Pots Houses and Metal Ojoa Sofaer

JOANNA SOFAER

POTS, HOUSES AND METAL: TECHNOLOGICALRELATIONS AT THE BRONZE AGE TELL ATSZZHALOMBATTA, HUNGARY

Summary. At the Bronze Age tell of Szzhalombatta, Hungary, techniquesused for making pottery echo those used in other media. Pottery andarchitecture have a close relationship. Not only were both made of clay, butmethods of making pots echo those used for building. Similarly, pottery and metalwork share common themes and technologies for working with clayand bronze. Since choices made by potters are not solely confined to theenvironment, raw materials and tools, but are also socially and culturallydefined, by implication the transfer of know-how must be situated within socialnetworks between people. This paper considers how the identification oftechnical relationships between different media at Szzhalombatta can be used to explore social relations in Bronze Age society, thereby suggestingrelationships that work on both technical and social levels.

introduction

Approaches to the technology of prehistoric pottery often tend to focus on the technicalparameters of production. In Hungary, as elsewhere, technological studies of potterymanufacture have concentrated on the composition of ceramic artefacts and on provenance(Varga et al. 1989; Ilon and Varga 1994; Szakmny 2001; Szakmny and Kustr 2000; Gherdnet al. 2002). Firing techniques and the determination of firing temperatures have also receivedsome attention (Maniatis and Tite 1981; Varga et al. 1988; Nagy et al. 2000). Similarly,examinations of metalworking technology frequently concentrate on the composition of bronzesand their provenance (Mozsolics 1967; Szab 1998; Bertemes and Heyd 2002). Theinvestigation of house building technology forms part of an established Hungarian concern withthe archaeological and ethnographic study of local domestic architecture, where the main focusis on building techniques (Kovcs 1977; Bna 1982; Mth 1988; Meier-Arendt 1992; Cseriand Fzes 1997; Poroszlai 2003a).

Such studies have been of great importance in highlighting the complexity andsophistication of Bronze Age craftsmanship. They have, however, led to an emphasis onmanufacturing processes and individual objects as the outcome of craft production, rather thanhighlighting craftspeople. Furthermore, while technological developments or productiontechniques have previously been studied in archaeological contexts within the confines ofindividual crafts, objects are rarely made or used in isolation. A range of studies have pointedOXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 25(2) 127147 2006 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 127

MaganHighlight

out formal, metaphorical, and technical relationships between different crafts. For example, theproduction of skeuomorphs plays on the formal qualities of objects, moving between differentmedia in order to deliberately evoke an object made in one material in another (Knappett 2002;2005; Vickers and Gill 1994). Symbolic relationships between craft production activities andother aspects of human life may underpin belief systems, being used as a means of explainingthe world (e.g. Gosslain 1999; Barley 1984; 1994; Herbert 1993; Sillar 1996; Mahias 1993;Leopold 1983). Craftspeople may also face common technical problems. Thus control over heatis a common theme in the production of pots and metal, and the pyrotechnology involved inpottery making and metalworking is closely related (Friedman 1998; Kaiser et al. 1986). Thereare, however, important differences between these three kinds of relationship. The first is iconicrather than indexical (Knappett 2002) since it does not necessarily imply contiguity or causality,although given sufficient contextual evidence these may be explored (Knappett 2005). Thesecond relates to the materialization of symbols and mutual understanding of a coherent beliefsystem that links a wide range of potential actions. Only the third implies direct knowledge ofproduction processes involved in the other craft and a real transfer of know-how between craftsand craftspeople.

In this paper I want to focus primarily on the last of these three different kinds ofrelationship, as the social implications of the transfer of principles and techniques between craftshave been less frequently addressed in archaeological settings. In particular, I want to explorethe social implications of the transfer of know-how between pottery, houses and metalwork inthe Early and Middle Bronze Age using the rich ceramic assemblage from the tell site ofSzzhalombatta, Hungary. At Szzhalombatta the methods used for making pots in clay echothose used in other media. Since the choices made by potters are not solely confined to mediatingcomponents of the environment, raw materials and tools, but are also socially and culturallydefined (van der Leeuw 1993, 241), by implication the transfer of know-how must be situatedwithin social networks between people (Bromberger and Chevallier 1999). The identification oftechnical relationships between different media can be used to consider social relations inBronze Age society, thereby suggesting relationships that work on both technical and sociallevels.

the tell at szzhalombatta

The site of Szzhalombatta is situated on the right bank of the Danube, 30km south ofBudapest (Fig. 1). The site is one of the largest and best preserved Bronze Age temperate tellsettlements in Central Europe, being 200 by 100m in area, excluding the south and south-westparts of the site, which may represent up to one-third of the original area and which weredestroyed during clay extraction by a local brick factory and erosion by the River Danube(Poroszlai 2000). Deposits of cultural material at the site are up to 6m deep and date from theHungarian Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Varga 2000). The excavated Bronze Age layersdate from the transition from the Classic Nagyrv (Szigetszentmikls) to Late Nagyrv (Kulcs)phase of the Early Bronze Age, with continuity in use of the site through the following MiddleBronze Age Vatya tradition (Vatya IIII) and Vatya-Koszider phase at the end of the MiddleBronze Age (20001500/1400 BC), until a hiatus in the use of the site that lasted until theUrnfield period (Kristiansen 2000; Poroszlai 2000).

The site has been the subject of three excavation campaigns: the first in 1963 by T.Kovcs of the Hungarian National Museum (Kovcs 1969), the second in 198993 by I.

POTS, HOUSES AND METAL

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

128 2006 The Author

Journal compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MaganHighlight

Poroszlai of the Matrica Museum (Poroszlai 1996; 2000), and most recently from 1998 an on-going international excavation (the SAX Project), involving teams from the MatricaMuseum, Gothenburg University, Cambridge University, and Southampton University.1These excavations have resulted in a substantial, well-preserved ceramic assemblage belongingto the Nagyrv, Vatya, and Vatya-Koszider traditions of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. The Vatya phase represents a typological development from the Nagyrv and contemporaryKisapostag traditions (Bna 1975; 1992; Poroszlai 2000; 2003b; Vicze 2001) and there is astriking increase in the range of vessel forms at the start of the Vatya phase (Vicze 2001).However, while the range of vessel forms then seems to stabilize, as the period progresses there is a noticeable elaboration and exaggeration of existing forms (Vicze 2001) (Fig. 2ae).Wasters found at Szzhalombatta dating to the Vatya-Koszider phase indicate that pottery was made at the site (Poroszlai 1996). Bronze objects, fragments of bronze, moulds, and slagattest to metalworking at the site from the Early Bronze Age (Mozsolics 1967; Horvth et al. 2000; Poroszlai 2000; Srensen and Vicze in press). The rectangular houses discoveredso far at Szzhalombatta are approximately 8 15m, with a series of other smaller surroundingstructures (Poroszlai 2000). There is continuity in house building techniques throughout the Early and Middle Bronze Age at the site (Poroszlai 2000). In common with other Vatya tells, it was fortified with a rampart and ditch during the Vatya phase (Poroszlai 2000; 2003b).

JOANNA SOFAER

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 129

Lake BalatonDan

ube

Szzhalombatta

Tisza

0 100km

Figure 1Location of the site of Szzhalombatta, Hungary.

1 The SAX Project forms part of the wider EC-funded Emergence of European Communities Project.

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight



130 2006 The Author


Nag

yrv

2000

BC

Vat

ya

1700

/185

0BC

Vat

ya/

Kos

zide

r

1400

/150

0BC

Figure 2aMajor fineware bowl and jug forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Szzhalombatta (drawing S. Budden

after Bna 1975; Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).

Nag

yrv

2000

BC

Vat

ya

1700

/185

0BC

Vat

ya/

Kos

zide

r

1400

/150

0BC

Figure 2bMajor cup forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Szzhalombatta (drawing S. Budden after Bna 1975;

Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).

pots and houses

The start of the Bronze Age saw a move towards the increased use of wood inarchitecture (Mth 1988). At Szzhalombatta there is significant evidence for the use of woodin the construction of houses and other features. Ground stone tools, metal objects and mouldsfor bronze tools that could have been used for woodworking have been found at the site (Horvthet al. 2000; Poroszlai 2000). Post-holes indicate the use of substantial vertical timbers forbuilding, along with large base-timbers laid in foundation trenches. A wood-lined pit wasdiscovered in 2004. Houses and other structures at the site are also made with clay, which wasused particularly for walls made of wattle and daub applied in layers, and floors which weremade of beaten earth or plastered. Clay ovens are frequently associated with the houses. Claywas an important resource for building both pots and houses as both were made of the samelocal material, albeit with different mixes and tempers. Use and control over clay were vital

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

to everyday life. The site is situated on a substantial local clay deposit and although the termage of clay has been applied to the Neolithic (Stevanovic 1997), here too people were literallysurrounded by clay. The overwhelming use of local clay, while clearly practical and expedient,may also have bound people to the site through a close relationship between place and materialexpression, and control over desirable local resources.

Both pots and houses at Szzhalombatta are composite constructions that exhibit a mixof building techniques. For example, studies of storage vessels and urns suggest a tripartitecomposite construction (Kreiter et al. in press). The bases of many storage vessels were madewith a flat disc-shaped slab. The body of the pot was then made using a slab building technique.In some cases, the first vertical slab was added starting from the middle of the base disc andsqueezed outwards, allowing better cohesion between the vessel wall and the base. As a result,the bases of storage vessels in cross-section often exhibit two layers of clay. Since the use of

JOANNA SOFAER


Nag

yrv

2000

BC

Vat

ya

1700

/185

0BC

Vat

ya/

Kos

zide

r

1400

/150

0BC

Figure 2cMajor domestic storage/cooking bowl forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Szzhalombatta (drawing

S. Budden after Bna 1975; Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).

Nag

yrv

2000

BC

Vat

ya

1700

/185

0BC

Vat

ya/

Kos

zide

r

1400

/150

0BC

Figure 2dMajor domestic storage/cooking jar and strainer forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Szzhalombatta

(drawing S. Budden after Bna 1975; Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

heavy slabs on the upper parts of bi-conical vessels may lead to vessel collapse, this techniqueis particularly suited to building the lower parts of such vessels. Coil joins were observed incross-sections of necks and rims of urns indicating that this technique was used for the moredelicate parts of these vessels and to facilitate abrupt changes in vessel curvature. This tripartitestructure of pots mirrors that of houses, which can be divided into floor, wall and roof. In anotherprehistoric context, Jones (2002, 1612) has argued for a metaphorical relationship between potsand houses on the basis of symmetry in their construction. What is particularly striking atSzzhalombatta, however, is the similarity in the principle of composite technology used forpottery forming and house building, reflecting expediency in techniques that allow pots andhouses to be made in particular ways.

In addition to similar principles of construction, there are commonalities betweentechniques involved in building houses and vessel-making techniques. Clay storage bins insidehouses were made by coiling. Woodworking involves scraping and smoothing, techniques that are evident on a large number of sherds. The majority of vessels at Szzhalombatta aretreated and/or decorated and the wide range of decorative elements includes carved or incised motifs (Poroszlai 2000; Sofaer et al. 2003). Potters may also carve wood or bone toolsfor pottery making and there is a range of bone tools from the site including a number of workedbone scrapers and perforators (Choyke 2000), some of which may have been used in theproduction of pottery. In addition, while there is no direct evidence for wooden vessels at the site, vessels made of wood have been found at a range of European Bronze Age sites(Harding 2000).

Pots may be incorporated into houses. Sherds have been found placed in the foundationsof walls, while grog was mixed with daub and used for clay ovens. There are also decorativesimilarities between pots and houses. At the Nagyrv site of Tiszaug-Kmnytet house wallswere covered with geometric designs (Csnyi 2003). Similar complex geometric motifs arefound on Nagyrv pots over the entire Nagyrv distribution area (Csnyi 2003), including thosefound at Szzhalombatta. Furthermore, at Szzhalombatta there is a more prosaic, but alsostriking, resemblance between the visual impact of the vegetable matter included in daub andthe surface treatments of pots made using grasses, reeds and twig tools.

o"



132 2006 The Author


Nag

yrv

2000

BC

Vat

ya

1700

/185

0BC

Vat

ya/

Kos

zide

r

1400

/150

0BC

Figure 2eMajor urn forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Szzhalombatta (drawing S. Budden after Bna 1975;

Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).

pots and metalwork

Clay and metal are both extremely plastic media that can be bent, shaped, twisted, anddecorated. While these materials have different potentials, this common property lends itself to the construction of iconic relationships between pottery and metalwork. The influence ofmetalwork on Bronze Age pottery forms has long been recognized in Hungary, as well aselsewhere, in terms of the formal characteristics of vessels such as shape, sheen and decoration(Friedman 1998; Kovcs 1977; Trachsler 1966; Childe 1949; Knappett 2005). In Hungary, thisinfluence can be seen as early as the late Copper Age in the high looped handles of Baden cups(Kalicz 1970).

At Szzhalombatta, the highly exaggerated, angular and complex shapes of somevessels, which reach their height in the Koszider (Rkospalota) phase at the end of the MiddleBronze Age, suggest the influence of metalworking (Fig. 3). Although there are some simpleshapes, mainly for open vessels such as fish plates, sieves and some types of bowls as well assome of the cups and deep vessels, particularly in the early part of the Vatya phase (Vatya I)(Vicze 2001), there is a clear preference for discontinuous profiles, with pots displaying cornersrather than curves, sharp angles separating the body from the neck, carination and everted rims(see Hnsel 1968; Bna 1975). Fineware bowls, jugs and cups are commonly strongly burnished

JOANNA SOFAER


Figure 3Koszider jug (photograph J. Sofaer).

on the outside. The high gloss produced by burnishing is reminiscent of the sheen on polishedbronze.

In addition to the formal similarities between pottery and metalwork at Szzhalombatta,the techniques used to make ceramic and bronze objects display a number of parallels. Pottersand metalworkers need to be familiar with soils and minerals, since they crush and grind theirmaterials to a powdery state and then remove the impurities by vanning (tin) or sieving andlevigating (clay) (Herbert 1984; Friedman 1998). Experimental work at Szzhalombatta usinglocal clays has emphasized the importance of adequate clay preparation through sieving andwedging. Research on fabrics from the site indicates that thermodynamically inefficient amountsof well-crushed grog (510 per cent) were systematically added to temper storage vessels(Kreiter 2005). Petrological examination of this grog has revealed pieces of grog within grogindicating the reuse of pots with a similar temper and clay (Kreiter 2005). This recycling of potsis analogous to the reuse and recycling of metal.

The techniques of hammering and beating are shared by potters and smiths (Trachsler1966, 145). From the Early Bronze Age Nagyrv phase onwards, some vessel types are madeby assembling separate pieces together and joining them with a hammering technique. Thesimilarity between potters and metalworkers techniques can be seen, for example, in ClassicNagyrv one-handled jugs. These are made out of a number of separate pieces: a pinched andsometimes coiled base, a conical neck, and the handle. The vessel is assembled with the baseand the neck joined together by hammering (Fig. 4). Use of moulds is another technique oftenused by potters and smiths (Friedman 1998). Anvil moulds may have been used for forming thebases of some large storage vessels, although analysis of thin sections from Szzhalombatta andother contemporary sites has shown that the paddle and anvil technique for the initial shapingof vessels was employed in a limited way for pottery found at Szzhalombatta and was in wideruse at other contemporary sites of the Ottomny and Gyulavarsnd traditions (Kreiter et al. inpress). Paddling was more frequently employed as a finishing technique for some slab-builtstorage vessels such as urns (Kreiter et al. in press).

The incised triangle and punched dot decoration on Koszider pots parallel those ofmetalworking incising, embossing and repouss decorative techniques seen on CarpathianMiddle and Late Bronze Age metalwork including axes, daggers, sword hilts, belt fittings andornaments (see Mozsolics 1967; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975; Kovcs 1977). There are also strongiconographic links between pots and metalwork. Though relatively rare, anthropomorphicvessels are known from the Vatya tradition (Kovcs 1973). Female vessels have hands andbreasts, while male vessels depict hands and metalwork. The metalwork, which may be a daggeror an axe, is applied in relief and depicted in detail suggesting that the makers of pottery musthave been familiar with them (Kovcs 1973, 24). Sherds of female and male vessels are knownfrom Szzhalombatta, the gender of the male example being indicated through the depiction ofa dagger (Poroszlai 2000).

the transfer of know-how: pots, wood, and metal

Where materials are used in conjunction with each other, such as clay and wood inhouses, or where materials have similar decorative, plastic or transformative potentials as in thecase of clay and metal, or where basic forming or shaping techniques are shared between media,these may allow borrowings and exchange of ideas with common spheres of knowledge betweencrafts. At Szzhalombatta, one particular aspect of pottery vessel forming techniques a



134 2006 The Author


MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

common method of attaching handles suggests just such a real transfer of know-how betweencrafts and craftspeople.

At Szzhalombatta, handles are attached onto Early and Middle Bronze Age cups, bowlsand jugs by piercing a hole in the vessel body from the vessel exterior while the clay is leather-hard, resulting in a sharp, raised margin in the vessel interior. A peg or pin made from the endof the handle is slotted through this hole (Fig. 5). The end of the peg may then be flattenedinside the pot to provide anchorage. In a few cases, the end of the peg is split and bent back ina similar manner to a butterfly clip. If a finer finish is desired the inside of the pot is smoothed.On many occasions, however, on pots which are otherwise well-finished, the interior finish islacking or poorly executed. In cups and jugs the bottom part of the handle was probably attachedfirst, being fixed from its base and attached to the rim. This would facilitate the making of thecharacteristic ansa lunata handle of the Koszider phase of the late Middle Bronze Age (Budden2005). The top of the handle is joined by smoothing the clay of the handle onto the body.

This method of fixing the handle is strikingly similar to the principles involved in theuse of pegs and posts through cross-timbers, or mortice and tenon joints in wood (cf. Piggott1935; Bradley 1978), and rivets for joining metal. Although relatively little well-preserved wood has so far been found at Szzhalombatta, prohibiting a detailed study of woodworking

JOANNA SOFAER


Figure 4Nagyrv one-handled jug (photograph J. Sofaer).

techniques, at other contemporary Hungarian sites with a range of different architecturaltraditions, particularly those of the Middle Bronze Age Gyulavarsnd group (Vargha 1955;Csnyi and Trnoki 1992; 2003), and at Bronze Age sites elsewhere in Central Europe (Harding2000; Arnold 1982; Menotti 2004), woodworking techniques used for building houses have beenstudied in more detail. At the Gyulavarsnd site of Trkeve-Terehalom, for example, uprightposts were anchored in and through base-timbers laid in the foundation trenches of the walls(Csnyi and Trnoki 1992; 2003). The mortice and tenon joint was widely known throughoutBronze Age Europe. Riveting is a technique that can be identified in metalwork contemporarywith the pottery from Szzhalombatta (Mozsolics 1967; Kemenczei 1988; 1991; Hnsel 1968).The dagger on the Vatya anthropomorphic pot from the site clearly shows riveting (Poroszlai2000).

The attachment of handles in clay in this manner is not simply imitative of wood ormetal in the sense of wanting to give the formal effect of these materials. Nor is it a symbolicdevice designed to speak to members of the community through use or display of the vessel.While this method of attaching handles may be clearly seen on the inside of broken vessels, itis not visible from the outside of the vessel or on whole pots. In addition, it is not the mostfunctionally adept or practical method of making and joining handles as it does not fully exploitthe plastic qualities of clay. In clay, this method of attaching handles might actually be said tointroduce weakness into the vessel as there is less surface area where the handle adheres to thepot.2 In the Szzhalombatta assemblage there is a recurring pattern of breakage with numerousexamples of vessels where the handle and its surrounding area have come away from the restof the pot.

In other media, however, this kind of joint is extremely strong and secure. Joints aredesigned to withstand particular kinds of stresses which may be tension, compression or torsion(Weeks 1982). In wood, mortice and tenon joints are particularly useful for resisting lateraltension and compression (Weeks 1982). In metal, a rivet acts as a clamp that holds two or morepieces of material together. Rivets will resist tension to a certain degree, but their primary jobis to transmit loads along the piece of material, not at a major angle away from it. Given the



136 2006 The Author


Figure 5Peg method of attaching handles at Szzhalombatta (photograph A. Kreiter).

2 I am grateful to Sandy Budden for discussions on this point.

usefulness of mortice and tenon joints in wood, and rivets in metal, perhaps Early and MiddleBronze Age potters thought that they were strengthening their vessel by attaching handles inthis way. If so, this emphasis is intriguing because relatively small vessels such as cups or bowlsshow this feature, although in functional terms they do not necessarily demand extreme strengtheven if lifted by the handle.

potters, woodworkers, and metalworkers

Solving the technical problem of how to fix a handle onto a pot represents a distinctchoice made from a universe of possibilities (Lemonnier 1986, 153). Pottery manufacture isstrongly influenced by its social, cultural and political context, as well as by constraints imposedby the natural environment (van der Leeuw 1989). The sharing or borrowing of technicalknowledge between crafts implied by the ceramic handles at Szzhalombatta indicates the waythat technology was socially situated in Bronze Age society (cf. Pfaffenberger 1988; 1992) andtherefore has implications for close social relations between craftspeople.

Traditional models of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Europe see it as a period ofincreasing social complexity with the development of prestige-based social hierarchy and craftspecialization, particularly in metalworking (Harding 2000; Kristiansen 1998; Primas 1997;Shennan 1986; 1993). Woodworking and pottery production are less frequently discussed withregard to craft specialization. They are often implicitly regarded as being situated within thedomestic sphere, although in Aegean contexts arguments have been advanced for highly skilledand specialized woodworkers based largely on the existence of carpentry tools, grave offeringsand monumental architecture (Downey 1996). Even if the construction of houses was a familyor communal affair as their size would suggest, this does not exclude the possibility ofcontributions from specialist craftspeople in the erection of major structures (cf. Waterson 1997;Leggett and Nussbaum 2001). In terms of ceramics, at Szzhalombatta the technical complexityand proficiency with which finewares and some large ceramic vessels were made stronglysuggest specialization in the production of some vessel types.

A focus on individual crafts, however, implicitly seems to separate and fragmentsociety. In order for knowledge transfer to take place, such as that seen in the pottery atSzzhalombatta, there have to be channels for the transmission of know-how betweencraftspeople (cf. Layton 1989). These channels take the form of social networks whosecharacteristics allow the pooling of resources, knowledge, techniques and human potential(Faure-Rouesnel 2001; Bromberger and Chevallier 1999). Networks allow the transfer andcirculation of knowledge from one industry to another. For example, spectacle-makers in theFrench Jura learned to cut the arms of spectacles from the technique which watchmakers use tocut clock hands, through a locally anchored network (Barbe and Lioger 1999). Transfer ofknowledge is quicker and more easily assimilated when the social relations are closer betweenpeople (Rice 1984). Thus potters moving into new communities, such as wives moving intotheir husbands community, may rapidly adopt the practices of their new home, albeit withmodifications (David and Hennig 1972; Rice 1984). Gosselain (2000) has shown how potteryforming techniques are generally acquired at a young age from close relatives. Tracing the flowof information between followers of different strategies requires mapping communicationnetworks in a society, including the institutions of kinship, moiety, fraternity and guild, whichserve to exchange information between those who have experience in a certain matter and thosewho do not (van der Leeuw 1989, 324).

JOANNA SOFAER


MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

In a hierarchical society concerned with prestige such as in the European Bronze Age,one form of network where exchange of knowledge can take place is a caste-like system. Oftenapplied to the Indian sub-continent, Barth (1960) argues that caste is a local term given to auniversal form of social stratification. Castes are commonly associated with traditional or craftoccupations where the system as a whole is concerned with prestige, especially of those at thetop of the hierarchy (Coningham and Young 1999). They are endogamous with restrictions on commensality between members of different castes. However, caste systems may also bemore flexible than is often suggested, with communities rising or falling within its rankings(Coningham and Young 1999, 92), thereby allowing for the possibility of social change.

There are a number of ethnographic examples where the organization of craft activitiestakes place along clearly defined social networks, and potters and metalworkers form part of acaste-like group with close social relationships. Some of the best known of these are among theBiu-Mandara-speaking peoples of West Africa (see David 1990; ern et al. 2001; Wade 1989;Vaughan 1970). Among the Fali, for example, a craft caste-like group known as the meehintypically form 58 per cent of the community. The meehin practise a range of crafts includingwoodworking, leather working, basketry, the manufacture of musical instruments, iron smeltingand smithing, brass casting and potting (Wade 1989). The division of skills is strongly gendered,with the men responsible for metalworking and the women responsible for pottery manufacture,divining and serving as ritual specialists (Wade 1989). The meehin are frequently ostracized,despised or have an ambiguous status related to their role as morticians (Wade 1989). The statusof the meehin as a craftsperson is ascribed but within the confines of gender roles, there isflexibility of choice as to which craft is practised and the degree of specialization (Wade 1989).Craftspeople may concentrate almost exclusively upon a single artefact type, a single craft, ormay practise several crafts. Because they are endogamous, craftspeople will always haverelatives who can teach them the skills required in a chosen craft. This provides an effectivestructure for the learning, transmission, and use of technical knowledge (Wade 1989, 2323),as well as control over access to knowledge by others. A method of attaching handles to potsthrough a hole in the vessel wall, in a manner similar to that seen at Szzhalombatta, isdocumented in ethnographic studies of the Mende in Sierra Leone (Colonial Film Unit 1937).The Mende are a strongly hierarchical society with gendered craft specialization and a caste-like social organization (Wolfe 1969; Aronson 1991).

The use of ethnographic data to create a model for Bronze Age society raises genderissues, particularly in terms of the allocation of metalworking, house building, and potting to aparticular gender group (see Srensen 1996). Based largely on ethnographic observations, thereis a widespread assumption that metalworkers in the Bronze Age were male and that potterswere female (Srensen 1996). Earlier in this paper I pointed to the use of metalwork as a malesignifier on anthropomorphic pots. However, identifying metal as a male signifier in thisparticular context does not necessarily imply that all metal was made by men, or converselythat pottery was made by women. Indeed, there are large numbers of female ornaments madeof bronze. In a discussion of gender and metalworkers in north-west Europe, Srensen (1996)has pointed out that in these contexts moulds for bronze casting are often made of clay and that applying different gender scenarios to these has contrasting consequences for how weunderstand both pottery and metalworking. Thus a traditional gender association betweenwomen and clay technologies might in fact suggest that women shaped the appearance of bronzeobjects. On the other hand, suggesting that men made the moulds would imply that they mayhave been active in pottery production. A third permutation considered by Srensen (1996)

yC



138 2006 The Author


MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

that clay technologies and therefore metalworking are not necessarily gender-exclusive makesfor a richer and more complex model. She points out that evidence for metalworking in the formof moulds and crucibles has been increasingly demonstrated from settlement contexts andmidden refuse rather than from spatially distinct or marked locations. Being a local and regularactivity, Srensen (1996, 49) suggests that this means that metalworking would impinge oneveryone in the settlement. Members of different gender groups may therefore have beeninvolved in different stages of the production process or in negotiations surrounding it,particularly in terms of its planning and its relationship to a range of other unrelated, butpotentially interfering, activities.

Unlike Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age sites in north-west Europe, at Vatyatell sites, most moulds for bronze casting are made of sandstone, although clay moulds areoccasionally found (Mozsolics 1967; Horvth et al. 2000). Recent petrological work suggeststhat the number of Bronze Age clay moulds in Hungary may be greater than hitherto thought(Pterdi et al. 2002). Other objects made of clay involved in the casting process, such as tuyres,have also been found. There is evidence for a bronze-casting workshop set apart from the mainsettlement in an area of workshops at the Vatya tell of Lovasberny-Mihlyvr (Kovcs 1977;Petres and Bndi 1969). At Szzhalombatta the spatial organization of the settlement is a keyquestion for ongoing excavations (Vicze 2004), but moulds, slag and bronze fragments havebeen found in settlement contexts, midden, and fill (Poroszlai 2000; Srensen and Vicze inpress).3

The exchange of knowledge between metalwork and pottery at the site, seen in themethod of attaching handles to ceramic vessels, suggests that social boundaries between the twocrafts were rather fluid. If one accepts a gendered model of craft production, this would, in turn,imply that while aspects of craft production activities may have been highly gendered, they alsoinvolved negotiation and co-operation between gender groups (Srensen 1996; Sofaer andSrensen 2002; 2006). Such negotiation between gender groups is visible in ethnographic filmof groups with strongly gendered roles (David 1990; Nicholson and Wendrich 1994), suggestingthat the gender dynamics of craft production may be more complex than is often acknowledged.Even where craft production is, on the whole, strongly gendered there may be a range of localtraditions permitting men and women to participate in different stages of the production process,from collection of raw materials and production of tools, to aspects of the production processitself (see David 1990; Brown 1995; Nicholson and Wendrich 1994).

The model proposed in this paper also raises questions about the status of craftspeoplein the Bronze Age hierarchy. While metalworkers are frequently regarded as having specialstatus or roles within Bronze Age society on the basis of the transformative magic involvedin the production of metal (Budd and Taylor 1995), and the status of woodworkers is at bestambiguous, potters are often seen to have low socio-economic status. More generally, it hasbeen argued that as socio-economic differentiation increases, potters may, in fact, movedownward on the socio-economic ladder (Rice 1984). In addition, potters are often said to beconservative because of their low socio-economic status (Rice 1984). Such a ranking of craftsis inconsistent with the formal and technical links between pottery, house building and metalmaking, including those that result in material transformations (cf. Vitelli 1995, 62). The transfer

JOANNA SOFAER


3 This pattern is consistent with archaeological studies of the spatial distribution of craft waste in known castesystems. Craft activities are not necessarily spatially distinct and spatial divisions seen today in such societiesare a relatively recent phenomenon (Coningham and Young 1999, 92).

MaganHighlight

of knowledge between crafts allowed by the emergence of a caste system argues for paritybetween craftspeople with a range of specializations, reflecting a degree of social cohesionbetween specific occupationally defined members of the community.

If, as is often argued, metal objects are prestige items restricted to a limited number ofpeople who form an elite (Kristiansen 1998), and some woodworking tools are made of bronze(Arnold 1982), then by extension this suggests that woodworkers were able to tap into highstatus. Although there are relatively few bronze tools in Hungary compared to surroundingcountries, a range of axes, adzes, and chisels are known from Vatya sites (Mozsolics 1967). Ofthe two hoards from Szzhalombatta, one contained two shafthole axes dating to the Vatya IIIphase (Poroszlai 2000), while the other, dated to the Vatya-Koszider phase, contained rimmedchisels (Poroszlai 1998; Kemenczei 2003). Elsewhere, strong arguments have been made forskeuomorphs as prestige symbols (Wade 1989; Knappett 2002; 2005; Vickers and Gill 1994).While the vessels at Szzhalombatta are not necessarily direct imitations of metal vessels, theinfluence of metalworking on the formal characteristics of Early and Middle Bronze Agefinewares argues for their enhanced value. In relation to the Early Bronze Age Maros ceramicsfrom south-east Hungary, Michelaki et al. (2002, 317) argue for the role of pottery vessels insocial display activities focused around the display of subsistence wealth and consumption offood and drink. At Szzhalombatta display included, but was not confined to, consumption. Inthe Vatya-Koszider phase in particular, finewares were meant for display even when not in use,the bases of so-called Swedish helmet bowls being decorated in such a way that they couldbe seen when hung on the wall of the house. The use of fineware for display was a practice thatwas also employed at Hungarian Middle Bronze Age sites of the Fzesabony tradition(Szathmri 2003).

The use of pottery with metallic characteristics in the display arena, for special depositsof groups of pots in pits (sometimes in association with grain) (Poroszlai 2000), and with theSzzhalombatta hoard, suggests that the desirability of these ceramic objects may have beensignificant, just as metalwork was a desirable commodity. Poroszlai (2000) has argued thatfinewares were linked to high-status individuals, while Vicze (2001) has suggested that a declinein the quantity of metalwork buried with the dead in the middle of the Vatya phase (Vatya II),contemporary with the increased elaboration of pottery, represents the transfer of a prestigeideology from one medium to the other (Vicze 2001, 174). Furthermore, the relatively rapidchanges in shape along with the exaggeration seen in jugs, bowls and cups in the 500 yearsfrom the Nagyrv to the Vatya-Koszider periods suggest confident, creative, craftspeople ratherthan retiring, conservative ones. The potters of Szzhalombatta produced an extended repertoireof valued display prestige items which must have been reflected back in the enhanced socialvalue of craftspeople as a group (cf. Wade 1989, 238). In turn, the increased emphasis on socialdifferentiation presented by possibilities in craft production placed craftspeople at the heart ofBronze Age social dynamics. It was a crucial part of the processes of centralization in settlementand production (cf. Wade 1989), and the development of hierarchy and stratification oftenproposed for this period in Hungary (Shennan 1993; Poroszlai 2000; 2003b), further reflectedin the fortification of strategic sites during the Vatya phase, and a potentially more restrictedrange of finds in contemporary unfortified settlements (Poroszlai 1988).4



140 2006 The Author


4 Although the existence of a settlement hierarchy has been established for the Vatya period, to date relatively fewsmall single-layer settlements have actually been investigated. The on-going Benta Valley project (Vicze et al.2005) seeks to redress this imbalance by exploring the hinterland around the Szzhalombatta tell.

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

conclusion

At Szzhalombatta, techniques used for other materials informed those used to makepottery. Pottery and architecture have a close relationship. Not only were both made of clay, butmethods of making pots echo those used for building. Similarly, pottery and metalwork sharecommon themes and technologies for working with clay and bronze. The transfer of knowledgebetween different media is particularly evident and interesting with regard to the means by whichhandles were attached to fineware vessels. While Early and Middle Bronze Age pottersdemonstrated incredible technology, skill and finesse in other areas (Budden 2002), the way inwhich they applied handles suggests a borrowing of techniques that is somewhat at odds withthis, since it does not fully exploit the plasticity of clay.

I am not arguing that the people of Szzhalombatta saw pots, houses and metalwork asthe same, or that they deliberately set out to create one out of the other. As Knappett (2005)points out, there are many ways in which things can have meaning without being symbols.Rather, I am suggesting that there were relationships and borrowings between craftspeople at anumber of levels that are revealing in terms of the perception of the materials with which peopleworked and the social context of craft production. Technological conceptual relationships tiedthese materials together and allowed people to borrow and transfer the techniques that they usedin one medium to another, while a social network between craftspeople in this case a caste-like system provided the avenue for the communication of technologies and techniques. Asvan der Leeuw (1993, 240) puts it, Techniques cannot be studied in isolation, but should beseen as the arena of mediation between what is materially possible or impossible and certainaspects of social organization. Techniques lend insights into society because the two are inconstant symbiosis (van der Leeuw 1993; Lemonnier 1980; 1986; 1993). Technology thus takesa central role in understanding the organizational principles of the society which uses them (vander Leeuw 1993, 240).

Acknowledgements

This article has benefited from discussions with a number of students and colleagues in Hungaryand Britain. I would particularly like to thank Sandy Budden, Alice Choyke, Attila Kreiter, Marie LouiseStig Srensen and Magdolna Vicze. Sandy Budden also gave generously of her pottery drawings for Figure2. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Ildik Poroszlai, director of the Matrica Museum andfounder of the Szzhalombatta Archaeological Park.

ArchaeologySchool of Humanities

University of SouthamptonAvenue Campus

HighfieldSouthampton SO17 1BF

references

arnold, b. 1982: The architectural woodwork of the Late Bronze Age Village Auvernier-Nord. InMcGrail, S. (ed.), Woodworking Techniques before A.D. 1500 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 129), 11128.aronson, l. 1991: African women in the visual arts. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society16(31), 55074.

JOANNA SOFAER


MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

MaganHighlight

barbe, n. and lioger, r. 1999: Du jouet en bois en plastique. Permanence et innovation technique danslArc jurassien. In Bromberger, C. and Chevallier, D. (eds.), Carrires dObjets. Innovation et Relances(Paris, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de LHomme, Collection Ethnologie de la France Cahier 13),4358.barley, n. 1984: Placing the West African Potter. In Picton, J. (ed.), Earthenware in Asia and Africa(London, Percival David Foundation), 93105.barley, n. 1994: Smashing Pots. Feats of Clay from Africa (London).barth, f. 1960: The system of social stratification in Swat, north Pakistan. In Leach, E.R. (ed.), Aspectsof Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan (Cambridge), 11346.bertemes, f. and heyd, v. 2002: Der bergang Kupferzeit/Frhbronzezeit am Nordwestrand desKarpatenbeckens kulturgeschichtliche und palometallurgische Betrachtungen (The Transition CopperAge/Early Bronze Age at the North-Western Edge of the Carpathian Basin Culture-Historical andPalaeometallurgical Considerations). In Bartelheim, M., Krause, R. and Pernicka, E. (eds.), Die Anfngeder Metallurgie in der Alten Welt, Euroseminar Freiberg/Sachsen, 18.20. November 1999(Rahden/Westfalen), 185229.bna, i. 1975: Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre Sdstlichen Beziehungen (Budapest, AkadmiaiKiad).bna, i. 1982: Alpr bronzkori rtegei. In Bna, I. and Novki, Gy., Alpr bronzkori s rpd-kori vra.Cumania 7, 17117.bna, i. 1992: Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. In Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.), Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main).bradley, r.j. 1978: The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain (London).bromberger, c. and chevallier, d. (eds.) 1999: Carrires dObjets. Innovation et Relances(Paris, ditions de la Maison des Sciences de LHomme, Collection Ethnologie de la France Cahier 13).brown, j. 1995: Traditional Metalworking in Kenya (Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 44, CambridgeMonographs in African Archaeology 38).budd, p. and taylor, t. 1995: The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus science in theinterpretation of prehistoric metal-making. World Archaeology 27(1), 13343.budden, s. 2002: Black is Beautiful. The Technology and Social Practice of Producing Black BurnishedKoszider Wares at Szzhalombatta, Hungary (Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Southampton).budden, s. 2005: Renewal and Reinvention: Innovation and Tradition at Szzhalombatta, Hungary(Seminar presented to the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton).

ern , v., gauthier, j-g., br ek, j., gronenborn, d., velemnsk , p. and budil, i. 2001: Mezi Saharoua Tropick mi Pralesy (Between the Sahara and the Tropical Rain Forests) (Prague, National Museum inPrague).childe, v.g. 1949: The first bronze vases to be made in Central Europe. Acta Archaeologica 20, 25764.choyke, a. 2000: Refuse and modified bone from Szzhalombatta-Fldvr. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M.(eds.), Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1 (Szzhalombatta, Archaeolingua),97102.colonial film unit 1937: Mende Potmakers (Video).coningham, r. and young, r. 1999: The Archaeological Visibility of Caste: An Introduction. In Insoll,T. (ed.), Case Studies in Archaeology and World Religion. The Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference(Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 755), 8493.csnyi, m. 2003: Tiszaug-Kmnytet : A Bronze Age settlement in the Tiszazug. In Visy, Z. (ed.),Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium (Budapest, Department of Monuments of theMinistry of Cultural Heritage), 1434.

o"

yyzuoyc



142 2006 The Author


csnyi, m. and trnoki, j. 1992: Trkeve-Terehalom. In Bna, I. (ed.), Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungenan Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main).csnyi, m. and trnoki, j. 2003: The Middle Bronze Age population of the Beretty-Krs region: theGyulavarsnd culture. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium (Budapest,Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 15860.cseri, m. and fzes, e. (eds.) 1997: Hungarian Open Air Museum Szentendre (Szentendre, HungarianOpen Air Museum).david, n. 1990: Vessels of the spirits: pots and people in North Cameroon (Video) (University of Calgary).david, n. and hennig, h. 1972: The ethnography of pottery: a Fulani case study seen in archaeologicalperspective (Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Module 21).downey, c. 1996: Prehistoric tools and the Bronze Age woodworking industry (Paper presented at theGreek Society for Archaeometry 3rd Symposium, Athens).faure-rouesnel, l. 2001: French anthropology and material culture. Journal of Material Culture 6(2),23747.friedman, e. 1998: Technological Style in Early Bronze Age Anatolia (Chicago, Oriental InstituteResearch Archives).gherdn, k., szakmny, g., weiszburg, t. and ilon, g. 2002: Petrological Investigation of Bronze and Iron Age Ceramics from West Hungary: Vaskeresztes, Velem, S, Gr. In Kilikoglou, V., Hein, A. and Maniatis, Y. (eds.), Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Papers Presented at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1011), 30512.gosselain, o.p. 1999: In Pots we Trust. The Processing of Clay and Symbols in Sub-Saharan Africa.Journal of Material Culture 4(2), 20530.gosselain, o.p. 2000: Materialising Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory 7(3), 187217.hnsel, b. 1968: Beitrge Zur Chronologie der Mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken (Bonn).harding, a. 2000: European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge).herbert, e. 1984: Red Gold of Africa: Copper in Precolonial History and Culture (Madison).herbert, e. 1993: Iron, Gender and Power. Rituals of Transformation in African Societies (Bloomington).horvth, t., kozk, m. and pet , a. 2000: Complex analysis of stone industry on the Szzhalombatta-Fldvr (Early and Middle Bronze Age). In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), SzzhalombattaArchaeological Expedition Annual Report 1 (Szzhalombatta, Archaeolingua).ilon, g. and varga, i. 1994: Bauxit a Ks Bronzkori Kermiban? A Nmetbnya Felserdei Dli Temet s Kistelep Kermiinak Vizsglata. Veszprm Megyei Mzeumok Kzlemnyei 1920,13340.jones, a. 2002: Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice (Cambridge).kaiser, t., franklin, u. and vitali, v. 1986: Pottery and pyrotechnology in the late Neolithic of theBalkans. In Olin, J.S. and Blackman, M.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International ArchaeometrySymposium (Washington D.C.), 8594.kalicz, n. 1970: Clay Gods. The Neolithic Period and Copper Age in Hungary (Budapest).kemenczei, t. 1988: Die Schwerter in Ungarn I (Mnchen, Prhistorische Bronzefunde IV.6).kemenczei, t. 1991: Die Schwerter in Ungarn II (Stuttgart, Prhistorische Bronzefunde IV.9).kemenczei, t. 2003: Bronze Age metallurgy. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of theMillennium (Budapest, Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 16774.kilian-dirlmeier, i. 1975: Grtelhaken, Grtelbleche und Blechgrtel der Bronzezeit in Mitteleuropa(Mnchen, Prhistorische Bronzefunde XII, Band 2).

o"

JOANNA SOFAER


knappett, c. 2002: Photographs, Skeuomorphs and Marionettes. Some Thoughts on Mind, Agency andObject. Journal of Material Culture 7(1), 97117.knappett, c. 2005: Thinking Through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Philadelphia).kovcs, t. 1969: A szzhalombattai bronzkori telep. The Bronze Age Settlement at Szzhalombatta.Archaeologiai rtest 96, 1619.kovcs, t. 1973: Representations of Weapons on Bronze Age Pottery. Folia Archaeologica XXIV, 731.kovcs, t. 1977: The Bronze Age in Hungary (Budapest).kreiter, a. 2005: Preliminary Report of Middle Bronze Age Ceramic Analyses from Szzhalombatta,Northern Hungary. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition ReportII (Szzhalombatta, Matrica Museum), 18794.kreiter, a., sofaer, j. and budden, s. in press: Early and Middle Bronze Age Storage Vessel BuildingTechniques in Hungary. srgszeti Levelek (Prehistoric Newsletter).kristiansen, k. 1998: Europe Before History (Cambridge).kristiansen, k. 2000: The emergence of European communities: household settlement and territory inlater prehistory (2300300 BC). In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Szzhalombatta ArchaeologicalExpedition Annual Report 1 (Szzhalombatta, Archaeolingua), 711.layton, r. 1989: Pellaport. In van der Leeuw, S.E. and Torrence, R., Whats New? A Closer Look at TheProcess of Innovation (London, One World Archaeology 14), 3353.leggett, e. and nussbaum, s. 2001: Raising the Roof A Time-Honored Tradition. Amish HeartlandAugust 2001.lemonnier, p. 1980: Les Salines de lOuest: Logique technique, logique sociale (Paris/Lille, ditions dela Maison des Sciences de LHomme).lemonnier, p. 1986: The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 14786.lemonnier, p. 1993: Introduction. In Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation inMaterial Cultures since the Neolithic (London), 135.leopold, r.s. 1983: The shaping of men and the making of metaphors: the meaning of white clay in Poroand Sande Initiation society rituals. Anthropology 8(2), 2142.mahias, m-c. 1993: Pottery techniques in India: Technical Variants and social choice. In Lemonnier, P.(ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic (London).maniatis, y. and tite, m.s. 1981: Technological Examination of Neolithic-Bronze Age Pottery fromCentral and Southeast Europe and from the Near East. Journal of Archaeological Science 8, 5976.mth, m. 1988: Bronze Age tells in the Beretty valley. In Kovcs, T. and Stanczik, I., Bronze Age TellSettlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I (Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Mzeum, Inventaria PraehistoricaHvngariae), 27122.meier-arendt, w. (ed.) 1992: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main).menotti, f. 2004: Living on the Lake in Prehistoric Europe (London).michelaki, k., minc, l. and oshea, j. 2002: Integrating typological and physico-chemical approaches toexamine the potters choices: a case study from Bronze Age Hungary. In Kilikoglou, V., Hein, A. andManiatis, Y. (eds.), Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Papers Presented at the 5thEuropean Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1011), 31322.mozsolics, a. 1967: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdsmson undKosziderpadls (Budapest, Akadmiai Kiad).nagy, s., kuzmann, e., weiszburg, t., gykeres-tth, m. and riedel, m. 2000: Oxide TransformationDuring Preparation of Black Pottery in Hungary. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry246(1), 916.

O"

o"



144 2006 The Author


nicholson, p.t. and wendrich, w.z. 1994: The Potters of Deir Mawas: A Village in Middle Egypt(Video).pterdi, b., kovcs, t., szakmny, g. and bir, k. 2002: Petrographical Investigation of Bronze andIron Age Casting Moulds from the Collection of the Hungarian National Museum (Abstract of paperpresented at the 33rd International Symposium on Archaeometry, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2226April, 2002, p. 46).petres, f. and bndi, g.. 1969: Archaeologiai rtest 96, 1745.pfaffenberger, b. 1988: Fetished Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology ofTechnology. Man (N.S.) 23, 23652.pfaffenberger, b. 1992: Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 211,49156.piggott, s. 1935: Handled Beakers. Antiquity IX, 348.poroszlai, i. 1988: Preliminary report about the excavation at Nagyk rs-Fldvr (Vatya culture):stratigraphic data and settlement structure. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 2939.poroszlai, i. (ed.) 1996a: satsok Szzhalombattn. Excavations at Szzhalombatta 19891995(Szzhalombatta, Matrica Museum).poroszlai, i. 1996b: satsok a szzhalombattai bronzkori fldvrban (19891993). Excavations in theBronze Age earthwork in Szzhalombatta between 1989 and 1993. In Poroszlai, I. (ed.), satsokSzzhalombattn. Excavations at Szzhalombatta 19891995 (Szzhalombatta, Matrica Museum), 515.poroszlai, i. 1998: The Bronze Age. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), History of Szzhalombatta.Guide to the Exhibition (Szzhalombatta, Matrica Museum).poroszlai, i. 2000: Excavation campaigns at the Bronze Age tell site at Szzhalombatta-Fldvr. InPoroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1(Szzhalombatta, Archaeolingua), 1373.poroszlai, i. 2003a: The conservation and exhibition of archaeological remains: archaeological parks andexperimental archaeology. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium(Budapest, Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 4325.poroszlai, i. 2003b: Fortified centres along the Danube. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at theTurn of the Millennium (Budapest, Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage),1515.primas, m. 1997: Bronze Age economy and ideology: central Europe in focus. Journal of EuropeanArchaeology 5(1), 11530.rice, p. 1984: Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems. In van der Leeuw, S.E. andPritchard, A.C. (eds.), The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology(Amsterdam), 23188.shennan, s. 1986: Central Europe in the third millennium BC: an evolutionary trajectory for the beginningof the European Bronze Age. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 11546.shennan, s. 1993: Commodities, transactions and growth in the central European Early Bronze Age.Journal of European Archaeology 1(2), 5972.sillar, b. 1996: The Dead and the Drying: Techniques for Transforming People and Things in the Andes.Journal of Material Culture 1(3), 25989.sofaer j., budden, s. and barthorpe, t. 2003: Interim report on the pottery assemblage fromSzazhalombatta (Unpublished report, Matrica Museum, Szzhalombatta, Hungary).sofaer, j. and srensen, m.l.s. 2002: Becoming cultural: society and the incorporation of bronze. In Ottaway, B. and Wager, E.C. (eds.), Metals and society: papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists sixth annual meeting in Lisbon 2000 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser.1061), 11721.

o"

o"

JOANNA SOFAER


sofaer, j. and srensen, m.l.s. 2006: Technological change as social change: the introduction of metalin Europe. In Bartelheim, M. and Heyd, V. (eds.), Continuity- Discontinuity: Transition Periods inEuropean Prehistory (Rahden (Westf.), Forschungen zur Archometrie und Altertumswissenschaft).srensen, m.l.s. 1996: Women As/And Metalworkers. In Devonshire, A. and Wood, B. (eds.), Women inIndustry and Technology from Prehistory to the Present Day (London, Museum of London), 4551.srensen, m.l.s. and vicze, m. in press: Household Activities on a Bronze Age Tell. In Poroszlai, I. andVicze, M. (eds.), Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Report III (Szzhalombatta, Matrica Museum).stevanovic, m. 1997: The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 16, 33495.szab, g. 1998: Evaluation of Late Bronze Age Carpathian tinbronzes based on the alloying content. InKlt , L. and Bartosiewicz, L., Archaeometrical Research in Hungary II (Budapest, Hungarian NationalMuseum), 15973.szakmny, g. 2001: Felsvadsz-Vrdomb Neolitikus s Bronzkori Kermiatpusainak PetrogrfiaiVizsglata. A Miskolci Herman Ott Mzeum vknyve XL, 10725.szakmny, g. and kustr, r. 2000: Untersuchung von Keramikproben aus dem SptbronzezeitlichenHgel von Isztimr-Cspuszta. Alba Regia 29, 5560.szathmri, i. 2003: The florescence of the Middle Bronze Age in the Tisza region: the Fzesabony culture.In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium (Budapest, Department ofMonuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 1567.trachsler, w. 1966: The influence of metalworking on prehistoric pottery: some observations on IronAge pottery of the Alpine region. In Matson, F.R. (ed.), Ceramics and Man (London), 14051.van der leeuw, s.e. 1989: Risk, perception, innovation. In van der Leeuw, S.E. and Torrence, R. (eds.),Whats New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation (London, One World Archaeology 14), 30029.van der leeuw, s.e. 1993: Giving the potter a choice: conceptual aspects of pottery techniques. InLemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic(London), 23888.varga, a. 2000: Coring results at Szzhalombatta-Fldvr. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.),Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1 (Szzhalombatta, Archaeolingua), 7681.varga, i., molnr, z., n. czak, i. and ilon, g. 1989: Nmetbnya Ksbronzkori Kermii aTermszettudomnyos Vizsglatok Tkrben. Ppai Mzeumi rtest 2, 3948.varga, i., svegh, g. and n. czak, i. 1988: Egy Ksbronzkori Kermia Komplett Vizsglata. PpaiMzeumi rtest 1, 315.vargha, l. 1955: Archaeologiai rtest 82, 1516.vaughn, j.h. 1970: Caste systems in the Western Sudan. In Tuden, A. and Plotnicov, L. (eds.), SocialStratification in Africa (New York), 5992.vickers, m. and gill, d. 1994: Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery (Oxford).vicze, m. 2001: Dunajvros-Duna-d l . The Early and Middle Bronze Age cemetery of Dunajvros-Kosziderpadls (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Etvs Lornd University, Budapest).vicze, m. 2004: Excavation methodology on the Szzhalombatta Project. In Kisfaludi, J. (ed.), Rgszetikutatsok Magyarorszgon 2002 (Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2002) (Budapest, Ministryof Cultural Heritage and the Hungarian National Museum), 13146.vicze, m., earle, t. and artursson, m. 2005: Bronze Age site gazetteer: Benta Valley, Hungary. InPoroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Report II (Szzhalombatta,Matrica Museum), 23750.vitelli, k. 1995: Pots, Potters and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society. In Barnett, W.K. and Hoopes,J.W. (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery. Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies (Washington),5563.

o"o"

o"

o"



146 2006 The Author


wade, j.a. 1989: The context of adoption of brass technology in northeastern Nigeria and its effects onthe elaboration of culture. In van der Leeuw, S.E. and Torrence, R. (eds.), Whats New? A Closer Look atthe Process of Innovation (London, One World Archaeology 14), 22544.waterson, r. 1997: The Living House. An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia (Oxford).weeks, j. 1982: Roman carpentry joints: adoption and adaptation. In McGrail, S. (ed.), WoodworkingTechniques before A.D. 1500 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 129), 15768.wolfe, a.w. 1969: Social Structural Bases of Art. Current Anthropology 10(1), 344.

JOANNA SOFAER


Pots Houses and Metal Ojoa Sofaer

Documents

Transcript of Pots Houses and Metal Ojoa Sofaer