Late Iron Age Ceramic Manufacturing along the Maritsa River in the Northwestern Rhodope Mountains. A Characterization from Emporion Pistiros

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1, 77–95 La e I on Age Ce amic Manu ac u ing along he Ma i sa Ri e in he No hwes e n Rhodope Moun ains. ACha ac e iza ion om Empo ion Pis i os Ashlee B. Ha ABSTRACT In he his o y o a chaeology o ancien Th ace, he analysis o indigenous ce amics has e‑ cei ed less a en ion han o he a chaeological ma e ial, especially impo ed G eek wa es. In ecen yea s howe e , mo e a chaeologis s ha e begun in ensi ely analyzing hese ce amics in an a emp o u he unde s and ex e nal in luences on he manu ac u ing and consump ion p ac ices o ancien Th acians. The pu pose o his a icle is o desc ibe ecen ly exca a ed, locally made ce amics om an inland ma ke si e known as empo ion Pis i os. Al hough his si e has along his o y o a chaeological exca a ion, his a icle u ilizes diagnos ic she ds ex‑ ca a ed du ing he ield school campaigns o he Balkan He i age Founda ion be ween 2013 and 2016, which a e hi he o unanalyzed. Th ough he use o asys ema ic ca aloguing and analysis sys em his a icle a emp s o p esen cha ac e iza ions abou hese ce amics om he La e I on Age in he No hwes e n Rhodope Moun ains, which will esul in a ypological sys em o use a he si e as well as c oss ‑si e compa isons. KEYWORDS Bulga ian Th ace; La e I on Age; indigenous ce amics; echnological choices. INTRODUCTION Ce amics a e one o he mos common objec s ound a a chaeological si es due o hei abili y o b eak easily and be eplaced o en, bu hey a e also i ually e e las ing h ough ime, making hem impo an o e alua ions o s ylis ic and echnological choices ha we e in luenced by indi iduals and g oups wi hin he socie y (Quinn 2013). In he esea ch p e‑ sen ed he e ce amics a e unde s ood and used as impo an indica o s o cul u al iden i y and cul u al change. In he his o y o a chaeology, ce amics ha e se ed as ap ima y medium o s udying a chaeological g oups (Biehl– Glese 2003). Th oughou a chaeological in es iga ions o ancien Th ace, impo ed G eek ce amics ha e been commonly analyzed and un il now he di e en aspec s o he local ce amics, especially hand made ce amics, om si es in Sou h‑ wes e n Bulga ia du ing he La e I on Age (ci ca 7 h –2 nd cen u y BC) ha e only been discussed in limi ed publica ions. Al hough he e ha e been egional su eys and documen a ions o a chaeological si es in he egion (Sliwa– Doma adzki 1983; Chankowski– Go ze – Neh izo 2004), Bouzek (2007) no ed ha he e has ne e been asys ema ic analysis o hand made ce amics om he egion du ing his ime pe iod. In he case o ancien Th ace, some o he la ge empe ed, poo ly i ed, hand made, and undeco a ed she ds ha e been se aside in a o o s udying he mo e ine wa es, impo ed G eek wa es, o wheel made pieces c ea ed in G eek colonies by G eek immig an s o he a ea. 78 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 This pape p esen s an o e iew o an impo an La e I on Age si e in Bulga ia and de ails p elimina y cha ac e iza ions o he locally p oduced ce amics. The si e, known as Pis i os,1 is loca ed a he no he n base o he Rhodope Moun ains in wes e n Bulga ia. The si e is da ed o he La e I on Age and has been in e p e ed as he loca ion o an empo ion o ma ke cen e whe e G eeks and local Th acians li ed oge he . As an inland exchange cen e wi h amixed popula ion, he si e p esen s in e es ing possibili ies o he s udy o ce amic manu ac u ing in he egion and he impac s o c oss ‑cul u al in e ac ions du ing he La e I on Age. F om o e hi y yea s o exca a ion a his si e he e ha e been se e al a emp s o cha ‑ ac e ize he local ce amics including se e al publica ions abou he wheel made g ey wa e o monoch ome po e y (Doma adzki 2002; Bouzek– Doma adzka 2008b), bu he hand made essels ha e ecei ed less a en ion. This will be he i s a emp o ca alogue, analyze, and da e a ep esen a i e sample o he ce amic assemblage o bo h hand made and wheel made essels o e eal pa e ns and possibly show he esul s o in e ac ion wi h G eeks. THE SITE OF PISTIROS The Polish a chaeologis Mieczysław Doma adzki led he i s a chaeological exca a ions con‑ duc ed a he si e o Pis i os om 1988 un il his p ema u e dea h in 1998. The in e na ional cha ac e o he p ojec has been ca ied on, he exca a ions a e s ill ongoing and en e ed 1 Be o e he disco e y o he Ve en insc ip ion, which lis s he igh s and p i ileges gua an eed by he Th acian King o G eeks li ing a he si e in 1990 (see e.g. Chankowski 1999), he si e, mos commonly e e ed o as Pis i os, was called Adzhiyska Vodeni sa. Al hough he name o he si e emains deba able, h ough his a icle i will be e e ed o as ‘Pis i os’. Fig. 1: Map o mode n Bulga ia wi h he loca ion o Pis i os labeled. 79ASHLEE B. HART hei 30 h yea wi h he 2018 ield season. The esul s om he a chaeological in es iga ions om he in e na ional eams a e combined in o si e epo publica ions.2 Beyond hese edi ed si e epo s he e a e also publica ions in nume ous con e ence olumes and jou nals. The loca ion o Pis i os is in he sou he n cen al po ion o he mode n ‑day Bulga ia nea he own o Ve en in he Paza dzhik p o ince (Fig. 1). The si e is loca ed abou 150 km om he No h Aegean coas and sepa a ed om i by he Rhodope Moun ains (Chi e ‑ ell– A chibald 2009). Pis i os is loca ed along he Ma i sa Ri e , o ancien Heb os Ri e , which uns om he no heas e n edge o he Aegean Sea, a he di ide o mode n G eece and Tu key, in o wes e n Bulga ia. The si e has been da ed o ci ca 450 BC o 278 BC (Bouzek– Doma adzka 2008a), and i is impo an o no e ha i was c ea ed unde he u elage o Th acian kings based on he Ve en Insc ip ion (G aninge 2012) (Tab.1). I is he only known si e ha was c ea ed wi h he will o an Od ysian king in Od ysian e i o y (Bouzek– Doma adzka 2008a). The si e was a acked by he Cel s in 279/278 BC as shown by acoin hoa d, which had 552 sil e and gold coins min ed by Philip II, Alexande III, and he diadochs including he las issue by Ly‑ simachus (Bouzek– Doma adzka 2008a). Pis i os was modes ly ebuil and con inued o unc ion as asmall scale smel ing wo kshop be o e i was abandoned in he i s hal o he second cen u y BC a e ana u al disas e (Tse skhladze 2000). Tab.1: Ch onological able depic ing he es ima ed pe iod o he Ea ly I on Age and he La e I on Age in Th ace wi h he ch onological posi ion o Pis i os no ed. 2 The i s , called Pis i os IExca a ions and S udies, was published in 1996 and he olumes ha e con‑ inued h ough he cu en olume, Pis i os VI p oduced in 2016. 80 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 CERAMIC ANALYSIS OF LATE IRON AGE THRACE ABRIEF REVIEW OF CERAMIC ANALYSIS STUDIES OF ANCIENT THRACE The s a e o a chaeological ce amic analysis in Bulga ia is inconsis en ac oss he coun y and be ween di e en his o ical g oups p oducing he ce amics. Fo example, he G eek colonies along he Black Sea ecei e ag ea deal o a en ion, which esul s in publica ions, con e ence p esen a ions, and la ge scale compa isons o local and o eign ma e ials (e.g. Bouzek 1990; Tse skhladze 1998; de Boe 2002). Ma e ials om cen al and eas e n Bulga ia a e usually mo e highly published han he ma e ial om wes e n Bulga ia, which may be due o less a chaeological exca a ions in he a ea o lack o published s udies om pas yea s. The mos commonly analyzed ce amics om Bulga ia a e G eek impo s and wha has been e med Th acian G ey Wa e. The G eek ma e ials a e o en p i ileged a a chaeological si es as hey es i y o G eeks li ing in he a ea o he impo a ion o G eek ideas, and possibly p esen an easie sys em o da ing due o he massi e co pus o a ailable compa isons om he G eek mainland and islands (e.g. Bouzek 1994; Bozko a 2014). Wheel made ce amics ound in colo s anging om g eys o ligh b owns ha e been e med g ey wa e, monoch ome wa e, o Th acian G ey Wa e. This Th acian G ey Wa e has been highly heo ized and linked o Ana olian and Aegean in luences bo h in e ms o design and manu ac u ing (e.g. Niko 1999; Bouzek– Doma adzka 2008b; Madzha o 2006). The hand made ce amic ma e ial om he I on Age gene ally, has been he subjec o analysis in e ms o deco a ion, which is usually ocused on he much mo e iden i iable cha ac e is ics o incised lines and s amped pa e ns cha ac e is ic o he Ea ly I on Age (ci ca 13 h–9 h cen u‑ ies BC). The compa isons o designs ac oss di e en egions in cen al and eas e n Bulga ia has been analyzed se e al imes (e.g. Niko 2001; 2011). Finally, he hand made ce amics o he La e I on Age has been he opic o a leas one disse a ion om So ia Uni e si y S . Klimen Oh idski by Vene a Hanzhiyska in 2006. This disse a ion p esen s he only la ge ‑scale a emp o classi y and c ea e a ypology o Th acian hand made ce amics om he La e I on Age bu ocuses on sou heas e n Bulga ia. Hanzhiyska published asupplemen o he disse a ion, wi h ypology d awings (Hanzhiyska 2007) and an analysis o hand made ce amics om exca a‑ ions a Kozi G amadi Peak (Hanzhiyska 2012). In addi ion, Hanzhiyska published a e iew o Th acian La e I on Age hand making echniques and ma e ial usage analysis (Hanzhiyska 2010). In his e iew she poin s ou o he limi ed analysis o La e I on Age ce amics beyond ypological compa isons. She no ed ha he mos common addi i es o clay we e qua z sand and mica. Vessels a e o en made using apinch ‑po me hod wi h seconda y shaping ha may ha e aken place on awheel a e i s in oduc ion. Mos impo an ly, she no ed changes in clay o mula, inishing, and shape, which occu ed some ime du ing he second hal o he ou h cen u y BC ollowing ends owa d u banism in Th ace, he c ea ion o c a cen e s in u ban a eas, and he use o he po e y wheel o inc ease p oduc ion a es (Hanzhiyska 2010). A Pis i os speci ically, he e ha e been se e al publica ions abou he ce amic ma e ials, bu hey end o ocus on he wheel made g ey wa e o Th acian G ey Wa e (e.g. Doma adzki 2002; Bouzek 2007; Bouzek– Doma adzka 2008b), impo ed G eek ce amics (e.g. A chi‑ bald 1996; Bouzek 2007; Bouzeke al. 2007; Pe o a 2018), and o he speci ic essel o ms and unc ions ou side he u ili a ian hand made essels a he si e (e.g. ex iles– Bouzek 1996; Ma ys, A. 2013 o lamps– Boháč 2002; Ma ys, M. 2013). The cu en esea ch p esen s a emp s o combine he analysis o wheel made g ey wa e essels and he u ili a ian hand‑ made essels o show he way ha essel o ms, unc ions, and manu ac u ing may ha e been bo owed o con as ed wi h he di e en echniques. 81ASHLEE B. HART Al hough he e ha e been se e al publica ions abou ce amics om Pis i os (e.g. Do‑ ma adzki 2002; Bouzek 2007; Bouzek– Doma adzka 2008b), a ew abou he hand‑ made essels o La e I on Age Th ace (e.g. Hanzhiyska 2007; 2010), and some analyses o indigenous ‑G eek ela ionships (e.g. A chibald 1998; Doma adzka 2005; Bouzeke al. 2009) asys ema ic analysis o hese ce amics in ela ion o in e ac ion has no been ully explo ed. The inal goal o his esea ch will be o ill in he gap be ween manu ac u ing p ocesses o en di ided by hand and wheel echniques in an a emp o be e unde s and he consump ion o ce amics and in luence on ce amic echnological choices du ing he La e I on Age in Bulga ia. THE CURRENT CERAMIC PROJECT AT PISTIROS The ma e ial analyzed in his esea ch comes om collabo a ion wi h he Balkan He i age Founda ion in coo dina ion wi h he Bulga ian Si e Di ec o A. Go se and his eam. The Balkan He i age Founda ion has been o ganizing a chaeological ield schools o in e na ional s u‑ Fig. 2: Pis i os si e map wi h he numbe ed g id sys em and known exca a ed s uc u es. The a ea o in e es o his pape is ou lined in g ey (adap ed by he au ho om amap om he A chae‑ ological Museum “P o .M. Doma adzki”). 82 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 den s a Pis i os since 2012 (Annual Repo s in “A chaeological Disco e ies and Exca a ions”: Go se – Pe o a 2013; 2014; 2015; Go se – Pe o a– Tane a 2016; 2017). The exca a ed a ea includes uni s Б23, Б24, Б’3, and Б’4, which a e loca ed inside o , and adjacen o, he o i ica ion wall on he eas e n side o he se lemen (Fig. 2). The uni s a e es ablished on a10×10 m g id wi h baulks be ween uni s and se e al uni s such as Б’3 di ided in o smalle sec ions. The exca a ions a e ca ied ou sys ema ically ollowing ei he a bi a y o na u al le els based on he cha ac e iza ion o he soils and hei con en s. Ma e ial cul u e is collec ‑ ed sepe a ely om di e en le els and ea u es while special inds such as coins o spindle who ls a e bagged sepa a ely. Ma e ial is washed on si e, agmen s di ided in o ca ego ies, and eco ded. Finally, only he diagnos ic ma e ial is anspo ed o he A chaeological Mu‑ seum “P o .M. Doma adzki” in Sep em i, Bulga ia whe e i is s o ed. Un il 2016 he local ce amics om hese exca a ions ha e only been ca alogued based on he numbe o agmen s pe aining o di e en wa e ypes and diagnos ic ea u e. Al hough use ul, his in o ma ion does no allow o he c ea ion o ypological compa isons o de ailed s a is ics abou in o ma ion such as im shape and deco a ion. Du ing he 2016 ield season asmall pilo p ojec was conduc ed using 116 exca a ed agmen s om he 2014 season. The goal was o ca alogue, pho og aph, and d aw all o he agmen s o show i a ypological com‑ pa ison was possible and o demons a e he exis ence o local ce amics. The esul s showed he need o u he analysis. The i s phase o esea ch in he 2017 s udy was he sys ema ic ca aloguing o all o he collec ed diagnos ic ce amic agmen s. Based on a isual analysis o each ce amic she d he e a e 15 c i e ia subsequen ly illed ou . The ca ego ies include essel po ion, possible essel o m, manu ac u ing echnique, clay colo (in e io , ex e io , empe ), empe size, i ing empe a u e, pos ‑manu ac u ing bu ning, measu emen ( hickes a loca ion, hinnes a loca ion), diame e o im o base, and gene al commen s. METHODOLOGY AND PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION OF CERAMICS The ollowing sec ion p esen s p elimina y cha ac e iza ions o he ce amics based on s a‑ is ical e alua ions o di e en aspec s such as clay colo , composi ion, essel o m, and deco a ion. The p ima y s a is ics p esen ed he e ep esen desc ip i e s a is ics based on measu es o equency, a ia ion, and endency. These esul s we e hen used o conduc co ela ion es s be ween a iables, which a e called a ibu e analysis (e.g. Biehl– Glese 2003). Fu u e esea ch will u he include mul i a ia e s a is ical analysis, and ho izon al and e ical dispe sion analysis. The ypology o essels, con ex ual analysis, and ch ono‑ logical cha ac e iza ions a e o hcoming, bu he cha ac e iza ions he e a e impo an o unde s anding he collec ion as awhole. To da e, he e a e 2,947 ca alogue en ies in he da abase. The ma e ial comes om ou 10×10 m uni s– Б23, Б24, Б’3, and Б’4 (Fig. 2) exca a ed om he ea lies yea in 2013 h ough he mos ecen a ailable ma e ial om 2016. These ou uni s accoun o asmall po ion o he en i e si e, bu he ma e ial was a ailable o analysis, ecen ly exca a ed, and gene ally well ‑documen ed, which made his ini ial analysis iable o ala e compa ison wi h p e i‑ ously exca a ed ma e ials in o he a eas o he si e. The numbe o ca alogue en ies does no e lec all o he ma e ial exca a ed om hese uni s. The non ‑diagnos ic agmen s, such as undeco a ed body she ds, we e no ed o colo , manu ac u ing echnique, and possible es‑ sel o m; hen se aside. Only he diagnos ic pieces we e s o ed a he local museum. Finally, he ca alogue ep esen s mo e han 2,947 indi idual she ds because agmen s ha could be 83ASHLEE B. HART econs uc ed we e ca alogued oge he as asingle en y in he da abase. Thus, i he e we e h ee im agmen s ha i oge he and ep esen ed asingle essel hey we e ca alogued oge he wi h acommen abou how many agmen s we e ep esen ed. MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUE The i s ca ego y p esen ed he e dis inguishes ce amics based on whe he hey a e hand made o wheel made, which p o ide wo majo g oupings o u he analysis and each o he ol‑ lowing ca ego ies will be subdi ided in o he hand made and wheel made. The p ima y means o essel manu ac u ing a e hand making and wheel h owing al hough he e is a a ia ion, which combines he wo me hods– hand made essels ha a e hen wheel inished. Based on he de elopmen o ce ain s yles wi hin ce amics du ing he I on Age i has been hypo hesized ha he po e ’swheel was in oduced in Th ace du ing his ime and was likely he esul o G eek o Ana olian in e ac ion (Niko 2001). Du ing he La e I on Age, he po e y wheel became inco po a ed in o manu ac u ing echniques ac oss Th ace. Pis i os is an example o aLa e I on Age si e ha accep ed he in en ion o he po e y wheel and used i o ei he inish hand made essels o o c ea e wheel made essels wi h new com‑ plica ed p o iles and hinne , mo e uni o m walls. The majo i y o ce amics exca a ed a he empo ion appea s o i in o he ca ego ies o hand made o wheel made wi h se e al limi ed excep ions ha combine he echniques. These usually a e she ds om hand made essels ha ha e been smoo hed on awheel o ha e had slip applied on awheel. In o al, he e we e 1,392 wheel made ce amics she ds (47%) and 1555 hand made ce amic she ds (53%) (Tab.2). A his poin i has been impossible o iden i y he exac hand making me hod u ilized bu i is likely ha he coil me hod used elsewhe e in ancien Th ace was also p ac iced a he em‑ po ion. The wheel made ce amics on he o he hand included impo ed ampho ae, black slip, and ed igu e A ic po e y ha was easily dis inguished om local po e y and no included in he e alua ion o locally p oduced po e y. Tab.2: Dis ibu ion o diagnos ic essel pieces ( ims, bases, handles, and body agmen s wi h deco a ion) ha ha e been g ouped wi hin hand made and wheel made manu ac u ing ech‑ niques. 84 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 CLAY COLOR In e ms o clay colo , he ma e ial has awide ange o di e si y. The clay colo s a e compa ed and eco ded based on he uni e sal Munsell Soil Colo Cha s. The colo s ange om e y da k g ey o ligh g ey and om da k ed b own o ligh yellow b own. Fo he sake o s a is ical analysis o ends simila colo s wi h he same names, bu om di e en ca ego ies, such as 7.5YR 4/1 (Da k G ay) and 10YR 4/1 (Da k G ay) we e g ouped based on he colo . In his a icle he ce amics we e ca ego ized in o six di e en ca ego ies o colo – black (BL), da k g ey (DK G), ligh g ey (LT G), g ey (G), yellow b own (Y BRN), and ed b own (R BRN) (Pl. 1/1). Based on hese colo ca ego ies i is sel ‑explana o y ha mos o he ce amics om Pis i os all wi hin ag ey ca ego y (Tab.3), which co ela es di ec ly wi h wheel made ce amics as p e iously iden i ied as ‘g ey wa e’ (Doma adzki 2002). Howe e , he colo o he clay was calcula ed o he in e io , ex e io , and clay pas e o each sha d o show di e ences in colo based on i ing echniques. The seconda y ac o wo king on he clay colo ing is he condi‑ ions o he i ing including he empe a u e, du a ion, and amoun o oxygen allowed in o he i ing chambe . The esul o he i ing empe a u e is much mo e ob ious on he hand‑ made essels used o u ili a ian pu poses. Many show he esul s o quick, low empe a u e i ings ha lea e he ex e io o he ce amic ligh e in colo wi h ada k co e. The o he main me hod shows alack o oxygen ha esul s in ada kened ex e io wi h asligh ly ligh e co e. Howe e , a ia ion in empe ma e ials, pos p oduc ion use, and disposal may also a ec he clay colo . Fu he analysis o he ce amic clay makeup h ough hin sec ioning will allow o de ini e ep esen a ions o he di e en i ing echniques om he si e. Tab.3: Dis ibu ion o clay colo s (da k g ey– DK G, ligh g ey– LT G, g ey– G, yellow b own– Y BRN, ed b own– R BRN, and black– BL) om he ex e nal po ion o he agmen s ha ha e been g ouped wi hin hand made and wheel made manu ac u ing echniques. The ce amics we e hus i s di ided based on he manu ac u ing echnique in an a emp o e eal changes in clay acquisi ion, p epa a ion, and i ing be ween he di e en manu‑ ac u ing echniques. O e all 1,886 agmen s o all ce amics ca alogued a e g ey (64%), 501 agmen s a e yellow b own (17%), 530 agmen s a e ed b own (18%), and 30 agmen s a e black (1%) (usually bu n and he o iginal colo is un ecognizable). 85ASHLEE B. HART The hand made ce amics showed he g ea es di e si y o colo s showing adi e si y o ac o s in ol ed in he manu ac u ing as well as alack o speci ied p ac ices o uncon ollable i ing, esul ing o en in he so ‑called sandwich e ec . The desc ip ions o clay colo we e hus subdi ided based on he in e io , ex e io , and clay pas e o show he ac o s in ol ed in i ing, pos ‑manu ac u ing use, and deposi ion. The in e io o hand made ce amics included 9% black, 20% da k g ey, 2% ligh g ey, 19% g ey, 4% yellow b own, and 46% ed b own. The ex e io o he hand made ce amics was simila wi h 9% black, 20% da k g ey, 2% ligh g ey, 18% g ey, 4% yellow b own, and 47% ed b own. The in e io clay showed sligh ly mo e consis ency wi h he main colo s being g ey and ed b own– 2% black, 9% da k g ey, 3% ligh g ey, 35% g ey, 5% yellow b own, and 46% ed b own (Tab.4). Tab.4: Dis ibu ion o clay colo ca ego ies o hand made essels base on he in e io , ex e io , and clay pas e o each she d analyzed. The di e ences be ween in e io and ex e io o clay pas e and ex e io a e e idence o he i ing en i onmen . When clay pas e is g ey i e eals ha ca bon o ganics we e bu n c e‑ a ing a educed oxygen en i onmen . The eason o ligh o da k ex e io s also depends on he amoun o oxygen o lack he eo . An equal colo ing shows aquick i ing o aslow equally hea ed bu ning and di e ences be ween in e io and ex e io may show ha essels we e s acked oge he obscu ing he access o oxygen and hea o he inside o he essel (O on– Hughes 2013). In con as o he hand made ce amics, he wheel made ce amics show much o consis ‑ ency usually o g ey clays. As i will be discussed la e , he clay empe was also ine leading o he compa isons wi h p e ious desc ip ions o Th acian G ey Wa e (e.g. Doma adzki 2002; Bouzek 2008b) possibly linked o G eek and Ana olian ce amic manu ac u ing ech‑ niques (Niko 1999). Again, he wheel made ce amics we e di ided in o obse a ions abou he in e io , ex e io , and clay pas e al hough he di isions we e much mo e uni o m and p edic able han he hand made ce amics. The in e io s consis ed o 5% black, 19% da k g ey, 17% ligh g ey, 36% g ey, 23% yellow b own, and no applicable o ed b own (less han 1%). The ex e io s consis ed o 1% black, 21% da k g ey, 15% ligh g ey, 36% g ey, 27% yellow b own, and no applicable o ed b own (less han 1%). Finally, he clay pas e included 1% 92 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 g ey wa e ce amics (Bouzek 2007) while indi iduals p oducing hand made ce amics o he household, bu his analysis will come wi h u he esea ch o he da a. In e ms o he hand made ce amics, he e is much less consis ency in all aspec s o he manu ac u ing. The empe o hese essels anges om small bi s o qui e la ge inclusions ha na u ally lead o hicke p o iled essels. The shapes o essels become mo e simplis ic in he shape o di e en sized po s used speci ically o cooking pu poses and showing hei use h ough pos ‑manu ac u ing i ing and al e a ion. Howe e , he e was main enance o adi ion in e ms o he aised plas ic band deco a ions because hey a e seen h oughou he en i e assemblage and appea as common applica ions o hand made essels elsewhe e in Th ace (e.g. Handzhiyska 2007). The analysis o he hand made and wheel made assemblages oge he begins o p esen apic u e o how and why di e en ce amics we e made and used a Pis i os. These cha ac e iza ions e eal awide ange o di e si y in he manu ac u ing echniques employed by po e s du ing he pe iod. The conclusions o his p elimina y esea ch e eal ha he Th acian po e s wo king du ing he La e I on Age con inued some adi ions such as segmen ed plas ic band deco a ions while also adop ing new echnology. Al hough only hypo hesized p io o a chaeome ic analysis i is likely ha adi ional me hods o clay p epa a ion and essel shaping coexis ed wi h new de elopmen such as he po e ’swheel. While he di e si y o essel shapes and unc ions also e eals he in luence o o eign in e ‑ ac ions in he a ea. RESEARCH OUTLOOK The opic o esea ch ocuses mo e b oadly on changes in manu ac u ing and consump ion o ce amics du ing he I on Age, which co ela es wi h in ense in e ac ion wi h G eek peoples in ancien Th ace. A his poin in his esea ch, Pis i os was selec ed o se e as he i s case s udy. The si e is aunique inland exchange si e, ins ead o he colonies along he no h Aegean coas and Black Sea, which also expe ienced in ense in e ac ion be ween indigenous Th acians and G eeks. Ch onologically, he si e p esen s ape iod in which he changes ha ma ked he ansi ion om he Ea ly o La e I on Age including G eek in e ac ion and he po e y wheel we e no longe new wi hin Th acian socie y. The demise o he si e was also be o e he ise o he Roman Empi e, which allows i o ep esen ap is ine La e I on Age si e wi hou la e in luences and makes i agood compa ison o u u e analysis o he ansi ion be ween he Ea ly and La e I on Age. I was also in iguing due o he a ailabili y o newly exca a ed, unde s udied ma e ial, alongside he long his o y o p e ious exca a ion and in e p e a ion, which allowed o he selec ion o asi e wi h such in e ac ion. A his poin i is possible o make dis inc ions be ween he manu ac u ing s yles b oadly ca ego ized in o wheel made and hand made essels. The di e ences in manu ac u ing ech‑ nique e eal also di e ences in clay p epa a ion, i ing pa ame e s, o m and unc ion o essels. Al hough his may seem like di e en echniques can be easily g ouped, he esul s show di e ences in inishes and deco a ions bu also c ossed o e be ween echniques. These di e ences and simila i ies show ha some adi ional elemen s con inued while new ideas abou manu ac u ing also impac ed p oduc ion. The esul s p esen ed in he p e ious sec‑ ion only p esen apo ion o his si e, bu he esul s show ha u he s udy including pas exca a ion ma e ials by in e na ional eams emains o key impo ance o bo h in e p e ing he ce amics a Pis i os as well as he b oade egion o Th ace. 93ASHLEE B. HART The u u e o his esea ch aims o u he documen and analyze he di e si y o ce amics om I on Age Th ace and how such de elopmen s, h ough ime, we e a ec ed by cul u al ela ionships wi h non ‑Th acian g oups. The nex phase o his esea ch a emp s o c ea e a ypology and ch onology o he ce amics om Pis i os and beyond, which may be used o compa e changes in he ansi ion o he La e I on Age and du ing he La e I on Age based on c oss ‑cul u al in e ac ion in inland Th ace. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This esea ch was conduc ed as pa o my PhD disse a ion and was made possible by he gene ous suppo o he Fulb igh ‑Hays P og am, he Ame ican Resea ch Cen e in So ia, Lambda Alpha, and he Ma k Diamond Resea ch Fund a he Uni e si y a Bu alo. Thank you o Pis i os Si e Di ec o Ass P o D Alexey Go se , Balkan He i age P og am Di ec o D Angela Penche a, and he A chaeological Museum “P o .M. Doma adzki”. Iam g a e ul o my colleagues a he Uni e si y a Bu alo and my amily o hei c i iques, edi s, and commen s along he way. BIBLIOGRAPHY A chibald, Z. 1996: Impo ed A henian igu ed po e y (1988–91). In: Bouzek– Doma adzki– A chibald (eds.) 1996, 77–88. A chibald, Z. 1998:The Od ysian Kingdom o Th ace. O pheus Unmasked. Ox o d. Biehl, P.– Glese , R.2003: Theo ien und Me hoden de S ilanalyse. InM.K.J. Egge (ed.): Zwischen E klä en und Ve s ehen. Bei äge zu den e kenn nis heo e ischen G undlagen a chäologische In e p e a ion. Müns e , 125–153. Bilde, P.G. 2008: Some Re lec ions on Escha ological Cu en s, Diaspo ic Expe ience, and G oup Iden i y in he No hwes e n Black Sea Region. In: P.G. Bilde– J.H. Pe e sen (eds.): Mee ings o Cul u es in he Black Sea Region: Be ween Con lic and Coexis ence. Aa hus, 29–46. Boháč, L. 2002: Lamps om Pis i os (1995–1998): In: Bouzek– Doma adzka– A chibald (eds.) 2002, 183–188. Bouzek, J. 1990:S udies o G eek Po e y in he Black Sea A ea. P aha. Bouzek, J. 1994: The Dis ibu ion o G eek Pain ed Po e y in he Medi e anean and in he Black Sea Region. ACompa ison.Ox o d Jou nal o A chaeology13(2), 241–243. Bouzek, J. 1996: Tex ile Indus y. In: Bouzek– Doma adzki– A chibald (eds.) 1996, 117–166. Bouzek, J. 2002: The No h G eek Wheel ‑Made Glazed Po e y in Pis i os, Pa 1: Classi ica ion and Possible Sou ces. In: Bouzek– Doma adzki– A chibald (eds.) 2002, 149–182. Bouzek, J. 2007: The De elopmen o Local Po e y a Pis i os: P elimina y Ske ch o i s Ch onology. In: Bouzek– Doma adzka– A chibald (eds.) 2007, 205–220. Bouzek, J.– Doma adzka, L. 2008a: The Empo ion Pis i os Nea Ve en Be ween G ea Powe s: 450–278 BC.In: A. Iako idou (ed.): Th ace in he G aeco -Roman Wo ld. A hina, 86–94. Bouzek, J.– Doma adzka, L. 2008b: Th acian G ey Po e y in Bulga ia: Pis i os and O he Si es. In: A. A am– L. Buzoianu– C. Che a– G. Cus u ea– P.Dupon – V. Lungu– I. Nas asi (eds.): Pon ic G ey Wa es. In e na ional Con e ence Buca es -Cons anza, Sep embe 30 h–Oc obe 3 d, Pon ica Supp. 42. Cons anța, 199–222. Bouzek, J.– Doma adzki, M.– A chibald, Z. 1996 (eds.): Pis i osI. Exca a ions and S udies. P aha. Bouzek, J.– Doma adzka, L.– A chibald, Z. 2002 (eds.): Pis i osII. Exca a ions and S udies. P aha. 94 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 Bouzek, J.– Doma adzka, L.– A chibald, Z. 2007 (eds.): Pis i osIII. Exca a ions and S udies. P aha. Bouzek, J.– Doma adzka, L.– A chibald, Z. 2009 (eds.): Pis i osIV. Exca a ions and S udies. P aha. Bouzeke al. 2007 = Bouzek, J.– Rückl, Š.– Ti z, P.– Cha da , T. 2007: T ade Ampho ae. In: J. Bouzek– M. Doma adzki– Z. A chibald (eds.) 2007, 133–186. Bouzeke al. 2013 = Bouzek, J.– Doma adzka, L.– Go ze , A.– A chibald, Z. 2013: Pis i osV. Exca a ions and S udies. P aha. Bozko a, A. 2014: Wes Slope Po e y om Mesamb ia Pon ike. In: P.Bilde– M. Lawell (eds.): Po e y, People and Places. S udy and In e p e a ion o La e Hellenis ic Po e y. Aa hus, 199–214. Chankowski, V.– Doma adzka, L. 1999: Réédi ion de l’ insc ip ion de Pis i os e p oblèmes d’ in e p é a ion. Bulle in de co espondance hellénique 123, 247–258. Chankowski, V.– Go ze , A.– Neh izo , G. 2004: Pis i os. Bulle in de co espondance hellénique 128 (21), 1226–1253. Chi e ell, R.C.– A chibald, Z. 2009: Human Ac i i y and Landscape Change a Adjiyska Vodeni sa, Cen al Bulga ia. Geoa chaeology. Human -en i onmen Connec i i y 14(4), 287–302. de Boe , J. 2002: Apollonia Pon ica and i s Empo ia, Po s o T ade? In:M. Faudo – A. F aysse– É. Geny (eds.): Pon -Euxin e comme ce : la genèse de la “ ou e de la soie”. Ac es du IX Symposium de Vani, Colchide, 1999. Besançon, 125–138. Doma adzka, L. 2005: G aeco ‑Th acian Rela ions in he Uppe Ma i za Valley (5 h–4 h c. BC) (based on epig aphic e idence). In: J. Bouzek– L. Doma adzka (eds.): The cul u e o Th acians and hei neighbou s. P oceedings o he in e na ional symposium in memo y o p o .Mieczysław Doma adzki, wi h a ound able “A chaeological Map o Bulga ia”. Ox o d, 19–27. Doma adzki, M. 2002: G ey Po e y om Pis i os, Pa I. In: Bouzek– Doma adzka– A chibald (eds.) 2002, 189–207. Geo gie a, R.2003: The Ea ly I on Age Po e y om Sou hwes e n Bulga ia and he “Tsepina” Phenome‑ non.In: D. Mi e ski (ed.): Пираjхме 2, 159–196. G aninge , D. 2012: Documen a y Con ex s o he ‚Pis i os Insc ip ion‘. Elec um 19, 99–110. Go se , A.– Pe o a, V. 2013 = Гоцев, А.– Петрова, В. 2013: Емпорион Пистирос. Археологически Проучвания вКВ. Б23 иБ‘3. Aрхеологически открития иразкопки през 2012 г., 132–135. Go se , A.– Pe o a, V. 2014 = Гоцев, А.– Петрова, В. 2014: Eмпорион Пистирос. Археологически проучвания вкв. Б23, кв. Б24, кв. Б‘3 икв. Б‘4. Aрхеологически открития иразкопки през 2013 г., 144–147. Go se , A.– Pe o a, V. 2015 = Гоцев, А.– Петрова, В. 2015: Емпорион Пистирос. Археологически проучвания вкв. Б 23, Б 24, Б’3 иБ’4. Aрхеологически открития иразкопки през 2014 г., 196–200. Go se , A.– Pe o a, V.– Tane a, V. 2016 = Гоцев, А.– Петрова, В.– Танева, В. 2016: Емпорион Пистирос. Археологически Проучвания вКВ. Б 23, Б 24, Б’3, Б’4 иЖ 4. Aрхеологически открития иразкопки през 2015 г., 252–255. Go se , A.– Pe o a, V.– Tane a, V. 2017 = Гоцев, А.– Петрова, В.– Танева, В. 2017: Емпорион Пистирос. Археологически Проучвания вКВ. Б23, Б’3, Б’4 иГ3. Aрхеологически открития иразкопки през 2016 г., 149–152. Hanzhiyska 2007 = Ханджийска, В. 2007: Традиции итенденции впроизводството на керамика на рька вднешна югоизточна бьлгария през VI–Iв. пр. Хр. Специализиран научен сьвет по стара исредновековна история, археология иетнография при вак. София. Unpublished dise a ion. Hanzhiyska 2010 = Ханджийска, В. 2010: Tехнологични характеристики на керамиката на ръка от тракия през производствени етапи (по материали от територията на днешна Югоизточна България). In: E. Penche a (ed.): S udia A chaeologica Uni e si a is Se dicensis Supplemen um V: S ephanos A chaeologicos in hono em P o esso is S ephcae Angelo a. So ia, 227–247. Hanzhiyska 2012 = Ханджийска, В. 2012: Ръчно изработена местна керамика от резиденцията вподножието на връх Кози Грамади. In: И. Христов (ed.): Кози Грамади: проучване на одриска владетелска резиденция исветилища вСредна гора VIII–Iв. пр. Хр. София, 133–150. 95ASHLEE B. HART Ho ejs, B. 2010: Possibili ies and Limi a ions in Analysing Ce amic Wa es. In: B. Ho ejs– R. Jung– P.Pa úk (eds.): Analysing Po e y. P ocessing, Classi ica ion, Publica ion. B a isla a, 15–27. Madzha o 2006 = Маджаров, М. 2006: Археологически разкопки на тракийско селище при с. Кръстевич, община Хисаря. Bulga ian Academy o Sciences Annual Repo 2016, 161–164. Ma ys, A. 2013: Tex ile Indus y: loom ‑weigh s and spindle ‑who ls. In: Bouzek– Doma adzki– A chibald (eds.) 2013, 167–172. Ma ys, M. 2013: Lamps om Pis i os (2006–2012). In: Bouzeke al. (eds.) 2013, 155–160. Niko , K. 1999: Aeolian “Bucche o” in Th ace? A chaeologia Bulga ica 2, 31–42. Niko , K. 2001: Cul u al In e ela ions in he La e B onze Age and in he Ea ly I on Age. Ma i sa Iz ok, A - chaeological Resea ch, 69–83. Niko , K. 2011: The Meaning o he Regionalism in he Ea ly I on Age Po e y Deco a ion in Sou h Th ace. In: V. Nikolo – K. Bač a o – H. Popo (eds.): In e disziplinä e Fo schungen zum Kul u e be au de Balkan- halbinsel. So ia, 209–227. O on, C.– Hughes, M. 2013: Po e y in A chaeology. Camb idge. Pe o a, V. 2018: A ic Pain ed Po e y a Empo ion Pis i os– Spa ial Dis ibu ion. In: P.Pa úk– V. Klonza‑ ‑Jaklo á– A. Ha ding (eds.): ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ. S udies in honou o Jan Bouzek. P ague, in p ess. Quinn, P.S. 2013: Ce amic Pe og aphy. The In e p e a ion o A chaeological Po e y & Rela ed A e ac s in Thin Sec ion. Ox o d. Sliwa, J.– Doma adzki, M. 1983: The Lowe S umešnica Valley in P ehis o ic, Ancien and Ea ly Medie al Times. K aków, 11–31. Tse skhladze, G. 1998: The G eek Colonisa ion o he Black Sea A ea: His o ical In e p e a ion o A chaeology. His o ia Einzelsch i en 121. S u ga . Tse skhladze, G.R.2000: Pis i os in he Sys em o Pon ic Empo ia. In: M. Doma adzki– L. Doma adzka– J. Bouzek– J. Ros opowicz (eds.): Pis i os e Thasos. S uc u es économiques dans la peninsule balkanique aux VIIe–IIe siècles a an J.–C. Opole, 233–246. Ashlee B. Ha An h opology Depa men Uni e si y a Bu alo, S a e Uni e si y o New Yo k 380 Milla d Fillmo e Academic Cen e Bu alo, NY 14261 USA aha 3@bu alo.edu 223PLATES Pl. 1/1: Empo ion Pis i os she ds ep esen ing he colo scale, om le o igh – G ey, Red B own, and Yellow B own. Pl. 2/1: Fea u es e i ied du ing he i s ‑yea ield wo k, combined wi h he ou e o Via Egna ia and he o iginal i e bed o he Sa eska Ri e (map by B. Weisso á, Via Egna ia acco ding o he Ba ing on A las).