Uppsala University • Department of Archaeology and Ancient History Symbols in Clay A Study of Early Bronze IV Potters‟ Marks from the Amman-Zarqa Region in Transjordan Rikke Wulff Krabbenhöft Master‟s Thesis • Archaeology • Supervisor: Frands Herschend Uppsala 2010 Abstract Wulff Krabbenhöft, R., 2010. Symbols in Clay: A Study of Early Bronze IV Potters‟ Marks from the Amman-Zarqa Region in Transjordan. Master‟s thesis. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University. The present work examines the taxonomy and function of potters‟ marks applied to pottery in the Amman-Zarqa region during the last phase of the Early Bronze Age, the so-called EB IV ca. 2350/2300–2000 BC. The study is anchored in a small data set gathered from 12 archaeological sites, in which 24 different mark types have been identified. These mark types - together with their associated vessel classes, circumstances of deposition, and geographical distribution - comprise the background against which previous suggestions regarding potters‟ marks are evaluated. Evidence from ethno-archaeological sources concerning traditional potters‟ rationales for marking vessels today is also included as part of the interpretive framework. The mode and scale of production is discussed on the basis of the ceramic evidence, the size and character of settlements located within the region, and the socio-economic setting of the EB IV period in general. The conclusions reached for the function of the Amman-Zarqa potters‟ marks suggest that marking practices may have been governed by other principles than those conventionally assumed for potters‟ marks. However, there are many open questions still due to the small size of the sample, and more data is needed in order to review the observations made in this study. The conclusions allow for the negation of a non-Southern-Levantine origin of the Amman-Zarqa marking practice, while the exact nature of the potter‟s activities and the rationale for marking his or her wares remains unclear. The size of ceramic production was modest, but the presence of small quantities of imported Amman-Zarqa pottery on two sites outside the region confirm that production regimes at times were directed towards larger markets than the local community. Although little is known about pottery exchange between sites in the Amman-Zarqa region, the micro-traditions of a particular mark type, alongside occasional correspondences between selected vessel features, facilitate in few cases the identification of manufacturing-based relationships. From these, two suggestions can be made regarding contacts between certain sites for the exchange of pottery, within and beyond the region. Keywords: potters‟ marks, Transjordan, Early Bronze Age, Family AZ pottery, tombs, production, Amman-Zarqa, Khirbat Iskandar, Tall Iktanu, Tall al-„Umayri area, pottery exchange, depositional patterns, EB IV. Rikke Wulff Krabbenhöft. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Box 626, Uppsala University, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden. Acknowledgements This study would have been much harder to carry out without the help of several people: - Suzanne Richard, Gannon University, who kindly gave me permission to use unpublished materials and data from the Khirbat Iskandar excavations. She has been a source of advice and encouragement for which I am most grateful. - Catreena Hamarneh, Head of Documentation Section at the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, was also an invaluable aid, tracking down the pottery in storage in Amman and providing me with the necessary permissions to examine it. My thanks are equally due to Aida Nagawi Dodo, Director of the Archaeological Museum in Amman, and Ahmad Juma‟ al-Shami, Inspector of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, who helped me at the museum and at the Department‟s storage facilities at Tabarbor. - Ronnie Rama, Abilene Christian University, who photographed all the pottery examined in Amman as well as calculated the vessel volumes in AutoCAD for me. - Jakob Andersson, Uppsala University, who patiently proofread large parts of the thesis despite his own busy schedule, also deserves my gratitude. - So does my supervisor at Uppsala University, Frands Herschend, for his many constructive critical comments on the thesis, and for always having time for me. Contents List of tables and illustrations ..................................................................... viii List of abbreviations ....................................................................................... x 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 11 1.1 Potters‟ marks ..................................................................................... 11 1.2 Why Early Bronze IV marks from the Amman-Zarqa region? .......... 11 1.3 Aim and questions .............................................................................. 13 1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................... 13 1.5 Chronology ......................................................................................... 14 1.6 Terminology ....................................................................................... 15 1.7 Source criticism and key problems .................................................... 16 2. Background ............................................................................................... 18 2.1The EB IV in Transjordan ................................................................... 18 2.2 Ceramic „families‟ and pottery exchange ........................................... 21 2.3 Family AZ pottery .............................................................................. 24 2.4 Proposed functions and previous studies ............................................ 26 2.5 Ethno-archaeological evidence of potters‟ marks .............................. 29 3. Sites with Family AZ potters‟ marks ........................................................ 31 3.1 Hussein Sports City (Amman) ........................................................... 31 3.2 Jabal at-Taj (Amman) ......................................................................... 32 3.3 Jabal al-Jofah (Amman) ..................................................................... 33 3.4 al-Musheirfah ..................................................................................... 35 3.5 Umm al-Bighal (Amman) .................................................................. 36 3.6 Abu Ridin/Na‟ur ................................................................................. 40 3.7 Al-Bassah ........................................................................................... 41 3.8 Site 73 (Tall al-„Umayri Survey) ........................................................ 42 3.9 Site 135 (Tall al-„Umayri Survey) ...................................................... 43 3.10 Tall al-„Umayri ................................................................................. 45 3.11 Tall Iktanu ........................................................................................ 47 3.12 Khirbat Iskandar ............................................................................... 49 3.13 Summarizing the contexts ................................................................ 52 4. Mark taxonomy ......................................................................................... 55 4.1 Mark elements and typological groupings ......................................... 55 4.2 Modes of execution ............................................................................ 58 4.3 Mark location ..................................................................................... 58 4.4 Organization of catalogue entries ....................................................... 59 5. Analysis .................................................................................................... 60 5.1 Family AZ mark type attestations ...................................................... 61 5.2 Parallels from the Levant ................................................................... 62 5.3 Vessel types represented .................................................................... 62 5.4 Relative marking frequency ............................................................... 63 5.5 Correlation of potters‟ marks and vessel features .............................. 64 5.6 Mark type micro-traditions: the case of M-20 .................................... 67 5.7 Depositional patterns .......................................................................... 69 5.8 Discussion .......................................................................................... 77 5.8.1 Early script and numeration ........................................................ 77 5.8.2 Labels indicating vessel contents ................................................ 77 5.8.3 Vessel capacity indication .......................................................... 78 5.8.4 Ownership ................................................................................... 79 5.8.5 Trademarks ................................................................................. 79 5.8.6 Production marks ........................................................................ 80 5.8.7 Extreme specialization? .............................................................. 81 5.8.8 Reflections on mark function ...................................................... 81 5.8.9 Mode and scale of ceramic production