Technological studies on Attic Early Iron Age ceramics

Introduction
The following information comes from the authors PhD thesis on Attic Geometric and Orientalising pottery. This is an isolated article that presents an overview of the technological studies on Attic Early Iron Age ceramics.

Technological studies on Attic Early Iron Age ceramics
Early studies on Greek ceramic technologies, in general, were based on simple macroscopic techniques and focused mainly in clay properties and decoration equipment. Desborough (1952, 119-21) was the first to describe Submycenaean clays as moderately well prepared and baked. Protogeometric clays were identified as light brown, well prepared with few impurities, and baked hard (Desborough 1952, 119). In a similar way, Submycenaean paints were characterised as dull and Protogeometric paints were described as brown-black, spread on a surface previously smoothed with a wash. Protogeometric vessels were fired at high temperatures until their paint acquired a “metallic sheen” (Desborough 1952, 119). Finally, Desborough (1952, 120; 1972, 145) argued that the greatest advancement of the Protogeometric era was the “swiftly turning wheel”, which produced harmonious, light and balanced shapes.

Perhaps as a result of the general stylistic approach in ceramic studies of the 1950s, Desborough’s main concern was the identification of decorative technologies through the analysis of Protogeometric motifs. He was the first to identify that the concentric circles on Protogeometric vessels were drawn with the use of compass multiple brushes (Desborough 1952, 79). A full analysis of this technique was later discussed by John Boardman (1960) and was also included in the study of the Protogeometric style by R.M. Cook (1960; 1997, 8). Schweitzer (1969, 22-8) suggested that the decorative elements of Mycenaean traditions passed on Protogeometric and Geometric art together with pottery manufacturing techniques such as the fast wheel and the pivoting brush, which survived the Dark Ages.

By contrast to Desborough (1952), Harrison Eiteljorg (1980) questioned the use of compass multiple brushes in the Protogeometric period and demonstrated their problems when used on curved surfaces through experimental methods. Eiteljorg (1980) argued that if they existed, such tools were probably not used for drawing circular motifs. Papadopoulos et al. (1998) conducted a similar study by comparing groups of concentric circles from Mycenaean and Protogeometric vessels, and by producing their own experimental work. They argued against Eiteljorg (1980) that the compass multiple brush not only existed for painting concentric circles but also Desborough’s (1952, 79) observations were right. The use of new technologies in pottery production in Athens, Knossos and Lefkandi during the 11th and 10th centuries BC were later summarised by Lemos (2002, 101-3).

Despite the broader preference in simple macroscopic techniques in the study of Early Iron Age ceramic technologies, the birth of archaeometric analysis in Greek ceramic studies was also in the 1960s. Before Leroi-Gourhan and Lechtman established the idea of the chaîne opératoire in archaeology (see Chapter 3), Josef Noble (1960; 1966) and R.M. Cook (1960; 1997, 231-7) were the first to describe the full operational sequence of ancient Greek ceramic production. Their discussions were mainly based on textual sources and iconographic evidence from the Archaic and Classical era, depicting potters and painters at work (see Stissi 2002; Chatzidimitriou 2005). R.M Cook (1960; 1997, 231-7) identified the steps of the standard process followed by ancient Greek ceramic workshops and used the term ‘technique’ as opposed to technology to discuss clay selection and levigation, forming and decorating practices, and finally the three-step firing cycle (oxidisation-reduction-reoxidisation). The three-step cycle was later analysed with scientific microscopic techniques by Tite et al. (1982). Finally, Noble (1960; 1966) examined the ceramic operational sequence through experimental methods and ethnographic analogies. He discussed the effect of different chemical element concentrations in paints in relation to the three-step firing cycle, and was also the first to investigate Attic ceramic vessels with the use of X-ray radiography (Noble 1966).

Archaeometric studies on Attic Early Iron Age pottery expanded after the 1970s. Compared to other archaeological and iconographic approaches of the same period, they were relatively few and restricted to the investigation of provenance, most of which summarised by Jones et al. (1986). Apart from provenance studies, few approaches focused in the investigation of firing temperatures (e.g. Maniatis & Tite 1981; Tite et al. 1982; Schilling 2003).

For Athens, chemical analyses proved the existence of at least four different clay sources in the local area: firstly, the red fine-textured Amaroussi clays, identified with the use of Wet Clay Analysis and Optical Emission Spectroscopy by Farnsworth (1964; 1970) and Noble (1966), later revised by Fillieres et al. (1983). Secondly, the Cape Kolias pale red clays that were quarried near the coasts of Agios Kosmas, examined by Gautier (1975) with Thin Section Microscopy and X-Ray Diffraction. Finally, the Iera Odos and the Koukouvaounes clays studied by Farnsworth (1970) through X-Ray Diffraction. These four clay sources and their combinations characterised Attic pottery production from its early stages, including Protogeometric, Geometric and Orientalising times. Additional research on Attic provenance of 6th century BC vessels was produced by Boardman & Schweizer (1973) with the use of Optical Emission Spectroscopy.

In the case of exported pottery, archaeometric approaches were used to examine the distribution of large Attic vessels, revealing social contacts and trade. Jones (1979) mapped the typical composition of Attic Late Geometric and Orientalising finewares with the use of Optical Emission Spectroscopy. This composition was compared to suspected Athenian imports at Megara Hyblaea proving the commercial contacts between the two cities. Attic trade has also been investigated through SOS transport amphorae, which were in use between LGI and the first half of the 6th century BC. Their large distribution in the Mediterranean (e.g. Italy, Sicily, Spain, Morocco, Al Mina and Istria) was ideal to investigate the scale of Attic trade and its possible trade roots. However, back in the 1970s Chalkis was thought to have produced similar vessels and it was not clear whether Chalkis was involved in the same trade network. Confirmation tests with the use of Optical Emission Spectroscopy (Johnston & Jones 1978; Tréziny 1979; Jones 1979), X-Ray Fluorescence (Stern & Descoeudres 1977), and Wet Clay Analysis (Bouchard 1971) demonstrated that the ‘Chalkidian’ amphorae belonged to Attic clusters. Few samples that were considered ‘Attic’ were found to be of non-Attic and non-Chalkidian origin (Jones et al. 1986, 706-12).

With regard to Late Geometric decorated finewares, Gautier (1975, 43-4) conducted Thin Section Analysis and argued that the Dipylon fabric was a deliberate mixture of a red plastic clay and a marly clay. By contrast, the clay for the majority of Archaic finewares from Athens was phyllitic; therefore, their fabrication recipe was different compared to the one from the Geometric period (Gautier 1975, 37-8).

Liddy (1996) argued that distinct fabrication practices existed in Athens even earlier than the Late Geometric period. His study on large Attic amphora imports at Knossos with the use of Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy verified the presence of two distinct composition clusters, in which the samples belonged to specific chronological groups: cluster 3/4 contained predominantly Protogeometric to Middle Geometric samples (10th and 9th centuries BC), while cluster 3/5 contained Middle Geometric to Late Geometric samples (8th century BC). Liddy (1996, 488) argued that the instances of Knossian and Attic materials resolving into multiple composition groups could be due to three factors: a) the exploitation of similar clay beds in both regions; b) the wide natural variation in clay compositions within the same region; and c) the effect of different potters’ practices in preparing the clay (Liddy 1996, 488-9). Furthermore, recipe differentiations in Attic Geometric fabrics could indicate two possibilities: firstly, a single production centre exploiting different clays over time, and secondly, a spatial variation in which the earlier groups represented Athens and the later groups represented one or more different workshops (Liddy 1996, 489).

Eleni Hasaki (2002, 220-5) discussed shape, size and capacity of Early Iron Age kilns from Torone, Lefkandi and the Athenian Agora. She argued that monumental funerary vessels of the Dipylon tradition would have barely fitted in an average Geometric kiln; therefore, their production was seasonal (possibly once a year) and practised individually for a limited number of vases (Hasaki 2002, 224). Stissi (2002) discussed the organisation of fineware production in Attica during Late Archaic and Classical times, and argued in favour of a market system connected to the consumption of decorated pottery.

With regard to spatial distribution, Papadopoulos (2003, 5) argued that the large presence of production debris in Geometric wells (e.g. test pieces for kiln control) suggested that the area of the later Classical Athenian Agora was filled with pottery workshops and kilns during the Early Iron Age. Furthermore, he suggested that the Acropolis was probably the only settlement during that time (Papadopoulos 2003, 297-316) (1).

Sara Strack (2007, 215-22) discussed migration though the consumption patterns and chaînes opératoires of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age hand-made coarse wares, including Attic Late Geometric cooking pots. Strack (2007, 244-6) argued that the production and consumption patterns during the transition between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age cannot be attributed to a population movement; therefore, ceramic evidence does not support any theory connected to migration.

Other archaeometric studies on Early Iron Age ceramics include a comparison of slips with the use of portable X-Ray Fluorescence between East Attic Late Geometric pottery (from Merenda, Anavyssos, Koropi, Pallene and Oropos) and pottery from Eretria, Thera, and Naxos (Aloupi & Kourou 2007). The recovery of large quantities of Attic Early Iron Age ceramics over the last decade has triggered an interest in new approaches and experimentations for the application of quantitative methods in the study of archaeological contexts (Verdan et al. 2011). With particular reference to Attica, Gros (2007) and Vlachou (2011a) produced quantitative studies for fine wheel-made pottery coming from workshop and household deposits at Oropos.

McLoughlin (2011) conducted technological analysis and revealed the assembling processes and techniques used in the production of large Geometric pithoi at Zagora in Andros. She described the chaîne opératoire of complex ceramic forms (2), the regional diversity of large storage vessels, their production techniques and their functional characteristics (McLoughlin 2011).

In the most recent provenance study, Mazarakis Ainian & Vlachou (2014) examined Attic 10th and 9th century BC drinking vessels from Oropos with the use Neutron Activation Analysis. They argued that even though a small group of pottery belonged to Athenian imports, the majority of the material found at Oropos originated from Euboea (Mazarakis Ainian & Vlachou 2014).

Finally, Rik Vaessen (2014) argued that archaeologists need to rethink the production of Attic Submycenaean and Protogeometric vessels by considering the broader impact of technological change and innovation during the 11th century BC. Future research needs to move away from traditional stylistic approaches and archaeologists need to consider the practical parameters of pottery-making. These relate to the gradual learning processes for developing skills, cross-craft specialisation (e.g. skeuomorphism) and technological innovation in the introduction of new tools (e.g. the multiple pivoting brush) (Vaessen 2014).

Notes

1. By contrast to Papadopoulos (2003), other scholars have suggested that: a) Early Iron Age Athens was made by an agglomeration of houses and burials instead of workshops (Snodgrass 1980, 28-31; Morris 1987, 62-5, Lemos 2002, 188; 2006, 524; Mazarakis Ainian 2007-8, 386-8; D'Onofrio 2007-8); b) the Athenian Agora was uninhabited before the 6th century BC (Camp 1992, 24, 33; Townsend 1995, 12); and c) the Acropolis was uninhabited between the Protogeometric and Middle Geometric period (Gauss & Ruppenstein 1998, 27-30, 43-5).
2. The term complex ceramic form is used to describe pottery produced in more than one constituent vessel parts. It also relates to partonomy (sensu Van der Leeuw 1994, 136-7).