integrating typological and physico-chemical ...

y

Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics BAR International Series 1011, 2002

INTEGRATING TYPOLOGICAL AND PHYSICO-CHEMICAL APPROACHES TO EXAMINE THE POTTER'S CHOICES: A CASE FROM BRONZE AGE HUNGARY KOSTALENA MICHELAKI1, LEAH MDSfC2 and JOHN O'SHEA1 1 Museum of Anthropology, University f Michigan, USA ~ Ford Nuclear Reactor, University of Michigan, USA In the last ten years the concept of technology as a "socio-technical" system has emerged again as a valid topic of anthropological inquiry, making archaeometric analyses central in archaeological methodology. In this paper we examine the ceramic technology of the Early Bronze Age Maros group using a variety of physico-chemical methods. We consider the basic stages of ceramic production and point out the decisions made by the Maros potters. Finally, we show that some of the Maros technical choices were affected by social rather than by environmental or mechanical considerations, as ceramics assumed an important role in the display of social inequality. KEYWORDS: CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY, OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE, ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS, SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, BRONZE AGE, HUNGARY, MAROS GROUP

INTRODUCTION

chemical methods played in our exploration of Maros ceramic technology. Finally, we show that some of the Maros technical choices were affected primarily by social rather than by environmental or mechanical considerations, as ceramics assumed a central role in the way the Maros people visibly expressed social inequality in their settlements.

The incorporation of archaeometric analyses in archaeological projects and monographs is not a new development in archaeology. Yet, for a long time their contribution remained underutilized by archaeologists. They were perceived as mere descriptive tools, foreign to anthropological theory, their results neatly tucked in the end of books and reports as appendices. However, in the last ten years, the concept of technology as a 'sociotechnical' system (Dietler and Herbich 1998; Dobres and Hoffinan 1994; Lemonnier 1992; Pfaffenberger 1988 and 1992; Stark 1998) has emerged again as a valid topic of anthropological inquiry. In this theoretical framework, which explores the social as well as the technical dimensions of technology, archaeologists can take advantage of the full potential of archaeometry in ceramic studies. Technological choices and the organization of production activities are indisputably material in character, but they are also intrinsically social phenomena. When we look in the archaeological record for vessel shapes, surface treatments and colors, clay inclusion kinds, amounts and sizes, and even trace element concentrations and the crystalline or glassy structure of clay samples, we are actually observing the results of social activities enacted and made meaningful by social agents. We are witnessing the outcome of a dialogue that weaves together a given environment, physics, chemistry, skill and knowledge, economics, politics, and social organization. In this paper, we contribute to the on-going investigation of the Early Bronze Age Maros group by examining their ceramic technology. We briefly consider the basic stages of ceramic production and point out the decisions made by the Maros potters, highlighting, at the same time, the central role that the integration of physico-

BACKGROUND The Maros villagers lived in the region of the TiszaMaros Angle in southeastern Hungary, northern Yugoslavia, and western Romania, between 2700 and 1650 BC cal., during the Early and Middle Bronze Age (O'Shea 1992). In the southern Great Hungarian Plain, they occupied low islands of dry land in the middle of a flood prone, marshy environment. After almost a century of excavations, at least five long-lived Maros settlements are known, along with seven cemeteries (Bona 1993, Kovacs 1977, 1988, O'Shea 1996, Soroceanu 1991) (Fig.l). The cemeteries have been more thoroughly studied and what is known about the Maros social organization comes from mortuary analysis (O'Shea 1996; 1998). While each Maros village was autonomous, without any evidence for any settlement hierarchy or overarching control, that autonomy was tempered with a strongly expressed regional identity, which, not only separated the Maros from the other Bronze Age groups of the Great Hungarian Plain, but which remained potent for nearly a millennium. On a finer scale, the household, envisioned as a simple extended family, appears to have been the central social unit for production and social display. It is estimated that between six to eight houses were occupied at any given time at each site, by a total of forty to sixty people. While hereditary and economic inequalities 313

K. Michelaki, L. Mine and J. O'Shea Element concentrations resulted from two separate irradiations, each followed by two counts of gamma activity. To determine the concentrations of the intermediate and long half-life elements, we encapsulated 200+ 10 mg of material in high-purity quartz vials and irradiated them (along with standards and checkstandards) for 20 hours in a core face location with an average flux of 4.2 x 1012 n/cm2/s. This was followed by a 5,000-second live-time count of gamma activity after a one week decay period, and a 10,0000-second count after a period of five weeks of decay. These two counts yielded information on the following elements: As, Ba, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, Mo, Nd, Ni, Rb, Sc, Sr, Ta, Tb, Th, U, Yb, Zn, and Zr. To check for short half-life elements, we encapsulated 200 + 10 mg of sample material in polyethelene vials, and delivered them via pneumatic tube to a location with an average flux rate of 2.13 x 1012 n/cm2/s for a one minute irradiation. Again, we made two separate counts, one after a thirteen minute decay and a second count after a one hour and 56 minute decay; both were for 500-seconds real-time. These two counts yielded information on the concentrations of Al, Ca, Ti, V, and Dy, K, Mn, Na respectively. We determined element concentrations through the direct comparison method, using three replicates of the standard reference material NIST 1633a (coal fly ash) as the standards. NIST 1633b (coal fly ash) and NIST 688 (basalt rock) served as check standards. At Kiszombor, daub (n=6) differs from pottery (n=33) in its nearly ten-fold elevation of calcium concentrations (mean of 11.3% vs. 1.3%, respectively). The high calcium results from naturally occurring shell fragments in the wetland clays that were used for house construction. In contrast, these calcium-rich clays were avoided in the selection of raw materials for ceramic vessels. The high calcium levels effectively dilute the absolute concentrations of many other elements in the daub; however, element ratios indicate that the ceramics are generally similar in composition to the daub samples, and thus indicate use of local clays (Fig. 3a). Multivariate analysis of all reported elements reveals that the bulk of the Kiszombor ceramic samples represent a single compositional group, presumably representing local clay procurement and ceramic production (Fig. 3b). At Klarafalva, the daub (n=7) and pottery (n=50) show strongly overlapping distributions in their elemental concentrations (Fig. 3c). However, the daub is substantially more variable than is the pottery, again suggesting that villagers were more discerning in their selection of pottery clays than clays used for plaster. Within the ceramics, two closely linked compositional groups can be identified, based on minor differences in cesium and some first series transitions metals (iron, scandium, and chromium) (Fig. 3d). These two groups appear as part of a larger compositional continuum and are about equally abundant in the sample. It is thus probable that they both represent local clay sources. However, these subtle differences between ceramic groups suggest that potters identified and consistently

existed, evidence for major social distance between the members of a community is absent. CERAMICS Ceramics are the most common artifact, found both in settlements and cemeteries. Complete vessels from funerary contexts have received considerable attention, as they were used in typologies that provided various schemes for the internal chronology of the Maros (Bona 1975; Foltiny 1941) (Fig. 2). Our project focused on domestic ceramics from the settlements of Kiszombor-UjElet and Klarafalva-Hajdova. Both sites were excavated during the summers of 1987-1989 in a collaborative project lead by J. O'Shea, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, and F. Horvath, Mora Ferenc Muzeum, Szeged, Hungary. Kiszombor represents the Early Maros Phase, from 2700 to 2000 BC cal., and Klarafalva the Late Maros Phase, from 2000-1650 BC cal. (O'Shea 1992). As is commonly the case with settlement collections, only a very small number of complete vessels were preserved (Kiszombor: n=7; Klarafalva: n=13) (Fig. 5ab). The majority of our sample was comprised of sherds (Kiszombor: n=l,500; Klarafalva: n=3,049), and these were of a rather small size. Both our theory and the nature of our sample indicated from the beginning that we should go beyond the consideration of individual vessels and attempt to recover the entire production process. Archaeometric analyses provided the means for our examination of the decisions the Maros potters made in selecting their raw materials, forming, finishing, and firing their vessels. CLAY SOURCES In the southern Great Hungarian Plain, local clay minerals available for the manufacture of pottery result from the weathering and fluvial redeposition of loessian sediments, followed by further in situ development, typically in a wetland environment. A regional XRD analysis of clay minerals in Hungary (Stefanovits 1985) indicates that the clays of the Tisza-Maros angle can be classified as smectites (i.e. montmorillonites), clays chiefly formed by alteration of basic rocks and minerals high in calcium, magnesium, and iron. We submitted a total sample of 96 clay artifacts from Kiszombor and Klarafalva to the Phoenix Memorial Laboratory at the University of Michigan for traceelement analysis through INAA. Samples included both pottery and fragments of daub or house plaster. If we can assume that village inhabitants would not have traveled far to acquire the large quantities of clay needed to construct their homes, nor have spent much effort in refining this clay material, the composition of daub can be held as representative of local, raw clays.

314

Examine the Potter's Choices: A Case from Bronze Age Hungary utilized several distinct clay mines as their preferred raw material sources for ceramic clays.

CLAY INCLUSIONS Dr. J. Stoltman undertook the petrographic analysis of all the samples. His data further supported the idea that the Maros ceramics appear quite uniform in composition. Analysis of 22 samples from Kiszombor and 23 from Klarafalva revealed that overall sherd composition was 80-89% matrix (including clay and silt size fraction), 15% natural sand inclusions, and 5-19% temper (Stoltman n.d.; for the protocol of his procedures see Stoltman 1989 and 1991). The clays were naturally fine, and the only temper added to them was ceramic grog. Considering the marshy environment, and the complete lack of mineral sources in the region, this is not surprising. Petrographic analysis however, also revealed a particularly interesting pattern. In Kiszombor the size of the grog was distributed bimodally (Fig. 4a). This was not the case in Klarafalva (Fig. 4b). This suggests either that the potters, after they crushed sherds to create grog, separated the temper into two sizes, or that sherds were consciously crushed into two discreet sizes. Interestingly enough, the potters used the smaller size for the thinner vessels and the larger size for the thicker vessels. In Klarafalva, this step of separating the grog into sizes was eliminated. The range of grog sizes is the same as in Kiszombor, which means that sherds were crushed in the same way, but afterwards the sizes were not sorted. Instead, the data suggest that in Klarafalva it was the amount of the temper that was bimodally distributed (Fig. 4c-d). Behaviorally, this may suggest the introduction of some relatively standardized measurement scale, such as "a handful". Varying the amount of temper in the Late Maros Klarafalva may actually have been a compensation for not sorting the temper in sizes. A larger sample will help clarify the pattern. VESSEL FORMING All the vessels from Kiszombor and Klarafalva were built by one of the following methods: coiling, slab building, and/or pinching. Coiling was the most common method and evidence for it comes in many forms (Fig. 5c-d). Slab building was mainly used for larger vessels (Fig. 5e), and pinching for smaller vessels, bowls, and dishes (Fig. 5f). The scraping-off of excess clay followed the forming of each vessel and scraping marks are still evident on a large number of sherds. In many cases, however, these marks have been obliterated by the subsequent treatment of the vessel's surfaces. The surfaces of the Maros vessels were either smoothed, roughened (Fig. 6a), or burnished (Fig. 6b). In some cases potters combined two treatments (Fig. 6c). While the roughened and the combination surfaces continued to exist throughout the Maros sequence, their percentage fell from 26% in the Early Maros Kiszombor to less than 2% in the Late Maros 315

Klarafalva. Burnished surfaces replaced the roughened ones, so that 90% of the Klarafalva assemblage is burnished. In terms of decoration, the majority of Early Maros phase vessels were undecorated. In the Late phase the proportion of decorated vessels increased dramatically, as did the amount of decoration on each vessel (Fig. 2). What remained the same from one phase to the next were the kinds of decorative methods the potters used. Those included impressed, punctuated, engraved, incised, and applied techniques. There were no vessels with painted decoration of any kind.

FIRING METHODS In considering firing methods we will address briefly two issues: 1) the firing temperature, and 2) the firing atmosphere. We used Scanning Electron Microscopy to determine tlie firing temperatures for sherds from Kiszombor (n=5) and Klarafalva (n=5), since work by Maniatis and Tite (1981) and Tite et al. (1982) has established a connection between certain temperature ranges and changes in the microstructure of ceramics. We analyzed all the samples using a Hitachi S-3200 N SEM, attached to a NORAN Energy Dispersive System, with a silicon detector for qualitative and semi-quantitative chemical analysis, at the Electron Microprobe Analysis Laboratory of the University of Michigan. The analytical conditions were 15 kV and a low vacuum of 10 Pa, since the material was highly porous. Back Scattered Electron Images were used, because chemical information obtained by the differences in contrast between minerals were sought. The following major and minor elements were sought, along with their oxides (the sum of the oxides was normalized to 100%): Al, Si, Fe, Ca, K, Na, Mg, and Ti. A major concern was to determine whether the clays were calcareous or not. None of the samples examined showed any vitrification. Accordingly, we inferred temperatures below 800° C, supporting previously existing relevant data by Maniatis and Tite (1981) and Morariu et al. (1991). We undertook X-ray diffraction analysis of the same samples at the facilities of the X-ray diffraction laboratory at the Geology Department of the University of Michigan, using a Scintag, XI Advanced Diffraction System powder diffractometer controlled by a personal computer, with analytical conditions of Maximum Tube Voltage= 35.0 kV and Maximum Tube Current= 20.0 mA. The results further supported the evidence for low firing temperatures, by showing no glassy background noise. Furthermore, we re-fired 60 samples from Kiszombor and 121 from Klarafalva in a muffle kiln at the Geology Department of the University of Michigan, under oxidizing conditions. During the re-firing tests it became evident that by 1070° C the sherds had swollen dramatically (Fig. 6d). This suggests that local clays might have not been able to handle high temperatures

K. Michelaki, L. Mine and J. O'Shea without deforming. Were the Maros potters aware of this? It is certainly hard to imagine that they would have never had a firing accident that would have made the point obvious. At the same time, there is also evidence from both Kiszombor and Klarafalva for copper smelting. We have slags and crucibles and the clay tips of bellows. To melt copper one needs at least 1083° C (Tylecote 1976, 168). Evidently, somebody on the site could achieve that high temperature, and the clay crucibles and tuyeres could withstand it-since they are not deformed. We have not yet completed analyses of the crucibles and tuyeres, but we expect that they will differ in their manufacture from the rest of the Maros pottery. Nevertheless, at least in the context of metal production, the Maros potters subjected their ceramic vessels to high temperatures, and they must have dealt with the problem. It appears therefore, that the potters chose to fire their household ceramics at below 800° C, not only because that temperature was giving them efficient pots, but also possibly because they also knew that, without alterations in their paste recipes, high temperatures would produce undesirable results. The atmosphere in which the majority of the Maros vessels were fired does not seem to have been a major concern for the potters. Rapid firing under primarily oxidizing conditions characterizes most of the Kiszombor and Klarafalva assemblages, while a substantial number of vessels had been fired under mixed, or rapidly alternating conditions. This evidence, along with the common appearance of fire-clouds suggests that vessels were fired without kilns, probably in open fires. Only a very small percentage of sherds show evidence for firing under consistent atmospheric conditions. Of those, most had beQn consistently reduced. At the same time, fire-clouds are not very common among these sherds. This is particularly interesting in light of the statistically significant correlation of reduced firing and burnished surfaces. In comparison to smoothing, or roughening—the other common Maros surface treatments-burnishing is more labor intensive. Similarly, a consistent atmosphere requires more tending of the fire, and the lower instance of fire-clouds indicate greater care in the placement of the fuel as well. In other words, it seems that the burnished-gray vessels in the settlements are the most labor intensive to produce. Previously, when Maros ceramics were known exclusively from cemeteries they were described in general as "burnished and gray" (Giric 1971, 201 and 1984, 47). Examination of the settlement ceramic assemblages shows that this picture is not accurate. In the settlements the vast majority of sherds have oxidizedorange surfaces and many are not burnished. Nevertheless, combining the settlement information that the burnished-gray vessels are the most labor intensive to produce, with the fact that these same vessels are dominant in cemeteries, we feel confident to claim that these were the Maros fine ware: burnished and carefully and intentionally reduced.

SUMMARY Overall, both uniformity and variability seem to characterize the Maros pottery production sequence and ceramic vessels. Uniformity can be seen in the use of common clays and tempers, common forming and decorative techniques, and in a shared understanding of firing methods. The limited raw material choices provided to the potters by the local environment can explain to a large degree the uniformity in raw materials. The small size of the local communities makes it very possible that knowledge of resources, methods, and properties were broadly distributed and shared among households, further explaining the overall technological and morphological uniformity. On the other hand, there is distinct variability in the way that this broadly shared technological knowledge of raw material preparation, vessel formation, and firing is implemented in order to produce roughly similar products. This pattern suggests that the Maros ceramic vessels were most probably the products of many individual potters. Finally, labor investment in the production of Maros pottery was relatively low. There is no evidence for wheels, molds, kilns or any kind of centralized production facilities. However, while labor investment remained low throughout the Maros sequence, marked changes occurred from the Early to the Late Maros phase. In the Late Maros phase, less time and energy were devoted to the early stages of the pottery production sequence—that is to say to the raw material preparation. The focus shifted to the later stages of the process, to vessel formation and firing. DISCUSSION The previous analysis brings forward the realization that the Maros potters were rather skillful, in the sense that they had control over the outcome of the various production sequence steps. They were knowledgeable of many important mechanical relationships and knew how to manipulate their raw materials and techniques to achieve desirable results. They knew not to fire their vessels at high temperatures to keep them permeable and far from deforming; they knew how to make uniformly gray vessels for their fine ware. Knowing that the potters had a certain control over the technology of their craft, it follows that, at some level, their decisions and choices were conscious. In mis respect, what they chose to change or to keep unaltered becomes meaningful. Some of the choices of the Maros potters were undeniably constrained by their natural environment. Their choice of low firing temperatures was probably constrained by their clays, which could deform badly in high temperatures, and even possibly by the lack of appropriate fuel. Their choice of ceramic grog was to a certain extent constrained by the lack of mineral resources suitable for use as temper. Other choices were influenced by the physical and mechanical properties of clays and the 316

Examine the Potter's Choices: A Case from Bronze Age Hungary desire to make efficient vessels for various uses. For example, the combination of large grog sizes with roughened vessel surfaces for cooking ware in Kiszombor was probably aimed at improving the thermal shock resistance properties of those vessels. Certain choices, however, are hard to interpret as the result of environmental or physico-chemical constraints. As mentioned earlier, in the Late Maros phase less time and energy were devoted to the early stages of pottery production. The step of temper sorting was eliminated and replaced by manipulation of the temper amount, possibly in standardized units. At the same time, we encounter less forming mistakes, more gray highly burnished ceramics, and more decorated surfaces. The focus shifted to vessel formation and firing. The potters seem less concerned with what cannot be seen (the clay body) and more attentive to what is most evident about a vessel (its shape, surface texture, and color). From a purely mechanical point of view the elimination of the temper size separation step is a bad idea, which required adjustments to be made in the amount of temper. Nor does this change make sense from a strictly economic point of view. If the intention was to improve the efficiency of production, then we would expect the later stages of the production sequence to become less labor intensive as well, or tools such as molds and wheels to be introduced to help save time. However, this is not the case in Klarafalva. This technological change makes sense when we consider the changing social role of pottery production and use. As has been argued elsewhere (Michelaki 1999, 194196), diversification characterized the Late Maros ceramic assemblage. While overall the same vessel shapes and sizes continued from Kiszombor to Klarafalva, in Klarafalva there existed more varieties of serving and storage vessels. If variability in vessel forms intended for the same overall function commonly suggests variation in the cultural definition of that function, then during the Late Maros phase ceramics participated more in social display activities in the settlements. Those activities focused around the display of subsistence wealth and the consumption of food and liquids, as suggested by the vessels' function (storing and serving). This discussion, however, belongs to a different paper (Michelaki in prep.). Nevertheless, it is when we think of the new role pottery played in the display of wealth and social standing in the Late Maros settlements that the potters' shift of attention to what is most evident about a vessel begins to make sense. The decision to pay less attention to raw material preparation and focus on the forming and firing stages of the production sequence was a conscious response neither to environmental nor to technical/mechanical constraints, but rather to the new social role pottery played in the display of wealth in settlements.

317

FINAL REMARKS In mis paper we attempted to gain insight into the social organization of the Maros villagers by exploring their ceramic technology. Our definition of technology was not limited to a description of raw materials; it was not seen as just one aspect of a finished product; it was not limited only to an evaluation of environmental or mechanical constraints and possibilities. We saw technology as an active process, performed by human actors who are knowledgeable and act in a natural and social setting, making conscious decisions as they strive to achieve desirable results. Examining the Maros ceramic technology as an activity system with social dimensions allowed us to go beyond a simple description of what changed and what remained unaltered in the production of ceramics throughout the Maros sequence. Through the examination of the various stages of the operational chain it was shown that the Maros potters had control over their raw materials and techniques. As they continued making ceramics using similar raw materials, forming and firing techniques for almost a thousand years, they altered the allocation of their time to the various production stages so that they could spend more time on the appearance of their products. By doing so they could respond to the new active role that ceramics were playing in the settlements in the Late Maros phase without having to drastically reorganize their labor. The new social relations in the settlements, which must have allowed for more tolerance of visible inequality through the display of subsistence wealth and consumption of food, not only necessitated, but were mediated through technological changes. To approach the social dimensions of the Maros ceramic technology it was necessary to be able to document a wide range of activities, such as the procurement and preparation of raw materials, the production sequences, and the organization of labor in ceramic production. Our focus required information from a variety of sources. The integration of typological and physico-chemical methods borrowed from archaeology, geology, and materials sciences provided us with a powerful methodological tool. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Mora Ferenc Muzeum, its director, curators, and staff, for their hospitality during the years of excavations and research, and for lending the ceramic material to our Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan. We would also like to thank Dr. W. Farrand for giving us access to the Geology Department muffle kiln for our re-firing tests. Dr. Y. Maniatis pointed out problems in our initial re-firing procedures and guided us in repeating them at the Demokritos Archaeometry Laboratory in Athens, Greece. We owe him many thanks. The Phoenix Memorial Laboratory/Ford Nuclear Reactor consistently supports

K. Michelaki, L. Mine and J. O'Shea

faculty and student research at the U. of Michigan and we thank them. C. Henderson gave us access to the scanning electron microscope and the x-ray diffractometer at the Electron Microprobe Analysis Laboratory, and Dr. P. Tropper and Dr. P. Matta helped us decipher the results. We thank them. We also thank Dr. Y. Maniatis and Dr. V. Kilikoglou for organizing a most productive and enjoyable conference. REFERENCES Bona, I., 1975, Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre Siidostlichen Beziehungen, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. Bona, I., 1993, Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn, in Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss, 4-41, Pytheas, Frankfurt am Main. Dietler, M. and I. Herbich, 1998, Habitus, Techniques, Style: an Integrated Approach to the Social, Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries, in The Archaeology of Social Boundaries (ed. M. T. Stark), 232-263, Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry, B. D. Smith and R. M. Adams, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Foltiny, I., 1941, A Szoregi Bronzkori Temeto, Dolgozatok Szeged, XVU, 1-89. Dobres, M.-A. and C. R. Hoffman, 1994, Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1, 3,211-258. Giric, M., 1971, Mokrin: The Early Bronze Age Necropolis, XI, The Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia, Beograd. Giric, M., 1984, Die Maros (Moris, Mures)-Kultur, in Kulturen der Fruhbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans ( ed. N. Tasic), 33-58, BalcanoPannonica, Balkanoloski Institut Sanu, Beograd. Kovacs, T., 1977, The Bronze Age in Hungary, Corvina Press, Budapest. Kovacs, T., 1988, Review of the Bronze Age Settlement Research During the Past One and a Half Centuries in Hungary, in Bronze Age Tell Settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain 1 (eds. T. Kovacs and I. Stanczik), 17-26, Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, Budapest. Lemonnier, P., 1992, Elements for an Anthropology of Technology, Anthropological Papers 88, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Maniatis, Y. and M. S. Tite, 1981, Technological Examination of Neolithic-Bronze Age Pottery from Central,and Southeast Europe and from the Near East, Journal of Archaeological Science, 8, 59-76. Michelaki, K., 1999, Household Ceramic Economies: Production and Consumption of Household

318

Ceramics Among the Maros Villagers of Bronze Age Hungary, Ph.D. thesis, U. of Michigan. Michelaki, K., in prep., Pottery Making Among the Maros Villagers of Bronze Age Hungary: Considering the Craft in its Social and Technical Context Morariu, V., Bogdan M. and Ardelean I., 1991, A Physical Investigation of Bronze Age Ware from Pecica, in Studien zur Mures-Kultur (ed. T. Soroceanu), 161-168, Internationale Archaologie. Vol. 7, C. Dobiat and K. Leidorf, general editor, Buch am Erlbach, Munchen. O'Shea, J. M., 1992, A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Maros Group of Southeastern Hungary, Antiquity, 66,250,97-102. O'Shea, J. M., 1996, Villagers of the Maros: A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York. O'Shea, J. M., 1998, A Perspective on the Early Bronze Age Villagers of the Eastern Carpathian Basin, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 8, 1, 96-100. Pfaffenberger, B., 1988, Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of Technology, MAN, 23,236-252. Pfaffenberger, B., 1992, Social Anthropology of Technology, Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 491-516. Soroceanu, T., 1991, Studien zur Mures Kultur, Internationale Archaologie 7. Buch am Erlbach, Leidorf. Stark, M. T., 1998, The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Stefanovits, P., 1985, Analysis of Clay Minerals in Hungarian Loesses on the Basis of the Clay Mineral Map of Soils in Hungary, in Loess and the Quaternary. Chinese and Hungarian Case Studies (ed. M. Pecsi), 79-82, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. Stoltman, J., n.&, Report on the Petrographic Analysis of Potsherds from the Bronze Age Settlements of Kiszombor-Uj-Elet and Kldrqfalva-Hqjdova, Hungary, University of Wisconsin. Stoltman, J. B.,1989, A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections, American Antiquity, 54,1,147-160. Stoltman, J. B., 1991, Ceramic Petrography as a Technique for Documenting Cultural Interaction: an Example from the Upper Mississippi Valley, American Antiquity, 56, 1, 103-120. Tite, M. S., I. C. Freestone, N. D. Meeks and M. Bimson, 1982, The Use of Scanning Electron Microscopy in the Technological Examination of Ancient Ceramics, in Archaeological Ceramics, (eds. J. S. Olin and A.D. Franklin), 109-120, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Tylecote, R.F., 1976, A History of Metallurgy, The Metals Society, London.

Examine the Potter's Choices: A Case from Bronze Age Hungary

#W«W' A Vhunoary 1

l(

cf

l* 10*

\ lr»11A

140>'

/ \/ ? A % 5e > ^ %v

\

y^

./

w~^

r"^

'

1

10km

'

T

3f

V ""'"Yugoslavia) ""Romania

13A

r*sy

„_/

1N

Y^_

j^-^

~

_

^^\

1 1

S^/^VAlT LEGEND

r_^r/^ra«*a^

1

>f^^-^

^

a

7 Rate

8 Torbkkanizsa Principal Maros Sites 9 Mokrin * Cemeteries 10 Pitvaros A SetUements 11 Battonya other Sites 12 Perjamos ^ ,-, ,1 3„ „P, e ,c sOk aC e. m „e t .e n e s A settlements 14 Tdpe

Figure 1 Map of major Maros settlements and cemeteries (after O'Shea 1996: 28).

Figure 2 Foltiny's (1941) and Bona's (1975) ceramic typologies (after O'Shea 1996: 30). Note the increased complexity in vessel shape and decoration during the Late Maros phase (Bona's Szoreg 4 and 5). 319

K Michelaki, L. Mine and J. O'Shea

a 6500060000" 55000" 50000" Q. 45000