Anatolian Pot Marks in the 3rd Millennium BC: Signage, Early State Formation, and Organization of Production

Abstract

This study presents new information and interpretation of pot marks applied specifically on “Anatolian Metallic Ware” that are dated to the 3rd millennium BC, and distributed in the southern Konya Plain and the southwestern region of Cappadocia. While many specialists have studied this ware group, also referred to as “Darboğaz” vessels, detailed studies have not been conducted on the pot marks themselves. The finds from the Göltepe excavations, when combined with other research data and ethnographic/ethnoarchaeological records, have helped to classify and interpret this signage. According to our preliminary results, there is no relationship between the pot marks and vessel type, sub-ware group, or ownership. Taking into account the general characteristics of the Anatolian EBA and the production techniques of Anatolian Metallic Ware, we discuss whether the pot marks reflect quality control over the production process and serve interregional connectivity.

An archaeometric study of the Konya basin metallic ware through FTIR and XRD analysis with chemometrics: Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age ceramics

“…Another evidence pointing in this direction is the consistent presence of potter marks on handles. This pattern starkly contrasts with the absence of similar signs in other pottery groups and is suggestive of multiple potters using the same kiln (Hacar & Yener, 2020).…”

“…The KBMW seem to share many of these traits: their mineral‐tempered hard fabrics and highly decorated surfaces strikingly contrast with the generally low‐fired, chaff‐tempered, surface‐polished and undecorated local contemporary wares (Hacar & Bulu, 2021; Mellaart, 1963; Tuna et al, 2022). Several technical features (including the use of moulds, very regular wall thickness, repetitive manufacturing and decorative techniques, the presence of potter marks) set this group further apart from the panorama of other contemporary productions and suggest a high degree of standardization (Hacar & Yener, 2020). This hypothesis is corroborated by the KBMW’s restricted typological range and extremely homogeneous fabric composition found throughout its entire distribution area, which points to a limited number of manufacturing centres (Tuna et al, 2022) (cf.…”

Interregional Contacts and Interactions during the Fourth and Third Millennia BCE

“…Significantly, the vestiges of this latter phase include a limited, but eclectic array of ceramic imports from areas ranging from western Anatolia to Syria. 109 The surfaces of all three phases were littered with vestiges of intensive metallurgical activities, including large pyrotechnical installations, crucibles, molds, slags, ore debris, and crushing tools.…”

The Konya Basin Metallic Ware: Typological, Technological and Chronological Analysis of a Specialized Early Bronze Age Ceramic Production in Anatolia

“…2018.20 Tarhan, vd. (Baskıda)21 Burada "açık ve koyu yüzeyli mal grubu" olarak tanımladığımız çanak çömlek Hacar tarafından sadece "Klasik Metalik Mal" olarak tanımlanmıştır (Bknz.Hacar, 2017;Hacar-Yener, 2020). Hacar'ın bu çanak çömlek içinde değerlendirdiği "Yalın Mal" grubu tarafımızdan Metalik Çanak Çömlek içinde değerlendirilmemektedir.…”