Technological Style in Early Bronze Age Anatolia

A Dissertation Proposal Submitted to The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations

By Elizabeth S. Friedman

© 1998 All Rights Reserved
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
University of Chicago
Approved * 26 July 1995

A copy of the completed dissertation is available via ProQuest ID 304639467


Table of Contents


I. Statement of Purpose

Technology, social and economic organization, ideology and religion are all systems operating together to form culture (Binford 1962, Epstein 1993). Each system is in reality a subsystem of the culture and each subsystem interacts with each other subsystem, they are not mutually exclusive. Separating these systems and studying them individually is simply a heuristic device enabling archaeologists to grapple with the various types of data. Most studies have resulted in quantities of descriptive data but they are unable to explain cultural change. Since technology is integrally related to the other subsystems of which culture is devised, any change may influence or be influenced by these other subsystems. If we are to make any attempt in understanding cultural change, we must look at the various technologies being employed, for technology embraces knowledge and behavior as well as material culture.

Most studies focus on lithics, pottery, metals or textiles but studies combining these industries are far and few between. C. Perlès (1986) is one of the few archaeologists who have acknowledged that the analysis of two different industries can provide complementary data enabling us to more accurately reconstruct prehistoric systems of culture. According to Perlès, we may pose the question, "dans quelle mesure l'industrie lithique et la céramique reflètent-elles la structure du système technologique et l'interaction de la technologie avec les autres domains du système social (1986:98)." This view of lithics and ceramics can be equally applied to metals and ceramics. By studying the relationship between ceramic and metal production we will acquire greater knowledge of ancient technology as a system operating in and representing both culture and cultural change, for culture is not static.

Technology is a body of knowledge which people use to manipulate their environment. Techniques are the methods with which this knowledge is applied. "Technology informs technique, which fashions material culture (Epstein 1988:20)." Thus, material culture is the physical manifestation of knowledge and technique. Technology is a unique system incorporating material resources, tools, techniques, related social behaviors, and meanings (Pfaffenberger 1988:241). In essence, the artifacts produced contain social and ideological significance.

Epstein (1993:42-43) argues that, "if one views technology as a system that goes beyond the action of tools on material, to include the relationships and ideas that move and guide the technicians, it becomes clear that style can not be separated from function." For style to be meaningful, it must be acknowledged by all members of the society. If the style is recognized by the society as bearing symbolic meaning, then the object is serving two functions, a "use" function and a "symbolic" function. In this vein, the culture's symbolic system puts limits on the choices available to the producer. Despite environmental, physical and social restraints which limit the selection of choices, the producer may still be faced with the choice between mechanically equivalent traits. This choice ultimately determines the producer's technological style.

Because there is always an element of cultural choice in the selection of any technological style, choices between equivalents in mechanical function must be attributed to cultural and social factors (Epstein 1993:42-43). If a population chooses one technology over another equivalent technology, we may then assume that the choices are laden with social, economic, religious or ideological meaning. People unfamiliar with technology usually gravely understate the degrees of latitude and choice open to innovators as they seek to solve technical problems (Pfaffenberger 1992:497). "It is because they manifest the choices made by societies from a universe of possibilities that techniques, in their most material aspects, form part of the scope of anthropology (Lemonnier 1986:153)."

By focusing on the relationship between ceramics, in particular metallic ware, and early metallurgical practices I hope to discern a particular technological style. Technological style "is a pattern or theme observed in the cultural choices people have made in the way they go about manipulating their environments. This patterning in behavior reflects patterns in the underlying cultural knowledge system, thus technological style is a construct that bridges technique, technology, and culture (Epstein 1993:43)." I expect this technological style to be representative of and unique to the southcentral Taurus region during the Early Bronze Age.

The production of metallic ware in Early Bronze Age Anatolia is a significant advance in the realm of ceramic technology. This dissertation will consider the proposition that the development of metallic ware in Early Bronze Age Anatolia is intrinsically related to early metallurgical advances. Reasons for suggesting such a relationship include the use of ceramic crucibles by ancient metallurgists, proximity of production, overlapping distribution patterns, and metal prototypes for the ceramic decorative techniques. Much research has been done on early metallurgical activities but our technical knowledge of ancient metallic ware is, at the most, fragmentary. I intend to investigate the technology used to produce Anatolian metallic ware to see if the pyrotechnology, tools and techniques were shared by the ancient metallurgists. I will examine the distribution patterns of the metal ores and artifacts and compare them with the known distribution of metallic ware to see if the trade networks overlap. I will collaborate in chemical and mineralogical analyses on the metallic ware to clearly identify it and distinguish it from other wares. Ultimately, I would like to retrieve the cultural meaning embodied in metallic ware, both its "use" function as well as its "symbolic" function.

II. Reasons for Suggesting a Relationship between Metallic Ware and Metallurgy

Ceramic crucibles, which were fundamental to the technology of tin smelting in Early Bronze Age Anatolia, are essentially thick walled open vessels able to withstand heating at very high temperatures. Although crucibles are inherently part of metal technology, they also belong in a discussion of ceramic wares simply by the fact that they are made of clay mixed with water and temper, just like other ceramic material. Some of the crucibles from Göltepe appear to be made of clay mixed with chaff temper. Other crucibles, however, are made of a combination of clay mixed with chaff temper and clay mixed with quartz sand. The manufacturers of these crucibles obviously had some knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of using the different types of temper. Were the crucible produced by potters or by smiths? Were they manufactured in the vicinity of metal workshops or in the vicinity of potter's workshops? The actual site of crucible manufacture has yet to be determined.

n most studies of ancient society the arts of metal working and ceramic production have been analyzed as separate, unassociated technologies. This dichotomy is not sustained when we consider ceramic crucibles which fit into discussions about both metallurgy and ceramic production. Were the technologies shared among these craft artisans? There are ethnographic parallels suggesting such a partnership. "It is not fortuitous that in much of the western Sudan the potter is the wife of the blacksmith, but whether this association goes back to the early period of metalworking there is no way of knowing. All that can be said is that the pairing of potters and smiths is a natural one, since both need to know soils and minerals as well as the techniques of manipulating heat (Herbert 1984:5)."

Anatolian metallic ware is a very hard, handmade, quartz-tempered fabric fired at very high temperatures. This particular fabric withstood temperatures comparable to those reached in the process of tin smelting, i.e. 1100°C. There may be a positive correlation between the development of higher fired wares and the high firing temperatures used by the metal smiths. The development of higher fired wares is certainly related to the effective working of metals and may well have social implications of group organization (Matson 1956:361). By analyzing the vitrification phases of the pottery, I will be able to determine the range of firing temperatures to which the ceramics were subjected.

In order to examine the relationship between the production of metallic ware and the metals industry I need to know if these two industries employed similar techniques and tool assemblages. At Göltepe many groundstone tools used in the metal working industry have already been identified (Yener and Vandiver 1993). Since the potter's workshop has yet to be found, I can only make educated guesses concerning the tools and techniques involved in the manufacturing of metallic ware. In most cases, both the potter and the metal smith need to crush and grind their materials to reduce them to a powdery state and then remove the impurities by vanning (tin) or sieving (clay). I have no grounds for assuming that the potters had no knowledge of the metal smiths' techniques nor vice versa, that the metal smiths were ignorant of the potters' techniques. Considering that they shared knowledge of crucible manufacture, I take liberty in suggesting that some of the metal smith's techniques were used in the production of the hard-fired metallic ware. A more concrete example is the paddle and anvil used for beating or hammering, a technique shared by both potters and smiths alike (Trachsler 1965:145). This beating reduces the walls of the clay vessels to an even width while at the same time it can be used to smooth the seams and surfaces of vessels made of metal. The use of molds is another technique which is often used by both potters and smiths. I am interested in finding out which techniques were used in the production of metallic ware and if these same techniques were used by the ancient metal smiths.

It is no coincidence that Anatolian metallic ware is found in the Taurus mountains, an area rich in metal resources: silver, gold, copper, tin and iron. Moreover, a study of the central Taurus region revealed tunnel and pit mines, which on the evidence of pottery and radiocarbon dates, have been dated to the Early Bronze Age. Ore processing tools, crucible fragments and slag have found on various sites throughout the region. Furthermore, the tin mines at Kestel near Göltepe show clear evidence of being worked during the Early Bronze Age (Yener et al. 1991; Yener and Vandiver 1993).

Yener et al. (1991) have analyzed samples of ore and slag from ancient mining sites in the Central Taurus range for stable lead isotope ratios (Sayre et. al. 1992). The isotopic signatures of the slag match the signatures of the ores from the local mines indicating that the metals found in the slag did indeed originate in the Central Taurus. The authors then followed up this analysis with samples of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age metal artifacts from south-western Asia to see if the isotope ratios of any of those metals matched the ores and slag from the central Taurus. They found over fifty artifacts with isotope ratios that are consistent with one of the four known Taurus ore fields (Yener et al. 1991). These metal artifacts included samples from Tarsus, Mersin, Tell al-Judaidah, Hassek Höyük and Acemhöyük. The lead isotope ratios of these artifacts all point to an origin in the central Taurus region. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the central Taurus mountains supplied Cilicia and the Konya plain with such valuable metals as silver, gold, copper, iron, and tin. Anatolian metallic ware has been found at Göltepe, Tarsus, Mersin, Acemhöyük and across the Konya plain. I would like to find out if the distribution pattern of Anatolian metallic ware overlaps the distribution of the early metal artifacts. Is there a positive correlation between the distribution of metals from the Central Taurus range and the distribution of Anatolian metallic ware?

Another, perhaps more overt relationship between metallic ware and early metallurgy is the influence of metal prototypes on metallic ware vessels. Did the potters derive some of the shapes of their ceramic vessels from extant metal vessels? Are some of the decorative techniques found on metallic ware reminiscent of metal working techniques? Does the metallic ware have hemispherical bumps or painted dots imitating rivets that we might see on metal vessels? Does it have dotted lines representing sutures or seams? Does the pottery have carinated or angular profiles, high handles, spouts, or ring-bases? Emre (1966:142) suggests that the technique of slipping and polishing gives a gloss of copper to the terracotta vessels. It is possible that metallic ware retained some of the formal characteristics of metal vessels such as shape, sheen and decoration but was simply made of cheaper material. Schneider (1989:48) suggests that the development of the hard-fired stone ware or Syrian metallic ware is related to the competition with metal and that it was not only the wish to make a denser and harder pottery but also to imitate a metallic appearance by producing grey to red colors, thus making pots look like used copper jars.

Were metallic ware vessels manufactured to imitate actual metal vessels? Did the populace desire metal vessels but were inhibited from owning them due to their cost? Or were metal vessels used as prestige goods and thus employed only by the elite? Very frequently people become satisfied with cheaper imitations of a more expensive product. As Trachsler notes (1965:140), "the imitation of an attractive but for some reason unobtainable prototype in more readily available and possibly cheaper material is a phenomenon of considerable anthropological and sociological interest." People would rather be satisfied with a cheaper imitation of a good thing rather than go without and the market is willing to absorb an inferior quality in the product as long as it answers certain specifications (Artzy 1985:136).

III. Distribution of Anatolian Metallic Ware

The Anatolian metallic ware under discussion has certain basic characteristics. It is handmade, tempered with fine quartz sand, and fired at a very high temperature. It is hard, thin, breaks along a straight fracture and makes a high pitched clinky sound when struck. Its color varies from buff to orange to brown. The vessels are usually slipped in a shade very near the color of the clay itself before firing or washed after firing. Some examples are slightly burnished. The most common forms of metallic ware are jugs with cylindrical necks, jugs with funnel necks and pitchers with rising spouts. Some bowls and cups are also made of metallic ware. The metallic ware from Göltepe is either plain or painted with a purplish-red or purplish-brown pigment. The most common painted designs are simple bands around the rim, a row of dots at the base of the neck, and wavy vertical lines. The jug with the cylindrical neck often has two opposing vertical handles set between the rim and the shoulder of the vessel. The pitcher with the rising spout usually has a single handle set between the rim and the base of the neck. Many handles have marks clearly inscribed on them. Lugs are often found opposite the larger handles just beneath the rim of the spout and sometimes on the shoulder. Because lug-shaped handles are attached both vertically and horizontally, Özten (1989:408) declares them not to be functional. This conclusion remains open to further investigation.

Metallic ware from Anatolia is similar to yet differs from the metallic ware found in northern Syria, the Amuq, Palestine and Egypt. Although all of these types of metallic ware share common traits of using quartz sand temper, displaying a straight fracture when broken, being thin, well-levigated, and very well-fired, they differ dramatically in shape, production techniques and surface treatment. In Anatolia, the most common form of metallic ware is the jug. In northern Syria jars and bowls are more frequent, in the Amuq the bottle dominates, in northern Palestine bowls and platters are more familiar, and in southern Palestine and Egypt the most ubiquitous form is the storage jar. The surface treatment also differs from region to region. In Anatolia the jugs are usually painted whereas the bottles from the Amuq are often slipped and burnished. In northern Syria there is no evidence of either paint or an applied slip and in Palestine and Egypt the storage jars are combed in the leather-hard stage prior to firing and usually treated with a thin coat of lime plaster or wash after firing.

Painted Anatolian metallic ware has been found in and around the Taurus mountains, in Cilicia and across the Konya plain (Mellink 1993; Yener and Vandiver 1993; Özten 1989; Özguç 1986; Mellaart 1963; Goldman 1956; Mellaart 1954; Seton-Williams 1954; Garstang 1953; Garstang and Goldman 1947). The distribution of this particular variety of metallic ware demonstrates that Anatolian metallic ware is common to the Taurus mountains and neighboring regions and in some places overlaps with Syrian metallic ware.

The Tarsus publication (Goldman 1956: fig. 247) depicts a number of vessels and sherds that look remarkably like the metallic ware from Mersin and Göltepe: a jug with a cylindrical neck (fig. 247:191), a pitcher with a rising spout (fig. 247:188), and various painted sherds (fig. 247:190,192,195-200). All of these pieces are described by Mellink (in Goldman 1956) as "light clay miniature lug ware," which is a thin, hard, well-fired buff-yellowish ware tempered with sand which gives it a gritty feel. The ware is uniform in section, implying that it is well-levigated. This particular variety of metallic ware is distinguished by the presence of small, pierced and unpierced lugs just beneath the rim or spout on the jars and jugs. Shapes include jars with cylindrical neck, jugs with rising spouts, two-handled jars, and bowls. Some of the pieces are burnished and then painted with a purplish-red pigment. The painted designs are similar to those found on the Göltepe vessels. Mellink (1992:215) suggests that the light clay miniature lug ware is a unique type of handmade painted ware, a "subgroup of the handmade "metallic" ware of the Konya and Aksaray-Nigde plains."

Two handmade jugs with rising spouts were found in an unstratified context at the bottom of Trench X in the excavation of Mersin.1 Both jugs are painted on their rims and handles and are very similar in appearance to those found at Göltepe. They each have a buff core, an orange-colored slip and are lightly burnished. The paint is brownish black. Garstang compares the shape of these vessels with a similar jar from Tarsus (Garstang and Goldman 1947, pl. XCII:4).

Mellaart (1954:189-196) describes the painted thin metallic ware from the Konya plain as being thin, handmade, buff or red, gritty, very hard fired and having a clinky ring when struck. The color of the exterior ranges from buff to apricot to brown and bluish gray or purplish black when overfired. The vessels are painted with thick dark red, brown, black, purple and white matt paint. Bands are painted around the lip of the vessel. Squiggles and rows of dots are painted at the base of the neck. As at Göltepe, incisions are found only on the handles. Shapes include jugs with cylindrical necks and jugs with rising spouts and lug handles are common.

One possible metallic ware jug has been recognized in the EB II levels at Kültepe. This jug was found in a cist grave in level 14. It is a brown, handmade, squat, loop-handled beak-spouted pitcher with a pierced lug just beneath the rim opposite the handle. Özguç notes that this form is foreign to the region and has its closest parallel at Tarsus in light clay miniature lug ware.2 Anatolian metallic ware has also been recognized at Acemhöyük in level 10 of the deep sounding (Özten 1989; N. Özguç 1983).

Metallic ware was first recorded on Early Bronze Age sites in Anatolia by Seton-Williams in her 1951 survey of Cilicia. This list was later appended by James Mellaart (1963) who participated on the original survey.3 Mellaart added four more sites to Seton-Williams' original list of 25, totalling 29 sites whose Early Bronze Age assemblages contained metallic ware. Mellaart later recorded metallic ware on 58 of the 135 known Early Bronze Age sites scattered across the Konya plain. A more recent survey of Cilicia was conducted in 1991 by a team from Bilkent University under the direction of Dr. Ilknur Özgen and Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates. Their survey would add two more sites to the list compiled by Mellaart and Seton-Williams but their pottery descriptions are not as useful, primarily due to the confusion over the identity of metallic ware on the part of the author.4

The metallic ware that occurs in northern Syria in the latter half of the third millennium is commonly referred to as "stone ware" by archaeologists working in that region (Orthmann 1986). It is called so because its shapes are similar to contemporary metal vessels and it has a metallic clinky sound when struck (Schneider 1989). Like Anatolian metallic ware, it is hard, well-fired, highly vitrified and has a straight fracture when broken. Stone ware, however, is fundamentally different from Anatolian metallic ware because it is wheelmade, not handmade. Stone ware is found across northern Syria in the Balikh and Habur valleys in contexts dating to the mid-late third millennium BCE (Schwartz 1992). Both Palestinian and Anatolian metallic ware are found in earlier contexts. Palestinian metallic ware dates from the early to mid- third millennium BCE5 and at Göltepe in Anatolia metallic ware has been found in sealed contexts whose calibrated radiocarbon dates read 2875-2587 B.C., 2865-2498 B.C., and 2451-2050 B.C. (Yener and Vandiver 1993). Metallic ware may be present in earlier contexts at Göltepe but this cannot be confirmed until the stratigraphy of the site is published.

Metallic ware is considered to comprise less than one percent of the selected sherd bulk from Amuq H (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:370-71). The few sherds of this particular variety of metallic ware are described as being handmade, fired at very high temperatures, having a tough, brittle fabric with a straight fracture and a high-pitched ring when struck. The oxidized color of the exterior is orange-buff to orange-brown while the core is light gray. The vessels are thin slipped and burnished in vertical strokes. The clay is tempered with calcite particles from crushed shells which causes spalling on the surface. If this is truly metallic ware, then we must explain the presence of calicum carbonate (calcite) in a high fired ware when calcite usually decomposes by about 870°C.6 The Phase H metallic ware sherds all represent the "Syrian Bottle" form which makes its first appearance in Phase G in the quartz tempered plain simple ware, simple ware with orange-brown slip and burnish, painted ware, and possibly brittle orange ware.7 According to Matson (in Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:370), the low percentage of metallic ware sherds, their "crudeness" and their uncustomary temper8 suggest that perhaps the ware was imported, though Robert Braidwood considers the Syrian bottles to be locally made (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:516).

One aspect of our Anatolian metallic ware not to be overlooked is the significant marking on the handles. To date, more than 30 different handle marks or patterns of incisions have been recorded from the Göltepe assemblage. Handles with incisions have been found in large quantities not only at Göltepe but on the Konya plain as well. It would be interesting to know if the handles with incised marks belong just to the painted jugs or if they also belong to the plain jugs. These different marks are obviously indicative of a recording system or potter's marks . If I could determine what the vessels contained then I cetainly would have a better understanding of the network of distribution.

IV. Methods of Analysis

I intend to conduct a number of analyses on the ceramic ware, crucibles, clay samples and pigment. First I would like to identify the chemical and mineral contents of the metallic ware from Göltepe. With these analyses I intend to distinguish the metallic ware from other presumed local wares. I would also like to compare the chemical and mineral contents of the metallic ware with local clay samples as well as the crucible fabrics. Not only am I interested in sourcing the metallic ware I would also like to source the type of pigment used on the painted vessels. Estimating the firing temperatures suffered by the metallic ware is also of major importance. A favorable comparison to the high temperatures reached in the tin smelting process could be indicative of shared pyrotechnology.

Compositional analysis or chemical characterization of pottery identifies the chemical elements of the paste or fabric of the ceramic vessel. I have chosen instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) as my method for identifying the chemical composition or "fingerprint" of the paste.9 This method is commonly used in provenience studies to determine where the clay originated and which wares are manufactured from similar clay sources. By comparing the results of the INAA tests I might be able to determine whether or not our metallic ware was locally manufactured. That is, if the "fingerprint" of our metallic ware matches that from one of our sources of clay, I might have reason to suggest that the ware was indeed produced up in the Taurus mountains. I would eventually like to compare our results with metallic ware found on the Konya plain and in Cilicia. Chemical analysis permits inferences about trade but it cannot, however, identify temper which has greater technological, spatial, and ethnic implications (de Atley 1991:215). This must be accomplished by methods of mineralogical analysis.

The simplest and least expensive method of mineralogical characterization of pottery is petrographic analysis which is based on the principal that optical characteristics of minerals are visible under a microscope. The two most common methods of petrographic analysis use a polarizing microscope and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to analyze thin sections of ceramic material. Petrographic analysis not only focuses on the large crystalline components of ceramic paste such as temper but it can also identify slips and pigments. A trained technician can identify the different kinds of minerals, the percentage of the various inclusions; the grain shape, type, size, and orientation of the minerals as well as their structure, how they interrelate, and if there are any voids in the paste. Moreover, petrographic analysis allows us to study the microstructure of the fabric as well identify the mineral phases or stages of vitrification which is an indication of firing temperature. Using SEM, researchers have studied the changes in ceramic microstructures as a function of changes in firing temperature and atmosphere.10

The purplish range of color is an obvious clue to the paint's iron-oxide composition though I would like to examine it just to be certain. If the mineral source of the paint is indeed iron-oxide, then I need to investigate the iron-oxide sources in the vicinity of Göltepe. Are these sources in any way related to the mineral ores used in the tin smelting process? It would be interesting to see if this source of colorant is also used on the painted metallic ware from the Konya plain and Cilicia. A study of the distribution of sources of iron ore may narrow down our source of pigment11 to the Nigde region of the Taurus mountains or I might find that this raw material was easily accessed on the Konya plain and in Cilicia as well.

One lone analytical method cannot provide all of the data necessary to enable us to answer our questions. The choice of instrumental neutron activation analysis, however, as a complement to petrographic analysis suits our needs perfectly. In compositional analysis samples are taken from the body of the sherd, in petrographic analysis samples are taken from the surface of the sherd or from a broken fracture. While petrographic analysis is appropriate for analyzing slip, pigment and temper, INAA is more suitable for studying the chemical composition of the fabric. What is crucial in our compositional analysis is to be able to compare our results with the vast quantity of data already stored at the Smithsonian and Brookhaven National Laboratories. For this purpose I need both qualitative and quantitative results.

One final aspect of this project is the ceramic analysis of the clay crucibles from Göltepe. While some of the crucibles appear to be composed entirely of clay tempered with chaff, others have a quartz sand-tempered inner layer and a fiber-tempered outer layer. During the tin smelting process, tin ore, flux and charcoal were placed in the interior of the vessel which upon heating to high temperatures (950°-1000°C) resulted in a blackened, reduced surface. The lower parts of the crucibles were set in the ground and exposed to a low firing temperature (700°-800°C), producing an oxidized reddish-orange surface. The interior of the crucible is hard whereas the exterior is soft and friable. It should be noted that the crucibles were not prefired as ceramics but rather fired for the first time with the tin ore charge in place (Yener and Vandiver 1993:228).

According to Tom Chadderdon (n.d.), the crucibles have a high amount of both quartz and chaff temper and their interiors may have been slipped before firing. If I do determine that there is a clay slip then I would like to know if it is the same type of clay used in "metallic ware" or any other ware found at Göltepe. I would also like to determine the clay source of the two types of tempered material found in the matrix of the crucibles. Were the crucibles manufactured from the same clay source with two different tempering processes or were they constructed from two different sources of clay with two different types of temper? Perhaps I will be able to identify such a division by petrographic analysis.12

I have at my disposal fragments from at least 33 different crucibles that I can take samples of for INAA. For petrographic analysis I have access to 24 polished cross sections from 15 distinct crucibles.13 I have 38 prepared samples of pottery for INAA which represent four different ware groups, though for statistically reliable results I will need to analyze more. For comparative analysis I need at least ten samples of each type of ware. I plan on obtaining more pottery samples from the Göltepe collection in the Nigde Museum. I will compare the chemical and mineralogical composition of our metallic ware with the crucibles and with the 23 samples of geological sediments already taken from the site. These samples, however, were taken from the habitation/workshop site up on the hill and since it is likely that the potters also exploited nearby alluvial and colluvial soils I will try to obtain samples from those clay beds as well. Samples will be taken from exposed cuts and subsoil contexts as to provide a representative range of geological source materials. I would eventually like to build a regional database of analyses conducted on metallic ware not only from Anatolia but from Syria and Palestine as well.14

V. Summary

Preliminary research on archaeological material from Early Bronze Age Anatolia indicates that metallic ware production and metal working are closely related. It is likely that both of these industries shared raw materials, tools, techniques and pyrotechnology. Moreover they possibly originate in the same area and participate in the same network of distribution. Analysis of metallic ware will provide us with information not only on ancient ceramic technology, but on other cultural systems as well. By my emphasis on technology I hope to discern elements of these social, economic, ideological and religious systems. Metallic ware is the tangible product of a behavior conditioned by these cultural systems. Thus, I expect the study of metallic ware to reveal fresh insights into the culture of southcentral Anatolia during the Early Bronze Age.

References

Artzy, M.
  • 1985 Merchandise and Merchantmen: On Ships and Shipping in the Late Bronze Age Levant. In Acts of the Second International Congress of Cypriot Studies, Nicosia, 20-25 April 1982, ed.Th. Papadopoulos and S.A. Hadjistyllis, 135-140, vol.A/2 Nicosia: Society of Cypriot Studies.
Binford, L.R.
  • 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.
Braidwood, R.J. and L.S. Braidwood
  • 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier Assemblages Phases A-J. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (OIP 61).
Chadderdon, T.
  • n.d. Fabric and Refiring Characterisitcs of Ceramic Crucible Fragments. Unpublished manuscript.
de Atley, S.P.
  • 1991 Potter's Craft or Analyst's Tool? A Century of Ceramic Technology Studies in the American Southwest. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, ed. R.L. Bishop and F.W. Lange, 205-223. Niwot, Co: University Press of Colorado.
Emre, K.
  • 1966 The Pottery from Acemhöyük. Anatolica X:99-143.
Epstein, S.M.
  • 1992 Physical and Cultural Constraint of Innovation in the Late Prehistoric Metallurgy of Cerro Huaringa, Peru. In Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III, ed. P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, G.S. Wheeler, and I.C. Freestone, 747-756. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society.
  • 1993 Cultural Choice and Technological Consequences: Constraint of Innovation in the Late Prehistoric Copper Smelting Industry of Cerro Huaringa, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.
Garstang, J.
  • 1953 Prehistoric Mersin: Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey, The Neilson Expedition in Cilicia. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Garstang, J. and H. Goldman
  • 1947 A Conspectus of Early Cilician Pottery. AJA 51:370-388.
Goldman, H.
  • 1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: Volume II - From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Herbert, E.
  • 1984 Red Gold of Africa: Copper in Precolonial History and Culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Kaiser, T., U.M. Franklin and V. Vitali
  • 1986 Pyrotechnology and Pottery in the Late Neolithic of the Balkans. In Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, ed. J.S. Olin and M.J. Blackman, 85-94. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Matson, F.R.
  • 1956 Techniques of the Early Bronze Potters at Tarsus. Appendix from Hetty Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: Volume II - From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, 352-361. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Mellaart, J.
  • 1954 Preclassical Remains in Southern Turkey. Anatolian Studies IV:175-239
  • 1962 Anatolia c. 4000-2300 B.C. In The Cambridge Ancient History, rev. ed., 7-53, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 1963 Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, II. Anatolian Studies XIII:199-236.
  • 1965 Anatolian Pottery as a Basis for Cultural Synthesis. In Ceramics and Man, ed. F.R. Matson, 218-239. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 41. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Inc.
Mellink, M.
  • 1992 Anatolian Chronology. In Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3d ed., ed. R.W. Ehrich, 207-220, vol. I; 171-184, vol. II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • 1993 The Anatolian South Coast in the Early Bronze Age: The Cilician Perspective. In Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains: Alba Palmieri Dedicata, ed. M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, and M. Mellink, 495-508. Rome: University of Rome.
Orthmann, W.
  • 1986 The Origin of Tell Chuera. In The Origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C., ed. Harvey Weiss, 61-70. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters Publishing Co.
Özgüç, N.
  • 1983 1982 Acemhöyük Kazilari. V. Kazi sonuçlari Toplantisi:109-110.
Özgüç, T.
  • 1986 New Observations on the Relationship of Kültepe with Southeast Anatolia and North Syria during the Third Millennium B.C.. In Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change and Cultural Development: Essays in Honor of Machteld J. Mellink, ed. J.V. Canby, E. Porada, B.S. Ridgway, and T. Stech, 31-47. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Özten, A
  • 1989 A Group of Early Bronze Age Pottery from the Konya and Nigde Region. In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, ed. K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink, and N. Özgüç, 407-418. Ankara: Tahsin Özgüç'e Armagan.
Perlès, C.
  • 1986 Interprétation Comparée du Matérial Lithique et Céramique sur un Site Néolithique (d'après l'exemple de Franchthi), Greece. In A propos des Interprétations Archéologiques de la Poterie: Questions Ouvertes. Ed. M.-Th. Barrelet and J.-C. Gardin, 95-105. Paris: Editions Recherche sur le Civilizations.
Pfaffenberger, B.
  • 1988 Fetished Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of Technology. Man (N.S.) 23:236-252. 1992 Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 211:491-56.
Rice, P.M.
  • 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • 1991 Specialization, Standardization, and Diversity. In The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, ed. R.L.Bishop and F.W. Lange, 257-279. Niwot, Co: University Press of Colorado.
Sayre, E.V., K.A. Yener, E.C. Joel and I.L. Barnes
  • 1992 Statistical Evaluation of the Presently Accumulated Lead Isotope Data from Anatolia and Surrounding Regions. Archaeometry 34(1):73-105.
Schneider, G.
  • 1989 A Technological Study of North-Mesopotamian Stone Ware. World Archaeology 21(1):30-50.
Schwartz, G.
  • 1992 Syria, ca. 10,000-2000 B.C.. In Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3d ed., ed. R.W. Ehrich, 221-243, vol. I; 185-202, vol. II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seton-Williams, M.V.
  • 1954 Cilician Survey. Anatolian Studies IV:121-174.
Sinopoli, C.
  • 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Plenum Press.
Steadman, S.
  • 1994 Prehistoric Sites on the Cilician Coastal Plain: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery from the 1991 Bilkent University Survey. Anatolian Studies XLIV:85-103.
Trachsler, W.
  • 1965 The Influence of Metalworking on Prehistoric Pottery: Some Observations on Iron Age Pottery of the Alpine Region. In Ceramics and Man, ed. F.R. Matson, 140-151. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 41. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Inc.
Tylecote, R.F.
  • 1982 Metallurgical Crucibles and Crucible Slags. In Archaeological Ceramics, ed. J.S. Olin and A.D. Franklin, 231-243. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Yener, K.A. and P. B. Vandiver
  • 1993 Tin Processing at Göltepe, an Early Bronze Age Site in Anatolia. AJA 97:207-238.
Yener, K.A., E.V. Sayre, E.C. Joel, H. Özbal, I.L. Barnes and R.H. Brill
  • 1991 Stable Lead Isotope Studies of Central Taurus Ore Sources and Related Artifacts from Eastern Mediterranean Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:541-577.

Notes

*In accordance with the rules of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of the University of Chicago this dissertation proposal was approved by the dissertation committee and successfully defended at a public hearing. The members of the committee are:

  • Aslihan Yener (Chairman)
  • McGuire Gibson
  • Tony Wilkinson

This document was published on-line for the first time on 4 March 1997, courtesy of the Oriental Institute Research Archives. The only changes from the version approved by the Faculty of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations are some small changes to accommodate the HTML encoding, and correction of minor typographical errors. HTML encoding was done by Charles E. Jones. [Return to text]


1 Garstang 1953: fig. 122. [Return to text]

2 T. Özgüç, 1986, p. 38, fig. 3:21, endnote 35. [Return to text]

3 Mellaart noticed that in the orginal survey, Seton-Williams erroneously called metallic ware "Base-Ring ware", a ware native to Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Upon reinvestigation, Mellaart concluded that this ware was not Cypriot ware but rather Early Bronze Age Anatolian metallic ware. [Return to text]

4 The ceramics from the 1991 Bilkent survey were published by S. Steadman (1994). Her descriptions of metallic ware are most confusing. Her metallic ware is wheelmade and often treated with a black wash laden with particles of mica. The metallic ware discussed in this paper is all handmade with no trace of such a wash. Furthermore, Steadman combines the brittle orange ware of Amuq H-I with the metallic ware from the Konya plain. These are most definitely two separate wares, manufactured in two separate regions and separated chronologically by hundreds of years, the Konya metallic ware appearing much earlier than the Amuq brittle orange ware. [Return to text]

5 J. Perrot describes the crucibles from the Chalcolithic site of Abu Matar in the Beer Sheva valley as being made of grey metallic ware but no ceramic analysis on these finds has yet been published. See J. Perrot, "The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, neer Beersheba." Israel Exploration Journal 5 (1955):17-40. [Return to text]

6 The temperature at which calcite decomposes has not yet been agreed upon It may be as low as 650°C or as high as 900°C. See P.R. Rice, Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 98. [Return to text]

7 See Braidwood and Braidwood 1960 p. 371, fn.17 regarding the Syrian Bottle form in Phase G; fig. 207:9; fig. 217:3-5 and possibly fig.233:9. [Return to text]

8 According to Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, crushed shell temper is present in the Amuq in Phase B at Kurdu in lustrous red-film ware (p.82), very rarely in the smooth-faced simple ware of Phase F at Tell Judeidah (p.230), and in a small percentage of the red-black burnished ware of Amuq H at Tell Judeidah (p.360). [Return to text]

9 This ceramic analysis will be conducted in collaboration with ATAM (The Program on Ancient Technologies and Archaeological Materials ) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [Return to text]

10 See T. Kaiser, U.M. Franklin and V. Vitali, "Pyrotechnology and Pottery in the Late Neolithic of the Balkans," Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, ed. J.S. Olin and M.J. Blackman (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986), 85-94. [Return to text]

11 Rice (1987:148) distinguishes paint from pigment as follows,"Pigment is the inclusive term for the coloring material, while paint refers to the action of applying a pigment rather than to a specific kind of material." [Return to text]

12 Some crucibles have already been analyzed by means of Wavelength Dispersive Microprobe, X-Ray Diffraction and Nondestructive X-Ray Fluorescence. See Aslihan Yener and Pamela Vandiver in AJA 97(2), (April 1993):207-238. [Return to text]

13 Fragments of crucibles have already been analyzed by Nondestructive X-Ray Fluorescence, SEM, Energy Dispersive X-Ray, and Wavelength Dispersive Microprobe. These results are published by Aslihan Yener and Pamela Vandiver in AJA 97(2), (April 1993):207-238. [Return to text]

14 Esse and Hopke conducted analyses on 58 samples of metallic ware from Syria and Palestine. Unfortunately, their results are not statistically reliable. Due to inaccuracies in their measurements, the data cannot be compared with other data stored at the Conservation Analytical Laboratory at the Smithsonian Institution. See D. Esse and P.K. Hopke, "Levantine Trade in the Early Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, ed. J.S. Olin and M.J. Blackman (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986), 327-339. [Return to text]


ELIZABETH S. FRIEDMAN ©1998
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations