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

Abstract

This paper provides a synthetic assessment of a peculiar Early Bronze Age ceramic production from the Konya Basin in southern-central Anatolia (Turkey), known in the literature as “Metallic Ware”. While there have been several studies on this ware, our work presents for the first time a detailed chrono-typology, a functional analysis and an evaluation of its spatial distribution employing ca 340 published and unpublished pieces. We also propose a new term to identify this production in future studies, the “Konya Basin Metallic Ware (KBMW)”.

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

“…Even if we are currently not able to narrowly bracket a temperature range for the two KBMW subgroups, we can with some confidence suggest that the dark surface products would have been exposed to overall higher firing conditions. Dark surface sherds are present at numerous sites across the Konya Basin and represent 20% of all sherds (Tuna et al, 2022), suggesting that these were intentional products rather than manufacturing (overfired) discards.…”

“…Numerous characteristics set the KBMW apart from other local wares, including differences in clay preparation, production techniques and pyrotechnology (Friedman, 2000; Gait et al, 2018; Hacar, 2017; Hacar & Bulu, 2021). From a morpho‐typological perspective, only 45% of KBMW types are paralleled in local contemporary wares, and the KBMW form repertoire is overall rather limited when compared with other ceramic groups (Tuna et al, 2022). Previously published chemical composition analyses on EBA ceramics across the study area further throw in high relief the homogeneity of chemical signatures within the KBMW group and—in contrast—the uniqueness of these signatures against the panorama of southern‐central Anatolian ceramics (Friedman, 2000; Gait et al, 2018; Ünlü, 2009).…”

“…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. also supplemental material 1).…”

“…An aspect that has attracted no analytical attention so far is the existence of two subgroups that have the same fabric composition but are characterized by different surface and fabric colours, what we termed the 'light surface KBMW' (representing about 80% of the total assemblage) and the 'dark surface KBMW' (about 20%) (Tuna et al, 2022). Based on autoptic observations, our archaeological team have previously suggested that these two groups might be related to different firing temperatures (Tuna et al, 2022), since dark surface specimens often display a vitrified surface (see Fig. S2 in supplemental material 2) (cf.…”

“…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).…”