Ilene M. Nicholas

The Function of Bevelled-Rim Bowls : A Case Study at the TUVMound, Tal-e Malyan, IranIn: Paléorient. 1987, Vol. 13 N°2. pp. 61-72.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Nicholas Ilene M. The Function of Bevelled-Rim Bowls : A Case Study at the TUV Mound, Tal-e Malyan, Iran. In: Paléorient.1987, Vol. 13 N°2. pp. 61-72.

doi : 10.3406/paleo.1987.4429

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1987_num_13_2_4429

RésuméCet article présente un nouvel examen d'un type très répandu au Moyen Orient, l'« écuelle grossière »dont l'usage demeure une énigme. On a tenté ici d'éclaircir quelle était, dans le secteur TUV du site deMalvan (Iran) occupé lors de la deuxième moitié du IVe millénaire, sa fonction. Les quatre hypothesesdéjà émises concernant leur utilisation : ration journalière, bol rituel à offrandes, bol à offrandes, écuelleà tout faire, sont développées ici avec leurs implications. Le raisonnement s'appuie sur une étudespatiale de la distribution des écuelles faite à travers les trois niveaux de construction partiellement misau jour sur le chantier TUV lors de la phase Banesh et qui sert à tester ces hypothèses. L'observationse fait d'abord au niveau de l'analxse formelle : matériau et forme des écuelles d'une part, état depréservation d'autre part. L'aspect général des écuelles trouvées dans le secteur TUV plus à l'état detessons que d'objets entiers est tout a fait semblable aux ensembles déjà décrits pour d'autres sites. Sil'on se place à un autre niveau et que l'on tente d'examiner à quel type d'activité on peut les relier,l'analyse spatiale montre que les écuelles grossières appartiennent à la classe des poteries àdégraissant végétal trouvées communément dans les dépotoirs, en même temps que des gobelets etdes plats à rebord bas. Au cours de l'analyse, les calculs des indices de présence et de densité ont étécombinés à des observations concernant également leur position à l'intérieur des structuressusceptibles d'apporter des renseignements sur le type d'activité sous-jacent à leur usage. A un niveauencore supérieur d'analyse, celui de l'institution, on a cherché à discerner qui, agent de contrôle ou co-ordinateur d'activité, utilisa, à un moment donné, les écuelles grossières. Les facteurs examinés icitiennent compte de la quantité totale de tessons d'écuelles grossières pour chaque niveau, de l'indicede variation et des obsenations sur les objets et structures qui leur étaient associés. En conclusion, lechantier TUV a montré qu'aucune des quatre hypothèses ne pouvait être retenue pour elle-même. Cellequi reste la plus approchante est le modèle « bol à offrandes ». Par ailleurs il ressort de l'analyse queles écuelles grossières de la zone TUV ont servi dans le cadre d'une institution supra-familiale,essentiellement administrative dont le siège se situait à l'extrémité sud du tell et qui ne relevait pas d'untemple. Ces écuelles ne correspondaient pas à des rations alimentaires, mais étaient plutôt desmesures utilisées pour le paiement d'impôts, le déplacement des bols s'effectuant alors vers le centreadministratif plutôt que dans le sens inverse.

AbstractThis paper re-examines a perennially enigmatic ceramic type in Near Eastern archaeology, thebevelled-rim bowl, with the aim of clarifying its function at one particular site, the TUV Mound at Tal-eMalyan. occupied in the late fourth millennium B.C. Four alternative hypotheses of bevelled-rim bowlfunction are tested through contextual spatial analysis of three building levels partially exposed at TUV.The paper concludes that the bevelled-rim bowls at TUV were used in connection with an essentiallysecular supra-familial administrative institution located on the southern end of the mound. It is arguedthat the bowls were not ration bowls, but rather bowls used in the paying of taxes.

PALEORIENT. vol. 13 2-1987

THE FUNCTION OF BEVELLED-RIM BOWLS

A CASE STUDY AT THE TUV MOUND,

TAL-E MALYAN, IRAN

l.M. NICHOLAS

ABSTRACT. — This paper re-examines a perennially enigmatic ceramic type in Near Eastern archaeology, the bevelled-rim bowl, with the aim of clarifying its function at one particular site, the TUV Mound at Tal-e Malyan. occupied in the late fourth millennium B.C. Four alternative hypotheses of bevelled-rim bowl function are tested through contextual spatial analysis of three building levels partially exposed at TUV. The paper concludes that the bevelled-rim bowls at TUV were used in connection with an essentially secular supra-familial administrative institution located on the southern end of the mound. It is argued that the bowls were not ration bowls, but rather bowls used in the paying of taxes. RÉSUMÉ. — Cet article présente un nouvel examen d'un type très répandu au Moyen Orient, l'« écuelle grossière » dont l'usage demeure une énigme. On a tenté ici d'éclaircir quelle était, dans le secteur TUV du site de Malvan (Iran) occupé lors de la deuxième moitié du IV1' millénaire, sa fonction. Les quatre hypotheses déjà émises concernant leur utilisation : ration journalière, bol rituel à offrandes, bol à offrandes, écuelle à tout faire, sont développées ici avec leurs implications. Le raisonnement s'appuie sur une étude spatiale de la distribution des écuelles faite à travers les trois niveaux de construction partiellement mis au jour sur le chantier TUV lors de la phase Banesh et qui sert à tester ces hypothèses. L'observation se fait d'abord au niveau de l'analxse formelle : matériau et forme des écuelles d'une part, état de préservation d'autre part. L'aspect général des écuelles trouvées dans le secteur TUV plus à l'état de tessons que d'objets entiers est tout a fait semblable aux ensembles déjà décrits pour d'autres sites. Si l'on se place à un autre niveau et que l'on tente d'examiner à quel type d'activité on peut les relier, l'analyse spatiale montre que les écuelles grossières appartiennent à la classe des poteries à dégraissant végétal trouvées communément dans les dépotoirs, en même temps que des gobelets et des plats à rebord bas. Au cours de l'analyse, les calculs des indices de présence et de densité ont été combinés à des observations concernant également leur position à l'intérieur des structures susceptibles d'apporter des renseignements sur le type d'activité sous-jacent à leur usage. A un niveau encore supérieur d'analyse, celui de l'institution, on a cherché à discerner qui, agent de contrôle ou co-ordinateur d'activité, utilisa, à un moment donné, les écuelles grossières. Les facteurs examinés ici tiennent compte de la quantité totale de tessons d'écuelles grossières pour chaque niveau, de l'indice de variation et des obsenations sur les objets et structures qui leur étaient associés. En conclusion, le chantier TUV a montré qu'aucune des quatre hypothèses ne pouvait être retenue pour elle-même. Celle qui reste la plus approchante est le modèle « bol à offrandes ». Par ailleurs il ressort de l'analyse que les écuelles grossières de la zone TUV ont servi dans le cadre d'une institution supra-familiale, essentiellement administrative dont le siège se situait à l'extrémité sud du tell et qui ne relevait pas d'un temple. Ces écuelles ne correspondaient pas à des rations alimentaires, mais étaient plutôt des mesures utilisées pour le paiement d'impôts, le déplacement des bols s'effectuant alors vers le centre administratif plutôt que dans le sens inverse.

Tal-e Malyan lies in Fars Province of highland Iran, about 46 km north of Shiraz. Excavations were conducted at Malyan between 1971 and 1978 by a University Museum (University of Pennsylvania) expedition under the field direction of William M. Sumner. The TUV Mound is a small outlying site about 300 m northeast of the main mounded zone at Malyan (1). The 3 hectare TUV Mound was occupied only during the Banesh phase of the late fourth millennium B.C., at which time the main Malyan mound is estimated to have been 50 ha in extent. Proto-Elamite tablets have been found in Banesh levels at both the ABC Operation on the main mound and at the TUV Operation on the southern end of the small outlier. The ABC Operation produced massive architecture in conjunction with administrative and elite artifactual remains (2). The TUV

(1) NICHOLAS. 1980. 1981. n.d. (2) SUMNER. 1974. 1976. 1986.

Operation, however, yielded a strange juxtaposition of small-scale architecture with a diverse range of small finds indicative of domestic, administrative, and craft activities. In order to clarify the nature of occupation at this outlying mound, contextual analysis of function was done for the entire corpus of material recovered by the TUV Operation (3). The present paper presents an expanded discussion of one particular artifact type, the bevelled-rim bowl, treatment of which could not be developed completely within the scope of the site report on TUV.

The bevelled-rim bowl has long been one of the most enigmatic artifact types in the field of ancient Near Eastern studies, despite quite extensive discussion in the literature (4). This vessel type has a seemingly simple and highly distinctive morphology,

(3) NICHOLAS n.d. (4) BEALE. 1978 provides an extensive bibliography of this

literature.

61

appearing to have been made using prepared holes in the ground as molds (5). At TUV, for example, the vessels' exterior side walls and the undersurfaces of the bases are crinkly (from contact with the sides of the mold), while the interiors of the bases often bear a thumb impression where the clay was pressed down into the mold. The interior side walls are smoothed, and the exterior rims finished by smoothing their upper exterior edges to create the characteristic bevel. The TUV bevelled-rim bowls are made in a chaff-tempered ware.

Despite its characteristic form and widespread occurrence throughout greater Mesopotamia, the use of the bevelled-rim bowl has never been readily apparent. Furthermore, bevelled-rim bowls are not even particularly good chronological markers; their temporal span is too wide to allow them to be used as index fossils other than of a very gross kind (i.e., allowing placement somewhere in the fourth millennium B.C.) (6).

Additional research into the function of bevelled- rim bowls seems clearly needed. Archaeological investigation of function tends to be either experimental or associational in approach. Experimental approaches include studies which attempt to replicate the mode of manufacture or use of ancient artifacts through practical trials of either the ancient items themselves or of modern copies. Associational approaches include studies which examine the context in which items were discovered and then derive functional inferences from spatial patterning discerned in these contexts. The present paper develops an associational approach to the problem of bevelled-rim bowl function at one site, the TUV Mound at Tal-e Malyan.

Hypotheses on the function of bevelled-rim bowls

The bevelled-rim bowl was a common ceramic form at TUV. Before looking in detail at the spatial patterning and contextual associations of this vessel form at TUV, the various hypotheses which have been previously advanced about the function of bevelled-rim bowls should be reviewed.

Here it is important to state the basic assumption underlying this paper : there is no a priori reason to postulate that all vessels which we now classify as bevelled-rim bowls on the basis of their form were used in antiquity for exactly the same purpose. True, that would be the most parsimonious explanation for the relationship between form and function in

(5) JOHNSON, 1973 : 131. (6) Data from a few sites suggest that occasionally bevelled-

rim bowls lingered in use even into the beginning of the third millennium B.C. POTTS (1975 : 16) mentions that bevelled-rim bowls may have persisted at al-Hiba into E.D. II. At Nippur, bevelled-rim bowls were found as high up as level XII, considered to be transitional between the Jemdet Nasr and E.D. I (HANSEN 1965 : 202, 208).

bevelled-rim bowls. It is certainly clear by this time, however, that the problem with the analysis of bevelled-rim bowls stems in large part from the great variety of situations in which they have turned up over a wide temporal and geographical range. We should not, therefore, close our eyes to the possibility that the bevelled-rim bowl had different functions in different zones or at different times.

Beale, for example, does recognize that there is something different about the context of bevelled- rim bowls in Iranian sites as contrasted to lowland Mesopotamian sites (7). The major thrust of his argument, however, is still very much towards finding a universally applicable explanation for the bevelled-rim bowl — even if one does have to stretch the boundaries of the explanation a little to comfortably incorporate the Iranian material.

It is my contention that we should be willing to go one step further. Bevelled-rim bowls in lowland Mesopotamia could have been substantially different in function from those discovered in some Iranian sites. Residents of the Iranian area may have copied a widely occurring Mesopotamian form but used it for their own cultural purposes. The possibility that the observed form we label the bevelled-rim bowl could be equated with two (or more) major functional variants is something that needs to be explicitly addressed by analysis.

It is not the purpose of this paper, however, to examine the context of all bevelled-rim bowls ever discovered in the ancient Near East, or even the context of all those in Iran. Rather, it is hoped that this article can serve as an idiographic study of the manner in which bevelled-rim bowl function might be better investigated within the institutional context of an individual site. In this study a clear picture of the range of uses for bevelled-rim bowls at the TUV Mound is sought, not by trying to force the TUV data to mesh precisely with what is known of bevelled-rim bowls elsewhere, but rather by emphasizing intra-site contextual analysis of function, combined with the testing of a number of diverse hypotheses on bevelled-rim bowl use. Each of these hypotheses is summarized below, and a set of theoretical expectations derived from each is presented on Table 1.

The hypothesis most discussed in the recent literature has been the ration-bowl model, originally suggested by Nissen and elaborated by Johnson (8). This hypothesis argues that bevelled-rim bowls were mass-produced containers in which grain rations were distributed to workers by a central authority such as a temple administration.

Beale has used both experimental and associational approaches to critique this hypothesis (9). He

(7) BEALE, 1978 : 311-313. (8) NISSEN, 1970; JOHNSON, 1973. (9) BEALE, 1978 : 289-304.

62

TABLE 1 Test expectations for hypotheses

on bevelled-rim bowls DEFINITION OF THE CATEGORIES Shape and material : What material(s). form(s). and size(s) would

be expected given each hypothesized function '.' Condition : Would bowls be expected to be discarded intact or

only when broken '.' Ubiquity .Would bowls be expected to be widespread throughout

the range of trash deposits at a site, or segregated in only a few primary or secondary loci ?

Density : How dense or concentrated would each individual deposit of bevelled-rim bowls be expected to be ? Would all deposits containing bevelled-rim bowls be similar in concentration of that item ?

Structural position : How accessible would we expect the discard loci for bevelled-rim bowls to have been ? Would there be any expected regularities in spatial placement of discard loci ?

Quantity : How many bevelled-rim bowls have been needed if used for a particular function ? When a site or building level is viewed as a whole, would the expected quantity of bevelled- rim bowls be small or large 9

Diversity : Would it be expected that a deposit containing bevelled-rim bowls would contain only those bowls, a few other kinds of items, or many other kinds of items ?

Associated features : What would be the general character of the architecture and features with which bevelled-rim bowls would be expected to occur ?

Associated finds : What would be the general functional profile of the small finds likely to be discarded with bevelled-rim bowls ?

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE RATION-BOWL HYPOTHESIS

Shape and material : Bowls would be expected to come in standardized sizes and/or to be large enough to hold sufficient grain to meet a worker's daily caloric requirements and to transport that ration without spillage. Bowls would be expected to be mass-produced of inexpensive materials.

Condition : Expected to be variable — some bowls, perhaps most, would be discarded intact; others might be reused until accidentally broken, or broken in the act of discard.

Ubiquity : Expected to be high, as bowls should end up dispersed to workers' homes. Density : Expected to be relatively uniform overall, assuming that

rations are distributed on a consistent basis to the workers over a long period.

Structural position : Expected to be variable. Quantity : The overall quantity of bowls at any site with a ration

system should be very large. Diversity : Expected to be variable. Associated features : Expected to be domestic (or possibly craft-

related) in character, as bowls would be discarded near workers' homes or workplaces. Associated finds : Expected to be domestic or craft-related.

Diversity : Each deposit should have a very low diversity, consisting only of offering bowls and other votive objects.

Associated features : Large concentrations would be expected to be associated with temples or public structures and small deposits with houses.

Associated finds : Offering bowls should be associated with food residues and with exotic or unusual items suitable for votive purposes.

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE GENERALIZED PRESENTATION BOWL HYPOTHESIS

Shape and material : Bowls would be expected to be easy to produce in a domestic context, and/or to be made of inexpensive materials. No particular form would be expected.

Condition : Expected to be variable. Some recipients of presentation bowls might stack them neatly for disposal: others might throw them away in such a manner that they broke on the trash heap. It is expected that in the majority of cases the contents of the bowl would have been removed before discard.

Ubiquity : Expected to be moderate. Density : Expected to be high in most instances, with some

low-density instances in domestic contexts. Structural position : Expected to be variable. Quantity : Expected to be high overall. Diversity : Expected to be low or moderate (the recipients of the

bowls may well have discarded other trash with the bowls, but it should be considerably less diverse than that found in a normal domestic context).

Associated features : Most deposits expected to be in or near public structures, with some small deposits in domestic situations.

Associated finds : Expected to be variable, but in most cases some indication of elite or administrative artifacts would be expected.

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE UTILITY BOWL HYPOTHESIS

Shape and material : Expected to be made of inexpensive materials and by an easy technique suitable for either mass-production or home manufacture.

Condition : Expected to continue in use until broken. Ubiquity : Expected to be very high Density : Expected to be variable, but tending toward moderate. Structural position : Expected to be extremely variable, probably

identical with the distribution of all trash loci in a level. Quantity : Expected to be variable, but tending toward moderate

overall. Should be rather comparable to quantity of other standard domestic ceramic types at the site.

Diversity : Expected to be high. Associated features : Expected to be variable, but to frequently be

general domestic trash dumps. Associated finds : Expected to be variable — probably including

examples of artifacts reflecting domestic, craft, and administrative activity.

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FORMAL VOTIVE/OFFERING BOWL HYPOTHESIS

Shape and material : No particular shape would be expected. No particular materials would be expected.

Condition : The majority of the bowls would be expected to be whole and to contain internal residue of offerings.

Ubiquity : Expected to be variable, depending on whether offerings were made only in temples or also in houses.

Density : Expected to be high in temple contexts and low in house contexts.

Structural position : Regularities in position (such as placement beneath a floor for example) would be expected.

Quantity : Expected to be high in total in any site where such offerings were practiced.

argues that if bevelled-rim bowls were used as ration containers, we would expect them to occur in standardized sizes. Studying a set of bevelled-rim bowls from Khuzistan and a set from Tepe Yahya, Beale found no standardization in level volume, heaped volume, or mold size in either set of vessels. Furthermore, he argues, the associational patterns of bevelled-rim bowls in general are inappropriate to the ration-bowl model; one would expect ration bowls to be widely distributed as workers carried them back to their living quarters, yet in Mesopota-

63

mia many concentrations of intact vessels occur in highly segregated contexts.

As a universal explanation of bevelled-rim bowl use, therefore, the ration-bowl hypothesis has been convincingly criticized by Beale. It has been included on Table 1, however, as it remains a possible explanation which might account for some bevelled- rim bowls, given the discussion above.

Beale also argues that the formal offering/votive bowl hypothesis is unsatisfactory (10). This hypothesis states that bevelled-rim bowls were used to deposit food offerings in temples or houses for ritual purposes such as scaring away demons. Looking at the general associations of bevelled-rim bowls, one again sees that the variety of contexts in which such vessels are found is far too great for this model to apply as a universal explanation of bevelled-rim bowl function.

Beale himself suggests that bevelled-rim bowls were somewhat more generalized presentation bowls (11). At times, he argues, bevelled-rim bowls might be used to bring food offerings to the temple administration (that is, they would be given to the staff rather than deliberately deposited by the petitioner in a special ritual context); at other times the bowls might be used in home rituals. The ease with which a bevelled-rim bowl is potentially manufactured in a domestic situation is a further point advanced by Beale in favor of this argument.

A summary of test expectations derived from both the formal votive/offering bowl hypothesis and the more generalized presentation bowl hypothesis is found on Table 1.

The last section of Table 1 develops the idea of a more mundane, utilitarian function for bevelled-rim bowls — one specifically not associated with ritual or with the distribution of rations. While Delougaz once advanced a specialized version of a utilitarian hypothesis (12), in this paper's version bevelled-rim bowls are envisioned as cheap, multi-purpose containers which could be used for a variety of ordinary domestic tasks.

Bevelled-rim Bowls at the TUV Operation

Before the associational characteristics of bevelled-rim bowls at TUV can be critically examined, it is necessary to determine which deposits (of those yielding bevelled-rim bowl sherds) are in fact appropriate for analysis of functional questions. This study considers only those bevelled-rim bowls which were in deposits contemporaneous with the occupation and use of the three Banesh building levels uncovered at TUV. The lowest level, B.L. Ill, was

(10) Ibid. : 304-305. (11) Ibid. : 305-309. (12) DELOUGAZ. 1952 : 127-128.

exposed over an area of 277 sq. m. This level had two phases, its original plan (IIIB) and a remodelled version (IIIA). B.L. II was excavated over an area of 455 sq. m, and the topmost level, B.L. I, excavated over an area of 200 sq. m. B.L. I was badly eroded, but preservation of B.L. II and B.L. IIIB-A was excellent. The architecture in all three levels was built of mud brick.

All tertiary deposits (such as bricky collapse) from these building levels must obviously be disregarded in functional analysis, as the artifacts contained in such deposits have lost all connection to their original time and place of use (13). At TUV there were no primary deposits (other than a few burials, which did not contain bevelled-rim bowls) associated with the three Banesh building levels. Of necessity, then, the analysis of bevelled-rim bowl associations at TUV is based upon secondary (trash) deposits (14). This analysis is discussed below, following the order of observational categories presented in Table 1.

The form of the TUV bevelled-rim bowls

The basic shape and material of the TUV bevelled-rim bowls have been described above in the first section of this paper. It can be additionally noted here that the walls of the TUV bowls are thin and are completely oxidized or have only a slight grey tinge in their centers. In condition, all the TUV specimens are sherds, except for two nearly complete vessels, mf 1724 and mf 1725, which have complete profiles. Due to the fragmentary condition of the TUV bevelled-rim bowl corpus, it is not possible to measure bowl volumes to see if standardized sizes occur.

The activity level of analysis

Because we do not understand the use of bevelled-rim bowls, it is not possible to automatically associate them with a named activity. In the TUV analysis, therefore, bevelled-rim bowls were

(13) Control over the depositional history of a Near Eastern mounded site is well known to be a tricky process; sherds, bones, and other material were often incorporated into the matrix of mud bricks, from which walls were then constructed. When mud brick architecture is abandoned and collapses, large amounts of material in tertiary deposition can result. Distinguishing tertiary deposits from certain types of secondary deposits is not always easy. Because accurate delineation of such distinctions is critical to functional and chronological studies, the Malyan Project has made a special effort to investigate whether the content of field-identified primary, secondary, and tertiary deposits can be shown through analysis to live up to theoretical expectations about the nature of various categories of deposition (element density, fragmentation, diversity, etc.). See NICHOLAS n.d.

(14) Mixed secondary lots have been eliminated from consideration in this paper, as have deposits suspected to be tertiary with high secondary admixture.

64

placed in a miscellaneous functional class designated special container, which grouped vessels of unknown or unclear function. Bevelled-rim bowls were placed within the subclass of containers made of common or readily available materials rather than with the vessels made of rarer raw materials such as metal.

Also placed in the former subclass were goblets and low trays of chaff-tempered ware. These forms and the bevelled-rim bowls are made in the same fabric and are less robust than the cooking and storage vessels of Banesh grit-tempered ware also found at TUV. All three chaff forms would probably be equally subject to breakage in normal use. It is unlikely they would have been regarded as items warranting a high degree of curation, because they could be so cheaply and readily replaced. The three chaff-tempered forms were generally found in association with one another in the trash deposits at TUV.

At the activity level of analysis, then, we can seek insights into the function of bevelled-rim bowls by considering the patterning of the entire class of items into which it falls, i.e. the bevelled-rim bowl, goblet, and low tray triad. Specifically, factors of ubiquity, density, and structural position of these forms can be examined. Before such study can be made, however, it is necessary to determine whether the data from all the TUV building levels can be safely treated together, or whether it would be better to consider each building level's evidence separately. In other words, do we have any reason to suspect a temporal shift in the nature of this activity class ?

If the relative proportions of the three chaff- ware forms in the special container, common material subclass are examined (Table 2), a striking contrast is readily apparent between B.L. IIIB-A and B.L. II-I. Trays are relatively constant in proportion in all three building levels at TUV. In B.L. IIIB-A, however, bevelled-rim bowls are from almost twice to three times as common as goblets, while in B.L. II-I goblets are at least three times more common than bevelled-rim bowls.

It would seem that we do have evidence for a temporal shift of some kind in this activity class. Note that data from other sites in the ancient Near East suggest that in some areas bevelled-rim bowls were gradually replaced over time by other variants

of coarse ware open vessels. In the Susa Acropole I sounding, for example, bevelled-rim bowls were very common in Susa 17 but in Susa 16 appeared only as isolated sherds. Coarse ware goblets, on the other hand, appeared in Susa 16 and continued to exist throughout Susa 16-14B, after the bevelled-rim bowls had totally disappeared from the sequence (15). In Mesopotamia proper, a general tendency has been observed for bevelled-rim bowls to vanish from the record while solid-footed goblets appear and flourish (16). Thus the ratios cited above for TUV might reflect a chronological shift in vessel style, with goblets gradually replacing bevelled-rim bowls in use. We should remember, however, that since TUV lies in highland Iran and not in the lowlands, the function and relationship between bevelled-rim bowls and goblets need not necessarily have been the same as they were for vessels of similar form in lowland Khuzistan and Mesopotamia. Thus it is possible that the exact nature of the activity may be shifting with the passage of time, necessitating in some way the use of goblets rather than bevelled-rim bowls.

In addition, the shift in ratios might even be the result of sampling different functional zones in the different levels at TUV or of some other sampling error. From Table 2 alone we cannot explain the observed shift in frequency, but the table strongly indicates that at a minimum B.L. IIIB-A and B.L. II-I should be treated separately when our observations of ubiquity, density, and structural position are taken.

Table 3 summarizes the data on ubiquity, indicating that the ubiquity of bevelled-rim bowls in B.L. IIIB-A is high, while the ubiquity of these vessels in levels II-I is moderately low.

The density observations (Table 4) also indicate a similar break between the pattern of B.L. IIIB-A and the pattern of B.L. II-I.

The distribution of bevelled-rim bowl sherds in B.L. IIIB is far from uniform. In B.L. IIIA the distribution pattern is even more asymmetrical : 88 % of all bevelled-rim bowl sherds from that level were recovered from just one of that level's trash

TABLE 3 Ubiquity Index

TABLE 2 Relative proportions of major chaff-ware form at TUV

(based on diagnostic sherds from unmixed secondary contexts, with all percentages calculated to the nearest whole number)

s *

4 7

RA

5c 0 2

TUM

8b

Çc 13b

TOTAL CHAFF 47 116 3116 933

r; s 21 48

579 115

OBLET HERDS ' 45%) '41%) : 19%) '12%!

TRAY SHERÍ 19 '

jS ' 40%)

55(17%) 14 35' 404:

: 46%) : 4 3%)

BEVEL BOWL 7

13 1102 414

LED-R1M SHERDS ' 15%) (11%) í 35%) ' 44%)

Building level # o£ secondary loci -- with grit ware -- with chaff ware -- with goblet sherds -- with tray sherds -- with bevel ied-rim bowl sherds

(15) LE BRUN, 1971 : 192. (16) ADAMS and NISSEN, 1972 : 99-100.

9 ( . 56) 8 ( . 50 ) 3( . 50) 7 ' . 44) 10 ( .63) 3! . 50)

65

TABLE 4A Density (concentration) Index

On this table only trash loci which contained goblet, tray and/or bevelled-rim bowl sherds are listed. The density (concentration) index for a type refers to sherd count per locus, expressed as a percentage of the total sherd count of that type in all loci under consideration for that building level. Note that rm = room ant trpl = trashpile, a large exterior trash dump.

TRASH DEPOSIT GOBLET TRAY BEVELLED-RIM CHAFFWARE DENSITY DENSITY BOWL DENSITY DENSITY

pit rm . rm . rm. rm .

В L

165 215 219 306 309

IIIA N

57% 14%

0% 26%

3%

= 583 N=

22% 9% 0%

64% 5%

1435

7% 24% < 1% 62%

7%

N= 1102

20% 16% '1% 58%

6%

pit 163 oven 223 trpl 241 hearth 245 rm. 250 hearth 255 rm. 258 hearth 290 p i t 2 У 9 trpl 3C1 rm. 306 alley 307

1% 0%

'1% < 1%

TABLE 4B Density (concentration) Index, B.L. II-I

For the upper two levels at TUV the numbers of chaff ware sherds in each category are so small that only the combined density index has been calculated.

TRASH DEPOSIT B.L. II rm. 25 rm. 27 rm. 32 rm. 36 oven 54 rm. 69 rm. 102 pit 130 pit 132 rm. 141

CHAFFWARE DENSITY N = 116

9% 3%

<1% 13% 10% 9%

29% 17%

8% 3%

loci. This asymmetric density distribution is also reflected in the B.L. IIIA figures for bevelled-rim bowls, goblets, and trays when viewed collectively. In B.L. II and B.L. I, calculations for density are difficult due to the smaller sample size. Taking all three chaff ware forms together, however, one gets the impression that the density distribution is noticeably more uniform than in B.L. IIIB-A.

In simple terms, in the top levels (II-I) we discovered only small amounts of bevelled-rim bowls, goblets and trays, with relatively little difference in dump size from one locus to the next. In B.L. IIIB and even more markedly in IIIA, we discovered some small, relatively uniformly sized dumps which contrasted sharply with other massive or extremely dense dumps of chaff ware debris. (Note that these massive dumps in B.L. IIIB-A contained goblets and trays in addition to bevelled- rim bowls, and that all the vessels were broken, not intact, thus differing in two ways from massive concentrations of bevelled-rim bowls reported from Mesopotamia and lowland Iran.)

The B.L. Ill exposure would appear to be sampling quite a different situation from that found in B.L II-I, implying that there may have been a functional shift in the character of this sector of the TUV mound between B.L. IIIB-A and B.L. II-I. Clearly in B.L. IIIB-A large amounts of chaff ware (including bevelled-rim bowls) were used, broken, and deposited to an overwhelming degree in a few massive dumps. It is probable that in this area of the mound in B.L. II-I only small amounts of chaff ware were used — or else we must postulate that broken vessels were carried further afield for disposal. Such action seems unlikely when apparently suitable trash dumping sites existed within the confines of the operation but were used only to a minor degree. Pits 130 and 132 in B.L. II, for example, were not "filled up" with trash and could presumably have held far more than they did.

Structural position is the next observational category to be discussed. These observations can be easily summarized (detailed tabulation is omitted here to meet space limitations). A number of differences in structural position are visible between B.L. II-I and B.L. IIIB. -A. Bevelled-rim bowls were discarded only in interior locations in B.L. II-I (17); earlier, in B.L. Ill, both interior and exterior dumping sites were employed.

Furthermore, in B.L. II and B.L. I both central and peripheral interior rooms were used for bevelled-rim bowl trash. In B.L. Ill B.-A., only peripheral or blocked off rooms were used in the interior.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine if the accessibility of the trash loci also differs between

well 195 well 199 area 335

19% 45% 36%

(17) It should be noted here that the excavated area of both B.L. II and B.L. I did include some exterior spaces, but no bevelled-rim bowls were found in them.

66

B.L. II-I and B.L. IHB-A(18). Poor preservation of wall height in B.L. II-I has made the identification of most doorways in those levels impossible as Banesh architects favored relatively high doorsills. For B.L. Ill, however, a wide range of situations is indicated. The more massive concentrations of bevelled-rim bowls (and of chaff ware in general) come in exterior loci which are movement hubs, accessible from several directions, and in interior areas which are dead ends. This pattern is consonant with the interpretation that the massive concentrations of bevelled-rim bowls, goblets, and trays accumulated gradually during the life-span of B.L. IIIB-A.

Before moving on to consider the remaining evidence from TUV, a short summary of the conclusions derived at the activity level of analysis is appropriate : — Bevelled-rim bowls can be considered part of the

same activity sub-class as chaff-ware goblets and low trays on the basis of shared formal characteristics and shared spatial patterning. Within the limits of the TUV Operation, goblets seem to have been replacing bevelled-rim bowls over time, but whether their functions were identical has not been shown.

— In ubiquity, density, and structural position, bevelled-rim bowls and the chaff-ware group exhibit different behavior in B.L. IIIB-A contrasted to B.L. II-I, which suggests that the use of bevelled-rim bowls in this area had definitely changed over time.

The institutional level of analysis

For the purposes of functional analysis, an institution can be defined as any agency of societal control and coordination of activities (e.g., the family, the temple). Thus at the institutional level of analysis, the manner in which activities were coordinated in the past is the subject under investigation. In excavations like that at TUV, where each building level is essentially confined to portions of one major structure and a few adjacent exterior zones, analysis of activity coordination is somewhat simplified. It is clear from the start that the TUV Operation is unlikely to constitute a representative sample of the entire community which once existed on the TUV Mound. The assumption has been made that for each individual building level, the activities which resulted in the archaeological record were likely to

(18) Access values were calculated in an attempt to measure the degree of actual accessibility of each space. Negative values reflect the number of doorways which must be traversed from the trash locus in order to reach a space where a choice of movement is possible. The score of 0 indicates that the trash deposit was in a room with two doorways or an area from which movement could be made in two directions. Positive scores indicate the number of doorways or directions of movement beyond 2; these deposits are in areas which do not strictly channel movement.

have been directed by one rather than by many institutional forces. Should additional sectors of the TUV Mound be excavated someday, it is likely that different kinds of institutional patterns would be discovered. Examining the interrelationships among these several kinds of patterns would then fall at the community level of analysis.

The first observational category to be considered at the institutional level of analysis is that of overall quantity; how does the total amount of bevelled-rim bowl and chaff ware debris in each building level compare to the total amounts of residues from other activity categories ?

Turning back to Table 2, note that the absolute quantity of bevelled-rim bowl and chaff ware sherds varied considerably from level to level, with the most dramatic drop in quantity coming between B.L. IIIA and B.L. II. Does the absolute amount of grit- tempered ceramics (sherds from vessels used for cooking, serving, and storage) also drop so dramatically at the same point in the TUV sequence ?

Table 5 addresses this question. From that table it can be seen that the amount of grit ware discovered does drop in absolute terms at the same point in the sequence, but that this drop is not nearly so dramatic as in the case of the goblet-tray-bevelled-rim bowl group. The amount of grit-tempered sherds recovered in B.L. II is 59.3% of the amount recovered from B.L. IIIA, but the amount of chaff sherds recovered from B.L. II is only 3.7% of the amount found in IIIA. B.L. IIIB-A have an overwhelmingly chaff- tempered assemblage, oriented toward bevelled-rim bowls, trays, and goblets. In B.L. II-I grit-tempered ceramics (cooking, serving, storage vessels) were much more important than in the earlier levels, while the proportions of trays, bevelled-rim bowls and goblets declined. This does not look like a simple popularity shift reflecting a growing preference for grit-tempering, as the shapes of the vessels in the two categories are so different. On the contrary, it looks like a functional shift in the kinds of vessels needed in that area of the mound over time.

Let us now consider quantity within levels rather than between them. This comparison is complicated by the differing degrees of robusticity and likelihoods of curation characterizing various types of

TABLE 5 Ratio between major chaff group and grit wares

(based on diagnostic sherds from unmixed secondary contexts, with all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number)

В. L. I II IIIA IIIB

STRATUM 4 7 i 8b 10 12 & 13b

TOTAL SHERDS 135 330 3477 1059

CHAFF 47 116 3116 933

TRIAD ( 35%) ! 35%) ( 90%) ( 88%)

GRIT 88 214 361 126

«ARE :65%) : 65%) ' 10%) ' 12%)

67

vessels. Grit-tempered vessels are more robust, more complicated to make, and more likely to be curated than chaff-tempered vessels are, which doubtless reduced the number of grit-tempered sherds making their way into TUV's trash dumps.

We can assume, however, that the rate at which each ceramic type contributed to the formation of trash deposits is still related to the relative importance of that type in the functioning of that building level, even though this relationship may not be a perfectly linear one, uniform from class to class of material.

Turning to Table 6, we can now see that the apparent "replacement" of bevelled-rim bowls by goblets described above might be more accurately viewed as the maintenance of goblet use at a fairly steady rate while the use of trays and bevelled-rim bowls declined. This does not yet clarify the question of whether goblets and bevelled-rim bowls had similar functions or not, however.

TABLE 6 Major chaff forms expressed as a proportion of

total combined chaff/grit sherds (based on diagnostic sherds from unmixed secondary contexts.

with all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number) BRB = Bevelled-rim Bowls B. L. I II IIIA IIIB

STRATUM 4 7, Sb

10 12, 13b

TOTAL SHERDS 135 330

3477 1059

GOBLETS 16% 15% 17% 11%

TR A i -j 14% 17% 41% ?e%

BRBS 5% 4%

32% 39%

GRIT 6 5% 65% 10% 12%

In summary, the absolute quantity of bevelled-rim bowls in B.L. IIIB-A is very high, as is the absolute quantity of the chaffware group in general. Grit- tempered vessels with cooking, serving and storage functions are present in much smaller quantity. The pattern has changed by B.L. II-I. Absolute quantity declines for both chaff- and grit-tempered vessels, but to disproportionate degrees. The cause of the differential decline presumably stems from the functions of the vessels and the degree to which such functions were needed in the different levels. It would seem that whatever the function of bevelled- rim bowls, it was one that did not in and of itself always result in massive concentrations of these items.

Before our hypotheses on the functions of bevelled-rim bowls can be fully evaluated, therefore, we must turn to the remaining observational categories : Diversity, Character of Associated Features, and Character of Associated Finds.

Diversity

Diversity refers to the number of different types of small finds contained in each trash deposit.

Diversity scores can be expressed as a ratio between the number of types and the total number of individual finds in a given deposit. Detailed tabulation of these scores is omitted because of space limitations, but a summary of these observations is given below.

It is clear that as deposit size increases (i.e., as the total number of finds rises), diversity scores tend to drop. This is what one might expect, given that the number of types in use at TUV was limited, but the number of individual items of any one type that could be thrown away was in theory limitless, or limited only by economic factors. It would seem that diversity scores can only be profitably compared when deposits of comparable size are examined. Thus each trash deposit at TUV has been classified as small, moderate, or large in terms of the amount of registered small finds recovered from it. When diversity scores are compared within each of these categories, considerable variability is still seen. Overall diversity is somewhat less varied in B.L. II than in either B.L. I or B.L. IIIB-A, probably because no large deposits were recovered from B.L. II. Unfortunately, no relationship between diversity score and the presence or absence of great amounts of chaff ware is apparent.

Associated features

In B.L. I, the topmost level at TUV, bevelled-rim bowls were found in both the main structure (in well 199) and in area 355, a partially excavated room of a second structure. The architectural plan of this building level was neatly rectilinear, but the mud- brick walls were very poorly preserved, standing only 1-2 courses high. No features other than two wells were found; unfortunately, it is not clear if the lack of "built-in" features was due to the functional character of the level or to the poor preservation. It must be concluded that no clear assessment of the functional character of B.L. I can be made from the architecture and features alone.

B.L. II was the most extensively recovered building level at TUV. The architectural plan consisted of rooms of many different shapes and sizes, but all were regularly laid out with parallel sides and right-angled corners. Due to the excellent preservation of this level, many doorways were detectable and many built-in features were preserved.

The presence of numerous ovens, hearths, and bins in the northwest unit of the main B.L. II structure suggests a kitchen function for part of that unit. Bevelled-rim bowls were found in the northwest unit in small numbers. Bevelled-rim bowls were also found in the southwest unit. Numerous small compartments and a plastered pit suggest that this latter unit may have been a storage zone. Bevelled- rim bowls were not recovered in clear secondary context from the east unit of the building, where a large courtyard was found.

68

Preservation of B.L. Ill, the lowest exposed level at TUV, was excellent, but this level was not excavated over as extensive an area as was B.L. II. On the whole this architecture is still best described as "small-scale," but a number of walls are noticeably more massive than those of the B.L. II structure. The main B.L. Ill structure also contained two rooms which were decorated with painted walls.

The general plan of the architecture in this level was slightly less rectilinear than that of levels I and II; that is, some of the B.L. Ill rooms did not have parallel sides. A number of features were preserved, though the great range of features characteristic of B.L. II was not found. From the architecture and features alone, functional characterization of this level does not seem to be possible.

The original plan (IIIB) seems to have been that of a large structure with four room-blocks, designated by us the west, east, south, and north; the latter was very badly preserved as it had been thoroughly dismantled in antiquity by the remodelling of phase IIIA. The east sector was the one with the more massive walls and decorated rooms.

In the remodelling of phase IIIA, the south and north units were converted into exterior areas; a sizeable platform containing an oven was built in the northern zone. The west and east units continued in use in their original format, although at some time during the phase, two rooms of the east unit were blocked off by the sealing of a doorway.

Associated small finds

In discussing this observational category, the concept of functional profile is employed. The functional profile is an analytic device which is based upon weighted assessment of the relative frequencies of different activities as measured by the amount of artifactual debris each contributed to the formation of the archaeological record (19).

For the purposes of this paper, the composite functional profile for trash loci with bevelled-rim bowls in each building level will be compared to the profile of trash loci lacking bevelled-rim bowls in that level.

For B.L. I a problem of small total sample size arises. The small amount of debris recovered from B.L. I increases the chance of sampling errors unrelated to functional cause. Another skewing difficulty is that just one well (feature 199) contains 74% of all registered finds from that level.

(19) NICHOLAS n.d. : chapter 8 includes a detailed discussion of the "correction factors" whereby raw numbers of finds representing different activity classes can be weighted to more accurately reflect the relative incidence of the different activities in the actual functioning of the site. That chapter also contains tables illustrating the details of the functional profiles for each building level at TUV.

Nonetheless, the profile for the bevelled-rim bowl associated loci is considerably more diverse than the profile for the non-bevelled-rim bowl associated loci in B.L. I. The latter contains items reflective of domestic production and use, while the former adds to those functions indications of crafts, most notably that of chipped stone tool production.

In B.L. II bevelled-rim bowls were only found in five loci. The number of such sherds found in each of those loci was very small.

Two of these loci (room 102 and pit 132 within it) are in the southwest unit of the main B.L. II structure. The small finds recovered from these loci support the inference from the architectural layout that the function of this unit may have been storage. While numerous chaff-tempered and grit-tempered sherds were found in room 102, bone trash was minor. The sherds in room 102 included many from painted storage jars, and there were many large body sherds in the deposit, suggestive of the presence somewhere in this unit of large vessels too big to have been used for anything other than storage. Pit 132 produced a cluster of seal impressions, which further supports the storage interpretation for this room-block. Finds of other functional classes were present in smaller quantity.

The other three loci with bevelled-rim bowl sherds (room 69, room 25 and oven 54) all lie in the northwest unit of B.L. II. Room 69 lies in the more southerly sector of the unit, but the other two loci are in the postulated "kitchen" suite to the north. The small finds from the northwest unit support the inference from the architecture that the southerly rooms are different in function from the "kitchen" suite. Sherdage and bone are very low in the south, including room 69, while registered finds are few and scattered. Much higher concentrations of trash are found in the north, including a high amount of bone in room 32. A number of these northerly rooms have remains suggestive of the postulated kitchen function. Rooms 36, 45, and 43 had large storage vessels smashed in place. There were numerous finds of the food preparation class of registered items, including four grinding stones in room 43, and a mortar set into the floor of room 26. The kitchen function for this sector seems well supported.

In B.L. II 59% of the finds come from trash loci which included some bevelled-rim bowl sherds. Thus the bevelled-rim bowl associated functional profile is based on more material than the non- bevelled-rim bowl associated profile, and (as a result ?) is more diverse. The biggest differences lie in the areas of storage and administration; items of these classes (such as seal impressions) are marked in the bevelled-rim bowl associated profile but absent from the other. The amount of craft debris is proportionally greater in the bevelled-rim bowl profile as well, while the non-bevelled-rim bowl profile is higher in domestic artifacts.

69

With B.L. Ill, the high ubiquity values of bevelled-rim bowls have resulted in extremely disproportionate amounts of trash found in bevelled- rim bowl associated and the non-bevelled-rim bowl associated loci, making it futile to contrast their profiles and hope for meaning. 90.5 % of the registered finds are in bevelled-rim bowl loci in IIIA, 99.6% in B.L. IIIB ! As would be expected, the bevelled-rim bowl associated profile is considerably more diverse.

If comparing functional profiles within levels has not been so useful as one might wish, let us try to compare functional profiles across levels. That is, what differences are observable between IIIB-A, with the ubiquitous and plentiful bevelled-rim bowls, and B.L. II-I with the more segregated and less numerous bowls ?

Firstly, note that in terms of the weighted functional profiles for the TUV building levels, use of the chaff-ware triad of goblets, trays, and bevelled-rim bowls itself constitutes over 50 % of the profile in B.L. IIIB and over 60 % in B.L. IIIA, compared with 25 % in B.L. II and just over 14% in B.L. I. If we then summarize the remainder of each level's functional profile by grouping the other classes of evidence into just three broad spheres of activity — crafts (e.g. copper-base metallurgy, bead production, chipped stone tool manufacture), domestic (e.g. food preparation and consumption) and administration/ storage (e.g. information processing artifacts such as proto-Elamite tablets, seal impressions, and bul- lae) (20) — we find the following.

Administration/storage was a very large part of the remaining overall profiles for B.L. IIIB-A, while craft and domestic activities were present in smaller proportions. When we recall from the discussion above that administration/storage evidence was marked in that portion of the B.L. II profile based on bevelled-rim bowl associated loci, but not in the profile based on the trash loci without bevelled-rim bowls, it seems clear that an association between bevelled-rim bowls and an administrative presence is clearly indicated for the TUV mound.

A detailed review of the spatial distribution pattern for all the different activity classes at TUV lies beyond the scope of this paper (21), but such a site structural analysis confirms the above assertion and indicates that the nature of this overriding institution at TUV was essentially a secular one and clearly on a supra-familial scale. This institution can be demonstrated to have been involved in storage activities, in local (but not long-distance exchange), in occasional craft production (particularly of personal ornaments), and in "in-house" food preparation for its staff.

(20) The named activities here are intended as examples and do not comprise a complete list of the functional classes used in the TUV analysis.

(21) See NICHOLAS n.d.

Our exposure of B.L. IIIB-A seems to have revealed an area of the TUV Mound where actual administration and storage activities were localized. In B.L. II, we found a structure which overall had a much more "planned" look to it than did the main building in level III. It can in fact be argued that our exposure of B.L. II has revealed part of an expanded administrative center. The elaborate kitchen suite exposed by our excavations in B.L. II suggests that more people needed to be fed directly by the institution than in the earlier level; food preparation occupies a correspondingly greater part of B.L. IPs functional profile as a result. B.L. I remains difficult to interpret because of its poor preservation and small yield of finds and features. It was clearly a well-planned structure, however, and its overall profile is basically reminiscent of B.L. II's, so it is possible that the administrative institution persisted in this location even into the uppermost building level at TUV.

The function of the TUV bevelled-rim bowls

Table 7 summarizes the observations of bevelled- rim bowl characteristics and associations at TUV.

TABLE 7 Summary of bevelled-rim bowl

observations for TUV Building Level IIIB-A Shape and material : Generally similar to Mesopotamian.

Simple manufacturing technique; inexpensive materials. No information on whether standardized in size.

Condition : Sherds. Ubiquity : High. Density : Two extremes : massive dumps contrasted with very

small deposits. Structural position : Variable — massive deposits are in exterior

movement hubs or in interior dead ends. Quantity : High absolute count of sherds.

High proportional count compared to grit-tempered ware forms.

Diversity : Mixed — no clear pattern evident. Associated features .Well built small-scale mud brick architecture. Associated finds : Administration, storage, craft, and domestic

artifacts and debris.

Building Levels II-l Shape and material : Same as for B.L. IIIB-A. Condition .Same as for B.L. IIIB-A. Ubiquity : Moderately low. Density : Uniformly small. Structural position : Only in interior zones. Quantity : Low absolute count of sherds.

Low proportional count compared to goblets, trays, and grit-ware forms.

Diversity : Mixed — no clear pattern evident. Associated features : Associated with storage and kitchen zones in

B.L. II: with poorly preserved mud-brick architecture of unclear functional character in B.L. I.

Associated finds : In B.L. II. associated with domestic, storage, craft and administration evidence; in B.L. I with domestic and craft debris.

70

How then do these observations match up against the four major hypotheses of bevelled-rim bowl function presented on Table 1 ? Unfortunately the TUV picture does not match perfectly with any one of these hypotheses' test expectations.

Let us now review the hypotheses one by one. The ration bowl hypothesis is contra-indicated for B.L. IIIB-A by the uneven density distribution of these bowls in the trash loci, as well as by the diverse functional profile of this level with its strong administrative component. The ration bowl hypothesis is contra-indicated for B.L. II-I as well, but on different grounds. In these upper levels both the ubiquity and the total count of bevelled-rim bowls are too low to support this theory.

The formal votive/offering bowl hypothesis is even more strongly contra-indicated for the TUV bevelled-rim bowls. In none of the TUV building levels were bowls found consistently intact; neither did they show any traces of food offering residues. Furthermore, the bevelled-rim bowls turned up only in trash loci, not in primary contexts such as underneath floors or in special offering pits as this hypothesis would predict. Yet another disconfirma- tion of this hypothesis is the wide diversity of objects with which bevelled-rim bowls were found.

While the repeated association between bevelled- rim bowls, goblets, and low trays might suggest some commonplace function for the former, the utility bowl hypothesis is contra-indicated for levels IIIB-A by the presence of massive chaff-ware sherd dumps in these levels, and by the disproportionate amounts of these bowls compared to other standard ceramic types used in domestic activity such as food preparation and serving. In B.L. II-I the ubiquity index is too low for this hypothesis to constitute a likely explanation.

The last hypothesis to be evaluated is the generalized presentation bowl model. Of all the hypotheses presented on Table 1, the TUV data fits this model the best — especially in the case of the lower levels (B.L. IIIB.-A). It has been argued above that the general profiles of B.L. II-I also fit better with a supra-familial institution rather than with a domestic one, and that an administrative presence may have persisted even into B.L. I. If so, the presentation bowl model seems broadly plausible for these upper levels as well.

There is one important difference, however, between the TUV evidence and the implications of the presentation bowl model as laid forth by Beale. The overriding administrative institution he envisions as providing the cultural focus for the use of presentation bowls, even in the highland Iranian cases, is clearly a sacred one (i.e., a temple) (22). But at TUV we have almost no evidence for such a religious institution. The institutional presence at the

(22) BEALE. 1978 : 305-313.

TUV Mound is overwhelmingly local in character (not a Mesopotamian outpost) and secular in flavor. Thus a somewhat different functional variant of the bevelled-rim bowl (compared to those known elsewhere) seems to have been in use at TUV. It can be argued that the flow of bowls was indeed inward to the administrative area, but that the local inhabitants were bringing taxes to the local government rather than gifts to temple staff.

In summary, then, the above paper has argued that the careful application of various types of analysis of spatial patterning can begin to more firmly illuminate — within the confines of one site — even that most shadowy of Near Eastern artifacts, the bevelled-rim bowl.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the help of William Sumner. Elizabeth Henrickson. Virginia Badler, and the staffs of the Malyan Project and of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, and to thank Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY. for research support. Additional support and participation in the Malyan excavations was provided by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Harvard University. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the Ohio State University, the University of California (Los Angeles), the University of Oregon, the University of Michigan, and the Smithsonian Institution. See especially Sumner. 1974. 1976. 1985. 1986.

Ilene M. NICHOLAS Anthropology and Sociology Department

Hobart and William Smith Colleges GENEVA, NYI4456, U.S.A.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS R. McC. and NISSEN H.J. 1972 The Uruk Countryside : The Natural Setting of

Urban Societies. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

BEALE T.W. 1978 Bevelled rim bowls and their implications for

change and economic organization in the later fourth millennium B.C. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 37 : 289-313.

DELOUGAZ P.P. 1952 Pottery from the Divala Region. Chicago :

sity of Chicago Press.

71

HANSEN DP. 1965 The relative chronology of Mesopotamia. Part II.

The pottery sequence at Nippur from the Middle Uruk to the end of the Old Babylonian Period (3400-1600 B.C.). In : EHRICH, R.W. (ed.) : Chronologies in Old World Archaeology : 201-213 : Chicago.

JOHNSON G.A. 1973 Local Exchange and Early State Development in

Southwestern Iran. Anthropological Papers, 57, 1 Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.

n.d. Tal-e Malyan, Iran : The TUV Operation. I, Malyan Excavation Reports. Philadelphia : The University Museum. In press.

NISSEN H.J. 1970

POTTS D.T. 1975

Grabung in den Quadraten K./L XII in Uruk- Warka. Baghdader Mitleilungen, 5 : 137.

LE BRUN A. 1971 Recherches stratigraphiques à l'Acropole de Suse

(1969-1971). Cahiers de le Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran, 1 : 163-216. Paris : Paléorient.

NICHOLAS I.M. 1980 A Spatial/ Functional Analysis of Late Fourth

Millennium Occupation at the TUV Mound, Tal-e Malyan, Iran. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor : University Microfilms.

1981 Investigating an ancient suburb : excavations at the TUV Mound, Tal-e Malyan, Iran. Expedition, 23, 3 : 39-47.

The Late Fourth Millennium Universe of a Highland Community in Iran : Problems of Proto-Elam and Jamdat Nasr Mesopotamia. Unpublished B.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

SUMNER W.M. 1974 Excavations at Tall-i Malyan, 1971-1972. Iran, XII :

155-180 1976 Excavations at Tall-i Malyan, (Anshan) 1974. Iran,

XIV : 103-115 1985 The Proto-Elamite city wall at Tal-e Malyan. Iran,

23 : 153-161. 1986 Proto-Elamite Civilization in Fars. In : FINKBEI-

NER U. and ROLLIG W. (eds.) : Gamdat Nasr : Period or Regional Style ? : 199-211 : TAVO Reihe B, 62.

72