AÑO NUMERO DECLARAN LA NULIDAD DE RESOLUCIONES QUE

The earliest evidence of secondary metallurgical production activities (i.e. intra-site workshops) in eastern Anatolia occurs already in the mid-5th millennium BC (at Değirmentepe) and early 4th millennium (at Fatma-Kalecik), followed by Norşuntepe and Arslantepe during the late 4th millennium (Hauptmann et al.2002; Hess et al.1998; Pernicka et al.2002). Çamlibel Tarlası (radiocarbon-dated to c.3700-3600 cal BC) represents instead the earliest evidence for central Anatolia (Schoop 2011b). In the west, the LCh phases of metallurgical activity in Limantepe, Bakla Tepe and Çukuriçi Höyük (c.3300-3000 cal BC) represent at the moment some of the earliest evidence of secondary metal production in the Aegean basin (Keskin 2009; Mehofer 2014). These are broadly contemporary with Kephala Petras and Phaistos on Crete (Papadatos and Tomkins 2013:367; Todaro and Di Tonto 2008:183). It is only during the EBA that metallurgical workshops become fairly common in the study area; even then, they come mainly from the area around the Aegean coast (figs.6.19-6.20) at Poliochni, Thermi, Troy, Çukuriçi

179

Höyük, Limantepe and Bakla Tepe (Horejs et al.2010; Horejs and Mehofer 2015; Kouka 2002; Keskin 2009). Another important addition is represented by Keçiçayırı, a fortified hill-top settlement in the Afyon region (Efe et al.2011). This by no means implies the absence of similar contexts elsewhere in Anatolia (e.g. at large centres like Alişar Höyük, Acemhöyük, Karahöyük and Kültepe), but simply represents the current status of archaeological research. This is confirmed by the recent findings of several pieces of iron slag in Kaman Kalehöyük level IVa and Alacahöyük level 4 (both dated to the latest EBA), unfortunately from poorly-described contexts (Akanuma 2008; Çınaroğlu and Çelik 2010:339). Most of these sites are close (15- 20km) to known polymetallic deposits and potential prehistoric mines (fig.6.19).

These sites are characterised by the presence of intra-site metallurgical workshops that seem to occupy only a portion of the whole settlement; when excavations provide a diachronic understanding of the occupation, metalworking occurs throughout the different phases. In a few cases, this continuity can be observed even within the same building in different levels spanning several hundred years, for example in Poliochni's megara 832 and 605, Thermi's area Epsilon and Limantepe's houses 2 and 3 (Keskin 2009:99-112; Kouka 2002:125, 234). This evidence strongly suggests that metallurgical production was spatially delimited and that, at least in certain cases, it may have been the prerogative of different small social groups living together (families?). Some of the workshops in Poliochni, Thermi and Limantepe further suggest that technological knowledge may have been transmitted from one generation to the other, hinting at the inheritance of metallurgical craft. The workshops themselves generally occupy several contiguous rooms and are in most cases identified by the presence of crucibles, metal furnaces, tuyères, stone crushing devices, stone/clay moulds for objects and rod-ingots co-occurring in the same context (fig.6.20). In several cases, slag are also present, often in substantial quantities: in the general absence of chemical composition analysis, it is not possible to establish with certainty the type of activity that produced them,. However, their location within the settlement suggest that they are not a by-product of primary smelting but rather the result of metal refinement (from re-melted objects) and/or the result of alloying copper with arsenic- or lead- rich minerals. The only detailed chemical composition analysis on slag carried so far (at Çukuriçi Höyük) seems to confirm this hypothesis, and suggests a process of “crucible smelting” of small quantities of copper with iron arsenides (Horejs and Mehofer 2015:172). However, despite the fact that several occurrences of metal slag are reported at numerous Aegean sites (fig.6.20, cf. also various contributions in Day and Doonan 2007), there is a stark difference in the magnitude of slag debris inside settlements and near the extraction sites (compare e.g. with data from Wagner and Öztunalı 2000, where hundreds or thousands of tonnes are often reported). This suggests that the intra-site smelting activities were in all likelihood functionally different, probably linked with alloying practices rather than metal

180

refinement. Indeed, the large number of moulds for objects in these lowland workshops indicates that probably most of the activities involved the manufacture of finished products; the retrieval of ingot moulds shows that metal was also re-melted into easily-transportable shapes for further redistribution.

Interestingly, many of these sites further yielded stone weights in considerable numbers, sometimes directly associated with the workshop areas (e.g. Poliochni's megara 832 and 605, Thermi area Epsilon, see section 5.1.3). As discussed below in more detail, these finds indicate that metal (in particular gold and silver) might have been exchanged by metallurgists within a fairly standardised system of values. Where more detailed information on the archaeological assemblages is available, e.g. in Çukuriçi Höyük, Poliochni and Limantepe, it is clear that the workshop areas were part of a larger domestic complex, given the amount of finds unrelated with metallurgical activity found in neighbouring rooms, such as tools for textile production, carpentry and leather processing, and installations like baking ovens, hearths and cooking pots (Horejs and Mehofer 2015; Keskin 2009:99-112; Kouka 2002:62-63, 76, 93-94, 116-118). The scarcity of contextual analysis considerably hinders the ability to clearly define issues of scale in production. Despite the fact that most of the finds come from poorly stratified contexts, the number of metallurgical tools found at several sites may hint that metal manufacturing may have been a very important activity in their overall economy (fig.6.20). Another indirect proxy for measuring the scale of production can be provided, with caution, by the raw number of metal implements found within settlements hosting metallurgical activities. The settlement contexts of Thermi (90 pieces), Poliochni (c.370 items), Limantepe (c.100), Troy (an educated guess of several hundred items excluding the "Trojan treasures"), Çukuriçi Höyük (173 pieces) and Bakla Tepe (c.100 objects) seem to have on average much higher quantities of metal than contemporary sites in the Aegean and Anatolia (cf. Nakou 1997:fig.1, calculating c.350 metal objects retrieved from all the excavated EBA sites in the Cyclades and mainland Greece!). Additionally, all coastal sites with metal workshops have extensive evidence for long-distance interactions with both western Aegean and inland Anatolia, and the trade of metal might certainly have been one of the main reasons behind it. This is particularly evident at Poliochni and Thermi, where areas with metallurgical activities also yielded higher proportions of luxury items, imported vessels and metal objects (Kouka 2002:125, 234).

To summarise, the contexts analysed so far are embedded with the residential fabric of the settlement, are not in direct spatial proximity with public buildings (e.g. "palaces"), normally extend only over a few rooms, have evidence of concomitant domestic activities within the larger complex and seem confined within a small social group (probably an extended family). On the other hand, they are often among the wealthiest domestic contexts found within the site and their settlements tend to have higher quantities of metal implements than other

181

contemporary counterparts. With some degree of caution, they can be thus characterised as small-scale enterprises carried out by full-time specialists that were largely independent from elite control.

In addition to these well-documented workshops, there is indirect evidence that highly specialised craftspeople may have operated under more direct elite control. For instance, the manufacture of large numbers of gold, silver and bronze objects found at several sites across Anatolia such as the hoards from Troy, Poliochni, Eskiyapar and Mahmatlar, and the Alacahöyük and Horoztepe "Royal" graves (Arık 1937; Bernabo-Brea 1976:284-291; Koşay and Akok 1950; ÖzgüçT and Akok 1958; Özgüç T and Temizer 1993; Sazcı 2006) reveals the use of complex techniques such as filigree, lost wax and inlay. Each of these assemblages contained several kilograms of silver and gold. At Troy, where measurements are provided systematically, the aggregated weight of all the published items reaches over 3.5kg of gold and 9kg of silver; some of the gold vessels weigh up to 600gr each and some of the silver pieces up to 2kg (Sazcı 2006:369-418). The sophisticated skill set necessary in their production, the employment of precious metals in large quantities and their finding context clearly point to a manufacture specifically aimed for the consumption of elite groups in large centres. Therefore, even in absence of direct archaeological proof the existence of highly specialised metallurgical workshops under direct institutional control cannot be doubted. At the other end of the spectrum, the sporadic retrieval of simple moulds and the occasional crucible at a large number of other sites across west and central Anatolia suggests a more dispersed pattern of production in which a few individuals within smaller settlements might have had basic metallurgical knowledge to manufacture simple implements, possibly through the re-melting of scrap metal or semi-finished products.

Before concluding this section, it seems worthwhile discussing a particular category of artefacts often found in association with primary and secondary metal production sites. From the early 3rd millennium onwards, and in contemporary with the start of more intensified and articulated metal manufacture, both metal ingots and the moulds used for their production start to appear at several sites. This indicates that metal circulated also in form of semi-finished objects that would have been easier to create (with open moulds) and to transport (with regular shapes that could be easily stacked and/or bundled together), likely connected to the use of new transport carriers such as donkeys, carts and longboats (cf. Bevan 2010). The most common type of ingot moulds often presents casts for several parallel rod-shaped ingots, though oblong bun-ingot moulds are also common (fig.6.21); in most cases the casts are relatively small (6-16cm in length), with an estimated weight for copper (at density 9.3gr/cm3) around 150-400gr (fig.6.22). Actual silver ingots tend to have a wider range of shapes, including rods, buns, wires, and tongue-shaped; the latter type is also represented by several ingot moulds from Marki on Cyprus

182

(Webb et al.2006:275-276). While gold specimens tend to be small (10-88gr), silver pieces can weigh up to 3.5kg and copper ones up to 1kg. Neither ingot moulds nor ingots seem to point to standardised weights, which is not surprising given that open-mould casting would not allow to control the weight of the resulting object with any degree of precision (Horejs 2009:365). In addition to these well-recognised shapes, it has been suggested that flat axes may have also circulated as easily-convertible blanks or ingots, in particular the type with pierced butt which is well-represented in Cyprus and along the western and southern Anatolian coasts (fig.6.23, Horejs et al.2010:16; Webb et al.2006:264). A peculiar triangular ingot fragment from Poros- Katsambas on Crete seems alien to Anatolian and Aegean shapes and can be tentatively linked to contemporary Levantine ingot production (fig.6.21j-l, Doonan R et al.2007:105-106).