Chemical and Mineralogical Approaches to the Organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware Production*

Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00597.x

CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE 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 the Late Bronze Age, samples of Nuzi Ware from four different sites were analysed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM–EDS) and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP–AES). Chemical and mineralogical evidence suggests that Nuzi Ware was produced in at least two distinct regions, one probably in the Adhaim Basin in northern Iraq and another possibly in the Orontes catchment in southeastern Turkey. The existence of individual production units probably developed in response to the local elites’ desire to imitate the tastes of the Mitanni 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 and economic structure. Interregional contacts deﬁned the history of Near Eastern civilization from very early times, due to the scarcity of resources such as stone and metal in the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia. Around the middle of the second millennium bc, however, the rise of regional hegemons in Egypt, Anatolia and Mesopotamia set the stage for an unprecedented degree of diplomatic communication. State archives, particularly those from Tell Amarna in Egypt and Hattuša in Anatolia, attest to a vigorous correspondence and a highly developed system of international gift exchange (Liverani 2008; Shaw 2008). Situated between the Hittites, Egyptians and Kassite Babylonians, the Mitanni Kingdom held a 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 the Mitanni 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] © University of Oxford, 2011 1172 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin a result, archaeologists and ancient historians have a much poorer understanding of the Mitanni than of contemporary powers, and often rely on chronological synchronisms to reconstruct the history of the region (Evans 2008b). The relationship between the material culture of the region and the socio-political structure of the Mitanni state remains largely unexplored, beyond the generalization that high-status materials such as glass and Nuzi Ware have some association with the 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 de Mieroop 2007, 136). Palace archives offer glimpses of a demand for elite materials driven by diplomatic 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 significant effect 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 saw widespread usage, with a distribution ranging from the Orontes River in the east to beyond the Lesser Zab River in the west (Fig. 1). In addition to white-on-dark paint, Nuzi Ware has a more or less cohesive array of vessel shapes and design elements. Given the appearance of this decoration 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 Nuzi Ware 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).

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1173 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 production permits an examination of economic and social relationships between cities and towns in the Mitanni state. In order to examine the relationship between Mitanni socio-political organization and material culture, this research project addresses several questions. Was Nuzi Ware the product of a single industry, or did multiple loci of production exist, each catering to local needs? How homogeneous did Nuzi Ware potters make the clay materials, whether through careful selection of clay beds, levigation or other methods of clay reﬁning? This question applies both to clay chemistry and mineralogy, as well as to sizes and types of inclusions. Analysis of the chemistry and mineralogy of Nuzi Ware in conjunction with other Late Bronze Age ceramics will address these questions in new ways.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Nuzi Ware has sparked a debate over its scope, origins and relationship with other painted wares from the region. The designs display regional variation, with some arguing for more floral and vegetal patterns at Alalakh (Tell Atchana) (Woolley 1955, 349–50; Mullins 2010, 60), while at Nuzi, geometric patterns predominate (Moorey 1999, 158). The subset of Nuzi Ware found at Alalakh 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 an import (Fink 2010, 102–10). Other scholars, looking at the assemblages from Tell Rimah and Tell Brak, 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, in which Nuzi Ware appears in this region. Many see the popularity of Nuzi Ware as linked to the political spread of Mitanni power (Stein 1984). Given this proposed connection between pottery and politics, what does Nuzi Ware reveal about Mitanni society and economy? The centralized palace system of the great Late Bronze Age empires created demand for specific types of material culture, and might have resulted in the widespread exchange of high-status finewares between sites. The extreme case of this model would involve the exportation of Nuzi Ware from a single production region to the rest of the Mitanni sphere. Alternatively, one could argue that the vassal system imposed by these powers promoted an environment where local styles imitated those of the centralized core. Indeed, the lack of standardization and mass production evident in Middle Jazireh IA and IB traditions hints at a more dispersed mode of production (Pfälzner 2007, 257–8). While exchange may have played a part in initiating this system, scientific investigation of ceramic pastes should reveal multiple production centres if this model of production applies. Analysis of Nuzi Ware has previously been restricted to vessel form and decoration, and chemical and mineralogical analysis provides a fresh perspective on these issues. While published chemical and mineralogical analyses of Nuzi Ware are lacking, some studies have analysed Near Eastern ceramic materials from other periods (Mynors 1982; Eiland and Williams 2000; Broekmans et al. 2004, 2006, 2008; Kibarog˘lu 2005). Most successful are studies that 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 technology and production of ‘Metallic Ware’ has identified several different groups by their relative calcium 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

(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 its conclusions, with the relative frequencies of the minerals epidote and biotite being the most important discriminants. Batiuk (2005) assessed the provenience of the late fourth to early third millennium bc Red-Black Burnished Wares from the Amuq Plain near Alalakh, arguing that many of the ceramics were locally produced. Other studies have examined ceramic production from a combined chemical and metric perspective, looking at the standardization of vessel sizes and 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 materials analysis of ceramics from the Mesopotamian alluvium and surrounding regions.

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND A discussion of regional geological variation is crucial for anchoring clay chemistry and mineralogy to regional geology, an essential component of any provenance study. Mineral distributions and the structural geology of the region provide a framework for interpreting paste mineralogy. Running roughly north-west to south-east, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers pass through a flat alluvial plain and into the Persian Gulf. North-east of the Tigris lie the Zagros Mountains and their 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 and limestone (see Buday 1980, 303–42). On the south-west flank of the Zagros Mountains lies a foothill zone characterized by geosynclines and anticlinal ridges. The Quaternary sediments surrounding 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 – Pliocene molasse (Aqrawi et al. 2006) consist of sandstones and mudstones (Jassim and Buday 2006). Heavy mineral composition of Mesopotamian sediments provides a key means of distinguishing among sediments from different river tributaries (Fig. 2). Two key studies (Philip 1970; Ali 1977) analysed the heavy mineral composition of sediments from numerous sites along the Tigris, Euphrates and their tributaries. In particular, the authors noted higher concentrations of epidotes in the Adhaim River and nearby Pleistocene terrace sediments, while those same sediments 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 Adhaim River does not penetrate as far into the Zagros Mountains as the other three major tributaries of the Tigris, making it harder for minerals from the upper regions of the Zagros Mountains to reach its waters. Both studies showed that sediments of the main channels of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers did not differ dramatically with respect to their heavy mineral content, though other tributaries often had more distinct signatures. The structural geology of the region introduces some possible complications. The problem of vertical variation in rivers cutting through terraced landscapes (see Buringh 1960, 133) complicates attempts to uniquely characterize the region based on horizontal variation. While it should not be viewed as an infallible resource, the compiled geological information provided by this literature survey provides an additional framework for interpreting the chemical and mineralogical results. Nuzi is situated in the Adhaim Basin, with its high epidote frequencies. The site of Alalakh, on the other hand, lies outside of Mesopotamia on the Amuq Plain near the Orontes River (Fig. 1). The Orontes catchment is characterized by regions of sedimentary limestone and dolomite, but basalt outcrops and ophiolites are present upstream (Maritan et al. 2005, 724), and

Figure 2 The relative frequencies of the pyroxenes, amphiboles, epidotes and iron ores in the Euphrates Valley. Each pie chart represents a sampling location. This map was generated using data from Philip (1970) (Euphrates and Tigris main branches and Adhaim Basin) and Ali (1977) (Greater and Lesser Zab Basins, Diyala Basin and Adhaim Basin). While Philip simply identiﬁed ‘iron ores’, Ali distinguished between hematite, magnetite and ilmenite, so these values were added together to make comparisons possible. may contribute basic ferromagnesian mineral inclusions to local clay bodies. This hypothesis is conﬁrmed by the petrographic analysis of ceramics from the Amuq Plain, many of which contained pyroxenes and serpentines (Batiuk 2005). The geological variation in Mesopotamia and the northern Levant necessarily limits the analytical resolution with which we can approach the problem of Nuzi Ware provenience. The

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 1176 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin identification of ‘local’ production can only be as specific as the size of the smallest geologically distinct region. In the case of Nuzi, this region is the Adhaim catchment, with its reported high numbers of epidotes in the heavy mineral fraction. The density of sampling by Philip and Ali does not 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 of Alalakh, the smallest easily distinguished geological unit is likely to be the Orontes River and its tributaries—all of which drain regions with igneous outcrops of basic chemistry. Archaeologists conducting ethnographic analysis of contemporary potters suggest that most potters do not travel more than 7 km for clay or temper (Arnold 1985, 49; Arnold 2005, 16–17). Given the nature of the geology in Mesopotamia, however, it is unlikely that we will be able to distinguish different production sites within the Amuq Plain or the Adhaim catchment, despite the fact that these valleys are much larger than 14 km in diameter. Nevertheless, these limitations do not negate the possibility of identifying imports from farther afield, such as the Mitanni heartland in northeastern Syria.

SAMPLES AND ANALYTICAL METHODS Samples from 54 ceramic objects, including a variety of Nuzi Ware and other comparative Late Bronze Age ceramics were included in this study. Nuzi Ware samples, recently excavated from Late Bronze Age layers at Alalakh (Yener 2010), provide data from a site on the western edge of Mitanni inﬂuence, while Tell Rimah (Postgate et al. 1997), Tell Billa (Speiser 1932–3) and Nuzi itself (Starr 1939) provide Nuzi Ware samples from further east (Table 1). Two samples of Simple Ware from Alalakh provide comparative ceramics probably made at or near the site. Roughly contemporary 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 that site, some of which are probably of local origin. Clays used in some of these artefacts probably did 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 dated to around the mid-14th century bc, contemporary with Middle Jazireh IA (Stein 1989; Pfälzner 2007, 236).

Scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM–EDS) Scanning electron microscopy was employed to obtain backscatter electron images of ceramic pastes, 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 from Nuzi, while a JEOL 840A SEM at Cranfield University provided backscatter electron images of these samples. Samples from Alalakh, Tell Billa and Tell Rimah were analysed using a JEOL JSM-6460 LV SEM with an Oxford Instruments INCA X-Sight EDS system at the Museum 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, no quantitative point analyses are reported here. Small samples were taken from the sherds and set in epoxy resin, ground and polished. SEM blocks were carbon coated in order to prevent sample charging. For geological characterization, backscatter images were taken in order to provide standardized information about inclusions, porosity and vitrification. Backscatter images were taken with a probe current of 9 nA and an accelerating voltage of 15 kV.The pastes of these ceramic samples

Object no. Site Description Technique Object no. Site Description Technique

1930.20.2 N Unpainted fineware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.41.112 N Wall piece SEM, ICP–AES production Ware Nuzi Age Bronze Late of organization The 1930.20.7 N Unpainted fineware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.32.33 N Teship Tilla’s ‘Bathtub’ SEM, ICP–AES 1930.20.34 N Unpainted fineware SEM 1930.1B.1 N Wall nail SEM, ICP–AES 1930.20.37 N Unpainted fineware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.1C.27 N Wall nail SEM 1930.20.29 N Unpainted fineware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.1D.6 N Wall nail SEM, ICP–AES 1930.20.36 N Unpainted fineware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.16.13 N Wall nail SEM, ICP–AES 1930.20.30 N Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.4B.3 N Lion SEM, ICP–AES 1930.20.38 N Nuzi Ware SEM 1930.5B.1 N Lion SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.13 N Nuzi Ware SEM 1930.5B.2 N Lion SEM 1930.45.33 N Nuzi Ware SEM 1930.5B.22 N Lion SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.35 N Nuzi Ware SEM 1930.5B.23 N Lion SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.36 N Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.5B.137 N Lion SEM, ICP–AES nvriyo xod 2011, Oxford, of University © 1930.45.43 N Nuzi Ware SEM 1930.5B.113 N Lion SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.45 N Nuzi Ware SEM 1930.14.10 N Lion SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.46 N Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.29.1 N Lamp SEM 1930.45.47 N Nuzi Ware SEM 1930.29.5 N Lamp SEM 1930.45.48 N Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES A1 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.52 N Nuzi Ware SEM A2 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.55 N Nuzi Ware SEM A3 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.45.58 N Nuzi Ware SEM A4 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.16.3 N Glazed jar SEM, ICP–AES A5 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware SEM, ICP–AES Archaeometry 1930.16.4 N Glazed jar SEM, ICP–AES A6 A Simple Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.26D.14 N Jar SEM A7 A Simple Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.4.61 N Wall piece SEM 31-51-576GG B Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.13B.2 N Mudbrick SEM, ICP–AES 31-51-577s B Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES 53

21)1171–1192 (2011) 6 , 1930.13B.3 N Glazed brick SEM, ICP–AES 35-9-65 B Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.14.10 N Glazed wall piece SEM 65-24-2 R Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES 1930.40F.2 N Wall piece SEM, ICP–AES 66-17-8 R Nuzi Ware SEM, ICP–AES

Site codes: N, Nuzi; A, Alalakh; B, Tell Billa; R, Tell Rimah. 1177 1178 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin were compared based on inclusion size distribution, density and shape, as well as matrix porosity and the presence of burnt-out organic remains. Backscatter images allowed the assessment of overall paste homogeneity in the samples under study. For mineral identification, spot analysis using an EDS detector was chosen for its rapid sample throughput and equipment availability. Minerals with a splotchy, inhomogeneous appearance probably underwent chemical alteration and were generally avoided in spot analyses. For each sample, 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 present in the sample or undetected. For most samples, between 10 and 20 different mineral inclusions were analysed. In most cases, the minerals were easily identified by their EDS spectra. This was the case for feldspars, quartz and several other types. Other minerals, such as pyroxenes, were more 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, the consistent appearance of certain spectra allowed differentiation between mineral types. After the completion of analysis, characteristic minerals were chosen as useful discriminants between ceramic groups. Based on both the percentage of samples containing the presence of a certain mineral, as well as the density of that mineral within those samples, each diagnostic mineral type was assigned a qualitative value from ‘o’ (not identified in any sample) to ‘xxxx’ (present in at least 80% of samples in the group and often identified more than once in a sample) for each ceramic type (Table 2).

Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP–AES) While SEM analysis of the ceramic sherds provides semi-quantitative chemical analyses, it cannot 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 complement SEM–EDS analysis. The size of some samples prevented all of those analysed by SEM–EDS from 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 museum lacquer, 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 PerkinElmer 3300 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 ceramics with respect to their inclusion types, sizes and densities. Before delving into the mineralogical details of each ceramic type, it is worthwhile to describe the general characteristics of the ceramics pastes from each site, discuss the possibility of intentional tempering and assess the degree of homogeneity within each ceramic type (Table 2).

Nuzi Ware At different sites, Nuzi Ware assemblages display different degrees of homogeneity with respect to their ceramic pastes. At Alalakh, Nuzi Ware decoration appears both on relatively

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 Table 2 Diagnostic minerals and other paste characteristics in ceramic groups h raiaino aeBoz g uiWr production Ware Nuzi Age Bronze Late of organization The Site Ceramic type Number of ‘Epidote’ Cr-rich K Fsp Mixed Na Fsp Plag Fm 1 Fm 2 Inorganic Organic Overall samples spin Alk Fsp Fsp (‘serpentine’) (‘pyroxene’) inclusion size inclusions microstructural homogeneity within group

Nuzi Lions 8 xxx x xxxx xx x x o x Յ400 mm Very common in Very variable some samples Nuzi Wall nails 5 xx xxx xxxx x o xx x x Յ400 mm Present in some Variable samples Nuzi Unglazed mudbrick 4 xx o xx o xxxx o o x Յ200 mm Very common Very low and wall pieces variability

nvriyo xod 2011, Oxford, of University © Nuzi Nuzi ware 13 xxx xx xxxx x o x o x Յ100 mm Very rare Low variability Nuzi Unpainted ﬁnewares 7 xxx xx xxx xxx o xx x xx Յ100 mm Very rare Low variability Nuzi Glazed jars 2 xxx x x o x x x o Յ300 mm Very rare Some variability Nuzi Glazed brick 1 xxx o xxx xxx o o o o Յ1000 mm Present n/a Alalakh Atchana/Nuzi ware 1 o o o xxx o xxx xxxx xxxx Յ400 mm None n/a (coarse) Alalakh Atchana/Nuzi ware 4 x x o xx x xxx xxxx xxxx Յ100 mm None Low variability (ﬁne) Alalakh Simple Ware 2 x o x o o o xxxx xxxx Յ300 mm None Low variability Յ

Archaeometry Tell Rimah Nuzi Ware 2 x xxx xxx xxx o o x o 200 mm None Low variability Tell Billa Nuzi Ware 3 xxx x xxx x x xx o o Յ100 mm None Low variability

Minerals are recorded as follows: o, not identified in any sample; x, identified in a few samples; xx, identified in many samples; xxx, identified at least once in >50% of samples; xxxx, present in at least 80%

53 of samples in the group and often identiﬁed more than once in a sample.

21)1171–1192 (2011) 6 , Mineral abbreviations: Cr-rich spin, chromium-rich spinel series mineral; K-Fsp, potassium feldspar (orthoclase); Mixed Alk Fsp, mixed alkali feldspar; Na Fsp, sodium-rich feldspar; Plag Fsp, plagioclase feldspar; Fm 1, ferromagnesian 1; Fm 2, ferromagnesian 2. 1179 1180 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin

Figure 3 Backscatter images of Nuzi/Atchana Ware from Alalakh (a, b), Tell Billa (c), Tell Rimah (d) and Nuzi (e), as well as unpainted fineware from Nuzi (f). The scale bar at the bottom left is 400 mm. Note the variation in coarseness of Nuzi Ware from Alalakh, the microstructural homogeneity at the three eastern sites, and the similarities between painted and unpainted finewares at Nuzi. Inclusion labels: 1, ferromagnesian 1; 2, ferromagnesian 2; 3, quartz (includes quartz and other microcrystalline varieties); 4, epidote; 5, Cr-rich spinel; 6, potassium feldspar (orthoclase); 7, mixed alkali feldspar; 8, plagioclase feldspar; 9, ilmenite. coarse ceramic bodies as well as finer wares (Figs 3 (a) and 3 (b)). By contrast, Nuzi Ware samples from Nuzi itself are all finer wares, with very little variability in general paste characteristics. Samples of this type have very small inclusions, rarely above 100 mm, and contain almost no voids left by organic inclusions (Fig. 3 (e)). Likewise, the Nuzi Ware samples obtained

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1181 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 Nuzi Ware at this site was restricted to finer clay vessels. Admittedly, with only three samples from Billa and two from Rimah, generalizations are difficult, but the appearance of Nuzi Ware decoration on only finer ceramic types seems consistent with findings at Nuzi. The fineness and homogeneity of ceramic paste characteristics at these sites suggest that either potters refined clays extensively or selected their clay resources very carefully, favouring deposits with very small inclusions.

Unpainted finewares from Nuzi Unpainted goblets and other finewares from Nuzi display marked similarities with Nuzi Ware fabrics (Figs 3 (e) and 3 (f)). Both types have very fine fabrics, 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 inclusion density and painted decoration. As a result, it is impossible to distinguish between painted Nuzi Ware from Nuzi and unpainted fineware from the same site on the basis on ceramic microstructure.

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 and unpainted goblets, with some samples containing inclusions around 400 mm in diameter. Some wall nails also contain the burnt-out remains of organic inclusions, but others have very few. On the other hand, samples of mudbrick and wall pieces form a cohesive group, having a very distinct backscatter appearance, with the clear presence of voids from organic temper. Mineral inclusions are very dense, but are not exceedingly large. The friable nature of these samples and the lack of extensive 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 smooth range of mineral inclusion sizes in the Nuzi mudbricks suggests that the mineral inclusions occurred naturally.

Zoomorphic lion vessels and sculptures The paste characteristics of Nuzi lions had a high degree of variability. Samples differed widely in both the density and the size of inorganic inclusions, and the density of voids left by organic inclusions. One sample, from object 1930.4B.3, was characterized by high densities of angular mineral inclusions, but contained little evidence of burnt-out organics. Since another sample taken from the same artefact did not have the same microstructure, it is possible that different parts of the lions were made separately, with certain features containing additional temper to allow the object to hold its shape. The microstructural variability displayed both between and within lion samples suggests that there was a lack of consistent methods for creating these sculptures, an unsurprising discovery given the wide variety of styles.

Ceramic mineralogy Energy-dispersive X-ray analyses of mineral inclusions revealed the presence of several diagnostic inclusions, differentiating ceramics from different sites while displaying broad similarities between different types of artefacts from the same site (Table 2). At Nuzi, minerals with high peaks of calcium, aluminium and silicon, and an occasional smaller iron peak, are present in a

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 1182 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin large number of samples from all object types. This mineral is almost certainly epidote. By contrast, ferromagnesian minerals are much rarer. Some chromium-bearing minerals do appear in a number of samples, but usually as very small grains less than 100 mm in size. Potassium-rich orthoclase 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 the higher occurrence of sodium-rich feldspars in the mudbricks, and mixed-alkali feldspars in the unpainted fineware group. On the whole, however, they match up with other ceramic types from Nuzi 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-rich feldspars and those minerals identified as epidote in the Nuzi ceramics. Two distinct and cohesive types of ferromagnesian minerals were identified in the Nuzi/Atchana Ware samples from 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 labelled ferromagnesian 1 and 2, respectively. Based on a knowledge of mineral chemistry and alteration processes, as well as recent petrographic work on Simple Ware from Alalakh (Groom et 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 very distinct 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 this evidence, it is clear that these two highly distinctive ferromagnesian minerals are far more common in Alalakh ceramics than at Nuzi and other sites. Perhaps surprisingly, given the presence of the other mineral characteristic of basic and ultrabasic rocks, chromium-rich minerals 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 Tell Rimah are somewhat harder to characterize. The two samples from Tell Rimah both contained chromium-bearing minerals, and epidote also appears in one sample. Given Rimah’s position between 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 Billa samples, while the ferromagnesian minerals of the types found at Alalakh are entirely absent. As with 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 from each site reﬂect a high positive correlation between Al2O3 and Fe2O3 (Fig. 4). At Nuzi, different artefact classes (ﬁneware, lions, architectural elements etc.) tend to plot at different points along this linear trend, with pottery containing relatively more Al2O3 and Fe2O3 than lions and architectural elements. A similar variation is seen in ceramics from Alalakh, with Nuzi/Atchana Ware and Simple Ware plotting at different points along a linear trend. Considering the microstructural variation and mineralogical homogeneity at Alalakh and Nuzi, it is probable that

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 Table 3 ICP–AES bulk chemical analyses of Nuzi Ware and other Late Bronze Age ceramics: oxides (Al2O3 through MnO) are reported as weight percentages; other elements (Ba through Pb) are given in ppm

Object no. Site Description Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2OK2OTiO2 P2O5 MnO Ba Co Cr Cu

1930.20.2 N Unpainted ﬁneware 12.38 6.47 4.49 12.33 0.73 2.45 0.64 0.16 0.11 290 19 156 31

1930.20.7 N Unpainted fineware 11.75 6.16 4.24 15.50 0.79 2.72 0.60 0.27 0.11 277 18 217 production31 Ware Nuzi Age Bronze Late of organization The 1930.20.29 N Unpainted fineware 12.81 6.61 4.94 16.50 0.97 1.68 0.68 0.36 0.11 318 20 237 34 1930.20.36 N Unpainted fineware 12.90 6.82 4.52 15.62 0.70 2.62 0.67 0.61 0.12 324 19 229 34 1930.20.37 N Unpainted fineware 12.79 6.80 4.86 16.03 1.25 1.78 0.66 0.22 0.11 705 20 235 33 1930.20.30 N Nuzi Ware 13.17 6.61 4.88 14.93 0.85 2.54 0.67 0.22 0.12 355 20 228 34 1930.45.36 N Nuzi Ware 14.54 7.49 5.16 13.48 0.65 2.74 0.69 0.17 0.12 343 21 205 39 1930.45.46 N Nuzi Ware 12.51 6.47 4.31 14.36 0.53 2.47 0.63 0.24 0.11 624 19 185 38 1930.45.48 N Nuzi Ware 12.16 6.47 5.03 16.26 0.65 2.42 0.61 0.17 0.11 447 19 193 40 1930.16.3 N Glazed jar 10.27 5.13 3.50 21.28 2.34 1.59 0.58 0.19 0.09 261 16 183 1095 1930.16.4 N Glazed jar 12.81 6.40 5.45 15.28 3.16 1.95 0.67 0.32 0.11 481 22 239 1119 1930.13B.2 N Mudbrick 8.57 4.34 3.37 19.14 0.72 1.77 0.47 0.11 0.09 219 13 141 29 1930.13B.3 N Glazed Brick 9.32 4.75 3.31 14.21 0.66 1.98 0.45 0.15 0.09 252 14 147 34 1930.40F.2 N Wall piece 8.99 4.58 3.85 17.80 0.71 1.89 0.48 0.22 0.09 251 14 133 33 1930.41.112 N Wall piece 8.70 4.56 3.77 17.69 0.59 1.83 0.48 0.21 0.08 250 14 157 36 1930.32.33 N Teship Tilla’s ‘Bathtub’ 9.69 4.90 3.65 18.18 1.12 1.49 0.53 0.75 0.11 257 14 183 29 nvriyo xod 2011, Oxford, of University © 1930.1B.1 N Wall nail 12.42 6.14 4.38 14.85 0.76 2.75 0.64 0.23 0.11 319 18 182 34 1930.1D.6 N Wall nail 9.81 5.03 3.75 22.77 0.80 2.11 0.52 0.18 0.09 475 16 171 533 1930.16.13 N Wall nail 10.92 5.40 3.81 17.80 1.79 1.51 0.63 0.17 0.10 297 17 257 357 1930.4B.3 N Lion 11.84 6.36 4.32 14.25 0.64 2.42 0.60 0.20 0.10 358 19 194 34 1930.5B.1 N Lion 12.46 6.06 4.45 12.62 1.20 2.49 0.62 0.20 0.11 345 18 184 51 1930.5B.113 N Lion 11.61 5.77 4.38 17.31 0.96 1.61 0.65 0.17 0.10 282 18 184 35 1930.5B.137 N Lion 11.12 5.83 3.69 14.75 0.65 2.62 0.56 0.18 0.09 262 16 165 37 1930.5B.22 N Lion 10.61 5.60 4.07 17.29 0.69 2.23 0.57 0.17 0.10 263 17 189 30 1930.5B.23 N Lion 10.84 5.51 4.03 16.91 0.74 2.31 0.58 0.16 0.10 275 17 178 31 1930.14.10 N Lion 11.97 6.22 4.26 16.47 1.30 2.35 0.67 0.23 0.10 554 20 220 558 A1 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware 10.16 6.28 5.29 14.37 0.53 1.18 0.66 0.29 0.14 531 24 294 45 Archaeometry A2 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware 10.06 6.00 4.25 14.64 0.39 1.28 0.63 0.28 0.13 450 23 206 45 A2 (repeat) A Nuzi/Atchana Ware 10.05 6.00 4.31 14.54 0.39 1.28 0.64 0.27 0.13 458 22 232 45 A3 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware 12.44 7.54 5.05 11.37 0.39 2.56 0.81 0.35 0.15 333 30 289 46 A4 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware 11.10 6.55 4.90 10.76 0.51 1.26 0.72 0.43 0.15 432 26 228 56 A4 (repeat) A Nuzi/Atchana Ware 11.59 6.82 5.13 10.76 0.53 1.28 0.74 0.43 0.16 448 26 232 56

53 A5 A Nuzi/Atchana Ware 10.72 6.38 4.14 11.37 0.70 1.45 0.64 0.48 0.14 391 24 219 53 21)1171–1192 (2011) 6 , A6 A Simple Ware 8.60 5.23 3.37 14.32 0.40 1.66 0.62 0.25 0.13 877 20 190 41 A7 A Simple Ware 8.10 5.38 4.17 21.44 0.44 1.19 0.56 0.25 0.10 623 21 232 36 31-51-576GG B Nuzi Ware 13.70 7.02 5.95 16.88 0.63 2.41 0.72 0.30 0.11 332 20 155 40 31-51-577s B Nuzi Ware 11.59 6.06 5.50 18.09 0.47 2.75 0.63 0.34 0.10 295 17 132 29 35-9-65 B Nuzi Ware 11.59 5.90 4.53 20.09 0.57 2.91 0.63 0.32 0.10 364 17 131 31

65-24-2 R Nuzi Ware 14.90 8.12 5.85 16.39 0.61 3.05 0.81 0.30 0.13 356 23 172 38 1183 66-17-8 R Nuzi Ware 12.48 6.75 5.15 13.28 0.75 1.30 0.78 0.29 0.12 276 20 174 38 nvriyo xod 2011, Oxford, of University © Table 3 (Continued) 1184

Object no. Li Ni Sc Sr V Y Zn Zr* La Ce Nd Sm Eu Dy Yb Pb

1930.20.2 33 167 16 536 101 19 68 67 17 37 21 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.20.7 33 164 15 487 114 19 85 68 20 36 24 <10 <10 <10 <10 13 1930.20.29 31 186 16 399 119 24 70 94 23 37 27 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.20.36 34 183 17 461 113 24 68 79 24 29 28 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.20.37 34 182 16 477 113 22 81 92 23 38 27 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Archaeometry < < < <

1930.20.30 35 182 16 516 113 21 69 76 23 31 27 10 10 10 10 Eremin 11 K. and Shortland J. A. Erb-Satullo, L. N. 1930.45.36 42 179 18 383 123 19 82 59 23 39 27 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.45.46 34 172 16 414 101 20 71 68 22 36 26 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.45.48 33 176 16 572 118 20 88 67 21 33 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 1930.16.3 10 133 13 1364 96 21 74 77 22 47 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 13

53 1930.16.4 <10 173 16 376 101 24 93 82 23 34 27 <10 <10 <10 <10 14 21)1171–1192 (2011) 6 , 1930.13B.2 28 118 11 411 79 17 61 48 15 37 18 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.13B.3 29 119 11 386 83 16 62 43 16 35 19 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 1930.40F.2 30 120 11 369 84 17 68 64 16 37 19 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.41.112 28 125 11 321 88 17 67 58 18 38 21 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.32.33 23 121 12 743 93 20 59 83 18 31 22 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.1B.1 33 170 15 448 107 20 80 67 21 33 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 14 1930.1D.6 30 141 12 534 86 20 78 66 18 42 21 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 1930.16.13 22 136 13 526 89 21 69 113 18 46 22 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.4B.3 34 159 15 481 105 19 75 63 22 48 26 <10 <10 <10 <10 16 1930.5B.1 36 161 15 395 104 21 76 80 22 50 26 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 1930.5B.113 30 159 14 421 106 21 100 79 20 34 24 <10 <10 <10 <10 573 1930.5B.137 30 152 13 449 104 17 82 56 16 44 20 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 1930.5B.22 30 146 13 449 100 19 76 57 20 46 24 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 1930.5B.23 32 151 14 425 97 19 79 59 16 41 20 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1930.14.10 32 163 15 568 102 23 69 93 24 37 28 <10 <10 <10 <10 15 A1 30 312 15 413 91 22 105 41 23 39 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 A2 30 276 13 515 84 21 95 64 22 40 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 A2 (repeat) 31 269 13 527 82 21 95 33 22 35 24 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 A3 32 435 17 289 110 26 120 45 29 58 32 <10 <10 <10 <10 12 A4 33 311 15 411 94 23 113 26 26 45 29 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 A4 (repeat) 34 317 15 424 96 24 111 24 27 47 30 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 A5 34 316 14 358 93 20 112 48 23 41 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 A6 28 231 12 556 79 21 104 57 22 37 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 A7 25 304 12 769 80 20 91 39 19 28 21 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 31-51-576GG 40 183 17 571 99 25 115 91 25 50 27 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 31-51-577s 33 146 15 581 120 20 108 62 22 40 24 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 35-9-65 34 146 14 688 99 22 102 71 22 48 24 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 65-24-2 38 203 19 662 131 27 119 92 30 57 33 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 66-17-8 34 156 15 781 125 22 136 81 25 50 27 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

*Note: Zr values may be low due to the difﬁculty of dissolving zircon minerals using standard ICP–AES sample preparation protocols (N. Walsh, pers. comm.). The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1185

9.00

8.00

7.00 Nuzi/Atchana Ware (Alalakh) Simple Ware (Alalakh) (wt.%) 3 6.00 Nuzi Ware (Tell Billa) O 2 Nuzi Ware (Tell Rimah) Fe Nuzi Ware (Nuzi) 5.00 Unpainted Fineware (Nuzi) Lions (Nuzi) Bricks and Wall Pieces (Nuzi) 4.00 Wall Nails (Nuzi) Glazed Jars (Nuzi) Teship Tilla's "Bathtub" (Nuzi) 3.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

Al O (wt.%) 2 3

Figure 4 A plot of Fe2O3 versus Al2O3 for Nuzi Ware and other ceramics from the sites in this study. these chemical variations derive from the varying presence of silica-rich inclusions in different 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 plot of 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 possible clay processing, intra-site variability in major element chemistry is quite low for Alalakh and Nuzi. While the ceramic assemblages from the sites of Alalakh and Nuzi both show a correlation between Fe2O3 and Al2O3, the ratios between these two compounds differ markedly between the sites, with Alalakh samples containing higher Fe2O3/Al2O3 ratios. These differences in major element chemistry parallel differences observed in mineral inclusions, since Alalakh ceramics tend 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, but to the underlying geology of clay resources. Paralleling the mineralogical results, Tell Billa and Tell Rimah samples appear to be indistinguishable from the Nuzi assemblage based on major elements. 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 from Tell 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 of other mineralogical or chemical differences, we cannot argue for a distinction among Nuzi ware from Nuzi, Tell Rimah and Tell Billa at this stage.

160

140

120

100 Nuzi/Atchana Ware (Alalakh) Simple Ware (Alalakh)

80 Nuzi Ware (Tell Billa)

Zn (ppm) Nuzi Ware (Tell Rimah) Nuzi Ware (Nuzi) 60 Unpainted Finewares (Nuzi) Lions (Nuzi) 40 Bricks and Wall Pieces (Nuzi) Wall Nails (Nuzi) 20 Glazed Jars (Nuzi) Teship Tilla's "Bathtub" (Nuzi)

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Ni (ppm)

Figure 5 A plot of Zn versus Ni for Nuzi Ware and other ceramics from the sites in this study.

In order test whether observations made from bi-plots of major, minor and trace elements held up when many elements were considered in tandem, hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted on a group of selected elements. In order to minimize erroneous groupings, certain elements were eliminated 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 that correspond to post-depositional alteration or other processes not indicative of the geological origin of the clay and temper. Na2O and Cu were eliminated from consideration since several glazed samples contained anomalous values that were probably due to the degradation of the copper-coloured glaze. Pb was also eliminated, since a single sample (1930.5B.113) had 50 times the lead of any other sample, but was otherwise chemically similar to other Nuzi ceramics. The trace elements Sr and Ba were also eliminated due their known mobility in post-depositional environments (Waksman et al. 1994, 828) and the number of anomalous measurements that did not correlate with other chemical differences. Finally, the four trace elements with all measurements below 10 ppm were removed due to potential instrumental error, and Zr was also eliminated 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 other elements, such as Mg, Ca and K, can also mobilize during burial (Tite 2008, 225), these elements were not eliminated, since the measured values did not show any unusual features not reﬂected in other elemental plots. Hierarchical cluster analysis (Fig. 6) revealed generally the same structure as observed in the bi-plots. Samples from Alalakh are clearly differentiated from those from Nuzi. One sample (A3) was distinguished from the rest of the Alalakh samples, but this

Figure 6 A dendrogram from hierarchical cluster analysis of the ICP–AES results. difference is not mirrored in microstructural or mineralogical analysis. Cluster analysis also showed that Tell Billa and Tell Rimah Nuzi Ware could not be distinguished from Nuzi Nuzi Ware. In general, multivariate analysis takes into account a larger segment of the chemical data than 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 trace element data. ICP–AES measurements on the ceramic fabrics reveal a correlation between aluminium and iron content, with samples from the same sites plotting along the same lines. These correlations 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

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 1188 N. L. Erb-Satullo, A. J. Shortland and K. Eremin coarser ceramics, decreasing the weight percentages of iron and aluminium, with no significant change in the underlying clay chemistry. Correlations between other elements also exist, adding further weight to these conclusions. These variations may have some connection with intentional clay 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 discriminating between different clay types. The higher ratios of iron to aluminium observed in Alalakh samples suggests that clay sources for these objects differed from those at Nuzi, probably coming from a region with more iron-rich basic igneous rocks. Mudbrick samples, with their very high inclusion densities, have somewhat different percentages of iron and aluminium than the bulk of ceramics from Nuzi (see Fig. 4). However, they do have very similar iron to aluminium ratios, which differ from samples at other sites. Even at the level of major element chemistry, evidence begins to suggest that Nuzi Ware at Alalakh and at Nuzi had different clay sources corresponding to different regional geology. This hypothesis is further supported by the trace element data, which also 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 separating from ceramics from Alalakh at a high level, before distinctions are made within the ceramic materials from Nuzi. Microstructural analysis of Nuzi Ware from different sites also reveals several patterns of regional production. Among the samples from Alalakh, white-on-dark decoration appears on very fine samples, but also on a coarser sample (Fig. 3). By contrast, the Nuzi Ware samples from Nuzi, Tell Rimah and Tell Billa all have much more uniform paste characteristics. The differing characteristics of Nuzi Ware pastes may reflect divergent traditions associated with the production and consumption of Nuzi Ware in different regions. Chemical and mineralogical comparisons 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. Numerous explanations could explain the distribution of paste characteristics. Differing technical require- ments of different vessel sizes, differing uses and the demands of different social groups may have all played a role.

The relationship between Nuzi Ware and unpainted finewares Chemical and microstructural results prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between unpainted finewares and Nuzi Ware in the Adhaim. Major, minor and trace element chemistry shows few differences between the two groups. Mineralogy reflects similar trends, although ferromagnesian minerals are slightly more prevalent in unpainted finewares. These indicators reinforce the formal similarities between painted and unpainted versions of high cups and shouldered goblets at Nuzi (Starr 1939, 394–5). Unpainted fineware goblets appear in widely varying contexts, such as the Ur III and Isin–Larsa Period in southern Mesopotamia (see Stein 1984, 26–7, pl. VII). Additionally, unpainted shouldered and straight-sided goblets appear at Tell Rimah (Postgate et al. 1997, pl. 67,72) as well as Tell Brak (Oates et al. 1997, 188–9). This evidence does suggest that Nuzi Ware and unpainted finewares followed similar production models, although it is the white-on-dark painted decoration that is specific to areas of Mitanni influence.

The provenance of Nuzi Ware Chemical and mineralogical data demonstrate similarities between Nuzi Ware and other ceramics made from the same site. What does chemical and mineralogical data reveal about the

© University of Oxford, 2011, Archaeometry 53, 6 (2011) 1171–1192 The organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production 1189 geographical locations of clay resources? Mineralogical analyses, particularly the relative amounts of epidotes, feldspars and ferromagnesian minerals, suggest an origin for Nuzi Ware from 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 (Philip 1970; Ali 1977), epidote also appears to be a key mineral for distinguishing between different regions. The identification of a mineral whose chemical composition is consistent with epidote in a large proportion of all Nuzi ceramics, coupled with the relative lack of ferromagnesian silicates such as those identified in Alalakh samples, demonstrates that the mineralogy of the Nuzi assemblage as a whole matches the heavy mineral distribution of the Adhaim Basin. With respect to bulk chemistry, lower iron to aluminium ratios (Fig. 4) also suggest a region less dominated by iron- and magnesium-rich silicates, such as the Adhaim. Moreover, the chemical and mineralogical match between Nuzi Ware and other ceramic types at Nuzi provides further evidence for this conclusion. While intra-regional variation precludes a direct match between the 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 Ware at other sites, with respect to both chemistry and mineralogy. Moreover, the application of Nuzi/Atchana Ware decoration to several distinct fabric types at Alalakh contrasts with the relative homogeneity observed elsewhere. Detailed information about heavy mineral distributions in sediments is lacking outside of Iraq, but the proximity of ophiolitic and basaltic provinces upstream of Alalakh on the Orontes (Maritan et al. 2005, 724) could easily account for 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 ferromagnesian minerals such as pyroxene and serpentine in pottery that, he concluded, was locally produced. Pottery from Qatna often contains an abundance of ferromagnesian minerals and basaltic rock fragments (Maritan et al. 2005). ICP–AES and SEM–EDS analyses show similarities between the two samples of Alalakh Simple Ware, probably a local manufacture, and the Nuzi/Atchana Ware. Furthermore, petrographic analyses of other Simple Ware samples show 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 contains foraminifera. These considerations strongly suggest a production centre in the Orontes catchment, if not in the immediate vicinity of Alalakh, distinct from production centres further east. 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 samples examined by SEM–EDS and ICP–AES. Tell Billa lies fairly close to the main channel of the Tigris River, while Tell Rimah lies between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Geological homogeneity of the main channel sediments complicates fine distinctions between clay sources. Never- theless, Tell Billa Nuzi Ware shares many chemical and mineralogical characteristics with ceramics 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 is possible that Tell Billa Nuzi Ware was made in a production centre close to those that produced Nuzi Ware found at Nuzi, but this suggestion remains only conjectural given the sample size, and it is called into question by the different painting style of Nuzi Ware found on some sherds at Tell Billa, characterized by thicker lines and dense infilling of white dots. What is clear from this initial research, however, is that at least two regions, one probably in the Amuq and the other in the Adhaim catchment, produced Nuzi Ware.

CONCLUSIONS Evidence from the chemical and mineralogical analysis of Nuzi Ware ceramics at several sites suggests multiple loci of production. Nuzi Ware ceramics were often produced in the same geological region in which they were used and discarded. It is also significant that investigations at the sites of Nuzi and Alalakh show that Nuzi Ware, although frequently associated with the Mitanni elite, was produced in regions far from the centre of Mitanni power in the Syrian Jazireh. Although these results are certainly preliminary, they permit several hypotheses 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 of the Mitanni elite. By adopting the material culture of these political centres, local elites would enhance their status within the vassal system. While these local rulers may not have exercised explicit control over pottery production, elite residences such as the palace at Nuzi would have contributed to an efflorescence of local Nuzi Ware production. Nuzi Ware is one of the only features that links the ceramic tradition at Nuzi to the Syrian Jazireh region to the west (Pfälzner 2007, 257), suggesting that the adoption of Nuzi ware at Nuzi was a selective process. Woolley (1955, 347) suggests a development of this sort at Alalakh 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 fact likely, both at Alalakh and at Nuzi. These hypotheses are consistent with Pfälzner’s interpretation of Mitanni ceramic economy as a ‘closely integrated network of a “nucleated workshop industry” ’ (Pfälzner 2007, 257). The better-documented expansion of terra sigillata production from Italy to Gaul and other provinces during the Roman Empire, with local production springing up to supply provincial Roman tastes (Mirti et al. 1999), may represent an analogous process. Just as associations between pottery and ethnicity are often suspect, ceramic distributions should not be casually equated with political boundaries in general, especially in the shifting 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 is quite reasonable. This model places Stein’s conception of Nuzi Ware as a product of the political and economic environment on more concrete footing, providing a mechanism for how politics influenced material culture. However, it contradicts the specifics of her proposed production model, which was based on the wide variety of designs appearing on a homogeneous array of vessel forms. She hypothesizes that ‘Nuzi Ware shapes were exported from a center of production to a number of sites where they were subsequently decorated by local artisans, perhaps upon commission’ (Stein 1984, 28). Instead, evidence from 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 drawn between these ceramics results and recent analyses of Late Bronze Age glasses (Degryse et al. 2010), which also suggest the existence of several production centres within Syria and northern Mesopotamia. The dispersed production of a common style of ceramics mirrors the Late Bronze Age political system, characterized by imperial powers and dispersed vassal systems. Further work, particularly petrographic analysis and the expansion of the study to include 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 environments such as Mesopotamia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks are due to Chris Doherty and Mark Pollard for discussing issues relating to ceramic technology and provenance, and for commenting on drafts of the M.Sc. thesis from which this research project grew. We would like to thank James Armstrong and the Semitic Museum for providing access to samples from Nuzi in the Semitic Museum, Richard Zettler and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology for permission to sample artefacts from Tell Rimah and Tell Billa, and Aslıhan Yener and Mara Horowitz for samples from the excavations at Alalakh. We are also indebted to Simon Groom for sharing his ﬁndings on the Alalakh Simple Ware, and helping to identify foraminifera microfossils samples of Alalakh Nuzi Ware. For providing access to SEM–EDS, we would like to thank Richard Newman of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and Dr Norman Charnley of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford. Dr Nick Walsh of the Royal Holloway provided the ICP–AES measurements. Finally, we would like to thank three anonymous reviewers who provided 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 early urban 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 Iraqi Geological 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 and J. 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 and R. Martineau), Archaeopress, Oxford. Batiuk, S. D., 2005, Migration theory and the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture, Ph.D. thesis, University of 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-Mesopotamian Bronze 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 of Agriculture, 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.

Groom, S. D., Cockrell, B., and Bown, P., 2010, Categorizing the Simple Ware, the petrography of an ophiolitic and fossiliferous local pottery fabric from Tell Atchana, a second millennium urban centre in southern Turkey, Paper presented at the 37th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Tampa, FL. Hrouda, B., 2001, About Habur-Ware , hopefully for the last time, al-Ra¯ﬁda¯n, 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. Kibarog˘lu, M., 2005, Sedimentary geochemical approach to the provenance of the non-calciferous north Mesopotamian Metallic Ware, Archaeometriai Mu˝hely, 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 University Press, New Haven, CT. Maritan, L., Mazzoli, C., Michelin, V., Bonacossi, D. M., Luciani, M., and Molin, G., 2005, The provenance and production 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 Italian centers 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. 30th March – 3rd April 1982 (eds. A. Aspinall and S. Warren), School of Physics and Archaeological Science, University of 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 and London. Pfälzner, P., 2007, The Late Bronze Age ceramic traditions of the Syrian Jazireh, in Céramique de l’âge du bronze en Syrie (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 millennium B.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 detrital deposits, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 40, 131–9. Pollard, M., Batt, C. M., Stern, B., and Young, S. M. M., 2007, Analytical chemistry in archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Postgate, C., Oates, D., and Oates, J., 1997, The excavations at Tell al-Rimah: the pottery, The British School of Archaeology 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.