JOANNA SOFAER
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL: TECHNOLOGICAL
RELATIONS AT THE BRONZE AGE TELL AT
SZÁZHALOMBATTA, HUNGARY
Summary. At the Bronze Age tell of Százhalombatta, Hungary, techniques
used for making pottery echo those used in other media. Pottery and
architecture have a close relationship. Not only were both made of clay, but
methods of making pots echo those used for building. Similarly, pottery
and metalwork share common themes and technologies for working with clay
and bronze. Since choices made by potters are not solely confined to the
environment, raw materials and tools, but are also socially and culturally
defined, by implication the transfer of know-how must be situated within social
networks between people. This paper considers how the identification of
technical relationships between different media at Százhalombatta can be
used to explore social relations in Bronze Age society, thereby suggesting
relationships that work on both technical and social levels.
introduction
Approaches to the technology of prehistoric pottery often tend to focus on the technical
parameters of production. In Hungary, as elsewhere, technological studies of pottery
manufacture have concentrated on the composition of ceramic artefacts and on provenance
(Varga et al. 1989; Ilon and Varga 1994; Szakmány 2001; Szakmány and Kustár 2000; Gherdán
et al. 2002). Firing techniques and the determination of firing temperatures have also received
some attention (Maniatis and Tite 1981; Varga et al. 1988; Nagy et al. 2000). Similarly,
examinations of metalworking technology frequently concentrate on the composition of bronzes
and their provenance (Mozsolics 1967; Szabó 1998; Bertemes and Heyd 2002). The
investigation of house building technology forms part of an established Hungarian concern with
the archaeological and ethnographic study of local domestic architecture, where the main focus
is on building techniques (Kovács 1977; Bóna 1982; Máthé 1988; Meier-Arendt 1992; Cseri
and Füzes 1997; Poroszlai 2003a).
Such studies have been of great importance in highlighting the complexity and
sophistication of Bronze Age craftsmanship. They have, however, led to an emphasis on
manufacturing processes and individual objects as the outcome of craft production, rather than
highlighting craftspeople. Furthermore, while technological developments or production
techniques have previously been studied in archaeological contexts within the confines of
individual crafts, objects are rarely made or used in isolation. A range of studies have pointed
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 25(2) 127–147 2006
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA.
127
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
out formal, metaphorical, and technical relationships between different crafts. For example, the
production of skeuomorphs plays on the formal qualities of objects, moving between different
media in order to deliberately evoke an object made in one material in another (Knappett 2002;
2005; Vickers and Gill 1994). Symbolic relationships between craft production activities and
other aspects of human life may underpin belief systems, being used as a means of explaining
the world (e.g. Gosslain 1999; Barley 1984; 1994; Herbert 1993; Sillar 1996; Mahias 1993;
Leopold 1983). Craftspeople may also face common technical problems. Thus control over heat
is a common theme in the production of pots and metal, and the pyrotechnology involved in
pottery making and metalworking is closely related (Friedman 1998; Kaiser et al. 1986). There
are, however, important differences between these three kinds of relationship. The first is iconic
rather than indexical (Knappett 2002) since it does not necessarily imply contiguity or causality,
although given sufficient contextual evidence these may be explored (Knappett 2005). The
second relates to the materialization of symbols and mutual understanding of a coherent belief
system that links a wide range of potential actions. Only the third implies direct knowledge of
production processes involved in the other craft and a real transfer of know-how between crafts
and craftspeople.
In this paper I want to focus primarily on the last of these three different kinds of
relationship, as the social implications of the transfer of principles and techniques between crafts
have been less frequently addressed in archaeological settings. In particular, I want to explore
the social implications of the transfer of know-how between pottery, houses and metalwork in
the Early and Middle Bronze Age using the rich ceramic assemblage from the tell site of
Százhalombatta, Hungary. At Százhalombatta the methods used for making pots in clay echo
those used in other media. Since the choices made by potters are not solely confined to mediating
components of the environment, raw materials and tools, but are also socially and culturally
defined (van der Leeuw 1993, 241), by implication the transfer of know-how must be situated
within social networks between people (Bromberger and Chevallier 1999). The identification of
technical relationships between different media can be used to consider social relations in
Bronze Age society, thereby suggesting relationships that work on both technical and social
levels.
the tell at százhalombatta
The site of Százhalombatta is situated on the right bank of the Danube, 30 km south of
Budapest (Fig. 1). The site is one of the largest and best preserved Bronze Age temperate tell
settlements in Central Europe, being 200 by 100 m in area, excluding the south and south-west
parts of the site, which may represent up to one-third of the original area and which were
destroyed during clay extraction by a local brick factory and erosion by the River Danube
(Poroszlai 2000). Deposits of cultural material at the site are up to 6 m deep and date from the
Hungarian Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Varga 2000). The excavated Bronze Age layers
date from the transition from the Classic Nagyrév (Szigetszentmiklós) to Late Nagyrév (Kulcs)
phase of the Early Bronze Age, with continuity in use of the site through the following Middle
Bronze Age Vatya tradition (Vatya I–III) and Vatya-Koszider phase at the end of the Middle
Bronze Age (2000–1500/1400 BC), until a hiatus in the use of the site that lasted until the
Urnfield period (Kristiansen 2000; Poroszlai 2000).
The site has been the subject of three excavation campaigns: the first in 1963 by T.
Kovács of the Hungarian National Museum (Kovács 1969), the second in 1989–93 by I.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
128
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
Százhalombatta
Tisza
Danube
Lake Balaton
0
100km
Figure 1
Location of the site of Százhalombatta, Hungary.
Poroszlai of the Matrica Museum (Poroszlai 1996; 2000), and most recently from 1998 an
on-going international excavation (the SAX Project), involving teams from the Matrica
Museum, Gothenburg University, Cambridge University, and Southampton University.1
These excavations have resulted in a substantial, well-preserved ceramic assemblage belonging
to the Nagyrév, Vatya, and Vatya-Koszider traditions of the Early and Middle Bronze Age.
The Vatya phase represents a typological development from the Nagyrév and contemporary
Kisapostag traditions (Bóna 1975; 1992; Poroszlai 2000; 2003b; Vicze 2001) and there is a
striking increase in the range of vessel forms at the start of the Vatya phase (Vicze 2001).
However, while the range of vessel forms then seems to stabilize, as the period progresses
there is a noticeable elaboration and exaggeration of existing forms (Vicze 2001) (Fig. 2a–e).
Wasters found at Százhalombatta dating to the Vatya-Koszider phase indicate that pottery
was made at the site (Poroszlai 1996). Bronze objects, fragments of bronze, moulds, and slag
attest to metalworking at the site from the Early Bronze Age (Mozsolics 1967; Horváth
et al. 2000; Poroszlai 2000; Sørensen and Vicze in press). The rectangular houses discovered
so far at Százhalombatta are approximately 8 × 15 m, with a series of other smaller surrounding
structures (Poroszlai 2000). There is continuity in house building techniques throughout
the Early and Middle Bronze Age at the site (Poroszlai 2000). In common with other Vatya
tells, it was fortified with a rampart and ditch during the Vatya phase (Poroszlai 2000;
2003b).
1
The SAX Project forms part of the wider EC-funded Emergence of European Communities Project.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
129
2000BC
1700/1850BC
1400/1500BC
Vatya/
Koszider
Vatya
Nagyrév
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
2000BC
1700/1850BC
1400/1500BC
Vatya/
Koszider
Vatya
Nagyrév
Figure 2a
Major fineware bowl and jug forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Százhalombatta (drawing S. Budden
after Bóna 1975; Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).
Figure 2b
Major cup forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Százhalombatta (drawing S. Budden after Bóna 1975;
Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).
pots and houses
The start of the Bronze Age saw a move towards the increased use of wood in
architecture (Máthé 1988). At Százhalombatta there is significant evidence for the use of wood
in the construction of houses and other features. Ground stone tools, metal objects and moulds
for bronze tools that could have been used for woodworking have been found at the site (Horváth
et al. 2000; Poroszlai 2000). Post-holes indicate the use of substantial vertical timbers for
building, along with large base-timbers laid in foundation trenches. A wood-lined pit was
discovered in 2004. Houses and other structures at the site are also made with clay, which was
used particularly for walls made of wattle and daub applied in layers, and floors which were
made of beaten earth or plastered. Clay ovens are frequently associated with the houses. Clay
was an important resource for building both pots and houses as both were made of the same
local material, albeit with different ‘mixes’ and tempers. Use and control over clay were vital
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
130
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
2000BC
1700/1850BC
1400/1500BC
Vatya/
Koszider
Vatya
Nagyrév
JOANNA SOFAER
2000BC
1700/1850BC
1400/1500BC
Vatya/
Koszider
Vatya
Nagyrév
Figure 2c
Major domestic storage/cooking bowl forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Százhalombatta (drawing
S. Budden after Bóna 1975; Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).
Figure 2d
Major domestic storage/cooking jar and strainer forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Százhalombatta
(drawing S. Budden after Bóna 1975; Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).
to everyday life. The site is situated on a substantial local clay deposit and although the term
‘age of clay’ has been applied to the Neolithic (Stevanovic 1997), here too people were literally
surrounded by clay. The overwhelming use of local clay, while clearly practical and expedient,
may also have bound people to the site through a close relationship between place and material
expression, and control over desirable local resources.
Both pots and houses at Százhalombatta are composite constructions that exhibit a mix
of building techniques. For example, studies of storage vessels and urns suggest a tripartite
composite construction (Kreiter et al. in press). The bases of many storage vessels were made
with a flat disc-shaped slab. The body of the pot was then made using a slab building technique.
In some cases, the first vertical slab was added starting from the middle of the base disc and
squeezed outwards, allowing better cohesion between the vessel wall and the base. As a result,
the bases of storage vessels in cross-section often exhibit two layers of clay. Since the use of
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
131
2000BC
1700/1850BC
1400/1500BC
Vatya/
Koszider
Vatya
Nagyrév
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
Figure 2e
Major urn forms in the Early to late Middle Bronze Age at Százhalombatta (drawing S. Budden after Bóna 1975;
Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2001).
heavy slabs on the upper parts of bi-conical vessels may lead to vessel collapse, this technique
is particularly suited to building the lower parts of such vessels. Coil joins were observed in
cross-sections of necks and rims of urns indicating that this technique was used for the more
delicate parts of these vessels and to facilitate abrupt changes in vessel curvature. This tripartite
structure of pots mirrors that of houses, which can be divided into floor, wall and roof. In another
prehistoric context, Jones (2002, 161–2) has argued for a metaphorical relationship between pots
and houses on the basis of symmetry in their construction. What is particularly striking at
Százhalombatta, however, is the similarity in the principle of composite technology used for
pottery forming and house building, reflecting expediency in techniques that allow pots and
houses to be made in particular ways.
In addition to similar principles of construction, there are commonalities between
techniques involved in building houses and vessel-making techniques. Clay storage bins inside
houses were made by coiling. Woodworking involves scraping and smoothing, techniques
that are evident on a large number of sherds. The majority of vessels at Százhalombatta are
treated and/or decorated and the wide range of decorative elements includes carved or
incised motifs (Poroszlai 2000; Sofaer et al. 2003). Potters may also carve wood or bone tools
for pottery making and there is a range of bone tools from the site including a number of worked
bone scrapers and perforators (Choyke 2000), some of which may have been used in the
production of pottery. In addition, while there is no direct evidence for wooden vessels at
the site, vessels made of wood have been found at a range of European Bronze Age sites
(Harding 2000).
Pots may be incorporated into houses. Sherds have been found placed in the foundations
of walls, while grog was mixed with daub and used for clay ovens. There are also decorative
similarities between pots and houses. At the Nagyrév site of Tiszaug-Kéménytet o" house walls
were covered with geometric designs (Csányi 2003). Similar complex geometric motifs are
found on Nagyrév pots over the entire Nagyrév distribution area (Csányi 2003), including those
found at Százhalombatta. Furthermore, at Százhalombatta there is a more prosaic, but also
striking, resemblance between the visual impact of the vegetable matter included in daub and
the surface treatments of pots made using grasses, reeds and twig tools.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
132
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
pots and metalwork
Clay and metal are both extremely plastic media that can be bent, shaped, twisted, and
decorated. While these materials have different potentials, this common property lends itself
to the construction of iconic relationships between pottery and metalwork. The influence of
metalwork on Bronze Age pottery forms has long been recognized in Hungary, as well as
elsewhere, in terms of the formal characteristics of vessels such as shape, sheen and decoration
(Friedman 1998; Kovács 1977; Trachsler 1966; Childe 1949; Knappett 2005). In Hungary, this
influence can be seen as early as the late Copper Age in the high looped handles of Baden cups
(Kalicz 1970).
At Százhalombatta, the highly exaggerated, angular and complex shapes of some
vessels, which reach their height in the Koszider (Rákospalota) phase at the end of the Middle
Bronze Age, suggest the influence of metalworking (Fig. 3). Although there are some simple
shapes, mainly for open vessels such as fish plates, sieves and some types of bowls as well as
some of the cups and deep vessels, particularly in the early part of the Vatya phase (Vatya I)
(Vicze 2001), there is a clear preference for discontinuous profiles, with pots displaying corners
rather than curves, sharp angles separating the body from the neck, carination and everted rims
(see Hänsel 1968; Bóna 1975). Fineware bowls, jugs and cups are commonly strongly burnished
Figure 3
Koszider jug (photograph J. Sofaer).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
133
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
on the outside. The high gloss produced by burnishing is reminiscent of the sheen on polished
bronze.
In addition to the formal similarities between pottery and metalwork at Százhalombatta,
the techniques used to make ceramic and bronze objects display a number of parallels. Potters
and metalworkers need to be familiar with soils and minerals, since they crush and grind their
materials to a powdery state and then remove the impurities by vanning (tin) or sieving and
levigating (clay) (Herbert 1984; Friedman 1998). Experimental work at Százhalombatta using
local clays has emphasized the importance of adequate clay preparation through sieving and
wedging. Research on fabrics from the site indicates that thermodynamically inefficient amounts
of well-crushed grog (5–10 per cent) were systematically added to temper storage vessels
(Kreiter 2005). Petrological examination of this grog has revealed pieces of grog within grog
indicating the reuse of pots with a similar temper and clay (Kreiter 2005). This recycling of pots
is analogous to the reuse and recycling of metal.
The techniques of hammering and beating are shared by potters and smiths (Trachsler
1966, 145). From the Early Bronze Age Nagyrév phase onwards, some vessel types are made
by assembling separate pieces together and joining them with a hammering technique. The
similarity between potter’s and metalworker’s techniques can be seen, for example, in Classic
Nagyrév one-handled jugs. These are made out of a number of separate pieces: a pinched and
sometimes coiled base, a conical neck, and the handle. The vessel is assembled with the base
and the neck joined together by hammering (Fig. 4). Use of moulds is another technique often
used by potters and smiths (Friedman 1998). Anvil moulds may have been used for forming the
bases of some large storage vessels, although analysis of thin sections from Százhalombatta and
other contemporary sites has shown that the paddle and anvil technique for the initial shaping
of vessels was employed in a limited way for pottery found at Százhalombatta and was in wider
use at other contemporary sites of the Ottomány and Gyulavarsánd traditions (Kreiter et al. in
press). Paddling was more frequently employed as a finishing technique for some slab-built
storage vessels such as urns (Kreiter et al. in press).
The incised triangle and punched dot decoration on Koszider pots parallel those of
metalworking incising, embossing and repoussé decorative techniques seen on Carpathian
Middle and Late Bronze Age metalwork including axes, daggers, sword hilts, belt fittings and
ornaments (see Mozsolics 1967; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975; Kovács 1977). There are also strong
iconographic links between pots and metalwork. Though relatively rare, anthropomorphic
vessels are known from the Vatya tradition (Kovács 1973). Female vessels have hands and
breasts, while male vessels depict hands and metalwork. The metalwork, which may be a dagger
or an axe, is applied in relief and depicted in detail suggesting that the makers of pottery must
have been familiar with them (Kovács 1973, 24). Sherds of female and male vessels are known
from Százhalombatta, the gender of the male example being indicated through the depiction of
a dagger (Poroszlai 2000).
the transfer of know-how: pots, wood, and metal
Where materials are used in conjunction with each other, such as clay and wood in
houses, or where materials have similar decorative, plastic or transformative potentials as in the
case of clay and metal, or where basic forming or shaping techniques are shared between media,
these may allow borrowings and exchange of ideas with common spheres of knowledge between
crafts. At Százhalombatta, one particular aspect of pottery vessel forming techniques – a
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
134
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
Figure 4
Nagyrév one-handled jug (photograph J. Sofaer).
common method of attaching handles – suggests just such a real transfer of know-how between
crafts and craftspeople.
At Százhalombatta, handles are attached onto Early and Middle Bronze Age cups, bowls
and jugs by piercing a hole in the vessel body from the vessel exterior while the clay is leatherhard, resulting in a sharp, raised margin in the vessel interior. A peg or pin made from the end
of the handle is slotted through this hole (Fig. 5). The end of the peg may then be flattened
inside the pot to provide anchorage. In a few cases, the end of the peg is split and bent back in
a similar manner to a butterfly clip. If a finer finish is desired the inside of the pot is smoothed.
On many occasions, however, on pots which are otherwise well-finished, the interior finish is
lacking or poorly executed. In cups and jugs the bottom part of the handle was probably attached
first, being fixed from its base and attached to the rim. This would facilitate the making of the
characteristic ansa lunata handle of the Koszider phase of the late Middle Bronze Age (Budden
2005). The top of the handle is joined by smoothing the clay of the handle onto the body.
This method of fixing the handle is strikingly similar to the principles involved in the
use of pegs and posts through cross-timbers, or mortice and tenon joints in wood (cf. Piggott
1935; Bradley 1978), and rivets for joining metal. Although relatively little well-preserved
wood has so far been found at Százhalombatta, prohibiting a detailed study of woodworking
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
135
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
Figure 5
Peg method of attaching handles at Százhalombatta (photograph A. Kreiter).
techniques, at other contemporary Hungarian sites with a range of different architectural
traditions, particularly those of the Middle Bronze Age Gyulavarsánd group (Vargha 1955;
Csányi and Tárnoki 1992; 2003), and at Bronze Age sites elsewhere in Central Europe (Harding
2000; Arnold 1982; Menotti 2004), woodworking techniques used for building houses have been
studied in more detail. At the Gyulavarsánd site of Túrkeve-Terehalom, for example, upright
posts were anchored in and through base-timbers laid in the foundation trenches of the walls
(Csányi and Tárnoki 1992; 2003). The mortice and tenon joint was widely known throughout
Bronze Age Europe. Riveting is a technique that can be identified in metalwork contemporary
with the pottery from Százhalombatta (Mozsolics 1967; Kemenczei 1988; 1991; Hänsel 1968).
The dagger on the Vatya anthropomorphic pot from the site clearly shows riveting (Poroszlai
2000).
The attachment of handles in clay in this manner is not simply imitative of wood or
metal in the sense of wanting to give the formal effect of these materials. Nor is it a symbolic
device designed to speak to members of the community through use or display of the vessel.
While this method of attaching handles may be clearly seen on the inside of broken vessels, it
is not visible from the outside of the vessel or on whole pots. In addition, it is not the most
functionally adept or practical method of making and joining handles as it does not fully exploit
the plastic qualities of clay. In clay, this method of attaching handles might actually be said to
introduce weakness into the vessel as there is less surface area where the handle adheres to the
pot.2 In the Százhalombatta assemblage there is a recurring pattern of breakage with numerous
examples of vessels where the handle and its surrounding area have come away from the rest
of the pot.
In other media, however, this kind of joint is extremely strong and secure. Joints are
designed to withstand particular kinds of stresses which may be tension, compression or torsion
(Weeks 1982). In wood, mortice and tenon joints are particularly useful for resisting lateral
tension and compression (Weeks 1982). In metal, a rivet acts as a clamp that holds two or more
pieces of material together. Rivets will resist tension to a certain degree, but their primary job
is to transmit loads along the piece of material, not at a major angle away from it. Given the
2
I am grateful to Sandy Budden for discussions on this point.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
136
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
usefulness of mortice and tenon joints in wood, and rivets in metal, perhaps Early and Middle
Bronze Age potters thought that they were strengthening their vessel by attaching handles in
this way. If so, this emphasis is intriguing because relatively small vessels such as cups or bowls
show this feature, although in functional terms they do not necessarily demand extreme strength
even if lifted by the handle.
potters, woodworkers, and metalworkers
Solving the technical problem of how to fix a handle onto a pot represents a distinct
choice made from a universe of possibilities (Lemonnier 1986, 153). Pottery manufacture is
strongly influenced by its social, cultural and political context, as well as by constraints imposed
by the natural environment (van der Leeuw 1989). The sharing or borrowing of technical
knowledge between crafts implied by the ceramic handles at Százhalombatta indicates the way
that technology was socially situated in Bronze Age society (cf. Pfaffenberger 1988; 1992) and
therefore has implications for close social relations between craftspeople.
Traditional models of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Europe see it as a period of
increasing social complexity with the development of prestige-based social hierarchy and craft
specialization, particularly in metalworking (Harding 2000; Kristiansen 1998; Primas 1997;
Shennan 1986; 1993). Woodworking and pottery production are less frequently discussed with
regard to craft specialization. They are often implicitly regarded as being situated within the
domestic sphere, although in Aegean contexts arguments have been advanced for highly skilled
and specialized woodworkers based largely on the existence of carpentry tools, grave offerings
and monumental architecture (Downey 1996). Even if the construction of houses was a family
or communal affair as their size would suggest, this does not exclude the possibility of
contributions from specialist craftspeople in the erection of major structures (cf. Waterson 1997;
Leggett and Nussbaum 2001). In terms of ceramics, at Százhalombatta the technical complexity
and proficiency with which finewares and some large ceramic vessels were made strongly
suggest specialization in the production of some vessel types.
A focus on individual crafts, however, implicitly seems to separate and fragment
society. In order for knowledge transfer to take place, such as that seen in the pottery at
Százhalombatta, there have to be channels for the transmission of know-how between
craftspeople (cf. Layton 1989). These channels take the form of social networks whose
characteristics allow the pooling of resources, knowledge, techniques and human potential
(Faure-Rouesnel 2001; Bromberger and Chevallier 1999). Networks allow the transfer and
circulation of knowledge from one industry to another. For example, spectacle-makers in the
French Jura learned to cut the arms of spectacles from the technique which watchmakers use to
cut clock hands, through a locally anchored network (Barbe and Lioger 1999). Transfer of
knowledge is quicker and more easily assimilated when the social relations are closer between
people (Rice 1984). Thus potters moving into new communities, such as wives moving into
their husband’s community, may rapidly adopt the practices of their new home, albeit with
modifications (David and Hennig 1972; Rice 1984). Gosselain (2000) has shown how pottery
forming techniques are generally acquired at a young age from close relatives. Tracing the flow
of information between followers of different strategies requires mapping communication
networks in a society, including the institutions of kinship, moiety, fraternity and guild, which
serve to exchange information between those who have experience in a certain matter and those
who do not (van der Leeuw 1989, 324).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
137
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
In a hierarchical society concerned with prestige such as in the European Bronze Age,
one form of network where exchange of knowledge can take place is a caste-like system. Often
applied to the Indian sub-continent, Barth (1960) argues that caste is a local term given to a
universal form of social stratification. Castes are commonly associated with traditional or craft
occupations where the system as a whole is concerned with prestige, especially of those at the
top of the hierarchy (Coningham and Young 1999). They are endogamous with restrictions
on commensality between members of different castes. However, caste systems may also be
more flexible than is often suggested, with communities rising or falling within its rankings
(Coningham and Young 1999, 92), thereby allowing for the possibility of social change.
There are a number of ethnographic examples where the organization of craft activities
takes place along clearly defined social networks, and potters and metalworkers form part of a
caste-like group with close social relationships. Some of the best known of these are among the
Biu-Mandara-speaking peoples of West Africa (see David 1990; Černy¢ et al. 2001; Wade 1989;
Vaughan 1970). Among the Fali, for example, a craft caste-like group known as the meehin
typically form 5–8 per cent of the community. The meehin practise a range of crafts including
woodworking, leather working, basketry, the manufacture of musical instruments, iron smelting
and smithing, brass casting and potting (Wade 1989). The division of skills is strongly gendered,
with the men responsible for metalworking and the women responsible for pottery manufacture,
divining and serving as ritual specialists (Wade 1989). The meehin are frequently ostracized,
despised or have an ambiguous status related to their role as morticians (Wade 1989). The status
of the meehin as a craftsperson is ascribed but within the confines of gender roles, there is
flexibility of choice as to which craft is practised and the degree of specialization (Wade 1989).
Craftspeople may concentrate almost exclusively upon a single artefact type, a single craft, or
may practise several crafts. Because they are endogamous, craftspeople will always have
relatives who can teach them the skills required in a chosen craft. This provides an effective
structure for the learning, transmission, and use of technical knowledge (Wade 1989, 232–3),
as well as control over access to knowledge by others. A method of attaching handles to pots
through a hole in the vessel wall, in a manner similar to that seen at Százhalombatta, is
documented in ethnographic studies of the Mende in Sierra Leone (Colonial Film Unit 1937).
The Mende are a strongly hierarchical society with gendered craft specialization and a castelike social organization (Wolfe 1969; Aronson 1991).
The use of ethnographic data to create a model for Bronze Age society raises gender
issues, particularly in terms of the allocation of metalworking, house building, and potting to a
particular gender group (see Sørensen 1996). Based largely on ethnographic observations, there
is a widespread assumption that metalworkers in the Bronze Age were male and that potters
were female (Sørensen 1996). Earlier in this paper I pointed to the use of metalwork as a male
signifier on anthropomorphic pots. However, identifying metal as a male signifier in this
particular context does not necessarily imply that all metal was made by men, or conversely
that pottery was made by women. Indeed, there are large numbers of female ornaments made
of bronze. In a discussion of gender and metalworkers in north-west Europe, Sørensen (1996)
has pointed out that in these contexts moulds for bronze casting are often made of clay and
that applying different gender scenarios to these has contrasting consequences for how we
understand both pottery and metalworking. Thus a traditional gender association between
women and clay technologies might in fact suggest that women shaped the appearance of bronze
objects. On the other hand, suggesting that men made the moulds would imply that they may
have been active in pottery production. A third permutation considered by Sørensen (1996) –
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
138
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
that clay technologies and therefore metalworking are not necessarily gender-exclusive – makes
for a richer and more complex model. She points out that evidence for metalworking in the form
of moulds and crucibles has been increasingly demonstrated from settlement contexts and
midden refuse rather than from spatially distinct or marked locations. Being a local and regular
activity, Sørensen (1996, 49) suggests that this means that metalworking would impinge on
everyone in the settlement. Members of different gender groups may therefore have been
involved in different stages of the production process or in negotiations surrounding it,
particularly in terms of its planning and its relationship to a range of other unrelated, but
potentially interfering, activities.
Unlike Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age sites in north-west Europe, at Vatya
tell sites, most moulds for bronze casting are made of sandstone, although clay moulds are
occasionally found (Mozsolics 1967; Horváth et al. 2000). Recent petrological work suggests
that the number of Bronze Age clay moulds in Hungary may be greater than hitherto thought
(Péterdi et al. 2002). Other objects made of clay involved in the casting process, such as tuyères,
have also been found. There is evidence for a bronze-casting workshop set apart from the main
settlement in an area of workshops at the Vatya tell of Lovasberény-Mihályvár (Kovács 1977;
Petres and Bándi 1969). At Százhalombatta the spatial organization of the settlement is a key
question for ongoing excavations (Vicze 2004), but moulds, slag and bronze fragments have
been found in settlement contexts, midden, and fill (Poroszlai 2000; Sørensen and Vicze in
press).3
The exchange of knowledge between metalwork and pottery at the site, seen in the
method of attaching handles to ceramic vessels, suggests that social boundaries between the two
crafts were rather fluid. If one accepts a gendered model of craft production, this would, in turn,
imply that while aspects of craft production activities may have been highly gendered, they also
involved negotiation and co-operation between gender groups (Sørensen 1996; Sofaer and
Sørensen 2002; 2006). Such negotiation between gender groups is visible in ethnographic film
of groups with strongly gendered roles (David 1990; Nicholson and Wendrich 1994), suggesting
that the gender dynamics of craft production may be more complex than is often acknowledged.
Even where craft production is, on the whole, strongly gendered there may be a range of local
traditions permitting men and women to participate in different stages of the production process,
from collection of raw materials and production of tools, to aspects of the production process
itself (see David 1990; Brown 1995; Nicholson and Wendrich 1994).
The model proposed in this paper also raises questions about the status of craftspeople
in the Bronze Age hierarchy. While metalworkers are frequently regarded as having special
status or roles within Bronze Age society on the basis of the transformative ‘magic’ involved
in the production of metal (Budd and Taylor 1995), and the status of woodworkers is at best
ambiguous, potters are often seen to have low socio-economic status. More generally, it has
been argued that as socio-economic differentiation increases, potters may, in fact, move
downward on the socio-economic ladder (Rice 1984). In addition, potters are often said to be
conservative because of their low socio-economic status (Rice 1984). Such a ranking of crafts
is inconsistent with the formal and technical links between pottery, house building and metal
making, including those that result in material transformations (cf. Vitelli 1995, 62). The transfer
3
This pattern is consistent with archaeological studies of the spatial distribution of craft waste in known caste
systems. Craft activities are not necessarily spatially distinct and spatial divisions seen today in such societies
are a relatively recent phenomenon (Coningham and Young 1999, 92).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
139
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
of knowledge between crafts allowed by the emergence of a caste system argues for parity
between craftspeople with a range of specializations, reflecting a degree of social cohesion
between specific occupationally defined members of the community.
If, as is often argued, metal objects are prestige items restricted to a limited number of
people who form an elite (Kristiansen 1998), and some woodworking tools are made of bronze
(Arnold 1982), then by extension this suggests that woodworkers were able to tap into high
status. Although there are relatively few bronze tools in Hungary compared to surrounding
countries, a range of axes, adzes, and chisels are known from Vatya sites (Mozsolics 1967). Of
the two hoards from Százhalombatta, one contained two shafthole axes dating to the Vatya III
phase (Poroszlai 2000), while the other, dated to the Vatya-Koszider phase, contained rimmed
chisels (Poroszlai 1998; Kemenczei 2003). Elsewhere, strong arguments have been made for
skeuomorphs as prestige symbols (Wade 1989; Knappett 2002; 2005; Vickers and Gill 1994).
While the vessels at Százhalombatta are not necessarily direct imitations of metal vessels, the
influence of metalworking on the formal characteristics of Early and Middle Bronze Age
finewares argues for their enhanced value. In relation to the Early Bronze Age Maros ceramics
from south-east Hungary, Michelaki et al. (2002, 317) argue for the role of pottery vessels in
social display activities focused around the display of subsistence wealth and consumption of
food and drink. At Százhalombatta display included, but was not confined to, consumption. In
the Vatya-Koszider phase in particular, finewares were meant for display even when not in use,
the bases of so-called ‘Swedish helmet’ bowls being decorated in such a way that they could
be seen when hung on the wall of the house. The use of fineware for display was a practice that
was also employed at Hungarian Middle Bronze Age sites of the Füzesabony tradition
(Szathmári 2003).
The use of pottery with metallic characteristics in the display arena, for special deposits
of groups of pots in pits (sometimes in association with grain) (Poroszlai 2000), and with the
Százhalombatta hoard, suggests that the desirability of these ceramic objects may have been
significant, just as metalwork was a desirable commodity. Poroszlai (2000) has argued that
finewares were linked to high-status individuals, while Vicze (2001) has suggested that a decline
in the quantity of metalwork buried with the dead in the middle of the Vatya phase (Vatya II),
contemporary with the increased elaboration of pottery, represents the transfer of a prestige
ideology from one medium to the other (Vicze 2001, 174). Furthermore, the relatively rapid
changes in shape along with the exaggeration seen in jugs, bowls and cups in the 500 years
from the Nagyrév to the Vatya-Koszider periods suggest confident, creative, craftspeople rather
than retiring, conservative ones. The potters of Százhalombatta produced an extended repertoire
of valued display prestige items which must have been reflected back in the enhanced social
value of craftspeople as a group (cf. Wade 1989, 238). In turn, the increased emphasis on social
differentiation presented by possibilities in craft production placed craftspeople at the heart of
Bronze Age social dynamics. It was a crucial part of the processes of centralization in settlement
and production (cf. Wade 1989), and the development of hierarchy and stratification often
proposed for this period in Hungary (Shennan 1993; Poroszlai 2000; 2003b), further reflected
in the fortification of strategic sites during the Vatya phase, and a potentially more restricted
range of finds in contemporary unfortified settlements (Poroszlai 1988).4
4
Although the existence of a settlement hierarchy has been established for the Vatya period, to date relatively few
small single-layer settlements have actually been investigated. The on-going Benta Valley project (Vicze et al.
2005) seeks to redress this imbalance by exploring the hinterland around the Százhalombatta tell.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
140
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
conclusion
At Százhalombatta, techniques used for other materials informed those used to make
pottery. Pottery and architecture have a close relationship. Not only were both made of clay, but
methods of making pots echo those used for building. Similarly, pottery and metalwork share
common themes and technologies for working with clay and bronze. The transfer of knowledge
between different media is particularly evident and interesting with regard to the means by which
handles were attached to fineware vessels. While Early and Middle Bronze Age potters
demonstrated incredible technology, skill and finesse in other areas (Budden 2002), the way in
which they applied handles suggests a borrowing of techniques that is somewhat at odds with
this, since it does not fully exploit the plasticity of clay.
I am not arguing that the people of Százhalombatta saw pots, houses and metalwork as
the same, or that they deliberately set out to create one out of the other. As Knappett (2005)
points out, there are many ways in which things can have meaning without being symbols.
Rather, I am suggesting that there were relationships and borrowings between craftspeople at a
number of levels that are revealing in terms of the perception of the materials with which people
worked and the social context of craft production. Technological conceptual relationships tied
these materials together and allowed people to borrow and transfer the techniques that they used
in one medium to another, while a social network between craftspeople – in this case a castelike system – provided the avenue for the communication of technologies and techniques. As
van der Leeuw (1993, 240) puts it, ‘Techniques cannot be studied in isolation, but should be
seen as the arena of mediation between what is materially possible or impossible and certain
aspects of social organization.’ Techniques lend insights into society because the two are in
constant symbiosis (van der Leeuw 1993; Lemonnier 1980; 1986; 1993). Technology thus takes
a central role in understanding the organizational principles of the society which uses them (van
der Leeuw 1993, 240).
Acknowledgements
This article has benefited from discussions with a number of students and colleagues in Hungary
and Britain. I would particularly like to thank Sandy Budden, Alice Choyke, Attila Kreiter, Marie Louise
Stig Sørensen and Magdolna Vicze. Sandy Budden also gave generously of her pottery drawings for Figure
2. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Ildikó Poroszlai, director of the Matrica Museum and
founder of the Százhalombatta Archaeological Park.
Archaeology
School of Humanities
University of Southampton
Avenue Campus
Highfield
Southampton SO17 1BF
references
arnold, b. 1982: The architectural woodwork of the Late Bronze Age Village Auvernier-Nord. In
McGrail, S. (ed.), Woodworking Techniques before A.D. 1500 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 129), 111–28.
aronson, l. 1991: African women in the visual arts. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
16(31), 550–74.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
141
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
barbe, n. and lioger, r. 1999: Du jouet en bois en plastique. Permanence et innovation technique dans
l’Arc jurassien. In Bromberger, C. and Chevallier, D. (eds.), Carrières d’Objets. Innovation et Relances
(Paris, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de L’Homme, Collection Ethnologie de la France Cahier 13),
43–58.
barley, n. 1984: Placing the West African Potter. In Picton, J. (ed.), Earthenware in Asia and Africa
(London, Percival David Foundation), 93–105.
barley, n. 1994: Smashing Pots. Feats of Clay from Africa (London).
barth, f. 1960: The system of social stratification in Swat, north Pakistan. In Leach, E.R. (ed.), Aspects
of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan (Cambridge), 113–46.
bertemes, f. and heyd, v. 2002: Der Übergang Kupferzeit/Frühbronzezeit am Nordwestrand des
Karpatenbeckens – kulturgeschichtliche und paläometallurgische Betrachtungen (The Transition Copper
Age/Early Bronze Age at the North-Western Edge of the Carpathian Basin – Culture-Historical and
Palaeometallurgical Considerations). In Bartelheim, M., Krause, R. and Pernicka, E. (eds.), Die Anfänge
der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt, Euroseminar Freiberg/Sachsen, 18.–20. November 1999
(Rahden/Westfalen), 185–229.
bóna, i. 1975: Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre Südöstlichen Beziehungen (Budapest, Akadémiai
Kiadó).
bóna, i. 1982: Alpár bronzkori rétegei. In Bóna, I. and Nováki, Gy., Alpár bronzkori és Árpád-kori vára.
Cumania 7, 17–117.
bóna, i. 1992: Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. In Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.), Forschungen in TellSiedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main).
bradley, r.j. 1978: The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain (London).
bromberger, c. and chevallier, d. (eds.) 1999: Carrières d’Objets. Innovation et Relances
(Paris, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de L’Homme, Collection Ethnologie de la France
Cahier 13).
brown, j. 1995: Traditional Metalworking in Kenya (Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 44, Cambridge
Monographs in African Archaeology 38).
budd, p. and taylor, t. 1995: The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus science in the
interpretation of prehistoric metal-making. World Archaeology 27(1), 133–43.
budden, s. 2002: Black is Beautiful. The Technology and Social Practice of Producing Black Burnished
Koszider Wares at Százhalombatta, Hungary (Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Southampton).
budden, s. 2005: Renewal and Reinvention: Innovation and Tradition at Százhalombatta, Hungary
(Seminar presented to the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton).
černy¢, v., gauthier, j-g., bruo žek, j., gronenborn, d., velemínsky¢, p. and budil, i. 2001: Mezi Saharou
a Tropicky¢ mi Pralesy (Between the Sahara and the Tropical Rain Forests) (Prague, National Museum in
Prague).
childe, v.g. 1949: The first bronze vases to be made in Central Europe. Acta Archaeologica 20, 257–64.
choyke, a. 2000: Refuse and modified bone from Százhalombatta-Földvár. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M.
(eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1 (Százhalombatta, Archaeolingua),
97–102.
colonial film unit 1937: Mende Potmakers (Video).
coningham, r. and young, r. 1999: The Archaeological Visibility of Caste: An Introduction. In Insoll,
T. (ed.), Case Studies in Archaeology and World Religion. The Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference
(Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 755), 84–93.
csányi, m. 2003: Tiszaug-Kéménytet o": A Bronze Age settlement in the Tiszazug. In Visy, Z. (ed.),
Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium (Budapest, Department of Monuments of the
Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 143–4.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
142
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
csányi, m. and tárnoki, j. 1992: Túrkeve-Terehalom. In Bóna, I. (ed.), Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen
an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main).
csányi, m. and tárnoki, j. 2003: The Middle Bronze Age population of the Berettyó-Körös region: the
Gyulavarsánd culture. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium (Budapest,
Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 158–60.
cseri, m. and füzes, e. (eds.) 1997: Hungarian Open Air Museum Szentendre (Szentendre, Hungarian
Open Air Museum).
david, n. 1990: Vessels of the spirits: pots and people in North Cameroon (Video) (University of Calgary).
david, n. and hennig, h. 1972: The ethnography of pottery: a Fulani case study seen in archaeological
perspective (Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Module 21).
downey, c. 1996: Prehistoric tools and the Bronze Age woodworking ‘industry’ (Paper presented at the
Greek Society for Archaeometry 3rd Symposium, Athens).
faure-rouesnel, l. 2001: French anthropology and material culture. Journal of Material Culture 6(2),
237–47.
friedman, e. 1998: Technological Style in Early Bronze Age Anatolia (Chicago, Oriental Institute
Research Archives).
gherdán, k., szakmány, g., weiszburg, t. and ilon, g. 2002: Petrological Investigation of Bronze
and Iron Age Ceramics from West Hungary: Vaskeresztes, Velem, Sé, Gór. In Kilikoglou, V., Hein, A.
and Maniatis, Y. (eds.), Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Papers Presented
at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1011), 305–
12.
gosselain, o.p. 1999: In Pots we Trust. The Processing of Clay and Symbols in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Journal of Material Culture 4(2), 205–30.
gosselain, o.p. 2000: Materialising Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 7(3), 187–217.
hänsel, b. 1968: Beiträge Zur Chronologie der Mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken (Bonn).
harding, a. 2000: European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge).
herbert, e. 1984: Red Gold of Africa: Copper in Precolonial History and Culture (Madison).
herbert, e. 1993: Iron, Gender and Power. Rituals of Transformation in African Societies (Bloomington).
" , a. 2000: Complex analysis of stone industry on the Százhalombattahorváth, t., kozák, m. and peto
Földvár (Early and Middle Bronze Age). In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Százhalombatta
Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1 (Százhalombatta, Archaeolingua).
ilon, g. and varga, i. 1994: Bauxit a Késõ Bronzkori Kerámiában? A Németbánya Felsõerdei
Dûlõi Temetõ és Kistelep Kerámiáinak Vizsgálata. Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 19–20,
133–40.
jones, a. 2002: Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice (Cambridge).
kaiser, t., franklin, u. and vitali, v. 1986: Pottery and pyrotechnology in the late Neolithic of the
Balkans. In Olin, J.S. and Blackman, M.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry
Symposium (Washington D.C.), 85–94.
kalicz, n. 1970: Clay Gods. The Neolithic Period and Copper Age in Hungary (Budapest).
kemenczei, t. 1988: Die Schwerter in Ungarn I (München, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV.6).
kemenczei, t. 1991: Die Schwerter in Ungarn II (Stuttgart, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV.9).
kemenczei, t. 2003: Bronze Age metallurgy. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the
Millennium (Budapest, Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 167–74.
kilian-dirlmeier, i. 1975: Gürtelhaken, Gürtelbleche und Blechgürtel der Bronzezeit in Mitteleuropa
(München, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XII, Band 2).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
143
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
knappett, c. 2002: Photographs, Skeuomorphs and Marionettes. Some Thoughts on Mind, Agency and
Object. Journal of Material Culture 7(1), 97–117.
knappett, c. 2005: Thinking Through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Philadelphia).
kovács, t. 1969: A százhalombattai bronzkori telep. The Bronze Age Settlement at Százhalombatta.
Archaeologiai Értesít o" 96, 161–9.
kovács, t. 1973: Representations of Weapons on Bronze Age Pottery. Folia Archaeologica XXIV, 7–31.
kovács, t. 1977: The Bronze Age in Hungary (Budapest).
kreiter, a. 2005: Preliminary Report of Middle Bronze Age Ceramic Analyses from Százhalombatta,
Northern Hungary. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Report
II (Százhalombatta, Matrica Museum), 187–94.
kreiter, a., sofaer, j. and budden, s. in press: Early and Middle Bronze Age Storage Vessel Building
Techniques in Hungary. O"srégészeti Levelek (Prehistoric Newsletter).
kristiansen, k. 1998: Europe Before History (Cambridge).
kristiansen, k. 2000: The emergence of European communities: household settlement and territory in
later prehistory (2300–300 BC). In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological
Expedition Annual Report 1 (Százhalombatta, Archaeolingua), 7–11.
layton, r. 1989: Pellaport. In van der Leeuw, S.E. and Torrence, R., What’s New? A Closer Look at The
Process of Innovation (London, One World Archaeology 14), 33–53.
leggett, e. and nussbaum, s. 2001: Raising the Roof – A Time-Honored Tradition. Amish Heartland
August 2001.
lemonnier, p. 1980: Les Salines de l’Ouest: Logique technique, logique sociale (Paris/Lille, Éditions de
la Maison des Sciences de L’Homme).
lemonnier, p. 1986: The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147–86.
lemonnier, p. 1993: Introduction. In Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in
Material Cultures since the Neolithic (London), 1–35.
leopold, r.s. 1983: The shaping of men and the making of metaphors: the meaning of white clay in Poro
and Sande Initiation society rituals. Anthropology 8(2), 21–42.
mahias, m-c. 1993: Pottery techniques in India: Technical Variants and social choice. In Lemonnier, P.
(ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic (London).
maniatis, y. and tite, m.s. 1981: Technological Examination of Neolithic-Bronze Age Pottery from
Central and Southeast Europe and from the Near East. Journal of Archaeological Science 8, 59–76.
máthé, m. 1988: Bronze Age tells in the Berettyó valley. In Kovács, T. and Stanczik, I., Bronze Age Tell
Settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I (Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Inventaria Praehistorica
Hvngariae), 27–122.
meier-arendt, w. (ed.) 1992: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main).
menotti, f. 2004: Living on the Lake in Prehistoric Europe (London).
michelaki, k., minc, l. and o’shea, j. 2002: Integrating typological and physico-chemical approaches to
examine the potter’s choices: a case study from Bronze Age Hungary. In Kilikoglou, V., Hein, A. and
Maniatis, Y. (eds.), Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Papers Presented at the 5th
European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1011), 313–22.
mozsolics, a. 1967: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und
Kosziderpadlás (Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó).
nagy, s., kuzmann, e., weiszburg, t., gyökeres-töth, m. and riedel, m. 2000: Oxide Transformation
During Preparation of Black Pottery in Hungary. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry
246(1), 91–6.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
144
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
nicholson, p.t. and wendrich, w.z. 1994: The Potters of Deir Mawas: A Village in Middle Egypt
(Video).
péterdi, b., kovács, t., szakmány, g. and biró, k. 2002: Petrographical Investigation of Bronze and
Iron Age Casting Moulds from the Collection of the Hungarian National Museum (Abstract of paper
presented at the 33rd International Symposium on Archaeometry, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 22–26
April, 2002, p. 46).
petres, f. and bándi, g.é. 1969: Archaeologiai Értesít o" 96, 174–5.
pfaffenberger, b. 1988: Fetished Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of
Technology. Man (N.S.) 23, 236–52.
pfaffenberger, b. 1992: Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 211,
491–56.
piggott, s. 1935: Handled Beakers. Antiquity IX, 348.
poroszlai, i. 1988: Preliminary report about the excavation at Nagyko"rös-Földvár (Vatya culture):
stratigraphic data and settlement structure. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 29–39.
poroszlai, i. (ed.) 1996a: Ásatások Százhalombattán. Excavations at Százhalombatta 1989–1995
(Százhalombatta, Matrica Museum).
poroszlai, i. 1996b: Ásatások a százhalombattai bronzkori földvárban (1989–1993). Excavations in the
Bronze Age earthwork in Százhalombatta between 1989 and 1993. In Poroszlai, I. (ed.), Ásatások
Százhalombattán. Excavations at Százhalombatta 1989–1995 (Százhalombatta, Matrica Museum), 5–15.
poroszlai, i. 1998: The Bronze Age. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), History of Százhalombatta.
Guide to the Exhibition (Százhalombatta, Matrica Museum).
poroszlai, i. 2000: Excavation campaigns at the Bronze Age tell site at Százhalombatta-Földvár. In
Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1
(Százhalombatta, Archaeolingua), 13–73.
poroszlai, i. 2003a: The conservation and exhibition of archaeological remains: archaeological parks and
experimental archaeology. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium
(Budapest, Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 432–5.
poroszlai, i. 2003b: Fortified centres along the Danube. In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the
Turn of the Millennium (Budapest, Department of Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage),
151–5.
primas, m. 1997: Bronze Age economy and ideology: central Europe in focus. Journal of European
Archaeology 5(1), 115–30.
rice, p. 1984: Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems. In van der Leeuw, S.E. and
Pritchard, A.C. (eds.), The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology
(Amsterdam), 231–88.
shennan, s. 1986: Central Europe in the third millennium BC: an evolutionary trajectory for the beginning
of the European Bronze Age. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 115–46.
shennan, s. 1993: Commodities, transactions and growth in the central European Early Bronze Age.
Journal of European Archaeology 1(2), 59–72.
sillar, b. 1996: The Dead and the Drying: Techniques for Transforming People and Things in the Andes.
Journal of Material Culture 1(3), 259–89.
sofaer j., budden, s. and barthorpe, t. 2003: Interim report on the pottery assemblage from
Szazhalombatta (Unpublished report, Matrica Museum, Százhalombatta, Hungary).
sofaer, j. and sørensen, m.l.s. 2002: Becoming cultural: society and the incorporation of bronze.
In Ottaway, B. and Wager, E.C. (eds.), Metals and society: papers from a session held at the
European Association of Archaeologists sixth annual meeting in Lisbon 2000 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser.
1061), 117–21.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
145
POTS, HOUSES AND METAL
sofaer, j. and sørensen, m.l.s. 2006: Technological change as social change: the introduction of metal
in Europe. In Bartelheim, M. and Heyd, V. (eds.), Continuity- Discontinuity: Transition Periods in
European Prehistory (Rahden (Westf.), Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft).
sørensen, m.l.s. 1996: Women As/And Metalworkers. In Devonshire, A. and Wood, B. (eds.), Women in
Industry and Technology from Prehistory to the Present Day (London, Museum of London), 45–51.
sørensen, m.l.s. and vicze, m. in press: Household Activities on a Bronze Age Tell. In Poroszlai, I. and
Vicze, M. (eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Report III (Százhalombatta, Matrica Museum).
stevanovic, m. 1997: The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 16, 334–95.
szabó, g. 1998: Evaluation of Late Bronze Age Carpathian tinbronzes based on the alloying content. In
Költ o", L. and Bartosiewicz, L., Archaeometrical Research in Hungary II (Budapest, Hungarian National
Museum), 159–73.
szakmány, g. 2001: Felsõvadász-Várdomb Neolitikus és Bronzkori Kerámiatípusainak Petrográfiai
Vizsgálata. A Miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve XL, 107–25.
szakmány, g. and kustár, r. 2000: Untersuchung von Keramikproben aus dem Spätbronzezeitlichen
Hügel von Isztimér-Csõpuszta. Alba Regia 29, 55–60.
szathmári, i. 2003: The florescence of the Middle Bronze Age in the Tisza region: the Füzesabony culture.
In Visy, Z. (ed.), Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium (Budapest, Department of
Monuments of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage), 156–7.
trachsler, w. 1966: The influence of metalworking on prehistoric pottery: some observations on Iron
Age pottery of the Alpine region. In Matson, F.R. (ed.), Ceramics and Man (London), 140–51.
van der leeuw, s.e. 1989: Risk, perception, innovation. In van der Leeuw, S.E. and Torrence, R. (eds.),
What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation (London, One World Archaeology 14), 300–29.
van der leeuw, s.e. 1993: Giving the potter a choice: conceptual aspects of pottery techniques. In
Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic
(London), 238–88.
varga, a. 2000: Coring results at Százhalombatta-Földvár. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.),
Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1 (Százhalombatta, Archaeolingua), 76–81.
varga, i., molnár, z., n. czakó, i. and ilon, g. 1989: Németbánya Késõbronzkori Kerámiái a
Természettudományos Vizsgálatok Tükrében. Pápai Múzeumi Értesítõ 2, 39–48.
varga, i., süvegh, g. and n. czakó, i. 1988: Egy Késõbronzkori Kerámia Komplett Vizsgálata. Pápai
Múzeumi Értesítõ 1, 31–5.
vargha, l. 1955: Archaeologiai Értesít o" 82, 151–6.
vaughn, j.h. 1970: Caste systems in the Western Sudan. In Tuden, A. and Plotnicov, L. (eds.), Social
Stratification in Africa (New York), 59–92.
vickers, m. and gill, d. 1994: Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery (Oxford).
vicze, m. 2001: Dunaújváros-Duna-d o"l o". The Early and Middle Bronze Age cemetery of DunaújvárosKosziderpadlás (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest).
vicze, m. 2004: Excavation methodology on the Százhalombatta Project. In Kisfaludi, J. (ed.), Régészeti
kutatások Magyarországon 2002 (Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2002) (Budapest, Ministry
of Cultural Heritage and the Hungarian National Museum), 131–46.
vicze, m., earle, t. and artursson, m. 2005: Bronze Age site gazetteer: Benta Valley, Hungary. In
Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Report II (Százhalombatta,
Matrica Museum), 237–50.
vitelli, k. 1995: Pots, Potters and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society. In Barnett, W.K. and Hoopes,
J.W. (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery. Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies (Washington),
55–63.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
146
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JOANNA SOFAER
wade, j.a. 1989: The context of adoption of brass technology in northeastern Nigeria and its effects on
the elaboration of culture. In van der Leeuw, S.E. and Torrence, R. (eds.), What’s New? A Closer Look at
the Process of Innovation (London, One World Archaeology 14), 225–44.
waterson, r. 1997: The Living House. An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia (Oxford).
weeks, j. 1982: Roman carpentry joints: adoption and adaptation. In McGrail, S. (ed.), Woodworking
Techniques before A.D. 1500 (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 129), 157–68.
wolfe, a.w. 1969: Social Structural Bases of Art. Current Anthropology 10(1), 3–44.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
147