<%BANNER%>

We Do Not Eat Meat with the Christians

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020108/00001

Material Information

Title: We Do Not Eat Meat with the Christians Interaction and Integration between the Beta Israel and Amhara Christians of Gonder, Ethiopia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (492 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Klein, Rebecca A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: anthropology, archaeology, beta, caste, ethiopia, historical, israel, pottery
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In 1984 and 1991, two events occurred that dramatically changed the lives of thousands of people. These events, called Operation Moses and Operation Solomon, respectively, involved airlifting close to thirty thousand Beta Israel, the ?Black Jews? of Ethiopia, out of the country of their birth to their new homeland, Israel. This marked the culmination of the growing relationship between the Beta Israel and world Jewry, and sparked worldwide awareness and interest into the lives and history of these people. This migration to Israel has allowed the Beta Israel to live enveloped in what they consider to be their cultural and religious heritage, and to raise their children according to traditional Jewish law. However, it also inevitably leads to the imminent loss of a unique and fascinating culture. As the next generation is born and raised in Israel, the opportunity to learn about life as a Jew in Ethiopia is slowly dying out. At the same time, the country of Ethiopia is losing a group of people that have been integral throughout history to the development of Ethiopian culture. The Beta Israel (also known as the Falasha) have traditionally called themselves Jews, practice a form of Judaism, and trace their lineage directly to one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. They have long been considered outcasts by other ethnic groups in Ethiopia, and throughout history have undergone various levels of persecution under different political and military leaders. Prior to the mid-17th century, the Beta Israel did not form a unified group, but lived primarily in small renegade camps scattered throughout northern Ethiopia. One of the most significant periods of Beta Israel history in terms of their formation into a discrete outcast society is the Gonder Era (1636-1755). This period saw the city of Gonder develop into a large urban multi-ethnic community, with well-defined class divisions. The Beta Israel, who have historically held low-status positions as potters, weavers, smiths and masons, were incorporated into the economic sphere of this urban center, while remaining socially and religiously outcast. For the first time in their documented history, they were treated as a unified occupational caste. In the past several decades much historical research has been done on the Beta Israel. However, there has been virtually no ethnographic or archaeological research documenting Beta Israel life in Ethiopia. We thus know very little about how the Beta Israel organized their daily lives, or their day-to-day relations with Christian neighbors. This study focuses on addressing questions of Beta Israel ? non-Beta Israel relations in the 17th and 18th centuries through a combination of ethnographic and archaeological research. In particular, it looks at pottery traditions of the Gonder Beta Israel artisans of this period. It is theoretically grounded in a school of thought in anthropology that argues that style in material culture is a way for people to convey information about cultural identity and group affiliation. These messages may be intensified when a group feels its identity is under threat. This study examines the pottery of the Beta Israel with an eye towards identifying any changes or discontinuities in that material that might be a reflection of how the Beta Israel of 17th and 18th century Gonder responded to the changing social organization of the area during that time.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rebecca A Klein.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Brandt, Steven A.
Local: Co-adviser: Schmidt, Peter R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0020108:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020108/00001

Material Information

Title: We Do Not Eat Meat with the Christians Interaction and Integration between the Beta Israel and Amhara Christians of Gonder, Ethiopia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (492 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Klein, Rebecca A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: anthropology, archaeology, beta, caste, ethiopia, historical, israel, pottery
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In 1984 and 1991, two events occurred that dramatically changed the lives of thousands of people. These events, called Operation Moses and Operation Solomon, respectively, involved airlifting close to thirty thousand Beta Israel, the ?Black Jews? of Ethiopia, out of the country of their birth to their new homeland, Israel. This marked the culmination of the growing relationship between the Beta Israel and world Jewry, and sparked worldwide awareness and interest into the lives and history of these people. This migration to Israel has allowed the Beta Israel to live enveloped in what they consider to be their cultural and religious heritage, and to raise their children according to traditional Jewish law. However, it also inevitably leads to the imminent loss of a unique and fascinating culture. As the next generation is born and raised in Israel, the opportunity to learn about life as a Jew in Ethiopia is slowly dying out. At the same time, the country of Ethiopia is losing a group of people that have been integral throughout history to the development of Ethiopian culture. The Beta Israel (also known as the Falasha) have traditionally called themselves Jews, practice a form of Judaism, and trace their lineage directly to one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. They have long been considered outcasts by other ethnic groups in Ethiopia, and throughout history have undergone various levels of persecution under different political and military leaders. Prior to the mid-17th century, the Beta Israel did not form a unified group, but lived primarily in small renegade camps scattered throughout northern Ethiopia. One of the most significant periods of Beta Israel history in terms of their formation into a discrete outcast society is the Gonder Era (1636-1755). This period saw the city of Gonder develop into a large urban multi-ethnic community, with well-defined class divisions. The Beta Israel, who have historically held low-status positions as potters, weavers, smiths and masons, were incorporated into the economic sphere of this urban center, while remaining socially and religiously outcast. For the first time in their documented history, they were treated as a unified occupational caste. In the past several decades much historical research has been done on the Beta Israel. However, there has been virtually no ethnographic or archaeological research documenting Beta Israel life in Ethiopia. We thus know very little about how the Beta Israel organized their daily lives, or their day-to-day relations with Christian neighbors. This study focuses on addressing questions of Beta Israel ? non-Beta Israel relations in the 17th and 18th centuries through a combination of ethnographic and archaeological research. In particular, it looks at pottery traditions of the Gonder Beta Israel artisans of this period. It is theoretically grounded in a school of thought in anthropology that argues that style in material culture is a way for people to convey information about cultural identity and group affiliation. These messages may be intensified when a group feels its identity is under threat. This study examines the pottery of the Beta Israel with an eye towards identifying any changes or discontinuities in that material that might be a reflection of how the Beta Israel of 17th and 18th century Gonder responded to the changing social organization of the area during that time.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rebecca A Klein.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Brandt, Steven A.
Local: Co-adviser: Schmidt, Peter R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0020108:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





WE DO NOT EAT MEAT WITH THE CHRISTIANS: INTERACTION AND INTEGRATION
BETWEEN THE BETA ISRAEL AND AMHARA CHRISTIANS OF GONDER, ETHIOPIA




















By

REBECCA A. KLEIN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007





































O 2007 Rebecca A. Klein





























To Grandma and Papa.
I miss you.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Well it' s not the Oscars, but there are still a number of people I would like to thank; I

would not have reached this point without them.

First and foremost, I must express my gratitude to the Ethiopian authorities who made this

research possible: Ato Jara Haile Mariam, director of the Authority for Research and

Conservation of Cultural Heritage (ARCCH) at the Ministry of Information and Culture, Ato

Fantahun, head of the woreda branch of ARCCH, Ato Yonas Bayene, head of archaeology at

ARCCH, and at the National Museum, Mamitu Yilma and Menkir Bitew. My field crew in

Gender, Nega, Tiru, Maway, Azano, Mulat, and Yohannes, are responsible for making the

Abwara Giorgis season as successful as it was, and for constantly making me laugh at the same

time. My research assistant, Biruk, was invaluable throughout the course of this research, both

professionally and as a good friend. This proj ect would not have gotten off the ground without

him. The wonderful people in Gonder made me feel welcome in an unfamiliar place.

A number of institutions provided financial support for this research. I would like to thank

Fulbright-Hayes. I also thank the Center for African Studies and the Center for Jewish Studies at

the University of Florida for providing travel grants in 1999 to Ethiopia and in 2005 to Israel.

The UF Alumni Fellowship and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Dissertation

Fellowship provided me with the means to pursue a graduate degree in anthropology. Finally

thanks are extended to the Charles H. Fairbanks committee for awarding me a scholarship to help

defray the costs of completing this degree.

The members of my dissertation committee have given me constant encouragement, advice

and criticism throughout my graduate career. I would especially like to thank my committee

chairs. Dr. Steven Brandt always pushed me to step outside my comfort zone and go to the next

level. Dr. Peter Schmidt was always there to help me explore new theoretical and interpretive










paths. Dr. Luise White has been a maj or force in the development of my perspectives relating to

history, anthropology and archaeology, and how they can and should work together. Dr. Mike

Heckenberger gave me a solid background in theoretical perspectives in anthropology, and has

been a constant source of inspiration and entertainment. Dr. Kenneth Wald came through for me

at the last minute and was able to provide a new and refreshing perspective on this work.

Many other people have contributed their time and attention during the course of my

academic career. The assistance of the staff in anthropology and in the Center for African

Studies, Karen Jones, Patricia Gaither King, Rhonda Riley, Michael Chege, Leo Villal6n, Todd

Leedy, and Corinna Greene is much appreciated. Dan Reboussin and Peter Malanchuk in the

UF library were unfailingly helpful. Zelalem Teka and Drs. H. Russell Bernard and Jeffrey

Johnson were invaluable statistical resources. John Davidson was responsible for digitizing the

unit profiles, and Ato Yonas K'Neah of the ARCCH conservation unit provided amazing

drawings of the various vessel types.

Special thanks go to Dr. James Quirin, who read sections of this study and made sure I

didn't hopelessly misrepresent Beta Israel historiographies. Also thanks to various experts in the

field, particularly Dr. Richard Pankhurst, whose conversations in Addis Ababa reassured me of

the relevance and importance of my research when I had lost all sight of the big picture; and to

Dr. Kay Kaufman Shelemay, who understood that fieldwork isn't just about conducting good

research.

My friends and colleagues at the University of Florida have been endless sources of

support, in addition to always challenging me to work harder and do better. These include John

Arthur, Kathy Weedman, Birgitta Kimura, Matt Behrend, Kenly Fenio, Kim Sloane, Agazi

Negash, Gifford Waters, and Florie Bugarin. In addition I would like to thank the new










generation of anthropology students who frequent the Salty Dog they know who they are for

always being ready for a study break with a beer and a smile.

Finally I would like to thank my family: my uncles Dennis and Roger, in whose

(enormous) footsteps I have attempted to follow, and my parents, who have always been the

pillars on which I lean.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ........._._ ...... .__ ...............12...


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............13....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 16...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............18.......... ......


The Beta Israel ................... ......... . ...............18....
The Archaeology of the Beta Israel ................ ...............20...............
Research Questions............... ...............2
Research Design .............. .. ...............23...
Contributions to the Discipline ................. ...............24................
Castes in Africa? ............. ..... ...............24................
Historical Archaeology in Africa ............... ... ........ .. ............2
The delineation between the prehistoric and historic periods ................ ...............28
The emphasis on written records ................. ...............29........... ...
The emphasis on colonial contexts............... ...............30
Dissertation Organization ................ ...............34........... ....

2 HISTORY OF THE BETA ISRAEL................ ...............36


Beta Israel: The Beginnings ................. ...............37........... ...
A Question of Names............... ...............38
A Question of Languages ................... ... ......... ...............39......
The Beta Israel in Historical Records: Pre-Zagwe .............. ...............40....
Jews in the Zagwe Dynasty .............. ...............43....
The Rise of the Solomonic Dynasty ................. ...............44..............
Shawa: The New Center of Power ................. ...............46...............
Susenyos .............. ...............47....
The Gonder Era. .............. ... ... ........ ...............48......
Gender' s Physical and Social Structure ................. ............ ......... ........ ........49
Social Status in Gonder .............. ...............51....
The Era of the Princes. ........._..... ................ ...............53..
Social Structure during the ZamaZZZ~~~~~ZZZZZ~~~~~na asafnt ......____ ..... ... .....__ ...........5
The Beta Israel in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries ......____ ........_ ..............58

Kifu-qen: Bad Days............... ...............59..
Converting the Jews............... ...............59..
Saving the Jews............... ...... ..............6
Conclusions: Since F aitlovitch .............. ...............62....













3 RESEARCH DESIGN ................. ...............64........... ....


Interactions between Culture Groups: The Gonder Era .............. ...............66....

Interactions between Culture Groups: the Post-Gonder Era ................. ................ ...._.76

The Archaeology of Cultural Identity and Culture Contact .............. ....................7

Culture Contact in the Archaeological Record ...._ ......_____ .......___ ...........7


4 IVETHODS: EXCAVATIONS .............. ...............86....


Selecting a Site .............. ...............86....

Abwara Giorgis................... ......................8

Survey and Excavation: AG 2004 Site ................ ...............92...............
Radiocarbon Results ................. ...............96.......... .....

Excavation: Units F7 and G7................ ...............97..

Stratigraphy .............. ...............97....
LS-L1 ................. ...............97.................
LS-L2 .............. ...............100....

LS-L3 .............. ...............101....

LS-L4 .............. ...............101....

LS-L5 .............. ...............102....
LS-L6 .............. ...............102....

Contents of Layers ................. ...............103....._.__.....
Unit G 7-North ................. ... ................ ........0

Discussion of Units F7G7 and G7-North ................ ...............105..............
U nit A 2 .............. ...............105....

Stratigraphy .............. ...............106....
LS-L1 .........._.._ ........ ...............106.....

LS-L2 .............. ...............107....
LS-L3 .............. ...............107....

LS-L4 .............. ...............108....

LS-L5 .............. ...............109....

LS- L6 .............. ...............109....
LS-L7 ........._... ......___ ...............110....

LS-L8 ................. ...............111................

Contents of Layers ................. ...............111................
Discussion of Unit A2 ................. ...............112....... .....
U nit C4 ............._. ....._.. ...............113.....

Stratigraphy ................. ...............113._._._.......
LS-L1 .........._.._ ........ ...............113.....

LS-L2 ................. ...............114....._._ .....
LS-L3 ................. ...............114................

LS-L4 .........._.._. ....._.. ...............115.....

LS-L5 ........._.._.. ...._... ...............115....

Contents of Layers ........._..... ...._... ...............116....
Discussion of Unit C4 ..........._..._ ...............116..._.._ .....

U nit J3 ................ ...............117...............

Stratigraphy ................. ...............117._._._.......













LS-L1 ............. .....__. ...............117...
LS-L2 ................. ...............117....._._. .....

LS-L3 ................. ...............118................

LS-L4 ......... ................ ...............118......

LS-L5 ........._.__........_. ...............119....

Contents of Layers ........._.__....... .__. ...............119...
Discussion of Unit J3 ................. ...............120..___ .....

U nit J8 ................ ...............121....... ......

Stratigraphy .............. ...............121....
LS-L1 ........._.__........_. ...............121....

LS-L2 .............. ...............122....

LS-L3 .............. ...............123....

LS-L4 .............. ...............123....

Contents of Layers ..........._...__........ ...............124....
Discussion of Unit J8 ................. ...............124..___ .....

Conclusions............... ..............12


5 ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH .............. ...............160....


Wezoro Shashay Adafre .............. ...............162....

W ezoro Nigiste ............. ........._ .............._ _.. ...........16
Wezoro Derecha and Wezoro Wark Abeba Getahun ........._..._.._ ............_._......... ..164

Wezoro Amenu Takale ................. ...............166....._.._ ....

Wezoro Alemit Chaney .............. ...............169....

Wezoro Tuhuni Mazenga .............. ...............171....
Wezoro Tinash Werk Amara ................. ...............173...............

Wezoro Astela Yalew ................. ...............176................
D discussion ................... ......... ...............179......

Variations in T echnol ogies............... ............ 18

Spatial Patterns ................. ...............185......... ......

Goj am and Achefer ........._.._.. ...._... ...............186...
Chilga ........._.._.. ...._... ...............187....
Alefata Wusa ................. ...............188.......... .....

Conclusions............... ..............18


6 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .............. ...............198....


Data Analysis............... ...............19

Pottery Attributes............... ..............20
Vessel Form ................. ...............201......._ ......

Surface Treatments ................. ...............203......... .....
Decoration .............. ...............204....

Inclusions............... ..............20

Use Alteration............... ..............20

U nit A 2 .............. ...............208....

Vessel Types............... ...............208.
Vessel Form ................. ...............209._._._.......














Vessel wall thickness .............. ...............209....

Inclusions .............. ...............209....

Surface treatments ........._... ..... ...............210...

Decoration .............. ...............212....

Vessel Function .............. ...............216....

U nit C4............... ...............217..

Vessel Types............... ...............217.
Vessel Form ............. ..... ...............219...

Vessel wall thickness .............. ...............219....

Inclusions .............. ...............219....

Surface treatments ............. ...... ...............220...

Decoration .............. ...............223....

Vessel Function .............. ...............226....

Unit J3 ................. ...............228................

Vessel Types............... ...............229.
Vessel Form ................. .... ....... ... ......... ..........23

Vessel wall thickness and rim diameter ................. ...............230..............

Inclusions ................. ...............23. 1..............

Surface treatments ................ ...............232................

Decoration .............. ...............234....

Vessel Function .............. ...............236....

U nit J8............... ...............237..

Vessel Types............... ...............237.
Vessel Form ................. ...............238................

Vessel wall thickness .............. ...............238....

Inclusions .............. ...............239....

Surface treatments ................ ...............239................

Decoration .............. ...............240....

Vessel Function .............. ...............242....

Units F7 and G7................ ...............243..

Unit F7G7 ............. ..... ...............244...

Vessel type .............. ...............244....
Vessel form .............. ...............245....

Decoration .............. ...............247....

Vessel function ............. ..... ...............249...

Unit G7-North ................. ...............251................

Vessel form ................. ...............251......... ......

Decoration .............. ...............252....

Ves sel function ................. ...............253................

Unit G7-West ................. ...............254................

Patterns across Units ................. ...............254................

Vessel Forms .............. ...............255....

Vessel wall thickness .............. ...............256....

Ri diameter ................. ...............257......... .....

Rim shape ................. ...............259................
Inclusions .............. ...............259....





10












Surface treatments ................. ...............260......... ......
Discussion .............. ...............261....
Decoration .............. ...............262....
Vessel Function .............. ...............264....
Discussion ................. ...............266................

Change Over Time............... ...............267.
Vessel Types............... ...............267.
Vessel Form .................. ........... ... .. ....................26
Wall thickness and surface treatment ................. ...............268........... ...
Inclusions .............. ...............269....
Vessel Function .............. ...............270....
Decoration .............. ...............270....
Iron Production ................ ...............273................
Conclusions............... ..............27


7 CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE ................. ......................3 93


Change over Time.................... ........... .........9
Implications of this Study: Historical Archaeology .............. ...............397....
Directions for Future Research ................. ...............398...............


APPENDIX


A AG TEST SITE #1 BAG CATALOG ................. ...............400.............


B TEMPORARY DATUM ELEVATIONS .............. ...............401....


C AG 2004 BAG CATALOG ................. ...............402........... ...


D FAUNAL CATALOG, AG 2004 .............. ...............412....


E ARTIFACT CATALOG NON-POTTERY MATERIAL S .....____ ...........__..........425


F AG 2004 POTTERY: BODY SHERD COUNTS AND WEIGHTS .............. ..................429


G POTTERY ATTRIBUTES BY VES SEL TYPE ....._._._ ...... ._.. ......_._.........3


LI ST OF REFERENCE S ........._. ....... .__ ...............471...


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............492....











LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Radiocarbon dates from AG 2004. ................ ...............128....... ...

5-1 Patterns in the ethnographic study ................. ...............191.._.._._ ...

6-1 Body sherd frequency by level .............. ...............278....

6-2 Summary of sherd types, AG 2004 .............. ...............280....

6-3 Descriptive stati sti cs for rim di ameter by ves sel type ................. ....__. .................8

6-4 Rim statistics in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage. .............. ...............288....

6-5 Descriptive statistics for vessel wall thickness by vessel type ........_.._. .... ....._.._. .......293

6-6 Descriptive statistics for rim diameters by vessel type............... ...............297.

6-7 Vessel types at AG 2004 .............. ...............302....

6-8 Decoration elements in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage ............_. ......_. ..............3 03

6-9 Decoration methods in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage .............. ...............304....

6-10 Diagnostic pottery frequency by level ........._.._ .......__ ...............305

6-11 Inclusion types in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage .............. ...............307....

6-12 Surface treatment patterns in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage..........._.._. ........._.._. ...310

6-13 Decoration types in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage .............. ...............318....

6-14 Decoration locations in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage .............. ......................2

6-15 Use alteration frequencies in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage..........._.._. ........._.._. ...325

6-16 Use alteration for unidentified vessel types............... ...............335.

6-17 Rim type frequency .............. ...............339....

6-18 Slag frequencies and weights from AG 2004 ............_. ......_. ........__.........4











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page


2-1 Beta Israel villages in Gonder (1636-1868). ............. ...............63.....


4-1 1632 Map of Gonder ................. ...............129........... ..

4-2 Aerial photograph of Gonder region .............. .....................130


4-3 Location of Abwara Giorgi s (AG) ................. ...............131._..._ ...

4-4 AG Test Site location .............. ...............132....


4-5 AG 2004 shovel test map............... ...............133..

4-6 AG 2004 site grid .............. ...............134....


4-7 Unit F7 east wall profile ................ ...............135..............

4-8 G7 south wall profile and photograph ................ ...............136........... ..


4-9 Profile ofF7G7 firing area .............. ...............137....

4-10 F7 firing pit ................. ...............138..............

4-11 F7 w all ................. ...............138.......... ...


4-12 Extrapolated size and shape ofF7 rock wall with firing area .............. ....................13


4-13 Unit F7: old wall and new wall, facing south ................. ...............140...........

4-14 Possible feature in western G7 .............. ...............140....


4-15 Southeast corner of unit F7 ................. ...............141..............


4-16 Porcelain sherd from F7G7 LS-L4 ............_.._ ...............141...._.__ ..


4-17 G7-North level 7............... ...............142...

4-18 Unit A2 north wall ................. ...............143.......... ...


4-19 Unit A2 east wall .............. ...............145....


4-20 Unit A2 west wall ................. ...............147.......... ...


4-21 Possible feature in southeast corner of unit A2 ................ ...............149............


4-22 Unit A2: profile of residential unit in northwest corner ......... ................. ...............150











4-23 A2 rock feature ................ ...............151...............


4-24 Extrapolated size and orientation of A2 feature ................. ..........._. ....152...... ..

4-25 Unit C4 west wall .............. ...............153....


4-26 C4 level 9 feature............... ...............154


4-27 J3 east wall profile and photograph............... ..............15

4-28 J3 wall feature............... ...............156


4-29 Unit J8 north wall .............. ...............157....


4-30 Unit J8 east wall .............. ...............158....


4-31 Unit J8: rock line in northwest and pit in northeast............... ...............15

4-32 Layout of structure elements at AG2004 .....__.....___ ..........._ ...........5


5-1 The Gonder Region .............. ...............193....


5-2 Derecha making and decorating a diste ..........__._ ...._. ...............194.


5-3 Wark making and decorating a jebena .............. ...............195...___ ....

5-4 Amenu making and decorating a jebena .............. ...............196....

5-5 Lid for a diste ..........__._ .... .___ ...............197...


5-6 Tuhuni's roasted and ground termite clay ........._._.. ....__. ...............197


6-1 The main vessel types in Beta Israel pottery .............. ...............348....

6-2 Rim types at AG 2004 .............. ...............349....


6-3 Vessel types and rims .............. ...............352....

6-4 Slip frequencies by vessel type............... ...............356.


6-5 Mean sherd thickness by vessel shape............... ...............357.

6-6 Mean rim thickness by vessel type ................. ...............358........... ..


6-7 Exterior rim and handle of butter-making vessel from unit A2 ................. ............... .....3 59


6-8 Surface treatment by vessel type. ............. ...............360....

6-9 Unit A2: surface treatment over time .............. ...............365....











6-10 Different decoration types in unit A2. .............. ...............366....

6-11 Decoration type by vessel type. .............. ...............367....

6-12 Unit A2: changes in decoration types over time .....__.___ .... ... .___ ......._........7

6-13 Unit C4: changes in surface treatment over time .............. ...............375....

6-14 Decorative types from unit C4............... ...............376..

6-15 Unit C4: changes in decoration type over time. ............. ...............377....

6-16 Unit J3: Changes in surface treatment over time ........_... ............ ...._..._.......37

6-17 Decoration types in unit J3 ............_... ........._... ...._.__................_ .....380

6-18 Unit J3: changes in decoration over time. ............. ...............381....

6-19 Unit J8: changes in surface treatment over time............... ...............383.

6-20 Decorative types from unit J8 ........._..._... ...............383....... ....

6-21 Unit F7G7: changes in surface treatment over time ................. .. .....___ ......... .384

6-22 Decorative types from unit F7G7 .............. ...............385....

6-23 Changes in unit F7G7 decoration over time. .............. ...............386....

6-24 Sherd thickness ranges by unit .............. ...............390....

6-25 Rim diameter ranges by unit............... ...............391.

6-26 Unit G7-North: stamping on pottery .............. ...............392....

6-27 Unidentified sherd types from A) unit A2; B) unit F7G7 .............. ......................9









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

WE DO NOT EAT MEAT WITH THE CHRISTIANS: INTERACTION AND INTEGRATION
BETWEEN THE BETA ISRAEL AND AMHARA CHRISTIANS OF GONDER, ETHIOPIA

By

Rebecca A. Klein

August 2007

Chair: Steven A. Brandt
Cochair: Peter R. Schmidt
Major: Anthropology

In 1984 and 1991, two events occurred that dramatically changed the lives of thousands of

people. These events, called Operation Moses and Operation Solomon, respectively, involved

airlifting close to thirty thousand Beta Israel, the "Black Jews" of Ethiopia, out of the country of

their birth to their new homeland, Israel. This marked the culmination of the growing

relationship between the Beta Israel and world Jewry, and sparked worldwide awareness and

interest into the lives and history of these people.

This migration to Israel has allowed the Beta Israel to live enveloped in what they consider

to be their cultural and religious heritage, and to raise their children according to traditional

Jewish law. However, it also inevitably leads to the imminent loss of a unique and fascinating

culture. As the next generation is born and raised in Israel, the opportunity to learn about life as

a Jew in Ethiopia is slowly dying out. At the same time, the country of Ethiopia is losing a group

of people that have been integral throughout history to the development of Ethiopian culture.

The Beta Israel (also known as the Falasha) have traditionally called themselves Jews,

practice a form of Judaism, and trace their lineage directly to one of the Ten Lost Tribes of

Israel. They have long been considered outcasts by other ethnic groups in Ethiopia, and









throughout history have undergone various levels of persecution under different political and

military leaders. Prior to the mid-17th century, the Beta Israel did not form a unified group, but

lived primarily in small renegade camps scattered throughout northern Ethiopia.

One of the most significant periods of Beta Israel history in terms of their formation into a

discrete outcast society is the Gonder Era (1636-1755). This period saw the city of Gonder

develop into a large urban multi-ethnic community, with well-defined class divisions. The Beta

Israel, who have historically held low-status positions as potters, weavers, smiths and masons,

were incorporated into the economic sphere of this urban center, while remaining socially and

religiously outcast. For the first time in their documented history, they were treated as a unified

occupational caste.

In the past several decades much historical research has been done on the Beta Israel.

However, there has been virtually no ethnographic or archaeological research documenting Beta

Israel life in Ethiopia. We thus know very little about how the Beta Israel organized their daily

lives, or their day-to-day relations with Christian neighbors. This study focuses on addressing

questions of Beta Israel non-Beta Israel relations in the 17th and 18th centuries through a

combination of ethnographic and archaeological research. In particular, it looks at pottery

traditions of the Gonder Beta Israel artisans of this period. It is theoretically grounded in a

school of thought in anthropology that argues that style in material culture is a way for people to

convey information about cultural identity and group affiliation. These messages may be

intensified when a group feels its identity is under threat. This study examines the pottery of the

Beta Israel with an eye towards identifying any changes or discontinuities in that material that

might be a reflection of how the Beta Israel of 17th and 18th century Gonder responded to the

changing social organization of the area during that time.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

In 1984 and 1991, two events occurred that dramatically changed the lives of thousands

of people. These events, called Operation Moses and Operation Solomon, respectively, involved

airlifting close to thirty thousand Beta Israel, the "Black Jews" of Ethiopia, out of the country of

their birth to their new homeland, Israel. This marked the culmination of the growing

relationship between the Beta Israel and World Jewry, and sparked worldwide awareness and

interest into the lives and history of these people.

This migration to Israel has allowed the Beta Israel to live enveloped in what they consider

to be their cultural and religious heritage, and to raise their children according to traditional

Jewish law. However, it also inevitably leads to the imminent loss of a unique and fascinating

culture. As the next generation is born and raised in Israel, the opportunity to learn about life as

a Jew in Ethiopia is slowly dying out. At the same time, the country of Ethiopia is losing a group

of people that have been integral throughout history to the development of Ethiopian culture.

This dissertation is intended to contribute to the recording and preservation of as much

information as possible about this extraordinary chapter in the histories of both Ethiopia and the

Jewish religion.

The Beta Israel

The Beta Israel (also known as the Falasha) have traditionally called themselves Jews,

practice a form of Judaism, and trace their lineage directly to one of the Ten Lost Tribes of

Israel. They have long been considered outcasts by other ethnic groups in Ethiopia, and

throughout history have undergone various levels of persecution under different political and

military leaders. Prior to the mid-17th century, the Beta Israel did not form a unified group, but

lived primarily in small renegade camps (Quirin 1992) scattered throughout northern Ethiopia.









One of the most significant periods of Beta Israel history in terms of their formation into a

discrete outcast society is the Gonder Era (1636-1755). This period began with the

establishment of Gonder, in northwest Ethiopia, the first permanent capital city since the 13th

century. Gender brought people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds together in an

urban setting, as demand rose for the skills they offered. As the population grew and became

more diverse, class divisions became more visible. The Beta Israel, who have historically

worked as artisans, were incorporated into the economic sphere of this urban center. With their

craft skills they were instrumental in the construction of Gonder' s monumental castles and

churches, while maintaining their more traditional occupations as smiths, potters, and weavers,

and some as soldiers in the kings' regiments. At the same time, the Beta Israel remained

socially, religiously, and physically separate from the other ethnic groups that made up Gonder

society, particularly the dominant group, the Amhara Christians. They lived in culturally

homogenous settlements on the outskirts of the city, and had minimal daily interaction with their

Christian neighbors. In general, this period is remembered as one in which the Beta Israel

enjoyed relatively high status in Gonder society, and marks the beginning of what scholars

(Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1992) have called their formulation into a unified social and occupational

caste.

The process of developing into a discrete caste society continued during the following

period, known as the Zamana Masafent (Era of the Princes), approximately 1755-1868. During

this period Gonder declined as the capital of the empire. Historical records are contradictory

regarding the effect this had on Gonder' s Beta Israel. Some argue it had little effect on their

daily lifeways; others claim that during this period the Beta Israel lost whatever status and land-

rights they might have gained as artisans during Gonder' s zenith, and that they largely reverted









to their pre-Gondarine low-status occupations of pottery, smithing and weaving. However, most

historians agree that during this period, social and physical separation between the Beta Israel

and the Amhara was maintained, with both groups working to remain apart (Quirin 1992).

The Archaeology of the Beta Israel

A great deal of research has been done on the Beta Israel, particularly since their mass

migration to Israel vaulted them into the international spotlight. They have been studied from

historical perspectives (Hess 1969, Kaplan 1984, 1987, 1992, Messing 1982, 1999, Pankhurst

1992, Parfitt and Trevisan Semi 1999, Quirin 1977, 1992, 1993, 1995), ethnographic

perspectives (Edelstein 2003, Kaplan and Salamon 2003, Pankhurst 1998, Salamon 1999, Weil

1999), musical perspectives (Arom and Tourney 1999, Shelemay 1977, 1980, 1986, Tourney

1999), religious perspectives (Kaplan 1988, 1992b, Leslau 1946), and medical perspectives (Bat-

Miriam 1962, Hirsch 1999, Nudelman 2000, 2001, Seeman 1999), to give just a sample of the

spectrum of research that has been conducted.

A cursory examination of the current trends in Beta Israel studies is enough to show that

the vast maj ority of this research focuses on post-Operations Moses and Solomon topics, and

places the Beta Israel in the context of new immigrants in Israeli society. While this is without

question an interesting and relevant area of study, it is interesting to note that the body of

research focusing on Beta Israel lives in Ethiopia (which of course encompasses the maj ority of

their history) has been small in comparison: a handful of historiographies (Abbink 1987, Kaplan

1987, 1992, Messing 1982, 1999, Quirin, 1977, 1992, 1993, 1995), studies that attempt to place

these people into a more globally Jewish context (Blady 2000, Corinaldi 1998, 2001, Kaplan

1999, Parfitt and Trevisan Semi 1999), a series of works on the influences of the Europeans

Joseph Halevy and Jacques Faitlovitch (Trevisan Semi 1999, 1999b). The reader will note that

archaeological approaches to studies of the Beta Israel are completely absent.










Why is that? There may be infinite reasons, but I would argue that a significant factor has

to do with the traditional relationship between archaeology and history. Historical archaeology

has traditionally been treated by American scholars as an auxiliary science to history (Harrington

1955), and for that reason has often been seen as redundant. In conducting historical

archaeology, anthropologists have been criticized for adopting expensive and destructive

methods to learn things that are already known through historical documents. In this case,

archaeological approaches to studies of Beta Israel lifeways in Ethiopia may have been

considered superfluous, considering the available body of historical records, and the modern

historiographies that have emerged from them.

This view is one-sided at best, and makes several assumptions that are rarely, if ever,

accurate. These include the assumptions that historical documentation is a) complete, and b)

accurate. The obvious fallacy of these assumptions can be seen in the truism that history is

written by the dominant or ruling group; this becomes clear in the relative paucity of written

records about or by the Beta Israel, as addressed in Chapter 2. Furthermore it is important to

remember that history is written by people with their own perspectives and biases it is a

construction, not merely a reconstruction. Thus, simply because a written record is preserved,

does not mean it is accurate, and certainly does not mean it is exhaustive. History is

characterized by "mentions and silences" (Trouillot 1995), it is by its nature a partial record.

We come, then, to the 17th, 18th, and 19th century Beta Israel in Gonder, to a period in their

history when a cohesive group identity was beginning to form, when social status as a group was

in flux, and when relationships between the Beta Israel and their Amhara neighbors were

constantly being renegotiated, as both groups were adjusting to life in a multi-ethnic, multi-

cultural urban setting. We have historical records from that period, and we have modern









histories that have been constructed based on these records (for example Hess 1969, Kaplan

1984, 1987, 1992, Messing 1982, 1999, Pankhurst 1992, Parfitt and Trevisan Semi 1999, Quirin

1977, 1992, 1993, 1995). But as I will show in Chapter 2, these sources are neither exhaustive,

nor are they always in agreement. So what questions do historians disagree on, and which

cannot be addressed through an historical approach? Archaeology, which can serve to address

history's silences (Stahl 2001), may provide some valuable insights.

Research Questions

One of those topics that may not have been satisfactorily addressed through an historical

approach alone is that of the changing relationships between the Beta Israel and the Amhara

Christians in the new capital city of Gonder. With the establishment of Gonder as the first

capital city in the Ethiopian empire since the 13th century, the Beta Israel found themselves in a

new position: for the first time in centuries they were incorporated into a multiethnic urban

setting, becoming an integral part of this new urban setting by providing necessary craft-related

goods and services. They began developing into a unified cultural and economic group within

the larger Gonder population. At the same time, they were religiously and socially outcast, and a

pattern of physical and social separation between themselves and the Amhara was established

that became a trademark of the Gonder Era and the subsequent Era of the Princes.

How might the Beta Israel have reacted to this new position in Gonder society, likely

fraught with tension,? How did they respond to the shift from a loosely defined group to a

cultural and occupational caste in a socially complex society? How did their interaction patterns

with the Amhara change, and how did the Beta Israel adapt to these changes? Did they seek to

become part of Gonder society, or did they prefer to remain separate? Were their daily life

patterns modified as a result of their new social-economic-political contexts, and if so, where did

change occur, and which social domains were rigidly maintained? And how did all this change









again, with the collapse of Gonder in the 18th century? Finally, how might these continuities or

discontinuities be recognizable in the archaeological record?

Research Design

It was with these questions in mind that I began formulating my research design. This

proj ect is made up of three phases, each drawing on a particular discipline and its associated

methodologies. The first phase was a thorough review of the historical narratives referencing the

Beta Israel during and after the Gonder Era. It was during this phase that two features began to

stand out: first, the ever-changing relationships between the Beta Israel and the Amhara

Christians of Gonder, and second, the contradictory ways these relationships are sometimes

represented in the various histories (Schmidt 2006).

With these two issues in mind, I conceived of an approach that could contribute to our

capacity to resolve these conflicting representations, an approach that combines archaeological,

historical and ethnographic data to develop a more holistic view of the levels and natures of

interaction patterns between the Gonder Beta Israel and Amhara. Phase Two of this proj ect,

which comprises the bulk of my research, consisted of an archaeological approach.

There exists a school of thought in anthropology (see Dietler and Herbich 1998; Hodder

1979, 1982, 1990; Sackett 1985, 1990 to name a few), which argues that style in material culture

- for example, decoration on pottery is a way for people to convey information about cultural

identity and group affiliation. As I will discuss in Chapter 3, material culture may be indicative

of cultural or ethnic identity, which includes affiliation with one group, and non-affiliation with

another. Since the contexts in which technical behaviors are constructed and reproduced

correspond to the same networks of social interaction upon which identities themselves are

constructed and reproduced (Gosselain 1998), in this research I examine issues of identity and

social interaction through the lens of Beta Israel material culture.









The third phase of this proj ect was an ethnographic component, in which I sought to

interview Beta Israel potters from my research area about their pottery traditions. The goals of

this portion of the research were as follows: first, an attempt to establish a continuous diachronic

line of the techniques and traditions associated with the making of pottery. This research would

allow me to look beyond the main scope of my proj ect (the Gonder and post-Gonder Eras) and

address continuities and discontinuities that occurred, and continue to occur, in the pottery-

making processes. Second, the ethnographic approach would allow me to do something few

archaeologists have the opportunity to do: ask the potters themselves how they understand the

process of making and decorating a pot. So often the archaeologist is left with only the silent

artifacts and it is up to him to derive meaning from them (Renfrew and Zubrow 1994). We can

rarely determine how much of our interpretations stem from the artifacts themselves, and how

much are derived from our own biases. Speaking to potters about the meanings associated with

making pottery would allow me to understand the conscious dynamics of cultural identity, and

how the members of the culture group themselves think about and manifest this identity.

Contributions to the Discipline

Castes in Africa?

Few scholars would disagree that for most of their history, the Beta Israel have been an

outcast group in Ethiopia. A more contentious issue is whether they constitute a "caste" society.

Also up for debate is the relevance of this issue is labeling the Beta Israel, or any other group,

as a "caste" just a matter of semantics? A growing body of literature on castes outside of India

(Berreman 1967, Brandt et al. 1996, Maquet 1970, Pankhurst 1999, Schoenhals 2003, Todd

1977, Weedman 2006) suggests a desire among anthropologists for a term or concept that

accurately describes a particular set of social-political-economic characteristics.









The core problem in the discussion of castes is a disagreement over what precisely defines

a caste. Traditional definitions have laid out specific characteristics: "separation in matters of

marriage and contact, division of labor, and hierarchy, which ranks the groups as relatively

superior or inferior to one another" (Dumont 1980:21, italics in original), or "a system of labor

division [in which] economic roles are allocated by right to closed minority groups of low social

status" (Leach 1960:6, italics added). Unfortunately, both Dumont and Leach believed that the

particular system they were describing did not exist outside of Hindu India, thus both these

definitions included geographical limitations: "caste" is defined as a specifically Asian social

system, and cannot, by definition, exist elsewhere.

The fundamental problem, then, with traditional conceptualizations of "caste" is that they

limit the comparative utility of the concept. If "caste" is only applicable to India, then it cannot

be conceptualized as a pattern of social-political-economic structure that can be analyzed cross-

culturally (Berreman 1967:277). Thus its usefulness is called into question.

If, however, we eliminate the geographical boundaries placed on traditional

conceptualizations of "caste," we may find it is in fact a useful term to describe particular

systems found throughout the world. Other definitions have attempted to place this concept in a

more global context. Maquet (1970) has differentiated between a "caste," a closed stratum in

which entrance is birth-ascribed and fixed, and a "class," which is an open stratum. In his

research on social hierarchy in Japan, DeVos lists several characteristics of a caste: 1) a

centralized political structure, 2) social groups ranked on a permanent basis, 3) occupational

specialization of groups, 4) birth-ascribed membership, and 5) an ideological basis for group

distinction that includes the concept of social pollution (1967: 332-33). Many of these features

are characteristic of any stratified society, however, there are three that appear to differentiate









caste and class: occupational specialization, birth-ascribed membership, and separation based on

an ideology of pollution (Tuden and Plotnikov 1970: 16). These characteristics parallel those laid

out by Maquet, and both correspond well with the traditional definitions of Dumont (1966) and

Leach (1960).

The second, and more insidious, maj or problem with the study of "castes" cross-culturally

has been the tendency to focus on these basic cross-cultural similarities and to underemphasize

the variation and dynamism that must exist within any given group of people (Dirks 2001, Tuden

and Plotnikov 1970, Weedman 2006). This is, of course, a potential problem in any comparative

cross-cultural study.

If we begin with the list of criteria that most scholars seem to agree on, we may formulate

a general definition of"caste" that can be applied cross culturally: a closed, endogamous, birth-

ascribed system in which separation between groups is rigidly maintained. And if we bear in

mind the individuality of any culture group, even while we are attempting to create typologies to

describe their social, political, and economic systems, we may find the term "caste" a workable

one. Thus, throughout this work I choose to refer to the Beta Israel as a social and occupational

caste (because, as I will discuss, occupational specialization is a key feature of their position in

society), based on this general definition. Especially during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the

term and the criteria laid out above provide a fairly accurate description of the social, political

and economic relationships between the Beta Israel and their Amhara neighbors. My use of the

term "caste" is not meant to imply that the relationship between the Beta Israel and the Amhara

has been static, or that it necessarily mirrors the relationships of other caste societies, such as the

Hutu and Tutsi of Rwanda (Maquet 1970), the mala and tsoma artisans of southern Ethiopia

(Hallpike 1968, Weedman 2006), or the Nuoso and Han of China (Schoenhals 2003). I present









the development of the Beta Israel into a caste society as a process, and I have attempted to

integrate different types of data, through a combination of historical, archaeological and

ethnographic research, that will place the Beta Israel into their unique historical and cultural

context.

A brief foray into caste studies in anthropology (for example Berreman 1964, Hallpike

1968, Maquet 1970, Pankhurst 1999, Shack 1965, Todd 1977, Tuden and Plotnicov 1970,

Schoenhals 2003) is enough to show that the vast majority of this research is ethnographic.

Little if any work on the material culture of caste societies has been undertaken. This is

significant because, based on the criteria for a caste society laid out above, such a pattern should

be recognizable in the archaeological record. Settlement patterns or archaeological evidence of

occupational specialization are just two examples of material signatures that might indicate this

type of social structure, and as I will show, evidence for both hierarchical settlement patterns and

low-status occupational specialization are present in 17th through 19th century Beta Israel

material culture. Of course material remains alone cannot be used as definitive indicators of a

caste society. It is necessary to supplement this type of research with ethnographic and historical

evidence as well, and this study attempts to present an holistic approach to caste studies. It is my

hope that this research constitutes an example of Geertz' s context-rich "thick description" (1973)

of Beta Israel-Amhara social relations during and after the Gonder Era, while also serving as a

case study that may add a new robusticity and dimension to the discussion of caste societies, by

whatever term they are known.

Historical Archaeology in Africa

Historical archaeology is not a new subfield of anthropology, but did not receive formal

attention from North American anthropologists until the mid-1960s (Deagan 1982). And in fact,

since then it has remained, for the most part, an American creation (Robertshaw 2004),









developed to address specific topics within specific contexts. It has been variously defined as the

study of societies for whom there are written texts (Beaudry 1988, Little 1992, Noel Hume

1969), the study of societies involved with or affected by European expansion (Schuyler 1978,

Deetz 1991) or the study of the development of the modern world (Orser 1996). All of these

definitions are perfectly adequate for a subdiscipline of archaeology, however, they do a

disservice to the concept of historical archaeology by first, severely limiting in scope the

contexts in which such a discipline can be studied and second, placing the entire field within the

rubric of Eurocentrism (Reid and Lane 2004, Schmidt 2006, Schmidt and Patterson 1995).

Having developed with such a narrow scope, historical archaeology when it moved to

Africa was beset by difficulties, mainly because early practitioners attempted to apply American

historical archaeology in African contexts, where it did not fit. This was due to three main

factors: the artificial boundary between prehistory and history, the emphasis on written

documents, and the focus on colonial contexts. These are discussed individually below.

The delineation between the prehistoric and historic periods

The prehistory/history distinction has its roots in early American anthropology, when

studies of Native Americans (who constituted the quintessential Other) were considered a

different discipline from studies of Europeans or European-Americans. Native American studies

were relegated to the field of prehistory, while post-Columbian studies were history and

historical archaeology (Lightfoot 1995). The distinction remains well defined in American

archaeology the historic period begins with the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century; this is

marked by the abrupt appearance of written documents into the culture history (Deagan 1982;

however see Lightfoot 1995 for a discussion of the underlying issues and changing paradigms in

prehistory/history in American archaeology).










The division between the prehistoric and historic periods is not nearly so clear in other

parts of the world. Take for example southern Ethiopia, where the manufacture and use of stone

tools has existed alongside written documents for centuries, a juxtaposition that continues today

(Brandt and Weedman 1997, Weedman 2006). Where do we draw the line between the

prehistoric and historic periods in this situation? This largely artificial separation between time

periods, when applied to an African context, often creates more complexity than it resolves

(Schmidt 2006).

One implication of this separation is the ambiguous role played by ethnohistorical and

ethnographic sources (Lightfoot 1995). By setting up a prehistoric/historic paradigm that

corresponded to the indigenous/European dichotomy, indigenous sources were relegated to the

indigenous/prehi storic category, and thus ignored by so-called historical archaeologists for many

years .

The emphasis on written records

The emphasis on historic meaning written, and even further, meaning written in a

language that anthropologists could recognize, if not understand documents is a fundamental

problem with historical archaeology as conceptualized in the United States. "Historic sources"

came to refer only to texts that Western archaeologists recognized as written language do we

consider archaeology of the Indus River Valley empires, with their as yet indecipherable writing

system, an example of historical archaeology? It was certainly a period in which written

documents were created, although we as archaeologists cannot read them. What we mean when

we refer to "written documents" is actually "readable documents," an idea that places the

emphasis on the archaeologist' s proclivities, not on the culture being studied. The fact that

historical archaeology is seen to apply only to those contexts in which the archaeologists are

literate namely the European and the modern experiences denies the histories of other









cultures, and denies us as scholars and anthropologists the opportunity to experience those

alternate histories (Schmidt and Patterson 1995, Schmidt 2006).

This fundamental limitation of American historical archaeology aside, the focus on written

texts is particularly inapplicable in many African contexts, in which histories are mainly

characterized by long-standing oral traditions (Schmidt 2006). Thus the written documents

regarding the African past have been mostly written by visiting European travelers. Hence,

relying solely on these documents not only limits our understanding of African histories to a very

narrow scope essentially whatever the writer happened to experience but also forces us to see

everything through the lens of the traveler.

The emphasis on colonial contexts

It is true that beginning in the 16th century European expansion led to colonial situations,

and this has formed the history of many countries throughout the world. However, it is not

always the case Ethiopia is one example. But more disturbing, this focus on colonial contexts

again limited historical archaeology to the bubble of European experience. Thus it fit neatly into

the dichotomies that have come to characterize historical archaeology: literate/illiterate;

civilized/primitive; colonizer/subject (Andren 1998, Deetz 1996, Lightfoot 1995, Little 1994,

Schmidt 1978). This equating of colonized people with primitive and illiterate has created a

paradigm in which the subordinate group is without power they are entirely passive players in

their own histories (Schmidt 1997). This paradigm of powerful/powerless has been pervasive in

studies of the Other, and has severely limited our abilities to recognize the power of the

subjugated group to control and manipulate their positions (Miller and Tilley 1984). This is one

of the maj or themes explored throughout this study.

As a result of these early conceptualizations of historical archaeology, the field as it has

been largely practiced has focused on the indigenous/colonial dichotomy, and because the









written records that supplement this research have existed exclusively within the colonizers'

domain, the voices of the nonliterate people who existed in alongside the literate people have

been largely ignored (Reid and Lane 2004, Robertshaw 2004, Schmidt and Patterson 1995,

Schmidt 2006, Schmidt and Walz 2007, Schrire 1995). So-called "alternative histories," that is,

those texts that are not expressed in traditional wrappings of "historical documents," have been,

until recently, ignored or dismissed as myth, or prehistory, or not Real History (i.e. not an

accurate representation of the past) (Andah 1995, Giles-Vernick 2002, Hamilton 1998, Holl

1995, Schmidt and Patterson 1995, White 2000 to name only a few).

A recent recognition of the inapplicability of American historical archaeological theories

has led to a new generation of historical archaeologists in Africa, who are working to develop a

historical archaeology that is appropriate to an African context. This approach rejects the

American emphasis on written documents, which has naturally led to a focus on European

contact contexts (Reid and Lane 2004, Schmidt and Walz 2007, Wylie 1995). In order to

conduct an historical archaeology that is not limited to European contexts, this new generation is

developing an historical archaeology that relies on the emic perspective that not only

incorporates local histories but is grounded in them (Andah 1995, DeCorse 2001, Holl 1995,

Schmidt and Patterson 1995, Schmidt and Walz 2007). Thus an integration of history,

archaeology and ethnographic expressions is sought and a need is recognized to consider the

many potential historical sources that can enhance interpretation (Andren 1998, Reid and Lane

2004, Schmidt 2006, Schmidt and Patterson 1995, Schmidt and Walz 2007).

To this end, many archaeologists have adopted a more collaborative approach to historical

archaeology in general, and in Africa in particular (Lightfoot 1995, Schmidt and Patterson 1995,

Schmidt 2006, Schmidt and Walz 2007, Stahl 2001, 2004, Reid and Lane 2004, Robertshaw










2004, Vogel, ed. 1997). This approach proposes "an integration or synthesis of archaeological,

documentary and oral sources that attempts to reconstruct the past" (cf. Robertshaw 2004; see

also DeCorse 1997; Hall 1997; Horton 1997; Schmidt 1978, 1983; Stahl 2001). This approach,

while not only expanding the range of sources available to the archaeologist to include

ethnohistorical and ethnographic sources, seeks to imbed the discipline within an African

context.

One of the key features of this new approach to African historical archaeologies is

multivocality, or the acceptance of multiple histories. For too long history has attempted to

determine What Happened in the Past, as though there were some obj ective History that was

merely waiting to be uncovered. It is necessary to embrace the paradigm of multiple alternative

histories and to recognize the goal is not to find out What Happened (as that is rarely, if ever,

possible) but to discover how various people experience their histories. A material culture

approach allows for the creation of alternative histories, and more importantly, histories that are

rooted in explicitly African sources (Schmidt and Patterson 1995; Reid and Lane 2004).

However, as Stahl (2001) and Robertshaw (2004) have pointed out, this definition of

African historical archaeology is rarely put into practice. According to Stahl (1999, 2001 see

also Reid and Lane 2004), the reason for this lack of synthesis between history, ethnography and

archaeology in Africa is because of a longstanding difference between the disciplines in terms of

their goals and epistemologies. She argues that while the focus in archaeology has been on

progress the developments of agriculture, metallurgy, urbanism the focus in historical

disciplines has been engaged since the 1970s in discourse on underdevelopment in the context of

European colonialism.









In the last decade, the goals of African archaeology have shifted and expanded to

include more postprocessual approaches; this corresponds to a similar shift in the disciplines of

history and ethnography (Robertshaw 2004). This can be seen in recent historical approaches

that explore alternative media of historical narrative such as rumor (White 2000), vocabulary

(Giles-Vernick 2002, Landau 1995), sports and recreation (Fair 2001), genealogy and kinship

classification systems (Posnansky 1966, Richards 1960), and ritual (Schmidt 1997) to name a

few. These studies have effectively broadened the definition of non-written history, and thus the

concept of history in general, which in turn has allows historical archaeology to broaden its

scope in terms of what can be studied, and what tools we can use in addressing our questions.

Thus the time is ripe to develop a praxis that corresponds to the theoretical goals of

African historical archaeology as laid out above. What I have called the new approach to

African historical archaeology calls for a level of collaboration between archaeologists,

ethnographers, and historians that has traditionally been avoided. In this way scholars can work

together to fill the "interdisciplinary spaces" (Stahl 2001); those silences left by other disciplines.

This approach is not actually new Posnansky's (1968, 1969) work in the Great Lakes region

and Connah's (1975) research at Benin are two early examples of deliberate attempts to combine

archaeology and ethnography. Peter Schmidt (1978, 1983, 1997, 2006; with Patterson 1995;

with Walz 2007) has argued for years for such an integrated approach, and further studies such

as Hall's (1993, 1997) work on submerged groups in South Africa, Schrire's (1991, 1995) study

of the interactions between Southern African colonial and pastoral Khoikhoi society, and

DeCorse' s (2001) work on the impacts of the slave trade at Elmina have all adopted this

interdisciplinary approach that seeks to explore African histories within African contexts.









However, as Reid and Lane (2004) argue, this approach to African historical archaeology is still

sporadic. The work of future historical archaeologists in Africa is clearly cut out for us.

It is my hope that the research I have conducted on the Beta Israel of Ethiopia will

contribute another example of the "new" historical archaeology of Africa. From the outset this

research forced me to reconceptualize my definition of "historical archaeology." I was working

in a setting in which historical documents were available, but the context was not colonial. The

maj ority of my data, both material and written, was not imported. While I had a relatively large

body of written documents to work with, none of these were produced by the Beta Israel

themselves (as is often the case with a submerged group), so the records reflected the

perspectives of the Amhara Christians, who generally feared and despised them, or the visiting

missionaries, who had mixed feelings (see Chapter 2). Thus more often than not these records

told more about the authors than about the subj ects. I found that all avenues of research into the

lifeways of these people archaeological, historical, ethnographic were necessarily

fragmentary, and to achieve the most holistic perspective possible, I chose to combine these

types of data into an interdisciplinary approach, in the vein of the new trend in historical

archaeology as it is conceptualized and conducted in Africa.

Dissertation Organization

This dissertation is organized more or less by discipline. Chapter 2 introduces the Beta

Israel from an historical perspective. In it I present what we know about the Beta Israel, from

their earliest roots to their migration to Israel, from historical records and modern

historiographies based on these records. I discuss the areas in which the historians have

disagreed, and those areas that histories have not been able to address. I present some of the

general questions I plan to explore through other avenues, and lay a framework for my own

research as a complementary body to the histories that have been reconstructede.









In Chapter 3 I discuss the theoretical foundations of my research. This chapter summarizes

various anthropological and sociological theories about reactions to culture contact, and

discusses how an archaeological approach might shed light on the topic. I draw upon studies of

style and material culture, and the identification of cultural boundaries in the material record to

argue that continuities or changes in the styles of the pottery manufactured by Beta Israel women

might correspond to changes in their social status during and after the Gonder Era.

In Chapters 4, 5 and 6 I examine the material evidence. Chapter 4 discusses my

archaeological survey and excavation methods, and describes the layout of the archaeological

site. Chapter 5 focuses on the ethnographic component of this research. A total of nine Beta

Israel women were interviewed in and around the archaeological site. They were asked about

their pottery traditions, and were observed making pottery. Chapter 6 describes the analysis

methods used to look for patterns in the recovered pottery and ethnographic observations, and

presents my findings.

In Chapter 7 I integrate the archival, archaeological and ethnographic evidence, attempting

to develop a more synthetic picture of Beta Israel-Amhara social relations during and after the

Gender Era. In this chapter I present any patterns revealed by these complementary sources, as

well as any anomalies that might lead to revised hypotheses and further study. This chapter

offers my interpretations and reviews the significance of my findings and the implications of this

research to future studies of the Beta Israel, historical archaeology, and the archaeology of

outcast societies. I conclude with a brief discussion of the limitations of this work, and

recommend avenues for future research.









CHAPTER 2
HISTORY OF THE BETA ISRAEL

In Ethiopia, the Beta Israel (Falasha, or Ethiopian Jews) constitute a religious, and

occupational minority. Although physically and linguistically indistinguishable from the

Christian maj ority of Ethiopia (Salamon 1999), the Beta Israel have historically upheld

themselves as a group religiously and ethnically distinct. At times, the parameters of this

"otherness" may have been no more than general dissention from the acting government of

Ethiopia; at other times, the Beta Israel have existed as a unified, endogamous occupational

and/or cultural caste. The emergence of this group must be understood within its context,

however; they became a distinctive group through interaction and conflict with the Christian

state and society (Quirin 1992), and have been primarily defined by this "otherness" (Salamon

1999).

These people have traditionally called themselves Jews, practice a form of Judaism today,

and trace their lineage directly to one of the ten Lost Tribes of Israel. They have identified

themselves throughout history first and foremost as ethnically distinct from the dominant group

of Northwest Ethiopia, the Amhara Christians. Believing that they are descendants of one of the

Lost Tribes, this caste is set up as an ethnically distinct, birth-ascribed and endogamous closed

system, with fixed rules of social separation and interaction, and an ideological justification of

this rigid separation, both by the Beta Israel themselves and by their Amhara neighbors. They

have long been considered outcasts by the dominant Amhara society for their religious beliefs,

and at various periods were j oined by other religious and political groups who were in open

rebellion against the acting government (Quirin, 1992; Kaplan, 1992). This suggests that their

outcast status was originally defined less by religion than by politics.









Beta Israel: The Beginnings

There are various theories about the origins of the Beta Israel and their Jewish traditions,

and none have been uniformly agreed upon by Beta Israel scholars. The three primary models

can be termed the Lost Tribe theory, the Convert Theory, and the Rebel theory (Quirin, 1992).

As historian James Quirin correctly points out, actual Beta Israel origins are certainly more

complex and indirect than any of these theories indicate, however, these models provide a useful

groundwork for addressing the subj ect.

The international Jewish community and the Israeli government have officially adopted the

Lost Tribe theory this is what the Beta Israel themselves claim as their heritage to explain the

presence of Jews in Ethiopia. This model has allowed the majority of these people to migrate to

Israel under the "law of return" to live enveloped in what they consider to be their cultural and

religious heritage, and to raise their children according to traditional Jewish law. Simply put, in

this model, the Beta Israel are seen as the direct descendants of a mass migration of Jews from

Israel to Ethiopia. These ancestral Jews are said to make up one of the Ten Lost Tribes,

specifically the Tribe of Dan, who were forced out of Israel in the mid-eighth century BC. This

origin story may date back as far as the ninth century (Kaplan, 1992), however, historical or

archaeological evidence to support it is lacking. There is no direct evidence of a mass migration

into Ethiopia at this time.

The Convert model, like the Lost Tribe model, is based on the assumption that Judaism

was introduced to Ethiopia by outside sources, prior to and separately from Christianity.

However, in this view, small numbers of Jews entered Ethiopia and converted local, mainly

Agaw, populations. Modern Beta Israel are said to be the descendants of these Agaw converts.

The questions that arise from this model focus on the time period of this conversion (theories

range from the 6th century BC to the 5th century AD) and the travel route of the missionaries









(there is evidence supporting both a path from Egypt, or through Saudi Arabia). This is the

theory supported by most modern Beta Israel scholars (Quirin, 1992; Kaplan, 1992).

The Rebel Theory differs from the previous two models in that it argues Christian origins

of modern Beta Israel, thus attributing the similarities in beliefs and practices of Beta Israel and

Christian Ethiopian religions to a common origin, rather than acculturation (Quirin 1992). This

perspective, introduced by anthropologist Veronika Krempel (1972), argues that the Beta Israel

were direct descendants neither of Jewish immigrants nor of Agaw converts. Rather, she argued

that the Beta Israel are 1) the indirect descendants of Ethiopians who had opposed the political,

economic and social systems within Abyssinian feudalism, and 2) those who opposed the

Christian order of Ethiopia (Quirin 1992). This approach emphasizes the "Ethiopianness" of the

Beta Israel ethnically and culturally they are said to be of the same group as the predominantly

Christian population. It also suggests that originally, there was no cultural, linguistic or religious

bond that made the Beta Israel a distinct class or caste; they were defined by a common

opposition to the Ethiopian state. This will be further discussed below.

A Question of Names

Throughout their history, these people have been called many things. Kaplan (1992)

suggests that the origin of the unified caste known during the Gonder Era as the Falasha can be

traced back to a less well-defined group of outcasts and rebels known as the ayhud. This term

refers more generally to a group of people who were not necessarily followers of Jewish law, but

who in some way openly opposed the acting government. This theory fits in well with

Krempel's suggestion (above) that the ancestors of the Beta Israel were Ethiopians who were in

open rebellion against the Ethiopian state and/or church.

The term "Falasha" arose in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to refer to ayhud living

in the Lake Tana area. Following Emperor Yeshaq's victory over the Dembea and Simien










regions in the early fifteenth century, he is said to have decreed, "He who is baptized in the

Christian religion may inherit the land of his father; otherwise let him be a Fala~si (outcast)"

(Tamrat, 1972:201). Thus, the term "Falasha" came to be equated with landlessness. However,

the use of "Falasha" to describe the Ethiopian Jews is not found in written records until the early

sixteenth century, when it appears almost simultaneously in Hebrew, Arabic, Portuguese, and

Ge'ez sources (Kaplal992, Quirin 1992).

Because of the stigmas attached to the word, "Falasha" has recently fallen into disuse by

the people themselves and scholars alike, and replaced with the term "Beta Israel" or "House of

Israel." Because this term is used by the Jews of Ethiopia themselves, and because it carries

none of the negative connotations of "Falasha," I have tried to use it exclusively, although I use

the term "Falasha" within the context of their history the word itself is an aspect of their

development into a discrete outcast group.

A Question of Languages

As we will see, historical documents referencing the Beta Israel are scattered and

fragmentary, and one of the maj or questions that has arisen among modern scholars is what

language they spoke. The Portuguese Jesuit Father Manoel de Almeida, writing in the first half

of the seventeenth century (1628-1646), claimed that the Beta Israel spoke Hebrew (Beckingham

and Huntingford 1954), a claim that was corroborated by the Jesuit missionary Balthazar Telles

in 1710 (Telles 1710); although in the fifteenth century, Jewish scholar Elijah of Ferrara states

that the Falasha did not speak Hebrew (Adler 1966). Quirin (1992) argues that the Beta Israel in

the seventeenth century had maintained their indigenous Agaw language, and these Portuguese

observers mistakenly called it Hebrew, by which they meant it was not Amharic, which they

would have recognized. This is intended to corroborate Quirin' s theory that the origins of the

Beta Israel lie in Agaw conversions, rather than in the biblical diaspora. Leslau (1946) suggested









that the Beta Israel had a particular language of their own, not Amharic, since this would have

been recognized by 17th century Jesuit missionaries, and not Hebrew, since ethnographically he

concluded that there were no Hebrew traces in 1940s Beta Israel vernacular, and it is unlikely

that Hebrew would have been so completely forgotten. He also argued for an Agaw dialect.

With the possible exception of a few scattered words Protestant missionary Samuel

Gobat (1851) reported that in 1830, the Beta Israel were using the Hebrew word for "one" by

the time Scottish explorer James Bruce arrived in 1750, the Beta Israel were no longer speaking

Hebrew (if they ever did), but what Bruce called "Falasha," a distinct language, used only by the

Jews. According to Bruce, it was anciently the language of all the provinces of Dembea (Bruce

1790). This was most likely the Agaw language Leslau and Quirin argue for.

With the establishment of Gonder as the capital of the empire in the seventeenth century,

the demographics of northwestern Ethiopia shifted to become more ethnically, culturally and

linguistically Amhara. This affected all the people in the greater Gonder region, including the

Beta Israel, who were becoming more incorporated into Amhara society. Thus, by 1830, the

Beta Israel were observed by Gobat speaking their indigenous language among themselves, but

"most of them, with the exception perhaps of a few females, are able to speak the language of

Amhara with more or less ease and accuracy" (Gobat 1851:468). By the 1860s, Amharic was the

first language of all the Beta Israel in the greater Gonder region, and by the early twentieth

century, the indigenous "Falasha," or Agaw language had been forgotten by all but a few

members of the older generation (Quirin 1992).

The Beta Israel in Historical Records: Pre-Zagwe

Historical records documenting the lives of the Beta Israel are limited, and this is

especially true for the period prior to the overthrow of the Zagwe dynasty in 1270. For this

reason, it is virtually impossible to construct a thorough history of the Ethiopian Jews for the









period between the sixth and thirteenth centuries (Kaplan, 1992). There are only a few major

sources that mention a group of Jews in Ethiopia before and during the Zagwe dynasty, but these

stories, which include the legend of "Prester John," lie in that shadowy area between history and

myth.

One of the earliest of these sources is known as Eldad Ha-Dani, or Eldad the Danite, a

Jewish traveler who lived in the late 9th century, and who, according to his own story, came from

eastern Africa. In 1480, a text emerged in Italy, which turned out to be a letter from Eldad to the

Jews of Spain. In this letter Eldad tells the story of his people, the children of Dan, who left

Israel and settled in Ethiopia, conquering the Ethiopians and prospering there. According to

Eldad, these children of Dan maintained their Jewish traditions, possessed Jewish religious texts,

and spoke Hebrew. They established a powerful Jewish kingdom, and Eldad frequently

emphasizes their characteristic strength and valor: "the voice of every one of them is a mighty

voice as the roar of the lion" (Adler 1966). Modern historians, however, debate the accuracy of

Eldad's account, and even question whether he was in Ethiopia at all (see Baron 1983,

Kobishchanov 1979, and Ullendorff and Beckingham 1982 for varying opinions of Eldad' s

credibility).

References like Eldad' s to the bravery and strength of the Jews of Ethiopia is a common

theme in historical documents, especially prior to the 17th century. Particularly among the

records of Jewish travelers to Ethiopia, celebration of Beta Israel courage and valor is one of

three prominent themes, along with attempts to place the Jews of Ethiopia firmly within the

framework of the long history of Jewish suffering (Kaplan 1984), and a focus on the

"Jewishness" of these people, as one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Consider this example of









Beta Israel valor described in the records of Spanish Jew Abraham ben Eliezer Ha-Levi who

wrote in 1528:

Falasa is a strong kingdom of Jews, who are valiant, who travel and live in hair tents to
shepherd their flocks. For they are pastoralists and the land is wide before them and it is
situated on high mountains and peaks and no one can ascend there to make war (Aelicoly
1936; trans. Kaplan 1984)

as well as this tale of Beta Israel heroism told by an anonymous European immigrant to Rabbi

Yitzhak Sholall in the early 14th century:

Four thieves attacked a home in which a Falasha was visiting. At once, the Falasha
"grasped a sword in his hand and bounded like a lion by himself after [the thieves] until
they fled. And he said to [his hosts], 'If it had been ten (thieves) it would have been the
same to me because every day we kill many of them when they come to fight us'" (in
Kaplan 1984).

Another example of the first theme is the story of Queen Yodit or Gudit, a possibly Jewish

queen who revolted and burned many cities and destroyed hundreds of churches throughout

Aksum in the tenth or eleventh century, opening the door for the Zagwe empire, which lasted

until 1270. Many travelers, including missionaries James Bruce (1790) and J.M. Flad (1869),

claimed that Yodit was a Falasha, as were the Zagwe:

Tradition says that [the Falasha] became very powerful, possessed themselves of the whole
of western Abyssinia, persecuted the Christians, and endeavored to extirpate their religion.
..they drove out the royal family, who fled to Shoa, and remained there 250 years, until, in
the 13th century, Yecuna Amlak ascended the throne of his fathers" (Flad 1869:8-9).

While the concept of the Jewish queen has been largely discredited (Kaplan, 1992, Pankhurst

1998, Quirin 1992), it was very popular for many years, and has served to reinforce the image of

a powerful Jewish empire in pre-Solomonic Ethiopia.






SYitzhak Sholal (d. 1524) was a nagid (head of the Jewish conununity) in Egypt during Mamluk rule. He settled in
Jerusalem in 1517, after the Turkish conquest of Egypt (Kaplan 1984).









Jews in the Zagwe Dynasty

Modern historians (Kaplan, 1992, Pankhurst 1982, Quirin 1992) have dismissed the theory

of the Zagwe people as Jews, although, as enemies of the Solomonic dynasty they may have at

one time been considered ayhud the term for people who acted against the government, and

who almost certainly included judaized groups. It is likely that during the rise and fall of the

Zagwe dynasty, the pockets of judaized groups lived in peripheral areas such as the Semien

mountains and were relatively unaffected by the changes in governance.

Again, historical documents recording the lives of the Beta Israel during the Zagwe

dynasty are rare, but there exist records of two Jewish travelers during the twelfth century, who

came through the Middle East and possibly East Africa, and mentioned the presence of Jews.

Between 1 160 and 1 173, Benj amin ben Jonah, a merchant from Tudela, traveled to the

area of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, and in his records made several references to the land

of Cush. The location of Cush is not specifically agreed upon by scholars, but is often taken to

refer to eastern Africa and/or the Arabian Peninsula. Benj amin frequently mentioned the

presence of "Israelites," sometimes from the tribe of Dan (Adler 1966:53), some of whom lived

in "cities and castles on the summits of the mountains," and who are "not under the yoke of the

Gentiles" (Adler 1966:60). These Israelites "make descents into the plain-country called Lybia."

Many scholars (notably Leslau 1951, Ullendorf 1968) have argued that Lybia should be

translated as Nubia (another name for Ethiopia), and that Benj amin is in fact referring to the

Ethiopian Jews. Other historians, Steven Kaplan among them, argue that the confusion over

names makes it impossible to determine exactly what region Benj amin is discussing.

Around the same time, Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon reported "more than sixty myriads of

Jews" in the land of Cush and Babel (Adler 1966). Again, there is considerable debate over










where exactly Rabbi Petachia is referring to, if by "Cush" he means Ethiopia or some area of

Arabia.

The Rise of the Solomonic Dynasty

In 1270, Amharan warlord Yekunno Amlak deposed the last Zagwe ruler and founded the

Amhara dynasty, which became known as the Solomonic dynasty under Amda Seyon in 1314.

The Solomonic line of emperors maintained control over the Ethiopian crown until the mid-20th

century. The rise of the Solomonic dynasty marked a maj or shift in the balance of power in

Ethiopia, as the Solomonic kings sought to consolidate their control over many regions of

Ethiopia, including the northwest area, where many judaized groups lived.

The "restoration" of the Solomonic dynasty2 triggered a revival of the Christian state and

proselytizing church in Ethiopia (Quirin 1992). A maj or feature of the new dynasty was the

Christianization of all people. The Solomonic kings were more aggressive than the Zagwe

leaders had been in terms of political-military policies, and as Christianity was incorporated into

the state, this fostered aggression towards non-Christians. In response to this, the Falasha begin

to emerge in historical records for the first time as an identifiable group, rather than the loosely

formed and defined ayhud that may have preceded them. By the fourteenth century, there are


2 Most histories of Ethiopia's royalty emphasize Amda Seyon's rise to power as the restoration of the Solomonic
dynasty a dynasty that is said to have begun around the 10th century BC, when the Queen of Sheba (the ruler of
Ethiopia) met with King Solomon of Israel and produced a son, Menilek, who became the first male emperor of
Ethiopia, and established the Solomonic line (Ullendorff 1968). All subsequent rulers up until the Zagwe rule were
said to be direct descendants of this union, and after the fall of the Zagwe dynasty, the Solomonic line was said to be
restored.

The story of Solomon and Sheba has been around, at least in oral form, since the sixth century AD, and was
documented in written form around the thirteenth century. However, there is no mention of a Solomonic Dynasty in
historical documents until after it was "restored" in the fourteenth century (Tamrat 1972, Berry 1976). Most
historians agree (Ullendorff 1968, Tamrat 1972, Berry 1976, Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1992, Crummey 2000) that this
particular myth achieved its final written form in the early fourteenth century, concurrent with the fall of the Agaw
Zagwe dynasty, and many argue that the principle aim of the story, and the concept of a restored dynasty, was to
"support and buttress the Solomonic dynasty in Ethiopia" (Ullendorff 1968:141): to justify the usurpation of power
by Yekunno Amlak. Tamrat (1972) argues that the rise of Yekunno Amlak was a restoration only in the sense that
the throne was once again occupied by a Semitic-speaking ruler.









numerous sources documenting the presence of Jews, or Judaized groups, in the Lake Tana of

northwestern Ethiopia (Kaplan 1992).

The war chronicles of Amda Seyon include the first documented example of ayhud

resistance to the Ethiopian state (Hess 1969), with a record of a revolt by the judaized groups

living in the Lake Tana area in 1332, against Amda Seyon's attempt to consolidate his rule over

the area. This appears to have been a minor skirmish, but led to others, and established a pattern

of conflict between ayhud and the Ethiopian state that was to be repeated over the next three

hundred years.

The reign of Emperor Yeshaq (1413-1430) marked a turning point in Beta Israel history

(Quirin 1992). Until this period, the rebels in the Lake Tana area appear to have been only of

peripheral concern to the Solomonic kings. However, Yeshaq was much more ruthless in his

treatment. He personally led an attack against the Lake Tana groups, and upon victory, imposed

Christianity on them. He proclaimed all non-Christians fala;si- outcast and landless. Yeshaq's

proclamation marked the beginning of land confiscation, as well as the beginning of the end of

ayhud political independence (Quirin 1992). It also had the effect of tying the concepts of non-

Christian, outcast, and landless together. The ayhud/Falasha compensated for this loss of land

and status by becoming skilled in masonry and metallurgy, while continuing to work the land as

tenants (Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1977).

Conflict between ayhud/Falasha and the Ethiopian state reached a climax during the reign

of Zar'a Ya' eqob (1434-1468). As mentioned, in the 15th century, the Lake Tana ayhud did not

pose a serious military threat to the emperor. They did, however, pose a challenge to the basic

ideology of the new state (Quirin 1992). For this reason, Zar' a Ya' eqob conceived of the ayhud

as his main ideological enemy, and set out to eradicate or convert them. He was unable to do









either, and conflicts continued throughout his rule, and throughout the reigns of four more

emperors: Ba'eda Maryam (1468-1477), Eskender (1478-1494), Amda Seyon II (1494) and

Na' od (1494-1506). By the time Na' od came to the throne, the ayhud/Falasha were considered a

serious threat to the central government (Quirin 1992).

According to historian Steven Kaplan (1992), the main reason the Lake Tana rebels were

not completely wiped out in the later half of the 15th century was because these kings were

concentrating on a larger threat. This was the Muslim threat to the southeast, which occupied the

Ethiopian state for the first half of the 16th century. (See Trimingham 1952, Tamrat 1972,

Pankhurst 1982, 1990, 1998 for a more complete history of the Muslim invasions). During this

time, the Jewish groups first allied themselves with invading Muslims against Christian Ethiopia,

but later j oined the Portuguese force (who had come at the request of emperor Lebna Dengel) to

help defeat the Muslim rule. Kaplan (1992) suggests that this alliance led to the restoration of

some of the Falashas' rights.

Shawa: The New Center of Power

From the time the Zagwe dynasty was overthrown and the Solomonic dynasty restored

(1270 AD) to the mid-1500s, the emperors of Ethiopia did not build cities, but lived in mobile

tent cities, which served as "wandering capitals." This pattern was broken with the construction

of a city in the Waj district of Shawa. Modern historians dispute the date and facilitator of this

event: Pankhurst (1982) and Quirin (1992) claim that in 1549, emperor Galawdewos built the

new "capital;" Kaplan (1992) attributes it to Minas Galawdewos' brother and successor in

1560. Both agree, however, that the movement of the political center of the Ethiopian empire to

the northern part of the country led to renewed tensions between the Beta Israel, who lived in

that area, and the Ethiopian state. Between 1579 and 1632 there were a series of campaigns

against the Beta Israel.









The most extreme of these campaigns were led by emperor Sarsa Dengel (1563-1597),

who spent much of his rule in the Lake Tana area, home of many Beta Israel. Three attacks

between 1579 and the 1590s resulted in massive loss of life, rights, and land, although none

appear to have dramatically changed the status of the Beta Israel over the long term. They

maintained a degree of political autonomy, and began to become incorporated into the political

economy as artisans and soldiers (Quirin 1992). As masons, it is likely that they were also

instrumental in constructing the architecture of the pre-Gonder cities of Emfraz and Danqaz

(Quirin 1977). The overall impact of the events of the later 16th century on the Beta Israel is

ambiguous; they suffered greatly from warfare, pillaging, enslavement, but they also began to

play more important roles within the larger society as craftspeople. This incorporation into the

political and economic spheres of society is the main focus of my archaeological research.

Susenyos

In 1614, a group of Beta Israel led by the rebel Gedewon j oined a larger revolt against the

emperor Susenyos. Susenyos was able to quash the revolt, and as punishment for supporting his

rival, he ordered the extermination of all Beta Israel men, and the sale of the women and children

into slavery. Those Beta Israel who didn't join the revolt were spared, as long as they converted

to Christianity. This was the most severe action against the Beta Israel ever taken, as Susenyos'

aim was to "[erase] the memory of Judaism from his empire" (in Quirin 1992:84). He was,

however, not entirely successful in this.

Gedewon led another revolt against Susenyos in 1624. Again Susenyos defeated the

rebels, and decided to exterminate the rest of the Beta Israel population in Semien in 1625 or

1626. He was only partially successful, but the small group of Beta Israel that remained after the

attempted genocide was no political or military threat to the empire. This marked the end of









three centuries of conflict between judaized groups and Christian emperors, and the end of Beta

Israel political autonomy forever.

The Gonder Era

As noted above, the pattern of "wandering capitals" was broken in the mid-16th century

with the establishment of a political center in the Lake Tana area. This tendency toward a more

permanent settlement type continued throughout the reign of Susenyos, and culminated during

the reign of Fasilidas, Susenyos' successor (Kaplan 1992). In 1632, Fasilidas established the city

of Gender as the political, economic, religious and cultural center of the Ethiopian kingdom.

This founding of the first permanent capital since the rule of the Zagwe, and the largest

permanent urban center in highland Ethiopia since ancient Aksum itself (ca. 1st-9th century),

secured Gonder' s place in history. Fasilidas built his castle in the center of Gonder, and each

succeeding king added his own palace in the city center, creating a monumental royal compound.

The city quickly grew from a small village to a large urban area, characterized by a multicultural

population, a higher concentration of high-ranking officials and church leaders, and new trends

in art and architecture (Kaplan 1992). One of the distinguishing features of the Gonder Era

(1632-1755) is the large number of castles, churches and other buildings that were erected. In

order to build these structures, the population of the lower-ranking artisans and laborers also

increased.

The Gonder Era thus was a key period in the process of Beta Israel caste formation. James

Quirin (1992:89) states that Gonder brought people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds

together in an urban setting, as demand rose for the skills they offered. The landless took up jobs

as artisans (Beta Israel and Muslims), traders (Muslims), laborers (Kemant) and servants or

slaves (Oromo). The Beta Israel worked as carpenters and masons, constructing the city's

monumental castles and churches, as well as maintaining their more traditional occupations as










smiths, potters, and weavers, and some as soldiers in the kings' regiments. Because the land they

occupied was on the fringes of the city, Beta Israel were also free to practice agriculture as

independent cultivators. For the first time in their documented history, the Beta Israel in Gonder

began to be treated as a unified caste as population grew and became more diverse, and class

divisions became more visible (Quirin, 1992; Kaplan, 1992). Although they were incorporated to

a certain extent into the Ethiopian political economy, the Beta Israel maintained their religious

and cultural autonomy, and kept themselves separate socially and physically from the greater

society, thereby reinforcing the ongoing processes that led to a unified Beta Israel cultural and/or

occupational caste (Quirin 1992: 99).3

Gender's Physical and Social Structure

There is little information regarding the physical structure of Gonder during the early years

- Fasilidas' reign (1632-1667) (Pankhurst 1982), however, we may infer from a 1668 decree that

the city's population was socially heterogeneous during much of that period. Gender' s

population was made up of Orthodox Christians; and also Roman Catholics and Jesuits,

including Indian and Portuguese missionaries and traders; Muslims; and Beta Israel. Pankhurst

suggests that in the early years, in many cases, the various ethnic and religious groups lived in

close proximity to each other, and this led to "quarrels and disputes" (1982: 127). Thus in 1668,

Emperor Yohannes I, the son and successor of Fasilidas, held a religious council which expelled

the Roman Catholics and decreed that:

As for the Muslims, they must remain separate and live apart, forming a separate village of
their own; no Christians may enter their service, neither as a slave nor servant, neither
husband nor wife may live with them. The Falasha .who are of the Jewish religion, must

3 The caste boundaries may have been delineated as much or more so along occupational lines as along cultural or
religious lines, although oral and written histories suggest that the Beta Israel were kept and kept themselves -
separate from other artisan groups. Thus the boundaries that define the Beta Israel today cannot be wholly explained
by occupational parameters. More likely the nature of the Beta Israel caste during the Gonder Era was a
combination of occupational, religious, and cultural factors.










not live with the Christians, but must separate themselves from them and live apart,
forming a village (Guidi, Iohannis I, 9; trans. Pankhurst 1982: 127)4

By the 1670s, then, the city of Gonder was physically divided into ethnic/occupational

enclaves which also served to reinforce the emerging caste relationship of the Beta Israel with

the dominant Ethiopian society (Quirin 1992:95). These enclaves were distributed based on

social class, in concentric circles from the royal compound at the center, so the social structure of

Gender can be clearly read from the physical structure. The ring nearest to the royal compound

was inhabited by the noble class and the upper clergy. In a secondary ring, surrounding the

nobility, were the main Christian residential areas, whose inhabitants mostly comprised Gonder's

middle class. The lowest ranking classes, including the Beta Israel, lived in outlying enclaves

away from the city center, so that they were kept separate from Christian society.

The four main Beta Israel quarters were Kayla Meda, Abwara, Dafacha, and Abba

Entonyos, and they also lived in villages further from Gonder city such as Gondaroch Maryam,

Azazo, and Tadda (Figure 2-1). Each of these outlying villages was culturally and religiously

homogenous; Beta Israel lived only with other Beta Israel, likewise with Muslim and Kemant

groups.'



SIt is important to keep in mind the likelihood that although officially decreed by the Amharan authorities, this
plwsical separation was desired and upheld by all groups.

SIt is important to mention that of all these settlements, one community does not fall into the general pattern of
plwsical separation: Kayla Meda is the only Beta Israel settlement situated between the Qeha and Angareb rivers,
within the city proper of Gonder. In fact, it is next to the Christian church of Qeha lyyasus and the royal palace
known as Fasil's Bath. Clearly, this site is the exception to the rule: thus it is surprising that further research has not
been undertaken here. Quirin suggests that this may have been the oldest Beta Israel settlement, probably founded
before the Qeha Ivvasus church was built, and the Beta Israel's right to remain during the Gonder Era was
confirmed by the emperor Fasilidas (1992:103). The age of this settlement's occupancy should be relatively easy to
determine through archaeological investigation. However, Quirin's lwpothesis, if correct, raises some interesting
questions in light of social status is it realistic to accept that the dominant Amhara society would allow a group of
people that were feared and hated to remain in their midst simply because they had lived there for a long time? A
more plausible explanation is that the center of Gonder in the 17th century was situated more to the south, so that
Kayla Meda, while in the middle of modern Gonder, was not as centrally positioned during the Gonder Era (see
Quirin 1992:96).










The question of land-holding patterns during this era is an interesting one. The

documentary record, interpreted through such secondary sources as Donald Crummey (2000),

James Quirin (1992), Steven Kaplan (1992), Hagar Salamon (1999) and GWB Huntingford

(1965) suggests that Beta Israel were sometimes paid for their work in land grants, although the

actual nature of the land grants is unclear and not well documented.6 The core of this granted

land was in and around Gonder itself, as well as in the eastern part of the Tana basin, in the

highlands east of Lake Tana, and to the north of Lake Tana. This core area "incorporated as

subordinate minorities Muslims, Beta Israel and ... pagans" (Crummey 2000:163). We can infer

that this area includes the villages of Abwara, Dafacha, Abba Entonyos, and Gondaroch Maryam

- those villages that Quirin names (1995:96) as Beta Israel quarters during the Gonder Era. This

marks the first time since the 1400s when declared fala~si and landless by Yeshaq that some

Beta Israel have control over their own plots of land'.

Social Status in Gonder

As partly evidenced by the control of land, historians present the Gonder Era as a time of

relatively high economic and social status for the Beta Israel (Pankhurst 1969, Kessler 1982,

Quirin 1977, 1992, Kaplan 1992). As mentioned, many Beta Israel during this period took up

masonry and carpentry, as well as participation in army service these are all significantly

higher status jobs in Amhara society than smithing and pottery (Quirin 1992). In fact, numerous

sources (Flad 1869, Ludolphus 1682, Bruce 1790) agree that the Beta Israel were the primary


6 For a detailed discussion of land grants and tenure rights in Ethiopia see Crummey 2000; Quirin 1992

SHistorian James Quirin has argued (1977:103) that status among Ethiopians traditionally is less aligned with power
over land and resources than it is with power over people. In other words, people who controlled other people
enjoyed the highest status. However I would suggest that the payment and confiscation of land was a direct method
of conferring and retracting status upon the Beta Israel. In the fifteenth century, the Beta Israel were effectively
outcast by naming them landless, and during the Gonder Era, a period of relatively high status for the Beta Israel,
they were given ownership of land. Although not necessarily causal, there does seem to be a correlation between
social status and control of land.









masons and carpenters of Gonder, responsible for the construction of the city's monumental

castles, churches and bridges. Even within the lower-status occupations of smithing, potting and

weaving, the Beta Israel were an integral part of the economic sphere of Gonder society,

providing essential goods and labor to the new urban center. All of these factors may have

affected the Amhara perceptions of the Beta Israel, and increased their chances for upward social

mobility.

The records of various travelers to Ethiopia also agree on the level of excellence in Beta

Israel smithing. The Portuguese Jesuits Father Manoel de Almeida and Balthazar Telles (writing

in the early 17th and early 18th centuries, respectively), as well as the German scholar Job

Ludolphus (1682) and English Protestant missionary JM Flad (1869) all independently comment

that the "Falasha are great smiths" (Beckingham and Huntingford 1954:54, Ludolphus 1682:390,

Telles 1710:38, Flad 1869:27).

However, this rise in status did not entirely overcome their outcast position within

Gender' s social hierarchy. Nor was it a uniform rise in status among the Beta Israel population.

The payment in land grants to some Beta Israel began to create class divisions within the group

as well as between the cultural groups of Gonder (Quirin 1992). During this period we begin to

see the emergence of an upwardly mobile elite among the Beta Israel, while the masses remained

landless artisans and tenant farmers. This is part of an overall trend in Gonder, that of class

divisions that crosscut previously rigid ethnic and religious boundaries.

Despite the presence of class divisions among the Beta Israel, the Gonder Era is generally

characterized as a unifying period for them: they were considered for the first time a cohesive

social caste, maintaining a cultural and religious identity as separate from the Amhara Christians

and the other ethnic groups that populated Gonder. It is also characterized as a period of relative










peace and prosperity for the Beta Israel, as evidenced by the value placed on their skills, and the

rewards of land and titles. There exists only one known historical chronicle written by a Beta

Israel during the reign of Menilek II (1889-1913) and in the words of the unknown author,

"During the reign of all the kings of Gonder, Israel lived in peace and welfare" (Leslau 1946).

The Era of the Princes

The golden days of the Gonder Era began to dull around the time of the sixth Gondarine

emperor, lyyasu II (1730-1755). At that time a general shift began towards decentralization and

"localization" of power and resources throughout Ethiopia, as well as a rise in power of Gonder' s

noble class. Although a succession of Solomonic emperors continued to claim the throne, this

shift served to weaken imperial power substantially and to create political instability, and is

responsible for this period' s moniker ZamaZZZ~~~~~ZZZZZ~~~~~n a~asafent, or "The Era of the Princes," which

lasted from 1755 to the mid-nineteenth century .

The immediate impact of this shift in Gonder was increased warfare and insecurity, and a

sharp decline in the population (Quirin 1992), which some historians (Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1977,

1992) argue adversely affected the construction industry; the kings of this period had neither the

money nor the interest in the large-scale stone construction that the Gonder kings had

commissioned and the Beta Israel had built. This caused the Beta Israel to revert to their pre-

Gondarine low-status occupations of smithing, potting and weaving, and, as holders of lower

status positions, the Beta Israel were no longer paid with land and titles, but began to receive

compensation in the form of money and slaves. However, despite Quirin' s (1977) claim that

power in Ethiopia has traditionally been associated with control over people, the ownership of

slaves did not bring with it a rise in status; instead the reverse seems to have occurred, and the


SFor detailed discussion of the collapse of the Gonder Era, see Pankhurst 1969, Crununey 1975, 1981, Kaplan 1992,
and Quirin 1992









Beta Israel became part of the general outcast population, although, at this point, they constituted

a more unified cultural and/or occupational outcast group.

The representation of Beta Israel status and role in Abyssinian society during the Zamana

Masafent varies in the perceptions of different historians. English Protestant missionary JM Flad

visited Ethiopia in the second half of the nineteenth century, and was one of very few visitors to

discuss the Beta Israel in detail. Statements such as "there are no very rich people among the

Falashas, but many of them are well off and prosperous," and "if [the Falasha] were more

economical in their habits they might be richer," (1869:26) demonstrate his impression of

nineteenth century Beta Israel as enjoying considerable wealth and prosperity, at least enough to

afford, in his perspective (which as a Protestant missionary must be taken into consideration), a

level of extravagance. Likewise, James Bruce reported toward the end of the eighteenth century

that the Gonder Beta Israel "lived better than the other Ethiopians" (Bruce 1790). On the other

hand, Quirin' s (1977, 1992) portrayal of nineteenth century Beta Israel life is much darker, Hess

(1969: 120) references the "depressed position of the Falasha" during the nineteenth century, and

Kaplan refers to this period as "one of the bleakest in [Beta Israel] history" (1992:107). The Era

of the Princes is often identified (Quirin 1992) as key in the consolidation of the caste

relationship between the Beta Israel and the dominant Abyssinian society; the breakdown of the

central government, shifts in the economy, and increased proselytization that began in the mid-

1700s resulted in increased persecution and repression of the Beta Israel. The relative prosperity

observed by Flad does not seem to fit into this picture.

To add to the confusion, historian Donald Crummey disputes the claim that large-scale

construction ceased after the mid-eighteenth century, and states, "the great lords [of the 1790s to

1840s] imitated the Solomonids in directing energy and attention to founding and endowing









churches .of the six [major church foundations of this era] four occurred in the heartland of the

Gender kingdom" (2000:153). The continued erection of churches is corroborated by historian

Richard Pankhurst (1969). Crummey argues that the lords who gained control after the collapse

of the central government in the 1780s were not interested in effecting a social or religious

revolution, so continuity in cultural, social and political spheres remained an important theme

through the first half of the nineteenth century.

It is this confusion that has directed many of my research questions, and will be addressed

again later on. What can be stated with some certainty is that during the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries, as the general population of Gonder declined, so did the Beta Israel

population at the city's fringes. By this time, the Beta Israel acted primarily as smiths, potters,

and weavers (Stern 1862, Dufton 1867, Flad 1869), although according to several missionary

reports of the time, they continued on as architects and masons. James Bruce, visiting in the late

eighteenth century, described the Beta Israel of Gonder as "masons and thatchers of houses"

(1790: III: 195; IV:27), and Riippell wrote that along with producing all the pottery in Gonder,

the Beta Israel "were also to the fore as house-builders" (1838:181; trans. Richard Pankhurst

1969). Likewise Protestant missionary Samuel Gobat, who was in Gonder around 1830, wrote

that they "compose the architects of Gonder, and build most of the houses in that city"

(1851:468). It is likely they were no longer receiving land grants as payment. It has been

suggested (Quirin 1992) that the land that was under Beta Israel control began to be encroached

upon by Gonder' s noble class in the mid-nineteenth century, and Gobat reported that "the

Falashas .are generally poor, because their cattle are often violently taken from them"

(1851:279).









Social Structure during the Zamana Masafent

This shift back to artisanship as primary occupations had some significant social

implications, and was pivotal in the consolidation of a Beta Israel occupational caste, which went

hand in hand with the cultural caste that had been emerging since the Gonder Era. Throughout

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Beta Israel lost any political influence they might

have held during the Gonder Era, and became almost exclusively defined by their occupations.

Although, as mentioned, some linguistic acculturation occurred during the Era of the

Princes, this period is characterized more by growing social separation than by Beta Israel

incorporation into Amhara society. Quirin (1992) argues that this separation was equally upheld

by the Beta Israel and the Amhara, and delineates three main aspects of this pattern of

separation: 1) the Beta Israel became more defined as a unique group within the general

population, 2) the relatively high social status held by the Beta Israel during the Gonder Era

declined, and 3) the rules of intergroup interaction were renewed and rigidified. These rules,

advocated by both the Beta Israel and the Amhara, dictated that the Beta Israel and Christians

were to avoid each other entirely, except for necessary business dealings in the marketplace.

Christians and Beta Israel were forbidden to eat together (Stern 1862, Flad 1869), and the Beta

Israel were "obliged by their occupations to live together" (Halevy 1877:237).

One feature of the separation ideology is the intensification of the buda superstition. A

buda, or "evil eye," referred to a person with particular magical powers. At night, the buda

could turn into a hyena and would roam the village, digging up graves and devouring the

contents (Quirin 1992, Salamon 1999). During the day, the buda would retain its human form,

but had the power to turn other people into animals, and could bring sickness and death to his

enemies. This cannibalistic figure is traditionally associated with artisans, particularly smiths

and potters those craftspeople who work with fire so it is not surprising that the concept of









Beta Israel as buda was adopted so readily.9 The Beta Israel had always been viewed with some

suspicion by their neighbors and by travelers, as people who "spit fire and were bred up in Hell"

(Ludolphus 1682:391). In northwest Ethiopia, in the areas of the densest Beta Israel populations,

the buda label came to be almost equated with Beta Israel during the Zamana Masafent, and the

result was intensified fear and hatred of the Beta Israel, and their loss of any potential for upward

social mobility. It was not infrequent for a Beta Israel to be accused of causing illness or death

to a Christian through sorcery (Salamon 1999), and in some areas of the country, this superstition

fueled mass executions of both suspected buda and of hyenas.

However, as mentioned, the separation characteristic of the Zamana Masafent was upheld

by both groups, and the Beta Israel had their own ideologies about their Christian neighbors.

Numerous historical sources refer to the meticulous laws of cleanliness and purification of the

Beta Israel (Ludolphus 1682, Bruce 1790, Gobat 1851, Stern, 1862, Flad 1869, Leslau 1951),

and the Christian society was generally viewed as unclean. The Beta Israel reinforced social

separation through intergroup interaction regulations that were as rigid and more detailed than

those of Christian society (Quirin 1992: 145). For example, "If a Falasha has defiled himself by

eating bread or drinking water with those who are not Falashas, (meat is never eaten with

Christians or Mohammedans) he must fast seven days on raw Shimbera [dried chick peas] and

water" (Flad 1869:57). The Beta Israel considered themselves morally purer and superior to the

Amhara Christians, and used their religion to justify these separation laws.

Historical records and Beta Israel oral traditions present the Zamana Masafent as a time of

religious oppression and continued internal attempts to convert the Jews (Quirin 1992), during

which, those Beta Israel who did not convert were once more relocated to outlying areas. The

9 IH HOrthwest Ethiopia, the main buda were Beta Israel, but the superstition applied to other outcast groups as well,
and at times, even Christians were called buda (Quirin 1992, Salamon 1999).










reign of Tewodros II (1855-1868) also saw the first English Protestant missionaries targeting the

Beta Israel (Hess 1969). These missions were met with limited success, and instead fueled the

religious revival that promoted increased social separation between the Beta Israel and their

Orthodox neighbors (Hess 1969, Quirin 1992).

The Beta Israel in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

The beginning of the end of the Era of the Princes was marked by the coronation in 1855

of Tewodros II as King of Kings. This event ushered in a period of centralization, enhancement

in the power of the Ethiopian emperors, and the expansion of the Ethiopian state to include new

territories in the latter half of the 19th century and beginning of the twentieth (Crummey 1981).

This restoration of supreme political and military power to the imperial throne was continued by

Tewodros' successors, Yohannes IV (1872-1889), and Menilek II (1889-1913).

Gender ceased to be the political center of this era, replaced in importance by Dabra Tabor

(in Begemder) during Yohannes' reign, and later by Entotto and Addis Ababa. Both emperors

Yohannes and Menilek concentrated on the establishment of new "modern" cities, with

monumental palaces and churches, and thus demand for artisan labor once again increased. The

Beta Israel continued to be the primary masons, potters, weavers and smiths of northwestern

Ethiopia, but as much of this work was now being done outside of Gonder, the Beta Israel

population of Gonder declined, as people spread throughout the empire. The primary Beta Israel

artisan area of Gonder, Abwara, continued to exist, but it was much reduced in size as masons

and carpenters left or were taken away to participate in construction activities in the new Entotto-

Addis Ababa socio-political and economic center (Quirin 1992). Significant population decrease

and dispersal of the Beta Israel throughout the country is one of the characteristic features of the

late nineteenth century.









Kifu-qen: Bad Days

Along with geopolitical migration, the drastic population decrease and dispersal of the

Beta Israel can largely be attributed to the great famine of 1888-1892, as well as the Sudanese

Mahdist invasions that began in 1885. The famine, the effects of which were felt as early as

1882 in the north, killed an estimated third of the Ethiopian population. Many Beta Israel fled

the area in search of better conditions, and were often referred to by missionaries as "refugees"

(Negasie 1891:65). The exact numbers of Beta Israel who died during this time are unknown,

but it is estimated (Kaplan 1992) that between one-half and two-thirds of the Beta Israel

population died. What is known, however, is that this period led to a dramatic breakdown of

traditional Beta Israel practices. The usual restrictions against eating with non-Jews could not be

upheld in such desperate times, and people ate what was available, regardless of the company. A

significant number of Beta Israel converted to Christianity during this period (Kaplan 1992),

although some of them eventually returned to the Beta Israel community.

The first Mahdist forces from the Sudan invaded Ethiopia through Metema in March of

1885. They and subsequent forces moved south, killing people, plundering villages and burning

churches. They attacked Gonder twice, in January of 1888 and again in August of that same

year. They destroyed forty of the forty-seven churches and killed and took captive thousands of

people (Quirin 1992). These invasions continued to lay northern Ethiopia to waste until 1892.10

Converting the Jews

As mentioned, the middle nineteenth century was also characterized by an influx of

Protestant missionaries, beginning in 1830 with the arrivals of Samuel Gobat, who spent much of

his three years in Gonder, and Christian Kugler, who worked in Tigre. This influx was



"' For a detailed discussion of the Sudanese Mahdist invasions see Holt 1958, Erlikh 1982










symptomatic of a general growing trend of increased European involvement in Africa during the

19th and 20th centuries, although the missionary presence was largely removed in the later years

of Tewodros' reign, and not encouraged to return by either of his successors.

Many of these Protestant visitors were focused on converting the Ethiopian Orthodox

population as well as the Jews, but some devoted themselves completely to the conversion of the

Beta Israel. The primary missionary agency in England for the conversion of Jews was the

London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, founded in 1809. Between 1855

and 1860, this agency sent missionaries Johann Martin Flad and Henry Stern to Ethiopia to

follow up Gobat's work (Hess 1969, Kaplan 1992). By their own admissions, these missionaries

met with mixed success, and in the 1920s Baur, the missionary at Jenda, characterized a group of

Beta Israel converts as "outwardly .Christian. Inwardly they remain Jewish" (in Norden

1935:158). However, the visitors were able to establish three missions and schools for the Beta

Israel throughout northwestern Ethiopia, and estimated approximately fifty converts (Quirin

1992) before being imprisoned by the erratic emperor Tewodros. Following their release in

1869, all the missionaries except for JM Flad left Ethiopia, and for several years he was the only

Protestant presence in the country.

During the reign of Yohannes IV, Tewodros' successor, all foreign missionaries were

expelled from Ethiopia, as part of his goal to strengthen the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Thus,

after Yohannes' 1878 expulsion decree, Flad left the country, leaving behind a small community

of new converts. These new Christians were neither fully assimilated into Amhara Orthodox

society nor fully cut off from their Beta Israel communities. Instead they formed a new group,

known informally as Ye 'ato Flad lejoch, or "Children of Mr. Flad," after the missionary leader.









Although records documenting actual numbers are unreliable, the number of converted

Beta Israel was never large, probably less than 2,000 by 1908 (Quirin 1992). Converts came

from all sectors of Beta Israel population, although young people, and the poor and

disadvantaged seem to have found the mission particularly attractive (Kaplan 1992).

From 1868 to 1926, the Falasha Mission, under the patronage of the London Society for

Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, operated in Ethiopia without the presence of any

foreign missionaries. Various missionary groups continued to send spiritual and financial

support, but the day-to-day work was carried out entirely by the new converts (Quirin 1992).

Saving the Jews

In 1867, French scholar Joseph Halevy became concerned about the numerous attempts to

convert the Beta Israel, and visited Ethiopia in order to determine how to help them withstand

the proselytization and maintain their religious identity as Jews. His work was continued by his

student, Jacques Faitlovitch, in the first decade of the twentieth century. Faitlovitch aimed at

establishing contact between Ethiopian and European Jewry, as well as at "modemizing" the

Beta Israel religion to conform to contemporary European Jewish practices (Hess 1969).

Faitlovitch's attempts with both the Beta Israel and the newer group of converts (ye 'ato

Flad lejoch) were met with mixed reactions. Many people were opposed to his demands for

religious change, which called for the cessation of long-practiced traditions such as the use of

sacrifices. As part of a long-term plan to carry out these changes, Faitlovitch concentrated his

efforts on the mobilization of international Jewish support for the Beta Israel, and an education

process within Ethiopia that would be carried out by Western-educated Beta Israel (Quirin 1992).

Thus was the international Jewish community made largely aware for the first time of the

existence of the Ethiopian Jews.









While Faitlovitch' s work began to show some results by the 1920s, in the form of

Western-style schools for the Beta Israel in Addis Ababa and Asmara, the effects did not reach

the more rural areas of the country. Traditional building in Gonder was never revitalized, and

with the new technology brought by the Italian occupation and World War II, the artisan skills of

the Beta Israel were no longer as necessary or as prestigious as they had been in the seventeenth

century. In Gonder and in other rural areas, the Beta Israel continued producing crafts in order to

survive, but were not able to regain the unified society they had had during the Gonder Era.

Conclusions: Since Faitlovitch

Jacques Faitlovitch more than any other visitor to Ethiopia is responsible for the entrance

of the Beta Israel into Western Jewish consciousness. The process he set in motion in 1904

culminated eighty years later, with Operation Moses, which was the first of two mass migrations

of the Ethiopian Jews to their new homeland, Israel. This migration has allowed the Beta Israel

to live enveloped in what they consider to be their cultural and religious heritage, and to raise

their children according to traditional Jewish law, and it signals the beginning of a new chapter

in Beta Israel history.














.. !% Al., ~In;., ~5 i
..
',1
b" ;.II ,nr:
!.1

rt"\v~-~,i

".
i .
i ';- ''
I-i 1
;i-
?"'""ii ~ P
Ii__ P'ls: 3;:,I r :
i i r
-i '"
'.~ ~~I~ ~~~~I~~~~II ;`
-r ;' i.
..~ i ~:::
; ~
i s;~::l)...~.... In
; 1 ~lr~Z~ ,.r
*, ;Ro~~l "`
r ~ ii;
`Ir/ v "':~:olu
rll-I(YfN%IU~IX:"~~
j .,~...
i, l~i-~..-r i
,...... ",
I
\ K1 Lt-" I h~ b?:
n, ~v~*,,,)I ""\
'---
-~
,,..1? ~~'',,~.,
.-.i- ~-b t :~
~!ril ~~ri:~r~ "'I'.""U")5
: I1.1~ "
'''
i ; ""~'~i
r6e~darClch Maryam
J
~~ II-
.. b
\' `~ ~"
'I \
If7~ r


Figure 2-1 Beta Israel villages in Gender(1636-1868). Source: Lejean 1865; Pankhurst 1969




















63









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN

In reviewing the history of the Beta Israel in northwestern Ethiopia, particularly since the

beginning of the Gonder Era in the mid-17th century, two features immediately stand out: first,

the ever-changing levels of interaction between the Beta Israel and the other culture groups of

Gender most notably, the dominant group, the Amhara Christians; and second, the conflicting

ways these relationships are sometimes represented in historical records. Considering the long

history of tension between these two groups, and that it was during this particular time that the

Beta Israel, for the first time in documented history, were incorporated into a socially stratified

society because of their economic contributions, some important questions come to light. An

essential one is: how did this new position in Gonder society as an outcast group incorporated

into multi-ethnic multi-class Gonder society affect the Beta Israel? Correlates of this question

are: how did the Beta Israel react to this shift from a loosely defined, isolated, renegade group to

a cultural and occupational caste in a socially complex society? How did their behavior change?

How did their interaction patterns with the Amhara Christians change, and how did the Beta

Israel adapt to these changes? Did they seek to become assimilated into Gonder society or did

they prefer to remain physically and culturally separate? And further, how did all this change

again, with the collapse of Gonder as a thriving economic and political center?

This is not a topic that has been ignored by historians. The social positioning of the Beta

Israel during and after the Gonder Era has been discussed extensively by the maj or modern

historians of the Beta Israel (Kaplan 1984, 1992, Leslau 195 1, Quirin 1977, 1992, Pankhurst

1969). As addressed in the previous chapter, there is a fair amount of discrepancy in the

interpretations drawn by these scholars, particularly during the Era of the Princes (c. 1755 to mid-

1800s). At one end of the spectrum, historians such as Kaplan, Hess, and Quirin argue that









during this period the Beta Israel lost most of the status they had earned during the Gonder Era

along with land grants and the higher status occupations of architecture and masonry, and that

they reverted to their pre-Gondarine low status occupations of smithing, weaving and pottery. At

the other end of the spectrum are historians such as Flad (1869:26), who Einds the mid-19th

century Beta Israel "well off and prosperous," Crummey (2000) and Pankhurst (1969), who

argue that large-scale construction did not end with the collapse of the Gonder Era, and Bruce

(1790), Gobat (1830), Stern (1862), and Dufton (1867), all of whom present the post-Gonder

Beta Israel as the primary builders in the area. There seems to be little agreement as to where the

post-Gonder Era Beta Israel fit into the larger society.

Thus, in addressing the questions laid out above, it seems that historical records are of

limited use, being open, as historiography always is, to numerous levels of interpretation. In my

research I propose to address these questions from a new angle, through an archaeological

approach, in the hopes that the material culture of the Beta Israel in Gonder might shed new light

on historical representations of Beta Israel social, economic and political positioning during and

after the Gonder Era.

The focus of this research is on two distinct periods in Beta Israel history: the Gonder Era

(1636 c. 1755) and the Era of the Princes (c. 1755 mid 1800s). The first period, as pointed

out in Chapter 2, represented for the Beta Israel a period of transition. They shifted from a

loosely defined group of renegades that were for all intents and purposes politically,

economically and socially autonomous to a closed caste-like group within a complex hierarchical

society. Prior to the Gonder Era, the group of people that would eventually become known as

the Beta Israel were physically and culturally isolated as a means of escaping persecution they

lived in scattered groups throughout the Simien mountains. During the Gonder Era they lost this









isolation and became integrated into larger society. As members of Gonder society, they were

subj ect to the laws and governance of the polity, thereby incorporated into the political sphere.

As craftspeople they provided essential goods and services to the greater community, becoming

active participants in the economic sphere. And as a group of people, defined for the first time as

a unified cultural and occupational caste, they became incorporated into the social sphere, as

holders of the lower-status rungs of a socially stratified society.

During the second period, Gonder declined in importance as the capital of the empire.

Historical records are inconsistent in their interpretations of the implications this decline had on

Gender society in general and the Beta Israel in particular. The extent and nature of Beta Israel -

Amhara interactions is unclear during this time. Thus, for each period there are distinct

questions that need to be addressed: 1) How did the daily lifeways of the Beta Israel change as a

result of their incorporation into the various spheres of Gonder society? 2) How did Beta Israel

participation in Gonder' s political, economic and social spheres change after the fall of Gonder

as the capital of the Ethiopian empire, and how did social interactions change as a result? and 3)

how might the material culture of the Beta Israel act as an index of these changes? These

questions are addressed in more detail below.

Interactions between Culture Groups: The Gonder Era

During the Gonder Era we may begin with the premise, laid out by such prominent

historians as Hess (1969), Kaplan (1984, 1992), Pankhurst (1969) and Quirin (1977, 1992) that

the Beta Israel were, for the first time in their documented history, incorporated into the political

and economic spheres of Gonder society, and that furthermore, they became integrated into the

social hierarchy of Gonder, as a discrete caste group. My archaeological and ethnographic

research on this front thus attempts to focus on how the Beta Israel reacted to the changing

political, economic and social situations of the Gonder Era. In examining these issues I will









attempt to discern how the Beta Israel developed, maintained and expressed ideas of cultural

identity as a discrete group within the larger urban population of Gonder. The goals of this

portion of the research are to study expressions of group identity and affiliation through material

culture, to address levels of integration or non-integration between the two groups, and to

examine the responses of the minority group to shifting levels of interaction with the dominant

ethnic group, the Amhara Christians. With increased day-to-day interaction between groups, or,

metaphorically speaking, with people rubbing up against cultural boundary walls from both

sides, would those walls be allowed to wear down and develop holes, leading to integration and

assimilation? Or would people take pains to strengthen and refortify the walls, leading to

separation and cultural autonomy? Thus my first research question is: How did the day-to-day

lifeway patterns of the Beta Israel change during the Gonder Era, as they became incorporated

into the larger Gonder society?


Models of Culture contact

The topic of culture contact has long been of interest to anthropologists, particularly with

reference to how culture contact operates as a mechanism for social change in human

communities, as contact between cultures is inherently disruptive (Cusick 1998). There are

several theories about how a despised minority reacts when it is incorporated into a larger

society, including assimilation or acculturation theories, transcultural or pluralistic theories, and

resistance theories. The phrase culture contact refers to any case of "protracted, direct

interchanges among members of social units who do not share the same identity" (Schortman

1989, 1998: 102). The concept of "members of social units who do not share the same identity"

is problematic how is identity defined and delineated? But the definition is still useful overall,









and for the purposes of this study I will alter the second half of the definition to read "among

members of social units who do not consider themselves of the same culture."

Assimilation theory

The "Chicago School" of thought upon which assimilation theory was built defines

assimilation as "a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the

memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience

and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life" (Park and Burgess,

1924:735). To Robert Park, the founder of the Chicago School, assimilation was a cultural

process by which people become more alike. It included the acquisition of a new language, new

attitudes, new behavior and values. Proponents of this theory hold that racial and cultural

contacts are a product of migration and conquest, and that adjustments consequent to those

contacts will involve the processes of competition, conflict, accommodation, and eventual

assimilation. This school of thought differed very little from the concept of acculturation

proposed by cultural anthropologists (Herskovits 1958; Redfield et. al., 1936, Spicer 1961).

Both schools conceptualized the process of assimilation as linear and unidimensional (Deagan

1998, Rice 1998), involving the extinguishing of one cultural set of traits and replacing them

with a new set. Furthermore, this process was seen as hierarchical, in which the less complex

and less powerful society adopts the characteristics of the larger more powerful one. The less

powerful "submerged" group is characterized as the recipient of cultural change, and undergoes

greater cultural transformation than does the more powerful, "dominant" group (Curtis 2006).

Members of the subjugated social groups were allowed little room for creative resistance, nor did

they have significant impact on the dominant culture (Schortman and Urban 1998). Pluralism, or

the practice of selective assimilation of some cultural traits while maintaining other indigenous









traits, was given no place in early assimilation theories, nor was the possibility of bi- or multi-

directional change.

Thus, simple assimilation theories suggest two things: 1) that social boundaries between

groups, which include what Park and Burgess call "cultural life" (1924:73 5) i.e. language,

behavior, values, etc. will become more porous as levels of interaction increase in the other

spheres of society, for example, political and economic spheres; and 2) that this process will flow

in one direction: the smaller, submerged group will abandon their own cultural features and

adopt those of the more powerful group.

Because of the inherent problems in assimilation/acculturation models, archaeologists have

largely dismissed them as practical paradigms for culture contact. However in the last two

decades there has been a slight resurgence in interest as some of these models have been

reworked in archaeological studies in attempts to maintain the useful features in acculturation

theory while rej ecting some of the problematic aspects outlined here. One of the maj or themes to

emerge out of this reworking is that continuity and change are not mutually exclusive outcomes

of culture contact (Wagner 1998). (These new models actually bear much more resemblance to

pluralistic or transcultural models discussed below than to traditional assimilation models.)

These "new" acculturation studies focus primarily on directed contact, in which the dominant

group actively seeks to transform and assimilate the submerged group. Probably the flagship of

these studies is Rogers' (1990, 1993) studies of changing relationships between the Arikara of

what is today South Dakota and European fur traders in the 19th century. By looking at Arikara

material culture, Rogers was able to demonstrate that historically documented shifts in political,

economic and social relationships between the Arikara and Euro-Americans were reflected in

changes in Arikara use of trade goods and indigenous material assemblages (Wagner 1998).










However, he notes (1990:224) that these changes, namely the Arikara adoption of European

trade goods represented a "veneer of material change," beneath which continued a basic

underlying continuity. Similarly, based on the appearance and use patterns of European obj ects

at indigenous sites, Charlton and Fournier G. (1993) present the European contact situation in

Mesoamerica during the Colonial and Republican periods as acculturative but also dynamic.

This juxtaposition of continuity and change represents a shifting recognition of the complexities

involved in culture contact situations.

Resistance theories

Assimilation theory continues to guide research on ethnic relations and culture contact (for

example, Fair' s 2001 discussion of dress among former slaves in Zanzibar), and acculturation

models have been reworked in recent archaeological studies as discussed above. In addition,

since the 1980s, alternate theories have been proposed that emphasize the ability of the

submerged class to negotiate and maintain a unified culture through the practice of resisting

assimilation. These theories of resistance have helped focus the attention of anthropologists on

historically contingent worlds peopled by live actors (Scarry 2001). Pauketaut defines resistance

in its broadest sense as "any contrary practice where knowledge exists of the alternatives...done

less to oppose some dominant persons and more to reproduce one' s sense of tradition in the face

of alternatives" (2001:13). Thus, resistance may simply consist of the maintenance of traditional

patterns of living, or the intensification of symbolic meanings in spaces and obj ects. Scott

(1990) coined the term "hidden transcripts" to refer to subtle forms of resistance that do not

directly confront authority. These "hidden transcripts" are not designed to change or overthrow

an existing structure; this form of resistance tends to be indirect, individual and

nonconfrontational. Rather the goal is to maintain a sense of identity, autonomy, and control










among a submerged group of people. Resistance can occur in a variety of formats including the

transformation of meanings of sacred spaces and obj ects (Joyce et al., 2001), the maintenance of

symbols in sacred space (Schmidt 2006), the use of architecture and space (Reid et al., 1997), the

use of particular material culture (Davis 1985; Shackel 2000; Janusek 2002) or the development

of an entirely new "style" (Alt 2001; Wells 1998a).

Numerous examples of such resistance have been presented in archaeological and

ethnoarchaeological research. Hodder' s (1979, 1982) study of group boundaries in Kenya and

Smith's (1998) work on culture contact between Egypt and Nubia are only two examples of

resistance theory in action, in addition to the examples of various forms of resistance

summarized above. Hodder' s work, one of the earliest to look at the relationships between

groups from this perspective, was a catalyst for future studies of cultural identity and boundaries

(Wells 1998b). In his study of various groups in the Baringo area of Kenya, Hodder attempted to

demonstrate that competition for resources leads culture groupsll to use their material culture as

a way of expressing their distinct identities that is, their affiliation with one group, and

therefore their non-affiliation with the other. He accomplished this by mapping spatial

distribution patterns of material culture, and through a series of interviews with informants, who

often made comments such as "We don't use this item because the [other group] uses it"

(1982:54). Unfortunately his ability to develop a holistic model was hampered by his lack of

historic context a significant problem in archaeological studies of intergroup interaction.

Smith (1998) shows that in response to Egyptian Middle Kingdom occupation, some

Nubian groups responded by emphasizing their own culture, and excluding Egyptian influences



'' A clarification of the term "culture group" may be in order. I define groups as cultural units when the people
belonging to them recognize themselves as being in one group or another, and recognize differences between their
groups and the "other" groups. This is not to say that they represent ethnic groups.










(also see Saive-Soiderbergh 1989, Williams 1991). Methods by which this was accomplished

included a sharp decline in (Egyptian) imported obj ects, indicating Nubian refusal to participate

in the Egyptian economy (Smith 1998). Other Nubian groups responded in different ways, as

will be discussed below. But all of the examples of resisting assimilation are characterized by

emphasis on the part of the subjugated group on their own culture, and exclusion of outside

influences, indicating an emphasis on cultural distinctiveness (Smith 1998).

Thus, according to resistance theories, when two groups of people particularly when one

group is a despised underclass become increasingly interactive in one sphere of society, there

will be a strong push to maintain, or even increase, rigid boundaries in other spheres. This

rigidity is most often found in the area we define as cultural language, belief systems, dress,

etc. So, in the case of the Beta Israel, we might expect that during the Gonder Era, when they

were interacting daily within the economic and political spheres of Gonder society, they may

have reacted by maintaining or even increasing their social separation.

Pluralism

These dichotomous models of culture contact are, of course, oversimplifications; no person

or group is either completely assimilated within or completely resistant to the dominant society.

More recent studies of culture contact are showing new concern for the dialectic of contact, and

the role of human agency in negotiating change (Deagan 1998). Thus, a third model must be

taken into consideration, a less rigid paradigm, which can be classified as bicultural or pluralistic

theories. While not necessarily rej ecting earlier models of acculturation and culture contact,

these new models represent a rej section of unidirectional change as the primary agent in contact

situations (Deagan 1998). Dominguez (1975) and Laguerre (1984) have both argued that a

crucial element in the adaptation of immigrants to life in a different culture has been the









formation and maintenance of racial and ethnic boundaries. Thus the idea that a minority group

faced with assimilation and loss of identity will adopt some of the cultural and structural

characteristics of the larger group while maintaining other traditional characteristics allows for a

practical model of inter-group relations, while also enabling the minority group to actively

maintain and manipulate their cultural identities as distinct.

Fernando Ortiz (1940, 1995) introduced the term "transculturation" in his study of culture

contact in Cuba to describe "the highly varied phenomena" that come about as a result of the

"disadjustment and readjustment, of deculturation and acculturation in a word,

transculturation" (1995:98). This concept, a workable synonym for pluralism, allows for the

greater complexity and multidirectionality of change in contact situations that are ignored in

simple assimilative and resistance models.

Wagner' s (1998) study of the Potawatomi responses to increasing contact with European

fur-traders in North America is a textbook example of a pluralistic model. In this case, the

Potawatomi "selectively accepted certain technological items while rej ecting social and religious

aspects of European culture" (1998: 43 1). For example, in his study of Potawatomi sites at

Rock Island and Windrose, he points to the replacement of Potawatomi ceramic, bone, and lithic

technologies with brass, iron, copper, tin, and redware during the mid-18th and early 19th

centuries. At the same time, he demonstrates continuity in terms of subsistence patterns there

are consistently low numbers of domesticated pig remains throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

He interprets this as deliberate rejection of a European lifeway, as 19th century missionaries and

government officials emphasized the "acquisition of domesticated animals as an indicator of

acculturation" (1998:446). He also points to the low representation or absence in the

archaeological record of European architecture, clothing styles and agricultural methods. This









example demonstrates well the agency of the so-called submerged group in negotiating and

manipulating their environments to suit their purposes.

Smith's (1998) study of contact between various Nubian groups and the Egyptian Middle

kingdom is another clear example of the levels of complexity that are tied up in the concept of

pluralism, or transculturation. He demonstrates how the Kerma and Napatan states used and

manipulated Egyptian obj ects and symbols to legitimize their own position. They chose

"specific motifs, practices and technologies from Egypt, sometimes modifying or blending them

with native motifs and technologies to suit Nubian culture" (1998:282). Wells' (1998b) study of

the responses of European provinces within the Roman Empire reflect similar patterns of

manipulation: "even when Roman-style goods were involved, the contexts in which they occur

often reflected traditional local patterns" (1998b: 327). This took the form of regional variations

in burial practices and sanctuary form. And DeCorse (1998) presents yet another example of

European items being used in non-European contexts. More than simple adoption or rej section of

new influences, it is this level of give and take, of negotiation and manipulation, of boundary

blurriness, that characterizes the transcultural model of society, and it is this dialectic that I

suspect characterized Gonder Beta Israel lifeways in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Discussion

In addressing questions of interaction and integration of the Beta Israel into Gonder society

during the 17th century, we may find that their response to this new situation falls under one of

these general models, or that it fits neatly into none of them. The Gonder Era and the subsequent

Era of the Princes are often hailed by historians (Kaplan 1984, 1992; Quirin 1977, 1992) as the

period in which the Beta Israel were transformed from a loosely defined group of political and

religious dissenters to a discrete outcast society, defined both culturally and occupationally. In









no documents do we see evidence of assimilation between the Beta Israel and the other culture

groups that populated Gonder during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Thus the assimilation

model seems to have little bearing on this case. On the other hand, historians such as Kaplan

(1992) and Quirin (1992) have emphasized the "Ethiopian-ness" of the Beta Israel referring to

the idea that although they were often isolated and subjugated, they were still Ethiopian in

heritage, language, dress, and many other aspects of culture as an aspect of their identity that is

often overlooked. We can thus tentatively hypothesize that total resistance was not in practice

either. Add to that the oversimplicity of both these models, and we are left with the model of a

pluralistic or transcultural society as the most probable and realistic. In addition, I have

attempted to show that the recent trend in culture contact studies emphasize the overlap between

these three models they are no longer mutually exclusive paradigms, and even the definitions

of each have become blurred. The questions that need to be addressed, then, are how much of

each of these models of society was present among the Gonder Beta Israel, and how were they

manifested? In what areas of daily life and to what level did the Beta Israel and the Amhara

remain socially separate, and to what extent was this separation deliberately maintained by each

group? In short, what effects did this increased contact have on Gonder Beta Israel social,

economic, political, and ideological patterns?

The Gonder Era represented a period of integration for the Beta Israel integration as a

discrete caste into the larger political, economic and social spheres of Gonder society. However,

to assume the story ends here is to oversimplify the issue, and to conform to outdated models of

culture contact in which the "submerged" group is a passive recipient of its society. It denies

agency to these people. How the Beta Israel reacted to their new position in Gonder society

remains unclear, and here is where archaeology can make a maj or contribution, as historical









records are virtually silent on the motives, intentions, desires, and "hidden transcripts" of

mmnonty groups.

Interactions between Culture Groups: the Post-Gonder Era

During the Era of the Princes, all the questions laid out above must still be addressed, with

one important difference: here we cannot begin with the premise that the Beta Israel were

incorporated into the political and economic spheres of Gonder society; we don't know to what

extent the integration seen during the Gonder Era was maintained or transformed with the

collapse of Gonder as the political, social, and economic center of the Ethiopian empire. Thus

this portion of the study attempts to address levels of political and economic as well as social

integration after the fall of Gonder as the capital of the Ethiopian empire in the 18th century.

Again, as historical records are conflicting on the topic of Beta Israel social, political and

economic levels of integration into Gondarine society during the Era of the Princes, we need to

turn to an archaeological approach.

The Archaeology of Cultural Identity and Culture Contact

How might the archaeological record shed light on these issues? How can material culture

act as an index of shifting levels of integration? Numerous archaeologists (Morantz 1992,

DeCorse 1998, Wagner 1998 to name a few) have cautioned against equating simple shifts or

replacement in technology or artifact types with transformations in cultural identity. For

example, Wagner (1998) points out that although material preference may change though time,

in many cases the artifact function remains the same: "a harpoon kills muskrat whether it is

antler or iron" (1998:449). He views this as a veneer of technological change, underlying which

is a continuity of traditions and behavior. In order for material culture to serve as an indicator of

integration, the interpreter of said material culture must maintain an awareness that changes in

technology at an archaeological site may not necessarily indicate changes in cultural identity.










The lesson we must take from earlier studies of culture contact is that changes in an artifact

assemblage must be interpreted through the lens of cultural and historical context.

Features relating to an artifact' function, then, may or may not be indicative of significant

culture change within a group. But features relating to artifact form may well be.12 Thus the

concept of style is of use here. The topic of style as a means of conveying information about

identity has long been of interest to anthropologists. Here I have adopted Sackett's (1990)

definition of "style" to refer to any consistency of choice that occurs when a person or group is

faced with a series of equally viable options. It has been suggested (Hodder 1977, 1979, 1982a,

1982b, 1990; see also Conkey, 1990; David et al. 1988; Dietler and Herbich, 1998; Earle, 1990;

Gosselain, 1998; Herbich, 1981; Herbich and Dietler, 1989; Larick, 1991; Sackett, 1985, 1990;

Pollack, 1983; Wiessner, 1983, 1984) that groups of people who share geographic boundaries

and high levels of tension use their material culture as a way of expressing their distinct identities

and membership within their respective groups. According to Sackett (1990), stylistic variation

in material culture reflects ethnicity; the link between the two is in the traditions within which

the artisans have been enculturated as members of social groups, which govern their stylistic

decisions (Sackett, 1990).13 Sackett states that variation in material culture "that is socially

bounded in this [tradition-dictated] manner is consequently diagnostic or idiomatic of ethnicity"

(1990:33). Likewise, Wobst (1977) and Pollack (1983) have both argued that stylistic variation

in material culture transmits information about "social group membership and helps to maintain



12 The topic of form vs. function is a complicated one, as often artifact attributes fit into both categories, or else
whether an attribute is purely functionalr" or not is unknown. Calling an artifact attribute "functional" versus
"nonfunctional" is also problematic, since even traditionally "nonfunctional" attributes (i.e. decoration) serve some
function for the people who make and use the materials.

13 Sackett uses the term "ethnicity" to refer to a group of people who are unified through a sense of shared heritage -
a common history, a common religion, a common language. The term ethnicity is problematic, because it is used
differently by different people, thus I use the term "culture group," as a substitute.









social boundaries" (Pollock 1983:3 54); in fact, Wobst defines style as "that part of the formal

variability in material culture that can be related to the participation of artifacts in processes of

information exchange" (1977:321).

Because decoration on a vessel does not affect its overall function, this is often the most

immediately recognizable stylistic attribute. Thus, decoration, which "can convey social

messages or maintain social boundaries, is subject to change from influences that do not affect

clay sources, vessel formation, or firing practices" (Rice 1987, Cusick 1989). However,

messages about cultural identity are not restricted to decorative variation. They can be found in

obj ect morphology, manufacturing techniques (Rice 1987, Herbich and Dietler 1989), use-wear

(Arthur 2002), and technical decision-making (Lemonnier 1984), such as temper selection in

pottery (Schiffer and Skibo, 1987). It is necessary to look at technological, morphological and

decorative aspects of material culture for a unique "style," which might indicate correlations

between material culture and social identity.

Wells (1998a) argues that group identities form in situations of intensifying interaction

between different peoples, and "groups that see themselves as more alike than they are like other

groups...frequently develop increasing signs of shared identity" (1998a:263). Given that

material culture systems are the result of social and historical processes that are "responsible for

the formation of ethnic consciousness and the construction of identity" (Kalentzidou, 2000:80),

we may expect that shifts in relations between neighboring groups (which may lead to

redefinitions of identity) will be reflected in the material culture of those groups.

Thus, given that the style of material culture, which can include morphology,

manufacturing techniques and decorative techniques, often expresses ideas about cultural

identity and group affiliation, researchers can turn to the material culture itself to look for such









expressions. Hodder (1982) and Wells (1998a and 1998b), among many others, have both

argued that material culture can be shown to be indicative of cultural or ethnic identity, which

includes aff61iation with one group, and non-aff61iation with another, and that increasing tension

between groups may cause people to intensify these signs. Consider the example of the

collective American reaction to the September 11 event: a nation-wide intensification of the use

and display of American flags. Display of the flag, a symbol of American identity, was a

response by people who felt their cultural identities and lifeways threatened (Kurylo 2002,

Marvin 2004). Is it likely that 17th century Beta Israel felt their new position as part of a larger

society as a similar threat to their cultural identities and lifeways, and responded in a similar

manner? Did this new position continue after the collapse of Gonder as an economic and

political capital in the 18th century? Or did the relative prosperity enjoyed by the Beta Israel

collapse as well, leading to the reversion to pre-Gondarine status? And Einally, what methods

can be employed to address such questions?

Culture Contact in the Archaeological Record

This study proposes that the pottery of the Beta Israel be used as the primary index by

which to measure changing levels of political, economic and social integration. There are

several reasons for this: first, pottery is a staple in Beta Israel life it is universally present, in all

households, in any time period up to their migration to Israel. This makes it a good constant, and

possibly an indicator of any changes in the lifeways of the people making and using it. Second,

the Beta Israel women have been potters for centuries, at least since the reign of Yeshaq (1413-

1430), when they were declared outcast and landless (Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1977). Pottery found

at a Beta Israel village, or any other village around Gonder dating to the Gonder Era, was most

likely made by a Beta Israel woman. Accordingly, the attributes of the pottery in the

archaeological record the morphology, the manufacturing techniques, the use-wear, the










decoration offer direct insight into the choices made by the Beta Israel potter. Pottery vessels

can be complex, multifunction artifacts that simultaneously serve utilitarian, social and

ideological purposes within a culture (Rice 1984:252). The style of the pottery reflects the

context in which the potter lived and worked, and thus may act as a text, upon which the ideas,

choices, habits and lifeways of the potter are written.14 And finally, pottery preserves well in the

archaeological record, so that a representative sample size is available.

There are numerous studies that have attempted to link social changes to changes in

material culture in general, and to pottery in particular, many of which are summarized above.

Most of these (for example Rogers 1990, 1993, Smith 1998, Wells 1998b, Dietler 1990, Cusick

1989) focus on the introduction of imported materials into the lives of the submerged group: to

what extent these "external" objects are adopted, and how they are used. For example, Rogers

posits that

change in the material inventory can be viewed as measurable by the relative continuity or
consistence of the occurrence of artifact categories in a specific context from one time
period to the next. This perspective is based on the proposition that discontinuity in
artifact assemblages should be expected in periods of rapid social change. .Furthermore,
the relative continuity or discontinuity of various artifact categories may be used as a
means of determining "where" change is taking place within the material assemblage
(1993: 79).

Rogers' perspective is that breaks in the continuity of represented artifacts are correlated with

social transitions. We may surmise from this view the correlate that continuity in an artifact

assemblage is indicative of a lack of social disruption. This may or may not be the case, as

resistance studies have shown, continuity of a way of life is often an active response to social

change a response that expresses a commitment to resist adopting any aspect of that change.

14 Pottery may provide insight into Beta Israel lifeways from another key angle the women's perspective. As the
sole makers of pottery, this activity may have provided women an important medium for expressing their ideas
about cultural identity and integration during and after the Gonder Era. As historical references to the Beta Israel in
general are scarce, on the lives of women they are almost nonexistent. This study may provide a distinct avenue into
the lifeways of Beta Israel women.










Again, in order to reach a holistic interpretation about what such continuity or discontinuity

means, here is where we must take the broader cultural and historical contexts into account. In

any case, by correlating specific artifact process, archaeological contexts, and historical periods,

Rogers was able to both measure change and assess its implications for Arikara society (Deagan

1998).

Cusick' s (1989, 1998) study of pottery change as a reflection of social change presents

another comprehensive methodology for measuring levels of culture contact as represented in the

archaeological record. He hypothesizes that different attributes of pottery will be sensitive to

different types of sociocultural change. For example, changes in an economic sphere will affect

pottery in a different way than changes in an ideological sphere. He proposes the following:

changes in a group's subsistence patterns may be reflected in changes in vessel type and use-

wear. Changes in the amount of time spent making pottery may be reflected in the quality of the

finished product if people are spending less time potting, we may see "less thorough clay

preparation, poorer firing, less attention to firing techniques" (1989:40). And changes in a

group's iconography and use of symbol may be reflected in "shifted frequencies or loss of design

motifs that are not tied to other changes like change in vessel forms, introduction of non-local

pottery or temporal drift" (1989:40). Thus he posits that decoration methods and motifs are

attributes that change in conjunction with social changes (1989). Although his hypotheses are

fundamentally assimilative, this study is a very useful model for interpreting changes in pottery

over time, and linking them with changes in the group's cultural, political, economic and

ideological contexts.

In archaeological studies of culture contact, the only area of consensus appears to be that

there exists no cohesive model for the study of culture contact from an archaeological










perspective. Scholars seem to agree on the problems that arise out of studies like these: 1) they

often lack historical and cultural contexts (Rogers 1993, DeCorse 1998, Rice 1998, Kent 2002, to

name only a few); 2) the types of data used (usually trait lists of artifacts) are overly simplistic,

and lead to erroneous assumptions, for example the assumption that change in an artifact

inventory is necessarily representative of culture change (DeCorse 1998); and 3) the traditional

models themselves are overly simplistic, and don't allow for the full range of complexity that

arises out of culture contact. These are all valid criticisms, and I would add to this list a fourth:

very few of these studies have been conducted in Africa. This and future studies must be aware

of these pitfalls; however, although critiques of current methods are rampant, there are very few

suggestions as to how to address these issues more effectively. The only real direction for future

studies to arise out of current literature is a general call for more contextual research, and more

acknowledgement of the inherent complexities of contact situations.

For example, Chris DeCorse (1998) points to David et al.'s (1988) study of the Nafa and

Bulahay of Cameroon, in which individual artifact classes such as pottery have demonstrated that

decorative motifs, vessel forms and styles may provide a material indicator of group identity and

worldview. The authors present decoration on pottery as analogous to human bodily adornment,

and thus argue that as pots-people, so decoration can delineate the culture groups to which the

people making and using them belong. On the other hand, DeCorse points to his own (1989)

work in Sierra Leone as a case study in which various traits, including pottery styles, crosscut

ethnographically perceived cultural boundaries. He presents three distinct culture groups, the

Limba, the Yalunka and the Kuranko, and demonstrates how many pottery manufacture

techniques, including inclusion types and decoration, are common to all three groups, and thus

do not make good indicators of cultural boundaries in the archaeological record. The moral of









this story is that we cannot assume from the material record that artifact change is indicative of

cultural shifts here is where we must supplement the archaeological data with oral and written

historical material. Thus, a thorough archaeological investigation, supplemented by

ethnographic research, offers a distinct approach to questions of social positioning.

From the above discussion on style, and on the relationships between a group's material

culture and the broader sociocultural context of the group, we may theorize that pottery styles

can reflect changes in social, political and economic boundaries, and may provide insights as to

the integration or non-integration of the Beta Israel into the larger Gonder society. Thus my

approach looks at broad patterns in pottery morphology, manufacturing techniques, use, and

decoration over time and space, as well as the contexts in which these materials are found, and to

the extent that it can be determined, used. I am looking at pottery attributes as they relate to

vessel form, function, and style, and attempting to link changes in any of these areas to the

changes that Beta Israel society was undergoing during and after the Gonder Era. How might we

interpret a sudden rise or drop in the frequency or quality of pottery at a certain point in time?

Might this indicate less time spent on potting, as Cusick (1989) suggests? Could the appearance

of a new type of pot, or temper material, or decorative motif indicate the adoption of new

techniques and traditions? Conversely, what conclusions could be drawn from the emergence of

no new types of pots, temper materials or decorative motifs? How might we interpret continuity

in pottery attributes over time and space? Various studies have interpreted these findings in

different, and often contrasting ways (see the above discussion of Rogers' [1990, 1993] work, for

example). Identifying continuities or discontinuities in pottery attributes over space and time is

the first step of this research; the second and much more essential step is to attempt to discern









meaning from such patterns. Here is where the warnings of Cusick (1998), DeCorse (1998),

Rice (1998), Kent (2002), and others must be remembered and addressed.

I have therefore supplemented the pottery attribute analysis with historical and

ethnographic research, in an attempt to reach a holistic interpretation of what continuity or

change in the pottery of the Beta Israel might mean. This approach has allowed me to form

several hypotheses. First, if the Beta Israel reacted to their new position as a discrete caste group

within the larger Gonder society by attempting to remain separate and retaining their cultural

autonomy, Beta Israel pottery during the Gonder Era should show continuity in style and

function over time. According to historical records, Beta Israel women have been making

pottery since at least the 15th century (Kaplan 1992). Continuity in pottery manufacture

techniques throughout the Gonder Era might thus represent a maintenance of traditional methods

in the face of a new socio-economic context. The inverse of this hypothesis is: if the Beta Israel

attempted to integrate into the larger Gonder society, the archaeological record will show the

appearance of new features at Beta Israel sites these may include new stylistic attributes of

pottery, new vessel forms, or new uses of familiar vessel types.

For the period after the fall of Gonder, there are several hypotheses that can be proposed

and tested as well, again using archaeological and ethnographic methods to supplement historical

records. If this shift from the Gonder Era to the Era of the Princes did not result in a radical shift

in lifeways for the Beta Israel, as Crummey (2000), Flad (1869), and Pankhurst (1969) suggest, I

expect that this shift would not be clearly delineated in the archaeological record a level of

continuity should be visible instead. If, on the other hand, the Era of the Princes did in fact

manifest itself as a period in which the Beta Israel lost whatever status they had gained (along

with land grants and their higher status occupations) and reverted to their pre-Gondarine










occupations of potting, smithing and weaving, I would expect to see evidence of this upheaval in

the material record. This evidence might take the forms of increasing pottery manufacture, or

the disappearance of certain (most likely imported and/or expensive) items from the

archaeological record. The next chapter addresses the various methods by which I examine

patterning in pottery use and style for such indicators.









CHAPTER 4
METHODS: EXCAVATIONS

The general goals of the archaeological component of my research were to find a Beta

Israel village that was occupied during and after the Gonder Era, and to record as much as

possible about the day-to-day living patterns of this community. More specifically, my aim was

to obtain a contextual sample of Beta Israel pottery, which I could examine for patterns of

continuity or discontinuity in style and function. Such patterns, if they can be associated with

particular time periods, might offer important insights into how the Gonder period and the

subsequent Era of the Princes affected Beta Israel-Amhara relations.

The archaeological research consisted of four stages: archival research into historical

records; surveys and conversations with local people; shovel tests and excavation; and pottery

analysis. This chapter is devoted to describing each of those stages.

Selecting a Site

Historical records (see Quirin 1992) mention seven areas around the city of Gonder that

served as "Falashabet" (Falasha villages) during the Gonder Era: Abwara, Tadda, Abba

Entonyos, Gondaroch Maryam, Kayla Meda, Azazo, and Dafacha (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). In the

summer of 2001, I conducted a four-week surface survey of these villages in order to determine

which area to examine further. Escorted by the woreda representative of the Authority for the

Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (ARCCH), Ato Fantahun, I spent several days

visiting Tadda, Abwara, Abba Entonyos, Gondaroch Maryam and Dafacha. The last three are

located in the foothills surrounding Gonder and are inaccessible by vehicle there are no roads -

so the entire survey was conducted on foot. Tadda and Azazo are both easily reached by vehicle;

however, they are both further away from Gonder itself, and as I visited them without any

Ethiopian guide I was unable to glean much information about them. I did, however, record the









locations of all five villages, as well as Abwara, using a Magellan GPS 15 Global Positioning

System .

Kayla Meda is the only village I was unable to find, because of its location. As mentioned

(see Chapter 2), it was the only Beta Israel village located between the Qeha and Angareb rivers,

within the city boundaries. Because it lay within modern-day Gonder, it has most likely been

destroyed or built over.

After visiting the other five areas, I settled on Abwara as the best site to excavate for

historical and logistical reasons. It is the Beta Israel village to the closest actual city of Gonder

(Figure 4-3), making commuting and the transport of equipment very easy, compared to the other

sites like Abba Entonyos and Gondaroch Maryam, which were not accessible by vehicle.

The village of Abwara is also mentioned several times in historical records, often as the

key Beta Israel village in the Gonder region. Based on his ethnographic research, James Quirin

(1992) argues it was a pre-Fasilidas Beta Israel settlement area, possibly settled as early as the

sixteenth century, when the church of Abwara Giorgis was constructed, most likely by the Beta

Israel themselves. Oral histories also state that during the Gonder Era, the Beta Israel were given

land-use rights, or had their previous claims confirmed at Abwara, as well as the other maj or

Beta Israel villages around Gonder (Quirin 1992).

Most mentions of Abwara come from the chronicles of travelers Eduard Ruippell and

Henry Stern, both writing in the mid 19th century. By this time, the Gonder Era had passed, and

the general population of Gonder, including the Beta Israel population, had declined. Riippell

(1838) never refers to Abwara by that name, but describes an area southwest of Gonder,

separated from the Muslim village (Islam Bet) by the Gaha (Qeha) River and atop a small hill,

occupied "solely by Jews, and therefore it is called Falasha Bet" (1838:81). This description fits









with the location of Abwara, and in fact, the Muslim village is still present today. Ruippell puts

the population of the Falasha Bet at approximately sixty houses, and 3-400 people. He also

states that at that time, "only the Falasha are making the walls (stones and mortar) for all the

houses in Gonder, and [the women] are also the sole producers of earthenware [pottery]"

(1838:181).

Henry Stern visited the area in the 1860s, as the post-Gonder Era decline in population

continued. He refers to a Falasha village southwest of Gonder "on the other side of the river

Gaha [Qeha]" (1862: 199) as "Avorno." Again, we may assume, from the description and

location, that it was the same area known more commonly as Abwara. Stern describes it as

situated on a "rich and fertile plain, [consisting] of about thirty houses and a mesquid

[synagogue]" (1862:199). He also states that Abwara was the residence of the district head of

the workers, indicating this village as the center of masonry and carpentry (1862:203). Like the

other visitors to the area, he noted that pottery was made "by the womenfolk of the Falasha

villages outside the city" (1862:205).

By the 1870s, the pattern of out-migration from the Gonder area had strongly impacted the

demography of the Beta Israel villages, as many artisans moved or were taken to the new

Entotto-Addis Ababa sociopolitical and economic center. As the craft center of Gonder, Abwara

continued to exist, but its population, as well as its importance as a center for craftwork, was

much reduced.

Known locally as Abwara Giorgis, the area today is situated approximately 8 km

southwest of the center of Gonder, and is home to a small population of Beta Israell", most of

whom came from the surrounding countryside to settle temporarily in Gonder while awaiting


15 The privacy of the Beta Israel population of Gonder is very heavily protected, and I was unable to obtain any
census information. I would estimate the population to be somewhere between 1,000 to 4,000 people.










passage to Israel in the 1980s and 90s. As the maj or migrations did not continue after Operation

Solomon in 1991, these people have remained displaced in Gonder, in a state of limbo. Located

nearby is a Jewish synagogue, feeding center and school, funded and directed by the North

American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry (NACOEJ).

Abwara Giorgis is no longer homogenous in its cultural makeup there is also a small

Muslim population and a number of Christian familieS16. Most people practice subsistence

farming and some craftwork, although professional occupations in the city are becoming

increasingly common, as is the movement of young people to Addis Ababa for better education

or job opportunities. In an area where metal and plastic are readily available, the artisan skills of

the Beta Israel are no longer relied upon; however, due to growing international awareness of the

Ethiopian Jews, many work to produce pottery, metalwork, and woven materials for the

increasing tourist industry.

Abwara Giorgis

Within the village of Abwara Giorgis, I spent several days in the summer of 2001, and

again when I returned in January, 2004, speaking with local inhabitants and asking them to point

out specific areas where the Beta Israel lived. These conversations were of limited success;

people were reluctant to point out Beta Israel sites. I was told that the recent interest of

American and Israeli Jewish communities in this area has led to many ferenji (foreigners)

coming in and erecting buildings on what was once Beta Israel land. It is also quite common for

Beta Israel who now live in Israel to return to this area and build houses or schools. Although

there is no privately owned land in Ethiopia, there is a long history of land occupation and use,

and people who have been living and farming on a plot of land for generations come to feel


16 Exact numbers of families is unknown.










proprietary over it. As the vast maj ority of Beta Israel have left Gonder, the land they once

occupied is now used by local people for housing and farmland. Thus, there was a fear when I

entered the village that I was planning to build on some of these plots of land, which people now

consider their own, and hence they were unwilling to point out specific areas.

When I left Gonder in the summer of 2001, I had located an area in Abwara Giorgis that

villagers had pointed out as a "Falasha village" during the Gonder Eran, and it was to this area

that I returned in January of 2004 to begin the bulk of my archaeological and ethnographic

research. I was joined at that point by my assistant, Biruk GebreMariam, from Addis Ababa,

who was with me throughout the entire field season. Upon our arrival in Gonder, we met with

the zonal and woreda (neighborhood) cultural authorities, Ato Endale and Ato Fantahun,

respectively. They offered their full support and were immensely helpful in obtaining the

necessary research permits, and introducing us to various informants, including Ato Adane

Stotaw Reta, the leader of the local Beta Israel community.

Ato Adane in turn introduced us to one Ato Tigabie Jember Zegeye a Beta Israel man

who grew up in Abwara Giorgis. In the beginning of February, the four of us visited the Abwara

Giorgis site that I had been directed to in 2001. This area is about 600 square meters, and much

of it is now used as farmland. In January of 2004, there were two or three houses there, but it

was considered one of the last open areas of land in the Gonder region, and was being rapidly

built up. By the end of 2004, there were over fifteen new houses there, and plans for several

more.





17 One of the difficulties I faced in speaking with local people was in getting dates people could tell me "this was
here before Haile Selassie's time," or "this was here during Fasilidas," but I rarely received more specific
chronologies.









Ato Tigabie pointed out a specific place where the Beta Israel were said to have built their

homes. It is located at the western end of the Abwara Giorgis area (Figure 4-4), at the foot of the

hills that flank that side, and is approximately 50 meters by 30 meters. It appeared relatively

undisturbed, except for recent plow activity. Fortunately, Ethiopian plowing methods are non-

intensive, using cattle and iron plowshafts, so the plow zone is rarely more than 10-15 cm below

the surface. Although no features or archaeological material were evident on the surface, I

decided to conduct shovel tests in this spot to determine where to focus a full-scale excavation.

Ato Adane also took us to a small Beta Israel cemetery a few hundred meters south of the

site area. He pointed out a few small stones planted in the ground underneath a sycamore tree,

and said that these graves were from before Haile Selassie's time (before the 1930s).

On 9 February 2004, I commenced mapping the site with the use of a total station (Figure

4-4). I then began shovel tests with the assistance of Biruk and three other local men. One of

them, Melaku, was the son of one of the families in the area. The other two, Nega and Tiru,

were Beta Israel from outside of Gonder who had heard about the research. Both of these men

remained with us throughout the field season, and became key informants. Shovel tests were

conducted every 5 meters throughout the site: a total of 85 in all. At every 5-meter interval, a

small hole, approximately 20 cm in diameter, was dug, the contents of which were collected and

screened using both 5 mm and 1 mm screens. In each shovel test, we dug until we reached

bedrock, the depth of which varied from 15 cm below the surface to more than 70cm.

The results of these shovel tests were minimal: a few bits of charcoal, some corrugated

metal, and an occasional piece of clay or glass (Appendix A). We quickly concluded that this

was not a Beta Israel archaeological site; however, we completed the shovel tests in order to be

certain. At the conclusion of this phase, there was no evidence that the Beta Israel, or anyone










else, had ever lived in this area. The little material collected from this site is stored in the

National Museum in Addis Ababa, labeled "AG test site #1," the term I use hereafter to refer to

this area.

Survey and Excavation: AG 2004 Site

While the shovel tests at AG test site #1 were being carried out, I surveyed the area just to

the east, which had been named a plowing and grazing area by Ato Tigabie (Figure 4-4). This is

a much larger area approximately 150 meters by 70 meters, and it lies right on the edge of a

ravine, creating a plateau with natural boundaries along the southern, eastern and northern sides.

It has clearly been a plow zone in the recent past furrows were visible in the ground. It was

also covered with rocks of various sizes. In surveying this spot, I found enormous quantities of

pottery on the surface.

While surveying this site, I was approached by a local man, named Abera Melaki, and his

wife. Abera was a journalist who had grown up in Abwara Giorgis, and was building a house

just beyond the northern border of the site. He and his wife told us that this new area was

definitely a Beta Israel village, occupied since before Tewodros (early 19th century), up until

Operation Solomon. Abera remembered that as a child, his mother sent him to this area to buy

pots from the Falasha potters. He also said that the rocks littering the surface were the remains

of Beta Israel houses, which had been dismantled after the site was abandoned in the 1980s.

According to Abera, the Beta Israel always built their houses out of stone to be more durable,

and modeled after Fasilidas' castle, which they helped to build.

The new site was labeled AG 2004. Mapping of this area began in mid-February, followed

by shovel tests. A permanent datum was set, a nail in one of the south-facing structural posts of

Ato Abera' s house, just north of the site. Because this area was considerably larger than AG test

site #1, shovel tests were conducted every ten meters, for a total of 86 test holes (Figure 4-5).










These shovel tests immediately yielded positive results pottery was found in every test hole, as

well as some bone, glass, clay and slag. At each test hole we dug until it was no longer possible

- either because we hit bedrock, or a large stone, or the hole became too deep to continue. The

deposits varied in depth, but most continued below 60 cm below surface; the deepest test hole

was 1.1 meter, and pottery was still recovered at that depth. The site boundaries on the western

side were delineated at this time, indicated by a sharp drop in archaeological materials beginning

40 meters west of the total station point (Figure 4-5). No clear features emerged from the shovel

tests, although several large subsurface rocks were found. Based on the ethnographic evidence

stating the Beta Israel built stone structures, I postulated that these large subsurface rocks may

have been parts of features.

Because of the size of the site about 150 meters north-south by 70 meters east-west a

complete excavation was not feasible due to time and budget constraints. The specific

excavation area was selected based on a combination of factors. Shovel test holes #23, 24, 32

and 33 all showed the presence of large subsurface rocks, which I was hopeful might be parts of

features. In addition, according to the distribution maps I created based on the artifacts from the

shovel tests (Figure 4-5), this area yielded the largest quantities of subsurface pottery.xs Using a

total station, I set up a grid in this area consisting of 104 2x2 meter units (Figure 4-6); this area

comprises the excavation sitel9

All artifacts from the surface of the site were collected, the surface of each unit was

photographed, and the surface elevations recorded using a total station. Because the site slopes

's Shovel tests were categorized into "high density," in which the recovered artifacts filled over 75% of a sandwich-
sized bag: "medium density," in which the recovered artifacts filled 40-50% of a sandwich bag: and "low density,"
in which the bag of artifacts was less than 25% full.

19 The total station allowed us to lay a grid of 2x2 meter units to 1-2 cm accuracy. In laying nails for the grid, we
sacrificed some accuracy in favor of not disturbing subsurface rocks, but most of the units are still within 2 cm of 2
square meters.










downward from east to west, I set up seven temporary datums at different points around the

excavation area, from which to take relative levels using a line level (Appendix B. All elevations

in the following discussions are relative to the permanent datum).

Excavation then began in early March of 2004 and continued until the beginning of the

rainy season, at the end of May. I selected four adj acent units to begin with (labeled F7, F8, G7

and G8; see Figure 4-6), because of the large quantities of pottery, unfired clay, and slag

concentrated on the surface of this area. At this point I was assisted by a team of seven: Biruk,

four excavators and two screeners. I assigned two excavators to each unit, so as many as three

units at a time could be excavated, although more frequently Biruk and myself were occupied

with supervisory duties.

Because the first 20 cm or so below the surface has been disturbed by plowing activity, we

began by excavating in 10 cm levels. Unfortunately, the natural stratigraphy of the soil was not

clear enough to determine exactly how deep the plow zone went, but based on the information

provided by some local farmers, I determined it could not be more than about 20 cm deep.20

Thus, when we reached approximately 20 cm below the surface in each unit, we switched to 5

cm levels, and began to level each unit. The significant downward slope from east to west meant

that elevations relative to the surface varied greatly, even within one unit; by leveling the units,

elevations relative to the permanent datum remained constant.

For each excavated level, all soil was passed first through a 5 mm screen, and then through

a 1 mm screen. 100% of materials recovered were collected and labeled. Charcoal samples were

taken and their exact locations recorded. In one of the units, column soil samples were taken for



20 One of the tips I received from several local informants was that farmers will not bother to plow areas where there
are many rocks. So when we encountered large quantities of subsurface rocks, we were able to assume the plow
zone did not extend below these levels, and possibly was not even present in the upper levels.









flotation analysis. Sediment colors and textures were recorded using a Munsell chart, and texture

described based on the 1984 W.F. McCollough Sand Gauge. At the bottom of each level, the

unit was photographed and drawn to scale. Relative elevations were taken at the top and bottom

of each level, using a line level and the nearest temporary datum.

Subsequent excavation was largely directed on the basis of the presence of features and

corresponding ethnographic information, which are discussed in detail below. In two of the

units, F7 and G7, excavation continued until we reached bedrock, which lay 1.65 meters below

surface at the deepest point. We continued to find artifacts, including pottery, slag, bone and the

occasional lithic, in every level, throughout the entire deposit. The surrounding units, which

included F5, F6, F8, G5, G6, G8, H17 and H18 were partially excavated, but due to time

constraints (the advent of the rainy season), excavation in these units had to be halted at various

levels. Our attention focused instead on the activity area in units F7 and G7. All material

collected from all excavated units was bagged and labeled, and the surface of each level

photographed and drawn to scale.

In order to obtain a greater spatial perspective, I attempted to get a sample of the larger

excavation area. Thus, the rest of the field season was dedicated to excavating four units spread

throughout the site: A2, C4, J3 and J8. It was my hope that these units were spaced far enough

apart to represent different households, allowing me to look at intra-site variation in pottery

manufacture. These units were selected based on the depth of the deposit, which was determined

during shovel testing, and on the amounts of artifacts recovered during shovel testing and surface

survey. All four of these units were excavated until bedrock was uncovered, and the methods for

excavating and collecting materials identical to that carried out in the other units.









Bedrock occurred at different levels throughout the site: the plateau on which the site rests

slopes upward from northwest to southeast, so that the bedrock of the southeasternmost unit, A2

lies nearly a meter higher than the bedrock at J8, the northwesternmost unit. At the same time,

deposits were much shallower in the northwestern units, and become deeper as one moves

southeast, resulting in an overall surface slope upward from northwest to southeast. Thus, in unit

J8, located at the northwestern edge of the site, bedrock was reached at approximately 23 8 cm

above the permanent datum (cm apd) throughout the unit. In A2, bedrock was reached at

approximately 330 cm apd throughout. However, the sediment deposit in J8 ranged from 59-75

cm, while the deposit in A2 was between 130 and 135 cm deep.

At the end of the field season, bottom elevations were taken for each unit, using a total

station; profiles were drawn for each unit, and photographs taken of each unit wall. Then the

units were lined with plastic and backfilled. The permanent datum remains in the south wall of

Ato Abera's house, at the north end of the site. All recovered materials were transported to

Addis Ababa and stored in the National Museum.

Radiocarbon Results

This study has begun to develop a chronology for the Abwara Giorgis site by obtaining

radiocarbon (14C) dates from four charcoal samples taken from units A2, F7, and J3 (Table 4-1).

Only one of these samples is older than ca. 600 cal BP, in unit J3. Because of the recent

occupation of this site, the standard deviations for these dates are large, and because of the

relatively short occupation of the site (less than 600-700 years), forming strong conclusions

based on absolute dates is difficult if not impossible.

What these dates do tell us is that to a 99% degree of certainty, the site of Abwara Giorgis

was occupied during the Gonder Era (1636-1755); some areas, for example around unit J3, were

likely occupied before Gonder became the capital of the empire. The amount of recent material









culture recovered from the site (discussed below) indicates the area was occupied up until very

recently thus again, almost certainly during the Era of the Princes (1755-mid 1850s). This

makes AG 2004 a good place to look at changes over time that might correspond to the rise and

subsequent fall of Gonder.

Excavation: Units F7 and G7

As mentioned, in this area the excavation was focused on two units F7 and G7. As I will

show, the stratigraphy and features found in this area clearly crosscut the arbitrary boundary

between units F7 and G7; thus most of these two units are perceived to be one residential unit of

space, and the label F7G7 is often used hereafter to describe this portion of the site.

Stratigraphy

LS-L1

The stratigraphy of unit F7G7 revealed four maj or stratigraphic levels with several

additional small stratigraphic lenses (Figures 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9). The delineation of these strata

was based on sediment types, features, and artifact distribution. These levels were not spread

evenly throughout the unit. The top level, designated LS-L1, averaged approximately 60-100 cm

in depth, was characterized by either brown (10YR 4/3) or dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand.

It tended to contain the largest quantities of artifacts, particularly pottery, and rocks.

Within this first main level was a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) ash lens (LS-Lla). This

lens appeared at approximately 10 cm below the surface, was approximately 118 cm by 114 cm,

and averaged 15-20 cm in depth (Figures 4-9 and 4-10). It was replete with charcoal and large

quantities of slag, pottery, and unfired clay, which already had inclusion materials mixed in. In

addition, numerous rocks, called gulicha by my work team, were found in this area. These

gulicha rocks were covered in soot, and were clearly used in firing processes. Large quantities










of pottery were recovered from throughout this lens, but there is a significant decrease in slag

and gulicha rocks in the lower 5-10 cm.

The large amounts of ash, charcoal, gulicha rocks, slag, pottery and unfired clay in LS-Lla

suggested that this was a firing area. This horizon is characteristic of the general firing areas of

modern Beta Israel, and of Ethiopian households in general. It is typical to have one specified

place within a residence in which daily household fires are built this is where food is cooked

and pottery is fired. It is likely that this lens was just such a general firing area, and that in

addition to household firing activities such as cooking, pottery was also fired here. The large

quantities of slag suggested smelting activities were carried out in this area as well; however, the

lack of associated features and morphology of the slag found here was not characteristic of

primary smelting activities. There has been virtually no research on smelting practices in

northern Ethiopia, but based on studies in southern Ethiopia (Haaland 2004; Haberland 1978;

Todd 1978, 1985), the Horn (Mapunda 1997) and Tanzania (Schmidt 1997) we expected to find

features associated with smelting activities such as furnaces or smelting pits. No such evidence

was recovered, nor were any of the associated ceramics identifiable as tuyere fragments. It is

more likely this was the site of secondary smelting or forging.

Narratives gathered during casual conversation with my field team, as well as from a key

informant, Ato Abera, suggested that each Beta Israel house had an adj acent work area where

crafts were made, rather than one community-wide central work area. Furthermore, the smelting

and/or forging of iron were most commonly done outside the front of the house, as this is men' s

work. This way, anyone approaching the house would be greeted immediately by the head of the

household. My informants further indicated that the front door of the houses face east and that

this applies to all Ethiopian houses, not only those inhabited by Beta Israel. There are two










reasons for this: first, the sun rises in the east, and second, wind usually blows from the north or

south.

Based on this information, I posited that stone structures the remains of houses and

work areas, indicated by the presence of large quantities of ash, soot, pottery, slag, and the large

flat stones used in the clay firing process (gulicha) should be adj acent to each other, and oriented

in an east-west direction. This would allow for the door of the house to face east, and for the

firing area to lie immediately outside the door. I thus hypothesized that we should find a house

structure corresponding to the firing area directly to the west, and so several units were opened

up in that area. However, no structural remains were found.

Instead, lying immediately adj acent to the southeast edge of the firing area, approximately

415 cm apd (23 cm below the surface), we uncovered a rock wall that curved through several

units (stratigraphic lens LS-Llb) (Figures 4-11 and 4-12). This wall extended through units F7,

G7, F6, and G6. Its curvature is consistent with the round house shape characteristic of the

Ethiopian tukul"l, and suggested a structure approximately 4.5 meters in diameter (Figure 4-12).

This and its location, immediately adj acent to the work area, suggest this wall was the foundation

of a house. This lens was characterized by dark grayish brown sand (10YR 4/2) interspersed

with large rocks, and was approximately 90 cm deep.

The interior side of the wall was excavated separately in unit F7, and partially in unit F6.

In one of the uppermost levels, we encountered two patches of hard clay, each approximately 10

cm in diameter and between 3 and 7 cm thick, which may have been part of a floor. It was not

uniform in texture or depth across the corner of the unit, and is not visible in the profile of the




21 Homes in post-Zamana Masafent Gonder had the same cylindrical structure with conical thatched roofs as modern
tukuls (Pankhurst 1969:206).









east wall of unit F7 (Figure 4-7). In this level we found several pieces of pottery and half of a

pair of metal scissors, suggesting that this (possible) floor was not more than 100 years old.22

LS-L2

At approximately 353 cm apd (68 cm below surface), the rock wall appeared to extend

outward. There is a shelf-like protrusion of rocks on the exterior side at this level, which extends

to the bottom of the wall (Figure 4-13). This change in wall girth may indicate an older wall,

upon which a second wall, slightly smaller in circumference, was built. The interior side of the

wall did not show a corresponding change. However, at approximately the same depth there are

several small patches of ash within 30 centimeters of the exterior side of the wall. It is possible

that these ashy areas represent domestic and/or work activities associated with an earlier

household. For this reason, this level was designated LS-L2. There was a notable decrease in

slag, metal, and glass in this level, also indicative of a separate cultural horizon, but pottery and

faunal remains continued in frequencies indistinguishable from LS-L1. The sediment

characteristics of LS-L2 were also consistent with those found in LS-L1.

In the west half of unit G7, a large pile of rocks appeared in LS-L2, at approximately 343.1

cm apd (Figure 4-14). This pile ran the length of the unit from north to south, and appeared to

extend into adjacent units G6 and G8 as well. It extended east approximately 86 cm from the

west wall of unit G7, and was approximately 98 cm high; it extended down through LS-L6 and

lay directly atop the bedrock. Because of its relatively uniform shape and width, it was

considered a wall; however, this rock feature was much more loosely formed than other rock

walls found throughout the site. It is possible this was not a wall. At any rate, it is referred to as

a wall in this discussion. A small ashy area was uncovered adj acent to this wall at 323.6 cm apd.



22Records indicate metal scissors were included in trade goods in Ethiopia in the 1920s (Pankhurst 1968).









This ash deposit was 3 cm deep, and contained no artifacts, although large quantities of pottery

were scattered around it. It is possible that this wall and small firing area represented another

household, or that this was an extension of the household represented in unit F7G7.

LS-L3

At approximately 332.1 cm apd (89.3 cm below surface), the third major stratigraphic level

appeared, situated in the northwestern part of unit F7 and the eastern part of unit G7 (Figure 4-7).

This is the level below the rock wall. Designated LS-L3, the sediments were similar to those in

LS-L1 and LS-L2, brown (10YR 4/3) or dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand. It was differentiated from

the above strata by a significant decrease in the frequency of artifacts recovered, suggesting a

separate cultural horizon, and averaged approximately 40 cm in depth. A charcoal sample from

this level yielded a carbon date of A.D. 1349-1673 (two standard deviations). This level likely

represents a period of occupation before the rise of the Gonder Era, and the decrease in artifacts

suggests that this level was characterized by limited cultural activity in general, compared to the

upper levels, and small-scale pottery production in particular.

LS-L4

Immediately below LS-L2, also in the southeastern corner of F7G7, was a lens of dark

brown sand (10YR 3/3) that in profile appears to be a pit (Figures 4-7 and 4-15). The fill,

designated LS-L4a, appeared at approximately 347.1 cm apd (64 cm below surface) and was

approximately 20-30 cm in depth. It contained large numbers of bone, as well as some pottery,

slag, charcoal, ten glass beads, and two metal artifacts, one of which was a small pellet

resembling buckshot. The maj ority of the faunal remains were small undiagnostic fragments, but

several Bos sp. long bones and teeth were recovered.

This pit feature was situated within a larger lens (LS-L4) of fine brown sand (10YR 4/3)

(Figure 4-15). This lens ranged from 10 to 35 cm in depth. It contained pottery although the










frequencies did not differ greatly from the rest of the unit and faunal materials such as bones

and teeth. A painted porcelain ceramic sherd was recovered in this lens (Figure 4-16); one of

four porcelain fragments to be found throughout the site.

LS-L5

This lens was limited to the southern part of unit F7 and the southeastern part of unit G7.

It was poorly defined in unit F7, situated below and to the north and west ofLS-L4 (Figure 4-7).

In G7it was clearer, appearing directly below LS-L1. It ranged from 5 to approximately 19 cm

in depth, and was characterized mainly by another significant decrease in artifacts.

LS-L6

The fourth and lowest stratigraphic level (LS-L6), directly above the bedrock, was a dark

brown (7.5 YR 3/3) clay. It also was associated with a significant decrease in artifacts, although

pottery continued to appear in every level, some sherds resting upon the bedrock itself. Its depth

ranged from approximately 40 cm in unit F7 and the eastern half of G7 to approximately 25 cm

in the western half of G7. This layer appeared in the eastern half of G7 approximately 15 cm

above its appearance in the western half. The sediment change and associated decrease in

artifacts may indicate the period before F7G7 was settled. 14C dates place the bottom levels of

this layer at A.D. 1570-1730 (two standard deviations). Several termite holes were visible in the

center and northern edges of the unit.

What is significant in this level is that the western half of G7 at this point did not have a

similar sediment change and artifact decrease; it is more similar to the upper levels than to the

eastern half of the unit at the same depth. This may indicate an earlier and separate residential

unit, the edge of which was uncovered in the western portion of unit G7. However, as only 48

potsherds were recovered from this area, and all but 16 of these were undecorated body sherds,

no conclusions can be drawn about this possible separate activity area.










Contents of Layers

In unit F7G7, pottery was by far the most abundant cultural material recovered; a total of

6,782 potsherds were found. These are discussed in Chapter 6. In addition, we recovered faunal

remains, including bones and teeth, large quantities of slag, small amounts of metal artifacts such

as nails, glass, sixteen small glass beads, and one small metal ball that resembled buckshot.

Three lithics a chalcedony core, a chalcedony flake, and a modified chert flake were also

recovered from the exterior side of the rock wall (Appendix C). The faunal materials were

primarily Bos sp. and caprinae, but small numbers of bird, rodent, civet, donkey, and fish

remains were recovered as well (Appendix D).

These non-pottery artifacts were not spread uniformly throughout the stratigraphic layers

of the unit. LS-L3, 5, and 6 are all defined partly by significant decreases in artifacts. Slag, the

byproduct of iron smelting, was found mainly within LS-L1 and LS-L2 (small amounts were

also recovered from the pit feature LS-L4a), primarily in the upper 20-25 cm and associated with

the firing pit. Although the processing of iron has been practiced in parts of southern Ethiopia

for centuries (Haaland 2004, Todd 1985), it appears to be a very recent practice at this part of the

site.

The artifacts recovered from the firing area in F7 (LS-Lla) did not differ significantly from

those found in the surrounding LS-L1. The firing area contained pottery, bone, slag, all of which

were found in LS-L1 as well. The only maj or difference was that charred bone was found in the

firing area; there was no evidence of charring on the faunal material found elsewhere in LS-L1.

Although glass beads were found in some of the lower levels, the maj ority of glass, as well

as metal artifacts, were also limited to LS-L1. The two lithic flakes were also found in that layer,

although the chalcedony core was recovered from LS-L3, below the F7 rock wall.









All of this together suggests that this unit represents a residential area. LS-L1, especially

the upper 20-30 cm, seems to represent recent occupation of the unit, probably within the last

hundred years. This household likely contained at least one potter and at least one iron smelter

or smith. The small ashy areas found throughout LS-L2 may have represented small ash dumps

or earlier inhabitants.

Although 14C dates have only been obtained for levels LS-L4 and LS-L6, they indicate the

area may have been occupied as early as the 16th century, however, the standard deviation is

large. What we can conclude is that this part of the site was almost definitely occupied during

the Gonder Era, possibly before, and continuously up until Operation Solomon caused the site to

be abandoned in the 1970s.

Unit G7-North

At approximately 345.6 cm apd (42-65 cm below surface), the sediments of the northwest

corner of unit G7 became much darker than in the rest of F7G7, and a single row of large rocks

ran parallel to the sediment change (Figure 4-17). This line of rocks and corresponding sediment

change seemed to divide unit G7 into two areas northwest and southeast, with the southeast

portion included in the greater F7G7 unit (which includes the rock wall and the firing area).

These features were not sufficient to declare the northwest portion of the site a separate

household, but it was considered a potential separate activity area, designated G7-North.

The deposit from G7-North was approximately 30 cm in depth, and consisted of two

stratigraphic levels. The upper level was approximately 4.5 cm in depth and was characterized

by dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand. Artifacts recovered from this level included pottery, bone and

teeth. Below this was approximately 25 cm of dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand. Pottery and Bos

sp., caprinae and Equus a~sinus teeth were also recovered from this layer.









The darker sediments that separated G7-North from the rest of F7G7 suggests the higher

presence of organic materials in that area. It is possible that this area served as a trash midden,

possibly for the household represented in unit F7G7. The similarities in the pottery from G7-

North and F7G7 suggest they come from one residential unit (see Chapter 6); however, only 56

diagnostic sherds were recovered from G7-North. This small sample size and the similarities

found in pottery attributes sitewide prevent any strong conclusions about the relationship

between G7-North and F7G7 from being drawn.

Discussion of Units F7G7 and G7-North

It appears that in the area represented by units F7 and G7, at least two distinct residential

units are visible these units may be individual households. The maj or residential feature is, of

course, the habitation site represented by the rock wall and firing pit. The second major

residential feature is likely older, and only a small portion of it was found, in the western side of

the lowest levels of unit G7. The G7-North area may represent a third residential unit, or it may

be part of the maj or F7G7 residence. As I discuss in Chapter 6, the overall similarities in pottery

attributes throughout the site precludes pottery from being used to definitively distinguish

separate households.

Unit A2

In order to gain greater spatial perspective, and to take intrasite variation into account, four

other units were excavated in addition to the main F7/G7 area. It was my hope that these

additional units were spaced far enough apart to represent discrete households, allowing us a

more holistic archaeological sample.

Unit A2 was located at the southeast corner of the AG 2004 site, adj acent to the total

station point (Figure 4-6). This unit was selected for full excavation based on its location










(far from the other excavated units), and also based on the deep deposit and large quantities of

pottery that were recovered from the adj acent shovel test. In fact, the nearest shovel test was

immediately adj acent to the unit, and was visible in the north wall profie (Figure 4-18). This

shovel test was re-cleared every day, to ensure that any materials falling into the shovel test did

not end up mixed in with the artifacts recovered from unit A2.

Stratigraphy

LS-L1

In terms of stratigraphy, unit A2 was the most complex. Eight maj or stratigraphic levels

were identified (Figures 4-18, 4-19, and 4-20), and several additional small sediment lenses. LS-

L1 made up the upper 20 cm of the unit and was characterized by dark grayish brown (10YR

4/2) and brown (10YR 4/3) sand. This level contained large numerous rocks, and these were

distributed randomly instead of arranged in rows as one would expect if a plow had gone through

the area. This may indicate one of two things: 1) this small area was not plowed, or 2) the plow

zone was extremely shallow, less than 10 cm deep. There was no discernible change indicating

the end of a plow zone, so this question remains unanswered.

Some of these large rocks were found standing on end; others were identified by my Hield

crew as aleht upper grindstones. Pottery and bone were recovered from this unit, as well as

fragments of metal and bottle glass; these latter artifacts were not found in any other levels of

this unit.

Along the eastern wall of the unit was a small lens of very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2)

sand with large numbers of tree roots, designated LS-Lla (Figure 4-19). This lens ranged from

approximately 5 to 40 cm in depth, and contained more pottery than the rest of LS-L1,

particularly in the northeast portion of the unit.









LS-L2

LS-L2 was located directly below LS-L1, and was characterized by dark brown (10YR

3/3) dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) or brown (10YR 4/3) sand (Figures 4-18 and 4-20). In

terms of sediment characteristics, this level was indistinguishable from LS-L1; however,

"historic" artifacts such as glass and metal were not recovered from this level, thus it is

considered a separate occupation horizon. In the center of the unit, this level was approximately

40 cm deep (Figure 4-18). In the western portion it ranged from 18 to 40 cm in depth (Figure 4-

20). It was not visible along the eastern wall of the unit (Figure 4-19). Artifacts recovered from

this level included pottery and Bos sp. and caprinae faunal remains (bones and teeth). Slag was

also found in the upper 10 cm of this level, although in much smaller quantities than in unit

F7G7.

There was one small stratigraphic lens within LS-L2. LS-L2a was situated in the

southwest corner of the unit, approximately 43 cm below the surface (Figure 4-20). It was a thin

lens, 3-10 cm deep, of reddish brown (5YR 5/3) churned grit and rock. It contained no artifacts.

LS-L3

In the central and eastern portion of the unit, at approximately 23 cm below the surface, the

third major stratigraphic level appeared (Figure 4-19). This level was characterized by brown

(10YR 4/3 and 10YR 5/3) sand and ranged from 15 to 95 cm in depth. In terms of artifact

frequency and type, this level did not differ significantly from LS-L2.

In the northeast corner of the unit, within level LS-L3 was a feature that appeared to be an

ash dump (Figure 4-19). It was made up of four distinct lenses. The uppermost lens (LS-L3a) is

a layer of sediment on top of the ash dump. It appeared at approximately 25 cm below surface,

and was a 10-20 cm deep deposit of dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand. Artifacts recovered from this

lens included pottery and bone. As discussed in Chapter 6, the pottery from the LS-L3a is









indistinguishable from that of LS-L1 and LS-L2. It is likely that LS-L3 belongs to the same

cultural horizon as the upper levels.

Below this, the actual ash deposit ranged from approximately 20-40 cm in depth, and

appeared in three distinct lenses: the top lens (LS-L3b) was dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), the

middle (LS-L3c) was dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4), and the lowest level (LS-L3d) was

brown (10YR 4/3). The only artifacts to be recovered from this ash pit were aleht upper

grindstones. An examination of the east and north walls of unit A2 (Figures 4-18 and 4-19)

suggests that the ash pit was carved out of LS-L3.

The northern wall of A2 was characterized by a series of very thin layers of sediment,

located within the LS-L3 horizon, between approximately 434 cm and 376 cm apd (see Figure 4-

18). Many of these layers did not visibly extend south into the unit at all; they were likely small

dump lenses only visible in profile. They may be associated with a feature located north of the

umit.

LS-L3e is one of these lenses that appeared only in the north wall profile. Approximately

5 cm in depth, this was a small area of white (10YR 8/1) grit and rock, approximately 53 cm

below the surface. It lay directly above a similarly shallow lens of brown (10YR 5/3) ash (LS-

L3f), which in turn lay above approximately 5 cm of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clay (LS-

L3g). Approximately 20 cm below this lay a small patch of dark brown (10YR 3/3) soft clay

(LS-L3h). There were no rock features or cultural materials associated with these layers, and as

they did not extend into the excavated unit itself, we can only surmise the existence of a feature

somewhere close to unit A2, with which these layers are associated.

LS-L4

At approximately the same depth as the top of LS-L3 and LS-L3a, LS-L4 appeared in the

southeast corner of the unit: a brown (10YR 4/3) sand interspersed with several large rocks










(Figure 4-19). These rocks seemed to form a rough hemicircular shape in the southeast corner of

the unit with smaller rocks within (Figure 4-21). However, at this level there were large

quantities of rocks scattered throughout the unit, so determining patterning in the rocks is little

more than speculation. The sediments within this rough "circle" were part of the LS-Lla

horizon. It is likely that this layer of sand and large rocks do represent a feature, possibly a

structure foundation. It may be associated with the ash pit, and/or with the feature found in the

southwest portion of the unit (LS-L5 and LS-L6, discussed below), or it may be a separate

feature. The proximity of the two features to each other suggests they are associated in some

way. There were very few artifacts associated with this level some undiagnostic pottery and

bone.

LS-L5

This lens, about 30 cm in depth, was located in the northwest corner of the unit, appearing

at 417. 1 cm apd (49 cm below surface). This was another area of dark grayish brown (10YR

4/2) ash and charcoal (Figure 4-22). It contained limited numbers of artifacts; a small amount of

pottery, a Bos sp. tarsal bone, some small unidentifiable bone fragments, and some unfired clay.

It may have represented another ash dump, or a small firing area, similar to LS-Lla in unit F7G7.

It was also immediately adj acent to the maj or feature of unit A2 (LS-L6, discussed below) the

single line of rocks that ran northwest-southeast throughout the unit at approximately 410 cm

apd.

LS-L6

At approximately 416. 1 cm apd (47 cm below surface), a line of rocks began to emerge

running from the northwest corner to the southeast corner, and divided the unit along the

different sediment types (Figure 4-20). The areas on either side of this line were excavated

separately, as A2-West and A2-East.









The area west of this rock line was designated LS-L6. Approximately 40 cm in depth, it

was characterized by disturbed light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) grit and rock fi11 (Figure 4-20).

There was very little cultural material associated with this level; small amounts of pottery and

some undiagnostic bone. Directly below this fi11 was a circular layer of rocks that appeared to be

approximately 240 cm in diameter (Figure 4-23). It is possible that the single line of rocks

running northwest-southeast throughout the unit represented the wall or outline of a round house

structure (a tukul), approximately 4.5 meters in diameter (Figure 4-24); this smaller inner rock

circle may have served as a sleeping or storage platform within the structure.

It is likely that this stratigraphic level, the lens immediately above it (LS-L2a) and the

adj acent lens of ash to the north (LS-L5) were all contemporary, possibly associated, and

possibly representative of another house structure and corresponding Biring/work area. What is

less clear is whether the lenses on the eastern side of the unit are also part of this feature, or

represent a separate feature.

LS-L7

At approximately 361.1 cm apd (100-105 cm below surface), LS-L7 appeared. This

horizon lay directly below LS-L2 in the northern and central part of the unit, below LS-L3 and

LS-L4 in the eastern part, and below LS-L5 and LS-L6 in the western part (Figures 4-18, 4-19,

and 4-20). It seems to represent the first level below the maj or features in the eastern and

western sides of the unit. The central part of the unit was more homogenous in terms of

sediment types and features.

LS-L7 was indistinguishable from LS-L2: a horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) sand. It is

primarily defined by its location below the maj or occupation horizons of the unit, and by the

drastic reduction in artifacts recovered. Small amounts of pottery and undiagnostic bone










appeared in this level, and a single Bos sp. tooth. This level may represent the period before this

part of the site was occupied.

Within LS-L7, one small stratigraphic lens was identified in the southwest corner of the

unit (Figure 4-20). LS-L7a was situated at approximately 346.1 cm apd (117 cm below surface),

below the inner rock circle ofLS-L6. A shallow deposit of 12-15 cm, this layer was

characterized by pale brown (10YR 6/3) churned and gritty sediments. It contained little

archaeological material, mainly faunal remains. A nearly complete Bos sp. scapula was

recovered from this layer, along with a Bos sp. tooth and radius. Charcoal samples collected next

to the Bos scapula date this lens between 1590 and 1830 (two standard deviations).

LS-L8

The Einal layer was the dark brown (7.5 YR 3/3) clay and rock that generally signified that

we were approaching bedrock (Figure 4-18, 4-19, 4-20). It was characterized by sterile soil,

although excavation continued until bedrock was exposed throughout the unit, at approximately

140 cm below surface.

Contents of Layers

As in unit F7G7, pottery was by far the most common artifact type recovered from this

unit; a total of 1,819 potsherds were recovered, 3 12 of which were classified as diagnostic and

analyzed in detail (see Chapter 6). This unit also contained Bos sp. and caprinae faunal remains

(Appendix D), several aleh< and lower grindstones, a single chalcedony core, and, in the upper

levels, small amounts of metal, glass and slag. One shell fragment was also recovered, from the

upper 10 cm of the unit.

Although the lithostratigraphy in this unit was very complex, the artifact distribution was

fairly homogenous. Historic materials such as metal and glass were only recovered from the

upper 20 cm of the deposit, in LS-L1. Pottery and bone appeared throughout the unit, although









several stratigraphic lenses namely 2a-2e, 3b-3d, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are characterized by little to

no artifacts. In some levels, such as LS-L7, this may indicate a drop in activity or occupation at

this level. In other areas such as the ash dump (lenses 3b-d and possibly LS) and the possible

structure (LS-L6), limited artifacts are to be expected. LS-L3b-d may represent specialized

discard areas for ash only rather than a generalized trash midden, and thus we would not

expect to find other materials there. And numerous archaeological studies have demonstrated

that people are less likely to discard their trash inside their living spaces. If LS-L6 does

represent part of a structure, it is reasonable that limited artifacts would be recovered from within

that area; most trash would be discarded elsewhere. The higher frequency of artifacts recovered

from the center of the unit, namely in LS-L2, is consistent with people discarding their trash

outside of their residence.

Discussion of Unit A2

As mentioned, many of the lithostratigraphic layers in this unit were only visible in profile,

which suggested that these sediment matrices were primarily located in units adj acent to unit A2.

The fact that within the unit, especially in the upper layers, sediment types were relatively

homogenous and in the walls of the unit they were diverse, immediately suggested that unit A2

was actually situated between two or more activity areas, or at least that it lay immediately

outside one activity area, and possibly close to another. The spatial distribution of the features in

the unit seemed to support this theory.

The maj or feature in this unit is, of course, the possible structure in the southwest corner

(LS-L6) (Figure 4-20) and associated ashy area (LS-L5). In addition we must consider the

possible adj acent feature in the southeast corner of the unit (LS-L4). Since the artifacts

recovered from the first feature are limited, they are not useful in determining how these two

features and the people who used them were associated. However, general observation of









living patterns throughout Ethiopia suggest that people who are unrelated either socially or

genealogically do not live this close together. It also stands to reason that the people who

occupied the structure in the southwest comer may have discarded trash directly outside this

structure, in other words, in the rest of the excavated unit. Thus for the purposes of this study,

the spatial aspects of unit A2 namely the features) and the ashy area designated LS-L5 are

considered representative of a single residential unit. This may also include the ash dump (LS-

L3b-d); however, as artifacts recovered from this feature were limited to grindstones, greater

spatial analysis is required to draw any stronger conclusions.

Unit C4

Unit C4, located in the southeastern portion of the site (Figure 4-6) was the second of the

four representative units excavated. It was selected based on the deep deposit and large

quantities of pottery recovered from the adj acent shovel test. The surface of this unit was also

characterized by potsherds, several gulicha rocks and a lower grindstone, which suggested the

presence of firing and/or food preparation activities nearby.

Stratigraphy

LS-L1

In terms of sediments and artifact distribution, unit C4 was much more homogenous than

units F7G7 and A2. It was divided into five distinct stratigraphic layers, with several additional

small lenses.

Like unit A2, the first 20 cm of unit C3 were so rocky that it was unlikely that the plow

zone extended below that depth. Thus, beginning at approximately 20 cm below surface, this

unit was excavated in 5 cm levels, and the first 20 cm were designated stratigraphic level LS-L1

(Figure 4-25). This level was characterized by dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand. Artifacts

recovered included pottery, bone, bottle glass, metal, slag, and two glass beads.









LS-L2

The second maj or level, LS-L2 was indistinguishable from LS-L1 in terms of sediment

characteristics; it was also dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand. It was mainly defined by its

location below the plow zone, and by the absence of metal and slag, which was present in LS-L1.

LS-L2 ranged from approximately 40 to 60 cm in depth, and was present throughout the entire

unit. The maj ority of artifacts from unit C4 were recovered from this level, and included pottery,

bone, and unfired clay, and bottle glass.

Within LS-L2, at approximately 410.7 cm apd (30 cm below surface), the sediments in the

northeast corner of the unit were looser and finer than those in the rest of the unit. This patch of

dark brown (10YR 3/3) fine sand formed an oval shape, approximately 48 cm east-west by 80

cm north-south. Surrounding this area was a series of large rocks that formed a rough circular

pattern (Figure 4-26). The size and shape of this oval, as well as the pattern of surrounding

rocks, was indicative of a feature, most likely a pit that was dug and subsequently filled. This

pit, designated LS-L2a, was approximately 35 cm deep and contained pottery, charcoal, and the

humerus of a Bos sp. Immediately surrounding this hole at approximately 385.2 cm apd were

more faunal remains, including a caprinae mandible and three teeth, and a Bos sp. scapula and

pelvis. We also recovered a clear glass bottle neck and a fragment of a blue glass bead in this

small area around the pit. The loose organic sediments, indicated by the darker color, and the

nature of the artifacts in association, suggests this was a refuse pit. The line of rocks may have

once formed a ring around this pit. No other associated features were found.

LS-L3

LS-L3 was located in the southern half of unit C4 only, and appeared at approximately

371.2 cm apd (61-69 cm below surface). Its appearance was only slightly different from that of

LS-L3a, which appeared at the same depth in the northern half of the unit (Figure 4-25). Both










layers were characterized by dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) or brown (10YR 4/3) sand.

However, the sand in LS-L3 was slightly grittier than that ofLS-L3a, which was fine. In

addition, artifacts recovered from LS-L3 were limited to pottery and faunal remains. LS-L3a

contained pottery and faunal materials, and also yielded a metal nail and small amounts of slag

and unfired clay as well. The appearance of a metal nail and slag neither of which are present

anywhere else in the unit except for in the top 20 cm along with the fine sediments that

distinguish this lens from the rest of LS-L3, suggest that LS-L3a may be another discard pit, and

that it was used recently. Both lenses LS-L3 and LS-L3a were approximately 20-25 cm in depth,

and both began and ended at approximately the same depth.

LS-L4

LS-L4 appeared at approximately 341.2 cm apd (92-101 cm below surface), and was

present throughout the unit except for the northwest corner. It was a shallow deposit, less than

10 cm deep, which was located directly beneath LS-L3 and LS-L3a. Characterized by brown

(10YR 4/3) sand, it contained small amounts of pottery, bone and charcoal.

LS-L5

The lowest level was the dark brown (7.5 YR 3/3) clay that signified that we were nearing

bedrock. As in the other units, this layer corresponded to a drastic reduction in artifacts,

although pottery and bone continued to appear until the bedrock was fully exposed. No

radiocarbon dates have yet been obtained for this unit.

Within this level was a small lens of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) ash in the northwest corner

of the unit. Directly under LS-L3a, it appeared at approximately 341.2 cm apd, and was 3-4 cm

deep. It contained no cultural materials.









Contents of Layers

Like the other units at this site, pottery made up the maj ority of the artifacts recovered

from unit C4; a total of 2,187 potsherds were recorded from this unit, 472 of which were

extensively analyzed (see Chapter 6). Also recovered from this unit were 33 faunal fragments,

predominantly Bos sp. and caprinae (Appendix D), several gulicha rocks, a small amount of slag,

three glass beads, six glass fragments, two metal artifacts, one unidentified seed, and one round

stone identified by my informants as an "ancient counting stone," a type of stone that was once

used for counting.

Pottery and faunal remains were found in relatively uniform frequencies throughout the

layers, but other materials, namely metal and slag were only found in the upper level (LS-L1)

and in LS-L3a. Especially significant is the small amount of slag, and its primary location in the

top 20 cm of the unit. Given the amount of discard materials particularly faunal materials -

recovered from unit C4, it seems likely that this was an area in which people were disposing of

their trash. The absence of slag may indicate a lack of iron smelting activities in this area. On

the other hand, in F7G7, where slag was found in greater quantities, it was associated with a

clear firing area. Unit C4 had no such area; it is just as likely that iron smelting activities were

carried out in this area and that the resulting detritus was discarded in an ashy pit, which was not

located during the course of this excavation.

Discussion of Unit C4

The lack of clear features, stratigraphic diversity, diagnostic artifacts and carbon dates in

this unit preclude any strong conclusions about the unit from being drawn. It is likely, given the

depth of deposit, distribution of artifacts over time (see Chapter 6), and dates from corresponding

depths in other units, that this area was occupied during and/or after the Gonder Era; however,

without an absolute date, the evidence is not definitive.









Unit J3

Unit J3, the third unit excavated as part of my goal to obtain a representative sample of the

entire site, was located and the southwesternmost corner of the site (Figure 4-6). It was selected

based on its location (placed far enough away from the other excavated units to hopefully

represent a separate activity area), and based on the deep deposit and large quantities of pottery

recovered from the adjacent shovel test. The surface and top 10 cm of the unit were

characterized by potsherds and glass, and by large numbers of rocks. The quantity of rocks made

it unlikely that the plow zone extended more than approximately 15 cm below the surface.

Beginning at 3 18.9 cm apd, a column soil sample was taken from the southwest corner of the

unit in every level.

Stratigraphy

LS-L1

Unit J3 was very homogenous in terms of sediment types and artifact density (Figure 4-

27). Within this unit, five distinct stratigraphic levels were identified. The top level, LS-L1

included the plow zone, although the actual bottom of the plow zone could not be identified by

sediment changes. This level appeared relatively uniformly across the unit and varied from

approximately 13 cm to 18 cm in depth. It was characterized by brown (10YR 4/3) sand.

Artifacts recovered included large quantities of pottery, glass, and slag, several metal nails, and

some undiagnostic faunal remains.

LS-L2

At approximately 14-19 cm below the surface, a level of dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2)

clay emerged. Also visible across the unit, this layer ranged from approximately 6 cm to 15 cm

in depth. The quantities and types of artifacts recovered from this layer were indistinguishable









from the upper layer, and included large quantities of pottery, undiagnostic bone, glass, and a

single metal nail.

LS-L3

Below LS-L2 was another sandy brown (10YR 4/3) matrix, which appeared at relatively

uniform depth across the unit. This level was approximately 20-23 cm deep throughout. It was

identical to LS-L1 in terms of sediment characteristics, and contained many of the same artifacts

as LS-L1: large quantities of glass, bone, and slag. Pottery was present here in larger frequencies

than in LS-L1 (LS-L3 had a mean of 185.4 sherds per 5 cm level; LS-L1 had 106.7 sherds per 5

cm level).

LS-L3 was also defined by the appearance of the maj or feature in this unit at 3 53.4 cm apd

(approximately 24 cm below surface), in the northwest corner. It appeared to be the top of a rock

wall, extending 78 cm out of the west edge of the unit, and running northeast-southwest for

approximately 168 cm (Figure 4-28). This feature clearly extended into adj acent units, but, as

they remained unexcavated, the full dimensions of the feature are undetermined. It extended

down to 278.9 cm apd (approximately 98 cm below surface, the bottom of LS-L5), at which

point bedrock was exposed throughout the maj ority of the unit.

LS-L4

At approximately 333.4 cm apd (40-44 cm below surface), there was a marked shift in the

artifact types recovered. Metal, slag and glass were present in both LS-L1 and LS-L3, along

with pottery and bone. In LS-L4, no metal or slag was recovered, and only a single glass

fragment. Although there is no change in the sediment matrix, this change in artifacts seemed to

define a separate stratigraphic level, LS-L4. The majority of the artifacts recovered from this

level were pottery and bone, and pottery frequencies are slightly lower in this level; 134.3

potsherds per 5 cm level. This suggests two possibilities: 1) LS-L4 represents an earlier time










period and earlier residential unit than LS-L1 and LS-L3, and 2) this earlier LS-L4 residential

unit may not have participated in iron smelting activities. Further, the decorative attributes of

pottery recovered from LS-L4 differ markedly from those in LS-L3 (see Chapter 6), lending

further credence to the idea of an earlier, separate, residential unit.

LS-L5

The Einal level was the dark yellowish brown clay (10YR 3/4) that indicated the

approaching bedrock. As in the rest of the site, the appearance of this sediment type

corresponded to a significant decrease in archaeological materials, although small amounts of

pottery and charcoal continued to appear until the bedrock of this unit was fully exposed.

Several potsherds were found lying directly on top of the bedrock.

Contents of Layers

Following the pattern established by units F7G7, A2 and C4, pottery made up the maj ority

of archaeological material recovered from unit J3. A total of 2,760 potsherds were recovered,

501 of which were analyzed (see Chapter 6). In addition, this unit contained Bos sp. and

caprinae bones and teeth, and glass, metal, and slag. One glass bead was also recovered.

Historic materials such as glass and metal nails, as well as slag, were limited to the upper

three stratigraphic levels. Pottery and bone were also recovered from these levels, but no

diagnostic bone fragments were found above LS-L3, only small unidentifiable fragments. This

may be due to destructive plowing activities. Identifiable faunal remains were recovered from

LS-L3 and included three teeth, two phalanxes, one scapula, one radius and one metacarpal. All

these materials belonged to either Bos sp. or caprinae.

As mentioned, metal, slag and glass was largely absent beginning in LS-L4, and at the

same time, the number of diagnostic faunal remains increased. Faunal materials from LS-L4









included a Bos sp. skull, three teeth, and three humeri, and a caprine carpal bone, phalanx and

humerus.

Pottery appeared in highest frequencies in levels LS-L3 and LS-L4 (see Table 6-1). It

drastically decreased above LS-L3, although was still common in the upper two levels. Small

amounts of it and some charcoal were the only artifacts to be recovered from LS-L5, the upper

level of which waS 14C dated to A.D. 982-1486 (two standard deviations).

Discussion of Unit J3

This unit seemed to be characterized by basic household discard pottery and bone. The

particular bone fragments found in this unit suggests this is not an area in which Bos sp. and

caprinae were being kept and raised, but rather an area in which specific cuts of meat were

brought and discarded. However the fact that the levels of this unit are predominantly

undisturbed suggests that this was not a specific midden site no pits or holes were dug in which

to discard trash. It seems likely that this was an area close to a household, or multiple

households, in which small amounts of daily detritus were deposited over time.

The rock wall in the northwest corner of LS-L3 through LS-L5 may be part of a household

structure associated with this deposit; again, more excavation and a broader spatial analysis are

required to form any ideas about this. It does seem that there are at least two distinct residential

units represented in this part of the site one, represented by the layer of clay (LS-L2) and the

presence of historic artifacts and slag; and another, older unit represented by the change in

artifacts at LS-L4. The rock wall appears to be associated with this earlier occupation. One

conclusion that can be drawn, given the 14C dates obtained for the lower levels of this site, is that

there was cultural activity in this area before the establishment of Gonder as the capital in the

17th century. The presence of a metal nail and other more modern artifacts in the upper levels

suggests that activity here continued until very recently, and the constant presence of pottery and









bone throughout the deposit suggests that this area was used or occupied more or less

continuously over time. This makes it a very significant unit for addressing the questions I

presented in Chapter 3.

Unit J8

The final individual unit to be excavated was J8, located at the western edge of the site

(Figure 4-6). Because of its location and the slope of the plateau, this was expected to be a

shallow deposit, most likely less than 80 cm deep. It was selected based on its location (spaced

far enough away from the other excavated units to hopefully represent a separate household), and

based on the large quantities of pottery recovered from the adj acent shovel test.

Stratigraphy

Based on changes in sediment characteristics and artifact density, four distinct stratigraphic

layers were identified in unit J8 (Figures 4-29 and 4-30). As in units F7G7, C4 and A2, many of

these layers contained smaller stratigraphic lenses.

LS-L1

LS-L1 defined the upper 20-35 cm of the unit. It was characterized by dark brown (10YR

3/3) sand and averaged approximately 10 cm deeper in the northwestern portion of the site than

in the northeastern and southeastern. It yielded large quantities of pottery the maj ority of the

pottery from this unit came from LS-L1 as well as bone, bottle glass, metal, unfired clay, and

glass beads.

In the northern portion of the unit was a poorly defined stratigraphic lens within LS-L1

(Figure 4-29). Designated LS-Lla, this lens appeared in the upper 10-12 cm of the unit, and was

characterized by dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand. It ranged from approximately 2 to 11 cm

deep, and because it was so close to the surface, may have represented the plow zone. In terms

of artifact recovery, it was indistinguishable from the rest of LS-L1.










Several long rocks standing on end were found in the eastern part of LS-L1, appearing

approximately 10 cm below surface. No discernible pattern to these rocks was immediately

obvious. They may have simply been disturbed by plow activities. One lithic artifact was

recovered from the upper 15 cm of the southeast corner of the unit one of only six lithics to be

recovered from the site. Several informants pointed out an area just to the south of the site, on

the other side of the ravine, where hideworkers used to live. These hideworkers used lithic

scrapers, so the handful of lithics recovered from Abwara Giorgis may be associated with that

area.

At 287.4 cm apd (approximately 10 cm below surface), a line of rocks appeared in the

northwest corner, extending southeast. It was approximately 34 cm wide, and extended 98 cm

into the unit (Figure 4-3 1). It appeared to extend further to the northwest. This line of rocks was

only 17 cm deep in essence, one layer of rocks.

LS-L2

LS-L2 was visible only in the eastern part of the unit, primarily in the southeast corner, and

appeared directly below LS-L1 at approximately 278.4 cm apd (23-36 cm below surface). It

consisted of a layer of brown (10YR 4/3) sand, and was approximately 18-20 cm in depth. It

contained very little archaeological material, only pottery in substantially smaller frequencies

than in LS-L1 and bone.

In the upper 5 cm of LS-L2 was a small dark brown (10YR 3/3) ash lens with bits of

charcoal (Figure 4-30). Designated LS-L2a, it was approximately 4 cm deep and contained no

artifacts.

At approximately 263.4 cm apd (33 cm below surface) in the northwest corner of the unit

was another shallow deposit (LS-L2b). This was located directly underneath the line of rocks

that extended from the northwest corner of the unit (see Figure 4-29). Averaging 3-5 cm in










depth, this lens was identical to the sediment matrix of LS-L2, except it was interspersed with

white (10YR 8/1) rock. This was probably merely a result of being underneath the line of rocks.

It contained no artifacts.

LS-L3

LS-L3 consisted of the maj or feature of this unit a pit in the northeastern corner (Figure

4-31) which was excavated separately. This feature appeared at approximately 283.4 cm apd

(21 cm below surface). It was characterized by dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand interspersed with

streaks of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clay, and was approximately 50 cm deep (Figures

4-30 and 4-31). Recovered artifacts included pottery, bone, a plain whiteware porcelain sherd, a

metal blade, a chalcedony core, and a small metal ball that resembled buckshot. This area

appeared at the same depth likely the same cultural horizon as LS-L2, which was

characterized by very little archaeological material, which supports the idea of this feature as a

refuse pit. In addition, the darker sediments of this feature suggest the presence of organic

materials, again something we might expect in a discard pit. This feature continued to yield

cultural remains for approximately 21 cm after sterile soil and bedrock had been exposed in the

rest of the unit.

LS-L4

The lowest stratigraphic level in this unit was the dark brown (7.5 YR 3/3) clay that was

encountered just above bedrock. This level appeared at approximately 263.4 cm apd (33-51 cm

below surface), and ranged from 10 to 35 cm in depth. It tended to be deepest in the eastern part

of the unit. The upper 20 cm of this level contained small amounts of pottery and undiagnostic

bone fragments; the lowest 10-15 cm were sterile. The pit feature (LS-L3) crosscut this level,

and extended into the bedrock itself.









LS-L4 contained a small stratigraphic lens, which lay between LS-L2 and LS-L4 (Figure

4-30). LS-L4a appeared in the southeastern corner of the site at approximately 274.4 cm apd (40

cm below surface) and was approximately 11 cm in depth. It was characterized by very coarse

brown (10YR 5/3) sand and contained very few artifacts, only pottery. This paucity of artifacts

led to its classification as part of the LS-L4 level (rather than as a lens in LS-L2).

Contents of Layers

As per the rest of the excavated units at the AG 2004 site, pottery made up the maj ority of

the artifacts recovered from unit J8. A total of 1,495 potsherds were recovered, 194 of which

were analyzed (see Chapter 6). The rest of the artifacts, while diverse in type, appeared in much

smaller frequencies and included Bos sp. and caprinae faunal remains; a few metal fragments

including a blade, a hair ornament, and a small round obj ect that resembled buckshot; several

clear glass fragments; six small glass beads; and a single lithic a chalcedony core.

Most of these materials were recovered from the feature in the northeastern corner; the rest

of the unit was characterized by relatively small amounts of cultural materials, compared to the

other excavated units at this site. Glass was only found in the upper 20 cm of the unit, and metal,

except for the two obj ects (the blade and round obj ect) recovered from the northeast feature, was

only found in the upper 40 cm (LS-L1). Identifiable faunal remains were also found only in the

upper two stratigraphic layers; very little faunal material was found below these layers, and when

it was, it was mainly small, unidentifiable fragments.

Discussion of Unit J8

The shallow deposit in this unit and the presence of modern materials such as glass and

metal hair ornaments suggests this area of the site was occupied recently. No 14C dates have

been obtained, however, the pit feature in the northeast corner appears to have been created at

approximately the same depth that modem materials namely the metal hair ornament were










recovered. This suggests this feature was created recently probably within the last hundred

years. The layers around this feature may be significantly older, but the paucity of cultural

materials in these layers makes it impossible to form conclusions without further excavation of

this area.

The pit feature in the northeast corner fits the characteristics of a refuse pit, with the darker

sediments suggesting the discard of organic materials and the higher concentration of artifacts.

The fact that there is little archaeological material in the rest of the unit supports the likelihood of

a midden.

Conclusions

Based on the spatial distribution and varying stratigraphies of the different units excavated

during the 2004 field season, it seems likely that the excavation provided a sample of five

distinct residential units.

Having said that, it is important to note that there are many similarities between the units -

primarily in terms of artifact content. Except for a handful of outliers a few lithics, some metal

fragments, three porcelain fragments the types of artifacts recovered are remarkably consistent

across the units. Pottery was the most common material recovered sitewide. Faunal remains

were consistently Bos sp. or caprinae, with small amounts of Equus a~sinus. Unit F7G7 was the

only unit to contain Tilapinii (N=2), Viverridae (N=3), and Aves (N=2) remains, and these

appeared in such small quantities as to be insignificant.

What to make of this? As mentioned, the spatial distribution and lithostratigraphy seem to

support the idea that each of these units represents a separate residential unit. How do we

explain the remarkable similarities in cultural materials in these separate residential units?

I have used the term "residential unit" throughout this discussion to refer to a geographical

area that is associated with people who are bounded in some way. However, I have purposely










kept this term vague, because I do not have sufficient data to form theories about how these

residential units are defined, or how they are related to each other. Are we looking at five

separate households? And if so, what does each household consist of a nuclear family, an

extended family? Are these households independent of each other, and if not, what is the

relationship between the households? Are we looking at the physical representation of a single

extended family, multiple nuclear families, or some combination of these? These are questions

that cannot be answered without a more complete, spatially-oriented excavation of the areas

between the excavated units.

There are however, three possibilities that can be presented. The first is that this

excavation uncovered a single compound. This compound was made up of several structures

and inhabited by people who were related in some way probably through consanguinal or

affinal ties. Such a pattern is common throughout Ethiopia today. This is certainly a viable

theory given the spatial aspects only a small fraction of a small portion of the overall AG 2004

site was actually excavated. In essence, we sampled part of an area approximately 280 square

meters out of an entire site approximately 10.5 square kilometers in size. Placed within this

larger context, all five of these "residential units" were placed very close together (Figure 4-32)

it is very possible they were parts of a single larger compound.

The idea of a single compound would also explain the similarities in cultural materials

recovered from the units. Members of a large extended family all living within a certain space

would be expected to exploit similar materials in similar fashions.

The second possibility is that these five excavated units represent five distinct households

- however a household may be defined. In terms of spatial distribution this is also a workable









theory; again, a landscape-level analysis through further excavation of the areas between these

units is necessary before any strong conclusions can be drawn about spatial relationships.

The third possibility is that these five units are neither all related nor all unrelated it is

possible that the excavation uncovered two adj acent compounds, or part of one compound and

one or more individual households, or some other combination of these. This seems unlikely,

given again the high level of homogeneity in artifact content. Boundaries delineating separate

households would be expected to manifest themselves in the archaeological record somehow.

The evidence at this point seems to support the proposition of five smaller residential units

within a larger compound of structures, corresponding to a larger kin or social unit. The general

homogeneity in pottery form, function and style discussed in Chapter 6 seem to add additional

support to this theory. Based on observations of living patterns in northwestern Ethiopia and

among living Beta Israel in particular, it is very possible the inhabitants of this compound were

members of a large extended family, which grew and shrank over time (the recent occupancy of

unit J8 may be an example of this).

In terms of the diachronic aspect of this research, 14C dates indicate that at least some, if

not all of the units excavated, were occupied during and after the Gonder Era, which was the

main temporal framework for this study. Some of the units may even have been utilized before

the Gonder Era, and most appeared to have been occupied well into the 20th century. This has

allowed me to address questions of change in pottery form and style over time, and how it

corresponded to changes in the soci o-economic-political context of 17th, 18th and 19th-century

Gender. By looking at various pottery attributes and how they change or remain constant over

time and space, I have been able to address shifts or continuities in Beta Israel lifeways that may

have occurred as a response to the rise and fall of Gonder as the capital of the empire. These










patterns in pottery manufacture and use are juxtaposed with a brief discussion of artifacts relating

to other occupations, primarily slag, the byproduct of iron processing. Together, they paint a

picture of how the changing socio-political situation in 17th through 19th century Gonder affected

the Gonder Beta Israel in terms of their social and economic spheres. The artifact analysis and

results are presented in Chapter 6, and the conclusions drawn from the excavation and analysis in

Chapter 7.



Table 4-1 Radiocarbon dates from AG 2004. Obtained from Geochron Laboratories and Illinois
State Geological Survey (ISGS). Calibrations obtained from CalPal (www.calpal.de)

Material 13C/'
Dated/ Measured C
Sample method 14C age (yr ratio
Laboratory Number recovered Unit Level BP) (o/oo) CalPal cal BP
Geocron GX-3196 Charcoal/ A2 L7 240 & 60 -23.9 275+126 (10)
spot 275+252 (20)
ISGS 6025 Charcoal/ F7 L3 430 & 70 -25.1 439+81 (10)
spot 439+162 (20)
Geochron GX-31197- Charcoal/ F7 L6 300 & 40 -23.7 378+57 (10)
AMS spot 378+114 (20)
ISGS 6027 Charcoal/ J3 L5 740 & 140 -24.0 716+126 (10)
screen 716+252 (20)














Abba Entonyos
























Abwara


Angare~b River















D afacha


Royal Compound
e


Gondaroch Maryam


Figure 4-1 1632 Map of Gonder. Source: Quirin 1992










































Figure 4-2 Aerial photograph of Gonder region. Photo courtesy of Google Earth 2007










































Figure 4-3 Location of Abwara Giorgis (AG). Photo courtesy of Google Earth 2007



























































0 100 200 300 meters


DIRT ROAD


NEW HOUSES


tl

b
Y1


Figure 4-4 AG Test Site location









77 74
O

81 76 73
000


120m




100m


80 75 17 61
O 0 0 0


85 83 79 26 16 60
000050 I


8,, 47O 82


78 25 15 59
0 500


46o 40


33 24 14 58
0050


D 45 39 82 P3 13 57 6
] 0 0 0 0n [

3 44 38 31 22 12 56 6


S 43 37 30 21 4 55 6
] O OO 10 0 [


51
60m E

41
[

41
40mE8




20m-




Om-




-20m


7
1

6
0


42 36 29 20 3 54 6
0 5 0 5 0 0 0

41 35 28 19 2 53 8
0 70000[1

34 27 18 1 52 6
000000O


9 8 A 10 1
0 0 0 0


72 5 69
000


6 71
O 0


-40m


-20m


20m


A: total station point : excavation area fN

high artifact density moderate artifact density

Figure 4-5 AG 2004 shovel test map













~1


I I I I I I I I


I I 1 I I


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

0 2 4 6 8
scale in meters


Bottom elevations (cm above permanent datum)


i


I


Fully excavated unit


-wall profile drawn


II


partially excavated unit


Unit A2:
Unit C4:
Unit F5:
Unit F6:
Unit F7:
Unit F8:
Unit G5:


331.6
306.2
349.6
368.1
263.1
347.6
374.1


Unit G6: 344.6
Unit G7: 245.1
Unit G8: 321.9
Unit H7: 344.4
Unit H8: 343.9
Unit J3: 273.4
Unit J8: 237.9


Figure 4-6 AG 2004 site grid











Surface


++ + + + +++++ + +L-L
+ + + + + +-C + + + + + s+++++++
+ + ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
+++++++++++ + +




0 50 100 150 200

Scale in Centimeters


SandI Y -I .on Sand .;.'.',3 Ash between 10YR 4/3
10R 2o 0 R 3/ *.*". 10YR 5 2? and 10YR ~33

Sand 10YR 4/2IrL Cla 75YR3
Fine sandIOR-~ AshIY +/ ly ,Y ;
interspersed with 10R43 0R4/ ith bedrock


Figure 4-7 Unit F7 east wall profile


































0 50 100 150 200

Scale in Centimeters


Bottom of
G6 level 11
( 52.5 gn
below surface)


Bottom of G6 level II
( 32.5 cm below surface)












- 0 Line


7.5YR 3/3
hard clay with yellow
(10YR 6/8) bedrock fragments

Sand
10YR 3/4


lo o
0 0 0


C+


'* Clay
, 7.5YR 3/3


Sand
10YR 4/3


Figure 4-8 G7 south wall profile and photograph


Sand, interspersed 10'(R 3/3
w ith rocks and pole~ r.IY 9 I I S n


rL.
Y~-~I~Lfii~t
-r ~Jly!


r iS r
Ir~L
-.----~----
C bYYtti~~c..~
ii;.nJ
c ....






























Scale in Centimeters


bottom of level I


0~ OLine

~Uground @3 55cmbd
( bottom of level 6)
200


0 50 100 150


Figure 4-9 Profile ofF7G7 firing area


.o 10YR 2/2 with pieces budre~dsic tairp i
o ( of charcoal, pottery, Idsic tairpi
q*.spots of clay (10YR 5/4) budre
and streaks of ash

I dR 3/ 3


SSand ~i

































Figure 4-10 F7 firing pit


Figure 4-11 F7 wall






















firing are


J IH G F ED CB A
2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Meters


Figure 4-12 Extrapolated size and shape ofF7 rock wall with firing area


































Figure 4-13 Unit F7: old wall and new wall, facing south


Figure 4-14 Possible feature in western G7























Figure 4-15 Southeast corner of unit F7


0 5 cm


Figure 4-16 Porcelain sherd from F7G7 LS-L4

































Figure 4-17 G7-North level 7











Surface


+~~~~~~" + +' + ++++ +++ +





Scl in Cetmtr


O kine


w ith rockisan IO R




10YR 8/1

I: Rock


Figure 4-18 Unit A2 north wall. A) A2 north wall profile, B) A2 north wall photograph


I- Ash 10YR 5/3 r C ay
w-IMith charcoal 10YR 3/1


C( R 3/4 1


.. Sand~ Ash


+Z~ Clay androck
+7.5YR 3/3


SIndistinct boundaries










C"

*urr~


~plJ:
~ ~Y- -t


Figure 4-18 continued
















Surface


-- Line


**LShi3c.: '. rock


rac Irok ro





+++++
+ + + + +t + + + + + + + + + +





0 50 100 150 200

Scale in Centimeters






SandSand 2.Y 2Ash Iniain ondre

Sad10YR 4/3 Fin sandR AshOY /4
inerpece betee 10Y 5 YR 4/2'
with ocks nd 10YR 4/


As

Fiur -1 nditY A2 eas wall A A2.Y east wall proile B)i A2 astwal phtogap


































Figure 4-19 continued


























++++++++~



Scalein Cetimees


S urface


0 Line


10YR 4/1


10YR 3/3


0.~ Sand
10YR-- lu 4/2


aI Churned and rocky
coo 0Y 6/


Churned and rocky +Clay` and rock
10YR 6/4 +7.51 R 3/3


2III Churrned and rocky Ash 10YR -1 2
7.5YR~ 3 with charcoal



Figure 4-20 Unit A2 west wall. A) A2 west wall profile, B) A2 west wall photograph


































Figure 4-20 continued


























































Figure 4-21 Possible feature in southeast corner of unit A2














Surfauc


rockL ;--- -





0 j0



Scale in Centimeter




IR 4/3 3/ Chme an rocky +- es--
* Rc San As 10R42Cme n ok
10Y 8/ 10YR 43 wid charcal 7 YR 3


Figure 4-22 Unit A2: profile of residential unit in northwest corner

















































































B

Figure 4-23 A2 rock feature: A) possible structure wall, B) inner rock feature


.i~lPO~i~E. I
c '-5i
,r -~bJ
J~.~-
..A
''')
1. p6'~~










13

12

11













10 12 1 Met 10

Figre -24Exraplatd izeandorenttio o A2feau9



























++++++++++++ ++++++
++++++++LE-0++++S+++

Sterile / Bedrock

) 50 100 150 2(
Scale in Centimeters


Surfaee


- 0 ine








LS-L~a


A
Figure 4-25 Unit C4 west wall. A) C4 west wall profile, B) C4 west wall photograph


10YR -12


7.5YR 3/3



. sh
10YR 5/2


aP ~ F ine sand
oo10YR 4/3


Sa\nd between
10Y\IR 4/3 and 10YR 3/3


between soil types~nitntb u d r





Figure 4-25 continued


Figure 4-26 C4 level 9 feature





























* ok rokrc



+*+Scale ine Centimeters


Surface


0 Line


. ." *
*L'


Sand
10YR 4/3


CLay
10YR 3/4


Clay
10`YR 4/2



Indistinct boundary
between soil types


0. .
*.*.*


Figure 4-27 J3 east wall profile and photograph









































1*
j_.i~:S' ;~C~_' ~L*
C: ~le

...:~
.~.


4
- "k- ,r-


&i
-rP
,I r ~ ,~
~ai~r~
~~._. 5~,;-CII~


--_ B


Figure 4-28 J3 wall feature. A) facing north, B) facing west







156




















0 50 100 150 200
Scale in Centimeters


mrm


Sand 10YR 3/3 interspersed
with 10YR 8/1 rock


IOR 4/2


iui U
~71 ,r
f~*a~;
- ~s
:S~r- Sc f-
iiWi- r r


1


Figure 4-29 Unit J8 north wall. A) J8 north wall profile, B) J8 north wall photograph


Sand Iy /
10yr 3/3, Ca


+Clay
+7.5YR 3/3


IOR 4/3


~iTransitions
between soil types
























0 50 100 150 200
Scale in Centimeters


Surface


0 Line


Grindstone


mrm


Sand
101 R 3/3


Sand
7.5YR 3/2


Very coarse sand
10YR 5/3


Sand 10YR~ 3
with streaks of
10YR 3/2 Clay


+ Y


Ash 10YR 3/3
with Charcoal


Clay
7.5YR 3/3


O..


Sand
10YR 4/3


Sandy transition from
10YR 3/3 and 10YR 4/3
A


_J~


--- ~i I,
~C~


Figure 4-30 Unit J8 east wall. A) J8 east wall profile, B) J8 northeast corner photograph























































J IH G F EDCGB A
2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Meters


Figure 4-32 Layout of structure elements at AG2004


Figure 4-31 Unit J8: rock line in northwest and pit in northeast









CHAPTER 5
ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

As my primary focus for data analysis in this study was pottery, analysis of pottery

recovered through archaeological excavation was supplemented by a series of interviews with

Beta Israel potters living in Abwara Giorgis today. It was my original intention to interview

potters who had been raised in or around Abwara Giorgis, but unfortunately, all of these people

left the Gonder region several years ago and went to Addis Ababa, as the first step towards

making the journey to Israel. The Beta Israel who live in the Abwara Giorgis area today are

primarily from the countryside around Gonder, and have moved to the city within the past ten

years .

Traditionally, only women make pottery among the Beta Israel, consequently all my

interview subj ects were women. I spoke to a total of nine women who make pottery over

approximately one month: two in Tadda, another traditionally Beta Israel village, five in Abwara

Giorgis, and two in Addis Ababa. Interviews with the two women from Tadda, Wezoro (Mrs.)

Shashay and Wezoro Nigiste, were very brief. Both women claimed they were not Beta Israel,

although some of their neighbors said otherwise. I was told that their reluctance to say they were

Beta Israel was due to some recent discrimination. So their backgrounds were unclear, although

both said that they had learned to make pottery from a Beta Israel.

Of the women I interviewed in Abwara Giorgis, most came from Goj am and one was from

Chilga. They all claimed to be Beta Israel, and in fact two of them were relatives of one of my

field assistants. Of the two women I interviewed in Addis Ababa, one was from Chilga, and one

was from near Gorgora (Figure 5-1).

Interviews were structured. Besides myself and the potter, my research assistant Biruk was

present, serving as my interpreter, as well as any members of her family who were interested. In










every interview the same standard set of questions was asked. Each interview began with

background questions about the woman, where she was from, the name and occupation of her

husband, how many children she had. I would ask about the occupations of her mother and

father, and those of her husband' s mother and father. If she was able to remember, I also asked

about her more distant relatives' occupations grandparents and great-grandparents to

establish the ways in which occupations and their particular techniques are passed on through

generations.

In discussing her status as a Beta Israel I asked if both her parents were Beta Israel, and if

she could remember, the religions of her more distant relatives. I asked about her relationships

with non-Beta Israel if she or other members of her family had friends who were not Jewish,

how often she interacted with non-Beta Israel, whether she or members of her family had or

would ever eat a meal with Christians.

In discussing pottery traditions, I asked who taught her to make pottery, and whom she

taught. I asked why she had or had not taught her daughters or other female relatives to make

pottery. I asked if she made her pottery any differently than the person who taught her, and if

her daughters made it differently from her. I asked what types of pots she made, and what she

did with them. If she sells them, I asked who she sells them to, where the sales take place, and

how much she sells each type of pot for.

In the final stage of the interview, I asked the woman to take me through the step-by-step

process of making a pot, from obtaining the clay to mixing it, to adding temper, to shaping it, to

decoration, to firing. I was able to watch and photograph the actual process while she explained

what she was doing and why. In one case I was able to interview a mother and daughter at the

same time, and see how similar their techniques were. In most cases I was able to purchase the










finished vessel in order to compare it to the pottery recovered through the excavation at AG

2004.

Wezoro Shashay Adafre

Shashay Adafre is a potter who lives in the village of Tadda. Tadda lies just south of

Gender, and is named by historians (Pankhurst 1969, Quirin 1992 to name a couple) as one of

the Beta Israel villages established during the Gonder Era. It was still a maj or Beta Israel center

in 1975 (Quirin 1992), and today most of the Beta Israel still in the Gonder area are either in

Abwara Giorgis, Woleka or Tadda.

When we asked local members of the community to direct us to a Beta Israel woman,

Shashay was identified. However, Shashay told us that she was not a Beta Israel, and that she

had never spoken with a Beta Israel. It is possible that because of recent discriminatory acts

against the Beta Israel she did not want to claim affiliation. Or possibly she has some Beta Israel

heritage but at some point her ancestors converted to Christianity.23 Or it is possible that her

neighbors were mistaken, or consider her a Beta Israel because of her occupation as a potter,

which is a traditionally Beta Israel-held occupation. If this is the case, it lends credence to the

theory that the group known as the "Beta Israel" is defined more by their occupational status than

by their religious or cultural positions.

Shashay's mother was not a potter, she was a farmer and housewife, and her father was a

laborer. Her husband, Belay, was not present at the interview but Shashay said he was not a Beta

Israel either. Shashay did not know the occupations of her husband's parents; they may have

died before she was married.

23 There is a distinctly recognized but poorly defined group of Ethiopians known as Falasha Mura. This term refers
to Falasha who at some point converted to Christianity, but who remained secretly Jewish at heart. The implication
is that these people were forced to convert by Ethiopian emperors, although evidence of forced conversions is
lacking in historical documents, or that they converted to escape persecution. Either way, whether or not they
consider themselves Beta Israel is largely a matter of personal choice.









Shashay learned to make pottery from her Amhara (i.e. non Beta Israel) neighbors. She

has children but was reluctant to tell us how many or their names. She did say that she would

not teach her children to make pottery. The reason is unknown, as she was not comfortable

speaking about her children.

She only makes one type of vessel, an inj era plate: a large flat dish used for cooking and

serving inj era, and she mixes the clay and shapes the plate on the floor inside her house. She

fires the plates on the hearth that is located outside her house. She uses two types of locally

found clay for this plate: called walk (translated simply as "clay") and cai afer ("red soil"). She

roasts the walk first, to make it stronger, then grinds it up. She then mixes the ground walk

and the raw cai afer together in almost equal portions, slightly less walk than cai afer. She does

not add any temper, but mixes in water.

When the clay has reached the proper consistency, which she can tell by the color and the

texture, she flattens it into a large round plate, and allows it to dry for between one and seven

days. When it has reached a leather-hard consistency she burnishes one side with a river rock to

make it smooth. She then places the plate on the fire for between 30 minutes and an hour, with

the unbumished side facing the flames. Then she burnishes the burnished side a second time,

this time using shells. The burnished side is then placed on the fire for 30 minutes to an hour.

She does not decorate her inj era plates. When the second firing is finished, the plate is

completed, and ready to be sold at the Tadda market for approximately 15 birr (almost two US

dollars) .

Wezoro Nigiste

The interview with Nigiste was very brief, and took place at the Tadda market, where she

was busy selling her pottery. She said she was not a Beta Israel, but that her husband was, and

that she learned to make pottery from his relatives. She told us that she was a neighbor of










Shashay, and that she also only makes injera plates. She said she uses the exact same methods as

Shashay.

Cursory examinations of the inj era plates Nigiste was selling showed they do appear

similar in composition and technique to those of Shashay; however, we were unable to arrange a

time to speak with Nigiste in further detail.

Wezoro Derecha and Wezoro Wark Abeba Getahun

Derecha lives in Abwara Giorgis, and is the mother of one of my field excavators, named

Tiru. She is originally from Goj am, but came to Abwara Giorgis six years ago with her husband,

Getahun Tiruneh, who is a weaver. Derecha' s mother and father were both Beta Israel, also

from Gojam. Her mother was a potter and her father was a farmer. She has two daughters, one

of whom lives in Israel, the other, named Wark Abeba Getahun lives next door to her mother and

also makes pottery. We were able to interview them both together, and watch them both make a

vessel.

Derecha learned to make pottery from her mother and her grandmother. Her mother only

made inj era plates, the other types of pottery she learned from her grandmother or developed on

her own. She taught her daughter how to make pottery, and says her pottery is exactly the same

as her mother' s and grandmother' s, and that her daughter's pottery is also the same. Wark

agreed that her pottery is the same as her mother' s. She has daughters of her own, but does not

plan to teach them to make pottery. She said, "I want them to go to school. I don't want them to

be potters."

Derecha and Wark make many different types of pots, including inj era plates, distes (small

shallow bowls), medium and small-sized water jugs, braziers, incense holders and jebenas

(coffee pots). All her pots are made the same way: she uses two types of clay, walk and what

she called "termite clay." This clay comes from the soil found near termite nests. Walka is easy









to Eind, near any body of water, and the women collect it themselves. The termite clay is not

found locally, it is only available in Gojam. When someone she knows makes a trip to Gojam,

Derecha will give them money to bring the termite clay back, but this is difficult and expensive.

When termite clay is unavailable, she will use grog, or sherds from broken pots, instead.

Derecha does not roast the walk; instead, she mixes it with water and lets it sit for three to

four days. The second clay, either termite clay or grog, is roasted until it turns red this makes it

stronger. Then it is ground up and passed through a sieve until it becomes a very Eine powder.

The walka and the powder are mixed together. She did not know the proportions she uses in the

mixture but says she uses more of the termite clay/grog powder. She knows the mixture is right

when it becomes sticky and she recognizes the smell. She demonstrated this process as she

spoke, and her daughter did not offer any comments about using different methods.

The pot itself is shaped by hand both Derecha and Wark made vessels while we were

speaking. Both women work the clay on a round woven mat, which they rotate as they shape the

pot; thus the mat functions like a pottery wheel. Ash is sprinkled over the work area to keep the

clay from sticking to the mat. The vessel is formed by creating an indentation in the center of a

lump of clay with the thumbs, and then drawing the clay from the base upwards into the desired

vessel shape. Sometimes a piece of wood is used for smoothing. Handles and spouts are made

with additional clay and placed on the body of the vessel. When Derecha makes a large pot, she

does it in stages. She will shape the bottom part and let it dry before adding the top half. She

said this prevents the bottom from collapsing under the weight.

After the pot is shaped, decoration is added. Derecha and Wark have three decorative

techniques or methods punctates, made with a pointed stick; Eingernail impressions; and

applique. They both said there is no particular decoration associated with a particular type of










pot; that any decoration can go on any vessel type. While we spoke, Derecha made a diste, and

decorated it with an applique horizontal line that ran around the widest point of the diste. This

ridge was decorated with fingernail impressions and small handle-like protrusions (Figure 5-2).

Wark made a j ebena, decorated with a horizontal applique ridge at the base of the neck, and

small applique protrusions around the vessel shoulder (Figure 5-3).

After the pot is shaped and decorated, it dries for one week, until it has become leather-

hard. Then, using a metal knife, the outside of the pot is scraped and smoothed. The inside of

the pot is burnished with a stone from the river. Sometimes, instead of a knife, Derecha will use

a stone to smooth the outside of the pot too, because the knife will destroy the decoration and

leave scrape marks.

After the pot is burnished, both women mix the termite clay/grog powder and water to

make a slip. The outside of the pot is slipped using a cloth, and then it is fired over an open kiln,

heated with wood and dung. Several pots are piled over the kiln, covered with dried grass, and

cooked overnight for eight to twelve hours.

Both Derecha and Wark make pottery for personal use and for sale, although they say they

don't sell as much pottery now as they used to the ready availability of metal and plastic

cooking pots and containers has rendered pottery less necessary. However, they commonly sell

their inj era plates (for 12 birr/USD 1.50), medium-sized distes (for 3 birr/ USD 0.40), medium-

sized water jugs (for 13 birr/USD 1.60), small water jugs (for 7 birr/ USD 0.88), and braziers (for

4 birr/ USD 0.50).

Wezoro Amenu Takale

Amenu Takale also lives in Abwara Giorgis. Her husband, Debas Mengistu, is a weaver

and a laborer. They have five children, four of whom are girls. They are originally from Goj am

and came to Gonder about six years ago. Amenu does not know how long her family has been in










Goj am, but they have been there at least since her grandfather' s mother' s time. All of her family

were Beta Israel, as far as she can recall.

Amenu learned to make pottery from her mother, who was also a potter. Her father was a

weaver. Her daughters are young, but she is teaching them to make pottery, the same way that

she makes it, and the same way that her mother made it.

She makes many different kinds of vessels, including inj era plates, j ebenas, medium and

large distes, medium and large water jugs, braziers, incense holders, j ebenas holders (clay rings

on which the round-bottomed j ebena sits), and kitfo bowls (small bowls in which the ground beef

dish is served).

All her pots are made of the same types of clay, which are the same clays used by Derecha

and Wark. Amenu also gets the walk from the local river, and tries to get the termite clay from

Goj am. But because this is difficult and expensive, she more frequently uses grog as the second

clay, usually from her own broken pots. Like Derecha and Wark, she mixes the walk with

water, and lets it sit for four days. The termite clay/grog is ground up and put through a sieve;

this grinding and sieving may occur several times in order to produce a very fine powder. Then,

on the floor of her house, she mixes the two soils so that there is approximately a 2: 1 walk to

clay powder ratio, and she recognizes the proportions are correct when the result is a certain

shade of reddish brown. She adds some water to keep the mixture plastic, but does not add any

other materials to the clay mixture.

The pots themselves are made immediately after the clay mixture is prepared, on the floor

of her house, which she sprinkles with ash to keep dirt from sticking in the clay. Sometimes she

will form the pot on a piece of cardboard instead of directly on the ground. When she does this,

she will rotate the cardboard to facilitate the shaping process. Pots are shaped by hand, although









sometimes a piece of wood may be used to smooth and shape the vessel (Figure 5-4a). The body

of a vessel is made by pinching a hollow in the center of a lump of clay with her thumbs, and

then forming the shape of the vessel with her fingers and thumbs. However, when a vessel has a

neck (such as a water jug or a j ebena), this part is made with a series of clay coils, placed one on

top of another, and then smoothed with her fingers or a piece of wood. If she is making a large

water jug or a vessel with a long neck, she will form the bottom of the vessel first and allow it to

dry before adding the top or the neck this keeps the pot from collapsing under excessive

weight. For small spouts (on a jebena, for example), she places a stick into the pot where the

spout will go, then coils the clay around the stick. When the pot is fired, the stick is burned to

ash, and the result is a narrow spout through with liquid can flow easily. This is different from

Wark' s technique she simply made a hole in the pot shoulder and attached a hand-coiled spout

to it.

Amenu decorates her pots depending on her preference. She does not always use the same

decoration on the same types of pots. The j ebena she made during the interview was decorated

with a horizontal applique ridge that ran around the throat of the pot. Below this were a series of

alternating round pointed protrusions (lugs) and half-moon shaped protrusions; the latter were

notched with a stick (Figure 5-4b). However, she said sometimes she uses different decorations.

After the pot is shaped it dries "until it is dry;" for approximately one week during the

rainy season, and 2-3 days during the dry season. When it is dried to a leather-hard state, the

bottom of the pot is scraped with a metal knife, and the top of the pot is burnished with a stone.

When she makes injera plates, the top is burnished and the bottom is scraped. Then, with a

mixture of the termite clay/grog powder and water, she applies a slip to the pot with a cloth.









When she makes an inj era plate, only the top is slipped; on shallow bowls (distes), the entire

vessel is slipped. Water jugs and jebenas are only slipped on the exterior surfaces.

Then, the pot is fired. Amenu uses an open kiln, heated with wood and dung. She creates

a pile of several unfired pots, and covers it with dried grass. Several vessels are then heated

overnight, for approximately eight hours. For inj era plates, only the top of the plate is fired; the

bottom is covered with ash to keep it from burning, but never gets fired directly. This, according

to Amenu, is because when it gets used, the bottom will sit directly on the fire, so it is not

necessary for her to fire it.

In Goj am she used to make pottery for sale, but in Gonder she makes it primarily for

personal use, as the demand for pottery in Gonder is limited. She will occasionally sell her

pottery in the Abwara Giorgis market. The injera plate she sells for 12 birr (USD 1.50); the

jebena for 6-7 birr (USD 0.75-0.88), medium sized distes are 3-4 birr (USD 0.40-0.50) and large

distes are 6 birr (USD 0.75). Large water jugs are 7-8 birr (0.88-1.00) and medium-sized water

jugs are 6 birr (USD 0.75). Braziers are 10 birr (USD 1.25), incense holders are 3-4 birr (USD

0.40-0.50), and jebena holders are 4 birr (USD 0.50). Small kitfo bowls are 5 birr (USD 0.63)

Wezoro Alemit Chaney

Alemit Chaney lives in Abwara Giorgis today, but is originally from Achefer, in Goj am.

She came to Abwara Giorgis three years ago. Her husband, Mola Tegenye, has been in Israel for

four years; they divorced right before they left Goj am. She has two sons, and all three are

waiting to go to Israel.

Alemit' s parents are both from Goj am her mother did not have an occupation, and her

father was a weaver. Her grandparents were also from Goj am. Both of her parents, and her

grandparents, were Beta Israel. Alemit learned to make pottery from her father' s sister, who

learned the craft from their mother (Alemit' s father' s mother). Alemit has no daughters to teach










pottery to, but she has taught her older sister to make pottery. She says she makes pottery

exactly the same way as her aunt, and her sister's pottery is the same as hers.

Alemit can make every type of pot, but because of the lack of demand for clay pots in

Gender, she now mainly only makes injera plates and distes. These are only for her personal

use.

She, like the potters we interviewed in Tadda, uses walk and cai afer, two locally

common types of clay. She will also use grog, although she does not use her own broken pottery

in this capacity. Grog is mainly used in making fragile pots, when it is mixed with walk. For

most pots, she roasts the cai afer until it is red, then she will grind it and sieve it until it is very

fine powder. Se said the roasting makes the cai afer stronger. Then she mixes it with walk.

During the dry season she will also add water to the mixture, but during the rainy season this is

not necessary.

To mix the two clays, she cups her hands to make a bowl shape. She adds three of these

handfuls of the walk, and three to four handfuls of the cai afer, so that the proportions are

nearly equal, with slightly more cai afer. The pot is then shaped by hand, beginning with a

thumb indentation in a lump of clay, and drawn from the base up. Sometimes she will use a

piece of wood to draw the clay upwards to build the vessel body. Before drying, the pot is

smoothed with a stone and then decorated.

Alemit uses particular decorations for particular pots, but this is her personal preference -

it is how her aunt taught her. Inj era plates are not generally decorated; they sometimes have a

rim with a ridge so that a lid can be placed on top (Figure 5-5). A diste may be impressed with a

stick, or may have four small applique protrusions from the body, which serve as handles (see

Figure 5-2). Alemit also used to make lids for distes for this she prefers the termite clay used










by Derecha, Wark, and Amenu, but since it is not available in Gonder, she no longer makes lids.

Diste lids were always decorated with wavy lines made by a comb, and incised lines around the

top24

After the pot is decorated, it is dried in the sun for 2-4 days, depending on the weather.

Then it is roasted for 12 hours, on an open kiln of wood and dung, and covered with grass. After

firing, a slip is made out of raw (not roasted) cai afer and water, and applied with a cloth.

Alemit applies slip only to the top of inj era plates, to the interiors of distes, and to the exterior

surfaces of diste lids.

After slipping, the vessel is roasted a second time, under the same conditions as the first

firing. Alemit says the second firing makes the pottery stronger. Unlike the Tadda potters, only

the top sides of inj era plates are fired, the bottoms are covered with ash to prevent burning.

Wezoro Tuhuni Mazenga

Tuhuni came to Abwara Giorgis approximately five years ago from Alefa, near Chilga.

She came here with her husband, although they are now divorced. She has four children, three of

whom are girls.

Tuhuni's family, all Beta Israel, have been in Alefa for as long as she can remember. Her

mother was a potter, and her father was a weaver. Both died when she was young, and she was

raised by her aunt (her father's sister), also a potter, and her uncle, who was a farmer. She

learned to make pottery from another of her father' s sisters, after her guardian aunt died. Both of

these sisters had learned from their mother (Tuhuni's paternal grandmother). Tuhuni, however,

does not plan to teach her daughters to make pottery, because she wants them to continue going

to school.


24 Alemit was uncomfortable with the interview being photographed, so pictures of these decorations are not
available.










While living in Alefa, Tuhuni made pottery to sell, but in Gonder she makes it only for

personal use. She concentrates on four types of vessels: distes, diste lids, inj era plates, and

incense burners. For these vessels, she prefers to use a combination of locally available walk

and termite clay. She says the termite clay is also available locally she digs for it herself.25

She roasts the termite clay until it turns red, then grinds and sieves it until it is a very fine powder

(Figure 5-6). The roasting is said to make the clay stronger.

When mixing the two clay types, the proportions are 2:1 termite clay to walk, which she

measures in handfuls, and a little water. She recognizes that the mixture is right when it achieves

a rough texture

Tuhuni makes her pots on the floor of her house, which she sprinkles with ash to keep the

clay from sticking to the ground. She shapes the pots with her hands, beginning with a thumb-

depression in the middle of a lump of clay, and drawing the clay up from the base to form the

vessel body. She does not use any tools to shape or smooth the vessel at this point, but will use a

stick or an umbrella spoke to apply decorations.

Tuhuni always uses the same decorations for her pots. She says these are the only designs

she knows. Injera plates and incense holders are not decorated. Distes are adorned with a single

horizontal applique ridge around the body exterior, and four small protrusions that serve jointly









25 Tuhuni's statement that termite clay is locally available contradicts what every other potter said that this clay
was only found in Gojam. Is possible that she was talking about a different type of clay, possibly the local cai afer
that some potters use, and there was a mistranslation at some point. However, when I asked my translator, he
emphasized that Tuhuni was in fact talking about termite clay and not cai afer, so possibly the termite clay is
available locally, and there is another as yet undetermined reason why the other potters have not used this local
source. Or possibly she was referring to a third type of clay that none of the other potters use.










as decoration and as handles.26 Diste lids are decorated with wavy lines, incised individually

with a stick or an umbrella spoke.

After the pot is decorated, it dries in the sun for twelve hours. Then, with a metal knife she

smoothes the bottom, and burnishes the top with a stone from the river. Then it is fired for two

hours with several other pots on an open kiln heated by wood and dung, and covered with grass.

A slip made out of raw unfiredd) termite clay and water is applied with a cloth after the

pots are fired. Slip is applied to the tops of inj era plates only, to the interiors of distes only, and

to the tops of diste lids only. On an incense burner, only the top and the handles are slipped.

Then the pot is fired a second time, for another two hours, to make it stronger. Inj era plates are

only fired on one side; the bottom is covered with ash to prevent burning.

Wezoro Tinash Werk Amara

The interview with Tinash took place in Addis Ababa, at the Beta Israel feeding center.27

Born and raised in Chilga, she came to Addis Ababa Hyve years ago with her husband as the first

step to making the j ourney to Israel. Her husband, Asneko Lako, returned to the Gonder region

four years ago to pick up their son and bring him back to Addis Ababa, but died during the trip.

He was a farmer from Gorgora.

Both of Tinash' s parents were from Chilga, and her father' s father was also from Chilga.

Her mother' s mother was from Alefata Wusa, near Gorgora, and she does not know about where

her other grandparents were from. Her mother and her mother' s mother were both potters, as

was her father' s mother; her father was a weaver. Tinash has four children three sons and a

daughter, who is twenty-two years old, and married to a farmer. She did not teach her daughter

26 Tuhuni was uncomfortable with photographs being taken during the interview, so there are no images of this
decoration. However, from the description, Derecha's diste may be a comparable example, without the impressions
on the appliquC.

27 This center was established and funded by NACOEJ






























































2 Ferment" was Biruk's translation.


to make pottery; she said her daughter was not interested in learning. Her daughter finished the

second grade in school, and does not have an occupation now.

Tinash learned to make pottery from her mother. She says she does not do anything

differently than the way she was taught, but claims to be a better potter than her mother was -

she has more experience and more interest. Since coming to Addis Ababa, she has stopped

making pottery. There is no space here and no raw materials. She said the one time she tried to

make pottery in the city, neighbors were upset because of the smoke from the kiln. So we were

unable to watch her go through the pottery-making process during the interview.

In Chilga, however, she made pottery for sale and for personal use, and described the

process. She used two types of clay walk, and red clay soil from termite holes. The walk is

found locally, the termite clay is only found in places of high altitude, far from where she lived.

She would soak the walk in water for one day this would make it ferment28 and become

sticky. She would roast the termite clay until it turned red to make it stronger then grind and

sieve it until it was a very fine powder. The she would mix the two clays.

The proportions of the two clay types varied with the type of pot she was making. For

inj era plates, she would use three handfuls of walk and four of the termite clay; for all other

pots she would use one handful of walk and two of the termite clay. She would recognize that

the mixture was right by its texture.

She made her pots on the floor of her house, which she would first sprinkle with ash. The

ash prevented dirt from the ground from getting stuck in the clay. Pots themselves were formed

using her hands, beginning with a thumb indentation in the middle of a lump of clay, and

drawing the clay upwards to form the vessel body. For larger pots such as water jugs, she would










build them a little at a time: she would form the base and let it dry, then add some of the body

and let it dry, then add some more, etc. This prevented the bottom of the pot from crumpling

under the weight of the top. Animal bones were used for smoothing; she called her smoothing

tool "diba."29

Decorations were applied when the pot was semi-dry; if the pot was too wet, the

decorations would spread. She tended to always use the same decorative methods on her pots:

most were decorated with stick impressions and applique. However, the decorative motifs would

vary. She said she could make lots of different decorations, using techniques other than applique

and stick impressions, and that it depended on her personal preference. The more elaborate the

decoration, the higher price she would receive for it.

After decoration, the pot would be dried outside for between one and three days, depending

on the season. Then she would burnish it with stones from the river. Inj era plates would only

be burnished on the top sides; distes would be burnished on the interior and the exterior surfaces,

but not the exterior base; incense holders would be burnished all over except for the base; water

jugs would be burnished all over interior and exterior, including the base (or more accurately,

the bottom, as water jugs are rounded and thus lacking a technical "base").

Then the vessel would be slipped. Tinash would use a red clay, a different type than the

termite clay, and found near the river in Chilga. She would mix it with water and apply it with a

cloth. Like burnishing, only the top side of the injera plate would be slipped. Distes were

slipped on the interior and exterior surfaces, but not the exterior base. Incense holders were

slipped all over, except for the base. Only the exterior surfaces of water jugs were slipped, and

this included the exterior base.



29 This is not an Amharic or Tigrinya word; it is most likely part of a local dialect.










Tinash fired her pots after they were slipped. This was done on an open-air kiln, outside

her home. She would dig a shallow hole in the ground, line the bottom with wood, and place

multiple pots on top of the wood. These she would cover with chaff and fire for two hours. The

only time this technique varied was in the case of inj era plates. These would be fired one at a

time, upside-down, for two hours (cooking the top side only). The bottom of the plate would be

covered with chaff; Tinash said the heat from the chaff would cook the bottom of the plate a

little, so that it wasn't totally raw.

In Chilga, she sold her pottery from her home most of the time, although occasionally she

would take it to the market. The pots she made to sell included distes with lids (for 3 birr,

approximately USD 0.40), incense holders (for 1 birr, USD 0.08), injera plates (for 10 birr, USD

1.25), water jugs (for 8 birr, USD 1.00), kitfo bowls (for 1.5 birr, USD 0.20), and braziers (also

for 1.5 birr). She sold her pottery mostly to Amhara (non-Beta Israel), since most of the Beta

Israel families were making their own pottery. She said the pottery she made for personal use

was usually "nicer," meaning more elaborately decorated, than the pottery she made to sell. This

was to attract buyers; when people saw her with her own nice pottery, they wanted to buy from

her.

Wezoro Astela Yalew

The interview with Astela was also conducted at the Beta Israel feeding center in Addis

Ababa. Astela came to the city seven years ago as the first step on her j ourney to Israel. She is

originally from Alefata Wusa, near Gorgora, where both her parents and her grandparents grew

up. She never married, but has three sons.

Astela learned pottery from her mother, who was also a potter. Both her maternal and

paternal grandmothers were potters as well. Her father was a blacksmith, as was her paternal

grandfather. Her maternal grandfather was a weaver.










Astela does not make pottery in Addis Ababa, because there are no raw materials and no

demand. But in Alefata Wusa, she made pottery both for sale and for personal use. She made

many different types of pots, including distes, water jugs, basins (for mixing tef), kitfo bowls,

braziers, and incense holders. Her sisters also make pottery (they live in Alefata Wusa), and

have taught their daughters how, but she has not taught anyone to make pottery. When

describing the pottery-making process, she said she did not do anything differently than her

mother.

She preferred to use two types of clay in her pots: walk and termite clay. Neither of these

was easy to find in Alefata Wusa the walk was far, "near the river," and the termite clay was

even farther than the walk, "in high places." She mixed the walk with water and let it sit for

half a day in order to ferment the clay and make it stronger. The termite clay was roasted for one

hour to make it strong, then ground and sieved until it was a very fine powder.

When mixing the clays, she used roughly equal proportions two handfuls of walk and

two handfuls of termite clay. The she would test the mixture to see if it was sticky enough; if it

was not, she would add more termite clay.

Pots were made on the floor of her house, which would be sprinkled with ash to keep dirt

away from the pot. She would make her pots by hand, beginning with a thumb indentation in a

lump of clay, and drawing the clay upward to form the vessel body. She would use a dried and

hardened piece of animal skin to smooth the pot.

When the pot was semi-dry, she would add the decoration. Usually each type of pot would

be decorated the same way. For example, all water jugs would have an applique ring at the

throat. Astela learned these decorations from her mother.










Depending on the season, the decorated pot would be dried outside between one and three

days, then burnished with stones from the river. Distes and basins were burnished on the interior

and exterior surfaces, except for the exterior base. Water jugs and kitfo bowls were burnished on

the exterior and interior surfaces, including the exterior base (the term "base" is used to refer to

the rounded bottom of the water jugs). Incense holders were burnished all over, except for the

base.

Slips were made out of a red soil, different from the termite clay. This soil comes from

rivers, but was also far from Alefata Wusa. It was mixed with water and applied to the pots with

a cloth the purpose of the slip was purely aesthetic, to add color. Distes and incense holders

were slipped on the interior and exterior surfaces, except for the base. Water jugs were only

slipped on the exterior surface, including the base. Basins were slipped on the interior surface

only, and kitfo bowls were only slipped on the exterior body (not the base).

Astela fired he pots outside her home, and with smaller pots, several would be fired at the

same time. She would dig a shallow pit in the ground, line the bottom with wood, lay 8-12 pots

on top of the wood and cover them with chaff. They would then be fired for an hour and a half.

Large water jugs and basins were fired individually, also for an hour and a half each.

Astela usually sold her pottery from home. She sold large water jugs (10 birr,

approximately USD 1.25), incense holders (1.5-2 birr, USD 0.20-0.25), distes (1.5-3 birr, USD

0.20-0.40, depending on the size), large basins (15 birr, USD 1.85), braziers (2 birr, USD 0.25),

and kitfo bowls (also 2 birr). The pottery she sold went mainly to Amhara (non-Beta Israel), as

most of the Beta Israel families were making their own pottery. She said the pottery she made

for personal use was better, meaning stronger, than the pottery she made to sell; the reason for

this was "everybody likes himself best."









Discussion

From these interviews, some interesting conclusions can be drawn. Most striking is the

amount of similarity in technique found among these women, despite the fact that they come

from different areas. All nine women use two types of clay to make their pottery: walk, which

seems to simply refer to soil found in local rivers, and a second type, either cai afer or termite

clay, or, when those are unavailable, grog. With the exception of Shashay and possibly Nigiste,

all the women treat the cai afer/termite clay before mixing it with the walk, by firing it and then

grinding it into a Eine powder. None of the women add anything else to the clay mixture except

water, and this will be discussed in detail below.

All the women use the same drawing technique to shape their pots. Burnishing is always

done after the pot has partially dried and been decorated, and tends to occur on the same vessel

areas universally only the tops of inj era plates are burnished, the exterior bases of distes are not

burnished but the exterior bases of water jugs are, etc. Slips are made with termite clay or cai

afer and water, and applied with a cloth. Firing techniques varied the most, with differences in

time on the kiln and number of times fired, but all women used the same materials for the

process: an open kiln, wood and dung to heat the kiln, and grass or chaff to cover the pots. Tools

are only used for smoothing, burnishing, slipping, and adding decoration.

The subj ect of decoration is, of course, particularly relevant to this study. Again, there is

remarkable similarity among the potters in how the vessels are decorated. There seems to be

general agreement about which vessels get decoration; for example, no one decorates injera

plates, incense holders or braziers. Decoration methods are consistent, the dominant techniques

being applique ridges or small lugs, incised lines, and impressions made with a fingernail, stick

or other small tool. Derecha and Wark also use punctates, however, they are the only ones to









mention this technique. Decorative motifs are also very similar among the women, the dominant

designs being horizontal lines, either incised or applique, sometimes notched, and applique lugs.

One salient point that emerged from the interviews is the intentionality behind decorating a

pot. When asked why a particular decoration was used, the answer was always along the lines of

"This is how I was taught to decorate the pot." This is not an unusual response in ethnographic

studies of craft production; as Killick (2004) points out, apprentices often learn by guided

imitation (e.g. Gosselain 1998, Keller and Keller 1996). A consequence of this is that informants

often "cannot provide verbal explanation for their preferences beyond some variant of the

statement that 'this is the way that we do it' (Killick 2004:573; see also David and Kramer 2001,

Lemonnier 1992).

Tinash was the only potter to suggest there is an element of imagination or personal

expression in the decorations she applies to her pots. For most of these women, vessel

decoration does not seem to be a creative outlet or a means of personal expression; it is more a

part of the general process of making a pot, done automatically in the same way the clay is

mixed or the vessel is burnished. These women use the decorating techniques and designs they

have been taught; they do not make up new ones. This appears to be an example of Sacketts's

(19895, 1990) isochrestic stylistic variation, in which the style of an obj ect is created passively,

as the result of learned technological traditions. This is opposed to what Wiessner (1983, 1984)

calls emblemic style, which implies a conscious attempt to imbue cultural information in the

material culture. One of the difficulties in looking at style in the archaeological record is that it

is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether stylistic attributes are emblemic, that is,

created with the intent to express messages about culture and cultural identity, or isochrestic, the

result of a learned behavior. We cannot possibly know why any given past person or group









preferred one set of technological choices over another obviously we cannot question them

(Killick 2004). The motives of the potter are at issue here, and this can only be determined, if at

all, through observation and conversation. For this reason, an ethnoarchaeological approach to

manufacturing techniques is particularly suitable (David and Kramer 2001; Lechtman and

Merrill 1977; Lemonnier 1992, 1993; Kramer 1997; Roux and Matarasso 1999; Schmidt 1997).

Although we must of course be aware of the pitfalls of assuming the ethnographic present is an

accurate analog to the past (David and Kramer 2001, Schmidt 1983, Stahl 1993, Wylie 1982,

1985 to name just a few), the isochrestic approach observed in most of the potters serves as a

valuable warning against assuming emblemic meaning in the pottery decoration of the

archeological material. Without the opportunity to conduct ethnographic research with the

potters who made and deposited the material culture at AG 2004, we cannot assume that the

material "symbols," i.e. the pottery manufacture and decoration techniques, are at all meaningful

to the people who are supposedly employing them. This reminder of the pitfalls of drawing

ethnographic analogies is a key contribution of the ethnographic portion of my fieldwork to my

overall study.

Variations in Technologies

Although it is the similarities among the pottery techniques of the nine women interviewed

that are the immediately striking patterns to emerge, there are some significant differences as

well. The first is how the walka is treated before it is mixed with the second clay. All the

women treat the termite clay/cai afer before mixing it with the walk, but some of the women

treat the walk in some way before mixing as well, either by roasting and grinding it (as does

Shashay, and possibly Nigiste) or by soaking it in water for several days (as do Derecha, Wark,

Amenu, Tinash, and Astela). Other women (Alemit and Tuhuni) do not treat the walka at all

before mixing it.










Clay proportions also seem to vary among the women. Shashay, Astela, and possibly

Nigiste, use roughly equal amounts of walk and cai afer/termite clay, with slightly more cai

afer/termite clay. Derecha and Wark do not measure their clays, but use more of the termite clay

than walk. Amenu uses a 2: 1 walk to termite clay ratio; Tuhuni uses a 2: 1 termite clay to

walk ratio. Alemit uses a 3:4 walk to cai afer ratio similar in proportion to the mixtures of

Derecha and Wark. Tinash' s proportions varied depending on the type of pot she was making:

3:4 walk to termite clay ratios for inj era plates, and 1:2 walk to termite clay ratios for all other

types of pots.

While the vessel shaping process was very similar among most women, there were some

small differences. Most women formed their pots directly on the floors of their homes; Derecha

and Wark did their shaping on round woven mats, which they spun around as they built the

vessel bodies. Most of the women sprinkle ash over their work area to keep the dirt of the

ground from getting into the clay; neither Shashay nor Alemit do this. Alemu's method for

making the j ebena spout was not practiced or described by any of the other potters.

Another maj or difference is the surface treatment of pots. Alemit was the only potter who

did not burnish her pots, Shashay and possibly Nigiste burnish their pots twice once with

stones before firing, and again with shells between firings. Neither Shashay nor Nigiste apply

slips to their pots; all the others do. Vessel parts that receive slipping vary as well: for example,

Amenu slips the entire body of her distes, including the exterior base. Alemit and Tuhuni only

slip the interior surfaces of their distes. Tinash and Astela both slip the interior and exterior

surfaces of their distes, but not the exterior bases. Some women (Derecha, Wark, Amenu,

Tinash, and Astela) slip their pots before firing, and others (Tuhuni and Alemit) slip their pots

between the first and second firings.









The area where the most variation occurred was in the firing of the pot. All the women use

open kilns heated by wood and dung. Astela and Tinash would dig special pits for this; all the

other potters would use the main house firing area (also used for cooking and any other heating

needs). Shashay and Nigiste do not cover the cooking pottery with any materials. Derecha,

Wark, Amenu, Alemit, and Tuhuni cover the pots with dried grass while they are being fired;

Tinash and Astela used chaff for this. Shashay and possibly Nigiste fire their injera plates twice

- once on each side. All the other potters fire their injera plates on one side only. Derecha's,

Wark' s, Amenu's pots are fired once, overnight (for approximately eight to twelve hours).

Tinash's and Astela's pots are also fired once, but for closer to two hours. Shashay, possibly

Nigiste, Alemit, and Tuhuni fire their pots twice. Alemit's pots are fired for twelve hours, then

slipped, then fired for another twelve hours. Tuhuni's pots are fired for two hours, then slipped,

then fired for another two hours. Table 5-1 summarizes the similarities and differences in

techniques displayed by the nine potters.

The question of why such patterns of similarity and variation occur must be addressed;

unfortunately, the small sample size precludes us from making any strong conclusions.

However, there are five main areas in which a variety of technological choices were observed

among the potters interviewed: clay preparation, clay ratios, pottery production location (which

relates directly to the presence and types of inclusions in the clays), surface treatment, and firing

techniques. The reader will recall from Chapter 3 that style is not necessarily limited to those

"non-functional" attributes of pottery what Sackett (1982) has called "adjunct form:" attributes

that were "added on" either to perform some social function or as a passive residue of

enculturation (i.e. decoration) (Dietler and Herbich 1998) but may actually be seen in every

aspect of the manufacturing process. The assignation of style to technological (i.e. "functional")










choices has traditionally been treated as a separate or subgroup of studies of style, called

"technological style" (Childs 1991, Hosler 1994, Lechtman 1984, Lechtman and Merrill 1977),

"technological choice" (Gosselain 1998, Lemonnier 1992, 1993), or the "social construction of

technology" (Childs and Killick 1993); however, the choices applied to the so-called functional

attributes of a vessel fall under the general rubric of style, as much as do the more traditional

"adjunct" domains of style such as form and decoration.30

Anthropologists who have studied technological style tend to agree on two points: first,

that there is usually more than one technology that satisfies the minimum requirements for any

given task; and second, that the choice of a particular technology from a pool of satisfactory

alternatives may be strongly influenced by the beliefs, social structure, and prior choices of the

group (Killick 2004; see also Childs and Killick 1993; Dietler and Herbich 1998; Gosselain

1998; Lechtman 1984; Lechtman and Merrill 1977; Lemonnier 1992, 1993; Pfaffenberger 1992,

Schmidt 1997). Considered within this context then, it is necessary to address the possibility

that the variations in technological choices observed in the potters is less an expression of

functional superiority and more a result of the basic processes of enculturation. All things being

equal in regards to producing a functionally satisfactory vessel, the different techniques

employed by the different Beta Israel potters may be seen as reflections of social frameworks -

essentially, stylistic choices.31 Chapter 6 will show that similar variations in technological

choices also appear in the archaeological material, and that these variations are distributed

spatially; in other words, the pottery varies most significantly from unit to unit. This supports


30 See Dietler and Herbich (1998) for a more detailed discussion of the dangers of artificially separating style,
function, and technology.

31 However, it is crucial to note that no compositional studies were conducted on the ethnographic pottery, thus the
premise that various technological choices are equally functionally satisfactory remains to be shown. This is one of
the key areas I hope to address in future studies.










the idea that these choices are directed by social, rather than technological, forces, and that

potters from related households (who may be members of the same family) tend to make the

same choices. An examination of technological style in the archaeological record may provide

valuable information about the cultural transmission patterns of pottery production techniques,

and it is partly these patterns of similarity and variation that led to the conclusions drawn about

the relationships between the occupants of the excavated units (see Chapter 7).

Spatial Patterns

When examined spatially, it appears that the maj or differences in technological choices

follow geographic lines; that is to say, potters from the same general areas tended to use

techniques that were more similar to each other' s than to those of the other potters. The

differences exhibited by Shashay and Nigiste in relation to the other potters may be a result of

two factors: first, they are the only potters to be interviewed from Tadda; second, at least one of

them is not a Beta Israel. Nigiste learned to make pottery from the Beta Israel relatives of her

husband, but Shashay claimed to have no relationship with any Beta Israel potters.

Unfortunately, the interviews with both these women were too brief to be able to explore this

subject appropriately; thus, they are excluded from the following discussions. As for the other

potters, crosstabs analyses were run to look at correlations between the areas they grew up in,

and the methods they used to make pottery.

The potters interviewed came from three major areas. Derecha, Wark, and Amenu said

they come from Goj am from the same village, although its name is unknown32; Alemit comes

from Achefer, in Gojam, so she is placed in the Gojam category as well. Tuhuni and Tinash



32 For most of the rest of this discussion, Derecha and Wark will be treated as one potter, since they are mother and
daughter, live together, and from our observations, do not differ in their techniques in any significant way. Unless
otherwise specified, they will be referred to as Derecha/Wark









come from Chilga. Astela comes from Alefata Wusa, near Gorgora. Tinash's maternal

grandmother also came from Alefata Wusa, so we might expect her pottery techniques to reflect

some of the patterns found in Chilga pottery, and some found in Alefata Wusa pottery.

Gojam and Achefer

When looking for similarities based on geographical area, the pattern that emerges

immediately is that Alemit, who comes from Achefer, differs radically in her techniques from the

other three potters who come from Goj am. In fact, the vast maj ority of commonalities found in

the techniques of Derecha/Wark, Amenu and Alemit are common to all the potters interviewed,

regardless of geographic origin. For example, all four Goj am potters use two types of clay, and

they all apply slips to their pots; however, the potters from Chilga and Alefata Wusa do these

things as well. There were no significant common features found among the four potters from

Goj am that were unique to the Goj am area.

Much more relevant is the pattern that did emerge: in many steps along the pottery-making

process, Derecha/Wark and Amenu' s techniques were the same, and Alemit' s were different. It

appears at this very preliminary point that similarities and differences are associated more with

specific villages than with an overall region Derecha, Wark and Amenu all came from the

same (name unknown) village in Goj am; Alemit, although also from Goj am, came from a

different village, and the patterns that emerge are consistent with this village-specific

perspective. Derecha/Wark and Amenu all prefer termite clay as the second clay; Alemit uses

cai afer, unless she is making a diste lid for this she uses termite clay. She is also the only

Goj am potter to make diste lids. Derecha/Wark and Amenu all soak the walk in water before

mixing it with the second clay; Alemit does not treat the walk at all. Derecha/Wark and Amenu

all cover their work area with ash; Alemit does not do this. After the pot is semi-dry,

Derecha/Wark and Amenu all smooth part of the pot with a metal knife and then burnish the









surface with stones from the river; Alemit uses her hands for smoothing, and does not burnish

her pots. When applying slip to the pots, Amenu covers the entire vessel; Alemit only slips the

interiors of her pots. (Data on where Derecha and Wark apply their slips were not collected.)

Derecha/Wark and Amenu all slip their pots before firing; Alemit slips her pots between the first

firing and the second, which is the final maj or difference: Alemit is the only Goj am potter to fire

her pots twice.

In only two areas did the pattern of Derecha/Wark/Amenu congruence diverge. First,

Derecha/Wark and Alemit all use more termite clay/cai afer in creating the clay mixture; Amenu

uses more walk. Second, in creating the neck of a vessel, Wark uses the same technique as for

the body: she draws the clay upwards from the base, and creates a narrower circumference at the

top of the vessel. Amenu, however, uses a series of coils stacked one atop the other, to create her

vessel necks. Data on how Derecha and Alemit create vessel necks were not collected, although

we may surmise that Derecha' s technique was probably the same as Wark's.

Chilga

Although there are some similarities among the potters from Chilga (Tuhuni and Tinash),

like the Goj am potters, the differences are much more striking. There are no techniques that both

Tuhuni and Tinash use that no other potters interviewed use. For example, both Tuhuni and

Tinash make diste lids. This is uncommon among the potters interviewed, but Alemit, from

Achefer, Gojam also made diste lids. Both Chilga women use walka and termite clay, although

there is some question as to whether Tuhuni's termite clay, which she says is locally available, is

the same as the other potters' termite clay. The proportions of the clay are the same in both

Tuhuni's and Tinash' s mixtures: 2: 1 termite clay to walka (except for in Tinash' s inj era plates).

Both women cover their work area with ash, and both made their pottery directly on the ground.









However, there are more differences than similarities in the techniques of the two women,

and like in Goj am, this may be due to the fact that they are from two different villages in Chilga.

Tuhuni is from Alefa, but Tinash's specific village name is unknown.

Tinash soaks her walk in water before mixing it with the termite clay; Tuhuni does not

treat her walk in any way. Tinash uses animal bones for smoothing her pots; Tuhuni only uses

a tool for decorating. Tuhuni said she only knew a few decorations, which she learned from her

aunt. Tinash said she knew a lot of decorations, and would sometimes make more elaborate

decorations in order to fetch a higher price for her pots. Tuhuni would apply slip only to the

interior surfaces of distes; Tinash would slip the entire vessel, except for the base. Tuhuni fired

her pots twice, applying slip between the first and second firings. Tinash fired her pots once,

applying slip beforehand. Tuhuni used the regular firing area of her house to cook her pots;

Tinash would dig a special hole in the ground. And Einally, Tuhuni would cover her pots with

dried grass while they were cooking; Tinash would use chaff.

Alefata Wusa

Astela was the only potter to come directly from Alefata Wusa, near Gorgora; however,

Tinash's maternal grandmother was also from that village. Also a potter, she taught Tinash's

mother, who taught Tinash. Thus it may be that many of Tinash's practices stem from this area,

rather than from Chilga.

And in fact, the techniques practiced by Tinash and Astela are much more similar than

those practiced by Tinash and Tuhuni, suggesting that while Tinash did incorporate some of the

practices diagnostic of Chilga, her methods can be traced directly back to those of her maternal

grandmother.

For example, both Tinash and Astela treat the walk by soaking it in water before mixing it

with the termite clay. Both cover their work areas with ash to keep dirt from sticking in the clay.










Both use tools for smoothing their pots Tinash uses animal bones, and Astela uses dried animal

skin. Both use a red clay for their slip, a different type than the termite clay. In slipping their

pots, both cover the same areas: for distes, the interior and exterior surfaces are slipped, but not

the base. For incense holders, the entire surface except for the base is slipped. For water jugs,

the exterior surface, including the rounded base is slipped. Both Tinash and Astela fire their pots

one time, for between and hour and a half and two hours. Both dig specific pits for this purpose,

and both use chaff to cover the vessels.

There were only two significant differences in the practices of Tinash and Astela. First,

Tinash uses approximately twice as much termite clay as walk, when she is mixing the soils

(except when she is making an inj era plate then the proportions are 4:3 termite clay to walka.

Astela uses roughly equal amounts of the two clays, with possibly a little more termite clay.

Second, Astela knows only a few decorations, and she tends to use the same decorations on

specific pots for example, all her distes are decorated the same way. As we have seen, Tinash

said she knows lots of decorations, and decorates her pots based on her personal preference.

However, this attribute was unique to Tinash among all the potters interviewed, and may not be

an indicator of any pattern.

Conclusions

Because of the small sample size only four potters from the Goj am area were

interviewed, and this was the largest sample, it is premature to draw strong conclusions about

regional patterning. However, it appears from this initial glance that similarities and differences

between pottery-making techniques are less dictated by general region than by specific village.

Derecha, Wark and Amenu's common practices, and their common divergence from Alemit's

practices, for example, suggest that there is not a pottery type that is diagnostic of Goj am, but









there may be pottery making styles that are diagnostic of Achefer, Alefata Wusa, or possibly,

Abwara Giorgis.

Furthermore, the opportunity to speak with Tinash, who demonstrated practices that seem

to conform both to Chilga and to Alefata Wusa traditions, suggests two things. First, divergence

in practices from generation to generation may not be as uncommon as these potters indicated,

and second, given a large enough sample size to determine regional variation, we may see strong

patterns in pottery traditions that allow us to trace regional movement of people and their pottery

techniques. All this of course doesn't provide any direct evidence about techniques in Abwara

Giorgis, but may give us some insight as to broader patterns of conformity/variation in pottery

manufacture and decoration techniques.

As for how the pottery techniques of these potters correspond to the archaeological

material found at the AG 2004 site, there is remarkable continuity. As I will show, the pottery

overall is characterized by homogeneity, both through time and space, suggesting that the

general pottery manufacturing techniques are shared by people of different geographical regions

and temporal periods. The variations that we see, both in the ethnographic and the

archaeological record tend to occur on a much smaller scale, suggesting levels of individual

style. This is explored further in Chapter 6.














































Table 5-1 Patterns in the ethnographic study
Potter' s Beta Walka
name Origin Israel? treatment
roast and
Shashay Tadda unknown grind
roast and
Nigi ste Tadda no grind

Derecha Gojam yes soak


Wark Goj am yes soak


Amenu Goj am yes soak


2nd clay
second clay treatment

cai afer none


cai afer none
roast and
termite clay grind
roast and
termite clay grind
roast and
termite clay grind


inclusion clay
of grog? proportions
more cai
no afer
more cai
no afer
more
yes termite clay
more
yes termite clay


yes more walka










Achefer
(Gojam) yes


Alefa (Chilga) yes

Chilga/Alefata
Wusa yes


Alefata Wusa yes


roast and
cai afer grind
termite roast and
clay? grind
roast and
termite clay grind
roast and
termite clay grind


more cai
afer
more
termite clay
more
termite clay

equal. More
termite clay


Alemit


Tuhuni


Tinash


Astela


none


none


soak


soak


Table 5-1 continued


tools to
smooth?


no


no


yes


yes


slip on
diste ext


n/a


n/a


uid


uid


slip on # of 2nd fire
base firings 1st fire time time


no 2.5-1 hour .5-1 hour


no 2.5-1 hour .5-1 hour


no info 1 overnight n/a


no info 1 overnight n/a


Potter's name


Shashay


Nigiste

Derecha


Wark


use of ash?


no


no


yes


yes


burnishing


twice


twice


yes


yes











Amenu


Alemit


Tuhuni


Tinash


Astela


1 overnight


2 overnight

22 hours


12 hours


1 1.5 hours


n/a


overnight

2 hours


n/a


n/a


Figure 5-1 The Gonder Region. Source: Google Earth, TerraMetrics 2007



























































Figure 5-2 Derecha making and decorating a diste





194


























































Figure 5-3 Wark making and decorating a jebena





195



























































Figure 5-4 Amenu making and decorating a jebena





196
































012345


Figure 5-5 Lid for a diste


Figure 5-6 Tuhuni's roasted and ground termite clay









CHAPTER 6
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Data Analysis

All materials recovered were bagged and catalogued according to provenience in the field

(Appendix C). Once analysis began, artifacts were separated into types, and all non-pottery

artifacts bagged separately. Of the non-pottery artifacts, only faunal materials were analyzed, by

Dr. Josephine Le Sur. Provenienced charcoal was bagged separately, and brought to the United

States for radiocarbon dating. All other materials were catalogued, counted, and weighed, and

stored in the National Museum in Addis Ababa (Appendix E).

Pottery was initially sorted into two categories: diagnostic and nondiagnostic. Diagnostic

pottery included decorated sherds and identifiable vessel parts, such as rims, bases, handles, and

necks. Because of the enormous amounts of pottery recovered through excavation,

nondiagnostic body sherds were not analyzed extensively. They were sorted by provenience,

and then were counted and weighed (Appendix F).

Diagnostic sherds were labeled according to provenience, gently washed in order to

preserve any organic residue, and extensively analyzed in the National Museum in Addis Ababa.

The pottery analysis addressed the following attributes: 1) vessel part (i.e. rim, handle, body); 2)

interior and exterior surface treatment; 3) decorative method (i.e. incised, punctuated); 4)

decorative motif (i.e. horizontal lines, zigzag lines); 5) motif frequency (how many times each

decoration motif appeared on the sherd); 6) location of the decoration on the sherd; 7) the percent

of the sherd that was decorated; 8) exterior and interior use alteration; 9) sherd thickness to the

nearest 0. 1 millimeter; 10) vessel type; 11) rim diameter, if identifiable; 12) rim thickness,

measured at 3 cm below the rim edge; 13) percent of rim, if identifiable; 14) rim shape; 15)

inclusion type; 16) inclusion angularity; 17) composition (i.e. inclusion percentage); 18)










inclusion size; 19) sherd weight, to the nearest 0. 1 gram; and 20) the existence of slip on the

exterior of base sherds. These analytical methods are discussed in more detail below.

Rim diameter and percentage were determined using a circumference chart to the nearest

centimeter. Inclusions were analyzed using a 20X loupe. Inclusion angularity and size were

classified according to the 1984 W.F. McCollough Sand Gauge. Inclusion percentage was

classified according to Mathew, Woods and Oliver's (1991) Percentage Inclusion Estimation

Chart.

When the analysis was completed, profiles were drawn of the various rim types, and

photographs were taken. The pottery was rebagged according to provenience, and stored in the

National Museum, in accordance with ARCCH regulations.

The data collected during the pottery analysis were put through a number of statistical tests

in order to look for patterns through time and space. Frequency tests and descriptive statistics

were run on sherd type, vessel wall thickness, surface treatments, decoration attributes, use

alteration, clay inclusions, and vessel types. Cross tab analyses were run to look for associations

between various attributes, and to look at how these characteristics evolved over time.

The data were analyzed statistically at several scales. The 14C dates vary between units,

which suggests that not all of the units were occupied over the same time periods. Because of

this, and because there is some question as to whether unit J8 was the site of Beta Israel cultural

activity during the time period in question, the pottery analysis initially treated each unit as a

separate pottery sample. Tests were run to look for patterns, both spatial and temporal, in each

unit, and then the units were compared.

Second, the patterns derived from individual units were used to extrapolate some general

patterns that occurred sitewide. These sitewide patterns were examined in conjunction with the










individual unit patterns to develop a multiscalar description and analysis of pottery making and

use at Abwara Giorgis. Future research may draw upon this sample as a comparative tool.

For the analysis of the pottery of the Abwara Giorgis site, only those sherds recovered

from the six fully excavated units (A2, C4, F7, G7, J3 and J8) were examined.33 Pottery

recovered from the surface and partial excavation of the other units was catalogued and bagged,

and is currently housed in the National Museum in Addis Ababa.

The total pottery sample recovered from the six units comprising the AG 2004 excavation

was 15,046 sherds. Of these, 12,270 were undiagnostic body sherds, without visible decoration.

These sherds were counted and weighed (Appendix F). They were distributed throughout the

site as follows: 5,488 (45%) sherds recovered from unit F7/G7; 2,259 (18%) from unit J3; 1,715

(14%) from unit C4; 1,507 (12%) from unit A2; and 1,301 (11%) from unit J8. Table 6-1

illustrates the pottery frequency in each unit over time.

The remaining 2,776 sherds were diagnostic either a distinct part of the vessel, or a

decorated sherd. These included rims, handles, bases, necks, feet, shoulders, and any

combination of these (Table 6-2). The diagnostic sherd distribution follows the same general

pattern as the undiagnostic sherd distribution. The majority (1,294 sherds, or 47%) of the

recovered sherds were in unit F7/G7, followed by J3 (501 sherds, or 18%), C4 (472 sherds, or

17%), A2 (3 12 sherds, or 1 1%), and J8 (194 sherds, or 7%), for a total of 2,773 diagnostic

sherds.34 The attributes of these were analyzed according to the methods discussed below. The

results of the analyses are presented later in this chapter.


33In discussing the pottery patterns, the two adjacent units F7 and G7 are considered one unit, F7/G7. The
exception to this is when areas within the F7/G7 unit are discussed separately, for example, F7-fp refers to the firing
pit within the unit: G7-N refers to the northern portion of G7 which showed a different soil color than the rest of the
unit.

34 Three diagnostic sherds have no provenience, so they were analyzed, but are not included in frequency or
distribution discussions.











Pottery Attributes


Vessel Form

There are four major vessel types in Gondarine pottery, according to my field crew and

informants. Inseroch (singular insert) are j ars used for processing and storing food, water and

beer, and come in various sizes. This is the only maj or vessel type with a neck, except for

jebenoch (discussed below), which have very long, thin necks. Distoch (singular diste) refer to

the shallow bowls used for serving food, and also come in various sizes. Sometimes they have

lids that fit over the tops. M\~itttttttttttttttttadoc (singular mitad)ttt~~~~~ttttt~~~~ are the thick, round, flat, plates used for

cooking injera. Jebenoch (singular jebena) are the coffee pots, with very long thin necks.

Jebenoch tend to have very thin walls, as do some smaller distoch (Figure 6-1).

There are several characteristics that can be used to determine vessel form. The most

diagnostic feature is the rim diameter: plates (mitttttttttttttttttadch) tend be large, with diameters of over 30

cm. In contrast, jebenoch tend to have very small rims, often less than 5 cm. Distoch (bowls)

and inseroch (j ars) come in different sizes, so are often not identifiable by rim diameter.

Cross-tabs analyses suggest a correlation between vessel type and rim diameter (Table 6-

3). In general, mitad(plate) sherds tended to have the largest mouth diameter, being effectively

flat, and jebena (coffee pot) sherds the smallest. Diste sherds showed the widest range of rim

thickness. Unfortunately, the majority of rims recovered during the excavation were too small to

determine rim diameter, so the sample size for this attribute was only 268 sherds (Table 6-4). In

addition, the rims most likely to be preserved in large enough sherds to determine diameter are

the thicker specimens; thus, this may skew the results toward larger vessels.

A second diagnostic feature in determining vessel type is rim shape. The analysis

identified 18 distinct rim shapes in the AG 2004 sample (Figure 6-2). In general, plates










(mitttttttttttttttttadch) are flat, and tend to have straight rounded rims, often with a small interior lip, but

little to no curvature. Bowls (distoch) are ovaloid vessels with open mouths. If they are fitted

for a lid, the rim may have a particular ridge into which the lid may fit. Jars (inseroch) and

coffee pots (febenoch) tend to have restricted necks. The necks of jars are more flared than those

of jebenoch (Figure 6-3).

A third diagnostic feature may be surface treatment. In the ethnographic portion of this

research, there were certain patterns that emerged in the way different vessel types were slipped.

For example, plates were only slipped on the interior (top) surface, while the entire surface of a

diste was slipped. Jebenoch were only slipped on the exterior surface out of necessity, as the

mouth of this vessel is usually too small for the potter' s hand to reach inside. Slipping of

inseroch (jars) varies: some were slipped on the exterior surface only, some were slipped on the

exterior and the interior rim and neck, and some were slipped on the entire surface, interior and

exterior.

In the pottery recovered from AG 2004 the surface treatment patterns seem to vary

somewhat for example, some insert sherds exhibited slips on the interior and exterior surface

(N=133), others were only slipped on the exterior surface (N=86) (Figure 6-4). Thus, in the

analysis of the archaeological material, surface treatment alone was not found to be a good

diagnostic tool for determining vessel form.

Another feature that may help determine vessel type is sherd thickness. Plates tend to be

very thick; jebenoch tend to have very thin walls. Insera and diste wall thickness varies based on

the vessel size. Although the mean thickness for mitadoch (plates) is significantly higher than

for inseroch and distoch, there is a great deal of overlap (Figure 6-5 and Table 6-5), so this

feature alone is not always sufficient to determine vessel type. A related feature is rim thickness;










mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds tend to have the thickest rims, and jebena sherds the thinnest. Diste sherds had the

widest range of rim thickness (Figure 6-6 and Table 6-6).

The fifth attribute that may be used to determine vessel function is, of course, use

alteration. However, this was not found to be a particularly useful attribute in the AG 2004

collection, because of the general nature of Ethiopian vessels. Food processing and/or storage

can occur in inseroch, distoch or on mitadoch, so any associated usewear such as scratches or

pitting would not definitively identify a vessel form. Likewise, all four vessel types are used for

cooking, so evidence of soot or charred food residue was not particularly useful.

The bottom line is that when all of these attributes are taken into consideration, they can be

shown to relate to vessel function, but there is no single attribute that alone is a good diagnostic

tool to determine vessel type. Thus in the determination of vessel types, all five variables were

examined, as well as their relationships to each other. Table 6-7 shows the frequency counts for

the identifiable vessel types at this site. Appendix G exhibits the various attributes by vessel

type.

Surface Treatments

The surface of a vessel may be treated in a number of different ways prior to firing and

use. Sometimes these treatments have a functional value, such as making the vessel stronger,

and sometimes they are purely decorative (sometimes, of course, they serve both purposes).

Four distinct methods of surface treatment were identified in the sample. \h/'1ug refers to a thin

veneer of wet clay applied over a semi-dry pot. This is often a slightly different color than the

body of the vessel. .Gmeslrlibi is done to create a finer and more regular surface immediately

after the vessel is formed. This may be accomplished with a variety of tools including leaves,

sticks, clothes, leather, or the potter' s hand. Burnishing is the process of rubbing the semi-dry

vessel with a smooth hard object such as a pebble, shell, or bone. This gives the surface a luster.









Polishing is similar to burnishing, except it is conducted on a dry vessel; thus the parallel

markings diagnostic of a burnished surface are not visible on a polished surface (Rye 1981, Rice

1987).

Decoration

Decoration is one of the most common attributes used by archaeologists to study "style" -

the expressions of identity that might be encoded by the potter. This is because decoration has

been defined as an attribute of pottery that is not directly related to vessel function that is to

say, it does not affect the strength of the vessel or its ability to carry out the j ob for which it was

created. Thus the choices that potters make when applying decoration are not necessarily

dependent on issues of functionality to the extent that they may be when considering features

like temper, vessel shape or surface treatment and this is one area of pot-making in which the

potter may exercise her own imagination and express her own ideas.

Decoration is usually defined in terms of its being "non-functional," or purely aesthetic,

which can lead to some confusion when attempting to look at pottery decoration in the

archaeological record. Aside from the obvious problems in labeling decoration as non-functional

- this dissertation revolves around the symbolic functions that decoration can serve the purpose

of any vessel embellishment may not be immediately discernible to the archaeologist. For

example, can we always determine whether the application of a slip is "decorative," or serves

some utilitarian function, whether it should be considered embellishment or surface treatment?

In conducting this research, I was fortunate to have an ethnographic and ethnohistorical

component to rely on potters who could tell me why they applied a slip to their vessels. And in

fact, as I have shown (see Chapter 5), Beta Israel potters in the Gonder area apply slips in order

to strengthen the vessel. Archaeologists do not always have access to this type of insight, thus

we must be careful not to throw the term "decoration" around. For the purposes of this research










I defined decoration as markings applied to the surface of the vessel, after the shaping and

forming of the vessel was completed, that had no obvious utilitarian function. For each of these

decoration occurrences in the archaeological sample I recorded the method by which the

decoration was applied, the motif (or design of the decoration), the location of the decoration on

the vessel, the number of times the decoration appeared on the sherd,35 and the percent of the

sherd that was decorated.

Within the total pottery assemblage, 17 distinct decorative elements were identified (Table

6-8), and 11 methods for the application of these elements were observed (Table 6-9). There

appear to be correlations between decorative element and decorative method; for example,

zigzag lines were always incised. In addition, often two or more of these elements appeared

together on a sherd (for example, an incised zigzag line between two incised horizontal lines),

and were thus classified as a single motif. Thus, for analysis purposes, the motifs and methods

were combined, and these are referred to simply as decoration types.

Inclusions

Temper, or materials included in the vessel paste, is an often imprecise term, and its

definition is not widely agreed upon (Rice 1987). Temper has been widely used by

archaeologists to refer to components that have been intentionally added by the potter to modify

the properties of the clay; this may be problematic, obviously, because archaeologists cannot

always determine whether inclusions in pottery were added intentionally or not. As a means of

sidestepping this issue, the term "inclusions" has been suggested as an alternative. The term

inclusions (Rye 1981) does not deal with the question of how the materials in question got into

the clay (Rice 1987). While temper may be the more common term, when dealing with


35 If a decoration appeared only once on a sherd, the frequency was recorded as 1, although it is acknowledged that
this decoration may have appeared more often on the overall vessel.









archaeological materials, inclusions may be the more accurate. And in fact, when I conducted

interviews with Beta Israel potters, I found that many of them did not intentionally add materials

to their clay; the inclusions present were a result of forming the pot on a dirt or ash surface, and

picking up materials unintentionally. Present activities cannot be assumed to be analogous to

past activities; thus, I refer to any components added to the clay in the Abwara Giorgis pottery

sample as inclusions this allows for the possibility of either intentional or incidental addition.

Within the rest of the sample, four materials were identified as inclusions within the clay:

quartz, mica, grog or fired clay, and ash. Analysis of the inclusions included angularity, size,

and composition. Angularity, classified according to the 1984 W.F. McCollough Sand Gauge,

was categorized into round, angular, and subangular. Size was also classified according to the

1984 Sand Gauge, and was recorded as very fine (1/16-1/8 mm), fine (1/8-1/4 mm), medium

(1/4-1/2 mm), coarse (1/2-1.0 mm), or very coarse (1.0-2.0 mm).

Use Alteration

Evidence of use alteration on the interior or exterior surfaces of sherds can provide data

concerning the functional aspects of a pottery assemblage. Correlation between use wear and

vessel form can provide information pertaining to a particular shape of vessel used for a specific

function (Skibo 1992). Modiaication to a vessel surface is most likely to occur during processing

of the vessel contents, such as stirring, scraping, mixing, grinding, or pounding, or through

heating processes. Areas most likely to show use alteration are the interior base, the interior

sides, and the exterior base (Rice 1987), and different uses lead to different types of wear.

Setting a full vessel on the ground may cause pitting on the exterior base of the vessel, and

dragging it may cause exterior scratches (Skibo 1992). Scratching can also occur on both the

exterior and interior surfaces when the vessel is washed with an abrasive material (Skibo 1992).

Sooting on the exterior of the vessel occurs as a result of the vessel resting upon burning wood










during cooking, and sooting on the interior surface develops after food residues are burnt (Hally

1983, Skibo 1992). Storing fermented materials, such as beer or dough, in a vessel can lead to

interior pitting and erosion (Arthur 2000). Because postdepositional wear is common, use wear

categories such as erosion, sooting, and rim chipping may also be the result of postdepositional

processes as well as use. It is important to take this into account.

Although, as mentioned, use alteration was of limited utility in determining vessel type in

the AG 2004 sample because of the multiple and overlapping functions of the main vessel types,

usewear occurrences were recorded and are presented in this chapter as a general descriptive

tool. As this represents the first archaeological study of Beta Israel pottery, it is important to

record and present as much information as possible for future researchers. Within the Abwara

Giorgis pottery sample, nine distinct types of use alteration were identified. They were: erosion,

pitting, scratches, cracking, spelling, sooting, rim chips, wear on handles, and food residue.

Types of use alteration were recorded as either on the interior or exterior surface of the sherd;

when this was not identifiable, this was noted and the use alteration was recorded as location uid

(unidentified).

In the following discussion of the pottery recovered from each unit, the attributes are

placed in the context of one of three categories: those attributes relating to vessel form (i.e. how

the vessel was made), vessel decoration, and vessel function (i.e. how the vessel was used).

Thus the discussion of vessel form will focus on vessel wall thickness, inclusions, and surface

treatment. Decoration is, of course, part of the vessel formation process, but as it is a central

feature of this study, it is discussed in a separate section. The discussion relating to vessel

function focuses on use alteration.









Unit A2


Vessel Types

A total of 3 12 diagnostic pottery sherds were recovered from unit A2, the maj ority of

which (74.6%) were recovered from the upper two stratigraphic levels. There was a slight

decrease in pottery below LS-L2, and a significant decrease below LS-L3 (Table 6-10). This

corresponds to the overall pattern of pottery distribution in A2: the maj ority of pottery -

diagnostic and undiagnostic was recovered from the upper two levels (see Table 6-1).

Eighty-nine of the analyzed sherds were assigned to specific vessel types based on the

maj or attributes discussed above (Table 6-7). All four of the maj or vessel types were present in

this unit, as well as one spindle whorl, one diste lid and one sherd that, according to my

informants, was part of a vessel used to make butter (Figure 6-7). The lid and butter-making

vessel were unique to this unit, and were recovered from LS-L1 and LS-L2, respectively.

The vast maj ority of identifiable vessels were recovered from the upper three stratigraphic

levels (Table 6-7); only one diste sherd and one mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherd each were recovered from LS-L7,

and no identifiable sherds were found in LS-L4 through LS-L6. This is consistent with the

overall pottery frequencies of this unit levels 4-6 contained significantly less pottery than levels

1-3. Within levels 1-3, the frequencies of insert and diste sherds remained relatively constant

suggesting that the frequency of manufacture and/or use of these vessel types has not

significantly changed throughout this period. M\~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~ sherds appeared more frequently in LS-L1

than LS-L2 or LS-L3. This is most likely due to changing demands in Ethiopian society. As

materials such as metals and plastic have become more readily available, they have largely

replaced pottery as the materials for basic household tools. However, injera plates (mitttttttttttttttttadch)

are the one type of pottery vessel that is still regularly made and used.










Overall, this unit is characterized by continuity in vessel type over time. At the same time,

the increase in mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds, in juxtaposition with appearance of a diste lid and the butter-making

vessel, suggests a level of intensification and diversification in vessel type manufacture in the

later years of this site. Appendix G summarizes the characteristics of specific vessel types in this

umit.

Vessel Form

Vessel wall thickness

The mean sherd thicknesses by level are presented in Table 6-5. These wall thicknesses

conformed generally to the means observed sitewide; they all lay within two standard deviations

of the overall means, but were often significantly thicker than the overall (see Figure 6-5). For

each identifiable vessel type, the vessel wall thickness appears to have remained relatively

constant over time, never varying more than approximately three millimeters (mm). Given this

small range of wall thickness variation and the fact that these are hand-formed vessels which

precludes the production of identical vessels this is considered a normal level of variation, and

not indicative of a shift in manufacturing techniques.

Inclusions

All four inclusion types (quartz, mica, grog, and ash) were present in the A2 pottery

assemblage (Table 6-11). Grog was by far the most common inclusion, ash the least common.

However, when more than one inclusion type was present in a sherd, grog and ash inclusions

were one of the more common combinations (along with grog and mica, and grog and quartz).

These inclusion patterns are interesting, particularly the high number of sherds with grog, and the

number of sherds with both ash and grog, because they correspond well to the data that were

collected during interviews with Beta Israel potters. Most of the women sprinkle ash over their

work area before beginning to make a pot this keeps the clay from sticking to the floor, and










may explain why ash appears as an inclusion in the archaeological sample. In addition, several

of the women interviewed described preparing one of the types of clay, either the walk or the

termite clay, by roasting it and then grinding it into a powder before mixing it with the second

type of clay. Again, this may explain the presence of grog, or small fragments of fired clay, as

an inclusion in the archaeological sample.

Surface treatments

Within the A2 sample, four types of surface finish were identified: slipping, burnishing,

smoothing, and plain (i.e. no surface treatment visible). Only one sherd exhibited no surface

treatment; all the others displayed some treatment on each the interior and exterior surface. By

far the most common treatment was slipping, which was usually present on both the interior and

exterior surface of the vessel. Burnishing was also common, usually located on the exterior

surface of the vessel only (Table 6-12).

A graphic representation of surface treatment and vessel type reveals a correlation between

the two indicating that specific surface treatment patterns were associated with specific vessel

types (Figure 6-8). Plates (mitad)ttt~~~~~ttttt~~~~ were overwhelmingly found to have slip on the interior (top)

surface and burnishing on the exterior (bottom) surface; this corresponds well to the

ethnographic evidence (see Chapter 5). What is interesting is the number of plates that were

slipped on both the interior and exterior surface. This was not a pattern practiced by any of the

potters I interviewed; however, most of these women did say the purpose of slipping was to

make the vessel stronger, not to add any aesthetic value. If this was the case with past Beta

Israel potters, it may explain the presence of slipping on both surfaces of the plate. Over time,

the surface treatment patterns of mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds remained relatively constant, although the

prevalence of sherds slipped on both surfaces increased significantly above LS-L2; this appears

to be a comparatively recent practice (Table 6-12).









Diste sherds were found to be primarily slipped on both the interior and exterior surfaces

of the vessel, although a significant percentage were slipped on the interior surface only, and

burnished or smoothed on the exterior surface. The sherds that exhibited this pattern were

primarily those sherds that included the vessel base. This also corresponds to ethnographic

evidence while most of the potters interviewed slip both the interior and exterior surfaces of the

diste, two of them only apply slip to the interior surface, and two more excluded the exterior base

when applying slip to a diste. All the women burnished the entire surface of the vessel.

Over time, there are significant shifts in the way diste sherds are finished (Table 6-12).

The middle levels of this unit (LS-L2 and LS-L3) are characterized by roughly equal frequencies

of diste sherds that are slipped on both surfaces and sherds that are slipped on the interior and

burnished on the exterior. In LS-L1, the dominant pattern is slipping on both the interior and

exterior surface of the diste. This shift to a more uniform surface treatment of this vessel type is

also seen in unit C4.

Insera (j ar) sherds were also overwhelmingly slipped on both surfaces, and here we see a

significant departure from the ethnographic evidence. Of the three women interviewed who

make the insera, all three said they only apply slip to the exterior surface of this vessel type; the

interior surface is smoothed as the pot is being formed, and burnished if the mouth of the pot is

large enough for them to reach inside. Less than half the insert sherds identified in unit A2

conformed to this pattern. However, it must be pointed out that only three potters spoke about

making the insert, which is hardly a representative sample. Over time, there are two substantial

changes in the surface treatment patterns of insera sherds (Table 6-12). The first is the sudden

practice of slipping the interior and smoothing the exterior that appears in LS-L1. The second,

which occurs concurrently with the first, is the abandonment of interior burnishing and exterior










slipping above LS-L2. Unlike diste sherds, the treatment of insert sherds is characterized by a

growing range of choices in LS-L2 and LS-L1.

Only one jebena sherd was identified, and the surface treatment pattern exhibited -

slipping on the exterior surface only and smoothing on the interior conforms to both the

ethnographic results and to logic it is unlikely the potter' s hand will fit in the narrow neck of

the jebena to slip the interior surface.

Overall, there is a general trend towards greater diversity in surface treatment options in

recent years (Figure 6-9). Levels 1 through 3 are characterized by a wider range of types of

treatment than the earlier levels. This shift to more diversity in surface treatment corresponds to

the maj or feature in unit A2: the structure in the southwest corner and corresponding firing area.

The significance of this, especially as it occurs in conjunction with an increase in decoration

types, is discussed below.

Decoration

Within the A2 sample, 76 decorated sherds were identified, and 20 distinct decorative

types (Table 6-13). By far the most common of these was the single applique line. This was

usually placed around the exterior body or neck. Also common was a series of incised or

grooved straight lines, or a grouping of incised straight horizontal and zigzag lines. Straight

incised lines tended to occur in pairs, usually on the exterior body. Grooved lines varied from

two to more than five often the entire sherd was decorated with this type. When the incised

horizontal and zigzag lines type was present, it was usually on the exterior body or rim. The

motif was always a single zigzag line and multiple horizontal lines. At times the zigzag line was

flanked on the top and bottom by horizontal lines, at other times, horizontal lines were placed

above the zigzag line (Figure 6-7).










Cross-tabs analyses did not reveal any clear associations between decoration type and

vessel type. However, as only 13 decorated sherds could be assigned to a specific vessel type,

this extremely small sample size may not necessarily tell us anything about whether an

association exists. In fact, the interviews of Beta Israel potters (Chapter 5) suggest that there are

certain decorations that are associated with certain vessel types for example, jars often have an

applique line around the throat so this is an area where more research needs to be conducted.

And in fact, a graphic representation of the relationship between decoration and vessel type does

reveal one pattern the absolute lack of decoration on mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt (plate) sherds (Figure 6-1 1). This

was the only vessel type to never exhibit decoration, which corresponds to what the Beta Israel

potters told me during our interviews.

Most of the decorations appeared on the exterior body of the vessel, although they were

also relatively frequent on the exterior rim. In much smaller frequencies, decoration occurrences

were recorded on the exterior neck, exterior base, handle, shoulder, interior rim, exterior throat,

interior and exterior rim, exterior body and rim, and exterior body and neck. Table 6-14

summarizes the distribution of decoration on vessel bodies.

An examination of the A2 pottery decoration over time as presented graphically suggests

some patterns (Figure 6-12). Undecorated pottery, while present at every level of the unit

(except for LS-L4 and LS-L6, which contained no diagnostic pottery), drastically decreases in

frequency below LS-L2, and again below LS-L3. The decrease below LS-L3 corresponds to an

overall decrease in artifacts beginning in LS-L4 (see Table 6-10). The decrease from LS-L2 to

LS-L3, on the other hand, is not merely a reflection of an overall artifact decrease; overall,

pottery appeared in only slightly lower frequencies in LS-L3 than in LS-L2, yet undecorated










pottery is reduced by over 50% from one level to the next. There is a significantly higher

percentage of undecorated pottery in LS-L2 (76.8%) than in LS-L3 (61.7%).

Concurrent with an increase in undecorated pottery in the upper levels of unit A2, there is

also an increase in decoration types. In levels LS-L1 through LS-L3 there is a much wider

variety of decoration types than in the lower levels; in fact, the only decorations to appear in the

two lowest levels were applique lines (Figure 6-12). Incised decorations were found

predominantly in levels LS-L2 and LS-L3, while applique decorations appeared throughout.

Grooving was only present in LS-L1 and LS-L2. This shift to more diversity in pottery

decoration corresponds to the major feature in unit A2: the structure in the southwest corner and

corresponding Biring area. The levels above this feature are characterized by the increase both in

undecorated pottery and in decoration types.

In terms of specific decorative types, there are some interesting patterns over time here as

well. Either a single or multiple applique lines were found in every level the only decoration to

appear more or less constantly over time. The multiple incised lines type appears in nearly

constant frequencies in LS-L1 through LS-L3, but disappears below that. At the same time,

there are several types that are only found in one level. LS-L3 was the only level to yield an

incised wavy line on applique, multiple incised lines on the interior and exterior rim, incised

horizontal and v-overlap lines, a single incised horizontal line, and Eingernail or stick crescents.

Likewise, incised zigzag lines, and incised horizontal and vertical lines are only present in LS-

L2. A dragged impressed wavy line motif and Einger pinching were limited to LS-L1. However,

it is important to note that in all of the cases in which a specific decorative type was limited to

one level, the total number of sherds bearing that type was never more than two.









What to make of these distributions? The overwhelming pattern in this unit is the increase

in both undecorated sherds and in decorative types in the upper three levels an overall increase

in decorative diversity.

At this point only one radiocarbon date for this unit has been determined: level LS-L7

dates to A.D. 1590-1830 (two standard deviations). This date suggests that this unit was

occupied by pottery-making Beta Israel during the fall, and possibly the rise of Gonder as the

capital city, but the range is too large to be specific. However, given this date range, it is entirely

possible that levels LS-L1 through LS-L3 fall within the period marked by the fall of Gonder and

the beginning of the Era of the Princes, a period of political, social and economic readjustment

for Gonder society in general and the Beta Israel in particular. It is certainly possible that the

increase in decorative and surface treatment types that appear above LS-L3 corresponds to this

period in which, according to many historians (see Chapter 4), there was a shift in the

occupational patterns of the Beta Israel, and increasing levels of social separation between them

and the Amhara. The increase in decorative and surface treatment types in the later years of this

unit may reflect a shift in the market for craft skills, from the primarily royal commissions that

occupied Beta Israel artisans during the Gonder Era to satisfying the needs of the greater Gonder

community after the fall of the capital, when commission work dropped drastically. This

diversification in vessel form and style may be an indicator of increased economic activity,

particularly in the more traditional Beta Israel occupation of pottery. However, it is important to

note the extremely small sample size in this analysis. Most of the patterns presented here are

based on the presence of between one and three pottery sherds. It is premature to form any firm

conclusions before more research is undertaken.









Vessel Function

As mentioned, use alteration is of limited utility in providing insight about vessel function,

because of the generalized functional nature of most Gondarine vessels. Within the A2 pottery

sample, specific types of use alteration were not limited to specific vessel types, although some

vessel types were more associated with usewear types than others (Table 6-15). Diste sherds

tended to exhibit external erosion and dull soot, and internal erosion and scratches. Erosion may

be a result of postdepositional processes as well as use, especially as it tends to occur as a result

of the storage and processing of fermented foods (Arthur 2000), and thus would be expected to

appear on the interior walls of the vessel. These usewear types are consistent with modern diste

functions they are used to process, cook, and serve food. Insera sherds were most often

characterized by no exterior usewear (when it was present, it took the form of erosion or

scratches), and interior erosion and pitting. Again, this is consistent with modern insera use -

they mainly store water or fermented liquids such as beer. M\~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~ sherds were mainly

characterized by exterior erosion and dull soot. The interior (or top) surfaces of mitad sherds

usually showed no usewear; when it was present it was usually in the form of scratches. Again,

this suggests that mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt functions in the past were similar to those today the plate sits directly

on the fire, and the inj era batter is poured onto the top, and then scraped off after cooking. The

single identifiable jebena sherd showed no exterior or interior usewear.

There was little evidence to suggest the functions of any of these vessel types changed over

time. There was one exception: the only diste sherd recovered from LS-L7 was also the only

diste sherd to exhibit no use alteration on either surface. Other than this isolated occurrence, the

types and locations of use alteration on specific vessel types has remained constant (Table 6-15).

The vast maj ority of non-vessel specific sherds exhibited some type of use alteration, on

either one or both surfaces. The most common use alteration pattern on the exterior surface of










the sherds was nothing 3 8.3% of the A2 assemblage showed no usewear on the exterior

surface. When evidence of usewear was visible on the exterior surface, it was most commonly

erosion. The other types of usewear identified on the exterior surfaces appeared in significantly

smaller numbers than did erosion: dull-colored soot, wear on the handle, scratching, pitting, and

various combinations of these. A glossy soot was found on the exterior of one sherd research

suggests this glossy soot may indicate one of two things: 1) the vessel was used to boil water, or

a substance with a high water content, which kept the pot cool; or 2) this sherd was from the

upper end of the vessel, farther away from the flame (Arthur 2000, Skibo 1992).

The interior surfaces of the A2 pottery were also most commonly characterized by no

evidence of use alteration. When usewear was visible it was most often erosion or scratches.

Table 6-16 summarizes the frequencies of exterior and interior usewear for non-vessel specific

sherds.

When looking at individual sherds, the most common usewear patterns were 1) erosion on

both the interior and exterior surface; 2) erosion on the exterior surface and no interior usewear;

3) erosion on the interior surface with no exterior usewear; or 4) scratches on the interior surface

with no exterior usewear. The prevalence of erosion, particularly on the exterior surfaces of the

vessels, suggests that postdepositional factors may have played a significant part.

Unit C4

Vessel Types

A total of 472 diagnostic pottery sherds were recovered from unit C4, the maj ority of

which (71.8%) were recovered from the upper two stratigraphic levels. Level LS-L3 was

characterized by an enormous decrease in pottery (although other artifact frequencies remained

similar to those in the upper levels). A similar decrease in pottery, part of an overall decrease in

artifact frequency, occurred in LS-L5 (Table 6-10).









Most of the recovered diagnostic pottery consisted of rim sherds (Table 6-2), which

proved useful in assigning 159 sherds to specific vessel types (Table 6-7). The majority of these

identifiable sherds were parts of plates (nzitttttttttttttttttadch) however, it is important to note that the large

number of plates is probably due more to the easily identifiable characteristic of plates than to

the overwhelming number of actual plates in the sample. In other words, because they tend to be

thick and flat, with thick rims, naitadoch are much easy to identify than are inseroch, distoch, or

jebenoch the characteristics of the latter three vessel types tend to overlap much more. Jars

(inseroch) and bowls (distoch) were also identified in this unit. No identifiable jebena (coffee

pot) sherds were recovered from this unit.

The maj ority of identifiable vessels were recovered from the upper two stratigraphic levels

(Table 6-7); this corresponds to the overall frequency distribution of pottery in this unit. The

exception to this was the large number of aitad sherds found in LS-L4; this is likely at least

partly due to the strongly diagnostic characteristics of naitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds, as discussed previously.

Within levels LS-L1 and LS-L2, the frequency ratios of vessel type to overall diagnostic pottery

remain relatively constant (Table 6-7). LS-L3 is characterized by significantly higher

percentages of identifiable vessels, and in LS-L4, the ratios are more similar to those found in the

upper two levels, with the exception of naitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds. The fact that these increases and decreases

in vessel types occur for all three of the vessel types found in this unit suggests that the

manufacture of specific vessel types has not significantly changed over time (for example, we do

not see a growing preference for inseroch while naitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds remain constant). Instead, this

pattern suggests overall continuity in terms of the types of vessels made and used over time in

this unit.










Vessel Form

Vessel wall thickness

The mean sherd thicknesses by level are presented in Table 6-5. For diste sherds, the mean

vessel wall thicknesses at every level lie within one standard deviation of the overall vessel wall

thickness patterns (see Figure 6-5). Insera and mitad sherds tend to lie within one standard

deviation at the thinnest end of the spectrum, but several of these vessel types are thicker than the

overall mean, and in the case of insert sherds, fall beyond two standard deviations of such.

In fact, insert sherds in this unit display a much wider range of wall thickness than we saw

in unit A2, particularly in LS-L2 and LS-L3. This suggests this period was marked by the

manufacture of a variety of jar sizes, from very large water j ars to very small j ars. This may be

another indicator of changing techniques to meet changing needs, a diversification in production

to meet the demands of a larger and more diverse market. However, no insert sherds were

recovered from the lower levels of the unit, so we cannot compare these patterns to earlier

patterns.

A similar pattern is found in mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds over time (Table 6-5). While the mean vessel

wall thickness does not change significantly over time among this vessel type, the range

increases significantly from past to present. Again, this indicates greater diversity in

manufacture techniques, possibly to meet the demands of a larger more diverse society.

Diste sherds appear to grow slightly thicker in recent years, although the variation is

limited to approximately three millimeters (mm). A similar increase in range is also visible

among diste sherds, in LS-L2.

Inclusions

All four inclusion types (quartz, mica, grog, and ash) were identified in the C4 sample

(Table 6-11). Like the pottery in unit A2, grog was by far the most common inclusion type, ash









and mica the least frequent. When grog appeared with other inclusions, it was most commonly

accompanied by quartz. Grog and mica inclusions were identified in 29 sherds, and grog and ash

in 25 sherds. Again, the prevalence of grog may be due to the clay preparation techniques

described by the Beta Israel potters in Chapter 5.

The types and frequencies of inclusions found in the pottery from unit C4 parallel those

found in unit A2. In both units grog was the prevalent inclusion type, and the other three types

appeared much less frequently, and in roughly equal frequencies. Both of these also correspond

well to the ethnographic data gathered from interviews with Beta Israel potters. Taking those

interviews into account, as well as the infrequent amounts of quartz, mica and ash found in the

pottery from both units, I would argue that in the past, similar to today, Beta Israel potters were

not intentionally adding materials to their clay (other than the two clay types, of course). The

sporadic presence of quartz, mica and ash in this pottery is more likely due to pots being formed

on the dirt floor of the potter' s home, sometimes with a layer of ash spread atop to keep the clay

from sticking to the floor.

Surface treatments

Within the C4 sample, four types of surface treatment were identified: slipping, burnishing,

smoothing, and plain (i.e. no visible surface treatment). All the sherds in this assemblage had

surface treatment on at least one side; in fact, the overwhelming maj ority showed evidence of

treatment on both sides of the sherd. Like unit A2, the most common surface treatment found in

the C4 sample was slipping, usually on both the interior and exterior surface of the sherd.

Burnishing was also a common surface treatment, although, in contrast to slipping, burnishing on

both the interior and exterior surfaces was only found on six sherds. Smoothing was found in

higher frequencies in this unit than in unit A2, although no sherds were identified that were

smoothed on both sides (Table 6-12).









An examination of surface treatment by vessel type over time shows certain patterns in the

ways specific vessels were treated after reaching a semi-hard state (Table 6-12). In the lower

levels of this unit (LS-L3, LS-L3a and LS-L4), there was a range of surface treatment patterns

applied to diste sherds, including slipping on both the interior and exterior surfaces, slip on the

interior and burnishing on the exterior, and slip on the exterior and burnishing on the interior.

However, over time, surface treatments on this vessel became more uniform; nearly all the diste

sherds in LS-L1 and LS-L2 exhibited slips on both the interior and exterior surfaces of the

vessel. This shift to more uniform treatment of distoch in recent years was observed in unit A2,

and the practice of interior and exterior slipping of distoch is also the pattern attested to by the

maj ority of my informants (see Chapter 5).

In LS-L3, the insera sherds recovered exhibited slips on the exterior surfaces only; interior

surfaces were either smoothed or burnished. Slipping on both the exterior and interior surfaces

appeared in LS-L2, and in LS-L1, this was the dominant insert surface treatment pattern. Two

sherds with the interior and exterior slip pattern were recovered from LS-L3a; however, the

reader will recall from Chapter 4 that this lens likely represents a discard pit, and is actually

associated with one or both of the upper two stratigraphic levels.

LS-L2, and to a lesser extent LS-L3, is characterized by diversity in insert surface

treatment patterns; fiye different combinations of interior/exterior treatments were identified on

insert sherds in LS-L2, although all of these except one were slipped on the exterior surface.

This increased diversity in the surface treatment of insert sherds in the upper levels of unit C4

corresponds to a similar pattern in unit A2.

Interestingly, when diste sherds are examined, the surface treatment pattern most common

in the upper levels of this unit correspond to those patterns practiced today, indicating a level of









continuity in manufacturing techniques. For insert sherds, this is not the case. Most of my

informants did not apply slip to the interior surfaces of their inseroch; those surfaces were either

smoothed or burnished a practice that appears to have been largely abandoned in the recent

years of this unit. This disparity between ethnographic and archaeological evidence in the

surface treatment of insert sherds is also seen in unit A2, as well as in the other units, discussed

later. It appears that one of two things is occurring: 1) after a period of time in which insera

vessels were slipped all over, potters reverted to older methods of only slipping the exterior

surfaces; or, 2) more likely, this is an example of how the present is not necessarily an analog to

the past, particularly when we are looking at potters from different villages. Although there are

strong parallels between the ethnographic and archaeological materials in many facets of this

analysis, the surface treatment of insert sherds is clearly an area of divergence.

M~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~~ sherds tended to show the widest range in surface treatments, but were most

commonly a) slipped on the interior and burnished on the exterior; b) slipped on the interior and

exterior; or c) slipped on the interior and smoothed on the exterior. Interior slipping/exterior

burnishing appeared at every level (except LS-L5, which contained no identifiable mitad sherds),

but decreased in frequency above LS-L4. Slipping on both the interior and exterior appeared in

roughly equal proportions over time, although they spiked in frequency in LS-L3 and LS-L1.

Interior slip/exterior smoothing appeared to be a dominant trend in LS-L2, but is present in very

small frequencies or not at all in the other levels. Overall, mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds show the least amount of

variation over time of all the vessel types sitewide; in every level there is a range of surface

treatment choices utilized. These options increase slightly in the upper levels, but compared to

insert and diste sherds from this unit, mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds do not exhibit the same shifts in diversity










over time. This may be because it is the most purely functional vessel type issues of style are

not applied to the same extent.

In examining identifiable vessel types and unidentifiable sherds together, there are some

very definite shifts in surface treatment patterns over time (Figure 6-13). LS-L2 is characterized

by the widest range in surface treatment patterns, including some practices not seen in the lower

levels, such as leaving one surface untreated (plain). Slipping both the interior and exterior

surfaces of a vessel also appears to become more common over time, as does the combination of

interior smoothing and exterior burnishing. On the other hand, other practices such as burnishing

the interior and slipping the exterior, or the reverse, slipping the interior and burnishing the

exterior, have remained relatively constant through time.

Although no absolute dates can be assigned to these levels yet, the surface treatment

patterns suggest an overall increase in the range of treatment choices over time; there is a wider

range of surface treatment patterns in the upper levels than in the lower. At the same time, the

surface treatment options for specific vessel types (namely distoch) appear to become more

uniform over time. Again, this increasing variety may indicate an overall increase in economic

activity, and at the same time a diversification of product attributes to fulfill the demands of a

more diverse market.

Decoration

In unit C4, 123 decorated sherds were identified, and 21 distinct decorative types (Table 6-

13). Like unit A2, the most common decorations are the single applique line (either horizontal or

unidentified in terms of orientation), multiple applique lines and multiple incised lines these

were the only decorative types to be recorded on more than 3% of the entire decorated

assemblage. The single applique line usually appeared on either the exterior body or running

horizontally around the exterior throat of the vessel. Multiple applique lines also usually










appeared either on the exterior body or exterior neck. Multiple incised lines were

overwhelmingly placed on the exterior body of the vessel, although sometimes they appeared on

the rim either the exterior, the interior, or both surfaces of the rim.

Eleven decorated sherds were assigned to specific vessel types (Figure 6-11). It is

interesting to note that all but one of these decorated sherds belonged to an insert (j ar) (the

eleventh sherd was part of a diste). This may indicate a higher occurrence of decoration on jars

than on other vessel types, but the small sample size prevents us from drawing any significant

associations between vessel type and decoration type. There does seem to be an association

between vessel type and decorative element. I identified single applique lines on the insera

vessels' exterior throats, necks, shoulders and bodies; multiple applique lines, which only

appeared on insera necks; multiple horizontal incised lines on the interior and exterior neck, one

occurrence of finger impressions on an applique line which ran around the insera shoulder; and

one occurrence of finger pinching in a horizontal line around the exterior insera throat. Thus,

despite the small sample size, it appears that inseroch (j ars) are often decorated with horizontal

applique or incised lines. Again, this corresponds well to the decoration patterns observed in the

Gender interviews.

The maj ority of the decoration in the unit C4 pottery occurred on the body of the vessel,

usually on the exterior surface (Table 6-14). The only other place on the vessel where decoration

occurred regularly was the rim, either the interior, exterior or both surfaces. When decoration

appeared on both the interior and exterior rim it always included one or more incised horizontal

lines on both surfaces, and sometimes had an additional element, a zigzag line, criss-cross lines,

or a concentric U, on one surface (Figure 6-14).










A graphic representation of decorative types in the C4 sample over time reveals some

broad patterns (Figure 6-15). Unlike unit A2, the frequencies of undecorated pottery are fairly

constant through time: at every level, except LS-L3a and LS-L5, undecorated pottery makes up

between 72 and 81% of the pottery assemblage. LS-L5 only contained one diagnostic sherd,

which had no decoration. LS-L3a, which represents the fine sand lens in the northern half of the

unit (see Figure 4-25), is the exception to this pattern; undecorated pottery made up only 58% of

this assemblage.

Similar to unit A2, the range of pottery decoration types increases over time, although the

shifts are more gradual in this unit. LS-L2 contains the widest range of decorative types (Figure

6-15). There are several decorative types that appear in every level of this unit: a single applique

line, multiple applique lines, and multiple incised lines. Of these, only the single applique line

becomes more prevalent in the upper levels. Multiple applique lines decrease in frequency in

recent years, and multiple incised lines decrease in LS-L2 and then increase to previous

frequencies again in LS-L1.

For the decorative types that appear less constantly over time, LS-L3 appears to be the

turning point. Several decorative types are only present in LS-L3 or lower, namely multiple

incised lines running around the vessel rim, applique lugs, incised vertical and wavy lines,

multiple incised horizontal lines and concentric U, and alternating finger pinching and finger

impressions. Conversely, there are several decorations that are only present in LS-L3 or above:

the incised horizontal and zigzag lines, the single incised line, the single grooved line, and

multiple grooved lines are only a few of these (Figure 6-15).

Overall, the distribution of decorative types over time paints a picture of increased

diversity in decoration which reached its pinnacle in LS-L3 and LS-L2. Further, we see










increased complexity of decorative types during this period multi-component decorations

(decorations with more than one element) are most prevalent in these levels. This shift to greater

diversity in decoration types corresponds temporally to both the increase in vessel wall thickness

range and the increase in surface treatment patterns, showing overall greater variation in how

pots were formed and decorated in LS-L2 and LS-L3. This overall diversification is nearly

identical to that noted in the upper three levels of unit A2.

Vessel Function

In unit C4, eight types of usewear were identified. As in unit A2, no specific types of wear

were limited to specific vessel types, but some types of wear were more characteristic of some

vessel types than others (Table 6-15). Distoch (bowls) tended to have a much wider range of

usewear markings than did mitttttttttttttttttadch (plates) or inseroch (j ars), especially on the exterior

surfaces. The interior surfaces of the 21 identified distoch were often characterized by no use

alteration, scratches and erosion. The exterior surfaces were characterized by no use alteration,

erosion, pitting, scratches, dull soot, glossy soot, wear on handles and rim chips.

Plates (mitttttttttttttttttadch) were most likely to have no interior usewear, and interior scratches most

commonly characterized those that did. The exterior surfaces of plates were most commonly

eroded, sometimes with pitting, cracking or dull soot. Jars (inseroch) tended to exhibit interior

erosion, scratches, and pitting. Most jars had no exterior use alteration. When there was

evidence of usewear on the exterior surface of a j ar, it was most commonly erosion. Scratching,

rim chips, and wear on handles was also found on some jar sherds. All of these usewear patterns

are consistent with the known functions of the vessels.

There was little evidence to suggest that the primary functions of any of the three maj or

vessel types have significantly changed over time (Table 6-15). However, all three vessel types

show a similar pattern in LS-L2 and to a slightly lesser extent, LS-L3. In these two levels there










tend to be more types of wear on any given vessel type. For example, in LS-L1, nine mitad

sherds were recovered; these exhibited one of two categories of exterior use alteration, either no

wear or erosion. In LS-L3, eight mitad sherds were recovered. These were characterized by a

much wider range of wear including erosion, pitting, dull soot, and several different

combinations of these.

This wider range of usewear types suggests a wider range of uses for each vessel type

during the period represented by LS-L2 and LS-L3. It is possible that this reflects a shift towards

more generalized uses of the major vessel types. This shift towards more diversification of

vessel function is consistent with the overall shift to more diversification in vessel form and

decoration during this period. Further, as the pottery showing usewear was clearly used by the

Beta Israel themselves (as opposed to being sold to the greater Gonder community), changes in

vessel function may yield some important insights about how the changing social, political, and

economic context affected how the Beta Israel used their pottery, complementing insights as to

how they made their pottery. This shift towards less specialized use of specific vessel types -

which would result in more uniform alteration patterns suggests that pottery within the Beta

Israel household associated with unit C4 was being used for a wider variety of purposes than in

earlier years. This pattern is also visible in units J3 and F7G7, discussed below.

Within the assemblage of non-vessel specific sherds, the maj ority exhibited some type of

usewear, usually on both the interior and exterior surfaces (Table 6-16). The most common

pattern on the exterior surface of the sherds was the absence of use wear 36.2% of the sample

showed no usewear on the exterior surface. When evidence of usewear was visible, however, it

was most commonly erosion.









The interior surfaces of the C4 pottery were also most often characterized by no use

alteration. When usewear was identified, erosion, and scratches appeared in roughly equal

frequencies. Pitting, rim chips, and carbon deposits possibly food residue were found in

much smaller frequencies. These patterns correspond well to those found in unit A2.

When the potsherd itself was the unit of analysis, the most common usewear patterns

appeared to be either erosion on the interior surface and no use alteration on the exterior surface

or the reverse: exterior erosion and no interior use alteration. This also corresponds to the

usewear patterns found in unit A2, but the high frequency of erosion on exterior surfaces

necessitates the consideration of postdepositional processes as a factor in this patterning.

Other common usewear patterns included 1) interior scratches with no exterior usewear; 2)

interior and exterior erosion; and 3) interior scratches and exterior erosion. These patterns were

also common in the A2 sample.

Unit J3

A total of 501 diagnostic sherds were recovered from unit J3, the maj ority of which

(72.7%) were recovered from LS-L3 and LS-L4 (Table 6-7). This is a significant departure from

the patterns seen in units A2 and C4, in which most of the pottery came from the upper levels.

This unit is unique in that the delineation of each lithostratigraphic level is underscored by

particular artifact characteristics. LS-L5, with its paucity of artifacts, most likely represents the

beginning stages of settlement in this area of the site. As mentioned, LS-L4 and LS-L3

contained the maj ority of the pottery recovered from this unit, and therefore likely represent the

maj or period of activity in this area of the site. These levels also correspond with the only

identifiable feature in this unit, the rock wall along the western wall. LS-L2, a shallow level of

clay sediments, contained little pottery compared to the levels above and below it. It is likely

this tightly packed level represents the bottom level of a second, later household than the one(s)










represented in LS-L3 and LS-L4. It may even be the floor of this later household, which would

explain the small amount of pottery within it. LS-L1 is characterized by an increase of pottery -

close to those frequencies recovered in LS-L3 and LS-L4. This seems to indicate another period

of habitation and activity within this part of the site. The fact that the lifecycle of this unit is so

clear, along with the particular pottery characteristics that correspond to each level, especially in

terms of decoration (discussed below), and the fact that this unit was almost certainly occupied

before, during and after the Gonder Era, makes this a particularly important unit for this study.

Vessel Types

One hundred forty-five of the diagnostic sherds from unit J3 were assigned to specific

vessel types (Table 6-7). Most of these were naitad (plate) sherds. But again, it is important to

remember that this high percentage may be due at least as much to the recognizable attributes of

naitttttttttttttttttadch as to the actual high frequency of nitadttttt~~~~~~tttttt sherds in the sample. Diste, insert, and jebena

sherds were also identified, as well as three spindle whorls, two of which were recovered in LS-

L1, the third from LS-L5.

The maj ority of the identifiable vessels were recovered from LS-L3 and LS-L4 (Table 6-

7), which is consistent with the overall pottery frequencies in this unit these two levels

contained most of the pottery recovered from the unit. J3 is unique in that each vessel type

exhibits different frequency patterns over time, rather than increasing or decreasing uniformly.

Insera sherds make up a higher percentage of the pottery assemblage in the upper levels than in

the lower; they become more frequent over time. Conversely, naitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds become much less

frequent over time. This is especially significant because, as mentioned, naitttttttttttttttttadch (injera plates)

are the one major pottery vessel that has not been largely replaced by more modern materials;

they are regularly made and used today. Diste sherds increase from LS-L4 to LS-L3, but they

appear in constant frequencies in LS-L3, LS-L2, and LS-L1. Only one jebena sherd was










recovered, from LS-L1. Overall, this unit seems to display multiple multi-directional shifts in

the frequencies of different vessel manufacture and/or use over time.

Although this pattern of vessel type frequencies differs than those of the previous units

discussed, it also fits into the general model of economic diversification at Abwara Giorgis. This

unit exhibits clear changes in the numbers of inseroch, distoch, and mitttttttttttttttttadch being made at any

given period. Again, potters may have been responding to the demands of a changing and

diversified market. Appendix G summarizes the characteristics of specific vessel types in this

umit.

Vessel Form

Vessel wall thickness and rim diameter

The mean sherd thicknesses by vessel type and level are presented in Table 6-5. These

mean wall thicknesses for the most part lie within two standard deviations of the means observed

sitewide (see Figure 6-5), however, on average, the walls of three of the maj or vessel types

inserta, mitadtttt~~~~~~~tttttt diste; only one jebena sherd was recovered) tended to be thinner in this unit than

in units A2 and C4. The exception to this was found in insera sherds: some of the thickest insera

sherds recovered at this site came from the upper levels of unit J3. In fact, LS-L1 is

characterized by an enormous range in insert vessel wall thickness, with a minimum of 5.8 mm

and a maximum of 40.5 mm; this is the only example of a significant change in vessel wall

thickness over time.

Level 1 insera sherds aside, for each identifiable vessel type, the mean vessel wall

thickness appears to have remained relatively constant through time (Table 6-5). The drastic

increases in thickness range observed in unit C4 are not present here, and the mean thickness

rarely varies more than approximately 4 mm. This is considered a normal level of variation










based on the method of vessel production. Overall, vessel wall thicknesses are more or less

homogenous through time.

In contrast to vessel wall thickness, there is a significant shift over time in the range of rim

diameters, particularly in diste sherds (Table 6-3). The diste mouths of LS-L4 are characterized

by a range of 36 cm, as compared to a range of only 14 cm in LS-L1, which had a comparable

diste sample size. M\~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~ sherds show similar patterns over time, as do insera sherds, although it

is LS-L3 which shows the widest range of insera mouth sizes. These ranges in LS-L3 and LS-

L4 are suggestive of a period in the lower levels of this unit in which distoch, mitttttttttttttttttadch, and

inseroch were made and/or used in a wide variety of sizes, a level of diversity that decreased in

the upper levels. Again, this seems to support the idea of a period of intensified and diversified

pottery production that may have been a response to the end of the Gonder Era, and the demands

of a new, decentralized, and diversified market.

Inclusions

All four inclusion types (quartz, mica, grog, and ash) were present in the J3 pottery (Table

6-11). Similar to the two units previously discussed, grog was the most common inclusion. Ash

was also fairly common (present in 37.7% of the assemblage), marking a departure from the

inclusion patterns in units A2 and C4, in which ash made up a much smaller percentage of the

inclusions (12.8% and 16.5%, respectively).

Mica also appeared more frequently in the pottery of unit J3, appearing in 28.7% of the

pottery. Compare this again with the mica percentages from units A2 and C4 (17.7% and 16.7%,

respectively). In terms of inclusion materials, units A2 and C4 are remarkably similar, and both

differ from unit J3.









When multiple inclusions were visible, the most common combinations were grog and ash,

and grog and mica. The prevalence of grog, both alone and with other inclusions, corresponds to

the patterns found both in the other units and in the ethnographic data.

Surface treatments

Within the J3 pottery sample, the four main types of surface treatment slipping,

burnishing, smoothing, and plain (i.e. no visible surface treatment) were all present. On a

number of sherds the surface treatment on the interior surface was indeterminate, usually because

the sherd was broken or too heavily eroded on that side. Every diagnostic sherd recovered from

unit J3 exhibited some type of surface treatment on at least one surface; in fact, the vast maj ority

showed treatment on both sides (Table 6-12).

Each vessel type from J3 was characterized by a range of surface treatment patterns;

however, certain vessel types were more strongly associated with specific treatments than with

others (Figure 6-8). Plate (mitad) sherds were most commonly slipped on the interior (top) and

burnished on the exterior (bottom), a pattern found both in units A2 and C4, and in the

ethnographic evidence.

Interestingly, however, this pattern of interior slip/exterior burnish of mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds is only

found in the lower levels of the unit (Table 6-12). In LS-L1 it was abandoned entirely in favor of

other treatments, namely slipping on both surfaces. In general, LS-L4 is characterized by a range

of mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt surface treatment options that over time become more uniform.

Diste sherds exhibited the widest range of surface treatment patterns, including interior and

exterior slipping, interior and exterior burnishing, and interior slipping/exterior burnishing

(Figure 6-8). Over time, there are some significant shifts in the ways diste sherds were finished.

In LS-L4, the most common surface treatment pattern was interior and exterior burnishing (Table

6-12). In LS-L3, not only does the range of treatment options increase significantly, the









dominant pattern shifts to interior and exterior slipping; this remains the dominant pattern for

diste sherds in the upper levels. Like units A2 and C4, in recent years the range of surface

treatment patterns decreases and diste sherds become more uniform. Fitting in with the

proposition that the primary occupation years of this unit are represented by LS-L3 and LS-L4,

the increased diversity in surface treatment patterns found in these levels, primarily in LS-L3,

correspond to similar increases in the other units.

Insera sherds were also commonly slipped on both surfaces, but here the range of surface

treatment options found in the lower levels of the unit does not decrease significantly in recent

years. There are several major shifts in insert surface treatment over time (Table 6-12). While

interior and exterior slipping is present at every level, it decreases drastically above LS-L4.

Some patterns, such as interior bumnish/exterior slip and interior smooth/exterior burnish are only

found in the lower two levels. Others, namely interior/exterior burnish, interior/exterior smooth,

and interior smooth/exterior slip, are only present in the upper two levels. It seems evident that

there was a shift from LS-L3 to LS-L2, the lower two levels representing one cultural period,

associated with certain insera treatment patterns, and the upper two levels representing another,

with different treatment patterns. Unlike diste sherds, however, insera sherds continue to enjoy a

range of surface treatment options over time; it is the types of treatment that change. They do

not experience a period of diversity that shifts towards uniformity; instead, the diversity remains

through the upper levels of J3.

When examining identifiable vessel types and unidentifiable sherds together, surface

treatment patterns over time conform to those identified in units A2 and C4 (Figure 6-16). From

LS-L4 to LS-L3 there is a marked increase in the range of surface treatment options, although

this diversity does not decrease again in the upper levels, as it does in the other units. Again, this










increasing variety may signify increased economic activity, and increased responses to market

demands.

Decoration

In the J3 pottery assemblage 130 decorated sherds were identified, and 21 distinct

decorative types. The most common type, as in units A2 and C4, was the single applique straight

line, usually horizontal in direction. Also common were the multiple incised lines and multiple

applique lines (Table 6-13).

No strong association was found between vessel type and decoration type although, as only

17 decorated sherds could be assigned to vessel types, this small sample size must be taken into

account (Figure 6-11). While mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt (plate) sherds never had any decoration, that is the only

consistent pattern found in this sample. Distoch (bowls) were found to vary widely in the types

of decoration they carried; these included incised horizontal lines, incised zigzag lines, applique

circles, impressed lines, Eingernail crescents, and round Einger impressions. Inseroch (jars)

showed slightly less variability, and were primarily characterized by applique horizontal lines,

incised horizontal lines, and incised zigzag lines. The one jebena in this sample was decorated

with an applique horizontal line around the vessel shoulder. Figure 6-17 presents examples of

the different decorative types identified in this unit.

Most of the decorations occurred on the exterior body of the vessel, the exterior rims and

shoulders. Five sherds were decorated on both the exterior and interior rim. All of these had

multiple incised horizontal lines running along both the interior and exterior rims. Three also

had a single zigzag line around the interior rim. This pattern of horizontal and zigzag lines

around the rim was also present in units A2 and C4.

Graphic representations of changes in pottery decoration over time reveal the same peak in

range of decorative options seen in the other units, although in this unit the peak occurs in the










lower levels, LS-L3 and LS-L4 (Figure 6-18). This fits in well with the timeline for this unit;

LS-L5 dates to A.D. 982-1486 (two standard deviations), so it is probable that LS-L4 and LS-L3

represent the rise of the Gonder Era. Furthermore, the shift in artifact types over time from LS-

L4 to LS-L3 (notably, the abrupt appearance of metal and slag in LS-L3, see Chapter 4) suggests

that these two levels may represent the fall of the Gonder Era as well. Because of this, along

with the high frequencies of artifacts in these levels, LS-L4 and LS-L3 are considered the "peak

years" of this unit.

The frequencies of undecorated pottery are at their lowest in LS-L4, the level that seems to

represent the transition to and early years of the maj or occupation period of this unit.

Undecorated pottery then increases in LS-L3 and peaks in LS-L2. However, it must be noted

that LS-L2 is a shallow level with few artifacts, possibly the floor of LS-L1 Taking this into

consideration, the most significant shift in undecorated pottery is the sharp increase from LS-L4

to LS-L3.

In terms of specific decorative types, LS-L4 contained the most variety (Figure 6-18).

Many types, including the applique circle, the finger impressions, the incised wavy line below

the applique line, and the finger pinches and finger impressions, only appear in this level. In

addition, several of the multi-component decorations horizontal and diagonal lines, horizontal

and zigzag lines along rims, horizontal and v-overlap lines either disappear or become much

sparser above level LS-L4, a pattern also observed in unit C4. Again, this large range of

decorative options (corresponding roughly to the diversity in surface treatment options) during

the peak years of this site' s occupation is consistent with the model of pottery producers

responding to the demands of a large and diverse market. This seems to fit the behavior of a










group of people making an active attempt to assimilate themselves within a larger social context,

paralleling their incorporation into the productive economy.

Vessel Function

In unit J3, as in the other units, use alteration types did not appear to be strongly associated

with specific vessel types. Diste (bowl) and mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt (plate) sherds both displayed a range of

interior use alteration, including erosion and scratches. M\~itttttttttttttttttadoc tended to exhibit carbon

deposits and cracks as well; distoch tended towards pitting and rim chips. hIsera (jar) sherds

were characterized by erosion, pitting, and scratches (Table 6-15).

The exterior surfaces of diste sherds were overwhelmingly unaltered, with infrequent

occurrences of erosion and pitting. hIsera and mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds were also primarily characterized by

no wear, although to a lesser extent than diste sherds. hzsera sherds sometimes exhibited

exterior erosion, scratches, and dull soot. M~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~~ sherds occasionally were eroded or pitted on the

exterior surfaces. The one jebena sherd recovered had dull soot on both the interior and exterior

surface; the presence of soot on the interior makes this a likely postdepositional alteration.

There is little evidence to suggest the primary functions of each vessel type have changed

over time (Table 6-7). However, similar to unit C4, there is a significantly larger range of

usewear types found on the pottery recovered from LS-L3 and LS-L4 of this unit, the "peak"

years of unit J3. For every vessel type, with the exception of the exterior surfaces of distoch, the

frequency of unaltered sherds is much higher in the upper levels. Again, this suggests more

intensive and generalized use of pottery vessels during these peak years, concurrent with more

intensive (and diversified) manufacture of pottery vessels.

Within the entire J3 pottery sample (identified vessel types and unidentified sherds alike),

most of the sherds exhibited usewear on at least one surface (Table 6-16). The most common

pattern on the exterior surface of the sherds was the absence of usewear 48.3% of the J3










assemblage exhibited no use alteration on the exterior surface. When usewear was visible on the

exterior surface, it was most commonly erosion, although dull soot, pitting, scratches, wear on

handle, spelling, rim chips, and cracking were all identified on the exterior surfaces of the

pottery.

The interior surfaces of J3 pottery sherds were also most often characterized by no

evidence of use alteration. Again, when usewear was visible, it was most commonly erosion or

scratches. Interior pitting was also relatively common, and carbon deposits and/or identifiable

food residue were identified on six sherds. Other use alteration types included rim chips,

cracking, and spelling.

When the potsherd itself was the unit of analysis, the most common patterns appeared to

be usewear on one side of the vessel only; for example, erosion on the interior surface or exterior

surface only, with no evidence of usewear on the other side. Only two other interior-exterior

usewear patterns appeared in more than 4.0% of this sample: interior scratching with no exterior

use wear, and erosion on both the interior and exterior surface. These are very similar to the use

alteration patterns found in units A2 and C4.

Unit JS

Vessel Types

Unit J8 had the shallowest deposit of the six fully excavated units of AG 2004. It also

contained the smallest amount of pottery. A total of 194 diagnostic sherds were recovered from

this unit, mainly rim sherds (Table 6-2). Ten of these were situated within the pit in the northeast

corner of the unit (LS-L3). These ten sherds were analyzed separately, and are included in the

general discussion of pottery attributes; however, in looking at changes over time, these sherds

were excluded. Of the rest of the assemblage, the majority (82.5%) was recovered from LS-L1










(Table 6-10). This supports the supposition that this area of the site was not occupied until

recently .

Based on the attributes discussed throughout this chapter, 32 sherds were assigned to

specific vessel types (Table 6-7). Plates (mitttttttttttttttttadch) being the most recognizable, made up the

maj ority of this identified sample, although identified j ars (inseroch) were almost as numerous.

The remaining sherds were classified as distoch (bowls). Consistent with the overall pottery

distribution of this unit, the vast maj ority of identifiable vessels were recovered from LS-L1

(Table 6-7). The small frequencies recovered from the lower levels not only indicate the recent

occupation of this part of the site, it also precludes us from drawing any strong conclusions about

changes in vessel types over time. It is significant that no insert sherds were recovered from LS-

L4, which contained both diste and mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds; it may be that the manufacture and/or use of

inseroch began recently at that part of the site.

Vessel Form

Vessel wall thickness

The mean sherd thicknesses by vessel type and level are presented in Table 6-5. The mean

thicknesses of diste sherds at every level conform to the overall sherds thicknesses sitewide (see

Figure 6-5); although they are slightly below the overall mean, they still lie within one standard

deviation. Insera sherds tend to be significantly thicker in this unit, although still within two

standard deviations of the overall mean, and have a wider range of wall thickness. In LS-L1 the

mean insera sherd thickness was very close to the overall mean; in LS-L2, the one insera sherd

recovered lay above the normal distribution, at 16 millimeters. Unit J3 showed a similar increase

in mean insert wall thickness and in range in the upper level of that unit; it may indicate a recent

diversification of insera sizes that are produced and used.










M~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~~ sherds tend to be thinner in this unit than in the other units, although still primarily

lying within two standard deviations of the sitewide mean. As this is the only vessel type to

appear in all three main stratigraphic levels, it is the only one we can examine for change over

time. And in fact, mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds appear to have become significantly thinner in recent years. The

mean mitadttttttttt~~~~~~~~~thickness in LS-L4 of J8 is roughly consistent with the mean mitad thickness found

in the upper levels of the other units, particularly A2 and C4 (Table 6-7). This suggests that LS-

L4 of unit J8 may be contemporary with LS-L1 and LS-L2 of A2 and C4, further indication that

this part of the site is much more recent than the other units.

Inclusions

All four inclusion types were present in the pottery of this unit. Like the other units at AG

2004, grog was by far the most common type of inclusion, appearing alone in some sherds, and

with other inclusion materials in others (Table 6-11). When it appeared with other materials, it

was most commonly quartz. Grog and quartz are a common sitewide combination of inclusions;

however, the number of sherds with grog and ash inclusions was unusually small in this

assemblage only 5 sherds. Ash was much less frequent as an inclusion material in the pottery

of this unit. It is possible that the potters associated with this area did not practice the technique

of covering the work space with ash. The frequencies of the other two inclusion types, mica and

quartz, correspond very well with the patterns in A2 and C4; as I have shown, the inclusion

patterns in J3 were somewhat different.

Surface treatments

Within the J8 pottery sample, all recovered diagnostic sherds had some type of surface

treatment either a slip, burnishing, or smoothing. Furthermore, all the recovered diagnostic

sherds had surface treatment on both the interior and exterior surfaces a pattern that was not

found in any of the previously discussed units (Table 6-12).










The most common Einish pattern in this unit was slip on both the interior and exterior

surface; other common patterns were, of course, slip on the interior/burnishing on the exterior

and slip on the exterior/burnish on the interior. Smoothing was rare in this unit, recorded 3.1%

of the assemblage, a significantly lower percentage than in any of the previously discussed units.

All the sherds that were classified as insert (j ar) sherds exhibited slips on the exterior

surfaces. Sherds classified as mitad (plates) were split roughly evenly between slipping and

burnishing on the exterior surface. Diste (bowl) sherds were split between exterior slipping and

burnishing as well, although slipping was more common.

In looking at changes in surface treatments on specific vessel types over time in this unit, it

was necessary to exclude the material recovered from the northeast corner (LS-L3), as this was

most likely a pit feature, thus all the materials within it lack provenience. Table 6-12

summarizes the other levels.

A graphic representation of surface treatment over time for all sherds (Figure 6-19)

suggests that interior and exterior slipping, while present at almost all levels of the unit, have

become more common over time. This is a contrast to some of the patterns found in units A2,

C4 and J3. It appears that until the site was abandoned in the late 1970s, potters in the

households) associated with unit J8 were continuing to apply surface treatment to both sides of

their vessels, instead of leaving them plain as was occurring in the other units.

Decoration

In this unit, 54 decorated pot sherds were identified, and 17 distinct decorative types

(Table 6-13). The most common type was the applique straight line (which has been the most

common decoration type in every unit discussed). All but three of these were recorded as

unidentifiable in line orientation (horizontal or vertical); however, throughout the site horizontal

applique lines have been common while vertical and diagonal applique lines have been virtually










absent. It is likely that some, if not all of these "direction uid" lines are in fact horizontally

oriented on the vessel.

Also common, of course, was the incised straight line, which was usually placed

horizontally around the vessel but also appeared vertically, diagonally in four, and in

unidentified orientation. Incised wavy lines, grooving, and incised concentric U's were each

identified in two occurrences. There was also one lug, one Eingernail crescent motif, and one

episode of finger dimpling on an applique line (Figure 6-20).

Most of the decorations occurred on the exterior vessel body, although the exterior rim was

also frequently decorated. Infrequent episodes of decoration on the exterior neck, interior body,

and interior rim were recorded. Two sherds with decoration on both the interior and exterior rim

were found; on both of these sherds the decoration consisted of multiple incised horizontal lines

running around the top of the rim.

When looking at changes over time, the reader will note that 82.5% of the pottery

recovered from this unit was situated in LS-L1 (Table 6-10). Only 34 diagnostic pottery sherds

were recovered in LS-L2 through LS-L4a, and ten of these were recovered in the northeast pit

feature (LS-L3); thus they cannot be used to look at change over time. Further, of the 24 sherds

recovered from below LS-L1, only seven of them were decorated. This makes any discussion of

change in decoration over time premature.

It is likely, considering the shallowness of this deposit, that LS-L1 represents the first

establishment of a household in that particular spot. It is also likely that this establishment

occurred relatively recently, although as no radiocarbon dates have yet been obtained for this

unit, no firm conclusions can be drawn.









Vessel Function

In unit J8, all but 27 sherds had use alteration on at least one side; 59.3% of the sherds

showed wear on both sides. M~itad (plate) sherds tended to have the widest variety of exterior

usewear, including erosion, soot, pitting, and scratches; however, the only interior usewear

observed on mitad sherds was scratching. Conversely, insert sherds displayed a wide variety of

interior usewear, including erosion, pitting, and scratches, but the only wear observed on insert

exterior surfaces was either erosion or scratches, or both. Diste sherds typically were eroded on

the exterior surfaces and scratched on the interior surfaces (Table 6-15). All these forms of use

alteration are consistent with those found in the other units, although in general, this unit had the

narrowest range of wear types. This is most likely due to the small sample size and short

occupation span of this unit.

Again, given the small sample size, particularly below LS-L1, any discussion of change

over time in vessel function is premature. Based on the data available, there does not appear to

be any maj or shift in the functions of the main vessel types; further, all of the use alteration, both

interior and exterior, corresponds well to the known modern uses of these maj or vessel types,

suggesting that vessel functions have not changed significantly over time.

Within the entire J8 pottery sample, identifiable vessel types and unidentified sherds alike,

the maj ority exhibited some type use alteration, usually on both the interior and exterior surfaces

(Table 6-16). Most of the exterior surfaces of sherds showed no wear (32.5% of the

assemblage). The only exterior wear pattern to appear on more than ten sherds was erosion. The

remaining wear types identified on the exterior surfaces of J8 pottery pitting, scratching, dull

soot, and wear on handles, all occurred on less than 5% of the sample.

Interior use alteration patterns in this sample were similar, although a broader range of

usewear was found on the interior surfaces, as might be expected. Most sherds exhibited no









wear on the interior surface. When usewear was visible, it was most commonly erosion or

scratches. The other types of alteration identified on the interior surfaces of this pottery pitting

and cracking both occurred on less than 5% of the pottery.

When the unit of analysis was shifted to the individual potsherds, the most common

usewear patterns appeared to be either erosion on both the interior and exterior surfaces, or

erosion on one (unidentified) surface and no visible wear on the other. The pattern of interior

erosion and no exterior wear was also relatively common, as was the reverse: exterior erosion

and no interior wear. These were the only use alteration patterns to occur on more than 5% of

the sample. While these general usewear patterns parallel the patterns found in the other units,

there seems to be less variation in this unit the vast maj ority of pottery was classified into only

a few usewear categories.

Units F7 and G7

Because units F7 and G7 were immediately adj acent and shared some features, and

because several reconstructed vessels had sherds that came from both units, the maj ority of these

two units are considered to be parts of the same residential unit; thus, the pottery was analyzed

together. However, as discussed in Chapter 4, these two units were more complex than the other

excavated units, and some areas of G7 may have represented different residences. In order to

preserve the integrity of potentially different residential units, the pottery recovered from these

units were analyzed in groups: 1) all pottery recovered from unit F7 the inside of the F7 wall,

the F7 firing pit, and the rest of the unit as well as most of the pottery recovered from unit G7

was analyzed together and designated F7G7, as this likely represented one residence; 2) the

pottery recovered from the northwest area of G7 (G7-North) was analyzed separately this area

was separated from the rest of the unit by a darker soil, and a possible feature, a single row of

large rocks (see Figure 4-10). It is possible this area represents a separate residential unit; 3) in









the lowest levels of G7, the east and west halves of the unit were characterized by different soil

types and disparities in pottery the western half contained much more pottery than the eastern

half. As discussed in Chapter 4, G7-East was probably associated with F7G7, based on soil

characteristics and the sudden decrease in artifacts. Thus, the four diagnostic sherds recovered

from G7-East were incorporated into the F7G7 pottery assemblage for analysis. G7-West may

have represented a separate residential unit. The twelve sherds recovered from that area were

analyzed separately. The pottery from this part of the site is thus divided into three units: F7G7,

G7-North, and G7-West, each of which is discussed separately below.

Unit F7G7

Vessel type

A total of 1238 diagnostic sherds were recovered from unit F7G7, the maj ority (85.6%)

were recovered from LS-L1 and LS-L2 (Table 6-10). As discussed in Chapter 4, LS-L3 is

characterized by a drastic reduction in artifacts in general, and pottery in particular.

Three hundred fifty-eight sherds in this assemblage were assigned to specific vessel types

based on the main attributes rim diameter, rim shape, sherd thickness, rim thickness, surface

treatment, and use alteration (Table 6-7). Of these, only rim thickness was strongly diagnostic

of particular vessel types. As in the other units, plate (mitad)ttt~~~~~ttttt~~~~ sherds tended to have the thickest

rims, averaging at approximately 18 mm, and j ars (insera) the thinnest, averaging at

approximately 7 mm. Bowl (diste) rim thickness showed the most variation, and averaged

approximately 14.5 mm (Table 6-6).

Three of the four main vessel types appear throughout the unit at all levels. No

identifiable jebena (coffee pot) sherds were recovered. Insera and diste sherds appear in

relatively constant frequencies over time, although both increase slightly from the lowest levels

to the upper levels. Conversely, plates (mitttttttttttttttttadch) decrease slightly in frequency in the upper









levels of this unit, making up only 4% of the pottery in LS-L1, compared to 9.5% of the LS-L5

pottery assemblage. Although the change in frequency is never overly large for any vessel type

(the frequencies don't tend to vary more than approximately 6%), the fact that mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds

decrease while insera and diste sherds increase suggests that in F7G7 the manufacture of specific

vessel types has in fact changed over time; specifically, the manufacture of inj era plates has

decreased relative to the manufacture frequencies of the other vessel types. This is the only unit

to show such a pattern of change in vessel type manufacture over time.

Vessel form

Vessel wall thickness: The mean vessel wall thicknesses for each vessel type are presented in

Table 6-5. While the mean thicknesses of every vessel type at every level are consistent with

the overall means (see Figure 6-5), the vessels in this unit showed some of the largest ranges in

wall thickness sitewide, and make up many of the outliers in the overall means.

This range in wall thickness, which is visible for every vessel type except jebena sherds

(which were not identified in the F7G7 assemblage), is particularly evident in the upper levels of

the unit, LS-L1 through LS-L3. Part of this is due to the larger sample sizes recovered from

those levels, but that is not the only factor. It appears that the period represented by the upper

three levels of this unit was marked by the manufacture of a variety of bowl, j ar, and inj era plate

sizes. A similar pattern has been identified at some point in every other unit at this site, although

to varying degrees. This sudden and considerable shift in vessel size range is suggestive of an

overall diversification in pottery manufacture. Again, this may be a reflection of the changing

market demand that characterized the end of the Gonder Era and the beginning of a more

decentralized economy.

Inclusions: In the entire F7G7 sample, only 5.0% contained no visible inclusions. All four

inclusion types quartz, mica, grog, and ash were identified in this pottery sample (Table 6-










11). This unit was unique in that ash was one of the most common inclusion types, present in

52.0% of the pottery. Ash, while present as an inclusion in the pottery from all the other units,

was usually found in less than 17% of the sample (unit J3 is the exception to this pattern, but ash

was only present in 37.7% of that sample). It is likely that the technique described by the Beta

Israel potters of spreading ash on the work space was practiced at this part of the site.

Like the rest of the site, grog was the most common inclusion in F7G7. When multiple

inclusion materials were present, grog was most commonly paired with ash (again, this

corresponds well to the ethnographic patterns mentioned above). Mica and quartz were present

in small numbers.

Surface treatments: Within the F7G7 pottery sample, every surface of every pottery sherd

exhibited some type of surface treatment, although on the interior surface of a number of sherds,

the type of treatment was unidentifiable, usually because the interior was heavily eroded. Like

all the other units at this site, slipping was the most common form of surface treatment, and was

usually found on both the interior and exterior surface of the sherd. The frequencies of sherds

with interior, exterior, or interior and exterior slipping correspond to those found throughout the

rest of the site (Table 6-12).

Burnishing was also common, although both exterior and interior burnishing was not.

However, roughly equal frequencies of interior surface burnishing and exterior surface

burnishing were identified. Smoothing was recorded on both the interior and exterior surfaces of

one sherd, and on the interior surface only of an additional 14 sherds. There was also one piece

of porcelain in this unit blue painted whiteware, recovered from LS-L4, in the southeastern

corner of unit F7 (see Figure 4-16).










An examination of surface treatment by vessel type over time shows certain patterns in the

ways specific vessels were treated after partial drying (Table 6-12). The lower levels are

characterized by few surface treatment options for any given vessel types: diste sherds were

always slipped on both surfaces; insert sherds were either slipped on both surfaces, or slipped on

the exterior and burnished on the interior; mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds were either slipped on both surfaces, or

slipped on the interior and burnished on the exterior. Beginning in LS-L3, we begin to see

greater variety in the ways these vessels are treated. This is particularly evident among diste

sherds. This is in direct contrast to the pattern observed in units A2 and C4, in which diste

sherds are more uniformly treated in recent years, but it is consistent with the diste surface

treatment patterns observed in units J3 and J8, as well as with the sitewide pattern of increased

diversification in certain levels of each unit.

In looking at identifiable and unidentifiable sherds together, there are some very definite

shifts in surface treatment patterns over time (Figure 6-21). The frequencies of sherds with both

interior and exterior slipping remain relatively constant over time. The practices of interior

slipping/exterior burnishing and the reverse, interior bumnishing/exterior slipping, also remain

somewhat constant over time, although the former is slightly less frequent, and the latter slightly

more frequent in the upper levels. LS-L1 and LS-L2 are characterized by the widest range in

surface treatment patterns, including some practices not seen in the lower levels, such as interior

smoothing, and burnishing on both the interior and exterior surfaces. This diversification in

surface treatment options occurs concurrently with the diversification of vessel sizes, discussed

above, as well as with the diversification in decorative types, discussed below.

Decoration

In this unit there were 384 decorated sherds, and 36 distinct decorative types (Table 6-13).

By far the most common decoration was the applique line, either a single one or several on a










sherd. In most of these the direction of the line was unidentifiable; in the rest, the line was

horizontal in orientation. Since vertical or diagonal applique lines have never been identified at

this site, it is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, of these "direction unidentified" applique

lines are horizontally oriented.

Also common in this unit was the ubiquitous incised straight line, which was usually

horizontally oriented on the vessel. However, this rarely occurred as a single element more

often it appeared as a motif of two to four lines, located either on the exterior body, the exterior

rim, or the exterior and interior rim. Some other common decoration types included grooved

straight lines, incised horizontal and zigzag lines, and applique lugs (Figure 6-22).

The maj or pattern in this unit is that there is a much smaller range of variation in

decoration types on identifiable vessels in this unit than in other units (Figure 6-11). The most

common insera (jar) decoration was an applique line (N=39), usually horizontal. Six of these

applique lines had Einger impressions on them. Very few of the diste (bowl) sherds were

decorated. Those that were most commonly had incised horizontal lines. Plates (mitttttttttttttttttadch) were

never decorated, a pattern that we have seen sitewide.

Most of the decoration occurred on the exterior surface of the vessel body. Decoration was

also located on the exterior throat, the exterior rim, the exterior neck, the interior rim only, or

both the interior and exterior rim. All of these latter sherds were decorated with incised

horizontal lines running around the exterior and interior rim.

An examination of Figure 6-23 reveals some broad shifts in the decorative types applied

over time. Non-decorated sherds fluctuate slightly over time, making up smaller percentages of

the entire pottery assemblage in levels LS-L1 (62%) and LS-L4 (51.8%). In the other levels,

undecorated pottery makes up 71-85% of the assemblage. As in the other units, both incised and










appliques lines are found at every level. Other decorative types, such as fingernail crescents, the

incised concentric U, the incised V with lines, and incised criss-cross lines, are only found in LS-

L1 and LS-L2 (Figure 6-23).

The maj or pattern in the F7G7 decorated pottery is the substantial increase in decorative

types that appear above LS-L3. Not only is LS-L3 characterized by an enormous decrease in

pottery, it is also characterized by a substantial decrease in decorative types. This is the same

level, and thus potentially the same time period, at which the maj or feature of this unit, the rock

wall, ends. 14C analysis dates this level to A.D. 1349-1673 (to two standard deviations), thus, the

increase in decorative variety that occurs after around this time may have been a response to the

events of the mid-17th century, or it may simply signify the establishment of a new household at

this part of the site. Or it may indicate both the establishment of a new household as part of the

general population increase of Gonder. Overall, however, this increase in decorative types in

the upper levels seems to indicate a period of proliferation, and given the corresponding increase

in surface treatment options and vessel sizes, a general diversification of pottery forms being

manufactured during this period.

Vessel function

In this unit, only 6.7% of the pottery showed no sign of usewear; the maj ority of the

pottery (64%) had wear on both the exterior and the interior surface. Distoch (bowls) tended to

exhibit a wider range of usewear than other pottery types, on both the interior and exterior

surfaces (Table 6-15). Only a few exterior surfaces of the 140 distoch had no usewear; most

were characterized by erosion, pitting, scratches, and dull soot. The interior surfaces of distoch

were characterized by no usewear, erosion, scratches, pitting, rim chips, cracking, carbon

deposits that were likely food residue, and glossy soot.









The exterior surfaces of plates (mitttttttttttttttttadch) were most likely to be eroded or exhibiting dull

soot. The interior surfaces were more likely not to have any usewear, although erosion,

scratches, and cracking were frequently present. The exterior surfaces of insera (jar) sherds were

overwhelmingly unaltered. If there was usewear, it was usually erosion or scratches. The

interior surfaces tended to show more wear than the interior of other vessel types and mainly

exhibited erosion and pitting. This corresponds to ethnographic evidence that suggests inseroch

mainly function as storage vessels for water, and maybe beer or other fermented substances (see

Arthur 2000 for a discussion on the usewear characteristics of beer storage vessels).

No specific shifts in usewear over time were observed for any of these vessel types;

suggesting that the primary functions of each type of vessel have remained more or less constant

over time (Table 6-15). Having said that, the sherds recovered from the upper two levels tended

to exhibit a much wider range of use alteration types than those from LS-L3 through LS-L6.

Again, this may be partly due to the much larger sample sizes of the upper two levels, but it may

also be indicative of a wider range of uses for each vessel type a more generalized usage

pattern. This is a pattern observed in several of the other units, and occurs concurrently with the

increase in vessel size ranges, surface treatment options, and decorative types. Taken together,

this increase in vessel form, decoration, and function patterns is suggestive of an overall

intensification and diversification of pottery manufacture and use in the upper levels of this unit.

The vast maj ority of non-vessel specific potsherds also exhibited some type of use

alteration, on either one or both surfaces (Table 6-16). When the individual sherd was the unit of

analysis, the most common usewear patterns were 1) interior and exterior erosion; 2) interior

scratches and exterior erosion; 3) interior erosion and no exterior usewear; 4) interior pitting and

no exterior usewear; and 5) exterior erosion and no interior usewear. Again, the high frequency









of erosion, especially on the exterior surfaces of the pottery, forces us to consider

postdepositional processes as a possible factor in creating this wear.

Unit G7-North

Vessel form

Vessel wall thickness: Thirty-six diagnostic pottery sherds were recovered from this area,

sixteen of which were assigned to specific vessel types (Table 6-7). Because of the small sample

size and the shallow deposit of this unit, it was all classified as one stratigraphic level. No

diachronic studies were conducted on the pottery from this unit.

The mean sherd thicknesses are presented in Table 6-5. The very small sample size must

be taken into account, but in general the vessel wall thicknesses conform to the sitewide patterns,

and are comparable to those in unit F7G7. In particular, the mean thicknesses of diste and insera

sherds in G7-North are slightly higher than the means in other units; they resemble the means of

the F7G7 pottery more closely than that of any other unit. This may suggest that F7G7 and G7-

North are more closely related than either of them are to any of the other units, perhaps even

from one household; however, without a larger sample, this is mainly just informed conj ecture.

Inclusions: All four of the main inclusion materials found at the site were present in the G7-

North assemblage (Table 6-11). However, unlike the other units, neither quartz nor mica was

ever present as the sole inclusion in this sample; they only appeared in combination with each

other, ash or grog. Grog and ash were by far the most common inclusion types in this sample,

appearing in the highest frequencies both individually and when found together. G7-North

shares the inclusion patterns of units A2, C4, J3, and F7G7, and it is likely that the

ethnographically-evidenced techniques of a) roasting and grinding one of the types of clay before

forming the pot, and b) covering the work area with ash prior to vessel formation were practiced

here, which explains these patterns.









Surface treatments: Slipping and burnishing were the only types of surface treatment identified

in this assemblage. All but three sherds in this unit exhibited surface treatment on both sides;

most of these were slipped on both the interior and exterior surfaces.

Figure 6-8 illustrates the types of vessels and their corresponding types of surface

treatment. In G7-North, diste sherds were found to be primarily slipped on both the interior and

exterior surfaces, although examples of interior slip/exterior burnishing and burnishing on both

surfaces are present. The one sherd that is burnished on both sides is the only outlier in the

surface treatment of this assemblage not only does it not correspond to ethnographic evidence,

it is the only vessel to exhibit both interior and exterior burnishing. There are many possible

explanations for this; for example, the pot broke in the middle of its construction after it was

burnished but before it was slipped.

Insera sherds were found to be slipped on both surfaces or slipped on the exterior only in

nearly equal numbers. There is nothing surprising about this pattern, either as it relates to other

insert sherds in the archaeological assemblage, or as it relates to the ethnographic evidence.

M~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~~ sherds were primarily slipped on the interior and burnished on the exterior, although there

was one example of slipping on both sides of the mitad. Again, this pattern of slipping both

surfaces may reflect the potter' s motives in applying slip to her vessels for utilitarian rather

than aesthetic purposes.

Decoration

Only eight sherds within this assemblage were decorated, in five decorative types (Table 6-

13). Most of these sherds exhibited two or more grooved lines on the exterior body of the vessel.

There were also two sherds with applique lines, one sherd with multiple incised lines, one with

incised horizontal lines on the interior and exterior rim and a zigzag line on the interior rim, and










one example of stamping in a circular pattern (Figure 6-24). This is the only instance of this

decoration type in the entire site.

None of the decorated sherds could be assigned to specific vessel types, so correlations

between these two variables remain indeterminate. The sample size is also too small to form any

conclusions about changes in decoration type, frequency, or location over time.

Vessel function

Except for one sherd, the entire G7-North pottery assemblage exhibited use alteration,

either on one or both sides (Tables 6-15 and 6-16). Most of the pottery had wear on both sides;

roughly equal numbers had wear just on the exterior or just on the interior surface. The most

common exterior wear type was erosion, although a significant number of sherds exhibited no

exterior usewear. Pitting, scratches, and dull soot were also identified in small frequencies.

Interior usewear followed a similar pattern erosion was most common, followed by

scratches and no wear at all. Cracking and pitting also occurred in smaller frequencies. The

most common wear pattern on individual sherds was erosion on both the interior and exterior

surface; again, postdepositional factors must be taken into account.

The one significant usewear pattern in this unit is the relatively high frequency of cracking,

which was recorded on over 10% of the total assemblage. Cracking generally occurs when the

vessel is fired, and is caused by uneven heat distribution (Skibo 1992). Given the high

percentage of cracked pottery within the small area designated G7-North, it is possible this area

constituted a discard site, for broken pottery and possibly for other materials as well the reader

will recall from Chapter 4 the presence of faunal remains in that area, as well as the darker soil,

suggesting the presence of organic materials. G7-North may represent a discard site for the

household associated with F7G7.









Unit G7-West

Only twelve diagnostic sherds were recovered from this area, of which four were assigned

to specific vessel types: two each mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt (plate) and insera (j ar) sherds. Ten of these were rim

sherds; the other two were insert neck fragments. Eight of the sherds were slipped on both the

interior and exterior surfaces. The two mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt rims were burnished on the exterior and slipped on

the interior. One of the insera sherds was slipped on the exterior and burnished on the interior;

the other was slipped on both surfaces.

None of these twelve sherds exhibited any decoration, but all showed use alteration on at

least one surface; most had evidence of usewear on both surfaces. The most common type of

usewear was erosion, which was recorded on eight sherds, and in equal frequencies on the

exterior and interior surfaces. Scratching was also common, and again appeared indiscriminately

on both the interior and exterior surfaces. Dull soot was found on the exterior surfaces of two

sherds, one of which belonged to a mitad.tttt~~~~~~~tttttt Pitting was found on the interior of one insera sherd.

The patterns of surface treatment and use alteration conform to those found throughout the

rest of the site in general, and to those found in units F7 and G7 in particular. Because of this,

the extremely small sample size, and the lack of decorated pottery from G7-West, no conclusions

can be drawn as to whether this area was a part of the F7G7 or G7-North cultural units. In

addition, as the deposit that this pottery is associated with was only 15 cm deep, we cannot form

any theories about how the pottery changed through time.

Patterns across Units

A total of 731 potsherds from the AG 2004 Hield season were assigned specific vessel

types; 26.3% of the diagnostic pottery assemblage. Three of the four main vessel types were

present in each of the maj or units; jebena sherds were very rare, and only found in units A2 and










J3 (Table 6-4). Spindle whorls were found only in units A2, J3, and possibly F7G7.36 A2 was

the only unit to contain an identifiable sherd from a butter-making vessel and a whole diste lid.

The distribution of vessel types across units was very similar. In four of the major units

(A2, C4, J3, and J8) mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt (plate) sherds were the most frequent, making up between 43.8% and

66% of the identifiable assemblage. Jebena sherds, as mentioned, were the least frequent of the

maj or vessel types, and insert and diste sherds made up 18-3 1% and 13-3 1% of the identifiable

sherds, respectively.

Units F7G7 and G7-North showed slightly different vessel distribution patterns. In both of

these, diste sherds were the most common, making up 39.0% and 58.8% of the assemblages,

respectively. Insera sherds were the second most common types in these two units, making up

39.0% and 29.4% of the assemblages, respectively. Mitad sherds were relatively infrequent in

these two units, compared to the other units.

Vessel Forms

In looking at patterns in the pottery assemblages of the seven maj or units, the types of

attributes examined were divided into four major categories: vessel type, vessel form (how the

vessel was made), decoration, and vessel function (how the vessel was used). The category

"vessel form," addresses those pottery attributes that provide insight about the manufacturing

techniques of the vessel. Thus in this section, I address the broad question of to what extent do

the pottery-making processes that led to the pottery assemblages in each unit vary? This

discussion will consider vessel wall thickness, rim shape, rim diameter, inclusions, and surface

treatment. Decoration is also another feature in the formation of a vessel, but it is discussed in its

own section below.


36 Two sherds in units F7G7 were classified as either spindle whorls or diste lids: they are too small to determine
definitively.









Vessel wall thickness

The vessel types recovered in each unit varied in their levels of overall homogeneity

(Figure 6-5 and Table 6-5). The thicknesses of diste sherds varied within each unit, as discussed

above, but this range of thickness was fairly constant across units between 8.5 and 12 mm in

each unit. The exception to this was F7G7, in which the wall thicknesses of diste sherds showed

an overall range of 30.9 mm. In addition, the actual thicknesses of diste walls were fairly

homogenous across units, ranging from approximately 3 to 15 mm. Again, the outlier here was

F7G7, and to a lesser extent, G7-North. These two units yielded several diste sherds that

significantly thicker than those found in other units. Overall, however, the wall thicknesses of

distoch are very similar across the units (Figure 6-24).

Insera sherds have been shown to vary somewhat in terms of wall thickness within each

unit. Comparing units, we can see that the range of variation for insert sherds seems to conform

to certain rules. Within each unit, insert sherds have a range of approximately 42.514.5 mm.

That is to say, while the sherds thicknesses vary, they all stay within a certain range, and that

range is remarkably similar across units. The exception to this pattern was unit A2, which had

an overall insert thickness range of only 8. 112.0 mm. This suggests that the inseroch from unit

A2 were more uniform in terms of vessel wall thickness that they were in the other units.

The mean thicknesses of insera sherds were also very similar across units the means

ranged from approximately 7 to 16 mm, and in units J3, J8, and F7G7, this range was much

smaller. The outlier in this pattern was unit C4, whose mean insera thicknesses ranged from 8 to

17.5 mm, a larger range than seen in any of the other units. Overall, the thicknesses of insera

sherds are similar across units, although less so than the other vessel types. The insera sherds










from unit A2 tended to be significantly thinner, and unit C4 had several insert sherds that were

much thicker than those found in the other units (Figure 6-24).

M~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~~ sherds tended to show the least amount of variation in thickness within each unit -

the range of thickness within each unit was approximately 12.9+1.2 mm. The exceptions to this

pattern were units F7G7, whose mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds had a range of 18 mm, and G7-North, with a range

of 2 mm. In general, the sizes of mitttttttttttttttttadch walls were very similar across units, ranging from 6.6

mm to 25.6 mm, and means ranging from approximately 14 to 16 mm. F7G7 tended to have the

thickest mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds and J3 the thinnest. The two jebena sherds recovered are not sufficient to

form conclusions about overall patterns.

Overall, the sherds thicknesses suggest that the vessels made by the various potters

represented in each unit were very similar in terms of wall thickness as it relates to vessel size.

Even the variation within each unit is comparable across units.

Rim diameter

A total of 1,765 rim sherds were recovered from the site, 338 of which were large enough

to determine the vessel mouth diameter (Table 6-3). As discussed above, in every unit we find a

variety of sizes of each vessel, as evidenced by wall thickness and rim diameter. As was the case

with wall thickness, an overall examination of rim diameter reveals that in each unit, a

comparable range of sizes were present for each vessel type (Figure 6-25).

Diste rim sherds showed the widest range of sizes, as evidenced by rim diameter, in every

unit. Except for unit J8, which had a much smaller range of diste sizes, each unit contained

distoch with mouths that ranged from approximately 10 to 50 cm (Figure 6-25). At the same

time, there are differences in the size distributions of each unit. F7G7 and G7-North tend to be

the most evenly spread in terms of rim diameters; C4 and J3 have higher frequencies of distoch

on the smaller side (i.e. approximately 15 to 30 cm), while A2 and J8 have higher frequencies of










larger diste sizes (i.e. approximately 25 to 45 cm). This pattern is consistent with the diste wall

thicknesses for each unit (see Figure 6-24); C4 and J3 have the thinnest mean diste walls while

A2 and J8 are among the thicker means. Taken together, this suggests that while the potters

associated with all the units were engaged in making distoch of various sizes, those from units

C4 and J3 specialized in smaller distoch than in the other units. Similarly, the potters associated

with units F7G7 and G7-North seem to have been the least specialized in terms of diste sizes -

those units contain fairly constant distributions of different-sized distoch.

Insera vessel mouths show a slightly different pattern (Figure 6-25). The mean insert rim

diameter had a much smaller standard deviation than did the mean diste rim diameter (see Table

6-3), indicating that across units, inseroch tended to be much more uniform in mouth size than

distoch. Even within units, insera mouth sizes tend to be much more uniform than diste mouth

sizes; unit J3 is the only unit to yield an assemblage of insera sherds with a rim diameter range

of over 12 cm. This is also consistent with the insera thickness patterns (see Figure 6-24),

which, except for the notable outliers in unit C4, suggest overall uniformity in insert sizes both

within and across units.

Because mitttttttttttttttttadoch tend to be so large, very few mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt rims were recovered that were large

enough to determine the vessel diameter. Thus the small sample size precludes us from forming

strong conclusions about mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt size across units. Having said that, Figure 6-25 does indicate that

the mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds recovered from unit C4 were much more diverse in size than in unit J3, which

contained a comparable number of measurable mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds. The large range in mean diameters

from those and the other units, even though they are often based five sherds or less, also suggest

that mitadoch varied widely in diameters across units. The two jebena sherds recovered were

two small to provide any information about mouth diameter.









Rim shape

Rim shapes did not appear to vary significantly between the units. The most common rim

shape in all seven units was a simple rounded rim (type #1, Figure 6-2). C4 and F7G7 each

contained rim shapes that were unique to that unit: C4 contained one round flared rim (type #15)

and one round rim with a lip and ridge (type #14). This latter type was said to be shaped to fit a

lid in the notch created by the ridge. F7G7 contained two hemicircle with lip rims (type #17),

two rounded with point and lip rims (type #19) and one square concave rim (type #18). The

other rim types appeared in very similar frequencies in each unit (Table 6-17).

Specific vessel types were shown to be correlated to specific rim types, and these also were

very similar across units (Table 6-17). Diste sherds were most commonly rounded, square or

tapered. Unit F7G7 diste sherds showed a wide variety of rim types, but rounded, square, and

tapered tended to be the most common. Insera sherds were most commonly curved or pointed

concave in all units. M\~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~ sherds were overwhelmingly rounded or rounded with a lip. As with

vessel thickness, rim types as associated with specific vessel types are very homogenous across

units; the variations we see are on a small scale, and seem to occur within individual units.

Overall, rim type patterns further underscore the cross-unit homogeneity in vessel forms.

Inclusions

The four main inclusion types identified at this site were quartz, mica, ash, and grog. All

four of these were present in the pottery assemblages of each unit, either alone, or in some

combination. However, the frequencies of each type, particularly ash, varied significantly from

unit to unit. Grog was by far the most common inclusion type; it was present in 51.8-79.6% of

the pottery from each unit. The exception to this pattern was G7-West, in which grog was only

present as an inclusion in 31.2%.









The frequency of ash as an inclusion varied widely across units. In units A2, C4, and J8,

ash was infrequent (present in 12.2%, 16.5% and 9.3% of the assemblages, respectively). In

units F7G7, G7-North, and G7-West it was much more common, present in 47.3-59. 1% of the

assemblages. J3 lay in the middle; ash was present in 37.8% of the assemblage.

This variation provides some significant insight as to the pottery making techniques that

were practiced in each unit. Units A2, C4, and J3 are the most similar in terms of inclusions. It

seems as if the potters from these three units did not engage in the practice of sprinkling ash over

the work area before making a pot. They may have made their pottery directly on the floor, or

used a woven plate, as some of the potters I interviewed did (see Figures 5-2 and 5-3).

Units F7G7 and G7-North were also very similar in terms of inclusion types. Both units

yielded high frequencies of pottery with ash and grog. It is likely these potters were using ash as

a tool to keep the vessel clay from sticking to the work area. Units J3 and G7-West are both

outliers. The presence of ash in 37.8% of the assemblage does not make it especially similar to

either units A2, C4, and J8, or to units F7G7 and G7-North. The low frequency of grog in G7-

West also constitutes a significant departure from the patterns found in the other units.

Surface treatments

Across the site, there were three surface treatment patterns that made up the maj ority of the

pottery: 1) interior and exterior slipping; 2) interior slipping and exterior burnishing; and 3)

exterior burnishing and interior slipping. These were the most common treatments in every unit.

There is remarkable consistency across units in terms of how specific vessel types were

finished (see Table 6-12). Insera (jar) sherds were most commonly slipped on both surfaces in

every unit except C4 and J3. In C4 only 42% of the insera sherds had interior and exterior slips

compared to 60-70% in every other unit. Most of the insera sherds in C4 had exterior slips and

interior burnishing or smoothing. In J3 only 33.3% of the insera sherds were slipped on both









surfaces. The rest of the insert sherds in this unit had exterior slipping and interior burnishing or

smoothing.

Diste (bowl) sherds were also overwhelmingly slipped on both surfaces; between 62% and

68% of the diste sherds in each unit showed this pattern. The outlier again is unit J3, in which

only 57% of the diste sherds were slipped on both surfaces. The most common diste finish

pattern after interior and exterior slipping was interior slipping and exterior smoothing or

burnishing.

M~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~~ (plate) sherds were a little more varied in their surface treatments, but this variation

was within units more than between units. Mitad sherds in every unit were usually finished in

one of three ways: 1) interior and exterior slipping; 2) interior slipping and exterior burnishing;

or 3) interior slipping and exterior smoothing. The third pattern was only found in units A2 and

C4. In every unit the most common pattern was interior slipping and exterior burnishing, but it

ranged from making up 36% of the mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds in C4 to 67% in J3. Interior and exterior

slipping ranged from making up 19% of the mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds in A2 to 3 9% of them in F7G7. Only

four jebena sherds were found, two each in units A2 and J3. In A2 they were characterized by

exterior slipping and interior burnishing or smoothing; in J3 they were both burnished on the

interior and smoothed on the exterior.

Discussion

These patterns in vessel form, decoration and use across units are very useful in attempting

to understand the relationships between the households, and seem to support the idea posited in

Chapter 4, that these units represent a compound of structures that corresponded to an extended

kin or social group. The overall homogeneity in pottery manufacture techniques, as evidenced

by the consistencies in vessel wall thickness, rim shape and rim diameter, and to an extent,

surface treatment are consistent with a group of related women who have learned the techniques










of pottery manufacture from each other. The differences in temper type, and the minor

variations in surface treatment may be expressions of individual preference, or they may be

indicative of affinal relations that brought potters into these households potters that came from

other families or other regions, and who learned different techniques. This juxtaposition of

continuity and variation provides some valuable insight into patterns of cultural transmission

among the Beta Israel potters of this site. It may also allow us to develop some ideas about how

the pottery-making process was conceptualized by these various manufacturers. What these

attribute analyses show is that there are certain areas in which pottery was always made a certain

way for example, the thicknesses of the vessel walls and rims were very uniform within each

unit and across units. However there are other areas inclusion types and surface treatment may

be two of them in which there was a wider range of choices available to the potter. These may

be the areas in which the potter chose to express herself and allow her pottery to reflect her

individual choices.

The one maj or outlier in vessel formation patterns is unit J3. This unit varied significantly

in terms of inclusions and surface treatments. While not different enough to be outside of the

normal range of variation, it seems clear that the potters associated with this unit practiced

slightly different manufacturing techniques than those in the other units; the other units are all

more similar to each other than they are to unit J3. The next section discusses the range of

choices these potters exploited in the decoration of their vessels.

Decoration

Decoration of a vessel is, of course, part of the vessel formation process, and looking at

decoration across the site can provide some valuable insights about how pottery manufacturing

techniques varied. Decorative types can be broken down into three frequency categories: those

that appear on more than 80 sherds sitewide, those that appear on 10-79 sherds sitewide, and









those that appear on less than ten sherds sitewide. The first category contains four decorative

types: 1) the single applique line (N=200), 2) multiple incised lines (N=119), 3) multiple

applique lines (N=98), and 4) multiple grooved lines (N=87). These four types appeared in

nearly equal frequencies in units A2, C4, J3, and J8; the frequencies were within 1.7 percentage

points of each other.37 Unit F7G7 was similar to the other units in the frequency of the single

applique line (the frequencies of this type ranged from 6.6% to 9.8% across units), and the

multiple applique lines (frequencies ranged from 1.9% to 4.0%). F7G7 was characterized by a

higher frequency of multiple grooved lines they made up 5.3% of this assemblage and ranged

from 0.5% to 2.2% in the other units.

The second category of decorative types (frequencies of 10-79 sherds) contained seven

decorations: 1) the single incised horizontal line (N=61), 2) the incised horizontal and zigzag

lines (N=37), 3) the single grooved line (N=21), 4) the multiple incised horizontal lines on both

the interior and exterior rim with an incised zigzag line (N=20), 5) the applique lug (N=14), 6)

the multiple incised horizontal lines on the interior and exterior rim (N=11), and 7) the single

incised horizontal line (N=10). These also appeared in nearly equal frequencies across units: the

variation in frequencies was never more than 1.7 percentage points.

The rest of the decorative types appeared on less than ten sherds sitewide, and 3 8% of

these types (N=16) were recovered only from unit F7G7. A2 was the only unit to contain an

incised wavy line on an applique line, and a sherd with incised and v-overlap lines (Figure 6-12).

Unit C4 was the only unit to have incised vertical and wavy lines (Figure 6-15). Unit G7-North

was the only unit to contain a stamped sherd (Figure 6-26). Unit J3 contained an applique circle,

two sherds with finger pinching, and a sherd with incised horizontal lines on both the interior and


37 Units G7-North and G7-West are excluded from the frequency discussion: the very low sample size of these units
was found to skew the results.










exterior rim and v-overlap lines (Figure 6-17); these decorations were not found in any other

units. Unit J8 did not yield any decorations that were unique to this unit.

It has become common archaeological practice to shed the outliers to overlook those few

sherds that are unique in favor of those sherds that conform to broader patterns. However, these

few are the sherds which distinguish the units and the potters associated with them from one

another. Clearly placing an applique line around the exterior of the vessel was a commonplace

practice; it made up over 25% of all the decorative types. This type, while providing important

clues about the overall homogeneity of the pottery recovered from AG 2004, and therefore about

the way pottery-making traditions were learned and shared at this site, does not provide any

insight about individual expression or creativity. For that we must address the outliers.

The distribution of decorations reveals that there were a handful of decorative techniques

that were common throughout the site, and many more that were much less common, present in

only one or two of the units. When one of those infrequent types was present in more than one

unit, it was usually shared by units C4, F7G7 and J3. Again, this juxtaposition of continuity and

variation seems to support the idea of a group of households related through an extended kin or

social network.

Vessel Function

In the sections above I have discussed variations across units in terms of vessel types and

vessel forms. The final feature I will address from a sitewide perspective is vessel function.

Examining the usewear patterns on the various sherds and comparing them from unit to unit will

provide insight into how vessels were used in each area.

Inzsera: Again, the main pattern here is the remarkable consistency of use alteration types across

units. In every unit, insert (jar) sherds were most commonly characterized by no exterior

usewear. When usewear was present on the exterior surface, it was almost exclusively in the










form of erosion or scratches. The one exception to this was unit F7G7. Insera sherds with no

exterior usewear only made up 43.6% of the identifiable vessels in this unit (compared to 57-

70% in the other units). It was still the most common pattern in F7G7, but a substantially higher

percentage of eroded insera sherds were found in this unit (41.3%) than in the other units (7.4-

30.0%). F7G7 was also the only unit to contain insert sherds with soot on the exterior surfaces.

The usewear visible on the interior surfaces of insera sherds were also very consistent

from unit to unit. Lack of interior usewear was much less common than lack of exterior

usewear: unaltered sherds only made up 5-14% of the assemblage for each unit. The exception

here was unit J3, in which 40% of the insert sherds had no interior usewear. When interior

usewear was present, all the insert sherds tended to show erosion, pitting, scratches, or some

combination of the three. It appears that j ars were likely used for the same general purposes,

including the storage of water and fermented foods like beer, in every unit.

Diste: The usewear on diste (bowl) sherds was also very similar across units. Exterior use

alteration when it was present consisted almost exclusively of erosion or dull soot. The

interior surfaces of diste sherds were more likely to show no sign of usewear; when it was

present, it was nearly exclusively erosion or scratches or both. These alterations are consistent

with the range of uses of distoch, in which food is cooked and served.

Mitad: M\~itadtttttttt~~~~~~~~ (plate) sherds, like the other two vessel types, showed remarkable homogeneity in

terms of use alteration across units. Exterior surfaces nearly always were eroded, and often had

dull soot as well. The interior surfaces were more likely to show no wear; when it was present, it

took the form of scratches and occasional erosion. It appears overall that the various vessels

were being used for the same purposes sitewide. This consistency is of course more expected in

usewear than in vessel forming techniques as vessels have a limited number of functions.









Discussion

As the above discussion illustrates, there are some significant variations in the pottery

assemblages of the Hyve maj or units; however, no one unit stands out as significantly different

from the rest, and the pottery from the individual units overall is more similar to each other than

it is different. The minor variations in attributes like surface treatment, inclusion materials,

decoration, and usewear are consistent with the levels of variation we would expect of individual

potters within a larger community. Potters are not automatons it would be startling to see

identical pottery throughout the site. However, this is clearly a group of people who shared the

same basic methods to make, decorate, and use their pottery.

This combination of general similarities and small-scale variations supports the idea of a

single compound corresponding to an extended kin or social network. However, the reader will

recall from Chapter 5 the significant homogeneity in pottery manufacture techniques among the

potters interviewed. The main differences in pottery-making seemed to be at the village level:

the pottery made by the women from Achefer was more similar to each other than the pottery

made by the women from Chilga. Only two of these women were related; thus it appears that the

transmission of pottery traditions which leads to similar products may be defined more at the

village level than at the family or household or compound level. If this is the case, the overall

homogeneity observed at Abwara Giorgis may not necessarily indicate a kin-based relationship

among the units. It may simply be that these are the general characteristics of Abwara Giorgis

pottery, and that in fact the households represented by these units were not associated at any

scale smaller than village-level. A more extensive excavation and analysis of the site is

necessary to shed more light on this issue.










Change Over Time


Vessel Types

Based on the ethnographic and archaeological record, there are four main vessel types in

Abwara Giorgis. Three of these four vessel types appeared throughout the deposits of every unit

(only two jebena sherds were recovered), indicating that the types of vessels made and/or used at

Abwara Giorgis have not changed significantly over time. It seems from this continuity that

Beta Israel potters are making essentially the same types of vessels today that they were making

when the AG 2004 site was first occupied.

There were a handful of sherds that did not fit into one of these four categories. Four

spindle whorls were recovered three from unit J3 and one from A2 as well as one diste lid

and one butter-making vessel, both recovered from unit A2. In addition there were two sherds,

one from unit A2 and one from F7G7, whose shape and use were indeterminate (Figure 6-27).

The butter-making vessel and the diste lid were recovered from levels LS-L1 and LS-L2,

respectively; these may be vessel types that were introduced recently to the area. The spindle

whorls were more common in the upper levels of J3 and A2, but were also present in LS-L5 of

J3. From this distribution, we can conclude that vessel types have not significantly changed over

time at this site.

The primary shift here is the drastic increase in pottery at certain levels of each unit. In

every unit except J3, the upper two to three levels are characterized by a substantial increase in

pottery. In unit J3 this increase occurs in LS-L3 and LS-L4, suggesting that these levels in J3 are

contemporary to the upper levels of the other units. In addition, the shift in vessel types present

in unit J3 is more multi-directional than in the other units, with an increase in insert sherds and a

concurrent decrease in mitadttttt~~~~~~~tttttt sherds. This overall increase in pottery frequency, coupled with the










appearance of new vessel types in unit A2, is indicative of a period of more intensified pottery

manufacture, and possibly a diversification of the pottery types made.

Vessel Form

Wall thickness and surface treatment

The analysis of vessel manufacturing patterns, including vessel wall thickness, vessel

mouth diameter, inclusion materials, and surface treatment, indicate that there is significant

homogeneity across the units. This homogeneity across units is also seen diachronically.

Every unit was characterized by a particular period in which vessel form attributes

changed. In most units this occurred in the upper three levels concurrent with the overall

increase in pottery and in J3 it occurred in LS-L3 and LS-L4. This change consisted of

increased diversity in the way vessels were made, particularly vessel wall thickness and surface

treatment. While some form of diversity was evident in every unit, it did not always manifest

the same way. Unit A2 vessels showed little change in wall thickness or rim diameter over

time; the main shift occurred in surface treatment patterns. The reader will recall that overall,

LS-L1 through LS-L3 are characterized by a wider range of surface treatment options than the

lower levels of A2.

Conversely, vessel forms in unit C4 showed diversification in vessel wall thickness -

which showed a much broader range in LS-L2 and LS-L3 while surface treatment remained

more constant over time. The only vessel type to show a wider variety of surface treatment

options in LS-L2 and LS-13 was the insert.

Vessel wall thicknesses in unit J3, like unit A2, tended to be more constant over time.

Diversifieation is more visible in surface treatment patterns. Both mitad and diste sherds show a

wider range of surface treatment options in LS-L3 and LS-L4 than in the other levels. hIsera

sherds always displayed a variety of surface treatments, but there is a shift in the specific









treatment types found above LS-L3. Unit F7G7 showed diversification in both vessel wall

thickness and surface treatment options in the upper three levels. Unit J8 showed an increase in

vessel wall thickness range in LS-L1; however, this unit was likely not occupied until recently

(see Chapter 4), and therefore does not relate to the patterns seen in the other units.

Inclusions

The four inclusion materials, quartz, mica, grog, and ash, were present in all the maj or

excavated units. The above discussion lays out the variation in inclusions between units one of

the few areas where we see significant variation in vessel form. A diachronic examination shows

that over time, the different manufacturing techniques which mainly varied in terms of whether

ash was prevalent or not did not change significantly. In those units where ash was largely

absent as an inclusion (A2, C4 and J8), the low frequencies of ash were notable at every

stratigraphic level. In unit F7G7, in which ash was a frequent inclusion, it made up 40-69% of

the assemblage at every stratigraphic level. In unit J3, which was characterized by moderate ash

frequencies throughout, ash was present in 23-43% of the assemblage at every level. It seems

that although the use of ash as an inclusion varied from residential unit to residential unit, the

potters who occupied the respective units did not vary their techniques. In other words, potter A

made her pots without ash, and potter B made her pots with ash. Neither potter ever adopted the

alternate method. Furthermore, it is likely, as is common in Beta Israel households today, that

the potters in these households taught their daughters (and other female relatives) the pottery-

manufacture techniques, and it is apparent that the daughters continued in the same traditions as

their mothers, at least until they left their respective households. This continuity in techniques

may provide insight into how the pottery making traditions were passed through the generations

and how, if at all, they were altered.









Vessel Function

Not only did the types of vessels made remain relatively constant over time, their uses

appear to have remained more or less constant as well. This study found no significant shift in

use alteration types in the pottery assemblage across stratigraphic levels. The only area in which

a shift was seen was in the upper two levels of unit A2, in which the presence of interior pitting

on insera (jar) sherds became more frequent. It seems likely that the occupants of this area

adopted the practice of making and/or storing beer or other fermented products in their j ars. This

shift was not visible in any of the other units.

Having said that, in several of the units (C4, J3, and F7G7) the pottery shows a marked

increase in use alteration frequency. In every unit, this shift is concurrent with the above

mentioned overall increase in pottery and diversification in the areas of wall thickness and

surface treatment. These levels are characterized by higher frequencies of usewear as well as a

wider range of usewear types, suggesting a) pottery was used more intensively during that period

and b) pottery use may have become more generalized, with each vessel type serving a number

of functions.

Decoration

The pottery recovered during the course of this excavation showed a significant level of

homogeneity in terms of the way it was decorated, both in time and space. There seem to be

certain decorative types that are constant they are used both throughout the community, and

throughout the history of the site. These included the ubiquitous single applique line, multiple

applique lines, multiple incised lines, and to a slightly lesser extent, multiple grooved lines. The

fact that several of these decorative types were applied to the pottery of the women I

interviewed, most of whom were not originally from Abwara Giorgis, suggests that these are

widely used decorations that extend beyond the borders of Abwara Giorgis, and may in fact









extend beyond the Beta Israel community. Certainly the single applique line around the throat of

jebenoch (coffee pots) and large inseroch (water j ars) is common in much of the pottery

throughout Ethiopia today.

Beneath this layer of continuity is a second, smaller scale level of variation. There are

many decorative types that were only found in one unit, or were only recovered from certain

levels. Each unit contained at least one decorative type that was not found in any other unit, and

F7G7 contained over 15 types that were unique to that unit. These distributions are outlined in

Table 6-13. Although they appeared in much smaller frequencies usually limited to less than

Hyve sherds it is these decorations that are the most significant for this study.

In terms of time, the maj or types the applique and incised lines occurred in relatively

constant frequencies over time. These are clearly widespread and long-standing traditions.

There are several other types that are limited to certain levels of the site; these are the most

significant to this study.

The motif of multiple incised lines appearing on both the interior and exterior surfaces of

the rim was only found in levels 3-5 of every unit. This was the only significant sitewide

example of a motif disappearing above a certain depth. The example of the single incised

horizontal line which appeared only in LS-L3 of units A2 and C4 but was present in levels 1-3

in F7G7, levels 1-4 in J3, and limited to level 1 of J8 was more common. Other decorative

types, while not disappearing entirely, became much less common in the upper levels. Multiple

applique lines and multiple incised lines are two examples of these their frequencies were

significantly reduced in the upper levels of unit J3. This usually did not occur sitewide; the

same types that became less common over time in unit J3 became much more common over time

in F7G7.









More common than the disappearance of certain decorative types over time was the

appearance of new types in the upper levels. The incised horizontal and zigzag lines motif was

only found in the upper levels, except in unit J3, where it was recovered from levels 1, 3, and 4.

Similarly, the incised horizontal and vertical lines motif was only found above LS-L2. In

general, it appears that multi-component decorations those types that contain more than one

decorative element became more common in recent years.

The one outlier in these patterns is unit J3. As mentioned above, decorative types that

became less frequent over time in unit J3 often became more frequent over time in other units.

Conversely, several decorations that are found mainly in the upper levels of the other main units

are found only in the lower levels of J3. For example, the motifs of horizontal incised lines on

the interior and exterior rim with either a zigzag line or a v-overlap line (see Figures 6-15, 6-20,

and 6-23) appear primarily in the upper two levels of units C4, F7G7, and J8 (they do not appear

at all in A2). They are only present in the lower two levels of unit J3. A likely explanation for

this is that the lower levels (LS-L3 and LS-L4) of unit J3 were contemporaneous with the upper

levels (LS-L1 and LS-L2) of the other units. The 14C dates for the lower levels of J3, A2 and

F7G7 do not negate this possibility.

Individual decorative types aside, the overwhelming pattern in decoration is an explosion

of decorative types in the upper levels of every unit and the lower levels of unit J3. This

increase in decorative diversity occurs concurrently with all the pottery increases and

diversification described above: the overall increase in pottery, the increase in sherd thickness

ranges, in surface treatment options, and in several units, in usewear types. In nearly all the units

there is an increase both in the frequency of undecorated sherds, and in the number of decorative

types (see Figures 6-12b, 6-15b, 6-18b, and 6-23b) present in certain levels. Further, these










particular levels are often characterized by more complex decorative motifs what I have called

"multi-component" decorations, which contain several decorative elements. This suggests an

increasing diversification of decorative patterns applied to pottery during this period.

Iron Production

As mentioned, slag was not analyzed extensively; it was counted and weighed, and the

data are presented in Table 6-18. However, frequency distributions were examined to look for

parallels between increased slag frequencies indicating increased iron smelting and increased

pottery frequencies. Concurrent increases in slag and pottery might suggest an overall increase

and intensification in economic activity, not just limited to one sphere of production.

Unit F7G7 was the only excavated unit to contain a significant amount of slag (N > 20).

This unit yielded 2,577 slag fragments, 2,529 (98.1%) of which were recovered from LS-L1.

This parallels the pottery distribution patterns found in this unit; the vast maj ority of pottery was

also recovered from LS-L1.

Units A2 and J3 also contained slag, although in vastly smaller frequencies (N=7 and 14,

respectively). These small sample sizes alone severely limit the conclusions that can be drawn

about slag distribution. Based on what was recovered, the slag in unit J3 was distributed in a

pattern that mirrored the distribution of pottery in that unit: the maj ority of slag (N=9, 64.3%)

came from LS-L3. Additionally, and perhaps more significantly, the slag fragments from LS-L3

were on average substantially larger than those recovered from the other levels. In fact, the

average weight of these fragments (13.3g) was significantly higher than the average weights

found throughout the rest of the site (between 1.1 and 5.6 g).

Conversely, the slag distribution in unit A2 did not seem to parallel the pottery distribution

patterns. Whereas the pottery in A2 was most prevalent in the upper levels of the unit, most of









the slag (N=4, 57.1%) was recovered from LS-L7. However, again, due to the small sample size,

the significance and even the presence of this pattern is highly questionable.

Overall, the presence and distribution of slag was not found sufficient to provide

substantial evidence of a generalized increase and intensification in Beta Israel economic

activity. The patterns described above certainly could represent such a shift; the distribution in

unit J3 probably provides the strongest evidence for that argument, since slag was present at

almost every level. This suggests that the discard of slag, at least, occurred throughout the

history of this unit, but was most common during the period associated with LS-L3. Similarly,

the exponential increase in slag in the uppermost level of F7G7 could reflect an intensification of

iron production, or it could simply indicate a shift in occupation; a new family settled in the area,

and one of the members worked iron, whereas the previous occupants did not. The extremely

small sample sizes of units J3 and A2, along with the distribution of slag in A2 (which does not

seem to follow the pottery distribution patterns), and the fact that the slag distribution in F7G7 is

as yet an isolated occurrence precludes any conclusions from being drawn about an increase in

the production of iron that occurred concurrently with the increase in production, use, and

discard of pottery. Additional excavation is required in order to look at parallels between

increased pottery and increased iron production.

Conclusions

Taken together, the patterns in various pottery attributes paint a picture of intensified

pottery production and/or use during a particular period at this site. As evidenced by a sudden

and drastic increase in pottery frequency, vessel size ranges (based on sherd thickness, and to a

small extent, rim diameter), surface treatment options, decorative types, and use alteration types,

it appears that the upper two to three levels of every unit were characterized by intensified and

diversified pottery manufacture, use, and discard. The exceptions here are units J8, which, due









to its recent occupation, did not display this shift, and J3, in which the shift occurred in the lower

levels, suggesting a later occupation of this unit as well.

The fact that these changes are visible in every unit except the recently-occupied J8

suggests a sitewide shift to increased industrial productivity a shift that was a likely response to

some greater social, economic, or political shift in Gondarine community rather than small-

scale, individual changes in practice. The result appears to be a period in which the Beta Israel

were producing, using, and discarding their pottery at a level of intensity not seen in the earlier

periods of Abwara Giorgis occupation.

The reader will recall (see Chapter 2) the contrasting claims about the status of the Beta

Israel after the fall of the Gonder Era in the mid-18th century. Most modern historians (Hess

1969, Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1977, 1992) argue that this was a period of renewed repression and

persecution of the Beta Israel after the increased status they had enjoyed during the Gonder Era.

This argument states that during the Gonder Era the Beta Israel practiced higher-status

occupations than their traditional potting, weaving, and smithing, including architecture,

masonry, and serving in the king's army. The fall of Gonder forced the Beta Israel to revert to

their pre-Gondarine low status occupations smithing, weaving, and pottery.

This argument has been set against a backdrop of historical records that argue the 18th and

19th century Gonder Beta Israel were in fact "well off and prosperous" (Flad 1869). They are

frequently described by 18th-and 19th-century travelers as "house-builders" (Riippell 1838),

"masons" (Bruce 1790), and "architects" (Gobat 1851). In addition, other historians (Crummey

2000, Pankhurst 1969) argue that the large-scale construction of castles and churches that

characterized the Gonder Era did not cease after the mid-18th century. All of this suggests that










the reversion to pre-Gondarine occupations either did not occur or happened on a much smaller

scale.

Add to all of this the rapid and drastic increase and diversification in pottery that occurs in

the upper levels of this site, and this is exactly the sort of shift we might expect to see in a

community-wide adoption (or re-adoption, as the case may be) of pottery as one of the main

industries of Abwara Giorgis. In addition, the sitewide increase in variety in various pottery

attributes suggests that not only were the Beta Israel making as well as using and discarding -

more pottery, they were making pottery that was more diversified. This again, is exactly the

kind of shift we might expect to see at the end of the Gonder Era, in which social, political, and

economic centralization collapsed into a diverse and decentralized society. The shift to a more

diversified pottery industry may well have been a response to the demands of a new, diversified

and decentralized Gonder market.

Having presented this argument, it is necessary to point out that it is based on very limited

data. A small portion of the village of Abwara Giorgis was excavated a total of 24 square

meters and the resulting pottery sample is small and narrowly defined. Although large

quantities of pottery were recovered from the site, the vast maj ority of these were undecorated,

and often, as pointed out throughout this chapter, I was dealing with decorative types that

appeared on five potsherds or less.

The small sample size tempers definitive conclusions about why the site saw such a sudden

increase in pottery in the upper levels. The conclusions I have presented fit well into the model

of increased economic activity associated with the rise of the Era of the Princes, the most

compelling of alternatives. Another explanation may be that this period was associated with










increased occupation of the site, for increased population density may have caused an increase in

the presence of basic household items such as pottery.38
















































38However, histories of the Gonder Beta Israel do not associate the Era of the Princes with a rise in Beta Israel
population in fact, (see Chapter 2), this period is seen as the beginning of a fall in Gonder population as people
moved elsewhere for economic reasons. A rise in population is instead associated with the rise of the Gonder Era.
It is possible that the period in question represented the rise of the Gonder Era and associated population increase.
The available radiocarbon dates from the site make this less likely than the scenario I have presented, but the date
ranges do not rule this possibility out.










Table 6-1 Body sherd frequency by level
Stratigraphic Level Frequency Percent
Unit A2
LS-L1 600 45.7%
LS-L2 380 29.0%
LS-L3 251 19.1%
LS-L4 0 0.0%
LS-L5 11 0.8%
LS-L6 15 1.1%
LS-L7 55 4.2%
Total A2 pottery 1312 100.0%


*Note: these frequencies do not include
sherds recovered from wall cleaning or
whose provenience is otherwise unknown


Unit C4
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L2a
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
Total C4 pottery

Unit J3
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
Total J3 pottery

Unit J8
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
Total JS pottery

Unit F7G7
LS-L1
LS-L2


702
767
48
63
68
22
8
1678



220
216
797
987
36
2256



1037
58
46
132
20
1293



3192
939


41.8%
45.7%
2.9%
3.8%
4.1%
1.3%
0.5%
100.0%



9.8%
9.6%
35.3%
43.8%
1.6%
100.0%



80.2%
4.5%
3.6%
10.2%
1.5%
100.0%



63.1%
18.6%










Table 6-1 Continued
Stratigraphic Level
Unit F7G7 continued
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6
Total F7G7 pottery


Frequency


Percent


5.1%
3.4%
2.3%
3.7%
3.8%
100.0%


260
172
114
188
190
5055










Table 6-2 Summary of sherd types, AG 2004
Sherd Type
Unit A2
Rims
Decorated body
Handles
Bases
Necks
Feet
Shoulders
Rim and base sherds
Rim and handle sherds
Rim and neck sherds
Base and handle sherds
Spindle whorls
Diste lids
Unidentified
Total A2 pottery sherds

Unit C4
Rims
Decorated body
Handles
Bases
Necks
Shoulders
Rim and base sherds
Rim and handle sherds
Rim and neck sherds
Rim and shoulder sherds
Rim, base and neck sherds
Unidentified
Total C4 pottery sherds

Unit J3
Rims
Decorated body
Handles
Bases


Frequency


Percent


60.3%
14.4%
7.1%
3.2%
2.9%
0.3%
0.3%
8.3%
1.0%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
100.0%



51.7%
16.7%
9.3%
5.3%
4.2%
0.2%
9.7%
0.8%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
100.0%



64.3%
15.6%
6.2%
4.4%


188
45
22
10
9
1
1
26
3
2
1
1
1
2
312



244
79
44
25
20
1
46
4
3
1
1
4
472



322
78
31
22










Table 6-2 continued
Sherd Type Frequency Percent
Unit J3 con't
Necks 10 2.0%
Shoulders 5 1.0%
Feet 1 0.2%
Rim and base sherds 24 4.8%
Rim and handle sherds 1 0.2%
Rim and shoulder sherds 1 0.2%
Rim, neck and shoulder sherds 1 0.2%
Neck and shoulder sherds 2 0.4%
S indle whorls 3 0.6%
Total J3 pottery sherds 501 100.0%

Unit J8
Rims 121 62.4%
Decorated body 38 19.6%
Handles 13 6.7%
Bases 13 6.7%
Necks 6 3.1%
Feet 1 0.5%
Rim and base sherds 1 0.5%
Neck and shoulder sherds 1 0.5%
Total JS pottery sherds 194 100.0%

Unit F7G7
Rims 683 55.2%
Decorated body 268 21.6%
Handles 90 7.3%
Bases 57 4.6%
Necks 72 5.8%
Shoulders 1 0.1%
Feet 8 0.6%
Rim and base sherds 36 2.9%
Rim and neck sherds 9 0.7%
Rim and handle sherds 3 0.2%
Base and handle sherds 2 0.2%
Neck and shoulder sherds 1 0.1%
Base and foot sherds 1 0.1%










Table 6-2 continued
Sherd Type
Unit F7G7 con't
Rim, base and foot sherds
Unidentifiable
Total F7G7 pottery sherds

Unit G7-North
Rims
Decorated body
Handles
Bases
Necks
Feet
Rim and base sherds
Total G7-North pottery sherds

Unit G7-West
Rims
Necks
Total G7-West pottery sherds


Frequency


Percent


0.2%
0.4%
100.0%



57.1%
10.7%
1.8%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
1.8%
78.6%



83.3%
16.7%
100.0%


2
5
1238










Table 6-3 Descriptive statistics for rim diameter by vessel tp
Unit A2 count mean median sd range minimum maximum


diste
LS-L1 :
LS-L2 :
LS-L3
LS-L4 (
LS-L5 (
LS-L6 I
LS-L7 I
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7
jebena
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7


41.66667
33
32
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

13
9.714286
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


8.333333
4.242641
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

1.414214
3.093773
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

13.43503
0
9.712535
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


25
6
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2
8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

19
0
22
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


13
9
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

19.5
36
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


19.5
36
13.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a










Table 6-3 continued
Unit C4
diste


count mean median


sd range


max


LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
jebena
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5


25
24.57143
19
21
n/a
n/a

10
9.428571
14
10
n/a
n/a

29.33333
50
41
40
n/a
n/a


15.55635
9.50188
6.218253
7.071068
n/a
n/a

1.632993
3.408672
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

21.00794
0
12.72792
14.14214
n/a
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

17.05244
11.75949
6.429101
n/a
25.45584
n/a


18.25
18.57143
20.66667
n/a
30
n/a


Unit J3
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4


count mean median


sd range


max


20
16
15.28571
23.6


5.887841
4
6.848705
14.58767










Table 6-3 continued
LS-L5
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
jebena
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5


0 n/a n/a


n/a n/a


15.33333
21.33333
31.2
25.14286
n/a

42.66667
12
38
39.5
n/a


3.05505
6.429101
12.85302
7.559289
n/a

8.082904
n/a
3.464102
9.574271
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

16.52271
n/a
8.326664
7.72442
n/a

sd

1.414214
n/a
n/a


n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

36
0
16
16
0


range


19.5
24
12.66667
12.5
30


Unit J8
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L4
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L4
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L4
jebena
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L4


count mean median


max










Table 6-3 continued
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 4 8.5 10 3 6 4 10
LS-L2 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L3 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L4 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L4a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Unit F7G7 count mean median sd range min max
diste
LS-L1 44 32.90909 30 12.68916 42 8 50
LS-L2 25 32.16 30 14.37498 42 8 50
LS-L3 3 32 26 14 26 22 48
LS-L4 4 24.5 26 10.87811 26 10 36
LS-L4a 1 50 50 n/a 0 50 50
LS-L5 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L6 3 34 30 12.49 24 24 48
mnsera
LS-L1 26 12.03846 12 2.374544 10 8 18
LS-L2 18 12.05556 12 3.22622 12 8 20
LS-L3 1 12 12 n/a 0 12 12
LS-L4 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L4a 2 11 11 4.242641 6 8 14
LS-L5 1 12 12 n/a 0 12 12
LS-L6 1 12 12 n/a 0 12 12
mitad
LS-L1 4 49.5 50 1 2 48 50
LS-L2 6 47.66667 50 5.715476 14 36 50
LS-L3 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L4 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L4a 1 50 50 n/a 0 50 50
LS-L5 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L6 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 22 12.72727 10 9.592566 44 6 50
LS-L2 20 14.5 10 11.64158 44 6 50
LS-L3 2 10 10 5.656854 8 6 14
LS-L4 2 10 10 2.828427 4 8 12
LS-L4a 1 10 10 n/a 0 10 10
LS-L5 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L6 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a





sitewide patterns
diste
insera
mitad
jebena


Table 6-3 continued
Unit G7-North
diste
LS-L1
mnsera
LS-L1
mitad


count mean median


sd range


max


6 34.33333


39 17.13087


0 n/a n/a


n/a n/a

n/a n/a

n/a n/a


LS-L1
jebena
LS-L1
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1


0 n/a


0 n/a n/a


4 n/a 0


median
28
12
50


sd
12.92383
3.574368
11.18162


min
8
4
8


count mean
141 29.60993
84 12.08333
35 42.17143


range
42
24
42


max
50
28
50


0 n/a n/a n/a n/a


* the counts in this table only include rims large enough to measure diameter. A value of 0 count
indicates no rim sherds large enough to measure diameter










Table 6-4 Rim statistics in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage. A) Rim diameter frequencies. B)
rim thickness frequencies
Diameter Frequency Percent
Unit A2
too small to determine 192 87.7%
0.0-5.0 cm 1 0.5%
5.1-10.0 cm 7 3.2%
10.1-15.0 cm 6 2.7%
15.1-20.0 cm 1 0.5%
20.1-25.0 cm 1 0.5%
25.1-30.0 cm 5 2.3%
30.1-35.0 cm 1 0.5%
35.1-40.0 cm 3 1.4%
over 40.0 cm 2 0.9%
Total A2 rims 219 100.0%


Unit C4
too small to determine 242 80.7%
0.0-5.0 cm 2 0.7%
5.1-10.0 cm 15 5.0%
10.1-15.0 cm 11 3.7%
15.1-20.0 cm 7 2.3%
20.1-25.0 cm 3 1.0%
25.1-30.0 cm 8 2.7%
30.1-35.0 cm 1 0.3%
35.1-40.0 cm 4 1.3%
over 40.0 cm 7 2.3%
Total C4 rims 300 100.0%


Unit J3
too small to determine 287 82.5%
0.0-5.0 cm 2 0.6%
5.1-10.0 cm 8 2.3%
10.1-15.0 cm 11 3.2%
15.1-20.0 cm 8 2.3%
20.1-25.0 cm 8 2.3%
25.1-30.0 cm 10 2.9%
30.1-35.0 cm 3 0.9%
35.1-40.0 cm 4 1.1%










Table 6-4A continued
Diameter Frequency Percent
Unit J3 continued
over 40.0 cm 7 2.0%
Total J3 rims 348 100.0%


Unit J8
too small to determine 113 92.6%
0.0-5.0 cm 0 0.0%
5.1-10.0 cm 3 2.5%
10.1-15.0 cm 1 0.8%
15.1-20.0 cm 0 0.0%
20.1-25.0 cm 0 0.0%
25.1-30.0 cm 2 1.6%
30.1-35.0 cm 0 0.0%
35.1-40.0 cm 0 0.0%
over 40.0 cm 3 2.5%
Total JS rims 122 100.0%


Unit F7G7
too small to determine 552 75.0%
0.0-5.0 cm 0 0.0%
5.1-10.0 cm 45 6.1%
10.1-15.0 cm 35 4.8%
15.1-20.0 cm 19 2.6%
20.1-25.0 cm 14 1.9%
25.1-30.0 cm 20 2.7%
30.1-35.0 cm 1 0.1%
35.1-40.0 cm 12 1.6%
over 40.0 cm 38 5.2%
Total F7G7 rims 736 100.0%


Unit G7-North
too small to determine 25 75.8%
0.0-5.0 cm 1 3.0%
5.1-10.0 cm 1 3.0%
10.1-15.0 cm 1 3.0%
15.1-20.0 cm 1 3.0%










Table 6-4A continued
Diameter
Unit G7-North continued
20.1-25.0 cm
25.1-30.0 cm
30.1-35.0 cm
35.1-40.0 cm
over 40.0 cm
Total G7-North rims


Unit G7-West
too small to determine
Total G7-West rims


Frequency


Percent


0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
0.0%
9.1%
100.0%



100.0%
100.0%












Frequency


Percent


14.6%
26.9%
19.2%
24.7%
14.6%
100.0%



15.3%
19.3%
21.3%
32.0%
12.0%
100.0%



18.1%
20.4%
31.0%
20.7%
9.8%
100.0%



13.9%
19.7%
28.7%
29.5%
8.2%
100.0%



14.5%
22.9%
20.9%


32
59
42
54
32
219


46
58
64
96
36
300


Table 6-4B
Thickness
Unit A2
0.0-5.0 mm
5.1-10.0 mm
10.1-15.0 mm
15.1-20.0 mm
over 20.0 mm
Total A2 rims


Unit C4
0.0-5.0 mm
5.1-10.0 mm
10.1-15.0 mm
15.1-20.0 mm
over 20.0 mm
Total C4 rims


Unit J3
0.0-5.0 mm
5.1-10.0 mm
10.1-15.0 mm
15.1-20.0 mm
over 20.0 mm
Total J3 rims


Unit J8
0.0-5.0 mm
5.1-10.0 mm
10.1-15.0 mm
15.1-20.0 mm
over 20.0 mm
Total JS rims


Unit F7G7
0.0-5.0 mm
5.1-10.0 mm
10.1-15.0 mm










Table 6-4B continued
Thickness
Unit F7G7 continued
15.1-20.0 mm
over 20.0 mm
Total F7G7 rims


Unit G7-North
0.0-5.0 mm
5.1-10.0 mm
10.1-15.0 mm
15.1-20.0 mm
over 20.0 mm
Total G7-North rims


Unit G7-West
0.0-5.0 mm
5.1-10.0 mm
10.1-15.0 mm
15.1-20.0 mm
over 20.0 mm
Total G7-West rims


Frequency


Percent


32.2%
10.0%
100.4%



9.1%
36.4%
18.2%
27.3%
9.1%
100.0%



10.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%
100.0%











Table 6-5 Descriptive statistics for vessel wall thickness by vessel type
Unit A2 count mean median sd range min max


diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7


4 11.275
7 10.28571
5 12.42
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a
113.4

6 10.75
9 9.244444
3 10.7
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a

19 17.82632
8 15.1125
7 16.8
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a
118.3


11.2 3.479823 6.9
9.1 3.827718 10.6
13.5 2.326371 5.6
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
13.4 n/a 0

9.95 3.990363 10.1
9.8 2.387002 8.3
12.3 3.304542 6
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a

19.3 2.988095 10.3
14.55 3.006392 8.9
18.5 4.002083 11.3
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
18.3 n/a 0


7.9
7
9.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.4


14.8
17.6
14.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.4

15.6
12.5
12.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

21.7
18.9
21.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
18.3

n/a
4.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

36.2
27.8
29.7
n/a
16.6
n/a
16


11.4
10
10.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
18.3


jebena
LS-L1 0 n/a
LS-L2 1 4.9
LS-L3 0 n/a
LS-L4 0 n/a
LS-L5 0 n/a
LS-L6 0 n/a
LS-L7 0 n/a
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 80 13.8425
LS-L2 69 11.48841
LS-L3 45 10.82889
LS-L4 0 n/a
LS-L5 5 11.84
LS-L6 0 n/a
LS-L7 3 9.833333


n/a n/a
n/a 0
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a


11.75 7.544782 33.1
10.3 5.481373 26.2
8.9 5.783308 26.5
n/a n/a n/a
12.3 3.538785 9.8
n/a n/a n/a
9.4 5.961823 11.9











Table 6-5 continued
Unit C4
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
mnsera


count mean median


sd range min max


10.75
9.24
9.88
8.4
7.7
n/a


10.75
9.05
10.2
8.4
7.7
n/a

7.45
9.25
8.8
8.5
n/a
n/a

14
15
15.05
14.8
16.15
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

12.5
12.9
8.8
8.7
8
10.8


3.181981
2.890675
1.042593
1.979899
n/a
n/a

2.044912
17.04752
12.80283
2.867635
n/a
n/a

4.64065
2.260172
2.905168
2.881964
1.695161
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

5.941543
8.209579
7.984097
7.6406
7.08823
n/a


4.5
10.6
2.5
2.8
0
n/a

4.9
44.2
39.8
5.7
n/a
n/a

14.3
10.1
9
8.7
5.5
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

24.7
44.9
39.3
39.5
29.2
0


13
14.1
10.8
9.8
7.7
n/a

11
49.1
47.3
10.8
n/a
n/a

21.9
21.9
19
19
17.6
n/a


LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
jebena
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
unidentified
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5

Unit J3
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
mnsera
LS-L1


8.083333
17.48333
13.53333
8.133333
n/a
n/a

14.21818
15.22609
14.75
14.72857
15.675
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

12.6618
13.95294
11.2
11.25758
11.07778
10.8


7.6
11.8
10
10.3
12.1
n/a


0
0
0
0
0
0
vessel type
89
170
32
33
18
1


28.2
48.4
43.1
43.7
33.3
10.8


count mean median


sd range min max


7.966667
6.175
9.061111
11.4875
n/a


6.2
5.95
8.85
13
n/a


3.388573
0.788987
3.603452
3.616406
n/a


9.7
1.8
11.3
11.7
n/a


14.7
7.3
14.4
15.1
n/a


7 15.95714


14 11.46747 34.9 5.8 40.7










Table 6-5 continued
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
jebena


3 6.866667 6.8 0.11547 0.2 6.8
6 12.66667 10.65 5.504786 14.7 6.3
11 10.58182 10.3 4.026616 14.3 2.7
0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

4 14 12.7 3.481379 7.6 11.5
116.5 16.5 n/a 0 16.5
10 13.96 14.4 3.696304 11 7.4
28 13.49286 13.65 2.494131 11.1 6.6
0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a


19.1
16.5
18.4
17.7
n/a

7.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

26.4
32.6
22.2
41.4
19.2

max

12.1
n/a
9.3

16.5
16
n/a

18.2
17.2
23.6


LS-L1 1 7.3 7.3 n/a 0 7.3
LS-L2 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L3 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L4 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
LS-L5 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 73 11.53288 11.2 4.780343 21.9 4.5
LS-L2 22 14.615 12.85 8.084962 29.1 3.5
LS-L3 106 11.65094 11.6 5.151056 19.2 3
LS-L4 175 11.85429 11.4 6.475983 38.3 3.1
LS-L5 5 14.48 15.5 4.035096 8.9 10.3


Unit J8
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L4
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L4
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L4
jebena


count mean median


sd range min


10.75
n/a
9.3

10.3
16
n/a


11.15 1.515476 3.5
n/a n/a n/a
9.3 n/a 0

9.5 4.025632 10.5
16 n/a 0
n/a n/a n/a


9 14.82222
117.2
3 19.46667


15.5 1.958812 6.5 11.7
17.2 n/a 0 17.2
18.8 3.843609 7.6 16


LS-L1 0
LS-L2 0
LS-L4 0
unidentified vessel type


n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a


LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a


139 12.56115
2 9.55
5 15.32
15 12.52
1 19


12.1 6.715529 39.2 3.2
9.55 0.636396 0.9 9.1
15.2 2.134713 5.1 13.3
12.3 2.917484 10.6 7.3
19 n/a 0 19


42.4
10
18.4
17.9
19










Table 6-5 continued
Unit F7G7
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6
mnsera


count mean median


sd range min max


11.51127
12.89811
11.825
11.74
12.86667
10.2
12.66667

10.18767
11.56531
12.8875
n/a
8.75
5.35
10.56667

16.34348
16.13077
18.175
15
14.45
14.2
15.6

11.77838
12.98201
15.91923
10.46364
9.175
15.49375
14.6


11.8
12.3
11.65
12.4
12.6
10.2
13.3

9.2
10.1
14.35
n/a
8.75
5.35
8.8

15.8
15.5
19.1
15
14.45
14.2
16.5

10.4
12.7
14.5
8.95
7.6
13.9
14.5


4.464704
3.979828
2.418505
2.215401
1.320353
n/a
2.122106

3.731545
6.836469
4.254556
n/a
1.06066
2.474874
4.423046

3.408389
3.165202
5.481712
0.848528
0.070711
1.131371
3.732292

6.873378
7.434539
9.402733
5.691978
4.658155
11.6297
6.892853


30.9
18.2
4.6
5.2
2.6
0
4.1

21
47.2
11.5
n/a
1.5
3.5
8.3

16
15.8
12.1
1.2
0.1
1.6
7.3

51.3
53.8
46.5
20.5
14.2
49.6
32.6


4
4.5
9.7
8.8
11.7
10.2
10.3


34.9
22.7
14.3
14
14.3
10.2
14.4

25.7
51.1
19.1
n/a
9.5
7.1
15.6

23.6
25.6
23.3
15.6
14.5
15
18.8

52.8
56.7
50.7
24
18.8
53
37.2


LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6
unidentified
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6


23
39
4
2
2
2
3
vessel type
407
328
52
22
12
16
29


7.6
9.8
11.2
14.4
14.4
13.4
11.5

1.5
2.9
4.2
3.5
4.6
3.4
4.6


Unit G7-North
diste
LS-L1
mnsera
LS-L1
mitad
LS-L1


count mean median


sd range min max


10 12.07

4 13.425


12.3 5.192099 15.3 4.7 20

12.2 5.916854 13.9 7.7 21.6


2 18.05 18.05 1.484924 2.1 17 19.1

0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

0O 12.5 12.45 3.686676 12.6 6.7 19.3


jebena
LS-L1
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 2











Table 6-6 Descriptive statistics for rim diameters by vessel type
Unit A2 count mean median sd range min max


diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
LS-L6
LS-L7
mitad


4 13.4
7 9.857143
5 11.44
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a
15.2


3 9.433333
7 5.628571
2 5.8
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a
0 n/a


15.1 6.428063
7.6 5.687078
12.6 3.665106
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
5.2 n/a


9.7 2.709859
5.6 1.518458
5.8 3.676955
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a


21.1 4.056732
19 3.852249
17.2 3.095619
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
19.9 n/a


14.8
13.9
8.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
0


5.4
4.3
5.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


18.5
10.6
7.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
0


n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


20.2
21.3
19
n/a
9.4
n/a
5.2


19.1
18.1
15.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.2


12
7.5
8.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


27.2
24.1
21.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
19.9


n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


22.4
23.8
21.2
n/a
15.5
n/a
12.5


LS-L1 19 20.55263
LS-L2 8 18.5375
LS-L3 7 17.75714
LS-L4 0 n/a
LS-L5 0 n/a
LS-L6 0 n/a
LS-L7 1 19.9
jebena
LS-L1 0 n/a
LS-L2 0 n/a
LS-L3 0 n/a
LS-L4 0 n/a
LS-L5 0 n/a
LS-L6 0 n/a
LS-L7 0 n/a
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 55 12.33091
LS-L2 40 11.2575
LS-L3 29 8.603448
LS-L4 0 n/a
LS-L5 3 11.13333
LS-L6 0 n/a
LS-L7 2 9.9


8.7
13.5
13.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
19.9


n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


2.2
2.5
2.2
n/a
6.1
n/a
7.3


11.9 6.043174
11.2 5.992726
8 4.764863
n/a n/a
11.8 4.735328
n/a n/a
9.9 3.676955











Table 6-6 continued
Unit C4
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
jebena


count mean median


sd range


min max


2 9.9
8 9.925
5 8.2
2 8.2
16.1
0 n/a


4 5.2
9 6.811111
110.2
1 2.9
0 n/a
0 n/a


11 16.32727
23 19.32609
8 15.45
7 16.45714
8 15.675
0 n/a


9.9 0.989949 1.4
8.7 4.771568 15.9
8.3 3.345146 8.7
8.2 5.656854 8
6.1 n/a 0
n/a n/a n/a


5.35 0.983192 2.1
6.8 3.073046 10.4
10.2 n/a 0
2.9 n/a 0
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a


19.4 6.803983 18.1
18 4.29357 15
16 3.003331 9.7
17.2 7.436589 21.3
16.4 2.135248 6.4
n/a n/a n/a


10.6
18.5
13.3
12.2
6.1
n/a


6.1
14
10.2
2.9
n/a
n/a


22.5
28.7
19
28.1
17.6
n/a


n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


27.6
23.3
20.5
21.3
15
7.2


4
3.6
10.2
2.9
n/a
n/a


4.4
13.7
9.3
6.8
11.2
n/a


LS-L1 0 n/a
LS-L2 0 n/a
LS-L3 0 n/a
LS-L3a 0 n/a
LS-L4 0 n/a
LS-L5 0 n/a
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 56 13.52143
LS-L2 94 13.45745
LS-L3 19 10.12105
LS-L3a 17 10.14118
LS-L4 8 8.8625
LS-L5 1 7.2


n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a


13.15 6.114713 25.1
14.9 5.677677 20.9
8.6 5.61927 18
11.6 6.915296 18.8
6.65 4.781493 12.4
7.2 n/a 0




























































diste


Table 6-6 continued
Unit J3
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
jebena
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5


count mean median


sd range


min max


11 7.563636
4 4.65
16 9.04375
8 11.375
0 n/a


5 11.58
3 5.333333
5 9.48
2 5.4
0 n/a


4 16.575
119
10 17.15
28 15.90357
0 n/a


6 4.173553 11.2
4.9 1.204159 2.6
10.1 5.317013 15.3
12.65 4.547448 14.7
n/a n/a n/a


13.5 7. 104013 15.7
5.4 0.90185 1.8
10.2 3.446302 8.5
5.4 3.818377 5.4
n/a n/a n/a


15.95 3.725923 8.4
19 n/a 0
19.7 5.320662 16.7
15.7 4.124766 16.7
n/a n/a n/a


13.8
5.7
18.1
17.6
n/a


19.4
6.2
12
8.1
n/a


21.4
19
23.2
22
n/a


n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a


unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 45 11.03111
LS-L2 10 13
LS-L3 70 13.31429
LS-L4 116 11.42241
LS-L5 5 13.38


11.4 5.256201 18.3
12.4 8.853248 22.2
14.6 6.097999 21.1
11.1 5.725475 25.6
13.2 2.339231 5.6


dian sd range


2.9
3.5
2.2
2.4
10.2


min


21.2
25.7
23.3
28
15.8


max


Unit J8


count mean me


LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2


4 10.975
0 n/a
3 11.1
1 8.2


3 7.666667
0 n/a


10.4 3.130894 7.1
n/a n/a n/a
7.3 10.90825 20.8
8.2 n/a 0


6.2 3.074627 5.6
n/a n/a n/a


15.1
n/a
23.4
8.2


11.2
n/a











Table 6-6 continued
LS-L3
LS-L4
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
jebena


n/a n/a
n/a n/a


9 16.67778
116.9
1 25.1
3 18.36667


16.9 4.468998 14.6
16.9 n/a 0
25.1 n/a 0
18.4 2.150194 4.3


11.2
16.9
25.1
16.2


n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


2
n/a
11.2
4.9
n/a


25.8
16.9
25.1
20.5


n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a


26.3
n/a
17
19
n/a


LS-L1 0 n/a
LS-L2 0 n/a
LS-L3 0 n/a
LS-L4 0 n/a
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 85 12.27059
LS-L2 0 n/a
LS-L3 3 13.7
LS-L4 9 12.15556
LS-L4a 0 n/a


n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a


14.1 6.003646 24.3
n/a n/a n/a
12.9 2.98161 5.8
11.4 4.490855 14.1
n/a n/a n/a


Unit F7G7
diste
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6
mnsera
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6
mitad
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3


median


sd range


count mean


70 13.17714
49 13.72041
4 8.85
5 12.42
3 14.13333
112.9
3 15.8


36 7.147222
24 7.604167
2 6.8
0 n/a
2 4.95
17.2
18.3


22 21.87727
39 17.4
4 18.125


min max


15.9 6.288203
15.6 4.932079
7.35 4.081258
12.3 5.147524
14.7 2.793445
12.9 n/a
16.1 1.473092


6.75 2.040236
7.6 2.322195
6.8 0.707107
n/a n/a
4.95 3.323402
7.2 n/a
8.3 n/a


22.7 4.013778
17.6 4.204884
17.95 1.132475


20.4
20.8
8.7
13.8
5.5
0
2.9


9.9
11.7


n/a
4.7
0
0


16.2
18
2.4


2.4
2.4
6
4.3
11.1
12.9
14.2


22.8
23.2
14.7
18.1
16.6
12.9
17.1


13.4
14
7.3
n/a
7.3
7.2
8.3


27.8
25.9
19.5


11.6
7.9
17.1

































diste


Table 6-6 continued
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6


2 17.95 17.95 7.000357
2 12.8 12.8 0.141421
2 15.2 15.2 2.404163
3 17.4 17.5 0.556776


13
12.7
13.5
16.8


1.8
1.8
2.9
2.6
2.7
1.5
2.7


min


22.9
12.9
16.9
17.9


27.6
25.2
25.7
16.2
18.8
20.1
17.8


max


unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 186 11.87151 12.65 6.694548 25.8
LS-L2 183 12.84863 14.2 5.557579 23.4
LS-L3 28 12.95714 13.05 5.477119 22.8
LS-L4 12 8.891667 9.25 5.206545 13.6
LS-L4a 5 11.44 11.9 6.693504 16.1
LS-L5 10 12.29 15.1 6.453328 18.6
LS-L6 22 12.01818 12.95 4.377283 15.1


Unit G7-North


count mean median


sd range


LS-L1
mnsera
LS-L1
mitad


10 13.17 13.15 7.150765 18.1


3.8 21.9


7.7 n/a


22 6.815668


0 7.7 7.7


12 10.4 22.4


LS-L1 3 18.26667
jebena
LS-L1 0 n/a
unidentified vessel type
LS-L1 27 11.62222


n/a n/a


n/a


10.5 4.834916 16.5


3.2 19.7










Table 6-7 Vessel types at AG 2004
Unit A2 insera diste mitad jebena refers to total diagnostic
N sherds per level
LS-L 1 (N=111)* 6 5.4% 4 3.6% 19 17.1% 0 0.0% (see Table 6-10)
LS-L2 (N=95) 9 9.5% 7 7.4% 8 8.4% 1 1.1%
LS-L3 (N=60) 3 5.0% 5 8.3% 7 11.7% 0 0.0%
LS-L4 (N=0) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
LS-L5 (N=5) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
LS-L6 (N=0) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0%
LS-L7 (N=5) 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0%

Unit C4 insera diste mitad jebena
N %N % N % N %
LS-L1 (N=108) 6 5.6% 2 1.9% 11 10.2% 0 0.0%
LS-L2 (N=215) 12 5.6% 10 4.7% 23 10.7% 0 0.0%
LS-L3 (N=54) 9 16.7% 5 9.3% 8 14.8% 0 0.0%
LS-L3a (N=45) 3 6.7% 2 4.4% 7 15.6% 0 0.0%
LS-L4 (N=27) 0 0.0% 13.7% 8 29.6% 0 0.0%
LS-L5 (N=1) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Unit J3 insera diste mitad jebena
N %N % N % N %
LS-L1 (N=100) 7 7.0% 12 12.0% 4 4.0% 11.0%
LS-L2 (N=30) 3 10.0% 4 13.3% 13.3% 0 0.0%
LS-L3 (N=140) 6 4.3% 18 12.9% 10 7.1% 0 0.0%
LS-L4 (N=222) 10 4.5% 8 3.6% 28 12.6% 0 0.0%
LS-L5 (N=6) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Unit J8 insera diste mitad jebena
N %N % N % N %
LS-L1 (N=160) 8 5.0% 4 2.5% 9 5.6% 0 0.0%
LS-L2 (N=4) 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0%
LS-L3 (N=10) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
LS-L4 (N=19) 0 0.0% 1 5.3% 3 15.8% 0 0.0%
LS-L4a (N=1) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Unit F7G7 insera diste mitad jebena
N %N % N % N %
LS-L1 (N=576) 73 12.7% 71 12.3% 23 4.0% 0 0.0%
LS-L2 (N=469) 49 10.4% 53 11.3% 39 8.3% 0 0.0%
LS-L3 (N=68) 8 11.8% 4 5.9% 4 5.9% 0 0.0%
LS-L4 (N=29) 0 0.0% 5 17.2% 2 6.9% 0 0.0%
LS-L4a (N=19) 2 10.5% 3 15.8% 2 10.5% 0 0.0%
LS-L5 (N=21) 2 9.5% 1 4.8% 2 9.5% 0 0.0%
LS-L6 (N=38) 3 7.9% 3 7.9% 3 7.9% 0 0.0%









Table 6-8 Decoration elements in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage
Decorative Motif Name Example


1. Horizontal Line

2. Vertical Line

3. Diagonal Line

4. Line (Direction indeterminate)

5. Zigzag Line

6. Wavy Line

7. Fingernail or Stick Crescent

8. Finger Impression

9. Circle

10. Criss-Cross Lmnes

11. Finger Pinch

12. V-o\erlalp

13. Concentric U

14. V with Lines

15. Indeterminate

16j. Triangle

17. Lug


O

~d~29~P~i,- -~T

.\









Table 6-9 Decoration methods in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage

Decorative Method Description
the surface of the clay is impressed by a narrow tool, leaving
Punctates an ovaloid depression

Incisions the surface of the clay is cut by a sharp instrument

Appliques an added piece of clay

Incised applique an incised design upon an applique
a protrusion usually produced by pinching clay into a
Ridge horizontal line
the result of repeatedly impressing a tool with a carved design
Stamping into the clay
the result of a tool pressed into the clay and drawn across an
Dragged impressions area
the result of a tool drawn lightly across the surface, resulting
Grooving in a shallow depression


Finger dimpling

Finger dimpling on applique

Fingernail/stick impressions

Paint on porcelain


impressions made by the tip(s) of the finger

impressions upon an applique
crescent-shaped impressions produced by a fingernail or other
small tool

imported whiteware











*Note: these frequencies do not include
sherds recovered from wall cleaning or
whose provenience is otherwise unknown


Table 6-10 Diagnostic pottery frequency by level
Stratigraphic Level Frequency Percent
Unit A2
LS-L1 111 40.2%
LS-L2 95 34.4%
LS-L3 60 21.7%
LS-L4 0 0.0%
LS-L5 5 1.8%
LS-L6 0 0.0%
LS-L7 5 1.8%
Total A2 pottery 276 100.0%


Unit C4
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L3a
LS-L4
LS-L5
Total C4 pottery

Unit J3
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L5
Total J3 pottery

Unit J8
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
Total JS pottery


108
215
54
45
27
1
450



100
30
140
222
6
498



160
4
10
19
1
194


24.0%
47.8%
12.0%
10.0%
6.0%
0.2%
100.0%



20.1%
6.0%
28.1%
44.6%
1.2%
100.0%



82.5%
2.1%
5.2%
9.8%
0.5%
100.0%










Table 6-10 continued
Stratigraphic Level
Unit F7G7
LS-L1
LS-L2
LS-L3
LS-L4
LS-L4a
LS-L5
LS-L6
Total F7G7 pottery


Frequency


Percent


576 47.2%
469 38.4%
68 5.6%
29 2.4%
19 1.6%
21 1.7%


38
1220


3.1%
100.0%










Table 6-11 Inclusion types in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage
Inclusion Type Sherd Frequency Percent
Unit A2
No inclusions 17 5.4%
Quartz 12 3.8%
Mica 19 6.1%
Grog 159 51.0%
Ash 9 2.9%
Quartz and mica 3 1.0%
Grog and ash 25 8.0%
Quartz and ash 4 1.3%
Quartz and grog 31 9.9%
Mica and grog 32 10.3%
Quartz, mica and grog 1 0.3%
Total A2 312 100.0%

Unit C4
No inclusions 35 7.4%
Quartz 29 6.1%
Mica 36 7.6%
Grog 207 43.9%
Ash 40 8.5%
Quartz and mica 6 1.3%
Grog and ash 25 5.3%
Quartz and ash 7 1.5%
Quartz, grog, and ash 2 0.4%
Mica and ash 4 0.8%
Quartz and grog 48 10.2%
Mica and grog 29 6.1%
Quartz, mica and grog 4 0.8%
Total C4 472 100.0%

Unit J3
No inclusions 24 4.8%
Quartz 6 1.2%
Mica 52 10.4%
Grog 158 31.5%
Ash 79 15.8%
Quartz and mica 3 0.6%
Grog and ash 38 7.6%










Table 6-11 continued
Inclusion Type Sherd Frequency Percent
Unit J3 continued
Quartz and ash 24 4.8%
Mica and ash 31 6.2%
Quartz, grog and ash 7 1.4%
Quartz and grog 21 4.2%
Mica and grog 42 8.4%
Quartz, mica and grog 6 1.2%
Quartz, mica and ash 6 1.2%
Mica, grog and ash 4 0.8%
Total J3 501 100.0%

Unit J8
No inclusions 14 7.2%
Quartz 12 6.2%
Mica 18 9.3%
Grog 101 52.1%
Ash 12 6.2%
Quartz and mica 1 0.5%
Grog and ash 5 2.6%
Quartz and ash 1 0.5%
Quartz and grog 20 10.3%
Mica and grog 7 3.6%
Quartz, mica and grog 3 1.5%
Total JS 194 100.0%

Unit F7G7
No inclusions 62 5.0%
Quartz 25 2.0%
Mica 90 7.3%
Grog 332 26.8%
Ash 343 27.7%
Quartz and mica 6 0.5%
Grog and ash 211 17.0%
Quartz and ash 36 2.9%
Mica and ash 28 2.3%
Quartz, grog and ash 17 1.4%
Quartz and grog 35 2.8%
Mica and grog 38 3.1%










Table 6-11 continued
Inclusion Type Sherd Frequency Percent
Unit F7G7 continued
Quartz, mica and grog 4 0.3%
Quartz, mica and ash 3 0.2%
Mica, grog and ash 7 0.6%
Quartz, mica, grog and
ash 1 0.1%
Total F7G7 1238 100.0%

Unit G7-North
No inclusions 0 0.0%
Quartz 0 0.0%
Mica 0 0.0%
Grog 15 34.1%
Ash 15 34.1%
Quartz and mica 1 2.3%
Grog and ash 6 13.6%
Quartz and ash 1 2.3%
Quartz and grog 3 6.8%
Mica and grog 3 6.8%
Total G7-North 44 100.0%

Unit G7-West
No inclusions 1 8.3%
Quartz 0 0.0%
Mica 1 8.3%
Grog 1 8.3%
Ash 3 25.0%
Grog and ash 2 16.7%
Quartz and ash 3 25.0%
Quartz, grog and ash 1 8.3%
Total G7-West 12 100.0%










Table 6-12 Surface treatment patterns in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage
Unit A2 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4
N % N % N % N
Diste


LS-L5


LS-L6


LS-L7


%N %


Interior and exterior slip
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior slip/exterior
burnish

Insera
Interior and exterior slip
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip

Mitad
Interior and exterior slip
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip

Unidentified vessel types
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior and exterior
smooth


3 75.0% 4 57.1% 2 40.0%

1 25.0%


1 100.0%


3 42.9% 3 60.0%


3 50.0% 7 77.8% 2 66.7%

3 50.0%


1 11.1%


1 11.1% 1 33.3%


5 26.3% 2 28.6%

10 52.6% 4 57.1% 7 100.0%

4 21.1% 1 14.3%





38 70.4% 23 53.5% 21 58.3%

4 7.4% 4 9.3% 4 11.1%


1 100.0%


2 100.0%


1 50.0%


1 1.9% 1 2.3%










Table 6-12 continued
Interior and exterior plain
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior smooth/exterior
burnish
Interior smooth/exterior
slip


1 2.3%

7 13.0% 5 11.6% 3 8.3%

4 7.4% 5 11.6% 4 11.1%

1 2.3% 1 2.8%

3 7.0% 3 8.3%


1 50.0%


LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4
%N %N %N


LS-L5


Diste
Interior and exterior slip
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip

Insera
Interior and exterior slip
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior plain/exterior slip


1 50.0% 8 80.0% 1 20.0% 2 100.0%

1 50.0%


1 20.0% 3 60.0%


1 100.0%


1 20.0%


1 20.0%


5 83.3% 6 54.5%


2 66.7%


1 9.1% 4 44.4% 1 33.3%

1 9.1%


1 16.7% 2
1


18.2%
9.1%


5 55.6%


Unit C4











Table 6-12 continued
Mitad
Interior and exterior slip
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior slip/exterior plain
Interior and exterior
burnish


Unidentified vessel types
Interior and exterior slip
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior plain/exterior slip
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Interior smooth/exterior
burnish


5 55.6% 5 22.7% 3 42.8% 2 28.6% 2 28.6%

2 22.2% 6 27.3% 2 28.6% 5 71.4% 4 57.1%


10 45.5% 2 28.6%


1 14.3%


11.1%
11.1%


1 4.5%



35 67.3% 72 57.1% 18 64.3% 19 73.1% 9 60.0% 1 100.0%

5 9.6% 13 10.3% 1 3.6% 3 11.5% 3 20.0%

2 3.8% 5 4.0%

3 5.8% 7 5.6% 7 25.0% 1 3.8% 1 6.7%


2.4%
8.0%


1 3.8%


3
3 5.8% 10


3.6%


4 7.7% 13 10.3% 1 3.6% 2 7.7% 2 13.3%

3 2.4%


Unit J3


LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L3


LS-L4


%N %N %


Diste
Interior and exterior slip


8 66.7% 4 100.0% 10 55.6%


2 25.0%













1 8.3%

2 16.7%

1 8.3%


2 11.1% 5 62.5%

1 5.6%

3 16.7%


1 12.5%


1 5.6%

1 5.6%


1 16.7% 2 66.7% 2 33.3% 4 44.4%

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

1 16.7% 1 33.3%


3 50.0% 4
1


44.4%
11.1%


2 33.3%


1 16.7%


Table 6-12 continued
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior and exterior
smoothing
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior bumnish/exterior
smooth

Insera
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior and exterior
smooth
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior plain/exterior slip
Interior smooth/exterior
burnish

Mitad
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
smooth
Interior slip/exterior
burnish


2 66.7%

1 33.3%


1 10.0% 7 25.0%


1 100.0% 9 90.0% 19 67.9%











Table 6-12 continued
Interior slip/exterior plain

Jebena
Interior smooth/exterior
burnish


Unidentified vessel types
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior and exterior
smooth
Interior and exterior slip &
burnish
Interior and exterior plain
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior bumnish/exterior
smooth
Interior plain/exterior slip
Interior plain/exterior
burnish
Interior plain/exterior
smooth
Interior smooth/exterior
burnish


2 7.1%


1 100.0%


24 41.4% 9 75.0% 27 44.3% 81 63.3% 1 33.3%


6 10.3%


10 16.4% 10 7.8%


3 5.2% 1 8.3% 4 6.6%


1.7%
1.7%


1 1.6%


2 3.4%


21 16.4% 1 33.3%


2 16.7% 8 13.1% 2 1.6%


6 10.3%

1 1.7%


1 1.6% 6 4.7% 1 33.3%

7 11.5% 7 5.5%


1.7%
3.4%


3 4.9%


4 6.9%

1 1.7%

6 10.3%


1 0.8%












LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L4
%N %


1 25.0%

1 25.0%

2 50.0%


1 100.0%


5 62.5%

3 37.5% 1 100.0%


4 44.4% 1 100.0% 1 25.0%


5 55.5%


3 75.0%


Table 6-12 continued
Unit J8

Diste
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
burnish

Insera
Interior and exterior slip
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip

Mitad
Interior and exterior slip
Interior slip/exterior
burnish


Unidentified vessel types
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior and exterior
smooth
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
smooth
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior bumnish/exterior
smooth


67 70.5% 1 100.0% 3 100.0% 5 71.4%

4 4.2%

2 2.1%

11 11.6%

2 2.1%


7 7.4%

1 1.1%


2 28.6%










Table 6-12 continued
Interior smooth/exterior
slip


1 1.1%


Unit F7G7


LS-L1 LS-L2
N % N %N


LS-L3


LS-L4
% N


LS-L4a
I %N


LS-L5


LS-L6


% N


Diste
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip

Insera
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip

Mitad
Interior and exterior slip
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior polish

Unidentified vessel types
Interior and exterior slip


45 63.4% 38


73.1% 2 50.0% 4 100.0% 3 100.0% 1 100.0% 3 100.0%


7 9.9%


18 25.4% 14


26.9% 2 50.0%


1 1.4%


50 74.6% 27


61.4% 2 28.6%


1 50.0% 2 100.0% 1 50.0%


1 1.5%


1 2.3%


16 23.9% 16


36.3% 5 71.4%


1 50.0%


1 50.0%


2 8.7% 18 46.2% 3 75.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 3 100.0%

2 8.7%


78.3% 21
4.3%


53.8% 1 25.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0%


182 56.2% 167 61.2% 21 56.8% 14 77.8% 7 70.0% 8 57.1% 13 61.9%











Table 6-12 continued
Interior and exterior
burnish
Interior slip/exterior
burnish
Interior bumnish/exterior
slip
Interior smooth/exterior
burnish
Interior smooth/exterior
slip
Porcelain glaze


20 6.2% 3 1.1% 1 2.7% 1 5.6%


37 11.4% 50 18.3% 8 21.6% 1

74 22.8% 51 18.7% 7 18.9% 1


5.6% 1 10.0% 4 28.6% 6 28.6%


5.6% 2 20.0% 2 14.3% 2


9.5%


2 0.6%

9 2.8% 2 0.7%


1 5.6%









Table 6-13 Decoration types in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage
Decoration Type Frequency Percent
Unit A2
No decoration 236 75.6%
Single incised horizontal line 1 0.3%
Single incised line (direction uid) 1 0.3%
Incised zigzag line 2 0.6%
Incised wavy line on applique 1 0.3%
Single applique horizontal line 3 1.0%
Single applique line (direction uid) 23 7.4%
Appliques lug 2 0.6%
Single grooved line (direction uid) 2 0.6%
Dragged impressed wavy line 1 0.3%
Finger pinch in line (direction uid) 1 0.3%
Incised horizontal lines (on ext and int rim) 2 0.6%
Incised horizontal and zigzag lines 8 2.6%
Incised horizontal and vertical lines 2 0.6%
Incised horizontal and V-overlap lines 1 0.3%
Finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions 1 0.3%
Multiple applique lines (in same direction) 6 1.9%
Multiple grooved lines (in same direction) 7 2.2%
Multiple incised lines (in same direction) 9 2.9%
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and zigzag line 2 0.6%
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and diagonal lines 1 0.3%
A2 Decoration Total 312 100.0%

Unit C4
No decoration 349 73.9%
Single incised horizontal line 1 0.2%
Single incised line (direction uid) 2 0.4%
Single applique horizontal line 9 1.9%
Single applique line (direction uid) 37 7.8%
Appliques lug 2 0.4%
Single grooved line (direction uid) 1 0.2%
Finger impressions 2 0.4%
Fingernail/stick crescent 1 0.2%
Finger impressions on applique line 2 0.4%

multiple= 2 or more
red text = decoration type is unique to that unit










Table 6-13 continued
Decoration Type
Unit C4 continued
Incised horizontal lines (on ext and int rim)
Incised horizontal and zigzag lines
Incised horizontal and diagonal lines
Appliques horizontal lines and grooved diagonal lines
Appliques line and incised zigzag line
Finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions
Multiple applique lines (in same direction)
Multiple grooved lines (in same direction)
Multiple incised lines (in same direction)
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and zigzag line
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and concentric U
Incised vertical and wavy line
C4 Decoration Total


Unit J3
No decoration
Single incised horizontal line
Single incised line (direction uid)
Incised zigzag line
Single applique horizontal line
Single applique line (direction uid)
Appliques circle
Ridge, horizontal
Single dragged grooved line (direction uid)
Finger pinch in line (direction uid)
Finger impressions
Fingernail/stick crescent
Incised horizontal lines (on ext and int rim)
Incised horizontal and zigzag lines
Incised horizontal and diagonal lines
Incised horizontal and wavy lines
Finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions
Multiple applique lines (in same direction)
Multiple grooved lines (in same direction)
Multiple incised lines (in same direction)
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and zigzag line


Frequency Percent


6
7
3
1
1
2
17
5
17
5
1
1
472


1.3%
1.5%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
3.6%
1.1%
3.6%
1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
100.0%



74.1%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
2.6%
6.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
1.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
4.0%
0.8%
6.0%
0.6%


371
3
1
1
13
33
1
1
4
2
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
20
4
30
3










Tale 6-13 continued
Decoration Type Frequency Percent
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and V-overlap lines 1 0.2%
J3 Decoration Total 501 100.0%

Unit J8
No decoration 140 72.2%
Single incised horizontal line 2 1.0%
Single applique horizontal line 2 1.0%
Single applique line (direction uid) 19 9.8%
Appliques lug 1 0.5%
Incised horizontal and zigzag lines 4 2.1%
Incised horizontal and vertical lines 1 0.5%
Incised diagonal and direction-uid lines 1 0.5%
Incised wavy lines and applique line 2 1.0%
Incised horizontal lines and concentric U 1 0.5%
Appliques line and incised zigzag line 1 0.5%
Finger pinch and fingernail crescents 1 0.5%
Multiple applique lines (in same direction) 5 2.6%
Multiple grooved lines (in same direction) 1 0.5%
Multiple incised lines (in same direction) 9 4.6%
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and zigzag line 1 0.5%
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and concentric U 1 0.5%
Incised vertical and diagonal lines 2 1.0%
JS Decoration Total 194 100.0%

Unit F7G7
No decoration 851 68.7%
Punctate triangle 1 0.1%
Single incised horizontal line 3 0.2%
Single incised line (direction uid) 4 0.3%
Incised criss-cross lines 1 0.1%
Incised V with lines 1 0.1%
Single applique horizontal line 34 2.7%
Single applique line (direction uid) 88 7.1%
Appliques lug 9 0.7%
Single grooved line (direction uid) 14 1.1%
Dragged impressed wavy line 1 0.1%
Finger impressions 3 0.2%










Table 6-13 continued
Decoration Type
Unit F7G7 continued
Fingernail/stick crescent
Finger impressions on applique line
Paint on porcelain, horizontal line
Incised concentric U
Incised horizontal lines (on ext and int rim)
Incised horizontal and zigzag lines
Incised horizontal lines and punctate circles
Incised horizontal and vertical lines
Incised diagonal and direction-uid lines
Incised horizontal and wavy lines
Incised horizontal lines and V with lines
Appliques horizontal lines and incised V with lines
Appliques horizontal lines and incised diagonal lines
Appliques vertical and horizontal lines
Appliques lug and incised lines
Appliques horizontal line and grooved vertical line
Finger pinch and fingernail crescents
Appliques wavy line
Finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions
Multiple applique lines (in same direction)
Multiple grooved lines (in same direction)
Multiple incised lines (in same direction)
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and zigzag line
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and concentric U
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and di gonal lines
F7G7 Decoration Total


Unit G7-North
No decoration
Single applique line (direction uid)
Stamp circle
Multiple applique lines (in same direction)
Multiple grooved lines (in same direction)
Multiple incised lines (in same direction)
Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and zigzag line
G7-North Decoration Total


Frequency Percent


3
2
1
1
1
13
1
4
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
4
1
4
49
68
53
8
2
1
1238


0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
1.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.3%
4.0%
5.5%
4.3%
0.6%
0.2%
0.1%
100.0%



85.7%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
5.4%
1.8%
1.8%
100.0%










Table 6-14 Decoration locations in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage
Location of decoration Frequency Percent
Unit A2
No decoration 236 75.6%
Exterior body 35 11.2%
Exterior rim 8 2.6%
Exterior base 1 0.3%
Exterior neck 5 1.6%
Handle 1 0.3%
Shoulder 1 0.3%
Interior rim 1 0.3%
Body: side unidentified (uid) 15 4.8%
Rim: side uid 1 0.3%
Exterior throat 1 0.3%
Interior and exterior rim 5 1.6%
Exterior body and rim 1 0.3%
Exterior body and neck 1 0.3%
Total A2 decoration 312 100.0%


Unit C4
No decoration 350 74.2%
Exterior body 47 10.0%
Exterior rim 6 1.3%
Exterior neck 7 1.5%
Handle 1 0.2%
Interior rim 5 1.1%
Body: side unidentified (uid) 38 8.1%
Exterior throat 4 0.8%
Interior and exterior rim 11 2.3%
Interior and exterior body 1 0.2%
Exterior neck and throat 2 0.4%
Total C4 decoration 472 100.0%


Unit J3
No decoration 371 74.1%
Exterior body 53 10.6%
Exterior rim 8 1.6%
Exterior base 1 0.2%
Exterior neck 2 0.4%










Table 6-14 continued
Location of decoration
Unit J3 continued
Shoulder
Interior rim
Body: side unidentified (uid)
Rim: side uid
Exterior lip
Lip: side uid
Exterior throat
Interior and exterior rim
Exterior body and rim
Interior body and rim
Exterior neck and shoulder
Total J3 decoration


Unit J8
No decoration
Exterior body
Exterior rim
Exterior neck
Body: side unidentified (uid)
Interior and exterior rim
Interior and exterior body
Exterior body and rim
Total JS decoration


Unit F7G7
No decoration
Exterior body
Exterior rim
Exterior base
Exterior neck
Handle
Shoulder
Interior rim
Body: side unidentified (uid)
Rim: side uid
Exterior throat


Frequency


Percent


1.0%
0.4%
7.8%
0.4%
1.2%
0.2%
0.4%
1.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
100.0%



72.2%
13.4%
2.6%
1.0%
8.8%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
100.0%



68.9%
21.7%
1.5%
0.2%
1.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
2.8%
0.2%
1.8%


5
2
39
2
6
1
2
5
2
1
1
501


140
26
5
2
17
2
1
1
194


853
269
19
2
15
1
2
2
35
2
22










Table 6-14 continued
Location of decoration
Unit F7G7 continued
Interior and exterior rim
Exterior neck and shoulder
Exterior body and rim
Exterior rim and throat
Exterior neck and throat
Total F7G7 decoration


Unit G7-North
No decoration
Exterior body
Exterior neck
Body: side unidentified (uid)
Interior and exterior rim
Total G7-North decoration


Frequency


Percent


0.9%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
100.0%



85.7%
7.1%
1.8%
3.6%
1.8%
100.0%


11
1
2
1
1
1238










Table 6-15 Use alteration frequencies in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage
Unit A2: exterior use wear


LS-L1

25.0%
50.0%
S0.0%
25.0%
S0.0%


LS-L2
N %
0 0.0%
4 57.1%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
2 28.6%


LS-L3
N %
0 0.0%
2 40.0%
1 20.0%
120.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L4
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L5
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L6
N % N
0 0.0% 1
0 0.0% 0
0 0.0% 0
0 0.0% 0
0 0.0% 0


LS-L7

100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


Diste
None
Erosion
Pitting
Dull soot
Erosion and
dull soot
Erosion and
scratches
Dull soot and
cracking
Total

Insera
None
Erosion
Scratches
Rim chips
Total

Mitad
None
Erosion
Pitting
Scratches
Rim chips
Cracking
Erosion and
dull soot
Pitting and
dull soot
Cracking and
dull soot
Total


0 0.0% 1 14.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%


4 100.0% 7 100.0%


5 100.0%


50.0%
33.3%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%


5.3%
47.4%
15.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.8%


33.3%
22.2%
33.3%
11.1%
100.0%


12.5%
62.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%


0.0%
28.6%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
42.9%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 1
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


2 10.5% 0 0.0% 1 14.3%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0


0.0%


19 100.0% 8 100.0%


0 0.0% 1 100.0%


7 100.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%


Jebena
None


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0


0.0%


LS-L7

100.0%
0.0%
0.0%


Unit A2: interior use wear
LS-L1


LS-L2
N %
2 28.6%
2 28.6%
3 42.9%


LS-L3
N %
120.0%
1 20.0%
2 40.0%


LS-L4
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L5
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L6
N % N
0 0.0% 1
0 0.0% 0
0 0.0% 0


Diste
None
Erosion
Scratches


N %
125.0%
1 25.0%
2 50.0%










Table 6-15 continued


Erosion ,
scratches and
cracking
Total

Insera
None
Erosion
Pitting
Scratches
Erosion and
pitting
Erosion and
scratches
Total


O 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0%


4 0.0% 7 100.0%


5 100.0%


16.7%
50.0%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%


11.1%
33.3%
33.3%
11.1%
11.1%


33.3%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


1 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


6 100.0% 9 100.0%


3 100.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Mitad
None
Erosion
Scratches
Rim chips
Cracking
Total


63.2%
5.3%
21.1%
5.3%
5.3%
100.0%


50.0%
12.5%
37.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%


57.1%
14.3%
28.6%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%


0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%


Jebena
None


0 0.0% 1 100.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Unit C4: exterior use wear
LS-L1


LS-L2
N %
2 20.0%
3 30.0%
110.0%
2 20.0%


LS-L3
N %
2 28.6%
114.3%
3 42.9%
0 0.0%


LS-L3a
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L4

3 0.0%
1100.0%
D 0.0%
3 0.0%

3 0.0%
3 0.0%
3 0.0%


Diste
None
Erosion
Scratches
Wear on
handle
Dull soot
Glossy soot
Erosion and
dull soot
Pitting and
dull soot
Total

Insera
None
Erosion
Scratches


5.%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%

50.0%
50.0%


0.0%
0.0%
10.0%


14.3%
0.0%
0.0%


50.0%
0.0%
50.0%


0 0.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


2 100.0% 10 100.0%


7 100.0%


2 100.0%


1 100.0%


33.3%
11.1%
44.4%


50.0%
33.3%
0.0%


88.9%
0.0%
0.0%


33.3%
66.7%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%










Table 6-15 continued


Wear on
handle
Erosion and
rim chips
Total

Mitad
None
Erosion
pitting
Dull soot
Erosion and
pitting
Erosion and
scratches
Erosion and
dull soot
Pitting and
dull soot
Total


Unit C4: interior

Diste
None
Erosion
Scratches
Rim chips
Erosion and
scratches
Total


0 0.0% 2 16.7%

111.1% 0 0.0%

9 100.0% 12 100.0%


1 11.1%


0.0% 0 0.0%


0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


9 100.0%


3 100.0%


0 0.0%


22.2%
77.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
56.5%
0.0%
4.3%
0.0%


0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%


14.3%
28.6%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%


0.0%
42.9%
0.0%
0.0%
28.6%


0 0.0% 2 8.7% 0 0.0% 1 14.3% 0 0.0%

0 0.0% 3 13.0% 3 37.5% 2 28.6% 0 0.0%

0 0.0% 4 17.4% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 2 28.6%


9 100.0% 23 100.0%


)r use wear
LS-L1 LS-L2
N % N %
1 50.0% 6 60.0%
0 0.0% 1 10.0%
150.0% 3 30.0%
0 0.0% 0 0.0%
0 0.0% 0 0.0%

2 100.0% 10 100.0%


8 100.0%




LS-L3
N %
1 20.0%
1 20.0%
120.0%
1 20.0%
1 20.0%

5 100.0%


7 100.0% 7 100.0%


LS-L3a
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
2 100.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%

2 100.0%


LS-L4
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1100.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%

1 100.0%


Insera
None
Erosion
Pitting
Scratches
Erosion and
pitting
Erosion and
scratches
Total

Mitad
None
Erosion
Scratches
Dull soot


0.0%
37.5%
0.0%
50.0%
12.5%


27.3%
27.3%
18.2%
18.2%
0.0%


11.1%
66.7%
11.1%
0.0%
11.1%


0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0 0.0% 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 1 33.3%


0 0.0%

0 0.0%


8 100.0% 11 100.0%


9 100.0%


3 100.0%


77.8%
11.1%
11.1%
0.0%


69.6%
8.7%
17.4%
4.3%


62.5%
0.0%
37.5%
0.0%


42.9%
0.0%
57.1%
0.0%


71.4%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%










Table 6-15 continued
Erosion and 0
scratches
Total 9 11


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 14.3%


00.0% 23 100.0% 8 100.0%


7 100.0%


LS-L4
N %
8 100.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
8 100.0%


7 100.0%


LS-L5
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


Unit J3: exterior use wear
LS-L1


LS-L2
N %
4 100.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
4 100.0%


LS-L3
N %
14 77.8%
1 5.6%
1 5.6%
2 11.1%
0 0.0%
18 100.0%


Diste
None
Erosion
Scratches
Pitting
Cracking
Total


63.6%
9.1%
0.0%
18.2%
9.1%
100.0%


71.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


Insera
None
Erosion
Pitting
Rim chips
Scratches and
dull soot
dull soot
Erosion and
dull soot
Erosion and
pitting
Total

Mitad
None
Erosion
pitting
Dull soot
Erosion and
pitting
Erosion and
dull soot
Erosion and
spelling
Pitting and
dull soot
Scratches and
dull soot
Total

Jebena
Dull soot


66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%


33.3%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%


9.1% 0
36.4% 0
9.1% 0
9.1% 0
0.0% 0

9.1% 0
27.3% 0


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%


14.3% 0
0.0% 0


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0% 1
0.0% 3


1 14.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


7 100.0% 3 100.0%


6 100.0% 11 100.0%


0 0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


40.0%
20.0%
30.0%
0.0%
0.0%


20.0%
36.0%
0.0%
4.0%
16.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 12.0% 0 0.0%

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 0 0.0%

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 8.0% 0 0.0%

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


4 100.0% 1 100.0% 10 100.0% 25 100.0%


0 0.0%


1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%










Table 6-15 continued
Unit J3: interior use wear
LS-L1


LS-L2
J %
) 0.0%
) 0.0%
1 25.0%
1 25.0%
) 0.0%


LS-L3
J %
7 38.9%
i 16.7%
j 27.8%
S11.1%
S5.6%


LS-L4
i %
S62.5%
)0.0%
S12.5%
S25.0%
)0.0%


LS-L5

3 0.%
3 0.0%
3 0.0%
D 0.0%
D 0.0%


Diste
None
Erosion
Pitting
Scratches
Erosion and
pitting
Scratches and
rim chips
Pitting and
scratches
Total

Insera
None
Erosion
pitting
Scratches
Glossy soot
Rim chips
Pitting and
scratches
Erosion and
scratches
Total

Mitad
None
Erosion
Scratches
Glossy soot
Food residue
Cracking
Total

Jebena
Dull soot


72.7%
9. 1%
9.1%
9.1%
0.0%


0.0% 1 25.0% 0


0.0%


0 0.0% 0 0.0%

0 0.0% 0 0.0%


0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0%

11 100.0% 4 100.0% 18 100.0%


8 100.0%


0 0.0%


57.1%
14.3%
0.0%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
66.7%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%


16.7%
0.0%
16.7%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


27.3%
18.2%
9.1%
36.4%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7%

7 100.0% 3 100.0% 6 100.0%


0.0% 0 0.0%

0.0% 0 0.0%


11 10


75.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%


50.0%
20.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%


67.9%
17.9%
10.7%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
100.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Unit JS: exterior use wear
LS-L1
Diste N %
None 1 25.0%
Erosion 3 75.0%
Total 4 100.0%


LS-L2
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L3
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L4
N %
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
1 100.0%


LS-L4a
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%










Table 6-15 continued


Insera
None
Erosion
Erosion and
scratches
Unidentified
Total

Mitad
Erosion
Dull soot
Erosion and
pitting
Erosion and
dull soot
Erosion and
scratches
Erosion ,
scratches and
dull soot
Total


62.5%
25.0%
12.5%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0% 1 100.0%
100.0% 1 100.0%


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


22.2%
0.0%
22.2%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


33.3%
33.3%
33.3%


2 22.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

1 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

2 22.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


9 100.0% 1 100.0%


0.0% 3 100.0% 0 0.0%


Unit JS: interior use wear
LS-L1


LS-L2
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L3
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


LS-L4
N %
0 0.0%
1100.0%
0 0.0%
1 100.0%


LS-L4a
N %
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


Diste
None
Erosion
Scratches
Total


25.0%
0.0%
75.0%
100.0%


37.5%
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%


Insera
Erosion
Pitting
Scratches
Erosion and
pitting
Unidentified
Total

Mitad
None
Scratches
Total


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0% 1 100.0%
100.0% 1 100.0%


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


33.3%
66.7%
100.0%


100.0%
0.0%
100.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
100.0%










Table 6-15 continued
Unit F7G7: exterior use wear


LS-L1
N %
10 14.9%
25 37.3%
7 10.4%
3 4.5%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 1.5%


LS-L2 LS-L3


LS-L4

)0.0%
20.0%
)0.0%
)0.0%
)0.0%
20.0%
)0.0%


LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6


Diste
None
Erosion
Scratches
Pitting
Dull soot
Cracking
Pitting and
cracking
Erosion and
scratches
Erosion and
dull soot
Erosion and
glossy soot
Erosion and
pitting
Scratches and
dull soot
Pitting and
scratches
Erosion ,
scratches and
dull soot
Erosion ,
scratches and
dull soot
Total

Insera
None
Erosion

Scratches
Pitting
Cracking
Rim chips
Erosion and
scratches
Erosion and
cracking
Erosion ,
pitting and
scratches
Dull soot
Pitting and
scratches


3.8%
32.1%
3.8%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%


.%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


% N
0.0% 0
33.3% 1
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

33.3%
0.0%
0.0%


2 3.0% 8

15 22.4% 17

0 0.0% 1

1 1.5% 1


15.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

32.1% 2 50.0% 1 20.0% 2 66.7% 0 0.0% 1 33.3%

1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

1.9% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


0.0% 1


11.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3%

2 3.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


O 0.0% 1


67 100.0 53


37 50.7% 16
25 34.2% 17


1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


100.0% 4 100.0 5


25.0% 5 62.5% 0
26.6% 2 25.0% 0


100.0% 3 100.0% 1 100.0% 3 100.0


0.0% 1
0.0% 1


50.0%
50.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0 0.0%
2 100.0

0 .%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


1 33.3%
2 66.7%


6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
2.7%


9.4%
3.1%
3.1%
0.0%
3.1%


0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


11.4% 2

1 1.4% 0


3.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


0.0% 1
0.0% 16


0.0%
0.0%


1.6% 0
25.0% 0


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0% 0
0.0% 0


0.0% 0
0.0% 0










Table 6-15 continued
Total 73 100.0 64 100.0%


Mitad
Erosion 7 30.4% 19 48.7%
Dull soot 1 4.3% 3 7.7%
Erosion and 1 4.3% 1 2.6%
pitting
Erosion and 13 56.5% 12 30.8%
dull soot
Erosion and 0 0.0% 4 10.3%
scratches
Pitting and 1 4.3% 0 0.0%
dull soot
Total 23 100.0 39 100.0%


8 100.0


0.0% 2 100.0%


2 100.0% 3 100.0%


75.0%
25.0%
0.0%


50.0%
0.0%
0.0%


50.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%

0.0%


0 0.0% 0


0.0% 15


0O.0% 2 100.0

0.0% 0 0.0%


0 0.0% 1 50.0% 0


0 0.0%

4 100.0




LS-L3
N %
1 25.0%
125.0%


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


2 100.0%


2 100.0%


2 100.0




LS-L5
N %
0 0.0%
1100.0

0 .%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%


3 100.0%


Unit F7G7: interior use wear


LS-L1

'23.9%
)26.8%

S2.8%
S33.8%
S0.0%
)0.0%
S0.0%


LS-L2
N %
5 9.4%
12 22.6%


LS-L4

)0.0%
20.0%

)0.0%
20.0%
)0.0%
20.0%
)0.0%


LS-L4a
N %
0 0.0%
2 66.7%


LS-L6
N %
1 33.3%
133.3%


Diste
None
Erosion

Pitting
Scratches
Rim chips
Cracking
Erosion and
pitting
Erosion and
scratches
Scratches and
dull soot
Erosion and
glossy soot
Pitting and
scratches
Total


Insera
None
Erosion
Pitting
Scratches
Cracking
Erosion and
pitting


5.7%
30.2%
1.9%
0.0%
1.9%


0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


7 9.9% 13 24.5%

0 0.0% 0 0.0%

11.4% 0 0.0%

11.4% 2 3.8%


1 25.0% 2 40.0% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


0 0.0% 0

0 0.0% 0

0 0.0% 0

4 100.0 5


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3%

0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


71 100.0% 53


100.0




2.1%
16.7%
29.2%
12.5%
2.1%
25.0%


100.0% 3 100.0% 1 100.0


3 100.0%


8.2%
16.4%
28.8%
11.0%
2.7%
16.4%


0.0%
25.0%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%
12.5%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
66.7%






























































75.0%
25.0%
100.0%


100.0%
100.0%


Table 6-15 continued


Pitting and
scratches
Erosion and
scratches
Erosion and
cracking
Erosion ,
pitting and
scratches
Erosion ,
pitting and
cracking
Pitting,
scratches and
spelling
Total


Mitad
None
Erosion
Scratches
Cracking
Scratches and
cracking
Erosion and
scratches
Total


6 8.2% 3 6.3% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

5 6.8% 1 2.1% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

0 0.0% 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

O 0.0% 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


1 1.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


O 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


73 100.0% 48


100.0



17.9%
43.6%
20.5%
7.7%
2.6%


8 100.0


0.0% 2 100.0% 2 100.0


3 100.0%


56.5%
17.4%
17.4%
8.7%
0.0%


0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%


50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%


0.0% 3 7.7%


0


0 0.0%

4 100.0


0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3%


23 100.0% 39


100.0


2 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 100.0


3 100.0%


Unit G7-North: exterior use wear
LS-L1


Diste
None
Pitting
Erosion
Dull soot
Erosion and
dull soot
Total

Insera
Erosion
Scratches
Total

Mitad
Erosion
Total


1.%
10.0%
10.0%
30.0%
20.0%


10 100.0%










Table 6-15 continued
Unit G7-North: interior use wear
LS-L1


Diste
None
Cracking
Erosion
Scratches
Erosion and
scratches
Total

Insera
Erosion
Pitting
Erosion and
pitting
Cracking
Total

Mitad
Cracking


3.%
30.0%
10.0%
10.0%
20.0%


10 100.0%


25.0%
25.0%
25.0%

25.0%
100.0%


100.0%
100.0%









Table 6-16 Use alteration for unidentified vesseltye
Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Unit A2
No use alteration 101 39.8% 95 37.4%
Erosion 82 32.3% 65 25.6%
Pitting 10 3.9% 13 5.1%
Scratches 13 5.1% 53 20.9%
Dull soot 8 3.1% 0 0.0%
Glossy soot 1 0.4% 0 0.0%
Wear on handle 15 5.9% 0 0.0%
Indeterminate 0 0.0% 16 6.3%
Rim chips 3 1.2% 2 0.8%
Cracking 3 1.2% 1 0.4%
Erosion and scratches 2 0.8% 4 1.6%
Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 3 1.2%
Erosion and dull soot 10 3.9% 0 0.0%
Pitting and dull soot 4 1.6% 0 0.0%
Scratches and rim chips 0 0.0% 1 0.4%
Dull soot and cracking 2 0.8% 0 0.0%
Erosion, scratches and cracking 0 0 1 0.4%
Total A2 pottery 254 100.0% 254 100.0%

Unit C4
No use alteration 171 44.5% 163 42.4%
Erosion 121 31.5% 93 24.2%
Pitting 5 1.3% 17 4.4%
Scratches 19 4.9% 81 21.1%
Dull soot 12 3.1% 1 0.3%
Glossy soot 1 0.3% 0 0.0%
Wear on handle 17 4.4% 0 0.0%
Indeterminate 1 0.3% 14 3.6%
Rim chips 2 0.5% 3 0.8%
Erosion and scratches 4 1.0% 9 2.3%
Erosion and pitting 3 0.8% 3 0.8%
Erosion and dull soot 14 3.6% 0 0.0%
Erosion and rim chips 1 0.3% 0 0.0%
Erosion and cracking 1 0.3% 0 0.0%
Pitting and scratches 1 0.3% 0 0.0%
Pitting and dull soot 10 2.6% 0 0.0%










Table 6-16 continued
Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Unit C4 continued
Scratches and dull soot 1 0.3% 0 0.0%
Total C4 pottery 384 100.0% 384 100.0%

Unit J3
No use alteration 242 61.9% 211 54.0%
Erosion 82 21.0% 60 15.3%
Pitting 13 3.3% 23 5.9%
Scratches 7 1.8% 49 12.5%
Dull soot 14 3.6% 3 0.8%
Glossy soot 0 0.0% 2 0.5%
Spalling 1 0.3% 1 0.3%
Food residue 0 0.0% 3 0.8%
Wear on handle 2 0.5% 0 0.0%
Indeterminate 3 0.8% 20 5.1%
Rim chips 1 0.3% 5 1.3%
Cracking 1 0.3% 3 0.8%
Erosion and scratches 3 0.8% 1 0.3%
Erosion and pitting 5 1.3% 6 1.5%
Erosion and dull soot 9 2.3% 0 0.0%
Pitting and scratches 0 0.0% 3 0.8%
Pitting and dull soot 4 1.0% 0 0.0%
Scratches and dull soot 3 0.8% 0 0.0%
Scratches and rim chips 0 0.0% 1 0.3%
Erosion and s alling 1 0.3% 0 0.0%
Total J3 pottery 391 100.0% 391 100.0%

Unit J8
No use alteration 63 43.8% 50 34.7%
Erosion 44 30.6% 43 29.9%
Pitting 3 2.1% 9 6.3%
Scratches 5 3.5% 25 17.4%
Dull soot 2 1.4% 0 0.0%
Wear on handle 8 5.6% 0 0.0%
Indeterminate 1 0.7% 11 7.6%
Cracking 0 0.0% 1 0.7%
Erosion and scratches 5 3.5% 2 1.4%










Table 6-16 continued
Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Unit JS continued
Erosion and pitting 4 2.8% 3 2.1%
Erosion and dull soot 6 4.2% 0 0.0%
Pitting and scratches 1 0.7% 0 0.0%
Erosion, scratches and dull soot 2 1.4% 0 0.0%
Total JS pottery 144 100.0% 144 100.0%

Unit F7G7
No use alteration 327 28.5% 207 18.0%
Erosion 479 41.8% 301 26.2%
Pitting 13 1.1% 135 11.8%
Scratches 52 4.5% 215 18.7%
Dull soot 38 3.3% 1 0.1%
Glossy soot 1 0.1% 0 0.0%
Food residue 0 0.0% 2 0.2%
Wear on handle 22 1.9% 0 0.0%
Indeterminate 2 0.2% 47 4.1%
Rim chips 4 0.3% 3 0.3%
Cracking 9 0.8% 23 2.0%
Erosion and scratches 46 4.0% 77 6.7%
Erosion and pitting 14 1.2% 95 8.3%
Erosion and dull soot 108 9.4% 1 0.1%
Erosion and glossy soot 3 0.3% 1 0.1%
Erosion and rim chips 3 0.3% 0 0.0%
Erosion and cracking 6 0.5% 1 0.1%
Erosion and food residue 0 0.0% 1 0.1%
Pitting and scratches 4 0.3% 26 2.3%
Pitting and dull soot 2 0.2% 0 0.0%
Pitting and cracking 1 0.1% 2 0.2%
Scratches and dull soot 2 0.2% 1 0.1%
Scratches and rim chips 0 0.0% 1 0.1%
Scratches and wear on handle 1 0.1% 0 0.0%
Scratches and spelling 1 0.1% 0 0.0%
Scratches and cracking 0 0.0% 2 0.2%
Cracking and spelling 0 0.0% 1 0.1%
Dull soot and cracking 1 0.1% 0 0.0%
Erosion, scratches and dull soot 6 0.5% 0 0.0%










Table 6-16 continued
Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Unit F7G7 continued
Erosion, pitting and dull soot 1 0.1% 0 0.0%
Erosion, pitting and scratches 1 0.1% 1 0.1%
Erosion, pitting and cracking 0 0.0% 1 0.1%
Erosion, pitting and food residue 0 0.0% 1 0.1%
Pitting, scratches and spelling 0 0.0% 1 0.1%
Total F7G7 pottery 1147 100.0% 1147 100.0%

Unit G7-North
No use alteration 8 20.5% 7 17.9%
Erosion 17 43.6% 12 30.8%
Pitting 1 2.6% 3 7.7%
Scratches 4 10.3% 6 15.4%
Dull soot 4 10.3% 0 0.0%
Cracking 0 0.0% 4 10.3%
Erosion and scratches 1 2.6% 3 7.7%
Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 2 5.1%
Erosion and dull soot 4 10.3% 0 0.0%
Pitting and scratches 0 0.0% 2 5.1%
Total G7-North pottery 39 100.0% 39 100.0%

Unit G7-West
No use alteration 3 27.3% 2 18.2%
Erosion 2 18.2% 3 27.3%
Scratches 3 27.3% 3 27.3%
Erosion and scratches 1 9.1% 1 9.1%
Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 2 18.2%
Erosion and dull soot 2 18.2% 0 0.0%
Total G7-West pottery 11 100.0% 11 100.0%

*Note: sherds with usewear on unidentifiable surfaces are not included in this table.










Table 6-17 Rim type frequency
Unit A2 LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L3


LS-L4


LS-L5


LS-L6


LS-L7


%N % N %N %N %N %


Diste
Rounded (#1)
Square (#3)
with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Hemicircle (#11)
Total diste rims

Insera
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square with lip (#5)
Pointed concave (#7)
Total insera rims

Mitad
Rounded (#1)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Square flare with
ridge (#16)
Total mitad rims

Unidentifiable vessels
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)


25.0% 1
25.0% 2

50.0%
100.0% 7


14.3%
28.6%
14.3%
28.6%
14.3%


80.0%
20.0%


1 100.0%


100.0% 5 100.0%


14.3% 1 50.0%
42.9% 1 50.0%

42.9%
100.0% 2 100.0%


2 28.6%


1 100.0%


2 66.7% 3
133.3%

3 100.0% 7



3 15.8%



15 78.9% 4


25.0%
41.7%
33.3%


1 100.0%


5 71.4%


5.3%
100.0%


51.4%
8.1%
2.7%


12 100.0% 7 100.0%


1 100.0%



1 50.0%


68.8%
3.1%
3.1%


73.1%
7.7%
3.8%


1 50.0%

150.0%










Table 6-17 continued
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Square flare (#10)
Hemicircle (#11)
Sloped (#13)
Total unidentified
vessel rims


3 8.1% 2
6 16.2% 2
12.7%

4 10.8% 2


6.3% 1
6.3% 2

3.1%
6.3%
3.1% 1


3.8%
7.7%


1 50.0%


2 100.0%


3.8%


37 100.0%


32 100.0%


26 100.0%


2 100.0%


Unit C4


LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L3 LS-L3a
%N % N


LS-L4


LS-L5


Diste
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Hemicircle (#11)
Total diste rims

Insera
Curved (#2)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Square flare (#10)
Total insera rims

Mitad
Rounded (#1)
Square with lip (#5)


150.0% 2 22.2% 2

1 11.1%
5 55.6%
1 11.1% 1
1 50.0% 1


40.0%
20.0%



20.0%
20.0%


1 100.0%


1 50.0%


1 50.0%
2 100.0% 9 100.0% 5 100.0% 2 100.0% 1 100.0%


1 33.3% 2
1 33.3% 1
1 33.3% 2

3 100.0% 6


33.3%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
100.0%


33.3%
20.8%


1 100.0%

1 100.0%

1 100.0% 1 100.0%



4 50.0% 3 42.9% 5


18.2% 8
9.1% 5


62.5%
12.5%










Table 6-17 continued
Tapered (#6)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Sloped with lip (#9)
Hemicircle (#11)
Round with lip and
ridge (#14)
Total mitad rims

Unidentifiable vessels
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Sloped with lip (#9)
Square flare (#10)
Hemicircle (#11)
Sloped (#13)
Round flare (#15)
Total unidentified
vessel rims


18.2%
45.5%


37.5%
8.3%


4 50.0% 2 28.6%


1 12.5%


1 9.1%


1 14.3% 1 12.5%


1
11 100.0% 24 100.0% 8 100.0% 7


14.3%
100.0%


8 100.0%


59.6%
4.3%
2.1%
2.1%
6.4%
4.3%
10.6%
2.1%


41 54.7% 7
3


38.9% 4
16.7% 1


26.7% 3
6.7% 1
1


37.5%
12.5%
12.5%


1 100.0%


2.7%
4.0%
8.0%
1.3%
18.7%
5.3%

4.0%
1.3%


3 16.7% 5 33.3% 2 25.0%


5.6%
5.6%
5.6%
5.6%


20.0%
6.7%


1 12.5%


4.3% 3
4.3% 1


1 6.7%


1 5.6%

47 100.0% 75 100.0% 18 100.0% 15 100.0% 8 100.0% 1 100.0%


Unit J3


LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L3


LS-L4


LS-L5


%N % N %N %


Diste
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)


2 50.0%


33.3%
6.7%


2 25.0%

1 12.5%
1 12.5%


120.0%


2 40.0%


2 50.0%


4 26.7%











1 20.0%


13.3%


1 6.7% 1

1 20.0% 2 13.3% 1

5 100.0% 4 100.0% 15 100.0% 8


12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
100.0%


33.3%
33.3%



33.3%
100.0%


32.1%
3.6%
14.3%
10.7%
14.3%
7.1%
14.3%
3.6%
100.0%



40.4%
9.6%
15.4%
1.0%


0 0.0%


2
3 60.0% 2 66.7% 1
1
1


40.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%


40.0%
100.0%


33.3%
100.0%


1
5 100.0% 3


0 0.0%


3 75.0% 7 70.0% 9

125.0% 1 100.0% 4
110.0% 3
110.0% 4

1 10.0% 4

4 100.0% 1 100.0% 10 100.0% 28


0 0.0%


2 40.0%


Table 6-17 continued
Rounded with lip(#8)
Sloped with lip (#9)
Square flare (# 10)
hemicircle (#11)
sloped (#13)
Total diste rims

Insera
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Total insera rims

Mitad
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Sloped with lip (#9)
Hemicircle (#11)
Sloped (#13)
Total mitad rims

Unidentifiable vessels
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)


59.1%
11.4%
4.5%
6.8%


47.6%
4.8%
12.7%
1.6%


3 27.3% 30


2 18.2% 1


20.0%
40.0%










Table 6-17 continued
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Sloped with lip (#9)
Square flare (#10)
Hemicircle (#11)
Sloped (#13)
Total unidentified
vessel rims


4 9.1%


3 27.3% 6

1 9.1% 7


2 18.2% 3


11 100.0% 63


9.5%
1.6%
11.1%
3.2%
3.2%
4.8%


7.7%
1.0%
11.5%


9.6%
3.8%


2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%


44 100.0%


100.0%


104 100.0%


5 100.0%


Unit J8


LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L3


LS-L4


%N %N %

1100.0%


Diste
Rounded (#1)
Square (#3)
Tapered (#6)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Square flare (#10)
Hemicircle (#11)
Total diste rims

Insera
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Total insera rims

Mitad
Rounded (#1)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Rounded with lip(#8)


25.0%
50.0%


33.3%
33.3%

33.3%
100.0%


125.0%

4 100.0% 0 0.0% 3


1 100.0%


66.7%
33.3%
100.0%


0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


2 22.2%


1 33.3%

2 66.7%


1 100.0%


4 44.4% 1 100.0%











11.1%
22.2%
100.0%


53.6%
5.8%
8.7%
1.4%
8.7%
1.4%
15.9%
4.3%


1 100.0%


1 100.0%


3 100.0%


1 33.3% 3 42.9%

3 42.9%
1 33.3%


1 33.3%


1 14.3%


69 100.0% 0 0.0% 3 100.0% 7 100.0%


Table 6-17 continued
Sloped with lip (#9)
Hemicircle (#11)
Total mitad sherds

Unidentifiable vessels
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Hemicircle (#11)
Total unidentified
vessel rims

Unit F7G7

Diste
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Sloped with lip (#9)
Square flare (#10)
Hemicircle (# 11)
Sloped (#13)
Rounded with point
and lip (#19)
Total diste rims


LS-L1
N


LS-L2
% N


LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5
%N % N %N %N


LS-L6


34.3%
4.3%
8.6%
7.1%
12.9%
1.4%
12.9%

10.0%
2.9%
4.3%


19 39.6%
2 4.2%
8 16.7%
3 6.3%
1 2.1%
12.1%
7 14.6%


1 25.0% 2 40.0% 2 100.0% 1 100.0%

125.0% 1 20.0%

2 50.0%


2 40.0%


8.3%
6.3%


1 1.4%
70 100.0%


48 100.0% 4 100.0% 5 100.0% 2 100.0%


1 100.0% 0 0.0%













8.6%
77.1%
5.7%
2.9%


4.8%
76.2%

4.8%
4.8%


2 100.0%


1 100.0%


1 50.0%


1 100.0%


12.9%
1 2.9% 1

35 100.0% 21



4 18.2% 18

18 81.8% 18


22 100.0% 38


1 50.0%


4.8%
4.8%
100.0%



47.4%
2.6%
47.4%

2.6%
100.0%


2 100.0% 0 0.0% 2 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0%


3 75.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0%


1 25.0% 1 50.0%


1
1 50.0% 1


50.0%
50.0%


3 100.0%


4 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 100.0% 3 100.0%


Table 6-17 continued
Insera
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Hemicircle (#11)
Square concave (#18)
Total insera rims

Mitad
Rounded (#1)
Square (#3)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Hemicircle (#11)
Sloped (#13)
Total mitad rims

Unidentifiable vessels
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Square with lip (#5)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Sloped with lip (#9)
Square flare (#10)
Hemicircle (# 11)
Sloped (#13)


39.4%
9.1%
7.3%
1.8%
11.5%
3.6%
17.6%
0.6%
1.2%
4.2%
2.4%


39.7% 9
9.6% 1
6.4% 1
2.6% 1
7.7% 3
1.9%
29.5% 3

1.9% 1
0.6% 2


42.9%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
14.3%


9 90.0% 3 75.0% 2
1
2


20.0%
10.0%
20.0%


64.7%
5.9%
5.9%


110.0% 1 5.9%

3 30.0% 2 11.8%



110.0% 1 5.9%


1 25.0%


14.3% 1 10.0%

4.8%
9.5%










Table 6-17 continued
Hemicircle with lip
(#17)
Total unidentified
vessel rims

Unit G7-North
Diste
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Tapered (#6)
Pointed concave (#7)
Rounded with lip (#8)
Total diste rims


2 1.2%

165 100.0% 156 100.0% 21 100.0% 10 100.0% 4 100.0% 10 100.0% 17 100.0%

LS-L1
_N %
2 20.0%
2 20.0%
2 20.0%
110.0%
110.0%
2 20.0%
10 100.0%


Insera
Curved (#2)


1 100.0%


Mitad
Rounded (#1)
Rounded with lip(#8)
Total mitad rims

Unidentifiable vessels
Rounded (#1)
Curved (#2)
Square (#3)
Tapered (#6)
Rounded with lip (#8)
Hemicircle (# 11)
Sloped (#13)
Total unidentified vessel
rims


50.0%
50.0%
100.0%


52.0%
8.0%
8.0%
12.0%
12.0%
4.0%
4.0%


25 100.0%










Table 6-18 Slag frequencies and weights from AG 2004


Weight
(g)


Mean Weight
(g)


Unit
A2




total A2 s


Level N

1 1
2 2
7 4
lag 7


C4 5
total C4 slag


F7G7 1 2529
la 17
2 15
4 4
4a 5
6 7
total F7G7 slag 2577


2391.6
56.4
44.1
4.0
6.6
29.4
2532.1


G7-N 1
total G7-N slag


3


total J3 slag


6.1
119.7
3.3
129.1












































Figure 6-1 The main vessel types in Beta Israel pottery A) jebena (coffee pot); B) mitad (injera
plate); C) diste (bowl); D) insera (j ar). Sources for B) daveblacklonline.com; for D)World
Health Organization 2006






Rim Type #1: Rounded


Rim Type #2: Curved






Rim Type #3: Square


n


Rim Type #5: Square with Lip


n


Figure 6-2 Rim types at AG 2004










Rim Type #6: Tapered


Rim Type #7: Pointed Concave


Rim Type #8: Rounded with Lip


Rim Type #9: Sloped with Lip


Rim Type #10: Square Flare


Figure 6-2 Continued








Rim Type #11: Hemicircle


Rim Type #13: Sloped










Rim Type #15: Round Flare


Rim Type #14: Rounded with Lip
and edge


*Interior/exterior
indeterminate


Rim Type #16: Square Flare with Ridge


_51


Rim Type #17: Hemicircle with Lip







Rim Type #19: Rounded with Point


Rim Type #18: Square Concave


Figure 6-2 continued


broken











i'..
I ;:
~Y


'1;1
B


'" 'I'"rr i"":"''~"J


j
5m


?.
d;
~t;


i.

r
::: ::;:~
? '"I


I


", :-.:,:


~i


Figure 6-3 Vessel types and rims A) distoch, B) inseroch, C) mitadoch, D) indeterminate vessel
type


-I


i
C! (
"'
: I
:1
F' '~----














5~


i_ I: 4 :j


.1





,.._ .
r!




-"
3 6
~r


2; ]t~.


c~.~~ ;~
r
r .
I


~ I


Figure 6-3 continued





t,

a



~
~c~L
~"i: ~
I__


3c~;l


O 45El


Figure 6-3 continued








7


-- -_~sl


f


D


Figure 6-3 continued


L1..









































| exterior surface
interior surface interior and exterior surfaces
location of slip


Figure 6-4 Slip frequencies by vessel type


vessel shape
insera
diste
O mitad
5 jebena




















Ot
3tO


O


insera diste mitad jebena
vessel type


vessel type count mean median s.d. range min max
insera 238 11.22983 9.6 6.729091 48.4 2.7 51.1
di ste 243 11.14774 11.3 4.005433 31.8 3.1 34.9
mitad 240 15.54542 15.5 3.188076 19 6.6 25.6
jebena 2 6.1 6.1 1.697056 2.4 4.9 7.3

Figure 6-5 Mean sherd thickness by vessel shape













30.0


25.0





20.0





1 5.0-
.8 0



10.0





5.0_





0.0


insera diste
vessel shape

Figure 6-6 Mean rim thickness by vessel type


o
8


I
mitad


















0 L .1 2 5.10


Figure 6-7 Exterior rim and handle of butter-making vessel from unit A2





100.0%-'
90.0%-
80.0%-
70.0% _
60.0%-
50.0%-
100
40.0%-


20.0%-


diste
insera
O jebena
O mitad


~Q~C Q~j~ ~~;C ~~"A o
Figure 6-8 Sufc ramn y esltp.A nt 2B ntC )UntJ )Ui 8E
Unitc F7G7' F)~ UniG-Nrt


,-LLL


G j

~L~L~












ou.u/o- II I diste
Sinsera
0 mitad

50.0%-


I00



40.0%-




30.0%-


10.1%
I


20.0%-


13",hh,~ ~ r ~~r ~

10.0%-~
11' ,"~ :"
I4 1 ~ c 213 1~











Figure 6-8 Continued






































_ __ __


I


7



13 3

3 1 3 Il 1


100.0%-

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%-

60.0%-

50.0%-

40.0%-

30.0% _

20.0%-

10.0%-

0.0%-0


diste
insera

0 jebena
o mitad


Figure 6-8 Continued


3













70.0 5diste
Sinsera
0 mitad

60.0%




50.0%




40.0%




30.0%




20.0%




10.0%




0.090
interior and interior and interior interior slip/exterior uid: slip/bumnish
exterior slip exterior burnish bumnish/exterior burnish
slip

D

Figure 6-8 Continued












70.0%- 1 diste
Sinsera
60.0%- 0 Omitad


50.0%-


40.0% CI


30.0%- g


20.0%-


10.0% -


0.0%/






Cj, c~ cE
Figur 6- Continued~c cj~





diste
insera
0 nitad


70.0%


60.0%


50.0%-


40.0%-


30.0%-


20.0%-


10.0%-


0.0%
interior and interior and interior
exterior slip exterior burnish burnish/exterior
slip


Figure 6-8 Continued


interior
slip/exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip

H interior and exterior
burnish
0 interior and exterior
smoothing
0 interior burnish/exterior
slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior smooth/exterior
slip
O interior smooth/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior pli


80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%


-c~ II


V. c
LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 LS-L6 LS-L7


Figure 6-9 Unit A2: surface treatment over time













































A


Figure 6-10 Different decoration types in unit A2. A) Single applique horizontal line; B) incised
horizontal and zigzag lines; C) Applique and incised wavy line; D) incised horizontal and
diagonal lines












100.0% diste
90.0%- insera
80.0%- O mitad
70.0%- O jebena
60.0%-
50.0%-
40.0%-

30.0%-


0.090








`3,~6", j, bZ~CA

Figure 6-11 De oraio tyeb esltp.A Ui 2 )Ui 4 ) ntJ;D ntJ;E
Unitj F77 F ni 7-ot













100.00 0 I 1 diste

90.00o 5insera
0 mitad
80.000

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.00

20.000- 3 3
1 1 1
10.000

0.0 o








(3~b~ i~',UB

Figur 6-1 Continued












100.0% dit
90.0% -, IL I insera
80.0% II I O mitad
70.0% I I O jebena
60.0%-
50.0%-
40.0I
40.0%-

20.0% -1 4 3
10.0%
0.0So








C 6Cb
Figur 6-11 Continued~C~















100.0%_ dit
Sinsera

90.0%- 1I O mitad


80.0%-


70.0%- 1-$


60.0%-


50.0%-


40.0%-


30.0%-


20.0%-


10.0 -


0.0%
no decoration single applique line incised horizontal and multiple applique lines
vertical lines

D

Figure 6-11 Continued













100. 0%-

90. 0%-

80. 0%-

70. 0%-

60. 0%-

50. 0%-

40. 0%-

30. 0%-

20. 0%-

10.0%- 1 3 I II 1 1 I I I

0. 0%


diste
insera
O mitad


Figure 6-11 Continued












diste
100.0%
mnsera
90.0% -O mitad

80.0%

70.0%-

60.0%-

50.0%

40.0%-

30.0%-

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
no decoration multiple applique lines



Figure 6-11 Continued











100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%


LS-L1
0 LS-L2
LS-L3
0 LS-L5
LS-L7


Decorative Type

applique lug
grooved wavy line
finger pinch in horizontal line and
finger impressions
multiple applique lines
multiple grooved lines
multiple incised lines
single applique line
incised horizontal and vertical lines
incised horizontal and zigzag lines
incised zigzag line
single grooved line
fingernail/stick crescent
incised horizontal and v-overlap
lines
incised horizontal lines on rim and
diagonal lines
incised wavy line on applique
single incised line


LS-L3
%N %
1 4.3%


LS-L5


LS-L7
%N


LS-L1 LS-L2
N %N
1 5.6%
15.6%


5.6%
5.6%
22.2%
16.7%
38.9%


13.6%
13.6%
4.5%
40.9%
9.1%
4.5%
9.1%
4.5%


1 100.0%


21.7%
34.8%


2 100.0%


3 13.0%


1 4.3%

14.3%


4.3%
4.3%
8.7%


Figure 6-12 Unit A2: changes in decoration types over time. A) Changes in specific decorative
type frequencies, B) Changes in number of decorative types present, C) Changes in undecorated
pottery frequencies





























LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 LS-L6 LS-L7


S# of decorative types

B


90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%


LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 LS-L6 LS-L7


Sno decoration

C


Figure 6-12 Continued





interior and exterior slip

O interior and exterior
burnish
O interior bumish/elterior
slip
interior plain/elterior slip

interior slip/elterior
burnish
H interior slip/elterior plain

0 interior slip/elterior
smooth
H interior smooth/elterior
slip
interior smooth/elterior
burnish


100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%


LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4 LS-L5


Figure 6-13 Unit C4: changes in surface treatment over time





0~ 5cm


I II I
O 5an


B


0 5 cm


10 m


Figure 6-14 Decorative types from unit C4. A) Incised horizontal and zigzag lines on rim; B)
applique lugs; C) Finger pinch on applique line; D) Incised vertical and wavy lines; E) Incised
criss-cross lines; F) Incised horizontal line and concentric U on rim


p. 0 1 2 3 4 5










-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


r;
'8
e


50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%


LS-L1 %
LS-L2 %
O LS-L3 %
O LS-L3a %
I LS-L4 %


ig-~ .~-~ 1"
~ ,ge~~

~;9" ~,b~.
EC; .9~~:
~
a


\~b ~Ce~ ;2~e ;~D~F~

~o~ke.oo~~?~~5~ ~


Decorative Type


single applique line
multiple incised lines
multiple applique lines
incised horizontal and zigzag lines
multiple incised lines on rim
lug
single incised line
multiple incised horizontal and
zigzag line on rim
single grooved line
Einger impression on applique line
incised horizontal and diagonal lines
multiple grooved lines
applique horizontal and grooved
diagonal lines
applique and incised zigzag line
Einger impressions
Eingernail crescent
incised vertical and wavy lines
multiple incised horizontal lines and
concentric U
Einger pinch and impressions


LS-L1
N %
10 47.6%
4 19.0%
2 9.5%
1 4.8%


LS-L2


2


LS-L3


LS-L3a
N %
6 31.6%
4 21.1%
4 21.1%


LS-L4
N %
2 33.3%
116.7%


N %N
)4 43.6% 4
4 7.3% 3
7 12.7% 2
5 9.1% 2



2 3.6% 1


26.7%
20.0%
13.3%
13.3%
6.7%
6.7%
6.7%


3 15.8% 1
1


16.7%
16.7%


4 7.3%


1 5.3%


4.8%
9.5%
4.8%


4 7.3%


1.8%
1.8%
3.6%
1.8%


1 6.7%


1 5.3%


1 16.7%


Figure 6-15 Unit C4: changes in decoration type over time. A) Changes in specific decorative
type frequencies, B) Changes in number of decorative types present, C) Changes in undecorated
pottery frequencies









12
10







LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4
S# decorative types


100.0%
80. 0%
60. 0%* *
40. 0%
20. 0%
0.0%Pr
LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4 LS-L5

no decoration
odCort
Figure 6-15 Continued









































LS-L5


Figure 6-16 Unit J3: Changes in surface treatment over time


interior and exterior burnish

O interior and exterior slip

0 interior and exterior slip and
burnish
interior and exterior plain

interior and exterior
smoothing
interior burnish/exterior slip

O interior burnish/exterior
smooth
interior plain/exterior burnish

interior plain/exterior slip

O interior plain/exterior smooth

I interior slip/exterior burnish

interior slip/exterior smooth

interior slip/exterior plain

interior smooth/exterior
burnish
interior smooth/exterior slip


80.0%


70.0%-


60.0% -


50.0%-


40.0% _


30.0% -


20.0%


I


10.0%


0.0')o


- ~~I~_ILL


LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4






































C


Figure 6-17 Decoration types in unit J3. A) Grooved lines; B) Incised horizontal and v-overlap
lines; C) applique lines on vessel neck; D) applique line and incised wavy lines












b-

b


b

b

b

0


70.0%/

60.0%/

50.0%/

40.0%/

30.0%/

20.0%/

10.0%/

0.00/


H LS-L1
0 LS-L2
H LS-L3
O LS-L4


Decorative Type

single applique line
multiple applique lines
single incised line
multiple incised lines
incised horizontal and zigzag lines
multiple incised horizontal lines on rim
incised horizontal and diagonal lines
incised horizontal and v-overlap lines
incised zigzag lines
single grooved line
multiple grooved lines
applique circle
fingernail crescent
finger pinch and finger impressions
horizontal ridge
incised wavy and applique line


LS-L1
N %
11 44.0%
4 16.0%
2 8.0%
2 8.0%
14.0%

14.0%



1 4.0%


LS-L2
N %
133.3%



2 66.7%


LS-L3

S39.4%
S18.2%

S15.2%
S12.1%
3.0%


LS-L4
N %
21 30.9%
10 14.7%
2 2.9%
21 30.9%
3 4.4%
1 1.5%
11.5%
1 1.5%
11.5%

3 4.4%
1 1.5%

2 2.9%

11.5%


6.1%
3.0%


1 3.0%


8.0%
4.0%


Figure 6-18 Unit J3: changes in decoration over time. A) Changes in specific decorative type
frequencies, B) Changes in number of decorative types present, C) Changes in undecorated
pottery frequencies





14

12









100.0

80. 0%

60.0

40.0

20.0
10 0

LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L 4 SL

#o decorativetye
B odcrto


Fiue61000 II I'.u





















































A B


100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%


interior and exterior
burnish
interior and exterior ship

O interior and exterior
smoothing
0 interior burnish/elterior
slip
interior burnish/elterior
smooth
H interior slip/elterior
burnish
H interior slip/elterior
smooth
O interior smooth/elterior
slip


LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4


Figure 6-19 Unit J8: changes in surface treatment over time


Figure 6-20 Decorative types from unit J8. A) Incised vertical and diagonal lines; B) Grooved
lines






















-

-

-


interior and exterior slip

0 interior and exterior
burnish
0 interior slip/ex~terior
burnish
interior burnish/ex~terior
slip
interior smooth/ex~terior
burnish
interior smooth/ex~terior

O iter or slip/ex~terior

porcelain glaze


70. 0%

60. 0%

50. 0%

40. 0%

30. 0%

20. 0%

10. 0%

0. 0%


LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6


Figure 6-21 Unit F7G7: changes in surface treatment over time





















0 5


A B


Figure 6-22 Decorative types from unit F7G7. A) Incised horizontal and wavy lines; B)
Finger/stick impressions and applique; C) Incised horizontal lines on rim; D) Incised wavy lines;
E) Appliques lines on neck and throat; F) Punctate triangle










50.0%-

45.0%-

40.0%-

35.0%-


30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%


-

-

-

-

-

-

I


t


LS-L1
LS-L2
O LS-L3
O LS-L4
LS-L~a
LS-L5
LS-L6


Figure 6-23 Changes in unit F7G7 decoration over time. A) Changes in specific decorative type
frequencies, B) Changes in number of decorative types present, C) Changes in undecorated
pottery frequencies










Decorative Type

single incised line
single applique line
applique lug
single grooved line
multiple applique lines
multiple grooved lines
multiple incised lines
grooved wavy line
finger impressions
fingernail crescent
finger impressions on applique
line
incised concentric U
incised horizontal and zigzag
lines
incised horizontal and vertical
lines
incised horizontal and v with
lines
applique horizontal and incised
v with lines
applique horizontal and incised
diagonal lines
applique vertical and horizontal
lines
lug and incised lines
finger pinch and fingernail
crescents
finger pinch in horizontal line
and finger impressions


LS-L1

1.4%
-33.5%
0.9%
5.4%
12.2%
24.0%
6.8%
0.5%
0.9%
0.9%

0.5%
0.5%


LS-L2
N %
10.9%
;7 32.2%
5 4.3%
10.9%
6 13.9%
1 9.6%
)6 22.6%

10.9%



10.9%


LS-L3

7.7%
23.1%
15.4%
7.7%
23.1%


LS-L4 LS-L4a
N %N %
125.0%
1 8.3%


LS-L5


LS-L6


N %N


1 16.7% 3 50.0%


16.7%
8.3%
41.7%


2 50.0% 1


16.7%


1
3 50.0% 1


16.7%
16.7%


1 8.3%


9 4.1% 7 6.1% 2 15.4%


1 25.0%


1 16.7%


3 1.4% 1 0.9%

10.5%

2 0.9%

2 0.9%


0.5%
0.5%


1 0.9%


4 1.8%

3 1.4%


1 7.7%


Figure 6-23A Continued











Decorative Type


LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4
N % N %N %N


LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6
N %N %N


incised horizontal lines on rim
and concentric U
incised criss-cross lines
incised v with lines
incised horizontal lines and
punctate circles
incised diagonal and uid lines
applique horizontal and incised
diagonal lines
applique horizontal and
grooved vertical lines
applique wavy line
incised horizontal lines on rim
and diagonal lines
incised horizontal and wavy
lines
punctate triangle

Figure 6-23 A Continued


0.5%
0.5%


1 8.3%


1 0.9%


0.9%
0.9%


1 0.9%


0.9%
0.9%


1 0.9%


1 8.3%


1 16.7%


































90. 0%

80. 0%: *

70. 0% .:*.

60. 0% ,.

50. 0%

40. 0%

30. 0%

20. 0%

10. 0%

U.U 0
LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6


25 /


LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L~a LS-L5 LS-L6


S# decorative types

B


Sno decoration

C


Figure 6-23 Continued









umit
A2
C4
O F7G7
G7-N
J3
O J8


50-

4-
E 4

S30-

20-

10

0-


* *


o


I
mitad


insera


diste


vessel type
Figure 6-24 Sherd thickness ranges by unit


0 ~l


0



0lil










umit
50- T T A2
M C4
O F7G7
5 G7-N




E` J











40-er -it m J8

vesse ty*


30ur -2 -i imtrrne yui



































I I 1


0 5 cm
Figure 6-26 Unit G7-North: stamping on pottery


A
Figure 6-27 Unidentified sherd types from A) unit A2; B) unit F7G7


I


5 cm









CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The goals of this research, as laid out in Chapter 3, were to look at how the rise and

subsequent fall of the Gonder Era affected the lifeways of the Beta Israel living in the area; more,

this study aimed to look at how the Gonder Beta Israel as active players in the formations of

their own ideologies responded to the changing social, economic, and political contexts of 17th

and 18th-century Gonder. Through a combination of historical, archaeological and ethnographic

research this study has attempted to gain insight into these responses by looking at patterns of

continuity and change in pottery style.

A remarkable feature about the Abwara Giorgis site is the overall constancy in pottery

manufacturing and decorating techniques, both spatially and temporally. Add to this the women

from the greater Gonder area who were interviewed, and we are left with a practice that, except

for minor variations that have been shown to correspond to specific villages or in the case of

the archaeological materials, specific residential units has not changed much. Beta Israel

women today are making pottery that is virtually indistinguishable from the pottery their

ancestors made. While I cannot speak to Beta Israel communities in other parts of Ethiopia, in

the greater Gonder area it seems as if these traditions are more communal than they are

individual .

This raises some interesting questions about the five main excavation units at the AG 2004

site. I have discussed my attempts to obtain a broad spatial sample and to excavate a series of

separate households. The overall similarities in artifacts recovered particularly the pottery -

suggests a group of people with shared traditions; likely people who are related in some way,

perhaps members of an extended family or people with close social ties. On the other hand, the

fact that the same general pottery characteristics were observed among the nine potters who









came from throughout the Gonder area and were neither related to each other or to the occupants

of Abwara Giorgis belies the idea that similarities in pottery manufacture are a result of kinship

networks. We may just be looking at a style of pottery manufacture and decoration that is

characteristic of the Beta Israel or of northern Ethiopian potters in general very little

comparative research on non-Beta Israel potters in northern Ethiopia has been conducted and

that is shared through diffusion and other far-reaching methods of cultural transmission such as

trade. Thus I cannot say that pottery manufacture or decoration techniques are necessarily

diagnostic of family or household, or even village units. A broader sitewide perspective is

necessary to address this question.

Change over Time

The maj or contribution of this research has been to demonstrate a sitewide increase in the

range of pottery manufacturing techniques, decoration, and to a lesser extent, use, employed

during a particular period. This shift was visible in every unit except the recently occupied J8,

and manifested itself in two maj or ways: first, a significant increase in the amount of pottery in

the upper levels of the site;39 and second, a diversification of pottery production and use

techniques, visible primarily in vessel size, surface treatment, and decoration. These two shifts

occurred concurrently; in every unit, the amount of pottery recovered increased by over 200% in

the upper levels (or middle, in the case of J3), and the increases were accompanied by a greater

variety of production techniques (see Chapter 6).

The depth at which this shift occurs varies in each unit, appearing at between 273-3 76 cm

apd. This variation of almost one meter between units is large; however, it is also fairly

consistent with the natural slope of the site, which slopes downward from the southeast end to



39 The exception of course, is unit J3, in which the shift was visible in the middle levels.









the northwest end. The bedrock then, is nearly one meter lower in the northwesternmost unit

(J8) than it is in the southeasternmost unit (A2). The increase of pottery ends at 30-70 cm above

the bedrock in every unit; a much smaller range of variation. In the absence of specific absolute

dates, based on the depths of these levels and the overall topography of the site, it appears

entirely possible that the increase and diversification of pottery occurred at approximately the

same time throughout the units. Taken together, this shift is indicative of an overall

intensification and diversification of pottery manufacture during this time.

As described in Chapter 2, the Gonder Era was a period characterized by strong

centralization; the various emperors represented not only the political apex of society, but the

economic and social apices as well, as evidenced by the diversified labor available to the various

ethnic groups during that period, and by the physical landscape of Gonder. Most historians agree

(Hess 1969; Kaplan 1992; Pankhurst 1969, 1992; Quirin 1992) that during this period the Beta

Israel, in addition to their more traditional jobs as potters, smiths and weavers, also served as

masons, architects, farmers, and soldiers. The lower levels of the units at Abwara Giorgis

(except for unit J3), in which the pottery is both less abundant and more stylistically

homogenous, exhibit exactly the sort of smaller-scale pottery production we would expect to see

at a Beta Israel village during the height of the Gonder Era, when craft focus was more oriented

to service to the central state.

The Era of the Princes, on the other hand, was characterized by political, economic and

social decentralization, during which no single person or household was able to yield the power

or wealth characterized by the Gonder emperors. Instead this period saw various factions vying

for wealth and power, which led to overall destabilization of Gonder society, both politically and









economically. Out of this context emerged a more widely diversified society that did not exhibit

the pyramidal hierarchy of status so representative of the Gonder Era.

Here is where this research makes its maj or contribution to the study of the Gonder Beta

Israel. If the lower levels of the site, what may be called the early phase of Abwara Giorgis,

correspond to the Gonder Era, in which pottery and iron production were largely abandoned in

favor of other occupations, then the increase in pottery in the upper levels what might be called

the late phase may well correspond to the Era of the Princes. Certainly the intensification of

pottery production during this period supports the proposition of many historians (Kaplan 1992,

Quirin 1978, 1992) that during the Era of the Princes the Gonder Beta Israel returned to their

traditional occupations of potting, smithing, and weaving. More than just an increase in

economic activity, however, the diversification in pottery form and style in the late phase

suggests a response to new market demands that were not evident during the early phase.

The fact that the inhabitants of the site began making, using and discarding pottery that

was more varied during the late phase of Abwara Giorgis and especially the fact that this

diversification occurred across the site suggests that at this point there was a large-scale (that

is, beyond the individual or single family level) move towards pottery intensification and

diversification that may well have been a response to the demands of a large and newly

decentralized society. This proposition supports the historical argument that the Era of the

Princes saw a return of the Gonder Beta Israel to their more traditional artisanal occupations. At

the same time, the archaeological material has added a key element to this argument: that the

Beta Israel responded to the fall of the Gonder Era by adapting their pottery techniques to meet

the demands of Gonder' s newly decentralized society. This is a valuable example of the

complementary way in which history and archaeology may operate; rather than confirming or









denying the historical arguments, this study has provided a new dimension, which supplements

the overall robusticity of our knowledge of Gonder Beta Israel lifeways during the 17th and 18th

centuries.

Implications of this Study: Historical Archaeology

Historical archaeology as a discipline has long been considered a supplemental discipline

of history, "history's handmaiden" (Noel Hume 1964), in which the goals of these studies

seemed to be limited to either proving or disproving the veracity of historical records. This was

the dominant model for early forays into historical archaeological research in Africa (Chittick

1971, 1974; Freeman-Grenville 1962; Kirkman 1964, 1974 to name only a few) as well as in the

United States (Deetz 1991, Harrington 1955, Orser 1996, Schuyler 1978). Happily, there has

been a recent trend that departs from this paradigm (see Andah 1995; Connah 1975; DeCorse

1997, 2001; Holl 1995; Lanning 1954, 1966; Lightfoot 1995; Posnansky 1968, 1969; Reid and

Lane 2004; Robertshaw 2004; Schmidt 1978, 1983, 1997, 2006; Schmidt and Patterson 1995;

Schmidt and Walz 2007; Schrire 1991, 1995; Stahl 2001, 2004; Wylie 1995), in which historical

archaeology in general, and in Africa in particular, has been recognized as a means to

complement historical records rather than merely affirm or contradict them, by addressing issues

that cannot or have not been satisfactorily addressed by an historical approach.

It is my hope that this study will j oin the ranks of this "new" historical archaeology. As

mentioned, this research has presented a fresh perspective to the issue of the Gonder Beta Israel

lifeways during and after the rise of Gonder. In general, this study may also serve as an example

of how an archaeological approach to the study of a marginalized group can add to more

complete knowledge of how such groups might respond to increasing interaction with the

dominant group by becoming actively integrated in one or more spheres of society. The

emphasis on the agency and praxis of the submerged group is one area which traditional









historical archaeologies have typically overlooked, and is one of the characteristics of the new

generation of historical archaeology (see for example DeCorse 2001; Schmidt and Patterson

1995). In this case, it appears that the Beta Israel may have elected to embed themselves within

the economic spheres of Gonder society by striving to serve the economic demands of the

mainstream, while remaining physically and socially separate. This is a valuable illustration of

the active ways in which members of a submerged group may manipulate their physical and

cultural surroundings to sustain their own ideologies.

Directions for Future Research

As discussed in Chapter 6, the small sample size limits the conclusions I am able to draw

about group responses to integration, although the shift in pottery frequency and diversity across

the excavated units does suggest this was more than an individual or nuclear household response.

The lack of comparative material to help make inferences about meaning in the archaeological

pottery sample also limits my ability to divine cultural meaning from continuities or

discontinuities in pottery styles.

Our work for the future is cut out for us. Future research should include a more complete

excavation of the Abwara Giorgis site to further address the spatial issues discussed earlier.

Compositional studies of both the archaeological and ethnographic pottery are necessary to

further examine the theme of style in technological choices; the functional equivalence of

various production techniques must be established before turning to cultural reasons for varying

technological methods. In addition, excavation of the other Beta Israel villages around Gonder -

Gondaroch Maryam, Tadda, Abba Entonyos not to mention Beta Israel sites in other parts of

the country, is necessary. A more complete pottery assemblage is required before the major

questions regarding identity and integration through material culture can be addressed in detail;









however, this study has hopefully laid the groundwork for future studies of Beta Israel

archaeology and the historical archaeology of northwestern Ethiopia in general.










APPENDIX A
AG TEST SITE #1 BAG CATALOG


X
coord
0
5
0
5
35
0
5
15
20

20-25
5
0
5
15
0
25
-10
-15
-5


Y
coord
0
0
5
5
5
10
10
10
10

10
15
20
20
20
15
15
0
0
5

25
30
20


Point #
0
16
57
64
70
58
71
73
74
house
center
79
60
86
88
61
83
104
105
106


Date
16/2/04
16/2/04
16/2/04
16/2/04
16/2/04
16/2/04
16/2/04
16/2/04
16/2/04

16/2/04
17/2/04
17/2/04
17/2/04
17/2/04
17/2/04
17/2/04
18/2/04
18/2/04
18/2/04

18/2/04
18/2/04
18/2/04


Excavator
BG/M
BG/M
Melaku
Melaku
Melaku
TZ
TZ
TZ
TZ

TZ
BG/M
Melaku
Melaku
Melaku
TZ
BG/M
TZ
Melaku
BG/M

TZ
Melaku
Melaku


Contents
charcoal, metal,
charcoal,
charcoal, metal,
charcoal, metal,
bone,
charcoal,
charcoal, clay,
bone, charcoal, clay,
metal, bone, charcoal,

charcoal,
charcoal,
bone, clay,
bone, glass,
charcoal, stone
charcoal, glass,
metal,
glass,
charcoal,
charcoal,
charcoal, metal,
glass,
charcoal,
charcoal,


** all other shovel tests contained no artifacts (total 63 st's completed)


400











APPENDIX B
TEMPORARY DATUM ELEVATIONS


meters above
permanent
datum


Datum Name


4.046

4.381

3.394

3.284

4.612

4.661

4.319










APPENDIX C
AG 2004 BAG CATALOG


Bag

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41


Unit
Bl
Cl
Dl
A2
El
B2
C2
E2
D2
E3
D3
A5
C5
B5
J4
J5
A3
E4
H5
A4
B4
C4
C3
H4
G5
B3
H3
F5
F3
G3
IS
J3
F4
IS
D4
G4
E5
I4
D5
A6
B6


Contents
pottery,
pottery, glass,
pottery, glass,
pottery, glass,
pottery, bone, 1/2 bead
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, glass,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, bone
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,gulicha (firing rocks)
pottery,
pottery, glass,
pottery, glass, slag,
pottery, glass,
pottery, glass, metal ring
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass
pottery, glass


Level
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface


Date
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
2/3/04
3/3/04
3/3/04


Excavator
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
NM/AW
T/M
T/M
T/M
NM/AW
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
NM/AW
T/M
NM/AW
TZ
AW


402










42 C6
43 D6
44 E6
45 F6
46 G6
47 H6
48 I6
49 J6
50 A7
51 B7
52 C7
53 D7
54 E7
55 F7
56 G7
57 H7
58 17
59 J7
60 A8
61 B8
62 IS
63 C8
64 D8
65 E8
66 F8
67 G8
68 H8
69 J8
70 A9
71 B9
72 C9
73 D9
74 E9
75 F9
76 G9
77 A10
78 B10
79 C10
80 D10
81 E10
82 F10
83 G10
84 Al l
85 B11
86 C11
87 D11


surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface


3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 NM


pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, clay, slag,
pottery, slag,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, slag, bone,
pottery, clay, slag,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, glass,
pottery,
pottery, glass,
pottery,
pottery, clay, slag,
pottery, clay, slag,
pottery, bone, slag,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, slag,
pottery, slag,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,


403










surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface


3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 TZ
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 MG
3/3/04 AW
3/3/04 NM
3/3/04 TZ

5/3/04 RK.TZ.NM

5/3/04 RK.TZ.NM
6/3/04 RK.TZ.NM
9/3/04 RK.TZ.NM
9/3/04 KB,RK
9/3/04 KB,RK
9/3/04 BG/MNM
10/3/04 BG/MNM
10/3/04 BG/MNM
10/3/04 KB,RK
10/3/04 BG/MNM
11/3/04 KB,RK
11/3/04 KB,RK
11/3/04 NM, TZ
12/3/04 NM, TZ

12/3/04 NM, TZ
13/3/04 NM, TZ
15/3/04 YA, RK
15/3/04 NM, YA
15/3/04 AW, MT
15/3/04 AW, MT
16/3/04 AW, MT
16/3/04 AW, MT

16/3/04 NM, YA
16/3/04 AW, MT


E11
F11
G11
Al2
Bl2
C12
D12
E12
Fl2
Gl2
Al3
Bl3
C13
D13
E13
Fl3
Gl3


pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, clay, slag, bone, metal, glass,
charcoal, bead
pottery, clay, slag, charcoal, metal, bone,
bead
pottery, charcoal, slag, metal, bone, clay,
pottery, bone, clay, slag,
pottery, slag, tooth,clay,
pottery, slag, bone, glass,
pottery, slag, clay,
pottery, slag, bone, clay, tooth
pottery, slag, charcoal, bone,
pottery, glass, charcoal, bone, slag,
pottery, bone, charcoal, slag,
pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, glass,
pottery,
pottery, charcoal, slag, clay, teeth
pottery, slag, charcoal, clay,
pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, glass, clay,
bead
pottery, bone, charcoal, slag, glass,
pottery,
pottery, charcoal, slag, bone, metal, clay,
pottery, charcoal, slag, bone,
pottery, charcoal, slag, bone, bead
pottery, slag, charcoal,
pottery, bone, charcoal, slag, teeth
pottery, slag, bone, metal, charcoal, glass,
tooth
pottery,


105 G7


128 F6
129 F8


404










17/3/04
17/3/04
17/3/04

17/3/04
17/3/04
18/3/04
18/3/04
18/3/04
18/3/04
18/3/04
19/3/04
19/3/04
19/3/04
19/3/04
19/3/04
19/3/04
19/3/04
20/3/04
20/3/04
20/3/04
20/3/04
20/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
22/3/04
23/3/04
23/3/04
23/3/04
23/3/04
23/3/04
23/3/04
23/3/04
23/3/04
24/3/04
24/3/04
24/3/04
25/3/04
25/3/04
25/3/04


pottery, charcoal, bone, slag, bead
pottery,
pottery, glass, metal, slag, bone,
pottery, charcoal, slag, bone, metal, clay,
tooth
pottery, bone, slag, charcoal,
pottery, metal, slag, bone, glass, bead


AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA

AW, MT
RK
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
RK
AW, MT
BG/MAW
RK
AW, MT
YA, MT
YA, MT
AW, MT
YA, MT
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
RK
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
RK
RK
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
RK
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT


G6
F7-fp
G5
G6
G6
F7-fp
F6
F6
F7-fp
F6
G5
G5
F6
G5
F5
F5
G6
F7-fp
G6
F5
G6
F5
F7
F7
G6
F5
G6
F7
F5
G6
G6
F5
G6
F5
F5
F8-N
F8-N
F5
G8
F6
F8-S
F6


pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,


slag, bone, clay,
charcoal, bone, slag,
bone, clay,
charcoal, bone, slag,
bone,
bone, glass, clay, charcoal,
bone,
bone, tooth
charcoal, slag, bone, clay, tooth
bone, glass, tooth

bone, charcoal, glass, tooth
slag, bone, charcoal, metal,

slag, bone,
metal, bone, slag, glass,
slag, bone, charcoal, tooth
bone, slag, teeth


pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, tooth, bone, slag, clay, bead


bone, tooth
bone, slag, charcoal, teeth (bovid)
charcoal,
bone,
bone, slag, glass, tooth?
bone, slag, charcoal,
bone, slag, charcoal,
charcoal, bone, tooth
bone, charcoal, tooth
bone,
slag, metal, bone, charcoal,
bone, charcoal,
bone, charcoal,
bone, metal, charcoal, tooth
slag, bone,
bone, charcoal,
bone, charcoal, slag,


pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,


405










25/3/04
25/3/04
25/3/04
30/3/04
30/3/04
30/3/04
30/3/04
30/3/04
30/3/04
30/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
31/3/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
2/4/04
2/4/04
2/4/04
2/4/04
2/4/04
2/4/04
2/4/04
5/4/04


bone,
bone,
bone,
bone,


tooth
slag, charcoal,
charcoal,
charcoal,


175 F8-S
176 F6
177 F8-S
178 F6
179 F8-S
180 F6
181 G7-S
182 G7-N
183 F8-S
184 G7-S
185 F7
186 F7
187 G7-N
188 F7
189 G7-S
190 F7
191 G7-N
192 G7-S
193 F7
194 F7
195 G7-N
196 G7-S
197 F7
198 F7
199 G7-N
200 F7
201 G7-S
202 F7
203 F7
204 G7-N
205 G7
206 F7
207 F7
208 G7
209 F7
210 F7
211 G7
212 F7
G7-south
213 wall
G7-north
214 wall
G7-west
215 wall
216 G7
217 F7


NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA


pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,


bone, charcoal,

bone, slag, teeth
bone, tooth
bone, tooth
bone, clay, charcoal, teeth

bone,
bone, tooth
bone,
charcoal, bone,
bone, tooth


bone,
bone,
bone,


teeth
slag, glass, lithic
charcoal,


bone, charcoal, tooth
bone, charcoal, tooth
bone, charcoal,
bone, clay,
bone, charcoal, metal, bead


bone,
bone,
bone,
bone,


metal, clay, bead, coprolite?

charcoal, tooth
tooth


bone, charcoal,
bone, charcoal, tooth
bone, clay, slag, tooth
bone, coprolite?
slag, bone, glass, charcoal, teeth
bone, charcoal,
bone, tooth
bone, charcoal,


10-15

10-15

7-15
16
22


5/4/04 AW

5/4/04 MT


pottery,

pottery, bone,


5/4/04
5/4/04
5/4/04


bone, metal,
bone, charcoal, tooth
bone, charcoal,


AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA


pottery,
pottery,
pottery,


406










F7-nw
218 corner
219 G8
220 G8
221 F7
222 F7
223 F7
224 G7
225 G8
226 G7
227 G7
228 F7
229 G7
G7-south
230 wall
231 F7
232 G7
233 F7
234 G7-E
235 G7-W
236 F7
237 G7-E
238 F7
239 G7-W

240 G7-E

241 F7

242 G7-W

243 F7

244 G7-E
F7-rock
245 wall
246 F7-S
247 F7-S
248 G7-W
249 F7-S
250 G7
251 F7-S
252 F7-S
253 G7
254 J3
255 F7-S


11-22
3-5
6
23
~17-22
24
17
7
18
19
25
20

12-19
26
21
27
22
22
28
23
29
23

24

30

24

31

25

2-6
7
8
25
9
26
10
11
27
1
12


6/4/04
6/4/04
6/4/04
7/4/04
7/4/04
7/4/04
7/4/04
8/4/04
8/4/04
9/4/04
9/4/04
9/4/04

9/4/04
9/4/04
9/4/04
10/4/04
10/4/04
12/4/04
12/4/04
12/4/04
12/4/04
12/4/04
13
/4/04
13
/4/04
13
/4/04
13
/4/04
13
/4/04
13
/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04
14/4/04


NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT

AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT

AW, MT

NM, YA

AW, MT

NM, YA

AW, MT

NM, YA
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA


pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,

pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, charce
pottery, bone,


charcoal,


charcoal, tooth


lithic


charcoal,

charcoal,

charcoal,


charcoal,
charcoal,


charcoal,
tooth
charcoal,
charcoal,


bead, lithic


oal,
tooth


pottery, bone,

pottery,

pottery, bone,

none

pottery,

pottery, bone, calcedony lithic
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, metal nail
pottery, tooth (bovid)
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, glass, metal, bone, slag,
pottery, metal,


407










15/4/04
15/4/04
15/4/04
15/4/04
15/4/04
15/4/04
15/4/04
16/4/04
16/4/04
16/4/04
16/4/04
16/4/04
16/4/04
16/4/04
16/4/04
17/4/04
17/4/04
17/4/04
17/4/04
19/4/04
19/4/04
19/4/04
19/4/04
19/4/04
19/4/04
19/4/04
20/4/04
20/4/04
20/4/04
20/4/04
20/4/04
26/4/04
26/4/04
26/4/04
26/4/04
26/4/04
27/4/04
27/4/04
27/4/04
27/4/04


pottery, bone, charcoal,
pottery, bone, charcoal, beads
pottery, bone, glass,
pottery, bone, ochre, 3 beads
pottery, glass, bone, metal nail


Ircoal, tooth


256 F7-S
257 F7-S
258 J3
259 F7-S
260 J3
261 F7-S
262 F7-S
263 J3
264 F7-S
265 F7-S
266 J3
267 J3
268 F7-S/SE
269 F7-S
270 J3
271 F7-S
272 J3
273 F7-S
274 J3
275 F7-S
276 J3
277 J3
278 F7-S
279 J3
280 J3
281 F7-S
282 J3
283 J3
284 F7-S
285 J3
286 J3
287 F7-S
288 J3
289 F7-S
290 J3
291 F7-S
292 F7-S
293 J3
294 A2
295 J8
J3-east
296 wall
G7-north
297 wall
298 A2
299 J8


13
14
2
15
3
16
17-22
4
17
18
5
6
15-18
19
7
20
8
21
9
22
10
11
23
12
13
24
14
15
25
16
17
26
18
27
19
28
29
20
1
1

1-10


NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA


pottery, bone, cha
pottery,
pottery, bone, gla
pottery, bone, too
pottery, bone, slal
pottery, bone, slal
pottery, bone, too
pottery, charcoal,
pottery, bone, cha
pottery, bone, gla
pottery, charcoal,
pottery, slag, bonl
pottery, bone, cha
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone, cha
pottery, bone, cyl:
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone, me
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone, cha
pottery, bone, cha
pottery, bone, gla
pottery, slag, char
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone, cha
pottery, bone,
pottery, charcoal,
none
pottery,
pottery,
pottery,
none
pottery, bone, she
pottery, bone, me


ss,

g, charcoal, metal ball
g, charcoal, tooth

2 beads
Ircoal,
ss,
bone, tooth

Ircoal, tooth

Ircoal,
indrical charcoal (?)

tal, charcoal, bead


Ircoal, bead
Ircoal, bead
ss,
-coal,

Ircoal,


ll1, glass, metal,
tal, glass, clay, beads


27/4/04 RK


pottery,

pottery,
pottery,
pottery,


28/4/04
28/4/04
28/4/04


RK
AW, MT
NM, YA


bone, charcoal, seed?
bone, metal, glass, charcoal, tooth


408










F7-east
wall
A2
A2
J8
J8
J8-east
wall
J8
A2
J8-south
wall
J8
A2
J8
J8
A2
J8-E
A2
J8-SE
J8-NE
J8
A2
A2
J8
A2
J8-NE
J8-NW
A2-NW
J8
A2
J8-NE
A2-NW
J8
A2
A2-NW
A2-W
J8-NE
A2-E
J8
A2-W
A2-E
J8-NE
J8
A2
A2


300
301
302
303
304

305
306
307

308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342


28/4/04
28/4/04
28/4/04
28/4/04
28/4/04

28/4/04
29/4/04
29/4/04

29/4/04
29/4/04
29/4/04
29/4/04
29/4/04
29/4/04
30/4/04
30/4/04
30/4/04
30/4/04
30/4/04
30/4/04
30/4/04
3/5/04
3/5/04
3/5/04
3/5/04
3/5/04
3/5/04
3/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
4/5/04
5/5/04
5/5/04
5/5/04
5/5/04


RK
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA

NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT

NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
MT
NM, YA
MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
MT
AW, MT


pottery,
pottery, bone, charcoal, glass, tooth
pottery, bone, metal, charcoal, alelo rock
pottery, bone, lithic
pottery, charcoal,


pottery,
pottery,
pottery,


bone, charcoal,
bone, charcoal, seed?


pottery,
pottery, charco
pottery, bone,
pottery, metal
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, clay,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, charce
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
none
pottery, bone,
pottery,
none
pottery, charco
pottery, bone,


,al, bone, bead
charcoal, tooth
hair ornament
beads
slag,
charcoal, teeth
charcoal,


metal, clay, tooth

charcoal, seed?


glass,


metal blade, lithic
charcoal,


,al, bone,
charcoal, teeth


409










5/5/04
5/5/04
5/5/04
5/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
6/5/04
7/5/04
7/5/04


pottery, metal ball
none
pottery, bone, char
pottery,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, charcoal,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
bone
pottery, bone, char
pottery, bone, beach
pottery, bone, glas


343 J8-NE
344 J8
345 A2
346 J8
347 J8
348 A2
349 J8
350 J8
351 C4
352 A2
353 A2
354 A2
355 A2
356 C4
357 C4
A2-north
358 wall
A2-south
359 wall
A2-east
360 wall
361 A2

362 C4
363 C4
A2-west
364 wall
365 C4
366 A2
367 C4
368 C4-NE
369 A2
370 C4
371 C4


14
14
18
15
16
19
17
18
1
20
17-20
20-21
21
2
3

1-21

1-21

1-21
22


NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
AW, MT
AW, MT
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA


coal, teeth


-coal, tooth
d
s, charcoal, tooth


7/5/04 AW, MT pottery, bone, metal,

7/5/04 AW, MT pottery, bone,


7/5/04
10/5/04


AW, MT
AW, MT


pottery, bone, glass, charcoal, seed?
pottery,
pottery, charcoal, bone, bead, glass tool?,
metal, slag,
pottery, bone, glass, charcoal,

pottery, slag, bone, clay,
pottery, bone, glass, charcoal,


10/5/04 NM, YA
10/5/04 NM, YA


10/5/04
10/5/04
10/5/04
11/5/04
11/5/04
11/5/04
11/5/04
11/5/04

12/5/04
12/5/04
12/5/04
12/5/04
12/5/04

13/5/04
13/5/04
13/5/04
13/5/04
14/5/04


AW, MT
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA

NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA
NM, YA

NM, YA
NM, YA
AW, MT
NM, YA
NM, YA


1-22
6
23
7
1
24
8
9

10
25
4-10
11
12

1-12
13
26
14
14


pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
seed?
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone,


charcoal, tooth
charcoal,


clay, charcoal
glass, charcoal, bead, tooth,



tooth
glass,


372
373
374
375
376

377
378
379
380
381


C4
A2
C4
C4
C4
C4-north
wall
C4
A2
C4-N
C4-S


pottery, bone,
pottery, bone, clay, charcoal, stone
none
pottery, bone,
pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth


410









382 F7-S 30


14/5/04 AW, MT none


383 C4-N 15 14/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
384 C4-S 15 14/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth
385 A2-SW 21-26 14/5/04 AW, MT pottery,
386 C4-N 16 17/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, clay, charcoal, metal nail
387 C4-S 16 17/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
388 C4-N-ash 17 17/5/04 NM, YA pottery, charcoal,
389 C4-N 17 17/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, slag,
390 C4-S 17 17/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
391 C4-SE 18 17/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
392 C4 18 17/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
393 C4 19 18/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
394 C4 20 18/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
395 C4-NW 21 18/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone,
396 C4 21 18/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
397 C4-NW 22 19/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,
398 C4 22 19/5/04 NM, YA pottery, charcoal, bone, stone
399 C4 23 19/5/04 NM, YA pottery, bone,
400 C4 24 20/5/04 NM, YA pottery,
401 C4 25 20/5/04 NM, YA pottery,
402 C4 26 21/5/04 NM, YA none










APPENDIX D
FAUNAL CATALOG, AG 2004


Identified Faunal Remains
Bag Unit Level


Taxa


Bones


NR Weight (g)


Unit A2
299
299
299
301
320
325
299
301
322
315
310
319
319
319
342
345
345
353
355
360
354



Unit C4
357
368
357
357
370
372
372
378
378
372
372
372
375
375
375
375
380


A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
Total A2


Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus


Teeth
Metacarpal
Rib
Teeth
Tibia
Tarsal
Femur
Humerus
Femur
Vertebrae
Teeth
Tibia
Tarsal
Tarsal
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Radius
Teeth
Vertebrae
Scapula




Femur
Humerus
Teeth
Rib
Tibia
Scapula
Pelvis
Vertebrae
Phalanx
Teeth
Teeth
Mandible
Mandible
Teeth
Teeth
Humerus
Pelvis


Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Rodentia
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus


412










380 C4
380 C4
383 C4
387 C4
383 C4
384 C4
392 C4
391 C4
386 C4
381 C4
384 C4
393 C4
393 C4
393 C4
Total C4


Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Rodentia
Bos taunts
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taunts
caprinae
caprinae


Femur
Metacarpal
Scapula
Femur
Metacarpal
Radius
Ulna
Pelvis
Metacarpal
Teeth
Teeth
Tarsal
Metatarsal
Sesamoi'd


Unit F7G7
112 F7G7 1
113 F7G7 1
113 F7G7 1
115 F7G7 1
115 F7G7 1
115 F7G7 1
115 F7G7 1
115 F7G7 1
118 F7G7 1
118 F7G7 1
118 F7G7 1
118 F7G7 1
118 F7G7 1
118 F7G7 1
118 F7G7 1
181 F7G7 1
181 F7G7 1
181 F7G7 1
181 F7G7 1
181 F7G7 1
181 F7G7 1
181 F7G7 1
247 F7G7 1
184 F7G7 1
184 F7G7 1
188 F7G7 1
184 F7G7 1
184 F7G7 1
184 F7G7 1


caprinae
Bos taunts
caprinae
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
caprinae
Bos taunts
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae


Teeth
Phalanx
Mandible
Radius
Carpal
Teeth
Tibia
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Mandible
Vertebrae
Metacarpal
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Mandible
Femur
Vertebrae
Teeth
Rib
Carpal
Humerus
Carpal
Scapula


413










184 F7G7 1
184 F7G7 1
184 F7G7 1
190 F7G7 1
190 F7G7 1
192 F7G7 1
192 F7G7 1
192 F7G7 1
192 F7G7 1
192 F7G7 1
196 F7G7 1
196 F7G7 1
196 F7G7 1
196 F7G7 1
196 F7G7 1
197 F7G7 1
197 F7G7 1
201 F7G7 1
201 F7G7 1
197 F7G7 1
197 F7G7 1
197 F7G7 1
201 F7G7 1
201 F7G7 1
198 F7G7 2
198 F7G7 2
256 F7G7 2
205 F7G7 2
198 F7G7 2
198 F7G7 2
208 F7G7 2
208 F7G7 2
208 F7G7 2
259 F7G7 2
211 F7G7 2
202 F7G7 2
211 F7G7 2

259 F7G7 2
203 F7G7 2
203 F7G7 2
203 F7G7 2
216 F7G7 2
216 F7G7 2
203 F7G7 2
206 F7G7 2
206 F7G7 2


caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Tilapinii
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Aves sp.
Aves sp.
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
Equus asinus
(donkey)
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Tilapinii
Bos taurus
Bos taurus


Teeth
Teeth
Mandible
Teeth
Rib
Tarsal
Teeth
Humerus
Teeth
Teeth
Tibia
Rib
Scapula
Tibia
Tibia
Vertebrae
Phalanx
Vertebrae
Humerus
Scapula
Vertebrae
Teeth
Scapula
Humerus
Femur
Rib
Sesamoi'd
Pelvis
Femur
Rib
Mandible
Teeth
Ulna
Tibia
Teeth
Rib
Teeth

Femur
Teeth
Tibia
Radius
Mandible
Scapula
Skull
Vertebrae
Teeth


414










206 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Humerus 1 26
264 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Teeth 1 4
206 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth11
206 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 2 1
206 F7G7 2 caprinae Rib 1 2
206 F7G7 2 caprinae Hlumerus11
206 F7G7 2 caprinae Carpal11
206 F7G7 2 caprinae Tarsal 1 1
264 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 1 2
224 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 1 2
227 F7G7 4 Bos taurus Femur 1 9
209 F7G7 4 caprinae Mandible 1 13
227 F7G7 4 caprinae Sternum 1 1
210 F7G7 4 caprinae Mandible 1 2
210 F7G7 4 caprinae Skull11
212 F7G7 4 caprinae Femur 1 5
212 F7G7 4 caprinae Teeth 1 1
273 F7G7 4 caprinae Vertebrae11
273 F7G7 4 caprinae Skull11
273 F7G7 4 Viverridae Teeth 1 1
273 F7G7 4 Viverridae Mandible 1 1
273 F7G7 4 Viverridae Metatarsal11
217 F7G7 4 caprinae Mandible 1 2
271 F7G7 4a caprinae Teeth 1 6
227 F7G7 4a Rodentia Teeth 1 1
207 F7G7 4a caprinae Skull11
207 F7G7 4a caprinae Teeth11
207 F7G7 4a caprinae Pelvis 1 1
209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Teeth 1 10
209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Phalanx 1 2
209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Tibia 1 21
209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Metatarsal 1 34
221 F7G7 5 Bos taurus Tarsal 1 35
278 F7G7 5 Bos taurus Pelvis 1 40
221 F7G7 5 caprinae Teeth 1 4
223 F7G7 6 Bos taurus Tarsal 1 11
250 F7G7 6 Bos taurus Teeth 1 18
214 F7G7 1-3 caprinae Vertebrae11
Total F7G7 146 278

Unit G7-North
182 G7-N 1 Bos taurus Teeth 1 4
182 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth 21
187 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth 1 1
187 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth 1 2
187 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth11


415










204 G7-N 1
Total G7-N



Unit G7-West
239 G7-W 1
239 G7-W 1
239 G7-W 1
Total G7-W


Equus asinus





Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae




Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus


Teeth





Radius
Ulna
Metacarpal




Scapula
Phalanx
Teeth
Teeth
Metacarpal
Phalanx
Radius
Teeth
Carpal
Phalanx
Humerus
Humerus
Humerus
Skull
Teeth
Humerus




Sesamoi'd
Teeth
Tibia
Teeth
Mandible
Radius
Teeth




Teeth
Tibia
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth
Teeth


Unit J3
267
267
267
267
267
270
270
270
279
279
282
282
283
285
285
286



Unit J8
299
299
309
314
314
318
318


J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
Total J3



J8
J8
J8
J8
J8
J8
J8
Total J8


caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae




caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus


Partially excavated units
148 F5* 3
164 F5 8
166 F5 9
128 F6 1
128 F6 1
145 F6 5


416










124 F8 2 Bos taurus Carpal 1 1
125 F8 3 Bos taurus Phalanx 1 7
127 F8 5 Bos taurus Teeth 1 18
130 F8 6 Bos taurus Phalanx 1 1
130 F8 6 caprinae Teeth 1 1
168 F8 7 caprinae Teeth11
173 F8 7 Bos taurus Scapula 1 21
175 F8 8 Bos taurus Rib 1 2
175 F8 8 Bos taurus Teeth 1 15
179 F8 10 Bos taurus Humerus 1 38
179 F8 10 caprinae Scapula 1 10
179 F8 10 caprinae Metacarpal 1 1
183 F8 11 caprinae Humerus 1 13
183 F8 11 caprinae Teeth 2 13
183 F8 11 caprinae Vertebrae 2 4
135 G5 1 Bos taurus Teeth 1 1
144 G5 3 caprinae Teeth 1 3
146 G5 4 Bos taurus Radius 1 34
146 G5 4 Bos taurus Vertebrae 1 2
146 G5 4 caprinae Teeth 1 1
133 G6 1 Bos taurus Teeth 4 1
133 G6 1 caprinae Teeth11
133 G6 1 caprinae Teeth11
149 G6 4 Bos taurus Vertebrae 1 4
153 G6 6 Bos taurus Metatarsal 1 63
153 G6 6 Bos taurus Teeth 1 5
157 G6 7 Bos taurus Teeth 2 46
157 G6 7 Bos taurus Teeth 1 9
157 G6 7 Bos taurus Teeth 8 5
157 G6 7 Bos taurus Phalanx 1 5
157 G6 7 caprinae Teeth 1 5
159 G6 8 Tilapinii Vertebrae 1 0.5
159 G6 8 Bos taurus Teeth 1 13
159 G6 8 Bos taurus Teeth 1 23
159 G6 8 Bos taurus Teeth 1 27
159 G6 8 Bos taurus Phalanx 1 6
159 G6 8 caprinae Tibia 1 12
159 G6 8 caprinae Pelvis 1 4
159 G6 8 caprinae Vertebrae 3 4
162 G6 9 Equus asinus Metatarsal 1 59
163 G6 10 caprinae Rib 1 2
165 G6 11 caprinae Teeth 4 4
120 G8 3 Bos taurus Ulna 1 19
121 G8 4 Bos taurus Scapula 1 51
121 G8 4 Bos taurus Vertebrae 1 4
121 G8 4 Bos taurus Pelvis 1 2


417










171 G8
225 G8
225 G8
225 G8
225 G8
225 G8
225 G8
225 G8
225 G8
225 G8
109 H7
116 H7


caprinae
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
Bos taunts
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
caprinae
Bos taunts
Equits asinus


Metacarpal
Femur
Vertebrae
Phalanx
Sesamoi'd
Teeth
Radius
Ulna
Tarsal
Mandible
Teeth
Teeth


Unidentified (uid) Faunal Remains
Bag # Unit Level N
Unit A2
294 A2 1 19
298 A2 1 4
301 A2 1 21
302 A2 1 7
307 A2 2 5
310 A2 2 6
313 A2 2 7
315 A2 2 15
319 A2 2 19
322 A2 3 12
327 A2 3 2
331 A2 3 3
335 A2 3 4
341 A2 3 3
342 A2 3 10
345 A2 3 11
348 A2 3 7
352 A2 3 27
325 A2 5 1
337 A2 6 2
353 A2 6 30
354 A2 6 15
355 A2 7 30
373 A2 7 14
379 A2 7 22
358 A2 1-7 10
359 A2 1-7 10


Weight (g)

55.5
n/a
95.0
25.2
10.0
6.5
6.8
17.0
85.0
11.0
4.5
3.9
4.1
4.1
24.9
50.0
7.0
32.9
9.8
11.2
105.0
15.5
21.5
150.0
14.8
8.4
6.1


418










360 A2 1-7 15 50.0
364 A2 1-7 18 3.6
Total A2 uid fauna 349 839.3

Unit C4
356 C4 1 1 3.5
357 C4 1 9 6.3
362 C4 1 5 5.9
363 C4 2 5 6.8
365 C4 2 4 4.4
367 C4 2 5 14.3
370 C4 2 11 70.0
372 C4 2 106 325.3
374 C4 2 8 7.4
376 C4 2 8 11.2
378 C4 3 11 24.5
381 C4 3 12 14.7
384 C4 3 11 26.4
387 C4 3 8 50.0
390 C4 3 8 23.5
391 C4 3 8 5.5
393 C4 4 16 50.0
394 C4 4 17 60.0
395 C4 4 10 12.2
396 C4 4 3 4.1
397 C4 5 1 2.6
398 C4 5 1 3.5
399 C4 5 1 2.8
377 C4 1-2 5 5.5
368 C4 2a 3 17.1
392 C4 3a 8 16.5
Total C4 uid fauna 285 774.0

Unit F7G7
105 F7G7 1 8 20.0
106 F7G7 1 12 10.7
112 F7G7 1 5 20.0
113 F7G7 1 60 75.0
115 F7G7 1 39 140.0
118 F7G7 1 117 90.0
123 F7G7 1 23 130.0


419










F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7
F7G7


156
181
186
188
190
193
194
197
246
249
251
252
134
138
141
189
192
196
198
200
201
202
203
205
206
207
208
209
211
216
224
226
245
256
257
259
261
264
268
210
212


4.3
100.0
12.5
12.4
13.5
50.0
3.1
80.0
n/a
3.3
4.3
8.4
5.3
7.3
5.6
15.4
120.0
100.0
n/a
20.0
105.0
22.2
100.0
80.0
100.0
13.2
70.0
110.0
40.0
100.0
80.0
50.0
5.4
3.3
5.0
50.0
50.0
62.4
3.1
50.0
55.0


420










217 F7G7 3 9 9.7
221 F7G7 3 27 90.0
223 F7G7 3 5 40.0
228 F7G7 3 3 4.4
271 F7G7 4 9 19.4
273 F7G7 4 18 10.3
275 F7G7 4 67 n/a
269 F7G7 4a 12 13.5
227 F7G7 5 22 30.7
229 F7G7 5 22 20.5
278 F7G7 5 26 80.0
231 F7G7 6 3 6.3
232 F7G7 6 15 14.1
233 F7G7 6 1 2.7
234 F7G7 6 11 40.0
236 F7G7 6 1 2.9
237 F7G7 6 5 8.7
240 F7G7 6 1 14.5
281 F7G7 6 5 5.7
287 F7G7 6 1 4.8
215 F7G7 1-2 11 18.1
222 F7G7 2-3 6 8.4
230 F7G7 2-3 9 4.2
Total F7G7 uid fauna 1502 2654.6

Unit G7-N
187 G7-N 1 6 7.3
199 G7-N 1 6 6.9
204 G7-N 1 17 100.0
214 G7-N 1 6 4.9
Total G7-N uid fauna 35 119.1

Unit G7-W
235 G7-W 1 5 3.5
239 G7-W 1 68 160.0
242 G7-W 1 7 15.0
Total G7-W uid fauna 80 178.5

Unit J3
254 J3 1 6 4.5
258 J3 1 4 3.4










260 J3 2 15 8.1
263 J3 3 28 35.2
266 J3 3 12 9.2
267 J3 3 38 90.0
270 J3 3 90 100.0
274 J3 4 25 16.9
276 J3 4 13 11.2
277 J3 4 20 18.5
280 J3 4 1 21.2
280 J3 4 36 n/a
282 J3 4 42 123.0
283 J3 4 56 140.0
285 J3 4 90 100.0
286 J3 4 37 11.1
290 J3 5 19 10.5
Total J3 uid fauna 532 702.8

Unit J8
295 J8 1 9 10.0
299 J8 1 5 11.5
303 J8 1 3 3.3
306 J8 1 4 4.6
309 J8 1 15 20.0
312 J8 1 4 3.0
318 J8 1 14 50.0
314 J8 2 12 32.8
321 J8 4 6 15.8
330 J8 4 2 3.6
336 J8 4 2 5.9
Total JS uid fauna 76 160.5


Partially excavated units
86 C11* surface 2 n/a
43 D6 surface 1 9.9
73 D9 surface 1 8.8
5 El surface 2 7.0
18 E4 surface 12 n/a
37 E5 surface 21 100.0
103 Fl3 surface 3 23.7
148 F5 3 3 n/a
152 F5 4 16 9.6


422










154 F5 5 28 70.0
158 F5 6 21 n/a
161 F5 7 9 17.3
164 F5 8 2 8.8
166 F5 9 4 4.0
167 F5 10 11 10.1
170 F5 11 7 6.9
128 F6 1 10 3.5
139 F6 2 5 6.6
140 F6 3 6 5.4
142 F6 4 2 3.5
145 F6 5 6 17.3
172 F6 6 3 6.2
174 F6 7 2 3.4
176 F6 8 8 30.0
178 F6 9 2 3.4
107 F8 1 9 8.3
124 F8 2 1 4.4
125 F8 3 6 20.0
127 F8 5 2 27.7
130 F8 6 38 19.5
168 F8-N 7 16 8.4
169 F8-N 8 16 6.8
173 F8-S 7 8 n/a
175 F8-S 8 30 70.0
177 F8-S 9 30 40.0
179 F8-S 10 58 100.0
183 F8-S 11 65 90.0
135 G5 1 7 10.7
143 G5 2 2 3.3
144 G5 3 6 10.9
146 G5 4 13 90.0
133 G6 1 16 17.4
137 G6 3 3 5.1
149 G6 4 5 0.1
151 G6 5 5 7.5
153 G6 6 32 105.5
157 G6 7 37 100.0
159 G6 8 56 115.0
162 G6 9 16 100.0
163 G6 10 14 12.0


423










165 G6 11 31 22.7
46 G6 surface 1 3.0
108 G8 1 1 3.1
120 G8 3 21 110.0
121 G8 4 26 90.0
171 G8 5 50 70.0
225 G8 7 65 105.0
219 G8 3-5 7 8.5
109 H7 1 2 5.1
110 H7 2 15 12.1
114 H7 3 11 17.7
116 H7 4 4 25.0
122 H8 1 82 160.0
48 I6 surface 8 19.3

* Levels given for partially excavated units are the
arbitrary excavated levels.


424










APPENDIX E
ARTIFACT CATALOG NON-POTTERY MATERIALS


SLAG
Bag # Unit
302 A2
313 A2
373 A2
364 A2
397 C4
132 F5
158 F5
164 F5
128 F6
140 F6
145 F6
172 F6
174 F6
176 F6
180 F6
106 F7
123 F7
193 F7
203 F7
206 F7
207 F7
265 F7
209 F7
275 F7
284 F7
245 F7
218 F7
134 F7-firing pit
138 F7-firing pit
107 F8
124 F8
125 F8
126 F8
127 F8
130 F8
168 F8-N
135 G5
25 G5
133 G6
137 G6
149 G6
151 G6
153 G6


Level
4
7
25
1-22
22
1
6
8

3
5
6
7
8
10
1
2
10
16
17
18
18
19
22
25
2-6
11-22
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

surface

3
4
5
6


N Weight (g)
1 ~3.2
2 3.4
4 7.6
2 9.0
1 ~4.9
5 12.5
3 6.4
1 0.5
36 50.0
2 6.4
1 ~8.4
26 100.0
12 32.1
5 5.9
37 180.0
450 n/a
89 125.0
2 6.6
2 12.6
3 5.2
1 ~16.6
5 6.6
9 9.7
4 4.0
7 29.4
5 8.6
3 10.3
14 50.0
3 6.4
550 600.0
5 n/a
70 65.0
24 90.0
47 130.0
50 n/a
9 12.6
25 n/a
2 13.4
365 n/a
26 100.0
22 170.0
11 33.6
4 100.0


Mean weight (g)
3.2
1.7
1.9
4.5
4.9
2.5
2.1
0.5
1.4
3.2
8.4
3.8
2.7
1.2
4.9
n/a
1.4
3.3
6.3
1.7
16.6
1.3
1.1
1.0
4.2
1.7
3.4
3.6
2.1
1.1
n/a
0.9
3.8
2.8
n/a
1.4
n/a
6.7
n/a
3.8
7.7
3.1
25.0


425















































Weight (g)
30.0
100.0
3.0
n/a
9.1
3.5
9.6
3.9
3.4
10.1
n/a
28.0
21.9
18.5
5.3
3.5
7.5
n/a


Mean weight (g)
30.0
12.5
3.0
n/a
9.1
3.5
9.6
3.9
3.4
10.1
n/a
14.0
21.9
3.7
1.8
1.2
3.8
n/a


426


157 G6
159 G6
162 G6
46 G6
105 G7
111 G7
112 G7
113 G7
115 G7
118 G7
181 G7
56 G7
182 G7-N
239 G7-W
108 G8
119 G8
121 G8
171 G8
67 G8
47 H6
109 H7
110 H7
114 H7
254 J3
266 J3
272 J3
283 J3


7
8
9
surface

2
3
4
5
6
7
surface
1

1

2
4
5
surface
surface
1
2
3

5
8
15


200.0
120.0
25.0
100.0
1300.0
650.0
600.0
105.0
180.0
40.0
12.0
7.0
5.6
2.0
750.0
90.0
20.0
18.2
60.0
60.0
190.0
50.0
14.4
6.1
9.7
110.0
3.3


4.8
3.8
5.0
14.3
1.6
2.6
1.6
0.3
1.7
1.7
2.0
0.4
5.6
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.1
9.1
12.0
2.1
5.8
2.2
0.8
3.1
2.4
22.0
1.1


METAL
Bag # Unit
294 A2
302 A2
307 A2
358 A2
362 C4
105 F7G7
106 F7G7
112 F7G7
123 F7G7
249 F7G7
255 F7G7
200 F7G7
201 F7G7
278 F7G7
254 J3
260 J3
295 J8
299 J8


LS level

1

2
1-7

1

1

1




2

5

2

1










311 J8
318 J8
334 J8

132 F5
128 F6
172 F6
107 F8
25 G5
133 G6
149 G6
171 G8
27 H3


8.9
12.0
20.0

60.0
2.5
3.9
4.0
8.1
4.3
2.5
13.3
2.4


8.9
12.0
20.0

12.0
0.6
3.9
4.0
8.1
1.4
2.5
6.7
2.4


1

6

surface

4
5
surface


GLASS
Bag #
294
302
360
351
357
372
376
105
118
193
196
209
284
215
254
258
260
263
283
295


Unit LS level Color N
A2 1 g/c 4
A2 1 green 1
A2 1-7 clear 1
C4 1 g/c 3
C4 1 clear 1
C4 2 green 2
C4 2 clear 1
F7G7 1 n/a 3
F7G7 1 clear 1
F7G7 1 green 1
F7G7 2 green 1
F7G7 2 green 1
F7G7 6 clear 2
F7G7 1-2 g/c 4
J3 1 g/c 40
J3 1 n/a 10
J3 2 n/a 28
J3 3 g/c 8
J3 4 clear 1
J8 1 n/a 3

B3 surface g/c 3
C1 surface clear 2
F5 1 g/c 3
F6 4 green 1
F8 5 clear 3
G5 1 green 5
G6 1 clear 1
G6 9 green 1
G8 3 clear 1
G8 4 g/c 2
H3 surface green 2


Weight (g) Mean weigi-
12.8
2.2
2.6
4.9
6.4
58.6
2.2
8.3
2.3
12.2
2.4
2.7
2.7
n/a n/a
90
13.9
50
4.1
2.9
6.9


3.2 g/c = both green
2.2 and clear glass
2.6 fragments present
1.6
6.4
29.3
2.2
2.8
2.3
12.2
2.4
2.7
1.4


4.9 for units that were
4.4 not fully excavated,
1.9 levels given are the
2.2 original arbitrary levels
1.6
1.5
2.3
2.8
3.5
3.8
6.4


14.6
8.7
5.6
2.2
4.9
7.3
2.3
2.8
3.5
7.5
12.7


427










24 H4 surface green 1 5.3 5.3
114 H7 3 g/c 11 30.1 2.7
116 H7 4 g/c 21 60 2.9
15 J4 surface clear 1 3 3.0

BEADS
Diameter Hole Diameter
Bag # unit LS Level Color (mm) (mm)
356 C4 1 white 8.5 3.4
362 C4 1 blue 4.1 1.9
372 C4 2 yellow 3.9 2.1
105 F7G7 1 white 7.2 broken
200 F7G7 2 green 7.4 2.7
201 F7G7 2 white 2.3 1.8
257 F7G7 2 blue 5.8 1.6
257 F7G7 2 blue 7.0 3.2
257 F7G7 2 blue 6.2 2.5
257 F7G7 2 blue 6.3 2.2
257 F7G7 2 blue 7.3 2.4
259 F7G7 2 blue 6.4 2.7
259 F7G7 2 green 2.8 1.8
259 F7G7 2 yellow 4.4 1.6
268 F7G7 2 green 8.2 3.0
268 F7G7 2 green 3.0 1.5
268 F7G7 2 white 2.8 1.1
278 F7G7 5 green 6.0 2.0
281 F7G7 6 clear 3.7 1.7
282 J3 4 red 4.9 2.3
295 J8 1 red 8.7 4.3
295 J8 1 white 7.1 2.9
309 J8 1 blue 3.1 1.8
312 J8 1 red 12.2 3.7
312 J8 1 green 3.3 1.6
321 J8 4 white n/a n/a

5 El surface blue 11.9 2.6
125 F8 3 black 4.8 2.4
130 F8 6 white 8.5 3.4
120 G8 3 white 2.6 0.6
225 G8 7 red 10.1 3.3


428













Bag sherd weight
# count ()
4 25 203.7
22 16 133.0
32 30 ~240.1
55 16 123.3
56 47 ~831.2
69 23 86.3
105 349 3754.8
106 253 1731.9
111 114 2984.4
112 164 2497.7
113 376 4612.7
115 299 1823.2
118 313 2195.9
123 411 3427.1
134 79 692.1
138 120 1283.3
141 45 436.9
150 3 30.5
155 5 18.6
156 20 138.9
160 12 61.3
181 65 442.6
182 17 126.7
184 156 1696.4
185 17 111.1
186 10 190.0
187 30 101.7
188 56 415.0
189 87 822.6
190 67 ~799.7
191 32 273.3
192 74 1591.9
193 42 402.7
194 79 581.3
195 11 62.5
196 99 765.1
197 74 410.6


sherd weight
Bag# count(g
209 17 247.5
210 11 163.4
211 44 416.8
212 39 150.8
213 3 26.3
214 12 60.9
215 27 112.6
216 65 413.8
217 38 183.6
218 6 76.5
221 75 432.3
222 7 64.8
223 18 97.8
224 47 166.5
226 64 478.1
227 58 203.4
228 79 211.0
229 53 487.5
230 3 12.7
231 20 46.6
232 28 165.1
233 4 14.9
234 22 97.0
235 21 78.2
236 17 48.1
237 6 20.9
238 1 8.6
239 18 115.8
240 2 7.3
241 3 21.7
242 12 37.1
244 2 19.3
245 14 128.1
246 88 200.2
247 11 73.2
248 2 36.0
249 12 76.6


APPENDIX F
AG 2004 POTTERY: BODY SHERD COUNTS AND WEIGHTS


429










198 32 94.2
199 9 23.6
200 18 133.5
201 35 203.7
202 20 131.5
203 27 226.6
204 4 47.1
205 45 466.8
206 37 685.6
207 32 470.21
208 41 620.2
261 39 223.4
262 6 2411
263 130 768.5
264 38 238.7
265 55 448.1
266 285 1130.1
267 164 815.1
268 12 103.0
269 59 323.0
270 102 576.0
271 61 299.1
272 116 683 9
273 33 179.7
274 76 460.4
275 78 258.8
276 107 493.:2
277 154 480.7
278 77 157.5
279 128 719.4
280 134 795.6
281 61 291.7
282 76 407.6
283 143 835.21
284 15 78.1
285 71 396.0
286 98 572.6
287 3 6.9
288 33 122.21
290 3 11.0
292 1 3.5


251 36 327.1
252 22 258.0
253 5 52.0
254 118 703.0
255 11 38..6
256 18 111.6
257 25 175.3
258 72 250.1
259 35 340.9
260 216 759.4
312 99 481.1
313 52 305.0
314 51 238.2
315 21 129.5
316 7 24.2
317 4 18.3
318 113 484.5
319 28 362.5
320 21 155.1
321 98 276.9
322 16 171.0
323 4 4.7
324 20 38.8
325 5 30.0
326 12 27.5
327 25 97.2
328 7 56.1
329 5 4.1
330 20 20.4
331 14 113.1
332 1 7.2
333 4 54.5
334 8 27.0
335 14 302.0
336 2 19.3
338 15 144.7
339 3 20.3
341 13 49.8
342 60 180.4
343 5 10.5
345 20 175.4


430










294 337 1832.2
295 338 1143.1
296 3 27.2
297 4 17.3
298 53 298.3
299 142 505.1
300 3 25.2
301 82 780.7
302 103 841.4
303 35 132.5
304 43 101.2
305 11 17.7
306 71 299.5
307 117 632.2
308 8 26.1
309 141 594.8
310 141 906.9
311 21 57.5
364 9 33.9
365 103 659.6
366 4 42.0
367 131 917.9
368 48 117.8
369 2 45.5
370 84 818.1
371 126 889.6
372 156 1101.4
373 2 12.1
374 7 71.0
375 33 247.5
376 42 260.4
377 30 200.3
378 17 174.1
380 19 96.1
381 10 107.3
383 13 126.7
384 8 23.5
386 11 283.1
387 19 213.8
388 2 4.9
389 6 33.0


346 4 44.8
347 3 9.7
348 40 122.8
349 6 30.4
350 2 4.7
351 241 1464.4
352 34 138.2
353 11 51.4
355 41 159.4
356 109 378.2
357 201 1275.3
358 110 840.9
359 35 43.2
360 41 149.1
361 6 13.5
362 135 973.4
363 92 555.1
390 7 33.4
391 2 7.9
392 17 121.8
393 13 165.0
394 5 69.8
395 1 7.9
396 3 13.1
397 2 12.4
398 1 4.4
399 3 13.4
400 1 1.7
401 1 5.2
TOTAL 12320.0 82911.2












VESSEL TYPE


Unit A2


sherd
thickness rim diameter
(mm) (cm)
8.7 too small


exterior use
alteration
erosion

dull soot
none
erosion
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion
erosion

erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

dull soot

erosion

dull soot and
cracking


interior use
alteration
none

scratches
erosion
scratches


type level
diste 1


surface treatment
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip


decorative type
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
fingemnail/stick
crescent

no decoration

no decoration



no decoration


rim shape
tapered
square with
lip
hemicircle
hemicircle

rounded

square
tapered
tapered
rounded with
lip
square with
lip

square

rounded

rounded

rounded


diste
diste
diste

diste

diste
diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste



diste

diste


7.9
14.8
13.7


2 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
2 burnish
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
2 burnish
interior slip/exterior
2 burnish


2 interior and exterior slip

3 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
3 burnish
interior slip/exterior
3 burnish



3 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
3 burnish


9.1 too small


none


scratches
none
scratches


too small
too small
too small


scratches

cracking

erosion

none

erosion

scratches
erosion,
scratches and
cracking


17.6 too small

7.7 30

12.7 36

10.7 too small

13.7 too small

9.3 too small


rounded


13.5 32


no decoration pitting scratches


14.9 too small square


APPENDIX G
POTTERY ATTRIBUTES BY











diste

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera
insera
insera

insera
insera

insera

insera

insera

insera



insera
insera


interior and exterior slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior burnish/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip
interior burnish/exterior
slip



interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration
multiple applique
lines
Single applique
horizontal line
incised zigzag
line
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
incised wavy line
on applique
incised horizontal
and diagonal lines
on rim
no decoration


13.4

15.2

15.6

5.5

10.8

8.3

9.1

9.2

11.2
7.1
9.8

9.5
4.2

9.8

12.5

9.9

12.9


too small

no rim

no rim

no rim

too small

12

14

no rim

no rim
6
8

8
9

9

14

14

no rim


none

none

erosion

scratches

none

erosion

none

none

scratches
none
none

scratches
scratches

erosion

erosion


rim chips

none


none

none

erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion and
scratches


pitting

erosion

pitting
erosion
none

erosion
scratches

pitting

pitting
erosion and
pitting

erosion


square

no rim

no rim

no rim
square with
lip

curved

curved

no rim

no rim
curved
curved
pointed
concave
rounded
pointed
concave

curved
pointed
concave

no rim



rounded
curved


6.9 too small
12.3 too small


none
none


none
erosion











interior smooth/exterior
jebena 2 slip
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish
mitad 1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish

mitad 1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 smooth
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 smooth
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 smooth
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish

mitad 1 interior and exterior slip

mitad 1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
mitad 1 smooth


incised horizontal
and vertical lines

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


4.9 no rim


no rim

rounded
rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip


none

erosion
pitting

pitting

erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion

pitting
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
pitting and
dull soot

erosion

none

erosion
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
dull soot and
cracking


none

none
none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none


11.4
16.5

20.3

14.9

17.1

17.1

20.5

19.4

19.4

19.3

21.7

19.7

16.1

14.6

19.5

21.2

20.1


too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small


none

erosion

scratches

scratches

scratches

rim chips

cracking











square flare
with ridge
rounded with
lip

square

square
square
square with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

square


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
burnish

side uid: slip/bumnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
smooth


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion
pitting and
dull soot

erosion

erosion
pitting

none

erosion

scratches

erosion

erosion

erosion

pitting
erosion and
dull soot
pitting and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

pitting


11.8

18.1

18.2

13.1
13.9

15

17.7

18.9

10

14.1

13.2

19.8

10.3

21.6

15.4

18.8

18.5

18.3


30

too small

too small

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small


none

scratches

none

scratches
scratches

none

none

none

erosion

scratches

none

none

none

none

erosion

scratches

scratches

none











Unit C4


exterior use
alteration

none

glossy soot
wear on
handle

erosion
none
erosion
pitting and
dull soot
wear on
handle
erosion and
dull soot

none

erosion
scratches

pitting

erosion

none

none

dull soot
erosion


interior use sherd


type level surface treatment
interior smooth/exterior
diste 1 slip

diste 1 interior and exterior slip

diste 2 interior and exterior slip

diste 2 interior and exterior slip
diste 2 interior and exterior slip
diste 2 interior and exterior slip

diste 2 interior and exterior slip

diste 2 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
diste 2 smooth

diste 2 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
diste 2 burnish
diste 2 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
diste 3 burnish
interior slip/exterior
diste 3 burnish
interior bumnish/exterior
diste 3 slip

diste 3 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
diste 3 burnish
diste 4 interior slip/exterior


decorative type

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
multiple incised
lines

no decoration
no decoration


alteration

none

scratches

scratches

none
none
scratches

none

none

none

scratches

erosion
none

none

erosion
erosion and
scratches

rim chips

scratches
scratches


thickness rim diameter


rim shape

rounded
rounded with
lip

rounded
square with
lip
rounded
square

tapered
square with
lip
square with
lip
square with
lip
square with
lip
no rim

tapered

rounded

curved

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded


8.5

13

9.4

10.7
3.5
8.7

7.8

8.3

12

10.6

14.1
7.3

10.2

8.3

10.8

9.4

10.7
7.7


14

36

too small

too small
10
18

22

24

28

30

40
no rim

too small

12

16

22

26
too small












diste

diste
insera
insera



insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera
insera
insera
insera

insera

insera

insera
insera

insera

insera

insera


no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
finger
impressions on
applique line

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


scratches

scratches
scratches
scratches


7 16


curved


dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
none
scratches

erosion and
rim chips

erosion

none


hemicircle
tapered
curved



indeterminate
pointed
concave

no rim

no rim

curved
pointed
concave
curved
curved
curved
pointed
concave


square flare

tapered
curved

no rim

no rim


erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion and
pitting

none

none
scratches
erosion
erosion
erosion and
scratches

erosion

scratches
pitting

none

pitting


6.1 10

11 12

6.3 no rim

10.2 no rim

10.4 too small


none

none

erosion
erosion
erosion
none

erosion

none

none
none
wear on
handle

none


burnish
3a interior and exterior slip

3a interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip



1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip

interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip

2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip

2 interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip
interior and exterior
2 burnish
2 interior and exterior slip
interior smooth/exterior
2 slip
interior plain/exterior
2 slip
interior
2 indeterminate/exterior


8.2 10

8.1 10

9.2 12
10.6 14

40.5 no rim

49.1 no rim


wear on
no decoration handle indeterminate


46.7 no rim no rim


too small
4
6
10











slip

interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip





interior and exterior slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

side uid: slip/smoothing

interior and exterior slip


insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera


no decoration
multiple applique
lines

no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line
single applique
horizontal line
multiple applique
lines

no decoration

no decoration
multiple
horizontal incised
lines on
interior/exterior
rim
multiple applique
lines
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


pitting

none

erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion and
pitting



erosion and
scratches

erosion
scratches
erosion
none
none
side
unidentified

none


8.8 14

7.5 no rim

7.7 no rim

9.2 no rim

12.8 no rim

12.1 no rim

8.1 no rim

47.3 no rim

8.3 no rim





5.1 10

10.8 no rim
8.5 no rim
7.8 too small
13.8 too small
10.3 too small

19.2 too small

14 too small


curved

no rim

no rim

no rim

no rim

no rim

no rim

no rim

no rim




pointed
concave

no rim
no rim
rounded
tapered
tapered
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip


none

none

none

none

none

none

none
wear on
handle

none





erosion

none
erosion
erosion
erosion
erosion
side
unidentified

erosion


insera

insera
insera
mitad
mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad











interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
plain
side uid:
slip/indeterminate
interior bumnish/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
smooth


interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
plain


rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

hemicircle

rounded
square with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded
rounded

rounded

rounded
square with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion

erosion
side
unidentified

none

erosion

none
erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion

erosion
pitting and
dull soot
erosion and
scratches

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot


21.9

15.4

17.7

7.6

11.4

17.3
15

15.7

14.1

13.2

14.1
14.9

12.2

16

15.5

14.2

15.4

21.9


too small

too small

too small

8

30

50
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small


none

none
side
unidentified

scratches

none

none
none

none

none

none

erosion
scratches

scratches

scratches

none

none

none

none











interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
smooth

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
indeterminate
interior slip/exterior
burnish


pitting and
dull soot
pitting and
dull soot
pitting and
dull soot

dull soot

erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion
dull soot
pitting and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
pitting and
dull soot

pitting


rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
sloped with
lip

square flare

indeterminate
square with
lip
sloped with
lip
rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

rounded


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


15.7

15.1

14.5

14.9

12.2

16.8

18.4

16.9

18.3

13.4

11.8
16.7

12.4

13.2

16.3

19

16.6

10


too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

50

50
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

32


none

none

none

erosion

scratches

dull soot

none

none

none

none

none
none

scratches

none

none

scratches

scratches

none











erosion and
dull soot
erosion

erosion
erosion and
pitting
pitting and
dull soot
erosion and
pitting

erosion
side
unidentified
pitting and
dull soot
erosion
dull soot
erosion and
scratches

erosion
erosion and
dull soot

none
erosion and
dull soot


mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
smooth
interior slip/exterior
burnish


side uid: slip/bumnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


13.8
14.7

17.6

12.1

16.1

17

15.4

16.3

16.2
10.3
14.8

16.5

15.9

19

12

14.6


50
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small
too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

30

50


rounded
rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded
square with
lip
rounded with
lip

hemicircle
rounded
rounded
rounded with
lip

hemicircle
round with
lip and ridge

rounded
rounded with
lip


none
none

none

none

none

scratches
erosion and
scratches
side
unidentified

none
none
scratches

none

none

scratches

scratches

scratches


Unit J3


type


exterior use
alteration


interior use sherd
alteration thickness


level surface treatment


decorative type


rim diameter rim shape











1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
smoothing
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
smoothing
interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
1 burnish
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip

3 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
3 burnish
3 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
3 smoothing

3 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
3 burnish


no decoration
no decoration
finger pinch in
uid line
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
multiple dragged
impressed lines

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


pitting
none


no rim
too small

too small
10

10
12


no rim
tapered

tapered
rounded

rounded
rounded

hemicircle
no rim
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded

curved
rounded
tapered
tapered
rounded

no rim

no rim
indeterminate

curved


tapered


none
none

none
none

none
none

none
none

pitting

none
none


none
none


none
scratches

erosion
none

none

none
none


pitting
scratches
scratches
none
scratches

erosion


6.9 12
6.3 24

10.5 26

13.9 30
14.7 46


diste
diste

diste
diste

diste
diste

diste
diste

diste

diste
diste


none
none
none
none
none

none


diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste


5.9 no rim


no rim
too small


none
none
erosion and
dull soot

erosion


none
none
pitting and
scratches
erosion and
scratches


12.9 too small

14.4 too small


no decoration pitting erosion


11.3 too small rounded


dite
diste
diste
diste
diste


too small
too small
14
18
18











interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior bumnish/exterior
smooth
interior and exterior slip



interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
smooth

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


erosion and
pitting

dull soot
none



none
none
none

erosion
scratches and
dull soot

dull soot

erosion
none
erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

none

erosion

rim chips

erosion

erosion


rounded with
lip

tapered
rounded



rounded
tapered
tapered

hemicircle
rounded with
lip
sloped with
lip

rounded
hemicircle
rounded

rounded


square flare

rounded

sloped

hemicircle
square with
lip
sloped with
lip


diste

diste
diste



diste
diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste
diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste


no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
incised horizontal
lines on rim and
zigzag
no decoration
no decoration
fingemnail/stick
crescent

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration


applique circle

no decoration
multiple incised
lines

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


13.3

7.2
3.1



3.8
4.8
7

12.5

10.2

10.6

10.5
6.7
14.2

15.1

13.3

3.4

13.1

10.2

12.9

13.2


too small

12
14



16
16
24

24

26

30

30
36
50

too small

too small

10

22

24

28

30


none


glossy soot
scratches



none
none
rim chips

pitting

scratches

scratches

erosion
scratches
scratches


pitting

none

none

scratches

scratches

scratches

none











interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior plain/exterior
slip
interior plain/exterior
slip
interior and exterior
smoothing
interior smooth/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
burnish

uid: slip/bumnish

interior and exterior slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip
interior smooth/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip


diste

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera
insera

insera

insera
insera

insera

insera

insera
insera


no decoration
single incised
horizontal line

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
incised horizontal
and zigzag lines

no decoration

no decoration
multiple incised
lines

no decoration
no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration


dull soot

none

none

none

pitting

none

none

not applicable

cracking

none
none

none

erosion
none

none

none


pitting
scratches


scratches

none

none

none

none

none

none
not
applicable

none

scratches
erosion


pitting

pitting
scratches
pitting and
scratches
scratches and
rim chips

none
none


10.7

11.1

40.7

16.2

14.6

5.8

9.3

14

6.8

6.8
7

21

17.6
9.8

11.3

6.3

10
10.2


32

no rim

no rim

too small

too small

14

18

28

too small

too small
too small

no rim

too small
12

16

20

20
no rim


square

no rim

no rim

curved

curved
pointed
concave
pointed
concave

curved
pointed
concave

curved
curved

no rim

rounded
rounded

curved


tapered
square with
lip
no rim











single applique
horizontal line
multiple applique
lines


single applique
horizontal line

no decoration
single applique
line uid

no decoration

no decoration
multiple incised
lines
multiple incised
lines
no decoration
single applique
horizontal line
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


insera

insera



insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera
insera


jebena
mitad
mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


pitting

pitting

erosion and
pitting

pitting


11 no rim

7.2 no rim



12.1 no rim

8.4 no rim

13.5 no rim

15.7 no rim

17 no rim

8.3 too small

2.7 9
10.3 14


no rim

no rim



no rim

no rim


none

none



pitting

none


erosion

none

none

none

none
none

none
dull soot
none
none

none

none

pitting


erosion

pitting

erosion

scratches

none
none

erosion
dull soot
none
none

none

erosion

none

scratches


no rim

no rim

no rim
pointed
concave

rounded
curved

no rim
rounded
rounded
square

rounded

square

hemicircle


interior bumnish/exterior
4 slip
interior plain/exterior
4 slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
4 burnish
interior bumnish/exterior
4 slip

4 uid: slip/bumish
interior bumnish/exterior
4 slip
interior bumnish/exterior
4 slip

4 interior and exterior slip

4 interior and exterior slip
4 interior and exterior slip
interior smooth/exterior
1bumnish
1 uid: slip/plain
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
1 smoothing
interior slip/exterior
2 burnish
interior slip/exterior
3 burnish
interior slip/exterior
3 burnish


7.3
12.1
19.1
13.3


no rim
too small
too small
34


no decoration none


17 too small rounded


11.5 44

16.5 50

12.8 too small











interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip


scratches and
dull soot

erosion

pitting

erosion

none

none
none

pitting

none
erosion
pitting and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
none

none

erosion
erosion and
pitting

pitting
erosion and
spelling


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion

none

erosion

none

food residue

glossy soot
none

none

scratches
erosion

none

none

none
erosion

cracking

scratches

none

none

none


16

17.6

16.6

18.4

7.4

10.1
12.7

11

6.6
8

13.7

10.8

11.7
16.1

14.6

14.5

15.3

12.8

14.7


too small

too small

too small

too small

12

34
40

40

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small


rounded

rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip

rounded
square with
lip
rounded

rounded
square with
lip
rounded

hemicircle

hemicircle


square
rounded
square with
lip

square

rounded

rounded

hemicircle










interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
plain

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
plain
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion

erosion
erosion and
pitting

pitting

erosion
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

erosion
erosion and
pitting

pitting
erosion and
pitting
erosion and
dull soot

none

erosion

none
pitting and
dull soot


13.6

12.6

15.9

15.4

13.6
11.6

15.5

17.7

11.6

13.4

13.8

16.6

11.1

12.9

15.5

15.8

12.4


too small

too small

too small

too small

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

28

36

44

50

too small


rounded

rounded
square with
lip

square

sloped
rounded

hemicircle
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
sloped with
lip
sloped with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip

square

curved


none

none

none

none

none
scratches

scratches

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

erosion

erosion

none











Unit J8


exterior use
alteration

erosion
none

erosion

erosion

none
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion

none

none
none

none

erosion
erosion
none
erosion and
scratches

not applicable
none


interior use sherd
alteration thickness rim diameter


type level surface treatment
interior slip/exterior
diste 1 burnish
diste 1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
diste 1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
diste 1 burnish


decorative type

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
incised horizontal
and zigzag lines

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
multiple applique
lines
no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration


rim shape

rounded
square flare

square

square

tapered

hemicircle
rounded with
lip
rounded

no rim

no rim
no rim

no rim

no rim
rounded
curved

rounded


scratches
scratches

scratches

none

scratches

scratches

scratches
erosion
erosion and
pitting

pitting
erosion
erosion and
pitting

erosion
erosion
pitting

scratches
not
applicable
none


8.6 too small
12.1 too small

10.9 26

11.4 28

5.5 too small

10.7 too small

13.7 50
9.3 too small

16.5 no rim

16.3 no rim
9.5 no rim

7.2 no rim

7.2 no rim
9.5 too small
10.2 too small

6 14

16 no rim
11.9 no rim


diste

diste

diste
diste

insera

insera
insera

insera

insera
insera
insera


3 interior and exterior slip

3 interior and exterior slip

3 interior and exterior slip
4 interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

2 uid: slip/bumish
3 interior and exterior slip


insera

insera
insera


no decoration
no decoration


no rim
no rim











interior slip/exterior
1bumnish


interior slip/exterior
1 burnish

interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
2 interior and exterior slip

3 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
4 burnish
interior slip/exterior
4 burnish

4 interior and exterior slip


erosion and
pitting
erosion,
scratches and
dull soot
erosion and
pitting

erosion

erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion,
scratches and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
pitting

erosion

dull soot


mitad



mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad



mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


no decoration



no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration



no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


scratches



scratches

none

scratches

none

scratches



scratches

scratches

none
none


14.1 too small


hemicircle



rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

sloped with
lip

hemicircle

rounded
square
rounded with
lip
square with
lip

rounded
square with
lip


13.1

13.3

11.7

15.5

15.6



18.2

15.7

16.2
17.2

17.6

18.8

23.6

16


too small

too small

too small

too small

too small



too small

50

50
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small


none

none

none

none


Unit F7G7


type level surface treatment


exterior use
alteration


interior use sherd
alteration thickness rim diameter rim shape


decorative type












diste
diste
diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste
diste
diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste


no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
finger
impressions

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration


dull soot
scratches
erosion
none

none

erosion

none

none

erosion
erosion and
dull soot

scratches
erosion and
pitting
pitting and
scratches
erosion
erosion

pitting

pitting
erosion

erosion


erosion
none
none
scratches

pitting

scratches

none

pitting

erosion

erosion
erosion and
scratches

none
erosion and
scratches
scratches
erosion

scratches

none
none

none


34.9 no rim
6.1 too small
9.2 too small
8.5 too small

6.3 too small

8.6 too small

7.3 too small

10.9 too small

13.2 too small

13.2 too small

15 too small

12 too small

14.4 too small
14.6 too small
13.8 too small

13.8 too small

10.9 too small
15.5 too small

12.2 too small


no rim
rounded
rounded
rounded

tapered

rounded
square with
lip

curved

rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded
rounded
square flare
rounded with
lip

rounded
sloped

rounded
rounded with


interior and exterior
1bumnish
interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish

1 interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish


1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish


1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
1bumnish
interior and exterior
1 burnish


no decoration erosion scratches


6.6 too small lip











erosion and
scratches
erosion and
glossy soot
erosion
erosion

scratches
scratches

none

erosion

scratches
erosion
scratches
erosion
none

scratches
scratches

erosion

erosion and
scratches

erosion

scratches

erosion


diste

diste
diste
diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste
diste
diste
diste
diste

diste
diste

diste



diste

diste

diste

diste


interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish



1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish


no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
incised horizontal
and vertical lines
no decoration

no decoration
finger
impressions
incised horizontal
and vertical lines
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
incised horizontal
and vertical lines
no decoration

no decoration



no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion

dull soot
erosion
none

none
none

erosion

scratches

dull soot
erosion
dull soot
erosion
none

erosion
erosion

erosion
erosion,
scratches and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot


4 8

6.7 10
5.7 16
4.6 18

6.7 20
5.8 20

7.7 20

11.5 20

6.9 22
6.9 22
8.2 22
5 22
7.3 24

6.4 24
9.1 26

10.1 26



11.7 26

9.2 26

9.2 26

9 28


rounded


tapered
tapered
tapered

tapered
square
pointed
concave

curved


tapered
square
square flare
sloped
tapered

tapered
tapered

square

square with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip

square flare











erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
scratches

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
scratches

none
erosion and
scratches
dull soot

erosion

erosion

erosion
dull soot

none

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion


rounded with
point and lip

square flare
square with
lip

square flare
hemicircle

sloped

square flare
square flare
square with
lip

square

square
rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

rounded

rounded

rounded

hemicircle


diste

diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish


1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish

interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
1bumnish


1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
1 burnish
interior and exterior
1bumnish


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion

scratches
erosion and
scratches

scratches
scratches

scratches

scratches
scratches

erosion

scratches

scratches
erosion

scratches

none

scratches

scratches

none

erosion


12.7 28

15.1 30

14.4 30

11.4 30
10.9 36

12.8 36

13.2 36
9.7 36

12.2 40

11.8 40

15.2 44
16 44

13 44

10.6 48

14.4 50

12 50

14 50

9.3 50











erosion and
scratches
none

scratches

none



erosion
erosion and
scratches

none
none

none

erosion

none
pitting and
scratches

erosion

scratches

scratches


pitting

erosion and
pitting


square with
lip
rounded

rounded

rounded


rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

curved
rounded

rounded


square
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip

no rim

no rim

no rim


diste
diste

diste

diste



diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste


diste


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
1 burnish

interior and exterior slip


interior slip/exterior
1 burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish


2 interior and exterior slip

2 interior and exterior slip

2 interior and exterior slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
2 slip


no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration



no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

multiple dragged
impressed lines


erosion
dull soot

erosion
pitting and
cracking
erosion,
scratches and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
pitting
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot


18.1
15.4

13.4

14.4



13.1

12.7

15.9
11.7

13

16.4

14.9

18.4

12.5

7.7

22.7

20.2


50
50

50

50



50

50

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

no rim

no rim

no rim


10.8 no rim no rim


none










diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste
diste

diste
diste


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration


dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion
erosion and
glossy soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

scratches
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
scratches

erosion
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion


rim chips

scratches

erosion
erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
scratches

scratches

none

erosion

erosion
erosion and
scratches

scratches
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
scratches

none

erosion
erosion
erosion and
scratches
scratches


11.2

11.2

11.3
15.2

11.6

15.4

12.7

16.3

15

15.6

14.2

11.7

12.1

13.4

11.4

15
16.3

12.3
17.5


too small

too small

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small
too small

too small
too small


indeterminate

rounded


square
rounded


square

rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
square with
lip
square with
lip

rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded
rounded with
lip
square










burnish


erosion,
scratches and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

erosion
scratches
erosion and
scratches
erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion
erosion and
scratches
none
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
pitting
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot


erosion and
scratches

none
pitting and
scratches

scratches
scratches


pitting
pitting
erosion and
scratches

scratches

scratches
scratches
erosion and
scratches
scratches
erosion and
scratches

erosion

scratches
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
scratches


rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

curved

rounded
tapered
pointed
concave
rounded

rounded
square with
lip

curved
hemicircle


square flare
square flare

square flare

hemicircle


square

square

square


diste

diste

diste

diste
diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste
diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
multiple incised
lines
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


too small

too small

8

10
14

14
18

18

18

24
26

28
28

28

30

32

36

38


13.7

17.7

6.6

4.5
4.6

11.4
5.1

11.3

15.1

11.4
11.9

8.3
7.5

7.1

16.2

12

10.8

15.2











diste

diste
diste


diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste
diste


interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior


no decoration

no decoration
no decoration


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
pamnt on
porcelain,
horizontal line


erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion
erosion,
pitting and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion
erosion and
dull soot
scratches and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion


scratches
pitting and
scratches
scratches


erosion
erosion and
scratches

none

erosion

erosion

scratches
erosion

none

erosion
erosion and
scratches

erosion

scratches
none


7.2

15
13.3


11.2

16.3

14

18.2

15.3

19.5
11.1

12.2

19.1

9.7

9.8

14.3
13.5


square flare

square
rounded


rounded

rounded

rounded


square
rounded with
lip

hemicircle
rounded

rounded

rounded


tapered

square

tapered
rounded


50

50

50

50

50

50
too small

too small

too small

22

26

48
too small


diste 4 porcelain glaze


cracking cracking


10.1 10 rounded











erosion,
scratches and
dull soot
erosion
scratches and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion

dull soot
pitting and
scratches
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

none


none
none

none

none
none

erosion


sloped with
lip
square
sloped with
lip

rounded
rounded
rounded with
point and lip
pointed
concave

rounded

indeterminate

rounded

rounded

no rim


diste
diste

diste

diste
diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

diste

insera


insera
insera

insera

insera
insera

insera


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior burnish/exterior
slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior burnish/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
burnish


no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

single applique
horizontal line
no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration


scratches
erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
scratches
erosion

erosion

none
scratches and
dull soot
erosion and
scratches

erosion

erosion
erosion and
pitting

erosion and
pitting
none

erosion
erosion and
pitting
pitting

erosion


12.4
8.8

13.4

14
10.2

10.3

13.3

14.4

12.6

14.3

11.7

7.9


10.4
7.8

10.1

13.8
8.8

11.7


24
28

36

too small
too small

24

30

48

too small

too small

50

no rim










erosion,
pitting and
scratches


erosion

none

none




none

erosion

erosion

none




scratches

none

erosion


none

erosion

none


insera


insera

insera

insera


interior and exterior slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip




1 interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip




1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
1 slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip


no decoration

single applique
line uid
single applique
horizontal line
single applique
line uid
finger pinch in
horizontal line
and finger
impressions

no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line
applique
horizontal and
incised v with
lines
single applique
horizontal line
single applique
horizontal line
finger pinch and
fingernail
crescents
single applique
horizontal line
single applique
line uid


cracking


erosion


pitting
pitting and
scratches




pitting

pitting

pitting

pitting


erosion and
pitting

pitting
erosion and
pitting


erosion


pitting

erosion


10.8 no rim


no rim


10.5

12.7

16.6


insera

insera

insera

insera


9.5

9.8

10.8

16.1




6.8

14.6

13.8


7.4

17.7

11.1


insera

insera

insera


insera

insera

insera











finger
impressions on
applique line
multiple applique
lines
single applique
horizontal line
single applique
line uid
finger pinch and
fingernail
crescents

no decoration
multiple applique
lines

single applique
horizontal line
no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration

no decoration
finger pinch and
fingernail
crescents
finger pinch and
fingernail


insera

insera

insera

insera


insera

insera

insera


insera
insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera


insera

insera


interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip


pitting

pitting

erosion


pitting

erosion and
pitting

pitting
erosion and
pitting

erosion and
pitting
none
erosion and
pitting
erosion and
pitting

pitting
erosion and
pitting
pitting and
scratches


erosion
erosion and
scratches


9.3

7.6

18.1

16.6


8.1

25.7

18.3


6
10.5

6.8

8.9

6.1

11.1

12.2


7.6

14.9


none

erosion

none

erosion


none

erosion

none


none
none

none

none

erosion

erosion

none


none

none











crescents


insera
insera
insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera
insera
insera
insera
insera

insera

insera
insera
insera
insera

insera
insera

insera
insera


interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior burnish/exterior
slip

1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior burnish/exterior
slip
1 interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip


no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
single incised
horizontal line
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration


scratches
none
erosion

erosion
erosion and
cracking

none

scratches

none

scratches
erosion
erosion
none
erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion
rim chips
none

none
erosion
erosion and
scratches
none


scratches
none
erosion
erosion and
scratches


cracking
pitting and
scratches
erosion and
scratches


pitting
erosion and
pitting
erosion
none
scratches
pitting
pitting and
scratches

pitting
pitting
erosion
scratches

none
pitting


5.8 too small
7.9 too small
8.6 too small

9.1 too small

9.4 too small

11.5 too small

9.4 too small

8.5 too small

13.8 too small
6.9 8
11.6 8
7 10
7.1 10

9.2 10

7 10
11.7 10
10.6 10
7.5 11

4.7 12
6.7 12


square
rounded
curved

curved

curved

curved

curved

curved

curved
curved
curved
curved
curved

curved

curved
curved
curved
hemicircle

indeterminate
curved


erosion
scratches


7.5 12
8.8 12


curved
pointed











COncave
curved
curved

curved

curved
curved
square with
lip
curved
curved


insera
insera

insera

insera
insera

insera
insera
insera



insera

insera

insera

insera

insera
insera

insera

insera
insera

insera


insera


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip

1 interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
1 interior and exterior slip



interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip

1 interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip
interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip
2 interior and exterior slip

2 interior and exterior slip


2 interior and exterior slip


no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration



no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line
multiple applique
lines
no decoration
multiple applique
lines

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
finger
impressions on
applique line


scratches
pitting
pitting and
scratches

erosion
scratches
erosion and
scratches
pitting
scratches
erosion,
pitting and
cracking

pitting
erosion and
scratches

scratches
pitting and
scratches
none
erosion and
pitting

erosion
pitting
pitting and
scratches

erosion and
pitting


none
rim chips

erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion

erosion
none
erosion



none

none

erosion

scratches

none
none

none

none
erosion
erosion and
cracking


none


9.8

14.3

7.5

13.9

14.1
6.1

12

8.3
18.7

7.2


curved

rounded

rounded

curved

curved
square

no rim

no rim
no rim

no rim


no rim


small

rim

rim
rim

rim


10.1 no rim











multiple applique
lines
single applique
line uid
multiple applique
lines

no decoration


no decoration

no decoration



no decoration
multiple applique
lines

no decoration
single applique
horizontal line
no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

single applique
line uid
no decoration

no decoration
incised v with
lines


insera

insera

insera

insera


insera

insera



insera

insera

insera

insera
insera

insera


insera
insera

insera

insera


interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip



interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior smooth/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip


erosion

erosion


pitting

erosion

erosion and
pitting
erosion and
pitting
erosion,
pitting and
scratches
erosion and
pitting

pitting

pitting
none


pitting

erosion and
pitting
pitting

pitting
erosion and
pitting


10

8.7

17.6

51.1


18.1

8.4



12.9

10.1

20.8

16.5
13.2

12.6


14.6
9.9

10.1

12.9


none

erosion

none

erosion


scratches
erosion and
cracking



pitting

none

erosion

erosion
none

erosion


erosion
none

scratches

erosion










interior
indeterminate/exterior
2 slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
2 slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip
2 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
2 burnish


2 interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip

2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
2 interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
2 slip

2 interior and exterior slip


single applique
horizontal line


no decoration

no decoration
multiple dragged
impressed lines
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion and
pitting


indeterminate

pitting
erosion and
pitting
erosion

pitting
erosion and
cracking

pitting
pitting
erosion
cracking
scratches
scratches
scratches
erosion and
pitting
erosion
scratches


pitting

scratches
erosion and
scratches


insera


insera

insera

insera
insera

insera

insera

insera
insera
insera
insera
insera
insera
insera

insera
insera
insera

insera

insera


cracking


erosion

erosion

none
erosion

none

erosion

scratches
none
erosion
cracking
none
none
erosion

scratches
erosion
scratches
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
scratches


9.2 no rim


10.9 no rim

8.4 no rim

6.4 no rim
3.9 too small

7.2 too small

8.1 too small


no rim


no rim

no rim

no rim
tapered

indeterminate

indeterminate

indeterminate
hemicircle
curved
curved
curved
rounded
curved


11
10.1
12.7
9.7
9.1
6.3
8.6

11.2
10.7
8.7


too small
too small
too small
8
8
10
10


curved
curved
curved

curved

curved


10.6 10

7.6 12


insera 2 interior and exterior slip


no decoration scratches


8.9 12 curved











erosion and
pitting

erosion
erosion and
pitting

pitting

pitting
pitting and
scratches
pitting and
scratches

scratches
pitting and
scratches

erosion and
pitting
scratches

pitting



erosion

erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion and
scratches
erosion


insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera

insera


insera
insera

insera


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
burnish
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip


interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior and exterior slip


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
finger pinch in
horizontal line
and finger
impressions
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration


dull soot

erosion

erosion

none

none


pitting
pitting and
scratches

none

none


erosion
none

none




none

none


pitting

erosion
erosion


8.7

8.5

11.1

20.1

12

10.8

6.5

5.9

14.6


14.1
8.9

19.1


12

12

12

13

14

16

18

20

no rim


curved
square
concave

curved

curved

curved

curved

curved
square with
lip

no rim


insera

insera

insera

insera
insera


15.1

15.9

7.8

7.6
3.6


no rim

no rim

too small

12
no rim


no rim

no rim

rounded

rounded
no rim










insera


insera

insera

insera



insera

insera

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


5 interior and exterior slip
interior
indeterminate/exterior
6 slip

6 interior and exterior slip
interior burnish/exterior
6 slip

interior bumnish/exterior
la slip

la interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
polish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish


no decoration


no decoration
single applique
horizontal line

no decoration



no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion


none

erosion

erosion



erosion

none
pitting and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

dull soot

erosion

erosion

erosion

erosion


scratches

erosion and
pitting
erosion and
pitting

scratches

pittmg,
scratches and
spelling

scratches

none

erosion

erosion

none

none

cracking

cracking

none

none

none

scratches


7.1 12


rounded


7.3

15.6

8.8



8

9.5

7.6

16.1

14.6

13

14.5

17.8

17.6

15.8

18

15.8

17


no rim

no rim

12



8

14

no rim

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small


no rim

no rim

curved



curved
pointed
concave

no rim
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip











interior and exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish


erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
pitting
erosion and
dull soot
erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion

erosion
erosion and
dull soot


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion

none

erosion

none

scratches

none

scratches

none

none

none

scratches

none
scratches
erosion and
scratches

erosion
erosion
erosion and
scratches

none


23.6

18.8

22.9

20

18.9

13.4

13.3

14.5

18.1

15.2

13.9

15.5
10.7

14.3

12.1
11.2

14.4

13.6


too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

48

50

50

50

too small

too small

too small
too small

too small

too small
too small

too small

too small


rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded

rounded

square
rounded

rounded

rounded










rounded with
lip

rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded

rounded
rounded

rounded
rounded
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


dull soot

erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
scratches
dull soot
erosion and
scratches
erosion
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

erosion

erosion


erosion

scratches

scratches

erosion

erosion

erosion
erosion

erosion
none

erosion

erosion

erosion

none

erosion

cracking

scratches

cracking

none


9.8

15.5

17.1

21.4

14.4

15.4
19.5

14.6
16.9

16.6

15.5

17.6

18.3

16.8

14.6

15.4

18.8

19.4


too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small
too small

too small
too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small











erosion and
scratches
erosion and
dull soot

erosion
erosion and
scratches

dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
pitting
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion

erosion

dull soot
erosion
erosion


rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

indeterminate
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip

rounded
rounded with
lip
sloped
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded
rounded


mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad
mitad
mitad


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip


no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
no decoration


erosion

scratches

erosion

erosion

cracking

scratches
scratches and
cracking

scratches

none
erosion and
scratches

none
erosion

none

scratches
erosion

erosion

scratches
erosion
scratches


13.6

15.1

18.1

22.1

19.8

17.7

17.4

25.6

15

12.1

14.5
15.7

17.2

13.9
17.4

23.3

11.2
16.5
21.7


too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small

36

50

50
50

50

50
too small

too small

too small
too small
too small











mitad

mitad
mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad

mitad


interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip


no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


erosion
erosion and
scratches
erosion
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot
erosion and
dull soot

erosion

erosion

erosion


15.6

14.4
14.5

14.4

15

13.4

11.5

18.8

16.5


too small

too small
too small

50

too small

too small

too small

too small

too small


rounded
rounded with
lip
hemicircle

rounded

hemicircle
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip


none

none
none

none

scratches

none
erosion and
scratches

erosion

scratches


Unit G7-North


type level

diste 1

diste 1

diste 1

diste 1

diste 1

diste 1
diste 1


exterior use
alteration

none

erosion

dull soot

erosion

erosion
erosion and
dull soot
dull soot


interior use
alteration

none
erosion and
scratches

scratches

cracking
erosion and
scratches

scratches
none


sherd
thickness

4.7

7.1

15.2

20

7.1

9.1
12.7


surface treatment

interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior
burnish
interior slip/exterior
burnish


interior and exterior slip

interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip


decorative type

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration


rim diameter

too small

too small

too small

too small

12

16
32


rim shape
pointed
concave


square

rounded
rounded with
lip

curved

curved
rounded











erosion and
dull soot
pitting
erosion and
dull soot
erosion

erosion

none
scratches

erosion
none
erosion and
dull soot

erosion


erosion and
scratches
erosion

none
pitting

erosion
erosion and
pitting
scratches
erosion and
pitting
pitting

erosion

cracking


diste
diste

diste
insera

insera

insera
insera

insera
insera

mitad

mitad


interior and exterior slip
interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish
interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip
interior and exterior slip
interior bumnish/exterior
1 slip
1 interior and exterior slip
interior slip/exterior
1bumnish
interior slip/exterior
1 burnish


no decoration
no decoration

no decoration
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration
no decoration
multiple applique
lines
no decoration

no decoration

no decoration


19.5 46
11.9 50

13.4 50
21.6 no rim

7.7 no rim

15.2 no rim
5.7 no rim

13.3 no rim
8.7 too small

11.8 too small

19.1 too small

17 too small


tapered
square
rounded with
lip
no rim

no rim

no rim
no rim

no rim
curved

rounded
rounded with
lip
rounded with
lip


mitad 1 interior and exterior slip


no decoration erosion cracking











LIST OF REFERENCES


Abbink, J.
1987 A Socio-Cultural Analysis of the Beta Esra'el as an "Infamous Group" in
Traditional Ethiopia. Sociologus 37(2): 140-154.

Adler, E.
1966 Jewish Travelers: a Treasury of Travelogues from Nine Centuries. Hermon Press,
New York.

Aeicoly, A. Z.
1936 Yehude habag ba-siffrut ha-ivrit. Zlon 1:3 16-3 6, 41 1-3 5.

Alt, S.
2001 Cahokian Change and the Authority of Tradition. In The Archaeology of
Traditions: Agency andHistory Before and After Columbus, edited by T. Pauketat. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville.

Andah, B. W.
1995 Studying African Societies in Cultural Context. In Making alternative histories:
the practice of archaeology and history in non-Western settings, edited by P. Schmidt and T. C.
Patterson, pp. 149-182. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Andren, A.
1998 Between artifacts and texts: historical archaeology in global perspective. Plenum
Press, New York.

Arom, S. and O. Tourny
1999 The Formal Organization of the Beta Israel Liturgy Substance and Performance:
Musical Structure. In The Beta Israel in Ethiopia and Israel: Studies on the Ethiopian Jews,
edited by T. Parfitt and E. T. Semi, pp. 252-256. Curzon Press, Great Britain.

Arthur, J. W.
2002 Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status: An
Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal ofArchaeological method and
Theory 9(4):331-355.

Baron, S. W.
1983 A Social and Religious History of the Jews 18. Columbia University Press, New
York.

Bat-Miriam, M.
1962 The Blood Groups of the Falasha, Galla, and Guraghe Tribes. American Journal
ofPhysical Anthropology 20(2): 179-182.











Beaudry, M. C.
1988 Docuntentary Archaeology in the New World. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Beckingham, C. F. and G. W. B. Huntingford (editors)
1954 Some Records ofEthiopia 1593-1646, London.

Berreman, G.
1967 Structure and Function of Caste Systems. In Japan's Invisible Race: Caste and
Culture in Personality, edited by G. DeVos and H. Wagatsuma. University of California Press,
Berkeley.

Berry, L.
1976 The Solonzonic M~onarchy at Gonder, 1630-1 755: an Institutional Analysis of
Kingship in the Christian Kingdom ofEthiopia, Boston University.

Blady, K.
2000 Jewish Conanunities in Exotic Places. Jason Aronson Inc., Northeale, New
Jersey, Jerusalem.

Brandt, S. A. and K. J. Weedman
1997 The Ethnoarchaeology of Hide Working and Flaked Stone Tool Use in Southern
Ethiopia. In 7I~th International Conference ofEthiopian Studies, edited by K. Fukui, E.
Kurimoto and M. Shigeta, pp. 351-361. African Studies Center, Kyoto, Japan.

Brandt, S. A., K. J. Weedman and G. Hundie
1996 Gurage Hide Working, Stone Tool Use and Social Identity: An
Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Essssssssssssssays on Gurage Language and Culture, edited by H.
Grover, pp. 35-52. Harrassowitz Verlag, Germany.

Brewer, D. J. and E. Teeter
1999 Egypt and the Egyptians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bruce, J.
1790 Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile. University Press, Edinburgh.

Carmichael, D. L., J. Hubert, B. Reeves and A. Schanche (editors)
1994 Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. Routledge, London.

Charlton, T. H. and P. F. G.
1993 Urban and Rural Dimensions of the Contact Period: Central Mexico. In
Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas, edited by J.
D. Rogers and S. M. Wilson, pp. 201-222. Plenum Press, New York and London.


472












Childs, S. T.
1991 Style, Technology, and Iron Smelting Furnaces in Bantu-Speaking Africa.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:332-3 59.

Childs, S. T. and D. Killick
1993 Indigenous African Metallurgy: Nature and Culture. Annual Review of
Anthropology 22:3 17-337.

Chittick, N.
1971 The Coast of East Africa. In The Afr~ican Iron Age, edited by P. L. Shinnie.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.

1974 Kilwa: An Islamic Trading Center on the East Afr~ican Coast. The British Institute
in Eastern Africa, Nairobi.

Conkey, M. W.
1990 Experimenting with Style in Archaeology: Some Historical and Theoretical
Issues. In The Uses ofStyle in Archaeology, edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 5-17.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Connah, G.
1975 The Archaeology ofBenin. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Conti-Rossini
1928 Storia d'Etiopia.

Corinaldi, M.
1998 Jewish Identity: the Case ofEthiopian Jewry. The Hebrew University, Magnes
Press, Jerusalem.

2001 The Enigma of Jewish Identity: The Law/ ofReturn, Theory and Practice. Nevoh
Press, Jerusalem.

Crummey, D.
1975 Society and Ethnicity in the Politics of Christian Ethiopia during the Zamana
Mesafent. International Journal ofAfr~ican Historical Studies 8(2):266-278.

1981 State and Society: 19th Century Ethiopia. In M~odes of Production in Afr~ica: the
PrecolonialEra, edited by D. C. a. C. C. Stewart, pp. 227-249. Sage Productions, Beverly Hills.

2000 Land and Society in the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana and Chicago.


473











Curtis, M. C.
2006 Archaeological Investigations in the Greater Asmara Area: A Regional Approach
in the Central Highlands ofEritrea. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida.

Cusick, J. G.
1989 Change in Pottery as a Reflection of Social Change: A Study of Taino Pottery
Before and After Contact at the Site ofEn Bas Saline, Haiti. M.A. Thesis, University of Florida.

1998 Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology.
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.

David, N. and C. Kramer
2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

David, N., J. Sterner and K. Gavua
1988 Why Pots are Decorated. Current Anthropology 29(3):365-3 89.

Davis, D. D.
1985 Hereditary Emblems: Material Culture in the Context of Social Change. Journal
ofAnthropological Archaeology 4(3): 149-176.

Deagan, K.
1982 Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory. vol. 5. Academic Press, Orlando.

1998 Transculturation and Spanish American Ethnogenesis: The Archaeological
Legacy of the Quincentenary. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and
Archaeology, edited by J. G. Cusick, pp. 23-43. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Occasional Paper No. 25, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

DeCorse, C.
1997 Western African Historical Archaeology. In Encyclopedia ofPrecolonialAfr~ica,
edited by J. O. Vogel, pp. 545-549. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

2001 An archaeology ofElmina: Afr~icans and Europeans on the Gold Coast, 1400-
1900. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

DeCorse, C. R.
1989 Material Aspects of Limba, Yalunka, and Kuranko Ethnicity: Archaeological
Research in Sierra Leone. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by S. J.
Shennan, pp. 125-140. Unwin Hyman, London.


474










1998 Culture Contact and Change in West Africa. In Studies in Culture Contact:
Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by J. G. Cusick, pp. 358-377. Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.

Deetz, J.
1991 In Small ThArchaeological Evidence of Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
Encounters. In Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, edited by L. Falk, pp. 1-9.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

1996 In small thring\ forgotten: an archaeology of early American hife. Doubleday, New
York.

DeVos, G. and H. Wagatsuma (editors)
1967 Japan 's Invisible Race: Caste and Culture in Personality. University of California
Press, Berkeley.

Dietler, M.
1990 Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case of
Early Iron Age France. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 9:352-406.

Dietler, M. and I. Herbich
1998 H~abitus, Techniques and Style: An integrated Approach to the Social
Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries,~ddd~~~ddd~~~dd
edited by M. Stark, pp. 232-263. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

1998 H~abitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding
of Material Culture and Boundaries. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries,~ddd~~~ddd~~~dd edited by M.
Stark, pp. 232-263. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Dirks, N.
2001 Castes of2~ind: Colonialism and the Making of2~odern India. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.

Dominguez, V. R.
1975 From Neighbor to Stranger: the Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in the United
States. Antilles Research Program, Yale University, New Haven.

Dufton, H.
1867 Narrative ofa Journey through Abyssinia in 1862-1863. Chapman and Hall,
London.

Dumont, L.
1966 Homo H~ierarchicus: Le Systeme des Castes et ses Implications. Editions


475










Gallimard.
1980 Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications. Translated by L. D.
Mark Sainsbury, and Basia Gulati. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Earle, T.
1990 Style and Iconography as Legitimation in Complex Chiefdoms. In The Uses of
Style in Archaeology, edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 73-81. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

Edelstein, A.
2003 The Identity of Ethiopian Youth in Israel. M~ifga~sh LeAvoda Hinuchit Sozialit
18:73-97.

Erlikh, H.
1982 Ethiopia and Eritrea During the Straglne for Afiica: a Political Biography ofRas
Alula, 1875-1897. African Studies Center, Michign State University, East Lansing, Mich.

Fair, L.
2001 Pastimes & Politics: Culture, Conanunity and Identity in Post-Abolition ZanZibar,~~~~ZZZZ~~~~ZZZZ
1890-1945. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Fair, 1.
2001 Pastimes & Politics: Culture, Conanunity, and Identity in Post-Abolition th ban
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZanibr 1890-1945. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Flad, M.
1869 The Falashas (Jews) ofAbyssinia, London.

Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P.
1962 The M~edieval History of the Coast of Tanganyika, 0 ithr Special Reference to
Recent Archaeological Discoveries. Oxford University Press, London and New York.

Geertz, C.
1973 The hIterpretation of Cultures: Selected Essa~ys. Basic Books, New York.

Giles-Vernick, T.
2002 Cutting the Vines of the Past: Environmental Histories of the Central Af ican
Rainforest. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Gobat, S.
1851 Journal of Three Years' Residence in Abysinnia. M.W. Dowd, New York.

Gosselain, O. P.
1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In The Archaeology of Social
Boundaries,~ddd~~~ddd~~~dd edited by M. Stark, pp. 78-106. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.


476










Guidi, I. e.
1903 Annales lohannes I, lyasu I, Bakafa. In Corpus Scriptorium Christianorum
Orientalium. 2 vol s.

Haaland, R.
2004 Iron Smelting, A Vanishing Tradition: Ethnographic Study of this Craft in South-
West Ethiopia. Journal ofAfr~ican Archaeology 2(1):65-79.

Haberland, E.
1978 Ethnogenesis and Expansion in Southwest Ethiopia: With Special Reference to
the Omotic-Speaking People. Abbay 9: 141-143.

Halevy, J.
1877 Travels in Abyssinia. In M\~iscellanyll~~~~1111~~~~ of Hebrew Literature, edited by A. L. Lowy,
pp. 175-256. 2 vols. N. Trubner, London.

Hall, M.
1990 "Hidden History," Iron Age Archaeology in Southern Africa. In A History of
Afcrican Archaeology, edited by P. Robertshaw, pp. 59-77. James Curry, London.

1993 The Archaeology of Colonial Settlement in Southern Africa. Annual Review of
Anthropology 22: 177-200.

1997 Central and Southern African Historical Archaeology. In Encyclopedia of
PrecolonialAfr~ica, edited by J. O. Vogel, pp. 554-558. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Hallpike, C. R.
1968 The Status of Craftsmen among the Konso of South-West Ethiopia. Afr~ica:
Journal of the International Afr~ican Institute 3 8(3):25 8-269.

Hally, D. J.
1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Vessel Surfaces: an Important Source of Evidence for
the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 3:3-26.

Hamilton, C.
1998 Terrif ic majesty: the powers of .\haka( Zulu and the limits of historical invention .
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Harrington, J. C.
1955 Archaeology as an Auxiliary Science to American History. American
Anthropologist 57(6): 1121-1130.

Herbich, I.
198 1 Luo Pottery: Socio-cultural Context and Archaeological Implications: an Interim
Report. Institute of African Studies.


477










Herbich, I. and M. Dietler
1989 River-Lake Nilotic Luo. In Kenyan Pots and Potters, edited by J. Barbour and S.
Wandibba, pp. 27-40. Oxford University Press in association with the Kenya Museum Society,
Nairobi.

Herskovits, M. J.
1958 (1938) Acculturation: the Study of Culture Contact. Peter Smith, Gloucester,
Massachusetts.

Hess, R.
1969 Toward a History of the Falasha. In Eastern Afr~ican History, edited by D.
McCall, pp. 107-132. Frederick A. Praeger, New York.

Hirsch, A.
1999 Treating the Diseases of Ethiopian Jewish Children at Hofim. International
Journal of Adolescent M~edicine and Health 1 1(2): 13 1-144.

Hodder, I.
1977 The Distribution of Material Culture Items in the Baringo District, Western
Kenya. Man 12:239-269.

1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity
44(3):446-454.

1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of2aterial Culture Cambrid ge
University Press, Cambridge.

1982b Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural
Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder. Cambridge University Press.

1990 Style as Historical Quality. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M.
Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 44-51. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Holl, A.
1995 African History: past, present and future; the unending quest for alternatives. In
Making alternative histories: the practice of archaeology and history in non-Western settings,
edited by P. Schmidt and T. C. Patterson, pp. 183-212. School of American Research Press,
Santa Fe.

Holt, P. M.
1958 The Mahdist State in the Sudandddd~~~~~~~dddddd 1881-1898. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Horton, M.
1997 East African Historical Archaeology. In Encyclopedia ofPrecolonial Africa,
edited by J. O. Vogel, pp. 549-554. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.


478










Hosler, D.
1994 The Sounds and Colors ofPower: The Sacred M~etallurgical Technology of
Ancient West Mexico. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Huntingford, G.
1965 The Land Charters of Northern Ethiopia. Oxford University Press, Addis Ababa.

Janusek, J. W.
2002 Out of many, One: Style and Social Boundaries in Tiwanaku. Latin American
Antiquity 13(1):35-61.

Joyce, A., L. Bustamante and M. Levine
2001 Commoner Power: a Case Study from the Classic Period Collapse on the Oaxaca
Coast. Journal ofArchaeological M~ethod and Theory 8(4):343-385.

Kalentzidou, O.
2000 Pots Crossing Borders: Ethnic Identity and Ceramics in Evros, Northeastern
Greece. Near Eastern Archaeology 63(2):70-83.

Kaplan, S.
1984 Some Hebrew Sources on the Beta Israel (Falasha). In Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference of Ethiopian Studies. Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa.

1987 The Beta Israel (Falasha) Encounter with Protestant Missionaries: 1860-1905.
Jewish Social Studies 49(1):27-42.

1988 'Falasha' Religion: Ancient Judaism or Evolving Ethiopian Tradition. Jewish
Quarterly Review 89(1):49-65.

1992 The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From EarlestEEEEE~~~~~~~EEEEE Times to the TMI Iemileth
Century. New York University Press, New York.

1992b Indigenous Categories and the Study of World Religions in Ethiopia: the Case of
the Beta Israel (Falasha). Journal of Religion in Afr~ica 22(3):208-221.

1999 The Literature of the Beta Israel (Falasha): A Survey of a Biblical-Hebraic
Tradition. Xristianskif Vostok 1:99-123.

Kaplan, S. and H. Salamon
2003 Ethiopian Jews in Israel: A Part of the People or Apart from the People? In Jews
in Israel: Contemporary Social and Cultural Patterns, edited by U. Rebhun and C. I. Waxman,
pp. 118-148. Brandeis University Press, Hanover and London.

Keller, C. M. and J. D. Keller
1996 Cognition and Tool Use: The Blacksmith at Work. Cambrid ge University Press,
Cambridge.


479










Kent, S.
2002 Interethnic Encounters of the First Kind: An Introduction. In Ethnicity, Hunter-
Gatherers, and the "Other": Association or Assimilation in Afr~ica, edited by S. Kent, pp. 1-27.
Smithsonian Institut