PDF Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between The Aegean and Anatolia During The 3Rd Millenium BC Eva Alram Stern Ebook Full Chapter

Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural
Connections Between the Aegean and

Anatolia During the 3rd Millenium BC
Eva Alram-Stern
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/pottery-technologies-and-sociocultural-connections-b
etween-the-aegean-and-anatolia-during-the-3rd-millenium-bc-eva-alram-stern/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The kingdom of Priam: Lesbos and the Troad between

Anatolia and the Aegean Ellis-Evans
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-kingdom-of-priam-lesbos-and-
the-troad-between-anatolia-and-the-aegean-ellis-evans/
Wittgenstein in the 1930s Between the Tractatus and the

Investigations David G. Stern
https://textbookfull.com/product/wittgenstein-in-
the-1930s-between-the-tractatus-and-the-investigations-david-g-
stern/
Of Odysseys and Oddities Scales and Modes of

Interaction Between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and
their Neighbours Sheffield Studies in Aegean
Archaeology Barry Molloy Editor
https://textbookfull.com/product/of-odysseys-and-oddities-scales-
and-modes-of-interaction-between-prehistoric-aegean-societies-
and-their-neighbours-sheffield-studies-in-aegean-archaeology-
barry-molloy-editor/
Forging Connections between Computational Mathematics

and Computational Geometry Papers from the 3rd
International Conference on Computational Mathematics
and Computational Geometry 1st Edition Ke Chen
https://textbookfull.com/product/forging-connections-between-
computational-mathematics-and-computational-geometry-papers-from-
the-3rd-international-conference-on-computational-mathematics-
Understanding the Connections between Science
Philosophy Psychology Religion Politics and Economics
Articles and Reviews 2006 2019 Michael Starks
https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-the-connections-
between-science-philosophy-psychology-religion-politics-and-
economics-articles-and-reviews-2006-2019-michael-starks/
Environmental Planning for Oceans and Coasts Methods

Tools and Technologies 1st Edition Michelle Eva Portman
(Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/environmental-planning-for-
oceans-and-coasts-methods-tools-and-technologies-1st-edition-
michelle-eva-portman-auth/
Staging Death Funerary Performance Architecture and

Landscape in the Aegean 1st Edition Anastasia Dakouri-
Hild
https://textbookfull.com/product/staging-death-funerary-
performance-architecture-and-landscape-in-the-aegean-1st-edition-
anastasia-dakouri-hild/
Social Media and the Armed Forces Eva Moehlecke De

Baseggio■
https://textbookfull.com/product/social-media-and-the-armed-
forces-eva-moehlecke-de-baseggio/
Warriors of Anatolia A Concise History of the Hittites

Trevor Bryce
https://textbookfull.com/product/warriors-of-anatolia-a-concise-
history-of-the-hittites-trevor-bryce/
Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs (Eds.)
Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections
Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Philosophisch-historische Klasse
Oriental and European Archaeology
Volume 10
Series Editor: Barbara Horejs
Publications Coordinator: Ulrike Schuh

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs (Eds.)
Pottery Technologies and

Sociocultural Connections
Between the Aegean and Anatolia
During the 3rd Millennium BC
Accepted by the Publication Committee of the Division of Humanities
and the Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences:
Michael Alram, Bert Fragner, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Brigitte Mazohl, Franz Rainer,
Oliver Jens Schmitt, Peter Wiesinger and Waldemar Zacharasiewicz
This publication has undergone the process of anonymous, international peer review.
The paper used for this publication was made from chlorite-free bleached cellulose
and is aging-resistant and free of acidifying substances.
English language editing: Stephanie Emra, Kelly Gillikin, Guy Kiddey,

Jessica Whalen, Roderick B. Salisbury, Clare Burke
Graphics and layout: María Antonia Negrete Martínez
Cover design: Mario Börner, Angela Schwab
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-3-7001-8127-9
Copyright © 2018 by
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna
Printing: Prime Rate kft., Budapest
Printed and bound in the EU
https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/8127-9
https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at
Contents
Preface by the Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC:
An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Anatolia & Eastern Aegean
Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon: A Model
for Pottery Production in the 3rd Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Lisa Peloschek
Marble-Tempered Ware in 3rd Millennium BC Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

Function and Technology: A Pottery Assemblage from an Early Bronze Age House
at Çukuriçi Höyük . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
John Gait – Noémi S. Müller – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Douglas Baird

Examining the Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Distribution
in the Konya Plain of South Central Anatolia, Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Ourania Kouka – Sergios Menelaou

Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age Heraion: Exploring Stratigraphy,
Architecture and Ceramic Innovation After Mid-3rd Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Greece
Clare Burke – Peter Day – Eva Alram-Stern – Katie Demakopoulou – Anno Hein
Crafting and Consumption Choices: Neolithic – Early Helladic II Ceramic Production
and Distribution, Midea and Tiryns, Mainland Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Eva Alram-Stern
Early Helladic II Pottery from Midea in the Argolid: Forms and Fabrics Pointing
to Special Use and Import . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Lydia Berger
Social Change – Cultural Change – Technological Change: Archaeological Studies
and Scientific Analyses of Early Aeginetan Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Sylvie Müller-Celka – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Xenia Charalambidou – Noémi S. Müller

Early Helladic II–III Pottery Groups from Eretria (Euboea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
6 Contents
Jörg Rambach
Romanos-Navarino Dunes in the Pylia: The Early Helladic II Settlement
and the Case of the Early Helladic II Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Georgia Kordatzaki – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Jörg Rambach

Ceramic Traditions in Southwestern Peloponnese During the Early Helladic II Period:
The Romanos Pylias Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Areti Pentedeka – Catherine Morgan – Andreas Sotiriou

Early Helladic Pottery Traditions in Western Greece:
The Case of Kephalonia and Ithaca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Yiannis Papadatos – Eleni Nodarou

Pottery Technology(ies) in Prepalatial Crete: Evidence from Archaeological
and Archaeometric Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Index
Pottery and Analytical Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Geographical Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Preface by the Series Editor
The 10th volume of the Oriental and European Archaeology publication series presents the re-
sults of an international conference, organised and hosted by the OREA Institute at the Austrian
Academy of Sciences in Vienna from 21st to 23rd of October 2015. The idea for this volume
about Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia
During the 3rd Millennium BC is based on current projects by the organisers Eva Alram-Stern and
the series editor, who are both dealing with archaeometric studies of Early Bronze Age pottery
from Greece and Turkey. The outcome of these interdisciplinary investigations at Midea, the
prehistoric Kaykos Valley (Pergamon), and at Çukuriçi Höyük required a broader scientific and
socio-cultural contextualisation. This led to the organisation of the conference in Vienna, inviting
well-known pottery experts, as well as young scholars, working in this particular scientific field.
This volume presents long-term and well-established approaches used for a range of method-
ological and theoretical aspects of ceramic research in the Greek Aegean, that also offer a solid
framework for new primary data and their interpretation from the eastern Aegean and western
Anatolia. In addition, the main focus of this volume is on the socio-cultural aspects of the various
analytical methods and their scientific results, aiming to provide a broader picture of the role of
pottery in past societies, also understandable by non-experts in these highly specialised fields.
The enormous amount of scientific data dealing with Early Bronze Age ceramics generally, offers
a new insight into important aspects of societies in the 3rd millennium BC, such as the chaîne
opératoire of production, vessel function, regionalism, and chronology. Finally, it is our view that
such a cross-Aegean approach allows intra site comparison, and provides important insights into
the relationships and meaning behind trends visible in Early Bronze Age pottery from different
regions within the Aegean, particularly cultural-technological concepts and their social impact.
The volume brings together 13 contributions that offer primary data from new analyses of ce-
ramic material from western Anatolia, the east, northeast and central Aegean, as well as from Crete,
and the Greek mainland. We are very thankful to the authors, who interpret this new data in relation
to a range of socio-cultural, economic, chronological, functional and regional contexts. The fruitful
discussions at the conference, by renowned experts in scientific ceramic analyses, has shed new
light on key themes in ceramic and broader archaeological research, and, importantly, highlighted
potential connections between the Aegean and Anatolia based on this new archaeometric data.
My sincere thanks go to the authors of all contributions for sharing their expertise and per-
spectives about Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and
Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC, and to Eva Alram-Stern for her efforts in publishing the
10th OREA volume as soon as possible. The international review procedure supervised by the
Academy publication committee guarantees the quality assessment of each publication in this
series. Although this procedure sometimes requires the patience of authors and editors including
the acceptance of publication delays, I am very thankful to the anonymous reviewers’ engagement
and their helpful suggestions.
Financial support for the conference has been provided by the FWF funded projects P 24798,
P 25825 and Y 528 as well as by the OREA Institute and the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Fi-
nally, I am grateful to the experienced team, especially Ulrike Schuh for coordinating the editorial
work and María Antonia Negrete Martínez for layouting the entire volume.
Barbara Horejs
Director of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology
Vienna, 13th of June 2018
ORIENTAL AND EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Vol. 1 B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation

in the 4th Millenium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at
the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012
(Vienna 2014).
Vol. 2 B. Eder – R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and

Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E.
Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute
for Archaeological Studies, 30th May–2nd June, 2012 (Vienna 2015).
Vol. 3 M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcen-
nutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka
(Rahden/Westf. 2016).
Vol. 4 M. Luciani (ed.), The Archaeology of North Arabia. Oases and Landscapes.
Proceedings of the International Congress held at the University of Vienna,
5–8 December, 2013 (Vienna 2016).
Vol. 5 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd
Millennium BC. With contributions by Ch. Britsch, St. Grasböck, B. Milić,
L. Peloschek, M. Röcklinger and Ch. Schwall (Vienna 2017).
Vol. 6 M. Mödlinger, Protecting the Body in War and Combat. Metal Body Armour in
Bronze Age Europe (Vienna 2017).
Vol. 7 Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien
und der Ostägäis. Mit einem Beitrag von B. Horejs (Vienna 2018).
Vol. 8 W. Anderson – K. Hopper – A. Robinson (eds.), Landscape Archaeology in Southern

Caucasia. Finding Common Ground in Diverse Environments. Proceedings of the
Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2018).
Vol. 9 St. Gimatzidis – M. Pieniążek – S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba (eds.), Archaeology Across

Frontiers and Borderlands. Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and
the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Vienna 2018).
Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the
3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction
Eva Alram-Stern1 – Barbara Horejs2
After several decades of archaeometric investigations on Early Bronze Age pottery, now is the
time to bring these manifold results and experts together for a holistic approach of a broad-
er region through socio-cultural interpretations. The archaeometric approach to pottery in the
(Greek) Aegean is based on a long tradition and nowadays forms a well-established scientific
field in Bronze Age archaeology in that region. Thanks to various research groups and their long-
term engagement in developing the methodological and theoretical background – such as the
Fitch Laboratory of the British School and the Demokritos lab in Athens, the University of Bonn,
and Sheffield University – pottery experts in the Aegean are now able to use various scientific
methods based on a well-established scientific framework and comparable data. This state-of-
the-art interdisciplinary approach for Aegean ceramics not only produces a large amount of new
and complex data, which are mainly used by specialists in this field, but also leads to a multifac-
eted picture hardly manageable by non-experts for their socio-cultural follow-up interpretations.
Our main aim is focused on combining the archaeometric experts and their scientific questions
and data to gain a broader archaeological-cultural contextualisation within one particular time
horizon.
Chronological and Geographical Framework
Due to current scientific requirements, projects and available data, the Aegean and western Anato-
lia during the periods of Early Helladic I–II / Early Bronze Age 1–2 (c. 3000–2300 BC) have been
selected as the general chronological and geographical frameworks. Ongoing research in petro-
graphic3 and chemical analyses, specifically X-ray fluorescence (XRF)4 and Neutron Activation
Analysis (NAA),5 were brought together with archaeological contextualisation to discuss poten-
tial social and economic patterns in the production and distribution of pottery within a trans-Ae-
gean perspective. This volume represents the outcome of the conference “Pottery Technologies
and Sociocultural Connections between the Aegean and Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium BC”,
which took place from 21.10. to 23.10.2015 at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeol-
ogy of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
The selected focus is closely related to the OREA research group Anatolian Aegean Prehistor-
ic Phenomena, which generally connects Greek and Turkish parts of the Aegean in a holistic ap-
proach. Both regions are starting and intermediary points of formative cultural processes, which
are studied by archaeological and interdisciplinary basic research methods – conducted in detail
with highly specialised analyses as well as supra-regional studies. This research strategy includes
1
Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; eva.alram@oeaw.ac.at.
2
Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; barbara.horejs@oeaw.ac.at.
3
Whitbread 2001.
4
Gait et al., this volume.
5
Mommsen et al. 1991; Mommsen 2007; Horejs et al., this volume.
10 Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs
Fig. 1 Archaeological sites in Turkey and Greece mentioned in this volume. Sites presented in detail are indicated in
capital letters (design: M. Börner)
excavations, archaeological and environmental surveys, material studies and analyses of all types
of artefacts. A further approach deals with chronology and periodisation, climate, subsistence,
resources, technologies, rituals, networks, socio-cultural impact and theoretical issues. Recently
generated data from our own fieldwork form the scientific fundament and are linked with old data.
One of our current research foci concerns Early Bronze Age settlements, economies and technol-
ogies dating to Early Helladic (EH) I–II / Early Bronze (EB) 1–2 (3000–2300 BC) on both sides
of the Aegean. The research group’s ongoing studies of pottery with conventional archaeological
methods combined with petrographic and chemical analyses in micro-regional and trans-regional
comparisons brought an abundance of new data to light. Their contextualisation within a broader
archaeological perspective offers the opportunity to analyse potential patterns that might reflect
trans-Aegean phenomena beyond their local or regional impact. These studies are conducted in
various projects financed by the European Research Council, the Austrian Science Fund and the
OREA institute. To them belong the Çukuriçi Höyük excavations, the Prehistoric Pergamon Re-
gion Survey (Kaykos/Bakırçay valley)6, the Midea project (Argolid) based on the Greek excava-
tions by Katie Demakopoulou7 as well as the Romanos-Navarino project8. Altogether, they put
into practice cooperation with archaeometric experts from the Fitch Laboratory of the British
School at Athens, the Department of Archaeology of the University of Sheffield, the University of
Bonn and the Austrian Archaeological Institute.
6
ERC project 263339; Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects no. Y 528 and P 25825.
7
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) stand-alone project no. P 24798.
8
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Lise Meitner program no. M 1468.
Pottery Technologies in the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC: An Introduction 11
The 18 papers presented in the conference, of which 13 were submitted to this volume, in-
clude manifold new results and data (Fig. 1).9 Additionally, the intense and fruitful discussions
between the authors during the conference formulated new local, regional and interregional as-
pects – which will be summarised in the introduction. Thanks to the very engaged chairmen and
chairwomen, the discussions mostly led to some crucial outcomes, which are represented in the
following overview of this volume.
Production, Function and Chaîne Opératoire
Questions concerning the production of pottery and its chaîne opératoire require not only de-
tailed scientific analyses of the ceramics themselves but also their environmental contextualisa-
tion should be considered – as pointed out in several papers. The clay composition used for the
production of pottery is examined by petrographers, who – through microscopic analysis of the
mineral composition of the fabric’s inclusions in combination with chemical analysis – can offer
knowledge of the choice of raw materials. In general, this approach concerns the exploitation of
specific raw material sources that are shared by a group of people of a potential centre of pro-
duction, and therefore local production is identifiable in ceramic analyses. A selection of similar
clay compositions is reflected in the use of a specific temper – such as calcite, marble or grog – in
the production of pots with a special use, i.e. cooking or storage; this temper choice could have
been shared by people in larger areas.10 Such behaviour would enable us to argue for a pattern in
pottery production that could have been shared by people of a wider area. Moreover, the various
techniques of pot building are recognisable through macroscopic examination of the pottery, such
as using coils, plaques or a throwing table. According to ethnographic studies, these building
techniques and their distribution are connected to special groups of people and offer information
on potential communication networks, which are likely built upon kin affiliations.11 Furthermore,
the degree of specialisation may broadly be assessed on the basis of firing temperatures as well
as the controlling mechanisms over the oxidation process, respectively pointing to open fire or
a kiln-like construction.12 Experimental studies in refiring sherds have been presented as a suc-
cessful method for determining firing temperatures. Insight into the possible functions of pots
is provided by residue and use-wear analyses.13 Additionally, an analysis of pottery fabrics and
forms indicates that pots with certain characteristics were probably used for special purposes.14
Connectivity
An important topic is how pottery of a particular region can give us indications of connectivity be-
tween the areas under study. Conventional archaeological research in this respect is based on iden-
tification and statistical recording of wares, forms and decoration, which are closely connected with
value and the potential use of items. Ethnographic studies have shown that decorative techniques
9
The important papers regarding the relations between Crete and Anatolia at the beginning of the Bronze Age
(FN–EB I), on the Chios-Çesme Strait, on Anatolianising types and Aegean traditions in the ceramics of the Late
EB II, and on local and Anatolianising traditions across Boeotia during the Late EH II were not submitted by the
authors and are therefore not included in this volume.
10
Rice 1987; Peloschek, this volume; Gait et al., this volume; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume; Pentedeka et al.,
this volume.
11
Gosselain 2000, 201–208, 210.
12
Daszkiewicz – Schneider 2001.
13
Tzedakis et al. 2008.
14
Riemer 1997; a function analysis of the pottery from Çukuriçi Höyük according to form and fabric is given by
Röcklinger – Horejs, this volume.
are distributed “by loose and situational networks of interaction in which the geographic propin-
quity of sites and local processes of imitation and conformity play a leading role”.15 In contrast,
investigations of pottery based on archaeometric analyses of clay composition can give an indi-
cation of the provenance of the clay and, therefore, of the circulation of the pots. These studies
presuppose that potters used local clay deposits, and suggest that their local production centres
can be identified and characterised. At the same time, large-scale macroscopic identification of
fabrics, harmonised with petrographic analyses, can help to detect distribution patterns of pottery
in large archaeological assemblages. Thus, both methods can help to define local use and middle-
to long-distance circulation of pots. As mentioned above, the papers of this conference cover the
periods EB/EH I and II as well as its transition to the final phase EB III, which is to be understood
as a predecessor of the Middle Bronze Age (see chronological chart Fig. 2). It goes without saying
that each period has to be characterised against the background of its specific cultural develop-
ment. Therefore, it can be shown that local pottery production in all its aspects differs from period
to period and, consequently, reveals change over time. At the same time, it is worthwhile to inves-
tigate if technological and stylistic innovations were passed on through circulation or imitation of
pottery. On a broader scale, changes through time in the circulation of pottery over large distances
can give indications for changing contacts between regions in general.
In summary, this conference volume aims to add important aspects to our picture of human
agency,16 and also shed light on the changing social organisation, economy and identity of the
agents who are the producers of pottery, as well as their consumers.17 Pottery analyses are able
to illustrate how behaviour of production and distribution changes, and therefore demonstrate
aspects of cultural-ecological development in the 3rd millennium BC.
Regional Patterns
Early Bronze Age I

Papers dealing with EB I create an interesting picture for sites of inland and coastal western Ana-
tolia: The area around Pergamon is characterised by production and circulation of pottery within
the region although the pottery is integrated into the pottery style of the northeastern Aegean and
the Troad. At the same time, pottery production centres show no specialisation. The very few
imports from outside the region indicate that the region was more or less excluded from the main
routes of eastern Aegean and western Anatolian exchange networks.18 The coastal site of Çukuriçi
Höyük situated in central western Anatolia is also characterised by local production,19 and the
marble-tempered fabric – although reminiscent of the fabric common in the Cyclades – most
probably followed a local tradition mainly used for functional reasons.20 However, the picture of
specialised production and use of pots at the coastal site of Çukuriçi Höyük is supported by the
contexts connected with on-site metal processing.21 Evidence in the Konya plain show that Early
Bronze Age pottery production has a long tradition dating back to the Late Chalcolithic/Final Neo-
lithic period; this is especially evident from the habit of grog-tempering.22 A similar tradition is
known from eastern Crete23 as well as in other areas of the Aegean.24 If we look at the western side
15
Gosselin 2000, 193–200, 209.
16
Lemonnier 1993; Dobres – Hoffman 1994.
17
For a further discussion see Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.
18
Horejs et al., this volume.
19
20
Peloschek, this volume.
21
22
Gait et al., this volume.
23
Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.
24
Pentedeka et al., this volume.
3100
3000
2400
2800
2600
2200
2000
BC
Late
Chalcolithic EB 1 EB 2 EB 3a EB 3b
Liman Tepe Çukuriçi Troy
I II early II late III IV

Western Anatolia
Vb Va IV III
VIIa ? VI 1 (d-a) V 3-1 (b-a) IV 2 IV 1
Late EB 1 EB 2 EB 3a EB 3b
Chalcolithic
Eastern Aegean
Heraion Poliochni
nero azzurro (early-late) verde rosso giallo
LCh Heraion “earlier than Heraion I” I II III IV
Final EC IA EC IB Gap ? EC III

Neolithic EC IIA EC IIB
Settlements Tombs
Keros-Syros Phylakopi I
Cyclades
Pelos-Lakkoudes Panagia Kampos Chalandriani

Aplomata
Kastri
Markiani II Ayia Irini II
Ayia Irini III
FN EH I early EH I late EH II early EH II developed EH II late EH III

Central GR Attica Aegina Lerna
II IIIA IIIB IIIC IIID IV

Greek Mainland
I II Cer. Ph. B II Cer. Ph. C IV V
Eretria
Eutresis Manika 2-3 Lefkandi I Bouratzas
Talioti
Tsepi Perachora X Ayios Kosmas A
Perachora Y-Z
FN EM IA EM IB EM IIA EM IIB EM III

Knossos
South Front Upper East Well

Palace Well Group West Court House South Front House
North East Magazines
Crete
Foundation
Various Sites
Aphrodite’s Kephali Poros Katsambas Myrtos I Myrtos II Palaikastro

Petras Kephala Ayia Photia Vasiliki I Vasiliki II Vasiliki III
3100
2000
2800
2400
2200
3000
2600
BC
Fig. 2 Chronological chart including assemblages discussed in this conference (E. Alram-Stern – Ch. Schwall;
absolute dates according to Manning 1995, Manning 2008, and Weninger – Easton 2014)
of the Aegean, local production and consumption also characterises the EM I period of Crete as
well as the EH I period of the northeastern Peloponnese. This is also seen in the emergence of re-
gional pottery styles. Furthermore, aside from firing at low temperatures, firing temperatures were
higher than in the previous period and the firing atmosphere was more controlled.25 In summary,
25
Burke et al., this volume; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.
all over the Aegean EB I seems to have been a period of local production and regional networks
with an indication of the first trends in production specialisation. In the later part of EB I, exterior
contacts with more distant regions are attested. On Crete during EM IB Cycladic-style pottery of
the Kampos group is attested at several sites, and especially on the northern coast of Crete. These
assemblages differ from site to site, each context showing different percentages of Cycladic-style
pottery. Furthermore, although form and surface treatment are of Cycladic character, the pottery
was most probably produced locally on Crete, and followed the typical Cycladic technological
tradition of using calcite, along with the grog-tempering characteristic of Cretan pottery.26 In this
way, EB I pottery of late EB I demonstrates interconnectivity not seen during the previous phase.
This is mainly evident by the Cycladic Kampos Group on Crete, probably the material expression
of intensified contacts with the Aegean. A similar picture arises in Attica and Euboea.27 However,
EH I fruitstands, made of a fabric characteristically produced in the area close to Talioti in the
Argolid, were circulated as far as Nemea in the Corinthia, indicating regular intensive interaction
between these areas and also special use, which can already be argued for this period.28
Early Bronze Age II

For the EB/EM/EH II all over the Aegean, local production continued to dominate imports from
other regions. The majority of sites produced pottery locally and followed their own common
potting traditions while participating in the same regional exchange network.29 Regional pot-
tery styles with characteristic tablewares such as saucers and sauceboats are common all over
mainland Greece, the Peloponnese and the Cyclades.30 They indicate an intensification of so-
cial activities, especially feasting based on the same eating/drinking rituals.31 In the northeastern
Peloponnese, certain fabric recipes common in the entire area point to the possibility that larger
groups shared a certain tradition of pottery making.32 However, during EB/EM/EH II, imports of
tablewares from neighbouring regions demonstrate higher interconnectivity than has been seen
before. In the Konya plain, the non-local “Metallic Ware” with serpentine inclusions was most
probably imported from Cappadocia.33 On Samos, imports from Amorgos/Cyclades are known
from Heraion II, in the developed phase of EB II. In the northeastern Peloponnese, dark-slipped
green-brown tableware – easily distinguishable from the Argive products34 – had been imported
from the Corinthia to the Argolid.35 In Crete, high-quality tablewares were exchanged between
south-central and north-central Crete, suggesting these regions were host to specialised potting
centres. Furthermore, fine, high-quality tablewares and transport jars were imported from the
Cyclades, while western Crete shows imports from Kythera and the Peloponnese.36 Consequent-
ly, EB/EH/EM II is characterised as a period of prosperity and interaction characterised by the
circulation of prestigious pottery, which indicates an increase in connectivity.
26
Day et al. 2012; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.
27
Pantelidou Gofa 2008; see also Alram-Stern forthcoming (a) und (b).
28
Burke et al., this volume.
29
Burke et al., this volume; Kouka – Menelaou, this volume. For the local traditions of Kephallonia and Ithaca see
Pentedeka et al., this volume.
30
Alram-Stern, this volume; Berger, this volume; Rambach, this volume.
31
Pullen 2011, 190–192.
32
‘Mudstone-breccia fabric’: Burke et al., this volume.
33
Gait et al., this volume. For characterisation and date of the metallic ware see Tuba Ökse 2011, 265, 269–270;
Friedman 2001.
34
Alram-Stern, this volume.
35
36
Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.
Early Bronze Age II Late – III

With EB/EH II Late, pottery shows clear changes in form and technology as seen in the Ana-
tolianising Lefkandi I/Kastri pottery group in the Aegean and the eastern Greek mainland. This
development already started in EB II developed (Heraion II) on Samos and was interrupted with
EB III (Heraion IV) when new pottery forms and decoration appeared. While all Anatolianising
forms are already present in EB II developed (Heraion II), the depas amphikypellon only appears
in EB II Late (Heraion III). The Lefkandi I/Kastri complex is not only connected with a change
in form, but also the use of the potter’s wheel. However, on Samos these changes in technology
and style are not connected with an augmentation of imports, which become common only with
EB III Late (Samos V).37 In Eretria on Euboea during EH IIB, the “Helladic” shapes such as the
sauceboat and saucer are used alongside the Anatolianising forms; however, the depas amphiky-
pellon is not present. As on Samos, the Anatolianising forms were produced locally; in contrast,
some pottery with Helladic shapes were imported so that it can be argued that, as in the Argolid,
imports of pottery indicate contacts. In addition, a significant group of coarse ware, among them a
pithos, was imported from the Cyclades. This shows that during EH IIB the circulation of pots is
a reflection of an intensification of mobility especially in coastal areas. Also, the use of Anatolian-
ising forms for eating/drinking in specific social contexts highlights potential changes in eating/
drinking rituals during this period.38 During EH III, pottery forms and surface treatment changed
in Eretria, perhaps reflecting reproduction and adaption of external influences. Local clay sources
continued to be exploited, but the potter’s wheel fell out of use.39 Similarly to coastal Euboea, at
the site of Aegina-Kolonna the EH II pottery shows various imports from the Cyclades, Attica and
the Peloponnese, which demonstrates the important role of Aegina in the exchange systems of the
wider Aegean. In EH IIB, typological and technological changes also appear in Kolonna. In con-
trast to other sites, they produced tankards and hybrid forms of the “Helladic” pottery repertoire
such as sauceboats and askoi.40 Another pottery complex dating to the end of EH II, synchronous
with the House of Tiles at Lerna,41 comes from Romanos near Pylos in Messenia. This assemblage
comes from the fill of a well and consists of mostly entire vessels, some of them extraordinary
in size and shape; it is interpreted as the remnant of a special consumption practice, namely the
deposition of pottery in the frame of communal feasting.42 This pottery shows a high degree of
standardisation and specialisation, is almost exclusively made from local clay resources, and
stands in the local potting traditions; although some pots have strong affinities to the Attic-Cy-
cladic and northeastern Peloponnesian pottery traditions. Interestingly, even at Romanos, which
is situated far away from the areas characterised by Anatolianising pottery, a rotating device was
used for the production of shallow conical saucers.43 In contrast to the Aegean islands and the
eastern Greek mainland, EM IIB Crete is not part of the Anatolianising pottery exchange network.
It appears that only the Cretan Vasiliki Ware found in Akrotiri indicates a continuous contact of
Crete with the southern Aegean.44 On Crete itself, the dense network of pottery exchange con-
tinues, although there is a shift towards products from eastern Crete, indicating a change in the
mechanisms of interaction.45
37
Kouka – Menelaou, this volume.
38
Maran 1998.
39
Müller Celka et al., this volume.
40
Berger, this volume.
41
Wiencke 2000, 596.
42
Rambach, this volume.
43
Kordatzaki et al., this volume.
44
Nikolakopoulou et al. 2008, 313.
45
See Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume.
Embedding the Conference Outcome into the Early Bronze Age
Based on our current knowledge of the organisation of cemeteries and settlements46, small to
medium scale community groups, probably connected to family groups, formed the foundations
of Early Bronze Age societies around 3000 BC.47 As seen generally in the results of ceramic pe-
trographic analyses, production from the very beginning of the Bronze Age ceramic onwards was
widespread and located close to sites. However, production strategies varied from small-scale to
less common extensive production.48
According to typological studies, networks of interaction between the villages produced re-
gional pottery styles.49 In addition, production areas had a range of distribution patterns, some of
which were based on local consumption whilst others had products circulating in a larger area.
Generally speaking, imports of pottery are rare between 3000 and 2600 BC (EB I/1) in western
Anatolia and the Aegean, and most probably found their way via communication networks built
upon affiliations of communities.50 Furthermore, the exchange of goods in ceramic containers
appears only rarely during these centuries. These exchange patterns changed during EB II, when
imports of transport jars became more common,51 pointing to an intensified exchange of goods
most probably based on a more stratified and economically differentiated society.
In Cycladic cemeteries, specific sets of pottery vessels are connected to graves as burial goods
from EB I onwards.52 The Kampos group in particular allows us to observe an expansion of these
standardised sets of burial goods in graves as far away as Crete. Locally produced pottery was
probably linked with the high mobility of distinct groups within the larger Aegean, and suggests
ties of communities creating specific burial rituals and sharing perceived value of certain pottery
vessels.53 The situation in western Anatolia during the 3rd millennium BC was different, and stan-
dardisation in pottery burial goods can be seen, for example, in the Yortan graveyard.54 Patterns
within the various western Anatolian regions seem to have differed in terms of scales of connec-
tivity. Whereas the central sites such as Troy or Liman Tepe are highly connected with the Aegean
as well as inland Anatolia and beyond, the Bakırçay Valley (Pergamon) appears mostly isolated
in this aspect.
From the later EB I (2900–2700 BC) onwards a collective consumption of drinks and food
becomes common, and is visible in standardised serving, eating and drinking sets in western
Anatolia and the Aegean. This process is observable by the emergence of uniform vessel shapes
and related technological features, such as surface treatment. The EB I chalices or pedestalled
bowls, which are common in the northern and central Aegean as well as on Crete, contained liquid
for more than one person and point to their importance in social events.55 In contrast to the local
production and consumption of chalices in the Aegean, the large, red-fired chalices, so-called
fruitstands (i.e. pedestalled bowls) common in the northeastern Peloponnese, were produced in
the Argolid, and also circulated in neighbouring regions, such as the Corinthia.56 Therefore their
46
Pullen 1985, 145–146, 370–371; Maran 1998, 226–227; Triantaphyllou 2001, 22–25.
47
Pullen 1985, 259–263; Harrison 1995; For a more recent review of Cretan Early Bronze Age society see Schoep –
Tomkins 2012, 12–16; for social structures in EBA 1 western Anatolia including potential transformations see for
example Kouka 2002; Ivanova 2013; Horejs – Mehofer 2014; Horejs 2016; Horejs – Schwall 2018; Schwall 2018.
48
49
Gosselin 2000, 193–210.
50
For a possible kinship organisation of settlements, comprising several islands, in the Cyclades see Broodbank 2000,
86–87.
51
Wilson 1994, 40, 42–43; Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume; Burke et al., this volume.
52
Doumas 1977; Rambach 2000.
53
Papadatos – Nodarou, this volume; for the connection of pottery to burial rituals see Soles 1992, 247–251.
54
Bittel 1939–1941; Orthmann 1966; Kâmil 1982; Seeher 1991.
55
Day – Wilson 2004, 55, 59.
56
Pullen 2011, 95.
use in both regions underlines the shared dining practices of the emerging elites of this period.57
Comparable patterns are probably detectable in western Anatolia as well, but require further de-
tailed analyses. The evidence of huge shallow bowls with highly polished surfaces across the
region from at least 3000 BC onwards might represent a similar pattern.58
The typological evidence in EB II demonstrates a shared dining repertoire between communi-
ties all over the Aegean, based on individual eating and drinking vessels. Saucers and sauceboats
were common in the entire area of the Greek mainland and the Aegean (including the western
Anatolian coastal zones), and are rarely found on Crete.59 In late EB II, the appearance of an
Anatolianising dining set partly replaces these and indicates an intensification of mobility from
western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands and spreading over the coastal Aegean.60 On
Crete, individual dining vessel sets consisting of goblets and plates are common.61 Use contexts
including storage62 and deposition63 of standardised dining sets indicate shared dining practices
and an intensification of social activities. Furthermore, such shared dining practices should be
interpreted as part of the social language of emerging elite groups within a hierarchical system, as
also seen in settlement architecture.64 Imports of eating and drinking vessels point to the impor-
tance of such communal meetings for inter-settlement communication.65
Acknowledgements: The conference was funded by the Austrian Science Fund projects P 24798-G18, Y 528 and
P 25825 as well as by the ERC project 263339. The texts were edited by Stephanie Emra, Kelly Gillikin, Guy Kiddey,
Jessica Whalen, Roderick B. Salisbury, and Clare Burke, the layout has been prepared by María Antonia Negrete
Martínez; we warmly thank all of them. Thanks to the publication coordination by Ulrike Schuh, the proceedings were
published within due time. We are grateful to all contributors to the conference and to this volume, which transformed
the challenging idea of a broad contextualisation of manifold scientific results of ceramic analyses into reality.
References
Alram-Stern forthcoming (a)

E. Alram-Stern, The network of the Kampos group. Crete in context, in: 11ο Διεθνές Κρητολογικό Συνέδριο, Ρέθυμνο,
21/27 Οκτωβρίου 2011 (forthcoming).
Alram-Stern forthcoming (b)

E. Alram-Stern, Social and economic networks. Their emergence at the dawn of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, in:
W. Gauß (ed.), Forschungen zur Frühägäischen Archäologie 2011. Frühbronzezeitliche Handels- und Fernverbindun-
gen (forthcoming).
Bernabò-Brea 1964
L. Bernabò-Brea, Poliochni. Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos I (Rome 1964).
Bernabò-Brea 1976
L. Bernabò-Brea, Poliochni. Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos II (Rome 1976).
57
Haggis 1997; Day – Wilson 2004, 55.
58
Blegen et al. 1950 (Troy); Sharp Joukowsky 1986 (Aphrodisias); Lloyd – Mellaart 1962 (Beycesultan); Hood 1981;
Hood 1982 (Emporio); Bernabò-Brea 1964; Bernabò-Brea 1976; Doumas – Angelopoulou 1997; Cultraro 2004
(Poliochni); Lamb 1936 (Thermi); Efe 1988; Seeher 1987 (Demircihüyük); Eslick 2009 (Elmalı-Karataş); Kâmil
1982 (Yortan).
59
Because of such widespread phenomena, this period has been called ‘the time of the International Spirit’ by C. Ren-
frew (Renfrew 1972, 170–185).
60
Maran 1998, 432–433.
61
Day – Wilson 2004, 55.
62
Wiencke 2000, 235–236.
63
Rambach, this volume.
64
For a chiefdom hierarchy see Pullen 1985, 10–14; Renfrew 1991, 46–48; Wiencke 2000, 503–505, 649–652.
65
Alram-Stern, this volume; Burke, this volume.
Bittel 1939–1941
K. Bittel, Ein Gräberfeld der Yortan-Kultur bei Babaköy, Archiv für Orientforschung 13, 1939–1941, 1–31.
Blegen et al. 1950

C. W. Blegen – J. L. Caskey – M. Rawson – J. Sperling, Troy I. General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements
(Princeton 1950).
Brodie et al. 2008

N. Brodie – J. Doole – G. Gavalas – C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon / Ορίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cy-
clades, McDonald Institute Monographs (Cambridge 2008).
Broodbank 2000
C. Broodbank, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge 2000).
Cultraro 2004
M. Cultraro, Island isolation and cultural interaction in the EBA northern Aegean. A case study from Poliochni (Lem-
nos), Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 4, 1, 2004, 19–34.
Daszkiewicz – Schneider 2001

M. Daszkiewicz – G. Schneider, Klassifizierung von Keramik durch Nachbrennen von Scherben, Zeitschrift für
Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 58, 2001, 25–31.
Day – Wilson 2004

P. Day – D. Wilson, Ceramic change and the practice of eating and drinking in Early Bronze Age Crete, in: P. Halstead
– C. J. Barrett (eds.), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5
(Oxford 2005) 45–62.
Day et al. 2012

P. M. Day – A. Hein – L. Joyner – V. Kilikoglou – E. Kiriatzi – A. Tsolakidou – D. E. Wilson, Appendix a. Petrographic
and chemical analysis of the pottery, in: C. Davaras – P. P. Betancourt (eds.), The Hagia Photia Cemetery II. The Pot-
tery, Prehistory Monographs 34 (Philadelphia 2012) 115–138.
Dobres – Hoffman 1994

M.-A. Dobres – C. R. Hoffman, Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology, Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 1, 3, 1994, 211–258.
Doumas 1977
Ch. Doumas, Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 48 (Göteborg
1977).
Doumas – Angelopoulou 1997

Χ. Γ. Ντούμας – A. Αγγελοπούλου, Οι βασικοί κεραμεικοί τύποι της Πολιόχνης και η διάδοσή τους στο Αιγαίο κατά
την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού, in: C. G. Doumas – V. La Rosa (eds.), Η Πολιόχνη και ή Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού
στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο. Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αθήνα, 22–25 Απριλίου 1996 / Poliochni e l’antica età del bronzo nell’Egeo
settentrionale. Convegno Internazionale Atene, 22–25 Aprile 1996 (Athens 1997) 543–555.
Efe 1988
T. Efe, Demirciküyük III,2. Die Keramik 2. C. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik der jüngeren Phasen (ab Phase H)
(Mainz 1988).
Eslick 2009
Ch. Eslick, Elmalı-Karataş V. The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Karataş: Habitation Deposits (Bryn Mawr 2009).
Friedman 2001
E. S. Friedman, Anatolian metallic ware. A third millennium BC ceramic phenomenon, in: I. C. Druc (ed.), Archaeol-
ogy and Clays (Oxford 2001) 17–26.
Gosselain 2000
O. P. Gosselain, Materializing identities. An African perspective, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 3,
2000, 187–217.
Haggis 1997
D. Haggis, The typology of the Early Minoan I chalice and the cultural implications of form and style in Early Bronze
Age ceramics, in: R. Laffineur – P. P. Betancourt (eds.), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th Interantional Aegean conference / 6e Rencontre égéenne internationale,
Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16 (Liège 1997) 291–299.
Harrison 1995
S. Harrison, Domestic architecture in Early Helladic II. Some observations on the form of non-monumental houses,
Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 1995, 23–40.
Hood 1981
S. Hood, Excavations in Chios 1938–1955, Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala I, The British School at Athens, Sup-
plementary 15 (Athens 1981).
Hood 1982
S. Hood, Excavations in Chios 1938–1955, Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala II, The British School at Athens, Sup-
plementary 16 (Athens 1982).
Horejs – Mehofer 2014

B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21‒24 November,
2012, Oriental and European Archaeology 1 (Vienna 2014).
Horejs – Schwall 2018

B. Horejs – Ch. Schwall, Interaction as a stimulus? Çukuriçi Höyük and the transition from the Late Chalcolithic period
to the Early Bronze Age in western Anatolia, in: S. Dietz – F. Mavridis – Ž. Tankosić – T. Takaoğlu (eds.), Communities
in Transition. The Circum-Aegean Area in the 5th and 4th Millennia BC. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens
20 (Oxford 2018) 530–537.
Horejs 2016
B. Horejs, Neue Gewichtssysteme und metallurgischer Aufschwung im frühen 3. Jahrtausend – ein Zufall?, in: M. Bar-
telheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine
Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka, Oriental and European Archaeology 3 (Rahden/Westf. 2016) 251–272.
Ivanova 2013
M. Ivanova, Domestic architecture in the Early Bronze Age of western Anatolia. The row-houses of Troy I, Anatolian
Studies 63, 2013, 17–33.
Kâmil 1982
T. Kâmil, Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia (Oxford 1982).
Kouka 2002
O. Kouka, Siedlungsorganisation in der Nord- und Ostägäis während der Frühbronzezeit (3. Jt. v. Chr.), Internationale
Archäologie 58 (Rahden 2002).
Lamb 1936
W. Lamb, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge 1936).
Lemonnier 1993
P. Lemonnier, Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic (London, New York
1993).
Lloyd – Mellaart 1962

S. Lloyd – J. Mellaart, Beycesultan I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels, Occasional Publications of the
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 6 (Ankara 1962).
Manning 1995
S. W. Manning, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History,
Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 1 (Sheffield 1995).
Manning 2008
S. W. Manning, Some initial wobbly steps towards a Late Neolithic to Early Bronze III radiocarbon chronology for the
Cyclades, in: Brodie et al. 2008, 55–59.
Maran 1998
J. Maran, Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Studien zu
den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen sowie östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kup-
fer- und der frühen Bronzezeit, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 53 (Bonn 1998).
Mommsen 2007
H. Mommsen, Tonmasse und Keramik. Herkunftsbestimmung durch Spurenanalyse, in: G. Wagner (ed.), Einführung
in die Archäometrie (Berlin 2007) 179–192.
Mommsen et al. 1991

H. Mommsen – A. Kreuser – E. Lewandowski – J. Weber, Provenancing of pottery. A status report on neutron ac-
tivation analysis and classification, in: M. Hughes – M. Cowell – D. Hook (eds.), Neutron Activation and Plasma
Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology. Techniques and Applications, British Museum Occasional Paper
82 (London 1991) 57–65.
Nikolakopoulou et al. 2008

I. Nikolakopoulou – F. Georma – A. Moschou – P. Sofianou, Trapped in the middle. New stratigraphic and ceramic
evidence from Middle Cycladic Akrotiri, Thera, in: Brodie et al. 2008, 311–324.
Orthmann 1966
W. Orthmann, Keramik der Yortankultur in den Berliner Museen, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16, 1966, 1–29.
Pantelidou Gofa 2008

M. Pantelidou Gofa, The EH I deposit pit at Tsepi, Marathon. Features, formation and the breakage of the finds, in:
Brodie et al. 2008, 281–289.
Pullen 1985
D. J. Pullen, Social Organization in Early Bronze Age Greece. A Multidimensional Approach (PhD Diss., Indiana
University, Bloomington 1985).
Pullen 2011
D. J. Pullen, Redistribution in Aegean palatial societies. Before the palaces. Redistribution and chiefdoms in mainland
Greece, American Journal of Archaeology 115, 2, 2011, 185–195.
Rambach 2000
J. Rambach, Kykladen II. Die frühe Bronzezeit. Frühbronzezeitliche Beigabensittenkreise auf den Kykladen. Relative
Chronologie und Verbreitung, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes
34 (Bonn 2000).
Renfrew 1972
C. Renfrew, The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC (London
1972).
Renfrew 1991
C. Renfrew, The Cycladic Spirit. Masterpieces from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collection (London 1991).
Rice 1987
P. M. Rice, Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook (Chicago 1987).
Riemer 1997
H. Riemer, Form und Funktion. Zur systematischen Aufnahme und vergleichenden Analyse prähistorischer Gefäß-
keramik, Archäologische Informationen 20, 1, 1997, 117–131.
Schwall 2018
Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostagäis, Oriental and
European Archaeology 7 (Vienna 2018).
Seeher 1987
J. Seeher, Demircihüyük III, 1. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978 (Mainz 1987).
Seeher 1991
J. Seeher, Die Nekropole von Demircihüyük-Sarıket. Grabungskampagne 1990, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 41, 1991,
97–119.
Sharp Joukowsky 1986

M. Sharp Joukowsky, Prehistoric Aphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies. Archaeologia
Transatlantica III (Providence 1986).
Soles 1992
J. S. Soles, Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete, Hesperia Sup-
plement 24 (Princeton 1992).
Triantaphyllou 2001
S. Triantaphyllou, A Bioarchaeological Approach to Prehistoric Cemetery Populations from Central and Western Greek
Macedonia, British Archaeological Reports International Series 976 (Oxford 2001).
Tuba Ökse 2011

A. Tuba Ökse, The Early Bronze Age in southeastern Anatolia, in: S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000–323 B.C.E. (Oxford 2011) 260–289.
Tzedakis et al. 2008

Y. Tzedakis – H. Martlew – M. K. Jones, Archaeology Meets Science. Biomolecular Investigations in Bronze Age
Greece. The Primary Scientific Evidence (Oxford 2008).
Weninger – Easton 2014

B. Weninger – D. Easton, The Early Bronze Age chronology of Troy (periods I‒III). Pottery seriation, radiocarbon dat-
ing and the gap, in: B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia Before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millen-
nium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria,
21‒24 November, 2012 (Vienna 2014) 157–202.
Wilson 1994
D. Wilson, Knossos before the palaces. An overview of the Early Bronze Age (EM I–III), in: D. Evely – H. Hughes-
Brock – N. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood (Oxford,
Bloomington 1994) 23–44.
Whitbread 2001
I. K. Whitbread, Ceramic petrology, clay geochemistry and ceramic production – from technology to the mind of the
potter, in: D. R. Brothwell – A. M. Pollard (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences (Wiley 2001) 449–458.
Wiencke 2000
M. H. Wiencke, The Architecture, Stratification, and Pottery of Lerna III, Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid.
Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens IV (Princeton, New Jersey
2000).
Anatolia & Eastern Aegean
Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon:
A Model for Pottery Production in the 3rd Millennium BC
Barbara Horejs1 – Sarah Japp2 – Hans Mommsen3
Abstract: Surveys have revealed new insight into the prehistory of western Anatolia at the Bakırçay Valley and its hin-
terland. These surveys, conducted between 2008 and 2014, have at the outset focussed on the prehistory of the region,
which has long been overshadowed by the famed ancient city of Pergamon that dominates the landscape and regional
scholarship. This contribution presents the first results of archaeometric pottery studies and also a preliminary model
for pottery production in the early 3rd millennium BC. From its typology, and also a macroscopic examination of wares
and fabrics, this collection of pottery from the Early Bronze Age (EBA) is rather homogenous. However analysis of the
material by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) reveals that the material may have originated from different sources.
Altogether 112 prehistoric pottery fragments stemming from 12 sites in the area surrounding Pergamon were examined
by Neutron Activation Analysis, of which 48 can be dated to the Early Bronze Age. These are presented in detail. The
analysis reveals that prehistoric pottery workshops in the region of Pergamon operated over an extended period and
used the same clay sources and/or the same clay recipes. However it also appears that some workshops were only active
during a specific period. Presumably these workshops did not trade their products over vast distances, but satisfied local
needs. Imports are hardly detectable in the Early Bronze Age pottery of the Bakırçay Valley, which fits into the overall
social and economic picture of this micro-region during the 3rd millennium BC.
Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Bakırçay Valley, pottery production, NAA, Pergamon, archaeometry
Introduction
The prehistoric period has never been the focus of research in the area of the famed city of Per-
gamon, including the greater Kaykos or Bakırçay Valley. Aside from day-trips by W. Dörpfeld
in 1908 and K. Bittel in the 1940s,4 our information about the prehistory of the region is largely
based on a single survey conducted by J. Driehaus and published as an article in 1957.5 The glory
of Hellenistic Pergamon seems to have captured the attention of all archaeological research in
this area over the past 50 years, and as a result the prehistory of this part of western Anatolia has
remained almost completely unknown. It is this deficiency that forms the starting point of our
archaeological and environmental survey, which incorporates a broad spectrum of archaeological,
archaeometric, and geoarchaeological analyses to examine old finds alongside new material and
new sites. The aim of this project is to examine (1) settlement in the area and how it changed over
time, (2) the environmental conditions in the valley and at the coast, (3) access to raw materials
and their use in combination with potential sources in the region, and (4) how the region was
integrated into the wider Aegean-Anatolian world. To date, the project has focused on the earliest
permanent settlements in the region, including site clustering, the intensity of habitation, and how
the settlement pattern has shifted over time. Investigations conducted between 2008 and 2014
have included archaeological surveys (intensive and extensive), geophysical prospection, and
1
Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences; barbara.horejs@oeaw.ac.at.
2
c/o Pergamongrabung, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut; sarah.japp@dainst.de.
3
Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Universität Bonn; mommsen@hiskp.uni-bonn.de.
4
Dörpfeld 1908; Dörpfeld – Hepding 1910; Bittel 1950.
5
Driehaus 1957.
26 Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen
geoarchaeological analyses (drilling and source analysis).6 This contribution presents one aspect
of EBA settlement and communities in the Bakırçay Valley along with an archaeometric analysis
of pottery in the region, including old and new assemblages.
The Environmental and Archaeological Context
The Bakırçay (Kaykos) River is the defining feature of this micro-region, as demonstrated by the
results of palaeogeographic investigations.7 Most of the settlements in the valley are located at the
edge of the flood plain, at natural elevations or in the immediate coastal zone of the bay (Fig. 1).
Presumably, regular flooding did not allow using the plain for purposes such as transport, mean-
ing also that cultivation or pastoralism could only have taken place at the edge of the plain and
at the transition zone to the adjacent ridges.8 However the exceptional location of Yeni Yeldeğir-
mentepe in the middle of the flood plain suggests a certain stability in the river’s course and water
level, at least from the Late Chalcolithic through the Early Bronze Age (4th–3rd millennium BC).
Spatial analysis of the character of the landscape in the Gümüşova Valley by D. Knitter using
fuzzy logic and environmental data in a GIS demonstrated the limited extent of potential agri-
cultural space.9 Various natural resources were exploited by communities in the region, including
cherts, radiolarite, and flints (for knapped stone tools),10 serpentinite and basalt (for ground stone
tools), andesite (for grinding stones), and clay (for spindle whorls and pottery). Some of these
local sources have been identified by the geological investigations of D. Wolf, including a basalt
source at Erigöl Tepe in the middle Bakırçay Valley, cherts and flints in various areas, as well as
clay sources.11 Exotic raw materials, including obsidian, are thus far completely absent during the
EBA.12 Only two metal objects dating to this period have been recovered in the valley; they are
made of arsenical copper and from Mehofer’s analyses probably derive from regional western
Anatolian copper deposits.13
Altogether nine archaeological sites dating to the Early Bronze Age (EBA 1) or the Late Chal-
colithic–Early Bronze Age 1 transition have been identified (Fig. 1). Four are situated at the Ae-
gean coast (Başantepe, Üyücektepe, Psaltıderesi Höyük, and Elaia), two sites are located in the
lower Bakırçay Valley (Çiftlik and Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe), and three sites have been identified at
the edge of the Yunt Mountain along small river valleys (Gavur Evleri, Üveçiktepe, Bağlı Tepe).
The sites are interpreted as settlements based upon a variety of indicators (collected domestic
materials, geophysics, architectural remains at the surface, drillings, etc.), although to what extent
they were occupied on a permanent or seasonal basis cannot be determined with certainty. The
sites are assigned to this period on the basis of pottery studies, argued elsewhere in detail.14 Due
to the lack of excavated sites in the Bakırçay Valley, this pottery chronology is dependent on the
excavated material of key sites in the broader region such as Thermi, Troy, Yortan, Liman Tepe,
Bakla Tepe, Çukuriçi Höyük, and Beycesultan,15 to mention only a few. These studies provide a
6
For annual reports see Horejs 2010b; Horejs 2011a; Horejs 2012; Horejs 2013; Horejs 2014b; Horejs 2015; Horejs
et al. 2016.
7
Seeliger et al. 2011; Schneider et al. 2012; for the Gümüşova Valley see Horejs 2015.
8
For detailed results see also Horejs 2010a; Horejs 2014c.
9
Horejs 2014b, 110–111, figs. 32–34.
10
Horejs 2015, 145.
11
Horejs 2013, 207.
12
Knitter et al. 2013.
13
Horejs 2014c, 115, fig. 6; Mehofer in preparation.
14
E.g. Horejs 2014c.
15
Lamb 1936; Bittel 1939–1941; Kâmil 1982; Korfmann 2001; Kouka 2002; Erkanal 2008a; Erkanal 2008b; Ünlüsoy
2008; Horejs et al. 2011.
Early Bronze Age Pottery Workshops Around Pergamon 27
Fig. 1 Prehistoric sites in the Bakırçay Valley based on the Prehistoric Survey Project (map by DAI Pergamon and
ERC Prehistoric Anatolia/M. Börner)
detailed chronology of all catalogued sites for the first centuries of the 3rd millennium BC, defined
as EBA 1 from the radiocarbon-based sequences at Çukuriçi IV–III and Troy I.16
The EBA Pottery Assemblage

Pottery comprises the foremost category of finds recovered from our surveys and also from for-
mer investigations in the region. All this material is kept at the Pergamon depot. This pottery has
been studied in all its conventional aspects such as shape, type, and measurements to develop a
regional typology. From a total of 648 diagnostic ceramics, 198 pieces can be dated to the EBA
or to the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the EBA. The statistical averages are, in general,
distorted because of selection and storage practices employed in the first of half of the 20th centu-
ry. In addition, our recent surveys had to follow selection strategies in the field. Comprehensive
statistical analyses are only possible with material from sites that have been intensively surveyed
(e.g. Yeni Yeldeğirmentepe or Değirmentepe).17 In spite of these difficulties, the assemblage of
16
Horejs – Weninger 2016.
17
E.g. Horejs 2012.
28 Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen
around 200 diagnostic ceramics dated to the late 4th and 3rd millennia BC allow some general re-
marks on pottery from the period.
First, the entire sample of ceramics is handmade. The typical domestic assemblage is com-
posed of shallow bowls with open or carinated mouth (inverted or regularly rounded rims and
horizontal tubular lugs), deep bowls with slightly curved or vertical body, necked jars, jugs, nar-
row-mouthed vessels, s-shaped jars, tripod cooking pots, and probably also pithoi18 (Pls. 1–6).
The majority of fine to medium wares are fine-burnished or polished with dense and usually plain
and often shiny surfaces. A few tablewares are decorated with incised linear motifs, comparable to
Troy I and Çukuriçi IV. Fine to medium wares mostly feature dark-coloured surfaces (grey, dark
brown, black) with light breaks (red, orange, brown), whereas the majority of medium to coarse
wares are entirely brown or red without slip (Plate 7). Coarse wares are frequently smoothed or
medium- to coarsely-burnished, sometimes decorated with small vertical knobs.19 In addition, all
sherds have been defined macroscopically to categorise ware groups and to systematically define
the technological properties of ceramics in the valley. Macroscopic classifications of hardness,
porosity, break, colour, temper, and surface treatment have allowed us to delineate a local system
of pottery ware groups (Plate 7).20 This analytical tool has been used to assess the ceramic assem-
blages at various sites, including Çukuriçi Höyük in the neighbouring region.21 From these stu-
dies, samples were selected for further archaeometric analysis. In the course of examining early
pottery production in the environs of Pergamon, an archaeological-archaeometric project on the
prehistoric pottery was initiated and conducted by S. Japp and H. Mommsen.22
Provenancing and Neutron Activation Analyses (NAA) of Pottery and Data Evaluation
For discerning pottery production sites on the basis of pottery from archaeological surveys or ex-
cavations, a well-established and widely accepted method is analysing the elemental composition
of the clay. The principles of this method have been described many times23 and are only briefly
summarised here. This method is more robust if more elements are included in the analysis, espe-
cially if the number of experimental uncertainties (formerly called experimental errors) is rather
low. The aim is to define the composition of the clay or clays used in the production workshop,
which are generally different for different sites or regions and thus point to the place of origin of
the clay. From its comparison to a human fingerprint, the method has also been called, ‘chemical
fingerprinting’.
Firing does not change the elemental composition of a ceramic object, except for some volatile
elements such as or Br. Thus the pattern that is measured corresponds to the composition of the
clay paste prepared by the ancient potter. The length of time during which the object has remained
buried also does not alter the composition, aside from specific elements like Ca, which may be
leached or deposited particularly at the surface layers, or Ba, which is sometimes introduced into
the ground by the use of fertilisers. Also the alkali elements Na, K, Rb, and sometimes Cs can
be affected.24 If, at a single workshop, different clay pastes were prepared, and adjustments in
preparation affected several elements of the production process, or if different clays were mixed
18
The majority of pithoi seem to date to the 2nd millennium BC, but a few examples might be dated to the EBA.
19
For more details see Horejs 2010a.
20
Horejs et al. 2010c.
21
See Röcklinger – Horejs, this volume.
22
This project was part of the archaeological-archaeometric analysis of pottery excavated in Pergamon and its sur-
roundings that was set up within the framework of the scientific program of the Pergamon Excavation of the Ger-
man Archaeological Institute: see Pirson 2008, 141–142. The results of the first two sample sessions of Hellenistic
and Roman pottery have already been published in Japp 2009; Mommsen – Japp 2009; Schneider – Japp 2009.
23
Perlman – Asaro 1969; Harbottle 1976; Wilson 1978; Mommsen 1986; Mommsen 2007.
24
Schwedt et al. 2006; Schwedt – Mommsen 2007.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“You go down to your tea and leave her ladyship’s looks alone. I
don’t know what you’re doing hanging about this landing at such an
hour of the day.”
Payne was an old servant in the Wynyard family, and he was aware
it had been generally said that “Master Owen had the looks and Miss
Leila the brains.” Master Owen was always a wild, harum-scarum
young fellow, and it wasn’t at all unlikely that he had got into one of
his scrapes. With this conviction implanted in his mind, Payne
deliberately descended the stairs, issued an edict to one of the
footmen, and retired into his lair and the evening paper.
CHAPTER II
BROTHER AND SISTER
“Well,” began Lady Kesters, as the door closed, “I suppose you

have seen him?”
“I have very much seen him,” replied her brother, who had thrown
himself into a chair; “I did a sprint across the park, because I know
your ladyship cannot bear to be kept waiting. Everything must be
done to the minute in this establishment.”
“Yes,” she agreed; “and you come from a country where time is no
object—everything is for ‘To-morrow.’ Now, tell me about Uncle
Richard. Was he furious?”
“No; I believe I would have got off better if he had been in a rage. He
received me in a ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ frame of mind, spoke
as deliberately as if he had written his speech, and learnt it by heart;
he meant every word he said.”
“I doubt it,” said his sister, who had been filling the teapot, and now
closed the lid with a decisive snap. “Let me hear all you can
remember.”
“He said he had done his best for me since I was a kid—his only
brother’s son and his heir,—that he had sent me to Eton——”
“As if you didn’t know that!” she interrupted.
“Engineered me into the Service——”
“Yes, yes, yes!” with a wave of her hand. “Tell me something new.”
“He says that he is sick of me and my failures—is that new?”
“What does he propose?” asked Lady Kesters.
“He proposes that, for a change, I should try and get along by
myself, and no longer hang on to other people.”
“Well, there is some sense in that.”
“He says that if I continue as I’ve begun, I’ll develop into the awful
loafer who haunts men’s clubs, trying to borrow half a sov. from old
pals, and worrying them with begging letters.”
“A pretty future for you, Owen!”
“He swears I must work for my living and earn my daily bread; and
that, if, for two years from now, I can maintain myself honourably in
this country or the Continent—Asia, Africa, and America are barred
—and neither get into debt, prison, or any matrimonial entanglement
——” he paused for a moment to laugh.
“Yes, yes,” said his sister impatiently; “and if you comply with all
these conditions?”
“He will reinstate me, put me into Wynyard to take the place of his
agent, and give me a handsome screw. But if I play the fool, he takes
his solemn oath he will leave everything he possesses to a hospital,
and all I shall come in for will be the bare estate, an empty house,
and an empty title—and that he hopes to keep me out of for the next
thirty years!”
“No doubt he will,” agreed his sister; “we are—bar accidents—a
long-lived stock.”
“He also said that he was only fifty-six; he might marry; a Lady
Wynyard——”
“No fear of that,” she interposed; “the old servants will never permit
it, and never receive her. But how are you to earn your living and
your daily bread?”
“That, he declares, is entirely my affair. Of course he doesn’t expect
much from a wooden-headed duffer like me; he knows I’ve no
brains, and no, what he calls ‘initiative or push.’ He doesn’t care a
rap if I sweep a crossing or a chimney, as long as I am able to
maintain myself, become independent, and learn to walk alone.”
“So that is Uncle Richard’s programme!” said Lady Kesters
reflectively. “Now, let’s have some tea,” and she proceeded to pour it
out. “The little cakes are cold and stodgy, but try these sandwiches.
Martin is away to-night—he had to go to a big meeting in Leeds, and
won’t be home. I shall send for your things. I suppose you are at
your old quarters in Ryder Street?”
“Yes; they have been awfully decent to me, and kept my belongings
when I was away.”
“And you must come here for a week, and we will think out some
scheme. I wish you could stay on and make your home here. But
you know Martin has the same sort of ideas as Uncle Richard; he
began, when he was eighteen, on a pound a week, and made his
own way, and thinks every young man should do the same.”
“I agree with him there—though it may sound funny to hear me say
so, Sis. I hope you don’t imagine I’ve come back to loaf; I shall be
only too glad to be on my own.”
“I suppose you have no money at all?” she inquired, as she
replenished his teacup.
“I have fifteen pounds, if you call that nothing, all my London kit, a
pair of guns, and a gold watch.”
“But what brought you back so suddenly? You did not half explain to
me this morning, when you tumbled from the skies.”
“Well, you see,” he began, as he rose and put down his cup, “the
Estancia I was on was of the wrong sort, as it happened, and a
rotten bad one. Uncle Richard was tremendously keen to deport me,
and he took hold of the first thing he heard of, some crazy advice
from a blithering old club fogey who did not know a blessed thing
about the country. The Valencia Estancia, a horse-breeding one, was
far away inland—not one of those nearer Buenos Ayres and
civilisation,—it belonged to a native. The proprietor, Vincino, was
paralysed from a bad fall, and the place was run by a ruffian called
Murcia. I did not mind roughing it; it’s a splendid climate, and I liked
the life itself well enough. I got my fill of riding, and a little shooting—
duck, and a sort of partridge—and I appreciated the freedom from
the tall hat and visiting card.”
“You never used many of those!” she interposed.
“No. From the first I never could stand Murcia; he was such an oily
scoundrel, and an awful liar; so mean and treacherous and cruel,
both to men and animals. He drank a lot of that frightfully strong spirit
that’s made out there—fermented cane—and sometimes he was
stark mad, knocking the servants and the peons about; and as to the
horses, he was a fiend to them. He killed lots of the poor brutes by
way of training; lassoed them—and broke their hearts. It made my
blood boil, and, as much as I could, I took over the breaking-in
business. When I used to jaw him and remonstrate, it made him wild,
and he always had his knife into me on the sly.”
“How?”
“The stiffest jobs, the longest days, the largest herds, were naturally
for the English ‘Gringo.’”
“What is that?”
“A dog. He never called it to my face—he was too much of the cur—
but we had several shakes up, and the last was final. One afternoon
I caught him half-killing a wretched woman that he said had been
stealing coffee. It was pay-day, all the employés, to a man and child,
were assembled in the patio—you know what that is? An enclosed
courtyard with the house round it. This was a grand old dilapidated
Spanish Estancia, with a fine entrance of great iron gates. It was a
warm, still sort of afternoon. As I cantered across the campo I heard
harrowing shrieks, and, when I rode in, I soon saw what was up!
Murcia, crazy with drink, was holding a wretched creature by her hair
and belabouring her with a cattle-whip, whilst the crowd looked on,
and no one stirred a finger.”
“You did?” leaning forward eagerly.
“Rather! I shouted to him to hold hard, and he only cursed; so I
jumped off the horse and went for him straight. He dropped his victim
and tried to lay on to me with the whip; but the boot was on the other
leg, and I let him have it, I can tell you. It was not a matter of fists,
but flogging. My blood was up, and I scourged that blackguard with
all my soul and all my strength. He ran round and round the patio
yelling, whilst the crowd grinned and approved. I settled some of
Murcia’s scores on the spot and paid for many blows and outrages!
In the end he collapsed in the dust, grovelling at my feet, blubbering
and groaning, ‘a worm and no man.’ I think that’s in the Bible. Yes, I
gave that hulking, drunken brute a thrashing that he will never forget
—and those who saw it won’t forget it either. Naturally, after such a
performance I had to clear. You may do a lot of things out there; you
may even shoot a man, but you must never lay hands on an
overseer; so I made tracks at once, without pay, bonus, character, or
anything except the adoration of the employés, my clothes, and a
few pounds. Murcia would have run me in, only he would have
shown up badly about the woman. Well, I came down country in a
cattle-train, and found I was just short of coin to pay my way home.”
Leila stared into the fire in silence; her warm imagination transported
her to the scene her brother had described. She, too, was on the
campo, and heard the cries of the woman; she saw the Englishman
gallop through the gates, saw the cowardly crowd, the maddened
ruffian, the victim, and the punishment!
“But what did you do with your salary?” she asked, after an
expressively long pause; “surely you had no way of spending it?”
“That’s true. As I was to have a bonus, you know, on the year, my
salary was small, and I got rid of it easily enough.”
“Cards!” she supplemented; “oh, of course. My dear Owen, I’m afraid
you are hopeless!”
“Yes, I suppose it’s hereditary! After the day’s work there was
nothing to do. All the other chaps gambled, and I could not stand
with my hands in my pockets looking on; so I learnt the good old
native game of ‘Truco,’ but I had no luck—and lost my dollars.”
“And after your arrival at Buenos Ayres in the cattle-train, what
happened?”
“Well, naturally, I had no spare cash to spend in that little Paris: the
Calle Florida, and the Café Florian, and Palermo Park, saw nothing
of me, much less the magnificent Jockey Club. I searched about for
a cast home! I was determined to get back to the Old Country, for I
knew I’d do no good out there—I mean in Buenos Ayres; so I went
down to the Digue, where the big liners lie, and cadged for a job. I
believe they are pretty sick of chaps asking for a lift home, and I had
some difficulty in getting a berth; but, after waiting several days, I got
hold of a captain to listen to me. I offered to stoke.”
“Owen!”
“Yes; but he said, ‘You look like a stoker, don’t you? Why, you’re a
gentleman! You couldn’t stand the engine-room for an hour.
However, as I see you are not proud and they are short of hands in
the stewards’ pantry, they might take you on to wash plates.’”
Lady Kesters made no remark; her expression was sufficiently
eloquent.
“‘All right,’ I agreed, ‘I’ll do my little best.’ So I was made over to the
head steward. We carried a full number of passengers that trip, and,
when one of the saloon waiters fell sick, I was promoted into his
place, as I was clean and civil. Needless to say, I was thankful to get
away from the horrors of greasy plates and the fag of cleaning
knives. I can wait pretty well, the ladies liked me—yes, and I liked
them—and when we docked at Southampton yesterday, Owen, as
they called me, received nearly six pounds in tips, not to speak of a
steamer chair and a white umbrella!”
As he concluded, he walked over to the fire and stood with his back
to it. His sister surveyed him reflectively; she was thinking how
impossible it was to realise that her well-bred, smart-looking brother,
in his admirably cut clothes, and air of easy self-possession, had,
within twenty-four hours, been a steward at the beck and call of the
passengers on a liner. However, all she said was—
“So at any rate you have made a start, and begun to earn money
already.”
“Oh, that’s nothing new. I was never quite broke;” and, diving into his
pocket, he produced a little parcel, which he tossed into her lap.
“For me?”
“For who else?”
He watched her attentively as she untied the narrow bit of red and
yellow ribbon, unfolded a flat box, and discovered a beautiful plaque
or clasp in old Spanish paste. The design was exquisite, and the
ornament flashed like a coruscation of Brazilian diamonds.
“Oh, Owen, how perfect!” she gasped; “but how dare you? It must
have cost a fortune—as much as your passage money,” and she
looked up at him interrogatively.
“Never mind; it was a bargain. I picked it up in a queer, poky little
shop, and it’s real old, old Spanish—time of Ferdinand and Isabella
they said—and I felt I’d like to take something home to you; it will
look jolly well on black, eh?”
“Do you know it’s just the sort of thing that I have been aching to
possess,” she said, now holding it against her gown. “If you had
searched for a year you couldn’t have given me anything I liked so
much—so beautiful in itself, so rare and ancient, and so uncommon
that not one of my dear friends can copy it. Oh, it’s a treasure”—
standing up to look at her reflection as she held the jewel against her
bodice—“but all the same, it was wicked of you to buy it!”
“There are only the two of us, Sis, and why shouldn’t I give myself
that pleasure?”
“What a pretty speech!” and she patted his arm approvingly.
At this moment Payne entered, salver in hand.
“A telegram for you, my lady.”
“Oh,” picking it up, and tearing it open, “it’s from Martin. He is
detained till Saturday—three whole days;” then, turning to the butler,
she said, “You can take away the tea-table.”
As soon as the tea-things were removed, and Payne and his satellite
had departed, Lady Kesters produced a gold case, selected a
cigarette, settled herself comfortably in a corner of the sofa, and said
—
“Now, Owen, light up, and let us have a pow-wow! Have you any
plan in your head?”
“No,” he answered, “I’m afraid my head is, as usual, pretty empty,
and of course this ultimatum of Uncle Richard’s has been a bit of a
facer; I was in hopes he’d give me another chance.”
“What sort of chance?”
“Something in South Africa.”
“Something in South Africa has been the will-o’-the-wisp that has
ruined lots of young men,” she said; “you would do no good there, O.
You haven’t enough push, originality, or cheek; I believe you would
find yourself a tram conductor in Cape Town.”
“Then what about India? I might get a billet on some tea estate—yes
—and some shooting as well!”
“Tea-planters’ assistants, as far as I can gather, don’t have much
time for shooting. There is the tea-picking to look after, and the
coolies to overseer in all weathers. I believe the work in the rains is
awful and the pay is poor—you’d be much more likely to get fever
than shooting. Have you any other scheme?”
She glanced at her brother, who was lying back in an arm-chair, his
hands clasped behind his head, his eyes fixed on the fire. Yes, Owen
was undeniably good to look at, with his clean-shaven, clear-cut
face, well-knit figure, and length of limb. He shook his head, but after
a moment said—
“Now let us have your ideas, Sis. You are always a sure draw!”
“What about matrimony?” she asked composedly, and without
raising her eyes.
He turned and surveyed her with a stare of ironical amusement.
“On the principle that what is not enough for one will support two—
eh?”
“How can you be so silly! I don’t mean love in a cottage; I’m thinking
of an heiress. There are several, so to speak, on the market, and I
believe I could marry you off remarkably well, if you were not too
critical; there is Miss Goldberger—a really good sort—enormously
rich, an orphan, and hideous to the verge of fascination. She is in the
racing set—and——”
“No, thank you, Sis,” he broke in; “I’d rather drive a ’bus or motor any
day than live on my wife’s fortune. If I married one of your rich
friends I should hate it, and I guarantee that she’d soon hate me;
anyway, I’m not keen on getting married. So, as the young men in
shops say, ‘and the next article, please?’”
“Of course I know I need not again waste my breath talking to you of
business. Martin got you a capital opening in Mincing Lane, and you
threw it up; he’d taken a lot of trouble, and he is rather sore about it
still. He fancies you look down on the City.”
“I? He never made a greater mistake! The City would soon look
down on me. I’m no good at figures; I’ve no business ability or smart
alacrity. If I had not taken myself off, I’d soon have been chucked
out; besides, I never could stick in an office all day from ten to six. I’d
much rather wash plates! I want something that will keep me in the
open air all the time, rain or shine; and if I had to do with horses, so
much the better. How about a place as groom—a breaker-in of
young hunters?”
“Not to be thought of!” she answered curtly.
“No?” then drawing out another cigarette, “do you know, I’ve half a
mind to enlist. You see, I know something of soldiering—and I like it.
I’d soon get my stripes, and for choice I’d pick the ‘Death and Glory
Boys.’”
“Yes; you may like soldiering as an officer, with a fair allowance, a
couple of hunters, and polo ponies; but I’m not sure that Trooper
Wynyard would care for stables, besides his drill and work, and I
may be wrong, but I think you have a couple of troop horses to do
up.”
“Oh, I could manage all right! I’m rather handy with horses, though I
must confess the bronchos I’ve been riding lately did not get much
grooming.”
“No, no, Owen, I’m dead against enlisting, remember that,” she said
authoritatively. “I shall go and interview Uncle Richard to-morrow
morning, and have a tooth-and-nail combat on your behalf, find out if
he means to stick to his intention, or if I can’t persuade him to give
you a job on the estate, say as assistant agent, that would suit you?”
“You’re awfully clever, Sis,” said the young man, now rising and
leaning against the chimneypiece, “and in every respect the head of
the family. It’s downright wonderful how successfully you manage
other people’s affairs, and give one a push here and a hand there. I
am aware that you have immense and far-reaching—er—influence.
You have been the making of Kesters.”
His sister dismissed the statement with an impatient jerk of her
cigarette.
“Oh yes, you have,” he went on doggedly. “He was formerly a
common or garden wealthy man, whose daytime was divided
between meals and business; now he’s a K.C.B., sits on all sorts of
boards, has a fine place in the country, shoots a bit, is a Deputy-
Lieutenant, and I don’t know what all—and you’ve done it! But there
is one person you cannot manage or move, and that is Uncle
Richard; he is like a stone figure that all the wind and sun and rain
may beat on, and he never turns a hair.”
“How you do mix your metaphors!” she exclaimed; “who ever saw a
stone image with hair upon it! Well,” rising to stand beside him, “I
shall see what I can do in the morning. Now, let us put the whole
thing out of our heads and have a jolly evening. Shall we go to a
theatre? I suppose you’ve not been inside one since you were last in
town?”
“Oh yes, I was at theatres in Buenos Ayres, the Theatre Doria, a sort
of music hall, where I saw some ripping dancing.”
“I’ll telephone for stalls at something. You may as well have all the
fun you can before you start off to plough your lonely furrow.”
“It’s awfully good of you, Sis. I’m a frightful nuisance to the family—
something between a bad penny and a black sheep!”
“No, Owen, you know perfectly well you are neither,” she protested,
as she lit another cigarette. “You mentioned just now there are only
the two of us, and it would be rather strange if we did not stick by
one another. And there is this to be said, that although you’ve been
wild and extravagant, and your gambling and practical joking were
shocking, all the time you remain a gentleman; and there are two
things in your favour—you don’t drink——”
“No, thank God!” he responded, with emphasis.
“As far as I know you have never been mixed up with women—eh,
Owen?” and she looked at him steadily.
“No. To tell you the truth, I give them a wide berth. I’ve seen some
pretty awful affairs they had a hand in. To be candid, I’m a little shy
of your sex.”
“That is funny, Owen,” she replied, “considering it was on account of
a woman you have just been thrown out of a job.”
“You could hardly expect a man to stand by and see a brute like
Murcia knocking a poor creature about—half-killing her—and never
interfere!”
“No, of course; but you must not make the mistake of being too
chivalrous—chivalry is costly—and it is my opinion that it has cost
you a good deal already. That detestable de Montfort was not the
first who let you in, or persuaded you to pull his chestnuts out of the
fire. Come now, own up—confess to the others.”
“No—no”—and he smiled—he had a charming smile—“there is such
a thing as honour among thieves.”
“That’s all very noble and generous, my dear brother, but some of
the thieves were not honourable.”
Her dear brother made no reply; he was staring fixedly into the fire
and thinking of Hugo de Montfort. How little had he imagined, when
he backed Hugo’s bill, that the scribbling of his signature would
make such an awful change in his own life!
Hugo and he had been at Eton in the same house; they had fagged
together, sat side by side in chapel, and frequently shared the same
scrapes. Later they had lost sight of one another, as Owen had
struggled into the Service and gone out to India. Some years later,
when stationed at the depôt, he and de Montfort had come across
one another once more.
Hugo de Montfort was a self-possessed young man, with sleek black
hair and a pair of curiously unreadable grey eyes: an idler about
town—clever, crafty, unscrupulous, and much given to cards and
racing.
He welcomed his old pal Wynyard with enthusiasm—and secretly
marked him for his own. Wynyard—so said report—was a nailing
rider, a good sort, popular, and known to be the nephew and heir of a
rich, unmarried uncle; so he played the rôle of old schoolfellow and
best pal for all it was worth.
The plausible, insidious scoundrel, who lived by his wits, was on his
last legs—though he kept the fact a secret—was seen everywhere,
carried a bold front, and owned a magnificent 60 h.p. motor, which
was useful in more ways than one. He was staying at the Métropôle
at Folkestone, and, struck by a bright idea—so he declared—
motored over to Canterbury one fine Sunday morning, and carried
off his friend to lunch.
As they sat smoking and discussing recent race meetings, weights,
and jockeys, de Montfort suddenly put down his cigar and said—
“I say, look here, Owen, old man. I’m in rather a tight fix this week. I
want two thousand to square a bookie—and, like the real sporting
chap you are—will you back my name on a bill?”
Owen’s expression became unusually grave; backing a bill was an
iniquity hitherto unknown to him. Uncle Dick had recently paid up
handsomely, and he had given certain promises; and, indeed, had
curtailed his expenses, sold two of his ponies, and had made up his
mind to keep strictly within his allowance.
“Of course it’s a mere form,” pursued de Montfort, in his swaggering,
off-hand way, “I swear to you. Do you think I’d ask you, if it was not
safe as a church! I’ll have the coin in a fortnight; but just at the
moment I’m terribly short, and you know yourself what racing debts
mean. So I come to you, my old pal, before any one; you are such a
rare, good, generous, open-handed sort! Don’t for a moment
suppose that you will be responsible,” declared this liar; “I’ll take up
the bill when it falls due; I’d as soon let in my own mother as a pal
like you.”
In short, Hugo was so urgent and so plausible, that his victim was
persuaded and carried away by eloquence and old memories,
accompanied de Montfort to a writing-table, where he signed O. St.
J. Wynyard—and repented himself before his signature had been
blotted!
Two days later Owen received a beautiful silver cigarette-case,
inscribed, as a token of friendship from de Montfort, and this was
succeeded by an alarming silence. When the time approached for
the bill to fall due, Wynyard wrote anxious epistles to his old
schoolfellow—who appeared to be one of the crowd who believe that
letters answer themselves! Then he went up to town and sought him
at his rooms and club; no one could give him any tidings of Hugo
beyond the fact that he was abroad—a wide and unsatisfactory
address. He sent distracted telegrams to some of the runaway’s
former haunts; there was no reply. The fatal day arrived, and Owen
was compelled to interview his uncle and make a clean breast of the
whole business; and his uncle was furious to the verge of apoplexy.
“They used to say,” he shouted, “put the fool of the family into the
army; but my fool shall not remain in the Service! I’ll pay up the two
thousand you’ve been robbed of for the sake of my name—and out
you go! Send in your papers to-day!”
Lady Kesters was contemplating her face in the overmantle, which

also reflected her brother’s unusually grave visage.
“Owen,” she said, “what a pity it is that I hadn’t your looks and you
my brains.”
They presented a contrast, as they examined one another in the
glass. The woman’s dark, irregular face, her keen, concentrated
expression; the man with clear-cut features, sleepy, deep-set grey
eyes, and close-cropped light brown hair.
“I think you are all right as you are, Sis,” he remarked, after a
reflective pause.
“But you are not,” she snapped. “Now, if you had my head. Oh, how I
long to be a man! I’d have gone into Parliament. I’d have helped to
manage the affairs of a nation instead of the affairs of a family. I’d
have worked and slaved and made myself a name—yes, and gone
far!”
“What’s the good of going far?” he asked, in a lazy voice.
“Ah,” she exclaimed, with a touch of passion, “you have no ambition;
you don’t even know what the word means! Look at the men in the
Commons, who have worked themselves up from nothing to be
powers in the land, whose influence is far-reaching, whose voices
are heard at the ends of the earth. What would be your ambition,
come now?” and she surveyed him with sparkling eyes.
“Certainly not to go into Parliament,” he answered, “and sit in the
worst atmosphere in London for eight months of the year.”
“Well, at least it’s an electrical atmosphere, charged with vitality! And
your ambition?” she persisted.
“To win the Grand National, riding my own horse, since you must
know.”
“Pooh!” she exclaimed, snapping her fingers with a gesture of scorn,
“and what a paltry aim!—the yells of a raving mob, a ‘para’ in the
papers, and the chance of breaking your neck.”
“Better than breaking something else! I’m told that a political career,
with its incessant work, crushing disappointments, worry, and fag,
has broken many a fellow’s heart.”
“Heart! Nonsense; I don’t believe you have one. Well, now, as we
are dining early, you had better see about your things from Ryder
Street, and I will go and ’phone for stalls for The Giddy Girl.”
CHAPTER III
THE LAST WORD GOES BEGGING
Sir Richard Wynyard, aged fifty-six, was a little, grey, square-

shouldered man, with a good heart and bad temper. His father, the
notorious Sir Fulke, had put his two sons into the army, given them
small and irregularly paid allowances, and then abandoned them to
their own devices, whilst he squandered the family patrimony on
horses and cards. When Richard, his heir, was quartered in Dublin,
he fell desperately in love with a beautiful Irish girl; but, painfully
aware of his own empty purse, he was too prudent to marry—unlike
his reckless younger brother, who adventured a runaway match on a
captain’s pay and debts. Major Wynyard made no sign, much as this
silence cost him, and when, after his father’s death, he had at last a
roof to offer—Wynyard, a stately old place, although somewhat
dismantled—he sought his lady-love in haste, but, alas! he was
months too late; she had already been summoned to another home,
—the beautiful Rose O’Hara, his heart’s desire, was dead.
This was said to have been Sir Richard’s sole love-affair, and the
one grief of his life. The late baronet’s reckless extravagance had
shattered the fortunes of his descendants; his heir found himself
compelled to let the land, close the Hall, sell off the horses, and take
up his abode with his mother in the town house in Queen’s Gate;
where he lived and how, was indifferent to him, he seemed to have
no heart for anything. This was attributed to his supreme disgust at
inheriting such a legacy of debt; but the real truth was that the loss of
the beautiful Rose had temporarily stunned her lover.
Lady Wynyard, once a celebrated beauty, was now a weak and
withered old dowager, tyrannically ruled by her servants. When she,
too, was carried to the ancestral vault, her son still remained in the
gloomy family abode, and, more from apathy than anything else, fell
under the thrall of her retainers.
Between his father’s and his mother’s debts, Sir Richard found
himself sorely pressed, and he took Martin Kesters, his schoolfellow
and friend, into his confidence.
“I shall be a crippled man all my life,” he declared; “it will take years
to nurse the property into anything like what it was in my
grandfather’s day; and, by that time, that young chap, Owen, will
step into my shoes.”
“Well, Dick, if you don’t mind a bit of risk,” said his companion, “I
know a thing that will set you on your legs and make your fortune;
but it’s not absolutely certain. Still, if it comes off, you get five
hundred per cent. for your money, and become a semi-millionaire.
It’s an Australian gold-mine, and I believe it’s going to boom!”
“Anything is better than this half-and-half existence,” said Sir Richard
impatiently. “You have a long head, Martin, and I’ll take your tip and
put on all I can scrape. I’ll mortgage some outlying land, sell some of
the good pictures and the library, and be either a man or a mouse.
For once in my life I’ll do a big gamble. If I win, you say it’s a big
thing; if I lose, it means a few hundreds a year and a bedroom near
my club for the rest of my days. I take no middle course—I’ll be a
rich man or a pauper.”
And Sir Richard was as good as his word; he scraped up fifteen
thousand pounds, staked the whole sum on his venture—and won.
Subsequently, he cleared the property, invested in some securities,
began to feel at ease in the world, and travelled widely. Having
known the pinch and humiliation of genteel poverty and practised
stern self-denial in his youth, Sir Richard was naturally the last man
to have any sympathy with a nephew—a restless, reckless scatter-
brain—who was following in the footsteps of his squandering
forefathers. The good-looking young scapegrace must have a sharp
lesson, and learn the value of money and independence.
Lady Kesters’ promised interview with her uncle took place. He was
fond of Leila in his own brusque fashion, and secretly plumed himself
on having manœuvred her marriage.
“Well, Leila, I suppose you have come about this precious brother of
yours?” he began, as she was ushered into the smoking-room.
“Of course I have, Uncle Dick,” she replied, as she imprinted a kiss
upon his cheek and swept into a chair. “Something must be done!”
and she looked at him with speculative eagerness.
“There I agree with you,” he answered. “And Owen is the man to do
it. God helps those who help themselves!”
“Owen is most anxious to make another start; but it is not easy for a
soldier man, brought up as he has been.”
“Brought up as a rich man’s heir,” broke in her uncle, with a quick,
impatient movement; “more fool the rich man! I gave the fellow a
good education, good allowance, good send-off. I got him into his
father’s old regiment, and made him a decent allowance; he did fairly
well in India, I admit; but as soon as he came home to the depôt, he
seemed to have lost his head. Why, I believe the young scamp
actually kept racers, and as for his hunters, I never saw finer cattle in
my life! One day, when I happened to run down to Canterbury to visit
him, I noticed a servant exercising a couple of horses—such a pair! I
was bound to stop and admire them, and the groom informed me
that they belonged to Lieutenant Wynyard of the Red Hussars; and
Mr. Wynyard’s uncle hadn’t as much as a donkey to his name!”
“But could have thousands if he chose,” interposed Leila. “As for
racing, it was only his hunters Owen put into regimental
steeplechases and that sort of thing.”
“And that sort of thing came devilish expensive!” snapped Sir
Richard, who was now pacing the room. “I had to pay his debts. I
paid them twice, and he promised on his word of honour to turn over
a new leaf. The next thing he did was to back a bill for an infernal
young swindler, and let me in for two thousand pounds—that was the
last straw!”
“Yes, I know it was,” assented his niece; “but really, Uncle Dick,
Owen was not so much to blame as you believe. He was very steady
out in India for four years; coming home, as you say, went to his
head; he did not realise that money does not go nearly as far here—
especially in an expensive cavalry regiment. He kept polo ponies
and racing ponies in Lucknow, and could not understand that he
could not do the same at home. As to the bill, he is not suspicious, or
sharp at reading character, and is staunch to old friends—or those
he mistakes for friends—as in the case of young de Montfort. He had
never heard what a ‘wrong un’ he turned out; they were at Eton——”
“Yes, I know—same house—same puppy-hole!” growled her uncle.
“And when Mr. de Montfort looked up Owen and told him a pathetic
and plausible tale about his affairs, and swore on his word of honour
that his signature was a mere formality—and——”
“Cleared off to Spain and left me to pay!” interposed Sir Richard,
coming to a halt.
“Owen had to pay too,” retorted his sister, with a touch of bitterness.
“You mean that I made him leave the Service? Yes, I could not afford
to go on supporting an extravagant young ass.”
“Owen is not brilliant, Uncle Dick, but he is no fool.”
“A fool and another man’s money are soon parted. Life was made
too easy for the chap—very different to what I found it at his age. I
had no hunters, no dozens of silk shirts, and rows of polo boots; I
never was to be met lounging down Piccadilly as if the whole earth
belonged to me.”
“Well, at least, Uncle Dick, you were never compelled to give up a
profession you adored, when you were barely five-and-twenty.”
“I’ve given up a lot,” he answered forcibly, “and when I was older
than him; but never mind me; we are talking of Owen. After leaving
the Hussars, Kesters took him on, and got him a capital billet in the
City—a nice soft berth, ten to four, but my gentleman could not stand
an office stool and tall hat, and in five months he had chucked——”
Leila nodded. It was impossible to deny this indictment.
“So then it was my turn again; and I thought a little touch of real work
would be good for the future Sir Owen Wynyard, and, after some
trouble, I heard of a likely opening in the Argentine on the Valencia
Estancia, well out of the way of towns and temptation—a horse-
breeding ranch, too. You see I studied the fellow’s tastes, eh?” And
Sir Richard twirled his eyeglasses by the string—a trick of his when
he considered that he had scored a point.
“I gave him his passage and outfit, and put a few hundreds into the
concern as a spec. and to insure him an interest, and within twelve
months here he is back again on my hands—the proverbial rolling
stone!” He cleared his throat, and continued: “Now, Leila, my girl,
you have a head on your shoulders, and you know that these rolling
stones find their way to the bottom, and I am going to block my
specimen in good time. I suppose he told you what I said to him
yesterday?”
“Yes; he came straight to Mount Street from seeing you.”
“He has got to shift for himself for two years, to earn his bread, with
or without butter, to guarantee that he does not take a penny he has
not worked for, that he does not get into debt or any matrimonial
engagement; should he marry a chorus-girl, by Jove I’ll burn down
Wynyard! If, by the end of that time, he turns up a steady,
industrious, independent member of society, I will make him my
agent—he shall have an adequate allowance, the house to live in,
and most of my money when I am dead!”
Lady Kesters was about to speak, but with a hasty gesture her uncle
interposed.
“I may as well add that I think myself safe in offering this prize, for it’s
my belief that Owen will never win it. He has the family fever in his
veins—the rage for gambling—and he is like the patriarch Reuben,
‘unstable as water and cannot excel.’ At the end of six months he will
be penniless, and you and Kesters will have to come to his rescue;
for my part I wash my hands of him.”
“Uncle Dick,” she said, rising, “I think you are too hard on Owen; he
would not have come back from South America if he had not had a
row with the manager of the Estancia: surely you could not expect an
English gentleman—an Englishman—to stand by and see a poor
woman nearly beaten to death?”

PDF Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between The Aegean and Anatolia During The 3Rd Millenium BC Eva Alram Stern Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between The Aegean and Anatolia During The 3Rd Millenium BC Eva Alram Stern Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural

Connections Between the Aegean and

The kingdom of Priam: Lesbos and the Troad between

Wittgenstein in the 1930s Between the Tractatus and the

Of Odysseys and Oddities Scales and Modes of

Forging Connections between Computational Mathematics

Environmental Planning for Oceans and Coasts Methods

Staging Death Funerary Performance Architecture and

Social Media and the Armed Forces Eva Moehlecke De

Warriors of Anatolia A Concise History of the Hittites

Oriental and European Archaeology

Series Editor: Barbara Horejs

Publications Coordinator: Ulrike Schuh

Pottery Technologies and

English language editing: Stephanie Emra, Kelly Gillikin, Guy Kiddey,

All rights reserved.

Preface by the Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Eva Alram-Stern – Barbara Horejs

Anatolia & Eastern Aegean

Barbara Horejs – Sarah Japp – Hans Mommsen

Maria Röcklinger – Barbara Horejs

John Gait – Noémi S. Müller – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Douglas Baird

Ourania Kouka – Sergios Menelaou

Sylvie Müller-Celka – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Xenia Charalambidou – Noémi S. Müller

Georgia Kordatzaki – Evangelia Kiriatzi – Jörg Rambach

Areti Pentedeka – Catherine Morgan – Andreas Sotiriou

Yiannis Papadatos – Eleni Nodarou

Vol. 1 B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation

Vol. 2 B. Eder – R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and

Vol. 8 W. Anderson – K. Hopper – A. Robinson (eds.), Landscape Archaeology in Southern

Vol. 9 St. Gimatzidis – M. Pieniążek – S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba (eds.), Archaeology Across

Eva Alram-Stern1 – Barbara Horejs2

Chronological and Geographical Framework

Production, Function and Chaîne Opératoire

Early Bronze Age I

I II early II late III IV

VIIa ? VI 1 (d-a) V 3-1 (b-a) IV 2 IV 1

nero azzurro (early-late) verde rosso giallo

LCh Heraion “earlier than Heraion I” I II III IV

Final EC IA EC IB Gap ? EC III

Pelos-Lakkoudes Panagia Kampos Chalandriani

FN EH I early EH I late EH II early EH II developed EH II late EH III

II IIIA IIIB IIIC IIID IV

I II Cer. Ph. B II Cer. Ph. C IV V

FN EM IA EM IB EM IIA EM IIB EM III

South Front Upper East Well

Aphrodite’s Kephali Poros Katsambas Myrtos I Myrtos II Palaikastro

Early Bronze Age II

Early Bronze Age II Late – III

Embedding the Conference Outcome into the Early Bronze Age

Alram-Stern forthcoming (a)

Alram-Stern forthcoming (b)

Blegen et al. 1950

Brodie et al. 2008

Daszkiewicz – Schneider 2001

Day – Wilson 2004

Day et al. 2012

Dobres – Hoffman 1994

Doumas – Angelopoulou 1997

Horejs – Mehofer 2014

Horejs – Schwall 2018

Lloyd – Mellaart 1962

Mommsen et al. 1991