(2017) Interpreting a Probable Pottery Kiln of the Middle Bronze Age from Hirbemerdon Tepe, SE Turkey.

No. XLIII 2017 ANATOLICA Annuaire International pour les Civilisations de l’Asie antérieure, publié sous les auspices de l’Institut néerlandais du Proche-Orient à Leiden Comité de Rédaction G. Algaze, J. Bennett, J. Eidem, F.A. Gerritsen, A.H. de Groot, M. Özdoğan, Th.P.J. van den Hout, T.K. Vorderstrasse Secrétaire de Rédaction C.H. van Zoest Éditeur Responsable J.J. Roodenberg Table des matières The 2011 to 2016 excavation campaigns at Site PQ 2, Sagalassos. Dissecting a suburban club house (schola). Johan Claeys and Jeroen Poblome ........................................................ 1-36 Urbanism beyond the acropolis. The Tayinat Lower Town Project Surface Survey, 2014-2015. James F. Osborne and Steven Karacic ............................................................................... 37-70 A preliminary report on the earliest Neolithic levels at Uğurlu on the island of Gökçeada. Burçin Erdoğu ................................................................................................................ 71-82 Interpreting a probable pottery kiln of the Middle Bronze Age from Hirbemerdon Tepe, Southeast Turkey. Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo ................................................ 83-101 Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey Project, the fourth season. Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu, Naoíse Mac Sweeney and Carlo Colantoni .................................. 103-115 Reforging connections: the Black Sea coast of Anatolia in the 4th-3rd millennia BC. Lynn Welton ............................................................................................................... 117-156 The urban structure of Karkemish in the Late Bronze Age and the settlements of the Middle Euphrates Valley. Sara Pizzimenti and Giulia Scazzosi.................................... 157-172 The Gadachrili Gora Regional Archaeological Project: 2016 preliminary report. Stephen D. Batiuk, Mindia Jalabadze, Andrew Graham, Irakli Koridze, Khaled Abu Jayyab, with contributions by Cristina Savulov ............................................................. 173-202 Recent discoveries (2015-2016) at Çadır Höyük on the north central plateau. Sharon R. Steadman, T. Emre Şerifoğlu, Stephanie Selover, Laurel D. Hackley, Burcu Yıldırım, Anthony J. Lauricella, Benjamin S. Arbuckle, Sarah E. Adcock, Katie Tardio, Emrah Dinç, Gregory McMahon, and Marica Cassis .................................................... 203-250 Anatolica XLIII, 2017 INTERPRETING A PROBABLE POTTERY KILN OF THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE FROM HIRBEMERDON TEPE, SE TURKEY* Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo** Abstract The excavations at the site of Hirbemerdon Tepe, in Southeastern Turkey, yielded a very well preserved architectural complex dated to the Middle Bronze Age period (1975-1782 cal. BC) in the northern side of the High Mound. The complex was a multi-functional structure in which both ceremonial and craft specialized sectors were recognized by the archaeologists. Within one of the latter, a room, most probably used as a downdraft pottery kiln, was uncovered. The studies on this type of firing installation in the region at this date are still fragmentary, due to either the lack of archaeological data or scholars’ tendency to focus on ceremonial architecture or residential structures. Therefore, a complete regional framework of the development of MBA pottery kilns has not been established yet. The aim of this paper is thus to provide a thorough analysis of the kiln found at Hirbemerdon Tepe by investigating topics related to the pottery production at the site and the firing processes involved. Furthermore, in order to clarify kiln features and their typology during the second millennium BC, a comparison will be provided with other pyrotechnological structures discovered at sites in neighbouring regions. Introduction The site of Hirbemerdon Tepe is located in the upper Tigris river valley about 100 km southeast of the modern city of Diyarbakır, Turkey. Research performed between 2003 and 2011, i.e. reconnaissance survey, geophysical survey and archaeological excavation1, demonstrated that Hirbemerdon Tepe experienced its most relevant occupational phase through the early second millennium BC, the Middle Bronze Age period. During this archaeological phase (Phase IIIB in Hirbemerdon Tepe’s internal chronology; Laneri 2014) an architectural complex with ritual and working sectors was built in the northern side of the mound (Laneri 2016: 4248, and references, figs. 7.8-7.9). The identification of the ritual function of the architectural complex is principally due to the discovery there of ceremonial objects, in particular clay votive plaques that are rarely found in other contemporaneous contexts of the region (Laneri et al. 2015). The working sectors, located in the northern and southern sections of the complex, are recognizable by the presence of grinding stones, storage vessels and other tools found still in situ, as well as a likely pottery kiln. We would like to thank Nicola Laneri for his useful comments on an earlier draft. Crescioli: Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Russo: University of Catania. 1 See Ur and Hammer 2009, Ur 2011, Hammer 2014 (reconnaissance survey), Laneri 2006 (geophysical survey) Laneri 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013 and Laneri et al. 2006, 2008 (archaeological excavations). For a complete reference list, see Laneri 2016: 129-131. * ** 84 Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo The ceramic assemblage of Hirbemerdon Tepe in Phase IIIB is marked by the presence of the Red Brown Wash Ware (hereafter RBWW) and the Band Painted Ware (hereafter BPW), typical of the contemporary ceramic repertoire of the upper Tigris valley. These wares are probably locally produced (Parker and Dodd 2003; D’Agostino 2012; Laneri et al. 2015) and perhaps belong to the same pottery horizon, representing respectively the unpainted and painted typologies (Laneri et al. 2015). Their firing process and the related installations are still unknown in detail, because almost no pottery kilns belonging to this period have been found in the region. The kiln found at Hirbemerdon Tepe was probably used for firing the pottery vessels in these assemblages as well as the votive clay plaques and the other clay objects. The technological and architectural features of this facility include a bench where the clay objects would have been placed, the large firing chamber suitable for a number of vessels, and clay objects related to pottery production.2 Moreover, the pottery kiln is located on top of the mound where the southern sector of the architectural complex is found. This area is characterized by the presence of a large paved street, oriented NE-SW, which divides a series of small rooms to the north and a row of four rooms to the south (Fig. 1), the function of which, except for the kiln, is rather unclear. Unfortunately, the Middle Bronze Age layers were not completely reached in the entire sector, so the overall plan of the area has not been exposed. The presence of the kiln should probably indicate a peripheral area of the complex, even if kilns embedded in the urban pattern are also known in Mesopotamia (Postgate and Moon 1982; Delcroix and Huot 1972). Fig. 1. Plan of the MBA architecture in Area AA. Fig. 2. Plan of the supposed pottery kiln. Within the MBA levels, wedges, stands, portable hearths and andirons have been found and might be related to the kiln here discussed. See the catalogue listing the objects of this period in Laneri 2016: 481-551. 2 Anatolica XLIII, 2017 85 The kiln The kiln was not fully excavated; only part of the firing chamber has been uncovered: the northwestern and the southeastern walls, in fact, were partially located below the trench baulks and not completely exposed. Four thick walls consisting of medium-sized foundation stones (0,8-1 m) with superimposed rows of mudbricks (that have been baked during firing) enclose the kiln and still retain a height of about one meter (Fig. 4). The firing chamber has a nearly square ground plan, externally about 3,35 × 3,30 m, whereas the interior size is approximately only 1,90 × 2,20 m (Figs. 2-3). The southwestern wall of the kiln leans against the wall of the adjacent room, creating a thick double-wall between the rooms, an architectural feature extensively used in the MBA architectural complex. The chamber has a single opening in the southeastern side, where traces of a wall built of medium-sized stones have Fig. 3. Kiln viewed from north been identified (Fig. 5), and a niche, that (after Laneri 2016, fig. 7.43). served the purpose of the kiln’s chimney, is located in the northwestern side. These two elements are located approximately at the opposite sides of the firing chamber in order to facilitate the circulation of the hot air (Cuomo di Caprio 2007: 508-546; Rice 1987: 158-163). The absence of a raised and perforated firing floor suggests that it would have been a downdraft (or horizontal) kiln (Fig. 6), with the fuel used for combustion brought into the firing chamber from an eastern room. A bench composed of bricks and compacted clay is located along the southern wall, whereas bigsized flagstones that have been blackened by smoke paved the floor (Fig. 7). Fig. 4. Pottery kiln: southeastern section. 86 Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo Fig. 5. Detail of the kiln’s southeastern corner. Fig. 7. Top view of the pottery kiln. Fig. 6. Schematic drawing of a downdraft kiln: (a) fire hole, (b) firing chamber, (c) chimney. Fig. 8. Hypothetical reconstructions of the kiln: threedimensional representation of the preserved features (a), supplemented with a flat (b) and a dome-shaped roof (c). As to the superstructure, nothing allows us to provide any certain information. However, a collapsed layer (loc. AA0070) with clear straw impressions in clay suggests that a compacted clay roof mixed with organic elements covered the kiln (Fig. 8). The presence of jumbled and mixed material (i.e. mudbrick chunks, burnt material, complete bricks, ash, sand and kiln waste; loc. AA0075), covered by a thick ashy layer (loc. AA0072), may be explained as a consequence of structure’s collapse. Anatolica XLIII, 2017 87 Pottery assemblage and other findings In excavating the firing chamber, a large quantity of ceramics and other objects were found within both the ash deposit and the underlying collapsed layer. These findings Fig. 9. Production wastes uncovered within the pottery kiln. have helped in dating the kiln to the site’s Phase IIIB, and in interpreting its function. Moreover, almost vitrified scraps were uncovered (Fig. 9) on which petrographic and geo-chemical analysis will be carried out in the future in order to establish the approximate firing temperature. With regard to the pottery assemblage, 32 sherds were recorded, including 22 rims, four bases, four body sherds and two lids (Appendix 1).3 They belong to the ceramic repertoire (i.e., RBWW, BPW) representative of the MBA in a regional context.4 Although it is not certain if they were produced here or discarded after an unexpected firing event, these ceramic pieces share interesting features that have to be stressed. First, traces of burning are evident on the surfaces, suggesting they were inside the chamber during other firing processes. Second, they show a dark core, leading to the conclusion that either large amounts of organic matter were present in the raw clay or a rapid firing process had occurred (Rice 1987: 334-335).5 Of particular interest is the discovery of two horseshoe-shaped fragmented examples of andirons (Laneri 2016: 532, pls. CLVIII, 142-143). The exact function of this kind of object is still debated: some scholars interpret them as portable hearths used for cooking food or for ritual activities (Diamant and Rutter 1969; Buccellati 2004; Smogorzewska 2004; Laneri 2016: 113-116). In this kiln’s context it is reasonable to think that they were used for supporting the pots during the firing (Aquilano, personal communication). Comparisons The knowledge of pottery firing installations of MBA date was, until very recently, sparse in Near-Eastern archaeological studies. This lack of data was principally due to the archaeologists’ main interest for examining public buildings, generally located in central areas. Thus, excavators ignored the peripheral sectors in which pottery kilns were usually placed. Which means that despite the way that archaeological research has strongly increased in the upper TiAbbreviations used in the catalogue: Nr.: number of the piece in the plate; HM no.: inventory number; Ware: pottery category; RØ: rim diameter; BØ: base diameter; Th.: thickness; Color: reference to the Munsell Soil Color Chart 2000; Inclusions: sequence from highest to lowest density. 4 These pottery assemblages have been largely found within the upper Tigris river valley sites (Bartl 2005, 2012; D’Agostino 2012; Kozbe et al. 2004; Matney et al. 2002, 2003; Ökse and Görmüş 2006; Özfirat 2005; Parker and Dodd 2003). 5 In the first case, the carbon contained within the raw clay is not completely eliminated by firing, in the form of CO2 gas. In the second one, pores on the surface close before organic material has burned out. 3 88 Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo gris river valley during the last twenty years, thanks to the salvage projects carried out within a broader rescue program (i.e., Ilısu Dam Rescue Project), only a few pyrotechnic installations of Bronze Age date are known so far, and some of these are probably not related to pottery making.6 Only at Ziyaret Tepe do we have kilns that are related to pottery making. In Operation D, for example, an updraft kiln was found outside the limits of the urban settlement of the second millennium BC. It consisted of a pit excavated in the virgin soil, lined with rough bricks of varying sizes forming the combustion chamber and with a brick column in the middle probably sustaining a perforated firing floor that has not been preserved. The chronology is uncertain but, according to the archaeologists working at the site, it should be dated to the Late Bronze Age (Matney et al. 2002). Another LBA updraft double-chambered kiln was found in Operation G. It is square in plan and measures 5 × 2 m. The combustion chamber is built in a pit, which is lined with clay and the perforated grid is composed of at least 14 flues (Matney et al. 2005: 29). Thus, it is necessary to look for typological comparisons in a much wider area regarding both a chronological and a geographical perspective for the kiln belonging to Phase IIIB at Hirbemerdon Tepe.7 Two examples of above ground, double-chambered updraft kilns dating to the MBA are found along the Euphrates valley in the Gaziantep province at Şaraga Höyük (Ezer 2013). The first has an oval plan (3,5 × 3 m), a combustion chamber of 1,5 m of height made of mudbricks and an opening (kiln door) on the southern side, a perforated firing floor with 15 ducts preserved, while the superstructure is lacking. It is built of mudbricks and the foundation is in stone covered with a layer of packed sherds. All the material is highly vitrified. The second kiln is smaller in size (1 × 1 m): it has a rectangular combustion chamber with an opening on the eastern side and a perforated firing floor with 7 ducts organized in two parallel rows. In the upper Euphrates region, several (19) updraft kiln were found at Lidar Höyük in the so-called “Potter’s quarter” dating to the EBA, where two principal types are found: single chambered horseshoe-shaped kilns, and two chambered kilns, round in plan with long antechambers (Hauptmann 1983; 1985; 1987). Downdraft kilns represent sophisticated and technological facilities, more developed than updraft kilns. Moreover, even if they are rare among ancient Near Eastern communities, they are found starting from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in Iran, northern and central Mesopotamia, for example in Level II at Tell Abada (Diyala river) (Jasim 1985) and at Telul eth Thalathat (Fukai et al. 1970; Alizadeh 1985).8 Noteworthy is the single-chambered kiln For example, at Kenan Tepe, a circular mudbrick oven dated back to the Ubaid period is recorded (Parker et al. 2009: 92). Kilns seem also to have been found at MBA Müslümantepe layers, but no more information is provided (Ezer 2013: 6, footnote 23). At Salat Tepe, an oven belonging to Level 2 (MBA) and presenting a slag inner face might be related with a workshop area (Ökse 2014). At Gre Amer, a site along the Garzan Su, the archaeologists hypothesized the presence of pottery kilns belonging to the MBA level. Unfortunately, despite an extensive geophysical survey performed in 2012, no traces of such structures were recognized (Pulhan and Blaylock 2016: 328). 7 Several kilns dating to the Middle Bronze Age are known from different Mesopotamia regions (northern Mesopotamia, Syria, southern Mesopotamia and Levant) and show various typological and technical features. They are usually double-chambered updraft kiln, with an underground combustion chamber square (2,2 × 2 m) (Tell Halawa-Hamrin Basin) (Orthmann 1989: 55), or circular in plan (2,1 m diameter) (Tell Rijim Northern Iraq). This last example is made of bricks, it is completely plastered, and the two chambers are separated by a perforated screen wall with six ducts (Kolinski 2000: 24). 8 For a brief overview of the pottery kilns belonging to the Neolithic and Chalcolithic ages, see Streily 2000. 6 Anatolica XLIII, 2017 89 uncovered at level IX of Tepe Ghabristan, in central Iran, located within a potters’ workshop; it is rectangular in plan, the mudbrick back wall lies against the wall of the adjacent room and contains a niche, probably used by the potter to check the kiln’s inner condition (Majidzadeh 1989). According to Moorey (1994: 157), starting from the third millennium BC, this type is predominant in the Indo-Iranian region and in Central Asia, but in northern and southern Mesopotamia it seems to be rare, since only a single, doubtful example is found at Tell Barri (Pecorella and Pierobon 2004: 15-17). Other firing facilities, similar in structure but probably to be interpreted as baking ovens for food production, have been unearthed at Norşuntepe (Hauptmann 1982) and Tell Bazi (Otto 2006: 223). A possible downdraft kiln of MBA date has been identified at Tell Brak (Oates and McDonald 1997: 21-23), while several examples of Late Bronze Age date have been found at Tell Barri. These are usually single-chambered without an internal partition wall and with circular (2,1 m diameters) (Kiln n. 360) or rectangular plan (2,2 × 2,6 m) (Pecorella 1998; D’Agostino 2012). Another example is a double-chambered kiln (Kiln n. 1446), measuring 3 × 2,8 m and having an opening on the north side and a screen wall in the middle, in order to allow a better distribution of heat in the firing chamber. The reconstructed height is approximately 1,2 m (Pecorella and Pierobon 2008: 53-62). As downdraft kiln typology is at present only common and well recorded at Tell Barri, it is difficult to establish if it is a generally diffused type or a strong tradition typical exclusively of the site during this specific period. Because of the difficulty in finding exact typological comparisons for the overall shape and structure of the Hirbemerdon Tepe kiln, both in the upper Tigris valley and in a wider geographical context, it is more appropriate to find comparisons for single architectural and structural elements, e.g. squared plan, use of stone, presence of the chimney, and reuse of pre-existing rooms. However, it should be stressed that they could be either related to cultural contacts or more often to autonomous local developments and technical solutions. As concerns the material used in the construction of the kiln walls, it is important to underline the role of stone, usually utilized as foundation and plastered to avoid cracking or melting with high temperatures (Rye 1981: 100). At Samsat, in the upper Euphrates river valley, a Middle Bronze Age kiln built with a single row of stones was also internally paved with gravels (Özgüç 2009: 68, fig. 317). Turning to the Anatolian western coast, a Middle Bronze Age pottery kiln has been recovered at Miletus (Raymond 2006: 617, fig. 5). It is of an oval-shaped channel type (firing area of 2,96 m2), made of rectangular mudbricks that at the wall base are packed with small stones. Several updraft kilns (at least 8 examples) have been found at Liman Tepe, southwest of the Bay of Izmir. One kiln is dated to the transitional period between EBA and MBA, the others to the LBA. The earlier kiln is poorly preserved; only the lower portion was uncovered. It has a rectangular plan (1,4 × 1,25/1,08 m) oriented NE-SW. The walls are constructed of mudbricks arranged on top of middle and large sized stones. The bottom of the combustion chamber is plastered with clay; in the middle it shows a badly preserved support for the firing floor (i.e., 1,4 m long and 0, 22 m wide, Aykurt and Erkanal 2016). In the same region, at Kocabaştepe, a horseshoe-shaped kiln built of small stones with a mudbrick superstructure comes from the middle-to-late MBA levels (Özkan and Erkanal 1999: 137-138, fig. 40). A typology categorization has been applied by Evely (2000: 298-311) to the Cretan channel kilns of 90 Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo Bronze Age date: she distinguished a ‘Type 1’, hemispherical or horseshoe-shaped kilns, from a ‘Type 2’, identified by an oval shape and longer flue. In particular, two kilns are known from Haghia Triada (Di Vita et al. 1984: fig. 277; Tomasello 1996) and Kommos (Shaw et al. 2001), both dated to the mid-second millennium BC and constructed with limestone walls and clay upper sections. While the first one is characterised by two chambers and a rectangular shape, the example of Kommos has a roughly oval firing pit with channel radiating out of it (Shaw et al. 1997, pl. CXVII: b). Finally, of great interest are the examples dated back to the Middle Bronze Age from the Levant, where several kilns were not only built with stone and mud (e.g., at Tell Qasileh: Ayalon 1988), but hewn into the kurkar stone bedrock (e.g., Tell Michal, Ramat Aviv, Tell Ferishe: Kletter and Gorzalczany 2001). The use of chimneys in the earlier period has not been thoroughly investigated. Only two examples from Kenan Tepe, in the upper Tigris region (Parker et al. 2009), and from Tell Ghabristan, in Iran (Streily 2000) have been documented. In the first case, archaeologists recognized an internal niche within a thick wall structure that contained an oven as the location for the chimney, while in the Iranian example the presence of a niche probably used by the potter to observe the inner conditions of the kiln was noted. The re-use of a pre-existing room or structure represents an exceptionally rare case in the kiln construction records, due to the short life of this kind of structure, which usually deteriorated quickly to be rebuilt nearby, in areas with strong craft vocation. Just one example similar to the facility of Hirbemerdon Tepe has been found at the Mycenaean site of Tiryns, in Argolis (Greece) (Prillwitz and Hein 2015). This updraft pottery kiln, dated back to the Late Helladic IIIC period (end of the second millennium BC), is rectangular and was built re-using the walls of the early Lower Citadel that perhaps were later lined with clay. Discussion The decision to locate a pottery kiln on top of the high mound in a peripheral area probably was necessary to avoid the smoke pollution related to the firing process. As has been shown in a recent study, in southeastern Anatolia the surface wind streams blow mostly towards east/north-east (Sahin and Türkeş 2013). In the case of Hirbemerdon Tepe, this means that the fumes from the kiln might be directed towards the Tigris river, thereby not affecting the northern and southern slopes of the mound. This is also apparently confirmed by the location of the structures in this area: the northern street and the presumed combustion chamber in the southeastern corner let us hypothesize that the kiln’s entrance and associated production facilities were located in the uncontaminated south sector. Technologically the use of stones in the kiln construction is rather unusual, because the stones could react badly to very high temperatures or direct contact with flames. They could crack, crumble, melt or even explode. In addition, stones are rarely used to build kilns, even if there are some examples both in central (e.g., level VI 1b at Arslantepe, early third millennium BC) and in western Anatolia (e.g., MBA levels at Miletus and Kocabaştepe), or at least where the raw material is abundant (e.g., the Levant). For the case of the kiln of Hirbemerdon Anatolica XLIII, 2017 91 Tepe, it seems reasonable to assume that the stone walls were plastered and protected to avoid such drawbacks. If the room was modified to be a kiln, the people involved in the construction decided to take advantage of the pre-existing walls in order to save both time and building materials, as is confirmed by the example unearthed at Tiryns in Greece. Supporting elements for this interesting issue are 1) the unusual kind of walls built with stones, very similar to those in other structures found at Hirbemerdon Tepe during the MBA, 2) the perfect fit of this room in relationship with the other nearby rooms of the sector, and 3) the presence of a door socket near the chimney, which could be an ancient doorway sealed in a later phase. Perhaps also a threshold is located corresponding to the southern opening of the firing chamber, even if the exact plan of this spot is not clear because it had been partially disturbed by a later pit and it has not been fully excavated. At the same time, the choice of re-using an already existing room for such advanced pottery firing system does not fit very well with the high technological level required to manage a downdraft kiln. It can be assumed that for a perfect functioning and an optimal draft, precise relationships between some parameters like volume, dimensions, materials, shape etc. should be maintained. As concerns the firing process itself, despite the poor conditions of the preserved portions of the kiln, and the lack of an upper section that probably collapsed into the kiln, it is possible to reconstruct the different steps involved. First, sun-dried objects and vessels would have been placed in the chamber, probably using the range of supports – portable hearts, andirons, wedges and stands, found in a considerable quantity at the site9 – in order to avoid direct contact of the vessels with the kiln floor. Given the unknown plan of the combustion chamber, it is hard to establish from which side of the kiln the vessels were brought in for firing. Hypotheses can however be advanced: the pots were inserted either from the top, which implies that the covering was mobile or temporary, or from within the combustion chamber.10 This latter option might fit best with this case, although our knowledge of the combustion chamber is incomplete: no entrances have been recognized along the walls and no traces of support levels have been found. This way, the presence of stones in the walls for holding up the superstructure might explain a permanent flat clay roof used for covering the other rooms of the architectural complex. According to the volume of the firing chamber (ca. 8,5 m3), the vessels were probably stacked according to their size. The stack capacity for each firing process could be as many as 500-1000 pots, assuming an ideal height of the upper section of 1,80-2 m.11 The presence of the bench within the chamber, unique in its type, might be functional for locating unbaked plaques and perhaps other votive clay objects (e.g., house models, animal and human figurines) that are found ubiquitously in the MBA contexts at Hirbemerdon Tepe (Laneri 2016: 46).12 For a detailed description of these fire-related objects uncovered at Hirbemerdon Tepe, see Aquilano in Laneri 2016. The opening recognized in the southeastern side is circa 1 m in width: perhaps a young person could bring the vessels inside the kiln. 11 This reconstruction is suggested considering the average size of the pots and the most common shapes found at Hirbemerdon Tepe in this phase of occupation, i.e. carinated bowls and small-to-medium sized jars. 12 The size of the bench (ca. 40 cm in width) fits well with the average height of the plaques. Furthermore, the discovery of an unfinished plaque near the kiln suggests that the nearby rooms uncovered in the Step Trench AC were used as a production workshop. 9 10 92 Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo Fuel could have been brought into the stack chamber from the above-mentioned opening, where some stone slabs laid vertically possibly blocked flames and fumes. The various components of the thick ashy layer uncovered above the floor, like ash, fragments of mudbricks, burnt material, pottery sherds and scraps, do not help in understanding the nature of the principal fuel. Anyway, it is possible to suggest the use of wood and charcoal that was easily obtainable, considering the presence of woodland areas in the southern uplands in the vicinity of the settlement (Laneri et al. 2015). The vessels stacked in the chamber were presumably fired in an oxidizing/reducing atmosphere, particularly suited for downdraft kilns. Thus, heated air could circulate in the chamber and flow out only when the chimney passage was opened. This method allowed potters to control the temperature and to minimize loss of heat (Rice 1987: 161). Perhaps a maximum of 900/1000 °C could be reached. At this high temperature, the double (or back-to-back) wall of the southwestern side would be useful to prevent the heat dispersion in the room adjacent to the kiln. Conclusion Any attempt to delineate a technical or typological development of pyro-technological facilities, in particular of pottery kilns, is a difficult and problematic task in archaeology. This is partly because so few are known as most of them will be located away from the city centre, in peripheral areas where archaeologists do not usually focus their research. Furthermore, in some cases, as highlighted for the upper Tigris river valley and, more in general, for southeastern Anatolia, the lack of published archaeological data does not allow any reconstruction of a regional framework. This issue becomes even more puzzling when dealing with sophisticated and rare pyro-technological structures, i.e. downdraft kilns, which are found in very few numbers in the prehistoric and protohistoric periods. Therefore, the example unearthed at Hirbemerdon Tepe represents, with its peculiar characteristics, a unique structure within the ancient Near East landscape. The complexity of the matter is also emphasized by the fact that pottery firing technology does not follow a diachronic development during its history. For example, already in the seventh millennium BC highly technologically developed pottery kilns appeared, even along with simpler typologies (e.g., pit kilns), and at the same site. Moreover, in the following millennia more or less technologically developed pottery firing systems are simultaneously used without any evident typological developments. This heterogeneity should be therefore seen as a result of different factors tightly connected with specific requirements concerning the cultural, social, economic, political, and natural contexts in which the kiln is created and used. Given its unique structural and functional features, such as the possible reuse of a pre-existing room, the paved floor, the chimney, the stone walls and the square plan, the downdraft kiln uncovered at Hirbemerdon Tepe could be linked both to the main production of ritual paraphernalia (e.g., plaques), unique to as well as typical of this specific site, and to the production of ceramics (e.g., RBWW and BPW) that, however, could take place in a lower technological facility. Building and managing such a multipurpose facility might require extraordinary efforts that should not surprise us if one thinks that artisans and craft specialists here probably focused on the production of ceremonial devices. Anatolica XLIII, 2017 93 Bibliography Alizadeh, A., 1985 — A Protoliterate Kiln from Choga Mish. Iran 23: 39-50. Ayalon, E., 1988 — A Byzantine Road and Other Discoveries in the Vicinity of Tell Qasile. In: R. Zeevi (ed.), Israel People and Land, vol. IV, 9-27. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. Aykurt, A. and H. Erkanal, 2016 — Archaeological Evidence for an Early Second Millennium BC Potter’s Kiln at Liman Tepe. Belleten 287: 1-22. Bartl, P.V., 2012 — Giricano and Ziyaret Tepe: Two Middle Bronze Age Sites in the Upper Tigris Region. In: N. Laneri, P. Pfälzner, S. Valentini (eds.), Looking North, The Socioeconomic Dynamics of Northern Mesopotamia and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC, 175-191. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Bartl, P.V., 2005 — The Middle Bronze Age on the Upper Tigris: New evidence from the Excavations at Giricano and Ziyaret Tepe. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran and Turan 37: 153-162. Buccellati, M.K., 2004 — Andiron at Urkesh: New Evidence for the Hurrian Identity of the Early Transcaucasian Culture. In: A. Sagona (ed.), A view from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, 67-89. ANES 12. Leuven: Peeters. Cuomo di Caprio, N., 2007 — Ceramica in Archeologia 2: Antiche Tecniche di Lavorazione e Moderni Metodi di Indagine. Studia archaeologica 144. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. D’Agostino, A., 2012 — Hirbemerdon Tepe and The Upper Tigris Valley during the Early Second Millennium BC: A First Assessment of the Local Pottery Horizon. In: N. Laneri, P. Pfälzner, S. Valentini (eds.), Looking North, The Socioeconomic Dynamics of Northern Mesopotamia and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC, 193-212. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Delcroix, G., and J.L. Hout, 1972 — Les Fours dits “de Potier” dans l’Orient Ancien. Syria 49(1/2): 35-95. Diamant, S., and J. Rutter, 1969 — Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and Possible Connections with the Minoan Horns of Consecration. Anatolian Studies 19: 147-176. Di Vita, A., V. La Rosa, and M. Rizzo, 1984 — Creta Antica: cento anni di archeologia italiana, 1884-1984. Scuola Archeologica di Atene. Rome: De Luca. Evely, D., 2000 — Minoan Crafts. Tools and Techniques. Jonsered: Paul Åström. Ezer, S., 2013 — Middle Bronze Age Pottery Kilns at Şaraga Höyük. Belleten 278: 1-14. Fukai, S., K. Horiuchi, and T. Matsutani, 1970 — Telul eth Thalathat: the Excavation of Tell II, the Third Season (1964) (The Tokyo University Iraq-Japan Archaeological Expedition, Vol. II, Report 11). Tokyo. Hammer, E., 2014 — Local Landscape Organization of Mobile Pastoralists in Southeastern Turkey. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35: 269-288. Hauptmann, H., 1982 — Diegrabungen auf dem Norşuntepe, 1974. Keban Project 19741975 Activities (ODTU-METU Keban Publications, vol. 1, n 7), 41-70. Ankara. Hauptmann, H., 1983 — Lidar Höyük. TAD 26: 93-110. Hauptmann, H., 1985 — Lidar Höyük. Anatolian Studies 35: 203-205. Hauptmann, H., 1987 — Lidar Höyük. Anatolian Studies 37: 203-206. Jasim, S.A., 1985 — The Ubaid Period in Iraq: Recent excavation in the Hamrin region (BAR, International Series, 267). Oxford. Kletter, R., and A. Gorzalczany, 2001 — A Middle Bronze Age II Type of Pottery Kiln from Coastal Plain of Israel. Levant 33: 95-104. Kolinski, R., 2000 — Tell Rijim, Iraq. The Middle Bronze Age Layers (BAR International Series 837). Oxford. Kozbe, G., K. Köroğlu, and H. Sağlamtimur, 2004 — 2001 Excavations at Kavuşan Höyük. In: N. Tuna, J. Greenhalg, J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam 94 Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo Reservoirs. Activities in 2001, 463-503. Ankara: TAÇDAM. Laneri, N., 2005 — Hirbemerdon Tepe 2003: A Preliminary Report. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26: 63-72. Laneri, N., 2006 — Hirbemerdon Tepe 2004. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27: 80-94. Laneri, N., 2012 — Hirbemerdon Tepe Arkeoloji Projesi. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33(3): 341352. Laneri, N., 2013 — Hirbemerdon Tepe Arkeoloji Projesi. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 34(1): 253260. Laneri, N., 2014 — Hirbemerdon Tepe 20032011. The Chronological Sequence. In: P. Bielinski et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIIth International Congress on the Archaeology of Ancient Near East (vol. 2), 341-353. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Laneri, N., 2016 — Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project 2003-2013 Final Report: Chronology and Material Culture (ed.). Bologna: Bradypus. Laneri, N., A. D’Agostino, M. Schwartz, S. Valentini, and G. Pappalardo, 2006 — A Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Excavations at Hirbemerdon Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. Anatolica 32: 153-188. Laneri, N., M. Schwartz, J. Ur, S. Valentini, A. D’Agostino, R. Berthon, and M.M. Halde, 2008 — The Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project 2006-2007. A preliminary report on the Middle Bronze Age ‘architectural complex’ and the survey of the site catchment area. Anatolica 34: 177-240. Laneri, N., M. Schwartz, J. Ur, A. D’Agostino, R. Berthon, M.M. Hald, and A. Marsh, 2015 — Ritual and Identity in Rural Mesopotamia: Hirbemerdon Tepe and the Upper Tigris River Valley in the Middle Bronze Age. American Journal of Archaeology 119(4): 533-64. Majidzadeh, Y., 1989 — An Early Industrial Proto-Urban Center on the Central Plateau of Iran: Tepe Ghabristan. In: A. Leohnard and B.B. Williams (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to H.J. Kantor, 157166. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Matney, T., J. MacGinnis, H. McDonald, K. Nicoll, L. Rainville, M. Roaf, M.L. Smith, and D. Stein, 2003 — Archaeological Investigations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2002. Anatolica 29: 175-215. Matney, T., M. Roaf, J. MacGinnis, and H. McDonald, 2002 — Archaeological Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2000 and 2001. Anatolica 28: 47-89. Matney, T., L. Rainville, T. Demko, S. Kayser, K. Köroğlu, H. McDonald, J. MacGinnis, K. Nicoll, S. Parpola, M. Reimann, M. Roaf, P. Schmidt, and J. Szuchmann, 2005 — Archaeological Investigations at Zyaret Tepe, 2003-2004. Anatolica 31: 19-68. Moorey, P.R.S., 1994 — Ancient Mesopotamia Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oates, J., and H. McDonald, 1997 — Excavations at Tell Brak: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian periods. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for archaeological reasearch; London: British School of archaeology in Iraq. Orthmann, W., 1989 — Halawa 1980-1986. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Otto, A., 2006 — Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tell Bazi (Syrien). Subartu XIX. Brepols. Ökse, T.A., 2014. Salat Tepe and its Vicinity in the Middle Bronze Age: Stratigraphic Sequence and Ceramic Assemblages. In: D. Bonatz (ed.), The Archaeology of Political Spaces. The Upper Mesopotamian Piedmont in the Second Millennium BC, 151-168. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Ökse, T.A., and A. Görmüş, 2006 — Excavations at Salat Tepe in the Upper Tigris Region: Stratigraphic Sequence and Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Seasons. Akkadica 172(2): 167-198. Özfirat, A., 2005 — Üçtepe II. Tunç Çağları: Kazı ve Yüzey Araştırması Işığında. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Özgüç, N., 2009 — Samsat, Sümeysat, Samosata, Kumaha, Hahha, Hahhum, Bir Başkent ve Kalenin Uzun Yaşamının 6000 Yıllık Döneminden Kesitler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. Anatolica XLIII, 2017 Özkan, T., and H. Erkanal, 1999 — Tahtalı Barajı Kurtarma Kazısı Projesi/Tahtalı Dam Area Salvage Project. Izmir: Arkeoloji Müzesi Müdürlüğü. Parker, B.J., and L. Dodd, 2003 — The Early Second Millennium Ceramic Assemblage from Kenan Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A Preliminary Assessment. Anatolian Studies 53: 33-70. Parker, B.J, C.P. Foster, K. Nicoll, J.R. Kennedy, P. Graham, A. Smith, D.E. Hopwood, M. Hopwood, K. Butler, E. Haley, M.B. Uzel, and R. Jensen, 2009 — The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Preliminary Report from the 2007-2008 Field Seasons at Kenan Tepe. Anatolica 35: 85-152. Pecorella, P.E., 1998 — Tell Barri/Kahat 2: relazione sulle campagne 1980-1993 a Tell Barri/Kahat, nel bacino del Khabur, Siria. Roma: CNR. Pecorella, P.E., and R. Pierobon Benoit, 2004 — Tell Barri/Kahat: la campagna del 2001: relazione preliminare/missione archeologica italiana a Tell Barri/Kahat (Siria). Firenze: Firenze University Press. Pecorella, P.E., and R. Pierobon Benoit, 2008 — Tell Barri/Kahat: la campagna del 2004: relazione preliminare/missione archeologica italiana a Tell Barri/Kahat (Siria). Firenze: Firenze University press. Postgate, N.J., and J.A. Moon, 1982 — Excavations at Abu Salabikh. Iraq 44: 103136. Prillwitz, S., and A. Hein, 2015 — A Closer Look at Updraft Pottery Kiln Constructions Based on Middle Helladic to Iron Age examples in the Aegean. In: W. Gauss, G. Keblinder-Gauss, C. von Rüden (eds.), The Transmission of Technical Knowledge in the Production of Ancient Mediterranean Pottery, 351-365. Wien: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Pulhan, G., and S.R. Blaylock, 2016 — Gre Amer, Batman, on the Upper Tigris: A Rescue Project in the Ilısu Dam Reservoir in Turkey. In K. Kopanias and J. MacGinnis (eds.), Archaeological Research in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and the adjacent areas, 321329. Oxford: Archaeopress. 95 Raymond, A., 2006 — The MBA Hearths and Kiln at Miletus. In: A. Erkanal-Öktü, E. Özgen, S. Günel et al. (eds.), Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan. Kültürlerin Yansıması/Studies in Honour of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural Reflections, 612-617. Istanbul: Homer Yatınları. Rice, P.M., 1987 — Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rye, O.S., 1981 — Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum. Sahin, S., and M. Türkeş, 2013 — Contemporary surface wind climatology of Turkey. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 113(1): 337-349. Shaw, J.W., A. Van den Moortel, P.M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou, 1997 — A LM IA Pottery Kiln at Kommos, Crete. Aegaeum 16: 323-332. Shaw, J.W., A. Van den Moortel, P.M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou, 2001 — A LM IA Ceramic Kiln in South-central Crete. Function and Pottery Production. Princeton: Americal School of Classical Studies of Athens. Smogorzewska, A., 2004 — Andirons and their Role in Early Transcaucasian Culture. Anatolica 30: 151-177. Streily, A.H., 2000 — Early pottery kilns in the Near East. Paleórient 26(2): 69-81. Tomasello, F., 1996 — Fornaci a Festos ed Haghia Triada dall’età mediominoica alla Geometrica. In: E. Gavliaki (ed.), Kerameka Ergastera sten Krete apo ten Arkhaioteta os Simera, 27-37. Praktica Omeridas Mariarites. Rethymnon. Ur, J.A., 2011 — Ancient Landscapes in Southeastern Anatolia. In: S.R. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E., 836-857. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ur, J.A., and E. Hammer, 2009 — Pastoral Nomads of the Second and Third Millennia AD on the Upper Tigris River, Turkey: Archaeological Evidence from the Hirbemerdon Tepe Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 34: 37-56. HM Ware no. Locus RØ BØ Th. Color outside 1 6569 RBWW AA0072 30 2 6590 RBWW AA0075 18 3 6589 RBWW AA0075 30 Color section 5YR 5/3 reddish brown; 5YR 4/1 dark gray 5YR 5/3 reddish 2.5YR 6/6 light red; 0 0,7 2.5YR 5/6 red brown 7.5YR 6/3 light brown 2.5YR 6/4 light 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red; 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red; reddish brown; 5YR 11 1 2.5YR 4/6 red 2.5YR 4/6 red 4/1 dark gray; 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown 5YR 6/4 light reddish 5YR 5/8 yellowish red; 2.5YR 4/3 reddish 13 0,9 brown; 7.5YR 6/3 5YR 4/1 dark gray; brown light brown 5YR 5/8 yellowish red 0 5 6563 RBWW AA0072 12 0 6 6513 RBWW AA0071 0 0 7 6607 RBWW AA0064 30 0 8 6564 RBWW AA0072 13 0 9 6612 RBWW AA0064 32 0 10 6591 RBWW AA0075 19 0 11 6516 RBWW AA0071 34 0 12 6514 RBWW AA0071 15 0 13 6565 RBWW AA0072 17 0 0,5 2.5YR 4/6 red 2.5YR 3/1 dark reddish gray Inclusions Decoration medium, chaff, painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red, sand, mica incised Other treatments slip medium, chaff, painted, 5YR 5/3 reddish slip sand, mica, grit brown, 2.5YR 5/6 red medium, chaff, painted, 2.5YR 3/2 slip sand, mica dusky red, 2.5YR 4/6 red medium, chaff, sand, mica, limestone, grit medium, chaff, 2.5YR 6/6 light red; 5YR 5/8 yellowish red; 0,4 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red sand, mica, 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red 5YR 4/1 dark gray limestone 2.5YR 4/3 reddish medium2.5YR 4/3 reddish 0,4 brown; 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/6 light red fine, sand, brown light red limestone, mica 7.5YR 5/3 brown; 7.5YR 5/3 brown; 7.5YR 5/3 brown; medium, 1,2 2.5YR 3/1 dark 2.5YR 3/1 dark GLEY1 4/N dark gray; sand, mica, reddish brown reddish brown 7.5YR 5/3 brown limestone, grit 5YR 5/3 reddish medium-fine, 0,5 2.5YR 4/6 red brown; 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 light brown sand, mica, grit light brown 5YR 5/4 reddish 7.5YR 5/3 brown; medium, chaff, 0,6 10R 5/6 red brown; 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 4/1 dark gray; sand, mica light red 7.5YR 5/3 brown medium, chaff, 5YR 5/3 reddish 5YR 5/8 yellowish red; 1,2 2.5YR 6/6 light red sand, mica, brown 5YR 4/1 dark gray limestone, grit 2.5YR 4/3 reddish 2.5YR 5/8 red; 2.5YR medium, chaff, sand, mica, 1,6 2.5YR 4/6 red brown; 2.5YR 6/6 6/8 light red; 2.5Yr limestone light red 5/8 red medium, chaff, 0,5 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red 5YR 5/8 yellowish red sand, limestone 2.5YR 6/4 light medium, chaff, 5YR 5/3 reddish 5YR 5/3 reddish 0,5 reddish brown; 5YR sand, mica, grit brown brown 4/1 dark gray painted, 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown slip painted, 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red, incised slip painted, 2.5YR 4/3 reddish brown slip painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red, incised slip painted, 10R 5/6 red slip painted, 5YR 5/3 reddish slip brown, incised painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red slip painted, 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red slip painted, 5YR 5/3 reddish slip brown Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo 4 6512 RBWW AA0071 30 Color inside 96 Nr. Anatolica XLIII, 2017 Plate I. Drawings of RBWW sherds found in the pottery kiln. 97 98 Nr. HM Ware no. Locus RØ BØ Th. Color outside 10YR 7/3 very pale brown 0 2 15 6610 RBWW AA0064 34 0 1,5 16 6572 RBWW AA0072 55 0 2,1 2.5YR 6/6 light red 17 6614 RBWW AA0064 15 0 18 6568 RBWW AA0072 12 0 0,8 2.5YR 6/6 light red 19 6519 RBWW AA0071 0 0 1,7 2.5YR 4/6 red 20 6592 RBWW AA0075 0 0 21 6595 RBWW AA0075 22 0 0,9 2.5YR 5/6 red 6618 RBWW AA0064 22 0 2.5YR 3/1 dark 1,3 reddish gray; 2.5YR 6/4 reddish brown 1 1 5YR 5/3 reddish brown 2.5YR 4/6 red 2.5YR 3/1 dark reddish gray 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown 22 6571 RBWW AA0072 0 5,7 0,4 23 6611 RBWW AA0064 0 20 1,2 10YR 7/2 light gray Color section Inclusions medium, chaff, sand, mica, limestone medium, chaff, 2.5YR 4/6 red; 7.5YR GLEY1 4/N dark gray sand, mica, 6/3 light brown limestone 2.5YR 4/6 red; 5YR medium, chaff, 2.5YR 6/6 light red 4/1 dark gray sand, mica, grit 7.5YR 7/4 pink; 5YR medium, chaff, 2.5YR 6/6 light red 4/1 dark gray; 7.5YR sand, mica, 7/4 pink limestone medium, chaff, 2.5YR 6/6 light red; 2.5YR 6/6 light red sand, mica, GLEY1 4/N dark gray limestone, grit medium2.5YR 7/6 light red; 10YR 7/2 light gray fine, sand, 5YR 4/1 dark gray limestone, mica 10YR 5/2 grayish medium, chaff, 10YR 7/3 pale yellow brown; 10YR 6/2 light sand brownish gray 2.5YR 6/6 light red; medium, chaff, 5YR 4/1 dark gray; 2.5YR 6/6 light red sand, mica, 2.5YR 6/4 light grit, limestone reddish brown medium2.5YR 6/6 light red 5YR 4/1 dark gray coarse, chaff, sand, mica, grit 2.5YR 5/4 reddish medium, chaff, 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown; 5YR 4/1 dark sand, mica, grit brown; 2.5YR 4/6 red gray 5YR 6/6 reddish medium, chaff, yellow; 5YR 4/1 red; 5YR 6/6 reddish sand, mica, 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow limestone yellow 2.5YR 6/6 light red Decoration 2.5YR 6/6 light red; 5YR 4/1 dark gray; 2.5YR 6/6 light red Other treatments slip painted, 5YR 5/3 reddish slip brown; 2.5YR 4/6 red painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red slip painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red slip painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red slip painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red, incised slip painted, 2.5YR 3/1 dark slip reddish gray painted, 2.5YR 5/6 red slip painted, 2.5YR 3/1 dark slip reddish gray painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red slip slip Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo 14 6615 RBWW AA0064 52 Color inside Anatolica XLIII, 2017 Plate II. Drawings of RBWW sherds found in the pottery kiln. 99 100 Nr. HM Ware no. 25 6594 BPW 26 6617 BPW 27 6515 CW 28 6573 CW 29 6593 CW 30 6289 CMW 31 6608 GW RØ BØ Th. Color outside Color inside Color section Inclusions 5YR 6/8 yellowish red; medium, chaff, 5YR 4/1 dark gray; sand, mica, grit 5YR 5/8 yellowish red medium, chaff, 2.5YR 4/6 red; 5YR 2.5YR 6/4 light 2.5YR 6/6 light red; sand, mica, AA0075 0 0 1 7/3 pink reddish brown 5YR 4/1 dark gray limestone 2.5YR 6/6 light red; medium-fine, 5YR 7/3 pink; 2.5YR AA0064 0 0 0,6 2.5YR 6/6 light red 5YR 4/1 dark gray; sand, mica, 3/2 dusky red 2.5YR 6/6 light red limestone, chaff 7.5YR 5/3 brown; 7.5YR 5/3 brown; coarse, sand, AA0071 20 0 1,2 GLEY1 4/N dark GLEY1 4/N dark GLEY1 4/N dark gray mica, grit, gray gray limestone coarse, sand, 5YR 4/4 reddish GLEY1 4/N dark AA0072 21 0 0,9 GLEY1 4/N dark gray mica, grit, brown gray limestone coarse, sand, AA0075 22 0 1,2 2.5YR 4/6 red 2.5YR 4/6 red 2.5YR 4/6 red mica, grit, limestone medium, chaff, 5YR 6/4 light reddish 5YR 6/4 light reddish AA0072 4 3,6 0,6 N/A mica, grit, brown brown limestone GLEY1 4/N dark GLEY1 4/N dark medium, chaff, AA0064 0 11 1,1 GLEY1 4/N dark gray gray gray sand, mica AA0072 0 0 1,3 5YR 6/6 reddish 5YR 5/8 yellowish yellow; 2.5YR 4/6 red red Decoration Other treatments painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red slip painted, 2.5YR 4/6 red slip painted, 2.5YR 3/2 dusky red slip burnished burnished burnished burnished Lorenzo Crescioli and Sergio G. Russo 24 6570 BPW Locus Anatolica XLIII, 2017 Plate III. Drawings of BPW (24-26), Cooking Ware (27-29), Common Ware (30) and Grey Ware (31) sherds found in the pottery kiln. 101