Download - Burnishing, painting and fenestrating: Social uses of pottery at Tell Kurdu (2013)

107B U R N I S H I N G , PA I N T I N G A N D F E N E S T R AT I N G : S O C I A L U S E S O F P O T T E R Y AT T E L L K U R D U

IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA

ABSTRACT

his chapter explores the local social connotations of styles that are inspired by distant regions. it uses Tell kurdu, a 6th millennium cal. bce site located in the hatay province of Turkey, as a case-study. Aspects of the ceramic assemblage and the architecture at Tell kurdu indicate that the inhabit-ants maintained prolonged contacts with halaian societies to the east, Levantine societies to the south and Anatolian societies to the northwest. his chapter deals especially with ceramics of supra-regional character like halaian painted wares and Levantine-type pedestals, and aims to raise ques-tions about their social uses at Tell kurdu. in addition to a qualitative and quantitative assessment of wares and shapes, the ceramics are studied contextually. A context-based analy-sis helps to determine where such wares were concentrated and may ultimately provide insights regarding the social sig-

niicance they carried. Aspects like vessel shape and possible functions are further used to infer how inter-regional styles were viewed.

INTRODUCTION

he site of Tell kurdu is located in the province of hatay in modern day Turkey (Figure 8.1). he mound was inhabited in the 6th and 5th millennia cal. bce. his chapter discusses the 6th millennium cal. bce levels in particular, when Tell kurdu, with an area approaching 15 ha at its maximum extent, was the largest settlement in the Amuq Plain. even though proba-bly not all 15 ha were inhabited simultaneously, the settlement must still have stood out from all others in the valley, which covered no more than a few hectares at most. his suggests that it must have functioned as a regional center and played a primary role in supra-local exchanges. indeed, the archi-tectural and material cultural traditions at Tell kurdu show an amalgamation of Northern Mesopotamian (i.e. halaian), Levantine and Anatolian styles, indicative of prolonged con-tacts with these regions. his chapter explores the nature of these contacts by viewing the material culture of inter-region-al character as socially signiicant.

he examples used to demonstrate this perspective are two distinctive types of pottery: halaf-like painted wares and Levantine-type fenestrated pedestals.1 especially for beauti-fully painted halaf wares, there has been a tendency to as-sume that their high quality automatically set them on a course of dispersal across faraway regions. we contend that foreign objects and styles were not so much imported or im-itated for aesthetic reasons or out of admiration for anoth-er society, but rather for their potential to be used in local-ly meaningful social strategies and practices (Bentley 1987; cusick 1998; Lightfoot, Martinez and schif 1998). in other words, these objects (or rather the styles they were made in;

BURNISHING, PAINTING AND FENESTRATING:

SOCIAL USES

OF

POTTERY

AT

TELL KURDU

Rana Özbal (koç university istanbul, Department of Archaeology and history of Art) and Fokke Gerritsen (Netherlands institute in

Turkey, istanbul)

1 All ceramic values in the text and in illustrations supersede previously published calculations.

Figure 8.1. Map showing Tell Kurdu’s location in the Amuq Valley.

108

IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA

B U R N I S H I N G , PA I N T I N G A N D F E N E S T R AT I N G : S O C I A L U S E S O F P O T T E R Y AT T E L L K U R D U

hence, our use of the term halaf-like) are likely to have been appropriated selectively to meet local needs and intermesh with existing social and cultural structures.

Following from this premise is the notion that contextual information can be brought to bear on questions such as: were there diferences in who used pottery belonging to certain ce-ramic styles, in the locales where or in the occasions for which they were used? hinking about these issues, in turn, will help us formulate hypotheses about the social signiicance of these ceramics of inter-regional signiicance. in addition to a

traditional ceramic categorization based on shape and sur-face treatment, therefore, the chapter also uses a contextual analysis to assess the signiicance of such non-local ceramics. he resulting picture at Tell kurdu is illed with many uncer-tainties about how these vessels were viewed by the inhabit-ants, but the chapter, nonetheless, shows how a context-based study can take us one step further than a quantitative or sty-listic study alone.

TELL KURDU: BACKGROUND TO THE SITE

Based on its central position in the valley and its signii-cant size, Tell kurdu was selected for excavation in 1938 by Robert and Linda Braidwood (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). Although their research at Tell kurdu was brief, the Braidwoods’ eforts allowed reining Phases c, D and e of the Amuq chronology. Ater a break of more than half a century, excavations were resumed in 1996 by Aslıhan yener (yener et al. 2000a, 2000b). he north mound operation, which took place in 1999 and especially in 2001 (Figure 8.2), exposed part of a 6th millennium cal. bce neighborhood comprised of over 60 small rooms and courtyards (Figure 8.3; see Özbal, Gerritsen and yener 2003; Özbal et al. 2004; Özbal 2006). Based on 16 radiocarbon dates, the Main Phase of the exca-vated settlement was inhabited between 5800 and 5700 cal. bce; most rooms and spaces belonging to this phase were oc-cupied within a few generations (Özbal 2006:67).

Preservation difered from room to room. walls in some cases were preserved up to 75 cm but in most places did not exceed 30 cm in height. Although there is no evidence for a ire or other signs of sudden abandonment, intact in situ arti-fact assemblages and numerous whole or reconstructable ves-sels were found in a few rooms (e.g. R05, R18, R44 and R51). Rooms that lacked in situ inds had multiple superimposed

Figure 8.2. Tell Kurdu. Plan of the site showing the location of the excavation trenches.

Figure 8.3. Tell Kurdu. Plan of the main area of the north mound operations showing the streets, courtyards and rooms. The large letters refer to area designations.


IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA

loors, usually with sherds and other artifacts sandwiched be-tween them, enabling a contextual analysis of the ceramics. he same principles of excavation and analysis were applied to streets and courtyards to make comparison between in-door and outdoor contexts possible. unreliable contexts were excluded from analysis.

he 6th millennium cal. bce settlement at Tell kurdu combines rectangular Anatolian type agglutinative architec-ture with a largely local ceramic assemblage. his is domi-nated by Dark Faced Burnished wares (dfbw; Figure 8.4e-f) and plain unburnished wares (Figure 8.4a-d). Burnishing is a local tradition that began with the earliest Pottery Neolithic (Amuq A) in this region and continued until the end of the Amuq c phase, and to some extent during the subsequent Amuq D and e phases (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). he persistence of burnishing in the Amuq c phase demonstrates that even when painting was appropriated with the beginning of halaf inluences in the region, pre-existing styles of sur-face treatment were maintained. Based on shape and evidence for sooting, unburnished thin-walled splayed-rim vessels are believed to have been used as cooking pots (Figure 8.4a-d). hese vessels have rims with internally thickened lips, rang-ing between 28 cm and 42 cm in diameter. he outer surfaces of the wares oten have a rough, sandpaper-like feel.

POTTERY OF INTER-REGIONAL CHARACTER AT TELL KURDU

his chapter discusses two types of vessels or wares that show inter-regional connections at Tell kurdu: painted halaf-like wares and Levantine-type fenestrated pedestals. he latter are tall ceramic cylinders with small cut-out windows, well known from 6th millennium cal. bce sites along the eastern Mediterranean coast, such as Ras-shamra, Munhata, Jericho and wadi-Rabah (Figure 8.4o-p). heir occurrence at Tell kurdu is extremely rare, and this in itself makes this vessel type signiicant. we will return to these Levantine stands be-low. Painted halaf-like pottery, the more common ware that shows inter-regional connections, on the other hand, com-prises 15.3% of the diagnostic ceramics (Figure 8.4g-n, see the last row of Table 8.3 for general site averages for the diferent ware groups). Although nowadays regional variability is bet-ter recognized, the coherence that halaf pottery designs and shapes have traditionally been accorded over wide expanses, has long puzzled archaeologists dealing with the 6th millen-nium cal. bce (Perkins 1949; Davidson 1977). Researchers have now begun to see the value in investigations at sites beyond that which has traditionally been considered ‘the heartland zone,’ and agree that this can add many new insights towards understanding the local contexts of halaf cultural appropria-tion. in this section we will irst investigate what kind of ves-sel shapes tend to be painted at Tell kurdu. hereater, we will analyze how vessels with halaf-like motifs distribute across the settlement. he aim is to ind out who used them, when and where, and for what types of functional and social pur-poses. he section proceeds irst with a few deinitional issues concerning the identiication halaf-painted ceramics at Tell kurdu.

PAINTED CERAMICS

Oten made with inely levigated clays and lustrous paints, halaf pottery is frequently considered the most distinc-tive artifact of the 6th millennium cal. bce in Northern Mesopotamia. he motifs include an array of geometric de-signs, such as cross-hatched diamonds or lozenges, chevrons, dots, zigzags, as well as igural motifs, such as stylized bull’s horns (bucrania) placed either in horizontal or vertical rows across the vessel (Perkins 1949; Davidson 1977). Vessel shapes include a combination of simple rounded or straight sided bowls and jars with globular bodies, as well as more com-plex forms with carinated bodies or vessels with laring rims (Davidson 1977; hijara 1997). Both forms and motifs show considerable variation over time and space, yet the common-alities act as a way to unite the ceramics across a vast cultural geography (Davidson 1977; campbell 1992; Akkermans 1993).

he overall assemblage of painted ceramics at Tell kurdu stands out when compared with ‘classic’ halaian sites, be-cause it is more restricted in its motif range (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:148; Davidson 1977:269-272). his conirms the idea that the inhabitants were selectively appropriating decorative styles and perhaps transforming them to it lo-cal cultural preferences and practices. when compared with contemporaneous sites to the east, the percentage of paint-ed wares at Tell kurdu is exceptionally low. One reason why painting was less commonly practiced here may be that much of the decoration eforts in the 6th millennium cal. bce con-tinued to go towards burnishing (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Diebold 2000, 2004).

For the painted wares, the Braidwoods attempted to sep-arate the Local Painted wares at Tell kurdu from the pre-sumably imported Halaf Painted wares (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:143-148). heir twofold division of painted ceramics was based on the observation that next to ine and delicately painted pottery with intricately applied symmet-ric designs, the painted Amuq c ceramic assemblage at Tell kurdu was made up predominantly by less carefully painted, matt-colored, coarser wares. since these two types were far from unambiguously distinct, they discovered that the task was not so straightforward and, for example, comment ‘some sherds classiied here [in the halaf Painted ware group] may be just as local as those in group No. 3 [the Local Painted ware group]. Furthermore, the combination of glazelike paint and more complicated halaf type motifs… does not necessarily prove importation merely because these sherds make up only a small part of the total selected sherd bulk. he assumption that at least some represent directly imported vessels rests on Matson’s study of the body clays. however, in gross exami-nation the fabric looks very similar to that of group No. 3’ (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:114).

indeed, more recent analyses conducted on the 6th mil-lennium cal. bce assemblage from Tell kurdu have found that it is oten impossible to decide between Halaf Painted and Local Painted categories, and that all designations remain subjective. his is an issue that other researchers have had to address at diferent sites. During their analyses of the ce-

110

IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA


4cm

6cm 3cm

3cm

4cm

3cm

3cm

a

b c d

e f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o p

Figure 8.4. Tell Kurdu. Examples of ceramics. a-d: Dark Faced Unburn ished Wares; e-f: burnished jars; g-n: examples of open and closed painted vessels; o-p: Levantine-influenced fenestrated pedestals.


IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA

ramics from Tell Arjoune, 200 km south of Tell kurdu in the Orontes Valley, for example, campbell and Phillips also re-frain from making this twofold division and state ‘…it is clear that, technologically, this painted material falls fully within the halaf tradition. here are a few sherds that are thicker, have coarser temper, are less well ired and have poorer paint, but this is typical of any halaf assemblage. here seems lit-tle reason to make a distinction between local painted and ine painted types, with the implications of imports and imi-tations, and the painted pottery will be treated as a unitary group here’ (campbell and Phillips 2003:33).

Likewise, for our purposes of charting the consumption of painted ceramics, it seems unwise to start from problemat-ic categories based on production and distribution. All paint-ed ceramics are grouped below under a single category, and our working hypothesis is that the great majority was locally produced.

count and weight percentages for the main ware types of the Amuq c assemblage at Tell kurdu are based on the analysis of over 20,000 sherds from reliable contexts, weighing nearly 350 kg. he data, as seen in Table 8.1, indicate that painted ware percentages range between approximately 6% (by count) and 9% (by weight).2 however, if only diagnostics are considered, then the percentage of painted vessels reaches 15.3% by count. his is because the paint is oten restricted to vessel rims.

One way to assess whether halaf-like ceramics were at-tributed a special signiicance at Tell kurdu is to determine what types of vessels were painted. Open shapes such as bowls, plates and platters were likely to have been used predomi-

nantly for serving food and dining, while closed shapes such as globular necked jars and hole-mouth vessels must have been better suited for storage (henrickson and McDonald 1983:632-634; Rice 1987:208-209). Given this connection be-tween shape and function, some researchers have further pro-posed that large concentrations of painted bowls and platters are indicative of communally serving food or perhaps even feasting (helwing 2003; Nieuwenhuyse 2007:223-226).

Table 8.2 includes vessels that can conidently be identi-ied as open or closed forms by surface inish group. splayed-rim cooking vessels (always made from unburnished wares and never painted) were omitted from the calculations. interestingly, only about one-third of the vessels identiiable by shape are open. his may be biased by the fact that bowls are less recognizable than jars; the latter shape has more du-rable and easily identiiable shoulder to neck transitions, con-sequently inlating closed-shape percentages.3 Table 8.2 also shows that burnished and unburnished wares closely mir-ror the general proportion for open versus closed shapes; a great majority (63% and 70% respectively) of the vessel shapes from these ware categories are jars. however, among paint-ed vessels this ratio is nearly 1:1.4 when these percentages are viewed as ratios (rightmost column of Table 8.2), it becomes easier to identify the relatively greater frequency of painted open vessels.

in other words, the cross-tabulation of vessel shape by surface inish shows that the likelihood of a painted vessel to be open is notably higher than for other ware types. if open shapes are associated with serving food and dining, their ten-dency at Tell kurdu to be painted implies that a main ration-ale in decorating them may have been connected to social practices of display. can this be extrapolated to mean that they were reserved for feasts and ceremonial occasions, or that painted vessels were primarily used by certain privileged people, for example, to emphasize certain identities? One way to answer to this question, as mentioned above, is to explore how painted pottery was distributed across the settlement.

here is a single striking concentration of painted ves-sels in the settlement, far exceeding the site average of 15.3%. with 30 of its 83 diagnostic sherds or 36.1% of its ceramics painted, the percentage of painted pottery from a small pit in room R58 deviates considerably from the norm.5 he ves-sels were painted with vibrant paints in intricate designs, including geometric motifs and bucrania (Figure 8.4h). interestingly, many of the painted vessels in this context were collared rim bowls, a local version of the composite proiled, s-shaped bowl type with a slightly lared collar that is among the most typical vessel shapes of the halaf Period (Figure 8.4i-l; Mallowan and Rose 1935; schmidt 1943; Nieuwenhuyse 2007:149-152; for comparative western halaian examples see 2 The category ‘Dark Faced Unburnished Ware’ (DFBW) may include unpainted

fragments of painted wares (sometimes referred to as ‘Simple Wares’). This small category has been grouped with DFUW, because it is impossible to know whether they originated from painted vessels or were indeed unburnished plain wares.

3 The fact that Halafian jars have long and wide necks, which can often be mistaken for bowls, was taken into consideration during shape identification, and only sherds that could unquestionably be identified as bowls were placed into the open vessels category, ensuring no artificial elevation of open shapes.

4 This does mean that half of the painted vessels identifiable by shape at Tell Kurdu were closed. Closed shapes could also have been used for serving liquids and other foodstuffs, and should not automatically be relegated to storage functions.

5 For a discussion of the relationship of this room and the pit, see Özbal 2006:239.

WARE TYPE Count Totals Count % Weight Totals Weight %

Burnished 2887 13.95 41145 11.81

Painted 1196 5.78 32070 9.21

Unburnished 16613 80.27 275037 78.98

Totals 20696 100.00 348252 100.00

Table 8.1. Tell Kurdu. Table showing the quantity of burnished, painted and unburnished wares among the ceramic assemblage (diagnostics and non-diagnostics included) by count and weight.

CERAMICSOpen

(Count)Closed

(Count) TotalsOpen

(Percent)Closed

(Percent)Ratio:

Open/Closed

Burnished 228 387 615 37.07 62.93 0.59

Painted 170 181 351 48.43 51.57 0.95

Unburnished 226 528 754 29.97 70.03 0.43

Totals & Mean 624 1096 1720 36.28 63.72 0.57

Table 8.2. Tell Kurdu. Table showing the count values and the percent of open and closed vessels for those diagnostics that were identifiable by shape. The rightmost column shows the ratio of open to closed shapes by ware.

112

IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA


Gustavson-Gaube 1981:51-53, Fig. 312-339). collared rim bowls comprise more than one-third (ca. 35%) of the vessels in the pit, which is notably higher than the Main Phase average of 7.9%. he discovery of a concentration of similar bowl types in one location surely is not coincidental, and suggests either that the inhabitants used them communally (i.e. many people simultaneously using one or a few of the same type), or that the bowls were used collectively (i.e. few people using many of the same type). since the vessel shape is not common, their clustered nature in this pit may indicate that such vessels were associated with a speciic form of consumption or an activity of special signiicance.

even though this context shows an unusually high per-centage of painted pottery, suggesting that such vessels at Tell kurdu were associated with particular occasions, overall one actually inds little evidence for diferentiation in halaf-like ceramics across the settlement. he painted pottery percent-ages for clusters of rooms appear to be consistent. Given that individual rooms yield too few ceramic fragments to accurate-ly relect painted pottery percentages, the settlement was di-vided into six larger sub-units by using the streets as dividing lines. indicated by the letters A through F (see Figure 8.3), at least in some cases, these areas probably represent household residences. Assessing whether each area or household had equal access to painted pottery could yield important clues about the social strategies, for which these items were used.

Table 8.3 illustrates painted wares as a percentage of all di-agnostic sherds. interestingly, painted wares distribute quite evenly across the settlement. No single area, in other words, deviates signiicantly from the mean, and the values approach a standard normal distribution. As the assemblage overall is heavily dominated by unburnished and burnished wares, the slight luctuations for painted ceramics (between 11.6% and 16.3%) are negligible; these values all fall consistently within two standard deviations of the mean. Moreover, all elements of a covariance matrix for the count values of each ware type across the diferent areas approach 1, which suggests, statis-tically speaking, that the pottery-ware distributions across the site are indistinguishably similar. in many ways, these re-sults suggest that each area or household at Tell kurdu owned painted halaf-like ceramics and used them in the household sphere. his challenges ideas that these wares were used as part of a strategy to distinguish oneself from other house-

holds. such an even distribution should come as no surprise: the 6th millennium cal. bce was a time when inter-household diferences are thought to have been minimal (Akkermans 1993; hijara 1997; campbell 1998; Flannery 1999).6

he fact that the percentage of painted pottery in the streets and trash areas (table 8.3) is comparable to values yielded by the habitation areas is noteworthy. while streets acted as channels of communication through the neighbor-hood, abandoned structures were oten selected as deliberate locales for trash disposal. unlike regularly cleaned homes and courtyards, streets and garbage areas were not maintained. hey consequently contained much higher quantities of re-fuse. signiicant is the realization that both houses and trash areas within streets contained more or less the same percent-ages of painted pottery; it suggests that such wares were not only acquired and used, but also discarded equally commonly by all households.

he relatively even distribution of painted pottery across the site suggests that painted wares were an integral part of their local household assemblages. however, the fact that households show little diferentiation in their attitudes to-wards painted ceramics need not mean that the inhabitants were indiferent to painted pottery styles. he cache of sherds in the pit in R58 provides an indication that for some purpos-es – perhaps communal or collective – painted pottery was preferred.

CERAMICS WITH CLEAR LEVANTINE INFLUENCES

A second type of ceramics that has ties with regions far be-yond the Amuq Plain is the so-called fenestrated pedestal. As noted by Garinkel (1999:123-125), fenestrated pedestals occur south of Tell kurdu at sites, such as Ras shamra (Level iVB, see De contenson 1992:Fig. 201), as well as in settlements in the southern Levant, such as Jericho (Ben Dor 1936:Pl. XXXii.1-2), wadi Rabah (kaplan 1958a:Fig. 5.15), Teleilat Ghassul (Lovell 2001:Fig. 4.17-4) and Munhata (Garinkel 1999:125). in fact, Lovell identiies this vessel shape as a ‘hallmark’ of the early chalcolithic of the southern Levant (2001:49). he discovery

Table 8.3. Tell Kurdu. Table showing counts and percentages of all diagnostics (with the exception of unusual forms like husking trays, fenestrated pedestals and knobs) by area. The general site averages are shown on the last line. The total for Area F does not include the pit in R58.

ContextBurnished

(Count)Burnished (Percent)

Painted (Count)

Painted (Percent)

Unburnished (Count)

Unburnished (Percent) Totals

Area A 76 29.3 40 15.4 143 55.2 259

Area B 71 30.5 32 13.7 130 55.8 233

Area C 21 45.7 6 13.0 19 41.3 46

Area D 47 32.0 18 12.2 82 55.8 147

Area E 240 29.4 133 16.3 443 54.3 816

Area F 55 30.4 21 11.6 105 58.0 181

Streets 133 24.7 76 14.1 330 61.2 539

Trash 113 32.2 50 14.2 188 53.6 351

Later 65 34.6 30 16.0 93 49.5 188

R58 pit 14 16.9 30 36.1 39 47.0 83

TOTALS 835 29.4 436 15.3 1572 55.3 2843

6 Notable is also that both burnished and unburnished wares distribute very evenly across all areas with large enough sample sizes. The relatively low percentage of burnished wares in the street deposits may be considered an anomaly, but this is simply a result of the fact that these wares were often extremely worn, making it difficult to distinguish evidence for burnishing.


IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA

of this vessel type at Tell kurdu may be considered indicative of direct contacts with Levantine societies.7

excavations at Tell kurdu produced no complete fenes-trated pedestals; but judging by the whole specimens exca-vated at Ras shamra, three or four round or rectangular ‘win-dows’ spread across the perimeter of the stand are usual (De contenson 1992:Fig. 201). Most of the windows at Tell kurdu were round, although one case of what appears to be a trian-gular window was identiied. At Tell kurdu and elsewhere, such stands were roughly made in an undecorated coarse paste. he complete examples from Ras shamra indicate that this is a true cylindrical shape, not simply a tall vessel base with fenestrations.

Represented by thirteen pedestal fragments in total (only counting specimens from reliable contexts), this is an atypi-cal vessel shape at Tell kurdu. he rarity of this type is not exclusive to the Amuq Valley, however, because fenestrated pedestals at all sites typically comprise minor percentages of the ceramic assemblage: for example, 0.1-0.3% at Ras shamra (De contenson 1992:166) and 2.1% at Munhata 2a (Garinkel 1999:122). he particular shape suggests, moreover, that these were not everyday goods for daily routines, but that they were used for a particular purpose.

in addition to its infrequency, the striking distribution of this vessel shape across the settlement at Tell kurdu further heightens our interest. Although no direct explanation can be provided, ten out of thirteen (or nearly 77%) were concen-trated in Area F, in the Area e rooms that directly face Area

7 Fenestrated bases were discovered at 6th millennium cal. BCE Hajji Firuz in Iran (Voigt 1983:Fig. 91a-c), but this is less likely to have been an inspiration for the Amuq given the distance. Moreover, the Iranian examples were presumably attached to the globular bodies of vessels, while the fenestrated pedestals from the southern Levant are detached cylinders. Based on the time difference, the resemblance with incense burners from Tepe Gawra XIII (Tobler 1950:Fig. 78) can only be coincidental.

F (R53 and R54), and in the street in between (s74, see Figure 8.5).8 A close analysis of this collection of pedestals, based on their thicknesses and diameter measurements, indicates that they come from diferent stands and that the concentrations are not simply a result of the fragmentation of a single fenes-trated pedestal into multiple fragments.9 interestingly, Area F, the adjacent street and rooms R53 and R54 also contained high percentages of open vessels. he correlation of fenestrat-ed pedestals and open vessels suggests that there were con-texts or occasions, in which these two pottery forms were used together.

A likely explanation for the clustering of fenestrated ped-estals is that they were used in speciic activities that were practiced almost exclusively in Area F. One may further hy-pothesize that this speciic purpose was related to or inspired by their function at sites along the southern Levantine coast. if so, this would suggest that the inhabitants of Area F main-tained stronger contacts with the Levant than the other Tell kurdu households, or that this area was used in a way that was somewhat diferent than the others. Viewed in this light, fenestrated pedestals (whether imports or made locally in southern style) may have been used as markers of identity, showing the owners’ ailiation with societies to the south.

Overall, especially when compared with painted ceram-ics, fenestrated pedestals show remarkable hints of intra-set-tlement dynamics, perhaps including exclusive social gather-

Figure 8.5. Tell Kurdu. Plan showing the distribution of fenestrated pedestals.

8 There is no apparent reason why one area should yield more fenestrated pedestals than another; all fragments were discovered among the bulk pottery, and no sample biases were introduced during analysis. Because small fragments often cannot convincingly be identified as fenestrated pedestals, only pieces with clear windows, cylindrical bodies and other unquestionably distinguishing characteristics are considered here.

9 We recognize that calculating the minimum number of vessels (MNV) cannot be done with full confidence, because the upper and lower parts of the cylinders are often of varying diameters.

114

IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA


ings requiring their use, and identity-building practices, given their ailiation with southern Levantine traditions. At the very least, one can say that unlike painted pottery, which was present in all households, fenestrated pedestals were restricted in terms of where and by whom they were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Tell kurdu’s position at a crossroads between the Mediter-ranean, the Northern Mesopotamian steppe and the Anato-lian highlands is relected in the material culture and the ar-chitecture at the site, which show connections with each of these regions. his chapter dealt especially with the ceramic assemblage and investigated the social connotations of ceram-ics of supra-local character at Tell kurdu. in particular, halaf-like painted wares and Levantine-type fenestrated pedestals were discussed. in addition to traditional statistical analyses, observations about how these shapes and wares contextually distribute across the settlement allow further interpretive in-sights. even though conclusive results are diicult to reach, it was shown that a context-based analysis provides clues about the social signiicance of these items in particular settings.

he data suggest a striking diference in the way that these two ceramic traditions were appropriated and used at Tell kurdu. One observation for painted pottery in this chap-ter is based on the cross-tabulation of surface inish by vessel shape, showing that there is a higher likelihood for painted vessels to be open than vessels of other wares, indicating a possible link between painted pottery and the serving of food. he painted ceramics from Tell kurdu support the suggestion by Olivier Nieuwenhuyse that halaf-like vessel were likely to have been used in consumption activities or even feasting (Nieuwenhuyse 2007). in fact, the discovery of a collection of open bowls in a single pit in room R58 may further corrobo-rate this claim.

while consumption activities and feasting provide clear indications that display was a prominent aspect of painted pottery, at least at Tell kurdu, the contextual analysis of these wares shows that they were not prestige items used for explicit social competition. instead, we see that all households and occupants had equal access to painted ceramics. his may mean that painted wares, perhaps vaguely referencing a halaf world beyond Tell kurdu and the Amuq Valley, were com-pletely integrated within local repertoires used (and made?) by all. hese observations require us to reconsider the idea that such wares at Tell kurdu were items of ‘imitation,’ con-nected to/associated with distant societies. in other words, while painted vessels show contact with distant societies, their even distribution across the kurdu households suggests that they were probably operating within local social and functional realms, rather than referring explicitly to foreign groups or traditions.

his interpretation should not be taken to mean that ce-ramics lacked the potential to be instruments for making so-cial statements about identity and status. even though painted pottery does not appear to have been used for social diferenti-ation, the fenestrated pedestals may have been. his Levantine

shape could not have functioned as a container or a vessel that would have been practical for everyday activities like serving, storage or cooking. Overall, this means that fenestrated ped-estals were able to maintain their potential to be used as so-cial statements much more efectively than halaf-like pottery. he rarity of these unusual stands suggests either that the ex-amples at Tell kurdu were imported pieces, or, if made local-ly, that they were consciously referring to a Levantine tradi-tion. he similarities in shape, temper, ware and surface inish across a wide area further supports this claim.

he most important clues about the nature of ceramics of supra-regional character at Tell kurdu, however, come from contextual analyses; the concentration of fenestrated pedes-tals in and around Area F is remarkable. Not only was this unusual vessel imbued with Levantine connotations, but the apparent clustering suggests that these supra-regional con-tacts were exclusive to a select group within the communi-ty. Apparently, for some, the fenestrated pedestal was an in-strument to assert statements about social identity and group ailiation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

we are grateful to the Turkish Academy of sciences, or tüba (Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi), for providing a postdoctoral fellowship for Rana Özbal that facilitated the completion of this chapter. Funding for the excavation of the 6th millen-nium cal. bce levels at Tell kurdu and the subsequent re-search were provided by the National science Foundation Dissertation improvement Grant (Bcs 0118085), the wenner-Gren Foundation (GR 6788), the Fulbright-hays Doctoral Dissertation Abroad Program, Northwestern university, the American Research institute in Turkey (arit) and the Archaeological institute of America (aia).

REFERENCES

Akkermans, Peter M.M.G. 1993. Villages in the Steppe: Later Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria. Ann Arbor: university of Michigan Press.

Ben-Dor, immanuel. 1936. Pottery of the Middle and Late Neolithic Periods. in John Garstang, immanuel Ben-Dor and G. M. Fitzgerald, Jericho: city and Necropolis, Report for the sixth and concluding season, 1936. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 23:77-90.

Bentley, G. carter. 1987. ethnicity and Practice. Comparative Studies in Society and History 29:24-25.

Braidwood, Robert J., and Linda s. Braidwood. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A-J. chicago: university of chicago Press.

campbell, stuart. 1992. culture, chronology and change in the Later Neolithic of North Mesopotamia. PhD Thesis, university of edinburgh.

campbell, stuart. 1998. Problems of Definition: The Origins of the halaf in North iraq. in About Subartu, Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia I: Landscape, Archaeology and Settlement, edited by Marc Lebeau, pp. 39-59. Turnhout: Brepols.


IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA

campbell, stuart, and carter s. Phillips. 2003. Prehistoric Pottery from Trenches V, Vi and Vii, Part 1: A commentary on the earlier Prehistoric Pottery (Trenches V and Vii). in Excavations at Arjoune, Syria, edited by Peter J. Parr, pp. 31-70. bar international series 1134. Oxford: Archaeopress.

cusick, James G. (ed). 1998. Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. carbondale: southern illinois university Press.

Davidson, homas, e. 1977. Regional Variation within the halaf ceramic Tradition. PhD hesis, university of edinburgh.

De contenson, henri. 1992. Ras shamra-Ougarit Viii: Préhistoire de Ras shamra. Les sondages stratigraphiques de 1955 à 1976. Paris: editions Recherche sur les civilisations.

Diebold, Benjamin. 2000. Preliminary Report on the ceramic Assemblage at Tell kurdu. in k. Aslıhan yener, christopher edens, Jesse casana, Benjamin Diebold, heidi ekstom, Michelle Loyet and Rana Özbal, Tell kurdu excavations 1999. Anatolica 26:58-65.

Diebold, Benjamin. 2004. excavations at Tell kurdu 2001: he Pottery. in Rana Özbal, Fokke Gerritsen, Benjamin Diebold, elizabeth healey, Nihal Aydın, Michelle Loyet, Frank Nardulli, David Reese, heidi ekstom, sabrina sholts, Nitzan Mekel-Bobrov and Bruce T. Lahn, Tell kurdu excavations 2001. Anatolica 30:52-55.

Flannery, kent. 1999. chiefdoms in the early Near east: why it’s so hard to identify hem. in he Iranian World: Essays on Iranian Art and Archaeology, Presented to Ezat O. Negahban, edited by Abbas Alizadeh, yusuf Majidzadeh and sadiq M. shahmirzadi, pp. 44-58. Teheran: iran university Press.

Garinkel, yosef. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Jerusalem: keterpress enterprises.

Gustavson-Gaube, carrie. 1981. shams ed-Din Tannira: he halaian Pottery of Area A. Berytus 29:9-182.

helwing, Barbara. 2003. Feasts as a social Dynamic in Prehistoric western Asia: hree case studies from syria and Anatolia. Paléorient 29 (2):63-85.

henrickson, elizabeth F., and Mary M.A. McDonald. 1983. ceramic Form and Function: an ethnographic search and an Archaeological Application. American Anthropologist 85:630-643.

hijara, ismail. 1997. he Halaf Period in Northern Mesopotamia. London: Nabu.

kaplan, Jacob. 1958. excavations at wadi Rabah. Israel Exploration Journal 8:149-60.

Lightfoot, kent, Antoinette Martinez and Ann schif. 1998. Daily Practice and Material culture in Pluralistic social settings: An Archaeological study of culture change and Persistence from Fort Ross, california. American Antiquity 63:199-222.

Lovell, Jaimie. 2001. he Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant: New Data from the Site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Mallowan, Max e.L., and John c. Rose. 1935. excavations at Tell Arpachiyah 1933. Iraq 2:1-178.

Nieuwenhuyse, Olivier. 2007. Plain and Painted Pottery: he Rise of Late Neolithic Ceramic Styles on the Syrian and Northern Mesopotamian Plains. Turnhout: Brepols.

Özbal, Rana. 2006. Households, Daily Practice and Cultural Appro priation at Sixth Millennium Tell Kurdu. Ann Arbor: ProQuest umi.

Özbal, Rana, Fokke Gerritsen, Benjamin Diebold, elizabeth healey, Nihal Aydın, Michelle Loyet, Frank Nardulli, David Reese, heidi ekstrom, sabrina sholts, Nitzan Mekel-Bobrov and Bruce T. Lahn. 2004. Tell kurdu excavations 2001. Anatolica 30:37-108.

Özbal, Rana, Fokke Gerritsen and k. Aslıhan yener. 2003. 2001 Tell kurdu kazıları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 24:501-512.

Perkins, L. Anne. 1949. he Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. chicago: university of chicago Press.

Rice, Prudence. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. chicago: university of chicago Press.

schmidt, hubert. 1943. Tell Halaf I: Die prähistorischen Funde von Tell Halaf. Berlin: walter de Gruyter.

Tobler, Arthur J. 1950. Excavations at Tepe Gawra II: Levels IX-XX. Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Press.

Voigt, Mary. 1983. Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: he Neolithic Settlement. Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Press.

yener, k. Aslıhan, christopher edens, Jesse casana, Benjamin Diebold, heidi ekstrom, Michelle Loyet and Rana Özbal. 2000a. Tell kurdu excavations 1999. Anatolica 26:32-117.

yener, k. Aslıhan, christopher edens, Timothy P. harrison, Jan Verstraete and Tony J. wilkinson. 2000b. he Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998. American Journal of Archaeology

116

IN

TE

RP

RE

TIN

G T

HE

L

AT

E N

EO

LIT

HIC

O

F U

PP

ER

M

ES

OP

OT

AM

IA


104:163-220.