Appl. Phys. A 90, 35–42 (2008)
Applied Physics A
DOI: 10.1007/s00339-007-4227-y
Materials Science & Processing
Insights into the production technology
of north-Mesopotamian Bronze Age pottery
t. broekmans1
a. adriaens2,✉
e. pantos3
1
University of Antwerp, Department of Chemistry, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium
Ghent University, Department of Analytical Chemistry, Krijgslaan 281-S12, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
3 CCLRC, Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington, UK WA4 4AD, UK
2
Received: 8 November 2006/Accepted: 17 July 2007
Published online: 23 August 2007 • © Springer-Verlag 2007
ABSTRACT With the aim of contributing to the knowledge of
north-Mesopotamian Bronze Age pottery production (3rd millennium BC, early Dynastic and early Akkadian period), the
mineralogy of pottery excavated from the site of Tell Beydar
(Syria) has been studied in order to make inferences concerning the clay preparation and firing techniques of that period. The
fired pottery finds have been classified by archaeologists into
three distinct groups on the basis of their aesthetic and visual appearance and their mechanical strength: standard, cooking and
“metallic” ware.
SR X-ray powder diffraction data have been collected from
100 individual shards as well as from local clays and one
unbaked object, an inscribed tablet. The XRD data is supplemented by SEM-EDS, XRF and polarising microscopy studies
of 200 polished thin sections. The synthesis of the results from
this extensive study quantifies the basic physical characteristics
of the ensemble: the standard ware required no specific clay
preparation and firing procedures. The body of the cooking ware
contains large inclusions which result in a body texture intended
to make them resistant to repeated thermal cycles. Both standard
and cooking ware are made of a calcareous clay, typical of pottery from the Middle East. The metallic ware, however, are of
a much finer quality with a distinctly different mineralogy than
the other two groups.
PACS 81; 81.05.Je;
1
81.05.Mh; 82.80.Ej
Introduction
Contrary to other cultural areas in the world, the
use of analytical techniques for the study of ceramics is still
not very customary in Mesopotamian archaeology. When
applied, they provide answers to questions concerning the
potteries provenance and/or technology. It is clear, however, that most of the interest so far has gone to decorated
and technologically superior ceramics. Several studies for
instance have discussed the provenance of painted prehistoric pottery as well as the materials and techniques used
for their decoration. In most of these studies, the techniques applied are petrography, neutron activation analysis
✉ Fax: +32 9 264 4960, E-mail: annemie.adriaens@ugent.be
(NAA), microprobe/scanning electron microscopy (SEM), or
a combination of these (e.g. [1–15]). In other studies pottery
from historical periods has been analyzed. Typically, Islamic
stonepaste ceramics and glazes (e.g. [16–18]), but also preIslamic glazes are discussed (e.g. [19, 20]).
In between these two periods of interest lies a virtually
unexplored era of Mesopotamian pottery production, ranging from the 4th/3rd millennium BC to the beginning of the
Seleuco-Parthian period, spanning some 3000 years. This gap
is, we believe, caused by two main factors. During the 4th/3rd
millennium BC, there is a sharp decline in the production of
decorated pottery. This decline is partly related to the development of mass production, linked with, amongst others, the
introduction of the potters wheel. Probably the ‘unattractive’
appearance of this undecorated, seemingly tedious earthenware, having no striking features, is one of the reasons why
Mesopotamian Bronze Age ceramics are hardly ever the subject of technological studies and usually only used by archaeologists as cultural indicators and dating tools. Another,
perhaps more limiting factor is the geological homogeneity of
large parts of Mesopotamia [21].
As a result of these two main factors – apparent unattractiveness of the pottery and geological homogeneity of the
region – little is known of the technological and socioeconomical aspects of 3rd millennium BC north-Mesopotamian pottery production. Nevertheless, valuable studies have
been published over the last decade (e.g. [22–31]).
The present study is part of a project set up to study various
aspects of the potters craft at a specific time in a specific place,
namely 3rd millennium BC at Tell Beydar (Syria). One of our
aims is to outline the potteries production sequence. Firing is
one of the most crucial stages in the production of pottery,
as it is the production step that transforms clay into an imperishable product. The firing technique applied has a direct
influence on the mineralogy of the raw materials [32]. Pottery
makers and its end users may not have been familiar with the
clays or vessels mineralogy in a direct way, but this mineralogy is reflected in several aspects of the pottery that might be
of importance to them, such as the colour of the product and
its resistance to mechanical or thermal shock. Another part of
the production sequence that we have studied by looking at the
potteries mineralogy is the selection and preparation of raw
materials. This has been done by comparing the clay resources
used with those that are (were) locally available.
36
Applied Physics A – Materials Science & Processing
This paper combines newly established research results
together with some previously published data on specific
types of pottery [33–35] with the aim of giving a full overview
of the production process of 3rd millennium BC pottery at Tell
Beydar.
2
wards, these urban centers flourish during EDIII (ca. 2550–
2350 BC), a prosperous period for the whole of northern
Mesopotamia.
The excavations at Tell Beydar were conducted by a European–Syrian mission under the direction of the European
Center for Upper Mesopotamian Studies in Brussels [37].
The archaeological site
3
The site of Tell Beydar, the ancient town of
Nabada, is situated in the Syrian Jezireh, some 35 km NW of
the modern town Hassake (Fig. 1). The 28 ha settlement is located at the crossroads of two main routes, one connecting the
Euphrates river in the west with the Tigris river in the east, the
other coming from the more north, the Anatolian plateau, and
running further south following the Khabur river. Less then
200 m east of the Tell runs the Wadi ‘Awaj, a small seasonal
tributary of the Khabur river. To its immediate west lies the
Ard es-Sheikh, a plateau formed by quaternary basalt. This
plateau is the only disruption in the monotonous landscape of
lower Pliocene and upper Miocene sandstones, clayey marls,
calcareous clays, sands and siltstones [36].
The site was occupied mainly during the 3rd millennium BC (early dynastic and early Akkadian periods),
but more recent remains dating to the 2nd and 1st millennia BC (Mitanni, Neo-Assyrian and Seleuco-Parthian
periods) have also been excavated. In this study, only 3rd
millennium BC ceramics are considered. During this millennium an urban culture had developed in Mesopotamia.
The western part of northern Mesopotamia of that period
is characterized by the existence of fortified circular settlements, like Tell Beydar, called Kranzhügeln after their
typical concentric shape. Dominating the region from the
early dynastic II period (EDII, ca 2700–2550 BC) on-
Materials
Apart from local soil samples, clay seal impressions and an object in unbaked clay, all types of 3rd millennium pottery that have been excavated at Tell Beydar are
represented in our study. Standard ware (or common ware)
is the main group of excavated pottery. This ware was made
for every day use and is represented by a variety of sizes and
shapes such as jars, bowls, bottles, plates, trays, potstands,
etc. standard ware usually has a buff colour (Fig. 2). Most
of it is cone wheel made, while large trays and storage jars
are handmade using a turntable. A thorough study of forming
techniques attested at Tell Beydar is presented by van As and
Jacobs [38, 39].
A second group of samples is cooking ware. Tell Beydar cooking ware shows many ‘typical’ cooking ware attributes [34]. These vessels have almost exclusively rounded,
often closed shapes, with a burnished surface (Fig. 3). Their
fabrics are characterized by many large limestone and/or
basalt inclusions. Although the upper parts of Tell Beydar
cooking pots are not particularly thin-walled (typical vessel
walls having a thickness of one centimeter or even more), the
few larger body shards and more or less complete cooking
pots that have been found indicate that they were significantly
thinner at the base. An ever-occurring feature of cooking ware
from Tell Beydar is the burnished outside surface. Most of the
FIGURE 1
Tell Beydar in NE-Syria
BROEKMANS et al.
Insights into the production technology of north-Mesopotamian Bronze Age pottery
4
Metallic ware jars (indicated by arrows) from Tell Beydar, surrounded by contemporary standard ware. Reproduced with permission from
Brepols Publishers
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3 Cross sections of some typical cooking ware as used in Tell
Beydar. After [34]
few open cooking ware shapes that are found also show this
feature on the inside.
In addition to these two utilitarian wares, some more luxurious wares are attested. One of them is the so-called metallic
ware, typically found at 3rd millennium BC sites in the western part of upper Mesopotamia. It is made from very dense
clay, usually showing very few inclusions. It can be grey, reddish brown, or a combination of these, depending on the firing
atmosphere (Fig. 2). From a chemical point of view, 3 groups
of metallic ware are known at Tell Beydar, mainly depending
on their CaO content. One of these groups, the non-calcareous
metallic ware, has a non-local origin [33, 35].
37
Experimental
Thin sections of 200 ceramic samples were examined at Southampton University (UK) and Leuven University
(Belgium) using polarizing microscopy, enabling us to study
the mineral inclusions in the clay matrix as well as the structure of that matrix.
About half of these samples, together with the soil and unbaked clay artefact samples were studied by X-ray diffraction
(XRD). XRD is one of the most direct techniques for the identification of the mineral composition of ceramics as it can be
used to analyze both inclusions and matrix. Its main disadvantage is that data collection can be quite time-consuming, each
data set requiring several hours. It is mainly for this reason
that XRD analysis is usually applied only to a small number of
samples. The data collection time can be reduced by orders of
magnitude using synchrotron X-rays and a fast area detector.
An additional advantage of 2D data recording is that an easy
distinction can be made between fine-particle phases, such as
hercynite in pottery produced under reducing conditions, and
overlapping reflections of coarser material such as quartz. In
this study 2D diffraction patterns were acquired using a CCD
detector at station 9.6 of the synchrotron radiation source
(SRS) at Daresbury Laboratory (UK). Small amounts of powder extracted from the ceramics were loaded in 0.5 mm quartz
capillaries. The beam footprint was 200– 250 microns and the
exposure times 3 – 4 min in single bunch mode (20 mA beam
current). Much faster collection times (< 30 s) are easily attained with the SRS operating in normal, multibunch mode
(200 mA beam current). The data were polar transformed
and azimuth integrated using the ESRF program FIT2D [40].
Macros permit batch processing of several datasets at a time.
A spectrum correlation software utility was used to give
quick-glance overviews of degree of similarity of the diffraction patterns, a useful aid in grouping samples according to
mineral phase content and relative abundance.
To fully understand the materials mineralogy, however,
one should also bear in mind its elemental composition, since
mineralogical and chemical compositions are interrelated.
Whenever needed, we will refer to results of our chemical
analysis, obtained by scanning electron microscopy (SEMEDS). Analysis were performed with a JEOL JSM-6300
microscope. The investigated shards were first embedded in
a resin, whereupon their sections were gradually smoothed
using waterproof abrasive paper up to grade 4000. A 20 keV,
1 nA electron beam was used to bombard the samples and
signals were accumulated during 100 s (live time). For the
determination of the approximate bulk composition, several
areas of 10 – 25 mm2 were rastered, the exact size of the area
and the number of places scanned depending on the size of the
sample. Standardless ZAF corrections were used for obtaining
quantitative results.
5
5.1
Results and discussion
Soil samples, clay seal impressions and unbaked
clay object
In an attempt to characterize the mineralogy of
local resources, four local soil samples, 5 clay seal impressions and an object in unbaked clay were analyzed. While we
cannot know if the local clay samples represent clay beds that
38
Applied Physics A – Materials Science & Processing
Sample
Clay
Seal impressions
+ object
Cooking ware 1
Cooking ware 2
Standard ware
Metallic ware 1
Metallic ware 2
Metallic ware 3
Nos
Q
Ca
Dol
Plg
4
6
xx
xx
xxx
xxx
x
x(x)
11
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
(xx)
(xxx)
(x−)
(x)
30
30
Kfsp
Ill
Kao
Mm
x
x
x
x+
x
x
x
x−
x−
x(x)
x+
x
x
x
(x)
x
Px
Me
x(+)
xx
xx
x(x)
x(x)
x
xx(x)
Mu
Hem
Mag
x
x
x(xx)
He
x
x
x
(x)
(xx)
Mica
(x−)
(x−)
(x)
xxx – main phase; xx – present in significant quantities; x – present; brackets – only in some samples
TABLE 1
Mineral phases of Tell Beydar clay samples, seal impressions and ceramics as revealed by SR-XRD (Nos = Number of samples Q = quartz,
Ca = calcite, Dol = dolomite, Plg = plagioclase, Kfsp = K-feldspar, Ill = illite, Kao = kaolinite, Mm = montmorillonite, Px = pyroxene, Me = melilite,
Mu = mullite, He = hercynite, Hem = hematite, Mag = magnetite)
were exploited in antiquity, we can be sure that the seal impressions and the clay object represent resources that were
used during the early bronze age, even though not necessarily for pottery production. The soil samples were taken from
different localities near the site; they all have the same mineralogical composition. The composition of the unbaked clay
artifacts is very similar yet slightly distinct from that of the
soil samples (Table 1). The main constituent of both sets of
samples is calcite, followed by quartz. Calcite is not the only
carbonate material, since some dolomite is also present. These
two calcium-bearing minerals originate from limestone inclusions in the clay. The actual clay minerals are illite, kaolinite
and montmorillonite. Finally, plagioclase is present, too.
Between the two groups (soil samples and artifacts), only
small differences in illite and montmorillonite are observed.
In addition, the relative abundance of dolomite in some of
the seal impressions is higher. These differences might be
caused by a possible preparation of the raw materials before
using them, since these artifacts showed very few mineral
inclusions. This preparation (removing sand and limestone inclusions) would have altered the relative abundances of the
constituents. However, it is not excluded that also post depositional factors play a role. The latter refers to the issue of
whether ceramics are preserved during their burial in the soil.
Alteration processes have in the past been investigated by various research teams (e.g. [41–43]).
5.2
Cooking ware
Much of the mentioned mineral components are
also present in the cooking ware samples ([34] see cook-
ing ware 1 and cooking ware 2 in Table 1). The presence of
carbonates and clay minerals in these samples indicates that
cooking ware was fired at a relatively low temperature. Although clay minerals can sometimes hold their structure up
to considerable temperatures, the presence of calcite and in
many samples even dolomite indicates that a temperature of
ca. 800 ◦ C cannot have been exceeded. The exact temperature
is difficult to assess from mineralogical data alone, since the
exact temperature at which these carbonates decompose also
depends on factors like heating rate, firing atmosphere, and
grain size. However, in half of the samples no dolomite is left,
while in the other half its amount seems to have been already
diminished, meaning that the temperature would have been
somewhere around 800 ◦ C [44].
Two subgroups can clearly be distinguished when studying the cooking ware samples in thin section, (Fig. 4a
and b) [34]. They both contain a rather large amount (< 35%)
of large mineral inclusions. One subgroup is characterized by
large limestone inclusions of up to 2 mm. In addition, smaller
fragments of quartz and plagioclase are also present, and often small black opaque iron oxide inclusions, as well as mica
(biotite) are found. In some cases limestone is replaced by
angular monocrystalline calcite. The other subgroup is differentiated from the first one by the presence of large basalt
inclusions. All other minerals that are present in the samples from the first subgroup can usually also be found in the
samples from the second one. This means that in the second subgroup, large limestone inclusions exist next to the
basalt inclusions, albeit in smaller amounts. The large size
and (sub-)angular shape of the limestone and basalt inclusions
indicate that they were added by the potter. Basalt tempered
FIGURE 4 Petrography image (XP)
of (a) first subgroup showing clear
dominance of badly sorted limestone inclusions (sub-angular to subrounded, occasionally angular); dark
areas are pores (80 ×) and (b) a second subgroup showing a large basalt
inclusion (top of the image) including pyroxene and plagioclase; most
medium sized and smaller inclusions are limestone (pale colour) and
basalt fragments (80 ×). After [34]
BROEKMANS et al.
Insights into the production technology of north-Mesopotamian Bronze Age pottery
cooking ware is also known from other sites in the region, e.g.
Tell Rad Shaqrah [45], Tell Brak [46], and Tell Bderi [47].
It is clear that these large mineral inclusions in both subgroups were meant to increase the pots resistance to thermal
stress. As stated before, all cooking ware samples show an
open matrix structure, caused by the presence of elongated
(< 1 mm) cracks. Some samples also contain micropores of
up to 400 µm. This open structure would have had the same
purpose.
The division of the cooking ware samples in two distinct
groups is clearly visible in the SR-XRD results (Table 1). In
the first subgroup (cooking ware 1) calcite is the strongest
component (hence the lower quartz values), while the second subgroup (cooking ware 2) contains pyroxene and more
plagioclase, resulting from the basalt inclusions. Thin section
analysis shows these inclusions to be very poor in olivine,
consistent with the lack of identifiable olivine reflections in
the SR-XRD data.
Besides a difference in added non-plastics, we can not excluded that the firing technology differed between the two
cooking ware subgroups, given their differences in dolomite
and montmorillonite contents. This could suggest, for the second subgroup (cooking ware 2), a lower temperature, a shorter
firing cycle, a different firing atmosphere, or a combination
of these factors. However, the lower values for dolomite and
montmorillonite in the first subgroup (cooking ware 1) could
well be caused by the extremely high value for calcite, its
high abundance effectively diluting (lowering) the relative
amounts of the other minerals (as it is probably the case for the
low quartz values).
Both subgroups show an enormous chemical heterogeneity. Table 2 lists the chemical composition of two shards (one
of each type) merely as an indication.
It is not clear why basalt-tempered cooking pottery was
made contemporaneously with limestone tempered ware. The
shapes of the vessels made with the two different fabrics show
no difference, nor do any of their other features. The possible
differences in firing technology might indicate that the two
kinds of cooking pottery represent different potting traditions
or workshops.
5.3
Standard ware
These samples, contrary to the cooking ware samples, show a normal (to dense) matrix structure. Still, they
contain 15% – 25% of moderate to good size-sorted mineral
inclusions (Fig. 5). These are quartz, plagioclase and burnt-
Sample
Standard ware (N = 16)
Cooking ware type I (sherd 102)
Cooking ware type 2 (sherd 201)
Calcereous metallic ware (N = 14)
Non-calcareous metallic ware (N = 21)
Intermediate metallic ware (N = 8)
FIGURE 5
Petrography image (XP) of typical standard ware (80 ×)
out carbonate material, resulting from limestone decomposition. All samples also contain very small amounts of elongated sub-angular mica inclusions (usually biotite). Because
of their very small quantity, these inclusions are not always
recognized in the SR-XRD analysis. All inclusions are usually smaller than 200 µm (occasionally double that size).
Quartz and plagioclase inclusions have a sub-rounded to
sub-angular shape, the limestone leftovers are always (sub)rounded. Given the shape and size of the mineral inclusions,
we can assume that they were naturally present in the clay.
Since all limestone inclusions have decomposed in almost all
samples, they are usually absent in the SR-XRD data. However, some samples contain calcite, sometimes in significant
amounts. This calcite may originate from incomplete decomposition or from recarbonation [38, 39].
In the standard ware samples all carbonates and clay minerals have decomposed and recombined to form new high
temperature phases, indicating a higher firing temperature
(Table 1). These new phases are pyroxene (structurally similar to diopside) and melilite (structurally similar to gehlenite).
Plagioclase is also formed during firing. The total decomposition of carbonates and clay minerals, together with the existence of these new phases indicate that the firing temperature
must have been at least 850 ◦ C. The latter has been determined
by investigating the ceramics state of vitrification by means of
electron microscopy. The nature of the high temperature minerals also indicates that the calcium content of these samples
is high, as confirmed by chemical analysis (15% – 25% CaO).
The presence of hematite in all samples indicates a prevailing
oxidizing firing atmosphere, at least in the final stage of the
Na2 O
MgO
Al2 O3
SiO2
K2 O
CaO
SO3
TiO2
Fe2 O3 t∗
b.d.l.∗∗
b.d.l.
b.d.l.
0.8(0.3)
0.6(0.4)
b.d.l.
5(1)
4
8
5.0(0.7)
1.8(0.5)
5(1)
13(1)
12
16
12.2(0.8)
20(2)
15(2)
47(3)
48
59
49(3)
61(4)
59(3)
2.4(0.9)
3
2
2.8(0.6)
4(1)
2.6(0.8)
19(5)
24
14
21(4)
3(1)
9(5)
4(2)
2
b.d.l.
b.d.l.
1(1)
b.d.l.
0.7(0.2)
0.7
0.5
0.7(0.2)
1.1(0.2)
0.9(0.1)
8(2)
9
8
8(1)
7(2)
9(1)
∗ Fe O t = total Fe as Fe O
2 3
2 3
∗∗ b.d.l. = below detection limits
TABLE 2
39
Average elemental composition of the ceramic groups as revealed by SEM-EDS (SD between brackets)
40
Applied Physics A – Materials Science & Processing
firing cycle. The buff colour of all samples already indicated
a (neutral to) oxidizing atmosphere.
5.4
‘Metallic ware’
Investigation of the metallic ware samples using
optical and polarizing microscopy, enabled us to distinguish
three subgroups, depending on the structure of the matrix
FIGURE 7 SEM image (BSE mode) of non-calcareous metallic ware,
showing K-feldspar inclusions (light grey, dark grey are quartz inclusions)
and on the presence of mineral inclusions, namely calcareous
metallic ware (CaO > 15%), non-calcareous metallic ware
(CaO < 4%), and an intermediate group (CaO 5% – 10%)
(Fig. 6) [35]. The latter was separated because the CaO content of this group showed no continuity towards that of the
calcareous group, but also because this range of CaO content
was not represented in the standard ware. Not only CaO content, but also other elements, including trace elements caused
the division.
The mineralogical composition of calcareous metallic
ware resembles that of the standard ware (as does the elemental composition). The only difference is the lack of hematite
in the calcareous metallic ware, caused by a reducing atmosphere (Table 1).
SEM-EDS analysis indicate that the non-calcareous metallic ware was made using raw materials that were clearly of
non-local origin (Table 2). This is also reflected in the mineralogical composition (Table 1: metallic ware 2). Mullite indicates that kaolinitic clay was used, and that high temperatures
(at least 950 – 1000 ◦ C) were reached. These high temperatures are also indicated by the presence of hercynite, which is
formed in a reducing atmosphere. This group is also characterized by small amounts of K-spar, present in the form of inclusions (< 50 µm), as indicated by SEM-EDS analysis (Fig. 7).
The intermediate group differs from the calcareous group
and the standard ware, in that it contains less pyroxene, more
plagioclase, and no melilite (Table 1: metallic ware 3). This
is due to the lower amount of CaO in the intermediate group.
Some intermediate samples contain both hematite and magnetite. This is caused by the alternated use of oxidizing and
reducing atmospheres, resulting in a combination of red and
grey colours on this pottery. The section of these shards usually
shows a ‘sandwich pattern’, which is another indication for the
use of an alternating firing cycle. These samples show an even
denser matrix than the samples from the calcareous subgroup.
6
Petrography image (XP) of (a) calcareous metallic ware (40 ×),
(b) non-calcareous ware (60 ×) and (c) the intermediate group (60 ×)
FIGURE 6
Conclusions
The mineralogical analysis of Tell Beydar ceramics by SR-XRD and petrography have given us technological
BROEKMANS et al.
Insights into the production technology of north-Mesopotamian Bronze Age pottery
information on these ceramics, mainly regarding clay preparation and firing techniques.
It is clear that local clays are rich in calcium, mainly
caused by the presence of calcite and, to a lesser extent,
dolomite. Several artifacts in unbaked clay show virtually the
same mineralogical composition as these local clay samples.
Slight differences might be caused by clay preparation techniques, in particular the removal of non-plastic inclusions.
Phase analysis of cooking pottery has shown that low temperatures (< 800 ◦ C) were used. Two main types of cooking
ware are attested, differing from each other on a mineralogical level. One group is characterized by the presence of large
limestone inclusions, added by the potter. The other group
also contains limestone inclusions, but here also large basalt
inclusions (from local outcrops) are added. The firing cycle
for the basalt-rich group might have differed from the firing
technology of the limestone-rich group, in that a lower temperature, a shorter firing cycle, a different firing atmosphere,
or a combination of these was applied.
Standard ware does not contain obviously added nonplastics. Phase analysis shows that it is clearly fired at a relatively higher temperature (+850 ◦ C), in an oxidizing atmosphere (in the final stage of the firing cycle). The high temperature mineral phases indicate the use of a calcium-rich
clay. It is very likely that the local clays were used for production of standard ware (as suggested by chemical analysis).
Metallic ware is clearly to be divided in three subgroups.
These three mineralogical groups correspond with the earlier established chemical groups. The first subgroup totally
corresponds with the standard ware, except for the firing technology: high temperature phases evidently indicate a reducing atmosphere. A second subgroup of metallic ware clearly
has a non-local origin, given the absence of calcium bearing minerals. A kaolinitic clay was fired above 1000 ◦ C in
a reducing atmosphere. This pottery shows a very fine matrix with only very small inclusions. A third group differs
from the two others from a mineralogical (and chemical)
point of view. The values for the high temperature phases
differ from the two other subgroups because a less calcium
rich clay was used that for the first subgroup, and because
a different firing technology was used, namely an alternating
oxidizing and reducing atmosphere. The samples in this subgroup have the densest matrix of metallic ware samples. This
suggests a special preparation procedure of refining the raw
materials.
It is clear that different technologies were used for different kinds of pottery. While standard ware apparently required
no specific needs in terms of clay preparation or firing technology, cooking ware and metallic ware did. For cooking ware
these specific needs are clearly caused by its utilitarian character. Cooking pots are repeatedly heated and cooled again,
and therefore they should contain more than the average thermal stress resistance. Metallic ware was a more luxurious
ware. It was probably imported (or made from a non-local
non-calcareous clay), and then imitated by local potters using
local calcium-rich clays. These imitations started very early,
since calcium-rich metallic ware was attested to in the earliest
metallic ware levels at Tell Beydar. The meaning of the intermediate group of metallic ware remains unclear. This group
might represent another clay origin, or maybe another local
41
potting tradition, where maybe different (local and non-local)
clays were blended for the production of metallic ware imitations. Blending of different clays is still a common practice
among contemporary traditional potters.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thin section analysis were carried
out at the University of Southampton (UK). Thin section preparation and
imaging was done at Leuven University (Belgium). The authors would like
to thank Dr. David Williams (University of Southampton) and Prof. Dr.
Raoul Ottenburgs (Leuven University). This work was partly supported by
SRS Daresbury (EU FMP6 grant no. 39114) and the University of Antwerp
(BOF).
REFERENCES
1 D. Brooks, A.M. Bieber Jr., G. Harbottle, E.V. Sayre, In: Archaeological
Chemistry. Advances in Chemistry Series 138, ed. by C.W. Beck (Amer.
Chem. Soc., Washington DC, 1974) pp. 48
2 J.L. Huot (Ed.), Larsa et ’Oeili. Travaux de 1978–1981 (Editions
Recherches sur les Civilisations, Paris, 1983)
3 L. Courtois, B. Velde, Paléorient 10, 81 (1984)
4 J.L. Huot (Ed.), Larsa et ‘Oueili. Traveaux de 1983 (Editions Recherches
sur les Civilisations, Paris, 1987)
5 T.E. Davidson, J. Field. Archaeol. 8, 65 (1981)
6 T.E. Davidson, H. McKerrell, Iraq 38, 45 (1976)
7 T.E. Davidson, H. McKerrell, Iraq 42, 155 (1980)
8 D. Kamilli, C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Archaeometry 21, 47 (1979)
9 M. Le Mière, M. Picon, Paléorient 13, 133 (1987)
10 O. Nieuwenhuyse, L. Jacobs, B. van As, T. Broekmans, A. Adriaens,
Paléorient 27, 147 (2001)
11 W. Noll, Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie Abhandlungen 127, 261
(1976)
12 W. Noll, Acta Praehist. Archaeol. 7/8, 15 (1976)
13 W. Noll, Antike Welt 8, 21 (1977)
14 W. Noll, R. Holm, L. Born, Angew. Chem. 14, 602 (1975)
15 P.M. Rice (Ed.), Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, 1984)
16 A. Middleton, I. Freestone (Eds.), Recent Developments in Ceramic
Petrology (British Museum Occasional Papers 81, London, 1991)
17 R.B. Mason, Archaeometry 37, 307 (1995)
18 R.B. Mason, M.S. Tite, Archaeometry 36, 77 (1994)
19 R.E.M. Hedges, Archaeometry 18, 209 (1976)
20 R.E.M. Hedges, P.R.S. Moorey, Archaeometry 17, 25 (1975)
21 P.R.S. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994)
22 H. Neff (Ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology (Monographs in World Archaeology No. 7, Prehistory Press,
Madison, Wisconsin, 1992)
23 M.J. Blackman, G.J. Stein, P.B. Vandiver, Am. Antiquity 58, 60 (1993)
24 M.L. Eiland, Q. Williams, J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 993 (2000)
25 McG. Gibson (Ed.), Uch Tepe II. Technical reports (Oriental Institute
Publications, Chicago, 1990)
26 H. Kühne, G. Schneider, Damaszener Mitt. 3, 83 (1988)
27 R.H. Brill (Ed.), Science and Archaeology (MIT, Cambridge, 1971)
28 G. Schneider, World Archaeol. 21, 30 (1989)
29 R. Farquhar, R.G.V. Hancock, L.A. Pavlish (Eds.), Proc. 26th Int. Archaeometry Symp. (University of Toronto, Toronto, 1988)
30 I. Thuesen, Paléorient 13, 123 (1987)
31 J.L. Huot (Ed.), La préhistoire de la Mésopotamie (Editions Recherches
sur les Civilisation, Paris, 1987)
32 A. Lindahl, O. Stilborg (Eds.), The Aim of Laboratory Analyses of Ceramics in Archaeology (Kungl. Vitterhets Historie Och Antikvitets Ak,
Stockholm, 1995)
33 V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, Y. Maniatis (Eds.), Modern Trends in Scientific
Studies on Ancient Ceramics (Archaeopress, Oxford, 2002)
34 T. Broekmans, A. Adriaens, E. Pantos, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 226,
92 (2004)
35 T. Broekmans, A. Adriaens, E. Pantos, Archaeometry 48, 219 (2006)
36 V.P. Pomikarov, Geological Map of Syria (Technoexport, Moscow,
1963)
37 M. Lebeau, A. Suleiman (Eds.), Tell Beydar, Three Seasons of Excavations (1992–1994): A Preliminary Report (Brepols, Turnhout, 1997)
42
Applied Physics A – Materials Science & Processing
38 A. van As, L. Jacobs, Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology (Leiden University) 14/15, 49 (1997)
39 A. van As and l. Jacobs, A Technological Study of the Early Dynastic
and Old Akkadian Pottery, in: Tell Beydar: Environmental and Technical
Studies, Subartu VI, ed. by K. van Lerberghe, G. Voet (Turnhout, 2000)
pp. 203–224
40 A.P. Hammersley, O. Svensson, M. Hanfland, A.N. Fitch, D. Hauserman,
High Press. Res. 14, 235 (1996)
41 A. Schwedt, H. Mommsen, N. Zacharias, Archaeometry 46, 85 (2004)
42 I.C. Freestone, M.D. Meeks, A.P. Middleton, Archaeometry 27, 161
(1985)
43 U.M. Franklin, V. Vitali, Archaeometry 27, 3 (1985)
44 R.W. Grimshaw, The Chemistry and Physics of Clays and Other Allied
Ceramic Materials (Wiley, New York, 1971)
45 M. Daszkiewicz, G. Schneider, Polish Archaeol. Mediterr. 7, 171
(1996)
46 K. Fielden, Iraq 39, 245 (1977)
47 P. Pfälzner, Damaszener Mitt. 3, 223 (1988)