Petrographic and geochemical analyses of Late Bronze and Iron Age pottery assemblages from Arslantepe (Malatya, Türkiye): Insights into the local organization of the production and extra- regional networks of exchange

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2761481/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Petrographic and geochemical analyses of Late Bronze and Iron Age pottery assemblages from Arslantepe (Malatya, Türkiye): Insights into the local organization of the production and extra- regional networks of exchange

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2761481/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 10 Jul, 2023

Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences →

You are reading this latest preprint version

In this paper we analyzed Late Bronze and Iron Age pottery assemblages from the site of Arslantepe (Malatya, eastern Türkiye) by combining thin-section petrography and X-ray wavelength dispersive fluorescence. Following an introduction to the site and an overview of the archaeological and historical evidence, the analysis is presented, and the outcomes discussed in the wider framework of the Syro-Anatolian and eastern Mediterranean regions. The results show elements of both continuity and change over the 2nd millennium and until the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. On a local level, the use of volcanic-based recipes for the production of painted vessels represents the most striking element of continuity. In contrast, noteworthy elements of changes relate to an increased exploitation of southern deposits for material supply and the standardization of paste recipes for cooking pots. Remarkable results also pertain to extra-regional exchanges: The Late Bronze Age Red-Lustrous Wheel-made Ware found at the site is imported from Cilicia, while the wares of foreign tradition from the Middle Iron Age levels are mostly locally produced.

Late Bronze Age

Iron Age

Arslantepe

Pottery

Petrography

Geochemistry

Arslantepe is a multi-stratified mound of approximately 4.5 hectares located in south-eastern Anatolia a few kilometers west of the Euphrates river (Malatya, Türkiye) (Fig. 1). The excavations conducted continuously since 1961 by the Italian Archaeological Expedition in Eastern Anatolia from Sapienza University of Rome (MAIAO) allowed the discovery of a long and detailed sequence, mostly anchored to high precision 14C dating stretching from the end of the 5th millennium BC to the Byzantine era (Frangipane 2019; Vignola et al. 2019; Manuelli et al 2021).

Investigations into the Late Bronze and Iron Age levels have been carried out intermittently at the site. The first activities of the Italian expedition were conducted on the northern sector, in the area where a French team directed by Louise Delaporte had brought to light during the 1930s the remains of the famous “Lions Gate” (Delaporte 1940). Here, a sequence of monumental structures, which spans from the 16th to the 10th centuries BC, were investigated for over 10 years (Pecorella 1975; Palmieri A 1973: 65–80; Palmieri A 1978; Manuelli 2013: 39–48). In 1971, the beginning of the activities on the southern sector marked the interruption of the large-scale investigations of the historical levels; nonetheless, a significant series of Late Bronze Age I domestic structures, dated to the 17th and 16th centuries BC, have been unearthed over the years (Palmieri A 1973: 65–66; Frangipane and Palmieri A 1983: 288–290; Manuelli 2013: 48–71). After more than 40 years of inactivity, a new round of investigations of the northern sector started in 2008 with the aim of finally providing answers about the development of the site during the 2nd and 1st millennium BC (Liverani 2012). Excavations carried out until 2010 and again in 2015 and 2016 have been conducted over a large area, leading to the discovery of an uninterrupted sequence from the mid-13th to the 7th century BC (Manuelli et al. 2021). In 2016, a new area was opened with the aim of connecting the northern sector with the inner part of the settlement. Ongoing excavations have brought to light monumental remains that can be dated between the 10th and the 7th century BC (Frangipane et al. 2020).

The pottery repertoire from Arslantepe has been for decades an object of archaeometric analysis, mainly consisting in thin-section petrography and wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence. The ceramic samples analyzed so far cover a chronological span of almost 4 millennia from the Late Chalcolithic to the Middle Iron Age. Coupled with raw material surveys and technological observations, these analyses evidenced diachronic variations in the organization of production in relation to different levels of socio-economic complexity (Fragnoli and Palmieri AM 2017; Fragnoli 2018; Fragnoli and Frangipane 2022).

In this paper we present the results of petrographic and geochemical analyses recently carried out on samples from well-contextualized Late Bronze and Iron Age pottery assemblages from the site. Considering the wide time-frame covered by this research as well as the manifold historical implications related to the above-mentioned periods, this analysis is not meant to deal comprehensively with all the questions that might be raised by the study of each ware class involved. Rather, it intends to provide an overview of the results obtained so far and new food for thought and to further future discussions. Physical and chemical analyses have been widely carried out on pottery assemblages at many Late Bronze and Iron Age key-sites of the eastern Mediterranean world. However, the specific situation of the Upper Euphrates is instead very fragmented, and comparisons need to be found in the wider framework of the Syro-Anatolian region.

With this in mind, the main aim of this study is to highlight elements of continuity and discontinuity in both paste recipes and material supply as well as potential diachronic changes in manufacturing techniques and the organization of the production at the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition. We also seek to better comprehend the impact that certain exogenous ware classes have had on the local production over the centuries, with a specific focus on the Middle Iron Age.

Archaeological And Historical Overview

During the Late Bronze Age Arslantepe was affected by the Hittite imperial military expansion. The campaigns of the Hittite kings succeeded in subjugating the whole Upper Euphrates region, and the site gradually assumed the role of a frontier site at the margin of the empire (de Martino 2012).

Period VB (Late Bronze Age 1: VB1 = ca. 1700 − 1600 BC / VB2 = ca. 1600 − 1400 BC) is characterized by the presence of an impressive rampart that surrounded the entire mound (Palmieri A 1978: 35–37; Manuelli 2013: 41–43; Alvaro 2012: 350–352). The fortification was connected with a gate system flanked by protruding towers and enclosed a series of dwellings arranged for domestic good storage (Palmieri A 1973: 58–71; Frangipane and Palmieri A 1983: 289–290; Manuelli 2013: 48–66). Period IV (Late Bronze Age 2, ca. 1400 − 1250 BC) presents some interesting changes. The southern part of the site was gradually abandoned, and a new fortification system associated with a chambered gate-way was built (Pecorella 1975: 3–5; Alvaro 2012: 353–355; Manuelli 2013: 404–409).

The downfall of the Hittite civilization represented the push factor for the emergence of a series of independent powerful reigns (Osborne 2021). The kingdom of Malizi/Melid had its capital at Arslantepe and its domain extended over a vast area westwards of the site up to the Euphrates river (Hawkins 2000: 282–329).

Period IIIA (Late Bronze-Iron Age transition: IIIA.1 = 1250 − 1200 BC / Early Iron Age 1: IIIA.2 = ca. 1200 − 1000 BC) is characterized by the presence of structures that directly overlap the destruction of the early gate-way. A massive fortification wall keeps on enclosing the northern portion of the mound (Manuelli and Mori 2016). Period IIIB (Early Iron Age 2, ca. 1000 − 850 BC) in contrast marks an interesting change in the occupation pattern of the site. The former fortification wall was reused after its destruction, but associated structures are now exclusively represented by pits and silos and the entire area was devoted to grain storage (Frangipane et al. 2020: 81–86). Period IIA (Middle Iron Age, ca. 850 − 700 BC) shows a succession of three monumental-pillared halls built on top of the silos level. The building sequence finds a direct stratigraphic connection with the structures belonging to the above-mentioned “Lions Gate” (Liverani 2010).

The Pottery Repertoire

Because of the long history of investigations and the dissimilarities of the excavated contexts as well as the wide chronological framework, the Late Bronze and Iron Age pottery production at Arslantepe has been studied through many approaches and with different aims. The Late Bronze Age repertoire has been comprehensively examined and ultimately published (Manuelli 2013), while the Early Iron Age material has already been fully processed but its study is still ongoing (Manuelli 2018). On the other hand, the Middle Iron Age pottery assemblage has been only given a preliminary analysis, considering only a restricted amount of better-preserved shapes and the most renowned ware classes (Frangipane et al. 2020: 92–98). This heterogeneity of the analyses has of course implied differences in the way the single wares have been processed, identified, and labeled (Table 1).

The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age wares have been macroscopically identified thanks to the co-occurrence of their main attributes, including pastes composition (mineral, vegetal, mixed), inclusions texture (coarse, semi-coarse, medium, semi-fine, fine, extremely-fine), surface treatments, colors of pastes and surfaces, decorations, manufacturing technologies, firing characteristics as well as associations with specific shapes and their functional attributes. In contrast, the Middle Iron Age wares have been macroscopically defined exclusively because of their cross-cultural correspondence with well-known coeval productions, and their classification is mostly based on the presence of specific decorative elements or surface treatments.

The Late Bronze Age (Fig. 2)

The Late Bronze Age pottery production is characterized by 11 ceramic classes (Manuelli 2013: 82–89): mineral fabric and medium texture kitchen ware (A1), mineral fabric and coarse texture kitchen ware (A2), vegetable fabric and medium texture storage ware (B1), mineral-gritty fabric and medium texture common ware (C1), mineral-gritty fabric and medium texture orange common ware (C2), mineral-gritty fabric and semi-coarse texture common ware (C3), mineral-sandy fabric and fine texture ware (D1), mineral-sandy fabric and semi-fine texture ware (D2), mixed fabric and semi-coarse texture storage ware (E1), mixed fabric and coarse texture storage ware (E2), and mineral fabric and extremely-fine texture red ware (F1). The production is in general wheel-made and fired at well-controlled atmospheres. Pale color clays are mostly used, and surfaces are mainly characterized by a light and hasty smoothing. Decorations are rather common: painting with geometric patterns, red-decorative slips and irregular drip marks have been identified on many of the above-mentioned wares (Manuelli 2022; Fragnoli and Rodler 2022). In general, the shape assemblage is characterized by the presence of elements that originate from the local Bronze Age tradition and the appearance of aspects related to the Hittite central Anatolian repertoire. A few more words should be said about Ware F: this is comparable to the so-called Red-Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, a well-known and widely studied production mostly attested in northern Cyprus as well as southern and central Anatolia between the 15th and the 13th century BC (Mielke 2007; Kibaroǧlu et al. 2019).

The Early Iron Age (Fig. 3)

The Early Iron Age pottery production is characterized by eight ceramic classes (Manuelli 2018): mineral fabric and medium texture kitchen ware (K1), mixed fabric and coarse texture kitchen ware (K2), mineral fabric and semi-coarse texture storage ware (P1), vegetable fabric and coarse texture storage ware (P2), vegetable fabric and medium texture common ware (S1), mineral fabric and semi-fine texture common ware (S2), mineral fabric and semi-coarse texture common ware (S3), and mineral fabric and fine texture ware (F1). The production is in general still characterized by the use of pale color clays, but firing must have now often taken place in a not very well-controlled atmosphere. Moreover, despite the fact that wheel-marks are visible on nearly every sherd, it is possible that at least part of the production was only wheel-finished. Surfaces are exclusively poorly smoothed or self-slipped and decorations are virtually absent. Notwithstanding the total lack of any supra-regional wares, the Early Iron Age pottery shapes show on the one hand an interesting continuity of the Late Bronze Age tradition and on the other hand the introduction of new aspects typical of northern Syrian and the Levantine regions (Manuelli 2020: 118–121).

The Middle Iron Age (Fig. 4)

The Middle Iron Age repertoire is composed of seven exogenous productions (Frangipane et al. 2020: 92–98). Red Slip Ware (RS) consists of mineral fabric, semi-fine texture and orange color paste with a surface characterized by a red/orange layer accurately burnished. It is considered one of the hallmarks of the Levantine region from the 9th to the 7th century BC (Soldi 2013). Grooved Ware (GW) is a mixed fabric, semi-coarse texture, and gray color paste production with a set of grooved lines deeply incised. It is typical of the Iron Age in eastern Anatolia that appears along the western side of the Euphrates from the 9th century BC (Blaylock 2016: 15–20). Incised Ware (IN) shows mineral fabric, medium texture, and buff color paste with oblique or crossed lines incised on top of a red-slipped band. Again, in the Upper Euphrates region it is mainly attested in the Middle Iron Age (Ökse 1988: 105–108). Red Burnished Ware (RB) consists of mineral fabric, semi-fine texture and buff color paste with surfaces covered by a bright glossy red burnished slip. It is typical of the Urartian settlements in eastern Anatolia and found all the way to the Euphrates river (Batmaz 2020). Alişar IV Ware (AL) presents mineral fabric, medium texture, pale color paste and a brown linear painted decoration applied over a thick white slip. Bichrome examples of Alişar IV Ware (AB) have mineral fabrics, semi-fine textures and pale color pastes with white slipped surfaces and red and black-brown geometric paints. Alişar wares are typical of the Middle Iron Age in south-central Anatolia (d’Alfonso et al. 2022). Cypro-Phoenician Ware (CP) shows mineral fabric, semi-fine texture, pale color paste and white slipped surfaces decorated with black-brown and/or red linear painted motifs. It suggests affinities with the so-called White Painted and Bichrome wares attested in the Cypro-Phoenician world from approximately the mid-9th century BC (Gilboa 2015).

The Geological Setting

The site of Arslantepe (Fig. 5) lies on Miocene lake sediments, mainly consisting of calcareous clays, limestones, and sandstones (Palmieri AM 1978). Immediately northeast of the site, at a distance of 700 m, is the remnant of the Middle Miocene Orduzu volcanic suite composed of rhyolites, trachyandesites, basaltic trachyandesites and quartz-micromonzonites (Önal 2008; Önal et al. 2008). Approximately 5.5 km further east we find the Late Cretaceous Baskil magmatics and the Maastrichtian to the Early Eocene Yüksekova/Elazığ complex, dominated by volcanic and intrusive rocks ranging from mafic to felsic affinities, i.e. gabbros, diorites, tonalities, monzonites, basaltic andesites, andesites, dacites and rhyolites (Yazgan and Mason 1988; Yiğitbaş and Yılmaz 1996).

More distant and spatially widespread are the units of the Anti-Taurus mountain chains that start rising 7 to 10 km south of the site. The western part of these units belongs to the Malatya metamorphics distinguished by Carboniferous to Triassic meta-carbonate rocks, mica schists, phyllites, slates, meta-clastic rocks and meta-cherts (Bozkaya et al. 2007; Robertson et al. 2006). The eastern part is instead dominated by the Late Cretaceous Ispendere ophiolites and the Middle Eocene Maden Complex. The former exhibit an intact ophiolitic sequence intruded by granites (Parlak et al. 2012), the latter a volcano-sedimentary sequence with conglomerates, sandstones, limestones, mudstones, spilitic lavas, radiolarites, cherts, altered basalts and andesites (Şaşmaz 2014).

The analysis has mostly taken into account ceramic vessels belonging to the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in order to inspect elements of continuity and discontinuity between the two periods (Table 1). Sampling has been done to cover all the ware classes identified macroscopically, using a strategy that aimed to balance the number of samples per wares or, if not possible, per main group of wares according to their recurrence, availability, and possibility of sampling. The samples were analyzed through thin-section petrography (n=96) and XRFWDS geochemistry (n=24). As in previous papers, the emphasis has been put on thin-section petrography as a more eloquent indicator of raw material procurement and processing due to both the predominance of coarse fabrics and the variety of the local geology. On the other hand, geochemical analyses have been more consistently performed on samples dating to the Middle Iron Age, considering the presence of exogenous productions in this period and the necessity to determine ceramic provenience and potential imports. In order to avoid biases related to the general limited number of samples, especially those analyzed geochemically, the data from the previous chronological phases have been considered in the study for comparison (Fragnoli and Palmieri AM 2017; Fragnoli 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Fragnoli and Liberotti 2019).

Thin sections were examined under the polarizing microscope LEICA DM 2700P to be grouped according to textural, geological, and technological features. Each group was described using Quinn's method (Quinn 2013) with the help of comparative charts to quantify the main components (Rice 1987: 348). Geochemical analyses were performed by means of the wavelength dispersive X-Ray fluorescence spectrometer PANnalytical AXIOS available at the Archea Laboratory in Warsaw. After removing contaminated surfaces with a corundum polishing machine, samples were washed with distilled water and ultrasounds and stored first in a drying oven for 24 h and then in a desiccator. Samples were then ground in an agate mill (Fritsch Pulverisette Null) and allowed to dry again. Subsequently 1.5-2 g of powder from each sample was ignited at 900 °C, melted with a lithium-borate mixture (Merck Spectromelt A12) and cast into small discs measuring 32 mm in diameter. The concentrations of all major elements and of 14 trace elements were determined.

Thin-section petrography

The analyzed samples were classified into 16 petrographic groups distinguished on the basis of: presence/absence of vegetal temper; low vs. high calcareous clay matrix; and the geological origin of inclusions (Fig. 6, Table 1). Table 2 reports the detailed mineralogical and textural features of each group, named according to an acronym that indicates the predominant components as explained in the caption of the table. Most of the samples (89.6 %) exhibit a high-calcareous matrix, while about half of them (44.8 %) are vegetal-tempered. The shape of voids left by the burned-out vegetal temper is generally not assignable to agricultural by-products, such as spikelets, glumes, caryopses, or straw. Mineral and rock inclusions are predominantly of intrusive (62.5 %) and to a lesser degree of volcanic (36.5 %) and metamorphic origin (32.3 %). Intrusive and volcanic rocks range from basic to acidic, while metamorphic rocks refer to either ocean-floor or low to high-grade regional metamorphism. Sedimentary rocks, such as sandstones, mudstones, and limestones, appear only in a negligible number of samples. The textural features are quite variegated as well, with maximum grain sizes and incidences between 0.3 and 7 mm and 7 and 30 % respectively. Most of the ceramic pastes were tempered, as demonstrated by the polymodal grain sizes, clustered distribution, and angular shapes of inclusions.

As in the prehistoric phases, the Late Bronze and Iron Age assemblage from Arslantepe displays a wide textural and geological variety (Fragnoli and Palmieri AM 2017). Among the large spectrum of recipes, 9 out of 17 (46 %) were already used in the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age phases^{^[1]}. Most of them―i.e. petro-groups CEam+Ib, CEm-a, CIb, VCEa-m+Ib, VCEm-a and VCIb―typically occur in the light-colored wheel-finished vessels dating to the Late Chalcolithic 3 to 5 (Periods VII and VIA of the site sequence). Clay matrixes are calcareous and tempered with trachytic lavas and/or microgabbros from the Baskil and Yüksekova complexes available 6 to 15 km east of the site. Both vegetal-tempered and non-vegetal-tempered variants exist. Two other calcareous recipes, both tempered with rhyolitic lavas from the Orduzu suite (900 m east from the site) but differing in the use or non-use of vegetal temper (VCEa and CEa), first appeared in the Early Bronze Age 1 Handmade Red-Black Burnished Ware (Periods VIB-2). One last calcareous recipe distinguished by basaltic andesites and altered clinopyroxenes typically occurs in the Early Bronze Age 2 and 3 (Periods VIC-D) handmade painted vessels.

41 out of 96 samples show recipes that are not attested in the previous phases of the site sequence (Table 1). Most of these (i.e. 24 samples) exhibit a large variety of metamorphic rocks, such as gneisses, serpentinites, metagabbros, metapyroxenites, metabasalts as well as quartz- and mica-schists. These lithologies are available 7 to 10 km south and southeast of the site within the Ispendere ophiolites, Maden Complex and Malatya metamorphics. Three distinct recipes―i.e. VCMgne+metag+Ib; CMgne+metag+metaub; and Mgne+serp+metag+sc―were identified based on the incidence of each type of rock, the presence of vegetal temper, and the high- vs. low-calcareous nature of the clay matrix. 14 other samples are made of three recipes―i.e. VCIa, CIa+Ib and Ia+Ib―that share granitic rocks as the main lithic inclusion, but differ in the presence/absence of microgabbros and vegetal temper and the calcareous nature of the matrix. A procurement from the eastern Baskil and Yüksekova complexes, which also exhibits intermediate to sialic intrusive rocks besides gabbros and trachytic lavas, is assumable. Three samples exhibit a fine-grained coral-red recipe (i.e. Q) almost totally dominated by quartz inclusions, which are not diagnostic in terms of provenance.

^{^[1]} Though sharing the same minero-petrographic associations, some pastes are finer in the prehistoric phases, i.e. present a lower amount of smaller inclusions.

The distribution of samples into petro-groups (Table 3) evidences elements of both continuity and change between the Late Bronze and Iron Age. 39 % of the samples share recipes―i.e. CEb-m, VCEa-m+Ib, CEa-m+Ib, CIb and Ia+Ib―invariably occur in both periods. At the same time, the Iron Age marks the disappearance and appearance of old and new recipes in respectively 20 % and 41 % of the samples. One new recipe (petro-group VCMgne+metag+Ib) now clearly predominates over both the new and older ones. In general, the Early Iron Age represents a break in the strategies of raw material procurement, with respect to both the previous and subsequent phases. Indeed, the eastern igneous deposits are mostly exploited across all the phases except during the Early Iron Age, which shows a gravitation towards the southern metamorphic and ophiolitic deposits (Fig. 7).

Interesting trends emerge when considering the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age separately in relation to the respective repertoire of wares and/or shapes. In the Late Bronze Age, the same wares are produced with different recipes and, conversely, the same recipes occur in different wares. The only exceptions are the Red-Lustrous Wheel-made Ware F1 as well as the painted examples of the semi-fine D2 and storage E1/E2 wares, which are realized with specific recipes. The recipes recurring in the painted wares―i.e. CEm-a, CEb-m and VCEm-a―date back to the prehistoric tradition, while the Red-Lustrous Wheel-made Ware is made of a peculiar recipe, namely the above-mentioned petro-group Q. This latter fits with the fine fabric group reported for most of the Red-Lustrous wares found across the eastern Mediterranean and interpreted as a Cilician production based on the latest archaeological and archaeometric evidence (Kibaroğlu et al. 2019). Most of the petro-loners (Fig. 8) present the same intrusive and metamorphic local lithotypes as those mentioned above, but differently combined (Table 4). The only exception is the flat bowl 347/15 (Fig. 8g), distinguished by peculiar minero-petrographic associations not observed in other samples yet, i.e. calcareous sandstones and intrusive intermediate rocks.

By the Early Iron Age, cooking pots started being produced with standardized paste preparation modes, as indicated by the predominance of petro-group VCMgne+metag+Ib, while other shapes still exhibit variegated recipes. During the subsequent Middle Iron Age, the decorated wares of the allochthonous tradition―such as the Cypro-Phoenician and Alişar IV painted wares as well as the Syrian Red Slip and Urartian Red Burnished wares―are mostly locally produced with recipes that are well-documented along the previous site sequence (petro-groups CIb, VCEm-a+Ib, Ib, CEm-a+Ib and CEb-m). In particular, specific recipes recurs, on the one hand, in the Urartian and Cypro-Phoenician wares (petro-groups VCIb and CIb) and, on the other hand, in the Red Slip Ware (petro-group CEm-a+Ib). However, the only Grooved Ware carinated bowl here analyzed (sample 350/15) and one of the bichrome Alişar IV Ware jars (sample 355/15) could not be classified into any groups, which likely reflects a foreign origin (Table 4). Both samples are non-calcareous with a medium-coarse texture; the Alişar IV Ware jar is dominated by clinopyroxenes and altered mafic minerals (Fig. 8e), while the Grooved Ware carinated bowl is rich in metapyroxenites, vegetal temper and clinopyroxenes with exsolution and replacement textures (Fig. 8). The minero-petrographic association of both samples indicates the ophiolitic nature of the supply sources. Similar sources are widely reported in Türkiye, especially along the Ankara-Erzincan and Bitlis-Zagros suture zones (Fig. 9). Considering the regions where these two ware classes are mostly produced and spread, a general link with the Ankara-Erzincan zone could be assumed. Locally-produced and imported Alişar IV Ware vessels also differ by the surface treatments: the surfaces of the former do not exhibit any slipping layer, while those of the latter are covered by a thick regular and calcareous slip (Fig. 10).

XRFWDS geochemistry and comparison with petrography

Upon relating the various chemical elements (Table 5) in binary plots, three distinct groups emerge (Fig. 11): the largest group includes both Late Bronze and Iron Age samples, while the two minor ones are each composed of only three samples mostly dating to the Late Bronze Age 1-2 phases. The first minor group includes a Late Bronze Age 1B-2 arm-shaped vessel (329/17), a Late Bronze Age 2 pedestal base (332/17) and a Late Bronze Age 2 high-necked small-sized bottle (336/17), all distinguished by higher Al₂O₃, Fe₂O₃ and Rb and minor MnO values. The sample 336/17 further differs by higher Zr and Rb contents. Unfortunately, thin sections could not be prepared from these samples due to material scarcity. The second minor group is comprised of a Late Bronze Age 2 neckless medium-sized cooking pot (327/15), a Late Bronze Age 1B short-necked medium-sized cooking pot (331/15) and an Early Iron Age flat bowl (305/17), which are richer in SiO₂ and poorer in CaO, Ba, Cr and Sr. Although these three samples have different minero-petrographic associations, they all share the low-calcareous nature of the clay matrix and the presence of felsic rocks (e.g. granites, gneisses, quartz-schists, trachytic to rhyolitic lavas). The sample 327/15 is further distinguished by higher Mn, V and Ti values, which fit with the occurrence of ophiolitic rocks observed under the polarizing microscope.

By adding the data of locally-produced samples from the previous phases, we notice that all the Late Bronze-Iron Age samples, including those of the two minor groups, fall into a typical local range (Fig. 12). This also concerns the two minor groups that show chemical affinities with Late Chalcolithic 4 to Early Bronze Age 1 cooking and Red-Black Burnished Ware vessels generally realized with metamorphic raw materials.

A principal component analysis (PCA) using the software package SPSS was carried out in order to detect further differences and/or affinities between samples. For the purpose of calculation, the raw chemical values were summed to a constant of 100 %, transformed logarithmically to base 10, and standardized in order to give all elements approximately equal weight (Baxter 1994, 1995, 2003a, 2003b; Glascock 1992). CaO, Na₂O and P₂O₅ were not considered in the statistical elaborations as they are easily influenced by post-depositional changes (Freestone et al. 1985; Schwedt et al. 2004). The same three groups of samples mentioned above emerge in the PCA plot that relates the first and second factors (Fig. 13). These account for 66.6 % of the total variance and consider Al₂O₃, -Ni, Fe₂O₃, MgO, SiO₂, -Sr, -Cr, TiO₂, V and -K₂O, Ba, MnO, Rb, respectively. Both the first and second minor groups differ from the rest of the samples by higher values of factor 1, which well reflect the presence in thin sections of both mafic and sialic rocks. As for factor 2, the first minor group is poorer, and the second richer. Within the largest group, which includes vessels of any wares, shapes and periods, a subgroup of three samples now stands out due to lower values of factor 2. This subgroup only includes Late Bronze Age 1-2 necked pithos with drip marks, which do not show any distinct petrographic features compared to other samples though. This might presumably indicate the use of distinct local clay sources for this ceramic class.

The results obtained through thin-section petrography and XRFWDS geochemistry evidenced both elements of continuity and discontinuity between the Late Bronze and Iron Age. The elements of continuity concern the use of recipes made of volcanic raw materials available east of the site and already attested by the prehistoric phases. These recipes typically recur in the Late Bronze and Middle Iron Age painted productions, while unpainted vessels are distinguished by more variable and thus less specialized recipes. On a wider geographical perspective, it is interesting to note that this result contrasts with the evidence of the Late Bronze Age painted pottery from Oymaağaç Höyük/Nerik, Central Black Sea, which exhibits instead a large petrographic and geochemical variability (Mielke et al. 2021).

The most evident changes marked by the Iron Age consist in a much stronger gravitation towards the southern Anti-Taurus mountains for the procurement of raw materials, the appearance of new recipes in the common wares, the standardization of paste recipes for the cooking pots and, more generally, a trend towards a compositional homogenization. In this framework of changes, it is important to stress once again that widespread transformations and the introduction of new sets of inter-cultural connections with regions located south of the Malatya area are also clearly visible in the shape repertoire of the pottery assemblage since the transition between the Late Bronze and the Iron Age. At the same time, a strong standardization in terms of the decrease in shape varieties and macroscopic identification of fabrics and wares characterizes the entire Early Iron Age collection when compared to the previous Late Bronze Age. It is nevertheless worth mentioning that the morphological standardization does not unequivocally correspond to more standardized recipes, for example as in the case of the flat bowls that were produced with at least 5 different recipes. The evidence of cooking pots recalls instead a phenomenon that took place at different times in the whole eastern Mediterranean, namely the emergence of regional specialized cooking pottery centers (Ben-Shlomo 2019). This is often accompanied by changes in paste preparation and vessel shaping, although the role that food-related practices had on these changes or, conversely, the impact that these changes had on food-related practices still remain poorly investigated.

Further differences concern the incidence of imports in relation to foreign wares, following a pattern that mostly reflects what has been shown by the archaeological evidence. During the Late Bronze Age, the only foreign ware is the Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, which is always imported from Cilicia. In the Early Iron Age both foreign wares and imports are lacking. The Middle Iron Age is in contrast distinguished by several wares of foreign tradition, which are mostly locally produced. However, some nuances are still discernible within this general trend: while there are a few imports from south-central and eastern Anatolia (e.g., Alişar IV and Grooved wares), the wares of the southern tradition (e.g., Red Slip and Cypro-Phoenician wares) are exclusively locally made. This is a noteworthy aspect that might further emphasize the fact that contacts with the regions south of Malatya were well-established since the end of the Late Bronze Age, while eastwards and westwards these became more irregular and probably did not affect the local production pattern. At any rate, our analysis also demonstrates that Alişar IV Ware was not only the product of a few centers in south-central Anatolia (d’Alfonso et al. 2022) but could also be produced far away from this region. Moreover, as already documented at an intra-regional level (d’Alfonso et al. 2022), the analysis has further shown that Alişar IV Ware local imitations and imports differ by surface treatments and decoration also at Arslantepe.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates the importance of raw material procurement and processing as indicators of socio-economic and cultural changes over the longue durée. Coupled with preliminary observations on surface treatments and decorations, our data have also better clarified the impact of exogenous traditions on the local ones. In this perspective, future analyses will focus on exhaustively characterizing the materials, tools and gestures involved in burnishing, slipping and painting the surfaces of these same ceramic assemblages.

Funding: The present study was made possible by the research project “Beyond the Crisis” funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG Project #324049112). Excavations carried out at Arslantepe have been financially supported by Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Research on the Iron Age levels has also benefited from a grant provided in 2016 by the National Geographic Society.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Availability of data and material: Images from Arslantepe belong to the project’s archive (Missione Archeologica Italiana in Anatolia Orientale – ©MAIAO). The data and materials used during the study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable requests.

Code availability: Not applicable.

Authors contributions: Geological setting, materials and methods, thin-section petrography, discussion, XRFWDS geochemistry (Pamela Fragnoli); introduction, archaeological and historical overview, pottery repertoire (Federico Manuelli); conclusions (Pamela Fragnoli, Federico Manuelli).

Ethic approval: The authors declare the integrity of the scientific record.

Consent to participate: Both authors read, reviewed, edited, and approved the manuscript.

Consent for publication: All authors agree with the submission to Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Marcella Frangipane (Rome) for her constant support and for having allowed the study of the material from Arslantepe presented here. We are also grateful to M. Sbrana (Servizi per la Geologia) for the preparation of the thin sections and to G. Schneider and M. Daskiewicz for the XRFWDS analyses.

Alvaro C (2012) The Topography and Architecture at Arslantepe during the Second and First Millennia BC: Reconsidering more than 100 Years of Research. In: Frangipane M (ed.) Fifty Years of Excavations and Researches at Arslantepe – Malatya (Turkey), Proceeding of the conference held at Rome, 5th-8th December 2011. Gangemi, Rome, pp. 345–360.
Batmaz A (2020) A Study of Urartian Red Glossy Pottery Production in Van, Turkey, Using Archaeological, Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Archaeological Methods. Ethnoarchaeology 11(1):34–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19442890.2019.1573283
Baxter MJ (1994) Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Baxter MJ (1995) Standardization and transformation in principal component analysis, with applications to archaeometry. Applied Statistics 44:513–527.
Baxter MJ (2003a) Statistics in Archaeology. Arnold, London.
Baxter MJ (2003b) Distance and transformation in the multivariate analysis of the archaeometric data. In: Martini M, Milazzo M, Placentini M (eds.) Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” (Villa Monastero, 17–27 June 2003), IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 17–37.
Ben-Shlomo D (2019) Cooking Pot Production in Judah during the Iron Age II. Judea and Samaria Research Studies 28 (1):5–36. https://doi.org/10.26351/JSRS/28-⅙
Blaylock S (2016) Tille Höyük 3.2. The Iron Age: pottery, objects and conclusions. The British Institute of Archaeology, London.
Bozkaya Ö, Yalçin H, Başibüyük Z, Özfırat O, Yılmaz H (2007) Origin and evolution of the southeast Anatolian metamorphic complex (Turkey). Geologica Carpathica 58(3):197–210.
Delaporte L (1940) Malatya: fouilles de la mission archéologique française. Arslantepe, La Porte des Lions. De Boccard, Paris.
D’Alfonso L, Basso E, Castellano L, Mantovan A, Vertuani P (2022) Regional exchange and exclusive elite rituals in Iron Age central Anatolia: dating, function and circulation of Alişar-IV ware. Anatolian Studies 72:37–77. https://doi:10.1017/S0066154622000035
De Martino S (2012) Malatya and Išuwa in Hittite Texts: New Elements of Discussion. In: Frangipane M (ed.) Fifty Years of Excavations and Researches at Arslantepe – Malatya (Turkey), Proceeding of the conference held at Rome, 5th-8th December 201. Gangemi, Rome, pp. 375–383.
Fragnoli P (2018) Pottery production in pastoral communities: Archaeometric analysis on the LC3-EBA1 Handmade Burnished Ware from Arslantepe (in the Anatolian Upper Euphrates). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 18 (4):318–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.01.029
Fragnoli P (2019a) (Re)defining ceramic wares and spheres of production in Arslantepe’s period VII. The contribution of petrographic and geochemical analyses. In: Balossi Restelli F (ed.) Arslantepe. Period VII. The Development of a Ceremonial/Political Centre in the First Half of the Fourth Millennium BCE (Late Chalcolithic 3–4), Arslantepe Series II. Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, pp. 357–367.
Fragnoli P (2019b) The introduction of the potter wheel in Arslantepe’s period VII: integrated observations on a micro-, meso- and macroscale level. In: Balossi Restelli F (ed.) Arslantepe. Period VII. The Development of a Ceremonial/Political Centre in the First Half of the Fourth Millennium BCE (Late Chalcolithic 3–4), Arslantepe Series II. Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, pp. 345–357.
Fragnoli P, Frangipane M (2022) Centralisation and decentralisation processes and pottery production at Arslantepe (SE Anatolia) during the 4th and early 3rd millennium BCE. World Archaeology 53 (5):834–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2021.2015623
Fragnoli P, Liberotti G (2019) Cross-craft strategies in raw material procurement: ceramics, mud bricks and other clay-based artefacts. In: Balossi Restelli F (ed.) Arslantepe. Period VII. The Development of a Ceremonial/Political Centre in the First Half of the Fourth Millennium BCE (Late Chalcolithic 3–4), Arslantepe Series II. Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, pp. 367–380.
Fragnoli P, Palmieri AM (2017) Petrographic and geochemical investigations on the pottery production from Arslantepe–Malatya (Eastern Anatolia) from the fourth to the second millennium BCE: technological continuity, innovation and cultural change. Archaeometry 59(4):612–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12266
Fragnoli P, Rodler AS (2022) Archaeometric and Technological Investigations of the Late Bronze Age Painted Pottery from Arslantepe (Malatya, eastern Turkey). In: Manuelli F, Mielke DP (eds.) Late Bronze Age Painted Pottery Traditions at the Margins of the Hittite State. Proceedings of the Workshop Held at the 11th ICAANE (Munich, 4th of April 2019). Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 233–247.
Frangipane M (2019) Arslantepe. The Rise and Development of a Political Centre: From Temple to Palace to a Fortified Citadel. In Durak N, Frangipane M (eds.) Arslantepe. Proceedings of the I. International Archaeology Symposium. İnönü Üniversitesi Matbaası, Malatya: 71–104.
Frangipane M, Palmieri A (1983) A Protourban Centre of the Late Uruk Period. In: Frangipane M, Palmieri A (eds.) Perspectives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975–1983 Campaigns. Gangemi, Rome, pp. 287–454.
Frangipane M, Balossi Restelli F, Di Filippo F, Manuelli F, Mori L (2020) Arslantepe: New Data on the Formation of the Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Melid. News from the Lands of the Hittites 3–4:71–111.
Freestone IC, Meeks ND, Middleton AP (1985) Retention of phosphate in buried ceramics: an electron microbeam approach. Archaeometry 27:161–177.
Gilboa A (2015) Iron Age I-II Cypriot Imports and Local Imitations. In: Aviram J, Ben-Tor A, Stern E, Yannai E (eds.) The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors. From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period Vol. 2. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, pp. 483–508.
Glascock MD (1992) Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics. In: Neff H (ed.) Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 11–26.
Hawkins JD (2000) Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Vol. 1. Inscriptions of the Iron Age. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Kibaroǧlu M, Kozal E, Klügel A, Hartmann G, Monien P (2019) New evidence on the provenience of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware (RLW): Petrographic, element and Sr-Nd isotope analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Report 24:412–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.02.004
Liverani M (2012) Arslantepe in the Neo-Hittite Period. In: Frangipane M (ed.) Fifty Years of Excavations and Researches at Arslantepe – Malatya (Turkey), Proceedings of the conference held at Rome, 5th-8th December 2011. Gangemi, Rome, pp. 331–344.
Manuelli F (2013), Arslantepe IX. Late Bronze Age. Hittite Influence and Local traditions in an Eastern Anatolian Community, Arslantepe Series IX. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome.
Manuelli F (2018) Drifting Southward? Tracing Aspects of Cultural Continuity and Change in the Late 2nd Millennium BC Syro-Anatolian Region. Studia Eblaitica 4:139–186.
Manuelli F (2020) The Regeneration of the Late Bronze Age Traditions and the Formation of the Kingdom of Malizi. In: Sonne A (ed.) Formation, Organization and Development of the Iron Age Societies. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, pp. 109–129.
Manuelli F (2022) Just a Matter of Style? Late Bronze Age Painted Pottery Traditions in the Upper Euphrates Region: Origins and Significance. In: Manuelli F, Mielke DP (eds.) Late Bronze Age Painted Pottery Traditions at the Margins of the Hittite State. Proceedings of the Workshop Held at the 11th ICAANE (Munich, 4th of April 2019). Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 204–232.
Manuelli F, Mori L (2016) ‘The King at the Gate’. Monumental Fortifications and the Rise of Local Elites at Arslantepe at the End of the 2nd Millennium BCE. Origini 39(1):209–241.
Manuelli F, Vignola C, Marzaioli F, Passariello I, Terrasi F (2021) The Beginning of the Iron Age at Arslantepe: A 14C Perspective. Radiocarbon 63(3):885–903. https://DOI:10.1017/RDC.2021.19
Mielke DP (2007) Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware from Hittite Contexts. In: Hein I (ed.) The Lustrous Wares of the Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Paper of a conference held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 5th -6th November 2004. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, pp. 155–168.
Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) (2002) 1/500.000 scale geological maps of Turkey, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA), Ankara, Turkey.
Ökse AT (1988) Mitteleisenzeitliche Keramik Zentral-Ostanatoliens mit dem Schwerpunkt Karakaya-Staudammgebiet am Euphrat. PeWe Verlag, Berlin.
Önal A (2008) Mineral Chemistry crystallization condition and magma mixing-mingling at Orduzu Volcano (Malatya), Eastern Anatolia, Turkey. Geological Journal 43:5–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.1105
Önal A, Boztuğ D, Arslan M, Spell LT, Kürüm S (2008) Petrology and ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar age of the bimodal Orduzu volcanic (Malatya) from the western end of the eastern Anatolian Neogene volcanism, Turkey, Turkish. Journal of Earth Sciences 17:85–109.
Osborne JF (2021) The Syro-Anatolian City-States. An Iron Age Culture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Palmieri A (1973) Scavi nell’area sud-occidentale di Arslantepe. Ritrovamento di una struttura templare dell’Antica Età del Bronzo. Origini 7:55–228.
Palmieri A (1978) Scavi ad Arslantepe (Malatya). Quaderni de “La Ricerca Scientifica” 100:311–373.
Palmieri AM (1978) Studio sedimentologico dell’area nord-occidentale di Arslantepe. Quaderni de “La Ricerca Scientifica” 100:353–364.
Parlak O, Karaoğlan F, Rizaoğlu T, Nurlu N, Bağci U, Höck V, Öztü A, Önal F, Küru S, Topak Y (2012) Petrology of the İspendere (Malatya) ophiolite from the Southeast Anatolia: implications for the Late Mesozoic evolution of the southern Neotethyan Ocean. Geological Society, Special Publications published online. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP372.11
Pecorella PE (1975) Malatya – III. Rapporto preliminare delle campagne 1963–1968. Il livello eteo imperiale e quelli neoetei. Centro per le antichità e la storia dell’arte del Vicino Oriente, Rome.
Quinn PS (2013) Ceramic Petrography. The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery and Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Rice PM (1987) Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Robertson AHF, Ustaömer T, Parlak O, Ünlügenç UC, Tasli K, İnan N (2006) The Berit Transect of the Tauride Thrust Belt, S. Turkey: Late Cretaceous–Early Cenozoic Accretionary/Collisional processes related to closure of the Southern Neotethys. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 27:108–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2005.02.004
Sarifakioglu E, Dilek Y, Sevin M (2014) Jurassic–Paleogene intraoceanic magmatic evolution of the Ankara Mélange, north-central Anatolia, Turkey. Solid Earth 5:77–108. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-5-77-2014
Şaşmaz A, Turkyilmaz B, Öztürk N, Yavuz F, Kumral M (2014) Geology and geochemistry of middle Eocene Maden Complex ferromanganese deposits from the Elaziğ-Malatya region, Eastern Turkey. Ore geology reviews 56:352–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2013.06.012
Schwedt A, Mommsen H, Zacharias N (2004) Post-depositional elemental alterations in pottery activation analysis of surface samples. Archaeometry 46(1): 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00145.x
Soldi S (2013) Red Slip Ware from the Acropolis of Tell Afis: The Evidence of Area G. In Mazzoni S, Soldi S (eds) Syrian Archaeology in Perspective. Celebrating 20 years of Excavations at Tell Afis, Edizioni ETS, Pisa, pp. 199–222.
Vignola C, Marzaioli F, Balossi Restelli F, Di Nocera GM, Frangipane M, Masi A, Passariello I, Sadori L, Terrasi F (2019) Changes in the Near Eastern Chronology between the 5th and the 3rd Millennium BC: New AMS 14C Dates from Arslantepe (Turkey). Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 456:276–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.01.033
Yazgan E, Mason R (1988) Orbicular gabbro near Baskil, Southeastern Turkey. Mineralogical Magazine 52:161–173.
Yiğitbaş E, Yılmaz Y (1996) New evidence and solution to the Maden Complex controversy of the southeast Anatolian orogenic belt (Turkey). Geologische Rundschau 85:250–263.

Tables 1 to 5 are available in the Supplementary Files section

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 10 Jul, 2023

Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences →

Editorial decision: Major revision
24 Apr, 2023
Reviews received at journal
04 Apr, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
03 Apr, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
03 Apr, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
03 Apr, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
03 Apr, 2023
First submitted to journal
31 Mar, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Petrographic and geochemical analyses of Late Bronze and Iron Age pottery assemblages from Arslantepe (Malatya, Türkiye): Insights into the local organization of the production and extra- regional networks of exchange

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Archaeological And Historical Overview

The Pottery Repertoire

The Geological Setting

Materials And Methods

Discussion Of The Petrographic Results

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1