Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Neolithic Raw Material Preferences 29.05.2015

No description
by

Attila Kreiter

on 18 March 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Neolithic Raw Material Preferences 29.05.2015

HOW TO
UNDERSTAND NEOLITHIC TECHNOLOGICAL VARIABILITY
Ceramic raw material preferences
from the Early to the Late Neolithic
in Hungary (6000 – 4500 BC)
NETWORKS
Tradition
IDENTITY
CONFUSED
ARCHAEOLOGIST
???
Knowledge
Attila Kreiter
Attila Kreiter
Ceramic raw material selection
Potters were conservative:
- restricted choices in raw materials
- fine-grained raw material preference
- organic temper or no temper
Heterogeneity in raw materials
- uniform technology
Organic tempering was the most stable part of Hungarian Early Neolithic ceramic tradition, the utilization of which did not change considerably until the Late Neolithic.
they used practices, which they knew were the best and proved to be reliable
Potters started using all sorts of raw materials and tempers.
Extreme variability and combination of resources
Increased ceramic production: increased demand
Some vessel types started having standardised raw materials
superstition
Raw materials acquisition and processing in Early Neolithic pottery productions, University of Namur, Belgium, 29 – 30 May, 2015
The examined sites
The conservative nature of potting changed; ceramic technology became heterogeneous
During my research it became increasingly apparent that social interactions and local definitions of appropriateness are keys to understand how potting behaviour changed or maintained through space and time.

Similarities in ceramic technologies (macroscale) inform us about interactions between potters/communities and about the quality of their relationship.

The variability in raw materials and temperings may appear as a random collection of individual strategies at first sight but they all underline the importance of the social context within which potters practice their craft.

By analysing several sites through the different periods of the Neolithic technological patterns start emerging...
NO PATTERNS in the Middle and Late Neolithic?! .... Potters used any resources and tempers (suitable for potting) and their combinations
- Increased ceramic production: many individual potters/increased demand
- No relationship between fabrics and vessel types
- The homogeneous nature of technology disappeared, potters became innovative
- Microscale: increased variability seems random
- Macroscale: decrease in organic tempering,
increase in grog tempering

Problem with standardization...
No production places are identified:
- wasters/tools/firing kilns and pits
- Interpretations are based largely
upon the qualities of pottery itself
and correlations of these with
ethnographic studies.
Only ethnographic analogies and technological data suggest standardization...
1
2
3
4
7
5
6
1-2
3
4
7
5
Late Neolithic - Aszód
SOCIAL
DYNAMICS
Greater vessel form diversity, increasing elaboration and diversity in decoration
Increasing diversity in vessel forms, decorations, technological practices and the appearance of standardised ceramic production are key components of growing house identity and increasing social inequality (Dueppen 2015, Cambr. Arch. J. 25/1)
One site with the material culture of two cultural groups
8 fabric groups
Lengyel
&
Tisza
cultures
On a technological basis no distinction could be identified between Lengyel & Tisza ceramic technologies at Aszód
Vinča and Linearbandkeramik relationship
Vinča
Vinča
Vinča
Vinča
LBK
LBK
LBK
Vinča
LBK
LBK
LBK
Maroslele shows a relationship with Majdan, Serbia
- shared sources of basic raw materials: household production
908 thin sections from 20 sites
Méhtelek
Ibrány
Nagykörü
Map after Domboróczky & Raczky 2010
The sites of the Upper Tisza region in Hungary, Ukrain and Romania show that the first expansion of Neolithic lifeways in this region is associated with the Transylvanian variant of Körös culture, that is the Çris culture. The ceramic styles defined as Ibrány-Méhtelek-Homorodu de Sus are peculiar to this region and considerably differ from the „southern style” of the Great Hungarian Plain. Archaeologists believe that the Körös - Szatmár II – ALPC transition may have been stimulated by these groups.
Some EN potters were not so conservative...
Balatonszárszó
Balatonszárszó
Becsehely
Lengyel
Tisza
Tisza
Lengyel
6 raw materials
3 raw materials
1 raw material
6 raw materials
4 raw materials
2 raw materials
7 raw materials
4 raw materials
1 raw material
Distbution of fabrics in feature types and distribution of vessel types among fabrics
Aszód
Aszód
- Méhtelek-Nádas (EN – Körös, 58 ts) (5770-5530 cal BC)
- Nagykörü-Gyömölcsös (EN – Körös, 39 ts) (5990-5620 cal BC)
- Őcsény-Sovány telek (EN – Körös, 8 ts)
- Pusztataskony-Ledence I. (LN – Lengyel, 10 ts)
- Rákóczifalva (MN – Szakálhát, 8 ts)
- Szakmár-Kisülés (EN – Körös, 50 ts)
- Szemely-Hegyes (LN – Lengyel, 15 ts)
- Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb (EN – Körös, 50 ts) (5480-5360 cal BC)
- Törökbálint-Égett völgy (MN – Želiezovce, 50 ts)
- Zengővárkony (LN – Lengyel, 15 ts)
- Aszód-Papi földek (LN – Lengyel/Tisza, 75 ts)
- Balatonszárszó-Kis-erdei-dűlő (MN – TLP/Sopot, 163 ts) (5370-
4970 cal BC)
- Bátaszék-Mérnöki telep (Alsónyék-Bátaszék) (EN – Starčevo, 7 ts)
- 075 Becsehely-Bükkaljai dűlő (MN – TLP/Sopot/Malo
Korenovo/Šarka/Vinča/Butmir/Želiezovce, 46 ts)
- Belvárdgyula-Szarkahegy (LN – Lengyel, 6 ts)
- Fajsz-Garadomb (MN – Sopot, 84 ts)
- Gellénháza-Városrét (EN – TLP/Starčevo, 39 ts)
- Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa (LN – Gorzsa, 101 ts)
- Ibrány-Nagyerdő dűlő (EN – Körös, 52 ts) (5620-5470 cal BC)
- 43/2 lh. Maroslele–Panahát (MN – ALP/Vinča, 21 ts) (5320-5050 cal BC)
Becsehely
Becsehely
Becsehely
all from Becsehely
*
*General Late Neolithic forms. Fabrics 4 & 8 do not have definite Tisza type vessels.
Examples of ceramic fabrics matching with clay samples
(the numbers show which clay samples ceramics match)
- no relationship between form and raw materials
Middle Neolithic summary
Early Neolithic summary
*
*
*
*
*
*
Sediments Nos. 1 and 2: ~5.6 kms from the excavation
Sediment No. 3: ~1.35 kms from the excavation
Sediments Nos. 4 and 7: ~450 m from the excavation
Sediment No. 5: right next to the excavation
and within the archaeological site
Sediment No. 6: ~600 m from the excavation
but still within the archaeological site
Acknowledgements
The analysis was carried out as part of two research projects: “Understanding the relationship between Neolithic communities through ceramic analysis” Grant No. NK 68255 and „Aszód–Papi földek Late Neolithic site: connection between east and west” Grant No. K 75677 both funded by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund
The analysis was carried out as part of two research projects: “Understanding the relationship between Neolithic communities through ceramic analysis” Grant No. NK 68255 and „Aszód–Papi földek Late Neolithic site: connection between east and west” Grant No. K 75677 both funded by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund
Acknowledgements
Full transcript