CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL APPROACHES TOTHE ORGANIZATION OF LATE BRONZE AGE NUZI
WARE PRODUCTION*
N. L. ERB-SATULLO†
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
A. J. SHORTLAND
Centre for Archaeological and Forensic Analysis, DEAS/CDS, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, Swindon SN6 8LA, UK
and K. EREMIN
Harvard Art Museums, 32 Quincy Street Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
In order to investigate the nature and organization of high-status ceramic production in theLate Bronze Age, samples of Nuzi Ware from four different sites were analysed using scanningelectron microscopy (SEM–EDS) and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectros-copy (ICP–AES). Chemical and mineralogical evidence suggests that Nuzi Ware was producedin at least two distinct regions, one probably in the Adhaim Basin in northern Iraq and anotherpossibly in the Orontes catchment in southeastern Turkey. The existence of individual produc-tion units probably developed in response to the local elites’ desire to imitate the tastes of theMitanni aristocracy, resulting in a mapping of political relationships on to material culture.
KEYWORDS: LATE BRONZE AGE, NEAR EAST, NUZI WARE, ICP–AES, SEM–EDS,PROVENANCE, ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
During the Late Bronze Age, the Near East saw numerous changes in its political, social andeconomic structure. Interregional contacts defined the history of Near Eastern civilization fromvery early times, due to the scarcity of resources such as stone and metal in the alluvial plains ofMesopotamia. Around the middle of the second millennium bc, however, the rise of regionalhegemons in Egypt, Anatolia and Mesopotamia set the stage for an unprecedented degree ofdiplomatic communication. State archives, particularly those from Tell Amarna in Egypt andHattuša in Anatolia, attest to a vigorous correspondence and a highly developed system ofinternational gift exchange (Liverani 2008; Shaw 2008).
Situated between the Hittites, Egyptians and Kassite Babylonians, the Mitanni Kingdom helda central position in the Near East by the early 15th century bc, controlling large parts of Syria,southeastern Turkey and northern Mesopotamia. The lack of archival evidence from the incon-clusively identified capital Waššukanni makes the political organization and history of theMitanni more obscure than that of its contemporaries (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 327). As
*Received 31 August 2010; accepted 24 January 2011†Corresponding author: email [email protected]
a result, archaeologists and ancient historians have a much poorer understanding of the Mitannithan of contemporary powers, and often rely on chronological synchronisms to reconstruct thehistory of the region (Evans 2008b). The relationship between the material culture of the regionand the socio-political structure of the Mitanni state remains largely unexplored, beyond thegeneralization that high-status materials such as glass and Nuzi Ware have some association withthe elite stratum of Mitanni society.
Late Bronze Age political organization revolved around systems of vassal states and ever-changing spheres of influence. Regional powers wielded authority over extensive vassal net-works, but frequently had to campaign to maintain and extend their spheres of influence (van deMieroop 2007, 136). Palace archives offer glimpses of a demand for elite materials driven bydiplomatic gift exchange, tribute and war spoils. Particularly with regard to luxury goods,scholars have argued that these centres also exerted control over some aspects of production(Kuhrt 1995, 298). The unprecedented connectivity, at least at the highest levels, had a significanteffect on the development of material culture across the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean.
During this period, a distinctive white-on-dark painted fineware known as Nuzi Ware sawwidespread usage, with a distribution ranging from the Orontes River in the east to beyond theLesser Zab River in the west (Fig. 1). In addition to white-on-dark paint, Nuzi Ware has a moreor less cohesive array of vessel shapes and design elements. Given the appearance of thisdecoration on delicate finewares in elite contexts (Stein 1984, 30; Evans 2008a; Pfälzner 2008)and the imitation of the stylistic repertoire found on early glass vessels (Hrouda 2001), the NuziWare corpus has a clear connection with the wealthier strata of Mitanni society (Mullins 2010).Studying this ceramic tradition—unusual amidst the trend towards mass production in the
Figure 1 A map of the region and the sites mentioned in the text (base map provided by Jason Ur).
1172 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
historic periods of Mesopotamia—offers a unique opportunity to study the effects of intra-regional political organization on elite material culture. Thus, the study of Nuzi Ware productionpermits an examination of economic and social relationships between cities and towns in theMitanni state. In order to examine the relationship between Mitanni socio-political organizationand material culture, this research project addresses several questions. Was Nuzi Ware the productof a single industry, or did multiple loci of production exist, each catering to local needs? Howhomogeneous did Nuzi Ware potters make the clay materials, whether through careful selectionof clay beds, levigation or other methods of clay refining? This question applies both to claychemistry and mineralogy, as well as to sizes and types of inclusions. Analysis of the chemistryand mineralogy of Nuzi Ware in conjunction with other Late Bronze Age ceramics will addressthese questions in new ways.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
Nuzi Ware has sparked a debate over its scope, origins and relationship with other painted waresfrom the region. The designs display regional variation, with some arguing for more floral andvegetal patterns at Alalakh (Tell Atchana) (Woolley 1955, 349–50; Mullins 2010, 60), while atNuzi, geometric patterns predominate (Moorey 1999, 158). The subset of Nuzi Ware found atAlalakh is sometimes referred to as Atchana ware. Alalakh’s first excavator, Leonard Woolley,argued that it was a possible local manufacture, but recent research suggests that it could be animport (Fink 2010, 102–10). Other scholars, looking at the assemblages from Tell Rimah and TellBrak, argue for greater stylistic homogeneity closer to the Mitanni heartland (Postgate et al.1997, 55). The latter site provides a long stratified sequence of Nuzi ware (Oates et al. 1997),which Pfälzner (2007) uses to delineate two ceramic traditions, Middle Jazireh IA and IB, inwhich Nuzi Ware appears in this region. Many see the popularity of Nuzi Ware as linked to thepolitical spread of Mitanni power (Stein 1984).
Given this proposed connection between pottery and politics, what does Nuzi Ware revealabout Mitanni society and economy? The centralized palace system of the great Late Bronze Ageempires created demand for specific types of material culture, and might have resulted in thewidespread exchange of high-status finewares between sites. The extreme case of this modelwould involve the exportation of Nuzi Ware from a single production region to the rest of theMitanni sphere. Alternatively, one could argue that the vassal system imposed by these powerspromoted an environment where local styles imitated those of the centralized core. Indeed, thelack of standardization and mass production evident in Middle Jazireh IA and IB traditions hintsat a more dispersed mode of production (Pfälzner 2007, 257–8). While exchange may haveplayed a part in initiating this system, scientific investigation of ceramic pastes should revealmultiple production centres if this model of production applies. Analysis of Nuzi Ware haspreviously been restricted to vessel form and decoration, and chemical and mineralogical analysisprovides a fresh perspective on these issues.
While published chemical and mineralogical analyses of Nuzi Ware are lacking, some studieshave analysed Near Eastern ceramic materials from other periods (Mynors 1982; Eiland andWilliams 2000; Broekmans et al. 2004, 2006, 2008; Kibaroglu 2005). Most successful are studiesthat combine a number of different methods and make a concerted effort to tie the geoarchaeo-logical analysis of ceramics with the geological variation of the region. Research on the tech-nology and production of ‘Metallic Ware’ has identified several different groups by their relativecalcium content at Tell Brak and Tell Chuera (Schneider 1989) and also at Tell Beydar (Broek-mans et al. 2006). Another study (Mynors 1982) used instrumental neutron activation analysis
The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1173
(INAA) to investigate a number of ceramics from Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf area.Importantly, this work also uses ceramic petrology as a further comparison to support itsconclusions, with the relative frequencies of the minerals epidote and biotite being the mostimportant discriminants. Batiuk (2005) assessed the provenience of the late fourth to early thirdmillennium bc Red-Black Burnished Wares from the Amuq Plain near Alalakh, arguing thatmany of the ceramics were locally produced. Other studies have examined ceramic productionfrom a combined chemical and metric perspective, looking at the standardization of vessel sizesand chemical composition within the product of a single firing episode (Blackman et al. 1993).As a whole, these studies provide a methodological basis with which to approach the materialsanalysis of ceramics from the Mesopotamian alluvium and surrounding regions.
GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
A discussion of regional geological variation is crucial for anchoring clay chemistry and min-eralogy to regional geology, an essential component of any provenance study. Mineral distri-butions and the structural geology of the region provide a framework for interpreting pastemineralogy.
Running roughly north-west to south-east, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers pass through a flatalluvial plain and into the Persian Gulf. North-east of the Tigris lie the Zagros Mountains andtheir foothills (Fig. 1). The tectonic forces raising these mountains created a complex geology,producing igneous rocks ranging from acidic to basic, as well as metamorphic rocks andlimestone (see Buday 1980, 303–42). On the south-west flank of the Zagros Mountains lies afoothill zone characterized by geosynclines and anticlinal ridges. The Quaternary sedimentssurrounding Nuzi are characterized as polygenetic synclinal fill, primarily gravel and clay,reaching a depth of up to 120 m, while nearby anticlinal ridges of Late Miocene – Pliocenemolasse (Aqrawi et al. 2006) consist of sandstones and mudstones (Jassim and Buday 2006).
Heavy mineral composition of Mesopotamian sediments provides a key means of distinguish-ing among sediments from different river tributaries (Fig. 2). Two key studies (Philip 1970; Ali1977) analysed the heavy mineral composition of sediments from numerous sites along theTigris, Euphrates and their tributaries. In particular, the authors noted higher concentrations ofepidotes in the Adhaim River and nearby Pleistocene terrace sediments, while those samesediments had very low incidences of pyroxenes. Philip proposed that selective sediment trans-port contributes to the high epidote concentrations in the Adhaim Basin (1970, 44). The AdhaimRiver does not penetrate as far into the Zagros Mountains as the other three major tributaries ofthe Tigris, making it harder for minerals from the upper regions of the Zagros Mountains to reachits waters. Both studies showed that sediments of the main channels of the Tigris and EuphratesRivers did not differ dramatically with respect to their heavy mineral content, though othertributaries often had more distinct signatures.
The structural geology of the region introduces some possible complications. The problem ofvertical variation in rivers cutting through terraced landscapes (see Buringh 1960, 133) compli-cates attempts to uniquely characterize the region based on horizontal variation. While it shouldnot be viewed as an infallible resource, the compiled geological information provided by thisliterature survey provides an additional framework for interpreting the chemical and mineralogi-cal results. Nuzi is situated in the Adhaim Basin, with its high epidote frequencies. The site ofAlalakh, on the other hand, lies outside of Mesopotamia on the Amuq Plain near the OrontesRiver (Fig. 1). The Orontes catchment is characterized by regions of sedimentary limestone anddolomite, but basalt outcrops and ophiolites are present upstream (Maritan et al. 2005, 724), and
1174 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
may contribute basic ferromagnesian mineral inclusions to local clay bodies. This hypothesis isconfirmed by the petrographic analysis of ceramics from the Amuq Plain, many of whichcontained pyroxenes and serpentines (Batiuk 2005).
The geological variation in Mesopotamia and the northern Levant necessarily limits theanalytical resolution with which we can approach the problem of Nuzi Ware provenience. The
Figure 2 The relative frequencies of the pyroxenes, amphiboles, epidotes and iron ores in the Euphrates Valley. Each piechart represents a sampling location. This map was generated using data from Philip (1970) (Euphrates and Tigris mainbranches and Adhaim Basin) and Ali (1977) (Greater and Lesser Zab Basins, Diyala Basin and Adhaim Basin). WhilePhilip simply identified ‘iron ores’, Ali distinguished between hematite, magnetite and ilmenite, so these values wereadded together to make comparisons possible.
The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1175
identification of ‘local’ production can only be as specific as the size of the smallest geologicallydistinct region. In the case of Nuzi, this region is the Adhaim catchment, with its reported highnumbers of epidotes in the heavy mineral fraction. The density of sampling by Philip and Ali doesnot permit a refining of this geological region, and smaller-scale variations due to the geomor-phological processes described above are likely to create a high degree of overlap. In the case ofAlalakh, the smallest easily distinguished geological unit is likely to be the Orontes River and itstributaries—all of which drain regions with igneous outcrops of basic chemistry. Archaeologistsconducting ethnographic analysis of contemporary potters suggest that most potters do not travelmore than 7 km for clay or temper (Arnold 1985, 49; Arnold 2005, 16–17). Given the nature ofthe geology in Mesopotamia, however, it is unlikely that we will be able to distinguish differentproduction sites within the Amuq Plain or the Adhaim catchment, despite the fact that thesevalleys are much larger than 14 km in diameter. Nevertheless, these limitations do not negatethe possibility of identifying imports from farther afield, such as the Mitanni heartland innortheastern Syria.
SAMPLES AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
Samples from 54 ceramic objects, including a variety of Nuzi Ware and other comparative LateBronze Age ceramics were included in this study. Nuzi Ware samples, recently excavated fromLate Bronze Age layers at Alalakh (Yener 2010), provide data from a site on the western edge ofMitanni influence, while Tell Rimah (Postgate et al. 1997), Tell Billa (Speiser 1932–3) and Nuziitself (Starr 1939) provide Nuzi Ware samples from further east (Table 1). Two samples of SimpleWare from Alalakh provide comparative ceramics probably made at or near the site. Roughlycontemporary ceramics from the site of Nuzi, including a range of vessels, decorative objects,architectural elements and installations, give an extensive array of comparative material from thatsite, some of which are probably of local origin. Clays used in some of these artefacts probablydid not travel far from their source, providing data on the local variability in clay signatures.Samples from Nuzi come from Stratum II, the Late Bronze Age layer, whose destruction is datedto around the mid-14th century bc, contemporary with Middle Jazireh IA (Stein 1989; Pfälzner2007, 236).
Scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM–EDS)
Scanning electron microscopy was employed to obtain backscatter electron images of ceramicpastes, and to identify mineral inclusions. An Oxford Instruments Isis 300 SEM at the Uni-versity of Oxford was used for chemical identification of mineral inclusions in samples fromNuzi, while a JEOL 840A SEM at Cranfield University provided backscatter electron imagesof these samples. Samples from Alalakh, Tell Billa and Tell Rimah were analysed using aJEOL JSM-6460 LV SEM with an Oxford Instruments INCA X-Sight EDS system at theMuseum of Fine Arts in Boston. Cobalt standards were periodically run during the analysis,but since mineral identifications were based on a qualitative analysis of EDS peak height, noquantitative point analyses are reported here. Small samples were taken from the sherds and setin epoxy resin, ground and polished. SEM blocks were carbon coated in order to preventsample charging.
For geological characterization, backscatter images were taken in order to provide standard-ized information about inclusions, porosity and vitrification. Backscatter images were taken witha probe current of 9 nA and an accelerating voltage of 15 kV. The pastes of these ceramic samples
1176 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
were compared based on inclusion size distribution, density and shape, as well as matrix porosityand the presence of burnt-out organic remains. Backscatter images allowed the assessment ofoverall paste homogeneity in the samples under study.
For mineral identification, spot analysis using an EDS detector was chosen for its rapid samplethroughput and equipment availability. Minerals with a splotchy, inhomogeneous appearanceprobably underwent chemical alteration and were generally avoided in spot analyses. For eachsample, mineral inclusions with different backscatter appearances were analysed until the domi-nant mineral types present in the sample were identified. Minerals were recorded as either presentin the sample or undetected. For most samples, between 10 and 20 different mineral inclusionswere analysed. In most cases, the minerals were easily identified by their EDS spectra. This wasthe case for feldspars, quartz and several other types. Other minerals, such as pyroxenes, weremore difficult to identify due to solid solution chemical variability within mineral types. Never-theless, even when spectra could not be attributed to a mineral with absolute certainty, theconsistent appearance of certain spectra allowed differentiation between mineral types. After thecompletion of analysis, characteristic minerals were chosen as useful discriminants betweenceramic groups. Based on both the percentage of samples containing the presence of a certainmineral, as well as the density of that mineral within those samples, each diagnostic mineral typewas assigned a qualitative value from ‘o’ (not identified in any sample) to ‘xxxx’ (present in atleast 80% of samples in the group and often identified more than once in a sample) for eachceramic type (Table 2).
While SEM analysis of the ceramic sherds provides semi-quantitative chemical analyses, itcannot accurately determine elemental concentrations below about 0.05–0.26% (Pollard et al.2007, 111). ICP–AES analysis of Nuzi ceramics provided bulk chemical data to complementSEM–EDS analysis. The size of some samples prevented all of those analysed by SEM–EDSfrom being analysed by ICP–AES; of the total of 54 samples, 38 were subjected to this technique,with two repeat measurements. Ceramic samples were chosen to avoid sampling any museumlacquer, glaze or other foreign substances. Obvious surface contaminants were sanded off.Remaining samples were powdered using a mortar and pestle and sent to the analytical unit.Sample dissolution and measurement were performed at Royal Holloway using a PerkinElmer3300 RL ICP optical spectrometer. Trace element detection limits for range from 2 to 5 ppm(N. Walsh, pers. comm.).
RESULTS
Ceramic paste characteristics
Backscatter images provided a standardized method of comparing different types of ceramicswith respect to their inclusion types, sizes and densities. Before delving into the mineralogicaldetails of each ceramic type, it is worthwhile to describe the general characteristics of theceramics pastes from each site, discuss the possibility of intentional tempering and assess thedegree of homogeneity within each ceramic type (Table 2).
Nuzi Ware At different sites, Nuzi Ware assemblages display different degrees of homogeneitywith respect to their ceramic pastes. At Alalakh, Nuzi Ware decoration appears both on relatively
1178 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
coarse ceramic bodies as well as finer wares (Figs 3 (a) and 3 (b)). By contrast, Nuzi Waresamples from Nuzi itself are all finer wares, with very little variability in general paste charac-teristics. Samples of this type have very small inclusions, rarely above 100 mm, and containalmost no voids left by organic inclusions (Fig. 3 (e)). Likewise, the Nuzi Ware samples obtained
Figure 3 Backscatter images of Nuzi/Atchana Ware from Alalakh (a, b), Tell Billa (c), Tell Rimah (d) and Nuzi (e), aswell as unpainted fineware from Nuzi (f). The scale bar at the bottom left is 400 mm. Note the variation in coarseness ofNuzi Ware from Alalakh, the microstructural homogeneity at the three eastern sites, and the similarities between paintedand unpainted finewares at Nuzi. Inclusion labels: 1, ferromagnesian 1; 2, ferromagnesian 2; 3, quartz (includes quartzand other microcrystalline varieties); 4, epidote; 5, Cr-rich spinel; 6, potassium feldspar (orthoclase); 7, mixed alkalifeldspar; 8, plagioclase feldspar; 9, ilmenite.
1180 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
from Tell Billa and Tell Rimah (Figs 3 (c) and 3 (d)) also had a similarly fine microstructure.Macroscopic examination of a wider selection of Tell Billa Nuzi Ware sherds confirms that NuziWare at this site was restricted to finer clay vessels. Admittedly, with only three samples fromBilla and two from Rimah, generalizations are difficult, but the appearance of Nuzi Waredecoration on only finer ceramic types seems consistent with findings at Nuzi. The fineness andhomogeneity of ceramic paste characteristics at these sites suggest that either potters refined claysextensively or selected their clay resources very carefully, favouring deposits with very smallinclusions.
Unpainted finewares from Nuzi Unpainted goblets and other finewares from Nuzi displaymarked similarities with Nuzi Ware fabrics (Figs 3 (e) and 3 (f)). Both types have very finefabrics, with inclusions under 100 mm, and have only small variations in inclusion density.Comparisons with Nuzi Ware from the site do not show any correlation between inclusiondensity and painted decoration. As a result, it is impossible to distinguish between paintedNuzi Ware from Nuzi and unpainted fineware from the same site on the basis on ceramicmicrostructure.
Wall nails, mudbricks and other architectural elements Wall nails from Nuzi display consid-erable variation in their backscatter appearance. They are coarser than the Nuzi Ware andunpainted goblets, with some samples containing inclusions around 400 mm in diameter. Somewall nails also contain the burnt-out remains of organic inclusions, but others have very few. Onthe other hand, samples of mudbrick and wall pieces form a cohesive group, having a very distinctbackscatter appearance, with the clear presence of voids from organic temper. Mineral inclusionsare very dense, but are not exceedingly large. The friable nature of these samples and the lack ofextensive vitrification suggests that these objects, if heated at all, were fired at a low temperature.The addition of organic temper to the mudbricks would make sense from a technical standpoint,allowing the mudbrick to keeps its shape while drying (Rice 1987, 74). However, the smoothrange of mineral inclusion sizes in the Nuzi mudbricks suggests that the mineral inclusionsoccurred naturally.
Zoomorphic lion vessels and sculptures The paste characteristics of Nuzi lions had a highdegree of variability. Samples differed widely in both the density and the size of inorganicinclusions, and the density of voids left by organic inclusions. One sample, from object1930.4B.3, was characterized by high densities of angular mineral inclusions, but contained littleevidence of burnt-out organics. Since another sample taken from the same artefact did not havethe same microstructure, it is possible that different parts of the lions were made separately, withcertain features containing additional temper to allow the object to hold its shape. The micro-structural variability displayed both between and within lion samples suggests that there was alack of consistent methods for creating these sculptures, an unsurprising discovery given the widevariety of styles.
Ceramic mineralogy
Energy-dispersive X-ray analyses of mineral inclusions revealed the presence of several diag-nostic inclusions, differentiating ceramics from different sites while displaying broad similaritiesbetween different types of artefacts from the same site (Table 2). At Nuzi, minerals with highpeaks of calcium, aluminium and silicon, and an occasional smaller iron peak, are present in a
The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1181
large number of samples from all object types. This mineral is almost certainly epidote. Bycontrast, ferromagnesian minerals are much rarer. Some chromium-bearing minerals do appear ina number of samples, but usually as very small grains less than 100 mm in size. Potassium-richorthoclase feldspars are very common in the ceramic assemblage from Nuzi, while mixed alkali,sodium-rich and plagioclase feldspars are less common, but still present in many of the samples.Some slight differences in mineralogical characteristics between groups are apparent, such as thehigher occurrence of sodium-rich feldspars in the mudbricks, and mixed-alkali feldspars in theunpainted fineware group. On the whole, however, they match up with other ceramic types fromNuzi with respect to other diagnostic minerals.
Alalakh ceramics displayed a characteristic mineralogy that was consistent between Nuzi/Atchana ware and Simple Ware, but differed dramatically from Nuzi Ware at other sites.Despite the dramatic differences in inclusion sizes and density, both the coarse and fine Nuzi/Atchana Wares, as well as the Simple Ware samples, all contained a similar suite of minerals,characterized by a profusion of ferromagnesian minerals, and distinct lack of potassium-richfeldspars and those minerals identified as epidote in the Nuzi ceramics. Two distinct andcohesive types of ferromagnesian minerals were identified in the Nuzi/Atchana Ware samplesfrom Alalakh. One type has very large silicon and magnesium peaks of about equal height,with an additional smaller iron peak often appearing. The other type has a high silicon peak,with intermediate peaks of magnesium, calcium and iron. These minerals have been labelledferromagnesian 1 and 2, respectively. Based on a knowledge of mineral chemistry and alter-ation processes, as well as recent petrographic work on Simple Ware from Alalakh (Groomet al. 2010), ferromagnesian 1 is probably serpentine or partially altered olivine. Ferromagne-sian 2, on the other hand, is probably a pyroxene. Additionally, ferromagnesian 1 has a verydistinct backscatter appearance, generally angular and often with a small cavity surrounding it,making it easy to identify from the backscatter electron image alone (see Fig. 3 (b)). From thisevidence, it is clear that these two highly distinctive ferromagnesian minerals are far morecommon in Alalakh ceramics than at Nuzi and other sites. Perhaps surprisingly, given thepresence of the other mineral characteristic of basic and ultrabasic rocks, chromium-rich min-erals seem relatively uncommon in Alalakh ceramics, while at Nuzi, they appear more regu-larly as detrital grains.
Given the smaller number of samples, the mineralogy of samples from Tell Billa and TellRimah are somewhat harder to characterize. The two samples from Tell Rimah both containedchromium-bearing minerals, and epidote also appears in one sample. Given Rimah’s positionbetween the Tigris and Euphrates, local geological variation is likely to be subtle and complex,requiring a larger sample size for further answers. Epidote was identified in all three Billasamples, while the ferromagnesian minerals of the types found at Alalakh are entirely absent. Aswith many of the Nuzi groups, orthoclase is the most prominent type of feldspar.
Bulk chemical analyses
Major element bulk chemistry (Table 3) reveals several distinct trends. First, samples fromeach site reflect a high positive correlation between Al2O3 and Fe2O3 (Fig. 4). At Nuzi, differentartefact classes (fineware, lions, architectural elements etc.) tend to plot at different pointsalong this linear trend, with pottery containing relatively more Al2O3 and Fe2O3 than lions andarchitectural elements. A similar variation is seen in ceramics from Alalakh, with Nuzi/AtchanaWare and Simple Ware plotting at different points along a linear trend. Considering the micro-structural variation and mineralogical homogeneity at Alalakh and Nuzi, it is probable that
1182 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
these chemical variations derive from the varying presence of silica-rich inclusions indifferent ceramic types. Architectural elements and lions, often containing large quartz grains,tend have higher amounts of SiO2, driving the percentages of Al2O3 and Fe2O3 down. A plotof CaO values displays a parallel pattern, with the finer wares having a slightly more calcar-eous matrix on average. Factoring out variability based on fabric coarseness and possibleclay processing, intra-site variability in major element chemistry is quite low for Alalakh andNuzi.
While the ceramic assemblages from the sites of Alalakh and Nuzi both show a correlationbetween Fe2O3 and Al2O3, the ratios between these two compounds differ markedly between thesites, with Alalakh samples containing higher Fe2O3/Al2O3 ratios. These differences in majorelement chemistry parallel differences observed in mineral inclusions, since Alalakh ceramicstend to have more ferromagnesian minerals characteristic of basic and ultrabasic source rocks.This correlation suggests that these different ratios are due not to post-depositional alteration, butto the underlying geology of clay resources. Paralleling the mineralogical results, Tell Billa andTell Rimah samples appear to be indistinguishable from the Nuzi assemblage based on majorelements.
Trace element analysis generally shows the same groupings. A plot of Zn versus Ni (Fig. 5)reveals a higher concentration of Ni in samples from Alalakh than those from Nuzi. Samples fromTell Rimah and Tell Billa have higher Zn content than all Late Bronze Age samples from Nuzi,but once again, a small sample size precludes the certainty of this distinction. Given the lack ofother mineralogical or chemical differences, we cannot argue for a distinction among Nuzi warefrom Nuzi, Tell Rimah and Tell Billa at this stage.
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Fe 2O
3 (w
t.%
)
Al2O3 (wt.%)
Nuzi/Atchana Ware (Alalakh)
Simple Ware (Alalakh)
Nuzi Ware (Tell Billa)
Nuzi Ware (Tell Rimah)
Nuzi Ware (Nuzi)
Unpainted Fineware (Nuzi)
Lions (Nuzi)
Bricks and Wall Pieces (Nuzi)
Wall Nails (Nuzi)
Glazed Jars (Nuzi)
Teship Tilla's "Bathtub" (Nuzi)
Figure 4 A plot of Fe2O3 versus Al2O3 for Nuzi Ware and other ceramics from the sites in this study.
The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1185
In order test whether observations made from bi-plots of major, minor and trace elements heldup when many elements were considered in tandem, hierarchical cluster analysis was conductedon a group of selected elements. In order to minimize erroneous groupings, certain elements wereeliminated prior to cluster analysis. In this process, we followed the method of Baxter (1994, 79),removing elements not to ignore them, but in the recognition that they reflect groupings thatcorrespond to post-depositional alteration or other processes not indicative of the geologicalorigin of the clay and temper. Na2O and Cu were eliminated from consideration since severalglazed samples contained anomalous values that were probably due to the degradation of thecopper-coloured glaze. Pb was also eliminated, since a single sample (1930.5B.113) had 50 timesthe lead of any other sample, but was otherwise chemically similar to other Nuzi ceramics. Thetrace elements Sr and Ba were also eliminated due their known mobility in post-depositionalenvironments (Waksman et al. 1994, 828) and the number of anomalous measurements that didnot correlate with other chemical differences. Finally, the four trace elements with all measure-ments below 10 ppm were removed due to potential instrumental error, and Zr was also elimi-nated due to potential issues with zircon dissolution in the analytical process (N. Walsh, pers.comm.). All other elements were included in the analysis. While it is recognized that otherelements, such as Mg, Ca and K, can also mobilize during burial (Tite 2008, 225), these elementswere not eliminated, since the measured values did not show any unusual features not reflectedin other elemental plots. Hierarchical cluster analysis (Fig. 6) revealed generally the samestructure as observed in the bi-plots. Samples from Alalakh are clearly differentiated from thosefrom Nuzi. One sample (A3) was distinguished from the rest of the Alalakh samples, but this
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Zn
(pp
m)
Ni (ppm)
Nuzi/Atchana Ware (Alalakh)
Simple Ware (Alalakh)
Nuzi Ware (Tell Billa)
Nuzi Ware (Tell Rimah)
Nuzi Ware (Nuzi)
Unpainted Finewares (Nuzi)
Lions (Nuzi)
Bricks and Wall Pieces (Nuzi)
Wall Nails (Nuzi)
Glazed Jars (Nuzi)
Teship Tilla's "Bathtub" (Nuzi)
Figure 5 A plot of Zn versus Ni for Nuzi Ware and other ceramics from the sites in this study.
1186 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
difference is not mirrored in microstructural or mineralogical analysis. Cluster analysis alsoshowed that Tell Billa and Tell Rimah Nuzi Ware could not be distinguished from Nuzi NuziWare. In general, multivariate analysis takes into account a larger segment of the chemical datathan one or two bi-plots, but it does not alter the interpretation of the data.
DISCUSSION
Evidence for Nuzi Ware production in different geological regions
Chemical and mineralogical analysis revealed several distinct trends in major, minor and traceelement data. ICP–AES measurements on the ceramic fabrics reveal a correlation betweenaluminium and iron content, with samples from the same sites plotting along the same lines. Thesecorrelations in the data most probably reflect variations due to the relative coarseness of the fabric.SEM analysis demonstrated that silicon-rich quartz grains often appear as larger inclusions in the
Figure 6 A dendrogram from hierarchical cluster analysis of the ICP–AES results.
The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1187
coarser ceramics, decreasing the weight percentages of iron and aluminium, with no significantchange in the underlying clay chemistry. Correlations between other elements also exist, addingfurther weight to these conclusions. These variations may have some connection with intentionalclay processing, or they might be due to the natural variations in different clay beds.
With these considerations, iron to aluminium ratios provide a better means of discriminatingbetween different clay types. The higher ratios of iron to aluminium observed in Alalakh samplessuggests that clay sources for these objects differed from those at Nuzi, probably coming from aregion with more iron-rich basic igneous rocks. Mudbrick samples, with their very high inclusiondensities, have somewhat different percentages of iron and aluminium than the bulk of ceramicsfrom Nuzi (see Fig. 4). However, they do have very similar iron to aluminium ratios, which differfrom samples at other sites. Even at the level of major element chemistry, evidence begins tosuggest that Nuzi Ware at Alalakh and at Nuzi had different clay sources corresponding todifferent regional geology. This hypothesis is further supported by the trace element data, whichalso shows Nuzi Ware at Alalakh as having a different chemistry than Nuzi Ware from other sites.Multivariate statistical analyses show similar patterns, with the ceramics from Nuzi separatingfrom ceramics from Alalakh at a high level, before distinctions are made within the ceramicmaterials from Nuzi.
Microstructural analysis of Nuzi Ware from different sites also reveals several patterns ofregional production. Among the samples from Alalakh, white-on-dark decoration appears on veryfine samples, but also on a coarser sample (Fig. 3). By contrast, the Nuzi Ware samples fromNuzi, Tell Rimah and Tell Billa all have much more uniform paste characteristics. The differingcharacteristics of Nuzi Ware pastes may reflect divergent traditions associated with the produc-tion and consumption of Nuzi Ware in different regions. Chemical and mineralogical compari-sons between the two types of Nuzi Ware at Alalakh reveal little difference between them,suggesting that clays for both types of ceramic came from the same geological region. Numerousexplanations could explain the distribution of paste characteristics. Differing technical require-ments of different vessel sizes, differing uses and the demands of different social groups mayhave all played a role.
The relationship between Nuzi Ware and unpainted finewares
Chemical and microstructural results prompt a reconsideration of the relationship betweenunpainted finewares and Nuzi Ware in the Adhaim. Major, minor and trace element chemistryshows few differences between the two groups. Mineralogy reflects similar trends, althoughferromagnesian minerals are slightly more prevalent in unpainted finewares. These indicatorsreinforce the formal similarities between painted and unpainted versions of high cups andshouldered goblets at Nuzi (Starr 1939, 394–5). Unpainted fineware goblets appear in widelyvarying contexts, such as the Ur III and Isin–Larsa Period in southern Mesopotamia (see Stein1984, 26–7, pl. VII). Additionally, unpainted shouldered and straight-sided goblets appear at TellRimah (Postgate et al. 1997, pl. 67,72) as well as Tell Brak (Oates et al. 1997, 188–9). Thisevidence does suggest that Nuzi Ware and unpainted finewares followed similar productionmodels, although it is the white-on-dark painted decoration that is specific to areas of Mitanniinfluence.
The provenance of Nuzi Ware
Chemical and mineralogical data demonstrate similarities between Nuzi Ware and other ceram-ics made from the same site. What does chemical and mineralogical data reveal about the
1188 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
geographical locations of clay resources? Mineralogical analyses, particularly the relativeamounts of epidotes, feldspars and ferromagnesian minerals, suggest an origin for Nuzi Warefrom Nuzi in the Adhaim Basin, based on the known distributions of heavy minerals (Fig. 2).As in previous research on Mesopotamian ceramics (Mynors 1982) and sediments (Philip1970; Ali 1977), epidote also appears to be a key mineral for distinguishing between differentregions. The identification of a mineral whose chemical composition is consistent with epidotein a large proportion of all Nuzi ceramics, coupled with the relative lack of ferromagnesiansilicates such as those identified in Alalakh samples, demonstrates that the mineralogy of theNuzi assemblage as a whole matches the heavy mineral distribution of the Adhaim Basin. Withrespect to bulk chemistry, lower iron to aluminium ratios (Fig. 4) also suggest a region lessdominated by iron- and magnesium-rich silicates, such as the Adhaim. Moreover, the chemicaland mineralogical match between Nuzi Ware and other ceramic types at Nuzi provides furtherevidence for this conclusion. While intra-regional variation precludes a direct match betweenthe Nuzi clay inclusions and Adhaim River sediments, the chemical and mineralogical signa-ture of Nuzi Ware from Nuzi is consistent with a local origin in the Adhaim.
On the other hand, Nuzi/Atchana Ware samples from Alalakh clearly differ from Nuzi Wareat other sites, with respect to both chemistry and mineralogy. Moreover, the application ofNuzi/Atchana Ware decoration to several distinct fabric types at Alalakh contrasts with therelative homogeneity observed elsewhere. Detailed information about heavy mineral distribu-tions in sediments is lacking outside of Iraq, but the proximity of ophiolitic and basalticprovinces upstream of Alalakh on the Orontes (Maritan et al. 2005, 724) could easily accountfor the very high frequency of minerals characteristic of basic and ultrabasic rocks. Batiuk’s(2005) investigations of Amuq Red-Black Burnished Ware revealed a similar suite of ferro-magnesian minerals such as pyroxene and serpentine in pottery that, he concluded, was locallyproduced. Pottery from Qatna often contains an abundance of ferromagnesian minerals andbasaltic rock fragments (Maritan et al. 2005). ICP–AES and SEM–EDS analyses show simi-larities between the two samples of Alalakh Simple Ware, probably a local manufacture, andthe Nuzi/Atchana Ware. Furthermore, petrographic analyses of other Simple Ware samplesshow that basaltic rock fragments are visible alongside foraminifera microfossils (Groom et al.2010). An examination of one of the coarser samples of Nuzi Ware shows that it also con-tains foraminifera. These considerations strongly suggest a production centre in the Orontescatchment, if not in the immediate vicinity of Alalakh, distinct from production centres furthereast.
Provenance determination for Nuzi Ware samples from Tell Billa and Tell Rimah is compli-cated both by the geology of their immediate surroundings and by the small number of samplesexamined by SEM–EDS and ICP–AES. Tell Billa lies fairly close to the main channel of theTigris River, while Tell Rimah lies between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Geological homoge-neity of the main channel sediments complicates fine distinctions between clay sources. Never-theless, Tell Billa Nuzi Ware shares many chemical and mineralogical characteristics withceramics from the site of Nuzi. The lack of ferromagnesian silicates is somewhat surprising,given the prevalence of pyroxenes minerals in the nearby Greater Zab River (Ali 1977). It ispossible that Tell Billa Nuzi Ware was made in a production centre close to those that producedNuzi Ware found at Nuzi, but this suggestion remains only conjectural given the sample size, andit is called into question by the different painting style of Nuzi Ware found on some sherds at TellBilla, characterized by thicker lines and dense infilling of white dots. What is clear from thisinitial research, however, is that at least two regions, one probably in the Amuq and the other inthe Adhaim catchment, produced Nuzi Ware.
The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1189
Evidence from the chemical and mineralogical analysis of Nuzi Ware ceramics at several sitessuggests multiple loci of production. Nuzi Ware ceramics were often produced in the samegeological region in which they were used and discarded. It is also significant that investiga-tions at the sites of Nuzi and Alalakh show that Nuzi Ware, although frequently associatedwith the Mitanni elite, was produced in regions far from the centre of Mitanni power in theSyrian Jazireh. Although these results are certainly preliminary, they permit several hypo-theses about the social and economic processes at work at the fringes of Mitanni influence.Different production centres probably mimicked an artistic style that appealed to the tastes ofthe Mitanni elite. By adopting the material culture of these political centres, local eliteswould enhance their status within the vassal system. While these local rulers may not haveexercised explicit control over pottery production, elite residences such as the palace atNuzi would have contributed to an efflorescence of local Nuzi Ware production. Nuzi Wareis one of the only features that links the ceramic tradition at Nuzi to the Syrian Jazirehregion to the west (Pfälzner 2007, 257), suggesting that the adoption of Nuzi ware atNuzi was a selective process. Woolley (1955, 347) suggests a development of this sort atAlalakh based on the erroneous conclusion of Atchana/Nuzi Ware’s stylistic uniqueness(see Fink 2010, 103). These new analyses suggest that a local production model is in factlikely, both at Alalakh and at Nuzi. These hypotheses are consistent with Pfälzner’s interpre-tation of Mitanni ceramic economy as a ‘closely integrated network of a “nucleated workshopindustry” ’ (Pfälzner 2007, 257). The better-documented expansion of terra sigillata productionfrom Italy to Gaul and other provinces during the Roman Empire, with local productionspringing up to supply provincial Roman tastes (Mirti et al. 1999), may represent an analogousprocess.
Just as associations between pottery and ethnicity are often suspect, ceramic distribu-tions should not be casually equated with political boundaries in general, especially in theshifting political landscape of the Late Bronze Age. Nevertheless, on account of the high-status appeal of Nuzi Ware, attributing its development to socio-political conditions isquite reasonable. This model places Stein’s conception of Nuzi Ware as a product of thepolitical and economic environment on more concrete footing, providing a mechanismfor how politics influenced material culture. However, it contradicts the specifics of herproposed production model, which was based on the wide variety of designs appearingon a homogeneous array of vessel forms. She hypothesizes that ‘Nuzi Ware shapes wereexported from a center of production to a number of sites where they were subsequentlydecorated by local artisans, perhaps upon commission’ (Stein 1984, 28). Instead, evidencefrom Alalakh and Nuzi strongly suggests the presence of at least two, but probably more,distinct areas of production for the vessels themselves. Intriguing connections can be drawnbetween these ceramics results and recent analyses of Late Bronze Age glasses (Degryseet al. 2010), which also suggest the existence of several production centres within Syria andnorthern Mesopotamia. The dispersed production of a common style of ceramics mirrors theLate Bronze Age political system, characterized by imperial powers and dispersed vassalsystems. Further work, particularly petrographic analysis and the expansion of the study toinclude more sites, will help to further refine compositional groups and provide a more com-plete picture of this Late Bronze Age ceramic industry. More generally, this project will estab-lish the resolution with which one can study ceramic provenience in alluvial environmentssuch as Mesopotamia.
1190 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
Special thanks are due to Chris Doherty and Mark Pollard for discussing issues relating toceramic technology and provenance, and for commenting on drafts of the M.Sc. thesis fromwhich this research project grew. We would like to thank James Armstrong and the SemiticMuseum for providing access to samples from Nuzi in the Semitic Museum, Richard Zettler andthe University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology for permission tosample artefacts from Tell Rimah and Tell Billa, and Aslıhan Yener and Mara Horowitz forsamples from the excavations at Alalakh. We are also indebted to Simon Groom for sharing hisfindings on the Alalakh Simple Ware, and helping to identify foraminifera microfossils samplesof Alalakh Nuzi Ware. For providing access to SEM–EDS, we would like to thank RichardNewman of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and Dr Norman Charnley of the Department ofEarth Sciences, University of Oxford. Dr Nick Walsh of the Royal Holloway provided theICP–AES measurements. Finally, we would like to thank three anonymous reviewers whoprovided helpful comments in revising this paper.
REFERENCES
Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Schwartz, G. M., 2003, The archaeology of Syria: from complex hunter–gatherers to earlyurban societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ali, A. J., 1977, Heavy mineral provinces of the recent sediments of the Euphrates–Tigris Basin, Journal of the IraqiGeological Society, 10, 33–46.
Aqrawi, A. A. M., Domas, J., and Jassim, S. Z., 2006, Quaternary deposits, in Geology of Iraq (eds. S. Z. Jassim andJ. C. Goff), Dolin and Moravian Museum, Prague and Brno.
Arnold, D. E., 1985, Ceramic theory and cultural process, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Arnold, D. E., 2005, Linking society with the compositional analysis of pottery: a model from comparative ethnography,
in Pottery manufacturing processes: reconstitution and interpretation (eds. A. Livingstone Smith, D. Bosquet andR. Martineau), Archaeopress, Oxford.
Batiuk, S. D., 2005, Migration theory and the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture, Ph.D. thesis, Universityof Toronto.
Baxter, M. J., 1994, Exploratory multivariate statistics in archaeology, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Blackman, M. J., Stein, G. J., and Vandiver, P. B., 1993, The standardization hypothesis and ceramic mass production:
technological, compositional, and metric indexes of craft specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria, American Antiquity, 51,60–80.
Broekmans, T., Adriaens, A., and Pantos, E., 2004, Analytical investigations of cooking pottery from Tell Beydar(NE-Syria), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 226, 92–7.
Broekmans, T., Adriaens, A., and Pantos, E., 2006, Insights into north Mesopotamian ‘Metallic Ware’, Archaeometry, 48,219–27.
Broekmans, T., Adriaens, A., and Pantos, E., 2008, Insights into the production technology of north-MesopotamianBronze Age pottery, Applied Physics A, 90, 35–42.
Buday, T., 1980, The regional geology of Iraq, vol. 1: Stratigraphy and paleogeography, State Organization for Minerals,Baghdad.
Buringh, P., 1960, Soils and soil conditions in Iraq, Directorate of Agricultural Research and Projects, Ministry ofAgriculture, Republic of Iraq, Baghdad.
Degryse, P., Boyce, A., Erb-Satullo, N., Eremin, K., Kirk, S., Scott, R., Shortland, A. J., Schneider, J., and Walton, M., 2010,Isotopic discriminants between Late Bronze Age glasses from Egypt and the Near East, Archaeometry, 52, 380–8.
Eiland, M. L., and Williams, Q., 2000, Infra-red spectroscopy of ceramics from Tell Brak, Syria, Journal of Archaeo-logical Science, 27, 993–1006.
Evans, J. M., 2008a, 119: Nuzi ware vessel, in Beyond Babylon: art, trade, and diplomacy in the second millennium B.C.(eds. J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans), Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Evans, J. M., 2008b, The Mitanni state, in Beyond Babylon: art, trade, and diplomacy in the second millennium B.C. (eds.J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans), Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Fink, A. S., 2010, Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): stratigraphy, chronology, history, Archaeopress, Oxford.
The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1191
Groom, S. D., Cockrell, B., and Bown, P., 2010, Categorizing the Simple Ware, the petrography of an ophiolitic andfossiliferous local pottery fabric from Tell Atchana, a second millennium urban centre in southern Turkey, Paperpresented at the 37th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Tampa, FL.
Hrouda, B., 2001, About �Habur-Ware, hopefully for the last time, al-Rafidan, 22, 89–92.Jassim, S. Z., and Buday, T., 2006, Latest Eocene–Recent megasequence AP11, in Geology of Iraq (eds. S. Z. Jassim and
J. C. Goff), Dolin and Moravian Museum, Prague and Brno.Kibaroglu, M., 2005, Sedimentary geochemical approach to the provenance of the non-calciferous north Mesopotamian
Metallic Ware, Archaeometriai Muhely, 2, 48–51.Kuhrt, A., 1995, The ancient Near East c. 3000 B.C.–330 B.C., vol. 1, Routledge, London.Liverani, M., 2008, The Late Bronze Age: materials and mechanisms of trade and cultural exchange, in Beyond Babylon:
art, trade, and diplomacy in the second millennium B.C. (eds. J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans), Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, CT.
Maritan, L., Mazzoli, C., Michelin, V., Bonacossi, D. M., Luciani, M., and Molin, G., 2005, The provenance andproduction technology of Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery from Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna (Syria), Archaeometry, 47,723–44.
Mirti, P., Appolonia, L., and Casoli, A., 1999, Technological features of Roman terra sigillata from Gallic and Italiancenters of production, Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 1427–35.
Moorey, P. R. S., 1999, Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.Mullins, R. A., 2010, A comparative analysis of the Alalakh 2003–2004 season pottery with Woolley’s levels, in Tell
Atchana, ancient Alalakh, vol. 1: The 2003–2004 excavation seasons (ed. K. A. Yener), Koç Üniversitesi, Istanbul.Mynors, H. S., 1982, An examination of Mesopotamian ceramics using petrographic and neutron activation analysis, in
The proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Archaeometry held at the University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K. 30thMarch – 3rd April 1982 (eds. A. Aspinall and S. Warren), School of Physics and Archaeological Science, Universityof Bradford, Bradford.
Oates, D., Oates, J., and McDonald, H., 1997, Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 1: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods,McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, Cambridge andLondon.
Pfälzner, P., 2007, The Late Bronze Age ceramic traditions of the Syrian Jazireh, in Céramique de l’âge du bronze enSyrie (eds. M. Al-Maqdissi, V. Matoian and C. Nicolle), Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, Beruit.
Pfälzner, P., 2008, 120a, b:Nuzi ware vessels, in Beyond Babylon: art, trade, and diplomacy in the second millenniumB.C. (eds. J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans), Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Philip, G., 1970, Mineralogy of recent sediments of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and some of the older detritaldeposits, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 40, 131–9.
Pollard, M., Batt, C. M., Stern, B., and Young, S. M. M., 2007, Analytical chemistry in archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Postgate, C., Oates, D., and Oates, J., 1997, The excavations at Tell al-Rimah: the pottery, The British School ofArchaeology in Iraq, Warminster, UK.
Rice, P. M., 1987, Pottery analysis: a sourcebook, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Schneider, G., 1989, A technological study of North-Mesopotamian stone ware, World Archaeology, 21, 30–50.Shaw, I., 2008, Egypt and the outside world, in The Oxford history of ancient Egypt (ed. I. Shaw), Oxford University
Press, Oxford.Speiser, E. A., 1932–3, The pottery of Tell Billa: a preliminary assessment, The Museum Journal, 23, 249–308.Starr, R. F., 1939, Nuzi: report on the excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq conducted by Harvard University in
conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and the University Museum of Philadelphia 1927–1931,Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Stein, D. L., 1984, Khabur ware and Nuzi ware: their origin, relationship, and significance, Assur, 4, 1–65.Stein, D. L., 1989, A reappraisal of the ‘Sauštatar Letter’ from Nuzi, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie, 79, 36–60.Tite, M. S., 2008, Ceramic production, provenance and use—a review, Archaeometry, 50, 216–31.van de Mieroop, M., 2007, A history of the ancient Near East ca. 3000–323 BC, Blackwell, Malden, MA.Waksman, S. Y., Pape, A., and Heitz, C., 1994, PIXE analysis of Byzantine ceramics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in Physics Research B, 85, 824–9.Woolley, L., 1955, Alalakh: an account of excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949, Society of Antiquaries,
London.Yener, K. A. (ed.), 2010, Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh, vol. 1: The 2003–2004 excavation seasons, Koç Üniversitesi,
Istanbul.
1192 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin
