guldager Bilde, J. Munk Højte, V.V. Krapivina, S.D. Kryzhitskiy (eds), The Lower City of Olbia (Sector NGS) in the 6th Century BC to the 4th Century AD, Black Sea Studies 13. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 269–88. Heyd, V., Aydıngün, Ş., Güldoğan, E. 2010: ‘Geophysical Applications for ITA 2008: The Example of Selimpaşa Höyük’ Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 25: 553–69. Hogel, C. 2002: Symeon Metaphrastes: Rewriting and Canonization. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen. Hürmüzlü, B. 2003: Klazomenai-Akpınar Nekropolisi. PhD. Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Ivanov, T. 1963: ‘La ceramique antique de la necropole d’Apollonia’ in I. Venedikov, T. Gerasimov, C. Dremsizova (eds), Apollonia I, Les fouilles dans la nécropole d’Apollonia en 1947–1949/Аполония, разкопките в некропола на Аполония през 1947– 1949 г. Sofia Българска академия на науките -Археологически институт/Bʺlgarska akademiâ na naukite-Arheologičeski Institut: 65–273 (in Bulgarian), summary in French. Kallini, C. 2012: ‘Black-glazed vases and their decoration in Macedonia during the Hellenistic Period’ in S. Drougou, I. Touratsoglou (eds), Topics on Hellenistic Pottery in Ancient Macedonia/Θέματα της ελληνιστικής κεραμικής στην Αρχαία Μακεδονία. Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund: 158–79. Kara, Ü. 2016: ‘Küçükçekmece Göl Havzası Arkeolojik Kazılarında Yürütülen Amfora Çalışmaları’ TINA Denizcilik Arkeolojisi Dergisi 6: 48–63.

Karadima, Ch. 1997: ‘Tafika synola ellenistikes keramikes apo te Samothrake/Ταφικά σύνολα ελληνιστικής κεραμικής  από τη  Σαμοθράκη’ in A epistematikke synastisi gia ten ellenistike keramike/Δ› Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική, χρονολογικά προβλήματα, κλειστά σύνολα - εργαστήρια; πρακτικά, Μυτιλήνη, Μάρτιος 1994. Athens, Ypourgeio Politismou: 381–84. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2009: ‘Finds From a Plundered Tumulus at Karaevli, Tekirdağ, in Turkish Thrace’ Anatolia Antiqua 17: 209–38. Koçel Erdem, Z., Bülbül, A. 2020: ‘The Hellenistic Ceramics from Inner Settlements of the Gallipoli Peninsula (Thracian Chersonese) in Turkish Thrace’in I. Kamenjarin, M. Ugarkovic (eds), Exploring The Neighborhood. The Role of Ceramics in Understanding Place in the Hellenistic World. IARPotHP 3. Vienna, Phoibos Verlag: 575–81. Kolia, E. 2011: ‘Relief Pottery from Aigion’ in Ζ› Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική, Αιγίο, 4–9 Απριλίου 2005: πρακτικά/7th Scientific Meeting for the Hellenistic Pottery, Aigion, 4–9 April 2005. Athens, Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων: 47–56. Kotitsa, Z. 2013: ‘Frühhellenistische Keramik aus Pydna: Hinweise auf regionale und überregionale Kontakte’ in N. Fenn, Chr. Römer-Strehl (eds), Networks in the Hellenistic World: According to the Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond, BAR International Series 2539. Oxford, Archaeopress: 67–80. Kuruçayırlı, E., Eğilmez, A.H., Küçükali, G., Albukrek, M., Uzel, E.A., Aydıngün, Ş.G. 2015, ‘Water Supply Tunnels of İstanbul Küçükçekmece Lake Basin (Bathonea)’ M. Parise, C. Galeazzi, R. Bixio, C. Germani (eds), Proceedings of International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities, Italy, Rome, March 11/17–2015. Supplemento al numero 1/2015, Hypogea 2015, Journal of Speleology in Artificial Cavities: 214–20. Külzer, A. 2010: ‘Die Thrackische Propontisküste Beobahchtungen Zum Siedlungsbild in Byzantinischer Zeit’ Kölner Jahrbuch 43: 429–41. Külzer, A. 2011: ‘The Byzantine Road System in Eastern Thrace: Some Remarks, Byzantine Traces, Evidence and Remains’ in C. Bakirtzis, N. Zekos, X. Monarios (eds), Byzantine Thrace, Evidence and Remains, 4th International Symposium of Thracian Studies, Komotini, 18–22 April 2007, Proceedings. Amsterdam, Hakkert: 179–202. Lambrino, M. 1938: Les vases archaïques d’Histria. Bucharest, Fundatia regele Carol I. Lemerle, P., Papachryssanthou, D., Guillou, A., Svorōnos, N., 1970–1982: Actes de Lavra 1–4. Archives de l’Athos 5.8.10.11. Paris, Lethielleux. Lungu, V., Trohani, G. 2000: ‘Vases Hellénistiques à décor peint de la plaine Roumaine’ in M. Iacob, O. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, F. Topoleanu (eds), Istro296

Newly Discovered Hellenistic Pottery from Western Istanbul

Pontica, Muzeul tulcean la a 50-a aniversare, 1950–2000, Omagiu lui Simion Gavrilă la 45 de ani de activitate. Tulcea, Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale, 137– 62. Marksteiner, T. 2006: ‘Andriake Yüzey Araştırması 2005 Yılı Çalışmaları/Surveys in Andriake 2005’, Anadolu Akdenizi, Arkeoloji Haberleri, ANMED 2006–4: 71–4. Mitsopoulos- Leon, V. 1991: Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, Kleinfunde: 1. Teil, Keramik hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Forschungen  in Ephesos 9, 2/2. Vienna, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Nedev, D., Panayotova, K. 2003: ‘Apollonia Pontica: End of the 7th-1st centuries BC’, in D. Grammenos, E.K. Petropoulos (eds), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 1, Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 3–4. Thessaloniki/Athens, Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Archaeological Receipts Fund: 95–156. Öncü, O.E. 2014: ‘Hellen Kolonizasyon Dönemi’nde Yenikapı Limanı: Arkaik ve Klasik Dönem Buluntuları Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme’ Hayalden Gerçeğe Bir İstanbul Öyküsü: Marmaray. Ankara, Gama Holding: 142–53. Öniz, H., Aydıngün, Ş., Güldoğan, E. 2015: ‘Archaeological Excavations at Istanbul’s Lake Kucukcekmece-2010’ in P.M. Militello, H. Öniz (eds), SOMA 2011, Preceedings of the 15th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, held at the University of Catania, 3–5 March 2011, Volume 1, BAR International Series 2695 (I). Oxford, Archaeopress: 407–10. Öniz, H., Aydıngün, Ş., Kaya, H. 2017: ‘İstanbul Beylikdüzü Kıyılarında Arkeolojik Kalıntılar (Angurina ?)’ Arkeoloji ve Sanat 155: 175–86. Öniz, H., Kaya, H., Aydıngün, Ş. 2014: ‘A Harbour Structure at Beylikdüzü, Istanbul’ The Internatıonal Journal of Nautical Archaeology 43/1: 179–84. Pasinli, A., Gökyıldırım, T., Birgili, T., Düzgüner, F. 1994: ‘İnceğiz-Maltepe Nekropolü 1992 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı’ Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 4: 339–56. Pasinli, A., Gökyıldırım, T., Düzgüner, F. 1995: ‘İnceğizMaltepe Nekropolü 1993 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı’ Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 5: 345–64. Pasinli, A., Gökyıldırım, T., Düzgüner, F., Güven, F. 1996: ‘Çatalca-İnceğiz Köyü Maltepe Nekropolü 1994 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı’ Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 6: 205–20. Pasinli, A., Gökyıldırım, T., Düzgüner, F., Güven, F. 1997: ‘Çatalca-İnceğiz Köyü Maltepe Nekropolü 1995 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı’ Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 7: 77–88. Petrova, A. 2014: ‘A Pontic Group of Hellenistic Mouldmade Bowls’ in P. Guldager Bilde, M.L. Lawall (eds), Pottery, Peoples and Places. Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery. Black Sea Studies 16. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 215– 31.

Popescu, M.C. 2013: Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in preRoman Dacia: (2nd century BC.-1st century AD.). ClujNapoca, ARA. Preshlenov, V. 2003: ‘Messambria’ in D. Grammenos, E.K. Petropoulos (eds), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 1, Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 3–4. Thessaloniki-Athens, Archaeological Institute of Northern GreeceArchaeological Receipts Fund: 157–208. Prokopius, Periktismaton-De Aedificiis, Buildings, IV/3: 289. (accessed on 06.06.2022). Rogl, C. 2014: ‘Mouldmade Relief Bowls from EphesosThe Current State of Research’ in P. Guldager Bilde, M.L. Lawall (eds), Pottery, Peoples and Places. Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery. Black Sea Studies 16. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 113–39. Rotroff, S.I. 1982: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. The Athenian Agora 22. Princeton, The American School of Classical Studies. Rotroff, S.I. 1991: ‘Attic West Slope Vase Painting’ Hesperia 60/1: 59–102. Rotroff, S.I. 1997: Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and imported wheelmade table ware and related material. The Athenian Agora 29. Princeton, The American School of Classical Studies. Rotroff, S.I. 2010: ‘Mouldmade Bowls at Samothrace’ in O. Pelagia, B.D. Westcoat (eds), Samothracian Connections, Essays in Honor of James R. McCredie. Oxford-Oakville, Oxbow Books, 60–73. Schäfer, J. 1968: Hellenistische Keramik aus Pergamon, Pergamenische Forschungen, vol. 2. Berlin, de Gruyter. Sparkes, B., Talcott, L. 1970: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries BC. The Athenian Agora 12. Princeton, The American School of Classical Studies. Strabo 1993: Geographica/Antik Anadolu Coğrafyası XII, XIII, XIV in A. Pekman (trans.). İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınevi. Tolstikov, V., Žuravlev, D. 2004: ‘Hellenistic Pottery from two cisterns on the Acropolis of Panticapaeum’ in Στ΄ επιστημονική συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική - προβλήματα χρονολόγησης: κλειστά σύνολα - εργαστήρια: Βολοσ 17–23 απριλιου 2000, Proceedings. Athens, Fund for Archaeological Resources and Expropriations: 269–76. Tonkova, E. 2017: ‘Black-glazed pottery from the pit fields in Bulgaria’ poster presented in: Ancient Thrace: Myth And Reality, 13th International Congress of Thracology, September 3–7, 2017, Kazanlak, Bulgaria. Turan, D. 2006: Menekşe Çatağı Hellenistik Dönem Seramiği. Master Thesis, Trakya University, Edirne. Utili, F. 1999. Die Archaische Nekropole von Assos. Asia Minor Studien 31. Bonn, R. Habelt.

297

Gülseren Kan Şahi ̇n, Şengül G. Aydingün Varbanov, V. 2012: ‘Late Hellenistic Bowls with Relief from Ruse District, NE Bulgaria’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 16/2: 59–75. Žuravlev, D., Žuravleva, N. 2014: ‘Late Hellenistic Pottery and Lamps from Pantikapaion: Recent

Finds’ in P. Guldager Bilde, M.L. Lawall (eds), Pottery, Peoples and Places. Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery. Black Sea Studies 16. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 255- 86.

298

Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey Ergün Karaca1 Abstract1 The place where the River Hebros flowed into the sea in the Archaic Period is controversial. While Herodotos states that Kserkses reached Doriskos by passing Lake Stentoris from Ainos, Pliny, in Naturalis Historia, expressed that the Stentoris Dock was at the estuary of the Hebros River. Geological research suggests that the sea had an inward curve 20-25 km to the north in the Archaic Period. The aim of this study is to evaluate the surface finds of pottery recovered from the eastern bank of the River Hebros, the Döken Çiftliği, which was once an estuary, in the Kocaçay Valley and the settlements of Kuğuburnu, İncirlikburnu, Kayıkyolu, and Kocatarlalar to determine the relationship between the geographical location and the foreign relations of the area. Keywords THRACE, HEBROS, SETTLEMENT, POTTERY, ARCHAIC PERIOD

Introduction The research area consists of the east of the Hebros Valley and both sides of the Kocaçay Valley in the southeast of Turkish Thrace (Figure 1). Kocaçay Valley, which is now a swamp, was turned into a rice field using canals by the Devlet Su İşleri (DSI) in the 1950s. The process of drying the site is still ongoing. As a result of the field studies at the site, five settlements have been detected. With the help of the pottery materials obtained from Döken Çiftliği (Başaran 1999: 176) studied by the Ainos Excavation Leader Prof. Sait Başaran, and also Kocatarlalar, Kayıkyolu, Kuğuburnu, and İncirlikburnu, which were all studied for the first time by myself, efforts were made to establish the facts about the geography of the study area in the Archaic Period. Döken Çiftliği The settlement of Döken Çiftliği is a pasture area within the borders of Işıklı Village (Arnavutköy) and is located 7.5 km to the northwest of the river and around 17 km north of Ainos (Coordinates: north: 451366, east: 35 437235, altitude: 18 m). This area is on the northwest slope of Mount Hisar, and lies between the lakes Gala and Pamuklu, and on a hill projecting towards Lake Assoc. Prof., PhD, Trakya University/Edirne, Department of Archaeology, e-mail: [email protected]. This paper is based on my PhD thesis.

1 

Domuz, which is nowadays a swamp (Figure 2). The hill is on a north-south alignment and connects to the land at the base of Mount Hisar. As part of the settlement is full of bushes and other small plants, it is very hard to detect finds, and, accordingly, it is quite difficult to determine the size of the area. However, as a result of the survey conducted, the settlement is thought to spread over an area of approximately 450x150 m. At the end of the headland, a canal was dug with a heavy-duty machine to drain the water towards the swamp. During the process, intense deposits of pottery and rock materials that are probably part of a wall were revealed. To the north of the settlement, there are also ruins called ‘Baba Öldüren Kaldırımı’ that were interpreted by Sait Başaran as the remains of a road of the Roman period (Başaran 1999: 176). The earliest material found in the settlement belongs to the 8th century BC. When the white-clay cotyla base part (Figure 3.1) (cf. Weinberg 1943: fig. 21, 252; Weinberg 1974: 527-529, Pl. 115, 10; Payne et al. 1940: fig. 1, 384, 385 Pl.19, 377; Benson 1983: 311-326, fig.1. 365 and 585) was compared with similar examples, it was understood that it probably belongs to the Protocorinthian Period of the last quarter of the 8th century BC. Although it was impossible to find examples identical to two greyclay fragments, one of which was a bowl with vertical handles and an incurved rim (Figure 3.2) and the other a lekane (Figure 3.3) (cf. Nikov 2012: fig. 3. 1, 61. 3), they were thought to date to the 7th-6th centuries BC on account of similar fragments. A krater handle and body part with red glazed interior and horizontal brown glazing bands outside (Figure 3.4) was also dated to the 7th-6th century BC. Moreover, it was understood that a plate body sherd belonging to the Orientalising period, with white slip and a preserved lotus inside and red glazed bands outside belonged to the first half of the 6th century BC (cf. Erzen, Başaran 1990: 79, pic. 4; Başaran 2003: 292, pic. 4; Irmak 2010: 41-42, Cat. No. 28a-b-31). When the Attic cups were examined in the light of the finds from the Athenian Agora and Corinth, a kylix body part (Figure 3.6) was dated to the second half of the 6th century BC; a kylix body and foot part (Figure 3.7) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 4. 413, 432433, fig. 5. 434 and 437) to the 5th century BC; a bolsal base fragment (Figure 3.8) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 6. 554) and a lamp discus and body part (Figure 3.9) (cf.

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 299–314

Ergün Karaca

Figure 1. Research area.

Figure 2. Döken Çiftliği.

300

Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey

Figure 3. Döken Çiftliği pottery.

301

Ergün Karaca

Figure 4. Kocatarlalar.

Broneer 1930: fig. 14. 28, 29) to the late 5th century and first half of the 4th century BC. An Attic type kylix or skyphos rim fragment (Figure 3.10) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 4. 349), skyphos base fragments (Figure 3.1112) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 4. 349), and a base fragment from a Thasian/North Aegean amphora (Figure 3.13) (cf. Lozanov 2010: Pl. 52; Arrington et al. 2016: fig. 27. 6) belong to the 5-4th centuries BC according to similar examples. A bowl rim fragment with black glaze from Attica (Figure 3.14) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 8. 828 and 835), a base part (Figure 3.15) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 8. 802), a bowl base piece from outside Attica (Figure 3.16) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 8. 808), a body-base fragment of a fish plate with red glaze (Figure 3.17) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 10. 1076) and Thasian/North Aegean amphora bottom fragments (Figure 3.18 and 19) (cf. Lozanov 2010: Pl. 51, 5; Arrington et al. 2016: fig. 27. 3) must belong to the 4th century BC. A storage jar rim fragment of red clay and self-coloured slip on the surface (Figure 3.20) was dated to the 4th-3rd century BC. On the basis of examination alongside similar examples, a kantharos rim-body fragment with matte black glaze and with two parallel horizontal flutes on its body (Figure 3.21) (cf. Rotroff 1997: fig. 16. 232-270) was dated to the second half of the 3rd century BC, and a body part with western zone style, which is brown outside and red inside, and had an additional white horizontal band, a wavy line incision and a reverse droplet decoration underneath, (Fig. 3. 22) (cf. Rotroff 1997: Pl. 40, fig. 417, Pl. 43, fig.

434) was dated to the second half of the 3rd century BC. During the research, besides these ceramics, a great number of tile fragments with red glazing dated to the 4th century BC was found on the surface. In addition, a bronze coin dated to the 5th-4th century BC was found during the field study. Sait Başaran, who conducted the first study in the area, states that there is pottery from the 5th century BC as well as pottery fragments from the period of the Roman Empire (Başaran 1999: 176, Şahin 2008: Döken Çiftliği). When the research data in the area are combined with the data from the previous research, it is understood that the settlement began in the 8th century BC in Döken Çiftliği, that mainly products from Attica were imported starting from the 6th century BC, and that it continued its existence without interruption until the end of the Roman period. In general, the discovery of grey ware attributed to Thracians and pottery produced in Attica together gave rise to the idea that two communities lived in the same area. Sait Başaran suggests that this area might have been a farm or an outpost, for Döken Çiftliği is on the road between Ainos and Dymis (Başaran 1999: 176). However, it is understood that, as a result of not only the size of the settlement but also the pottery and other finds obtained, Döken Çiftliği was probably a settlement of secondary-level importance that belonged to Ainos in the Archaic Period.

302

Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey

Figure 5. Kocatarlalar pottery.

area of at least 75x55 m. The villagers who showed the researchers around mentioned that the pine forest to the north was planted 15 to 20 years ago and that finds were discovered during the planting. Furthermore, a row of rocks that resembles a wall can be seen on the road passing the north of the settlement. In the northwest of the area, there are rocks, probably used for the wall, scattered in the thorn bushes.

Kocatarlalar Kocatarlalar is located 2.7 km to the northeast of the village of Işıklı, north of Mount Hisar, at the point where it meets the plains (Coordinates: north: 4510325, east: 35 440514, altitude: 33 m) (Figure 4). As a result of finding a large number of fragments of pottery and tiles to the south of a road to farmland, in an area where holes were dug to collect rain water, the work was stopped. Pottery fragments were found in the bushy area to the north of the excavated area and the road, but because the south, west and east part was covered by dense forest, the exact size of the settlement could not be determined. However, when this was considered in the light of the available data, it can be suggested that the settlement covered an

During the study in and around a hole dug for rainwater, a handle fragment that probably belongs to a large ceremonial pithos was found. It is a handmade, rough, dark coloured handle that had partially burnt clay, micaceous grey-ostrich feather and slip coating; it had stylised stamped palmettes made with a rope on the outer surface and zigzag groups on the sides. Based on its decoration this handle fragment (Figure 5.23) (cf. 303

Ergün Karaca

Figure 6. Kuğuburnu.

Papadopoulos 2005: fig. 158, (e) T102-5) can be said to date to the 7th-6th centuries BC. A thick walled grey clay bowl rim fragment with horizontal incision lines on the projecting rim and on the body was dated to the 7th-6th century B.C (Figure 5.24) (cf. Nikov 2012: fig. 16. 2, 52. 2). A thick brown clay amphora rim fragment with a thin horizontal incision on the neck (Figure 5.25) (cf. Arrington et al. 2016: fig. 27.7) and a black glazed kylix C Type body-foot fragment from Attica (Figure 5.26) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 4: 401, 415) date to the late 6th century BC. A black glazed lekythos neck handle fragment with incision traces from the neck to the shoulder (Figure 5.27), and a red glazed open cup rim fragment probably from Attica (Figure 5.28) were dated to the 6th-4th century BC and a Thasian/ North Aegean amphora base fragment (Figure 5.29) is understood to date to the 5th century BC. Two bowl rim fragments, one of which was matte black glazed and probably from Attica (Figure 5.30) (cf. Rotroff 1997: fig. 62. 965-992) and the other from outside Attica with water-glaze (Figure 5.31) (cf. Rotroff 1997: fig. 62. 965992. Published: Hasdağlı 2017: no. 11), were confirmed as dating to the 4th century BC. Another matte brown glazed fragment, which is probably a fish plate, (Figure 5.32) (cf. Rotroff 1997: fig. 51. 729) was dated to the 3rd2nd century BC. Besides these finds are a small number of body and base fragments belonging to the Roman period.

that the first settlement was established in this area beginning in the 7th-6th century and surviving until the 2nd century AD. Kuğuburnu The Kuğuburnu settlement is located 1.5 km to the north of the village of Akhoca, on the two hills projecting towards Kocaçay Valley, i.e. to the northeast (Figure 6). The high hill to the south is named Kaletepe and the other, lower hill to the northeast is called Kuğuburnu (Coordinates: north: 4509676, east: 35 449552, altitude: 16 m). Kaletepe is located in a higher position that better overlooks the area. In the study conducted on this hill, which is covered with bushes and other small plants, materials from mostly the 2nd century AD and later were found. Although it is not apparent, there are traces of walls at the agricultural road from Kaletepe to Kuğuburnu. However, to the northwest of this hill, dense housing from early periods was spotted on Kuğuburnu hill which is at a lower altitude and projects into the Kocaçay Valley. The Kuğuburnu hill is approximately 110x85 m. Its west, north and east slopes are bordered by canals and agricultural fields. The hill, whose north side is quite steep, has a slope to the south. The southwest side was destroyed as a result of being used as a source for the soil for the road to the agricultural field. At the top and on the part sloping to the south, a large number of fragments of black glazed pottery were discovered.

As a result, our knowledge about the Kocatarlalar settlement is limited. It was understood from the pottery found in the large hole dug to collect water and the area where the road to the farmland passes 304

Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey

Figure 7. Kuğuburnu pottery.

to a red figure or black glazed krater with a red figure manufactured in Attica (Figure 7.38) (cf. Cambitoglou et al. 2001: fig. 56. 8. 59 (krater with a red figure); Robinson 1933: Pl. 195. 1109-1114 (black glazed); Hasdağlı 2012: fig. 4. 14 (black glazed)), a straight base fragment of a matte black glazed closed cup probably manufactured in Attica (Figure 7.39), two grey matte glazed ‘Attica type’ skyphos rim handle fragments manufactured outside Attica (Figure 7.40) (cf. Blondé 1985: 316, fig. 27. 204205; Blondé et al. 1989: 511-513, fig. 12. 129-142; Blondé 2007: Pl. 3. Published: Hasdağlı 2017: no. 6) and (Fig. 7. 41), when examined based on parallels in centres such as Olynthos and Klazomenai, were understood to date back to the 4th century BC. The latest fragment within the scope of the research on the settlement was a mattblack glazed rim fragment, probably from an amphora, which had horizontal flutes in the rim and incised wavy line decorations on the inner part of the projecting rim and dated to the late 2nd-early 1st century BC (Figure 7.42) (cf. Rotroff 1997: 31-32, 438-442). Furthermore, a great number of tile fragments with red coating probably belonging to the 4th-3rd century BC were also discovered.

In the research on Kuğuburnu, grey wheel-made pottery body and handle fragments as well as potteries manufactured in Attica were discovered. As the grey potteries were body and handle pieces, it was not possible to compare them with similar examples. However, it is probable that the fragments belong to the 7th-6th century BC. Manufactured in Attica, a krater body fragment with black glaze inside and a black figure (Figure 7.33) was dated to the 6th century BC. A bright black glazed bowl rim fragment (Figure 7.34) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 8: 828) and a black glazed bowl rim fragment with a single handle, probably manufactured in Attica (Figure 7.35) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 8. 755 and 757), were dated to the first half of the 4th century BC. A red glazed krater body fragment with close parallels from the Athenian Agora based on its face profile, with a figure on its outer surface whose head and body, facing to the left, are preserved (Figure 7.36) (cf. Moore 1997: Pl. 52. 433 (P 9454), Pl. 55. 515 (P 22566); Trias 1987: 47 etc. Lám. I-II) and a red figure skyphos rim fragment (Figure 7.37) (Published: Hasdağlı 2017: no. 8) belong to the middle of the 4th century BC. A body foot fragment belonging

305

Ergün Karaca

Figure 8. İncirlikburnu.

There are eight bronze coins from Akhoca Village in Edirne Archaeology Museum. During the field study, it was understood that these coins belonged to the Kuğuburnu settlement. These coins included one Kypsela coin (400 BC); one Ainos coin (400-350 BC); two Khersonesos coins (5th-4th centuries BC); three Ainos coins (5th-3rd centuries BC), one Ptolemaic Kingdom coin (3th century BC) and one coin of the 4th century BC. The coins correlate with the distribution of the pottery found in the area to a large extent.

İncirlikburnu The settlement of İncirlikburnu is located 1.3 km to the northwest of the village of Orhaniye, on the western side of a low hill, which is aligned northeast-southwest and is 1.2km to the east of Kuğuburnu (Coordinates: north: 4509939, east: 35 450725, altitude: 8 m) (Figure 8). On the upper part and the west slope of the hill looking northeast-southwest, a number of pottery sherds, amphorae, cups, and brick and tile fragments were recovered. These finds are seen across an area of approximately 100x70 m. There is an agricultural road passing north-south across the hill on which there were no agricultural activities.

The Kulakgöl area, located to the southeast of the Kocaçay Valley and the Kuğuburnu settlement, which was in the shape of an estuary in the Archaic Period, has a topography suitable for a dock. The pottery finds from Kuğuburnu indicate that housing started in the 7th-6th century BC and intensified in the 4th century BC. This intensity in the 4th century is also supported by the Ainos, Khersonesos, Kardia and Kyspela coins. In addition, both the pottery and the coins show that, after the establishment of the settlement, there was a close relationship with Athens, Khersonesos, Kardia, Kypsela and primarily with Ainos, due to its proximity.

During the field study in İncirlikburnu, a grey clay wheel-made bowl base fragment probably dating to the 6th-5th century BC (Figure 9.43) was discovered. Apart from this there is an ‘Attica type’ black glazed skyphos rim fragment manufactured in Attica and dated to the middle of the 4th century based on parallels from the Athens Agora (Figure 9.44) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 4: 352); a black glazed krater base fragment manufactured in Attica and dated to the 4th century BC (Figure 9.45); a black glazed ribbed body fragment, probably from a kantharos, dated to the 4th-3rd century BC based on similar examples found in the Athenian Agora (Figure 9.46) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 7. 704; Rotroff 1997: fig.4. 6, fig. 5. 26-31, fig. 6. 38, 46, fig. 8. 74, 76, fig. 9. 85, 88-89) as well as black glazed

No finds that belong to the late 2nd century and early 1st century BC were discovered on Kuğuburnu hill. The fact that a high density of finds belonging to the Roman imperial period and later were found at Kaletepe to the southwest suggests that this area, which is higher and more appropriate for defence was preferred for settlement after the 3rd century BC.

306

Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey

Figure 9. İncirlikburnu pottery.

Figure 10. Kayıkyolu.

potteries that didn’t give any profile information. Together with these potteries, tile fragments with black and red slip belonging to the 4th-3rd century BC are also important in reflecting the same era. In addition, in this settlement, and different from Kuğuburnu, there are also pottery fragments belonging to the Roman imperial period, and these are more dense compared to the earlier period.

Kayıkyolu Kayıkyolu is located at about 2.5 km to the southeast of the village of Koyuntepe, to the north of Kocaçay Valley, on terrain sloping towards the southwest and the starting point of the valley (Coordinates: north: 4512257, east: 35 442374, altitude: 11 m) (Figure 10). The settlement is 1.5 km to the southwest of Ortatepe/ Asartepe (Koyunbaba) hill, which served as a cult location and overlooks almost the whole lower part of the Hebros Valley.

Housing activities in İncirlikburnu started at the end of the 5th century BC and it was inhabited in the 4th century, surviving until the 2nd-3rd centuries AD.

307

Ergün Karaca

Figure 11. Kayıkyolu pottery.

308

Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey

As the area was used to grow rice, it was levelled to a great extent and damaged considerably. Research could be done only on the levees left to hold the water at the sides of the rice paddies. The inner areas could not be examined because of water and mud. Pottery fragments were observed for 200 m in an east-west direction; in addition, pottery fragments were seen in an area of 100120 m in a north-south direction. The highest number of finds were found on the wide and high levee in the southern part where the area was levelled to create a rice field.

handle’s head was partially preserved (Figure 11.66) are the other pottery fragments found. Apart from these pottery fragments, tile fragments with red and black paint and rocks which were thought to be used for a wall were found in the area. The villagers also stated that they had found Ainos coins that they refer to as ‘goat coins’ here. A pottery fragment found in the settlement was quite important in that it gave information on the efforts to manufacture pottery in the area. The rim fragment with black glaze belonging to an Attic type skyphos (Figure 11.60) also gave rise to the thought that the broken part of the imported cup was used as an experimental piece (Hasdağlı 2017: 4951).

During the research, a bowl rim fragment which had horizontal flutes or handles on the projecting rim (Figure 11.47) (cf. Polat 2002: Lev. 31, A. 44 (there is no flute on the projecting rim); Nikov 2012: fig. 59, 3) and rim fragments with handles (Figure 11.48 and 49) (cf. Nikov 2012: fig. 3. 1; fig. 39. 6; fig. 61. 3) were dated to the 7th-6th century BC based on similar examples found in Daskleion and Apollonia Pontika. A handle fragment with brown clay, white slip, and a brown glazed band on the outside, which was thought to belong to a commercial amphora manufactured in Klazomenai (Figure 11.50), and a body fragment with a badly preserved black glazed band on it (Figure 11.51) were dated to the 6th century BC; a lid fragment whose outer part had a black glazed band and inner part was plain (Figure 11.52) was dated to the 6th-4th centuries BC. The highest number of finds at Kayıkyolu were eight Attic type skyphos base fragments which were manufactured in Attica in the 5th-4th centuries, had black glazing, and had traces of miltos over the reserved base (Figure 11.53, 54, 55 and 56) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 4. 349. Published: Hasdağlı 2017: no. 3, 4, 5) and rim fragments (Figure 11.57, 58, 59 and 60) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 336 and 342; Robinson 1950: Pl. 197. 559, Pl. 199. 561 and 564. fig. 11. 60. Published: Hasdağlı 2017: no. 1), a bolsal base fragment, probably manufactured in Attica, with black glazing and traces of miltos over the reserved base (Figure 11.61) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 6. 534, 538-539) and a bowl fragment with the monogram ‘MY’ under its base (Figure 11.62) (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 8. 779 and 782). A red Thasian or North Aegean amphora bottom fragment with micaceous clay which was completely covered with cream slip (Figure 11.63) was dated to the 5th-4th centuries BC based on its analogies (cf. Lozanov 2010: Pl. 52, 5; Arrington et al. 2016: fig. 27. 6). A bolsal base fragment with brown glaze probably manufactured in Attica (Figure 11.64) was dated to the 4th century BC based on similar examples in the Athenian Agora (cf. Sparkes, Talcott 1970: fig. 8. 802). According to examples from Klazomenai, a pitcher fragment with light red clay and self-slip dates to the 4th-3rd centuries BC (Figure 11.65) (cf. Hasdağlı 2012: fig. 6: 35-43, fig. 7: 44-45) and a red amphora rim fragment with micaceous, mixed clay, and slip coating on the inside and outside whose

In consideration of the pottery mentioned above, it is thought that the first housing at Kayıkyolu began in the 7th-6th centuries BC and continued uninterrupted until the 2nd century BC. However, no data indicating the state of the settlement after the 2nd century is available. As a result of the field research, when the temporal distribution of the pottery obtained from the settlements is taken into account, it is seen that they began to increase from the 6th century BC, intensified in the 5th-4th centuries BC and then gradually decreased (Figure 12). When the temporal distribution of the pottery fragments in the whole area is considered, as in the settlements, the dynamism that started in the 8th century BC intensified between the 6th and 4th centuries BC and reached its highest level in the 5th4th centuries BC. Pottery belonging to the Roman Empire Period in the Kocatarlalar and İncirlikburnu settlements indicate that they continued their limited existence. Interpretation of the historical geography of the area based on the data from pottery The place where the River Hebros flowed into the sea in the Archaic Period is not certain. Herodotos states that Kserkses, passing Lake Stentoris from Ainos, reached Doriskos (Herodotos, Historia 7.58). On the other hand, Pliny, in Naturalis Historia, expressed that there was ‘Stentoris Dock’ at the estuary of the River Hebros (Pliny, Natural History 4.43.). People who conducted research in the area at the beginning of the 19th century gave more detailed information about the state of the area and created maps. Gouffier, on the map showing Ainos and the surrounding area in his book published in 1809, indicated that while the western estuary of the Hebros that flowed from two estuaries was close to the present river bed, the estuary that today flows into the sea just to the west of Ainos did not then exist and the coast was close to Feres and Yenikarpuzlu (Figure 13a) (Choiseul 309

Ergün Karaca

Figure 12. Chronological distribution of pottery by settlement.

Figure 13. Situation of the region according to various maps.

Gouffier 1809: Planche 13). According to the writer, the gulf is not very deep (Choiseul Gouffier 1809: 108-109). On Hasluck’s map, the gulf had an inward curve up to today’s Lake Pamuklu (Figure 13b) (Hasluck 1908/1909: fig. 1). According to the research carried out by Bedri Alpar, in the 7th Century BC the coastline was roughly 20-25km to the north, extending to Yenikarpuzlu to

the south of İpsala and along the Kocadere Valley in the east up to the north of Orhaniye Village to the southwest of Keşan (Figure 13c) (Alpar 2005: 16). In the topographical map showing the region, there is a sandy area in this part called ‘Tuzlu Tarla’ (Salty Field) by the villagers.

310

Pottery from the Lower Hebros and the Kocaçay Valley Survey

Baykan and Sevtap Gölgesiz-Karaca for their insightful remarks.

Conclusion Our knowledge of the state of the Lower Meriç and Kocaçay Valley in the 1st millennium BC is unfortunately very limited. To understand the area in this period, the insights given by the first modern geological studies and the maps drawn in the 19th century are important.

Bibliography Alpar, B. 2005: ‘Tarih Boyunca Aşağı Meriç ve Enez Bölgesinde Kıyı Oynamaları’ Yöre Dergisi 67: 16–18. Arrington, N.T., Terzopoulou, D., Tasaklaki, M., Lawall, M.L., Brellas, D.J., White, C.E. 2016: ‘Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project, 2013 Preliminary Report’ Hesperia 85: 1–64. Başaran, S. 1999: ‘Enez Çevresinde Yapılan Arkeolojik Araştırmalar’ in N. Başgelen, G. Çelgin, A.V. Çelgin (eds) Anatolian & Thracian Studies in Honour of Zafer Taşlıklıoğlu Armağanı: Anadolu ve Trakya Çalışmalar. Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat: 169–97. Başaran, S. 2003: ‘Enez (Ainos) 2001 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 24/2: 283–94. Benson, J.L. 1983: ‘Corinthian Kotyle workshops’ Hesperia 52: 311–26. Blondé, F. 1985: ‘Un remblai thasien du IVe siècle avant notre ère’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109: 281–344. Blondé, F. 2007: Les céramiques d’us Period quotidien à Thasos au IVe siècle avant J.-C. Paris, De Boccard. Blondé, F., Mulliez, D., Muller, A. 1989: ‘Les abords N.E. de l’agora de Thasos. II, 1–4. Le comblement d’un puits public à Thasos’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 113: 481 545. Broneer, O. 1930: Terracotta Lamps. Corinth 7, 2. Cambridge MA, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Choisieul-Gouffier, M.G.F.A. 1809: Voyage Pittoresque De La Grèce II, Paris. Erzen, A., Başaran, S. 1990: ‘1988 Yılı Enez Kazısı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 11/2: 107–23. Hasdağlı, İ. 2012: ‘The Assessment of the 4th Century B.C. Finds from Three Wells Uncovered at Clazomenae HBT (Hamdi Balaban Tarlası) Sector’ Olba 20, 119–64. Hasdağlı, İ. 2017: ‘Trakya’da Attika Dışı Siyah Firnisli Seramik Üretimi’ Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 13/7: 42–66. Hasluck, F.W. 1908/1909: ‘Monuments of the Gattelusi’ Annual of the British School at Athens 15: 248–69. Irmak, E.N. 2010: Enez’de (Ainos) Ele Geçen Orientalizan Seramikler. Master Thesis, Trakya University, Edirne. Lozanov, I. 2010: ‘On the Import Amphorae in Thrace (6th-3rd centuries B.C.)’ in D. Kassab Tezgör, N. Inaishvili (eds), Patabas I, Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea, Actes de la Table Ronde International de Batoumi et Trabzon, 27–29 Avril 2006. Istanbul, Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes: 85–96. Moore, M.B. 1997: Attic Red-Figured and White-Ground Pottery. The Athenian Agora 30. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Nikov, K. 2012: Grey Monochrome Pottery from Apollonia Pontica. Veliko Tarnovo, Feber Papadopoulos, J.K.

As well as Döken Çiftliği, discovered by Sait Başaran, the settlements of Kocatarlalar, Kayıkyolu, Kuğuburnu, and İncirlikburnu have all been studied for the first time by the author. Evaluations have been made about the historical geography of the area in the Archaic Period thanks to the data from the pottery from the abovementioned settlements. When this data is taken into consideration, it can be seen that the settlements had dense housing in the 8th century BC, and especially between the 6th and 4th centuries BC, during which period, pottery manufactured in Attica was frequently found. In addition, as can be seen from the sample from Kayıkyolu, imitations of the imported potteries were attempted in the area. The data on pottery obtained from the settlements mentioned above gives significant information about the nature of the area in the Archaic Period. According to this data, and when the information from ancient writers and travellers as well as geological research are taken into consideration, the area that covers Lakes Gala and Pamuklu today must have been a gulf and the area of Kocaçay Valley must have been an estuary in the 1st millennium BC. Therefore, it can be concluded that Döken Çiftliği, Kocatarlalar, Kuğuburnu, İncirlikburnu and Kayıkyolu were settlements that had seaports at the back of small coves on the abovementioned gulf and estuary shores. Thus, instead of climbing over Mount Hisar on a relatively difficult road, seafaring must have been used by means of small seaports for fast and safe transportation. Thanks to this, it is understood that, starting from the 8th century BC, and especially from the 6th century BC to the 2nd century AD, there was communication with Western Anatolia and Continental Greece, especially via the biggest coastal city in the area, Ainos. Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Trakya University for its support of this project, to the Cultural Assets and Museums General Directorate and Edirne Archaeological Museum Directorate for the necessary permissions. A special word of thanks is due to my colleagues, Serdar Akan and Melike Hasdağlı, for pottery drawings, İlkan Hasdağlı for his contribution to the interpretation of the pottery and Emma Baysal for proofreading. I should also like to thank Daniş

311

Ergün Karaca 2005: The Early Iron Period cemetery at Torone. Los Angeles, UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Payne, H. , Dunbabin, T.J., Blakeway, A. 1940: Perachora, the Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia; Excavations of the British school of Archaeology at Athens, 1930–1933. Oxford, The Clarendon Press. Polat, Y. 2002: Daskyleion’da Ele Geçen Gri Tek Renkli Seramiklerin Form Kataloğu. PhD Thesis, Ege University, İzmir. Robinson, D.M. 1933: Mosaics, Vases, and Lamps of Olynthus Found in 1928 and 1931. Excavations at Olynthus 5.Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Robinson, D.M. 1950: Vases found in 1934 and 1938. Excavations at Olynthus 13.Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Rotroff, S.I. 1997: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material.

The Athenian Agora 29. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Sparkes, B.A., Talcott, L. 1970: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C. Princeton. The Athenian Agora 12. New Jersey, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Şahin, I., 2008: ‘Döken Çiftliği’ in G. Kozbe, A. Ceylan, Y. Polat, T. Sivas, H. Sivas, I. Şahin, D. Tanrıver (eds), Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşimleri 6b-Demirçağ. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları. Trias, G. 1987: ‘El Sec: La cerámica ática de figuras rojas’ Revue des Études Anciennes 89/3: 21–49. Weinberg, S.S. 1943: The Geometric and Orientalizing Pottery. Corinth 7, 1. Cambridge, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Weinberg, S.S. 1974: ‘KTΛ from Corinth’ Hesperia 43: 522–34.

312

Ceramic Ware Studies

313

Gebrauchskeramik aus nordgriechischen Befunden Maria Deoudi1 Zusammenfassung1 Die Grobe Ware aus der Siedlung Maroneia ist reich an Formen und Herkunft. Zu den bekanntesten und zahlreichsten Funden zählen Amphoren aus Akanthos, Mende und Samothrake. Eine weitere importierte Form ist der Mortarium, das aus attischen Werkstätten bekannt ist. Neben importierten Waren aus Athen und den Städten in Nordgriechenland, findet man offensichtlich lokale Produkte unter den Groben Waren wie die Chytra und die Lopades, die aber wiederum von griechischen Formen beeinflusst sind. Somit liefern die Keramikfunde wichtige Hinweise auf die griechische Identität der Stadt. Im Gegensatz zu dem Hintergrund der archäologischen Tradition ist Maroneia ein fester Bestandteil der griechischen Welt und Kultur. Da derzeit jedoch die Beweise für die Beziehung zwischen dem Kernland und der Umgebung fehlen, sind weitere Untersuchungen erforderlich, um diese Annahme zu untermauern. Schlüsselwörter ATHEN, MENDE, AKANTHOS, IMPORTE, LOKALE WAREN Abstract

The common Ware from the Settlement in Maroneia is rich in forms. Most prominent shapes such as Amphoras are imported from Akanthos, Mende and Samothrace. Another imported form is the mortarium, of which parallels are known from Attic workshops. At the same obviously local manufactures are among the common Ware such as Chytra and the Lopades which however also influenced from Greek forms. Thus, the pottery evidence presents important clues about the Greek identity of the city. Against the background of the archaeological tradition, Maroneia is an integral part of the Greek world and culture. Since currently the evidence about the relationship between the heartland and environs is missing, further research is essential to substantiate this assumption. Keywords ATHENS, MENDE, AKANTHOS, IMPORTS, LOCAL WARE

In einem dichter werdenden Diskussionsumfeld zur Keramik des 4. und 3. Jhs. v. Chr. bildet die thrakische Küstenlandschaft mit ihren bedeutenden poleis quasi 1 

Dr. habil. e-mail: [email protected]

terra incognita. Erst langsam werden einzelne Befunde zur Bearbeitung freigegeben, die einen Weg öffnen diese Lücke zu schließen (Deoudi 2012). Ein inzwischen zumindest teilweise zugänglicher Befund stammt aus Maroneia, welches eine ausgedehnte Bauaktivität in spätklassischer und hellenistischer Zeit aufzuweisen hat. Dominant und auch heute noch sichtbar die weitläufige und groß angelegte Stadtmauer, die das Stadtareal umgibt und bislang einmalig für den thrakischen Raum ist. Sie erinnert an zeitgleiche Stadtgründungen auf der Chalkidike wie u.a. Kassandreia, wodurch sich ein evidenter Hinweis auf die Erbauung der Befestigungsmauer ableiten lässt (Zum Bauprogramm Kassanders: Touratsoglou 1996: 176-81). Die Tatsache, dass Maroneia im erhaltenen Stadtbild eine spätklassische Gründung ist, erklärt auch die auffallende Stadtgliederung, bei dem der Bereich intra muros stark nach funktionalen Aspekten gegliedert ist (Heinle 2009: 38-69; Mileta 2009: 70-92). Der öffentlich-religiös Bereich im Norden ist räumlich stark gegen den mittleren Wohnbereich und das südliche Handelszentrum abgesetzt. Das Theater und mindestens zwei religiös genutzte Bauten formieren sich weitgehend um einen freien Bereich, den man als Agora ansprechen sollte. Nach Süden sind die Bauten durch eine Stoa als Ensemble vom restlichen Stadtgebiet hin abgesetzt. Konzeptionell erinnert dies an spätklassisch-hellenistische Stadtmodelle, denen die Erbauer von Maroneia verpflichtet sind. Im Süden liegt, den natürlichen Vorgaben folgend, an einer Mole der Hafen. Zwischen den beiden Stadtgürteln befindet sich im mittleren Sektor der Wohnbereich. In Einklang mit den oben aufgeführten Strukturmerkmalen des Stadtbildes sowie einzelner datierender Grabungsfunde aus den öffentlichen Bereichen kann der Hausbefund aus Maroneia in seiner Entstehung dem Ende des 4. Jhs. zugewiesen werden. So lagen auf dem Estrich des Hauses bronzene Münzprägungen aus Orthagoreia, die in die 2. Hälfte des 4. Jhs. datieren (Kαραδήμα, Μάτσας 1994: 355-58; Τσόκα 2004: 245 Anm. 10; Einheimische Prägungen: Psoma et al. 2008: 54 Nr. M45 (ANK 7765). 73 Nr. M119 (ANK 7768). Münzen aus Orthagoreia: Psoma et al. 2008: 100 Nr. M268 (ANK 7760). 79 Nr. M166 (ANK 7750)). Grabungssondagen unterhalb des Hausfundamentes konnte außerdem überzeugend belegen, dass die Hausreste keinen Vorgängerphasen aufweisen, und das Haus auf lagenweise eingefüllten Aufschüttungs- und Planierungsschichten errichtet

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 315–322

Maria Deoudi

Abbildung 2. Amphora aus Akanthos Typ II aus Maroneia.

Abbildung 1. Amphora Typ II Akanthos aus Maroneia.

wurde, was offensichtlich für den gesamten mittleren Siedlungsbereich gilt (Deoudi 2013: 100-30). Aus den oberen Verschüttungsschichten des Hauses hingegen stammen lokale Münzen, die aufgrund ihrer Stempelung um 190 v. Chr. datiert werden müssen. Auch hier sind es neben den Münzen vor allem die Lampen die diese Angaben stützen (Psoma et al. 2008, 106 Nr. M312 (ANK 7727)). Der ermittelte Zeitraum, vor allem aber das archäologische belegte Ende der Nutzung des Wohnhauses deckt sich exakt mit den überlieferten historischen Daten, denen zufolge Maroneia den Übergriffen des Makedonenkönigs Philipp V. zum Opfer fiel. Dabei wurde der mittlere Stadtteil komplett zerstört und anschließend nicht wieder erbaut, wohingegen beide öffentlichen Bereiche bis in römische Zeit weiter genutzt wurden.2

2  Zu nennen sind die Stadtbefestigung, deren Bau während der Regierung Hadrians angeordnet wurde, sowie die Thermen im Hafengebiet. Eine weitere Baumaßnahme ist auch der Umbau des Theaters in römischer Zeit. s. dazu: Deoudi 2009: 69–76. Die römische Präsenz in Maroneia anhand der Münzfunde diskutiert ausführlich: Psoma 2011: 143–68.

Abbildung 3. Mende Typ Parmeniskos aus Maroneia.

316

Gebrauchskeramik aus nordgriechischen Befunden

Bereits kurz nach der Stadtgründung setzte ein intensiver Import fremder Keramikgüter ein, der für die Gattungen der sog. Gebrauchskeramik hinsichtlich der Korrelationen und Divergenzen zu anderen Zentren neue und wichtige Einsichten erlaubt. Unter dem Kochgeschirr und den Vorratsgefäßen, die notwendigerweise zu Hausinventaren gehören, fallen vor allem die Amphoren auf, die in Maroneia in nicht geringer Zahl vorhanden sind. Exemplarisch sollen hier zwei Typenbeispiele vorgestellt werden: So stammt eine Amphora aus einer Werkstatt aus Akanthos (Φίλης 2012: 68 Abb. 6) und gehört dem Typ II an, der dort seit der 2. Hälfte des 4. Jhs. gefertigt wurde (Abbildung 1). Parallel dazu sind ebenfalls Henkelfragmente entdeckt worden, die gleichfalls von Amphoren dieses Typs stammen, wie sich aus der zeichnerischen Rekonstruktion (Abbildung 2) ergibt. Neben der sehr spezifischen Formgebung weist auch die Tonkonsistenz diese Stücke sicher als Import aus. Die Amphora wie auch die Henkel aus Maroneia können aufgrund ihrer spezifischen Befundkontextes frühestens zu Beginn des 3. Jhs. datiert werden (Mende: Papadopoulos, Paspalas 1999: 174-75; Garlan 2006: 146-7: Φίλης 2012: 68). Dem Import aus Akanthos kann ein weiteres Beispiel zur Seite gestellt werden. Es handelt sich um eine Amphora aus Mende (Abbildung 3), die aufgrund ihrer formtypologischen Ausführung der ‚ParmeniskosGruppe‘ zugesprochen werden kann. Der helle Ton und auch die auffallend dünne Gefäßwandung stehen im Kontrast zu belegten maronitischen Töpferarbeiten. Der Produktionszeitraum dieses Amphorentyps, der nicht nur in Mende sondern in großer Zahl auch in Pella (Ακαμάτης 2000: 13-22) entdeckt wurde, setzt mit dem Beginn des 3. Jhs. ein und hält sich bis ins 2. Jh. In Maroneia sollte die Amphora aufgrund ihrer Befundsituation in die Mitte des 3. Jhs. datiert werden3.

Abbildung 4. Amphora thasischer Provenienz aus Maroneia.

Außer den beiden genannten Amphorentypen sind vor allem durch Zeichnungen früherer Kampagnen Fragmente nachgewiesen, die aus Hals- und Henkelfragmenten oder aber aus Amphorenfüßen bestehen und die von importierten Gefäßen aus Thasos und Samothrake (Abbildungen 4,5) stammen, wobei die letztgenannten Beispiele zahlenmäßig überwiegen (Samothrake: Kαραδήμα, Μάτσας 1994: 355-64; Karadima 2004: 155-70, speziell zu Ainos). Lokal gefertigte Amphoren, sowohl als Imitate als auch in einer eigenen formtypologischen Ausprägung, Abbildung 5. Amphora aus Samothrake Typ I aus Maroneia.

3  Garlan 2006: 146–47 vermutet, dass die Verbreitung dieser und auch anderer Amphoren grundsätzlich über Thasos lief, da Amphoren aus thasischen Werkstätten in beachtlicher Zahl entdeckt wurden und die Insel als Verteiler geeignet schien. Die Vorbildhaftigkeit, die Kassanders Wirtschafts- und Baupolitik für Maroneia war, wie mir scheint, ausreichend um eigenständige Beziehungen und somit direkten Import zu vermuten. s. dazu: Deoudi 2012.

317

Maria Deoudi fehlen gänzlich innerhalb des Siedlungsbefundes, so dass die geschilderte Situation einmal mal mehr die schon lange geäußerte Vermutung unterstreicht, dass Maroneia, zwar eigene Tonwaren herstellte, jedoch keine eigenen Amphoren produzierte. Ob dies nur eine Überlieferungssituation ist, scheint kaum vorstellbar, da auch in anderen Kontexten, die gesicherte Handelsbeziehungen mit der Polis hatten, Amphoren mit Stempelungen aus Maroneia nicht auftreten. In die Gruppe der importierten Tongefäße des täglichen Gebrauchs sind weiterhin die beiden zusammengehörigen Fragmente eines Mörsers zu nennen. Erhalten sind Ausguss und Randfragment (Abbildungen 6,7). Beide können ergänzt werden zu einem flachen Mörser. Diese Gefäßform hat direkte Parallelen zu Funden aus Makedonien, wobei die nordgriechischen Beispiele grundsätzlich auf attische Vorbilder zurückgehen. Konkret erinnert der Fund aus Maroneia an die Formvariante I aus Athen (Κομπολόι, Makedonien: Αδάμ-Βελένη, Πουλάκη, Τζαναβάρη 2003: 184 Abb. 52, 53; Samothrake: Love 1964, 167 Nr. 49; zu den attischen Funden: Rotroff 2006: 100 Abb. 30-32 Taf. 24-26). Mörser dieser Form werden in Athen um 300 v. Chr. gefertigt, wobei die Produktion sich bis zum Ende des 1. Jhs. v. Chr. hält. In Maroneia kann das Beispiel aufgrund seiner spezifischen Vergesellschaftung in die Zeit nach der Mitte des 3. Jhs. datiert werden. Im selben Haus sind außerdem weitere ebenfalls zusammengehörende Fragmente entdeckt worden, die eine weitere Variante desselben Gefäßtyps belegen. Es handelt sich um eine Mörserform, die einen fast identischen Ausguss zum genannten Beispiel aufweist, aber eine andere Randbildung besitzt (Abbildung 8) und der Formvariante 3 aus Athen entspricht (Rotroff 2006: 103 Abb. 33 Taf. 27). Auch diese Ausprägung ist aus diversen Siedlungskontexten in Makedonien und auf Samothrake bekannt (Κομπολόι, Makedonien: Αδάμ-Βελένη, Πουλάκη, Τζαναβάρη 2003: 234). In der Formgebung der Variante 3 erscheint der Mörser im 3. Jh. und ist noch in Kontexten des 2. Jhs. anzutreffen. Der Fund aus Maroneia kann kaum vor der Mitte des 3. Jhs. in das Haus gelangt sein, wie sie aus der Fundvergesellschaftung ergibt.

Abbildung 6. Mörser Typ 1 aus Maroneia.

Abbildung 7. Mörser aus Maroneia.

Eindeutig aus lokalen Werkstätten stammen hingegen die Lopaden. Das ganz erhaltene Beispiel aus Maroneia (Abbildung 9) ist ein weites, offenes Gefäß. Gefäßspezifische Merkmale sind der abgerundete Gefäßboden des Kochgeschirrs sowie die beiden Henkel, die unterhalb der Lippe angebracht sind und die kurze nachaußen stehende Lippe. Diesem Beispiel kann noch ein weiteres Fragment (Abbildung 10) zur Seite gestellt werden. Vorlagen sind für Gefäße dieser Form aus dem gesamten griechischen Kulturkreis bekannt (Rotroff 2004: 459; Rotroff 2006: 179. Olynthus: Robinson 1933: 247 Nr. 1004. Taf. 186). Aus nordgriechischen Kontexten

Abbildung 8. Mörser Typ 3 aus Maroneia.

sind vor allem die Beispiele aus Olynthus zu nennen, die ein Aufkommen der Form in der 1. Hälfte des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. belegen und ihrerseits auch den Werkstätten in Athen als Vorlagen dienten (Olynthus: Robinson 1931: 247 Nr. 1004 Taf. 186; Athen: Rotroff 2006: 179 entspricht Form 1 der attischen Formen mit ‚upturned handles‘). Zur selben Zeit treten Lopades mit dieser formtypologischen Ausprägung auch auf Thasos auf. 318

Gebrauchskeramik aus nordgriechischen Befunden

Abbildung 9. Lopas Typ 1 aus Maroneia.

Wichtig, dass das ganz erhaltene Beispiel aus Maroneia frühestens in dieser Zeit gefertigt werden konnte (Thasos: Blondé 1985: 335-38 Abb. 54 (Anr. 342); Blondé 2000: 132 (Typ Thas. 1) Abb. 2). Lopaden dominieren als Form innerhalb der Küchengeräte seit dem 1. Viertel des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. und waren bis weit ins 2. Jh. v. Chr. in Benutzung (Rotroff 2004: 459 mit Anm. 16 und einer Übersicht zur Streuung des Gefäßtypus im 3. und 2. Jh). Eine weitere Küchenform aus Maroneia ist die Pfanne. In Athen kommen diese zwar vermehrt vor, werden aber in der Mehrzahl als Importe angesprochen, wohingegen nur vereinzelte Beispiele als lokale Produkte gelten (Rotroff 2006: 187-95. Thasos: Blondé 2000, 152-75, Abb. 2). Die frühesten importierten Stücke, die in athenischen Befunden nachgewiesen werden können, datieren nach Rotroff über den spezifischen Fundkontext ins späte 3. Jh. v. Chr., während gleichzeitig die Vorlagen für diese attische Gefäßform nach Italien weisen (Rotroff 2004: 460 mit Anm. 17; Rotroff 2006: 186).

Abbildung 10. Lopas Typ 1 aus Maroneia.

Das Beispiel (Abbildung 11) aus Maroneia orientiert sich mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit an den aus Athen bekannten Vorlagen, während aus Nordgriechenland bislang direkte Vergleichstücke fehlen, was aber auch der Publikationssituation geschuldet sein kann. Anhand der Henkelform und dessen Position zum Gefäßrand scheint es sich wahrscheinlich um eine Pfannenform zu handeln, die der Form 4 attischer Stücke nahekommt (Rotroff 2006: 191, Nr. 690-92 Taf. 71- Pan. Form 4). wobei gleichzeitig festgehalten werden muss, dass die

Abbildung 11. Pfanne Form 1 aus Maroneia.

319

Maria Deoudi

Abbildung 12. Deckel Typ 2 aus Maroneia.

Abbildung 13. Chytra aus Maroneia.

Henkel der Pfanne aus Maroneia weitaus kürzer sind als die der attischen Stücke und hier direkt unter dem unteren Lippenrand ansetzen. Die Abweichungen in der Ausführung mögen ein weiteres Indiz dafür sein, dass es sich um eine lokale Arbeit handelt, bzw. dass man sich offensichtlich auch von den importierten Vorlagen trennen konnte um eine in Ansätzen eigene Formensprache zu finden. Es stellt sich auch immer die Frage weshalb man eine bewährte Form verändert. Dies mag sowohl durch den Ton bedingt sein, als auch durch die technischen Möglichkeiten der Zeit.

weitaus weniger Deckel erhalten, als dies zu erwarten wäre und speziell der Befund aus Maroneia dies fordern würde. Wahrscheinlich scheint in diesem Zusammenhang der Vorschlag von Rotroff, derzufolge Kochgeschirr in allen bekannten Ausprägungen nicht zwingend, sondern eher optional mit einem Deckel ausgestattet war, bzw. man einen Deckel für unterschiedliche Formen nutzte (Rotroff 2006: 195). Aus Maroneia sind insgesamt mehrere Fragmente entdeckt worden, die ganz offensichtlich von Deckeln stammen. Der Knaufdeckel (Abbildung 12), dessen Bezeichnung sich vom knaufartigen Ende des oberen Abschlusses ableitet ist das erste Beispiel aus Maroneia, das hier

Beide zuvor genannten Formen Lopaden oder Pfannen besitzen grundsätzlich einen Deckel, allerdings sind 320

Gebrauchskeramik aus nordgriechischen Befunden

vorgestellt werden soll. Der Knauf ist ein aufsteigender Kegel, der sich nach oben verbreitert und dann in einem scharfen Knick schräg einen erhabenen Kegel bildet. Ähnliche, wenn auch nicht in allen Details übereinstimmende Deckelknäufe sind aus Athen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. bekannt (Sparks, Talcott 1970: 373-74 Abb. 18, Taf. 95, Nr. 1962, 1963; Rotroff 2006: 196, Nr. 717-23, Taf. 73). In den attischen Befunden zeichnet sich ab, dass diese formtypologische Ausprägung bis in frühe 3. Jh. v. Chr. hergestellt und verwendet wurde, allerdings sind diese nicht mehr in Fundmilieus nach 220 v. Chr. nachweisbar. So kann der Deckel aus Maroneia mit dieser formtypologischen Ausprägung in Anlehnung an die attischen Vorlagen frühestens frühen 3. Jh. v. Chr. entstanden sein. Allerdings ist diese Deckelform noch in vielen späthellenistischen Fundkomplexen anzutreffen, wie auch neuere Funde aus Thasos belegen (Thasos: Blondé 2000). In Attika wird der Deckel mit den genannten Merkmalen vor allem als Zubehör der Form der Lopades gesehen (Sparks, Talcott 1970: 373, Nr. 1962, Taf. 95). Im 3. Jh. v. Chr. ist diese Deckelform auch zusammen mit einer Chytra entdeckt worden (Rotroff 2006: 196, Nr. 714).

Literaturverzeichnis/Bibliography Αδάμ-Βελένη, Π. , Πουλάκη, Ε., Τζαναβάρη Κ. 2003: Αρχαίες αγροικίες σε σύγχρονους δρόμους. Κεντρική Μακεδονία. Athens, Ekdosι tu Tameiu Archaiologikοn Porοn kai Apallotriοseοn. Ακαμάτης, Ι. 2000: Ενσφράγιστες λαβές από την Αγορά της Πέλλας, Ανασκαφή 1980–1987. Οι ομάδες Παρμενίσκου και Ρόδου. Athens, Η Εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική εταιρεία. Φίλης, K. 2012: ‘Εργαστήρια εμπορικών αμφορέων στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη’ in: Δρούγου Στ., Τουράτσογλου, I. (Hrsg.), Θέματα ελληνιστικής κεραμικής στην Αρχαία Μακεδονία. Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund: 60–84. Kαραδήμα X., Μάτσας, Δ. 1994: ‘Eργαστήριο παραγωγής αμφορέων στη Σαμοθράκη’ Γ´ Επιστηµονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική. Κεραµική. Athens, Ypourgeio Politismou: 355–62. Τσόκα Σ. 2004, Πύλινοι λίχνοι από τη Μαρώνεια, ΣΤ´ Επιστηµονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική. Κεραµική. Athens, Ypourgeio Politismou: 243–56. Blondé, F. 1985: ‘Un remblai thasien du IVe siècle avant notre ère. La céramique’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109 : 281–344. Blondé, F. 1986: ‘Matériel amphorique récemment trouvé dans un puits à Thasos’ in: J.-Y. Empereur, Y. Garlan (Hrsg.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique, l’Université de Rennes II et l’Ecole française d’Athènes (Athen 10– 12.09.1984), Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplement. 13. Athens, Ecole Française d’Athènes : 277–8. Blondé, F. 2000: ‘Autour de la céramique du IVe siècle dans le nord-est de l’Egée. Quelques approches différentes’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 124 : 161–88. Blondé, F., Muller, A. 1991: ‘Les abord Nord-Est de l´agora de Thasos. Le comblement d’ un puits publics, 5. le Matériel amphorique’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 115, 1991, 213–242. Deoudi, M. 2009: ‘Am Rande der griechischen Welt’, Antike Welt 40: 69–76 . Deoudi, M. 2012: ‘Lampen aus dem spätklassischen Hausbefund Ochthous aus Maroneia’ BOREAS: Münstersche Beiträge zur Archäologie 33: 37–52. Deoudi, M. 2013: Μαρώνεια. Ein Beitrag zur Stadtgeschichte. Unpublizierte Habilschrift, Erlangen. Garlan, Y., 1985 : ‘Un remblai thasien du IVe siècle abant notre ère. B. Amphores et timbres amphorique’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109 : 727–46.

Das Küchenrepertoire kann ergänzt werden durch eine Chytra (Abbildung 13). Ιn Form und Ausprägung haben diese bauchigen Gefäße zahlreiche Parallelen im nordgriechisch-makedonischen und thasischen Raum, sowie auf Samothrake nachweisbar, die in der Formgebung allgemein stark an attische Vorlagen erinnern (Κομπολόι, Makedonien: ΑδάμΒελένη, Πουλάκη, Τζαναβάρη 2003: 184, Abb. 55, α, β. Samothrake: Kopcke 1992: 318-19, Nr. 271-73. Thasos: Blondé 1985. Athen: Rotroff 2006; 173, Nr. 595-603, Taf. 64). Grundsätzlich wird er Produktionszeitrum dieser Form vom 5. Jh. bis ins 1 Jh. v. Chr. angesetzt, wobei innerhalb dessen kaum gravierende Veränderungen in der Ausprägung auszumachen sind. Das Beispiel aus Maroneia reiht sich in diese allgemeine Entwicklung ein, weist aber einen runderen Gefäßabschluss au, während Schulter. Lippe und Henkelansatz den allgemeinen formtypologischen Vorgaben folgen. Die Abweichungen können durchaus als Zeichen einer lokalen Variante sein, die eine Differenzierung gegenüber den Vorlagen anstrebt. Innerhalb des langen Produktionszeitraums ist eine präzisere chronologische Einordnung nur über den Kontext zu ermitteln, der in diesem Fall in die Zeit des frühen 3. Jhs. führt. Schon im Alltag, so zeigt sich steht Maroneia zwischen Ost und West und nutzt aus einem sehr weiten kulturellen Umfeld Formen und Gefäße für den eigenen täglichen Gebrauch.

321

Maria Deoudi Garlan, Y., 2006: ‘Η προέλευση της ‘ομάδας Παρμενίσκου’ από τη Μένδη’ Το Αρχαιολογικο Εργο Στη Μακεδονια Και Τη Θρακη 18: 141–48. Heinle, M. 2009, ‘Stadtbilder im Hellenismus’ in A. Matthaei, M. Zimmermann (Hrsg.), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus 1. Berlin, Verlag Antike: 38–69. Karadima, C. 2004: ‘Ainos: An Unknown Amphora Production Centre in the Evros Delta’ in J. Eiring, J. Lund (Hrsg.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26th-29th 2002. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 155–61. Kopcke, G. 1992, ‘Ceramics’ in J. McCredie, K. Lehmann, P.W. Lehmann (Hrsg.), The Rotunda of Arsinoe. Samothrace 7. New York, Princeton University Press: 275–326. Love, I. 1964, ‘Ceramics from the Fills of the Altar Court’ in D. Spittle, The Altar Court. Samothrace 4/ 2. New York, Pantheon Books: 151–67. Miletta, C. 2009: ‘Überlegungen zum Charakter und zur Entwicklung der Neuen Poleis im hellenistischen Kleinasien’ in A. Matthaei, M. Zimmermann (Hrsg.), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus 1. Berlin, Verlag Antike: 70–92. Papadopoulos, J.K, Paspalas, S.A., 1999: ‘Mendaian and Chalkidian Wine’ Hesperia 68: 61–188. Psoma, S, Karadima, C., Terzopoulou, D. 2008: The coins from Maroneia and the classical city at Molyvoti: A Contribution to the history of Aegean Thrace ,Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, Meletemata 62. Athens, Diffusion de Boccard.

Psoma, S. 2011: ‘La circulation monétaire et la thésaurisation en Thrace au Nord des Rodopes’ in T. Faucher, M.C. Marcellesi, O. Picard (Hrsg.), Nomisma. La circulation monétaire dans le mondes grec antique. Actes du colloque international 14.-15.04.2010, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplement 53. Athens-Paris, École Française d’Athènes- Diffusion de Boccard: 143–68. Robinson, D.  M. 1931: Mosaics, Vases and Lamps of Olynthus found in 1928 and 1931. Excavations at Olynthus 5. Baltimore, John Hopkins. Robinson, D.  M. 1933: The Terracottas of Olynthus found in 1931. Excavations at Olynthus 7. Baltimore, John Hopkins. Rotroff, S. 2004: ‘Coarse Wares at the Athenian Agora’ in S. Drougou (ed.), ΣΤ› Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική : προβλήματα χρονολόγησης κλειστά σύνολα - εργαστήρια, Βόλος 17–23 Απριλίου 2000. Athens, ΤΑΠΑ: 455–60. Rotroff, S. 2006: Hellenistic Pottery. The Plain Wares. The Athenian Agora 33. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Sparks, B.A., Talcott, L. 1970: Black and plain pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries BC. The Athenian Agora 12. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Touratsoglou, I. 1996: ‘Die Baupolitik Kassanders’ in W. Hoepfner, G. Brands (Hrsg.), Basileia. Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige. Congress Berlin 1992. Mainz, von Zabern: 176- 81.

322

Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk1 Abstract1 This paper presents some groups of plain and coarse ware ceramics that were collected during the TekirdağGanos Archaeological Survey, which were campaigns conducted under the direction of Prof. Zeynel Koçel Erdem in southeastern Thrace. It aims to contribute to pottery studies of a relatively lesser-known region and to shed light on trade relations as well as to determine the form and type preferences from the Hellenistic to Late Roman Periods. Keywords GANOS REGION, COARSE WARES, AMPHORA, SURVEY, VIA MILITARIS

The Tekirdağ-Ganos Archaeological Survey started in 2008 by Prof. Zeynep Koçel Erdem focuses on the region’s Greek and Roman settlements, cult places and interregional networks. Primarily located in the southwest of Propontis (modern Sea of Marmara), the survey area extends to Tekirdağ in the north; Şarköy Kızılcaterzi in the south, the İstanbul-Tekirdağ highway in the west and Propontis as the natural border in the east (Figure 1). The subject of this article is part of a PhD thesis on plain and coarse ware ceramics from the area. Historical information on the exact region is very limited, except for the settlements located on the coast. Therefore, the historical process in eastern Thrace has been examined as a whole. After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, the region came under the rule of Lysimachus at first but it subsequently changed hands more than once between the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Seleucid Empire over the course of the third century BC (Terzopoulou 2016: 109-10). Following the war between the Seleucids and Rome in the first half of the second century BC, the Treaty of Apameia was signed. Rome gave control of the Thracian Chersonese and Propontis coasts to the Attalids, which supported Rome during the war (Cohen 1995: 87). Upon the death of Attalus III, his lands were bequeathed to Rome and the aforementioned region was included in the Province of Macedonia (Loukopoulou 1987: 73-5).

1 

Dr., Independent researcher, e-mail: [email protected]

The area in question was incorporated within the Provincia Thracia that was established in 46 AD (Lozanov 2015: 76). In the fourth century AD, with the reorganisation of the administrative system, the southeastern shores of Propontis were included in the province of Europa within the Diocese of Thrace (Külzer 2008: 76). Over the course of the following two hundred years, the region was exposed to mainly Slav and Avar attacks from the north and many battles took place between these tribes and the Roman Empire as a consequence (Staykov 2017: 141-6). Within the research area; Ganos (Gaziköy), Bisanthe/ Panion (Barbaros), Heraclea (Eriklice) and Tyrodiza/ Teiristasis (Şarköy) are among the coastal settlements which are already known through ancient sources as well as modern studies. They are still inhabited today and ancient remains can be found underneath the modern settlements. The determination of inland settlements and cult places on the other hand are mainly based on surveys (Sayar 1993; Koçel Erdem 2016). Although the hinterland is mountainous, the region was connected to major roads (Külzer 2011: 179-201). The material discussed in this article was collected from twenty-seven locations (Figure 2). Although our ceramic sherds were initially sorted based by their type (e.g., rim, handle, body and base), our study solely examines and discusses diagnostic rim sherds due to the simple nature of plain ceramics. Identifiable forms in this context are classified as trade amphoras; cooking wares (stew pots, casseroles, cooking pans and cooking bowls) and vessels for preparing and serving (bowls, jugs and mugs). Forms classified as cooking wares, in particular, were used for their functionality rather than aesthetics or fashion, causing them to be produced for centuries without any changes. For this reason, time frames derived from analogies are only provided. As the study progressed, it was determined that most forms could be divided into various types. Amphoras Trade amphoras have been placed in chronological order. As of the second half of the fourth century BC, Thasian and Northern Aegean amphoras (Bülbül 2023: in this volume) and mushroom rimmed amphoras, (Figure 3.1) which were produced in many centres in the

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 323–336

Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk

Figure 1. Research Area.

Figure 2. Findspots.

324

Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach

Figure 3. Southern Aegean and Cnidian amphora.

Southern Aegean, were found to be the earliest types among the material. They are followed by the Cnidian amphora, with its unique form that developed in the third century BC (Monachov 1999: 161-72) (Figure 3.2) and a Seuthopolis type (Bülbül 2023: in this volume).

Dressel 24 similis, with a more flared mouth (Figure 4.3) appears similar to the examples from Tanais (Arsen’eva, Naumenko 1992: 151-2, fig. 30), Callatis (Opaiț, Ionescu 2016: pl. 14, 81-3) and Halmyris (Topoleanu 2000: pl. 39, 323), which all date to beginning of the second century AD. A Dressel 24/LR 2 rim with a carinated outer surface (Figure 4.4) has parallels in the fourth century strata of castra Iatrus (Böttger 1982: pl. 17, 1) and Sexaginta Prista (Dobreva 2010) in Bulgaria. LR 2 amphoras (Figure 4.5) were likely continuously imported up until the sixth century AD, similarly to the northern frontier of the Roman Empire (Karagiorgou 1999: fig. 7, 2).

Among the amphoras, the most common types are those with cup shaped rims in general. The earliest examples of this type (Figure 4.1) developed in the second century BC onwards and were especially produced in Erythrae (Carlson, Lawall 2005/6: 37). The rim with a slight internal concavity belongs to a Dressel 24 amphora (Figure 4.2); an exact parallel was found in Butrint and has been dated to the middle of third century AD (Reynolds 2008: 79, fig. 17,73).

Relations with the southern Black Sea during the Roman Period have been attested through a narrownecked S IV C rim (second century AD) with a light clay

325

Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk

Figure 4. Late Roman 2 amphora and its predecessors.

326

Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach

Figure 5. Black Sea and North African amphoras.

327

Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk

Figure 6. Table amphoras.

and garrisons scattered around Romania (particularly in Dobrudja region) (Baumann 1995: pl. 8) and Bulgaria (Biernacki, Klenina 2015: fig. 4; Swan 2019: fig. 20.29/A.36.658-A.38.663). They have a trapezoidal rim in profile, cylindrical or bulging neck, a globular body and a flat base with the main production period falling between the fourth to sixth centuries AD. These containers were decorated with a brownish slip, which was splashed randomly onto the exterior. This design method led to them being named ‘Brown splash ware amphorae’ (Swan 2010: 115).

(Vnukov 2016: 42) (Figure 5.1), and the C Snp I type (Figure 5.2), which was common across the Black Sea mainly in the fourth century AD (Paraschiv 2002: 175, Type 8, Variant A). North African types have also been identified through a tall rim with a flat external face which should belong to an Africana II D Grande or a transitional type between Africana III (Figure 5.3) and an everted ‘Spatheion 1’ rim (Figure 5.4). The former amphora was produced in various workshops (Bonifay 2004: 117) during the third and fourth centuries while the latter is mainly dated to the fifth century AD.

Cooking pots This group has the highest percentage amongst the finds and has been broken into the following form groups based on analogies: stew pots, casseroles, cooking pans and cooking bowls.

In addition to trade amphoras, table amphoras were also found (Figure 6.1-2). This form differs from trade amphoras by having reduced dimensions and capacities. Their function was dual and they were also traded for their content, which is demonstrated by fragments bearing commercial graffiti (Rotroff 2006: 86-7).

Highly visible inclusions, such as quartz, have been observed in their fabric. They were intentionally added to provide thermal shock resistance and the ability to retain heat efficiently (Tite et al. 2001: 301-24).

Their relatively small sizes suggest that their contents were meant to be consumed in a short period of time (Panella 1989: 159-60). Some morphological features allow them to be divided into sub-types (Opaiț 2003: 216-8).

Stew pots and casseroles can be categorised according to their walls and lower halves. Stew pots have a continuous body profile with rounded or globular bodies (Figure 7.1), while casseroles have more or less vertical walls and a carination towards the bottom (Figure 7.2)

These fragments share the same characteristics with types that especially appear in rural communities 328

Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach

Figure 7. Various forms of cooking pots, after Hayes 1983.

329

Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk

Figure 8. Example for time frames of types.

(Lüdorf 2006: 43). Cooking pans, on the other hand, have shallow, hemispherical bodies and horizontal flanges below the rim (Figure 7.3). In our case, since some of our samples are only rims, it is only possible to identify the differences between casserole and stew pot rims by using known comparative ceramics. The studies showed that each form can be divided into different types based on their rims. Thus, although broad, a chart with the production timeframe of each type has also been created (Figure 8).

Another type with a thickened and profiled lip at the top has a widening spherical-shaped body with horizontal grooves on the outer surface (Figure 9.3). This was a quite common type between the fourth and sixth centuries AD, as pieces appear in many sites within the boundaries of modern-day Bulgaria, such as Ratiaria (Кузманов, Грудев 2013: 356, Type VI, Variant I, pl. XV/172) and Sadovec (Kuzmanov 1992: 213-214, Type 2, Variant 4, pl. 87), in ceramic kilns near the village of Karanovo (Борисов 2013: 284, Type 2, Variant A, pl. III/5), among the Roman villa findings in Ivaylovgrad (Kабакчиева 1986: 28-29, Type 1, pl. 42/476-478) and in Novae (Klenina 2002: 698, fig. 5). This type has also been found in mutatio Scretisca during the fourth century AD (Dintchev 2020: 47, fig. 34/5) along the Via Militaris as well as in Halmyris (Opaiț 1991a: 153, Type 4), Topraichioi (Opaiț et al. 1991: 232, Type 2) and Ibida (Opaiț 1991b: 28) in the Dobrudja region.

A pot type with a triangular rim and concave inside, to connect to a lid, has a slightly long neck with several fine grooves on the outside (Figure 9.1). Pots with these features have frequently been found on Pannonian sites such as Carnuntum (Petznek 1997: 203-4, Type 6.2.), Aquincum (Zsidi 1984: 370) and Odiavum (Horváth 2003: 231, III/5b, fig. 6,20) dating from the first half of the second century AD until the Marcomannic Wars (AD 160-180).

Pots with thickened and grooved rims are (Opaiț 2004: 46, Type III) by far the most common type in our sample group (Figure 9.4-5). This was the main type at Halmyris during the fourth and fifth centuries AD and survived until the sixth, appearing at other sites in Romania, such as Dinogetia (Barnea 1966: 253, fig. 14. 1-3) and Niculițel (Baumann 1977: pl. I. 2). They were also found in Bulgaria (Böttger 1982: 67-8, Type VI, pl. 47/211), Saraçhane (Hayes 1992: 92, fig. 31.10,7) and at Aktopraklık Höyük in Bursa (Steskal et al. 2010: 391, pl. 4, K27) throughout the aforementioned period.

Towards the later Roman Empire, similarities in pottery can be observed in the modern-day countries of Bulgaria and Romania. One type is distinctive with its oblique rectangular rim and a ridge on the outer surface (Figure 9.2). These pots appear in the domestic contexts of Nicopolis ad Nestum/Mestum (Кузманов 1993: 40, Type III, fig. 7B) and Kralev Dol during the fourth century AD (Найденова 1985: 37-38, pl. 39/146).

330

Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach

Figure 9. Stew pots.

settlements of Gradishteto near Dichin (Кузманов 2009: 156-7, Type I/II, pl. 6/11), Iatrus (Böttger 1982: pl. 42/460) and Sadovec (Kuzmanov 1992: 210, Type 3, Variant 1).

The standard Aegean casserole with wide sloping rims (Knossos casserole Type 2 / Lüdorf Typus K 1) (Figure 10.1) appears in this region as well as widely distributed throughout the Meditarranean and also in Pontic settlements such as Niculițel (Honcu 2014: pl. 27/225) and Callatis (Opaiț, Ionescu 2016: pl. 26/157). Contexts that these casseroles have been found in suggest that this type was used between the first and third centuries AD.

A group of cooking bowls with hammer-head rims and relatively straight walls (Figure 10.3) is very distinctive. They most closely resemble pots found in the kitchen unit of a Roman villa in Cosa (Dyson 1976: fig. 56, LS18LS19) that date from the first through third centuries AD and in nearby Sutri (Duncan 1964: fig. 10, Form 18, nr. 65; Form 20, nr. 67). These parallels – some of them are intact vessels – are carinated on the lower half, which is a feature of casseroles, but since they lack an internal ledge where a lid would be inserted into the rim, are classified as cooking bowls (Berlin, Slane

Another type of casserole has horizontal rims that are thickened at the outer edges, and a relatively indistinct interior ridge (Figure 10.2). Two vertical handles start below the rim and the diameter of this type ranges between 24 to 30 cm. Similar pottery, dating to around the fifth century AD, was found in the fortified 331

Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk

Figure 10. Casseroles and cooking bowl.

1997: 112-5). Close parallels have also been uncovered in Ilium during the first century AD (Kozal 2001: pl. 11, nr. 124). Similarly, previous research has proven that pottery produced on the Italian peninsula influenced pottery likely made in Thrace during the early imperial period (Hayes 1995: 187).

date from the third to fifth centuries AD, according to similar examples known from Parium (Başaran, Ergürer 2012: fig. 12), Ilium (Heath, Tekkök 2006-2009: Roman cookware, nr. 12-18), Saraçhane (Hayes 1992: 92, fig. 30, 2.1), Corinth (Slane 1990: fig. 16-107) and Nicopolis (Reynolds, Pavlidis 2017: fig. 9, no. 7).

Another casserole type with flaring, concave rims and bitronconical bodies has been found in the region (Figure 10,4). Similar examples of this type have been found in Troesmis (Opaiț 1980: fig. II, 2 and 5) that date to the second century AD and according to Opait, were made with clay that resembles that of Geto-Dacian pottery.

Drinking vessels In order to investigate interregional relationships, one type in this category must be discussed. The mug with a flaring rim and slight ridge on the neck was once known as ‘urnette a collarino’ (Figure 11. 2). It was initially thought to have an Italian origin. (Hayes 1977: 99, fig. 6.4) although a Thracian origin is more likely (Hayes 2005: 21). These mugs were widely distributed around the Aegean (Hayes 1983: 107, Malamidou 2005: 57) and some examples have been discovered in Western Pontic settlements (Băjenaru 2013: 60, Muşat-Streinu 2017: 286) They are dated from

Flanged cooking pans start to appear around the second century AD. While these flanges are short at the beginning of their production, they became more horizontal and long over the following centuries (Lüdorf 2006: 43, Type P II/I). The sherds from the survey area have prominent flanges (Figure 11.1) and

332

Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach

Figure 11. Flanged cooking pan and ‘Italian’ mug.

Figure 12. Road connections to the area.

the first to third centuries AD. The fabric is granular which raises the question of a local imitation of this type.

In addition to Hellenistic types, the presence of Late Roman 2 amphoras and their predecessors shows a continuous connection with production sites located in the southeastern Aegean until at least the late Roman period. For this reason, they continue to follow a similar pattern of consumption as sites in the Western Pontic region.

Conclusion Through ongoing study of plain and coarse ware ceramics from the Tekirdağ-Ganos Survey Project, various forms and types have been identified and most of the samples were collected from inland sites as opposed to coastal.

The presence of Italian influenced ware types during the early Imperial Period supports previous studies where similar pottery found along the northern Aegean sites. These ceramics also coincide with the integration of Thrace into the Roman Empire in 46 AD. This may be an indication of military camps, like the ones in Pannonia, where Italian influenced pottery were unearthed.

Remains of trade amphoras demonstrate that wine and oil arrived to the region from various production sites, mainly located in the Aegean as well as the southern Black Sea and northern Africa.

333

Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk Similar pot and table amphora types from production sites and military bases along the Danube start to appear around the fourth century AD. This suggests that a common culture was formed within the Diocese of Thrace. Additionally, it raises the question of whether some forms and types were standardised among the military that was installed to counter the ‘barbaric’ tribes that raided Thrace from time to time.

Biernacki, A.B., Klenina, E. Yu. 2015: ‘Amphorae of the 4th - 6th centuries AD from Novae (Moesia Secunda): typology and chronology’ in S. Demesticha (ed.), Per terram, per mare: seaborne trade and the distribution of Roman amphorae in the Mediterranean. Uppsala, Åströms Förlag: 99–120. Bonifay, M. 2004: Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique. Oxford, Archaeopress. Böttger, B. 1982: Iatrus-Krivina: spätantike Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau. 2, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1966–1973. Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Carlson, D.N., Lawall, M.L. 2005/6: ‘Towards a Typology of Erythraian Amphoras’ Skyllis 33: 33–40. Cohen, G.M. 1995: The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dobreva, D. 2010: ‘Late Roman Amphorae on the Lower Danube: Trade and Continuity of the Roman Production’, 27th Congress of the Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores, Late Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery: the end or continuity of the Roman production. Belgrade, Serbia (poster presentation). Duncan, G.C. 1964: ‘A Roman pottery near Sutri’ Papers of the British School at Rome 32: 38–88. Dyson, S.L. 1976: Cosa, the utilitarian pottery. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 33. Michigan, University of Michigan Press. Hayes, J.W. 1977: ‘Early Roman wares from the House of Dionysos, Paphos’ Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 17–8: 96–101. Hayes, J.W. 1983: ‘The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Knossos: The Pottery’ British School at Athens 78: 97–169. Hayes, J.W. 1992: The Pottery. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul 2. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Hayes, J.W. 1995: ‘An Early Roman well group from the Troia excavations, 1992’ Studia Troica 5: 185–96. Hayes, J.W. 2005: ‘Late Hellenistic and Roman pottery in the eastern Mediterranean – an overview of recent developments’, in M. Berg Briese, L.E. Vaag (eds), Trade relations in the eastern Mediterranean from the late Hellenistic period to late Antiquity: The Ceramic Evidence. Odense, University Press of Southern Denmark: 285–97. Heath, S., Tekkök, B. 2006–2009: Greek, Roman and Byzantine pottery at Ilion (Troia). http://classics. uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/ (accessed on 22.02.2021). Honcu, S. 2014: ‘Kitchenware’ in G. Nuțu, S. Stanc, D. Paraschiv (eds), Niculitel - a Roman rural settlement in North-East Moesia Inferior: archaeological & archaeozoological research. Kaiserslautern, Parthenon Verlag: 88–102. Horváth, F. 2003: ‘Die römerzeitliche Siedlungskeramik im Vicus von Almásfüzitô (Odiavum/Azaum) am Beispiel einer frühkaiserzeitlichen Grube’ in B. Liesen, U. Brandl (eds), Römische Keramik. Herstellung

Major roads must have played an important role in these interactions. Starting from Dyrrachium, the Via Egnatia passed through Heraclea, the capital of the Province Europa, which is located nearby the survey area as well as the Via Militaris and Via Pontica. Both were connected to our region via byroads (Figure 12). Finally, the results shared here and the rest of our doctoral research show that stew pots in particular dominated the pottery repertoire between the fourth to seventh centuries AD. This may allude to dietary preferences among the population throughout the period, but these are only preliminary results until full scale excavations begin in the future. Acknowledgements This paper is derived from a Phd thesis under the supervision of Prof. Zeynep Koçel Erdem. I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Zeynep Koçel Erdem for having encouraged me to study this material. I am also thankful to Arda Bülbül (MA) for giving me helpful information and to Ashley Cercone (MA) for patiently correcting this paper. Bibliography Arsen’eva, T.M., Naumenko, S.A., 1992: Usad’by Tanaisa. Moscow, Arkheologij RAN. Băjenaru, C. 2013: ‘Contextes ceramiques de Tomis. (I). Un ensamble de la fin du IIe – debut du IIIe s. ap.J.C.’ Pontica 46: 41–110. Barnea, I. 1966: ‘L’ Incendie de la Cité de Dinogetia au VIe siècle’ Dacia 10: 237–59. Başaran, C., Ergürer, H.E. 2012: ‘Parion Odeion’u (Bouleuterion?) 2010 Çalışmaları ve Odeion’da Bulunan Seramikler’ OLBA 20: 235–90. Baumann, V.H. 1977: ‘Cîteva precizări rezultate din cercetarea monumentului paleocreştin din comuna Niculiţel (jud. Tulcea)’ Acta Musei Napocensis 14: 245– 54. Baumann, V.H. 1995: Aşezări rurale antice în zona gurilor Dunării. Tulcea, Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale. Berlin, A.M., Slane, K.W. 1997: ‘The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery’ in S.C. Herbert (ed.), Tell Anafa II, i. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 10.2.1. Ann Arbor, Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan. 334

Coarse Ware Study from Ganos: A Panoramic Approach

und Handel Herstellung und Handel: Kolloquium Xanten, 15.-17.6.2000, Xantener Berichte 13. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern: 205–40. Karagiorgou, O. 2001: ‘LR2: a container for the military annona on the Danubian Border?’, in S. Kingsley, M. Decker (eds), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Proceedings of a Conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29th May, 1999. Oxford, Owbow Books: 129–66. Klenina, E.J. 2002: ‘Some remarks about the Roman and early Byzantine pottery from Novae (Moesia Inferior)’, in P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema, B. Hoffman (eds), Limes XVIII: Proceeding of the XVIII International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). Oxford, Archaeopress: 695–703. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2016: ‘Recent archaeological research in the Tekirdağ Ganos Region’ in P. Adam-Veleni, E. Tsangaraki, K. Chatzinikolaou (eds), Ραιδεστός Θεσσαλονίκη : αρχαιότητες σ›ένα ταξίδι προσφυγιάς = Rhaidestos - Thessaloniki. Antiquities in a refugee journey. Thessaloniki, Archaiologiko Mouseiou Thessalonikēs 30: 217–28. Kozal, E. 2001: ‘Studies in Roman Ilion: the lower city. Stratified domestic assemblages’ Studia Troica 11: 309–42. Kuzmanov, G. 1992: ‘Die lokale gefäßkeramik’ in S. Uenze (ed.), Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien): Ergebnisse der deutsch-bulgarischösterreichischen Ausgrabungen 1934–1937. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 43. Munich, C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: 201–21. Külzer, A. 2008: Ostthrakien: (Eurōpē). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 12. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Külzer, A. 2011: ‘The Byzantine road system in Eastern Thrace: some remarks’ in C. Bakirtzis, N. Zekos, X. Moniaros (eds), 4th International Symposium on Thracian Studies, Byzantine Thrace Evidence and Remains, Komotini, 18–22 April 2007. Byzantinische Forschungen: internationale Zeitschrift für Byzantinistik 30: 179–201. Loukopoulou, L.D. 1987: ‘Provinciae Macedoniae finis orientalis: The establishment of the eastern frontier’ in M.B. Hatzopoulos, L.D. Loukopoulou (eds), Two studies in ancient Macedonian topography. Athens, Kentron Hellēnikēs kai Rōmaikēs Archaiotētos: 61– 100. Lozanov, I. 2015: ‘Roman Thrace’ in J. Valeva, E. Nankov, D. Graninger (eds), A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Oxford, Wiley Blackwell: 75–90. Lüdorf, G. 2006: Römische und frühbyzantinische Gebrauchskeramik im westlichen Kleinasien: Typologie und Chronologie. Rahden, Leidorf. Malamidou, V. 2005: Roman pottery in context: fine and coarse wares from five sites in north-eastern Greece. Oxford, John and Erica Hedges.

Monachov, S.J. 1999: ‘Towards a typology of Cnidian amphoras of 4th-2nd c BC [K tipologii knidskikh amfor IV-II vv. do n.e.]’ in M.J. Vakhtina (ed.), The Bosporan Phenomenon: Greek Culture on the Periphery of the Ancient World/Bosporskii fenomen: Grecheskaia kultura na periferii antichnogo mira: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii. St. Petersburg, Centr Issledovanija i Razvitija Grečeskoj Kul’tury Pričernomor’ja: 161–72. Muşat-Streinu, A. 2017: ‘Early roman finds from Acic Suat (Caraburun, Baia, Tulcea county)’ Peuce 15: 279–94. Opaiț, A. 1980: ‘Consideraţii preliminare asupra ceramicii romane timpurii de la Troesmis’ Peuce 8: 328–66. Opaiț, A. 1991a: ‘Ceramica din aşezarea şi cetatea de la Independenta (Murighiol), secolele V î. e.n.-VII e.n.’ Peuce 10: 133–82. Opaiț, A. 1991b: ‘O săpătură de salvare in oraşul antic Ibida’ Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 42/ 1–2: 21–56. Opaiț, A. 2003: ‘Table’ Amphora versus ‘Table’ Pitcher in the Roman Dobrudja’ Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum 38: 215–18. Opaiț, A. 2004: Local and imported ceramics in the Roman province of Scythia (4th-6th centuries AD): aspects of economic life in the province of Scythia. Oxford, Archeopress. Opaiț, A., Zahariade, M., Poenaru-Bordea, G., Opaiț, C. 1991: ‘Fortificația şi aşezarea romană tîrzie de la Babadag-Topraichioi’ Peuce 10: 211–60. Opaiț, A., Ionescu, M. 2016: ‘Contributions To The Economic Life Of The City Of Callatis in Light Of New Ceramic Finds (2nd – 6th Centurıes AD)’ Arheologia Moldovei 39: 57–112. Panella, C. 1989: ‘Le anfore italiche del II secolo d.C.’, Amphores romaines et histoire économique. Dix ans de recherche. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22–24 mai 1986). Rome, Publications de l’École française de Rome, 114: 139–78. Paraschiv, D. 2002: ‘Amfore pontice romane şi romanobizantine în zona Dunarii de Jos’ Arheologia Moldovei 25: 165–208. Petznek, B. 1997: Römerzeitliche Gebrauchskeramik aus Carnuntum. Ausgrabungen des Bundesdenkmalamtes 1971 bis 1972, Teil 1. Carnuntum Jahrbuch. Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Donauraumes. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Reynolds, P. 2008: ‘Excavations in the Roman Forum of Buthrotum (Butrint): first to third century pottery assemblages and trade’ Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 40: 71–88. Reynolds, P., Pavlidis, E. 2017: ‘An early 5th century AD pottery deposit from a Cloaca cleaning shaft of the cardo next to Basilica A, Nicopolis (Greece)’ in Σπείρα. Επιστημονική συνάντηση προς τιμήν της 335

Sevingül Bi ̇lgi ̇n Kopçuk Αγγέλικας Ντούζουγλη και του Κωνσταντίνου Ζάχου. Πρακτικά [Conference in honour of Angelika Douzougli and Konstantinos Zachos], (Ioannina, 1st-3rd November 2012). Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund: 651–66. Rotroff, S.I. 2006: Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares. The Athenian Agora 33. Princeton, The American School of Classical Studies. Sayar, M.H. 1993: ‘Doğu Trakya’da Epigrafi ve TarihiCoğrafya araştırmaları’, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 10: 153–73. Slane, K.W. 1990: The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Roman Pottery and Lamps. Corinth 18/2. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Staykov, S. 2017: ‘Southeastern Thrace in the Late Antiquity: ethnic changes and settlement transformations’ in D. Stoyanova, G. Boykov, I. Lozanov (eds), Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation. Sofia, St. Kliment Ohridski University Press: 141–46. Steskal, M., Karul, N., Reiter, J., Rembart, L., Winklehner, T. 2010: ‘Die spätantik-frühbyzantinische Bebauung von Aktopraklık Höyük. Bericht über die Grabungen 2010’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 79: 383–408. Swan, V.G. 2010: ‘Dichin (Bulgaria): the destruction deposits and the dating of Black Sea amphorae in the fifth and sixth Centuries A.D.’ in D. Kassab Tezgör, N. Inaišvili (eds), Patabs I. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale de Batoumi et Trabzon, 27–29 avril 2006. Paris, de Boccard: 107–18. Swan, V.G. 2019: ‘Late Roman and early Byzantine pottery’ in A. Poulter (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity on the lower Danube: Excavations and survey at Dichin, a Late Roman to early Byzantine Fort and a Roman aqueduct. Oxford, Oxbow: 457–556. Terzopoulou, D. 2016: ‘The Thracian coast of Propontis in antiquity’ in P. Adam-Veleni, E. Tsangaraki, K. Chatzinikolaou (eds), Ραιδεστός - Θεσσαλονίκη: αρχαιότητες σ›ένα ταξίδι προσφυγιάς = Rhaidestos - Thessaloniki. Antiquities in a refugee journey. Thessaloniki, Ekdosē Archaiologikou Mouseiou Thessalonikēs 30: 107–16.

Topoleanu, F. 2000: Ceramica romana si romano-bizantina de la Halmyris, sec. I-VII d. Chr. (The early and late Roman pottery from Halmyris, 1st-7th century). Tulcea. Vnukov, S.Y. 2016: ‘Eše raz o tipologii, evolutsii i hronologii svetloglinanyh (pozdnegeraklejskih) uzkogorlyh amfor’ Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya 2016/2: 36–47. Zsidi, P. 1984: ‘Újabb kemencék az Aquincum-gázgyári fazekastelepről = Neue Öfen aus der keramikwerkstatt von Aquincum–gasfabrik’ Budapest Régiségei 25: 367– 91. Борисов, Б. 2013: ‘Късноантичната Грънчарска Pаботилница Край c. Караново, Новозагорско, и Намерената в Нея Керамика’ in B. Δинчев (ed.), In honorem professoris Georgi Kuzmanov. Bulletin of the National Archaeological Institute 41. Sofia, Nat︠si︡ onalen arkheologicheski institut s muzeĭ: 281–336. Динчев, B. 2020: Скретиска – Кратискара II. Резултати от последните проучвания на резиденцията и пътната станция. Трасетата на Диагоналния трансбалкански път (Via diagonalis) в района, Разкопки и проучвания 43. Sofia, National Archaeological Museum. Kабакчиева. Г. 1986: Керамиката от вилата при Ивайловград II – IV в., Разкопки и проучвания 15. Sofia. Кузманов, Г. 1993: ‘Ранновизантийска керамика от Никополис ад Нестум’ Археология 35/4: 35–45. Кузманов, Г. 2009: ‘Ранновизантийска битова керамика от Градището (северозападен сектор)’ in В. Динчев, Г. Кузманов, П. Владкова, А. Чолакова, Цв. Попова (eds), Българо-британски разкопки на Градището при с. Дичин, Великотърновска област, 1996–2003 (резултатите от проучванията на българския екип). Разкопки и проучвания 39. Sofia, National Archaeological Museum: 153–206. Кузманов, Г., Грудев, И. 2013: ‘Късноантична Керамика От Рациария (Край-Брежна Дакия)’ in B. Δинчев (ed.), In honorem professoris Georgi Kuzmanov, Bulletin of the National Archaeological Institute 41. Sofia, Nat︠si︡ onalen arkheologicheski institut s muzeĭ: 337–88. Найденова, B. 1985: Римската вила в с. Кралев дол, Пернишки окръг. Разкопки и проучвания 14. Sofia.

336

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace Filiz İnanan1 Abstract1 This paper aims to assess the Byzantine glazed pottery finds that were found in Tekirdağ and Mount Ganos. The survey was carried out in this area under the direction of Professor Zeynep Koçel Erdem, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of Archaeology. Many different cultures were identified during the survey, and important groups of ceramics were found in different districts, especially in the Şarköy district of Tekirdağ. The majority of the Byzantine glazed pottery finds recovered during the survey belong to the group identified as ‘Zeuxippus ware’. This group was unearthed for the first time near the Baths of Zeuxippus, İstanbul. After that, many ceramics were uncovered in different settlements in Anatolia and beyond. They had some similarities to and differences from this group, and they were generally named Zeuxippus family ware. The finds from the survey included a fragment of incised sgrafitto, painted sgrafitto, two fragments of slip painted pottery and a few fragments of glazed white ware. In addition, a clay tripod attracted the attention. It is not possible to assume pottery production in this region by using this one piece as evidence. However, the possibility should not be overlooked. Keywords BYZANTINE, GLAZED POTTERY, SGRAFFITO, TEKIRDAĞ, GANOS.

Introduction Part of the Thrace region presently extends from the Black Sea to the Vardar (Axios) River in an east-west direction and to the Aegean Sea in a southerly direction, and is within the boundaries of Edirne, Tekirdağ, Kırklareli, part of Istanbul’s European side and the Gallipoli peninsula of Çanakkale (Sevin 2013: 15). The early history of the region, which took its name from the Thracians, was very complex, and it was ruled by powerful states, but some tribes continued to exist for many years. After becoming a Roman province with the name of Provincia Thracia, it was divided into at least 33 administrative units called strategia in 46 BC. One of the most important changes in this province’s history was the transfer of the capital of the Empire from Rome to New Rome (Constantinople) by Constantine the Great (Sevin 2013: 17-18). This new situation positively affected the development of Assoc. Prof., History of Art Department, Bursa Uludag University, e-mail: [email protected]

1 

the province. Rhaidestos (Resisthon / Resisto / and Tekirdağ at present) became a diocese in the fourth century. Bisanthe (Panion) and the seaport Ganos were two important dioceses in the province of Europa in the Byzantine era (Sevin 2013: 22). In the 7th century, the Byzantine army and administration order started to change, and the Emperor put the thema system into practice (Ostrogorsky 1968: 95-100). The cities in our research stayed within the boundaries of Thrakia thema in the 10th century (Ostrogorsky 1986: 247, see also map III). There were many dioceses in Constantinople, Bithynia, west and southwest Anatolia and Thrace in the Middle Ages. It has been determined that there were more than 80 metropolises listed in the ‘notitiae episcopatuum’ (episcopal series) between the 11th and 13th centuries in the Byzantine period (Haldon 2007: 252). One of the places of our research is Mount Ganos and its surrounding areas. In the Middle Byzantine period, Mount Ganos, which is on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Marmara, was a monastic centre and was important in many respects. First, it was near the harbour. Second, wine was produced in the monastery and was transported to the port. Amphorae were also produced in the Ganos workshops. In time, nearby settlements expanded, and the harbour and these settlements adopted the name of Ganos (Armstrong, Günsenin 1995: 179, Günsenin 1992: 197). Thrace and the northwest region of Asia Minor was assigned to the Latin Emperor Baldwin during the Frankish invasion. In this way, Thrace was ruled by Latins for a while. ‘Venetians took over the Ioanian Islands, Crete (originally granted to Boniface of Montferrat), most of the islands of the Archipelago including Euboea, Andros and Naxos and the most important ports on the Hellespont and the Sea of Marmara, Gallipoli, Rhadestus and Heraclea, as well as Adrianople in the interior of imperial Thrace.’ (Ostrogorsky 1968: 423) Latin rulers and Thracian people lived in conflict and the public frequently rebelled against them. By that time, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire of Nicaea, John III Ducas Vatatzes, fought with the Latins and won the war in the 13th century; troops were then sent to Thrace to provide security. However, Thrace was invaded by the Catalans in the first decade of the 14th century. Heavy fighting followed (Ostrogorsky 1968: 468-498, Treadgold 1997: 713-715). The region was dominated by the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century,

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 337–347

Filiz İnanan

Figure 1a-f. Glazed White Ware.

and its image changed considerably. As is seen through its complicated history, the region has long been important. It was governed by many different states and was an important centre for commercial networks, a production centre for wine and amphorae, and a port. This was likely the reason for the diversity and density of the finds. In 2008, a survey of Tekirdağ and Mount Ganos was started by Prof. Dr. Zeynep Koçel Erdem of Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of

Archaeology (Erdem 2010: 79, Erdem 2011: 385, Erdem 2012: 71). The survey was carried out in many districts and villages in the Gallipoli peninsula of Tekirdağ and Çanakkale (Erdem 2011: 385, Erdem 2012: 71, Erdem 2013: 51); many different cultures were identified, and important groups of ceramics were found in different districts such as the villages of Araphacı, Tatarlı,

338

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace

Yenice, Ormanlı, and Palamut in the central district and those of Gaziköy, Güzelköy, Hoşköy, Tepeköy, and Çengelli in the Şarköy district (Erdem 2014: 313, Erdem 2015: 437, Erdem 2016: 443). This paper aims to assess the Byzantine glazed pottery finds that were discovered during this survey.

were dated between the 11th and 13th centuries. The first of them is known as Fine Sgraffito Ware with red clay, whitish-cream slips, and transparent, colourless or light coloured glaze (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999: 2736). There are two base fragments among the finds that belong to this group. They both have a similar profile with a lower ring base, and a broad and shallow body. The decoration cannot be seen completely but it is possible that a medallion with a full circular or wavy design was used on the tondo. Similar bowls were produced in Corinth and Chalcis. It is believed that the production in Chalcis lasted longer (Waksman vd.2014: 416-418). The Fine Sgraffito Ware, which was a popular product of this period, was distributed widely on the Aegean Sea coast, inner western Anatolia settlements, Mediterranean coastal settlements and the Black Sea region.

The Finds Glazed White Ware (Figure 1a-f) During the surveys conducted in central Tekirdağ and the districts of Şarköy, some Byzantine pottery was collected that belonged to the group of Glazed White Ware (GWW) and other Middle and Late Byzantine Pottery. Between the pottery findings of Tekirdağ and Ganos Mountain, there were a small number of Glazed White Ware fragments from a main production centre thought to be Constantinople. There are differing opinions about the imitation Glazed White Ware that might had been produced in different settlements in the Byzantine territory. Glazed White Ware was distributed in Constantinople, the West Anatolian settlements and Greek Peninsula. The fragments have a hard and porous paste that is white, whitish, greyish white, pinkish white or a light beige colour (Doğer 2010:168-170).

Catalog 2.

Painted Sgraffito Ware (Figure 2b)

Catalog

The second group of the Middle Byzantine pottery is the Painted Sgraffito; there is a low ring base among the finds, which were probably brought from the Greek Peninsula. A similar bowl was found in Thebes. This bowl has a medallion with an incised spiral, and its decoration was enriched by adding coloured glaze. The Thebes bowl dates to the second half of the 12th century (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999: 37-43).

(Cat. No.: Catalog Number, Base D.: Base Diameter) 1.

Base. Cat.No: 2 (Fig.2-a). Findspot: Arap Hacı Köyü (Yel değirmeni 2). Base D.: 7.8 cm. Height: 2,4 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 6/6. In: White slip, light yellow glaze. Interlacing circular incised lines. Out: plain.

Base. Cat.No: 1 (Fig.1-a). Findspot: Osmanlı Köyü (Doğanca-Kaynak Mevkii). Base D.: 5 cm. Height: 2.5 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 8/2. In: light yellow glaze. Out: plain.

Based on the finds from Saraçhane that have been published by John W. Hayes, these ceramics were divided into four subgroups, and Monochrome White Ware (Glazed White Ware I-II-III) was dated between the 8th and 11th centuries. There were a few fragments of this monochrome pottery in our findings. There were also some Polychrome White Ware fragments (Glazed White Ware IV), especially Green and Brown Painted pieces (Fig.1- b, e, f). This group was dated to the middle 12th century or early 13th century (Hayes 1992, 30-31; Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004: 336; Dark 2001:121, Doğer 2010:168-170; D’Amico 2005). It is not surprising that these goods were included in the finds because Tekirdağ is near Constantinople, and the sherds of these groups from Tekirdağ/Mount Ganos were dated to the same centuries by comparing them with similar samples.

Incised Sgraffito Ware (Figure 2c) The third type of Greek Peninsula production is Incised Sgraffito, which was represented with only one ring foot with a white slip and yellow glaze. These three groups were classified separately in previous publications. However, this idea has started to change and incorporate the notion that some examples of Fine Sgraffito, Painted Sgraffito and Incised Sgraffito could have been produced in the same period in the ateliers of the Greek Peninsula. It is suggested that the Middle Byzantine Production (MBP) term should be used to designate this pottery in the light of new chemical analysis results henceforward. It has been revealed that ‘The main Middle Byzantine Production (MBP) currently appears as a single, but multiform and longlasting ceramic production including several types (Fine Sgraffito, Painted Sgraffito, Incised Sgraffito or Aegean, Champlevé, Slip-Painted, Green and Brown Painted Ware)’ (Waksman vd.2014: 416-417).

Fine Sgraffito Ware (Figure 2a) The important groups of the Middle Byzantine Glazed pottery were represented by a few examples among the findings of Tekirdağ Ganos Mountain. Most of these 339

Filiz İnanan

Figure 2a. Fine Sgraffito Ware; 2b. Painted Sgraffito Ware; 2c. Incised Sgraffito Ware.

fabric, thin-walled structures, very bright and colourful glaze and elaborate decoration. Unfortunately, the production centre of the first group of samples is still undetermined. This group will be classified as Genuine Zeuxippus Ware (GZW) in this paper. The Zeuxippus Ware finds from the Bath of Zeuxippus were classified into two main groups according to their colour of glaze by A.H. Megaw (Megaw 1968: 69-72). Class I is composed of the pottery with monochrome glaze, and Class II is composed of the pottery with polychrome glaze. However, after Megaw, the terminology of these ceramics began to change as a result of new studies and excavations. Megaw’s first samples from the bath are known as Genuine Zeuxippus Ware (GZW). The findings from Tekirdağ/Mount Ganos include amorphous body fragments and two rim fragments which are very similar to Class I (GZW) and a ring foot base fragment from Class II (GZW) (Figure 4a-c). Genuine Zeuxippus Ware has also been found outside of İstanbul and especially in the settlements of Asia Minor. Unfortunately, the place where it was produced has not yet been discovered.

Catalog 3.

Base. Cat.No: 3 (Fig.2-c). Findspot: Eriklik (Alt Tarla). Base D.: 8.4 cm. Height: 2 cm. Paste Colour: 2.5 YR 6/6 In: White slip, light yellow glaze. Three incised concentric circles on tondo, two of them filled with spiral incised lines . Out: plain.

Zeuxippus Family Ware (Figure 3 and Figure 4) The most abundant Byzantine pottery found in Tekirdağ/Mount Ganos is one of the most popular goods, known as Zeuxippus Ware, which was introduced to the scientific world and published by Arthur Megaw for the first time in the second half of the 20th century. This first group was published by Megaw and was found on the road where the Hippodrome and the Bath of Zeuxippus intersected. Because of that, Megaw named this pottery Zeuxippus Ware (Megaw 1968: 68-69). Much research has been done after Megaw, and new information about this pottery has emerged (Megaw 1989: 260-266).

The second key piece of information about Zeuxippus Ware after Megaw relates to its abundance and distribution. Ongoing excavations and surveys in Anatolia and beyond have discovered much pottery, and some of those pieces were thought to have features in common with GZW; however, they were different from GZW with respect to the characteristics of fabric, colour of glaze and decoration. After some argument, it has been accepted that more than one local workshop in the Aegean and Mediterranean had been producing glazed pottery that was similar to GZW. GZW was derived or imitated in different ways by different ateliers. Some of these local production centres are known today. They have been documented to date both in and out of Anatolia, such as at Bergama (Pergamon in İzmir),

First, and most importantly, it turns out that the Zeuxippus Ware was not a homogeneous group and was being produced at different ateliers and with different qualities. Some of these have very a similar appearance to each other. They have the same fabric, lead glaze and decoration; others do not, however. For detailed classification and the determination of the origin of the products, the finds have begun to be evaluated together with some analytical results (Waksman-François 20042005, 685; Waksman-Spieser 1997, 105-133; François 1997: 411-442, Waksman vd. 2008, 182). ). According to these results, it was revealed that the first published samples formed a separate group with very high-quality 340

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace

Figure 3. Zeuxippus Family Ware.

Iznik (Nicaea in Bursa), Cyprus, and Venice. Kadıkalesi / Anaia (in Aydın) (Waksman 2013: 101-112, İnanan 2013: 59-60) has also been recently accepted as one of the local production centres. There is also a possibility that production took place in Miletus (BöhlendorfArslan 2008, 407). Apart from these local products, the finds from the Novy Svet shipwreck in the Black Sea

(Waksman-Teslenko 2010: 357-375) and the Crimean (Chersoneses) bowls are distinguished from all other examples by their different shape, fabric and decoration (Waksman-Romančuk 2007: 383, Waksman-François 2004-2005:646. 22). In this paper, these different groups are included under the term of Zeuxippus Type Pottery. This term encompasses all derivatives, imitations and 341

Filiz İnanan

Figure 4. Zeuxippus Family Ware.

342

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace

local productions of this ware. It should be specified that the term of Zeuxippus Family Ware represents both GZW and any other similar pottery. Zeuxippus Family Ware was distributed across the entire Aegean settlement, in the settlements of the Mediterranean such as Hoyran, Myra, Yumuktepe and Korykos, and even in Sinop and in some Black Sea settlements (İnanan 2014: 166-Harita 1, BöhlendorfArslan 2004: Teil III-Karte 4). It also spread from the Crimea to the Adriatic and Marseilles coasts (Waksman-François 2004-2005: 714 – Fig.17). Therefore, an increase in the number of workshops is a strong possibility. Zeuxippus Family Ware is the most abundant group of finds from the Tekirdağ/Mount Ganos Survey. Most of these sherds are monochrome glazed, small fragments of bowls with low ring feet, plain rims or amorphous body sherds. All are whitish cream slipped and yellow or green glazed. Decorations are mostly limited to the characteristic concentric circles of this group. Some versions of incised decoration are present, such as horizontal wavy incisions or spirals on the three-ring foot. There are tripod stilts on the inner surfaces of all sherds. The pieces of the catalog are closer to the products of the Aegean workshops in terms of their fabric, lead glaze and decoration style.

5.

Base. Cat.No: 5 (Figure 3b). Findspot: Cem Çetintaş Manastırı. Base D.: 7.3 cm. Height: 1.9 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 6/6 In: White slip, green glaze, tripod stilts. Incised two concentric circles on tondo, another circle on on body. Out: plain.

6.

Base. Cat.No: 6 (Figure 3c). Findspot: Cem’in Bağı. Base D.: 8.3 cm. Height: 3.7 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 6/6 In: White slip, yellow glaze, tripod stilts. Two incised concentric circles on tondo, four incised waved-parallel line on body . Out: plain.

7.

Base. Cat.No: 7 (Figure 3d). Findspot: Çingene Damı. Base D.: 7.5 cm. Height: 2.4 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 6/6 In: White slip, light yellow glaze, tripod stilts. Incised a circle on tondo, an incised spiral line between the three each vertical lines on body. Out: plain.

9.

Rim. Cat.No: 9 (Figure 3f). Findspot: Eriklik. Diameter: 22.8 cm. Height: 2.4 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 6/6. In: White slip, yellow glaze. Vertical, short and straight incised lines on the rim and resembling a bird’s beak in the body. Out: slipped and glazed.

In the 1990s, Nergis Günsenin and Pamela Armstrong published findings from surveys of Mount Ganos and surrounding areas (Armstrong, Günsenin 1995: 183185). This publication focused primarily on glazed pottery finds. Four yellow and green glazed Zeuxippus Family Ware fragments were catalogued in this paper and were dated to the 13th century. Armstrong and Günsenin also reported some observations regarding the production of glazed pottery in the region. It has not been confirmed by data, but there is a possibility of production in the vicinity during the Middle Ages.

Catalog Base. Cat.No: 4 (Figure 3a). Findspot: Cem Çetintaş Manastırı. Base D.: 4.5 cm. Height: 1.65 cm. Paste Colour: 2.5 YR 6/6. In: White slip, pale yellow glazed, incised decoration with two concentric circles. Out: plain.

Base. Cat.No: 8 (Figure 3e). Findspot: Ormanlı köyü (Doğanca-Kaynak mevkii). Base D.: 6.9 cm. Height: 2.2 cm. Paste Colour: 7.5 YR 6/6 In: White slip, dark yellow glaze, tripod stilts. A hatched roundel with in the middle of two incised concentric circles on tondo, three equispaced lines which ‘3’shaped on body. Out: plain.

10. Rim. Cat.No: 10 (Figure 4a). Findspot: Bulgur Köyü (Çakıllık Mevkii). Diameter: 25 cm. Height: 5.1 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 5/3. In: White slip, light yellow glaze. Three consecutive incised dots of horizontal axis, double and triple dots in bottom row. Out: slipped and glazed.

There are two sherds with polychrome glaze. One of them is a rim with dark yellow and brown glaze. The other is yellow glazed. These two sherds have been classified in the same group, but their fabric is quite different.

4.

8.

There are also monochrome glazed, white slipped and incised decoration amorphous body fragments in the findings. These were dated to the 13th century, and similar fragments were also found by Zeynep Koçel Erdem in the 2010s; most of them could be evaluated within the Zeuxippus Family Ware grouping (Figure 4d, g) . In addition to these sherds, there are two ring base fragments with very light yellow glaze that does not have any decoration (Figure 4l), and there is a flat base with an unglazed interior and a green glazed exterior. A single sample represents this pitcher fragment. All of these fragments share the same characteristics of fabric, slip and glaze with Zeuxippus Family Ware. Catalog 11. Base. Cat.No: 1 (Figure 4l). Findspot: Osmanlı Köyü. Base D.: 6.8 cm. Height: 1.65 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 6/6. In: White slip, yellow glaze, tripod stilts. No incision. Out: plain.

343

Filiz İnanan

Figure 5. Other finds.

Other finds (Figure 5)

was filled with horizontal circular lines, alternating between empty and filled bands.

In addition to these ceramics, there are some fragments of slipped ware that could also be classified within Zeuxippus Family Ware. Slip was generally used to smooth the interior of the pottery, but sometimes it was used as a decoration technique instead of incised decoration, as is present in these fragments. The designs of slipped ware were limited mostly to narrow strips or broad spots. There are two ring foots among the survey findings. The fabric of each of these bases is very different. The fragment that was found in the central district of Tekirdağ has very high-quality paste, thin walls, a thin slip and light yellow glaze (Figure 5a). This base is similar to Pergamon products (Spieser 1996: Tafel 19 – Nt.273-282). This type of slip painted ceramic, which was mentioned by N. Günsenin and P. Armstrong, might have been produced in Ganos (Armstrong Günsenin 1995: 199-200). The pieces described in this paper are small and amorphous. It is not possible to know their whole form; that is why we cannot say for sure what the link is between the sherds of Ganos and the Şarköy district of Tekirdağ. However, it should be considered that both samples have very thick slips. The finds from Şarköy are also close to the Iznik production centre (Figure 5b). It was reported that these kinds of slip painted pottery were produced in Iznik during the 13th century (Özkul - Fındık 2007: 531-543, İnanan 2022: 43-47).

Catalog 12. Base. Cat.No: 12 (Figure 5c). Findspot: Ormanlı. Base D.: 5.5 cm. Height: 2.8 cm. Paste Colour: 5 YR 6/6. In: White slip, light yellow glaze (It was peeled). An incised cruciform arrangement filled with horizontal, circular lines, alternating between empty and filled bands. Out: plain. One of the well-known pottery production centres was in Sirkeci, Istanbul. A large number of tripods, semi-finished pottery, and many wasters with slip or glaze adhering to tripods were uncovered in Sirkeci excavations, where the presence of a workshop active in the 13th-14th centuries has been identified in recent years. The findings from Sirkeci have been published by Yona Waksman and Çiğdem Girgin, and some of the semi-finished pottery finds in this paper are similar to this ring foot, but only in decoration styles. Their forms are not alike (Waksman-Girgin 2008: 443-469, fig.11). Micro Pisto was another important production centre near Tekirdağ (Zikos 1999: 243-248, Papanikola Bakirtzi-Zikos: 2007). The ring foot that was found in the Tekirdağ Survey is similar to Micro Pisto Pottery in decoration, but its form is different. (Zikos 2003, 458 - Fig. 4). Nevertheless, this sherd was dated to the 13th century and may indicate the presence of another ceramic workshop that was active in the 13th and 14th centuries, and perhaps even later.

Among the Tekirdağ/Mount Ganos finds, there is a ring foot with incised decoration that is not similar to any other find (Figure 5c). There is an incised cruciform arrangement on its tondo that is separated by two vertical and horizontal lines. The cross was drawn with double lines, and the whole area outside of the cross

Apart from all the above mentioned pottery, a clay tripod was found in Hora Sanctuary in Hoşköy; this find is very 344

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace

striking (Figure 5d). Due to the relatively improved economic conditions within the Byzantine Empire, there must have been a need to produce more glazed pottery with increased demand and consumption in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. As a result of this, potters were interested in new techniques and tried to find different ways of firing pottery. Thus, local potters started to use tripods to accommodate and fire more pottery in the kiln and thus develop mass production. The use of a tripod in the kiln spread into the world of Islam from the Far East and from the Islamic world to the Byzantine world as a great innovation in glazed ceramic production and firing techniques between the end of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century (Megaw 1968: 70-73). These firing tools, which are produced by hand-shaping in a mould or in a wheel, are placed between the bowls in the kiln. Numerous tripods have been found in workshops of the 13th and 14th centuries such as Micro Pisto (Zikos 1999: 243) in Thrace and Sirkeci in İstanbul (Waksman-Girgin 2008: 456- Fig.22) , as well as in some local production centres of Asia Minor such as Kadikalesi / Anaia in Aydın (Waksman 2013: 104-Fig.V-I, İnanan 2010: 127-Fig.3) and Pergamon of Izmir (Spieser 1996: Tafel 1-Nr.8-10).

rich in fine-grained, earthy materials; local pottery production sites have already been discovered. Kilns that produced Byzantine amphorae in Ganos were unearthed. The kilns and typology of the amphorae were published in detail by N. Günsenin. It has also been proposed that the amphorae made in this workshop used lead glaze and became popular in the second half of the 11th century; some workshops then started to produce glazed pottery together with unglazed pottery at that time. Some of the finds from these kilns have been analysed. It has been determined that the wasters and some pottery had the same fabric, however this result is only valid for the pottery groups of the 19th century. The production of glazed pottery in Ganos before the 1800s is an assumption, and it is based on observations and some data; for now, the link between the finds from Ganos and Tekirdağ has not been verified. However, the similarity between some sherds and the tripod should be taken into consideration. The tripod supports the idea of glazed pottery production in this region as a remote possibility. It is impossible for us to reach a definite conclusion with one tripod. Nevertheless, it is clear that as research continues in this area, new information will come to light about Byzantine Pottery and monastic life in the Middle Ages in Tekirdağ and the surrounding areas.

Conclusion The survey that was conducted in the districts of Tekirdağ is extremely important because a very wide area in this region has been examined. Significant groups of Byzantine pottery were found in terms of quantity and quality during the survey.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Zeynep Koçel Erdem for permission to study the pottery finds from Tekirdağ and Mount Ganos. This study has been accomplished with the help of her and her team. I am grateful to Gülgün Köroğlu for reviewing this article and making valuable suggestions.

It is possible to say that in the Byzantine period, especially in the area visited within the scope of this project, the consumption of widespread goods of the 13th century included Zeuxippus Family Ware, notably Genuine Zeuxippus Ware and Zeuxippus Type pottery. These were produced in different local workshops and were brought to the region by trade or as personal goods. GZW products are few in number. It has been confirmed that Byzantine pottery was found more densely in the Bisanthe (Barbaros) suburb of the central district and in the Hoşköy (Hora) suburb in the district of Şarköy. However, monochrome Glazed White Ware (GWW) that dates to the 8th and 11th centuries was found mostly in Bisanthe and not in any other suburbs up to the present. Other pottery groups are scattered in the whole area.

Bibliography Armstrong, P., Günsenin, N. 1995: ‘Glazed Pottery Production at Ganos’ Anatolia Antiqua 3/1: 179–201. Böhlendorf - Arslan, B., 2004: Glasierte Byzantinische Keramik aus der Türkei. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları. D’Amico, E. 2005: ‘Glazed White Ware in the Italian Peninsula: Proposals for a Study’ in: B. BöhlendorfArslan, A.O. Uysal, J. Witte-Orr (eds), Canak: Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Context. Byzas 7. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 215–38. Dark, K. 2001: Byzantine Pottery. Stroud, Tempus Publishing. Doğer, L. 2010: ‘Daskyleion Kazılarından Yeni Buluntular: Beyaz Hamurlu Yeşil Ve/ Veya Kahverengi Boyalı Bizans Seramikleri (Sırlı Beyaz Mal IV-GW W IV)’ in: S. Doğan, M. Kadiroğlu (eds), Bizans Ve Çevre Kültürler, Prof. Dr. S. Yıldız Ötüken’e Armağan. İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık: 164–76.

There is one piece of particular interest among the finds. This is a clay tripod, one of the most common firing devices in the 13th century and later. It was found in the Hoşköy suburb of the Şarköy district. This is not surprising at all. By means of the alluviums carried by the rivers of Meriç (Evros) and Ergene (Agrianes), this area was suitable for pottery production, and it was 345

Filiz İnanan François, V., 1997: ‘Les Ateliers De Céramique Byzantine De Nicée/Iznik Et Leur Production (Xe-Début XVe Siècle)’ Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 121/1: 411–42. Günsenin, N., 1992: ‘Ganos: Bin Yıldır Şarap ve Amphora Üreten Kutsal Dağ’ Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 30: 197–207. Haldon, J., 2007: Bizans Tarih Atlası. İstanbul, Kitap Yayınevi. Hayes, J.W., 1992: The Pottery. Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul 2. Oxford, Princeton University Press. İnanan, F., 2010: ‘Anaia - Kadikalesi: A New Zeuxippus Ware Production Centre’ in E.Doksanaltı, E., Aslan, (eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium Trade and Production Through the Ages, Konya 25–28 November 2008. Konya, Aybil Yayınları: 115–28. İnanan, F., 2013: ‘Zeuxippus Type Ceramics and Samples from Kadıkalesi/Anaia, Kuşadası’ in Z. Mercangöz (ed.), Byzantine Craftsmen – Latin Patrons, Reflections from the Anaian Commercial Production in the Light of the Excavations at Kadıkalesi nearby Kuşadası. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 59–76. İnanan, F., 2014: ‘Zeuksippus Tipi Seramiklerin Anadolu’daki Dağılımları’ Uludağ Üniversitesi, FenEdebiyat Fakültesi, Sosyal Bilimler 26: 149–66. İnanan, F., 2022: Bursa, Zindankapı Kurtarma Kazılarında Ele Geçen Bizans ve Osmanlı Dönemi Seramik Buluntular, Bursa, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Yayınları. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2010: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos Dağı Araştırmaları, 2008’, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 27: 79–107. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2011: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos Dağı Araştırmaları, 2009’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 28: 385–408. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2012: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos Dağı Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması, 2010 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 29: 71–94. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2013: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos Dağı Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması, 2011 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 30: 51–68. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2014: ‘Tekirdağ Ganos Dağı Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırması, 2012 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 31: 313–32. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2015: ‘Tekirdağ Merkez ve Şarköy İlçeleri ile Çanakkale Gelibolu Yarımadası (Trakya Khersonesos’u) Yüzey Araştırması, 2013 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 33: 437–60. Koçel Erdem, Z. 2016: ‘Tekirdağ Merkez ve Şarköy İlçeleri ile Çanakkale Gelibolu Yarımadası (Trakya Khersonesos’u) Yüzey Araştırması, 2014 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 33: 443–62. Megaw, A.H.S. 1968: ‘Zeuxippus Ware’, The Annual British School at Athens 63: 67–88. Megaw, A.H.S. 1989: ‘Zeuxippus Ware Again’ in V. Déroche, J.M.Spieser (eds), Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique Supplement 18. Paris, Dépositaire Diffusion de Boccard: 260–66. Ostrogorsky, G. 1986: History of The Byzantine State. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press.

Özkul-Fındık, N., 2007: ‘Slip Painted Iznik Ceramics’ in B. Bohlendorf, Arslan, A.O. Uysal, J. Witte-Orr (eds), Canak: Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Context. Byzas 7. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 531–43. Papanikola Bakirtzis, D., 1999: Byzantine Glazed Ceramics, The Art of Sgrafitto. Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund. Papanikola Bakirtzis, D., Zikos, N., 2007: Εφυαλωμένη κεραμική υστεροβυζαντνών ҳρόνων από τη Θράκ Απόπειρα ανάγνωσης ανασκαφικών ευρημάτων, Thessaloniki, 12th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities - Cultural Association of Komotini. Sevin, V., 2013: Anadolu’nun Tarihi Coğrafyası I. Ankara , Türk Tarih Kurumu. Spieser, J.M., 1996: Die Byzantinische Keramik aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon. Berlin, W. de Gruyter. Treadgold, W. 1997: A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Redwood City, CA, Stanford University Press. Waksman, S.Y., 2013: ‘The Identification and Diffusion of Anaia’s Ceramic Products: A Preliminary Approach Using Chemical Analysis’ in Z. Mercangöz (ed.), Byzantine Craftsmen – Latin Patrons, Reflections from the Anaian Commercial Production in the Light of the Excavations at Kadıkalesi nearby Kuşadası. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 101–12. Waksman, S.Y., Spieser, J.M., 1997: ‘Byzantine Ceramics Excavated in Pergamon: Archaeological Classification And Characterization of the Local and Imported Productions By PIXE and INAA Elemental Analysis, Mineralogy, And Petrography’ in H. Maguire (ed.), Materials Analysis Of Byzantine Pottery. Washington DC, Harvard University Press: 105–23. Waksman, S.Y., François, V., 2004–2005: ‘Vers une redéfinition typologique et analytique des céramiques byzantines du type Zeuxippus Ware’ Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 128–9: 629–724. Waksman, S.Y.-Romančuk, A., 2007: ‘Byzantine Chersonesos, an investigation of the local production of ceramics by chemical analyses’ in: B. Böhlendorf, Arslan, A.O. Uysal, J. Witte-Orr (eds), Canak: Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Context. Byzas 7. İstanbul, Ege Yayınları: 383–98. Waksman, S.Y.,Girgin. C., 2008: ‘Les vestiges de production de céramiques des fouilles de Sirkeci (Istanbul). Premiers éléments de caractérisation’ Anatolia Antiqua 16: 443–69. Waksman, S.Y., Stern, E., Segal, I., Porat, N., Yellin, J., 2008: ‘Elemental and Petrographic Analyses of Local and İmported Ceramics from Crusader Acre’ ‘Atiqot 59: 157–90. Waksman, S., Y., Teslenko, I., 2010: ‘Novy Svet Ware, an Exceptional Cargo of Glazed Wares from a

346

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thrace

13th-Century Shipwreck near Sudak (Crimea, Ukraine)- Morphological Typology and Laboratory Investigations’ The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 39/2: 357–75. Waksman, S.Y., Kontogiannis, N.D., Skartsis, S.S., Vaxevanis, G. 2014: ‘The Main ‘Middle Byzantine Production’ And Pottery Manufacture in Thebes and Chalcis’ The Annual of The British School at Athens 109: 379–422.

Zikos, N., 1999: ‘Pottery Workshop at Micro Pisto in Thrace’ in D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis (ed.), Byzantine Glazed Ceramics, The Art of Sgraffito. Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund: 243–48. Zikos, N., 2003: ‘A glazed pottery workshop in Thrace’ in Ch. Bakirtzis (ed.), 7. Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée (Thessaloniki, 11–16 Octobre 1999) Athens, Caisse des Recettes Arhéologiques: 455–66.

347

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık Ayşe Ç. Türker1 Abstract1 Hisarlık is approximately 3.30 km to the south-west of the village of Karainebeyli..The castle is located on an approximately 132-metre-long slope from an altitude of about 60m to an altitude of about 52m in a northeast-southwest direction on the south-western margin of Yantepe. Walls which were 2m high on average and which were unearthed as a result of illegal excavations at the north-western corner of the hill were documented. Glazed and unglazed pottery items representing the middle and late Byzantine periods are moderately intensive on the hill and intensive in the fields to the south-west of the hill in the locality of Hisarlıky. The evaluation of the glazed pottery discovered around Hisarlık will form the subject of this paper. All glazed pottery items have red paste. Vessels decorated in the incised technique are considerable among the glazed pottery items. Examples of Aegean Ware and the Zeuxippus family were detected among the vessels with an incised decoration. Plainly glazed potsherds also make up a considerable group among the finds. Keywords KARAINEBEYLI, ZEUXIPPUS CHERSONESSOS, MADYTOS

WARE,

THRACIAN

The Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea were important economic areas. The Hellespont, a natural maritime routeway which formed in a northeastsouthwest direction, was of profound importance in production-consumption relationships between these areas. From the historical data, it is understood that the strait preserved this important function throughout the Byzantine Period. Accordingly, archaeological surveys were conducted regarding the Byzantine settlements in the Hellespont and on the valleys that reached the Hellespont as well as their patterns.2 The studies within the district borders of Eceabat (Madytos) constitute some of the field surveys we planned in order to detect the archaeological data of early Christian and Byzantine periods in the Thracian Chersonessos (Türker 2009:51-74; Türker 2013: 105-119; Türker 2010, 15-29). Constituting the western margin of the Thracian Chersonessos, this region includes areas Prof, Dr. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Department of Art History, e-mail: [email protected] 2  Studies were carried out on the valleys that reached the Hellespont and their surrounding areas and significant information on the road network of the region in the Byzantine period was reached through these studies. The results of this study, including new findings for research on the Byzantine period, are being prepared for publication. 1 

that saw intensive fighting during World War I. The resulting destruction makes it difficult to detect the archaeological data. This destruction was increased by post war monumental arrangements and afforestation activities. So as to overcome this difficulty, as a first stage we followed the program of the infrastructure activities of the municipality in the central town of Eceabat and accessed significant data. At the second stage, we evaluated the close vicinity of Eceabat-Madytos within a diameter of 5 and then 10km. As a result of these studies, we clarified the approximate borders of the settlement in Eceabat during the Byzantine Period and the centres within a short distance, with which it had closer relations (Türker 2009:51-74). At the third stage, our aim was to undertake research works in the valleys that determined the direction of transportation in the peninsula. The Yalova Valley is an important wide-bottomed valley located within the district borders of Eceabat. The port of Akbaş is located on the coast of the valley on the strait of Çanakkale (Türker 2015, 213-221). The Yalova Valley joins the small valleys formed by the lateral brooks and creates valley networks. These valley networks provide easy access to the port of Ece in Saroz and Suvla natural ports in the Northern Aegean Region (Figure 1). The surveys we carried out on the plains between the Yalova Valley and Ece showed that these areas had been densely settled in the early Christian and Byzantine periods. One of the settlements in this area is Hisarlık, which remains within the borders of the village of Karainebeyli. Hisarlık is approximately 3.30 km to the south-west of Karainebeyli. The castle is located on an approximately 132 metre long slope from an altitude of about 60m to an altitude of about 52m in a northeast-southwest direction on the south-western margin of Yantepe (Türker 2016:315). Walls which were 2m high on average and which were unearthed as a result of illegal excavations at the north-western corner of the hill were documented (Figure 2). Glazed and unglazed pottery items representing the middle and late Byzantine periods are moderately intensive on the hill and intensive in the fields to the south-west of the hill at Hisarlık. The evaluation of the glazed pottery discovered at Hisarlık will form the subject of this paper. These pieces of information are new for Byzantine

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 348–361

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık

Figure 1. Location of Hisarlık.

Figure 2. Plan of Hisarlık Castle.

349

Ayşe Ç. Türker

Figure 3. Pottery from Hisarlık.

350

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık

Figure 4. Pottery from Hisarlık.

351

Ayşe Ç. Türker

Figure 5. Pottery from Hisarlık.

352

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık

studies and will constitute a database for studies to be carried out on the region in the future.

cannot be determined; however, the circles at the centre were left hollow. Incised lines are seen in the upper section of the outer circle in two sherds (Figure 8.28 and 31); however, they do not give any idea about the composition.

All glazed pottery items have red paste. Vessels decorated in the incised technique are considerable among the glazed pottery items. Examples of Aegean Ware and the Zeuxippus family were detected among these vessels with an incised decoration. The sherds of the Aegean Ware consist of two mouth sherds of bowls (Figure 3.1-2). The paste of these sherds is tile red (5YR7/10), moderately firm, and heavily and small stone- and limestone- tempered. The slip applied to the interiors of the vessels is cream. Light yellow glaze (5Y8/6) was applied to one of the sherds (Figure 3.2), whereas green glaze (7.5Y8/6) was applied to the other sherds (Figure 3.1). Incised lines are seen on the broken sherds; however, the motifs cannot be determined.

Incisions made up of one or two lines generally to contour the rim were provided on the interior on the mouth sherds (Figure 6.20-22; Figure 7.23; Figure 9.24). On the other hand, two sherds (Figure 5.16 and Figure 6.17) contain one or two grooves that encircle the rim. The exterior faces of the mouth sherds were rather plainly shaped. No decoration motif other than the incised lines encircling the mouth is seen. There is a mouth sherd likely to be evaluated in Group B, glazed in the shades of orange & brown (2.5Y7/12) in Class I pottery. No decoration is seen on this sherd (Figure 6.19).

Called Aegean Ware with the finds from Saranda Kolonnes, these vessels are dated to the early 13th century by Megaw (Megaw 1975: 34-45). Nevertheless, it is determined that their prototypes in both shape and decoration were produced in the second half of the 12th century. Examples of Aegean Ware were detected in the Crimea, along with settlements on the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts (Doğer 2000:13). We also documented Aegean Ware in Kepez (Türker 2014, cat. no. 22-24), Yağcılar (Türker 2017, fig.3), Sestos (Türker, in print), Madytos, Koila, Gallipoli, and Çokal in the surveys we conducted in the areas on the coast of the Hellespont, which qualified as an important watercourse in the commercial relations between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Being surface finds, these sherds can be dated to the late 12th century depending on their analogues.

Two different types of paste are detected in the examples of Class II. The first one is firm and hard as well as heavily and small stone- and limestonetempered. On the other hand, the second one is firm and hard as well as heavily and small stone-, limestone-, and mica-tempered. Painting in the form of brown spots is characteristic of this pottery. The vessels were covered with transparent glaze or glazed in a shade of pale yellow. In all sherds, the glaze is bright and of good quality and was applied in the form of a thick layer. Decoration compositions that are visible on the base sherds comprise undulating lines within a medallion on the tondo of the vessel (Figure 9.33) and arrangements composed of the stylised plant motifs that are characteristic of Zeuxippus family ware (Figure 9.34-36) (Papanikola-Bakirtzis and Zikos 2007, fig. 29, 113).

Sherds of the vessels defined as Class I and Class II by Megaw are found in the Zeuxippus family (Megaw 1968: 67-88; 1971:117-146; 1972: 322-343; 1975: 34-45; 1982: 210-216; 1989: 259-266; Megaw et al. 2003: 91-100). All sherds are mouth, wall, and base sherds of bowl- or plate-type open vessels. The paste is firm and hard as well as heavily and small stone- and limestonetempered in the examples of Class I with monochrome glaze. The cream slip covering the interiors of the vessels was applied to the rim on the exterior except for one example. The glaze, appearing bright and of good quality, was applied in the form of a thick layer.

There are two incised lines that encircle the mouth on two of the three mouth sherds which are likely to be evaluated in this group (Figure 7.25-26). An arrangement consisting of stylised plant motifs was provided at the rim on the third sherd (Figure 7.27). On only one of the sherds, the exterior of the mouth also contained a decoration (Figure 7.25). In this section, the decoration consisted of four vertical incised lines located side by side and of lines probably forming ‘S’ curves, alternately repeated in an area bordered by two horizontal lines. A body sherd likely to be evaluated in this group also contained a decoration motif which was made up of lines that formed ‘S’ curves. X-shaped graffiti likely to be evaluated as a workshop’s or potter’s mark is seen on the back face on one of the base sherds (Figure 9.34). The same mark is also determined on the back face of a base among the finds from Kepez (Türker 2014, fig. 10.33).

The decoration on the sherds likely to be evaluated in this group of the Zeuxippus family, defined as IA, consists of concentric circles (Figure 8.28-31) incised with thin or thick lines. The arrangement consisting of concentric circles made up of wide incised lines on Sherd No. 30 differs from the others. A base sherd which is closely analogous to this sherd is also available among the finds from Kepez (Türker 2014, fig. 11.38). The base sherds are broken, and the whole composition

The pottery items called Zeuxippus Ware according to their findspots in İstanbul are dated to the transitional 353

Ayşe Ç. Türker

Figure 6. Pottery from Hisarlık.

354

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık

period between the Komnenos and Paleologos dynasties and are evaluated as productions of the period when the Latins had a say in the Byzantine trade. An increase in the quantity of fired products was achieved as a result of the change in the glazed pottery production technology in the late 12th-early 13th centuries, and a directly proportional increase is also seen in the number of glazed vessels. Traces of the tripods used during firing can be detected in the majority of the vessels belonging to this period. These traces are generally evaluated as indicative of production. Plain glazed potsherds also make up a considerable group among the finds. All discovered sherds other than one example are mouth, wall, and base sherds of bowlor plate-type open vessels. The only sherd belonging to a closed vessel is the base and wall sherd probably of a jug-type vessel (Figure 4.9). In plain glazed pottery, the paste is generally in the shade of tile red, firm and hard, and stone-, limestone-, and plant-tempered. The slip applied to the interior of the vessel in open vessels was applied only to the rim on the exterior. There is cream slip between the paste and the glaze. Glazes in the shades of light yellow and light green have been impaired due to the limestone layer covering them or they have survived up to the present time, as with glazes that were substantially shed during agricultural activities. There is a tripod trace on the interior of one of the base sherds. Numerous sherds belonging to this group were identified in Kepez – one of the settlement centres on the Anatolian shore of the Hellespont. Tripod traces are encountered in many of these sherds too. They are pottery items which belong to the late 12th century to the 13th century. Catalog 1.

Mouth sherd (Figure 3.1), approximate diameter: 24cm, the moderately firm and hard paste (5YR7/10) is moderately heavily and moderately coarse limestone- and stone-tempered; yellow glaze (5Y8/6) on the interior and only at the rim on the exterior over the cream slip.

2.

Mouth sherd (Figure 3.2), approximate diameter: 20cm, the moderately firm and hard paste (5YR7/10) is moderately heavily and small limestone- and stone-tempered; green glaze (7.5Y8/6) on the interior and only at the rim on the exterior over the cream slip.

3.

Base sherd (Figure 3.3), approximate diameter: 6cm, firm and hard paste (2.5YR7/10) is heavily and moderately coarse stone-tempered as well as sparsely and small limestone- and micatempered; green glaze (7.5Y8/6) over the cream slip on the interior.

4.

Base sherd (Figure 3.4), approximate diameter: 6cm, firm and hard paste (5YR7/8) is heavily and small limestone- and stone-tempered; green glaze (7.5Y8.5/4) over the cream slip on the interior; the glaze has been impaired substantially.

5.

Base sherd (Figure 3.5), approximate diameter: 7cm, firm and hard paste (5YR7/8) is moderately heavily and moderately coarse limestone- and stone-tempered; green glaze (7.5Y7/6) over the cream slip on the interior; the glaze has been impaired substantially.

6.

Base sherd (Figure 3.6), approximate diameter: 6cm, firm and hard paste (5YR8/6) is sparsely and moderately coarse limestone-tempered; the glaze over the cream slip has been completely shed on the interior.

7.

Base sherd (Figure 4.7), approximate diameter: 6cm, firm and hard paste (5YR6/8) is sparsely and moderately coarse limestone- and planttempered; green glaze (5Y8.5/4) over the cream slip on the interior; the glaze has been impaired substantially; a trace of the tripod used during firing can be detected on the interior of the vessel.

8.

Base sherd (Figure 4.8), approximate diameter: 5cm, the moderately firm and hard paste (5YR7/10) is moderately heavily and coarse limestone- and stone-tempered; green glaze (7.5Y8.5/4) over the cream slip on the interior.

9.

Base sherd (Figure 4.9), approximate diameter: 8cm, firm and hard paste (5YR8/6) is heavily and moderately coarse limestone- and stonetempered; the green glaze (10Y8/4) over the cream slip on the exterior is seen in the lower section of the wall; however, it was not applied on the base.

10. Mouth sherd (Figure 4.10), approximate diameter: 14cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (5YR8/6) is sparsely and coarse limestone-tempered; green glaze (10Y8.5/4) on the interior and only at the rim on the exterior over the cream slip. 11. Mouth sherd (Figure 4.11), approximate diameter: 16cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (10R6/8) is sparsely and coarse stone-tempered as well as heavily and small sand- and plant-tempered; green glaze (10Y8.5/6) on the interior and only at the rim on the exterior over the cream slip. 355

Ayşe Ç. Türker 12. Mouth sherd (Figure 5.12), approximate diameter: 16cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (10R7/4) is moderately heavily and small sand- and plant-tempered; green glaze (10Y8/4) on the interior and only at the rim on the exterior over the cream slip.

(5Y9/4) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior. 19. Mouth sherd (Figure 6.19), approximate diameter: 18cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (5YR6/8) is moderately heavily and small limestone- and plant-tempered; orange and brown glaze (2.5Y7/12) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior.

13. Mouth sherd (Figure 5.13), approximate diameter: 14cm, firm and hard paste (5YR7/8) is moderately heavily and small plant-tempered as well as sparsely and small stone- and limestonetempered; pale yellow glaze (5Y9/4) on the interior and the exterior over the cream slip; the glaze has been shed substantially.

20. Mouth sherd (Figure 6.20), approximate diameter: 12 cm, firm and hard paste (5YR8/8), sparsely and moderately coarse limestone- and stone-tempered; bright yellow glaze (5Y9/6) over the irregularly-applied cream slip on the interior and the exterior; a line encircles the mouth at the rim and on the exterior of the mouth.

14. Mouth sherd (Figure 5.14), approximate diameter: 18cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (5YR7/8) is moderately heavily and small limestone-tempered as well as heavily and small sand-tempered; pale yellow glaze (5Y9/4) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior; an incised line encircles the interior of the vessel at the transition to the wall in the lower section of the mouth; the glaze has been partially shed.

21. Mouth sherd (Figure 6.21), approximate diameter: 16cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (2.5YR6/8) is sparsely and small sand- and plant-tempered; pale yellow glaze (2.5Y8.5/6) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior; an incised line encircles the mouth on the interior of the mouth.

15. Mouth sherd (Figure 5.15), approximate diameter: 18cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (7.5YR7/4) is sparsely and coarse plant- and limestone-tempered as well as heavily and small sand-tempered; pale yellow glaze (5Y9/4) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior; an incised line encircles the mouth at the rim.

22. Mouth sherd (Figure 6.22), approximate diameter: 20cm, firm and hard paste (7.5YR7/6) is moderately heavily and small limestonetempered as well as sparsely and small plantand mica-tempered; cream slip on the interior and the exterior; light green glaze (2.5GY9/2) on the interior and only at the rim on the exterior; an incised line at the rim encircles the mouth.

16. Mouth sherd (Figure 5.16), approximate diameter: 22cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (7.5YR7/8) is heavily and moderately coarse plant- and stone-tempered as well as sparsely and moderately coarse limestone-tempered; pale yellow glaze (5Y9/4) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior; a groove at the rim encircles the mouth.

23. Mouth sherd (Figure 7.23), approximate diameter: 14 cm, firm and hard paste (5YR7/6) is sparsely and small limestone- and stonetempered; green glaze (2.5GY8/6) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior; two incised lines encircle the mouth at the rim and immediately under the mouth on the interior of the vessel.

17. Mouth sherd (Figure 6.17), approximate diameter: 24cm, the moderately firm and hard paste (7.5YR7/10) is heavily and coarse limestone-tempered as well as sparsely and small plant-tempered; pale yellow glaze (5Y9/4) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior; the glaze has been impaired substantially; two grooves at the rim encircle the mouth.

24. Mouth sherd (Figure 9.24), the moderately firm and hard paste (5YR7/10) is sparsely and small limestone- and stone-tempered; pale yellow glaze (5Y9/4) over the cream slip on the interior and the exterior; lines that encircle the mouth on the interior and the exterior of the mouth. 25. Mouth sherd (Figure 7.25), approximate diameter: 16cm, firm and hard paste (7.5YR7/6) is sparsely and small limestone- and stonetempered; pale yellow glaze (5Y8/6) over the

18. Mouth sherd (Figure 6.18), approximate diameter: 16cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (7.5YR7/6) is heavily and small stone-tempered; pale yellow glaze 356

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık

Figure 7. Pottery from Hisarlık.

357

Ayşe Ç. Türker cream slip on the interior and the exterior; decoration consisting of incised lines encircling the mouth at the rim and on the interior of the mouth, of four vertical incised lines located side by side in an area bordered by two horizontal lines on the exterior of the vessel, and lines probably forming ‘S’ curves, repeated alternately.

and small limestone-tempered; green glaze (7.5Y8.5/10) over the cream slip on the interior; composition of incised concentric circles at the centre of the vessel; irregularly-applied cream slip on the exterior. 31. Base sherd (Figure 8.31), approximate diameter: 8cm, firm and hard paste (2.5YR7/10) is moderately heavily and small stone-, plant-, and limestone-tempered; green glaze (10Y8/8) over the cream slip on the interior; composition consisting of three concentric incised circles at the centre on the interior; incised lines on the wall section; however, the composition order cannot be determined as the sherd is broken.

26. Mouth sherd (Figure 7.26), approximate diameter: 14cm, the moderately firm and hard paste (5YR7/6) is sparsely and small sand- and plant-tempered; cream slip on the interior and the exterior; green glaze (7.5Y8.5/8) on the interior and only at the rim on the exterior; two incised lines encircle the rim.

32. Wall sherd (Figure 9.32), the moderately firm and hard paste (2.5YR7/8) is heavily and small stone-tempered; green glaze (10Y8/4) over the cream slip on the interior; it is understood that the combed undulating motif on the preserved sherd was placed to encircle the wall.

27. Mouth sherd (Figure 7.27), approximate diameter: 20 cm, the moderately firm and hard paste (2.5YR6/8) is moderately heavily and small limestone-, sand-, and plant-tempered; green glaze (10Y8.5/6) over the cream slip on the interior; the green glaze applied at the rim on the exterior was applied directly on the paste without any slip. On the interior is a composition which probably contained a stylised plant motif at the rim.

33. Base sherd (Figure 9.33), approximate diameter: 8cm, firm and hard paste (2.5YR7/10) is sparsely and small sand- and plant-tempered; green glaze (5Y8/8) over the cream slip on the interior; an arrangement made up of undulating lines within a medallion at the centre on the interior as well as smudged slip and glaze seen in the form of a few small spots on the foot and the wall on the exterior.

28. Base sherd (Figure 8.28), approximate diameter: 7.6cm, firm and hard paste (2.5YR7/8) is heavily and small stone- and plant-tempered as well as sparsely and moderately coarse limestonetempered; green glaze (7.5Y8/10) over the cream slip on the interior; it is understood that the interior contained a composition which consisted of two incised concentric circles at the centre, that the wall section contained an arrangement in which four incised lines placed side by side in an area bordered probably by incised lines with lines forming ‘S’ curves repeated alternately, and that an arrangement consisting of a horizontal incised line at the transition to the wall as well as of straight lines and lines forming ‘S’ curves in the area bordered by this line was provided.

34. Base sherd (Figure 9.34), approximate diameter: 5.5cm, the moderately firm and moderately hard paste (10R7/8) is sparsely and coarse stone- and limestone-tempered; green glaze (7.5Y8.5/6) over the cream slip on the interior; it is understood that an arrangement made up of stylised plant motifs was provided at the centre on the interior. ‘X-shaped’ graffiti on the back face of the base. 35. Base sherd (Figure 9.35), approximate diameter: 5cm, the moderately firm and hard paste (2.5YR6/8) is moderately heavily and small stone- and plant-tempered as well as sparsely and small limestone-tempered; yellow glaze (2.5Y8.5/6) over the cream slip on the interior; it is understood that an arrangement consisting of stylised plant motifs was provided at the centre on the interior.

29. Base sherd (Figure 8.29), approximate diameter: 4cm, firm and hard paste (2.5YR7/8) is heavily and coarse stone-tempered as well as heavily and small plant- and limestone-tempered; yellow glaze (5Y9/6) over the cream slip on the interior; composition of incised concentric circles at the centre of the vessel.

36. Base sherd (Figure 9.36), approximate diameter: 4.5cm, firm and hard paste (10R6/8) is heavily and small stone-tempered; green glaze (5Y6/8) over the cream slip on the interior; a composition

30. Base sherd (Figure 8.30), approximate diameter: 4.4cm, firm and hard paste (2.5YR6/10) is heavily and small plant-tempered as well as sparsely 358

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık

Figure 8. Pottery from Hisarlık.

359

Ayşe Ç. Türker

Figure 9. Pottery from Hisarlık.

360

Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Thracian Chersonessos: Karainebeyli – Hisarlık

made up of stylised plant motifs at the centre on the interior.

Finds. Thesssaloniki, Archaeological Institute for Macedonian and Thrace Studies. Türker A. Ç. 2009: ‘Early Christian and Byzantine Archaeology on the Valleys around Madytos’ Anadolu ve Çevresinde Ortaçağ 3: 51–74. Türker A. Ç. 2010: ‘Glazed Byzantine Pottery in Eceabat – Madytos’ in: Uysal A.O., Yavaş A., Dündar M., Koçyiğit O. (eds). 12. Ortaçağ-Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu. Çanakklae, 15–17 Ekim 2008. Çanakkale, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yayınları: 15–29. Türker A. Ç. 2013: ‘Two Byzantine Cities in the middle section of the Dardanelles: Madytos and Koila’ in O. Brandt, S. Cresci, J. López Quiroga, C. Pappalardo, Episcopus, ciuitas, territorium. Acta 15th. International Conggressvs Internationalis Archaeologicae Cristianae, Toledo, 8–12.9.2008. Vatican City, Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana: 105–19. Türker A. Ç. 2014: ‘A Byzantine Settlement in Kalabaklı Valley in the Hellespontus: Kepez’ Höyük 5: 69–82. Türker A. Ç. 2015: ‘The Byzantine Castle in Akbaş on Thracian Chersonessos’ in S. Fazullin, M.M. Antika (eds), Management of Cultural Heritage in the Coastal Zone, 17th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Moscow, 25–27 April 2013. Oxford, Archaeopress: 213–21. Türker A. Ç. 2016: ‘An Archaeological Survey of the Early Christian-Byzantine Period on the Valleys That Reached the Hellespont: 2014 Research’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 33/1: 301–24. Türker A. Ç. 2017: ‘A Byzantine Settlement on the Kalabaklı Valley in the Hellespont: Yağcılar’ in S. Bocharov, V. François, A. Sitdikov (eds), Glazed Pottery of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Region, 10th-18th Centuries, Archaeological records of Eastern Europe 2. Kazan, Stratum: 91–105. Türker A. Ç. in print. ‘Byzantine Glazed Wares from Sestos in the Thracian Chersonesos’, Glazed Wares in the Black Sea and Mediterranean as a Source for the Studies of Byzantine Civilization, International Research Seminar, Sevastopol, Russia, September 5th-8th 2014.

37. Wall sherd (Figure 9.37), firm and hard paste (2.5YR6/6) is heavily and small stone-, limestone-, and mica-tempered; green glaze (7.5Y8.5/6) over the cream slip on the interior; the preserved sherd does not provide any information about the composition order. Bibliography Doğer L. 2000. İzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi Örnekleriyle Kazıma Dekorlu Ege-Bizans Seramikleri. İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları. Megaw A.H.S. 1968. ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ The Annual of the British School at Athens 63: 67–88. Megaw A.H.S. 1971. ‘Excavations at ‘Saranda Kolones’, Paphos’ Report of the Department of Antiquites Cyprus: 117–46. Megaw A.H.S. 1972. ‘Supplemantary Excavations on a Castle Site at Paphos, Cyprus, 1970–1971’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 26: 322–43. Megaw A.H.S. 1975: ‘An Early Thirteenth Century Aegean Glazed Ware’ in G. Robertson, G. Henderson (eds). Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 34–45. Megaw A.H.S. 1982: ‘Saranda Kolones 1981’ Report of the Department of Antiquites Cyprus: 210–16. Megaw A.H.S. 1989: ‘Zeuxippus Ware Again’ in: Déroche V., Spieser J.M. (eds). Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplement 18. Paris, École française d’Athenes: 259–66. Megaw A.H.S., Armstrong P., Hatcher H. 2003: ‘Zeuxippus Ware: An Analytical Approach to the Question of Provenance’ in Ch. Bakirtzis (ed.), 7e Congrés International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée. Thessaloniki, 11–16 Octobre. 1999. Athens: Tameio Archaiologikōn Porōn kai Apallotriōseōn: 91–100. Papanikola-Bakirtzis D., Zikos N. 2007: Late Byzantine Glazed Pottery From Thrace: Reading the Archaeological

361

Mould-Decorated Filter Jugs Unearthed during the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation Belgin Demi ̇rsar Arlı1, Şennur Kaya2, Özlem Erol3, Hakan Arlı4 Abstract1234 Moulded ware, examples of which are seen in Islamic ceramics from the 8th century onward, has an important place among the red pasted finds obtained during the İznik excavations, the second phase of which was initiated in 1981. Burned finds that are stuck together prove that this large quantity of ceramics is İznik-made. Also, various earthenware mould fragments, used to decorate ceramic surfaces in this technique, were found during excavations, and provide further evidence that they were made in İznik. These scraps and mould fragments encountered in the past and in recent years indicate that mould-decorated ceramics were common in red paste ceramics of İznik, at least in a certain period. This paper examines the forms and patterns of filter jugs and jug fragments among mould-decorated ceramics, which were found in larger numbers during the last excavation seasons in site BHD, and attempts to uncover their production dates by comparing them to non-İznik analogues. Keywords İZNIK, CERAMIC, FILTER JUGS, MOULDED WARE, KILNS

Introduction When humans started using fire, they also combined earth with fire and made ceramics. Production of ceramics was nourished by technical and aesthetic creations of subcultures and contemporary cultures and progressed over the course of time. It is known that a large number of local ceramics workshops existed in Anatolia, primarily producing earthenware for daily use. Some of these production centres stood out in different periods due to the quality of the raw material they used in ceramics, advantages in transportation, and circumstances of the period. İznik was the most prominent tile and ceramic production centre of the Ottoman Empire between the 14th and 18th centuries, and ceramics manufactured in İznik were in demand in the European market as well. On the other hand, the fact that İznik ceramics are found in every excavation across Anatolia, albeit in small amounts, proves that Assoc. Prof. İstanbul University, Department of Art History, e-mail: [email protected] 2  Assoc. Prof. İstanbul University, Department of Fine Arts, e-mail: [email protected] 3  Lecturer , İstanbul University, Department of Fine Arts, e-mail: [email protected] 4  Art Historian (MA), The İznik Tile Kilns Excavation, e-mail: [email protected] 1 

these deservedly renowned ceramics also constituted a significant type of merchandise in domestic trade. İznik ceramics from between the 14th and 18th centuries are often unearthed in excavations in Thrace, the same region as Iznik, which is located in the Marmara region. This study was prompted by the idea that presentation of lesser-known examples of İznik ceramics will contribute to the evaluation of finds from excavations performed in Thrace as well as other regions. Moulded ware, examples of which are seen in Islamic ceramics from the 8th century onward, has an important place among the red pasted finds obtained during the İznik excavations, the second phase of which was initiated in 1981. However, it should be noted that this type of ceramic has only not been seen in the excavation site BHD, which has been the focus of attention in recent years. Many examples of this type were encountered both in other sites that were studied in İznik in previous seasons and in various excavations performed under the supervision of the Museum. Burned finds that are stuck together prove that this large quantity of ceramics is İznik-made. Furthermore, various earthenware mould fragments, used to decorate ceramic surfaces in this technique, were found during excavations, and provide further evidence of İznik manufacture (Figure 1). These scraps and mould fragments encountered in the past and in recent years indicate that mould-decorated ceramics were common among the red paste ceramics of İznik, at least in a certain period at the BHD site (Demirsar Arlı-Kaya 2018: 35-51; Demirsar Arlı-Kaya-Arlı-Erol 2019: 182-192; Demirsar Arlı-Kaya-Şimşek Franci 2020: 1-19). This study examines the forms and patterns of filter jugs and jug fragments among the moulded ware ceramics, which were found in larger numbers during recent excavation seasons on site, and attempts to uncover their production dates by comparing them to non-İznik analogues Mould-decorated filter jugs unearthed during the İznik tile kilns excavation It is stated that the first use of filter jugs in Islamic ceramics was during the Sasanian period (KayınBehzad Ismaeel 2017: 536). On the other hand, filter jug manufacture gained importance during the Fatimid period, and spread out from Egypt to the Middle East during the Ayyubid period (Watson 2004: 94, 132). The

Thrace through the Ages (Archaeopress 2023): 362–372

Mould-Decorated Filter Jugs Unearthed during the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation

Figure 1. Examples of earthenware pottery and mould fragments from the İznik tile kilns excavations.

generally accepted opinion on the function of the filters inside the neck is to prevent foreign materials from entering the jug (Watson, 2004: 132). It has also been noted that the filters may have been intended to control the liquid flow rate, and attention was made to giving the filter an aesthetic look during service (Özkul Fındık 2013: 212).

that these had low feet, spherical/spheroid or conical bodies shaped by mould or the potter’s wheel, cylindrical necks rising from the junction with the body and flaring, and one handle. The examples also reveal that the necks and handles were attached to the body afterwards. An almost intact example of these jugs was found during the excavation season of 2016. The jug is 17cm high with the spout missing, and has a low base, a flaring shallow foot, a depressed spheroid body and a handle in one direction. The upper part of the neck is missing and the existing portion meets the body and flares upwards. The jug is covered in white slip, and the junction of the body and neck is encircled by a fine bracelet, underlined by a fluted border. The filter was placed inside, where the body and neck meet (Figure 2).

Filter jugs and jug fragments found in İznik can be categorised into two groups in terms of their forms and patterns: In the first group, the bodies are decorated with simple flutes created with moulds or with various tools (impressed). This type of decoration covers the entire body in some examples and only borders the upper part in others. Diagnostic fragments indicate

363

Belgin Demi ̇rsar Arlı, Şennur Kaya, Özlem Erol, Hakan Arlı

Figure 2. Filter jug with fluting decoration.

Figure 3. Fragments of glazed and unglazed filter jugs.

364

Mould-Decorated Filter Jugs Unearthed during the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation

Figure 4. Various body fragments decorated in the moulded ware technique.

The second group is more interesting in form and decoration. Bodies of the jugs in this group were made in two fragments in the moulded ware technique, in which the paste is taken out of the mould before it is completely dry, then the upper and lower fragments are joined together and closed off with paste. These jugs also have spherical/spheroid bodies and their necks, feet and handles were attached afterwards. An intact example of this group of jugs has not been found. However, fragments that are believed to be of the same vessel indicate that these jugs, like those in the first group, have cylindrical necks that open and flare upwards from the joint, rising straight up, and have a single handle. On the other hand, it has been determined that they have different feet and high bases that flare out. Glazed and unglazed jug fragments in the group also have filters in the joint. Most of these fragments have beige or pink engobes; glazed examples are mostly turquoise or green in colour (Figures 3-6).

composition with the same animal depiction on both fragments of its body, retrieved in different excavation seasons and sites. The fragments, one which was found during the ALP foundation excavation in 1996 (Aslanapa-Altun 1998: 627, 638; Demirsar Arlı (n.d.): 350-51, 499) and the other in excavation site BHD during the 2016 season, prove that the same moulds were

A rather rich repertoire of patterns is encountered in the various moulded ware decorated bady fragments. These are mostly geometrical, intricate herbal and braided compositions (Figure 4). Also, rare examples with inscriptions and figures were obtained. The patterns on these suggest that they were connected to non-Anatolian Islamic ceramics in form as well as decoration style. For instance, an analogue of the geometric composition animated with dots inside, which we frequently see among the finds (Figure 5), is seen also on the body of a Syrian jug, which was probably made in the 13th century (For comparison, see: Watson 2004: 126). Filter jugs manufactured in İznik, with bodies made in two fragments, generally employ the same decoration pattern on both sides of their bodies. The jug with turquoise glaze and teardrop decoration is an example (Figure 6). Figure 5. Glazed and unglazed filter jug fragments decorated with geometric composition.

The most interesting examples among the finds are the fragments with figurative decoration, which include a 365

Belgin Demi ̇rsar Arlı, Şennur Kaya, Özlem Erol, Hakan Arlı

Figure 6. Filter jug with turquoise glaze and teardrop decoration.

Figure 7. Body fragments decorated with figures.

366

Mould-Decorated Filter Jugs Unearthed during the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation

and flat spouts. Diameters of the spouts, the bases and heights vary between 16 and 18cm, 8 and 9cm, and 5 and 6cm, respectively (Figure 9). But some examples among the mould fragments found are excluded from this generalisation, having a low foot and slightly everted edge (Figure 10). As with body decorations, patterns on the interiors of moulds applied with the carved and pressed technique consist of geometrical, intricate herbal and braided compositions (Figure 11). These mould fragments include examples that completely match the patterns we see on body fragments (Figure 12). The mould fragment found during the 2016 excavation season, which consists of four connecting pieces, draws attention with its inscriptions. However, letters visible on the obtained fragments do not represent a meaningful word, which suggests the inscription may have been intended solely as a decoration (Figure 13). Aside from these, fluting moulds, which we think were used to decorate the jugs in the first group, constitute a separate group (Figure 14). Figure 8. Body fragments decorated with pseudo-inscription.

The filters in the body-neck joint of these jugs, which we have divided into two groups by their forms and decorations, have the same structural characteristics. Varying between 5 and 8cm in diameter, all of these filters consist of triangles that surround the central circle made in the openwork technique. The number of triangles depends on the filter size, and they can be convex or pinwheel shaped (Demirsar Arlı 2017: 375, 382), (Figure 15). But, rare examples have round filter holes (Figure16). As opposed to these simple applications seen in İznik, filter decorations were given specific importance in early Islamic ceramics. For instance, filters dated to the 10th-12th centuries (the Ayyubid period) found in Fustat, Egypt, constitute an important group and have a rich variety of compositions, including geometric, herbal openwork as well as figures and inscriptions (For comparison, see: Kayın-Behzad Ismaeel 2017; Watson 2004: 133).

used in different workshops. These fragments were decorated with four-legged animal motifs positioned between two vertical lines, which were animated with dots on the bottom. Aside from these two examples, the fish on the green glazed body fragment obtained at the BHD site (Demirsar Arlı 2012: 395, 403) and the human faces on the unglazed example were identified as having upon careful inspection, a fact that indicates figural decorations were used on the jugs (Figure 7). Inscriptions were also used as decorations. Strikingly, two body fragments, one with green glaze and the other unglazed, have pseudo-inscriptions as decoration (Figure 8).5 A large number of mould fragments, used for moulded ware production, were found during the İznik tile kilns excavation (Demirsar Arlı (n. d.): 350, 498-9; Demirsar Arlı-Kaya: 2018: 35-51). These fragments have similarities to moulds used in non-Anatolian Islamic ceramics and in Anatolia (For comparison, see: (Böhlendorf Arslan 2007: 97; Böhlendorf Arslan 2008: 377-8, 390; Waksman- Burlot-Böhlendorf ArslanVroom: 2015; Özkul Fındık 2017; Watson 2004: 134-147). Mould finds, made from red hard paste, have thick and flat bases, oblique or concave bodies flaring upward,

Conclusion Scientific studies carried out in recent years have concluded that the filter jugs introduced in this paper were manufactured in various ceramic workshops in Anatolia outside of İznik. These studies should be briefly mentioned in order to give a historical perspective to İznik production. One of these was in Ahlat, a significant medieval settlement in Anatolia, where a ceramic dumpsite was unearthed that included filter jugs (Karamağaralı Yörükân 1982: 398). Another important group of filter jugs was encountered during the Hasankeyf excavations. It has been noted that filter jugs found at the Büyük Saray (Great Palace) in the Yukarı Şehir (Upper City) inside the excavation

5  There are non-Anatolian examples of vessels decorated with figures in moulded ware. For instance, bodies of two vessels with moulded decorations, dated to the 12th-13th centuries in Eastern Iran, have friezes made up of depictions of stylised rabbits and people sitting cross-legged side by side. See: Watson, 2004: 108–109.

367

Belgin Demi ̇rsar Arlı, Şennur Kaya, Özlem Erol, Hakan Arlı

Figure 9. Mould fragments.

Figure 10. Mould fragments.

Figure 11. Examples of mould fragments.

368

Mould-Decorated Filter Jugs Unearthed during the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation

Figure 12. Examples of matching body and mould fragments.

Figure 13. Mould fragment with pseudo-inscription.

Figure 14. Fluting mould fragments.

369

Belgin Demi ̇rsar Arlı, Şennur Kaya, Özlem Erol, Hakan Arlı

Figure 15. Examples of filters in the body-neck joint of jugs.

Figure 16. Examples of filters in the body-neck joint of jugs.

In conclusion, filter jugs manufactured in Eastern Anatolia from the Ayyubid period onwards increased in prevalence in the historical era that covers the Beyliks and the early Ottoman periods in Western Anatolia. Under the circumstances, it can be argued that the İznik examples of moulded ware filter jugs were manufactured after the conclusive establishment of Ottoman administration in 1331. However, the period of İznik as the capital city of the Seljuks between 1081 and 1097 should not be discounted in regard to the initial phase of production in İznik. Although it is thought that such intense ceramic production could not have been carried out in this relatively brief period, it is possible that ceramic production in İznik in the Byzantine period was continued within the framework of the Seljuk ceramic tradition in this period.

site had spread across Anatolia through the Ayyubids, who established dominance over the region after 1232 (Özkul Fındık 2013: 217). Outside of Hasankeyf, filter jugs obtained in Konya were dated to the 12th-13th centuries (Uysal 2007: 713). Filter jugs with moulded ware decorations, which were transferred to the collection of Istanbul Turkish and Islamic Arts Museum from the museums of Diyarbakır and Mardin, are dated to the 12th-14th centuries (Tuncel 2001: 553). Examples found in Western Anatolia have parallels with Iznik finds in form, decoration and the presence of glazed examples. For example, filter jugs found during excavations in Ephesus (Bulut 1998: 343), Miletus (Böhlendorf Arslan, 2007:90; Böhlendorf Arslan 2008: 378-80,407:), Akşehir/Anıt Meydan (Gök Gürhan, 2007: 169; Gök Gürhan, 2011a: 288) and Balat/İlyas Bey Complex (Gök Gürhan 2011b: 310, 314) are commonly dated to the 13th-15th centuries. Examples of Western Anatolian origin, included in the collections of various museums, suggest the same period. For instance, it has been noted that filter jugs with moulded ware decorations in the British Museum collection, which were found in Ephesus, may be dated to the 14th-15th centuries.6

Funding Statement This work was supported by Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University Project number SBA-2018-30679. Bibliography Aslanapa, O. – Altun, A. 1998: ‘İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısı 1996 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 19/2: 625–39. Böhlendorf Arslan, B. 2007: ‘Beylikler Döneminde Milet’te Seramik Üretimi’, in H. Karpuz ve O. Eravşar (ed.),

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/ collection_object_details. aspx?objectId=214652&partId=1&searchText=Filter&page=1 (Accessed in January 2017).

6 

370

Mould-Decorated Filter Jugs Unearthed during the İznik Tile Kilns Excavation

Konya Kitabı X, Rüçhan Arık, M. Oluş Arık’a Armağan, Konya, Konya Ticaret Odası Yayınları: 87–98. Böhlendorf Arslan, B. 2008: ‘Keramikproduktion im Byzantinischen und Türkischen Milet’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 58: 371–407. Bulut, L. 1998: ‘Selçuk (Ayasulug) Kazılarında Ele Geçen İslam Devri Seramikleri’ 1. Uluslararası Geçmişten Günümüze Selçuk Sempozyumu (4–6 Eylül 1997). İzmir, Selçuk Belediyesi: 343–55. Demirsar Arlı, B. (n.d.): ‘İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısından İlgi Çekici Örnekler’ in A. Erbaş, L. Öztürk, M. Bedir, F. Aydın, S. Küçük, M. Usta (eds) Uluslararası İznik Sempozyumu, (5–7 Eylül 2005). İstanbul, İznik Belediyesi Yayınları: 347–54. Demirsar Arlı, B. 2012: ‘İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısı 2010 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33/3: 391–408. Demirsar Arlı, B. 2017: ‘İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısı 2015 Yılı Çalışmaları’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 38/2: 371–88. Demirsar Arlı, B.- Kaya, Ş. 2018: ‘İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısı’nda Ortaya Çıkarılan Pişmiş Toprak Kalıp Parçalarının Değerlendirilmesi’, Sanat Tarihi Dergisi, 27 (1); 35–51. Demirsar Arlı, B. - Kaya, Ş. – Arlı, H – Erol, Ö. 2019: ‘2015– 2017 Kazı Dönemlerinde İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısı’nda Ele Geçen Baskı ve Kalıp Baskı Tekniğinde Dekorlu Seramikler’, Akdeniz Sanat, 21. Uluslararası Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Araştımaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri Özel Sayı: 182–192 . Demirsar Arlı, B. - Kaya, Ş.- Şimşek Franci, G. 2020: ‘2018–2019 Kazı Sezonlarında İznik Çini Fırınları Kazısı’nda Ele Geçen Baskı Dekorlu Seramiklerin ve Seçili Örnekler Üzerinden pXRF Cihazı ile Yapılan Analiz Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi’, Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı, 19: 1–19. Fehervari, G. 2000: Ceramics of the Islamic World in the Tareq Rajab Museum, New York, I.B. Tauris. Gök Gürhan, S. 2007: ‘Akşehir Kurtarma Kazısı Seramikleri’, in G. Öney, Z. Çobanlı (eds), Anadolu’da Türk Devri Çini ve Seramik Sanatı, Ankara, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları: 157–169. Gök Gürhan, S. 2011a: ‘1995–2009 Yılları Arasında Beçin Kazısı’ nda Ortaya Çıkarılan Seramiklerin Değerlendirilmesi’ Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 18/2: 45–70.

Gök Gürhan, S. 2011b: ‘2007 ve 2008 Yıllarında Balat İlyas Bey Külliyesi’nde Yapılan Kazı ve Temizlik Çalışmalarında Ortaya Çıkarılan Seramikler/ Ceramics Unearthed During the Excavation and Cleaning Work Conducted at the İlyas Bey Complex in 2007 and 2008’ in M. Baha Tanman-Leyla Kayhan Elbirlik (eds), Balat İlyas Bey Külliyesi / İlyas Bey Complex. İstanbul, Söktaş: 301–33. Karamağaralı Yörükân, B. 1982: Ahlat Seramik Ekolü A.Ü. İslami İlimler Dergisi 5: 391–462. Kayın, A., Behzad Ismaeel, A. 2017: ‘Fatimi Dönemi Figürlü Seramik Süzgeçlerinden Örnekler/ Examples from the Figurative Ceramic Filters in Fatimid Period’ The Journal of International Social Research 10/52: 535–46. Özkul Fındık, N. 2013: ‘Sırsız Seramiklerden Bir Grup: Süzgeçli Testiler /Süzgeçler’ Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi 30: 209–23. Özkul Fındık, N. 2017: ‘Seramik Üretiminde Kullanılan Kil Kalıplar’ in A. Pelin Şahin Tekinalp, M. Fatih Müderrisoğlu, Ü. Araç (eds), Uluslararası Katılımlı Osmanlı Dünyası’nda Kültürel Karşılaşmalar ve Sanatsal Yansımaları: Prof. Dr. Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu’na Armağan Kitabı. Ankara, Hacattepe Üniversitesi Yayınları: 99–104. Tuncel, G. 2002: ‘Türk ve İslam Eserleri Müzesi’ndeki Testiler’, Uluslararası Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu, Prof. Dr. Gönül Öney’e Armağan (10–13 Ekim 2001), Bildiriler. İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sanat Tarihi Bölümü: 545–53. Uysal, A.O. 2007: ‘Konya’daki İnşaat Hafriyatlarında Ele geçen Sırsız Selçuklu Seramikleri’ in H. Karpuz ve O. Eravşar (ed.) Konya Kitabı X, Rüçhan Arık, M. Oluş Arık’a Armağan. Konya, Konya Ticaret Odası: 711–24. Waksman, S.Y.-Burlot, J.- Böhlendorf Arslan, B.Vroom, J. 2015: ‘Moulded Wares Production in the Early Turkish/Beylik Period inWestern Anatolia: A Case Study from Ephesus and Miletus’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports , XXX/ 2015: 1–11. Watson, O. 2004, Ceramics From Islamic Lands; Kuwait National Museum, The Al-Sabah Collection. London, Thames & Hudson.

371

Thrace through the Ages highlights the crucial role that ceramic evidence plays in evaluating archaeological material from Thrace. The volume considers the informative value of pottery in tracing cultural and political phases, by providing us with important data about production centres, commercial relations, daily life, religious rituals, and burial customs. Divided into five sections, this volume first gives a historical overview of Thracian pottery research in relation to its methodological development, before exploring the ways in which ceramic data can be used as evidence of interregional commercial relations and cultural interaction. The third section considers the use of ceramics found in ritual contexts from several sites in Thrace. The fourth section looks at the retrieval and understanding of ceramics from survey and excavated contexts. Chapters in the fifth section focus on specific ceramic wares, which are evaluated by considering both their qualitative and quantitative characteristics.

Zeynep Koçel Erdem graduated from Istanbul University, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology in 1982, then completed her master’s degree in 1984 and PhD in 1996 in Classical Archaeology at the same university. She has been a faculty member in the Department of Archaeology at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, İstanbul since 2000. Her main research interest is the archaeology of Eastern Thrace. Since 2008 she has been conducting archaeological surveys in Tekirdağ Province and the Gallipoli Peninsula of Çanakkale Province in Turkey. She has been the Director of Excavations in Perinthos (Tekirdağ Marmara Ereğlisi) since 2021. Reyhan Şahin studied Classical Archaeology at Istanbul University and Goethe University at Frankfurt am Main/ Germany. She completed her MA at Goethe University/Frankfurt in 2007 and PhD at Istanbul University in 2013. Her master’s thesis examined Attic Black Glazed pottery from Priene/Ionia (Turkey), and her PhD was on Red Figure pottery from Ainos/Thrace (Enez/Turkey). She has published works on Attic pottery of the Classical Period as well as Hellenistic and Roman pottery. She is Associate Professor of Archaeolgy at Bursa Uludağ University/ Turkey.

Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com